books; i.e. they appear always 'edited,' and never in their original, independent, form. It may be definitely asserted therefore that for all the passages which are common to Chronicles and other canonical works the Chronicler was indebted solely to the text of the canonical books as it appeared in his time.
As for the divergences, real and apparent, between Chronicles and other canonical Scriptures, it is now recognised that, whilst they are properly a subject for historical investigation, they do not involve a religious problem. The old "religious" difficulty is answered by a deeper comprehension of the nature of Inspiration. The real inspiration of the Scriptures does not, as was once thought, rest upon points of historical accuracy: see the article Inspiration by A. E. Garvie in the Ency. Brit.11, vol. xiv., esp. pp. 647 ad fin., 648, with the references there given.
(2) More important and difficult is the problem of the source of the new material in Chronicles. Nearly one-half of the two books of Chronicles is material otherwise unknown to us, and not to be regarded as mere ornamental amplification of the passages drawn from canonical sources. Rather it is precisely these new parts which give colour to the whole work, and there can be no doubt that the Chronicler must have dwelt with special fondness on just these passages. The question is, Can we discern or infer sources from which these independent chapters and paragraphs have been derived, or is the Chronicler himself their only source and origin?
In attempting to answer that question, our first task is to note and discuss a long list of works to which the Chronicler appeals, either as authorities for what he says or as sources where fuller information might (presumably) be expected. They are as follows:
A. Those with specific prophetic titles.
[For the reigns of David and Solomon.]
