2 Chron. xiii. 22; xxiv. 27. The LXX.,
however, does not read “Midrash” in
either case; and it is quite possible that glosses have attached
themselves to the text of Chronicles.
The last two classes are not easily
distinguished; but the additions which introduce the Levitical
system into earlier history are clearly the work of the chronicler
or his immediate predecessor, if such a predecessor be assumed, or
were found in somewhat late sources. This is also probably true of
other explanatory matter.
Cf. 2 Sam. iv. with 1 Chron. viii. 34,
also 2 Sam. vii. 7 with 1 Chron. xvii. 6, and 2 Sam. xvii. 25 with
1 Chron. ii. 17. In both these instances Chronicles preserves the
correct text.
Joel i. 15; Isa. xiii. 6. It is not
necessary here to discuss either the etymological or the
theological history of these words in their earliest usage, nor
need we do more than recall the fact that Jehovah was the term in
common use as the personal name of the God of Israel, while El was
rare and sometimes generic.
The occurrence of Caleb the son of
Jephunneh in iv, 15, vi. 56, in no way militates against this view:
the chronicler, like other redactors, is simply inserting borrowed
material without correcting it. Chelubai in ii. 9 stands for
Caleb; cf. ii. 18.
Vv. 17, 18, as they stand, do not make
sense. The second sentence of ver. 18 should be read before
“and she bare Miriam” in ver. 17.
Mered and Bithiah formed a tempting subject for the rabbis, and
gave occasion for some of their usual grotesque fancies. Mered has
been identified by them both with Caleb and Moses.
In Josh. xix. 42, xxi. 24, Aijalon is
given to Dan; in Judges i. 34 it is given to Dan, but we are told
that Amorites retained possession of it, but became tributary to
the house of Joseph; in 2 Chron. xi. 10 it is given to “Judah and Benjamin.” As a frontier town, it
frequently changed hands.
Recently a complaint was received at
the General Post-office that some newspapers sent from France had
failed to arrive. It was stated that the names of the papers
were—Il
me manque; Plusieurs; Journaux; i.e., I
am short of “Several”“Papers.”
1 Chron. xii. 1, 19. There is no
certain indication of the date of the events in xi. 10-25. The fact
that a “hold” is mentioned in xi.
16, as in xii. 8, 16, is not conclusive proof that they refer to
the same period.
2 Chron. xi. 13, 14, xxix. 34, xxx.
27, all peculiar to Chronicles. In xxx. 27 the text is doubtful;
many authorities have “the priests and the
Levites.”
So R.V. marg.; R.V. text (with which
A.V. is in substantial agreement): “There
fell of the Ethiopians so many that they could not recover
themselves”; i.e., the routed army were never
able to rally.
xv., based upon 1 Kings xv. 13-15, but
the great bulk of the chapter is peculiar to Chronicles; the
original passage from Kings is reproduced, with slight changes in
vv. 16-18.
One Hebrew manuscript is quoted as
having this reading. A.R.V., with the ordinary Masoretic text, have
“Syria”; but it is simply absurd to
suppose that a multitude from beyond the sea from Syria would first
make their appearance on the western shore of the Dead Sea.
הדרת קדש, literally, as A.R.V.,
“beauty of holiness”; i.e.,
sacred robes. Translate with R.V. marg. “praise in the beauty of holiness,” not, as
A.R.V., “praise the beauty of
holiness.”
The identification of the valley of
Berachah with the valley of Jehoshaphat, close to Jerusalem and
mentioned by Josephus, is a mere theory, quite at variance with the
topographical evidence.
The Hebrew original of the A.R.V.,
“departed without being desired,” is
as obscure as the English of our versions. The most probable
translation is, “He behaved so as to please
no one.” The A.R.V. apparently mean that no one regretted
his death.
We need not discuss in detail the
question of Ahaziah's age at his accession. The age of forty-two,
given in 2 Chron. xxii. 2, is simply impossible, seeing that his
father was only forty years old when he died. The Peshito and
Arabic versions have followed 2 Kings viii. 26, and altered
forty-two to twenty-two; and the LXX. reads twenty years. But
twenty-two years still presents difficulties. According to this
reading, Ahaziah, Jehoram's youngest son, was born when his father
was only eighteen, and Jehoram having had several sons before the
age of eighteen, had none afterwards.
xxv. 5-13, peculiar to Chronicles,
except that the account of the war with Edom is expanded from the
brief note in Kings. Cf. ver. 11b with
2 Kings xiv. 7.
In the phrase “from Samaria to Beth-horon,”“Samaria” apparently means the northern kingdom,
and not the city, i.e., from the borders of
Samaria; the chronicler has fallen into the nomenclature of his own
age.
So R.V. marg., with LXX., Targum,
Syriac and Arabic versions, Talmud, Rashi, Kimchi, and some Hebrew
manuscripts (Bertheau, i. 1). A.R.V., “had
understanding in the visions” (R.V. vision) “of God.” The difference between the two Hebrew
readings is very slight. Vv. 5-20, with the exception of the bare
fact of the leprosy are peculiar to Chronicles.
The reference to the wall of Ophel is
peculiar to Chronicles: indeed, Ophel is only mentioned in
Chronicles and Nehemiah; it was the southern spur of Mount Moriah
(Neh. iii. 26, 27). Vv. 3b-7 are also peculiar to
Chronicles.
xxix. 3-xxxi. 21 (the cleansing of the
Temple and accompanying feast, Passover, organisation of the
priests and Levites) are substantially peculiar to Chronicles,
though in a sense they expand 2 Kings xviii. 4-7, because they
fulfil the commandments which Jehovah commanded Moses.
According to 2 Kings xviii. 10,
Samaria was not taken till the sixth year of Hezekiah's reign. It
is not necessary for an expositor of Chronicles to attempt to
harmonise the two accounts.
xxx. 14; cf. 2 Kings xviii. 4. The
chronicler omits the statement that Hezekiah destroyed Moses's
brazen serpent, which the people had hitherto worshipped. His
readers would not have understood how this corrupt worship survived
the reforms of pious kings and priests who observed the law of
Moses.
A.R.V., with Masoretic text,
“the priests the Levites”; LXX.,
Vulg. Syr., “the priests and the
Levites.” The former is more likely to be correct. The verse
is partly an echo of Deut. xxvi. 15, so that the chronicler
naturally uses the Deuteronomic phrase “the
priests the Levites”; but he probably does so unconsciously,
without intending to make any special claim for the Levites: hence
I have omitted the word in the text.