Page:The Books of Chronicles (1916).djvu/36

xxxii This great array of authorities dwindles to small proportions on inspection. Of the fifteen given under A, nos. 13, 14 are uncertain but of very small importance, whilst no. 15 is also unknown: it is not the canonical book of Lamentations (see the note on 2 Chr. xxxv. 25). The rest, nos. 1—12, almost certainly were not independent works, but simply sections of some comprehensive work (see esp. nos. 10 and 12), it being the custom among the Jews to refer to the sections of a large work by means of distinctive titles—cp. Romans xi. 2, "Know ye not what the Scripture saith in Elijah." Thus some of these titles, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, may refer simply to passages in the canonical books of Samuel and Kings, nos. 11 and 12 to Isaiah xxxvi.—xxxix. = 2 Kin. xviii. 13—xx. 19. But the others (and perhaps some also of those just mentioned) in all probability denote sections of a large history of a more or less midrashic character; and it is this work apparently which is meant by the titles given under B. To these we now turn. It is generally admitted that all four titles mentioned in B denote one and the same work, a comprehensive history of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel. This work was not our canonical books of Kings, for it is quoted as containing material not found in those books. Still less was it any of the sources referred to in Kings: there is not the faintest probability that any of the new material in Chronicles was derived directly from those very old sources. The question therefore is whether in this general work to which the Chronicler appeals he had a source independent or semi-independent of Kings. Opinion is divided. Some scholars think that it was essentially dependent on the canonical Kings, merely "a reconstructed history, embellished with marvellous tales of divine interposition and prophetic activity." Others maintain that this midrashic history had its roots not only in canonical Kings but also in traditions partly or wholly independent of Kings. The latter opinion is here preferred, but the reasons for adopting it will be best seen if we first state and consider two sharply opposing views put forward by recent writers.