A Critical And Exegetical Commentary On The Books Of Kings

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the "public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

This volume makes use of diverse methods and approaches to offer fresh treatments of 1 Kings 16 - 2 Kings 16 both synchronically and diachronically. Among its major contributions are a detailed text-critical analysis that frequently adopts readings of the Old Greek and Old Latin and, at the same time, a reexamination of the variant chronologies for the kings of Israel and Judah that argues for the priority of the one in the Masoretic Text. The book presents a new theory of the compositional history of these chapters that ascribes them mostly to the hand of a postexilic "Prophetic Narrator" who reworked older legenda, especially about Elisha, and effectively shaped Kings into the work we have today.

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1904 edition. Excerpt: ... INTRODUCTION. i. The Title. The two books are one book in Hebrew manuscripts. The division into two was first made by the Greek translators or by the Greek copyists. As we know from classic writers, the rolls on which Greek and Latin works were written were of certain conventional sizes. Biblical books (Samuel, Kings, Chronicles) were divided into two in order to conform to this rule of the trade. The division passed over into the Latin Bible, but invaded the Hebrew copies only with the first Rabbinical Bible of Bomberg.* The original state of the case is still indicated, in editions of the Hebrew, by the Massoretic summary which gives the number of verses only at the end of the second book, thus treating the two as one. In this summary we find also the phrase Book of Samuel used, and are told that the middle verse is the one numbered by us i S. 28M. Origen is quoted by Eusebiust as affirming specifically that the first and second Books of the Kingdoms form one book among the Hebrews, and that this bears the name of Samuel. A Greek MS. also remarks at the close of i S. that Aquila. following the Hebrews does not divide but makes the two one book. Jerome in the Prologus Galeatus (printed in the authorized editions of the Vulgate) names as third in the list of the Prophets, Samuel, quern nos Regum primum et secundum dicimus. With this agrees the Talmud, which names Judges, Samuel, Kings, as though each were but a single book. Published at Venice, 1516. Cf. Ginsburg, Introduction to the MassoreticoCritical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (1897). t Hist. Eccles. VI. 23, as cited by Kl. X Field, Hexap. Orig. I. p. 543. The passage (Baba Bathra, 14a) is translated in Briggs, Biblical Study (1883), p. 175 ff., and...

This volume makes use of diverse methods and approaches to offer fresh treatments of 1 Kings 16 - 2 Kings 16 both synchronically and diachronically. Among its major contributions are a detailed text-critical analysis that frequently adopts readings of the Old Greek and Old Latin and, at the same time, a reexamination of the variant chronologies for the kings of Israel and Judah that argues for the priority of the one in the Masoretic Text. The book presents a new theory of the compositional history of these chapters that ascribes them mostly to the hand of a postexilic "Prophetic Narrator" who reworked older legenda, especially about Elisha, and effectively shaped Kings into the work we have today.

This commentary on 1 and 2 Kings demonstrates the continuing intellectual and practical viability of theological interpretation of the Bible for today's church.