(8) Sources. The sources whence this historic information has been derived have been various ly named. That annals contemporary with the events which they describe were written in the early period of the Jewish state, may be at once admitted. Eichhorn supposes that the sources of 'Kings' were private historical works (Einleit. sec. 482). De Wette, from the legends related in them, cannot believe them to be official docu ments. Bertholdt, Havernick, and Movers hold that the books are extracts from the public annals (comp. Havernick, sec. 169). The inspired his toriographer refers his readers to these sources of evidence in such frequent phrases as 'the rest of the acts.' Such a reference is made especially to the sources, when other royal acts than those narrated in the books of Kings are glanced at. These sources are styled the book of the Chron icles of the kings of Judah, or Israel. Similar phraseology is used in Esther x :2 ; vi to note the official annals of the Persian empire. Public documents are spoken of in the same way (Neh. xii :23). There is little reason to suppose that the book referred to in this last passage is that styled Chronicles in our copy of the Scrip tures (Movers, Chronik, sec. 234). So we infer that the 'Book of the Chronicles of the Kings,' so often alluded to, was an authentic document, public and official. Once indeed mention is made of a work entitled 'The Book of the Acts of Solo mon.' (9) Contemporaneous Events Recorded by the Prophets. That the prophets themselves were employed in recording contemporaneous events, is evident from 2 Chron. xx :34; Chron. xxix :29. In the course of the narrative we meet with many instances of description, having the freshness and form of nature, and which are ap parently direct quotations from some journal, written by one who testified what he had seen 0 Kings xx:io; 2 Kings xii:r5 ; xiv :8). Thus
the credibility of the history contained in these books rests upon a sure foundation.
(10) The Compiler. Now, the compiler from these old documents—he who shaped them into the form they have in our present books of Kings —must have lived in a late age. The Second Book of Kings concludes with an account of the liberation of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, from prison in Babylon—an event which, according to Jahn, happened in the twenty-sixth, or according to Prideaux, in the twenty-eighth year after the destruction of Jerusalem. Jahn and Havernick place the composition of 'Kings' in the reign of Evil-merodach ; and De Wette, towards the end of the Captivity. Instances of later phraseology occurring in the books of Kings are given by De Wette (sec. 115, 6). Jewish tradition makes Jeremiah the author (Baba-bathra, fol. 15, 1). Calmet ascribes the authorship to Ezra. The former opinion, adopted by Grotius, and lately revindicated by Havernick, certainly appears the more probable. It explains the close similarity of the books of Kings and Jeremiah in spirit, style, and tendency, more easily and more satisfactorily than the supposition of De Wette, or any other conjecture of like nature.
The age of the books of Kings may be inter mediate between the early work of Samuel and the later treatise of Chronicles. J. B.
(11) Literature : Hales, A nalysis ; Bunsen, F.gyfil's Place in Hist. ; Kings and Proph ets ; Keil, Bucher der Konige ; Wordsworth, Books of Kings in his Holy Bible; Jahn, Ileb. Common wealth; Alilman,Ilist. of the Jews; Newman, Hist. of the Heb. Monarchy; Rawlinson, Monorchies of the Ancient Eastern World, ii and iii ; Cheyne, Intr. Book of Is., 1895, p. 212, sq.; IL Ewald, Hist. of 'sr.