The evidence arising from style of authorship-of necessity limited and inconclusive in the matter of a compilation, but which, so far as it goes, favours the beEof that Ezra himself was the compiler; and the evidence arising from style of diction, which exhibits many point.~ of similarity with that of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther-certainly one Persian word, and not a few Aramaic peculiarities, such as the use of he for aleph, and the foll forms of kholem and khirilc-do indeed entirely harmonize with the position that the compilation was subsequent to the Return. Unfortunately, it i,i scarcely within their reach to point the exacter date with anything like certainty, Were it possible to identify Ezra positively as author or compiler, it need not be said that the limits of the inquiry would be very much narrowed. But it is just this which it is impossible to do. Of Chronicles, together with Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, Gesenins, in the Introduction to his 'Hebrew Grammar,' says that, as literary works, they are very " inferior to those of earlier date."
§ 4. THE QuEsTION OF AuTHOR OR Cm.rPILER. Who tl-. ) author, or more strictly compiler, was is an undetermined question. The Talmud (iv. 3, in 'Baba Bathra,' 15, 1 ; Condor's 'Handbook to the Bible,' p. :xviii.) says, "Esra scripsit librnm suum et genealogiam in Libro Chronicorum nsque ad se." Again, P. D. Ho.et (born 1630, died 1721), in his 'Demonst. Evangelica ad S D. iv. 14,' says, "Esram libros Paralipomenon lucubrasse, Ebreorum omninm est fama consentiens." It seems easier to feel persuaded that the compiler of Chronicles, and the compiler of at all events large parts of the work known a.~ the Book of Ezra, were one and the same person (and even that the two works might have once been designed for a continuous whole), than to feel confident who that compiler was. There seems to be at present no really satisfactory explanation of the fact that the last two verses of Chronicles and the first two of Ezra are almost identical. The circumstance has been urged as an argument for the identity of author, but, so far as it goes, it would indeed rather favour a contrary supposition. It is scarcely likely that an author would do such a thing, thongh much more naturally accounted for as done by the deliberate even if unadvised design of some reviser, or by the error of a transcriber of later date. It must be confessed, however, that there is no evidence forthcoming to support such a charge of error, nor any appearance of it on the face of the passage itself. On the other hand, some of the best of modern criticism fixes the first chapter of Ezra as the very part of the work which cannot own to the same hand as the other part or parts (though still it may have been the insertion of the same compiler), and assigns it, with vers. 9-23 of the last chapter of Chronicles, to the pen of Damel The resemblance of style to that of Ezra is indeed ample indica- tion, as already seen, as regards the general period of the compilation of Chronicles; but it is insufficient to fix one compiler with the work of both. In fact, when we have reduced to the strictest compass the words and phrases i-i INTRODUCTION TO
common to Chronicles and Ezra alone, we find that they obt,ain quite as much between Chro::iicles and the part of Ezra least certainly his own workmanship (i.-vi.), as the part which almost all critics have accepted as his. These points of resemblance, however, as presented by De W ette and others, are well worth notice, and may be judged of by some few specimens. Compare, for instance, eh. xv. 16 with Ezra iii. 12; eh. xvi. 40 with Ezra iii. 2 ; eh. xxiii. 3 with Ezra iii. 8 ; eh. xxviii. 17 with Ezra i. 10 and viii. 27 ; eh. xxix. 5, 9, with Ezra. iii. 5 ; 2 Chron. iii. 3 with Ezra iii. 11; 2 Chron. v. 13 and vii. 3 with Ezra iii. 11; 2 Chron. xii. J.4, xix. 3, and xx:x. 19 with Ezra vii. 10 ; 2 Chron. xx:vi. 15 with Ezra iii. 13; 2 Chron, xxix. 27 with Ezra iii. 10; 2 Chron. xxxv. 5 with Ezra vi. 18. The following list (' Speaker's Commentary,' iii. 158) also deserves attention, viz. :-The constant use of the phrase "King of Persia ; " the describing the Jewish people as "Jndah and Benjamin," found out of Chronicles and Ezra only once (1 Kings xii. 23); the exclusive employment of the expressions, " the Sea of J oppa; " " take courage and do ; " and the " daric" coin; the frequent employment of expressions, very rarely found elsewhere, as " Moses the man of God ; " " N ethinim ; " r:+r.> to designate absolutely one "having understanding; " ~~~; and the three phrases, "expressly mentioned by their names" (eh. xii. 31; Ezra viii. 20, etc.), "prepared his heart to seek" (2 Chron. xii. 14; Ezra vii. 10, etc.), "that l'eacheth up to heaven " (2 Chron. xxviii. 9; Ezra ix. 6). Though it cannot be said that we have the firmest ground of all on which to assert his workmanship of Ezra in Chronicles, yet these two things may be said with tolerable confidence: (1) that the more it may become possible to identify Ezra as the compiler of the whole of the book that goes by his name (except probably the first chapter), the more near may we feel that we are approaching a reasonable decision as to the compiler of Chronicles ; and (2) that meantime the ancient traditional "consentiens fama," the indirect help of the Septuagint coming through the Book of Ezra, the points of resemblance of style, words, etc., some of which have been presented to view above, and the fact that the narrative " breaks off " during the lifetime of Ezra, combine to form no despicable force of evidence, even though it be not entirely conclusive, in favour of holding Ezra for the writer of Chronicles.
§ 5. THE ORIGINALS OF THE COMPILATION. Although there are not a few interesting questions still unanswered on this subject, yet fortunately the compiler often refers with great distinct- ness to his authorities, i.e. to some of them. Before summarizing these, it may be most co:avenient to observe upon some of them, in the order in which they occur. L The compiler's first distinct allusion to an authority is found in eh. ix. 1; and it is the authority for the "genealogies of all Israel" which is there cited. These genealogies, if we lay special stress upon the word TIIE FIRST BOOK OF THE CIIIWNICLES. v:i