he did not need to refer, even if he had extracted them from the public annals of the kingdom during the reign of David, because he has embodied them in their integrity in his book.
But our canonical books of Samuel and Kings are by no means to be reckoned among the sources possibly used besides the writings which are quoted. It cannot well be denied that the author of the Chronicle knew these books; but that he has used them as authorities, as de Wette, Movers, Ewald, and others think, we must, with Bertheau and Dillmann, deny. The single plausible ground which is usually brought forward to prove the use of these writings, is the circumstance that the Chronicle contains many narratives corresponding to those found in the books of Samuel and Kings, and often verbally identical with them. But that is fully accounted for by the fact that the chronicler used the same more detailed writings as the authors of the books of Samuel and Kings, and has extracted the narratives in question, partly with verbal accuracy, partly with some small alterations, from them. Against the supposition that the above-named canonical books were used by the chronicler, we may adduce the facts that the chronicle, even in those corresponding passages, differs in many ways as to names and events from the account in those books, and that it contains, on an average, more than they do, as will be readily seen on an exact comparison of the parallel sections. Other and much weaker grounds for believing that the books of Samuel and Kings were used by the chronicler, are refuted in my Handbook of Introduction, 141, 2; and in it, at 139, is to be found a synoptical arrangement of the parallel sections.
4. The Historical Character of the Chronicles.
The historic truth or credibility of the books of the Chronicle, which de Wette, in the Beitrr. zur Einleit. 1806, violently attacked, in order to get rid of the evidence of the Chronicle for the Mosaic origin of the Sinaitic legislation, is now again in the main generally recognised.[1]
- ↑ Cf. Bertheau, Com. S. xliii, and Dillmann, loc cit. The decision of the latter is as follows, S. 693: “This work has a great part of its narratives and information in common with the older canonical historical books, and very often corresponds verbally, or almost verbally, with them; but another and equally important part is peculiar to itself. This relationship was, formerly, in the time of the specially negative criticism, explained by the supposition that the chronicler had derived the information which he has in common with these books from them, and that every difference and peculiarity arose from misunderstanding, misinterpretation, a desire to ornament, intentional misrepresentation, and pure invention (so especially de Wette in his Beitrr., and Gramberg, die Chronik nach ihrem geschichtl. Karakter, 1823). The historic credibility of the Chronicle has, however, been long ago delivered from such measureless suspicions, and recognised (principally by the efforts of Keil, apologet. Versuch, 1833; Movers, die bibl. Chronik, 1834; Haevernick, in the Einleitung, 1839; and Ewald, in the Geschichte Israels). It is now again acknowledged that the chronicler has written everywhere from authorities, and that intentional fabrications or misrepresentations of the history can no more be spoken of in connection with him.” Only K. H. Graf has remained so far behind the present stage of Old Testament inquiry as to seek to revive the views of de Wette and Gramberg as to the Chronicle and the Pentateuch. For further information as to the attacks of de Wette and Gramberg, and their refutation, see my apologet. Versuche über die BB. der Chronik, 1833, and in the Handbook of Introduction, §143 and 144.
