nnd engaging in arduous literary labours. And (8) it does not absolutely follow, because the last paragraph of the Kings carries us down to B.c. 562 that that is also the date of the composition or compilation of the rest. It is quite obvious that the bulk of the work might have been written by Jeremiah some years before, and that these concluding sentences might have been added by him in extreme old age. There is much greater force, however, in a second objection, viz., that the KrNos must have been written or completed in Babylon, whilst Jeremiah spent the concluding years of his life and died in Egypt. For, though it is not absolutely certain, it is extremely probable that the work wa, finished and published in Babylon. There is not much weight perhaps in Ba.hr's remark that it cannot have been composed for the handful of fugitives who accompanied Jeremiah to Egypt, but must have been designed for the kernel of the people in cap- tivity, for the prophet may have composed the work in Tahpenes, and have at the same time hoped, perhaps even provided, for its transmission to Babylon. But it cannot be denied that while the writer was evidently familiar with what transpired in the court of Evil-Merodach, and was acquainted with details which could hardly have been known to a resident in Egypt, there is an absence of all reference to the latter country and the fortunes of the remnant there. The last chapter of the work, that is to say, points to Babylon as the place where it was written. So also, prima f acie, does the expression of 1 Kings iv. 24, " beyond the river " (Auth. Vera. "on this side the river''). The "region beyond the river" can only mean that west of the Euphrates, and therefore the natural conclusion is that the writer must have dwelt east of the Euphrates, i.e., in Babylon. It is alleged, however, that this expression, which is also found in Ezra and Nehemiah, had come at this time to have a meaning different from its strict geographical signification, and was used by Jews, wherever they might happen to reside, of the provinces of the Babylonian Empire (including Palestine), west of the Great River, just as a Roman, even after residing in the country, might speak of Gallia Transalpina, and it cannot be denied that the expression is used indifferently of either side of the Jordan, and therefore presumably it may designate either side of the Euphrates.* But it is to be observed-I. that in the majority of instances where the expres- sion is used of the Euphrates (Ezra vi. 6; vii 21, 25; Neh. ii 7), it is found in the lips of persons residing in Babylonia or Media.; 2. that in other instances (Ezra iv. 10, 11, 16) it is used in letters of state by Persian officers, who would I.l.aturally adapt their language to the usages of the Persian court and of their own country, even when resident abrcad, and lastly, that in the one instance (Ezra viii. 86) where the words are employed
~ See note on eh. iv. 24. viii INTRODUCTION TO
of Jews resident in Palestine, it is by a. Jew who had just returned from Persia. While therefore it is perhaps impossible to arrive at any positive conclusion from the use of this formula, it is difficult to resist the impres- sion that on the whole it suggests that the Book was written in Babylon, and therefore not by Jeremiah. 8. A third consideration alleged by Keil in his earlier edition,* viz., that the variations of style and diction between 2 Kings xxv. and Jer. Iii. are such as to negative the supposition of their lmving proceeded from the same pen, or rather such as to compel the belief that " this section has been extracted by the author or editor in the two cases from a common or more copious source," is too precarious to require much notice, the more so, as (1) these variations, when carefully examined, prove to be inconsiderable, and (2) even if the distinct authorship of these two portions, or their having been copied from a common authority, were established, it would by no means necessarily follow that Jeremiah had not copied them, or had had no share in the rest of the work. It would seem, therefore, that the arguments for and against Jeremiah's authorship of the Kmos are so evenly balanced that it is impossible to speak positively one way or the other. Professor Rawlinson has stated the conclusion to which an impartial survey conducts us with great fairness and caution. "Though Jeremiah's authorship appears, all things con- sidered, to be highly probable, we must admit that it has not been proved, and is, therefore, to some extent, uncertain. "t
VI. SoUROES oF THE WoBX. The Books of Kings being obviously and necessarily, from their historical character, to a very large extent, a compilation from other sources, the question now presents itself, What and of what sort were the records from which this narrative was constructed? What they were the writer himself informs us. He mentions three "boo~" from which his information must have been largely derived-" the book of the acts of So'lomon" (1 Kings x.i. 41); "the book of the Chronicles of (lit. of the words [ or events] of the days to) the kings of Judah " (1 Kings xiv. 29; xv. 7, 22; xx.ii 45; 2 Kings passim); and "the book of the Chronicles (" the words of the days") of the kings of Israel" (1 Kings xiv. 19; xv. 81, &c.) That he made abundant use of these authorities is evident from the fact that he refers to them more than thirty times ; that he constantly quoted from them verbatim is clear from the fact that passages agreeing almost verbatim with those of the Kings are found in the Books of Chronicles, and also from • Professor Rawlinson appears to have only ha.d the edition of 1846 before him. Dnt the Ku.as of Keil a.nd Delitzsch's Commentary is p1:a.ctically a new work, a.nd differs very materially from its predecessor. t "Speaker's Commentary," ii ,12, THE BOOKS OF THE KINGS.