What do you think?
Rate this book


Unknown Binding
What stands out most about Kings, even compared to the previous books, is its ex post facto attempt to impose religious and moralistic justifications for the successes and failures of different kings, and the associated flourishing of the Jewish states. The judgement of which kings were sinners seems based as much on the outcomes of their reigns as on any particular actions, and where this doesn’t quite line up, Jehovah is instead described as visiting the punishment for a particular king’s misdeeds on that king’s heirs, instead of on the king himself. Intriguingly, the book makes repeated references to several other ancient texts to which the authors presumably had access: Book of the Acts of Solomon, Annals of the Kings of Judah, and Chronicles of the Kings of Israel.
There is a strong tradition in Western thought about the corrupting influence of power in its many forms (I do not know if there is a similar tradition in Eastern thought from my few readings there – perhaps a reader more familiar with those traditions can provide insight). While the Deuteronomic histories, and Kings in particular, do not intentionally highlight this theme, instead focusing on particular individuals who make moral or amoral choices and choose to heed or not heed Jehovah’s laws, it is difficult to read the text without perceiving a foundational element of power’s corrupting influence. Even the kings described as good and glorious, like Solomon, turn to sin and depravity as they amass more power. Remember, these are kings of an era when the personal power, wealth, and influence of a king was intensely direct and unmitigated, and flamboyant displays of extravagance were considered a sign of kingliness – the Shahnameh is quite helpful for grasping this rather foreign notion.
Speaking of the Persian book of kings, I felt strong resonances between that book and the biblical Kings. In the brief research I did to write this post, I did not see any references to a connection between the two, other than coming from a similar region of the world and covering, at least in part, overlapping time periods (Shahnameh obviously continues far past the chronological end of Kings), but I don’t know how anyone who reads both could fail to notice the similarities. Both are chronicles that revolve around monarchs, both frequently feature kings who are not very good at ruling, and both feature strong side "characters" who try to guide the kings and keep the kingdoms together.
Even some of the “good guys” in the story have some questionable moments, and not just supposedly great and glorious kings like Solomon. Elisha, for instance, who is depicted as a powerful prophet and who can resurrect the dead, once summons bears to maul some street kids who mocked him for being bald. That seems like a bit of a disproportionate response, if you ask me, and certainly not in keeping with how we tend to think of prophets behaving.
It’s still intellectually interesting to read through these books in this manner, and Kings as some intriguing historicity behind and around it, but I must admit that the endless cycles of good king-bad king are a little wearisome, and read as an extension of the cycles of Israelites sinning and repenting which occurred before the advent of the monarchy. The fact that Chronicles actually retreads some of this same history, but from a slightly different religious and moral perspective, does not exactly have me eager to dive into it. Well, I suppose that’s why I’m interspersing other books, rather than reading every book in the Bible straight through.