Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Kings by C.F. Burney

Solomon greeting the Queen of Sheba – gate of Florence Baptistry. Source: Wikipedia

Rev. Charles Fox Burney [1868–1925] was a lecturer in Hebrew at the University of Oxford, becoming Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture in 1914. This work is effectively a commentary on the Hebrew text of the Books of 1 & 2 Kings.

I had thought, once again, that I would save time by using an on-line text, but on closer examination the one I had chosen had missing and blurred pages and took extra work to correct.

Charles Fox Burney [1868-1925], Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Kings with an Introduction and Notes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903. Hbk. pp.384. [Click to visit the download page]

Table of Contents

Introduction

  1. Structure of Kings
  2. Characteristics of the Chief Ancient Versions of Kings
  3. The Synchrinisms of the Compiler

List of Abbreviations

Notes on 1 Kings

Notes on 2 Kings

Appendix:

  1. Inscription of Mesha’, King of Moab
  2. The Siloam Inscription
  3. Inscription of the Monolith of Shalmanezer II, II. 78-102
  4. Fragment of the Annals of Shalmeneser II. Descriptive Inscription from the Obleish of Shalmanser
  5. Narrative of Sennacherib’s Third Campaign (B.C. 701) from the Taylor Cylinder, Col. II. I. 34-Col. III.I.41

Additions

Index

Introduction: The Structure of Kings

The fact that Kings, like the other historical books of the Old Testament, is based upon pre-existing written sources is universally recognized; and the evidence upon which this elementary proposition is based need not here be set forth. That the main editor or compiler of these sources was a Deuteronomist, i.e. that his work was inspired by the religious revival which took place in the eighteenth year of Josiah (B.C. 621) under the influence of the newly discovered book of Deuteronomy, appears both from his religious standpoint and from his phraseology. This editor is therefore hereinafter cited under the symbol RD (Deuteronomic Redactor).

To RD is due the stereotyped form into which the introduction and conclusion of a reign is thrown, and which constitutes, as it were, the framework upon which the narrative as a whole is built. The regularity of the method of RO in the construction of this framework is worthy of special notice.

“New Commentary on Genesis” by Franz Delitzsch

Franz Delitzsch [1813-1890
Franz Delitzsch [1813-1890
This commentary on Genesis is not to be confused with the joint work with C.F. Keil and is still considered a valuable resource for Bible students. Several people had suggested making use of material that is already available on-line rather than scanning books myself. I thought I had found a good quality scan of this two-volume set, but soon found that the text required centering, cleaning up, and – in one place – repairing. Overall, I doubt if scanning a hard copy would have taken any less time.

Franz Delitzsch [1813-1890], A New Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 1. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1888. Hbk. pp.412. [Click to visit the download page]

Franz Delitzsch [1813-1890], A New Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 2. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1889. Hbk. pp.408. [Click to visit the download page]

Introduction

Criticism at present fixes the date of the main bulk of the Pentateuch, the so-called Priest Codex, together with the Law of Holiness, which has so striking a relation to Ezekiel, at the time of the captivity and the restoration under Ezra and Nehemiah. The Book of Deuteronomy however presupposes the primary legislation contained in Ex. xix.-xxiv. and the work of the Jehovistic historian. Hence we cannot avoid relegating the origin of certain component parts of the Pentateuch to the middle ages of the kings; and, if we continue our critical analysis, we find ourselves constrained to go back still farther, perhaps even to the times of the Judges, and thus to tread the soil of a hoar antiquity without incurring the verdict of lack of scientific knowledge. Even those who insist upon transferring the conception of the account of the creation in Gen. i 1-ii. 4, and of the primaeval histories…

Commentary on the Epistles of John by Alfred Plummer

Alfred Plummer, master of University College Durham, was a prolific writer of biblical commentaries. He wrote the volumes on Luke, 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians in the International Critical Commentary (ICC) old series, as well as four of the The Cambridge Bible for Schools series.

My thanks to Book Aid for providing a copy of his commentary on John’s letters for digitisation. This volume is in the public domain.

Alfred Plummer [1841-1926], The Epistles of John. The Cambridge Bible for Schools. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1892. Hbk. pp.220. [Click to visit the download page]

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Text and Notes
  3. Appendices
  4. Indices

The Last Years of S. John

A sketch of the life of S. John as a whole has been given in the Introduction to the Fourth Gospel. Here it will not be necessary to do more than retouch and somewhat enlarge what was there said respecting the closing years of his life, in which period, according to all probability, whether derived from direct or indirect evidence, our three Epistles were written. In order to understand the motive and ton,e of the Epistles, it is requisite to have some clear idea of the circumstances, local, moral, and intellectual, in the midst of which they were written.

(i) The Local Surroundings-Ephesus

Unless the whole history of the century which followed upon the destruction of Jerusalem is to be abandoned as chimerical and untrustworthy, we must continue to believe the almost universally accepted statement that S. John spent the last portion of his life in Asia Minor, and chiefly at Ephesus. The sceptical spirit which insists upon the truism that well-attested facts have nevertheless not been demonstrated with all the certainty of a proposition in Euclid, and contends that it is therefore right to doubt them, and lawful to dispute them, renders history impossible. The evidence of S. John’s residence at Ephesus is too , strong to be shaken by conjectures. It will be worth while to state the main elements of it.