John Malalas is not, by twentieth-century standards, a reliable or authoritative writer. Are we to conclude that the preservation and use of this rather inadequate chronographer casts an unfortunate light on the much praised school of Canterbury? This would probably be unfair. It is often stated that chronicles and histories are different types of text. In practice, modern students, perhaps especially those whose area of study includes such notable historians as Bede, find chronicles not simply different, but deeply unsatisfactory. There has been relatively little effort to understand the nature and purpose of a chronicle as such. Fortunately, the Chronographia of Malalas has recently been the subject of such a study. Croke argues:

Croke further comments, ‘Chronicles in particular were works of reference and polemic while histories were for instruction and edification.’