# Encyclopaedia Biblica/Chronicles-Chrysolite

## CHRONICLES

(D'p^nna"n) see HISTORICAL LITERATURE, 13

## CHRONICLES, BOOKS OF

In the Hebrew canon Chronicles is a single book entitled DVO'H "-QT^, 'Events of the Times'.

### 1. Names

The full title would be D'Cn nm Ifia, Book of Events of the Times ; and this again appears to have been a designation commonly applied to special histories in the more definite shape Events of the Times of King David, or the like (iCh.-jr24 Esth. IO2 etc.). The Greek translators divided the long book into two, and adopted the title nopoAeiTrd/xei/a, Things {o/tcn\ otniited \scil. in the other historical books ; cod. A adds /3ao-iAeui/ respecting the kings or Tiii' Waaiktiiav Iou6a : see Bacher, ZA I'M' V'iy^sff- ('95)1- Jerome, following the sense of the Hebrew title, sug- gested the name o'iChronicdn instead o^ Paralipomenon primus et secumius. Hence the English Chronicles.

### 2. Connexion with Ezra-Nehemiah.

The book of Chronicles begins with Adam and ends abruptly in the middle of Cyrus's decree of restoration. The continuation of the narrative is found in the Book of Ezra, which begins by repeating 2 Ch. 3t)22/. , and filling up the fragment of the decree of Cyrus. A closer examination of those 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 originally one work, displaying throughout the peculiarities of language and thought of a single editor (see 3). Thus the fragmentary close of 2 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. Hence Chronicles is the last book of the Hebrew Bible, following the book of Ezra-Nehemiah, which properly is nothing else than its sequel.

Whilst the original unity of this series of histories can hardly lie questioned, it will be more convenient in the present article to deal with Chronicles alone, reserving the relation of the several books for the article HISTORICAL LITERATURE {q.v. , 14/ ). The author used a different 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 w hich meet us in the book of Ezra-Nehemiah. Besides, the identity of authorship cannot be conclusively demonstrated except by a comparison of results drawn from a separate consideration of each book.

### 3. Date

Of the authorship of Chronicles we know only what can be determined by internal evidence. The colour of the language stamps the book as one of the latest in the OT (see 11); but it leads to no exact determination of date. In i Ch. 29?, which refers to the time of David, a sum of money is reckoned by darics (but see Dram), which certainly implies that the author wrote after that Persian coin had long been current in Judea. 'J he chief passage appealed to by critics to fix the date, however, is iCh. 319^, where the descendants of Zerubbabel seen to be reckoned to six generations (so Ewald, liertheau, etc. ).

The passage is confused, and reads it so as to give as many as eleven generaliDns (so Zunz, NOld., Kuen. \ 'JS* 5 ; cp Kiln, g 54 3/') ; whilst on the other hand those who plead for an earlv date are disposed to a.ssume an interpolation or a corruption of the text, or to separate all that follows the naiiie of Jesaiah in V. 21 from what precedes (.Movers, Keil). It seems impossible, however, by any fair treatment of the text to obtain fewer than six generations, and this result agrees with the probability that Hattush (v. 22), who, on the interpretation which we prefer, belongs to the fourth generation from Zerubbabel, was a con- temporary of Ezra (Ezra .S 2).

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 (Tiio/), and that the la.st 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. 1 173) and others, from the use of the title King oi Persia (2Ch. 3623).

The official title of the Achaemenidae was not ' King of Persia,' but 'the King,' 'the Great King,' t .e 'King of Kings,' the 'Khig of the I--ind.s,' etc. (see KW) 1 iii^ 0151 ^ ('SjT-Y, and ttie first of these expressions is that used by Ezra (7 2- /. 8 1 etc.), Neh. (1 11 Siff.), and other Jews writing under the Persian rule (Hag. 1 i 15 Zech. 7 i Ezra 4 8 11 b6/. etc.).

What seems to be certain and imijortant 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.

### 4 Character, its explanation

The true importance of Hebrew history had always centred in the fact that this petty nation was the people of 1 ^^^"^^' ^'^" spiritual God. The tragic interest which distinguishes the annals of Israel from the forgotten history of Moab or Damascus, lies wholly in that long contest which finally vindicated the reality of spiritual things and the supremacy of Yahwe's pur[)ose, in the political ruin of the nation which was the faithless depositary of 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 (I5/): ' 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 Yahwe 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 sanctuar)-. The religious vocation of Israel was no longer national, but ecclesiastical or municipal, and the historical continuity of the nation was vividly realised only within the walls of Jcriis iliin and the courts of the temple, in the solcnui assembly and stately ceremonial of a feast day.

These influencos naturally operated most strongly on those who were olttcially attached to the sanctuary. To a Ix;viie, even more than to other Jews, the history of Isral meant aljove all things the history of Jerusalem, of the temple, and of the temple ordinances. Now the author of Chronicles lx;trays on every page his essentially levitical habit of mind. It even seems possible, from a close attention to his descriptions of s;icred ordinances, to conclude that his special interests are those of a common l>;vite 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.

To such a man the older delineation of the history of Israel, es|xx;ially in Sanmcl and Km^s, could not but apiHjar to be delicient in some directions, whilst in other respecis its nairative seemed superlluous or open to misunderstanding, as for example by recording, and that without condemnation, things inconsistent with the pentateuchal law. The hisioiy of the ordinances of worship holds a very small i)lace in the older record. Jerus;\lem and the temple have not that central place in the Book of Kings which they occu|)ied. 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 kins;dom, which are altogether unintelligible and uninteresting when measured by a strictly levitical standard ; and in general the whole problems and struggles of the earlier period turn on [joints which had ceased to Ix; cardinal in the life of the new Jerusalem, which was no longer called upon to de- cide lx;tween the claims of the Word of Yahwe and the exigencies of political affairs and social customs, and which could not comprehend that men absorlx;d in deeper spiritual contests hatl no leisure for such things as the niceties of levitical legislation.

Thus there seemed to be rcwni for a new history, which should contine itself to matters still interesting to the theocracy of /ion, 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 I'riest's Code), so that the whole narrative might be made to teach that Israel's glory lies in the observance of the divine law and ritual.

### 5. Contents

1. Outline of Chronicles. The book falls naturally into three parts, i. Introdiictory resume (i Ch. 1-9). For the sake of systematic completeness the author begins with Adam, as is the custom with later Oriental writers. He had nothing, however, to add to the Pentateuch, and the period from Moses to David cotitained little that served his purpose. He, therefore, contracts the early history ( i Cli. 1-9) into a series of genealogies,' 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 Kzra259 62, and cp Genk- Ai-cxilES, I. 3). The greatest space is allotted naturally to the trilxjs of jLi).\n and Levi (</</. v.) (23-423 6 [5 27-6 66]) ; but, except where the author derives his materials from the earlier historical books (as in 1 3i-i6 654-81), his lists are meagre and imperfect, and his data evidently fragmentary. Already, however, the circum- stances and interests of the author betray thentselves ; for even in these chapters his principal object is evidently to explain, in a manner consonant with the conceptions of his age, the origin of the ecclesiastical institutions of the post-exilic comniunity.

1 See the articles on the several tribes.

Observe th.it i Ch.O^-ija is excerpted (with merely clerical differences) from Neh. 11 ^I'-i^ (on the passage see Kzka, ii. which Uii 5 [*1. 8 15 I'l ") ; and that the age to which the genealogies in I Ch..Si7-j4 ;4nil Hjj.4o(cp9 35-44> and ee Hknjami.s, | o) are carried, jihows that ihcir puriiose i* to give the pedigree of ptjst- exilic families who traced tlicir descent frum iJavid and S.uil repectivelj'. In ch. 'J We. {Degftii.; cp more briefly /'ro/A*l i\iff. [K 1 ib.\) ha.s shown that xn>. ^ 25-33 43-5oa, funning the kernel of the chapter, reUite to pre-exilic Judah, whilkt vt>. 1017 18-34 34-4' 5o^'55 (like the greater part of 4 1-23) have reference to the circumstances of the p<t-cxilic community ; the chief aim of ch. 2 is to explain how the Calebiu-s, who Ijclore the fall of Jerusalem had their home in the S. of Judah, liad in post -exilic times to find new homc-s in the more northerly parts of Judah (sec Caleb, | 3/).

2. Israel before the schism ( i Ch. IO-2 Ch. 1 1. From the death of Saul (1 Ch. 10) the history becomes fuller and runs parallel with .Sanmel and Kings. The limita- tions of the authors interest in past times appear in the omission, among other i)articulars, of David's reign in Hebron, of the disorders in his family and the revolt of Absalom, of the circumstances of .Solomon's accession, and of many details as to the wisdom and splendour of that sovereign as well as of his fall into idolatry.

3. The Soulherii Kingdom \-i Ch. 12-30) In the later history the northern kingdom is quite neglc-cted, and political affairs in Judah receive attenti'.n, not in pro- portion to their intrinsic importance-, Inr. according as they serve to exemplify (Jod's help to the obedient and his chastisement of the retmllious. That the author is always unwilhng to speak of the misfortune-, of gcxnl rulers, is not to be ascribed with some critics to a deliberate suppression of truth, but shows that the Ixxjk was throughout composed not in purely historical interests, but with a view to inculcate a single i>r.iclical lesson.

4. Additions to Kinx-s- i- 'he more important additions which the Chronicler makes to the old narrative consists of (1/) statistic.il lists (1 Ch. 12, see D.wiD, II, iii.); [b) full details on points coiukh ted with the history of the sanctuary (see HlsroKK.M. LlTEKATUKK, 15) aiid the great fe.lMs (see I'l Asl'-s), or the arch;eology of the Levitical ministry (see Lkvites), iCh. l;J15 1G (these three chapters ex- panded remarkably from 2S. 6) 22-29 2 Ch. 29-31 3.'> 1-17 etc. ) ; and (t) narratives of victories and defeats, of sins and punishments, of ol)edience and its reward, which could be made to point a plain religious lesson in favour of faithful observance of the Law.

See the following pass.nges : 2Ch. 13;-2i (.M'ijah), 14 9-15 (Zerali). l.') i-i5(.\s.-i and the prophet A/ariah), 107-10 (Asa and Haii.mi), l!i 1-3 (Jehoshapliat and the prophet Jihu), 20 Ichosha- ph.it and .Moab, etc.), 21 i i-i7(Jehoram), 25 5-10 12-16 (.Vnia/i.ih)

These narratives often include jirophetical discourses, inculcating the same principle of the theocratic loii- dilions of success and failure, with nmch uniformity ot expression, and in a tone very different from that of the prophets who ajipear in .Samuel or Kings.

2. Attention should Ijc iliiected also to the short insertions, introduced often into the narratives excerpted from the older historical books, for the puri)ose of supplementing them at some point where they api>-ared to the author to ncx.'d explanation or correction.

Such are the notes on ritual i Ch. l.')27(i 28/' (David); 2 Ch. hiil'-iyi 61376 8 13-15 (Solomon); 236f/' 13 (mid.ilf) 18 (from TS) i< (deposition of Athaliah); 3*9 ('the Levitcs') 12 (from 'and the') 13, etc. ; the reflections in i Ch. 21 1/. (joabs census); 2 Ch. S I li (Solomon's wife's palace); 12 i.; (Kehoboani humbling himself); X^-^ib (Yahwe delivers Jehoshapbat) ; 2'J 3/' ^b (cause of .Ahaziali's wickedness); 2'i 27<z (to ' N'ahwe,' cause of plot acainst .Ama/iah); 20 21 (miitdlc) 23 {middle; consequences of Uz/iah's leprosy) ; 27 6 (eflects of Jolham's piety) : 33 23 (char- acter of Anion).

The minor variations of Chronicles 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 from that of the old narrative.

### 6. Sources.

Here, then, a critical question arises. Is the change of perspective wholly due to a different selection of items from authentic historical tradition ? May we assume that everything which is new in Chronicles has been taken exactly from older 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 OT?

To 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.

1. I'he Book of the Kinj^^s. That the names ' Hook of the Kings of Israel and Judah,' ' Ikiok of the Kings of Judah and Israel,' ' Book of the Kings of Israel,' and ' Affairs of the Kings of Israel' (2Ch. 33i8, Ileh.) refer to a single work is not disputed. Under one or other title this book is cited some ten times (iCh. 9i 2Ch. IGii 2r)26 27? 2826 33i8 8627 368, also 2O34 3232, noted Ijelow).

That it is not the canonical Kings is manifest from what is said of its contents.

It must have been quite an extensive work, for among other tilings it contained genealogical statistics (iCh.!>i), as well as other particulars, not mentioned in the existing Bouk of Kings (see 2 Ch. '2.1 7 'i'i 18 3t58) ; and it incorporated certain older writings of (or about) prophets -in particular the Dcbariin {Words, or r.ither J/a/A-ri-, i.e., History') of Jehu ben Hanani (jCh.--'034, where read with RV, 'which is'inserted in') and the Vision of Isaiah (2Ch.3232).

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. 2929, Samuel, Nathan, and Gad ; 2 Ch. 929, Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo ; 12i5, Shemaiah and Iddo; 1822, 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 Book of the Kings.

Even 2 Ch. 33 19 (cp v. iS), where AV departs from the received Hebrew te.xt, but probably expresses the correct reading,! seems r.ither to confirm than to oppose this conclusion (which is now disputed by very few scholars) except in the case of Isaiah's historv of U/ziah (2 Ch. 2(522), where the form of the reference is different.

The references to these Dclbarim will thus not imply the existence of historical monographs written by the prophets with whose names they are connected ; they will merely point to sections of the Book of the Kings, 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 Kings is identical with the Midrash { RV, badly. Commentary) 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 wh)', 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 v-p to search out, investigate, 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 the Kings (as ILw. We. Kue. with much probability suppose), will nevertheless have been similar in character and tendency (cp below, 9, end).

1 ' The Seers ' : .so , RVmj,'., Bertheau, Kuenen, Ball, Oettli, Kautzsch. Budde and Kittel read Vlin his seers (cp j: 18). Those who follow MT (as Ew. Hist. I184, Keil) find in v. 19 an unknown prophet Hozai (cp AV"ig- RV).

2 Though common in Rabbinical literature, it occurs other- wise in the OT only in 2 Ch. 13 i2.

The Midrash of the prophet Iddo (aCh. 1822) will have been either a particular section of the Midrash 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 17 2827 2724 2 Ch. 3025.

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, 1 1 ) is conclusive evidence that no part of the additional matter 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 (iCh. 9i), though for these he may also have had other materials at command.

4. Sources of the Canonical Kings. Now we know that the two chief sources of the canonical Book of Kings were entitled Annals ['events of the times'] of the Kings of Israel and Judah resfjcctively. 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, however, had separate sources for the N. and the S. kingdoms, 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 2 K. 21 17 that the Annals of the Kings of Judah gave no account of Manasseh's repentance, which, according to 2 Ch. 83 iZf , was narrated in the great Book of the Kings of Israel.

5. Dependence of Chronicles on Kings. It was formerly the opinion of Bertheau, and other scholars (e.g. , Keil), that the parallelisms of Chronicles with Samuel and Kings are sufficiently explained by the ultimate common source from which both narratives drew. Most critics hold, however, that the Chronicler also drew directly from the canonical Samuel and Kings, as he unt|ucstionably 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 annals 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.^., 2Ch.2032/. [.Asa] with 1 K. 2243 ; 242 [Joash], with 2 K. I23 [2] [Jehoash] ; 25i-4 [Amaziah], with 2K. I42/. 5/, etc.). It is of course possible, as Bertheau (xliv. / ) and Kuenen ( 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 connections of the successive historical books which preceded the present canonical hi.stories are sufficiently complex to make it unwise to indulge in positive assertions on a matter in which so many poss1t)i+itJes may be suggested.

1 Including the genealogies and statistical matter, which (in .so far as they are not colourless lists of names) .show unmistak- able marks of the Chronicler's hand, and must therefore be regarded as his compilations: see, e.g., the late expressins in I Ch. '230 4 21 2233383942 5i 2 etc.

### 7. Treatment of sources.

In studying Chronicles a sharp distinction onpht always to l>.- drawn lx;tween the parts excerpted (without substantial alteration) from the earlier canonical historical books and the parts peculiar to the Chronicler. The recently pul)lishcd edition of Chronicles by Kittel (SHOT), in which such excerpts are coloured light red, will materially assist the reader in doing this.

The question arises, What is the historical value of the passages peculiar to Chronicles? After what has iM-en saitl, it can hardly Iw doubtful that, excej)! for some of his statistical information, his one genuine ancient source was the series of the ' Former Prophets,' Sanmel and (more largely) Kings. The MS.S of these lx)oks which he employed preserved occasionally a better reading than is found in the existing M T ; but where he adds to the earlier narrative or departs from it, his variations are seldom such as to inspire con- fitience. In large measure these variations are due to his assumption, the validity of which he never questions, that the religious institutions of his own time must have existed in the same form in old Israel.

1. Hii^k Places. Living in a time when high places were universally regarded as idolatrous, the Chronicler could not imagine that a good king had tolerated them.

Thus, whereas i K. 15i4"J243 state th.it As.-i and Jehoshaphat dill not abolish the hijjh places, the Chronicler (aCh.Hs 176) says that they did abolish them.

2. Levitical Choirs. Again, he assumes that the Levitical organisation of his own time, and esjxicially the three choirs of singers, were established by David.

Had this really been the case, the silence of the older history would be inexplicable ; indee<l the Hook of Ezra-Nehcmiah shows that, even at the time of the return from Habylon, the system with which the Chronicler was familiar had not been elaborated, for the ' singers ' there still form a separate class not yet incorporated with the Levites.

(a) The narrative in 2 S. t> of the removal of the ark to Zion does not say a word respecting the presence of Levites upon the occasion. In iCh.l3 \b/. this omission is made good: the Levites, including the singers, take a prominent part in the ceremony ; the mishap of Uzzah is represented (1513) 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 post-exilic psalms (105 J-15 90 1-13(1 100 1 \t /) is placed in David's mouth (IO8-36).

(b) In I K.83 the ark is borne by priests (in accordance with Dt. 31 9, and all pre-exilii: allusions); but in 2Ch. .'>4 'Levites' is substituted for ' priests,' to bring the passage into conformity with the later Levitical law.

(c) In 2K.II Jeholada's assistants in the revolution which cost .\thaliah her life, are the foreign body-guard, which we know to have l)een employed in the temple down to the time of Kzekiel (44 7) ; but in 2 Ch. 'I'i the Carians (see Ciiekkthites) and the foot-guards give place to the l^cvites, in accordance with the rule of the second temple, which did not allow aliens to appro.-ich so near to the holy things. ' Delilierate altera- tions ' (He.) are in conse<nience introduced throughout the narrative : and a new colouring is imparted to the whole occiirrencak

(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 iCh.'iO (under David) presuppose the existence of a temple, but also the Persian name Pakiiar {q.i>.\ given to one of them (7. 18), shows that the writer is thinking of the po-.t-exilic temple, (ii.) The allusions in 2Ch.l3ii (in the speech put into Abijah's mouth) to the golden candlestick and the evening burnt-offering, point also to the usage of the same age : in the pre-exilic tenmle the number of golden candlesticks was not one but ten (iK. "49; see, however, Candlestick, \$ i), and the evening sacrifice of the pre-exilic temple was not a holocaust but a cereal oblation (nmo : iK. I836 2 K. 16 15 Ezra 9 4). 2

1 S. portion of Rol)ertsoii Smith's article in the /."/> is here omitted ; and this and the following section ( 8) exhibit the (pre- sumably) more matured view expressed by the author in OTJCW (92), pp. 140-148 (cp ed. I, pp. 419-423).

2 Cp 1 Ch. 2l28-22i (exciismg David's sacrifice on Araunah's threshing-floor and explaining why he could not go to Giljeon); 3 Ch. 1 3^6<l (legalising the worship at the high-place of Gibeon ; cp iCh. IO39/); ~g/. (i K.865/, altered to harmonise with the practice of the post -exilic temple); and the short notices rclatmg to ritual, especially the functions of the singers, instanced above (J s, end ; cp | 7I2]).

In his descriptions of pre-exilic solemnities, as in the speeches which he places in the mouth of pre-exilic characters, the Chronicler is unconsciously an unimpeachable witness to. the religious usages and beliefs of his own time ; it is inconsistent with sound historical principles to treat his testimony with regard to antiquity as of etjual value with that of the older and more nearly contemporary historical writings, where the two, whether directly or by legitimate inference, are at variance.

### 8. The Chronicler's theories

Another principle traceable in the Chronicler's additions is the tendency not merely to lay .stress upon the doctrine of divine retribution, but also to represent it as acting immediately (see prophets the nnributive justice of (jod is manifest in the general course of the history the fall of the I lebrew nation is the fruit of sin and relx-llion against Yahwes moral commands but (jods justice is mingled with long-suffering, and the prophets do not suppose that every sin is punished promptly, and that temporary good fortune is always the reward of righteousness. The aim of very many of the additions made in Chronicles to the old history, is to show that in Israel retribution followed immediately on gnf)fl or l^id con- duct, especially on otx;dience or disoln-'dience to pro- phetic warnings.

(a) In I K.2248 we read that Jehoshaphat built Tarshish- ships (/.<., great merchant vessels) at Ezlon-geber for the S. Arabian gold-trade ; but the ships were wrecked before st:irliiig. For this the Chronicler seeks a religious reason. .\s i K. proceeds to relate that, after the disaster, .Ahaziah of Israel oflfered to join Jehoshaphat in a fresh enterprise, and the latter declined, the narrative of i K. 2248 is so altered in 2Ch.2035y: 3ji as to represent the king of Israel as having been partner in the ships that were wrecked; whilst in 7'. 37a there is an addition stating that Jehoshaphat was warned bvapiopbetof the certain failure of an undertaking in which he was assocuited with the wicked Ahaziah.

ii) In 2 K. 3 we read of a war with Moab in which Jehosha- phat was associated with the wicked house of -Ahab, and c.ime offscathless. In Chronicles this war is entirely omitted, and in its pl.ice we have (2 Ch. 20) an expedition of Jehoshaphat alone against Moab, Ammon, and Edom, 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 siK)il the dead of the enemy who have fallen by one another's hands.

(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 Yahwe, but that, as he and his princes had humbled themselves, they should not be entirely destroyed (2 Ch. 122/'-8 ; cp 7'. 12).

(d) 'n Kings, Asa, who according to i K. 1.5 14 was a good king all his days, had in his old age (7'. 23) a disease in his feet. With the object, apparently, of accounting for this, the Chronicler explains (2Ch. I67-10 ; cp the addition in 7'. i2Al) that three years previously he had shown a distrustful spirit by contracting ari alliance with Benhadad (which is mentioned in i K.I517-22, without any mark of disapproval on the part of the narrator). The singular dates in 2Ch. I.')i9 10 1 (which place Haasha's invasion at a period which, according to i K. 1^33 1<)8, was ten years after his own death) are most naturally explained as an attempt to bring the fault sufficiently near the punishment.

(e) Similarly the misfortunes of Jehoash, Amaziah, and .\zariah are explained by sins of which the older history knows nothing (sCh. 24 23_/C 2.') 14-1620^ 20 5 16-20); 2 and Pharaoh Nccho himself is made a prophet, that the defeat ai.d death of Jusiah may be due to his rejection of a divine warning (2Ch. 352iy;), whilst on the other hand, Manasseh, whose character as dcpictel in 2 K. 21 1-18 2326 (cp 24 3 y: Jer. I54) is without a redeeming feature, is represented as a jienitent (2 Ch. 33 12^ 15^^) in order, it would seem, to justify his long reign.-* 1 Where the 'yet' of RV should be 'and also" (viz., as well as in the alli.-ince with Henhadad).

2 2 K. 15 5 mentions only the feet that Uzzi.ah became a lcj>er.

##### 67. Philippi to Jerusalem.

For the events liefore the arrest in Jerusalem we give the dates in two numbers : one on the as.sumption that this hapix-'ncd at I'entecost 54 ; the )ther, that it was in 58. The journey to Jerusalem from Philippi (Acts 204-21 16), which is related, with the exception of the episode at Miletus (2O16-3S), from the 'we-source,' was Ijegun after ' the days of unleavened bread,' and there is no reason for supposing that Paul did not carry out his j)lan (20 16) of arriving at Jerusalem by Pentecost. The itinerary from the beginning of the Passover is given us as follows; At Philippi (P;\ssovcr) seven days; to Troas five days ; at Tro.as seven days ; to Patara eight days, in all twenty-seven days. This leaves twenty- two days before Pentecost, which was ample for the journey to Jerusalem except in case of a very exception- ally unfavourable passage from Patara to the co.ast of Syria. Of these twenty-two days twelve were occupied as follows : At Tyre seven days, to Ptolemais one, to Ca;sarea one, to Jerusalem two to three ; so that ten days remain for the voyage from Patara to Tyre (which in ordinary weather required four to five days) and for the stay at Ctesarea, the duration of neither of which is stated. From the stops, which in view of the brisk coasting -trade were surely not necessary, we may infer that satisfactory progress was made by the travellers. The departure from Philippi, which was the conclusion of Paul's missionary career, is, therefore, to be put just after the Passover of the year of the arrest.

##### 68. Ephesus to Philippi.

For the dates earlier than this point, the chronologist would be wholly at sea without Acts ; and no good reason appears for not trusting the information which it gives. On the great journey which ended at Jerusalem, Paul had started from F.phesus (i Cor. 168/.; Acts 19), and journeyed by way of Troas, where he carried on his work for a short time (.\cts20i does not mention Troas at all), to Macedonia (2Cor. 2i2 /. Ts)- That he st.ayed there long is not likely ; for, if he had done so, the length of his stay would probably have bien given as in the case (Acts 20 3) of Greece (Corinth). Moreover, the plans made in Ephesus (iCor. I65; 2 Cor. 1 15/) had in view only a short stay in Mace- donia, for (i Cor. 168 cp c'. 6) Paul expected to leave Ephesus after Pentecost (which fell somewhere between 15th .May and 15th June) and to be in Corinth so early that, even if he should not decide to pass the winter there, his visit should, nevertheless, not be too short. This would allow at most three months on the way. Now, he may have waited rather longer in Macedonia, in order to learn the impression made by Titus (the bearer of 2 Cor. ) ; but, even so, we cannot reckon more than from four to five months for the whole journey. In Corinth itself he stayed (Acts203) three months, and then returned to Macedonia, where he surely did not stay long, since he had been there just three months earlier. Moreover, he had, no doubt, formed in Corinth his plan of being in Jerusalem by Pentecost, and the additional time which the unexpectedly long journey (occasioned by Jewish plots. Acts 20 3, which m.ade the direct route impossible) nmst have cost him would of itself have forbidden an unnecessarily long stay. He probably, therefore, reached Philippi but little before the Passover ; and we have for the whole journey from Ephesus through Troas, Macedonia, Greece, and back to Macedonia perhaps eight to ten months namely, about the space of time from Pentecost 53/57 to Pass- over 54/58. In the summer 1 of 53/57 in Macedonia

1 Or autumn ; see Corinthians, | 3.

Paul wrote 2 Cor.; at the end of this year or the beginning of the next in Corinth, Romans, and the letter of introduction for Phoebe to the Christians at Ephesus (Rom. 16 1-20). About this time may belong, too, the undoubtedly authentic note Tit. 812-14; in which case the Macedonian Nicomedia is meant, and the plan for the winter was not carrietl out.

##### 69. Ephesus.

The stay in Ephesus had lasted, according to Acts 19 81022, over two years and a quarter (Acts 20 31 speaks of three years), so that Paul must have come to liphesus at Pentecost or in the summer of 50/54. From there, after he had already sent one letter to Corinth (iCor. ."jg), he wrote in the beginning of 53/57 our i Cor. , and later had occasion to write to Corinth for yet a third time (2 Cor. 73 : the letter is perhaps preserved in 2 Cor. 10-13).'

##### 70. Corinth

From this long st.ay in Ephesus, which doubtless formed the .second great epoch in Paul's missionary activity in the Greek world, we go back to the first - namely, the first vi^it to Corinth (.\ctsl8i-i8 ; cp I and 2 Cor. ). This ap[)ears to have la.sted about two years, since to the one year and a half of 18 n must be added, in case 18 11 refers only to the time spent in the house of Tilius Justus, the previous time, in which Paul was trying to work from the syna- gogue as a Ixase, as well as the later 'iKaval rnxipan of 18 18. How much time lay, however, lx;tween the departure from Corinth and the arrival at iiphesus in 50/54 vve cannot tell, although the very sketchiness of our only authority (.\ctsl8 i8-19i) makes it easier to believe that the author is drawing here (except for the words, V. 19, l<7e\dJ)i>-v. 21, ^Aojtos) from a written source than that he relies on oral tradition or his own imagination. Oral tradition would either have omitted the journey altogether, or have narrated what happened at Jerusalem in some detail. All suspicion of ' tendency ' is excluded by the brevity and obscurity of the passage. For the journey thus barely mentioned in .Acts one year would be ample time. In that case Paul would have left Corinth in the summer of 49/53, having arrived there in the summer of 47/51. In the beginning of this jjeriod of two years i I'hess. was written. (The genuineness of 2 Thess. nmst be left undetermined. )

Before the long stay in Corinth falls the Macedonian mission, with the necessary journeys, which, however, occupied but one day each (.Actsien-lS i). For the whole journey from Troas to Corinth a few months would suffice. It is, therefore, possible th:it Paul set out after the opening of navigation in March of the same year in the summer of which he arrived for his long stay in Corinth.

##### 71. Results.

Up to this point the probability of the chronology is very considerable. The results may be summarised as follows :

TABLE VIII Life of Paul : Entrance into Europe to Imprisonment at Rome.

• Spring 47/51. Departure from Troas, followed by mission in Macedonia.
• Summer 47/51-Summer 49/53. Corinth and Achaia. 1 Thess.
• Summer 49/53-Summer 50/54. Visit to Jerusalem and Antioch ; journey through Asia Minor to Ephesus.
• Summer 50/54-Pentecost 53/57. Ephesus.
• Pentecost 53/57-Passover 54/58. Journey by way of Troas and Macedonia to Achaia and return to Philippi.
• Passover-Pentecost 54/58. Journey, with the contribution, from Philippi to Jerusalem.
• 54/58-56/60. Imprisonment in Cesarea.
• Autumn 56/60- spring 57/61. Journey to Rome.
• 57/61-59/63. Imprisonment in Rome.

1 See, however, Corinthians, 18.

##### 72. Earlier period.

Passing now to the period before 47/51 A.D. , we find that -Acts supplies us with far less trustworthy accounts and is wholly without dates ; nor have we any Pauline epistles written in these years. Highly probable, nevertheless (just because of the peculiar way in which it is given), although not without editorial additions, is the representation preserved in Acts 15:40-l6:8, that Troas was the goal of a zigzag journey from Antioch in Syria through the interior of Asia Minor. The seeming restlessness (Acts 166-8) at any rate in the laiter jxirt of the inland journey may imply that the time occupied was comparatively short. In that case, the start from Antioch might fall in the year 46/50 ; but even that is very problematical.

##### 73. Galatians 1:1-2

We are, therefore, thrown back for the chronology wholly on Galatians 1:1-2. Here however, it is not pcrfectly plain whether the fourteen years in 2 1 include or follow the three years in 1 18. For the former view ntay he adduced the change of prepositions /terd ( after ' ) and 5id ( ' in the course of,' RV*.') ; but this can be explained lx;tter thus. .\n firtira ('then') having Ixx-n introduced in 1 21 Ixnwccri the two tireira of 1 18 and 2 I, btd was used, instead (jf /ufrd, in order not to exclude the space of time lietwecn the two firfira. of IT. i3 and 21 namely, the fifteen ilays in Jerusalem. (Perhajjs, also, in 2i the three years had completely elapsed before the first visit, whereas the second visit may have been made in the course of the fourteenth ye;ir. ) On this view seventeen yexrs would have elapsed from theconversion of I'aul to the conference in Jerusalem, out of which time he h.id sf)ent three years in Arabia and fourteen in Syria and Cilicia (1 17 21 ). The latter period was certainly, the former (at least for Damascus) proliably, occupied in the work of an ajxistle (CJal. I23 2?/.). After the conference in Jerusalem followed a stay in Antioch (2 11-21). Since 3i/. is introduced without any sign of transition, the simplest supposition is that this irpoypa.((>(tv (;ii; RV ' ojxjn setting forth") and its results (that is. the mission in Galatia) come chrono- logically after, but not too long after, the events narrated previously. This would agree, also, with the most natural interpretation of Gal. 2s.

##### 74. Acts

If we look now at the parallel narrative in Acts, there is, in the first place, no doubt that in I6:1-35 we have the same events described as in Gal. 2. In Acts, as in Galatians, Paul and Barnabas come with others in their company to Jerusalem, and return to Antioch after arriving at an understanding with the church in Jerusiilem. To .\ntioch come also, in Ixnh cases (although in Acts no mention is made of a visit of Peter), members of the Jerusalem church, who niii;ht in Acts also, just as in Galatians, have been saiti to come from James. In Acts 11 27-30 1224/. however, we find, besides, mention of another earlier journey of Paul and Barnabas from .Xniioch to Jerusalem and back again, after the journey from Damascus to Jerusalem (Acts 926-3o = Gal. I18). Since Clal. l2o-2i makes this im- possible as a separate visit to Jerusalem, the two visits from .Vntioch (.'\cts 11/ and .Acts 1.')) must have been really one , and this would explain the further ix)ints of resemblance that on both occasions (in one case after, in the other iK'fore, the journey of the ai)ostles) prophets come from Jerusalem to Antioch 11 27 I532), and that both times, although in different ways, a contribution of money plays a part ( .Vets 1 1 28/ Gal. 2 10). C'p also ' to the elders' (.Actsllio 102). Now, although this visit is in general more accurately described by Actsl.'), there are many reasons for thinking that it is chronologically placed more correctly by .Acts 1127^

The insertion by mistake at the end of ch.ap. 14 is easy to under- .stand : for whilst large parts of chap. 13/1 and the whole of chap. 15 are certainly the work of the final author of Acts( .otice that the style is the same as in Acts 1-V.'), at the s.-inie time the 'we source ' can be detected (as is now more and more widely held) as far back as 13 i, and we can ascribe to it the return to .\ntioch

!14 26<j) as well as the later departure for the journey of lli6_/fl without the intervening narrative), although we can no longer restore the original connection. Accordingly, since the author had not been able beiore .Acts IS/T to give a coni rete account of any Gentile mission, an undated account (perhaps not perfectly accurate) of a conference in Jerusalem (to which the missionaries came from Antio h) which treated the subject of Gentile missions could be inserted after 13/. better than e.-irlier. The author m.iy have had some reason to suppose that the contri- bution of money (the fact but not the date of which he had learned : it was not mentioned in his source as the occasion of the la viitit of Paul to Jerusalem: Act* 21) mut have l>ecn brought on the occ.ikion of the earlier slay in Antioch. If so, we c;in see how, in cunscijueiicc of the two period* of roidcnre in Anti<x:h, he w.n.s led to sujjpose that there had been two visits to Jerusiilcm, and so to create a contradiction to (iai. I/. All this ticcumcs still more proliabie if the districts visited in Acts isy. could be called (jalatia by I'aul : a possibility which can now lie regarded as proved, as is the im(>us,bility that Paul should have t.illed them Cilicia (Gal. 1 21) (see Galatia). On the other hand, it can l>e seen in Acts l.'> 1 /] yoff. that at the conference the great question was about the .Syrian Christians, not about those whose conversion is related in Acts Vi/.

If these hypotheses are correct, between the conference in Jerus;ilem (Gal. 2i^. ) and the journey from Troas to Macedonia (.\ctsl68-ii) lie the missionary journey (Acts 18/. ) begun and ended at Antioch, and the zig-zag tour through Asia .Minor (Aclsl536-168), the beginning of the original account of which has Ix-en, doubtless, somewhat confused by the insertion of .Acts ir>. One year, however, is not enough for these journeys.

The hindrance hinted at in Acts 166 /. may jjerhaps have lxx;n connected with the winter season, if the date (.March 47/51) which we have ventured to give above for the passage from Tro.as to .Macedonia is correct. In that case the missionaries would perhaps have passed the preceding winter in .Antioch (.Acts 14 26); the missionary journey of .Actsl3y'. would then fall in the open se;ison before this winter ; and thus the departure from .Antioch related in Acts 13i ^i \\ould have been two years before the passage from Troas to Kuro|)e (that is, in the spring of 45 49), and the conference in Jerusalem immediately b-fore perhaps (if we may infer from analogies) at the time of the Passover. The conversion of Paul would fall ((jal. 1 18 2i) fourteen or seventeen years earlier that is, in the year 31/35 or 28/32. When Gal. was written is for the general chronology a matter of indifference.'

##### 75. Results

The table given above should therefore be prefixed :

TABLE IX. THE LIFE OF PAUL : CONVERSION TO ENTRANCE INTO EUROPE.

• 31/35 or 28/32. Conversion of Paul. Three-years stay in Arabia and Damascus.
• 34/38 or 31/35. First visit to Jerusalem. Eleven or fourteen years work in Syria and Cilicia.
• 45/49. Conference in Jerusalem, mission in Galatia. One-year journey through Asia Minor to Troas.
##### 76. Famine

Three further passages can perhaps serve as proof of the results reached above. '-^ The first (.ActsllzS), containing the mention of the famine under Claudius, loses, iiuleed, its significance, if the visit there mentioned had .as its object the agree- ment aljcut the mission-fieUls, not the bringing of a contribution ; but it perhaps explains the mistaken combination (.Actsl 1 30 12 i) of this journey (of 45/49 A. n. ) with the death of James the son of Zebedee, which hapixined (.Acts 12 19-23) iK-tween 42 and 44. Josephus tells {Ant. XX. 62 and 26 iii- ir>3) of a famine in Jud:ea, which can well be put in one of these years, .and so could have hcen foreseen in the preceding year (cp Schiircr, 1 474, n. 8). By a singular coincidence there was in 49 also, one of the alternative years for the journey of Paul and Barnalxis to Jerusalem, a much more widely extended famine (see, for authorities, Schurer, ib.). It is possible, then, that the author knew that the conference was in a famine )ear, but connected it by mistake with the famine of 44 instead of that of 49, and that this assisted the confusion which resulted in the creation of an extra visit to

1 For the different possibilities see the Introductions to the NT ; for the latest hypotheses, Clemen, Chrotiol. d. /auiin. Brifft, 18 .3.

2 VVe can make nothing of the statement in .Acts 21 38. Even were its .-luthenticity beyond dispute, we have no means whatever of determining the year of the sedition referret to, and Wieseler's choice of 56 or 57 A.i>. (Chron. 79) is devoid of any solid foundation. Nor is it pos.sible to infer any date from the account in Acts 'Ihf. of .Agrippa and Berenice's presence in Caarca at the time when Paul's case was decided.

Jerusalem. The confusion of the two famine years is the more pardonable Ixxause l)oth fell under Claudius ; the transformation of the two local famines into one which affected the whole empire is easily explicable. All this, hcjwever. is simply a possibility. If the year of the conference was 45 A.I)., the two journeys dis- tinguished by Lk. would fall so close together that we can easily understand their being regarded as distinct, on the supposition that Lk. knew nothing of the raising of a collection and its delivery on the occasion of Paul's last journey to Jerusalem, but did know of a famine alwul the time of the conference and of succour given to the primitive church through Paul.

##### 77. Expulsion of Jews.

The second notice is that of the expulsion of the Jews from konu; under Claudius, which was (ActslSiy. ), before Paul's arrival at Corinth. The year however, of this edict, which Suetonius {Claud. 25) also mentions, is not certain. "Wieseler ( Chronol. 1 20- 128) conjectures, without conclusive arguments, that it was issued in the year of the expulsion of the mathematici ( Tac. Ann. xii. ,')2; l)io(^assius606) that is, in 52 A. D. whilst Orosius (76, 15 ed. /^ngemeister, 1882) gives as the date, on the authority of Josepiius (in the existing text of whose writings we find no mention of the matter), the ninth year of Claudius = 49 .\.D. a date not fa\ourablc to the earlier alternative reached above for the year of Paul's arrival in Corinth, the summer of 47/51. Orosius's statement, however, cannot be verified.

##### 78. Aretas : Paul's conversion.

Finally, from Acts 9 24 ff. and 2 Cor. 11 32 f., it appears that Pauls first visit to Jerusalem was occasioned b\' a persecution at a time when a viceroy of Aretas, king of the Xabatteans, resided at Damascus. The latest Damascene coins with the head of Tiberius (which form one of the proofs brought together by Schtirer, 1 615 /. n. 14, to prove, against Marc]uardt and Mommscn, that Damascus was not all the time under Arabian rule) belong to the year 33-34, and it is in itself not probable, though it is ])0ssible, that Damascus was given to Aretas by Tiberius, who died in March 37 A.D. , while under Caligula such favours are well known. If Caligula's reign had already begun, the flight of Paul would have fallen at least two years later than all but one of the dates assigned for it alx)ve. However, the argument is uncertain. Nothing known to us makes the possession of Damascus by Aretas in the last years of Tiberius actually impos- sible. If that should be excluded by discoveries of coins or other new evidence, we should then (the often assailed genuineness of 2 Cor. 1132/. being pre- supposed) have to combine the numbers in Gal. 1 18 2 1 (so that there would be only fourteen years between Paul's conversion and the conference in Jerusalem), or to shorten the time estimated for the mission in Asia Minor and Europe, or else to omit from the life of Paul the two-year imprisonment in Ciesarea under the procurator Felix.

At the same time, the coins of Tiberius for the year 33-34 exclude the j'ear 28 as that of Paul's conversion. If we assign the imprisonment to 54, the data of (jal. 1 /". must Ix.' explained as referring to the total of fourteen years, so that Pauls conversion would fall in 31. In favour of this is its nearness to the death of Jesus. For 1 Cor. l'3^ does not well permit an interval of any length lx;tween Jesus' death and Paul's arrival at Damascus. Conver.sely, the same consideration de- mands that, if we regard 58 as the date of the imprison- ment, we should calculate from the statements in (Jal. \ f. a period of seventeen years, so that 32 would Ije the year of Paul's conversion. Neither series, accordingly, conflicts with what we know of those times ; but it may readily Ije asked : Are we warranted in casting discredit on the statements of Eusebius ?

##### 79 Closing period.

How now stands the case with reference to the close of Paul's life? The travellers set out for Rome in the autumn of 56 or 60, and arrived in the subsequent year (Acts 27-28). For the next two years Paul was kept in easy imprisonment, and to this period belong Colossians and Philemon, though some assign them to the Cpesarean imprisonment. After the lapse of the two years began the trial, about which we have some information from a note to Timothy now incorporated in 2 Tim., and from Philippians. Of its duration and i.ssue we know nothing. The prediction that I'aul would die without meeting his friends again (Acts 20 25-38), the sudden breaking off of Acts, and the utter absence of all trace of any later activity on the part of the apostle, will always incline one to believe that Paul's presentiment was fulfilled, and that his trial ended in a sentence of death. If so, the great ajxjstlc died in the course of the year 59 or 63. In either case his martyrdom was before the persecution of Nero, and hatl no connection with it. Nor does any of the older narratives conflict with this. When Eusebius in his Chronicle assigns the death of Peter and Paul to the fourteenth or thirteenth year of Nero (the numl)er varies in different texts) i.e., 68 or 67 .\.D. he is in conflict with himself, for he elsewhere sets this event in the beginning of the persecution of Nero, which beyond all question was in the summer of 64 ; and more- over, as Harnack insists {I.e. 2^1 f. ), his date lies under the suspicion of being occasioned by the legendary twenty-five years stay of Peter at Rome, in combination with the story that the ajx^stles left Jerusalem twelve years after the death of Jesus; 30 -i- 12 + 25 'u^ke 67. But neither is the tradition of the contemporaneous death of the two apostolic leaders by any means so well grounded as Harnack assumes {I.e.). In Eusebius, the contemporaneousness lies under the same suspicion as the date. Clem. Rom. chap. 5 gives no hint of it, and the summary introduction of other sufferers in chap. 6 gives us no right, in face of the enumeration of the sufferings enduretl by Peter and Paul during the whole of their apostolic activity, to apply all that is said in chap. 6, and therefore the death of these apostles, to the persecution of Nero. 'The testimony of Dionysius (Eus. //A' ii. 2r>8). &ix<f>u) (h tt]u 'IraXiav o/xoae SiSd^avTes iiJ.apT6frr)aav Kara top avrov Kaipov (' AhcT both teaching together as far as to Italy, they suffered martyrdom at the same time") is to lie taken em grano salts. If the two great apostles died a violent death for their faith in Rome under Nero, it is easy to see how tradition might lose sight of the interval of one year or five years, and bring the two martyrdoms together. The rapidity with which in the popular memory Paul receded behind Peter, a pheno- menon already noticeable in Clem. Rom. and Ignat. {ad Rom. 4), admits of a peculiarly simple explanation if Paul was withdrawn from the scene so much sooner.

##### 80. Was Paul liberated ?

Whatever testimony can be found in the literature down to Eusebius for the liberation of Paul from his first imprisonment at Rome has been collected anew by Spitta ( Zur Gesch. Lit. des Urchrist. 1). In truth, all that can be taken account of before Eusebius is the apostle's intention intimated in Rom. 1524and mentioned in the Muratorian fragment (except that the a|X)stle's plans were so often upset by events), the Pauline fragments of the Pastoral Epistles (if they ought not also to be brought within the period of missionary activity known to us, since otherwise they would present the post-captivity labours as a strange repetition of \\hat preceded the captivity), and the expression Wp^a r^j Si'trewj ' boundary of the west ' in Clem. Rom. It is only the last that we can take seriously. Since, however, Ignatius sjaeaks of Rome as hvai.% {' west,' ad Koin.1-2), and Clement himself has immediately before opposed 5i<r to iio.ro\i] ('east'), meaning therefore at least Rome among other places, it is not at all diflicult, fspecially k<fping in view the Pauline metaphor of the dviiv (conriict), to sup[K)se that it is this SOffn, [i.e.. Koine) that is indicatetl as Tp>xa. If, in spile of this, the hyix)thesis of the liberation of Paul should Ix* accepted, we should have to add to our chronological table: 59/63. Liberation of Paul; July-Auj;. 64.-- Martyrdom. The a[xjstle's eventful life would thus end with a period completely obscured in the [xjpular memory, a period the events of which have not left a trace behind.

TABLE X. Life of Paul: Last Period.

• 56/60 (autumn). Paul set out for Rome.
• 57/61 (spring).- Arrival in Koine.
• 57/61 Kasy imprisonment ; Col. Philem.
• 59/63. Death of Paul.

[otherwise]

• 59/63. Liberation of Paul.
• 64 July-Aug. Martyrdom.

#### III. CHRONOLOGY OF THE CHURCES IN PALESTINE

##### 81 Earliest events

If the dates so far accepted are correct, the whole Palestinian development descrilx.-d by the author of Acts (almost our only authority for this period) between the death of Jesus and the conversion of Paul, finally culminating in the death of Stephen and the dispersion of the church in Jerusalem, must be crowded into the limits of two years, or [)ossibly even of a single year.

The traditions are, however, very scanty. According to I Cor. 15 1-7 there haiajx-ned in this space of time the appearance of Jesus to Peter and the twelve (as to the time and place of which it is not {xjssibk; to reach a certain conclusion, hut with which the return to Jeru.salem is most clearly connected), his apix-arance to the 500 brethren ([jcrhaps to be identified with the occurrence narrated in Acts 2, which in that case was in Jerusalem, and, if Acts 2 is correct, fifty days after the death of Jesus), the conversion of him who afterwards b.-came head of the church of Jerusalem, James the Lord's brother (since this lx>yond doubt happened at the time of the ap[)earance to him mentioned in i Cor. l.'>7), and the conversion (by the same means) of many who after- wards Ix'came missionaries. The necessitv of a repre- sentation of the Hellenists (.-\cts ti 1-6) suggests that from the return of the twelve until that time a considerable [x-riod hadelat'sed, which is, however, very insufficiently filled out by the narratives in chaps. 3-5.

##### 82. Later events

2. As to the later events, in the narratives in Acts 84-4 . !ti-3o 9 ji-11 18 11 19-24 illustrating the geographical extension of Christianity, the author plainly does not nu-an to assert that the events descrilx.'d followed one another in mutually exclusive periods of time. If the accounts are historical, the missionary ojx'rations of Philip and Peter were undertaken while Paul was working in Damascus and Antioch (including Syria) in 31/35 or 32/36^ A.D. The anonymous beginnings of Christianity in Damascus and .Antioch belong, of course, to the time before Paul took hold in those places. If the recollections lying at the basis of Acts 1 1 22-26 are approximately correct, Harnabas nmst have left Jerus;ilem finally for Antioch not very long after Pauls first visit to Jerusalem in 34/38 or 35/39 A.I)., and Philip may by that time have already removed to Ca;sarea (.\cts840).

3. After these events we hear nothing until the death of James the son of Zebedee betwetin 41, the year in which Mero<l .\grippa I. began to rule over Judrea, and 44, the year of his death (Actsl2i/' ). If the account in Acts is correct, alxjut this same time Peter left Jerusalem permanently (.\ctsrj 17 i, and James the Lords brother must have already Ix-i-ome the leader of the church (Actsl'2i7). With this agrees excellently the abun- dantly attested old Christian tradition that the twelve left Jerusalem twelve years after Jesus' death (see relT. in Hamack, Chronologic, 243). It may be in error simply in transferring to the twelve what applied only to their head. Peter. At all events Acts tells us nothing of the ten left after the death of James. The twelfth year would Ix.- 42 A.D. In that case Herod must have sought, immediately after his accession, by his proceedings against the Christians to secure the confidence of the Jews.

4. If the results reached alxjve with reference to what we read in Acts 15 11 27.^ and L'}/ a""*-* "ght, our next information relates to the year 45 or 49, when Peter, Paul, and Barnabas gather again at the conference round James, at whose side (Gal. 29) ap[x-ars John, the son of Zelxxlee. Paul and Harnabas return to Antioch ; Peter Ic-aves Jerusiilem again very soon, and lives for a while among the Christians at Antioch ((Jal. 'In ff.).

5. In 54/58, when Paul comes to Jerusalem with the contribution, James is master of the situation (Acts 21 18). This is the hist information from the N 1' about the church in Palestine.

6. According to the received text of Josephus (,-//. xx. 9i), James .suftered martyrdom in 62 that is. under the high priest Ananos (son of the high priest of the same name known to us from the tJospels) but Ixfore the arrival in Judiea of Albinus, the successor of the pro- curator I'estus. (.After I'estuss early tleath Annas had Ixicn a|ji)ointed high priest by Agrippa II.) The passage is not free, however, from the suspicion of Christian inter- polation. Hegesippus ( Kus. Hli ii. 23 11-18) seems to have put the death of James somewhat nearer to the destruction of Jerusalem.'

Shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem (A.n. 70) the Christians removed to Pel la in Peraa. The year is not certain, but was probably 67, when, after the down- fall of Cestius, Jewish fanaticism overreached itself.

#### IV. OTHER DATES IN THE HISTORY OF PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY

##### 83 Other dates

Here can be mentioned only those few points on which a stray ray of light happens to fall. In the nature of the case, detailed discussions can be given only in the s[x;cial articles.

1. Peter. That Peter, the last trace of whom we found in A.D. 45/49, or foniewhat I.Uer, at Antioch, was later a travelling missionary after the manner of Paul, is to be inferred from the allusions to him in I Cor. 1 12 822 95. I Pet. 5 12/., even if the epistle was not written by Peter, implies his intimate association with Paul's former companions ,Silvaiuis and Mark, and I Pet. li/. his missionary activity in the jjrovinces of .\sia Minor. For this latter there was rixjm at any rate after the imprisonment of Paul in 54/58, and for most of the provinces even before that time : namely, from the moment when Paul transferred his chief activity to Macedonia, Achaia. and Asia. In regard to Peter's stay in Rome, for which 1 Pet. 5 13 is an argument (it is certainly to Ixi put later than the en<l of Paul's trial), and in regard to the question whether it was in the persecution a.^ter the fire in Rome (July 64) that he suffered martyrdom (cp Clem. Rom. 5), see Peter. The as.sum[)tion of a contemporaneous martyrdom of Paul and Peter finds no support in the earliest documents : see above, 79.

2. John. As to John's residence in I".phesus and his end, see John.

3. Whilst the persecution under Nero was doubtless in the main limite<l to Rome, the last years of Domitian. especially in Asia Minor, in consecjuence of the insistence on the worship of the Emperor, may have been a jx;riotl of many contlicts with Christianity."

1 For further discussion, with references to sources and biblio- graphy, -see Schiirer, 1 486/

• Cp especially Neumann, Der rdmiscke Staat u. die tUlgt-

meine Kirche, :8r,o, \Tjff'.; Ramsay, The Church in the Koman EtHpirf, 1893, p. i^iff.

##### 84. NT writings.

To this time (say 93-96 ) many scholars assign Hebrews and I Peter (while others carry them down to the reign of Trajan), as well as the Apocalypse of John (see the special articles). Not nuich later, perhaps about the end of the first century, were written Ephesians, the Third Gospel, and Acts. Otir Gospel of Mark must, apart possibly from some later additions, have been written before this ; there is no need to suppose a nuich later date than 70. The Fourth tiospel, after which, probably, came the Johannine epistles, can well, by reason of its near rela- tion to Lk. and for other reasons, have been written at the same time as, or not long after, the Third Gospel. The first third of the second century best suits the latest books of the NT Matthew, the Pastoral Epistles, and James, all of them doubtless products of the Roman church. Jude may have been written somewhat earlier, 2 Peter somewhat later. See the Introductions to the NT and Harnack, Chronologie, 246-50, 245/., 451-64. 475-91,651-81.

TABLE XI Some Other Dates (APPROXIMATIONS).

• 31/35 or 32/36 - Work of Philip and Peter in Palestine.
• 34/38 or 35/39 - Barnabas removes to Antioch
• Between 41 and 44 - Death of James, son of Zebedee. Peter leaves Jerusalem ; James leader.
• 45/46 - Conference(Gal. 29). Peter soon resides at Antioch (Gal. 2:11+).
• 52/53 - Paul brings contribution to Jerusalem (Acts 21 18).
• Later. Peter becomes a travelling missionary.
• 62 or later? - Death of James.
• 67 ? Christians remove from Jerusalem to Pella.
• 70. Destruction of Jerusalem.
• Not much after 70. Our Gospel of Mark written.
• 93-156 (?) Heb. and 1 Pet. (acc. to many) ; Apoc.
• About end of century. Eph., Lk., Acts, Jn., Epp. of Jn.
• First third of 2nd century. Jude, Mt., Past. Epp., Ja., 2 Pet.

H. v.S.

### 85. Bibliography

BIBLIOGRAPHY. A. Old Testament. lde\er, Handb. Her math. u. tech. Chron. 2 vols. 1825-26, and Lchrb. dff Chrou. ^^ -D-ui-- -u^ 1831; H. Brandes, Ahluuidlungcn zur q^^^,^ ^^^ Q^^.f, i, Aiterthu,,,, 1874; Schrader, Kcilinschri/tcn u. Geschichtsforschuiig, 1878 ; B. Netfler, Ziisanuiicnhaiig dcr A Tlk/ten /.eitrcchnung iiiit der Pro/a)ii;rsi/i. .Miinster, 1879, P'- ' '885, pt. iii. 1886; Hommel, Ahrissdi-rbal'.-as.. ti. israelii. Gesch. in Tahellcnfonn, Leipsic, 1880; Floigl, Gesch. des semit. Alterthums, Leipsic, 1882; Schrader, KAT^), 1S83 (CO/', 1885-88); Mahler, Bibiische Chron. u. Zeitrechnungder Hebr. 1887 ; Lederer, l^ie Bibiische Zeitrechnung-, 1888 ; Winckler, .4 T Untersuch. 1892 ; Kautzsch, HS, 1894, BeilaKen,pp. 1 10-135 (a tabular chrorological =iiimmary from Moses to the end of the second century B.C.; ET by J. Taylor) ; ' Zeitrechnung ' by Riehm in his H li B, 1884, pp. 1800- 1825; andbyGust. Rosch, /"/v" A'(2) 17 444-484; Carl Niebuhr,Z>/V Chronol. der Gesch. Israels, Aeg. Bab. u. Ass. von 2000-700 v. Chr. untersuclit, 18,6.

Oh particular points also the follo'Ming : For the time of the Judges : Noldeke, Unterstich. zur Kritik des A T, 173-198. For the Monarchy (besides the histories of Israel): Wellhausen, _' Die Zeitrechnung des Buchsder Runige sell der I heilungdes Reichs ' in the /DT, 1875, pp. 607-640; Rrey, 'Zur Ziitiecbnung des B. der Konige in ZIl'J', i77, pp. 404-408 ; W. R. Smith, Proph. 1882, pp. 145-151, 401-404 (2nd ed. 403-406), 413-419 (2nd ed. 415- 421); Kamph. I'ie Chron. iter hebr. t\ anise, 1883, cp ZA TIV, 8193-202 ['85]; Klostermann, Sam. u. h'on. ['87], pp. 493-498; Riihl, 'Die Tyri>che Konigsliste des Menander von Ephesus' in the Rhcin. Mus./iir Pliil. n.s. [ 95], pp. 565-578, and 'Chron. der Konige von Lrael u. Juda,' in Deutsche Zt.f. Gescltichts- luiss. 1244-76, 171 [95]; Benzinger, ' Kon.,' 1899 (A'//C).

For the Chronology of the Persian times. Kuencn, ' De chron. van het Perz. tijdvak der Joodsche geschied." in Proc. Amsterdam Royal Academy, Literature Section, 1890, trans- late! into German in Bu.'s edition of Kue.'s Biblical essays, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, etc. ['94], 212-251 : A. van Hoo- nacker, Zorobabel et le second temple, etude sur la chron. des six premiers chapitres du livre cfpsdras, 1S92, and Nehemie en Ian 2 1 ct A rtaxerxes I. ; l.sdras en tan 7 cC A rtaxerxi-s II. (reply to Kue.), 1892 ; Kosters, Hei herstel van Israel in het Perz. tijdvak, i*'94 ; Ed. Meyer, Die F.ntstehung des Juden- tums, 1896; Charles C. Torrey, I'/ie Compos tion and Hist. Value 0/ Ezra-Neh., 1896.

B. New Testament. See the literature cited in the course of the article, especially 40 (note) and 51-56 (notes). Cp also C. H. Turner in Hastings' DB.

K.M. (1-38, 85); H.v.S. (39-84). _

## CHRYSOLITE

(xpycoAiGoc). one of the foundations of the wall of the New Jerusalem in the Apocalypse (Rev. 21 10). It is not improbable that in ancient times the term was applied to a particular shade of Beryl {q.v.). See Precious Stones. In modern usage Chrysolite is the name generally given to the yellow or yellowish -green varieties of olivine, the transparent varieties being known as peridote (cp Topaz).

XpvtrdAtOos in is used to translate tarsii'm Ex. 28208931 Ezek '28 13 (cp Ezek. 1 16 Aq [BAQ transliterate], Dan. 106 Theod. [see Sw.]). In Ezek. 28 13 AVi'g. has 'chrysolite,' but elsewhere EV 'beryl,' which more proliably represents loham ; see Bi-.KYi., 3, TakshisH, -SroNiiOK.