arrived to oppose their advance in force. Such an event would quickly fade from the military recollections of Jerusalem, but might be long perpetuated as a local tradition among the shepherd class of the district where the victory was won. Thus we should have, on the one hand, a reason for its non-appearance in the earlier strata of memories embodied in Kings. On the other hand, when the South Judean families had moved northward to Jerusalem in the exilic and post-exilic days, the story would gain currency, and one can easily see how suitable it was for development into just such a religious narrative as we find in Chronicles. The raid, then, is probably a genuine tradition, but, even so, a word of caution is required. It is necessary still to consider the question whether the story is correctly associated with the time of Jehoshaphat. Perhaps, yes; but possibly several such raids took place, and the memories of them may have been confused and combined into one; or, again, the names of the original foes may have been changed into those of more recent opponents. Other important passages of this type are discussed in the notes on 2 Chr. xiii. 3—20, xiv. 9—15, xxxiii. 11—13.
One point calls for special mention. In the later chapters of 2 Chron. the Chronicler's account of the history, particularly as regards the relations of the Judean kingdom with the Edomites and Arabians to the south, is characterised by a freshness and independence which suggests that he was here relying on definite and valuable traditions (see notes pp. 257 f., 262, 280 f., 286 f., 292).
These results do not provide the complete material for an estimate of the historical value of Chronicles. To them must first be added the conclusions noted below, under B.
B.
Indirect Value.
Although the Chronicler says not one word directly of his own times, indirectly his work gives us much useful information concerning that obscure period. In very many ways
