CHARITY, FEASTS O F
later still by the Syrians ( 2Macc. IS 2). It was ,probably
the Persians who introduced this formidable addition
to the war-chariot. (Cp Xenophon, Cyrop. vi. 130.)
The diAerent portions of the chariot receive special names in
the Heb. of the OT. ‘Wheels,’ 09??iU, are mentioned in Nah.
12. parts of 3 z (cp Is. 2s 27 Prov. 20 26). Another name, more
descriptive, was ‘rollers,’ 0’>!\7 (Is. 5 28 Ezek.
chariot’ 1026 2324 26ro). The ‘spokes’ of the wheel
were called D’iY$l, while the ‘felloes’ had the name O’?! or
n\q. The wheel revolves by a have (n?$I), round an axle(1;).
See W HEEL . All these terms are to he found in the locus clas-
sicus,I K.7 3zf:
The pole of the chariot yy was (according to Mish. Ke&z
14 4 24 2) fastened below t i e m:ddle 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 by 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, a-hich was so closely associated with
the uublic functions of Oriental monarchs. both in war
13. Religious and in peace, entered into the religious
conceptions. conceptions as an indispensable portion
of the paraphernaliaof divinemonarchy,
cannot awaken surprise. The chariot, therefore, has its
place in ancient Semitic religion. Just as the Hellenic
religious imagination endowed Helior with horses and
chariot (as the Homeric Hymn clearly testifies), so
Canaanite religion endowed the Sun-god &mes’with the
same royal accessories (cp H ORSE , 5 4). This feature
in the cnltus of the Sun the Hebrews blended with the
worship of YahwB in the precincts of the sanctuary at
Jerusalem, in the days that preceded the Reformation of
Josiah ( 2K. 23 11). The combination of YahwB, the God
of Israel’s armies and of the sky, with thq Sun was not
unnatural to the Hebrew mind, as their literature testifies
both early and late. Cp I K. 81zf. (an old fragment
of the Book of Jashar restored by We. from @ A in I K.
853); Ps.191-78411 [ I Z ] . ~ YahwB, asLordofhosts, has
chariots among his retinue. These were the chariots
and horses of deliverance ’ whereon Yahwi: rode forth to
conquer and terrify Israel’s foes in the days of the
Exodus (Hab. 3 8 /T. ) With this graphic touch in the
Prayer of Habakkuk we may compare the fiery chariots
of 2 I<. 211 617 1 3 1 4 ~as well as a phrase occurring in
the magnificent triumphal ode, Ps. 68 18. 0. c. w.
CHARITY, FEASTS OF (ai ararrai [Ti. WH]),
Jude12 AV. See EUCHARIST.
CHARME ( X A P M H [BA]), I Esd. 525 RV=Ezra23g
=Neh. 742, HARIM,I.
CHARMER ( y n > $
Deut. 1811,
I,etc. ;
33 RVlng,). See M AGIC , 5 3.
D’v?tI,Is.
CHARMIS, one of the three rulers of Bethulia : Judith
615 813 106 ( X A P M E I C [BK]; XAAM. [A] ; in 810 1 0 6
XAPM[E]IN [BHA]).
CHARRAN ( x a p p a ~[Ti. WH]), Acts7z4, RV
H A R A Ni.,
CHASEBA (xacsB+ [BA], om. L), an unknown
family of NETHINIM in the great post-exilic list (see
EZRA, ii., 9), mentioned only in I Esd. 531, between
the Nekoda and Gazzam of 11 Ezra 248 Neh. 7 50J
CHAVAH (n$n), Gen. 320 AVmg., EV EVE. See
A DAM AND E VE , § 3.
CHEBAR (’773,
xoBap [B.4Q]), the name of a Baby-
lonian stream, near which Ezekiel had prophetic visions
1 But cp RATTLE~ENT.
a The Xakub-el, chariot of El’ (line zz), of the Zenjirli
Panarnmu inscription furnishes an interesting parallel. I t is
possible, however, that Rakub (cp the Ar. rak&’9‘ ‘a camel
for riding’) may mean the divine steed (cp the Heb. kihiih, Ps.
13 I T ; but see C HE R U B , 8 I, begin.). I t is mentioned frequently
along with the deities Hadad, El, Shemesh, and Reshef. See
D. H. Muller’s art. in Contemp. Rev., April 1894.
73 1
CHEDOR-LAOMER
(Ez.
1 1 [adnot. Qmg, BapyCMOC] 3 323 1015m22 433;
on 315, which is a gloss, see TEL-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 (inn)-Babylonia never included the
region watered by this river-but must be one of the
Babylonian canals (Bab. ncirciti; cp 522 nnm, Ps. 1371).
This was first pointed out by Noldeke (Schenkel,
BL, 1508 [‘69]). The final proof has been given by
Hilprecht, who has found mention twice of the (niru)
Kadaru, a large navigable canal a little to the E. of
Nippur ‘in the land of the Chaldeans.’l
CHEDOR-LAOMER (lt&JJT?, so eastern reading,
but lf&7?3 western reading [Ginsb. Zntr. to Mass.
wit. ed. 203f.; conversely Strack, Kohut
1.
Semitic .“dies. 5661 ;, XoAo),AoroMop
[AEL] -&Ah. [D], -hay. [ D ] ) ,according toGen. 141was
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.
In the thirteenth year, however, they rebelled, and in
the fourteenth year they were defeated by the Elamite
and his allies. In 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 , 5 2). The question whether this narrative
is trustworthy, and whether the Chedor-homer of the
Story and his allies are historical personages, is ruled by
the other, as to the date of the chapter containing it.
2. Its date. That the chapter is quite an isolated $,,e,
and formed no part of the writings
from which the Hexateuch w& composed, may 6e
considered as certain. Some scholars, however, (e,g.,
Kittel) 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 B . c . ~ The former bold that the
antiquity and the authenticity of the story are attested
by the following facts :-(I) that at least the name of
the chief king is purely Elamitic ; ( 2 ) that the Rephgim,
the Zamzummin( = Zuzim), and the Emim really occupied
in ancient times what afterwards became the dwelling
places of the Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites,
whilst the Horites (Gen. 3620), according to Dt. 2 1 0 3
and 2 0 3 , were the oldest inhabitants of Seir ; ( 3 ) that
AMORITES( Y . V . ) , the name of the people established,
according to v. 7, in Hazazon-tamar ( = Engedi, 2 Ch.
~ O Z ) , is the ancient name of the people of Canaan
(Gen. 1516 4822 Am. 29), and that several names
(En-mishpat, Hobah, Shaveh), words, and expressions
not occurring anywhere else, as well as the exact
description of the campaign (vu. 5-7), bear the impress
of antiquity and trustworthiness.
The 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 1 8 23 17 19 25 9 35 27 50 13
Nu. 13 23) as place names ; that Melchizedek (Malkisedek) and
Abram are represented as monotheists : and that the patriarch
pays tithes tn the priest-king, a duty not prescribed a t all in Dt.
(see 1422-29 2F IZ x), but characteristic of the post-exilic
sacerdotal law (Nu. l S 2 1 - ~ 8 l
The criticism extends also, however, to the first part,
1 A tablet published by Dr. Clay in vol. ix. of Hilprecht’s
Bn6ylonian Exjea‘ition of the Univ. of Pennsyluania (pl. 50
No. 84, 1. 2). I t should be added that C/ie6ar=great, so tha;
nriru iCn6(6 ?)am=Grand Canal.
2 See, e g . , E. Meyer, GA 1 165.1: (‘34); Kne. Hex. 334 (‘85);
St. ZAW6323C86); We. CN-iofi(‘(’89). Che. OPs. 42 ~ h j ,
570 (‘g~),cp Founders, z37f: ; holzmnger,’EinZ. in d. He;. 425
( 93).
732
 CHEDOR-LAOMER
with which we are here chiefly concerned. It 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 ELIEZER, I). Moreover, it is difficult
to resist the impression that the names of the kings of
Sodom and Gomorrah-viz., Bera' and Birsha' (com-
pounds conveying the idea of ' evil,' ' badness ')-and
the name given in the narrative to the town of Zoar-
viz., Bela' = ' perdition ' (see BELA)-perhaps also that
of the king of Zeb6'im, which the Samaritan text gives a s
Shem-ebed= ' 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, = Kudnr-
.~---
lagamar, is a purely Elamitic name, which is not,
a. L I U U
indeed, found as a royal name on the
cheder- monuments, but is of the same type as
Kuduraanhundi (Kutir-nahhunte in Old
laomera Susian), the name of a king who in the be-
ginning of the twenty-third century B.C. conquered the
whole ; and Kudur-mabuk, the name of another king,
who, probably later, was master of a part of Babylonia.
Lagamar(u) (Lagamar) occurs as the name of an
Elamitic deity, not only in 5 R (p. vi., coll. 6 , 3 3 ) , but
also in the Inscriptions of Anzan-5116inalt.~and seems
to be the same as Lagamal, the queen of the town of
KiSurre ( 2 R pl. lx. rga= 146). Hence the name cannot
be the invention of a Hebrew writer. It can hardly be
doubted, either, that Arioch, king of Ellasar, is really no
other than Eri-altu ( L e . , servant of the Moon-god),
the well-known king of Larsa, son of Kudur-mabuk.2
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 son by the name
Adda-martu, 'Father of the West.' Now, the word Martu
being commonly used, at least in later times, to designate
Western Asia, especially Canaan (mat Ahawi, or perhaps
better M a t Amuwi, the land of the Amoriies), Adda=Father
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 p, int in this theorising. Kudur-mahuk is not the same
as Kndur-lagamar, and-Adda-martuseems to he only a synonym
of Adda-~mnrutlala,a title which the same king, as ruler of a
western province of Elam, bears in other inscriptions (see Tiele,
B A G 123J).
The attempts to make ont the two other Eastern
kings to be historical personages must be considered
I which two of the names are mentioned again. Pinches
~Accoqding to Jos. HalBvy,
4' ?z;iel is the famous Babylonian king
Hammu-rZbi himself. whose name is ex-
plained in Semitic as Kimta - r p a & ('am= Rimta,
YapheZ= rapaZtu = mapa&); whilst, according to Hommel
(GBA 364f. ), he is Hammu-r&bbi'sfather Sin-muballit,
because Sin is sometimes named Amar and mudaZZiif
may conceivably have been condensed into p a l ( p h d ) .
(See also AMRAPHEL.) With more confidence Shin'ar
is stated to be a Hebraised form of Sumer (see Schr.
KAT). Unfortunately, this is by no means certain.
Though Hammur3b1 was king of Babylon, and there-
fore of Akkad, he was not king of Sumer so long
as Eri-aku was king of Larsa. Not till he had put an
end to the Elamite dominion in Babylonia could he be
called king of &mer, and then neither Eri-altu nor an
Elamite king could join with him in the conquest of
Canaan. As to Tid'al, king of Goyim, we may read
his name Thargal, following @EL ; we, may identify
the Goyim with the people of Gutium; we may even
go so far as prndence permits in theorising on the latest
discoveries : but all this does not make TIDAL ( 4 . v . )
'historical. All that we can say is that the writer of
5. Conclusion. Gen. 14 no more invented the names
of Amraphel and Tid'al (or Thargal)
1 F. H. Weissbach 'Anzanische Inschriften ' in Abk. d.
$h<t.-hist. C l a w der 2. Sacks. GeseZZsch. d. dissensch. xii.,
Leips., 1891, p. 125 (9 of separate copy).
2 This rather than Rim-sin has been proved by Schr. to be
the corrict reading of the narn; (Sitz.-by. k. Preuss. Ak. PhiL-
hist. CZasse, 24 Oct. 1895, xli.).
733
CHEESE
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 (e.g., 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 once masters of Babylonia. Our author,
whether he wrote in the eighth century B . C . , or,
which is more probable, in the fourth, may have found
this fact in some ancient record, and utilised 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
6. Further opinion ('96) that the Ku-dur-la-a'g-ga-
theories. mar (?) whom he finds in a cuneiform
eDistle was the Elamite king - of Larsa who
was conquered by Hammu-r3bi and Sin-idinnam, and,
therefore, cannot have been any other than the son
of Kudur-mabuk, who, as king of Larsa (Ur), had
adopted the name of Rim-sin (Eri-aku 7). Pinches has
discovered a cuneiform tablet in the Brit. Mus. col-
lection which has naturally excited great hopes among
conservative critics. It 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 in
Babylonia when the tablet was inscribed. The tablet
dates, probably, from the time of the Arsacidae ; but it
is tempting to assume that the inscription was copied
from one which was made in the primitive Babylonian
period. It should be noticed, however, that the form
of the first name is not Eri-aku but Eri-(DP)[E]-a-ku,
and that the third name is not read with full certainty,
the second part being -mal, which is only conjecturally
made into Zu&-muZ. There is also a second tablet on
reads the one Eri-E-ku (possibly Eri-E-ku-a), and the other
Ku-dur-lah(.?)-gu-mal. In a third inscription the
name Ku-dur-lab(?)-gu-[mal] appears. The second of
the three names is mentioned only in the first tablet
as Tu-ud-lpl-a, where, since the Babylonian n answers
to the Hebrew y in sy,n, 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. Both Scheil's
and Pinches' readings of the respective inscriptions are
incorrect, and ' though Ku-dur-lru-ku-mal ( Kudur-KU-
Ku-mal) is styled (in Pinches' inscriptions) a king of
Elam, there is no reason to suppose that he was a
contemporary of Hammu-rZbi. H e might have occupied
the throne at any period before the fourth century B. c.]
To the references already given may be added--(;. Rawlinson,
Five Mona~chies,169J, where older works are cited: Tiele,
B A G 65J: Hommel, GBA 1 2 3 3 . Schr. KAT2 1 3 5 & =
COT 1 1 2 0 8 . o pert Contptes-re&us de racaci des inscr.
g d6c. 1887 ; hnctes, Acts of the Geneva OrientaZ Congress,
also his paper read before the Victoria Institute, Jan. 20, 1896 :
Schr. ' Ueher einen altoriental. Herrschernamen' in SBA W,
1895, no. xli.; Fr. v. Scheil in RecueiZ d e Travaaz (Maspero)
1 9 4 8 , 'correspondance de Hammnrabi roi de Bahylone, avec
Sinidinnam, roi de Larsa, oh il est quesiion de Codorlahomor ;
cp Hommel, A H T , r7;-180; L. W. King, Lettevsaltd Imcrzp-
:ions o f ~ a ~ i m z u r c i 6vol.
i , i., 1898. c. P. T.-w. H. K.
CHEESE (I$pG 'u'??, I S. 1718 ; ?lM,S. 1729;
2
?l29$,Job 1010). See M ILK .
734
 CHELAL
CHELAL (?!?), one of the b’ne Paliath-moab in the
list of persons with foreign wives (see E ZRA , i. 5 end),
Ezra 1030 (a has joined Chela1 with the preceding
name Adna ( n g ) and reads Aidaive XuvX [ B ; with
EGULVE B“.b]. EGevex’ HA [K], EGve KUL XaXvh [A],
ALU~UU ~E
XaXpavac [L]). The 11 I Esd. 931 has quite
different names-‘ and of the sons of Addi ; Naathus,
and Moossias, Laccunus,’ etc. (aL,
however, reads EGva
K U ~2iGra K U ~XaXapavar). See L ACUNUS .
CHELCIAS, RV HELKIAS,;.e., HILKIAH,4.”. (xEA-
K[E]!bC [BAQ cod. 87 Theod.1).
I. r h e father of Susanna (Hist. of Sus., zm). 2, 29, and [om.
cod. 871 63).
2. An ancestor of Baruch (Bar. 1 I).
3. A priest (Bar. 1 7 )
CHELLIANS ( X A A A A I C ~ N[Bl, X E A E ~ N P A ] , syr.
b,&,). . In Judith223 mention is made of ‘the
children of Ishmael, which were over against the wilder-
ness to the S. of the land of the Chellians.’ The com-
paratively easier reading Chaldeans, which is attested,
by @B, Syr. and Vet. Lat., is no doubt rightly con-
sidered by Grimm to be a deliberate rectification of the
text. See C HELLUS .
CHELLUH, RV ~ H E L u t i l ,mg. cHELUHU (3?5;,
Kt. ; ad??, Igre; ~ ~ A l a c o y[L B : probably through
the influence of ~ A I A C . ZJ.36]), mentioned in the list
of persons with foreign wives (see EZRA, i. 5 , end),
Ezra1035 (XEAKEIA [BK], xeAia [A]) = I E d . 934.
EV ENASIBUS (evnu[e]ipos [BA]).
CHELLUS ( ~ ~ A o PyAc] ; xscA. [HI, , a h [Syr.I).
one of the places to which Nebuchadrezzar sent his
summons, according to Judith 19. The Halhul of Josh.
15 58 may be meant ; but the reading XEUXOUS suggests
rather CHESULLOTH or CI-IISLOTH-T;\BOR, which is
given by Jerome and Eusebius as ChasaZuus or xaueXous
(OS(2),91 4, etc., 30264). See CHELLIANS. Another
identification should be mentioned. Chellus is perhaps
the same as the place which in Jos. A n t . xiv. 1 4 is called
a A o w a , by Jerome and Eusebius aZZus, ahAouG ( O S 2 ) ,
8 5 6 21189), viz. n y r h (Targ. Jer. Gen. 1614; cp
Gen. 201 in Ar., and see BERED),or Elusa. C p We.
Heid.P)48, n. I ; WRS, ZCin. 2g3J
* CHELOD (XEAWYA [E12 X E C A A I O ~ A ~ [?“I,
~ ~ A a i o y[KC.a],
A ~ ~ A s o y [AI).
h, ‘Very nlany nations
of the sons of Chelod ’ (Judith 1 6 ) assembled themselves
to battle in the plain of Arioch in the days of Nebu-
chadrezzar and Arphaxad (!). What we ought to
understand by Chelod is quite uncertain.
Vet. Lat. has Chelleirth and Syr. has ‘against the Chaldzeans.’
One very improbable cdnjecture is that xahwv (CALNEH)is
intended ; another, hardly less unlikely, is that the word is the
Hebrew +n (‘weasel ’), and that by the opprobrious designation
of ‘children of the weasel’ are meant the Syrians (Ew. GVI
3 543).
CHELUE (3853,§ 67, probably a variation of Caleb,
cp below).
( I ) A Judahite, doubtless to be identified with C ALEB (S 4);
similarly We. (Geut. 20)) who reads ‘Caleb b. Heeron ’ (I Ch.
411 xahsj3 [BAL], CaZe6 [Vg.] ab [Peih I).
tion ‘brother of Shuhah’ (nnrw-*nH) is not clear; @BA read
‘father of Achsah,’ possibly a correction (Ki. SBOT). Cp the
stillfurther corrupt Pesh. ‘ b r o t h e r o f A h i a h ’ ( L ) ) w=+Q,.,)).
(2) Father of EZRI, I Ch. 2726 &opovS [BI, ~ e h o v p
CHELUBAI (*$& 0 67, a gentilic [=*&? : see
I S. 25 3 Isre] used instead of the proper name C ALEB ),
b. Hezron, 1 Ch.29 ( 0 XAAEB [A], o XABEA [B], o
X A A U B l [LIP , & [Pesh., a corruption]) ; see
CALEB,§ 3, CARMI,I.
CHELUHI (XEAIA [A]), EzralOsj RV, RVW
Cheluhu, AV CHELLUH.
CHEMARIM (D’ln?), Zeph. I4 RV z K.23 5 mg.
Hos. 1 0 5 mg. ; AV Chemarims, Zeph. 14. Rather
I<ZmHrirn.
735
CHEMOSH
The original Heb. word appears also in 2 K. 235; where EV
,ives ‘idolatrouspriests,’ and in Hos. 105, where EV has ‘priests.’
t is also highly probable that in Hos. 4 4 we should read, with
leck ‘for my people is like its Ch,emarim’l (6,however ws
mihey6pwos IfpeUIF, perhaps an error for -OLkp2uui [Schleus~~erl).
B transliterates Xwpapsip ([BA] z K. 2.c. ; hut Iepphis is also
upported, see Field;Hez ad Zoc.) ; it apparently omits in Zeph.;
in Hos. it had a different Heb.). Vg. varies between aruspices
2 K.) and a d i h i (Zeph. Hos.); Targ. between ~ ’ 1 ~ 1(23 K.
!eph.) and 9 n l n k ‘the ministers thereof’; Pesh. adheres to
+3 43.
As to the meaning, if we appeal to the versions, we
ind only the dim light which an unassisted study of the
:ontext can supply. Evidently the term was applied to
he priests of Baal, who served at the high places under
.oyal authority, but were put down by Josiah. But
nhat special idea did the word convey? In itself it
neant simply priests ‘ ; in Zeph. 14 Keincirim and
Vihdnim are put side by side to express the idea of a
jriesthood of many members ; and in Hos. 34 (if the
7iew proposed above be adopted) we have k e h i r i m used
jf the priests of N. Israel, when these are spoken of
jbjectively, and then klihFn, when the priests are ad-
lressed as an organic unity. But the word Ki(mdrinz
xobably also conveyed the idez of a worship which
lad Syrian affinities. Certainly it cannot be explained
?om Hebrew ; in3 does not mean ‘ to be black’ (cp
E CLIPSE ), and even if it did, the ’ black-robed ones ’ is a
nost improbable designation for ancient priests. The
word is no doubt of Syrian origin (see the Aram. inscrip-
tions in CZS 2 nos. 113 130). The primitive form is kuntr,
whence Aram. kunzrd (never used in an unfavourable
sense) and Heb. keinririm are normally formed. Lagarde
(Armen. Stud. 2386) compared Arm. choui-m; but it is
more obviously reasonable to compare the Assyrian
bummarzi, which is given as a synonym of Zubaru zakzi
-i.e., ‘ a clean vesture’ (Del. Ass. H W B 337 d., cp
254 6,). The term ,Witzcirim probably described the
Syrian and Israelitish priests in their clean vestments
(cp 2 K. 1022, 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. kaimiru ‘to throw down’; the
term, he thinks, describes the pries6 as those who prostrate
themselves in worship (Ass. and Heb 41, 42; so Che. HOE.
103, 111). Finally, Robertson Smith;b noting that the word
belongs to a race in which the mass of the people were probably
not circumcised (Hrrod. 2104,cp Jos. Ant. viii. 103, c. A$. 1.
2 2 ) while the priests were (Dio Cassius, 7911 ; Ep. Barnab.
9 6 ; cp Chwolson, Ssabier, 2 rr4), conjectures that kunwd means
‘the circumcised ’ (Ar. knmara, ‘glans penis ’). T. K. c.
CHEMOSH @in?, in MZ E Y D;~on name see 4,
end ; X A M C ~ C[BabKAFQL], ~ M W C[B” Judg. 11241,
Charnos), the national god of the Moabites
n:zyl
Moab’s (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 Yahwb to Israel, Judg. 511 Nu. 1 1 2 9
Judg. 1124 Is. 45 TI, etc. ). A king of Moab in the time
of Sennacherib was named Chemoshnadab (ZCnmusu-
nndnd;“ cp Jehonadab) ; the father of Mesha was
Chernoshmelech ; 5 a gem found near Beirfit is inscribed
His designa- 3nwm5 (cp Heb. a?;,; h n ? ; Phcen. ’n%, $mrn’). The
stele of Mesha king of Moab, contemporary with Ahab,
Ahaziah, and Jehoram of Israel (2K. 1 3),in the middle
of the ninth century B.C. (see M ESHA ), was erected to
[AI, xa- IL]). commemorate the deliverance which Chemosh had
wrought for his people.
1 Continue, O F ]?fig &d$:, ‘and thou shalt stumble, 0
priest, in the daytime’; at the close of the verse read, with
Ruben, q’?,n, ‘thy Thummim’ (addressed to the priest).
9 Cp Misbna Middoth 54. A priest who had become unfit
for service put dn black garments and departed. One who was
approved by the Sanhedrin clothed himself in white, and went
in, and ministered
3 EBM S.V. ‘Priest.’
4 KE 2 90f: ; COT 1281.
5 Others read Chemoshgad.
6 Renan, Miss. dr: Ph6n. 35%.
736
 CHENAANAH
The inscription tells us that Omri had oppressed Moab for a
loug time because Chemosh was wroth with his land (1. 4J);
the Israelites had occupied the district of Medeha forty years,
bnt Chemosh had now restored it to Moab (ZZ. 7-9); Chemosh
drove out the king of Israel before Moab from Jahaz (U. 18-21);
at the bidding of Chemosh, Mesha fought against Nebo and
took it (IZ. 14-17); at his command, he made war on Horonaim
and Chemosh restored it to Moab (U. 31-33) ; the inhabitants d Moloch-Saturn : the one ouinion has
captured cities were slaughtered ' a spectacle (1 n.3 for Chemosh
and Moab' (ZZ. 113); men, woken, and children were devoted
to Ashtar-Chemosh (ZZ. r5-17tthe q i(see BAN) ; the spoils of
Israelite sanctuaries were carried offand presented to Chemosh
(ZZ. 12317J).
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 almost 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
outburst of Chemosh's fury upon Israel, which compelled
the invaders to return discomfited to their own land
( 2 I<. 327). Priests of Cheniosh are mentioned in Jer.
48 7 ; the language of Mesha, ' Chemosh said to m e '
(ZZ. 14,32), 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 (Z. I;)
2. Other
Moabite gods. -that is, most probably, an 'Ashtar
(Astarte) who was associated in worship
with Chemosh,l perhaps at a particular sanctuary. The
worship of Baal-peor (Nu. 25, cp Hos. 910) was prob-
ably a local Moabite cult-there is no ground for
identifying the god with Chemosh. (See BAAL-PEOR. )
[Beth] Baal-meon (Mesha, ZZ. 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 the Babylonian god was perpetuated by the
Moabites. Cp NEBO.
The statement of Eusehius (OS 2-28 6 6 3 , S.V. 'Apwd) that
:he inhabitants of Areopolis in his day called their idol 'Ap~ljh,
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
3. chemosh over against ' YahwB our god' in such a
outside of way as to imply that Chemosh was the
national gQd of Ammon. From many
passages in the O T we know, however,
that the national god of the Animonites was Milconi
(see MILCOM) while Cheniosh was the god of Moab.
The hypothesis that Chemosh and Milconi arc but two
names of the same god (Milcoin originally a title) is
excluded by the contexts in which they appear side by
side (e.g., I K. 1133). Nor is it sufficient to suppose
that Chenzosh in Jndg. 11 24 is merely a slip on the part
of the author or a scribe for Milcoin : 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, 374qes,
283 ; Bu. Richter, So$), 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
Suiclas (s.v. X a p d s ) that Chemosh was a god of the
Tyrians and Ammonites is, as the context shows, a
confused reminiscence of I K. 115 7.
From the name op,d+jAas, the second mythical Babylonian
ruler after the floog (Frat. Ffist. Gr. 2 503) it has been surmised
that the worship of Cheniosh was of Babylonian origin. 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
MOUNT O F OLIVES ( I K. 117 a ), where, according to
z K. 2513, it stood until Josiah's reform-more than
three hundred years.
CP Phmn. ninav& and 'the Astarte in the ashera of
ELhamman,' in the Ma'sob inscription.
24 737
CHEPHIRAH
During the long reign of the theory-not yet univer-
- of the nations were
,ally abandoned-that all the gods
4. Nature of heavenlybodies or meteoricphenomena,
Chemosh. re- Chemosh was by some thought to be the
sun, by others identified with Milcom-
is little foundation as the other. In Roman times
iabbath-moab, as well as the more northern Ar-moab,
vas called Areopolis, and this name-perhaps originally '
mly a GrEcising of Ar (Jerome)-was understood as
City of Ares.' Coins of Kabbath-moab in the reigns of
Seta and Severns (Eckkel, iii. 504 ; cp Mionnet, v. 591,
Suppl. viii. 388) exhibit a standing warrior in whom
.he type of Mars is to be recognised; but even if we
Mere sure that the old Moabite god of the city is
.epresented, and not the Nabatzean Dusares, we could
earn nothing about the nature of Cheinosh in O T times
?om so late and contaminated a source. Confusion of
Yhemosh with Dusares is probably to be assumed in
.he statements of Jewish writers that the idol of Chemosh
,vas 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 '
i e is one of the older Semitic gods.
D. Hackmann 'De Chemoscho Moahitarum idolo,' 1730 (in
3elrich's ColZecjio o ~ u s c u Z o r u ~ ~1768,
z, pp. 17-60), Movers,
Phonizier 1 3 3 4 8 ; Scholz, Gofzena'ienst
6. Literature. und Zaxdmuesen bpi den alten Hebraern,
1 7 6 8 ; Baudissin, in PREP)S.W. ' Kemosch'
:with full literature); Baethgen, Beitr. 13-15. G . F. M.
CHENAANAH (nag!?, 73, ' towards Canaan ' (?) ;
. ...~. ~
XANAAN [BLI).
1. I n genealogyOfBENJAMIN($g(ii.)), ICh. 7 IO(xaVavaY [a]).
2. Father of the false prophet Zedekiah, I K. 22 IT ( p a w
31, Xavava [A]) 24 ; 2 Ch. 18 10kavaaua [A]) 23.
CHENANI (U? : cp Chenaniah), Levite officiating
at constitution of congregation' (see E ZRA , ii. $8 12,13
7.1); Neh.94 (om. B., ylol XANANI [for M T Bani
Chenani, kFaA], XWNENIAC [L]).
CHENANIAH (VI4!7 and Yl2733, § 31; [ S ~ I E X O N I A C
[BHL] ; cp Chenani), chief of the Levites, who was
over ' the song,' or ' the carrying ' (viz., ' of the ark '-
text obscure : see Ki. and Be. ad Zoc.) ; I Ch. 1522
( K W N E N I A [BNI, xw. CAI), 27 ( K A I XENENIAC [AI,
X O N E N . [L]), 2629 (XWNENBIA [BJ X W X E N I A C [AI,
XONENIA [L]).'
@HEPHAR-HAAMMONAI, RV Chephar-ammoni
(PJlDY;! l Q - i . e . , ' village of the Ammonite ' ; see
BENJAMIN, 3;- Kr. has ?l$DQ; K A ~ A @ A K.
KE@EIPA K A I MONEI [B; MONEI representsalso'3BUl;
KA@HPAMMIN [AI; K A @ A ~ A M M W N A PI),an un-
identified place in Benjamin, mentioned with O PHNI
[ g . ~ ](Josh. 18 24 P). The name is possibly of post-
exilic origin (cp PAHATH-MOAB). See AMMON, § 6,
and B BTHHORON , 5 4, T OBIJAH , 4.
CHEPHIRAH (32%3 ; in Josh. ?>%p;!; 'the
village'? or 'the lion'? K A @ [ E ] I ~ A [BRA], K E @ E I ~ A
[L]), a town of the Hivites, member of the Gibeonite
confederation (Josh. 9 17 : X E + E L ~ U[A], K E + . [BF], K E + T ~
[L]), afterwards assigned to Benjamin (Josh. 18 26 :
xe?,erpa rA], +.
[B]), and mentioned in the great post-
exillc hst (see E ZRA , ii. § 9 , Q 8 c.) Ezra 225=Neh. 729
(Xaq5rpa [A])=I Esd. 519, C APHIRA (or E K mipas [B],
. .
. K ~ + L ~[A], S KE+TPU [L]), is the modern Kefireh,
about 5 m. WSW. from el-Jib (Gibeon).
In I Esd. 5 19 P IRA (AV om. R V . mipas [Bl) the second
name after Caphira, is apparently a cdrrnpt repetiLon (cp @B's
form of Caphira). Buhl (Pa2. 169) suggests that Kephirim (EV
' villages ') in Neh. 6 2 may be the same as Kephirah.
1 Lekach To6 on Nu. 21 29. By a strange blunder W. L.
Bevan and Sayce (in Smith's DBP) s.w.) have turned this into a
black stnr.
2 The forms Kovsma, etc., point to a reading ~ 7 ~ (cp
~ 12 Ch.
3
3112J), whilst Iexovms points to >;I?; or rather to ?I'~J',a
scribe's error for 3 7 3 3 3 1 (cp Ki., Chron., SBOT).
738
 CHEQUER WORK
CHEQUER WORK ()'z@g),Ex.28439 RV. See
EMBROIDERY, WEAVING ; also TUNIC.
CHERAN (127 ; XAPPAN [ADEL], a Horite clan-
name (Gen. 3626). See DISHON.
CHEREAS, RV CHZREAS( X ~ I ~ and ~ A xep.
C [A],
XEpAlAC [VI), brother Of T I M O T H E U S (q.V.), and com-
mander of the fortress at Gazara ( z Macc.103~37).
CRERETHITES (D'QTl, ' Q q g , d in Sam. and
K. o XEpeeeEI, or [by assimiIation to Pelethites]
o Xeheeeel ; Vg. Cerethi; d in Prophets K ~ H T E C ) ,a
people in the south of Palestine. I n the days of Saul1
and David a region in the Negeb adjoining Judah and
Caleb bore their name (I S. 30 14 XOXBEL [B] XepqOei [A]
xoppi [L]). From v. 1 6 it appears that the inhabitants
of this region were reckoned to the Philistines ; in Zeph.
25 and Ez. 2516 (AV Cherethims), 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. 305.l where AV gives, 'the men of the land
that is in league,' we should restore ' the Cherethites '
(*nq;.l vp ; so Cornill, Toy). It 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 PHILISTINES, 9 2, CAPHTOR, 5 2). The
d translators of Zeph. and Ez. interpreted the name by
Cretans; and in this, although they may have been
guided only by the sound, they perhaps hit upon the
truth.2 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, 'the Cherethites and Pele-
thites ' (??>pa; 3n~d g gen. q5~heBOe~) as the designation
of a corps of troops in the service of David-his body-
guard ( z S. 8 18 1518 207 23 Kr., I K.1 3 8 44 1 Ch. 1817;
UW,UUTO+L~UKES Jos. A n t . vii. 54, etc.).3 They were
commanded by B ENAIAH , I , and remained faithful to
their master in all the crises of his reign (z S. 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 S. 30 14).
There are no such reasons : mi2n 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. The 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 ?n&, to make
it rhyme with *m>.
It need not surprise us that David's guard was com-
posed of foreign mercenaries. The Egyptian kings of
the nineteenth dynasty recruited their corps d'liite from
the bold sea-rovers who periodically descended on their
coasts ; Rameses 11. displays great pride in his Sardinian
E S 66 is obviously misplaced ; this version has been
1 [ I C ~ ~ ~ Tin
conformed t o the Hebrew; hence the insertion Kai TGY uiGv
6 5 G r a B ' q s pou. Davidson's view ( ~ p + ~ s = P u t will
) hardly
stand. I n three places @ has A L ~ U C for
S Put. See C HUB ,
G EOGRAPHY 5 22.1
2 LakemaLher, Ewald, Hitzig, Stade, and others. For another
view see CAPHTOR.
3 [The readings vary : thus ~ X B L[L in 2 S. 8 181, XETTEL [B in
doublet 2 S. 15181, x+ [L 5.1, A om. doublet xope6Qs~[A in
z S. 207 ; L omits and in TJ. 231 ; &is [BL] and x c p q Q ~[AI in
I Ch. 1817, xoppi [L in I K. 138 441). Variants for Pelethites
are +&TWL [B in 2 S. 8181 w+deB&t [A2.1 -7881 [B in doublet
z S. 15181 and + a h e r a [Bl - T L ~[NI dah66~[AI in I Ch. 18 17. L
has uniforkly +CAT', but 4 a M c in 2 S. 15 18, +cp& in I Ch. 18 17,
and I ~ A L V Q ~ inO V2 S. 2023 ; see B ENAIAH , I.]
4 Abulwalid, Lakemacher, Ewald, etc.
739
CHERITH
guards, and Sardinians and Libyans are the flower of
the army of Rameses 111.' The Philistines were more
skilled in arms than the Israelites, and doubtless liked
fighting better : cp ITTAIthe Gittite, and see A RMY , 5 4.
It is the opinion of some recent scholars that where
David's gz'hd1Jri7iz (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 v. 38. This is,
however, not a necessary inference from the verses cited ;
and conflicts with z S. 2 0 7 (cp151-3 6). More prob-
ably the gi665rvim were the comrades of David in the
days of his outlawry and the struggle with the Philistines
for independence. See D AVID , 9 11. In z S. 2023 for
' Cherethites' the Heb. text (Kt.) has Carites
In z K. 114 19, where this name again occum, 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. 1 8 3 and
from Ez. 4 4 6 8 : see WRS OTJCP) 260 ff., but also
THRESHOLD. For mercenary. troops . in .post-exilic times
see A RMY , 7.
Literaiure.-Dissertations by Joh. Benedict Carpzov (1661),
and Hen. Opitz (1672) in Ugol. Tlzes. 2'1423.#., 457 A: ; J. G.
Lakemacher Odsescruaiio~~esPlziloIDgicreP. 11. (1727) p II 44
Conrad Ikei, Dissertationes Philolog&- Tlreolu~icc.b~7;g),'pp!
111-132; B. Behrend, Die Kreti und Pleti; zhre inhaltrbche
Bedeatzdng und Geschichte ('88)-extract from M G W 3 ('87),
pp. 1-17-153 ; Riietschi, PRE(2)8 z68& G. F. M.
CHERITH (n'??, Xoppae [BAL]; X O P ~ A[Onom.]).
ELIJAH (q.v.) has just informed Ahab of the impending
drought, when we are abruptly told that 'YahwB's word
came unto him, saying, Get thee hence' (i.e., pre-
sumably from Samaria), ' a n d turn to the east (npme)
and hide thyself in the torrent-valley of Cherith which
is before (&y) Jordan ' ( I K. 17 35). This occurs in
the first scene of the highly dramatic story of Elijah.
In the second he appears in the far north of Palestine
-at ZWphath, which hardly snits Robinson's identifi-
cation (BR1558) of ChErith with the Wady el-I(elt
(which is rather the Valley of ZEBOIM[q.v ., i.]), at
least if these two scenes stood in juxtaposition from the
first. Besides this, the two names [CeU 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 ( H G 5 8 0 ) . Let us, then, look across
the Jordan eastward from Samaria (where Elijah may
have had his interview with Ahab). The WSdy 'Ajliin
and the W2dy RYih have been proposed by Thenius ;
the WHdyel-Yi8bis by Miihlau. But, as C. Niebuhr
(Gesch. 1291) points out, Elijah would certainly go to
some famous holy place. Of the burial-place of Moses
(Niebuhr) we know nothing ; but I K. 193 9 suggests
that the sanctuary was in the far south. I t is true,
Eus. and Jer. (OS30269 11328) already place Cherith
(Xoppa, Choruth) beyond Jordan. Josephus, however,
makes Elijah depart ' into the southern parts' ( A n t .
viii. 132). What we have to do is to find a name which
could, in accordance with analogies, be worn down and
1 Many other examples in ancient and modern times will occur
t o the reader.
2 In 2 S. 2023 Kt. '733 is perhaps not a purely graphic
accident ; cp also r S. 3014 L x o p p ~ etc.
,
3 [&y in geographical and topographical expressions means
commonly East; cp I K. 117 2 K.23 13 Dt. 3249 Gen. 23 19 25
IS, etc. Besides the vaguer meaning of &&ore (e.g., Gen. 11312)
it is sometimes made definite by the addition of a word or of an
expression in order 19 denote a particular direction--e.g Josh.
158, the mountain &fore the Valley of Hinnom we&nard
(Zech. 14 4), and the Mount of Olives, which is befooye Jerusalem 0%
the East (Ol??) : cp Nu.21 II Josh. 18 14. Lastly, it is used in
the sense of overlooking. cp Gen. 18 16 19 28 Nu. 23 28 (cp Dr.
on I Sam. 157, Di. on Joih. lT7, and especially Moore, Iudges,
163). In T K.173, c??, 'castward,' should be corrected to
nl!?!, 'towards the desert ' (as 194).]
740
 CHERUB
corrupted into n'i3. Such a name is nhh?, Rehoboth.
The valley of Rehoboth (the Wady Ruhaibeh) would
be fitly described a s pixn &y, ' fronting MiTrim'
(see M IZR A I M ) ; cp Gen. 25 18. The alteration of pygn
into pivn was made in order^ to suit the next story, in
which ZEPHATH (4.v.) had been already corrupted into
ZAREPHATH. T. K. C.
CHERUB, plural form Cherubim (>VI?, P973,
n'>lss; XEpOyB, XEPOYB[E]IMI -[€]IN [BAL]; ety-
1. Late Je.wish mology disputed ; Ps. 1043 may allude
to a popular [post-exilic] identification
angelology. of 3973 and 2931,but kerzib being,
like yp6$, a loan-word, a Hebrew etymology is in-
admissible). In the composite system of Jewish angel-
ology the cherubim form one of the ten highest classes
of angels, while another class is distinguished by the
synonymous term ' living creatures ' (&uyyGth). These
two classes, together with the '@9zunnimor ' wheels,' are
specially attached to the throne of the divine glory, and
it is the function of the cherubim to be bearers of the
throne on its progresses through the worlds. The
Jewish liturgy, like the ' T e Deum,' delights to associate
the ' praises of Israel ' (Ps. 22 3 [4]) with those offered to
God by the different classes of angels, and singles out
for special vention in a portion of the daily morning
service the 'qhunnim, the &ayy6thr and the &~Z$him.
W e find an approachto this conception inthe Apocalypse,
where the four Ji;a (Rev. 46-8), though-like the twenty-
four ?rpeup67epoL-they 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. 48511-14191-7).
A similar view is suggested in the 'Similitudes' in
Enoch, in one passage of which (61IO$ ) ' the cherubim,
seraphim, and '5phannim, and all the angels of power '
are combined under the phrase 'the host of God,' and
unite in the ascription of blessedness to the ' Lord of
Spirits,' while in another (chap. XI. ) 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 II), and together with the
seraphim (exceptionally called ' serpents,' Z~~PCLKOVTBS)are
closely connected with Paradise, and placed under the
archangel Gabriel (207). 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
a. Ezek. 28 13f. r6 stronger sense of the peculiarity of
Isa. 1413-15. the nature of the cherubim than
others, and laid stress on such aoints
as their connection with the divine fire, and with PGadise
and its serpent-guardians. Whence did they derive a
notion so suggestive of mythological comparisons 7
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, in Ezek. 2813f: 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 Rassage is rarely given. Keil, for
instance, admits some reference to Patadise, but feels
1 The differences between the E a 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 ha";
been imagined7 The traditional Christian view that the apoca-
lyptic {;a symbolise the four %pels can hardly be seriously
defended.
741
CHERUB
obliged to infer from the epithet ' that covereth ' ( ~ 3 , ~ n )
that ' the place of the cherub in the sanctuary (Ex. 2520)
was also present to the prophet's mind.' Nor is the
difficulty confined tothis epithetand to the equally strange
word (nfpp) which Vg. renders 'extentus,' and EV
' anointed ' (so Theodot.); the opening phrase mi3-nNI
whether rendered ' thou wast the cherub' or (pointing n N
differently) with the cherub,' baffles comprehension.
It is necessary, therefore, to correct the text of vv. 1 3 3
16d ; we shall then arrive'at the following sense :-
'Thou 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 .didst thou walk to and
fro.g Then wast 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.'
The sense now becomes fairly clear. We 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 GilgameT saw in the
Babylonian epic,s or like the interior of the temples of
Babylon or T ~ r e 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. 1413-15. 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 YahwA 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.
How different this idea of the cherub from that of the
apocalyptic @u !
W e have again a different conception of the
cherubim in Ezekiel's vision (Ez. l ) . 5 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
I
3. Ezek.
~
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 way, viz. that of a man, a lion, an ox,
and an eagle, and human hands on his four sides.
They are' not, however, called cherubim, but 4uyyGth
1 So Co., following B B A Q , Sym., but in other respects reading
v. 14 as ahove.
a According to the ordinary view which makes the Tyrian
prince a cherub the plumage of the cherub of Ezekiel's tradition
was resplenden; as if with gold and precious stones. But 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 Elohim' ; and the covering
spoken of is a state-dress besprinkled with precious stones+
' Ston;s of fire' means 'flashing stones,' like the Assyrian a6aan
<&ti, stone of fire,' one of the names of a certain precious stone
(Friedr. Del. Par. 118).
3 Tablet IX. See Jeremias IzduEar-Nimrod, 30.
4 For Babylon see Nebuchadrezzar'sinscription, RP(z)3 ~ 0 4 f i ,
where he describes the beautification of the temple E-sagila a t
great length. Gold and precious stones are specially mentioned.
For the temple of Tyre see Herod. 244 (the twc brilliant pillars).
Gold was also lavishly used in the temple of Solomon.
There is a second description in 108-17, but it is theattempt
of a later writer to improve upon Ezekiel's account, and to pre-
pare the y a y for 2). 20. . ' 6 14 should he omitted as a very care-
less gloss. See Cornill, and on v. 14cp Davidson.
742
 CHERUB
(‘living creatures’), until we come to 9 3 , and Ezekiel
tells us (1020) that he did not ‘know that they were
cherubim’ till he heard them called so by God (102).
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,’ 1 ~ 0 . ~ 2;
‘ the cherub,’ 9 3 1 0 2 4 , 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 of 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 12226). 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 takes 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 thc cherubim,
each cherub having there but two faces, that of a man
and that of a lion (4118f.).
Another group of passages on the cherubim is found
in the Psalter, viz. Ps. 18 IO f: f. 1 80 I r1
. 99 I , and to
*,
Some post- the lattey we may join not only Ps.
2 2 3 [4] but phrases in I S. 4 4 z S. 6 2
passages’ I Ch. i 3 6 z K. 19 15 ( = I s . 37 16).
All these passages are post-exi1ic.l 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,
but it has grown very pale, and does not express much
more than Ps. 10436. The 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. The other psalm-
passages appear at first sight to give a new conception
of the cherubim, who are neither the guards of the
g mountain of God,’ nor the chariot of the moving
Deity, but the throne on which he is seated. It 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 narrative-
books it is the heavenly throne of YahwA which is
meant, the throne from which (as is implied in Ps.
80 I [z] 99 I and z K. 19 15) he rules the universe and
guides 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 men
Or rather there is yet another point in which the cherub
idea has been modified ; it is indicated in Ps. 2 2 3 (4)
where, if the text is correct,2 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
1 In the three passages from S. and I C ~ the
. phrzse 2@’
D’?!?? has been interpolated (cp A RK, 5 I).
2 ‘see Che. Ps.M, ad hoc., where the text of the deeply
corrupt verse :s restored with some confidence.
743
CHERUB
congregation takes the place of the cherubim. This at
any rate agrees with later beliefs, and may be illustrated
by the direction in Ex.2620 ( P ) that the faces of the
cherubim on the ark shall be ‘ towards the mercy-seat ’
(Rnpp5yereth). 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 YahwA and
contemplate and praise his glory. It is also stated
that their faces are to be ‘one to another,’ and, if
we add to this that they have to guard, not YahwB,
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
5. Solomon,s in the decoration of the walls and the
doors, and two colossal cherubim stood
in the d&iY or ‘adytum,’ where they
a formed a kind of days, 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 TEMPLE.
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
6. Paradise
been driven out of the divine garden,
story* YahwA ‘stationed at the east of the
Garden of Eden the cherubim and the blade of the
whirling sword,’‘Iand the function of these two allied
but independent powers was ‘ to guard the way to the
tree of life‘ (Gen. 324). 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
myth described the cherubim as beings of superhuman
,. Develop- power and devoid of human sympathies,
whose office was to drive away intruders
merit. 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
( z I<. 2 r 1 ) may be supposed to have linown of fiery
cherubs on which Yahwk rode. At a still later time,
the cherubim, though still spoken of by certain writers,
were no longer indispensable.s The forces of nature
were alike YahwZs 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 land-
animal, 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 arrow-
1 Perrot and Chipiez A r t i n 3 u d a 1245.
2 The sword is not \he sword of the Eherubim hut that of
Yahw.&; it is the same with which he ‘slew the dragon’ (Is.
2711. Marduk. too. has such a sword (see Smith. Chald.
Ge;. 86 [‘So] aLd theillustration opp. 114):
3 I n Hab.’Ss a very late poe; speaks of YahwS as riding,
not upon a cherub, but upon horses. This is a return to a very
old myth (see tablet 4 of the Babylonian Creation epic, p. 52.
Zimmern’s restoration in Gunkel’s SchciyJ 411).
744
 CHERUB
like flashes of lightning. This theory is consistent with
the language of Ps. l 8 9 J Ez. 1 4 3 24, and the passages
in Enoch. but hardly explains the symbolism of the
cherub in its earliest historically known
Origin’ forms. At any rate, we can affirm posi-
tively that the myth is of foreign origin. Lenormant
thought that he had traced it to Babylonia,l on the
ground that Kirzibu occurs on a talisman as a synonym
for Edu, a common term for the divine bull-guardian of
temples and palaces. This theory however is not con-
firmed as regards the derivation of siig (see Z A 1 6 8 3
[86]). We may indeed admit that Ezekiel probably
mingled the old Palestinian view of the cherub with the
analogoiis Babylonian conception of the divine winged
bulls. But, 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, pnd the origin
of which is now assigned to the Hittites of Syria.2 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, and a reminiscence of this may perhaps be
traced in the reference to these animals in Ez. 1TO. 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 as 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 Indian
sun-god in Philostratus’s Life of ApaZZonius (348).
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 S p h i n ~ . ~The Phcenicians, 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. Syria(see A RAMAIC L ANGUAGE,
Q 2 ) is a gcnuine representation of this mythic form as
described in Ez. 41 18J5 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 B. Teloni, Z A 6124-140 [’gr], and cp
Furtwingler’s art. i n Roscher, Lex., cited already ; also, for OT
criticism, Vatke, Die ReL des A T , 329-334 L‘351. T. K . c.
CHERUB (149p;xapoyB [BVA]), a town or
district in Babylonia, unless Cherub- Addan- Immer
should be taken as one name, Ezra259 (xapoyc [B].
xepoyB [ALl)==Neh.761 (xepoyB [~a7c.a7Aln ax. [L])
P I , X E ~ O ~ B I A A N[L],
= I Esd. 536 ( X A ~ A A ~ A A A N
xapa a0aAap [A]), where the former two of these
names are run together (C HARAATHALAR , RV CHAR-
AATHALAN) and the names are regarded as personal
rather than as local.
CHESALON ($?S?;
XACAUN [BIB -cAA. CALI),
on the N. side of Mount Jearim, one of the places
1 See Lenormant, L e s or;gines, 11 1 2 8 ; Schrader, C O T
140; Frd. Del. Par. 153; Che. 1s.W 2 297 f: Delitzsch,
however, still holds to a connection between and Ass.
kurabu(?)= kariidzc ‘mighty’ (Ass. HWB, 352). Sayce com-
pares the qnasi-human winged figures represented on Rs-
Syrian walls as fertilising the ‘tree of life,’ the date-palm (Cn’t.
Mon. 102. cp Tylor PSBA 1 2 3 8 3 8 [1889-901).
2 Fnrtwkngler in’Rosche; Lex. Bd. ii. art. Gryps.’
3 Rakiib‘el (D: H. Miillerfor perhaps hkab‘el or RakkEh‘el
(G. Hoffmann) is one of the gods of the Syrian district of
Ya’di (Zenjirli inscriptions). G. Hoffmann explains Rekah’el
‘charioteer of El’(ZA, 11[‘961, z j z ) .
4 FurtwSngler, in Roscher, Lex. Bd. ii. (zct sup.) ; cp Ohne-
falsch-Richter, A ~ ~ Y o4 s3 4, 3
6 See Z A 9 420f: L‘g41. 6 Rev. wit., 16 Mai, 1892.
745
CHILMAD
which in Joshua (1510) mark the northern frontier of
the tribe of Judah. It is the modern Ked& 2087 ft.
above sea-level, on a high ridge immediately to the S.
of the Wiidy Ghurab, and about half-way between
Karyat el ‘Enab (Robinson’s Iciriath-jearim) and Eshci‘
(Eshtaol). (See Rob. BR 230 3154.) In 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, XaXauwv,
ChasnZon). Stanley (SP496) fitly compares the name
and situation with that of Chesulloth or CHISLOTH-
TABOR (4.V.).
CHESED (17&7, XACAA [DIP XaczhA [AI, XAZAe
[L]), son of Nahor by Milcah (Gen. 2222), the eponym
of a branch of the Chaldzans. See A RAM , § 3,
ARPHAXAD.
CHESIL (59D?), Josh. 1530=194, BETHUL.
CHESNUT (IlD??), Gen. 3037, RV P LANE .
CHEST. I. I\%, in 2 K. 129 f. [IO $ ] = 2 Ch.
24 8 j?, used of a box with lid (n)?, see D OOR ) and
hole (in) into which money might be dropped ( r h w c -
COKOMOC [BAL], 0Hcaypoc [Jos. Ant. ix. 821): The
same word is used of acoffin (Gen. 5026, see D EAD ,
§ I ) , and of the Ark of the Covenant (see A RK , and cp
COFFER).
2. pnii;l w?, Ezek. 2724, EV ‘ chests of rich apparel,’
but though ijj (see T REASURE H OUSE ), like E~uaupbs
(Mt. 211), might conceivably mean a repository for
costly objects, yet the parallel expression ‘ mantles (not
‘ wrappings,’ as RV) of blue and broidered work ’ shows
that ’ 1 must
~ mean ‘garments,’ or the like. 7 and 7
are so easily confounded that we need not hesitate to
read 9 ~ (Che.
3 ), rendering ‘ robes of variegated stuff.’ 1
See EMBROIDERY, and cp D RESS , 4.
CHESULLOTH (Wibp?), Josh. 1918. See CHIS-
LOTH-TABOR.
CHETTIIM ( X E T T I E I M [AKV]), I Macc. 11 AV,
RV CHITTIM. See KITTIM.
CHEZIB (3??),Gen. 3851.. See ACHZIB, I .
CHIDON (I?’?), I Ch. 139. See N ACHON .
CHIEF, CHIEFTAIN. The former, like ‘ captain,’
is often used in AV as a substantive with a convenient
vagueness to render various Heb. words (such as
a& thy, mi),p p ) which appear to be used in a more or
less general sense.
For ‘chiefruler’or ‘chief minister’(zS.SI8 2026 I Ch.52)
cp PRIEST and PRINCE ; for ‘chief mar ’ ( T ~ P O T O F ActsPS 7), sed
MELITA; and for ‘chief of Asia,’ (Acts 19 31) see ASIARCH.
C HIEFTAIN occurs only in Zech. 9 7 12 5f: RV for ??h, for
which see D UKE .
CHILDREN, SONG OF THE THREE. See
D ANIEL , Q§ I¶? 22.
CHILEAB (2553,§ 4), son of David (2 S . 33). In
I Ch. 3 I he is called D ANIEL ( p . ~ 4).
.
CHILIARCH ( ~ ~ A l a p x o[Ti.
c WH]), Rev. 1918
RVmg. See A RMY , IO.
CMILION (fl’)?;74, X ~ A A A I U N [L]), and
M AHLON ($?pp, MAAAUN [BAL], § 74). ‘ sickness ’
and ‘ wasting,’ the names given to the sons of Naomi
in the narrative of Ruth (Ruth12 K ~ A A I U N [B],
X E A ~ U N [AI ; v. 5 XEAAIUN [Bl, X E A ~ W N [AI;49
X&XIUN [BJ X A I A W N [AI).
CHILMAD (TP)?, X ~ P M [BAQ]), ~ N Ez. 2723, 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
1 Cp Ass. dumcmu, ‘variegated cloth’ (Muss-Amok).
746
 CHIMHAM
corruptions of the text have already been found in this
verse (C ANNEH , SHEBA, iii.), we may presume a third.
Read with T u g . ' a n d Media' (*mi). Less probably
Grgtz, 'Babylon and Media' (qar $23) ; Mez and
Bertholet, 'all Media' ( * T D - ~ ) . 51 should be dis-
regarded. It came from h ; the scribe began. to
write 517 too soon. 7 fell out owing to the 1 which
precedes ; restore 1. T. I<. C .
CHIMHAM @;I??, $5 66, 77, or [z S. 194x1 ]???,'
or [Jer. 4117 Kt.] i2$D+i.e., if the text is right,
' blind' [cp -a, CLZCUS fuit, and note Nestle's view
on the Aramaean origin of BARZILLAI]; X&M&&M
P I , X A N A A N [AI, A X I M ~ A M [LIP A X I M A N O C ~ Jos.
Ant. vii.1114; in Jer. 4117 - X ~ M A &[A], -X&MA [K],
- X & M A ~ [AQ"]),
M one of the sons of the Gileadite
Barzillai, in whose stead he entered the service of David
(z S. 1937 [#If. X ~ A M[B"] 40 [41]). Most probably
his real name was Ahinoam ( n v r n ~;) note the 1 in
Jer. 's form, the 7 in z S., the Gr. forms with ax6 and Y ,
and the Egyptian form (? see below) with n-ma (Che.).
Following Ew. (Hist. 3216), 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 17, o;?~? nil!, RVmg. ' lodging-
place of Chimham'). This ,view, however, is based
on the faulty reading nng. This should be corrected
into nil??, which is the reading of Jos. (see Ant. x. 95),
of Aq., and of the Hexaplar Syriac (see Field), and
has been adopted by Hitzig and Giesebrecht. In the
text represented by 6 [see Swete] the iin niii2 had
become a 3. Gidroth-chimham-ie., ' 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. It 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 Kaduru in He(?)-n-mB,' which maypossz26ly
belong to the same place (WMM As. u. Eur. 193,
zoz),-viz., Gidroth-chimham (Sayce, Pat. P a l 157),
or rather Gidroth-ahinoam. T. K. C.-S. A. C.
CHIMNEY (XJ>~),Hos. 133. See COAL, 3,
LATTICE,
Q 2 ( I ).
CHINNERETH (nWl, in Josh. 1327 X E N E p E e [E],
XENEpwe CALI; 1935. K € N € p € e [Bl, XBN. [LJ,
XENEpoe [A]; in Dt., ny?,'from Chinnerefh ;
M & X A N A p € e [Bl, hrro MAXENEP. [AFI,, ATTO x. [L]):
the name of one of the 'fenced cities of Naphtali
(Josh. 1935). Possibly it is also referred to in I K.
1520, where we should perhaps read ' a n d Abel-beth-
maacah, and Chinneroth, and all the land of Naphtali.'2
It is of great antiquity, for. it occnrs under the form
R n - n u - m - t u in the list of places conquered by
Thotmes III., n. 34 (RPP)5 45 ; WMM As. a. Bur:
84). It is also given ( I ) , with the prefix 'sea of,'
to the Galilean lake (Nu. 3411 [xevapa BF, +pe8
AL] Josh. 1327) ; (2) to the same inland ' sea'
without that prefix (Dt. 3 17, cp Josh. 112 and see below).
The site of the town can no longer be identified.
Jerome identified it with Tiherias (OS112ag); some rabbins
wlth a town a t the S. of the lake called Beth-jerach (probably the
Taricbza of Josephus). Others included Sanbari (the Senna-
bris of JOC. BJiii. 97) under the designation ; a third extended
the application of the name to Reth-shean (Bey. 7aBda
par. 98, Wunsche). This vagueness sufficiently shows tha;
nothing was known as to thesite of the ancient town. Cp
Neubauer, Gdog. TaZnnt., 2 1 4 3
On the derivation of Chinnereth, see G ENNESARET .
T. K . C.
1 The Kt. reading o;iop, Jer.4117, may safely be disre-
garded.
h i y l u - h nw n i n nu?. ni in MT's nil13 may conceal
nul. @, in zCh. 16 14, however,, presupposes +n52 nil??
(76s r r e p r ~ ~ p o u;ssee Ki., SBOT).
747
CHISLOTH-TABOR
CHIBNEROTH ([Gins.] niVp or [sa.] n l 7 p the
'plu7alis extensivus ' of C HINNERETH ) is the name
applied ( I ) , with the prefix 'sea of,' to the Galilean
lake in Josh. 123 (XevepEB [BFL], X E Y Y . [A]), (z), with-
out this prefix (cp Dt. 3 17), to the same lake in Josh. 112
( K E Y ~ ~ O[B],
B XwepeOBL [A], -eB [FL]), ( 3 ) , in the spelling
CINNEROTH (AV only), to a district (?) in Naphtali
laid waste by Benhadad king of Damascus ( I K. 15 20,
X E Y E ~ E [.4L],
B xeS;oaB [B]). See CITY, z (A),n. The
second and third passages need a brief comment. In
I I<. 1520, Ewald (Hist. 2290, 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 Meroin 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. In support of
this explanation, the second passage mentioned above
(Josh. 112 ) may be appealed to.
The text, however, is not quite correct. The rendering 'in
the Arahah south of Chinneroth' (RV) can hardly be defended.
The difficulty lies in 2>3,for which it is better with Di. to read
12: (@BAFL C d v a v n ) ; we shall then get the phrase 'in the
Arabah over against Chinneroth.' This may be a designation
of the fertile plain called eZ-Ghxweir, the GENNESARET of the
Synoptic Gospels, in which the town of Chinnereth was presnm-
ably situated. Cp GENNESARET, and JUDAH UPON JORDAN.
CHIOS (xloc [Ti. WH]: C h i w ) , the beautiful and
fruitful Scio, the central member of the triad of large
islands lyinq off the coast of Asia Minor. It 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 ( K U T ~ Y W ~ U U ~ V
Xlou)
~ ~ Y T ~ K ~ U S; probably somewhere about Cape Argen-
num. mod. Asprokavo, 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 Xgean
during the summer, blowing from the N. and dying
away in the afternoon. The 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 m. wide) and may not have landed. The
island was noted for its wines (ktrabo, 645, 657). w. J. w.
CRISLEU, RV Chislev (l$D?, in Assyr. Kisilivu,
cp KAT(2) 386, in Palm. %1, DeVog. Syr. Cent.
nos. 24, 75) : Zech. 7 1 xacshsy [ABra], -CIA.
[Ki7C=bl, -ch. [r*l,paclhs or rac. [M"]) ; Neh. 1I;
CEXGHAOY [BIB -KEN,!. [B"ViY.l,- X E H A [K*l, x~cshsy
[KC.* mg.1, XACEHAOY CAI, XACAAEY [L]). AV has
CASLEUin I Macc. 1 5 4 452 (xaueheu [AMC.aV]. -uah.
[%*I, but xacsheoy [A in 4521). See MONTH, § 5 .
CHISLON ($)D? ' confidence'? XACAUN [BAFL]),
the fFther of Elidad (Nu. 3421).
CHISLOTH-TABOR (yia?-ni5q? ; § 99 loins or 1 8
' flanks' of Tabor ; cp Aznoth-tabor, ' ears ' or t peaks
of Tabor; X b C € h W e A l B P I , -CAhUe BAewp [AI,
-cehhae. eABwp [L]), Josh 1912 or in u. 18 CHESUL-
LOTH (nrbp? ; XhCahwe [El, ax ace^. [ALI), lay
on the border between Zebulun (Josh. 1912) and
Issachar (v. 18). It is the Xaloth (ZahwB)of Josephus
(Bliii. 3 1 Vit. 44), the ChasaZus or Xuu~Xour of
Eusebius and Jerome-described by them as a small
village on the plain below Mount Tabor, 8 R. m. from
Dioczesarea or Sepphoris (OS@)91 4 9425 223 59). It is
represented by the modern Zksil, 460 ft. above sea
level, 7 m. SW. from Sepphoris, 54 m. N. from Shunem,
748
 CHITHLISH
and nearly 3 m. W. from the base of Mount Tabor.
The name has been suggested as an emendation for
MaicahwO or Meuoahwe in I Macc. 9 2 and of Chellus
in Judithlg (see CHELLUS). 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 (&J??,), Josh. 154oRV, AV KITHLISH.
CHITTIM (t19n?),Is. 231 AV, etc.; Gen. l o 4
KITTIM (4.v.).
CHIUN (?I'?) and SICCUTH (nllm), Am. 526 RV,
'Yea, ye [O house of Israel] have borne Siccuth your
1. Identifi- king, and Chiun your images, the star of
cation. your god. ' AV, RVmg,differ by rendering
n13b, ' the tabernacle (of).' These words
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,
2). 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 abave-
mentioned words offered by Schrader (St.Kr. 324 8
['74],and C O T 2141f.), which, though widely accepted,
fails to satisfy some good critics. According to Schrader's
theory nix! is to be pointed'nrpp and p a ? 1 ~ 2 the
, former
representing the divine name Sakkut, the latter Kaiwsn.
Oppert had already recognised in Chiun the Babylonian
KaiwEn, and this identification may be regarded as
almost certain. The word is of frequent occurrence in
Babylonian mythoIogica1 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 Mandaeans pi3
by the Syrians OL3, and by the Persians Kaizurin (for
\ BATH), a measure of capacity Rev. 6 6 RVmg. (EV
references to the occurrence of the word in Babylonian texts, see
Jensen, Kosino.?. 1 1 1 8 ) .
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. 5740). Ninib, however, appears
to be the god of the planet Kaiwanu or Saturn (see
Jensen, Kosiirol. 1 3 6 8 ; Lotz, Quest. de hist. Sadbati,
2 7 8 ) . We seem, therefore, to be brought to the con-
clusion that Saldcuth and Kaiwan are the same (which
would be still more clear'if it could be shown with
certainty that SAG-U$ 2 R. 32 no. 3 2. 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 n mytho-
logical text. In the surpu texts Sak-kut and Kaiwknu
are invoked together ( 4 R. 5 2 col. 4 1. 9 ; 'cp Zimmern,'
Beit. zur Kenntniss der Bad. R e l , 1896, p. IO 1. 179).
In 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
Saccuth-Kaiwan {n 2 K. 1730 (see SUCCOTH;DENOTH)and
another to Kaiwan in a passage of Ezekiel. The ininse of
jealousy' in Ezek. 8 3 5 is pot a possible title; n ~ 3 pseems to
b e a corruption of IN">. 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 500 (I DOL, B IC .) should rather be D&--i.e.,
Zainassu, one of the names for the colossal winged bulls which
guarded the entrances of Assyrian and Babylonian palaces and
temples (cp Ezek. 8 3 5 where, however, read N i t g , ' a t the
entrance ' with Gra. for nh.33). At any rate, we now seem to
know thk period to which the interpolation of Arn.526 refers
(see further Che., EZp. Times, 10 142, Dec. '98)].
The 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 if ' $ K ~ 1 1 3and n3vhx are transposed, the verse
7-19
CHOIR
iecomes at least intelligible (see Schr. ib., and cp Orelli,
zd loc. ). The phenomena of 6 ' s text, however, and
2. Text. also those of the MT, suggest the inference
that there may be a more deeply-seated
:orruption (see A MOS, § 13). '
[For the n)30 of Heb. text B B A Q Symm. give &,v U K ~ V $ V -
ie., nap (cp Acts743), Pesh. abr-s, Aq. uuumaupov'r,
rheod. 7iJv gpauw, Vg. t u k m u c u l m ,Tg. (Lag.) n i y D , which
:onfirms MT. For i133 (Heb. text and Tg.), Aq. and Symm.
have LOQV Theod. apairpwam Vg. imaginem (for @see REM-
P H A N ~ The pointing of M T 'seems to he suggested by that of
Yip@, ' abomination '= ' idol ; cp %e. For references to recent
:ritics see AMOS, I 13, and cp Che., Ex). Jan. 1897, pp. 42-44.]
R. W. R.
CHLOE (XAOH [Ti. WH]), a woman of whom
nothing is known, save that ' they of Chloe' (01 XAOHC)
were the first to let Paul know at Ephesus of the
division which had arisen in the Corinthian church
( I Cor. 111).
Whether she belonged to Ephesus or to Corinth who the
members of her household were, whether even &e 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 17f.) may have
-
been servants of Chloe.
CHOBA ( x ~ B A[BAIT xaBa ( R ) , &a
[Lag.],
a.3 [Walton]), called in Judith 154f. Chobai
(xw6a1[BKC,aA], xwBa [K"], in 1 5 5 xwBa [BRA],
[Lag.]), is mentioned in connection with the
defensive measures of the Jews against Holofernes
(Judith 4 4). Reland (p. 721) proposed the Coabis of
the Tab. Peut. near Jericho, a site that would agree
with both the Greek and the Syriac of Judith 4 4 ; and
in connection with it Conder (PEFMem. 2231)' points
to the ruin el-Mekhubby and the cave 'Arc$ e l Khzlbdy
on the Roman road 3 m. from Tzibris (see THEBEZ) and
11 from Beisin.
CHOENIX (XOINlf; in F k .4510 f: 6jBAQ for
' measure '). See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
CHOIR. The subject of the hereditary choirs, or
better, guilds of singers is considered elsewhere (see
1. PSALMS). W e content ourselves here -
with the Talmudic statements relative to
the Temple choir in the narrower sense of the word,
postponing, however, the question of choral psalms.
The 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
Kinuor (lyre?), two on the Nebel (lute?), while the
remaining one heat the sel@m (cymbals). This
number might, however, be exceeded on the occasion
of festivals (Mish. Eyach. 23-5). 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 [ z ] 3 c4]
(Che. )-
Good is it to give thanks to Yahwb
To 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 iyre.
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 ('an9 'i'i~>XI, Talm. Erach. 136). See Gratz,
Psnhnen, 6.53 ; Del., 8's. 2 6 3 , 372 ; and cp MUSIC,
§ j3f:
The duty of the choir is briefly summed up in Neh.
1224 2 Ch. 513. It is nhin)i \kc), ;.e., to raise the
2. Duty, strain of praise (HallBIa=praise ye) and
thanksgiving (H6da=give ye thanks). See
HALLEL, CONFESSION, 5 3. The formula of ' thanks-
75 0
 CHOLA CHRISTIAN, NAME O F
giving which served as a refrain in the later eucharistic CHRISTIAN, NAME OF. W e can readily under-
songs was, ' For he is good, for his loving-kindness is stand that the followers of Jesus confessed to the name
for ever ' ( z Ch. 5 13 7 3 6 Ezra 3 11 Jer. 33 11-the last of their Master whenever occasion arose. On the other
passage has been expanded by a late writer-and cp hand, the time, the place, and the circumstances of the
the psalms beginning Give thanks unto Yahwk'). origin of the name Xprurtav6s as a specific designation
Were there any female singers in the temple choirs? are obscure. According to Acts1126 the matter seems
From Neh. 7 67 Peritz infers that there were ( ' Women a simple one; but, with this passage before us, it is
in the Ancient Hebrew Cult,' JBL 17 148 ['98]). 1, remarkable how seldom the name
Strange t o say, the word 'choirs' occurs hut once and only occurs elsewhere in the records of
in R V w . Mattaniah (if this mg. is right) was {over the early Christianity. In the N T the only other places
choirs' (MT ni??).: . Neh. 128.
..,I
Del. (PsaLren . 26). Rv.. and
I, I , where it is found are Acts 2628 and I Pet. 416. It is
Kau. ( H S ) however, give 'choir' as the rendering of niin certainly not -alluded to in Acts 5 47 ; for ' the name' on
in Neh. 12 ;I where RV has 'companies that gave thanks.' account of which the apostles here suffer dishonour was,
This may be Accepted, but the mg. ' choirs ' in 12 8 is but a con-
fession of the great improbability of MT. Neither niq,? nor as we are expressly told in v.40, the name of Jesus.
nil?? (which Ry. and Kon. prefer) can he naturally defended. This passage, accordingly, belongs to the same category
Read nilin-iy, 'over the thanksgiving ' (Battch., OI., Guth,e). as Mk. 9 3 7 q~--\vhere, besides, the words ' because ye
E V in Neh. 128, therefore, virtually corrects the text. @I. €ai are Christ's' after h d T@ dv6pa71 pou (so Ti.) may be
7 t h &pohoy+mov : @BRA pointed nil;? (&I riuv x.Lpiu,). cp merely the explanatory marginal gloss of some early
Neh. 1117, and see M A TT AN IA H, 2. T. K. C . reader-and Mk. 1313. In Ja. 27 also, the 'honourable
CHOLA ( x ~ A A[B]), Judith154 RV, AV COLA name ' by which the readers are called is not the name
( G V . ).
'Christian,' but the name of Christ himself as their Lord ;
for the expression is to be explained in the same sense
CHOR-ASHAM, RV COR-ASHAN (I~&--I\>), Is.3030. as +m. 9 12 ( the heathen, which are called by my name ' )
See ASHANand BOR-ASHAN. -vu., by reference to 2 S. 1228 ( ' lest . ..
it he called
CHORAZIN (xopazsl N [Ti. WH] Mt. 1121 Lk. 10 13 after my name '). All passages of this class must here be
Eus. OSr2)30377xwp.). In these two passages Jesus left out of account, inasmuch as they do not presuppose
calls woe upon Chorazin and Bethsaida (and immediately the specific name ' Christian.' The name is presupposed,
after on Capernaum) as towns in which his wonderful as far as the N T is concerned, only in Lk. 6 2 2 ( r b duopa
works have produced no effect. From his direct address 6PGV).
to all three, they appear to have lain together within his Outside of the N T , according to the exhaustive re-
sight. Jerome (OS(%) 114 7 Chorozain) places Chorazin searches of Lipsius,l the name does not occnr in either
z R.m. from Capernaum (Euseb. 12 R.m., but this of the epistles ascribed to Clement of Rome; it is
seems a copyist's error). In his commentary on Is. 9 I absent from Barnabas, Hermas, Polycarp, the Pseudo-
Jerome describes the town as on the shore of the lake- Clementine Noma'Lit.~, Tatian, and the Cohortatio nd
like Capernaum, Tiberias, and Bethsaida. From this Grecos. The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, as also
Robinson ( B R 3 3 5 9 3 ) argues for the site at Tell Ham. the Catholic Acts of Peter and Paul, have it only in a
But about I m. N. of Tell Hum, in a shallow few passages of later insertion ; so also with the Gnostic
wady running from the Lake into the hills, there are writings. As a word in regular use it makes its earliest
black basalt ruins, including those of a large syna- appearances in the Apologists -Justin, Athenagoras,
gogue, with Corinthian columns, which bear the name Theophilus, Minucins Felix-and in the ' Epistle to
Xernzeh (PEFiWem.1400-2). Now, Willibald (722) Diognetus,' in Ignatius, who uses also the word Xprur-
says that he went from Capernaum to Bethsaida, thence raviu,u6s, in the 'Martyrdom of Polycarp,' in the
to Chorazin, and thence to the sources of the Jordan-a Catholic ~?jpuypu II&rpou, in the letter of the churches of
course which, in spite of what Robinson asserts, suits Lngdanum and l'ienna (Eus. HE 5 I$), in Irenzeus,
Kerazeh as it does not suit either Tell Hiim, or any Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria. T o this list
other site on the Lake. Accordingly, most moderns, must be added the passage in the Teaching of We Twelve
since Thomson discovered the site in 1857, agree that ApostZes (124), discovered after the publication of
IGrazeh is Chorazin, and take Jerome's statement as Lipsius's essay
either vague or inaccurate. (Robinson thinks the name Lipsius, it is true, points out allusions to the existence
may have drifted from Tell Ham to KerBzeh.) Jesus of the name ' Christian ' in older writings. As far as
calls Chorazin a city and treats it as comparable with Hermas, however, is concerned, the only valid passage
Tyre and Sidon. The ruins are extensive, and there is Sim. ix. 174.
are traces of a paved road connecting the site with the The phrase is &A r 8 bvdpar' 703 vbG 703 Bao3 Kahe;U8al.
Such expressions as ~b dvopa TOG utoir 705 &OS O o p ~ i v(ix. 13 zf:
great trunk road from Capernaum to Damascus. 14 sf: 16 3) or happL;v6~v(ix. 13 7) or + & ~ E L V(Polycarp, 6 3) do not
The Bab. Talmud (Menu@th 85u) praises the whoat of necessarily presuppose the word Xpcuriavds, and the simple
Chorazin (pyy3 cp Neuhauer Go<. Tulnz. azo). I n the days phrase ~b B v o ~ n+op& (Si?%ix. 13 zf:), or & T X E L V arb r b Svopa,
of. Eusebius and Jerome (33: and 400 A . D .) the place was in or ;vwa TOG bvdparoc (ix. 28 3 5 ; Vis.iii. 19 2 I), in several cases
ruins. Willibald found a Christian Church there. G. A. s. is clearly in juxtaposition to the words r b Svopa 7017ut03 TOG
eeoG or TOG K U ~ ~ O(Sim.
U ix. 13 3, 28 2-6 ; Vis. iii. 5 2).
CFIORBE (xopB& [BA]), I E s d . 5 1 ~ RV=Ezra29
Even I Clem. 143f. cannot with certainly be taken in
ZACCAI. the sense which is so abundantly p!ain in Justin (Apol.
CHOSANEUS (XOCAMAOC [BI, -OMAIOC [AI. 1 4 ) : Xprurtavoi Zuar Karq-ppodpEBa * r b 66 x p q u ~ h v
c ~ ~ ~[Syr.]), i ( s932.~
I Esd. The~ pluEiuBal
~ e 06 G) i ~ a i o v . This play upon words seems,
name follows Simon ( =Shimeon in (I Ezra l o p ) , and besides, to be sufficiently explained by the consideration
hence may represent one of the three names in Ezra that xpqur6s had at that time the same pronunciation
1032 otherwise omitted in I Esd. Possibly in a poor as xptu~6s. Tertullian (Ap.3 ; A d Nat. 1 3 ) , however,
MS only the final 1 of Malluch and the third name expressly says that the Gentiles perperam or corrupte
Shemariah were legible, and out of these the scribe made pronounced it Chvestinni. Xpqunavoi is the reading in
Choshamiah (Ball, Vay. A@c. ). Otherwise the name has all three N T passages of the uncorrected K ; it pre-
ponderates in the inscriptions ; and Justin, according to
arisen from Hashum ( o r ~ c ) ,v. 33 ; but the Syr. L,...
Blass (Hermes, 1895,pp. 465-470),associates this word
still remains a difficulty. with xpqur6s in his Apology (i. 4 46 49 ; ii. 6, where, as he
CHOZEBA, RV COZEBA (;laf3), I Ch. 4zzf. See says, KeXpi+bt ought to be read), just as in his D i d o p e
with Trypho he associates it with Xpletu. Blass con-
ACHZIB, I.
1 ' U e F den Ursprung u. d. Bltesten Gehrauch des Christen-
CHRIST (0 XPICTOC [Ti. WH]), Mt.24. See namens ; Gratnlationsprogramm der theologischen Facultat
MESSIAH, 8 2, end. Jena fiir Hase, 1873, pp. 6-10.
751 752
 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 xpqur6s ; and Justin,
for simplicity's sake, accepted the derivation without
seeking to correct it.
W e have thus seen that the name was left unused by
a series of Christian writers at a time when it was already
familiar to the younger Pliny (Epist. 10
2,
early origin. 96 [g7]) in 112 A . D . , to Tacitus ( A n n .
1 5 4 4 ) in 116-117 A . D . , and to Suetouius
(Nero, 16) in 120 A.'D. The plain fact is that they did
not need it. For designating their community there lay
at their command an ample variety of expressions,l such
as 'brethren,' ' saints,' 'elect,' 'called,' ' that believed,'
'faithful,' disciples,' 'they that are inChrist,' 'they that
are in the Lord,' 'they that are Christ's,' and ['any
of the way'?]. It follows that, notwithstanding its
absence from their writings, the name of Christian may
very well have originated at a comparatively, early time.
It can hardly, however, have been current at so early
a date as that indicated in Acts 1126.
The famine predicted at that time, according to Acts 1128,
occurred in Palestine between the years 44 and 48. (The belief
that it extended over the whole of the habitable world is a mis-
take.) The prediction itself must, of course, have been eat-lier.
Indeed the expression 'which came to pass in the days of
Claudi;s,' 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 A.D.) 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. 112).
Presumably certain personal disciplesof 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 (2 Cor. 10 7).
Paul, on the other hand, takes great pains to establish the right
of all believers in Christ to the designation (I Cor. 113 3 23 ; also
7 z z 15 23 Rom. 8 I Gal. 3 29 5 24).
Thus it can hardly have been already a current name.
As for Jesus himself, it is permissible to doubt whether
he used in their present forms such expressions as we
now find in Mk. 93741 1313-that is to say, with the
emphasis upon his own name. The 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 (920), and even then
wishes it to be kept secret, and further that, according to
the same author (Acts 1126), 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
3. Used by and the apologists shows that the word first
with pagans. became necessary for Christians in their
dealings with Pagans. In speaking to
the latter, such periphyases 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 Acts1126 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
implication 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
1 &h$oi, i;,,,,, ; K ~ ~ K T OK~ A, ~ T O L~, L U T C ~ O V T~~ SU , T Opaeqia;,
0; bv X p L U T d , 0; 8V7EF & KUpb+, 0 ; TO6 xpLUTO6, 0 ;
753
insisted npon King Azizus of Emesa and King Polemo of
Cilicia being circumcised before being allowed to marry
his sisters Drusilla and Berenice (Jos. Ant. xx. 7 I 3 [§§
139, 145$1). If, accordingly, the saying attributed to
him in Acts 2628 is' 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 ACTS, § 51) to set forth Paul's
innocence, and at 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. 236.15) ; 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 11. is historical, the word Xprurrau6s may very
easily have come into the narrative out of the author's
own vocabulary. W e are informed by the same writer
(Acts 24 5 ) with much greater precision that 'sect of the
Nazarenes' (ai'ppeu~srGu Nalwpaiwu) was the name given
by the Jews to the Christians, as we learn also fi-om
Tertullian (Ado. ~ddnrc.4 8 ) and Jerome (in Jes. ch. 5 181:
497 525). 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 ( H e r . 299) 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 ( D i d . 16 and elsewhere),
and indeed as we see from the nature of the case, applied
rather to all Christians.2 Its Hebrew name, Birkat-ha-
Minim, shows that the Jews had still another name for
the Christians-and this name could also be Graxised
into Mrvaioi.
As for the place where the name Christian arose, the
apparent Latin termination used to be thought to point to
4. Place of a western, indeed (Tac. Ann. 1544) to a
Roman, origin ; but that it was there that
origin. the name first came into use is by no
means said by Tacitus, whilst in such a word as
Herodian, 'HpyGiaubs (IMk. 3 6 and elsewhere), we have
evidence that in the Greek-speaking domain this col-
loquial Latin formation of personal names (c.g., Czsa-
riani), in incorrect imitation of forms like Pompeiani
(where the i is part of the root), was not unknown.
The ancient Greek grammarians recognise the termina-
tion -subs for derivatives from town and country names,
and even designate it specially as the r 6 m s 'Auraubs, as
being met with, not in Greece itself, but in Asia
(Buttmann, A%$. CY. Spmclilehre, 1 1 9 5 4 ; many
examples in Lipsius, 13-16). In this matter, therefore,
Acts1126 is not open to criticism (yet see above, § 2).
The time at which the name arose could not with
assurance be placed earlier than 79 A.D., even if a certain
_.- inscription (which hisappeared soon after
5' its discovery) at Pompeii, on the wall of
inscription' a building (at first supposed to have been
a Christian meeting-house), had ac&dly contained the
letters t r i u s ~ u N ~ .
This reading might very well have been a derivative from the
tolerably frequent proper name Chrestns (see above, 8 I) ; but,
in point of fact the reading is only a conjecture and according
t o Kiessling's briginal transcription (which is ;till Lxtaut), the
word really was ceristirrr-whatever that may mean.
The architecture of the house shows it to have been
an ' inn ' (cnufonn), provided even with a c e h mere-
tricia, where, accordingly, it is hardly likely that Christian
1 The best-attested reading ;v bhiyo &e rrei0e~sXpiurravbv
TOL$U(IL (unless we are to rea6, with 1'R, ysviu0ar or, with A
m;@q or, to conjecture with Hort, &ror0as (instead of p : ~
,d9&) is perhaps mast easily explained as a Latinism : 'you
are persuading me somewhat t o act the part of a Christian'
(Christianum agere; so Potwin, Bi6Z. Smr. 1889, p. 56zJ).
~ , 2 This solemn curse is said to have first taken shape at Jabueh
6 9 680; 8VTES. in the time of Gamaliel ii. (80-177A.D.).
754
meetings would have been held ; in fact, the inscription,
which begins with the words, ' Vina Nervii,' was prob-
ablv an advertisement of wines.1
An answer to our question can, therefore, be hoped
for only from examination of the history of the Christian
6. Early per- persecutions. The character of these
' only by a new senatorial decree. Now, the Christians
could never have obtained such a concession, for their
has been placed in an entirely new
seoutions. light by the proposition of Mommsen
in 1885 (R6m. Gesch. 5520, n . ) , which has since then
been more fully and elaborately developed by him
in Sybel's Hist. Ztschr. 64 389-429 [ ' 9 0 ] , and accepted
by C. J. Neumann (Der. rom. Staat a. d. Anl!genz.
Kirche, 116 ['90]) and by Ramsay (chap. 10, § 5)
-that ' the persecution of the Christians was always
similar to that of robbers.' On this view, every pro-
vincial governor had, without special instructions, the
duty of seeking out and bringing to justice Zantrones,
sacn'Zc,ps, pZa.$arios (kidnappers), and f u m s (Dig.
i. 18 13 xlviii. I ~ A ,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. Le& Status of Christians. -While actually throw-
ing into still further obscurity the date of the origin
of the Christian name, this discovery of Mommsen's
(above, 5 6 ) sheds much light upon the question of legal
position. The 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 meant only those of .the city of
Rome ; but subsequently those of Latium 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 Torship 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. The Jewish religion was, strictly, under the
same ban ; and, therefore, circumcision was laid under
severe penalties by Hadrian, and, as far as non-Jews
were concerned, by Antoninus Pius and Septimius
Severus also. For themselves, however, the Jews,
apart from the prohibition by Hadrian just mentioned,
possessed religious freedom on 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 politiqal activity, suppressed
cuncta colnle@a prrzter antiquitus comtituta (Suet. C m .
42), the Jews were expressly exempted. New corpora-
tions in the older ( L e . , senatorial) provinces required
the sanction of the senate; in the imperial provinces
still under military government that of the emperor
himself was doubtless sufficient. It 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 suppressed
by the police. In the cases of those which had been
sanctioned by the senate, suppression was made lawful
1 So Victor Schultze, 2.j:Kiychengesch. 1881. pp. 125-130
and also, as regards the text CIL 4679 ('7:). The inscriptio:
ought not therefore, to be r&ed on, as it IS still relied on by
Ramsay (6htwchN chap. 12,s 5, p. 268, and St. Paul, chap. 15,
$ I , ed. 1896, p. 346).
755
?lipion did not belong to the class of Dermitted re-
L I
gions. In their case, accordingly, the well-known
ule (Diz.xlvii. 221) did not apply : ( ' permittitur
muioribus stipem menstruam conferre, dum tamen
.
emel in mense coeant . . sed) religionis causa coire
on prohibentur, dum tamen per hoc non fiat contra
enatus consultum, quo illicita collegia arcentur.'
:hey 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
inauthorked meetings. For such an offence these
ienalties were much too severe. When a sodanlitas
Pf this sort was broken 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 offen-
:es. Persecution and capital punishment fell to
he lot of the Christians, therefore, only because their
eligion was regarded as criminal. In the case of
Zoinan citizens it implied a violation of the duty to
vorship the gods of the state; in the case of pro-
iincials who were not citizens, ~ B E ~ as T ~ against
S the
oca1 gods of the place was in like manner implied.
.n a (legally) very lax sense they were accused of
,acriZegium,which originally meant only theft of sacred
>bjects. Over and above this, all Christian subjects
vere chargeable with the offence of refusing to worship
.he Emperor, an offence legally construed as majestas,
Jr crimen Zese majestatis-more precisely, as vzajesntati.r
Imperatorum-the majestas popunlz' Konzani not being
.ouched by this class of offences. Thus, either as
iacrilege or as majestas, Christianity could at all times
38 prosecuted, and-certainly in the case of non-
:itizens, probably also in that of citizens---by the mere
:xercise of arbitrary coercive power. The penalties
inder either charge were, approximately, the same.
ii. Correspondence of PLiiiy and Trqan.-Thus we
Tain a new light on the correspondence between Pliny
ind Trajan (see above, 2). . Let it be premised that
2y the fiazitia (2). as may be gathered from the
xllusion in the words cibzm pvo77zZiscuum e t innoxiu7n
: 7 ) , were certainly intended the epuZcThyesten? and the
:oncubitus Oedipodei, which, as we learn from Justin
:ApoZ. 126 212) 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. The 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
ipsum), 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,
c o n p i r e n d i non sunt, with which also is to be associated
his order to disregard anonymous leiters 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 be exempt mom 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 him (2-4). His reference of the matter to the
emperor was first occasioned by the largeness of the
number of those who ultimately came to be denonnced,
and by certain leanings, on grounds of policy, towards
clemency (4gf.), 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
756
 CHRISTIAN, NAME O F
only for Pliny, waS shortly afterwards published, along
with the whole correspondence, and taken as a norm
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, and especially to
discuss the question whether in these cases the nomen
Christianum was known to the authorities and consti-
tuted the ground of accusation.
iii. CZaudius.-Of Claudius we are informed by
Suetonius ( CZaud. 25) that Judaos impukove Chresto
assidue tumuZtuantes X o m a expulit. It is quite im-
possible, however, to determine whether by Chvestos
(on the form of the name, see above, 5 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
him to be a Jewish agitator of whom nothing further is
known. Actslea is by no means decisive for the first
or the second alternative, even if we are to suppose that
Aquila and Prisca were already Christians when they
came to Corinth.
iv. Pomponin Gracina. -Of Pomponia Graxina we
learn from Tacitus (Ann. 1332) only that in 57 A. D. she
was accused superstitionis extet-na, and that she was
acquitted of the charge by her husband, the consular
A. Plautius, 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 (Tac. Ann. 2 85 ; Suet.' Tid. 36). For full
details see Hasenclever, I P T , 1882,pp. 47-64.
v. Neronian Persecution.-The notices we have of
the Neronian persecution are very obscure.
Tacitus (Ann. 1544) says: 'abolendo rumori (of having
pjauned the burning of Rome) Nero subdidit reos et quaesi-
tissimis penis affecit,qi!os per flagitia invisos vulgus Christi-
.
anos appellahat . . primum correpti qui fatebantur deinde
iudicio eorum multitudo ingens haud p;oinde in criminiincendii
quam odio geueris humani coniuncti sudt.' Conj'uncti here
could mean only that the ingens nzuZfitudo was added t o the
prin~umcowepfi(Ramsay,chap.11, 0 3); the reading ronvicfifor
coniuncti 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.
The Christians, however, were innocent (subdidit); and
the ground on which they were condemned, accordingly,
was not so much (haud proinde) the evidence that they
had been incendiaries as the odium generis humani.
13y 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 humnnum by
Tacitus. Still, understood a? 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). ZcitaZt. 478, 2nd ed. 462 ; ET 2 143) and
Ramsay(chap. 11,$$ 2 4) try indeed to make out that this actually
was hrought as a charge against them by referring to Suetonius
(Nero 16) : apicti sup)Ziciis Chnktiani, genus h O m i n U 7 f l
superstitionis no71cp ac maZefice, holding that by nraieficiunr
witchcraft and poisoning are meant and that it was precisely
for these offences against society ;hat the two punishments
desfiis ob&i and cruci6us a8gi were threatened and (according
to Tacitus) inflicted. These same punishments: however were
attached to many other crimes also. Suetonius says ";thing
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 in seeking to explain
Tacitus by referrkg to Suetonius. The two 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 : se incendium 6?cisse. Such a confession may
757
rery well have been made by them, though innocent,
inder torture. As regards the ingens nzzrltztudo nothing
nore was required than merely some vague suspicions, or
L few false witnesses, to whom the judges, on account of
he commonly assumed general perversity of the Chris-
ians (their odium generzs humani), were only too ready
o give credence. There remains, therefore, a possi-
d i t y that the religion of the accused did not come into
pestion at all, and that Tacitus and Suetonius have,
Inhistorically, carried back the name Christiani from
.heir own time into that of Nero. Were this not so,,
.he reader, moreover, would expect to find in Tacitus a
lame indicating the characteristic attribute of those
ienoted by it ; after guosperfEn,itia invisos vu&us one
would expect not Chvistianos but some such expression
is$agitiarios appeZZabat.
Another interpretation of fatedantur is not less pos-
sible. It is that at first only .those who had already
habitually confessed themselves in public to be Christians
:fatedantur se Christianos esse) were apprehended, a n d
that only afterwards, on the evidence obtained from these
in the course of the legal proceedings, a great number
[ ingens muZtifudo) of those who had not hitherto made
m y 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-
Ligion constituted no ground of accusation, it was recog-
nised as distinct from the Jewish ; whereas if the other
interpretationoffatebnnturis adopted the Christians may
have been regarded simply as Jews : Tacitus ( Hist. 5 5 )
ittributes adversus omnes host& odium to the Jews also.
Clement of Rome further (i. 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 knew what was its result. Gallio
was not led by the accusation, as cited in Acts1813,
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 ACTS, § 51). In a
word, the little that we really know of the Neronian
period does not enable us to come to a decision on
the question as to the date and origin of the name
' Christian.' .
Ramsay, however (chap. 11, $S z 6J) considers that ih the
second stage the Neronian persecution ;as permanent otherwise
than in the first stage. As the persecution is mentioLed by Sue-
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 conrse the persecution was not
on account of incendiarism hut on accodnt of alleged witchcraft
and othersagitia. Tacit&, Ramsay believes, also gives proof
of this permanence of the persecution under Nero when he says,
unde ... nziseratio onk6atur tanquanz non ufiiiiatepnbZica
sed i?c smitiant unius absume>entur; and Sulpicius Severus
(ii. 293) is understood to speak to the same effect-hoc initio in
Chnitianos smiri cazptptunz : post etiaw datis Zegibus reZie.0
vetahatur paZampue edzctis propositis Christiaaunz esse non
Zicicebat. Immediatelyupou this, however(ll7 12 I ; 3rd ed., pp.
244, zyj), Ramsay explains that the word post refers to other
emperors than Nero, and also concedes that the expressions
edictu and kges are 'loosely and inaccurately' employed by
Sulpicius. Further, the unde in Tacitus traces the miseratio
to the horrors of the public celebration of the executions and
Nerols 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 malzficcp.
vi. Titus and Vespasian.-We read in Sulpicius
Severus (ii. 306-8) that, in a council of war, Titus finally
decided on the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem
guo p h i u s Iudaorum e t Christianorum reZigio toZZe-
retrw : p $ p k has reZip'ones Zicet confmrias sibi, iisdenz
tainen (a6) aucton'dus profeectas ; Christianos ex judais
exstitisre : radice sziblalr: stirpenz facile pel-ituram.
Now, even were we to reject, as a falsification of
history from motives of complaisance, the very different
statement of Josephus, an eye-witness (Bjvi. 43-7), 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. It is in the highest degree improbable
that Titus had such erroneous ideas as to the depend-
ence of the Christians on the temple, while attribiiting
to them such dangerous qualities and so great a degree
of independence as apart from the Jews. Even Momni-
sen (Ronz. Gesch. 5539 ; ETProvince~,2216f.), on whose
authority Ramsay relies, detects here traces at least of a
Christian editor. Ramsay, however (chap. 1 2 I$ ), 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 ( Yap. ~s)-neigue cede cz&sqna?n
ztnqunm letatzts est el (by the three last words he
conjecturally fills a hiatus) justis suppliciis illacrimavit
etinnz et ingemnit-which, he considers, we are entitled
to interpret as referring to processes against Christians.
Were this the case, it would be natural at 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).
vii. Domitian. -With regard to Domitian, Suetonius
(Dom. IS) tells us that eight niunths before his death
Flavium Cknzentem patrzielevz suum contenzptissinm
.
inertie . . repenteextenztissiinasuspicioizetantuninon in
ipso ejus conszthtu iutei-evzif. Cassius Dio (lsvii. 14 I$ ),
according to the excerpt of the monk Xiphilinus, adds
that at the same time his wife, Flavia Domitilla, was
banished to the island of Pandataria : 8irQxOq68 d p # o b
#ylyKXTpa &OEbTTTos, I$' 3s K U ~U X X O L 8s 721 TOY 'Iou8aiwv
!ST ~ [ O K ~ X X O Y T EaoXXoi
S KarE&K(i&pw. Now, Chris-
tian legend, and in particular the Pseudo-Clementine
lPeco,nitions and HomiZies, speak of Flavius Clemens
as Bishop of Rome, and of his father as, like the
consular in Suetonius, related to the iniperial family ;
the daughter of his sister (also called Flavia Domitilla)
became involved in a Christian persecution, and was
banished to I'ontia (the island adjacent to Pandataria).
This last statement is all the more important because
Eusebius (Chron. ann. 2110, 2112Abrah.: H E iii. 1 8 4 )
takes it from a heathen chronographer, Bruttius or
Brettius, who wrote before 221 A . D . For further
details see Lipsius, Chronol. a?. r5m. SischoJ%, 152~161.
It is alike natural and difficult to assume that Clement
and Domitilla represent each only one person, and that
person a Christian. The charges in Cassius Dio, taken
by themselves alone, show either that the question was
one not of Christians but of Jews, or that Christians at
that time still remained undistinguished from Jews.
The view that they were Jews can hardly be main-
tained.
I n the heathen writer Bruttius, Domitilla figures expressly as
a Christian, and in all later Christian writings Domitian 1s
represented as a violent persecutor of the faith (see, e g . , Melitc
a$. Euseb. H E iv. 269). H e is called by Tertullian (Apol. 5:
portio Nwoizis de cvudelitate: and, though the heathen Juvenai
( 4 3 7 ~ 3 it is true says something to the same effect, thf
Christ:& bases his &usation expressly upon the persecution 01
his brethren in the faith.
W e are, then, left with the second int&pretation o
the words of Cassius Dio, that they relate to Christians.
Ramsay's method of evading this (chap. 12, 9 4) is sure13
forced-that in Dio's time (211-222 A . D . ) ,it was ' z
fashion and an affectation among a certain class o
Greek men of letters to ignore the existence of thc
Christians and to pretend to confuse them with the
Jews.' Further, in the collection of temple moneq
759
now a state-fax) from the Jews, accdrding to Suetonius
Donz. IZ), those.also were taken account of qui vel
'inprofessi ludaicnm viverent vitnm. (or : /udnicnm
~
idem similem viverent vitam) vel dissimulata origine
'ipositn genfi triduta non pependissent. As at that
ime the lzrdnicus j s c u s acerbissime actus est, it would
)e very remarkable if here we were not intended to
inderstand both the Jewish Christians regarded as cir-
xmcised persons and the Gentile Christians regarded
1s proselytes. The Roman officers, we know from
Suetonius, in cases where it was necessary, satisfied
.hemselves as to the fact of circumcision by inspection.
Even though greed may well have been a motive for
:onniving at the profession of the Christian religion, it is
?lain that the danger to the state presented by the Chris-
:ians cannot have been taken very seriously. We
ire led to the same conclusion by the story (as far
as it can be believed) of Hrgesippus (in Eus. H E
3 1 9 3 ) that Domitian released the grandchildren 01
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. Nerua.-As far as the accusations under Domi-
tian had reference to Christians they are covered by the
regulations of Nerva (Cassius Dio, Ixviii. 1z, after
Xiphilinus).
Tertullian (Apol. 5 ) and Hegesippus (Eus. HE iii. 20 5)
erroneously attribute the regulations to Domitian himself. T h e
u'sbmpdr+ ;$+e
text of Cassius Dio is : rods r e ~ p ~ v o ~ E ' v o;a m i
roirs +c+yovras Kanjyays ...
TOW 61 Q tlhhors o i h ' darprias o h '
X $ P.I I .
' I O u 8 a i ' K D G !%OU TCVaS U U V E ..
KaTaC7&8ai C~.FY.
The preceding discussion of the Christian persecutions
makes it evident that the grounds upon which these
of were conducted were by no means clearly
,.
discussion. 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 down by Momnisen and Ramsay.
In particular, had they been so frequent, the hesitation
of Pliny-or, at all events, that of Trajan-would be
quite inexplicable. Ranisay'sanswer (chap. 10, 5 6 ) ,that
Trajan's words-nepue enim in universuin aliiguid quod
quasi certnm formam hadeat constitzii potest-refer to
Pliny's doubt whether or not the question of age should
be allowed to make a difference in the punishment, is
quite inadmissible. Neque miin 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 : actu?n y u e m deduisti . .. secutus es.
Thus Ramsay's conjectures of some archive which
Trajan caused to be 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
its6lf. In Pergamum Antipas was the only martyr
(Rev. 213). Therefore, Trajan's conquirendi non
sunt was a mitigation in 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 onquirere. 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 (ApoZ. 5), aud Melito in his Apology to
Antoninus Pius (up.Ens. H E iv. zG5) expressly says that only
Nero and Domitian ( ~ ~ Y O~ &LV T O Y Nippov ai AopcrLav6s) had
given up the Christians to the slanders of denouncers. T o the
760
 CHRISTIAN, NAME OF
same purpose we have the statement of Origen (c. Cels. 38)
.
that bhiyoi K a r & KaLpoDs k a i u$66pa sdapi0(*~.ror. . 7 ~ 0 4 -
K a u w ; over against which the mhi, rrh<00s < K ~ E K & V spoken of
by Clemens Romanus (i. G I ) in the reign of Nero, and the ingens
TnuZfitudoof Tacitus, must, of course, not he overlooked.
I n view of such definite statements as these, it is not
possible to explain the silence of our authors-especially
that of Christian authors-on the persecutions which
Ramsay infers to have been instituted under Vespasian
and Titus, as being due only to the shortness of those
reigns-or rather the shortness of the portions of them
in which persecutions occurred (above, Q 6, vi. end)-
or to the fact that the Christians had no eyes for any-
thing except the imminent end of the world (Ramsay,
chap. 12, 2):
Ramsay, it 1s true, finds support by assigning I Pet.
to about the year 80 A . D -that is to say, the reign of
8. Date of Titus (chap. 131-3)-0rto 75-79 A . D . , in the
reign of Vespasian (Ew$ositor, Oct. 1893,
Pet. p. 286). He 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 aonzen Chriutianunr (415,?), and that it
was composed at the beginning of a persecution (4 12 3 14 17 2 14).
It has also been rightly urged that there is no reason for assign-
ing it to the year 1 1 2 o n the mere gronnd that then for the first
time a persecution of Christians over the whole O ; K O U ( * & ~ ( 5 5 )
became possible. On the other hand before that date there
had been no persecution which had tduched 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 1 1 7 of the words Siauriopk and S a ~ i p r o v
which here are superfluous and disturbing, and have thei;
appropriate place only in Ja. 1I 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 (1131, cp Ja.
2 25). Dependence on James is shown also in I Pet. 5 5 A, which
is borrowed from Ja.463 In the latter passage the 08" is
logical (0eoG 44 ... &+), and in the former, therefore, in like
manner the bhh~horpof v. 5 should have been followed by some
such e.&ression 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 dXXo7proe?rfaKoms, the only satis-
factory explanation of its use in I Pet. 4 15, to denote a
criminal of the same class as qiovebs and K ~ ~ T T ~ isS
that of Hilgenfeld, according to whom what is intended
is the class of delutoues, who made a trade of denunci-
ation, which was first made criminal by Trajan (Plin.
Pazegyr. 341: ). By dhhorpioeaLuKomr Ramsay under-
stands people who stir up strife between members 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 assertiop, however, that Nero gave power
to the courts of justice thenceforward to regard
such persons as magicians and to punish them as
criminals (chap. 151),rests upon no documentary evi-
dence : it proceeds solely upon his own interpretation of
the maZ@ce of Suetonius (above, Q 6, v.). Nor has
Ramsay made out (chap. 8, §Q I z,,pp 280J 290) 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, co?tpzrirendi non sunt, or
after the re-enactment of conquirere by Marcus Aurelius ; but
here again it has to be remarked that, if only there were de-
nunciationsenough-and Ramsay himself (chap. 10, $ 2 ) is aware
how readily these could at any time appear among the class of
sellers of sacrificialanimals (Plinyto Trajan, IO), or among people
in the position of Demetrius (Acts 10 24-34), or of the masters of
the damsel with the spirit of divination (1G 16-15)-1 Pet. 3 15 5 8
become intelligibleenough, even after the publication of Trajan's
conquirendi non sunt.
W e may still hold, therefore, that I Pet. was written
in I I2 A. D.
The one new thing we have learned is that, when
IPet. touches upon the subject of punishment for the
mere name of Christian (416), it is describing not a
761
new attitude of the authorities but one that they have
been taking for some time. This very fact makes it
mipossible to use this passage as Ranisay does as fixing
the date of the epistle for the transition period during
which punishmeiit of Christians only for Fagitia was
giving place to a system of perLecution 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 coiitinuance of the old state of things ;
but the exhortation in 415 that none should suffer as a
Aagitious person is not in any case out of place, even if
Ragitin had not thitherto been the only ground on which
the punishment of Christians proceedpd ; against such
Ragitia Paul also constantly warns his readers (Gal.
5 19-21 I Cor. 6 g f: 2 Cor. 1220 f: Roni. I ~ I - I ~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 12 3 13 etc.)
is one that Christians can never have wholly abandoned,
and it found a reasonable justification in the plea of
Pliny (27-10) for mild treatment of those who had been
denounced. W e can 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) make it clear that there never
9. Conclusion. had been a period during which
Christians, although recognised as a
distinct religious society, were punished -for $abdiu
merely, and not on account of the ?tonzen. 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 Momnisen,we must also conclude,
conversely, that where j a g i t i a alone are punished the
nomen is not yet known. Even for the time 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
from Jews, then JRugitia 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 iniprob-
able that Christians should have passed for Jews so long.
The 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 matters affecting societies, were wont to
take careful cognisance of even the minutest trifles, and
of course, in a formal investigation, had means readily
at 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 we. have
Tacitus, who makes us hesitate ; a d what is said about
Domitian goes against Weizsacker's conclusion. Chris-
tian sources give no hope of a decision. Ramsay's citation
of I Pet. does not hold good ; that of the Apocalypse
1 Eg.,Keim, the only one besides Lipsius (and Carr, Expos.
June '98 pp. 456-463)who has cxprofesso taken up the questio;
of the &in of the name of Christian (Aus dent Urchrisfen-
fhum, 1878, 1171.181).
762
 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 flagitia 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 Tim. 2 9 does not
necessarily mean that Paul suffers decause he is regarded
as a KUKO+yOS-it can just as well mean that he suffers
the same penalties as those to which a K U K O D ~ ~ O Sis
liable, but that the cause of them is in his case his
preaching of the gospel (B Y $)-in other words, his
Christianity. In like manner, it is quite as conceivable in
z Tim. 312 that the nomen is the cause of the sufferings
of all Christians as that $ q i t i n are. As for the Third
Gospel and Acts, according to what has been said above
(12). they show only that their author, about 100-130
A . D . , 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 (l’>!p), z S. 816 2024, Is. 363,
RVnlg.; EV RECORDER (p.~.).
CHRONICLES (P’)?3;? ’l,?:), I K. 1419. See HIS-
TORICAL L ITERATURE , § 13f.
CHRONICLES, BOOKS OF. In the Hebrew canon
Chronicles is a single book, entitled D ’ n p 91??,
Events of the Times.
The full title would he D’D’n ’721 lzD, Book 01Events of
the Times; and this again appears to have been a designation
commonly applied to special histories in the more
1. Name. definite shape-Bvents of the Times of K i r z ~
Duvid, or the like ( I Ch.2724 Esth.102 etc.).
T h e Greek translators divided the long book into two, and
adopted the title IIapahembpsva, Thing-s[often] onzilted [scQ
in the other historical books ; cod. A adds PauLh6ov resjecting
the kings or 7i)v Baurhe~SvIOU& : see Bacher, Z A TW 153053
(‘95)l. Jerome, following the sense of the Hebrew title, sug-
gested the name of Chronicin instead of Paralijoinendn p+inzus
et secundus. Hence the English ChronicZes.
The hook of Chronicles begins with Adam and ends
abruptly
_ .in the middle of Cyrus’s decree of restoration.
2. Connexion The continuation of the narrative is
found in the Book of Ezra, which
withEzra- begins by repeating z Ch. 36 zzf., and
Nehemiah. filling UT) the fragment of the decree of
Cyrus. A closer ex&in&ion 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 z Chronicles marks
the disruption of a previously-existing continuity. In
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. HenFe 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
LITERATURE (g.v., § 145). The author used adifferent
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 Ezra-
763
CHRONICLES, BOOKS O F
Tehemiah. Besides, the identity 01 authorship cannot
ie 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
3. Date. of the language stamps the hook as one
of the latest in the OT (see § 1 1 ) ; hut
t leads to no exact determination of dare. In I Ch.
397, which refers to the time of David, a sum of
noney is reckoned by durics ( h i t see D RAM ), which
:ertainly implies that the author wrote after that
Persian coin had long been current in Judea. The
:hief passage appealed to by critics to fix the date,
iowever, is I Ch. 3 1 9 3 , where the descendants of
Cerubbahel seen to be reckoned to six generations (so
Ewnld, Bertheau, etc. ).
The passage is confused, and E6 reads it so as to give as
nany as eleven generations (so Zunz Nold., Knen. 0 29 5 ; cp
KBn. 5 54 36) ; whilst on the other hdid those who plead for an
:arly date are disposed to assume an interpolation or a corruption
If the text or to separate all that follows the iianie of Jesaiah
n 11. ZI fro;, what precedes(Movers, Keil). It seems impossible,
lowever, by any fair treatment of the text to obtain fewer than
;ix generations, and this result agrees with the probability that
Hattush (v. m),who, on the interpretation which we prefer,
3elongs to the fourth generation from Zerubhabel, was a con-
zernporary of Ezra (Ezra 82).
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 (1210f.), 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.
1173) and others, from the use of the title King 01
Persia ( z Ch. 3623).
The official title of the Achzemenidae was not ‘ King of Persia,’
F t ‘the King, ‘the Great King,’ the ‘King of Kings,’. the
King of the Lands,’ etc. (see RP(l1 1 1 1 1 8 . 5 151 8 Y 6 5 8 : ) ;
and the first of these expressions is that used by Ezra (7 27f; 8 I
etc.), Neh. (1 11 2 18), and other Jews writing under the
Persian rule (Hag. 1I 15 Zech. 7 I Ezra 4 8 I I 5 6f: 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. Kuen.)
after 300 B. c., 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 true importance of Hebrew history had always
centred in the fact that this petty nation was the people of
.
4. Character YahwB, the spiritual God. The tragic
its explmatio;. interest which distinguishes the annals
of Israel from the forqotten history
of Moab or Damascus, lies wholly in &at long con-
test which finally vindicated the reality of spiritual things
and the supremacy of YahwB‘s purpose, in the political
ruin of the nation which was the faithless depositary 01
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. The book of Kings
looks upon the history in the spirit of the prophets-in
that spirit which is still echoed by Zechariah ( 1 5 J ) :
d Your fathers, where are they? and the prophets, could
they live for ever? but 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 Yahwb 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 municipal, and the historical con-
tinuity of the nation was vividly 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. It 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 man 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. The 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. Large
sections of the old history are devoted to the religion and
politics of the northern kingdom, which are altogether
unintelligible and uiiinteresting when measured by 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 Yahwk and the
exigencies of political affairs and social customs, and
which could not comprehend that men 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,
which,should 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.
I.' OutZine of Chronicles. The book falls naturally
into three parts. I. Introductory reswnzC ( I Ch. 1-9).-
5. Contents. For, 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 ( ICh. 1-9) into
a series of genealogies,l 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 Ezra25962, and cp GENE-
ALOGIES, I. § 3). The greatest space is allotted natur-
ally to the tribes of JUDAHand LEVI (44.7~) (23-423
6 [527-6 661) ; but, except where the author derives his
-materials from the earlier historical books (as in 1 31-16
654-81), his lists are meagre and imperfect, and his data
evidently fragmentary. Akeady, however, the circum.
stances and interests of the author betray themselves
for even in these chapters his principal object is evidentlj
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 2-17a is excerpted (with merely clerica
differences) from Neh. 1131-1ga (on the assage see EZRA, ii. !
5 181, I 15 [I ] a); and that the tage to wvxich the genealogies ii
1 See the articles on the several tribes.
765
Ch. 3 17-24 and 8 33-40 (cp 9 35-44, and see B E NJA MI N , B 9) are
.rried shows that their purpose is to give the pedigree of post-
:ilk iamilies who traced their descent from David and Saul
spectively. I n ch. 2 We. ( D e g m t . ; c p more briefly Prol.W
6 8 [ E T 3.1) has shown that w. 9 25-33 @-5oa, formlng the
:me1 of the chapter, relate to pre-exilic Judah, whilst w. 10-17
1-24 34-47 506-55 (like the greater part of 4 1-23) have reference
the circumstance^ of the post-exilic community ; the chief aim
'ch. 2 is to explain how the Calebites, who before the fall of
:rusalem had their home in the S. of Judah, had in post-exilic
mes to find new homes in the more iiortheriv Darts of Tudah
_ I
ee CALEB, S 3 3 ) .
2. Israel before the schism ( I Ch. 10-2Ch. 11.-From
le death of Saul ( I Ch. 10) 'the history becomes fuller
nd runs parallel with Samuel and Kings. The limita-
ons of the author's interest in past times appear in the
mission, among other particulars, of David's reign in
Iebron, of the disorders'in his family and the revolt of
.bsalom, of the circumstances of Solomon's accession,
nd of many details as to the wisdom and splendour of
iat sovereign as well as of his fall into idolatry.
3. The Soxtheru ICirzgdom (z Ch. 12-36)-1n the
iter history the northern kingdom is quite neglected, and
olitical affairs in Judah receive attention, not in pro-
ortion to their intrinsic importance, but according as
iey serve to exemplify God's help to the obedient and
is chastisement of the iebellious. That the author is
h a y s 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
ias throughout composed not in purely historical
iterests, but with a view to inculcate a single practical
sson.
11. Additions to ICings. I . The more important
.dditions which the Chronicler makes to the old
larrative consists of ( a ) statistical lists ( I Ch. 12, see
)AVID, 11, iii.) ; ( a ) full details on points connected
vith the history of the sanctuary (see HISTORICAL
JTERATURE, 0 15) and the great feasts (see FIVSE),
ir the archzology of the Levitical ministry (see
,EVITES), I Ch. 1 3 15 1 6 (these three chapters ex-
mnded remarkably from z S. 6) 22-29 z Ch. 29-31
55 I-r7 etc. ) ; and (c) narratives of victories and defeats,
)f sins and punishments, of obedience and its reward,
which could be made to point a plain religious lesson in
avour of faithful observance of the Law.
See the following passages :--2 Ch. 13 3-2r (Abijah), 14 9-15
Zerah), 15 I-15 (Asa.and the prophet Azariah), 167-10 (Asa and
Hanani) 19 1
.7(Jehoshaphat and the prophet Jehu) 20 Jehosha-
,hat and hIoa6, etc.), 21 11-17(Jehoram), 25 5-10 12-;6 (Amaziah)
'tC.
These narratives often include prophetical discourses,
nculcating the same principle of the theocratic con-
fitions of success and failure, with much uniformity ot
:xpression, and in a tone very different from that of the
prophets who appear in Samuel or Kings.
2. Attention should be directed also to the short
insertions, introduced often into the narratives excerpted
From 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 ri&l I Ch. 15 q a 28d (David) ; z Ch.
5 rrb-13a G 13 7 6 8 13-15 (Solomon); 236 &4 13 (middle)13 (from
7 % ~19) (deposition of Athaliah); 349 ('the Levites') 12 (from
'and the') 13, etc. ; the reflections in I Ch. 21 6 3 (Joab'scensus);
2 Ch. 8 116(Solomon's wife's palace); 12 12 (Rehoboam humbling
himself); 18 318 (Yahwh delivers Jehoshaphat) ; 2238 46 (cause
of Ahaziah's wickedness); 2527a (to 'Yahwk,' cause of plot
against Amaziah); 26 21 (middZe) 23 (middle;consequences of
Uzziah's leprosy) ; 27 6 (effects of Jotham's piety) ; 33 23 (char-
acter of Amon).
The minor variations of Chfonicles 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 fro& that of the old
narrative.
Here, then, a critical question arises. Is the change
of perspective wholly due to a different selection of
6. So,,. items from authentic historical tradition ?
May we assume that everything which is
new in Chronicles has been taken exactly from older
766
 CHRONICLES, BOOKS OF
sources, or must we judge that the standpoint of the
author has not only governed the selection of facts, but
also coloured the statement of them? Are 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 at his command. The Chronicler
makes frequent reference to earlier histories which he
cites by a great variety of names.
I. The Book of the Z<ings.-That 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 18, He6. )
refer to a single work is not disputed. Under one or
other title this book is cited some ten times ( I Ch. 9 I
zCh.1611 2526 277 2826 3318 3527 368, also 2034
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 (I Ch.SI), as well as
other particulars, not mentioned in the existing Book of Kings
(see zCh.277 33 18 368); and it incorporated certain older
writings of (or about) prophets-in particular the D~,~%~Y.?wz
( W o r d x , or rather Matters, Le., History) of Jehu ben Hanani
(zCh.2034 where read with RV, 'which is inserted in') and
the Vision bf Isaiah ( z Ch. 32 32).
Now it is noticeable that, where the Chronicler does
not cite this comprehensive work at the close of a king's
reign, he generally refers to some special authority
which bears the name of a prophet ( I Ch. 29 29, Samuel,
Nathan, and Gad ; 2 Ch. 9 29, Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo ;
1215, Sheinaiah and Iddo ; 1322, Iddo ; 2622, Isaiah).
Never, however, are both the Book of 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 Bo.,k of
tile Kings.
Even z Ch. 33 19 (cp v. IS), where AV departs from the received
Hebrew text, hut probably expresses the correct reading 1 seems
rather to confirm than to oppose this conclusion (which' is now
disputed by very few scholars) except in the case of Isaiah's
history of Uzziah ( z Ch. 2 6 ~ 2 )where
~ the form of the reference.
is different.
The references to these DZbBrim will thus not imply
the existence of historical monographs writteii by the
prophets with whose names they are connected ; they
will merely point to sections of the Book of the Kings, Most critics hold, however, that the Chronicler also
which embraced the history of particular prophets, and
were hence familiarly cited under their names.
2. The Midrash of the Book of the Kings.-Whether
the Book of the Icings is identical with the iWidrash
(RV, badly, Cornnzentary) of the Book of the Kings ( 2 Ch.
2427) is 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 $7: t o s e a x h 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 an 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 the narratives, peculiar to
Chronicles, for which the author cites as his authority
the Book of the Kings; the last-named work, therefore,
even if not identical with the Midrash of the Book of
1 'The Seers' : so a, RVmg., Bertheau, Kuenen, Ball,
Oettli, Kautzsch. Budde and Kittel read l'?n Lis seers (cp
v. IS). Those who follow M T (as Ew. Hist. 1184, Keil) find
in v. 19 an unknown prophet Hozai (cp AVlW. RV).'
a Though common in Rabbinical literature, it occurs other-
wise in the OT only in z Ch. 13 22.
767
the Kings (as Ew. We. Kue. with much probability
suppose), will nevertheless have been similar in character
and tendency (cp below, g, end).
The, iWidrash of the prophet Zddo ( 2 Ch. 1 3z 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. 5 1 7 2327 2724 z Ch. 3525.
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,
11) is conclusive evidence that no part of the additional
matter1 peculiar to Chronicles is an 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
may also have had other materials at command.
4. Sozdrces of the Canonical Kings.-Now we know
that the two chief sources of the canonical hook of
Kings were entitled Annals [ ' events of the times '1 of
the Kings of fsruel 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 z I<. 21 17 that
the Ann& of the Kings of Judnh gave no account of
Manasseh's repentance, which, according bo z Ch. 33 IS/.:,
was narrated in the great Book of the Ziings of ZsraeL
5. Dependence of CLronicZes on Kings.--It was
formerly the opinion of Bertheau, and other scholars (e.,. ,
Keil), that the parallelisms of Chronicles with Samuel
and Kings are suificieiitly explained by the ultimate
common sourcc from which both narratives drew.
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 .were not taken from the aniials 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 e & , z Ch. 2032f: [Asa]
with I K. 2243; 24z[Joash], with z K. 123 [ z ] [Jehoash];
25r-4 [Amaziah], with 2 K.14zf. 5 $ , etc.). It is of
course possible, as Bertheau (xliv. f:) and Kuenen
(5 32 15) 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 pos&bil.itks may be
suggested.
1 Including the genealogies and statistical matter, which (in
so far as they are not colourless lists of names) show unniistak-
able marks of the Chronicler's hand, and must therefore be
regarded as his compilations : see, e.g., the late expressions in
I Ch.230 421 2233 353942 5 r z etc.
768
 CHRONICLES, BOOKS OF
In studying Chronicles a sharp distinction o u g h t
alwavs to be d r a w n between t h e parts excerpted (without
,. Treatment substantial alteration) from thk earlier
of Iources. canonical historical books a n d t h e
aarts aeculiar to the Chronicler. The
recently published e i i t i o n 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 M T ; b u t
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 m u s t h a v e
existed in t h e s a m e f o r m in old Israel.
I. High PZaces.-Living 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.
Thus, whereas I K. 1514 2243 state that Asa and Jehoshaphat
did not aholish the high places, the Chronicler (zCh.145 176)
says that they did abolish them.
2. 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 thk 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 iniorporated with the Levites.
(a)The narrative in 2 S. 6 of the removal of the ark to Zion
do& not say a word respecting the presence of Levites upon the
occasion. In I Ch. 13 15f: this omission is made good : the
Levites, including the singers, take a prominent part in the
ceremony: the mishap of Uzzah is represented (15x3) 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 three$os&exilic
@ms. (105 1-15 961-13a 106 I 4 7 3 ) is placed in David’s mouth
(168-36).
(b) I n I K.83 the ark is borne by priests (in accordance wit;
Et. 319, and all pre-exilic allusions); but in z Ch. 54 ‘ Levites
is substituted for ‘priests,’ to hring the passage into conformity
with the later Levitical law.
(c) In 2 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 ekplbyed in the temple down io the time
of Ezekiel (44 7) ; hut in z 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 Aot allow aliens
to approach so near to the holy things. ‘Deliberate altera-
tions’ (Be.) are in consequence introduced throughout the
narrative: and a new colouring is imparted to the whole
occiirrenca
(d)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 (i.) not only do the
gates mentioned in 1Ch.20 (under David) presuppose the
existence of a temple, but also the Persian name PARBAR (g.v.)
given to one of them (u. IS), shows that the writer is thinking
the post-exilic temple. (ii.) The allusions in zCh.1311 (in the
speech put into Abijah’s month) to the golden candlestick and
the evening burnt-offering, point also to the usage of the same
age : in the pre-exilic tenide the number of golden candlesticks
was not one but ten (I K. 749’ see however CANDLESTICK
$ I), and the evening sacrifice o i the ;re-exilic iemple was not
holocaust but a cereal oblation (nnJD : I K. 18 36 z K. 16 15
Ezra94).3
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 m i n i -
1 A portion of Robertson Smith’s article in the EB is here
omitted; and this and the following section ($8) exhibit the (pre-
sumably) more matured view expressed by the author in OTJCP)
.( 9X
. PP. 140-148 (CP ed. 1, pp. 419-423;.
2 Cp I Ch. 21 28-221(excusing David s sacrifice on Arannah’s
threshing-floor and explaining why he could not go to Gibeon).
z Ch. 136-sa (legalising the worship at the high-place of Gibeon !
c p I Ch.lB393); 7gf: (I K. 8 6 5 3 , altered to harmonise wit6
the practice of the post-exilic temple); and the short notices
relating to ritual, especially the functions of the singers, instanced
above (§ 5, end ; cp § 7[21).
25 769
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 hi@toricalwritings, 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
8. The
Chronicler,s represent i t as acting immediately (see
theories. 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
YahwB‘s m o r a l conimands-but God’s justice is mingled
with long-suffering, a n d the prophets d o n o t s u p p o s e
that every sin 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.
(a)In I K.2248 we read that Jehoshaphat built Tarshish-
ships (i.e., great merchant vessels) at Enon-geber for the S.
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 lsrael
.
offered to join Jehoshaphat in a fresh enterprise and the latter
declined, the narrative of I K. 2248 is so altered ’in ICh. 2035f:
376 as to represent the king of Israel as having been partner in
the ships that were wrecked; whilst in v. 37a 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 z K. 3 we read of a war with Moah in which Jehosha-
phat was associated with the wicked house of Ahah, and came
offscathless. In Chronicles this war is entirely omitted and in
its place we have ( z Ch. 20) an expedition of Jehoshaphk alone
against Moab, Ammon, and Edam, 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
snoil the dead of the enemv who have fallen bv one another’s
Lands.
(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. 1425 and 26 a notice explaining
that this was because Rehoboam had forsaken Yahwk, but that,
as he and his princes had humbled themselves, they should not
he entirely destroyed (z Ch. 1226.3 ; cp v. 12).
(d)I n Kings, Asa, who according to I K. 1514 was a good
king all his days, had in his old age (u. 23) a disease in his feet.
With the object, apparently, of accounting for this, the Chronicler
explains ( 2 Ch. 167.10 ; cp the addition in v. 126 1) that three
years previously he had shown a distrustful spirit by contracting
an alliance with Benhadad (which is mentioned in I K.1517-22,
without any mark of disapproval on the part of the narrator).
T h e singular dates in 2 Ch. 15 19 16 I (which place Baasha’s
invasion a t a period which according to I K. 1533 168 was ten
years after his own deathj are most naturally explailcd as an
attempt to hring the fault sufficiently near the punishment.
(e) Similarly the misfortunes of Jehoash, Aniaziah, and Azariah
are explained by sins of which the older history knows nothing
(zCh. 24233 2514-16206 265 16-z0).2 and Pharaoh Necho
himself is made a prophet that the d;feat and death of Josiah
4 may be due to his rejectidn of a divine warning (zCh. 35213),
whilst on the other hand, Manasseh, whose character as depicted
in 2 K. 21 1-1823 26 (cp 2 4 3 3 Jer. 154) is without a redeeming
feature, is represented as a penitent ( z Ch. 33 IZ$ IS$) in order,
it would seem, to justify his long reign.3
All this is eniirely i n t h e style of the Jewish ‘ M i d r a s h ’;
it is not history, b u t ‘ HaggSdidH,’ moralising r o m a n c e c
a t t a c h i n g t o historical n a m e s and events. The Chronicler
himself, it will be remembered (see above, 6 [2], gives 5
the-name of ‘ Midrash’ to-two of the sources f r o m which
1 Where the ‘yet’ of RV should he ‘and also’ (viz., as well
as in the alliance with Benhadad).
2 z K. 15 5 mentions only the fact that Uzziah became a leper.
3 Cp I Ch. 10 13f: (the cause assigned for Saul’s death), z Cb.
,12zB(causeofShishak‘s invasion), 21 xod(causeofLihnah‘sre\ olt),
227 25 206 265 I 22f: (Ahazk troubles attributed to his idolatry),
36126. In 2&.244-14 2822/:24$ the older narratives of
Kings have been not less curiously transformed than in 2 Ch. 23
(see above, 5 7 c ) ; Be., ad Zoc. : Kue.P), 5 30 21, 8 31 2 ; We.
ProZ.(Y 193 1 9 8 3 [ET 194, 198f:I. The correspondence
betwee; Hi& and Solomon (2 Ch. 2 3-16: Ep I K. 52.9) has
been rewritten by the Chronicler (with reminiscences from other
parts of Kings) in his own style.
770
 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 S. and K.
Another peculiarity of the Chronicler is to be found
in the incredibly high figures with which he deals.
. - I
David (I Ch. 22 14) amasses TOO ooo
9. Exaggerations. talents of gold and I,OOO,OOO talent; of
silver for the temple (contrast the much
more modest estimate of even Solomon’s revenue in I K. 10 14J) ;
the army of Ahijah numbers 400 ooo men, that of Jerohoam
800 ooo of whom 500 ooo perish in‘ one day (z Ch. 13 3 17) ; Asa
ndtcr,’ 580,000 soldikrs, Zerah I ooo ooo (1489), Jehoshaphat
1,160,000 (17 ~pq).-although ii; 20;~ he complains that he
has ‘ no might,’-Uzziah 307,500 (26 13) ; of the army of Ahaz
120,ooo are slain in one day, while 200,ooo women and children
are taken captive (2868).
Manifestly such figures cannot be historical. The
past was magnified, as it was also idealised. ’The
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. It 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 Zsrael and Yudah or the Miidmsh
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
the historical critic, is that of giving
lo. The information
genealogies. 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 GENEALOGIES, § I). The most striking example of
the application of this principle is the ethnographical
table of Gen. 10 (cp also 2220-24 2 5 1 - 4 13-16, and parts
of 36) ; but these instances by no means stand alone ;
there are many in I Ch. 1-9.
Thus it is avowedly the ifitention of 2 24 42-45 49-55 4 2-5 11-14
17-23 to indicate the,origin of local populations : in 2 43 Ilehron
the town, has ‘sons. Several of the names in 2 4 are also thos;
of Edomite clans (Wellh. De Genti6us etc. 3 8 5 ) ; these came
gradually to be treated as belonging to Judnh, and the con-
nection was afterwards exhibited artificially in a genealogical
scheme. Caleb and Jerahmzel were not originally Israelite ;
Caleb belonged to the Edomite clan (Gen. 36 11) of the Keniz-
zites (Jos. 146-14). and clans bearing the name of Caleb and
JerahmSI are in ’David’s time (I S. 27 10, cp 30 29 ; note also
the terms of Jos.1415~) still distinguished from Judah: in
course of time, however, they were regarded as an integral part
of the tribe and a genealogy was formed ( I Ch. 2 1825) to give
expression to the fact.1
A different application of the same principle seems
1 So in 7 22 Ephraim is not an individual, but the tribe ; and
in 71. ZI Ezer and Elead are, no doubt, Ephraimite clans. Cp
Bennett in Exjos. Bi6. chap. iv. esp. p. 8 7 8
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 author
is not concerned to distinguish the gradual steps by
which the Levitical organisation attained its full 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 O T J C ( 2 ) 223 $1 and
the restorer of the sanctuary of the ark.
The style of the Chronicler has remarkable peculiari-
ties. It is not merely that it presents characteristically
ll. Style. late linguistic novelties (which are not con-
fined to the vocabulary, but, as Konig’s
Syntax der hebr. Sprache 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 aflini-
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 e g . , Be. xiv. -xviii. ;
Dr. Introd. 535-540; F. Brown, Hastings’ DB
1389-391). 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 sources of older date. But
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 cornpo-
sition.2
Be.’s work in the Kuneef: Hdd. (ea. 2 1873) is still a most
helpful commentary ; see*aIso Keil (‘70) ;’ Z8ckler in Lange’s
Bi6eZwerk (‘74)’ Oettli KgJ Konzm.
12. Bibliography. (‘89); Rawlinson: S.beak&’s C o m n . (‘73);
Ball (learned), Ellicott’s Conmm. (‘83);.
Bennett (suggestive) Exjos. Bi6. (‘94). On isagogic questions
(structure, sources, &edibility of narrative, etc.), the principal
works are De Wette, ITrit. rrersuch u6er die GZnubw#rcligReit
d. Chron.r805 (BeiirZg-e,vol. 1); Keil, AjoZog. Versach. (‘33). and
Ei92Z.P) (‘73), $8 138.144 ; Movers, K d . Unterss. ziderdie Bi61.
C h o n . (‘34) ; Graf ‘Das Euch der Chron. als Geschichtsquelle,‘
in Die Gesch. Bicker des ATs (‘66), p. 114-247 (see also Be.
viii.); Ew. Hist. 1169 3;De Wette-Schr. B i d . (‘69). $0
224-233. We. Pr0Z.M 169-228 [ E T 171-2271: Kue. 0nd.P) $5
28-32 (viry thorough) ’ Dr. Zntrod.P);16-540; WilFhoer, Letter-
kmrie, $ 2 5 ‘ Kanig ’EinZ. $ 54. Cp also Bu. Vermutungen
zum ‘I hlidra’sh” des)Buches der Kanige’ in Zd TW, 1892, p. 37
3 (speculative) ; Ki. ChronicZes, Critical Edition, etc., with
Notes, SBOT (Hebrew), ’95 ; W. E. Barnes, ‘ Religious Stand-
point of the Chronicler,’ Am. Journ. Sent. Lung. and Lit.,
Oct. ‘96: ‘Chronicles a Targum,’ Ex. Times, 8316 f: (‘97);
aratzcs Criticus to Chronicles in tlie Peshitta Yenion
tG)$!ntains a rather surprising number of variants in the
primary MSS) : F. Brown, art. ‘Chronicles,’ Hastings’ D B
(‘98). W. R. S.-% R . D.
1 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: e g . , I Ch. 21 I (~oy),3 end
(nsv,y), T I end ( S ~ P ) ,zCh. 23(2) 5116-13u 1212 1 8 3 end, 316,
etc.
2 For illustrations see Dr. ‘The Speeches in Chronicles,’
Exjositor, Apr. and Oct. 189;, pp. z4p254, zg4J, 304.307.
772
 CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY

I. DIFFICULTIES ($8 1-15).
Lack of System (5 IJ).
Most dates late and hypothetical
($5 3-15).
11. SOURCES OF H ELP .
Astrononiy ( 5 16A).
Egypt (5§ 18-22).
CHRONOLOGY
CONTENTS.
A. OLD TESTAMENT.
Assyriology ($5 23-26). Chronology of the several periods
Menander (5 30). ($5 32-57).
Caution (0 27). I. Solomon to Jehu (5 32).
2. Certain dates : Jehu to fall of
111. RESULTS. Samaria (5 33).
EarlieSt certain OT dates (5 28). 3. Chronology of N. Israel ($ 34).
Approximate earlier dates ($0 29, 31 4. Chronology of Judah (5s 35-37).

Introductory ($5 39-42).
I. L I F E OF JESUS ($142-63).
I. Baptism ($ 43).
2. Length of public ministry ($8
44-46).
3. Its beginning ($5 47-49).
A. OLD TESTAMENT-
I . OT data as to reigns (5 7)
n. Mahler’s theories ($ 17).
3. Assyriological dates (5 25).
4. Reigns : Solomon t o Jehu (5 32).
B. NEW TESTAMENT.
4. Year of death ($5 50-56).
5. Year of birth ($$ 57-62).
6. Conclusions ( 5 63).
11. LIFE O F P AUL ($5 64-80).
I. Entry into Europe to imprisnn-
ment at Rome (0% 64-71).
TABLES.
5. Survey : Solomon to Herod
B. NEW T E S T A M E N T -
6. Secular History ( 5 41).
7. Life of Jesus (5 63).
BIBLIOGRAPHY ($ 85).
2. Earlier period (55 72-75),
Confirmation of results (55 76-78).
3. Closing period (B 7 9 s ) .
CHURCHES I N PALESTINE (0 81s).
OTHERDATES (5 83J)
(5 38) 8. Paul’s middle period (0 71).
9. Paul : first period (5 75).
TO.Paul : last period (5 80).
11. Other dates (0 84).

A . OLD TESTAMENT.
The advantages afforded by a fixed and uniform
chronological system of defining historical events seem
1. No fixed so evident that one might expect to find
some such method of determining dates
era’ 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. The 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. The roots of such a universal history lie in the
prophets of Israel, who regarded the plan of Yahwi?
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 , § 2).
This mode of regarding history was continued by
Christianity. It is not strange, therefore, that Chris-
tianity felt the need for a universal chronology and
found a. 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 r--i.e., the year of the birth of Christ-is equivalent
to the year 754 of the era of Varro-ie., the era of the
city of Rome,-and to the first year of the 195th
Olympiad; and, also, that King Herod died in the
year 750 of the city of Rome, and so in the year 4 B.C.
(cp Schiir. GJV 1343-345).
The 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 Macc.134If.
1427) representing the 170th year of the era of the
Seleucides ( = 143-142 B . c . ) . ~
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 Seleucidz (pauthela ‘EhX.3vwv,
I Macc. 1II ; pamhela ’Aauupiwv [Assyrian = Syrian],
Jos. Ant. wiii. 67 ; niip?o ! - ~ D = L ~ Y contmctuum
U amongst
the Jews, and year dCyazonEyyd amongst the Syrians).
This era has for its starting-point the defeat of Nicanor,
the general of Antigonus, by Seleucus Nicator, and the
final establishment of the dominion of the Seleucidzs
in Syria and Babyloniain theyear 01. 117, I-Le., 312
B.C. It 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 312, thus about half
a year earlier.2 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 Seleucidae. It remained in use, indeed,
among the Syrians for centuries alongside of the Arabic
era, which counts from the Hegira (hijra, flight of
Mohammed), 16th July, 622 A. D .
Real eras are not met with in the OT in earlier times.
W e 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 (iinih5, Ezek. 3321 and
401 ; p i n ’ nrh$, z K. 2527 ; also Jer. 5231, and Ezek.
12, and, without mention of the point from which the
reckoning is made, Ezek. 81 201 291 17). In truth,
they desired nothing more eagerly than to be delivered
from the need of counting in this way. Besides, there
1 Whether the numbers 1-5 that are found on silver shekels
and half-shekels with the inscription n a i p n $ o v or p*\oil-
refer to another era than this of Simon’s, and, if so, to
some pre-Christian era has not been decided. That Simon
had coins stamped Kbwever is hardly to he doubted (cp
I Macc. 1 5 6 ; also dchiirer, op(cit. 1 192.6 636.6:).
2 So Schiirer o j . cil. 1 3 3 ; We., however (IJG 1293 208)~
regards this a s s k p t i o n as unnecessary (cp Y EAR , 5 9).
774
 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) niust 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
z Ch. 16 I (as a whole’clearly untenable) at least thenum-
ber 36 as based on trustworthy tradition, and proposes
to find therein a trace of a Judaean era, thought to date
from the division of the kingdom (Sharpe, Chronology
of the Bible, 29 ; cp Braudes, AhhandZ. 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. 61, 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
deliverance out of Egypt (n:?~?y l ~ nh y ; - * > ? nn:\ ; cp
Ex. 16 I 19 I Nu. 1I 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. 2 5 9 8 : 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. 162).
I n spite of this lack of a proper era, the OT is
not without notes and data intended to serve as a
means of fixing events chronologically.
2. Miscel-
laneous data. In addition to isolated observations
(none the less important that they are
incidental) setting an occurrence in relation to another
prominent event (cg., to the death of the king, as in Is.
6 1 1428, or to an important expedition, as in Is. 201,
to the building of a city, as in Nu. 1 3 2 2 , or to an
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 the.reigning
king. Besides, there are the various synchronistic data
often supplied by headings of books (e.g., 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 and
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
3. Late question for the several points of the history,
origin. we must premise some general considera-
tions that thrust 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
1 I n that case nothing would meet the requirements of the
passage but a reckoning that counted from the reform of Josiah
(622). Ofany suchmodeofreckoningweknownothing, anymore
than we do of a reckoning by Jubilee periods, or of a Babylonian
era meeting the requirements of the text (cp Kue. Einl. 2 60 n.
4). Wi. ( A T Uniers. 94-96) therefore alters the text, and reads
E z e k . 1 ~thus, ’ym [read n w h d ’ohm i13w2 wi, or
w . h , tread n y m $ y r n n a p x wi, 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 year’(cp the following verse)-i.e n,wann ;13v>,-and
that from the fact of Jeremiah’s having iiedicted seventy years
for the Exile (25 IT, cp 29 IO) while Ezekiel gave only forty (4 6 )
a later writer drew the inference that Ezekiel prophesied thirt;
years after Jeremiah, and accordingly inserted as a date in Ezek.
1 I the thirtieth year of the Exile (Duhm).
77.5
CHRONOLOGY
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 come from the prophets
themselves, bqt 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, ZAT1.Y
3123 p831). 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 6” the whole verse is
0mitted.l There are also other places in the LXX where
such chronological data are lacking--e.g., Jer. 47 I
[BAR]-and elsewhere in the old versions we come on
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
4. Oldest the numbers supplied by the Samaritan
period, and the LXX texts, and even by the Book of
Jubilees (datingfroni the first century A . D . ) ,
differ in many points fronithose of the Massoretic text:
The 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 the creation of the world to the beginning
of the flood is, according to the Hebrew text, 1656 years ; accord-
.
ing to the Samaritan 1307 and according to @e 2242 I n Gen.
11 ro& the interval krom the h&th of Shem to t i e birth ofAbra-
ham IS according to the Hebrew text, 390 years; according to
the Simaritan 1040’ and according to the text of @ R 1270.
I n this no adcount’is tiken of the variations exhibi;ed hy
the other MSS of d itself nor is it inquired whether the
tradition represented hy any &e given text is free from internal
inconsistency (cp, e.g. Gen. 11 I O ‘two years after the flood
with Gen. 532 76, and’Gen. 11 10,: further Gen. 124 with Gen).
11 26, 32).
This state or 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 the Priestly Code,
go back at the best only to the fifth century B. c., and
do not rest on tradition, but have been reached by the
application of some artificial theory. Since they are
useless, 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. Gutschmid observed that
2666-the number of years resulting from the summation of the
Massoretic numbers for the period (Gen. 5 to Ex. 1240) from
the creation of Adam to the Exodus2 is exactly two-thirds of
4 w o years. These 4000 years be tookto 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
oiigin of the system (cp Nold. Untersnch. zur Krit. des A T
1 Q L follows MT, @ A is lacking at this point (see further
Dr. TES).
2 The number 2666 resultsfrom the addition of 1656, the
number of years from the creation of the world to the beginning
of the flood (cp Gen. 5) +zgo the sum of the years from the
flood to the birth of AbrahaA (cp Gen. 1 1 1 0 8 ) +75 to the
departure of Abraham from Haran (Gen. 124) +zr5 to the
departure of Jacob for Egypt (=qto the birth of Isaac [Gen.
2151 f60 to the birth of Jacob [Gen.2526], +139 years of
Jacdb’s life [Gen. 47928]), +430 years of stay in Egypt
(Ex. 12 40).
776
 CHRONOLOGY
111). I t is worth while, however, noticing the relation inwhich,
according to Oppert (GGN 1877, pp. 201-223)) the Chaldean
numbers for the first ages in BEr6ssus and the statements in
Genesis stand to each other. The Chaldeans reckon from the
beginning of the world to Alexander 215 myriads of years, of
which 47 myriads represent the time from the first man to
Alexander. Thus they allow for the creation 168,myriads of
years. Now, the 7 days of the biblical account of the creation
give 168 hours. Thus in the creation age a myriad of years is
represented in the biblical account by an hour. Again, for the
time of the first ten men down to the flood the Chaldeans reckon
432 owyears,l Genesis 1656. If both nurhers be divided by 72,
we ’,et 6000 and 23 respectively, and 23 years-ie., 8400 days-
represent 1200 weeks, while 60m years is 5 times 1200 years.
Hence the Chaldeans seem to have reckoned 5 years (ie. 60
months) as a lustrum (sosse) where Genesis has reckoned I week.
1656 years (Genesis)=7zGz3 y e a r s = p x Izw--i.e.,, 86,400-
weeks; +3z,owyears (Chaldean)=86,4w Zustra. This remark-
able relation, which can hardlyrest on pure accident, presupposes reigning king to which the event narrated belongs.
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 fifth year of King Rehoboam Shishak King of Egypt
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.
The case is no better with the chronology of the
interval that extends from the Exodus to the building
5. Exodus to of the temple of Solomon. W e have
here, indeed, a check in I I<. 6 I which
Temple. 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 ). It bears,
moreover, the clear impress 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, Samson, Eli, Samuel, Saul, and
David. This explanation of the origin of the number
480 is corroborated by the fact that the five “little”
Judges in Ju. l 0 . a n d 1 2 appear to have been inserted
into the Deuteronomistic Book of Judges later (on
the object of their insertion, see JtJDGES, § 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, e.g., how the numbers relating to the
supremacy of the Philistines and the judgeship of Samson (13 I
15 20 and 16 31) are related to each other ; how the twenty years importance and range of the individual dates assigned by
from the arrival of the ark at Rirjath-jearim to the victory of
Samuel over the Philistines are to be fitted into Samuel’s
history (I S. 7 2) ; and how the ninety-four years of foreign
oppression are to be combined with the data concerning the
length of rule of the individual Judges.9
The tradition also presents gaps, however, since it does not
mention the time during which Joshua was the leader of the
Israe!ites, and in I S. 13 I the numbers for Saul are entirely
wanting. Finally, @BAL allows Eli in IS.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 (@ 20) and David: 80 ( ~ 2 x 4 0 for ) E h u d ; and
20 (= 4;J) for Samson, for Eli (according to @) for Samuel and
(approximately) for Tola (23), and Jaw (22&’go t o set in’ 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 (09.cit. 197), Samaria (z K. 18g IO), the point where the system comes
with the verdict that ‘ neither for the several divisions
of the period of the Judges nor for its whole duration
1 Cp KAT?) 419 n.
2 If we reckon together the numbers for this period we get as
follows :-40 (stay in the wilderness) +40 (Othniel, J;. 3 1r)+80
(Ehud 330) +40 (Deborah-Barak 5 31) +40 (Gideon, S28) +23
(Tola,’lOz) + z z (Jair, 103) +6 (Jbpbthab, 127) f 7 (Ihzan, 129)
4-10 (Elon 1211) +8 (Abdon 1214) +zo (Samson 163r) +40
(Eli, I S. 4i8) + z o (Samuel I)S. 72) +40 (David, ;K. 2 11) +4
(Solomon, I K. 6 1)=440 ye&. If we deduct the ‘little’ Judges
(Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Ahdon=~o),we shall have a total
of only 370 years. For Joshua and Saul for whom the numbers
are lacking, there still remain, to comp1e;e the 480 years accord.
ing to the first calculation 40 years according to thg second
IIO. If, however, we are to insert detween the periods of the
several Tudees the O A Years of foreign omression f = 8 lCushan
Rishathhnu Ju. 381’418 [tiglon 5 r41’&0 [Jabin k3] +7
[Midianites’ 611 + 3 [Abimelech ’9221 +18 [Ammoktes 108:
+ z o [Phili;tines, cp 131 1520 aAd 1631]), we get j34 & 464
years-according to the first reckoning already 54 years toc
many, with nothing left for Joshua and Saul ; according to the
second only sixteen years for these two together, a period fat
from sifficient for the deeds of both.
777
CHRONOLOGY
s a chronology any longer attainable.’ It is, therefore,
tlso useless to seek, by calculation from these numbers,
.o ascertain the time of the leadership of Joshua and
.he’ reign of Saul. ‘The furthest we can go is to
:ondude, from passages like Am. 210 525, that an old
.radition estimated the journey through the wilderness
tt forty years. (On the chrono.logy of the Book of
ludges, see J UDGES , 5 15.)
It is much harder to deal with the chronological
lates for the period from the building of the temple by
6. Templ~to Solomon to the conquest of Jerusalem
Nebuchad- by Nebuchadrezzar. In various im-
portant instances we now meet with
statements concerning the year of the
rhus in regard to events of war we read: ‘ I n thc
:ame up against Jerusalem’ (I K. 1425), and ‘ In the
ninth year of Hosea the king of Assyria took Samaria ’
( 2I<. 176). So also in regard to home affairs : ‘ In the
three and twentieth year of King Jehoash the priests
had not repaired the breaches of the house’ ( 2 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 Books 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 synchronistically,
by years of the contemporary ruler of the neighbouring
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
years of accession.
The statements concerning the duration of a reign as
well a s the synchronism of its beginning form Darts of
I I
7. Reigns and the brief reviews which pass judgment
synchronisms. on each king from the standpoint of
the Deuteronomic law (see K INGS.
BOOKS O F , 5 18). 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 noting,of 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
to an end.
I t would be natural to maintain that the very construction
of the chronological notes ieveals their diverse origin : the
verb 1 5 has
~ in the same sentence one meaning for the words
that precede and another for those that follow. I t is to be
construed aslinchoative ( = ‘ h e became king’) as well as pro-
gressive (=‘he reigned’). For instance in 2 I(.1423 ‘ I n the
fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of joash, king of Judah,
Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel 15n (=became king,
and also=reigned) forty-one years in Samaria.’ If here and
there (I K. 15 25 16 29 22 52 : 2 K. 3 I 15 13) 1 5 ~ 3 ) is added to
lk,this only proves, it would seem, a sense of the irreconcil-
ability of expressing both the date of accession and the duration
of the reign hy the simple verb 15~.The double sense of this
verb however, is peculiar to such annals and is to be explained b y
the 6revity of the style. Exactly so i i t h e list of kings of Tyre
given by Josephus (c. A+. 118) from Menander of Ephesus,
lpauihsvusv is used in both senses at the same time : ‘he
became king’ as well as ‘and he reigned.’
The decisive proof, however, of the secondary char-
acter of the synchronistic numbers is reached only when
778
 CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY
we compare them with the years of reign. It then exhibition of the data will be the best way to make this
appears that the former has been attained by calculation clear. In the first column we give the date reckoned
from the latter, although the method that has been from an imaginary era of the division of the kingdom,
followed cannot in all points be discerned.l A tabular and in the last the references from the Books of Kings.
TABLE I.-OLD TESTAMENT DATA AS TO R EIGNS : SOLOMON TO FALL OF SAMARIA.
SYNCHRONISMS AND LENGTH OR R EIGNS .

ISRAEL.
_-
JUDAH.
I
I LengthofReign. Length of Reign.
References
-I to the Books
of Kings.
Synchronistic Date.

I- 1- I
1st year of Jeroboam . .. 1st year of Rehoboam
.. 17 years 17 years I I K. 1 4 2 o f :
18th
20th :: Jeroboam.
Jeroboam.
.. ..
zoyears
1st ,, Abijah .
1st ., Asa . . . ..,, 41 ,, I IIIC.159J
~ . 1 5 . ~
1st ,, Nadab . . T year 2nd ;; Asa . . . _.._ I K . 1525
1st ,, Eaasha .
. . .. ,,
.. .. ..
z3years 3rd Asa IIC. 1533
1st .. Ela T vear ,6th ,, Asa .. rK.168
;; .. .. ..
!1
1st zimri . 4 years .7th ,, Asa .. rK.1615
,, 'Omri . ....
1st
1st ,, Ahab
,, Ahab .
.
,ISt
I8th
1st
::,, Asa
Asa
Jehoihaphat
40
..>, 25 ,,
1K.16~3
1K.1629
I K. 2241
$: ,, Ahaziah . 7th ,, ..
Jehoshaphat .. I IC. 2252
1st ,, Jehoram . -8th ,, Jehoshaphat .. zK.31
5th ,, Jehoram . 1st ,, Jehoram . . 21 ,I
,, 3 ,, ~~.a16f:
12th ,, Jehoram . 1st ,, Ahaziah . . I year I year 2 K. 8 z s f :

Sum of Years of reign in Israel . . 98 Sum of Years of reign in Judah . .

__
95 I
istyear ofJehu . .I .. 1st year of Athaliah . .
Jehu. . ..
Jehoahaz.
28years
14 ,,
1st ,,
!qrd ,,
Jehoash
Jehoash
.
. .
.
Jehoash . . .. 17th ,, Jehoash . .
Jehoash
Jeroboam'(I1.):
15
..
I,
::; ,,
1st ,, Amaziah
,, Amaziah
.. .. zK.1412
Jeroboam (11.)
Zechariah
Shallum
Menahem
.
.
.
.
.
.
63 ,,
I year
o ,,
rryears
,,
:8th
;9th
,gth
,,
,,
,,
Azariah
Azariah
Azariah
Azariah
.
..
..
.
.
.
.
.
52 ,,
..
..
..
..
I zK.15,;
2 IC. 15 8
zK.1513
zK.1517
Rekahiah
Pekac
Pekab
.. .. z
..
..
;oth
,znd
rst
::,, Azariah
Azariah
Jotham .
. .
.
12K.15zq

Pekah
Hoshea ... ... 27 ,,
..
..
1st
zth
,,
,,
,,
Ahaz
Ahaz.
Hezekiah.
.
.
.
.

Hoshea
Hoshea . . g ,,
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, 241& years of reign in Israel, and
260 such years in Judah : and we have thus the singular
equation 258=241T72=260. 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 1 4 3 2 ~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 syn-
1 It has recently been shown by Benzinger (Corn%. zu den
Kdnigen, 1899, pp. xviii.-xxi.) 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 6L.
779
=(
1st
7th ,, Hezekiah to Fali
of Saniaria
a6oyears
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 ( 2 K. 1810). 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.
We must not fail, however, to appreciate a remark-
abIe agreement. The sum of the synchronistic years is
very nearly equal to the sum of the years 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 2 K. 13 IO that
the accession of Jehoash of Israel happened in the. 37th
year of Jehoash of Judah, we may follow v. I and change
37 to 39 : for, according to that verse, Jehoahaz, who
had acceded in the 23rd year of Jehoash of Judah,
780