聖書注解書

本章には次の事柄が記されている。一、ダビデの健康の衰え、王上1:1-4。二、アドニヤが王国を求めて野心を抱き、そのために自分の一味を宴にもてなしたこと、王上1:5-10。三、ナタンとバテ・シバがソロモンへの継承を確保するために計り、その目的のためにダビデから命令を得ることに成功したこと、王上1:11-31。四、それに従ったソロモンの油注ぎと、その中の民の喜び、王上1:32-40。五、これがアドニヤの簒奪に与えた効果的な阻止と、それに伴う彼の一味の解散、王上1:41-49。六、アドニヤの良き振る舞いを条件としたソロモンの彼の解散、王上1:50-53。

列王記第一・第二 序論

七十人訳として知られるギリシア語訳者たちは、「モーセの律法の書」を五つの部分に、「サムエル記」を二つに分けたが、もともと一書であった「列王記」もまた、今日ほぼ普遍的に受け入れられている仕方で、「第一の書」と「第二の書」とに分けた。こうして設けられた区分は、ギリシア語から形成された初期のラテン語諸訳においても自然に踏襲され、ヒエロニムスが今日「ヴルガタ」と呼ばれる版を世に出したとき、彼もまた、既に確立していた慣習に従った。西方教会がヴルガタを広く採用したことにより、七十人訳が導入した配列は、ほぼ普遍的な受容を得るに至った。

本書の名称はその内容に由来する。全体の主題が、ソロモンの即位からバビロン捕囚までに至るイスラエルとユダの「王たち」の歴史だからである。

1. 本書の統一性は、その構想の顕著で印象的な単純さと規則性によって立証される。本書は最初から最後まで、厳密な年代順に、同一の体系と均一な規模において王たちの歴史を述べる。少数の君主の治世に大きい紙幅が与えられているという均一性への例外は、神政的に最も重要な部分を最も詳しく扱うという原則に由来する。

統一性の第二の証拠は、文体と言語の全般的な均一性である。すべての著述家が認めるこの均一性は、わずか二、三の箇所でしか多少損なわれておらず、それらの不規則性は、著者が用いた資料の多様性と、その資料の中に見出した語法を忠実に踏襲したことによって説明しうる。

これらの一般的な証拠に加えて、二書全体に浸透する思考および表現上のいくつかの特徴を挙げることができる。これらはすべて、程度の差こそあれ、単一の著者を指し示している。

2. ある人々は、叙述の連続性、文体の全般的な類似、および一定数の語や句の共通使用から、士師記に始まり列王記第二に終わる六つの「書」が単一の著者の産物であり、実際上一つの途切れない著作を構成していると考えてきた。他の人々は、これらの論証を決定的なものとはみなしていない。叙述の連続性は形式的なものであり、エズラがそうであったと一般に信じられているような、後代の編集者による配列の結果かもしれないのである。

言語の慣用という点だけに限れば、列王記とサムエル記との間に明確な一線を画することはできないというのは、おそらく真実であろう。しかし、列王記の著者を最も特徴づける特質の多くは、もう一方の（おそらくより早い）著作にはまったく見られない。これらの理由およびその他の理由から、「列王記」は独自性と独立性を主張しうるのである。

3. あらゆる伝承的証言とは別に、歴史書の年代を決定しうる根拠は二つある。すなわち、語彙の特徴と内容である。

列王記の言語は、疑いなく捕囚期に属する。それはイザヤ、アモス、ホセア、ミカ、ヨエル、ナホムの言語より遅く、歴代誌、エズラ記、ネヘミヤ記、ハガイ、ゼカリヤの言語より早い。その全般的な性格において、それはエレミヤとエゼキエルの言語と密接に似ており、紀元前六世紀に帰せられる。

内容から得られる結果も同様であるが、いくらかより確定的である。本書の最後の独立した部分である列王記第二 25:27-30 を本書の本来の一部とみなすなら、われわれは、紀元前561年、すなわちエビル・メロダクの第一年を、本書の完成のありうる最も早い年代として得る。さらに、本書がユダヤ人の捕囚からの帰還にまったく言及していないという事実から、ありうる最も遅い年代として紀元前538年、すなわちゼルバベルのもとでの帰還の年を得る。言い換えれば、ネブカデネザルの死とバビロンにおけるクロの即位との間である。言語上およびその他の考慮は、実際の完成がこの期間の早い時期、すなわち紀元前560年頃であったという見解を支持する。さらに、本書の大部分がそれより約二十年早い紀元前580年頃にすでに書かれた可能性も、決して小さくない。

4. ユダヤの伝承は、列王記の著者をエレミヤに帰している。この見解を支持するきわめて重みのある論拠がある。列王記の言語と、この預言者の確実な諸著作の言語との間には、非常に顕著な親縁性がある。さらに、両著作の内容は、同じ出来事を扱う限りにおいて最も緊密に調和しており、とりわけエレミヤが個人的に知っていた事柄、彼が特別な関心を抱いていた事柄が挿入の対象として選ばれている。もう一つの相当に有力な論拠は、列王記においてエレミヤへの言及がまったくなされていることから引き出される。これほど多くの治世の出来事においてエレミヤが演じた重要な役割を考えれば、これは他のいかなる歴史家にとってもきわめて奇妙で不自然なことであったはずだが、彼が列王記の著者であるという仮定のもとでは完全に理解できる。その場合には、これはしかるべき謙虚さと無私の自然な実りであり、そのしるしである。

それでもなお、エレミヤ著者説はすべてを考慮に入れると非常に蓋然性が高いように見えるが、それが証明されたのではないこと、したがってある程度不確実であることは認めなければならない。

5. 列王記の著者は、自分の歴史の主題に関する権威資料として三つの著作を挙げている。

（1）「ソロモンの行録」（列王記第一 11:41）。

（2）「イスラエルの王たちの年代記の書」（列王記第一 14:19 など）。

（3）「ユダの王たちの年代記の書」（列王記第一 14:29 など）。

彼自身の歴史は、少なくとも部分的にはこれらの著作に由来する。より小さな諸著作もまた彼に開かれていた。さらに、著者は、歴代誌の著者が引用しているいかなる資料とも性格を異にする一つの著作、すなわち、おそらく預言者学校の一つで作成されたエリシャの奇跡集にも接近しえたようである。

したがって、列王記の資料は三重的とみなすことができる。第一に、「王たちの年代記の書」と呼ばれたいくつかの一般の歴史的文書。第二に、特定の短期間の歴史に関するいくつかの特殊な論考。第三に、きわめて独特な性格を持つ一つの著作、すなわち一人の注目すべき人物の私的伝記である。

「王たちの年代記の書」は、おそらく公文書、すなわち国家年代記の性質のものであった。言い換えれば、権威ある人物によって作成された、各王の治世における主要な公的出来事の記録である。イスラエル人の場合、その権威ある人物は、ほとんどすべての場合において預言者であった。預言者たちはこれを自分たちの主要な務めの一つとみなしていた。イザヤ（歴代誌第二 26:22。イザヤ 36-38）、エレミヤ（エレミヤ 39-43:7。52章）、ダニエル（ダニエル 1-6）の例がこれを示している。各治世の終わりに、あるいはその途中においてさえ、当時最高の地位にあった預言者によって「王たちの年代記の書」への追加がなされたのであろう。

しかし預言者たちは、これらの公式の記録のほかに、いくぶん大きな規模の歴史著作も著した。とりわけ宗教的事項に関する記述において、それはより詳しいものであった。例えば、イザヤ書の歴史章（イザヤ 36-39）に含まれる預言者的な個別の記述と、列王記第二の並行章（列王記第二 18-20）に含まれる「年代記の書」のより簡素な摘録との差異を比較せよ。また、エレミヤ 39-44章と列王記第二 25:1-26 とも比較せよ。さらに一般に、歴代誌に与えられている歴史と列王記の対応する歴史とを比較すると、歴代誌の著者は概して諸預言者の個別の著作に従い、列王記の著者は主として公文書に従ったように見える。歴代誌において何よりも目立つのは、ユダの宗教史がより詳しく述べられていることである。これは主として諸預言者の著作に由来するものであり、それらの性格と、国家年代記の通例の性格との対比を示している。

列王記の著者は、主として編纂者であった。彼は、自分が用いた先行の著者たちのさまざまな記述を選択し、配列し、一つの全体に織り込んだ。これは、特定の記述の中に古語あるいは地方的な語形が保持されていることと、編纂者の執筆時にはもはや適切でない多くの記述が現れていることの双方から明らかである。

列王記第二 18:15-20:19とイザヤ 36-39との間の密接な語句上の一致は、著者が、国家年代記の中にあったヒゼキヤの治世に関するイザヤの記述を、改変なしに抜粋したことからのみ生じえたものである。また、歴代誌の大部分と列王記との語句上の一致も、しばしば、二人の著者が同じ権威資料から逐語的に抜粋したと仮定することによって最もよく説明される。

他方、列王記の著者はときとして自分の用いた著者たちの語法を離れ、純粋に自分自身の表現を代わりに用いた。

そして、明らかに独創的な箇所もある。エレミヤ著者説を支持する論証は、とりわけ本書のこれらの部分に基づいている。

6. 文献学的に言えば、本文の全般的な状態は良好である。しかし歴史家は、これらの書の宗教的性格にはいささかも影響しないが、世界の世俗史の重要な一部を含む文書としての価値を損なう不健全さを嘆かねばならない。列王記として伝えられてきた数字は信頼できない。それらは、部分的には自己矛盾し、部分的には聖書の他の記述と対立し、部分的には、不可能とまでは言わないまでも、ありそうもない。この欠陥は二つの原因から生じたように思われる。一つはヘブライ聖書に共通するものであり、もう一つはこれらの書に特有のものである。

共通の原因は、本文の損傷である。その理由は、部分的には、数字における誤りが文脈によってほとんど検証されないという事実にあり、部分的には、職業的書記たちが何らかの略記数字表記法を採用しており、彼らの用いた符号が互いに取り違えられたという事情にある。

特有の誤りの原因は、元来ある注釈者が欄外に記した年代に関する注記が、本文の中に挿入されたことにあるように見える。最初に現れる年代である列王記第一 6:1はこの性格の注記と思われ、イスラエルとユダの両王朝間の一連の同期表全体も、同様の由来によるものではないかと疑うことができる。元来の著作は、各王に割り当てられた年数だけを「年代記の書」に従って示し、姉妹王国の同時代の君主の治世第何年にそれぞれの王が即位したかという、さらに進んだ問題には立ち入らなかった可能性が高い。本書からこれらの部分を差し引けば、年代記の主要な困難は消え、ほとんどすべての現実の矛盾が消える。

この点を除けば、列王記は、すべての本質的点において、完全に健全な状態でわれわれに伝えられている。七十人訳がヘブライ語本文と重要な点で異なる唯一の場所は列王記第一 12章である。そこには、現在ヘブライ語本文にはない、ネバテの子ヤロブアムに関する長い一節が、列王記第一 12:24と12:25の間にある。しかしこの一節は明らかに本来の叙述の一部ではない。それは外典エスドラ書流の物語であって、聖書の事実から作り上げられ、付加を加えられたものである。アレクサンドリアの著者は、自分が接近しえた何らかのユダヤ資料からその付加を取ったのかもしれないが、それが列王記の著者から来たのでは決してない。その事実のうち、おそらく一つ――すなわちレハベアムの即位時の年齢――を除けば、われわれの歴史家の本来の叙述に属するものはない。

7. 本書の第一次的性格は、疑いなく歴史である。著者の主要な目的は、ソロモンの即位からゼデキヤの捕囚までのイスラエルとユダの王たちに関する記述を与えることにある。

しかし、この歴史は、多くの歴史がそうであるような市民的観点からではなく、宗教的観点から書かれている。ユダヤ人は、普通の一国民としてではなく、神の民として見なされている。歴史家は、自分が書く王国の単なる政治的進展を示すことを目指すのではなく、神が契約を結ばれた民をどのように扱われたかをわれわれに描き出すことを意図している。彼が政治史の出来事を記録するとき、その構想は、ダビデに与えられた警告と約束とが結合したもの（サムエル記第二 7:12-16）の成就を追跡することである。

したがって、普通の歴史家なら重要とみなしたであろう出来事が、われわれの著者によって叙述から省かれることがあり（そして実際に省かれている）、あるいはわずかに、急ぎ足で触れられるにすぎない。彼は、シシャクによるエルサレム攻略（列王記第一 14:25-26）、アビヤムとヤロブアムとの戦争（列王記第一 15:7）、アマツヤとエドムとの戦争（列王記第二 14:7）、およびヨシヤとパロ・ネコとの戦争（列王記第二 23:29）を、極めて簡潔に扱う（これらは歴代誌の並行箇所では詳しく扱われている出来事である）。概して、両王国の軍事史――それは「年代記の書」に丁寧に記録されていたに違いない――は、列王記の著者によって省かれている。彼は、普通の世俗史においてなら最大の比重を占めたであろう出来事については、読者を国家年代記に参照させることで、大抵満足しているのである。

他方、著者の特殊な目的は、世俗の歴史家なら軽く扱うか、沈黙のうちに通り過ぎたであろう出来事に、際立った位置を与え、十分に扱うことへと向かわせる。預言者たちの教えと彼らの奇跡は、当時の宗教史における主要な点であった。民の背信が言い訳できぬものとなったのは、とりわけ彼らによる。それゆえ、ダビデに与えられた約束にもかかわらずエルサレムが破壊され、十二部族の全体が捕囚へ連れ去られたことを示さねばならない歴史家は、この厳しさの根拠を十分に示さねばならず、したがって、民の罪をこれほどまでに重いものとした事情を詳しく扱わねばならないのである。

彼が語るべき歴史の性格、その全般的傾向と最終的な帰結は、当然ながら、彼の全叙述の上に陰鬱な空気を投げかけている。本書の語調はエレミヤの確実な諸著作の語調と調和しており、その預言者の著者説を支持する追加の論拠を提供する。

列王記の文体は、大部分が平坦で均一な、単純な叙述体である。ときどき、より高揚した調子が息吹き込まれ、主題に応じて文体が高まり、いくつかの箇所ではほとんど詩的になっている（列王記第一 19:11-12。列王記第二 19:21-31）。最も印象的な章は、列王記第一 8章、18章、19章、および列王記第二 5章、9章、18章、19章、20章である。

8. われわれの書に含まれる叙述の全般的な真実性は認められている。否定され、あるいは疑問視されるのは、主として、エリヤとエリシャという人物たちの周りに集中している物語の奇跡部分だけである。ある批評家たちは、叙述が概して信頼できる同時代の文書――国家年代記か同時代の預言者たちの著作か――に由来することを認めながらも、エリヤとエリシャの歴史はまったく異なる出所から来たと主張する。すなわち、彼らの考えでは、それは、彼らの死後何年も経てから、列王記の著者か、あるいは他の何人かによって、一般民衆の口から集められた、それらの人物に関する伝承集だというのである。したがって、彼らによれば、そこには「伝説的」あるいは「神話的」性格があるという。

しかし、エリヤの記述、あるいはエリシャの記述の小さな一部以上を、残りの著作から切り離すべき批評的根拠は存在しない。とりわけエリヤの歴史はイスラエル王国の歴史とこれほど密接に絡み合っており、全体としてきわめて公的な性質のものなので、「イスラエルの王たちの年代記の書」にはほぼ必然的にその記述が含まれていたはずである。また、エリシャの歴史の重要な部分も同様の性格を持つ。さらに、その記述が同時代のものではなかったとか、ずっと後に生きた著者がこれらの注目すべき人物たちの行為を一巻に収集する作業に任されたとか想像することは、まったく根拠のないことである。可能性はむしろ逆である。預言者たち自身がその時代の歴史家であった以上、エリシャがエリヤの奇跡とその他の注目すべき行為を収集し、エリシャ自身のものは彼の死後、「預言者の弟子たち」の誰かによって収集されたというのが自然であろう。これに加えて、語られている奇跡は、すべて、目撃者に由来する記述の趣を備えており、伝承には到底保ちえないような細部にわたる状況描写に満ちている。全体の結論は次のようになろう。奇跡を「ア・プリオリ」な不可能性のゆえに信じるに値しないとして全面的に退けない限り、列王記におけるイスラエルの二人の偉大な預言者に関する記述は、残りの叙述と等しく受容に値するものとみなされなければならない。

また、内的一貫性と蓋然性、ならびに外的証言は、列王記に含まれる世俗史の全般的真実性を強く支持している。ソロモンの帝国は、初期東洋史がわれわれに親しませる種類のものである。それは、エジプトとアッシリヤが同時に弱体化していたためにその成立の余地が生じていた、まさにその時期に出現している。その急速な拡張と、さらに急速な収縮とは、東方支配に関するわれわれの他の記録と調和する。その芸術と文明は、ほぼ同時期に近隣諸国に存在したことが知られているものと似ている。われわれの書が扱う期間におけるユダヤとエジプト、アッシリヤ、バビロンとの接触は、エジプトの年代記と一致しており、ある点では楔形文字碑文によって実に印象的に説明される。ベローソス、マネト、メナンドロス、ディウス――バビロン、エジプト、ツロの異教の歴史家たち――は、記念碑とともに、本文に付された注釈が十分に立証するであろうように、われわれの著者の真実性と正確さを支える証拠を提供している。

年代記のより広い特徴でさえ、内的に蓋然的であり、他国の年代学によって外的にも確認されている。ソロモンの即位からゼデキヤの捕囚までの間隔は433年半と与えられており、この期間は、十八世代（エホヤキンを除けば十七世代）に属する二十一人の君主に分けられている。これは各世代に、きわめて蓋然的な期間である25年半を認める計算になる。年代が二重に示されており、主要な内的困難が生じる歴史の部分においてさえ、二つの体系の相違はわずかで、240年ないし250年のうち約20年を超えない。エジプトの年代記は、シシャクの侵入およびソとの同盟に関する聖書の年代を概略確認する。アッシリヤの年代記は、サマリヤ陥落の日付においてヘブライ語の記録と一致し、ハザエルとエフ、ティグラト・ピレセルとアハズ、セナケリブとヒゼキヤ、エサルハドンとマナセを同時代の人物として示すことにおいても一致している。年代記上の困難は、たとえ存在するとしても、あらゆる世俗の歴史家の読者が熟知し、実際、古代の年代学の全体に広がっているものを、いささかも超えない。それらは部分的には計算方式の相違によって説明されうるし、ときには疑いなく、損なわれた読み、あるいは権威のない挿入に由来するのである。

Preface to the First Book of the Kings, Otherwise Called the Third Book of the Kings

In the most correct and ancient editions of the Hebrew Bible, the two books of Kings make but one, with sometimes a little break, the first book beginning with 1 Samuel 22:40. Some of the ancient fathers seem to have begun the First Book of Kings at the death of David, 1 Kings 2:12. The more modern copies of the Hebrew Bible have the same division as ours; but in the time of the Masoretes they certainly made but one book; as both, like the books of Samuel, are included under one enumeration of sections, verses, etc., in the Masora.

The titles to these books have been various, though it appears from Origen that they had their name from their first words, והמלך דוד vehammelech David, "and King David;" as Genesis had its name from בראשית bereshith, "in the beginning." The Septuagint simply term it βασιλειων, of reigns, or kingdoms; of which it calls Samuel the first and second, and these two the third and fourth. The Vulgate has Liber Regum tertius; secundum Hebraeos, Liber Malachim: "The Third Book of Kings; but, according to the Hebrews, the First Book of Malachim." The Syriac has, "Here follows the Book of the Kings who flourished among this ancient people; and in this is also exhibited the history of the prophets who flourished in their times." The Arabic has the following title: "In the name of the most merciful and compassionate God; the Book of Solomon, the son of David the prophet, whose benedictions be upon us. - Amen."

The author of these books is unknown: that they are a compilation out of public and private records, as the books of Samuel are, there is little doubt; but by whom this compilation was made nowhere appears. Some have attributed it to Isaiah and to Jeremiah, because there are several chapters in both these prophets which are similar to some found in the first and second books of Kings; compare 2 Kings 18, 19, and 20, with Isaiah 36, 37, 38, and Isaiah 39:1-8; and 2 Kings 24:18; 2 Kings 25:1, etc., with Jeremiah 52:1, etc.

But rather than allow those prophets to be the authors or compilers of these books, some very learned men have judged that the chapters in question have been taken from the books of Kings in after times, and inserted in those prophets. It is worthy of remark that the fifty-second chapter found in Jeremiah is marked so as to intimate that it is not the composition of that prophet; for at the end of Jeremiah 51 we find these words, Thus far are the words of Jeremiah; intimating that the following chapter is not his.

But the most common opinion is, that Ezra was the author, or rather the compiler of the history found in these books. Allowing only the existence of ancient documents from which it was compiled, it appears,

1. That it is the work of one person; as is sufficiently evident from the uniformity of the style, and the connection of events.

2. That this person had ancient documents from which he compiled, and which he often only abridged, is evident from his own words, The rest of the acts of such and such a prince, are they not written in the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, or of Israel, which occur frequently.

3. These books were written during or after the Babylonish captivity, as at the end of the second book that event is particularly described. The author states also, 2 Kings 17:23, that Israel was, in his time, in captivity in Assyria, according to the declaration of God by his prophets.

4. That the writer was not contemporary with the facts which he relates, is evident from the reflections he makes on the facts that he found in the memoirs which he consulted. See 2 Kings 17:6-24.

5. There is every reason to believe that the author was a priest or a prophet; he studies less to describe acts of heroism, successful battles, conquests, political address, etc., than what regards the temple, religion, religious ceremonies, festivals, the worship of God, the piety of princes, the fidelity of the prophets, the punishment of crimes, the manifestation of God's anger against the wicked, and his kindness to the righteous. He appears everywhere strongly attached to the house of David; he treats of the kings of Israel only accidentally; his principal object seems to be the kingdom of Judah, and the matters which concern it.

Now, all this agrees well with the supposition that Ezra was the compiler of these books. He was not only a priest, a zealous servant of God, and a reformer of the corruptions which had crept into the Divine worship, but is universally allowed by the Jews to have been the collector and compiler of the whole sacred code, and author of the arrangement of the different books which constitute the Old Testament. If some things be found in these books of Kings which do not agree to his time, they may be easily accounted for on his often taking the facts as he found them in the documents which he consults, without any kind of alteration; and this is so far a proof of his great sincerity and scrupulous exactness.

The First Book of Kings contains the history of one hundred and nineteen years, from A.M. 2989 to A.M. 3108. It contains a great variety of interesting particulars, the chief of which are the following: The death of David; the reign of Solomon; the building and dedication of the temple; the building of Solomon's palace; an account of his great wisdom; his magnificence, and his fall; the division of Israel and Judah under Rehoboam; the idolatry of the ten tribes over whom Jeroboam became king. It states how Judah, Benjamin, and Levi attached themselves to the house of David; how Rehoboam was attacked by Shishak, king of Egypt, who pillaged the temple; how Baasha destroyed the house of Jeroboam, and seized on the government of Israel; how Jehu predicted the ruin of Baasha; how Ahab married the impious Jezebel, and persecuted the prophets of the Lord. It relates the acts of Elijah; the destruction of the prophets of Baal; the cruel death of Naboth; the death of Ahab; the good reign of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah; and the wicked reign of Ahaziah, king of Israel, etc. See Calmet's preface to the first and second books of Kings.

David, grown old, is, by the advice of his physicians, cherished by Abishag the Shunammite, 1 Kings 1:1-4. Adonijah conspires with Joab and Abiathar to seize on the government, 1 Kings 1:5-10. Nathan and Bathsheba communicate these tidings to the aged king, vv. 11-27. David immediately pronounces Solomon his successor, and causes Zadok and Nathan to proclaim and anoint him king, 1 Kings 1:28-40. Adonijah and his friends hear of it, are afraid, and flee away, Adonijah laying hold on the horns of the altar, from which he refuses to go till Solomon shall promise him his life; this he does, and banishes him to his own house, 1 Kings 1:41-53.

INTRODUCTION TO 1 KINGS

This, and the following book, properly are but one book, divided into two parts, and went with the Jews under the common name of Kings. This, in the Syriac version, is called the Book of Kings; and in the Arabic version, the Book of Solomon, the Son of David the Prophet, because it begins with his reign upon the death of his father; and, in the Vulgate Latin version, the Third Book of Kings, the two preceding books of Samuel being sometimes called the First and Second Books of Kings, they containing the reigns of Saul and David; and in the Septuagint version both this and the following book are called Kingdoms, because they treat of the kingdom of Israel and Judah, after the division in the times of Rehoboam, son of Solomon, and of the several kings of them; as of Solomon before the division, so afterwards of the kings of Judah; Rehoboam, Abijam, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, Uzziah or Azariah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah; and of the kings of Israel, Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Omri, Ahab, Ahaziah, Jehu, Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam the son of Joash, Zachariah, Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah, Pekah, and Hoshea; so that these books may, with great propriety, be called the books or histories of the kings in the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel: who they were written by, is not easy to say; some think they were written by piecemeal by the prophets that lived in the several reigns successively, as Nathan, Ahijah the Shilonite, Iddo, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and afterwards put together by an inspired writer. The Jews commonly say (a), that Jeremiah wrote the book of the Kings, by which they mean this, and the following book; though very probably they were written by Ezra, since the history in them is carried down to the liberty granted to Jehoiachin in Babylon; but that Ezra was the writer of all the preceding historical books, and even of the Pentateuch, cannot be admitted, which is the conceit of Spinosa (b); part of whose tract is just now republished by somebody, word for word, under a title as in the margin (c); but that Ezra was not the writer of the Pentateuch is clear, since he refers to it as written by Moses, and as the rule of religion and worship in his times, Ezra 3:2; and it is certain these writings were in being in the times of Josiah, Amaziah, Joash, yea, of David, and even of Joshua, 2 Chronicles 34:14; and as for the book of Joshua, that also was written long before Ezra's time; it must be written long before the times of David, before the Jebusites were expelled from Jerusalem, since the writer of it says, that they dwelt there in his days, Joshua 15:63; the book of Judges must be written before the times of Samuel and David, since the former refers to the annals of it, 1 Samuel 12:9; and the latter alludes to some passages in it, Psalm 68:7; see Judges 5:4; and a speech of Joab's, 2 Samuel 11:21, shows it to be an history then extant: to which may be added, that in it Jerusalem is called Jebus, Judges 19:10; which it never was, after it was taken by David out of the hands of the Jebusites, 2 Samuel 5:6; the book of Ruth very probably was written by Samuel; had it been of a later date, or written by Ezra, the genealogy with which it concludes, would doubtless have been carried further than to David: the Book of Samuel, and particularly the song of Hannah in it, were written in all probability before the penning of the hundred thirteenth psalm, Psalm 113:1, in which some expressions seem to be taken from it wherefore, though the two books of Kings may be allowed to be written or compiled by Ezra, the ten preceding ones cannot be assigned to him: however, there is no room to doubt of the divine authority of these two books, when the honour our Lord has done them is observed, by quoting or referring to several histories in them; as to the account of the queen of Sheba coming to hear the wisdom of Solomon; of the famine in the times of Elijah; and of that prophet being sent to the widow of Sarepta, and of the cleansing of Naaman the Syrian in the times of Elisha, Matthew 12:42 from 1 Kings 17:1 2 Kings 5:10; to which may be added, the quotations and references made by the apostles to passages in them, as by the Apostle Paul in Romans 11:2 from 1 Kings 19:14 where this book is expressly called the Scripture; and by the Apostle James, James 5:17; who manifestly refers to 1 Kings 17:1; and there are various things in this part of Scripture, which are confirmed by the testimonies of Heathen writers, as will be observed in the exposition of it. The use of these books is to carry on the history of the Jewish nation, to show the state of the church of God in those times, and his providential care of it amidst all the changes and vicissitudes in the state; and, above all, to transmit to us the true genealogy of the Messiah, which serves to confirm the Evangelist Matthew's account of it.

(a) T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 15. 1.((b) Tractat. Theolog. Politic. c. 8. & 9. p. 150, &c. (c) Tractatus de Primis 12. Vet. Test. Lib. &c. Londini 1763.

INTRODUCTION TO 1 Kings 1

This chapter gives an account of the infirmities of David in his old age, and the method used to relieve him under them, 1 Kings 1:1; of the preparation his son Adonijah made to usurp the throne, 1 Kings 1:5; of Bathsheba's address to the king upon it, in favour of her son Solomon, on which she was put by, Nathan the prophet, and seconded in it by him, 1 Kings 1:11; when the king with an oath confirmed the succession of Solomon in the kingdom, and ordered Nathan the prophet, and Zadok the priest, to anoint him, which was accordingly done with great ceremony, to the satisfaction of the king and his servants, 1 Kings 1:28; the news of which being brought to Adonijah and his friends, struck them with terror, and on which they dispersed, 1 Kings 1:41; and upon the promise of Adonijah, that he would behave well to Solomon, he was pardoned and dismissed, having fled and lain hold on the horns of the altar, 1 Kings 1:51.

THE FIRST BOOK OF THE KINGS

I. Kings.

BY

THE RIGHT RET. ALFRED BARRY, D.D.

INTRODUCTION

TO

THE BOOKS OF THE KINGS.[1]

[1] 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.

I. Unity of the Book, and Relation to the Earlier Books.—The history of the kings (Sêpher 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 (Judges 17:6; Judges 18:1; Judges 19:1) 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; 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.

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 1Kings 8:8 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” (1Kings 11:41), and the “books of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel and of Judah.” The former is expressly ascribed, in 2Chronicles 9:29, 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 2Samuel 8:16; 1Kings 4:3; 2Kings 18:18). But in many cases the office of annalist was undoubtedly discharged by the prophets; as, for example, by Shemaiah and Iddo for Rehoboam (2Chronicles 12:15), by Iddo for Abijah (2 Chronicles 13, 22), by Jehu son of Hanani, for Jehoshaphat (2Chronicles 20:34), by Isaiah for Uzziah (2Chronicles 26:22). 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 (Isaiah 36-39.). It is, indeed, thought that the later name for Seer (Chözeh), which is altogether distinct from the earlier title (Rôeh) applied to Samuel (1Samuel 9:9; 1Samuel 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) we find repeated references to prophetic annals. It 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 intolerant 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 Evil-Merodach, 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 Jeremiah 39:11-14; Jeremiah 40:2-6), 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 Maccabees 2:1-6); 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;[2] they note also the coincidence, with variations of detail, of Jeremiah 52 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 2Chronicles 35:25; 2Chronicles 36:12.)[3] 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 Jeremiah 36:4; Jeremiah 36:32; Jeremiah 45) must be traced.

[2] See Canon Rawlinson’s Introduction in the Speaker’s Commentary, § 4.

[3] See, for example, Keil’s Introduction, the article “KINGS” (by Bishop hord A. Hervey), in the Dictionary of the Bible, and Canon Rawlinson’s introduction in the Speaker’s Commentary.

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 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 history—might 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.

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 1Kings 3:3; 1Kings 15:14; 1Kings 22:43, &c.) Such, again, is the significant notice (in 1Kings 12:15) 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 (1Kings 12:30; 1Kings 13:33-34; 1Kings 16:7; 1Kings 21:25-26); 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. (2Kings 13:5-6); 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 (2Kings 17:7-23), 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 (2Kings 21:10-15; 2Kings 23:26-27; 2Kings 24:3-4; 2Kings 24:20). 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 (1 Kings 1-14.). After this, (b) a period of at least forty years is dismissed in two chapters (1 Kings 15, 16) 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 17 -2 Kings 11), 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 12-17) 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 (1 Kings 18-20, 22, 23), 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 (1Kings 21:1-18), and the whole history of the last agony of Judah, after the death of Josiah, occupies little more than two chapters (1Kings 24, 25). 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 date and character of the two works, it is probably well to take the Book of Kings as the standard account, and so far accept the significance of the title of Παραλειπομένων (“things omitted”), given in the LXX. to the Chronicles, as to make them a commentary, an illustration, and a supplement of the older word. But each has its independent character and value. The Book of Kings has been called the prophetic record, the Book of Chronicles the priestly record, of the time. This would be a misleading antithesis, if it was taken to convey the notion of antagonism or even marked diversity of idea between the books, which any attentive study of both must dissipate. But it is so far true as this—that the Book of Kings, dealing so largely with the kingdom of Israel, naturally gives special prominence to the office and work of the older prophets, who ministered chiefly to that kingdom; while the Book of Chronicles, being almost exclusively the history of Judah, brings out the power of the priesthood and the royalty of David, which played so great a part—sometimes in union, sometimes in antagonism—in the spiritual history of the southern kingdom.

But besides this direct comparison of the two historical records, there is illustration no less valuable of the idea and purpose of the Books of Kings to be derived from other Scriptural books not properly historical, which, indeed, its narrative binds together in one continuous order of development.

The Psalms.—The illustration to be derived from the Psalms would be far more instructive, if we were not driven to rely mainly on internal evidence as to their date and occasion, and were not accordingly, in most cases, unable to fix these points with any certainty. But even with this drawback, the illustration is invaluable, as painting to us the inner life of Israel during the period of our history; for to this period a large portion of the Psalter must certainly be referred. There seems much probability that the first division of the Psalter (Psalms 1-41) took shape in the time of Solomon, for use in the Temple worship. In the later divisions many psalms are, with more or less authority, ascribed to Asaph, to Heman (and the sons of Korah), and to Ethan, the three chief musicians of David, and probably of Solomon also. Of these subsequent divisions it is at least not unlikely that some mark and illustrate the religious revivals of Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah. Nor is more particular reference altogether wanting. Two psalms (72, 127) are ascribed to Solomon—the one, a picture of the glory and majesty of his kingdom; the other (one of “the Songs of Degrees”), ascribing to the Lord alone the blessings of earthly prosperity and happiness. Other psalms, especially among those ascribed to the sons of Korah, are of a national character—crying to God in national disaster (Psalms 44), thanking Him in the hour of triumph and deliverance (Psalms 46-48, 85), singing hymns at the marriage of the king (Psalms 45), or proclaiming the loveliness and gladness of the dwellings of the Lord of Hosts (Psalms 84). One group (Psalms 91-100) has been thought by some to belong to the golden age of Hezekiah’s glory and Isaiah’s prophecy. The “great Hallel” (Psalms 113-118), though found in the divisions of the Psalter belonging to the era after the Captivity, yet illustrates the festal worship of the people in the Temple of God: such psalms as Psalms 137 mark the sorrows of the Captivity by “the waters of Babylon.” In all cases, the Psalms are the lyric expression of the inner life of the chosen people, and of the individual servants of God, underlying the simple narrative which our books supply. We must study them if we would catch the spirit which animates the letter of the historic record itself.

The Sapiential Books.—But plainer illustration is gained from books which can be more certainly referred to distinct periods in the history. Thus the golden age of the glory of Solomon is illustrated by consideration of the various books which may be called “Sapiential.” The great Book of PROVERBS, both in its poetical and gnomic portions, tracing itself to him as the chief master of wisdom—perhaps much as the Psalter bears the name of David—is in its representation of wisdom the key at once to the true nature of the culture and glory of his age, and to the tendencies which, gaining the mastery, brought on its fall. The SONG OF SOLOMON—now by all the best authorities referred unhesitatingly to his age, probably to his hand—is full of the passion for beauty, the delight in nature, the sensibility to pure love, the knowledge of humanity marking both the character of the great king, and the culture of his time; yet is not without the tendency to rest on the visible and the sensual, in which was the germ of his voluptuous polygamy. The Book of JOB—which, whatever be the date of its original materials, is commonly referred to his time—certainly opens the great questions of Natural Religion, concerning man as man, which belong to an age searching after wisdom, and having contact with the thought and inquiry of races outside the covenant. The wonderful Book of ECCLESIASTES, to whatever period it is to be referred, in its depiction of a souľs tragedy shows no little insight, into the character of him in whose person it speaks, as wearied out with the search after happiness in wisdom and in pleasure, in contemplation and in action, and coming back at last in despair to the simple command, “Fear God, and keep His commandments,” which was the first teaching of childhood. Only when studied in connection with the history can these books be rightly understood; so studied they give, on the other hand, an infinite life and colour to the bare massive outline drawn in the historical books.

The Prophetic Books.—Again, the later history of the Second Book borrows even greater illustration from the prophetic writings—much as the earlier part of the record derives its chief interest from the action of the elder prophets of unwritten prophecy from Ahijah to Elisha. Thus, the period of national revival in Israel under Jeroboam II., and the unhappy period of decline and fall which succeeded it—so briefly and coldly narrated in our books—live in the pages of AMOS, the prophet of the day of hollow and licentious prosperity, and HOSEA, the prophet of the well-merited doom of judgment. There we discover the evils which lurked under a material prosperity and an outward semblance of religion; there we see how they burst out, rending the very bonds of society, as soon as that prosperity began to wane. So, again, the character of the reckless and cruel greatness of the Assyrian Empire, shown so terribly in the destruction of Israel and in the imminent danger of Judah, is marvellously illustrated by NAHUM, in his grand patriotic hymn of triumph over the foreseen fall of Nineveh. To the days of prosperity of Uzziah, who “loved husbandry,” belong (it seems) the utterances of JOEL, picturing physical disasters as God’s judgment, calling to repentance, promising temporal and spiritual blessing, and beginning the series of Apocalyptic visions of the vain struggle of the enemies against the people of God. Once more, the great epoch of Hezekiah’s religious revival is marked by the writings of the prophet MICAH, who, indeed, gave the signal for it (see Jeremiah 26:8), and in whom first Messianic prophecy becomes clear and definite. The two grand crises of that reign—the danger under Ahaz from Syria and Israel, and the invasion of Sennacherib—form two chief themes of the supreme prophecy of ISAIAH, out of which the Messianic hope rises almost to actual vision. To the interval between Hezekiah and Josiah, when the Chaldean power begins to come into prominence, we may perhaps refer the magnificent brevity of the prophecy of HABAKKUK. Certainly the pathetic interest of the reign of Josiah, is illustrated by the foreboding utterances of ZEPHANIAH. The bitterness of the captivity of Judah—probably the great Captivity—is brought out in the denunciation of Edomite triumph and cruelty in the hour of Judah’s disaster by OBADIAH. Nor is it too much to say that the whole history of the last agony of the kingdom of Judah can be read adequately only in the historical and prophetical chapters of the great Book of JEREMIAH. The Books of Kings supply the thread of connection, which binds the prophetic books together, enabling us rightly to understand the sub- stance of each, and the method of prophetic development running through them all. The prophecies, on the other hand, supply constantly the key to the true sense of the history, drawing out explicitly the lesson which it teaches by implication, and giving us a living picture of the ages which it sketches only in outline.

VI. Illustrations from Profane History.—To these all-important illustrations must be added, as subsidiary, the light thrown upon the narrative by the study of the various heathen records, whether found in the works of ancient historians, or read in the monumental history of nations which came in contact with Israel, discovered and deciphered in modern times. This kind of illustration, hardly known in the case of the earlier books, begins substantially in the Book of Kings.

The account of Josephus, with all its acknowledged defects, is of very great value, both as a gloss on the Scriptural account, and an occasional supplement to it. The variations found in the LXX. version, in the way of transposition, addition, and omission, are not, indeed, of great importance; for the only substantial addition in the history of Jeroboam (see Note at the end of 1 Kings 11) is obviously legendary. But they are of considerable interest, and occasionally indicate the existence of independent traditions. The authors quoted by Josephus or early Christian historians (such as Berosus, Manetho, Ptolemy), the monuments of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon, even the Moabitic stone, all throw light again and again on the Book of Kings; and, though not without occasional difficulties and discrepancies of detail, have unquestionably furnished the strongest confirmation of its historic truth, and have cleared up some obscurities in its brief record. The history, it will be observed, comes in contact with the history of Tyre in the reigns of Hiram and Ethbaal, father of Jezebel; with the history of Egypt in the reign of the Pharaoh father-in-law of Solomon, of Shishak, of “Zerah the Ethiopian,” of Sabaco (the So or Seveh of 2Kings 17:3), of Tirhakah, and of Pharaoh-necho; with the history of Assyria under the “Pul” of 2Kings 15:19, Tiglath-pileser, Shalmaneser, Sargon, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon; with the history of Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar; even with our one glimpse of the history of Moab under Mesha in the reign of Jehoram of Israel. Most of our knowledge of these histories is comparatively new. When it is read through the extraordinary monumental records of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon—the discovery and deciphering of which form some of the most wonderful chapters in historical study—it not only brings cut facts, determines dates, confirms or corrects our interpretations, but it gives us a vivid picture of the very life and character of the great Empires, which often explains the different views taken of them in Scripture, and always gives force and colour to our conceptions of the Scripture history itself. The treasure-house is far from being exhausted. Future generations may rival or excel the advance made in this generation and the last, and every advance will be of no inconsiderable value to the student of Scripture history.

The effect of all this study and illustration of the book is to bring out more and more both its historical authenticity and its didactic value. The substance of the history, and even the text, have but few obscurities, and these are generally elucidated by comparison with the ancient versions.

VII. The Numbers given in the Book.—The one difficulty in the interpretation of the book lies in the numbers, chronological and other, which occur in it. These are now always written in full; but there is every reason to believe that in the original manuscripts they were, as usual, indicated by Hebrew letters—a method of indication which, as is well known, gives the greatest facility to accidental or intentional corruption. Thus, in our book, and still more in the Chronicles, it is difficult not to suppose that the large numbers given in the history (as, for example, 1Kings 20:29-30; 2Chronicles 14:8-9; 2Chronicles 17:12-18; 2Chronicles 25:5-6; 2Chronicles 26:12, &c.) are without authority, due to careless transcription, or to corruption of the original document by the exaggeration of Jewish scribes.

The Chronology.—It is possible that this facility of corruption in numbers may bear upon what is the chief critical difficulty of the book, the determination of its chronology. In this book, unlike the earlier historical books, the calculations of dates are given in the text with great exactness, whether by the hand of the historian or by that of some later chronologer.

The first remarkable date is that mentioned in 1Kings 6:1, fixing the commencement of the Temple in the 480th year after the Exodus. With regard to this date, which has presented much difficulty to chronologers, see Note on the passage. By whomsoever given, it deserves very careful consideration in the calculation of Biblical chronology.

Next we have the reign of Solomon given at forty years (1Kings 11:43); against which the statement of Josephus that he reigned eighty years (Ant. viii. 7. 8) can hardly be held to be of serious moment.

From the time of the disruption, we have, marked with great precision, first, the duration of the successive reigns of the kings of Israel; next, the duration of the reigns of the kings of Judah; lastly, statements of the synchronism of accessions in each line with certain years in the reigns of the kings of the other line. Now, in the present condition of the text, these three lines of calculation present occasional discrepancies; and this is especially the case with the synchronistic notices, which are, indeed, believed by many to have been added by a later hand, both because of their rather formal artificiality, and of the evident confusion which they introduce. Setting these last aside, the discrepancies are slight. In any case they are not great and may be easily exhibited.

The whole history (after the reign of Solomon) can be divided into three periods—(a) from the contemporaneous accession of Jeroboam and Rehoboam to the contemporaneous deaths of Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah by the hand of Jehu; (b) from the contemporaneous accession of Jehu and Athaliah to the fall of Samaria in the sixth year of Hezekiah; (c) from the sixth year of Hezekiah to the capture of Jerusalem. Now, (a) in the first period there is no difficulty. The united reigns in Israel amount to 98 years,[4] in Judah to 95; and, remembering that the dates are always given in round numbers, reckoning, after the Hebrew manner, any part of a year as a year, there is here no real discrepancy, even in the synchronistic notices. We may accept the lower calculation, or perhaps something even less than this, as the true period. In the second period (b) the discrepancy begins. The united reigns in Israel amount to 143 years, in Judah to 165; and the synchronistic notices in the later part of the period are not only disturbed by this discrepancy, but are occasionally self-contradictory.[5] Of this discrepancy there must be some account to be given; for it is too patent to have escaped the notice of the historian himself, or even of a later chronologer. It is, of course, possible to refer it to corruption of the text; but of such corruption we have no indication in any variations of the ancient versions. If this be set aside, there are but two ways of accounting for it. There may have been (as Archbishop Ussher supposed) periods of interregnum in Israel—one of eleven years after the death of Jeroboam II., and before the accession of Zachariah, the other of about the same period between Pekah and Hoshea. But of these the former is most unlikely, for the period of anarchy had not yet set in; the latter, more probable in itself, is apparently inconsistent with the actual words of the historian (2Kings 15:30); of neither is there any trace in the history. The only other possible supposition is, that in Judah some kings may, after common Oriental custom, have acceded to power during their fathers’ reigns, as coadjutors or substitutes. It happens that this is specially likely during this period in two cases. If, as has been thought by some critics, Amaziah after his defeat by Joash was kept in captivity till his conqueror’s death, it would be natural that his son should be placed on the throne; and, when Uzziah had been smitten with leprosy, we actually know that Jotham acted as king before his father’s death (2Kings 15:5). This supposition is, on the whole, most probable. It will not correct the confusion of the synchronistic notices, but it will account for the discrepancy in the collective duration of the reigns in the two lines. In this case it is perhaps, therefore, best again to take the lower calculation. In the third period (c), amounting to 133 years, Judah exists alone, and no difficulty can arise.

[4] If the civil war of four years (see 1Kings 16:15-23) between Omri and Tibri be not included in the reign of Omri, then the period is 102 years.

[5] See (for example) 2Kings 15:27; 2Kings 15:30; 2Kings 15:32; 2Kings 15:16

The general result, therefore, is that, taking the shorter calculation, we have, from the division of the kingdom to the fall of Samaria, a period of 238 years, and from the same point to the fall of Jerusalem a period of 371 years. If the longer calculation be taken, twenty-two years must be added to each of these periods.

Now, we are able to test these calculations by independent chronological data, found in ancient historians and chronologers, and in the Egyptian and Assyrian monuments. By such comparison their general accuracy is very remarkably illustrated, although some discropancies in detail occur.

(a) Thus the capture of Samaria is fixed by Ptolemy’s Canon in B.C. 721; the capture of Jerusalem is determined by undoubted authorities in B.C. 586. The interval between these dates corresponds almost exactly with the time assigned in our text to the sole existence of the kingdom of Judah.

(b) Starting from either of these dates, the calculation in the text, taking the shorter reckoning, would place the accession of Rehoboam at 957 or 959 B.C. Now, the Egyptian records fix the accession of Shishak at about 983 B.C. His invasion took place in his twentieth year, B.C. 963, and as this coincided with the fifth year of Rehoboam, this would fix the accession of Rehoboam at B.C. 968—about half-way between the dates determined by the longer and shorter calculations of the chronology of our book.

(c) The invasion of Pharaoh-necho is placed in our history about twenty-three years before the final capture of Jerusalem, i.e., about B.C. 609. But the Egyptian chronology fixes his reign from 610 to 594, and makes his expedition against Assyria take place early in his reign.

(d) The accession of Sabaco II. (the So or Seveh of 2Kings 17:4) is fixed by the Egyptian records in B.C. 723; the Hebrew text notes the intercourse between him and Hoshea about three years before the capture of Samaria, i.e., 723 or 724. In all these cases there is a very close coincidence between the two chronologies.

(e) The Assyrian chronology agrees less closely. Thus our text makes Menahem’s reign end about thirty years before the fall of Samaria, i.e., B.C. 751. The Assyrian records make Tiglath-pileser receive tribute for him in 741. In our text the expedition of Sennacherib is fixed to about eight years after the fall of Samaria, i.e., B.C. 713. The Assyrian monuments place it about B.C. 701; and this later date seems, to be confirmed by the Canon of Ptolemy. These discrepancies cannot be removed, except by alteration of our text, unless there be some error in the data of our Assyrian calculations. It will be observed that they are simply in detail.

(f) The chronological notices in Josephus, which by their minute accuracy suggest some independent sources of information, do not enable us to pronounce decisively between the two reckonings of the text. Thus (α) he has placed Josiah’s fulfilment of the prophecy against the altar at Bethel 361 years after its utterance, immediately after the division of the kingdom (Ant. x. 1. 4). Now the eighteenth year of Josiah would be according to the shorter reckoning about 336 years, according to the longer reckoning about 352 years, after the division of the kingdom; and the incident recorded took place not earlier, though it may have been later, than the 18th year. (β) In Ant x. 8. 4 he remarks that the kings of David’s race reigned on the whole 514 years, “during twenty of which” (he adds, oddly enough) “Saul reigned, who was not the same tribe.” Allowing forty years for David and eighty (according to Josephus’ calculation) for Solomon, and (it would seem) twenty for Saul, the period for the division of the kingdom to the fall of Jerusalem would be 370 years, which agrees with the shorter reckoning. (γ) The Temple is said (Ant. x. 8. 5) to have fallen “in the tenth day of the sixth month of the 470th year” after its dedication; but since this was in the eleventh year of Solomon, or (according to Josephus) sixty-nine years before the disruption, this would give 401 years for the same period, which is in excess even of the longer reckoning. (δ) In Ant. ix. 14. 1, he gives the period from the disruption to the fall of Samaria as “240 years, 7 months, and 7 days,” which agrees almost exactly with the 238 years of the shorter reckoning.

Hence the effect of this comparison, assuming the general correctness of the non-Scriptural records, is to bring out more clearly—what the condition of the chronology itself would suggest—the existence of some confusions in detail, but an undoubted general correctness even in this, which is acknowledged to be the point of the greatest difficulty. The books thus stand out as true history in the highest sense of the word, uniting clear historical accuracy, even of detail, with vivid depiction of character, and high prophetic insight into the laws of the Providence of God.

[In respect both of the Introduction and the Notes on the First Book of Kings, the author has to express his obligation to the Commentaries of Keil and Thenius; to Ewald’s History of Israel, and (in less degree) to Stanley’s Lectures on the Jewish Church; to Canon Rawlinson’s valuable Introduction and Notes in the Speaker’s Commentary, and his Bampton Lectures; to many articles in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, and Winer’s Realwörterbuch, and to Prof. Robertson Smith’s article (“KINGS”) in the Encyclopœdia Britannica. For the study of the text, the Variorum Bible of Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode is invaluable. The comparison of the text with the ancient versions, and the study of Josephus’ history, which is, in the main, virtually a paraphrase, are matters of course.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF THE KINGS,

COMMONLY CALLED,

THE THIRD BOOK OF THE KINGS.

General Summary of the Book.—The narrative of this book falls naturally into three sections: First, (a) in 1 Kings 1-14. we have a comparatively detailed record of the accession and reign of Solomon, and of the revolution which produced the disruption both of the kingdom and of the worship of Israel. This record itself varies greatly, both in style and in fulness. In some parts it is graphic and full of spiritual interest; in some it is clearly marked by official, and almost technical, detail; while in others it is brief and summary in style, more like a series of historical notes than a regular narrative. But although it covers only about forty years, it occupies more than half of the entire book. Secondly, (b) in 1 Kings 15, 16 we find only short annalistic accounts of the succession in the two kingdoms, and the chief events of each reign, from Jeroboam to Ahab, and from Rehoboam to Jehoshaphat. Thirdly, (c) in 1 Kings 17-22, with the appearance of Elijah the whole style of the narrative changes to increased fulness, great vividness of description, and expressive spiritual significance, and so continues to the end of the book, and through that portion of the second Book which contains the close of the history of Elijah and the history of Elisha.

In this variety of character we see clear evidence of compilation from older sources—the annals of the kings, the official records of the Temple, and the biographies of the prophets. In it we find, moreover, distinct evidence of the historical accuracy of a record, which is full, where it can draw from detailed records, and contents itself with brief summary, where such materials are wanting. (On the chronology, see Introduction.)

The opening narrative of the beginning of Solomon’s reign, in 1 Kings 1-3, and especially of the accession to the throne, in 1 Kings 1, is given with remarkable vividness and unusual fulness of detail. When we read in 2Chronicles 9:29, that the acts of Solomon were written partly “in the book of Nathan the prophet,” it is impossible not to conjecture that the record of these early days is drawn from this book of one who had been a prominent actor in the whole.

1Ki 1:1-4.

アビシャグ、老いたダビデを世話する

1, 2. ダビデ王は老人になった——彼は七十歳になっていた

(2Sa 5:4, 5)。

しかし軍旅の労苦、肉体的疲労、精神的憂慮による消耗は、ダビデの強健な体格の精力を、もし言えるなら、早々と衰えさせてしまった

(1Sa 16:12)。

現代のパレスチナおよびエジプトでは、気候の暑さのため、人々はそれぞれ「別の」寝床で寝る。彼らがこの習慣を離れるのは、医学的理由がある場合のみである

(Ec 4:11)。

ダビデの侍医たちが勧めた処置は、東方、とりわけアラブ人の間で、同様の場合に今なお処方される養生法である——単に熱を加えるためではなく、「慈しむ」ためであり、若い息を吸い込むことが、衰えたからだに新しい生命と活力を与えることを彼らは知っているからである。若くて健康な人の健康が、まるで盗まれるようにして、より老いて病弱な者の生命を支えるのに用いられるという事実は、医学界においてよく確立されている。それゆえ、老王への処方は、彼の貴重な生命を延ばすための衛生学的観点からなされたものであって、単に彼のやせ衰えたからだに自然の暖かさがもたらす快さのためではない〔PORTER, Tent and Khan〕。その時代と国の多婚制が、この做法の導入を説明するであろう。また、アビシャグがダビデのめかけ、すなわち二級の妻とされたことは明らかである

(1Ki 2:22

参照)。

「今や」――むしろ「そして」と訳すべきである。この接続詞は、おそらく、ヨシュア記、士師記、サムエル記第一などの冒頭において持つのと同じ種類の連結力をここでも持っており、歴史家が自分の著作を先行する歴史記録の継続とみなしていることを暗示している。

「ダビデ王」――より単純な「ダビデ」の代わりに「ダビデ王」という表現を用いるのは、列王記の著者の特徴である（列王記の序論を見よ）。この句は、歴代誌とサムエル記では比較的まれである。

「年老いて」――ダビデはおそらくこのとき七十歳であった。彼はヘブロンで王とされたとき三十歳であった（サムエル記第二 5:4）。ヘブロンで七年六か月を統治し（サムエル記第二 2:11。歴代誌第一 3:4）、エルサレムで三十三年を統治した（サムエル記第二 5:5）。この表現はこれまで、八十歳を超えた人々についてのみ用いられてきた（創世記 18:11。創世記 24:1。ヨシュア記 13:1。ヨシュア記 23:1）。しかし、この時代のユダヤ人は長命ではなかった。ダビデ以後のユダヤの君主のうち、ソロモンとマナセを除いて、六十歳を超えた者はいない。

「衣」――おそらく「寝具」のことであろう。王は明らかに床に伏していた（列王記第一 1:47）。

Now King David was old - He was probably now about sixty-nine years of age. He was thirty years old when he began to reign, reigned forty, and died in the seventieth year of his age, 2 Samuel 5:4, and 1 Kings 2:11; and the transactions mentioned here are supposed to have taken place about a year before his death.

But he gat no heat - Sixty-nine was not an advanced age; but David had been exhausted with various fatigues, and especially by family afflictions, so that he was much older in constitution than he was in years. Besides he seems to have labored under some wasting maladies, to which there is frequent reference in the Psalms.