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's (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 Peshito, 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 Syriac; but where both have the
Syriac same omission, it is difficult to deter-
Transla- mine whether the omission is purposed tion of the by the translator (as perhaps in I
London Chron. xxvii., xxvi. 13-32; II Chron. Polyg-lot. 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 Vaticanus, cf. II Chron. x. 2). The numerous agreements of the Syriac 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 vv. 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 are 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 qua supersunt, 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 render 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 an un-Hebraic sentence (like II Chron. xxxvi. 13). There is abundant proof that Chronicles had a translator different from Kings (cf. A. Klostermann, Die Biicher Samuelis und der Konige,
3. The Munich, 1887, on II Kings xxiii. 7). ^^inT' Unfortunately, with the mass of
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 recensions 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 recensions. 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 an excess or a deficiency in the text, 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, and to write any addition either in the margin or in the text; in such cases, the recension 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 Chromatius 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 Rogatianus 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 Latin therefore to bear m mind, in the
oTjerome^ 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 Chrysolo^s, Petrus