KINGS, BOOKS OF

of this formula is found at the beginning: of a reign, the rest at the end. Sometimes there is so little recorded about a king that the two parts come in immediate sequence. But usually they are separated by a narrative, longer or shorter according to what the author thinks fit to give us. The framework itself shows that the author desires to preserve the name of the king, his age at accession, the length of his reign, the name of liis mother, who was of course the first lady of the land. These items he was interested in, just because liis work would not have been a history without them. But what most interested him was the judgment which he felt justified in pronouncing on the character of the monarch. The very fact that he gives such a judgment in every case shows that he had before him more material than he has handed down to us, for it would have been obvi-ously unjust to pronounce so positively if he had as little ground for his opinion as in many cases he gives to us.

It is important to notice the reference to the high places which comes in immediate sequence to the judg-ment on the character of the Idng. The high places in the opinion of later times were illegitimate places of worsUp. Their toleration casts a shadow on the piety even of Idngs otherwise commendable, while their destruction is regarded as a proof of religious zeal. What light this throws on the date of the book will appear later. For the present it is suSlcient that the treatment of the high places furnishes the ground on which the kings are graded in excellence. The first place is given to Hezeldah and Josiah (who are classed with David), just because they did away with these ancient sanctuaries. The next rank is accorded to Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoash of Judah, Amaziah, Uzziah, and Jotham, and we notice that they all effected certain reforms in the Temple. With reference to each of these, the commendation is tempered by the statement that tlie high places were not taken away. In the third class we fihd the remaining Idngs of Judah, and all the kings of Israel, who are condemned as bad. The formula for the Idngs of Israel is not quite the same as the one just noticed. For one thing, the name of the queen-mother is not given — whether because the names had not been handed down, or because they were thought to be of minor importance after the destruction of the kingdom, is not clear. The formula may be illustrated by the one used for Baasha, — 'In the third year of Asa king of Judah, Baasha son of Ahijah became king over Israel in Tirzah, (and reigned) twenty-four years. He did evil in the eyes of Jahweh, and he walked in the ways of Jeroboam, and in his sin by which he made Israel sin. . . . And the rest of the affairs of Baasha, and what he did, and Ins power, are they not written in the Book of Annals of the kings of Israel? And Baasha slept with his fathers and was buried in Tirzah, and Elah his son reigned in liis stead' (1 K IS^'- 1&'). The reason given for the condemnation which is visited on all the kings of the Northern Kingdom is that they walked in the ways of Jeroboam i., — that is, they fostered the worsliip of the golden bulls (calves they are called in derision) at Bethel and Dan. This is, in the eyes of the author, distinct rebelMon against the God whose legitimate sanctuary is at Jerusalem.

While the longer quotations from his sources usually show the compiler's religious intent, yet he often pre-sents us with brief notices for which he is probably indebted to the Books of Annals, but which have no very direct bearing on his main object. Thus in the case of Jehoshaphat he inserts in his framework a brief notice to the effect that this king made peace with Israel. In the three-membered contest between Zimri, Tibni, and Omri (1 K le''-^*) he compresses the story of a prolonged civil war into a few lines. In the case of Omri we find a brief notice to the effect that this king built the city of Samaria, having bought the land from a man named Shemer (1 K IG^*). Such a notice

KINGS, BOOKS OP

probably compresses a detailed account in which Omri was glorified as the founder of the capital.

As some of these shorter notices dupUcate what we find elsewhere, it seems as if the compiler made out his frame-work or epitome first and filled it in with his excerpts afterwards. In the insertion of these longer passages the religious motive is always apparent. The matter of supreme importance to him is the worship of the God of Israel as carried on at the Temple in Jerusalem. He is under the influence known as Deuteronomistic. Tills is seen first in the phrases which recur in those sections which we suspect to be his own composition. In many cases it is not possible to say whether these sections come from the hand of the compiler or whether they were inserted by one of his followers. This is, in fact, of minor importance, — if various hands have been concerned they worked under the same bias. The attitude taken towards the high places is distinctly Deuteronomistic, for the demand that these sanctuaries should be abolished was first formulated by Deuteronomy. Josiah's reforms, as is well known, were the direct result of the finding of tliis book in the Temple. Hence the strong, we might say extravagant, commendation of this king.

Moreover, it was laid down by the writer of Deuter-onomy that obedience to the law which he formulates will be followed by temporal well-being, and that disobedience will be punished by calamity. Now, one object of the writer or compiler of the Book of Kings is to show how this has proved true in the past. He is less thorough in the application of this theory than the author of the Book of Chronicles, but that he has it at heart will be evident on examination. The Northern Kingdom had perished — why? Because Idngs and people had from the first been disobedient to Jahweh, revolting from His legitimate sanctuary at Jerusalem, and provoking His wrath by the bulls of Bethel. In Judah the same lesson is taught. David, who laid the foundations of the Idngdom, was of unusual piety, and was favoured by unusual prosperity. Solomon was the builder of the Temple, and to this extent an example of piety; his prosperity was in proportion. But there were shadows in the picture of Solomon which our author was too honest to ignore. It had not been for-gotten that this Idng built altars to foreign gods. History also told that he had suffered by the revolt of Edom and Damascus. It was easy to see in this the punishment for the Idng's sins. The liistoric fact seems to be that the revolt preceded the defection, so that the punishment came before the crime. In any case, the compiler has dealt freely with ills material, dating both the defection and the revolt late in the king's reign, at a time when senile weakness would excuse the wise man for yielding to his wives.

The most distinct instance in which the author teaches his lesson is the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the Temple. It was the custom with ancient historians, as we know, to compose speeches for their heroes which tell us what ought to have been said rather than what was actually said. Our author makes use of this per-fectly legitimate literary device. A reading of the prayer shows that it is Deuteronomistic in word and thought throughout. More than one hand has been con-cerned in it, but the tone is that of the Deuteronomistic school. It confirms what has been said about the purpose of the book. It follows that the historical value of the work must be estimated with due allowance tor this main purpose.

4. Date. — The date of the Book of Kings in its present form cannot be earlier than the Babylonian exile. The latest event which it mentions is the release of king Jehoiachin from confinement, which took place in the year B.C. 561; and as the author speaks of the allowance made to the king 'all his life' (2 K 25'°), we conclude that he wrote after his death. It will not be far out of the way, therefore, to say that the work was

521