hero's importance, would not be wholly inappropriate to the former, only that the first two chapters of the Book of Kings ought to be added to it. The author himself indicates the chief extracts he has made from other works, by referring at the close of Solomon's life to the Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings xi. 41), and at the close of the life of each king of both kingdoms to the Book of the Chronicles of one or the other kingdom, as the place where more of the history might be found. An exception to this is made only by the last king of each kingdom (which curious fact has been already noticed, p. 137 note), and by the two kings Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin,' each of whom reigned only three months, so that the Chronicles of the kingdom probably did not contain much more than is here narrated of them. In the life of David and Saul, on the other hand, such references are evidently wanting only because the last editor does not much curtail his principal document before 1 Kings iii. The 'Life of Solomon' also, to which the author refers, was probably not a separate work, but only a part or one volume of his chief authority. This previous compiler may have constantly referred to the Chronicles of the kingdom; but we have no reason for doubting that the last editor also consulted them. From the method of quotation however thus much is certain, that the author either wholly omitted, or greatly shortened, most of the particulars given in these authorities respecting the wars, the buildings (if not ecclesiastical), and other secular enterprises of the kings, as also their mere personal affairs; but on the other hand retained in full whatever referred to religion and especially to the Temple. In this he was governed by certain fixed principles; for instance, although elsewhere not telling much of the personality of the kings, yet in the case of each king of Judah, he mentions his mother's name, evidently on account of the important part generally taken by the queen-mother in the government, especially when the king was a minor.2 But that he abridged the narrative of his authorities even when he aimed at completeness is seen by a comparison of 2 Kings xviii. 9-xx. with Isaiah xxxvi.-xxxix., where he omits the song of Hezekiah. The most important element added by the author, the prophetic lesson of the long history commencing with Solomon, is expounded most openly at the point where he speaks of the 12 Kings xxiii. 31-35, xxiv. 8-17. It is true that an account of the reign of the last king of Judah was prepared very early (see p. 167, note); but as this could receive no authentication from a successor, it might for that very reason not be received into the official chronicles of Judah. 2 See 1 Kings xv. 13, which is here decisive; also ii. 19. overthrow of the Northern Kingdom, indicates its causes, and at the same time casts a glance upon the coming similar overthrow of the Southern Kingdom, 2 Kings xvii. 7-23; but even in the middle of Solomon's life, the author takes a suitable opportunity to introduce the same truth in the words of the previous compiler, 1 Kings ix. 6-9; and thus, though less forcibly than in earlier writings (p. 159), is reproduced the prophetic treatment of the history, since its entire course from Solomon corroborates the warning revealed to him in a dream at its commencement. And as the early fall of the yet guiltier Northern Kingdom is the centre of the evil elements of this history, so do its good elements centre round the pious king Josiah, who radically extirpated the worship in high places, and carried out a national reformation with equal sincerity and power, 2 Kings xxii. sq. And as our author, in agreement with the previous compiler (compare p. 159) and many of the Prophets, ascribes the ruin of the kingdom of Judah especially to this worship in high places, he takes care to observe at the very outset of his own writing (1 Kings iii. 2: comp. xi. 7-10) that they existed even in Solomon's time; and adds to his account of even each good king of this kingdom, that in protecting them he did what he ought not to have done. The fact that he calls every king of the Northern Kingdom without exception an evil-doer in the sight of Jahve, arises from his general view of the origin and nature of that kingdom; but he thus designates all those kings of the Southern Kingdom also who had favoured idolatry. It is especially these standing judgments pronounced upon each ruler which impress upon the work the stamp of that melancholy desolation which at the time of its composition weighed heavily upon the dispersed nation. Thus also in the general treatment of this part the same method is discernible which characterises the present Book of Judges (p. 162 sq.). We here see in brief which of our author's additions were most specially his own; but besides these it is obvious that he also wrote and appended the life of the last king Zedekiah, which was not yet inscribed in the history of the kingdom,' as also the still later narratives. The later portions of the stories of Elisha may have been introduced by him, as they appear to be merely further developments of old materials, and with It is clear that the writer had access the whole of chap. lii. from the same to written authorities, from 2 Kings xxv. source, omitting however the narrative 22-26, which is derived from Jer. xl.- 2 Kings xxv. 22-26, because he knew xliii.; on the other hand Jer. xxxix. re- that it had been already given in Jer. xl.ceived many additions from this end of xliii. the Books of Kings, and a still later compiler appended to the Book of Jeremiah Even from very different regions: 2 Kings iv. 14-16 springs from Gen. xviii. respect to their contents, which are far removed from the fulness. and substance of the older histories, stand upon the same level as the story in 1 Kings xiii. 1-32. The hand of this latest author is recognisable besides, not only in certain favourite phrases,' but also in a great infusion of later and foreign elements of speech, of a kind which we have not as yet seen in any historian from Judah. This infusion however appears only occasionally, and is far from permeating the whole work. Many of these foreign words, too, may be attributable to the authorities employed by the author.2 9-11, and 2 Kings vi. 17-20 from Gen. xix. 11. It is often very characteristic of such imitations that they flow copiously from one single passage, as if it alone had been in the mind of the later writer. We may here class in xv. 16, xvi. 5; also the use of .original authority עָשָׂה הָרַע בְּעֵינִי which is as frequent in Deuteronomy, 2 As, for instance, we may notice that the strongly Aramaic form (hundreds) is found only in 2 Kings xi. a few times, and even there is avoided in verse 19; and that is found only in 1 Kings xxi. 8, 11; only in 1 Kings xx. 14 sqq. only in 1 Kings x. 15, xx. 24, 2 Kings xviii. 24, and an Aramaic infinitive only in 2 Kings v. 18. The occurrence of the relative 2 Kings vi. 11 depends on a doubtful reading (see my Sprachlehre, seventh ed. p. 474). III. THE LATEST BOOK OF GENERAL HISTORY. CHRONICLES, WITH THE BOOKS OF EZRA AND NEHEMIAH. THE trial days of the Captivity, and the commencement of the restoration of Jerusalem, were succeeded by centuries which in many respects might be expected to be peculiarly favourable to the composition of history. The close connection into which the history of the Hebrews now entered with that of the Persians and many other heathen nations, might render their historical view wider, and their historical perception more delicate. Literary activity now penetrating deeper and deeper into all classes, even the non-prophetical and non-sacerdotal, was enabled to follow closer and more fully upon the events, and thus to produce a profusion of most various works respecting contemporary history itself. And in fact this good fortune was not wanting. A new phenomenon in historical literature is presented by the memorabilia of contemporaries, in which laymen and others note down with fresh feeling, and from accurate personal recollection, what seems to them worthy of record for the instruction of posterity, or perhaps even more for their own satisfaction. Biographical memoirs of this kind, written by men who influence their time through their own force of character, or even are its chief support and leaders, can scarcely arise earlier than the final margin of a long series of historical literature. Though often presenting rather the warm feelings of an individual than a calm consideration and short survey of more weighty matters, these memoirs, as a glass truly reflecting the special history of the time, occupy a very different rank from all ordinary historical works. We find the most distinct example of this in the somewhat comprehensive fragments of a book by Nehemiah himself, incorporated in the existing Book of Nehemiah. Other examples, which are scattered more widely throughout the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and therefore more difficult to discover, will be better treated afterwards. As Nehemiah was a layman in high office, who clearly did not aspire to the name and fame of a scholar or writer (for thus he exhibits himself in his memoir), we must infer from his example that this kind of occasional authorship was very frequent in those days. But in other respects these ages took a form less and less favourable to the writing of history, as is sufficiently proved by such strictly historical works as have come down to us from them. When the general national life was sinking deeper and deeper into confusion and weakness, away from the bold elevation which in the beginning of the restoration of Jerusalem it seemed about to attain, how then should the historic art alone have progressed and flourished, or even saved itself from the insidious decay which the nation generally could not escape? The chronicler of a people submitting unwillingly to foreign. or to tyrannical rule, as was then the fate of Israel, is not in a position to look straight at things; nor has he scope to look freely around him either, when his nation, driven into the utmost straits, falls more and more under the influence of vague and faithless fears. This decline in the character of the historical works, being an inherent necessity, could not fail to appear in that age of Hebrew history; indeed its primary origin has already been observed in the last works of the preceding period. The fresh wants and tastes of a later age demanded fresh histories; and there are many indications that if possible even more was now written in this department than in earlier days. The spirit of the old religion, which animated the earlier histories, could not at once be wholly lost or changed in the new works; although after a considerable lapse of time such a change is undoubtedly very observable, manifesting itself first only in certain peculiar books. But in general, the image presented to us in the historical works of those times, even where they describe antiquity and the better days of old, is yet only that of a community, subjected to many forms of internal repression, but all the more proud of its ancient blessings, and therefore increasingly anxious to retain these, and priding itself only in the cause of the ancient religion and its glorification. In the Books of Chronicles, and those of Ezra and Nehemiah, which (as I shall hereafter prove) originally belonged to them,' we possess the most comprehensive and marked work of this 1 The unity of these books has also been recognised by Zunz (Gottesdienstliche Vorträge der Juden, Berlin, 1832, p. 21). In ignorance of the views there advocated, I had been brought by independent investigation to the same result. Richard Simon also attributes Ezra i.-vi. to the author of Chronicles. A general conclu sion of this kind is not difficult to reach; but the important and fruitful question for us is, how the hypothesis of the unity of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah is to be followed up and maintained in connection with a correct appreciation of the writer and his work. |