have survived.  The whole question ultimately resolves itself into that of historical credibility; and to what conclusions this ]eads we have already seen.  The alterations and additions of Chronicles are all traceable to the same fountain-head—­the Judaising of the past, in which otherwise the people of that day would have been unable to recognise their ideal.  It was not because tradition gave the Law and the hierocracy and the Deus ex Machina as sole efficient factor in the sacred narrative, but because these elements were felt to be missing, that they were thus introduced.  If we are to explain the omissions by reference to the “author’s plan,” why may we not apply the same principle to the additions?  The passion displayed by Ewald ( Jahrbb. x. 261) when, in speaking of the view that Manasseh’s captivity has its basis in Jewish dogmatic, he calls it “an absurdly infelicitous idea, and a gross injustice besides to the Book of Chronicles,” recalls B. Schaefer’s suggestive remark about the Preacher of Solomon, that God would not use a liar to write a canonical book.  What then does Ewald say to the narratives of Daniel or Jonah?  Why must the new turn given to history in the case of Manasseh be judged by a different standard than in the equally gross case of Ahaz, and in the numerous analogous instances enumerated in preceding pages (p. 203 seq.).  With what show of justice can the Chronicler, after his statements have over and over again been shown to be incredible, be held at discretion to pass for an unimpeachable narrator?  In those cases at least where its connection with his “plan” is obvious, one ought surely to exercise some scepticism in regard to his testimony; but it ought at the same time to be considered that such connections may occur much oftener than is discernible by us, or at least by the less sharp-sighted of us.  It is indeed possible that occasionally a grain of good corn may occur among the chaff, but to be conscientious one must neglect this possibility of exceptions, and give due honour to the probability of the rule.  For it is only too easy to deceive oneself in thinking that one has come upon some sound particular in a tainted whole.  To what is said in 2Samuel v. 9, “So David dwelt in the stronghold (Jebus), and he called it the city of David, and he built round about from the rampart and inward,” there is added in 1Chronicles xi. 8, the statement that “Joab restored the rest of the city (Jerusalem).”  This looks innocent enough, and is generally accepted as a fact.  But the word XYH for BNH shows the comparatively modern date of the statement, and on closer consideration one remembers also that the town of Jebus at the time of its conquest by David consisted only of the citadel, and the new town did not come into existence at all until later, and therefore could not have been repaired by Joab; in what interest the statement was made can be gathered from Nehemiah vii. 11.  In many cases it is usual to regard such additions as having had their origin in a better text of Samuel and Kings which lay before the Chronicler; and this certainly is the most likely way in which good additions could have got in.  But the textual critics of the Exegetical Handbook are only too like-minded with the Chronicler, and are always eagerly seizing with both hands his paste pearls and the similar gifts of the Septuagint.