Demonstrative pronoun f. n? II 6'^. Cf. Aramaic K7.
Infln. constr. verb .Y'S with suff. 'n.'inriy'n? II 6'8, perhaps presupposing form without sufT. n^inn^'n with termination as in Aram. (cf. Dalman, Oramm. Jiid.-Pal. Aram. p. 2S9f.).
Relative S?' in 13i'"J'P (if not a textual error) II 6". So Jg 6' (N. Palestine) 8" 71a '»» (probably Ephraimitic), and uniformly in Ca (exc. title ll). Elsewhere only in exilic or post-exUio writings. In Phfsnician the relative is eH with prosthetic K.
Preser\'ation of .1 of article after prep. 3 : II 7'^ nn^'ri^,
KithUih nft<=uhersj II a". Elsewhere only Ca I'M*. 0*.
Aram. »e;;N, ^•i ■] DrriB, DCi'^ii'iS II S"-*.
(yOnstruction with the suff. pronoun anticipating object (akiu to Syr.) : 1 19"^ "nrjO D7f 5. 21" nornN . . . '.tij.';!.
Indefinite use of inx a etrtain : 1 19* » 20" 22!' (cf. v.») II 4' 88 ; add I 21' after LXX(B, Luc). Elsewhere only 1 13" (perhaps for -IIN another), Jg 9^ 13», 1 S 1', 2 S IS"", and Ute Ezk 1" 8?-8e'tc.
To these may be added a few roots which betray the influence of Aramaic : pSV I 20", n'lJ'lD 20i*- ">■ "• 19 (elsewhere only very late), D-in 21»- ", rh^'n II 4«.'
There is also a fair number of Hweti XvyofiAtet, some of which take the place of ordinary words, and thus may be dialectical : e.g. DiV gird, 1 18« (for Vn, iIN), nY^x/ood, 1»8 (for SjN, n^JK, SpxD) ; but of others nothing can be affirmed.
The narratives are clearly not all by one author, (i.) Some are histories of Elijah and Elisha, or of movements which they initiated in the direction of religious reform, (li.) In others the fate of the kingdom is regarded from a political standpoint, and this as determined mainly by the action of the king ; though here also prophets play an im- portant part as advisers ana announcers of the oracle of J". Thus both classes have a religious colouring or motive, and may equally be regarded as the work of men of prophetic training, perliaps members of the guUds which we see coming into prominence in some of the Elisha stories.
(i.) To the former class belong I 17-19. 21,
t?ie Heb. Text 0/ Kings, where the whole question of the inter- relationship of the two forme of the history of Jeroboam (11**- I420) is discussed at length, pp. 163-169.
KIXGS, I. AND II.
KINGS, I. AND II.
867
jl i:-n>a o'"''*- ■'""■ *'■■* 4'"'- '■"• "■*'■ *'■** 5. 6'"' 8''*' ''"
Of these I 17-19 forms a continuous narrative. From tlie abruj}tness of v.', no reason being assijjned for Elijali's threat, and no point of con- nexion existing for ' hence ' (•I'C), v.', it may be in- ferred that the commencement of tlie story has been omitted or abbreviated by R", and tlie speci- fication ' Elijah the Tishbite, etc.,' thus represents his summary introduction. The sequel also, in strict accoruance with 19"-", is Lacking, only one part of J'"s commission being fullillcd, vv. '••'''.
I 21 is clearly out of place in MT, breaking the connexion between ch. 20 and its sequel ch. 22, and LXX is no doubt correct in placinjj this narrative immediately after ch. 19. The dislocation may have been due to the desire to bring the prophecy of Allah's death (21") nearer to the account of its occurrence (22*"'-), and perhaps in a minor degree to the description of the king's mood as ' chaling and sullen' (iiiii lo) in 2(>" as in 21^ Moat critics (Wellhausen, Driver, Kamphausen, Kittel ; but Kuenen is uncertain, Ond. § 25') assign I 21 to the same author as I 17-19. Thus Wellhausen cites aa points of contact the central position occupied by Elijah, his eagle-like swoop upon Ahab at the rigfit moment, and the formula n^xn Di;-n inji 'n;i ' and it came to pass after these things '21' (but cf. LXX) as 17", 'n"''.? '• iv") ■■"':i 'And the word of J" came to E.' 21" a-s 'k'Sj It.t '• -c-ii 18'.
On the other hand, it may be maintained that Elijah is not really the central figure as in I 17-1'J. He does not appear upon the scene until v.", and then takes scarcely a more conspicuous position than Micaiah in 22""-. The king and his action form the centre of interest both at the beginning and end of the narrative. Further, Kuenen notices the absence of any reference in 21 to 17-19, and vice vemd, the murder of Naboth forming the single crime of Aliab and Jezebel in the one story, while in the other the sole pivot is the struggle between J" and Ba'al. This, however, is a point of slight moment, and no definite conclusion can be reached as to the relative authorship of the two sections.
More important is the question of the connexion of I 21 with its natural sequel II 9'-10^. Critics generally argue or assume that the latter section 18 l>y a difl'erent author from tlie former, and most (Wellliau.sen, Driver, Kamphausen, Kittel) assign II 9 f. to the writer of I 20. 22, II 3*-" etc. (see below). The argument against identity of author- ship of I 21 anil II 9 f., as stated by Wellhausen, is based upon the supposed discrepancy in detail. While in I 21 it is the vineyard of Naboth which is mentioned, and this is described in v.' as ' hard by the palace of Ahab' (ik-v ^m '^'iV), H O'-"'" alludes to the niaj na^n, i.e. \.\\e portion or estate of j Naboth, which lay outside the city. Again, I 21" records only the death of Naboth, while II 9-'* speaks also of the blood of his sons as calling for vengeance.