The caaea of the use of *unfo this dav.' which otifrht to be noticed aa implrjing the continued existence oj the ktn.jdom uj Judah, are the following ; — I S^ (the ends of the staves of the ark Btill to be seen projectiiijc from the Adytum into the Holy
Klace t) : 9^1 (the Canoanites 8tiU sulije^-led by Israel to forced Lbour, a:« they boti lieen under Solomon) ; 121'.* (tbe division between theten tribes and the houscof Pavid still in existence); II 8*3 (Worn still successful in shaking' off the yoke of Judali) ; 16^ (the Kilomiles still huld Elath, from which tbe Judinana were exjwlled by Itecin. kin^ of Syria I). The other oecurrenf ea of ' unto this day ' do nut necessarily presupjMtse' pre-exilic times, but ni.ay 1)C cited to prove the frequency of the fomnila aa employed by the editor ot Kings :— I »» 1013, t| 147 i;ai.«4.41.|
• The phrase inyy T^y, implvinfr an exilic stAnili>oint, la found aiirain in Eir 410. 11. l«. 17.a)'6>.« (jd » is 721 . » sai, .n,.|, i^ 9 S'. Tlie reiiilerinif of KV text in 1 K <" 'on this side the Ulver,' la quite lni|>enniBsibIc, this bein^; a direct violation of tbe constant meaning of '>Yy— country lying acro«f or on tM oth^rtidf of a rh ^r.
t It is n^: ' in LXX of tbis posMq^ tbe wonis * unto
this day ' li . ' >1, the excision beiii^ doiibtltss due to
•oine later « • i - w that in biaown time their pur)H)rt
bad ceaai-d to N- tni*-
t Keailini! ClK, O'^nit, In place of OiK, C'DilK.
I In II 10^ cv^y, occurring in a lengthy narnttire. mim hare been written prior to the de«tr\icUoii of Samaria (Kuenen, Ond. I 2&i<), and la tbua duo to the souive and not to tlie editor
B62
KINGS, I. AXD II.
KINGS, I. AND II.
Again, it seems to be clear that, at the time when tlie editor is writing, the Dnvidic dynasty ttill possesses a monarch reigning in Jerusalem. Ilavid has, and is still to have, a lamn before J" at Jerusalem continually (see above. No. 59 of the editor's phrases). The expression ' before J" at Jerusalem' of I ll" implies further that the triitple is still standing intact, a point which is also assumed in the dedication prayer of I S'"-" which owes its present form to the l)euteronomic editor. Throughout this juayer the leading petition is that supplication made in or towards .f's temple built by bolomiin may meet with a f.ivourable answer (vv.2»- »»• '"• "• » »«• «• •"••'»). We may notice also I 9' which likewise occurs in a section in whidi the editor's hand is juoniinent : ' I have hallowed this house which thou hast built, to put my yiame there fur ever ; and mine eyes and my heart s/uilt be there perpetually.'
Upon these grounds it may be concluded that the main editing of Kings must have taken place prior to the destruction of the Judavan kin''dom, and that such sections of the book as iniidy an exilic standpoint are therefore of the nature of later redactional additions and interpolations.
For the work of this principal editor, influenced as we have seen him to be by the spirit and language cf Deut., the termintis a quo is the discovery of Deut. in the year B.C. 621, the terminus ad qucm the destniction of Jerusalem B.C. 586. And since the editor's standpoint seems to indicate that he wrote before the glamour of Josiah's reform.ation had wholly or nearly faded d\iring the latter days of the Juda-an monarchy, the assumption is fair that he undertook and com- pleted his book not later than B.C. 600.*
5. Latkh Euitor-S. — From the preceding ex- amination and conclusion as to the date of the main redaction of Kings it is clear that the pre-exilic book must have received certain additions at the hands of a later editor or editors before it attained the form in which we possess it. The chief of these additions is the appendix, which carries the history down to the year B.C. 561. To this appendix be- longs certainly II 24"'-25*'', and, presumably, 23^'- 24'. The conclusion of the pre-exilic book has, however, probably been worked over by the second editor, and so adapted to receive his addition that it is now impossible exactly to discover its position. Anj' of the VV.25. C8 or even 30» of ch. 23 might have formed a conclusion scarcely more abrupt than the present conclusion ch. 243D. Ch. 2329«, if it is not exactly imiuted in style in ch. 241», must be by the same hand, i.e., presumably, the hand of the second editor. But, again, it is unlikely that the first editor should have appended the usual summary of a reign in v.2a without mentioning the manner of the king's death. The statement of v.2flb seems at first sight to presuppose the writer's acquaintance with the chnracters of all the succeeding kings of Judah, but need not necessarily do so. Cf. the somewhat stereotyped formula of 1 149» with reference to Jerolmam
Upon the other passages above mentioned as im- plying an exilic standpoint see below (Composi- tion). It is noticeable that, apart from the ditt'erence of standpoint involved in the destruction of the Judsan kingdom and the Exile, the mould of mind of the second editor is essentially the same as that of the first editor. The satne Deuteronomic mode of thought is couched in the same phraseology, while in the appendix the structural method of the first editor is faithfully imitated. Thus, if the main Deuteronomic editor or redactor be cited under the sign K», it is reasonable to employ the sign K°- in referring to the second editor of the same school of thouglit.t