Talk:Books of Kings/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1


The books of Chronicles are more comprehensive in their contents than those of Kings.

Is this really true? Chronicles doesn't discuss the northern Kingdom, and 2 Chronicles covers the same material as both Books of Kings. john k 18:16, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No. They skip anything that casts doubt on the morality of the "good kings" e.g. the bathsheba incident regarding David (David has a man killed for no reason other than that he was attracted to the man's wife) is not mentioned in Chronicles. --User talk:FDuffy 22:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

IV kings

The cath encyc metions this. ??? Rich Farmbrough 17:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  • 4 Kings = 2 Kings
  • 3 Kings = 1 Kings
  • 2 Kings = 2 Samuel
  • 1 Kings = 1 Samuel

It's an old organisation of the text, and was to an extent used in the septuagint. Prior to that it was

  • 2 Kingdoms = 1 & 2 Kings
  • 1 Kingdoms = 1 & 2 Samuel

Unfortunately its one of those things you need to be careful about when you're doing academic study of kings - make sure you know which organisation of the material it is talking about.

--User talk:FDuffy 22:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Bibleref

Template:Bibleref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jon513 19:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Mind Trick

You know the mind trick they have in Star Wars? I just realised that it's suspiciously similar to an episode in 2 Kings 6:18-19. I'm sure the similarity has gotten attention earlier, but I could find no reference to it in this present article nor in Jedi mind trick (where I also left a comment that no one, so far, has responded to). Are those verses the source of inspiration for the Star Wars mind trick, you think? —Bromskloss 20:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Location of author

To these may be added the expression "beyond the river" (1 Kings 5:4), used to designate the country west of the Euphrates, which implies that Babylonia was the home of the writer.

The reference listed does not contain the phrase, or anything like it. A search on revealed that the only time "beyond the river" occurs in Kings (in KJV) is in 1Ki 14:15, which indicates that Israel will be scattered there, and it's clear that the author's point of view is from Israel. The Young Literal Translation has "beyond the river" in 1 Kings 4:24, referring to Solomon's domain, but every other translation I saw has "this side" or "west of" in that verse. Mdotley 22:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica Online

"books of Kings", a good, neutral source. Maybe someone would like to mine it for citable information. Leadwind (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


Shouldn't there be a section concerning the ethics of some of these stories, or controversy and criticism over them? For example, in 2 Kings chapter 2 some children are making fun of Elisha for being bald and he curses them in the name of God. God sends two "she bears" that tare and rip all 42 children to pieces. This obviously seems inconsistent with a God who is supposed to be perfectly good. This is only one controversial event in Kings. He also sends lions and dogs to eat people, has men burned to death, and kills 185,000 men while they sleep. --Thinking thinker (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The God of Judaism (e.g. the Tanakh) does not claim to be ethical. There is no point cluttering an encyclopedic assessment of the old testament with cases where Yahweh's actions don't square with modern ideas about ethics or morality; the articles would get to be be unmanageable. (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


This page currently says: "However, the book(s) plainly acknowledge several source texts in several places, and it is hence self evidently a compilation from earlier sources rather than an original work. A superficial examination of the Books of Kings makes clear the fact that they are a compilation and not an original composition, and the compiler (usually referred to as the redactor) constantly cites certain of his sources."

Many books, ancient and modern, "plainly acknowledge several source texts". Its called quoting and citing. However, it is not "self evident" that all books with footnotes and endnotes are merely "compilation[s] from earlier sources rather than an original work".

While I do not object to literary criticism or so-called "critical" reading of the Bible being on this page, I think it needs to be more carefully explicated than it is here. Whether or not the Book of Kings is a compilation or not should not be decided because one contributor finds it to be "self evident" from only a "superficial examination".

Even if the Book of Kings quotes or paraphrases heavily from the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel or the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (the plain meaning of the text suggests that the author of Kings had those works present and expects the readership to at least know what those works are), I object to the idea that an original work cannot heavily paraphrase or quote source material. That just doesn't make sense. The work is original for its arrangement of the text. If nothing else, the Book of Kings melds various portions of records from the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah into one coherent text that tells a unitary narrative of decline and fall. The Book of Kings consistently plays on the theme of loyalty to God as the overriding factor in determining the success of the two Kingdoms. The unifying of [at least] two distinct narratives into one with a new theme I think qualifies as an original work.

And if Ezra edited it later, its still an original work. Are modern books published today with the aide of an editor not original works?— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 08:11:17, 15 Nov 2006 (UTC)


The names part needs some work, although I don't know nearly enough to be the one to do it. Should probably be its own page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Limited Moon (talkcontribs) 10:13:34, 25 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Wrong info?

it says: As a consequence of Solomon's apostasy and abuse of royal office, the kingdom of David is split in two in the reign of his own son Jeroboam, who becomes the first to reign over the kingdom of Judah.[7] The kings who follow Jeroboam in Jerusalem continue the royal line of David (i.e., they inherit the promise to David); in the north, however, dynasties follow each other in rapid succession, and the kings are uniformly bad (meaning that they fail to follow Yahweh alone). At length God brings the Assyrians to destroy the northern kingdom, leaving Judah as the sole custodian of the promise.

However, I thought Solomon's son and the first king of Judah was Rehoboam... Jeroboam is the first king of the northern kingdom of Israel (not Judah). --Iggydarsa (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You might well be right. Check the source, change if necessary. PiCo (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

See 1 Kings and 2 Kings at Bible Gateway

"Sign up for Scripture and inspirational readings". Is Bible Gateway really a good place to link to in the middle of an encyclopaedia article? Their statement of faith seems to indicate that they are "mission based". They also "promote Christian products and services with advertisements throughout the site". (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Article title (proposed move)

There is a discussion at the talk page for the article Books of Chronicles that suggests this page (along with Books of Chronicles and Books of Samuel), be moved to article names reflecting the singular nature of the six works in the Masoretic text.

It's probably best to have individual discussions on the talk page of each article, so anyone interested should feel free to chime in below, as well as at the other talk pages. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 05:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the discussion is centralized in one place for convenience and coordination Jpacobb (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Books of Chronicles - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 06:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


I don't think we should call this a historical book (and I certainly don't think we should use piping this way:"It concludes a series of [[Deuteronomistic history|historical]] books". As this is a wider question than just this article I've raised it at WP:NPOVN. Dougweller (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's a historical book. It's a written record of events that took place in the past - that makes it a historical book. Belchfire-TALK 22:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Just a note: history is not "a written record of events that took place in the past" - that would be a chronicle. History is an explanation of those events. In the case of Kings, while the book is normally called a history by biblical scholars, that's pretty much for convenience, as it's pretty well universally recognised that the explanation Kings give for everything that happens is that Israel was being punished by God for unfaithfulness - not an explanation that modern historians would use. Kings is also pretty unscholarly about sources, apparently being based on a mix of royal chronicles, epic poetry and legend, etc etc - the author apparently saw all these as being of equal value. These things are discussed in the commentaries listed at the end of the article. PiCo (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I added the piping (a) because you initially objected to the word, and (b) because there is no article on the Historical Books as a section of the Christian Old Testament (although there should be). As I said in my edit summary, this is a designation of section/genre, not a statement about reliability. StAnselm (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, but I was concerned about how ordinary readers interpret it. Thanks very much for your cooperation here. Belchfire, you seem certain that these events took place. That's your right, but Wikipedia can't say that and of course neither does our article. Your personal attack ("naked anti-religious POV-pushing") is noted, but it's silly. Trying to make this NPOV is what every editor should be doing. Dougweller (talk) 07:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Just to note that I'm pretty happy with the first para of the lead as it stands (i.e., as amended by StAnselm) - it mentions just about everything that needs mentioning, including the fact that Kings concludes the Deuteronomistic History, and has very solid sources. I'd need strong reasons for introducing changes. (Incidentally, there's no intention of suggesting that Kings is history-writing as we know it, and I think the lead does say that it's Iron Age theology in the guise of history - meaning that it explains all events in terms of God's promises and anger). PiCo (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

God of Israel

I agree with this edit - "God of Israel" should have a capital "g", since it's a title. StAnselm (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur, and moreover, the MoS makes it pretty clear. Appending the phrase "of Israel" converts it into a proper noun that is always capitalized. ► Belchfire-TALK 09:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see that. Here it is a common noun, not a proper noun. "Kings begins with the death of David, to whom Yahweh, the God of Israel," - which could be reworded "to whom Yahweh, who is the god of Israel". The paragraph goes on to mention "other gods" and then "eventually God". Those uses are correct, but "the God of Israel" is not correct. So are you both claiming that "who is the god of Israel", because it has the phrase 'of Israel', should be capitalised? Dougweller (talk) 09:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Have you checked the MoS? "In a biblical context, God is capitalized only when it refers to the Judeo-Christian deity". When we add "of Israel", we are referring to a specific entity, which calls for capitalization. ► Belchfire-TALK 09:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
If "God of Israel" needs a capital, then presumably so does "God of Babylon".
I think you've misunderstood what the MoS is talking about: if we use the word "god" as a proper name/noun, then it's God, because it's a name (in Judaism and Christianity, god's name is God); if we use it as an adjective, as in "the god of Israel" (as compared, for example, with the god of Babylon), then it's not a proper name (6th century BC Israel's god was named Yahweh, not God). PiCo (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's used as a title in the texts - e.g. Exodus 5:1 - "this is what Yahweh, the God of Israel, says..." StAnselm (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
And if we use a quotation, we should use the captialization used in the quotation, but if it's not, we follow our guidelines. Do you want to bring it up at the talk page MOSCAPS? Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but since this isn't a quotation that's involved in the edit we're discussing, that example is purely academic. ► Belchfire-TALK 11:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The MoS doesn't say that "god" should be capitalised every time it refers to the God of Jews and Christians, just only in that situation - i.e., Krishna isn't to be called the God Krishna (I guess). Sounds a bit culturally insensitive to me - what do the Hindu guys say? PiCo (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
No, Pico, that's only in biblical contexts, because in biblical contexts "God" (and "Lord") are only used as a title for Jehovah. In other contexts, any god may be called "God" or "Lord". (This is common in Hinduism, for example.)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've raised this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#the God of Israel or the god of Israel although I still say it's obviously a common noun - we are being told "the god of Israel is Yahweh". Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There's confusion here over what a "proper noun" is, including the common error about capitalized words being proper nouns. Our article proper noun has some background. Pico's wording of "proper name" is probably better. The question here is, is the word "god" being used as a title in this case?
In any case, the old, stable version should remain, without edit warring over it, until this is resolved. — kwami (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm guessing you didn't read the article on proper nouns all that carefully, as it gives some insight here that doesn't agree with your interpretation:
"Some words have one meaning when capitalized and another when not. Sometimes the capitalized variant is then a proper noun (the Moon; dedicated to God; Smith's apprentice) and the other variant is not (the third moon of Saturn; a Greek god; the smith's apprentice). Sometimes neither is a proper noun (a swede in the soup; a Swede who came to see me). Such words that vary according to case are sometimes called capitonyms."
The article on capitonyms negates your theory altogether:
"The word "god" is capitalized to "God" when referring to the single deity of monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam."
"The word for God is capitalized when referring to the monotheistic Supreme Being, but lowercased when referring to the gods of ancient mythology."
Grammatical placement is not the dispositive factor; what determines capitalization is the entity being referred to. If it's the Abrahamic god, as in "God of Israel", then it's capitalized, and the converse is true for other deities. ► Belchfire-TALK 13:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
You contradict that here: you just wrote "If it's the Abrahamic god" rather than "the Abrahamic God". We say "the Earth has one moon, the Moon" and "Israel has one god, God". You could even say "we have only one mother, Mother". The same difference holds for "the god of Israel" (a descriptive phrase) and "the God of Israel" (a title), exactly parallel to "president of the US" and "President of the US". Consensus has long been established that we cap "God" when it's a title and not otherwise, no matter who the god is. Anything else would violate the universal approach we take as an encyclopedia, which by the way is one of our fundamental policies. — kwami (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
You both make some good points, but I think this discussion belongs on the MoS page. PiCo (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
If Kwami's argument has been reduced to picking apart my own usage here on the Talk page, I'd say this discussion has pretty much run its course. ► Belchfire-TALK 23:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)