Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 8.djvu/729

 KINGS

649

KINGS

that it is impossilile to determine the length of the period covered by them. The position taken by the author of III-I V, with regard to the facts he relates, is also quite different from that of the author of the other two. The former praises or blames the acts of the various rulers, especially with respect to forbidding or allowing sacrifices outside the sanctuary, while the latter rarely expresses a judgment and rcpeati'.lly records sacrifices contrary to the prescriptions of the Pentateuch without a word of censure or comment. Lastly, there is a marked difference in style between the two sets of books; the last two show decided Aramaic influence, whereas the first two Ijelong to the best period of Ilelirew literature. At the most, it might be said that the first two chapters of the third book originally were part of the Book of Samuel, and were later detached by the author of the Book of Kings to serve as an introduction to the history of Solomon; but even this is doubtfvd. These chapters are not required by the object which the author of the Book of Samuel had in view, and the work is a com- plete whole without them. Besides, the summary, 11, XX, 23-26, sufficiently marks the conclusion of the history of David. In any case these two chapters are so closely connected with the following that they must have belonged to the Book of Kings from its very beginning.

The general subject of I-II Kings is the foundation and development of the Kingdom of Israel, the history of Samuel being merely a preliminary section intended to explain the circumstances which brought about the establisliment of the royal form of government. On closer examination of the contents, however, it is seen that the author is guided by a leading idea in the choice of his matter, and that his main object is not to give a history of the first two kings of Israel, but to relate the providential foundation of a permanent royal dynasty in the family of David. This strikingly appears in the account of Saul's reign, which may be summarized in the words: elected, found wanting, and rejected in favour of David. The detailed history of the struggle between David and Saul and liis house is plainly intended to show how David, the chosen of the Lord, was providentially preserved amid many imminent dangers and how he ultimately triumphed, while Saul perished with his house. The early events of David's rule over united Israel are told in few words, even such an important fact as the capture of Jerusa- lem being little insisted on, but his zeal for God's worship and its reward in the solemn promise that his throne would last forever (II, vii, 11-10) are related in full detail. The remaining chapters tell how, in pur- suance of this promise, God helps him to extend and consolidate his kingdom, and does not abandon him even after his great crime, though he punishes him in his tenderest feelings. The conclusion shows him in peaceful possession of the throne after two dangerous rebellions. The whole story is thus built around a central idea and reaches its climax in the Messianic promise, II, vii, 11 sqq. Besides this main object a secondary one may be observed, which is to convey to king and people the lesson that to obtain God's protection they must oI>serve His commands.

Author and D.\te. — The Talmud attributes to Samuel the whole work bearing his name; this strange opinion was later adopted by St. Gregory the Great, who naively persuaded himself that Samuel wTote the events which occurred after liis death by prophetic revelation. Rabbinical tradition and most of the older Christian writers ascribe to this prophet the part referring to his time (I, i-xxiv), the rest to the Proph- ets Gad and Nathan. This view is evidently based on I Par., xxix, 29, " Now the acts of king David first and last are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, an<l in the book of Gad the seer." But the wording of the text indicates that there is question of three distinct works. Besides,

the unity of plan and the close connexion between the different parts exclude composite authorship ; we must at least admit a redactor who combineti the three narra- tives. Tliis redactor, according to Hummelauer, is the prophet Nathan; the work, however, can hardly be placed so early. Others attribute it to Isaias, Jereraias, Ezechias, or Esdras. None of these opinions rests on any solid ground, and we can only say that the author is unknown.

The same diversity of opinion exists as to the date of composition. Hummelauer assigns it to the last days of Da\-id. Vigouroux, Cornely, Lesetre, and Thenius place it under Roboam; Kaulen, under Abiara the son of Roboam; Haevernick, not long after David; Ewald, some thirty years after Solomon; Clair, be- tween the death of David and the destruction of the Kingdom of Juda. According to recent critics it be- longs to the seventh century, but received retouches as late as the fifth or even the fourth century. No sufficient data are at hand to fix a precise date. We can, however, assign certain limits of time within which the work must have been composed. The ex- planation concerning the dress of the king's daughters in David's time (II, xiii, IS) supposes that a con.sider- able period had elapsed in the interval, and points to a date later than Solomon, during whose reign a change in the style of dress was most likely introduced by liis foreign wives. How much later is indicated by the remark: "For wfiich reason Siceleg belongeth to the kings of Juda unto this day" (I, xxvii, 6). The expression kings of Juda implies that at the time of WTiting the Kingdom of Israel had been divided, and that at least two or three kings had reigned over Juda alone. The earliest date cannot, therefore, be placed before the reign of Abiam. The latest date, on the other hand, must be assigned to a time prior to Jo- sias's reform (621 B.C.). As has been remarked, the author repeatedlj' records without censure or com- ment violations of the Pentateuchal law regarding sacrifices. Now it is not likely that he would have acted thus if he had written after these practices had been abolished and their unlawfulness impressed on the people, since at this time his readers would have taken scandal at the violation of the Law by such a person as Samuel, and at the toleration of unlawful rites by a king like David. The force of this reason will be seen if we consider how the author of III-IV Kings, who wrote after Josias's reform, censures every departure from the Law in tliis respect or, as in III, iii, 2, explains it. The purity of language speaks for an early rather than a late date within the above limits. The appendix, however, may possibly be due to a somewhat later hantl. Moreover, additions by a subsequent inspired revisor may be admitted with- out difficulty.

Sources. — It is now universally recognized that the author of I-II Kings made use of written documents in composing his work. One such document, " The Book of the Just", is mentioned in connexion with David's lament over Saul and Jonathan (II, i, IS). The canti- cle of Anna (I, ii, 1-10), David's hymn of thanksgiv- ing (II, xxii, 2-51; cf. Ps. xvii), and his "last words" were very probably also drawn from a written source. But besides these minor sources, the writer must have had at hand, at least for the history of David, a docu- ment containing much of the historical matter which he narrates. This we infer from the passages common to I-II Kings and the First Book of Paralipomenon (Chronicles), which are shown in the following list: —

I K.xxxi

I Par., X. 1-12

IIK.,viii

IPar.,xviii

UK., iii, 2-5

iii, 1-4

X, 1-xi, 1

xix, 1-xx, 1

V, 1-10

xi, 1-9

xii. 26-31

XX, 1-3

V. 11-25

xiv, 1-16

xxi, 18-22

XX, 4-8

vi, 1-11

xiii. 1-14

xxiii,8-39

xi. 10-46

vi, 12-2.i

XV, 25-29 X-.;. 1-3, 43