¹ Such omissions are very skilfully managed by the Chronicler. Even so, they generally entail some abrupt transition or obscurity, as in the present instance for which see the note on 1 Chronicles xi. 1. Here the cause of the obscurity can be shown by direct comparison of the earlier history in Samuel. Mark how usefully Chronicles thus demonstrates the _legitimacy_ of the argument that similar difficulties elsewhere in the Old Testament are perhaps due to a similar cause, although the earlier source may not be extant to prove that the conjecture is correct. The conclusions to be drawn from the above are clear. First, in passages of the type instanced in (ii) above, where the differences between Kings and Chronicles are considerable and not confined to changes made on transparently religious grounds, the possibility that we have to do with a variant form of the tradition in Kings should be carefully considered. If there be any such distinct traditions, even though they are few or in a late stage of development, they are of high value, for they _may_ be as worthy of consideration as the form in Kings. Moreover a slight variation in a tradition may occasionally suffice to indicate the existence of a different standpoint towards an important topic or period in the history. But in the majority of _all_ cases included under this heading (I) it appears that the changes in the narratives were arbitrarily made in consequence of the standpoint, beliefs, and purpose (§§ 1 and 6) of the Chronicler, and they can make no claim to rest on historical facts. For the detailed arguments upon which this general conclusion is based, the reader is referred to the notes on the text.