KINGS, BOOKS OF. The two books of Kings formed anciently but one book in the Jewish Scriptures. The present division, following the Septuagint and Latin versions, has been common in Hebrew Bibles since the Venetian editions of Bom berg. That the book was originally an unbroken treatise is affirmed by Origen and Jerome, Melito of Sardis, and Josephus. (Thus Origen, apud Euseb. PraeP. Evang.vi. 25,Bao-Acicov Tp17-77 gad Terciprn, iv 41 ObawdXfx Liapia ; Hieronym. Prolog. Gal. ; Joseph. Cont. Apion. i. 8.) Great stress cannot always be laid on the Jewish forms of the sacred books, as they were arranged so as to correspond with the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The old Jewish name was borrowed, as usual, from the commencing words of the book, irT Gmcized as in the quotation given from Eusebius. f he Septuagint and Vulgate now number them as the third and fourth books of Kings, reckoning the two books of Samuel the first and second. The separation of Kings into two books is so awkwardly made, that it divides the lives of Ahaziah and Elijah, and carries over a portion of them into the second book. Their present title, Bacraticop, Reg-um, has, in the opinion of Havernick, respect more to the formal than essential character of the composition (Einleitung-, sec. 168). Yet under such forms of government as those of Judah and Israel the royal person and name are intimately associated with alI national acts and movements, legal de cisions, warlike preparations, domestic legislation, and foreign policy. The reign of an Oriental prince is identified with the history of his nation during the period of his sovereignty. More especially in the theocratic constitution of the Jewish realm the character and personal influence of the monarch were an important element of national history, and, of necessity, had considerable influence on the fate and fortunes of the people.
The books of Kings contain the brief annals of a long period, from the accession of Solomon till the dissolution of the kingdom. The first chapters describe the reign of Solomon over the united kingdom, and the revolt under Rehoboam. The history of the rival states is next narrated in parallel sections till the period of Israel's downfall. on the invasion of Shalmanezer. Then the remaining years of the principality of Judah are recorded till the conquest of Nebuchadnezzar and the commence ment of the Babylonish captivity. In the article IsRAEL, the period comprised has been exhibited under the name and reign of the kings who are men tioned in these books ; and there also, and in the article JUDAH, the chronology of the books has been sufficiently considered. [See ISRAEL ; JUDAH.] The contents of the narrative exhibit many points of interest. The first book begins in sequel to those of Samuel, with the death of King David and the means taken to secure the succession of Solomon against the primogeniture of Adonijah. Then follow the erection and dedication of the Temple ; the glories of the wise king ; the visit of the Queen of Sheba ; the disruption under Rehoboam ; the invasion of Judah by Shishak ; the idolatrous policy of Jeroboam as the head of the ten revolted tribes, and the doom of his house on account of hit apostasy ; the short and disturbed reigns of several of his successors ; the wicked government of Ahab and his unscrupulous foreign queen ; the grand episode of Elijah, and the alliances and fleet of Jehoshaphat. The second book opens with the translation of Elijah and the entrance on office of Elisha, second in greatness only to his predecessor, and records, among many other things, the siege of Samaria ; the reforming zeal of Jehu ; the energetic administration of Jeroboam II. ; the invasion of Shalmanezer ; the treason of Athaliah ; the restora tion of the Temple under Jehoiada ; the end of the kingdom of Israel under Hoshea; the lustre thrown by the good king Josiah over the last years of the kingdom of Judah ; the fatal field of Megiddo, which led to a series of disasters ; the interference of Pharaoh-Necho, and the ultimate overthrow and exile of the nation under Zedekiah. The kingdom of Israel lasted about 254 years, probably from 975 to 721 B.C., and that of Judah survived 135 years longer, lasting probably from 975 to 586 B.C. (Lepsius, ei. ./Esypt., p. to7 ; Bosanquet, Transactions of the Chronolosical institute, vol. ii., pt. 4). The narrative of those books, therefore, extends over a period of more than 400 years. But it is not easy to work out a satisfactory chronology on all points, whether we hold or give up the formal date of the building of the Temple as given in Kings vi. 1. Nor needs such difficulty. create surprise. The coincidence of the year of the one sovereign's accession with a parallel year in the reign of the rival sovereign is usually given ; but the epochs appear to be computed sometimes by current and sometimes by complete years. There are interregna and periods of anarchy, especially in Israel ; and the letters used as numerical symbols are liable to be mistaken by transcribers. Thus, on the one hand, eleven years of anarchy are supposed by many to have happened after the reign of Jero boam II., and nine years of a similar kind prior to the accession of IIoshea. To equalise the result, Ewald and Thenius, on the other hand, lengthen the reigns of Jeroboam and Pekah. Lepsius and
Bunsen propose a somewhat similar solution. The mention of several foreign princes in connection with the Hebrew sovereigns affords also some chronological data. Thus the fifth year of Reho boam synchronises with some portion of the reign of Shishak ; Hoshea sought alliance with So, king of Egypt ; the fourteenth year of the reign of Heze kiah brings into prominence both Sennacherib and Tirhakah ; and Josiah is linked with Pharaoh Necho. Yet, after all the labours of Bunsen, Lep sius, Hincks, and other scholars, there remains considerable doubt as to certain points, and only an approximation to accuracy can really be ob tained. See CHRONOLOGY ; Browne's Ord° See thrum, chap. iv., p. 221 ; Ewald, Gesell/elite des Valkes Israel, iii. 1, p. 261; Bunsen, /Egyptens Stelle, iv. p. 38r ; Ussher, Annales Vet. Test., Works, vol. viii. p. ro8, Dublin. • There are some peculiarities in this succinct history worthy of attention. It is very brief, but very suggestive. It is not a biography of the sovereigns, not a mere record of political occur rences, nor yet an ecclesiastical register. King, church, and state, are all comprised in their sacred relations. It is a theocratic history, a retrospective survey of the kingdoms as existing under a theo cratic government. The character of the sovereign is tested by his fidelity to the religious obligations of his office, and this decision in refercnce to his conduct is generally added to the notice of his ac cession. The new king's religious character is generally portrayed by its similarity or opposition to thc way of David, of his father, or of Jeroboam son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.' Ecclesi astical affairs are noticed with a similar purpose, and in contrast with past or prevalent apostasy, especially as manifested in the popular superstitions, whose shrines were on the 'high places.' Political or national incidents are introduced in general for the sake of illustrating the influence of religion on civic prosperity ; of showing how the theocracy maintained a vigilant and vengeful guardianship over its rights and privileges—adherence to its prin ciples securing peace and plenty, disobedience to them bringing along with it sudden and severe re tribution. The books of Kings are thus a verifica tion of the Mosaic warnings, and the author of them has kept this steadily in view. He has given a brief history of his people, arranged under the various political chiefs in such a manner as to show that the government was essentially theocratic, that its spirit, as developed in the Mosaic writings, was never extinct, however modified or inactive it might sometimes appear. So that these books ap pear in a religious costume, quite different from the form they would have assuined either as a political or an ecclesiastical narrative. In the one case legis lative enactments, royal edicts, and popular move ments, would have occupied a prominent place ; in the other, sacerdotal arrangements, Levitical service, music and pageantry, would have filled the leading sections of the treatise. In either view the points adduced would have had a restricted reference to the palace or the Temple, the sovereign or the pontiff, the court or the priesthood, the throne or the altar, the tributc or tithes, the nation on its farms or the tribes in the courts of the sacred edifice. But the theocracy conjoined both the political and religious elements, and the inspired annalist unites them as essential to his design. The hand of Jehovah is continually acknowledged. 'Fhe chief organ of theocratic influence enjoys also peculiar prominence. We refer to the incessant agency of the prophets, their great power and peculiar modes of action as detailed by the composer of the books of Kings. They interfered with the suc cession of Solomon, and their instrumentality was apparent in the great schism. They stirred up the people to a sense of duty, and they braved the sovereign when carrying out unconstitutional measures. The balance of power was in their hands ; the regal dignity seemed to be sometimes at their disposal. In times of emergency they dis pensed with usual modes of procedure, and assumed an authority with which no subject in an ordinary state can safely be intrusted, executing- the law with a summary promptness which rendered opposition impossible, or at least unavailing. They felt their divine commission, and that they were the cus todiers of the rights of Jehovah. At the same time they protected the interests of the nation, and, could we divest the term of its association with un principled turbulence and sedition, we would, like Winer, style them the demagogues of Ismel (Winer, Rea/wort. art. Prophet). The divine prerogative was guarded by them with sacred jealousy, as well from royal usurpation as from popular invasion ; and the interests of the people were as religiously protected against encroachments, too easily made under a form of government which had not the safeguard of popular representation or the check of aristocratic privilege. The priesthood became in many instances, though there are some illustrious exceptions, merely the creature of the crown, and therefore it became the prophetenthum to assert its dignity and stand forth as the majestic embassy of heaven.