(1) In the time of the Chronicler the position of the orthodox party in Jerusalem, whose interests, civil and ecclesiastical, were bound up with the worship at the Temple on Mt Zion, was one of considerable difficulty. During the Greek period (from 330 B.C.) the mental horizon of the Jews in Jerusalem had expanded even more than under the Persian rule (538‒330 B.C.). They were now able to realise their isolation and political insignificance, whilst at the same time the communities of Jews scattered in all the leading countries of the ancient world were rapidly growing in size, influence, and in cosmopolitan outlook. Even the religious supremacy of Jerusalem was threatened. We now know that there was an important Jewish Temple at Elephantine in Egypt, which the Jewish community there was eager to maintain. But far more serious was the Samaritan schism and the Temple to Jehovah erected by them on Mt Gerizim. We can well imagine that a rival Temple on _Palestinian_ soil claiming, no doubt with some show of justice, that there were true Levitical families among its priests, that its ritual was correct and its observance of the Law every whit as sound as that in Jerusalem, was a matter of vital importance to the ecclesiastical orders at Jerusalem. Undoubtedly the feud was bitter in the Chronicler’s time; and there are strong grounds for holding that Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah were written with the immediate object of confuting the ecclesiastical pretensions of the Samaritans and of showing that in Jerusalem only ought men to worship. Certainly Chronicles is well adapted for that end. A virulent polemic would have been discounted as a party document. The Chronicler instead has skilfully retold the story of the past, so as to leave two main impressions. In the first place, by ignoring the affairs of the Northern Kingdom, save where he intimates that its people were religiously degenerate from the start (see 2 Chronicles xiii. 5‒12), that they were grievously decimated by a great disaster (2 Chronicles xiii. 13‒17), and that in general their attitude on the subject of mixed marriages was scandalously lax (see Ezra and Nehemiah), he has subtly but forcibly created the impression that the Samaritans were little better than “a heterogeneous mob of heathen.” Secondly and chiefly, his history was intended to show that Jerusalem, with its Temple on Mt Zion, is the _one_ place which Jehovah has chosen, and where He has set His Name. There alone was His worship properly and legitimately established, and there alone can it still be carried on. Jerusalem too, like Samaria, had suffered for its sins, but the disaster of the exile, the break in the succession, was repaired, he argues, through the return from Babylonia of that company of Israelites of pure descent whom Ezra led back: the genealogies which are so noticeable a feature of Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah are given as irrefutable proof that the Jerusalem community of the Chronicler’s