the use of expressions which manifestly belong, not to our author, but to some document which he cites.* It is consequently more than " a reason- able supposition that '' this " history was, in part at least, derived from the works in queetion."t And there is a strong presumption that these were hie only authorities, with the exception perhaps of a narrative of the ministry of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, for though he refers to them so constantly, he never once refers to any other. What, however, was the precue character of these writings is a matter of considerable uncertainty. We are warranted in the belief, from the way in which they are cited, that they were three separate and independent works, and that they contained fuller and more extended accounts of the reigns of the several kings than any which we now possess, for the invariable formula in which they are referred to is this, " And the rest of the acts of . . . . are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles,'' &c. It hardly follows, however, as Bahr thinks, that this formula implies that the works, at the time our history was written, were "in general circulation,'' or" in the hands of many,'' for our author surely might reasonably refer to them, even if they were not generally known or readily accessible. But the great question in dispute is this : Were "the books of the words of the days to the kin.gs," as their name at first sight seems to imply, state papers; i.e., public archives prepared by appointed officers, or were they private memoirs of the different prophets. The former opinion has the support of many great names.: It is alleged in its favour that there was, at any rate in the kingdom of Judah, a state functionary, "the recorder," whose business it was to chronicle events and prepare memoirs of the different reigns, a "cotirt historian," as he ha~ been called ; § that such memoirs were certainly prepared in the kingdom of Persia by an authorized officer, and were afterwards preserved as stato annals,11 and, lastly, that such public documents appear to be sufficiently indicated by the very name they bear, " The book of the chronicles to the kings." There is no question, however, despite these allegations, that the second view is the correct one, and that the " Chronicles " were the com- pilations, not of state officials, but of various members of the schools of the prophets. For, to begin with, the name by which these writings are known, • The expression "unto this day," in the great majority of oases, cannot refer to the date of authorship-the time of the captivity-but belongs to a period when the southern kingdom was still in existence, and the temple was still standing. See 1 Kings viii. 8 ; ix. 13; x, 12 ; 2 Kings ii. 22; x. 27; xiv. 7; xvi. 6; u. 17, &o. t Rawlinson. t Among others, Berthold, Hiivemiok, Movers, and Ewald. § Ewald, •' History of Israel," iii. p. 270. Ewald, however, does not identify this officer with the MazkirorRemembrancer (see p. 267) as many writers do. See, e.g., Diet. Bible, Art. "King." II A similo.r institution is said to exist in modern Persia. Vide Malcolm's " History of Persia," oh. uili. l[ 1NTRODUCTION TO
and which has been thought to imply a civil origin, really means no more than this, "ths Book of ths kisto,'!I of the tima of the Kings," &c., as Keil interprets it, and by no means indicates any official archives. And, in the second place, we have no evidence in support of the view that the recorde,· or any other officer was charged with the preparation of the history of his time. The word i 1;it1;? properly means "rememlrrattcer," and he was no doubt so called, not " because he kept the memory of events alive,''* but because he reminded the king of the state affairs which required his attention. It is generally admitted t that he was "more than an annalist," but is not so well understood that in no case in which he figures in the history is he in any way connected with the public records, but always appears as the king's adnser or chancellor (cf. 2 Kings xviii. 18, 87; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 8). More- over, there are almost insuperable difficulties in the way of believing that the '' books of the Chronicles'' can have been compiled by this remem- brancer. For example, (1) there is no trace of the existence of any such functionary in the kingdom of Israel: (2) David is said to have instituted the office of "court and state scribe," but we find that David's history was recorded, not in any state annals prepared by this functionary, but in •• the book of Samuel ths seer, and in the book of Nathan ths prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer" (1 Chron. xxix. 29). Now, surely, if any such officer charged with such a duty had existed, the record of David's life would have been composed by him, and not by unofficial and irresponsible "persons. But (8) the state archives of the two kingdoms, including the memoirs-if such there were-of the du!erent kings, can hardly have escaped the sack of Samaria and the burning of Jerusalem.· It has been conjectured, indeed, that the Assyrian and Babylonian monarchs preserved the records of con- quered nations in their respective capitals, and permitted such of the exiles as had acquired their favour to have access to them,t but this, as Bahr observes, is obviously a supposition "as unfounded as it is arbitrary," and is beset with difficulties. Seeing that not only the royal palace, but also "all the great houses were burned'' (2 Kings xxv. 9), the conclusion is almost inevitable that all the publi,c records must have perished. And such records-in the kingdom of Israel, at least - had also had to run the gauntlet of intestine warfare and dissension. A dynasty cannot be changed nine times, and each time be destroyed, root and branch, without the greatest danger to the archives of sharing the same fate. That amid all the changes and chances of the two kingdoms, changes which culminated in the transportation of the two entire nations to distant lands, the state annals had been preserved and were accessible to o. historian of the time of • Diet. Bit, I Art... King." t Bee Diet. Bib., Art. " Recorder." i Btiihelin, Einleitnng, s. 129, cited by Blibr. THE BOOKS OF TRE KINGS. ti