^) Passages where the correct rteding is donbt- Pali 2 Chron. ii, 2, 17 [18], oomp. with 1 Kings t, 80 [16] ; 2 Chron. Till, 10, comp. with 1 Kings ix, 23; 2 Chron. viii, 18, comp. with 1 Kings ix, 28, etc. (On the nomerical discrepancies, see Beinke, Beitrdffe tur ErUarmtg da aU. TetUmentes, I, i.) See Numbkb. In Movers, Kennicott, and Oramberg, others may be found which are injudiciouslj brought forward as truly at Tirianoe ; yet 2 Chron. yiii, 18, compared with 1 Kings ix, SB; 1 Chron. xxi, 6, comp. with 2 Sam. xxiv, 9, where the numbers of Judah are difiTerent, and other places that might be quoted, present contra- dictfens wiiich evince that the text is corrupt. It is well known, although the cause has not ftilly hitherto been asoertatined, that the text of the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles is in a worse condition than that of the other inspired writings. Jerome {Pnrf, ad ParaL') speaks of the Greek text of Chron. as being hopelessly conftised in his days, and assigns this as a reason why he made a new translation from the He- brew. Many of the names and words that are differ^ ently written should be referred to this head. Some onussions and some biterpolations also belong to it Bat the principal contradictions relate to mtntben. These seem to have been expressed in various ways ; snd copyists, having diflfierent methods of marking them, were naturally exposed to errors. Sometimes numbers were designated by kUers, occasionally by dpkerif and again they were marked by toordt. See Abbrkviation.
(4.) Passages erroneously regarded as oontradicto- Tv: Between 2 Chron. xxviii, 20, and 2 Kings xvi, 7- 9, there is no contradiction, as they relate to different stages of the war ; and it is quite possible^ that the mer- cenary Tiglatb-pileser from an ally became an oppo- nent; a fiict even intimated in 2 Kings xvi, 18, by Xhaz's removal of a gallery, which mi^t afford ac- cess to an enemy. Between 1 Chron. xi, 28, "An Egyptian, a man of great stature, five cubits high, and in the Egyptian's hand was a spear like a weaver's beam," and 2 Sam. xxiii, 21, '^ An Egyptian, a goodly man, and the Egyptian had a spear in his hand,'* there is no contradiction ; the one passage being more spe- ciik, but still in accordance with and its purport im- plied in the other. The Egyptian's noticeable I4>pear- aooe was his stature, with which also his spear corre- sponded. 2 Chron. xxxiv, 8-7, places the reformation nnder Josiah in the twelfth year of his age, while 2 Kings xxii, 8, assigns to it the eighteenth ; the former referring only to the beginning of the work, while the other passage points to some great progress in it, the niothig out of idolatry, as is required by 2 Chron. xxxv, 19. Many other passages, which are usually adduced vnderthis head, do not belong to it : e. g. 2 Chron. ix, 26, compared with 1 Khigs iv, 26; 2 Chron. xxii, 2, with 2 Kmgs viii, 26; 1 Chron. xxi, 1, with 2 Sam. xxiv, 1; 1 Chron. xxi, 6, with 2 Sam. xxiv, 9; 1
Chron. xxi, 26, with 2 Sam. xsiv, 24; 2 Chron. xili, 2, with 1 Kings xv, 10 ; on the true mode of harmoni- xing which we refer to Davidson's Sacred HermmtmUcM^ p. 641-^664, where they are resolved. A large class of the discrepancies in question, affecting the ages and reigns of the kings, is due simply to the mode of reck- oning either (a) according to the dvil as distinct firom the sacred year, or (b) according to dates of associa- tion with the respective fathers on the throne {Mtth. Quart, Eev,y Oct. 1866, p. 619 sq., where all these are reconciled). See Chronoloot.
Many less important deviations are here passed over, as being referrible to the arbitrary choice of the com- piler, such as omissions, additions, diflSarence of order, change of style, etc Most or all of the real difficulties, with respect to £acts, will be examined under the several articles to which they relate. Many of the obscurities, and not a few discrepancies, are apparently insoluble, owing to the loss of the original data, which alone could serve to explain them. These are more numerous and formidable, perhaps, in the Chronicles than in any oth- er book of Scripture ; jret the discrepancies, even were there no satisfactory solution, cannot greatiy affect the charaoter of the writcir of the Chronicles; for the probability as regards correctness will be found on the part of the later writer, who, having the earlier works before him, would not unnecessarily, in matters of fact and plain numerical statements, where differences and contradictions were so easOy discernible, vary from the earlier accounts ikvored by the authority arising from age and prior acceptance. There can be no ques- tion, moreover, that many of the discrepancies are ow- ing to the fault of copjrists, while in some they are the result of the different views and designs of the respect- ive writers, or the brevity of their statements. In proof; however, of the accuracy of the Chronicles, the following particulars are worthy of consideration :
a. The writer is exceedingly definite in his state- ments. Thus the time when it occurred to David to build the Temple of the Lord is indicated (2 Sam. vii, 1), «* It came to pass wkm ^S) tiie king sat in his house," et^., but more definitely stated in 1 Chron. xvii, 1 Ol^KS), ''as soon as he sat," etc. (see Heng- \ stenberg, CkristoL i, 144, Berlin, 1864) ; while (he omis- sion of the words, ** and the Lord had given him rest round about from all his enemies," removes the chron- ological difficulty in that statement Of ^ accuracy, again, in the genealogical notices, the following ex- ample may suffice In 1 Chron. ii, 16, mention is made of two sisters of David, Abigail and Zeruiah, the latter of whom was the mother of Joab, Abisbai, and Asahel, who are never designated after their father, but always after their more illustrious mother (2 Sam. ii, 18 ; xxi, 17, etc). Amasa is referred to as a blood relation of David (2 Sam. xix, 14); according to 2 Sam. xvii, 26, Amasa was a son of Abigail, and she sister of Zeruiah, the mother of Joab ; but the daugh- ter of Nahash, not positively of Jesse, and thus per- haps only the half-sister of David. See Nahash. Therefore it is that, m the genealogy of Jesse (1 Chron. ii, 18-17), she is not styled Ws daughter, but only re- ferred to as the siB|»r of David ; a distinction which does not at first sight strike the reader, and the force of which could not indeed Jl>e learned without the in- formation furnished in the book of SamueL So also 2 Chron. vii, 7-10 explains the abbreviated statement (1 Kings viii, 66), and the otherwise contradictory ex- pression "the eighth day," verse 66 — a proof how many of the discrepancies arise simply firom the brev- ity of the statement