there, and the last two verees remain an indication of the severance there effected. Meantime Ezra, made into a separate book, was placed where in the Hebrew canon we find it, in due historical order, after Daniel (the contents of which consist of some account of the period of the Captivity) and bef!YT'e Nehemiah, while Chronicles is relegated to the position of last in the canon in the Hebrew, though not last in our canon. Such an explana- tion postulates a. certain anxiety to put the contents of Daniel into a convenient position at the expense of putting Chronicles into an unjust position, and leaving it with an inconsequential termination, and the man- agement suggests rather mismanagement. However, it is none the less the fact that Chronicles is found in the position above described. It may suffice to point out that, whatever may be the fact or the actual explanation respecting the original order, no history itself is deficient which is a matter of prime significance. For in Chronicles, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, we have a certain catena of history from creation, through the period of the Captivity, to the rebuilding of the temple and the resettlement of Judah in the land after the Captivity. The interesting point of the substantial unity of Chronicles is strikingly witnessed to in the internal evidence furnished by the work. Those very features which might have been expected to militate against both the probability of its unity. and especially against facility in proving that unity, do in fact contribute to the furtherance of that proof. It can scarcely be going too far to say that, in style and spirit, it is unmistakably one. It is most true that the very nature of genealogical matter might have been expected to render it almost out of the question to detect what sort of hand had been employed upon it, still less to pronounce with any confidence as to the sameness of the hand with that which penned the remaining and more historical part of the work. But on the contrary, the genealogical and other tables, as well (1) by what they bring into prominence or else keep in the shade or even entirely omit, as (2) by the distinct matter which they contain in the shape of interspersed reflections and moral points made and religious lessons taught, go to exhibit strongly the evidence of unity. The less such modes of overcoming the obstructions that genealogical matter would so naturally present, might occur to the mind, the more impressive is their evidence felt to be when it spontaneously presents itself. Thus, e.g., it is presumable that the genealogies and other tables affecting Israel in the older records were, upon the whole, not less full than those of Judah, even if we readily grant that there were well-understood reaaous in provi- dence from the earliest for the more special charge of the latter. Yet these genealogies give very marked preponderance to the line of Judah. The tribes of Dan and Zebulon are passed over, and scanty indeed is the reference to Israel, in respect of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh, at a most critical time (eh. v. 26). Compare, however, the significant allusion to Judah in the same chapter (ver. 2; as also eh. xxviii. 4). The prominence afterwards given throughout the historical portion to Judah is, in fact, lNTRODUC'l'lON 'l'O
foreshadowed plainly enough in the early tabular chapters. Again, it is impossible not to notice that, so surely as the indications of the moral and spiritual objects of the work remount and insist on finding their place in the midst of old lists and tables of genealogies, so surely the genealogical disposition (as it has been conveniently termed) of the compiler or writer is constantly betraying itself, whenever there is a possible opening for it throughout the book. The celebrated forty or more parallel sections, again, tabulated by Keil and Davidson, etc., run with wonderful even- ness of occurrence alongside the whole stretch of the history. Several phrases, which are of the rarest occurrence elsewhere, and in some cases are not to be found out of Chronicles, are in this book found indifferently in genealogy or in history, binding part with part. The same may be said of not a few gra=tical forms, and which will be found noted where they occur. Much stress also has been justly laid on certain more general characteristics of the writer, such as his very brief touch of certain kinds of matter, his very shortened treatment of others, and, on the other hand, the uniform practice he observes from beginning to end, of making reference, with some variety and readiness to amplify, to the punishment visited on kings and people for their sins and disobedience. The " Levitical " spirit and the "priestly " spirit and the "theocratic " spirit, which have been so often remarked upon and not rarely so perversely, all find their explanation here; and meantime all help to attest the unanimity of one, not of many minds. The sum total of indications of one writer and one object and one unbroken work seems am.ply suffi6ient to balance a very few hitches, brief gaps, occasional abruptness, and some apparent inconsistencies, a large proportion of which probably await for their extinction nothing but the first competent collation of Hebrew texts. The Hebrew student will not read far, without discovering the corruptions and imperfections of our pre- sent Hebrew text. But if he read to the end, and microscopically examine every difficulty such as might probably be referable to the text, greatly as hia interest and curiosity will be intensified, he will not find in them all the kind of indications that would lead him to suspect his author or his author's work. He probably may find many of a very opposite turn and character. The state of the Hebrew text in Chronicles, so far as regards passages in which '111unnbers occur, is in very strict harmony with all similar kind of matter in any other part of the Old Testament. Uncertainty and incon- sistency characterize all this kind of matter, and for reasons well enough known and existing in the language itself.
§ 9. LITERATURE OF CHRONICLES. It can scarcely be said that the literature of Chronicles is very scanty in quantity, but it can yet less be said to be rich in quality, or very satis- factory so far as it goes. There are not wanting, however, indications of an improved and fairer style of criticism of the work, which will inevitD,bly THE FIRST BOOK OF THE CHRONICLES. xxi