As to what has been termed the anti-Israelitish spirit of the work (Bertholdt, Einteit., p. 949), we do not perceive it. Eichhorn affirmed that Judah \vas introduced only on account of the synchronisms (Ehnen., p. 542). But truth required that the kingdom of Israel should be described in its real character. Idol-worship was connected with its foundation ; moscholatry was a state provision ; fidelity obliged the annalist to state that all its kings patronized the institutions of Bethel and Dan, while eight, at least, of the Jewish sovereigns adhered to the true religion ; and that the majority of its kings perished in insurrection, while those of Judah were, in general, exempted from seditious tumults and assassination.
Now, the compiler from these old documents— he who shaped them into the form which 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. Jahn and Havemick place the composition of Kings ' in the reign of Evil-merodach ; De Wette, and Keil virtually, towards the end of the Captivity. Instances of later phraseology occurring in the books of Kings are given by De Wette (sec. 185). But the majority of his instances do not prove his opinion. Many of the words and forms of spelling instanced by him are found also in some of the earlier books. Thus the forms TIN for riN, and : - : for int.:, found in Kings, are found also in the earlier books—the former in Judges xvii. 2, and the latter in Leviticus xv. 18, etc, The Chaldee official title 11 (2 Kings xxv. 8) is given appro priately to a Chaldee general. The use of the distinctive term 11"1171', in 2 Kings xviii. 26, was necessitated by the request of Eliakim that Rab shakeh should speak not in the tongue of the people but in his native Aramman. The lists of later words given by Stahelin only prove that the period of the exile is the most probable date of composition. There are indeed some peculiar terms occurring in Kings which seldom or never occur in the other books, though occasionally in Chronicles and the parallel sections of Isaiah. Calmet ascribes the authorship to Ezra. Jewish tradition makes Jeremiah the author (Baba-bathra, fol. 15. 1). This opinion, adopted by Grotius, and lately revindicated by Havernick and Graf, certainly appears the more probable. Thenius conjectures that the author was a pupil of Jeremiah ; Stahelin that he may have been an imitator ; and Keil, that lie was a citizen of Judah, long in the Babylonian exile, and filled with the prophetic spirit. There is considerable linguistic affinity between the books of Kings and the prophecy of Jeremiah (Kiiper, 7ercnz. p. 56).
Kings. Jeremiah.
2 K. xvii. 14. . . vii. 26.
K. ix. 8 . . . . xxii. 8.
2 K. . .
K. ii. 4; viii. 25 ; xxxiii. 17 ; xiii. r3 ; ix. 5. xvii. 25.
2 K. xxi. 12 . . XiX. 3.
In the absence of certain evidence this opinion may be deemed the most likely, and is a more simple theory than that of Movers, who supposes that Jeremiah compiled a more ancient production—a book of Kings—the source of our present treatise. It explains the close similarity of the books of Kings and Jeremiah in spirit, style, and tendency, more easily and more satisfactorily than the sup position of De Wette, or any other conjecture of like nature. Objections against this opinion, from
the hasty way in which Jeremiah has dcscribed his own times, admit of an easy solution. Contem poraries were familiar with his life and times, while his own prophecy contains some of the desired in formation. Another objection, that Jeremiah could not have lived longer than Evil-merodach, is no ticed and refuted by Havernick (Ueber Daniel, p. 14). The age of the Jewish tradition as to the authorship of the books of Kings may be inferred from the fact that they are placed among the iniVZ). The conjecture of Gesenius that the book was written in Babylon gathers no proof from the phrase 1Z3.? (1 Kings iv. 24), as if it meant on the other - or west side of the river, and was employed by one living to the east of the Euphrates ; for the phrase is not uniform in meaning (Josh. i. 14, etc.) The idiom seems to have acquired a geographical currency, without any exact allusion to the locality of the person using it.
It has been sometimes thought, as by Thenius, that the books of Samuel were the production of the same redactor who composed the books of Kings. Both compositions form a history almost contig,uous, though 2 Sam. xx.-xxiv. is evidently an appendix. That there should be many points of similarity in two works of history on kindred themes, and having a similar purpose in view, sur prises no one. The close philological affinity on which Stahelin insists so much (Spec. Einleit., see.. 36), may thus be easily accounted for. Yet there are also points of dissimilarity. The lan guage of Samuel' has few marks of later usage ; the style has more traces of an early age about it. The books of Samuel have not the compact ness and symmetry of the books of Kings. The greater portion of them seems to be an original work, rather than a compilation. Vaihinger (art. .1Conz:ge, Blither der, in lierzog's Encyclo.) holds that Judges, as well as Samuel and Kings, are the production of one author. Ewald (Geschich., i. 175) also thinks that from Judges tO 2 Kings the hand of one author is apparent. But the instances adduced by Vaihinger will not suffice as proofs. The allusions in very similar language to an event so singular and of such national interest as the Exodus in Judges ii. 1-8, and 2 Kings xvii. 7 ; the like terms in which religious apostasy is described in Judg. xi. 17, and 2 Kings xvii. 13, are insufficient to warrant the conclusion. Nor will the use of D'I)271, signifying to provoke to anger, as found in Judges ii. 12 and 2 Kings xvii. 1, 17, give any additional proof of sameness of style, for the verb is found elsewhere, as in Dent. xxxi. 29 ; Ps. lxxviii. 58 ; Hosea xii. 14. The same may be said of the other phrase, to deliver into the hand of spoilers,' which in Kings may have been copied from the earlier book and applied to a similar juncture in the history of their sin and punishment. There are, indeed, many points of similarity between Samuel and Kings, repeated turns of idiomatic expression which may not prove identity of authorship, but only shew that the compiler of the later books regarded the earlier one as his model.