I Kings xi. 32, 36, 39) was
not to fail appears to have been confirmed in the
view of the author by the fact that Jehoiachin
in his exile was restored to honor, this being a
pledge that God would keep his promise to his
people. The keynote is struck in the mention of
Solomon's cult of the high places and the relation
of each king of Judah to this cult is specifically
noted, while throughout rune the relation of the
people to prophetic teachings, this last especially
characteristic of these books. The point of view of
the editor of the sources from which the book was
compiled is unmistakably that of the Deuteronomist
and preexilic prophecy; viz., that the cause of
the destruction of the kingdoms was the ever-renewed
cult of the high places and the idolatry connected
with it. Yet it is not to be maintained, with
Wellhausen, that the priestly view is excluded and
that there is no knowledge shown of the distinction
between Levites and priests or of the Mosaic tabernacle
(I King vii. 4) and that consequently the
chronicler's representation is to be set aside. Similarly
the assertion that the Aaronic line of priests has
no mention either overlooks the Zadokite succession
which came in with the supersession of Abiathar
(I Kings ii. 26-27) and continued in the Zadok-Eleazar line till the exile, or attempts to nullify it by
regarding that line as not Aaronic on the ground that
I Sam. ii. 27 sqq. (asserted to be a prophecy after
the event) predicted the extinction of the Aaronic
line; but this prophecy affected only the house of Eli
and not the entire priesthood (cf. II Sam. xv. 24
for the Zadokite-Levite conception). The distinction
between priest and Levite as made in
Deut. xviii. 3, 6, is certainly preexilic.
2. Date and Sources.
The terminus a quo for the final redaction of the
book is set by the mention of the restoration of
Jehoiachin to honor (II Kings xxv. 27 sqq.) in 561
B.C.
But the original author must have worked before
the exile about 600 B.C. under Jehoiakim, who is
the latest king in connection with whom occurs the
usual Deuteronomic formula closing
the account of a reign. A second
editing is seen in the passage
II Kings xvii. 19-21, still before the exile of
Judah. From this second hand proceeded the synchronistic
data given for the two kingdoms,--materials
not found in the sources employed by
the first editors. Reference to these sources is very
characteristic of the whole work. Thus there is
note of the book of the acts of Solomon
(I., xi. 41),
fourteen references to the book of the Chronicles of
the kings of Judah, and seventeen to the book of
the Chronicles of the kings of Israel. These have
been supposed to be the official records of the respective
kingdoms, but the frequent changes of
dynasty in the northern kingdom make this supposition
untenable. They must rather have been
works which indeed employed official documents and
sources but were freer handling of the materials
than were official records. From such sources were
obtained the statistical data such as the age of the
king at accession, the length of his reign and the
political situation. It is also debatable whether
the editor had in mind two works as sources (for
Israel and for Judah) or one in two parts. Besides
these sources others were employed, such as
a prophetic-historical narrative like that from which
the Elijah-Elisha portion is taken: also the piece
II, xviii. 13-xx. 19, repeated in Isa. xxxvi.-xxxix.,
in which xvlll. 14-16 is from a still different source
(as is shown by the spelling of the name Hezekiah).
This duplicated passage is probably original neither
with Kings nor Isaiah. Similarly II., xxiv. 18-xxv.
30 is paralleled by Jer. Iii. but is not original with
Jeremiah. The Septuagint refers in I., viii. 53 to
a "book of the ode," possibly the book of Jasher
(Josh. x. 13), the word "ode" coming in through a
misreading by transposition of letters (shyr instead
of yshr).
3. Historicity and Chronology.
So far as the political relations are concerned, the
historicity of these books is recognized. The especial
point of attack in this matter has been the
Elijah-Elisha narratives, so rich in miracles paralleled
only in the events ascribed to
the times of Moses and Joshua. But
it is to be noted that the marvels at
the Carmel sacrifice, as in the desert
at the giving of the law through
Moses, and again in Elijah's removal from earthly
life without passing the gates of death, are no
more extraordinary than the work he was called
to perform, midway between Moses and Christ, in
winning a victory for the worship of Yahweh.
The circumstances of the northern kingdom at the
time were such as to correspond with the atmosphere
of miracle in which this prophet lived. Difficulties
are found also in the chronology of the books. The
regnal periods of the kings are given in full years, a
result of a round rather than an exact reckoning.
The Talmud suggests that the reckoning was from
Nisan to Nisan, after a method which appears in
the New Testament in the account of the resurrection,
which equates the parts of three days
with three full days, and in Josephus. This method
of reckoning appears definitely in II Kings xviii.
9-10, where the siege of Samaria is given as lasting
three years, though beginning in the seventh and
ending in the ninth year of Hoshea. Similarly,
while David's reign in Hebron is given in
II Sam. v. 4-5 as seven and a half years, in
I Kings ii. 11 it
is given as seven years. Other cases of disregard
of portions of a year might be given, but not in a
uniform and consistent manner, the consequence
being that an exact chronology can not be obtained
from these books. The totals are vitally affected,
as when the reigns of the kings of Judah from
Solomon to the destruction foot up to 260 years
and of the kings of Israel to 241 years. A recognized
means of correction is found in the Assyrian annals,
and of the attempts to use this means especially
noteworthy is that of Kamphausen, who requires
only six changes in the data of Israelitic succession
to reconcile the differences in Assyrian and Israelitic
chronology. See
TIME, BIBLICAL
RECKONING OF.
4. The Text.
The original text of the Biblical authors is
no longer extant; the Masoretic text does not exactly
reproduce this, nor does it agree with that
which formed the base of the early versions. If
reference is made to the extreme care
exercised by the Masoretes in regard
to the text they received, it must also
be recalled that this care was not exercised
in the earliest times, as is proved by the
widely different texts sometimes found in parallel
passages. Thus in the parallels
II Kings xviii. 13-xx. 19
and Isa. xxxvi-xxxix. the Isaiah passage
affords fifteen examples of the scriptio plena, that in
Kings only three, as opposed to corresponding
scriptio defectiva in the other. Other changes are
due to glosses and marginal notes which copyists
have received into the text. The testimony of the
manuscripts of the Septuagint testify to changes
in the Hebrew; thus the Alexandrine codex is nearer
to the Masoretic text than is the Vatican, yet the
intent of the translators to be faithful is manifest
in that they reproduced in Greek letters Hebrew
words which they no longer understood. Moreover,
that the Greek translators had access to some of the
sources of the Hebrew is shown by additions not
found in the present Hebrew text. Care must be
exercised, however, not to overestimate the value of
the Septuagint for textual criticism, since the differences
between extant representatives of this text
differ so widely. Of the fragments preserved in the
Hexapla of Origen the version of Aquila is a close
reproduction of the Palestinian text, that of Symmachus
is clear and elegant, that of Theodotion
partakes of the character of a recension of the
Septuagint on the basis of a text approximating
the Masoretic. The Targum of the prophets affords
little textual help, partaking as it does of
the paraphrastic rather than of the literal and
containing additions to the text. Where it can be
used, however, it is the earliest witness to the
Palestinian text on its mother soil. The Vulgate of
Jerome has also considerable value since it testifies
to the text of the end of the fourth Christian century.
(W. VOLCK†.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
The leading commentaries are: O. Thenius,
Leipeic, 1873; K. C. W. F. Bähr, in Lange, Eng. transl.,
New York, 1874; G. Rawlinson, in Bible Commentary,
London, 1874; C. F. Keil, Leipsic, 1878, Eng. transl.,
Edinburgh, 1877; G. Hammond and G. Rawlinson, in
Pulpit Commentary, 2 vols., London, 1881-89; A. Klostermann, Munich, 1887; J. R. Lumby, in Cambridge
Bible, Cambridge, 1888; F. W. Farrar, in Expositor's
Bible, 2 vols., London, 1893-94; R. Kittel, Göttingen,
1900; W. E. Barnes, in Cambridge Bible, 1908. Special
topics are treated in: A. Clemen, Die Wunderberichte über
Elia und Elisa, Grimma, 1877; J. Meinhold, Die Jesaiererzählungen xxxvi-xxxix, Göttingen, 1897. On text-criticism,
B. Stade, in ZATW, iii.-vi (1883-86), passim; A. Morgenstern, Die Scholien des Gregorius Abulfarag . . . zum Buch
der Könige, Berlin, 1895; J. Berlinger, Die Peschitta zum I.
Buch der Könige, Berlin, 1897; F. C. Burkitt, Fragments of
the Book of Kings according to . . . Aquila, Cambridge,
1897; C. F. Kent, Student's Old Testament, vol. ii., New
York, 1905 (valuable); W. D. Crockett, A Harmony of the
Books of Samuel, Kings . . . in the Text of the Version of
1884, London, 1906. Consult also the principal works on
Old Testament Introduction under
BIBLICAL INTRODUCTION,
and for chronology the works cited under
ERA;
TIME, BIBLICAL RECKONING OF.
