Page:03.BCOT.KD.HistoricalBooks.B.vol.3.LaterProphets.djvu/57

of Rehoboam, Abijah, Jehoshaphat (1Ch 20:1-8), Amaziah, etc. Only here and there, Bertheau thinks, has he used the opportunity offered to him to treat the history in a freer way, so as to represent the course of the more weighty events, and such as specially attracted his attention, according to his own view. This appears especially, he says (1) in the account of the speeches of David, 1Ch 13:2., 1Ch 15:12., 1Ch 28:2-10, 1Ch 28:20., 1Ch 29:1-5, 1Ch 29:10-19, where, too, there occur statements of the value of the precious metals destined for the building of the temple (1Ch 29:4, 1Ch 29:7), which clearly do not rest upon truthful historical recollection, and can by no means have been derived from a trustworthy source; as also in the reports of those of Abijah (2Ch 13:5-10) and of Asa (2Ch 14:10, etc.); then (2) in the description of the religious ceremonies and feasts (1 Chron 15 and 16; 2 Chron 5:1-7:10, 2 Chron 29-31, 2 Chron 35): for in both speeches and descriptions expressions and phrases constantly recur which may be called current expressions with the chronicler. Yet these speeches stand quite on a level with those of Solomon, 2Ch 1:8-10; 2Ch 6:4-11, 12-42, which are also to be found in the books of Kings (1Ki 3:6-9; 8:14-53), from which it is to be inferred that the author here has not acted quite independently, but that in this respect also older histories may have served him as a model. But even in these descriptions information is not lacking which must rest upon a more accurate historical recollection, e.g., the names in 1Ch 15:5-11, 1Ch 15:17-24; the statement as to the small number of priests, and the help given to them by the Levites, in 2Ch 29:14., 2Ch 30:17. Yet we must, beyond doubt, believe that the author of the Chronicle “has in these descriptions transferred that which had become established custom in his own time, and which according to general tradition rested upon ancient ordinance, without hesitation, to an earlier period.”
Of these two objections so much is certainly correct, that in the speeches of the persons acting in the history, and in the descriptions of the religious feasts, the freer handling of the authorities appears most strongly; but no alterations of the historical circumstances, nor additions in which the circumstances of the older time have been unhistorically represented according to the ideas or the taste of the post-exilic age, can, even here, be anywhere pointed out. With regard, first of all, to the speeches in the Chronicle, they are certainly not given according to the sketches or written reports of the hearers,