On the one side is Torrey (_Ezra Studies_, 1910) who argues that the Chronicler had no source at all other than the canonical books――all else was the product of his imaginative skill. He describes this supposed midrashic history of Judah and Israel as “a phantom source, of which the internal evidence is absolutely lacking, and the external evidence is limited to the Chronicler’s transparent parading of authorities.” The strength of Torrey’s contention lies in the fact that almost all the additional matter in Chronicles is written in one and the same distinctive style. That style has certain unmistakable peculiarities. Thus Driver in the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ s.v. _Chronicles_, col. 772, writes, “It is not merely that the style of the Chronicler presents characteristically late linguistic novelties ... but it has also a number of special mannerisms.... So constant are [these marks] that there is hardly a single sentence, not excerpted from Samuel or Kings, in which they are not discernible.” On the other side we have to consider the attitude adopted in the commentaries of Benzinger (1901) and Kittel (1902), following up a suggestion made by Büchler in 1899. These scholars not only believe that non-canonical sources supplied much of the new material of Chronicles, but they have attempted to analyse that material minutely into various contributory elements. According to their view the Chronicler was essentially a compiler, following his sources closely and showing such little independence as he exercised chiefly in those verses and passages where the affairs and interests of the Levites are set forth. In the opinion of the present writer that is not a satisfactory account of the part played by the Chronicler. It does not make sufficient allowance for the singular homogeneity of style and purpose throughout the book. Torrey’s work is of value as a warning against the danger and difficulty of the analysis which Benzinger and Kittel have essayed. Frequently the points which are adduced as evidence for distinction of sources are too few or too subjective to provide adequate ground for the analysis――see the detailed examination of the Hebrew provided in the edition by Curtis. But, whilst it should be admitted that this uniformity of style carries great weight and must receive careful consideration, it does not, we think, follow that Torrey’s sweeping conclusion is correct, and that behind the non-canonical passages there is nothing save the imagination of the Chronicler. To begin with, if that were true, the Chronicler would be unparalleled amongst ancient historians. The originality of ancient chroniclers was shown in the manner in which they combined, modified, and embellished the nucleus given by tradition, but they did not invent _de novo_ to the extent required by this theory. Even if that be an over-statement, we can at least assert that they did not shut themselves up to their own imagination, if any traditions relating