[6] The division of the two books at this point is an innovation first made in the LXX. and Vulgate.
[7] Both xiv. 22 and xv. 5 presuppose fuller records of which 2 Chron. xxvi. 6-7, 16-20 may represent merely later and less trustworthy versions.
[8] See F. Rühl, Deutsche Zeit. f. Geschichtwissens, xii. 54 sqq.; also [Jews]: History, § 12.
[9] See further the special study by E. Day, Journ. Bib. Lit. (1902), pp. 197 sqq.
[10] Cf. similarly the prophetic narratives in the books of Samuel (q.v.).
[11] “The LXX. of Kings is not a corrupt reproduction of the Hebrew receptus, but represents another recension of the text. Neither recension can claim absolute superiority. The defects of the LXX. lie on the surface, and are greatly aggravated by the condition of the Greek text, which has suffered much in transmission, and particularly has in many places been corrected after the later Greek versions that express the Hebrew receptus of the 2nd century of our era. Yet the LXX. not only preserves many good readings in detail, but throws much light on the long-continued process of redaction at the hand of successive editors or copyists of which the extant Hebrew of Kings is the outcome. Even the false readings of the Greek are instructive, for both recensions were exposed to corrupting influences of precisely the same kind” (W. R. Smith).
[12] See W. R. Smith, Journ. of Philology, x. 209 sqq.; Prophets of Israel, p. 147. seq.; and K. Marti, Ency. Bib. art. “Chronology.”
[13] Against earlier doubts by Havet (1878), Vernes (1887) and Horst (1888), see W. E. Addis, Documents of Hexateuch, ii. 2 sqq.; but the whole question has been reopened by E. Day (loc. cit. above) and R. H. Kennett (Journ. Theol. Stud., July 1906, 481 sqq.).
[14] See Kennett. Journ. Theol. Stud. 1905, pp. 169 sqq.; 1906, pp. 488 sqq.; and cf. J. A. Montgomery, The Samaritans (1907), pp. 47, 53 seq., 57, 59, 61 sqq.
