(Smith's 'Bible Dictionary,' iii. 1126), bd rather histories of tbem, and which therefore inevitably had much to say of David also. If on this theory it should appear remarkable that the authorship of those works is not attached to them, nor mentioned, this is but in harmony with the whole of the historical books of the Old Testament, with the exception of a portion of Ezra and of Nehemiah. Others think that in the work known with us as the Books of Samuel, and even of Kings, we have the above-named three or possibly eveD four" histories" and" chronicles" (Mover's' Krit. Unter- sucb.,' 178; Horne's 'Introd.,' v. 48). If so, it would be a thing to tempt remark that a work (like Samuel) which had David for its chief subject, even to the extent of three quarters of it, should have come down by the name "Samuel" (he not being the author), whose history occupies only a. sixth part of the whole. Nevertheless, this sixth part comes at the beginning, and may very conceivably be the explanation of the name which stands at the title. When, however, all is said, the somewhat irresistible impression produced by the passage containing these anthorities is that they are quoted there, at all events, as separate works; and the allusion to the " Chronicles of King David" (eh. xxvii. 24,) seems to confirm this reading. Lastly, the mode of reference to these authorities is observable. The very common formula of "the rest of the acts,'' etc. (2 Chron. ix. 29-31), is not employed here, but only "the acts," or better, " the history." We are left, therefore, quite undirected as to the proportion of his materials which the compiler of Chronicles drew from these sources, as also to the amount of his indebtedness to the works known with us as the Books of Samuel and Kings. And the interesting question is left unanswered, or anything but conclusively answered, whether any, and if so what, of the original authorities of Samuel and Kings were still safe at the time of the compilation of Chronicles, and may have been presumably common sources for both Samuel and Kings on the one hand, and now much later for our Chronicles. Among those who have with the greatest warmth espoused the position that our compiler used largely as his authorities the canonical Books of Samuel and Kings, a.re Movers, De W ette, Ewald, Bleek, and Graf; and the direct contrary has been stoutly maintained by Hiivernick, Bertheau, Dillmann, and Keil. 3. The remaining references to authorities on the part of the compiler of Chronicles come more thickly when the work has passed well beyond its middle point. They a.re in the order of their occurring, as follows :-(1) The Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chron. ix. 29). (2) The Visions of Iddo the Seer, against Jeroboam (ibid.). (3) The Acts or History of Shemaiah the Prophet (2 Chron.xii.15). (4) The Acts or History of Iddo the Seer, concerning Genealogies (ibid.). (5) The Commentary of the Prophet Iddo (2 Chron. xiii. 22). (6) The Acts or History of Jehu the son of Hanani (2 Chron. xx. 34). (7) The Commentary of the Book of the Kings (2 Chron. xxiv. 27). (8) Isaiah the Prophet, on Uzziah (2 Chron. xxvi. 22). (9) The Vision of Isaiah the Prophet (2 Chron. xxxii. 32). (10) The A<'t.s or History of the Seers (Hosai ?) ; 2 Chron. xxxiii. 19. INTRODUCTION '1'0
(a) The word found in the above list (5), (7) as "commentary" (~J':tQ) is with littlEI doubt the right reading of what appears as "story " in our Authorized Version. Though it is not found in this exact form elsewhere in the Old Testament, yet the verbal root is found several times, and in a. sense which harmonizes with this interpretation. The rabbinic use of the word, however, determines this rendering of "commentary," or" a study" upon a subject. (b) Again, of the Hosai mentioned in the above list (10) nothing is found elsewhere. There can be little doubt that the word is not the name of a person, but that it is either the mere corruption of some copyist or an erroneous emendation upon the just repetition of the expression, " the words of the seers," in the preceding verse. For this view Bertheau argues in bis "Introduction." Now, the whole of tho above references to authorities seem to be clear of any ambiguity as regards their form of title, unless possibly the titles (3), ( 4), (6), (10), which resemble some already discussed, viz." The Acts or History of Samuel the Seer," etc. [2]. Yet surely the latter part of the titles (4) and (6) must be allowed to deliver them also from ambiguity. They must mean the histories written by Iddo and J ehu respectively. May not this reasonably determine all the other cases of the titles which contain the word "acts " or "history," especially when compared with the title "chronicles," as e.g. eh. xxvii. 24, where there need be no supposition that David was the writer? The works themselves were evidently individual treatises on individual reigns or individual characters and periods of the nation's history They were written probably exclusively by various prophets, even as such are mentioned for the larger number of them. The various times and subjects with which they had to do are made sufficiently plain on reference to each citation severally. As individual treatises, they would be likely enough to contain an amount and a kind of detail which a more general history, written after the lapse of some time, would be sure to exclude. The "Chronicles of King David" and the "Commentary of the Book of Kings " may be surmised to have been somewhat less specific in style of treatment, and somewhat wider in their range, than most of the others. Traces of the absorption of some of these into a more general compilation are with con- siderable reason believed to be found in a passage already referred to in connection with the subject (2 Chron. xx. 34); and also, though this is not apparent from the reading of our Authorized Version, in 2 Chron. xxxii. 32, In addition to the authorities quoted as though the compiler of Chronicles had been actually indebted to them, allusion is found to some others, on which he had not personally drawn, such as "The Writing of Elijah the Prophet" to Jehoram (2 Chron. xxi. 111); and "The Lamentations," pre- sumably written by Jeremiah, but not his work that goes by the title in our canon ( 2 Chron. xxxv. 25). To these might be added one remove further, however," The Writing (:::iQf) of David" and" The Writing (:::ir;,:;,7?) of Solo- mul.'. '' (2 Chron. xxxv. 4). These additional kinds of references may serve 'l'HE FIRST IlOOK OF TllE CIIP..0:--lICLES. xi