CHRONICLES
287
CHRONICLES
These conclusions of date fix>m historical notices are confirmed by varions pecoliarities of expression and by the whole literary- character of the composition. Of the pecoliarities marking the late age of the writer is Ae term nn'^2 (Urah, "palace"), applied to the Temple, instead of the old and usual ^yt^ (Juyhal). This was an imitation of the great Persian cities, in correspondence with which Jerusalem is conceived of as having its palace, afterwards called BapiQ, See Ba- us. Another term with which the Hebrews became acquainted in Babylon was y^'Z (buU)^ bymts^ which occurs in none of the older books, notwith^fknding the frequent mention of W^D (<Ae<4), or ** fine linen," and is found onlj in X Chron. iv, 21 ; xv, 27 ; 2 Chron. ii, 14 ; ni, U; V, 12; Esth. i, 6; viii, 15; and in a book writ- ten m ChaldaM, Ezek. xxvii, 16 (Eichhom, Einleitunff, § 493). So also the mention of '{S"^"}^ (adarhon^ **dram," bnt more correctly cUmc, 1 Chron. xxix, 7 ; also Ezra ii, 69 ; viii, 27 ; Neh. vii, 70), a Persian coin, the current money of the time. Jahn {EinUitung, § 50) refers to a remark in 2 Chron. iii, 3, that the cubit was after the *^flrst (or old) measure," intimating that a new standard was in use in the time of the writer. The lit- erary character of the work, in general, entirely beto- kens a period when the language was greatly deteriora- ted through foreign influences, particularly during the exile, manifBsting many peculiarities of style and or- thography. Many examples of the latter, as the in- terchange of akph with he quiescent, may be seen on comparing the two lists of David's heroes in 1 Chron. ix and 2 Sam. xiU. With respect, again, to the latef books, more particularly that of Ezra, there are many important resemblances, a list of which may be found in H&vemick, p. 270.
This determination of the age of the composition narrows the ground of inquiry as to its authorship. The Jewbh opinion that Ezra was the author of the Chronicles was universally received down to the mid- dle of the seventeenth century, when it was called in qaestion by the English deistical writer Hobbe#, who assigned to it an eariier date. It was Spinoza who first referred it, on the contrary, to a later period than tbe time of Ezra, bringing it down to the time of the Maccabees, a view adopted in modem times by Gram- berg, and partly by De Wette. Carpzov, Eichhom, H&vemick, Welte, and modem writers in general, con- sider Ezra to be the author. Ewald (Getchickte des VcOu Israel, 2d ed., i, 252) admits that the Chronicles and the book of Ezra are by the same author, and even contends that they originally formed one work, not the production of Ezra himself, but a much later writer. Jahn denies all appearance of similarity between the Chronicles and Ezra, and ascribes the former to some unknown writer at the close of the Captivity.
The identity of authorship of the books of Chroni- cles and Ezra can be established by numerous argu- ments, besides the marks of similarity in expression al- ready adverted to. The internal relation of the Chron- icles and the book of Ezra was early recog^nised. This is seen'fiom the arrangement of the two adopted by the Sept. different from that of the Jewish canon. Further, the writer of the third (apocryphal) book of E«ta has wrought up the two writings into one. The conclusion of Chronicles and the beginning of the hook of Ezra are almost identical in expression, from which it is but reasonable to infer that the one was intended to be a continuation of the other; the one history termmating with the decree for the restora- tion from captivity, the other narrating how that de- cree was obtained and how it was carried out. With- ont this connection the opening words of the book of Ezra must appear exceedingly abmpt^ presenting a form of commencement which is in reality only a con- thination. (See Ezra i, 1.) The connection thus indi- cated is further evinced by the style, the manner of
narration, and of regarding events from a Levities! point of view, conmion to 4h.e two works ; the whole spirit, in fact, and characteristics are identical. Thus the firequent citations of the law, and in similar terms, as ISQlSiaS (kam^mishpcU), meaning ** according to the law of Moses" (1 Chron. xxiii, 81 ; 2 Chron. xxxv, 13 ; Ezra, iii, 4 ; yet also in Neh. viii, 18). The descrip- tions of the sacrificial rites are in the two books very fiiU, and in nearly the same terms (comp. Ezra ii, 2-5, with passages like 1 Chron. xvi, 40 ; 2 Chron. viii, 18 ; xiii, 11) ; so also the account of the celebration of the passover (Ezra vi, 19, etc., and 2 Chron. xxx, 85), and the order of the Levites in charge of the Temple (Ezra ill, 8, 9 ; 1 Chron. xxxiii, 2, 8). What presents the greatest apparent contrast in the two books is the high- priest's genealogy in 1 Chron. vi, 1-15, in the descend- ing line, terminating with the Captivity, and in Ezra vii, 1-5, in the ascending line, from that priest himself to Aaron ; but a little consideration will reconcile the discrepancy. The two lists are partly parallel, and partly the one is a continuation of the other ; as re- gards the latter point there can be no conflict, and as to the former it will be observed that the list in Ezra is considerably abridged, many links being omitted (Bertheau), and this could the more readily be done if the writer had elsewhere given a complete register. See Ezra (Book op).