Chron 23 and 24), agrees with the account of these events in 2 Kings 11 and 12 where the annals of the kings of Judah are quoted, to such an extent, that both the authors seem to have derived their accounts from the same source, each making extracts according to his peculiar point of view. But the Chronicle recounts, besides this, the fall of Joash into idolatry, the censure of this defection by the prophet Zechariah, and the defeat of the numerous army of the Jews by a small Syrian host (1Ch 24:15-25); from which, in Bertheau's opinion, we may come, without much hesitation, to the conclusion that the connection of these events had been already very clearly brought forward in a Midrash of that book of Israel and Judah which is quoted elsewhere. This is certainly possible, but it cannot be shown to be more than a possibility; for the further remark of Bertheau, that in the references which occur elsewhere it is not so exactly stated as in 2Ch 24:27 what the contents of the book referred to are, is shown to be erroneous by the citation in 2Ch 33:18, 2Ch 33:19. It cannot, moreover, be denied that the title ספר מדרשׁ instead of the simple ספר is surprising, even if, with Ewald, we take מדרשׁ in the sense of “composition” or “writing,” and translate it “writing-book” (Schriftbuch), which gives ground for supposing that an expository writing is here meant. Even taking the title in this sense, it does not follow with any certainty that the Midrash extended over the whole history of the kings, and still less is it proved that this expository writing may have been used by the chronicler here and there in places where it is not quoted.
So much, however, is certain, that we must not, with Jahn, Movers, Staehelin, and others, hold these annals of the kings of Israel and Judah, which are quoted in the canonical books of Kings and the Chronicle, to be the official records of the acts and undertakings of the kings prepared by the מזכּירים.[1]
They are
- ↑ Against this idea Bähr also has very justly declared (die Bücher der Könige, in J. P. Lange's theol. homilet. Bibelwerke, S. x.f.), and among other things has rightly remarked, that in the separated kingdom of Israel there is no trace whatever of court or national historians. But he goes much too far when he denies the existence of national annals in general, even in the kingdom of Judah, and under David and Solomon. For even granting that the מזכּיר derives his name from this, “that his duty was, as μνήμων, to bring to the recollection of the king all the state affairs which were to be cared for, and give advice in reference to them;” yet this function is so intimately connected wit the recording and preserving of the national documents of the kingdom and of all royal ordinances, that from it the composition of official annals of the kingdom follows almost as a matter of course. The existence of such national annals, or official year-books of the kingdom, is placed by 1Ch 9:1 and 1Ch 27:24 beyond all doubt. According to 1Ch 9:1, a genealogical record of the whole of Israel was prepared and inserted in the book of the kings of Israel; and according to 1Ch 27:24, the result of the numbering of the people, carried out by Joab under David, was not inserted in the book of the “Chronicles of King David.” Bähr's objections to the supposition of the existence of national annals, rest upon the erroneous presupposition that all judgments concerning the kings and their religious conduct which we find in our canonical histories, would have also been contained in the annals of the kingdom, and that thus the authors of our books of Kings and Chronicles would have been mere copyists giving us some excerpts from the original documents.
