surpassed even that of Hezekiah'e, while the date to which the memory i8 referred remounts not eimply to Solomon's time, hut to the "days of Samuel the prophet." (4) And, once more, 2 Chron. xxviii. 7 offers no self-con- tradiction whatever. Rather the only difficulty lies in choosing between several manifest interpretations, e.g. if Maaseiah designates the son of the reigning king, viz. Ahaz, the unmentioned time of his being slain may have been towards the end of Ahaz's sixteen-year reign, when his son may easily have been upwards of sixteen years of age, though Ahaz did mount the throne aged twenty only (ver. 1). Then, again, the probability is strong that Maaseiah was, in fact, son of the previous king, Jotham, and that the expression " king's son " designates no natural relationship, but an office so termed held by him. The very verse favours the explanation in its mention of the other two slain, one as "governor of the house," the other as " next to the king; " and is more confirmed by the consideration of the only other occurrence of the phrase (1 Kings xxii. 26). Compare also 2 Kings xxiv.12 with Jer. xxix. 2. W. Aldis Wright, in Smith's 'Bible Dictionary,' well instances the expression" queen dowager." 2. Instances of some asserted contradictions of other Scriptures on the part of the writer of Chronicles. Compare the following couplets :-Oh. iii. 15 with 2 Kings xxiii. 31, 36 ; eh. iii. 19 with Ezra iii. 2; eh. x. 6 with 2 Sam. ii. 8 ; eh. xiv. 12 with 2 Sam. v. 21 ; eh. x:xi. 5 with 2 Sam. xxiv. 9; eh. x:xi. 6 with 2 Sam. xxiv. 8, 9; eh. xxi. 25 with 2 Sam. xxiv. 25; eh. x:xii. 8 with 2 Sam. vii. 5; eh. xxii. 14 with 1 Kings v. 17, 18; eh. xxvii. 1-15 with 2 Sam. xv. 18; 2 Chron. xiv. 2-5 with 1 Kings xv. 14; 2 Chron. xvii. 6 with 1 Kings xxii. 43; 2 Chron. xxii. 9 with 2 Kings ix. 27; 2 Chron. xxiii. 1-11 with 2 Kings xi. 4-12; 2 Chron. xxviii. 5 with 2 Kings xvi. 5 ; 2 Chron. xxviii. 20 with 2 Kings xvi. 7 ; 2 Chron. xx:x. 26 with 2 Kings xxiii. 22; 2 Chron. xxxiii. 11-17 with 2 Kings xxi. 1-17; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 3-7 with 2 Kings x:xiii. 4. The above will be found to be dealt with in the order of the text. 3. Instances of supposed errors of the writer of Chronicles. Compare the following couplets :-Ch. iv. 31 with Josh. xvi. 36 and xix. 6; eh. xi. 23 with 2 Sam. xxiii. 21; 2 Chron. ix. 12 with 1 Kings x. 13 ; 2 Chron. ix. 14 with 1 Kings x. 15; 2 Chron. xxxv. 25 with canonical Book of Lamenta- tions; 2 Chron. ix. 21 and xx. 37 with 1 Kings x. 22 and xxii. 48. A. consideration of such difficulty as any of these passages may be thought to present will also be found under chapter and verse. In conclusion, it may be affirmed safely that the most candid and at the same time the most searching examination of the objections made to Chronicles on the score of authenticity, by such opponents as have been under notice, leads to the conviction that not one of these objections can hold its own. There are, indeed, several numerical inconsistencies (e.g. eh. xi. 11; xviii. 4; xix. 18; compared with 2 Sam. x:xiii. 8; viii. 4 ; x. 18, respec- tively ; and 2 Chron. viii. 18 ; xxii. 2 ; xxxvi. 9 ; compared with 1 Kings iv. 28; 2 Kings viii. 26; xxiv. 8, respectively), which postulate for their I. CBRONICLBB, C1 Xl'iii INTRODUCTION TO
only explanation the imperfect state 0£ some 0£ our Hebrew manuscripts, and especially in the passages which contain numbers. But this defect and misfortune are by no means peculiar to Chronicles. But for the rest though cautious criticism may justly decline to dogmatize as to which of two or three possible ways out of a difficulty may be the way, and may constitute the explanation, there is no real laok 0£ legitimate methods of escape. Out 0£ a grand total 0£ some thirty loudly proclaimed inconsis- tencies, there are not more than a fourth part at the outside which present any real difficulty. And 0£ these, with perhaps one exception (2 Chron. xx. 36), one or other 0£ alternative solutions 0£ each problem will appear not less reasonable than plausible. The examination may justly tend to increase and not to diminish our faith in Chronicles and the writer thereof. Though it refuses to own to the description 0£ anything merely supplemental to the preceding historical books, it is a most interesting and valuable complement to them.
§ 8. THE EVIDENCES OF ENTIBETY AND OF IDENTITY OF AUTHORSHIP IN CHRONICLES.
These two subjects may be best considered in close connection with one another. As to the former 0£ them, there seems nothing to excite so much as an inquiry or suspicion until we reach the very close 0£ the work, or that which at the present stands as the close. The points from which the begin- ning is made speaks for itself. The connecting links 0£ the genealogies, comprising (according to our threefold classification) the first part with the second, and that 0£ the second with the third-the prolonged historical portion, which forms the bulk of the work-are as natural as they are evident. The historical part itself is continuous, and embraces in due order 0£ relation that which would be expected at the hands 0£ a writer who kept a certain defined object steadily and consistently in view. There is no abrupt break and no u.naccou.ntable gap in the course 0£ it. The same satisfaction, how- ever, cannot be felt when we approach the close. There is some appearance of hurry in the treatment of the history of the last few kings. Next, the fact of the last two verses of the work, as it now stands, being identical with the opening verses of Ezra, is certainly startling and unnatural. If, therefore, we close the book with the verse that precedes them, we close it with a statement of the Captivity, it is trn.e, but not of the Return, which is the very thing for which we should have looked. Perhaps it might appear safest to leave such a difficulty, which is of no pressing practical import, without the pretence of any very confident solution. Yet, were it not that it seemed a too convenient adaptation to the circumstances 0£ the case, there is a great deal to lead to the view very generally assumed, as well by critics generally hostile to the character 0£ the work (as De Watte) as by others (like Movers, Ewald, etc.) of a very contrary tone of criticism. According to this view, Chronicles, originally finding its legitimate termina- tion with the chapters now ranked as the Book 0£ Ezra, suffers truncation THE FIRS'l' BOOK OF THE CHRONICLES. xix