[16] See W. R. Smith (after Kuenen), _Ency. Bib._, col. 2670; also W. E. Addis, ib., 1276, the commentaries of Benzinger (p. 130) and Kittel (pp. 153 seq.) on Kings; J. S. Strachan, Hastings's _Dict. Bible_, i. 694; G. A. Smith, _Hist. Geog. of Holy Land_, p. 582; König and Hirsch, _Jew. Ency._ v. 137 seq. ("legend ... as indifferent to accuracy in dates as it is to definiteness of places and names"); W. R. Harper, _Amos and Hosea_, p. xli. seq. ("the lack of chronological order ... the result is to create a wrong impression of Elisha's career"). The bearing of this displacement upon the literary and historical criticism of the narratives has never been worked out. [17] Careful examination shows that no a priori distinction can be drawn between "trustworthy" books of Kings and "untrustworthy books" of Chronicles. Although the latter have special late and unreliable features, they agree with the former in presenting the same general trend of past history. The "canonical" history in Kings is further embellished in Chronicles, but the gulf between them is not so profound as that between the former and the underlying and half-suppressed historical traditions which can still be recognized. (See also PALESTINE: _History_.) [18] For the former (2 Kings xii. 17 seq.) cf. Hezekiah and Sennacherib (xviii. 13-15), and for the latter, cf. Asa and Baasha (1 Kings xv. 18-20; above). [19] It is possible that Hadad-nirari's inscription refers to conditions in the latter part of his reign (812-783 B.C.), when Judah apparently was no longer independent and when Jeroboam II. was king of Israel. The accession of the latter has been placed between 785 and 782. It is now known, also, that Ben-hadad and a small coalition were defeated by the king of Hamath; but the bearing of this upon Israelite history is uncertain. [20] Cf. generally, 1 Sam. iv., xxxi.; 2 Sam. ii. 8; 1 Kings xx., xxii.; 2 Kings vi. 8-vii. 20; also Judges v. (see DEBORAH). [21] Special mention is made of Jonah, a prophet of Zebulun in (north) Israel (2 Kings xiv. 25). Nothing is known of him, unless the very late prophetical writing with the account of his visit to Nineveh rests upon some old tradition, which, however, can scarcely be recovered (see JONAH). [22] This is philosophically handled by the Arabian historian Ibn Khaldun, whose Prolegomena is well worthy of attention; see De Slane, _Not. et extraits_, vols. xix.-xxi., with Von Kremer's criticisms in the _Sitz. d. Kais. Akad._ of Vienna (vol. xciii., 1879); cf. also R. Flint, _History of the Philosophy of History_, i. 157 sqq.