Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
The Pulpit Commentary on I Kings

The Pulpit Commentary on I Kings

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3 |Likes:
Published by glennpease

EDITED BY THE

VERY REV. H. D. M. SPENCE, D.D.,

DEAN OF GLOUCESTER;
AND BY THE

REV. JOSEPH S. EXELL, M.A,

EDITED BY THE

VERY REV. H. D. M. SPENCE, D.D.,

DEAN OF GLOUCESTER;
AND BY THE

REV. JOSEPH S. EXELL, M.A,

More info:

Published by: glennpease on Apr 24, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/24/2014

pdf

text

original

 
THE PULPIT COMMETARY O I KIGSEDITED BY THE VERY REV. H. D. M. SPECE, D.D., DEA OF GLOUCESTER; AD BY THE REV. JOSEPH S. EXELL, M.A, There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. WITH ITRODUCTIOS BY THE VE. AECHDEACO F. W. FAEEAE, D.D., F.E.S.— EIGHT EEV. H. COTTEEILL, D.D., P.E.S.E.— VEET EEV. PRICIPAL J. TULLOCH, D.D.— EEV. CAO Q. KAWLISO, M.A.— EEV. A. PLUMMEE, M.A., D.D. FUK & WAGALLS COMPAY Kew Yoek akd Toronto. I. KIGS. (Sxposition axitt ^omiletice : REV. JOSEPH HAMMOD, LL.B., B.A., VICAR OF ST. AU3TEU. fomilUs bs l)arione ^ntliors:
 
KEV. K. DE PRESSESfi, D.D. REV. A. ROWLAD, M.A., LU* REV. J. WAITE, B.A. REV. J. A. MACDOALD. REV. J. URQUHART. FUK & WAGALLS COMPAY ew Yobe and Toronto. THE BOOKS OF THE KIGS. ITRODUCTIO. L Unity of ths Wobk. Tbb BooIcs now bnown to ns as the First and Second Books of the Kings, like 1 and 2 Samuel, were originally and are really bnt one work, by one writer or compiler, and it is only for convenience of reference and because of long established usage that we here treat them as two. In all Hebrew MSS. down to the time of Jerome certainly, and probably down to A.D. 1518, when the Hebrew text was first printed by D. Bomberg at Venice, the division into two books was unknown. It was first made in the Greek version by the Septnagint translators, who followed a prevailing custom of the Alexandrine Greeks of dividing ancient works for facihty of reference. The division thus introduced was perpetuated in the Latin version of Jerome, who took care, however, whDe following the LXX. usage, to notice the essential unity of the work;"' and the authority of the Septuagint in the Eastern, and of the Vulgate in the Western Church, has ensured the continuance of this bipartite arrangement in all later time. That the two books, however, are really one is proved by the strongest internal evidence. ot only is there no break between them — the separation at 1 Kings xxii. 63 being so purely arbitrary and artificial that it is actually made haphazard in the middle both of the reign of Ahaziah and of the ministry of Elijah — ^bnt the nnity of purpose is conspicuous throughout. Together they afford us a continuous and complete history of the kings and kingdoms of the chosen people. And the language of the two books points conclusively
 
• - Qnartns MtlaeMm, i^., Begnm, qui iiL et iv. Begum volnnune eontinetnr " (Prolog. Oaleat.) Similarly Origen in Etaeb. " Eccles. Hist." vi. 25 : BaoiXawv rpirn, m-aprf U M OioftfiiXiH Aafiit, imif tan fiaoiXaa ta^ii. m* ITEODUCTIO TO to a single writer. While there are no indications of the manner of speech of a later period, no contradictions or oonfasions such as would arise from different miters, there are many phrases and formulsa, tricks of expression, and turns of thought, which show the same hand and mind throughout the entire work, and effectually exclude the idea of a divided authorship.^ While, however, it is indisputable that we have in these two portions of Holy Scripture the production of a single writer, we have no sufficient warrant for concluding as some (Eichhorn, Jahn, al.) have done, that the division between them and the Books of Samuel is equally artificial, and that they are parts of a much greater work (called by Ewald "the Great Book of the Kings ") — a work which comprised along with them Judges, Euth, and 1 and 2 Samuel The arguments ia support of tliis view are stated at considerable length by Lord Arthur Hervey in Smith's " Dictionary of the Bible " (vol. ii. p. 21), but to my thinking they are entirely incon- clusive, and have been effectually disposed of by, among others, Bahr,* KeU.t and Rawlinson, J each of whom cites a number of peculiarities not only of diction, but of manner, arrangement, materials, &e.,§ which clearly distinguish the Books of Kings from those which precede them in the sacred Canon. n. TrrM. The name Emos (D^S^D) requires but little notice. Whether these scriptures bore this name from the first or not — and it is hardly likely that they did, the probability being that the Book was originally cited, like those of the Pentateuch, &c., by its initial words, ^n I^DHI, and was only called " Kings " from its contents (like the Book of " Samuel ") at a later period — this one word aptly describes the character and subject-matter of this composition and sufficiently distinguishes it from the rest of its class. It is simply a history of the kings of Israel and Judah, in the order of their reigns. The LXX. Title, BamXciuv. y. !. (i,e. "Kingdoms"), expresses the same