KINGS
652
KINGS
not merely a collection of old documents, would al-
low glaring contradictions to stand? There is no
sufficient reason, then, why we should not grant a
historical character to the section I, i-II, viii, as well
as to the rest of the work. Those internal marks —
namely, lifelike touches, minuteness of detail, bright
and flowing style — which move the critics to consider
the latter part as of early origin and of undoubted
historical value, are equally foimd in the first.
The Hebrew Text, the Septuaoint, and the VuLG.tTE. — The Hebrew text has come down to us in a rather unsatisfactory condition, by reason of the numerous errors due to transcribers. The numbers especially have sufTered, probably because in the old- est manuscripts they were not written out in full. In I, vi, 19, seventy men become "seventy men, and fifty thousand of the common people." In I, xiii, 5, the Philistines are given the impossible number of thirty thousand chariots. Saul is only a year old when he begins to reign, and reigns but two years (I, xiii, 1). Absalom is made to wait forty years to accomplish the vow he made while in Gessur (II, xv, 7). In I, viii, 16, oxen are metamorphosed into "goodliest young men", while in II, x, 18, forty thousand footmen are changed into hor.semen. Michol, who in II, vi, 23, is said to have had no children, in II, xxi, 8, is credited with the five sons of her sister Merob (cf. I, xviii, 19; XXV, 44; II, iii, 15). In II, xxi, 19, Goliath is again slain by Elchanan, and, strange to say, though I Par.. XX, 5, tells us that the man killed by Elchanan was the brother of the giant, some critics here also see a contradiction. Badan in I, xii, 11, should be changed to Abdon or Barak, and Samuel, in the same verse, to Samson, etc. Many of these mistakes can readily be corrected by a comparison with Paralipomenon, the Septuagint, and other ancient versions. Others ante- date all translations, and are therefore found in the versions as well as in the Massoretic (Hebrew) text. In spite of the work of correction done by modern commentators and textual critics, a perfectly satis- factory critical test is still a desideratum. The Sep- tuagint differs considerably from the Massoretic text. Besides some transpositions, it contains a number of additions; while on the other hand it omits (in the Vatican MS., printed in the Sixtine and Swete's edition) some passages, of which I, xvii, 12-31, 55- xviii, 5; xviii, 10-11, 17-19, are the most important. Moreover, it contains many interpolations in the form of double translations. The Septuagint is without doubt to be preferred to the Massoretic text in many instances; in others the case is not so clear. The Vulgate was translated from a Hebrew text closely resembling the Massoretic; but the original text has been interpolated by additions and duplicate transla- tions, which have crept in from the Itala. Additions occur,I,iv, 1; v,6,9; viii, IS; x, 1; xi, 1; xiii, 15; xiv, 22, 41; XV, 3, 12; xvii, 36; xxi, 11; xxx, 15; II, i, 26; v, 23; x, 19; xiii, 21, 27; xiv, 30; duplicate transla- tions, I, ix, 25: XV, 32; XX, 15; xxiii, 13, 14; II,i, 18; iv, 5; vi, 12; xv, 18, 20.
Catholic: GlooT, Special Introd. (New York, 1901), 251-65; CoRNELY. InlToduclio, II (Paris, 1897), i, 240-76; Hummelader, Comm. in Libros Samuelis (Paris, 1886) ; Fillion in Via., Dic(. de la Bible, a. v. Rois (les qualre livres dcs)\ Vigodhoo.x, Manuel Bibl., 10th ed., II (Paris, 1899), 80 sqq.; Clair. Livres des Rois (Paris, 1884); Dhorme, Les Livres de Samuel (Paris, 1910); Kadlen, Einleituno (3rd ed., Freiburg im Br., 1890), 223-30; ScHAFSRS, I Sam. i-xv literarkritisch untersucht in Bibl. Zeilschr., V (1907), 1, 126, 235, 359; VI, 117; Peters, Beilragezvr Text- und Lileralurkritik der Biicher Samuels (Freiburg im Br., 1899); HiMPEL, Ueber Widerspruche und verschiedene Quellen- schri/len der H. Samuels in Tubing. Quarlalschr. (1874), 71 sqq ; ScHLOGL, Die Biicher Samuels (Vienna. 1904); Wiesmann, Die Einfiihrimp des Kimigtums in Israel in Zeilschr . fiir Kathol. The- ologie, XXXIV (1910) 118-153; Idem, Bemerkungen sum I Buche Samuels, ibid., XXXII (1908), 187, 597; XXXIII, 129, 385. 796.
Non-Catholic: Stennino in Ha«t., Dirt, of the Bible, s. v. Samuel, land II; Driver, Literal, of the O. T., 8th ed. (Edin- burgh, 1909), 172-85; Idem, Notes on Heb. Text of the B. of Samuel (Oxford, 1890); H. P. Smith, Comm. on the B. of Samuel (New York, 1899); Wellhaosen, Composition des
Hexateuchs und der Histor. Biicher des A. T. (Berlin, 1899);
Idem, Text der Biicher Samuels (Gottingen, 1871); Budde,
Die Biicher Richter und Samuel (Giessen, 1890); Idem, The
Books of .Samuel in Hwrr, Sacred BooksoftheO. T. (Baltimore,
1894) ; Idem, Die Biicher Samuel in Marti, Kurzer Hand Comm.
zum A. T. (1902); Cori^ill in Zeitschr. fur kirchl. Wissensch.
und kirchl. Leben (1SS5), 113 sqq.; Idem in K^nigsberg.
Studien (1887), 25 sqq.; Idem in Zeilschr. fur .4. T. Wissensch.
(1890), 96 sqq.; Thenius, Die Biicher Samuels, ed. Lohr (Leip-
zig. 1898) ; Klostermann, Die Biicher Samuels und der Konige
(Munich, 1887).
F. Bechtel. Kings, The Thbee. See Magi.
Kings, Third and Fourth Books of. — The his- torical book called in the Hebrew Melakhim, i. e. Ivings, is in the Vulgate, in imitation of the Septua- gint, styled the Third and Fourth Book of Kings. This designation is justified, inasmuch as the historical narration contained in I and II Kings is herein con- tinued, and, especially, because the history of David's hfe, begun in I and II, is here concluded. It is, on the other hand, an independent work, distinct from the Books of Samuel (i. e. I and II Kings) in its origin and its style, as well as by reason of the purpose it has in view. Its division into two books — at an awkward place, just in the middle of the history of Ochozias — did not exist in early times, and has only been intro- duced later into the Hebrew editions from the Septua- gint and the Vulgate. A division into three parts would be more in keeping with the contents. The first part (III Kings, i-xi), beginning with David's enactments concerning the succession to the throne and his last instructions, comprises the history of Solomon: his God-given wisdom, the building of the temple and royal palace, the splendour of his reign, his great fall on account of which God announced to him the breaking up of his realm. The second part (III Kings, xii-IV Kings, xvii) gives an historical survey of the kindred Kingdoms of Juda and Israel: Jero- boam's falling away from God and worship of the golden calf, the continuous wars between the succeed- ing kings of Israel and Juda up to Achab, the endea- vours on the part of Elias to bring back to God the people misled by Achab, the destructive alliances be- tween the house of Achab and the house of David, the miracles, prophecies, and activity of Eliseus, the de- struction of the race of Achab by Jehu, Athalia's abortive attempt to destroy the house of David, the further line of contemporaneous kings of Juda and Israel until the end of the last-named kingdom, with an epilogue setting forth the causes of the fall of the latter. The third part (IV Kings, xviii-xxv) treats of the history of the Kingdom of Juda after the reign of Ezecliias: his miraculous deliverance from the power of the Assyrians, his boastful conniving with the Babylonians, which gave rise to the Babylonian Cap- tivity and Exile, the historical account of the reign of Manasses, whose sins evoketl the pronouncement of the ruin of Juda, of Josias, who restored the tem|)le, renewed the covenant with God, and endeavoured to stamp out idolatry, of the last kings up to the destruc- tion of Jerusaleni by the Babylonians, with a short postscript concerning the Judeans who had remained behind, and the delivery of King Joachim from his imprisonment. The Books of Kings were not com- pleted in their present form before the middle of the Exile. Indeed IV Kings, xxv, 27-30, relates that Joachim was released from bondage (562), and ad- mitted to the court of Babylon for " all the days of his life".
According to the Babylonian Talmud (Baba bathra, fol. 15, 1), the Prophet Jeremias is the author. Not a few among both older and more recent exegetes con- sider this probable. It is indeed remarkable that Jeremias's activity is not alluded to — his name not even being mentioned — although he stood in close re- lation to the events of the last few years, while e\ery- thing other prophets (e. g. Elias, Eliseus, Isaias) did for kings and people is carefully noted. In case
