Introduction

The 3rd and 4th Books of Kings in the Hebrew Bible originally constituted one book called “Kings,” Hebrew Melachim, and only from the beginning of the 16th century A.D. did this book appear 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 separate titles: Melachim I and Melachim II, — undoubtedly under the influence of the Greek Bible of the Seventy, in which from the beginning there were two books, in connection with the Books of Samuel (or 1 and 2 Kings) called: basileiōn tritē, basileiōn tetartē. However, in this Greek version, on the one hand, the terminology itself is not entirely accurate — the rendering of melachim (kings) through Basileiai (kingdoms). Blessed Jerome says: “Melachim that is Regum, which in the third and fourth Books of Kings (of Reigns) is contained... Much better Melachim that is Regun, than Mamlachoth that is Regnorum to say. For it does not describe the kingdoms of many nations, but of one Hebrew people.” Indeed, the 3rd and 4th Books of Kings contain the history proper of royal power and kings (not theocracy in general) of one and the same Hebrew people, which is why the name “Kings” better corresponds to their content than “Kingdoms.” On the other hand, there is no real basis for dividing the single history into two books: the last chapter of the 3rd Book of Kings and the first chapter of the 4th Book of Kings, which recount one history of the king of Israel Ahaziah, could only artificially be divided between two books. In reality both books, in form and in content, present a single indivisible whole, having in relation to unity and completeness even an advantage over other biblical Old Testament books. They begin with the history of the most glorious of Hebrew kings, Solomon, to whom by God’s providence it was appointed to build the only temple lawful to Jehovah; and they end 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 a whole, fully completed period of biblical Hebrew history (compare 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 still was “a man of war” (1 Chr 28:3), and in religious respect that time was the period of the movable sanctuary — the tabernacle (2 Sam 7:6-7), then from Solomon, “a man of peace” (1 Chr 22:9), for Israel came a time of complete, peaceful, permanent possession of the promised land (2 Sam 7:10-11; 1 Kgs 5:3-4), correspondingly to which Solomon himself 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 exposition, style, and literary methods of the sacred author. One strictly maintained viewpoint runs through the entire book — the theocratic view of the dependence of the historical destinies of Israel on the sincerity and purity of his faith; throughout one encounters remarks of an edifying, religious and moral character, so that the history of the Hebrew “kings” is, one might say, a church-historical work on Old Testament soil. The form and method of historiography of the 3rd and 4th Books of Kings are strictly determined and uniform throughout their whole extent: about each king account is given of the time of his accession to the throne, the total duration of his reign is specified, a characterization and more or less detailed description of his activity is made; finally, the date of death and indication of the source of information about that king. The period of time encompassed by the content of the 3rd and 4th Books of Kings equals approximately four hundred and fifty years: from the reign of Solomon — around 1015 B.C. until the liberation in Babylon from the prison of King Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 25:27-30) in the 37th year of his captivity, that is (599 B.C. — 37 years) in 562 B.C. According to Josephus (Jewish Antiquities, Book 10, ch. 8, §4), the kings of the line of David reigned 514 years, consequently without David, whose reign is described in the 2nd Book of Kings, — 474 years; the burning of the temple, in the opinion of that historian (ibid., § 5), occurred 476 years after its construction. This period of the history of Israel naturally divides itself into three smaller periods or epochs, according to which the 3rd and 4th Books of Kings may be divided into three parts: 1) the period of the reign of Solomon, (1 Kgs 1-11); 2) the period of the synchronistic history of both Hebrew kingdoms, the Kingdom of Judah and the Kingdom of Israel, from the division until the fall of the northern — Kingdom of Israel, (1 Kgs 12-22; 2 Kgs 1-17); 3) the period of the sole existence of the southern — Kingdom of Judah from the moment of the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel until the fall of Jerusalem and Judah 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 Solomōn, Vulg.: 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 — hajamimlemalche lehudah, biblion logōn tōn hēmerōn tois basileusin Ioudā, 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 character of the cited sources remain unknown; however, it is beyond doubt that they were separate, independent works (for each of the three indicated epochs the sacred writer uses 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 at the time of the writing of the 3rd and 4th Books of Kings those sources not only existed but were in very great repute among the people. From the comparison of the citations in question from the Books of Kings with parallel passages in the Book of 2 Chronicles one can see that all three mentioned sources were writings of prophets, who were generally the only historians in biblical antiquity (compare 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; compare also 2 Kgs 18:13-20:19 with Isa 36-39; Jer 52 with 2 Kgs 24-25). On the contrary, 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 Kings, — about their composition by the mazkir’im mentioned in (2 Sam 8:16; 1 Kgs 4:3) (LXX: hypomnematasygraphoj, Slavonic: “remembrancer,” Russian: “recorder of deeds”), cannot find confirmation in the biblical text. According to blessed Theodoret, “each prophet had the custom of recording the events that occurred at that time, contemporary with him. Others, having joined this together, composed the Books of Kings” (“Commentary on the Books of Kings,” preface, see question 4 on 2 Kings and 49 on 4 Kings). The divinely inspired character of the Books of Kings is thereby presumed of itself.

The time of writing of the 3rd and 4th Books of Kings may be determined with probability — from the mention of the liberation of Jehoiachin (562 B.C.) and the absence in the books of any indication of the end of captivity and the decree of Cyrus (536 B.C.), in the second half of the Babylonian captivity, around the middle of the 6th century B.C. 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 writer of the 3rd and 4th Books of Kings to be the prophet Jeremiah. But while the similarity of some passages from the Books of Kings with the books of the prophet Jeremiah might speak in favor of this supposition (compare 2 Kgs 2 with Jer 52), directly against it speaks: a) the time and b) the place of writing of the 3rd and 4th Books of Kings, insofar as this time and place may be determined with probability. We saw that the 3rd and 4th Books of Kings could not have been written before the second half of the Babylonian captivity; in such a case the prophet Jeremiah would have been by then a hundred-year-old elder; but it is known that the prophet Jeremiah in the very first years of captivity was taken by the Judeans to Egypt (Jer 43:6), where soon he accepted a martyr’s death from his countrymen (compare Menologion, under May 1). It is also unlikely that Egypt was the place of writing of the 3rd and 4th Books of Kings: not for a small group of Egyptian fugitives from among the Judeans did there exist a need for composing such a work, but for the main body of the people of God, that is, those captive in Babylon. The latter is the probable place of origin of both books (indication of this was seen, among other things, in 2 Kgs 24), and if there is scarcely any indication of life in Egypt in our books, then Babylonian life and events from the history of the Neo-Chaldean kingdom are reflected in these books in many ways. But if the prophet Jeremiah was not the writer of the 3rd and 4th Books of Kings, yet he influenced through his book the sacred writer of the 3rd and 4th Books of Kings (compare Jer 52 and 2 Kgs 25). Admission of the books into the canon (into the section “nebim rischonim” — “prophets first, earliest”) in any case testifies to their high worth and authority in the Judean church. The purpose of the books is moral instruction — to show that “as long as Israel knew how to use Divine providence, he lived in peace and quiet, and all were subject to him; but when he lost the help of God, he was subjected to unpleasant attacks” (blessed Theodoret, commentary on 4 Book of Kings, question 31).

* * *

By the calculations of I. Spassky (later Sergius, archbishop of Vladimir), 407 years passed from the laying of the temple to its destruction. Investigation of Biblical Chronology. Kiev, 1857, p. 131