Kings, First And Second Books Of

Kings, First and Second Books of

(Also know as the FIRST AND SECOND BOOKS OF SAMUEL.

For the First and Second Books of Kings in the Authorized Version see KINGS, THIRD AND FOURTH BOOKS OF.

In the Vulgate both titles are given (Liber Primus Samuelis, quem nos Primum Regum dicimus, etc.); in the Hebrew editions and the Protestant versions the second alone is recognized, the Third and Fourth Books of Kings being styled First and Second Books of Kings. To avoid confusion, the designation “First and Second Books of Samuel” is adopted by Catholic writers when referring to the Hebrew text, otherwise “First and Second Books of Kings” is commonly used. The testimony of Origen, St. Jerome, etc., confirmed by the Massoretic summary appended to the second book, as well as by the Hebrew MSS., shows that the two books originally formed but one, entitled “Samuel”. This title was chosen not only because Samuel is the principal figure in the first part, but probably also because, by having been instrumental in the establishment of the kingdom and in the selection of Saul and David as kings, he may be said to have been a determining factor in the history of the whole period comprised by the book. The division into two books was first introduced into the Septuagint, to conform to the shorter and more convenient size of scrolls in vogue among the Greeks. The Book of Kings was divided at the same time, and the four books, being considered as a consecutive history of the Kingdoms of Israel and Juda, were named “Books of the Kingdoms” (Basileiôn biblía). St. Jerome retained the division into four books, which from the Septuagint had passed into the Itala, or old Latin translation, but changed the name “Books of the Kingdoms” (Libri Regnorum) into “Books of the Kings” (Libri Regum). The Hebrew text of the Books of Samuel and of the Books of Kings was first divided in Bomberg’s edition of the rabbinical Bible (Venice, 1516-17), the individual books being distinguished as I B. of Samuel and II B. of Samuel, I B. of Kings and II B. of Kings. This nomenclature was adopted in the subsequent editions of the Hebrew Bible and in the Protestant translations, and thus became current among non­Catholics.

CONTENTS AND ANALYSIS

I-II Books of Kings comprise the history of Israel from the birth of Samuel to the close of David’s public life, and cover a period of about a hundred years. The first book contains the history of Samuel and of the reign of Saul; the second, the history of the reign of David, the death of Saul marking the division between the two books. The contents may be divided into five main sections: (1) I, i-vii, history of Samuel; (2) viii-xiv or, better, xv, history of Saul’s government; (3) xvi-xxxi, Saul and David; (4) II, i-xx, history of the reign of David; (5) xxi-xxiv, appendix containing miscellaneous matter. The division between (3) and (4) is sufficiently indicated by the death of Saul and by David’s accession to power; the other sections are marked off by the summaries, vii, 15-17; xiv, 47-58; xx, 23-26; xv, however, which is an introduction to what follows, according to the subject­matter belongs to (2).

(1) History of Samuel

Samuel’s birth and consecration to the Lord, I, i-ii, 11. Misdeeds of the sons of Heli and prediction of the downfall of his house, ii, 12-36. Samuel’s call to the prophetic office; his first vision, in which the impending punishment of the house of Heli is revealed to him, iii. The army of Israel is defeated by the Philistines, Ophni and Phinees are slain and the ark taken; death of Heli, iv. The ark among the Philistines; it is brought back to Bethsames and then taken to Cariathiarim, v- vii, 1. Samuel as judge; he is instrumental in bringing the people back to the Lord and in inflicting a crushing defeat on the Philistines, vii, 2-17.

(2) History of Saul’s Government

The people demand a king; Samuel reluctantly yields to their request, viii. Saul, while seeking his father’s asses, is privately annointed king by Samuel, ix-x, 16. Samuel convokes the people at Maspha (Mizpah) to elect a king; the lot falls on Saul, but he is not acknowledged by all, x, 17-27. Saul defeats the Ammonite king, Naas, and opposition to him ceases, xi. Samuel’s farewell address to the people, xii. War against the Philistines; Saul’s disobedience for which Samuel announces his rejection, xiii. Jonathan’s exploit at Machmas; he is condemned to death for an involuntary breach of his father’s orders, but is pardoned at the people’s prayer, xiv, 1-46. Summary of Saul’s wars; his family and chief commander, xiv, 47- 52. War against Amalec; second disobedience and final rejection of Saul, xv.

(3) Saul and David

David at Court

David, the youngest son of Isai (Jesse), is anointed king at Bethlehem by Samuel, xvi, 1-33. He is called to court to play before Saul and is made his armour­bearer, xvi, 14-23. David and Goliath, xvii. Jonathan’s friendship for David and Saul’s jealousy; the latter, after attempting to pierce David with his lance, urges him on with treacherous intent to a daring feat against the Philistines by promising him his daughter Michol in marriage, xviii. Jonathan softens his father for a time, but, David having again distinguished himself in a war against the Philistines, the enmity is renewed, and Saul a second time attempts to kill him, xix, 1-10. Michol helps David to escape; he repairs to Samuel at Ramatha, but, seeing after Jonathan’s fruitless effort at mediation that all hope of reconciliation is gone, he flees to Achis, King of Geth, stopping on the way at Nobe, where Achimelech gives him the loaves of proposition and the sword of Goliath. Being recognized at Geth he saves himself by feigning madness, xix, 11-xxi.

David as an Outlaw

He takes refuge in the cave of Odollam (Adullam), and becomes the leader of a band of outlaws; he places his parents under the protection of the King of Moab. Saul kills Achimelech and the priests of Nobe, xxii. David delivers Ceila from the Philistines, but to avoid capture by Saul he retires to the desert of Ziph, where he is visited by Jonathan. He is providentially delivered when surrounded by Saul’s men, xxiii. He spares Saul’s life in a cave of the desert of Engaddi, xxiv. Death of Samuel. Episode of Nabal and Abigail; the latter becomes David’s wife after her husband’s death, xxv. During a new pursuit, David enters Saul’s camp at night and carries off his lance and cup, xxvi. He becomes a vassal of Achis, from whom he receives Siceleg (Ziklag); while pretending to raid the territory of Juda, he wars against the tribes of the south, xxvii. New war with the Philistines; Saul’s interview with the witch of Endor, xxviii. David accompanies the army of Achis, but his fidelity being doubted by the Philistine chiefs he is sent back. On his return he finds that Siceleg has been sacked by the Amalecites during his absence, and Abigail carried off with other prisoners; he pursues the marauders and recovers the prisoners and the booty, xxix-xxx. Battle of Gelboe; death of Saul and Jonathan, xxxi.

(4) History of the Reign of David

David at Hebron

He hears of the death of Saul and Jonathan; his lament over them, II, i. He is anointed King of Juda at Hebron, ii, 1-7. War between David and Isboseth, or Esbaal (Ishbaal), the son of Saul, who is recognized by the other tribes, ii, 8-32. Abner, the commander of Isboseth’s forces, having quarrelled with his master, submits to David and is treacherously slain by Joab, iii. Isboseth is assassinated; David punishes the murderers and is acknowledged by all the tribes, iv-v, 5.

David at Jerusalem

Jerusalem is taken from the Jebusites and becomes the capital, v, 6-16. War with the Philistines, v, 17-25. The ark is solemnly carried from Cariathiarim to Sion, vi. David thinks of building a temple; his intention, though not accepted, is rewarded with the promise that his throne will last forever, vii. Summary of the various wars waged by David, and list of his officers, viii. His kindness to Miphiboseth, or Meribbaal, the son of Jonathan, ix. War with Ammon and Syria, x.

David’s Family History

His adultery with Bethsabee, the wife of Urias, xi. His repentance when the greatness of his crime is brought home to him by Nathan, xii, 1-23. Birth of Solomon; David is present at the taking of Rabbath, xii, 24-31. Amnon ravishes Thamar, the sister of Absalom; the latter has him assassinated and flies to Gessur; through the intervention of Joab he is recalled and reconciled with his father, xiii-xiv. Rebellion of Absalom; David flies from Jerusalem; Siba, Miphiboseth’s servant, brings him provisions and accuses his master of disloyalty; Semei curses David; Absalom goes in to his father’s concubines, xv-xvi. Achitophel counsels immediate pursuit, but Absalom follows the advice of Chusai, David’s adherent, to delay, and thus gives the fugitive king time to cross the Jordan, xvii. Battle of Mahanaim; Absalom is defeated and slain by Joab against the king’s order, xviii. David’s intense grief, from which he is aroused by Joab’s remonstrance. At the passage of the Jordan he pardons Semei, receives Miphiboseth back into his good graces, and invites to court Berzellai, who had supplied provisions to the army, xix, 1-39. Jealousies between Israel and Juda lead to the revolt of Seba; Amasa is commissioned to raise a levy, but, as the troops are collected too slowly, Joab and Abisai are sent with the bodyguard in pursuit of the rebels; Joab treacherously slays Amasa. Summary of officers, xix, 40-xx.

(5) Appendix

The two sons of Respha, Saul’s concubine, and the five sons of Merob, Saul’s daughter, are put to death by the Gabaonites, xxi, 1-14. Various exploits against the Philistines, xxi, 15-22. David’s psalm of thanksgiving (Ps. xvii), xxii. His “last words”, xxiii, 1-7. Enumeration of David’s valiant men, xxiii, 8-39. The numbering of the people and the pestilence following it, xxiv.

UNITY AND OBJECT

I-II Books of Kings never formed one work with III-IV, as was believed by the older commentators and is still maintained by some modern writers, although the consecutive numbering of the books in the Septuagint and the account of David’s last days and death at the beginning of III Kings seem to lend colour to such a supposition. The difference of plan and method pursued in the two pairs of books shows that they originally formed two distinct works. The author of III-IV gives a more or less brief sketch of each reign, and then refers his readers for further information to the source whence he has drawn his data; while the author of I-II furnishes such full and minute details, even when they are of little importance, that his work looks more like a series of biographies than a history, and, with the exception of II, i, 18, where he refers to the “Book of the Just”, he never mentions his sources. Moreover, the writer of III-IV supplies abundant chronological data. Besides giving the length of each reign, he usually notes the age of the king at his accession and, after the division, the year of the reign of the contemporary ruler of the other kingdom; he also frequently dates particular events. In the first two books, on the contrary, chronological data are so scant that it is impossible to determine the length of the period covered by them. The position taken by the author of III-IV, with regard to the facts he relates, is also quite different from that of the author of the other two. The former praises or blames the acts of the various rulers, especially with respect to forbidding or allowing sacrifices outside the sanctuary, while the latter rarely expresses a judgment and repeatedly records sacrifices contrary to the prescriptions of the Pentateuch without a word of censure or comment. Lastly, there is a marked difference in style between the two sets of books; the last two show decided Aramaic influence, whereas the first two belong to the best period of Hebrew literature. At the most, it might be said that the first two chapters of the third book originally were part of the Book of Samuel, and were later detached by the author of the Book of Kings to serve as an introduction to the history of Solomon; but even this is doubtful. These chapters are not required by the object which the author of the Book of Samuel had in view, and the work is a complete whole without them. Besides, the summary, II, xx, 23-26, sufficiently marks the conclusion of the history of David. In any case these two chapters are so closely connected with the following that they must have belonged to the Book of Kings from its very beginning.

The general subject of I-II Kings is the foundation and development of the Kingdom of Israel, the history of Samuel being merely a preliminary section intended to explain the circumstances which brought about the establishment of the royal form of government. On closer examination of the contents, however, it is seen that the author is guided by a leading idea in the choice of his matter, and that his main object is not to give a history of the first two kings of Israel, but to relate the providential foundation of a permanent royal dynasty in the family of David. This strikingly appears in the account of Saul’s reign, which may be summarized in the words: elected, found wanting, and rejected in favour of David. The detailed history of the struggle between David and Saul and his house is plainly intended to show how David, the chosen of the Lord, was providentially preserved amid many imminent dangers and how he ultimately triumphed, while Saul perished with his house. The early events of David’s rule over united Israel are told in few words, even such an important fact as the capture of Jerusalem being little insisted on, but his zeal for God’s worship and its reward in the solemn promise that his throne would last forever (II, vii, 11-16) are related in full detail. The remaining chapters tell how, in pursuance of this promise, God helps him to extend and consolidate his kingdom, and does not abandon him even after his great crime, though he punishes him in his tenderest feelings. The conclusion shows him in peaceful possession of the throne after two dangerous rebellions. The whole story is thus built around a central idea and reaches its climax in the Messianic promise, II, vii, 11 sqq. Besides this main object a secondary one may be observed, which is to convey to king and people the lesson that to obtain God’s protection they must observe His commands.

AUTHOR AND DATE

The Talmud attributes to Samuel the whole work bearing his name; this strange opinion was later adopted by St. Gregory the Great, who naïvely persuaded himself that Samuel wrote the events which occurred after his death by prophetic revelation. Rabbinical tradition and most of the older Christian writers ascribe to this prophet the part referring to his time (I, i-xxiv), the rest to the Prophets Gad and Nathan. This view is evidently based on I Par., xxix, 29, “Now the acts of king David first and last are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer.” But the wording of the text indicates that there is question of three distinct works. Besides, the unity of plan and the close connection between the different parts exclude composite authorship; we must at least admit a redactor who combined the three narratives. This redactor, according to Hummelauer, is the prophet Nathan; the work, however, can hardly be placed so early. Others attribute it to Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechias, or Esdras. None of these opinions rests on any solid ground, and we can only say that the author is unknown.

The same diversity of opinion exists as to the date of composition. Hummelauer assigns it to the last days of David. Vigouroux, Cornely, Lesêtre, and Thenius place it under Roboam; Kaulen, under Abiam the son of Roboam; Haevernick, not long after David, Ewald, some thirty years after Solomon; Clair, between the death of David and the destruction of the Kingdom of Juda. According to recent critics it belongs to the seventh century, but received retouches as late as the fifth or even the fourth century. No sufficient data are at hand to fix a precise date. We can, however, assign cedrtain limits of time within which the work must have been composed. The explanation concerning the dress of the king’s daughters in David’s time (II, xiii, 18) supposes that a considerable period had elapsed in the interval, and points to a date later than Solomon, during whose reign a change in the style of dress was most likely introduced by his foreign wives. How much later is indicated by the remark: “For which reason Siceleg belongeth to the kings of Juda unto this day.” (I, xxvii, 6). The expression kings of Juda implies that at the time of writing the Kingdom of Israel had been divided, and that at least two or three kings had reigned over Juda alone. The earliest date cannot, therefore, be placed berfore the reign of Abiam. The latest date, on the other hand, must be assigned to a time prior to Josias’s reform (621 B.C.). As has been remarked, the author repeatedly records without censure or comment violations of the Pentateuchal law regarding sacrifices. Now it is not likely that he would have acted thus if he had written after these practices had been abolished and their unlawfulness impressed on the people, since at this time his readers would have taken scandal at the violation of the Law by such a person as Samuel, and at the toleration of unlawful rites by a king like David. The force of this reason will be seen if we consider how the author of II-IV Kings, who wrote after Josias’s reform, censures every departure from the Law in this respect or, as in III, iii, 2, explains it. The purity of language speaks for an early rather than a late date within the above limits. The appendix, however, may possibly be due to a somewhat later hand. Moreover, additions by a subsequent inspired revisor may be admitted without difficulty.

SOURCES

It is now universally recognized that the author of I-II Kings made use of written documents in composing his work. One such document, “The Book of the Just”, is mentioned in connection with David’s lament over Saul and Jonathan (II, i, 18). The canticle of Anna (I, ii, 1-10), David’s hymn of thanksgiving (II, 22:2-51; cf. Psalm 17), and his “last words” were very probably also drawn from a written source. But besides these minor sources, the writer must have had at hand, at least for the history of David, a document containing much of the historical matter which he narrates. This we infer from the passages common to I-II Kings and the First Book of Paralipomenon (Chronicles), which are shown in the following list:– I K., xxxi II K., iii, 2-5 v, 1-10 v, 11-25 vi, 1-11 vi, 12-23 ” ” ” vii I Par., x, 1-12 iii, 1-4 xi, 1-9 xiv, 1-16 xiii, 1-14 xv, 25-29 xvi, 1-3, 43 xvii I K., viii x,1-xi, 1 xii, 26-31 xxi, 18-22 xxiii, 8-39 xxiv I Par., xviii xix, 1-xx. 1 xx, 1-3 xx, 4-8 xi, 10-46 xxi Although these passages often agree word for word, the differences are such that the author of Paralipomenon, the later writer, cannot be said to have copied from I-II Kings, and we must conclude that both authors made use of the same document. This seems to have been an official record of important public events and of matters pertaining to the administration, such as was probably kept by the court “recorder” (2 Samuel 8:16; 20:24), and is very likely the same as the “Chronicles of King David” (1 Chronicles 27:24). To this document we may add three others mentioned in I Par. (xxix, 29) as sources of information for the history of David, namely, the “Book of Samuel”, the “Book of Gad”, and the “Book of Nathan”. These were works of the three Prophets, as we gather from II Par., ix, 29; xii, 15; xx, 34, etc.; and our author would hardly neglect writings recommended by such names. Samuel very probably furnished the matter for his own history and for part of Saul’s; Gad, David’s companion in exile, the details of that part of David’s life, as well as of his early days as king; and Nathan, information concerning the latter part, or even the whole, of his reign. Thus between them they would have fairly covered the period treated of, if, indeed, their narratives did not partially overlap. Besides these four documents other sources may occasionally have been used. A comparison of the passages of I-II Kings and I Par. given in the list above shows further that both writers frequently transferred their source to their own pages with but few changes; for, since one did not copy from the other, the agreement between them cannot be explained except on the supposition that they more or less reproduce the same document. We have therefore reason to believe that our author followed the same course in other cases, but to what extent we have no means of determining.

THE CRITICAL THEORY

According to recent critics, I-II Kings is nothing but a compilation of different narratives so unskillfully combined that they may be separated with comparative ease. In spite of this comparative ease in distinguishing the different elements, the critics are not agreed as to the number of sources, nor as to the particular souce to which certain passages are to be ascribed. At present the Wellhausen-Budde theory is accepted, at least in its main outlines, by nearly the whole critical school. According to this theory, II, ix-xx, forms one document, which is practically contemporary with the events described; the rest (excluding the appendix) is chiefly made up of two writings, an older one, J, of the ninth century, and a later one, E, of the end of the eighth or the beginning of the seventh century. They are designated J and E, because they are either due to the authors of the Jahwist and Elohist documents of the Hexateuch, or to writers belonging to the same schools. Both J and E underwent modifications by a revisor, J² and E² respectively, and after being welded together by a redactor, RJE, were edited by a writer of the Deuteronomic school, RD. After this redaction some further additions were made, among them the appendix. The different elements are thus divided by Budde:– J.–I, ix, 1-x, 7, 9-16; xi, 1-11, 15; xiii, 1-7a, 15b-18; xiv, 1-46, 52; xvi, 14-23; xviii, 5-6, 11, 20-30; xx, 1-10, 18-39, 42b; xxii, 1-4, 6-18, 20-23; xxiii, 1-14a; xxvi; xxvii; xxix-xxxi. II, i, 1-4, 11-12, 17-27; ii, 1-9, 10b, 12-32; iii; iv; v, 1-3, 6-10, 17-25; vi; ix-xi; xii, 1-9, 13-30, xiii-xx, 22. J².–I, x, 8; xiii, 7b- 15a, 19-22. E.–I, iv, 1b-vii, 1; xv, 2-34; xvii, 1-11, 14-58; xviii, 1-4, 13-29; xix, 1, 4-6, 8-17; xxi, 1- 9; xxi, 19; xxii, 19-xxiv, 19; xxv; xxviii. II, i, 6-10, 13-16; vii. E².–I, i, 1-28; ii, 11- 22a, 23-26; iii, 1-iv, 1a; vii, 2-viii, 22; x, 17-24; xii. RJE.–I, x, 25-27; xi, 12-14; xv, 1; xviii, 21b; xix, 2-3, 7; xx, 11-17, 40-42a; xxii, 10b; xxiii, 14b-18; xxiv, 16, 20-22a. II, i, 5. RD.–1, iv, 18 (last clause); vii, 2; xiii, 1; xiv, 47-51; xxviii, 3. II, ii, 10a, 11; v, 4-5; viii; xii, 10-12. Additions of a later editor.–I, iv, 15, 22; vi, 11b, 15, 17-29; xi, 8b; xv, 4; xxiv, 14; xxx, 5. II, iii, 30; v, 6b, 7b, 8b; xv, 24; xx, 25- 26. Latest additions.–I, ii, 1-10, 22b; xvi, 1-13; xvii, 12-13; xix, 18-24; xx, 10-15; xxii, 5. II, xiv, 26; xxi-xxiv.

This minute division, by which even short clauses are to a nicety apportioned to their proper sources, is based on the following grounds. (1) There are duplicate narratives giving a different or even a contradictory presentation of the same event. There are two accounts of Saul’s election (I, viii, 1-xi), of his rejection (xiii, 1-14 and xv), of his death (I, xxxi, 1 sqq., and II, i, 4 sqq.), of his attempt to pierce David (I, xxiii, 10-11, and xix, 9-10d). There are also two accounts of David’s introduction to Saul (I, xvi, 14 sqq. and xvii, 55-58), of his flight from court (xix, 10 sqq., and xxi, 10), of his taking refuge with Achis (xxi, 10 sqq., and xxvii, 1 sqq.), of his sparing Saul’s life (xxiv, and xxvi). Lastly, there are two accounts of the origin of the proverb: “Is Saul too among the prophets?” (x, 12; xix, 24). Some of these double narratives are not only different, but contradictory. In one account of Saul’s election the people demand a king, because they are dissatisfied with the sons of Samuel; the prophet manifests great displeasure and tries to turn them from their purpose; he yields, however, and Saul is chosen by lot. In the other, Samuel shows no aversion to the kingdom; he privately anoints Saul at God’s command that he may deliver Israel from the Philistines; Saul is proclaimed king only after, and in reward of his victory over the Ammonite king, Naas. According to one version of Saul’s death, he killed himself by falling on his sword; according to the other, he was slain at his own request by an Amalecite. Again, in xvi, David, then arrived at full manhood and experienced in warfare, is called to court to play before Saul and is made his armour-bearer, and yet in the very next chapter he appears as a shepherd lad unused to arms and unknown both to Saul and to Abner. Moreover, there are statements at variance with one another. In I, vii, 33, it is stated that “the Philistines . . . did not come any more into the borders of Israel . . . all the days of Samuel”; while in ix, 16, Saul is elected king to deliver Israel from them, and in xiii a Philistine invasion is described. In I, vii, 15, Samuel is said to have judged Israel all the days of his life, though in his old age he delegated his powers to his sons (viii, 1), and after the election of Saul solemnly laid down his office (xii). Finally, in I, xv, 35, Samuel is said never to have seen Saul again, and yet in xix, 24, Saul appears before him. All this shows that two narratives, often differing in their presentation of the facts, have been combined, the differences in some cases being left unharmonized. (2) Certain passages present religious conceptions belonging to a later age, and must therefore be ascribed to a later writer, who viewed the events of past times in the light of the religious ideas of his own. A difference of literary style can also be detected in the different parts of the work. If all this were true, the theory of the critics would have to be admitted. In that case much of I-II Kings would have but little historical value. The argument from the religious conceptions assumes the truth of Wellhausen’s theory on the evolution of the religion of Israel; while that from literary style is reduced to a list of words and expressions most of which must have been part of the current speech, and for this reason could not have been the exclusive property of any writer. The whole theory, therefore, rests on the argument from double narratives and contradictions. As this seems very plausible, and presents some real difficulties, it demands an examination.

DOUBLETS AND CONTRADICTIONS

Some of the narratives said to be doublets, while having a general resemblance, differ in every detail. This is the case with the two accounts of Saul’s disobedience and rejection, with the two narratives of David’s sparing Saul’s life, and of his seeking refuge with Achis. Such narratives cannot be identified, unless the improbability of the events occurring as related be shown. But is it improbable that Saul should on two different occasions have disregarded Samuel’s directions and that the latter should repeat with greater emphasis the announcement of his rejection? Or that in the game of hide-and-seek among the mountains David should have twice succeeded in getting near the person of Saul and should on both occasions have refrained from harming him? Or that under changed conditions he should have entered into negotiations with Achis and become his vassal? Even where the circumstances are the same, we cannot at once pronounce the narratives to be only different accounts of the same occurrence. It is not at all strange that Saul in his insane moods should twice have attempted to spear David, or that the loyal Ziphites should twice have betrayed to Saul David’s whereabouts. The two accounts of Saul among the prophets at first sight seem to be real doublets, not so much because the two narratives are alike, for they differ considerably, as because both incidents seem to be given as the origin of the proverb: “Is Saul too among the prophets?” The first, however, is alone said to have given rise to the proverb. The expression used in the other case–”Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?”–does not necessarily imply that the proverb did not exist before, but may be understood to say that it then became popular. The translation of the Vulgate, “Unde et exivit proverbium”, is misleading. There is no double mention of David’s flight from court. When in xxi, 10, he is said to have fled from the face of Saul, nothing more is affirmed than that he fled to avoid being taken by Saul, the meaning of the expression “to flee from the face of” being to flee for fear of some one. The double narrative of Saul’s election is obtained by tearing asunder parts which complement and explain one another. Many a true story thus handled will yield the same results. The story as it stands is natural and well connected. The people, disgusted at the conduct of the sons of Samuel, and feeling that a strong central government would be an advantage for the defence of the country, request a king. Samuel receives the request with displeasure, but yields at God’s command and appoints the time and place for the election. In the meanwhile he anoints Saul, who is later designated by lot and acclaimed king. All, however, did not recognize him. Influential persons belonging to the larger tribes were very likely piqued that an unknown man of the smallest tribe should have been chosen. Under the circumstances Saul wisely delayed assuming royal power till a favourable opportunity presented itself, which came a month later, when Naas besieged Jabes. It is objected, indeed, that, since the Jabesites did not send a message to Saul in their pressing danger, chap. xi, 4 sq., must have belonged to an account in which Saul had not yet been proclaimed king, whence a double narrative is clearly indicated. But even if the Jabesites had sent no message, the fact would have no significance, since Saul had not received universal recognition; nothing, however, warrants us to read such a meaning into the text. At all events, Saul on hearing the news immediately exercised royal power by threatening with severe punishment anyone who would not follow him. Difficulties, it is true, exist as to some particulars, but difficulties are found also in the theory of a double account. The two accounts of Saul’s death are really contradictory; but only one is the historian’s; the other is the story told by the Amalecite who brought to David the news of Saul’s death, and nothing indicates that the writer intends to relate it as true. We need have little hesitation in pronouncing it a fabrication of the Amalecite. Lying to promote one’s interests is not unusual, and the hope of winning David’s favour was a sufficient inducement for the man to invent his story.

With regard to the apparent contradiction between xvi, 14-23, and xvii, it should be remarked that the Vatican (B) and a few other MSS. of the Septuagint omit xvii, 12-31 and xvii, 55-xviii, 5. This form of the text is held to be the more original, not only by some conservative writers, but by such critics as Cornill, Stade, W. R. Smith, and H. P. Smith. But though this text, if it were certain, would lessen the difficulty, it would not entirely remove it, as David still appears as a boy unused to arms. The apparent contradiction disappears if we take xvi, 14-23, to be out of its chronological place, a common enough occurrence in the historical books both of the Old and of the New Testament. The reason of the inversion seems to be in the desire of the author to bring out the contrast between David, upon whom the spirit of the Lord came from the day of his anointing, and Saul, who was thenceforth deserted by the spirit of the Lord, and troubled by an evil spirit. Or it may be due to the fact that with xvii the author begins to follow a new source. This supposition would explain the repetition of some details concerning David’s family, if xvii, 17-21, is original. According to the real sequence of events, David after his victory over Goliath returned home, and later, having been recommended by one who was aware of his musical skill, he was called to court and permanently attached to the person of Saul. This explanation might seem inadmissible, because it is said (xviii, 2) that “Saul took him that day, and would not let him return to his father’s house.” But as “on that day” is often used in a loose way, it need not be taken to refer to the day on which David slew Goliath, and room will thus be left for the incident related in xvi, 14-23. It is not true, therefore, that it is impossible to reconcile the two accounts, as is asserted. The so-called contradictory statements may also be satisfactorily explained. As vii is a summary of Samuel’s administration, the words “the Philistines . . . did not come any more into the borders of Israel” must be taken to refer only to Samuel’s term of office, and not to his whole lifetime; they do not, therefore, stand in contradiction with xiii, where an incursion during the reign of Saul is described. Besides, it is not said that there were no further wars with the Philistines; the following clause: “And the hand of the Lord was against the Philistines, all the days of Samuel”, rather supposes the contrary. There were wars, indeed, but the Philistines were always defeated and never succeeded in gaining a foothold in the country. Still they remained dangerous neighbours, who might attack Israel at any moment. Hence it could well be said of Saul, “He shall save my people out of the hands of the Philistines” (ix, 16), which expression does not necessarily connote that they were under the power of the Philistines. Ch. xiii, 19-21, which seems to indicate that the Philistines were occupying the country at the time of Saul’s election, is generally acknowledged to be misplaced. Further, when Samuel delegated his powers to his sons, he still retained his office, and when he did resign it, after the election of Saul, he continued to advise and reprove both king and people (cf. I, xii, 23); he can therefore be truly said to have judged Israel all the days of his life. The last contradiction, which Budde declares to be inexplicable, rests on a mere quibble about the verb “to see”. The context shows clearly enought that when the writer states that “Samuel saw Saul no more till the day of his death” (xv, 35), he means to say that Samuel had no further dealings with Saul, and not that he never beheld him again with his eyes. Really, is it likely that a redactor who, we are told, often harmonizes his sources, and who plainly intends to present a coherent story, and not merely a collection of old documents, would allow glaring contradictions to stand? There is no sufficient reason, then, why we should not grant a historical character to the section I, i-II, viii, as well as to the rest of the work. Those internal marks–namely, lifelike touches, minuteness of detail, bright and flowing style–which move the critics to consider the latter part as of early origin and of undoubted historical value, are equally found in the first.

THE HEBREW TEXT, THE SEPTUAGINT, AND THE VULGATE

The Hebrew text has come down to us in a rather unsatisfactory condition, by reason of the numerous errors due to transcribers. The numbers especially have suffered, probably because in the oldest manuscripts they were not written out in full. In I, vi, 19, seventy men become “seventy men, and fifty thousand of the common people.” In I, xiii, 5, the Philistines are given the impossible number of thirty thousand chariots. Saul is only a year old when he begins to reign, and reigns but two years (I, xiii, 1). Absalom is made to wait forty years to accomplish the vow he made while in Gessur (II, xv, 7). In I, viii, 16, oxen are metamorphosed into “goodliest young men”, while in II, x, 18, forty thousand footmen are changed into horsemen. Michol, who in II, vi, 23, is said to have had no children, in II, xxi, 8, is credited with the five sons of her sister Merob (cf. I, xviii, 19; xxv, 44; II, iii, 15). In II, xxi, 19, Goliath is again slain by Elchanan, and, strange to say, though I Par., xx, 5, tells us that the man killed by Elchanan was the brother of the giant, some critics here also see a contradiction. Badan in I, xii, 11, should be changed to Abdon or Barak, and Samuel, in the same verse, to Samson, etc. Many of these mistakes can readily be corrected by a comparison with Paralipomenon, the Septuagint, and other ancient versions. Others antedate all translations, and are therefore found in the versions as well as in the Massoretic (Hebrew) text. In spite of the work of correction done by modern commentators and textual critics, a perfectly satisfactory critical text is still a desideratum. The Septuagint differs considerably from the Massoretic text in many instances; in others the case is not so clear. The Vulgate was translated from a Hebrew text closely resembling the Massoretic; but the original text has been interpolated by additions and duplicate translations, which have crept in from the Itala. Additions occur: I, iv, 1; v, 6, 9: viii, 18; x, 1; xi, 1; xiii, 15; siv, 22, 41; xv, 3, 12; xvii, 36; xxi, 11; xxx, 15; II, i, 26; v, 23; x, 19; xiii, 21, 27; xiv, 30; duplicate translations, I, ix, 15; xv, 32; xx, 15; xxiii, 13, 14; II, i, 18; iv, 5; vi, 12; xv, 18, 20.

———————————–

Catholic: GIGOT, Special Introd. (New York, 1901), 251-65; CORNELY, Introductio, (Paris, 1897), i, 240-76; HUMMELBAUER, Comm. in Libros Samuelis (Paris, 1886); FILLION in VIG., Dict. de la Bible, s. v. Rois (les quatre livres des); VIGOROUX, Manuel Bibl., 10th ed., II (Paris, 1899), 80 sqq.; CLAIR, Livres des Rois (Paris, 1884); DHORME, Les Livres de Samuel (Paris, 1910); KAULEN, Einleitung (3rd ed., Freiburg im Br., 1890), 223-30; SCHÄFERS, I Sam., i-xv literarkritisch untersucht in Bibl. Zeitschr., V (1907), 1, 126, 235, 359; VI, 117; PETERS, Beiträge zur Text-und Literaturkritik der B252;cher Samuels (Vienna, 1904); WIESMANN, Die Einführung des Königtums in Israel in Zeitsch. für Kathol. Theologie, XXXIV (1910), 118-153; IDEM, Bemerkungen zum I Buche Samuels, ibid., XXXII (1908), 187, 597; XXXIII, 129, 385, 796. Non-Catholic: STENNING in HAST., Dict of the Bible, s. v. Samuel, I and II; DRIVER, Literat. of the O. T., 8th ed. (Edinburgh, 1909), 172-85; IDEM, Notes on Heb. Text of the B. of Samuel (Oxford, 1890); H. P. SMITH, Comm. on the B. of Samuel (New York, 1899); WELLHAUSEN, Composition des Hexateuchs und der Histor. Bücher des A. T. (Berlin, 1899); IDEM, Text der Bücher Samuels (Göttingen, 1871); BUDDE, Die Bücher Richter und Samuel (Giessen, 1890); IDEM, The Books of Samuel in HAUPT, Sacred Books of the O. T. (Baltimore, 1894); IDEM, Die Bücher Samuel in MARTI, Kurzer Hand Comm. zum A. T., (1902); CORNILL in Zeitschr. für kirchl. Wissensch. und kirchl. Leben (1885), 113 sqq.; IDEM in Königsberg. Studien (1887); 25 sqq.; IDEM in Zeitsch. für A. T. Wissensch., (1890), 96 sqq.; THENIUS, Die Bücher Samuels, ed. LÖHR (Leipzig, 1898); KLOSTERMANN, Die Bücher Samuels und der Könige (Munich, 1887).

F. BECHTEL Transcribed by WGKofron With thanks to St. Mary’s Church, Akron, Ohio

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIIICopyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Kings, First And Second Books Of

the second of the series of Hebrew royal annals, the books of Samuel forming the introductory series, and the books of Chronicles being a parallel series. In the Hebrew Bible the first two series alone form part of ” the Former Prophets,” like Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. SEE BIBLE. In the Authorized English Version it is added to their titles: “commonly called the Third [and the Fourth] Book of the Kings.” SEE SAMUEL, BOOKS OF.

I. Number and Title. The two books of Kings formed anciently but one book in the Jewish Scriptures, as is affirmed by Origen (apud Euseb. Prep. Evang. 6:25, , , ), Jerome (Proloy. Gal.), Josephus (Cont. Apion. i, 8), and others. The present division, following the Septuagint and Latin versions, has been common in the Hebrew Bibles since the Venetian editions of Bomberg.

The old Jewish name was borrowed, as usual, from the commencing words of the book ( ), Graecized as in the above quotation from Eusebius. The Septuagint and Vulgate now number them as the third and fourth books of Kings, reckoning the two books of Samuel the first and second. Their present title, , , Regum, in the opinion of Havernick, has respect more to the formal than essential character of the composition (Einleitung, 168); yet under such forms of government as those of Judah and Israel the royal person and name are intimately associated with all national acts and movements, legal decisions, warlike preparations, domestic legislation, and foreign policy. The reign of an Oriental prince is identified with the history of his nation during the period of his sovereignty. More especially in the theocratic constitution of the Jewish realm the character of the monarch was an important element of national history, and, of necessity, it had considerable influence on the fate and fortunes of the people.

II. Independent Form.-The question has been raised and minutely discussed whether the books of Kings (1 and 2) constitute an entire work of themselves, or whether they originally formed part of a larger historical work embracing the principal parts of the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, out of which these several books, as we now have them, have been formed. Ewald regards the books of Judges (with Ruth), 1 and 2 Samuel, and I and 2 Kings, as forming parts of one whole work, which he calls ” The great book of the Kings.” The grounds on which this supposition has been built are partly the following:

(1.) These books together contain one unbroken narrative, both in form and matter, each portion being connected with the preceding by the conjunctive 5, or the continuative (. The book of Judges shows itself to be a separate work from Joshua by opening with a narration of events with which that book closes; the work then proceeds through the times of the Judges, and goes on to give, in Ruth, the family history and genealogy of David, and in Samuel and Kings the events which transpired down to the captivity.

(2.) The recurrence in Judges of the phrases, “And in those days there was no king in Israel” (Jdg 17:6; Jdg 18:1; Jdg 21:25); ” It came to pass in those days when there was no king” (Jdg 19:1); and in Ruth (Rth 1:1), “Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled,” shows that this portion of the work was written in the times when there were kings in Israel. The writer therefore was in a position to pass under review the whole period of the times of the judges, and we find that he estimates the conduct of the people according to the degree of their conformity to the law of the Lord, after the manner of the writer of Kings (Jdg 2:11-19; 2Ki 17:7-23).

Again, in Jdg 1:21, it is said that the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day; and in 2Sa 24:16, mention is made of Araunah the Jebusite as an inhabitant of Jerusalem, from which it is inferred that the writer intended these facts to explain each other. (But see Jos 15:63.) So there is a reference in Jdg 20:27 to the removal of the ark of the covenant from Shiloh to Jerusalem; and the expression “in those days” points, as in 17:6, etc., to remote times. There is thought to be a reference in Jdg 18:30 to the captivity of Israel in the days of Hoshea, in which case that book must have been written subsequently to that time, as well as the books of Kings.

(3.) The books of Kings take up the narrative where 2 Samuel breaks off, and proceed in the same spirit and manner to continue the history, with the earlier parts of which the writer gives proof of being well acquainted (comp. 1Ki 2:11 with 2Sa 5:4-5; so also 2Ki 17:41 with Jdg 2:11-19, etc.; 1Sa 2:27 with Jdg 13:6; 2Sa 14:17-20; 2Sa 19:27, with Jdg 13:6; 1Sa 9:21 with Jdg 6:15, and Judges 20; 1Ki 8:1 with 2Sa 6:17; 2Sa 5:7; 2Sa 5:9; 1Sa 17:12 with Rth 4:17; Rth 1:1 with Jdg 17:7-9; Jdg 19:1-2 [Bethlehem-Judah]). Other links connecting the books of Kings with the preceding may be found in the comparison, suggested by De Wette, of 1Ki 2:26 with 1Sa 2:35; 1Ki 2:3-4; 1Ki 5:17-18; 1Ki 8:18-19; 1Ki 8:25, with 2Sa 7:12-16; and 1Ki 4:1-6 with 2Sa 8:15-18.

(4.) Similarity of diction has been observed throughout, indicating identity of authorship. The phrase “Spirit of Jehovah” occurs first in Judges, and frequently afterwards in Samuel and Kings (Jdg 3:10; Jdg 6:34, etc.; 1Sa 10:6, etc.; 1Ki 22:24; 2Ki 2:16, etc.). So ” Man of God,” to designate a prophet, and “God do so to me and more also,” are common to them; and “till they were ashamed” to Judges and Kings (Jdg 3:25; 2Ki 2:17; 2Ki 8:11).

(5.) Generally the style of the narrative, ordinarily quiet and simple, but rising to great vigor and spirit when stirring deeds are described (as in Judges 4, 7, 11, etc.; 1 Samuel 4, 17, 31, etc.; 1 Kings 8, 18, 19, etc.), and the introduction of poetry or poetic style in the midst of the narrative (as in Judges 5 :1 Samuel 2, 2Sa 1:17, etc., 1Ki 22:17, etc.), constitute such strong features of resemblance as lead to the conclusion that these several books form but one work.

But these reasons are not conclusive. Many of the resemblances may be accounted for in other ways, while there are important and wide differences.

(1.) If the arguments were sufficient to join Judges, Samuel, and Kings together in one work, for the same reasons Joshua must be added (Joshua i, 1; 15:63; xxiii and xxiv; Jdg 1:1).

(2.) The writer of Kings might be well acquainted with the previous history of his people, and even with the contents of Judges and Samuel, without being himself the author of those books.

(3.) Such similarity of diction as exists may be ascribed to the use by the writer of Kings of earlier documents, to which also the writer of Samuel had access.

(4.) There are good reasons for regarding the Kings as together forming an entire and independent work, such as the similarity of style and language, both vocabulary and grammar, which pervades the two books, but distinguishes them from others-the uniform system of quotation observed in them, but not in the books which precede them -the same careful attention to chronology-the recurrence of certain phrases and forms of speech peculiar to them. A great number of words occur in Kings, which are found in them only; such are chiefly names of materials and utensils, and architectural terms. Words, and unusual forms of words, occur, which are only found here and in writers of the same period, as Isaiah and Jeremiah, but not in Samuel or Judges. See 5, below.

III. Contents, Character, and Design.-The books of Kings contain the brief annals of a long period, from the accession of Solomon till the dissolution of the commonwealth. The first chapters describe the reign of Solomon over the united kingdom, and the revolt under Rehoboam. The history of the rival states is next narrated in parallel sections till the period of Israel’s downfall on the invasion of Shalmanezer. Then the remaining years of the principality of Judah are recorded till the conquest of Nebuchadnezzar and the commencement of the Babylonian captivity. SEE ISRAEL; SEE JUDAH. For an adjustment of the years of the respective reigns in each line, SEE CHRONOLOGY.

There are some peculiarities in this succinct history worthy of attention. It is summary, but very suggestive. It is not a biography of the sovereigns, nor a mere record of political occurrences, nor yet an ecclesiastical register. King, Church, and State are all comprised in their sacred relations. It is a theocratic history, a retrospective survey of the kingdom as existing under a theocratic government. The character of the sovereign is tested by his fidelity to the religious obligations of his office, and this decision in reference to his conduct is generally added to the notice of his accession. The new king’s religious character is generally portrayed by its similarity or opposition to the way of David, of his father, or of Jeroboam, son of Nebat, ” who made Israel to sin.” Ecclesiastical affairs are noticed with a similar purpose, and in contrast with past or prevalent apostasy, especially as manifested in the popular superstitions, whose shrines were on the ” high places.” Political or national incidents are introduced in general for the sake of illustrating the influence of religion on civic prosperity; of showing how the theocracy maintained a vigilant and vengeful guardianship over its rights and privileges-adherence to its principles securing peace and plenty, disobedience to them bringing along with it sudden and severe retribution. The books of Kings are a verification of the Mosaic warnings, and the author of them has kept this steadily in view. He has given a brief history of his people, arranged under the various political chiefs in such a manner as to show that the government was essentially theocratic; that its spirit, as developed in the Mosaic writings, was never extinct, however modified or inactive it might sometimes appear. Thus the books of Kings appear in a religious costume, quite different from the form they would have assumed either as a political or ecclesiastical narrative.

In the one case legislative enactments, royal edicts, popular movements, would have occupied a prominent place; in the other, sacerdotal arrangements, Levitical service, music, and pageantry, would have filled the leading sections of the treatise. In either view the points adduced would have had a restricted reference to the palace or the temple, the sovereign or the pontiff, the court or the priesthood, the throne or the altar, the tribute or tithes, the nation on its farms, or the tribes in the courts of the sacred edifice. But the theocracy conjoined both the political and religious elements, and the inspired annalist unites them as essential to his design. The agency of divinity is constantly recognised, the hand of Jehovah is continually acknowledged. The chief organ of theocratic influence enjoys peculiar prominence. We refer to the incessant agency of the prophets, their great power and peculiar modes of action as detailed by the composer of the books of Kings. They interfered with the succession, and their instrumentality was apparent il the schism. They roused the people, and they braved the sovereign. The balance of power was in their hands; the regal dignity seemed to be sometimes at their disposal. In times of emergency they dispensed with usual modes of procedure, and assumed an authority with which no subject in an ordinary state can safely be intrusted. executing the law with a summary promptness which rendered opposition impossible, or at least unavailing. They felt their divine commission, and that they were the custodians of the rights of Jehovah. At the same time they protected the interests of the nation, and, could we divest the term of its association with unprincipled turbulence and sedition, we would, like Winer (Real Vortearb . s.v. Prophet), style them the demagogues of Israel. The divine prerogative was to them a vested right, guarded with a sacred jealousy from royal usurpation or popular invasion; and the interests of the people were as religiously protected against encroachments, too easily made under a form of government which had not the safeguard of popular representation or aristocratic privilege. The priesthood were in many instances, though there are some illustrious exceptions, merely the creatures of the crown, and therefore it became the prophetical office to assert its dignity and stand forth in the majestic insignia of an embassy from heaven. The truth of these sentiments, as to the method, design, and composition of the books of Kings, is confirmed by ample evidence.

(1.) Large space is occupied with the building of the Temple-the palace of the divine Protector-his throne in it being above the mercy-seat and between the cherubim (ch. v-viii). Care is taken to record the miraculous phenomenon of the descent of the Shekinah (viii. 10). The prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the house is full of theocratic views and aspirations.

(2.) Reference is often made to the Mosaic law, with its provisions, and allusions to the earlier history of the people frequently occur (1Ki 2:3; 1Ki 3:14; 1Ki 6:11-12; 1Ki 8:58, etc.; 2Ki 10:31; 2Ki 14:6; 2Ki 17:13; 2Ki 17:15; 2Ki 17:37; 2Ki 18:4-6; 2Ki 21:1-8). Allusions to the Mosaic code are found more frequently towards the end of the second book when the kingdom was drawing near its termination, as if to account for its decay and approaching fate.

(3.) Phrases expressive of divine interference are frequently introduced (1Ki 11:31; 1Ki 12:15; 1Ki 13:1-2; 1Ki 13:9; and 1Ki 20:13, etc.).

(4.) Prophetic interposition is a very prominent theme of record. It fills the vivid foreground of the historical picture. Nathan was occupied in the succession of Solomon (1Ki 1:45); Ahijah was concerned in the revolt (1Ki 11:29-40). Shemaiah disbanded the troops which Rehoboam had mustered (1Ki 12:21). Ahijah predicted the ruin of Jeroboam, whose elevation he had promoted (1Ki 14:7). Jehu, the prophet, doomed the house of Baasha (1Ki 16:1). The reigns of Ahab and Ahaziah are marked by the bold, rapid, mysterious movements of Elijah. Under Ahab occurs the prediction of Micaiah (1Ki 22:8). The actions and oracles of Elisha form the marvellous topics of narration under several reigns. The agency of Isaiah is also recognised (2Ki 19:20; 2Ki 20:16). Besides, 1 Kings 13 presents another instance of prophetic operation; and in 20:35, the oracle of an unknown prophet is also rehearsed. Huldah the prophetess was an important personage under the government of Josiah (2Ki 22:14). Care is also taken to report the fulfilment of striking prophecies, in the usual phrase, “according to the word of the Lord” (1Ki 12:15; 1Ki 15:29; 1Ki 16:12; 2Ki 23:15-18; 2Ki 9:36; 2Ki 24:2). So, too, the old Syriac version prefixes, “Here follows the book of the kings who flourished among the ancient people; and in this is also exhibited the history of the prophets who flourished during their times.”

(5.) Theocratic influence is recognised both in the deposition and succession of kings (1Ki 13:33; 1Ki 15:4-5; 1Ki 15:29-30 2Ki 11:17, etc.). Compare, on the whole of this view, Huvernick, Einleit. 168; Jahn, Introduct. 46; Gesenius, Ueber Jes. i, 934. It is thus apparent that the object of the author of the Books of Kings was to describe the history of the kingdoms, especially in connection with the theocratic element. This design accounts for what De Wette (Einleit. 185) terms the mythical character of these books.

As to what has been termed the anti-Israelitish spirit of the work (Bertholdt, Einleit. p. 949), we do not perceive it. Truth required that the kingdom of Israel should be described in its real character. Idol-worship was connected with its foundation; moscholatry was a state provision; fidelity obliged the annalist to state that all its kings patronized the institutions of Bethel and Dan, while eight, at least, of the Jewish sovereigns adhered to the true religion, and that the majority of its kings perished in insurrection, while those of Judah in general were exempted from seditious tumults and assassination.

IV. Relation of Kings to Chronicles. The more obvious differences between the books of Kings and of Chronicles are,

(1.) In respect of language, by which the former are shown to be of earlier date than the latter.

(2.) Of periods embraced in each work. The Chronicles are much more comprehensive than Kings, containing genealogical lists from Adam downwards, and a full account of the reign of David. The portions of the Chronicles synchronistic with Kings are 1 Chronicles 28, 2Ch 36:22.

(3.) In the Kings greater prominence is given to the prophetical office; in Chronicles, to the priestly or Levitical. In the books of the Kings we have the active influence of Nathan in regard to the succession to the throne; and the remarkable lives of Elijah and Elisha, of whom numerous and extraordinary miracles are related, of which scarcely the slightest mention is made in Chronicles, although in Kings about fourteen chapters are taken up with them. Besides these, other prophets are mentioned, and their acts and sayings are recorded; as, 1 Kings 13, the prophet who came to Bethel from Judah in the reign of Jeroboam, and his predictions; and in 2 Kings 23, the fulfilment of them in the days of Josiah; 1 Kings 13, the old prophet who lived at Bethel with his sons. Ahijah the prophet, also, in the days of Jeroboam, 1 Kings 14; Jehu, the son of Hanani, 1 Kings 16; Jonah, in the time of Jeroboam, 2Ki 14:25; and Isaiah in relation to the sickness of Hezekiah, 2 Kings 20. Of these there is either no mention, or much slighter in Chronicles,. where the priestly or Levitical element is more observable; as, for example, the full account, in 2 Chronicles 29-31, of the purification of the Temple by Hezekiah; of the services and sacrifices then made, and of the names of the Levites who took part in it, and the restoration of the courses and orders of the priesthood, and the supplies for the daily, weekly, and yearly sacrifices; also, the circumstantial account of the Passover observed by command of Josiah, 2Ch 35:1-19. In this way we may account not only for the omission of much that relates to the prophets, but also for the less remarkable prominence given to the history of Israel, and the greater to Judah and Jerusalem; and for the frequent omission of details respecting the idolatrous practices of some of the kings, as of Solomon, Rehoboam, and Ahaz; and the destruction of idolatry by Josiah, showing that the books of Chronicles were written in times in which the people less needed to be warned against idolatry; to which, after the captivity, they had ceased to be so prone as before.

For further information on the relation between Kings and Chronicles, SEE CHRONICLES, BOOKS OF.

V. Peculiarities of Diction.

1. The words noticed by De Wette (Einl. 185) as indicating their modern date are the following: for , 1Ki 14:2. (But this form is also found in Jdg 17:2; Jer 4:30; Eze 36:13, and not once in the later books.) for , 2Ki 1:15. (But this form of is found in Lev 15:18; Lev 15:24; Jos 14:12; 2Sa 24:24; Isa 59:21; Jer 10:5; Jer 12:1; Jer 19:10; Jer 20:11; Jer 23:9; Jer 35:2, Eze 14:4; Eze 27:26.) for , 1Ki 9:8. (But Jer 19:8; Jer 49:17, are identical in phrase and orthography.) for , 2Ki 11:13. (But everywhere else in Kings, e.g. 2Ki 11:6, etc., , which is also universal in Chronicles, an avowedly later book; and here, as in , 1Ki 11:33, there is every appearance of the being a clerical error for the copulative ; see Thenius, 1. c.) , 1Ki 20:14. (But this word occurs in Lam 1:1, and there is every appearance of its being a technical word in 1Ki 20:14, and therefore as old as the reign of Ahab.) for , 1Ki 4:22. (But is used by Ezekiel xlv, 14, and homer seems to have been then already obsolete.) , 1Ki 21:8; 1Ki 21:11. (Occurs in Isaiah and Jeremiah.)

, 2Ki 25:8. (But as the term evidently came in with the Chaldees, as seen in Rab-shakeh, Rab-saris, Rab-mag, its application to the Chaldee general is no evidence of a time later than the person to whom the title is given.) , 1Ki 8:61, etc. (But there is not a particle of evidence that this expression belongs to late Hebrew. It is found, among other places, in Isa 38:3, a passage against the authenticity of which there is also not a shadow of proof, except upon the presumption that prophetic intimations and supernatural interventions on the part of God are impossible.) , 2Ki 18:7. (On what grounds this word is adduced it is impossible to guess, since it occurs in this sense in Joshua, Isaiah, Samuel, and Jeremiah: see Gesenius.) , 2Ki 18:19. (Isa 36:4; Ecc 9:4.) , 2Ki 18:26. (But why should not a Jew, in Hezekiah’s reign as well as in the time of Nehemiah, have called his mother-tongue “the Jews’ language,” in opposition to the Aanzcean ? There was nothing in the Babylonian captivity to give it the name if it had it not before, nor is there a single earlier instance-Isa 19:18 might have furnished one-of any name given to the language spoken by all the Israelites, and which, in later times, was called Hebrew: , Prolog. Ecclus.; Luk 23:38; Joh 5:2, etc.)

, 2Ki 25:6. (Frequent in Jer 4:12; Jer 39:5, etc.) Theod. Parker adds (see, too, Thenius, Einl. 6), 1Ki 10:15; 1Ki 20:24; 2Ki 18:24, on the presumption, probably, of its being of Persian derivation; but the etymology and origin of the word are quite uncertain, and it is repeatedly used in Jeremiah 51, as well as Isa 36:9. With better reason might have been adduced, 1Ki 12:33. The expression , in 1Ki 4:24, is also a difficult one to form an impartial opinion about. It is doubtful, as De Wette admits, whether the phrase necessarily implies its being used by one to the east of the Euphrates, because the use varies in Num 32:19; Num 35:14; Jos 1:14 sq.; Jos 5:1; Jos 12:1; Jos 12:7; Jos 22:7; 1Ch 26:30; Deu 1:1; Deu 1:5, etc. It is also conceivable that the phrase might be used as a mere geographical designation by those who belonged to one of “the provinces beyond the river” subject to Babylon; and, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, Judaea had been such a province for at least 23 years, and probably longer. We may safely affirm, therefore, that, on the whole, the peculiarities of diction in these books do not indicate a time after the captivity, or towards the close of it, but, on the contrary, point pretty distinctly to the age of Jeremiah. It may be added that the marked and systematic differences between the language of Chronicles and that of Kings, taken with the fact that all attempts to prove the Chronicles, in the main, later than Ezra, have utterly failed, lead to the same conclusion. (See many examples in Movers, p. 200 sq.)

2. Other peculiar or rare expressions in these books are the proverbial ones: , found only in them and in 1Sa 25:22; 1Sa 25:34; “slept with his fathers,” “him that dieth in the city the dogs shall eat,” etc.; , 1Ki 2:23, etc.; also , 1Ki 1:4; 1Ki 1:45; elsewhere only in poetry and in the composition of proper names, except Deu 2:36; , Deu 1:9. Also the following isolated terms:

, “fowl,” 1Ki 4:23; , “stalls,” 1Ki 5:6; 2Ch 9:25; , 2Ch 5:13; 2Ch 9:15; 2Ch 9:21; , “a stone-quarry” (Gesenius), 2Ch 6:7; , 2Ch 6:17; , 2Ch 6:19; and , ” wild cucumbers,” 2Ch 6:18; 2Ki 4:39; , 2Ki 10:28; the names of the months, , 2Ki 8:2; , 1Ki 6:37-38; K3, to invent,” 1Ki 12:33; Neh 6:8, in both cases joined with , ” an idol,” 1Ki 15:13; , and , followed by , “to destroy,” 1Ki 14:10; 1Ki 16:3; 1Ki 21:21; , “joints of the armor,” 1Ki 22:34; , “a pursuit,” 1Ki 18:27; , “to bend one’s self,” 1Ki 18:42; 2Ki 4:34-35; , “to gird up,” 1Ki 18:46; , “a head-band,” 1Ki 20:38; 1Ki 20:42; , ” to suffice,” 1Ki 20:10; , uncert. signif., 1Ki 20:33; , ‘ to reign,” 1Ki 21:7; , “a dish,” 2Ki 2:20; , “to fold up,” 2Ki 2:8; , ” a herdsman,” 1Ki 3:4; Amo 1:1; , ” an oil-cup,” 1Ki 4:2; , “to have a care for,” 1Ki 4:13; , “to sneeze,” 4:35; , “a bag,” 4:42; , “a money-bag,” 5:23; , “a camp” (?), 1Ki 6:8; , “a feast,” 1Ki 6:23; , “descending,” 1Ki 6:9; ,”a cab,” 1Ki 6:25; , “d dove’s dung,” ib.; , perhaps ” a fly-net,” 1Ki 8:15; (in sense of ” self,” as in Chald. and Samar.), 1Ki 9:13; ,”a heap,” 1Ki 10:8; ,’ “a vestry,” 1Ki 10:22; , “a draught-house,” 1Ki 10:27; . ” Cherethites,” 1Ki 11:4; 1Ki 11:19, and 2Sa 20:23 (kethib); , “a keeping off,” 1Ki 11:6; , “an acquaintance,” 1Ki 12:6; the form , from , “to shoot,” 1Ki 13:17; . “hostages,” 1Ki 14:14; 2Ch 25:24; , “sick-house,” 1Ki 15:5; 2Ch 26:21 ; , before,” 1Ki 15:10; , ” Damascus,” 1Ki 16:10 (perhaps only a false reading); . “a pavement,” 1Ki 16:17; or ,”a covered way, 1Ki 16:18; , in Piel “to do secretly,” 1Ki 17:9; , with , 16, only besides Deu 7:5, Mic 5:14; , i. q. , 1Ki 17:21 (kethib); , ” Samaritans,” Ki 17:29; , “Nehustan,” 1Ki 18:4; , ” a pillar,” 1Ki 18:16; , “to make peace,” 31; Isa 36:16; , ” that which grows up the third year,” 19:29; Isa 37:30; , “treasure-house,” 1Ki 20:13; Isa 39:2; , part of Jerusalem so called, 1Ki 21:14; Zep 1:10; Neh 11:9; , “-signs of the zodiac,” 23:5; , “a suburb,” 23:11; , “ploughmen,” 25:12 (kethib); for , “to change,” 25:9; for , 2Ki 6:13; , “meat,” 1Ki 19:8; “‘almug trees,” 1Ki 10:11-12; , “to stretch one’s self,” 1Ki 18:42; 2Ki 4:34-35; , a “turban” (” ashes”), 1Ki 20:38; 1Ki 20:41; , “floats,” 1Ki 5:9; “chambers,” 1Ki 6:5-6; 1Ki 6:10; , “clay,” 1Ki 7:46; , “debt,” 2Ki 4:7; , “heavy,” 1Ki 20:43; 1Ki 21:4-5; , “chapter,” only in Kings, Chronicles, and Jeremiah; , “snuffers,” only in Kings, Chronicles, and Jeremiah; , “base,” only in Kings, Chronicles, Jeremiah, and Ezra. To these may be added the architectural terms in 1Ki 6:7 :and the names of foreign idols in 2 Kings 17. The general character of the language is most distinctly that of the time before the Babylonian captivity.

VI. Variations in the Septuagint.-These are very remarkable, and consist of transpositions, omissions, and some considerable additions, of all which Thenius gives some useful notices in his Introduction to the book of Kings.

1. The most important transpositions are the history of Shimei’s death, 1Ki 2:36-46, which in the Sept. (Cod. Vat.) comes after 3:1, and divers scraps from ch. 4, 5, and 9, accompanied by one or two remarks of the translators. The sections 1Ki 4:20-25; 1Ki 4:2-6; 1Ki 4:26; 1Ki 4:21; 1Ki 4:1, are strung together and precede 1Ki 3:2-28, but many of them are repeated again in their proper places. The sections 1Ki 3:1; 1Ki 9:16-17, are strung together, and placed between 1Ki 4:34 and 1Ki 5:1. The section 1Ki 7:1-12, is placed after 1Ki 7:51. Section 1Ki 8:12-13, is placed after 53. Section 1Ki 9:15-22, is placed after 1Ki 10:22. Section 1Ki 11:43, 1Ki 12:1-3, is much transposed and confused in Sept. 11:43, 44, 1Ki 12:1-3. Section 1Ki 14:1-21, is placed in the midst of the long addition to Chronicles 12 mentioned below. Section 1Ki 22:42-50, is placed after 1Ki 16:28. Chap. 20 and 21 are transposed. Section 2Ki 3:1-3, is placed after 2Ki 1:18.

2. The omissions are few. Section 1Ki 6:11-14, is entirely omitted, and 37, 38 are only slightly alluded to at the opening of chap. 3. The erroneous clause 1Ki 15:6, is omitted; and so are the dates of Asa’s reign in 16:8 and 15; and there are a few verbal omissions of no consequence.

3. The chief interest lies in the additions, of which the principal are the following. The supposed mention of a fountain as among Solomon’s works in the Temple in the passage after 1 Kings ii, 35; of a paved causeway on Lebanon, 3:46; of Solomon pointing to the sun at the dedication of the Temple, before he uttered the prayer, ‘ The Lord said he would dwell in the thick darkness.” etc., 8:12, 13 (after 53, Sept.), with a reference to the , a passage on which Thenius relies as proving that the Alexandrian had access to original documents now lost; the information that ” Joram his brother” perished with Tibni, 16:22; an additional date ” in the twenty-fourth year of Jeroboam,” 15:8; numerous verbal additions, as 11:29, 17:1, etc.; and, lastly, the long passage concerning Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, inserted between 12:24 and 25. There are also many glosses of the translator, explanatory, or necessary in consequence of transpositions, as 1Ki 2:35; 1Ki 8:1; 1Ki 11:43; 1Ki 17:20; 1Ki 19:2, etc. Of the above, from the recapitulatory character of the passage after 1Ki 2:35, containing in brief the sum of the things detailed in 1Ki 7:21-23, it seems far more probable that is only a corruption of , there mentioned. The obscure passage about Lebanon after 3:46 seems no less certainly to represent what in the Heb. is 9:18, 19, as appears by the triple concurrence of Tadmor, Lebanon, and , representing . The strange mention of the sun seems to be introduced by the translator to give significance to Solomon’s mention of the house which he had built for God, who had said he would dwell in the thick darkness; not therefore under the unveiled light of the sun; and the reference to “the book of song” can surely mean nothing else than to point out that the passage to which Solomon referred was Psa 97:2. Of the other additions, the mention of Tibni’s brother Joram is the one which has most the semblance of an historical fact, or makes the existence of any other source of history probable. See, too, 1Ki 20:19; 2Ki 15:25.

There remains only the long passage about Jeroboam. That this account is only an apocryphal version, made up of the existing materials in the Hebrew Scriptures, after the manner of I Esdras, Bel and the Dragon, the apocryphal Esther, the Targums, etc., may be inferred on the following grounds. The framework of the story is given in the very words of the Hebrew narrative, and that very copiously, and the new matter is only worked in here and there. Demonstrably, therefore, the Hebrew account existed when the Greek one was framed, and was the original one. The principal new facts introduced, the marriage of Jeroboam to the sister of Shishak’s wife, and his request to be permitted to return, is a manifest imitation of the story of Hadad. The misplacement of the story of Abijah’s sickness, and the visit of Jeroboam’s wife to Ahijah the Shilonite, makes the whole history out of keeping-the disguise of the queen, the rebuke of Jeroboam’s idolatry (which is accordingly left out from Ahijah’s prophecy, as is the mention at 5:2 of his having told Jeroboam he should be king), and the king’s anxiety about the recovery of his son and heir. The embellishments of the story, Jeroboam’s chariots, the amplification of Ahijah’s address to Ano, the request asked of Pharaoh, the new garment not washed in water, are precisely such as an embellisher would add, as we may see by the apocryphal books above cited. Then the fusing down the three Hebrew names, , , and , into one, , thus giving the same name to the mother of Jeroboam, and to the city where she dwelt, shows how comparatively modern the story is, and how completely of Greek growth. A yet plainer indication is its confounding the Shemaiah of 1Ki 12:22 with Shemaiah the Nehelamite of Jer 29:24; Jer 29:31, and putting Ahijah’s prophecy into his mouth; for, beyond all question, (1 Kings 12) is only another form of (Jer 36:24, Sept.). Then, again, the story is selfcontradictory; for, if Jeroboam’s child Abijam was not born till a year or so after Solomon’s death, how could ” any good thing toward the Lord God of Israel” have been found in him before Jeroboam became king? The one thing in the story that is more like truth than the Hebrew narrative is the age given to Rehoboam, sixteen years, which may have been preserved in the MS. which the writer of this romance had before him. The calling Jeroboam’s mother instead of was probably accidental.

On the whole, then, it appears that the great variations in the Sept. contribute little or nothing to the elucidation of the history contained in these books, nor much even to the text. The Hebrew text and arrangement is not in the least shaken in its main points, nor is there the slightest cloud cast on the accuracy of the history, or the truthfulness of the prophecies contained in it. But these variations illustrate a characteristic tendency of the Jewish mind to make interesting portions of the Scriptures the groundwork of separate religious tales, which they altered or added to according to their fancy, without any regard to history or chronology, and in which they exercised a peculiar kind of ingenuity in working up the Scripture materials, or in inventing circumstances calculated, as they thought, to make the main history more probable. The story of Zerubbabel’s answer in I Esdras about truth, to prepare the way for his mission by Darius; of the discovery of the imposture of Bel’s priests by Daniel, in Bel and the Dragon; of Mordecai’s dream in the apocryphal Esther, and the paragraph in the Talmud inserted to connect 1Ki 16:34 with 17:1 (Smith’s Sacr. Ann. ii, 421), are instances of this. The reign of Solomon, and the remarkable rise of Jeroboam, were not unlikely to exercise this propensity of the Hellenistic Jews. It is to the existence of such works that the variations in the Sept. account of Solomon and Jeroboam may most probably be attributed.

VII. Another feature in the literary condition of our books must be noticed, viz., that the compiler, in arranging his materials, and adopting the very words of the documents used by him, has not always been careful to avoid the appearance of contradiction. Thus the mention of the staves of the ark remaining in their place ” unto this day” (1Ki 8:8) does not accord with the account of the destruction of the Temple (2Ki 25:9). The mention of Elijah as the only prophet of the Lord left (1Ki 18:22; 1Ki 19:10) has an appearance of disagreement with 20:13,28,35, etc., though 18:4, 19:18 supply, it is true, a ready answer. In 1Ki 21:13 only Naboth is mentioned, while in 2Ki 9:26 his sons are added. The prediction in 1Ki 19:15-17 has no perfect fulfilment in the following chapters. 1Ki 22:38 does not seem to be a fulfilment of 21:19. The declaration in 1Ki 9:22 does not seem in harmony with 11:28. There are also some singular repetitions, as 1Ki 14:21 compared with 31; 2Ki 9:29 with 8:25; 14:15, 16, with 13:12, 13. But it is enough just to have pointed these out, as no real difficulty can be found in them.

VIII. As regards the sources of information, it may truly be said that in the books of Kings we have the narrative of contemporary writers throughout. It has already been observed, SEE CHRONICLES, that there was a regular series of state annals both for the kingdom of Judah and for that of Israel, which embraced the whole time comprehended in the books of Kings, or at least to the end of the reign of Jehoiakim (2Ki 24:5). These annals are constantly cited by name as ” the Book of the Acts of Solomon” (1Ki 11:41); and, after Solomon, ” the Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah, or Israel” (e.g. 1Ki 14:29; 1Ki 15:7; 1Ki 16:5; 1Ki 16:14; 1Ki 16:20; 2Ki 10:34; 2Ki 24:5, etc.); and it is manifest that the author of Kings had them both before him while he drew up his history, in which the reigns of the two kingdoms are harmonized, and these annals constantly appealed to. (Similar phraseology is used in Est 10:2; Est 6:1, to denote the official annals of the Persian empire. Public documents are spoken of in the same way in Neh 12:23). But, in addition to these national annals, there were also extant, at the time that the books of Kings were compiled, separate works of the several prophets who had lived in Judah and Israel, and which probably bore the same relation to the annals as the historical parts of Isaiah and Jeremiah bear to those portions of the annals preserved in the books of Kings, i.e. were, in some instances at least, fuller and more copious accounts of the current events, by the same hands which drew up the more concise narrative of the annals, though in others perhaps mere duplicates. Thus the acts of Uzziah, written by Isaiah, were very likely identical for substance with the history of his reign in the national chronicles; and part of the history of Hezekiah we know was identical in the chronicles and in the prophet. The chapter in Jeremiah relating to the destruction of the Temple (ch. 52) is identical with that in 2 Kings 24, 25. In later times some have supposed that a chapter in the prophecies of Daniel was used for the national chronicles, and appears as Ezra 1. (Comp. also 2Ki 16:5 with Isa 7:1; 2Ki 18:8 with Isa 14:28-32). As an instance of verbal agreement, coupled with greater fulness in the prophetic account, see 2 Kings 20 compared with Isaiah 38, in which latter alone is Hezekiah’s writing given.

These other works, then, as far as the memory of them has been preserved to us. were as follows (see Keil’s Apolog. Vers.). For the time of David, the book of Samuel the seer, the book of Nathan the prophet, and the book of Gad the seer (2 Samuel 21-24 with 1 Kings 1, being probably extracted from Nathan’s book), which seem to have been collected-at least that portion of them relating to David-into one work called ” the Acts of David the king” (1Ch 29:29). For the time of Solomon, “the Book of the Acts of Solomon” (1Ki 11:41), consisting probably of parts of the ” Book of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and the visions of Iddo the seer” (2Ch 9:29). For the time of Rehoboam, ” the words of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies” (2Ch 12:15). For the time of Abijah, ” the story () of the prophet Iddo” (2Ch 13:22).

For the time of Jehoshaphat,” the words of Jehu, the son of Hanani” (2Ch 20:34). For the time of Uzziah, “the writings of Isaiah the prophet” (2Ch 26:22). For the time of Hezekiah, ” the vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz” (2Ch 32:32). For the time of Manasseh, a book called ” the sayings of the seers,” as the A.V., following the Sept., Vulg., Kimchi, etc., rightly renders the passage, in accordance with 2Ch 32:18 (2Ch 33:19), though others, following the grammar too servilely, make Chozai a proper name, because of the absence of the article. For the time of Jeroboam II, a prophecy of ” Jonah, the son of Amittai the prophet, of Gath-hepher,” is cited (2Ki 14:25); and it seems likely that there were books containing special histories of the acts of Elijah and Elisha, seeing that the times of these prophets are described with such copiousness. Of the latter Gehazi might well have been the author, to judge from 2Ki 8:4-5, as Elisha himself might have been of the former. Possibly, too, the prophecies of Azariah, the son of Oded, in Asa’s reign (2Ch 15:1), and of Hanani (2Ch 16:7) (unless this latter is the same as Jehu, son of HIanani, as Oded is put for Azariah in 15:8), and Micaiah, the son of Imlah, in Ahab’s reign; and Eliezer, the son of Dodavah, in Jehoshaphat’s; and Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, in Jehoash’s; and Oded, in Pekah’s; and Zechariah, in Uzziah’s reign; of the prophetess Huldah, in Josiah’s, and others, may have been preserved in writing, some or all of them. These works, or at least many of them, must have been extant at the time when the books of Kings were compiled, as they certainly were extant much later when the books of Chronicles were put together by Ezra. But whether the author used them all, or only those duplicate portions of them which were embodied in the national chronicles, it is impossible to say, seeing he quotes none of them by name except the acts of Solomon and the prophecy of Jonah. On the other hand, we cannot infer from his silence that these books were unused by him, seeing that neither does he quote by name the Vision of Isaiah as the chronicler does, though he must, from its recent date, have been familiar with it, and seeing that so many parts of his narrative have every appearance of being extracted from these books of the prophets, and contain narratives which it is not likely would have found a place in the chronicles of the kings. See 1Ki 14:4, etc.; 16:1, etc., 11; 2 Kings 17, etc.

With regard to the work so often cited in the Chronicles as ” the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah” (1Ch 9:1; 2Ch 16:11; 2Ch 27:7; 2Ch 28:26; 2Ch 32:32; 2Ch 35:27; 2Ch 36:8), it has been thought by some that it was a separate collection containing the joint histories of the two kingdoms; by others, that it is our books of Kings which answer to this description; but by Eichhorm, that it is the same as the Chronicles of the kings of Judah so constantly cited in the books of Kings; and this last opinion seems to be the best founded. For in 2Ch 16:11, the same book is called ” the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel,” which in the parallel passage, 1Ki 15:23; is called ” the Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah.” So, again, 2Ch 27:7, comp. with 2Ki 15:36; 2Ch 28:26, comp. with 2Ki 16:19; 2Ch 32:32, comp. with 2Ki 20:20; 2Ch 35:27, with 2Ki 23:28; 2Ch 36:8, with 2Ki 24:5. Moreover, the book so quoted refers exclusively to the affairs of Judah; and even in the one passage where reference is made to it as “the Book of the Kings of Israel” (2Ch 20:34), it is for the reign of Jehoshaphat that it is cited. Obviously, therefore, it is the same work which is elsewhere described as the Chronicles of Israel and Judah, and of Judah and Israel. Nor is this an unreasonable title to give to these chronicles.

Saul, David, Solomon, and in some sense Hezekiah (2Ch 30:1; 2Ch 30:5-6), and all his successors, were kings of Israel as well as of Judah, and therefore it is very conceivable that in Ezra’s time the chronicles of Judah should have acquired the name of the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah. Even with regard to a portion of Israel in the days of Rehoboam, the chronicler remarks, apparently as a matter of gratulation, that “Rehoboam reigned over them” (2Ch 10:17); he notices Abijah’s authority in portions of the Israelitish territory (2Ch 13:18-19; 2Ch 15:8-9); he not unfrequently speaks of Israel, when the kingdom of Judah is the matter in hand (as 2Ch 12:1; 2Ch 21:4; 2Ch 23:2, etc.), anti even calls Jehoshaphat ” king of’ Israel” (2Ch 21:2), and distilnguishes ‘”Israel and Judah” from “Ephraim and Manasseh” (30:1); he notices Hezekiah’s authority from Dan to Beersheba (2Ch 30:5), and Josiah’s destruction of idols throughout all the land of Israel (34:6-9), and his Passover for all Israel (35:17,18), and seems to parade the title “king of Israel” in connection with David and Solomon (35:3, 4), and the relation of the Levites to ” all Israel” (2Ch 30:3); and therefore it is only in accordance with the feeling displayed in such passages that the name, ” the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah,” should be given to the chronicles of the Jewish kingdom. The use of this term in speaking of the ” kings of Israel and Judah who were carried away to Babylon for their transgression” (1Ch 9:1) would be conclusive if the construction of the sentence were certain. But though it is absurd to separate the words ” and Judah” from Israel, as Bertheau does (Curzgef Exeg. Handb.), following the Masoretic punctuation, seeing that the ” Book of the Kings of Israel and Judath” is cited in at least six other places in Chronicles, still it is possible that Israel and Judah might be the antecedent to the pronoun understood before . It seems, however, mulch more likely that the antecedent to is 8 8. 0n the whole, therefore, there is no evidence of the existence in the time of the chronicler of a history, since lost, of the two kingdoms, nor are the books of Kings the work so quoted by the chronicler, seeing he often refers to it for “the rest of the acts” of Kings, when he has already given all that is contained in our books of Kings. He refers, therefore, to the chronicles of Judah.

From the above authentic sources, then, was compiled the history in the books under consideration. Judging from the facts that we have in 2 Kings 17, 19, 20 the history of Hezekiah in the very words of Isaiah , 36-39; that, as stated above, we have several passages from Jeremiah in duplicate in 2 Kings, and the whole of Jeremiah 52 in 2Ki 24:18, etc., 25; that so large a portion of the books of Kings is repeated in the books of Chronicles, though the writer of Chronicles had the original Chronicles also before him, as well as from the whole internal character of the narrative, and even some of the blemishes referred to under the second head-we may conclude with certainty that we have in the books of Kings, not only in the main the history faithfully preserved to us from the ancient chronicles but most frequently whole passages transferred verbatim into them. Occasionally, no doubt, we have the compiler’s own comments, or reflections thrown in. as at 2Ki 21:10-16; 2Ki 17:10-15; 2Ki 13:23; 2Ki 17:7-41, etc. We connect the insertion of the prophecy in 1 Kings 13 with the fact that the compiler himself was an eye-witness of the fulfilment of it. and can even see how the words ascribed to the old prophet are of the age of the compiler. We can perhaps see his hand in the frequent repetition, on the review of each reign, of the remark,” The high places were not taken away; the people still sacrificed and burnt incense on the high places” (1Ki 22:43; 2Ki 12:3; 2Ki 14:4; 2Ki 15:4; 2Ki 15:35; comp. 1Ki 3:3), and in the repeated observation that such and such things, as the staves by which the ark was borne, the revolt of the ten tribes, the rebellion of Edom, etc., continue ” unto this day,” though it may be perhaps doubted in some cases whether these words were not in the old chronicle (2Ch 5:9). See 1Ki 8:8; 1Ki 9:13-21; 1Ki 10:12; 1Ki 12:19; 2Ki 2:22; 2Ki 8:22; 2Ki 10:27; 2Ki 13:23; 2Ki 14:7; 2Ki 16:6; 2Ki 17:23; 2Ki 17:34; 2Ki 17:41; 2Ki 23:25. It is remarkable, however, that in no instance does the use of this phrase lead us to suppose that it was penned after the destruction of the Temple: in several of the above instances the phrase necessarily supposes that the Temple and the kingdom of Judah were still standing. If the phrase, then, is the compiler’s, it proves him to have written before the Babylonian captivity; if it was a part of the chronicle he was quoting, it shows how exactly he transferred its contents to his own pages.

IX. Author and Date. The authorship and age of this historical treatise may admit of several suppositions. Whatever were the original sources, the books are evidently the composition of one writer. The style is generally uniform throughout (Dr.Davidson, in Horne’s Introd., new edit., ii, 666 sq.). The same forms of expression are used to denote the same thing, e.g. the male sex (1Ki 14:10, etc.) ; the death of a king (1Ki 11:43, etc.); modes of allusion to the law (1Ki 11:13); fidelity to Jehovah (1Ki 8:63, etc.; see De Wette, Eizleit. 184, a; Hivernick, Einleit. 171). Similar idioms are ever recurring, so as to produce a uniformity of style (Hivcrnick, i. c.). See ii, above.

1. With regard to the time when the author lived and wrote there are the following arguments:

(1.) The style and diction indicate the later age of the Hebrew language, but not the latest. Attempts to prove a more modern date than the middle of the captivity have signally failed. Nearly all the words which De Wette and others have selected (see 5, above) are shown- to have been in use, either by the prophets who flourished before the captivity and at its commencement, or by still earlier writers; but words and phrases abound which were in common use by the writers of the concluding period of the kingdom of Judah, who did not go into captivity, especially by Isaiah and Jeremiah. In this respect there is a manifest difference between Kings and Chronicles. Though neither work is free from Chaldaic forms, they are rare in Kings, but numerous in Chronicles. Their occurrence at all in Kings is sufficiently accounted for from the contiguity of Judah to Syria, and from the frequent intercourse with Assyria which commerce and war involved.

(2.) With the evidence which the language affords, the internal evidence of the contents agrees. The history is carried down to the captivity in detail; and, by way of supplement, to the reign of Evil-merodach, king of Babylon. The closing verse implies that the writer survived Jehoiachin, but gives no hint whatever of the termination of the captivity, which he surely would have done had he written after the return from Babylon. We may therefore safely conclude that the work was composed before the end of the captivity, but after the , twenty-sixth year of its continuance.

2. Calmet ascribes the authorship to Ezra; but there are no decided indications of his authorship, and the names Zif and Bul (1Ki 6:1; 1Ki 6:37-38) were not in use after the captivity. The general opinion, however, that Jeremiah was the author is adopted by Grotius, Carpzov, and others, and is lately revindicated by IHaverInick, as also by Graf (De libror. Sram. et Reguum comnositione, p. 61 sq.), but is opposed by Keil, Davidson, asnd others. In favor of it are the following strong arguments:

(1.) The work is attributed to Jeremiah by ancient tradition. There is a reference to Jeremiah as the author in the Talmud (Baban Bathra, fol. 15, 1), and with this notice the common opinion of the Jews agrees.

(2.) The style and language of Kings resemble those of the acknowledged writings of Jeremiah. In both works there is an unusual number of ; and also of words peculiar to each work, though used more than once. What is still more to the purpose, there are words and forms of words used in both works, but in them only; as, , a “cruse” (1Ki 14:3, and Jer 19:1; Jer 19:10); , a “husbandman” (2Ki 25:12; Jer 52:16; and , Jer 39:10); , to “hide,” used in Niphal only in Kings (1Ki 22:25; 2Ki 7:12) and in Jeremiah (Jer 49:10); , to “blind,” used in the sense of putting out the eyes only in 2Ki 25:7, and Jer 39:7; Jer 52:11, etc. See V above.

(3.) The habit of referring to the Pentateuch, pointed out as characteristic of the books of Kings, is equally so of Jeremiah; and this habit in both is thought to be accounted for on the ground of the discovered copy of the law in the days of Josiah, in which Jeremiah took great interest, traces of which are discoverable in Jer 11:3-5 (Deu 27:26); Jer 32:18-21 (Exo 20:6; Exo 6:6); Jer 34:14 (Deu 15:12). The same general spirit of solemnity, the same modes of thought and illustration, and the same political principles, are thought to mark the two works.

(4.) Some portions of Kings and of Jeremiah are almost identical, particularly 2Ki 24:18-20, and Jeremiah 52. The two passages are so much alike, though differing in some respects, as to appear like two narrations of the same event by the same person, in each of which some points are related with more fulness than in the other, for some particular purpose. Parts of this narrative are also contained in nearly the same words in Jer 39:1-10; Jer 40:7 to Jer 41:10.

(5.) The impression produced on the reader is that the writer of Kings was not taken away into captivity either in the days of Jehoiachin or of Zedekiah, as the writer of Chronicles appears to have been; and this circumstance agrees with the supposition that Jeremiah was the writer. We know that, after being carried away as far as Ramah with the captives from Jerusalem, he was set free, and permitted to return to his own land with Gedaliah. He was afterwards taken away to Tahpanhes, in Egypt, where we obtain the last certain view of him. Besides this, many other points of agreement, more or less striking, present themselves to the careful reader- the book of Jeremiah serving more than any other part of Scripture to illustrate and explain the contemporaneous portions of the Kings, and the events recorded in Kings serving as a key to many portions of the prophet. In this way a number of undesigned coincidences appear between the supposed and the acknowledged writings of Jeremiah, as the following:

2Ki 25:1-3, comp. with Jer 38:1-9. 2Ki 25:11-12; 2Ki 25:18-21, ” Jer 39:10-14; Jer 40:1-5. 2Ki 24:13, ” Jer 27:11-20; Jer 28:3-6. 2Ki 24:14, ” Jer 24:1. 2Ki 21:22-23 : ” Jer 7:15; Jer 15:4; Jer 19:3.

(6.) The absence of all mention of Jeremiah in the history, although he was so prominently active in the four or five last reigns, both in the court and among the people, is only explicable on the supposition that Jeremiah was himself the writer. Had it been the work of another, he must, as in Chronicles, have had very distinct mention.

(7.) The events singled out for mention in the concise narrative are precisely those of which Jeremiah had personal knowledge, and in which he took special interest. The famine in 2Ki 25:3 was one which had nearly cost Jeremiah his life (Jer 38:9). The capture of the city, the flight and capture of Zedekiah, the judgment and punishment of Zedekiah and his sons at Riblah, are related in 2Ki 25:1-7, in almost the identical words which we read in Jer 39:1-7. So are the breaking down and burning of the Temple, the king’s palace, and the houses of the great men, the deportation to Babylon of the fugitives and the surviving inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judaea. The intimate knowledge of what Nebuzar-adan did, both in respect to those selected for capital punishment and those carried away captive, and those poor whom he left in the land, displayed by the writer of 2Ki 25:11-12; 2Ki 25:18-21, is fully explained by Jer 39:10-14; Jer 40:1-5, where we read that Jeremiah was actually one of the captives who followed Nebuzar-adan as far as Ramah, and was very kindly treated by him. The careful enumeration of the pillars and of the sacred vessels of the Temple which were plundered by the Chaldaeans tallies exactly with the prediction of Jeremiah concerning them (Jer 27:19-22).

The paragraph concerning the appointment of Gedaliah as governor of the remnant, and his murder by Ishmael, and the flight of the Jews into Egypt, is merely an abridged account of what Jeremiah tells us more fully (Jer 40:1 to Jer 43:7), and are events in which personally he was deeply concerned. The writer in Kings has nothing more to tell us concerning the Jews or Chaldees in the land of Judah, which exactly agrees with the hypothesis that he is Jeremiah, who we know was carried down to Egypt with the fugitives. In fact, the date of the writing and the position of the writer seem as clearly marked by the termination of the narrative at Act 5:26, as in the case of the Acts of the Apostles. It may be added, though the argument is of less weight, that the annexation of this chapter to the writings of Jeremiah so as to form Jeremiah lii (with the additional clause contained in Jer 52:28-30) ib an evidence of a very ancient, if not a contemporary belief, that Jeremiah was the author of it. Again, the special mention of Seraiah the high-priest, and Zephaniah the second priest, as slain by Nebuzar-adan (Jer 52:18), together with three other priests, is very significant when taken in connection with Jer 21:1; Jer 29:25-29, passages which show that Zephaniah belonged to the faction which opposed the prophet, a faction which was headed by priests and false prophets (Jer 26:7-8; Jer 26:11; Jer 26:16). Going back to the 24th chapter, we find in Jer 24:14 an enumeration of the captives taken with Jehoiachin identical with that in Jer 26:1; in Jer 26:13 a reference to the vessels of the Temple precisely similar to that in Jer 27:18-20; Jer 28:3; Jer 28:6, and in Jer 28:3-4, a reference to the idolatries and bloodshed of Manasseh very similar to those in Jer 2:34; Jer 19:4-8, etc., a reference which also connects chap. 24 with Jer 21:6; Jer 21:13-14. In Jer 19:2 the enumeration of the hostile nations, and the reference to the prophets of God, point directly to Jer 25:9; Jer 25:20-21, and the reference to Pharaoh-necho in Jer 25:7 points to Jer 25:19, and to Jer 46:1-12. Brief as the narrative is, it brings out all the chief points in the political events of the time which we know were much in Jeremiah’s mind; and yet, which is exceedingly remarkable, Jeremiah is never once named (as he is in 2Ch 36:12; 2Ch 36:21), although the manner of the writer is frequently to connect the sufferings of Judah with their sins and their neglect of the Word of God (2Ki 17:13 sq.; 2Ki 24:2-3, etc.).

This leads to another striking coincidence between that portion of the history which belongs to Jeremiah’s times and the writings of Jeremiah himself. De Wette speaks of the superficial character of the history of Jeremiah’s times as hostile to the theory of Jeremiah’s authorship. Now, considering the nature of these annals, and their conciseness, this criticism seems very unfounded as regards the reigns of Josiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah. It must, however, be acknowledged that, as regards Jehoiakim’s reign, and especially the latter part of it, and the way in which he came by his death, the narrative is much more meagre than one would have expected from a contemporary writer living on the spot. But exactly the same paucity of information is found in those otherwise copious notices of contemporary events with which Jeremiah’s prophecies are interspersed. Let any one open, e.g. Townsend’s Arrangement or Geneste’s Parallel Histories, and he will see at a glance how remarkably little light Jeremiah’s narrative or prophecies throw upon the latter part of Jehoiakim’s reign. The cause of this silence may be difficult to assign, but, whatever it was, whether absence from Jerusalem, possibly on the mission described in Jeremiah 13, or imprisonment, or any other impediment, it operated equally on Jeremiah and on the writer of 2 Kings xxiv. When it is borne in mind that the writer of 2 Kings was a contemporary writer, and, if not Jeremiah, must have had independent means of information, this coincidence will have great weight.

It has been argued on the other side

(1.) That the concluding portion of the book of Kings could hardly have been written by Jeremiah, unless we suppose him to have written it when he was between eighty and ninety years old. To this it may be replied that the last four verses, relative to Jehoiachin, are equally a supplement, whether added by the author or by some later hand. There is nothing impossible in the supposition of Jeremiah having survived till the thirty- seventh year of Jehoiachin’s captivity, though he would have been between eighty and ninety. There is something touching in the idea of this gleam of joy having reached the prophet in his old age, and of his having added these few words to his long-finished history of his nation (see Havernick, Ueber Daniel, p. 14).

(2.) That the resemblance of style and diction may be accounted for on the supposition of Jeremiah’s familiarity with the ancient records to which the writer of Kings had access, while the similarity of 2Ki 24:1-18, etc., and Jeremiah 39, might arise from the writer of Kings using that portion of Jeremiah’s work. The identity of Jeremiah 52 with the same portion of Kings is probably owing to its being an altered extract from Kings, appended as a supplement to Jeremiah by some later hand. Neither of the suppositions, however, seriously militates against the general authorship of Jeremiah as to the book of Kings. SEE JEREMIAH.

X. Place of these Books in the Canon, and References to them in the New Testament. Their canonical authority having never been disputed, it is needless to bring forward the testimonies to their authenticity which may be found in Josephus, Eusebius, Jerome, Augustine, etc., or in Bp. Cosin, or any other modern work on the Canon of Scripture. SEE CANON. They are reckoned, as has already been noticed, among the Prophets, in the threefold division of the Holy Scriptures; a position in accordance with the supposition that they were compiled by Jeremiah, and contain the narratives of the different prophets in succession. They are frequently cited by our Lord and by the apostles. Thus the allusions to Solomon’s glory (Mat 6:29); to the queen of Sheba’s visit to Solomon to hear his wisdom (12:42); to the Temple (Act 7:47-48); to the great drought in the days of Elijah, and the widow of Sarepta (Luk 4:25-26); to the cleansing of Naaman the Syrian (Luk 4:27); to the charge of Elisha to Gehazi (2Ki 4:29, comp. with Luk 10:4) ; to the dress of Elijah (Mar 1:6, comp. with 2Ki 1:8); to the complaint of Elijah, and God’s answer to him (Rom 11:3-4); to the raising of the Shunammite’s son from the dead (Heb 11:35); to the giving and withholding of the rain in answer to Elijah’s prayer (Jam 5:17-18; Rev 11:6); to Jezebel (Rev 2:20)are all derived from the books of Kings, and, with the statement of Elijah’s presence at the Transfiguration, are a striking testimony to their value for the purpose of religious teaching, and to their authenticity as a portion of the Word of God.

On the whole, then, in this portion of the history of the Israelitish people to which the name of the Books of Kings has been given, we have (if we except those errors in numbers which are either later additions to the original work, or accidental corruptions of the text) a most important and accurate account of that people during upwards of four hundred years of their national existence, delivered for the most part by contemporary writers, and guaranteed by the authority of one of the most eminent of the Jewish prophets. Considering the conciseness of the narrative and the simplicity of the style, the amount of knowledge which these books convey of the characters. conduct, and manners of kings and people during so long a period is truly wonderful. The insight they give us into the aspect of Judah and Jerusalem, both natural and artificial, into the religious, military, and civil institutions of the people, their arts and manufactures, the state of education and learning among them, their resources, commerce, exploits, alliances, the causes of their decadence, and, finally, of their ruin, is most clear, interesting, and instructive. In a few brief sentences we acquire more accurate knowledge of’ the affairs of Egypt, Tyre, Syria, Assyria, Babylon, and other neighboring nations, than had been preserved to us in all the other remains of antiquity up to the recent discoveries in hieroglyphical and cuneiform monuments. The synchronisms with these, if they create some difficulties, yet furnish the only real basis for dates of these contemporaneous powers; and if we are content to read accurate and truthful history, substantially with an exact though intricate net-work of chronology, then we shall assuredly find it will abundantly repay the most laborious study which we can bestow upon it.

But it is for their deep religious teaching, and for the insight which they give us into God’s providential and moral government of the world, that these books are above all valuable. Books which describe the wisdom and the glory of Solomon, and yet record his fall; which make us acquainted with the painful ministry of Elijah, and his translation into heaven; and which tell us how the most magnificent temple ever built for God’s-glory, and of which he vouchsafed to take possession by a visible symbol of his presence, was consigned to the flames and to desolation for the sins of those who worshipped in it, read us such lessons concerning both God and man as are the best evidence of their divine origin, and make them the richest treasure to every Christian man.

XI. Commentaries. The following are the exegetical helps specially on the two books of Kings, to the most important of which we prefix an asterisk: Ephraem Syrus, Explanatio (in Syriac, in his Opp. 4:439); Theodoret, Qutstiones (in Greek, in his Opp. i, edit. Halle, 1769); Procopius of Gaza, Scholia- [including Chronicles] (from Theodoret, edit. Meursius, Lugd. Bat. 1620, 4to); Eucherius [falsely attributed to him], Commentarii (in the Max. Bibl. Vet. Patr. 6:965 sq.); Rashi [i.e. Rab. Sol. Jarchi], Commentarius [Joshua-Kings] (trans. by Breithaupt, Gotha, 1714, 4to); Bafolas, [Joshua-Kings] (with Kimchi’s Commentary, Seira, 1494, folio; and in the Rabbinical Bibles); Alscheich, , etc. [Joshua- Kings] (Venice, 1601, fol., and later); Bugenhagen, Adptationes (Basil. 1525, 8vo); Weller, Commentarius (Francof. 1557, Norib. 1560, fol.); Borrhaus, Commentarius [Joshua-Kings] (Basil. 1557, folio); Sarcer, Commentarius (Lips. 1559, 8vo); Martyr, Commentarius (Tigur. 1666,1581, Heidelb. 1599, fol.); Strigel, Commentarius [Samuel- Chronicles] (Lips. 1583,1591, fol.); Serarius, Commentaria [Joshua- Chronicles] (Mogunt. 1609, 1617, 2 vols. fol.); Leonhardt, Ilypomnenmta [Samuel -Chronicles] (Erfurt, 1608, 1614, 8vo; Lips. 1610, 4to); De Mendoza, Commentaria [including Samuel] (Lugd. 1622-1631,3 vols. fol.); Sanctius, Commentarii [Samuel-Chronicles] (Antwerp, 1624, Lugd. 1625, fol.); Crommius, Illustrationes [RuthChronicles] (Lovan. 1631,4to); De Vera, Commentaria [ includ. Samuel] (Limbe, 1335, fol.).; *Bonfrere, Commentaria [Samuel-Chronicles] (Tornaci, 1643, 2 vols. fol.; also with his other commentaries, Lugd. 1737); Caussinus, Dissertationes [includ. Samuel] (Par. 1650, fol.; Colon. 1652, 4to); *Schmidt, Adnotationes (Argent. 1697, 4to); Calmrct, Commentaire (Par. 1711, 4to); A Lapide, Commentarius [Joshua-Kings] (Antw. 1718, fol.); Brentano and Dcreser, Erklarung (F. a. MI. 1827, 8vo); Tanchur-Jerusalami, Commentarius [includ. Samuel] (from the Arabic, by Haarbrucker, Lips. 1844, 8vo); *Keil, Commentar (Moskau, 1846, 8vo; tr. Edinb. 1857, 8vo, different from that in Keil and Delitzsch’s Commentary); *Thenius, Erklarung (in the Kurzgef. Exeg. Hdbk. Lpz. 1849, 8vo); Schlisser, Einleitung in die Biicher der Konige (Halle, 1861,8vo). For monographs on particular passages, see Danz, Worterbuch, p. 555. SEE COMMENTARY.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature