Introduction

The 3rd and 4th books of Kingdoms in the Hebrew Bible originally formed one book “Kings”, Hebrew Melachim, and only from the beginning of the 16th century AD has this book appeared divided into two — beginning with the Bomberg edition of the Hebrew Bible in 1517, the two parts of the previously undivided book are called by special titles: Melachim I and Melachim II, — undoubtedly under the influence of the Greek Bible LXX, which from the beginning had two books, and in connection with the books of Samuel (or 1 and 2 Kingdoms) were called: basileiōn tritē, basileiōn tetartē. However, in this Greek version, on the one hand, the terminology itself is not entirely accurate — the transmission of melachim (kings) through Basilieiai (kingdoms). Blessed Jerome says: “Melachim that is Regum, which are contained in the third and fourth book of Kings (Regnorum)... And it is much better to say Melachim, that is Kings, than Mamlachoth, that is Kingdoms. For it does not describe the kingdoms of many nations, but of one Hebrew people.” Indeed, the 3rd and 4th books of Kingdoms contain the history precisely of royal power and kings (not of theocracy generally) of one and the same Hebrew people, which is why the name “Kings” more fits their content than “Kingdoms.” On the other hand, the division of a unified history into two books has no real foundation: the last chapter of the 3rd book of Kingdoms and the first chapter of the 4th book of Kingdoms, describing one history of the Israelite king Ahaziah, could only artificially be divided between two books. In reality, both books in form and content represent a single indivisible whole, having even an advantage in unity and completeness over other biblical Old Testament books. They begin with the history of the most glorious of Hebrew kings, Solomon, to whom it was appointed by God’s providence to build the only temple to Jehovah according to the law; and they conclude with the depiction of the destruction of the Kingdom of Judah, the cessation of the dynasty of David, and the burning of the Temple of Jerusalem, and thus contain the history of an entire, fully completed period of biblical-Hebrew history (cf. 1 Kgs 6:1): if the period from the exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt until Solomon was a transitional time of wandering and wars, and David was still “a man of war” (1 Chr 28:3), and in religious terms that period was the period of a movable sanctuary — the tabernacle (2 Sam 7:6-7), then from Solomon, “a man of peace” (1 Chr 22:9), for Israel there came a time of complete, peaceful, secure possession of the promised land (2 Sam 7:10-11; 1 Kgs 5:3-4), and accordingly it was Solomon who built the immovable “house” of the name of Jehovah (2 Sam 7:13; 1 Kgs 5:5).

The unity of both books extends also to the form of presentation, style, and methods of the sacred writer. A single, strictly maintained point of view runs through the entire book — a theocratic view of the dependence of the historical fate of Israel on the sincerity and purity of its faith; everywhere here are found remarks of an instructive, religious-moral nature, so that the histories of the “kings” of the Hebrews is, one might say, a church-historical work on an Old Testament basis. The form and method of historiography of the 3rd and 4th books of Kingdoms is strictly determined and uniform throughout their entire course: about each king, information is given about the time of his accession to the kingdom, the overall duration of his reign is determined, a characterization and more or less detailed description of his activity is given; finally, the date of his death and an indication of the source of information about this king. The period of time encompassed by the content of the 3rd and 4th books of Kingdoms amounts to approximately four hundred fifty years: from the accession of Solomon — about 1015 years before Christ until the liberation in Babylon from imprisonment of King Jeconiah (2 Kgs 25:27-30) in the 37th year of his captivity, that is (599 — 37) in the year 562 before Christ. According to Josephus (Jewish Antiquities, Book 10, chapter 8, §4), the kings from the line of David reigned for 514 years, consequently without David, whose reign is described in the 2nd book of Kingdoms, — 474 years; the burning of the temple, in the opinion of that historian (there, § 5), occurred 476 years after its construction. This period of Israelite history naturally divides into three smaller periods or epochs, according to which the 3rd and 4th books of Kingdoms can be divided into three parts: 1) the period of Solomon’s reign, (1 Kgs 1-11); 2) the period of synchronistic history of both Hebrew kingdoms, Judah and Israel, from the division to the fall of the northern — Israeli kingdom, (1 Kgs 12-22; 2 Kgs 1-17); 3) the period of the sole existence of the southern — Judean kingdom from the moment of destruction of the Israeli kingdom until the fall of Jerusalem and Judea under the arms of the Chaldeans, (2 Kgs 18-25). For each of these epochs the sacred writer had his own special source: a) for the history of Solomon such a source was the “Book of the Acts of Solomon”, Hebrew Sepher dibre — Schelomoh, LXX: biblion tōn rhēmatōn Salomōn, Vulgate: liber verborum dierum Salomons, Slavonic: “Book of the Words of Solomon” (1 Kgs 11:41); b) for the history of the kings of the southern kingdom, from Rehoboam to Jehoiakim inclusive, — “the chronicle of the kings of Judah”, Sepher dibre — ha-jamim lemalche lehudah, biblion logōn tōn hēmerōn tois basileusin Iuda, liber verborum dierum regum Juda, “Book of the Words of the Kings of Judah” (1 Kgs 14:29; 2 Kgs 8:23 and others) and c) for the history of the kings of the northern kingdom — “the chronicle of the kings of Israel” (1 Kgs 14:19; 2 Kgs 1:18 and others). The content and nature of the cited sources remain unknown; however, it is undoubted that they were separate, independent works (for each of the three mentioned epochs the sacred writer uses only one source, not mentioning the other two); that they contained more than what the writer borrowed from them (his usual formula: “the rest of the acts are written in the book...”) and that when the 3rd and 4th books of Kingdoms were written, these sources not only existed, but were in very great repute among the people. From the comparison of the citations from the books of Kingdoms with parallel passages from the book of 2 Chronicles, one can see that all three mentioned sources were writings of prophets, who were generally the only historiographers in biblical antiquity (cf. 1 Kgs 11:41 with 2 Chr 9:29; 1 Kgs 14:21 with 2 Chr 12:15; 1 Kgs 15:1-8 with 2 Chr 13:22; cf. also 2 Kgs 18:13-20:19 with Isa 36-39; Jer 52 with 2 Kgs 24-25). Conversely, the opinion of Delitzsch and others about the secular origin of the chronicles of kings, which served as sources for the 3rd and 4th books of Kingdoms, — about their composition by those mentioned in (2 Sam 8:16; 1 Kgs 4:3) mazkir’s (LXX: hypomnēmatographos, Slavonic: “remembrancer”, Russian: “recorder”), cannot find confirmation in the biblical text. According to the words of Blessed Theodoret, “each prophet had the custom of describing the events occurring at that time, his contemporary events. But others, joining this together, composed the books of Kingdoms” (“Commentary on the books of Kingdoms”, preface, see question 4 on 2 Kingdoms and 49 on 4 Kingdoms). The divinely inspired worth of the books of Kingdoms is hereby itself presupposed.

The time of writing of the 3rd and 4th books of Kingdoms can be determined with probability — from the mention of the liberation of Jeconiah (562 AD) and the absence in the books of any indication of the end of captivity and the decree of Cyrus (536 AD), — the second half of the Babylonian captivity, about the middle of the 6th century before Christ. The writer of the books is unknown: there are no definite indications of the author in the books. The Talmudic tradition (Baba batra 15, f. 5) considers the prophet Jeremiah to be the writer of the 3rd and 4th books of Kingdoms. But if the similarity of certain passages from the books of Kingdoms with the books of the prophet Jeremiah could speak in favor of this assumption (cf. 2 Kgs 2 with Jer 52), then directly against it speaks: a) the time and b) the place of writing of the 3rd and 4th books of Kingdoms, insofar as this time and place can be determined with probability. We saw that the 3rd and 4th books of Kingdoms could have been written no earlier than the second half of the Babylonian captivity; in that case, the prophet Jeremiah would have been already a hundred-year-old elder; but it is known that the prophet Jeremiah in the very first years of captivity was led away by the Jews into Egypt (Jer 43:6), where he soon suffered a martyr’s death from his countrymen (cf. Lives of the Saints, on May 1). It is also improbable that Egypt was the place of writing of the 3rd and 4th books of Kingdoms: not for a small group of Egyptian fugitives from the Jews was such a work needed, but for the main part of the people of God, that is, those captive in Babylon. The latter is the probable place of the origin of both books (the indication of this was seen, among other things, in 2 Kgs 24), and if there are almost no indications of life in Egypt in our books, then Babylonian life and events from the history of the New-Chaldean kingdom were reflected in various ways in these books. But if the prophet Jeremiah was not the writer of the 3rd and 4th books of Kingdoms, then he nevertheless influenced the sacred writer of the 3rd and 4th books of Kingdoms with his book (cf. Jer 52 and 2 Kgs 25). The reception of the books into the canon (in the section “nebim rischonim” — “the prophets, the first, the earliest”) in any case speaks of their high worth and authority in the Jewish Church. The purpose of the books is moral instruction — to show that “while Israel knew how to use Divine providence, he lived in peace and quiet, and all were subject to him; but when he lost God’s help, he was subjected to hostile attacks” (Blessed Theodoret, commentary on the 4th book of Kingdoms, question 31).

* * *

According to the calculations of I. Spassky (later Sergius, Archbishop of Vladimir), 407 years passed from the laying of the temple to its destruction. An Inquiry into Biblical Chronology. Kiev, 1857, p. 131