The book[1] of Kings is strikingly unlike any modern historical
narrative. Its comparative brevity, its curious perspective, and-with
some brilliant exceptions--its relative monotony, are obvious to the
most cursory perusal, and to understand these things is, in large
measure, to understand the book. It covers a period of no less than
four centuries. Beginning with the death of David and the accession
of Solomon (1 Kings i., ii.) it traverses his reign with considerable
fulness (1 Kings iii.-xi.), then carries on the history of the
monarchy in both countries from the disruption to the fall of the
northern kingdom (1 Kings xii.-2 Kings xvii.), and traces the story
of Judah from that point to the exile (2 Kings xviii.-xxv.).
[Footnote 1: Originally and till 1517 A.D. Kings was reckoned in the
Hebrew Bible as one book. The Greek translation reckons it as two
books, which it entitles the third and fourth books of the kingdoms,
the first two being represented by the two books of Samuel.]
During this period events of epoch-making importance in politics and
religion were taking place. In it literary prophecy was born, trade
and commerce arose with their inevitable cleavage of society into
the rich and the poor, the northern kingdom disappeared as a
political force, and many of her people were carried into exile.
Judah was dominated in turn by Assyria and Babylonia, with the
result that her religious usages were profoundly affected by theirs.
But of all this we learn very little from the book of Kings. Most of
what we do know of the inner history of the period comes from the
prophets. To understand the state of society, e.g. in the time of
Jeroboam II, we go not to the book of Kings but to Amos and Hosea.
Again the perspective is strange. It is not only that brief reigns
like those of Shallum and Pekahiah (2 Kings xv.) are dismissed in a
verse or two, but even long and very important reigns, such as that
of Jeroboam II. (2 Kings xiv. 23-29). Omri, the father of Ahab, was,
we know, a much more important person than the few verses devoted to
him in I Kings xvi. 21-28 would lead us to suppose. The reign of
Ahab himself, on the other hand, is dealt with at considerable
length (I Kings xvi. 29-xxii. 40), and Solomon receives no less than
nine chapters (I Kings iii.-xi.). The stories of Jeroboam I (I Kings
xii.), Hezekiah (2 Kings xviii.-xx.), Josiah (2 Kings xxii. ff.) are
told with comparative fulness. Whenever the narrative begins to
expand it is plain that the interest of the author is predominantly
and almost exclusively religious; in other words, his aim is to
write not a political, but an ecclesiastical history. This at once
explains his insertions and omissions. Omri's reign was not marked
by anything of conspicuous importance to religion, while it was
under Ahab that the great struggle of Jehovah worship against
Baalism took place. Solomon is of unique importance, as he was the
founder of the temple. Hezekiah's career touches that of the prophet
Isaiah, while his reign and Josiah's are marked by attempts at
religious reform. The author is writing for men who have access to
records of the political history, and to these "chronicles of the
kings of Israel and Judah," as they are called, he repeatedly refers
readers who are interested in the political facts.
Finally, though some of the narratives--notably the Elijah group-are
dramatic and powerful to the last degree, the book has not, generally
speaking, that flexibility and movement which we are accustomed to look
for in a modern historian. It has been artificially conformed to a
scheme. The various kings are introduced and dismissed and their reigns
are criticized, in set formulae, and these formulae are Deuteronomic.
With the exception of Hezekiah, all the kings before Josiah are implicitly
condemned for worshipping upon the high places; and the centralization of
the worship at Jerusalem was, as we have already seen, the chief feature
of the Deuteronomic legislation. The book of Kings, like Joshua, Judges
and Samuel (in part), has been subjected to a Deuteronomic redaction, of
which the most obvious feature is the summary notice and criticism
of the various kings. This redaction cannot have taken place earlier
than 621 B.C. (the date of the publication of Deuteronomy) nor later
than 597 B.C., as the reference to the chronicles of the kings of
Judah ceases with the reign of Jehoiakim, 2 Kings xxiv. 5. Parts of
the book presuppose that the temple is still standing, I Kings viii.
29, and the exile not yet an accomplished fact. There was, however,
a later redaction some years after the pardon of Jehoiachin in 561
B.C. (2 Kings xxv. 27), and sporadic traces of this are seen
throughout the book, parts of which clearly imply the exile, 1 Kings
viii. 46, 47, and the destruction of the temple, 1 Kings ix. 7, 8.
These redactions are known to criticism as D and D2 respectively.
On none of the historical books has the influence of Deuteronomy
been so pervasive as on Kings. The importance of the Deuteronomic
law receives emphatic reiteration, 1 Kings ii. 3, 4, ix. 1-9, and
once that law is cited practically word for word, 2 Kings xiv. 6;
cf. Deut. xxiv. 16. Naturally the affairs of the temple as the
exclusive seat of the true worship receive considerable attention.
This explains the elaborate treatment accorded to the reign of
Solomon, who founded the temple, and to the description of the
temple itself (1 Kings vi.); and on his prayer of dedication the
Deuteronomic influence is very conspicuous (1 Kings viii.). It is
also unmistakable in the chapter which concludes the story of the
northern kingdom and attempts to account for the disaster (2 Kings
xvii.). The chapter presents what may be called a Deuteronomic
philosophy of history, corresponding to the scheme which is thrown
into the forefront of the book of Judges (ii. 6-iii. 6). Traces of a
hand that is still later than the second Deuteronomic redaction are
to be found here and there in the book; e.g., in 1 Kings viii. 4,
the Levites are a later insertion to satisfy the requirements of the
post-exilic priestly law--the words are not supported by the
Septuagint. Here we see the influence of the priestly point of view,
but the traces are far too few to justify us in speaking of a
priestly redaction; the course which such a redaction would have
taken we see from the book of Chronicles. But that the book was
touched by post-exilic hands is certain; 1 Kings xiii. 32 actually
speaks of "the cities of Samaria," a phrase which implies that
Samaria was a province, as it was not till after the exile.
It is fortunate that one of the longest, most important, and
impressive sections of the book--the Elijah and Elisha narratives (1
Kings xvii.-2 Kings viii., xiii. l4-2l)--has not been touched by the
Deuteronomic redaction. The Elijah narratives not only recognize the
existence of altars all over the land, 1 Kings xix. 10, but the
great contest between Jehovah and Baal is actually decided at the
sanctuary on Carmel, xviii. 20, a sanctuary which, by the
Deuteronomic law, was illegal. Again, the advice given by Elisha to
cut down the fruit trees in time of war, 2 Kings iii. 19, is in
direct contravention of the Deuteronomic law (Deut. xx. 19). These
narratives must precede the redaction of the book by a century and a
half or more, and we have them pretty much as they left the hand of
the original writers. A post-exilic hand, however, is evident in 1
Kings xviii. 31, 32_a_. To a later age, which believed in the
exclusive rights of Jerusalem, the altar on Carmel, which was said
to be repaired by Elijah, _v._ 30, was naturally an offence; so
the repairing of this old altar is represented as the erection of a
new and special one, typical of the unity of Israel. The lateness of
the insertion is further proved by its containing a quotation from P
(Gen. xxxv. 10).
As the book was redacted by Judean writers, it is not unnatural that
the summary notices of the kings of Judah are more elaborate than
those of Israel. In the former case, but not in the latter, the age
of the king at his accession and the name of his mother are
mentioned. One curious feature of these notices is that the
statement of a king's accession, whether in Israel or Judah, is
always accompanied by a statement of the corresponding year in the
contemporary reign of the sister kingdom. The notices conform to
this type: "In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam, king of
Israel, began Azariah, son of Amaziah, king of Judah, to reign," 2
Kings xv. 1. It is practically certain that these synchronisms, as
they are called, are not contemporary but the work of the redactors.
There is no reason to suppose that the kings of either country would
have dated their own reigns with reference to the other; besides,
the synchronisms do not strictly agree with the other chronological
notices of the reigns. The period between the division of the
kingdoms and the fall of Samaria is estimated as 260 years in the
story of the kings of Judah, but only as 242 in the case of Israel.
Probably the original documents contained the number of years in the
reign, and the dates of the more important events; but the
synchronisms represent an artificial scheme created by the redactor.
Traces of such a system are present in 1 Kings vi. 1, according to
which 480 years, i.e. twelve generations of forty years each,
elapsed between the exodus and the building of the temple.
So much for the redaction; what, then, were the sources of the
redaction? Three are expressly mentioned--the book of the acts of
Solomon, 1 Kings xi. 41, the book of the chronicles of the kings of
Israel, and the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah. The
nature of these books may be inferred, partly from the facts
recorded in our book of Kings, and especially from the facts in
support of which they are cited. They seem to have contained, e.g.,
accounts of wars, conquests, conspiracies, buildings, 1 Kings xiv.
19, xv. 23, xvi. 20, but it is not probable that they were official
annals. There was indeed a court official whose name is sometimes
translated "the recorder," 2 Sam. viii. 16, 1 Kings iv. 3. But
besides the probable inaccuracy of this translation,[1] it is very
unlikely that, in the northern kingdom at any rate, with its
frequent revolutions, court annals were continuously kept; the
annalist could hardly have recorded the questionable steps by which
his monarch often succeeded to the throne, though doubtless official
documents were extant, capable of forming material for the
subsequent historian. But in any case, the chronicles to which the
book of Kings refers cannot have been official annals; it is assumed
that they are accessible to everybody, as they would not have been
had they been official chronicles. They were in all probability
finished political histories, something like the elaborate section
devoted to Solomon in our present book of Kings. The chronicles of
the kings of Israel and Judah probably formed, not one book, as has
been supposed, but two; the same event, e.g., the campaign of
Hazael, is sometimes mentioned in two distinct and independent
connections, 2 Kings x. 32, xiii. 3, cf. xii. 18f.--a fact which
further suggests that the redactor treated his sources with at least
comparative fidelity.
[Footnote 1: The word strictly means "one who calls to mind," and
would appropriately designate an official who brought the affairs of
the kingdom before the king.]
The book of Kings, as we have seen, concentrates attention almost
exclusively on the religious elements in the history, and these were
determined largely by the prophets. It is not surprising, therefore,
that many of the longer sections deal with the utterances or
activities of prophets at critical junctures of the history. The
part played by Ahijah at the time of the disruption of the kingdom,
by Elijah in the great struggle between Baal and Jehovah worship, by
Elisha during the Aramean assaults upon Israel, by Isaiah at the
invasion of Sennacherib--these and similar episodes are dealt with
so fully as to suggest that biographies of the prophets, written
possibly by literary members of the prophetic order, were at the
disposal of the redactors of the book of Kings. Temple affairs are
also discussed, from the days of Solomon to Josiah (I Kings vi.
vii., 2 Kings xi., xii., xvi., xxii., xxiii.), with a sympathy and a
minuteness which almost suggest the inference that a regular temple
history was kept; but occasional statements which are anything but
flattering to the priests (2 Kings xii. 7, 15) render the inference
somewhat precarious.
Besides the chronicles and biographies, there are hints that the
redactors had access to other sources. The words in which Solomon
dedicated the temple, only partially preserved in the Hebrew, are,
by a very probable emendation of the Greek text, taken from the book
of Jashar:--
The sun hath Jehovah set in the heavens,
He himself hath determined to dwell in the darkness.
And so I have built Thee an house to dwell in,
Even a place to abide in for ever and ever.
(1 Kings viii. 12, 13; Septuagint, _v._ 53).
Again, 1 Kings xx., xxii. appears to come from a different source
from the Elijah narratives in 1 Kings xvii.-xix., xxi. The former
section takes a distinctly more favourable view of Ahab than the
Elijah stories do, and, unlike them, it alludes to Ahab seldom by
name, but usually as "the king of Israel"; further, in it the great
prophet of the period is Micah rather than Elijah. Both these groups
of narrative belong no doubt to the northern kingdom.[1]
[Footnote 1: Chs. xx., xxii. obviously so; but no less xvii.-xix.,
xxi., for in 1 Kings xix. 3 Beersheba is described as belonging to
Judah. A Judean writer would not have appended such a note.]
It is important to consider the value of the sources of the book of
Kings. We have already seen that the redactor occasionally deals
with them in a spirit of praiseworthy scrupulousness, repeating the
same fact from different sources, and making no attempt to dovetail
the one narrative into the other. Sometimes the sources have been
demonstrably followed word for word, phrases like _to this day_
being used of situations which had passed away by the time the book
was redacted.[1] The facts, though lamentably meagre, have usually
the appearance of being thoroughly trustworthy; the quotation from
the book of Jashar is no doubt as genuine as it is interesting, and
the brief account of the submission of Hezekiah to the tribute
imposed by Sennacherib, 2 Kings xviii. 14-16, is supported by the
Assyrian records. But it is evident that the history does not always
rest upon contemporary sources, and that early events and
personalities are touched with the colours of legend or romance.
Much of the story of Solomon, e.g., is unmistakably historical--his
luxury, his effeminacy, his commerce, his unscrupulousness. But
there are stories of another sort which, on the face of them, must
be decades, if not centuries, later than Solomon's reign. "There
came no more," we are informed, "such abundance of spices as those
which the queen of Sheba gave to king Solomon" (1 Kings x. 10). The
age of Solomon is clearly long past, and his glory has been enhanced
by the lapse of time; for "silver was nothing accounted of in the
days of Solomon," x. 21. Tales are told of his almost fabulous
revenue, x. 14, which can hardly be reconciled with the story of his
loan from Hiram, ix. 14. The story of Solomon is really a
compilation, and its various elements are by no means all of the
same historical value.
[Footnote 1: E.g., 1 Kings xii. 19 implies the existence of Israel,
and 2 Kings viii. 22 (Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah
unto this day) ignores the later conquest of Edom by Amaziah, xiv.
7.]
The career of Elisha is also seen through the colours of a rich and
reverent imagination. It is, in the main, intended to be a replica
of Elijah's, and many of his miracles are obviously suggested by
his. The story of Elisha's resuscitation of the dead child is an
expansion of the similar story told of Elijah (2 Kings iv., 1 Kings
xvii.), and his miracle wrought in behalf of the widow, 2 Kings iv.
1-7, is modelled on a similar miracle wrought by Elijah, 1 Kings
xvii. 8-16. There is further an element of magic in his miracles
which differentiates them from Elijah's, and throws them more upon
the level of mediaeval hagiography; such, e.g., as the floating of
the iron upon the water, or the raising of a dead man by contact
with the prophet's bones. The Elijah narratives, on the other hand,
represent a higher type of religious thought. The figure of that
great prophet may also have been glorified by tradition, but in any
case his was a personality of the most commanding power. He was
indeed fortunate in his biographer; his story is told with great
dramatic and literary art. In its account of the struggle with the
greed of Ahab and the licentiousness of Baalism, it sheds a
brilliant light upon one of the most crucial epochs of Hebrew
history. Even this story, however, is not all of a piece. There is
linguistic and other evidence that the chapter (2 Kings i.), in
which two companies of fifty men are consumed by fire from heaven at
the word of Elijah, is very late. In the story, which is rather
mechanical and lacks the splendid dramatic power of the other Elijah
stories, the prophet is only a wonder-worker, and his action is not
determined by any moral consideration. It was not so much the spirit
of Elijah himself, but rather that of the late redactor, that Jesus
rebuked, when He said to His disciples, who quoted the prophet's
conduct for a precedent, "Ye know not what spirit ye are of."
Perhaps the chapter of least historical value in the book of Kings
is that in which Jeroboam I is condemned and denounced for his
idolatry at Bethel (1 Kings xiii.). It contains an unparelleled
instance of predictive prophecy: Josiah is foretold by name three
centuries before he appears, _v._ 2. The difficulty of this
prediction is so keenly felt that one orthodox commentator feels
constrained to dispose of it by assuming that the name is to be
taken, not as a proper name, but in its etymological sense as one
whom "Jehovah supports," The sudden withering of the hand and its
equally sudden restoration to health are hardly more surprising than
the definite prediction of the fate of the idolatrous priests,
_v._ 2,--a prediction which appears to be fulfilled to the
letter, 2 Kings xxiii. 16-18. But when we examine the account of the
fulfilment, we find that the passage is later than its context[1]
and inconsistent with it. The conduct of the "old prophet," whose
lying counsel is attributed to an angel, is, morally considered,
disreputable, and it is surely no accident that the man of God,
whose message and fate are thus strangely told, is anonymous,
though, as the opponent of the famous Jeroboam I, the leader of the
disruption, he ought to have been well known. The vagueness and
improbabilities of the story can only be accounted for by its very
late date. Fortunately we are able to show that the story is, at the
earliest, post-exilic. As we have already seen, there is an allusion
in _v_. 32 to the cities of Samaria, which implies that Samaria
was a province, and stamps the passage at once as post-exilic. Even
within the post-exilic period, it probably falls quite late--a
precursor of the book of Chronicles. The historical spirit is in
abeyance, and edification is the only consideration. The story is a
late attempt to illustrate the great truth that God's word is
immutable and must be uncompromisingly obeyed.
[Footnote 1: Verse 16, in which the bones are burned on the altar,
contradicts _v._ 15, in which the altar is already destroyed.]
The religious value of the book of Kings is general rather than
particular. There are individual sections of great religious power
and value--most of all the great group of Elijah narratives; but the
book has been shorn, by the thoroughness of the redaction, of much
that would have been of the deepest interest to the modern student
of Israel's religious no less than political development. Taken as a
whole, it has a certain melancholy grandeur. Beginning in the
splendid glitter of Solomon's reign, the monarchy passed with
unsteady gait across the centuries, menaced by foes without and
within, and ended at last in the irretrievable disaster of exile.
But through the sombre march of history, a divine purpose was being
accomplished. The disaster which swallowed up the nation renewed and
spiritualized the religion, and thus the seeming loss proved great
gain.