[1] But more commonly called _Eisvogel_, which finds its counterpart
in the Anglo-Saxon _Isern_ or _Isen_.
[2] Rolland, _Faune populaire de la France_, ii. 74.
[3] In many of the islands of the Pacific Ocean the prevalent
kingfisher is the object of much veneration.
[4] Cf. Eyton, _Contrib. Ornithology_ (1850), p. 80; Wallace, _Ann.
Nat. History_, series 2, vol. xviii. pp. 201, 205; and Huxley, _Proc.
Zool. Society_ (1867), p. 467.
[5] _A Monograph of the Alcedinidae or Family of the Kingfishers_, by
R. B. Sharpe, 4to (London, 1868-1871). Some important anatomical
points were briefly noticed by Professor Cunningham (_Proc. Zool.
Soc._, 1870, p. 280).
[6] The name of this latter sub-family as constituted by Sharpe would
seem to be more correctly _Ceycinae_--the genus _Ceyx_, founded in
1801 by Lacépède, being the oldest included in it. The word _Dacelo_,
invented by Leach in 1815, is simply an anagram of _Alcedo_, and,
though of course without any etymological meaning, has been very
generally adopted.
[7] Cf. Wallace. _Geog. Distr. Animals_, ii. 315.
KINGHORN, a royal and police burgh of Fifeshire, Scotland. Pop. (1901),
1550. It is situated on the Firth of Forth, 2¼ m. E. by N. of
Burntisland, on the North British railway. The public buildings include
a library and town-hall. It enjoys some repute as a summer resort. The
leading industries are ship-building, bleaching and the making of flax
and glue. At the time of his visit Daniel Defoe found thread-making in
vogue, which employed the women while the men were at sea. Alexander
III. created Kinghorn a burgh, but his connexion with the town proved
fatal to him. As he was riding from Inverkeithing on the 12th of March
1286 he was thrown by his horse and fell over the cliffs, since called
King's Wud End, a little to the west of the burgh, and killed. A
monument was erected in 1887 to mark the supposed scene of the accident.
The Witch Hill used to be the place of execution of those poor wretches.
Kinghorn belongs to the Kirkcaldy district group of parliamentary
burghs. At PETTYCUR, 1 m. to the south, is a good harbour for its size,
and at Kinghorn Ness a battery has been established in connexion with
the fortifications on Inchkeith. The hill above the battery was
purchased by government in 1903 and is used as a point of observation.
About 1 m. to the north of Kinghorn is the estate of Grange, which
belonged to Sir William Kirkcaldy. INCHKEITH, an island in the fairway
of the Firth of Forth, 2½ m. S. by E. of Kinghorn and 3½ m. N. by E. of
Leith, belongs to the parish of Kinghorn. It has a north-westerly and
south-easterly trend, and is nearly 1 m. long and ¼ m. wide. It is a
barren rock, on the summit of which stands a lighthouse visible at night
for 21 m. In 1881 forts connected by a military road were erected on the
northern, western and southern headlands.
KINGLAKE, ALEXANDER WILLIAM (1800-1891), English historian and
traveller, was born at Taunton on the 5th of August 1809. His father, a
successful solicitor, intended his son for a legal career. Kinglake went
to Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge, where he matriculated in 1828,
being a contemporary and friend of Tennyson and Thackeray. After leaving
Cambridge he joined Lincoln's Inn, and was called to the bar in 1837.
While still a student he travelled, in 1835, throughout the East, and
the impression made upon him by his experiences was so powerful that he
was seized with a desire to record them in literature. _Eothen_, a
sensitive and witty record of impressions keenly felt and remembered,
was published in 1844, and enjoyed considerable reputation. In 1854 he
went to the Crimea, and was present at the battle of the Alma. During
the campaign he made the acquaintance of Lord Raglan, who was so much
attracted by his talents that he suggested to Kinglake the plan for an
elaborate _History of the Crimean War_, and placed his private papers at
the writer's disposal. For the rest of his life Kinglake was engaged
upon the task of completing this monumental history. Thirty-two years
elapsed between its commencement and the publication of the last volume,
and eight volumes in all appeared at intervals between 1863 and 1887.
Kinglake lived principally in London, and sat in parliament for
Bridgwater from 1857 until the disfranchisement of the borough in 1868.
He died on the 2nd of January 1891. Kinglake's life-work, _The History
of the Crimean War_, is in scheme and execution too minute and
conscientious to be altogether in proportion, but it is a wonderful
example of painstaking and talented industry. It is not without errors
of partisanship, but it shows remarkable skill in the moulding of vast
masses of despatches and technical details into an absorbingly
interesting narrative; it is illumined by natural descriptions and
character-sketches of great fidelity and acumen; and, despite its
length, it remains one of the most picturesque, most vivid and most
actual pieces of historical narrative in the English language.
KINGLET, a name applied in many books to the bird called by Linnaeus
_Motacilla regulus_, and by most modern ornithologists _Regulus
cristatus_, the golden-crested or golden-crowned wren of ordinary
persons. This species is the type of a small group which has been
generally placed among the _Sylviidae_ or true warblers, but by certain
systematists it is referred to the titmouse family, _Paridae_. That the
kinglets possess many of the habits and actions of the latter is
undeniable, but on the other hand they are not known to differ in any
important points of organization or appearance from the former--the
chief distinction being that the nostril is covered by a single bristly
feather directed forwards. The golden-crested wren is the smallest of
British birds, its whole length being about 3½ in., and its wing
measuring only 2 in. from the carpal joint. Generally of an olive-green
colour, the top of its head is bright yellow, deepening into orange, and
bounded on either side by a black line, while the wing coverts are dull
black, and some of them tipped with white, forming a somewhat
conspicuous bar. The cock has a pleasant but weak song. The nest is a
beautiful object, thickly felted of the softest moss, wool, and spiders'
webs, lined with feathers, and usually built under and near the end of
the branch of a yew, fir or cedar, supported by the interweaving of two
or three laterally diverging and pendent twigs, and sheltered by the
rest. The eggs are from six to ten in number, of a dull white sometimes
finely freckled with reddish-brown. The species is particularly social,
living for the most part of the year in family parties, and often
joining bands of any species of titmouse in a common search for food.
Though to be met with in Britain at all seasons, the bird in autumn
visits the east coast in enormous flocks, apparently emigrants from
Scandinavia, while hundreds perish in crossing the North Sea, where they
are well known to the fishermen as "woodcock's pilots." A second and
more local European species is the fire-crested wren, _R. ignicapillus_,
easily recognizable by the black streak on each side of the head, before
and behind the eye, as well as by the deeper colour of its crown. A
third species, _R. maderensis_, inhabits the Madeiras, to which it is
peculiar; and examples from the Himalayas and Japan have been
differentiated as _R. himalayensis_ and _R. japonicus_. North America
has two well-known species, _R. satrapa_, very like the European _R.
ignicapillus_, and the ruby-crowned wren, _R. calendula_, which is
remarkable for a loud song that has been compared to that of a
canary-bird or a skylark, and for having the characteristic nasal
feather in a rudimentary or aborted condition. (A. N.)
KINGS, FIRST AND SECOND BOOKS OF, two books of the Bible, the last of
the series of Old Testament histories known as the Earlier or Former
Prophets. They were originally reckoned as a single book (Josephus;
Origen _ap._ Eus., _H.E._ vi. 25; Peshitta; Talmud), though modern
Bibles follow the bipartition which is derived from the Septuagint. In
that version they are called the third and fourth books of "kingdoms"
([Greek: Basileiôn]), the first and second being our books of Samuel.
The division into two books is not felicitous, and even the old Hebrew
separation between Kings and Samuel must not be taken to mean that the
history from the birth of Samuel to the exile was treated by two
distinct authors in independent volumes. We cannot speak of the author
of Kings or Samuel, but only of an editor or of successive editors whose
main work was to arrange in a continuous form extracts or abstracts from
earlier sources. The introduction of a chronological scheme and of a
series of editorial comments and additions, chiefly designed to enforce
the religious meaning of the history, gives a kind of unity to the book
of Kings as we now read it; but beneath this we can still distinguish a
variety of documents, which, though sometimes mutilated in the process
of piecing together, retain sufficient individuality of style and colour
to prove their original independence.
Of these documents one of the best defined is the vivid picture of
David's court at Jerusalem (2 Sam. ix.-xx.) from which the first two
chapters of 1 Kings manifestly cannot be separated. As it would be
unreasonable to suppose that the editor of the history of David closed
his work abruptly before the death of the king, breaking off in the
middle of a valuable memoir which lay before him, this observation leads
us to conclude that the books of Samuel and Kings are not independent
histories. They have at least one source in common, and a single
editorial hand was at work on both. From an historical point of view,
however, the division which makes the beginning of Solomon's reign the
beginning of a new book is very convenient. The conquest of Palestine by
the Israelite tribes, recounted in the book of Joshua, leads up to the
era of the "judges" (Judg. ii. 6-23; iii. sqq.), and the books of Samuel
follow with the institution of the monarchy and the first kings. The
books of Kings bring to a close the life of David (c. 975 B.C.), which
forms the introduction to the reign of Solomon (1 Kings ii. 12-xi.), the
troubles in whose time prepared the way for the separation into the two
distinct kingdoms, viz. Judah and the northern tribes of Israel (xii.
sqq.). After the fall of Samaria, the history of these Israelites is
rounded off with a review (2 Kings xvii.-xviii. 12). The history of the
surviving kingdom of Judah is then carried down to the destruction of
Jerusalem and the exile (5 and 6), and, after an account of the Chaldean
governorship, concludes with the release of the captive king Jehoiachin
(561 B.C.) and with an allusion to his kind treatment during the rest of
his lifetime.
The most noticeable feature in the book is the recurring interest in the
centralization of worship in the Temple at Jerusalem as prescribed in
Deuteronomy and enforced by Josiah. Amidst the great variety in style
and manner which marks the several parts of the history, features which
are imbued with the teaching of Deuteronomy recur regularly in similar
stereotyped forms. They point in fact to a specific redaction, and thus
it would seem that the editor who treated the foundation of the Temple,
the central event of Solomon's life, as a religious epoch of the first
importance, regarded this as the beginning of a new era--the history of
Israel under the one sanctuary.
Successive Redactions.
When we assume that the book of Kings was thrown into its present form
by a Deuteronomistic redactor we do not affirm that he was the first who
digested the sources of the history into a continuous work, nor must we
ascribe absolute finality to his work. He gave the book a definite shape
and character, but the recognized methods of Hebrew literature left it
open to additions and modifications by later hands. Even the redaction
in the spirit of Deuteronomy seems itself to have had more than one
stage, as Ewald long ago recognized.
The evidence to be detailed presently shows that there was a certain
want of definiteness about the redaction. The mass of disjointed
materials, not always free from inconsistencies, which lay before the
editor in separate documents or in excerpts already partially arranged
by an earlier hand, could not have been reduced to real unity without
critical sifting, and an entire recasting of the narrative in a way
foreign to the ideas and literary habits of the Hebrews. The unity
which the editor aimed at was limited to (a) chronological continuity
in the events recorded and (b) a certain uniformity in the treatment
of the religious meaning of the narrative. Even this could not be
perfectly attained in the circumstances, and the links of the history
were not firmly enough riveted to prevent disarrangement or
rearrangement of details by later scribes.
(a) The continued efforts of successive redactors can be traced in the
chronology of the book. The chronological method of the narrative
appears most clearly in the history after Solomon, where the events of
each king's reign are thrown into a kind of stereotyped framework on
this type: "In the twentieth year of Jeroboam, king of Israel, Asa
began to reign over Judah, and reigned in Jerusalem forty-one years."
... "In the third year of Asa, king of Judah, Baasha began to reign
over Israel in Tirzah twenty-four years." The history moves between
Judah and Israel according to the date of each accession; as soon as a
new king has been introduced, everything that happened in his reign is
discussed, and wound up by another stereotyped formula as to the death
and burial of the sovereign; and to this mechanical arrangement the
natural connexion of events is often sacrificed. In this scheme the
elaborate synchronisms between contemporary monarchs of the north and
south give an aspect of great precision to the chronology. But in
reality the data for Judah and Israel do not agree, and remarkable
deviations are sometimes found. The key to the chronology is 1 Kings
vi. 1, which, as Wellhausen has shown, was not found in the original
Septuagint, and contains internal evidence of post-Chaldean date. In
fact the system as a whole is necessarily later than 535 B.C., the
fixed point from which it counts back, and although the numbers for
the duration of the reigns may be based upon early sources, the
synchronisms appear to have been inserted at a much later stage in the
history of the text.
(b) Another aspect in the redaction may be called theological. Its
characteristic is the retrospective application to the history of a
standard belonging to the later developments of Old Testament
religion. Thus the redactor regards the sins of Jeroboam as the real
cause of the downfall of Israel (2 Kings xvii. 21 seq.), and passes an
unfavourable judgment upon all its rulers, not merely to the effect
that they did evil in the sight of Yahweh but that they followed in
the way of Jeroboam. But his opinion was manifestly not shared by
Elijah or Elisha, nor by the original narrator of the lives of these
prophets. Moreover, the redactor in 1 Kings iii. 2 seq. regards
worship at the high places as sinful after the building of the Temple,
although even the best kings before Hezekiah made no attempt to
suppress these shrines. This feature in the redaction displays itself
not only in occasional comments or homiletical excursuses, but in that
part of the narrative in which all ancient historians allowed
themselves free scope for the development of their reflections--the
speeches placed in the mouths of actors in the history. Here also
there is often textual evidence that the theological element is
somewhat loosely attached to the earlier narrative and underwent
successive additions.
General Structure.
Consequently it is necessary to distinguish between the older sources
and the peculiar setting in which the history has been placed; between
earlier records and that specific colouring which, from its affinity to
Deuteronomy and to other portions of the Old Testament which appear to
have been similarly treated under the influence of its teaching, may be
conveniently termed "Deuteronomistic." For his sources the compiler
refers chiefly to two distinct works, the "words" or "chronicles" of the
kings of Israel and those of the kings of Judah. Precisely how much is
copied from these works and how much has been expressed in the
compiler's own language is of course uncertain. It is found on
inspection that the present history consists usually of an epitome of
each reign. It states the king's age at succession (so Judah only),
length of reign, death and burial, with allusions to his buildings,
wars, and other political events.[1] In the case of Judah, also, the
name of the royal or queen-mother is specifically mentioned. The
references to the respective "chronicles," made as though they were
still accessible, are wanting in the case of Jehoram and Hoshea of
Israel, and of Solomon, Ahaziah, Athaliah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin and
Zedekiah of Judah. But for Solomon the authority cited, "book of the
acts of Solomon" (1 Kings xi. 41), presumably presupposes Judaean
chronicles, and the remaining cases preserve details of an annalistic
character. Moreover, distinctive annalistic material is found for the
Israelite kings Saul and Ishbosheth in 1 Sam. xiii. 1; xiv. 47-51; 2
Sam. ii. 8-10a (including even their age at accession), and for David in
2 Sam. ii. 11 and parts of v. and viii.
The use which the compiler makes of his sources shows that his aim was
not the _history_ of the past but its _religious significance_. It is
rare that even qualified praise is bestowed upon the kings of Israel
(Jehoram, 2 Kings iii. 2; Jehu x. 30; Hoshea xvii. 2). Kings of great
historical importance are treated with extreme brevity (Omri, Jeroboam
(2), Uzziah), and similar meagreness of historical information is
apparent when the editorial details and the religious judgments are
eliminated from the accounts of Nadab, Baasha, and the successors of
Jeroboam (2) in Israel or of Abijam and Manasseh in Judah.
Solomon.
To gain a more exact idea of the character of the book we may divide the
history into three sections: (1) the life of Solomon, (2) the kingdoms
of Ephraim (or Samaria)[2] and Judah, and (3) the separate history of
Judah after the fall of Samaria. I. _Solomon_.--The events which lead up
to the death of David and the accession of Solomon (1 Kings i., ii.) are
closely connected with 2 Sam. ix.-xx. The unity is broken by the
appendix 2 Sam. xxi. xxi.-xxiv. which is closely connected, as regards
general subject-matter, with _ibid._ v.-viii.; the literary questions
depend largely upon the structure of the books of Samuel (q.v.). It is
evident, at least, that either the compiler drew upon other sources for
the occasion and has been remarkably brief elsewhere, or that his
epitomes have been supplemented by the later insertion of material not
necessarily itself of late origin. At present 1 Kings i., ii. are both
the close of David's life (no source is cited) and the necessary
introduction to Solomon. But Lucian's recension of the Septuagint (ed.
Lagarde), as also Josephus, begin the book at ii. 12, thus separating
the annalistic accounts of the two. Since the contents of 1 Kings
iii.-xi. do not form a continuous narrative, the compiler's authority
("Acts of S." xi. 41) can hardly have been an ordinary chronicle. The
chapters comprise (a) sundry notices of the king's prosperous and
peaceful career, severed by (b) a description of the Temple and other
buildings; and they conclude with (c) some account of the external
troubles which prove to have unsettled the whole of his reign. After an
introduction (iii.), a contains generalizing statements of Solomon's
might, wealth and wisdom (iv. 20 seq., 25, 29-34; x. 23-25, 27) and
stories of a distinctly late and popular character (iii. 16-28, x. i-10,
13). The present lack of unity can in some cases be remedied by the
Septuagint, which offers many deviations from the Hebrew text; this
feature together with the present form of the parallel texts in
Chronicles will exemplify the persistence of fluctuation to a late
period (4th-2nd cent. B.C.).
Thus iii. 2 seq. cannot be by the same hand as v. 4, and v. 2 is
probably a later Deut. gloss upon v. 3 (earlier Deut.), which
represents the compiler's view and (on the analogy of the framework)
comes closely after ii. 12.[3] Ch. iii. 1 can scarcely be severed from
ix. 16, and in the Septuagint they appear in iv. in the order: iv.
1-19 (the officers), 27 seq. (their duties), 22-24 (the daily
provision), 29-34 (Solomon's reputation), iii. 1; ix. 16-17a (alliance
with Egypt); iv. 20 seq. 25 are of a generalizing character and recur
in the Septuagint with much supplementary matter in ii. Ch. iv. 26 is
naturally related to x. 26 (cf. 2 Chron. i. 14) and takes its place in
Lucian's recension (cf. 2 Chron. ix. 25). There is considerable
variation again in ix. 10-x. 29, and the order ix. 10-14, 26-28, x.
1-22 (so partly Septuagint) has the advantage of recording
continuously Solomon's dealings with Hiram. The intervening verses
belong to a class of floating notices (in a very unnatural order)
which seem to have got stranded almost by chance at different points
in the two recensions; contrast also 2 Chron. viii. Solomon's
preliminary arrangements with Hiram in ch. v. have been elaborated to
emphasize the importance of the Temple (vv. 3-5, cf. 2 Sam. vii.);
further difficulty is caused by the relation between 13 seq. and 15
seq. (see 2 Chron. ii. 17 seq.) and between both of these and ix. 20
seq. xi. 28. The account of the royal buildings now sandwiched in
between the related fragments of a is descriptive rather than
narrative, and the accurate details might have been obtained by actual
observation of the Temple at a date long subsequent to Solomon. It is
not all due to a single hand. Ch. vi. 11-14 (with several late
phrases) break the connexion and are omitted by the Septuagint; vv.
15-22, now untranslatable, appear in a simple and intelligible form in
the Septuagint. The account of the dedication contains many signs of a
late date; viii. 14-53, 54-61 are due to a Deuteronomic writer, and
that they are an expansion of the older narrative (vv. 1-13) is
suggested by the fact that the ancient fragment, vv. 12, 13 (imperfect
in the Hebrew) appears in the Septuagint after v. 53 in completer form
and with a reference to the book of Jashar as source ([Greek: biblion
tês ôdês] [Hebrew: sefer (hashir) hayashar]). The redactional
insertion displaced it in one recension and led to its mutilation in
the other. With viii. 27-30, cf. generally Isa. xl.-lvi.; vv. 44-51
presuppose the exile, vv. 54-61 are wanting in Chron., and even the
older parts of this chapter have also been retouched in conformity
with later (even post-exilic) ritual and law. The Levites who appear
at v. 4 in contrast to the priests, in a way unknown to the pre-exilic
history, are not named in the Septuagint, which also omits the
post-exilic term "congregation" (_'edah_) in v. 5. There is a general
similarity of subject with Deut. xxviii.
The account of the end of Solomon's reign deals with (a) his religious
laxity (xi. 1-13, now in a Deuteronomic form), as the punishment for
which the separation of the two kingdoms is announced; and (b) the rise
of the adversaries who, according to xi. 25, had troubled the whole of
his reign, and therefore cannot have been related originally as the
penalty for the sins of his old age. Both, however, form an introduction
to subsequent events, and the life of Solomon concludes with a brief
annalistic notice of his death, length of reign, successor, and place of
burial. (See further SOLOMON.)
The Divided Kingdom.
II. _Ephraim and Judah._--In the history of the two kingdoms the
redactor follows a fixed scheme determined, as has been seen, by the
order of succession. The fluctuation of tradition concerning the
circumstances of the schism is evident from a comparison with the
Septuagint, and all that is related of Ahijah falls under suspicion of
being foreign to the oldest history.[4] The story of the man of God from
Judah (xiii.) is shown to be late by its general tone (conceptions of
prophetism and revelation),[5] and by the term "cities of Samaria" (v.
32, for Samaria as a _province_, cf. 2 Kings xvii. 24, 26; for the
building of the city by Omri see 1 Kings xvi. 24). It is a late Judaean
narrative inserted after the Deuteronomic redaction, and breaks the
connexion between xii. 31 and xiii. 33 seq. The latter describe the
idolatrous worship instituted by the first king of the schismatic north,
and the religious attitude occurs regularly throughout the compiler's
epitome, however brief the reigns of the kings. In the account of Nadab,
xv. 25 seq., 29b, 30 seq. are certainly the compiler's, and the
synchronism in v. 28 must also be editorial; xv. 32 (Septuagint omit)
and 16 are duplicates leading up to the Israelite and Judaean accounts
of Baasha respectively. But xv. 33-xvi. 7 contains little annalistic
information, and the prophecy in xvi. 1-4 is very similar to xiv. 7-11,
which in turn breaks the connexion between vv. 6 and 12. Ch. xvi. 7 is a
duplicate to vv. 1-4 and out of place; the Septuagint inserts it in the
_middle_ of v. 8. The brief reign of Elah preserves an important entract
in xvi. 9, but the date in v. 10a (LXX. omits) presupposes the late
finished chronological scheme. Zimri's seven days receive the inevitable
condemnation, but the older material embedded in the framework (xvi.
15b-18) is closely connected with v. 9 and is continued in the
non-editorial portions of Omri's reign (xvi. 21 seq., length of reign in
v. 23, and v. 24). The achievements of Omri to which the editor refers
can fortunately be gathered from external sources (see OMRI). Under
Omri's son Ahab the separate kingdoms converge.
Next, as to Judah: the vivid account of the accession of Rehoboam in
xii. 1-16 is reminiscent of the full narratives in 2 Sam. ix.-xx.; 1
Kings i., ii. (cf. especially v. 16 with 2 Sam. xx. 1); xii. 15b refers
to the prophecy of Ahijah (see above), and "unto this day," v. 19,
cannot be by a contemporary author; v. 17 (LXX. omits) finds a parallel
in 2 Chron. xi. 16 seq., and could represent an Ephraimite standpoint.
The Judaean standpoint is prominent in vv. 21-24, where (a) the
inclusion of Benjamin and (b) the cessation of war (at the command of
Shemaiah) conflict with (a) xi. 32, 36, xii. 20 and (b) xiv. 30
respectively. Rehoboam's history, resumed by the redactor in xiv. 21-24,
continues with a brief account of the spoiling of the Temple and palace
by Sheshonk (Shishak). (The incident appears in 2 Chron. xii. in a
rather different context, _before_ the details which now precede v. 21
seq.) The reign of Abijam is entirely due to the editor, whose brief
statement of the war in xv. 7b is supplemented by a lengthy story in 2
Chron. xiii. (where the name is Abijah). Ch. xv. 5b (last clause) and v.
6 are omitted by the Septuagint, the former is a unique gloss (see 2
Sam. xi. seq.), the latter is a mere repetition of xiv. 30; with xv. 2
cf. v. 10. The account of Asa's long reign contains a valuable summary
of his war with Baasha, xv. 16-22; the isolated v. 15 is quite obscure
and is possibly related to v. 18 (but cf. vii. 51). His successor
Jehoshaphat is now dealt with completely in xxii. 41-50 after the death
of Ahab; but the Septuagint, which follows a different chronological
scheme (placing his accession in the reign of Omri), gives the summary
(with some variations) after xvi. 28. Another light is thrown upon the
incomplete annalistic fragments (xxii. 44, 47-49) by 2 Chron. xx. 35-37:
the friendship between Judah and Israel appears to have been displeasing
to the redactor of Kings.
Ephraim from Ahab to Jehu.
The history of the few years between the close of Ahab's life and the
accession of Jehu covers about one-third of the entire book of Kings.
This is due to the inclusion of a number of narratives which are partly
of a political character, and partly are interested in the work of
contemporary prophets. The climax is reached in the overthrow of Omri's
dynasty by the usurper Jehu, when, after a period of close intercourse
between Israel and Judah, its two kings perished. The annals of each
kingdom would naturally deal independently with these events, but the
present literary structure of 1 Kings xvii.-2 Kings xi. is extremely
complicated by the presence of the narratives referred to. First as
regards the framework, the epitome of Ahab is preserved in xvi. 29-34
and xxii. 39; it contains some unknown references (his ivory house and
cities), and a stern religious judgment upon his Phoenician alliance, on
which the intervening chapters throw more light. The colourless summary
of his son Ahaziah (xxii. 51-53)[6] finds its conclusion in 2 Kings i.
17 seq. where v. 18 should precede the accession of his brother Jehoram
(v. 17b). Jehoram is again introduced in iii. 1-3 (note the variant
synchronism), but the usual conclusion is wanting. In Judah, Jehoshaphat
was succeeded by his son Jehoram, who had married Athaliah the daughter
of Ahab and Jezebel (viii. 16-24); to the annalistic details (vv. 20-22)
2 Chron. xxi. 11 sqq. adds a novel narrative. His son Ahaziah (viii. 25
sqq.) is similarly denounced for his relations with Israel. He is again
introduced in the isolated ix. 29, while Lucian's recension adds after
x. 36 a variant summary of his reign but _without_ the regular
introduction. Further confusion appears in the Septuagint, which inserts
after i. 18 (Jehoram of Israel) a notice corresponding to iii. 1-3, and
concludes "and the anger of the Lord was kindled against the house of
Ahab." This would be appropriate in a position nearer ix. seq. where the
deaths of Jehoram and Ahaziah are described. These and other examples of
serious disorder in the framework may be associated with the literary
features of the narratives of Elijah and Elisha.
Of the more detailed narratives those that deal with the northern
kingdom are scarcely Judaean (see 1 Kings xix. 3), and they do not
criticize Elijah's work, as the Judaean compiler denounces the whole
history of the north. But they are plainly not of one origin. To
supplement the articles ELIJAH and ELISHA, it is to be noticed that
the account of Naboth's death in the history of Elijah (1 Kings xxi.)
differs in details from that in the history of Elisha and Jehu (2
Kings ix.), and the latter more precise narrative presupposes events
recorded in the extant accounts of Elijah but not these events
themselves. In 1 Kings xx., xxii. 1-28 (xxi. follows xix. in the LXX.)
Ahab is viewed rather more favourably than in the Elijah-narratives
(xix., xxi.) or in the compiler's summary. Ch. xxii. 6, moreover,
proves that there is some exaggeration in xviii. 4, 13; the great
contest between Elijah and the king, between Yahweh and Baal, has been
idealized. The denunciation of Ahab in xx. 35-43 has some notable
points of contact with xiii. and seems to be a supplement to the
preceding incidents. Ch. xxii. is important for its ideas of
prophetism (especially vv. 19-23; cf. Ezek. xiv. 9; 2 Sam. xxiv. 1 [in
contrast to 1 Chron. xxi. 1]); a gloss at the end of v. 28, omitted by
the Septuagint, wrongly identifies Micaiah with the well-known Micah
(i. 2). Although the punishment passed upon Ahab in xxi. 20 sqq.
(20b-26 betray the compiler's hand; cf. xiv. 10 seq.) is modified in
v. 29, this is ignored in the account of his death, xxii. 38, which
takes place at Samaria (see below).
The episode of Elijah and Ahaziah (2 Kings i.) is marked by the
revelation through an angel. The prophet's name appears in an unusual
form (viz. _eliyyah_, not -_yahu_), especially in vv. 2-8. The
prediction of Ahaziah's fate finds a parallel in 2 Chron. xxi. 12-15;
the more supernatural additions have been compared with the late story
in 1 Sam. xix. 18-24. The ascension of Elijah (2 Kings ii.) is related
as the introduction to the work of Elisha, which apparently begins
before the death of Jehoshaphat (see iii. 1, 11 sqq.; contrast 2
Chron. _loc. cit._). Among the stories of Elisha are some which find
him at the head of the prophetic gilds (iv. 1, 38-44, vi. 1-7), whilst
in others he has friendly relations with the "king of Israel" and the
court. As a personage of almost superhuman dignity he moves in certain
narratives where political records appear to have been utilized to
describe the activity of the prophets. The Moabite campaign (iii.)
concerns a revolt already referred to in the isolated i. 1; there are
parallels with the story of Jehoshaphat and Ahab (iii. 7, 11 seq.; cf.
1 Kings xxii. 4 seq., 7 sqq.), contrast, however, xxii. 7 (where
Elijah is not even named) and iii. 11 seq. But Jehoshaphat's death has
been already recorded (1 Kings xxii. 50), and, while Lucian's
recension in 2 Kings iii. reads Ahaziah, i. 17 presupposes the
accession of the _Judaean_ Jehoram. Other political narratives may
underlie the stories of the Aramaean wars; with vi. 24-vii. 20 (after
the complete cessation of hostilities in vi. 23) compare the general
style of 1 Kings xx., xxii.; with the famine in Samaria, vi. 25; cf.
ibid. xvii.; with the victory, cf. ibid. xx. The account of Elisha and
Hazael (viii. 7-15) implies friendly relations with Damascus (in v. 12
the terrors of war are in the future), but the description of Jehu's
accession (ix.) is in the midst of hostilities. Ch. ix. 7-10a are a
Deuteronomic insertion amplifying the message in vv. 3-6 (cf. 1 Kings
xxi. 20 seq.). The origin of the repetition in ix. 14-15a (cf. viii.
28 seq.) is not clear. The oracle in ix. 25 seq. is not that in 1
Kings xxi. 19 seq., and mentions the additional detail that Naboth's
sons were slain. Here his field or portion is located near Jezreel,
but in 1 Kings xxi. 18 his vineyard is by the royal palace in Samaria
(cf. xxii. 38 and contrast xxi. 1, where the LXX. omits reference to
Jezreel). This fluctuation reappears in 2 Kings x. 1, 11 seq., and 17;
in ix. 27 compared with 2 Chron. xxii. 9; and in the singular
duplication of an historical incident, viz. the war against the
Aramaeans at Ramoth-Gilead (a) by Jehoshaphat and Ahab, and (b) by
Ahaziah and Jehoram, in each case with the death of the Israelite
king, at Samaria and Jezreel respectively (see above and observe the
contradiction in 1 Kings xxi. 29 and xxii. 38). These and other
critical questions in this section are involved with (a) the
probability that Elisha's work belongs rather to the accession of
Jehu, with whose dynasty he was on most intimate terms until his death
some forty-five years later (2 Kings xiii. 14-21), and (b) the problem
of the wars between Israel and Syria which appear to have begun only
in the time of Jehu (x. 32). See _Jew. Quart. Rev._ (1908), pp.
597-630, and JEWS: _History_, § 11 seq.
Dynasty of Jehu.
In the annals of Jehu's dynasty the editorial introduction to Jehu
himself is wanting (x. 32 sqq.), although Lucian's recension in x. 36
concludes in annalistic manner the lives of Jehoram of Israel and
Ahaziah of Judah. The summary mentions the beginning of the Aramaean
wars, the continuation of which is found in the redactor's account of
his successor Jehoahaz (xiii. 1-9). But xiii. 4-6 modify the disasters,
and by pointing to the "saviour" or deliverer (cf. Judg. iii. 9, 15)
anticipate xiv. 27. The self-contained account of his son Jehoash (xiii.
10-13) is supplemented (a) by the story of the death of Elisha (vv.
14-21) and (b) by some account of the Aramaean wars (vv. 22-25), where
v. 23, like vv. 4-6 (Lucian's recension actually reads it after v. 7),
is noteworthy for the sympathy towards the northern kingdom. Further (c)
the defeat of Amaziah of Judah appears in xiv. 8-14 after the annals of
Judah, although from an Israelite source (v. 11b Bethshemesh defined as
belonging to Judah, see also v. 15, and with the repetition of the
concluding statements in v. 15 seq., see xiii. 12 seq.). These features
and the transference of xiii. 12 seq. after xiii. 25 in Lucian's
recension point to late adjustment. In Judaean history, Jehu's reform
and the overthrow of Jezebel in the north (ix., x. 15-28) find their
counterpart in the murder of Athaliah and the destruction of the temple
of Baal in Judah (xi. 18). But the framework is incomplete. The
editorial conclusion of the reign of Ahaziah, the introduction to that
of Athaliah, and the sources for both are wanting. A lengthy Judaean
document is incorporated detailing the accession of Joash and the
prominence of the abruptly introduced priest Jehoiada. The interest in
the Temple and temple-procedure is obvious; and both xi. and xii. have
points of resemblance with xxii. seq. (see below and cf. also xi. 4, 7,
11, 19, with 1 Kings xiv. 27 seq.). The usual epitome is found in xi.
21-xii. 3 (the age at accession should follow the synchronism, so
Lucian), with fragments of annalistic matter in xii. 17-21 (another
version in 2 Chron. xxiv. 23 sqq.). For Joash's son Amaziah see above;
xiv. 6 refers to Deut. xxiv. 16, and 2 Chron. xxv. 5-16 replaces v. 7 by
a lengthy narrative with some interesting details. Azariah or Uzziah is
briefly summarized in xv. 1-7, hence the notice in xiv. 22 seems out of
place; perhaps the usual statements of Amaziah's death and burial (cf.
xiv. 20b, 22b), which were to be expected after v. 18, have been
supplemented by the account of the rebellion (vv. 19, 20a, 21).[7] The
chronological notes for the accession of Azariah imply different views
of the history of Judah after the defeat of Amaziah; with xiv. 17, cf.
xiii. 10, xiv. 2, 23, but contrast xv. 1, and again v. 8.[8]
The important reign of Jeroboam (2) is dismissed as briefly as that of
Azariah (xiv. 23-29). The end of the Aramaean war presupposed by v. 25
is supplemented by the sympathetic addition in v. 26 seq. (cf. xiii. 4
seq. 23). Of his successors Zechariah, Shallum and Menahem only the
briefest records remain, now imbedded in the editorial framework (xv.
8-25). The summary of Pekah (perhaps the same as Pekahiah, the confusion
being due to the compiler) contains excerpts which form the continuation
of the older material in v. 25 (cf. also vv. 10, 14, 16, 19, 20). For an
apparently similar adjustment of an earlier record to the framework see
above on 1 Kings xv. 25-31, xvi. 8-25. The account of Hoshea's
conspiracy (xv. 29 seq.) gives the Israelite version with which
Tiglath-Pileser's own statement can now be compared. Two accounts of the
fall of Samaria are given, one of which is under the reign of the
contemporary Judaean Hezekiah (xvii. i-6, xviii. 9-12); the chronology
is again intricate. Reflections on the disappearance of the northern
kingdom appear in xvii. 7-23 and xviii. 12; the latter belongs to the
Judaean history. The former is composite; xvii. 21-23 (cf. v. 18) look
back to the introduction of calf-worship by Jeroboam (1), and agree with
the compiler's usual standpoint; but vv. 19-20 include Judah and
presuppose the exile. The remaining verses survey types of idolatry
partly of a general kind (vv. 9-12, 16a), and partly characteristic of
Judah in the last years of the monarchy (vv. 16b, 17). The brief account
of the subsequent history of Israel in xvii. 24-41 is not from one
source, since the piety of the new settlers (v. 32-34a, 41) conflicts
with the later point of view in 34b-40. The last-mentioned supplements
the epilogue in xvii. 7-23, forms a solemn conclusion to the history of
the northern kingdom, and is apparently aimed at the Samaritans.
Judah.
III. _Later History of Judah._--The summary of Jotham (xv. 32-38) shows
interest in the Temple (v. 35) and alludes to the hostility of Pekah (v.
37) upon which the Israelite annals are silent. 2. Chron. xxvii. expands
the former but replaces the latter by other not unrelated details (see
UZZIAH). But xv. 37 is resumed afresh in the account of the reign of
Ahaz (xvi. 5 sqq.; the text in v. 6 is confused)--another version in 2
Chron. xxviii. 5 sqq.--and is supplemented by a description, evidently
from the Temple records, in which the ritual innovations by "king Ahaz"
(in contrast to "Ahaz" alone in vv. 5-9) are described (vv. 10-18).
There is further variation of detail in 2 Chron. xxviii. 20-27. The
summary of Hezekiah (xviii. 1-8) emphasizes his important religious
reforms (greatly expanded in 2 Chron. xxix. seq. from a later
standpoint), and includes two references to his military achievements.
Of these v. 8 is ignored in Chron., and v. 7 is supplemented by (a) the
annalistic extract in vv. 13-16, and (b) narratives in which the great
contemporary prophet Isaiah is the central figure. The latter are later
than Isaiah himself (xix. 37 refers to 681 B.C.) and reappear, with some
abbreviation and rearrangement, in Isa. xxxvi.-xxxix. (see ISAIAH). They
are partly duplicate (cf. xix. 7 with vv. 28, 33; vv. 10-13 with xviii.
28-35), and consist of two portions, xviii. 17-xix. 8 (Isa. xxxvi.
2-xxxvii. 8) and xix. 9b-35 (Isa. xxxvii. 9b-36); to which of these xix.
9a and v. 36 seq. belong is disputed. 2 Chron. xxxii. (where these
accounts are condensed) is in general agreement with 2 Kings xviii. 7,
as against vv. 14-16. The poetical fragment, xix. 21-28, is connected
with the sign in vv. 29-31; both seem to break the connexion between
xix. 20 and 32 sqq. Chap. xx. 1-19 appears to belong to an earlier
period in Hezekiah's reign (see v. 6 and cf. 2 Chron. xxxii. 25 seq.);
with vv. 1-11 note carefully the forms in Isa. xxxviii. 1-8, 21 seq.,
and 2 Chron. xxxii. 24-26; with xx. 12-19 (Isa. xxxix) contrast the
brief allusion in 2 Chron. xxxii. 31. In v. 17 seq. the exile is
foreshadowed. Use has probably been made of a late cycle of
Isaiah-stories; such a work is actually mentioned in 2 Chron. xxxii. 32.
The accounts of the reactionary kings Manasseh and Amon, although now by
the compiler, give some reference to political events (see xxi. 17, 23
seq.); xxi. 7-15 refer to the exile and find a parallel in xxiii. 26
seq., and xxi. 10 sqq. are replaced in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 10-20 by a novel
record of Manasseh's penitence (see also ibid. v. 23 and note omission
of 2 Kings xxiii. 26 from Chron).
Josiah's reign forms the climax of the history. The usual framework
(xxii. 1; 2, xxiii. 28, 30b) is supplemented by narratives dealing with
the Temple repairs and the reforms of Josiah. These are closely related
to xi. seq. (cf. xxii. 3-7 with xii. 4 sqq.), but show many signs of
revision; xxii. 16 seq., xxiii. 26 seq., point distinctly to the exile,
and xxiii. 16-20 is an insertion (the altar in v. 16 is already
destroyed in v. 15) after 1 Kings xiii. But it is difficult elsewhere to
distinguish safely between the original records and the later additions.
In their present shape the reforms of Josiah are described in terms that
point to an acquaintance with the teaching of Deuteronomy which
promulgates the reforms themselves.[9]
The annalistic notice in xxiii. 29 seq. (contrast xxii. 20) should
precede v. 28; 2 Chron. xxxv. 20-27 gives another version in the
correct position and ignores 2 Kings xxiii. 24-27 (see however the
Septuagint). For the last four kings of Judah, the references to the
worship at the high places (presumably abolished by Josiah) are
wanting, and the literary source is only cited for Jehoiakim; xxiv. 3
seq. (and probably v. 2), which treat the fall of Judah as the
punishment for Manasseh's sins, are a Deuteronomistic insertion (2
Chron. xxxvi. 6 sqq. differs widely; see, however, the Septuagint); v.
13 seq. and v. 15 seq. are duplicates. With xxiv. 18-xxv. 21 cf. Jer.
lii. 1-27 (the text of the latter, especially vv. 19 sqq. is
superior); and the fragments _ibid._ xxxix. 1-10. Ch. xxv. 22-26
appears in much fuller form in Jer. xl. seq. (see xl. 7-9, xli. 1-3,
17 seq.). It is noteworthy that Jeremiah does not enter into the
history in Kings (contrast Isaiah above). The book of Chronicles in
general has a briefer account of the last years, and ignores both the
narratives which also appear in Jeremiah and the concluding hopeful
note struck by the restoration of Jehoiachin (xxv. 27-30). This last,
with the addition of statistical data, forms the present conclusion
also of the book of Jeremiah.
_Conclusions._--A survey of these narratives as a whole strengthens our
impression of the merely mechanical character of the redaction by which
they are united. Though editors have written something of their own in
almost every chapter, generally from the standpoint of religious
pragmatism, there is not the least attempt to work the materials into a
history in our sense of the word; and in particular the northern and
southern histories are practically independent, being merely pieced
together in a sort of mosaic in consonance with the chronological
system, which we have seen to be really later than the main redaction.
It is very probable that the order of the pieces was considerably
readjusted by the author of the chronology; of this indeed the
Septuagint still shows traces. But with all its imperfections as judged
from a modern standpoint, the redaction has the great merit of
preserving material nearer to the actual history than would have been
the case had narratives been rewritten from much later standpoints--as
often in the book of Chronicles.
Questions of date and of the growth of the literary process are still
unsettled, but it is clear that there was an independent history of
(north) Israel with its own chronological scheme. It was based upon
annals and fuller political records, and at some period apparently
passed through circles where the purely domestic stories of the prophets
(Elisha) were current.[10] This was ultimately taken over by a Judaean
editor who was under the influence of the far-reaching reforms ascribed
to the 18th year of Josiah (621 B.C.). Certain passages seem to imply
that in his time the Temple was still standing and the Davidic dynasty
uninterrupted. Also the phrase "unto this day" sometimes apparently
presupposes a pre-exilic date. On the other hand, the history is carried
down to the end of Jehoiachin's life (xxv. 27 refers to his fifty-fifth
year, vv. 29 seq. look back on his death), and a number of allusions
point decisively to the post-exilic period. Consequently, most scholars
are agreed that an original pre-exilic Deuteronomic compilation made
shortly after Josiah's reforms received subsequent additions from a
later Deuteronomic writer.
These questions depend upon several intricate literary and historical
problems. At the outset (a) the compiler deals with history from the
Deuteronomic standpoint, selecting certain notices and referring further
to _separate_ chronicles of Israel and Judah. The canonical book of
Chronicles refers to such a _combined_ work, but is confined to Judah;
it follows the religious judgment passed upon the kings, but it
introduces new details apparently derived from extant annals, replaces
the annalistic excerpts found in Kings by other passages, or uses new
narratives which at times are clearly based upon older sources. Next (b)
the Septuagint proves that Kings did not reach its present form until a
very late date; "each represents a stage and not always the same stage
in the long protracted labours of the redactors" (Kuenen).[11] In
agreement with this are the unambiguous indications of the post-exilic
age (especially in the Judaean history) consisting of complete
passages, obvious interpolations, and also sporadic phrases in
narratives whose pre-exilic origin is sometimes clear and sometimes only
to be presumed. Further (c), the Septuagint supports the independent
conclusion that the elaborate synchronisms belong to a late stage in the
redaction. Consequently it is necessary to allow that the previous
arrangement of the material may have been different; the actual wording
of the introductory notices was necessarily also affected. In general,
it becomes ever more difficult to distinguish between passages
incorporated by an early redactor and those which may have been inserted
later, though possibly from old sources. Where the regular framework is
disturbed such considerations become more cogent. The relation of
annalistic materials in 1 Sam. (xiii. i; xiv. 47-51, &c.) to the longer
detailed narratives will bear upon the question, as also the relation of
2 Sam. ix-xx. to 1 Kings i. seq. (see SAMUEL, BOOKS OF). Again (d) the
lengths of the reigns of the Judaean kings form an integral part of the
framework, and their total, with fifty years of exile, allows four
hundred and eighty years from the beginning of the Temple to the return
from Babylon.[12] This round number (cf. again 1 Kings vi. 1) points to
a date subsequent to 537, and Robertson Smith has observed that almost
all events dated by the years of the kings of Jerusalem have reference
to the affairs of the Temple. This suggests a connexion between the
chronology and the incorporation of those narratives in which the Temple
is clearly the centre of interest. (e) But, apart from the question of
the origin of the more detailed Judaean records, the arguments for a
pre-exilic Judaean Deuteronomic compilation are not quite decisive. The
phrase "unto this day" is not necessarily valid (cf. 2 Chron. v. 9,
viii. 8, xxi. 10 with 1 Kings viii. 8, ix. 21, 2 Kings viii. 22), and
depends largely upon the compiler's sagacity. Also, the existence of the
Temple and of the Davidic dynasty (1 Kings viii. 14-53; ix. 3; xi.
36-38; xv. 4; 2 Kings viii. 19; cf. 2 Chron. xiii. 5) is equally
applicable to the time of the second temple when Zerubbabel, the Davidic
representative, kindled new hopes and aspirations. Indeed, if the object
of the Deuteronomic compiler is to show from past history that "the
sovereign is responsible for the purity of the national religion"
(Moore, _Ency. Bib._ col. 2079), a date somewhere after the death of
Jehoiachin (released in 561) in the age of Zerubbabel and the new Temple
equally satisfies the conditions. With this is concerned (f) the
question whether, on historical grounds, the account of the introduction
of Deuteronomic reforms by Josiah is trustworthy.[13] Moreover, although
a twofold Deuteronomic redaction of Kings is generally recognized, the
criteria for the presumably pre-exilic form are not so decisive as those
which certainly distinguish the post-exilic portions, and it is
frequently very difficult to assign Deuteronomic passages to the earlier
rather than to the later. Again, apart from the contrast between the
Israelite detailed narratives (relatively early) and those of Judaean
origin (often secondary), it is noteworthy that the sympathetic
treatment of northern history in 2 Kings xiii. 4 seq. 23, xiv. 26 has
literary parallels in the Deuteronomic redaction of Judges (where
Israelite tradition is again predominant), but is quite distinct from
the hostile feeling to the north which is also Deuteronomic. Even the
northern prophet Hosea (q.v.) approximates the Deuteronomic standpoint,
and the possibility that the first Deuteronomic compilation of Kings
could originate outside Judah is strengthened by the fact that an
Israelite source could be drawn upon for an impartial account of Judaean
history (2 Kings xiv. 8-15). Finally, (g) literary and historical
problems here converge. Although Judaean writers ultimately rejected as
heathen a people who could claim to be followers of Yahweh (Ezra iv. 2;
2 Kings xvii. 28, 33; contrast ibid. 34-40, a _secondary_ insertion),
the anti-Samaritan feeling had previously been at most only in an
incipient stage, and there is reason to infer that relations between the
peoples of north and south had been closer.[14] The book of Kings
reveals changing historical conditions in its literary features, and it
is significant that the very age where the background is to be sought is
that which has been (intentionally?) left most obscure: the chronicler's
history of the Judaean monarchy (Chron.--Ezra--Nehemiah), as any
comparison will show, has its own representation of the course of
events, and has virtually superseded both Kings and Jeremiah, which have
now an abrupt conclusion. (See further S. A. Cook, _Jew. Quart. Rev._
(1907), pp. 158 sqq.; and the articles JEWS: _History_, §§ 20, 22;
PALESTINE: _History_).
LITERATURE.--A. Kuenen, _Einleitung_; J. Wellhausen, _Compos. d.
Hexateuch_, pp. 266-302; H. Winckler, _Alttest. Untersuchungen_
(1892); and B. Stade, _Akademische Reden_ (1899; on 1 Kings v.-vii.; 2
Kings x.-xiv.; xv.-xxi.); S. R. Driver, _Lit. of O. T._ (1909); see
also C. Holzhey, _Das Buch. d. Könige_ (1899); the commentaries of
Benzinger (1899) and Kittel (1900), and especially F. C. Kent,
_Israel's Hist. and Biog. Narr._ (1905). The article by W. R. Smith,
_Ency. Brit._, 9th ed. (partly retained here), is revised and
supplemented by E. Kautzsch in the _Ency. Bib._ For the Hebrew text
see Klostermann's _Sam. u. Könige_ (1887); C. F. Burney, _Notes on the
Hebrew Text_ (1903); and Stade and Schwally's edition in Haupt's
_Sacred Books of the Old Testament_ (1904). For English readers, J.
Skinner's commentary in the _Century Bible_, and W. E. Barnes in the
_Cambridge Bible_, are useful introductions. (S. A. C.)