_ and
_Kings_ are sufficiently explained by the ultimate common source from
which both narratives drew. But most critics hold that the chronicler
also drew directly from the canonical books of Samuel and Kings as he
apparently did from the Pentateuch. This opinion is not improbable, as
the earlier books of the Old Testament cannot have been unknown in his
age; and the critical analysis of the canonical book of Kings is
advanced enough to enable us to say that in some of the parallel
passages the chronicler uses words which were not written in the annals
but by one of the compilers of _Kings_ himself. In particular,
_Chronicles_ agrees with _Kings_ in those short notes of the moral
character of individual monarchs which can hardly be ascribed to an
earlier hand than that of the redactor of the latter book.[3]

Treatment of history.

For the criticism of the book it is important to institute a careful
comparison of Chronicles with the parallel narratives in
_Samuel_-_Kings_.[4] It is found that in the cases where _Chronicles_
directly contradicts the earlier books there are few in which an
impartial historical judgment will decide in favour of the later
account, and in any point that touches difference of usage between its
time and that of the old monarchy it is of no authority. The
characteristic feature of the post-exilic age was the re-shaping of
older tradition in the interest of parenetic and practical purposes, and
for this object a certain freedom of literary form was always allowed to
ancient historians. The typical speeches in Chronicles are of little
value for the periods to which they relate, and where they are
inconsistent with the evidence from earlier writings or contain inherent
improbabilities are scarcely of historical worth. According to the
ordinary laws of research, the book, being written at a time long
posterior to the events it records, can have only a secondary value,
although that is no reason why here and there valuable material should
not have been preserved. But the general picture which it gives of life
under the old monarchy cannot have the same value for us as the records
of the book of Kings. On the other hand, it is of distinct value for the
history of its time, and presents a clear picture of the spirit of the
age. The "ecclesiastical chronicle of Jerusalem," as Reuss has aptly
called it, represents the culminating point (as far as the O.T. Canon is
concerned) of that theory of whic