413. GRAF sums up his conclusion as follows, p.193.

The source, therefore, from which, besides the real basis of his work, the canonical Books of Kings, C drew for the most part the notices which are not found in that work, and which, with a view to his object, he more or less freely used and manipulated, appears to have been a later edition of the 'Journals' which had been used by the writer of Kings for the history which he composed in a prophetical tone and spirit. There is not the least sign that C had any other source at his command. . . . On some portions, indeed, of the history of the Kings the Journals' seem neither in their older nor yet in their younger form to have contained any more than we read in our present Books of Kings, on which account those portions are not detailed at greater length either in Kings or in Chronicles. Thus, for instance, about the conspiracy against Athaliah C had nothing more before him than the account in 2K.xi, which itself seems to have been extracted verbally from the older 'Journals,' as appears from its peculiar phraseology; and he was obliged to treat it in his own manner in order to adapt it to the views of his own time.

414. But the question still remains whether C had any such work at all before him,-whether he had anything but the canonical Books of Kings and some post-Captivity book of genealogies, from which he has derived some of his lists in 1Ch.— whether he did not merely follow the lead of the writer of Kings, comp.2Ch.xxv.26, xxvii.7, xxviii. 26, with 2K.xiv. 18, xv.36, xvi.19, and refer to an older-but in C's case supposititious-authority for additional information, merely to give a greater appearance of historical value to his narrative, just exactly as the writer of Esther does when he says with reference to Mordecai, x.2

'And all the affairs of his power and might, and the declaration of Mordecai's greatness, whereunto the King advanced him, are they not written in the Journals of the Kings of Media and Persia?'

In xxvi.22, indeed, he seems to be referring to another distinct work

And the rest of the affairs of Uzziah, the former and the latter, did Isaiah the Prophet, the son of Amoz, write '

2Kings; comp. the similar phrases copied inadvertently in v.9(1K.viii.8), viii.8 (1K.ix.21), x.19(1K.xii.19), xxi.10(2K.viii.22). But see xx.26, where the phrase is not copied, but used to explain the name of a place in a fictitious story manifestly of C's own composition.

the form of which expression differs from all which C employs elsewhere, and implies, says GRAF, p.193, that he himself knew this work only by name, and did not suppose it to be easily accessible to his reader.' But, perhaps, C only took it for granted that Isaiah must or might have written such a work.

415. In fact, when we observe that the main additions which C has made to the story in Kings are undoubtedly the product of his own imagination-that he deliberately modifies and perverts that story in various places to suit his own purpose-that he has no difficulty in setting down out of his own head names of persons (397.iii, 407.iii), and apparently of places (353,358), whenever he needs him—that he has copied almost verbally large extracts from 2Kings, selecting and curtailing these, but introducing in them few expressions of his own, whereas, when he is no longer copying from 2Kings, the entire diction at once -whether in prophetical addresses, royal speeches, or historical narratives - betrays throughout C's own peculiar style — and, finally, that the passages, which are thought to contain additional details, supposed to have been omitted by the writer of Kings when he drew from the original separate 'Annals of Judah' and Annals of Israel,' but to have been copied from thence into the later combined edition of those Annals, and copied again from this by C, communicate nothing which might not have been readily conjectured by such a mind as his-it seems very possible that he had no other source at his command than the canonical Books of Kings, except, as we shall see, for certain genealogical and one or two other passages in 1Chronicles. Or else he may have himself already compiled the later edition of the Annals to which he refers, and inserted in it many passages written in his own style, which he has afterwards copied out in the Chronicles.

867

CHAPTER XXI.

THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES (DAVID).

416. GRAF writes on 1 Chronicles as follows, p.195.

If we now proceed to 1Ch.i, and first to the latter portion of it, x-xxix, which contains the history of David, in order to submit this also to a close investigation, we shall find that this section bears exactly the same relation to 2Samuel as 2Chronicles does to Kings. Here also our historian really gives us only a new edition of that Book, in which, just as in 2Chronicles, he omits the history of the Kings of Israel, and whatever did not correspond to the later ideas about some of the Kings, so here he leaves out all that concerns the civil wars between Judah and Israel or makes David appear in an unfavourable light, while he retains completely and word for word all that suited the plan of his work, and enlarges it by some additions, partly from other sources, partly from his own hand, and in so doing has always in view to glorify David as the founder, not only of the Kingdom in Jerusalem, but also of all the institutions of the Temple which existed in later times.

DAVID, 1Ch.X-XXIX.

417. In x.1-14 C begins his narrative abruptly with the battle of Gilboa, and the death of Saul and his son, which cleared the way for David, copying 1S.xxxi.1-13, with some slight variations.

In xi, omitting David's mourning for Saul and Jonathan, his relations with Abner, and his reigning for seven years over Judah while Ishbosheth reigned over all Israel,' 2S.i-iv, C passes on at once to the anointing of David as King overall Israel,' v.1-3, and the conquest of Zion, v.4-9, copying almost verbally 2S.v.1-3,6-10.

In v.6 he substitutes, for the obscure expressions in 2S.v.8,

an account of Joab's having been foremost in the attack on Zion, and having been on that account made chief, whereas Joab was already David's chief captain, 2S.ii.28,30,32, iii.22, 23,31.1

418. In xi.10-47 he gives David's heroes after 2S.xxiii.8-39, but adds 16 additional names, v.41-47, which, says GRAF, p.198, 'mostly-perhaps, all-belong to trans-Jordanic places, whereas the other 37 belong almost all to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin'; and he supposes that C may have derived them from another more complete text, which belonged originally to the older work, out of which also the writer of 2Samuel derived them.' Perhaps C supplied these names from the TransJordanic tribes, to show that David's company of heroes was composed out of all Israel.' The mention of their number in 2S.xxiii.39, viz. 37, shows plainly that no more were recorded in the list from which the writer in 2Samuel copied.

6

In v.12,13, he has copied 2S.xxiii.9", but then by mistake has skipped over v.9b-11a, omitting therefore altogether the name of Shammah, whose personal act of bravery is described in 2S.xxiii.12, and, in fact, instead of ascribing that act to him, and he stood &c., he delivered it, and he smote the Philistines,' he writes and they stood &c., and they delivered it, and they smote &c., v.14. In other words, having made a slip in copying the text of Samuel, he deliberately falsifies other portions of that text, in order to make sense; for these singular verbs are changed into plurals in consequence of Eleazar and David being taken for the subject instead of Shammah' (Bp.HERVEY, B.C.II. p.453).2

In this list of names, however, and elsewhere, C seems often to have preserved more correct readings than those of the present text in 2Samuel; and some of the names in v.26-38 differ materially from the corresponding names in 2Samuel.

419. In xii.1-22 C gives a list of companies of men who came to David at Ziklag, which GRAF, p.198, supposes him to

6

have taken from the same source as the former, though he says v.18 is an addition by C.' But the main object of this passage seems to have been to show that David was supported by Benjamites, v.2-7,16-18,3 that is, men of Saul's own tribe, v.2, and also by men of the trans-Jordanic tribes, viz. Gad, v.8–15, and Manasseh, v.19-21: comp. the trans-Jordanic heroes added by him in xi.41-47 (418). And since C's style appears, not only in v.18, but throughout the whole section (App.142), he has probably inserted this account from his own imagination. This is confirmed by the fact that in v.19-21 he refers to the story told in 18.xxix.1-11, comp. v.2,4, yet in such a way as to show that he is not copying here from another history, which would either have explained the occurrence yet more fully, or, if it had already told it at length, would not have referred so fully to it. He says here that a number of Manassites fell to David when he came with the Philistines against Saul to battle, but they helped him not,' through the jealousy of the lords of the Philistines, and that as he went to Ziklag,' apparently when sent away with his men by Achish (1S.xxix.10), eight captains of thousands that were of Manasseh,' all duly named, came to him, and they were all mighty men of valour.' But in 1S.xxx.9 David pursues the Amalekites, who had spoiled Ziklag and carried off all the women and children of himself and his men, with only his band of 600 men (xxvii.2), not a word being said about these Manassites with their eight chiliarchs, who must have lost their wives and children with the rest. And GRAF remarks, p.198, that in v.23-40' the basis is an older notice, which has been so manipulated and expanded by C that its original form can no longer be recognized;' in other words, this section is due to C's own imagination.

420. GRAF argues indeed, p.199, that―

the smallness of the numbers just exactly in the case of the most important tribes points to the original notice; whereas the large numbers in the case of other quite unimportant tribes, from which results finally the impossible assemblage of