[23] "In der Chronik," on the other hand, "ist es der Pentateuch, d.h. vor Allem der _Priestercodex_, nach dessen Muster die Geschichte des alten Israels dargestellt wird" (Wellhausen, _Prolegom._, p. 309). It has been said that the Book of Kings reflects the political and prophetic view, and the Book of Chronicles the priestly view of Jewish history. It is about the Pentateuch, its date and composition, that the battle of the Higher Criticism chiefly rages. With that we are but indirectly concerned in considering the Book of Kings; but it is noticeable that the ablest and most competent defender of the more conservative criticism, Professor James Robertson, D.D., both in his contribution to _Book by Book_ and in his _Early Religion of Israel_, makes large concessions. Thus he says, "It is particularly to be noticed that in the Book of the Pentateuch itself the Mosaic origin is not claimed" (_Book by Book_, p. 5). "The anonymous character of all the historical writings of the Old Testament would lead us to conclude that the ancient Hebrews had not the idea of literary property which we attach to authorship" (p. 8). "It is long since the composite character of the Pentateuch was observed" (p. 9). "There may remain doubts as to when the various parts of the Pentateuch were actually written down; it may be admitted that the later writers wrote in the light of the events and circumstances of their own times" (p. 16). [24] Driver, p. 189. Comp. Professor Robertson Smith: "The most notable feature in the extant redactions of the book is the strong interest shown in the Deuteronomic law of Moses, and especially in the centralisation of worship in the Temple on Zion, as pre-supposed in Deuteronomy and enforced by Josiah. This interest did not exist in ancient Israel, and is quite foreign to the older memories incorporated in the book." [25] Driver, p. 192. [26] Delitzsch, _Genesis_, 6th ed., p. 567. [27] _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i. 73. [28] Even the First Book of Maccabees begins with καὶ ἐγένετο. [29] Stade thinks that this is confirmed by viii. 46-49. [30] Stade, pp. 32 ff. Thus, in 1 Kings viii. 14-53, verses 12, 13 are in the Septuagint placed _after_ verse 53, are incomplete in the Hebrew text, and have a remarkable reading in the Targum. Professor Robertson Smith infers that a Deuteronomic insertion has misplaced them in one text, and mutilated them in another. The order of the LXX. differs in 1 Kings iv. 19-27; and it omits 1 Kings vi. 11-14; ix. 15-26. It transposes the story of Naboth, and omits the story of Ahijah and Abijah, which is added from Aquila's version to the Alexandrian MS. See Wellhausen-Bleek, _Einleitung_, §§ 114, 134. [31] See Appendix on the Chronology. [32] See Wellhausen, _Prolegomena_, pp. 285-87; Robertson Smith, _Journ. of Philology_, x. 209-13. [33] _Encycl. Brit._, s.v. Kings (W.R.S.).