The commentaries included in this volume cover the second part of the so-called historical books of the Bible.1 What is immediately evident to the reader is that the narrative materials and topics that form these books are extremely varied and complicated, as they concern an extended period of the ancient history of Israel and different crucial events that follow each other at a fast pace. Modern scholarship, through its mainly historical and philological approach, has been able to ascertain that while these books are linked by a shared historical focus, they may be distinguished by their ideological points of view.
The Deuteronomic and Chroniclerâs Outlooks
In the books of Samuel and Kings, modern scholars have noticed and emphasized how the covenant, which God has made with the people of Israel, is clearly regarded as a reciprocal engagement, and any infringement of this covenant is necessarily and severely punished by God while obedience is rewarded with blessings. In this regard, contemporary biblical scholarship has recognized that Kings conforms to the theology and ideology of Deuteronomy, where these terms of covenant are plainly expressed for the first time. This is confirmed by the fact that our historical books appear to follow consistently the Deuteronomic Code2 when they express their judgment on each king or character described in the biblical narrative. Therefore those characters who conform to the Deuteronomic Code are praised, and those who disobey it are inevitably condemned. Besides this general outlook, the book of Deuteronomy has a central role in 2 Kings, where the biblical narrative describes its discovery in the temple during the reign of Josiah.3
Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, on the other hand, share a perspective that differs from the Deuteronomistic vision, one that has been labeled the Chroniclerâs History. This has been observed in a common vocabulary and ideas, such as the building and worship of the temple, priestly service and the restoration of Israel. Whether this perspective was originally due to a common author or editor, or to a later editor, is a matter of debate.
Greek Fathers
All the passages from the Greek Fathers that are included in our commentary on 1-2 Kings are taken from exegetical works on other books of the Bible, or from doctrinal and critical works, because no standard Greek commentary on 1-2 Kings survives. The only work that comprehensively comments on 1-2 Kings and 1-2 Chronicles is De Quaestionibus Ambiguis in Libros Regnorum et Paralipomenon15 by Theodoret of Cyr, to which we can only add two very similar catenae, the one by Procopius of Gaza, which has been only partly published and is mostly available in a Latin translation and not in its original Greek text,16 and the one edited in the eighteenth century17 by Nikephoros Hieromonachos Theotokis. The work by Theodoret, however, cannot be considered to be an organic and systematic commentary, as it only discusses and tries to explain those passages that are more difficult or uncertain for the reader. By contrast, the catenae gather together passages from many different authors (in our case from twenty-seven authors) and inevitably appear to be patchy and often arbitrary in their selections, even though they are precious in preserving passages from important patristic commentators that otherwise would have been completely lost.
Justin Martyr (c. 110-165). The only comment by Justin on the book of Kings18 that we have been able to trace is from his Dialogue with Trypho. In it the great Christian philosopher demonstrates once more how his exegesis of the Old Testament is mostly typological. The piece of wood thrown by Elisha into the river typifies the cross, while the water foreshadows salvation through baptism.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215). In Clement we see a further development of the typological vision of Justin. He not only considers the Old Testament as a preparation and foreshadowing of the truths of the New Testament but also notices in all the Scriptures two levels of comprehension: the first is immediate and open to all; the second is more profound and reserved only for the perfect Christian. As a consequence, his interpretation of the events described in 1-2 Kings is always attentive to these two levels of comprehension. On the one hand, there is an immediate message to all Christians, which is mostly moral and typological; on the other, there is a more profound message that unveils the secrets of the divine wisdom of Christ.
Origen (c. 185-253). As far as we know, Origen never wrote any specific homily or commentary on 1-2 Kings (3-4 Kings or Kingdoms according to the Septuagint).19 All the passages by Origen included in this volume are taken from his doctrinal works (On Prayer, Against Celsus, On First Principles) or from exegetical commentaries on other books of the Bible (Homilies on Genesis, Leviticus, John). The interpretation appears to be substantially allegorical, according to the critical trend20 that was brought to perfection by Origen. The events reported in the biblical narrative are therefore seen as a foreshadowing of the advent of Christ and the doctrine of the New Testament (typological interpretation); symbols of truths that are not immediately visible; and figurative messages and admonitions to Christians. Inside this allegorical vision Origen is constantly able to develop a consistent moral reflection which makes the biblical text of the Old Testament a topical instrument of meditation for the Christian.
Methodius (c. 250-311). Methodius, who criticized Origen for his theory on the pre-existence of the soul and his mostly spiritualizing notion of the resurrection of the body, appears to follow Origenâs allegorical method in his exegesis of the Bible. In 2 Kings 20:7-11 he sees the fig tree and its fruits as symbols of the Holy Spirit and its love for humankind, and therefore he interprets the healing of King Hezekiah as a result of the love of the Holy Spirit.
Athanasius (c. 295-373). Following the typical allegorical and typological trend of Alexandrian exegesis, Athanasius sees that the unity of Scripture is founded on the figure of Christ. Therefore he follows this principle in his interpretation of the narrative of 1-2 Kings. This is particularly evident in his comment on 1 Kings 1:19-26, in which he compares the figures and roles of Solomon and Christ.
Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-387). The most important work of Cyril, the Catechetical Lectures, is concerned with the preparation of the faithful for the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and Eucharist. Consequently, Cyrilâs meditations on 1-2 Kings have both a typological approach, as he sees in the biblical narrative a foreshadowing of the salvation in Christ (e.g., in 1 Kings 8:27) which the neophytes are about to receive, and a moral approach, as he finds in the events related in the Scripture examples of conduct for new Christians (e.g., in 2 Kings 25:1-11).
Basil the Great (c. 330-379). Even though clear traces of allegorical exegesis in the style of Origen are obvious in the work of Basil,21 with this author we notice a shift to a more literal interpretation of the Scripture in which the moral aspect becomes essential. In his comment on 1 Kings 12:14, Basil sees the biblical narrative as a direct admonition to all rulers, who should avoid exalting themselves with secular honors.
Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 330-390). Gregory was a close friend of Basil for most of his life and shared his views about exegesis, even though he never wrote any systematic commentary on any section of the Bible. In his examination of Solomonâs wisdom (1 Kings 3:12; 4:29-34) he shows a deeply philosophical approach in which he stresses the limitations of human nature in the comprehension of God and the universe and asserts that meekness and humility are the principles on which human wisdom must be founded.
Apostolic Constitutions (c. end of the fourth century). The Apostolic Constitutions is an anonymous work that reached its present form at the end of the fourth century but reworks materials and writings that date from the first century, such as the Didache, to the early fourth, such as the Didascalia Apostolorum. Due to the character of this work, which is mostly liturgical, the exegetical approach is substantially moral: the examples of punished wickedness in 1-2 Kings serve as an admonition to the faithful as do the examples of repentance (2 Kings 21:1-17, 19-24).
John Chrysostom (c. 344-407). Considering the extent of his literary output and the complexity of his works, Chrysostom is undoubtedly the most important representative of the Antiochian school of exegesis. This school can be defined, in a very simple way, as the main opponent to the Alexandrian school which had in Origen its most typical exponent and utilized allegory and typology in its exegetical principles. In contrast, Chrysostom used in his comments a mostly literal interpretation of the Scripture, where typological hints are obvious but always quite concise, while the moral and pastoral contents amply prevail. These are evident in all his comments on 1-2 Kings, where he sometimes recognizes how episodes of the biblical narrative foreshadow the advent of Christ, but where he mostly concentrates on those episodes that can be useful to edify the faithful and especially to awaken moral potentials through powerful examples.
Cyril of Alexandria (c. 370-444). A complete commentary on 1-4 Kings or Kingdoms22 (i.e., 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings) is attributed by manuscript tradition to Cyril of Alexandria. However, R. Devreesse has demonstrated that these are extracts from other exegetical and doctrinal works by Cyril, which were gathered by a medieval compiler under the title of In Regum Libri I-IV.23 The exegesis of Cyril represents a late example of the Alexandrian tradition, so that the allegorical and typological interpretations prevail, even though he introduces some limitations and does not accept as a whole Origenâs spiritual and christological interpretation of the Old Testament.
Theodoret of Cyr (c. 393-466). As we have mentioned, Theodoret is the author of the only extant Greek commentary covering 1-2 Kings and 1-2 Chronicles: the De Quaestionibus Ambiguis in Libros Regnorum et Paralipomenon. However, this is by no means a systematic commentary, as it concentrates on those passages that are confusing or difficult for the reader and tries to clarify and explain them. The exegetical approach of Theodoret is that typical of the Antiochian school, so that in his comments a literal interpretation prevails. However, Theodoret often tends to expand the typological components concerning ...
