as a whole, who believed that their institution, duties, and privileges generally were of Mosaic origin, whilst to David they ascribed the particular arrangements in connection with the Temple and especially the development of the choral services. The attempt to express their faith in concrete genealogical form was inevitable and indeed commendable. But the actual facts regarding the growth of the Levitical system (see the Additional Note at the end of this chapter, pp. 51 f.) were so very different from this theory that the artificiality of the lists is apparent to modern analysis, despite the zeal and ingenuity with which they have been compiled. Some points which indicate the unhistorical nature of the genealogies, together with questions raised by the internal structure of the chapter, will be indicated in the head-notes to the several sections. It must not be thought that such inconsistencies were equally (if at all) present to the mind of the Chronicler. For him the actual existence of the pedigree uniting the priests and Levites of his day with Aaron and finally with Levi was an axiom of thought; the one problem was to trace it out: and he was not restrained in his search by the spirit of scientific caution which is second nature to us. Thus in the ancestry of the singers (vv. 34—47), where the lack of information to supply the necessary links in the genealogy was acutely felt, Curtis (p. 135) points out that current genealogical matter seems to have been naïvely pressed into this particular service on the ground of the identity of even a single name! Great allowance must be made for the Chronicler and his contemporaries. Even if part of the lists was consciously fabricated, that proves no more than that he was a man of his age and under the dominance of a theory. As Torrey remarks (Ezra Studies, p. 65), "he was not writing history for us but for the good of his people." There is no case for a charge of religious insincerity. Rather the opposite is true, and his failings as a historian constantly reveal the measure of his faith as a religious man. He was so profoundly sure of the truth of the doctrine that its presuppositions, if not discoverable in historical records, might (he felt) legitimately be conjectured. For further information showing how natural and how free was the manipulation of genealogies in ancient times reference may be made to the Ency. Brit.11, s.v. Genealogy, or to McLennan, Studies in Ancient History (2nd ser., 1896), ch. ix.
1—15. In the finished system of the Jewish hierarchy, the Levitical order is found to be in three main divisions, "families," who in the prevailing fashion, believed themselves to be descended from the sons of Levi; Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. In vv. 1—3 this view is expressed, and the connection is traced from Levi to Aaron, the first of the traditional line of high-priests, which in vv. 4—15 is given through Zadok down to the time of the Captivity. (1) The intention of the list in vv. 4—15 is clear. It is given to declare the legitimacy of Jehozadak the high-priest who went into exile at the fall of Jerusalem and was accounted the father of Jeshua the high-priest of the Return (see Ezr. iii. 2, etc.; Neh. xii. 26; Hag. i. 1; Zech. vi. 11). Thus upon Jehozadak's legitimacy depended the legitimacy of the post-exilic priesthood of Jerusalem. (2) The mechanical nature of the list
