THE
PULPIT COMMENTARY, EDl'l'ED JlY '.rIIE
VERY REV. H. D. M. SPENCE, D.D., OF.AN 01' GLOUCESTER;
AND BY THE
REV. JOSEPH S. EXELL, M.A.
WlTH
INTRODUCTIONS BY THE
VERY REV. F. W. FARRAR, D.D., F.R.S., DEAN OF CANTERBURY. RIGHT REV. H. COTTERILL, D.D., F.R.S.E. VERY REV. PRINCIPAL J. TULLOCH, D.D. REV. CANON G. RAWLINSON, M.A. REV. A. PLUMMER, 1\LA.., D.D.
NEW EDITION.
FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY LONDON AND NEW YORK 1907 PR.INTEL) BY WlLLJAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BECCLES,
(TM rigM, oJ lran,latio11 and of reproduciton a,-, restrf!td.) THE
PULPIT COMMENTARY, EDITED BY TIIE
VERY REV. H. D. M. SPENCE, D.D., DEAN OJ' OLOUOEBTEB;
AND BY THE
REV. JOSEPH S. EXELL, M.A.
I. KINGS. <$xposftion anb 1t1omfletfcs. REV. JOSEPH HAMMOND, LL.B., B.A., VIOA!l OF ST. At"STELL.
~omflies b)l 'Various ~utf)ors. REV, E. DE PRESSENS:E, D.D. REV. A. ROWLAND, M.A., LL.D. REV. J. WA.ITE, B.A. REV. J. A. MAODONALD. REV. J, URQUHART,
REW EDITION.
FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY LONDON AND NEW YORK 1907 THE
BOOKS OF THE KINGS. ---- INTRODUCTION.
I. UNITY OF THE W ORI!:, THE Books now known to us as the First and Second Books of the Kings, like 1 and 2 Samuel, were originally and are really but one work, by one writer or compiler, and it is only for convenience of reference and because of long established usage that we here treat them as two. In all Hebrew MSS. down to the time of Jerome certainly, and probably down to A.D. 1518, when the Hebrew text was first printed by D. Bomberg at Venice, the division into two books was unknown. It was first made in the Greek version by the Septuagint translators, who followed a prevailing custom of the Alexandrine Greeks of dividing ancient works for facility of reference. The division thus introduced was perpetuated in the Latin version of Jerome, who took care, however, while following the LXX. usage, to notice the essential unity of the work;* and the authority of the Septuagint in the Eastern, and of the Vulgate in the Western Church, has ensured the continuance of tllis bipartite arrangement in all later time. That the two books, however, are really one is proved by the strongest internal evidence. Not only is there no break between them-the separation at 1 Kings xxii. 53 being so purely arbitrary and artificial that it is actually made haphazard in the middle both of the reign of Ahaziah and of the ministry of Elijah-but the unity of purpose is conspicuous throughout. Together thoy afford us a continuous and complete history of the kings and kingdoms of the chosen people. And the language of the two books points conclusively • "Quartus Melachim, i.e., Begum, qui iii. et iv. Begum volumine oontinetur" (Prolog. Galeat.) Similarly Origen in Euseb. "Eccles. Hist." vi. 25: Ba0'1AE1wv rpin,, T6TClf'T'I h, M Oi,al',UXE" t.af31o, lnrip IO'TI f3aO'Wla t.af3io. a* ii INTRODUCTION TO
to a single writer. While there are no indications of the manner or speech of a later period, no contradictions or confusions such as would a.rise from different writers, there are many phrases and formuloo, tricks of expression, a.nd turns of thought, which show the same hand and mind throughout the entire work, and effectually exclude the idea. of e. divided authorship. While, however, it is indisputable that we have in these two portions of Holy Scripture the production of e. single writer, we have no sufficient warrant for concluding as some (Eichhorn, Jahn, al.) have done, that the division between them and the Books of Samuel is equally artificial, and that they are parts of a much greater work (called by Ewald " the Great Book of the Kings ")-a work which comprised along with them Judges, Ruth, and 1 and 2 Samuel The ru:guments in support of this view are stated at considerable length by Lord Arthur Hervey in Smith's '' Dictionary of the Bible" (vol. ii. p. 21), but to my thinking they are entirely incon- clusive, and have been effectually disposed of by, among others, Bii.hr,* Keil, t and Rawlinson, t each of whom cites e. number of peculiarities not only of diction, but of manner, arrangement, materials, &c.,§ which clearly distinguish the Books of Kings from those which precede them in the sacred Canon. II. TITLE. The name Knias (t:1 1:::,,ti) requires but little notice. Whether these scriptures bore this name from the first or not-and it is hardly likely that they did, the probability being that the Book was originally cited, like those of the Pentateuch, &c., by its initial words, ,,, ,,r::,m, and was only called " Kings " from its contents (like the Book of " Samuel") at a later period- this one word aptly describes the character and subject-matter of this composition and sufficiently distinguishes it from the rest of its class. It is simply a history of the kings of Israel and Judah, in the order of their reigns. The LXX. Title, Bam>-Etwi·. y. a. (i.e." Kingdoms"), expresses the same idea, II for in Ee.stern despotisms, and especially under the Hebrew theocracy, the history of the lringdom was practically that of its !rings.
• "Die Konige," Einleitung, § 3. t " The Books of the Kings." English Translation. Introduction, pp. 9, 10. Compo.re his" Introduction to the Old Testament," vol. i. pp. 254-260. t "Speaker's Commentary," vol. ii. p. 468. § For example. The chronology of the Kings is precise and detailed, whilst that of 1 and 2 Samuel is extremely va.gue and general ; the Kings abound in references to thr Mosaic law, which are nowhere found in Samuel; the author of the former oonstautl) refers to his authorities, the writer of the latter never. II Jerome, in his "Prologue Galeatus," questions the filness of this title, but wHh insufficient reason. The books contain the history of two kingdom.a, tholl8h of but ono nation. TllE BOOKS OF TIIE KINGS, ill