RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Kings, Books of Kingship in Israel
more extraordinary than the work he was called to perform, midway between Moses and Christ, in winning a victory for the worship of Yahweh. The circumstances of the northern kingdom at the time were such as to correspond with the atmosphere of miracle in which this prophet lived. Difficulties are found also in the chronology of the books. The regnal periods of the kings are given in full years, a result of a round rather than an exact reckoning. The Talmud suggests that the reckoning was from Nisan to Nisan, after a method which appears in the New Testament in the account of the resurrection, which equates the parts of three days with three full days, and in Josephus. This method of reckoning appears definitely in II Kings xviii. 9-10, where the siege of Samaria is given as lasting three years, though beginning in the seventh and ending in the ninth year of Hoshea. Similarly, while David's reign in Hebron is given in II Sam. v. 4-5 as seven and a half years, in I Kings ii. 11 it is given as seven years. Other cases of disregard of portions of a year might be given, but not in a uniform and consistent manner, the consequence being that an exact chronology can not be obtained from these books. The totals are vitally affected, as when the reigns of the kings of Judah from Solomon to the destruction foot up to 260 years and of the kings of Israel to 241 years. A recognized means of correction is found in the Assyrian annals, and of the attempts to use this means especially noteworthy is that of Kamphausen, who requires only six changes in the data of Israelitic succession to reconcile the differences in Assyrian and Israelitic chronology. See Time, Biblical Reckoning of.
The original text of the Biblical authors is no longer extant; the Masoretic text does not exactly reproduce this, nor does it agree with that which formed the base of the early versions. If reference is made to the extreme care 4. The exercised by the Masoretes in regard Text. to the text they received, it must also be recalled that this care was not exercised in the earliest times, as is proved by the widely different texts sometimes found in parallel passages. Thus in the parallels II Kings xviii. 13xx. 19 and Isa. xxxvi.-xxxix. the Isaiah passage affords fifteen examples of the scriptio plena, that in Kings only three, as opposed to corresponding scriptio defectiva in the other. Other changes are due to glosses and marginal notes which copyists have received into the text. The testimony of the manuscripts of the Septuagint testify to changes in the Hebrew; thus the Alexandrine codex is nearer to the Masoretic text than is the Vatican, yet the intent of the translators to be faithful is manifest in that they reproduced in Greek letters Hebrew words which they no longer understood. Moreover, that the Greek translators had access to some of the sources of the Hebrew is shown by additions not found in the present Hebrew text. Care must be exercised, however, not to overestimate the value of the Septuagint for textual criticism, since the differences between extant representatives of this text differ so widely. Of the fragments preserved in the Hexapla of Origen the version of Aquila is a close reproduction of the Palestinian text, that of Sym-
machus is clear and elegant, that of Theodotion partakes of the character of a recension of the Septuagint on the basis of a text approximating the Masoretic. The Targum of the prophets affords little textual help, partaking as it does of the paraphrastic rather than of the literal and containing additions to the text. Where it can be used, however, it is the earliest witness to the Palestinian text on its mother soil. The Vulgate of Jerome has also considerable value since it testifies to the'text of the end of the fourth Christian century.
(W- VOLCKf.) Bibliography: The leading commentaries are: O. Thenius, Leipsic, 1873; K. C. W. F. Bahr, in Lange, Eng. transl., New York, 1874; G. Rawlinson, in Bible Commentary, London, 1874; C. F. Keil, Leipsic, 1876, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1877; G. Hammond and G. Rawlinson, in Pulpit Commentary, 2 vols., London, 1881-89; A. Klostermann, Munich, 1887; J. R. Lumby, in Cambridge Bible, Cambridge, 1888; F. W. Farrar, in Expositor's Bible, 2 vols., London, 1893-94; R. Kittel, Gbttingen, 1900; W. E. Barnes, in Cambridge Bible, 1908. Special topics are treated in: A. Clemen, Die Wunderberichte iiber Elia und Elisa, Grimma, 1877; J. Meinhold, Die Jesaiererzcihlungen xxxvi—xxxix, Gottingen, 1897. On text-criticism, B. Stade, in ZATW, iii.-vi (1883-86), passim; A. Morgenstern, Die Scholien des Gregorius Abulfarag . zum Buck der Konige, Berlin, 1895; J. Berlinger, Die Peschitta zum I. Buck der Konige, Berlin, 1897; F. C. Burkitt, Fragments of the Book of Kings according to . Aquila, Cambridge, 1897; C. F. Kent, Student's Old Testament, vol. ii., New York, 1905 (valuable); W. D. Crockett, A Harmony of the Books of Samuel, Kings . in the Text of the Version of 1884, London, 1906. Consult also the principal works on Old Testament Introduction under Biblical Introduction, and for chronology the works cited under Era; Time, Biblical Reckoning of.
KINGSHIP IN ISRAEL: The Israelitic kingdom was later in origin than Israelitic nationality. The latter began as a theocracy at Sinai under an eldership which appeared sufficient for the demands both of peace and war. The astonishment that Moses " founded no state " (Vatke) Hebrew and the conclusion therefrom that the Ideals of Pentateuchal legislation must have Kingship, arisen later in a state already in existence proceed from a false view of the Hebrew state. The bond of Hebrew nationality was the covenant with Yahweh, which based legal relations upon prophetic authority. A human kingdom was superfluous since Yahweh was king and leader in war (Ex. xv. 18, xiv. 14; Num. xxi. 14), with that leadership incarnated in Moses. But the time came when no mighty and prophetically inspired man like Moses or Joshua stood at the head of the people, when the spiritual bond was not strong enough to hold the scattered tribes together, when even the Yahweh worship was endangered by the disintegrating influences of Canaanitic heathenism. In the days of the Judges the need was felt of a central power to unify action, and this tendency was exemplified in the history of Gideon (q.v.) and Abimelech (Judges viii.-ix.), though the results of this premature attempt postponed for a long time definite establishment of the kingdom. When Samuel became too old for the performance of his duties and his sons proved unworthy, while the Philistines were aggressive, the demand became clamorous and Samuel yielded to the request of the people to anoint a king. Wellhausen mistakenly regards I Sam. ix. 1-x. 16, xi. as the early account of the
Kingship in Israel Kin solving