Page images
PDF
EPUB

THE FIRST BOOK OF THE KINGS.

INTRODUCTION

TO

THE KINGS.*

THE BOOKS OF THE

I. Unity of the Book, and Relation to the Earlier Books.-The history of the kings (Sepher Melachim) is really but one book. The division into two books, which has no existence in the old Hebrew canon, and has been borrowed by us from the LXX. and Vulgate, is a purely arbitrary division, not even corresponding to any marked epoch in the history. It may have been made merely for convenience of use and reference. It may have been simply artificial; for there is a curious note in St. Jerome's account of the arrangement of the Hebrew Canon in twenty-two books, according with the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, in which he remarks that to the five double letters corresponded five double books, of which the Book of Kings is one. In any case it is to be disregarded, and the two books treated as having a perfect unity of idea and authorship.

In the LXX., followed in this by the Vulgate, the Books of Samuel are called the" First and Second Books of the Kings," and our Books of Kings are made the Third and Fourth. It has been supposed that this ancient alteration of the Hebrew titles is intended to point to a common authorship. Some have gone so far as to make the whole history from Judges to Kings one unbroken compilation, in which the present divisions are but accidental; and in confirmation of this view it has been noticed that all the successive books open with the simple conjunction “And” (in our version, "Now"), that the various books contain common phrases and terms of expression, and that even in the Book of Judges (chaps. xvii. 6, xviii. 1, xix. 1) we find allusions to the future monarchy of Israel. Now these indications certainly show that the successive books were regarded as forming part of one history, and that the compilers had probably much the same ancient sources of information before them. Possibly they may also imply the agency of what we should call an editor, at the time of the inclusion of the books in the Canon. But they cannot argue anything as to contemporaneous compilation. The connection in particular of the Books of Samuel and Kings is easily accounted for without any such supposition, by the consideration that, in actual fact, these books do include the whole history of the Israelitish monarchy. Against the notion of common authorship we must set the marked difference of language and character, which can hardly escape the most careless reader. Even in respect of the language of the books, there seems little doubt that the Hebrew of the Books of Samuel belongs to an earlier and purer age. But looking to the whole style and narrative, we observe that the Books of Kings have far more of an official and annalistic character; they mark dates and epochs, and quote authorities;

While I alone am answerable for this Introduction, I have to acknowledge with gratitude some valuable criticisms and suggestions from my colleague in the work, the Rev. C. J.

Ball, A.B. 69

they include the story of some 430 years in the same space which in the earlier books is devoted to about a century. Except in the sections which deal with the lives of Elijah and Elisha, and include descriptions of the characters of Ahab and Jezebel, they have far less freedom of style, less graphic vividness and beauty, and less of moral and spiritual force than the earlier books. There is (for example) no character in them which stands out with the living personality of David, or even of Saul; unless perhaps the characters of the two great prophets may be excepted. The successive kings are viewed as kings, rather than as men. Many of them are to us little more than names marking epochs. Even where they are drawn in some detail, as in the case of Solomon, Jehoshaphat, Jehu, Hezekiah, Josiah, the kingly character mostly predominates over the human individuality. It is impossible not to see that each of the two works has a marked internal unity of peculiar style and character, in which it differs from the other. By whomsoever they were compiled, they must be referred to different hands, and to different periods.

66

II. Sources from which it was Drawn.While, however, the Books of Kings have been brought by one hand into their present form, they are manifestly a compilation from more ancient sources. This is, indeed, avowed in their constant appeal to extant documents. But it would be obvious, even without such appeal, from internal evidence-from the alternate accordance and discordance with them of the independent record contained in the Books of Chronicles; from the occurrence of expressions (as "unto this day," in 1 Kings viii. 8 and elsewhere) which could not belong to the time of compilation; and from the marked variety of style and treatment in the various parts of the history itself. The only sources to which they actually refer are the book of the Acts of Solomon" (1 Kings xi. 41), and the "books of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel and of Judah." The former is expressly ascribed, in 2 Chron. ix. 29, to the authorship of Nathan the prophet, Ahijah the Shilonite, and Iddo the seer. The latter may have been most frequently drawn up by 'the recorder" or chronicler, whom we find mentioned as a court official in the successive reigns (see 2 Sam. viii. 16; 1 Kings iv. 3; 2 Kings xviii. 18). But in many cases the office of annalist was undoubtedly discharged by the prophets; as, for example, by Shemaiah and Iddo for Rehoboam (2 Chron. xii. 15), by Iddo for Abijah (2 Chron. xiii., 22), by Jehu son of Hanani, for Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. xx. 34), by Isaiah for Uzziah (2 Chron. xxvi. 22). In the record of the reign of Hezekiah, the compiler of the Books of Kings has embodied, almost verbatim, the historical chapters appended to the earlier part of the Book of Isaiah (Isa. xxxvi.—xxxix.). It is, indeed, thought that the later

66

name for Seer (Chözeh), which is altogether distinct from the earlier title (Rôch) applied to Samuel (1 Sam. ix. 9, 11, &c.), was an official title, indicating a position of authority and service in the court. Among the duties of his office the work of the historian may have been sometimes included. Probably it is not by mere technical arrangement that the historical books were included among "the Prophets" in the Jewish division of the Old Testament.

But although these sources alone are distinctly indicated, we can hardly doubt that others were actually available. There were Temple archives, from which so much of the record of the Book of Chronicles appears to be drawn; and it is difficult not to suppose that from these much is taken of the almost technical account of the building and furniture of the Temple, and of the full and detailed history of its consecration. The records, again, of the careers of the prophets, especially of the great prophets Elijah and Elisha, bear the impress of a character wholly different from that of the more official parts of the history. The beauty and vividness of the style, and the spiritual force of the narrative, appear to indicate that they are taken from some personal biographies, probably produced in the Schools of the Prophets, and possibly handed down by oral tradition, before they were committed to writing. The story of Elijah at Carmel and at Horeb, and on the great day of his translation, the picture of Elisha in his intercourse with Naaman, in the house of the Shunammite, amidst the angel guards at Dothan, or in the prophetic foresight of his dying hour, could have come from no official records. In the Books of the Chronicles (see Introduction to Chronicles) It we find repeated references to prophetic annals. is hardly likely that a prophetic School of History would have omitted to dwell on the glorious history of the prophetic order. The supposition entertained by some critics, and enunciated with an almost intole rant positiveness, that the story of the great prophets is a half-imaginative composition of later growth, is contradicted by the very characteristics of the story itself the unity and vividness of the characters depicted, the graphic touches of detail, and the solid realism of the whole narrative. Probably it would never have been entertained, except on the ground of a priori objection to all record of miracle.

III. Date of its Compilation.-While, however, these older materials of various kinds were employed, it is clear, from the general coherency of the narrative, the recurrence of fixed phrases and methods of treatment, and the characteristics of the style and language, that the books, as we at present have them, were put into form by one author. They may previously have passed through many hands, each compiler leaving his work to be dealt with by his successor. There may be a germ of truth in the confident assertions of the Biblical critics who describe the "old prophetic Book of Kings" as confidently as if they had collated it, and distinguish the contributions of the "Deuteronomist editor as if they had seen him at work. But, as the book now stands, it is acknowledged by all that the style, the language, and some of the expressions used, refer it very plainly to the era of the Captivity. The curious notice, in the closing verses of the Second Book, of the release of Jehoiachin from prison by EvilMerodach, the king of Babylon, in the thirty-seventh year of his captivity (unless, indeed, it be supposed, somewhat arbitrarily, to be an addition), may be taken, like the abrupt conclusion of the Acts of the Apostles,

to indicate the actual date of the final composition of the books themselves.

Tradition of Authorship.-The old Jewish tradition, embodied in the Talmud, ascribing the book to the prophet Jeremiah, at least points unmistakably to its composition in this era. On the accuracy of this ascription itself the most careful criticism is still divided. The traditions of the Talmud vary very greatly in antiquity and value; and the strange character of some of the ascriptions of authorship of Scriptural books obliges us to receive all with reservation. Still they must have some primâ facie force of testimony, unless they be plainly contradicted by internal evidence. In this case, moreover, it cannot be doubted that the tradition has in its favour considerable probability, when we remember the great honour in which Jeremiah was held by the Chaldæan conquerors (see Jer. xxxix. 11 -14, xl. 2-6), and the consequent facilities which he might have enjoyed for saving some of the records of the Temple before its destruction (illustrated by the curious legend of his preservation of the Ark and the Tabernacle in 2 Macc. ii. 1-6); when we consider how naturally he, the last of the prophets of the era of Israel's independence, would be led to preserve the record of its long probation; and when we trace his actual devotion to the work of the historian, as shown in the many historical chapters interwoven with his prophecy. To these considerations many critics add some notable similarities which they believe that they trace between these books and the Book of Jeremiah, not only in detailed points of the history, but in style and diction; they note also the coincidence, with variations of detail, of Jer. lii, with the last chapter of the Second Book of Kings (which, however, would in itself only show that the compiler of the latter book had knowledge of the Book of Jeremiah); and dwell on the remarkable omission of all notice in the Book of Kings of the prophet Jeremiah, who played so important a part in the history, and who is expressly noticed more than once in the far briefer account in the Chronicles. (See 2 Chron. xxxv. 25, xxxvi. 12.)+ These evidences are not conclusive; but, when we take them in conjunction with the old Jewish tradition, and the probabilities of the case, we cannot but conclude that there is at least some considerable ground for the theory of the authorship of Jeremiah, or perhaps of Baruch the scribe, to whom the written form of some part at least of the Book of Jeremiah (see Jer. xxxvi. 4, 32, xlv.) must be traced.

IV. Its General Character and Purpose.The compiler, whoever he was, was evidently much more than a mere copyist. The very character of his work shows that he had in view throughout the great purpose which pervades the whole prophetic utterances -to bring out the Divine government over the covenanted people; to trace their sins and their repentance, God's punishments and His forgiveness; to draw forth, for the learning of the servants of God in all ages, the spiritual lessons taught by the voice of "God in history.' To suppose that the carrying out of this didactic purpose is in the slightest degree incompatible with faithful accuracy in narration of facts, is to misunderstand the main principles of true historical composition, which alone make history something higher than the "old almanac" of the shallow epigrammatist. To study the

See Canon Rawlinson's Introduction in the Speaker's Commentary, § 4.

+ See, for example, Keil's Introduction, the article "KINGS" (by Bishop Lord A. Hervey), in the Dictionary of the Bible, and Canon Rawlinson's Introduction in the Speaker's Commentary.

books themselves without discovering in them, again and again, evidences of historical and geographical accuracy, even in points of detail-traces of the incorporation of official documents and of the narratives of eye-witnesses-curious signs of independence, and yet of coincidence, in respect of the glimpses into Tyrian, Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, and even Moabite history, which recent discoveries have given us-marks of a lofty and austere candour, not only disregarding the prejudices of patriotic vainglory, but even bringing out the better features of character in those whom it condemns-examples of a simple profoundness of insight into the causes underlying external historymight well seem to be impossible; unless we bring to the study some foregone conclusions as to the impossibility of the miraculous, in fact or in foresight, which are destructive of the historical character of the whole of Scripture. Still that the historian is a true prophet, teaching by examples, is obvious in every line of his history.

[ocr errors]

The evidence of this purpose is not to be found only or chiefly in the passages of grave reflection scattered through the books. Such are, for example, the constant references to the prohibited high places," showing that in these he, by the light of subsequent events, saw a danger which escaped even the most earnest reformers of earlier times. (See 1 Kings iii. 3, xv. 14, xxii. 43, &c.) Such, again, is the significant notice (in 1 Kings xii. 15) of the judicial blindness of Rehoboam, as carrying out the appointed vengeance of the Lord on the apostasy of Solomon; the reflections on the sentences pronounced on the houses of Jeroboam and Baasha, and on the special sin of Ahab, which drew down similar destruction on the house of Omri (1 Kings xii. 30, xiii. 33, 34, xvi. 7, xxi. 25, 26); the emphatic reference to the mercy of God, giving to the kingdom of Israel a last deliverance and probation in the revival of power under Joash and Jeroboam II. (2 Kings xiii. 5, 6); above all, the solemn chapter of sad confession of God's righteous judgment, in the fall of that kingdom after many warnings and many acts of forgiveness (2 Kings xvii. 7--23), and the corresponding reference in the case of Judah to the unpardonable and ineradicable corruptions introduced by Manasseh, which even Josiah's reformation could not take away (2 Kings xxi. 10-15, xxiii. 26, 27, xxiv. 3, 4, 20). In all these there is a deep prophetic insight into the ways of God, not untinged by the sadness so characteristic of all the prophets (especially of Hosea and Jeremiah, the prophets of woe to Israel and to Judah), but yet convinced that the Judge of the whole earth must do right, and even resting with satisfaction on His righteous judgment.

But the whole tenor and construction of the history tell this story with even greater emphasis. On attentive study it will be seen to be not so much a continuous narrative, as a series of records of great epochs of historical significance, strung on a thin thread of mere annalistic sequence. Thus, (a) the First Book opens with a section of comparatively detailed narrative, full of lessons of practical instruction, describing the great reign of Solomon, and the revolution which avenged its apostasy and destroyed its glory (chaps. i.-xiv.). After this, (b) a period of at least forty years is dismissed in two chapters (chaps. xv., xvi.) with the briefest possible notice, only just sufficient to give connection to the general narrative. To this succeeds (c) the most magnificent section of the whole book (1 Kings xvii.-2 Kings xi.), unsurpassed in power in the historical books of the Old Testament,

which, in the lives of the great prophets Elijah and Elisha, represents to us the great crisis of the Baal apostasy, the victorious struggle against it by the prophetic inspiration, supported by a special outburst of miraculous power, and the final vengeance which extirpated it, alike in Israel and in Judah. After this comes (d) an epoch of important historical events-first, of a marvellous revival of prosperity and power to Israel under Joash and Jeroboam II., to Judah under Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah; next, of a period of revolution, anarchy, and bloodshed, which ushered in the final destruction of the northern kingdom. But it was (as the prophetic writings of Amos and Hosea show us) an epoch in which no spiritual vitality showed itself through national prosperity or national disaster; and therefore it is compressed within six chapters (2 Kings xii.-xvii.) in which, moreover, whole reigns, like the long and prosperous reign of Jeroboam II., are all but a blank. (e) Similarly in the last epoch, when the kingdom of Judah alone survived, the two reigns of religious reformation-those of Hezekiah and Josiah-are given in graphic and detailed narrative, occupying five chapters (chaps. xviii.—xx., xxii., xxiii.), while the long reign of Manasseh, which, in its apostasy and corruption, filled up hopelessly the measure of national iniquity, is dismissed in a few verses (chap. xxi. 1-18), and the whole history of the last agony of Judah, after the death of Josiah, occupies little more than two chapters (chaps. xxiv., xxv.). It is clear from the very method of the historical narrative that the purpose of the book is mainly didactic. The writer dwells rather on the lessons of history than the mere record of facts; on typical characters of good and evil, which appeal to the humanity of all times, rather than on the social and political conditions of the nation which belonged only to his own age; on the solemn march of the righteous providence of God, rather than on the confused and multitudinous struggles of human wills. In other words, he discharges what is virtually the prophetic office-only that he declares the works, instead of the direct word, of God. In this lies the spiritual value of the book for us. In this characteristic view of all events, far more than of the miraculous element of the record, we find the distinctive characteristic of what we call “Sacred history.”

V. Illustrations from other Books.-The study of the books, moreover, from this point of view is greatly helped by the illustration which they derive from comparison with other books of Holy Scripture, belonging to the same period of Jewish history.

The Chronicles.-It is, of course, obvious to compare them with the parallel record given in the Second Book of Chronicles. That record is of far later date. We cannot doubt that the Chronicler had the Books of Kings before him; for there are places in which he seems deliberately to pass over, or merely to glance at, what had been fully recorded there. But it is also clear that his work is, on the whole, independent; he evidently had and used the same ancient materials, and, besides these, other materials, especially the Temple records, and the prophetic annals, which he frequently cites; in passages of general coincidence there are constantly touches of variation, sometimes of apparent discrepancy; and in the history of the kingdom of Judah, to which he confines himself, there are many epochs in which he fills up generally what in our book is but a bare outline, or supplies special incidents which are there omitted. (See Introduction to Chronicles.) Considering the

« PreviousContinue »