§ 2. THE ORIGINAL FORM OF TIIE WoRJr. Chronicles was not originally divided into two parts in the Hebre 1v manuscripts. On the contrary, Jerome ('Ad Domnion et Rogatian ') says that these remained undivided even in his time, although the division had been made by the Septuagint translators, and had long been recognized among those Churches that used the Septuagint. Jerome adopted the division iu his Vulgate. Daniel Bamberg (born circ. 1480, died 1549) was the first to exhibit the division in a printed Hebrew Bible, in his edition at Venice (1518-1536), and from these sources the division has now become universal. The notes of the Masorites, from the sixth century, or even somewhat earlier, also witness to the then undivided state of the Hebrew manuscripts, by the incidental mention of the fact that the bisecting verse of the work was to be found at what we now call eh. xxvii. 25. Other evidences, were they needed, are somewhat abundantly offered in the ancient wwmeration of the Old Testament books, by Josephus (A.D. 37-97), Origen (186-254), Jerome, and the Talmud (supposed to belong to the second century). In case, then, anything in the further consideration of this work should be found to depend upon it, we may remember that the work as originally composed was one, and embraced the whole sweep of Scripture history in an epitomized form-epitomized, indeed, in parts to the pro- portions of a mere recital of names-from Adam to a date succeeding the return from the Captivity. And the only remaining problem on this part of the subject is whether the Book of Ezra, as it certainly is an immediate continuation of the closing verses of Chronicles, was not also really one work with it, as is believed by many.
§ 8~ TIIE. DATE OF COMPILATION. Assuming the integrity and unity of Chronicles, right down to the verses which appear with us as 2 Chron; xxxvi; 22, 23; and excluding the theories of later interpolations, we undoubtedly possess certain time-marks which fix some irrefragable dates within which the work could not have been compiled. Thus, e.g., beginning with the last, so far as its position in our work is concerned, the above-mentioned verses necessarily bring us to the year B.C. 539-8 (Conder's 'Handbook to the Bible,' 2nd edit., pp. 1, 23). Next, the ninth chapter opens, in our Hebrew text, with a form of statement which purports to terminate the subject of the genealogies (ending at different times, and in part with Hezekiah's reign) of the preceding eight chapters, by the mention of "the carrying away of Israel and Judah to Babylon, for their transgressions;" while the Masoretic text, placing a full INTRODUCTION TO
period at the word "Israel," makes the mention of Judah's captivity yet more emphatic as a thing of the past. The compiler then proceeds (vers. 2-34) to describe the course things took in the partial resettlement of the "Israelites, priests, Levites, and N ethinim, in their cities," on the return from the Captivity, and likewise of the "children of Judah and Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh, in Jerusalem." That there is no error in regarding this as the just sense of the passage becomes absolutely plain from the contents of Neh. ri. 3-22; further aided by vii. 45; xii. 25, 26; Ezra ii. 42. On this evidence, then, unless we gratuitously set down nearly the whole of eh. ix. as a later addition, we bring the compilation to a. date subsequent to the return and the partial resettlement of those who returned, some "in the cities," and some" in Jerusalem." Once more, the rema.rkable genealogy of Zerubbabel (eh. iii. 17-24) is clear evidence in point. Either these verses must be proved to be an interpolation or addition by a later hand (as is held by Eichhorn, Dahler, Jahn, Keil), or we are brought down to a still lower date. Even when (with Bertheau) we have counted the six entries of ver. 21 as names all of brothers, six genera- tions (Hananiah, Shechania.h, Shemaiah, Nea.riah, Elioenai, Hodaiah) appear to succeed Zerubbabel. However, Keil, Movers, Havernick, and others think that Zerubbabel's genealogy in this passage really stops with the grandsons Pelatiah and J esaiah. .A.nd there is some reason for supposing with Bishop Hervey (Smith's' Bible Dictiona.ry,' i. 666, 667), that these six names should not stand as six generations after Zerubbabel. But if both of these theories be inadmissible, we are still not necessarily driven to Prideaux's position, that the six generations, and the average length which he a.ssumes for them, will bring us to the time of Alexander the Great, B.c. 356-324 (Conder's 'Handbook to the Bible,' p. 24; see also Ewald's 'Gesch. des V. Isr.,' i 232). There can be little doubt that he over-estimates the average of Eastern generations, and, if this be reduced to twenty years (' Speaker's Commentary,' iii. 186, 187), we shall only be brought to a date varying between B.C. 420--410, within the probable lifetime of Nehemiah, and the very possible lifetime of Ezra. While, then, such a date as this is probably the latest which needs to be accepted, it stands to reason that the limit at the other extremity must not be placed simply at the time of the Return. In the nature of things, a work like the Chronicles, though but a matter of compilation, could not be executed offhand and rapidly at such a time. On the contrary, the unsettledness and the stir of the times would constitute the unlikeliest of conditions. Our general conclusion would be that, judging from internal evidence, the date of compilation must be placed between a. limit some several years sub- sequent to the Return and the year B.C. 410 or thereabout-how much nearer the latter than the former still uncertain. It may be added that Movers proposes the date B.C. 400 (' Krit. Untersuch. iiber die Bihl. Chron.,' p. 28), and that Zunz calculates the date B.o. 260 (' Gottesd. Vort, der lnden,' § 31). TIIE FIIlST BOOK OF THE CHUONICLES. V