taken by other ancient historians, and even by early copyists, and it is the business of historical criticism to form a clear conception of the nature and limits of these freedoms, with a view to distinguish in individual passages between the facts derived by the Chronicler from his written sources and the literary additions, explanations, and influences
which are his own. In particular:—1. His explanations of verbal or material difficulties must be critically considered. Thus even Keil admits an error in 2 Chron. xx. 36, 37, where the Tharshish-ships, that is ships fit for a long voyage, which Jehoshaphat built on the Red Sea (1 Kings xxii. 48), are explained as ships voyaging to Tartessus in Spain. Such criticism is especially necessary where remarks are introduced tending to explain away the differences in religious observances between early times and the period of the Chronicler. Thus in 1 Chron. xxi. 28, sqq., an explanation is given of the reasons which led David to sacrifice on the threshing-floor of Oman instead of going to the brazen altar at Gibeon. But it is certain that at the time of David the principle of a single altar was not acknowledged, and therefore no explanation was required. In 1 Kings iii. 3, 4, Gibeon appears only as the chief of many high-places, and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Chronicler has simply inferred from the importance of this sanctuary that it must have possessed a special legitimation, which, could only consist in the presence of the old brazen altar.
2. A certain freedom of literary form was always allowed to ancient historians, and need not perplex anyone who does not apply a false standard to the narrative. To this head belongs especially the introduction of speeches like that of Abijah in 2 Chron. xiii. This speech is no doubt a free composition, and would be so understood by the author s contemporaries. By such literary devices the author is enabled to point a lesson without interrupting the thread of his narrative by reflections of his own. Similar remarks apply to the Psalm in 1 Chron. xvi., which is made up of extracts from Psalms cv., xcvi., cvi.
3. A usage not peculiar to the Chronicler among Old Testament writers, and which must be carefully taken into account by the historical critic, is that of giving statistical information in a narrative form. This is the principle which underlies many genealogical lists of the Bible, and which alone explains the variations between different accounts of the genealogy proceeding from a single ancestor. Information as to the subdivisions of clans, the intermingling of populations, and the like, is thrown into a genealogical form. Thus the different sons of a father often stand merely for the branches of a family as they existed at some one time. Of course lists made out at different times when the divisions of clans had varied produce an apparent discrepancy in the names of the sons. The union of two clans is expressed as marriage, or the territory is the wife, and her several husbands are succes sive populations, and so forth.[1] A different application of the same principle seems to lie in the account of the institutions of Levitical service which is introduced in connection with the transference of the ark to Jerusalem by David. The author is not concerned to distinguish the gradual steps by which the Levitical organization attained its full development. But he wishes to describe the system in its complete form, especially as regards the service of the singers, and he does this under the reign of David, who was the father of Hebrew psalmody, and the restorer of the sanctuary of the ark.
This account of some of the leading points of view which criticism of the Chronicles has to take up makes no pretence at completeness, but may suffice to indicate the nature of the problems which arise in a detailed study of the narrative, and to show that much is to be learned from the book not only in the way of supplement to the earlier history, but for the better understanding of the religious spirit and ordinances of the theocracy as it was after Ezra.
Literature.—Many parts of the Chronicles offer a very hard task to the expositor, especially the genealogies, where to other troubles is added the extreme corruption and many variations of the proper names in the versions. Jerome already complains of this difficulty in the Greek and Old Latin, and tells us what pains he himself took to secure right readings with the aid of a learned Jew. Com mentators have rather shrunk from approaching the book. The best exposition is the very careful work of Bertheau (1st ed. 1854, Eng. Trans. 1857, 2d ed. 1860). There are also commentaries by Keil (Leipsic, 1870, Eng. Trans. 1872) and Zockler (in Lange s Bibelwerk, 1874). Bertheau is cautiously critical, Keil conserva tive and apologetic, Zockler not quite so conservative. Valuable contributions to the exegesis of the book are to be found in Ewald a History of Israel. Rawlinson s notes in the Speaker s Commentary are not very important. There is a large literature on isagogic questions, and especially upon the credibility of the narratives peculiar to Chronicles. Besides the full discussions in books of 0. T. introduction (especially De Wette-Schrader, and Keil), the student must refer to the very valuable discussion in the introduc tory part of Ewald s history, and to the separate treatises of Movers, Kritische Untersuchungen ilber die Eiblische Cbronik, Bonn, 1834, (in answer to the assaults of De Wette and Gramberg), and Graf, Die Gcschichtlichen Biicher des A. T., Leipsic, 1866. Graf con cludes that the Chronicles have almost no value as a documentary source for the ancient history ; but in private correspondence with Bertheau he subsequently admitted that this statement is too strong (see the preface to Bertheau s 2d edition). The older works are enumerated by Carpzov, and in other books of introduction. Lagarde s edition of the Targum, which is not in the Rabbinical Bibles, deserves special mention (Hagiographa Chaldaice, Leipsic, 1873).
CHRONOLOGY
CHRONOLOGY (from the Greek χρονολογία, computation of time) is the science which treats of time. Its object is to arrange and exhibit the various events which have occurred in the history of the world in the order of their succession, and to ascertain the intervals of time between them.
The preservation of any record, however rude, of the lapse of time implies some knowledge of the celestial motions, by which alone time can be accurately measured, and some advancement in the arts of civilized life, which could only be attained by the accumulated experience of many generations. Before the invention of letters the memory of past transactions could not be preserved beyond a few years with any tolerable degree of accuracy. Events which greatly affected the physical condition of the human race, or were of a nature to make a deep impression on the minds of the rude inhabitants of the earth, might be vaguely transmitted through several ages by traditional narrative; but intervals of time, expressed by abstract numbers, and these constantly varying besides, would soon escape the memory. The invention of the art of writing afforded the means of substituting precise and permanent records for vague and evanescent tradition; but in the infancy of the world, mankind had learned neither to estimate accurately the duration of time, nor to refer passing events to any fixed epoch. Writing was practised many centuries before historians began to assign dates to the events they narrated. The masterpieces of Herodotus and Thucydides, while setting forth, each in the manner suited to the author's aim, events in the order of their succession, are stories without dates.
- ↑ On the application of this style of expression to the genealogies of Chronicles, the reader may consult Wellhausen, De Gentibus et Familiis Judceis gucel Chr. ii. iv. enumerantur, Gottingen, 1870.
