9''', the account of Solomon's second vision, is coloured throughout by the phraseology of Ri> {phrases, Nos. 3, 28, 29, 30, 51, 52, 57, 60, 61). Owing to the terms in which this section speaks of the exile of Israel and the destruction of the temple (w.'-'§), it is regarded by Kuenen, Well- hausen, Stade, and Kamphausen as the work of Rii- in exilic times. Such a conclusion, however, is by no means inevitable. Tlie terms of v.' (see above, date) go quite as far to prove a pre-exilic position as do the words of vv.*-" to argue a post- exilic point of view; nor are the terms of these latter verses so definite as to preclude the opinion that they were penned by Rd cir. B.C. 600 (see above on S"""). If w.'-' do imply an exilic stand-
• Wellhausen and Stade seem to regard these verses as deter- mining the exilic date of the whole section, vv,i966. Kamp- hausen assigns w.**-^ to D2.
t Cf. Kuenen, Hexateuch, { 7»l ; Driver, Deuterortomti, p. 303 f.
} Cf. Kuenen, OndeTzoek,J 266.
§ Especially v. 8, where p'^;; must be emended D';y (cf. Mic SU llJer 26^^, Ps 79*) ' and this house shall be ruinout heapt.'
KINGS, I. AND II.
KINGS, I. AND II.
865
point, w.'"' (and not the whole section) otII belong to K"^, vv.'-Ho Ro.
gio-lO^ consists mainly of a series of short notices drawn from the same sources as chs. 4. 5 (Heb. 4-5"). The originals appear to have been cut up and pieced together with no great skill ; but whether the arrangement throughout is due to R", or later haiid.-i liave employed themselves in alter- ing the sequence of the narrative, is not clear. In LXX (B, Luc.) the arrangement is somewhat differ- ent, but scarcely superior, to that of MT.
One einu'le ori^pnal document appears lo be repreaented by 910.17. 18 ft. 10. 20. 21.22.23, anrl these verses may very well have originally taken tliis order, the completion of'.Soloinon's build- ing operations beinj? first narrated, and then followed by aa account of the forced levy raised to carry out these works. After V. 23 there probably followed in the orij^inal a list of tlie names of the chief olticers (Z">'3.T *1ip). The statement of v.**** connected by Rn to v.**i> by the particle IN 'then,' is probably from the same document. Next to the account of the kin^s buildinf; activity— his most important work, there would natur- ally follow mention of his a<-lnevement next in importance— the provision of an etlicit-nt shipping for the increase of his wealth from external eoun'cs. This succeeds in 926-2H IQH. But reference to the ships naturally leads up to mention of the imports introduceil by their means, as wo see in 9^ lOn, and the use to which these rare and valuable materials were put. Thus there follows 1CP2. l*.2a. The general subject of imports suggest* allusion to a specially im{>ortant item — horses from Eg\1>t, apparently first introduced into the kingdom in any considerable numbers by Solomon, lO**-* ** *'.
Tlius the disturbing factors introduced into this main account are seen t>" be 0" li ". m »»^25, lo'-m u 3X25. 87. Notice in 911. 18. 24 the awkward pluperfect* pointed by the order — subject preceding verb, 'F-ns K^'j li'lljp DTCi, .i^J( DHyP'Tl^P '"'i'^S, rni7y n'^r^STi' r\H, and marking the passatces as mere excerpts from sources which, in describing a regular sequence of eventJ^, must have read ayn Kjvj'l, .li'-i" Si':!, •li."!;'1J Sl'B]. In v.iii> i1 ]n^ tK cannot represent the apodosis of v.io, since tK used in this connexion (in place of 1 ewisfcutive) would be quite without analogy. .Moreover, even if v.!!** could form the apodosis, the mrenthesis v.n* would come in with very great awkwardness, V.IS has already, with 31, been reft-rred toits true position after 4** (Heb. 51*). FYom the same source would seem to be derived T.2<», while v,25, though clearly alien to its immediate context, tannot definitely be assigned to any special source. 10*-io. 13 is an ancient narrative intrciuced at this ixiint to illustrate Solo- mon's wealth and wisdom, macb in the same way as 31^^ serves to depict his discernment in judgment; and the two stories maj' verj' possibly be derived from the same source. Finally, 1023.20. 27, couched in vague and generalizing language, are probably relatively late in origin, and are here introduced to give the finishing touch to the picture of Solomon's prosperity.
1 1"'", in its present form, is coloured by the hand of R» {f>hra.ies, Nos. 3, '27, 29, 31-33, 35, 36, 57, 58, 65). Ihe view that the latter imrtion of this sec- tion is not earlier than the Exile (K"^ ; so Kuenen w.*"", Kamphau.seu, vv."- '") is biused upon the words of V." ' who had apjieared unto him twice,' and presupposes that the narrative of the second vision, ch. 9'", come-s from the hand of Ro'; but upon thia opinion see ad lor. On the other hand, the fact iliat vv."'" speak of a division of the kingdom but make no mention of an exile, favours their pre-exilic authorship, ll'"" api>ears in LX.X in a Boiiiewhat differently arranged and briefer form, which is, in the main, correct.t
ll"""* seems, a» it now stands, to be somewhat confused. Hadad, though but ' a little lad ' at the time o^ his llight into Egypt, at once linds favour with Iharaoli, and receives from him a liou.se, an allowkoce, and land. He then, in spite of his ex- treme youth, marries the sister of I'liaraoh's queen, Tahpunes, and his son (ienubath is brought up in the palace with I'liaraoh's sous. The form Adad (T}i;) of v."*, as a variation of Hadad (Tiq), creates further suspicion aa to the integrity of the narrative.