CHRISTOPHORUS: Pope 903 904. In the autumn of 903 he overthrew Leo V. and seized the papal throne; but a few months later he met the same fate at the hands of Sergius III. According to Herimannus, he became a monk; Vulgarius, on the other hand, says that he was murdered in
prison. (A. HAUCK.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: JaBd. Repeats, i. 443 444; Bower, Popes, ii. 306.
CHROIDE GANG (Hrodegandus, Ruotgang, Ruggandus): Frankish bishop; b. in Hasbania (ex pogo Hasbaniensi, in the Belgian province of Limburg) early in the eighth century; d. at Metz Mar. 6, 766. He was the son of Sigramnus and Landrada, who belonged to one of the noblest families of the Ripuarian Franks, was set aside for the Church, admitted into the clergy of the court, and was raised by Charles Martel to the post of referendarius, a position influential in secular as well as in spiritual affairs. In 742 he was made bishop of Metz by Pepin, and became the means of reestablishing the long interrupted intercourse of his country with Rome. When Stephen II. was hard pressed by the Lombards, Chrodegang received from Pepin in 733 the commission to go to Italy and to accompany the pope to Gaul, which he accomplished successfully; for this he was rewarded by the pope with the dignity of archbishop, the use of the pallium, the privilege of having the cross borne before him, and of consecrating bishops, although Metz was not an archbishopric. His property he gave to the needy, for the founding of church establishments, particularly of monasteries (among which
Gorze and the reestablished Lorsch were notable), and for the beautifying and renovating of churches. In 764 he journeyed to Rome in quest 'of relics, but his chief claim to be remembered is found in his exertions in behalf of ecclesiastical discipline and morals, which were in a sad plight in the Gallic Church. This task Boniface had in part accomplished. Chrodegang considered that the most proper means of accomplishing this end would be to carry over the discipline and mode of life of the regular clergy into that of the secular clergy. He enforced strictly the rule of Benedict of Nursia, strengthened the work begun by Eueebius of Vercelli, Augustine, and his predecessors among the Franks, and drew up a rule of thirty four chapters. This was in great part a verbal repetition of Benedict's rule (cf. Hauck, ii. 60), retaining even the term clauatrum for his new institution, though ex, changing episcopus and archzdipcortus for a6bas and prmpositus, and canonici for manachi. The vita canonica, the keeping of the home canonic(e, and so on, are mainly the same, differing however in two places, necessarily so, since the complete identification of the secular clergy with the regulars seemed hardly profitable. These differences were (1) the distinction between major and minor orders, with their interrelations, and (2) the vow of poverty, which was not required of the canonicals. The rule in its first form (cf. Mansi, Concilia, xiv. 31314) is intended only for the cathedral of Metz. Later it was enlarged to eighty six chapters and has now a more common form, in which it found a place in the Regina Aquisgranensis, 817 A.D. That Chrodegang thus helped to diffuse Roman customs through Germany was noted by Paul Warnefried, who tells us also that Chrodegang was bishop of Metz for twenty three years, five months, and five days. He lies buried in the monastery of Gorze, and his epitaph is to be found in Mabillon, Vdera Analecta., Paris, 1723, 377. (E. FRIEDBER(f.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources for a history are in Paulus warno
fridue, Liber de eproscopia Me#ensibue, ed. G. H. Perta,
in MGH, Script., fi (1829), 267; the Epitaphium, ed.
E. Diimmler, in MGH, Poeta• latina aroi Carolina, i (1881),
108 109; and the Vita by John of Gorse, ed. Perta, in
MGH, Script., a (1852), 552 b72, and in A3B, March,
i. 352 eqq. (cf. G. H. Perta, Ueber die Vita Chrodepanpi,
Berlin, 1852). Consult: Rettberg, XD, i., i§ 87 88;
Hauck KD, ii. 48 aqq.
CHROMATIUS, cry mg'shivs: Bishop of Aquileia from 387 or 389; d. 406 or a little later. He was a highly respected and much revered contemporary of Ambrose, Rufinus, and Jerome, who owed to him many encouragements in scientific endeavors. In the dogmatic controversies of the time he was a bold defender of orthodoxy. The destruction of Arianism in Aquileia was his work. To the emperor Honorius he presented an opinion on Chrysostom, who was suspected at the Byzantine court, and Honorius officially transmitted it to his brother Arcadius. His exegetical writings include a treatise on the Gospel of Matthew, seventeen short writings, and an excellent popular homily on the beatitudes. The best edition of his works is that by P. Braids (Udine, i816), reprinted in M PL, ax. 247 368, where
the literature is also given. G. KROGER.
Chronicles, cooks of
THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG 68
CHRONICLES, BOOKS OF.
II. Range and Divisions. III. Place in the Canon.
IV. The Teat.
The Aramaic Targum (¢ I).
The Syriac Translation of the London Polyglot (¢ 2). The Septuagint (¢ 3).
The Latin Translation of Jerome (¢ 4). The Maeoretio Text (¢ 8).
V. Contents and Purpose. VI. The Author and His Sources.
L Name: The Hebrew title, Dibhre hayamim, of the two historical books standing, in the English Bible, between II Kings and Ezra may be translated " the occurrences of the times "; for the first word expresses the content (history), the second the form (chronological). As this refers to time, the content can be only the sum of deeds or fortunes of men. But this meaningless general title can be but the practical abbreviation of a longer one, which either added the subject referred to (as in I Chron. xxvii. 24, " of King David "), or named a particular period within the whole time. In view of the greater part of the subject matter, the (lost) explanatory clause could be only " of the Kings of Judah." Indeed, the Syriac gives the name " The Book of the Reign of the Days of the Kings of Judah, which Bears the Name Sepher D'bdryamin "; the Arabic title is similar; and the Septuagint reads in Codex Alexandrinus and elsewhere " Deeds (?) of the Kings of Judah." Strangely enough, the Arabic, after translating the title adds, " the Hebrew is dibra hayyamim"; in the Syriac the title is followed by the Hebrew name in the Syriacized form D'bdryamin. The title " Chronicles " dates back to a comment by Jerome in his " Preface to the Books of Samuel and Kings " (translated in NPNF, 2d aeries, vi. 490).
II. Range and Divisions: The Masoretic notes at the end of Chronicles reckon 1,858 divisions, evidently meaning verses separated by a colon; actual count in the editions of Opitz and Michaelis gives the number as 1,764. Computations based upon amaller"commata" am as follows: the Talmud gives 5,880 (cf. H. L. Straek, Proiegomertacritica in Ydus Testamentum Hebraicum, Leipeie, 1873, p. l l), the Syriac 5,603, Nicephorus 5,500, codices of the Septuagint and Synopsis (cf. E. HIoatermann, Analekta zu Septuaginta, Hezapla and Patrist4k, Leipeic, 1895, pp. 45, 81) 5,000, the Canon Mommsen only 4,140. The division into two books is comparatively modern, unknown to the Masora and the canon catalogues. Origen (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI. xxv. 2), Epiphanies, Synod of Laodicea, Athauasius, and Refines state expressly that Chronicles, given by the. Septuagint as two books, is to be looked upon as one. The Septuagint divides it after the death of David, a principle adopted by the Syrian and Arabic; the former has, however, another division after II. v. The codex Amiatinus of. the Vulgate has blank spaces after I. ix. and I. xix., and writes I. x. 1 and II. i. 1 m red ink, suggestive of early division at those points.
III. Place in the Canon: Tradition has two places for Chronicles among the Kethubhim
(see CANON oP SCRIPTURE, L). The order followed by the German manuscripts and by the printed Hebrew Bibles is: Ps., Prov., Job, the five Rolls (arranged according to the Jewish church calendar), Dan., Ezra Neh., Chron. The position of Chronicles, following Ezra, suggests to the memory the remark of the Mishnah: "Chronicles is given only for investigation "; Daniel and Ezra were edifying to the congregation, whereas Chronicles was rather scholastic in character. More likely, however, is it that Daniel and EzraNehemiah seem to belong together, as on the one hand, a statement of the divine programme and the story of its partial fulfilment, and, on the other hand, as possessing literary kinship, since both belonged to the time of Cyrus, and both were largely transmitted in Aramaic. The Talmudic order is similar: Ruth, Ps., Job, three Rolls, Dan., Esther, Ezra Neh., Chron. The other arrangement is the totally different one of the Masora: Chron., Pa., Job, Prov., the Rolls, Dan., EzraNeh.; as though Chronicles together with Ezra, ragging from Adam to Jaddua, furnished the historical setting for the rest of the Kethubhim (cf. Augustine, Christian Doctrine, II. viii. 13, in NPNF, tat series, ii. 541). According to a Masoretic codex Tschufutc (13 `Adath dibburim, cf. H. Straek, in G. A. Kohut, Semitic Studies, London, 1897, p. 570) this order is that of the Land of Israel, and is the only correct one, to be adopted ultimately by all scribes; where the other, in which Chronicles or Esther stand at the end, is called a corruption by the people of the Land of Sinear. Among the old translations of the Christian Church is the fanciful order given by Juniliua and by Epiphanius. The other transmitted catalogues either join Chronicles to Ezra, to Kings, or separate them. That gives four arrangements: (1) Kings, Chron., Ezra (so Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Canon of the Apostles, Apostolic Constitutions, Council of Laodicea, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, Athanasiusin his "Easter Letter," Vulgate, Rufinus, Ethiopic Bible); (2) Kings, Chron., . . Ezra (Melito, Augustine, Codex Alexandrines, Codex Amiatinus, Canon of Hippo, Deereta Gelasii, Canon of Mommsen, the Second Order of Caesiodorus); (3) Kings, . . . Chmn., Ezra (First Order of Casaiodorus, Jerome in "Preface to the Books of Samuel and Kings"); (4) Kings, . . . Ezra, Chron. (Rescript of Innocent L). In general, it seems that where Jewish scholasticism did not influence the Christian Church the tatter's arrangement was ruled by the conviction that Ezra Nehemiah was intended to be the continuation of Chronicles, which latter in its relation to Kings bore in the Septuagint correctly the name " Deeds (?) of the Kings of Judah."
IV. The Text: For the verification of the Maeoretic text there are excellent means in the translations from the early Hebrew. The Aramaic Targum is a translation which shows,
1. The on the one hand, a close following of
Aramaic the letter of the text and an endeavor
Targvm. to reproduce it correctly; and, on
the other hand, au attempt to satisfy
the spiritual hunger which mere names and
brief statements must create in the hearers
gg RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Chronicles, Books of
anxious for edification and entertainment. This could be brought about by etymological interpretation (as in I Chron. viii. 33: " He was called Ner because he lighted the lamp, Hebr. Ner, in the synagogue "); or by an interpretation of the text more in harmony with the spiritual vision of later Judaism, to which the war heroes of old had become doctors of the Law. The zeal of late Judaism for interpretation recognizes no limits; it knows how to harmonize, to combine, to do away with differences and contradictions. The spirit which beguiled the prophets of Ahab is Naboth'a (II Chron. xviii. 20); the Syrian archer (II Chron. xviii. 33) is Naaman; Jabez is identified with Othniel (I Chron. iv. 9); Ner's original name is said to have been Abiel (I Chron. viii. 33). On II Chron. xxviii. 3 it comments that Hezekiah's life was saved from the fire by divine intervention. But the Midrash additions do not hinder in most cases from recognizing the text which lay before the authors of the Targum. Hence it is worth while for the textual critic to consult this earliest translation in restoring the text.
A Syriac translation, not found in the Peahito, with a translator other than he who rendered Ezra, is found in the London Polyglot alongside of its Arabic translation. This latter is an excellent help in correcting the many textual mistakes of 2. The the Syriac; but where both have the Syriac same omission, it is difficult to deter
Transla mine whether the omission is purposed tins of the by the translator (as perhaps in I
London Chron. xxvii., xxvi. 13 32; II Chron.
Polyglot. xvi. 12) or whether it is due to a corrupt Syriac text, or to a shorter Hebrew text (II Chron. xxvii. 8, also wanting in Codex Yaticanus, cf. II Chron. x. 2). The numerous agreements of the Syrian with the Targum show a thorough acquaintance with Jewish traditional interpretation. While the translator tries to apply the lesson of history to his time, makes blunders on account of his deficiency in historical knowledge, and takes delight now and then in etymological dallying, he supplies few of the Midrashic excursuses so characteristic of the Aramaic. The additions to the text are either helps to a correct understanding (as in II Chron. xviii. 6, xvi. 10), do away with apparent contradictions (so in II Chron. xxi. 6, xxii. 3), are based upon scholastic theories (as in I Chron. viii. 33, 34, 39, 40, ix. 2), or attempt to give to the story a greater definiteness and completeness, using for that purpose not legend but Biblical lore (II Chron. xxi. 11, xxxii. 1, 9, xxxiii. 20; I Chron. vi. 13, xix. 16). The longest addition is found in II Chron. xi. where w. 4 17 are taken from I Kings xii, and xiv. For the rest, the translator followed very closely his Hebrew copy and was very anxious to give the idiom of the Hebrew, but here the sparseness of tradition as to the meaning of technical expressions led him into many queer errors (as in I Chron. xv. 16, xx. 3, xxix. 19; II Chron. viii. 5, ix. 27, xxx. 3, etc.). Many of his odd mistakes ass due to a misreading of the Hebrew text (I Chron. xi. 8'; II Chron. xxiv. 4, xxv. 13, 16). But because he permits himself to be influenced by the Hebrew
letter his translation deserves to be considered wherever it differs from the Hebrew.
Of the Greek translations, since remarkably few
variants of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion
have come down (Field, in his Hexapla, Origenis
Hexaplorum quce superaunt, London, 1867, gives
also those of Lucian), only the Septuagint requires
attention. It is a most important witness, since it
has no other object in view than to rexi4er the
Hebrew text into Greek, which it generally does
in such a way that the Greek can with certainty
be reconverted into the original. Seldom is there
au un Hebraic sentence (like II Cliron. xxxvi. 13).
There is abundant proof that Chronicles had a
translator different from Kings (cf. A. HIoetermann,
Die Bilccher Samuelis and der Konige,
8. The Mach, 1887, on II Kings xxiii. 7). SeDtua Unfortunately, with the mass of
Sint. names appearing barbaric to the copyists such a confusion has been imported into the genealogical tables that, as Origen and Jerome complain, it is difficult to decide how the original read. Moreover, the many recessions underlying the codices used by Swete differ so much that the exegete, in spite of the many editions of the Septuagint, is still obliged to reconstruct for himself its original readings by comparing the different recessions. In parallel passages that reading is preferable which in the context gives the better sense while differing most from the Hebrew, since the Greek has often been brought by Jews into harmony with the text of their times. Consequently where there is au excess or a deficiency in the teat, the one which has it is to be considered nearer the original than the one which agrees more closely with the Hebrew. But it does not follow that the Hebrew should always be corrected by the Septuagint, though it may be that the aberration can be detected through the Greek as due to purpose or mishap on the part of the Hebrew. As already noted, it was the habit of the scribes to search for parallels in other Biblical books, sad to write any addition either in the margin or in the text; in such cases, the recession which has the shorter text is to be preferred if the Hebrew text contains the longer text. Again, it may happen that the inferior Septuagint text which has the shorter reading is still to be preferred to the better Septuagint text with the longer reading, if this reading can be shown to have its parallel elsewhere.
In his preface to Chromatiua Jerome asserts that it was his purpose in his Latin translation to correct the many variations in the Septuagint by means of the Hebrew; in the preface to Domnio and R.ogatianus he makes evident that he used the old Latin translation of the Septuagint. To be absolutely sure in the use of his Hebrew authority he had the help of a Jewish rabbi of Tiberias, with whom he went over the entire book.
4. The In using Jerome's translation one has
Translation therefore to bear in mind, in the of Jerome. first place, that his endeavor was to give an intelligent Latin translation, and, secondly, that in spite of his own higher culture and better taste he permitted himself to be influenced by the Jewish interpretations of his
Chronicles, Books of
THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG 70
teacher. He has the good sense to follow Lucian's
Septuagint in I Chron. iv. 22 rather than the Jewish
fiction of the Targum. But when, contrary to
his custom, he translated in the same verse the
proper names Jokim, Kozeba, Joaeh, and Saraf, his
action can be explained only as due to the influence
of his Hebrew teacher.
When one tries, with the help of the versions,
to solve the many riddles found in the Maeoretic
text, the latter proves to be a descendant of an
older type which has come to its present condition
through omissions or additions, misreadings or
scribal errors, corrections or interpretations. But
even this older type is not the text written by the
author. It bears like marks of change, but for
want of older witnesses it is less frequently pos
sible to bring proof of the fact. For example, I
Chron. i. 11 16, 17° 23 according to the Septuagint
are very likely additions; similarly I Chron. i. 4 10,
30 34', 35 54; I Chron. ii. 3° are transferred from
Genesis; I Chron. xi. 10 41° from II Sam. xxiii.
(cf. A. HIoatermann, Geschichte Israels, Munich,
1896, p. 157). Against such designed augmentation
exists another kind due to scribal errors, as
when, owing to the identity of I Chron. viii. 28°
and ix. 34°, the copyist repeats viii. 29 38 in ix.
35 44. It is natural that to such
6. The additions correspond omissions, as
Xasoretio when a scribe having copied out of the
Teat. wrong column, noticing his mistake,
skips as much of the right as he copied from the
wrong. For it is certain I Chron. x. 1 is the con
tinuation of a story which had begun a new book,
the beginning of which was loot and thus the story
became unintelligible. How much confusion may
be created by the omission of a single word may
be seen in I Chron. iv. 7 10, where the student is
at a lose what to make of %; (verse 8) and Ja'bez
(verse 9) until he adds with the Targum wekoz, at
the end of verse 7. Similarly the Lucianic codices
still retain in I Chron. ix. 18 the two words which
were lost in the Hebrew. In these cases the
claim of antiquity is with the versions. In other
cases the right reading exists alongside of the wrong
one, as when in I Chron. vii. 5 one copyist wrote a
meaningless word, and another put the correct
reading in the margin, whence it found its way again
into the text, where both stand to day. These few
examples suffice to show that the original text of
Chronicles was written in a more careless orthog
raphy than that of the books generally used in the
community. For that reason it was misunder
stood and misinterpreted by punctuators and
translators. In very early times it had already
undergone correction and variation, had been ex
tended by interpretations and quotations of parallel
passages, and had lost its original form through
additions and omissions. The consequence is that
it, more than any other Biblical book, needs a
thorough revision before it may be used as a witness
or its claims denied.
V. Contents and Purpose: To understand these,
use moat be made of Ezra Nehemiah, which con
stitutes the second half of Chronicles. Examina
tion of Ezra i. 1 3' ( II Chron. xxxvi. 22 23)
proves the unity of Chronicle& Ezra Nehemiah. For
the meaning of the repetition is (cf. Nestle, TSK, 1879, p. 517) that the author thereby indicates that the story of Chronicles is continued in EzraNehemiah. Just as Ezra Neh. falls into three sections (cf. A. HIoatermann, Geschichte lsraels, Munich, 1896, pp. 215 216) so with Chronicles, as follows: (1) I Chron. i. ix., the Book of Genealogies, gives the place of Israel in the Adamic family of nations, a tabular ramification of its tribes, mostly of Judah and the Davidic family, of the Benjamitea of Saul's family and of Jerusalem, of Levi and Aaron, and of a few families of Joaephitea. (2) The second section, I Chron. x. II Chron. v., ends (as the Syriac correctly surmises) not with the death of David (I Chron. xxix.) but with the dedication of Solomon's temple. It describes how David became Israel's sole king, how he prepared the way for the temple, selected its site in Jerusalem, and collected the means for its construction; how the personnel of its service was organized and how Solomon became the divine means for the accomplishment of David's purpose. (3) The third section, II Chron. vi. to the end, narrates the history of the temple till its destruction, tells of good days and evil, of pious and godless kings, of faithful and neglected temple service, of obedience and disobedience of prophetic teaching, and ends with the edict of Cyrus. It was evidently the purpose of the historian to bring before the little, politically dependent congregation of the insignificant second temple, which had been built by self sacrificing religious zeal in obedience to the prophetic word, the ideal of ancient Israel as the adopted congregation of the living God, revealing in its history both a stimulus and a warning.
VI. The Author sad His Sources: The Talmud says (Baba Bathra i. 14 15), "Ezra wrote his book (Ezra Nehemiah) and the genealogies in Chronicles." Modern critics conclude from doubtful indications that the author wrote in the beginning of the Greek period and, from his full description of cult and clergy, that he was a priest or a Levite. Certain it is that he wrote at a time when the memorabilia of Ezra and Nehemiah were consulted for the understanding of their time. Of high importance are the questions, what the author accomplished, and how he obtained and handled his material. From the second half of his work (Ezra Nehemiah), where he contents himself (cf. A. HIoatermann, Geschichte Israels, pp. 216 217) with giving extracts from the autobiographies of Ezra and Nehemiah and from other official documents, the student may conclude that he used a similar method elsewhere. For I Chron. i. ix. there was a multitude of genealogies valued the more highly the more the Dispersion and the little colony at home attempted to figure as the continuation of classic Israel. From the Lucian Codex (I Chron. v. 1?) one receives the impression that tl)e genealogies existed in the Book of Kings; so m I Chron. ix. 1, according to the Syriac. The same is true of the other two sections. The author knew the Book of Isaiah (II Chron. xxxii. 32), in which at this time stood already chapters xxxvi. and xxxix., also Samuel and Kings (II Chron. xx. 34, xxiv. 7, 23, xxv. 26, etc.), and the hymns of David and
71 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Chronicles, Books of