Online Encyclopedia

Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.

CHRONICLES, BOOKS OF

Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V06, Page 301 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
» Make a correction to this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Spread the word: del.icio.us del.icio.us it!

See also:

CHRONICLES, BOOKS OF , two Old Testament books of the See also:Bible. The name is derived from Chronicon, first suggested by Position See also:Jerome as a rendering of the See also:title which they See also:bear in and date. the See also:Hebrew See also:Canon, viz. Events of the Times. The full Hebrew title would be See also:Book of Events of the Times, and this again appears to have been a designation commonly applied to See also:special histories in the more definite shape—Events of the Times of See also:King See also:David, or the like (1 Chron. See also:xxvii. 24; Esth. x. 2, &c.). The See also:Greek translators divided the See also:long book into two, and adopted the title IlapaXeciroµeva, Things omitted [scil. in the other See also:historical books]. The book of Chronicles begins with See also:Adam and ends abruptly in the See also:middle of See also:Cyrus's See also:decree of restoration, which reappears See also:complete at the beginning of See also:Ezra. A closer examination of those parts of Ezra and See also:Nehemiah which are not extracted from earlier documents or See also:original See also:memoirs leads to the conclusion that Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah was originally one See also:work, displaying throughout the peculiarities of See also:language and thought of a single editor, who, however, cannot be Ezra himself as tradition would have it. Thus the fragmentary See also:close of 2 Chronicles marks the disruption of a previously-existing continuity,—due, presumably, to the fact that in the See also:gradual compilation of the Canon the See also:necessity for incorporating in the See also:Holy Writings an See also:account of the See also:establishment of the See also:post-See also:Exile See also:theocracy was See also:felt, before it was thought desirable to supplement See also:Samuel and See also:Kings by adding a second See also:history of the See also:period before the Exile. Hence Chronicles is the last book of the Hebrew Bible, following the book of Ezra-Nehemiah, which properly is nothing else than the sequel of Chronicles. Of the authorship of Chronicles we know only what can be determined by See also:internal See also:evidence.

The See also:

style of the language, and also the position of the book in the Jewish Canon, See also:stamp the book as one of the latest in the Old Testament, but See also:lead to no exact determination of the date.' In 1 Chron. See also:xxix. 7, which refers to the See also:time of David, a sum of See also:money is reckoned by darics, which certainly implies that the author wrote after this See also:Persian See also:coin had been long current in See also:Judaea. In 1 Chron. iii. 19 sqq. the descendants of Zerubbabel seem to be reckoned to six generations (the See also:Septuagint reads it so as to give as many as eleven generations), and this agrees with the See also:suggestion that Hattush (See also:verse 22), who belongs to the See also:fourth See also:generation from Zerubbabel, was a contemporary of Ezra (Ezra viii. 2). Thus the compiler lived at least two generations after Ezra. With this it accords that in Nehemiah five generations of high priests are enumerated from See also:Joshua (xii. to seq.), and that the last name is that of Jaddua, who, according to See also:Josephus, was a contemporary of See also:Alexander the See also:Great (333 B.C.). That the compiler wrote after the fall of the Persian See also:monarchy has been argued by See also:Ewald and others from the use of the title king of See also:Persia (2 Chron. See also:xxxvi. 23), and from the reference made in Neh. xii. 22 to See also:Darius III. (336-332 B.C.). A date some time after 332 B.C. is now accepted by most See also:modern critics.

See further EZRA AND NEHEMIAH. What seems to be certain and important for a right estimate of ' See the lists in See also:

Driver, Lit. of Old Test. pp. 502 sqq.; and the exhaustive See also:summary by Fr. See also:Brown in See also:Hastings' See also:Diet. Bible, i. 289 sqq.the book is that the writer lived a considerable time after Ezra, and stood entirely under the See also:influence of the religious institutions of the new theocracy. This standpoint determined the nature of his See also:interest in the See also:early history of his See also:people. The true importance of Hebrew history had always centred in the fact that this See also:petty nation was the people of Yahweh, the spiritual See also:God. The tragic interest which distinguishes the See also:annals of See also:Israel from the forgotten history of See also:Moab or See also:Damascus lies wholly in that long contest which finally vindicated the reality of spiritual things and the supremacy of Yahweh's purpose, in the See also:political ruin of the nation which was the faithless depository of these sacred truths. After the return from the Exile it was impossible to write the history of Israel's fortunes otherwise than in a spirit of religious See also:pragmatism. But within the limits of the religious conception of the See also:plan and purpose of the Hebrew history more than one point of view might be taken up. The book of Kings looks upon the history in the spirit of the prophets—in that spirit which is still echoed by Zech. i.

5 seq., but which had become See also:

extinct before the Chronicler wrote. The New See also:Jerusalem of Ezra was organized as a See also:municipality and a See also:church, not as a nation. The centre of religious See also:life was no longer the living prophetic word but the ordinances of the See also:Pentateuch and the liturgical service of the See also:sanctuary. The religious vocation of Israel was no longer See also:national but ecclesiastical or municipal, and the historical continuity of the nation was vividly realized only within the walls of Jerusalem and the courts of the See also:Temple, in the See also:solemn See also:assembly and stately ceremonial of a feast See also:day. These influences naturally operated most strongly on those who were officially attached to the sanctuary. To a Levite, even more than to other See also:Jews, the history of Israel meant above all things the history of Jerusalem, of the Temple, and of the Temple ordinances. Now the writer of Chronicles betrays on every See also:page his essentially Levitical See also:habit of mind. It even seems possible from a close See also:attention to his descriptions of sacred ordinances to conclude that his special interests are those of a See also:common Levite rather than of. a See also:priest, and that of all Levitical functions he is most partial to those of the singers, a member of whose guild he may have been. From the standpoint of the post-exilic See also:age, the older delineation of the history of Israel, especially in the books of Samuel and Kings, could not but appear to be deficient in some directions, while in other respects its narrative seemed superfluous or open to misunderstanding, as for example by recording, and that without condemnation, things inconsistent with the later post-exilic See also:law. The history of the ordinances of See also:worship holds a very small See also:place in the older See also:record. Jerusalem and the Temple have not that central place in the book of Kings which they occupied in the minds of the Jewish community after the Exile. Large sections of the old history are devoted to the See also:religion and politics of the ten tribes, which are altogether unintelligible and uninteresting when measured by a strictly Levitical See also:standard; and in See also:general the whole problems and struggles of the prophetic period turn on points which had ceased to be See also:cardinal in the life of the New Jerusalem, which was no longer called to decide between the claims of the Word of Yahweh and the exigencies of political affairs and social customs, and which could not comprehend that men absorbed in deeper spiritual contests had no leisure for the niceties of Levitical legislation.

Thus there seemed to be See also:

room for a new history, which should confine itself to matters still interesting to the theocracy of See also:Zion, keeping Jerusalem and the Temple in the foreground, and developing the divine pragmatism of the history, not so much with reference to the prophetic word as to the fixed legislation of the Pentateuch, so that the whole narrative might be made to See also:teach that the See also:glory of Israel lies in the observance of the divine law and See also:ritual. For the See also:sake of systematic completeness the book begins with Adam, as is the See also:custom with later See also:Oriental writers. But there was nothing to add to the Pentateuch, and the period contents. from See also:Moses to David contained little that served the purpose. The early history is therefore contracted into a See also:series of tribal and priestly genealogies, which were doubtless by no means the least interesting See also:part of the work at a time when every See also:Character of the wont. Israelite was concerned to prove the purity of his Hebrew descent (cp. Ezra ii. 59, 62). Commencing abruptly (after some Benjamite genealogies) with the See also:death of See also:Saul, the history becomes See also:fuller and runs parallel with the books of Samuel and Kings. The limitations of the compiler's interest in past times appear in the omission, among other particulars, of David's reign in See also:Hebron, of the disorders in his See also:family and the revolt of See also:Absalom, of the circumstances of See also:Solomon's See also:accession, and of many details as to the See also:wisdom and splendour of that See also:sovereign, as well as of his fall into See also:idolatry. In the later history the ten tribes are quite neglected (" Yahweh is not with Israel," 2 Chron. See also:xxv. 7), and political affairs in See also:Judah receive attention, not in proportion to their See also:intrinsic importance, but according as they serve to exemplify God's help to the obedient and His chastisement of the rebellious. That the compiler is always unwilling to speak of, the misfortunes of See also:good rulers is not necessarily to be ascribed to a deliberate suppression of truth, but shows that the book was throughout composed not in purely historical interests, but with a view to inculcating a single See also:practical See also:lesson.

The more important additions to the older narrative consist partly of statistical lists (1 Chron, xii.), partly of full details on points connected with the history of the sanctuary and the great feasts or the See also:

archaeology of the Levitical See also:ministry (1 Chron. xiii., xv., xvi., xxii.-xxix.; 2 Chron. xxix.-xxxi., &c.), and partly of narratives of victories and defeats, of sins and punishments, of obedience and its See also:reward, which could be made to point a See also:plain religious lesson in favour of faithful observance of the law (2 Chron. xiii., xiv. 9 sqq.; xx., xxi. rx sqq., &c.). The See also:minor See also:variations of Chronicles from the books of Samuel and Kings are analogous in principle to the larger additions and omissions, so that the whole work has a consistent and well-marked character, presenting the history in quite a different See also:perspective from that of the old narrative. The chronicler makes frequent reference to earlier histories which he cites by a great variety of names. That the names " Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah," "Book of See also:Sources. the Kings of Judah and Israel," " Book of the Kings of Israel," and "Affairs of the Kings of Israel" (2 Chron. xxxiii. 18), refer to a single work is not disputed. Under one or other title this book is cited some ten times. Whether it is identical with the See also:Midrash' of the book of Kings (2 Chron. See also:xxiv. 27) is not certain. That the work so often cited is not the Biblical book of the same name is See also:manifest from what is said of its contents. It must have been quite an extensive work, for among other things it contained genealogical See also:statistics (1 Chron. ix. I), and it incorporated certain older prophetic writings—in particular, the debarim (" words " or " history ") of See also:Jehu the son of Hanani (2 Chron. xx.

34) and possibly the See also:

vision of See also:Isaiah (2 Chron. xxxii. 32). Where the chronicler does not cite this comprehensive work at the close of a king's reign he generally refers to some special authority which bears the name of a See also:prophet or seer (2 Chron. ix. 29; xii. 15, &c.). But the book of the Kings and a special prophetic See also:writing are not cited for the same reign. It is therefore probable that in other cases than those of Isaiah and Jehu the writings of, or rather, about the prophets which are cited in Chronicles were known only as parts of the great " book of the Kings." Even the genealogical lists may have been derived from that work (1 Chron. ix. 1), though for these other materials may have been accessible. The two See also:chief sources of the canonical book of Kings were entitled Annals (" events of the times ") of the Kings of Israel and Judah respectively (see KINGS). That the lost source of the Chronicles was not See also:independent of these See also:works appears probable both from the nature of the See also:case and from the close and often verbal See also:parallelism between many sections of the two Biblical narratives. But while the canonical book of Kings refers to See also:separate sources for the See also:northern and See also:southern kingdoms, the source of Chronicles was a history of the two kingdoms combined, and so, no doubt, was a more See also:recent work which in great measure was doubtless based upon older annals. Yet it 1 R.V.

" commentary," properly, an edifying religious work, a didactic or homiletic exposition. A distinct tendency to Midrash is found even here and there in the earlier books.contained also See also:

matter not derived from these works, for it is See also:pretty clear from 2 Kings xxi. 17 that the Annals of the Kings of Judah gave no account of See also:Manasseh's repentance, which, accgrding to 2 Chron. xxxiii. 18, 19, was narrated in the great book of the Kings of Israel. It was the See also:opinion of Bertheau, Kell and others, that the parallelisms of Chronicles with Samuel and Kings are sufficiently explained by the ultimate common source from which both narratives See also:drew. But most critics hold that the chronicler also drew directly from the canonical books of Samuel and Kings as he apparently did from the Pentateuch. This opinion is not improbable, as the earlier books of the Old Testament cannot have been unknown in his age; and the See also:critical See also:analysis of the canonical book of Kings is advanced enough to enable us to say that in some of the parallel passages the chronicler uses words which were not written in the annals but by one of the compilers of Kings himself. In particular, Chronicles agrees with Kings in those See also:short notes of the moral character of individual monarchs which can hardly be ascribed to an earlier See also:hand than that of the redactor of the latter book .2 For the See also:criticism of the book it is important to See also:institute a careful comparison of Chronicles with the parallel narratives in Samuel-Kings? It is found that in the cases where Treatment Chronicles directly contradicts the earlier books there of history. are few in which an impartial historical See also:judgment will decide in favour of the later account, and in any point that touches difference of usage between its time and that of the old monarchy it is of no authority. The characteristic feature of the post-exilic age was the re-shaping of older tradition in the interest of parenetic and practical purposes, and for this See also:object a certain freedom of See also:literary See also:form was always allowed to See also:ancient historians. The typical speeches in Chronicles are of little value for the periods to which they relate, and where they are inconsistent with the evidence from earlier writings or contain inherent improbabilities are scarcely of historical See also:worth. According to the See also:ordinary See also:laws of See also:research, the book, being written at a time long posterior to the events it records, can have only a secondary value, although that is no See also:reason why here and there valuable material should not have been preserved.

But the general picture which it gives of life under the old monarchy cannot have the same value for us as the records of the book of Kings. On the other hand, it is of distinct value for the history of its time, and presents a clear picture of the spirit of the age. The " ecclesiastical See also:

chronicle of Jerusalem," as See also:Reuss has aptly called it, represents the culminating point (as far as the O. T. Canon is concerned) of that theory of which examples recur in See also:Judges, Samuel and Kings, and this treatment of history in accordance with religious or ethical doctrines finds its continuation in the didactic aims which characterize the later non-canonical writings (cf. See also:JUBILEES; MIDRASH). The most prominent examples of disagreement with earlier sources may be briefly noticed. Thus, it would appear that the book has confused See also:Jehoiakim and See also:Jehoiachin (2 Chron. xxxvi. 5-8) and has statements which directly conflict with 2 Sam. xxi. 19 (I Chron. xx. 5; see See also:GOLIATH), and I Kings ix. to seq. (2 Chron. viii.

2); it has changed See also:

Hezekiah's submission (2 Kings xviii.) into a brave resistance (2 Chron. xxxii. 1-8) and ignored the humiliating See also:payment of See also:tribute by this king and by See also:Joash (2 Kings xii. 18; 2 Chron. xxiv. 23 sqq.).4 That Satan, and not Yahweh incited 2 The problem of the sources is one of considerable intricacy and cannot be discussed here; the introduction to the commentaries of Benzinger and Kittel (see Bibliography below) should be consulted. The questions depend partly upon the view taken of the origin and structure of the book of Kings (q.v.) and partly upon the results of historical criticism. s " A careful comparison of Chronicles with Samuel and Kings is a striking object lesson in ancient historical See also:composition. It is an almost indispensable introduction to the criticism of the Pentateuch and the older historical works" (W. H. See also:Bennett, Chronicles,p.2o seq.). ' But xxxii. 1-8 may preserve a tradition of the account of the See also:city's wonderful deliverance mentioned in Kings (see HEZEKIAH), and the details of the invasion of Judah in the time of Joash differ essentially from those in the earlier source. Even 2 Cron. viii.

2 cannot be regarded as a deliberate alteration since the writer does not appear to be quoting from i Kings ix. to sqq. (the two passages should be carefully compared), and his view of Solomon's greatness is already supported by allusions in the earlier but extremely composite sources in Kings (see SOLOMON). David to number Israel (1 Chron. xxi.; '2 Sam. xxiv. I) accords with later theological development. A particular tendency to arrange history according to a See also:

mechanical See also:rule appears in the See also:constant endeavour to show that recompense and retribution followed immediately on good or See also:bad conduct, and especially on obedience or disobedience to prophetic See also:advice. Thus, the invasion of Shishak (see REHOnoAu) becomes a typical See also:romance (2 Chron. xii.) ; the illness of See also:Asa is preceded by a denunciation for relying upon See also:Syria, and the See also:chronology is changed to bring the See also:fault near the See also:punishment (z Chron. xv. seq.). The See also:ships which See also:Jehoshaphat made were wrecked at Ezion-See also:geber because he had allied him-self with See also:Ahaziah of Israel despite prophetic warning (2 Chron. xx. 35 sqq.; I Kings xxii. 48; cf. similarly the addition in 2 Chron. xix. 1-3), and the later writer supposes that the " Tarshish ships " (large vessels such as were used in trading with Spain—cf. See also:India-men ") built in the Red See also:Sea were intended for the Mediterranean See also:trade (cf. 2 Chron. ix.

21 with I Kings x. 22). The Edomite revolt under See also:

Jehoram of Judah becomes the See also:penalty for the king's See also:apostasy (2 Chron. xxi. 10-20; 2 Kings viii. 22), Ahaziah was slain because of his friendship with Jehoram (2 Chron. xxii. 7). The Aramaean invasion in the time of Joash of Judah was a punishment for the See also:murder of Jehoiada's son (2 Chron. xxiv.; 2 Kings xii.). Amaziah, of ter defeating See also:Edom (2 Chron. xxv., esp. verses 19-2I ; see 2 Kings xiv. to seq.), worshipped See also:strange gods, for which he was defeated by Joash of Israel, and subsequently met with his death (2 Chron. xxv. 27; 2 Kings xiv. 19). See also:Uzziah's leprosy is attributed to a ritual fault (2 Chron. See also:xxvi. 4 seq., 16 sqq.

; cf. 2 Kings xv. 3-5 ; see UzzIAH). The defeat and death of the good king See also:

Josiah came through disobedience to the Divine will (2 Chron. See also:xxxv. 21 seq. ; see 2 Kings See also:xxiii. 26 sqq.). In addition to such supplementary See also:information, another tendency of the chronicler is the alteration of narratives that do not agree with the later doctrines of the uniformity of religious institutions before and after the exile. Thus, the See also:reformation of Josiah has been thrust back from his eighteenth to his twelfth See also:year (when he was nineteen years old) apparently because it was felt that so good a king would not have tolerated the abuses of the See also:land for so long a period,' but the result of this is to leave an See also:interval of ten years between his See also:conversion and the subsequent See also:act of repentance (2 Chron. xxxiv. 3-6; 2 Kings xxii. seq.). References to Judaean idolatry are omitted (1 Kings xiv. 22-24; see 2 Chron. xii.

14; 2 Kings xviii. 4; 2 Chron. xxxi. I) or abbreviated (2 Kings xxiii. 1-2o; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 29-33); and if the earlier detailed accounts of Judaean heathenism were repulsive, so the tragic account of the See also:

fate of Jerusalem was a painful subject upon which the chronicler's age did not care to dwell (contrast 2 Kings xxiv. 8-xxv. with the brief 2 Chron. xxxvi. 9-21). At an age when the high places were regarded as idolatrous it was considered only natural that the good kings should not have tolerated them. So 2 Chron. xiv. 5, xvii. 6 (from unknown sources) contradict i Kings xv. 14, xxii.

43 (that Asa and Jehoshaphat did not demolish the high places), whereas xv. 16-18, xx. 31-34, are quoted from the book of Kings and give the older view The example is an See also:

illustration of the See also:simple methods of early compilers. Further, it is assumed that the high place at See also:Gibeon was a legitimate sanctuary (2 Chron. i.'3-6; I Kings iii. 2-4; I Chron. xxi. 28-30; 2 Sam. xxiv.); that the See also:ark was See also:borne not by priests (1 Kings viii. 3) but by See also:Levites (2 Chron. v. 4), in accordance with post-exilic usage; and that the Levites, and not the See also:foreign bodyguard of the temple, helped to place Joash on the See also:throne (2 Chron. xxiii.)? Conversely r Chron. xv. 12 seq. explains xiii. 10 (2 Sam. vi. 7) on the view that TJzza was not a Levite, hence the See also:catastrophe.

Throughout it is assumed that the Levitical organization had been in existence from the days of David, to whom its See also:

foundation is ascribed. In connexion with the See also:installation of the ark consider-able space is devoted to the arrangements for the See also:maintenance of the temple .service, upon which the earlier books are silent, and elaborate notices of the part played by the Levites and singers give expression to a view of the history of the monarchy which the book of Kings does not See also:share.' Along with the exceptional interest taken in Levitical and priestly lists should be noticed the characteristic preference for genealogies. Particular prominence is given to the tribe and kings of Judah (1 Chron. ii.-iv.), and to the priests and Levites (1 Chron. vi., xv. sq., xxiii.-xxv.; with ix. 1-34 cf. Neh. xi.). The historical value of these lists is very unequal; a careful study of the names often proves the lateness of the source, although an appreciation of the principles of genealogies sometimes reveals important historical information; see See also:CALEB, See also:GENEALOGY, JUDAH. But the Levitical See also:system as it appears in its most complete form in ' But that this was not the invention of the chronicler appears possible from Jeri xxv. 3. Similarly, Hezekiah's reforms are dated in his first year (2 Chron. xxix. 3), against all See also:probability; see HEZEIZIAH (end). ' 2 Chron. xxiii. is an excellent specimen of the redaction to which older narratives were submitted; cf. also 2 Chron. xxiv. 5 seq.

(2 Kings xi. 4 seq.), xxxiv. 9-14 (2 Kings xxii.), xxxv. I-19 (2 Kings xxiii. 21-23). ' Passages in the books of Samuel and Kings which might appear to point to the contrary require careful examination; they prove to be glosses or'interpolations, or are relatively See also:

late as a whole.30! Chronicles is the result of the development of earlier schemes, of which some traces are still preserved in Chronicles itself and in Ezra-Nehemiah. (See further LEYITES.) The tendency of See also:numbers to grow is one which must always be kept in view—cf. I Chron. xviii. 4, xix. 18 (2 Sam. viii. 4 [but see LXX.], x.

18), i Chron. xxi. 5, 25 (2 Sam. xxiv, 9, 24) ; consequently little importance can be attached to details which appear to be exaggerated (1 Chron. v. 21, xii., xxii. 14: 2 Chron. xiii. 3, 17), and are found to be quite in accordance with similar peculiarities else-where (Num. xxxi. 32 seq.; Judg. xx. 2, 21, 25). But when See also:

allowance is made for all the above tendencies of the late post-exilic age, there remains a certain amount of additional matter in Chronicles which may have been derived from relatively old sources. These items are of purely political or See also:personal nature and contain several details which taken by themselves have every See also:appearance of genuineness. Where there can be no suspicion of such " tendency " as has been noticed above there is less ground for See also:scepticism, and it must be remembered that the earlier books contain only a portion of the material to which the compilers had See also:access. Hence it may well happen that the details which unfortunately cannot be checked were ultimately derived from sources as reputable as those in the books of Samuel, Kings, &c. As examples may be cited See also:Rehoboam's buildings, &c (2 Chron. xi.

5-12, 18 sqq.); See also:

Jeroboam's attack upon See also:Abijah (2 Chron. xiii., cf. 1 Kings xv. 7); the invasion of Zerah in Asa's reign (2 Chron. xiv.; see Asa); Jehoshaphat's See also:wars and judicial See also:measures (2 Chron. xvii. xx.; see 1 Kings xxii. 45); Jehoram's family (2 Chron. xxi. 2-4); relations between Jehoiada and Joash (2 Chron. xxiv. 3, 15 sqq.); conflicts between See also:Ephraim and Judah (2 Chron. xxv. 6-13); wars of Uzziah and Jotham (2 Chron. xxvi. seq.); events in the reign of See also:Ahaz (2 Chron. See also:xxviii. 8-15, 18 seq.); reforms of Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxix. sqq., cf. Jeri xxvi. 19) ; Manasseh's captivity, repentance and buildings (2 Chron. xxxiii. 10-2o; see 2 Kings xxi. and MANASSEH); the death of Josiah (2 Chron. xxxv. 20-25).

In addition to this reference may be made to such tantalizing statements as those in 1 Chron. il. 23 (R.V.), iv. 34-41, v. 10, 18-22, vii. 2I seq., viii. 13, xii. 15 examples of the See also:

kind of tradition, national and private, upon which writers could draw. Although in their See also:present form the additional narratives are in the chronicler's style, it is not necessary to deny an older traditional See also:element which may have been preserved in sources now lost to us.4 !'- BIBLIOGRAPHY.—Robertson See also:Smith's See also:article in the 9th ed. of the Ency. Brit. was modified by his later views in Old Test. in the Jewish Church', pp. 140-148. Recent literature is summarized by S. R.

Driver in his revision of Smith's article in Ency. Bib. and in his Lit. of Old Test., and by F. Brown in Hastings' Diet. Bib. (a very comprehensive article). Many parts of the book offer a very hard task to the expositor, especially the genealogies, where to other troubles are added the extreme corruption and many variations of the proper names in the versions; on these see the articles in the Ency. Bib. Valuable contributions to the exegesis of the book will be found in See also:

Wellhausen's Prolegomena (Eng. trans.), pp. 171-227; Benzinger in See also:Marti's Hand-Kommentar (1901); Kittel in Sacred Books of the Old Test. (1895), History of the See also:Hebrews, ii. 224 sqq. (1896), and in Nowack's Hand-Kommentar (1902).

W. H. Bennett in Expositor's Bible (1894), W. E. See also:

Barnes in See also:Cambridge Bible (1899), and HarveysJellie in the See also:Century Bible (1906), are helpful. Among more recent investigations are those of Howorth, Proc. See also:Soc. of Bibl. Archael. xxvii. 267-278 (Chronicles a late See also:translation from the Aramaic). (W. R. S.; S.

A.

End of Article: CHRONICLES, BOOKS OF

Additional information and Comments

There are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML.
Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.

Links to articles and home page are always encouraged.

[back]
CHRONICLE (from Gr. Xpovos, time) 		[next]
CHRONOGRAPH

Site © 2006 - Net Industries