I have been informed that in certain circles I am considered hopelessly naive for taking the sources in Chronicles seriously. Any good biblical scholar (it is supposed) knows that the Chronicler made up all his sources. Those sources never existed. Unfortunately that argument does not wash. Consider the following list of sources he Chronicler cites and what they supposedly contained:
The book of Samuel the seer (1 Chronicles 29:29) supposedly contains accounts of David that the Chronicler drew on.
The book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29) supposedly contains accounts of David and Solomon that the Chronicler drew on.
The book of Gad the seer (1 Chronicles 29:29) also supposedly contains accounts of David that the Chronicler drew on.
The prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chronicles 9:29) supposedly contains accounts of Solomon that the Chronicler drew on.
The visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chronicles 9:29, 12:15) supposedly contains accounts of Solomon, Jeroboam and Rehoboam that the Chronicler drew on.
The book of Shemaiah the prophet (2 Chronicles 12:15) supposedly contains accounts of Rehoboam that the Chronicler drew on.
The book of the kings of Israel and Judah (1 Chronicles 9:1; 16:11; 20:34; 24:27; 25:26; 27:7; 28:26; 32:32; 33:18; 35:27; 36:8) supposedly contains records of Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joash, Amaziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Josiah, and Jehoiakim that the Chronicler drew on.
The vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz (2 Chronicles 32:32) supposedly contains records of Hezekiah that the Chronicler drew on.
Of course, any real biblical scholar is supposed to know that all of these sources are fictional and none of them actually contains any records of those kings that the Chronicler was supposed to have drawn on. Except the book of the kings of Israel and Judah actually does exist, and does contain records of those kings, and it certainly appears that the Chronicler used it. The same is true for the vision of Isaiah.
So 60% of the time that the Chronicler cites a source, that source exists and has an account that the Chronicler claims to have drawn on, and appears to have actually drawn on. What does that tell us about the accuracy of the Chronicler? Sixty percent is the lowest passing grade; the bottom of the 'D's; but it is still a passing grade.
Look at it another way, though, one-hundred percent of the time when the Chronicler cites a source and that source exists, it has an account that covers more or less what the Chronicler says it does and that the Chronicler seems to have used in his account. With that sort of success rate, I am willing to trust that a source that the Chronicler had access to and claimed existed in his day probably did even though we do not have that source today.
Did the Chronicler shape the narrative his sources gave him to fit his own ends? I think he did, just like modern historians do. Did the Chronicler make some things up? He may have; modern historians sometimes do too. Was the Chronicler 100% accurate? Perhaps not, but neither are all modern historians. The point is not whether biblical authors were accurate, or tendentious, or objective, but whether they had some sense of history. Like a modern historian, the Chronicler used preexisting sources to tell the story that he was interested in and cited his sources.
I think it funny that some source critics will look everywhere for sources but will only accept as genuine the ones that they make up themselves.
