William Bennett - The Expositor's Bible - The Books of Chronicles

Our impressions as to the sources of Chronicles are derived from the general character of its contents, from a comparison with other books of the Old Testament, and from the actual statements of Chronicles itself. To take the last first: there are numerous references to authorities in Chronicles which at first sight seem to indicate a dependence on rich and varied sources. To begin with, there are “The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel,” 4 4 Quoted for Asa (2 Chron. xvi. 11); Amaziah (2 Chron. xxv. 26); Ahaz (2 Chron. xxviii. 26). “The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah,” 5 5 Quoted for Jotham (2 Chron. xxvii. 7); Josiah (2 Chron. xxxv. 26, 27). and “The Acts of the Kings of Israel.” 6 6 Quoted for Manasseh (2 Chron. xxxiii, 18). These, however, are obviously different forms of the title of the same work.

Other titles furnish us with an imposing array of prophetic authorities. There are “The Words ” of Samuel the Seer 7 7 Quoted for David (1 Chron. xxix. 29). , of Nathan the Prophet, 8 8 Quoted for David (1 Chron. xxix. 29) and Solomon (2 Chron. ix. 29). of Gad the Seer, 9 9 Quoted for David (1 Chron. xxix. 29). of Shemaiah the Prophet and of Iddo the Seer, 10 10 Quoted for Rehoboam (2 Chron. xii. 15). of Jehu the son of Hanani, 11 11 Quoted for Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. xx. 34). and of the Seers 12 12 Quoted for Manasseh (2 Chron. xxxiii. 19). “Seers,” A.V., R.V. Marg., with LXX.; R.V., with Hebrew text, “Hozai.” The passage is probably corrupt. ; “The Vision ” of Iddo the Seer 13 13 Quoted for Solomon (2 Chron. ix. 29). and of Isaiah the Prophet 14 14 Quoted for Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxxii. 32). ; “The Midrash ” of the Book of Kings 15 15 Quoted for Joash (2 Chron. xxiv. 27). and of the Prophet Iddo 16 16 Quoted for Abijah (2 Chron. xiii, 22). ; “The Acts of Uzziah,” written by Isaiah the Prophet 17 17 Quoted for Uzziah (2 Chron. xxvi. 22). ; and “The Prophecy ” of Ahijah the Shilonite. 18 18 Quoted for Solomon (2 Chron. ix. 29). There are also less formal allusions to other works.

Further examination, however, soon discloses the fact that these prophetic titles merely indicate different sections of “The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah.” On turning to our book of Kings, we find that from Rehoboam onwards each of the references in Chronicles corresponds to a reference by the book of Kings to the “Chronicles 19 19 Cf. pp. 17, 18. of the Kings of Judah.” In the case of Ahaziah, Athaliah, and Amon, the reference to an authority is omitted both in the books of Kings and Chronicles. This close correspondence suggests that both our canonical books are referring to the same authority or authorities. Kings refers to the “Chronicles of the Kings of Judah” for Judah, and to the “Chronicles of the Kings of Israel” for the northern kingdom; Chronicles, though only dealing with Judah, combines these two titles in one: “The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah.”

In two instances Chronicles clearly states that its prophetic authorities were found as sections of the larger work. “The Words of Jehu the son of Hanani” were “inserted in the Book of the Kings of Israel,” 20 20 2 Chron. xx. 34. and “The Vision of Isaiah the Prophet, the son of Amoz,” is in the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel. 21 21 Chron. xxxii. 32. It is a natural inference that the other “Words” and “Visions” were also found as sections of this same “Book of Kings.”

These conclusions may be illustrated and supported by what we know of the arrangement of the contents of ancient books. Our convenient modern subdivisions of chapter and verse did not exist, but the Jews were not without some means of indicating the particular section of a book to which they wished to refer. Instead of numbers they used names, derived from the subject of a section or from the most important person mentioned in it. For the history of the monarchy the prophets were the most important personages, and each section of the history is named after its leading prophet or prophets. This nomenclature naturally encouraged the belief that the history had been originally written by these prophets. Instances of the use of such nomenclature are found in the New Testament, e. g. , Rom. xi. 2: “Wot ye not what the Scripture saith in Elijah” 22 22 R.V. marg. — i. e. , in the section about Elijah – and Mark xii. 26: “Have ye not read in the book of Moses in the place concerning the bush?” 23 23 R.V.

While, however, most of the references to “Words,” “Visions,” etc., are to sections of the larger work, we need not at once conclude that all references to authorities in Chronicles are to this same book. The genealogical register in 1 Chron. v. 17 and the “lamentations” of 2 Chron. xxxv. 25 may very well be independent works. Having recognised the fact that the numerous authorities referred to by Chronicles were for the most part contained in one comprehensive “Book of Kings,” a new problem presents itself: What are the respective relations of our Kings and Chronicles to the “Chronicles” and “Kings” cited by them? What are the relations of these original authorities to each other? What are the relations of our Kings to our Chronicles? Our present nomenclature is about as confusing as it well could be; and we are obliged to keep clearly in mind, first, that the “Chronicles” mentioned in Kings is not our Chronicles, and then that the “Kings” referred to by Chronicles is not our Kings. The first fact is obvious; the second is shown by the terms of the references, which state that information not furnished in Chronicles may be found in the “Book of Kings,” but the information in question is often not given in the canonical Kings. 24 24 E.g. , the wars of Jotham (2 Chron. xxvii. 7). And yet the connection between Kings and Chronicles is very close and extensive. A large amount of material occurs either identically or with very slight variations in both books. It is clear that either Chronicles uses Kings, or Chronicles uses a work which used Kings, or both Chronicles and Kings use the same source or sources. Each of these three views has been held by important authorities, and they are also capable of various combinations and modifications.

Reserving for a moment the view which specially commends itself to us, we may note two main tendencies of opinion. First, it is maintained that Chronicles either goes back directly to the actual sources of Kings, citing them, for the sake of brevity, under a combined title, or is based upon a combination of the main sources of Kings made at a very early date. In either case Chronicles as compared with Kings would be an independent and parallel authority on the contents of these early sources, and to that extent would rank with Kings as first-class history. This view, however, is shown to be untenable by the numerous traces of a later age which are almost invariably present wherever Chronicles supplements or modifies Kings.

The second view is that either Chronicles used Kings, or that the “Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah” used by Chronicles was a post-Exilic work, incorporating statistical matter and dealing with the history of the two kingdoms in a spirit congenial to the temper and interests of the restored community. This “post-Exilic” predecessor of Chronicles is supposed to have been based upon Kings itself, or upon the sources of Kings, or upon both; but in any case it was not much earlier than Chronicles and was written under the same influences and in a similar spirit. Being virtually an earlier edition of Chronicles, it could claim no higher authority, and would scarcely deserve either recognition or treatment as a separate work. Chronicles would still rest substantially on the authority of Kings.