ie in
the _Century Bible_ (1906), are helpful. Among more recent
investigations are those of Howorth, _Proc. Soc. of Bibl. Archael._
xxvii. 267-278 (Chronicles a late translation from the Aramaic).
(W.R.S.; S.A.C.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See the lists in Driver, _Lit. of Old Test._ pp. 502 sqq.; and the
exhaustive summary by Fr. Brown in Hastings' _Dict. Bible_, i. 289
sqq.

[2] R.V. "commentary," properly, an edifying religious work, a
didactic or homiletic exposition. A distinct tendency to Midrash is
found even here and there in the earlier books.

[3] The problem of the sources is one of considerable intricacy and
cannot be discussed here; the introduction to the commentaries of
Benzinger and Kittel (see _Bibliography_ below) should be consulted.
The questions depend partly upon the view taken of the origin and
structure of the book of Kings (q.v.) and partly upon the results of
historical criticism.

[4] "A careful comparison of Chronicles with Samuel and Kings is a
striking object lesson in ancient historical composition. It is an
almost indispensable introduction to the criticism of the Pentateuch
and the older historical works" (W.H. Bennett, _Chronicles_, p. 20
seq.).

[5] But xxxii. 1-8 may preserve a tradition of the account of the
city's wonderful deliverance mentioned in _Kings_ (see HEZEKIAH), and
the details of the invasion of Judah in the time of Joash differ
essentially from those in the earlier source. Even 2 Chron. viii. 2
cannot be regarded as a _deliberate_ alteration since the writer does
not appear to be quoting from 1 Kings ix. 10 sqq. (the two passages
should be carefully compared), and his view of Solomon's greatness is
already supported by allusions in the earlier but extremely composite
sources in _Kings_ (see SOLOMON).

[6] But that this was not the invention of the chronicler appears
possible from Jer. xxv. 3. Similarly, Hezekiah's reforms are dated in
his first year (2 Chron. xxix. 3), against all probability; see
HEZEKIAH (end).

[7] 2 Chron. xxiii. is an excellent specimen of the redaction to which
older narratives were submitted; cf. also 2 Chron. xxiv. 5 seq. (2
Kings xi. 4 seq.), xxxiv. 9-14 (2 Kings xxii.), xxxv. 1-19 (2 Kings
xxiii. 21-23).

[8] Passages in the books of Samuel and Kings which might appear to
point to the contrary require ca