the captivity, seems almost incredible. But our author manifestly refers to the "Books of the Chronicles," &c., as still existent in his time, and, if not generally circulated, yet guarded and accessible somewhere. But a. still more conclusive argument against the " state paper" origin of our histories is found in their contents. Their tone and language absolutely forbid the supposition that they were based on the records of any court historio- grapher. They are to a very large extent histories of the sins, idolatries, and enormities of the respective sovereigns whose reigns they describe. " The history of the reign of each of the nineteen kings of Israel begins with the formula,' He did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.' The same formula occurs again with respect to twelve out of the twenty kings of Judah. . . . Even of the greatest and most glorious king, Solomon, it is related at length how deeply he fell. 'The sin of Jeroboam who made Israel to sin ' is represented as the source of all the evils of the kingdom : the conspiracies and murders of a Baasha, a Shallum, a Menahem ; the shameful acts of an Ahab, a Jezebel, and a Manasseh are recorded without any indulgence." * And these are the deeds and the reigns with respect to which we are referred for fuller information " to the Books of the Chronicles." For that these " Chronicles" contained accounts of the impieties and abominations of the various kings is clear from 2 Chron. xxxvi. 8, where we read (of Jehoiakim), "His abominations which he did and that which was found in him, behold they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah." Now, it is altogether out of the ques- tion that any court scribe can have described his late master's reign in such terms as these ; indeed no one could or would have used such language, but men who lived at a later period, and those, courageous and high-minded prophets, who were perfectly independent of the court and regardless of its favours. And, lastly, the constant change of dynasty on the throne of Israel is fatal to the supposition. We have already mentioned those changes as endangering the preservation of the state papers, but they are equally an argument against the memoirs of the different royal houses having been written by the "recorder," for the object of each successive dynasty would _be, not to preserve a faithful record of the reigns of its predecessor, but to stamp them with infamy, or consign them to oblivion. We find, therefore, that the prevailing opinion as to the character of the "books ot the words of the days " is encompassed with difficulties. But these vanish at once, if we see in these records the compilations of the schools of the prophets. We have incontrovertible evidence that prophets did act as historians. Samuel, Nathan, Gad, Iddo, Ahijah, Shemaiah, Jehu the son of Hanani, Isaiah the son of Amoz, are all mentioned by
• Bii.hr (Einleltung, p. 12), whom I h11.ve largely followed in this note. xii INTRODUCTION TO
name as the compilers of memoirs. We know, too, that for portions of this very history we must be indebted to members, probably unknown members, of _the prophetic order. The histories of Elijah and Elisha never formed part of the " books of the Chronicles,'' and they contain matters which, in the nature of things, can only have been contributed by these prophets themselves, or by their scholars or servants. The history of Elisha, especially, has several marks of a separate origin. It is dis- tinguished by a number of peculiarities-" provincialisms" they have been called-which betray a different hand, while the narratives are such as can only have proceeded, originally, from an eye-witness. But perhaps it is hardly necessary to mention these particulars, as it is "universally allowed that prophets generally were the historians of the Israelitish people."* It was almost as essential a part of their office to trace the hand of God in the past history of the Hebrew race as to predict future visita- tions, or to promise deliverances. They were preachers of righteousness, spokesmen for God, interpreters of his just laws and dealings, and to be this they only needed to be faithful and impartial historians. It is not without significance, in this connexion, that the historical books of the Old Testament were known to the Jewish fathers by the name Cl!~1~~ "and are distinguished from the books strictly prophetical only in thi;, that the adjective c 1~ , ~ , priores, is applied to them, and to the latter c1J1;n~ posterwrea." + But we have evidence of the most positive and conclusive kind, evidence almost amounting to demonstration, that the three authorities to which our historian so repeatedly refers, were in their original form the works of different prophets, and not of the public annalist. For we find that where the author of :KlNGs, after transcribing a string of passages, which agree almost word for word with a series in the Books of Chronicles, t and which must therefore have been derived from a common source, refers to" the book of the acts of Sowrrwn (1 Kings xi 41 ), the chronicler indicates as the documents upon which he has drawn, "the book of Nathan the prophet, and the prophecy of .Ahijah the Shilonite, and the visions of Iddo the seer. The conclusion, therefore, is irresistible (2 Chron. ix. 29), that the "book of the words of the days to Solomon," if not identical with the writings of the three prophets who were the historians of that reign, was nevertheless based on those writings, and to a large extent composed of extract?, from • Bahr, who cites Knobel, "Der Prophet. der Hehr." i. 68 sqq. Josephus (ContmApion, i. 8) expressly says, " The prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their time in thirteen books." 't Bii.hr. t Compo.re 1 Kings viii. 12-60 with 2 Chron. vi. 1-40; 1 Kings viii, M-is. 9 with 2 Chron. vii. 7-22; 1 Kings :a:. 1-28, with 2 Chron. ix. 1-28, &c, THE BOOKS OF THE KINGS. Iiii