him,-perhaps, the Annals' or Chronicles' of each king's reign, comp. the Book of the (words) acts of Solomon,' 1K.xi. 41, composed by the official remembrancer,' 28.viii.16, xx.24, 1K.iv.3, 2K.xviii. 18,37, comp. Ezr.iv.15, vi.2, Neh.xii.23, Est.ii.23, vi.1, x.2, and already collected by some later editor into the Book of the (acts of days=) Annals of the kings of Judah (Israel),' 1K.xiv.19,29, &c.,-the language of which he may have frequently retained, while intermingling his own remarks, and rewriting, it may be, some passages, in all which it may be expected that his own style of composition will be exhibited, differing by certain well-defined peculiarities from that of his sources.

3. Thus, with reference to the two Books of Kings, covering a ground of about 450 years (B.c. 1015-562) Bishop Lord Arthur HERVEY writes as follows, D.B. ii.p.28:

'As regards the authorship of these Books, but little difficulty presents itself. The Jewish tradition, which ascribes them to JEREMIAH, is borne out by the strongest internal evidence, in addition to that of the language. The last chapter, especially as compared with the last chapter of the Chronicles, bears distinct traces of having been written by one who did not go into captivity, but remained in Judæa, after the destruction of the Temple. This suits Jeremiah. The events singled out for mention in the concise narrative are precisely those of which he had personal knowledge and in which he took special interest. . . . Brief as the narrative is [in the last chapters], it brings out all the chief points in the political events of the time which we know were much in Jeremiah's mind; and yet, which is exceedingly remarkable, [or would be, if Jeremiah were not himself the writer, since he filled so prominent a place in the history of that time,] Jeremiah is never once named (as he is in 2Ch.xxxvi.12,21,) although the manner of the writer is frequently to connect the sufferings of Judah with their sins and their neglect of the Word of God. . . .

'With Josiah's reign necessarily cease all strongly marked characters of Jeremiah's authorship. For though the general unity and continuity of plan (which, as already observed, pervades not only the books of Kings, but those of Samuel, Ruth, and Judges likewise) lead us to assign the whole history in a certain sense to one author, and enable us to carry to the account of the whole book the proofs derived from the closing chapters, yet it must be borne in mind that the authorship of those parts of the history of which Jeremiah was not an eye-witness, that is, of all before the reign of Josiah, would [? may] have consisted merely in selecting, arranging, inserting the connecting phrases, and, when necessary, slightly modernising the

old histories which had been drawn up by contemporary prophets throughout the whole period of time.'

4. There can be no doubt as to the general truth of the above statement, which is abundantly confirmed by a long array of evidence in the article from which the quotation is made, and in which also the writer says, Ibid. p.26:—

'We may safely affirm that on the whole the peculiarities of diction in these Books do not indicate a time after the Captivity or towards the close of it, but on the contrary point pretty distinctly to the age of Jeremiah.'

But the share which Jeremiah has had in the composition of the Books of Kings is assuredly much greater than Lord A. HERVEY seems to suppose, or, at all events, than his words imply. He himself, in a note, p.28, refers to the following signs of Jeremiah's hand, as already adduced by DE WETTE and others, which go far beyond merely selecting, arranging, inserting connecting phrases, and slightly modernising' :

6

'And as to this house which is high, everyone passing by it shall be astonished and hiss, and they shall say, Wherefore hath Jehovah done thus to this land and to this house? And they shall say, Because they forsook Jehovah their Elohim, who brought-forth their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and took-hold upon other Elohim, and bowed-down and served them; therefore Jehovah brought upon them all this evil.' 1K.ix.8,9, N.B. inserted as a prophecy in an address of Jehovah to Solomon;

comp. And many nations shall pass by this city and shall say, each to his friend, Wherefore hath Jehovah done thus to this great city? And they shall say, Because they forsook the covenant of Jehovah their Elohim, and bowed-down to other Elohim and served them.' Jer.xxii.8,9.

'And Jehovah testified against Israel and against Judah by the hand of every prophet, every seer, saying, Return-ye from your evil ways and keep My commandments, My statutes, according to all the Law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent unto you by the hand of My servants the prophets. And they heard not, but hardened their neck, as the neck of their fathers, who believed not in Jehovah their Elohim.' 2K.xvii. 13,14.

comp. And Jehovah sent unto you all His servants the prophets, rising-early and sending, and ye heard not, and ye inclined not your ear to hear, saying, Return-ye now each from his evil way, &c.' Jer.xxv.3,4.

'And I sent unto them all my servants the prophets, rising-early and sending, saying, Return-ye now each from his evil-way. and ye inclined not your ear,

and ye hearkened not unto Me.' Jer.xxxv.15.

'Return-ye now each from his evil way,' Jer.xviii.11.

[N.B. Lord A. H. compares only Jer.vii.13,24; but the above passages are much more to the purpose.]

'Therefore thus saith Jehovah the Elohim of Israel, Lo! I am bringing evil upon Jerusalem and Judah, which everyone hearing both his ears shall tingle,' 2K.xxi.12;

comp. Thus saith Jehovah of Hosts the Elohim of Israel, Lo! I am bringing evil upon this place, which everyone hearing his ears shall tingle,' Jer.xix.3.

For they are Thy people and Thine inheritance, whom Thou broughtest-forth out of Egypt, out of the midst of the furnace of iron,' 1K.viii.51;

comp.

In the day of My bringing-them-forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the furnace of iron,' Jer.xi.4.

5. Lord A. HERVEY also refers to the almost verbal identity throughout between 2K.xxiv.18-xxv.30 and Jer.lii, [except that 2K.xxv.22-26 appears to be condensed from Jer.xl.5,7-9, xli.1-3, xliii.1-7]; although this might be explained by supposing that Jer.lii has been added to the book of Jeremiah's prophecies by a later hand, and copied from 2Kings.* But the

This is the opinion of GRAF, Jer. p.623. The closing words, however, 2K.xxv.27-30, would seem to have been added by another hand after Jeremiah's death. For though, as Lord A. HERVEY says, p.29, note, 'there is nothing impossible in the supposition of Jeremiah having survived till the 37th year of Jehoiachin's captivity, B.C. 562, though he would have been between 80 and 90,' yet there is no trace of his activity after his prophecy at Tahpanhes in Egypt, Jer.xliv, B.C. 587; and it seems very unlikely that the last twenty-five years of his life should have left no record behind them. Dean STANLEY says, D.B. i.p.970 :— On the one hand there is the Christian tradition, resting doubtless on some earlier belief, that the long tragedy of his life ended in actual martyrdom, and that the Jews at Tahpanhes, irritated by his rebukes, at last stoned him to death. On the other side there is the Jewish statement, that, on the conquest of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar, he, with Baruch, made his escape to Babylon or Judæa, and died in peace.' There are some slight variations in Jer.lii.31–34, comp. with 2K.xxv.27–30; e.g. in v.34 we find added until the day of his death,' which may imply that the addition of this notice about Jehoiachin's advancement was made to the prophecies of Jeremiah at a later date than that at which the corresponding notice was added to the Book of Kings, when Jehoiachin (apparently) was still living. If so, the insertion of a similar clause, 'until the day of his death,' with reference to Zedekiah, in Jer.lii. 11, which does not occur in 2K.xxv.7, betrays the same hand, and tends to confirm GRAF's view, that the Book of Jeremiah ended originally with li.64, 'Thus far are the words of Jeremiah,' to which lii has been subsequently added, copied by another hand, with some slight modifications, from the narrative in 2Kings. See App.140.

other instances above given from the Books of Kings show such a manifest identity of thought and expression with the passages compared from Jeremiah, as to show that the prophet has had much to do with the composition of the earlier, as well as the later, portions of these Books. And, indeed, Lord A. HERVEY himself admits, p.31, that

'Occasionally, no doubt, we have the compiler's own comments, or reflexions thrown in, as at 2K.xxi.10-16, xvii.10-15, xiii.23, xvii.7-41 [sic, but this last includes xvii.10-15], &c.'

6. But we must now draw attention to some remarkable admissions on the part of the same able writer, the significance of which is enhanced by the fact, that on main points his 'orthodoxy' is unquestionable. Thus he still maintains, Ibid. p.38, that we have in these Books a most important and accurate account' of the history of Israel,—

'delivered for the most part by contemporary writers, and guaranteed by the authority of one of the most eminent of Jewish prophets.'

He considers, p.32, that

'the Levitical character of the Books of Chronicles, and the presence of several detailed narratives not found in the Books of Kings, and the more frequent reference to the Mosaic institutions, may most naturally and simply be accounted for, without resorting to the absurd hypothesis, that the Ceremonial Law was an invention subsequent to the Captivity;'

and he asserts, p.37, that—

...

'To say, as has been said or insinuated, that a different view of supernatural agency and Divine interposition or of the Mosaic institutions and the Levitical worship is given in the two Books, or that a less historical character belongs to one than to the other, is to say what has not the least foundation in fact. . . . So that remarks on the Levitical tone of Chronicles, when made for the purpose of sup porting the notion that the law of Moses was a late invention, and that the Levitical worship was of post-Babylonian growth, are made in the teeth of the testimony of the Books of Kings, as well as those of Joshua, Judges, and Samuel.'

7. We shall see in the sequel how far the above bold assertions are supported by the real facts of the case. But Lord A. HERVEY further holds, Ibid. p.28, that notwithstanding

'the great variations in the LXX'-i.e. transpositions, omissions, and some considerable additions,' p.27

"The Hebrew Text is not in the least shaken in its main points, nor is there the slightest cloud cast on the accuracy of the history or the truthfulness of the prophecies contained in it.'

With reference to the manifestly fictitious prophecy in 1K.xiii, where the prophet of Judah says to Jeroboam's altar, v.2

'O altar, altar! thus saith Jehovah, Lo! a child shall be born unto the House of David, Josiah by name, and upon thee shall he offer the priests, &c., and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee'

while the prophet of Bethel is made to declare, v.32, that this saying uttered against the altar in Bethel, and against all the houses of the high-places which are in the cities of Samaria, shall surely come to pass,' before the name Samaria' existed, or certainly before it could have been used for the kingdom of Israel, 1K.xvi.24, he says, p.31

6

'We connect the insertion of the prophecy in 1K.xiii with the fact that the compiler was an eye-witness of the fulfilment of it, and can even see how the words ascribed to the old prophet are of the age of the compiler.'

Nay, he maintains, p.22, that

'These valuable additions to our knowledge of profane history, [derived from the deciphering of cuneiform inscriptions], together with the fragments of ancient historians, which are now becoming better understood, are of great assistance in explaining the brief allusions in these Books, while they afford an irrefragable testimony to their historical truth (!)'

Yet these inscriptions, as at present deciphered, do not always support the Scripture statements, as Lord A. HERVEY shows in a certain case, p.24, observing only the Text and the cuneiform inscription do not agree'; and he very justly adds

6

'Few people will be satisfied with the explanation suggested by Mr. RAWLINSON, that "the official who composed, or the workman who engraved, the Assyrian document, made a mistake in the name," and put Menahem when he should have put Pekah.'

8. Let us now see what admissions are made with respect to the Books of Kings by this unexceptionable authority, Ibid. p.22: