Page:EB1911 - Volume 15.djvu/843

Rh The annalistic notice in xxiii. 29 seq. (contrast xxii. 20) should precede v. 28; 2 Chron. xxxv. 20–27 gives another version in the correct position and ignores 2 Kings xxiii. 24–27 (see however the Septuagint). For the last four kings of Judah, the references to the worship at the high places (presumably abolished by Josiah) are wanting, and the literary source is only cited for Jehoiakim; xxiv. 3 seq. (and probably v. 2), which treat the fall of Judah as the punishment for Manasseh’s sins, are a Deuteronomistic insertion (2 Chron. xxxvi. 6 sqq. differs widely; see, however, the Septuagint); v. 13 seq. and v. 15 seq. are duplicates. With xxiv. 18–xxv. 21 cf. Jer. lii. 1–27 (the text of the latter, especially vv. 19 sqq. is superior); and the fragments ibid. xxxix. 1–10. Ch. xxv. 22–26 appears in much fuller form in Jer. xl. seq. (see xl. 7–9, xli. 1–3, 17 seq.). It is noteworthy that Jeremiah does not enter into the history in Kings (contrast Isaiah above). The book of Chronicles in general has a briefer account of the last years, and ignores both the narratives which also appear in Jeremiah and the concluding hopeful note struck by the restoration of Jehoiachin (xxv. 27–30). This last, with the addition of statistical data, forms the present conclusion also of the book of Jeremiah.

Conclusions.—A survey of these narratives as a whole strengthens our impression of the merely mechanical character of the redaction by which they are united. Though editors have written something of their own in almost every chapter, generally from the standpoint of religious pragmatism, there is not the least attempt to work the materials into a history in our sense of the word; and in particular the northern and southern histories are practically independent, being merely pieced together in a sort of mosaic in consonance with the chronological system, which we have seen to be really later than the main redaction. It is very probable that the order of the pieces was considerably readjusted by the author of the chronology; of this indeed the Septuagint still shows traces. But with all its imperfections as judged from a modern standpoint, the redaction has the great merit of preserving material nearer to the actual history than would have been the case had narratives been rewritten from much later standpoints—as often in the book of Chronicles.

Questions of date and of the growth of the literary process are still unsettled, but it is clear that there was an independent history of (north) Israel with its own chronological scheme. It was based upon annals and fuller political records, and at some period apparently passed through circles where the purely domestic stories of the prophets (Elisha) were current. This was ultimately taken over by a Judaean editor who was under the influence of the far-reaching reforms ascribed to the 18th year of Josiah (621 ). Certain passages seem to imply that in his time the Temple was still standing and the Davidic dynasty uninterrupted. Also the phrase “unto this day” sometimes apparently presupposes a pre-exilic date. On the other hand, the history is carried down to the end of Jehoiachin’s life (xxv. 27 refers to his fifty-fifth year, vv. 29 seq. look back on his death), and a number of allusions point decisively to the post-exilic period. Consequently, most scholars are agreed that an original pre-exilic Deuteronomic compilation made shortly after Josiah’s reforms received subsequent additions from a later Deuteronomic writer.

These questions depend upon several intricate literary and historical problems. At the outset (a) the compiler deals with history from the Deuteronomic standpoint, selecting certain notices and referring further to separate chronicles of Israel and Judah. The canonical book of Chronicles refers to such a combined work, but is confined to Judah; it follows the religious judgment passed upon the kings, but it introduces new details apparently derived from extant annals, replaces the annalistic excerpts found in Kings by other passages, or uses new narratives which at times are clearly based upon older sources. Next (b) the Septuagint proves that Kings did not reach its present form until a very late date; “each represents a stage and not always the same stage in the long protracted labours of the redactors” (Kuenen). In agreement with this are the unambiguous indications of the post-exilic age (especially

in the Judaean history) consisting of complete passages, obvious interpolations, and also sporadic phrases in narratives whose pre-exilic origin is sometimes clear and sometimes only to be presumed. Further (c), the Septuagint supports the independent conclusion that the elaborate synchronisms belong to a late stage in the redaction. Consequently it is necessary to allow that the previous arrangement of the material may have been different; the actual wording of the introductory notices was necessarily also affected. In general, it becomes ever more difficult to distinguish between passages incorporated by an early redactor and those which may have been inserted later, though possibly from old sources. Where the regular framework is disturbed such considerations become more cogent. The relation of annalistic materials in 1 Sam. (xiii. i; xiv. 47–51, &c.) to the longer detailed narratives will bear upon the question, as also the relation of 2 Sam. ix–xx. to 1 Kings i. seq. (see ). Again (d) the lengths of the reigns of the Judaean kings form an integral part of the framework, and their total, with fifty years of exile, allows four hundred and eighty years from the beginning of the Temple to the return from Babylon. This round number (cf. again 1 Kings vi. 1) points to a date subsequent to 537, and Robertson Smith has observed that almost all events dated by the years of the kings of Jerusalem have reference to the affairs of the Temple. This suggests a connexion between the chronology and the incorporation of those narratives in which the Temple is clearly the centre of interest. (e) But, apart from the question of the origin of the more detailed Judaean records, the arguments for a pre-exilic Judaean Deuteronomic compilation are not quite decisive. The phrase “unto this day” is not necessarily valid (cf. 2 Chron. v. 9, viii. 8, xxi. 10 with 1 Kings viii. 8, ix. 21, 2 Kings viii. 22), and depends largely upon the compiler’s sagacity. Also, the existence of the Temple and of the Davidic dynasty (1 Kings viii. 14–53; ix. 3; xi. 36–38; xv. 4; 2 Kings viii. 19; cf. 2 Chron. xiii. 5) is equally applicable to the time of the second temple when Zerubbabel, the Davidic representative, kindled new hopes and aspirations. Indeed, if the object of the Deuteronomic compiler is to show from past history that “the sovereign is responsible for the purity of the national religion” (Moore, ''Ency. Bib. col. 2079), a date somewhere after the death of Jehoiachin (released in 561) in the age of Zerubbabel and the new Temple equally satisfies the conditions. With this is concerned (f'') the question whether, on historical grounds, the account of the introduction of Deuteronomic reforms by Josiah is trustworthy. Moreover, although a twofold Deuteronomic redaction of Kings is generally recognized, the criteria for the presumably pre-exilic form are not so decisive as those which certainly distinguish the post-exilic portions, and it is frequently very difficult to assign Deuteronomic passages to the earlier rather than to the later. Again, apart from the contrast between the Israelite detailed narratives (relatively early) and those of Judaean origin (often secondary), it is noteworthy that the sympathetic treatment of northern history in 2 Kings xiii. 4 seq. 23, xiv. 26 has literary parallels in the Deuteronomic redaction of Judges (where Israelite tradition is again predominant), but is quite distinct from the hostile feeling to the north which is also Deuteronomic. Even the northern prophet (q.v.) approximates the Deuteronomic standpoint, and the possibility that the first Deuteronomic compilation of Kings could originate outside Judah is