cheenc03a.pdf

SOLOMON
may, however, admit that the story of David's
tienchery to Unr.%~r (q-u.) probably developed our of a
current oriental legendary prm, without of course
disparaging the value of the Bathrheba story as given
in 2 5. 11a-1Z2; for other than purely historical purposes.
And we rnust also claim the right to extract a fragment
of history from z S. 11=~ lZrj6-ns, rightly read, and
illustrated by thestory of Solomon's accessionin I K. If.
and by the lists of David'a ronr in z S. 31s 1 Ch. 3rfl
The .fragment of history' is that Solomon had another
name, which name in given in our present text as
Jedidinh.'
Pasring next to I K. 1 f , we find reason to think
with Winckler that Solomon's opposition to the claim
of Adonijah to succeed David war due not to his own
and Bathsheba's se16rh ambition, but to the consideration
thaf after the succerrive deaths of Amnon and
Abizlum he, not Adoaijah, was the legitimate heir to
the throne. Here, however, we part from Winckler.
Bathsheba is for us no mythologicnl figure, but the [rue
mother of Solomon : she is in facr identical with Abigaila
That Solomon's mother should bear two names in the
tradifi"" is not more surprising than that a ring who
the Irrarlitcr in early tlmcs should be called
both Jabin (Jamin)-i.e.. JerahmeeiPand Sisera-i.r..
.4rzhur-both Jeinhmeel and Asrhur being N. Arabian
ethnic names (see SHAMCAR ii.. 5 z). Brthshebu is in
fact equivalent to Bath-niam (o s. 113) or Bath-Amnliel
4donijah's claim to the throne, however, must have
been bared upon some theory. If he was not the
alde~t living son of David, he may yet have been the
oldest of those born after David's ncces~ion.~ Probably
David both favoured his pretensions arid accepted him
as co-regent. ~nfortunktely Adonijah ncgiected to
bring over to his side the so-called 'Cherethites and
Pelcthites' (Rehobothiles and ZarephaIhiter),4 x,ho
forlnrd the royal body-guard, and with the aid of their
learler Hmaiah, Solomon compelled the old king to
reject Adonijah.
I" I K.21, (cp u. ?I) it is stated that Adonijah
desired leave to make Abishag the Shunammite his
wire (cp WRS. Km$hip. 85 8 ). Ir is possible thnt
Solomon, with the same object as Adonijah, actually
took .>\bishng' (the name corner from wl$'l, like Bilkir
in the Semiramis legcnd from rahhanlr) into his harem,
and that Rehoboamwas thesonofSolomon by' Abishag.'
See SnasnMm-rc.
Upon fhir theory Solomon was not one of the sons
born to Dwid at Jerusalem (z S. 5.4 I Ch. 3~-8), and
the traditional view of his age nt his accesiion.Qbared
1 I1 ..., .lL .*.x, I '2 -la
1 ..,:i r I rf,,., 1.1 I I%>
:A,..:: , 1,. ,,,,,, . 1. I I, I I?
unconrciously made r cohcc*s&s 70 historical facta. For
S. A. Cook's rhcory ace A/SL161ia/: 1x9001 andcp Jpnro1~~.
2 Abigail protxliy=Ahihail (rcc NASAL), &d Ab~ha~lappeul
ultimately to come from Jerahmecl.
3 Wi. GI 2 ~ ~ ~ :
4 The crplanntlon of 'Cherelhilu and Pelethiter'(res JUD~H
S 4, PXLETXLT~S) hcrc given, is DOC thaf of Winckler : but (lik;
S. A. Cook, AJSL 16177, n. 6r [April igool) this able critic
recogntres, qwts mdependently of the present writer, that this
fairhful warrtor-bnnd came from the Negeb.
5 B* (r K. 2 is), 6th about rwenty other MSS and some
VCT~~O~IS (Arm em.), giver Solomon only twelve yeam at his
accesiion, and Jerome (cp 13- ad Vifalem) arrerLTI that the
SOLOMON
on very insecure data, needr to be revxsed. Certainly
the narradve in I K. If does not fa\,our the vleii- th;,r
Solomon was a young man (the rhetorical langusgc
of I K. 3 7b I Ch. 29 1 925 cannot be regarded as
decisive) ; the hero of the coup d'6taf displays all the
adroitness and astuteness of a practised politician.
How Solomon treated his opponmtr is stated e1scx1,cre
(A~>onlj*n, ABIATHAR. JUAR, SHIXEI): the story,
which has a hnsis of facr (Hrsron~ca~ I.I.I.EKXTUHE,
5 z), makes if difficult for a modern to idraiise thin
despotic prince. It is singular that 'Nalhaa the
prophet' should have nrrumed the prominent position
which belongs mthrr to Benniilh ;I but ampler justice is
done to the priest ZADUK (gz.) for his energetic
support of the son of ,Bathrheba.' It is probable that
the Jerusalem priesthood exacted a very full n;corupcnrr,
a~id that fresh favoilrs conferred on their body bore
fruit for So1onron in the early idealisation "f his coliduct
PZ n sovereign.
\ius the iub'iritutian of Zndok for Abinthar accom.
pnnied 1,y changer in the culrus at Jerusalem?S It is
a question which baffles the critical
aa,
student. The narrators eive ur much
that we could have spared. and withhaid much that
would have been of great value tour. Their o!vn interest
is largely absorbed in the buildings of Solomon, especially
in that of the temple. That the description in its
present form comes (as liittelsupporer) from theAnr8als.
5eerns hardly . . roba able; as it now stands, if mav
perhnpr represent a later age. to which the temple in
particular had become a subject of learned but not
altogether sober inquiry. See K~NCS [BOOK]. $ 6.
P.11.Ace. Tlixp~e (and cp Stade, CZr113~8$, and
ZAT11; 1883, pp. 1zg8). It is even to some extent
doubtful whether the whole story of the building of a
temple of Yahwk as well as of a royal palace outride
the city of David is not due to misapprehension. According
to Winckler ((;lZ2i28) the true temple of Solonlon
arr merely a renovation of the old sanctuary of David
on its original site-i.e., within the city of Davidthough
if must apparently be admitted (see MILLO)
that this rcholafs explanation of miNo and consequently
the form in which he presents his theory needs rrcoirsideration.
There is, however, another ~oint. not less imwrtant.
3b, n d more capable of solution. Accord-
~ng to the tradition in its present form
(MT and a). the timber for building the temple was
furnished, together with artificers, by Hirvrn king of
Tyre. Therelation thus indicated between Israel aild the
Tyrinn kingis, ifaccumtelyreported, in the highestdegree
remarkable. If, as Winckler, who follows WC, interprets
what he thinks the historical truth, the kingof Isrnel ~ n s
in varsalage to the king of Tyre (?), how is it thnt after
Solomou'r tinre we hear nothing of attempts on the
pmt of 'ryre to strengthen its hold upon Ismel. and on
the part of lrnrl to free itself from Tyrian supremacy?
True, all on a sudden, in thc ninth century, %ve hear of
an Irraelifish king nllrrying a daughter of ' Ethbnnl,
king of the Zidonianr' (I K. 1G3~). This, howevci. ir
a" equally singular and an equally suspicious statement,
when we connder that the most influential power in the
politics of Israel and Judah (pottinq aside Aasyria) \ras
- ~- ~ --
'hehmica ~ ~ ~ =zrees i t =.irh ~ a. ~ ' Jorephur (A~*. ~iii. 7 8)
gives his age ri fourteen; he also says rhrt he lived to g,! For
orherlraditionalrtstem~nff~sff Nestle ZA 7W 1882 pp. irsfi,
and Tkrol Sbd. anur iYZlrinnbrrg, 1Id86, p. : knufmann.
ZATW, 1883. p. 185' Gzutier Rru. dr fhrbl. d de fll'ilas.
Nov. 1886: La~de,'~iilk;1.'2po n. 1. Stade ((;vllzq7j
says. not lerr thin twenty years old Kitrel (A-dm. 6), refcrrir~g
to I K. 11 11 14zr. doubtfully suggests eight~cn.
1 Schwillly (ZATIY, ,892, p. 156) doubts whether Nathan
was really apiophet. That ..>in ('the prophe, 7 should prob.
ably be '?7);1, 'zbc Nsdabire,' is pointed out clrswhere
(PROPHET. 8 a>
9 See Winckler (KATIdI q+), who incliner ro think that
Zadok was iorrcduc~d by the later legend in the interests of the
monotheirtic ides.