IS THE SO-CALLED " PRIESTLY CODE ^' 01'" POST-EXILIC DATE ? 85 



The Rev. F. E. Spencer said : I desire to apply as briefly as may 

 be the scientific inductive method to the books of the Chronicles, 

 and, I believe with the good will of Chancellor Lias, to draw con- 

 clusions from this method which may supplement what has already 

 been said. 



The Chronicles divide into parts, of which the sources are either 

 given, or may be inferred. I propose to offer an argument, which 

 may be called an argument strictly from what is called source 

 criticism. The sources of the Chronicles are fairly certain. They 

 consist of ancient genealogies ; lists extracted from the archives 

 which began with David ; speeches and histories derived from pro- 

 phetic writings contemporary with the events ; a Psalm sung at the 

 bringing up of the ark; and other like things taken from old 

 contemporary documents. The Chronicler selects these with a clear 

 purpose, hands them on in a manner which clearly evidences, as 

 Graf has proved, one hand, and adds reflections of his own. As 

 certain of these ancient documents are longer or shorter extracts, 

 forty-five in number, from Samuel and Kings, we may clearly trace 

 the hand and manner of the Chronicler in transcribing them, and 

 arguing from this, and from treatment which is exactly on the 

 same lines which we find in the other parts, we may infer that the 

 way in which he has handled documents now inaccessible to us 

 resembles his manner of treatment of Samuel and Kings. I think 

 we are all along on completely safe ground. We are not forcing an 

 hypothesis, but examining facts and explaining them. We have the 

 advantage in this investigation of help from Girdlestone's Deutero- 

 graphs, Davidson's very thorough researches, Graf's monograph, and 

 Kittel's Critical Hebrew Bible. Davidson's researches are of peculiar 

 value in this matter. They date from 1862. They are quite free 

 from prejudice, without the slightest apologetic leaning, and have 

 no hypothesis to serve. Davidson also, in the Chronicles, is com- 

 paratively free from that infusion of vinegar which vitiates his 

 otherwise valuable Introduction for the ordinary reader. Graf, in 

 1866, is bent on a hypothesis, but is still scientifically valuable. 

 To gather up then the result. 



We find we have clear reason for attributing complete honesty to 

 the Chronicler. Throughout he is compiling ancient sources. He 

 did not invent David's speeches. He was not competent to do so. 

 He only modernised them.. I think the more reasonable account of 



