Why 2 books of Kings?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nfinke
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nfinke

Guest
I’ve known for a while that Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles were all originally one book (meaning three separate books, not six), but we at some point split them. And that even Ezra and Nehemiah were one book we split.

Did we really gain anything from dividing the books like that? I mean the books are all in the Bible, and 2 Kings starts immediately after the end of 1 Kings, so I don’t see what that accomplished. If I erased the “1” and “2” from my Bible, it’s not like id even notice the change (other than the chapter numbers suddenly starting over)

I used to think it was because of length, but by that logic you could probably break Psalms into like 8 books. And the books don’t take up less pages if you split them so I don’t think that argument makes sense in the first place.

I really can’t see any reason why they we’re split apart.
 
The scroll would have been too big for convenient handling. That’s all.
 
Except the book of Psalms is alot longer isn’t it? And again, in the old days they were all singular books. So if they did have one scroll per book, then they would have kept all of Samuel for example as one scroll.
 
The two books of Samuel and the two books of Kings were originally all one book, sometimes called Kings and sometimes Kingdoms. Because of its great length, it was split up into four scrolls, and at some point, I don’t know when, the name changed, 1 & 2 Kingdoms becoming 1 & 2 Samuel, and 3 & 4 Kingdoms becoming 1 & 2 Kings.

The twelve minor prophets, on the other hand, from Hosea to Malachi, were all written on a single scroll. This explains why, in Jewish use, they are counted as a single book, called The Twelve.

I’m not sure about the Psalms, but I don’t think they were ever all written on a single scroll. If @billsherman sees this, no doubt he will know all the answers. He’s a historian of the early Church.
 
Psalms is actually five books, each concluding with a doxology. Many modern Bibles indicate this division.

And Chronicles are not part of the Samuel-Kings body but are separate. They came later and are classified as Ketuvim while Samuel-Kings are Neviim.
 
BartholomewB is correct, as usual.

The division of book into parts, chapters, and verses is non-organic. That is, the writers and redactors didn’t make those divisions, later readers did.

Frequently, though not always, books that make up the Christian Old Testament were written on scrolls. Unlike bound books, the length of a scroll generally dictated the maximum length of a book. Kind of like how the length of a recording medium dictates the length of a musical piece (early records could only hold 3 minutes per side, which is why virtually all pre-1960s recorded songs are no longer than 3 minutes).

Hope this is helpful.
 
“I really can’t see any reason why they we’re split apart.”

Whether Knowing the real reason(s) or not, Nor do I see any major reason for involving into face it - rather minor concerns with what is Sacred - if in fact one Accepts their Sacredness.

Two books or one - should not negatively impact upon one’s understanding of God’s Intended Revelation to Man as found within it/them.
 
Last edited:
I’m not saying it’s a super important matter, but there’s also nothing about the sacredness of a thing doesn’t mean we should push away thoughts we have about it. I’ve always found this idea silly. We only have reason and curiosity because God gave them to us.
 
I agree… that said, IMHO, some of what I’ve encountered within the domain of call it theology-debates - can easily work against folks thus led into over-eagerly embracing said sometimes never-ending debates

that in mind, I’m sometimes drawn to have said what I’ve said.

And? Just because one receives an impulse in one’s mind - to delve into some things - does not alone really always justify our doing so.

Anywho, Peace…

_+
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top