For fm-ther information on the relation between Kings and Chronicles, see Chronicles, Books of.
V. Peculiarities of Diction.— \. The words noticed by De Wette {Einl. § 185) as indicating their modem date are the foUowmg: "^nX for nx, 1 Kings xiv, 2. (But
KINGS
94
KINGS
this form is also found in Judsx- xvii, 2 ; Jer. iv, 30 ; Ezek. xxxvi, I'o, and not once iii the later books.) irnX for ins, 2 Kings i, 15. (But this form of nX is found in Lev. xv, 18, 24; Josh, xiv, 12; 2 Sam. xxiv, 24; Isa. hx, 21; Jer. x, 5; xii, 1; xix, 10; xx, 11; xxiii, 9; xxxv, 2; Ezek. xiv, 4; xxvii, 20.) D"J31' for ci"', 1 Kings ix, 8. (But Jer. xix, 8; xlix, 17, are identical in phrase and orthography.) "p^"! for C^Iil, 2 Kings xi, 13. (But everj-where else in Kings, e. g. 2 Kings xi, G, etc., D^IJ^, which is also universal in Chron- icles, an avowedly later book ; and here, as in ")^3T:i, 1 Kings xi, 33, there is everj' appearance of the " being a clerical error for the copulative 1 ; see Thenius, I. c.) nS'^n'0, 1 Kings XX, 14. (But this word occurs in Lam. i, 1, and there is every appearance of its being a tech- nical word in 1 Kings xx, 14. antl therefore as old as the reign of Ahab.) "I'S for "i-^n, 1 Kings iv, 22. (But "I3 is used by Ezek. xiv, 14, and homer seems to have been then already obsolete.) C"^"in, 1 Kings xxi, 8, 11. (Oc- curs in Isaiah and Jeremiah.) S"!, 2 Kings xxv, 8. (But as the term evidently came in with the Chal- dees, as seen in Ilab-shakeh, Itab-saris, Eab-mag, its ap- plication to the Chaldee general is no evidence of a time later than the person to whom the title is given.) tP'C, 1 Kings viii, 61, etc. (But there is not a particle of e\'idence that this expression belongs to late Hebrew. It is found, among other places, in Isa. xxxviii, 3, a passage against the authenticity of which there is also nut a sliaddw of jiroof, except upon the presumption that prophetic intimations and supernatural interventions on the part of God are impossible.) i'^Sbri, 2 Kings xviii, 7. (On what grounds this word is adduced it is impos- sible to guess, since it occurs in this sense in Joshua, Isaiah, Samuel, and Jeremiah : see Gesenius.) "jinaa, 2 Kings xviii, 19. (Isa. xxxvi, 4; Eccles. ix, 4.) r."1^n^, 2 Kings xviii, 2G. (But why should not a Jew. in Hezekiah's reign as well as in the time of Nc- hemiah, have called his mother-tongue " the Jeus^ lan- guage," in opposition to the Ay-amcean? There was nothing in the Babylonian captivity to give it the name if it had it not before, nor is there a single earlier in- stance— Isa. xix, 18 might have furnished one — of ««?/ name given to the language spoken by all the Israel- ites, and which, in later times, was called Hebrew : '£/3pai(7ri, Prolog. Ecclus. ; Luke xxiii, 38 ; John v, 2, etc.) ^S">:jw rx ":2'n, 2 Kings xxv, C. (Frequent in Jer. iv, 12 ; xxxix, o, etc.) Theod. Parker adds i^HS (see, too, Thenius, TiM. § G), 1 Kings x, l.i; xx, 24;' 2 Kings xviii, 24, on the presumption, probably, of its be- ing of Persian derivation ; but the etymologj' and ori- gin of the word are (juite uncertain, and it is repeatedly used in Jer. li, as well as Isa. xxxvi, 9. With better reason might X"12 have been adduced, 1 Kings xii, 33. The expression ^Hitl "12", in 1 Kings iv, 24, is also a difficult one to form an impartial opinion about. It is doubtful, as De "Wette admits, whether the phrase nec- essarily implies its being used by one to the east of the Euphrates, because the use varies in Numb, xxxii, 19; xxxv, 14; Josh, i, 14 sq. ; v, 1; xii, 1, 7; xxii, 7; 1 Cliron. xxvi, 30; Dent, i, 1, 5, etc. It is also conceiva- ble that the ]>hrase might be used as a mere geograph- ical designation by those who belonged to one of " the provinces beyond the river'' suliject to Bab\-lou ; and, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, Juda>a had been such a province for at least 23 years, and probalily longer. We may safely alfirm, therefore, that, on the wliole, the peculiarities of diction in these hooks do not indicate a time after the captivity, or towards, the close of it, but, on the contrary, point pretty distinctly to the age of Jeremiah. It may be added that the marked and systematic differences between the l.inguage of Chronicles and tliat of Kings, taken with the fact that
j all attempts to prove the Chronicles, in the main, later 1 than Ezra, have utterly failed, lead to the same conclu- sion. (See many examples in jMovers, p. 200 sq.)