Notes on the Bible, part 2 of 16

Bible

3 Kings (1 Kings) Chapter 22

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:1

kg1 22:1

Three years - These must be counted from the close of the second campaign of Ben-hadad Kg1 20:34. They were not full years, as is evident from the next verse. Probably the first year is that of Ben-hadad's dismissal after his defeat; the second is a year of actual peace; while the third is that in which Jehoshaphat paid his visit, and the Ramoth-Gilead expedition took place. The pause, here noticed, in the war between Israel and Syria was perhaps the result of a common danger. It was probably in the year following Ben-hadad's dismissal by Ahab, that the first great Assyrian expedition took place into these parts. Shalmaneser II relates that on his first invasion of southern Syria, he was met by the combined forces of Ben-hadad, Ahab, the king of Hamath, the kings of the Hittites, and others, who gave him battle, but suffered a defeat.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:2

kg1 22:2

This visit indicates an entire change in the relations which we have hitherto found subsisting between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The common danger to which the two kingdoms were exposed from the growing power of Syria had probably induced them to forget their differences. Jehoshaphat's eldest son, Jehoram, was married to Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab: but apparently the bond between the two families had not hitherto led to any very close intimacy, much less to any joint military expeditions. Jehoshaphat seems to have taken no part in the former Syrian wars of Ahab, nor did he join in the great league against the Assyrians (Kg1 22:1 note). His visit now was probably one of mere friendliness, without any political object. Ahab, however, turned the visit to political advantage. From this time until the displacement of Ahab's dynasty by Jehu, very intimate relations subsisted between the two kingdoms (Kg1 22:49; Kg2 3:7; Kg2 8:28-29; Ch2 20:36, etc.).

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:3

kg1 22:3

By the terms of Ahab's covenant with Ben-hadad, Ramoth in Gilead ought, long ere this, to have been restored Kg1 20:34. Hence, the claim "is ours," i. e., "it belongs to us of right though the Syrians still hold possession of it."

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:4

kg1 22:4

Ahab, well aware of the military strength of Syria, and feeling that he cannot now expect divine aid Kg1 20:42; Kg1 21:21, asks the aid of Jehoshaphat, whose military resources were very great Ch2 17:12-19. Jehoshaphat's answer is one of complete acquiescence, without reserve of any kind (compare Ch2 18:3). Jehoshaphat was afterward rebuked for thus consenting to "help the ungodly" Ch2 19:2. He probably acted not merely from complaisance, but from a belief that the interests of his own kingdom would be advanced by the step which he agreed to take. The power of Syria was at this time very menacing.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:5

kg1 22:5

Jehoshaphat, with characteristic piety Kg1 22:43 takes advantage of his position as Ahab's friend and ally, to suggest inquiry of the Lord (Yahweh) before the expedition is undertaken. Lest Ahab should consent in word and put off the inquiry in act, he asks to have the prophets called in at once: "today."

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:6

kg1 22:6

The prophets - i. e., In all probability the prophets attached to the worship of the calves; not real prophets of Yahweh. This seems evident both from Jehoshaphat's dissatisfaction Kg1 22:7, and from the strong antagonism apparent between the true Yahweh-prophet Micaiah, and these self-styled "prophets of the Lord" Kg1 22:22-25.

The Lord shall deliver it - In the Hebrew the word here used for "Lord" is אדני 'ǎdonāy. Later (i. e., in Kg1 22:11-12) Lord or יהוה yehovâh is used. It would seem as if the idolatrous prophets shrank from employing the latter title until they found that Jehoshaphat insisted on learning the will of Yahweh in the matter.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:7

kg1 22:7

Jehoshaphat was dissatisfied. These men - creatures of Ahab, tainted with the worship of calves if not with Baal-worship - had promised victory, but not in the name of Yahweh. Jehoshaphat, therefore, asked, "Is there not here a true prophet of Yahweh besides these 400 professed prophets?"

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:8

kg1 22:8

There is yet one man, Micaiah - Elijah, it appears, had withdrawn again after the events of the last chapter, and there was no known prophet of Yahweh within reach of Samaria except Micaiah.

He doth not prophesy good concerning me but evil - Whether the tradition in Kg1 20:41 note be true or not, it is certain that Ahab had imprisoned him Kg1 22:26, and probable that the imprisonment was on account of threatening prophecies. Ahab suggests to Jehoshaphat that Micaiah is one who allows his private feelings to determine the utterances which he delivers as if from Yahweh. Hence, the force of Jehoshaphat's answer, "Let not the king say so;" i. e., "Let not the king suppose that a prophet would be guilty of such impiety," - an impiety from which even Balaam shrank Num 22:18.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:9

kg1 22:9

An officer - More properly, as in the margin, "a eunuch." Eunuchs seem to have been first introduced among the Israelites by David (Ch1 28:1 note). They were a natural accompaniment of the seraglio of Solomon. The present passage is the first which shows that, after the separation of the kingdom, the kings of Israel employed them (compare Kg2 8:6; Kg2 9:32).

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:10

kg1 22:10

Sat each on his throne - Or, "were sitting." They had removed from the banquet Ch2 18:2 to the void place, or empty space at the entrance of the gate Rut 4:1; Sa2 15:2, where Ahab daily sat to hear complaints and decide causes. Each was seated upon his throne, the Oriental kings having portable thrones, which they took with them upon their journeys.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:11

kg1 22:11

Horns of iron - The horn in Scripture is the favorite symbol of power; and pushing with the horn is a common metaphor for attacking and conquering enemies (see Deu 33:17; Compare Psa 44:5; Dan 8:4). Zedekiah, in employing a symbolic action, was following the example of a former Israelite prophet Kg1 11:30.

Thus saith the Lord - Or, יהוה yehovâh. Zedekiah lays aside the unmeaningful "Lord" אדני 'ǎdonāy of the general company of Israelite prophets Kg1 22:6, and professes to have a direct message from Yahweh to Ahab. He may have believed his own words, for the "lying spirit" Kg1 22:22 may have seemed to him a messenger from Yahweh. All the rest followed his example Kg1 22:12.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:13

kg1 22:13

And the messenger spake unto him ... - There seems to have been a widespread notion among the irreligious and the half-religious of the ancient world, that their prophets were not the mere mouth-pieces of the god, but that they were persons who had power with the god, and could compel, or at least induce, Him to work their will (compare Num 24:10; Isa 30:10). They saw that the prophet's word was accomplished; they did not understand that if he falsified his message the accomplishment would no longer follow.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:14

kg1 22:14

Micaiah, as a true prophet of Yahweh, of course rejected the counsel offered him, which he felt to be at once wicked and foolish. Compare also the resolution of Balaam, marginal reference.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:15

kg1 22:15

And he answered him ... - Micaiah speaks the exact words of the 400 in so mocking and ironical a tone, that the king cannot mistake his meaning, or regard his answer as serious. The king's rejoinder implies that this mocking manner was familiar to Micaiah, who had used it in some former dealings with the Israelite monarch. Hence, in part, the king's strong feeling of dislike (compare Kg1 22:8).

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:17

kg1 22:17

Thus adjured, Micaiah wholly changes his tone. Ahab cannot possibly mistake the meaning of his vision, especially as the metaphor of "sheep and shepherd" for king and people was familiar to the Israelites from the prayer of Moses Num 27:17.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:18

kg1 22:18

See Kg1 22:8. Ahab implies that he believes Micaiah to have spoken out of pure malevolence, without any authority for his prediction from God. By implication he invites Jehoshaphat to disregard this pseudo-prophecy, and to put his trust in the unanimous declaration of the 400. Micaiah, therefore, proceeds to explain the contradiction between himself and the 400, by recounting another vision.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:19

kg1 22:19

David's Psalms had familiarised the Israelites with Yahweh sitting upon a throne in the heavens (Psa 9:7; Psa 11:4; Psa 45:6; Psa 103:19, etc.); but to be allowed to see in vision the ineffable glory of the Almighty thus seated, was a rare favor. It was granted to Isaiah, to Daniel (marginal references), to Ezekiel Eze 1:26, and in Christian times to Stephen Act 7:56, and John Rev 4:2.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:21

kg1 22:21

A spirit - "The spirit " - which some explain as "the evil spirit" - i. e. Satan; others as simply "the spirit" who should "persuade."

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:22

kg1 22:22

The difficulties which attach to this passage are considerable. On the one hand, it is hard to suppose one of the holy Angels a "lying spirit;" on the other, hard to find Satan, or an evil spirit, included among "the host of heaven" Kg1 22:19 and acting as the minister of God. Still, Job 1:6; Job 2:1, lend countenance to the latter point, and Th2 2:11 to the former. But it may be doubted whether we ought to take literally, and seek to interpret exactly, each statement of the present narrative. Visions of the invisible world can only be a sort of parables; revelations, not of the truth as it actually is, but of so much of the truth as can be shown through such a medium. The details of a vision, therefore, cannot safely be pressed, anymore than the details of a parable. Portions of each must be accommodations to human modes of thought, and may very inadequately express the realities which they are employed to shadow forth to us.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:24

kg1 22:24

Smote Micaiah on the cheek - As Micaiah had been brought from prison Kg1 22:26, it is probable that his hands were bound.

The prophet, thus standing before the great ones of the earth, bound and helpless, bearing testimony to the truth, and for his testimony smitten on the face by an underling, whose blow he receives without either shame or anger, is a notable type of our Lord before Caiaphas suffering the same indignity.

Which way ... - Zedekiah's meaning may perhaps be expounded as follows:

"The Spirit of Yahweh certainly came to me, and inspired me with the answer which I gave. If He afterward went to thee, as thou sayest that He did, perhaps thou canst tell us - as all the secrets of the invisible world are, thou pretendest, open to thee - which way He took."

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:25

kg1 22:25

Micaiah addresses himself not so much to Zedekiah's question, as to the main point which lies in dispute - which of them, namely, is a true prophet. "When the news, i. e., of Ahab's death, caused by his following thy counsels, reaches Samaria, and thou hast to hide thyself from the vengeance of Ahaziah or Jezebel, then, in that day, thou wilt know whether I or thou be the true prophet."

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:26

kg1 22:26

Carry him back - literally, "cause him to return." Micaiah had been in custody before, and was brought by Ahab's messenger from his prison.

The governor of the city - This is one out of several notices respecting what may be called the "constitution" of the Israelite kingdom. The king consulted on important matters a Council of elders Kg1 20:7-8. The general administration was carried on by means of the governors of provinces Kg1 20:14 and of cities Kg2 10:5. The governors of cities, like the monarch, were assisted and checked by councils of elders, the wise men of the several towns Kg1 21:8-12; Kg2 10:5. Thus Samaria, as we see from the present passage, was under a special governor, who, among his other duties, had the control of the public prison, and directed the treatment of the prisoners.

The king's son - The phrase seems to designate a state office, rather than relationship to the sovereign. Compare Ch2 28:7.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:27

kg1 22:27

Feed him with bread of affliction ... - Micaiah is to be once more put in prison, but, in order to punish him for his uncomplying spirit, upon a poorer and scantier diet than he had been previously allowed. This is to continue until Ahab returns in peace. Ahab introduces this expression purposely, in order to show his entire disbelief of Micaiah's prophecy.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:29

kg1 22:29

It might have been expected that Jehoshaphat would have withdrawn from the expedition when he heard Micaiah denounce it. He had, however, rashly committed himself to take part in the war by a solemn promise, before he bethought himself of inquiring what was the will of God in the matter. Now he was ashamed to draw back, especially as Ahab, whom the prophecy chiefly threatened, was resolved to brave it. He may also have had a personal affection for Ahab, and so have been loth to desert him in his need. Compare Ch2 19:2.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:30

kg1 22:30

I will disguise myself - Ahab had probably heard of Ben-hadad's order to his captains Kg1 22:31.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:31

kg1 22:31

Commanded - "Had commanded." Ben-hadad delivers his order in the hyperbolical style common in the East. His meaning is, "Make it your chief object to kill or take the king of Israel." Apparently, his own defeat and captivity were still rankling in his mind, and he wished to retaliate on Ahab, the humiliation which he considered himself to have suffered. He shows small appreciation of the generosity which had spared his life and restored him to his kingdom.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:32

kg1 22:32

Surely it is the king of Israel - This was a natural supposition, as Jehoshaphat alone wore royal robes.

And Jehoshaphat cried out - Jehoshaphat called to his men for help, using perhaps his own special battle-cry, which would be distinct from that of Ahab, and would probably be known to the Syrians.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:34

kg1 22:34

At a venture - literally, as in the margin, i. e. without intent to kill the king.

Between the joints of the harness - literally, as in the margin. The "joints" were probably pieces of armor which attached the breast-plate to the helmet or to the greaves. The arrow entered between the breastplate and one of these "joints." breastplates made of metal scales were common both in Egypt and Assyria.

Turn thine hand - literally, "turn thy hands." The driver of a chariot, both in Egypt and Assyria, held the reins with his two hands.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:35

kg1 22:35

The battle increased - See the margin; i. e. the tide of battle rose higher. Compare Isa 8:7-8.

The king was stayed up in his chariot - The king's wound made it impossible for him to remain standing without help; he therefore had himself supported in his chariot by attendants, in order that his soldiers might not lose heart, as they would be sure to do, if they knew of his peril. Ahab must not be denied the credit of right princely fortitude on this occasion.

The midst of the chariot - literally, as in the margin. The "bosom" of the chariot is the rounded front, with the portion of the standing board that adjoined it. Here the blood would naturally collect, forming a pool, in which the king and his charioteer must have stood.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:36

kg1 22:36

About the going down of the sun - i. e. as soon as Ahab was dead. The abandonment of the expedition and dispersion of the army on the death of the king is thoroughly Oriental.

The Septuagint version reads Kg1 22:36-37, "Every man to his city, and every man to his own country, for the king is dead: And they came to Samaria," etc.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:38

kg1 22:38

They washed his armour - Rather, "the harlots bathed in it." The "pool of Samaria," which was stained with Ahab's blood by the washing of his chariot in it, was, according to Josephus, the usual bathing-place of the Samaritan harlots. A large tank or reservoir, probably identical with this pool, still remains on the slope of the hill of Samaria, immediately outside the walls.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:39

kg1 22:39

The ivory house - So called from the character of its ornamentation. Ivory was largely used in the ancient world as a covering of wood-work, and seems to have been applied, not only to furniture, but to the doors and walls of houses.

Nothing is known of the cities built by Ahab; but the fact is important as indicating the general prosperity of the country in his time, and his own activity as a ruler. Prosperity, it is plain, may for a while co-exist with causes - such as, the decay of religions - which are sapping the vital power of a nation, and leading it surely, if slowly, to destruction.

The book of the chronicles ... - See above, Kg1 14:19; Kg1 15:31; Kg1 16:5, Kg1 16:14, Kg1 16:20, Kg1 16:27.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:41

kg1 22:41

The writer returns to the history of the kingdom of Judah (connect this verse with Kg1 15:24), sketching briefly a reign much more fully given by the writer of Chronicles 2 Chr. 17-20. Compare also the marginal references.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:43

kg1 22:43

On the general piety of Asa, see above, Kg1 15:11-15 and references. Jehoshaphat seems to have been a still better king, for he did not, like Asa, fall away in his old age Ch2 16:2-12.

The high places were not taken away - This seems to contradict Ch2 17:6. Probably the writer of Chronicles refers to the desire and intention of the monarch, while the author of Kings records the practical failure of his efforts.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:44

kg1 22:44

This refers probably to an early period in Jehoshaphat's reign - about his eighth or his ninth year - when he closed the long series of wars between the two kingdoms by a formal peace, perhaps at once cemented by a marriage between Jehoram and Athaliah (Kg1 22:2 note).

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:45

kg1 22:45

The book of the chronicles ... - Compare Kg1 22:39 note. The biographer of Jehoshaphat appears to have been Jehu, the son of Hanani Ch2 20:34.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:46

kg1 22:46

See the marginal references notes.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:47

kg1 22:47

In the time of Solomon, Hadad Kg1 11:14, according to the Septuagint, "reigned over Edom." It appears by the present passage that the country had been again reduced either by Jehoshaphat, or by an earlier king, and was dependent on the kingdom of Judah, being governed by a "deputy" or viceroy, who, however, was allowed the royal title (compare Kg2 3:9, Kg2 3:12, Kg2 3:26). This government of dependencies by means of subject-kings was the all but universal practice in the East down to the time of Cyrus (the Kg1 4:21 note).

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:48

kg1 22:48

The expression, "ships of Tharshish," probably designates ships of a particular class, ships (i. e.) like those with which the Phoenicians used to trade to Tharshish (Tartessus, Kg1 10:22 note). Compare the use of "India-man" for a vessel of a certain class. Jehoshaphat's fleet was constructed at Ezion-Gaber, on the Red Sea Ch2 20:36, where Solomon had previously built a navy Kg1 9:26. Being lord-paramount of Edom, Jehoshaphat had the right of using this harbor.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:49

kg1 22:49

Ch2 20:35-36, explains that the two kings conjointly built the fleet with which the Ophir trade (Kg1 9:28 note) was to be re-opened. Ahaziah had thus an interest in the ships; and when they were wrecked, attributing, as it would seem, the calamity to the unskillfulness of his ally's mariners, he proposed that the fleet should be manned in part by Israelite sailors - men probably accustomed to the sea, perhaps trained at Tyre. This proposal Jehoshaphat refused, either offended at the reflection on his subjects' skill, or accepting the wreck of the ships, which Eliezer had prophesied, as a proof that God was against the entire undertaking.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:51

kg1 22:51

Two years - According to our reckoning, not much more than a twelve-month year.

3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:52

kg1 22:52

In the way of his mother - In this phrase, which does not occur anywhere else, we see the strong feeling of the writer as to the influence of Jezebel (compare Kg1 16:31).

Verses Kg1 22:51-53. It would be of advantage if these verses were transferred to the Second Book of Kings, which would thus open with the commencement of Ahaziah's reign. The division of the books does not proceed from the author. See the introduction to the Book of Kings

4 Kings (2 Kings) Introduction

4 Kings (2 Kings)

kg2 0:0

Introduction to 1 and 2 Kings

The Greek translators, known as the Septuagint, who separated the "Book of the Law of Moses" into five parts, and the "Book of Samuel" into two, made the division, which is now almost universally adopted, of the original "Book of Kings" into a "First" and a "Second Book." The separation thus made was followed naturally in the early Latin versions, which were formed from the Greek; and when Jerome set forth the edition now called "The Vulgate," he followed the custom which he found established. The general adoption of the Vulgate by the Western Church caused the arrangement introduced by the Septuagint to obtain almost universal acceptance.

The work is named from its contents, since the entire subject of the whole is the history of the "kings" of Israel and Judah from the accession of Solomon to the Babylonian captivity.

1. The unity of the work is proved by the marked and striking simplicity and regularity of the plan. The work is, from first to last a history of the kings in strict chronological order, on the same system, and on a uniform scale. Exceptions to this uniformity in the larger space bestowed on the reigns of a few monarchs are due to the principle of treating with the greatest fullness the parts of the history theocratically of most importance.

A second evidence of unity is the general uniformity of style and language - a uniformity admitted by all writers, and one which is only slightly infringed in two or three instances, where the irregularity may be accounted for by a diversity in the sources used by the author and a close following of the language which he found in those sources.

To these general heads of evidence may be added certain peculiarities of thought or expression which pervade the two books, all of them indicating with greater or less certainty a single author.

2. Some have thought from the continuity of the narrative, from the general resemblance of the style, and from the common employment of a certain number of words and phrases, that the six "books," commencing with Judges and terminating with the Second Book of Kings, are the production of a single writer, and constitute in reality a single unbroken composition. Others consider these arguments far from conclusive. The continuity of the narrative is formal, and may be due to the after arrangements of a reviser, such as Ezra is commonly believed to have been.

So far as the mere idiom of the language goes, it is perhaps true that we cannot draw a marked line between Kings and Samuel. But many of the traits most characteristic of the writer of Kings are wholly wanting in the other (and probably earlier) composition. For these and other reasons the "Books of Kings" may claim distinctness and separateness.

3. There are two grounds upon which, apart from all traditional notices, the date of a historical work may be determined, namely, the peculiarities of the diction, and the contents.

The language of Kings belongs unmistakably to the period of the captivity. It is later than that of Isaiah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Joel, and Nahum, earlier than that of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah. In general character it bears a close resemblance to the language of Jeremiah and Ezekiel; and may be assigned to the sixth century before our era.

The result obtainable from the contents is similar, only somewhat more definite. Assuming the last detached section of the work Kg2 25:27-30 to be an integral portion of it, we obtain the year 561 B.C. - the first year of Evil-Merodach - as the earliest possible date of the completion of the composition. Again, from the fact that the work contains no allusion at all to the return of the Jews from their captivity, we obtain for the latest possible date the year 538 B.C., the year of the return under Zerubbabel: or in other words between the death of Nebuchadnezzar and the accession of Cyrus in Babylon. Linguistic and other considerations favor the belief that the actual completion was early in this period - about 560 B.C.; and it is not improbable that the greater part of the work was written as early as 580 B.C. - i. e. some twenty years previously.

4. Jewish tradition assigns the authorship of Kings to Jeremiah; and there are very weighty arguments in favor of this view. There is a very remarkable affinity between the language of Kings and that of the admitted writings of the prophet. The matter moreover, of the two works, so far as the same events are treated, is in the closest harmony, those points being especially singled out for insertion, of which Jeremiah had personal knowledge and in which he took a special interest. Another argument of very considerable force is drawn from the entire omission of any notice at all of Jeremiah in Kings, which would have been very strange and unnatural in any other historian, considering the important part which Jeremiah played in the transactions of so many reigns, but which is completely intelligible on the hypothesis of his authorship of Kings: it is then the natural fruit and sign of a becoming modesty and unselfishness.

Still, though Jeremiah's authorship appears, all things considered, to be highly probable, we must admit that it has not been proved, and is therefore to some extent uncertain.

5. The author of Kings cites as authorities on the subject matter of his history three works:

(1) the "book of the acts of Solomon" Kg1 11:41;

(2) the "book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel" (Kg1 14:19, etc.); and

(3) the "Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah" (Kg1 14:29, etc.).

His own history was, at least in part, derived from these works. Lesser works were also open to him. Further, the writer had probably access to a work of a different character from any of those quoted by the author of Chronicles, namely, a collection of the miracles of Elisha, made probably in one of the schools of the prophets.

Hence, the sources of Kings may be considered threefold, consisting, first, of certain general historical documents called the "Books of the Chronicles of the Kings;" secondly, of some special treatises on the history of particular short periods; and, thirdly, of a single work of a very peculiar character, the private biography of a remarkable man.

The "books of the chronicles of the kings" were probably of the nature of public archives, - state-annals, that is, containing an account of the chief public events in the reign of each king, drawn up by an authorized person. With the Israelites the authorized person was probably in almost every case a prophet. The prophets regarded this as one of their principal duties, as we see by the examples of Isaiah Ch2 26:22; Isa. 36-38, Jeremiah Jer. 39-43:7; 52, and Daniel Dan. 1-6. At the close of every reign, if not even in its course, an addition was probably made to the "book of the chronicles of the kings" by the prophet who held the highest position at the period.

But the prophets, in addition to these formal official writings, composed also historical works which were on a somewhat larger scale, and were especially more full in the account which they gave of religious matters. Compare for example, the difference between the prophetical monograph and the drier abstract of the "book of the chronicles," contained in the historical chapters of Isaiah Isa. 36-39, and the parallel chapters of the Second Book of Kings 2 Kings 18-20. Compare also Jer. 39-44 with 2 Kings 25:1-26. Further, comparing generally the history as given in Chronicles with the corresponding history in Kings, the author of Chronicles seems to have followed generally the separate works of the various prophetical writers: the author of Kings, mainly the official documents. In Chronicles nothing is more noticeable than the greater fullness of the religious history of Judah. This came chiefly from the several prophetical works, and marks a contrast between their character and the ordinary character of the state-annals.

The writer of Kings was mainly a compiler. He selected, arranged, and wove into a whole, the various narratives of earlier writers whereof he made use. This is evident, both from the retention of obsolete or provincial forms in particular narratives, and from the occurrence of a number of statements which were inappropriate at the time when the compiler wrote.

The close verbal agreement between 2 Kings 18:15-20:19, and Isa. 36-39, can only have arisen from the writer's extracting without alteration Isaiah's account of the reign of Hezekiah as it occurred in the state-annals: and the verbal agreement between great part of Chronicles and Kings, is often best accounted for by supposing that the two writers made verbatim extracts from the same authority.

On the other hand the writer of Kings sometimes departed from the wording of his authors, and substituted expressions purely his own.

And there are passages evidently original. It is on these parts of the work that the argument in favor of Jeremiah's authorship especially rests.

6. Philologically speaking, the general condition of the text is good. But the historian has to lament an unsoundness, which, though affecting in no degree the religious character of the books, detracts from their value as documents wherein is contained an important portion of the world's civil history. The numbers, as they have come down to us in Kings, are untrustworthy, being in part self-contradictory, in part opposed to other Scriptural notices, in part improbable, if not even impossible. The defect would seem to have arisen from two causes, one common to the Hebrew Scriptures, the other unique to these books.

The common cause is corruption, partly from the fact that error in them is rarely checked by the context, partly from the circumstance that some system of abbreviated numerical notation has been adopted by professional scribes, and that the symbols employed by them have been mistaken one for another.

The peculiar cause of error seems to have been insertions into the text of chronological notes originally made in the margin by a commentator. The first date which occurs Kg1 6:1 seems to be a gloss of this character, and it may be suspected that to a similar origin is due the whole series of synchronisms between the dynasties of Israel and Judah. It is probable that the original work gave simply the years assigned to each king in the "books of the chronicles," without entering upon the further question, in what regnal year of the contemporary monarch in the sister kingdom each prince ascended the throne. The chief difficulties of the chronology, and almost all the actual contradictions, disappear if we subtract from the work these portions.

Excepting in this respect, the Books of Kings have come down to us, as to all essentials, in a thoroughly sound condition. The only place where the Septuagint Version differs importantly from the Hebrew text is in 1 Kings 12, where a long passage concerning Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, not now found in the Hebrew, occurs between Kg1 12:24 and Kg1 12:25. But this passage is clearly no part of the original narrative. It is a story after the fashion of the apocryphal Esdras, worked up out of the Scripture facts, with additions, which the Alexandrian writer may have taken from some Jewish authority whereto he had access, but which certainly did not come from the writer of Kings. None of its facts except possibly a single one - the age, namely, of Rehoboam at his accession belongs to the real narrative of our historian.

7. The primary character of the work is undoubtedly historical. It is the main object of the writer to give an account of the kings of Israel and Judah from Solomon's accession to the captivity of Zedekiah.

The history is, however, written - not, like most history, from a civil, but from a religious point of view. The Jews are regarded, not as an ordinary nation, but as God's people. The historian does not aim at exhibiting the mere political progress of the kingdoms about which he writes, but intends to describe to us God's treatment of the race with which lie had entered into covenant. Where he records the events of the civil history, his plan is to trace cut the fulfillment of the combined warning and promise which had been given to David Sa2 7:12-16.

Hence, events, which an ordinary historian would have considered of great importance, may be (and are) omitted by our author from the narrative; or touched slightly and hastily. . He treats with the utmost brevity the conquest of Jerusalem by Shishak Kg1 14:25-26, the war between Abijam and Jeroboam Kg1 15:7, that of Amaziah with Edom Kg2 14:7, and that of Josiah with Pharaoh-Nechoh Kg2 23:29; events treated at length in the parallel passages of the Book of Chronicles.) As a general rule, the military history of the two kingdoms, which was no doubt carefully recorded in the "Books of the Chronicles," is omitted by the writer of Kings, who is content for the most part to refer his readers to the state-annals for the events which would have made the greatest figure in an ordinary secular history.

On the other hand, the special aim of the writer induces him to assign a prominent piece and to give a full treatment to events which a secular historian would have touched lightly or passed over in silence. The teaching of the prophets, and their miracles, were leading points in the religious history of the time; it was owing to them especially that the apostasy of the people was without excuse; therefore the historian who has to show that, despite the promises made to David, Jerusalem was destroyed, and the whole twelve tribes carried into captivity, must exhibit fully the grounds for this severity, and must consequently dwell on circumstances which so intensely aggravated the guilt of the people.

The character of the history that he has to relate, its general tendency and ultimate issue, naturally throw over his whole narrative an air of gloom. The tone of the work tires harmonises with that of Jeremiah's undoubted writings, and furnishes an additional argument in favor of that prophet's authorship.

The style of Kings is, for the most part, level and uniform - a simple narrative style. Occasionally, a more lofty tone is breathed, the style rising with the subject matter, and becoming in places almost poetical Kg1 19:11-12; Kg2 19:21-31. The most striking chapters are 1 Kings 8; 18; 19; 2 Kings 5; 9; 18; 19; 20.

8. The general authenticity of the narrative contained in our books is admitted. Little is denied or questioned but the miraculous portions of the story, which cluster chiefly about the persons of Elijah and Elisha. Some critics admitting that the narrative generally is derived from authentic contemporary documents - either state-annals or the writings of contemporary prophets - maintain that the histories of Elijah and Elisha come from an entirely different source, being (they hold) collections of traditions respecting those persons made many years after their deaths, either by the writer of Kings or by some other person, from the mouths of the common people. Hence, according to them, their "legendary" or "mythical" character.

But there are no critical grounds for separating off the account of Elijah, or more than a small portion of the account of Elisha, from the rest of the composition. The history of Elijah especially is so intertwined with that of the kingdom of Israel, and is altogether of so public a nature, that the "chronicles of the kings of Israel" would almost necessarily have contained an account of it; and an important part of the history of Elisha is of a similar character. Further, it is quite gratuitous to imagine that the account was not a contemporary one, or that it was left for a writer living long subsequently to collect into a volume the doings of these remarkable personages. The probability is quite the other way. As the prophets themselves were the historians of the time, it would be only natural that Elisha should collect the miracles and other remarkable deeds of Elijah; and that his own should be collected after his decease by some one of the "sons of the prophets." Add to this that the miracles, as related, have all the air of descriptions derived from eye-witnesses, being full of such minute circumstantial detail as tradition cannot possibly preserve. The whole result would seem to be that (unless we reject miracles altogether as unworthy of belief on account of an "a priori" impossibility) the account of the two great Israelite prophets in Kings must be regarded as entitled to acceptance equally with the rest of the narrative.

Both internal consistency and probability, and also external testimony, strongly support the general authenticity of the secular history contained in Kings. The empire of Solomon is of a kind with which early Oriental history makes us familiar; it occurs exactly at a period when there was room for its creation owing to the simultaneous weakness of Egypt and Assyria; its rapid spread, and still more rapid contraction, are in harmony with our other records of Eastern dominion; its art and civilization resemble these known to have prevailed about the same time in neighboring countries. The contact of Judaea with Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia, during the period covered by our books agrees with the Egyptian annals, and in some respects is most strikingly illustrated by the cuneiform inscriptions. Berosus, Manetho, Menander, Dius - the pagan historians of Babylon, Egypt, and Tyre - join with the monuments in the support which they furnish to our author's truthfulness and accuracy, as the comment appended to the text will prove abundantly.

Even the broader features of the chronology are both internally probable, and externally confirmed by the chronologies of other countries. The interval between the accession of Solomon and the captivity of Zedekiah is given as 433 12 years, which is divided among twenty-one monarchs, who belong to eighteen (or, excluding Jehoiachin, to seventeen) generations. This allows for each generation the very probable term of 25 12 years. During the portion of the history where the chronology is double, and where the chief internal difficulties occur, the divergence of the two schemes is but slight, amounting to no more than about twenty years in 240 or 250. Egyptian annals confirm approximately the Biblical dates for Shishak's invasion, and So's alliance. The Assyrian annals agree with the Hebrew in the date of the fall of Samaria, and in exhibiting Hazael and Jehu, Tiglath-Pileser and Ahaz, Sennacherib and Hezekiah, Esarhaddon and Manasseh, as contemporaries. The chronological difficulties, where such exist, do not at all exceed those with which every reader of profane historians is familiar, and which, in fact, pervade the whole of ancient chronology. They are partly to be accounted for by diversities in the mode of reckoning; while occasionally no doubt they result from a corrupt reading, or from an unauthorized interpolation.