the name given to two books of the Old Testament, standing thirteenth and fourteenth in our English collection, but variously placed in the lists of the Masorets, Talmudists, and Fathers. Eichhorn (Einleitung §7) and De Wette (Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, Bd. i. 247), with many others in recent times, contend, from the mention of Zacharias, son of Barachias, in Matt. xxiii. 35. (whom they identify with Ze- Chronicles, chariah, son of Jehoiada, in 2 Chron. xxiv. 19-23), that they must have stood last in the order of the canonical Scriptures, because thus alone could the two events there mentioned be pointed out as conspicuous landmarks, inclusive of all Old Testament martyrology. The difficulties, however, which beset the interpretation of both passages—the definitely marked chronology of the martyrdom in the Old Testament, with the obvious latitude required by the combination in the New—render this objection of comparatively little force. In Hebrew the Chronicles have the title of Words of the Days or Journals, and form as their internal character sufficiently demonstrates, one book; but in the Alexandrine version they form two books under the name Paraleipomena or things omitted, a title which recognises them as standing in a merely supplementary relation to the previous histories. The name of Chronicles does not remount beyond the time of Jerome, and is obviously less correct than the Alexandrine designation.

The Book of Chronicles (for we shall speak of them as one) opens with a variety of lists, principally genealogical; but these are neither complete nor coextensive with the Jewish tribes, Dan and Zebulon being omitted, while peculiar prominence is given to Benjamin. After these it gives the history of David, entirely harmonizing with the earlier account of Samuel, but regarding it from a more purely theocratic point of view. From the establishment of the monarchy under David it narrates the increasing glory of the Jewish kingdom under Solomon, and traces its decline in that last and most vital of the two branches into which it was at his death divided, viz. the kingdom of Judah. This latter part of the history is continued after the fall of Israel, and with particular reference to the vicissitudes in the history of Jewish worship. The narrative is brought down till after the exile; and one of the genealogies (1 Chron. iii. 19-24, which, however, Eichhorn, Dahler, Jahn, and Keil regard as a later addition) seems to be continued till the time of Alexander.

The comparatively late origin of the book of Chronicles is as strongly marked in the enfeebled Aramaic colouring which everywhere overshadows the diction as by the chronological notes which are to be found in the narrative. The same inference may be allowed from the special jealousy in behalf of sacerdotal institutions which the writer manifests, and which is evidently in keeping with the whole tone of the later prophetic denunciations. In regard to the authorship of the book, the invariable Jewish tradition is in favour of Ezra, and this is generally regarded as sufficiently borne out by the peculiarities of its style and idiom, and as directly shown in the obvious connection subsisting between the close of the narrative in the Chronicles and the opening of the book which bears his name. Several recent critics, however, partly on historical and partly on literary considerations, attribute it to some unknown author, who is in all probability to be found in the priesthood. The sources from which the materials have been derived are incidentally given in the record itself, and comprehend a great variety of books which have not been admitted into the canon. Some have denied that the author drew any information from the previous historical books; but this has been generally conceded, and it seems difficult otherwise to account for the marked similarity which obtains between them.

The most important subject of debate in regard to the book of the Chronicles, is that which affects the integrity of the text and the accuracy of the history. One or other of these is surrendered by either of two parties; those who uphold the historical accuracy of the record deny the immaculate Chronicles, integrity of the text; while those who uphold the integrity of the text, as a necessary consequence, impeach the historical accuracy of the record. A third party who, in a narrative so unmistakably one in style and spirit, seek by a process of delicate criticism to eliminate the spurious additions of later hands, have by the inconsistency of their results signalized the worthlessness and failure of the scheme. As these are questions of purely historical criticism, in which ethical considerations find no place, it is idle to appeal to the consentient voice of the synagogue and the church as furnishing any ground of decision in the case; and thus it is unnecessary here to give any details in regard to the exegetical history of the book. The textual corruption postulated on the one hand, and the historical inaccuracy postulated on the other, have varied greatly in amount at different epochs, and are always in striking disproportion. The former is gradually subsiding to a minimum of some six or seven instances—most of them arising immediately from the delicacies of Hebrew orthography and numeration—while under the pressure of the destructive criticism which has long prevailed abroad, the former has reached a maximum so largely aspersing the general character of the book that it were an easier task to estimate the small residuum of accuracy than the mass of error which it contains. To arrive at this latter result the fragmentary and disjointed character of the book is wholly overlooked, and every chasm is unhesitatingly reckoned an inaccuracy, every variation in statement from the earlier books a deviation from truth, every retrenchment an apologetic omission, and every addition an edifying gloss. (See De Wette's Introduction to the Canonical Books of the Old Testament, who on this side of the question may be said to have exhausted the subject.) But this is not all; critics of this class have gone a step further, and regard the inaccuracy as systematic and designed. Applying the ex cathedra principle (who profits by the fraud?) they find the key to all the corrections, retrenchments, and additions in the growing influence and arrogance of the priesthood who sought to consolidate and aggrandize the power of their order by thus clumsily exaggerating their influence on the previous history of the nation. For this purpose they, or the writer who represents them, have endeavoured to throw a sacerdotal colouring over every transaction, concealing everything that would lower the orthodox or exalt the idolatrous kings in popular estimation, overstating the respective numbers of the tribes, and values of the offerings to the temple. Against this hypothesis it is enough to plead—independent of the monstrosity of the supposition which it necessarily involves, that the whole Jewish Levitical system was the work of time and chance and personal intrigue—the entire absence of that superficial accuracy which invariably marks all such disingenuous productions, and the ease with which the seeming contradictions, with the exception of a very few otherwise readily accounted for, can be reconciled. (See this ably shown in Dr Samuel Davidson's Sacred Hermeneutics developed and applied.) Besides this, the scope and style of the book admits of a higher and truer explanation. Psychologically it stands in immediate connection with the mission of the ecclesiastical reformer who was its author, and historically with the reforms which he was instrumental in executing; while as the last of the genealogical records it served at once to fix the line and prepare the way of the last and greatest priesthood.