=1‒15.= THE SONS OF LEVI, AND THE HIGH-PRIESTS TO THE CAPTIVITY. The identity of interests and standpoint between the Chronicler and the Levitical order has been noted in the Introduction § 6 _ad fin._ It follows that the contents of the present chapter were to him of primary importance, and doubtless these lists represent not his own view only but the developed and accepted opinion of the Levitical and priestly classes as a whole, who believed that their institution, duties, and privileges generally were of Mosaic origin, whilst to David they ascribed the particular arrangements in connection with the Temple and especially the development of the choral services. The attempt to express their faith in concrete genealogical form was inevitable and indeed commendable. But the actual facts regarding the growth of the Levitical system (see the Additional Note at the end of this chapter, pp. 51 f.) were so very different from this theory that the artificiality of the lists is apparent to modern analysis, despite the zeal and ingenuity with which they have been compiled. Some points which indicate the unhistorical nature of the genealogies, together with questions raised by the internal structure of the chapter, will be indicated in the head-notes to the several sections. It must not be thought that such inconsistencies were equally (if at all) present to the mind of the Chronicler. For him the actual existence of the pedigree uniting the priests and Levites of his day with Aaron and finally with Levi was an axiom of thought; the _one_ problem was to trace it out: and he was not restrained in his search by the spirit of scientific caution which is second nature to us. Thus in the ancestry of the singers (verses 34‒47), where the lack of information to supply the necessary links in the genealogy was acutely felt, Curtis (p. 135) points out that current genealogical matter seems to have been naïvely pressed into this particular service on the ground of the identity of even a single name! Great allowance must be made for the Chronicler and his contemporaries. Even if part of the lists was _consciously_ fabricated, that proves no more than that he was a man of his age and under the dominance of a theory. As Torrey remarks (_Ezra Studies_, p. 65), “he was not writing history for us but for the good of his people.” There is no case for a charge of religious insincerity. Rather the opposite is true, and his failings as a historian constantly reveal the measure of his faith as a religious man. He was so profoundly sure of the truth of the doctrine that its presuppositions, if not discoverable in historical records, might (he felt) legitimately be conjectured. For further information showing how natural and how free was the manipulation of genealogies in ancient times reference may be made to the _Encyclopedia Britannica_¹¹, s.v. _Genealogy_, or to MᶜLennan, _Studies in Ancient History_ (2nd series, 1896), chapter ix.