The book of Kings was written in Jerusalem, the capital of the southern kingdom of Judah after the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel. As such, the northern kingdom is represented very negatively. The Deuteronomic Historians who wrote 1 Kings relied on royal annals and prophetic legends as their sources. Their main theme in writing was to communicate the obligation of Israel to observe the teachings of Moses, especially the worship of Yahweh. Failure to observe this obligation or covenant would result in divine punishment.
According to the prophets featured in 1 Kings, historical events are divinely controlled. These predictions are made by the prophets: Ahijah, Jehu, Elijah, and Elisha. They predict everything from punishment of Solomon to the deaths of Ahab and Jezebel, to the defeat of Israel in battle. In all situations the reason for this punishment is said to be the failure of Israel to observe the teachings of Moses, especially worshiping other gods.
As eluded to earlier, most of the prophetic judgments have to do with the northern kingdom of Israel. The northern kingdom was viewed as a moral disaster due to the sins of Jeroboam. In contrast, there are a repeated number of positive statements made about the Davidic dynasty in Jerusalem. Thus, 1 Kings reflects an ideologically biased history. The impact of this is far-reaching since the book of Kings was used as a source for other narrative books in the Bible like Chronicles.
3 comments:
You make a particularly important observation regarding authorship: Those who write or rewrite history also write our future. Because we build on what we think we know, those who wrote or edited the Hebrew Bible were destined to influence the New Testament, which in turn influences our contemporary hermeneutics.
I have to agree with PCIT. Your observation is important to note and to consider when reading the Bible. Although I say it should be used when reading anything historical.
A good parallel story to your post:
There was always a joke growing up in History classes when we got to the Civil War. The joke was always that if I took the same class in the South, the North would be portrayed as the people that were wrong and caused the war. Now, if that was the case or not, I don't know. I doubt it, but it's possible. Either way, it shows how this is not just a problem when reading the Bible.
I even just thought of something else... Compare hearing something from the government by watching Fox News, and then the same thing on MSNBC, or how a Democrat can say the health bill is great, while a Republican can say it is the worst thing ever written. Everything seems skewed, and it's our job to not take what we see/hear/learn from one source as the only way things are.
@Joe:
when we got to the Civil War
Ah, you mean what my grandparents would have called, "The Northern War of Aggression."
:^)
(By the way, Duffy: you seem to be set to allow only Blogger users to comment. You might temporarily change your settings at Settings:Comments to "registered users [includes OpenID].")
Post a Comment