圣经注释书

本章记载如下：I. 大卫健康日渐衰弱，王上1:1-4。II. 亚多尼雅觊觎王位，为此设宴拢聚党羽，王上1:5-10。III. 拿单与拔示巴筹划确保所罗门继位，并求得大卫为此颁布旨意，王上1:11-31。IV. 所罗门因此受膏，百姓为此欢喜，王上1:32-40。V. 此举有效遏制了亚多尼雅的篡位图谋，其党羽随之散去，王上1:41-49。VI. 所罗门以宽待之条件遣散亚多尼雅，王上1:50-53。

《列王纪上、下》引言

希腊文译者——即七十士译本的译者们——曾将《摩西的律法书》分为五部分，将《撒母耳记》分为两卷；他们也将原本为一卷的《列王纪》分为"上""下"两卷，这一划分如今几乎被普遍采用。由此形成的分卷，自然为根据希腊文译成的早期拉丁文译本所沿袭；当耶柔米（Jerome）刊行如今所称的《武加大译本》（Vulgate）时，他也遵循了当时已经确立的惯例。西方教会普遍采用《武加大译本》，使七十士译本所引入的这一编排获得了几乎普遍的接纳。

本书的名称出自其内容，因为全书的整个主题，乃是从所罗门登基到巴比伦之掳这段时期以色列与犹大诸"王"的历史。

1. 本书的统一性由其纲要显著而醒目的简洁与规整所证明。全书自始至终是在同一体系、同一尺度之下，严格按年代顺序写成的诸王历史。对少数几位君王的在位时期给予较大篇幅，似乎是这种统一性的例外，其实这是出于一项写作原则：对在神治国度意义上最重要的历史部分，叙述得最为详尽。

统一性的第二个证据，是风格与语言总体上的一致——这种一致性为所有作者所承认，只在两三处略有偏离；那几处的不规则，可以由作者所用史料来源的不同，以及他紧随那些史料中原有措辞的做法来解释。

在这些概括性的证据要点之外，还可举出贯穿两卷书的思想或表达上的若干特性，这一切都或强或弱地指向同一位作者。

2. 有人根据叙事的连贯性、风格的大体相似、以及若干词语与短语的使用共通，认为从《士师记》起到《列王纪下》止的六卷"书"出自同一位作者之手，实际上构成一部完整不间断的著作。另一些人则认为这些论证远非定论。叙事的连贯性只是形式上的，可能出于某位修订者后来的编排——人们通常认为以斯拉就是这样一位修订者。

单就语言的惯用法而论，我们或许确实无法在《列王纪》与《撒母耳记》之间划出一条明显的界线。但《列王纪》作者最具特色的许多特点，在另一部（可能成书更早的）著作中完全不见。基于这些及其他理由，《列王纪》诸卷可以主张其独特性与独立性。

3. 撇开一切传统记载不谈，一部历史著作的年代可以凭两项根据来断定，即措辞的特点与内容。

《列王纪》的语言无疑属于被掳时期。它晚于以赛亚、阿摩司、何西阿、弥迦、约珥和那鸿的语言，早于《历代志》、《以斯拉记》、《尼希米记》、《哈该书》和《撒迦利亚书》的语言。就总体特征而言，它与耶利米和以西结的语言十分相近，可以定于主前第六世纪。

从内容所得的结果与此相似，只是略微更加明确。假定全书末尾独立成段的部分（2 Kings 25:27-30）是全书不可分割的组成部分，我们便得到主前561年——即以未米罗达元年——作为本书写成的最早可能年代。再则，鉴于本书对犹太人从被掳归回一事完全没有提及，我们又得到主前538年，即所罗巴伯率领归回的那一年，作为最晚可能年代；换言之，即在尼布甲尼撒去世与居鲁士在巴比伦登基之间。语言学及其他方面的考虑有利于认为实际成书是在这一时期的早期——约主前560年；而本书的大部分早至主前580年——即约二十年前——就已写成，也并非没有可能。

4. 犹太传统将《列王纪》的作者归于耶利米；支持这一观点的论证极有分量。《列王纪》的语言与这位先知公认著作的语言之间，有一种非常显著的亲和性。再者，就两部著作所论及的相同事件而言，二者内容处于最紧密的和谐之中；那些被特意挑选收录的要点，正是耶利米亲知亲历并特别关注的事。另一个颇具分量的论证，来自《列王纪》对耶利米其人只字不提这一事实；考虑到耶利米在如此多王朝的事务中扮演了重要角色，这在任何别的史家笔下都会显得非常奇怪、极不自然；但若假定他是《列王纪》的作者，这一点便完全可以理解：那时这省略就是一种得体的谦逊与无私的自然结果与凭据。尽管如此，虽然通盘考虑之下，耶利米的作者身份似乎极有可能，我们必须承认它尚未被证实，因此在某种程度上仍属不确定。

5. 《列王纪》的作者引用了三部著作作为其历史内容的权威依据：

（1）"所罗门记"（1 Kings 11:41）；

（2）"以色列诸王记"（1 Kings 14:19 等）；

（3）"犹大诸王记"（1 Kings 14:29 等）。

他自己的历史记述至少有一部分取材于这些著作。此外还有一些较小的著作可供他使用。再者，这位作者大概还能利用一部性质与《历代志》作者所引任何著作都不同的作品，即一份以利沙神迹的汇编，它很可能成于先知学校之一。

因此，《列王纪》的史料来源可谓三重：第一，是若干通称"诸王记"的一般性历史文献；第二，是论及个别短暂时期历史的专门著述；第三，是一部性质非常特殊的作品——一位杰出人物的私人传记。

"诸王记"诸书的性质大概属于公共档案，即国家编年史，由一位受托之人执笔，记下每位君王在位期间主要公共事件的记述。在以色列人中，这位受托之人几乎在每种情形下都是先知。先知们将这视为自己的主要职责之一，从以下例子可以看出：以赛亚（2 Chronicles 26:22；Isaiah 36-38）、耶利米（Jer. 39-43:7；52）和但以理（Dan. 1-6）。每逢一位君王在位结束（甚至可能在位期间），当时位居最高的先知大概就会在"诸王记"上作出增补。

但先知们除了这些正式的官方著述之外，还撰写了规模稍大、尤其在宗教事项的记述上更为详备的历史著作。例如，可以比较以赛亚书历史篇章（Isa. 36-39）中的先知性专论与《列王纪下》平行篇章（2 Kings 18-20）中较为枯燥的"诸王记"节录之间的差异。也可将 Jeremiah 39-44 与 2 Kings 25:1-26 加以比较。再者，大体上将《历代志》所记历史与《列王纪》相应历史加以比较，便可看出：《历代志》的作者大体上依据诸位先知作者的单独著作，而《列王纪》的作者则主要依据官方文献。《历代志》中最显著的，莫过于犹大宗教历史的更大完备性；这主要来自诸先知著作，也标明这些著作的性质与国家编年史的一般性质形成对照。

《列王纪》的作者主要是一位编纂者。他将自己所用早期作者的各种叙述加以挑选、编排，织成一个整体。这一点从两方面可以看出：一是个别叙述中保留了陈旧或地方性的语形，二是书中出现若干在编纂者写作之时已不适宜的陈述。

2 Kings 18:15-20:19 与 Isaiah 36-39 之间逐字的高度吻合，只能出于一事：作者原封不动地摘录了国家编年史中所载以赛亚对希西家在位时期的记述。而《历代志》与《列王纪》大部分内容之间的逐字吻合，往往最好用两位作者从同一权威来源逐字摘录来解释。

另一方面，《列王纪》的作者有时也偏离其所据作者的措辞，换上纯粹出自他本人的表达。书中也有显然属于原创的段落。支持耶利米为作者的论证，尤其建立在本书的这些部分之上。

6. 就文献学而论，文本的总体状况良好。但史家不得不为一处不健全之病慨叹：它虽然丝毫不损这两卷书的宗教性质，却有损它们作为文献的价值——其中包含着世界世俗历史的一个重要部分。《列王纪》流传至今的数字并不可靠：它们部分自相矛盾，部分与其他圣经记载相抵触，部分难以置信，甚至不可能。这一缺陷似乎出于两个原因：一个为希伯来圣经所共有，另一个为这两卷书所独有。

共有的原因是讹误：部分由于其中的错误很少受上下文的核查纠正，部分由于职业文士采用了某种缩略记数法，而他们所用的符号彼此混淆。

特有的致误原因，似乎是一位注释者原先写在页边的年代注释被插入正文。书中出现的第一个年代（1 Kings 6:1）似乎就是这种性质的旁注，而以色列与犹大两朝之间成系列的王位对照纪年，也可疑是出于类似的来源。原著很可能只给出"诸王记"中归于每位王的年数，而不进一步讨论这一问题：每一王登基时，姊妹国之当代君王在位第几年。若从书中除去这些部分，年代学的主要困难和几乎一切实际的矛盾便都消失了。

除此以外，《列王纪》上下两卷书就一切要点而言，是以完全健全的状况传到我们手中的。七十士译本与希伯来文本有重大差异的唯一地方是 1 Kings 12：在 1 Kings 12:24 与 1 Kings 12:25 之间，有一段论尼八的儿子耶罗波安的长文字，如今不见于希伯来文本。但这段文字显然不是原叙述的一部分。它是一篇仿次经《以斯得拉》风格的故事，由圣经史实加工而成，并附有增添；那位亚历山大的作者或许从他能见到的某种犹太权威资料中取材，但这些材料肯定不是来自《列王纪》的作者。其中除可能的一处——即罗波安登基时的年龄——以外，没有一个事实属于我们这位史家真实叙述的一部分。

7. 本书的首要性质无疑是历史性的。作者的主要目的，是记述从所罗门登基到西底家被掳期间以色列与犹大诸王的历史。

然而，这部历史不是像大多数历史那样从世俗观点、而是从宗教观点写成的。犹太人在书中不是被视为一个寻常国度，而是被视为神的子民。这位史家并不力求展示他所记诸国的纯政治进展，而是要向我们描述神如何对待那与他立约的民族。在他记载世俗历史事件之处，他的方针乃是追溯那赐给大卫、兼含警告与应许之言（2 Samuel 7:12-16）的应验。

因此，一位寻常史家会认为十分重要的事件，可能（也确实）被我们的作者从叙述中略去，或只是轻率仓促地带过。他以极简之笔处理示撒攻取耶路撒冷（1 Kings 14:25-26）、亚比央与耶罗波安之战（1 Kings 15:7）、亚玛谢与以东之战（2 Kings 14:7）以及约西亚与法老尼哥之战（2 Kings 23:29）——这些事件在《历代志》的平行经文中都有详尽的记载。按照通例，两国的军事史——它们无疑曾被仔细记于"诸王记"中——被《列王纪》的作者略去；对于那些本会在寻常世俗史中最为显赫的事件，他大都满足于请读者查阅国家编年史。

另一方面，作者的特殊目的促使他把显著地位和充分论述给予那些世俗史家会轻轻带过或默然略过的事件。众先知的教导和他们的神迹，是当时宗教史上的要点；正是特别因着他们，百姓的背道才无可推诿。因此，这位必须说明——尽管有大卫所得的应许，耶路撒冷仍被毁灭、全部十二支派被掳——的史家，必须充分陈明这严厉审判的根据，因而必须详述那些如此大大加重百姓罪咎的情节。

他所要叙述之历史的性质、其总体倾向与最终结局，自然而然地给他的全部叙述罩上一层阴郁的气氛。本书的笔调与耶利米确凿无疑之著作的笔调相合，这为那位先知的作者身份提供了一个附加的论证。

《列王纪》的文体大体平稳划一——是一种朴素的叙述文体。间或透出更为崇高的格调，文体随主题而升高，在某些地方几乎成为诗体（1 Kings 19:11-12；2 Kings 19:21-31）。最引人注目的篇章是 1 Kings 8、18、19；2 Kings 5、9、18、19、20。

8. 我们这两卷书所载叙述的总体真实性是公认的。除了主要聚集在以利亚和以利沙两位人物周围的神迹部分之外，几乎没有什么被否认或质疑。有些批评者虽然承认叙述总体上取材于真实的同时代文献——或为国家编年史，或为同时代先知的著作——却主张以利亚和以利沙的历史来自一个完全不同的来源：他们认为，这些是两位人物去世多年之后，由《列王纪》的作者或另一个人从普通百姓口中收集的传说汇编。因此，照他们的说法，这些记载带有"传奇"或"神话"的性质。

但是，并没有任何批判上的根据，可以把以利亚的记载、或以利沙记载中一小部分之外的内容，从书中其余部分分离出去。以利亚的历史尤其与以色列国的历史交织得如此紧密，整体上又具有如此公开的性质，以致"以色列诸王记"几乎必然包含对它的记载；以利沙历史的一个重要部分也具有类似性质。再者，设想这记述并非当代之作，或设想它被留给一位生活在很久之后的作者去把这些杰出人物的事迹汇编成册，都是全然无据的。或然性恰恰相反。既然先知们本身就是当时的史家，那么以利沙收集以利亚的神迹和其他杰出事迹，而他自己的事迹在他去世后由某位"先知门徒"收集起来，便再自然不过。此外，书中所载的神迹，都带有出自目击者描述的气象，充满传统绝无可能保存的那种细微详备的情节。总的结果似乎是这样：（除非我们以"先验的"不可能为由，把神迹一概当作不足置信而加以拒斥）《列王纪》中这两位以色列大先知的记载，必须被视为与其余叙述同样有资格获得接受。

内部的或然性与一致性，以及外部的见证，都强力支持《列王纪》所载世俗历史的总体真实性。所罗门的帝国属于早期东方历史使我们熟悉的那一类帝国；它恰好出现于一个因埃及与亚述同时衰弱而留有产生空间的时期；它迅速的扩张和更为迅速的收缩，与我们关于东方统治的其他记载相合；它的艺术与文明，与已知大约同期盛行于邻近国家的情形相似。在我们两卷书所涵盖的时期内，犹太地与埃及、亚述和巴比伦的往来，与埃及编年史相符，并在某些方面得到楔形文字铭文最为显著的印证。贝罗索斯（Berosus）、马涅托（Manetho）、门安德（Menander）、狄乌斯（Dius）——巴比伦、埃及和推罗的异教史家——与诸碑铭一同，为本书作者的真实与准确提供支持，正如下文附于经文的注释将充分证明的。

甚至年代学较宽泛的轮廓，也既在内部具有或然性，又在外部得到他国年代学的印证。从所罗门登基到西底家被掳的间隔被记为433½年，分配于二十一位君王，他们属于十八代（若把约雅斤除外，则为十七代）。这样，每代便有25½年这一十分合理的年限。在年代记载出现双重、内部主要困难也集中发生的那些历史段落，两套纪年方案的分歧很小，在240或250年中总计不超过约二十年。埃及编年史近似地证实了示撒入侵和与梭结盟的圣经年代。亚述编年史与希伯来记载在撒玛利亚陷落的年代上一致，并且同样把哈薛与耶户、提革拉毗列色与亚哈斯、西拿基立与希西家、以撒哈顿与玛拿西呈现为同时代的人。年代学上的困难——在确有困难之处——完全不超过每位读世俗史家著作的人都熟悉的那类困难；事实上，这类困难弥漫于整个古代年代学。它们一部分可以由计算方式的差异来解释；而偶尔无疑也出于讹误的读法，或未经授权的添插。

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.

亚比煞在大卫晚年侍奉他

1、2. 大卫王年纪老迈——他当时七十岁了

(2Sa 5:4, 5)。

但因军旅生涯的劳顿、身体的疲惫与精神的忧烦,大卫强壮的体质已过早地(我们可以这样说)衰竭了

(1Sa 16:12)。

在今日的巴勒斯坦和埃及,因气候炎热,人们各睡「单独的」床。除非出于医疗原因,他们不会改变这一习惯

(Ec 4:11)。

大卫的御医所建议的权宜之计,正是东方至今在类似情况下仍采用的疗法,尤其是在阿拉伯人中,不仅是为了取暖,更是为了「保养」,因为他们知道吸入年轻人的气息能给衰弱的身体注入新的生命力与活力。年轻健康之人的生命力仿佛被偷来维持年迈病弱者之健康,这一事实在医学界已得到充分证实。因此,为这位年迈的君王所开的处方,是从养生角度出发,为延长他宝贵的生命,而不仅仅是为了给他干瘪的躯体带来天然温暖所提供的舒适[PORTER, Tent and Khan]。那个时代和那个地区的多妻制或许可以解释这一做法的由来;显然,亚比煞被纳为大卫的妾或次妻(参见

1Ki 2:22)。

Now——宜译作"而"。这个连接词在此大概具有与《约书亚记》、《士师记》、《撒母耳记上》等书开篇处相同的连接作用，表明这位史家视自己的著作为前一部历史的延续。

"大卫王"——用"大卫王"而不用较简单的"大卫"，是《列王纪》作者笔法的特征（见《列王纪》引言）。这一说法在《历代志》和《撒母耳记》中比较罕见。

"年纪老迈"——大卫此时大约已届七十岁。他三十岁在希伯仑受膏作王（2 Samuel 5:4）；在希伯仑作王七年零六个月（2 Samuel 2:11；1 Chronicles 3:4）；又在耶路撒冷作王三十三年（2 Samuel 5:5）。这一用语此前只用于八十岁以上的人（Genesis 18:11；Genesis 24:1；Joshua 13:1；Joshua 23:1）；但当时的犹太人寿命不长。大卫以后，除所罗门和玛拿西以外，没有一位犹太君王活过六十岁。

"衣服"——大概指"被褥"。这位王显然已卧床不起（1 Kings 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.