Any one who carefully compares the history of Judah as set forth in Kings with that contained in Chronicles, can see very clearly that the two writers treat the history from very distinct points of view; and this was observed by the old commentators, who wrote before modern destructive criticism was thought of. In the latter a special purpose in writing was to bring into greater prominence than it had received in the older books the position of the priesthood, and the observance of the Levitical law. But this furnishes no reason for discrediting the narration. If there had been no new and different point of view from which to see the history, no new book would have been written. Does any one now discredit Macaulay's History of England, because he wrote with a purpose quite different from that of Hume? Does he discredit Green's History of the English People, because it looks at English history from an angle quite different from that of either Hume or Macaulay? Such an absurdity is not thought of; and yet men who boast of being adepts in the criticism of history are guilty of this very absurdity when they treat of the historical books of the Bible. [49]

      This absurdity, great as it appears from the consideration just mentioned, is enormously magnified when we consider it in the light of the real facts respecting those earlier narratives in the Books of Kings. Has any one told us how much space is given in these books to the history of Judah? If any one has, I have not seen it. I have taken the pains to estimate it myself, by measuring separately the portion of the joint account of Judah and Israel between the death of Solomon and the captivity of Israel, which is given distinctively to Judah; and although the period covered is about two hundred and fifty years, the space occupied is only sixteen pages and a fraction in my Bible, printed in pica type. In other words, if the whole history of the kingdom of Judah, found in the Books of Kings, during this two hundred and fifty years, were printed in a pamphlet of ordinary size, with large type, the pamphlet would contain only sixteen pages. But brief--amazingly brief--as this history is, the author of Chronicles is not to be believed when he adds to it a few statements. When, that is, he gives a little more fullness, and a very little, to the history of his country, and especially to the religious aspect of the history, he is charged with inventing his facts because they are not found in the little pamphlet written before his day. There has never been such an absurdity in historical criticism, I suppose, since the world began, and yet this is the stuff we are required to credit as "scientific criticism," or incur the penalty of being styled unscientific traditionalists. Yes, "anti-critics" is the latest name invented for us, Charles A. Briggs being the inventor.

      We would further state in this connection that, while only sixteen pages of the joint history are given to Judah, the whole number of pages in this joint history is [50] eighty-four. This shows that the author of the Books of Kings had in view chiefly the history of the northern kingdom, to which he gives sixty-eight of his eighty-four pages, and that the account which he gives of Judah is secondary, if not incidental. The author of Chronicles devotes so much of his space as relates to the same period wholly to the kingdom of Judah; and he narrates more fully both the political and religious history of his country. This shows the difference of aim of the two writers, and there is no more reason to charge the one than the other with an aim inconsistent with the truth of history.

      A great deal has yet to be written in defense of the Books of Chronicles, and I hope that ere long some competent scholar will give us a volume devoted to it.

[SEBC 49-51]