2 Ch 15" 20»» state that Asa and Jehoshaphat did not remove the high places. This is in conflict with the author's own statements 14° 17' (cf. 19^), and is evidently due to unthinking imitation of his source. It appears 1 K 15''' 22", and the a^ee- ment is almost verbal. These statements, how- ever, certainly belong to the Deuteronomic redac- tion, and not to the sources of Kings.
Other passages common to Kings and Ch, which must be original with Kings (several of them Deuteronomic, and none from the sources) are 2 Ch 10'»=1 K 12'», 2 Ch 21'«->»*''=2 K g'"**', 2 Ch 25»-«=2 K 14» « (verbally), 2 Ch 28* = 2 K 16* (verbally), 2 Ch 31' bused on 2 K 18< ; cf. also 2 Ch 32"=2 K 18-"-' (substantially), 2 Ch 33^ = 2 K 21- (verballj').
A special class of pas-sages consists of those which are appropriate in Sam. and Kings, but have become unntting or meaningless because of omissions by Ch : —
1 Ch U'-^begins, ' And David took yet more (I'ly) wives at Jeru8.' = 2 S 15"-", although 2 S 3"'' to which niy refers, is omitted in Ch.
1 Ch 20' ' But David tarried at Jerus.' = 2 S 11' ; it is in conflict with 1 Ch 2U^ ' ; this is due to the omission of the story of Uriah and liathslieba
2 S 11--12^, and of 12«-» which tell of Joab's •ammoning David.
2 Ch 8" ( = 1 K 9" a;" in part) mentions the daughter of Pharaoh incidcntalljf (not indeed with great respect) as Solomon's wife, although 1 K 3'*- 7' are omitted.
2 Ch 10^ speaks of .lerolxiara's return from Egypt, ' whither he had lied from the presence of Solomon the king'=I K 12^ although 1 K U*-" are omitted.
2 Ch 10" refers specifically to Ahijah's prophecy •bout Jeroboam = 1 K 12", although the prophecy Itself, 1 K U^-^", is omitted.
2 Ch 32" specifies 'the Jews' speech ' = 2 K 18»
although 2 K IS-", which gives point to this detail, is omiHed.
Some of these passages are more cogent than others, but aJl are confirmatory of the position that our S ana K and nothing earlier (with possible exceptions noted below) underlie Ch in its narrative portions.
It is, however, improb. that the Chronicler used these canonical books directlv, as the chief source of his historical material. \Ve have seen that his main interests are not political, and that he omits or greatly condenses many matters which do not contribute much to his purposes. At the same time some of his material not tound in S and K is of a political and personal nature, e.g. the fortifications of Kehoboara, and his might and wisdom 2 Ch 115-12. n.a^ Asa's war with the Ethiopians 2 Ch H*"", Jehoshaphat's war with Moab, Ammon, and Edoiii 2 Cli 20, Amaziah's relations with his Israelitish mercenaries 2 Ch 25*""'- '^, Uzziah's wars and buildings 2 Ch 26''", the successful invasion of Pekah 2 Ch 28''-'», and of the Edomites and Philistines w."- '*. Some of these narratives the Chronicler uses to point his own moral teachings, but it is most unlikely that he either invented them, or resorted to some special source for them ; they are not such as particularly appeal to him. Most likely, therefore, he found tliem in the document which was his main source for other matter, and, finding them, used them to enforce his religious views. This source was probably the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel (see above), which was, in that case, based on our S and K, with add itional mat ter of uncertain and probably varj'ing value. Since the style of these additions (with a few minor exceptions) resembles that of the Chronicler, it may be that this Book of the Kings was produced in the school to which he belonged. The alternative is to suppose that he rewrote them. That he at least retouched them is probable. How far the peculiar religious and ecclesiastical tone of Ch is due to this source we cannot tell, but the presence of the same in Ejr-Neh, which do not depend on this Book of the Kings, makes it clear that this tone was such as the Chronicler himself would produce, and probably it is, throughout, mainly due to him.
HiSTORic.VL TRUSTWORTHINE.SS.— The late date of Cli presyiuably hinders it from being a historical witness of the first order. It could be so only if its sources were demonstrably such. But it has no sources certainly older than the canonical S and K ; its chief source is probably much later. An interval of 250 or 300 years separates it from the Last events recorded in K. In all cases of conflict, then (see the examples above), preference must be given to S and K. The obvious special interests of Ch also (see above) are not to its advantage as a simple witness to facts. Intrinsic probability points the same way in many instances (see especi- ally Comparimn D, Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 10, 20, and Driver, Bertheau, Oettli, etc., on the passages) ; this holds true of the huge numbers of Ch as well.
If this is so in the parallel narratives, it must be so likewise in those matters which we owe entirely to Ch. Some of these conflict with the known course of the history, e.g. the complete Levitical arrangements of David and his successors ; others are in themselves most unlikely, e.g. Amaziah's dealings with Israelitish mercenaries. It is plain that the character of Ch's testimony, when we can control it by parallel accounts, is not sucli as to give us reason to depend on it with security when it stamls alone. Perliaiis it does not enlarge our stock of historical matter bejond that given in S and K. Wo cannot say absulutcly that it does not; e.g. Koboboam's buildings.