the purpose for which the history was penned-which was partly, as we have already remarked, to trace the fulfilment of 2 Sam. vii. 12-16, in the fortunes of David's house-had that event occurred at the time when he wrote. We may safely assign this year, consequently, as the minimum date for the composition of the work. And with this conclusion, that the Books of Kings were written during the captivity, the style and diction of the Books themselves agree. "The language of Kings belongs unmistakably to the period of the captivity" (Rawlinson, " Speaker's Commentary," pp. 469, 470). * Lord A. Hervey, indeed, contends that " the general character of the language is that of the time before the Babylonish captivity "-elsewhere he mentions "the age of Jeremiah ''-but even if we allow this, it does not in the least invalidate the conclusion that the work was given to the world between B.O. 460 and B,o. 440, and probably about B.o. 460.
v. THE AUTHORSHIP is a question of much greater difficulty. t It was long held, and it is still maintained by many scholars, that the Kings are the work of the prophet Jeremiah. And in support of this view may be allegeJ-1. Jewish tradition. The Talmud (Baba Bathra, f. 15. 1) unhesitatingly ascribes the work to him. Jeremias scripsit librum suum et librum regum et threnos. 2. The last chapter of 2 Kings agrees, except in some few particulars, with Jer. Iii. The spelling in the latter is more archaic and the facts recorded in vers. 28-30 differ from those of 2 Kings xxv. 22-26, but the general agreement is very striking. It is alleged, accordingly, and not without reason, that the two narratives must have had a common origin, and more, that the final page of Jeremiah's history of the Kings, with a few alterations and additions made by a later hand, was appended to his collection of prophecies, as forming a fitting conclusion to those writings. And certainly this arrangement, though it does not prove J eremiah's authorship of the K.INos, does afford evidence of a very ancient belief that he was the writer. 8. There is in many cases a marked resemblance between the language of Kings and that of Jeremiah. Hii.vernick, perhaps the most powerful and energetic advocate of this view, has furnished a striking list of phrases and expressions common to both. t And so marked are the correspondences between them that even Bahr, who summarily rejects this hypothesis, is constrained to allow that "the mode of • Rawlinson gives, loc. cit., o.n interesting list of the words o.nd phrases which snbsta.n. tiate thiM assertion. And see Diet. Bib. vol. ii. p. 26. t "As regards the authorship of these Books, but little difficulty presents itself" (Lord A. Hervey, who asoribes them to Jeremiah), But Bahr, Keil, al. reject this idea with equal positiveness. ! Einleitung, vol. ii. pp. 171 sqq. This list is aocessible to the English reader in the "Speo.ker'a Commento.ry," ii. p. 471, INTRODUCTION TO
thinking and expression resembles that of Jeremiah," a'ud. he accounts for the similarity by the conjecture that our author had before him the writings of the prophet or was, perhaps, his pupil,* while Stii.helin is driven to the conclusion that the writer was an imitator of Jeremiah. But the resem- blance is not confined to words and phrases : there is in both writings the same tone, the same air of despondency and hopelessness, t while many of the facts and narratives again are more or less common to the history and the prophecy. t 4. Another consideration which is equally striking is the omission of all mention of the prophet Jeremiah in the Books of Kings-an omission easily accounted for if he was the author of those Books, but difficult to explain on any other supposition. Modesty would very naturally lead the historian to omit all mention of the share he himself had taken in the transactions of his time, especially as it was recorded at length else- where. But the part Jeremiah sustained in the closing scenes of the history of the kingdom of Judah was one of so much importance that it is hard to conceive any impartial, not to say pious or theocratic historian, completely ignorini both his name and his work.§ But a string of arguments, equally numerous and equally influential, ca.n be adduced agairnt the authorship of Jeremiah, prominent among which are the following: 1. That if Jeremiah did compile these histories, he must have been at the time about eighty-six or eight-y-seven years of age. Bii.hr regards this one consideration as conclusive. He, like Keil and others, points out that Jeremiah's ministry began in the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah (Jer. i 2), when, it is urged, he must have been at least twenty years of age. But the Book of KINGS, as we have just seen, cannot have been penned earlier than B.o. 562 ; that is to say, at least sixty-six years afterwards. In reply to this, however, it may fairly be remarked (1) that it is quite possible that Jeremiah's entrance upon the prophetic office took place before he was twenty years old. He calls himself a child (i~~ Jer. i 6), and though the word is not always to be taken literally, or as furnish- ing any definite chronological datu.m,ll_yet the tradition that he was but e. boy of fourteen is not wholly irrational or incredible. (2) It is quite within the bounds of possibility that the work may have been written by an octogenarian. We have had conspicuous instances amongst our own con- temporaries of men far advanced in years retaining all their mental vigour • This latter supposition is also the view of Thenius. Bleek suggests Baruch. t Compare 2 Kings xviL 14 with Jer. vii. 26; 1 Kings ix. 8 with Jer. xxii. 8; and 2 Kin 6s xx.i. 12 with Jer. xix. 3. These para.Hele are the more striking since they disclose at the same time a similarity of tone and of language. : For a list of these, see "Dictionary of the Bible," vol. ii. pp. 28-80. § It is true Jeremiah is only mentioned twice by the Chronicler, but this is easily axounted for by the brevity and incompleteness of his work. U Niigelabe.ch, "Jeremia.s, •• in Lange's "Bibelwerk," p. 2, Tlm BOOKS OF TilE RINGS. vii