Jsraol. De W ette prefers even to deny him the loophole of being himself unconsciously misled by the strength of his alleged Levitical animus. (2) And that he has e. weak leaning to the "supernatural," in obedience to which he leans to the temptation of both inventing and exaggerating. The first of these charges may be considered sufficiently disposed of by the far different position already taken in the previous section-one which admits of being amply sustained, and which explains the civil and religious features of the critical and important period of history, at some date in which this compilation must have been made. An almost indefinite amount of confirmation and illustration of that position might be produced; and the moral evidence points with remarkable clearness to it. In the history of the reforming nation there must have come the time 11..:1.d the circumstances to postulate exactly such a work. Without any symptom of collusion, the internal indications of this work are such r.s to harmonize with the supposed time and circumstances. And the account to be offl'red of the reasons of the prominence given to Judah, and to the matters of the temple services, and so forth, is sufficient to reduce the views of De W ette to little better than gratuitous, or at least blinded, assumptions; while there is nothing that can even simulate the appearance of evidence of the partiality of untruthfulness towards Judah or of prejudice against Israel. This may be asserted, but fails of anything like proof, when brought to the only test which we have, viz. in Samuel and Kings, among the many which we might have, in the numerous originals to which the compiler so often refers. And for these latter we should indeed be compelled to wait before it would be possible to condemn the writer of Chronicles as untruthful. .A.nd as to the addictedness to the supernatural, alleged against him, perhaps even a more decisive reply can be furnished. For first, the total amount of matter of this kind in Chronicles is much less than in the earlier work, owing to the absence of those narrations of the sort which concern Israel, and which, in Kings, are not few in number. But farther, respecting such as belong to Judah alone, the following references (see 'Speaker's Commentary'), showing some miracle-narratives peculiar to Chronicles :-Ch. xxi. 26; 2 Chron. vii. 1; xiii. 14-17; xiv. 11-13; x.x. 15-24; xxi. 12-19; are surely sufficiently counterbalanced by the absence of the following :-1 Kings xi. 29-39; 2 Kings iii. 14-24; xix. ~0-34; xx. 16-18; x.xiii. 15-17; and by the very spare allusion to llezekiah's miraculous recovery (2 Chron. xx.ii. 24 compared with 2 Kings xx.1-11). Of less vague charges mJ.de by the same school against the trust- worthiness of the writer of Chronicles, instanced in particular passages, and of the nature of alleged contradictions, the treatment will be found, for the most part, under the particular passages in question. The following three lists, however, not altogether exhaustive, but conveniently classified by Canon G. Rawlinson, will serve to indicate the kind and the number of supposed contradictions, as well as the places where they are individoally trea,ted : - lXTRODUCTION TO
1. Instances of alleged self-contradiction. Compare the following C'ouplet,s :-(1) 2 Chron. xiv. 3, 5 with xv. 17; (2) xvii. 6 with xx. 33; (3) nx. 26 with xxxv. 18; (4) xxviii. 1 with 7. Now, as nothing would more detract, and with justice, from the authority of any historian than instances of well-ascertained self-contradiction, it is necessary closely t,o examine these. (1) and (2). The first two are of an exMtly similar kind. At the beginning of the long reigns of two kings (A.sa, who reigned forty-one years, and Jehoshaphat, who reigned twenty-five), it is said that the king in question "took away the high places," and in the former of these two reigns, it is repeated with emphasis of Asa, that "he took away out of all the cities of Judah the high places." At or towards the end of each reign, it is said, "But" or "howbeit the high places were not taken away." The Hebrew text is in close accord with the rendering of our Authorized Version. Compare also 1 Kings xv. 12, 14, where the words of the suspected "self- contradiction" are just avoided. Surely there is no necessary self-contra- diction to be detected here. The one expression purports to say that, at the beginning of a long reign, the king "took away," i.e. ordered to be taken away," the high places;" but that, at the end, it was found that the evil had not been effectually outrooted, and that, whatever had been the proclamation and the "perfect "-hearted purpose of the king, no doubt more or less successful for a time, the people had probably enough by relapse gfren in to the habit of using the "high places." There is no need to suppose, with Movers, Dahler, Keil, and Bertheau, that two kinds of high places are referred to in these passages, even i£ there were at any time two such kinds . .A.nd it is not to be overlooked that, while strictly a self-contradiction would only have lain had it been said both that the "king did take away," and then elsewhere that he did "not take away," high places, on the contrary, the connection in both cases favours the view we have taken. For in the instance of Asa, several verses of eh. xiv. have just been employed to describe the earnest endeavours of the king to obtain the co-operation of his people; while in the case of Jehoshaphat the antithesis is expressed in so many words (2 Chron. xx. 32, 33), that while" Asa did that which wu,s right in the sight of the Lord, ... the high places wert1 not removed: for as yet the people had not prepared their hearts unto the God of their fathers." The natural conclusion is that the two kings Asa and Jehoshaphat had done their part and had done their best, but had not permanently carried their people with them. (3) Again, there is no adequate foundation for th,, allegation of self-contradiction in the language of 2 Chron. xxx. 26 and xxxv. 18. In the first place, the strict language of the former of these passages only says that there had not been " like " great joy in Jerusalem since the " time of Solomon." Let it, however, be granted that the festival itself is what is intended, and there is no denial whatsoever of such a feast having been held, bnt only of one accompanied by so much gladness and spirit and general joy. And in like manner the assertion of ver. 18 in eh. mv. can be understood to amount to this, that the feast of Josiah's time THE .l!'IRS'l' IlOOK OJ<' 'l'HI<.: CHRONICLE;-;, x.ii