(b) Chiefly, however, the Chronicler was concerned with the _religious_ pre-eminence of Jerusalem. He delights therefore in magnifying to the full the glories of the Temple, its ritual and its officers. It is quite clear that his interest in this theme is far wider than any immediate polemical aim, and the subject deserves careful attention. When he describes the Temple of Solomon in terms of surpassing splendour, he is not merely seeking to cast down the pride of Samaritan rivals, he is also gratifying the longings of his own heart――how poor in comparison the outward form of the Temple he himself served so faithfully! Perhaps also he hoped thereby to excite his own love for its well-being among the less ardent of his brethren. More important was the question of _ritual and the Law_. We have already said (p. xx) that the Chronicler lived at a time when the Pentateuch had for a long while existed in its final form, when the ritual and Law of Israel were regulated in accordance with its fully elaborated precepts; the whole complex system being supposed to have been imparted to Israel by Moses. Now, when the Chronicler and others like him turned to the historical records of their people, the books of Samuel and Kings, they found many things which must have sorely puzzled them. For those records constantly relate events in ways which run counter to the provisions of the completed Pentateuch, sometimes ignoring, sometimes contradicting and breaking, its laws and practices. It is utterly unlikely that he and his fellows were aware that those books reflect the customs of an earlier period; so that in altering their narrative (as he does) he was not conscious of falsifying history. Even if he was, we must not judge his conduct by the opinions of our own time, but remember that “he lived in an age when certain accepted theories were regarded as more authentic than recorded facts” (Kent, _Student’s O.T._ vol. ii. 23). It is fair, however, to believe that in the inconsistencies of the older histories with the observances of his own day he saw only an astonishing ignorance or carelessness in matters of the Law on the part of the older writers――a state of affairs which called loudly for correction. For the good name of David and Solomon, for the honour of the pious Kings of Judah, as well as for the edification of his contemporaries (and, maybe, for the confusion of the Samaritans), such flagrant blemishes had to be removed. And in Chronicles he has produced _a thorough revision of the history of Judah in accordance with the principles and provisions of the completed Pentateuch_. Throughout the entire work this aim is consistently pursued. It must be therefore considered a main feature of the Chronicler’s purpose. The alterations of the text of Samuel‒Kings which he has made on this account will be so frequently pointed out in the notes that here one simple example will suffice. In 2 Samuel viii. 18 it is said, “And the sons of David