Page:The Books of Chronicles (1916).djvu/24

xx evidential value can of course be criticised by supposing that the passages in question are late interpolations and have therefore no bearing on the date of the main body of the work. But no solid grounds are adduced for this objection, and the burden of proof lies upon the objector. The supposition is extremely improbable, and may be dismissed in view of the fact that (B) the general character, and (C) the linguistic peculiarities of Chronicles alike demand a date considerably later than the period of Ezra-Nehemiah.

(B) The character of Chronicles has already been referred to, but in a different connection (§ 2, pp. xvi f.). Here the point to notice is that throughout the entire work the whole system of law and ritual found in the Pentateuch is presupposed as existing in its final form. This system, which may conveniently be described as Priestly (P) in distinction from the earlier system to which the name Deuteronomic (D) is applied, and the still earlier standpoint represented by the Jahvistic and Elohistic writers (J and E), may have been of slow growth, and no doubt embodies features of law and ritual which are of relatively high antiquity. But there is overwhelming evidence to prove that, as an organised and completed system, it cannot be dated earlier than the period of Nehemiah (c. 425 ). Now in Chronicles not only is this final code in force; it has evidently been so long and so firmly established that the Chronicler did not know, or at least did not believe, that any other earlier system had once ruled the practice of Israel. He belonged to a period when the development of the Pentateuch was no more remembered, and when its origin—in all completeness—had come to be ascribed with absolute confidence to the remote past, in accordance with that religious instinct which we have described above on p. xiv. Manifestly, a considerable lapse of time after Nehemiah's period must be allowed for that conviction to have become established.

Another consideration is found in the attitude of the Chronicler towards the kingdom of Israel. For the apostate Northern Kingdom the Chronicler has only contempt and hatred and displays no interest whatever in its fortunes, except that he