Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 8.djvu/733

 KINGS

653

KINGS

Jeremias was the author, we have to accept the ex- planation that he did not consider it suitable to relate here what he had set forth at length in liis prophecy. Furthermore, Jer., lii, the narrative of the events in which Jeremias's predictions were fulfilled, is taken almost verbatim from IV Kings, xxiv, IS-xxv 30. The compiler of the Prophecy of Jeremias felt justified in doing this, inasmuch as, in his opinion, the Books of Kings were by the same author. There is an un- doubted resemblance in language and style lietween this historical book and the Prophecy of Jeremias. The same expressions occur in both writings (compare, for instance, III Ivings, ii, 4, with Jer., xx.xiii, 17; III lungs, ix, S, with Jer., xviii, 16, and xix, 8, also Lara., ii, 15; IV lungs, xxi, 12, with Jer., xix, 3; IV Kings, xxi, 13, 14, with Jer., xxx, 16, and xxii, 17, also Lara., ii, S). If Jeremias be indeed the author, it must be accepted as probable that he wrote the book not long before, or shortly after, the fall of Jerusalem (5S7 B.C.); the last verses (xxv, 27-30) have possibly been added by a different hand. The style, especially in the second chapter, is entirely different from that of the Books of Samuel (I and II Ivings). The well-devel- oped and comprehensive presentation of those books differs noticeably from the dry and chronicle-like re- ports about most of the kings. Besides, the Books of Samuel never refer to those lost books which served as sources and which contained fuller particulars, while the Books of Kings are full of such references. In the latter books the chronology is very clearly set down; for instance, as long as the two kingdoms exist simul- taneously, in considering the history of one king, the year in which the contemporary king of the other kingdom acceded to the throne and the length of his reign are both indicated. Such notices are entirely absent from the Books of Samuel. P>om them it is even impossible to discover how long Samuel and Saul governed. Moreover, the historian of III and IV Kings himself passes judgment on every king of Israel and of Juda as to whether he did right or wrong in the eyes of God; whereas the Books of Samuel simply give the judgments of other historians or leave it to the reader to judge for himself.

The Books of Kings cover a period of about four centuries, from the time of the last years of David until the fall of Jerusalem. They do not give the complete history of Israel during this period ; such was not the purpose of the writer. He omits many important events or barely alludes to them. For the political history of the two kingdoms, the military exploits of the kings, their public achievements, he constantly refers to three other writings which, at that time, were still in existence. By these references he wishes to indicate that he does not intend to relate everything which may be found in those sources. Whoever wanted information concerning the wars, the treaties, and public acts was to consult the writings referred to. In the Book of Kings, as is shown by its contents, another matter predominates, namely, the relation of each king to revealed religion. For this reason, the narrator judges the conduct of each king, treats more extensively the history of those kings who fostered or brought religion to a flourishing state (such as Solo- mon, Ezechias, Josias), or who had, on the contrary, wrought it great harm (Jeroboam I, Achab, and Joram) ; and therefore he relates particularly what the prophets did to bring back the kings and people to the observance of the laws of religion and to spur them on. The object the writer had in view he indi- cates very clearly in the epilogue which follows the story of the fall of Israel (IV Kings, xvii, 7 sqq.). With emphasis he points out the cause: "They wor- shipped strange gods . . . and they hearkened not [to the warnings of the prophets] . . . and they re- jected the covenant that he [God] made with their fathers . . . And the Lord was very angry with Israel, and removed them from his sight, and there

remained only the tribe of Juda. But neither did Juda itself keep the conunandments of the Lord their God: but they walked in the errors of Israel. . . And the Lord cast off all the seed of Israel." Ill lungs, ii, 3, 4; ix, 3-9; xi, 11, 33-39; xiv, 7-11; xvi, 12 sqq.; IV Kings, x, 30-33; xiii,3; xxi, 11-16; xxii, 15-17; xxiv, 3-20, bring out the same idea. In this manner the writer teaches that the unlawful cult offered in the liigh places and the idolatry practised both by kings and people in spite of the admonitions of the prophets were the cause of the downfall of Israel and of Juda. Still this is not the entire purpose of the work. The repeated calling to mind of the promises of the God Who had pledgeil a permanent reign to David, the acknowledgment of the mercy of the God Who, on account of David, Ezechias, and Josias, had suspended the judgment pronounced upon Juda — all this served to revive the hope and confidence of the remnant of the people. From this they were to learn that God, just in His wrath, was also merciful in His promises to David and would be faithful to His promise of sending the Messias, whose kingdom should enilure. Not unappropriately this whole work may be called an historical elucidation and explanation of Nathan's oracle (II Kings, vii, 12-16).

The writings upon which the Books of Kings are based and to which they refer more than thirty times are: the " book of the words of the days of Solomon" (III Kings, xi, 41), the " book of the words of the days [A. v., book of the chronicles] of the kings of Israel" (xiv, 19; etc.), and the " book of the words of the days of the kings of Juda" (xiv, 29; etc.). In the opinion of many, these "chronicles" are the official annals kept by the chancellors of the different kings. How- ever, it is by no means certain that the office desig- nated by the Hebrew word mazkir signifies chancellor (Vulg. a commcntariis); still less certain is it that it was part of the duty of the chancellor, who belonged to the king's household, to keep these annals. It is true that David (II Kings, viii, 16), Solomon (III Kings, iv, 3), Ezechias (IV Kings, xviii, IS), and Josias (II Par., xxxiv, S) counted among their officials a mazkir, but whether the other kings of Juda and of Israel employed such an officer we find nowhere indi- cated. Even if it were historically certain that so- called year-books were kept in the two kingdoms by the chancellors, and had been preserved in Israel in spite of so many revolutions and regicides, there re- mains still the question whether these are really the "chronicles" which serve as a basis for the Books of Kings. The chronicles of other peoples, as far as they have been preserved in cimeiform characters and otherwise, contain exclusively that which contributes to the glory of the kings, their deeds of arms, the edi- fices they built, etc. Our historical work, however, also relates the sins, prevarications, and other atroci- ties of the kings, which were not likely to be recorded in the year-books by court officials during the lifetime of their kings. According to IV Kings, xxi, 17, "The acts of Manasses . . . and his sin which he sinned, are they not written in the book of the words of the days [A. V. book of the chronicles — II lungs, xxi, 17] of the kings of Juda?"

We may endeavour to determine the nature of these sources in another way. By comparing the accounts in the Books of Kings and those in II Par., one is im- mediately struck by two things: With frequent verbal similarity, both works carefulh' indicate the sources which have been consulted. The history of Solomon's reign, III Kings, i-xi, is told in II Par., i-ix, in almost the .same manner, and while III Kings, xi, 41, refers to the " book of the words of the days of Solomon ", II Par., ix, 29, refers in the same formula ("The rest of", etc.) to "the words of Nathan the prophet, and the books of Ahias the Silonite, and the vision of Addo the seer". The history of Roboam the author of the Books of Kings takes from the "book of the