KINGS, BOOKS OF (ffelakim), the name given to two of the canonical books of the Old Testament. Originally they were but one, and were first separated by the Seventy, by whom they are designated " the third and fourth of the kingdoms"—the books of Samuel forming the first and second. This division was copied by the Vulgate, and thence into the general usage of Christendom. The exact titles of these books in the English authorized version are—/he First Book of the Kings, commonly called the Third Book of the Kings, and The Second Book of the Kings, commonly called the Fourth Book of the Kings. They embrace (1) the reign of Solomon, (2) the history of the 'divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel, (3) the history of the kingdom of Judah after the -dispersion of Israel, until the Babylonian captivity—a period of about 570 years in all. The books do not appear to be merely vague compilations from royal annals and other —rather contradictory—sources, as is held by some, but rather the diligent work of a historian—with a clear and distinct tendency—who gathered together all the written and unwritten information, provided it could be made useful for his purpose. The unity of
.style and language is indeed palpable throughout, nor are any later alterations of couse •quence apparent. The principal sources quoted are a Book [of the Chronicles] of Solo mon, further a Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, and ahother of the Kings of Judah. The Talmud, and some of the earlier Christian theologians, ascribe it to Jere miah; this-view is also maintained by Havernick in modern times. Huet and Calmet are in favor of Ezra, but all that can be safely asserted is that the compiler lived dur ing the second half of the captivity and after the death of Joiachin, and probably in Babylon. The spirit of the work is theocratico-prophetic in high degree (its historical with respect to the political events is generally recognized, but the stories .relating to the prophets Elijah and Elisha are by most critics referred to the province of legend); while that of Chronicles (which goes over much the same ground) is held to betray the predominance of priestly influence. One of the best modern commentaries is that by Thenius (Leip. 1845)