CHARITY,
FEASTS
O F
later still by the Syrians
Macc.
I t was ,probably
the Persians who introduced this formidable addition
to the war-chariot.
the Heb. of the OT.
(Cp
Xenophon,
vi.
130.)
T h e
portions of the chariot receive special names
in
‘Wheels,’
are mentioned in Nah.
3
(cp Is.
27
Prov. 20 26). Another name, more
descriptive, was ‘rollers,’
(Is. 5
Ezek.
T h e ‘spokes’ of the wheel
were called
while the ‘felloes’ had the name
or
T h e wheel revolves by a have
round a n
See W
HEEL
. All these terms are to he found in the locus clas-
sicus,
I
K.
T h e pole of the chariot
was (according
to Mish.
14
4 24
fastened below
of the axle, passed under the
base of the ‘body’ of the chariot, and then, curving upwards
ascended to the neck of the horses. T o this, draught-animal;
were fastened by means of the yoke, assisted
cords or wide
leather straps.
Beyond these broad features it is doubtful
how far we are justified in following the details contained in a
treatise of the Mishna composed centuries after the latest
OT
literature.
That the chariot,
was
so
closely associated with
the
functions of Oriental monarchs. both in war
and in peace, entered into the religious
conceptions as an indispensable portion
of the paraphernaliaof divinemonarchy,
cannot awaken surprise. T h e chariot, therefore, has its
place in ancient Semitic religion.
as
the Hellenic
religious imagination endowed
with horses and
chariot (as the Homeric Hymn clearly testifies), so
Canaanite religion endowed the Sun-god
the
same royal accessories (cp H
ORSE
,
4).
This feature
in the
of the
the Hebrews blended with the
worship of
in the precincts of the sanctuary at
Jerusalem, in the days that preceded the Reformation of
Josiah
K.
23
The combination of
the God
of Israel’s armies and of the sky, with
Sun was not
unnatural to the Hebrew mind, as their literature testifies
both early and late.
Cp
I
K.
(an old fragment
of the Book of Jashar restored by We. from
in
I
K.
853);
has
chariots among his retinue.
were the chariots
and horses of deliverance whereon
rode forth to
conquer and terrify Israel’s foes in the days of the
Exodus (Hab.
3
8
)
With this graphic touch in the
Prayer of Habakkuk we may compare the fiery chariots
of
as
well as a phrase occurring in
the magnificent triumphal ode,
Ps.
68
CHARITY, FEASTS OF
(ai
[Ti. WH]),
AV.
See E
UCHA
R
IST
.
[BA]),
I
Esd.
I.
CHARMER
1811,
etc.
Is.
33
See M
AGIC
,
3.
one of the three rulers of Bethulia : Judith
6 1 5
106
[A]
in
1 0 6
[Ti. WH]),
RV
i.
CHASEBA
[BA],
om.
L),
an unknown
of N
ETHINIM
the great post-exilic list (see
9),
mentioned only in
I
Esd.
531,
between
the Nekoda and
of
Ezra 248 Neh.
7
CHAVAH
Gen.
EV
E
VE
.
See
A
DAM
A N D
E
VE
,
3.
CHEBAR
the name of a Baby-
lonian stream, near which Ezekiel
prophetic visions
cp
The Xakub-el, chariot of El’ (line
of
the Zenjirli
Panarnmu inscription furnishes an interesting parallel.
I t is
possible, however, that Rakub (cp the Ar.
camel
for riding’) may mean the divine steed (cp the Heb.
Ps.
13
but see
C
HE
R
UB
,
I
,
begin.). I t is mentioned frequently
along with the deities
El,
and Reshef. See
D. H.
Muller’s art.
Rev.,
April 1894.
c.
w.
73
CHEDOR-LAOMER
on
which is a gloss, see
T
EL
-
ABIB
).
In spite of
the apparent resemblance of the names (but note the
different initial letters), the Chebar cannot be the same
as
the H
ABOR
never included the
region watered by this river-but must be one of the
Babylonian canals (Bab.
cp
Ps.
This was first pointed out by Noldeke (Schenkel,
1508
The final proof has been given by
Hilprecht, who has found mention twice of the
a
large navigable canal a little to the
E.
of
the land of the
CHEDOR-LAOMER
so
eastern reading,
but
western reading [Ginsb.
to
ed.
conversely
Semitic
[AEL]
according
141
was
aking of Elam, whosedominion extended as far as the
SE.
of Canaan, where five kings, of whom those of Sodom
and Gomorrah were the chief, served him twelve years.
I n the thirteenth year, however, they rebelled, and in
the fourteenth year they were defeated by the Elamite
and his allies.
I n the sequel of the story
(vv.
12-24)
we are told how Abram with his own servants and some
allies pursued the victorious army and rescued not only
the captured kings but also his nephew Lot (see
A
BRAHAM
,
2).
The question whether this narrative
is trustworthy, and whether the
of the
Story and his allies are historical personages, is ruled by
the other,
as
to the date of the chapter containing it.
That the chapter is quite an isolated
and formed no part of the writings
from which the Hexateuch
composed, may
considered
as
certain.
Some scholars, however,
assign it to the eighth century B
.c.,
and
are of opinion that the author had an older writing
before him; according to others, it is not older than
the fourth century
The former
that the
antiquity and the authenticity of the story are attested
by the following facts
:-(
I
)
that
least the name of
the chief
is purely Elamitic
that the
the
and the Emim really occupied
in ancient times what afterwards became the dwelling
places of the Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites,
whilst the Horites (Gen.
according to Dt.
and
were the oldest inhabitants of Seir
( 3 )
that
the name of the people established,
according to
v. 7,
in Hazazon-tamar
Engedi,
Ch.
is the ancient name of the people of Canaan
(Gen. 1516
Am.
and that several names
(En-mishpat,
Shaveh), words, and expressions
not occurring anywhere else, as well
as
the exact
description of the campaign
(vu.
bear the impress
of antiquity and trustworthiness.
T h e arguments of those who ascribe the narrative to
a
post-exilic Jew, whose aim was to encourage his
contemporaries by the description of Abram’s victory
over the great powers of the East, his unselfishness,
piety, and proud magnanimity towards heathen men,
mostly take their starting-point in the second part of the
chapter.
I t is pointed ont that the names of Abram’s allies, Mamre
and Eshcol, occur elsewhere (Gen. 13
23 17
25 9 35
50
Nu. 13
23)
as
place names that Melchizedek
and
Abram are represented a s monotheists
and that the patriarch
pays tithes
the priest-king, a
not prescribed a t all in Dt.
(see
2F
but characteristic of the post-exilic
sacerdotal law
(Nu.
T h e criticism extends
also,
however, to the first part,
A tablet published by Dr. Clay in vol.
of Hilprecht’s
(pl. 50
No. 84,
I t should be added that
so
Canal.
See,
E.
Meyer,
1
Hex.
We.
42
Founders,
;
in
425
93).
CHEDOR-LAOMER
CHEESE
with which we are here chiefly concerned. I t is remarked
that there is no evidence of the historicity of the campaign
in question, which is, in fact, as closely as possible con-
nected with a view of Abraham which we know to have
been post-exilic (cp
I
).
Moreover, it
is
difficult
to resist the impression that the names of the kings of
Sodom and Gomorrah-viz.,
and
(com-
pounds conveying the idea of evil,' badness ')-and
the name given in the narrative to the town of
perdition (see BELA)-perhaps also that
of the king of
which the Samaritan text gives a s
slave-name '-are, some of them at least,
purely symbolical and therefore fictitious. (See, how-
ever, in each case, the special article.
)
What is certain is this : Chedor-laomer,
lagamar, is
a
purely Elamitic name, which
is not,
indeed, found as
a
royal name on the
monuments, but is of the same type as
in Old
the name of a king who in the be-
ginning of the twenty-third century
conquered the
whole and
the name of another king,
who, probably later, was master of a part of Babylonia.
occurs as the name of an
Elamitic deity, not only in
R
vi.,
6 ,
but
also in the
of
and seems
to be the same as Lagamal, the queen of the town of
( 2
R pl. lx.
146).
Hence the name cannot
be the invention of a Hebrew writer.
I t can hardly be
doubted, either, that Arioch, king
of
Ellasar, is really no
other than
servant of the Moon-god),
the well-known king of Larsa, son of
These discoveries have opened a wide field for ingenious
combinations.
I t has been observed that Kudur-mabuk is
called in one of the inscriptions of his
by the name
Adda-martu, 'Father
of
the West.'
Now,
word Martu
being commonly
at
least in later times, to designate
Western Asia, especially Canaan
(mat Ahawi, or perhaps
better
the land of the
has been interpreted to mean conqueror, and this has been taken
as
evidence that, in a very remote period, Canaan fell under
Elamite dominion. I t is a pity that we must call attention
to
a
weak
in this theorising.
Kudur-mahuk is not the same
a s Kndur-lagamar,
seems to he only a synonym
of
a
title which the same king, a s ruler of a
western province of Elam, bears in other inscriptions (see Tiele,
B A G
T h e attempts
to
make
the two other Eastern
to be historical personages must be considered
to
Jos.
is the famous Babylonian king
himself. whose name is ex-
plained in Semitic as
-
('am
=
whilst, according to Hommel
he is
father Sin-muballit,
because Sin is sometimes named Amar and
may conceivably have been condensed into
(See also
With more confidence
is
stated
to
be a Hebraised form of
(see Schr.
K A T ) .
Unfortunately, this is by
no
means certain.
Though
was king of Babylon, and there-
fore of
he was not king of
so
long
as
was king of Larsa.
Not till he had put an
end to the Elamite dominion in Babylonia could he be
called king of
and then neither Eri-altu nor an
Elamite king could join with him in the conquest of
Canaan. As to
king of Goyim, we may read
his name Thargal, following
we, may identify
the Goyim with the people of
we may even
go
so
far as
permits in theorising on the latest
discoveries
:
but
all this does not make
T
IDAL
All that we can
is that the writer of
Gen.
1 4
no more invented the names
of
Amraphel and
(or Thargal)
F.
H.
'Anzanische Inschriften in
Leips.,
p.
of separate copy).
This rather than Rim-sin has been proved by Schr. to be
the
reading
of the
k.
Ak.
24
Oct. 1895,
733
than those
of
Chedor-laomer and Arioch
the former
are very possibly corruptions of the names of historical
personages whom we are as yet unable to 'identify.
Nor do we assert that the whole story is the product
of the inventive faculty of the author.
That in very
remote times, Babylonian kings extended their sway
as far as the Mediterranean, is not only told in ancient
traditions
of Sargon I. but has also been proved
by the Amarna tablets.
From these we learn that as
late as the fifteenth centnry
B
.c.,
when the kings of
Babylon and Assyria had
no
authority beyond their own
borders and Egypt gave the law to Western Asia,
Babylonian was the official and diplomatic language of
the Western Asiatic nations.
Hence it is not impossible,
it is even probable, that a similar suzerainty was
exercised over these nations by the Elamites, who were
more than
masters of Babylonia. Our author,
whether he wrote in the eighth century
or,
which is more probable, in the fourth, may have found
this fact in some ancient record, and
it both for
the glorification of the Father of the Faithful and for
encouraging his contemporaries.
So much appears to be all that can be safely stated
in the present state of research.
Scheil, however, is
of
opinion ('96) that the
mar
(?)
whom he finds in
a
cuneiform
was the Elamite king of Larsa who
was conquered by
and Sin-idinnam, and,
therefore, cannot have been any other than the
son
of Kudur-mabuk, who, as king of Larsa
had
adopted the name of Rim-sin (Eri-aku
Pinches has
discovered
a
cuneiform tablet in the Brit. Mus. col-
lection which has naturally excited great hopes among
conservative critics. I t is sadly mutilated
but it is at
least clear that names which may be the prototypes of
Arioch, Tid'al, and possibly Chedorlaomer, were known
Babylonia when the tablet was inscribed. The tablet
dates, probably, from the time of the
but it
is tempting to assume that the inscription was copied
from one which was made in the primitive Babylonian
period.
I t should be noticed, however, that the form
of the first name is not Eri-aku but
and that the third name is not read with full certainty,
the second part being
which is only conjecturally
made into
There is also
a
second tablet on
which two of the names are mentioned again.
Pinches
reads the one
(possibly
and the other
I n a third inscription the
name
appears.
T h e second
of
the three names is mentioned only
in
the first tablet
as
Tu-ud-lpl-a, where, since the Babylonian
answers
to the Hebrew y in
Pinches and Schrader agree
in recogmising the Tid'al of Gen.
14.
But not by a
single word do these inscriptions confirm the historicity
of the invasion in the days of Amraphel.
[The doubts here expressed are fully justified by
L.
W.
King's more recent investigations.
Scheil's
and Pinches' readings of the respective inscriptions are
incorrect, and though
(
Ku-mal)
is
styled (in Pinches' inscriptions) a king of
Elam, there is
no
reason to suppose that he was
a
contemporary of
H e might have occupied
the throne at any period before the fourth century
To
the references already given may
Rawlinson,
Five
where older works are cited: Tiele,
B A G
Hommel,
Schr.
C
O
T
o
pert
1887
of
the
Geneva
Congress,
also
his paper read before the Victoria Institute, Jan.
1896
Schr.
'
Ueher einen
Herrschernamen' in SBA
no.
Fr. v. Scheil in
(Maspero)
'correspondance de
de Bahylone, avec
Sinidinnam, roi de Larsa,
oh
est
de
;
Hommel,
L.
W. King,
CHEESE
I
S .
2
S.
c.
P
.
H
.
Job
See M
ILK
.
734
one
of
the b’ne
in the
list of persons with foreign wives (see E
ZRA
,
5
end),
Ezra 1030
has joined
with the preceding
name Adna
and reads
[ B ; with
HA
[K],
[A],
[L]).
The
I
Esd.
has quite
different names-‘ and of the sons of Addi
and Moossias, Laccunus,’ etc.
however, reads
CHELCIAS,
RV
I
.
father of Susanna (Hist.
of
Sus.,
and [om.
cod. 871 63).
An ancestor of Baruch (Bar.
I
).
3.
A priest (Bar. 1 7 )
See L
ACUNUS
.
CHELLIANS
.
I n
mention
is
made of ‘ t h e
children of Ishmael, which were over against the wilder-
ness to the
of the land of the Chellians.’ T h e com-
paratively easier reading Chaldeans, which
is
attested,
and Vet. Lat.,
no doubt rightly con-
sidered by Grimm to be
a
deliberate rectification of the
text.
See C
HELLUS
.
mg.
probably through
the influence of
mentioned in the list
of persons with foreign wives (see EZ
RA
,
end),
Ezra1035
[A])
934.
[BA]).
CHELLUS
one of the places to which Nebuchadrezzar sent his
summons, according to Judith
19.
The
of Josh.
15
may be meant but the reading
suggests
rather
or
which
given by Jerome and Eusebius as
or
91
4,
etc.,
See C
HELLIANS
.
Another
identification should be mentioned.
Chellus is perhaps
the same as the place which in Jos. A n t . xiv. 1 4
is called
by Jerome and Eusebius
8 5 6
(Targ. Jer. Gen.
1614;
cp
Gen.
201
in
Ar., and see
or Elusa.
C p We.
48, n.
I
WRS,
of the sons of Chelod (Judith
1 6 )
assembled themselves
to battle in the plain of Arioch in the days of
and Arphaxad
What we ought to
understand by Chelod is quite uncertain.
Vet. Lat. has
and Syr. has ‘against the
One very improbable
is that
is
intended
;
another, hardly less unlikely, is that the word is the
Hebrew
(‘weasel ’), and that by the opprobrious designation
of
‘children of the weasel’ are meant the Syrians (Ew.
3
CHELUE
67, probably a variation
of
Caleb,
cp below).
(
I
)
A
doubtless to be identified with C
ALEB
4);
similarly We.
who reads ‘Caleb b. Heeron
(I
Ch.
[BAL],
[Peih
His designa-
tion ‘brother of Shuhah’
is not clear;
read
‘father of Achsah,’ possibly a correction (Ki.
SBOT).
Cp the
corrupt Pesh.
of
I
Ch. 2726
CHELUBAI
6 7 ,
a
: see
I
S.
25
3
used instead of the proper name C
ALEB
),
o
o
[Pesh.,
a
corruption])
see
3,
I
.
CHELUHI
[A]),
RV,
Cheluhu,
C
HELLUH
.
CHEMARIM
Zeph.
RV
K.
23
5
mg.
mg.
AV
Chemarims,
Zeph.
Rather
735
CHEMOSH
The original Heb. word appears also in
K.
where
EV
‘idolatrouspriests,’ and
Hos. 105, where EV has ‘priests.’
t is also highly probable that in Hos.
4 4
we
read, with
‘for my
people
is like its
however
perhaps an error for
transliterates
K.
is also
upported, see
ad
it apparently
in Zeph.;
Hos. it had a different Heb.). Vg. varies between
K.)
and
(Zeph.
Hos.);
Targ. between
K.
and
‘the ministers thereof’; Pesh. adheres
to
As
to the meaning, if we appeal to the versions, we
ind only the dim light which an unassisted study of the
can supply.
Evidently the term
was
applied
to
he priests of Baal, who served at the high places under
authority, but were put down by Josiah.
But
special idea did the word convey? In itself it
neant simply
priests
in Zeph.
14
and
are
side by side
to
express the idea of
a
of many members
and
in
Hos.
34
(if
the
proposed above be adopted) we have
used
the priests of N. Israel, when these are spoken of
and then
when the priests are
as
an organic unity.
But the word
also conveyed the
of
a
worship which
Syrian affinities. Certainly
it
cannot be explained
Hebrew
does
not
mean
to
be
(cp
E
CLIPSE
), and even if it did, the black-robed ones is a
improbable designation for ancient priests.
T h e
word is no doubt of Syrian origin (see the Aram. inscrip-
tions in
2
nos.
T h e
form
is
whence Aram.
(never used
an unfavourable
and Heb.
are normally formed. Lagarde
Stud.
2386)
compared
but it is
more obviously reasonable to compare the Assyrian
which
is
given as a synonym of
clean vesture’ (Del. Ass.
337
d.,
cp
254
The term
probably described the
Syrian and Israelitish priests in their clean vestments
(cp
K.
the Baal festival) when ministering to
their God. T o derive it from an Aram. root meaning
to be sad is much less natural.
Delitzsch compares
Ass.
‘ t o
down’; the
term, he thinks, describes the pries6 as those who prostrate
themselves in worship (Ass. and
41, 42; so
Che.
Finally, Robertson
noting that the word
belongs to a race in which the mass of the people were probably
not
circumcised (Hrrod.
cp Jos.
Ant. viii.
c.
while the priests were
(Dio
Cassius,
Ep.
9 6 ;
cp Chwolson,
2
conjectures that
means
‘the circumcised (Ar.
‘glans penis
’).
CHEMOSH
in
on name see
4,
end
11
the national god of the Moabites
(
I
K.
1 1 7 ,
Jer. 48713).
Moab is the
people of Chemosh; the Moabites are
his sons and daughters (Nu:
21
29
cp
the relation of
to
Israel, Judg.
Nu.
1 1 2 9
Judg.
11 Is.
45
TI
,
etc.
).
A king of Moab in the
of Sennacherib was named
cp Jehonadab)
the father of Mesha was
Chernoshmelech
a
gem found near
is inscribed
(cp Heb.
T h e
stele of Mesha king of Moab, contemporary with Ahab,
Ahaziah, and Jehoram of Israel
(2
K.
3),
in the middle
of the ninth century
B
.C.
(see M
ESHA
), was erected to
commemorate the deliverance which Chemosh
had
wrought for his people.
Continue,
‘and
shalt stumble,
0
priest, in the daytime’;
the close of the verse read, with
‘thy
(addressed to
priest).
A priest who had become unfit
for service put
black garments and departed. One who was
approved
the Sanhedrin clothed himself in white, and
went
in, and ministered
Cp
54.
3
‘Priest.’
2
C O T
Others read Chemoshgad.
Miss.
CHENAANAH
CHEPHIRAH
During the long reign of the theory-not yet
abandoned-that all the gods of the nations were
The inscription tells us that Omri had oppressed Moab for
a
time because Chemosh was wroth with his land
the Israelites had occupied the district of Medeha forty years,
Chemosh had now restored it to Moab
Chemosh
drove out the king of Israel before Moab from
;
at
the bidding of Chemosh, Mesha fought against Nebo and
took it
at
his command, he made war on Horonaim
and
Chemosh restored it to Moab
the inhabitants
captured cities were slaughtered a spectacle
for Chemosh
and Moab'
and children were devoted
t o Ashtar-Chemosh
(see B
AN
) the spoils of
Israelite sanctuaries were carried off
and presented to Chemosh
(ZZ.
The religion of Moab in the ninth centurywas thus very
similar to that of Israel
:
the historical books of the O T
furnish parallels to
every line of the inscription.
W e learn from the OT that human sacrifices were
offered to Cheniosh, at least in great national emergencies;
the king of Moab, shut
up
in Kir-hareseth and unable
to cut his way out, offered his eldest son upon the wall
the effect of this extraordinary sacrifice was
a
great
of Chemosh's fury upon Israel, which compelled
the invaders to return discomfited to their own land
Priests
of
Cheniosh are mentioned in Jer.
48
7
the language of Mesha,
Chemosh said to m e '
supposes an oracle, or perhaps prophets.
The worship of Chemosh as the national god did
not exclude the worship of other gods Mesha's inscrip-
tion speaks of Ashtar-Chemosh
-that is, most probably, an
(Astarte) who was associated in worship
with
perhaps at a particular sanctuary. T h e
worship of Baal-peor
(Nu.
25,
cp Hos.
was prob-
ably a local Moabite cult-there is no ground for
identifying the god with Chemosh. (See B
AAL
-
PEOR
.
)
[Beth] Baal-meon (Mesha,
9 ,
3 0 ;
OT)
was, as the
name shows, the seat of another local Baal cult. Mount
Nebo may have received its name in the period of
Babylonian supremacy but we do not know that the
worship of
Babylonian god was perpetuated by the
Moabites. Cp
The statement of Eusehius
(OS
that
inhabitants of Areopolis in his day called their idol
because they worshipped Ares,' seems to be the product of a
complex misunderstanding.
In Judg.
1124,
in the argument of Jephthah with the
king of the Ammonites, 'Chemosh thy god' is set
over against
our god' in such a
way as to imply that Chemosh was the
national
of Ammon.
From many
passages in the
O T
we know, however,
that the national god of the Animonites was
(see
M
I
LCOM
)
while Cheniosh was the god of Moab.
T h e hypothesis that Chemosh and
arc but two
names of the same god
originally a title) is
excluded by the contexts in which they appear side by
side
I
K.
Nor is it sufficient to
suppose
that
in Jndg.
24
is merely a slip on the part
of the author or a scribe for
closer examination
shows that the whole historical argument applies to
Moab only, not to Amnion. Whatever explanation
may be given of this incongruity (see Moore,
283 Bu. Richter,
the passage cannot be taken
as evidence that Chemosh
was
the god of Ammon a s
well as of the sister people Moab. The statement of
that Chemosh was a god of the
Tyrians and Ammonites is, as the context shows, a
confused reminiscence of
I
K.
11
7.
From the name
the second mythical Babylonian
ruler after the
Gr. 2
it has been surmised
that the worship of Cheniosh was of Babylonian
the
name of the city Carchemish on the Euphrates has heeh ex-
plained as
'
Citadel of Chemosh'; neither of these theories has
any other basis than a fortuitous similarity of sound.
Solomon built a high place for Chemosh
on
the
M
OUNT
O F
O
L
IVES (I
K.
11
a
where, according to
K.
it stood until Josiah's reform-more than
three hundred years.
and 'the Astarte in the
of
in the
inscription.
24
737
heavenlybodies or meteoric phenomena,
Chemosh was by some thought to be the
sun, by others identified with
Moloch-Saturn
the one
has
is
little foundation as the other.
In
Roman times
as
well as the more northern Ar-moab,
vas called Areopolis, and this name-perhaps originally
a
of Ar (Jerome)-was understood as
City of Ares.'
Coins
of
Kabbath-moab in the reigns of
and Severns
cp
v.
viii. 388) exhibit
a
standing warrior in whom
.he type of Mars is to be recognised; but even if we
sure that the old Moabite god of the city is
and not the
Dusares, we could
earn nothing about the nature of Cheinosh in O T times
so
late and contaminated a source. Confusion of
Yhemosh with Dusares is probably to be
in
.he statements of Jewish writers that the idol of Chemosh
a black stone-the same which is now adored by
Moslems in the Caaba at Mecca.
The etymology of the name Chemosh
is
quite un-
mown
:
a fact which gives good reason to believe that
is one of the older Semitic gods.
D.
Hackmann
'De Chemoscho
idolo,'
(in
1768, pp.
Movers,
1
6.
Literature.
den
;
in
Kemosch'
full literature); Baethgen,
G
.
F.
M.
CHENAANAH
73, towards Canaan (?)
.
.
[a]).
Father of the false prophet Zedekiah,
I
K.
22
[A]) 24
Ch. 18
[A]) 23.
CHENANI
: cp Chenaniah), Levite officiating
at constitution of congregation' (see
E
ZRA
,
ii.
13
(om. B.,
[for M T Bani
Chenani,
[L]).
CHENANIAH
and
cp Chenani), chief of the Levites, who was
over
'
the song,' or the carrying
'
of the ark
'-
text obscure
:
see Ki. and Be. ad
I
Ch.
RV
Chephar-ammoni
village of the Ammonite
see
B
EN
J
AMIN
,
3;- Kr. has
K
.
identified place in Benjamin, mentioned with O
PHNI
(Josh.
18
24
P).
T h e name is possibly of post-
exilic origin (cp P
AHATH
-
MOAB
).
See A
MMON
,
§ 6,
and B
BTHHORON
,
4,
T
OBIJAH
,
4.
CHEPHIRAH
in Josh.
' t h e
village'? or ' t h e l i o n ' ?
[L]), a town of the Hivites, member of the
confederation (Josh.
9
17 :
[A],
[BF],
afterwards assigned to
(Josh.
18
26
:
[B]), and mentioned in the great post-
hst (see
E
ZRA
,
ii. §
9 , 8
c.)
Ezra
Esd.
C
APHIRA
(or
E K
.
.
.
[A],
[L]), is the modern Kefireh,
about
m. WSW. from el-Jib (Gibeon).
I
Esd. 5
P
I
R
A
(AV om.
the
second
name after Caphira, is apparently a cdrrnpt
form of Caphira). Buhl
suggests that Kephirim
villages in Neh. 6 may be the same as Kephirah.
To6
on Nu.
By
a strange blunder
W.
L.
and Sayce (in Smith's
s.w.)
have turned this into a
black
The forms
etc., point to
a reading
(cp
2
Ch.
whilst
points
to
or
rather to
a
scribe's error for
(cp Ki., Chron.,
738
CHEQUER
WORK
CHEQUER
WORK
RV.
See
CHERAN
a Horite
CHEREAS, RV
and
[A],
E
MBROIDERY
,
W
EAVING
;
also
T
UNIC
.
name (Gen.
See
brother
Of
and com-
mander of the fortress at Gazara
CRERETHITES
in Sam. and
K.
o
or [by
to Pelethites]
o
Vg.
in Prophets
a
people in the south of Palestine.
I n the days of
and David a region in the Negeb adjoining Judah and
Caleb bore their name
(I
S.
30
14
[B]
[A]
[L]).
From
v.
1 6
it appears that the inhabitants
of this region were reckoned to the Philistines in Zeph.
and
Ez.
2516
(AV
also, Philistines and
Cherethites are coupled in such a way
as
to show that
they were regarded
as
one people.
Finally, in the
names mentioned in the prophecy against Egypt
in Ez.
where
AV
gives, ' t h e men of the land
that is in league,' we should restore the Cherethites
;
so
Cornill, Toy). I t is to he inferred that
the Cherethites were
a
branch of the Philistines
or,
perhaps, that they were one of the tribes which took part
with the Philistines in the invasion of Palestine, and that,
like the latter, they remained behind when the wave
receded (see
P
HILISTINES
,
C
APHTOR
,
T h e
translators of Zeph. and Ez. interpreted the name by
Cretans; and in this, although they
have been
guided only by the sound, they perhaps hit upon the
An early connection between Gaza and Crete
seems to be indicated by other evidence (see G
AZA
).
Except in the three passages already cited, the name
occurs only in the phrase,
Cherethites and
thites
gen.
as
the designation
of
a
corps of troops in the service of David-his body-
guard
S.
8
207
23
Kr.,
I
K.
1 3 8 44
Ch.
;
Jos. A n t .
54,
They were
commanded by B
ENAIAH
,
I
,
and remained faithful to
their master in all the crises of his reign
15
20
I
K.
1).
Only the strongest reasons could warrant our separat-
ing the Cherethites of David's guard from the people of
the same name spoken of in the same source
(I
30
There are no such reasons :
has the regular form of
a
gentile noun
;
and, although much ingenuity has been
expended on the problem, all attempts to explain the
word
as
an appellative have failed. T h e name Pelethite,
which is found only coupled with Cherethite in the
phrase above cited, also is a gentile noun the etymo-
logical explanations are even more far-fetched than in
the case of the Cherethites. T h e presumption is that
the Pelethites also were Philistines and this is confirmed
by the passages cited from Zeph. and Ez.
is
perhaps only
a
lisping pronunciation of
to make
it rhyme with
I t need not surprise
us
that David's guard was com-
posed of foreign mercenaries. The Egyptian kings
of
the nineteenth dynasty recruited their
corps
from
the bold sea-rovers who periodically descended on their
coasts Rameses
displays great pride in his
in
is obviously misplaced
;
this version has been
conformed
t o
the Hebrew; hence the insertion
Davidson's view
will hardly
stand.
three places
has
for Put. See C
HUB
,
G
EOGRAPHY
Ewald, Hitzig, Stade, and others. For another
view see C
APHTOR
.
readings vary : thus
in
S.
8
in
doublet
2
S.
5.1,
A
om. doublet
[A
;
L omits and
in
231 ;
and
in
I
Ch.
in
I
K.
138
Variants for Pelethites
are
in
[A
in doublet
15
and
I
Ch. 18 17.
L
has
but
in
S.
15
in
I
Ch. 18
and
in
; see B
ENAIAH
,
4
Ewald,
739
CHERITH
guards, and Sardinians and Libyans are the flower of
the army
of
Rameses
T h e Philistines were more
skilled in arms than the Israelites, and doubtless
fighting better : cp
the
and see A
RMY
, 4.
It is the opinion of some recent scholars that where
David's
(EV
mighty men seem to be spoken
of as a body, the Cherethites and Pelethites are meant
see especially
I
K.
1 8
IO
compared with
38.
This is,
however, not a necessary inference from the verses cited
and conflicts with
More prob-
ably the
were the comrades of David in the
days of his outlawry and the struggle with the Philistines
for independence. See D
AVID
,
I n
S.
for
Cherethites' the Heb. text ( K t . ) has Carites
I n
K.
11
4
where this name again
it prob-
ably means Carians.'
The Carians were a famous
mercenary folk, and it would not surprise us to find
them at Jerusalem in the days of Athaliah (see C
ARITES
). ,
That the soldiers of the guard in even later times were
usually foreigners has been inferred from
Zeph.
and
from
Ez.
: see
260
but also
T
HRESHOLD
.
For mercenary troops in post-exilic times
.
.
.
see A
RMY
,
7.
Joh. Benedict Carpzov
and Hen.
(1672)
in
457
;
J.
G.
Lakemacher
P.
Conrad
Behrend,
Die
und
from
pp.
;
Riietschi,
8
44
G. F.
M.
CHERITH
)
has just informed Ahab of the impending
drought, when we are abruptly told that
word
came unto him, saying, Get thee hence'
pre-
sumably from Samaria), ' a n d turn to the east
and hide thyself in the torrent-valley of Cherith which
is before
Jordan
(
I
K.
35).
This occurs in
the first scene of the highly dramatic story of Elijah.
I n the second he appears in the far north of Palestine
-at
which hardly snits Robinson's identifi-
cation
of
with the Wady
(which is rather the Valley of
at
least if these two scenes stood in juxtaposition from the
first. Besides this, the two names
and Cherith
begin with different palatals and since the expression
before Jordan is most naturally explained to the
E.
of the Jordan,' it is plausible to hold with Prof. G. A.
Smith that the scene of Elijah's retreat must be sought
in Gilead
Let
us,
then, look across
the Jordan eastward from Samaria (where Elijah may
have had his interview with Ahab). T h e
'Ajliin
and the
have been proposed by Thenius
the
by
But, as
C.
Niebuhr
(Gesch.
points out, Elijah would certainly go to
some famous holy place. Of the burial-place of Moses
(Niebuhr) we know nothing ; but
I
K.
suggests
that the sanctuary was in the far south.
I t
is
true,
Eus. and Jer.
already place Cherith
(Xoppa,
beyond Jordan.
Josephus, however,
Elijah depart
'
into the southern parts' ( A n t .
viii.
What
have to do is to find a name which
could, in accordance with analogies, be worn down and
Many other examples in ancient and modern times will occur
t o
the reader.
In
Kt.
is perhaps not a purely graphic
accident
;
cp also
S.
L
etc.
3
in geographical and topographical expressions means
commonly
East; cp
I
K.
11
7
K.
23 13
Dt.
Gen. 23
25
I
S,
etc. Besides the vaguer meaning of
Gen.
it is sometimes made definite by the addition of a word or of an
expression in order
denote a particular
Josh.
158, the mountain
the Valley of Hinnom
(Zech. 14
4),
and the Mount of Olives, which is
Jerusalem
the
East
: cp
Nu.
21
Josh. 18
Lastly, it is used in
the sense
of overlooking. cp Gen. 18
16
19 28 Nu. 23
28
(cp Dr.
on
I
Sam.
Di. on
and especially Moore,
163). In
K.
173,
'castward,' should be corrected to
'towards the desert (as 19
CHERUB
CHERUB
corrupted into
Such a name
is
Rehoboth.
T h e valley of Rehoboth (the
Ruhaibeh) would
be fitly described a s
fronting
(see
M
IZR
A
IM
)
cp Gen.
25
The alteration of
into
was made in
to suit the next story, in
which Z
EPHATH
)
had been already corrupted into
Z
AREPHATH
.
T. K. C.
CHERUB,
plural form
Cherubim
mology disputed
Ps. 1043 may allude
to a popular [post-exilic] identification
of
and
but
being,
like
a
loan-word,
a
Hebrew etymology is in-
admissible). I n the composite system of Jewish angel-
ology the cherubim form one of the ten highest classes
of angels, while another class is distinguished by the
synonymous term living creatures
These
two classes, together with the
or wheels,' are
specially attached to the throne of the divine glory, and
it is the function of the cherubim to be bearers of the
throne
on
its progresses through the worlds.
T h e
Jewish liturgy, like the T e Deum,' delights to associate
the praises of Israel (Ps. 22
3
with those offered to
God by the different classes of angels, and singles
for special
in
a
portion of the daily morning
service the
the
and the
W e find an approachto this conception
Apocalypse,
where the four
(Rev.
46-8),
though-like the
four
are always mentioned apart from
the angels, and discharge some altogether peculiar
functions, are yet associated with the angels in the
utterance of doxologies (Rev.
A similar view is suggested in the 'Similitudes' in
in
passage of which
(61
)
the cherubim,
seraphim, and
and all the angels of power
are combined under the phrase
host of God,' and
unite in the ascription of blessedness to the Lord of
Spirits,' while in another (chap.
)
the four faces on
the four sides of the Lord of Spirits (a reminiscence of
Ezek.
1 6 )
are identified or confounded with the arch-
angels.
Elsewhere, however, a somewhat different
view is presented of the cherubim. They are the sleep-
less guardians of the
'
throne of His glory
'
(71
7) ;
they
are the fiery cherubim
(14
and together with the
seraphim (exceptionally called serpents,'
are
closely connected with Paradise, and placed under the
archangel Gabriel
From these facts we gather
that in the last two centuries
B.C.
there were different
ways of conceiving the cherubim. Some writers had
a
[BAL]; ety-
stronger sense of the peculiarity of
the nature of the cherubim than
others, and laid stress on such
Isa.
as
their connection with the divine fire, and with
and its serpent-guardians.
Whence did they derive a
notion
so
suggestive of mythological comparisons
The most reasonable answer is, From the earlier
religious writings, supplemented and interpreted by a
not yet extinct oral tradition. A tale of the serpents by
the sacred tree (once probably shpent-demons) may
have been orally handed down, but the conception of the
fiery cherubim in God's heavenly palace is to be traced
to the vision in Ezek.
1,
and to the account of the
mountain of God in Eden, with its stones of fire
and
its cherub-guardian,
Ezek.
16.
These two
passages of Ezekiel form the next stage in our journey.
T h e latter must be treated first, as being evidently a
faithful report of a popular tradition.
Unfortunately
the received Hebrew text is faulty, and an intelligible
exegesis
of
the
is rarely given. Keil, for
instance, admits some reference to
but feels
The differences between the
of Revelation and those of
Ezekiel, both as to their appearance and as to their functions
are obvious. But without the latter how could the former
been imagined7 The traditional Christian view that the apoca-
lyptic
symbolise the
four
can hardly be seriously
defended.
obliged to infer from the epithet that covereth
that the place of the cherub in the sanctuary
(Ex.
was also present to the prophet's mind.'
Nor is the
difficulty confined
epithetand to the equally strange
word
which
renders 'extentus,' and EV
anointed
(so
Theodot.); the opening phrase
whether rendered
'
thou wast the cherub' or (pointing
differently) with the cherub,' baffles comprehension.
I t is necessary, therefore, to correct the text of
16d we shall then arrive'at the following sense
:-
' T h o u wast in Eden, the divine garden; of all
precious stones was thy covering-cornelian, etc. and
of gold were thy
.
.
.
worked in the day when thou
wast made were they prepared.
T o be
. .
.
had
I
appointed thee thou wast upon the holy, divine moun-
tain amidst the stones of fire
thou walk to and
Then
thou dishonoured (being cast) out of
the divine mountain, and the cherub destroyed thee
(hurling thee) out of the midst of the stones of fire.'
have here
a
tradition of Paradise distinct from that in Gen.
2
and
3.
Favoured men, it appears, could be admitted to
the divine garden, which glittered with precious stones
(or,
as
they are also called,
stones of fire like the
mythic tree which the hero
saw in the
Babylonian
or like the interior of the temples of
Babylon or
or like the walls and gates and
streets
of
the new Jerusalem in the Apocalypse. But
these privileged persons were still liable to the sin of
pride, and such
a
sin would be their ruin.
This Ezekiel
applies to the case of the king of Tyre, who reckoned
himself the favourite of his god, and secure of admission
to Paradise.
The idea of the passage
is
closely akin to that ex-
pressed in
Is.
The king of Babylon believes
that by his unique position and passionate devotion to
the gods he is assured of entering that glorious cosmic
temple of which his splendid terrace-temples are to him
the symbols. Towards Marduk he is humility itself,
but to the unnamed prophet of
he seems proud
even to madness. From that heaven of which in his
thoughts he is already the inhabitant, the prophet sees
him hurled
as
a
lifeless corpse to an ignoble grave.
This is just what Ezekiel holds out in prospect to the
king of Tyre, and the destroying agent is the cherub.
different this idea of the cherub from that of the
apocalyptic
!
W e have again
a
different conception of the
cherubim in Ezekiel's vision (Ez.
The prophet
has
not the old unquestioning belief in tradition, and
modifies the traditional data so
as to
produce effective
symbols of religious ideas. Out of the
elaborate description it is enough to
select
a
few salient points.
Observe then that the one
cherub of the tradition in ch. 28 has now become four
cherubim (cp Rev.
46-8),
each of which has four faces,
one looking each
that of
a
man, a lion, an ox,
and an eagle, and human
on his four sides.
They are' not, however, called cherubim, but
So
Co., following
but
other respects reading
v.
14
as ahove.
According to the ordinary view which makes the Tyrian
prince a cherub the plumage of the cherub of Ezekiel's tradition
was
as
if with gold and precious stones.
surely
it
was not merely as a griffin, nor as a griffin's fellow, that the
Tyrian prince was placed (as the prophet dramatically states) in
Paradise, hut as one
of the 'sons of
; and the covering
spoken
of is a state-dress besprinkled with precious stones+
of fire' means 'flashing stones,' like the Assyrian
stone
of fire,' one of the names of a certain precious stone
(Friedr. Del. Par.
3
Tablet
IX.
See Jeremias
For Babylon see
3
where he describes the beautification
of the temple
a t
great length. Gold and precious stones are specially mentioned.
of Tyre see Herod.
(the
brilliant pillars).
Gold was also lavishly used in the temple of
Solomon.
There is
a second description in
it is theattempt
of a later writer
t o
improve upon Ezekiel's account, and
to pre-
pare the y a y for
14 should he omitted as
a very care-
less gloss. See
and on
v.
cp
742
The sense now becomes fairly clear.
CHERUB
CHERUB
(‘living creatures’), until we come to
9 3 ,
and Ezekiel
tells us
that he did not ‘know that they were
cherubim’ till he heard them called
so
by God
By this he implies that his own description of them
differed so widely from that received by tradition that
without the divine assurance he could
not
have ventured
to call them cherubim,
Sometimes, however, he speaks
of them in the singular
the living creature,’
the cherub,’
9 3
if
M T
is correct), apparently to
indicate that, being animated by
one
‘spirit,’ the four
beings formed but one complex phenomenon.
The
fourfold character
the cherub is caused by the new
function (relatively to the account in ch.28) which is
assigned to it in fact, it has now become the bearer of
the throne of God (more strictly of the ‘firmament’
under the throne
But the whole appearance
was at the moment bathed in luminous splendour,
so
that the seer needed reflection to realise it. W e will
therefore not dwell too much on what must be to a
large extent peculiar to Ezekiel and artificially symbolic,
and in
so
far belongs rather to the student of biblical
theology.
All
that it is important to add is that the
divine manifestation
place within a storm-cloud,
and that a fire which gives out flashes
of
lightning burns
brightly between the cherubim
also that there are
revolving wheels beside the cherubim, animated by the
same spirit as the living creatures, and as brilliant
as
the chrysolith or topaz; and that in his vision of the
temple Ezekiel again modifies his picture of
cherubim,
each cherub having there but two faces, that of a man
and that of a lion
Another group of passages
on
the cherubim
is
found
in the Psalter, viz.
Ps.
18
I
O
80
I
99
I
,
and to
the
may join not only Ps.
2 2 3 [4]
but phrases in
I
S.
4 4
S.
37
I
Ch.
6
K.
19
All these passages are
In the first we read,
‘ H e bowed the heavens and came down, and thick
clouds were under his feet he mounted the cherub and
flew, he came swooping upon the wings of the wind.’
That there is a mythical conception here is obvious,
it has grown very pale, and does not express much
more than Ps.
T h e conception agrees with
that of Ezekiel the cherub (only one is mentioned, but
this does not exclude the existence of more) is in some
sense the divine chariot, and has some relation
to
the
storm-wind and the storm-clonds.
T h e other
passages appear at first sight to give a new conception
of the cherubim, who are neither the guards of the
mountain of God,’ nor the chariot of the moving
Deity, but the throne
on
which he
is
seated.
I t may
be questioned, however, whether
the
phrase enthroned
upon the cherubim is not simply a condensed expres-
sion for seated
on
the throne which is guarded by the
cherubim.’ Both in the Psalter and in the
books it is the heavenly throne of
which is
meant, the throne from which
(as
is implied in
Ps.
80
I
99
I
and
K.
19
15)
he rules the universe and
the destiny of the nations. That is the only
change which has taken place in the conception of the
cherubim
they have been definitely transferred to
heaven, and, strictly speaking, their occupation as
bearers of the Deity should have gone, for the angels
are sufficient links between God and the world of
Or rather there is yet another point in which the cherub
idea has been modified
it is indicated in
Ps.
2 2 3
where, if the text is
Yahwk is addressed
as
‘enthroned,’ not upon the cherubim, but ‘upon the
praises of Israel.’ The idea is that the cherubim in
heaven have now the great new function of praising
God, and that in the praiseful services of the temple,
where God is certainly in some degree present, the
I n the three passages from
and
the
has been interpolated (cp
A
RK
,
I
)
.
Che.
ad
where the text
of
the deeply
corrupt verse
restored with some confidence.
743
congregation takes the place
of
the cherubim. This at
any rate agrees with later beliefs, and may be illustrated
by the direction in
( P )
that the faces of the
cherubim on the ark shall be towards the mercy-seat
The meaning of the priestly theorist (for
the description is imaginary, the ark having long ago
disappeared) is, that the cherubim are a kind of higher
angels who surround the earthly throne of
and
contemplate and praise his glory.
I t is also stated
that their faces are to be ‘one to another,’ and, if
we add to this that they have to guard, not
but the sacramental sign of his favour, we get three
points in which the cherubim of the priestly writer are
closely analogous to the seraphim of the vision of Isaiah
(Is.
6).
W e now come to the cherubim in the temple of
Solomon. Carved figures of cherubim were prominent
in the decoration of the walls and the
doors, and two colossal cherubim stood
in the
or ‘adytum,’ where they
formed a kind of
one wing being horizontally
stretched towards the lateral wall, whilst the other over-
shadowed the ark, a felicitous arrangement resulting in
charming effects
(see
I
K.
6
23-35).
Obviously they
are the guards of the sacred ark and its still more sacred
contents.
Cp
T
EMPLE
.
There is
no
record of any myth which directly
accounts for the temple-cherubim. But an old tradition
said that after the first human pair had
been driven out of the divine garden,
‘stationed at the east of
Garden of Eden the cherubim and the blade of the
whirling sword,’ and the function of these two allied
independent powers was to guard the way to the
tree of life‘ (Gen.
Neither in this case, nor in the
preceding one, is any account given of the physiognomy
of the cherubim.
In the height of the niythological
period no such account was needed.
W e see therefore that the most primitive Hebrew
described the cherubim as beings of superhuman
power and devoid of
sympathies,
whose office was to drive away intruders
from the abode of God, or of the gods.
Originally this abode was conceived of as a mountain,
or as a garden on the lower slopes of a mountain, and
as glittering with a many-coloured brightness.
But
when the range of the supreme god’s power became
wider, when from an earth-god he became also a
heaven-god, the cherub too passed into a new phase
he became the divine chariot.
W e have no early
authority for this view, but the age which produced the
story of Elijah‘s ascent to heaven in a fiery chariot
may be supposed to have
of
fiery
cherubs on which Yahwk rode. At a still later time,
the cherubim, though still spoken of by certain writers,
were no longer
The forces of nature
were alike
guards and his ministers. Mythology
became a subject of special learning, and its details
acquired new meanings, and the cherub-myth passed
into an entirely new phase.
There is much that is obscure about the form of the
primitive Israelitish cherub.
It
was in the main a
but it had wings.
That is all that we know,
though a probable conjecture (see below) may lead us
further.
As
to the meaning of the cherubim, they have
been thought to represent the storm-clouds which some-
times hang around the mountain peaks, sometimes
rush ‘ o n the
wings
of the wind,’ sending forth
and Chipiez
A r t
The sword is not
sword of the
hut that
of
it is the same with which he ‘slew the dragon’ (Is.
Marduk.
too.
has such a sword (see Smith.
86
opp.
not
upon a cherub, but upon horses.
3
I n
a
very late
speaks
of
as riding,
This is a return
to
a
very
old myth (see tablet
4
of the Babylonian Creation epic,
p.
restoration
in
744
CHERUB
like flashes
of
lightning.
This theory is consistent with
the language of
Ez.
24,
and the passages
in Enoch. but hardly explains the symbolism of the
cherub in its earliest historically known
At any rate, we can affirm posi-
tively that the myth is of foreign origin.
Lenormant
thought that he had traced it to
on the
ground that
occurs on a talisman as a synonym
for
a common term for the divine bull-guardian of
temples and palaces. This theory however is not con-
firmed as regards the derivation of
(see
W e may indeed admit that Ezekiel probably
mingled the old Palestinian view of the cherub with the
Babylonian conception of the divine winged
bulls.
so
far as can be seen at present, the early
Hebrew cherub came nearer to the griffin, which was
not divine, but the servant of the Deity,
the origin
of which is now assigned to the Hittites of
The
idea of this mythic form is the combination of parts of
the two strongest animals of air and land-the lion and
the eagle,
a reminiscence of this may perhaps be
traced in the reference to these
in
1
It
was adopted by various nations, but to understand its
true significance we must go,
not
to. Egypt nor to
Greece, but to the Hittites, whose originality in the use
of animal-forms is well known.
The Hittite griffin
appears almost always, in contrast to many Babylonian
representations, not
a fierce beast of prey, but seated
in calm dignity like an irresistible guardian of holy
things.
It is only on later Syrian monuments that the
Sun-god is represented in a chariot drawn by griffins,
which agrees with a statement respecting the
sun-god in Philostratus’s
(3
48).
The Egyptians imported this form, probably from Syria
or Canaan at the beginning of the New Empire, but
the griffin never acquired among them the religious
significance of the
The
and
probably the Canaanites, and through them the Is-
raelites, evidently attached greater importance to the
griffin or cherub, and it is said that among the dis-
coveries at Zenjirli in
N.
A
RAMAIC
L
ANGUAGE
,
2 )
is
a
representation of this mythic
as
described in
Ez.
41
Whether the sculptured quad-
ruped with a bearded human head, Assyrian in type,
discovered by
M.
Clermont-Ganneau in the subterranean
quarries in the north
of
is rightly called a
cherub seems very doubtful.
For
a
general sketch of the different conceptions of winged
composite animals see
Teloni,
Z A
and cp
art.
Roscher,
Lex., cited already
;
also,
for
OT
criticism,
Die
des
A
L‘3
CHERUB
a
town or
district in Babylonia, unless Cherub-
Immer
should be taken as one name, Ezra259
[B].
[A]), where the former two of these
names are run together (C
HARAATHALAR
, RV
AATHALAN)
and the names are regarded as personal
rather than
as
local.
CHESALON
on the N. side of Mount Jearim, one of the places
See Lenormant, L e s
1
;
Schrader, C O T
140;
Frd. Del.
Par.
153;
Che.
2
Delitzsch,
however, still holds to a connection between
and
Ass.
‘mighty’
(Ass.
352).
Sayce com-
pares the
winged figures represented on
walls as fertilising the ‘tree of life,’ the date-palm
cp Tylor
PSBA 1 2
Bd.
art.
3
H.
perhaps
or
(G. Hoffmann) is one of the gods of the Syrian district of
Ya’di (Zenjirli inscriptions).
G.
Hoffmann explains Rekah’el
‘charioteer
of
11
in Roscher,
Bd.
cp
falsch-Richter,
See
9
forms.
T.
K
.
c.
Rev.
16
Mai,
745
CHILMAD
which
Joshua
(1510)
mark the northern frontier
of
the tribe of Judah.
It is the modern
2087 ft.
above sea-level, on a high ridge immediately
to
the
S.
of the
Ghurab, and about half-way between
Karyat el
(Robinson’s
(Eshtaol). (See Rob.
230
I n the time of
Eusebius and Jerome, who place it on the border, the one
in Benjamin and the other in Judah, it was a very large
village in the confines of Jerusalem’ (OS,
Stanley
496) fitly compares the name
and situation with that of
or
CHESED
[L]),
son of Nahor by Milcah (Gen.
the eponym
of a branch of the
See A
RAM
,
3,
A
RPHAXAD
.
TABOR
CHESIL
Josh.
B
ETHUL
.
CHESNUT
Gen.
RV P
LANE
.
CHEST.
I
.
in
K.
[
I
O
Ch.
24
8
used of a box with lid
see D
OOR
) and
hole
(in)
into which money might be dropped
C O K O M O C
[BAL],
Ant.
The
same word is used of acoffin (Gen.
see D
EAD
,
I
) ,
and of the Ark of the Covenant (see A
RK
, and cp
C
OFFER
).
2.
Ezek. 2724, EV chests of rich apparel,’
but though
(see
T
REASURE
H
OUSE
), like
(Mt.
might conceivably mean a repository for
costly objects, yet the parallel expression mantles (not
wrappings,’ as RV) of blue
broidered work shows
that
must mean ‘garments,’ or the like.
and
are
so
easily confounded that we need not hesitate to
read
(Che. rendering robes of variegated stuff.’
See EM
BROIDERY
, and cp D
RESS
,
CHESULLOTH
Josh.
1918.
See
CHETTIIM
I
Macc.
AV,
CHEZIB
Gen.
I
Ch.
CHIEF, CHIEFTAIN.
4.
LOTH-TABOR.
R V C
HITTIM
.
See K
ITTIM
.
See A
CHZIB
,
I
.
See N
ACHON
.
The former, like captain,’
is often used in AV
as
a substantive with a convenient
vagueness to render various Heb. words
as
which appear to be used in a more
or
less general sense.
For
‘chief
I
cp
P
RIEST
and
P
RINCE
for ‘chief
sed
;
and for ‘chief of Asia,’ (Acts 19
31)
see
C
HIEFTAIN
occurs only in Zech. 9 7 12
5f:
for
for
which see D
UKE
.
CHILDREN, SONG
OF
THE
THREE.
See
CHILEAB
4),
son
of
David
( 2
S .
33). I n
I
Ch.
3
I
he
is
called D
ANIEL
4).
CHILIARCH
[Ti.
WH]), Rev.
See A
RMY
,
IO.
74,
M
AHLON
[BAL],
sickness
and wasting,’ the names given to the sons of
in the narrative of Ruth
[B],
5
49
D
ANIEL
,
22.
CHILMAD
Ez.
MT,
usually supposed to be a place or land not far from
Assyria.
If this be correct, it must at any rate be some
fairly well-known place or land.
But
no name re-
sembling Chilmad occurs anywhere else, and, as two
Cp
Ass.
‘variegated cloth’ (Muss-Amok).
746
CHIMHAM
corruptions of the text have already been found in this
verse (C
ANNEH
,
iii.), we may presume a third.
Read with
' a n d Media'
Less
probably
'Babylon and Media'
Mez and
Bertholet,
Media'
should be dis-
regarded.
I t came from
h ;
the scribe began. to
write
too
soon.
fell out owing to the
which
CHIMHAM
66,
77, or
or [Jer.
Kt.]
if the text is right,
[cp
and note Nestle's view
on the
origin of
Ant.
vii.1114; in Jer.
[K],
[AQ"]), one of the sons of the Gileadite
whose stead he entered the service of David
S.
Most probably
his real name was Ahinoam
note the
in
Jer.
form, the
the Gr. forms with
and
and the Egyptian form
see below) with n-ma (Che.).
Following Ew.
(Hist.
Deans Stanley and Plumptre
have supposed that he carried on the family tradition of
hospitality by erecting at Bethlehem a khan or hospice
for travellers (see Jer. 41
place of Chimham'). This
however, is based
on
the faulty reading
This should be corrected
into
which
is
the reading of Jos. (see
Ant.
x.
of Aq., and of the Hexaplar Syriac (see Field), and
has been adopted by Hitzig and Giesebrecht. In the
text represented by
[see
the
in
had
become a
the hurdles, or
sheep
-
pens, of Chimham '-seems
a
probable name
for a locality in a pastoral district.
Chimham (or
Ahinoam?) is appended to distinguish this Gederoth
from other places
of
the same name.
I t is just
possible that the family of Chimham or Ahinoam 'had
property there. Among the names of the places in
Palestine conquered by Seti I. we find Ha(?)-ma-he-mu,
the city
of
in
which
belong to the same place (WMM
As.
Gidroth-chimham (Sayce, Pat.
P a l
CHIMNEY
Hos.
133.
See C
OAL
,
3,
(
I
).
CHINNERETH
in Josh.
[A]; in Dt.,
'from Chinnerefh
the name of one of the 'fenced cities of Naphtali
(Josh.
Possibly it is also referred to
I
K.
where we should perhaps read ' a n d
maacah, and Chinneroth, and all the land
of
I t is of great antiquity,
it
under the form
R n - n u - m - t u
the list of places conquered by
Thotmes
34
5
45
WMM
As.
84).
It is also given (
I
) , with the prefix 'sea of,'
to
the Galilean lake (Nu. 3411
BF,
AL] Josh.
1327)
to the same inland
sea'
without that prefix (Dt.
3
cp Josh.
11
and see below).
The site of the town can no longer be identified.
Jerome identified it with
some rabbins
a
town a t the
S.
of
the
lake called Beth-jerach (probably the
of
Josephus).
Others included Sanbari (the
bris of
97) under the designation ; a third extended
the application of the name to
par.
98,
Wunsche).
This vagueness sufficiently shows
nothing was known as to
of the ancient town. Cp
Neubauer,
precedes restore
T.
C .
or rather Gidroth-ahinoam.
T. K.
A. C.
the derivation of Chinnereth, see G
ENNESARET
.
The Kt. reading
Jer.4117, may safely be disre-
garded.
ni
may conceal
nul.
in
16
14, however,, presupposes
see Ki.,
SBOT).
T.
K . C.
747
CHISLOTH-TABOR
CHIBNEROTH ([Gins.]
or
the
of C
HINNERETH
) is the name
applied (
I
) , with the prefix 'sea of,' to the Galilean
lake in Josh.
[BFL],
[A]),
with-
out this prefix (cp Dt.
to the same lake in Josh.
11
[B],
[A],
[FL]),
in the spelling
(AV
only), to a district
(?)
in Naphtali
laid waste by Benhadad king of Damascus
(
I
K.
15
[B]). See C
ITY
,
n. The
second and third passages need a brief comment.
In
I
Ewald
(Hist.
n.
6 )
explains all Chin-
neroth
'
to mean the
W.
shore of Lake Merom and the
Sea of Galilee and of that part of the Jordan which
flows between those lakes; Thenius, the basin which
extends from Lake
to the upper point of the
Sea of Galilee.
Such
a
large extent of meaning,
however, is improbable.
Unless we adopt the cor-
rection suggested 'above (C
HINNERETH
) it is best to
suppose Chinneroth to mean here the shores (or the
W.
or
E.
shore alone) of that famous lake. I n support
of
this explanation, the second passage mentioned above
(Josh.
11
may be appealed to.
T h e rendering 'in
the Arahah south of Chinneroth'
(RV)
can hardly be defended.
The difficulty lies in
for which it is better with
to read
we shall then get the phrase
the
Arabah over against Chinneroth.'
This may be a designation
of the fertile plain called
the
of the
Synoptic Gospels, in which the town
of Chinnereth was
ably situated. Cp G
ENNESARET
, and
UPON J
ORDAN
.
CHIOS
[Ti.
WH]:
the beautiful and
fruitful
the central member of the triad of large
islands
off
the coast
of
Asia Minor.
I t has little
connection with biblical history, but the solitary mention
of it (Acts
20
15)
very clearly indicates its geographical
position.
Paul returning from Macedonia, to keep
Pentecost at Jerusalem, touched at Mitylene in Lesbos
next day he was over against Chios
probably somewhere about Cape
num. mod.
which was a place of anchorage
(Polyb.
168).
On
the third day at Samos. The ship
evidently anchored each night and sailed with the early
morning breeze, which prevails generally in the
during the summer, blowing from the
N.
and dying
away
the afternoon. T h e run from Mitylene to Chios
is something over
50
m.
Herod's voyage as related in
Jos.
Ant.
xvi. 22, in the reverse direction, illustrates the
apostle's journey.
Strabo describes the town as having a good harbour with
anchorage for eighty ships
(645).
Paul possibly lay becalmed
in the channel (ahout
7
wide) and may not have landed. The
island was noted for its wines
645,
657).
CRISLEU,
RV
in
Kisilivu,
cp
in Palm.
Cent.
nos. 24,
75) : Zech.
or
Neh.
1
I
;
AV has
in
I
Macc.
1 5 4
but
[A in
CHISLON
confidence'?
the
of
(Nu.
3421).
CHISLOTH-TABOR
loins or
of Tabor cp Aznoth-tabor, ears or peaks
Josh
or
in
on the border between Zebulun (Josh.
and
Issachar
It is the Xaloth
of Josephus
3 1
the
or
of
Eusebius
Jerome-described
them
as a
small
village on the plain below Mount Tabor, 8 R. m. from
or Sepphoris
91
4
59).
It is
represented by the modern
460 ft. above sea
level, 7 m.
SW.
from Sepphoris,
m.
N.
from
748
The text, however, is not quite correct.
See M
ONTH
,
5 .
CHITHLISH
and nearly 3 m.
W.
from the base of Mount Tabor.
The name has been suggested
as
an emendation for
or
in
I
Macc.
and of Chellus
in Judithlg (see C
HELLUS
). The position of the place
on the main road N., in the pass between Tabor and
the hills of Nazareth, explains its strategical value, as
witnessed in its various appearances in history.
CHITHLISH
Josh.
AV
K
ITHLISH
.
CHITTIM
Is.
231 AV,
etc.; Gen.
CHIUN
and
SICCUTH
Am.
RV,
'Yea, ye
house of Israel] have borne Siccuth your
CHOIR
at least intelligible (see Schr.
and cp
T h e phenomena of
text, however, and
also those of the MT, suggest the inference
that there may be
a
more deeply-seated
(see
A
MOS
,
13).
[For the
of Heb. text
Symm. give
(cp
Pesh.
Aq.
Vg.
Tg.
(Lag.)
which
MT.
For
(Heb. text and
Tg.), Aq. and Symm.
have
Theod.
(for
pointing of M T 'seems to he suggested by that
of
abomination
idol
cp
For references to recent
see
A
MOS
,
13,
and cp Che.,
Jan. 1897, pp.
CHLOE
[Ti.
WH]), a
woman of whom
nothing is known, save that they
of
Chloe'
were the first to let Paul know at Ephesus of the
division which had arisen in the Corinthian church
( I
Cor.
Whether she belonged to Ephesus or to Corinth
who
the
members
of her household were, whether even
was a
Christian
or not, are questions on all of which only conjectures
can be offered.
I t is possible, hut hardly probable, that
Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus
(
I
Cor. 16
may have
been servants
of
Chloe.
called in Judith
Chobai
[BRA],
[Lag.]),
is mentioned in connection with the
defensive measures of the Jews against Holofernes
(Judith 4
4).
721)
proposed the
of
the Tab. Peut. near Jericho, a site that would agree
with both the
and the Syriac of Judith
4
4
and
in connection with it Conder
points
to the ruin
and the cave
e l
on the Roman road
3
m. from
(see
and
from
CHOENIX
in
for
B
ATH
),
a
of capacity Rev.
6 6
(EV
measure
').
CHOIR.
The subject of the hereditary choirs, or
better, guilds of singers is considered elsewhere (see
R.
W.
R.
CHOBA
See WEIGHTS
AND
M
EASURES
.
king, and Chiun your images, the star of
your god.
AV,
differ by rendering
These words
the tabernacle (of).'
have long been a puzzle to scholars.
The primary
question is, whether they should be considered appella-
tives or proper nouns.
The problem is ancient,
as
appears from the phenomena
of
the versions (see below,
Into the syntactical and exegetical difficulties of
v.
26,
taken with its context, we cannot here enter our
object is to consider the explanation of the
mentioned words offered by Schrader
and
C O T
which, though widely accepted,
fails
to
satisfy some good critics. According to Schrader's
theory
is to be
and
the former
representing the divine name Sakkut, the latter
Oppert had already recognised in Chiun the Babylonian
and this identification may be regarded
as
almost certain. The word is of frequent occurrence in
Babylonian
and religious texts
as
the name
of
the planet Saturn.
It is of uncertain meaning and
etymology.
Other Semitic peoples have preserved the same name, prob-
ably as loan words, for Saturn is called by the
by the Syrians
and
the Persians
(for
references to the occurrence of the word in Babylonian texts, see
Jensen,
The name Siccuth presents much greater difficulties.
Schrader has shown that the name Sak-kut, which is
probably the same
as
the Siccuth of the text, is used in
a
Babylonian list
as
a
name, or an ideographic writing,
for the god Ninib
( 2
R.
Ninib, however, appears
to
be the god of the planet Kaiwanu or Saturn (see
Jensen,
Lotz,
de
W e seem, therefore, to be brought to the con-
clusion that
and Kaiwan are the same (which
would be still more clear'if it could be shown with
certainty that
R.
32
no. 3
25,
might be read
Sak-kut,
as
Oppert and Schrader believe). Not all the
steps in the argument made to connect Salr-kut and
Kaiwan are perfectly clear. Still, indirect confirmation
of the correctness of the result has lately come to hand,
the two words having been found together in
mytho-
logical text.
I n the
texts Sak-kut and
are invoked together ( 4
R.
col. 4
der
Bad.
1896,
p.
I O
I n this text at least the two words Sak-kut and Kaiwan
appear together
as
they do in Amos.
[Not improbably according to Che., there is a reference to
K.
(see
and
another to Kaiwan in a passage
of
Ezekiel.
The
of
jealousy' in Ezek. 8 3
5 is
pot a possible title;
seems
to
b e a corruption of
The word for 'image' is
it
was
probably a statue
of Kaiwan which Ezekiel saw
(in ecstasy)
'northward of the altar gate' in the outer court
of the temple,
unless indeed
(I
D
O
L
,
I C
.)
should rather be
one of the names for the colossal winged bulls which
guarded the entrances of Assyrian and Babylonian palaces and
temples (cp Ezek. 8 3
where, however, read
the
entrance with
Gra. for
At any rate, we now seem to
know thk period to which the interpolation
of
refers
(see further Che.,
Times,
T h e connection
of
Siccuth and Chiun with the Baby-
lonian name and the ideographic value for the planet
Saturn agree well with their juxtaposition in Am. 526,
and
and
are transposed, the verse
7-19
PSAL
M
S
).
content ourselves
with the Talmudic statements relative to
the Temple choir in the narrower sense
of
the word,
postponing, however, the question of choral psalms.
T h e Talmud affirms that the choir in the Second
Temple consisted of not less than twelve adult Levites.
nine of whom played on the instrument called the
(lyre?), two on the
(lute?), while the
remaining one heat the
(cymbals).
This
number might, however, be exceeded on the occasion
of festivals (Mish.
No statement is made
as
to the number
of
the singers whom these musicians
accompanied, from which Gratz infers that the instru-
mental and the vocal music were performed by the
same persons.
This seems
to
illustrate
Ps.
92
I
3
(Che.
)-
Good is it to give thanks to Yahwb
T o make melody to the name of thk Most High,
T o the sound
of the horn and the lute
T o the sweetly sounding notes of the
Certainly the most important duty of the choir
of
Levites was the service
of
song.
The Talmud also
states that boys' voices were called in to modify the
deep bass of the men's voices.
The choir-boys did not
stand on the platform with the Levites. but lower down,
so
that their heads were on
a
level with the feet of the
Levites. They were sons of persons of rank in Jeru-
salem
136).
See Gratz,
Del.,
and cp M
USIC
,
The duty of the choir is briefly summed up in Neh.
2
Ch.
I t is
to raise the
strain
of
praise
ye) and
thanksgiving
ye thanks). See
C
ONFESSION
,
3.
The formula of thanks-
7
CHOLA
giving which served as a refrain in the later eucharistic
songs was,
For he is good, for his loving-kindness is
for ever
Ch.
5
7
6 Ezra 3
11
Jer. 33
last
passage has been expanded by
a
late writer-and cp
the psalms beginning
Give thanks unto
Were there any female singers in the temple choirs?
From Neh.
7
67 Peritz infers that there were
Women
in the Ancient Hebrew
17
148
Strange t o say, the word 'choirs' occurs hut once and only
Mattaniah (if this mg. is right) was {over the
choirs'
Neh. 128.
Del.
Rv.. and
CHRISTIAN, NAME
O F
CHRISTIAN, NAME
OF.
W e can readily under-
that the followers of Jesus confessed to the name
of their Master whenever occasion arose. On the other
hand, the time, the place, and the circumstances of the
origin of the name
as a specific designation
are obscure. According to Acts1126 the matter seems
a simple o n e ; but, with this passage before
us,
it is
remarkable how seldom the name
occurs elsewhere in the records of
early Christianity. I n the N T the only other places
where it is found are Acts
2628
and
I
Pet.
It is
certainly not -alluded to in Acts
5
for the name' on
account of which the apostles here suffer dishonour was,
as we are expressly told in
40,
the name of Jesus.
This passage, accordingly, belongs to the same category
as
Mk.
besides, the words because ye
are Christ's' after
(so
Ti.) may be
merely the explanatory marginal gloss of some early
reader-and Mk.
In Ja. 27 also, the 'honourable
name by which the readers are called is not the name
'Christian,' but the name of Christ
as
their Lord
for the expression is to be explained in the same sense
as
9
(
the heathen, which are called by my name
by reference to
2
1228
(
lest
.
. .
it he called
after my name
').
All passages of this class must here be
left out
of
account, inasmuch
as
they do not presuppose
the specific name Christian.' The name is presupposed,
as
far as the N T
is
concerned, only
Lk.
6 2 2
Outside of the N T , according to the exhaustive re-
searches of
the name does not
in either
of the epistles ascribed to Clement
of
Rome; it is
absent from Barnabas, Hermas, Polycarp, the
Tatian, and the
The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, as also
the Catholic Acts of Peter and Paul, have it only in a
few passages of later insertion
so
also with the Gnostic
writings. As
a
word in regular use it makes its earliest
appearances in the Apologists - Justin, Athenagoras,
Theophilus, Minucins Felix-and in the Epistle to
Diognetus,' in Ignatius, who uses also the word
in the 'Martyrdom of Polycarp,' in the
Catholic
in the letter of the churches of
and
(Eus.
HE
5
in
Tertullian, and Clement
of
Alexandria. T o this list
must be added the passage in the Teaching
W e
Twelve
discovered after the publication of
Lipsius's essay
Lipsius, it is true, points
out
allusions to the existence
of the name Christian
'
in older writings. As far as
Hermas, however,
is
concerned, the only valid passage
is
ix.
17
4.
The phrase is
Such expressions as
T
O
G
13
14
16
3)
or
13
7)
or
(Polycarp, 6
3)
do not
necessarily presuppose the word
and the simple
phrase
ix.
13
or
or
(ix.
28
3 5
;
Vis.
iii. 1
9
2
I
), in several cases
is clearly in juxtaposition to the words
or
ix. 13
2-6
Vis. iii. 5
I
Clem.
cannot with certainly be taken in
the sense which is
so
abundantly
in Justin
1 4 ) :
This play upon words seems,
besides, to be sufficiently explained by the consideration
that
had at that time the same pronunciation
as
Tertullian
3
however,
expressly says that the Gentiles
or
pronounced it
is the reading in
all three
N T
passages of the uncorrected
it pre-
ponderates in the inscriptions and Justin, according to
Blass
1895,
pp.
associates this word
with
in his Apology (i. 4
46
49 ii.
6,
where, as he
says,
ought to be read),
as in his
with
he associates it with
Blass
con-
'
den Ursprung
d.
Gehrauch des
namens ; Gratnlationsprogramm der theologischen
Jena fiir Hase, 1873, pp. 6-10.
.
.
Kau.
( H S )
however, give 'choir' as the rendering
of
in Neh. 12
where RV has 'companies that gave thanks.'
This may be Accepted, but the mg. choirs in 12
8
is but a con-
fession of the great improbability of MT. Neither
nor
(which Ry. and
prefer) can he naturally defended.
Read
'over the thanksgiving (Battch.,
E V
in Neh.
therefore, virtually corrects the text.
:
pointed
Neh. 11
and see
M
A
TT
AN
I
AH
,
CHOLA
[B]),
Judith154 RV, AV
T.
K.
C .
RV
COR-ASHAN
See
and
CHORAZIN
[Ti. W H ] Mt.
11
Lk.
10
Eus.
I n these two passages Jesus
calls woe upon Chorazin and Bethsaida (and immediately
after on Capernaum) as towns in which his wonderful
works have produced no effect. From his direct address
to
all three, they appear to have lain together within his
sight. Jerome
Chorozain) places Chorazin
from Capernaum (Euseb.
but this
seems a copyist's error). I n his commentary on
Is.
9
I
Jerome describes the town as on the shore of the lake-
like Capernaum, Tiberias, and Bethsaida.
From this
Robinson
argues for the site at Tell Ham.
But about
I
m.
N.
of Tell
in
a
shallow
running from the
into the hills, there are
black basalt ruins, including those of a large syna-
gogue, with Corinthian columns, which bear the name
Now,
(722)
says that he went from Capernaum to Bethsaida, thence
to Chorazin, and thence to the sources of the Jordan-a
course which, in spite of what Robinson asserts, suits
Kerazeh as it does not suit either Tell Hiim, or any
other site
on
the Lake.
Accordingly, most moderns,
since Thomson discovered the site in
1857,
agree that
is Chorazin, and take Jerome's statement as
either vague or inaccurate.
(Robinson thinks the name
may have drifted from Tell
to
Jesus
calls Chorazin a city and treats it as comparable with
Tyre and
The ruins are extensive, and there
are traces of a paved road connecting the site with the
great
road from Capernaum to Damascus.
The Bab. Talmud
praises the
of
Chorazin
cp Neuhauer
I n the days
Eusebius and Jerome
and
A
.
D
.)
the place was in
ruins. Willibald found a Christian Church there.
A.
[BA]),
I
name follows Simon
(
in
Ezra
and
hence may represent one of the three names in Ezra
1032 otherwise omitted in
I
Esd.
Possibly in a
poor
MS
only the final
of Malluch and the third name
Shemariah were legible, and out of these the scribe made
Choshamiah (Ball,
Otherwise the name has
arisen from
33
but the Syr.
still remains a difficulty.
CHOZEBA, RV C
OZEBA
I
Ch.
See
CHRIST
[Ti. W H ] ) ,
See
Z
ACCAI
.
A
CHZIB
,
I.
M
ESSIAH
,
end.
CHRISTIAN, NAME
OF
jectures from this that the Pagans to whom the
Apology is
addressed had derived the wosds anointed,
followers of the anointed,' which were mysterious to
them, by a popular etymology from
and Justin,
for simplicity's sake, accepted the derivation without
seeking to correct it.
W e have thus
that the name was left unused by
a
series of Christian writers at a time when it was already
familiar to the younger Pliny
in
A . D . ,
to Tacitus ( A n n .
A
.
D . ,
and to
(Nero, 16) in
T h e plain fact is that they did
not need it.
For designating their community there lay
a t their command an ample variety of
such
as 'brethren,' saints,' 'elect,' 'called,' that believed,'
'faithful,' disciples,' 'they that are
'they that
are in the Lord,' 'they that are Christ's,' and ['any
. . .
of the way'?].
I t follows that, notwithstanding its
absence from their writings, the name of Christian may
very well have originated a t a comparatively, early time.
It can hardly, however, have been current at
so
early
a
date as that indicated in Acts
11
26.
The famine predicted at that time, according
to
Acts 11
occurred in Palestine between the years
44
and
48.
(The belief
that it extended over the whole of the
world
is a mis-
take.) The prediction itself must, of course, have been
Indeed the expression 'which came to pass in the days of
may be held to imply that it was made before the
accession of that emperor-that is to say, before
47
A
.D.
With
this
it agrees that the death of Herod Agrippa I.
(44
is
mentioned in the following chapter (12).
Some fifteen years later, or more, the claim to be
'of Christ' was made by
a
single party in Corinth
( I
Cor.
Presumably certain personal
disciples of Jesus had first applied
this designation
to
themselves, whilst denying to
Paul
the right
to be so called, as also his right
to
the apostleship
Cor.
7).
on the other hand, takes great pains to establish the right
all believers in Christ to the designation (
I
Cor.
3 23 ;
also
7
23
Rom.
8
I
Gal. 3
5
24).
Thus it can hardly have been already a current name.
As for Jesus himself, it is permissible to doubt whether
h e used in their present forms such expressions as we
now find in Mk.
1313-that
is
to say, with the
emphasis upon his own name.
T h e theory that he pre-
supposes the currency of the name Christians in
Lk.
622
is
absolutely excluded by the consideration that,
ac'cording to the same gospel, he does not himself lay
claim
to
the name of Christ till later
and even then
wishes it to be kept secret, and further that, according to
the same author (Acts
11
the name Christians did
not arise till a considerable time after his death.
All this makes it more than doubtful whether the
writer had even here any trustworthy authority for
assigning the occurrence to so early
a
date. His reason
for doing so may have been simply that the founding
of the first Gentile Christian church seemed to be the
most likely occasion for its coming into use.
The suddenness with which the name, Christian
becomes one of frequent occurrence in the writings of
the apologists shows that the word first
became necessary for Christians in their
dealings with Pagans.
In speaking to
the latter, such
as
'those of Christ were
found to be inadequate : a definite name was wanted.
In
fact, it is probable enough that the name came from
the heathen themselves in the first instance.
With such
a
view of its origin
fits
in very well. At all
events, the name did not come from the Jews. These
were still looking for their Messiah.
By using a name
which signified those of the Messiah,' they would by
have justified the sect that regarded Jesus
as such, and so have stultified themselves. Even Herod
Agrippa II., notwithstanding his Greek training and the
indifference towards his ancestral religion which this
carried with it, could not have gone so far moreover,
he still held by Judaism to the extent at least that he
753
insisted
King
of Emesa and
Polemo of
being circumcised before being allowed to marry
his sisters
and
(Jos.
xx.
7
I
If,
accordingly, the saying attributed to
him in Acts 2628
authentic, the name Christian
'
must by that time have become
so
thoroughly established
that
its
etymological meaning was no longer thought of.
The whole scene. however,
is
in full accord with the
tendency of Acts (see A
CTS
,
51) to set forth Paul's
innocence, and a t the same time the truth of Christianity,
as accepted by the Roman authorities; and this of course
is more effectively done by the mouth
of
a
Jew. An
obvious parallel is the statement of Herod Antipas in
the gospel by the same author (Lk.
but its
historicity
is
open to grave suspicion, 'both in view of
what we know of Herod's relations to John the Baptist
and in view of the fact that the story is absent from the
other gospels.
Even if Paul's meeting with Herod
Agrippa
is historical, the word
may very
easily have come into the narrative out of the author's
own vocabulary.
W e are informed by the same
(Acts
24
5 )
with much greater precision that 'sect of the
Nazarenes'
was the name given
by the Jews to the Christians, as we learn also
Tertullian (Ado.
4
8 )
and Jerome (in Jes. ch.
5
497
It was not till afterwards that the expression
was restricted to a particular sect of Christians-a fact
by which Epiphanius allowed himself to be misled.
H e
tellsus
that the Jews, in their public prayers,
which were offered three times daily in their synagogues,
pronounced a solemn curse upon this sect-a curse
which, as we learn from Justin
16 and elsewhere),
and indeed as we see from the nature of the case, applied
rather to all
Its Hebrew name,
Minim, shows that the Jews had still another name for
the Christians-and this name could also be
into
As
for the place where the name Christian arose, the
apparent Latin termination used to be thought to point to
a
western, indeed
Ann.
1544)
to a
Roman, origin ; but that it was there that
the name first
into use is by no
means said by Tacitus, whilst in such
a
word as
Herodian,
3 6
and elsewhere), we have
evidence
in the Greek-speaking
this col-
loquial Latin formation of personal names
riani), in incorrect imitation of forms like Pompeiani
(where the
is part of the root), was not unknown.
The ancient Greek grammarians recognise the termina-
tion
for derivatives from town and country names,
and even designate it specially as the
as
being
with, not in Greece itself, but in Asia
(Buttmann,
1 1 9 5 4 ;
many
examples in Lipsius, 13-16). In this matter, therefore,
is
not open to criticism (yet see above,
The time a t which the name arose could not with
assurance be placed earlier than 79
A
.
even if a certain
inscription (which hisappeared soon after
its discovery) at
on the wall of
a
building (at first supposed to have been
a
Christian meeting-house), had
contained the
letters
This reading might very
well
have been a derivative from the
tolerably frequent proper name
(see above,
I
)
; but,
in point of fact the reading
is only a conjecture and according
t o
Kiessling's
transcription (which
is
the
word really was
may mean.
T h e architecture
of
the house shows it to have been
a n inn
provided even with a
mere-
where, accordingly, it is hardly likely that Christian
The best-attested reading
(unless
we
are to
with
or,
with A
or, to conjecture with Hort,
(instead of
is
perhaps mast easily explained a s
a
:
are persuading me somewhat
t o
act the part
of a Christian'
so
1889,
This solemn curse
is said to have first taken shape a t Jabueh
in the time of
754
meetings would have been held in fact, the inscription,
which begins with the words, Vina Nervii,' was prob-
ablv an advertisement of
answer to our question can, therefore, be hoped
for only from examination of the history of the Christian
The character of these
has been placed in an entirely new
light by the proposition of Mommsen
in 1885
Gesch.
5520,
which has since then
been more fully and elaborately developed by him
in Sybel's
Hist.
64
389-429
and accepted
by C. J. Neumann (Der.
a.
d.
and by Ramsay (chap.
5)
-that the persecution of the Christians
was
always
similar to that of robbers.' On this view, every pro-
vincial governor had, without special instructions, the
duty of seeking out and bringing to justice
(kidnappers), and
(Dig.
18
and for this end was invested, over
and above his ordinary judicial attributes, with a very
full power of magisterial coercion, which was not
limited to definite offences, or to a regular form of
process, or to any fixed scale of punishments.
Only,
as
far as Roman citizens were concerned, banishment
was forbidden, and the capital penalty was reserved for
the judgment of the emperor.
i.
Status
Christians. -While actually throw-
ing into still further obscurity the date of the origin
of the Christian name, this discovery of Mommsen's
(above,
sheds much light upon the question of legal
position.
points on which the scholars named,
as
well as others, are agreed are, briefly, these. Among the
duties of a Roman citizen a fundamental place was held
by that of worshipping the ancestral gods.
By these in
the earliest period were
only those of .the city of
Rome but subsequently those of
were included,
and finally all those
of
Italy and Greece, as soon
as
they had been formally recognised by decree of the
senate.
Non-citizens were forbidden to proselytise to
strange gods, but not to
them,
so
far
as
this
did not appear to be of danger to the state.
The
Christian religion, however, was held to be dangerous
in this way, as denying the existence of the gods of the
state.
T h e Jewish religion was, strictly, under the
same ban and, therefore, circumcision
was
laid under
severe penalties
Hadrian, and,
as
far
as
were concerned, by Antoninus
and
Severus also.
For themselves, however, the Jews,
apart from the prohibition by Hadrian just mentioned,
possessed religious freedom
the ground of special
privileges conceded to them, particularly by Julius Caesar
and Augustus, in accordance with the favoured position
which they had enjoyed, long before the Roman rule,
in Egypt and elsewhere in the East.
These privileges
included exemption from military service, which would
have interfered with their strict observance of the
sabbath, and exemption from the obligation to appear
before the courts on that day.
When Caesar, on
account of suspected
activity, suppressed
cuncta
the Jews were expressly exempted.
New corpora-
tions in the older
senatorial) provinces required
the sanction of the senate; in the imperial provinces
still under military government that
of
the emperor
himself was doubtless sufficient. I t is probable that
burial societies had a general sanction from the senate.
Apart from these, however, there were many societies
which had never obtained any special concession.
They were left alone if they did not appear to be
dangerous but at any moment they could be
by the police.
In the cases of those which had been
sanctioned by the senate, suppression was made lawful
So
Victor
1881.
pp.
and
also,
as
regards the text
T h e inscriptio:
ought not therefore, to be
on, as it
still relied on
by
Ramsay
chap.
5,
p.
268,
and
Paul, chap. 15,
I
,
ed. 1896,
346).
755
persecutions.
only by a new senatorial decree. Now, the Christians
could never have obtained such a concession, for their
did not
to the class of
gions.
I n their case, accordingly, the well-known
ule
221)
did not apply :
permittitur
stipem menstruam conferre,
tamen
in mense coeant
. .
.
sed) religionis causa coire
on prohibentur, dum tamen per hoc non fiat contra
quo illicita collegia arcentur.'
had, therefore, to hold their meetings simply on
ufferance, and were never for a moment free from the
isk of police interference. Still, they did not expose
hemselves to persecution or to death merely by holding
meetings.
For such an offence these
were much too severe. When a
this sort was
up, unless its object had been
n itself criminal, the members were subjected only
o
a mild punishment.
In fact, they were allowed
o
divide among themselves the fnnds of the society,
vhich were confiscated in the case of all capital
Persecution and capital punishment fell to
he lot of the Christians, therefore, only because their
was regarded as criminal.
I n the case of
citizens it implied a violation of the duty to
vorship the gods of the state; in the case of
who were not citizens,
as
against the
gods
of the place was in like manner implied.
a
(legally) very lax sense they were accused of
which originally meant only theft of sacred
Over and above this, all Christian subjects
chargeable with the offence of refusing to worship
.he
an offence legally construed
as
majestas,
majestatis-more precisely,
as
Imperatorum-the majestas
not being
by this class of offences. Thus, either
as
iacrilege or as majestas, Christianity could at all
prosecuted, and-certainly in the case of
probably
also
in that of citizens---by the mere
of arbitrary coercive power.
The penalties
inder either charge were, approximately, the same.
Correspondence
and
we
a
new light on the correspondence between Pliny
Trajan (see above,
2).
. Let it be premised that
the
as
may be gathered from the
in the words
e t
were certainly intended the
and the
which, as we learn from Justin
212)
and other writers of the second century,
vere laid to the charge of the Christians. Acts208
already appears to be intended to meet the familiar
accusation. T h e story ran that before the beginning of
these orgies all lights were put out.
Pliny's question,
then, whether the mere fact of being Christian (nomen
or
whether only the crimes associated therewith
ought to be punished, is, from what we have seen,
already answered in the first sense, and is
so
decided
by Trajan also. On the other hand, Trajan's injunction,
non
sunt,
with which also is to be associated
his order to disregard anonymous
of accusation,
is an important mitigation of the law, as is his other
direction that a Christian who formally renounces his
Christianity by sacrificing to the images of the gods
shall
exempt
punishment.
Such a degree
of
favour could, from the nature of the case, never be
shown to the robber or to the thief, with whom,
nevertheless, the Christian is classed.
Let it be
noted,
also, that Pliny had no difficulty in deciding on
his own responsibility the earlier cases that came
before
His reference of the
to the
emperor was first occasioned by the largeness
of
the
number of those who ultimately came to be denonnced,
and
certain leanings, on grounds of policy, towards
clemency
to
which Trajan gives his sanction by
both of his decisions.
W e must, therefore, no longer hold to the view that
in this rescript (which, although originally intended
CHRISTIAN, NAME
O F
only for Pliny,
shortly afterwards published, along
with the whole correspondence, and taken as a
by other provincial governors) the persecution of the
Christians was now for the first time authorised.
Accordingly, we must proceed to investigate such notices
as
we have of earlier persecutions,
especially to
discuss the question whether in these cases the
was known to the authorities and consti-
tuted the ground of accusation.
we are informed by
Suetonius
(
25)
that
It
is quite im-
possible, however,
to
determine whether by
(on the form of the name, see above,
I )
we are here
to
understand Jesus, the preaching of whom by
Christians divided the 'Jews in Rome into two parties,
or whether Suetonius conceived him to have been
personally present in Rome, or whether we should take
to be a Jewish agitator of
nothing further
is
known.
is by no means decisive for the first
or the second alternative, even if we are to suppose that
and Prisca were already Christians when they
came to Corinth.
iv.
Pomponia
we
learn from Tacitus
(Ann.
1332) only that
57
A.
D.
she
was accused
superstitionis
and that she was
acquitted of the charge by her husband, the consular
A.
before whom she had been brought for
trial. At that time, however, the Jewish and Egyptian
religions were regarded
as
foreign, just as much as
the Christian, which has been supposed to be meant in
her case
Ann.
2
85
;
Suet.'
36).
For full
details see Hasenclever,
pp.
47-64.
v.
Persecution.-The notices we have of
the Neronian persecution are very obscure.
Tacitus
(Ann. 1544)
says: 'abolendo rumori (of having
the burning
of
Rome) Nero subdidit
et
affecit,
per flagitia invisos
vulgus
appellahat
.
. .
primum correpti qui fatebantur deinde
eorum
ingens
haud
in
quam odio
geueris
humani coniuncti
here
could
mean only
that
the
was
added
t o
the
3); the
reading
is
a
conjectural emendation
almost
universally adopted.
At the outset the only thing quite clear
is
that the
Christians were from the first accused
not
as Christians,
but
as
incendiaries.
Otherwise Nero could not have
been freed from the suspicion of being the guilty party.
T h e Christians, however, were innocent (subdidit) and
the ground
on
which they were condemned, accordingly,
was not so much
the evidence that they
had been incendiaries as the odium generis
humani.
this expression there cannot be understood a hatred of
which they were the objects : Roman society, which
alone could be regarded
as
cherishing it, cannot
possibly have been spoken of
as
genus
by
Tacitus. Still, understood
cherished by the Christians,
hatred of the human race'
is
no less an idea foreign
to
all legal conceptions, nor could it be supposed to
represent another ground
of
accusation against them,
over and above that of incendiarism.
Weizsacker
(A).
478,
ed.
462
ET
2
and
11,
2
4) try
indeed
to
make out that this actually
was
hrought
as
a charge against them
referring
to
Suetonius
(Nero 16) :
genus
superstitionis
ac
holding that
witchcraft and poisoning
are
meant
and
that
it
was
precisely
for these offences against society
the two
punishments
and
were
threatened and (according
to Tacitus) inflicted. These same punishments: however
were
attached
to many
other
crimes also. Suetonius says
about
the
conflagration as having occasioned
the
accusation
against
the
Christians. In
other
words,
he
follows an
entirely
different
account
and
we are
not justified
seeking
to
explain
Tacitus by
to Suetonius. The
authors agree only
in believing that the occurrence in question was confined
to
Rome.
The main question, then, in the case of Tacitus,
is
as
to what it was that the persons first accused made
confession of (fatedantur). The answer seems to lie to
our
hand :
Such
a
confession may
757
well have been made by them, though innocent,
inder torture.
As regards the
ingens
nothing
was required than merely some vague suspicions, or
few false witnesses, to whom the judges, on account of
he commonly assumed general perversity of the Chris-
ians (their odium
h u m a n i ) , were only too ready
o
give credence.
There remains, therefore, a
that the religion of the accused did not come into
at
all, and that Tacitus and Suetonius have,
carried back the name
from
.heir own time
that of Nero.
Were this not
so,,
.he reader, moreover, would expect to find
Tacitus a
indicating the characteristic attribute of those
by it after
one
would expect not
but some such expression
Another interpretation of
is
not less pos-
sible.
It is
that at first only
who had already
habitually confessed themselves in public to be Christians
fatedantur
esse)
were apprehended, a n d
that only
on the evidence obtained from these
in the course of the legal proceedings, a great number
ingens
of
those who had not hitherto made
such public profession shared the same fate.
T h e
Christians were laid hold
of
because it was hoped that
popular belief would readily attribute the incendiarism
to
them.
Although, on this supposition also, their re-
constituted no ground of accusation, it was
nised as distinct from the Jewish whereas if the other
is adopted the Christians may
have been regarded simply as Jews : Tacitus
( Hist.
5
5 )
ittributes
adversus
odium to the Jews also.
Clement of Rome further
51-62) tells us only that
the Christians suffered, without informing us why and
Paul's trial in Rome could throw light upon the question
before
us
only if we
what was its result.
Gallio
was not led by the accusation,
as
cited in
to suppose that
Paul
taught a religion dangerous to the
state.
The representation,
too
(though not necessarily
the fact), is open
to
suspicion on account of the tend-
ency' observable in Acts (see A
CTS
, §
In
a
word, the little that we really
of the Neronian
period does not enable
us
to come to
a
decision on
question
as
to the date and origin
of
the name
Christian.'
.
Ramsay, however (chap.
11,
6J)
considers that
the
second stage the Neronian persecution
permanent
otherwise
than
in
first
stage.
As
the
persecution
is
by
tonius along with other
measures
of
police which
must
have been
of
a permauent
nature,
he holds that it must have had the same
character
:
in
t h e
second stage, of
the persecution was not
on account
of
incendiarism
hut on
of
alleged witchcraft
and
Ramsay believes,
also
gives proof
of
this permanence
of
the persecution under Nero
when
he says,
. . .
sed
and Sulpicius Severus
is
understood to speak to
the same
effect-hoc initio
in
:
post
esse
non
Immediatelyupou
this,
I
;
3rd ed.,
pp.
244,
Ramsay explains
that the
word post refers to
emperors than Nero, and also concedes that
the
expressions
and
are
'loosely and inaccurately' employed
by
Sulpicius. Further, the
in
Tacitus traces
the
to the horrors
of
the public celebration
of
the executions
and
personal
participation
in
them-incidents which
were, of
course, not of
constant recurrence. The argument based
on
the
context
in
Suetonius
is
too precarious to
rest
history upon, even
apart from the doubtful interpretation
of
vi.
and
read in Sulpicius
Severus
that, in
a
council of war,
finally
decided on the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem
Christianorum
:
has
ex
:
Now, even were we to reject,
as
a
falsification of
history from motives of complaisance, the very different
statement of Josephus,
an
eye-witness
that
Titus wished the temple
to
be preserved, and were we
to carry back the words of Sulpicius Severus
to
Tacitus,
758
CHRISTIAN,
NAME
OF
whom he elsewhere always follows, we should still be a
long way from having proved the account of Severus to
be historical.
I t is in the highest degree improbable
that Titus had such erroneous ideas as to the depend-
ence of the Christians on the temple, while
to
them such dangerous qualities and so great a degree
of independence as apart from the Jews.
Even
sen
Gesch.
5539
on whose
authority Ramsay relies, detects here traces a t least of a
Christian editor.
Ramsay, however (chap.
1 2
re-
garding the speech as
a
programme for treatment of
Christians, holds it to be a historical document of the
utmost importance,' and further assumes that the pro-
gramme was actually carried out by Vespasian.
For
this he has not a word of proof to allege apart from the
statement of Suetonius
(
est
el
(by the three last words he
conjecturally fills a hiatus)
et
ingemnit-which, he considers, we are entitled
to
interpret as referring
to
processes against Christians.
Were this the case, it would be natural a t least to
expect that these should have begun immediately after
the destruction of the temple; but, according to
Ramsay, they did not begin till towards the end of the
reign of Vespasian.
As
far
as
the documents are
concerned, this last hypothesis finds still less support
than that of Vespasian's Christian persecution as a
whole.
All
that can be said for the hypothesis is that
it is requisite in order that, by the shortness of the per-
secution nnder Vespasian, the silence of Christian writers
respecting them may be explained (see below,
16).
Domitian.
-With regard to Domitian, Suetonius
tells
us
that eight niunths before his death
. .
.
in
ipso
Cassius Dio
14
),
according to
excerpt of the
Xiphilinus, adds
that a t the same time his wife,
was
banished to the island of Pandataria :
Now, Chris-
tian legend, and in particular the Pseudo-Clementine
and
of Flavius Clemens
as Bishop of Rome, and of his father as, like the
consular in Suetonius, related to the
family
the daughter of his sister (also called Flavia
became involved in
a
Christian persecution, and was
banished to
(the island adjacent to Pandataria).
This last statement is all the more important because
Eusebius (Chron. ann.
Abrah.:
H E
takes it from
a
heathen chronographer, Bruttius or
who wrote before
A
.D.
For further
details see Lipsius,
It
is alike natural and difficult
to
assume that Clement
and Domitilla represent each only one person, and that
person
a
Christian.
The charges in Cassius
taken
by themselves alone, show either that the question was
one not of Christians but of Jews, or that Christians at
that time still remained undistinguished from Jews.
T h e view that they were Jews can hardly be main-
tained.
I n the heathen writer Bruttius, Domitilla figures expressly
a
Christian, and in all later Christian writings Domitian
represented as a violent persecutor of the faith (see,
Euseb.
H E
H e is called
Tertullian
portio
de
and, though the heathen Juvenai
it is
says something to the same effect,
bases his
expressly upon the persecution
his brethren in the faith.
W e are, then, left with the second
o
the words of Cassius
that they relate to Christians.
Ramsay's method of evading this (chap.
12,
4)
is
forced-that in Dio's time
A
. D . )
,it was
fashion and a n affectation among a certain class o
Greek men of letters to ignore the existence of
Christians and
to
pretend to confuse them with
Jews.'
Further, in the collection of temple
759
now
a
state-fax) from the Jews, accdrding to Suetonius
were taken account of
qui
vel
(or
vitam) vel
As
at that
ime the
est, it would
very remarkable if here we were not intended to
both the Jewish Christians regarded as
persons and the Gentile Christians regarded
proselytes.
The Roman officers, we know from
Suetonius, in cases where it was necessary, satisfied
as to the fact of circumcision by inspection.
Even though greed may well have been a motive for
a t the profession of the Christian religion, it is
that the danger to the state presented by the Chris-
cannot have been taken very seriously.
W e
ire led to the same conclusion by the story
(as
far
it can be believed) of Hrgesippus (in Eus.
3
)
that Domitian released the grandchildren
Jude, the brother of Jesus, as not being dangerous
persons, although they confessed themselves
to
be not
only descendants of David, but also Christians.
It
was
not till the end of his reign that the persecution began.
viii.
far as the accusations under
had reference to Christians they are covered by the
regulations of Nerva (Cassius Dio, Ixviii.
1
after
Tertullian
and
(Eus. H E
20 5)
erroneously attribute the regulations to Domitian himself. T h e
text
of Cassius
Dio
is :
. . .
..
.
.
The preceding discussion of the Christian persecutions
makes it evident that the grounds upon which these
were conducted were by no means clearly
set forth, and that (partly on this account,
but mainly from want of information) we
can hardly venture to suppose the persecutions to have
been of
so
great frequency as we should have expected
on the principles laid
by Momnisen and Ramsay.
In particular, had they been so frequent, the hesitation
of Pliny-or, a t all events, that of Trajan-would be
quite inexplicable. Ranisay'sanswer (chap.
10,
6 ) ,
that
Trajan's
in
to
Pliny's doubt whether or
not
the question of age should
be allowed to make
a
difference in the punishment, is
quite inadmissible.
does not refer to the
decision upon a matter which was still in question.
It
refers, in commendation, to a judgment which Pliny had
already taken
:
.
.
.
Thus Ramsay's conjectures of some archive which
Trajan caused to
searched for the decisions of his
predecessors upon previous references by other pro-
curators must also be rejected.
Whatever the principles
of
the government, and however strongly they may
have led, if rigidly interpreted,
to
unremitting search
for and punishment of Christians once these had been
definitely distinguished from Jews, they can have been
carried into practice only in an intermittent way.
In
the conditions of privacy in which,
as
we know, the
Christians carried out the exercises of their religion,
no direct danger to the state can have manifested
In Pergamum Antipas was the only martyr
(Rev.
Therefore, Trajan's
sunt
was
a
mitigation
principle, indeed, but not
necessarily in practice.
If only parties could be
found to denounce, persecutions could be instituted,
after Trajan's time, on a much greater scale than
before under the influence of the stricter-but seldom
used--principle of
Such, according to all
documents, was in reality the case.
For
the period before Trajan we know of persecutions only
under Nero and Domitian. Tertullian, for example, was not
aware of aiiy others
5),
Melito in his Apology to
Antoninus
H E
iv.
expressly says that only
Nero
and Domitian
had
given u p the Christians to the slanders of denouncers. T o the
CHRISTIAN,
NAME
OF
same purpose we have
the
statement of
38)
that
. .
.
over against
which
the
spoken of
by Clemens
G
I
)
in
the reign of
Nero, and
the
ingens
of Tacitus,
must,
of course,
not he
overlooked.
I n view of such definite statements as these,
it is
not
possible to explain the silence of our authors-especially
that of Christian authors-on the persecutions which
Ramsay infers to have been instituted under Vespasian
and Titus,
as
being due only to the shortness of those
reigns-or rather the shortness of the portions of them
in which persecutions occurred (above,
6, vi. end)-
or
to
the fact that the Christians had no eyes for any-
thing except the imminent end
of
the world (Ramsay,
chap. 12,
Ramsay, it
true, finds support by assigning
I
Pet.
to about the year
-that is to say, the
of
Titus (chap.
75-79
the
reign of Vespasian
Oct. 1893,
p. 286). H e does so, however, on grounds
the validity of which depends on that of his hypothesis.
He shows with truth
that
the
epistle
presupposes accusations
on account
of the mere
and
that
it
was
composed at
the
beginning of
a
persecution
(4
3
2
14).
It
has also been rightly
urged
that
there
is
no reason for
assign-
ing
it
to the year
o n
the
mere
gronnd
that then for
the
time a
persecution
of
Christians
over
the whole
became possible. On
the other
hand before
that date there
had been
no
persecution which had
or
threatened
the
provinces
named
in 1
I
and gave cause
to
anticipate
its extension
over
the whole habitable world.
When the contents of this letter are considered, no
one who can be reached by critical considerations
will unreservedly maintain its genuineness, containing
as
it does
so
little that is characteristic of Peter and
so
much that is reminiscent of Paul.
The presence
in
of the words
and
which here are
superfluous
and
disturbing, and
have
appropriate
place
only in
1
I
3,
shows its dependence
on
that
epistle, which
in its turn
depends not
only on the
Epistles
of
Paul but also
on
that
to
the
Hebrews (11
cp
2
Dependence
on
is
shown
also
in
I
Pet.
5
which
is borrowed
from
In
the latter
passage
the
is
logical
44
. . .
and
in the former,
therefore,
in
like
the
of
v.
5
should
have been
followed
some
such
as
'submit yourselves one to another,'
if
the
writer
had been following
a
natural
and
not
a borrowed
train of
thought.
As
for the word
the only satis-
factory explanation of its use in
I
Pet. 4
to
denote a
criminal of the same class as
and
is
that of Hilgenfeld, according to whom what
is
intended
is the class of
who made
a
trade of denunci-
ation, which was first made criminal by Trajan
).
By
Ramsay under-
stands people who stir up strife between
of
the same family, or between servants and masters.
This accusation could be very easily brought against
Christians,
as
soon as they began to attempt conversions.
Ranisay's
however, that Nero gave power
to the courts of justice thenceforward to regard
such persons as magicians and to punish them as
criminals (chap.
rests upon no documentary evi-
dence
:
it proceeds solely upon his own interpretation of
the
of Suetonius (above,
6, v.).
Nor has
Ramsay made out (chap.
8,
I
that
I
Pet. presupposes search for Christians to have been
made by the state.
Were this so, the epistle could,
of
course, have been written
only either before Trajan's decision,
sunt, or
after the
re-enactment of
by Marcus Aurelius
;
but
here again it has
to
be remarked that,
if
only there
were
de-
nunciations enough-and Ramsay himself (chap. 10,
is aware
how readily
these could
at any
time appear
among
the class
of
sellers
of
sacrificial
animals
(Pliny to Trajan,
I
O
),
or among
people
in
the
position
of
Demetrius (Acts
24-34),
or
of the
masters
of
the
damsel with
the
spirit
of
divination
Pet.
3
5
become intelligible enough, even
after
the publication
of
Trajan's
conquirendi
non
sunt.
W e may still hold, therefore, that
I
Pet. was written
in
I
A.
D.
The
new thing we have learned
is
that, when
I
Pet. touches upon the subject of punishment for the
mere name of Christian
it is describing not
a
new attitude
of
the authorities but one that they have
been taking for some time.
This very fact makes it
to use this passage as
does as fixing
the date of the epistle for the transition period during
which punishmeiit of Christians only for
was
giving place to a system of
for the mere
name. Ramsay (chap. 13,
I
)
argues that this last mode
of persecution must have been new to the author,
because at the same time his language constantly pre-
supposes the
of the old state of things
but the exhortation in
that
should suffer as a
person is not in any case out of place, even if
had not thitherto been the only ground on which
the punishment of Christians
against such
Paul also constantly warns his readers (Gal.
5
I
Cor.
6
2
Cor.
and
that at
a
time when there was no thought of Christian
persecution. Further, the hope of being able by seemly
behaviour and good works
to
convince the secular
power of the injustice of persecution
( I
Pet.
2
3
etc.)
is
one that Christians can never have wholly abandoned,
and it found
a
reasonable justification in the plea of
Pliny
for mild treatment of those who had been
denounced. W e
understand its persistence most
easily on the assumption, as made above, that persecu-
tion was only then beginning.
The very positions argued for by Mommsen (and
accepted by Ramsay)
it clear that there never
had been a period during which
Christians, although recognised
as
a
distinct religious society, were punished
merely, and not on account of the
The strength
of Mommsen's view lies precisely in this: that the
name, as soon as it was known, also became punish-
able. According to
must also conclude,
conversely, that where
alone are punished the
is
not yet known.
Even for the
of Nero
this argumentation would be conclusive, had he not
wanted incendiaries.
But if,
as
Ramsay says, Chris-
tians under Nero were already recognised as distinct
Jews, then
other than fire-raising-as, for
example, witchcraft-cannot, even in the second stage
of the Neronian persecution (on the assumption of there
having been such a stage at all), have been the sole
ground on which condemnation proceeded.
On
the question as to the date at which Christianity first
began to be recognised
as
a distinct religion we must
confess ourselves completely at a loss.
Only this much
is certain
:
that it had come about before the time
of
Pliny's governorship.
From what has been said above,
the view of Neumann (and Lipsius) appears the most
plausible
:
the view, namely, that the distinction first re-
ceived recognition under Domitian, and, more precisely,
in the last year of his reign.
T o this Weizsaclcer and
others' object, with good reason, that it is highly
able that Christians should have passed for Jews
so
long.
T h e simple facts that they did not accept circumcision,
and frequented, not the synagogues but meeting-places
of their own, and moreover often came into conflict
with the Jews, made the recognition of a distinction
inevitable-especially as the Roman authorities, most
notably in
affecting societies, were wont to
take careful cognisance
of
even the minutest trifles, and
course, in
a
formal investigation, had means readily
a t their disposal for eliciting every detail.
If we had
nothing but Suetonius's account of Nero
to
go upon,
these considerations would certainly be held to be
conclusive even for the time of Nero; but
have
Tacitus, who makes
us
hesitate
what is said about
Domitian goes against
conclusion. Chris-
tian sources give no hope of
a
decision. Ramsay's citation
of
I
Pet. does not hold good that of the Apocalypse
Keim, the
only
one besides Lipsius
Carr, Expos.
June
pp.
who has
taken up
the
of
the
of
the name
of Christian
(Aus
dent
fhum,
1878,
CHRONICLER
is worthless as long as the unity and the date of the
book continue to he as questionable
as
they are and
the Pastoral Epistles are too doubtful.
Moreover, it is
not at all certain that they speak of
as the
ground
of
persecution,
so
as to necessitate their being
assigned to the period of Nero, even if Ranisay’s
view is adopted as correct; for
2
does not
necessarily
that Paul suffers
he is regarded
as a
can just
as
well mean that he suffers
the same penalties as those to which a
is
liable, but that the cause of them is in his case his
preaching of the gospel
(B
Y
other words, his
Christianity. I n like manner, it is quite as conceivable in
that the
n o m e n
is the cause of the sufferings
of all Christians as that
are.
As for the Third
Gospel and Acts, according to what has been said above
they show only that their author, about
was acquainted with the name, and knew nothing
as to its origin that rendered it impossible for him to
place its date ahout the year
40.
All that the
present discussion can be regarded
as
contributing
towards the solution of the question is the conjecture
that the Pagans, in as far as they knew the true
character of Christianity at a time before that which we
have definitely ascertained, hardly took any cognisance
of
it-on account of the infrequency with which it came
under public notice.
P.
w.
s.
CHRONICLER
S.
816
Is.
EV
R
ECORDER
CHRONICLES
I
K.
See H
IS
-
TORICAL
L
ITERATURE
, § 13
CHRONICLES,
BOOKS OF.
I n the Hebrew canon
Chronicles
is
a
single book, entitled
Events
of
the Times.
T h e
full title would he
Book
Events
Times;
and this again appears to have been a designation
commonly applied to special histories in the more
1.
Name.
definite
the
Times
or
the like
(I
etc.).
T h e Greek translators divided the long book into two, and
adopted the title
[often]
in the other historical books ; cod. A adds
the kings or
: see
T W
Jerome, following the sense
of the Hebrew title, sug-
gested the name of
instead of
et
The hook of Chronicles begins with Adam and ends
abruptly in the middle of Cyrus’s decree of restoration.
Hence the English
The continuation of the narrative is
found in the Book of Ezra, which
begins
repeating
Ch.
36
and
filling
the fragment of the decree
of
Cyrus. A closer
of chose parts of Ezra and
Nehemiah which are not extracted word for word from
earlier documents or original memoirs, leads to the
conclusion that Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah was origin-
ally one work, displaying throughout the peculiarities
of language and thought of a single editor (see
3 ) .
Thus the fragmentary close of
Chronicles marks
the disruption of
a
previously-existing continuity. I n
the gradual compilation of the canon the necessity for
incorporating in the Holy Writings an account of the
establishment of the post-exilic theocracy was felt, before
it was thought desirable to supplement Samuel and
Kings by adding
a
second history of the pre-exilic
period.
Chronicles
is
the last book of the
Hebrew Bible, following the hook of Ezra-Nehemiah,
which properly is nothing else than its sequel.
Whilst the original unity of this series of histories can
hardly he questioned, it will he more convenient in the
present article to deal with Chronicles alone, reserving the
relation of the several books for the article H
ISTORICAL
L
ITERATURE
The author used
class
of
sources for the history of the pre-exilic and the
post-exilic periods respectively
and thus the critical
questions affecting Chronicles are for the most part quite
distinct from those which meet us in the book of
763
CHRONICLES,
BOOKS
O F
Besides, the identity
authorship cannot
conclusively demonstrated except by a comparison of
esults drawn from a separate consideration of each book.
Of the authorship of Chronicles we know only what
:an be determined hy internal evidence. The colour
of the language stamps the hook as one
of
the latest in the OT (see
hut
t leads to
no
exact determination of dare.
In
I
Ch.
which refers to the time of David,
a
of
noney is reckoned by
( h i t see D
RAM
), which
implies that the author wrote after that
Persian coin had long been current in Judea.
The
passage appealed to by critics to fix the date,
is
I
Ch.
where the descendants of
seen to be reckoned to six generations (so
Bertheau, etc.
T h e passage is confused, and
reads it
so
as
to give as
nany a s eleven
(so
Zunz
Nold., Knen.
29 ; cp
54
; whilst on the other
those who plead for an
date are disposed to assume an interpolation or a corruption
the text or to separate all that follows the
of Jesaiah
n
what
Keil).
seems impossible,
by
any fair treatment of the text to obtain fewer than
;ix generations, and this
agrees with the probability that
who, on the interpretation which we prefer,
to
the fourth generation from
was a
of Ezra (Ezra
Thus the Chronicler lived at least two generations after
Ezra. With this it accords very well that in Nehemiah
five generations of high priests are enumerated from
Jeshua
and that the last name
is
that of
Jaddua, who, as we know from Josephus, was a
contemporary of Alexander the Great.
That the
Chronicler wrote after the period of the Persian
supremacy was past has been argued by Ewald (Hist.
and others, from the use of the title King
Persia
Ch.
3623).
T h e official title of the
was not King
of
Persia,’
‘ t h e King, ‘the Great King,’ the ‘King
of Kings,’. the
King of the Lands,’ etc. (see
5
Y
and the first
of
these expressions is that
Ezra
(7
8
I
etc.), Neh. (1
2
and other Jews writing under the
Persian
(Hag. 1
Zech. 7 Ezra 4
8
5
etc.).
What seems to be certain and important for
a
right
estimate of the book is that the author lived a consider-
able time after Ezra, probably indeed (Nold.
after 300
B.
and was entirely under the influence
ot
the religious institutions of the new theocracy.
.
This
standpoint determined the nature of his interest in the
early history of his people.
The
importance of Hebrew history had always
centred in the fact that this petty nation was the people of
.
the spiritual God. The tragic
interest which distinguishes the annals
of
Israel from the
history
of
Moab or Damascus, lies wholly in
long con-
test which finally vindicated the reality of spiritual things
and the supremacy of
purpose, in the political
ruin of the nation which was the faithless depositary
these sacred truths.
After the fall of Jerusalem it was
impossible
to
write the history of Israel’s fortunes other-
wise than in a spirit of religious pragmatism.
Within
the limits of the religious conception of the plan and
purpose of the Hebrew history, however, more than
one
point of view might be taken up. T h e book of Kings
looks upon the history in the spirit of the prophets-in
that spirit which is still echoed by Zechariah
:
Your fathers, where are they? and the prophets, could
they live for ever?
my words and my statutes, which
I
commanded my servants the prophets, did they not
overtake your fathers? so that they turned and said, Like
as
of Hosts thought to do unto us
. . .
so
hath he
dealt with us.’ Long before the Chronicler wrote, how-
ever, there had been a great change. The new Jerusalem
of Ezra was organised as a municipality and a church,
not as a nation.
The centre of religious life was no
longer the living prophetic word, but the ordinances of the
Pentateuch and the liturgical service of the sanctuary.
The religious vocation of Israel was no longer national,
764
CHRONICLES, BOOKS
OF
but ecclesiastical
or
of the nation
municipal,
was vividly
and the historical
realised only within the
walls-of Jerusalem and the courts of the temple, in the
solemn assembly and stately ceremonial of a feast day.
These influences naturally operated most strongly
on
those who were officially attached to the sanctuary. T o
a
Levite, even more than to other Jews, the history of
Israel meant above all things the history of Jerusalem,
of the temple, and of the temple ordinances.
Now
the author of Chronicles betrays
on
every page his
essentially levitical habit of mind.
I t even seems
possible, from a close attention to his descriptions of
sacred ordinances, to conclude that his special interests
are those of a common Levite rather than
of
a priest,
and that of all levitical functions he is most partial to
those of the singers, a member of whose guild Ewald
conjectures him to have been.
T o such a
the older delineation
of
the history of
Israel, especially in Samuel and Kings, could not but
appear to be deficient in some directions, whilst in other
respects its narrative seemed superfluous or open to
misunderstanding, as for example by recording, and
that without condemnation, things inconsistent with the
pentateuchal law.
T h e history of the ordinances of
worship holds a very small place in the older record.
Jerusalem and the temple have not that central place in
the
Book
of Kings which they occupied in the minds
of
the Jewish community in post-exilic times.
sections of the old history are devoted to the religion and
politics of the northern kingdom, which are altogether
unintelligible and
when measured
a
strictly levitical standard
and in general the whole
problems and struggles of the earlier period turn on
points which had ceased to be cardinal in the life of the
new Jerusalem, which was no longer called upon to de-
cide between the claims of the Word of
and the
exigencies of political affairs and social customs, and
which could not comprehend that
absorbed in
deeper spiritual contests had no leisure for such things
as the niceties of levitical legislation.
Thus there seemed to be room for a new history,
confine itself to matters still interesting to
the theocracy of Zion, keeping Jerusalem and the
temple
in
the foreground, and developing the divine
pragmatism of the history, with reference, not so much
to the prophetic word
as
to the fixed legislation of the
Pentateuch (especially the Priest's Code), so that the
whole narrative might be made to teach that Israel's
glory lies in the observanceof the divine law and ritual.
The book falls naturally
into three parts.
I
.
Introductory
(
I
Ch.
the sake of systematic completeness
the author begins with Adam, as is the
custom with later Oriental writers. He bad nothing,
however, to add to the Pentateuch, and the period from
Moses to David contained little that served his purpose.
He, therefore, contracts the early history
( I
Ch.
1-9)
into
a series of
which were doubtless by no
means the least interesting part of his work at
a
time
when every Israelite was concerned to prove the purity
of
his Hebrew descent (see
and cp
G
E
N
E
-
A
LOGIES,
I.
§ 3). The greatest space
is
allotted natur-
ally to the tribes of
and
6
;
but, except where the author derives his
-materials from the earlier historical books (as in
1
his lists are meagre
and
imperfect, and his data
evidently fragmentary.
however, the
stances and interests of the author betray themselves
for even in these chapters his principal object is
to explain, in a manner consonant with the conception!
of his age, the origin of the ecclesiastical institutions
o
the post-exilic community.
Observe that
I
Ch. 9
is excerpted (with merely
differences) from Neh. 11
(on
the
see
E
Z
R
A
,
5
[
I
] a);
and that the
to
the genealogies
See the articles
on
the several tribes.
I.'
of
Chronicles.
Ch. 3
and 8
(cp
35-44, and see
B
E
N
J
AM
IN
,
are
shows that their purpose is to give the pedigree of post-
who traced their descent from David and Saul
spectively. I n ch. 2 We.
c p more briefly
[ E T
has shown that
the
of the chapter, relate to pre-exilic Judah, whilst
1-24 34-47
(like the greater part of
4
1-23) have reference
the
of the post-exilic community
;
the chief aim
'ch. 2 is to explain how the Calebites, who before
fall
had their home in the
S.
of Judah, had in post-exilic
mes to find new homes
in the more
Darts of Tudah
ee
C
A
LEB
,
Israel before the
( I
Ch.
Ch. 11.-From
death of
(
I
Ch.
'the history becomes fuller
nd runs parallel with Samuel and Kings.
The
ons of the author's interest in past times appear in the
mission, among other particulars, of David's reign
Iebron, of the disorders'in his family and the revolt of
of the circumstances of Solomon's accession,
nd of many details as to the wisdom and splendour of
sovereign as well as of his fall into idolatry.
Ch.
the
iter history the northern kingdom is
neglected, and
affairs in Judah receive attention, not in
to their intrinsic importance, but according as
serve to exemplify God's help to the obedient
is chastisement of the
That the author is
unwilling to speak of the misfortunes of good
tilers, is not to be ascribed with some critics
to
a
eliberate suppression
of
truth, but shows that the book
throughout composed not in purely historical
but with a view to inculcate a single practical
Additions
to
I
.
The more important
which the Chronicler makes to the old
consists of ( a ) statistical lists
( I
Ch.
12,
see
iii.) ;
full details on points connected
the history of the sanctuary (see
and the great feasts (see
the
of
the Levitical
(see
I
Ch.
1 3
15 1 6
(these three chapters
remarkably from
6 )
22-29
Ch. 29-31
etc.
)
;
and (c) narratives of victories and defeats,
sins and punishments, of obedience and its reward,
which could be
to point a plain religious lesson in
avour of faithful observance of the Law.
See the following passages
:-
-2
Ch. 13
1 4 9-15
Zerah), 15
I
-15
the prophet Azariah),
and
Hanani) 19
(Jehoshaphat and the prophet Jehu) 20 Jehosha-
and
etc.), 21
25 5-10
(Amaziah)
These narratives often include prophetical discourses,
the same principle of the theocratic
of
success and failure, with much uniformity
ot
and in a tone very different from that of the
prophets who appear in Samuel or Kings.
Attention should be directed also to the
short
insertions, introduced often into the narratives excerpted
the older historical books, for the purpose of
supplementing them at some point where they appeared
to the author to need explanation or correction.
Such are the notes on
I
Ch. 15
(David) ; Ch.
5
13
13-15
(Solomon); 236
13
(middle)
(from
19
(deposition of Athaliah); 349 ('the Levites')
(from
'and the')
etc. the reflections in
I
Ch. 21
Ch. 8
(Solomon's
wife's palace); 12
(Rehoboam
himself); 18
delivers Jehoshaphat) ; 2238 46 (cause
of
wickedness);
(to
cause of plot
against Amaziah); 26
23
(middle;
consequences of
leprosy)
;
27
6
(effects of
piety) 33 23 (char-
acter of
T h e minor variations of
from Samuel and
Kings are analogous
in
principle to the larger additions
and omissions, so that the whole work has a consistent
and well-marked character, presenting the history in
quite a different perspective
that of the old
narrative.
Is
the change
of perspective wholly due to a different selection
of
items from authentic historical tradition
?
May we assume that everything which is
new in Chronicles has been taken exactly from older
Here, then, a critical question arises.
CHRONICLES, BOOKS
OF
sources, or must we judge that the standpoint
of
the
author has not only governed
selection of facts, but
also coloured the statement of them?
all his
novelties new data, or are some of them inferences of
his own from the same data as
lie
before
us
in other
books of the
O T ?
T o answer these questions we must first inquire what
were the materials a t his command.
The Chronicler
makes frequent reference to earlier histories which he
cites by a great variety of names.
I
.
The
Book of
the
the names Book
of the Kings of Israel and Judah,' Book of the Kings
of Judah and Israel.'
Book of the Kings of Israel,'
and Affairs of the Kings of Israel
( 2
Ch. 33
)
refer to a single work
is
not disputed.
Under one or
other title this
is
cited some ten times
(
I
Ch. 9
I
368,
3232, noted below).
That it is not the canonical Kings is manifest from
what is said of its contents.
I t must have been quite an extensive work, for among other
things it contained genealogical statistics
as well as
other particulars, not mentioned in the existing Book of Kings
(see
33
18
and it incorporated certain older
writings
of (or about) prophets-in particular the
or rather
Matters,
History) of Jehu ben Hanani
where read with RV, 'which is inserted in') and
the Vision
Isaiah
Ch. 32
32).
Now it is noticeable that, where the Chronicler does
not cite this comprehensive work a t the close of a king's
reign, he generally refers to some special authority
which bears the name of a prophet
(
I
Ch. 29
Samuel,
Nathan,
Gad
2
Ch.
9
Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo
and Iddo
Iddo
Isaiah).
Never, however, are both the Book
the
Kings
and
a
special prophetic writing cited for the same reign.
It
is
therefore highly probable that, in other cases as
well as in those of Jehu and Isaiah (see above), the
writings cited under the names
of
various prophets were
known to the author only as parts of the great
of
tile Kings.
Even Ch. 33
(cp
v.
where
AV departs from the received
Hebrew text, hut probably expresses the correct reading seems
to
confirm
to
oppose this conclusion (which' is now
disputed by very few scholars) except in the case of Isaiah's
history of Uzziah
( z
Ch.
where the form of the
is different.
T h e references to these
will thus not imply
the existence of historical monographs
the
prophets with whose
they are connected
they
will merely point to sections of the
Book
of
Kings,
which embraced the history of particular prophets, and
were hence familiarly cited under their names.
The
of
the Book
of
the Kings.-Whether
the Book of the Icings is
with the
(RV,
badly,
of
the Book of
the
Kings
Ch.
not certain.
On the one hand, the peculiar
title would suggest
a
distinct work on the other hand,
it is not apparent why, if (as-its title shows) it was
a
comprehensive work, dealing with the kings generally,
it should be cited for only one reign.
The term
Midrash,' moreover, from
t o
out,
investi-
gate,-as applied to Scripture, to discover or develop a
thought not apparent on the surface,-denotes a didactic
or
homiletic exposition, or a n edifying religious story
(such, for instance, as that of Tobit or Susannah) ; the
Midrash here referred to will thus have been a work
intended to develop the religious lessons deducible from
the history of the kings.
This, however, is just the
guiding motive in many of
narratives, peculiar to
Chronicles, for which the author cites as his authority
the Book
the
Kings;
the last-named work, therefore,
if not identical with the Midrash
of
the Book
of
'The Seers' : so
Bertheau, Kuenen, Ball,
Oettli,
Budde and Kittel read
Lis
(cp
Those who follow
M T
(as Ew.
Hist.
1184,
Keil) find
in
v.
19
an unknown prophet
(cp
Though common in Rabbinical literature, it occurs other-
wise in the
OT
only in Ch. 13
767
the Kings (as
We. Kue. with much probability
suppose), will nevertheless have been similar in character
and tendency (cp below,
T h e ,
of
the prophet
( 2
Ch. 1 3
z z )
will
have been either a particular section of the Midi-ash of
the Book
of the
Kings,
or, more probably, perhaps, a
separate work of the same character, which was attributed
to Iddo as its author, or in which the prophet Iddo
played a prominent part.
For allusions to other
authorities, see
I
Ch.
Ch.
3.
Conclusion.-All these writings must have been
post-exilic works
nor is it probable that, except for
some of his statistical information, the Chronicler had
access to any sources of early date other than the
canonical histories of the OT. The style (see below,
is conclusive evidence that no part of the additional
peculiar to Chronicles is a n excerpt from any
pre-exilic writing.
The general conclusion
is
that it is very doubtful
whether the Chronicler used any historical work not
accessible to us, with the exception of this lost Book of
the
Kings.
Even his genealogical lists may have been
derived from that work
(
I
Ch. 9
I
) ,
though for these he
also have had other materials a t command.
4.
of
the Canonical Kings.-Now we know
that the two chief sources of the canonical hook of
Kings were entitled
[
events of the times
of
the
Kings of
and Judah respectively.
That the
lost source of the Chronicles was not independent
of
these works appears probable both from the nature
of the case and from the close and often verbal
parallelism between many sections of the two biblical
narratives
Whilst the canonical Book of Kings, how-
ever, had separate sources for the
N.
and the
S .
king-
doms, the source of Chronicles was a history of the two
kingdoms combined, and
so,
no doubt, was a more
recent work, in great measure extracted from the older
annals.
Still it contained also matter not derived from
these works, for it is pretty clear from
21
17
that
the
of
the
Kings
of
gave no account of
repentance, which, according
Ch. 33
was narrated in the great Book
of
the
of
5. Dependence
of
on
was
formerly the opinion of Bertheau, and other scholars
,
Keil), that the parallelisms of Chronicles with Samuel
and Kings are
explained by the ultimate
common
from which both narratives drew.
Most critics hold, however, that the Chronicler also
drew directly from the canonical Samuel and Icings, as
he unquestionably did from the Pentateuch.
This
opinion
is
probable in itself, as the earlier books of the
OT
cannot have been unknown to the author
;
and the
critical analysis of the canonical Book of Kings shows
that in some of the parallel passages the Chronicler
uses words which
not taken from the
but
written by the author of Kings himself.
In particular,
Chronicles agrees with Kings in those short notes of the
moral character of individual monarchs which can hardly
be ascribed to a hand earlier than that of the final
author of the latter book (cp
Ch.
[Asa]
with
I
K . 2243;
with
K.
123
[Jehoash];
[Amaziah], with
2
etc.). It is of
course possible, as Bertheau (xliv.
and
32
suppose, that the author of the chief source of
Chronicles had already incorporated extracts from our
canonical book of Kings and in general the connec-
tions of the successive historical books which preceded
the present canonical histories are sufficiently complex
to make it unwise to indulge in positive assertions
on a matter in which
so
many
may be
suggested.
g,
end).
Including the genealogies and statistical matter, which (in
so
far
as they are not
lists of names) show
able marks of the Chronicler's hand, and must therefore be
regarded as his compilations : see,
late
expressions in
I
421
2233
etc.
CHRONICLES,
BOOKS
OF
In
studying Chronicles
a sharp
distinction o u g h t
to
be
d r a w n between t h e parts excerpted (without
substantial alteration) from
thk
earlier
canonical
historical
books a n d t h e
The
aarts
to the
Chronicler.
recently
published
of
Chronicles
by Kittel
(SBOT),
in
which such excerpts
are
coloured light red,
will materially assist t h e reader
in
d o i n g this.
The
question arises, W h a t
is
t h e historical value of
the
passages
peculiar
to
Chronicles? After what
has
been
said,
it can
hardly
be
doubtful t h a t , except f o r
some
of
his
statistical information, his o n e genuine
ancient source w a s t h e series of
the
F o r m e r Prophets,’
Samuel
and
( m o r e
largely)
Kings.
The
MSS
of
these
books which
he
employed preserved occasionally
a
better
reading than is found
in the
existing
where
he
a d d s
to
the
earlier narrative
or
d e p a r t s
from
it, his variations
are seldom
such
as to
inspire con-
fidence.
In large
measure these variations
are
d u e
to
his
assumption,
the
validity
of
which
he
never questions,
that the
religious institutions
of his own
time
h a v e
existed
in
t h e s a m e f o r m
in
old Israel.
I.
High
in a
time
when
h i g h places
were
universally regarded
as
idolatrous, t h e Chronicler
could n o t imagine
that
a
g o o d k i n g
had
tolerated them.
whereas
I
15 14 2243 state that Asa and Jehoshaphat
did not
the high places, the Chronicler
says that they
did
abolish them.
Levitical
Choirs.- Again,
he
assumes t h a t
the
Levitical organisation of his own time, a n d especially
the
three choirs of singers, were
established
by
David.
Had this really been the case, the silence of the older history
would he inexplicable. indeed the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah
shows that, even at
time of the return from Babylon, the
system with which the Chronicler was familiar had not been
elaborated for the ‘singers’ there still form
a separate class
not yet
with the Levites.
The narrative in
S.
6
of the removal of the ark to Zion
say
a word respecting the presence of Levites upon the
occasion. In
I
Ch. 13
this omission is made good
:
the
Levites, including the singers, take
a prominent part in the
ceremony: the mishap of
is represented
as due to
the fact that the ark had not at first been properly carried by
the Levites, and
a psalm composed of parts of
(105
1-15
106
I
is placed in David’s mouth
I n
I
K.83 the ark is borne by priests (in accordance
and
all
pre-exilic allusions);
in Ch. 54 Levites
is
substituted for ‘priests,’ to
the passage into conformity
with the later Levitical law.
(c)
In
K . l l
Jehoiada’s assistants in the revolution which
cost
Athaliah her life are the foreign body-guard which we
know to have been
in the temple down
the time
of
Ezekiel (44 7) hut in Ch. 23 the Carians (see C
HERETHITES
)
and the foot-guards give place to the Levites in accordance
with the rule of the second temple, which did
allow aliens
to approach
so near to the holy things. ‘Deliberate altera-
tions’ (Be.) are in
introduced throughout the
narrative: and
a new colouring is imparted to the whole
There are other incidental allusions, also, which show that
the author is really describing institutions of a date later than
the age
to which he refers them. Thus
not only do the
gates mentioned in
(under David) presuppose the
existence of a temple, but also the Persian name
given to one of them
(u.
shows that the writer is thinking
the post-exilic temple.
The allusions in
(in the
speech put into Abijah’s month) to the golden candlestick and
the evening burnt-offering, point also to the
of the same
age
:
in the pre-exilic
the
of golden candlesticks
was not one but ten
(I
K.
see however C
ANDLESTICK
I
),
and the evening sacrifice
the
was not
holocaust
a
cereal oblation
:
I
K.
18 36
K.
16
In
his descriptions
of
pre-exilic solemnities,
as
in
t h e
speeches which
he
places i n
the
m o u t h
of
pre-exilic
characters,
the
Chronicler i s unconsciously a n
A portion of Robertson Smith’s article in the
is here
omitted; and this and the following section ($8)
the (pre-
sumably) more matured view expressed
the author in
Cp
I
Ch. 21
(excusing David
s
sacrifice on Arannah’s
threshing-floor and explaining why he could not go to
Ch.
the worship at the high-place of Gibeon
c p
I
(
I
K.
altered
to harmonise
the practice of
post-exilic temple); and the short notices
relating to ritual, especially the functions of the singers, instanced
5,
25
peachable
witness to
the
religious
usages
and
beliefs
of his own t i m e
it is
inconsistent
with sound
historical
principles t o treat
his
testimony with
regard to
antiquity
as
of equal valne with
that
of the older a n d m o r e
nearly
contemporary
writings, where t h e two,
whether directly
or by
legitimate inference,
are at
variance.
Another principle traceable i n
the
Chronicler’s addi-
tions
is
the
tendency n o t merely t o
lay stress
u p o n
the
doctrine
of
divine retribution,
but
also
to
represent i t
as
acting immediately
(see
especially below
[ e ] ) .
To the
earlier
prophets t h e retributive justice
of
G o d
is
manifest i n t h e general course of t h e history- -the fall
of
t h e H e b r e w nation is t h e fruit of
sin
a n d rebellion a g a i n s t
m o r a l
God’s
justice is mingled
with long-suffering,
the
prophets
d o n o t s u p p o s e
that
every
is
punished promptly,
and
that
temporary
g o o d fortune
is
always t h e reward
of
righteousness.
T h e a i m of very m a n y of t h e additions m a d e in
Chronicles t o t h e old history,
is
to
show t h a t i n Israel
retribution followed immediately
on
g o o d
or
bad
con-
duct, especially o n obedience
or
disobedience t o
pro-
phetic warnings.
In
I
we read that Jehoshaphat built
ships
great
vessels) at
for
the
Arabian gold-trade hut the ships were wrecked before starting.
For
this the Chronicler seeks a religious reason.
As
I
K.
proceeds to relate that, after the disaster, Ahaziah
of
offered to join Jehoshaphat in a fresh enterprise and the latter
declined, the narrative of
I
is so altered ’in Ch.
376 as to represent the king of Israel as having been partner in
the ships that were wrecked; whilst in
there is an
addition stating that Jehoshaphat was warned by
a prophet
of
the certain failure of an undertaking in which he was associated
with the wicked Ahaziah.
(6) I n
K.
3 we read of a war with Moah in which Jehosha-
phat was associated with the wicked house of
and came
off scathless. In Chronicles this
is entirely omitted and in
its place we have
Ch. 20) an expedition of Jehoshaphk alone
against Moab, Ammon, and
in which the Jewish king,
having opened the campaign-with the assistance of the Levites
-with suitable prayer and praise, has no further task than to
the dead of the enemv who have fallen bv one another’s
.
(c)
Kings states simply
as a fact that Shishak invaded Judah
and carried off the treasures of the temple and palace : the
Chronicler inserts between
I
K.
and
26 a notice explaining
that this was because Rehoboam had forsaken
but that,
as he
and
his princes had humbled themselves, they should not
he entirely destroyed (z Ch.
cp
v.
I n Kings, Asa, who according to
I
K. 15 14 was a good
king
all his days, had in his old age
(u.
a
disease in his feet.
With the object, apparently, of accounting for this, the Chronicler
explains
Ch.
; cp the addition in
that three
years previously he had shown a distrustful spirit by contracting
an alliance with Benhadad (which is mentioned in
I
without any
of disapproval on the part of the narrator).
T h e singular dates in
2
Ch. 15
16
I
(which place Baasha’s
invasion a t
a period which according to
I
168 was ten
years after his own
are most naturally
as
an
attempt to hring the fault sufficiently near the punishment.
(e)
Similarly the misfortunes of Jehoash,
and Azariah
are explained by sins of which the older history knows nothing
265
and Pharaoh Necho
himself is made a prophet that the
and death of Josiah
may be due to his
of a
divine warning
whilst on the other hand, Manasseh, whose character as depicted
in
K.
21
23
(cp
Jer.
is without a redeeming
feature, is represented
as a penitent
Ch. 33
in order,
it would seem, to justify his long
All this is eniirely i n t h e style of
the
Jewish M i d r a s h
it
is not
history, b u t
r o m a n c e
a t t a c h i n g t o historical n a m e s
and
events.
The
Chronicler
himself,
it will be
remembered (see
above,
6
gives
the-name
of Midrash’
to-two of
the
sources
f r o m
which
Where the ‘yet’ of
RV
should he ‘and
also’
as
well
as
in the alliance with Benhadad).
K.
15 5 mentions only the fact that
became a leper.
I
Ch. 10
(the cause assigned for Saul’s death),
invasion), 21
227 25
I
troubles attributed
to
his
idolatry),
In
the older narratives of
Kings have been not less curiously transformed than in
2
Ch.
(see above, 7
Be.,
ad
5
30
31
We.
[ET
The correspondence
and Solomon
Ch. 2
I
K.
has
been rewritten by the Chronicler (with reminiscences from other
parts of Kings) in his own style.
CHRONICLES, BOOKS
OF
his materials were derived. There need be no uncer-
tainty, therefore, as to the nature of his work when it
departs from the older narratives of
and
K.
Another peculiarity of the Chronicler is to be found
in the incredibly
with which he deals.
David
Ch. 22
amasses
ooo
9.
Exaggerations.
talents of gold and
talent; of
silver for the temple (contrast the much
more modest estimate of even Solomon’s revenue in
I
K.
10
;
the army of Ahijah numbers 400
ooo
men, that of Jerohoam
of
whom 500 ooo perish
one day
Ch. 13 3 17) ; Asa
580,000
Zerah
I
ooo
Jehoshaphat
(17
he complains that he
has
no
; of the army of Ahaz
are slain in one day, while
women and children
are taken captive (2868).
T h e
past was magnified,
as
it was also idealised.
empire of David and his successors was imagined on a
scale of unsurpassed power and magnificence
;
pre-exilic
Judah was’ pictured
as
already in possession of the in-
stitutions, and governed-at least in its greater and
better men-by the ideas and principles which were
in force at
a
later day.
The past was read in the
light of the present, and the history, where necessary,
re-written accordingly.
No
doubt in many instances a
traditional element lies
at
the basis of the Chronicler’s
representation ; but this element has been developed
by him, and embellished with fresh details, for the pur-
pose of giving expression to the ideas which he had at
heart, and of inculcating the lessons which he con-
ceived the history
to
teach.
I t is probable that the
new conception of Israel’s past history, and the char-
acteristic didactic treatment of it, did not originate with
the Chronicler himself, but had already appeared in
the Book of
the
Kings
of
and
or the
of
the
Book
of
Kings,
which he
so
frequently cites as
his authorities (cp Re. xxxvii.).
A
usage, not peculiar
to
the Chronicler among O T
writers, which must be carefully taken into account by
Manifestly such figures cannot be historical.
the historical critic, is that of giving
information that is really statistical in
the form ,of a narrative.
This is the
principle which underlies many of the
O T
statements of
genealogical relationships, and which alone explains the
variations between different accounts of the genealogy
proceeding from
a
single ancestor : information
as
to
the subdivisions of clans, the intermingling of popula-
tions, and the like, is thrown into a genealogical form
(see G
ENEALOGIES
,
I
).
The most striking example of
the application of this principle is the ethnographical
table of Gen.
10
(cp also
13-16,
and parts
of
36)
;
but these instances by no means stand alone
there are many in
I
Ch.
Thus it is avowedly the
of 2 24 42-45 49-55 4 2-5 11-14
17-23
to indicate
of local populations : in 2 43
the town, has ‘sons.
Several of the names in 2 4 are also
of Edomite clans (Wellh.
De
etc.
these
came
gradually to be treated as belonging
to
Judnh, and the con-
nection was afterwards exhibited artificially in a genealogical
scheme.
Caleb and
were not originally Israelite ;
Caleb belonged to the Edomite clan (Gen. 36
of the
(Jos.
and clans bearing the name of Caleb and
are in ’David’s time (
I
27
cp 30
note also
the terms of
still distinguished from Judah: in
course of time, however, they were regarded as a n integral part
of the tribe and a genealogy was formed
(I
Ch. 2
25)
to give
expression
the
A
different application of the same principle seems
So
in
7
Ephraim is not a n individual, but the tribe
;
and
Cp
in
and
are,
no doubt, Ephraimite clans.
Bennett in
chap.
iv.
esp.
to lie in the account of the institutions of Levitical
service which is introduced in connection with the trans-
ference of the ark to Jerusalem by David.
The
is not concerned to distinguish the gradual steps by
which the Levitical organisation attained its
develop-
ment. H e wishes to describe the system in its complete
form, especially
as
regards the service of the singers,
and he does this under the reign of David, who was the
father of Hebrew psalmody [cp
223
and
the restorer of the sanctuary of the ark.
The style of the Chronicler has remarkable peculiari-
ties.
I t is not merely that it presents characteristically
late linguistic novelties (which are not con-
fined to the vocabulary, but, as Konig’s
Syntax
der
fully shows, extend to the
Syntax), but it has
also
a
number of special mannerisms.
Even the reader of a translation can see that this must
be the case.
Modern words, often with Aramaic
ties, inelegant syntax, cumbrous and uncouth sentences,
in strongest possible contrast to the ease and grace of
the earlier Hebrew historical books,-
these are the
predominant marks of the Chronicler’s style; and
so
constant are they that there is hardly a sentence, not
excerpted from Samuel or Kings, in which they are not
observable.’ For details we must refer to the Intro-
ductions and Commentaries (see
xiv.
Dr.
F. Brown, Hastings’
It might be thought, by those unacquainted
with the Chronicler’s manner, that the speeches in
Chronicles might form as a whole an exception to
what
is
here stated, and that they might conceivably
be based on some special
of older date.
this would be a great mistake. The tone and literary
style of the speeches which have parallels in Samuel
and Kings are both very different from those which
have been added by the Chronicler.
The latter not
only reflect, almost uniformly, the ideas and point of
view of the Chronicler himself, but also exhibit frequently
the same literary peculiarities. There can be
no
reason-
able doubt that they are, one and all, his own
sition.2
work in the
2 1873) is still
a most
helpful commentary
;
Keil
in Lange’s
Oettli
12.
Bibliography.
(‘89);
(‘73);
Ball (learned), Ellicott’s
Bennett (suggestive)
(‘94).
On isagogic questions
(structure, sources,
of narrative,
the principal
works are D e
d.
vol. 1); Keil,
(‘33).
and
;
Movers,
(‘34)
Graf
Das
der Chron. als Geschichtsquelle,‘
in
Die Gesch.
p.
(see also Be.
viii.); Ew.
Hist.
1169
De Wette-Schr.
We.
[ E T
Kue.
28-32
thorough) Dr.
Letter-
$ 2 5 ‘
$
54.
Cp also
Bu. Vermutungen
der
in
1892,
p. 37
(speculative) ; Ki.
Edition, etc., with
Notes,
SBOT (Hebrew), ’95 ; W.
E.
Barnes, Religious Stand-
point of the Chronicler,’ Am.
Sent.
and
Oct.
‘Chronicles a
Ex.
Times, 8316
(‘97);
t o
Chronicles in
a rather surprising number of variants in the
primary MSS)
F. Brown, art. ‘Chronicles,’ Hastings’
R .
R .
The peculiarities in question may often he observed even
in the short sentences which the Chronicler sometimes intro-
duces into a narrative otherwise excerpted without material
alteration from Samuel or Kings:
I
Ch. 21
I
3
end
end
1 8 3
end,
etc.
For illustrations see Dr.
Speeches in Chronicles,’
Apr. and
772
CHRONOLOGY
CHRONOLOGY
CHRONOLOGY
CONTENTS.
A. OLD TESTAMENT.
I.
D
IFFICULTIES
1-15).
Lack of System
dates late and hypothetical
Astrononiy
3-15).
S
OURCES
OF
H
E L P
.
Introductory
I.
L
I F E
OF
J
ESUS
42-63).
I
.
Baptism
43).
Length of public ministry
3. Its beginning
47-49).
Assyriology
23-26).
Menander
30).
Caution
27).
certain
OT
dates
28).
Approximate earlier dates
31
B.
NEW
TESTAMENT.
R
ESULTS
.
4. Year
of death
5. Year of birth
57-62).
6.
Conclusions
63).
L
IFE O
F
P
AUL
64-80).
I
.
Entry into Europe to
ment at Rome
64-71).
Chronology
of the several periods
I
.
Solomon to Jehu
32).
Certain dates : Jehu t o fall
of
Samaria
33).
3. Chronology of
N.
Israel
34).
4. Chronology of Judah
35-37).
Earlier period
3. Closing period
Confirmation
results
(55
76-78).
C
HUR
C
HES
I N
P
ALE
S
T
IN
E
D
ATES
TABLES.
A. OLD
5. Survey : Solomon
to Herod
38)
6. Secular History
7. Life of Jesus
63).
8.
Paul’s
middle period
71).
Paul
:
first period
(5
75).
TO
.
Paul : last period
Other dates
84).
I
.
data as
t o
reigns
7)
theories ($
3. Assyriological dates
25).
4. Reigns : Solomon
t o
Jehu
32).
B. NEW
T E S T A M E N T -
BIBLIOGRAPHY
85).
A . OLD
TESTAMENT.
The advantages afforded by
a
fixed and uniform
chronological system of defining historical events seem
so
evident that one might expect to find
some such method of determining dates
in
use
from the very earliest times.
History, however, shows that
a
long development
was needed to lead to this simple result.
Only in
connection with a universal history did the desire
for a uniform and comprehensive method of determining
dates spring up. T h e impulse towards a real universal
history and a general chronology came, not when the
attempt was made to collect and record all human
events, but when men learned to look at them from a
single point of view and to comprehend them in
a
single
plan.
T h e roots of such a universal history lie in the
prophets of Israel, who regarded the plan of
as
realising itself in the experience of the nations of
the earth as well as in the history of Israel; and its
actual beginnings, strange as it may seem, are to be
found in the Apocalyptic writers, who regarded history
as a
comprehensive whole (see A
POCALYPTIC
,
This mode of regarding history was continued by
Christianity.
I t is not strange, therefore, that Chris-
tianity felt the need for a universal chronology and
found
way of meeting that need, thus proving its
own world-embracing significance.
This is not the
place to enter upon the long and involved history of
the adoption of the Christian era, which, after its author,
the Roman abbot Dionysius Exiguus of the first half
of
the sixth century,
is
also called the Dionysian era.
In
order, however, to obtain a fixed starting-point from
which to reckon, we must simply state here that the
year
the year of the birth of Christ-is equivalent
to the year 754 of the era of
the era of the
city of Rome,-and to the first year of the
Olympiad; and, also, that King Herod died in the
year
of the city of Rome, and
so
in the year
4
(cp Schiir.
T h e same phenomenon of gradual arrival at a satis-
factory chronological method is repeated in the narrower
sphere of the national history of the several nations.
W e never find a settled era, a definite date from which
years were counted, at the very beginning or even at
an early period of
a
nation’s history. If anything of
this kind has seemed to appear in early times, it has
always turned out to be in the highest degree uncertain,
or really to rest on later calculations.
Nor is the
773
O T any exception to this rule.
Only once had the
Jews before Christ
a
national era, and that was for a very
short time. When Simon the Maccabee had obtained
from the Syrians complete freedom from taxation along
with the acknowledgment of the political independence
of Judea, documents and contracts were dated by years
of Simon, the High Priest and Prince of the Jews, the
first year of Simon the High Priest
(
I
representing the 170th year of the era of the
Seleucides
On
the other hand, since the time when the Jews
fell under the dominion of Syria, they had used the
so-called era of the
I
Macc.
1
[Assyrian = Syrian],
Jos.
Ant.
67
amongst
the Jews, and year
amongst the Syrians).
This era has for its starting-point the defeat
of
Nicanor,
the general of Antigonus, by Seleucus
and the
final establishment of the dominion of the
in Syria and Babyloniain
01.
117,
312
B
.
C.
I t is used
in
the
Books
of the Maccabees, but
there, it would seem, with this difference, that in the
first book it begins, not, as was usual elsewhere, in
the autumn, but in the spring of
thus about half
a
year
This era reached in general as far
as
the Syrian power, and although, usually, where states
were able to obtain freedom they introduced new eras
of their own, none was able to maintain itself so long
as
that of the
It
remained in use, indeed,
among the Syrians for centuries alongside of the Arabic
era, which counts from the Hegira
flight of
Mohammed), 16th July, 622
A.
D
.
Real eras are not met with in the
O T
in earlier times.
cannot cite
as
an exception the practice of the Jews
during the Exile, of counting the years since they were
carried away from their land
Ezek.
and
K.
also Jer.
and Ezek.
and, without mention of the point from which the
reckoning is made, Ezek.
81
201 291
In truth,
they desired nothing more eagerly than to be delivered
from the need of counting in this way.
Besides, there
Whether the numbers
that are
found
on silver shekels
and half-shekels
with
the inscription
or
refer
to another era than this
of Simon’s, and, if
so,
t o
some pre-Christian era has not been decided.
That Simon
had coins stamped
is hardly to he doubted (cp
I
Macc. 1 5 6 ; also
1
636.6:).
So
1 3 3 ; We., however
regards this
a s unnecessary (cp Y
E A R
,
774
CHRONOLOGY
CHRONOLOGY
was along with it a reckoning from the final fall of
Jerusalem (Ezek. 40
I
) ,
while Ezek.
1
I
(if the text has
reached us intact)
rest on still a third mode of
reckoning.’
It is, moreover, a very unsafe hypothesis
which ventures to retain in the case of the statement of
Ch.
16
I
(as a whole’clearly untenable) at least
ber 36 as based on trustworthy tradition, and proposes
to find therein a trace of a
era, thought to date
from the division of the
(Sharpe,
Chronology
of
the
29 ; cp Braudes,
62).
Nor,
lastly, are we any more justified in finding any trace
of
a real era counting from the Exodus in the late
passage
I
K.
where the building of Solomon’s
temple is assigned to the 480th year after that event.
This number does not rest on tradition : it has been
reached by calculation based
on
some hypothesis. No
corroboration can be obtained from the numbers in
the late Priestly Code-if the passages containing them
are original even there-numbers which date the events
of the journey through the wilderness by years from the
Egypt
Ex.
16
I
19
I
Nu.
1
I
9
I
3338).
Nor can any support,
in fact, be found for the notion that the Jubilee period
was turned to chronological purposes. There is not the
slightest trace of a real carrying out of the regulations
concerning it mentioned in Lev.
even the Books
of the Maccabees speak only of Sabbatic years, never of
Jubilee years
(
I
Macc.
6 4 9 53
cp
Jos.
Ant. xiv.
I n
spite
of
this lack of a proper era, the
O T is
not without notes and data intended to serve
as
a
means of fixing events chronologically.
In
addition to isolated observations
(none the less important that they are
incidental) setting an occurrence in relation to another
prominent event
to the death of the king, as
in
Is.
6 1
1428,
or to an important expedition, as in
Is.
to the building of a city, as in Nu.
or to
extraordinary natural phenomenon, as in Am.
1
I
),
we
generally find, in the case of any important O T person-
age, the year of his life or his reign specified ; and in
the books edited during the Exile the date of the events
narrated begins to he given by years of
king.
Besides, there are the various synchronistic data
often supplied
headings of books
in the case of
certain of the prophets), and by the Books of Kings,
which have a complete synchronistic record for the time
of the coexistence of the two kingdoms of Israel
Judah. Finally, the evidence of the contemporaneous-
ness of certain events furnished at times by the historical
narrative itself is of the highest importance.
The weightiest question, howeser,
is,
to what degree
of credibility this chronological material can lay claim.
Before undertaking the examination of this
question for the several points of the history,
we must premise some general considera-
tions that
themselves on our notice. First of all,
there is the remarkable fact that these chronological
notes are to be found in greatest abundance in those
parts of the historical books that are confessedly to be re-
garded as the youngest.
In
the Pentateuch they belong to
the post-exilic Priestly Code or to additions of even later
date in the other historical books into which the older
I n that case nothing would meet the requirements
of
the
passage but
a reckoning that counted from the reform of Josiah
(622).
suchmodeofreckoningweknownothing, anymore
than we do of
a reckoning by Jubilee periods, or of a Babylonian
era meeting the requirements of the text (cp Kue.
2
60
n.
4).
( A T
94-96)
therefore alters the text, and reads
[read
or
tread
which must he under-
stood like 8
I
,
and give an earlier date than 8
I
.
I t would be
better, however, to assume the original reading to have been ‘in
the fifth
the following verse)-i.e
that from the fact of Jeremiah’s having
seventy years
for the Exile
(25
cp 29
IO)
while Ezekiel gave only forty (4
6 )
a
later writer drew the inference that Ezekiel prophesied
years after Jeremiah, and accordingly inserted a s a date in Ezek.
1
I
the thirtieth year of the Exile
77.5
sources have been worked, they are due, in the main, to
the latest exilic editors. Then, it must be regarded as
proved that the superscriptions of the prophetic books
containing detailed information concerning the time of
the respective prophets do not
from the prophets
themselves,
are much younger additions, such as the
erudition of later ages delighted in. This appears from
the inexplicable double date (by kings of Judah and of
Israel) found in Hosea and Amos, as well as from the
inaccuracy, or tlie crowding, of the data in
Is.
Jer. and
Ezek.
Nor is the remarkable addition in Amos1
I
,
‘two
years before the earthquake,’ any exception to this rule
:
the fact that a later event
is
employed to define the date
shows that the statement is a subsequent addition, and
it is therefore very probable that it rests on the exegesis
and calculation of the scribes (cp Hoffmann,
Lastly, it is remarkable that the text
presents no uniformity of reading in the matter of re-
cording dates : nay, that there are even to be found un-
filled blanks.
Thus in
I
S.
131
the numbers have been
omitted from the formula giving the age of Saul and the
length of his reign, and in
the whole verse is
There are also other places
in
the LXX where
such chronological data are
Jer.
I
[BAR]-and elsewhere in the old versions we come
considerable variations from the traditional Hebrew text.
All these are marks that indicate a late origin for the
chronological numbers and warn us in the most emphatic
way to submit them to a thorough examination.
As
regards the oldest period, with which Genesis
deals, the time down to the Exodus, it is known that
the numbers supplied by the Samaritan
and the LXX texts, and even by the Book of
Jubilees
the first century
A
.
D . ) ,
differ in many points fronithose of the
text:
T h e divergence will be made most plain by a comparison
showing the sum of the years according to each tradition. I n
Gen.
5
the period from
creation of the world to the beginning
of
flood is, according to the Hebrew text, 1656 years
;
accord-
ing to the Samaritan
.
and according to
2242
I n Gen.
11
the interval
of Shem to
birth
ham
according to the Hebrew text,
years; according to
the
and according to the text of
I n this no
of the variations
hy
the other
MSS
of
itself nor is it inquired whether the
tradition represented hy any
given text is free from internal
inconsistency (cp,
Gen. 11
I
O
‘two years after the flood
with Gen. 532
7 6 ,
11
further Gen.
with
11 26,
32).
This state
matters shows, what was indeed probable
to begin with, that there was no fixed tradition concern-
ing the early history of Israel
:
that, indeed, even at so
late a time as that of the LXX and the Book of Jubilees,
there was no clear idea of how the period in question
should be measured. Thus the numbers of the Hebrew
text, since they are not earlier than
Priestly Code,
go back at the best only to the fifth century
B.
and
do
not rest on tradition, but have been reached by the
application of some artificial theory.
Since they are
therefore, at least for chronology (if indeed one
could ever have hoped to obtain
such
a thing for those
earliest times) it is unnecessary to attempt to discover
what the actual theory underlying them is.
I t will be enough tomention that v.
observed that
number of years resulting from the summation of the
Massoretic numbers for the period (Gen. 5 to Ex.
from
the creation of Adam to the
is exactly two-thirds
of
years. These
years be
represent
a period (of
TOO
generations of
40
years each) assigned for the duration of
the world. In this way he sought to explain the artificial
of the system (cp Nold.
des A T
follows
MT,
is lacking a t this point
further
Dr.
The number
2666 resultsfrom the addition of
the
number of years from the creation of the world to the beginning
of the flood (cp Gen. 5)
the sum of the years from the
flood to the birth of
(cp Gen.
to the
departure
of Abraham from
(Gen. 124)
to the
departure
of Jacob for Egypt
to the birth of Isaac [Gen.
2151
to the birth of Jacob
years of
life [Gen.
years
of stay in Egypt
(Ex. 12 40).
776
CHRONOLOGY
CHRONOLOGY
I t is worth while, however, noticing the relation
according to Oppert
(GGN 1877, pp.
the Chaldean
numbers for the first ages
and the statements in
Genesis stand to each other. The Chaldeans reckon from the
beginning of the world to Alexander
myriads of years, of
which
47
myriads represent the time from the first man to
Alexander. Thus they allow for the creation
of
years. Now, the
7
days of the biblical account of the creation
give
hours. Thus in the creation age a myriad of years
represented in the biblical account by a n hour. Again, for the
time of the first ten men down to the flood the Chaldeans reckon
432
Genesis 1656. If both
be divided by
72,
we
and 23 respectively, and 23
days-
represent
weeks, while
years is 5 times
years.
Hence the Chaldeans seem to have reckoned 5 years
60
months) as
a lustrum
where
Genesis
has reckoned
I
week.
years
weeks;
This remark-
able relation, which can hardlyrest on pure accident, presupposes
a complicated calculation, and a very late origin for these
numbers. Whatever be the theory underlying the numbers of
Genesis, one thing, therefore, is certain
:
for
a sure chronology
of the times before the Exodus, the O T numbers, appearing as
they do for the first time in the youngest sources of the Penta-
teuch, afford no security.
T h e case is no better with the chronology of the
interval that extends from the Exodus to the building
of the temple of Solomon. W e have
here, indeed, a check in
I
6
I
which
makes the building ,of the temple begin
in the 480th year after the Exodus; but this number
did not make its appearance till
a
time when the temple
of Solomon was no more (cp above,
I
).
I t bears,
moreover, the clear
of being artificial; for it
plainly counts from Moses to David twelve generations
of forty years each, which
w e
can easily identify as
follows : Moses, Joshua, Othniel, Ehud, Deborah,
Gideon, Jephthah,
Eli,
Samuel, Saul, and
David.
This explanation of the origin of the number
is corroborated by the fact that the five “little”
Judges in
1 2
appear to have been inserted
into the Deuteronomistic Book of Judges later (on
the object of their insertion, see
9).
Nor
can anything certain be obtained from the individual
numbers, since they are neither quite clear nor free
from gaps.
I t remains obscure,
how the numbers relating to the
supremacy of the Philistines and the judgeship of Samson (13
I
and 16
are related to each other how the twenty years
from the arrival of the ark a t Rirjath-jearim to the victory of
Samuel over the Philistines are to be fitted
into Samuel’s
history
(
I
S.
and how the ninety-four years of foreign
oppression are to
combined with the data concerning the
length
of rule of the individual
The tradition also presents gaps, however, since it does not
mention the time during which Joshua was the leader of the
and in
S. 13
I
the numbers for Saul are entirely
wanting. Finally,
allows
Eli in
418 only twenty
years instead of the forty of
M T
: and the frequently recurring
round numbers-such as
40
for Moses, Othniel, Deborah-Barak,
Gideon,
Eli
and David: 80
for E h u d ; and
(=
for Samson, for
Eli
(according to
for Samuel and
(approximately) for
and
t o set
still
clearer light the unhistorical character of the data.
The matter may rest, then,
as
Noldeke left it at the end
of his chronology of the period of the Judges
with the verdict that neither for the several divisions
of the period of the Judges nor for its whole duration
Cp
n.
If we reckon together the numbers for this period we get as
follows
:-40
(stay in the wilderness)
+40
(Othniel,
3
(Ehud
330)
+40
(Deborah-Barak 5 31) +40
(Gideon,
+23
127) f 7
1211)
(Abdon 1214)
(Samson
(Eli,
I
S.
(Samuel
+40
(David,
2
(Solomon,
I
K.
6
If we deduct the ‘little’ Judges
Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and
we shall have a total
of only
years. For Joshua and Saul for whom the numbers
are lacking, there still remain, to
the 480 years accord.
to the first calculation
years according to
second
IIO.
If, however, we are to insert detween the periods of the
several
the
O
A
of
[tiglon
+18
cp
we get j34
464
years-according to the first reckoning already
54
years
many, with nothing left for Joshua and Saul ; according to
second only sixteen years for these two together,
a
period fat
from
for the deeds
of
both.
777
a chronology any longer attainable.’ It is, therefore,
useless to seek, by calculation from these numbers,
ascertain the time of the leadership of Joshua and
reign of Saul.
‘The furthest we can
go
is to
from passages like Am.
525,
that an old
estimated the journey through the wilderness
forty years. (On the
of the
Book
of
see J
UDGES
,
I t is much harder to deal with the chronological
for the period from the building of the temple by
Solomon to the conquest of Jerusalem
by Nebuchadrezzar.
I n various im-
portant instances we now meet with
statements concerning the year of the
reigning king to which the event narrated belongs.
r h u s in regard to events of war we read: ‘ I n
fifth year of King Rehoboam Shishak King of Egypt
up
against Jerusalem’
(
I
K.
and
‘
In
the
ninth year of Hosea the
of Assyria took Samaria
So
also in regard to home affairs : In the
three and twentieth year of King Jehoash the priests
had
not repaired the breaches of
house’
K.
1 2 7 ) .
Clear as such passages seem to be, we need to know
which year of a given king was called the first-the
year in the course of which he ascended the throne,
or
the first complete year at the beginning of which he
was already seated on the throne.
Sound information
on this point is still more indispensable, however, for the
understanding of the further data for
our
period supplied
by the
B o o k s
of Kings.
These give the sum
of
the
years of reign of each several king.
If, however, for
any interval that can he defined by means of events
related, we add together these amounts, the totals for
the parallel kingdoms of Judah and Israel do not agree.
The question becomes very complicated when at each
accession the date is regularly defined
by years of the contemporary ruler
of
the
kingdom of Israel or Judah. This synchronism again
leads to a reckoning of its own.
What we have first
to do is to estimate the value
of
the various chrono-
logical data which form
a
sort of framework for the
whole history of the period. Then
we
can determine the
importance and range of the individual dates assigned
by
years of accession.
The statements concerning the duration of
a
reign
as
well a s the synchronism of its
form Darts of
the brief reviews which pass judgment
on
each king from the standpoint of
the Deuteronomic law
K
INGS
.
B
OOKS OF,
The two chronological elements,
however, have a diverse origin
for the synchronistic
notes betray their character as subjective additions of
the Epitomator.’
It is clear, to begin with, that
this
synchronism was not in actual use during
the existence of the two kingdoms : apart from dates
of
accessions, we find it only once-at the fall of
Samaria
K.
18
IO
),
the point where the system comes
to an end.
I t would
natural to maintain that the very construction
of the chronological notes
their diverse origin : the
verb
has
in the same sentence one meaning for the words
that precede and another for those that follow. I t
is to be
construed
( = ‘ h e became king’) a s well a s pro-
gressive ( = ‘ h e reigned’). For instance
in
‘ I n the
fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of
king
of
Judah,
Jeroboam the
son of Joash, king of Israel
(=became king,
and
years
in
Samaria.’
If
here
and
(
I
K.
15
25
16
22
52
:
K. 3
I
15
13)
is
added to
this only proves, it would seem,
a sense of
irreconcil-
ability of expressing
the date of accession and the duration
of the reign hy the simple verb
T h e double sense of
verb however, is peculiar to such annals and is to be explained b y
the
of the style. Exactly so
list of kings of T y r e
given
by Josephus
(c.
118) from Menander of Ephesus,
is used in both senses at the same time : ‘ h e
became king’ a s well
as
‘and he reigned.’
T h e decisive proof, however, of the secondary char-
acter of the synchronistic numbers
is
reached only when
778
CHRONOLOGY
we compare them with the years of reign.
I t then
appears that the former has been attained by calculation
from the latter, although the method that has been
followed cannot in all points be
A
tabular
years
..
I
year
CHRONOLOGY
exhibition of the data will be the best way to make this
clear. I n the first column we give the date reckoned
from an imaginary era of the division of the kingdom,
and in the last the references from the Books of Kings.
years
K.
..
1533
..
..
..
I
I
..
41
I
..
3
year
K.
8
TABLE
T
ESTAMENT
D
ATA
AS
T
O
R
EIGNS
:
S
OLOMON TO
F
ALL
SYNCHRONISMS AND
L
ENGTH
OR
R
EIGNS
.
I
S
R
A
EL
.
I-
year of
Jeroboam
.
. .
18th
Jeroboam.
.
..
Jeroboam.
.
Nadab
. .
year
.
.
1st
..
Ela
. . .
vear
.
4
years
'Omri
.
Ahab
.
Ahab
.
Ahaziah
.
Jehoram
.
Jehoram
.
Jehoram
.
Sum of Years of reign in Israel
. .
98
. .
..
Jehu.
.
.
Jehoahaz.
.
Jehoash
.
.
..
. .
Jeroboam
.
63
Zechariah
.
I
year
.
.
o
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
Pekah
.
.
27
Hoshea
.
.
..
Hoshea
.
.
..
Hoshea
. .
Jehoash
I-
-
258
years
This table shows that at the end of the 258th year
after the division of the kingdom, there had elapsed 258
synchronistic years,
years
of
reign in Israel, and
260 such years in Judah and we have thus the singular
equation
The result is even more
singular, however, when we examine separately the parts
before and after the first point of coincidence obtained
through a contemporaneous accession in both lines.
Before the year of accession of Jehu and Athaliah there
were only 88 years according to the synchronisms for
98 years of reign in Israel and 95 in Judah but for the
second part there are 170 years according to the syn-
chronisms for only
years of reign in Israel and
165 in Judah. Whilst thus, in the first period, the
number, according to the synchronistic calculation, is
smaller than the sum of the traditional years, in the
second period, which is longer by about
a
half, it ex-
ceeds the traditional years not inconsiderably. Similar
variations for smaller periods can easily be proved by a
glance at the table.
Nor
can
we equalize the
It
has recently been shown
den
1899,
that the synchronisms start from
two different points and proceed upon two distinct methods of
reckoning, one
of which is followed hy preference in the Hebrew
text and the other in
779
I
Synchronistic Date.
year
of
Rehoboam
.
Abijah
.
.
Asa
. . .
Asa
.
. .
3rd
Asa
. .
.
,,
Asa
. .
.
Asa
. . .
Asa
.
. .
Asa
7th
Jehoshaphat
.
-8th
Jehoshaphat
.
Jehoram
.
.
Ahaziah
. .
References
to the Books
of
Kings.
Length of Reign.
I
Sum of Years of reign in Judah
.
year of
Athaliah
. .
Jehoash
. .
Jehoash
. .
Jehoash
. .
Amaziah
. .
Amaziah
.
.
,,
Azariah
. .
Azariah
.
.
Azariah
.
.
Azariah
.
.
Azariah
.
.
Azariah
.
.
.
.
Ahaz
.
.
,,
Ahaz.
. .
Hezekiah.
7th
Hezekiah to
of
.
95
I
52
2
IC.
15 8
..
..
..
chronistic and the traditional numbers by assuming that
the latter represent a popular way of counting according
to which from the middle of the first to the beginning
of the third year was considered three years, as in the
case of the siege of Samaria
K.
The excess
of the traditional values in the period before Jehu could
perhaps be thus explained,
but
not their defect in the
following period.
Nor
is it possible by altering the
individual numbers to bring the synchronisms into
harmony with the years
of
reign even were one
to
alter
all the synchronistic statements, this would do nothing
towards removing the differences between the numbers
for Israel and those for Judah.
Thus, almost along the
whole line, the discrepancy between synchronisms and
years of reign
is
incurable.
W e must not fail, however, to appreciate a
agreement. The sum of the synchronistic years
is
very nearly equal to the sum of the
of reign for
Judah
(258
260).
The slight difference of two years
can have no weight, and can perhaps be entirely
removed.
In
the surprising statement of
K.
1 3
that
the accession
of
Jehoash
of
Israel happened in the. 37th
year of Jehoash of Judah, we may follow
I
and change
37
to 39 for, according to that verse, Jehoahaz, who
had acceded in the 23rd year of Jehoash of Judah,
Document Outline
- Title
- Preface
- Abbreviations, symbols, and Biblioraphical Notes
- Practical Hints to the Reader
- Aalar - Achsah
- Acts of the Apostles
- Acua - Ain
- Airus - Amphipolis
- Amplias - Apocalypse
- Apocalyptic Literature
- Apocrypha - Ariel
- Arimathaea - Asshurim
- Assideans - Azzur
- Baal - Baca
- Bacchides - Bastard
- Bat - Beth-Basi
- Beth-Birie -Box Tree
- Bozez - Bush
- Bushel - Canon
- Canopy - Chariot
- Charity, Feasts of - Chronology
- Chronology - Circumcision
- Cis - Conduits
- Coney - Covenant
- Coverlet - Cyrus
- Dabarah - David
- David, City of - Dial and Sun-Dial
- Diamond - Dysentary