The Figure of Solomon in Jewish,

Christian and Islamic Tradition

Themes in
Biblical Narrative
Jewish and Christian Traditions
Editorial Board
George H. van Kooten
Robert A. Kugler
Loren T. Stuckenbruck
Advisory Board
Reinhard Feldmeier
Judith Lieu
Florentino Garca Martnez
Hindy Najman
Martti Nissinen
Ed Noort
VOLUME 16
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/tbn
LEIDENBOSTON
2013
The Figure of Solomon in Jewish,
Christian and Islamic Tradition
King, Sage and Architect
Edited by
Joseph Verheyden
Cover illustration: Maurits Sabbe Library, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven:
Biblia Sacra, dat is de geheele Heylighe Schriftvre bedeylt in t Out en Nieu Testament, [Amsterdam]:
by Pieter Iacopsz Paets, 1657, p. 431 (woodcut by Christoffel van Sichem).
This publication has been typeset in the multilingual Brill typeface. With over 5,100 characters
covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the
humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.
ISSN 1388-3909
ISBN 978-90-04-24232-6 (hardback)
ISBN 978-90-04-24291-3 (e-book)
Copyright 2013 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
CONTENTS
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
The Rise of Solomon in the Ancient Israelite Historiography .......... 7
Isaac Kalimi
Solomon in History and Tradition ............................................................. 45
Pekka Srki
Der Tempel Salomos im Kontext der Ikonographie und der
archologischen Funde ............................................................................ 57
Wolfgang Zwickel
Josephus on Solomon .................................................................................... 85
Joseph Verheyden
Solomon and Magic ....................................................................................... 107
Pablo A. Torijano
Solomon in Rabbinic Literature ................................................................. 127
Gerhard Langer
King Solomon in the New Testament and Jewish Tradition ............. 143
Albert L.A. Hogeterp
Salomo, Christus und die Oden Salomos ................................................. 165
Tobias Nicklas
Solomon as a True Exorcist: The Testament of Solomon in
Its Cultural Setting..................................................................................... 183
Peter Busch
Solomon in Egyptian Gnosticism .............................................................. 197
Jacques van der Vliet
vi contents
Solomon in Ethiopian Tradition ................................................................ 219
Witold Witakowski and Ewa Balicka-Witakowska
The Ikhwn a-af on King-Prophet Solomon .................................... 241
Jules Janssens
Index of Names ................................................................................................ 255
Index of Biblical References ........................................................................ 260
Index of Other References ........................................................................... 269
INTRODUCTION
Solomonking, sage, architect, and later on also magicianis one of the
more complex and fascinating characters in the history of Israel. As a king
he is second only to David. As the king who gave Israel its temple he is
unsurpassed. As the prototype of the sage (or the wise king) his name lives
on in numerous biblical and pseudepigraphical writings. As the magician
of later tradition he has established himself as a model for many other
aspirants in this field.
This volume contains the proceedings of an international conference
on Solomon that was held at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies
of the University of Leuven, September 30October 2, 2009 and brought
together specialists in various fields of Jewish, early Christian, Eastern
Christian, and Islamic studies who all have illustrated how Solomon was
put in the picture in these traditions.
A number of essays is dedicated to texts and documents that should be
dealt with in any good study on Solomon. But the volume also contains
essays that offer a less common take on the subject. The starting point are
of course the core passages in 1 Kgs 311 and their parallel in 2 Chr 211.
These texts are studied in particular by Isaac Kalimi and Pekka Srki.
Kalimi focuses on the accounts of Solomons succession to the throne.
The story as told in 1 Kgs 12 is that of a classic power struggle, in which
all those supporting Solomon do so as much for their own benefit as for
any idealistic purpose. Nathan, the chief conspirator, is duly rewarded
for his support and intriguing, as are his comrades-in-arms, Zadok and
Benaiah. It is a very down-to-earth story. The Chronicler, on the other
hand, tries to emend this perspective and turns Solomon into a divinely
chosen king and a fully legitimate heir to the throne. There was no need
for any intrigue. Solomon succession to the throne was a most harmoni-
ous event. The accounts of the new kings coronation reflect this quite
different approach. In the Deuteronomistic version Solomon succeeds
to his father. In the more solemn Chronistic account he is put on the
throne of the Lord: theocracy and monarchy go hand in hand. Kalimi
finds in it an indication that the notion of Gods kingship is all but a late
one, as some have argued. In the same line, the Chronicler is foremost
interested in the religious, rather than in the political, aspect in Davids
testament, because it gives him a good opportunity to go on emphasising
2 introduction
the divinely ordained perspective in dealing with Solomons rise to power.
The biblical accounts thus offer two quite different versions of the way
in which Solomon conquered the throne; as such, they already indicate
that here is a quite controversial figure. Things would not really change
afterwards.
Pekka Srki opens with a broad survey of the major developments that
have taken place in studying the history of Israels kings over the past two
decades. There is first of all the still on-going debate between minimalists
and maximalists in assessing the credibility of the biblical accounts. There
is further also the equally still on-going debate on the place of archaeology
in biblical studies and its relation to literary studies. Third, and linked to
the previous, is the complex question of dating the archaeological evi-
dence ascribed to the early monarchy. Solomon, his reign, his building
activity, and the accounts about him, take a central place in this whole
discussion. Srki then concentrates on the account in 1 Kgs of Solomons
rise to power and that of his sin (1 Kgs 11:18). In particular, he draws
attention to the fact that in both accounts a crucial role is given to foreign
women. Indeed, it is thanks to Bathseba, herself of Canaanite descent,
that Solomon makes it to the throne; and it is his harem, which included
women of non-Jewish descent, that made him give up obeying the Law. As
Srki indicates, this was more than a sorry mistake by an overconfident
ruler; it turned Solomon into the very counter-model of the pious Jew. He
broke the covenant, and Israel would suffer badly by it.
Wolfgang Zwickel studies the biblical accounts on Solomons temple in
1 Kgs 67 at the background of the iconographical and archaeological evi-
dence. The temple was above all a project aimed at furthering the prestige
of the ruler. Architecture is a means amongst others to present oneself as
a king and act accordingly. Politics rather than religion are at play, but the
latter are of course not completely absent, for the temple project also cut
in stone what Israel was expected to do in matters of religion. God and
king work together for the benefit of the people; or so it was intended.
Israel finally has become a nation in its own right, with its own national
God, a royal dynasty of its own, and a population that identifies itself with
both God and king; or so, once more, it was intended.
The reception or recuperation of Solomon in later Jewish literature is
studied from various perspectives. Joseph Verheyden focuses on Flavius
Josephus retelling of the biblical account in his Antiquitates (8.1212). It
is an account full of ambiguities and dissonances. Solomon is praised into
the heavens, apparently only to make his fall yet more instructive and
impressive. He is portrayed as the kind and modest king, but one who
introduction 3
seems to lose his temper a more than one occasion. He is a man gifted
with great intellect and a sound sense of judgement, yet he also dabbles
in magica feature that is anxiously left aside in the biblical accounts.
He is eulogised for his piety, but it proves to be a calculated piety if it
clashes with politics. He wants to be a just king, as his father had hoped
for, but justice, too, occasionally has to yield to political shrewdness and
even vengeance. He is a brave soldier, but he never fought a battle. He is
the most fortunate king Israel has ever known, wealthy and glorious, yet
he seems to have forgotten about his good intentions to share this wealth
with his people. And in his old age Solomon blows it all and ends his life
an apostate. Why did Josephus take this path? The one explanation that
readily springs to mind is that Josephus is catering to an audience that
was but all too well aware of the vicissitudes of life at the court and could
find out for themselves that in this respect things were not so different in
other cultures.
Pablo Torijano studies the way Solomon is portrayed in Jewish magi-
cal texts. Indeed, as is well known, Solomon was a most popular figure
in this kind of literature. Torijano illustrates from several examples how
this non-conventional Solomon almost overshadowed the biblical king,
in power and popularity. Solomon proves to be not just a magician, but
also an astrologer, and one who can be invoked for many purposes. His
name can be found on bowls and amulets, in magical papyri, and in a
whole series of mostly fairly unknown works that are ascribed to him or
have him act as their protagonist. This whole body of texts and fragments
contributed in no little way also to blur the borderlines between various
cultures and to make Solomon a character of primary importance also
outside the Jewish-Christian orbit.
As one might expect, Solomons name is not lacking in Rabbinic litera-
ture. Gerhard Langer studies this corpus and demonstrates that Solomon
is above all presented and remembered as a wise man, yet without obscur-
ing the fact that he had his shadowy side, as a result of which he lost the
almost messianic aura he tried to claim for himself. It made him a most
useful tool for formulating occasional criticism of contemporary leaders
of the community. Langer singles out for special attention the interest of
the rabbis in the etymology of Solomons name; his claim to be the ruler of
the world; his throne, the description of which is closely linked to his role
as judge and protector of the Torah; his power over the demons, which is
connected both with the construction of the temple and the kings failures
and sins; and finally, his legendary wisdom which fascinated the rabbis no
less than other readers of the biblical accounts.
4 introduction
In strong contrast to the way Solomon was received in Jewish tradi-
tion, stands the modest role he is given in the earliest Christian writings.
Albert Hogeterp argues that this may be explained in part by the fact that
Solomon was considered to be linked too closely with the temple and the
political and religious establishment in order for Christians to be uncon-
ditionally positive about him. Of course, in the few passages that he is
mentioned by name, he is presented as a model of wisdom; but then it
should also be noted that he is left out of Lukes version of the genealogy
of Jesus and that Stephens criticism of the temple may include its archi-
tect and builder.
The man fared rather better in later Christian tradition, which made
him the author of a number of writings. Tobias Nicklas deals with the
Odes of Solomon. He pays special attention to the question of their rela-
tion with the Psalms of Solomon, the way the Odes present Solomon as a
sage and psalmist, and above all, the quite remarkable exegetical tradition
that somehow links Solomon to Christ. The latter is attested by Athana-
sius, but the first attempts to make Solomon a prophet, and indeed the
one through which the divine Word, i.e., Christ himself, has spoken can
be found already in the second century. The Odes, for their part, have
Solomon speak out on Christ. The link goes beyond the mere fact that
Solomon had the claim to be a gifted composer and is further developed
by presenting Solomon as the one who ponders on what it means to
find true peace and rest. Here is Davids son speaking out on the real son
of David.
Peter Busch returns to the magical Solomon in discussing yet another
writing that was attributed to the famous king, the Testament of Solo-
mon. The work is dated in the fourth century c.e. and, according to Busch,
is historically embedded in a battle between what he calls professional
exorcists with links to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem
and any other group that might claim to possess the same kind of magi-
cal powers, primarily those desert-monks eulogised in a whole corpus of
hagiographic texts for having precisely such powers. The suggestion may
seem a bit adventurous, but is well argued and certainly worth consid-
ering. The author of the Testament has borrowed from his opponents
several of the characteristics of the literature they are producing, includ-
ing an interest in biographical and novelistic elements. In the conclusion
Busch likens the battle and the Testament to a PR-strategy for promoting
the own capacities in conquering any possible demon. There is no reason
to go out in the desert to find a cure for these threats.
introduction 5
Jacques van der Vliet in turn brings the reader to the desert in studying
the presence and characterisation of Solomon in Coptic Gnostic tradition.
The picture certainly is not a uniform one. Solomon is variously presented
as the author of a great number of works, many of these unknown to us, as
a magician and exorcist (again), but also as a historical and quasi-mythical
figure of a rather contested status. In this latter view Solomon is linked
in with Gnostic cosmic speculation, and found to be at the wrong side
of the cosmos, but he is also criticised as a character of the despised Old
Testament and as one who some have tried to make into a prefiguration
of Christ. In all of this criticism, the real opponent who is in view are fel-
low Christians, including fellow Gnostic Christians. It is also important to
note, as van der Vliet points out, that these currents apparently had access
not only to the biblical tradition and accounts but also to a number of
otherwise unknown writings of Solomonic taste.
Witold Witakowski and Ewa Balicka-Witakowska offer a survey of the
presentation of Solomon in Ethiopian tradition, in particular in what is
probably the best known work, The Glory of the Kings, which can rightly
be said to be something like Ethiopias national epos. It is Solomon the
magician who takes centre stage in this tradition; and the same is true for
the way he is presented in lesser known texts such as The Net of Solomon
or The Mirror of Solomon. In addition, Solomon is also very much present
in iconography and in the same way as in the literature: he is first and
foremost a magician, and only then a biblical character.
In the last essay of this volume, Jules Janssens offers the reader an
excursion into Islamic territory in studying the reception of Solomon
in the literary tradition of the so-called Ilkwan, the Brethren of Purity,
a scholarly movement that originated in Basra and is thought to be linked
to Ismailism. The movement has authored an encyclopaedic work that
was meant to be read and consulted also by non-Muslims. Again Solomon
is presented above all as a man of magical powers, but also as a scholar in
his own right, one who translated many books into Hebrew. But perhaps
the most interesting aspect of this reception is the fact that the Brethren
clearly had access to other traditions and did not limit themselves to bibli-
cal tradition or the Quran. This final essay is at the same time also an invi-
tation to continue research into the Islamic reception of biblical figures.
This criss-crossing through Jewish, Christian, and Islamic literature
has proven to be an excellent way for illustrating both the similarities and
the differences that can be detected in the reception history of king Solo-
mon. It is my hope that it has also further enriched our knowledge of this
6 introduction
important figure that connects Jewish, Christian, and Islamic religious tra-
dition in a most singular way. Of course, this is not the first such volume
dealing with Solomon. As a matter of fact, he seems to be quite popular
in academic research in recent years. One might refer, among others, to
the monographs by Walter Brueggemann, Rdiger Lux, and Steven Weitz-
man, or to the volumes of essays edited by Jean-Louis Bacqu-Grammont
and Jean-Marie Durand and by Claude Lichtert and Dany Nocquet.1 The
present volume adds one more voice to this choir, thereby realising that
the song is far from over.
The editor wishes to thank the University of Leuven for a generous
grant, Mrs. Rita Corstjens for her assistance in preparing the manuscript,
and the members of the editorial board of TBN for accepting this volume
in their series.
Joseph Verheyden
1W. Brueggemann, Solomon: Israels Iconographic Icon of Human Achievement (Studies
on the Personalities of the Old Testament), Columbia, SC, University of South Carolina Press,
2005. R. Lux, Ideales Knigtum: Studien zu David und Salomo (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer
Geschichte, 16), Leipzig, Evangelischer Verlag, 2006. S. Weitzman, Solomon: The Lure of Wis-
dom (Jewish Lives), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 2011. J.-L. Bacqu-Grammont
J.-M. Durand (eds.), Limage de Salomon. Sources et postrits. Actes du colloque organis
par le Collge de France et la Socit Asiatique, Paris, 1819 mars 2004 (Cahiers de la Socit
Asiatique NS, 5), Paris Louvain Dudley, MA, Peeters, 2007. C. Lichtert D. Nocquet
(eds.), Le Roi Salomonun hritage en question. Hommages Jacques Vermeylen (Le livre
et le rouleau, 33), Bruxelles, ditions Lessius, 2008.
THE RISE OF SOLOMON IN THE ANCIENT ISRAELITE
HISTORIOGRAPHY
Isaac Kalimi
1.Introduction
This study investigates the succession of Solomon to King Davids throne
according to two ancient Israelite historical writings. The first and earlier
account is found in what is named in modern scholarship, since the work
of Leonhard Rost in 1926, Davids Throne Succession Narrative (or the
Court History)a source that was incorporated within the large com-
plex of the Deuteronomistic history, particularly in SamuelKings.1 The
second and later account is found in the Chronistic history, that is, the
book of Chronicles.
1Usually it is considered that the account includes 2 Sam 920 + 1 Kgs 12; see the
survey by Rof 2009, 2330. For a different opinion, however, see Kalimi 2010, 567 note 5.
For a critical survey of various approaches on Succession Narrative, see Ishida 1999,
102107. Ishida shows that, in fact, there is no effective method for controlling these
anarchic postulations (p. 104). Timo Veijola (1975) proposed to distinguish a threefold
redaction of the text in 1 Kgs 12, written in the time of the exile (for what purpose?).
Thilo A. Rudnig (2006), for his part, suggested that the very small basic version of the story
from Solomons time (10th century b.c.e.) went through more than thirteen redactions
and saw several additions, comprehensive re-workings, and numerous very late glosses.
This whole process took place particularly in the Persian and Hellenistic periods, until the
3rd century b.c.e. (Fortunately, there are several fragments of SamuelKings among the
Dead Sea Scrollsusually dated to ca. mid 3rd century b.c.e.what probably caused Rud-
nig to stop where he stops; otherwise, who knows until when these continuous redac-
tions would have been extended). This kind of ad absurdum scholarship touches the
unbearable. One might wonder if there is any other example of such a superfluous literary
process in (ancient or non-ancient) world literature? How it is possible that one of the
earliest and most beautiful and superb historical works of the ancient Israelites could have
been composed through such a process? Is there any anachronism from the Persian or
Hellenistic periods in the story under review? Is there any late linguistic element (e.g., Late
Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, Persian or Greek words, syntax, and so forth) in the story? Why
when it comes to Israelite literary legacy, some scholars (for other similar approaches, see
Ishida 1999, and below note 4) choose to act in such unscholarly and irresponsible ways?
In contrast, it is worth mentioning that there are some similarities between the biblical
Succession Narrative and some ancient Near Eastern royal historical writings (see in detail,
Ishida 1999, 107136; however see also below note 41). For an additional critical review of
Rudnigs book, see Dietrich 2012, 267272.
8 isaac kalimi
The first two chapters of Kings are very closely related and neither of
them can stand by itself;2 in fact, Solomons succession was finalized with
the fulfillment of what is called Davids testament and the removal of
his potential rivals (1 Kgs 2:146a); this matter in Kings and its counter
account in Chronicles will be scrutinized as well.3
The present study follows the well-established and widely accepted
view in historical-biblical scholarship that the books of SamuelKings
were composed some time earlier than the book of Chronicles and that
the major Vorlage of the Chronicler for the parallel texts in his book was
SamuelKings.4
2.The Rise of Solomon
2.1The Deuteronomistic History
2.1.1The Last Days of David: Personal and Political Crisis
The opening literary unit in Kings (1 Kgs 1:14) serves as an exposition
to the central story that immediately follows, which is the succession of
Solomon to the throne and Davids testament and its fulfillment (respec-
tively 1 Kgs 1:553; 2:146a).5 In this unit the narrator notifies his potential
audience of the factual setting behind the story that he is going to narrate,

2See also DeVries 1985, 29: there is nothing in chapter 3 to serve as chapter 2s con-
tinuation. The reason for having 3 Kingdoms begin at MT 1 Kgs 2:12 in LXXLuc clearly
hangs together with the wish to end 2 Kingdoms with the death of David and create a new
beginning for the reign of Solomon. In contrast, MT Kings starts with the events that led
to Solomons kingship, including his co-regency with his father.
3The relationship between MT 1 Kgs and LXX 3 Kingdoms is beyond the scope of this
study. On this issue, see van Keulen 2005.
4A. Graeme Auld has presented a somewhat too simplistic approach that attempts to
demolish this consensus regarding the core source of Chronicles and the preferred his-
torical status of (Samuel) Kings over Chronicles; see Auld 1994. Based on Aulds thesis,
Raymond F. Person has recently argued that the Deuteronomistic history and the book of
Chronicles are Persian-period historiographies produced by two competing scribal guilds,
the Deuteronomistic school and the Chronistic school, but that these historiographies
are nevertheless based on the same broader tradition, including a common exilic source
(Person 2010, 163). However, this approach, which ignores the results of two centuries of
diachronic research, has been sharply criticized from different viewpoints by a number of
scholars and is actually completely rejected. See in detail Kalimi 2012, 498517.
5The exposition does not serve 2:1325 only, as assumed by some scholars; see, for
example, Montgomery and Gehman 1951, 71; Noth 1968, 1314; Wrthwein 1977, 10.
the rise of solomon in the israelite historiography 9
and thus enables them to evaluate the story on their own.6 It is told that
the physical and spiritual conditions of King David were very unfortunate.
The king was around his seventieth7very old indeed for that time;8 in
fact he would have been the oldest king of Judah ever.9 He was sick and
weak, confined to his bed and isolated from the world. Although David was
covered with several blankets (),10 he was unable to keep his body
warm.11 Davids officials (or physicians, so Josephus, Jewish Antiquities
6Seemingly, the narrator was an eyewitness to the story he tells. He has a deep knowl-
edge of the details and of the situation as a whole. Nonetheless, unawareness of the literary
function of 1 Kgs 1:14 caused some scholars to offer baseless suggestions regarding the
literary unity of the story. For example, Noth separated 1 Kgs 1:1a from 1b4 and consid-
ered the latter as an original part of the story in 2:1325, where Adonijah requests to have
Abishag as a wife. Zalewski assumed that 1 Kgs 1:14 does not relate to the following story
in 1 Kgs 1:58. See, respectively, Noth 1968, 1314, and Zalewski 1981, 44.
72 Sam 5:45 and 1 Kgs 2:11 report that David became king when he was 30 years old
and reigned 40 years. Thus, he was around 70 years old when he died (cf. Josephus, Jewish
Antiquities 7.389; David Kimchi on 1 Kgs 1:1; Wrthwein 1977, 9). Accordingly, the story
under review took place shortly before Davids death. Yet, 40 is found sometimes in bib-
lical literature as a typological number (e.g., Gen 7:12; 8:6; Exod 24:18; Judg 5:31; 8:28; 13:1;
1 Kgs 19:8; Jonah 3:4; Ps 95:10). However, occasionally it can also be an accurate historical
reference. After all, one should be allowed to use this and other typological numbers (e.g.,
3, 7, 10, 12) as reliable historical information as well.
8Note that David in his 70s is defined by the narrator as, King David was old and
advanced in years (1 Kgs 1:1a); Barzillai who was in his 80s is said to be a very old man,
eighty years old (2 Sam 19:33 [ET: 32]).
9See the table of the ages of the kings of Judah by Ishida 1977, 153154.
10The word in this context does not simply mean clothes (Kleider), as it is
translated by many scholars (e.g., King James Version, Revised Standard Version, The New
English Bible; Luther Bibel), but rather blankets (Decken) used as a bed cover.
11Several assumptions have been made regarding Davids illness. For example, the
Babylonian Talmud, Berachoth 62b, gave an ethical explanation: David was punished for
his misbehavior by cutting the edge of Sauls garment (1 Sam 24:5): Rabbi Jose ben Rabbi
Hanina said: Whoever treats garments contemptuously will in the end derive no benefit
from them; for it says, Now King David was old and stricken in years; and they covered
him with blankets, but he could get no heat. This interpretation is adopted by the medi-
eval Jewish exegetes Rashi and David Kimchi in their commentaries on 1 Kgs 1:1. They also
cite a Midrash that in their opinion is closer to the simple meaning of Scripture. The
latter relates Davids cold body to the story in 2 Sam 24:17 (// 1 Chr 21:16): when David
saw the angel with the sword in his hand, he feared and his blood got cold. Kimchi also
adds that the many wars that David waged caused him to get old and weak earlier than
normal, and the old person the older he gets so his blood got colder and colder during
the time. Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 7.343) also gave a physical reason: Davids old age
caused his illness. Nonetheless, some modern physicians go beyond this and attempt to
diagnose the exact medical problem that caused Davids sickness. Liubov (Louba) Ben-
Noun of the Soroka University Medical Center of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (Beer
Sheva, Israel), is of the opinion that 1 Kgs 1:1 indicates that David was afflicted with hypo-
thermia. Among various diseases, the most likely to cause immobility and subsequent
hypothermia are dementia, senile osteoporosis, hyperparathyroidism, or malignancy.
Among these diseases, malignancy is the most acceptable (see Ben-Noun 2002, 364). In
another article (2004), Ben-Noun concludes, Evaluation of the passages referring to King
10 isaac kalimi
7.343)12 advised him to have a young virgin who will nurse him and sleep
with him in order to keep his body warm (1:2).13 However, unlike Davids
former self, he was not aroused even by the most beautiful young virgin in
IsraelAbishag the Shunammite.14 The detailed description of the kings
condition and Abishags beauty and task (1:14b) ends with a brief anticli-
mactic expression: (but the king did not know her [sexu-
ally], 1:4c).15 Thus, of the double task for which Abishag was brought to
the king: (let her be his attendant, care-taker,
let her lie in your bosom), she fulfilled only the first and less important
one, (she became the kings attendant and
nursed him).16 The major purpose for bringing Abishag
could not be fulfilled, because the king had become so weak. There were a
sufficient number of servants who could serve/nurse the king, but appar-
ently no one was in a position to intimately warm his body.
The poor physical and spiritual condition of David is also reflected in the
central story. It is told that the kings bedroom was converted into a cham-
ber where he met not only his beloved wife, Bathsheba (1:1516.2831), but
also his religious, military, and civil officials (1:2223.32.47).17 Moreover,
David indicates that he was afflicted by some mental disorder, and among the many pos-
sibilities, major depression, dysthymia and minor depression are the most likely. Of these
diagnoses, major depression seems the most acceptable (p. 467).
12However, the word in this context does not mean his slaves or gentlemen of
the bedchamber (so, for instance, Montgomery and Gehman 1951, 71), who definitely were
not capable of advising anything to the king.
13It is a good example of what the author meant in his definition of the kings absolute
power: And he will take your daughters to be..., in fact, whatever he wants! (1 Sam 8:13).
14The Syriac (Peshita) and Arabic translators identify Abishag the Shunammite
with the Shulamite mentioned in the Song of Songs 7:1 (ET: 6:13), and write Abishag
the Shulamite. However, the word Shunammite indicates Abishags hometown Shunem,
which is located in the territory of Issachar in the eastern plain of Jezreel (Josh 19:18,
see also 1 Sam 28:4; 2 Kgs 4:8). Similarly, the great lady from Shunem (2 Kgs 4:8) was
called the Shunammite (4:12.25.36). For the survey of earlier discussions on this name,
see Montgomery and Gehman 1951, 8182; Mulder 1998, 3536.
15For the biblical term to know (a woman), cf. Gen 4:1; 24:16; 38:26.
16Cf. 1 Kgs 1:15c. It seems that interprets the phrase . However,
1:15b+c is not an unnecessary repetition of 1:14, and therefore also it is not a later expan-
sion as suggested by some commentators; see, for example, Klostermann 1887, 264; Gress-
mann 1921, 188. Rather, it is a brief retrospective recalling of Davids situation that was
detailed earlier; cf. Wrthwein 1977, 14; DeVries 1985, 11. Unacceptable, in my opinion, is
the interpretation of David Kimchi (which was preferred by Cogan 2000, 159160), that this
verse tells us how Bathsheba entered the chamber, even though the king was intimately in
bed with Abishag, and no one was allowed to enter without permission, except her, for she
was his wife. Nathan enters the same chamber as she is still talking with the king (1:23),
and he is immediately followed by Zadok and Benaiah (1:32). It is quite inconceivable that
these officials entered the chamber, though the king was intimately in bed with Abishag.
17Contra T. Veijola and E. Wrthwein, there is no reason to consider 1 Kgs 1:4648 as a
late addition; see Wrthwein 1977, 8 (and there reference to Veijola).
the rise of solomon in the israelite historiography 11
when Bathsheba entered the bedroom, David approaches her distantly, as
if she were a stranger, as he approached the woman of Tekoa (2 Sam 14:5).
He addresses her straightforwardly: What do you want? ( , 1 Kgs
1:16b).18 One may contrast this with the reaction of King Ahasuerus to
Esther: when the king saw Esther...Then said the king to her: What do
you wish Queen Esther and what is your request? It shall be given to you
even to the half of the kingdom! (Esth 5:23).
In any sense of the word, therefore, David was not himself. He could
not function even according to the basic royal protocol and was incapable
of investing any reasonable thought about his successor who would lead
the kingdom in the future. A close reading of SamuelKings shows the
following:
1. The political situation was not clear: there were good reasons to
assume that one of Davids sons would inherit the throne and be king
over Judah (/ the southern tribes), but would he also reign over Israel
(/ the northern tribes)?19 With the latter, David had a special covenant
before the Lord to reign over them (2 Sam 5:13). It was, as Albrecht
Alt noted, a personal union between the neighbor kingdoms;20 the
two kingdoms stood under the rule of one and the same king and this
was accepted by both.21 Note, after the death of Solomon, his son Reho-
boam became king over the southern tribes (1 Kgs 11:43; 12:17). In order
also to be able to reign over the northern tribes, he went to Shechem
to receive their approval. However, because the new king refused to
accept the tribes conditions the negotiations ended unsuccessfully and
caused the United Kingdom to be divided (1 Kgs 12:116).
18There is no reason to translate in 2 Sam 14:5 as What aileth thee? and in 1 Kgs
1:16b as What wouldest thou? (so the King James Version). Similarly also in the Revised
Standard Version: in 2 Sam 14:5 as What do you desire? and in 1 Kgs 1:16b as What is your
trouble? See also Luther Bibel: in 2 Sam 14:5 Was hast du? and in 1 Kgs 1:16b: Was willst
du? Klostermann (1887, 191, 264) translates was fehlt dir? in 2 Sam 14:5, but in 1 Kgs 1:16b:
was ist dir? Obviously, these translators were not aware of the fact that the same idiom
occurs in both verses.
19Cf. Wrthwein 1977, 910.
20Personalunion zwischen Nachbarreichen (see Alt 1964, vol. 2, 4547).
21Another example of personal union, from the beginning of the 8th century b.c.e., is
the case of Zkr king of Hamat and Laashtwo political entities that agreed to be ruled by
one king, just as David and Solomon were king of Israel and Judah (2 Sam 5:5; 1 Kgs 1:35);
see Noth 1971, vol. 2, 136. There are further examples from different times in Europe: the
personal union of England and Scotland in 1603 when King James VI of Scotland accessed
to the throne of England and combined England and Scotland under the Scottish Crown.
Well-known is the Austro-Hungarian personal union in 1867 under Franz Joseph I of the
Habsburg dynasty, who became Emperor of Austria and Apostolic King of Hungary;
see Steed 1969, 2839 esp. 32.
12 isaac kalimi
2. David did not train nor appoint any of his sons to be his successor,
king over Judah and Israel (1 Kgs 1:20). Now that he had grown old,
sick, weak and isolated, he did not or could not say anything in this
regard. Moreover, because of the relative novelty of the kingdom in
Israel, there most likely was not even a recognized procedure of royal
succession.
3. A look at the ancient Israelite dynastic succession narratives shows
that, as a rule, the successor to the throne was the first-born son22 or
the eldest surviving son of the king.23 However, if the king was still
alive, his was the final decision as to who would be his successor
(1:20.27b).24
4. After the death of Amnon, Chileab and Absalom (2 Sam 3:3; 13:130;
18:915),25 Adonijah became the eldest surviving son of David (1 Kgs 1:6c)
and therefore the legitimate crown-prince and potential successor to
the throne. This emerges not only from Adonijahs assertion to Bath-
sheba, but also from Solomons own words to her. Adonijah said to
Bathsheba, You know that the kingdom was mine, and that all Israel set
their faces on me, that I should reign (1 Kgs 2:15a). Solomon said to his
mother, And why do you ask Abishag the Shunemmite for Adonijah?
Ask for him the kingdom also; for he is my elder brother (2:22).
22See, for instance, 2 Chr 21:3 (an addition): And their father gave them many gifts
of silver and of gold and of precious things, with fortified cities in Judah; but the kingdom
he gave to Jehoram; because he was the first-born. Although this information appears only
in Chronicles, there is no reason to doubt its historical reliability. The custom of inherit-
ing the throne by the first-born son is well known also from other ancient Near Eastern
cultures. Compare 2 Chr 21:3a with 2 Chr 11:1823 and see the discussion below, note 24.
23See below, and Ishida 1977, 152, 154155.
24For this issue, see de Vaux 1961, 100102. Rehoboam chose Abijah as his successor
despite the fact that his eldest son was Jeush (2 Chr 11:1823 esp. verse 22, an addition).
There is no reasonable argument to doubt the historicity of this information in Chronicles.
As already stated by Kittel, Sie scheinen aus einer alten Quelle zu stammen (1902, 126). In
any case, there is no way to know if this text is based on the Chroniclers Vorlage as was
assumed by Benzinger 1901, 97. In principle, the story in Chronicles is not exceptional. Sim-
ilarly, Sennacherib, king of Assyria, did not choose his eldest son as heir to the throne, but
the youngest oneEsarhaddon (Aur-a-iddina), the son of his beloved Queen Naqa
(= The Pure One, so the name in Aramaic; in Assyrian it was rendered as Zaktum);
see Lewy 1952, 271272. In 672 b.c.e., Esarhaddon made his younger son, Ashurbanipal
(668627 b.c.e.) ruler of the Assyrian Empire, while his first-born son, Shamash-shum-
ukin, became ruler of Babylonia; see Weidner and Parpola 1970, no. 129:313 (the text is
on p. 102, its translation on p. 103).
25We do not have any information on the second son of David, Chileab. He prob-
ably died at a young age. In 1 Chr 3:2 he was named Daniel (see Kalimi 2005a, 99107
esp. 107).
the rise of solomon in the israelite historiography 13
5. Adonijah attempted to gain attention, while stressing his noble sta-
tus. He surrounded himself with a ceremonial trap and bodyguard:
a chariot and horsemen and fifty out-runners (1 Kgs 1:5b).26 This act in
itself is harmless. By doing so, Adonijah acted similarly to his late elder
brother, Absalom (2 Sam 15:1), who also was not rebuked by his father
for such an action; there was nothing wrong with it.27 Furthermore,
Adonijah lobbied with all his brothers (except Solomon), with the high
officials of the kingdom, particularly Joab, the chief commander of the
army, and with the well-regarded priest Abiathar, and gained their sup-
port (1 Kgs 1:9). Again, by acting so Adonijah did not conduct any ille-
gal deedhe did not rebel against his father as did Absalom (2 Sam
15:218:17). The narrator stresses this point by stating: Adonijah the
son of Haggith is exalting himself, saying, I will be king (-
, 1 Kgs 1:5a). Adonijahs declaration refers to the
future, to the time after the death of his father, David. He did not say:
I am a king, in his fathers lifetime, as did Absalom: Absalom is king
at Hebron! ( , 2 Sam 15:10). It seems that the narra-
tor mentions Absalom here (1 Kgs 1:56) as a contrast with Adonijah;
despite some ceremonial (1:5b) and physical (1:6b) similarities between
the brothers,28 the latter did not rebel against his father as did the for-
mer (2 Sam 15:712).29 Moreover, there is no indication in the Succes-
sion Narrative that Adonijah was announced a king at the banquet
26See also 1 Sam 8:11, and compare to (the out-runners) in 1 Sam 22:17; 1 Kgs
14:2728 and 2 Kgs 10:25; 11:4.6.11; see also verse 19: (the gate of the out-runners).
Interestingly, Elijah honored the king of Israel and ran before Ahab (1 Kgs 18:46). Bar-
rakab, the son of Panamu, king of Samal, testifies (730 b.c.e.): I have been running at the
wheel of my lord, the king of Assyria (= Tiglath-pileser III) (see Pritchard 1969, 655a). As
correctly noted by Cogan (2000, 157), running by or in front of the kings chariot signified
honor and obeisance to ones overlord.
27In 2 Sam 15:1 the set is: (cf. 1 Kgs 5:6; 10:2829), while in 1 Kgs 1:5 it is
(cf. 1 Kgs 9:19; 10:26). Both sets appear also in Solomons reign story. In fact,
they are synonymous and refer to the same items (see, e.g., Exod 14:9.1718.23.25.28; 15:4.19;
Ezek 26:7). Thus, there is no need to correct the text of 1 Kgs 1:5 according to the text in 2
Sam 15:1, as suggested by Klostermann 1887, 263, and accepted by Benzinger 1899, 23. For
the same reason, it is very improbable to deduce from the set in 1 Kgs 1:5 that the Solo-
monic historiographer wanted to mislead the reader with the false idea that Adonijah
not only followed in the footsteps of Absalom but also had made the decisive step toward
a rebellion by gathering a military force, as suggested Ishida 1999, 115116 esp. 116; and see
also Cogan 2000, 157.
28Compare, respectively, with 2 Sam 14:25 and 15:1.
29Contra Ishida 1999, 117 who assumes that the portrayal of Adonijah in 1 Kgs 1:56
was made from the consistently inimical viewpoint of the party opposing Adonijah.
14 isaac kalimi
in Ein Rogel (1 Kgs 1:910).30 Most likely it was an assembly of Adoni-
jahs close supporters and all the officials of Judah (
, 1:9c), in order to represent commonality among them and to
show solidarity to the crown-prince.31 Under these circumstances and
with the massive support of his brothers, the officials of the kingdom
including the key figures and the people, Adonijah had no reason to
rebel. Rather, he was waiting for David, whose days were numbered,
to pass away and serenely to inherit the throne.
6. The relationship of Absalom with his father was complicated after he
murdered his brother Amnon (2 Sam 13:2439). Even after his return
from Geshur, the relationship was explosive, and in fact David did not
want to see him (2 Sam 14:24). He had good reason to worry about
his candidacy as his fathers successor, and therefore he became an
usurper to the throne (2 Sam 15). In contrast, as much as we know
from the sources, Adonijah did not have any conflict with his father.
Accordingly he should not be worried that his father would reject him
as a future successor, and had no reason to rebel against David.
7. The easy collapse of Adonijahs party (1 Kgs 1:49) shows that they had
made no preparation for revolt and were taken by surprise by the court
intrigue of Solomons factions. Otherwise, they would have offered
armed resistance to David and Solomon.32
8. According to 1 Kgs 2:56 David accused Joab of killing Abner, the son
of Ner, and Amasa, the son of Jether. However, he did not accuse Joab
of supporting the rebellious action of Adonijah, that is, announcing
him as king in the life of his father and without his knowledge.
9. Abiathar was not accused in Davids testament as one who supported
rebellion. Rather, his loyalty to David was highlighted even by Solo-
mon: I will not at this time put you to death, because you bore the
ark ()33 of the Lord God before David my father, and because you
shared in all the affliction of my father (2:26).
30Contra Zalewski 1981, 45, 46, and there references to other scholars who held a simi-
lar opinion.
31Note, that the narrator calls the people invited to the banquet of Adonijah
(the guests, 1 Kgs 1:41.49). The same term appears also in 2 Sam 15:11, in the description
of Absalom. However, while in the case of Absalom the had no idea whatsoever
that he is going to rebel against his father ( ), in the case of
Adonijah everything was clear: he had already stated I will be king!
32See Ishida 1999, 118.
33Probably the word aron is a corruption of efod; see in detail Klostermann 1887, 271;
Gray 1970, 108109.
the rise of solomon in the israelite historiography 15
10. If Joab and Abiathar had collaborated with Adonijah against King
David, how could they have continued to hold their high positions
under the co-regency of David and Solomon?34
Nathan served as a court prophet for David,35 and held favor with him.
Most likely, he was thought to have favor with his successor as well.36
However, for some reason he was unable to gain favor with Adonijah. It is
unknown what exactly caused the tension between the two (and between
their supporters).37 In any case, Nathan was not among the personalities
who participated in Adonijahs banquet (1 Kgs 1:810.26). Thus he con-
spired against Adonijah while actively supporting Solomon.38
2.1.2Conspiracy in the Court: Nathan and Bathsheba Facing David
In the Deuteronomistic history Nathan is portrayed as a wise man, both
in his methods of delivering Gods words to David (2 Sam 7; 12) and when
advising Bathsheba (1 Kgs 1) how to create an opportunity for placing her
son Solomon on Davids throne.39 He takes advantage of the physical and
mental conditions of David and manipulates him. He takes advantage of
34Ishida 1999, 118.
35Interestingly, the other court prophet of DavidGad (1 Sam 22:5; 2 Sam 24:1119;
1 Chr 21:9; 29:29; 2 Chr 29:25)is not mentioned in the Succession Narrative.
36See in detail, below 2.1.2, Conspiracy in the Court: Nathan and Bathsheba Facing
David.
37The suggestion of some scholars (e.g., Ahlstrm 1961, 113127) that it was a conflict
between the party of Yahwism (represented by Abiathar, as the head of Adonijahs sup-
porters) and the Jebusite-Canaanite religion (represented by Zadok, as the head of Solo-
mons supporters) is in fact baseless. The speculation around the Jebusite origin of Zadok
is likewise mountains which hang on a hair; see also Ishida 1999, 111112.
38Nonetheless, Nathan was not a sponsor of Solomon and therefore he took his side
(so Montgomery and Gehman 1951, 75). Giving a second name (Jedidiah) to the infant
Solomon does not verify this assumption. It rather conveys a message of hope that the
second child born to David and Bathsheba will live: he was born legitimately for his par-
ents and even has the divine blessing; see in detail, Kalimi, The Love of God and Royal
Apology, forthcoming.
39Wolfgang Oswald denies any existence of historical Nathan in the 10th century b.c.e.
Rather, in his opinion, Nathan as described in 2 Sam 7; 12 and 1 Kgs 1 is an fictive literary
figure that was created in the 7th and 6th centuries b.c.e.; see Oswald 2008. However,
Oswalds thesis depends on very thin literary-historical lines, and arise series of acute
problems as correctly pointed out by Dietrich 2012, 277. Indeed, the detailed and accurate
information in 1 Kgs 12 about the two parties struggling to succeed Davids throne, and
that about Bathsheba, Abishag, Joab, Benaiah, Zadok and Shimei stem from ancient infor-
mative source(s) rather than they were invented by someone in the late Judahite monar-
chic time (by whom and for what purpose? and why particularly at that time?).
16 isaac kalimi
the passive personality of Bathsheba and uses her as a tool,40 in order to
make David reject his eldest living sonAdonijahfrom the throne, and
to chooseSolomonhis younger son, the one of Bathsheba.41 A close
examination of 1 Kgs 1:510 yields the following:
1. Nathans question to Bathsheba, Have you not heard that Adonijah
the son of Haggith has become king, and our lord David does not know
it? (1:11), is inaccurate. Adonijah did not declare himself a king (see
above). Accordingly, both the claim of Nathan (1:11.13.2425) and that
of Bathsheba, which is based on Nathans (1:18), are false. This is part of
a conspiracy, taking advantage of Davids miserable condition.
2. Nathan alerts Bathsheba that in case Adonijah would be king, her life
and that of Solomon would be at risk (1:12, see also 1:21). But such an
assumption is baseless. Why should Adonijah kill her and his own half-
brother?42 He did not invite Solomon to his banquet, perhaps because
he did not consider the young teenager important enough or because
of the scandals that lead to his very existence (2 Sam 1112). It does not
necessarily imply that he would slay him anyway.
3. Nathan and Bathsheba introduce Joab and Abiathar as supporters of
the rebellious son Adonijah. By doing so they try to horrify the old,
weak and sick David, who was experiencing the devastating rebellion
of Absalom. They conspire to make him feel that he is in a very danger-
ous situation and that immediate action must be taken (1:19).
40Bathsheba is presented in the biblical stories as one who has no personality, but is
a passive figure: David calls her and sleeps with her, though she was married to Uriah the
Hittite (2 Sam 11:34), she stays silent. Following the murder of her husband, she mourns
for him (i.e., she performed the appropriate mourning rituals). But when David sent for
her and brought her into his house and she became his wife, we do not hear her own
thoughts on this matter, though what David had done was wrong... (2 Sam 12:2627).
Nathan initiated her visit to David and she simply co-operates with him (1 Kgs 1:1114).
Her reaction to Adonijahs request to have Abishag as a wife, and her appeal to Solomon
to fulfill it, which was in fact making a claim on the kingdom (1 Kgs 2:1325; cf. Gen 35:22;
2 Sam 12:8; 16:2122), is just more evidence of her nave and easily manipulated personality.
Of course, one could claim that it is the narrator of the throne succession story who did
describe her as a not very insightful person. However, the accumulative cases lead to con-
clude that most likely she was a passive and nave personality, one who was easily and
usually manipulated by others.
41This is not an exceptional courtyard intrigue episode. There are several analogies for
this in ancient and modern world history; see the examples collected by Montgomery and
Gehman 1951, 7475. See also above, notes 1 and 24.
42Contra Gray 1970, 96, who claims that Adonijah...himself was probably prepared
to mete out to his rival (= Solomon, I.K.) had he been successful.
the rise of solomon in the israelite historiography 17
4. Nathan advises Bathsheba to manipulate the old and sickly David whose
memory was no longer reliable, by saying Did you not, my lord, O king,
swear to your maidservant, saying, Assuredly Solomon your son shall
reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne? (1:13 see also 1:17).
The claim to make Solomon a king is based on Davids oath/promise.
But such a promise had not been mentioned in any place. If indeed
David ever made such an important promise to Bathsheba, there would
certainly have been left a trace in the stories of David in the book of
Samuel. It would be known at least to Davids nephew and longtime
loyal chief commander, Joab (who kept Davids secret regarding Uriah),
and to his friend and priest, Abiathar. The fact that David did not make
such a promise to Bathsheba is confirmed also from Bathshebas words:
But you, my lord the king, the eyes of all Israel are on you to tell them
who shall sit on the throne of my lord the king after him (1:20). These
words contradict her saying in verse 1:17 regarding the promise that
David made to her. If David already promised her that Solomon will
reign after him, why does no one in Israel know about it?
5. Nathan presents his talking to Bathsheba as an advice (, 1:12a). He
adds that he will help and support her: While you still talking there
with the king, I also will come in after you, and confirm your words
( ; 1:14). If there were such a promise, why should he
advise her to say so and not simply remind her of the promise that
she got from the king? And why was there a need for Nathans confir-
mation of it? Nathan should say something like: go and remind the
king..., rather than go and say to the king....43 Furthermore, in
meeting with David, Nathan does not mention any promise that the
king made to Bathsheba (1:2327).44
In addition, the overt behavior of Bathsheba and Nathan in front of David
is unusual. Nathans behavior is totally different from that in 2 Sam 12
where he stood in front of David and pointed out, You (= David) are
the (evil) man! (2 Sam 12:7a). Here, however, when he enters Davids
43See Ehrlich 1900, repr. 1969, 264.
44Some scholars do not question the advice of Nathan and assume Davids promise
to Bathsheba actually occurred; so, for example, Kaufmann 1966, 180184 (Hebrew); Rob-
inson 1972, 28 (It is described as a solemn oath, though we might think it to have been
the kind of thing that a king would say to his favourite wife); Bright 19813, 210; Zalewski
1981, 4657. Some of these scholars deny Davids weak spiritual condition at the end of his
life and believe that the promise of David to Bathsheba was given privately, even strictly
confidentially; therefore nobody knew about it. Kaufmann (1966, 182184) and Zalewski
(1981, esp. 5455) even attempted to rehabilitate the broken dignity of Nathan.
18 isaac kalimi
chamber, he bowed before the king with his face to the ground (1 Kgs
1:23b). As already stated by Arnold B. Ehrlich, the prophet who stood in
front of the king and talked justice and truth in the name of the Lord is
not similar to the prophet who talked to his king and praised his son....45
Indeed, Martin Noth correctly notices: Nathan appears in the story as a
conspirator who understands it very well, to move in the circles of the
royal court and to arrange everything in the way to achieve his desired
goal.46 Yehezkel Kaufmanns suggestion that in 2 Sam 12 Nathan appeared
in front of David as Gods messenger, while in 1 Kgs 1 he acted privately as
one of the kings officials,47 does not eliminate the conflicted personalities
of Nathan. Also the behavior of Bathsheba, who bowed and prostrated
herself before to the king (1:16), reflects a flattering relationship between
the two.
All in all, Nathan and Bathsheba succeed in making the old and sick
David believe that he had solemnly promised to Bathsheba that her son
would be king. They heighten the awareness of the dying king, and he
reacted immediately in favor of Solomon (1:2835). Finally, the flattering
words of the officer of the mercenary guard, who also was not invited
to Adonijahs banquet (1:10.26) and most likely desired to replace the
chief commander Joab, complete the conspiracy: And Benaiah the son
of Jehoiada reacted to the king, and said, Amen; so say the Lord God of
my lord the king too. As the Lord has been with my lord the king, so be
he with Solomon, and make his throne greater than the throne of my
lord king David (1:3637, cf. 1:47). Thus, Solomon did not succeed to the
throne by force and bloodshed, but nor did he in a just and right way.
He was not even elected by the people or chosen by the king or God.
Solomon became a king because of powerful party intrigues in the palace
courtyard, taking advantage of Davids condition.48
After Solomons accession we do not hear anymore of or about Nathan.
Apparently he continued to keep his position as the court prophet. Also,
45Compare Ehrlich 1900, 265.
46Nathan aber erscheint in der Erzhlung als ein Intrigant, der es sehr gut versteht,
sich in Kreise des kniglichen Hofes zu bewegen und alles so zu arrangieren, dass das von
ihm erstrebte Ziel erreicht wird; see Noth 1968, 40.
47Kaufmann 1966, 180184.
48As such, the story could probably be publicized at the end of or after Solomons
reign. Contra Ishida (1999, 110), who assumes that there is no anti-Solomonic criticism
in the Succession Narrative and that in this story Solomon plays the role of a legitimate
successor to the throne, while David and Adonijah play the roles of an incompetent prede-
cessor and an unworthy rival prince. It seems that Ishida imposes here the ancient Near
Eastern feature of apologetic royal stories on the biblical Succession Narrative.
the rise of solomon in the israelite historiography 19
his sons were given principle positions by Solomon: Azariah son of
Nathan was over the governors (of the districts; );49 and Zabud
(LXXLuc.: or Z; Peshita: Zbwr)50 son of Nathan was an offi-
cial, the kings friend (= adviser);51 (1 Kgs 4:5).52 Moreover,
those who supported Nathan and Solomon replaced the high positions
of those that supported Adonijah: Zadok replaced Abiathar, and Bena-
iah replaced Joab (1 Kgs 2:35). It seems therefore that the intrigue and
conspiracy in the Succession Narrative was above all a power struggle:
the chief conspirator (Nathan) supported the young son of Bathsheba in
order to guarantee his own current position and obtain high positions for
his sons. Zadok and Benaiah joined him in order to achieve better and
higher positions for themselves. Bathsheba wished her son to become a
king, and herself the Queen-Mother (; 1 Kgs 2:19, see also 15:13
[// 2 Chr 15:16]; 2 Kgs 10:13; 2 Kgs 24:15 [kings mother] // Jer 29:2 [gebra];
Jer 13:18).53
2.2The Chronistic History
The Chronicler excludes the story of Nathans engagement with Bathsheba
against the rightful successor, Adonijah (1 Kgs 1:1153). In order completely
to cover Nathans tracks he also omits the list of Solomons administrative
officials (1 Kgs 4). According to the Chronicler, Nathan was not actively
involved in the election and coronation of Solomon. His role is limited to
49It seems that in the Northern Kingdom the parallel term for was ;
see Mettinger 1971, 124.
50The variations of the name stem from the interchange of the Hebrew letters / and
/ that are graphically similar. On this phenomenon in the Hebrew language and biblical
manuscripts and translations, see Sperber 1939, 153249 esp. 167 (21) and 168 (23).
51 The word does not appear in the most important manuscripts of the Septuagint.
Usually, it is assumed to be a late gloss (e.g., de Vaux 1961, 128). Presumably, in the con-
text under review means perhaps an official or civil servant, rather than the common
meaning, priest. It was added in the margin of the text to explain the uncommon title
, which was not clear anymore to the readers. Cf. Benzinger 1899, 18. Another
possiblebut less likelyexplanation: a glossator identified the second name Nathan
with Nathan son of David who was (2 Sam 5:14). Accordingly, he added the word
here as well.
52Cf. Ehrlich 1900, 276; contra Wrthwein 1977, 40, who doubts that Azariah and Zabud
were brothers and both were sons of Nathan the prophet. The Chronicler mentions only
one of Nathans sons, Zabud the son of Nathan (1 Chr 2:36), without his official title
priest and the kings friend. Probably, because the priesthood has been given to Aaron
and his sons, and Nathan did not belong to that clan. Nathan himself was mentioned
several times in 1 Chr 17, and in 29:29.
53On the Queen-Mother in the Hebrew Bible and ancient Near Eastern cultures, see
Marsman 2003, 345370.
20 isaac kalimi
what is said about his prophecy in 1 Chr 17 (// 2 Sam 7). The Chronicler
did not want to present Gods messenger in a negative way. He clearly also
did not want to show that the builder of the Temple gained the throne as
a result of court intrigues and manipulations.
Because the Chronicler omitted the main story (1 Kgs 1:1153), he also
left out the setting (or the exposition) of that story (1:14). The omission
of 1 Kgs 1:14 also fits well with the principle of reward and punishment
that guides Chronistic history: because being healthy or sick is considered
as a reward or a punishment,54 the description of David as sick, weak and
bedridden, might be interpreted as a punishment for his transgression(s).55
The Chronicler desired to avoid such an impression. He describes David
as an aged man (1 Chr 23:1), but one who is still healthy, energetic and very
active. David makes a census of the Levites and organizes them in divi-
sions (1 Chr 23:132); he organizes the priests in divisions (1 Chr 24:119),
as well as the singers (1 Chr 25:131), gatekeepers, and others (1 Chr 26:132).
David assembles the people in Jerusalem, stands on his feet and delivers
a long and impressive speech.56 He prays, appoints Solomon as a king,
and celebrates the occasion with all Israel (1 Chr 2829). The setting as
described in Kings is replaced in Chronicles by one that pictures the many
activities of the aged David and the peaceful and smooth coronation of Sol-
omon by his father, brothers, kingdoms officials, and all Israel. The Chron-
icler that omitted all the negative stories about David (e.g., 2 Sam 1112)
and presented him as a role model for all the kings to come (e.g., 2 Chr 11:17
[an addition]; 2 Chr 7:10 // 1 Kgs 8:66), now described him as a righteous
person who spent his last days without any physical, mental and political
problems. David was not sick and weak in his last years, because he did
not sin. Contrarily, he was healthy and active as a result of doing right in
the sight of the Lord.
The Chronicler also presents a new narrative, the correct one, instead
of the one in 1 Kgs 1:553 that he omits. According to his understanding of
several earlier texts, what really happened was the fulfillment of the divine
plan. The decision about who would be the next king over Israel was not
only Davids (1 Kgs 1:20.27.43). Rather, it was, first and foremost, Gods
54On this issue see for example, regarding the sickness of King Asa of Judah, 2 Chr
16:712 (cf. with 1 Kgs 15:12); 2 Chr 21:1819; 26:1621; 32:2426; Exod 15:26; Deut 7:15 (in case
of keeping the Lords law); 28:27.35 (in case of not keeping the Lords law).
55Already the Talmudic and medieval Sages considered Davids sickness and weakness
as a punishment for his earlier misbehavior; see above note 11.
56This in a clear contrast to the short blessing to the Lord that he states from his bed
according to 1 Kgs 1:47b48.
the rise of solomon in the israelite historiography 21
decision, because the throne belongs to Him.57 Solomon was chosen to
reign over Israel by God himself, and David simply followed divine com-
mandment, rather than the last minute decision that the circumstances
forced him to make (1 Kgs 1:3235).
Where did the Chronicler get his inspiration for his narrative? Clearly,
it cannot have been based on 1 Kgs 1, because there Nathan intrigues and
speaks privately rather than in Gods name or prophetical authority. Most
likely the Chronicler found some base in such texts that intended to legiti-
mate Solomons succession:
1. Divine attention towards Solomon is expressed most strongly in 2 Sam
12:2425: she bore a son, and he called his name Solomon; and the Lord
loved him. (therefore) He sent word through Nathan the prophet that
for the sake of the Lord ( ) he (= Solomon) should be given
the name Yedidyah.58
2. There is also Davids approval in 1 Kgs 1:48: Blessed be the Lord, the
King of Israel, who today has granted one of my offspring to sit on my
throne and permitted me to witness it.
3. Later on, even Solomons rival, Adonijah, states: I should reign; but the
kingdom is turned about, and has become my brothers (= Solomons);
for it was his from the Lord (1 Kgs 2:15b).
4. Solomons reaction to Adonijah includes the assertion: as the Lord
lives, who has established me, and set me on the throne of David my
father, and who has set up a house (i.e., a family, dynasty) for me,59 as
he promised (1 Kgs 2:24).60
5. In Gibeon, Solomon replies to God: And now, O Lord my God, you
have made your servant king instead of David my father (1 Kgs 3:7a).
The Chronicler not only takes over this information (2 Chr 1:8b), but
also strengthens the kings statement by adding: for You (= God) have
57See 1 Chr 17:14; 29:11; 2 Chr 13:8, and below in the text.
58See in detail, Kalimi, The Love of God and Royal Apology, forthcoming.
59For the idiom (who set up a house for me,) cf. Exod 1:21; 2 Sam
7:11, and see Paul 2005.
60In this verse the words:
...(the Lord who has established me, and set me on the throne of David
my father, and who has made me a house [i.e., dynasty], as he promised) are refer-
ring to Nathans prophecy to David in 2 Sam 7:11b-12:
... (Also the Lord tells
you that he will make you a house...I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from
your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom). This sentence, therefore, was composed
by the Deuteronomistic historian and attributed to Solomon. This historian attempts to
show the fulfillment of Gods words by his prophet; see also below, note 105.
22 isaac kalimi
made me king over a people like the dust of the earth in multitude
( ; 2 Chr 1:9b).
6. The author/editor of Kings has the Queen of Sheba say: May the Lord
your God who chooses you be blessed, to place you on the throne of Israel.
Because the Lord loves Israel forever, He appoints you king... (

... , 1 Kgs 10:910 // 2 Chr 9:8).
7. The Chronicler used passages from Ezra-Nehemiah in several places.61
Probably he noticed Nehemiahs statement regarding Solomons acces-
sion to the throne: and God made him king over all Israel (
, Neh 13:26).
According to this line of thought and through the interpretation of these
passages, the Chronicler pictured Solomon as a divinely chosen king. He
states this very clearly and straightforwardly, and prepares his audience
for it already in his description of Davids reign:
(a) The Chronicler presents the young king as one who was named Solo-
mon by God even before he was born (1 Chr 22:511, an addition).62 Solo-
mons relationship with God is defined metaphorically by the adoption
formula.63 He was appointed to be a king and to build the Temple before
he was born: The word of the Lord came to me (= David), saying...a son
shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest
from all his enemies around; for his name shall be Solomon...He shall
build a house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father;
and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever. The motif
of being divinely appointed for a position while still in the mothers womb
is known from prophetical literature (Jer 1:45 and Isa 49:1)from where
the Chronicler probably took the notion, as well as from ancient Near
Eastern royal inscriptions.64
61 See Kalimi 2005a, 89, 129130, 141, 320322; idem 2005b, 9092.
62For more details on this issue see Kalimi 2013.
63For the adoption formula he shall be my son and I will be his father, see the detail
discussion and bibliographical references in Cooke 1961, 202225; and Kalimi 2005a,
264265.
64For example, Aur-re-ii I, king of Assyria (11321115 b.c.e.), declared to be one
whom the great gods, Anu, Enlil, and Ea, truly chose (lit. requested, when he was still)
inside his mother (see Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, vol. 1 [A], part I, p. 146a, no. 2); Esar-
haddon, king of Assyria (681669 b.c.e.): The great gods designated (me) king of the
upper and l[ower] lands...(already) in the womb of my mother who bore me...for rule
of all the lands... (Borger 1967, 115, 82:710; Luckenbill 1927, vol. 2, 223, 571); Assurba-
the rise of solomon in the israelite historiography 23
(b) The Chronicler repeats this notion once again in 1 Chr 28 (an addi-
tion). He has David give a speech, describing Solomon as Gods chosen
king, and he does it by using the literary numerical pattern of three
four (or three + one), mentioning Solomon in the fourth and final place
(28:45):65
1. For He selected Judah as monarch,66
2.and in the house of Judah, my ancestral house,
3.from my fathers sons, he wanted to install me as king over all Israel.
4. And of all my sonsfor the Lord has given me many sonshe selected
my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over
Israel.67
Once more, the Chronicler continues and asserts: And He (= God) said to
me (= David), Solomon, your son, shall build my house and my courts; for
I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father (1 Chr 28:67). In
the latter verse (as well as in 1 Chr 22:10) the Chronicler relates the asser-
tions that he attributes to David with Nathans prophecy in 1 Chr 17:1113
(// 2 Sam 7:1214), and shows them to be a fulfillment of that prophetical
promise:
And it shall come to pass, when your days are fulfilled, when you must go
to be with your fathers, that I will rise up your offspring (lit., seed) after you,
who shall be of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build me
a house (= Temple) and I will establish his throne forever. I will be his father,
and he shall be my son....
nipal (668627 b.c.e.) announced: I, Assurbanipal...whom Aur and Sin, the lord of
the crown, already in the distant past had called by name for ruling, and already in his
mothers womb had created him for the shepherding of Assyria (see Streck 1916, vol. 2,
I:15; pp. 2 [text], and 3 [translation]). For additional examples and for more details, see
Cooke 1961, 202225; Paul 1968; Kalimi 1986, vol. 10, 231232 (Hebrew); Pike 2007. Later,
the phenomenon also was used by the evangelist Matthew regarding Jesus: She (= Mary)
will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins
(Matt 1:21; cf. Luke 2:21). None of the scholars paid attention to the appearance of the
phenomenon under review in Chronicles and Matthew/Luke.
65See in detail, Kalimi 2005a, 365; idem 2013.
66In fact, Judah is also mentioned in the fourth place among Jacobs sons: after the first
three sonsReuben, Simeon, and Levihad been rejected because of their wicked acts,
Judah took the favorable position (Gen 49:312; and see also ibid., 34; 35:22).
67A similar literary structure appears already in the case of the election of Saul in
1 Sam 10:2021. However, in the latter the structure is 23 (Benjamin, Mitri, Saul) rather
than 34.
24 isaac kalimi
(c) The author of Chronicles also stresses the actual fulfillment of the
divine promises:
Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his
father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him. And all the officials, and
the mighty men, and likewise all the sons of King David, submitted them-
selves to Solomon the king. And the Lord magnified Solomon exceedingly in
the sight of all Israel, and bestowed upon him such royal majesty as had not
been on any king before him in Israel. (1 Chr 29:2325; an addition)
Thus, the Chronicler clearly turns Solomon into a divinely chosen king,
as were Saul and David who had preceded him.68 In contrast to 1 Kgs 12,
and perhaps in order to cover up the story of Solomons scandalous access
to the throne, the Chronicler presents the new king as a fully legitimate
one: he was chosen by the Lord and king David. The succession was com-
pletely harmonious. All heavenly and earthly forces combined together
to make it a successful occasion: God himself called his name Solomon
and appointed himalready in his mothers wombto be a king over
Israel and to build his Temple. This notion was adopted and supported by
David as well as all Israel, all the kingdoms officials, mighty men, and all
the sons of David ( ), including Adonijah and those who
supported him (1 Kgs 1:9.19.25).69 Presenting Solomon as a divinely chosen
king, automatically puts into question the plausibility of the account in
the book of Kings. Who could oppose one who was chosen by the Lord
himself, by David and his sons and officials, and all of Israel? Accordingly,
the Chronicler omits the story of Kings altogether.70
3.The Coronation of Solomon
3.1The Coronation Ceremony: Kings versus Chronicles
The author of the Succession Narrative in Kings lively recounts the coro-
nation of Solomon. Under the above mentioned circumstances in Davids
palace yard, the rush coronation of Solomon was undertaken not by the
kings top-rate officials, the chief commander of the army (Joab) and the
68See 1 Sam 9:1610:1; 15:1.10.35 (Saul); 1 Sam 16:113; 2 Sam 7:8 // 1 Chr 7:17; Ps 89:4
(David). In fact, the motif of divine chosen of a king was common also in other ancient
Near Eastern cultures. See above note 64.
69Adonijah is mentioned just once in the genealogical list of the Davidic dynasty;
1 Chr 3:2 // 2 Sam 3:4.
70Cf. Kalimi 2009b, esp. 188 note 55.
the rise of solomon in the israelite historiography 25
priest (Abiathar) who supported Adonijah (1:7; 2:22.28), but by relatively
lower-rate officials, Zadok the priest, Benaiah the officer of the mercenar-
ies, and the prophet Nathan (1:32, cf. 8, 10, 38, 44).
The story goes as follows: Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet take
Solomon on a royal muleDavids own,71 and ride down to Gihon. For
safety purposes, Benaiah and his mercenaries accompany them, in case of
a possible unexpected disturbance from Adonijahs supporters or anyone
else. In Gihon, Nathan and Zadok anoint Solomon king over Israel,72 with
the oil preserved in a horn that was kept in the Tent.73 The people blow
trumpets and shout (long) life to King Solomon!,74 play flutes, raise their
voices, and rejoice.75 Solomon is to return and sit on Davids throne and
reign as a co-regent, but with the intention to succeed him (1 Kgs 1:46;
2:12a).76 These core features of the story are repeated three times: once in
Davids order to coronate Solomon (1:3235); once in the fulfillment of the
order (1:3840); and a third time in the report of Jonathan son of Abiathar
to Adonijah and Joab (1:4448).77
71For the mention that the king had a special mule/horse, see also Esth 6:8b and 6:911,
that speaks about a specific horsethe horse ().
72In ancient Israel, the king was anointed by a priest and/or prophet. Thus, the prophet
and priest Samuel anointed Saul (1 Sam 10:1) and David (16:13); the prophet Ahiah the Shi-
lonite anointed Jeroboam son of Nebat (1 Kgs 11:2931); the disciple of the prophet Elisha
anointed Jehu as king of Israel (2 Kgs 9:114); Jehoiada the high priest anointed Joash
(2 Kgs 11:1214).
73The Tent is the one that was erected by David for the Ark (2 Sam 6:17); it is men-
tioned also later on in 1 Kgs 2:28; 8:4 (// 2 Chr 5:5).
74Compare 1 Sam 10:24 (Saul); 2 Sam 16:16 (Hushai the Gethite to Absalom), 1 Kgs 1:25
(Adonijah); 2 Kgs 11:12 (Joash).
75On this issue, see Kalimi 2010, esp. 567.
76Presumably, the coronation took place according to a set protocol. Indeed, at least
some elements of Solomons coronation appear also in the description of the coronation of
Joash of Judah (2 Kgs 11:1214): Jehoiada the high priest, accompanied with the command-
ers of army units, carries Joash to the Temple and places the crown on the head of Joash,
presents him with a copy of the covenant, and anoints him as a king. The people clap and
shout, long live the king! The people were playing trumpets and rejoicing. For a more
detailed comparison of the stories, see de Vaux 1961, 102107.
77Such repetition of a story is common in biblical as well as Ugaritic literature. For
example, the story about Rebeccas meeting with the servant of Abraham is repeated four
times (Gen 24:1214.1721.4244.4546); similarly the dreams of Pharaoh (Gen 41:17.1724);
the description of the Tabernacle is repeated twice: once when God orders Moses (Exod
25:131:11) and once when Moses fulfills it (Exod 35:439:43). The inauguration offers of
the Israelite chiefs is repeated twelve times (Num 7:1283). The list of the things that the
son of Danel will do to him is repeated four times in the Acts of Danel; see Cassuto 1965,
3436 (Hebrew). In the late first century c.e., Flavius Josephus probably was not famil-
iar anymore with this feature of biblical and ancient Near Eastern literature. Therefore,
he omitted the detailed repetitions and just wrote she (= Bathsheba) recounted to him
(= David) all that the prophet had suggested... (Jewish Antiquities 7.350), When he
26 isaac kalimi
A different picture emerges from the book of Chronicles: 1 Chr 23:1
recounts in general that when David was old and full of days, he made
Solomon his son king over Israel, without detailing when, where, and
how it happened. In 1 Chr 29:2025 the Chronicler responds to these
issues meticulously: And they ate and drank before the Lord on that day
with great gladness. And they made Solomon the son of David king a sec-
ond time (),78 and anointed him to the Lord to be a king ().79
The eating and drinking is mentioned only in Chronicles, but most
likely it was also part of the celebration according to Kings. The author
was interested in stressing Solomons anointment and the rejoicing of the
people that expresses their happiness on the occasion. For the Chroni-
cler the important thing is that Solomon was Gods chosen anointed king;
other details of the coronation ceremony could be left out as superfluous.
Apparently he was not aware of the protocol involved with the corona-
tion of a king in the monarchic period. Chronicles shares with Kings only
the cardinal features, that is, the anointment of Solomon and his corona-
tion, which ends with Solomons sitting on the throne. Yet he does note
the many sacrifices that were performed for the Lord on that important
occasion (1 Chr 29:21),80 which appears also in Kings. For the Chronicler
and his Temple community the pious action of sacrifice has a special
importance.
3.2Were There Two Coronations?
Only two kings are said to have been anointed as king more than once:
(a) 1 Sam 9:2710:1 narrates that the prophet Samuel anointed Saul pri-
vately (10:1). Later, he introduced Saul as a chosen king before the people
who were assembled in Mitzpa, and the people affirmed loudly, Long life
to the King! (10:1724). However, there were some people who were not
impressed by Sauls leadership ability (10:27). Therefore, following Sauls
(= Jonathan) told them all about Solomon and the decision of King David... (ibid., 7.360).
See Thackeray and Marcus 1934, 548549, 552555.
78On the word (a second time), see the discussion below.
79The term means here king, as it appears in the following verse (29:23), and as
it correctly was translated in Septuagint (); see also 1 Chr 11:2 and compare Ps 76:13,
where occurs as a synonym to ; 1 Sam 9:16; 10:1; 13:14; 25:30; 2 Sam 6:21; 1 Kgs 1:35;
2 Kgs 20:5; Ezek 28:119.
80Note the chiastic structure that the Chronicler creates at the first part of the verse:
/ (they performed for the Lord sacrifices / and they
offered burnt offerings for the Lord). This literary form is very common in the Chronistic
writing; see Kalimi 2005a, 215231 (compare also pp. 232274).
the rise of solomon in the israelite historiography 27
victory of the Ammonites, Samuel assembled the people in Gilgal, and
there all the people announced him a king (11:1415).
(b) 1 Sam 16:113 recounts that the prophet Samuel anointed David pri-
vately. Following the death of Saul, David was anointed two more times
on Judah (2 Sam 2:4a), and two years later on the northern tribes of Israel
(2 Sam 5:13). Both times the anointment took place in Hebron.
Were there two coronations of Solomon as well? Based on the Maso-
retic Text of 1 Chr 29:22, And they made Solomon the son of David king
a second time () some ancient, medieval and modern scholars are of
the opinion that this was indeed the case. Josephus Flavius, for instance,
describes that the first coronation of Solomon took place in front of the
people of Jerusalem, as detailed in 1 Kgs 1 (Jewish Antiquities 7.354358).
Later, Josephus follows the description in 1 Chr 29:2025 and describes
the second coronation, which was in front of the officials of all the
Israelite tribes: And throughout the whole day the king feasted with all
people, and they anointed Solomon with oil a second time and proclaimed
him king... (Jewish Antiquities 7.382).81 The same view was held by some
medieval Jewish exegetes, such as Pseudo-Rashi and David Kimchi, in their
commentaries on 1 Chr 29:22. At the end of the 19th century, a comparable
opinion was stated by William E. Barnes: The first time is described in
1 Kgs 1:39 (Solomon was hastily anointed in order to assert his claim to
the throne against his brother Adonijah).82 Nearly 83 years later, Hugh
G.M. Williamson noted: the Chronicler was writing here with 1 Kgs 1
in mind....83 However, it is doubtful that the Chronicler, who negated
Kings story about the succession of Solomon, and invested much literary
effort to reconstruct a different story, would have hinted to Kings. Saul
Zalewski explained the necessity of two coronations as follows: the first
one was a private, quick coronation which is mentioned in 1 Chr 23:1;
the second was public, with great celebration, which is detailed in 1 Chr
29:2025.84 Nonetheless, there is no hint of two coronations of Solomon
in early biblical historiography. It is hard to imagine that Solomon was
crowned twice and that the Deuteronomistic historian simply omitted
one. Why should he omit any of them or specifically the second one? On
the other hand, why should the Chronicler invent an extra coronation
81Thackeray and Marcus 1934, 350353, 564565.
82Barnes 1899, 140.
83Williamson 1982, 187. Williamson does not refer to Josephus, the commentaries
ascribed to Rashi, Kimchi, or Barnes. The latter also did not refer to those earlier scholars.
For this phenomenon in biblical scholarship, see Kalimi 2009, 67.
84Zalewski 1981, 224225.
28 isaac kalimi
for Solomon? As the case is presented in Chronicles, there is no reason
to assume two enthronements of Solomon. In fact, the word does
not appear in Septuagint (BVaticanus) and Peshita. Presumably, the
word is a gloss. The glossator wished to harmonize 1 Chr 2829 (espe-
cially 28:110; 29:2025) with 1 Chr 23:1, which states that David has made
Solomon king over Israel. This reasonable explanation, which is based on
the textual variants of Chronicles, has been suggested by several scholars
in the past centuries.85 I would like to strengthen this explanation from a
literary viewpoint: 1 Chr 23:1 is a general assertion, for which the particular
details appear in 1 Chr 2829. Such literary device of generalparticular
is common in the Chroniclers historical writing.86
3.3Sitting on the Throne of the Lord
The Deuteronomistic historian asserts that Solomon sat upon the throne
of his father David (1 Kgs 2:12a, cf. 1:46). The Chronicler, however, presents
a unique notion: Solomon did not sit upon an earthly throne, but rather
upon the throne of the Lord as king () instead of David his father...
(1 Chr 29:23).87 This was actually the fulfillment of the divine will, as stated
by David: He chose Solomon to sit on the throne of the Lord over Israel
(1 Chr 28:5). This notion appears once againfor the third timein the
words that the Chronicler ascribes to the Queen of Sheba: Blessed be the
Lord your God who has...to place you (= Solomon) on His throne as his
king (2 Chr 9:8, instead of the earlier parallel text in 1 Kgs 10:9: to place
you on the throne of Israel). How should this be understood?
Several times in his work, the Chronicler says that the throne belongs
to the Lord. In 1 Chr 17:14 he writes: in My (= the Lords) house and My
kingdom, instead of: your (= Davids) house and kingdom, as in the par-
allel text in 2 Sam 7:16.88 According to 1 Chr 29:11 (an addition), David
states in his prayer for You (= the Lord) is the kingdom. Yet, because
the kingdom and the throne belong to the Lord, He puts on it whomever
85See, for example, Kittel 1902, 104; Curtis and Madsen 1910, 307; Galling 1954, 77;
Dirksen 2005, 352; Klein 2006, 530, 541.
86See Kalimi 2005a, 369380 esp. 369377.
87Attempting to avoid personification of the Lord, the Greek translator corrected the
text and wrote as in 1 Kgs 2:12a: and Solomon sat upon the throne of his father David.
88Thus the Chronicler moved the focus from the house and kingdom of David to the
house and kingdom of the Lord, because in his time the kingdom of David did not exist
anymore, but the house of the Lord (= the Second Temple) and his kingdom are there
forever. The Chronicler did not interpret 2 Sam 7:16 as something that would be fulfilled
in the future.
the rise of solomon in the israelite historiography 29
He chooses. In this case, He chose Solomon to sit on it. Indeed, 2 Chr 13:8
(an addition) considers the kingdom of Judah as the kingdom of the Lord
in the hand of Davids descendants ( ). Now it is
clear: if Judah is the kingdom of the Lord, the throne of that kingdom is
throne of the Lord. Thus, the earthly kingSolomonis the representa-
tive of the heavenly kingthe Lordon earth. He connects between the
Lord and his people, Israel, and represents the latter in front of the former.
In Chronicles, therefore, theocracy and monarchy are interconnected.
This idea is not unique for Chronicles. It is well-known already from pre-
Chronistic biblical writings (e.g., Judg 8:2223; 1 Sam 8:422; Hos 3:5;
Ezek 20:33 and 37:2225; Isa 41:21; 43:15; 44:6; 52:7; Ps 98:6), and the Chron-
icler most likely was aware of this. He just expressed the old concept in
bold statements. Since the motif of the Lords kingship appears in various
early and late scriptures, the general opinion in biblical scholarship as
stated, for instance, by C.R. North, that the doctrine of kingship of Yah-
weh, in any pronounced form, was a comparatively late development,89
is very questionable.
4.Solomons Establishment: The Concluding Words
After the description of the elimination and removal of Solomons rivals
(1 Kgs 2:1346a: Adonijah in vv. 1325, Abiathar in vv. 2627, Joab in vv.
2835, and Shimei in vv. 3646a), the Deuteronomistic historian concludes
the succession narrative as follows: and the kingdom was established in the
hand of Solomon ( ; 1 Kgs 2:46b). Similar words
(probably from the same hand) appear also after the end of Davids king-
ship and the rise of Solomon in 1 Kgs 2:12: And Solomon sat on the throne
of David his father, and his kingdom was firmly established (
). Thus, the account in 1 Kgs 2:1346a is
framed by an inclusio; which opens with the words (1 Kgs
2:12b) and it ends similarly with (1 Kgs 2:46b).90
89See North 1932, esp. 28; see also Wilda 1959, 32; Poulssen 1967, 167182 esp. 170, 172.
90For the use of inclusio in biblical literature in general and in the book of Chronicles
in particular, see Kalimi 2005a, 295324. In any case, 2:46b is not a Wiederaufnahme, as
Cogan (2000, 180) suggests. Rather, it is the second wing of an inclusio thatas he correctly
statesbrackets the stories of the kings political rivals. For the definition of Wieder-
aufnahme (resumptive repetition), see Kalimi 2005a, 275276 (and several examples on
pp. 276289).
30 isaac kalimi
Accordingly, the decision of August Klostermann to end the section with
1 Kgs 3:2 is arbitrary and unacceptable.91
The parallel conclusion in the Chronistic history is much stronger. Here
the closing words to Solomons succession come immediately after the
peaceful coronation: The Lord exalted Solomon highly (
) in the sights of all Israel, and bestowed upon him royal
majesty such as no king in Israel had before him (1 Chr 29:25).92 Solomon
is firmly established as king, and this is in fact the fulfillment of a divine
blessing (cf. 2 Chr 1:12b). They are more meaningful than the peoples
blessing in 1 Kgs 1:37.47. Nonetheless, in contrast to the opinion of some
medieval and modern scholars,93 the words under review do not allude to
Solomons struggle with Adonijah, Joab and the rest, an issue the Chroni-
cler did not wish to relate in his work.
5.Davids Testament
5.1The Deuteronomistic History
Davids deathbed command to Solomon, usually called Davids Testa-
ment (1 Kgs 2:19), contains two essential elements: (a) The one, politi-
cal in nature (2:59), states Davids requests to punish Joab, the son of
Zeroiah (2:56), and Shimei, the son of Gera (2:89), for the evil deeds
they had committed many years ago, and to reward the sons of Barzil-
lai the Giladite for their fathers kindness towards David at the time he
escaped from Absalom (2:7). (b) The other, religious in nature (2:24),
refers to Solomons future spiritual behavior in order to guarantee the
Lords benefits. Let us turn to these elements:
(a) The political element of the Testament has two sides: a historical and
a literary. From the literary viewpoint, it functions as a paradigm showing
91See Klostermann 1887, 269.
92The opening verse in 2 Chr 1:1,
creates a resumptive repetition (Wiederaufnahme) with 1 Chr 29:25,
, because of the intervening words of 1 Chr 29:2628 (which is based
on 1 Kgs 2:1112a); see in detail Kalimi 2005a, 285287. Indeed, as David expressed in his
prayer, it is in the power of the Lord it is in Your power (lit., hand)
to exalt and give strength to all (1 Chr 29:12; the Chronicler referred to these words in
2 Chr 1:1 in chiastic order).
93See, for example, Gersonides (Rabbi Levi ben Gershon) in his commentary on the
verse; Myers 1965, 5; Zalewski 1981, 229.
the rise of solomon in the israelite historiography 31
that loyalty and kindness towards the king will be rewarded (as in the
case of Barzillai, 2 Sam 19:3240); and, vice versa, that hostile behavior (as
in the case of Shimei, 2 Sam 16:513; 19:1924) and committing evil (as did
Joab by killing Abner and Amasa, against Davids will, 2 Sam 3:2630; 20:8
9)94 will be punished. From the historical point of view, it seems rather
implausible that the last thoughts and words of the aged, weak and sick
David on his deathbed (1 Kgs 1:14) were to seek revenge on his nephew
and life-long loyal chief commander, Joab, for deeds he had committed
many years ago.95 The same is true for the powerless Shimei who had
cursed him some years ago when David fled from Absalom, but who no
longer endangered the kingdom.96 Furthermore, the testament regard-
ing Shimei puts David in an awful light: after he had forgiven him and
sworn in Gods name that he would not kill him, he now looks for revenge
that will be carried out by his son Solomon. Such a desire for vengeance
appears to be contrary to Davids nature. David is described in the book
of Samuel as a merciful rather than a vengeful person. He spares Sauls
life a few times (1 Sam 24:420; 26:325), despite the repeated efforts of
the latter to kill him (1 Sam 17:1011.1729; 19:124:3; 26:12). He tries to
protect his son Absalom (2 Sam 18:5.12.29.32; 19:1), although the latter mur-
dered his son Amnon, revolted against him, and slept with his concubines
(2 Sam 13:2339; 15:717:29). Moreover, the motivation would be a clear
transgression of the fundamental Israelites ethical principle laid down in
Lev 19:1718: You shall not hate your brother in your heart...You shall
not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but
you shall love your fellow/neighbor as yourself (see also Prov 24:29; cf.
20:22). Also, it is doubtful whether the thoughts of dying David were with
Barzillais sons rather than with his own children and close family, as in
the case of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen 24:19; 27:128:5; 49).
94Interestingly, the killing of Absalom by Joab (2 Sam 18:915), which was against the
clear order of David (18:5.32; 19:15), is not mentioned here. Obviously, in the case of Absa-
lom one cannot say that Joab killed a righteous and good man, as were Abner and Amasa
(2:32). After all, Absalom murdered his brother and rebelled against his father.
95The murder of Abner son of Ner took place 38 years earlier, just before the unifica-
tion of the northern and southern kingdoms (2 Sam 2:2339). The murder of Amasa son
of Yether happened after the failure of Absaloms rebellion (2 Sam 20:810). In both cases
Joab wished to protect his top position as the chief commander of the army.
96Contra Gray (1970, 9899), who is convinced that David might well have given Solo-
mon the charge to eliminate Shimei.
32 isaac kalimi
Except for the historiographers summary of Davids kingship (1 Kgs
2:1012),97 the following paragraph (2:1346a)98 deals with Solomons
struggle with his rival Adonijah and his supporters. It recounts a series
of executions (of Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei) and the removal of Abia-
thar from the Jerusalem priesthood, as ordered by Solomon. The testa-
ment, therefore, is not an apology for things that had happened long
ago, but rather aims at the current political situation: it explains and
legitimatesat least in regard to Joab and ShimeiSolomons use of
force to maintain power and achieve complete control over the king-
dom. In fact, the narrator points out this political aspect when not-
ing: for Joab had supported Adonijah although he had not supported
Absalom (2:28). Solomon himself, however, links the execution of Joab
to events of the past (2:3133) as stated in Davids testament (2:56),
as if to say that he fulfilled his fathers testament (see also regarding
Shimei, 2:44 and cf. 2:89).
It seems that Davids testament, although is an integral part of the Suc-
cession Narrative,99 cannot be traced back to David. Rather, it was com-
posed as a cover-up story in Solomons palace, soon after the death of
David, and ascribed to David. It attempts to legitimize Solomons actions
to solidify his kingship through the execution of his rivals and to repre-
sent him as one who just fulfilled his fathers testament. In addition, the
narrative illustrates that Solomons opponents had behaved in a manner
that led to their own doom.100 Otherwise, the slaying would have been
considered unnecessary and would have cast a dark shadow on the begin-
ning of Solomons reign.101
97In fact, this summary is very similar to the one in 2 Sam 5:45. The two summa-
ries form an inclusio to Davids kingship over Israel and Judah. Despite some differences
between the summaries, most likely they are from one and the same editorthe Deuter-
onomisticwho wished to construct the history of David as a king over Israel and Judah
as a unit which starts and ends similarly. Contra DeVries (1985, 30), who is not aware of
the literary device in the text and, therefore, attributes the summaries in Kings to differ-
ent redactors.
98As already mentioned above (4), 1 Kgs 2:12b and 2:46b form an inclusio around 2:1346a.
99Cf. Montgomery and Gehman 1951, 89; Gray 1970, 1516; contra Mulder (1998, 86)
who notes: the section of vvs. 1b9 has been added to the story from another source.
100Cogan 2000, 180.
101Contra Benzinger 1899, 8, who argues fr spten Ursprung. Montgomery and Geh-
man (1951, 88) correctly question the fictional nature of this part of the testament, which
was composed in later time by the Deuteronomist, as some scholars claim: But why a
much later age (Deuteronomistic) should have invented the story to save Solomons virtue
by throwing the odium upon David is unintelligible in view of the latters canonization.
However, according to my view, this part of the testament was written at Solomons court.
See also below in the text. Moreover, if we assume that what I call the political element
the rise of solomon in the israelite historiography 33
In order to balance this element of vengeance in the testament and
make it sound as reliable as possible, a positive feature has been included
as wellthe rewarding of Barzillais sons. That is to say, David remem-
bered not only the wicked men but also the kind ones.102 Nevertheless,
there is no clue in the sources as to whether or not Solomon kept to this
part of the testament.
Yet, Adonijah, who was sentenced to death for his minor request that
was not a naive one, was not included in Davids testament. Knowing
the great love of David for his children, he could not be presented as the
one who had ordered the elimination of his son Adonijah (who, in fact,
had not rebelled against him). Even in the case of Absalom, who mur-
dered Amnon, rebelled against his father, and slept with his concubines,
David attempted to save him: Deal gently for my sake with the young
man Absalom (2 Sam 18:5, cf. 12). And when he was killed by Joab (2 Sam
18:1415), it is said that David mourned him bitterly (2 Sam 19:12.5). On
the other hand, the way David is said in the testament to have dealt with
Joab and Shimei would sound reliable in the cultural and religious context
of Solomons time.103
The expulsion of Abiathar from the Jerusalem priesthood is justified by
Solomon as follows: Go to Anathoth, to your estate; for you deserve death
(why?). But I will not at this time put you to death, because you bore the
ark of the Lord God before David my father, and because you shared in
all the affliction of my father. So Solomon expelled Abiathar from being
priest to the Lord (2:2627a). The Deuteronomistic historian, who desired
to show the fulfillment of Gods word (as he did in 1 Kgs 2:24 regarding the
fulfillment of Nathans prophecy to David in 2 Sam 7:11b12, and in many
of the testament is from Solomons time, the critics of these scholars cannot refer to it.
Because, as Montgomery and Gehman show in the next pages (8990), according to the
standards of that time, David instructed Solomon appropriately on the responsibilities of
the king to remove the blood-guilt [see 1 Kgs 2:31, I.K.], according to the ancient principle
of life for life (Ex[od] 21:24), a principle that David had followed in visiting upon Sauls
grandchildren his murder of the Gibeonites (2 Sam. 21) (p. 89). Regarding Shimei, the
curse against a prince was high crime; cf. [1 Kgs] 21:9ff.; Ex[od] 22:27 (p. 90). Therefore,
the way David is said to deal with Joab and Shimei would sound reliable (see below in
the text).
102Contra Gray (1970, 102), who is of an opinion that the provision for the sons of
Barzillai may well have been made by David. Montgomery and Gehmans (1951, 90) cita-
tions from biblical and extra-biblical sources regarding the importance of eating at the
kings table as a method of pensioning, still do not mean that the verse has been made
by David.
103See the behavior of David after the death of Abner and his complain regarding the
sons of Zeruiah in 2 Sam 3:3139; and also, above, note 95.
34 isaac kalimi
other places),104 adds here: fulfill the word of the Lord, which he spoke
concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh (1 Kgs 2:27b), that is, the prophecies
at 1 Sam 2:3536; 3:1213.105 Thus the stability of the Davidic dynasty is
purchased at the price of blood and tears.106
(b) The religious element of the testament regarding Solomons future
religious behavior (1 Kgs 2:24), is, without a doubt, a composition from
the hand of the Deuteronomistic historian:107
(1) It contains several expressions that are characteristic of Deuteronomis-
tic phraseology. Thus, 2:2a: I am going in the way
of all the earth, is almost identical with Josh 23:14a. Similarly, 2:2b:
be strong and show yourself a (courage of) man, is compa-
rable with Josh 1:6.9.18; 1 Sam 4:9a (cf. also Deut 31:23). Verse 2:3:

Keep the mandate of the Lord your God, following his ways, keeping his
statutes, his commandments, and his laws, and his testimonies, is a vari-
ant of the stereotypical expression in Deut 4:6; 7:12; 11:1; 16:12; 23:24; 24:8;
26:16; 28:13; 29:8; cf. Josh 22:3.5. For the idiom as written in the Torah of
Moses, cf. Josh 1:8; 2 Kgs 22:8a. The phrase in 2:4b:

if your sons watch their way to walk
before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, then no one
of your line shall be cut off from the throne of Israel, is very common in
the book of Deuteronomy (4:29; 6:5; 10:12; 11:13; 13:4; 26:16; 30:2.6.14) and in
Deuteronomistic literature (e.g., 1 Kgs 8:25; 9:57). In addition, 2:4a:
that the Lord may establish his word, is probably
taken from 1 Sam 1:23b: .
(2) That this part of the testament comes from the Deuteronomistic
historian is clear also from the conditional sentence at 1 Kgs 2:4b: If your
104See above note 60.
105In fact this phenomenon is common in the Deuteronomistic history. For further
examples, see 1 Kgs 12:15 (fulfillment of the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite); 2 Kgs 10:10,
17 (fulfillment of the prophecy of Elijah on House of Ahab); Josh 6:26 in comparison with
2 Kgs 16:34 concerning the building of Jericho; 1 Kgs 13:12, 2932 with 2 Kgs 23:1618 con-
cerning the prophecy of the prophet from Judah on the destruction of the temple at Beith
El. This method of vaticinium ex eventu (prophecy post event) is known also from an
inscription of Assurbanipal; see Tadmor 1983, esp. 5051.
106Mulder 1998, 86.
107Against Benzinger 1899, 8, who argues that 1 Kgs 2:24 is surely post-deuteron-
omistic. If we have Deuteronomistic language and idioms in these verses (see below),
why should they be considered as post-Deuteronomistic, and not simply Deuteronomis-
tic? Nonetheless, that these verses come from the Deuteronomistic historian is generally
accepted; see for instance, Gray 1970, 99100.
the rise of solomon in the israelite historiography 35
off-springs notice their way to walk before me...then no one of your line
shall be cut off from the throne of Israel. As one who wrote/edited in
the exilic period (ca. 550 b.c.e.) and knew about the fall of the Davidic
kingdom, he conditioned the existence of the dynasty with keeping the
Lords commandments. In contrast, in Nathans prophecy, which was
most probably composed in the Solomonic period,108 the existence of the
Davidic dynasty is absolute, unconditioned: But my mercy shall not depart
away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before you. And
your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before me;109 your
throne shall be established forever (2 Sam 7:1516).
Most likely, for the Deuteronomistic historian it was improper that
Davids testament included only secularpoliticalmessages, and
lacked religious ones. Therefore, he attempted to soften the harsh tes-
tament (that he probably found in the Succession Narrative which was
included in the book of events/acts of Solomon, 1 Kgs 11:41) by adding to
Davids words a religious value as well. In fact, the phenomenon of a later
historian composing a speech (as well as prayer or letter) and attributing
it to an earlier leader, particularly before his ultimate death, is well known
from various places in the Deuteronomistic and Chronistic histories, and
is attested also in Greek, Hellenistic, and Roman historiography.110
5.2The Chronistic History
Most likely, the Chroniclers Vorlage contained a complete version of
Davids testament, as it appears in 1 Kgs 2:19. He definitely did not
distinguish between the early and late phases of the passage. Nonethe-
less, Chronicles remains silent about the execution of Joab and Shimei,
the removal of Abiathar from the priesthood, or the kindness toward
Barzillais sons. On the one hand, the idea that David ended his life in
vengeance, as presented in Kings, was considered by the Chronicler as
improbable and unacceptable. On the other hand, Solomon is said to have
108See Ishida 1999, 137150: The narrative of Nathans prophecy is a composition to
give an interpretation of the course of history concerning the establishment of Solomons
kingship linking with the building of Jerusalem Temple from Solomonic point of view,
although, on the surface, David was the person to whom the prophecy was delivered
(p. 149).
109In before you, is a dittography of from the first letter of the next word:
your throne.
110See, for example, Deut 31:2432:47 (in fact, the entire Deuteronomy was considered
as one long speech of Moses before his death); Josh 23 and 24:128; 1 Sam 12; see also
Judg 2:15, and 2 Kgs 17:723; 1 Chr 22:719; 28:229:20; 2 Chr 13:412. See Kalimi 2009b,
179192.
36 isaac kalimi
been chosen king by the Lord, with the support of David, of all the sons
of Davidincluding Adonijah (and his supporters), as well as of all the
kings officials, the mighty men, and all Israel. Thus, for the Chronicler
Solomon had no rivals to kill or take revenge on: he did not execute any-
one, and surely not as his first royal act. Since the Chronicler omits the
story of 1 Kgs 1 from his work, he also omits what follows in 1 Kgs 2 (except
for the main content of 1 Kgs 2:24; see below). Moreover, regardless of
whether David indeed ordered the testament or not, including 1 Kgs 2
would undo the Chroniclers concept of Solomon having been chosen as
the Temple builder because he is a man of rest/peace ( ) with-
out any blood stain: 1 Chr 22:710 and 28:3 say that God told David, You
are not to build a house for my name, because you are a warrior and
have shed blood.111 The second chapter of 1 Kgs indicates clearly that Solo-
mon shed blood (regardless whether it was justified or not), even upon
the sacred altar in the Tent of the Lord (1 Kgs 2:2834).112 This would
contradict the Chroniclers principle concept of who was allowed to be
the Temple builder (Solomon) and who was not (David); thus he would
have omitted these texts.113 Nevertheless, the Chronicler retains the reli-
gious and spiritual commands of David to his son to keep Gods law. In
fact, the wording in 1 Chr 22:1013 (cf. 1 Chr 28:910.20)114 reflects that of
1 Kgs 2:24:
111On this issue see also Dirksen 1996, 5156.
112Obviously, Joabas well as Adonijah (1 Kgs 1:5053)looked for political asylum
by escaping to the holy tent and holding the horns of the altar. However, while there is
no evidence that Adonijah had murdered anyone, the case of Joab involved a blood-guilt,
although it took place in the distant past (1 Kgs 2:56.3133). Yet, most likely the case of
Adonijah does not relate to criminal law in Exod 21:1214: He who strikes a man, so that
he dies, shall be surely put to death...if a man comes willfully upon his neighbor, to slay
him treacherously; you shall take him from my altar, that he may die. In contrast, maybe
the case of Joab has some linkage with that law. For other opinions in biblical scholar-
ship regarding the relation between these cases and Exod 21:14, see the detailed survey by
Burnside 2010, 418431. Nevertheless, Solomons killing of Joab in the Tent of the Lord is
in contrast to the act of Jehoiada the high priest who was ordered not to kill the wicked
Queen Athaliah in the House of the Lord, where she had sought asylum (2 Kgs 11:1516 //
2 Chr 23:1415). On the other hand, King Joash of Judah ordered to stone the high priest
and prophet Zechariah in the Temple courtyard (2 Chr 24:2022, an addition).
113For this reason the Chronicler uses an uncommon, even vague, phrase to refer to
Solomons siege of Hamath-Zobah: (And Solomon went
to Hamath-Zobah, and prevailed against it; 2 Chr 8:3an addition to 1 Kgs 9:18). The
historicity of this action attributed to Solomon is very doubtful. In the early biblical histori-
cal books Hamath and Zobah are two separate places (2 Sam 8:3 [// 1 Chr 18:3]; 1 Kgs 8:65
[// 2 Chr 7:8]). Probably in the Persian period Zobah included the province of Hamath;
cf. Rudolph 1955, 219 (and their references to W.F. Albright and M. Noth).
114 Although the natural continuation of 1 Chr 22:11 (Now my son, may the Lord be
with you so that you will succeed and will build the house of the Lord...) seems to be
the rise of solomon in the israelite historiography 37
1 Kgs 2:24 1 Chr 22:1013






115
...


116



Be you strong therefore, and show
yourself a man; and keep the charge
of the Lord your God, to walk in his
ways, to keep his statutes, and his
commandments, and his judgments,
and his testimonies, as it is written
in the Torah of Moses, that you may
prosper in all that you do, and wher-
ever you turn yourself... If your chil-
dren take heed to their way, to walk
before me in truth with all their heart
and with all their soul, there shall not
fail you, said He, a man on the throne
of Israel
and I will establish the throne of his
kingdom over Israel forever...Only
may the Lord give you wisdom and
understanding, than when he gives
you charge concerning Israel that
you may keep the Torah of the Lord
your God. Then shall you prosper, if
you take heed to fulfill the statutes
and judgments which the Lord
commanded Moses for Israel; be
strong, and of good courage; do not
fear, nor be dismayed.
115116
All in all, there is Davids testament also in Chronicles, and there is
something of Davids testament in 1 Kings that reflects in Chronicles.
Here the testament to Solomon (1 Chr 22:519) is mentioned prior to
the enthronement of Solomon (1 Chr 23:1; 29:2024). This version of the
testament contains positive and constructive features only: (a) spiritual
verse 14 (And behold, in my affliction I have prepared for the house of the Lord...), there
is no need to consider vv. 1213 as a late addition. The Chronicler himself could add these
verses as a post scriptum. After all, Solomons wisdom and his building of the Temple are
linked together in Deuteronomistic history as well as in the Chronistic history; see, for
instance, 1 Kgs 5:932 esp. verses 919 and 2628; 2 Chr 2:211. Moreover, the Chronicler
repeats the content and the wording of v. 13b in 1 Chr 28:20a. Contra Mosis 1973, 9091;
Drrfuss 1994, 155159. For some other syntax and content problems in these verses and
their possible interpretation, see Dirksen 2005, 267268.
115Compare Josh 1:8. According to the Chronicler the capability of keeping Gods laws is
a blessing for itself, and is comparable to Gods blessing of wisdom and ruling; see Rudolph
1955, 150 note 1. Moreover; in his prayer David asks the Lord to help his people and his son
Solomon to keep the Lord commandments (1 Chr 29:1819).
116Compare Deut 17:1819.
38 isaac kalimi
and religious commands, guidance and encouragement of the aged father
to his young son; and (b) a request to build the desired Temple to the Lord
(1 Chr 22:219; 28:1029:9). Accordingly, David handed to Solomon all the
Temples personnel divisions that he had prepared (divisions of priests,
Levites, gatekeepers, and singers), the architectural plans, as well as the
enormous amount of material that he had gathered for that task in order
to assist his young son to carry out the plan: Now, my son, the Lord be
with you; and prosper you, and build the house of the Lord your God, as
he has said of you (1 Chr 22:11). And once again, in more detail, in 1 Chr
28:1019: Take notice now; for the Lord has chosen you to build a house
for the sanctuary; be strong, and do it. Then David gave to Solomon his
son the plans of the vestibule, and of its houses, and of its treasuries, and
of its upper chambers...All this (he said) is put in writing by the hand of
the Lord who instructed me, all the works of this plan.117
6.The Fulfillment of Davids Testament:
The First Actions of King Solomon
The Deuteronomist and the Chronist both attempt to present Solomon as
one who completely fulfilled his fathers testament as his first act as a
king. In Kings this consists of executing his major opponents or removing
them from power (1 Kgs 2:1346). Following these actions, which were
meant to protect his reign from inside, Solomon strengthened relations
with an important external power, Egypt: he engaged in a political mar-
riage with the daughter of Pharaoh and brought her to the City of David
(1 Kgs 3:12).118 After these actions Solomon visited the holy place in
Gibeon, sacrificed to God, and sought for divine revelation (1 Kgs 3:315).
In fact, only four years after he had succeeded to the throne, he started to
build the Temple (1 Kgs 6:3738).
According to Chronicles, however, Solomon first visited Gibeon, sacri-
ficing to God and seeking his revelation (2 Chr 1:113). Indeed, since the
Lord exalted Solomon highly in the sights of all Israel and bestowed upon
him royal majesty such as no king (including David) in Israel had before
him (1 Chr 29:25, see also 29:2324), there was no need to strengthen ties
117Compare Exod 25:9, 40; 26:30 regarding the Tabernacle.
118Certainly, the Pharaoh under review was from the 21th Dynasty. Yet, it is debated
whether he should be identified with Psusennes II or Siamun; see the survey of opinions
by Srki 1994, 1617.
the rise of solomon in the israelite historiography 39
inside or outside of the kingdom. Thus, the Chronicler omits the passage
regarding Solomons marriage with Pharaohs daughter at this point, but
mentions it briefly at a later stage in Solomons reign (2 Chr 8:11a // 1 Kgs
9:24a).119
Following his visit to Gibeon, Solomon expresses his will to build the
Temple (and only after that to build his palace, 2 Chr 1:18). The project
is presented as the fulfillment of Nathans prophecy (1 Chr 17:1112 //
2 Sam 7:1213) and Davids testament.120 Consequently, the Chronicler omits
1 Kgs 6:3738 which reports that Solomon started to build the Temple only
after four years. Solomon did not waste any time, not even to pronounce
judgment between the two harlots (1 Kgs 3:1628). The Chronicler omits
this episode (although it could enhance the reputation of the king as a wise
man) as well as Solomons list of officials and the passage about his wealth
(1 Kgs 4:15:14). Instead, he recounts that following the sacrifice in Gibeon
without delay Solomon organized the worker groups in the kingdom
(2 Chr 2:1), and contacted King Hiram of Tyre in order to obtain professional
crafts, woods and other material from Lebanon to build the Temple (2 Chr
2:215). Furthermore, according to the Chronicler Solomon was the one who
initiated the contact between the two kingdoms by sending a diplomatic
delegation to Hiram (2 Chr 2:215).121 This is contrary to what was stated in
1 Kgs 5:1528, where it is Hiram who contacts Solomon and the latter only
119In fact, the Chronicler minimizes this issue and reduces its importance as much as
possible: from the five times that the daughter of Pharaoh is mentioned in Kings (1 Kgs 3:1;
7:8b; 9:16, 24; 11:1), he refers to her only once (2 Chr 8:11). Moreover, although the Chronicler
omits the report regarding the house that Solomon built for Pharaohs daughter (1 Kgs 7:8b,
which appears in 1 Kgs 7:112a paragraph which he completely omitted for reasons that
I discuss elsewhere), he explains why Solomon built a separate house/palace for Pharaohs
daughter: for he said my wife shall not dwell in the house of David, king of Israel, for the
places where the ark of the Lord has come are holy (2 Chr 8:11b). Obviously, this explana-
tion does not favor Pharaohs daughter.
120According to 2 Sam 7 David expressed his wish to build a Temple to God, but the
task was postponed and left to his descendant. There is no clue in Samuel-Kings that David
prepared any material for the building of the Temple or requested Solomon to build it. The
Chronicler incorporates 2 Sam 7 in his account (1 Chr 17). However, he also elaborates in
detail the last issues (1 Chr 22; 28; 29:2021). After all, Solomon was the first king of the
Davidic dynasty and there was a real need to prepare him for his important tasks.
121Perhaps the Chronicler attempts to justify the request for help from the foreign king
to build a Temple to God by adding (to the text from 1 Kgs 5:1920) a new paragraph in
2 Chr 2:48 (with an inclusio: And the house which I build is great...the house which
I build is great, 2:4a and 8b). See also the commentary ascribed to Rashi on 2:4; Japhet
1977, 402403 (Hebrew). However, already David talks about the great size and quality of
the planned Temple: the house to be built for the Lord must be exceedingly magnificent,
famous and an object of praise for all the lands (1 Chr 22:5). So, Solomon only continues
to express his fathers vision of the Temple.
40 isaac kalimi
reacts to Hirams delegation to Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the successful
diplomatic and trade relationship between Solomon and Hiram resulted
in the building of the Temple in Jerusalem (2 Chr 3:15:1 // 1 Kgs 6:17:51)
in fulfillment of Nathans prophecy and Davids testament.122
7.Conclusion
A careful examination of the succession story in Kings demonstrates
that Solomon was not the legitimate heir to the throne: Adonijah was
the elder and next in the direct royal line to inherit his fathers throne,
and he was supported by most of Davids sons and his top officials as
well as the officials of Judah. Solomon rose to the kingship as a result of
power-struggles and intrigues in the palace during the last days of the
sick and weak David who was manipulated by Nathan and Bathsheba. His
establishment on the throne was guaranteed after the bloody exclusion
of his potential rivals and challengers, which was justified as a fulfillment
of Davids testament (1 Kgs 2:19). These descriptions are conventional
court stories that have a number of parallels in the ancient Near Eastern
and in other dynastic histories. Solomons marriage with Pharaohs daugh-
ter was politically oriented in order to strengthen his position from the
outside. Only after these actions Solomon visited Gibeon to sacrifice and
obtain a divine revelation. He started to build the Temple four years after
his throne succession (1 Kgs 6:3738).
In the Chronistic history, however, all the elements that cast a negative
light on David, Nathan, Bathsheba, and Solomon (2 Sam 1112; 1 Kgs 12)
are omitted. Based on data found in various earlier biblical texts, the
Chronicler creates a clearly different story stating that Solomon was the
rightful ruler and Temple-builder: he was chosen not only by David, but
first and foremost by the Lord, already in his mothers womb (1 Chr 22:710).
All Solomons brothers and the officials of the kingdom supported his
access to the throne. Solomons kingship symbolizes the union of theoc-
racy and monarchy: he is the representative of God on earth, as well as
the king of the people and their representative in front of God. He fulfilled
his fathers testament by maintaining the Lords commandments and
by building the Temple as his first priority. While David was stained with
122On this issue see in detail, Kalimi, Solomons Temple Building and Its Divine
Approval in the Deuteronomistic and Chronistic Histories, forthcoming.
the rise of solomon in the israelite historiography 41
blood (regardless of blame or innocence), Solomon was pure and clean,
without any stain and sin.
As a historian writing in the first quarter of the 4th century b.c.e., when
the province of Yehud was under Persian control, the Chronicler looked
back longingly to the founders of the Israelite/Judahite monarchy. He cre-
ates a new portrait of (David and) Solomon, the kind of portrait he wished
to have rather than the historical one. He presents both kings idealisti-
cally, in such a way that they are worthy for every Jew to imitate (cf. 2 Chr
11:17b). Furthermore, the Chronicler and his community that assembled
around Zerrubabels Temple (which was erected on the same location as
Solomons Temple and considered as its substitute)123 found a particular
interest in the Temple-builder, Solomon. For him, the Solomonic Temple
opens a new era in Jewish history and religion. Consequently, he con-
cluded that Solomon himself has a unique place among all of Davids sons
and among the four sons of Bathsheba (1 Chr 3:5, an addition). He was
chosen to be a king of Israel and the first Temple-builder, even before he
was born. Thus, Solomon became a symbol of glory and religious hap-
piness remembered over many generations: And there was great joy in
Jerusalem; for since the time of Solomon the son of David king of Israel there
had been nothing like this in Jerusalem (2 Chr 30:26, an addition).
The two accounts of the rise of Solomon are completely different in
narrative style, historical background, historical reliability, and implica-
tions. For all the variations of the religious and political events, the fun-
damental difference between these two portraits is to be found in the goal
each historian had set for himself in depicting Solomon.
Bibliography
Ahlstrm, G.W., 1961, Der Prophet Nathan und der Tempelbau, Vetus Testamentum 11:
113127.
Alt, A., Das Reich Davids und Salomos, in: Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel,
vol. 2, 3365, Mnchen 1964.
Auld, A.G., Kings without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bibles Kings, Edin-
burgh 1994.
Barnes, W.E., The Books of Chronicles (The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges),
Cambridge 1899.
Ben-Noun, Liubov (Louba), 2002, Was the Biblical King David Affected by Hypothermia?,
Journal of Gerontological Medical Sciences 57: 364367.
, 2004, Mental Disorder that Afflicted King David the Great, History of Psychiatry 15:
467476.
123See Kalimi 2002, esp. 1631.
42 isaac kalimi
Benzinger, I., Die Bcher der Knigeerklrt (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testa-
ment 9), Freiburg i.B., Leipzig and Tbingen 1899.
, Die Bcher der Chronikerklrt (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament
20), Leipzig and Tbingen 1901.
Borger, R., Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Knig von Assyrien (Archiv fr Orientforschung.
Beiheft 9), Osnabrck 1967.
Bright, J., A History of Israel, London 19813.
Burnside, J., 2010, Flight of the Fugitives: Rethinking the Relationship between Biblical
Law (Exodus 21:1214) and the Davidic Succession Narrative (1 Kings 12), Journal of
Biblical Literature 129: 418431.
Cassuto, U., The Goddess Anath: Canaanite Epics of the Patriarch Age, Jerusalem 1965.
Cogan, M., 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible),
New York 2000.
Cooke, G., 1961, The Israelite King as Son of God, Zeitschrift fr die Alttestamentliche Wis-
senschaft 32: 202225.
Curtis, E.L. and A.A. Madsen. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chron-
icles (The International Critical Commentary), Edinburgh 1910.
de Vaux, R., Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, New York, Toronto and London 1961.
DeVries, S.J., 1 Kings (Word Biblical Commentary 12), Waco TX 1985.
Dietrich, W., 2012, Von den ersten Knigen Israels: Forschung an den Samuelbchern im
neuen Jahrtausend. Zweiter Teil, Theologische Rundschau 77: 263316.
Dirksen, P.B., 1996, Why Was David Disqualified as Temple Builder? The Meaning of
1 Chronicles 22:8, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 70: 5156.
Dirksen, P.B., 1 Chronicles (Historical Commentary Old Testament), Leuven 2005.
Drrfuss, E.M., Mose in den Chronikbchern: Garant theokratischer Zukunftserwartung
(Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 219), Berlin and New
York 1994.
Ehrlich, A.B., Mikr ki-Pheschut. Volume 2: Divre Sofrim, Berlin 1900; reprinted: (Library of
Biblical Studies), New York 1969.
Galling, K., Die Bcher der Chronik, Esra, Nehemiabersetzt und erklrt (Das Alte Testa-
ment Deutsch 12), Berlin 1954.
Gray, J., I & II Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), Philadelphia PA 1970.
Gressmann, H., Die lteste Geschichtsschreibung Israel (von Samuel bis Amos und Hosea)
(Die Schriften des Alten Testaments. 2. Abteilung, 1. Band), Gttingen 19212.
Ishida, T., The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttesta-
mentliche Wissenschaft 142), Berlin and New York 1977.
, History and Historical Writing in Ancient Israel (Studies in the History and Culture of
the Ancient Near East 16), Leiden 1999.
Japhet, S., The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought, Jerusalem
1977 (Hebrew).
Kalimi, I., The Lord Called me from the Womb, Singled me out from my Mothers Bowels
(Isa 49:1), in: Y. Hoffman (ed.), Companion to the Biblical World: The Book of Isaiah,
vol. 10, 231232, Ramat Gan 1986 (Hebrew).
, The Land / Mount Moriah, and the Site of the Jerusalem Temple in Biblical Histori-
cal Writing, in: Early Jewish Exegesis and Theological Controversy: Studies in Scriptures
in the Shadow of Internal and External Controversies (Jewish and Christian Heritage 2),
932, Assen 2002.
, 2005a, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles, Winona Lake IN 2005
(reprinted 2012).
, 2005b, An Ancient Israelite Historian: Studies in the Chronicler, His Time, Place, and
Writing (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 46), Assen 2005.
, 2009a, The Retelling of Chronicles in Jewish Tradition and Literature: A Historical Jour-
ney, Winona Lake IN 2009.
the rise of solomon in the israelite historiography 43
, 2009b, Placing the Chronicler in His Own Historical Context: A Closer Examination,
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 68: 179192.
, 2010, Human and Musical Sounds and Their Hearing Elsewhere as a Literary Device
in the Biblical Narratives, Vetus Testamentum 60: 565570.
, Solomons Temple Building and Its Divine Approval in the Deuteronomistic and
Chronistic Histories, forthcoming.
, 2012, Kings with Privilege: The Core Source(s) of the Parallel Texts between the
Deuteronomistic and Chronistic Histories, Revue biblique 119: 498517.
, 2013, King Solomon: His Birth and Names in the Second Temple Period Literature,
Biblica 94.
, The Love of God and Royal Apology: Solomons Birth Story in Its Biblical and
Ancient Near Eastern Context, forthcoming.
Kaufmann, Y., Mekibshuna shel Hayitzira Hamikraiet, Tel Aviv 1966 (Hebrew).
van Keulen, P.S.F., Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative: An Inquiry into the Relationship
between MT 1 Kgs 211 and LXX 3 Reg. 211 (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 104),
Leiden and Boston MA, 2005.
Kittel, R., Die Bcher der Chronik bersetzt und erklrt (Handkommentar zum Alten Testa-
ment 6/1), Gttingen 1902.
Klein, R.W., 1 Chronicles: A Commentary (Hermeneia), Minneapolis MN 2006.
Klostermann, A., Die Bcher Samuelis und der Knige (Kurzgefasster Kommentar zu den
heiligen Schriften Alten und Neuen Testaments), ed. H. Strack and O. Zckler, 3. Band,
Nrdlingen 1887.
Lewy, H., 1952, Nitokris-Naqa, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 11: 264286.
Luckenbill, D.D., Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Chicago IL 1927.
Marsman, H.J., Women in Ugarit and Israel: The Social and Religious Position in the Context
of the Ancient Near East (Oudtestamentische Studien 49), Leiden 2003.
Mettinger, T.N.D., Solomonic State Officials (Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament Series 5),
Lund 1971.
Montgomery, J.A. and H.S. Gehman, The Books of Kings (The International Critical Com-
mentary), Edinburgh 1951.
Mosis, R., Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (Freiburger
theologische Studien 92), Freiburg i.Br., Basel and Wien 1973.
Mulder, M.I., 1 Kgs 111 (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament), Leuven 1998.
Myers, J.M., II Chronicles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor
Bible 13), Garden City NY 1965.
North, C.R., 1932, The Religious Aspects of Hebrew Kingship, Zeitschrift fr die Alttesta-
mentliche Wissenschaft 9: 838.
Noth, M., Laasch und Hazrak, in: Aufstze zur biblischen Lands- und Altertumskunde,
vol. 2, 135147, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1971.
, Knige (Biblische Kommentar Altes Testament 9/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1968.
Oswald, W., Nathan der Prophet: Eine Untersuchung zu 2Samuel 7 und 12 und 1Knige 1
(Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten Testaments 94), Zrich 2008.
Paul, S.M., 1968, Deutero-Isaiah and Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions, Journal of the American
Oriental Society 88: 181186 (= idem, Divrei Shalom, 2005, 1122).
, Exodus 1:21: To Found a Family: A Biblical and Akkadian Idiom, Divrei Shalom (Cul-
ture and History of the Ancient Near East 23), 177180, Leiden 2005.
Person, R.F. Jr, The Deuteronomistic History and the Book of Chronicles: Scribal Works in an
Oral World (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 6), Atlanta GA 2010.
Pike, D.M., Before Jeremiah Was: Divine Election in the Ancient Near East, in: K.P. Jack-
son and A.C. Skinner (eds.), A Witness for the Restoration: Essays in Honor of Robert J.
Matthews, 3359, Provo UT 2007.
Poulssen, N., Knig und Tempel im Glaubenszeugnis des Alten Testaments (Stuttgarter Bib-
lische Monographien 3), Stuttgart 1967.
44 isaac kalimi
Pritchard, J.B. (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (= ANET; 3rd
edn. with Supplement), Princeton NJ 1969.
Robinson, J., The First Book of Kings (The Cambridge Bible Commentary), Cambridge
1972.
Rof, A., Introduction to the Literature of the Hebrew Bible (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 9),
Jerusalem 2009.
Rudnig, T.A., Davids Thron: Redaktionskritische Studien zur Geschichte von der Thronnach-
folge Davids (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 358), Berlin
and New York 2006.
Rudolph, W., Chronikbcher (Handbuch zum Alten Testament 21), Tbingen 1955.
Srki, P., Die Weisheit und Macht Salomos in der israelitischen Historiographie: Ein Tradi-
tions- und redaktionskritische Untersuchung ber 1 Kn 35 und 911 (Schriften der Fin-
nischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft 60), Gttingen 1994.
Sperber, A., 1939, Hebrew Based upon Biblical Passages in Parallel Transmission, Hebrew
Union College Annual 14: 153249.
Steed, H.W., The Habsburg Monarchy, New York 1969.
Streck, M., Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Knige bis zum Untergange Ninevehs
(Vorderasiatische Bibliothek), Leipzig 1916.
Tadmor, H., Autobiographical Apology in the Assyrian Royal Literature, in: H. Tadmor
and M. Weinfeld (eds.), History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical
and Cuneiform Literatures (Jerusalem / Leiden 1983), pp. 3657 (reprinted in his col-
lection With my many chariots I have gone up the heights of mountains: Historical and
Literary Studies on Ancient Mesopotamia and Israel [ed. by M. Cogan], Jerusalem 2011,
pp. 6385).
Thackeray, H.St.J. and R. Marcus, Josephus with an English Translation: Jewish Antiquities
Books VVIII (Loeb Classical Library), Cambridge MA and London 1934.
Veijola, T., Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deute-
ronomitischen Darstellung, Helsinki 1975.
Weidner, E. and S. Parpola, Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and
Assurbanipal: Part ITexts (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 5/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn
1970.
Wilda, G., Das Knigsbild des Chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (Dissertation Rheinische
Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitt), Bonn 1959.
Williamson, H.G.M., 1 and 2 Chronicles (The New Century Bible Commentary), Grand
Rapids MI and London 1982.
Wrthwein, E., Das Erste Buch der Knige: Kapitel 116bersetzt und erklrt (Das Alte
Testament Deutsch), Gttingen 1977.
Zalewski, S., Solomons Ascension to the Throne, Jerusalem 1981 (Hebrew).
SOLOMON IN HISTORY AND TRADITION
Pekka Srki
Before the 1990s, the state of the question about Solomon in history
was rather uncomplicated, and one could simply read the historical
data about the king straight from the Hebrew Bible. Since the 1990s,
the situation has changed. Three things have contributed to this: 1. the
minimalist-maximalist dispute; 2. the question of the concept of biblical
archaeology; and 3. the discussion around the dating of the archaeologi-
cal strata from the early monarchy.1
The so-called minimalists contended that many of the biblical books
were composed only in the Hellenistic period. As a consequence, they
argue that the Hebrew Bible is worthless as an historical source and even
that kings such as David and Solomon were fictional characters. Scholars
characterized as minimalists assert that the reliability of the biblical data
must also be verified through extra-biblical sources.2
The deconstructive, sceptical, and even cynical views of the minimal-
ists have been conducive to good counter-arguments. According to the
broad consensus of scholars, most of the historical texts of the Hebrew
Bible came into being between the 9th and the 5th century b.c.e., to some
extent on the basis of oral traditions or written sources. The development
of the texts is a multi-stage process, in which contemporary political, reli-
gious, and cultural factors are reflected. The redactors, for varied reasons,
have coloured the texts and added passages of their own, which they had
found in the tradition or composed themselves. Therefore, one cannot
take all data in the biblical narratives as historically reliable; but it is also
senseless completely to give up on all of the biblical books as an histori-
cal source.
1Srki 2006, 515.
2Lemche 1988; Davies 1992; Thompson 1992. About the discussion, see Finkelstein
and Silberman 2009, 229233. The terms minimalist and maximalist are used by the
opponents to describe the opposite views about the reliability of the Bible as an historical
source. For Lester L. Grabbe the maximalist view implies that everything in the sources
that could not be proved wrong has to be accepted as historical; the minimalist view
means that everything which is not corroborated by evidence contemporary with the
events to be reconstructed is dismissed.
46 pekka srki
Lester L. Grabbe has compared the biblical with the extra-biblical evi-
dence, mostly inscriptions concerning the kings of Israel and Judah. From
Ahab on, the kings are mentioned in the same sequence. However, the
details of the information may differ.3 Therefore, the reliability of the
biblical material, as historical sources, varies. One way to differentiate
authentic material from later reworking is to look for the intention of the
editors/redactors. This can be achieved by a detailed literary-, tradition-,
and redaction-critical analysis.
In 1974 William G. Dever questioned the relevance of the concept of bib-
lical archaeology if it is defined in terms of a means to prove the histori-
cal reliability of the Bible. In reality archaeology and the historical study
of the Bible have their own laws and methods and archaeology is not to
be subordinated to the study of the Bible.4
One often cited example of a priori thoughts on the basis of a bibli-
cal passage, which may lead the archaeologist astray, are the Solomonic
gates. The Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yadin has argued that the cities of
Hazor, Megiddo and Geser had identical six-chambered gates from the
time of Solomon. He reached this conclusion on the basis of 1 Kgs 9:15,
where it is said that Solomon built these three cities.5 Later on it has
become clear that the six-chambered gate was used from the 9th century
on and during the entire period of the monarchy. Yadin had obviously
read too much in the biblical passage.6
A third discussion concerns the so-called high and low chronology of the
10th century. In the beginning of the 1990s Israel Finkelstein had come to
the conclusion that the traditional dating to the end of the 10th century
of the so-called Solomonic excavation strata, with their monumental
architecture, was too early and was based on circular reasoning: strata
3Grabbe 1997, 2526. Finkelstein and Silberman 2009, 2325 also state that the Bible
gives a rather reliable picture of the kings from the 9th century on. Grabbe concludes:
1) We can write a history of ancient Syria-Palestine-Israel; 2) In writing such a history, the
biblical text can and must be used; 3) There are great difficulties of using the biblical text,
so the use of the text needs to be argued for in each case; 4) The use of the archaeological
and biblical sources need to be evaluated each in its own right, and we should avoid to
mix promiscuously textual and other data; 5) Imaginative and speculative reconstructions
should be admitted and we must indicate the probabilities of any hypothesis (1997, 14).
4See Zevit 2002, 29. Some archaeologists prefer to speak of Syro-Palestinian
archaeology.
5Yadin 1972, 147151.
6Srki 1994, 149150; Finkelstein and Silberman 2009, 240242.
solomon in history and tradition 47
with monumental structures, often made of ashlar blocks, and connected
pottery, must stem from Solomon, who according to the Bible was the
great king-architect. Pottery excavated from these strata was again used
as a criteria for the dating of strata on other mounds. According to Fin-
kelstein, one should date these Solomonic remainsmonumental gates,
walls and storage houses and horse stablesto around 850; that is, to the
time of the dynasty of Omri. The traditional dating was about 80100 years
earlier than the new upper dating.7
On the basis of the archaeological evidence, Finkelstein wonders if
the Solomonic kingdom as a state would have been possible in the sec-
ond half of the 10th century. In the northern kingdom the cultivation of
grape vines and olives made it possible to have something like a state.
In the 9th century the dynasty of Omri created a state in the North, which
was quite successful economically and militarily, and which in turn was
the very reason why the Deuteronomistic historian tried to undervalue
the Omri dynasty. But in Judah the land was not fit for agriculture and the
population was still too sparse. In addition, there is no evidence of monu-
mental buildings. According to Finkelstein, Judah first became a state in
the 7th century, after the fall of the northern kingdom as a result of the
Assyrian campaign around 720 when refugees fled in large numbers to
the south and brought with them also the skills and culture needed to
create a state.8
It were scribes and priests from the north, Finkelstein argues, who in
the 7th century began to write the history of the monarchy, including
chronologies and lists of kings. Nevertheless, the Deuteronomistic authors
viewed Judah and its past under the rule of David and Solomon as a glo-
rious and holy era, which king Josiah, the descendant of David, was try-
ing to establish anew. This was the starting point for writing a history in
which the good king Josiah was projected in the past and ancient heroes,
such as Joshua, David and Hezekiah, were given features of Josiah. The
bad kings Ahab and Manasseh were depicted as negative characters, the
opposite of Josiah. The aim and purpose was to show that Josiah con-
quered the enemy, abolished idolatry, and re-established the glory of the
Davidic dynasty.9
7Finkelstein and Silberman 2009, 244246.
8Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, 158159.229235.
9Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, 284. Finkelstein owes much to the theses of the Cross
school about the dating and the aim of the Deuteronomistic history. According to the so-
called Gttingen school (Rudolf Smend, Walter Dietrich, Timo Veijola), the formation of
48 pekka srki
After The Bible Unearthed (2001), Finkelstein has slightly revised his
thesis about the formation of the state of Judah. Strongholds like Lachish,
Beersheba and Arad were large-scale projects that could only be realised
if there was available a sufficient rate of people, wealth and organisation.
They are proof that a state was emerging in Judah at least in the first half
of the 9th century.10 Especially the strongly fortified city of Lachish, whose
conquest around 701 was immortalized by Sennacherib in the reliefs of
Nineveh, offers evidence for the extent and capacity of the population
of Judah in the 8th century. Less than 10 km away from Lachish refugees
hiding in a burial cave at Khirbet Bet Leyy wrote down there curse inscrip-
tions against the Assyrian army, but also a panegyric or a confession of
faith: Yahweh is God of all the earth, the mountains of Judah belong to
the God of Jerusalem. This inscription also illustrates that Jerusalem took
a central place in the cult of Yahweh as early as the 8th century.11
In addition, the stele inscription from Tell Dan shows that an Aramaic
king of the 9th or the 8th century thought it was worth mentioning a vic-
tory over a king of Judah. The House of David is clearly a dynastic name
for Judah and refers to the founder of the dynasty.12
Finkelstein does not share the minimalists sceptical view of the his-
torical value of the Bible, nor the a priori presumption of the maximal-
ists regarding the overall reliability of the biblical narratives as historical
sources. Although the archaeological evidence is silent about Solomon
and the excavations contradict the biblical evidence about the wealth and
glory of Solomons era, Finkelstein does not contest the historicity of Solo-
mon. Many traditions about Solomon presuppose a historical kern. He
was perhaps a local potentate in Judah who reigned in Jerusalem, which is
a far more modest status than the one he received in the Hebrew Bible.13
the Dtr history is rather more complicated, both with regard to its aims and to the various
layers of editing.
10Finkelstein and Silberman 2009, 9495. They refer to D. Ussishkins excavations in
Jerusalem, in the City of David, where he unearthed a stone construction. Ussishkin ver-
mutet, dass im 9. Jahrhundert v. Chr. auf dem Tempelberg in Jerusalem ein Verwaltungs-
komplex hnlich wie in Samaria errichtet wurde, mit einem Palast und einem Tempel.
In a note they add: Was nicht bedeutet, dass hier nicht schon vorher ein Tempel und ein
Palast von bescheidenen Ausmassen gestanden haben knnte, erbaut von den Stammes-
fhrern im Bergland von Judah.
11 Renz and Rllig 1995, 245246; Srki 1997.
12Finkelstein and Silberman 2009, 233.
13Finkelstein is also sceptical about the existence of an independent Late Bronze city-
state in the mountains of Judah for sociological reasons, but he has been criticised for not
taking into account the literary evidence. See Keel 2007, 114.
solomon in history and tradition 49
How did a state look like in the 10th and 9th centuries in Southern Levant?
Our ideas about such a state may be coloured with anachronistic features.
Jamieson-Drake enumerates the attributes of an urban society which with
some certainty can be denoted as a state: 1) full-time specialists; 2) a large
and dense population; 3) a specialized art; 4) writing and numbers;
5) exact sciences; 6) farmers paying taxes; 7) the (geographical) organi-
zation of society through residences; 8) monumental, public buildings;
9) foreign trade; and 10) a socially differentiated society.14
To this I would add an official cult and a royal palace with office-holders.
The Solomon narrative in 1 Kgs contains all of these features. The ques-
tion is, does this narrative correspond to the historical situation in the
10th century or is it a more or less anachronistic reflection of the time in
which it was written and edited during the 7th to the 6th centuries? In my
opinion the Solomon narrative is to some extent an anachronistic reflec-
tion of the authors own context. On the other hand, many of the features
of a state existed already in the 10th century because of the unbroken
inheritance from the Canaanite city state of Jeruschalem, though on a
modest scale, while the population and material wealth were not on a
high level.
The development of Palestine in the direction of a state began already
in the time of David, when he established a permanent royal residence in
Jebusite Jerusalem, which was independent of the tribes. By this means
David became the king of a city on the model of the Bronze Age city-states
in Palestine. The royal functionaries looked after the administration and
created a new social class whose status was no longer tied to affiliation
with family or kinship. Their loyalty was rewarded with landed property,
which signified an engagement in the ownership of the individuals and
restructuring of the society.
A struggle for power between the tribes and the Jerusalem city-state
took place during the succession to Davids throne. Adonijah was the can-
didate of the conservative circle in the country and their supporters were
the champions of the Yahweh-religion. On the contrary, Solomon was
supported by the circle of the Jebusite city-state: the representatives of
the Jerusalem cult, which went back to the Bronze Age, the priest Zadok
and the prophet Nathan, and the mercenaries of Solomon. The mother of
Solomon, Bathsheba, was also part of this group (1 Kgs 1:510.4953).
14Jamieson-Drake 1991, 33.
50 pekka srki
David managed to join together the northern tribes with Judah through
wars against common enemies. The situation changed in the peaceful
reign of Solomon, who was forced to tax the northern tribes more strongly
in order to pay for his building activity and administration. At the same
time, the northern tribes saw less and less reason for loyalty in relation
to the king. The monarchy was legitimate as long as the army was used
for the defence of the population. In a time of peace, the people lost their
motivation for keeping to their civic duties: enforced labour and the pay-
ment of (high) taxes. This picture arises from the Solomon narrative in
1 Kgs 311 and from that about the revolt of Jeroboam in 1 Kgs 12.
Solomon attempted to master the growing unrest in the north. In return
for the taxes that were levied he offered the population (the use of) pub-
lic buildings such as the Temple, a state religion, and a centralized cult.
He abolished the harsh general requirements of military service for free
Israelites and instead established small, effective groups of charioteers for
the control of the northern part of the country. In addition, the partition
of the north into twelve provinces was considered as a means for integrat-
ing the northern tribes into the central administration. The governors in
the provinces also organized the compulsory labour and the maintenance
of the fortresses.15 According to Hermann Michael Niemann, the division
into provinces is the first sign that the rule in this time began partially to
develop itself in the direction of a state from the status of a chiefdom.16
The integrated actions of Solomon were not effective enough and the
unrest in the north grew continuously because of the hard yoke, the
enforced labour and the high taxation. Through Jeroboams revolt,
the northern tribes freed themselves from the rule of the Jerusalemite
city-king.17
Biblical Tradition
The Old Testament image of Solomon is ambivalent. On the one hand, he
enjoys a particular reputation as the sage par excellence and as the builder
of the Temple of Yahweh. On the other hand, there was his sin because of
15Niemann 1993, 1719.
16Niemann 1993, 35. On the other hand, the list of provinces in 1 Kgs 4:719 reflects the
later situation during the great times of North Israel. Finkelstein and Silberman 2009, 145.
See also Kamlah 2001, 5778.
17Dietrich 1986; Srki 1994, 156.
solomon in history and tradition 51
the erection of altars to foreign godswhich was also seen as the reason
for the division of the kingdom.18
Many scholars have divided the Solomon narrative in 1 Kgs 311 into
two parts. The first part is positive and tells about the actions of his rule
and the building of the Temple; the second part is negative because of the
kings sins. But there is little or no consensus about where the positive
part ends and the negative part begins.19
On closer examination it is clear that from the beginning Solomons
splendour is apprised negatively and his wisdom positively. The two main
points stem from two editors, who evaluate the king in different ways. In
the basic text of the first editor (DtrH), the statements about Solomons
splendour at first glance serve his glorification. A more precise exami-
nation in the light of the so-called royal law in Deuteronomy (17:1420)
makes clear the critical intention of the editor. The royal law forbids the
king to increase his possessions (gold, silver, horses and wives). The editor
exaggerates the wealth of Solomon. Likewise, the description of the harsh
enforced labour imposed on the Israelites and of the large quantities of
food that is required for the royal court and for its horses are highly exag-
gerated. These exaggerations are a means to criticize the whole system of
administration as it was organized by the king, which especially oppressed
the farming population in northern Israel.
DtrH has edited the pre-Dtr traditions in such a way that the crime of
Solomon becomes clear. The judgement of Yahweh follows on the offence
against the Law. Jeroboam, the overseer of the enforced labour, raised up
against the king and became the leader of the northern Israelite rebellion,
which led to the division of the Kingdom (1 Kgs 12). With its theological
historiography DtrH provides an explanation for this division: Solomon
had weighed down his subjects with taxes and enforced labour, he looked
more after his own house than after the Temple of Yahweh, and in the end
he transgressed the Law by his search for greater wealth.20
The second redactor (DtrN) sought his additionsabove all the stories
about the kings wisdomin the text of his predecessor DtrH, and created
18Srki 1998, 724.
19On this discussion, see Srki 1996, 83.
20Srki 1994, 244245. Sweeney 1995; 2008, 176 also thinks that the critique of Solo-
mon in the DtrH begins already at the outset of his reign with the portrayal of the machi-
nations by Nathan and Batsheba to bring Solomon to the throne (1 Kgs 12). Veijola 1975,
22.2829 is certainly right in his opinion that the Deuteronomist is trying to cover the
critique of the pre-Dtr story against Solomon with the addition in 1 Kgs 2:19, as if David
had ordered Salomon to commit the murders. See also Wlchli 1999, 104105.
52 pekka srki
his own edition of the text in which the wisdom and the splendour of
Solomon were assessed positively. He criticises Solomon only at the end
of the narrative, in the 11th chapter. Solomons many foreign wives led him
to sin against Lord and to sacrifice on the altars of other gods. On the other
hand, the editor reworked the first part of the narrative (chapters 110)
as a glorification of Solomon. For example, he added passages exonerating
Solomon to counter the anti-Solomonic statements of his predecessor. He
disputed the assertion that Solomon lifted the imposed labour from all
Israel (1 Kgs 5:2732). To the contrary, he asserted that only the remaining
Canaanite population had to suffer forced labour (9:2022). He had found
wisdom traditionsthe stories about the dream in Gibeon, Solomons
wise judgement, and the visit from the Queen of Shebain the pre-Dtr
sources. He reworked these stories and added them to the basic text in
order to indicate that Solomon had divine wisdom and on that account
ruled the people well.21
Accession to the Throne
The way Solomon became king is told in the Succession narrative of David
in 2 Sam 111 Kgs 2. Its critical tone of Solomon is clear from the fact that
this was a man born of Davids and Bathshebas adultery and one who
murdered his political opponents.22
The adultery motif was later obscured by adding the story on the death
of the first and the birth of the second child of David (2 Sam 12:15b24a),
as Timo Veijola has argued. The intention of this later addition was to
conceal the fact that Solomon was born from an adulterous union. In
2 Sam 12:24 Veijola follows the feminine Qere reading, according to which
Bathsheba gave her child the name of Solomon, therefore, his replace-
ment, a commemorative name in view of the dead of Uriah.23
This interpretation is problematic because it tends to ignore the
fact that Bathsheba from the beginning wished to become pregnant by
David and mother of the king, even at the cost of Uriahs life. Thilo Rud-
nig has brought to attention that in the birth narrative the woman acts
21Srki 1994, 246247.
22Solomons mother is portrayed as an adulteress who acquiesces to the murder of her
former husband, Uriah the Hittite, by David in 2 Sam 1012, as Sweeney states it. Later on
Nathan and Bathsheba manipulated David to name Solomon as his successor instead of
the legal hire and elder brother of Solomon, Adonijah (1 Kgs 12). Sweeney 2008, 184.
23Veijola 1979, 231233.
solomon in history and tradition 53
autonomously. According to him, the phrase and she sanctified herself
from her impurity (v. 4), means that Bathsheba cleansed herself after
her menstruation, hence that she wished to become pregnant. Bathsheba
asked servants to bring the message to David: I am pregnant (v. 5). This
is no call of distress but a cry of triumph.24
David attempted to keep his paternity a secret by inviting Uriah to
leave the front and visit his wife in Jerusalem, but it is in vain. Uriah did
not go to Bathsheba but slept outdoors. Bathsheba could perhaps have
saved Uriah, if she had called him to herself. But this did not happen and
David was forced to send Uriah to the front, as the bearer of his own
judgement.
Let us shortly examine once more the origin of Solomons name. Uriahs
replacement is not really a good explanation for the name Bathsheba
gave her firstborn son. One gets the impression from the Succession nar-
rative that the whole Canaanite circle of JerusalemZadok the priest,
Nathan the prophet, foreign mercenaries, Bathsheba from Jerusalem
stood behind Solomons accession to the throne.25
Solomon set aside his older brother Adonijah, who was the legal heir
of the throne. From the theophoric element in the name Adonijah it
becomes clear that he was a loyal representative of the Yahweh religion.
Later, Solomon as well was given a new, more orthodox name Jedidjah
(2 Sam 12:25). Was it because the name Solomon given by Bathsheba was
seen as unsuitable for the King of Israel? What then could be the meaning
of the name Solomon? The old meaning Pacificus, Man of Peace, fits well
with the statement that Solomon had peace on every side (1 Kgs 5:4).26
But could there also be another solution, which better fits Bathshebas
situation?
The etymology of the name Jerusalem is foundation of the god Shalem.
Shalem was the Canaanite solar divinity, probably of the morning dawn
or the evening twilight, and its hypostasis was Venus, the morning or the
24Blenkinsopp 1966, 5253; Rudnig 2006, 50; Srki 2008, 186.
25Keel 2007, 219220. He describes in 222 how the Canaanite party of Jebusite Jeru-
salem managed to have their candidate Solomon put on throne after David. David nahm
zwar als Juder vor rund 3000 Jahren in Jerusalem Residenz. Die Erben seiner Macht aber
waren nicht seine jud. Landsleuten, sondern Salomo, der Sohn Davids und einer Jerusale-
merin, dessen wichtigste Parteignger alteingesessene jerusalemer Stadtbewohner waren,
also Mitglieder jener Volksgruppen, die die atl berlieferung, bes. die dtn-dtr Literatur,
spter unter dem Namen Kanaaner als Kontrastgruppe und Negativfolie zum wahren
Israel hinstellt. In Wirklichkeit ist die religise Tradition Israels eine aspektreiche Verbin-
dung von drflich-jud. und stdtisch-kanaanischen Bruchen und berlieferungen.
26Herzberg 1956, 260.
54 pekka srki
evening star. If this etymology is correct, then the name Solomon might
point to this old Canaanite divinity of pre-Israelite, Jebusite Jerusalem.
In my opinion, this aetiology of Solomon is a proof for the historicity of
a king with that name who reigned in Jerusalem.27 This would also fit
very well with the mentioning of the Canaanite Bathsheba as Solomons
mother. According to Andreas Kunz-Lbcke, Bathsheba is connected
with the theme of the foreign wives of Solomon: Without the influence
of Bathsheba on David, Solomon would certainly not have become king
and, without the influence foreign wives had on him, there would have
not been the relapse into cultic syncretism and it would not have come to
the division of the ten tribes from the Jerusalem monarchy.28
The Sin of Solomon
According to the Old Testament, Solomon had many foreign wives, who
led the old king to worship other gods (1 Kgs 11:18). According to the
Law it was forbidden to marry into a foreign people: You shall not make
marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their
daughters for your sons. For they would turn away your sons from follow-
ing me, to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD would be kindled
against you, and he would destroy you quickly (Dtn 7:34, RSV). King
Solomon with his many foreign wives is a good example of one who has
forsaken the Law.
It is noteworthy that still in the post-exilic period, in Neh 13:2627,
the sin of Solomon is considered as a present-day question and he is
cited in the paraenesis for piety towards the Law as a negative example.
Marriage to foreign wives was understood as a rupture of the covenant
27Jeru Grndung des (Gottes) schalem. Koehler and Baumgartner 1985, 404: Endlich
enthlt, wie schon mehrmals gesagt wurde, der Name Jeruschalems selbst mit dem Ele-
ment Schalem/Schalim den Namen einer solaren Gottheit. Vielleicht ist der Name Salomo
von Schalem herzuleiten (HAL IV 1426). 221: ...den die Jerusalemerin (Bathseba) wahr-
scheinlich nach dem Stadtgott Schalem Schlomo nennt. Keel 2007, 334. There are some
passages in the Old Testament that possibly contain traces of an idea about a king as a star,
born from morning dawn. Of the kings enthronement Psalm 110 says: From the womb
of the morning, like dew, your youth will come to you (v. 3). In his vaticinium ex eventu
oracle Balaam predicts a star shall come out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel
(Num 24:17). It is remarkable that in the following chapter Num 25 it is told how foreign
wives led Israelite men to sacrifice to their own gods. This made the Lord angry and he
punished his people (Num 25:3 // 1 Kgs 11:9). Could Num 25 be a projection of Solomons
sin back into the history of Israel as a comment to the prediction of Balaam about the
future king, who is like a star (Solomon)?
28Kunz-Lbcke 2004, 43.
solomon in history and tradition 55
between Yahweh and Israel, which would call forth the wrath of Yahweh
and lead to exile.
On account of the sin of Solomon the wrath of Yahweh burned, as the
history of Solomon (formulated by DtrP and DtrN) recounts: And the
LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from
the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, and had
commanded him concerning this thing; that he should not go after other
gods; but he did not keep what the LORD commanded. Therefore the
LORD said to Solomon, Since this has been your mind and you have not
kept my covenant and my statutes which I have commanded you, I will
surely tear the kingdom from you and will give it to your servant (1 Kgs
11:911, RSV). Only the tribe of Judah remained for the kings of Judea. The
other tribes formed the northern kingdom of Israel, whose king became
Jeroboam.29
Bibliography
Blenkinsopp, J., Theme and Motif in the Succession History (2 Sam 11,2ff) and the Yahvis-
tic corpus, in: Volume du Congrs de Genve 1965 (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
15), 4457, Leiden 1966.
Davies, P.R., In Search of Ancient Israel (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Sup-
plement Series 148), Sheffield 1992.
Dietrich, W., 1986, Das harte Joch (1 Kn 12,4). Fronarbeit in der Salomo-berlieferung,
Biblische Notizen 34: 716.
Finkelstein, I. and N.A. Silberman, The Bible Unearthed. Archaeologys New Vision of Ancient
Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, New York 2001.
, David und Salomo. Archologen entschlsseln einen Mythos, Mnchen 2009.
Grabbe, L., Are Historians of Ancient Palestine Fellow Creatures or Different Animals?, in:
L. Grabbe (ed.), Can a History of Israel Be Written?, 1936, Sheffield 1997.
Herzberg, H., Die Samuelbcher (Das Alte Testament Deutsch 10), Gttingen 1956.
Jamieson-Drake, D.W., Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah. A Socio-Archaeological
Approach (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series 109), Shef-
field 1991.
Kamlah, J., 2001, Die Liste der Regionalfrsten in 1 Kn 4,719 als historische Quelle fr die
Zeit Salomos, Biblische Notizen 106: 5778.
Keel, O., Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus (Orte und Land-
schaft der Bibel 4/1), Gttingen 2007.
Koehler, L. and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, Leiden 1985.
Kunz-Lbcke, A., Salomo. Von der Weisheit eines Frauenliebhabers, Leipzig 2004.
Lemche, N.P., Ancient Israel, Sheffield 1988.
Niemann, H.M., Herrschaft, Knigtum und Staat. Skizzen zur soziokulturellen Entwicklung
im monarchischen Israel (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 6), Tbingen 1993.
Renz, J. and W. Rllig, Handbuch der althebrischen Epigraphik. Bd. IIII, Darmstadt 1995.
29Srki 2008, 573.
56 pekka srki
Rudnig, T., Davids Thron: Redaktionskritische Studien zur Geschichte von der Thronnach-
folge Davids, Berlin and New York 2006.
Srki, P., Die Weisheit und Macht Salomos in der israelitischen Historiographie. Eine tradi-
tions- und redaktionskritische Untersuchung ber 1 Kn 35 und 911 (Schriften der Fin-
nischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft 60), Helsinki and Gttingen 1994.
, 1996, Die Struktur der Salomogeschichte (1 Kn 111) und die Stellung der Weisheit
in ihr, Biblische Notizen 83: 83106.
, 1997, Hilferuf zu Jahwe aus dem Versteck. Eine neue Deutung der Inschrift ysr mhr
aus Hirbet Bet Ley, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palstina-Vereins 113: 3960.
, Salomo/Salomoschriften, in: Theologische Realenzyklopdie, Bd. XXIX, 724727, Ber-
lin and New York 1998.
, Kuningasajalta. Kirjoituksia Salomosta ja rautakauden piirtokirjoituksista (Publica-
tions of the Finnish Exegetical Society 90), Helsinki 2006.
, Die fremden Frauen in der Familie Judas, in: J. Pakkala and M. Nissinen (eds.),
Houses Full of All Good Things. Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola (Publications of the
Finnish Exegetical Society 95), 184200, Helsinki and Gttingen 2008.
, Ruth und Tamar als fremde Frauen in dem Davidischen Stammbaum, in: A. Voitila
and J. Jokiranta (eds.), Scripture in Transition. Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and
Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Raija Sollamo, 551574, Leiden and Boston MA 2008.
Sweeney, M.A., 1995, The Critique of Solomon in the Josianic Edition of the Deuterono-
mistic History, JBL 114: 607622.
, Synchronic and Diachronic Considerations in the DtrH Portrayal of the Demise of
Solomons Kingdom, in: C. Cohen et al. (eds.), Birkat Shalom. Studies in the Bible, Ancient
Near Eastern Literature and Post-biblical Judaism presented to Shalom M. Paul to his 70.
Birthday, 175189, Winona Lake IN 2008.
Thompson, T., Early History of the Israelite People (Studies in the History of the Ancient
Near East 4), Leiden, New York and Kln 1992.
Veijola, T., Die ewige Dynastie. David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deutero-
nomistischen Darstellung (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B 193), Helsinki
1975.
, Salomoder Erstgeborene Bathsebas in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical
Books of the Old Testament (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 30), 211243, Leiden
1979.
Wlchli, S., Der Weise Knig Salomo. Eine Studie zu den Erzhlungen von der Weisheit Salo-
mos in ihrem alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Kontext (Beitrge zur Wissenschaft
vom Alten und Neuen Testament 141), Stuttgart 1999.
Yadin, Y., Hazor: The Head of All Those Kingdoms, Joshua 11:10 (The Schweich Lectures 1970),
Oxford 1972.
Zevit, Z., 2002, Three Debates About Bible and Archaeology: The Biblical Archaeology
Debate, in Biblica 83: 127.
DER TEMPEL SALOMOS IM KONTEXT DER IKONOGRAPHIE
UND DER ARCHOLOGISCHEN FUNDE
Wolfgang Zwickel
1.Die Zeit des historischen Salomo
Die Bibel stellt Salomo als den neben David groartigsten und bedeu-
tendsten Knig der Frhzeit dar. Er ist trotz der Kritik vor allem an seinen
angeblich 1000 Frauen und der damit verbundenen Offenheit fr fremde
Kulte eine Idealgestalt. Betrachtet man jedoch den historischen Salomo,
so ergibt sich ein anderes Bild. Sein Vater David war eher ein militrischer
Haudegen und autoritr regierender Fhrer als die friedliebende, an Psal-
mendichtung ausgerichtete Gestalt, die uns die Endredaktion des Alten
Testaments bietet. Eine sinnvolle Regierungs- und Verwaltungsstruktur
hatte David seinem Sohn nicht hinterlassen. Dies musste erst aufgebaut
werden, was auch Salomo noch nicht gelang oder gelingen konnte. Erst
im 9. Jh. v.Chr. im Nordreich bzw. im 8. Jh. im Sdreich scheinen ent-
sprechende Strukturen landesweit umgesetzt worden zu sein. Dies zeigt
schon ein berblick ber die Beamten, die dem letzten charismatischen
Fhrer Saul sowie David und Salomo zur Verfgung standen:
Saul David Salomo
Private Dienerschaft
Sauls, angefhrt von
Doeg (1 Sam 21,8)
Leibwache Sauls mit
David als Fh rer (1 Sam
22,14)
Leibwache Kreti und
Pleti mit Benaja als
Fhrer (2 Sam 8,18; 20,23)
(Zusatz?: Heerfhrer
Benajahu (1 Kn 4,4))
Waffentrger Sauls (1 Sam
31,4ff.)
Heerfhrer Abner (1 Sam
14,50f. u..)
Heerfhrer Joab (2 Sam
8,16; 20,23)
Heerfhrer Eliab, Sohn
des Joab (1 Kn 4,6)
Kanzler Jehoschafat
(2 Sam 8,16; 20,24)
Kanzler Jehoschafat
(1 Kn 4,3)
58 wolfgang zwickel
Saul David Salomo
Schreiber Schuscha
(2 Sam 8,17; 20,25)
Schreiber Elichaph
und Achija, Shne des
Schischa (1 Kn 4,3)
Priester Zadok und
Ebjatar (2 Sam 8,17; 20,25)
Priester Asarja, Sohn des
Zadok (1 Kn 4,2);
zu Ebjatar vgl. 1 Kn
2,26; 1 Kn 4,4
Oberaufseher der
Fronarbeit Ado ram (erst
2 Sam 20,24)
Fronaufseher Adoram
(1 Kn 4,6)
Vgte (1 Kn 4,719)
unter der Fh rung von
Asarja (1 Kn 4,5)
Freund des Knigs
Sabud (1 Kn 4,5)
Palastaufseher
Achischar (1 Kn 4,6)
Die bersicht zeigt deutlich, dass unter Saul noch nahezu ausschlielich
der militrische Aspekt relevant fr die Beamtenschaft war. Diese rekru-
tierte sich im Wesentlichen aus dem privaten Umfeld Sauls. David fhrte
als zustzliche mter das des Kanzlers, des Schreibers und des Fronauf-
sehers ein. Die Erwhnung der Priester weist dagegen auf den kultischen
Bereich. Unter Salomo weitete sich die Verwaltung schon etwas aus. Er
bentigte statt einem Schreiber wie unter David schon zwei. Auerdem
fgte er das Amt eines Palastaufsehers und als Berater das des Freun-
des des Knigs ein. Wichtig fr die Verwaltung des ganzen Gebietes war
die Einteilung des Reiches in einzelne Regionen, in denen Vgte, die teil-
weise aus dem unmittelbaren Umfeld des Knigs stammten, eingesetzt
wurden. Damit lie sich das ganze Land dezentral verwalten. Trotzdem
zeigt die geringe Anzahl an Beamten deutlich an, dass es sich um eine
Frhform staatlicher Verwaltung handelte. Die Macht des Knigs war mit
diesem personal sehr begrenzten Team eher gering. Die Verwaltung war
noch allenfalls in Anfngen aufgebaut, was auch die Zahl der Schriftfunde
deutlich zeigt. Die Ortschaften und Stmme hatten weiterhin eine domi-
nante Rolle im Bereich des Rechts und der inneren Organisation inne.
David und sicherlich in gewisser Weise auch Salomo waren vornehmlich
Tabelle (Fortsetz.)
der tempel salomos im kontext der ikonographie 59
militrische Fhrer. Salomo kann aber zugestanden werden, dass er als
erster Anstze einer Verwaltungsstruktur fr das Land umsetzte.
Ohnehin war das Land relativ klein. Schtzungen, die auf der Zahl der
archologisch nachweisbaren Siedlungen beruhen, gehen von etwa 40.000
Menschen im Westjordanland aus. Schon allein diese Zahl macht deut-
lich, dass weder David noch Salomo die alles berragenden Herrscher in
einem mchtigen Reich waren, sondern eher autoritative Fhrergestalten
mit einem recht beschrnkten Einfluss und Machtbereich.
Diese Situation ist nicht unbedingt verwunderlich. Noch zur Zeit Sauls
gab es kein einheitliches Reich Israel, sondern allenfalls ein zeitlich
begrenztes, loses Stmmebndnis, das sich in Kriegszeiten zusammen-
fand und nur unter massivem Druck (vgl. 1 Sam 11) als Gesamtbndnis
Israel auftrat. Juda, ohnehin relativ klein, bildete einen unabhngigen
Stamm mit nur sehr wenigen Einwohnern. Die Stmme wurden von Rich-
tern verwaltet und gefhrt, die je fr ein Stammesgebiet zustndig waren.
Mit dem Knigtum Davids wurden die Stammesstrukturen beibehalten.
Erst Salomo versuchte durch die Einrichtung von Vgten einen Ersatz fr
die Richter zu schaffen. Trotzdem blieben die Stammesstrukturen noch
weitgehend intakt und bestimmten das gesellschaftliche Leben. Erst nach
Salomo scheinen in den Stdten Beamte eingesetzt worden zu sein, die
eine gewisse Kontrollfunktion auf lokaler Ebene ausbten. Derartige
Stadthauptmnner werden im Alten Testament zwar erst in 2 Kn 23,8
erwhnt, sind aber schon im 9. Jh. epigraphisch belegt.1 Die Zeit Davids
und Salomos ist damit noch stark von dem bergang einer Stammesge-
sellschaft zu einem Territorialstaat geprgt.
Trotzdem sollte man die Aktivitten des Salomo nicht zu gering scht-
zen. In den letzten Jahren wurde immer wieder betont, dass erst mit den
Omriden eine ausgeprgte Verwaltung und ein funktionierender Han-
del existierten. Legt man das Hauptaugenmerk auf die Frage, ab wann
man von wirklich entwickelten Strukturen sprechen kann, dann trifft dies
zweifelsohne zu. Aber weder auenpolitische Kontakte noch Handelsbe-
ziehungen noch Verwaltungsstrukturen lassen sich innerhalb kurzer Zeit
schaffen. Ein Handelsprodukt in einer kurzen Zeitspanne international
erfolgreich zu machen, ist eine Entwicklung des 20. Jh.s n.Chr. mit sei-
ner fr unsere Zeit so typischen Schnelllebigkeit. Trotzdem erfordert dies
selbst in unserer Zeit eine gewisse Infrastruktur und einen guten finan-
ziellen Hintergrund, ohne den sich ein Produkt nicht im groem Mae
1Vgl. Renz and Rllig 1995, 54f. KAgr(9):2 sowie Avigad 1997, No. 402.
60 wolfgang zwickel
vermarkten liee. Traditionell erfordert es Jahrzehnte, bis man nicht nur
ein Produkt zur Marktreife entwickelt, sondern auch Handelsbeziehungen
und Handelswege aufgebaut hat. Die Zeit Salomos ist noch geprgt von
einer Gesellschaft, in der es kaum Spezialisten gab. Selbst die Fachleute
fr den Tempelbau mussten aus Phnizien geholt werden (1 Kn 7,13f.)
sicherlich eine glaubwrdige historische Notiz, denn sie glorifiziert ja
gerade nicht Juda und Israel, sondern macht deren Rckstndigkeit in
kultureller Hinsicht mehr als deutlich. So scheint es durchaus glaubwr-
dig, dass Salomo innovativ dachte und neue Produkte auf den Markt
bringen wollte. Der Versuch, auf dem Roten Meer eine Handelsschifffahrt
mit Hilfe der Phnizier aufzubauen (1 Kn 9,2628; 10,11), knnte durch-
aus glaubwrdig sein, zumal zu seiner Zeit auch noch das benachbarte
edomitische Gebiet unter seiner Kontrolle war und damit die Wegfh-
rung von Elat nach Arad sicher schien. Die hauptschlichen Aktivitten
drften dabei jedoch in den Hnden der Phnizier gelegen haben, wh-
rend Salomo wohl nur den Hafen in Elat bzw. Ezion-Geber zur Verfgung
stellte. Leider lsst sich dies heute durch archologische Untersuchungen
nicht mehr sicher beweisen.2 Gleiches gilt fr die Handelsaktivitten mit
Pferden (1 Kn 10,28f.). Es ist sehr wohl wenngleich von vielen Leuten
heute bestritten vorstellbar, dass die Anfnge einer Pferdezucht und
-ausbildung bereits auf die Zeit Salomos zurckgeht. David scheint noch
keine Verwendung fr Streitwagenheere gehabt zu haben, wohl auch
dadurch bedingt, dass weite Bereiche seines Herrschaftsgebietes im Berg-
land liegen. Er lhmte vielmehr die eroberten Pferde, um sie so fr die
Kriegsfhrung untauglich zu machen (2 Sam 8,4). Internationale Kontakte
nach gypten einerseits und nach Phnizien andererseits sind fr David
nicht sicher belegt, auch keine kriegerischen Auseinandersetzungen mit
diesen Nachbarvlkern. Fr David war die innerpalstinische Einigung
und Herrschaftskontrolle vorrangiges politisches Ziel. Dies drfte sich mit
Salomo ein Stck weit gendert haben. Da es zu seiner Zeit keine nach-
haltigen Auseinandersetzungen mit den Philistern mehr gegeben hat,
entstanden die Rahmenbedingungen fr einen internationalen Handel,
2Die Grabungen in Tell el-Khlefe, dem Handelsplatz am Nordufer des Roten Meeres,
sind leider nicht aussagekrftig genug, da ein Groteil der Keramik nicht mehr zur Verf-
gung steht; vgl. Practico 1993. In Jezirat Faraun, dem biblischen Ezion Geber (1 Kn 9,26;
22,49), knnte es eine menschliche Prsenz zur Zeit Salomos durchaus gegeben haben; die
Untersuchungen sind aber auch hier nahezu unverffentlicht und nicht besonders aus-
sagekrftig. Ohnehin sollte man vorsichtig sein bezglich der zu genauen Datierung von
Ortschaften allein mit Hilfe der Archologie. Die noch immer nicht geklrte Diskussion
um die High- und Low-Chronology warnt vor einer berschtzung archologischer Datie-
rungen fr die Geschichte Israels.
der tempel salomos im kontext der ikonographie 61
der ja wegen der geographischen Lage Palstinas zwangslufig durch das
philistische Territorium verlaufen musste. Die innovative Idee, Pferde-
zucht und -handel durchzufhren, bentigte aber einen Jahrzehnte lan-
gen Vorlauf. Erfahrene Tiertrainer mussten angeworben, eine Ausbildung
fr den Trainernachwuchs aufgebaut werden.3 Auerdem bentigte man
geeignete Pferde und Handwerker fr die Streitwagen. Stlle und Trai-
ningsareale, wie sie inzwischen fr Megiddo nach langer Diskussion
jetzt doch nachgewiesen zu sein scheinen,4 stehen erst am Schlusspunkt
dieser Entwicklung. Da aber in einer glaubwrdigen Notiz bereits wenige
Jahre nach Salomo Streitwagenfhrer in Israel existierten (2 Kn 8,21), ist
es durchaus vorstellbar, dass die Anfnge der diesbezglichen Aktivit-
ten in die Zeit Salomos fallen. Trifft dies zu, dann war er ein innovativer
Kopf, der den gerade erst entstandenen Territorialstaat, den er von sei-
nem Vater geerbt hat, zu einer international vernetzten Macht ausbauen
wollte. Im Gegensatz zum traditionellen biblischen Bild Salomos liegen
aber in seiner Regierungszeit erst die Anfnge fr eine Entwicklung, deren
Frchte im 9. Jh. v.Chr. zu finden sind.
Dabei scheint Salomo kein absolut genialer Kopf gewesen zu sein.
Zumindest im Bereich der Auenpolitik berichten uns Texte von herben
Rckschlgen (1 Kn 11,1424). Auch im Bereich der Innenpolitik entstand
offenbar eine kritische Situation, die zu Unruhen und Revolten fhrte, die
er niederzuhalten suchte (1 Kn 11,2540). Sieht man jedoch den histo-
rischen Salomo auf dem soeben skizzierten Hintergrund, dann kann er
durchaus als der Grndervater einer (wenngleich nur regional relevan-
ten) Wirtschaftsmacht gelten. Die sptere Verherrlichung Salomos beruht
demnach auf dem Samen, die zu seiner Zeit gelegt wurden und erst Jahr-
zehnte spter unter den Omriden erblhten.
2.Der Salomonische Tempel auf dem Hintergrund
der zeitgeschichtlichen Entwicklung
Der Bericht vom Tempelbau Salomos spielt auf diesem Hintergrund eine
besondere Rolle. Wenn der diesbezgliche biblische Text wirklich aus der
Zeit Salomos stammt, dann ist er ein deutliches Zeichen dafr, wie sich
das allmhlich etablierende Knigtum verstanden fhlen wollte. Kleider
3ber die komplizierte Trainingsarbeit mit Pferden informieren uns hethitische und
assyrische Texte; vgl. z.B. Raulwing and Meyer 2004, 491506.
4Cantrell and Finkelstein 2006, 643665.
62 wolfgang zwickel
machen Leute, so lautet der Titel eines Buches von Gottfried Keller. Ent-
sprechend knnte man beim Nachweis einer entsprechenden Datierung
sagen Tempel (und Palste) machen Knige. Ein Knigtum, das seine
Macht und Bedeutung in der Gesellschaft prsentieren wollte, musste ent-
sprechende Bauten errichten.
Die derzeit in der Forschung diskutierte Frage ist, ob wir ein derart
etabliertes Knigtum schon in der Zeit Salomos finden oder aber erst im
nachfolgenden Jahrhundert unter den Omriden oder sogar noch spter.
Daher soll in einem ersten Teil der nachfolgenden Darlegung der Frage
nach einer Datierung von 1 Kn 6f. nachgegangen werden. Hierbei sollen
archologische und exegetische Argumente miteinander kombiniert wer-
den. Eine Literarkritik zu dem Text sowie eine ausfhrliche Begrndung
zu der bersetzung der Grundschicht (s. dazu die im Anhang wiedergege-
bene Textfassung) wurde an anderer Stelle geboten5 und kann hier nicht
neu diskutiert werden, zumal der Text zu den schwierigsten des gesamten
Alten Testaments gehrt. In einem zweiten Teil sollen die inhaltlichen
und theologischen Aspekte des Tempelbaus mit seinen Gertschaften
nher betrachtet werden.
Zunchst muss betont werden, dass der Text in 1 Kn 6f. stark litera-
risch berarbeitet wurde. Die Bedeutung Salomos wurde glorifiziert, es
gibt kommentierende Glossen und sicherlich auch Ergnzungen, die ein
spteres Baustadium des Tempels wiederspiegeln. Die berarbeitungen
berwiegen jedoch mengenmig nicht, sondern sind eher in der Min-
derheit.
Wie alt ist nun aber dieser Grundtext? In den vergangenen Jahren
wurde immer wieder u.a. von van Seters und seinen Schlern die Mei-
nung vertreten, 1 Kn 6f. sei deuteronomistisch und stamme damit aus
der Zeit des Babylonischen Exils.6 Fr die heutige Fassung des Textes mit
seinen Ergnzungen und redaktionellen Bearbeitungen mag das durchaus
zutreffen, auch wenn einige der redaktionellen Einfgungen sicherlich
auch aus der nachexilischen Zeit stammen knnen. Fr den Grundtext
trifft dies aber auf keinen Fall zu. Dieser muss zumindest aus der Zeit des
8. Jh. v.Chr. stammen und ist wahrscheinlich, wie gleich noch ausfhrt
wird, noch lter. Der Grund hierfr ist zunchst einmal die Beschreibung
des ehernen Meeres (1 Kn 7,2326), dieses groen berdimensionierten
5Zwickel 1999. In diesem Buch habe ich die hier vertretene Argumentation breit dar-
gestellt. Fr Einzelargumentationen muss daher auf dieses Werk und die dort angegebene
Literatur generell verwiesen werden.
6Vgl. z.B. McCormick 2002.
der tempel salomos im kontext der ikonographie 63
Beckens, das auf 12 Rindern stand und vor dem Tempel aufgestellt worden
war. In 2 Kn 16,17 wird erwhnt, dass das eherne Meer zur Zeit des jud-
ischen Knigs Ahas, der von 736725 v.Chr. regierte, von eben diesen Rin-
dern heruntergehoben und auf einen gepflasterten Steinfuboden gestellt
wurde. Es gibt keinen Grund, an dieser Notiz als einer historischen Notiz
zu zweifeln. Der Grund fr diese Aktion war sicherlich nicht oder nicht
in erster Linie, dass man das Metall der Tiere als Abgabe an den Assy-
rerknig Tiglatpileser bentigte. Vielmehr drfte das aufkommende Bil-
derverbot, das wir z.B. beim Propheten Hosea im Nordreich Israel schon
vorher fassen knnen, hier eine Rolle gespielt haben. Die Rinder konnte
man als Darstellung des kmpferischen Aspekts Jahwes verstehen und
damit gewissermaen auch als Bild von YHWH selbst. Daher verzichtete
man wohl in dieser Zeit auf sie. Das groe Becken des ehernen Meeres,
das den Swasserozean symbolisierte, gengte allein auch ohne die
untersttzende Bedeutung der Rinder. Wir werden auf die Symbolik des
ehernen Meeres noch einmal eingehen.
Wenn nun seit dem spten 8. Jh. die Rinder nicht mehr existierten, dann
ist es nahezu unmglich, dass der entsprechende Text mit der Angabe der
Rinder erst im 6. Jh. geschrieben worden sein soll. Die Erinnerung an die
ursprnglich vorhandenen Rinder ging sicherlich schnell verloren, und so
knnen wir annehmen, dass der Grundtext auf jeden Fall im 8. Jh. oder
frher geschrieben worden war. Das schrnkt die Abfassungszeit schon
erheblich ein: auf das spte 10. bis spte 8. Jh. v.Chr.
Nun ist es relativ schwierig, in dieser Zeit genauere Eingrenzungen
durch die Verbindung zwischen Archologie und Exegese zu machen. Wir
haben sicherlich in diesen rund 200 Jahren einige kulturelle Entwicklun-
gen. Archologen sind aber immer dankbar fr Zerstrungshorizonte. Sie
beenden eine Epoche und begraben unter einer Brandschicht die Funde
der vorangehenden Zeit. In der Regel stammt die Keramik, die unter
einer Brandschicht aufgefunden wird, aus der jngeren und jngsten Ver-
gangenheit vor der Zerstrung. Keramik ist zerbrechlich und nicht lang-
lebig, und daher fr Datierungszwecke sehr gut verwendbar. Wertvolle
Gegenstnde wie die groen Kupfergertschaften, von denen uns das
Alte Testament im Zusammenhang mit dem Tempel Salomos berichtet,
werden dagegen weniger leicht beschdigt und berleben leicht mehrere
Generationen. Da wir im 10.-8. Jh. v.Chr. kaum kriegerische Auseinander-
setzungen haben nur Schoschenk fhrte im 10. Jh. einen Feldzug nach
Palstina durch, der aber bislang archologisch noch immer nicht genau
erfasst werden kann , haben wir an vielen Orten Syriens und Palstinas
ein Kontinuum von luxuriseren Gegenstnden, deren genaue Datierung
64 wolfgang zwickel
innerhalb der zwei Jahrhunderte mit archologischen Argumenten nicht
oder kaum mglich ist. Nahezu alle Vergleichsstcke aus dem levantini-
schen Raum fr die Gertschaften am Jerusalemer Tempel knnen aus
dem ganzen Spektrum dieser zwei Jahrhunderte stammen, weil wir an
kaum einem Ort eine Zerstrungsschicht haben, die sicher datiert wer-
den kann. Erst mit den assyrischen Eroberungen in Palstina 733 und 722
v.Chr. haben wir unter archologischen Gesichtspunkten wieder einen
sicheren Boden unter den Fen.
Trotzdem gibt es einige Hinweise, die uns helfen, die Datierung des
Grundtextes weiter einzugrenzen. Der Begriff, der in diesem Text fr den
in den Tempel eingebauten Schrein verwendet wird, lautet debr (1 Kn
6,5 u..). Dieser Begriff ist ein Lehnwort aus dem gyptischen und wird
dort fr einen hlzernen Gtterschrein verwandt. Ein derartiger hlzerner
Einbau in einen Tempel ist fr Palstina ein vllig fremdes Bauelement.
Traditionell wurden Podien fr die Markierung des besonders heiligen
Ortes in einem Tempel verwandt, aber auch Nischen wurden in der Mit-
tel- und Sptbronzezeit als syrischer Einfluss gebruchlich.7 Schreine sind
dagegen ein typisches Element des gyptischen Kultbaus, so dass nicht
nur die Bezeichnung, sondern auch der Schrein selber eine Anknpfung
an gyptische Traditionen darstellt. Die Integration eines gyptischen
Bauelements stellt eine vllige Neuerung dar und ist nur dann vorstell-
bar, wenn der judische Knig enge kulturelle Beziehungen nach gypten
hatte. Hinzufgen kann man, dass der Palastbau Salomos, wie er in 1 Kn
7,112 beschrieben wird, aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach auch an einem
gyptischen Vorbild orientiert war. Er bestand aus einem Libanonwald-
haus, vergleichbar dem Sulenhof gyptischer Tempel und Palste, die in
ihren Grundstrukturen hnlich waren. In axialer Ausrichtung folgte die
Sulenhalle, die dem Sulensaal gyptens entspricht. Die Gerichtshalle ist
vergleichbar mit dem Thronsaal in gyptischen Palsten bzw. dem Opfer-
tisch- und Gastgttersaal in gypten. Der an diesen Baukomplex ange-
baute Wohnbau, der mit den privaten Rumen in gyptischen Palsten
bzw. mit dem Sanktuar in gyptischen Tempeln verglichen werden kann,
schloss die Bausubstanz ab. Hier scheint es also starke kulturelle Kontakte
gegeben zu haben. Wann aber gab es derart enge Beziehungen in der Zeit
zwischen dem 10. und 8. Jh. v.Chr.?
Der biblischen berlieferung nach gab es zur Zeit Salomos gute Beziehun-
gen zwischen gypten und Israel/Juda auch wenn die Glaubwrdigkeit
7Vgl. hierzu Zwickel 2003, 311319.
der tempel salomos im kontext der ikonographie 65
dieser Angaben manchmal in Frage gestellt wurde. Nach biblischer Tradi-
tion war Salomo mit einer gyptischen Knigstochter verheiratet (1 Kn
3,1; 7,8; 9,16.24; 11,1) und bekam die Stadt Gezer vom Pharao als Mitgift fr
diese Heirat (1 Kn 9,16). Auerdem soll er Handelskontakte mit gypten
gepflegt haben (1 Kn 10,28f.). Das Verhltnis zwischen gypten und Juda
drfte sich nach der Reichsteilung stark abgekhlt haben. Der Feldzug des
Pharao Schoschenk, der nach der biblischen Chronologie zur Zeit Reha-
beams stattfand (1 Kn 14,25), konzentrierte sich zwar vornehmlich auf
das Nordreich und den Negev. Dass das Gebiet Judas ausgelassen wurde,
wie die Feldzugsliste deutlich zeigt, kann hinlnglich mit der alttesta-
mentlichen Notiz verbunden werden, dass die Juder ihm Tribut leistete
(1 Kn 14,26). Es gibt keinen Grund, an der Historizitt dieser Notiz zu
zweifeln. Gab es aber eine Abhngigkeit Judas durch Tributzahlungen,
wird man kaum die gyptische Kultur als Vorbild fr die eigenen Bauten
verwendet haben. Dies setzt vielmehr eine friedliche, ja freundschaftliche
Koexistenz voraus. In der Zeit vor Salomo drften die Beziehungen sehr
abgekhlt gewesen sein. Kein Pharao nach Ramses III. (11871156 v.Chr.),
zu dessen Regierungszeit die Seevlker in Palstina Fu fassten, betrieb
in den folgenden 200 Jahren eine aktive Auenpolitik Richtung Palstina.
Die Philister hatten sich selbststndig gemacht, die gyptische Ober-
hoheit abgeschttelt und waren ein eigener Machtblock geworden, der
jegliche berregionalen Handelsbeziehungen und politischen Kontakte
blockierte. Ich sehe archologisch und historisch keinen Grund, an der
biblischen Aussage zu zweifeln, dass es David gelang, die philistischen
Expansionsbemhungen zu zerschlagen, die bis ins judische und israe-
litische Bergland hinein sich ausbreiteten. Mit der Zurckdrngung der
Philister waren aber erstmals wieder intensivere Kontakte mit gypten
mglich, und die scheint Salomo genutzt zu haben, wenn auch in einem
sicherlich recht bescheidenen Mae.
Fr die Folgezeit nach Salomo wissen wir nichts ber enge gyptische
Beziehungen nach Palstina. Zwar gehrt Palstina zum kulturellen Ein-
flussbereich gyptens, intensivere Kontakte scheint es aber nach Scho-
schenk nicht gegeben zu haben. gypten scheint sich aber vornehmlich
mit innenpolitischen Problemen beschftigt zu haben, so dass von engen
kulturellen Beziehungen kaum die Rede sein drfte. Vielmehr scheint
sich gypten im 8. Jh. sogar ausdrcklich stark zurckgehalten zu haben,
wenn es um eine politische und militrische Einflunahme in Palstina
ging, obwohl dies vom Staat Israel durchaus gewnscht war. Erst 609
v.Chr. begann wieder eine kurze Phase intensiven gyptischen Einflusses
auf Palstina, aber dieses Datum ist sicherlich zu jung fr die Abfassung
66 wolfgang zwickel
von 1 Kn 6f. Damit lsst sich zwar nicht sicher beweisen, aber doch
wahrscheinlich machen, dass die fr den Tempelbau notwendigen engen
Beziehungen Jerusalems nach gypten am ehesten typisch fr die Zeit
Salomos sind.
hnlich gilt das auch fr die Beziehungen Jerusalems zu Tyrus. Nach
1 Kn 7,13.40 kam mit Hiram von Tyrus ein Erzhandwerker nach Jerusa-
lem, um die Metallgertschaften herstellen zu lassen. Dass die Phnizier
in einen Handel mit Salomo traten, ihm Holz fr den Tempelbau liefer-
ten, scheint glaubwrdig. Salomo bezahlte dafr mit der Landschaft Kabul
(1 Kn 8,1014). Dabei scheint es sich um die Ebene von Akko zu han-
deln, die in etwa dem Siedlungsgebiet des biblischen Stammes Ascher
entspricht. Die Erzhlung 1 Kn 18 setzt auf jeden Fall voraus, dass im 9.
Jh. v.Chr. der Karmel die Grenze zwischen Israel und dem Phniziergebiet
war. Zudem scheinen in der nachsalomonischen ra die Beziehungen von
Tyrus vor allem zu Israel eng gewesen zu sein, nicht aber zu Juda, wo nach
der Reichsteilung der Tempel stand.
Besonders interessant ist die Erwhnung in 1 Kn 7,46, wonach Hiram
von Tyrus die Metallgertschaften im Gebiet zwischen Sukkot und Zare-
tan herstellen lie. Sukkot kann mit Tell Der Alla (Koord. 208.178) im Jor-
dangraben identifiziert werden. Zaretan muss in der Nhe gelegen haben.
Nach der Reichsteilung gehrte Tell Der Alla zweifelsfrei zum Gebiet des
Nordreichs Israel und nicht zum Sdreich Juda. Vorausgesetzt, die Lokal-
angabe stimmt, wonach dort die Metallgertschaften hergestellt wurden,
so wre es hchst verwunderlich, wenn sie in Israel hergestellt, durch
Israel transportiert und schlielich nach Juda bzw. konkret nach Jerusa-
lem gebracht worden wren. Ein solcher Vorgang ist nur vorstellbar in
einer Zeit, in der Sukkot in der Hand desselben Herrschers war wie der
Bestimmungsort Jerusalem und das ist eben die Zeit Salomos.
Dass das Erz im Jordangraben, und noch dazu auf ostjordanischer Seite,
verarbeitet wurde, mag auf den ersten Blick berraschen bzw. unverstnd-
lich wirken. In Jerusalem selbst wre jedoch die Metallverarbeitung nicht
mglich gewesen, weil keine ausreichende Temperatur fr die Schmelz-
vorgnge erreicht werden konnte. Man whlte hierfr das Gebiet im Jor-
dangraben, da die dortigen Fallwinde eine hhere Temperatur in den
Schmelzfen erlaubten. Dank der Ausgrabungen in Tell Der Alla wissen
wir auch, dass es eben an diesem Ort in Phase AD, die in die Eisenzeit I
datiert wird, ein Metallverarbeitungszentrum gab.8 Fr die Zeit Salomos
8van der Kooij 1993, 340.
der tempel salomos im kontext der ikonographie 67
wissen wir zwar nichts Genaues ber Metallverarbeitung an diesem Ort.
Da aber hier in der Nhe auch die einzige bisher bekannte bedeutendere
Eisenmine existierte,9 wird man annehmen drfen, dass auch in der Zeit
um 1000 v.Chr. hier Metallverarbeitung betrieben wurde. Somit spricht
also viel dafr, dass auch die Angabe, dass gerade hier die Gertschaf-
ten hergestellt wurden, eine historisch zuverlssige Information aus der
Zeit Salomos ist, auch wenn der Transport hinauf nach Jerusalem extrem
beschwerlich war. Aber hier im Jordangraben scheinen die Spezialisten fr
die Metallverarbeitung gewohnt zu haben, die allein in der Lage waren,
derart aufwndige Gertschaften herzustellen, und daher musste man sich
an ihnen und nicht am Bestimmungsort der Waren orientieren. Sie ben-
tigten hierfr ihre Schmelzfen und Verarbeitungsgertschaften, die sich
nicht ohne weiteres von einem Ort an den anderen transportieren lieen.
Dass man in der damaligen Zeit schon in der Lage war, so groe Gert-
schaften zu gieen, wie sie im salomonischen Tempel vorhanden waren,
zeigten die Ausgrabungen in Tell ed-Daba, der biblischen Ramsesstadt aus
dem Exodusbuch, wo entsprechend groe Anlagen freigelegt wurden.
Schlielich muss auch noch darauf hingewiesen werden, dass nur zur
Zeit Salomos eine Mglichkeit bestand, ausreichend Kupfer zur Verfgung
zu haben. Juda war kein besonders reiches Land, das in der Lage gewe-
sen wre, in groem Mae wertvolle Gter wie Kupfer zu importieren.
Salomo kontrollierte aber anfangs noch das Gebiet des Stammes Edom.
1 Kn 11,1422.25 berichtet vom Abfall der Edomiter aus dem Herrschafts-
gebiet Salomos. Mehrere archologische Expeditionen (unter der Leitung
von Andreas Hauptmann, Volkmar Fritz und vor allem neuerdings Tho-
mas Levy) haben in jngerer Vergangenheit berzeugend gezeigt, dass
im Bereich von Fenan, das im Gebiet Edoms liegt, bis ins 10. Jh. hinein
intensiv Kupfer abgebaut wurde, dann aber der Kupferabbau aufgegeben
wurde. Zunehmend wurde das Kupfer aus Zypern wieder billiger, da der
internationale Mittelmeerhandel wieder dank der Aktivitten der Phni-
zier an Bedeutung gewann. Der Abbau im Gebiet von Fenan lie sich nur
so lange sinnvoll aufrecht erhalten, wie der Bedarf Salomos so gro war,
dass er von den zyprischen Abbaugebieten nicht gewhrleistet werden
konnte und zudem die politischen Gegebenheiten im Gebiet Edoms fr
Salomo gnstig waren. Mit der Abspaltung Edoms vom salomonischen
Herrschaftsbereich (1 Kn 11,14ff.) fehlten aber auch die Handelsverbin-
dungen, um den Kupferabbau weiterhin sinnvoll betreiben zu knnen.
9al-Amri 2007.
68 wolfgang zwickel
Somit gibt es eine ganze Reihe von Argumenten, die deutlich machen,
dass der Grundtext von 1 Kn 6f. wirklich die Verhltnisse zur Zeit Salo-
mos wiedergibt und damit drfte er auch aus eben dieser Zeit oder
allenfalls aus der Frhzeit Rehabeams stammen, denn spter wurden der-
art konkrete Angaben, die dann ja nicht mehr zutreffend waren, sicherlich
vergessen.
Ein letzter Hinweis auf die Entstehungszeit des Textes beschftigt
sich mit der Gattung der Grunderzhlung der Salomo-berlieferung.
Die Mescha-Inschrift aus dem 9. Jh. gliedert sich in Baumanahmen des
Knigs (Z. 2127) und in militrische Kampagnen (Z. 2831). Beides gehrt
zu den wesentlichen Aufgaben eines Knigs: Schaffung von Infrastruktur
einerseits und auenpolitische Erfolge andererseits. Vom Stil her ist die
berlieferung Salomos hnlich aufgebaut. Sie enthlt Baumanahmen
wie den Tempel- und Palastbau (1 Kn 67), aber auch Angaben ber die
Auenpolitik. Somit entspricht die Berichterstattung ber Salomo zumin-
dest in einer weitgehend rekonstruierbaren Grundform dem, was auf
Grund altorientalischer Paralleltexte dieser Epoche zu erwarten ist.
3.Die Ikonographie der Gertschaften im Tempel Salomos
Nachdem nun die Abfassungszeit der Grundschicht von 1 Kn 6f. geklrt
ist, soll in einem zweiten Schritt auf die Symbolik des Tempelbaus und
der Tempelgertschaften eingegangen werden, um die Tempeltheologie
des Jerusalemer Tempels nher zu erheben.
Zunchst einmal zum Tempelbau selbst. Hierfr liegen zwei separate
vordeuteronomistische Texte vor: die Baubeschreibung einerseits, die
sich an den einzelnen Bauelementen orientiert, und die Bauerzhlung
andererseits. Die Bauerzhlung ist Teil des ursprnglichen Tempelbaube-
richts, die Baubeschreibung wurde in diesen Text eingearbeitet und stellte
ursprnglich eine selbststndige Quelle dar. Der Bauerzhlung muss die
Baubeschreibung vorgelegen haben, denn dieser Text wurde in die Erzh-
lung integriert bzw. die in der Baubeschreibung enthaltenen Elemente
wurden nicht noch einmal in der Bauerzhlung erwhnt.
Der Tempel ist ein Langraum im Verhltnis 3:1 bei den Innenmaen
(Abb. 1). Bei keinem anderen Tempel Palstinas ist das Verhltnis von
Lnge zu Breite so stark wie beim Jerusalemer Tempel. Mit diesem Ver-
hltnis ist aber auch eine inhaltliche Aussage verbunden. Grundstzlich
gibt es drei Mglichkeiten, einen Kultraum zu gestalten, mit jeweils
unterschiedlicher theologischer Relevanz (Abb. 2). Bei einem Breitraum
der tempel salomos im kontext der ikonographie 69
ist man der Stelle besonderer Heiligkeit, auf der normalerweise ein Gt-
terbild aufgestellt war, besonders nahe. Hier wird die rumliche Nhe zwi-
schen Beter und Gottheit durch die Architektur besonders betont. Genau
das Gegenteil ist bei einem Langraum der Fall. Hier wird, wie etwa bei
gotischen Domen, die Distanz zwischen Gottheit und Beter hervorgeho-
ben. Ein Sonderfall ist dann noch der sog. Knickachstempel, bei dem man
seitlich in ein Gebude hineintritt und sich erst im Inneren der Gottheit
durch einen Schwenk um 90 zuwenden kann.
Der Salomonische Tempel betont also extrem die Distanz zwischen
Beter und Gottheit mehr als jeder andere Tempel der Region in dieser
Abb. 1.W. Zwickel, Der salomonische Tempel, Mainz 1999, S. 94 Abb. 47.
Abb. 2.Ebd., S. 93 Abb. 46.
70 wolfgang zwickel
Zeit. Damit ordnet sich der Tempelbau in eine Theologie ein, die wir
auch an anderen Stellen des Alten Testaments deutlich erkennen knnen:
YHWH, der Gott Israels, ist ein heiliger, unnahbarer und unzugnglicher
Gott.10 Es sei hier nur an zwei Texte des Alten Testaments erinnert, die
genau dies zum Ausdruck bringen. Nach 2 Sam 6, einem im Grundtext
recht alten Text aus dem 10. Jh. v.Chr., will der Priestersohn Uzza die Lade
halten, die von einem Transportwagen herabzustrzen drohte. Die Lade
war Symbol fr die Prsenz Gottes. Die gutgemeinte Tat des Uzza war
aber verwerflich: Er war YHWH zu nahe gekommen und starb deshalb
unmittelbar an dieser Stelle. Und auch in Ex 19,23 gebietet YHWH, den
Berg Sinai einzugrenzen, damit niemand vom Volk den Berg hinaufsteige
und der Heiligkeit Gottes zu nahe komme.
Die Gestaltung des Tempelbaus machte also deutlich, dass YHWH ein
heiliger Gott war. Was in anderen Texten theologisch durch Erzhlun-
gen ausgedrckt wurde, wird in der Architektur anschaulich manifest
gemacht.
Die Unnahbarkeit wird auch dadurch deutlich gemacht, dass YHWH
ein Heiligtum im Heiligtum hat. Der debr ist ein eigener Gtterschrein,
der noch einmal separat verschlossen werden konnte. Wer in den Tem-
pel tritt, und das war in vorexilischer Zeit offenbar allen Kultteilnehmern
mglich, steht vor einem eigenen Gtterschrein, der separat verschlossen
werden konnte. Der debr ist eine Aufnahme gyptischer Traditionen, ver-
mischt mit kanaanischen Traditionen. In gyptischen Tempeln gab es
einen eigenen Gtterschrein, umgeben von vielen Rumlichkeiten und
Vorhfen. In Palstina waren dagegen Podien oder Nischen blich. Wh-
rend man in Podien und Nischen die Gottheit jeweils direkt erblicken
kann, weil sie fr den Tempelbesucher offen gestaltet und ohne Hindernis
zugnglich waren, ist sie in einem Schrein durch Tren abgetrennt und
damit nicht zwangslufig verfgbar. So wurde also auch durch die Gestal-
tung des Bereiches besonderer Heiligkeit noch einmal die Heiligkeit und
Sonderstellung YHWHs zustzlich betont. Die bernahme kanaanischer
Elemente bei der Gestaltung des Schreins haben wir mit der Ausgestal-
tung des Throns als Keruben- oder Sphingenthron, wie er sich z.B. auf
einer Schnitzerei aus Megiddo aus dem 13. Jh .v.Chr. findet (Abb. 3).
Die Heiligkeit Gottes wird auch durch die Bildlosigkeit des YHWH-
Kults betont. Anfangs gab es noch kein Bilderverbot im Alten Testament;
dieses ist erst eine sptere Entwicklung. Der Gott YHWH war jedoch im
10Vgl. Hartenstein 1997.
der tempel salomos im kontext der ikonographie 71
Gegensatz wahrscheinlich zum Bild des Gottes El oder anderer Gtter der
damaligen Zeit stets bilderlos, wahrscheinlich weil er aus einer noma-
dischen Tradition stammt, in der die Bildlosigkeit eher verbreitet war als
im Kulturland. Diese Tradition wurde fortgefhrt, als YHWH unter David
dann der Hauptgott Israels und Judas wurde. Aller Wahrscheinlichkeit
nach war YHWH vor dem Regierungsantritt Davids schlichtweg ein klei-
ner ursprnglich nomadischer Gott, der u.a. von einer kleinen Gruppe von
Freischrlern und Habiru-Truppen als persnlicher Gott verehrt wurde
und erst unter David zum Nationalgott aufstieg.
Es ist schwer vorstellbar, dass es jemals im salomonischen Tempel
ein Gtterbild YHWHs gab, auch wenn dies in der Vergangenheit immer
wieder behauptet wurde. Gtterbilder waren in der Regel allenfalls 1015
cm gro. Im debr aber stand ein Gtterthron mit 10 m Breite. Auf einem
solchen Thron ein kleines Gtterbild aufzustellen, htte lachhaft gewirkt.
Die Grenunterschiede zwischen Thron einerseits und Gtterbild ande-
rerseits wren zu gro gewesen. Daher kann man sich den Thron nur
leer vorstellen, und die Gottheit damit transzendent. Jes 6 ein Text aus
dem 8. Jh., der sicherlich schon eine lngere Traditionsbildung voraus-
setzt beschreibt schn, wie man sich die Gestalt YHWHs auf diesem
Thron vorgestellt hat: YHWH sitzt auf diesem Thron, sein Gewand fllt
Abb. 3.Ebd., S. 102, Abb. 50.
72 wolfgang zwickel
den Hauptraum des Tempels aus, und sein Krper reicht hinauf bis in
das himmlische Heiligtum Gottes. Der transzendente Krper Gottes bildet
somit die vertikale Achse zwischen himmlischem und irdischem Heilig-
tum Gottes. Eine Vorstellung, wie sie in Mesopotamien etwa durch die
Zikkurat ausgedrckt wurde, wird im Jerusalemer Heiligtum imaginr
durch den bergroen Thron dargestellt.
Leere Throne gibt es brigens auch im levantinischen Raum. Aller-
dings sind diese Throne wesentlich jnger als der salomonische Tempel
und knnten von diesem Tempel aus beeinflusst worden sein. Angesichts
der nicht gerade geringen politischen Bedeutung, die Juda und vor allem
Israel fr die Levante innehatten, kann man durchaus annehmen, dass die
beiden Staaten mit ihrer Kultur auch prgend auf die Umwelt wirkten. In
der Regel wird aber in der Forschung derzeit immer der umgekehrte Weg
eingenommen, was aber nicht unbedingt zwingend ist.
An mehreren Stellen im Tempelbaubericht wird betont, dass Keruben,
Palmetten und Rosetten den Tempel verzierten (1 Kn 6,29.32.35). Diese
drei Elemente kennen wir zusammengestellt z.B. auf einer Pyxis aus Nim-
rud aus dem 9./8. Jh. v.Chr. (Abb. 4). Wenn die Motivkonstellation im
Jerusalemer Tempel in hnlicher Weise angebracht war, dann stellten die
Rosetten nur eine Randdekoration dar. Die Keruben flankierten jedoch
den Lebensbaum und schtzten ihn so. Keruben waren gttliche Mischwe-
sen, die im Alten Testament und damit wohl auch im Bereich Israel/Judas
eine Schutzfunktion ausbten. Nach Gen 3,24 bewachten Keruben den
Zugang zum Garten Eden, nachdem die Menschen von dort vertrieben
worden waren. hnlich haben Keruben in Ez 28,14 eine Schutzfunktion.
In der Komposition im Tempel Salomos schtzen sie flankierend (vgl.
Ez 41,18) den Lebensbaum. Damit sind wir nach der Betonung der Hei-
ligkeit und Unnahbarkeit Gottes bei einem weiteren wichtigen theologi-
schen Element, das im salomonischen Tempel bildhaft dargestellt wurde.
Der Lebensbaum ist ein Symbol fr Fruchtbarkeit und Leben. Es ist ein
altes Symbol, das schon seit dem 3. Jh. v.Chr. verbreitet ist. Meist sind
auf den Bildern aufsteigende Capriden abgebildet, die von dem Lebens-
baum fressen. Der Baum, der hufig deutlich als gttlicher, der normalen
Welt entzogener Baum dargestellt wird, macht die Gabe lebenserhalten-
der Nahrung an die Tiere und sicherlich auch an die Menschen durch
Gott deutlich. Der Schutz durch die Keruben deutet an, dass diese Gabe
geschtzt werden muss. YHWH wird hier durch die Dekoration des Jeru-
salemer Tempels als ein Gott dargestellt, der fr die Fruchtbarkeit und
Lebenserhaltung zustndig ist.
der tempel salomos im kontext der ikonographie 73
Der Aspekt der Lebenserhaltung und der Fruchtbarkeit wird auch durch
weitere Gertschaften am Jerusalemer Tempel entsprechend betont.
Vor dem Tempel stand das Eherne Meer (Abb. 5), ein Becken mit 4,6 m
Innendurchmesser und 39.000 l Inhalt. In den Chronikbchern hat man
die Funktion des Beckens als Waschbecken fr die Priester angegeben
(2 Chr 4,6). Bei einer Hhe allein des Beckens (ohne die zugehrigen Rinder,
die unter dem Becken angebracht waren) von 5 Ellen bzw. ca. 2,5 m ist
diese Bestimmung aber alles andere als wahrscheinlich oder sogar sinn-
voll. Die Chronik hat schlichtweg versucht, fr dieses riesige Becken
eine kultpraktische Bedeutung zu finden, ohne dass noch ein konkre-
tes Wissen ber die ursprngliche Verwendung des Gertes vorhanden
war. Wir haben hier ein schnes Beispiel dafr, wie innerhalb weniger
Jahrhunderte von der Zerstrung des Jerusalemer Tempels 587 v.Chr. bis
zur Abfassung der Chronik im 4.-2. Jh. v.Chr. konkretes Wissen um die
Bedeutung der Gerte verloren gegangen ist. Dies strkt auch die eingangs
gefhrte Beweisfhrung, wonach der Tempelbaubericht kaum jnger als
das 8. Jh. v.Chr. sein kann.
Will man daher die Bedeutung des Ehernen Meeres erschlieen, muss
man vergleichbare Installationen in Tempeln betrachten. In mesopota-
mischen Tempeln gab es eigene Kultbecken, die den Namen aps tru-
gen. Mit aps wird normalerweise der himmlische oder unterirdische
Swasserozean bezeichnet. Nach altorientalischem Denken sicherte
der Swasserozean das berleben der Menschen, indem er in Form
von Regen aus dem himmlischen bzw. in Form von Quellwasser aus dem
unterirdischen Swasserozean Wasser zur Verfgung stellte. Ohne aus-
reichend Quell- oder Regenwasser waren die Fruchtbarkeit des Bodens
und damit das berleben der Menschen nicht mglich. Entsprechende
Abb. 4.Ebd., S. 86 Abb. 38.
74 wolfgang zwickel
Installationen in Tempeln in Form von Wasserbecken oder Seen gab es an
verschiedenen Orten der Levante und Zyperns. Wenn nun im Jerusalemer
Tempel ein solches Becken aufgestellt wurde, sollte es deutlich machen,
dass YHWH, der Gott Israels, fr Fruchtbarkeit zustndig ist und diese
Aufgabe auch wirklich wahrnimmt. Es ging nicht um die Frage, ob in den
Sommermonaten sich in dem groen Becken berhaupt Wasser befand.
Das Becken hatte eine rein symbolische Bedeutung selbst wenn es leer
war. Angesichts der Hhe des Beckens konnte sowieso niemand sehen, ob
es gefllt oder leer war.
In diesem Zusammenhang ist ein Verweis auf den biblischen Schp-
fungsbericht von Bedeutung. Der ltere der beiden Schpfungsberichte,
traditionell dem Jahwisten oder aber in einer moderneren Terminologie
dem vorpriesterschriftlichen Geschichtswerk zugeschrieben, setzt voraus,
dass YHWH als Schpfergott verstanden werden soll. Schpfungstheo-
logie in Verbindung mit YHWH findet sich ansonsten explizit im Alten
Testament erst wieder in der exilischen Zeit in der Priesterschrift und bei
Deuterojesaja oder allenfalls je nach literarkritischer Einordnung in
der sptvorexilischen Zeit bei Jeremia. Wenn die Gertschaften des salo-
monischen Tempels aus der Zeit Salomos stammen, dann haben wir hier
Abb. 5.W. Zwickel, Die Welt des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Ein Sach- und
Arbeitsbuch (Stuttgart 1997), S. 223 Abb. 125.
der tempel salomos im kontext der ikonographie 75
einen Hinweis dafr, dass schon in der Frhzeit der gesamtisraelitischen
YHWH-Verehrung dieser Gott als Schpfergott verstanden wurde. Schp-
fungstheologie (im Sinne einer creatio continua) gehrte demnach zu den
wesentlichen Elementen der Jerusalemer Vorstellung von YHWH, und das
schon seit der Zeit Salomos.
Die Schpfungstheologie findet sich auch noch in anderen Gerten des
Jerusalemer Tempels reprsentiert: bei den Kesselwagen und bei den Su-
len Jachin und Boas.
Die zehn Kesselwagen (Abb. 6) wurden wahrscheinlich als groe Blu-
mentpfe verwendet. Aus wesentlich jngerer Zeit kennen wir einen
solchen Kesselwagen in Gebrauch. Eine Mnze aus Sidon aus dem 3. Jh.
n.Chr. zeigt ihn mit Palmzweigen in dem Kessel (Abb. 7). Wenn schon
zu salomonischer Zeit Kesselwagen hierfr verwendet wurden, so repr-
sentierten sie im Tempel durch die grnen Zweige das Leben und die
Fruchtbarkeit. Auch mit diesen Gertschaften wurde deutlich gemacht,
dass YHWH fr Leben und Fruchtbarkeit zustndig war.
Vor dem Tempel standen zwei Metallsulen (Abb. 8). Auf altorien-
talischen Tempelmodellen und Bildern finden wir derartige Sulen am
Eingang von Tempeln. Manchmal sind sie mit Baumelementen oder
unmittelbar, wie z.B. bei einem berhmten Gemlde aus Mari, als Bume
gestaltet. Diese Sulen reprsentierten wieder die Fruchtbarkeit und die
lebensschaffende und lebenssichernde Bedeutung der in dem Tempel ver-
ehrten Gottheit. Es gibt auch einige Fundstcke, bei denen anstelle der
Sulen nackte Gttinnen abgebildet sind gewissermaen das Standard-
motiv fr Fruchtbarkeit. Dies wird in Jerusalem auch verdeutlicht durch
den Namen der beiden Sulen: Jachin und Boas. Diese Namen kann man
wahrscheinlich bersetzen mit er hat gegrndet mit Macht, und damit
haben wir auch im Namen Schpfungs- und Fruchtbarkeitstheologie
enthalten.
Die Sulen hatten jeweils zwei Kapitelle: oben eines in der Form einer
geschlossenen Lotosblte, darunter das fr den phnizischen Raum typi-
sche Blattkranzkapitell, hier jedoch in einer siebenfachen Ausgestaltung.
In Dan hat man ein hnliches Kapitell gefunden, leider unstratifiziert. Die
Lotosblte galt im Vorderen Orient als Symbol des sich regenerierenden
Lebens. Ihr Duft wurde daher gerne von der Oberschicht tglich eingeat-
met (vgl. Abb. 3). Das Blattkranzkapitell symbolisierte einen Baum, und
damit wird die Sule zustzlich als florales Symbol charakterisiert.
Um die Kapitelle herum waren 400 kleine metallene Granatpfelchen
angebracht. Der Granatapfel galt im gesamten Orient als Fruchtbarkeits-
motiv schlechthin, denn die Frucht enthlt im Inneren eine Vielzahl von
76 wolfgang zwickel
Abb. 6.Ebd., S. 225 Abb. 126.
der tempel salomos im kontext der ikonographie 77
kleinen Frchten. Demnach wird auch hier wieder die Fruchtbarkeit sym-
bolisch dargestellt.
4.Zusammenfassung
Betrachtet man die Symbolik des salomonischen Tempels, so zeigt sich
ganz deutlich, was Salomo mit diesem Tempel seinen Zeitgenossen sagen
wollte. Zum einen sollte der Tempel, der zu den grten der damaligen
Zeit zhlte, die Stellung Salomos festigen. Kleider machen Leute, und
Tempel und Palste machen Knige. Salomo hatte es ntig, nach einigen
Jahrzehnten Knigtum dessen Bedeutung auch in der Architektur fest-
zuhalten. Der Tempelbau war eine Botschaft fr seine Bevlkerung, dass
das Knigtum stabil ist, so stabil und groartig wie der Tempel- und der
Abb. 7.Zwickel, Tempel, S. 141 Abb. 43.
78 wolfgang zwickel
Abb. 8.Zwickel, Welt, S. 225 Abb. 127.
der tempel salomos im kontext der ikonographie 79
Palastbau, die die Bevlkerung nun bewundern konnte. Zustzlich sollte
so auch die Macht und Bedeutung des neuen Nationalgottes YHWH aus-
gedrckt werden. Nach den sptbronzezeitlichen Tempeln, die eigentlich
in jedem Ort existierten, gab es offenbar in der Eisenzeit I (nahezu) keine
Tempel mehr, sondern vornehmlich offene Kulthhen. Ein Tempelbau
war also ein deutliches Signal, das in der Bevlkerung wahrgenommen
wurde. Hier wurde in der Architektur ein eindeutiges Zeichen gesetzt,
dass dieses Knigtum Bestand hat und Beachtung finden soll.
Weiterhin sollte dieser Gott YHWH der Bevlkerung durch die Gestal-
tung des Tempels und seiner Gertschaften als ein Gott vorgestellt wer-
den, dessen Heiligkeit geachtet werden muss. Seine Unnahbarkeit und
Unverfgbarkeit war sicherlich auch fr die Stabilisierung des Knigtums
von Bedeutung. So konnte deutlich gemacht werden, dass Knigshaus und
Nationalgott auf einer eigenen Ebene stehen, die nicht hinterfragt und
angegriffen werden kann und darf.
Und schlielich wird YHWH als ein Gott vorgestellt, der fr Frucht-
barkeit, Lebenserhaltung und Lebenssicherung zustndig ist. Damit ber-
nimmt YHWH weitgehend Elemente, die ansonsten mit dem Gott Baal in
Verbindung gebracht werden. Der Tempelbau war demnach eine architek-
tonische Mglichkeit, politisch und theologisch neue Akzente zu setzen
in einer Zeit eines bergangs von einer Stammesgesellschaft zu einem
Zentralstaat mit Knigtum, Hauptstadt und neuem Nationalgott.
Literaturverzeichnis
Ab Assf, A., Der Tempel von Ain Dr, Mainz 1990.
al-Amri, Y.A.S., The Role of the Iron Ore Deposit of Mugharet el-Wardeh/Jordan in the Deve-
lopment of the Use of Iron in Southern Bilad el-Sham, Diss. masch. Bochum 2007.
Avigad, N., Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals, Jerusalem 1997.
Cantrell, D.O. und I. Finkelstein, A Kingdom for a Horse: The Megiddo Stables and Eighth
Century Israel, in: I. Finkelstein et al. (eds.), Megiddo IV. The 19982002 Seasons, 643
665, Tel Aviv 2006.
Hartenstein, F., Die Unzugnglichkeit Gottes im Heiligtum. Jesaja 6 und der Wohnort JHWHs
in der Jerusalemer Kulttradition (Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen
Testament 75), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997.
van der Kooij, G., 1993, Deir Alla, Tell, New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations
in the Holy Land I: 338342.
McCormick, C.M., Palace and Temple. A Study of Architectural and Verbal Icons (Beihefte
zur Zeitschrift fr die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 313), Berlin und New York 2002.
Practico, G., Nelson Gluecks 19381949 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh. A Reappraisal,
Atlanta 1993.
Raulwing, P. und H. Meyer, Der Kikkuli-Text. Hippologische und methodenkritische ber-
legungen zum Training von Streitwagenpferden im Alten Orient, in: Rad und Wagen.
Der Ursprung einer Innovation Wagen im Vorderen Orient und Europa, 491506, Mainz
2004.
80 wolfgang zwickel
Renz, J. and W. Rllig, Handbuch der althebrischen Epigraphik. Band 1: Die althebrischen
Inschriften. Teil 1: Text und Kommentar, Darmstadt 1995.
Zwickel, W., Der salomonische Tempel, Mainz 1999.
, Der Ort besonderer Heiligkeit, in: C.G. den Hertog et al. (eds.), Saxa Loquentur. Stu-
dien zur Archologie Palstinas/Israels. FS Volkmar Fritz (Alter Orient und Altes Testa-
ment 302), 311319, Mnster 2003.
der tempel salomos im kontext der ikonographie 81
Vordeuteronomistischer Grundtext 1 Kn 6 und 7
(Analyse W. Zwickel, vgl. zur Begrndung W. Zwickel, Der salomonische
Tempel, Mainz 1999)
1 Kn 6,114* (Baubeschreibung)
2 Und das Haus,
das der Knig Salomo fr YHWH erbaute,
war sechzig Ellen lang und zwanzig Ellen breit und dreiig Ellen hoch.
3 Und die Vorhalle an der Vorderseite des Hauses war zwanzig Ellen entlang der Breite
des Hauses,
zehn Ellen Breite vor dem Haus.
6 Der untere Seitenraum hatte fnf Ellen Breite
und der mittlere sechs Ellen Breite
und der dritte sieben Ellen Breite,
denn Mauerverkrzungen gab es fr das Haus auen ringsherum,
so dass man nicht in die Mauern des Hauses eingreifen musste.
7 Und das Haus wurde, whrend es gebaut wurde,
aus unbehauenen Bruchsteinen gebaut.
Hmmer und Steinhacke, berhaupt jegliches Eisenwerkzeug, konnte man nicht hren,
whrend das Haus errichtet wurde.
8 Der Eingang des mittleren Seitenraums befand sich an der rechten Seite des Hauses,
ber eine Stiege stieg man zum mittleren [Seitenraum] hoch, und vom mittleren zum
dritten.
1 Kn 6,114* (Bauerzhlung)
1 Im vierten Jahr, im Monat Ziw des Knigtums Salomos ber Israel,
da baute er das Haus fr YHWH.
4 Und er machte fr das Haus Fenster mit verschlossenen Rahmen.11
5 Und er baute auf der Mauer des Hauses ringsherum bezglich des Hauptraums und des
Schreins (debr)
und er verfertigte Seitenrume ringsherum
9 Und er baute das Haus und vollendete es.
und er deckte das Haus, die Auflagenkonsolen und die Schrgstreben mit
Zedernhlzern.
10 Und er baute die Sttzkonstruktionen auf dem ganzen Haus, fnf Ellen hoch,
und er verkleidete das Haus mit Zedernhlzern.
1 Kn 6,1522
15Er baute die Mauern im Inneren mit Zedernholzbrettern aus;
vom Fuboden bis zu den Balken der Decke bedeckte er es mit Holz im Inneren,
und er bedeckte den Fuboden des Hauses mit Wacholderbrettern.
16 Und er baute (den Abschnitt von) 20 Ellen von der Hinterseite des Hauses aus mit den
Zedernholzbrettern, vom Fuboden bis zu den Balken,
und er baute es innen fr den Schrein (debr).
17 Vierzig Ellen hatte das Haus (dann noch), das war der Hauptraum
20 vor dem Schrein (debr); (der war) zwanzig Ellen lang, zwanzig Ellen breit und zwanzig
Ellen hoch.
11In einem Vortrag im Sommer 2010 schlug E. Blum berzeugend vor, mit diesen Fen-
stern die Scheinfenster zu verbinden, wie sie in Nordsyrien gefunden werden; vgl. z.B. Ab
Assf 1990, Tf. 42b.
82 wolfgang zwickel
1 Kn 6,2935
29 Und auf alle Mauern des Hauses ringsum schnitzte er Schnitzwerk-Gravierungen, und
zwar Keruben, Palmetten und Rosetten, nach innen und nach auen gewandt.
31 Und als Eingang des Schreins (debr) machte er Trflgel aus dem Holz der
Aleppokiefer;
der Rahmen der Trpfosten war gefnftet.
32Und (was die) zwei Trflgel aus dem Holz der Aleppokiefer (anbelangt),
schnitzte er auf sie Keruben und Palmetten und Rosetten.
Und er lie auf die Keruben und die Palmetten Gold aufhmmern.
33 Und ebenso machte er fr den Eingang des Hauptraumes Trpfosten aus dem Holz der
Aleppokiefer, geviertet,
34 und zwei Trflgel aus Wacholderhlzern zwei drehbare Bretter hatte der eine
Trflgel, und zwei drehbare Bretter hatte der andere Trflgel
35 und er schnitzte Keruben und Palmetten und Rosetten, und berzog es mit Gold, platt-
geschlagen auf dem Eingeritzten.
1 Kn 6,2328
23 Und er machte im Schrein zwei Keruben aus Aleppokieferhlzern, zehn Ellen war die
Hhe.
23 Fnf Ellen war der Flgel des einen Keruben lang und 5 Ellen war der Flgel des
zweiten Keruben lang. Zehn Ellen waren es vom Ende seines Flgels bis zum Ende
seines (anderen) Flgels.
25 Und zehn Ellen war der zweite Kerub (hoch). Einerlei Ma und einerlei Gestalt hatten
die beiden Keruben.
26 Die Hhe des einen Kerub war zehn Ellen, und ebenso der zweite Kerub.
27 Und er brachte die Keruben inmitten des inneren Hauses unter,
und man breitete die Flgel der Keruben (derart) aus, dass der eine Flgel die Mauer
berhrte,
und der Flgel des zweiten Keruben berhrte die zweite Mauer,
und ihre Flgel berhrten sich nach dem Inneren des Hauses zu Flgel an Flgel.
28 Und er berzog die Keruben mit Gold.
1 Kn 7,13f.
13 Da schickte der Knig Salomo aus und lie den Hiram aus Tyrus holen.
14 Der Sohn einer Witwe war er, aus dem Stamm Naftali,
und sein Vater war ein tyrischer Mann, ein Bronzehandwerker.
Er war erfllt mit Weisheit und der Fhigkeit und dem Wissen, um jegliche Arbeit in
Bronze auszufhren.
Er kam also zum Knig Salomo und verrichtete seine Arbeit.
1 Kn 7,1522*
15 Er formte die beiden Bronzesulen. Achtzehn Ellen betrug die Hhe der einen Sule
und ein Faden von zwlf Ellen umgab sie, und ihre Dicke betrug vier Fingerbreiten,
hohl, und ebenso formte er die zweite Sule.
16 Und zwei Kapitelle machte er, um sie oben auf die Sulen aufzusetzen, aus
Bronzegu.
Fnf Ellen war die Hhe des einen Kapitells, und fnf Ellen war die Hhe des zweiten
Kapitells.
18 Und er machte die Granatpfel, und zwar zwei Lagen ringsherum auf dem einen
Geflecht, um die Kapitelle zu bedecken, die oben auf den Sulen waren, und ebenso
machte er es fr das zweite Kapitell.
der tempel salomos im kontext der ikonographie 83
19 Und die Kapitelle, die oben auf den Sulen waren, waren der Machart nach Lotos in
gebundener Form, vier Ellen (hoch).
20 Und (bezglich) der Kapitelle auf beiden Sulen, ebenfalls oberhalb nahe bei der
Ausbauchung, die an der Seite des Flechtwerks ist: 200 Granatpfel, in Reihen
ringsherum, waren auf den zwei Kapitellen.
21 Und er stellte die Sulen an die Vorhalle des Hauptraums,
und zwar stellte er die rechte Sule auf und gab ihr den Namen Jachin,
und die linke Sule stellte er auf und gab ihr den Namen Boas.
22 So wurde die Arbeit an den Sulen beendet.
1 Kn 7,2326
23 Und er machte das Meer, Gu(arbeit), zehn Ellen von seinem einen Rand zu seinem
anderen Rand, rund ringsherum,
und fnf Ellen war seine Hhe,
und eine Meschnur von 30 Ellen umspannte es ringsherum.
24 Und sich ffnende Bltenmotive unterhalb seines Randes umgaben das Meer
ringsherum.
Zwei Reihen von sich ffnenden Bltenmotiven waren gegossen in seinem Guss.
25 Es [das Meer] stand auf zwlf Rindern, drei nach Norden gerichtet und drei nach
Westen gerichtet und drei nach Sden gerichtet und drei nach Osten gerichtet,
und das Meer befand sich ber ihnen oberhalb,
und alle ihre Hinterteile waren nach innen gerichtet.
26 Seine [d.h. des Meeres] Dicke war eine Handbreit [= 7,5 cm],
und sein Rand war in der Machart des Randes eines Trinkbechers als Lotosblte,
und 2000 Bat fasste es.
1 Kn 7,2739
27 Und er machte zehn Gestelle aus Bronze, vier Ellen war die Lnge eines jeden Gestells,
und vier Ellen seine Breite und drei Ellen seine Hhe.
28 Und dies ist die Machart der Gestelle: Sie hatten Leisten, und Leisten waren zwischen
den Pfosten.
29 Und auf den Leisten, die zwischen den Pfosten waren, waren Lwen, Rinder und
Keruben,
und auf den Pfosten war eine Sttze von oben auf.
Und unterhalb der Lwen und der Rinder war Zierrat in herabhngender Machart.
30 Vier bronzene Wagenrder hatte jedes Gestell und bronzene Achsen;
Und bezglich seiner vier Fe: Schulterstcke besaen sie.
Unterhalb des Kessels waren die Schulterstcke angegossen gegenber je einem der
Zierrat.
31 Und seine ffnung war nach innen an der Kranzleiste angebracht
und war eine Elle nach oben,
und ihre ffnung war rund, Arbeit einer Sttze, eineinhalb Ellen (hoch).
Und auch auf seiner Auenseite waren Verzierungen.
Und ihre Leisten waren viereckig, nicht rund.
32 Die vier Wagenrder befanden sich unterhalb der Leisten und die Hnde der Rder
waren am Gestell (befestigt),
und die Hhe eines jeden Rades war eineinhalb Ellen.
33 Und die Machart der Rder war wie die Machart des Rades eines Streitwagens.
Ihre Halter und ihre Felgen und ihre Speichen und ihre Radnaben, alles war gegossen.
34 Und vier Schulterstcke befanden sich an den vier Ecken eines jeden Gestells,
vom Gestell (gingen) seine Schulterstcke (aus).
84 wolfgang zwickel
35 Und an der Spitze des Gestells befand sich ein Kessel;
eine halbe Elle war seine Hhe, rund ringsherum.
Oben auf dem Gestell: von ihm (gingen ab) seine Halter und seine Leisten.
36 Und er gravierte auf die Tafeln seiner Halter und in seine Leisten Keruben und Lwen
und Palmetten entsprechend des freien Platzes eines jeden und Zierrat ring-
herum.
37 Auf diese Weise machte er die zehn Gestelle;
sie alle waren gleichermaen gegossen, hatten dasselbe Ma und dieselbe Gestalt.
38 Und er machte zehn Kessel aus Bronze, vierzig Bat fasste jeder einzelne Kessel;
jeder Kessel hatte vier Ellen, je ein Kessel fr je ein Gestell, (insgesamt) zehn
Gestelle.
39 Und er stellte fnf Gestelle an die sdliche Seite des Hauses und fnf an die nrdliche
Seite des Hauses,
und das Meer stellte er an die sdliche Seite des Hauses, nach Osten, dem Sden
gegenber.
1 Kn 7,4051*
40 Hiram vollendete die Ausfhrung des ganzen Werkes, das er gemacht hatte fr den
Knig Salomo fr das Haus YHWHs.
46 Im Jordankreis goss er [Hiram] sie [die Metallgertschaften] in einer Erzgieerei zwi-
schen Sukkot und zwischen Zaretan.
47 Und Salomo belie die Gerte wegen der sehr, sehr groen Menge;
nicht wurde das Gewicht der Bronze festgestellt.
48 Und Salomo verfertigte alle Gerte, die das Haus YHWHs bentigte, den Altar und den
Tisch
49 und die Leuchter, fnf zur Rechten und fnf zur Linken vor dem Schrein (debr),
jeweils mit Blte, Lampe und Dochtscheren.
51 Und es wurde das ganze Werk beendet, das der Knig Salomo fr das Haus YHWHs
gemacht hatte.
JOSEPHUS ON SOLOMON
Joseph Verheyden
Josephus mentions the figure of Solomon on a number of occasions in
his Antiquitates Judaicae (AJ) as well as in his Bellum Judaicum (BJ). His
life and reign are dealt with in a systematic way, and in great detail, in
AJ 8.1212 using the account in 1 Kgs 211 (or rather, the LXX version in
3 Kgs 211) as a primary source. The passage has drawn quite some atten-
tion from scholars. As for so many other aspects of Josephus studies cur-
rent research and discussion on his picture of Solomon started with an
essay by the inevitable Louis H. Feldman back in 1976.1 A short update
on the topic can be found in an essay by the same author from 1989.2
A more complete and indeed exhaustive portrait followed in 1995, in a
revised version of the 1976 essay that was reprinted with minor changes
three years later in the first of Feldmans two volumes of collected essays.3
Several aspects of Josephus picture of the famous king and sage have also
been studied by a number of other scholars. The equally inevitable Chris-
topher Begg published a series of articles dealing with such diverse topics
as Josephus account of Solomons wealth,4 the famous story of his wise
judgement in the dispute about the baby,5 the equally famous story of the
visit of the queen of Sheba,6 the building of the Temple,7 the drama of
his apostasy as recalled in 1 Kgs 11,113,8 his enemies,9 and his dreams.10
Together with Paul Spilsbury, Begg also authored the commentary on
AJ 810 that was published in 2005.11 Scholars have particularly been
1Feldman 1976, 6898. Feldman himself refers to Sarowy (1900, 4448) as one of few
predecessors, but qualifies that treatment as hardly systematic (1995/1998, 570 n. 1).
2Feldman 1989, 330448, here 364365.
3Feldman 1995/1998, 103167/570628. In the following citations are from this revised
version.
4Begg 2006b, 413429.
5Begg 2006a, 452461.
6Begg 2006c, 107129.
7Begg 2007b, 2540 and 2008, 89105.
8Begg 1997, 294313.
9Begg, 1996b, 4455.
10Begg 1996a, 687704. On dreams in Josephus (but not AJ 8), see also Vogel 2009,
131145.
11Begg and Spilsbury 2005.
86 joseph verheyden
interested, it would seem, in topics dealing with magic and the occult and
with miracle working, of which there are a couple of nice examples in the
Solomon account as well. Otto Betz authored an essay on the miracle sto-
ries in Josephus.12 The Eleazar story in 8.4549 was dealt with by D.C. Dul-
ing in an essay he published in 1985;13 more recently the same passage was
studied again by Niclas Frster,14 Pablo Torijano15 and by Roland Deines.16
Many other aspects have been studied as well, including the question of
the biblical text Josephus has been using and what can be gained from his
account for the history of the transmission of the Greek (and Hebrew) text
of 1 Kgs.17 Most recently Jean Koulagna has examined the different presen-
tations of Solomon in the Hebrew and the Greek version of 1/3 Kgs, and in
Chronicles, in comparison with Josephus version, thereby also addressing
the issue of the textual history. According to Koulagna the LXX version is
rather more positive towards the king, in line with the image that is given
in Chronicles, than the one that is found in MT, but he also points out that
we cannot be sure whether LXX was innovating in this respect or merely
working from a Hebrew Vorlage that already contained such a more posi-
tive view on Solomon.18 I will not take up this issue once again.19 Instead
12Betz 1987, 212235. See also in the same volume, Smith 1987, 236256.
13Duling 1985, 125 (dealing with the genre of the narrative as exorcism). See also
Duling 1984, 122.
14Frster 2000, 205221 (focusing on traces of Egyptian influence and arguing that Jose-
phus, in an anti-Roman bias, wishes to promote Judaism as a kind of magic).
15Torijano 2002, esp. 3739 and 95105.
16Deines 2003, 372390 (critical of Frster; Josephus real goal is to present Solomon as
a universal symbol of the wisdom God grants those who are dear to him). On demonology
in general, see also Giversen 1972, 1621.
17Spottorno 1987, 277285. The issue is also a major interest of Begg in almost all of
his contributions. Cf. also Villalba i Varneda 1986, 3335 (on 8.6175 and 8.9098). For a
in-depth analysis of the textual history of 12 Kgs (MT and LXX) in general, see above all
Schenker 2000 and 2004.
18Koulagna 2009, 129: LXX a procd une relecture plus positive de lhistoire et se
situe, de ce point de vue, dans le prolongement de Ch. Mais il reste que cela ne peut
tre dmontr au dtail prs...Le fait que le texte grec ait transit par un texte hbreu
diffrent de TM en rajoute la complexit des difficults dinterprtation souleves par
les variantes.
19On the content, structure and outline of the biblical account, in addition to the
commentaries, see Porten 1967, 93128 and more recently Rmer 2008, 98130, with a
succinct but correct characterisation in the conclusion: Salomon, tout au long de son
histoire littraire change plusieurs fois de personnage: dun roi calqu sur le modle des
grands rois assyriens, il devient un personnage ambigu inaugurant dj le dclin de la
monarchie, la place de laquelle se subsisteront la loi et llection peuple. Dans les derniers
textes de 1 Rois 111, il retrouve la gloire dun roi lgendaire, cette fois-ci en rponse aux rois
perses quil dpasse encore en sagesse et en richesse. Cest sans doute cette dernire image
qui a marqu la rception de son personnage dans le judasme et dans le christianisme,
mais ces facettes ambiges nont jamais totalement disparu (129130). On the biblical
josephus on solomon 87
I wish to concentrate on Josephus end-product. I propose to have a
look at two aspects of Josephus presentation of Solomon, which, as far as
I am aware of, have not been given the attention they deserve. One has to
do with the way Josephus characterises the protagonist; the other, much
more briefly, with his readership. Obviously the two are somehow con-
nected to each other.
I.On Characterising Solomon in AJ 8.1212
Solomon is important to Josephus.20 Feldman gives two indications for
this. Josephus focuses more on Solomon than on David himself and he
cites more external evidence to support his account of Solomon than he
does for any other biblical personality. In terms of the sheer amount of
space that he devotes to him, there are few major biblical personalities
to whom Josephus gives more attention.21 This is true. The section on
Solomon contains a couple of quite remarkable and interesting additions,
such as the Eleazar story I mentioned a moment ago or the information
on the archives of Tyre in AJ 8.55. But overall, Josephus has nevertheless
followed the biblical account on Solomon rather closely, and in general
one can say that he has not substantially altered the picture of Solomon
he found in his major source. What is this picture like and how can it best
be described?
Going on Feldmans analysis one might (should?) conclude that for
Josephus Solomon is nothing less than a model of virtue, indeed a Greek
hero, be it in a Jewish dress and while at the same time being very close to
a Jewish saint. There is much to be said for such a conclusion. There may
indeed be more of ancient Greek drama, of Hellenistic philosophy, and
of Roman pietas in this picture than some scholars have been ready to
Solomon in general, see also Brueggemann 2005, who, like Rmer, also points out the
ironic criticism of the Deuteronomists image of the king (139159).
20As he will be for so many others later on. On the rich and magnificent reception his-
tory of the figure of Solomon in Jewish, Hellenistic, Christian, and Islamic tradition, see,
among others, Preisendanz 1956, 660704, and more recently Brueggemann 2005, 225244,
and the collection of essays in Bacqu-Grammont and Durand 2007 and in Lichtert and
Nocquet 2008. The first of the two latter offers a wide range of essays on the reception of
Solomon in the East and in the West throughout the ages, from Central Asia to Brittany.
The other, with a few exceptions, is more centred on the biblical Solomon. None of them
deals with Josephus. It should also be noted that there are some exceptions, also in Jewish
tradition. Philo, for one, seems to have largely neglected him. I do not think, however, that
he is marginalised in the gospels (pace Koulagna 2009, 153).
21Feldman 1995/1998, 626.
88 joseph verheyden
accept.22 It even looks as if there is no end to the list of the kings virtues,
and Feldman has indeed arranged the middle part of his essay along that
line.23 To that should be added the references to Solomons qualities as a
most able administrator and as the architect of the Temple that add up
to a eulogy of its own.24 The same very positive picture can be found in
Koulagna: Salomon a trouv une faveur toute particulire dans les Anti-
quits, dans un contexte o Isral traverse une poque charnire de son
histoire aprs la chute du second temple.25 Like Feldman, Koulagna pays
much attention to the virtues of the king, his wisdom, piety and sense of
justice, and to his capacities as a ruler and statesman, architect and con-
queror alike. He is less impressed by the Hellenistic side and the parallel
with Oedipus, which in his opinion may have been a bit overestimated
by modern scholars; instead he rather points to yet another virtue, the
kings modesty.26
But then, in the midst of all this praise and glory, it is all the more sur-
prising to come across a few dissonances in the kings life and behaviour,
some of which at least have to do with the Jewish dress. These features
and events are not ignored by Feldman or Koulagna (or others dealing
with Josephus portrait of Solomon), but it would seem that these authors
tend somewhat to underestimate the consequences the presence of these
elements has. Indeed these black spots could easily be held against the
king, put at risk the overall picture of the virtuous hero, and even result
in creating tensions or plain contradictions in the description of this most
famous character. One might object that Josephus simply could not escape
mentioning what everyone knew was in the biblical text, but he certainly
did not always keep to that rule, and there was in any case no reason to
complicate things even further by also introducing extra-biblical material
of which he must have been aware that it was potentially embarrassing
for the protagonist. Maybe also this kind of objection is to be qualified
22Cf. Faber van der Meulen 1978, 7577; and see Feldmans reaction (1995/1998, 582
and already 1989, 364). Specifically on paralleling Solomon with Oedipus, see Feldman
1998b/2006, 436442. The Hellenisation of the king had influence also on the Rabbinic
tradition (see Shimoff 1997, 457469).
23See the section entitled Solomons Virtues in 1995/1998, 576602. Pointing out the
many virtues of the good protagonist is a major concern of Josephus all through his work,
and one that helps him putting the heroes of Jewish history in line with their counterparts
in Greek tradition and presenting Jewish rulers and authorities as open-minded. See esp.
Feldman 1998a, 546551 and 557560.
24Feldman 1995/1998, 605610.
25Koulagna 2009, 153.
26Koulagna 2009, 169170.
josephus on solomon 89
in view of the readership as I will show below. But let me just give a few
examples to illustrate the problem. What are these dissonances?
a. For one, this is a king who is said to be kind and temperate in his behav-
iour towards opponents once they have been defeated and, according to
Feldman, even to be modest in accepting his own defeat. The first two
certainly are features most fitting for a king. Modesty is a different matter
for, as Feldman notes, the virtue of modesty always presents a problem,
namely, that excessive modesty, especially in a ruler, is no virtue at all.27
However, Josephus Solomon does not really correspond to this ideal.
There are cracks in all of his virtues. In dealing with Solomons modesty,
Feldman argues, Josephus would have opted for the middle path.28 In
the biblical account of God appearing to Solomon in Gibeon and asking
what he shall be given (1 Kgs 3,410), the newly appointed king asks for
all the right thingsa listening heart, a sense of justiceand thanks God
for having chosen him for the throne, even though he is only a mere
child, unskilled in leadership (3,7). In Josephus version in AJ 8.23 Solo-
mon again has the right answer, asking for the same or similar qualities
( : an upright mind and a good intellect).29
Feldman takes this as proof that Josephus has tried to avoid turning Solo-
mon into an excessively modest person.30 In 8.144146 and 147149 Jose-
phus cites two slightly variant versions from two different authors of how
the great Solomon in exchanging riddles with Hiram, the king of Tyre, is
beaten by one Abdemon. In the version of Menander this Abdemon, a
young lad ( ), solves all the riddles Solomon puts to him. In
that of Dios, cited immediately after, the same Abdemon, now a certain
man of Tyre ( ), not only solves the riddles but gives oth-
ers in return, which Solomon is not able to solve, thus forcing him to pay
a huge fee to Hiram, for they were playing for money (8.149). For Feldman
the story illustrates that Solomon was modest enough to admit that he
had actually been outwitted by a young Tyrian lad.31 There is a problem
with both of these examples. In the second one it is not said that Solomon
27Feldman 1995/1998, 590.
28Feldman 1995/1998, 590.
29The Greek text follows the LCL edition. English translations are taken from the com-
mentary series edited by S. Mason.
30Feldman 1995/1998, 590. And this may be the more correct reading, against Kou-
lagna, who takes the episode as an illustration of the kings modesty (2009, 169).
31Feldman 1995/1998, 590. Koulagna (2009, 157 and 170) also links this passage to the
kings modesty, but nevertheless recognises that it is at the same time a way of limiting this
great virtue of wisdom: un dtail qui en rduit la porte (157); is it only a detail?
90 joseph verheyden
addresses Abdemon and formally recognises the others superiority. It is
not (or not so much) about modesty, but about fair-play. In the first one,
when addressing God and speaking of oneself and of the great gifts one
has received as a young boy, showing modesty would not be a sign of
weakness but rather of gratitude, and so a most appropriate reaction.32
As for the other virtues, Solomon is indeed said to be humane and
moderate (7.362 )33 towards Adonijah
when confronting his brother after he had been designated as Davids suc-
cessor. Both features are lacking in the biblical account in 1 Kgs 1,5253.
But at that time their father was still alive and in power, and Solomon had
not yet been crowned. However, it is quite another Solomon one meets
soon after in the opening lines of Book 8, once David had passed away. In
retelling 1 Kgs 2,13 in AJ 8.3 Josephus reminds the reader again of Adoni-
jahs revolt against his father that had been mentioned in AJ 7.345346. It
does not make him the more sympathetic of the brothers. But all that the
reader knew already and Adonijah had been punished for it by his own
father passing him by for the throne, and he had been forgiven by his own
brother who had saved his life in 1 Kgs 1,52. Josephus also has Adonijah
formally declare to his mother that he is content with his position, indeed
even delighted with the present state of affairs (AJ 8.4
; nothing of the like in 1 Kgs 2,13ff.). In view of the favour he has
come to ask of his mother, and through her of his brother, the reader eas-
ily senses that there is probably not all too much truth and sincerity in his
words.34 But again, if this addition casts a gloomy shadow on Adonijah,
the kings reaction definitely is out of proportion. Even his poor mother
had not seen that coming, for she enthusiastically accepts to mediate and
is most confidenteven more so in Josephus version than in 1 Kgsthat
she will succeed, both because the king would grant him whatever he
desired and because of her earnestly asking (8.6
). Instead what
she meets is a king who is outraged and sends his mother away (8.9, not in
32One may also note the different titles Solomon is given. In the excerpt from Menander
he is correctly called the king of Jerusalem (8.146); in the second excerpt he is called the
tyrant of that city. Even if Josephus is here merely following his source it must have
occurred to him that the difference might also imply a different appreciation, for the latter
title often had a negative connotation. According to Begg and Spilsbury Josephus primary
concern here is perhaps not about singling out any special virtue of the king, but the rather
more mundane one of illustrating that the man was famous also outside of Israel (Begg
and Spilsbury 2005, 41 n. 505).
33This is one of several such double characterisations in Josephus account.
34So also Begg and Spilsbury 2005, 3 n. 7: an (ironic-sounding) captatio benevolentiae.
josephus on solomon 91
1 Kgs 2,22), and who, if he does not pledge to kill his brother as he does in
1 Kgs 2,23, immediately goes on taking measures to do just that. Adonijah
is murdered for a mere request that, as Solomon sensed quite correctly,
could be potentially damaging to him, but that could also simply have
been refused.35 It all very much tastes of vengeance and looks as if Solo-
mon was just waiting for the right opportunity to do what in 1 Kgs 1,52
and AJ 7.362 he had not yet dared to do.36 In retelling the story, Josephus
looks as one who is standing by and watchingand making things worse
for Solomon. So far then for temperance and modesty. This is a not-so-
modest king who lost his temper on the first occasion.
b. There are other such tensions in the figure of Solomon as depicted by
Josephus. He is a wise king gifted with a sharp intellect and a shrewd
judgement.37 As a matter of fact, a sound and just mind is what his
father David had prayed for God would grant his son (AJ 7.381
), and an upright mind and a good intellect is what the
son himself asks from God in AJ 8.23 (see above). Josephus immediately
adds, as a most telling illustration of this wisdom and intellect, the story
of Solomons judgement in the case of the two mothers. The account in
1 Kgs 3,1628 offers the basis for Josephus version and is closely followed
in AJ 8.2634.38 He opens, however, with a long note of his own on the
exemplary status of this story in providing the readers with an image of
the kings shrewdness in being able to easily judge about those things that
were sought from him.39 The closing phrase in 8.34 likewise differs from
the one in 1 Kgs 3,28. Josephus calls the story a great proof and token
(again a double phrase: ) of the kings intelligence
and wisdom (and one more: ) as one having divine
understanding ( ). The first and last phrase are hapaxes in
35The fact that Josephus leaves out the oath of 1 Kgs 2,2324, and thereby keeps God
out of the kings bloody initiative (so Begg and Spilsbury 2005, 4 n. 22) counts for little
if one realises that Josephus instead explicitly adds that the man was killed on the kings
order.
36The turnabout in the story is far more than a rhetorical device to create suspense and
surprise, as Begg and Spilsbury would like to have it (2005, 3 n. 9 and 10); it says something
about the kings character. Likewise, Koulagnas reading of this passage is far too positive
for the king (2009, 164165). Even if he showed himself to be prudent and suspicious of
Adonijahs real intentions, he oversteps boundaries by having him killed.
37On the biblical Solomons wisdom, see Brueggemann 2005, 104123.
38Cf. Begg 2006a, 452461.
39AJ 8.26
. The verse is one of many instances in which Josephus stresses the
didactic purpose of telling such stories (Villalba i Varneda 1986, 275).
92 joseph verheyden
Josephus; the middle one is almost an epithet for Solomon as it occurs
again in 8.42 and in 8.171. This is no doubt the wisest and most intelli-
gent man earth has ever seen. In this regard Solomon surpasses all of
Egypt (8.42), as the queen of Sheba, an Egyptian herself (diff. the biblical
account), is but all too willing to acknowledge (8.171).40
The way Solomon solves the issue with the two women and the baby
is indeed an impressive example of how sharp and intelligent a mind he
was. Josephus strongly emphasises these features in an additional note in
8.30b that revolves around the notion of and contrasts the kings
decision with the helplessness of everyone else: No one could resolve the
case; rather all were, as if by a riddle, mentally blinded concerning its
solution; the king alone thought things out as follows.41 As in the bibli-
cal account there then follows information on the kings staff (8.3537),
Israels prosperity (8.38), and the court supplies (8.3941), once more to
come back to the kings wisdom and once more recalling his superb intel-
lect, now by comparing Solomon to all the great minds of Jewish tradi-
tion and by listing his phenomenal literary production (8.4344). It is all
very impressive indeed, and it is all in the biblical text (1 Kgs 4,3133
LXX 5,1213).
But then, right after, there follows a long section (8.4549) of which
there is no trace at all in the biblical account. That same man who eagerly
studied nature in all its aspects was also a gifted magician, exercising his
talents for the benefit of humankind, as Josephus does not fail to men-
tion. And what is more, his knowledge was not lost on later generations.
Josephus recalls at length a story about one Eleazar, an exorcist of his
own time, who performed his skills in the presence of none other than
the emperor and his son, thereby invoking the name of Solomon and
the incantations he had fabricated to adjure demons never to return in
their victims.
The Eleazar story has puzzled modern scholars. It is the kind of infor-
mation that goes against Josephus own feelings and against the reserva-
tions he usually shows towards all sounds magic and miraculous.42 It may
40This famous encounter has haunted the minds and imagination of numerous com-
mentators and the story has grown into a legend of its own. On Josephus account, see
Begg 2006c, 107129; on the Nachleben, see, e.g., Silberman 1974, 85103.
41Josephus also points out that the people were astonished about the wisdom displayed
by such a young ruler (8.32a). Cf. Begg and Spilsbury 2005, 10 n. 96; Koulagna 2009, 154.
42See Moehring 1973, 376383; Betz 1987, 212235. Cf. already Foakes Jackson 1930, 240:
if Josephus has a propensity to rationalise the biblical miracles, he certainly shared in the
belief in magic common to the age of the Flavian emperors.
josephus on solomon 93
be that Josephus simply could not afford missing out on this information,
because it was too well known and too widespread in the circles for which
he was writing, as Torijano has argued.43 Josephus stresses that this too
was a gift of God (8.45), one that illustrated the close relationship Solo-
mon had with God (8.49 , the same notion that was used for his
father in 6.280 and a variant upon the phrase in 8.34). This
kind of comment may in itself be proof that Josephus felt uneasy about
the story. That may all be true, but did he really have to tell the story in
all its details and could he not have reduced or limited it to a mere note?
In any case, the net result of it and the picture of Solomon that is created
is one of a sharp-minded man who dabbles in magical practices, be it
white magic.44 The credit he had built as an intelligent person is severely
shaken by what follows shortly after. In sum, what we encounter here is a
rational magician, if such a person exists at all.
c. Piety is a central notion in Josephus account of Solomon: 23 percent of
the occurrences of these words [ and ] are found in con-
nection with Solomon.45 It is one of the virtues his father David explic-
itly and repeatedly had emphasised in preparing his son for the throne
(AJ 7.338, 356, 374, 384). As Feldman notes, Solomons greatest act of
piety was, of course, the building of the Temple in Jerusalem.46 Josephus
43Torijano 2002, 95105.
44Cf. Torijano 2002, 100 n. 35. Torijano rightly notes that this aspect, rather than the
motif of the divine man, dominates Josephus account (pace Deines 2003). Things are even
made worse, if this story would display influence of Egyptian origin, as Frster has argued
(2000, 205221); a Jewish king was probably not supposed to be interested in Egyptian lore
and magic. The fact that Eleazar performs his exorcism in the presence of the emperor
Vespasian could be an equally ambivalent element. Tacitus and Suetonius who both credit
Vespasian with the gift of healing take care to point out that the emperor himself was
rather critical of it and hesitant to show his charisma. The precise relationship between
their account and this story in Josephus is a matter of debate, but whatever the conclusion,
it is obvious that these Roman historians take a rather more critical stand to this kind of
practices when performed by a ruler. Begg and Spilsbury mention the parallels, but do
not really comment on them (2005, 14 n. 160). Their comment on Jesus exorcisms, on the
other hand, is perhaps not the most inspiring one. In exorcising the Gerasene demoniac
Jesus offers precisely the kind of demonstration that the healing has succeeded that is told
about in 8.48 (pace Begg and Spilsbury 2005, 15 n. 163). While citing AJ 8.4549 as a prime
example of the kings wisdom, Koulagna also seems to have sensed its ambiguity when
concluding, on en arrive presque une sorte de religion populaire htrodoxe (2009,
154). On the motif of the magician-king in later tradition, see Torijano and Koulagna 2009,
154156.
45So Feldman 1995/1998, 593.
46Feldman 1995/1998, 595. Cf. Koulagna 2009, 157158, who especially emphasises as
a feature of the kings piety the fact that the temple is said to be much larger than it is
in the biblical account; but that may be a rather ambivalent expression of ones piety.
94 joseph verheyden
indeed goes out of his way to illustrate the efforts and energy the king
has put into the project (8.57129).47 He concludes his long and detailed
description of the preparations, the construction process itself, and the
inauguration rituals48 with a note of his own in which he contrasts this
project to that of the construction of the royal palace, which he says
against the biblical accountwas begun only after work on the Temple
had been finished, was executed using materials of lesser quality, and took
a longer time, because since it was to be a residence for the king, rather
than for God, the work was carried out more slowly (8.131). That sounds
nice and seems once more to highlight the kings piety. In reality, by thus
pointing out the contrast, Josephus has (willingly?) introduced a note that
is self-destructive and damaging for the king, for it is followed in 8.132140
by a (admittedly much shorter) description of the palace that gives all but
the impression of being a building of lesser quality: gold, cedar, precious
stones and splendour of all kind and sort is what it is built from.49 Where
has the contrast gone?50 It rather looks as if the kings devotion is divided
equally between his interest in the Temple and in the palace.
Duly honouring the gods is a prime feature of the pious man, as the
ancients knew. Another feature of almost equal importance is to honour
ones parents. And in this respect, the picture again shows some cracks.
Solomon does his utmost best with regard to his father, and does far more
On the king-architect, see also Brueggemann 2005, 87103; In the narrative of 1 Kgs 311,
there is no doubt that the central and most celebrated achievement of the imagined Solo-
mon is the building of the temple (87). If anywhere, Brueggemanns habit of referring
to the king as Solomon (with quotation marks) certainly is correct with regard to this
achievement.
47On issues of the text form and Josephus rewriting techniques in this passage, see the
detailed analyses of Begg 2007b, 2540 and 2008, 89105.
48Koulagna (2009, 159160) puts great emphasis on this aspect and compares it to the
cult at Gibron mentioned in 8.22, but in light of what will happen later with the king
worshipping foreign gods the whole episode receives a rather bitter tone; something of
this had already been anticipated as early as 8.22, where the cultic zeal of the king is jux-
taposed to his marrying Pharaohs daughter. On the biblical account of the relation with
Pharaoh and his daughter, see Bogaert 2008, 325338.
49Solomon is even credited of having built the roof of the palace in Corinthian fash-
ion (8.133) and having designed a dining hall for organising banquets and symposia
(8.137), both evident anachronisms that would turn him into the founder of some of the
more famous features of Greek architecture and lifestyle. Cf. Begg and Spilsbury 2005, 37
n. 455 and 38 n. 472; Koulagna 2009, 162. The detail of the sculptured trees (8.137) occurs
in a different form in rabbinic tradition (Koulagna 2009, 162 n. 499).
50According to Begg and Spilsbury, by adding this description, Josephus qualifies his
preceding down-playing of the palace vis--vis the temple (2005, 37 n. 448) and even
strongly relativizes [his] earlier remarks (39 n. 474). Actually, he does far more than that:
he just contradicts what he had said in his opening note in 8.131.
josephus on solomon 95
than the biblical account has to tell (1 Kgs 2,10), offering David a kings
funeral (7.392). Feldman wants to find in Solomon the same exemplary
piety towards his mother,51 but that might be taking it one step too far,
and the way Josephus has altered the biblical account seems to prove this.
Instead of the mere Ask on, my mother, for I will not deny you of 1 Kgs
2,20, he has Solomon overstep by far the boundaries of formal politeness
and has him perorate on the sacred duty of a son towards his mother in
granting her all she asks, even reproaching her for hesitating to speak up
(8.8), only to raise in anger and send her out of the palace once he has
heard and realised what she is asking for (8.9).52 It looks as if, when poli-
tics and piety clash, it is the second that has to yield. A pious man indeed,
then, but it is a calculated piety, if such a thing is possible.
d. Solomon is hoped for by his father to be a man of justice (7.338, 356,
374). And indeed there is a sense of justice and concern for justice in the
kings attitude and behaviour. When he asks God for a sound mind and
intellect it is with the sole purpose of putting his talents at the service of
the people and let justice reign: once I have received them, I may judge
the people in accordance with truth and what is just (8.23
, diff. 1 Kgs 3,9, but compare the char-
acterisation of David in 7.110
).53 Solomon is just, and magnanimous,
and grateful, all qualities that are closely linked to one another accord-
ing to Feldman.54 Solomon is grateful to God on more than one occasion
(8.52, 111112),55 and he is most generous to his friends and allies abroad:
to Hiram of Tyre, granting him far more than the twenty cities that were
given to himand refused by Hiram!according to 1 Kgs 9,1113;56 and
51Feldman 1995/1998, 594.
52Begg and Spilsbury (2005, 4 n. 20) compare the way Solomon refuses the request in
8.9 (Adonias was striving after greater things) to Sallustius characterisation of Catalina
(Bell. Cat. 5), but actually it seems that some of the odium of the latter reflects on the king
himself when he is hiding behind this kind of critique.
On the figure of the biblical Bathsheba, and especially the scene of 1 Kgs 2,1225 that is
evoked here, see Wnin 2008, 221228, who stresses the mothers diplomatic qualities but
without obscuring some of the more ambivalent aspects of her character. It seems these
qualities had left her in confronting the king.
53Cf. Begg and Spilsbury 2005, 8 n. 72.
54Feldman 1995/1998, 592.
55Though Josephus has the king also remind us, in the same verse 8.112, that this same
God can be angry upon his people.
56Cf. AJ 8.141142. The story of the encounter with Hiram had been commented upon
by several authors before Josephus: see Mendels 1987, 429441. In view of Hirams reaction,
96 joseph verheyden
to the queen of Sheba, who likewise receives more than what she had
asked for (8.175).57 Being grateful is not what really is at stake here; it is
all about formalities and keeping allies to friend.58 However, when mag-
nanimity, and also justice, might risk to interfere with the interests of the
throne, or what is considered as such, and of the one who is sitting on
that throne, it is the latter that prevails. Shimei is next in line to suffer
punishment at the hands of Solomon after he has seized power. Feldman
voices the concern and reticence of many a reader of the biblical account
when noting, twice, the reader of the Bible might well ask whether Sol-
omon was justified in this seemingly harsh action in punishing Shimei
and a reader might well ask why, if David had seen fit not to punish
Shimei at the time, Solomon should have been so vindictive as to punish
him so long afterwards.59 Josephus explains there was reason for meting
out punishment. Shimei had not refrained from cursing David even after
he had been warned (7.381) and he had despised the oaths he had made
(8.19), none of which is mentioned in the biblical account. If this would
be a sufficient reason for being punished, it remains to be shown that the
death penalty was the right and only possible measure.60 After all, Abia-
thar had escaped such a fate. And if there was a cause for invoking justice,
there certainly was also one for showing magnanimity on the part of the
now firmly established king. Instead, Solomon has Shimei executed by his
henchman, and Josephus is writing his apology in the semi-philosophical
note which he has inserted in 8.20 between the pronouncement and the
execution of the verdict. The tone of this note is all but magnanimous. It is
one might wonder whether it was really (one of) Josephus purposes in this way to present
Solomon as an open-minded king, against rumours or accusations of Jewish misanthropy,
as Feldman has argued (Feldman 2000/2006, 504507).
57This whole episode of the encounter with the Queen has been labelled novelistic
(Villalba i Varneda 1986, 234).
58It should be noted that the gifts of Solomon are returned by Hiram and also by the
queen. In Apion 1.110 Josephus offers a somewhat different version of the encounter with
Hiram, with the latter bestowing upon the king the enormous gift of 120 talents of gold
and at least accepting the kings gift of land in the Galilee. The former is not mentioned
here, and the latter is refused by Hiram, but it does not make Solomon the more generous
one. As for the queen, if he diminishes the amount of gold she is offering him (8.174 diff.
1 Kgs 10,10 and 2 Chr 9,9, but see the variant reading of E in 8.174) and omits the highly
laudable notes about the amount of balsam and spices she brought with her (same verses),
Josephus nevertheless does emphasise that she offered countless quantities of precious
stones and also that it was she who brought Israel the gift of the balsam bush (this latter
note replacing 1 Kgs 10,10b).
59Feldman 1995/1998, 591.
60The accusation of perjury Josephus has Solomon bring against Shimei is also lacking
in the biblical account (Begg and Spilsbury 2005, 7 n. 57).
josephus on solomon 97
vindictive and all focused on offering Solomon the perfect excuse, for how
else to call the argument that if evildoers are sometimes not punished on
the spot, it is only to allow their wickednessand the punishmentto
increase. It is the perfect explanation for a brutal execution, and for ven-
geance of any sort.61 How much truth there is in this conclusion can be
seen in 7.386, where Josephus goes beyond the account of 1 Kgs 2,5 when
noting that David had not killed Joab for the murder of Abner and Amasa
only because his enemy had been too strong and powerful. From the
very moment the odds have changed, however, the mask is dropped and
Davids intention becomes the excuse and Solomon its willing executer.
To my taste there is a bit too much of Realpolitik in all of this to make this
protagonist a model of just action. So here is a man fighting just causes
but with an occasional touch of vengeance to it.
e. A pious, just and brave man his father wants Solomon to be (AJ 7.338).
The third quality he may well have possessed but the biblical account
hardly seems to have been interested in it, and neither was Josephus. The
two also agree, be it in a somewhat more complicated way, on a related
matter. In 1 Kgs 3,10 Solomon is praised by God for not having asked to
grant him a long life, or wealth, or triumph over his enemies. In vv. 1314
God then replies that he nevertheless will also give Solomon these things
he did not ask for, a long life (v. 14) and wealth and great glory (v. 13). The
latter had not been mentioned as such in v. 10, but can easily be taken as
the equivalent of the third element, and that is clearly how Josephus has
understood it in 8.24 when rephrasing v. 14 as all those other things he
had not mentioned, namely wealth, glory, and victory over his enemies
( ,
) and paraphrasing the theme of a long life,
combining it with that of being victorious over ones enemies, as He [God]
also promised that he would preserve the kingship for his descendants
for a very long time (
61In 8.20 (which replaces 1 Kgs 2,45) Josephus has Solomon reflect on why God at times
has decided to postpone judgement upon evildoers (their punishment increases and
becomes worse than it would have been had they immediately undergone it). Begg and
Spilsbury suggest that he replaced the blessing of Solomons house in 1 Kgs 2,45, because
its claims for Solomon personally and for the house of David overall did not prove true in
the long run (2005, 7 n. 58); that may be so, but there certainly also is quite some irony in
it, when said by a king who himself persisted in a life of immorality. The whole episode,
just like those about Adonijah, Joab and Abiathar in 8.913, shows a darker picture of the
king and cannot be cited as examples of his sense for justice, as Koulagna would like it
(2009, 160161).
98 joseph verheyden
).62 Not much is heard afterwards in the biblical
account of that victorious general, and neither is there much to be found
in Josephus. One hears about the number of troops the king has at his
disposal, how he organises his army and divides it over his territory (8.41),
how he takes precautions and duly fortifies Jerusalem (8.150) and other
cities, Hazor and Megiddo and Beth-horon (8.151152, cf. 1 Kgs 9,15.17), as
far away as Thadmor-Palmyra (8.154 diff. 1 Kgs 9,18), and how he rebuilds
Gezer after it had been conquered and destroyed by his father-in-law, the
Pharaoh. A lot of building and rebuilding is going on, but apparently Solo-
mon was not able to take Gezer by force of his own for it is given to him
by the Pharaoh.63 In light of this it is significant to note that Josephus
omits mentioning Solomons campaign against the remnants of five pre-
Israelite peoples that is told about in 1 Kgs 9,20, and instead has him oper-
ate in the periphery, subjecting some Cananean tribes in the Lebanon and
up north in Hamath. It is also disturbing to read that he never was able to
face and overcome Hadad, who was constantly terrorising Israel with the
help of one Rezon while safely harbouring himself in Egypt (1 Kgs 11,1720
and AJ 8.204),64 nor to defeat Jeroboam, who likewise posed as an ongoing
threat (1 Kgs 11,40).65 A good organiser for sure, and an able diplomat and
strategist, to wit the benefits he gains from his alliance with Pharaoh, but
hardly a victorious general or a military genius.66 It is no small spot on a
great kings name.
62On Solomons dream here in 8.2225 and also in 8.125129, see Begg 1996a, 687704;
on the biblical account, see Lichtert 2008b.
63And by extension one might say that all this activity could only take place with the
(implicit) consent of the Pharaoh. In all the, the motif of the conquering hero remains
rather secondary; so also Koulagna 2009, 163: cette image...demeure extrmement dis-
crte and assez implicite, but he nevertheless regards it as a rather important feature
of Josephus picture.
64On these satans, see Begg 1996b, 4454.
65And has the support of the prophet Ahijah, who tells him that God has changed his
plans regarding Solomon (8.208), a motif that is not found in the biblical account (see
1 Kgs 11,38 and cf. Begg and Spilsbury 2005, 55 n. 692). See also the final words of 8.210,
another addition to the biblical text: Jeroboam fled to Egypt and stayed there till Solomon
had passed away and in this way, he avoided suffering anything at his hands [as if Solo-
mon is the bad guy] and was preserved for the kingship. Koulagna (2009, 166168) cites
these two episode as two more instances in which Josephus presents Solomon in a most
positive way in dealing with adversaries (the first one was the episode with Adonijah). If
none of these adversaries are positive characters for themselves, one should recognise that
Josephus certainly has not fully exploited the possibilities to use these episodes in favour
of Solomon, to say the least. For one, he does not explicitly contrast the two in a way that
makes the king the better of them.
66On Solomons foreign policy and military achievements as told in the biblical
account, see, e.g., Malamat 1963, 117; Maier 1991, 6376; Briend 2008, 2735.
josephus on solomon 99
f. A great king is a wealthy king, especially if he puts his wealth to the
service of his people. Wealth goes with glory, as Josephus does not fail to
mention (8.129 ). And
Solomon is said to be an able ruler in this respect. His people benefits
from a lasting peace to grow wealthy itself (8.38).67 In preparing for the
building of the Temple the king organises the work in the Lebanon with
much concern for the well-being and the family life of his subjects (8.58),
and the people is grateful for this great gift that is the Temple, which was
realised without burdening them (8.124). All this sounds nice and well. Yet
a very different voice is heard in 1 Kgs 12,4 after the king has passed away
(a harsh yoke), a voice that Josephus has taken over without further ado
(8.213 ).68 Moreover, was it
really necessary to burden the reader with countless details of lists and
numbers of the kings great wealth (8.176184)? It is true, of course, that
Josephus is here merely copying outand quite faithfullythe biblical
account, and that such lists of the rulers wealth are a stock component
of royal biography in the Near East. But what about Josephus readers?
It was not a common feature in Roman historiography to list the rulers
(emperors) wealth and consider it a positive thing; on the contrary, it
could easily yield the image of a man enslaved to material goods. And
the same remains true if it was Josephus aim to counter Roman satirists
charges of Jewish impoverishment:69 there was a real danger that with
such a picture Josephus was falling in the opposite snare and have the
king look like yet another eastern Croesus. There is nothing wrong with
the king being a wealthy man, but for the benefit of the people and not
to show off.
g. In his old age Solomon blows it all and throws away all the credit and
goodwill he had built with God and with his people, indulging the many
67Which is not really in accordance with the biblical account, as Begg and Spilsbury
point out (2005, 12 n. 133); they further also note the contrast with the more pejorative
allusions to the interest in agriculture Josephus had mentioned earlier in AJ 5.129 (2005,
12 n. 131).
68Cf. Brueggemanns conclusion of his chapter on Solomons economic policy (2005,
124138): At best, the economic miracle of Solomon is contested. At worst, it is exposed as
a short-term deception with deep and durable costs for those who are to come after (138).
Josephus amplifies the speakers appeal with the request that Rehoboam show himself
kinder than his father (so Begg and Spilsbury 2005, 57 n. 714, who also point out that
the motif of loving slavery contains a (ironic) hint to Adonijahs words in 8.4 (2005, 57
n. 715).
69Pace Feldman 1995/1998, 578, who refers for this opinion to Begg 1993, 238 n. 1587;
see in the same line also Begg 2006b, 413429.
100 joseph verheyden
foreign women of his harem and giving himself over to idolatry.70 Feld-
man (followed by Koulagna) takes upon him the impossible task of trying
to save Solomon, and Josephus, in this respect, but with no success. It may
be true that Josephus simply did not dare to omit something that was well
known among his Jewish readers, or that he was afraid of confronting the
charge that Jews are xenophobic, or even that he wanted to use Solomon
as a model to warn his fellow countrymen.71 But why did he not even try
at least somehow to weaken the charges brought against Solomon? These
are found towards the end of the section, not because Josephus had post-
poned the matter as long as possible as Feldman suggests,72 but merely
because that is where they are found in the biblical account. And when he
finally comes to it, Josephus does not spare his protagonist.73 He does not
annoy his Roman readership with the names of the foreign deities Solo-
mon revered (as in 1 Kgs 11,5.78),74 but he repeatedly and bluntly states
that Solomon began to worship the gods of his wives.75 That he had grown
old and that his reason was too weakened by time (8.194; cf. 1 Kgs 11,4)76
hardly counts as an excuse, as this observation is surrounded, and contra-
dicted, by numerous other charges. Indeed, AJ 8.191195 reads as one long
plea against Solomons behaviour, and Josephus does not keep to the bib-
lical text when formulating his criticism: the king is a weak person, given
to sexual pleasures and passion, knowingly transgressing the command-
ments in Torah against marrying non-Jews; age did not play a major role
in his practising idolatry for he did so right from the start (8.193
, ). Josephus now even
holds against him that he once had erected statues of oxen and lions in his
70On this whole sad story, see Begg 1997, 294313.
71All three possibilities in Feldman 1995/1998, 615.
72Feldman 1995/1998, 615.
73The introductory verse 8.190 is not so much meant to preserve something of the
greatness of the king (so Koulagna 2009, 170171), as to add more tragedy to an already
tragic event: here is a great king, who finally lapsed into apostasy.
74So also Begg and Spilsbury 2005, 50 n. 625.
75AJ 8.192 ,
...193
...194 ,
. Or should one read for (so Schreckenberg
1977, 107)? The phrase is used later on for Herod (AJ 15.68 and
16.21), not precisely a model of the virtuous king (see Begg and Spilsbury 2005, 51 n. 633).
On the link between Solomon and Herod, see also Rocca 2007, 323. I do not see why the
omission of a couple of these foreign women would be a positive feature, as Koulagna tries
to argue (2009, 171).
76Begg and Spilsbury see a play on words in and in the preceding
verse (2005, 51 n. 635).
josephus on solomon 101
palace (8.195), as he had mentioned before in 8.80 and 8.140 but with no
critical remark added to it; yet now it is used against him.77 The final blow
follows in 8.196, when Josephus once more calls in David and takes up
the motif of comparing Solomon to his father, and when he replaces the
somewhat plain he did not remain wholly loyal to the Lord his God as his
father David had been of 1 Kgs 11,4b.6 with a much more vigorous charge,
recalling the most beautiful and proximate example of virtue (
) his father had given him and
which he had failed to imitate ( ), even though God
himself had urged him to do so.78 Solomon dies an ignominious death,
(8.196).79 And the king was but all too well aware of his
debauchery, as Josephus notes by way of conclusion in 8.199, once more
going beyond what could be read in the biblical account.80 Long gone
are the days of the philosophically minded king Feldman discovered in
AJ 8.107119, a king indulging in Stoic thought and reflecting upon God
and the Temple.81 What is left is the architect of Gods Temple turned
77Cf. Begg and Spilsbury 2005, 51 n. 638.
78Begg and Spilsbury 2005, 51 n. 640 and 641. Josephus conflates and embellishes the
double reference to Solomons not living up to the standard set by David in 1 Kgs 11:4b,
6 (n. 640). Koulagna mentions the contrast, but does not get beyond a mere Josphe se
fait...plus svre (2009, 172). Josephus here seems to have forgotten that David, like his
son, had a much more complicated relationship to God; see Begg 2007a, 395410.
79A formulation that later authors apparently thought to be a bit too elliptic. The Byz-
antine historian George Cedrenus picks up the wording of Josephus, but continues with
,
eine Begrndung, die Josephus fremd ist (Schreckenberg 1972, 134).
80AJ 8.199
. The note has no parallel in the
biblical account, and that makes it all more tragic. In light of the preceding I have difficul-
ties accepting Koulagnas conclusion that the last reference to the king in 8.211 est plutt
admirable (2009, 173). I beg to differ. Admirable it is, if one stops at 8.211a; however, the
allusion he is making there to 8.190 and 8.24, is followed by another reference to the most
tragic ending of the king, to which it is now also added that Israel will suffer badly because
of these things ( ).
81Feldman 1995/1998, 619621. On the philosopher-king, see also Parker 1992, 7591
and Jonquire 2002, 7289: the prayers are used to stress the wisdom of King Solomon by
giving him the character of a philosopher (89). See also Jonquire 2007, 152171 (revised
version of the former). With regard to 8.109110, Attridge (1976, 99100) points out that
it is the first significant expression of the connection between divine providence and
prophecy in Josephus. More significant perhaps is the fact that Josephus does not mention
anymore the notion of covenant that is in 1 Kgs 8,23 and instead speaks somewhat mys-
teriously about the voice that we have from the air (see Koulagna 2009, 158159). If this
interest in prayers, like the one in rituals (when inaugurating the temple), gives the king
a priestly aura, as Koulagna points out (2009, 158 and 160), it remains to be seen whether
this really adds a positive tone to the picture.
102 joseph verheyden
into a miserable apostate, and a Stoic given to passion, the ultimate con-
tradictio in terminis.
I conclude the first part on these sad words and briefly touch upon the
second issue I want to address.
II.What is the Point?
Solomon is important to Josephus. But how much tension and contradic-
tion a character can bear, what is it good for and what can be gained by it,
and who could possibly benefit from it? As an apology for the greatness of
Jewish leadership this picture, as much as it answers some of the criticisms,
also could be used to bring on new and other charges. Josephus must have
been aware of this, and of the criticism he exposed himself to.82 It may
be the reason why he inserts in 8.56, after the episode on Hiram of Tyre
and before he continues with the account of the Temple project, a note
in which he speaks for and of himself as one who is interested in noth-
ing but the truth and one capable of setting forth the truth by means
of demonstration and compelling proofs.83 The comment obviously goes
well beyond the mere question of whether he really had searched the
archives of Tyre. The question of his readership has been much debated
in Josephus studies.84 A Jewish readership may have had mixed feelings
about this apparently objective presentation of their famous king, espe-
cially if this account was also to be read by non-Jews. The latter, and in the
first place cultivated Roman circles, including the members of the Flavian
court and maybe also the emperor himself, may have found in it, in addi-
tion to a couple of answers and probably also some confirmation of one
or another of their own presuppositions on Jewish kings and leaders, the
picture of a king and tyrant they were probably not unfamiliar with.
82On the much more positive, even apologetic, presentation of Solomon in the Books
of Chronicles, see Braun 1973, 503516 and 1976, 581590; Brueggemann 2005, 160180;
Abadie 2008, 339355; Koulagna 2009, 5576. Koulagna would like to situate Josephus mid-
way between the critical picture of 1 Kgs and the much more sympathetic one of 2 Chr
(2009, 173). I would rather conclude he is still much closer to the former.
83AJ 8.56
... ,
.
84See the survey of earlier research in Hffken 2007, 328341. Hffken argues that
Josephus at times refers to a Jewish readership, but this one definitely is secondary only
to the cultivated Greek-speaking readership he has in view and to which he refers in the
proem of his work.
josephus on solomon 103
Here is a ruler who possesses a nice dose of piety and wisdom, but also
not too much of it. Here is a ruler who is aware of his privileged relation
with God, but who also displays a good sense for Realpolitik, and even
mere ruthlessness if need be. Here is a ruler who by life was acclaimed for
his wealth, his sense of justice, and his skills as a diplomat and military
strategist, but who never really won a decisive battle against his enemies,
showed himself to be a vindictive and brutal murderer, and after his death
was cursed by his own people for his harsh yoke.85 Kings are not mea-
sured with the same standards as their subjects. And of course, as always,
there are the dangers that go with power and leadership and that can
bring down the most powerful king. That is how rulers are, and none is
really different from the other. This may sound as a comforting thought
to one who had lost most of his illusions, as I think Josephus himself and
probably many of his readers certainly had. In short, this is a great picture
of a mighty ruler, because it is far from perfect. It is the kind of picture
that must have appealed to a certain readership, because it was what they
knew from experience to be fact and reality.86
Bibliography
Abadie, Ph., Du roi sage au roi btisseur du temple: Un autre visage de Salomon dans le
livre des Chroniques, in: C. Lichtert and D. Nocquet (eds.), Le Roi Salomon, un hritage
en question: Hommage Jacques Vermeylen (Le livre et le rouleau 33), 339355, Brussels
2008.
Attridge, H.W., The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius
Josephus (Harvard Dissertations in religion 7), Missoula MT 1976.
Bacqu-Grammont, J.-L. and J.-M. Durand (eds.), Limage de Salomon: Sources et postrits.
Actes du colloque organis par le Collge de France et la Socit Asiatique, Paris, 1819
mars 2004 (Cahiers de la Socit Asiatique NS 5), Paris, Leuven and Dudley MA 2007.
Begg, C.T., Josephus Account of the Early Divided Monarchy (AJ 8,212420): Rewriting the
Bible (BETL 108), Leuven 1993.
, 1996a, Solomons Two Dreams according to Josephus, Antonianum 71: 687704.
, 1996b, Solomons Two Satans according to Josephus, Biblische Notizen 85: 4455.
, 1997, Solomons Apostasy (1 Kgs 11,113) according to Josephus, Journal for the Study
of Judaism 28: 294313.
85It has not prevented later generations to use (Josephus) Solomon for mirroring the
ideal of a Christian emperor; see Schreckenberg 1992, 105 and 129.
86This interpretation of Josephus aim and character is perhaps not the most uplifting
one, but it can be further illustrated from the mans own adventurous life. Even if one does
not wish merely to return to the classic position argued for by R. Laqueur of Josephus the
turncoat, there remains quite some space for disillusion also in the so-called modern
view on Josephus as an ardent promoter of peace with Rome against all odds (cf. Rajak
1984). On the various characterisations of Josephus person, see, e.g., Bilde 1988, 173176.
104 joseph verheyden
, 2006a, The Judgment of Solomon according to Josephus, Theologische Zeitschrift
62: 452461.
, 2006b, The Wealth of Solomon according to Josephus, Antonianum 81: 413429.
, 2006c, The Visit of the Queen of Sheba according to Josephus, Journal of Semitics
15: 107129.
, 2007a, David: Object of Hate and Love according to Josephus, Revue des tudes juives
166: 395410.
, 2007b, Solomons Preparations for Building the Temple according to Josephus,
Rivista Biblica 55: 2540.
, 2008, Solomons Post Temple-Dedication Initiatives according to Josephus, Biblische
Notizen 138: 89105.
Begg, C.T. and P. Spilsbury, Flavius Josephus. Translation and Commentary. 5. Judean Antiq-
uities Books 810. Translation and Commentary, Leiden and Boston MA 2005.
Betz, O., Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus, in: L.H. Feldman and G. Hata (eds.),
Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, 212235, Detroit 1987.
Bilde, P., Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their
Importance (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha SS 2), Sheffield 1988.
Bogaert, P.-M., La fille de Pharaon et lArche du Seigneur selon les livres des Rois (TM
et LXX) et des Chroniques, in: C. Lichtert and D. Nocquet (eds.), Le Roi Salomon, un
hritage en question: Hommage Jacques Vermeylen (Le livre et le rouleau 33), 325338,
Brussels 2008.
Braun, R., 1973, Solomonic Apologetic in Chronicles, Journal of Biblical Literature 92:
503516.
, 1976, Solomon the Chosen temple Builder: The Significance of 1 Chr 22, 28, and 29
for the Theology of Chronicles, Journal of Biblical Literature 95: 581590.
Briend, J., Les relations du roi Salomon avec les pays voisins, in: C. Lichtert and D. Noc-
quet (eds.), Le Roi Salomon, un hritage en question: Hommage Jacques Vermeylen (Le
livre et le rouleau 33), 2735, Brussels 2008.
Brueggemann, W., Solomon: Israels Ironic Icon of Human Achievement (Studies on Person-
alities of the Old Testament), Columbia SC 2005.
Deines, R., Josephus, Salomo und die von Gott verliehene gegen die Dmonen, in
A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger and K.F. Diethard Rmheld (eds.), Die DmonenDemons:
Die Dmonologie der israelitisch-jdischen und frhchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer
UmweltThe Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of
Their Environment, 365394, Tbingen 2003.
Duling, D.C., 1984, The Legend of Solomon the Magician in Antiquity: Problems and Per-
spectives, Proceedings of the Eastern Great Lakes Biblical Society 4: 122.
, 1985, The Eleazar Miracle and Solomons Magical Wisdom in Flavius Josephus
Antiquitates Judaicae 8.4249, Harvard Theological Review 78: 125.
Faber van der Meulen, H.E., Das Salomo-Bild im Hellenistisch-Jdischen Schrifttum, PhD
diss. Kampen 1978.
Feldman, L.H., Josephus as an Apologist of the Greco-Roman World: His Portrait of Solo-
mon, in: E. Schssler Fiorenza (ed.), Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and
Early Christianity (University of Notre Dame Center for the Study of Judaism and Chris-
tianity in Antiquity 2), 6898, Notre Dame IN and London 1976.
, A Selective Critical Bibliography of Josephus, in: L.H. Feldman and G. Hata (eds.),
Josephus, the Bible and History, 330448, Leiden 1989.
, 1995, Josephus Portrait of Solomon, Hebrew Union College Annual 66: 103167;
revised version in: L.H. Feldman, Josephus Interpretation of the Bible, 570628, Berkeley
1998.
, Studies in Josephus Rewritten Bible (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Juda-
ism 58), Leiden and Boston MA 1998a.
, The Influence of the Greek Tragedians on Josephus, in: A. Ovadiah (ed.), The How-
ard Gilman International Conferences. I. Hellenic and Jewish Arts: Interactions, Tradition
josephus on solomon 105
and Renewal, 5180, Tel Aviv 1998b; repr. in Feldman, Judaism and Hellenism Reconsid-
ered, 2006, 413443.
, Josephus Biblical Paraphrase as a Commentary on Contemporary Issue, in: C.A.
Evans (ed.), The Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity: Studies in
Language and Tradition, 124201, Sheffield 2000; repr. in Feldman, Judaism and Helle-
nism Reconsidered, 2006, 445521.
, Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of
Judaism 107), Leiden and Boston MA 2006.
Foakes Jackson, F.J., Josephus and the Jews, London 1930.
Frster, N., Der Exorzist Elazar. Salomo, Josephus und das alte gypten, in: J.U. Kalms
(ed.), Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Amsterdam 2000 (Mnsteraner Judaistische
Studien 10), 205221, Mnster 2001.
Giversen, S., Solomon und die Dmonen, in: M. Krause (ed.), Essays on the Nag Hammadi
Texts in Honour of Alexander Bhlig (Nag Hammadi Studies 3), 1621, Leiden 1972.
Hffken, P., 2007, berlegungen zum Leserkreis der Antiquitates des Josephus, JSJ 38:
328341.
Jonquire, T.M., Two Prayers by King Solomon in Josephus Antiquities 8 and the Bible, in:
F. Siegert and J.U. Kalms (eds.), Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Paris 2001: Studies
on the Antiquities of Josephustudes sur les Antiquits de Josphe (Mnsteraner Judais-
tische Studien 12), 7289, Mnster 2002.
, Prayer in Josephus (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 70), Leiden and Boston
MA 2007.
Koulagna, J., Salomon de lhistoire deutronomiste Flavius Josphe: Problmes textuels et
enjeux historiographiques, Paris 2009.
Laqueur, R., Der jdische Historiker Flavius Josephus: Ein biografischer Versuch auf neuer
quellenkritischer Grundlage, Giessen 1920; repr. Darmstadt 1970.
Lichtert, C., Dun songe lautre. Analyse rhtorique (1 R 3,115 et 9,19), in: C. Lichtert
and D. Nocquet (eds.), Le Roi Salomon, un hritage en question: Hommage Jacques
Vermeylen (Le livre et le rouleau 33), 261281, Brussels 2008b.
Lichtert, C. and D. Nocquet (eds.), Le Roi Salomon, un hritage en question: Hommage
Jacques Vermeylen (Le livre et le rouleau 33), Brussels 2008a.
Maier, S., 1991, The King as Warrior in Samuel-Kings, Hebrew Annual Review 13: 6376.
Malamat, A., 1963, Aspects of Foreign Policies of David and Solomon, Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 22: 117.
Mendels, D., 1987, Hellenistic Writers of the Second Century B.C. on the Hiram-Solomon
Relationship, Studia Phoenicia 5: 429441.
Moehring, H.R., 1973, Rationalization of Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus, Stu-
dia Evangelica 6: 376383.
Parker, K.I., 1992, Solomon as Philosopher King? The Nexus of Law and Wisdom in 1 Kgs
111, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 53: 7591.
Porten, B., 1967, The Structure and Theme of the Solomon Narrative (1 Kgs 311), Hebrew
Union College Annual 38: 93128.
Preisendanz, K., Salomo, in: Paulys Real-Encyclopdie der Classischen Altertumswissen-
schaft. Supplement, 8, Stuttgart 1956, 660704.
Rajak, T., Josephus: The Historian and His Society, Philadelphia PA 1984.
Rocca, S., Josephus and the Psalms of Solomon on Herods Messianic Aspirations: An
Interpretation, in: Z. Rodgers (ed.), Making History. Josephus and Historical Method
(Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 110), 313333, Leiden and Boston
MA 2007.
Rmer, Th., Salomon daprs les deutronomistes: un roi ambigu, in: C. Lichtert and
D. Nocquet (eds.), Le Roi Salomon, un hritage en question: Hommage Jacques Vermey-
len (Le livre et le rouleau 33), 99130, Brussels 2008.
Sarowy, W., Quellenkritische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Knig Salomos, Knigsberg
1900.
106 joseph verheyden
Schenker, A., Septante et texte massortique dans lhistoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois
214 (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 48), Paris 2000.
, lteste Textgeschichte der Knigsbcher: Die hebrische Vorlage der ursprnglichen
Septuaginta als lteste Textform der Knigsbcher (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 199), Fri-
bourg and Gttingen 2004.
Schreckenberg, H., Die Flavius-Josephus Tradition in Antike und Mittelalter (Arbeiten zur
Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums 5), Leiden 1972.
, Rezeptionsgeschichtliche und textkritische Untersuchungen zu Flavius Josephus (Arbei-
ten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums 10), Leiden 1977.
Schreckenberg, H. and K. Schubert, Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and
Medieval Christianity (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 3/2),
Assen, Maastricht and Minneapolis MN 1992.
Shimoff, S.R., The Hellenization of Solomon in Rabbinic Texts, in: L.K. Handy (ed.), The
Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millenium, 457469, Leiden 1997.
Silberman, L.H., The Queen of Sheba in Judaic Tradition, in: J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Solomon
& Sheba, 85103, London 1974.
Smith, M., The Occult in Josephus, in: L.H. Feldman and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, Judaism
and Christianity, 236256, Detroit 1987.
Spottorno, V., Some Remarks on Josephus Biblical Text for 12 Kgs, in: C. Cox (ed.),
VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 277285,
Atlanta GA 1987.
Torijano, P., Solomon the Esoteric King: From King to Magus, Development of a Tradition
(Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 73), Leiden and Boston MA 2002.
Villalba i Varneda, P., The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus (Arbeiten zur Literatur und
Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums 19), Leiden 1986.
Vogel, M., Traumdarstellungen bei Josephus und Lukas, in: J. Frey et al. (eds.), Die
Apostelgeschichte im Kontext antiker und frhchristlicher Historiographie (Beihefte zur
Zeitschrift fr die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 162), 130156, Berlin and New York,
2009.
Wnin, A., Bethsabe, pouse de David et mre de Salomon. Une tude narrative, in:
C. Lichtert and D. Nocquet (eds.), Le Roi Salomon, un hritage en question: Hommage
Jacques Vermeylen (Le livre et le rouleau 33), 207228, Brussels 2008.
SOLOMON AND MAGIC
Pablo A. Torijano
Introduction
King Solomon has had a double reception history, part literary and part
legendary, based on the characterization of 1 Kgs and linked to the theme
of his wisdom and that of the construction of the Temple. Both motifs
occur in Second Temple and Rabbinic Jewish Literature as well as in early
Christian writings. The use of the figure of the wise king as a device, first
in the Bible already and afterwards in several Greek and Syriac Pseude-
pigrapha, marks the path King Solomon will follow in later times. Already
in the Second Temple period, his figure was popular and much used in
several writings. According to Rabbinic tradition, his significance was
such as to secure him a place in the list of works of dubious authorship
such as Qohelet or Song of Songs.1
The importance and popularity of Solomons character was extended
also to aspects and texts that were less normative within Judaism; Solo-
mons name and figure played an important role in magic or ritual power
practices, derived at first glance from a special interpretation of the themes
of his wisdom and of the building of the Temple. The use of Solomon
and his legend in magical texts and practices constitutes an extraordinary
development that, in some aspects, would have a bigger impact in the
Western world than the biblical account itself.
This is not the place for a theoretical discussion on the definition of
magic, but given the different working hypotheses assumed by scholars,
some comments may be useful.2 In the following pages, both normative
religious texts and ritual power texts are considered on the same level.
Religion is understood here as the cultural mediation that a determined
historical period imposes on the individual when treating heavenly or
other-world realms; that cultural mediation is the accepted path for con-
tacting the divinity or divinities; it can change over time. It acts as an
intermediary that is interposed between the individual and the divinity,
1On the so-called council of Jamnia and the legendary closing of the Jewish canon,
see Lewis 1992.
2On the definition of magic and especially of Jewish magic, see Bohak 2008, 869.
108 pablo a. torijano
subjected to a series of rules and practices that channel the relationship
and that are accepted within the whole of that society. In most cases reli-
gion, understood in that way, is a passive activity that does not look for
direct consequences, that is, the practitioner cannot be sure whether it
will have some effect even when performing the rituals in the adequate
manner. However, there are practices that, although existing in the same
cultural milieu, constitute an alternative path in dealing with the divini-
ties and whose ultimate aim is effectiveness and efficiency. Magic and
mysticism are the secondary roads that many took in Late Antiquity and
afterwards when dealing with other-world realities. Both share some char-
acteristics of the cultural mediation of the period, but each of them took
a more specific turn in which what really mattered was the individual in
his petty or great worries. Late Antiquity witnessed a growing recourse to
such shortcuts. In part of the Mediterranean Oikoumene, Solomon acted
as catalyzer of these practices, supporting them and playing an important
role as magical intermediary.
Exorcisms and Texts
Let us have a look at the material that we have to consider when studying
the magical traditions linked to Solomon. Generally speaking, in the study
of magic there are two different kinds of witnesses; that of those who
know and use the techniques and that of those who hear, write about,
comment on, or criticize those same techniques. As Gideon Bohak has
recently put it:
The most important distinction to be made in the study of any magical tradi-
tion, and especially those of the distant past, is between outsider accounts
and insider evidence, or, to phrase it more accurately, between the repre-
sentation of magicians and references to them by people who are not them-
selves involved in magic and the picture which emerges from the texts and
artifacts manufactured and utilized by the magicians themselves.3
If we apply this methodological distinction to our sources, we encounter
some difficulties. Most of the magical material that speaks of or is related
to Solomon fits in the insider category, with the exception of what we
may label literary references: Pseudo-Philos Biblical Antiquities, Jose-
phus Jewish Antiquities, the Gospel narratives and Rabbinic traditions.4
3Bohak 2008, 70.
4On these materials and Solomon, see Torijano 2002.
solomon and magic 109
Apart from these exceptions, we may add a third category, the modern
re-interpretation of a text in the light of our knowledge of later sources,
as it is the case with Wisdom of Solomon 7:1721, where no clear reference
of magical matters appears but that seems to allude precisely to them.
On the other hand, it is difficult to classify the well known Testament of
Solomon either as insider or outsider evidence.5
The texts that I have labeled outsider accounts share a detail that will
keep showing up in these pages. All of them refer to the characterization
of Solomon as an exorcist and to his power over demons. As this connec-
tion between Solomon and demons appears in both kinds of accounts,
it seems evident that it constitutes the oldest esoteric manifestation of
Solomon that will eventually develop and reach other fields of magic and
ritual knowledge.
Let us turn to the first two outsiders notices, the text of the Biblical
Antiquities of Pseudo Philo (first century c.e.) and the New Testament ref-
erences. Neither text mentions Solomon but they refer to him as the child
of David either in an indirect way, as in the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo
Philo, or directly, as in the Gospels (the title Son of David). In Bib Ant
60, the story of 1 Sam 16:1423, about Davids musical abilities that kept
at bay the Demon that tormented Saul, has been expanded by adding a
psalm of exorcistic content. In it, David warns the evil spirit about his
future descendant who will conquer it.6 This is quite likely an early echo
of a tradition about Solomon the exorcist.
In the New Testament two groups of texts are to be considered. The first
one comprises Mark 10:4652 and its parallels in Matt 20:2034; 9:2731
and Luke 18:3543; the second includes Matt 12:2230.4245 and Matt 15:22.
These texts share the same healing or exorcistic context and, with the
exception of Matt 12:2230 and 4245, invoke Jesus in the same way: have
mercy on me (us), Son of David. This expression has a formulaic value
in its context; it could well go back to Judeo-Aramaic traditions about
exorcism. Matt 12:2224 and 4245 seems to allude to a tradition that
linked the title Son of David, Solomon and exorcisms, but that has been
reworked by the author due to polemics about Jesus powers as exorcist
and the competition with Solomon.7 This polemical competition between
5For a modern assessment of this work, see Klutz 2005.
6See Jacobson 1966, 1.82, 187188, 2.11731180.
7See on this aspect, Charlesworth 1996; Duling 1975.
110 pablo a. torijano
Solomon and Jesus as exorcists keeps appearing in later Christian writ-
ings; the controversy was still alive in the fifth and the sixth century.8
The outsider evidence about Solomon and magical traditions makes
evident two details: on the one hand, the exorcistic and demonology
content of these traditions constitute the first stage of the link between
Solomon and magic; on the other, they provide the terminus a quo for
establishing such a link in literary works. These texts can be dated around
the first century c.e., but the characterization of Solomon as an exorcist
had to be known well before that date since this sort of traditions take a
rather long time to develop before they appear in outsider sources. Wis-
dom of Solomon supports that chronology; Wis 7:1720 provides a cata-
logue of the ritual lore that Solomon purportedly knew. The text refers,
among other things, to: the beginning, and the end, and middle of the
times, the changes of the solstices and the vicissitudes of the seasons (18),
the cycles of the year and the position of the stars (19), and the violent
force of the spirits, the species of plants and the virtues of the roots (20).
The third verse reflects a catalogue of esoteric lore, in which the vio-
lent force of the spirits seems to refer to the knowledge and power over
demons. The dating of Wisdom of Solomon around the second quarter
of the first century c.e., reinforces the terminus a quo of these traditions
about Solomon as exorcist.9
However, the main source for these traditions is Josephus narrative of
the exorcism performed by an Essene in front of Vespasian in Book 8 of
his Jewish Antiquities. This text shows several traits about Solomon and
his esoteric knowledge that will keep appearing in other texts. Josephus
mentions that God gave Solomon knowledge of exorcisms:
And God granted him knowledge of the art used against the demons for
the benefit and healing of men. He also composed incantations by which
illnesses are relieved, and left behind forms of exorcisms with which those
possessed by demons drive them out, never to return. And this kind of cure
is of very great power among us to this day (AJ 8.4546).
Josephus position towards magic and esoteric arts is generally negative.10
However, here he gives a characterization of Solomon that shows him to
be linked with exorcism and magical healing. The exact wording of the
text is revealing; Josephus use of the present tense in the narrative marks
8See for example the writings of Leontios of Byzantium (485542), in Patrologia Graeca,
86, c. 1968 bis; see also Gregentius of Taphra, in Patrologia Graeca, vol. 86, c. 642 C.
9See Winston 1979.
10On magic and the occult in Josephus, see Smith 1987.
solomon and magic 111
it as actual and referring to the time of the author (and this kind of cure
is of very great power among us to this day), a reference that is ultimately
reinforced by the well known narrative of Eleazars exorcism in AJ 8.4648.11
That narrative transforms the outsider source into an insider composition,
since it recounts the experience of Josephus as a witness of an exorcism,
where both the procedures (the roots prescribed by Solomon) and the king
himself (speaking Solomons name and reciting the incantations which he
had composed) are mentioned in precise terms. Somehow Josephus felt
compelled to include such a practice, despite his overall negative opin-
ion about those operations. Again, another outsider source reinforces the
relative chronology of esoteric traditions about Solomon and his relation-
ship with exorcism within a Jewish setting.
So far, I have dealt with some of the outsider narratives which show
that the link between King Solomon and magical knowledge was known
and alive at least from the first century c.e. However, these traditions are
attested in insiders sources that appeared previously in a Hebrew-Aramaic
speaking context: the Qumran sect.
The first indication in an insider source about Solomon and exorcistic
practices is found in the Qumran Library, in a small scroll, 11QPs11, that
contains what seems to be an exorcists handbook. This scroll has been
dated on paleographical grounds around 5070 b.c.e. It contains three
apocryphal psalms in a very fragmentary state. At the beginning of the
first column of the scroll we can read,
Of David. About the words of incantation in the name of YHWH (
) vacat Solomon and he will invoke in the name of YHWH in
order to be delivered of any plague of the spirits and the demons.12
This introduction marks the text as clearly being exorcistic; it also men-
tions Solomon. Although the text is fragmentary, it is obvious that the
Solomon it refers to must be Davids son, which fits well the formulaic use
of the title son of David in Jewish exorcistic settings. Therefore, while
leaving aside possible reconstructions of the lacuna, it seems evident that
the mention of Solomons name is part of an apothropaic formula. In the
fifth column we read:
of David. About the words of incantation in the name of the Lord time
to the heavens when it comes to you by night you shall say to it
who are you , accursed among men and the race of the holy ones.
11Cf. Duling 1985.
12For the edition and commentary of this text, see Garca Martnez 1998, 181205.
112 pablo a. torijano
The text goes on to describe some characteristics of the demon. If we con-
sider the previous fragment together with this one, a more clear picture
emerges regarding Solomons role. The key is the question Who are you?,
which appears as the kernel around which the framework of the text is
built. In fact it reminds us of the use of such identification formula in the
Testament of Solomon,13 where it functions as the main structural device
of the complex demonology that is laid out there. Thus, after imprison-
ing the demon Ornias with the seal given by the archangel Michael, King
Solomon interrogates him in the following terms:
Who are you? and what is your name? The demon said: I am called Ornias.
And I said to him, Tell me in what sign of the Zodiac you reside. And
answering, the demon says: in Aquarius and I strangle the ones who lie in
Aquarius...(Test. Sol. 1:15).14
As the previous one, the text goes on describing the main traits of the
demon. The Testament of Solomon is dated around the fourth century c.e.,
much later than the Qumran psalm; this fact suggests that both used a
common source. The apocryphal Qumran psalm is the only Jewish attesta-
tion of Solomon as a magician that can be dated to Second Temple Juda-
ism with some degree of certainty.
This formula (Who are you?) is paired with Solomon in other texts
such as the Questions of Bartholomew, a Greek apocryphal Christian text
also known as the Gospel of Bartholomew and dated between the second
and the fifth centuries c.e. The text narrates how Jesus has Belial brought
to him, to the horror of his apostles and Bartholomews dismay, who is
afraid of confronting the demon despite the reassuring words of Jesus.
Finally Jesus says:
Were not all things made by my word, and by the will of my Father the spir-
its were made subject to Solomon? You therefore, being commanded by my
word, go in my name and ask him what you will (...) 23 And Bartholomew
said to him Tell me who are you and what is your name. And he said to him,
lighten me a little, and I will tell you who I am and how I came hither, and
what my work is and what my power is.15
Here we see again that Solomon is loosely linked with an exorcistic for-
mula: as shown in this text it began to have an independent literary
13On the formula, Torijano 2002, 4676.
14My translation; for an alternative translation with commentary see Duling 1983,
935988.
15For the present translation and a commentary, see Elliott 1993, 661663.
solomon and magic 113
development. In fact, the formula could be used independently from the
figure of Solomon. Thus, we find a really close parallel to the Qumran
texts in a Genizah text (T.-S. K 1.123) that Gideon Bohak has dated around
the eleventh century c.e. It contains four pages written in Hebrew and
Aramaic with magical recipes that go back to Late Ancient models.16 The
identification formula appears there in Hebrew and follows loosely the
description of the demon that appeared in the Qumran psalm. After
the invocation, adscription and orders in Aramaic that are found in other
recipes and amulets,17 we read in Hebrew:
Who are you, whether from the seed of man o from the seed of Cattle, (...)
your face is the face of old age and your horns are like a water current.18
Bohak sees in this fragment a clear parallel to the Qumran psalm that
has been quoted previously. The fact that the spell is in Hebrew seems
to indicate for him that the scribe was using a text. That text seems to
have been employed mainly within an exorcistic context and quite likely
existed as an independent unit even before being linked with the exorcis-
tic characterization of Solomon. 11QPs11 would be then the first attestation
of that pairing.
As it seems, the Who are you? formula was cut off from the character
of Solomon the exorcist around the fifth or sixth century c.e. Afterwards,
it appeared in literary texts in the West always within a demonological or
exorcistic context. Thus we find the very same formula in Dantes Divine
Comedy, either introducing evil spirits or the poet himself in his touring of
the underworld.19 From the sixteenth century on the formula will appear
frequently, mainly in literary works that deal with the motif of making a
pact with the devil. In Marlowes Faustus the seven deadly sins enter in
the stage and are interrogated by Faustus in the following terms:
Faustus
What art thou, the first?
16See Bohak 2012.
17See Naveh and Shaked 1985; Naveh 1993.
18The text is transcribed by Bohak as follows: [ ][ ][? ] []
/ / . For a paleographical and linguistic
analysis, see Bohak, From Qumran to Cairo.
19See Inferno VIII, v 33 (who are you that comes before your time?); Inferno VIII 84.
XXIX 93 (But who are you who have inquired from us? See Dante Alighieri, LInferno di
Dante (ed. Sermonti) 1993.
114 pablo a. torijano
Pride
I am Pride. I disdain to have any parents. I am
like to Ovids flea. I can creep into every corner of a wench,
sometimes like a periwig; I, sit upon her brow, or, like a fan
of feathers, I kiss her lips. Indeed I do, what do I not?20
The Who are you? formula also occurs in several Spanish plays of the
seventeenth century, such as El esclavo del demonio (The demons Slave)
by Mira de Amescua, El mgico prodigioso by Caldern de la Barca, El con-
denado por desconfiado by Tirso de Molina, and the short novel El diablo
cojuelo by Luis Vlez de Guevara.21 The common denominator of these
works is again the motif of the pact with the demon, that was very popu-
lar in Western literature and that was mainly based on the Greek legend
of Teophilus of Adana, written by Eutyches around the sixth century c.e.
and known in its Latin translation by Paul the Deacon from the eighth
century c.e. The formula will survive till the modern era. It appears in
Goethes Faust when Mephistopheles presents himself to Faust and in the
Faust of Mann who probably took the whole scene from Goethe.22
The inclusion of the Who are you? formula in literary works consti-
tutes the last stage in the development of this tradition about Solomon
the exorcist. The questioning of the demon, which was part of any pro-
cedure of exorcism, has been transformed in a literary motif, to be used
when a demonic or otherworldly figure has to be introduced; as its main
goal was to give a degree of realism to the text, the prospective reader
had to be familiar in some way with the demonic adjuration that was
commonly used in such cases. There are two possibilities: either the for-
mula was taken from some version of the so-called Key of Solomon, a text
that was widely known in medieval and early modern Europe,23 or it was
extracted from the Rituale Romanum of Paulus V (1609) whose Titulus XI
on exorcisms presents a similar wording.24 In either case, the success
20Philippe Marlowe, The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus, 2325, especially 23. Each
of the sins is identified in the same manner and the similarities with the use of the formula
in the Testament of Solomon are striking.
21 Mira de Amescua, El esclavo del demonio (ed. Castaeda) 1984; Caldern de la Barca,
El mgico prodigioso (ed. Fernndez) 2008; Tirso de Molina, El condenado por desconfiado
(ed. Morn) 1992; Vlez de Guevara, El diablo cojuelo (ed. Fernndez Gonzlez and
Arellano) 2001.
22See Goethe 2000, 3839; Mann 1975, 303304.
23For the Key of Solomon and its relationship with other magic works attributed to
Solomon, see Johnston 2002, 3550; Torijano 2012.
24Rituale Romanum: editio prima post typicam anno 1953 promulgata, Rome 2001, p. 274.
The text reads as follows: Praecipio tibi, quicumque es, spiritus inmunde [...] dicas mihi
nomen tuum, diem, et horam exitus tui, cum aliquo signo...
solomon and magic 115
and preservation of the Who are you? formula attests to the impact of
esoteric traditions in Western culture till the modern period and, in an
indirect the way, to the survival of the ancient characterization of Solo-
mon as a magician and exorcist.25
Amulets and Bowls
The importance of this characterization of Solomon as an exorcist appears
also in the large corpus of Late Ancient magic amulets and bowls. They
are the most important primary or insider sources of magic practice in
Late Antiquity since they have as a rule been not harmed by the vicissi-
tudes of textual transmission or the critical eye of the censor. Solomons
name shows up frequently in these objects, either in Greek, Aramaic or
Hebrew; most of the time it is paired with his magical ring. The main char-
acteristic of this appearance is that it always forms part of an apothropaic
invocation against the demons and / or the ailments caused by them.26
A text of major importance for our purpose in the corpus of the Greek
Magical Papyri is the so-called Charm of Pibechis for demoniacs.27 This
adjuration is Jewish, although it has been modified as the reference
to the God of the Hebrews, Jesus shows; it was copied by the pagan
owner of PGM IV at the beginning of fourth century c.e. Here we have
the oldest insider mention of Solomons ring as a powerful instrument
to deter demons, effective enough to be transmitted in a pagan magical
handbook.
On some Greek amulets the well-known tradition about the ring of
Solomon takes a new turn. We find there a complex combination of ico-
nography and text where the inscription supports the image. They show
a horseman riding to the right and piercing the heart of a female figure
with a lance. Sometimes the rider has a band or a crown on his head. The
oldest examples (third century c.e.) are made of hematite and have the
inscription on the recto and on the verso; they do
not show evident Christian traits. The origin of these amulets is rather
obscure. It has been said that the iconography was the result of imitat-
ing the royal representations of Hellenistic rulers as victorious horsemen;
parallels for such an iconography are to be found on coins and medals
25For a more detailed study of the literary use of the formula, see Torijano 2004, 211226.
26See Naveh and Shaked 1985; Naveh 1993 (passim).
27For the Greek text, Preisendanz 197319742, 6465; for the translation, Betz 19922,
9697.
116 pablo a. torijano
of the last three Antonine emperors. However, this interpretation over-
looks what it is the most important feature of the image: the lying female
whose heart is being pierced by the spear. The origin of the iconography
must be much older.28 The image of the conqueror of demons appears
already is the amulet of Arslan Tash (North-Syria), a plaque written in
Phoenician around the seventh century b.c.e. There the Sasm strides forth
against the reverse figures, who are called fliers (in feminine) and stran-
glers (in feminine) and are represented by a winged female sphinx. These
female demonic figures seem to be an early form of female demons, such
as the Akkadian Lamashtu, the Jewish Lilith, and the Christian Gyllou or
Onoskelis; they were described as dangerous for pregnant woman and
young children.29
We will find a quite similar iconography in the corpus of Pahlavi and
Sassanid amulets. All of these share the female demonic figure and the
warrior piercing her with a spear; also, on many of them, the warrior is
identified as ssny, ssn, sasyn. A variant of this name appears in the holy
rider amulets we are considering, in the Aramaic Jewish bowls and in the
Magical Greek Papyri. In the Papyri we have the form sesen bar faranges,
a famous nomen magicum; on the Aramaic bowls the names swny, swswny
snygly appear; the Greek amulets read Sisinnios Sisinnarios. The history of
transmission of the iconography is necessarily linked with the transmis-
sion of the names. Around the third century c.e. the names ssn, sisin, ssn
bar prngs, became powerful nomina magica; as such they were used by
Aramaic speaking Jews in Mesopotamia and gave rise to a magical histo-
riola in which a female demon is pursued.30 Later on that historiola will
occur in various Christian versions in which Saint Sisisinnios, or Sines, or
Sinodoros, is the one who conquers the female demon (fifth century c.e.?).
Through Jewish practitioners, the nomina traveled to the other side of the
border and began to be used in connection with the iconography of the
holy rider, very likely by Sassanian influence; some of the Nippur bowls
describe how the spear of Qatros pierces the heart of the Liliths, which
would allude to the horseman iconography.31 Still, in a parallel way and
28For the following I rely on Schwartz 1998a; 1998b; on the horseman amulets, see
Torijano 2002; Maguire and Duncan-Flowers 1989, 2528, 212217; Russell 1995, 3550.
29See Perdrizet 1922, 1326; Naveh and Shaked 1985, 111122; Sorlin 1991.
30See on this aspect Naveh and Shaked 1985, 111122. A historiola is a narrative frame
that encloses and or precedes magical procedures; on this literary device, see Heim 1892,
463576. For the use of these nomina in the Middle Ages, see Trachtenberg 1987, 101102,
139, 169.
31See Torijano 2002, 139140; for further examples of this type of bowl, see Gordon
1984; 1985.
solomon and magic 117
within a Jewish milieu, the holy rider was linked to Solomon, and the so-
called Seal of Solomon was born; this amulet will evolve through time,
incorporating more motifs (the evil eye, several animals such a snake,
scorpion, palm branches, stars etc....) and sometimes carrying the names
of Sisinnios and Sisinnarios.
This Seal of Solomon with the holy rider remained in use at least till
the early Byzantine period (sixth-seventh century c.e.) as the findings in
the excavations of the city of Anemurium on the Cilician coast attest.32
At the same time, the iconography of the holy riders was applied to Sisin-
nios, Sisen or Sinodoros, transformed into a Saint as shown in the Coptic
Monastery of Apolo in Bawit (fifth century) or in some Syriac amulets
described by Gollanz.33 Generally speaking, Sisinnios and his comrades
were transformed into one of the various pairs of warrior saints that were
popular in the East, Saint George and Saint Theodore being the most
popular pair. However, from the sixth century on, the iconography of the
holy rider began to change and the female demon first became a serpent
and later on a dragon; this change is seen already in some earlier amu-
lets where the female demon has a snakes tail. The historiola of the fight
between Sisinios and the female demon was modified into a chivalrous
tale of the rescue of a maiden and lost its exorcistic contents;34 in the
West the horseman is identified with Saint George at the end of the first
millennium c.e.. In the Greek speaking East the same legend is applied to
Saint Theodosius already before the eleventh century, but afterwards and
perhaps by Crusader influence Saint George substituted Theodosius again.
In other areas of the Christian East (Egypt, Syria, Armenia, Ethiopia) the
horseman iconography was gradually transferred to other saints or angels.
In those frontier cultures, the traditional representation of a horse-
man piercing a female demon (Solomon, Sisinnius, Raphael, Michael)
remained popular until the eighteenth century, as several manuscripts of
that period clearly show.35
Solomon the Magician and Astrologer
Solomon was quite a figure within the exorcistic practices of Jews and
Christians alike, at least from the first century c.e. on. However, his
32See Russell 1995, 40.
33Gollanz 1912, 22, 23, 27.
34See Greenfield 1989.
35See Winkler 1931, 96140; Peterson 1926, 109145.
118 pablo a. torijano
development into a magical character of great power followed a differ-
ent path. It began when his fame as an exorcist was already established.
It is likely that at its very beginning this new characterization took place
exclusively in a Greek speaking setting. Perhaps the rather obscure text of
Wisdom of Solomon 7 quoted above pointed to that development already
in the first century b.c.e. However, the transformation of Solomon from
an exorcist to a magician should be dated later, around the fifth or sixth
century c.e.; it remained alive till the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
as the popularity of esoteric corpora such as the Key of Solomon and the
sheer amount of Greek magical and astrological manuscripts indicate.
The first problem that has to be to tackled is the lack of sources before
the sixth century, except for Wisdom of Solomon 7:1820. Fortunately, a
magical Hebrew handbook of Late Antiquity, the Sefer-ha Razim, comes
to our aid.36 Despite the many problems it poses, the Sefer is a valuable
source for Jewish magic; if we accept a fifth-sixth century date, it furnishes
a bridge between the magical and exorcistic practices of the Second Tem-
ple period and those of Late Antiquity and beyond. The techniques it
describes show a strong influence of the Greek magical traditions, which
may explain the continuity with later works such as the Greek Hydro-
mancy of Solomon.
According to this text, Solomon is the last link in a very special chain
of tradition, that dealt in
(how) to master the investigation of the strata to the heavens, to go about
in all that is in their seven abodes, to observe all the astrological signs, to
examine the course of the sun, to explain the observations of the moon, and
to know the paths of the Great Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades, to declare the
names of the oversees of each and every firmament and the realms of their
authority, and by what means they (can be made to) cause success in each
thing (asked of them), and what are the names of their attendants and what
(oblations) are to be poured out to them, and what is the proper time (at
which they will hear prayer, so as) to perform every wish of anyone (who
comes) near them in purity. [...] (Noah learned) from it rituals (that cause)
death and rituals (that preserve) life, to understand the evil and the good, to
search out (the right) seasons and moments (for magical rites), [...] to rule
over spirits and over demons, to send them (wherever you wish) so they will
go out like slaves, to watch the four winds of the earth, to be learned in the
speech of the thunderclaps, to tell the significance of lightning flashes, to
foretell what will happen in each and every month, and to know the affairs
36Margalioth 1966.
solomon and magic 119
of each and every year, which starts with Noah and includes the Patriarchs,
the elders and the prophets.37
Here we have the first summary of the knowledge that we will find attrib-
uted to Solomon in Greek texts such as the Hydromancy of Solomon, the
Selenodromion of David and Solomon or the Magical Treatise of Solomon.
Among them, the Hydromancy of Solomon, also known as the Epistle to
Rehoboam, is probably the most important and interesting.38 It can be
dated around the sixth century c.e., mainly on the basis of the language
a fairly correct late koin Greek. In this work, Solomon purportedly teaches
his son Rehoboam the technique of divination through water (hydro-
mancy), although in fact this does not appear in the text; it is shown how
this way of divination is linked with the exact knowledge of the planets,
zodiacal signs and the times when each of them surrenders its power. The
text begins with a brief dialogue between Solomon and Rehoboam, which
will constitute the literary frame for the astrological techniques necessary
for securing power, wealth and love. Thus we read:
Pay attention, my very precise son Roboam, to the exactness of this art of
mineyour father Solomon, to the procedures, in which the whole atten-
tion of divination through water lies, because it is necessary before anything
[...] to master the observations of the planets and of the Zodiac signs and
to follow them and perform them according to your will.
Roboam asks his father Solomon:
Father, where does the force of the acts lie?
Solomon responds:
The entire art, grace and force of what is sought remains in plants, words
and stones. First of all, know the positions of the seven planets; because the
seven planets lead the seven days of the week; let us begin from weeks first
day, that is, from the Suns day. And in the first period we assume that the
Sun rules, and, in the same way, we will explain the others which follow.39
Afterwards the text presents a hierarchy of planetary gods, angels and
demons and furnishes a detailed account of the actions to be undertaken
in every hour of each day of the week, depending on what planet (Helios,
Aphrodite, Hermes, Kronos, Zeus, Ares) rules it. We read then:
On the third day, Ares is lord.
At the first hour of the third day, Ares is Lord. It is good so that you will work
with paper and you will win the war and other things.
37For the present translation, see Morgan 1983, 1718.
38On this text, see Torijano 2002, 151174, 209224, 231253.
39For the present translation, Torijano 2002, 231.
120 pablo a. torijano
At the second hour, Helios: [good hour] so that you will earn money.
At the third hour, Aphrodite: [a good hour] you will make an demonstration.
At the fourth hour, Hermes: [a good hour] so that you will march to battle.
At the fifth hour, Moon: [a good hour] so that you will march and escape.
At the sixth hour, Kronos: be aware of your enemy.40
The week begins with the day of the Lord, Sunday, and ends on Saturday,
following the Jewish week; the deeds and actions refer mainly to every-
day situations (business, love, work, networking and public relations)
and ion many occasions only indicate that the day is lucky without men-
tioning a determined activity. After this weekly calendar, Solomon gives
further instructions to Rehoboam, indicating the demon and angel that
rules in the twenty fourth hours of each day. The text goes on describing
the prayers that should be addressed to the planets to gain their favour,
the symbols (characteres) of each and every planet, the way to prepare the
prayers, and, finally, the plants that correspond to each zodiacal sign and
planet; this last unit of the text constitutes a small treatise of astrological
medicine dealing with the properties and effects each zodiacal sign and
planet has in different situations. Thus we can read
The plant of Gemini is the corn-flag: when the same zodiac sign rules, gather
its flowers and throw them on the bed of a newborn little child, then wear
them and you will be loved by small and great ones. The leaves, when they
are worn, will heal the possessed by a demon. Give the upper root to man or
beast to eat and he/it will love you, the lower root and they will be hated.41
The contents of the work give some clues about its date and provenance.
Generally speaking, most of the actions that are to be performed or to
be avoided depending on the hour (going into court, fights, problems
with great lords, business ventures..., speaking in public) fit clearly in
any urbanized setting of Late Antiquity. There are no Christian overtones
whatsoever, with the possible exception of the denomination of Sunday as
the day of the Lord, but this epithet was used also in pagan circles, since
it was the day consecrated to Helios. The chronological sequence of the
week (Sunday as first day and Saturday as the last, the ordinal numerals
as names of the days), as well as the denomination of Friday as the day
of Preparation, points to a Jewish background. In addition to that, the
prayers seem to be an adaptation of a pagan model for use by a monothe-
ist readership, which again would support Jewish authorship.
40Torijano 2002, 233234.
41 Torijano 2002, 247.
solomon and magic 121
The Hydromancy seems to be at the origin of this new development
in characterizing Solomon as a magician. It suits perfectly the practices
of ritual power that are described in Greek Magical Papyri or the Sefer
ha-Razim. It responds to a different setting, with different kinds of prac-
tices, practitioners, users and clients. The social setting of the text that
links Solomon with the usual techniques of Greco-Roman magic in Late
Antiquity is the Mediterranean city, whereas the previous exorcistic char-
acterizations focused on what could be labeled as low-level practices, at
home in a less urbanized society. In that ambiance Jewish traditions were
so mingled with pagan and Christian ones, that it is sometimes difficult to
distinguish what is what in the text. However, the overtones of the tradi-
tion point to a Jewish origin, although the traditions will be overtaken and
developed later by Christian practitioners.
Thus, in the Early Byzantine period, works such as the so-called Magical
Treatise of Solomon will continue the evolution of Solomon as a magician
and of his name as a magical power in its own right.42 If the Hydromancy
mainly dealt with the knowledge of the correct time, astrological prayers
and astrological botany, the Treatise deals with more conspicuous mat-
ters. Love, treasures, invocations of demons, and divination are its pri-
mary concerns, as we can see in the following fragment which describes
how to seduce a woman of the upper class:
I adjure you by the power of the all-powerful God Sabaoth, Adonai, who is
the God of Abraham the God of Isaak, the God of Jacob, who chose, among
all the races and peoples, Israel, to which God transmitted the divine myster-
ies. I adjure by the shining God whose depth of wisdom cannot be measured
and whose deep splendor is inscrutable, the one who punished Egypt with
the eleven plagues and brings his people from there; I adjure you by the staff
that divided the Red Sea and by Moses that ordered it to do these things and
to cross his people through the sea; I adjure by the terrible power of God
with which the Lord delivered his people with strong hand and raised arm;
I adjure you, spirits, by the sanctuaries of Gods tent and the tables writ-
ten by the finger of God, [...] I adjure you, I bind you, I seal you in accord
with the names said and the adjurations pronounced, so you do not delay
in whatever place you may be; find So and So (the woman) who I want and
love, go to take her heart and excite her thought about me So and So; that
she may not have esteem for either father, mother, brother, none of her rela-
tives, either male or female friend, but only esteem for my desire. So make
42This text is found in several Greek manuscripts; see Torijano 2002, 157160. For the
Greek text, see Delatte 1927, 398445.
122 pablo a. torijano
her love me much with furious love, quick, quick and that she may not eat,
or drink, or sleep, or any other indulgence while I do not wanted it.43
The similarities of this adjuration with the ones preserved in the Greek
Magical Papyri are noteworthy. The recourse to Solomon preserves these
traditions and incorporates them in other types of texts of ritual power.
The treatise furnishes also detailed instructions to make several magical
instruments and materials, such as swords, rings, pure paper, heavens
(ourania) and the like:
Whenever you may want to make the sword of the technique, with which it
is necessary to draw the circle in the earth and with it the knots of the tech-
nique and all the other things that are produced by it. It is necessary to do it
in this way: Take iron that has killed either a sword or a knife or something
similar and give it to the kettle to make a sword that you like. [...]
And put it a hilt made with goat horn and get it very sharp and keep it in
a pure state. Do not cut anything with it and deposit it in a pure place.44
These instructions made their way into many handbooks of magic in the
West. Magical compendia, such as the Latin Clavicula Solomonis (Key of
Solomon), preserve some of them and the whole scholarly western magic
is indebted to some form of the Magical Treatise of Solomon. By the fif-
teenth century c.e., Solomon has become the magician par excellence
among Christian practitioners; his influence had become so great that
the Clavicula was translated into Spanish, French, and English.45 The Jew-
ish magical tradition would re-introduce this characterization of Solomon
through Christian mediation as the Mafteah Selomoh, a translation into
Hebrew of a Latin original, attests.46
Conclusion
It is clear that the esoteric description of Solomon was very popular
throughout Late Antiquity and that its popularity endured the test of
time. One could say that the connection of ritual power and Solomon in
some circles almost obscured the normative representation of the bib-
lical king, the wise builder of the Temple. The presence of Solomon in
texts and artifacts of different religious milieus, during such an extended
43My translation; for the Greek, see Delatte 1927, 422423.
44My translation; for the Greek, Delatte 1927, 406.
45On the Key of Solomon, see Butler 1949, repr. 1979, 47153.
46On this work, Gollanz 1903; Gollanz 1914.
solomon and magic 123
period of time, and in a broad area indicates that magic belonged to the
common heritage of Late Antiquity.47 Magic is a religious phenomenon
and as such the result of a geological development: it is formed by piling
up beliefs, not by substituting one for another. In a way, it is a religious
experience that is close to the individual and quotidian, it survives even
when the religious setting that supported it has been completely oblit-
erated; the conservative nature of magical techniques shows it clearly.
However, magic has nothing to do with orthodoxy; it its more concerned
about orthopraxis; because of that, and despite of its conservative nature,
it evolves as time passes by. It adapts to new circumstances but also keeps
the old material and mixes it with new elements.
The study of magic in Late Antiquity gives us the means to reconstruct
an important element in the history of the mentalities of the ancient Med-
iterranean world. This study has to be carried out by combining different
methods, so that the textual evidence may be vivified with other type of
sources, such as iconography, anthropological comparison, etc. The tex-
tual approximation by itself is biased, especially when it is monolingual
and disdains the comparison with magical texts written in the other lan-
guages of that world. Magic is global in its geographic extension and glo-
balising in its cultural manifestation. The figure of Solomon the magician
is the result of a cultural globalisation that integrated very different fea-
tures into a historical character that, as a result, was radically changed.
Bibliography
Betz, H.D. (ed.), The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation Including the Demotic Spells, Chi-
cago IL and London 19922.
Bohak, G., Ancient Jewish Magic, Cambridge 2008.
, From Qumran to Cairo: The Lives and Times of a Jewish Exorcistic Formula (with
an Appendix by Shaul Shaked), in: N. Cepregi and C. Burnett (eds.), Ritual Healing:
Magic, Ritual and Medical Therapy from Antiquity until the Early Modern Period (Mico-
logus Library 48), 3152, Florence 2012.
Butler, E.M., Ritual Magic, 1949, repr. Cambridge 1979.
Caldern de la Barca, P., El mgico prodigioso, Natalia Fernndez (ed.), Barcelona 2008.
Charlesworth, J.H., The Son of David in Ante-Markan Traditions (Mk 10:47), in: L.B. Elder,
D.L. Barr and E.S. Malbon (eds.), Biblical and Humane. A Festschrift for John F. Priest,
125151, Atlanta GA 1996.
Dante Alighieri, LInferno di Dante, Vittorio Sermonti (ed.), Milano 1993.
Delatte, A., Anecdota Atheniensia (Bibliothque de la Facult de Philosophie et Lettres de
lUniversit de Lige 36), Lige and Paris 1927.
Dodds, E.R., The Greeks and the Irrational, Berkeley CA and London 1973.
47On the concept of Cultural conglomerate see Dodds 1973, 207235.
124 pablo a. torijano
Duling, D.C., 1975, Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David: An Element in Matthews
Christological Apologetic, Harvard Theological Review 68: 235252.
, The Testament of Solomon, in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseude-
pigrapha, 935988, Garden City NY 1983.
, 1985, The Eleazar Miracle and Solomons Magical Wisdom in Flavius Josephuss
Antiquitates Judaicae 8.4249, Harvard Theological Review 78: 125.
Elliott, J.K., The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature
in an English Translation, Oxford 1993.
Garca Martnez, F., Qumran Cave 11: 11Q28. 11Q2031 (Discoveries of the Judaean Desert,
23), Oxford 1998.
Goethe, J.W., Faust. Der Tragdie, Stuttgart 2000.
Gollanz, H., Clavicula Salomonis. A Hebrew Manuscript Newly Discovered and Now Described,
Frankfurt and London 1903.
, The Book of Protection Being a Colletion of Charms, London 1912.
, Sepher Maphteah Shelomo (Book of the Key of Slomon), London 1914.
Gordon, C.H., 1984, The Lance of Qatros, Aula Orientalis 2: 8082.
, 1985, Qatros of the Lance, Bitzaron 6, no. 2425: 5355.
Greenfield, R.P.H., 1989, Sant Sisinnios, the Archangel Michael and the Female Demon
Gylou: The Typology of the Greek Literary Stories, 15: 83142.
Heim, R., Incantamenta magica graeca, latina (Jahrbcher fr classische Philologie Supple-
ment 19), Leipzig 1892.
Jacobson, H., A Commentary on Pseudo-Philos Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, with Latin
Text and English Translation (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des
Urchristentums 31), Leiden, New York and Kln 1966.
Johnston, S.I., The Testament of Solomon from Late Antiquity to the Renaissance, in:
J.N. Bremmer (ed.), The Metamorphosis of Magic from Late Antiquity to the Modern
Period, 3550, Leuven, Paris and Dudley MA 2002.
Klutz, T.E., Rewriting the Testament of Solomon. Tradition, Conflict and Identity in a Late
Antique Pseudepigrapha (Library of Second Temple Studies 53), London 2005.
Lewis, J.P., Council of Jamnia, Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. III: 634637, New York 1992.
Maguire, H.P. and M.J. Duncan-Flowers, Art and Holy Powers in the Early Christian House
(Illinois Byzantine Studies), Urbana-Champaign IL 1989.
Mann, T., Doktor Faustus. Das Leben der deutschen Tonsetzers Adrian Leberkhn, erzhlt
von einem Freunde, Berlin 1975.
Margalioth, M., Sepher Ha-Razim: A Newly Recovered Book of Magic from the Talmudic
Period [in Hebrew], Jerusalem 1966.
Mira de Amescua, A., El esclavo del demonio, James Agustn Castaeda (ed.), Madrid 1984.
Morgan, M.A., Sepher Ha-Razim: The Book of the Mysteries (Society of Biblical Literature.
Texts and Translations 25), Chico CA 1983.
Naveh, J. and S. Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls, Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity,
Jerusalem and Leiden 1985.
, Magic Spells and Formulae: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity, Jerusalem 1993.
Perdrizet, P., Negotium Perambulans in Tenebris: tudes de dmonologie greco-orientale
(Publications de la Facult des Lettres de lUniversit de Strasbourg, 6), Paris 1922.
Peterson, E., Heis Theos: Epigraphische, formgeschichtliche und religiongeschichtliche Unter-
suchungen (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments
24), Gttingen 1926.
Preisendanz, K., Papyri Graecae Magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri, Stuttgart 1973
19742.
Rituale Romanum: Editio prima post typicam anno 1953 promulgata, Rome 2001.
Russell, J., The Archaeological Context of Magic in the Early Byzantine Period, in:
H. Maguire (ed.), Byzantine Magic, 3550, Washington DC 1995.
Schwartz, M., 1998, Sasm, Sesen St. Sisinnios, Sesengen Barpharanges, and Semanglof,
Bulletin of the Asia Institute 10: 253257.
solomon and magic 125
, Sesen: A Durable East Mediterranean God in Iran, in: N. Sims-Williams (ed.), Pro-
ceedings of the Third European Conference of Iranian Studies Held in Cambridge, 11th to
15th September 1995. Part 1: Old and Middle Iranian Studies (Beitrge zur Iranistik 17),
912, Wiesbaden 1998.
Smith, M., The Occult in Josephus, in: L.H. Feldman and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, Judaism
and Christianity, 236256, Detroit MI 1987.
Sorlin, I., 1991, Striges et Gloudes: Histoire de une Croyance et dune Tradition, Travaux
et Mmoires 11: 411436.
Tirso de Molina, El condenado por desconfiado, Ciriaco Morn (ed.) (Letras Hispnicas, 11),
Madrid 1992.
Torijano, P.A., Solomon the Esoteric King: From King to Magus, Development of a Tradition
(Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, 73), Leiden, Boston MA and Kln
2002.
, 2002, Salomn, Lilith, San Jorge y el Dragn: un ejemplo de reinterpretacin mgica
en la antigedad tarda, MHNH: Revista internacional de investigacin sobre magia y
astrologa antiguas 2: 129144.
, 2004, Exorcismo y literatura: Pervivencia de las frmulas de identificacin demonaca
en la literatura occidental, Ilu 9: 211226.
, The Hydromancy of Solomon, in: R. Bauckham and J.R. Davila (eds.), More Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1., Grand Rapids MI 2012 (in press).
Trachtenberg, J., Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Study in Folk Religion, New York 1987.
Vlez de Guevara, L., El diablo cojuelo, A.R. Fernndez Gonzlez and I. Arellano (eds.),
Madrid 2001.
Winkler, H.A., Salomo und die Karina (Verffentlichungen des Orientalischen Seminars
der Universitt Tbingen. Abhandlungen zur Allgemeiner Religionsgeschichte), Stut-
tgart 1931.
Winston, D., The Wisdom of Solomon (Anchor Bible Commentaries 43), Garden City NY
1979.
SOLOMON IN RABBINIC LITERATURE
Gerhard Langer
Introductory Comments
When one observes the statistical frequency with which Solomon
appears in the Rabbinic literature, it becomes apparent that the Halakhic
Midrashim Mekhilta, Sifra and Sifre provide relatively few instances
(ca. 40), the various Rabboth excluding the Song of Songs and Qohelet
over 200 instances, and the CantR and EcclR each ca. 90 instances and
thus the highest frequency (when compared with text length) which is
explained by the stance that Solomon himself composed these latter two
texts. Tan demonstrates almost 270 instances (the doubling of the number
in various editions is to be kept in mind); Midrash Mishle has almost 70
instances, MidrPss almost 100, thereto appear over 50 instances in PRK,
almost 100 in PesR and there are just a few in SO(R), SER and SEZ as is the
case for Abba Gurion and Panim Aherim; whereby in the entire Babylo-
nian Talmud Solomon is only spoken of little more than 200 times. There
is little to be won by statistical analysis here, merely emphases, tendencies
and cautious comparisons among and between the texts. David, for his
part, appears in the Halakhic Midraschim and Babylonian Talmud more
than twice as often, in the Yerushalmi he appears almost three times as
often. In CantR and EcclR, the instances referencing David are fewer than
those referencing Solomon, but again in the Rabboth he appears almost
twice as often as Solomon. The same is true for the Tan with almost 500
instances. In the MidrPss David is referenced almost six times more often
than Solomon. Midrash Mishle in comparison demonstrates an inverted
relationship: Solomon is referenced almost twice as often. In PRK (72) and
PesR (140) David is referenced only somewhat more frequently. David is
thus, with few exceptions, the more influential figure. Solomon does how-
ever exercise considerable influence and is witnessed in the important
and relatively latesources of the 6th9th centuries: the Shir ha-Shirim
Rabbah, EcclR and the Midrash Mishle.
In the following I will cast a spotlight on a few areas for consider-
ation without providing an exhaustive treatment and without focus on
128 gerhard langer
secondary literature.1 I will concentrate on a few prominent elements in
the transmission of texts dealing with Solomon, fully aware of the selec-
tive nature of the discussion and treating some passages preferentially.
Thus I will not discuss the contributions of Solomon to the ordering of
prayers, the festival or the Halakhaas in the introduction of the Erub
which are especially significant for the Talmud examples (Ber; Shab, MQ
etc.). It is worth referencing Ginzbergs popular anthology Legends of the
Jews here, the fourth volume of which contains a lengthy treatment of
Solomon.2
1.The Name
According to Mek Pisha 16 (L 134), p.Ber I,6,4a and PRE 32, Isaac, Ishmael,
Joshiah and Solomon received their names directly from God before they
were born.3
PesR 6.6. interprets the name as derivation of the Hebraic Piel to
accomplish/to achieve (l
e
shallem) and references thereby Solomons con-
struction of the Temple (1 Kgs 6:38) which serves as the crowning of Gods
creation of the world. In 6.4 however, the term shalom (Eng. peace) is
also discussed with the same backdrop. All in all, Solomons effort in con-
structing the Temple is his greatest achievement in PesR 6.4
The Hebraic term Sh
e
lomo is occasionally interpreted to reference God
and his peaceful aspect. So Cant 3:7, mittato she-l
e
sh
e
lomo, which is often
translated in English as litter of Solomon, was read by the Rabbis as
mattotaw she-shalom shelo = the tribe of God in which peace resides..
In CantR 1.1.11 we read:
R. Judan and R. Levi in the name of R. Johanan said: Wherever you find in
this scroll the expression king Solomon, the text speaks actually of king
Solomon; but wherever you find the king simply, it speaks of the Holy One,
blessed be He. The Rabbis, however, say: Wherever you find king Solomon,
the reference is to the King whose is peace (shalom); wherever you find the
king simply, the reference is to the Community of Israel.
Comparatively the actions of Solomon that promoted peace are treated
relatively rarely.
1Cp. the short contribution by Luzzatto 1998.
2Ginzberg, Vol. 4, 1913, 123176; Vol. 6, 1928, 277303.
3PRE 32 includes Isaac, Ishmael, Moses, Solomon, Josiah and the messiah (Jinnon).
4This is due the reading of 1 Kgs 7:51 as a Haftarah during Hanukkah, if a second Sab-
bath occurs in this time (cp. Meg 31a).
solomon in rabbinic literature 129
2.Solomon as Ruler of the World
Rabbinic Literature however depicts Solomon as the ruler of the world.
In NumR 13.14 the future dominion of the messiah is depicted as analo-
gous to the world rule of Solomon as found in Ps 72:8 (and 10f.) which
is attributed to Solomon himself. The phrase in Dan 7:14 also references
Solomon:
He received dominion, glory, and kingship; nations and peoples of every
language serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not
be taken away, his kingship shall not be destroyed.
At the beginning of Midrash CantR (1.1.10) it is stated that Solomon rose to
power in three distinct stages. This is first reflected in 1 Kgs 5:4 and 5:1:
He ruled over all the land west of the Euphrates, from Tiphsah to Gaza, and
over all its kings, and he had peace on all his borders round about.
The second instance is noted in V.1:
Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the River to the land of the Phi-
listines, down to the border of Egypt; they paid Solomon tribute and were
his vassals as long as he lived.
Finally, in 1 Chr 29:23 the end result in which it is commented that Solo-
mon ascended the throne of the Lord. How this is to be interpreted will
be discussed in the following. The throne of Solomon is employed as a
metaphor for world-wide power.5 Equally important was Solomons unre-
stricted legal jurisdiction that he exercised without the usual recourse to
legal precedents such as witnesses or admonishments.6
Yet the very same Midrash reports of the three descents of Solomon.
According to this view, he descended from ruler of the world to King of
Israel, an interpretation that draws on Prov 1:1 which speaks of the King
of Israel. Further, according to Qoh 1:12 he is no longer the King of Jerusa-
lem, but finally merely the king of his own household. Cant 3:7f. specifi-
cally states that the palanquin of Solomon was surrounded by sixty armed
heroes.
The Rabbis opinions differ as to whether Solomon, in the course of his
lifetime, descended from wisdom to foolishness only to rise to wisdom
once again, or if it was precisely the opposite, rising to wisdom for only
5Cp. MidrProv 20 etc.
6Cp. critically RH 21b.
130 gerhard langer
a short period before ending his life a fool. First impoverished, then rich,
then poor again, or vice versa, for the Rabbis it is important that Solo-
mons life can be ordered into various stages; to this end they draw upon
the Book of Kings and Chronicles as well as the Book of Qohelet which is
considered to be the work Solomon composed in his old age.
Important here is the consideration that Solomon committed three sins:
he collected too many horses, too many women and too much property.
The most grave of these is certainly his preoccupation with women. The
Rabbis discuss what influence the various women had on Solomon, ques-
tioning for example how one is to explain 1 Kgs 11:1 where we read:
King Solomon loved many foreign women besides the daughter of Pharaoh
(Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites), from nations
with which the LORD had forbidden the Israelites to intermarry, because,
he said, they will turn your hearts to their gods. But Solomon fell in love
with them. He had seven hundred wives of princely rank and three hundred
concubines, and his wives turned his heart.
Rabbi Jose b. Halafta (CantR 1.1.10) is of the opinion that Solomon took
these women in order to win them for the Lord, to convert them to the
true faith. Other Rabbis opine that Solomon was seduced to sin and sexual
deviance. According to Rabbi Eleazar b. R. Jose ha Gelili, Solomon had
intercourse with these women during their menstruation period.7
The number three is of central importance in further discussion. Solo-
mon is aggrieved three times by his enemies (Hadad1 Kgs 11:14; Rezon
1 Kgs 11:23 and 25), Solomon composed three types of poems (Prov 1:1; 10:1
and 25:1); there exist three kinds of vanity-poems according to Qoh 1:2;
three poems are equated with the Song of Songs. Solomon bore the three
names Jedidiah (2. Sam 12:25), Solomon and Qohelet, thereto come Agur,
Jakeh and Ithiel according to Prov 30:1 and Lemuel according to Prov 31:4.
This reflects the tendency of the Rabbis to associate unknown or rare
names in the bible with prominent individuals by interpreting the names
as character traits. This is exemplified in the instance of Jakeh which is
derived from heki and means that he compiled the Torah (= Agur) and
then spit it back up, i.e. forgot its lessons.
7The discussion surrounding the question of love and the possible (or impossible) con-
version of the Egyptian wife of Solomon can be found in Yeb 76ab.
solomon in rabbinic literature 131
Three books are attributed to Solomon: Proverbs, Song of Songs and
Qohelet; the order in which they were composed is disputed, though it is
universally agreed that Qohelet is a work composed in his old age.
CantR offers a compact summary of the Rabbinic view of Solomon in
this regards, whereby it is striking that the construction of the Temple is
not discussed. The Midrash treats a series of elements that also tradition-
ally appear in other Midrashim and in the Talmud.
Meg 11b discusses the question of if Solomons kingship ever came to an
end. Solomons rule, according to some, never ceased, rather he became
a king over the demons of the underworld,8 for which reason it can be
claimed he sat upon the throne of the Lord.
Additionally, in Sanh 20b, it is mentioned that Solomon had once ruled
in the upper world, thus over heavenly beings, but later only over the
mortal realm. Both variants depict a transitional phase in the story of his
life. In the continuation of the tradition founded upon Sanh 20b with ref-
erence to the authority of Rav and Shmuel, the continual loss of power
of the part of Solomon, which is also a part of the Midrash, results in his
being the highest authority only within his own family, a family which
helps him walk in his old age. In the end, interpretations diverge as to
whether or not he ever regained his kingdom.
The late Midrash ExodR 15.26 compares Solomon with the full moon.
In Ps 72:7 we read of the king: That abundance may flourish in his days,
great bounty, till the moon be no more. For thirty generations, according
to the Midrash, the people rejoiced in their kingdom. Fifteen generations
had passed before the rise of Solomon, starting with Abraham. Following
him it was again a constant descent.
The throne of God upon which Solomon sits also plays an important
role in this Midrash and is extensively commented upon. Not only is the
significance of the throne thematicized, but also the forms and appear-
ance of the throne in the kingdom of heaven.
NumR 13.14 also describes Solomon as ruler of the worldand the
seasand compares his all-encompassing rule with that of the messiah.
The Rabbis equate the gifts of the tribe leaders as mentioned in the Book
of Numberssee Num 7:61 where a silver bowl (qaara) and silver scale
(mizraq) are referencedwith the seas and the land.
Allow me however to discuss the throne of Solomon before proceeding.
Its function is indicated through a multiplicity of symbolic attributes.
8Vgl. auch PRK 5.3.
132 gerhard langer
3.The Throne of Solomon
In the Midrash Esther Rabbah discussion of Esther 1:2 the throne of Solo-
mon is described extensively. It was comparable to the heavenly chariot
of God. Six steps lead up to the throne in reference to the six terms for the
Earth (Erez, Adamah, Arqa, Ge, Zia, NeshiahTebel is not included here),
the six commandments of the Mishnah, the six days of creation, the six
matriarchs Sarah, Rebecca, Rahel, Leah, Bilha and Zilpah. Six steps also
reference the six commandments of kinship as derived from Deut 17:16f.
and 16:19; there we read:
But he shall not have a great number of horses; nor shall he make his peo-
ple go back again to Egypt to acquire them, against the LORDS warning
that you must never go back that way again. Neither shall he have a great
number of wives, lest his heart be estranged, nor shall he accumulate a vast
amount of silver and gold;
and
You shall not distort justice; you must be impartial. You shall not take a
bribe; for a bribe blinds the eyes even of the wise and twists the words even
of the just.
The later Midrash Abba Gurion treating the Book of Esther interprets the
six steps as a reference to six individuals: Solomon, Joshua, Daniel and the
martyrs Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, or alternatively Solomon, Reho-
boam, Hizkiah, Amon, Manasseh and Josiah. The throne also possesses a
history shrouded in legend due to the conquerors of Jerusalem purport-
edly removing it from its original location. Esther Rabbah and the later
Abba Gurion depict it radiant with color. Here I quote from the extrava-
gant description of the throne as presented in Abba Gurion:
It was covered with jewels and pearls.
Never before had anything comparable been made for a king. It had
six steps and it rose above these six steps, and it had six paths each with
six steps, and on each step were two lions and one rose up by means of a
mechanism.
When the king appeared the lions stretched out their paws on both sides
and there was writing engraved on their paws. He turned to the right and
read: Know no distinction between reputation before the court! He turned
left and read Accept no bribes! And such verses were written on each of
the twelve lions.
Each step was covered with jewels, white and green and red and crys-
talline. Date trees surrounded the throne draped in linens. And peacocks
fashioned from ivory were turned towards the wings of the eagles and (there
solomon in rabbinic literature 133
were) two columns of alabaster upon the heads of the lions and two hollow
lions made of gold on either side of the throne that were filled will every
kind of spice.
Two chairs stood, one on each side of the throne, one for Gad the seer
and one for Nathan the prophet. And 70 chairs surrounded the throne for
the seventy elders. And on each and every path stood two rearing lions and
two eagles facing each other.
When the king took the throne he raised his foot upon the first step
whereupon the wheel in the mechanism turned and the lion extended its
right paw and the eagle its left wing, and the king supported himself with
them to ascend to the next step, and so it was with each and every step.
There was also a silver peacock, equipped with a mechanism, and the
mechanism caused it to bow before the king and raise him unto the throne.
Then the eagles spread their wings and rose by means of a mechanism to
shade his head. A golden dove emerged from the pillars, opened the shrine,
took the Torah and laid it upon his knee in order to fulfil that which is
written:
And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life.
(Deut 17:19)
A lion stretched out its paw and took the crown and set it upon his (the
kings) head.
And the pillars that were there spoke: The kingship of the house of David
shall stand for eternity!
And upon each and every step pure and unpure animals were to be seen:
On the first step a bull facing a lion. On the second a lion facing a wolf. On
the third a kid facing a leopard. On the fourth a gazelle facing a bear. On the
fifth an eagle facing a dove. On the sixth a falcon facing a songbird.
And he (the king) ascended and made between them by reading a (bible)
verse on each step (Ps 19:719:9):
On the first step he recited: The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving
the soul.
On the second he recited: The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, mak-
ing wise the simple.
On the third he recited: The precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to
the heart.
On the fourth he recited: The commands of the Lord are radiant, giving
light to the eyes.
On the fifth he recited: The fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever.
On the sixth he recited: The ordinances of the Lord are sure and alto-
gether righteous.
Afterwards he spoke: So Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord (1 Chr
29:23)
The high priest and the Sanhedrin came and offered the king the greeting
of peace. And they sat to this right and his left and discussed the law with
him. And when the witnesses came before the kind the mechanism made
noise, the wheels turned, the lions roared, the eagles flew and the peacocks
hissed.
134 gerhard langer
And why all of this? To win their hearts that they spoke the truth.
And as Ahashverosh saw it (the throne) he wished to sit upon it, but he
could not. He sent for craftsmen from Tyrus and Alexandria but they could
not replicate it in the slightest. And they made him a different throne and he
sat upon it. Three years he endeavoured to fulfil that which is written:
At the time when King Ahashverosh was occupying the royal throne
(Esther 1:2)
Here the image of Solomon is decisive for its full depiction of the Rabbinic
conceptualization of the just judge and ruler who is obedient unto the
Torah.9 The passage of the Midrash Abba Gurion quoted above was likely
transcribed in the 10th century and had an unknown number of precur-
sive forms. Esther Rabbah and Panim Aherim A & B, as well as NumR 12.17
or PRK 1 can be considered part of various prevenient traditions.
In each case Solomons world-wide rule finds no adequate successor
and Israels fate is reflected in the series of foreign rulers during which
time its people await the messiah who will assume the throne.
In the passages quoted until this point, the ambivalent stance of Solo-
mon has been discernable, who on one hand is a great king and just ruler,
on the other a man prone to sin. The ascent to the throne is meant to
remind him of the six most important commandments of being a king.
But he fails in the textual tradition due to the first three. In Tan Wa-era 5/
Tan B Wa-era 2 and parallel passages (e.g. PRK 26:2) Solomons three great
sinsan excess of women, horses and moneyare clearly stated. It is
due to these sins that Solomon loses his claim to the throne. As repeatedly
mentioned, his throne becomes contested. PRK 26.2 speaks of a contesting
angel, in NumR 11.3 and MidrPss 78.12 the demon Ashmedai is named.
4.Demons, Sins and the Construction of the Temple
I would like to make specific reference to Ashmedai here because it is of
particular importance in the Rabbinic tradition for one of Solomons great
deeds. Ashmedai, known from the Book of Tobit, is considered by the
Rabbis as a leader of demons that, according to Git 68ab and MidrPss 78.12
plays an important role in the location of the so-called Shamir, a worm
that can assist in the construction of the temple. Solomon tricks Ashme-
dai into drunkenness, places him in chains and brings him to the palace
where the demon reveals the secret of the Shamir.10 The secret of the

9Cp. also Sifre Devarim 9.
10Cp. also Sot 48b.
solomon in rabbinic literature 135
Shamir was entrusted by the Prince of the Sea to a mountain cock (a kind
of bird) in a distance mountain range. Solomon then tricks the mountain
cock into betraying the secret of the Shamir, realizing what it has done,
the bird then kills itself.
The late Midrash NumR 11.3 draws a direct connection between the
correct and incorrect behaviour of Solomon and his dominion over the
demons. According to this Midrash, he controlled the demons so that they
heated the baths, which can still be seen in Hamat Tiberias. Ashmedai
only remained under Solomons control so long as he did not sin. Once
he had sinned, the demon was able to banish Solomon. When Solomon
later regained his power, he feared the demon so much that he placed 60
guards around his bed to stand watch over him.
These somewhat amusing stories should not however obscure the fact
that the Rabbis attributed earthly consequences to Solomons sins. In
bShabbat 56b and Sanh 21b we read:
R. Isaac said: When Solomon married Pharaohs daughter, Gabriel descended
and stuck a reed in the sea, which gathered a sand-bank around it, on which
was built the great city of Rome.
This well-known saying illustrates that Romes power and strength is
founded on a mistake of the leader of Israel. Perhaps the thesis of Moses
Aberbach can be considered of significance here, which postulates that
behind the critical approach to Solomon is a thinly veiled critique of
the Jewish patriarchs who served as the link to Roman society.11 In sup-
port of this thesis he draws, among other sources, upon Sanh 101b, where
Solomon restricted the entrances to Jerusalem and levied taxes for his
Egyptian wife. The term angaria that is utilized here denotes the Roman
transportation infrastructure and, among other things, the accompanying
levying of tolls.
Sanh 21b emphasizes that Solomon erred in his own assessment of
self. He was convinced that the women would lead him away from the
path of righteousness, but was nevertheless seduced to sin (1 Kgs 11:4).
He also believed, despite the number of horses, that he would not pro-
voke a return to Egypt. Nevertheless in 1 Kgs 10:29 we read of the regu-
lar contact with Egypt. It is thinkable that a critique is to be found here
directed against the interaction of the Jewish patriarchs or exilarchs with
the non-Jewish authorities. The criticism of the patriarchy led to violent
clashes and to the intervention of Rome on the part of the patriarchs.
11Aberbach 1968, 118132.
136 gerhard langer
According to Git 7a, the exilarch even allowed Geniva, a student of Rav, to
be executed because he demanded the submission of the exilarch under
the Rabbis who studied the Torah. The exilarchs also successfully resisted
tax-free status for the Rabbis.
In Nid 70b the conflicting biblical verses of Ps 132:13 (Yes, YHWH has
chosen Zion, desired it for a dwelling) and Jeremiah 32:31 (From the
day it was built to this day, this city has excited my anger and wrath) is
explained through the marriage of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh.
In LevR 12.5 the consecration of the Temple is compared to an intoxicat-
ing festival for the daughter of Pharaoh. Both take place on the same day.
God is angered and decides to destroy Israel on that very same day. Solo-
mon, drunken, oversleeps and is tattled by his mother,12 or alternatively,
by Jeroboam and his thousand adherents. Jeroboam for his part succumbs
to the temptations of power immediately after attaining it and because
of his erection of idols is punished by death according to Betel and
Dan. The extremely critical view of Jeroboam in a statement attributed to
R. Isaak Nappaha gives Aberbach cause to suspect a criticism of the patri-
archy. R. Isaak is thus placed in close proximity to the circle of patriarchs
and exilarchs.
Apart from the clear criticism in Shmuels name quoted above regard-
ing Solomons marital politics in Shab 56b, we find an oppositional posi-
tion under the authority of a certain R. Nathan that refutes that Solomon
was a sinner and attempts to interpret the biblical passages as Solomons
intent that was however never fulfilled.
The often repeated preference of David is the result of Solomons pen-
chant for sin. So we read in 1 Kgs 11:1012 that Solomon maintains his
throne only because of Davids merits. According to EcclR 1.1.2 Solomon
could rely on his own merits before he sinned, but afterwards had to rely
on Davids support.
This is of particular importance during the construction of the temple.
In Shab 30a and Sanh 107b (cp. NumR 14.3; PesR 2.5 and MidrPss 24.10)
David asks God (according to Ps 86:17) for a sign that his transgression
with Bathsheba has been forgiven. But the Lord responds that he will
first grant such a sign to Solomon. When Solomon finally consecrates the
Temple and brings the Ark into the holy of holies, the gates close. He
recites 24 songs of praise without success and then prays with Ps 24:9.
Then the doors wish to devour him. They speak verse 10 of Psalm 25, he
12Cp. Sanh 70b.
solomon in rabbinic literature 137
answers with verse 8. But he is not heeded. Only when he recites 2 Chr
6:42 where it is written: LORD God, reject not the plea of your anointed,
remember the devotion of David, your servant! do the doors open. Then
all of his enemies pale (see Ps 86:17) and all of Israel recognizes that God
has forgiven Davids sins.
EcclR 4.3.1 and MidrPss 7.6 mention that Solomon was unsuccessful
in lighting the flame of sacrifice during the consecration of the Temple
until he recalled Davids good deeds. The passage in EcclR is also part of
a discussion concerning life after death.
Shab 30a; Mak 10a, EcclR 5.10.2 and MidrPss 122.1 transmit a tradition
concerning the hour of Davids death. God is reluctant to inform him of
the day and time of his passing. He only learns that he will die on the
Sabbath. The central premise is Davids primacy over his son Solomon.
He rises above him although Solomon will build the Temple. God says to
David: Better is to Me the one day you sit and engage in learning than the
thousand burnt-offerings which your son Solomon is destined to sacrifice
before Me on the altar. Every Jew that thus studies the Torah will be able
to assume this privileged position of David.
The relationship between David and Solomon is established in MidrPss
based on the content of Isa 3:10 and 2 Sam 8:15. According to this tradi-
tion David asked God to bestow upon Solomon his sense for justice and
legal authority, which God does. This is exemplified at length in the Solo-
monic decision of 1 Kgs 3:17ff.
According to Tan(B) Metsora 1, Jeroboam, Ahab and Manasseh have no
part in the world to come.13 Only due to Gods personal intervention does
Solomon not share their fate, which is founded in Ps 105:15 with Do not
touch my anointed, to my prophets do no harm.
In the parallel passage of PesR 6.4 Solomon is spared for his personal
activities in the construction of the Temple.
Solomon is depicted as a self-confessed and penitent sinner: according
to p.Shev I,7(5),33b the scapegoat atones for sins on the day of atonement.
One neednt bring a dedicated sacrifice. The forgiveness of sins is however
dependent upon the acknowledgement of sin which plays a significant
role in the Rabbinic tradition of the day of atonement in keeping with
Lev 16:21. According to Sifra Ahare 2 and p.Yoma II,7,40d Solomon also
mentions the necessity of acknowledging ones sins. There we read among
other things:
13Cp. also m.Sanh 10.2; Sanh 104b and MidrProv 22.
138 gerhard langer
David said: We have sinned like our ancestors; we have done wrong and are
guilty (Ps 106:6). Solomon, his son said: We have sinned and done wrong;
we have been wicked (1 Kgs 8:47). Daniel said: We have sinned, been
wicked and done evil; we have rebelled and departed from your command-
ments and your laws (Dan 9:5). Also he (the high priest) used to confess:
I have sinned and been wicked and done wrong before You. (= t.Yoma 2.1;
cp. Yoma 36b)
5.The Wisdom of Solomon
Although Solomon appears as the negative figure of the sinner or col-
laborator in need of a defence for his transgressions, conversely he serves
as the paragon of the Rabbinic ideal of wisdom. CantR 1 makes this very
clear.14 According to which Solomon dreamt one evening that God offered
to give him everything he asked for. He requested not riches, honor or
victory over his enemies, but the quality of wisdom. This decision was for
its part reached due to his already innate wisdom. He was so wise that he
understood the singing of the birds and the braying of donkeys. When he
arrived in Jerusalem he sacrificed to God and held a festival that the Rab-
bis interpret as the completion of studying the Torah. From then on the
Holy Spirit was with him and he composed the Book of Proverbs, the Song
of Songs and Qohelet. This tradition is extensively detailed in PesR 14.8f.,
where additional instances of Solomons wisdom as are found in other
sources have also been collected.
At this point it is worth mentioning that psalm Ps 72 is attributed to
Solomon, which is reflected in its title line (Tan Behuqqotaj, ExodR 30.15
and SEZ 1).15 ExodR focuses in general more on the value of justice upon
which the world rests and upon which Zion shall be rebuilt (Isa 1:27).
Through justice the righteous shall prosper. Tan (B) in contrast concen-
trates on the life of Solomon and draws a connection between Solomons
obedience to the Torah and Gods rejection of Solomon in 1 Kgs 11:11
because of his possession of many horses and being mislead into idolatry
by women. Interestingly, Rashi interprets this psalm in its entirety as ref-
erencing Solomon and avoids the messianic message that dominates in
the Rabbinic tradition.
14Cp. PesR 14.7 (without dream). In MidrProv 1.1 Solomon fasts 40 days to gain wisdom
and knowledge.
15In LevR 30.3 and PRK 27.3 David is author of the Psalm.
solomon in rabbinic literature 139
Naturally, the wisdom of Solomon exceeded that of the Queen of Sheba
(EcclR 2.11). It is particularly interesting here to note the riddles of the
Queen of Sheba as presented in MidrProv 1.24:
She said, Ill go see whether or not he is wise. Whence [do we learn] that
she had heard of Solomons wisdom? From the verse, The queen of Sheba
heard of Solomons fame, through the name of the Lord, and she came to test
him with hard questions (1 Kgs 10:1). What are hard questions? R. Jeremiah
said: Parables.
She asked him, Are you Solomon, about whom and whose wisdom I have
heard?
He answered, Yes.
She said, If I ask you something will you answer me?
He answered, For the Lord grants wisdom; Knowledge and discernment are
by His decree (Prov 2:6).15
She said, Seven leave and nine enter, two pour and one drinks.
He said, Surely [this means] seven days of menstrual [unfitness] leave,
then nine months of pregnancy enter; two breasts pour [forth milk] and
the infant drinks.
She said, You are a great sage, but if I ask you another question will you
answer me?
He replied, For the Lord grants wisdom (Prov 2:6).
She said, Who is the woman who says to her son, Your father is my
father, your grandfather is my husband, you are my son and I am your
sister?
He replied, Surely [these are the] daughters of Lot, who say to their sons,
Your father is my father, your grandfather is my husband, you are my son
and I am your sister.
She gave him yet another test. She brought in boys and girls, all of the same
appearance, all of the same height, all clothed the same. Then she said to
him, Distinguish the boys from the girls.
He immediately motioned to his eunuch to fetch some parched grain and
nuts, and began passing them out. The boys unashamedly stuffed their tunics
full, but the girls, being modest, [only] filled their kerchiefs. He then told the
queen, These are the boys and those are the girls. She said, My son, you
are a great sage!
Then she gave him one more test. She brought circumcised and uncircum-
cised men before him, all of the same appearance, all of the same height, all
clothed the same. Then she said to him, Distinguish between the circumcised
and the uncircumcised.
He motioned at once to the High Priest to open the Ark of the Covenant.
The circumcised among them bowed from the waist, and their faces were
filled with the radiance of the Shekinah, while the uncircumcised among them
fell on their faces. Solomon said to her, These are the circumcised and those
the uncircumcised.
How did you know? she asked.
140 gerhard langer
He explained, From [the case of ] Balaam, for is it not written, Who
be holds visions from the Almighty [prostrate, but with eyes unveiled] (Num
24:4)? Had he not fallen, he would not have seen anything.
If you do not want to learn from Balaam, come and learn from [the case
of ] Job. When his three friends came to comfort him, he said to them, But
I, like you, have a mind. I fall not beneath you (Job 12:3)[what he meant is]
I do not fall down like you do.
At that moment the Queen of Sheba said to Solomon, But I did not believe
the reports until I came and saw with my own eyes that not even the half had
been told me; your wisdom and wealth surpass the reports I heard. How for tunate
are your men, and how fortunate are these your courtiers, who are al ways in
attendance on you and can hear your wisdom. Praised be the Lord your God,
who delighted in you and set you on the throne of Israel. It is because of the Lords
everlasting love for Israel that He made you king to administer justice and righ-
teousness (1 Kgs 10:79).16
According to EcclR 2.2.5, Solomon planted pepper in his gardens and
parks which he watered with great care. According to Abba b. Kahana,
demons provided him with the water; according to R. Jannai b. R. Sim-
eon however, Solomon sat at the center of the world and in his wisdom
planted the fruits at the correct rivers source. In EcclR 2.24.1 Solomon is
attributed with superhuman powers and flew upon the back of a giant
eagle to the desert of Tadmor and back in a single day.
GenR 85.12 reports that God revealed himself in the courts of Shem,
Samuel and Solomon and utter the words of the Holy Spirit. In Solomons
case this occurred during his wise decision making process concerning
the two women who contested the motherhood of a single child in 1 Kgs 3.
In EcclR 10.17 however, similar to Qoh 10:16 (Woe to you, O land, whose
king was a servant, and whose princes dine in the morning!), Solomons
practice of holding court was criticized as more suiting a boy than a
mature man.
PRK 4.3, PesR 14.8f. and the parallel passages of EcclR 7.23 and NumR 19.3
provide further treatments of Solomons wisdom. One prominent exam-
ple is how Solomon recognizes Pharaohs deceit in sending him terminally
ill workers to assist with the construction of the Temple. Solomon sends
them back to the Pharoah wearing shrouds. Solomon is even considered
wiser than Adam who provided the animals, himself and even God with
appropriate names; further he exceeds in wisdom Abraham, Moses and
the polyglot Joseph.17
16Translation Visotzky 1992, 18f.
17Joseph spoke all of the languages of the world.
solomon in rabbinic literature 141
With reference to 1 Kgs 5, Solomons wisdom is carefully defined. He
spoke 3,000 Meshalim (1 Kgs 5:12), used cedar and hyssop as symbolic trees
to explain leprosy and how it befalls an arrogant individual and exten-
sively treated the necessary rituals for slaughter and the kashrut (Jewish
dietary law). These aspects clearly depict how Solomon was perceived of
as an ideal Rabbi.
Erub 21b also references the bible verse about the 3,000 Meshalim and
opines that he applied it to every single word of the Torah and estab-
lished 1,005 reasons for every word for wisdom. He also instructed other
people in wise decision making; in doing so he provided the Torah, which
is compared to a basket, with handles. The high praise for the Meshalim
is particularly emphasized in CantR 1. The words of the Torah are first
comprehensible through their application. Solomon publicly taught the
Torah and in doing so was visited by the Holy Spirit.
This hermeneutic significance of the Meshalim has been discussed
many times in earlier research literature and interpreted for its compre-
hension of the Midrash. David Sterns Parables in Midrash18 and Daniel
Boyarins Intertextuality and the Reading of the Midrash19 are worth
mentioning as representative works for this approach. Further, the Song
of Songs was certainly considered the hermeneutic key to understanding
the Book of Exodus by the Rabbis.
6.Conclusion
I have endeavoured to show that Solomon as a wise man is remembered
primarily in a positive manner, whereas his reign as king and especially
his marriage with the Egyptian princess casts him, at best, in an ambiva-
lent light. His virtual messianic power is lost through this latter aspect,
which could possible be considered not merely as the result of Rabbinic
exegesis, but also as a critical reaction to the patriarchs and exilarchs. A
comparative study of the individual Midrashim and their correspondent
and contrasting aspects would go beyond the scope of this presentation.
18Stern 1991.
19Boyarin 1990.
142 gerhard langer
Bibliography
Aberbach, M., 1968, Jeroboam and Solomon. Rabbinic Interpretations, Jewish Quarterly
Review 59: 118132.
Boyarin, D., Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash, Indianapolis IN 1990.
Ginzberg, L., The Legends of the Jews. Vol. 4, Philadelphia PA 1913; Vol. 6, Philadelphia PA
1928.
Luzzatto, A., Solomonne nel midrash, in: Atti del Seminario invernale: Sono stato re su
Israele a Gerusalemme: Solomonne fra Bibbia e leggenda. Arezzo, 2326 gennaio 1997,
7189, Firenze 1998.
Stern, D., Parables in Midrash: Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature, Cambridge MA
1991.
Visotzky, B.L., The Midrash on Proverbs, New Haven CT and London 1992.
KING SOLOMON IN THE NEW TESTAMENT AND JEWISH TRADITION
Albert L.A. Hogeterp
1.Introduction
This essay explores the question how Solomon figures in the New Testa-
ment and what this tells us about the understanding of this Israelite king,
sage and architect in the New Testament. Emerging Christianity started
out as a Palestinian movement within Judaism. Therefore, comparative
attention for biblical and contemporary Jewish tradition may illuminate
an important context to early Christian thought about Solomon. This con-
text can be conceived in terms of standing at the receiving end of Jew-
ish tradition in certain respects or not, of dialogue with contemporary
Judaism or of dispute against traditions and institutions associated with
Solomon.
As compared to king David, to whom New Testament writings abun-
dantly refer in contexts of narrating messianic expectation and Chris-
tology, direct references to Solomon are relatively sparse in the New
Testament. Solomon is only directly mentioned in the Gospels and Acts.
Biblical writings attributed to Solomon, such as Proverbs and Ecclesiastes,
are also cited in other parts of the New Testament, such as in Pauls Let-
ters. I will mainly turn to direct references to Solomon and therefore focus
on the evidence of the Gospels and Acts.
First, attention will be paid to the Jerusalem temple as lieu de mmoire
of Solomon and his architectural legacy at the time of emerging Christi-
anity. The first, Solomonic temple had been destroyed by Nebucadnezar,
but this did not entail that no parts of the temple courts reminded Jews
at the time of Jesus of Solomons temple. The New Testament comprises
terse references to locations in the temple precincts as well as an early
Christian polemic against the temple as built by Solomon which merit
comparative attention with a view to contextual information about Sec-
ond Temple Judaism and biblical and early Jewish tradition.
A second aspect of Solomon in the New Testament to be discussed
concerns the question what role Solomon plays as literary figure in the
Gospel sayings of Jesus and what this tells us about early Christian percep-
tion of Solomon. Literary references to Solomon will be examined with
144 albert l.a. hogeterp
regard to intertextuality of biblical passages as co-text, with attention for
extra-biblical writings attributed to Solomon contemporary to emerging
Christianity, and with a view to the historical context of early Jewish per-
ceptions of Solomon.
A third and final point concerns the evaluation of the question whether
and how the literary tradition of writings of Solomon bears on issues of
messianism and Christology. Literary tradition about Solomon may be in
view, when New Testament passages about messianic expectation echo
biblical motifs from passages in the Old Testament that originally related
to Solomon. Literary tradition about Solomon may further be of compara-
tive relevance with regard to contextual information about a horizon of
early Jewish messianic expectations. With regard to the latter subject, the
Psalms of Solomon are of recurrent critical importance in studies of early
Jewish messianism.1 Rather than going into different facets of messianism
per se, I will aim to analyse what the role of writings attributed to Solo-
mon in the study of messianism and Christology means for the reception
history of Solomon.
After discussion of these three areas of attention, I will evaluate how
New Testament perceptions of Solomon may be informative about emerg-
ing Christianitys position vis--vis contemporary Judaism and conclude
with the question which emphases determine the early Christian picture
of Solomon.
2.The Legacy of the Solomonic Temple in the New Testament
My first locus of attention concerns the legacy of Solomon as architect
in Jesus days. The Jerusalem temple in Jesus days was the temple as
rebuilt in the Persian period,2 by the permission of king Cyrus accord-
ing to Ezra 1:14, and expanded in early Roman times at the initiative of
king Herod I (Josephus, Ant. 15.380425). The Third Gospel is particularly
versatile about settings of temple worship. The opening chapter of the
Gospel of Luke situate the narrative firmly within the setting of the Jeru-
salem temple, through references to the priesthood and priestly service
of Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist (Luke 1:523). Luke 2:2252
further narrates the presence of Joseph, Mary and Jesus in the temple in
1See e.g. Collins 1995, 3, 6, 10, 4954, 5658, 6869, 95, 122, 129, 159, 166167, 171, 177, 185,
189, 196, 203; Fitzmyer 2007, 115117; Hogeterp 2009, 434, 443, 460, 463, 465466, 470.
2On the debated chronology of the building of the second temple, see recently Edel-
man 2005.
solomon in the new testament and jewish tradition 145
connection with observances according to the custom of the law. The
conclusion of the third Gospel, Luke 24:52, also relates temple worship.
Lucan narration of temple worship includes elements that imply a sense
of continuity with temple tradition of the first, Solomonic temple. The
reference to a priestly division of Abijah, mentioned in Luke 1:5, brings
to mind literary tradition about the beginnings of the monarchy, to which
Davids organization of twenty-four priestly divisions, including that of
Abijah, can be traced back according to 1 Chr 24:719 at v. 10.
The legacy of tradition from the beginning of the Israelite monarchy
also included visible, architectural remains that were attributed to Solo-
mon in particular, as a number of New Testament passages, John 10:2223,
Acts 3:11 and 5:12, indicate.
The legacy of the Solomonic temple is implied in a number of refer-
ences to the so-called portico of Solomon. Starting with the Gospel of
John, John 10:2223 situates an episode of conflict about Jesus messianic
claim in the portico of Solomon of the Jerusalem temple: It was the feast
of the Dedication at Jerusalem; it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the
temple, in the portico of Solomon ( ) (John 10:2023,
RSV). The Johannine narrative of conflict situates a charge of blasphemy
against Jesus (John 10:33) in the time of the feast of Dedication, that is,
the feast of rededication of the temple instituted since the Maccabean era
(1 Macc 4:59).
Two other New Testament passages refer to Solomons portico, both in
the Acts of the Apostles. Acts 3:110 narrates the healing of a man lame from
birth at the so-called Beautiful Gate ( /, Acts 3:2.10)3 of the
Jerusalem Temple by the apostles Peter and John. The subsequent verse,
Acts 3:11, refers to the gathering together of a whole crowd in the portico
called Solomons, . This portico is the place
to which Luke recurrently relates the activity of the apostles of the Jerusa-
lem church. First of all, Acts 3:1226 comprises a speech of Peter about Jesus
resurrection and repentance located in this portico of Solomon. According
to Acts 4:13, the portico of Solomon was also a place under surveillance of
the priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees (Acts 4:1). Acts
4:3 narrates that Peter and John were arrested and put into custody, while
3On divergent identifications of the so-called Beautiful Gate as the Nicanor Gate of
Corinthian bronze or the Shushan Gate, see e.g. Barrett 1994, 179181, with reference to
Josephus and early rabbinic literature, who considers the Nicanor Gate (to be) probably
the best guess (180). Cf. Fitzmyer 1998, 277278 who rather relates the name Beautiful
Gate to the healing miracle narrated by Luke.
146 albert l.a. hogeterp
according to Acts 4:21 they were subsequently released. Secondly, Acts
5:12 again refers to a gathering of followers of the early Jesus- movement
in Solomons Portico, .
The fact that Solomons Portico is recurrently mentioned in Acts as
place of gathering of the early Jesus-movement in Jerusalem indicates an
early Christian consciousness of the legacy of the Solomonic temple. At
the same time, the repeated reference to Solomons Portico in John 10:23,
Acts 3:11 and Acts 5:12 evokes the question where this portico would have
been situated within the larger temple complex of first-century c.e. Jeru-
salem. Previous commentators have generally related the Porticos loca-
tion to contextual information provided by Josephus about its location on
the Eastern side of the Temple.4
Solomons Portico appears to be the same as the east portico,
, which is more extensively described by Flavius Josephus
as follows in the twentieth book of his Antiquities:
This portico ( ) was part of the outer temple, and was situated in a
deep ravine. It had walls four hundred cubits long and was constructed of
square stones, completely white, each stone being twenty cubits long and
six high. This was the work of King Solomon ( ), who was the
first to build the whole temple (Ant. 20.221).5
In his Jewish War book 5, paragraph 185, Josephus further relates the build-
ing of a wall at the east side of the Temple with a portico on top of it
( ) by king Solomon. In the fifteenth book of
Josephus Antiquities, paragraphs 398402 already mention the architec-
tural legacy of Solomon by the time of the reign of Herod I, where the
portico on the eastern ridge is called a
double portico ( ) of the same length as the wall, and it faced the
doors of the temple, for this lay within it. This portico many of the earlier
kings adorned. Round about the entire temple were fixed the spoils taken
from the barbarians, and all these King Herod dedicated, adding those which
he took from the Arabs (Ant. 15.4012).6
Josephus description of the Jerusalem temple further includes reference
to various temple courts, a general court, a second court forbidden to
4Barrett 1994, 191 with reference to Josephus, J.W. 5.184f. and Ant. 15.396401, 20.220f.
who notes that certainty regarding its location cannot be achieved; Fitzmyer 1998, 279
with reference to Josephus, J.W. 5.185 and Ant. 20.221, noting that it seems to have been
outside the Temple proper, perhaps in one of its forecourts.
5Text and translation from Feldman 1965, 118119.
6Text and translation from Marcus 1963, 450451.
solomon in the new testament and jewish tradition 147
foreigners, a third court only permitted to priests, and the inner sanctuary
with an altar before it (Ant. 15.417419). It may be inferred from Josephus
descriptions that Solomons Portico was located at the outer fringes of
the Jerusalem temple complex surrounding the general court and outside
subsequent courts of Jewish temple worship.
The narrative of Acts focuses on Solomons Portico as gathering place
of the early Jesus-movement that recurrently drew destitute people with
illnesses to itself in the context of healing miracle stories (Acts 3:111,
5:1215).7 The same narrative further emphasises acts of temple worship
by the apostles Peter and John, such as attendance of an hour of prayer
at the ninth hour (Acts 3:1).8 This information from Acts implies that
the legacy of the Solomonic temple was not only a lieu de mmoire of
ancestral tradition to apostles of the Jerusalem church, but it was part of a
tradition which they lived through participation in acts of temple worship
(cf. Acts 21:1726).9
In the book of Acts, the focus on Solomons Portico at the outer fringes
of the temple complex as place of gathering for the early Jesus-movement
appears correlated with the idea that the gospel mission of the apostles
was at the fringes of acceptability to the temple establishment that accord-
ing to Acts 4:17.1517 and 5:1718 actively sought to suppress it.
The last reference to Solomon in the book of Acts occurs in an outspo-
kenly polemical setting, as part of the speech of Stephen in Acts 7:47. A
larger section, Acts 7:4450, is provided below in the translation of the
Revised Standard Version in order to illustrate Stephens polemic against
the temple.
7:44 Our fathers had the tent of witness in the wilderness, even as he who
spoke to Moses directed him to make it, according to the pattern that he
had seen. 45 Our fathers in turn brought it in with Joshua when they dispos-
sessed the nations which God thrust out before our fathers. So it was until
7Cf. Matthew 21:14 which narrates Jesus healing of blind and lame people in the
temple.
8Barrett 1994, 178 identifies prayer at the ninth hour in Acts 3:1 with that which took
its name from the offering of the afternoon Tamid sacrifice (see Josephus, Ant. 14.65 for the
hour of the sacrifice; Dan 9:21; Judith 9:1 for transference to prayer), or Minhah.
9Cf. Acts 2:5 (RSV), which describes Jews who dwelled as pilgrims in Jerusalem as
devout men from every nation under heaven, , thereby
possibly implying that those who instigated the seizure and council hearing of Stephen,
some of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cilicia and Asia (Acts
6:9, RSV), were an exception to this general description. Apart from Acts 2:5, the third
evangelist calls Simeon (Luke 2:25), people who buried Stephen and made great lamen-
tation over him (Acts 8:2, RSV), and Ananias (Acts 22:12), a disciple in Damascus who
helped Paul regain his sight (Acts 9:1019), , devout.
148 albert l.a. hogeterp
the days of David, 46 who found favour in the sight of God and asked leave
to find a habitation for the God of Jacob. 47 But it was Solomon who built
a house for him. 48 Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made with
hands; as the prophet says, 49 Heaven is my throne, and earth my footstool.
What house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is the place of my
rest? 50 Did not my hand make all these things?.
Stephens polemic against Solomons building of a temple presents itself
as being contrary to a prophetic dictum that the Most High does not
dwell in houses made with hands (Acts 7:48, RSV). This presentation
could at first sight yield the impression of a total dissociation from Jewish
temple tradition instituted since the early days of Israels monarchy. The
speech of Stephen has sometimes been taken to represent the beginning
of Lukes account of the break of Christianity from its Jewish matrix.10
On the other hand, the polemical sections of Stephens speech, including
verses 4853, have not been uniformly interpreted by commentators as
polemic in a specifically Christian sense, in view of the prophetic theme
mentioned in Acts 7:4850.11
The question how the reference to Solomon directly before a polemi-
cal turn should be interpreted thereby requires renewed consideration.
It is not my aim to consider the speech of Acts 7 as arguable source of
information about a sector of Judaism from which, according to certain
commentators, Stephen and his colleagues are said to have come.12 With
regard to Stephens background, Acts 6:17 only informs us that Stephen
was chosen as one of seven people of good repute by a body of disciples
in order to serve tables of the . It would amount to problematic
extrapolation to make the speech of Stephen say something about a sector
of first-century c.e. Judaism outside the book of Acts. Conversely, infor-
mation from biblical and early Jewish tradition could inform our reading
of Acts with regard to the question what legacy of the Solomonic temple it
was in Stephens days that the Lucan Stephen levelled his polemic against.
Before turning to consideration of biblical and early Jewish tradition, I will
briefly turn to the context of Stephens polemic against the temple in the
narrative of Acts.
10Fitzmyer 1998, 368.
11Barrett 1994, 337: Israels rejection of the living word of God in favour of its religious
institutions is one of the commonest of prophetic themes.
12Barrett 1994, 339: It is a valuable source for our knowledge of first-century Judaism in
addition gives us a glimpse of a non-Pauline line along which Christianity moved into the
Gentile world, and thus does more than manifest Lukes...attitude to a Christianity too
narrowly and rigidly bound to Judaism...and to the land (Davies, Land 272).
solomon in the new testament and jewish tradition 149
The speech of Stephen in Acts 7:253 begins with a review of the
biblical past from the time of the patriarchs to the time of the exodus
(Acts 7:244). The review turns to a juxtaposition between the tent of wit-
ness from the time of Moses to the days of David (Acts 7:4446) and
the Solomonic temple (Acts 7:4750). Acts 7:5153 finally uses polemi-
cal language, accusing the addressees in the council hearing of resisting
the Holy Spirit, betrayal and killing of Jesus. If we reconsider the charges
brought against Stephen in light of Stephens speech, the charge of blas-
phemous words against Moses and God (Acts 6:11) and of speaking words
against this holy place and the law (Acts 6:13) could be interpreted as
words that drove a wedge between the Mosaic law and the temple. That
is, the speech of Stephen interprets the Solomonic temple as contrary to
rather than continuous with the tent of witness of Moses days. However,
the upshot of Stephens polemic in Acts 7:5153 addresses the handing
over of the Upright one to execution as an act perpetrated by the temple
establishment contrary to the Spirit and to the law. The charges against
Stephen mentioned in Acts 6:14 further refer to Jesus of Nazareth.
The speech of Stephen makes part of a sequence of narrative in Acts.
For instance, the appellation Upright one in Acts 7:52 also occurs in
Acts 3:14. It could well be that the speech of Stephen reflects a culmina-
tion point of the antagonism between the missionary Jesus-movement
and the temple establishment in the narrative of Acts rather than consti-
tuting an independent document reflective of attitudes to the Solomonic
temple per se.
I will now briefly consider biblical passages in comparison and contrast
with the speech of Stephen. Acts 7:4950 cites Isa 66:12a as prophetic
dictum against the notion of a man-made temple. In the original con-
text of Isa 66, the prophetic words against a man-made house appears
to make the rhetorical point that the disposition of the human soul
towards God rather than ritual offerings distinguish worship from idolatry
(Isa 66:16). Even the prayer for the dedication of the temple by king Solo-
mon, as narrated in 1 Kgs 8:1553, includes a section which echoes this
concern. Thus we read in 1 Kgs 8:2729:
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest
heaven cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built! 28
Yet have regard to the prayer of thy servant and to his supplication, O Lord
my God, hearkening to the cry and to the prayer which they servant prays
before thee this day; 29 that thy eyes may be open night and day toward this
house, the place of which thou hast said, My name shall be there, that thou
mayest hearken to the prayer which thy servant offers toward this place
(1 Kgs 8:2729, RSV).
150 albert l.a. hogeterp
In this passage, the notion that God does not dwell in a house made with
hands occurs not in a polemical context, but in a setting which invokes
Deuteronomic words for the dedication of the temple. An analogous point
is made in Josephus biblical antiquities (Ant. 8.114).
The successive references to the days of David who found favour in
the sight of God and asked leave to find a habitation for the God of Jacob
and to Solomon who built a house for him are paralleled by biblical nar-
rative in 2 Sam 7 and 1 Chr 17:127. According to these biblical narratives
the establishment of the Israelite people in an undisturbed place (2 Sam
7:1011; 1 Chr 17:910) is followed by a divine promise to David that his
offspring will establish a kingdom and build a house for the divine name
(2 Sam 7:1213; 1 Chr 17:1112).
These biblical passages with regard to the Solomonic temple parallel
the concern that God does not dwell in houses made with hands, but
Stephens polemic implies an unparalleled contrast between the days
of David which were still characterised by a tent of witness and Solo-
mons building of a house for God who does not dwell in houses made
with hands. Further comparison with a passage from Nehemiah, which
comprises a confession prior to a covenant to support the rebuilt second
temple, also gives the impression of a contrast with Stephens polemic
against the temple.
Like the speech of Stephen in Acts 7:246, Neh 9:631 comprises a
survey of biblical history from the time of the patriarchs, starting with
Abraham, to the time of forty years in the wilderness and the time of the
prophets. This survey also includes critical observations on the behaviour
of ancestors as stiff-necked people, on rebellion and resistance to pro-
phetic instruction by Gods Spirit (Neh 9:30). However, unlike the polemi-
cal conclusion of Stephens speech in Acts 7:4753, Neh 9:3237 turns to
supplication addressing God in circumstances of great distress (Neh 9:37)
and Neh 9:3810:39 continues with the presentation of a covenant to sup-
port the house of God, the second temple rebuilt in Jerusalem. Compared
with Neh 9, the polemical turn against the temple as formulated in Ste-
phens speech might look quite unprecedented.
To my knowledge, even sectarian Qumran literature, which includes
much polemic against the priestly establishment, does not refer to the
Solomonic temple in a polemical way.13 Contrary to the juxtaposition
13Barrett 1994, 339 rightly distinguishes Qumran criticism of the temple cult and
priestly leadership from Stephens polemic, but his quotation of Braun which identifies
the latter polemic with a hellenistic critique of the temple further appears problematic if
solomon in the new testament and jewish tradition 151
between the tent of witness to the God of Jacob and Solomons temple in
Acts 7:4647, the Qumran Temple Scroll envisions a temple in accordance
with Gods covenant with Jacob. I quote column XXIX, lines 810:
I shall sanctify my [te]mple with my glory, for I shall make my glory reside 9
over it until the day of creation, when I shall create my temple, 10 establish-
ing it for myself for all days, according to the covenant which I made with
Jacob at Bethel.14
This envisioned temple is not without a perspective on Israelite kingship,
for columns LVI-LIX includes statutes concerning Israelite kingship.
The direct transition from polemic against the temple as a house made
with hands (Acts 7:4850) to the addressees of the council hearing in Acts
7:5153 may imply that Stephens polemic did not necessarily aim at the
biblical king Solomon but at the temple establishment that identified with
the Solomonic legacy of the temple. It is a question of the high priest what
Stephen has to say about the charges brought against him that immedi-
ately precedes Stephens speech (Acts 7:1). Stephens speech juxtaposes
the fixed habitation of the temple as contrary to a prophetic dictum to
a tent of witness from the time of Moses as in accordance with divine
instruction. Beyond that, the speech conveys a juxtaposition between liv-
ing oracles received by Moses (Acts 7:38) and resistance to the Spirit and
the law by the council (Acts 7:5153).
Contextual information of Flavius Josephus may illuminate the ques-
tion in which way circles of Jewish leadership by the turn of the com-
mon era related to the Solomonic legacy of the temple. The Jerusalem
temple in the days of emerging Christianity was the Herodian temple,
expanded by Herod I, as Josephus extensively relates (Ant. 15.380425).
Apart from an account of the reconstruction of the temple courts as a
memorable achievement (Ant. 15.380), Josephus also relates improper,
unjust acts attributed to Herod. These improper acts included the open-
ing of the coffins of David and Solomon which were accompanied by ill
omen (Ant. 16.181183). Josephus further describes the appointment of
insignificant persons to the high-priesthood as a precedent set by Herod I,

extrapolated to that sector of Judaism from which Stephen and his colleagues are said
to have come (339). Acts 2:911 includes reference to Jewish pilgrims to Jerusalem,
including also proselytes, from various parts of the Hellenistic Diaspora, and Acts 21:2728
appears to imply the opposite of Hellenistic critique of the temple with regard to Jews
from Asia.
14Translation from Garca Martnez and Tigchelaar 2000, 1251.
152 albert l.a. hogeterp
a precedent which reportedly continued under Roman rule (Ant. 20.247
249). According to the end of the first book of Josephus Jewish War, the
erection of a golden eagle above the great gate to the temple courts under
the auspices of Herod I provoked an insurrection. This insurrection was
led by teachers of the law who held the image to be unlawful and in defi-
ance of the ancestral laws (J.W. 1.648650).
In Herods days, Solomon also stood for the prestige and consolidation
of royal as well as priestly dynasties in Judaea. According to Josephus,
Herod I desired to reconstitute the Jerusalem temple to the size and splen-
dour it had reportedly had when it was first built by Solomon (Ant. 15.385).
Josephus further relates that the second temple was smaller than the first
temple, built by Solomon (Ant. 15.385386). The fact that Solomon fig-
ures in the speech of Herod in Josephus Antiquities, which introduces the
Herodian reconstruction programme of the temple, could imply a claim
of prestige equalling that of Solomon. A further analogy with Solomon
drawn out in this speech of Herod appears to be the reference to temple
construction under a kings rule in a time of peace (Ant. 15.387).
This contextual information from Josephus Antiquities may not be
unrelated to Stephens polemic against the Solomonic temple. The temple
establishment, represented by the high priest, was successively appointed
by Herod I, Archelaus and Roman rule (Ant. 20.247249). Throughout
Luke-Acts, the mention of descendants of the Herodian dynasty, Herod
Antipas, and Herod Agrippa I, is specifically connected with repression
and persecution of the early Jesus-movement (Luke 3:19, 9:79, 13:31,
23:1112; Acts 4:27, 12:1.6.11.19.2123). Acts 4:14 and 5:1718 further narrate
the part of the Sadducean high priestly faction in repression of the early
Jesus-movement. It could thereby well be that Stephens polemic against
Solomons building of the temple was determined by much more contem-
porary factors of antagonism with the temple establishment that identi-
fied with the Solomonic legacy. According to Josephus Antiquities, Herod
I envisaged a reconstitution of the temple to its first archetype of piety
to its former (Solomonic) size (Ant. 15.386). An attack against Solomons
building of the temple would have constituted an attack against the pres-
tige project which it had become since Herods days.
Apart from architectural references to Solomons Portico and the polem-
ical setting of mention of Solomon as builder of the Jerusalem temple,
the New Testament also comprises literary references to Solomon. Before
turning to Solomon in sayings of Jesus, I will briefly note intertextuality
with Jewish literary tradition about Solomon in the New Testament.
solomon in the new testament and jewish tradition 153
3.Literary Tradition about Solomon and the New Testament
3.1Emerging Christianity and Jewish Literary Tradition about Solomon
Biblical tradition about Solomon is narrated in 1 Kgs 111, 1 Chr 2829,
2 Chr 19, of which part is echoed in the New Testament. The passage
about the visit of the queen of Sheba to Solomon in 1 Kgs 10:129 / 2 Chr
9:131 is alluded to in the Synoptic sayings source that is incorporated in
Matthew and Luke.
Apart from biblical narrative about Solomon, various biblical writings
are attributed to Solomon, namely Proverbs,15 Ecclesiastes,16 and the
Song of Songs,17 of which several play an intertextual role in the New
Testament. For instance, verses 2122 of Prov 25, which is introduced
in verse 1 as proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah king of
Judah copied (RSV), serve as scriptural illustration in Rom 12:20 for the
imperative not to be overcome by evil, but (to) overcome evil with good
(Rom 12:21, RSV).
A citation of Eccl 7:20 opens the citation of a testimonium of scriptural
verses in Rom 3:1020. Apart from Pauls Letter to the Romans, other New
Testament letters further include citations of biblical writings with a liter-
ary attribution to Solomon. It is beyond the scope of this paper to give a
complete survey of the intertextuality. Suffice it to note here that none of
these quotations are specifically introduced as quotations from writings of
Solomon. Scriptural quotations which are identified with a specific scrip-
tural source in the New Testament rather concern Moses,18 the Prophets,19
and psalms of David.20
Two works which are included in the Septuagint but fall outside the
canon of the Hebrew Bible, the Wisdom of Solomon and the Psalms of
Solomon are of comparative importance to New Testament scholarship
for tradition-historical reasons. For instance, the ninth chapter of the Wis-
dom of Solomon relates a Solomonic prayer for wisdom that mentions
the building of the temple as well as a notion of Gods indwelling Spirit
(Wis 9:8.17). These references could constitute a tradition background of
15Cf. Prov 1:1 (RSV), The Proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel.
16Cf. Qoh 1:1 (RSV), The Words of the Preacher, the son of David, king of Jerusalem.
17Cf. Cant 1:1 (RSV), The Song of Songs, which is Solomons.
18E.g. Mark 7:10, 12:26; Rom 9:15, 10:19.
19E.g. Matt 2:17, 3:3, 4:14, 24:15; Luke 4:17; Acts 2:16; Rom 9:25.2729, 10:20.
20E.g. Mark 12:36 par.
154 albert l.a. hogeterp
Jewish temple theological thought to Pauls metaphor of the community
as temple in which Gods Spirit dwells (1 Cor 3:16).21 The Psalms of Solo-
mon comprise a seventeenth chapter whose arguable evidence of mes-
sianism plays a recurrent role in tradition-historical discussion of Jewish
messianism at the turn of the common era (cf. note 1 above). Other apoc-
ryphal or pseudepigraphical works, the Odes of Solomon22 and the Testa-
ment of Solomon,23 have been dated relatively late as writings at most
contemporary to but possibly later than the earliest documents and tra-
ditions of emerging Christianity that make part of the New Testament.
These latter writings are therefore beyond the direct focus of comparison
in this paper.
3.2Solomon in the Synoptic Sayings Source about Jesus Ministry
Direct literary references to Solomon are part of the sayings of Jesus in the
Synoptic Gospels, that is, in the double tradition in Matthew and Luke.
These references concern Solomon as king and sage rather than as archi-
tect of the first temple. It is to these direct literary references, their inter-
textuality, and interpretation in context that I now turn.
3.2.1Solomon in all his glory (Matt 6:2830/Luke 12:2728)
Matthew 6:2830 (RSV)
6:28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field,
how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; 29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in
all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the
grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven,
will he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith?
Luke 12:2728 (RSV)
12:27 Consider the lilies, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell
you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 28 But
if God so clothes the grass which is alive in the field today and tomorrow is
thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O men of little
faith!
The section on anxiety about clothing makes part of a larger peri-
cope on anxiety in Matt 6:2534 and Luke 12:2234 respectively. In the
21Cf. Hogeterp 2006, 327328.
22Charlesworth 1985, 725771 at 726777 assigns a late first to early second century c.e.
date of composition to the Odes.
23Duling 1983, 935987 at 940943 assigns a date of composition to the Testament of
Solomon ranging between the first and the third centuries c.e.
solomon in the new testament and jewish tradition 155
Gospel of Matthew, Matt 6:2534 makes part of the Sermon on the Mount
(Matt 57), while Luke 12:2234 follows a Lucan pericope with a parable
on the rich fool. Matt 6:24, a verse immediately preceding the Matthean
pericope on anxiety comprises the admonition that one cannot serve two
masters, both God and mammon. However, the Lucan incorporation of the
Synoptic sayings source provides a setting with more extended attention
for a contrast between earthly anxiety about treasures (Luke 12:1321) and
a treasure in the heavens (Luke 12:3234). Luke 12:13 further narrates a par-
ticular occasion of anxiety over the division of an inheritance. To differ-
ing extents, therefore, the Q section on anxiety is embedded in contexts of
admonition against excessive anxiety about earthly riches.24 The excess of
the anxiety is underlined by the preceding Matthean verse of service
of mammon (Matt 6:24) and by the Lucan framework which admonishes
against greed (Luke 12:15), narrates a parable of the rich fool (Luke 12:1621)
and concludes the pericope on anxiety with the observation that where
your treasure is, there will your heart be also (Luke 12:34, RSV).
The Greek verb which consistently expresses anxiety in the
Matthean and Lucan pericopes may be related to the cognate noun
, which occurs at the end of a parable explanation in Mark 4:1819
about seeds sown among thorns. They are interpreted in Mark 4:18b19 as
those who hear the word, but the cares of the world, and the delight in
riches, and the desire for other things, enter in and choke the word, and
it proves unfruitful (RSV).
The section with reference to Solomon is explicitly introduced by Matt
6:28 as anxiety about clothing. In the Lucan framework, the admonition
against anxiety, including that about clothing, is situated in the opening
verses 2223 of chapter 12. The subsequent text, which compares the lilies
in the field and Solomon in all his glory, is quite similar in Matthew and
Luke. The question is how the reference to Solomon should be qualified
in this connection.
Biblical tradition, as recorded in 1 Kgs 3:1013, attributes riches and hon-
our to the young king Solomon in virtue of the fact that his concern was
with wisdom to govern the people and to discern between good and evil
(1 Kgs 3:9) rather than with earthly riches. 1 Kgs 10:2329 rather includes
24While referring to Q, my analysis remains with readings of the double tradition
passages in Matthew and Luke, without an attempt at reconstructing a Q text. For an
elaborate argument in favour of reading Q 12:22b31 as an original unity and against favor-
itism toward brevity and simplicity with a view to P.Oxy. 655, represented in studies by
J.M. Robinson and C. Heil, see Gundry 2002, 159180, repr. 2005, 149170.
156 albert l.a. hogeterp
indications of Solomons surpassing amassment of riches, dark sides of the
latter end of his reign in terms of temptations to idolatry (1 Kgs 11:143),
and 1 Kgs 12:14 emphasises that Solomon made the peoples yoke heavy.
Biblical tradition backgrounds to Solomons glory, as far as riches were
concerned, thereby appear slightly ambiguous.
It has recently been argued in an article by Warren Carter that the ref-
erence to Solomon in all his glory in Matt 6:29 would actually reflect
a negative portrayal of Solomon as an anxious and oppressive king.25 In
what follows, I will argue that a negative interpretation of Solomon in this
Q passage tips the balance of ambiguity about Solomons glory to a one-
sided and thereby misleading analysis.
Carter reads the reference to Solomon in all his glory against a dif-
ferent intertextual background than 1 Kgs 9 and 2 Chr 9. Carter turns to
Deut 17:1520 and 1 Sam 8 as context to the Deuteronomists narrative of
Solomons kingship in 1 Kgs and re-reads successive chapters of 1 Kgs 111
with a view to indications of Solomons use of oppressive means to fur-
ther his own ends or glory.26 However, these chapters also provide indi-
cations of the prosperity of Judah and Israel under Solomons reign, such
as 1 Kgs 4:20, and of exchange of costly presents between other kings and
Solomon (1 Kgs 10).
Carter conceives of Matt 6:29 as a contrast between the lilies of the
field and Solomons glory in ethical terms, juxtaposing Gods concern for
the lilies of the field which do not do anything to the activity implied
in Solomons achievement of glory. Carter thereby associates the activ-
ity behind Solomons achievement of glory with the anxiety of clothing.27
However, as we already noted, biblical tradition does not provide a uni-
form and unambiguously negative picture of Solomons glory. 1 Kgs 3:1014
presents riches as an additional divine gift initially not asked for by Solo-
mon, whereas the latter end of Solomons reign is described as a heavy
yoke for the people in 1 Kgs 12:4.
Perhaps the ambiguity of intertextual backgrounds is a deliberate part
of the Jesus-tradition in Q about anxiety, stipulating both aspects of riches
and honour as narrated about Solomon in biblical tradition: as divine
gift and as object of excessive anxiety. The admonition to seek Gods
kingdom and (all) these things shall be yours as well in Matt 6:33 and
Luke 12:31 could perhaps echo biblical narrative about Solomons request
25Carter 1997, 325.
26Carter 1997, 18.
27Carter 1997, 89.
solomon in the new testament and jewish tradition 157
for discerning wisdom with regard to good and evil which was granted
together with riches and honour (1 Kgs 3:1013). In the Septuagint trans-
lation of 3 Kingdoms 3:13, the divine gift to Solomon also concerns ,
honour or glory. The Lucan setting of the Q passage concludes with a
focus on a heavenly treasure over against anxiety about earthly riches
(Luke 12:3334).28
Carter considers other parts of Matthew to provide additional reasons
for interpreting the reference to Solomons glory in negative terms. He
refers to Matt 1:67, which characterizes Solomon as the son of David by
the wife of Uriah, which would recall Davids adultery and murder.29
Matt 1:67a (RSV) reads as follows in translation: and Jesse the father
of David the king. And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of
Uriah, and Solomon the father of Rehoboam. Other commentators have
emphasised that the reference to Uriah underlines Uriahs righteousness
in contrast to David,30 but this part of the Matthean genealogy thereby
highlights a characterization of Davids kingship, not of Solomons. It is
only David who is referred to in this list as the king, not Solomon. Carter
further turns to Matthew 2 to highlight Herods oppressive power as an
illustration of kingship. However, he does not indicate how and why the
picture of Herods kingship in Matthew 2 should inform our understand-
ing of Solomons glory in Matt 6:29, beyond a general idea that the audi-
ence of Matthew would have these presentations of kingship in mind.31
By way of epilogue, Carter mentions the reference to Solomons wisdom
in Matt 12:42 as sufficient wisdom to entice a visit and positive response
from the Queen of Sheba, unlike that of the religious leaders to Jesus.32 It
is this second reference to Solomon in the Synoptic sayings source which
makes Carters one-sidedly negative evaluation of Solomons glory prob-
lematic. He fails to explain why beyond the a minore ad maius reason-
ing in Matt 6:2830, reference to Solomon further occurs in a a minore
ad maius type of argument in Matt 12:3842. If Solomons glory unam-
biguously stood for the negative quality of oppressive kingship anxious
28Cf. Metzger 2007, 84 who reads Luke 12:3334 as admonition against overconsump-
tion (not consumption per se) and treasuring-up and in favour of social welfare such as
almsgiving.
29Carter 1997, 11.
30Hagner 1993, 11.
31Carter 1997, 1213 at 13.
32Carter 1997, 2425 at 25.
158 albert l.a. hogeterp
for amassing excessive wealth33 in Matthew, the a minore ad maius refer-
ence to Solomons wisdom would seem pointless.
Carters analysis refers to biblical tradition on the one hand and to
Matthews Gospel on the other. Apart from this, he mentions an charge
of loving glory or fame as one of the standard accusations in Hellenis-
tic rhetoric against ones (philosophical) opponents, with reference to a
quotation from Plutarch that comments on vain glory of kings.34 Carters
survey, however, does not answer the question which ideas a Jewish audi-
ence in Jesus days would have had about king Solomon. That is, Carter
does not survey extra-biblical Jewish tradition. By way of illustration of
Second Temple Jewish perceptions of Solomon, I now survey some sam-
ples form early Jewish literature.
In line with biblical tradition, Sirach and Josephus include descriptions
of Solomon as a king associated with wisdom, known for proverbs, riddles
and parables (Prov 1:1; Sir 47:1415; Josephus, Ag.Ap. 1.111, 114115). Analo-
gously with 1 Kgs 111, Sirach 47:1222 provides both positive appraisal
of Solomons wisdom and negative characterizations of Solomon as one
who put a stain on his honour (Sir 47:20, ).
In Sirachs early Jewish perception of the dark side of Solomons reign,
the conceptualization is not that of Solomons glory, but of a stain on
Solomons glory.
Josephus mentions Solomon together with David as associated with
powerful authority over many nations (Josephus, Ag.Ap. 2.132). In his Bib-
lical Antiquities, Josephus provides an elaborate account of Solomons
wisdom which reportedly surpassed the ancients (Ant. 8.4249). Among
Qumran literature, the composition Miqsat Maaseh ha-Torah or some of
the precepts of the Torah, includes a section with reference to the kings
of Israel as example that whoever among them feared [the To]rah was
delivered from troubles (4QMMT C 2324).35 In the admonitory perspec-
tive of the MMT, Solomons days appear still to be associated with fulfil-
ment of blessings according to the Deuteronomic covenant as opposed
to curses associated with the days of Jeroboam the son of Nebat and
up to when Jerusalem and Zedekiah King of Judah went into captivity
(4QMMT C 1819).36
33Carter 1997, 25.
34Carter 1997, 16.
35Translation from Qimron and Strugnell 1994, 61.
36Translation from Qimron and Strugnell 1994, 61. Cf. the editors note on the phrase
[ ][ ] [] [][] in 4QMMT C 18 on p. 60: From the extant text in
ll. 1821, we learn that the writer believes that some of the blessings of Deuteronomy were
solomon in the new testament and jewish tradition 159
In texts about martyrdom and revolt in the Maccabean era, Solomon
further plays a role as normative literary figure. 2 Macc 2:810 expresses
an analogy between Moses and Solomon with regard to dedicatory prayer.
4 Macc 18:1516 consecutively refer to a psalm of David and a proverb
of Solomon in the narrative context of martyrdom. Solomons proverb as
quoted in 4 Macc 18:16, There is a tree of life for those who do his will
(RSV), appears to constitute a modified form of Prov 3:18.
These examples indicate that early Jewish perceptions of Solomon
included many positive sides, even though a dark side was not absent
from literary tradition either. In light of this contextual information, an
exclusively negative picture of Solomons glory would mark a rupture with
Jewish perceptions. If a negative picture of Solomons glory in terms of
anxiety and oppressive power were exclusively in view in the Synoptic
sayings tradition, the question would remain why this is not brought out
more explicitly, analogously with the mention in Sir 47:20 that Solomon
put a stain on his glory.
An ethical contrast between Gods concern for the lilies in the field and
Solomons achievement of glory is not necessarily implied in the Synoptic
sayings source. Biblical tradition as represented by the Song of Songs in
fact comprises a song of the beauty of love attributed to Solomon that
includes pastoral scenes with imagery of lilies (Cant 2:16, 6:23). The com-
parison between the lilies in the field and Solomons glory rather involves
a perception of the riches of nature which basically comes through Gods
creation that cannot be equalled let alone surpassed by anyone, not even
by Solomons glory.
It may finally be noted with regard to Luke 12:27/Matt 6:2829 that an
architectural echo could be implied. That is, 1 Kgs 7:22.26 mentions deco-
rative work in the Solomonic temple, described as lily-work on the tops
of pillars in the MT ( ). If this architectural echo plays a part in
the Q passage, the phrase even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed
like one of these expresses a heightened sense of juxtaposition between
the riches of nature and its artistic representation as part of the edifice of
the Solomonic temple.
The ambiguity of both positive and negative aspects to Solomons king-
ship is left to the audience of Jesus words to reflect on with regard to the
issue of anxiety. The notion that even Solomon in all his glory was not
arrayed like one of these plainly refers to a state of being rather than to
fulfilled in the days of Solomon, and that some of the curses were fulfilled in the time of
the kings of Judah and Israel.
160 albert l.a. hogeterp
anxiety or activity on Solomons part. Solomons glory is not further quali-
fied, but the introduction of the phrase of comparison with the Greek
, denoting not even,37 may imply a high profile accorded to king
Solomon. Solomon appears to make part of the comparison to raise the
consciousness of Jesus audience above poor faith and trust.
3.2.2The Request for a Sign (Matt 12:3842/Luke 11:2932)
I will now briefly turn to the second section in the Synoptic sayings source
with reference to Solomon. This section concerns the request for a sign
which Jesus identifies as the disposition of an evil generation (Matt 12:39/
Luke 11:29) toward his own ministry. The respective references to the
preaching of Jonah and the wisdom of Solomon thereby play a role of
rebuke and polemic. A normative understanding of the preaching of
Jonah and the wisdom of Solomon is implied in this Q section, since the
a minore ad maius reasoning requires elaboration of a larger claim on the
basis of a quickly established claim.
This second Q-section is clearly intertextual with regard to its mention
of the queen of the South who came from the ends of the earth to hear
the wisdom of Solomon (Matt 12:42/Luke 11:31; RSV). The co-text in view
here is 1 Kgs 10:113 together with 2 Chr 9:112, which narrate the visit of
the queen of Sheba who heard Solomons wisdom and considered it to
surpass the report she had heard of it. The mention of the ends of the
earth may be indirectly paralleled by the statement in 1 Kgs 10:23 that
King Solomon excelled all the kings of the earth in riches and in wisdom
(RSV). The phrase from the ends of the earth would thereby imply that
the hearing of the wisdom of Solomon by the queen of the South was a
representative example that Solomons wisdom excelled (that of) all the
kings of the earth.
The latter part of the a minore ad maius reasoning implies that a claim
with regard to Jesus own ministry is involved. This is expressed by the
phrase behold something more than Solomon is here (Matt 12:42/Luke
11:31). It has been inferred from this reasoning by Nolland that a line is
probably to be drawn from the wisdom of Solomon here to the operation
of wisdom in the ministry of Jesus (cf. at 7:35; 11:49).38
The combined evidence of the two Q sections implies that references
to Solomon serve a predominantly normative purpose and presupposes a
relatively high stature of the biblical king in terms of glory and wisdom.
37BDAG, 32000, p. 735.
38Nolland 1993a, 654.
solomon in the new testament and jewish tradition 161
4.Solomon and Christology
A final area of attention concerns the bearing of Solomon and writings
attributed to Solomon on questions of messianism and Christology. Since
discussion of these issues can only be of peripheral interest to the under-
standing of Solomon as king, sage and architect, my comments on this
subject will be brief.
It should first of all be noted that two genealogies of Jesus, in Matt 1:117
and in Luke 3:2338 respectively, both include mention of descendance
from David (Matt 1:6, Luke 3:31) but only Matt 1:67 includes reference to
Solomon. Luke 3:31 rather refers to Nathan as son of David. The genealogy
of Matthew has a different theological focus, starting with Abraham and
ending with Jesus called Christ (Matt 1:16), as compared to the genealogy
of Luke. Luke 3:2338 traces Jesus genealogy back from sonship, as was
supposed, of Joseph, ultimately to sonship of Adam and sonship of God.
Nathan and Solomon are mentioned consecutively in 2 Sam 5:14 among
sons of David born in Jerusalem, while 1 Chr 3:5 relates Nathan and Solo-
mon as two of four sons of David by Batseba. The Matthean focus on royal
lineage has been contrasted to Lukes theological interest in tracing Jesus
divine sonship back through genealogy.39 Matthean focus on royal lineage
may be correlated with the worship of Jesus as king by wise men from the
East peculiar to Matt 2:112.
According to a commentary on Luke by Nolland, an OT background to
the narrative of Jesus messianic entry of Jerusalem in Luke 19:2940 could
be the reference to Solomon on Davids donkey in 1 Kgs 1:33.40
The Psalms of Solomon comprise a psalm, Ps.Sol. 17.32, that envisions
the rule of a righteous king in Jerusalem who is further designated as the
Lords anointed. This king is further consider son of David (Ps.Sol. 17.21).
The vision of righteousness in the seventeenth Psalm of Solomon, which
includes an antagonism with unrighteous rulers among the nations
(Ps.Sol. 17.2125), diverges much from messianism in the New Testament,
but it made part of a horizon of messianic expectations by the turn of the
common era.41
39Hagner 1993, 8.
40Nolland 1993b, 928.
41Cf. Embry 2002, 136: So far, scholarship has given it mention primarily in the context
of messianism, but the wider understanding of messianism in relation to other, central
themes is left out.
162 albert l.a. hogeterp
5.Conclusion
In conclusion, king Solomon is variously regarded as sage, architect of
the first temple, and as king surrounded by glory in the New Testament.
With regard to the temple, the reception of the Solomonic legacy in the
late Second Temple period was strongly determined by the Herodian
dynasty and the temple establishment. About these circles of leadership
the Gospels and Acts narrate activities to suppress and persecute the early
Jesus-movement. The polemical settings of references to Solomons Por-
tico and to Solomon as builder of the temple reflect these contemporary
circumstances. Stephens polemic against Solomons temple could well
constitute a thinly veiled polemic against the Jerusalemite establishment
which had identified with Herods rebuilding of the temple to the size of
Solomons time.
Apart from the charged atmosphere of antagonism between the early
Jesus-movement and the Jerusalemite establishment, references to Solo-
mons glory and Solomons wisdom in the Jesus-tradition of Q reflect a
rather positive image of the biblical king Solomon.
Bibliography
Barrett, C.K., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Acts of the Apostles. 1. Prelimi-
nary Introduction and Commentary on Acts IXIV, London 1994.
Carter, W., 1997, Solomon in All His Glory: Intertextuality and Matthew 6.29, Journal for
the Study of the New Testament 65: 325.
Charlesworth, J.H., Odes of Solomon, in: J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha. 2. Expansions of the Old Testament and Legends, Wisdom and Philo-
sophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works,
725771, New York 1985.
Collins, J.J., The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient
Literature (Anchor Bible Reference Library), New York 1995.
Davies, W.D., The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine,
Berkeley 1974.
Duling, D.C., Testament of Solomon, in: J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseude-
pigrapha. 1. Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, 935987, New York 1983.
Edelman, D., The Origins of the Second Temple. Persian Imperial Policy and the Rebuilding
of Jerusalem (BibleWorld), London 2005.
Embry, B., 2002, The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament: Intertextuality and the
Need for a Re-Evaluation, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13: 99136.
Feldman, L.H., Josephus. Jewish Antiquities. Book XX. General Index (Loeb Classical Library
456), Cambridge MA 1965.
Fitzmyer, J.A., The Acts of the Apostles. A New Translation with Introduction and Commen-
tary (Anchor Bible 31), New York 1998.
, The One Who Is to Come, Grand Rapids MI 2007.
Garca Martnez, F. and E.J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2. 4Q27411Q31,
Leiden and Grand Rapids MI 2000.
solomon in the new testament and jewish tradition 163
Gundry, R.H., 2002, Spinning the Lilies and Unraveling the Ravens: An Alternative Reading
of Q 12:22b31 and P.Oxy. 655, New Testament Studies 48: 159180; reprinted in: idem,
The Old is Better. New Testament Essays in Support of Traditional Interpretations (Wis-
senschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 178), 149170, Tbingen 2005.
Hagner, D.A., Matthew 113 (Word Biblical Commentary 33A), Dallas TX 1993.
Hogeterp, A.L.A., Paul and Gods Temple. A Historical Interpretation of Cultic Imagery in the
Corinthian Correspondence (Biblical Tools and Studies 2), Leuven 2006.
, Expectations of the End: A Comparative Traditio-Historical Study of Eschatological,
Apocalyptic and Messianic Ideas in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (Studies
on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 83), Leiden 2009.
Marcus, R., Josephus. Jewish Antiquities. Books XIVXV, Cambridge MA 1963.
Metzger, J.A., Consumption and Wealth in Lukes Travel Narrative (Biblical Interpretation
Series 88), Leiden 2007.
Nolland, J., Luke 9:2118:34 (Word Biblical Commentary 35B), Dallas TX 1993a.
, Luke 18:3524:53 (Word Biblical Commentary 35C), Dallas TX 1993b.
Qimron, E. and J. Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4. V. Miqsat Maase ha-Torah (Discoveries in the
Judaean Desert 10), Oxford 1994.
SALOMO, CHRISTUS UND DIE ODEN SALOMOS
Tobias Nicklas
Bei den Oden Salomos handelt es sich bekanntlich um eine Sammlung
von ursprnglich 42 poetischen Texten, von denen uns heute nur noch 41
vollstndig bzw. weitestgehend vollstndig berliefert sind.1 Der grte
Teil des Textes ist brigens in Verbindung mit den jdischen Psalmen
Salomos in zwei syrischen Handschriften (Codex Nitriensis: Pergament,
9./10. Jh.; British Museum London Ms Add 14538; Codex Harris: Papier;
13./15. Jh.; John Rylands Library, Manchester, Cod. Syr. 9) sowie einem
syrischen Fragment (Cambridge University Library, Add. 2012) erhalten;
ausfhrliche koptische Zitate (OdSal 1,15; 5,111a; 6,818; 22,112; 25,112)
finden sich zudem in der im Codex Askewianus (Mitte des 4. Jahrhun-
derts) berlieferten Pistis Sophia, deren griechisches Original ihrerseits
wieder auf die Mitte des 3. Jahrhunderts unserer Zeitrechnung zurckge-
hen drfte. Mit der Verffentlichung von Papyrus Bodmer XI aus Codex
Bodmer Misc. durch M. Testuz wurde im Jahr 1959 zumindest fr die 11.
Ode ein griechischer Textzeuge nachgewiesen,2 ein lngeres lateinisches
Zitat aus Ode 19,67a findet sich schlielich in den divinae institutiones
(sowie parallel den excerpta) des vielseitig gebildeten Laktanz (250 etwa
325 n.Chr.).
Der religionsgeschichtliche Hintergrund der Oden war lange Zeit
umstritten: aufgrund der Tatsache, dass an keiner Stelle der Name Jesus,
Jesus von Nazaret oder Jesus Christus erwhnt wird, hat man den Text
immer wieder fr jdisch (mit einigen christlichen berarbeitungen)
gehalten, seit einigen Jahrzehnten aber ist seine christliche Herkunft
gesichert,3 whrend die Frage, welche Form des Christentums eventuell
ein gnostisches oder doketisches4 weiter kontrovers diskutiert wird.
1Die folgende Einfhrung in den Text folgt weitestgehend den Angaben bei Lattke
1995 und 2007.
2Testuz 1959. Zum Gesamtcodex vgl. auch die weiterfhrenden berlegungen bei
Nicklas und Wasserman 2006.
3Etwas eigenartig wirkt tatschlich, dass sowohl fr die neue Reihe Commentaries on
Early Jewish Literature (de Gruyter) als auch die Jdischen Schriften aus Hellenistisch-Rmi-
scher Zeit Ausgaben bzw. Kommentierungen der Oden Salomos vorgesehen sind.
4Dass natrlich auch die Kategorien gnostisch und doketisch in vielerlei Hinsicht
problematisch sind, braucht im gegebenen Rahmen nicht extra diskutiert werden.
166 tobias nicklas
Der wohl in die erste Hlfte, vielleicht gar das erste Viertel des 2. Jahrhun-
derts zu datierende Text scheint alle vorgegebenen Kategorien zu spren-
gen und stellt immer wieder vor neue Fragen.5
Zu den ungeklrten Rtseln, mit denen der Text konfrontiert, gehrt
die Frage, inwiefern (und warum) die Oden Salomos denn tatschlich
Salomo-Rezeption betreiben bzw. warum die Sammlung denn ber-
haupt als Oden Salomos bezeichnet wurde. Immerhin spielt Salomo in
den Texten selbst anders etwa als im Buch Kohelet, in der Sapientia
Salomonis oder spteren Schriften wie dem Testamentum Salomonis oder
dem thiopischen Nationalapokryphon Kebra Nagast zumindest explizit
keine Rolle. Auch bereits in alttestamentlicher Zeit mit Salomo verbun-
dene, klassische Themen wie etwa die Rolle Salomos als Tempelbauer
oder als Exorzist begegnen kaum in einer Weise, dass sie verantwortlich
fr die Bezeichnung der Texte als Oden Salomos zu sein scheinen. Der
Befund gleicht so ein wenig dem bei den Psalmen Salomos,6 mit denen
die Oden in der berlieferung ja bereits frh verbunden waren.
Majella Franzmann stellt insgesamt drei grundstzliche Lsungs-
wege dieses Problems vor, denen ich im Folgenden kritisch nachgehen
mchte:7
The early consensus was that the Odes are named for Solomon because of
their connection with the Psalms of Solomon in the canonical lists. Other
theories centre on Solomons reputation as a poet...and possible parallels
between the Odes and Wisdom literature (esp. Canticles). Recent discussion
focusses on the Wisdom of Solomon..., 1 Chr 22:910 and 2 Sam 12:25...
1.Oden und Psalmen Salomos
Tatschlich lsst sich die Verbindung von Oden und Psalmen Salomos
sehr weit zurckverfolgen, die Entstehung des Titels Oden Salomos ver-
mag sie m.E. aber nicht zu erklren, wie ein Blick in die entsprechenden
Zeugnisse zeigt.8
5Zur Datierung vgl. Lattke 2007, 285290, zu seiner religionsgeschichtlichen Verortung
vgl. ebd., 293297.
6Zu Einleitungsfragen in Bezug auf die Psalmen Salomos (entstanden zumindest teil-
weise wohl im Zusammenhang mit der Eroberung Jerusalems durch Pompejus in wohl
pharisischen Kreisen) vgl. z.B. Holm-Nielsen 1977 und Wright 1985.
7Franzmann 1991, 5.
8Die These, der Titel Oden Salomos sei auf die in der berlieferung zu erkennende
Verbindung der Texte zu den Psalmen Salomos zurckzufhren, lsst sich wohl auf Brus-
salomo, christus und die oden salomos 167
Die unter dem Namen Synopsis berlieferte, (flschlich) dem Athana-
sius zugeschriebene Kanonliste des 6. oder 7. Jahrhunderts wie die so
genannte Stichometrie des Nikephoros (Bischof von Konstantinopel
805816; Text aber wohl erst 850 entstanden und ihm zugeschrieben)
ordnen die Oden Salomos in direkter Abfolge nach den Psalmen Salo-
mos unter die so genannten Antilegomena ein.9
In allen drei bekannten oben erwhnten syrischen Handschriften finden
sich Oden und Psalmen Salomos, wobei die Oden jeweils den Psalmen
vorausgehen.
Neben diesen doch sehr spten und damit im Hinblick auf die Frage
wenig hilfreichen Zeugnissen einer Verbindung zwischen Oden und Psal-
men Salomos ist ein indirekter Hinweis zu erwhnen, den Michael Lattke
folgendermaen beschreibt:10
Obwohl in der Pistis Sophia kein einziges Zitat aus den 18 Psalmen Salomos
erscheint, knnen wir mit groer Wahrscheinlichkeit annehmen, da die
Sammlung, aus der die Oden Salomos zitiert werden, die Psalmen und die
Oden Salomos enthielt, und zwar in derselben Reihenfolge, in der sie in
den Kanonverzeichnissen des Athanasius von Alexandrien und Nicepho-
rus erwhnt werden. Der Grund fr diese Annahme ist, da der Text von
OdSal 1,15 irrtmlicherweise als 19. Ode Salomos zitiert wird, aber nicht
identisch ist mit OdSal 19 der beiden syrischen Handschriften Codex Nitri-
ensis (N) und Codex Harris (H).
Was auch immer aus dieser Beobachtung fr den Titel der gesamten
Sammlung zu folgern ist, aus der die Pistis Sophia zitiert, so ist damit doch
auch wohl bereits fr das 3. Jahrhundert eine Verbindung zwischen Oden
und Psalmen Salomos wahrscheinlich gemacht.11
Einige andere Beobachtungen aber sprechen nun doch eher dafr, dass
diese Verbindung nicht zu fest gesehen werden sollte: Immerhin leitet
Laktanz (div. inst. 4,12,13, epit. 39 [44], 12) sein Zitat der 19. Ode korrekt
mit den Worten Solomon in ode undevicesima ita dicit ein und trgt die in
P.Bodmer 11 einzeln berlieferte griechische 11. Ode bereits im 3. Jahrhun-
dert den Titel , was wiederum am einfachsten dann zu
erklren ist, wenn sie als Einzeltext aus einer bereits bestehenden Samm-
lung von Oden Salomos verstanden wurde.
ton 1911, 495, zurckfhren. Zum berlieferungszusammenhang zwischen Oden Salomos
und Psalmen Salomos vgl. zudem auch Lattke 2002.

9bersicht bei Lattke 2007, 277278.
10Lattke 1995, 9f. Sehr hnlich vgl. Charlesworth 1973, 23.
11Lattke 2002, 445, denkt gar an vielleicht schon 2. Jahrhundert, da ja zitiert wird.
168 tobias nicklas
Vor allem aber verschiebt diese Antwort das Problem nur um ein klei-
nes Stck, kann damit zwar die Frage beantwortet werden, warum die
Oden als Oden Salomos bezeichnet sind, ist aber nicht erklrt, warum man
sie mit den Psalmen Salomos in Verbindung gebracht hat. Wahrscheinli-
cher erscheint mir deswegen eine umgekehrte Situation dass die Oden
bereits vor ihrer Verbindung mit den Psalmen Salomos als Oden Salomos
bekannt waren und gerade deshalb in der berlieferung immer wieder
mit diesen verbunden wurden. Dies wrde auch die in den erwhnten
Zeugnissen erkennbare Flexibilitt der Anordnung erklren.
2.Salomo: Dichter von Liedern und groer Weiser
Dass bei der Wahl des Titels Oden Salomos die auf 1 Kn 5,12 zurck-
gehende Reputation Salomos als Dichter eine Rolle gespielt haben mag,
ist durchaus mglich, ja wahrscheinlich.12 Doch reicht die Tatsache, dass
1 Kn 5,12 von 1005 bzw. in der LXX-Fassung von 5000 Liedern Salomos
spricht, bereits aus, um zu erklren, warum eine Sammlung von 42 poeti-
schen Texten als Oden Salomos bezeichnet ist?13 Oder lassen sich darber
hinaus weitere Linien der Verbindung des Textes mit Salomo legen?
Nahe liegend ist sicherlich die Mglichkeit, eine Brcke in beiden Tex-
ten gemeinsamen Ideen zur Weisheit zu suchen. Vor allem H.J.W. Drij-
vers hat in Weiterfhrung von Gedanken des Erstherausgebers der Oden,
J. Rendel Harris, auf Verbindungen zwischen Weisheitstraditionen in den
Oden Salomos und dem deuterokanonischen Buch der Weisheit Salomos
verwiesen.14 So finde konkret Ode 23,13 ihre Basis in Weish 3,9 und 4,15;
ihr erhaltener syrischer Text stimme z.T. przise mit der Peshitto-Fassung
der genannten Passagen des Weisheitsbuches berein.15 Vor allem aber
zeigten sich Analogien auf der Ebene der in den Texten reprsentierten
Vorstellungen. Drijvers schreibt:
In particular the nature and function of Gods Wisdom or Spirit as depicted
in Wisdom is closely similar to that of Gods Spirit, Word or Thought in the
Odes of Solomon....The Odes are...attributed to the pseudepigraphical
12So schon Goguel 1911, 154, sowie Gressmann 1913, 195.
13Vgl. allerdings den Hinweis von Lattke 2007, 284, der darauf verweist, dass die Vers-
zeilenzahl...der OdSal sehr nahe bei 1005 liegt, jedoch ebenfalls den Hinweis auf 1 Kn
5,12 fr zu einfach hlt.
14Drijvers 1987, 128.
15Darauf verweist auch ganz knapp Lattke 1995, 164 n. 3. Drijvers allerdings stellt nicht
die Frage nach dem zeitlichen Verhltnis zwischen syrischen Oden Salomos und Peshitto-
Fassung des Weisheitsbuchs.
salomo, christus und die oden salomos 169
author of Sapientia, because his marriage with Gods Spirit or Wisdom the
marriage that made him righteous, a son of God, gave him a manner of life
unlike others, saved him from his adversaries, made him an ascetic who
won the crown, and gave him true knowledge of Gods plans is an exact
analogue, a typos, of the Christian odist, in whom Christ as Spirit dwells. He
too is righteous, different from all other men, is saved from his adversaries,
is immortal and possesses true knowledge.16
Dies zeige sich neben einer Reihe anderer Texte zitiert seien nur die
ersten Verse von Ode 34, mit ihrer auch fr das Buch der Weisheit (vgl.
Weish 1,1: ...) wichtigen Idee des einfa-
chen Herzens des Weisen (Ode 34,12):17
Es gibt keinen gefhrlichen Weg,
wo ein einfaches Herz (ist),
auch keine Plage
in den rechten Gedanken,
auch keinen Sturmwind
in der Tiefe des klaren Denkens.
3.Salomo und der Gesalbte
Eine ganz andere Spur hat bereits im Jahr 1991 Michael Lattke in der kur-
zen Miszelle Wie alt ist die Allegorie, da Christus (Messias) der wahre
Salomon sei? gelegt.18 Lattke verweist hier darauf, dass sich in der syri-
schen Version der (wohl?) auf Athanasius von Alexandrien zurckgehen-
den Expositio in Psalmos die Allegorie finde, dass Christus...der wahre
Salomo sei;19 in der griechischen Fassung finde sich zudem der Satz:
. Dieser [= Christus] ist nm-
lich wahrer Salomo, der friedliche.20
16Drijvers 1987, 131.133, der im Kontext (131133 und Fn. 19f. S. 131) vor allem auf
Bezge zur Peshitto-Version des Weisheitsbuches verweist. Zu deren Text vgl. Emerton
1959. Nicht bei Drijvers in den Blick kommen Bezge der Texte zu dem ja auch Salomo
zugeschriebenen Buch der Sprichwrter. Dass derartige ebenfalls existieren, zeigt sich an
einigen Stellen. Verwiesen sei in unserem Zusammenhang auf den Einfluss von Spr 1:2026
sowie 89 LXX auf Ode 33, den Lattke 2005, 7780, herausgearbeitet hat.
17bersetzungen von Texten der Oden Salomos folgen, soweit nicht anders angege-
ben, Lattke 1995, 192. Zur sprachlichen Problematik dieses auch aufgrund zweier Hapax
Legomena nicht einfachen Abschnitts vgl. Lattke 2005, 9397.
18Lattke 1991.
19Lattke 1991.
20bersetzung nach Lattke 1995, 19.
170 tobias nicklas
Daraus ergibt sich die faszinierende Schlussfolgerung:21
Sollte diese allegorische Gleichsetzung so alt sein wie der Titel der Oden
Salomos, dann knnte der Grund fr die Wahl dieses Pseudonyms ein chris-
tologischer sein. Das heit, die Oden Salomos wren dann eigentlich Oden
Christi oder Oden des Messias....Bis jetzt ist es allerdings so, da die
genannte Allegorie nicht bis ins zweite Jahrhundert zurckverfolgt werden
kann. Also bleibt dieses Einzelproblem antiker Pseudepigraphie offen und
ungelst wie viele andere hnliche Probleme.
Es stellt sich allerdings die Frage, ob die von Lattke gelegte Spur nicht
auch auf andere Weise weiter verfolgt werden knnte, als dies bisher der
Fall war. Wre es nicht denkbar, dass als Hintergrund fr die Bezeichnung
der Texte als Oden Salomos neben den bereits genannten Elementen
auch die in frhchristlicher Literatur immer wieder zu sprende Bezie-
hung zwischen Salomo und Christus eine Rolle gespielt haben knnte,
ohne dass beide Figuren deswegen schon miteinander zu identifizieren
wren? Dann knnten die Oden als in der Form von Liedern verfasste
Texte Salomos auf den hin, der als Christus Davidssohn wie Salomo ist,
verstanden werden. Ich mchte dieser Spur im Folgenden auf zwei Linien
folgen einerseits anhand von Bildern, die das frhe Christentum von
Salomo entwickelt hat, andererseits mit Hilfe von Aspekten vor allem der
Christologie des Textes selbst.
Die von Lattkes Notiz des Jahres 1991 aufgeworfene Frage nach der
Figur Salomos im antiken Christentum wurde im Jahre 1993 von R. Hanig
ebenfalls in der Zeitschrift fr die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft aufge-
griffen und in entscheidenden Zgen beantwortet. Hanig schreibt:22 Es
wird sich zeigen, da es zwar einige mgliche Ansatzpunkte fr eine
Salomo-Christus-Typologie gab, diese jedoch insgesamt nicht sehr weit
verbreitet war, und arbeitet Linien heraus, die Salomo als Verfasser von
(v.a. alttestamentlichen) Bchern, als Weisen, Propheten, Erbauer des
Tempels oder Friedensknig zeigen, von seiner Macht ber Dmonen,
seinem Reichtum und Ruhm, aber auch seinen Verfehlungen sprechen.
Diskutiert hat man in der alten Kirche auch die Frage, ob Ps 71 LXX auf
Salomo (vgl. die LXX-bersetzung: ) oder auf Christus zu
beziehen sei. Als frhesten altkirchlichen Autor, bei dem sich eine klare
Salomo-Christus-Typologie aufweisen lasse, erkennt Hanig Origenes, der
in einer Reihe von Schriften Salomo und Christus in Bezug gesetzt habe,
21Lattke 1995, 1920. In nahezu identischer Formulierung vgl. auch Lattke 2007,
284285.
22Hanig 1993, 112.
salomo, christus und die oden salomos 171
ja von Christus als dem wahren Salomo sprechen konnte.23 Vielleicht
knnte man sogar noch einen Schritt weiter zurck als Hanig gehen und
an eine allerdings nur in georgischer berlieferung erhaltene Passage bei
Hippolyt (170235 n.Chr.) denken, die Hanig etwas versteckt in seinen
Funoten anfhrt.24 In der Vorrede seines Kommentars zum Hohenlied
schreibt dieser nmlich:25
Die Weisheit hatte Salomo; nicht, dass er selbst die Weisheit war. Er fand Gnade
durch Gott, aber nicht, dass er selbst die Gnade war. Er war der Sohn Davids,
aber nicht, dass er selbst auch Christus war.
Ist nicht auch eine solche negative Aussage, die nur Sinn macht, wenn
es Identifizierungen Salomos mit Christus gibt, die man abzulehnen bzw.
zurckzuweisen hat, Zeichen dafr, dass eine Verbindung zwischen dem
Davidssohn Salomo und Christus nicht nur gedacht werden konnte, son-
dern bereits im 2. Jahrhundert auch gedacht wurde?
Wie auch immer: Vor dem Hintergrund meiner in Weiterfhrung der
These Lattkes formulierten Vermutung halte ich es doch fr lohnend,
zumindest einigen der von Hanig erarbeiteten Ansatzpunkte noch ein-
mal nachzugehen, und dabei zu berlegen, ob sich von ihnen nicht doch
Brcken hin auf die Oden Salomos bauen lieen.
3.1Prophetische Texte auf Christus hin?
Als Ausgangspunkt meiner berlegungen soll das bei Laktanz berlieferte
Zitat aus Ode 19 dienen, das gerade deswegen interessant ist, weil es uns
wenigstens einen kleinen Hinweis darauf gibt, wie die Oden von einem
antiken Autor wenn auch einer deutlich spteren Zeit verstanden wer-
den konnten.
Immerhin leitet Laktanz den Abschnitt seiner div.inst. bzw. auch des
Auszugs des entsprechenden Textes, in dem er auf die Geburt Christi zu
sprechen kommt, mit den folgenden Worten ein: Dies knnte als vllig
unglaubhaft erscheinen, htten es nicht die Propheten vor vielen Jahrhun-
derten im Voraus verkndet: Salomo sagt in seiner 19. Ode Folgendes...26
(div. inst. 4,12,1; vgl. auch exc. 39). Es folgt eine Reihe von damit ganz
offensichtlich als prophetisch verstandenen Testimonien, die mit dem
23Material bei Hanig 1993, 117. 124127.
24Hanig 1993, 131132, Anm. 106.
25bersetzung nach Bonwetsch 1902, 20.
26Lateinischer Text: quod sane incredibile posset uideri, nisi hoc futurum ante multa sae-
cula prophetae cecinissent. Zitiert nach Lactance, Institutions divines: Livre IV, ed. Monat
1992, 100. bersetzung von mir.
172 tobias nicklas
als Prophezeiung der jungfrulichen Geburt Mariens eingeleiteten Zitat
aus OdSal 19,67 eingeleitet wird, worauf die auch bei Mt 1,23 zitierte
berhmte Passage aus Jes 7,14 LXX folgt. Der Text der Oden Salomos wird
hier also auf gleicher Ebene wie das Jesajazitat als Prophezeiung Salomos
auf Christus hin angesehen.
Es stellt sich die Frage, ob dieses Verstndnis des Titels der Oden Salo-
mos nicht vielleicht wenigstens in Grundzgen dessen ursprnglicher
Intention entsprochen haben knnte. Sicherlich lsst die Quellenlage
einen klaren Beweis dieser These nicht mehr zu, einige Indizien aber
sprechen dafr, dass es sich hierbei zumindest um eine bereits im 2. Jahr-
hundert unserer Zeitrechnung denkbare Mglichkeit handelt, steht doch
Laktanz, der auch an anderen Stellen Salomo als Prophet bezeichnen
kann (div. inst. 4,6,6; 4,8,13), mit dieser Vorstellung im frhen Christentum
keineswegs alleine.
Ich konzentriere mich im Folgenden auf einige Autoren des 2. Jahrhun-
derts: Ganz explizit vom Propheten Salomo spricht etwa Theophilos von
Antiochien in seiner Schrift An Autolykos 2,10,6 (
...) zur Einleitung eines Zitats aus Spr 8,27.2930, welches bele-
gen soll, dass Gottes Wort hier verstanden als Gottes Geist und seine
Weisheit schon bestanden, als die Welt geschaffen wurde. Salomo kann
von Theophilos aber auch in anderen Kontexten als Prophet bezeichnet
werden, so etwa, wenn dieser christliche Vorstellungen des Weltendes mit
denen paganer Philosophen vergleicht (Autol. 2,38,4) und im Kontext von
Mal 4,1 und Jes 30,30 auch Spr 3,8 zitiert, oder wenn er ber angemessenes
sittliches Verhalten schreibt und bei seiner Einleitung eines Zitats aus Spr
4,25 Salomo als attribuiert (Autol. 3,13,1).
Als Prophet kann schlielich auch Clemens von Alexandrien, str. 1,113,
Salomo, hier in einer Reihe nach Ahias von Schilo und David, bezeichnen.
Damit ist allerdings noch kein Bezug zwischen dem Propheten Salomo
und Christus hergestellt.
Interessanter im Hinblick auf unsere Frage sind deshalb vielleicht
Autoren, die das Bild des weisen Salomo mit Auslegungstraditionen von
Spr 8,22 verbinden, die Christus als inkarnierte Weisheit Gottes verste-
hen, ohne Salomo dabei unbedingt explizit als Propheten bezeichnen zu
mssen: Erwhnenswert in diesem Zusammenhang sind zwei Zeugnisse
bei Justin. Dieser leitet etwa in dial. 61,3 ein Zitat aus Spr 8,2136 mit den
folgenden Worten ein:27 Zum Zeugen aber wird mir der Logos der Weisheit
27Text nach Marcovich 1997, 175. bersetzung von mir.
salomo, christus und die oden salomos 173
werden; dieser ist selbst Gott, gezeugt vom Vater des Alls, und Logos und
Weisheit und Kraft und Herrlichkeit dessen, der erzeugt. Durch Salomo
sprach er dies es folgt das Zitat. Fr Justin also spricht in Salomo, dem
Idealbild des Weisen der Geschichte Israels schlechthin, der gttliche
Logos selbst, welcher in Christus inkarniert ist.28 Dieser Bezug wird wenig
spter (dial. 62,4) noch deutlicher greifbar, wenn Justin schreibt:29

, ,

, ...
Aber dieser, der in der Tat als vor allen geschaffenen Dingen Erzeugtes vom
Vater hervorgegangen war, war beim Vater, und mit ihm steht der Vater in
Verkehr, wie der Logos durch Salomo kundgetan hat; denn dieser selbst ist es,
der, Ursprung vor allen geschaffenen Dingen, als Erzeugtes von Gott gezeugt
worden war, und von Salomo Weisheit genannt wird.
Salomo als weiser Autor des Buches der Sprichwrter wird hier also
als derjenige gesehen, welcher, indem er sich ber die Weisheit Gottes
uerte, ber den gttlichen Logos gesprochen habe.30
Auch bei Irenus von Lyon finden sich zwei zumindest vergleichbare
Stellen: Nicht ganz eindeutig erscheint mir, was in haer. 4,20,3 gemeint ist,
wenn es heit, er sage durch Salomo, dass auch die Weisheit, das heit
der Geist, vor aller Schpfung bei ihm war:31 Meint Irenus, dass hier das
eben erwhnte, mit dem Sohn Gottes identifizierte Wort durch Salomo
spricht? Dies scheint mir aufgrund des Kontextes doch die wahrschein-
lichste Lsung. Eindeutiger ist da haer. 5,24,1, wo es im Zusammenhang
mit der Frage, ob irdische Macht auf den Teufel oder auf Gott zurckzu-
fhren sei, heit: Et per Salomonem ait verbum und durch Salomo sagt
das Wort, d.h. der gttliche Logos.
Als eine Art ersten Zwischenfazits kann somit festgehalten werden,
dass es zumindest einige Autoren des 2. Jahrhunderts Salomo nicht nur
als Propheten auf Christus hin sehen knnen, sondern ihn gar explizit als
Propheten bezeichnen knnen, durch den der gttliche Logos, i.e. Christus,
gesprochen hat. Damit erffnet sich neben den bereits genannten Wegen
28Zur Christologie Justins vgl. Grillmeier 1990, 202207.
29Originaltext bei Marcovich 1997, 177, bersetzung von mir.
30Weiterfhrend zu Einflssen antik-jdischer Weisheitstraditionen auf die Entwick-
lung der Christologie vgl. Lips 1991.
31Texte des Irenus von Lyon werden zitiert nach der Ausgabe von Brox 2001.
174 tobias nicklas
eine weitere Linie, die dazu fhren kann, eine Sammlung poetischer Texte,
in denen von einem Gesalbten die Rede ist, Salomo zuzuschreiben.
3.2Der Gesalbte der Oden Salomos und Salomobilder im Judentum und
frhen Christentum
Allerdings ist in den Oden Salomos nur an sieben Stellen vom Messias
die Rede (OdSal 9,3; 17,16; 24,1; 29,6; 39,11; 41,3.15; vgl. darber hinaus auch
36,6), dabei fehlen explizite Aussagen ber die Idee eines kniglichen
Messias (eventuell gar mit Hinweis auf das davidische Herrscherhaus) vl-
lig. Eine Verbindung zu Salomo liegt also gerade in diesen Stellen kaum
auf der Hand, obwohl man mit Charlesworth und Lattke einen Bezug zwi-
schen der immer wieder begegnenden Wendung Messias des Herrn bzw.
sein Messias (OdSal 29,6; 9,3 und 41,3) und den Psalmen Salomos 18,5
sehen kann,32 wo die Rede von der Herauffhrung seines Gesalbten auf-
grund des Kontextes, dessen Rede vom zchtigenden Stab des Gesalb-
ten des Herrn (18,7) als Symbol politischer Herrschaft des Gesalbten zu
lesen ist.33
Es stellt sich allerdings die Frage, ob mit einer solch letztlich atomi-
sierenden Durchsicht der Einzelstellen, an denen in den Oden Salomos
von einem Gesalbten die Rede ist schon die Bedeutung des Christus
fr diesen Text erfasst ist, sind die Oden doch fr ihr Nebeneinander
oder vielleicht gar Ineinander von Stimmen bekannt, deren Zueinander
im Detail umstritten ist. Zumindest an einigen Stellen (z.B. Ode 8,822;
10,46; 17,616; 22,112; 28,919; 31,613; 36,38; 41,811; 42,320) ist recht
eindeutig der Gesalbte Sprecher des Textes, in anderen ein betendes Ich
bzw. ein Wir, wieder andere sind mehrdeutig. Aber wird eine eineindeu-
tige Zuordnung von Sprechern, wie sie immer wieder in Textausgaben
begegnet,34 dem poetischen, ja geradezu mystischen35 Charakter des Tex-
tes gerecht? Knnte nicht gerade ein Text wie OdeSal 3,57 als Schlssel
dafr dienen, dass Sprecher und Christus in Wirklichkeit sich in einem
Zustand tiefer Einheit, die hier mit dem Zueinander von Liebendem und
Geliebtem beschrieben ist, befinden?36
32Vgl. Charlesworth 2000, 750, und Lattke 2001, 198.
33Schreiber 2000, 187. Noch deutlicher sieht Charlesworth 1979, 199, einen Bezug auf
die Salbung der davidischen Knige her.
34Eine sehr komplexe bersicht bietet Lattke 1995, 3681.
35Der Begriff Mystik wird hier in einem weiten Sinne gebraucht, ohne eine nhere
Definition vorauszunehmen.
36bersetzung: Lattke 1995.
salomo, christus und die oden salomos 175
Ich liebe den Geliebten,37
und es liebt ihn meine Seele,
und wo seine Ruhe ist, bin auch ich.
Und nicht werde ich ein Fremder sein,
weil es keinen Neid gibt beim Herrn, dem hchsten und barmherzigen.
Ich wurde vereint,
weil der Liebende ihn, den Geliebten fand,
weil ich lieben werde ihn, den Sohn,
damit (auch) ich Sohn sei.
Doch Ode 3 ist nicht der einzige Text der Oden Salomos, in dem von so
etwas wie einer Art spiritueller Vereinigung die Rede ist man knnte
auch an Ode 8,22 mit ihrer Rede vom Bleiben in der Liebe des Herrn
denken oder an 11,2, wo es heit, dass der Hchste ( ) den Beter
mit seiner Liebe erfllt habe ( ), oder an
11,12, die davon spricht, dass die Unvergnglichkeit des Herrn ()
den Beter wieder lebendig macht (). Die Reihe liee sich
fortsetzen.
Sind die Unschrfen mancher Passagen, in denen unklar wird, ob das
Ich des Sprechers wirklich noch Gegenber Christi ist, damit nicht als
bewusst gesetzt zu sehen?38 Und wre es nicht denkbar, dass in einer Zeit,
in der Salomo bereits als Gestalt gesehen werden konnte, durch die als
gesalbtem Davidssohn der gttliche Logos gesprochen hat, solche Texte
als Oden Salomos bezeichnet werden konnten?
Trotzdem erscheint diese Linie allein etwas zu schwach, um einen kla-
ren Bezug zu Salomo nahe zu legen. So helfen vielleicht weitere Linien,
die sich aus den Oden Salomos selbst entwickeln lassen:39
3.2.1Eine Schlsselstelle fr das Verstndnis des Gesalbten in den Oden
Salomos finden wir sicherlich auch in OdeSal 36,6, die aus der Perspektive
des in den Oden sprechenden Gesalbten selbst formuliert ist:40
Und er salbte mich aus seiner Flle,
und ich war einer seiner Nahestehenden...
37Das Syrische verwendet hier zwei verschiedene Wurzeln, die aber beide gleich wie-
dergegeben werden knnen. Vgl. weiterfhrend z.B. Charlesworth 1973, 20.
38Vgl. hierzu auch die berlegungen von Drijvers 1987, 125: ...in fact there are not two
different singers or speakers. Ultimately they are identical.
39Dagegen drfte die etwa fr das Matthusevangelium interessante Verbindung des
Davidssohnes Jesus mit dem Exorzisten Salomo keine Brcke zu den Oden Salomos bilden
knnen.
40bersetzung Lattke 1995.
176 tobias nicklas
36,6a wiederum knnte als Anspielung auf Ps 44,8 LXX verstanden werden,41
wo es heit: . der Bezug ist vage und
basiert auf dem Zueinander , wobei Gott als Subjekt gedacht und
der Text der Oden aus der Perspektive des Gesalbten gesprochen ist. Dieser
intertextuelle Link ist tatschlich zumindest aus produktionsorientierter
Perspektive keineswegs eindeutig, als Alternative wre etwa an Jes 61,1
LXX zu denken, wo mit dem Subjekt begegnet.42
Sollte allerdings ein Bezug zu Ps 44 LXX tatschlich bewusst gesetzt
sein, dann ergibt sich aus ihm eine interessante Spur, ist doch Ps 44, aller-
dings nur in der Septuaginta-Version, als bzw. als
(A), also als Lied ber den Geliebten
bzw. Lied Davids ber den Geliebten, berschrieben. Mit der Rede vom
Geliebten aber greift der LXX-Psalter 2 Sam 12,24f. auf: Nach dem Tode
von Davids erstem Kind mit Batseba ist hier davon die Rede, dass diese
dem David ein zweites Kind, Salomo, gebrt, dass dieses vom Herrn
geliebt und ihm deshalb von Natan der Name Jedidja, d.h. Liebling des
Herrn, gegeben wird.43
Damit aber fllt Licht auch auf andere Stellen der Oden Salomos:
Besonders intensiv in Ode 3, aber auch einigen anderen Passagen spielt
das Motiv der Liebe eine Rolle,44 an insgesamt drei Stellen (Ode 3,5.7; 7,1;
vgl. auch 8,22; 38,11) ist zudem von einem Geliebten die Rede, der in 3,7
zudem als der Sohn bezeichnet wird.45 Besonders prgnant ist Ode 3,27
mit einer vor allem an Aspekte der johanneischen Abschiedsreden erin-
nernden Rede einer durch gegenseitige Liebe erzeugten Gemeinschaft.46
Wenn der Sprecher der Oden sich an einer fr sein Selbstverstndnis so
wichtigen Stelle wie Ode 3 so sehr als Liebender und Geliebter zugleich
bezeichnen kann, und Ode 36,6 die Abspielung zu Ps 44 LXX, dem Psalm
ber den Geliebten, der zugleich von Gott Gesalbter ist, womglich
41Vgl. bereits die Hinweise bei Harris und Mingana 1920, 385.
42Dies hlt etwa Lattke 2005, 137, fr den wahrscheinlicheren Bezug, weil seiner Mei-
nung nach auch Ode 36,1a auf Jes 61 verweist.
43Vgl. hierzu auch die ganz knappe Andeutung bei Franzmann 1987, 325.
44Zum Thema der Liebe im Johannesevangelium und in den Oden Salomos vgl. Lattke
1975, 5462; sehr komplex auch Lattke 1999, 1213. Im Zusammenhang mit der Bedeu-
tung der Liebe in den Oden Salomos knnte natrlich auch an die Bedeutung der Gestalt
Salomos als Autor des Hohenlieds gedacht werden. Die vor allem von Battifol 1911, 3539,
erarbeiteten Bezge zwischen den Oden Salomos und dem Hohenlied aber sind zu allge-
mein, um alleine einen Bezug begrnden zu knnen.
45Einen Bezug zwischen der Rede vom Geliebten in Ode 3 und 2 Sam 12,25 sieht auch
Pierre 1997, 682. Deutet sich mit der Rede vom Geliebten eventuell ein christologischer
Hoheitstitel an, dann knnten eventuell Bezge zur Ascensio Isaiae gesucht werden, wo
dieser Titel eine prominente Rolle spielt.
46bersetzung: Lattke 1995.
salomo, christus und die oden salomos 177
bewusst setzt, dann scheint der Bezug zumindest einiger Schlsseltexte
der Oden zu Salomo offensichtlich bereits auf der Ebene der Entstehung
der Texte angelegt.
Vor diesem Hintergrund kann nach weiteren Motiven der Oden Salomos
gesucht werden, ber die sich ein Bezug zur Salomo-Gestalt des Alten Tes-
taments bzw. zu Salomo-Bildern der frhen Kirche nahe legt. Besonders
interessant scheinen mir vor allem die beiden folgenden Spuren:
3.2.2Vom Frieden griechisch , syrisch
e
lm ist in den
Oden Salomos mehrfach die Rede (vgl. OdSal 8,7; 9,6; 10,2; 11,3; 35,1; 36,8).
Ode 8,7 spricht vom Herrn, der den Frieden bereitet, laut 9,6 verkndet
der Erlser seinen Heiligen den Frieden, der laut 10,2 die Frucht seines
Friedens, d.h. des Friedens des Herrn redet. Der Erlste wiederum luft
in seinem Frieden auf dem Weg der Wahrheit (11,3): Knnte nicht auch
von diesem Motiv her ein Bezug zu Salomo gesehen werden? Ein erster
Anhaltspunkt dafr findet sich erneut im Psalter der Septuaginta, wo sich
Ps 71 als Psalm fr Salomo bzw. auf Salomo hin ( ) versteht und
vor allem in den V. 17 das Bild einer idealen Friedensherrschaft zeichnet.
Tatschlich spielte Ps 71 LXX, wie R. Hanig, auf dessen Zusammenschau der
Quellen ich mich im Folgenden beziehe, herausarbeitet, einen wichtigen
Ausgangspunkt altkirchlicher Salomo-Rezeption:47 So stellt sich bereits
bei Justin (dial. 34,18; 64,56) die Frage, ob der Psalm wirklich an Salomo
gerichtet sein knne ich zitiere hier nur Passagen seiner ausfhrlichen
Argumentation:48
Dial. 34,1
Dazu aber und um euch zu berzeugen, dass ihr (= die Juden) nichts von den
Schriften versteht, werde ich noch an einen anderen Psalm (= Ps 71) erinnern,
der dem David vom Heiligen Geist gesagt wurde, von dem ihr sagt, er sei zu
Salomo, der auch euer Knig gewesen ist, gesprochen, der aber ebenfalls zu
unserem Christus gesprochen ist.
Dial. 34,7
Ich wei zwar, dass Salomo, unter dem das so genannte Haus (= der Tempel)
in Jerusalem erbaut wurde, als Knig ausgezeichnet und gro war. Es ist aber
klar, dass nichts von den Dingen, von denen im Psalm (= Ps 71 LXX) gesprochen
wird, sich bei ihm findet. Denn weder verehrten alle Knige ihn fufllig, noch
herrschte er als Knig bis zu den Enden der bewohnten Erde, noch fielen seine
Feinde vor ihm nieder, um den Staub zu kssen.
47Zum Folgenden vgl. v.a. die vielfltigen Angaben bei Hanig 1993, 122126.
48Originaltext bei Marcovich 1997, 125 und 127. bersetzung von mir.
178 tobias nicklas
Da der Psalm also von Dingen spreche, die nicht auf Salomo zutrfen,
ja wie dial. 34,8 schliet, die Knigsbcher auch von Snden Salomos
sprchen knne der Psalm sich nicht auf Salomo (allein) beziehen, son-
dern msse auf Christus hin gelesen werden.
Die von Justin gelegte Auslegungslinie fand ihre Fortsetzung bei sp-
teren Autoren wie Tertullian adv. Marc. 5,9,913, Origenes, Comm. Joh
1,28(30); SelPs ad 71 (72) [Echtheit umstritten] oder Eusebius, DemEv
7,3,1827.55; 8,1,5354; 8,4,15 und 9,17,1617, die Ps 71 LXX auf Christus
bezogen. Parallel ist auf die in der antiken Kirche erstmals bei Origenes
nachgewiesene Namensetymologie Salomos ber das hebrische als
der Friedfertige (vgl. HomJos 11,5; MtCatFrg 433; CommJoh 6,1) zu ver-
weisen, deren Spuren wohl aber bereits bei Irenus, haer. 4,27,1, vorge-
zeichnet sind und die sich vorchristlich schon bei Philo von Alexandrien
(CongrErud 177) nachweisen lsst.
Wenn Salomo also schon sehr frh als der Friedfertige bzw. der
gesalbte Friedensknig Gottes gelten konnte, dann knnte auch dies
(trotz der Anklnge des Textes an Jes 4,56)49 womglich einen Hinter-
grund dafr darstellen, dass Ode 35,12 den Erlsten, dessen Nhe zum
Gesalbten z.B. in Ode 3 ausgedrckt worden war, die folgenden Worte
sprechen lassen kann:50
Die Besprengung des Herrn in der Ruhe berdeckte mich,
und eine Wolke des Friedens stellte er ber mein Haupt,
die mich bewahrte zu jeder Zeit
und Erlsung fr mich war.
3.2.3Mit OdSal 35,1 aber ist gleichzeitig eine letzte Linie angedeutet,
die fr die Oden Salomos von wohl noch grerer Bedeutung als das Motiv
des Friedens ist, mit diesem in 35,1 als Motiv der Erlsung aber parallel
gesetzt werden kann: das Motiv der Ruhe. Als ein zentraler Text in diesem
Zusammenhang erscheint mir zunchst einmal Ode 26,13 und 1213, wo
von der Ruhe des Herrn bzw. der Ruhe des Sngers die Rede ist, vor
allem aber der Text einen Hinweis auf sein internes Selbstverstndnis als
Oden seiner Ruhe bietet.51
13
Hervorquellen lie ich den Hymnus fr den Herrn,
weil ich sein bin.
49Hierzu vgl. auch Lattke 2005, 109.
50bersetzung: Lattke 1995.
51bersetzung: Lattke 1995, 175. Der Hinweis auf die Bedeutung der Rede von den
Oden seiner Ruhe findet sich bereits bei Franzmann 1985, 410.
salomo, christus und die oden salomos 179
Und aufsagen werde ich seine heilige Ode,
weil mein Herz bei ihm ist.
Denn seine Kithara (ist) in meinen Hnden,
und nicht sollen aufhren die Oden seiner Ruhe.
...
1213
Denn es gengt zu erkennen und auszuruhen.
Die Snger nmlich stehen in der Ruhe
Wie der Fluss, der eine reiche Quelle hat
Und fliet zur Hilfe derer, die ihn suchen.
Das in V. 12 zum Ausdruck gebrachte Verhltnis zwischen Gnosis und
Ana- bzw. Katapausis wird nicht nur in spteren gnostischen Systemen
eine wichtige Rolle spielen,52 sondern findet sich gespiegelt etwa auch
bei Clemens von Alexandrien, paed. 1,29,3, wenn er schreibt:53 Die Gnosis
besteht in der Erleuchtung; der hchste Grad der Gnosis aber ist die Ana-
pausis, die als das letzte Ziel (des Verlangens) gedacht wird.54 Der Snger
der Oden scheint also das Ziel der Ruhe bereits erreicht zu haben. Doch
die Oden Salomos sprechen nicht nur hier, sondern in einer Vielzahl an
Kontexten von der Ruhe des Herrn (z.B. 16,12). Majella Franzmann fasst
den komplexen Befund folgendermaen zusammen:
Within the Odes, rest is at once an attribute of the Lord and, for a human
person, a state of being in union with the Lord. Associated with this rest are
life and immortality (3:89; 28:7); grace and kindness (20:9); peace (35:1);
glorification and exaltation (36:36); and truth (38:4). Being in rest is not a
passive state: It leads one to praise the Lord (14:8; 36:2), to produce spiritual
fruits (11:2),and to bring spiritual relief to others seeking it (26:13).55
Was hat dies mit Salomo zu tun? In zwei Artikeln legt Majella Franzmann
den interessanten Link zu 1 Chr 22,910, wo Salomo als Mann der Ruhe
( ; die LXX macht ihn zu einem ) bezeichnet
wird, eine in der hebrischen Bibel einmalige Wendung.56 Wenn zudem
das Motiv der Ruhe im Chronikbuch etwas spter erneut im Zusammen-
hang mit Salomo begegnet, whrend es im Zusammenhang mit David
zurckgedrngt wird (vgl. 1 Chr 17,1 im Vgl. zu 2 Sam 7,1 oder 1 Chr 17,10 im
52Zu Anapausis und Katapausis als Heilsgut in gnostischer Literatur vgl. z.B. Helder-
man 1984.
53Auf diesen Text verweist in diesem Zusammenhang auch Lattke 1995, 176 Anm. 6.
54Griechischer Text: , ,
zitiert nach Clment dAlexandrie, Le Pdagogue. Livre I, ed.
Marrou und Harl 1960, 164.
55Franzmann 1985, 412.
56Franzmann 1985, 419420; 1987, 325326.
180 tobias nicklas
Vgl. zu 2 Sam 7,11), dann ist durchaus nachzuvollziehen, wenn Franzmann
schreibt:
It would appear than that the title is a significant one for Solomon. Conside-
ring the importance of the concept of rest within the Odes, it is quite likely
that the pseudonym, Solomon, was a deliberate choice, if not of the odist
himself, then of a final redactor...or a later copyist, for the odist could be
quite appropriately designated a man of rest (cf. 26:12).57
4.Fazit
Die Linien zwischen dem Salomobild des Alten Testaments wie auch
dem bzw. denen der Alten Kirche und den Oden Salomos sind vielflti-
ger und weiter gehend, als es zumindest auf den ersten Blick hin zu sein
scheint. Wir knnen heute zwar weder mit letzter Sicherheit sagen, wer
fr den Titel Oden Salomos verantwortlich war, noch welche Kombi-
nation mglicher Verbindungslinien zwischen dem Text der Oden und
den genannten Bildern zu ihrer Attribuierung als Oden Salomos gefhrt
haben mag. Wenn jedoch der genannte Bezug zwischen Ode 36,6a und
Ps 44 bewusst gelegt sein sollte, ist m.E. daran zu denken, dass bereits
Autor bzw. Redaktor(en) der Oden (und nicht erst sptere Schreiber)
fr den Titel Oden Salomos verantwortlich gewesen sein mgen. Wie
auch immer:
Dass von Oden Salomos gesprochen wird, scheint sich keinem Zufall
zu verdanken die Attribuierung macht im Kontext frhchristlichen wie
jdischen Denkens im 2. oder evtl. 3. Jahrhundert durchaus Sinn. So mag
sicherlich das Image Salomos als des Autors von Liedern einen Hinter-
grund dafr gebildet haben, dass man eine Sammlung poetischer Texte
als Oden Salomos bezeichnen konnte. Konkreter greifbar werden mg-
liche Grnde einer Attribuierung aber einerseits durch die in den Tex-
ten erkennbaren Weisheitstraditionen, v.a. aber andererseits durch das
in den Texten erkennbare Zueinander, ja Ineinander des Beters mit dem
Gesalbten, der wie der Salomo des Alten Testaments als Geliebter
bezeichnet werden kann und an dessen Frieden und Ruhe teilzuha-
ben Erlsung bedeutet. Wie Salomo, der bereits Gesalbter ist, den man als
Davidssohn in Bezug zu Christus setzen kann, kann so der Sprecher der
Oden in seinem Beten Christusbeziehung in gegenseitiger Liebe aufbauen
57Franzmann 1987, 325326.
salomo, christus und die oden salomos 181
und in diesem geradezu mystischen Zueinander Worte sprechen, die
eigentlich Worte des Gesalbten selbst sind.
Zumindest implizit nehmen die Oden Salomos somit einige Aspekte
dessen auf, was wir als Bild Salomos im Alten Testament kennen, andere
Aspekte wie die Rolle Salomos als Tempelbauer und Exorzist treten demge-
genber weitgehend bis vollkommen zurck. Mit dem Titel Oden Salomos
machen sie explizit, was in den Texten selbst nur implizit, ja manchmal
nur vage angedeutet ist, und transportieren somit wichtige Vorstellungen
und Bilder, die sich mit Salomo verbinden, in einen neuen, im weitesten
Sinne als christlich-gnostisch zu bezeichnenden Kontext hinein.
Literaturverzeichnis
Battifol, P., 1911, Les Odes de Salomon, Revue Biblique 8: 2159.
Bonwetsch, G.N., Hippolyts Kommentar zum Hohenlied (Texte und Untersuchungen 23/2),
Leipzig 1902.
Brox, N., Adversus Haereses / Gegen die Hresien (Fontes Christiani 8), Freiburg 2001.
Bruston, C., 1911, Les plus anciens cantiques chrtiens. Les Odes de Salomon, Revue Tho-
logique et Philosophique 44: 465497.
Charlesworth, J.H., The Odes of Solomon, Oxford 1973.
, 1979, The Concept of the Messiah in the Pseudepigrapha, Aufstieg und Niedergang
der Rmischen Welt II 19/1: 188218.
, Odes of Solomon, in: C.A. Evans und S.E. Porter (eds.), Dictionary of New Testament
Background, 749752, Downers Grove IL 2000.
Clment dAlexandrie, Le Pdagogue. Livre I, H.-I. Marrou und M. Harl (eds.) (Sources
Chrtiennes 70), Paris 1960.
Drijvers, H.J.W., Solomon as Teacher: Early Syriac Didactic Poetry, in: H.J.W. Drijvers
et al. (eds.), IV Symposium Syriacum 1984: Literary Genres in Syriac Literature (Gronin-
gen Oosterhesselen 1012 September) (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 229), 123134,
Roma 1987.
Emerton, J.A., The Peshitta of the Wisdom of Solomon, Leiden 1959.
Franzmann, M., 1985, The Odes of Solomon, Man of Rest, Orientalia Christiana Periodica
51: 408421.
, Portrait of a Poet: Reflections on the Poet in the Odes of Solomon, in: E.W. Conrad
und E.G. Newing (eds.), Perspectives on Language and Text. Essays and Poems in Honor of
Francis I. Andersens Sixtieth Birthday, July 28, 1985, 315326, Winona Lake IN 1987.
, The Odes of Solomom: An Analysis of the Poetical Structure and Form (Novum Testa-
mentum et Orbis Antiquus 20), Freiburg/CH und Gttingen 1991.
Goguel, M., 1911, Les Odes de Salomon, Revue chrtienne 58/4.1: 152161.
Gressmann, H., 1913, Les Odes de Salomon, Revue Thologique et Philosophique NF
1: 195217.
Grillmeier, A., Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche 1: Von der Apostolischen Zeit bis zum
Konzil von Chalzedon (451), Freiburg et al. 19903.
Hanig, R., 1993. Christus als wahrer Salomo in der frhen Kirche, Zeitschrift fr die Neu-
testamentliche Wissenschaft 84: 111134.
Harris, J.R. und A. Mingana, The Odes and Psalms of Solomon 2: The Translation with Intro-
duction and Notes, Manchester 1920.
182 tobias nicklas
Helderman, J., Die Anapausis im Evangelium Veritatis: Eine vergleichende Untersuchung des
valentinianisch-gnostischen Heilsgutes der Ruhe im Evangelium Veritatis und in anderen
Schriften der Nag Hammadi-Bibliothek (Nag Hammadi Studies), Leiden 1984.
Holm-Nielsen, S., Die Psalmen Salomos (Jdische Schriften aus Hellenistisch-Rmischer
Zeit, IV/2), Gtersloh 1977.
Lactance, Institutions divines: Livre IV, P. Monat (ed.) (Sources Chrtiennes 377), Paris
1992.
Lattke, M., Einheit im Wort: Die spezifische Bedeutung von , und im
Johannesevangelium (Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 41), Mnchen 1975.
, 1991, Wie alt ist die Allegorie, da Christus (Messias) der wahre Salomon sei?, Zeit-
schrift fr die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 82: 179.
, Oden Salomos (Fontes Christiani 19), Freiburg, Basel und Wien 1995.
, Oden Salomos: Text, bersetzung, Kommentar 1: Oden 1 und 314 (Novum Testamen-
tum et Orbis Antiquus 41/1), Freiburg/CH und Gttingen 1999.
, Oden Salomos: Text, bersetzung, Kommentar 2: Oden 1528 (Novum Testamentum
et Orbis Antiquus 41/2), Freiburg/CH und Gttingen 2001.
, Titel, berschrift und Unterschriften der sogenannten Oden und Psalmen Salomos,
in: H.-G. Bethge, S. Emmel, K.L. King und I. Schletterer (eds.), For the Children, Per-
fect Instruction. Studies in Honor of Hans-Martin Schenke on the Occasion of the Berliner
Arbeitskreis fr koptisch-gnostische Schriftens Thirtieth Year (Nag Hammadi and Mani-
chaean Studies 54), 439447, Leiden und Boston MA 2002.
, Oden Salomos: Text, bersetzung, Kommentar 3: Oden 2942 (Novum Testamentum
et Orbis Antiquus 41/3), Fribourg und Gttingen 2005.
, 2007, Die Oden Salomos: Einleitungsfragen und Forschungsgeschichte, Zeitschrift
fr die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 98: 277307.
Lips, H. von, Christus als Sophia? Weisheitliche Traditionen in der urchristlichen Christo-
logie, in: C. Breytenbach und H. Paulsen (eds.), Anfnge der Christologie. FS Ferdinand
Hahn, 7595, Gttingen 1991.
Marcovich, M., Iustini Martyris Dialogus cum Tryphone (Patristische Texte und Studien 47),
Berlin und New York 1997.
Nicklas, T. und T. Wasserman, Theologische Linien im Codex Bodmer Miscellani? in:
T.J. Kraus und T. Nicklas (eds.), New Testament Manuscripts: Their Text and Their World
(Texts and Editions for New Testament Studies 2), 161188, Leiden und Boston MA
2006.
Pierre, M.-J., Odes de Salomon, in: F. Bovon und P. Goltrain (eds.), crits apocryphes
chrtiens (Bibliothque de la Pliade), 671743, Paris 1997.
Schreiber, S., Gesalbter und Knig: Titel und Konzeptionen der kniglichen Gesalbtenerwar-
tung in frhjdischen und urchristlichen Schriften (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die Neu-
testamentliche Wissenschaft 105), Berlin und New York 2000.
Testuz, M., Papyrus Bodmer X-XII, Cologny und Genve 1959.
Wright, B.B., Psalms of Solomon (First Century B.C.), in: J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), Old Testa-
ment Pseudepigrapha II (Anchor Bible Reference Library), 639670, New York 1985.
SOLOMON AS A TRUE EXORCIST:
THE TESTAMENT OF SOLOMON IN ITS CULTURAL SETTING1
Peter Busch
When dealing with the testament of Solomon (T.Sol.), the poison cabinet
of Solomon traditions is wide open.2 What you can expect, is the descent
to the darkest powers of our Jewish-Christian abyssos, the encounter with
demonsmale or female, fear, torture and, at last, exorcisms over and
over again.
The outline is quickly told: While the temple is being constructed,
King Solomon notices a young worker who receives special payment and
additional food due to his exceptional commitment. Despite this special
treatment, the boy loses a lot of weight. This prompts the king to further
investigation, which reveals most unusual events. At night, the young
worker is visited by a demon called Ornias, who sucks the boys thumb
and takes away a large amount of his sustenance. This is the reason why
the boy has lost so much weight. The king seeks help, turning to God in
prayer, who sends him a ring via the Archangel Michael. This ring, which
contains a seal curved in a precious stone, has the power to bind all that
is of some demoniac nature. The boy receives the ring, together with the
precise instructions by king Solomon, and pushes it against the breast of
the unsuspecting demon Ornias, exclaiming A vaunt: it is Solomon who
summons you thus having him bend to his will and dragging him to Solo-
mons throne, who then questions him with insistence and orders him to
bring him the Lord of all the demons. Ornias obeys and brings Beelzebul
to the throne of Solomon. Sealed with the ring, Solomon questions him
insistently in spite of his most arrogant behavior, and haves him present
all the other unclean evil spirits.
So far for the story as described in the first three chapters of the tes-
tament of Solomon. The following chapters 425 are about Solomon

1I am grateful to Wolfgang Loeffler, Lingenfeld, for his detailed philological suggestions.
2Critical Edition by McCown 1922. After the English translation (with commentary)
by Duling 1983, 935988, the T.Sol. was discussed only by a small contingent of scholars
in the last decade. The most notable publications are by are Johnston 2002; Klutz 2003;
Klutz 2005; Busch 2006a.
184 peter busch
questioning the demons one by one. Without exception, the question-
ing is subdivided into sequences, clearly recognizable as a fixed pattern,
although not kept up entirely consistent as a stereotype. Solomon seals
the demon, asks for his name and his doings, then for his astrological
constellation (In which sign of the zodiac do you live?), and finally for
the name of the angel who is able to thwart the demons power. At the
end, the demon is appointed for certain works on the temple, such as
spinning hemp, sawing marble stone, or lifting heavy stones and passing
them on to the workers.
Chapter by chapter, demon by demon, the reader of the T.Sol. learns
about an exquisite selection of harming spirits, e.g.: the donkey-legged
Onoskelis, who seduces and suffocates men. Asmodeus, the woman-
izer. Lix Tetrax, who has the shape of a cochlea and sows discord among
people, the seven stoicheiai as cosmocrators of the darkness, the thirty-six
heavenly bodies (the decanes), and many more.
The First Reader Reads the Text
The gentle reader of my last couple of sentences has certainly noticed that
I switched the narrative perspective: away from the omniscient narrators
overview down to the special viewpoint of the implied reader. Exactly this
perspective, however, seems to be the most challenging approach to this
obscure opus. According to several text-linguistic theories of the last thirty
years, one can call it the reconstruction of the cultural lexicon of the Testa-
ments first readers.
So, let us ask for the main topic in the testament of Solomon, the
demons and the way they can be thwarted. In what way is it linked to the
First Readers cultural lexicon? To come to the point right away: Demons
are a weighty topic in the religious sign-system of early Christianity.
At first, the New Testaments sections that were read at the divine ser-
vice are full of exorcismsrecall the appropriate pericopes of the gospels.
Jesus, who casts out the demons just by his finger (Lk 11,20) or by his pow-
erful word; the apostles, in particular Paul and Peter dealing with demons
as successors of the Lord (Acts 5,1216). Exorcisms are without any doubt
part of the first readers religious sign-system.
Secondly, an educated Christian was aware of the fact, that demons were
a common topic of philosophical discussions: At this point the demonolo-
gies of the Middle Platonists are to be mentioned, which develop parallel
to the generation of the New Testament documents: Plutarch, De defectu
the testament of solomon in its cultural setting 185
oraculorum and De genio Socratis, and Apuleius, De deo Socratis, the lat-
ter being intensively discussed by Augustine in book 810 of his De civitate
dei; all these documents show the importance of demons in philosophical
discussions. In some respect those probably had then some impact on
the Christian discussion, what may be shown by the broad appearance of
the topic demons in the Pseudoclementines (Homilies 89 par. Recogni-
tions 4) or in the book of Augustine mentioned above.
Thirdly, the then common religious imaginations deal with demons of
any kind: The binding spells on vessels, magical papyri, defixiones, lead-
tablets, gems and amulets show that demons cover a wide range of the
common religions plain.3
And last but not least: It cannot be estimated highly enough that nearly
every Early Christian had felt exorcism at work on his very own body when
he was baptized. At this point, early Christian baptism exorcism is to be
mentioned. According to Dlgers monograph,4 the first reference to it can
be found in the apocryphal Acts of Thomas (2nd

century a.d.). Concern-
ing this practice in Jerusalem, we have some information by Egeria in her
Itinerarium (46,1) and by Cyril of Jerusalem in his Mystagogic Catecheses
(2,3). So, demons and exorcisms are an ubiquitous part of the religious
and philosophical sign-system of any Christian in this period.
From this point of view we may ask: which information should be
given to the reader when he perceives the presented scale of demons?
In this regard it can be assumed, that an ordinary ancient or late-ancient
reader already knew those demons that were presented in the Testament
of Solomon.
Imagine any fictitious first reader, a contemporary to the emperor
Decius, Diocletianus or Constantine, living in the third or fourth century
in an urban region in the East of the empire. In the following I briefly pres-
ent three contexts in which our reader could come across some elements
which he then also was able to recognize when reading the T.Sol.
An Iconographical Context
When visiting a public bath of the Roman Empire and glancing over the
floor-mosaic, our first reader can see several scenes featuring Neptune,
in many cases along with hippocampusi (see Fig. 1, an example from Ostia
antica). The implied reader could be reminded of this figure when he
3Cf. Busch 2006b, 2581.
4Dlger 1906.
186 peter busch
reads the story of the demon Kynopegos in T.Sol. 16: the demon who had
the form of a horse in front and a fish in back.5 Our reader is convinced
that the figures being sealed by Solomons ring are met also in a wider
mythological context.
Our first reader of the Testament of Solomon could think in a similar
way when leaving the public bath and walking around the arterial roads of
his city, watching the tombs and the sarcophagi along the road; the reliefs
on some of them, deeply cut into the marble and colored in a glaring
polychrome way, may depict the gigantomachy, the story of the mythical
combat of giants and gods. These pictures may come up to him when
he reads chapter 17, when Solomon confronts a demon who introduces
himself with the words: I am a lecherous spirit of a giant man who died
in a massacre in the age of giants. In further interrogation, the demon
confesses: I seat myself near dead men in the tombs and at midnight
I assume the form of the dead.6Solomon, so our first reader may
think, also rules the giants of the Hesiodic myths.
And, gentle readers, we imagine our first reader leaves the sarcophagi
and rambles to the tombs and then to the graffiti depicted on them; some
of the graves may have been abused by professional magicians at night,
and the relicts of their practices may partially be seen, especially the fig-
ure of the akephalos, the headless demon. This figure, connected with
his close relative, the stethokephalos, plays a decisive role in magical
practices, as Karl Preisendanz7 has shown. The first reader of the testa-
ment of Solomon may compare these pictures with chapter 9, the demon
5Transl. Duling 1983, 976.
6Transl. Duling 1983, 977.
7Preidendanz 1950, 211216.
Fig. 1.Hippocampi on a mosaic floor in Ostia antica. Photo by author.
the testament of solomon in its cultural setting 187
Fig. 2.Giant Combat Sarcophagus, Aphrodisias (Archaeological Museum, Istanbul).
Photo by author.
188 peter busch
looking like a man who had all his limbs, but no head.8 The demons of
the magicians, so our first reader may realize, are also ruled by the ring
of King Solomon.
Concerning the magical iconography of late antiquity, we can men-
tion considerable parallels; one example: a special type of demon, called
Helioros (the Horos of the sun), is documented in several gems9 and also
in magical texts, such as Magical Papyrus I,144 (Preisendanz collection);
this demon is very similar to the lion-shaped demon in chapter 11 of
T.Sol., who came roaring like a stately lion.10
So it can be assumed that the demons appearing in the interrogation
chapters of the Testament of Solomon are no strangers to the ancient
recipient (not as strange as to us, at least), they areon the contrary
well established in his cultural lexicon. When reading the text, our
assumed recipient could recognize some demons he had become aware
of in the iconographical sign-system of his everyday life.
Fairy-tales about Demons and Ghosts
Beyond the iconographical sign-system, also fairy-tales and mythical plots
offered an important background to the demonic traditions in the Testa-
ment of Solomon. One example: The first demon brought up by Beelzebuls
activity is a female one, Onoskelis; our assumed first reader becomes
acquainted to her in chapter 4: She had a beautiful form, her body was
that of a woman with a fair complexion, but her legs are those of a mule.
Interrogated by the king, she confesses her deeds: Sometimes I strangle
men; sometimes I pervert them from their true nature....11 Onoskelis,
so our first reader comes to know, is a men-struggling vamp, dwelling
in caves and cliffs, practicing bad deeds with definitely sexual connota-
tions. This figure is very popular in antiquity: Plutarch reports in his Par-
allela minora 29 (mor 312D) on a birth legend of Onoskelis: Aristonymos
of Ephesos merged himself with an assdue to his averseness to women,
and so a new creature came to birth, a combination of a wonderful girl
and an ass. In the second century, Lucian of Samosata gives an account of
the species of the Onoskelidae in his Vera historia (2,46f.): inhabitants of
an unknown island, who tend to castaways at first, but then make them
drunk, ensnare them and, at last, eat them. These stories circulated in the

8Transl. Duling 1983, 971.

9Cf. specially a reddish Magnetide, about 3rd/4th Cent. a.d. (see Michel 2001, Nr.52).
10Transl. Duling 1983, 972.
11Transl. Duling 1983, 964f.
the testament of solomon in its cultural setting 189
Mediterranean milieu, and we can assume that our first reader knew
the striking points of those stories and recognized them when reading the
Testament of Solomon.
In a similar way, when reading through the Testaments plot, our first
reader can recognize the stories of the Greek god Eros, the winged little
child of the goddess Aphrodite who is used to seduce women (cast in
a wonderful story by Apuleius in his Metamorphoses), when he reaches
chapter 14 and the interrogation of the winged dragon;
he remembers the mysterious four Ephesia grammata (Lix, Tetrax,
Damnameus, Aision), cut in the temple of Artemis in Ephesos, when
he encounters the demon Lix Tephras in chapter 7;
in chapter 18 he comes across a number of astrological traditions, e.g.
those of the 36 havenly bodies, each of them ruling ten decrees of the
eclipse and widely known from popular astrology and medicine in
antiquity and late-antiquity.
Biblical Traditions
Last but not least, a third part of the Testaments traditional background
should be mentioned. Not only do pagan iconography and mythology
function as models for the demonic conception of the Testament of Solo-
mon, but also the biblical tradition. In chapter 5, our first reader hits on
the demon Asmodeus, well known from the Book of Tobit; and the Prince
of all demons is nobody else but Beelzebul, as in Mk 3:22. So, biblical and
in particular also New Testament demonology can be met in the plot of
the Testament of Solomon.
This last finding may serve as a fist argument of my basic appraisal of
the Testament of Solomon as a Christian document.
The Testament as a Christian Document
The Christian assessment of the work is rather special. McCown, con-
genial editor of the actual authoritative text of the Testament, came to a
different conclusion; he used a literary-critical model and reached the
following conclusions: In the first Century a.d., a Jewish Solomon-haggada
came into existence, approximately covering the framework of the T.Sol.
This was expanded into the Jewish Testament of Solomon by adding the
interrogation chapters and was then reorganized in two recensions, Rec A,
190 peter busch
the one closest to the original, and Rec B, a younger version with Christian
interpolations; a third recension, C, is a medieval derivate from B.
McCown did a very good job. The hypothesis of the two recensions,
which McCown reconstructed on the basis of a number of manuscripts, can
be further substantiated by the new manuscripts (the Vienna Papyri) that
have come to light and that can easily be compared with his recensions.
But in my opinion, two parts of his model are dubious or disputable.12
First, the assumption of the first-century Solomon-haggada is an unnec-
essary entity and can be dismissed of using Occams razor. In the model I
have suggested, it suffices to refer to the manifold Solomonic spells on the
one hand, and the variety of haggadic Solomon traditions on the other, to
account for the composition of T.Sol. This kind of material was circulating
all over the Mediterranean world and T.Sol. can be seen as a free combina-
tion of such material.
The second point is the suggestion that only Rec B is a Christian text.
The following parts are found in both recensions:
6:8: Beelzebul is thwarted by Emmanuel
11:3: The demons name is legion (Mk 5,9)
11:6: the demons are thwarted by the suffering Emmanuel
12:3: the demon is thwarted by the Wonderful Counselor who suffers at
the place of the skull
17:4: The Savior thwarts a demon
22:20: A demon is thwarted by the one who is going to be born from a
virgin and be crucified by the jews.13
All these accounts of obviously Christian color are present in both recen-
sions, A and B, and must be part of the original version of the Testament
of Solomon; it is a very striking argument in favor of my hypothesis that
the Testament isby origina Christian document.
The Message of T.Sol. in Its Cultural Setting
In trying to define the message of the work one should start with the
major motif in the Testaments plot: the domination of demons. Chapter
by chapter the demonsfrom the first down to the lastare ruled by a
12For a more detailed discussion, see Busch 2006a, 337.
13Transl. Duling 1983, 984.
the testament of solomon in its cultural setting 191
mysterious ring, which was sent from heaven to the king. Without this ring,
it would not be possible to conquer any of these demons. This obviously
is a crucial theme in the whole of the work. When looking for possible
sources, one should note that this was apparently a rather controversial
issue in Early Christianity that was dealt with in two different ways:14
Who Can Cast out Demons? Two Positions
The first position defends a democratic approach of casting out demons:
Any Christian who meets certain qualifications is in principle able to
exorcise demons. This line can be seen in the apocryphal additions at the
end of the Gospel of Mark (Mk 16:17). Every Christian is able to cast out
bad spirits in the name of Jesus. In can also be illustrated from sources of
the second century. Justin Martyr in 2 Apol. 6 mentions successful exor-
cisms in the name of Jesus by many Christians. In the Pseudoclementines,
which are perhaps contemporary to T.Sol., Peter says that every baptized
Christian was able to heal others by exorcisms (Hom 19.9).
The second position holds a more aristocratic approach. Only excep-
tionally gifted persons are allowed to perform an exorcism. The mandate
Jesus gives the disciples in Matt 10:1 (par. Mk 3:15) to act as exorcists is an
early illustration of this position. Only Jesus followers receive the author-
ity and the power to do so.
This aristocratic approach opens the way for installing professional
exorcists in the early church. In his famous Die Mission und Ausbreitung
des Christentums, Adolf von Harnack suggests that every larger commu-
nity had its own exorcists.15 Official exorcists are referred to in the third-
century Synodal canones. A letter of the same century by bishop Cornelius
of Rome to bishop Fabius of Antioch (Euseb, h.e. VI,43,11), mentions
46 presbyteroi, 7 diacones, 7 subdiacones, 42 akolythai, and 52 exorcists as
being employed by the Christian community in Rome.
The issue of who could be an exorcist is already struggled with in the
New Testament. Matt 7:22 says that many who cast out demons in the
name of Jesus will be called evildoers on the Day of Judgment. Here a
kind of mass movement is evoked from which the Evangelist distances
himself. The controversy receives a new impetus in monastic circles in the
fourth century. Evagrius Ponticus in his Antirrhetikos, Athanasius in his

14Cf. Busch 2006a, 279290.
15von Harnack, 19244, 157.
192 peter busch
Vita Antonii, and other early hagiographic documents introduce us to a
very special kind of exorcists: people who dislike the developing ecclesi-
astical communities, that are mostly urban settlements, prefer solitariness
and ascetics, and cast out demons very often and successfully. So, in the
fourth century two different ways of Christian life, cum grano salis, can be
met: the hierarchic structured Christian communities with bishops, dea-
cons and other officials (including the exorcists), and the ascetic desert-
monks. John Cassians bon mot, a monk has to flee foremost the women
and the bishop (Inst. 11.18), gives a clear hint at the dissonances between
these two ways. In our context, these two groups are related to the two
approaches to exorcism.
The Message of the Testament
How does the Testament of Solomon fit in with these approaches? Remem-
ber the redundant element of its plot: Solomon the king, who rules the
demons by means of a special ring. Solomon is in no way an ascetic like
the desert-monks. He is almost their anti-type. And yet it is possible to
read the Testament in within the framework of the controversy outlined
above. Its message can be summarized as follows: The true exorcist is
not an ascetic, but rather the contrary; he is the legendary Jewish king, a
son of David, hence an ancestor of Jesus Christ. This exorcist is not con-
cerned with ascetics or with poverty; quite the opposite: he is celebrated
for his extravagant luxury.
In line with this, Solomon does a number of things an ascetic as depicted
in the early hagiographies would never do: he builds a magnificent temple,
welcomes women (the Queen of Sheba in T.Sol. 1921), and even washes
himself, and this at a demons behest (T.Sol. 13.2, contrary to Vita Antonii
47). The kings power as an exorcist is not to be seen in the desert, but in
the center of his kingdom, in Jerusalem, where the temple is built. He also
proves himself to be the ruler of the desert demons, but it is beneath his
dignity to set foot on desert ground. In contrast to the parallel pre-Islamic
Arabic Solomon traditions, he does not fly on a carpet, but stays at home,
in his palace in Jerusalem. He makes the demons file a report before his
throne, also the desert-demon Ephippas (T.Sol. 22). The message is clear:
not the desert, but the Temple in Jerusalem (the typos of the Church of
the Holy Sepulcher) is the appropriate place for exorcisms.
Above all, one thing is suggested by the Testament of Solomon: Not
everybody has the power to cast out demons; only the son of David,
the testament of solomon in its cultural setting 193
Solomon, is the true exorcist. And he operates by means of his special
ring; this ring is given him from God by Michael, the Archangel, and, in
special situations, can be entrusted to a servant: in T.Sol. 1, it is the favorite
servant of Solomon, in T.Sol. 22 it is another servant, but they both share
one feature: they are active in the temple and officials of the temple. The
first reader will easily grasp the message: The true exorcist works with this
special ring handed out to King Solomon.
The Origin of the Testament
The ring mentioned above does exist in the fourth century; it is kept as
a relic in the treasure of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem.
It is the most striking argument to situate the Testament of Solomon in
Jerusalem in the second half of the fourth century.16 Christians living in
the city most probably were well aware of the topography of former Aelia
Capitolina, the Roman City: they must have known where the Temple
had stood, they could still see one or two columns of the temple of Jupi-
ter, and they knew about the sanctuary of Venus being settled on a 15m
high destruction debris covering the location of Jesus crucifixion. The
story of the discovery of the cross circulated within the Christian com-
munities of Jerusalem: how Helena, Constantines mother, removed the
temple of Venus and got rid of the soil above Golgotha, how she found the
real holy cross and had churches built on the holy places of Jesuss death
and funeral. This complex, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, attracts lots
of visitors and pilgrims. The Pilgrim of Bordeaux and the Spanish nun
Egeria/Aitheria are among the earliest witnesses. By and by, also encour-
aged and advanced by native tourist guides, a holy topography is con-
structed: Here, the place of the origin of Adam, there, the place of the
sacrifice of Abraham; and look here, stains of the blood of Zacharias. In
this process, traditions originally linked to the Temple of Solomon are
transferred to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher: this Church is now the
New Temple, erected by Jesus Christ, the second Temple builder, the sec-
ond Solomon.
Traditions about the ring of Solomon, as reflected in the Testament of
Solomon, are still very much alive in those days. About 400 c.e., Egeria
wrote in her Itinerarium (37.7) that some relics of Solomon, even of his
16See once more Busch 2006a, 2029.
194 peter busch
activities as an exorcist, are preserved in the martyrium of the Church of
the Holy Sepulcher and can be seen there. She notes that in the liturgy on
Good Friday, after kissing the Holy Cross, people would pass by a deacon,
who has anulum salomonis et cornu illud, de quo reges unguebantur. The
horn (in the tradition of 1 Sam 16,1.13; 1 Kgs 1,39) was kissed, the ring just
be looked at, obviously in some form of special respect. The Breviarius de
Hierosolyma, of the sixth century, affirms Egerias report:17
Et inde intras in Golgotha...ubi est illud cornu, quo David unctus est et
Salomon et ille anulus ibidem, unde Salomon sigillavit demones, et est de
electro.
And thereafter you will enter Golgotha,...where the horn is deposed, David
and Solomon are anointed by; further that ring, Solomon sealed demons by,
and its made by amber.
Conclusion
If we follow the argumentation outlined above, the Testament of Solomon
is to be situated at the background of fourth-century hagiographies and
takes its distance from hagiographic tales of ascetic desert-monks perform-
ing exorcisms in favor of professional exorcists, which can be identified
considered as officials at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem.
The Testament uses elements from hagiographical literature: there is an
interest in biography and the tone is novelistic, aiming at a broad public-
ity. In this regard, it may be interpreted as a marketing document of the
Sanctuary of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem: We are the best demon-
rulers, not the anachoretes, as a modern PR-manager would formulate it.
We, not the desert-monks, use Solomons ring and We will cast out any
demon you want.
Bibliography
Baldi, D., Enchiridion Locorum Sanctorum. Documenta Evangelii Loca Respicienda, Jerusa-
lem 1982.
Busch, P., Das Testament Salomos. Die lteste christliche Dmonologie, kommentiert und in
deutscher Erstbersetzung, Berlin et al. 2006a.
, Magie in neutestamentlicher Zeit, Gttingen 2006b.
Dlger, F., Der Taufexorzismus im christlichen Altertum, Wrzburg 1906.
17Ed. Baldi 1982, 636.
the testament of solomon in its cultural setting 195
Duling, D., Testament of Solomon, in: J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseude-
pigrapha. Vol. I: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, 935988, New York et al. 1983.
Harnack, A. von, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhun-
derten, Berlin 19244.
Johnston, S.I., The Testament of Solomon from Late Antiquity to the Renaissance, in:
J.N. Bremmer et al. (eds.), The Metamorphosis of Magic from Late Antiquity to the Early
Modern Period, 3549, Leuven 2002.
Klutz, T.E., The Archer and the Cross: Chronographic Astrology and Literary Design in
the Testament of Solomon, in: T.E. Klutz (ed.), Magic in the Biblical World, 219244,
London et al. 2003.
, Rewriting the Testament of Solomon. Tradition, Conflict and Identity in a Late Antique
Pseudepigraphon, London 2005.
McCown, C.C., The Testament of Solomon, Leipzig 1922.
Michel, S., Bunte SteineDunkle Bilder: Magische Gemmen, Mnchen 2001.
Preisendanz, K., Akephalos. Der kopflose Gott, Leipzig 1926.
, 1950, Akephalos, RAC 1: 211216.
SOLOMON IN EGYPTIAN GNOSTICISM1
Jacques van der Vliet
The literary legacy of Christian Egypt offers rich material for a study of
the reception of the originally biblical Solomon figure in late-antique and
medieval times. It includes sources varying as widely as the Greek and
Coptic magical texts, which bear witness to the continuing interest in
Solomon the magician, the medieval literary texts that focus on the Queen
of Sheba and, finally, the extensive theological and exegetical output of
Alexandrian Gnosticism, part of which has survived in Coptic transla-
tions. Since Solomons role in magic is dealt with extensively elsewhere
in this volume, and since the medieval Coptic traditions about the Queen
of Sheba should be discussed in conjunction with similar ones from Ethio-
pia, the present contribution will focus on the Gnostic sources. As will be
seen, these Gnostic sources are of exceptional interest in that theyor
at least some of thempresent a picture of Solomon that is polemical
or even outright negative. The following discussion does not claim great
originality: most of the sources are well known and have received due
attention in recent studies of King Solomons literary Nachleben.2 Yet their
controversial and iconoclastic qualities fully justify a separate treatment.
Egyptian Gnosticism
Gnosticism is an elusive phenomenon that has been interpreted very dif-
ferently in the scholarly debate over the last two centuries.3 Whereas the
theses of a Jewish or even an Iranian background are still occasionally
defended, I take Gnosticism to be a basically Christian phenomenon. As
1Following the Leuven conference, a version of this paper was discussed in the Dutch
Gnosticism Seminar, chaired by A.P. Bos and G.P. Luttikhuizen, on 23 January 2010. I thank
the attendants of both meetings, in particular J.L. de Jong, for their critical remarks. My
Leiden colleague B.P. Muhs kindly revised my English. Translations from Greek and Coptic
are mine, unless stated otherwise.
2In particular in Hanig 1993; Torijano 2002; Klutz 2005; Busch 2006. The earlier study
by Giversen 1972, hardly goes beyond an enumeration of text places.
3For the problems involved, see Williams 1996, and King 2003; for the ancient ter-
minology, Layton 1995. My personal view of Gnosticism has been put forward in various
publications, some of which are quoted below.
198 jacques van der vliet
a distinct variety within the broader spectrum of nascent Christian the-
ology, it reflects the reception of Jesus message of redemption among
urban literates, deeply steeped in Hellenistic popular philosophy and
science. Although Gnosticism can hardly have been a single uniform move-
ment, a certain shared core of theological and philosophical options can
be distinguished. It is characterized foremost by the distinction between
an ineffable highest God and lower demiurgic powers, a sharply dualist
cosmology and anthropology, and the view of Christ as a supra-cosmic
teacher and revealer. In spite of the somewhat blurred picture offered by
Gnostic scripture, Gnosticism had social dimensions as well, with groups
developing their own ecclesiology and sacramentalism. The heyday of
this variegated Gnostic movement is usually situated in the second and
third centuries. With the further development and definition of Christian
dogma it broadened into a more vaguely defined esoteric current that
succumbed to mainstream Christianity from the fourth century onwards.
The bulk of our primary and even a large number of our secondary
sources for ancient Gnosticism stem from Egypt. The most important
among these sources are the original Gnostic codices discovered at vari-
ous moments in Upper Egypt, usually in undocumented circumstances.
They make up a small corpus consisting of overtly Christian manuscripts,
predominantly in Coptic, that can be dated to the fourth-fifth centuries
on paleographical grounds. Best known are the so-called Nag Hammadi
library and the Judas-codex (properly Codex Tchacos or Codex Magha-
gha) that came to light a few years ago. The evidence of these codices
suggests that esoterism of a Gnostic and Hermetic type was widespread in
early monastic or semi-monastic circles, but became ideologically unde-
sirable from the year 400 onwards when, in the wake of the so-called
Origenist controversy, doctrinal purity became a major issue in the mon-
asteries of Egypt.
It is a commonly held belief that all or most of the texts contained in
this corpus reflect early or even very early traditions. Yet, in a majority of
cases, it is impossible to say exactly how much older they are than the
fourth-fifth century manuscripts in which they are transmitted. Even the
arguments for an early date of the famous Gospel of Thomas are feeble at
best. In this paper, as a rule no position is taken with regard to the pre-
sumed original date of the texts discussed. Rather, the corpus as a whole
is seen here as the expression of a late-antique esoterism that was rapidly
being marginalized by mainstream Christianity.
Although this is not a generally accepted point of view, I also consider
the famous alchemist Zosimus to be a representative of late-antique
solomon in egyptian gnosticism 199
Egyptian Gnosticism. Zosimus, who originated from Panopolis in Upper
Egypt and wrote in Greek, presumably lived in the late third or early fourth
century.4 He was primarily an alchemist and the greater part of his work
is purely technical rather than theological. The non-technical parts of his
preserved output, however, such as the Treatise on the letter omega or
the prologue to the Final quittance, fit in perfectly with what we know of
contemporary Egyptian Gnosticism as exemplified by the Nag Hammadi
texts.5 There is every reason to consider him a late-antique Gnostic and
his texts will be treated here accordingly. This is all the more attractive
since many of the acknowledged Gnostic texts preserved in Coptic also
have a clear technical side. They show a marked interest in astrology and
demonology, in lists and catalogues of secret names and, in general, in
practices and procedures that are dubbed magical by modern criticism.
This is not only true of the Books of Jeou, usually though unjustifiably dis-
missed as obscure, but also of such a well known, almost emblematically
Gnostic text as the Secret book of John.6
A Prophet
The best known appearance of Solomon in the corpus of Coptic Gnostic
texts is undoubtedly as the author of the Odes of Solomon. Coptic trans-
lations of five of the Odes are quoted in the Pistis Sophia, the longest of
all Gnostic texts preserved in Coptic.7 Their text has received due atten-
tion in the text critical discussion of the Odes, but the context in which
they are transmitted and their Gnostic reception have also been studied
in recent decades, in particular by M. Lattke.8
Similar to many other Christian apocryphal writings from Egypt, the
Pistis Sophia takes the form of a dialogue between the risen Jesus and his
disciples on the Mount of Olives. In conformity with the rules of the genre,
the work basically develops as a play of question and answer, the disciples
asking questions and Jesus providing answers. In addition, an important
role is played by narrative and biblical exegesis. The dialogue is contained
4On his dates, see Mertens 1995, xvxvii.
5See Mertens 2002.
6See the references in note 11 below.
7The standard edition remains Schmidt 1925, which is used here; his text has been
reprinted together with an English translation in Schmidt and MacDermot 1978; for a gen-
eral introduction and bibliography, see Tardieu and Dubois 1986, 6582.
8Lattke 1979, 2431, 187225; 19791982 (repr. 1979); 2002.
200 jacques van der vliet
within a narrative framework but narrative is also an important feature
within the question-answer structure: Jesus answers do not only explain
known facts and events, they also relate unknown facts and events. Both
may then be interpreted as the fulfillment of Holy Scripture through an
idiosyncratic exegesis of scriptural passages, in particular from the Psalms
of David and the Odes of Solomon. The exegetical procedure applied to
most of these passages may be called an inverted exegesis. Jesus narrative
about events that took place in the heavenly world is commented upon
in Psalm-like compositions modeled upon biblical Psalms that are subse-
quently identified as the clue to the very texts for which they served as a
model. The effect is quite stunning and deserves to be illustrated.
The central personage of the complicated myth told by Jesus in the
earlier parts of the book is Pistis-Sophia, a celestial figure who symbolizes
the fallen soul. She is kidnapped by the evil rulers over the lower spheres,
who try to steal the superior light that inhabits her, but she is rescued by
a luminous power emanating from Jesus himself that leads her up to the
upper spheres and keeps the lower powers at bay. She then sings a hymn
of praise that begins:
1. I will send up a hymn to you, o Light, for I wished to come to you; I will
send up a hymn to you, o Light, for you are my savior.
2. Do not leave me in the chaos; save me, o Light from above, for it is to you
that I have sung my hymn (ed. Schmidt, p. 113, 48).
Seven more verses follow, after which one of Jesus disciples, in this case
Salome, makes the link with a known scriptural text that is presented as
a prophetic text referring to the events that have just been related and
offering at the same time the key to these events. Salome then says:
My Lord (scil. Jesus whom she is addressing), my power urges me to give
the clue to the words that Pistis-Sophia spoke. In those days your power
prophesied through Solomon and said:
1.I will reveal myself to you, o Lord, for you are my God.
2.Do not leave me, o Lord, for you are my hope.
And seven more verses from the fifth Ode of Solomon follow (ed. Schmidt,
p. 114, 8115, 6).
In all, five of the Odes of Solomon are partly or wholly quoted in this
way. They were apparently well known compositions, sufficiently famil-
iar to serve as clues to the adventures of the fallen Pistis-Sophia and the
hymns that voice her fall and redemption. In each of these cases, it is
the superior power or, more precisely, the luminous power of Jesus
solomon in egyptian gnosticism 201
himself who, in the past, had spoken or prophesied through Solomon
(or, in the case of the biblical Psalms, through David). Both David and
Solomon were therefore considered to be inspired prophets who spoke
with authority about celestial realities that were only afterwards revealed
in all their details by Jesus to his disciples. Solomon is once called the son
of David (ed. Schmidt, p. 151, 67), but otherwise he and his father appear
as mere bibliographical references. Solomon is quoted in his Odes or,
once, in his nineteenth Ode, which is actually the first one, thus showing
that the Gnostic author used a collection in which the eighteen Psalms of
Solomon preceded the Odes.9
The fascinating way in which the author of Pistis Sophia handled the
Odes of Solomon shows that they were considered by him as Holy Scrip-
ture, as texts that could (and should) be read as witnesses to the Gnostic
myth revealed by Jesus. Solomon himself, although clearly identified as
a historical figure, the son of David, is merely an author, inspired by
the luminous power of Jesus. Yet, even if he is represented as no more
than Jesus mouth-piece, it follows that Solomons presumed writings, at
least his Odes (and presumably his Psalms as well), were considered to
be vested with unquestionable authority by the intended audience of the
Pistis Sophia. Indeed, Solomon figures as an author and authority in other
Gnostic sources as well.
An Expert in Demonology
Cosmogony as a means of exposing a pattern of primordial fall that
accounts for the ontological make-up of the phenomenal world is a com-
mon feature of many Gnostic sources. Thus the treatise known under the
modern title On the origin of the world (NH II, 5)10 shares with similar
Gnostic writings (such as the Gospel of Judas) the extensive description
of the mise-en-place of a material kosmos ruled by seven more or less evil
archons. The seven-tiered system of this lower world obviously repre-
sents the spheres of the seven planets, but its interest here is primarily
demonological rather than astrological. The description focuses on listing
and naming evil powers, not on specifying their relationship with precise
celestial bodies.
9An observation already made by J. Rendel Harris, who rediscovered the Odes of Solo-
mon, in 1909; see most recently Lattke 2002.
10The standard edition is that in Layton (ed. 1989), vol. II, 11134.
202 jacques van der vliet
The most wicked among these lower rulers is their chief, Yaldabaoth,
an evil character known from a whole range of Gnostic writings, including
the Secret book of John and, again, the Gospel of Judas. In what appears to
be a variant of the myth of the Fallen Angel, Yaldabaoth is punished for
his arrogance, demoted to the underworld, and locked up in the abyss.
Subsequently his place is taken by his son, who with a clear allusion to the
biblical God is called Sabaoth. This Sabaoth, who is much more positively
perceived, is moved to the highest position in the lower world, much to
the regret of his spiteful father. Yaldabaoths negative feelings then engen-
der Death, and Death comes to occupy the sixth, the uppermost-but-one
position in the lower universe, left vacant by the promotion of Sabaoth
(102, 11106, 27; ed. Layton, pp. 3848).
Here the restoration of the seven-tiered demonic order does not end.
For Death, who is androgynous, engenders seven male and seven female
personified passions that are neatly listed. The male ones are: Jealousy,
Wrath, Weeping, Sighing, Mourning, Lamentation, and Sobbing; the female
ones: Anger, Pain, Lust, Sighing, Cursing, Bitterness, and Quarreling. These
personified passions in turn had intercourse with each other and each
one begot seven (others), so that they amount to forty-nine androgynous
demons. Their names and their influences () you will find in the
Book of Solomon (NH II, 5: 106, 35107, 4).
This reference to a Book of Solomon is paralleled by similar biblio-
graphic tags in other Gnostic literature. A well known example is found in
the Secret book of John, which in the course of a demonology of the human
body refers the reader for further information to the Book of Zoroastros
(ed. Waldstein and Wisse, synopsis 50, long version). In both cases the
references are meant as an extension of lists identifying and naming
demonic powers, which the books attributed to Zoroastros and Solomon
are supposed to supplement in more detail. Zoroastros and Solomon are
quoted as authorities regarding the demonic world, supplying not the-
oretical, but practical knowledge, listing the names and influences of
demons. The purpose is clear: knowledge of the names and influences
of demons conveys power over them. It is therefore precisely this kind
of knowledge that is provided by demonological handbooks such as the
Testament of Solomon.11
A similar reference to handbook knowledge circulating under the name
of Solomon is found in the famous Prologue to Zosimus Final quittance.
11See Van der Vliet 1999. For lists and catalogues as characteristic of magic speech, see
Gordon 1999; Kropp 2008, 167168.
solomon in egyptian gnosticism 203
Zosimus addresses his disciple, a certain Theosebeia. He instructs her
how, by taking control of herself and suppressing her passions, she can
summon the divine. To this effect, she is advised to offer sacrifices to the
demons:
But not offerings, nor those (sacrifices) that nourish and entice them, but
rather the sacrifices that repel and destroy them, those which Membres dic-
tated to Solomon, the king of Jerusalem, and especially those that Solomon
himself wrote as the product of his own wisdom. So doing, you will attain
the true and natural (tinctures) that are appropriate to certain times. Per-
form these things until you have reached perfection for your soul.12
Zosimus refers to ritual acts and recipes that are destined to repel and
destroy the demons and that were attributed to Solomon, either as the
product of his own wisdom or because they were transmitted to him by
Membres. The latter is presumably the same as the famous magician Jam-
bres, one of the two sorcerers of Pharaoh from Exod 7:11 and 22, who are
still anonymous there, but named Jannes and Jambres in various early
Jewish and Christian sources, among which 2 Tim 3:8 and the Testa-
ment of Solomon 25:4 (ed. McCown, p. 71*).13 Neither Jambres nor Jannes
are ever directly associated with Solomon, which is after all chronologi-
cally unlikely, but it is easy to imagine that their magical expertiseand
perhaps their occurrence in the Testament of Solomonis the common
denominator here. Solomons association with the city of Jerusalem (king
of Jerusalem), rather than with its temple, is found again in the Cop-
tic True testimony, discussed below. Just like the demons in On the origin
of the world, Zosimus demons are associated with passions. And here as
well the wisdom of Solomon is practical knowledge, geared at ritually
overcoming these demonic passions. It merely clears the road towards the
divine and the selfs spiritual perfection, and is no wisdom as a spiritual
aim in itself.
Elsewhere, Zosimus gives the titles of two demonological treatises
attributed to Solomon, the Book of the seven heavens and the Book of the
seven vessels (discussed below). We lack sufficient information for identi-
fying either of these with the Book of Solomon quoted in On the origin of
the world, even though all these books appear to share a common subject
matter, demonology. In any case, the Gnostic sources quoted till now are
12Greek text apud Festugire 19502 (19441), 367, 24368, 2; cf. Fowden 1986, 122123,
whose translation is followed here with minor adaptations, and Mertens 1995, lxvlxvii.
13For the traditions concerning Jannes and Jambres, see Pietersma 1994, who quotes
our text on p. 32.
204 jacques van der vliet
primarily concerned with Solomons literary legacy and its prophetic and
demonological qualities. They refer only obliquely, if at all, to Solomon as
a historical or mythical figure. The texts that will be considered next take
a somewhat different view.
The Builder of Jerusalem
The true testimony (also known as The testimony of truth, NH IX, 3) stands
out among the Gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi as perhaps the most
fiercely polemical.14 Regrettably, the single manuscript in which the text
is preserved is much damaged. The authors polemic is not only directed
against the Old Testament and the biblical God as viewed by mainstream
Christianity, which is not uncommon in Gnostic sources, but also spe-
cifically against fellow Gnostics. His anti-baptismal statements clearly
indicate his position: baptism with water symbolizes the reign of sexual
reproduction and carnal defilement that is also represented by the Law,
the religion of the Old Testament. Real baptism consists in renouncing the
world. In this polemical context, attacking the hypocrisy of fellow Chris-
tians, the author rather suddenly turns to the theme of idol worship:
Some of them (scil. Christians who only pretend to renounce from the world)
fall [into the worship] of idols; [others] have demons dwelling with them [as
did] King David, who laid the foundations of Jerusalem, and his son Solo-
mon, whom he begot in adultery, the one who built Jerusalem by means of
the demons, as he had obtained [power]. When he had finished [building],
he imprisoned the demons in the temple and [put them] into seven vessels.
They remained there for a long time stored away within the vessels. When
the Romans [had gone up] to Jerusalem, they uncovered the vessels and
right away the demons fled out of the vessels as (fugitives) escaping from
prison. And the vessels remained behind pure. And since those days they
(scil. the demons) [dwell] with men who are living in ignorance and [they
have remained] upon the earth.
Who then is David? And who is Solomon? And what is the foundation? And
what is the wall that surrounds Jerusalem? And who, furthermore, are the
demons? And what are the vessels? And who are the Romans? These are
mysteries [...] (NH IX, 3: 69, 3270, 30).
14For the nature of its polemics, see Koschorke 1978, 91174; Pearson 1990, 188193; edi-
tions of the text are available in Pearson (ed. 1981), 101203 (S. Giversen and B.A. Pearson);
Mah and Mah 1996.
solomon in egyptian gnosticism 205
Mysteries indeed, for the upper part of the following page is almost
entirely lost and the authors questions remain unanswered. He appar-
ently proposes an allegorical interpretation of the various agents of the
story, but since the key to his interpretation is missing, the scope of the
passage has been reconstructed variously.15 The following remarks are an
attempt at clarifying the role of Solomon in the polemical argument of
The true testimony.
It is clear from the outset that, in this polemical context, David and
Solomon are not authoritative prophets, as in the Pistis Sophia, but nega-
tive characters. They are associated with idolatry, adultery and, in par-
ticular, demons. Moreover, both father and (illegitimate) son are active as
builders, David laying the foundations of Jerusalem, and Solomon doing
the actual building. The description of their respective roles is reminiscent
of Acts 7:4647. Rather than specifically builders of the temple, however,
David and Solomon are portrayed as the builders of the city of Jerusa-
lem. In addition to the temple, the foundations of Jerusalem and the
wall that surrounds Jerusalem are mentioned. Dealing with demons and
building Jerusalem are clearly the two central themes in the negative pic-
ture of Solomon that is outlined by the text.
In either case, the author of The true testimony was all but original. Sol-
omon also appears as the builder of Jerusalem in other texts, in particular
in the Testament of Solomon 1:7, whereas the passage from Zosimus that
calls Solomon the king of Jerusalem, quoted above, may retain an echo
of the same idea. That Solomon built Jerusalem (or its temple) with the
help of demons is likewise well attested in various early Jewish and Chris-
tian sources, among them again the Testament of Solomon.16 The Testa-
ment of Solomon is also the best known authority for the motif of Solomon
locking up the demons in vessels. Furthermore, the same motif is found
in a passage from a treatise by Zosimus, preserved in an apparently rather
garbled Syriac translation, and in several later Greek sources.17 In fact, the
Testament of Solomon and the treatise by Zosimus offer the best point of
departure for a plausible exegesis of the passage from The true testimony.
The story as it is told in The true testimony has its closest parallel in
the Testament of Solomon and there can be no doubt that some kind of
15See e.g. Pearson 1980, 315317; Mah and Mah 1996, 210212.
16See e.g. Pearson (ed. 1981), 192, note ad 70, 79; Hanig 1993, 117118; Busch 2006,
101102.
17Magical: medieval exorcisms, quoted in Reitzenstein 1904, 295 (cf. Busch 2006, 209;
Greenfield 1988, 262264); literary: Ps.-Gregentius, Disputatio (CPG 7009), quoted by Tori-
jano 2002, 114115, n. 27.
206 jacques van der vliet
literary dependency between both sources must exist. The precise nature
of this relationship is not important here, however, only the structural
analogies and meaningful differences between what can actually be con-
sidered two versions of one story. In the first chapter of the Testament,
Solomon is given his famous ring with the following words:
Take, Solomon, son of David, the gift that was sent to you by the Lord, the
highest God, Sabaoth, and you will lock up all the demons, both female
and male, and with their help you will build Jerusalem (1:7; ed. McCown,
p. 10*).
Towards the end of the book, the demonsunhappy with their treatment
at the hands of Solomonconfront him with the following prophecy:
This is then, King Solomon, what you do to us. But after a while your king-
dom will collapse and this temple will be torn asunder and the whole of
Jerusalem will be destroyed by a king of Persians, Medians and Chaldeans.
And the equipment of the sanctuary that you are building will serve (for-
eign) gods. Together with these, also the vessels in which you lock us up will
be broken by the hands of men and then, in full power, we will swarm out
in all directions, and we will disperse over the world. And we will lead the
whole of mankind astray, till the Son of God will be stretched onto wood.
For not earlier did a king arise such as this one, who subjects us all and
whose mother will not consort with a man (15:810; ed. McCown, p. 47*).18
As can be seen, the allegorical re-working of the material in The true
testimony basically retains the structure of the story as its is told in the
Testament. Both versions mention the empowerment of Solomon that
allows him to use the demons assistance in building Jerusalem as well
as their subsequent imprisonment in vessels, and, most importantly, both
describe the demons release by a foreign power and the resulting spread
of error among mankind. This negative effect is balanced by a positive
development in both versions: the purification of the vessels in The true
testimony and Jesus subjection of the demons in the Testament. Signifi-
cant differences that can be observed are the chronology of the events
and the number of seven vessels, which is stated in The true testimony, but
not in the Testament. An explanation of the number seven is provided by
another closely related text, the treatise from the Syriac Zosimus.19
18Cf. Busch 2006, 201210.
19Edited and translated from a single manuscript in Cambridge by R. Duval in Berth-
elot (ed. 1893); cf. Mertens 1995, lxxivlxxvi. The relevant passage occupies ff. 87vo88vo
of the ms.; I follow Duvals translation, in Berthelot, pp. 264266, as it is quoted and stud-
ied in Torijano 2002, 180183.
solomon in egyptian gnosticism 207
Book Twelve of the Syriac Zosimus deals with the qualities of electrum
and it is from this metal that Solomons vessels were made according to
Zosimus. As in Zosimuss other writings, Solomon appears here in an
entirely favorable light, as an author of scholarly works and an expert in
combating demons. The Syriac Zosimus quotes two books attributed to
Solomon, one on the seven heavens and directed against the demons,
and another one on the seven vessels and of similar purport. Only the
second, according to Zosimus, is really by Solomon, whereas the first may
derive from an unfinished original by Solomon, but was expanded and
partly corrupted by others. Whatever doubts Zosimus may have enter-
tained about their authenticity, it is clear from his account that both
pseudo-Solomonic books share a similar interest and subject matter.
They are about the seven vessels that Solomon used, in addition to other
means, to subject the demons and that were kept in the lower abyss of
Jerusalem. Their number, according to Zosimus, is chosen to correspond
with the number of the planets and, therefore, appears to be expressive of
their intrinsic relationship with the seven heavens. The number seven is
absent in the Testament of Solomon and the later sources for the confine-
ment of the demons in vessels, but it does occur in the account of The
true testimony. We may infer that also in the latter source the number
seven relates to the seven heavens and that a cosmological explanation
applies to the Solomon passage in The true testimony.20 In Gnostic terms,
the number of seven vessels would then refer to the seven-tiered domain
of the archons, symbolized by the seven planetary spheres.
Although Zosimus provides a valuable key to understanding the seven
vessels and their symbolism, the Testament of Solomon offers a much closer
literary parallel for The true testimony in most other respects, apart from
chronology. Without substantially altering the structure of the story, The
true testimony significantly shifts the moment of the release of the demons
from Old Testament times, the Babylonian destruction of the temple, to
New Testament times, when the Romans [had gone up] to Jerusalem,
and the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, predicted by
Jesus according to Matt 24 and parallels.21 From the radical Gnostic per-
spective of the author of The true testimony, Jerusalemas well as David
20Contrary to Mah and Mah 1996, 212, I do not believe that the water vessels that
are in Egypt in On the origin of the world (NH II, 5: 122, 1819) have anything to do with
Solomon; for a discussion of these, see Tardieu 1974, 262269.
21Significantly, like The true testimony, these New Testament passages associate the
destruction of the temple with the spread of error and the end of the (material) world.
208 jacques van der vliet
and Solomon themselvesmust have represented the Law,22 just as the
seven heavens, represented by the seven vessels inhabited by demons,
must have represented the archontic world, ruled by the planetary pow-
ers. The allegorical reading of the story in The true testimony projects the
simultaneous downfall of both onto the times of Jesus. The true testimony
thereby retains the soteriological perspective of the Testament of Solo-
mon, but broadens it to include the end of the Law, the edifice erected by
Solomon and his father David. Chronologically and soteriologically, the
purificatory release of the demons and the destruction of Jerusalem and
its temple come to converge in the mission of Jesus, who was crucified
under Roman rule and whose intervention in history marks the simul-
taneous end of both the Law and the reign of astral Fate.23 Henceforth,
the vessels remained behind pure, which in a cosmological interpreta-
tion can only mean that the ascendancy of the cosmic powers was broken.
The demons escaped and, evacuating the seven heavens, remained upon
the earth, now dwelling with men who are living in ignorance, that is
with the opponents of the author of The true testimony, who were said to
commit idolatry and have demons dwelling with them in the beginning
of the passage.
Solomons dealings with demons were occasionally also seen as a flaw
by other ancient authors, for example by Origen.24 The author of The true
testimony takes a far more radical position, however. He offers an allegori-
cal interpretation of the material found in the Testament of Solomon, in
which he gives the story a definite cosmological twist. As the architects of
an archontic world, symbolized by Jerusalem and the seven vessels, David
and Solomon come to resemble another Gnostic father-son couple, which
we met above in our discussion of On the origin of the world, Yaldabaoth
and Sabaoth, both avatars of the demiurge of the Old Testament.25 That
this interpretation neatly reflects the position of the author of The true
testimony is shown by the very opening lines of the text, where he attacks
those Christians whoin his opinionremain under the influence of
the old leaven of the Pharisees and the scribes of the Law. He then goes
on to explain the old leaven as the misleading lust (inspired) by the
angels and the demons and the stars, and the Pharisees and the scribes
22See Mah and Mah 1996, 6364.
23For this latter theme and its reception in Gnostic sources, see van der Vliet 2005.
24Hom. in Numeri VI, 3, 6 (ed. Baehrens / Doutreleau, Sources chrtiennes 415, 154155).
25I owe this idea to J.L. de Jong (see n. 1 above), but see already the excellent com-
mentary in Mah and Mah 1996, 6367. In The true testimony, the powers of Sabaoth
are mentioned in 73, 2930.
solomon in egyptian gnosticism 209
as the partisans of the archons under whose authority they fall (NH IX,
3: 29, 1121), explicitly associating the Law with the rule of astral Fate,
the demons and the stars. The polemical objectives of the author of The
true testimony turn Solomon into an emblematic figure of the demiurgic
world, a world built like a prison that was only opened with the coming
of Christ.
A Laughingstock
Other texts from the Nag Hammadi corpus reveal similar negative inter-
pretations of the biblical figure of Solomon. A further instance is provided
by the Second treatise of the great Seth (NH VII, 2, abbreviated Great Seth
here).26 In addition to other striking examples of Christian Gnostic exege-
sis, this text comprises a long, litany-like harangue, attributed to Christ
himself, that ridicules the main characters of the Old Testament, from
Adam and the Three Patriarchs to David, Solomon and the Twelve Proph-
ets, up to and including the biblical God himself (62, 2764, 29). It has
been suggested with a certain likelihood that this litany derives from the
liturgy of some Gnostic group.27 Each of its stanzas is devoted to one or
more biblical characters, and each follows a more or less similar layout,
opening with the phrase: a laughingstock was so-and-so. All prophets
and patriarchs summed up were a laughingstock because they were
mere puppets of the Seventh, the archontic ruler of the seven-tiered
phenomenal world, whose arrogance made him feel superior even to the
transcendent God of the Gnostics. In the final phrase of each stanza, the
Gnostic we-group that speaks here through the mouth of Christ asserts
its independence vis--vis the Seventh. The passages on David and Solo-
mon run as follows:
A laughingstock was David, whose son was named the Son of Man, while
he acted under the influence of the Seventh, as if he (scil. the Seventh) had
become stronger than me and those of my race. But we are innocent with
respect to him, as we did not sin.
A laughingstock was Solomon, who thought that he was a Christ, since he
had become arrogant through the Seventh, as if he had become stronger
26Editions, with sometimes pertinent commentaries, are available in Painchaud 1982;
Pearson (ed. 1996), 129199 (G. Riley).
27Painchaud 1982, 128130.
210 jacques van der vliet
than me and my brothers. But we are innocent with respect to him, as we
did not sin28 (NH VII, 2: 63, 417).
As in The true testimony, Solomon appears to be quoted here in the first
place as a prototypical representative not only of wrong religion, but of
the hold of the material world over the spiritual, a hold which came to
an end only with the coming of Christ. Yet the text offers more precise
criticism.
Solomon is blamed specifically for receiving the name of Son of Man,
even if at first sight this error seems to be imputed to his father David,
and pretending to be a Christ. Therefore, Solomon is not only deemed
a laughingstock because he was an instrument of the chief archon. He is
criticized in particular for his usurpation of messianic titles that were the
exclusive prerogative of the Savior, the Son of the highest ineffable God (as
is clearly apparent from other passages in the text, in particular 65, 1819).
In his arrogance he imitates the arrogance of the chief archon who claims
that I am God and none is greater than me (64, 1920). It has been sug-
gested that Solomons disputed claim to the messianic status hints at early
Jewish-Christian contests over the relative merits of Solomon and Jesus.29
Although these contests do not seem to be overtly voiced in the Gospels,
it has been argued that they are reflected in passages such as Matt 12:42 /
Luke 11:31 (More than Solomon is here [scil. Jesus]) and others that relate
to Jesus qualities as a miraculous healer.30 The subject of the Solomon-
Jesus rivalry, as reconstructed on the basis of these texts, may have been
the title Son of David. If this holds true, the Great Seth episode might
represent an echo of earlier polemics focused on the title Son of David,
but here pitched onto a Gnostic key. For the title Son of David, which
may have held little appeal for a Gnostic audience, the positively Chris-
tological terms Son of Man and Christ were substituted. This train of
reasoning presupposes that the author of Great Seth had access to sources
articulating a Solomon-Jesus rivalry that remains largely implicit in the
Gospels and is moreover very hypothetical (Solomon is nowhere called
Son of David in the canonical New Testament).
A more likely context for Great Seths condemnation of Solomons
Christological titles, and more precisely the substitution of the title Son
of Man for the (historically correct) title Son of David, is to be found
28Thus corrected; codex: I did not sin.
29Klutz 2005, 91.
30I am much indebted here to the chapter Solomon the son of David in Torijano
2002, 106128, who also quotes the relevant literature; cf. Hanig 1993, 127128.
solomon in egyptian gnosticism 211
in the rise and spread of the mainstream Christian typology that turned
Solomon into a precursor of Christ.31 Even if the qualification of Christ as
a true Solomon is usually connected with Athanasius, its roots can easily
be traced back to Origen.32 The Gnostic authors juggling with messianic
titles would then not be primarily about the historical or mythical Solo-
mon himself nor about hypothetical debates that may have taken place
in the life-time of Jesus, but about Solomon as an adumbration of Christ
as he was conceived by contemporary fellow Christians.
A Rapist
Similar criticism underlies the unflattering representation of Solomon in
the Apocalypse of Adam (NH V, 5).33 The Apocalypse of Adam presents
itself as a spoken testament left by Adam to his son Seth and recounts
from a Gnostic bias the adventures of the first human couple while at the
same time prophesying in an apocalyptic form the future salvation of the
Gnostics. Several students of the text have claimed its high antiquity, most
likely under the influence of its veiled and mystifying language.34 Clearly
dependent on the early-Christian Life of Adam and Eve in its opening parts,
it is, once again, a very polemical text. It offers a vicious caricature of the
Old Testament God and vehemently rejects baptism by water.
The apocalyptic portions (from 76, 8 onwards) describe the arrival of
the Illuminator, to be identified with Christ, whose power is superior to
that of the God of the powers, the God of the Old Testament. His arrival
creates confusion and error among the lower powers and their represen-
tatives, which in turn generate mistaken ideas about the identity of Christ.
The Apocalypse of Adam enumerates these erroneous views of Christ in
the form of thirteen divergent opinions about his origin. Each of these is
assigned to a different kingdom. The kingdoms are not merely or even
primarily conceived as historico-political units, as in other apocalyptic
literature from Daniel onwards, but rather correspond on a cosmological
level to the thirteen lower eons (often split up into twelve plus one) that
31As was already suggested by Hanig 1993, 131132, n. 106.
32For the earliest history of the Solomon-Christ typology, see the rich references in
Hanig 1993. Note that several other Christian authors, like Clement of Alexandria (Ecl.
proph. 53, 3) or Hippolyt (Comm. Song of Songs), but also later ones, for various reasons
opposed Solomon to Jesus.
33Editions are available in Parrott (ed. 1979), 151196 (G.W. MacRae); Morard 1985.
34See e.g. Parrott 1989, 68: a first century C.E. date would not be surprising; even pre-
Christian dates have been defended, most recently by Welburn 2008, 6183.
212 jacques van der vliet
are found in various other Gnostic writings. Thus, according to the Gospel
of the Egyptians, the saints (that is the true Gnostics) should renounce
the world and the god of the thirteen eons (NH III, 2: 63, 1718). The term
kingdoms or kingships (the Coptic word carries both meanings) used
to denounce these various erroneous opinions on Christ, not only gives
the passage an apocalyptic ring, suggesting a succession in time, but is
also expressive of an ontological distinction: the true Gnostics are called
the undominated race and not therefore subject to any form of king-
ship or kingdom (82, 1920).35
The passage about these kingdoms and their respective views of the
Illuminator is also remarkable on account of its formal features. Like the
passage on the Old Testament characters in Great Seth, it has a hymn-
like structure with thirteen stanzas each of which follows a more or less
identical pattern.36 Each stanza gives a different account of the miracu-
lous origin of an Illuminator, who is endowed with glory and power and
finally comes to the water. The latter statement is repeated at the end
of each of these thirteen stanzas.37 It is certainly not a reminiscence of
Ancient Egyptian creation myths, as was surmised by earlier scholars,38
but a reference to the rejected practice of baptism by water, a polemi-
cal theme also found in The true testimony, discussed above.39 In the
end, these thirteen accounts, each introduced as an opinion (the such-
and-such kingdom says...), are confronted with the opinion of the true
Gnostics (the undominated race says..., 82, 1921). Whereas the thirteen
earlier accounts state that the Illuminator came to the water, and in
one case supplies: in order that the lust of those powers (scil. the inferior
powers who rule the lower world) be satisfied, the Gnostics are praised,
since they have not been corrupted by their lust (for intercourse) with
the angels nor accomplished the works of the powers (83, 1519).40 The
work then ends with an overt anti-baptismal polemic, accusing three of
35See further Fallon 1979, 271288.
36The similarities with the Great Seth litany were already noted by Morard 1985, 103105.
37This phrase is frequently translated as comes upon the water, but the Coptic prep-
osition used here, when followed by a complement denoting the sea, a river, a well or
the like, normally means at, beside, on the shore of, which is the unmarked option here
as well.
38First by Parrott 1989.
39Thus already Sevrin 1986, 145181; cf. van der Vliet 1996, 362364.
40The terminology has heavy sexual overtones; baptism by water and sexual defile-
ment are similarly associated in The true testimony, discussed above.
solomon in egyptian gnosticism 213
the angels presiding over the Gnostic (spiritual) baptism to have defiled
the water of life (84, 1718).41
Solomon makes his appearance in the fourth stanza of the kingdoms
hymn:
[The fourth] kingdom says [about him, scil. the Illuminator] that he came
forth from a virgin [lacuna]. [N.N.] searched for her, he and Phersalo and
Sauel and his armies, which had been sent out. Also Solomon sent his army
of demons to seek out the virgin. And they did not find the one whom they
sought. Instead, they fetched the virgin who was given to them. Solomon
took her. The virgin became pregnant and gave birth to the child at that
place. She nourished him in a desert valley. When he had been nourished,
he received glory and power from the seed from which he had been begot-
ten, and thus he came to the water (NH V, 5: 78: 2779: 19).
Regrettably this passage is disfigured by a lacuna of almost a full line, yet
sufficient interesting features remain to be discussed.42
As in the preceding third stanza, the illuminator is born of a virgin
mother, an idea that is thus clearly rejected by the author of the Apoca-
lypse of Adam. Military operations are launched by a first person, whose
name is lost,43 and then by Phersalo and Sauel, in order to find this virgin.
It is unclear who Phersalo is, perhaps Achilles, as has been suggested,44 but
Sauel is most likely Saul (Saoul), the first king of the Israelites.45 Whereas
these commanded mortal soldiers, Solomon is in command of an army of
demons, on account of his well known association with the demons, also
exploited in The true testimony, discussed above. But even these are not
infallible since they turn up the wrong virgin. Solomon then makes her
pregnant; she bears a son, the Illuminator, and withdraws into the desert
with the young child. The military operation in search of the proper virgin
and the desert motif are reminiscent of Sauls hunt for David (1 Sam 19ss.)
or, perhaps more appropriately, Herods search for the young Jesus (Matt 2).
Withdrawal into the desert is a stereotypical reaction to persecution in an
apocalyptic context.46
41Discussed, in partial disagreement with Sevrin 1986, by van der Vliet 1996, 379382.
42For a radically different interpretation of the fourth kingdom passage, see Welburn
2008, 137159.
43This cannot have been Solomon, as was proposed by some editors and translators:
his name does not fit the traces in the lacuna (78, 30) and Solomon seems to be newly
introduced in 79, 34.
44He is called Pharsalos, perhaps after the well known city of Pharsalus in Thessaly, in
Euripides, Iphigenia in Aulis 812 (according to Morard 1985, 107).
45For other suggestions, see Morard 1985, 107.
46Cf. Apoc. 12 and Bousset 1895, 139143.
214 jacques van der vliet
As for the depiction of Solomon, it must remain a moot point whether
the fact that the fourth kingdom makes the Illuminator a son of Solomon
could reflect an opposition SolomonChrist similar to that in Great Seth,
discussed above. More likely, the author of the Apocalypse of Adam merely
wanted to stress that the Illuminator is not a descendant of Solomon (and
David), as is implied in the genealogy of Matt 1, butas the text has itis
chosen by God from all the eons (82:2122). In any case, two traditional
features can be observed in the authors portrayal of Solomon: his power
over the demons and his dubious dealings with women, which cause his
downfall and the loss of his authority over the demons according to the
final chapter of the Testament of Solomon and various other early Chris-
tian sources.47 His entire behavior, moreover, makes him a paragon of
error, if not outright evil: he has armies of demons, but they procure the
wrong virgin, his offspring is a pseudo-Christ only, and his actions evoke a
Herod-like persecutor. It is true that this unflattering portrait of Solomon
is attributed to the fourth kingdom, but its traditional features suggest
that it was meant to provoke recognition among the authors intended
audience. Solomon as the father, or forefather, of the Illuminator is an
unlikely character and this fact alone disqualifies the view of the fourth
kingdom as well as, perhaps more importantly, the genealogy of Matt 1.
Conclusions
The various Gnostic sources from Egypt discussed briefly above do not
present a uniform picture. In a first group of sources, which include the
writings of Zosimus, Solomon appears mainly as a bibliographical refer-
ence. He is the author of authoritative prophetic texts (the Odes of Solo-
mon) or demonological and magical treatises (the Book of Solomon, the
Book of the seven heavens, the Book of the seven vessels, and the unnamed
compositions to which Zosimus alludes). As an author, his inspiration
derives from the Godhead itself, through the luminous power of Jesus
(Pistis Sophia), Membres (who, in spite of the disturbing anachronism,
may be the famous Jambres) or his own wisdom, that is knowledge of
the demons (Zosimus). He is seen as a prophet and a sage, an expert in
subduing demons.
An altogether different picture emerges from a second group of three
texts. Here Solomons literary output is less important than his contested
47See Hanig 1993, 121; Busch 2006, 273278.
solomon in egyptian gnosticism 215
status as a historical or rather mythical figure of religious impact. It is
true that in two of these texts he is also represented as an expert in han-
dling demons, but rather than being a merit it makes him seem all the
more evil. Remarkably, even though all three texts share a polemical view
of Solomon that links him with the archontic rule of the world, each of
them differs in its scope. Accusing fellow Christians of succumbing to the
worship of idols and demons, The true testimony proposes an allegorical
interpretation of Solomon as a master of demons, in which he becomes a
symbol of the demiurge, the architect of a prison-like world ruled by the
Law and the stars. In the Second treatise of the great Seth, Solomon might
seem to be just one of the characters of a rejected Old Testament, here
again associated with the reign of cosmic evil. Yet the emphatic use of inap-
propriate Messianic titles (the Son of Man, Christ) suggests that here the
target of the author was more specifically the mainstream Christian view
of Solomon as an adumbration of Christ. Finally, the Testament of Adam,
which opposes various erroneous conceptions of the nature and origin of
Christ (the Illuminator), is again sharply critical of the Old Testament
and its conception of the divine. Yet it would seem that through the nega-
tive portrayal of Solomon mainly wrong ideas about the descendance of
Christ, perhaps in particular the genealogy of Matt 1, were attacked.
Even these three texts, therefore, which share a considerable number
of similarities, such as the rejection of the Law, the identification of the
Law and the rule of cosmic and astral evil, and the rejection of baptism
by water, are not uniform in their treatment of the figure of Solomon. This
is undoubtedly because, for each of the individual Gnostic authors, Solo-
mon was merely an emblematic figure, not someone in whom they were
much interested for himself. As an Old Testament figure, at once familiar
and vilified, his place in these texts reflects the paradoxical attitude of
many Gnostic authors towards the Old Testament itself. On the one hand
it provides a useful mythic paradigm, on the other hand it is declared
obsolete and at best the old leaven of the Pharisees and the scribes of
the Law. Such a double attitude could only have been born within a
Christian milieu, for even within mainstream Christianity the relationship
between the New Testament and the Old is bipolar and dialectic, rather
than monolithic and straightforward. What is more, in each of the three
polemical texts, the polemics are not aimed at Judaism or the religion of
Ancient Israel as such, but at fellow Christians and even fellow Gnostics.48
48Cf. Luttikhuizen 1997, 100101.
216 jacques van der vliet
This holds a fortiori for such inner-Christian discussions as are reflected in
the Second treatise of the great Seth and the Apocalypse of Adam. In each
case, the figure of Solomon is subordinated to the rhetorical and ritual
strategies by which radical Gnostic groups seek to negotiate their place
within the broader spectrum of late-antique Christianity.
Finally, the paradoxical attitude of our Gnostic authors towards the
Old Testament is also apparent in their sources. Both groups of texts, the
bibliographical and the polemical one, are predominantly drawing upon
non-biblical material. Solomon the king, as he is portrayed in the histori-
cal books of the Bible, is absent from the Gnostic texts, as is Solomon the
author of the canonical sapiential works. Instead, he is the author of the
Christian Odes of Solomon as well as a number of magical and demono-
logical works, and a master of demons himself. The source material for the
Gnostic picture of Solomon is much less the Bible itself than Christian or
Christianized apocryphal and magical literature, of which the Testament
of Solomon offers the best example.
Bibliography
Berthelot, M., La chimie au Moyen ge, vol. II: Lalchimie syriaque, Paris 1893.
Bousset, W., Der Antichrist in der berlieferung des Judentums, des Neuen Testaments und
der alten Kirche. Ein Beitrag zur Auslegung der Apocalypse, Gttingen 1895.
Busch, P., Das Testament Salomos. Die lteste christliche Dmonologie, kommentiert und in
deutscher Erstbersetzung (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristli-
chen Literatur 153), Berlin and New York 2006.
Fallon, F.T., 1979, The Gnostics: The Undominated Race, Novum Testamentum 21: 271288.
Festugire, A.-J., La rvlation dHerms Trismgiste, vol. I: Lastrologie et les sciences
occultes, Paris 19441, 19502.
Fowden, G., The Egyptian Hermes: A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind, Cam-
bridge 1986.
Giversen, S., Solomon und die Dmonen, in: M. Krause (ed.), Essays on the Nag Hammadi
Texts in Honour of Alexander Bhlig (Nag Hammadi Studies 3), 1621, Leiden 1972.
Gordon, R., Whats in a List?: Listing in Greek and Graeco-Roman Malign Magical Texts,
in: D.R. Jordan et al. (eds.), The World of Ancient Magic (Papers from the Norwegian
Institute at Athens 4), 239277, Bergen 1999.
Greenfield, R.P.H., Traditions of Belief in Late Byzantine Demonology, Amsterdam 1988.
Hanig, R., 1993, Christus als wahrer Salomo in der frhen Kirche, Zeitschrift fr die neu-
testamentliche Wissenschaft 84: 111134.
King, K.L., What is Gnosticism?, Cambridge MA and London 2003.
Klutz, T.E., Rewriting the Testament of Solomon. Tradition, Conflict and Identity in a Late
Antique Pseudepigraphon (Library of Second Temple Studies 53), London and New York
2005.
Koschorke, K., Die Polemik der Gnostiker gegen das kirchliche Christentum (Nag Hammadi
Studies 12), Leiden 1978.
Kropp, A., Magische Sprachverwendung in vulgrlateinischen Fluchtafeln (defixiones)
(ScriptOralia 135 [Reihe A, 39]), Tbingen 2008.
solomon in egyptian gnosticism 217
Lattke, M., Die Oden Salomos in ihrer Bedeutung fr Neues Testament und Gnosis. Bd. I
(Orbis biblicus et orientalis 25/1), Fribourg and Gttingen 1979.
, 19791982, The Gnostic Interpretation of the Odes of Solomon in the Pistis Sophia,
Bulletin de la Socite darchologie copte 24: 6984; repr. in: Die Oden Salomos in ihrer
Bedeutung fr Neues Testament und Gnosis. Bd. IV (Orbis biblicus et orientalis 25/4),
115, Freiburg and Gttingen 1998.
, Titel, berschriften und Unterschriften der sogenannten Oden und Psalmen Salo-
mos, in: H.G. Bethge et al. (eds.), For the Children Perfect Instruction: Studies in Honor
of Hans-Martin Schenke (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 54), 439447, Leiden
and Boston MA 2002.
Layton, B., ed. 1989, Nag Hammadi codex II, 27 (Nag Hammadi Studies 2021), Leiden.
, Prolegomena to the Study of Ancient Gnosticism, in: L.M. White and O.L. Yar-
brough (eds.), The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in honor of Wayne A. Meeks,
334350, Minneapolis MN 1995.
Luttikhuizen, G.P. The Thought Pattern of Gnostic Mythologizers and Their Use of Biblical
Traditions, in: J.D. Turner and A. McGuire (eds.), The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty
Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration (Nag Ham-
madi and Manichaean Studies 44), 89101, Leiden 1997.
Mah, A. and J.-P. Mah, Le Tmoignage vritable (NH IX, 3): Gnose et martyre (Biblio-
thque copte de Nag Hammadi. Textes 23), Qubec and Louvain 1996.
McCown, C.C., The Testament of Solomon (Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 9),
Leipzig 1922.
Mertens, M., Les alchimistes grecs, vol. IV, 1re partie: Zosime de Panopolis, Mmoires
authentiques (Collection Bud), Paris 1995.
, Alchemy, Hermetism and Gnosticism at Panopolis c. 300 a.d.: The Evidence of Zosi-
mus, in: A. Egberts, B.P. Muhs, J. van der Vliet (eds.), Perspectives on Panopolis: An Egyp-
tian Town from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest (Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava
31), 165175, Leiden 2002.
Morard, F., LApocalypse dAdam (NH V, 5) (Bibliothque copte de Nag Hammadi. Textes
15), Qubec 1985.
Painchaud, L., Le Deuxime trait du grand Seth (NH VII, 2) (Bibliothque copte de Nag
Hammadi. Textes 6), Qubec 1982.
Parrott, D.M., ed. 1979, Nag Hammadi codices V, 25 and VI with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502,
1 and 4 (Nag Hammadi Studies 11), Leiden.
, 1989, The 13 Kingdoms of the Apocalypse of Adam: Origin, Meaning and Signifi-
cance, Novum Testamentum 31: 6787.
Pearson, B.A., 1980, Gnostic Interpretation of the Old Testament in the Testimony of Truth
(NHC IX, 3), Harvard Theological Review 73: 311317.
, ed. 1981, Nag Hammadi codices IX and X (Nag Hammadi Studies 15), Leiden.
, Anti-Heretical Warnings in Codex IX from Nag Hammadi, in: Gnosticism, Judaism,
and Egyptian Christianity (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity), 183193, Minneapolis
MN 1990.
, ed. 1996, Nag Hammadi codex VII (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 30),
Leiden.
Pietersma, A., The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres the Magicians (Religions in the
Graeco-Roman World 119), Leiden 1994.
Reitzenstein, R., Poimandres: Studien zur griechisch-gyptischen und frhchristlichen Lite-
ratur, Leipzig 1904.
Schmidt, C., Pistis Sophia (Coptica II), Copenhagen 1925.
Schmidt, C. and V. MacDermot, Pistis Sophia (Nag Hammadi Studies 9), Leiden 1978.
Sevrin, J.-M., Le dossier baptismal sthien: tudes sur la sacramentaire gnostique (Biblio-
thque copte de Nag Hammadi. tudes 2), Qubec 1986.
Tardieu, M., Trois mythes gnostiques: Adam, ros et les animaux dgypte dans un crit de
Nag Hammadi (II, 5), Paris 1974.
218 jacques van der vliet
Tardieu, M. and J.-D. Dubois, Introduction la littrature gnostique, vol. I (Initiations au
christianisme ancien), Paris 1986.
Torijano, P.A., Solomon, the Esoteric King. From King to Magus, Development of a Tradition
(Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 73), Leiden 2002.
Van der Vliet, J., Limage du mal en gypte: Dmonologie et cosmogonie daprs les textes
gnostiques coptes, Ph.D.-diss. Leiden University 1996.
, The Coptic Gnostic Texts as Christian Apocryphal Literature, in: S. Emmel et al.
(eds.), gypten und Nubien in sptantiker und christlicher Zeit: Akten des 6. Internatio-
nalen Koptologenkongresses, Mnster (Sprachen und Kulturen des christlichen Orients
6), vol. 2: 553562, Wiesbaden 1999.
, Fate, Magic and Astrology in Pistis Sophia, Chaps 1521, in: A. Hilhorst and G.H. van
Kooten (eds.), The Wisdom of Egypt: Jewish, Early Christian, and Gnostic essays in honour
of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 59), 519536, Leiden
and Boston MA 2005.
Waldstein, M. and F. Wisse, The Apocryphon of John: Synopsis of Nag Hammadi Codices
II, 1, III, 1, and IV, 1 with BG 8502, 2 (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 33), Leiden
1995.
Welburn, A.J., From a Virgin Womb: The Apocalypse of Adam and the Virgin Birth (Biblical
Interpretation Series, 91), Leiden and Boston 2008.
Williams, M.A., Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category,
Princeton NJ 1996.
SOLOMON IN ETHIOPIAN TRADITION
Witold Witakowski and Ewa Balicka-Witakowska
The figure of Solomon (Eth. Slomon) plays an important role in the tradi-
tion of the Abyssinians, that is, those inhabitanits of Ethiopia who have
been bearers of the traditional political, cultural, as well as religious iden-
tity of the Ethiopian politeia. This means that the named tradition can
be traced among the Christian Ethiopians, the speakers of Ethio-Semitic
languages of what is today northwestern Ethiopia, mainly the Amharas
and the Tigreans (the latter living today in both Ethiopia and Eritrea). The
traditional literature of these peoples was written in Geez, known as the
Classical Ethiopic language, the Latin of Ethiopia, a language that ceased
to be spoken some time between the 7th and the 10th century c.e., but
which was used as the literary language through to the 19th century, and
serves as the liturgical language of the Ethiopian (and Eritrean) Orthodox
Church(es), to this day.
Ethiopia always maintained contact with the Mediterranean world in
the pre-Christian as well as Christian epochs, notwithstanding its politi-
cal isolation from that world following the Muslim conquests of Egypt
and Nubia. Particularly important were the contacts with Christian Egypt,
with which Ethiopia, for most of its history as a Christian country, had
ecclesiastical bonds being a province of the Coptic (Miaphysite) Patri-
archate of Alexandria.
Other bonds in the pre-Christian epochstill not sufficiently researched
were with Ancient Israel, as the Judaic elements in the official and non-
official religious life of Ethiopia testify. These elements stem from the
Judaic substrate that was established in the country when, before the
arrival of Christianity, Jews, not very numerous, migrated from Palestine
via South Arabia. Some scholars are unconvinced about the provenance
of these elements, and believe that they are due rather to the internal
religious-cultural development of Ethiopian Christianity leading to the
patterning of the religious life of both church and people on the Old Tes-
tament and traditions emanating from it.1 The authors of the present text
1The positions in this controversy were most clearly formulated by two scholars: Ullen-
dorff 1973, chapter 5, and Rodinson 1964.
220 witold witakowski and ewa balicka-witakowska
accept the first hypothesis,2 based on our improved understanding of the
early history of the Jewish presence and influence on the eastern side of
the Red Sea, roughly in what is today Yemen, where Jews lived from the
early centuries a.d., if not earlier, until the 1950s.
In fact, the role of Solomon in the imagination of Ethiopians can be
regarded as an indicator of the traces that Jewish influences left in the
country, notwithstanding the subsequent acceptance of Christianity.
The most important appearance Solomon makes in Ethiopic literature
is in the work that has acquired a role of the Ethiopian national epos,
The Glory of the Kings (Kbr ngt, ).3 Here Solomon
emerges as the protoplast of the dynasty that for seven centuries reigned
in Ethiopia, through his being the father of Menelik (Mnlik), the legend-
ary founder of the dynasty. The Glory has a complicated literary structure
and consists of several parts, but the most central of them is the narra-
tive that has its starting point in 1 Kgs 10:113 (paralleled by 2 Chr 9:112),
where the visit of the Queen of Sheba to Solomons court in Jerusalem is
narrated. In the epos, she is first called the Queen of the South, but later
her proper name, Makeda (Makdda), is introduced. Having heard from
Tamrin, a merchant, about King Solomons wisdom, she decided to meet
him and set out on a trip to Jerusalem. Once in the city, she had a series
of conversations with Solomon and eventually was invited by him to share
a meal and to stay overnight. She agreed only if Solomon would promise
not to touch her, to which he agreed, on condition that she would not
take anything that belonged to him. The king cunningly ordered a spicy
dinner and when Makeda got up in the night to drink water he seized her,
and, as a result, she fell pregnant. She returned to her country where she
gave birth to Solomons son, Menelik. When he grew up, she sent him to
Jerusalem to his father, who recognized him because of his resemblance
to his father, with additional proof provided by the ring he had with him
that his mother had received from Solomon. After some time, the king
sent his son back to Ethiopia, having given orders that the firstborn sons
of Judaean aristocracy (Menelik was Solomons first born, too) would join
him on his return trip to his country and stay there. Menelik and his reti-
nue, however, in an understanding reached with Azariah, the son of Arch-
priest Zadok, stole the Ark of the Covenant from the Jerusalem Temple
and in this way it reached Ethiopia. It is believed to be preserved to this
day in the Cathedral of Zion in the city of Aksum.
2For the opposite view, see Gamst 2007.
3The edition was provided by Bezold 1905.
solomon in ethiopian tradition 221
The Glory of the Kings was composed in the 13th century, but its sources
are certainly older. It is the work of one Isaac (Ysaq), archpriest (nbur
dthe one on whom the hand was imposed, a religious and civil chief
of Aksum), and was written between 1314 and 1322, during the reign of
Amd Seyon (Amd yon, 13131344). As if it were ordered by the king, it
was used for the glorification of his dynasty,4 and thus gave rise to a politi-
cal myth that the dynasty had ruled Ethiopia in ancient times, that is,
allegedly from the reign of Solomons son, Menelik, including the Aksum
epoch, but that usurpers had subsequently seized power. The usurp-
ers, the Zagwes, were of Agw (that is, Cushitic) origin and ruled Ethio-
pia for some 250 years. However, with the accession of Yekunno Amlak
(Ykunno Amlak) in 1270, the grandfather of Amd Seyon, the old legitim-
ite dynasty regained the throne. Thereafter, the dynasty ruled the country
until the revolution of 1974, when its last scion, Emperor Haile Sellassie
(ayl llase) was deposed and the monarchy abolished. However, over
the 700 years or so of the dynastys rule, the legend noted above became
part of the national tradition of Ethiopia, rooted deeply in the Ethiopians
consciousness. Indeed, it practically became official doctrine of the state,
to the extent that the Constitution of Ethiopia of 1955, art. 2, proclaimed
that: Imperial dignity shall remain perpetually attached to the line of
Haile Sellassie I, descendant of King Sahle Sellassie (ahl llase), whose
line descends without interruption from the dynasty of Menelik I, son of
Queen of Ethiopia, the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon of Jerusalem.5
The Queen of Shebas becoming the Queen of Ethiopia is the result of the
erroneous identification of the Queen of the South, under which name
the Queen of Sheba appears in the New Testament (Mt 12:42, Lk 11:31),
with Candace, queen of the Ethiopians (Acts 8:27). Candace or kandake
was the title of the queens of Meroe, but was taken in the New Testa-
ment as a proper name. The Greek term Aithiopia had a different meaning
in Antiquity from what it has today: it was indiscriminately applied to a
vast area south of Egypt, that included Nubia, what is today Ethiopia, and
sometimes even South Arabia and southwestern India. Nevertheless, the
Ethiopians came to understand the name found in Acts 8:27 as referring
specificly to their country.
4The possibility that it was initially composed for the benefit of the ruling local dynasty
of Enderta, a region in northern Ethiopia, south-eastern Tegray, and only subsequently
taken over by Amd Seyon (Marrassini 2007, 366), does not change the national function
of the epos.
5Ullendorff 1974, 105.
222 witold witakowski and ewa balicka-witakowska
The literary motif of the Queen of Sheba in the Glory was relatively well
known all over the Near East and the north-east African area.6 Several
legends connected with her, Jewish, Christian and Muslim, circulated, of
which at least the version provided by the Targum Sheni to Esther7 should
be named. Many details present in the Glory can be found in that version
(including the motif of seduction) but also in other texts, Jewish (Alpha-
beth of Ben Sira), and Muslim, including the Koran (sura 27, 1545).8 But
the main story in The Glory of the Kings, that Solomon and the Queen of
Sheba were the parents of Menelik, the first king of Ethiopia, is the inven-
tion of the Ethiopian author. Also, instead of presenting the Queen as
trying to hide the handicap (in the Targum her feet were reported to be
hairy) that Solomon tricked her into revealing, thus puting her in an awk-
ward position, here she is promoted to a person more equal to Solomon.
This move may have been prompted by the Ethiopic translation of the Old
Testament: in 1 Kgs 10:1, she is said to approach Solomon with wisdom,
instead of with riddles, as in the Septuagint, from which the Ethiopic
Bible translation was made. Consequently, it appears that she was treated
almost as equal in wisdom to Solomon who was widely known as the wise
king par excellence. Even Meneliks other name used in the Glory, Ibn al-
Hakim9the son of the Wise (in Arabic), testifies to that.
But the sheer fact that the legend such as the Glory of the Kings was
composed shows also the apparently unprecedented10 ambition by at
least some Ethiopians to draw the pedigree of the ruling dynasty back to
ancient Israel. In this way, nbur d Ysaq proved that Ethiopia was
the lawful successor and heir of Israel as the chosen people of God.11 This
was more than a propaganda pamphlet written to bring greater splendour
upon the new dynasty: drawing Ethiopias pedigree back to ancient Israel
reveals a wish to show the Ethiopians as a verus Israel (notwithstanding
the Christian connotation of the term), who were, moreover, the custodi-
ans of the true Ark.
The visit of the Queen of the South to Solomon also had religious con-
sequences: having learnt about Solomons god she abandoned her pagan
6Ullendorff 1968, 131145.
7Of uncertain date, estimated to be written between the 4th and 11th century.
8The sources of the Glory of the King were analysed by David Hubbard in his doctoral
thesis presented to St. Andrews Univeristy in 1956. The work remains unpublished.
9Garbled in Ethiopic to: Bayna-Lkm ( ), but at least one ms. has pre-
served the form which is closer to the Arabic: Ibna lakm ( ).
10Gamst 2007, 305, writes that this was not unusual among the Christians elsewhere.
He does not, however, provide any other example.
11Ullendorff 1974, 108.
solomon in ethiopian tradition 223
beliefs (in the sun, trees, idols, etc.) and converted to the faith of the God
of Israel (chapter 28). Furthermore, Menelik, when in Jerusalem, learned
the tenets of Israels religion before returning to Ethiopia. He was also
anointed the king of his country by Zadok, the Israelite priest (ch. 39).
Eventually, the people of Ethiopia also converted to the religion of Israel.
This can be seen as a fulfillment of Solomons dream in which he saw the
sun leaving Israel, but shining instead over Ethiopia (ch. 30).
There is yet another aspect of the relationship between Solomon and
the Queen of Ethiopia, which Edward Ullendorff drew attention to. In
some modern popular paintings (see below), copied in Ethiopia even
today, which depict the story of Solomon and Makeda, Solomon is repre-
sented in profile, the pose used to portray evil people, whereas the Queen
is always en face, that is, in the position reserved for positive figures.12 This
reversal of the ethical attributes of the two main figures of the story is the
more surprising as Solomon is otherwise treated as the wise man, and, in
the context of magic, the protector against demons.
Over time the Glory has become a repository of national and reli-
gious feelings, and is not only a literary work. In addition to providing
an impressive pedigree for the Solomonid dynasty, the royal manuscript
copy of the epos seems to have become a national palladium or a talis-
man, without which it was not possible to rule the country. This can be
seen in the famous letter that Emperor John IV (Yoanns) sent to Queen
Victoria. During the British invasion of Ethiopia in 186768, and the siege
of Mqdla, Emperor Tewodross fortress that was eventually captured,
the emperor committed suicide, whereas his library was confiscated.
Most of the collection was brought to Britain and deposited in the British
Museum. The new Ethiopian emperor John IV (187289), Tewodross suc-
cessor, found himself in a delicate position, since he was deprived of one
of the Ethiopian imperial attributes, the palladium of both the Solomonid
dynasty as well as of the state. Apparently its physical presence at the
court as an attribute of imperial power was so important that John wrote
a letter to Queen Victoria and the Earl of Granville, the British Foreign
Secretary, asking them to return the manuscript of Tewodros13 (already
entered into the British Museum acquisition list as Ms. Oriental 819).14
The Trustees of the museum complied and the manuscript was sent back
to Ethiopia in 1872.
12Ullendorff 1974, 111; Staude 1954.
13Ullendorff 1968, 7475.
14Wright 1877, 297, footnote.
224 witold witakowski and ewa balicka-witakowska
However, the Glory of the Kings is not the only Ethiopic composition in
which Solomon appears. In the other texts, his character depends very
much on his fame as a wise man or philosopher.
At the beginning of the 16th century (between 1510 and 1522) a collec-
tion of aphorisms found its way into Ethiopic literature after being trans-
lated from Arabic, but with roots, most probably, in Hellenistic gnomology.
It is entitled The Book of the Wise Philosophers (Maf flasfa biban;
).15 The collection contains sayings or aphorisms
of mostly Greek philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle (the original
part), but also of Biblical figures (including King David), Persian figures
(Chosroes), as well as the Church Fathers (the latter seem to be later addi-
tions, from the 19th/20th centuries).16 Consequently, it is no surprise that
sayings also attributed to Solomon can be found in the collection.17
The fame of Solomon as the wise man or wise philosopher, seems also
to be the source of the role he plays in Ethiopian magic. This is not an
Ethiopian invention but is yet another cultural phenomenon attesting to
the contacts with the eastern Mediterranean world. This role developed
on the basis of the biblical passage in 1 Kgs 4:30, according to which his
wisdom was greater than all the wisdom of Egypt. In the Hellenistic
epoch, Solomons fame as a major magician was established first among
the Jews, but over time also among other peoples. One account can be
found in the Jewish Antiquities by Josephus Flavius, in which he writes
that Solomon received from God the power of defeating demons in order
to heal people.18 He also composed charms that people could make use of
to expel the demons for good (JA 8.2; 5.4449).
We cannot trace here the ways by which Hellenistic magic reached
Ethiopia and, along with it, magical prayers attributed to or connected
with Solomon. An important role was certainly played by the Greek com-
position entitled the Testament of Solomon, although a thorough analysis
of the influences of the named text has not been provided so far. One
thing is, however, certain: Solomon has become an important figure in
Ethiopic magic.
Already in the Glory of the Kings, it is said that Solomon made the
demons serve him by his wisdom.19 It is, however, difficult to say how
15Cornill (ed. 1875); Sumner 1974.
16Pietruschka 2002 and 2005.
17Guidi 1932, 82.
18Rodinson 1992, 133.
19Ed. Bezold 1905, 18a, 9. Budges translation and he forced the devils to obey him by
his wisdom.
solomon in ethiopian tradition 225
old other magical texts that involve Solomon are, but there is no questions
about their popularity in Ethiopia.
Stefan Strelcyn in his study of Ethiopic magic20 provides a classification
of the magical texts and in his first group, which contains magico-religious
texts, there are several items attributed to Solomon.21 These may be fur-
ther divided into two groups, the so-called names (asmat, ) and
the prayers (lotat, ). Within the first group Strelcyn lists the fol-
lowing examples:
1. The names that God gave Solomon (to be placed) on the rings of his fingers
and of his hands, thanks to which the demons obey him (

);
2. By these names, Solomon saved himself from the hands of the smiths
( );
3. The names by which Solomon summoned the magicians, all the evil
demons and healers, made them take an oath and anathematized them
(
);
The asmt were usually written on scrolls and worn either around the
neck or waist. They contain names of maladies and/or the demons caus-
ing them, but also the names of divine figures based on words of Hebrew,
Greek and Arabic origin, or created in Ethiopia with elements borrowed
from these languages.22
An example of a magical prayer is:
4. The prayer against all the (evil) eyes and the eyes of all the evil people
that Solomon uttered (
).23
In addition to the magical names and prayers, there are also two larger
texts connected specifically with Solomon. These are The Net of Solomon
and The Mirror of Solomon.
The Net of Solomon ( ),24 is the short title of a text whose
title in full is: The Prayer concerning the net of Solomon that God gave him,
20Strelcyn 1960.
21Ibid., 150; cf. too Kaplan 2010.
22Chernetsov 2003, 381.
23Strelcyn 1960, 150.
24Euringer 1928 and 1929.
226 witold witakowski and ewa balicka-witakowska
(and) that he stretched (to catch) demons as a net for the fish of the sea
(
). As was the case with the magical texts men-
tioned above, it is also usually written on a scroll25 to be hung on a string
and worn about ones neck or waist. The Net consists of eight (in the ver-
sion published by Euringer) incantation units (lit. prayers) in which the
magical words uttered by Solomon break the power of demons and cure
the illnesses caused by them. The spells are framed by a story in which
Solomon is told to be captured by demons and brought to their king. The
king tells him of many evil actions by demons against various persons,
including priests, monks, widows and virgins, whereupon Solomon utters
the magical words and thus annihilates the power of the demons and
their king. However, according to Sevir Chernetsov, the framing story is
longer, but no single manuscript (scroll) contains the whole story.26 This
is because the set of charms is always adapted to the needs of the person
who orders them. Moreover, the magical texts are generally written not
to be read by the owners (who are very often illiterate), but only to be
worn by them.
A version of the other magical Solomonic text, The Mirror of Solomon
( ) was published by Sebastian Euringer,27 but a further
version was published (in facsimile), translated and studied by Oscar
Lfgren.28 The results of the latters research show that the Mirror is made
up of several (variabale ?) sections, each built according to the same pat-
tern. The sections most often begin with the formula: Solomon said to the
demon, whose name was... ( ...), where-
upon names of the various demons follow with a short characterization of
each of them. In the subsequent sections of the charm units Solomon asks
them how they harm, injure, make sick or kill men. The demons answer
the question, whereafter a therapeutic part is provided that is uttered
by Saint Victor (Eth. Fiqor, ). He names various substances, min-
eral or botanical (often unidentifiable), as well as special actions by the
patient (including sexual abstinence for a period) that are supposed to
help against the harm that the demon questioned by Solomon has just
25This is by far the most often met carrier of the text. On the other hand the so-called
dbtra, who function as educated copyists, have their own books (codexes), in which
various magical texts are put down, and from which they copy the text ordered by their
customers for their specific needs.
26Chernetsov 1974, 18.
27Euringer 1937.
28Lfgren 1972.
solomon in ethiopian tradition 227
described. Then follows the final part which is supposed to drive the
demon away from the patient. The words of expulsion in this part are
pronounced by yet another figure, Archangel Michael.
The Mirror can be written or copied as an ordinary text in manuscripts
(codexes), and can include several sections: the example published by
Lfgren has 25 sections. But, of course, there are items, such as the one
published by Euringer,29 that are single, having been copied on specific
instructions for a given patient, in accordance with his personal needs.
Euringers item (from Jerusalem, early 20th century) is written in circles in
concentric lines, starting from the centre and developed by copying each
successive line around the preceding line.
The text of the Mirror may be furnished with magical drawings.
There is yet another magical prayer connected with Solomon, that which
has its power by the virtue of King Solomons seal (
).30
Another magical device connected with Solomon is his ring. It is
referred to in a prayer against the evil eye of the demons barya and lege-
won, who can be deprived of their power by the virtue of the secret asmt/
words contained in Solomons ring; ...the prayer concerning the (evil)
eye of Barya and Legewon; and the ring of Solomon was between his fin-
gers...and its inscription reads aael (7 times)... (
31...
...).
This prayer is preserved, inter alia, in a 19th century scroll in the Well-
come Institute, London.
The magical square containing the name of Solomon should also be
named. It consist of 16 (4 4) small squares containing the letters in the
name of Solomon ( ), which, together with other nonsensical
words, make up a square of the Sator-Arepo type, the widely known Latin
palindrome.32
There is a living tradition in the country regarding the so-called car-
actres lunettes (glasses characters). These are the small looped char-
acters resembling glasses that are added to the end of each line. In fact,
the custom comes from the ancient Hermetists, but it spread into the
magic texts of all Near Eastern peoples and can be found in Hebrew,
29See above, n. 27.
30Strelcyn 1972, 40 (no. 31).
31For AcbOh.
32Lfgren 1962, 117.
228 witold witakowski and ewa balicka-witakowska
Coptic, Byzantine and Arabic magic texts, as well as in Ethiopic. In the
latter such letters are quite frequent, and are interpreted as the script for
the language of the demons that Solomon knew,33 or as their cries they
utter when they are summoned by Solomon.
The name Solomon (Eth. Slomon) itself serves as a magical word
(asmat), as in the case of a prayer against the evil eye to be repeated
seven times,34 or in a magical scroll translated by W.H. Worrell, which he
dated to the 17th18th century.35
It has to be mentioned, however, that Slomon is also the name of a
malicious demon, a zar.36
The oldest depictions of Solomon in Ethiopian art appear in the Psalters
dating to the mid- and to second half of the 15th century. The full-page
miniatures introduce the text of the Song of Songs, which in Ethiopian
Psalter manuscripts customarily follows the psalms. Two types of repre-
sentations were used for these frontispieces. On one, the king sitting on
the throne is accompanied by a courtier carrying the royal insigniaa
ceremonial whisk and an umbrella. Solomon either holds a sword (Paris,
Bibliothque nationale, dAbbadie 105, fol. 121v)37 or is drawing it from its
scabbard (Paris, private collection, fol. 129v)38an allusion to his famous
judgement (1 Kgs 3:26). The other type illustrates this event. In the Psalter
from the monastery of Dbr Wrq in Goam, the king holding a sceptre
sits on the throne, his feet resting on a cushion. In front of him stand two
women with a child between them, and below stand the people, who,
according to an inscription, are praising his wisdom39 (fig. 1). The min-
iature in the manuscript Gbr mamat (the Ritual for Passion Week)
fol. 210v, in the monastery of Mrawi Krstos, ire, also from the end of
the 15th century, connects both types. It shows Solomon pulling the sword
from its scabbard and assisted by an insignia bearer, while below him
stand two women holding a child and a soldier with an unsheathed sword
33Mercier 1997, 51.
34Griaule 1930, 1314.
35Worrell 1910, 84.
36Strelcyn 1955, 427b.
37Balicka-Witakowska 1983, 23 fig. 29.
38Balicka-Witakowska 198486, 24, fig. 5.
39The manuscript, badly damaged by dump and fire was never published; for some of
its miniatures cf. Mzgb SeelatTreasury of Ethiopian Images, http://ethiopia.deeds
.utoronto.ca username: student; password: student: EBW-0001.001.001-015 and EBW-001.
002.001014.
solomon in ethiopian tradition 229
Fig. 1.Judgement of Solomon; Psalter, Dbr Wrq monastery, folio unknown;
15th c. (courtesy of Paul Henze).
230 witold witakowski and ewa balicka-witakowska
ready to cut it in two.40 In most of these representations, the king has a
halo, which emphasizes his special position as an equal of the saints.
At the end of the 15th century and through the 16th century, when the
less popular narrative scenes gave way to long galleries of holy figures
grouped according to a different principle, Solomon is coupled with his
father David. They can be represented side by side, as for instance in the
Gospel Book from the monastery of Gund Gunde famous for its painting
workshop. The kings who appear in the larger group of prophets are dis-
tinguished by their common attributes: David holds the stringed bgna
instrument and Solomon a sceptre (fig. 2).41
Another variant shows the kings facing each otherthe iconographical
scheme suggesting that the persons are engaged in a conversation. This
mean of expression was used, for instance, on the painted liturgical fan
kept in the church of Dbr Slam, Tigre. The kings who belong here to
a mixed group of Old and New Testament figures are devoid of all royal
attributes. Decorated with haloes, like all other saints and each holding
a cross, they would not be distinguishable if it were not for their names
inscribed on the books they present.42
The dialogue scheme was also used for the 16th century wall painting
in the church of Ydbb Maryam.43 David and Solomon sit facing one
another, this time not on thrones or chairs but on the decorative seats.
David is playing the krar, another Ethiopian stringed instrument, while
Solomon holds a sword. The difference in generation between them is
marked in their hair: white for David, black for Solomon. Two schemati-
cally rendered buildings in the background remind viewers of the involve-
ment of the two kings in the construction of Jerusalems temple.
With the style of painting known as the First Gondarene School, which
flourished some hundred years after the mid-17th century, the figure
of Solomon was incorporated as part of the programme of wall paint-
ings designed to decorate the external walls of church sanctuaries. He
is included in a group of Israels kings depicted on the eastern wall. All
his royal attributesa crown, a sword in its scabbard, here covered by
his coat, an umbrella and a ceremonial whisk carried by two attendants
40Grierson 1993, nr. 89.
41Cf. similar representations also belonging to the same painting school in the Gos-
pels kept in the churches Tkl Haymanot Guya, Tmben and Maryam Sawn, Asbidra,
Mzgb Seelat (n. 39) MG-2002.051:011 and MG-2004.079:025.
42Balicka-Witakowska 2004, 28; Mzgb Seelat (n. 39): MG-2000.082:019-020 and
086:012013.
43Raunig 2005, 187f., fig. 152.
solomon in ethiopian tradition 231
Fig. 2.Solomon and David among the prophets; Gospels, Gund Gunde monas-
tery, fol. 4r; 15/16th c. (courtesy of Michael Gervers).
232 witold witakowski and ewa balicka-witakowska
flanking his throneare the same as for the other kings. Again, he can
be identified only by the name written above his depiction. Not many
examples of these paintings are still preserved, but at least two can be
mentioned: in the Dbr Sina church near Gorgora (fig. 3) and in Qoma
Fasilds church, South Gondr.44 This type of representation was limited
to the First Gondarene School and disappeared in the middle of the 18th
century when the programme of church decoration changed.
In the late 19th century, some churches decorated with murals added
some rarely depicted biblical stories to the standardized repertoire. In this
context, we find two episodes from Solomons life in the first ambulatory
of the Dbr Marqos church in Goam, both illustrating the event epito-
mizing the famous wisdom of the king. In the first (fig. 4A) Solomon is
making a generous burnt offering in the sanctuary in Gibeon, after which
God appears to him asking what he wants to be given. The young king asks
for an understanding mind and ability to discern good and evil (1 Kgs 3:9).
The second is a proof that Solomons wish was fulfilledthe scene of his
judgement (fig. 4B). Unlike the old, abbreviated and stylized pictures, this
one is rendered with great realism and narrative skills. The king, with a
sceptre in his hand, sits on an elevated throne placed at the top of a stair-
case, on each step of which a lion is lying. The kings servant holds a child
with its head down and has raised the sword to cut it in two in front of the
women who by their reactions reveal themselves. People gathered behind
the throne marvel at the kings judiciousness.45
Although the manuscripts of the Glory of the Kings were never illustrated,
at the beginning of the 20th century the story was given artistic expres-
sion and immediately became one of the most popular subjects in Ethio-
pian folk painting. The composition, which included numerous episodes,
arranged in a cartoon-like suite of scenes, was, customarily executed on
canvas or tanned skin using very bright, commercially produced colours.
This artefact was, and still is, manufactured in uncountable amount of cop-
ies, mostly destined for the tourist market.46 It is possible that the idea of
illustrating the story came from the French journalist and novelist Hugues
Le Roux, who in about 1900 commissioned a series of five pictures for the
book entitled Magda Queen of Sheba from the painter Mikael ngda Wrq.
44Mzgb Seelat (n. 39), SC-012:009:001; Wion 2001, 294.
45Despite that the picture is perfectly clear, the accompanying inscriptions both
describe the subject and almost verbatim quote the biblical passage with the womens
speeches.
46Balicka-Witakowska 2007, 679681.
solomon in ethiopian tradition 233
F
i
g
.

3
.

S
o
l
o
m
o
n

w
i
t
h

t
w
o

a
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
t
s
;

c
h
u
r
c
h

o
f

D

b
r

S
i
n
a

n
e
a
r

G
o
r
g
o
r
a
;

w
a
l
l

p
a
i
n
t
i
n
g
,

e
a
s
t
e
r
n

w
a
l
l
;

m
i
d
-
1
7
t
h

c
.


(
c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y

o
f

P
a
u
l

H
e
n
z
e
)
.
234 witold witakowski and ewa balicka-witakowska
F
i
g
.

4
A
.

S
o
l
o
m
o
n

o
f
f
r
i
n
g

i
n

G
i
b
e
o
n
;

D

b
r

M
a
r
q
o
s
,

w
a
l
l

p
a
i
n
t
i
n
g
,

f
i
r
s
t

a
m
b
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
;

1
9
t
h

c
.

(
c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y

o
f

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

G
e
r
v
e
r
s
)
.
solomon in ethiopian tradition 235
F
i
g
.

4
B
.

J
u
d
g
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

S
o
l
o
m
o
n
;

D

b
r

M
a
r
q
o
s
,

w
a
l
l

p
a
i
n
t
i
n
g
,

f
i
r
s
t

a
m
b
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
;

1
9
t
h

c
.

[
i
d
e
m
.
]
.
236 witold witakowski and ewa balicka-witakowska
The early examples depict only the main events contained in the text of
the Glory of the Kings: the circumstances of Makedas visit to Solomon,
their meeting and the queens departure to her fatherland. The further
development of the pictorial narrative went in two directions. First, the
illustration of a Tigrean folk tale of the hero killing a snake and identified
as Meneliks father was added at the beginning, creating a kind of intro-
duction. Later, this prolongued account received an epilogue based again
on the Glory of the Kings and depicting the story of Menelik, his birth, visit
to his father and return to Ethiopia with the Ark of the Covenant. From
this tripartite suite of pictures, the classical format of painting emerged,
with 44 scenes displayed in four rows, each depicting 11 episodes. The
scenes are separated from each other by the frames, which also provide a
background for a text in Amharic describing each event depicted.47
Besides the multipictorial representations of the legend, there are pic-
tures having a single scene as their subject. For instance, a piece belonging
to the American Museum of Natural History (acq. 19.1/6173) depicts Solo-
mon and Makeda banqueting, while another one in the Basel Museum
of Ethnology shows the arrival of Makeda before Solomon (nr. 12849),
and a painting in Londons Hornimans Museum (nr. 19.4.66/20) depicts
Makeda giving Solomon a golden chain.48
The magical texts connected with Solomon and written on magic scrolls
are often illustrated with the figure of the king and with the representa-
tions of the devices he was using for magical activities and for subduing
demons. The most common are the ring bearing the seal of God, Solo-
mons Knot and, more rarely, a labyrinth and a mirror.
As in the the religious representations in most of the magic scrolls, the
king appears clad in full royal attire and flanked by the attendantsthe
elements that emphasize his majesty49despite the fact that in this con-
text it is his abilities as a magician that are in demand. Sometimes, his
crown is ornamented with crosses in accordance with the conception that
Solomon was the antitype of Christ. The idea, which in Ethiopia was ini-
tially transferred by the Glory of the Kings,50 clearly emerges from a picture
belonging to a scroll in the Littmann collection (Berlin, Deutsche Staats-
47Cf. some examples in colour in: Fisseha and Raunig 1985, figs 1,2,8,9; Mzgb Seelat
(n. 39), MG-1995.003:016-026.
48Mzgb Seelat (n. 39), MG-1995.003:009.
49Cf. for instance the scrolls IES nr. 182, Mercier 1979, nr. 11; Mainz Universittsbibli-
othek, aeth. 38 and aeth. 38, Wagner 1967, 725 and figs. 7,8; Berliner Museums, Ms. 4066,
Jger 1966, fig. 16.
50Chapter 66, cf. above n. 3.
solomon in ethiopian tradition 237
bibliothek, Ms. Or. Oct. 4068). Solomon is represented twice, once as the
king of Israel wearing a horned crown and flanked by the vessels of the
Jerusalem temple, and the second timein horizontal mirror inversion
wearing the crown topped by a cross and flanked by two other crosses.
Two half-figures of the king are divided (or joined) by three faces, which
have been interpreted as two angels and one evil spirit.51 Two cephalic
snakes or dragons that enclose his bust are most probably a variant of a
picture, common in Ethiopian magic books and scrolls, representing the
Lamb of God bearing a cross and encircled by two serpents.52
In Ethiopian scrolls, Solomon may be represented in a conceptual way.
Strongly geometrical figures with rayed face and dominated by large eyes
on the scroll in Addis Ababa, IES nr. 293,53 are interpreted as representing
the king sitting on his throne. Crosses flanked by heraldic birds are visible
on his chest at the top of his head and in the upper part of the picture,
perhaps an allusion to a legend of Solomon, known, for instance, from
an Arabic version, which tells that the king mastered the language of the
birds.54 The similar picture in the scroll Paris, MAAO nr. 34 even includes
a demon bearing the throne of the king.55
Among Solomons legends that circulated in the East, one tells of the
labyrinth which the demons built for the king where he kept his harem.
An Ethiopian version of the story adds that Sirak the Wise entered it by
an underground passage and seduced one of the kings concubines.56 The
picture of the labyrinth appears in some Ethiopian scrolls understood as
a protected place where the owner of the talisman cannot be charmed by
evil spirits. Usually, at the top of these drawings, the king is represented
in half figure flanked by the courtiers, while below there is his labyrinth,
the entry to which is either guarded by lions or locked by a seal, as for
instance, in the scroll Paris, MAAO nr. 4.57
The magic texts containing asmat and lotat have as a background
the story of Solomon when he was captured by the blacksmith kings, but
was able to vanquish them by pronouncing the sacred names of God, the
topic which entered the Net of Solomon.58 In some magic pictures, the
51 The picture is labelled by the inscription: Slomon rs bin [sic!]Solomon wise
head; a reproduction in colour in: Mercier 1979, nr. 27.
52On this motif cf. Rodinson 1992, 131, fig. 83; Mercier 1997, 54 fig.
53Mercier 1979, nr. 11.
54Decourdemanche 1880, 83106; cf. also Wagner 1967, 725 and fig. 8.
55Rodinson 1992, 134, fig. 85.
56Mercier 1979, 29; Rodinson 1992, 135.
57Mercier 1997 (private collection); Mercier 1979, fig. 15 (Paris, MAAO nr. 4).
58Euringer 1928, 81f.
238 witold witakowski and ewa balicka-witakowska
tale is only alluded to by representing the king flanked by demonic eyes
(Paris, MAAO, nr. 12).59 In others, the story is depicted in details, as in
one bearing the inscription How Solomon killed the kings of the smiths
(Paris, MAAO, nr. 44).60 This shows the mounted king hurling spears at
the demons armed with swords, with two of them already hit. They are
rendered as human beings but with faces presented in profile.61
An oral tradition transmitted by Ethiopian clerics tells of how Solomon
drew portraits of the summoned demons and collected them in a book.
This was taken to Ethiopia by his son Menelik and used to depict demons
in a protective scroll. These portraits are considered to be as effective as
the spells because the bad spirits confronted by them felt exposed and
fled.62 It is believed that many pictures of demons that illustrate the
texts written in the scrolls originate from this source. The tradition has
a counterpart in the text of the Mirror of Solomon, where the names of
the demons uttered by Solomon function as the means to uncover their
personalities and evil deeds.
The magic sign called the Seal of Solomon and mentioned in the Tes-
tament of Solomon was well known in the Roman East and the Orient. An
Ethiopian legend tells that it was the seal of God engraved on a ring that
Solomon received from the Archangel Michael. This was the most power-
ful device in the kings possession for subduing demons and forcing them
to carry his throne, to help him in trading gold and building the labyrinth.
The picture of an eight-, six- or five-pointed star with a face in its centre
that appears in several Ethiopian scrolls is often understood as the Seal
of Solomon.63 Its variant, extremely popular, is known as the Knot of
Solomon and was also a device to catch demons. It was widely used as a
decorative motif but also as an apotropaic sign. Some Ethiopian magical
pictures show a demon already caught in a knot.64
Judging from the frequency of Solomons depictions in sacral art and in
the magic scrolls, it is clear that in Ethiopia the king was recognized first
as a magician and then as a biblical and holy figure.
59Mercier 1997, 48, fig. 40; Rodinson 1992, pl. 11.
60Mercier 1979, 38f; Rodinson 1992, pl. 7f.
61A common way to represent the negative persons and the bad spirits in order to
diminish the power of their gaze.
62Mercier 1997, 49f; 1979, 29; the depictions cf. nrs. 13, 14, 2426, and Rodinson 1992,
pls. 42, 4550, 143151.
63About this motif and its transformation cf. Wagner 1967, 725f; Mercier 1975, 143146.
64Mercier, 1979 nr. 45 and nr. 35; Paris, MAAO nr. 5; Rodinson 1992, pl. 18.
solomon in ethiopian tradition 239
Bibliography
* Abbreviations:
IES: Addis Ababa, Institute of Ethiopian Studies.
MAAO: Paris, Muse National dArt dAfrique et dOceanie.
Balicka-Witakowska, E., Le psautier thiopien illustr de Belen Sgd, in: Imagines Medi-
evales (Ars Suetica 7), 146, Uppsala 1983.
, 198486, Un psautier thiopien illustr inconnu, Orientalia Suecana 3335: 1748.
, 2004, The Liturgical Fan and Its Ethiopian Examples, Rocznik Orientalistyczny 57/2:
1946.
, Makdda in art, in: S. Uhlig (ed.), Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, 3: 679681, Wiesbaden
2007.
Bezold, C., Kebra Nagast: Die Herrlichkeit der Knige...mit deutscher bersetzung (Abhand-
lungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 23), Mnchen 1905.
English: The Queen of Sheba and Her Only Son Menelik, E.A.W. Budge (trans.), London 1922.
Polish (partial), Kebra Nagast czyli Chwala krlw Abisynii, S. Strelcyn (trans.), War-
szawa 1962.
French: La gloire des rois (Kebra nagast): pope nationale de lthiopie, G. Colin (trans.),
Genve 2002.
Norwegian: Kebra Nagast, Rolf Furuli (trans.) (Verdens hellige skrifter), Oslo 2007.
Chernetsov, S.B., fiyopskiye magicheskiye svitki: opt filologo-tnograficheskogo issledo-
vaniya, Avtoreferat dissertatsii na soiskaniye uchenoy stepeni kandidata istoricheskikh
nauk, Leningrad 1974.
, Asmat, in: S. Uhlig (ed.), Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, 1: 381, Wiesbaden 2003.
Cornill, C.H. (ed.), Das Buch der weisen Philosophen nach dem Aethiopischen untersucht,
Leipzig 1875.
Decourdemanche, J.A., 1880, Salomon et les oiseaux: Lgende populaire turque, Revue de
lHistoire des Religions, 2: 83106.
Euringer, S. (ed. & trans.), 1928, Das Netz Salomons: Ein thiopischer Zaubertext, nach
der Hs. im ethnographischen Museum in Mnchen, Zeitschrift fr Semitistik und ver-
wandte Gebiete 6: 76100; 178199, 300314; 7 (1929) 6885.
French in: Enseignement de Jsus-Christ ses disciples et prires magiques, R. Basset
(trans.) (Les apocryphes thiopiens traduits en franais 7), 2630, Paris 1896.
(ed. & trans.), 1937, Der Spiegel Salomons: Ein abessinisches Amulett, Zeitschrift der
Deutschen morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 91: 162174.
Fisseha, G. and W. Raunig (eds.), Mensch und Geschichte in thiopiens Volksmalerei, Inns-
bruck 1985.
Gamst, F.C., Judaism, in: S. Uhlig (ed.), Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, 3: 303308, Wiesbaden
2007.
Griaule, M. (ed.), Le livre de recettes dun dabtara abyssin (Travaux et mmoires de lInstitut
dethnologie 12), Paris 1930.
Grierson, R. (ed.), African Zion: the Sacred Art of Ethiopia, New Haven CT and London 1993.
Guidi, I., [Breve] Storia della letteratura etiopica (Pubblicazioni dellIstituto per lOriente),
Roma 1932.
Jger, O., 1966, thiopische Zauberrollen und ihre Bilder, Baessler Archiv, neue Folge 14:
139180.
Kaplan, St., Solomon, in: S. Uhlig (ed.), Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, 4: 687688, Wiesbaden
2010.
Lfgren, O., 1962, thiopische Wandamulette, Orientalia Suecana 11: 109116.
, Der Spiegel des Salomo: Ein thiopischer Zaubertext, in: Ex orbe religionum: Studia
Geo Widengren...oblata, I, 208223, Lugduni Batavorum 1972.
Marrassini, P., Kbr ngt, in: S. Uhlig (ed.), Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, 3: 366, Wies-
baden 2007.
240 witold witakowski and ewa balicka-witakowska
Mercier, J., 1975, Les peintures des rouleaux protecteurs thiopiens, Journal of Ethiopian
Studies 13: 107146.
, Rouleaux magiques thiopiens, Paris 1979.
, Art that Heals: The Image as Medicine in Ethiopia, New York 1997.
Pietruschka, U., 2002, Das Maf flasfa biban und sein Verhltnis zu griechischen
und arabischen Gnomensammlungen, Aethiopica 5: 139155.
, Flasfa biban: Maf flasfa biban, in: S. Uhlig (ed.), Encyclopaedia Aethiopica,
2: 485486, Wiesbaden 2005.
Raunig, W. (ed.), LArt en thiopie, Milano 2005.
Rodinson, M., 1964, roulaux of Ullendorff, Ethiopia, Bibliotheca Orientalis 21: 238245.
, Comment un roi isralite est devenu un magicien universel, in: Le roi Salomon et les
matres du regard: Art et mdecine en thiopie, [catalogue of the exhibition] Muse national
des arts dAfrique et dOcanie, 20 octobre 199225 janvier 1993, 132135, Paris 1992.
Staude, W., 1954, Die Profilregel in der christlichen Malerei thiopiens und die Furcht vor
dem Bsen Blick, Archiv fr Vlkerkunde 9: 116161.
Strelcyn, S., Prires magiques thiopiennes pour dlier les charmes (Mfte ry), War-
szawa 1955 (= Rocznik Orientalistyczny 19).
, La magie thiopienne, in: Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi Etiopici (Roma
24 aprile 1959) (Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei: Problemi attuali di scienza e di cul-
tura, Quaderno 48), 147165, Roma 1960.
, 1972, Catalogue of Ethiopian Manuscripts of the Wellcome Institute of the History
of Medicine in London, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. University
of London 35: 2754.
Sumner, Cl., Ethiopian Philosophy, 1: The Book of the Wise Philosophers, Addis Ababa 1974.
Ullendorff, E., Ethiopia and the Bible (The Schweich Lectures, 1967), Oxford 1968.
, Ethiopia: An Introduction to Country and People, Oxford 1973.
, The Queen of Sheba in Ethiopian Tradition, in: J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Solomon and
Sheba, 104114, London 1974.
Wagner, E., Die Illustrationen der thiopischen Zauberrollen der Sammlung Littmann, in:
Der Orient in der Forschung: Festschrift fr Otto Spies, 706732, Wiesbaden 1967.
Wion, A., 2001, Un nouvel ensemble de peintures murales du premier style gondarien: Le
monastre de Qoma Fasilds, Annales dthiopie 17: 279308.
Worrell, W.H., 1910, Studien zum abessinischen Zauberwesen, Zeitschrift fr Assyriologie
24: 5986.
Wright, W., Catalogue of the Ethiopic Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the
Year 1847, London 1877.
THE IKHWN A-AF ON KING-PROPHET SOLOMON
Jules Janssens
The Ikhwn a-af, the Brethren of Purity, are famous for their ency-
clopaedic work, entitled Rasil, Epistles. However, many mysteries have
always surrounded and continue to surround their specific identity and
their place of origin. Nevertheless, there are serious indications that their
main activity has to been situated at the end of the tenth century or, at the
latest, in the first half of the eleventh. Among these are two contemporary
sources that provide us the names of some of their members.1 These names
all point in the direction of Basra, Iraq, which therefore constituted their
likely place of origin, or, at least, their mean activity centre. Furthermore,
although the Brethren nowhere reveal which Muslim creed they adhere
to, Yves Marquet, one of the twentieth centurys leading scholars on the
Brethren, offers good arguments in favour of identifying it with Ismailism.
Although the Ismailis formed a minor group of the Shia, at that time they
were very active and somewhat influential.2 Anyhow, the Brethren were
clearly not narrow-minded, and did not hesitate to take information from
a wide range of sources, whether Islamic or not. In Epistle 45, On the man-
ner of social interrelations between the Brethren of Purity, they explicitly
mention four kinds of sources of their knowledge:
1.philosophical books (on mathematics and natural sciences)
2.revealed books (Torah, Gospel, Quran)
3. the books of nature (on the forms of the figures of all existing things,
celestial or terrestrial)
4. the divine books (on the soul and its purification) (R IV:42,743,8).3
It is striking that they distinguish between theoretical (12) and practical
(34) knowledge, and that within this division they make a further distinc-
tion between natural (1 and 3) and supernatural (2 and 4). However this
does not correspond to the actual division of their encyclopaedia into:
1Baffioni 2005, 450.
2Marquet 1985, 5779.
3References are to the edition of Bustn 1957, repr. 1983 (using the abbreviation R
followed by the numbers of volume, page and lines).
242 jules janssens
a mathematics (14 chapters, including applied mathematics, but also the
division of the sciences, morals, and logic)
b. corporeal-natural investigations (17 chapters, including the usual natu-
ral sciences, but also on Man as microcosm, on human knowledge, on
death and life, and on the origin of the difference of languages)
c. psychological-intellectual investigations (10 chapters, on such different
issues as rational entities; the world as macranthropos; love; resurrec-
tion; motion, and definition)
d. (natural) divine laws and the revealed Law (nmsiyyat ilhiyyat wa-l-
shariat; 11 chapters on diverse beliefs, including considerations on the
kinds of spiritual states and on magical phenomena).
This quick survey shows that the encyclopaedia covered a wide variety of
themes, yet structurally lacked rigorous logical coherence. In this respect,
it comes as little surprise that the Brethren evoke in different contexts
the Biblical-Koranic figure of Solomon. As we will see in what follows,
they offer a picture, several aspects of which exceed the strict data of the
Biblical and/or Koranic stories.
To begin, certainly not surprising, at least from an Islamic point of view,
is the fact that the Brethren, in epistle 42, On opinions and beliefs, present
Solomon both as a king and a prophet: Know that God has assembled in
prophet Muhammad both the characteristics of kingship and prophecy as
He had united them (already before) in David and Solomon, as well as in
the veridical Joseph (R III: 496, 13). One easily detects that this affirma-
tion has a direct source in the Qurans references to Solomon (Sulaiman),
e.g., twice in lists enumerating different prophets, i.e., Q. 4,163 and Q. 6,84
(to which one might add Q. 21,7882, the larger context being the suras
title The prophets), and in Q. 27,34, where he is presented as a king
(the context being the story concerning the queen of Sheba).4 However,
the Brethren do not limit themselves to simply reaffirming the Koranic
characterisation; rather, they use it in order to defend the authenticity
of Muhammad as a prophet. Since this question [i.e. whether someone
can be at once king and prophet] is problematic for the Jews and the
Christians, they opposed and doubted Muhammads prophecy after they
4Regarding David and his prophecy, see the same references; as to his kingdom, see
e.g. 38,2021. Regarding Joseph, his name is present in the list of prophets of Q. 6,84. He
is not properly called a king, but is assigned a high function at court (see Q. 12,4101, esp.
verses 5457). Note however that verse 100 makes mention of raising his (i.e., of Joseph)
parents on the throne (my italics).
the ikhwn a-af

on king-prophet solomon 243

had seen that both kingdom and prophecy belonged to him. At that time
God revealed the story of David and Solomon in order to compel the Jews
and the Christians (to admit this possibility), since the latter were (both)
convinced of the formers prophecy. God had already united in both of
them kingship and prophecy, while their kingship did not infringe upon
their prophecy. One has to judge Muhammad in the same way; indeed, his
kingship does not infringe upon his prophecy (R III: 496,1822). Accord-
ing to the Quran, Muhammad was, besides a prophet, certainly also a
political leader, but this latter is never expressed in terms of kingship.
A possible efficient cause, so to speak, of such an idea may have been
a part of the Brethrens target audience, namely, the Jews and Christians
of the day. The question, then, is whether these groups could have held
the view that Solomon was a prophet. Certainly, one may detect in early
Christian circles a tendency to consider some major figures of the First
Testament as prophets, including Solomon. In this respect, one might refer
to Augustine, De civitate Dei, l. X,: prophetasse etiam ipse (= Solomon)
reperitur in suis libris, qui tres recepti sunt in auctoritatem canonicam:
Proverbia, Ecclesiastes, et Canticum canticorum.5 However, the very fact
of being able to prophesy does not yet make someone a prophet in the
full sense of the term. Yet, other early Christian authors, such as Lactance,
Theophilus of Antiochia, and Clement of Alexandria, clearly qualify Solo-
mon as a prophet.6 As for the Jews, both Chronicles and Kings have cre-
ated a picture of Solomon as a Messenger of God, hence as a prophet. So,
the idea that Solomon is both king and prophet can have really circulated
in Jewish and Christian circles at the time of the Brethren.7
Nevertheless, Solomon is strikingly raised by the Brethren to a very
high and exceptional status, namely as prefiguring in a unique way one
of Muhammads most specific characteristics, i.e., the full combination of
state and spiritual power. Certainly, he is not the only figure in salvific
history to do so: the Brethren, as indicated above, affirm expressis ver-
bis that David and Joseph also combined these powers. Hence, Solomon
clearly belongs to a very small group of exceptionally blessed prophets.
Consider: even major prophets as Moses and Jesus were not granted such
a quality.
5Ed. Dombard 1955, 586.
6For more specific details, see in the present volume the contribution of Tobias Nick-
las, which helpfully clarifies this particular issue.
7It would be worthwhile to do a systematic research in this respect, but this clearly
exceeds the limits of the present essay.
244 jules janssens
Also not surprising, this time from a Biblical point of view, is Solomons
characterisation in epistle 19, On the origination of minerals, as a builder
(R II: 128,24129,1). Of course, Solomons role in the construction of the
Temple of Jerusalem is particularly emphasized in the Bible (see e.g.,
1 Kgs 57), whereas the Quran never mentions this (although it might
allude to it in Q. 34,13, when it links Solomons name with the construction
ofotherwise unspecifiedsanctuaries). However, the Brethren do not
refer to the Temple as such, but to the masjid liy, the Mosque of Jeru-
salem. This seems to stand in line with the Muslim conception accord-
ing to which the Temple was considered a Muslim sanctuary. Significant
here is, of course, Muhammads original orientation of prayer towards
Jerusalem (Q. 2,142), but, above all, of importance here is his nocturnal
trip, the mirj, from the Mosque of Mecca to that of Jerusalem, called
masjid al-Aq (Q. 17,1). However, the Brethren do not use this Koranic
expression, but instead make mention of the Mosque of Jerusalem. This
gives the impression that they had in mind the at that time already exist-
ing Dome of the Rock.8 Moreover, the Brethren insist that the very build-
ing was not the work of Solomons own hands, but was ultimately based
on his will and order (R II: 129,34). This remark might have its ultimate
inspiration in 1 Kgs 5:13, where it is said that Solomon had engaged 30,000
workers. It is worthwhile to note that in the present context, the Brethren
do not mention any supernatural help in the construction of the Temple,
as in the Testimony of Truth (Nag Hammadi, 69,3170,24), although they
elsewhere affirm, as we immediately will see, that Solomon charged the
jinn, i.e., a kind of spirits between men and angels, with heavy works.
In Q. 34,12, it is affirmed: and there were jinn that worked in front of
him [i.e., Solomon] by the leave of his Lord. Elsewhere, i.e., in Q. 21,82 and
37,37, it is mentioned that some of the demons (shayn) did different
works for Solomon, hence were subservient to him. This means that God
granted Solomon power over the jinn, an idea already present in Targum
Sheni, where it is said: the Lord has given me power over...demons and
spirits.9 The same idea is also present in Ginza: Er (Solomon) baut den
Ort Jerusalem, und die Dmonen und Dews unterwerfen sich ihm.10 This
8I wish to thank the participants in the discussion of the conference to have drawn
my attention to this fact.
9Grossfeld 1991, 115.
10Ginza, right part, German transl. Lidzbarski 1925, 46, l. 1415; see already Speyer
1931, repr. 1961, 387. One should note that the ultimate origin of the conception of Solo-
mons power over demons may lie in the Bible itself, i.e., in Psalm 72:9, see Srki 2004, 308
and 314.
the ikhwn a-af

on king-prophet solomon 245

dominion over the jinn and the demons is fully valorised by the Brethren
in epistle 22, On how the animals and their genres are formed, better known
as the Dispute between animals and men (in fact, a part of it): When the
time of Solomon, son of David, had arrived, and God had fortified his king-
dom, and had subjected to him the jinn and the demons, and Solomon
reigned over all the kingdoms of the world, the jinn vaunted that this has
happened thanks to their helping Solomon (R II: 231,1113). As in Targum
Sheni, Ginza and the Quran, the extraordinary kingly power of Solomon
extends over different kinds of spirits, i.e., both jinn and demons. It is
worth noting that power over the jinn seems to have already been attrib-
uted to Solomon in pre-Islamic times, e.g. among poets like al-Ash or
al-Nbigha, although it is difficult to ascertain whether they really are the
authors of the verses ascribed to them, since most of the time they are
only attested in later sources, as e.g. al-Bukhtr (d. 897).11 Whatever be
the case, one cannot doubt that the belief in jinn predates the Islamic
revelation, since Q. 37,158 unambiguously states that the ancient pagan
Arabians (referred to by they) had established a kinship between God
and the jinn.
The exaggerated pride of the jinn, i.e. their pretension to know the Hid-
den, gets special attention from the Brethren. The expos continues: The
jinn said: Had Solomon not received (any) help of the jinn, his power
(or: status, ukm) would have been that of every king of the children of
Adam. The jinn let the human beings believe that they new the Hidden
(or: Unseen) (R II: 231,1315). When Solomon died, it became obvious
that their claim was unfounded, because they did not realize he had died.
Had they realized that Solomon was no longer alive, they certainly would
not have continued performing the humiliating tasks with which Solo-
mon had charged them: When Solomon died, the jinn, while undergoing
a humiliating punishment, did not perceive his death. Hence it became
clear that, if they (really) had possessed knowledge of the Hidden, they
would not have persisted in their humiliating punishment (ibid., 1517).
In all this one easily recognizes a direct influence of Q. 34,14, where it is
explicitly stated that they would not have continued their despised toil
if they had truly known the Unseen. But the Quran specifies that the
jinn only realized Solomons death when a worm had gnawed the staff on
which he was leaning. This motif reminds one of the worm Shamira
11This is a most delicate issue on which there is much diversity of opinion. However,
we have not to deal specifically with it, since the verses expressing a strong belief in the
jinn, whether they are pre-Islamic or not, anyhow predate the Epistles of the Brethren.
246 jules janssens
stone-cutting worm, the existence of which Solomon had been taught by
the prince of demons, Ashmedaiin the Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 68a.12
As far as I can see, the Brethren do not mention this story, or even hint at
it, but they probably imagined that their Muslim readers were so familiar
with it that there was no need for any explicit reference.
That the jinn had not voluntary submitted themselves to Solomon is
developed in what can be qualified as a shortened and somewhat modi-
fied version of the story of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, in Q. 27,
2244. The Koranic version shows many similaritiesdespite obvious
differenceswith the version in the Targum Sheni.13 As to the Brethren,
they formulate story thus:
When the Hoopoe brought the message of Biqls [i.e., the Queen of Sheba],
Solomon spoke to the assembly of jinn and men: Who brings me (her)
throne? (Q. 27,36). The jinn boasted and an Ifrt [a leading jinn], i.e., Iar
ibn Myn, said: I will bring it to you before you rise from thy Council
(Q. 27,39), i.e., the Court of Wisdom. Solomon replied: I want it quicker
than that. Said the one who had in him knowledge of the Book (al-Kitb),
i.e., af ibn Barkhiy: I bring it to you within the twinkling of an eye
(Q. 27,40). When Solomon saw the throne, he, having examined it, pros-
trated while worshipping God. The superiority of men over the jinn had
been shown. The court was ended, and the jinn went away, being ashamed
and bowing their heads. The mob of men had been heavenly shaken in
(accepting) the influence of the jinn or (following) their trace. They dis-
sociated themselves from the jinn, while enjoying their misfortunes (R II:
231,17232,4).
Compared with the version present in both the Quran and the Targum
Sheni, the story has been sensibly reduced. It has been restricted to a spe-
cial request of Solomon, i.e., the bringing of the throne of the Queen of
Sheba. This request has no other purpose than to prove the superiority of
men over the jinn. The underlying spirit of this notion is unquestionably
Islamic, for according to the Quran, the angels, although higher in rank
than men, have to prostate before Adam (see e.g., Q. 20,116). Note, how-
ever, that in both the Koranic and Targumic versions this notion plays no
discernible role whatsoever. It is possible that the Brethrens variant of
the story resulted from, or, at least, was inspired by still other versions,
12This reference is already in Geiger 1833, repr. Leipzig 1902, 185.
13Grossfeld 1991, 114117. Also this fact has already been noticed by Geiger 1833, repr.
1902, 183184.
the ikhwn a-af

on king-prophet solomon 247

e.g., those present in earlier Arabic literature or in Ethiopian-Christian
sources.14
Just as some of the Angels (more precisely, Ibls and his followers) did
not obey Gods order to prostrate before Adam, some of the jinn did not
submit to Solomon, and hence to men. Even after Man had clearly shown
his superiority, they demurred: When had happened what I have told, a
group of jinn ran away from Solomon. Some of them rebelled against him.
Hence, Solomon sent (soldiers) of his army in search of them. He taught
them how to catch the jinn by spell, incantations, formulae, revealed
verses (yt), or how to capture them by magical circles. He wrote a book
on this that was found in his treasury after his death. Solomon busied the
despots of the jinn with heavy works till they died (R II: 232,510). Solo-
mon is not only presented here as the one who possessed power over the
jinn, as already known, but also as a dispenser of special magical knowl-
edge-based weapons. Note that they definitely belong to white magic, not
to black magic; it is wizardry and not sorcery. Surprisingly, even revealed
verses are included among these weapons. This suggests that Solomon
was not just a minor prophet, but instead, having received his own revela-
tions, he belonged to a special rank very near, yet perhaps still beneath,
that of the major prophets.
By the way, as far as the attribution of magical powers to Solomon goes,
this is certainly not new with the Brethren. Already in the Septuagint one
finds a tendency to overemphasize Solomons magical-medical knowledge,
probably related to the affirmation of his all-encompassing wisdom in
1 Kgs 4:13. In a similar vain, Wisdom of Solomon 7:20, asserts that Solomon
knew the powers of the spirits and the varieties of magical-medical roots
and plants.15 Very significant is also the view of Flavius Josephus: God
enabled Solomon to learn that skill which expels demons, which is a sci-
ence useful and sanative to men. He composed such incantations also by
which distempers are alleviated; And he left behind him the very manners
of exorcisms.16 Finally, a similar idea comes to the fore in the Testament
14The story of the Queen of Sheba has been recorded in Arabic literature by Wahb b.
Munabbih al-Yamn (d. 732) in his history of the Himyar Kings (Kitb al-Tjn f mulk
imiyr, conserved in the version of Ibn Hishm, d. 833). Unfortunately I had no access to
this work. Norris has qualified it as a mine of Arabian fable, legend and garbled chroni-
cles, but, above all, as showing the powerful influence of Rabbinical Syriac and Persian
lore in both poetry and prose; see Norris 1983, 385. As to the possibility of Ethiopian-
Christian influences, see Speyer 1931, repr. 1961, 396, note 1.
15Klutz 2005, 7778.
16[Flavius] Josephus, Complete Works, transl. Whiston 1867; repr. 1960, Antiquities VIII,
2, 5, p. 173.
248 jules janssens
of Solomon 6.5 and 12.4, where Ephippas is described as a destructive
wind-demon that had recently wreaked havoc in Arabia and could only
be captured with the help of Solomons ring and a leather flask.17 All this
makes clear that a wizard-like Solomon very much existed in both Jewish
and Christian circles during the Common Eras early centuries, and more-
over that this magic was conceived as something positive, e.g., allowing
to effectuate exorcisms.18 However, the Brethren seem to have expanded
in a significant way the scope of these magical powers.
The Brethren moreover specify that Solomon has written a book on
the magical art. This wasto put it mildlya not very common idea in
contemporary Jewish or Christian circles. Only in Zosimus of Panopolis, a
Greek alchemist and Gnostic mystic who lived during the end of the third
and beginning of the fourth centuries, one finds a clear image of Solo-
mon as a composer of books.19 Incidentally, it cannot be excluded that
the Brethren had access to Zosimus qualification of Solomon as a writer,
since some fragments of his works have been preserved in Arabic.20 What-
ever the case, the Brethren might have been inspired by the Quran itself,
more precisely by the enigmatic and most debated verse Q. 2,102, which
begins as follows: And they followed that which the satans have recited
concerning the reign of Solomon. Solomon did not reject faith; rather the
satans rejected faith. They taught people magic and that which was sent
down to the angels in Babylon, Harut and Marut.
It may be noted that various interpretations of this difficult verse circu-
lated already at the time of the Brethren. According to al-abar (d. 923),
one of the most famous and earliest exegetes of the Quran, light might be
cast on these lines if we propose the existence of a magic book authored
by the devils at the time of Solomons death. In order to mislead peo-
ple, the satans wrote on its cover: Here is what af ibn Barkhiy the
prophet has written for King Solomon, and placed a seal upon it that
cleverly resembled the royal seal of Solomon. The book was then bur-
ied under Solomons throne until the Jews later discovered ithence the
subsequent claim that Solomon was a magician. al-abar explicitly bases
this version of events upon a tradition related by Ibn Isq. (d. 767), one
of the earliest collectors of traditions and who lived in Medina. However,
17 I owe this information to Klutz 2005, 100.
18Regarding Solomons power of exorcising, see Srki 2004, 314317.
19See Festugire 1981, I, 367368. I took this reference from Jacques van der Vliets
essay (see pp. 197218 in this volume).
20El-Khadem 1996.
the ikhwn a-af

on king-prophet solomon 249

al-abar offers still another version of events, which is also based upon a
tradition that is linked to Ibn Isq. According to this version, Solomon,
after having been stricken of his kingship by God and after the mass apos-
tasy of men and jinn, gathered the books of magic he had collected dur-
ing this period and buried them under his throne. Satan later unearthed
them, whereupon people claimed the books were actually revelations sent
down by God and hence were scriptures.21 Thus already in early Islamic
traditions, one finds serious indications for the belief in the existence of a
magical book, or books, written for or revealed to Solomon.
As already observed above, in the Brethrens view Solomon was the
author of the book. However, later in the same epistle they also stress
that Solomons work was not original in content, but rather constituted a
translated compilation of existing (parts of) works from foreign cultures.
Leaving no room for doubt about the non-original character of its content,
they write: Where from possess the children of Israel the knowledge of
artefact and magic, of incantations, of the manufacturing of talismans,
and of the uttering of divinations, if Solomon had not taken them from
the treasures of the kings of other nations, after he had vanquished them,
and if he had not translated them into the language of the Hebrews and
transferred them to the region of (great-)Syria, given that his kingdom was
in the land of Palestine? (R II, 288, 136).22 This recalls the second version
of al-abar. However, the Brethren might have also been influenced by
Hermetic texts in which Solomon appears to have been the disciple of he
Egyptian theurgist Mambris.23
Again, Solomon is presented as a translator. It just so happens that
in the thirty-first epistle, entitled On the reasons for the difference of lan-
guages, forms of letters, and verbal expressions, this characteristic is partic-
ularly stressed: Each sage among the sages, or each king among the kings,
when he wants to translate (or transfer) knowledge or wisdom, belief or
religion from one language to another, or from one nation to another, is
able to do this with (the aid) of divine grace, which causes in him produc-
tion and happiness. In such a way it becomes possible what for example
Solomon has done. After God had given him kingship and provided him
with power and strength, (look) how he translated into the language of
the Hebrews all the sources and wisdom of all the tongues, as soon as he
21 al-abar 1954, II, 407408, summarized in Ayoub 1984, 129.
22For the notion of (Great-)Syria, see Bosworth 1997.
23Walker [-Fenton] 1997, refers to G.R.S. Mead, Thrice-Greatest Hermes: Studies in Hel-
lenistic Theosophy and Gnosis (York Beach, Maine: 1992 [1906]), IV, 283).
250 jules janssens
had subjugated the kings (or rulers) and subjected the governors (of he
lands where these tongues were spoken) (R III: 150,1015). Besides being
yet another expression of Solomons extraordinary wisdom, as far as
I can see, this idea of divinely-empowered translation is absolutely origi-
nal with the Brethren. Note that in the present quotation no mention is
made of magic. However, white magic was in all likelihood considered by
the Brethren as being part of genuine wisdom.
Another salient sign of Solomons wisdom is his ability to understand
the language of birds, and other animals, and to be able to communi-
cate with them. In full accordance with Q. 27, 16, it is stated, once again
in the Epistle on the Animals (R II: 327,20) that God had taught Solomon
the language of the birds. Most significant in this respect is the story of
the hoopoe, mentioned in Q. 27, 2225, and repeated by the Brethren in
a larger context where the former is presented to the king of the birds,
Simurgh, by the peacock: Certainly, the spying hoopoe, the companion
(or: friend) of the prophet (nab) Solomon, is that being there, standing
still, (having) s sublimely coloured dress, (but) a stinking smell. It has put
a burnoose on his head; it picks up (a grain) as if it bows down (in wor-
ship) and makes a raka [i.e., ritual prostration]. It is the one who com-
mand the allowed and proscribes the forbidden. It is the one who spoke
in a speech to Solomon: I have compassed (territory) which thou hast not
compassed, and I have come to thee from Sab with tidings true. I found
there a woman ruling over them and provided with every requisite; and
she had a magnificent throne. I found her and her people worshipping the
sun besides God. Satan had made their deeds seen pleasing in their eyes,
and has kept them away from the Pathso that they receive no guidance
(and) so that they worship not God, Who brings to light what is hidden in
the heavens and the earth, and knows what ye hide and what ye proclaim
(R II, 249,13250,4). This story, as already indicated earlier, was inspired by
the Targum Sheni.24 Hence, the idea that Solomon was able to talk with
birds, as attested here and also in such texts as the Midrash on the Song
of Solomon I.9, or the Syrian Apocalypse of Baruch 77.25.25
But the Brethren, once again in accordance with the Quran, expand
this capacity to other animals as well, more specifically to the ants. Once
again in the debate between human beings and animals, one finds the
following story in an expos on the different behaviours of the animals:
24See supra, p. 244. In Grossfelds English translation the bird is called the wild rooster.
I do not know whether the term could correspond to the Arabic hudhud.
25For the details of these references, see Speyer 1931, repr. 1961, 384.
the ikhwn a-af

on king-prophet solomon 251

Other animals repel the inconvenient and the harmful by securing, or
more precisely by hiding themselves in pits and holes, as for example
mice and ants do. As God has said: (One of the ants said: Oh ye ants), get
into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot)
without knowing it (Q. 27,18). When Solomon heard this, he ordered the
ant to be brought to him. After having entered, the ant said: Peace on
you, oh prophet, I got in a situation in which I (must) guard against him
[i.e., Solomon]. Solomon was surprised by (these) words. After he put the
ant upon the palm of his hand, he asked her: Why do you say: lest Solo-
mon and his hosts crush you? Are you not aware that I am not the vilest
person and do you not accept that my army do (not) act unjustly? Hence,
if you would have heard such kind of thing, inform me. Why do you say:
I have got in a situation in which I (must) guard against him? Do you not
know that I am not oppressive of, nor unjust to, Gods creatures; hence,
why do you say this? The ant answered: God forbid that I have in view
with these directives what you understand. On the contrary! I meant that
God has given you a kingdom in such a way that none of the others has
in comparison with yours the same beauty, justice or equity. For this rea-
son, I have called (the other ants) not to leave their houses and not to be
preoccupied by (the activity of) inspecting, in order that remembrance of
God would not cease within them. This was the meaning I had in mind
with this directive (R II: 270,1224). Although there does exist a clear
link with Q. 27,1819, the overall story is quite different insofar as in the
Quran Solomon is amused by the words of the ant and is moved by them
to ask from God an attitude of gratitude and of righteousness. There is
also no direct link with the story of the ants as present in Hulln, 57b in
connexion with Simon b. Halaft, since that is quite different from that of
the Brethren.26 The Brethren, on the contrary, emphasize that it may be
better to retire from the world than to be worried by political or daily life
problems, even if one has to do with a just ruler, as Solomon certainly is.
This is the deeper wisdom implied in the ants words. In his context, Solo-
mon is evidently not presented as the incarnation of extreme wisdom, but
rather as the penultimate righteous prophet-king. In this sense, he might
represent the highest possible perfection achievable on the exoteric level.
At the same time, the deeper truth seems to lie on the esoteric mystical
26According to Speyer 1931, repr. 1961, 401402, this story would have influenced the
Koranic version, but this is far from obvious. Only a new critical comparison can show the
existence, or non-existence, of a link between the two.
252 jules janssens
level, which ultimately implies a seclusion from worldly affairs. If so, then
he Brethren are undoubtedly expressing their own ideal way of life.
A final characterisation of Solomon by the Brethren is that of a pious
man who is always grateful to God, even if he is aware that the latter
has tested him. This notion appears in Epistle 42, On opinions and beliefs,
central to which is a Koranic verse (Q. 27,40), taken from the story of the
Queen of Sheba, but without its original Koranic context. In fact, the con-
textualisation is significantly different, insofar as the Brethren omit any
reference to the Queen of Sheba. Rather they present Solomon, amidst
David and Muhammad, as an example of a pious man: God has reminded
(us) in the story of David that he was ever turning (Q. 38,17), gentle; and
in the story of Solomon: This is by divine grace of my Lord to test me
whether I am grateful or ungrateful (Q. 27,40). Similarly, the Prophet
(Muhammad) was forsaking this world, (but) desiring the Hereafter
(R 42, III: 497,1617). In the Koranic story, Solomons remarks comes after
he sees the throne of the Queen of Sab, as promised by the one who
knew the Book. The Koranic story stresses that gratitude towards God
or the lack thereof is only beneficial or harmful for human beings and
does not really affect God, Who is self-sufficient. Such an idea is com-
pletely absent in the formulation of the Brethren, who instead stress that
the attitude of gratitude implies a fundamental other-worldly direction.
This is clear from the qualification brought forth with respect to David
and Muhammad. In other words, Solomon is absolutely not preoccupied
with the things of this world. In this case, he seems to express the highest
possible perfection achievable on the esoteric level.
To conclude, clearly the Brethren have elaborated a very rich picture
of Solomon, the king-prophet, who disposes of magical powers and reigns
over spirits; who speaks the language of the birds and translates books
into Hebrew; who is righteous and other-worldly oriented,in other
words, possesses a high degree of perfection on both the exoteric and eso-
teric levels. The overall picture remains Islamic, as is best illustrated in
the idea that the spirits have to submit themselves to Man. Moreover, the
Quran is quoted regularly. Nevertheless, the Brethren take some freedoms
in interpreting the text, inter alia by de-contextualising some verses and/
or by offering most unusual interpretations. Finally, they present some
ideas absent in the Quran. In these incidents, they might have used non-
Islamic sources, which, as argued above, was likely not a serious problem
for them. However, only an in-depth detailed analysis of each incident
in itself can prove that there was indeed real influence from non-Islamic
the ikhwn a-af

on king-prophet solomon 253

sources. Thus, it is hoped that the present paper can provide a useful start-
ing point for such research.
Bibliography
Augustinus, De civitate Dei IX, ed. B. Dombard (Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina 47),
Turnhout 1955.
Ayoub, M.M., The Qurn and Its Interpreters, Albany NY 1984.
Baffioni, C., Gli Iwn al-af e la lora enciclopedia, in: Cr. dAncona (ed.), Storia della
filosofia nellIslam medievale, I (Piccola Biblioteca Einaudi 285), 449489, Torino 2005.
Bosworth, C.E., 1997, art. al-Shm, Encyclopaedia of Islam IX2: 269270.
Bustn, B., Ras il Ikhwn a-af wa-Khulln al-Waf, 4 volumes, Beirut 1957, repr.
Beirut 1983.
Festugire, A.-J., La rvlation dHerms Trismgiste (Collection dtudes anciennes. Srie
grecque), Paris 1981.
Geiger, A., Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen?, Bonn 1833, repr.
Leipzig 1902.
Grossfeld, B., trans. 1991, The Two Targums of Esther (Aramaic Bible 17), Edinburgh.
[Flavius] Josephus, Complete Works, transl. W. Whiston, Edinburgh 1867, repr. Grand Rap-
ids 1960.
El-Khadem, H.S., 1996, A Translation of a Zosimos Text in an Arabic Alchemy Book, Jour-
nal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 843: 168178.
Klutz, T.E., Rewriting the Testament of Solomon: Tradition, Conflict and Identity in a Late
Antique Pseudepigraphon (Library of Second Temple Studies 53), London 2005.
Lidzbarski, M., trans. 1925, Ginza: der Schatz oder das grosse Buch der Mander (Quellen
der Religionsgeschichte. Gruppe 4. Band 13), Gttingen and Leipzig.
Marquet, Y., 1985, Les ptres des Ikhwn a-af, Studia Islamica 62: 5779.
Norris, H.T., Fabels and Legends in Pre-Islamic and Early Islamic Times, in: A.F.L. Beeston,
et al. (eds.), Arabic Literature to the End of the Ummayyad Period (The Cambridge His-
tory of Arabic Literature), 374386, Cambridge 1983.
Srki, P., 2004, Salomo und die Dmonen, Studia Orientalia 99: 305322.
Speyer, H., Die biblischen Erzhlungen im Qurn, Grfenhainichen 1931, repr. Hildesheim
1961.
al-abar, Ab Jafar, Jamial-bayn an tawl, anonymous edition, Cairo 1954.
Walker, J. [-P. Fenton], 1997, art. Sulaymn b. Dwd, Encyclopaedia of Islam IX2: 857
858.
INDEX OF NAMES
Abadie, Ph.102103
Aberbach, M.135, 136, 142
Ab Assf, A.79, 81
Ahlstrm, G.W.15, 41
alAmri, Y.A.S.67, 79
Alt, A.11, 41
Arellano, I.114, 125
Attridge, H.W.101, 103
Auld, A.G.8, 41
Avigad, N.59, 79
Ayoub, M.M.249, 253
Bacqu-Grammont, J.-L.6, 87, 103
Baehrens, W.A.208
Baffioni, C.241, 253
Baldi, D.194
Balicka-Witakowska, E.5, 219240
Barnes, W.E.27, 41
Barr, D.L.123
Barrett, C.K.145148, 150, 162
Basset, R.239
Battifol, P.176, 181
Bauckham, R.125
Baumgartner, W.54, 55
Beeston, A.F.L.253
Begg, C.T.85, 86, 90101, 103, 104
Ben-Noun, Liubov9, 41
Benzinger, I.12, 13, 19, 32, 34, 42
Berthelot, M.206, 216
Bethge, H.-G.182, 217
Betz, H.D.115, 123
Betz, O.86, 92, 104
Bezold, C.220, 224, 239
Bilde, P.103, 104
Blenkinsopp, J.53, 55
Blum, E.81
Bogaert, P.-M.94, 104
Bohak, G.107, 108, 113, 123
Bonwetsch, G.N.171, 181
Borger, R.22, 41
Bos, A.P.197
Bosworth, C.E.249, 253
Bousset, W.213, 216
Bovon, F.182
Boyarin, D.141, 142
Braun, R.102, 104, 150
Bremmer, J.N.124, 195
Breytenbach, C.182
Briend, J.98, 104
Bright, J.17, 42
Brox, N.173, 181
Brueggemann, W.6, 87, 91, 94, 99, 102,
104
Bruston, C.181
Budge, E.A.W.224, 239
Burnett, C.123
Burnside, J.36, 42
Busch, P.4, 183195, 197, 205, 206, 214,
216
Bustn, B.241, 253
Butler, E.M.122, 123
Caldern de la Barca, P.114, 123
Cantrell, D.O.61, 79
Carter, W.156158, 162
Cassuto, U.25, 42
Castaeda, J.A.114, 124
Cepregi, I.123
Charlesworth, J.H.109, 124, 154, 162, 167,
174, 175, 181, 182, 195
Chernetsov, S.B.225, 226, 239
Cogan, M.10, 13, 29, 32, 42
Cohen, C.56
Colin, G.239
Collins, J.J.144, 162
Conrad, E.W.181
Cooke, G.22, 23, 42
Cornill, C.H.224, 239
Cox, C.106
Curtis, E.L.28, 42
dAncona, Cr.253
Dante Alighieri84, 113, 123
Davies, P.R.45, 55
Davies, W.D.148, 162
Davila, J.R.125
Decourdemanche, J.A.239
Deines, R.86, 93, 104
de Jong, J.L.197, 208
Delatte, A.121123
den Hertog, C.G.80
de Vaux, R.12, 19, 25, 42
Dever, W.G.46
DeVries, S.J.8, 10, 32, 42
Diethard Rmheld, K.F.104
Dietrich, W.7, 15, 42, 47, 50, 55
256 index of names
Dirksen, P.B.28, 36, 37, 42
Dodds, E.R.123
Dlger, F.185, 194
Drrfuss, E.M.37, 42
Dombard, B.243, 253
Doutreleau, L.208
Drijvers, H.J.W.168, 169, 175, 181
Dubois, J.-D.199, 218
Duling, D.C.86, 104, 109, 111, 112, 124, 154,
162, 183, 186, 188, 190, 195
DuncanFlowers, M.J.116, 124
Durand, J.-M.6, 87, 103
Duval, R.206
Edelman, D.144, 162
Egberts, A.217
Ehrlich, A.B.1719, 42
Elder, L.B.123
Elliott, J.K.112, 124
Embry, B.161, 162
Emerton, J.A.56, 169, 181
Emmel, S.182, 218
Euringer, S.225, 226, 237, 239
Evans, C.A.105, 181
Faber van der Meulen, H.E.88, 104
Fallon, F.T.212, 216
Feldman, L.H.85, 8789, 93, 95, 96,
99101, 104, 105, 106, 125, 146, 162
Fernndez Gonzlez, A.R.114, 125
Fernndez, N.114, 123
Festugire, A.-J.203, 216, 248, 253
Finkelstein, I.4548, 50, 55, 61, 79
Fisseha, G.236, 239
Fitzmyer, J.A.144, 145, 148, 162
Foakes Jackson, F.J.92, 105
Frster, N.86, 93, 105
Fowden, G.203, 216
Franzmann, M.166, 176, 178181
Frey, J.106
Furuli, R.239
Galling, K.28, 42
Gamst, F.C.220, 222, 239
Garca Martnez, F.111, 124, 151, 162
Gehman, H.S.8, 10, 15, 16, 32, 33, 43
Geiger, A.246, 253
Goltrain, P.182
Gerrers, M.231, 234
Ginzberg, L.128, 142
Giversen, S.86, 105, 197, 204, 216
Goethe, J.W.114, 124
Goguel, M.168, 181
Gollanz, H.117, 122, 124
Gordon, C.H.116, 124
Gordon, R.202, 216
Grabbe, L.45, 46, 55
Gray, J.14, 16, 3134, 42
Greenfield, R.P.H.117, 124, 205, 216
Gressmann, H.10, 42, 168, 181
Griaule, M.228, 239
Grierson, R.230, 239
Grillmeier, A.173, 181
Grossfeld, B.244, 246, 250, 253
Guidi, I.224, 239
Gundry, R.H.155, 163
Hagner, D.A.157, 161, 163
Handy, L.K.106
Hanig, R.170, 171, 177, 181, 197, 205, 210,
211, 214, 216
Harl, M.179, 181
Harnack, A. von191, 195
Harris, J.R.168, 176, 181, 201
Hartenstein, F.70, 79
Hata, G.104, 106, 125
Hauptmann, A.67
Heil, C.155
Heim, R.116, 124
Helderman, J.179, 182
Henze, P.229, 233
Herzberg, H.53, 55
Hilhorst, A.218
Hffken, P.102, 105
Hoffman, Y.42
Hogeterp, A.L.A.4, 143163
Holm-Nielsen, S.166, 182
Hubbard, D.222
Ibn Hishm247
Ibn Isq248, 249
Ishida, T.7, 9, 1215, 18, 35, 42
Jackson, K.P.43
Jacobson, H.109, 124
Jger, O.239
Jamieson-Drake, D.W.49, 55
Janssens, J.5, 241253
Japhet, S.39, 42
Johnston, S.I.114, 124, 183, 195
Jokiranta, J.56
Jonquire, T.M.101, 105
Jordan, D.R.216
Kalimi, I.1, 7, 8, 12, 15, 2130, 35, 4042
Kalms, J.U.105
Kamlah, J.50, 55
Kaplan, St.225, 239
index of names 257
Kaufmann, Y.17, 18, 43
Keel, O.48, 5355
Keller, G.62
El-Khadem, H.S.248, 253
King, K.L.182, 197, 216
Kittel, R.12, 28, 43
Klein, R.W.28, 43
Klostermann, A.10, 11, 13, 14, 30, 43
Klutz, T.E.109, 124, 183, 195, 197, 210, 216,
247, 248, 253
Koehler, L.54, 55
Koschorke, K.204, 216
Koulagna, J.8689, 9194, 97, 98, 100, 101,
102, 105
Kraus, T.J.182
Krause, M.105, 216
Kropp, A.202, 216
Kunz-Lbcke, A.54, 55
Lange, A.104
Langer, G.3, 127142
Laqueur, R.103, 105
Lattke, M.165170, 174176, 178, 179, 182,
199, 201, 217
Layton, B.197, 201, 217
Lemche, N.P.45, 55
Le Roux, H.232
Lewis, J.P.124
Lewy, H.12, 43
Lichtenberger, H.104
Lichtert, C.6, 87, 98, 103106
Lidzbarski, M.244, 253
Lips, H. von173, 182
Loeffler, W.183
Lfgren, O.226, 227, 239
Luckenbill, D.D.22, 43
Luttikhuizen, G.P.197, 215, 217
Lux, R.6
Luzzatto, A.128, 142
MacDermot, V.199, 217
MacRae, G.W.211
Madsen, A.A.28, 42
Maguire, H.P.116, 124
Mah, A. and J.-P.204, 205, 207, 208, 217
Maier, S.98, 105
Malamat, A.98, 105
Malbon, E.S.123
Mann, T.114, 124
Marcovich, M.172, 173, 177, 182
Marcus, R.26, 27, 44, 146, 163
Marlowe, P.113, 114
Margalioth, M.118, 124
Marquet, Y.241, 253
Marrassini, P.221, 239
Marrou, H.-I.179, 181
Marsman, H.J.19, 43
Mason, S.89
McCormick, C.M.62, 79
McCown, C.C.183, 189, 190, 195, 203, 217
McGuire, A.217
Mead, G.R.S.249
Mendels, D.95, 105
Mercier, J.228, 236238, 240
Mertens, M.199, 203, 206, 217
Mettinger, T.N.D.19, 43
Metzger, J.A.157, 163
Meyer, H.61, 79
Michel, S.188, 195
Mingana, A.176, 181
Mira de Amescua, A.114, 124
Moehring, H.R.92, 105
Monat, P.171, 182
Montgomery, J.A.8, 10, 15, 16, 32, 33, 43
Morard, F.211, 212, 217
Morgan, M.A.119, 124
Morn, C.114, 125
Mosis, R.37, 43
Muhs, B.P.197, 217
Mulder, M.I.10, 32, 34, 43
Myers, J.M.30, 43
Naveh, J.113, 115, 116, 124
Newing, E.G.181
Nicklas, T.4, 165182, 243
Niemann, H.M.50, 55
Nissinen, M.56
Nocquet, D.87, 103106
Nolland, J.160, 161, 163
Norris, H.T.247, 253
North, C.R.29, 43
Noth, M.8, 9, 11, 18, 36, 43
Oswald, W.15, 43
Ovadiah, A.104
Painchaud, L.209, 217
Pakkala, J.56
Parker, K.I.101, 105
Parpola, S.12, 44
Parrott, D.M.211, 212, 217
Paul, S.M.21, 23, 43
Paulsen, H.182
Pearson, B.A.204, 205, 209, 217
Perdrizet, P.116, 124
Person, R.F. Jr.8, 43
Peterson, E.117, 124
Pierre, M.-J.176, 182
258 index of names
Pietersma, A.203, 217
Pietruschka, U.224, 240
Pike, D.M.23, 43
Porten, B.86, 105
Porter, S.E.181
Poulssen, N.29, 43
Practico, G.59, 79
Preisendanz, K.87, 105, 115, 124, 186, 195
Pritchard, J.B.13, 44, 106, 240
Qimron, E.158, 163
Rajak, T.103, 105
Raulwing, P.61, 79
Raunig, W.230, 236, 240
Reitzenstein, R.205, 217
Renz, J.48, 55, 59, 80
Riley, G.209
Robinson, J.M.17, 44, 155
Rocca, S.100, 105
Rodgers, Z.105
Rodinson, M.219, 224, 237238, 240
Rllig, W.48, 55, 59, 80
Rmer, Th.86, 87, 105
Rof, A.7, 43
Rost, L.7
Rudnig, T.A.7, 43, 52, 53, 56
Rudolph, W.36, 37, 43
Russell, J.116, 117, 124
Srki, P.1, 2, 38, 43, 4556, 244, 248, 253
Sarowy, W.85, 105
Schenker, A.86, 106
Schletterer, I.182
Schmidt, C.199, 200, 201, 217
Schreckenberg, H.100, 101, 103, 106
Schreiber, S.174, 182
Schubert, K.106
Schssler Fiorenza, E.104
Schwartz, M.116, 124
Sermonti, V.113, 123
Sevrin, J.-M.212, 213, 217
Shaked, S.115, 116, 123, 124
Shimoff, S.R.88, 106
Siegert, F.105
Silberman, L.H.92, 106
Silberman, N.A.4548, 50, 55
Sims-Williams, N.125
Skinner, A.C.43
Smend, R.47
Smith, M.86, 106, 110, 125
Sorlin, I.116, 125
Sperber, A.19, 43
Speyer, H.244, 247, 250, 251, 253
Spilsbury, P.85, 90101, 104
Spottorno, V.86, 106
Staude, W.223, 240
Steed, H.W.11, 43
Stern, D.141, 142
Strack, H.43
Streck, M.23, 43
Strelcyn, S.225, 227, 228, 239, 240
Strugnell, J.158, 163
Sumner, Cl.224, 240
Sweeney, M.A.51, 52, 56
Tadmor, H.34, 44
Tardieu, M.199, 207, 217, 218
Testuz, M.165, 182
Thackeray, H.St.J.26, 27, 44
Thompson, T.45, 56
Tigchelaar, E.J.C.151, 162
Tirso de Molina114, 125
Torijano, P.A.3, 86, 93, 106, 107125, 197,
205, 206, 210, 218
Trachtenberg, J.116, 125
Turner, J.D.217
Uhlig, S.239, 240
Ullendorff, E.219, 221223, 240
van der Kooij, G.66, 79
Van der Vliet, J.5, 197218, 248
van Keulen, P.S.F.8
van Kooten, G.H.218
Veijola, T.7, 10, 44, 47, 51, 52, 56
Vlez de Guevara, L.114, 125
Verheyden, J.2, 6, 85106
Villalba i Varneda, P.86, 91, 96, 106
Visotzky, B.L.140, 142
Vogel, M.85, 106
Voitila, A.56
Wlchli, S.51, 56
Wagner, E.236238, 240
Waldstein, M.202, 218
Wasserman, T.165, 182
Weidner, E.12, 44
Weinfeld, M.44
Weitzman, S.6
Welburn, A.J.211, 213, 218
Wnin, A.95, 106
Whiston, W.247, 253
White, L.M.217
Wilda, G.29, 44
Williams, M.A.197, 218
Williamson, H.G.M.27, 44
Winkler, H.A.117, 125
index of names 259
Winston, D.110, 125
Wion, A.232, 240
Wisse, F.202, 218
Witakowski, W.5, 219240
Worrell, W.H.228, 240
Wright, B.B.166, 182
Wright, W.223, 240
Wrthwein, E.811, 19, 44
Yarbrough, O.L.217
Yadin, Y.46, 56
Zalewski, S.9, 14, 17, 27, 30, 44
Zevit, Z.46, 56
Zckler, O.43
Zwickel, W.2, 5784
INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES
Hebrew Bible
Genesis
312 23
3:24 72
4:1 10
7:12 9
24:19 31
24:1214 25
24:16 10
24:1721 25
24:4244 25
24:4546 25
27:128:5 31
35:22 16
38:26 10
41:17 25
41:1724 25
49 31
Exodus
1:21 21
7:11 203
7:22 203
14:9 13
14:1718 13
14:25 13
14:28 13
15:4 13
15:19 13
15:26 20
19:23 70
21:1214 36
21:14 36
21:24 33
22:27 33
24:18 9
25:131:11 25
25:9 38
25:40 38
26:30 38
35:439:43 25
Leviticus
16:21 137
Numbers
7:1283 25
7:61 131
24:4 140
24:17 54
25:3 54
Deuteronomy
4:6 34
4:29 34
6:5 34
7:34 54
7:12 34
7:15 20
10:12 34
11:1 34
11:13 34
13:4 34
16:12 34
16:19 132
17:1420 51
17:1520 156
17:1617 132
17:19 133
23:24 34
24:8 34
26:16 34
28:13 34
28:27 20
28:35 20
29:8 34
30:2 34
30:6 34
30:14 34
31:23 34
31:2432:47 35
Joshua
1:6 34
1:8 34, 37
1:9 34
1:18 34
6:26 34
index of biblical references 261
Joshua (cont.)
19:18 10
22:3 34
22:5 34
23 35
23:14 34
24:128 35
Judges
2:15 35
5:31 9
8:2223 29
8:28 9
13:1 9
1 Samuel
1:23 34
2:3536 34
3:1213 34
4:9 34
8 156
8:422 29
8:11 13
8:13 10
9:1610:1 24
9:16 26
9:2710:1 26
10:1 25, 26
10:1724 26
10:2021 23
10:24 25
10:27 26
11 59
11:1415 27
12 35
13:14 26
14:5051 57
15:1 24
15:10 24
15:30 24
16:113 24, 27
16:1 194
16:13 25, 194
16:1423 109
17:1011 31
17:1729 31
19:124:3 31
21:8 57
22:5 15
22:14 57
22:17 13
24:420 31
24:5 9
25:30 26
26:12 31
26:325 31
28:4 10
31:47 57
2 Samuel
2:4 27
2:2339 31
2:32 31
3:3 12
3:4 24
3:2630 31
3:3139 33
5:13 11, 27
5:45 9, 32
5:5 11
5:14 19, 161
6 70
6:17 25
6:21 26
7 15, 20, 39, 150
7:1 179
7:8 24
7:1011 150
7:1112 21, 33
7:11 21, 180
7:1214 23
7:1213 39, 150
7:1516 35
7:16 28
8:3 36
8:4 60
8:15 137
8:16 57
8:17 58
8:18 57
920 7
1012 52
1112 16, 20, 40, 52
11:34 16
11:4 53
11:5 53
12 15, 17, 18
12:7 17
12:8 16
12:1524 52
12:2425 21, 176
12:24 52
12:25 53, 130, 166, 176
12:2627 16
262 index of biblical references
2 Samuel (cont.)
13:130 12
13:2339 31
13:2439 14
14:5 11
14:24 14
14:25 13
15:1 13
15:218:17 13
15:717:29 31
15:712 13
15:10 13
15:11 14
16:513 31
16:16 25
16:2122 16
18:5 31, 33
18:915 12, 31
18:12 31, 33
18:1415 33
18:29 31
18:32 31
19:15 31
19:12 33
19:1 31
19:5 33
19:1718 31
19:1924 31
19:3240 31
19:33 9
20:810 31
20:89 31
20:23 57
20:24 57, 58
20:25 58
21 33
24:1119 15
24:17 9
12 Kings 86, 243
1 Kings 8, 49, 86, 102, 107
12 7, 15
1 15, 21, 27, 36
1:14 810, 20, 31
1:1 9
1:4 10
1:553 8, 20
1:510 16, 49
1:58 9
1:56 13
1:5 13, 16
1:6 12, 13
1:7 25
1:810 15
1:8 25
1:910 14
1:9 13, 24
111 153, 156, 158
110 52
12 1, 7, 24, 40, 51, 52
1:10 18, 25
1:1153 20
1:1114 15
1:11 16
1:12 16, 17
1:13 16, 17
1:14 17
1:1516 10
1:15 10
1:16 11, 18
1:17 17
1:18 16
1:19 16, 24
1:20 12, 17, 20
1:21 16
1:2223 10
1:2327 17
1:23 10, 18
1:2425 16
1:25 24, 25
1:26 15, 18
1:27 12, 20
1:2835 18
1:2831 10
1:3235 21, 25
1:32 10, 25
1:33 161
1:35 11, 26
1:3637 18
1:37 30
1:3840 25
1:38 25
1:39 27, 194
1:41 14
1:43 20
1:4448 25
1:44 25
1:4648 10
1:46 25, 28
1:4748 20
1:47 10, 18, 30
1:48 21
1:4953 49
1:49 14
1:5053 36
1:5253 90
1:52 90, 91
index of biblical references 263
1 Kings (cont.)
211 85
2 36
2:146 8
2:19 30, 35, 40, 51
2:24 30, 34, 36, 37
2:2 34
2:3 34
2:4 34
2:59 30
2:56 14, 30, 32, 36
2:5 97
2:7 30
2:89 30, 32
2:1012 32
2:10 95
2:1112 30
2:11 9
2:1225 95
2:12 8, 25, 28, 29, 32
2:1346 29, 32, 38
2:1325 9, 16, 29
2:1318 90
2:15 12, 21
2:19 19
2:20 95
2:22 12, 25, 91
2:2324 91
2:24 21, 33
2:2627 29, 33
2:26 14, 58
2:27 34
2:2835 29
2:2834 36
2:28 25, 32
2:3133 32, 36
2:31 33
2:35 19
2:3646 29
2:44 32
2:45 97
2:46 29, 32
311 1, 50, 51, 94
3 140
3:12 38
3:1 39, 65
3:2 29
3:315 38
3:410 89
3:7 21, 89
3:9 95, 155, 232
3:1014 156
3:1013 155, 157
3:10 97
3:1314 97
3:13 157
3:1628 39, 91, 137
3:26 228
3:28 91
4 19
4:15:14 39
4:2 58
4:3 57, 58
4:4 57, 58
4:5 19, 58
4:6 57, 58
4:719 50, 58
4:13 247
4:20 156
4:30 224
4:3133 92
57 244
5 141
5:1 129
5:4 53, 129
5:6 13
5:932 37
5:12 141, 168
5:13 244
5:1528 39
5:1920 39
5:2732 52
67 2, 62, 66, 68
6:17:51 40
6:114 81
6:5 64
6:1522 81
6:2328 82
6:2935 82
6:29 72
6:32 72
6:35 72
6:3738 3840
6:38 128
7:112 39, 64
7:8 39, 65
7:1314 60, 82
7:13 66
7:1522 82
7:22 159
7:2326 62, 83
7:26 159
7:2739 83
7:4051 83
7:40 66
7:46 66
7:51 128
8:4 25
264 index of biblical references
11:2931 25
11:38 98
11:40 98
11:41 35
11:43 11
12 50, 51
12:116 11
12:14 156
12:4 99, 156
12:15 34
12:17 11
13:12 34
13:2932 34
14:25 65
14:26 65
14:2728 13
15:12 20
15:13 19
18 66
18:46 13
19:8 9
22:49 60
2 Kings
4:8 10
4:12 10
4:25 10
4:36 10
8:21 61
9:114 25
10:10 34
10:13 19
10:17 34
10:25 13
11:4 13
11:6 13
11:11 13
11:1214 25
11:12 25
11:1516 36
11:19 13
16:17 63
16:34 34
17:723 35
20:5 26
22:8 34
23:1618 34
23:8 59
24:15 19
12 Chronicles 243
1 Chronicles
2:36 19
1 Kings (cont.)
8:1014 66
8:1553 149
8:23 101
8:25 34
8:2729 149
8:47 138
8:65 36
8:66 20
9 156
9:57 34
9:1113 95
9:15 98
9:16 39, 65
9:17 98
9:18 36, 98
9:19 13
9:20 98
9:24 39, 65
9:2628 60
9:26 60
10 156
10:129 153
10:113 160, 220
10:1 139, 222
10:79 140
10:910 22
10:9 28
10:10 96
10:11 60
10:2329 155
10:23 160
10:26 13
10:2829 13, 60, 65
10:29 135
11:143 156
11:113 85
11:18 2, 54
11:1 39, 65, 130
11:4 100, 101, 135
11:5 100
11:6 101
11:78 100
11:911 55
11:9 54
11:1012 136
11:11 138
11:1424 61
11:1422 67
11:14 130
11:1720 98
11:23 130
11:2540 61
11:25 67, 130
index of biblical references 265
1 Chronicles (cont.)
3:2 12, 24
3:5 41, 161
7:17 24
11:2 26
17 20, 39
17:127 150
17:1 179
17:910 150
17:10 179
17:1113 23
17:1112 39, 150
17:14 21, 28
18:3 36
21:9 15
21:16 9
22 39
22:219 38
22:519 37
22:511 22
22:5 39
22:719 35
22:710 36, 40
22:910 166, 179
22:10 23
22:1113 36, 37
22:11 36, 38
22:1213 37
22:14 37
23:132 20
23:1 20, 26, 28, 37
24:119 20
24:719 145
25:131 20
26:132 20
2829 20, 28, 153
28 23, 39
28:110 28
28:229:20 35
28:3 36
28:45 23
28:5 28
28:67 23
28:910 36
28:1029:9 38
28:1019 38
28:20 37
29:11 21, 28
29:12 30
29:1819 37
29:2025 26-28
29:2024 37
29:2021 39
29:21 26
29:22 27
29:2325 24
29:2324 38
29:23 26, 28, 129, 133
29:25 30, 38
29:2628 30
29:29 15, 19
2 Chronicles 102
19 153
1:113 38
1:1 30
1:8 21
1:9 22
1:12 30
1:18 39
211 1
2:1 39
2:215 39
2:211 37
2:48 39
3:15:1 40
4:6 73
5:5 25
6:42 137
7:8 36
7:10 20
8:3 36
8:11 39
9 156
9:131 153
9:112 160, 220
9:8 22, 28
9:9 96
11:17 20, 40
11:1823 12
13:412 35
13:8 21, 29
15:16 19
16:712 20
21:3 12
21:1819 20
23:1415 36
24:2022 36
26:1621 20
29:25 15
30:26 40
32:2426 20
Ezra
1:14 144
Nehemiah
9 150
266 index of biblical references
Nehemiah (cont.)
9:631 150
9:3237 150
9:3810:39 150
13:2627 54
13:26 22
Esther
1:2 132, 134
5:23 11
6:8 25
6:911 25
Job
12:3 140
Psalms 200
18:5 174
18:7 174
19:719:9 133
24:9 136
25:8 137
25:10 136
44 180
44 LXX 176
44:8 LXX 176
71 LXX 170, 177, 178
71:17 177
72 138
72:7 131
72:8 129
72:9 244
72: 1011 129
76:13 26
86:17 136, 137
89:4 24
95:10 9
98:6 29
105:15 137
106:6 138
110:3 54
132:13 136
Proverbs 131, 243
1:1 129, 130, 153, 158
1:2026 169
2:6 139
3:8 172
3:18 159
4:25 172
89 LXX 169
8:2136 172
8:22 172
8:27 172
8:2930 172
10:1 130
20:22 31
24:29 31
25:1 130
25:2122 153
30:1 130
31:4 130
Ecclesiastes 131, 153, 166, 243
1:1 153
1:2 130
1:12 129
7:20 153
10:16 140
Song of Solomon 131, 153, 228, 243
1:1 153
2:16 159
3:78 129
3:7 128
6:23 159
7:1 10
Isaiah
1:27 138
3:10 137
4:56 178
6 71
7:14 LXX 172
30:30 172
41:21 29
43:15 29
44:6 29
49:1 22
52:7 29
61:1 LXX 176
66:16 149
Jeremiah
1:45 22
13:18 19
29:2 19
32:31 136
Ezekiel
20:33 29
26:7 13
28:119 26
28:14 72
37:2225 29
41:18 72
index of biblical references 267
Daniel
7:14 129
9:5 138
9:21 147
Hosea
3:5 29
Jonah
3:4 9
Malachi
4:1 172
New Testament
Matthew
1 214, 215
1:117 161
1:67 157, 161
1:16 161
1:21 23
1:23 172
2 157, 213
2:112 161
2:17 153
3:3 153
4:14 153
57 155
6:24 155
6:2534 154, 155
6:2830 154, 157
6:2829 159
6:28 155
6:29 156, 157
6:33 156
7:22 191
9:2731 109
10:1 191
12:2230 109
12:2224 109
12:3842 157, 160
12:39 160
12:4245 109
12:42 157, 160, 210, 221
12:4546 109
15:22 109
20:2034 109
21:14 147
24 207
24:15 153
Mark
3:15 191
3:22 189
4:1819 155
5:9 190
7:10 153
10:4652 109
12:26 153
12:36 153
16:17 191
Luke
1:523 144
1:5 145
2:21 23
2:2252 144
2:25 147
3:19 152
3:2338 161
3:31 161
4:17 153
7:35 160
9:79 152
11:20 184
11:2932 160
11:29 160
11:31 160, 210, 221
11:49 160
12:1321 155
12:2234 154, 155
12:2728 154
12:27 159
12:31 156
12:3234 155
12:3334 157
12:34 155
13:31 152
18:3543 109
19:2940 161
23:1112 152
24:52 145
John
10:2223 145
10:23 146
10:33 145
Acts
2:5 147
2:911 151
268 index of biblical references
Acts (cont.)
2:16 153
3:111 147
3:110 145
3:1 147
3:2 145
3:10 145
3:11 145, 146
3:1226 145
3:14 149
4:17 147
4:14 152
4:13 145
4:1517 147
4:21 146
4:27 152
5:1216 184
5:1215 147
5:12 145, 146
5:1718 147, 152
6:17 148
6:9 147
6:11 149
6:13 149
6:14 149
7 148
7:1 151
7:253 149
7:246 149, 150
7:38 151
7:4450 147
7:4446 149
7:4647 151, 205
7:4753 150
7:4750 149
7:47 147
7:4853 148
7:4850 148, 149, 151
7:5153 149, 151
7:52 149
8:2 147
8:27 221
9:1019 147
12:1 152
12:6 152
12:11 152
12:19 152
12:2123 152
21:1726 147
21:2728 151
22:12 147
Romans
3:1020 153
9:15 153
9:25 153
9:2729 153
10:19 153
10:20 153
12:20 153
12:21 153
1 Corinthians
3:16 154
2 Timothy
3:8 203
Apocrypha and Septuagint
Judith
9:1 147
1 Maccabees
4:59 145
2 Maccabees
2:810 159
Ecclesiasticus
47:1222 158
47:1415 158
47:20 158, 159
Tobit 134, 189
Wisdom 166
1:1 169
3:9 168
4:15 168
7 118
7:1721 109
7:1720 110
7:1820 118
7:20 247
INDEX OF OTHER REFERENCES
Acts of Thomas 185
Alphabeth of Ben Sira 222
Apuleius
On the God of Socrates 185
Metamorphoses 189
Aristotle 224
Ascensio Isaiae 176
Athanasius 167, 169
Life of Anthony 47 191192
Augustine
City of God
1. X 243
810 185
2 Baruch 77,25 250
The Book of the
Wise Philosophers 224
Clement of Alexandria
Eclogae propheticae 53, 3 211
Paedagogus
1 181
1,29,3 179
Stromata 1,113 172
Cyril of Jerusalem
Mystagogic Catecheses 2,3 185
Dead Sea Scrolls
4QMMT C
1819 158
18 158
2324 158
11QPs11 111, 113
Temple Scroll
XXIX,810 151
LVILIX 151
Egeria 194
Itinerarium
37:7 193
46:1 185
Euripides
Iphigenia in Aulis 812 213
Eusebius
Church History VI,43,11 191
Demonstration of the Gospel
7,3,1827.55 178
8,1,5354 178
8,4,15 178
9,17,1617 178
Eutyches 114
Evagrius Ponticus
Antirrhetikos 191
Flavius Josephus 2, 3, 247, 253
Against Apion
1.110 96
1.111 158
1.114115 158
2.132 158
Jewish Antiquities 85, 108
5.4449 224
5.129 99
6.280 93
7.110 95
7.338 93, 95, 97
7.343 910
7.345346 90
7.350 25
7.354358 27
7.356 93, 95
7.360 26
7.362 90, 91
7.374 93, 95
7.381 91, 96
7.382 27
7.384 93
270 index of other references
7.386 97
7.389 9
7.392 95
810 85
8 110
8.1212 2, 87102
8.2 224
8.3 90
8.4 90, 99
8.6 90
8.8 95
8.913 97
8.9 90, 95
8.19 96
8.20 96, 97
8.2225 98
8.22 94
8.23 89, 91, 95
8.24 97, 101
8.2634 91
8.26 91
8.30 92
8.32 92
8.34 91, 93
8.3537 92
8.38 92, 99
8.3941 92
8.41 98
8.4249 158
8.42 92
8.4344 92
8.4549 86, 92, 93
8.4546 110
8.45 93
8.4648 111
8.48 93
8.49 93
8.52 95
8.55 87
8.56 102
8.57129 94
8.58 99
8.6175 86
8.9098 86
8.107119 101
8.109110 101
8.111112 95
8.112 95
8.114 150
8.124 99
8.125129 98
8.129 99
8.131 94
8.132140 94
8.133 94
8.137 94
8.140 101
8.141142 95
8.144146 89
8.146 90
8.147149 89
8.149 89
8.150 98
8.151152 98
8.154 98
8.171 92
8.174 96
8.175 96
8.176184 99
8.190 100, 101
8.191195 100
8.195 101
8.196 101
8.199 101
8.204 98
8.208 98
8.210 98
8.211 101
8.213 99
14.65 147
15.68 100
15.380425 144, 151
15.380 151
15.385387 152
15.396401 146
15.398402 146
15.417419 147
16.21 100
16.181183 151
20.220221 146
20.221 146
20.247249 152
Jewish War 85
1.648650 152
5.184185 146
5.185 146
George Cedrenus 101
Gnostica
Secret Book of John 199, 202
Books of Jeou 199
Zosimus 198, 199, 202,
203, 205-208,
214, 248
Gospel/Questions
of Bartholomew 112
index of other references 271
Gospel of the Egyptians 212
Gospel of Judas 201, 202
Gospel of Thomas 198
Gregentius of Taphra 110
Hippolytus 171
Commentary on the
Song of Songs 211
Irenaeus of Lyons
Against Heresies
4,20,3 173
4,27,1 178
5,24,1 173
John Cassian 192
Justin
Dialogue with Trypho
34,18 177
34,1 177
34,7 177
34,8 178
61,3 172
62,4 173
64,56 177
Second Apology 6 191
Kebra ngst
(Glory of the Kings) 166, 220-224,
232, 236
Lactantius 165, 171
Divine Institutes
4,6,6 172
4,8,13 172
4,12,13, epit. 39
(44), 12 167
4,12,1 171
Leontios of Byzance 110
Life of Adam and Eve 211
Lucian of Samosata
True History 2,4647 188
4 Maccabees
18:1516 159
18:16 159
Magical Works
Book of the seven
heavens 214
Book of the
seven vessels 214
Book of Solomon 214
Hydromancy of
Solomon (Epistle
to Rehoboam) 118, 119, 121
Key of Solomon
(Clavicula
Solomonis) 118, 122
Magical Papyrus I,144 188
Magical Treatise
of Solomon 119, 121, 122
The Mirror of Solomon 225227, 238
The Net of Solomon 225, 226, 237
Sefer ha-Razim 118, 121
Selenodromion of
David and Solomon 119
Nag Hammadi
On the Origin of the
World (NH II, 5) 201
106, 35107, 4 202
122, 1819 207
The Gospel of the Egyptians (NH III, 2)
63, 1718 212
82, 1921 212
82, 1920 212
82, 2122 214
83, 1519 212
84, 1718 212
NH V, 5:78: 2779: 19 213
NH IX, 3:29, 1121 209
NH IX, 3:69, 3270, 30 204
Apocalypse of Adam
(NH V, 5) 211, 213, 214,
216
12 213
78, 30 213
79, 34 213
Second Treatise of the Great Seth
(NH VII, 2) 209, 210, 212,
214216
62, 2764, 29 209
63, 417 209
64, 1920 210
65, 1819 210
Testimony of Truth
(NH IX, 3) 203210, 213,
215
69,3170,24 244
272 index of other references
Odes of Solomon 154, 199201,
214, 216
1:15 165, 167
3 175, 176, 178
3:27 176
3:5 176
3:7 176
3:89 179
5:111 165
6:818 165
7:1 176
8:7 177
8:822 174
8:22 175, 176
9:3 174
9:6 177
10:2 177
10:46 174
11:2 175, 179
11:3 177
11:12 175
14:8 179
16:12 179
17:616 174
17:16 174
19 167, 171
19:67 165, 172
20:9 179
22:112 165, 174
23:13 168
24:1 174
25:112 165
26:13 178
26:1213 178
26:12 179, 180
26:13 179
28:7 179
28:919 174
29:6 174
31:613 174
33 169
34:12 169
35:12 178
35:1 177179
36:1 176
36:2 179
36:38 174
36:36 179
36:6 174, 176, 180
36:8 177
38:4 179
38:11 176
39:11 174
41:3 174
41:811 174
41:15 174
42:320 174
Origen 170, 208
Homilies on Numbers 6,3,6 208
Homilies on Joshua 11,5 178
Commentary on
the Psalms 71 (72) 178
Catena Fragments
on Matthew 433 178
Commentary on
John 1,28(30) 178
Commentary on John 6,1 178
Paul the Deacon 114
Philo of Alexandria 87
On Mating 177, 178
Pistis Sophia 165, 167,
199201, 205,
214
Plato 224
Plutarch of Chaironeia
Moralia 312D 188
On the Failure
of Oracles 184
On the Sign of Socrates 185
Psalms of Solomon 144, 166, 201
17.2125 161
17.21 161
17.32 161
Pseudo-Clementines
Homilies 89 185
Homilies 19,9 191
Recognitions 4 185
Ps.-Gregentius, Disputatio 205
Pseudo-Philo
Biblical Antiquities 108, 109
Quran and Islamic Authors
2,102 248
2,142 244
4,163 242
6,84 242
12,4101 242
17,1 244
index of other references 273
20,116 246
21,7882 242
21,82 244
27,1545 222
27,16 250
27,1819 251
27,18 251
27,2244 246
27,2225 250
27,34 242
27,36 246
27,39 246
27,40 246, 252
34,12 244
34,13 244
34,14 245
37,37 244
37,158 245
38,17 252
38,2021 242
al-ASh 245
al-Bukhtr 245
al-Nbigha 245
al-abar 248, 249, 253
Brethren of Purity 241-252
Wahb b. Munabbih
al-Yamn 247
Rabbinic Literature
Shabbath 30a 136, 137
Shabbath 56b 136
Erubin 21b 141
Yoma 36b 138
Yoma 2.1 138
Megillah 11b 131
Megillah 31a 128
Yebamoth 76ab 130
Sotah 48b 134
Gittin 7a 136
Gittin 68ab 134
Sanhedrin 10.2 137
Sanhedrin 20b 131
Sanhedrin 21b 135
Sanhedrin 70b 136
Sanhedrin 104b 137
Sanhedrin 107b 136
Makkoth 10a 137
Hulln 57b 251
Niddah 70b 136
b. Berakoth 62b 9
b. Shabbat 56b 135
b. Gittin 68a 246
p.Berakoth I,6,4a 128
p.Yoma II,7,40d 137
p.Shebuoth I,7(5),33b 137
Mek Pisha 16 (L 134) 128
Pesiktha di R. Kahana 127
1 134
4.3 140
5.3 131
26.2 134
27.3 138
Pesiktha Rabbathi 127
2.5 136
6 128
6.4 128, 137
6.6 128
14.7 138
14.89 138, 140
Pirke di R. Eliezer 32 128
Rosh Hashanah 21b 129
Sifra Ahare 2 137
Sifre Devarim 9 134
Targum Sheni 246, 250
TS Esther 222
GenR 85.12 140
ExodR 15.26 131
ExodR 30.15 138
LevR 12.5 136
LevR 30.3 138
NumR 11.3 134, 135
NumR 12.17 134
NumR 13.14 129, 131
NumR 14.3 136
NumR 19.3 140
1 KgsR 111 86
EstherR 132, 134
CantR 127, 131
CantR 1 138, 141
CantR 1.1.10 130
CantR 1.1.11 128, 129
EcclR 127, 137
EcclR 1.1.2 136
EcclR 2.11 139
EcclR 2.2.5 140
EcclR 2.24.1 140
EcclR 4.3.1 137
EcclR 5.10.2 137
EcclR 7.23 140
EcclR 10.17 140
MidrEsthR 132
MidrProv 127
MidrProv 1.1 138
MidrProv 1.24 139
MidrProv 20 129
MidrProv 22 137
MidrPss 127
MidrPss 7.6 137
274 index of other references
MidrPss 24.10 136
MidrPss 78.12 134
MidrPss 122.1 137
MidrSong of Solomon 1.9 250
Tanchuma B Waera 2 134
Tan Behuqqot 138
Tan Waera 5 134
Tan(B) Metsora 1 137
Abba Gurion 127, 132, 134
Gersonides (R. Levi
ben Gershon) 30
Kimchi, D. 9, 10, 27
Panim Aherim 127, 134
Rashi 9, 39, 138
Pseudo-Rashi 27
Sallustius
The Conspiracy
of Catiline 5 95
Tertullian
Against Marcion 5,9,913 178
Testament of Adam 215
Testament of Solomon 109, 114, 166,
183, 185, 202,
206208,
214, 216, 224,
238
1 193
1:15 112
1:7 205, 206
425 183
4 188
5 189
6:5 248
6:8 190
7 189
9 186
11 188
11:3 190
11:6 190
12:3 190
12:4 248
13:2 192
14 189
15:810 206
16 186
17 186
17:4 190
18 189
1921 192
22 192, 193
22:20 190
25:4 203
Theophilos of Antioch
Apology to Autolycus
2,10,6 172
2,38,4 172
3,13,1 172