(c) Lists which are peculiar to Chronicles are found among the chapters referred to in (b), as ii. 18-53 ; in. /6-24 ; iv. 2-23, ; v. 1-26, 33-36 ; vi. 1-34. It will be seen that these are more numerous than such as are commonly admit ted to have been taken from the older biblical books. Because they are not found elsewhere it is unnecessary to view them with suspicion, or to con sider them as the arbitrary addition and fabrication of the writer himself. Yet Gramberg does not hesitate to maintain this.
Whence were the names in (a) taken ? There is little doubt that Genesis was the source. But the form is different here, and it may therefore be asked, Did the compiler of Chronicles derive the accounts immediately from Genesis, or did he take them from some other historical work in which they had already got their present form ? It is un necessary to resort to the latter hypothesis. We may reasonably suppose that he borrowed them at once from Genesis, abridging and contracting them according to the object he had in view.
Whence were the genealogies in (b) and (c) taken ? In consequence of their characteristic nature they must have been borrowed from other sources than the historical books of the O. T. The Pentateuch, Joshua, Samuel, and Kings, could not have fur nished them, for they have a better connection and are more complete than the fragmentary genealo gies in those books with which they coincide. The differences are too great to admit of their derivation from the canonical writings. They must therefore have been compiled from old genealogical and topo graphical lists existing among the author's contem poraries. This is plainly indicated in various places.
On comparing the different notices with one another, it will be found that the names vary very much. Various causes contributed to this result, one consisting in the mistakes of transcribers. Tra dition had also varied in progress of time, and the genealogies varied accordingly.
In 1 Chron. ix. 35-44, we have a duplicate of Viii. 29-4o with a few deviations, viz., Jehiel, Ner, and Mikloth are wanting in viii. 29-31 ; Shinieam is Shimeah (viii. 32) ; and Ahaz in viii. 35 is omit ted in ix. 41. For Jehoadah and Rapha in viii. 36, 37, we have Javah and Rephaiah in ix. 42, 43. At ix. 44 the two verses viii. 39, 40, are omitted.
There are many difficulties in this genealogical part which cannot be resolved for want of data. One of the most obvious is in i Chron. vi. 61, where it is stated, that ten cities were given by lot to the sons of Kohath out of the half tribe of Man asseh. This contradicts Joshua xxi. 20-26, where we see that some of the ten cities were in the terri tories of Ephraim and Dan. It is said, indeed, in
the 66th and following verses, that the sons of Kohath had cities out of the tribe of Ephraim ; but here the entire number is eight instead of ten. Besides, Gezer and Shechem were not cities of refuge, as is stated.
On comparing i Chron. ix. 1-34 with Nehe miah xi. 3-36 great perplexity arises as to the original relation between them. Three points require investigation, viz., whether the one genea logy was derived from the other, whether they were taken independently from a common source, and to what time they refer. The last determines the other two.
It is apparent that Nehemiah gives a list of the principal inhabitants of Jerusalem after the exile. Does 1 Chron. ix. also present a post-exile list of those dwelling at Jerusalem ? Keil asserts that it relates to the inhabitants of Jerusalem before the exile ; laying considerable stress on ix. 2, thefirst inhabitants that dwelt in their possessions. in their cities,' contrasted with Neh. xi. I, • and the rulers of the people dwelt at ,7erusalem. But his rea soning is precarious here. The first verse of I Chron. ix. is from the chronist himself, referring his readers for farther information to the source whence he drew most of the preceding genealogies.
But in the second verse there is an obvious transi tion to the post-exile time. In ix. 16 mention is also made of Berechiah ' that dwelt in the villages of the Netophathites,' which villages are refer red to in Neb. xii. 2S, after the captivity. Both registers in I Chron. ix. and in Neh. xi. 3, etc., are arranged alike. Their general plan corre sponds. There is also a remarkable coincidence of names and incidental notices amid many deviations. Allowance should be made for the numerous mistakes made in the transcription of names. Both agree in the main points, i.e., the account of the heads of families, while they also touch in subordinate particulars. Hence they could not have originated independently. They refer to the same persons and time, i.e., the post exile inhabitants of Jerusalem. Which is the ori ginal ? De Wette and Zunz suppose Nehemiah the original, and the other a copy. No compari son we can make leads to such a conclusion. The most natural hypothesis is, that both were taken from one and the same source. It is not, however, easy to conceive that both drew from it directly. Rather does their source seem to have existed in different abridgments and forms more or less exact ; a fact which will account for the various peculiarities of each.