Kings, Books of – Koa

Kings, Books of

1. Title, etc. — This is the name of two well-known narrative books of the OT. In Heb. MSS and early printed editions they appear as one book, and even to the present day the Massoretic note appears at the end of the second book only. The division into two was made for the convenience of Greek readers, and passed from the LXX to the Vulgate, and so to the Church. In fact, the division between the parts of the great Biblical narrative which extends from Genesis to 2 Kings is more or less arbitrary, — there is no clear line of demarcation between 2 Samuel and 1 Kings, any more than between 1 and 2 Kings.

2. Method and sources. — What we have just said does not imply that the Books of Kings are exactly like the other historical books. They differ in their method, and in the way in which the narrative is presented. The most striking feature is the attempt to date the events recorded, and to keep two parallel lines of history before the reader. The period of time they cover is something over 400 years, and when it is remembered that these books give us almost the only light we have on events in Israel for this period, their historical value will be evident. At the same time, the light they throw on the method by which the Biblical authors worked is almost equally great. To estimate the historical value, it will be necessary to look at the literary method. The phenomenon which first strikes the reader’s attention is the unevenness of the narrative. In some cases we have an extended and detailed story; in others a long period of time is dismissed in a few words. The reign of Solomon occupies eleven chapters — about a fourth part of the work; while the longer reign of Manasseh is disposed of in sixteen verses. From our point of view there is reason to think that the reign of Manasseh was quite as interesting and quite as important as the other.

Still closer examination shows that there are well-marked characteristics of style in certain sections which are replaced by equally marked but totally different ones in other sections. Moreover, there are seemingly contradictory assertions which can hardly have come from the same pen, though they might have occurred in different documents, and have been retained by a compiler who did not fully realize their force. Thus the account of Solomon’s forced labour ‘raised out of all Israel’ seems inconsistent with the other declaration that Solomon made no bond-servants of Israel (1 Kings 5:13 ff.: of. IP’ and g^). One passage says without qualification that there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all their days; another tells us how Rehoboam gathered a mighty army, but dismissed it at the word of a prophet without making war (1 Kings 2:21–24 and 14:30). These indications of a compilatory activity, such as we find also in other parts of the OT, are confirmed by the author’s reference to some of the books from which he has drawn. Two of these are mentioned so often that they attract the attention of every reader. They are the Books of Annals (in our version ‘books of chronicles’) of the kings of Israel and of the kings of Judah. To these we may add the references to the Book of the Acts of Solomon. The author had these three books in his hand, and, what is of more importance, he thought his readers were likely to have them at their command. This is the reason why he refers to them — that those readers who are curious for further details may find them in these books. It follows that these sources of his are not the archives of the two kingdoms, but regular books circulated and read among the people at large. But it is clear that other sources were drawn upon. Some of the material cannot have come from either of the books named. The description of the Temple might supposedly have been embodied in the Acts of Solomon, though this seems improbable. But it is quite certain that the extended life of Elijah and the equally diffuse life of Elisha never had a place in the history of the kings. There must have been a Life of Elijah circulated by some of his disciples or admirers after his death, and the probability is strong that there was also a separate Life of Elisha. Whether these two may not have been embodied in a general work on the Lives of the Prophets, whence the sections which interested him were taken by our author, we may not be able to determine. That these sections did not come from the source with which they are most nearly combined is evident from the difference in tone and point of view. Ahab appears very differently in the Elijah sections and in the chapters which treat of the Syrian wars.

The narratives which deal with Isaiah suggest reflexions similar to those which come to us in looking at Elijah and Elisha. They look like portions of a biography of Isaiah. This biography was not our Book of Isaiah, in which some sections are duplicates of what we find in the Second Book of Kings. But other portions of the Book of Isaiah seem to have been drawn from the same Life of Isaiah which furnished the duplicate material of which we have spoken.

Although some of the points that have been touched upon are more or less obscure, we are justified in saying that the Books of Kings are a compilation from at least five separate sources — three which the author cites by name, a Temple chronicle, and a History of the Prophets. The hypothesis of compilation explains some of the discrepancies already noted, and it also explains some of the violent transitions in the narrative. Ch. 20 of 1 Kings is inserted between two passages which belong together, and which were once continuous. This chapter introduces Benhadad as though we knew him, when in fact we have not heard of him. In like manner Elijah appears suddenly in the narrative, without the slightest intimation as to who he is or what he has been doing. These indications confirm the theory of compilation, and they show also that the author has in no case (so far as we can discover) embodied the whole of any one of his sources in his work. He used his freedom according to his main purpose, taking out what suited that purpose and leaving the rest behind.

3. Purpose. — The next inquiry is, What was the purpose which explains the book? In answer to this it is at once seen that the purpose was a religious one. The author was not trying to write history; he was trying to enforce a lesson. For those who were interested in the history as history he gave references to the books in which the history could be found. For himself, there was something more important — this was to point a moral so plainly that his people would take heed to it and act accordingly. This comes to view plainly in the recurring sentences which make up what has been called the framework of the book. These are not always exactly alike — sometimes they are scantier, sometimes they are fuller. But they are the same in purport. A complete example is the following: ‘Jehoshaphat reigned over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab, king of Israel. Thirty-five years old was Jehoshaphat when he began to reign; and twenty-five years he reigned in Jerusalem; and his mother’s name was Azubah, daughter of Shilhi. He walked in all the way of Asa, his father; he turned not from it, doing right in the eyes of Jahweh. Only the high places were not removed, — the people continued sacrificing and offering at the high places. . . . And the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat — and the mighty deeds which he did — are they not written in the Book of Annals of the kings of Judah? . . . And Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David, and Jehoram his son reigned in his stead’ (1 Kings 22). The first part of this formula is found at the beginning: of a reign, the rest at the end. Sometimes there is so little recorded about a king that the two parts come in immediate sequence. But usually they are separated by a narrative, longer or shorter according to what the author thinks fit to give us. The framework itself shows that the author desires to preserve the name of the king, his age at accession, the length of his reign, the name of his mother, who was of course the first lady of the land. These items he was interested in, just because his work would not have been a history without them. But what most interested him was the judgment which he felt justified in pronouncing on the character of the monarch. The very fact that he gives such a judgment in every case shows that he had before him more material than he has handed down to us, for it would have been obviously unjust to pronounce so positively if he had as little ground for his opinion as in many cases he gives to us.

It is important to notice the reference to the high places which comes in immediate sequence to the judgment on the character of the Idng. The high places in the opinion of later times were illegitimate places of worsUp. Their toleration casts a shadow on the piety even of Idngs otherwise commendable, while their destruction is regarded as a proof of religious zeal. What light this throws on the date of the book will appear later. For the present it is suSlcient that the treatment of the high places furnishes the ground on which the kings are graded in excellence. The first place is given to Hezeldah and Josiah (who are classed with David), just because they did away with these ancient sanctuaries. The next rank is accorded to Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoash of Judah, Amaziah, Uzziah, and Jotham, and we notice that they all effected certain reforms in the Temple. With reference to each of these, the commendation is tempered by the statement that the high places were not taken away. In the third class we fihd the remaining Idngs of Judah, and all the kings of Israel, who are condemned as bad. The formula for the Idngs of Israel is not quite the same as the one just noticed. For one thing, the name of the queen-mother is not given — whether because the names had not been handed down, or because they were thought to be of minor importance after the destruction of the kingdom, is not clear. The formula may be illustrated by the one used for Baasha, — ‘In the third year of Asa king of Judah, Baasha son of Ahijah became king over Israel in Tirzah, (and reigned) twenty-four years. He did evil in the eyes of Jahweh, and he walked in the ways of Jeroboam, and in his sin by which he made Israel sin. . . . And the rest of the affairs of Baasha, and what he did, and Ins power, are they not written in the Book of Annals of the kings of Israel? And Baasha slept with his fathers and was buried in Tirzah, and Elah his son reigned in his stead’ (1 Kings 15 16). The reason given for the condemnation which is visited on all the kings of the Northern Kingdom is that they walked in the ways of Jeroboam i., — that is, they fostered the worship of the golden bulls (calves they are called in derision) at Bethel and Dan. This is, in the eyes of the author, distinct rebelMon against the God whose legitimate sanctuary is at Jerusalem.

While the longer quotations from his sources usually show the compiler’s religious intent, yet he often presents us with brief notices for which he is probably indebted to the Books of Annals, but which have no very direct bearing on his main object. Thus in the case of Jehoshaphat he inserts in his framework a brief notice to the effect that this king made peace with Israel. In the three-membered contest between Zimri, Tibni, and Omri (1 Kings 16:15–22) he compresses the story of a prolonged civil war into a few lines. In the case of Omri we find a brief notice to the effect that this king built the city of Samaria, having bought the land from a man named Shemer (1 Kings 16:24). Such a notice probably compresses a detailed account in which Omri was glorified as the founder of the capital.

As some of these shorter notices duplicate what we find elsewhere, it seems as if the compiler made out his framework or epitome first and filled it in with his excerpts afterwards. In the insertion of these longer passages the religious motive is always apparent. The matter of supreme importance to him is the worship of the God of Israel as carried on at the Temple in Jerusalem. He is under the influence known as Deuteronomistic. Tills is seen first in the phrases which recur in those sections which we suspect to be his own composition. In many cases it is not possible to say whether these sections come from the hand of the compiler or whether they were inserted by one of his followers. This is, in fact, of minor importance, — if various hands have been concerned they worked under the same bias. The attitude taken towards the high places is distinctly Deuteronomistic, for the demand that these sanctuaries should be abolished was first formulated by Deuteronomy. Josiah’s reforms, as is well known, were the direct result of the finding of this book in the Temple. Hence the strong, we might say extravagant, commendation of this king.

Moreover, it was laid down by the writer of Deuteronomy that obedience to the law which he formulates will be followed by temporal well-being, and that disobedience will be punished by calamity. Now, one object of the writer or compiler of the Book of Kings is to show how this has proved true in the past. He is less thorough in the application of this theory than the author of the Book of Chronicles, but that he has it at heart will be evident on examination. The Northern Kingdom had perished — why? Because Idngs and people had from the first been disobedient to Jahweh, revolting from His legitimate sanctuary at Jerusalem, and provoking His wrath by the bulls of Bethel. In Judah the same lesson is taught. David, who laid the foundations of the Idngdom, was of unusual piety, and was favoured by unusual prosperity. Solomon was the builder of the Temple, and to this extent an example of piety; his prosperity was in proportion. But there were shadows in the picture of Solomon which our author was too honest to ignore. It had not been forgotten that this Idng built altars to foreign gods. History also told that he had suffered by the revolt of Edom and Damascus. It was easy to see in this the punishment for the Idng’s sins. The historic fact seems to be that the revolt preceded the defection, so that the punishment came before the crime. In any case, the compiler has dealt freely with ills material, dating both the defection and the revolt late in the king’s reign, at a time when senile weakness would excuse the wise man for yielding to his wives.

The most distinct instance in which the author teaches his lesson is the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the Temple. It was the custom with ancient historians, as we know, to compose speeches for their heroes which tell us what ought to have been said rather than what was actually said. Our author makes use of this perfectly legitimate literary device. A reading of the prayer shows that it is Deuteronomistic in word and thought throughout. More than one hand has been concerned in it, but the tone is that of the Deuteronomistic school. It confirms what has been said about the purpose of the book. It follows that the historical value of the work must be estimated with due allowance tor this main purpose.

4. Date. — The date of the Book of Kings in its present form cannot be earlier than the Babylonian exile. The latest event which it mentions is the release of king Jehoiachin from confinement, which took place in the year B.C. 561; and as the author speaks of the allowance made to the king ‘all his life’ (2 Kings 25). we conclude that he wrote after his death. It will not be far out of the way, therefore, to say that the work was completed about B.C. 550. Some minor insertions may have been made later. While this is so, there are some things which point to an earher date lor the greater part of the work. The purpose of the author to keep his people from the mistakes of the past Is Intelligible only at a time when the avoidance of the mistakes was still possible, — that is, before the fall of Jerusalem. We find also some phrases which indieate that the final catastrophe had not yet come. The recurrence of the phrase ‘until this day’ (1 Kings 8:8; of. 9:21 12:19. 2 Kings 2:22 8:22 16:6) is one of these Indications. It is, of course, possible that all these belong to the older sources from which the author drew, but this hardly seems probable. On these grounds it is now generally held that the substance of the book was compiled about B.C. 600, by a writer who was anxious to enforce the lesson of the Deuteronomic reform while there was yet hope. This first edition extended to 2 Kings 23:25 or 28. About fifty years later an author living in the Exile, and who sympathized with the main purpose of the book, completed it in substantially its present form. The theory receives some confirmation from the double scheme of chronology which runs through the book. As has been shown in the formula quoted above, there is a series of data concerning the length of each king’s reign, and also a series of synchronisms, according to which each king’s accession is brought into relation with the era of his contemporary in the other kingdom. The two series are not always consistent — a state of things which is best accounted for on the theory that one was the work of one author, the other the work of the other.

5. Text. — The text of the Books of Kings has not been transmitted with the care which has been shown in some parts of the OT. The LXX shows that early copies did not always agree in their wording or in the order of the paragraphs. In some cases the LXX has a better reading. But the differences are not such as to affect the meaning in any essential point.

H. P. Smith.

King's Garden

King’s garden (2 Kings 25:4. Jeremiah 39:4 52:7. Nehemiah 3:15). This garden was clearly near the ‘gate of the two walls’ which was near the Pool of Siloam, and it was in all probability just outside the walls, being irrigated by overflow water from the Siloam tunnel and pool, just as the land in this situation is treated to-day. Indeed, the garden may have covered much the same area as is now cultivated as irrigated vegetable garden by the women of SilwSn. See Kidron [Brook of], Siloam E. W. G. Masterman.

King's Pool

Nehemiah 2:14, prob. identical with Pool of Siloam. See Siloah.

King's Vale

Genesis 14:17 (AV king’s dale). See Shaveh.

Kir

An unidentified place, subject in the 8th and 7th cents, to Assyria. Amos (1’), according to the present Hebrew text, predicted that the Aramaeans should be carried captive to Kir. In 9’ he declares that Jahweh brought them from Kir. It is said in 2 Kings 16:9 that Tiglath-pileser carried the people of Damascus captive to Kir, while in Isaiah 22:6 Kir is mentioned in connexion with Elam as furnishing soldiers to the Assyrian army which fought against Israel. It has been identified with Kur, a river flowing into the Caspian Sea; with Cvropolis; with the Syrian province of Cyrrhestica; with Cyrene; with Kurenia in Media; with Kuris, north of Aleppo; with Koa of Ezekiel 23:23, which has been supposed to be the same as the Gulium of the Bab.-Assyr. inscriptions, which possessed a high civilization as early as B.C. 3000. In reality nothing certain is known of the locality of Kir. George A. Barton.

Kir

(of Moab). Coupled with Ar of Moab (Isaiah 15:1). possibly identical with it. Following the Targum, Kir of Moab has long been identified with the modern Kerak, a place of great importance in the times of the Crusades. Kerak is situated on a lofty spur between the Wady d-Kerak and the Wady ‘Ain Franji, about 4000 feet above the Dead Sea level. The hills behind rise much higher, so that it is commanded on every side by higher ground, which explains 2 Kings 3:25–27. It was surrounded by a wall of great thickness, and there are remains of ancient rock-hewn cisterns. The gates were to be reached only through long tunnels in the soUd rock. C. H. W. Johns.

Kirama

Kirama (1 Esdras 5:20) = Ezra 12 Ramah. KIB-HARESETH (Isaiah 16:7). Kir-haraseth (2 Kings 3:25 AV [pausal form)), Kir-heres (Jeremiah 48). Kir-haresh (Isaiah 16:11 AV [pausal form]). — A place of great strength and importance in Moab; generally regarded as identical with Kir of Moab (wh. see). The LXX and Vulg. take these names as phrases, and translate them on some more or less fanciful Hebrew etymology. The Targum on Isaiah renders Kerak tokpehon, which suggests that haraseth may be connected with the Assyrian hurshu, ‘a cliff,’ etc., but the word may be Moabite or Canaanite, and seems to occur in ‘Harosheth of the Gentiles’ (Judges 4). The modern Kasr harasha, 35 minutes’ walk above Dera’a, preserves a similar title. C. H. W. Johns.

Kiriath

Kiriath is the st. constr. of Kiriah, the complement of which, -jearim, seems to have fallen out in Joshua 18:28. from its resemblance to the word for ‘cities’ which follows. Therefore we ought probably to read Kiriath-jearim, a reading supported by the LXX. W. Ewinq.

Kiriatha

Kiriatha in.— 1. A town E. of the Jordan, in the disputed territory between Moab and Reuben, placed by the Onomaslicon 10 Roman miles W. of Madeba (Genesis 14:5. Numbers 32:37. jos 13:19. Jeremiah 48, Ezekiel 25:9) unidentified.2. A town in Naphtali (1 Chronicles 6:76), called Kartan in Joshua 21:32. Yf. Ewinq.

KIRIATH -ARB A is used as a name for Hebron (wh. see) in Genesis 23:2 etc. Only in Genesis 35:27 and Nehemiah 11:25 is Arba’ written with the article. The city may have been so called as the seat of a confederacy between four men or tribes, or the name may be= Tetrapolis, ‘the city of four quarters.’ The Heb. text explains it as ‘the city of Arba,’ ‘the greatest man among the Anakim’ (Joshua 14:15 RV), or ‘the father of Anak’ (IS" 21:11). In the first passage LXX reads ‘the city Argob, the metropolis of the Anakim’: in the second ‘the city Arbok, metropolis,’ etc. Perhaps in the last two, therefore, we should read ‘em,’ mother,’ i.e. ‘mother-city,’ instead of ‘abi,’ father.’ W. Ewing. KIRIATH-ARIM (Ezra 2:25). See Kiriath-jearim. EIRIATH-BAAL.— See Kiriath-jearim. KIKIATH-HUZOTH.— A spot unidentified, apparently between Ar-moab and Bamoth-baal (Numbers 22:39. cf. VV.86- It may be Kweiat, S. of Jebel ‘AtmrUs.

W. EwiNG. KIRIATH -JEARIM (‘city of forests’).— One of the cities of the Gibeonites (Joshua 9:17). , occupied by the Danltes (Judges 18:12). on the border between Judah and Benjamin (Joshua 15:9 18:14). From there David brought up the ark (2 Samuel 6:2. 1 Chronicles 13:5, 2 Chronicles 1:4). Its older name appears to have been Kiriath-baal (Joshua 15:60) or Baalah (Joshua 15:9, 10. 1 Chronicles 13). It is also mentioned as Baale Judah (2 Samuel 6:2). and through a textual error as Kiriath-arim (Ezra 2:25; cf. Nehemiah 7:29). It wag probably, like Kedesh, Gezer, etc., an old Canaanite ‘high place.’ In Jeremiah 26:20 it is mentioned as the home of Uriah the prophet, the son of Sheraaiah. See also 1 Chronicles 2 and 1 Esdras 5:19 [in this last passage it is called Kariathiarius] . The site of this important ancient sanctuary and frontier town has been very generally accepted, since the 5th cent, a.d., as close to that of the modern Kuriel d-‘Enab, a flourishing little village on the high-road from Jaffa to Jerusalem, about 9 miles from the latter. The ancient remains are to the W. of the village, but a handsome Crusading Church in the village itself has recently been restored. Kuriet d-‘Enab is generally known as Abu Ghosh, after a family of semi-brigauds of that name who established themselves there nearly a century ago, and for long held the whole surrounding country at their mercy. Another site, which has been powerfully advocated by Conder, is Khurbet’ Erma, on the S. of the Vale of Sorek, just where the narrow valley opens into the plain. The similarity of ‘arim (Ezra 2:25) and’ erma, and the nearness of the site to Zorah and Eshtaol, are in its favour. There, too, are ancient remains, and a great rock platform which would appear to mark an ancient ‘high place.’ On the other hand, it is tar from the other cities of the Gibeonites (Joshua 9:17). The question cannot be considered as settled. E. W. G. Masteeman.

Kiseus

The form in Ad. Esther 11 of Kiah (Esther 2:5), the name of the great-grandfather of Mordecai. See KisH, No. 4.

Kishi

A Merarite Levlte, ancestor of Ethan (1 Chronicles 6:44; the parallel passage, 1 Chronicles 15:17, has Eushaiah, probably the correct form of the name).

Kishion

A town allotted to Issachar (Joshua 19:20), given to the Levites (2123). The parallel passage, 1 Chronicles 6:72, reads Kedesh, which is perhaps a textual error for Kishion. The latter name has not been recovered.

Kishon

Kishon (Judges 4:7 5:21, 1 Kings 18:40. Psalms 83:9). The ancient name of the stream now called Nahr el-Mukatta ‘, which drains almost the whole area of the great Plain of Esdraelou. The main channel may be considered as rising near the W. foot of Mt. Tabor, and running W. through the centre of the plain until it enters the narrow valley between the S. extension of the Galilsean hills and the E. end of Carmel. After emerging from this it enters the Plain of Akka, running a little N. of the whole length of Carmel, and enters the sea about a mile E. of Haifa. The total length is about 23 miles. In the first part of its course it is in winter a sluggish stream with a bottom of deep mud, and in summer but a chain of small marshes; from just below where the channel is crossed by the Nazareth road near Carmel it usually has a certain amount of water all the year round, and In parts the water, which is brackish, is 10 or 12 feet deep. At its mouth, however, it is almost always fordable. Numerous small watercourses from the Galitean hills on the N. and more important tributaries from’ Little Hermon,’ the Mountains of Gilboa, and the whole southern range of Samaria and Carmel on the E. and S., contribute their waters to the main stream. The greater number of these channels, in places 10 or IS feet deep with precipitous sides, are perfectly dry two-thirds of the year, but during the winter’s rains are filled with raging torrents. A number of copious springs arise along the edge of the hills to the S. of the plain. At Jenin there are plentiful fountains, but they are, during the summer, entirely used up in irrigation; at Ta’anak, at LejjUn, near Tell el-KaSis, at the E. end of Carmel, and at the ‘Ayun eUSa’di, perennial fountains pour their water into the main stream. Those who have seen the stream only in late spring or summer can hardly picture how treacherous and dangerous it may become when the winter’s rain fills every channel with a tumultuous flood of chocolate-brown water over a bottom of sticky mud oftenitself several feet deep. Both animals and baggage have not infrequently been lost at such times. Under such conditions, the Kishon, with its steep, uncertain banks, its extremely crooked course, and its treacherous fords, must have been very dangerous to a flying army of horses and chariots (Judges 5:21, 22). of all parts the section of the river from Megiddo (wh. see) to’ Harosheth of the Gentiles’ (now el^Harithlyeh) , where the fiercest of the battle against Sisera was fought (cf. Judges 5:19 and 4:16). must have been the most dangerous. The other OT incident connected with this river is the slaughter there of the prophets of Baal after Elijah’s vindication of Jehovah on the heights of Carmel (1 Kings 18:40).

E. W. G. Mabtehman. KISS (Heb. neshXqdh, Gr. phillma). — Kissing is a mark of affection between parents and children (Genesis 27:26 f. Ruth 1:9, 1 Kings 19:20 etc.), members of a family, or near connexions (Genesis 29:13 45:15), and equals in rank (2 Samuel 20:9, Acts 20:37). Guests are received with a kiss (Luke 7:45). A kiss from a superior marks condescension ^2 S 15:5 19:39). These kisses may be on the lips, but are usually on the cheek or neck. The kiss was a token of love (Song of Songs 1:2 8:1), of homage and submission (Genesis 41:40. Job 31:27, Psalms 2:12), and was also an act of idolatrous worship(l jj jgis^ Hosea 13:2). . The Moslems kiss the black stone at Mecca. Jimiors and inferiors kiss the hands of seniors and superiors. A wife kisses the hand or beard of her husband. The hand, garments, even the feet of one appealed to may be kissed. Probably Judas presumed to salute with the kiss of an equal (Matthew 26:49 etc.). A kiss on the hand would have been natural. The ‘holy kiss,’ or ‘kiss of love’ (1 Corinthians 16:20, 1 Peter 5:14), marked the tie that united Christians in a holy brotherhood.

W. EWINQ.

Kite

1. •ayyah,. In Leviticus 11:14. Deuteronomy 14:13 AV renders this word by ‘kite,’ in Job 28:7 by ‘vulture’; RV has uniformly ‘falcon.’ 2. da’ah: Leviticus 11:14 (AV ‘vulture,’ RV ‘kite’). 3. dayyah; Deuteronomy 14 (EV ‘glede’ [Old Eng. for ‘kite’]). Isaiah 34:15 (AV ‘vulture.’RV’ kite’). The red kite, the black kite, and the Egyptian kite are all found in Palestine, but it is impossible to say which birds are denoted by the different words. W. Ewing.

Kneading-trough

Only Exodus 8:3 12:34 and RV of Deuteronomy 28:5, 17 (AV ‘store’). See Bread, House, § 9.

Knee, Kneel

The knees are often referred to in Scripture as the place where weakness of the body, from whatever cause, readily manifests itself: e.g. from terror (Job 4:4, Daniel 5:6), or fasting (Psalms 109:24). The reference in Deuteronomy 28 seems to be to ‘joint leprosy,’ in which, after the toes and fingers, the joints of the larger limbs are attacked (Driver, Dent in loc). The laying of children on the knees of father or grandfather seems to have involved recognition of them as legitimate members of the family (Genesis 30 50:23). In many passages of Scripture kneeling is spoken of as the attitude assumed in prayer (1 Kings 8:54, Psalms 95:6, Daniel 6:10. Acts 20:36 etc.). To ‘bow the knee’ is equivalent to ‘worship’ (1 Kings 19:18. Isaiah 45:23, Romans 14:11 etc.). To fall upon the knees before a superior is an act at once of reverence and of entreaty (2 Kings 1:13, Matthew 17:14. Luke 5:8 etc.). In the court of an Eastern judge the writer has often seen men prostrate themselves, and then make their plea, resting upon their knees. W. Ewinq.

Knife

Of the various sorts of knives noticed in the OT mention may be made of the flint knives used for the rite of circumcision (Joshua 5:2 f.; cf . Exodus 4) — an instance of conservatism in ritual, to which parallels may be found in all religions. The knives for ordinary purposes under the monarchy were mostly of bronze, of which, as of the earlier flint knives, the recent excavations have furnished many varieties. We also read of sacriflcial knives (Genesis 22. Ezra 1:9), of ‘a barber’s knife’ or razor (Ezekiel 5:1), and of a scribe’s knife (Jeremiah 36:23 EV ‘penknife,’ ) , used for sharpening his reed-pen and making the necessary erasures. Cf. House, § 9.

A. R. S. Kennedy.

Knop

Another form of ‘knob,’ is used to render two different words in EV. 1. The knops of the stem and arms of the golden candlestick, or rather lampstand, of the Tabernacle (Exodus 25:31 etc.) were the spheroidal ornaments still recognizable in the representation on the Arch of Titus. 2. Knops also denote certain ornaments, probabLy egg- or gourd-shaped, carved on the cedar lining of the walls of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kings 6:18 — note RVm), and similar ornaments on the ‘brazen sea’ (7:24). A. R. S. Kennedy.

Knowledge

I. Human knowledge. — 1. In the OT. — Knowledge, so far as it has a theological use, is moral rather than intellectual. It is assumed that a knowledge of God is possible, but this is the result of a revelation of Himself by God, and not aspeculativeknowledge achieved by man. So knowledge becomes practically equivalent to religion (Psalms 25:14. Isaiah 11:2). and ignorance to irreligion (1 Samuel 2:12, Hosea 4:1 6:6). The Messianic age is to bring knowledge, but this will be taught of God (Isaiah 54:13). This knowledge of God is therefore quite consistent with speculative ignorance about the universe (Job 38. 39). Perhaps some expressions in the NT which seem to refer to Gnostic ideas may be explained by this view of knowledge.

2. In the NT. — (a) In the Gospels knowledge is spoken of in the same sense as in the OT. Christ alone possesses the knowledge of God (Matthew 11:25–27). This knowledge gives a new relation to God, and without it man is still in darkness (Matthew 5:8, John 7:17 17:3). (6) In St. Paul’s Epistles. — In the earlier Epistles knowledge is spoken of as a gift of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 1:30 2. 12:8). although God can to a certain extent be known through nature (Acts 14:7. Romans 1:19, 20). 1 Cor. especially urges the subordination of knowledge to charity. In Colossians 2 and 1 Timothy 6:20 a wrong kind of knowledge is spoken of — perhaps an early form of Gnosticism. True knowledge, however, centres in Christ, who is the mystery of God (Colossians 2:2). In Him all questions flnd their answer, and this knowledge is not, like Gnosticism, the property of a few, but is intended for all men (Colossians 1:28). In the Pastoral Epp. knowledge is spoken of with reference to a definite body of accepted teaching, which is repeatedly alluded to; it is, however, not merely intellectual but moral (Titus 1:1). (c) In the other NT books knowledge is not prominent, except in 2 Peter, where, however, there is nothing specially characteristic. In Hebrews the ordinary word for ‘knowledge’ does not occur at all, but the main object of the Epistle is to create and confirm a certain kind of Christian knowledge. Although knowledge in both OT and NT is almost always moral, there is no trace of the Socratic doctrine that virtue is knowledge.

II. Divine knowledge.— It is not necessary to show that perfect knowledge is ascribed to God throughout the Scriptures. In some OT books — Job and some Psalms — the ignorance of man is emphasized in order to bring God’s omniscience into relief (cf. also the personification of the Divine Wisdom in the Books of Proverbs and Wisdom).

III. Divine and human knowledge in Chhist. — The question has been much debated how Divine and human knowledge could co-exist in Christ, and whether in His human nature He was capable of ignorance. It is a question that has often been argued on a priori grounds, but it should rather be considered with reference to the evidence in the records of His life. The Gospels certainly attribute to Christ an extraordinary and apparently a supernatural knowledge. But even supernatural illumination is not necessarily Divine consciousness, and the Gospel records also seem to attribute to our Lord such limitations of knowledge as may be supposed to make possible a really human experience. 1. There are direct indications of ordinary limitations. He advanced in wisdom (Luke 2) ; He asked for information (Mark 6 8:5 9:21, Luke 8:30, John 11:34) He expressed surprise (Mark 6:38 8:5 9:21. John 11:34). His use of prayer, and especially the prayer in the garden (Matthew 26:39) and the words upon the cross (Mark 15:34). point in the same direction. 2. With regard to one point our Lord expressly disclaimed Divine knowledge (Mark 13). 3. In the Fourth Gospel, while claiming unity with the Father, He speaks of His teaching as derived from the Father under the limitations of a human state (John 3:34 5:19, 20 s’s 12:49, 50). 4. While speaking with authority, and in a way which precludes the possibility of fallibility in the deliverance of the Divine message. He never enlarged our store of natural knowledge, physical or historical. If it be true that Christ lived under limitations in respect of the use of His Divine omniscience, this is a part of the self-emptying which He undertook for us men and for our salvation (see Kenosis). J. H. Maude.

Koa

A people associated with Pekod and Shoa (Ezekiel 23:23), probably, therefore, a by-form of Kuta (also Gutium), often mentioned in Assyr. inscriptions in the same company. Their seat lay N.E. of Babylonia, in the mountains between the upper Adhem and the Dijala. Cf. Kir. C. H. W. Johns.