^[1] The unity of the books is seen in the recurring phrase, “To this day” (I Kings 9:13; 10:12; 2 Kings 2:22; 10:27; 14:7; 16:6; 17:23, 34, 41; 21:15) and the continuance of the Elijah narrative from 1 Kings 17--2 Kings 2).

^[2] Contra Apion 1.8.

^[3] Walton and Hill, SOT, 155.

^[4] La Sor et al offers a complete list with central passages, Old, pp. 301-303.

^[5] These are Joshua, Deborah, Samuel (although Samuel is transitional as the last of the judges and the first of the monarchical [pre-classical] prophets).

They were called prophets because: (1) they were chosen in order to received revelation, (2) Moses is the prototype of a prophet [Deut. 18:18; 34:10], (3) Samuel marked a time when prophecy resumed [1 Sam. 3:7-9].  See La Sor et al, Old, pp. 300- 301.

^[6] These are scattered throughout the historical books including oracles by Nathan, Elijah, Elisha. “Although somewhat artificial, some general distinctions have been made between the pre-classical and classical prophets. The former slightly predate the latter. The records of the nonwriting prophets tend to be preserved in story form, including accounts of their miraculous signs confirming divine authority in their message. The ministry of the nonwriting prophets was essentially to the royal family, and their message was one of judgment and national destruction for covenant violation. By contrast, the message of the classical (or writing) prophets (e.g., Hosea, Amos, Isaiah) was generally preserved in oracle form and was often underscored with symbolic behavior rather than a miraculous event. The prophets took their message to the political and religious leaders of the monarchies as well as to the populace. In some cases their prophetic ministry was even expanded to the surrounding nations ...” (Walton and Hill, SOT, 212).

^[7] These are most commonly identified with the “writing” prophets from the eighth through fourth century B.C. primarily  including those who wrote books (Obadiah, Joel, Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Isaiah, Obed, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi).

^[8] Hill and Walton, A Survey, p. 311.

^[9] Jonah is unique because it does not contain a collection of prophetic oracles to the nation, but is narrative about the prophet.

^[10] Walton and Hill, SOT, 155; cf. 201.

^[11] See Walton and Hill, SOT, 201-204; Constable, “1 Kings,” BKC, I:483-84; Richard D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel, “1,2, Kings,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 4:4-7.

^[12] Most critical scholars today hold to this view or a form of this view. See G. H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 28-46; Simon J. DeVries, 1 Kings, WBC, xxxv-xxxviii, xlii ff; Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 285-287.

^[13] See Patterson and Hermann, “1 Kings,” EBC, 4:5. Walter Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Old Testament Theology, 63-66.

^[14] B. Talmud, Baba Barthra 15a.

^[15] Richard D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel, “1, 2, Kings,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 6. See also LaSor, Hubbard and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 253; Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction,, 295.

^[16] Richard D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel write, “At least the majority of the book bears the impress of being the product of one author, who, as an eyewitness of the Jewish nation’s final demise, was concerned to show the divine reasons for the fall. In so doing he utilized many sources, weaving the details together into an integrated whole that graphically portrayed Israel’s covenant failure” (“1, 2, Kings,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 6).

^[17] Walton and Hill write, “These documents were probably official court histories kept by royal scribes (cf. 2 Sam. 8:16; 20:24-25) and very likely parallel the royal annals of the Mesopotamian civilizations of Assyria and Babylonia” (SOT, 203).

^[18] Richard D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel affirm that this is “drawn from biographical annalistic, and archival material contemporary with the details of 1 Kings 1--11”(“1,2, Kings,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 4:4).

^[19] These were, “drawn largely from the official records of the northern kingdom that were kept by the court recorder (cf. 2 Sam 8:16; 20:24; 1 Kings 4:3; 2 Kings 18:18,37; 2 Chron 34:8)” (Richard D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel, “1, 2, Kings,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 4:4).

^[20] These were “a record of the events of the reigns of the kings of the southern kingdom from Rehoboam to Jehoiakim” (Richard D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel, “1, 2, Kings,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 4:4).

^[21] Richard D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel, “1, 2, Kings,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 4:4; Walton and Hill, SOT, 203-204; Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 294-295; LaSor, Hubbard and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 253.

^[22] “A united monarchy narrative comprising 2 Samuel 9--20, with 1 Kings 1--2 usually associated with the present books of Samuel” (Walton and Hill, SOT, 204).

^[23] Walton and Hill note a separate “Dynasty of Ahab” record by also not that it may be contained within 1 Kings 16--2 Kings 12 (Walton and Hill, SOT, 204).

^[24] This is almost identical to Isaiah 36:1--39:8.

^[25] This source “contained biographies of Old Testament prophets associated with the Israelite monarchies (e.g., Ahijah, 1 Kings 11:29-33 and 14:1-16; Micaiah, 1 Kings 21:13-28; and certain unnamed prophets, 1 Kings 12--13 and 20:35-43)” (Walton and Hill, SOT, 204).

^[26] It is possible that the bulk of Kings was written before the appendix in 2 Kings 25. LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush write, “Jehoiachin’s release from prison (ca 560) described in 2 Kgs. 25:27-30 sets the earliest possible date for the completion of the book. However, most of it probably was compiled and edited two or three decades earlier” (Old Testament Survey, 253, n. 19). See also Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 295; Donald J. Wiseman, 1 & 2 Kings, 52-54.

^[27] Walton and Hill write, “It is possible that the book was composed in two stages. Most of the history of Hebrew kingship could have been completed between the fall of Jerusalem and the Babylonian reprisal for the assassination of the governor Gedaliah (a third deportation in 582 or 581 B.C., which was described in the first historical appendix, 2 Kings 25:22-26 and Jer. 52:30). The final edition of the work may have been published sometime after the release of King Jehoiachin from prison  in Babylon by Nebuchadrezzar’s successor, Evil-Marodach (ca. 562/561 B.C., reported in the second historical appendix, 2 Kings 25:27-30). A date of 550 B.C. appears reasonable for the completed Kings record” (SOT, 204).

^[28] This chart comes from Walton and Hill, SOT, 205.

^[29] For excellent discussions of this topic see LaSor, Hubbard and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 288-297; Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 297-301; Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 294-300; E. R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings Rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983; Richard D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel, “1, 2, Kings,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 4:10-17; Donald J. Wiseman, 1 & 2 Kings, 26-35. Even though Childs does not hold to the historicity of the chronology in Kings, he does consider it to be a literary device which a “canonical function by the manner in which it renders accessible Israel’s narrative tradition in terms of particular, cumulative, and critical historical experience” (Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 300). He develops its function in a threefold way: (1) “the various chronological patterns in the book of Kings serve to establish a sequence in the historical experience of Israel.” [Ibid., 297], (2) “the use of chronology in Kings, especially its synchronism, provides the story of Israel with a comprehensive character which embraces the whole people of God. The synchronism accommodates the political realities of Israel’s divided history, and yet establishes the interrelatedness of the two kings” [Ibid., 298], and (3) the chronology in Kings serves to establish the interrelatedness of Israel’s history beyond that of the divided nation, by including her experience within the framework of world history” [Ibid.]. These observations are helpful. Child’s presupposition about history require him to be “either/or” in his evaluation rather than “both/and” when he writes, “It seems clear that at some point the biblical writer has borrowed chronological schemata from ancient Near Eastern tradition by which to shape the biblical traditions. He employed categories which constituted an essential part of ancient Near Eastern historical writing in order to render Israel’s own story. The basic hermeneutical issue does not turn on the semantic problem of determining to what extent this category can be considered really historical in the modern sense, but rather on the biblical intention in adopting this common form by which to recount her experience” (Ibid., 299). One must ask why it is that Israel is permitted to borrow a certain “form” but is not expected to do the same thing with this form that her Ancient Near Eastern neighbors is doing with the form--e.g., proclaiming history! Yes, the form does all that Childs has described, but it does more than that. It also proclaims what historically happened!

The following chart comes from Walton and Hill, SOT, 208. This writer still leans toward the reconstruction offered by Thiele.

^[30] Walton and Hill, SOT, 209-210; Donald J. Wiseman, 1 & 2 Kings, 46-52.

^[31] Nevertheless, Patterson and Austel are correct when they say that, “The author tended to write thematically, occasionally leaving his presentation out of chronological order” (Richard D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel, “1, 2, Kings,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 4:7). Concerning chronology and style Wiseman writes, “The historian extends his selectivity to a discrimatory [sic] use of sources to group together events within a single reign or relating to an opposing people (such as Aram or Edom) without the necessity to present them in a strict chronological order. Similarly he felt free to vary the repetitive formulae which served as the framework within which he wrote up the whole ... and to introduce his own personal review or comment at different points in the composition” (Donald J. Wiseman, 1 & 2 Kings, 26).

^[32] “The accounts of the ministries of Elijah and Elisha are important not only as representative biographies of the nonliterary prophetic movement, but also as tracts of faith commemorating key figures in a religious drama with cosmic implications. After his marriage to the Phoenician princess Jezebel, King Ahab installed Baalism as the official religion of the northern kingdom (1 Kings 21:25-26). In contrast, the biographies of Elijah and Elisha stand as monuments to uncompromised faith of Yahweh as the God of the Israelites (cf. 1 Kings 18:16-18). They served as living testimonies of God’s covenant faithfulness to Israel and his supremacy over the Canaanite storm-god, Baal” (Walton and Hill, SOT, 209).

^[33] “The Kings history is similar to other ancient annals in that it is a terse and formulaic reporting of the key political and military events of a given king’s reign” (Walton and Hill, SOT, 209).

^[34] Richard D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel, “1, 2, Kings,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 4:8.

^[35] Richard D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel, “1, 2, Kings,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 4:8.

^[36] Richard D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel, “1, 2, Kings,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 4:8.

^[37] Constable, “1 Kings,” BKC, 1:484.

^[38] Richard D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel, “1, 2, Kings,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 4:8.

^[39] Constable, “1 Kings,” BKC, 1:484.

^[40] Constable, “1 Kings,” BKC, 1:484.

^[41] These statistics are taken from Walton and Hill, SOT, 206.

^[42] “Unlike Judah, dynastic succession in Israel was conditional. The ruling family’s claim to the throne was contingent on the king’s obedience to the statues of God, according to Ahijah’s prophecy to Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:37-38). Failure to obey the commands of Yahweh brought a pronouncement of disaster on the royal household from the prophet of God (1 Kings 14:10-11). Often this prophetic curse included the charge to the succeeding king to systematically execute the family of his predecessor (sometimes resulting in little more than a ‘bloody coup’ in later Israelite history, cf. 1 Kings 16:3-4, 11-12). God then appointed a new king ‘up from the dust’ to lead the people of Israel through the word of his messenger (1 Kings 16:2)” (Walton and Hill, SOT, 212).

^[43] Walton and Hill write, “the northern kingdom of Israel combined the dynastic succession model of kingship with the charismatic leadership model typical of the era of the Hebrew judges. In this case God raised up a gifted and able male or female leaders for Israel to respond to political and religious crises (e.g., Gideon in Judges 6--7). This leader was empowered by the Holy Spirit--an anointing often manifested by extraordinary physical strength, courage, and spiritual zeal. Charismatic leadership was not handed down from one generation to the next. Rather, God commissioned deliverers from different Hebrew tribes and families on the basis of inherent abilities, covenant faith, and historical circumstances. This random and sporadic investiture of charismatic leaders was no doubt designed to instill faith in Yahweh as the ultimate sovereign in Israel” (Walton and Hill, SOT, 212).

^[44] “The type of kingship associated with Judah is usually called the ‘dynastic succession’ model of royal rule. In this, one family claimed (or in David’s case is divinely granted, cf. 2 Samuel 7) royal authority in perpetuity. AT a monarch’s death the throne passed to his eldest son, thus establishing a sequence of kings from the same ruling family in dynastic succession for generations. Often the aging king appointed his successor or arranged a tenure of co-regency for his successor in order to guarantee the smooth transition of power” (Walton and Hill, SOT, 212).

^[45] Walton and Hill, SOT, 209.

^[46] Richard D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel, “1, 2, Kings,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 4:6. Archer writes, “The theme of these two books was to demonstrate on the basis of Israel’s history that the welfare of the nation ultimately depended upon the sincerity of its faithfulness to the covenant with Jehovah, and that the success of any rule was to be measured by the degree of his adherence to the Mosaic constitution and his maintenance of a pure and God-honoring testimony before the heathen. The purpose of this record was to set for those events which were important from the standpoint of God and His program of redemption. The author had no intention of glorifying Israel’s heroes out of nationalistic motives; hence he omitted even those passing achievements which would have assumed great importance in the eyes of a secular historian. His prime concern was to show how each successive ruler dealt with God in his covenant responsibilities” (Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 293). This negative purpose for Kings matches the emphasis by Noth in his Deuteronomistic reconstruction.

^[47] Walton and Hill, SOT, 207. Continuing they write, "The narrative focuses on the figures primarily responsible for covenant keeping in Israel--the kings and the prophets. The prophetic voice has a prominent place in the story of kingship because those divinely appointed messengers functioned as the conscience of the monarchies" (Ibid.). This purpose is very similar to the first.

^[48] Walton and Hill, SOT, 209. This is in line with von Rad's positive approach to Kings.