Sei sulla pagina 1di 9

Biblical Interpretation 19 (2011) 496-504

Biblical
Interpretation

brill.nl/bi

Solomon the Trickster


Robert D. Miller
e Catholic University of America

Abstract
is essay uses the rubric of trickster to explore the narrative character of Solomon
as presented in Kings. Using both the broader literary category and the specic
comparand of the Lenape (Delaware) trickster, Wehixamukes, nuances of the biblical
presentation are highlighted and seemingly disparate elements of the biblical Solomon
character are seen as parts of a coherent whole.
Keywords
Solomon, trickster

e biblical character of Solomon is ambiguous at every point. He is


wisest of the wise, ruler of Israels golden age and maximum territorial
expansion, and builder of the Temple. Yet he is also the lascivious lover,
the one who rst important foreign cults into Israel. is essay argues
that seemingly disparate literary images of Solomon can actually be read
as parts of an integral narrative character, if we use the right lensin
this case, a Fourth-World lens. is essay examines the character of
Solomon under this rubric of trickster, a character regularly invoked
by scholars of both the literary study of the Old Testament and of the
folkloric study of its composition to understand certain personages of
the Bible, although never Solomon. is study illustrates how such an
understanding can highlight the texts intent in its portrayal of the
Israelite king.
e folklore character of the trickster is particularly prominent in
indigenous cultures,1 and the most important mythic gure in most
1)

R.D. Patterson, e Old Testament Use of an Archetype: the Trickster, JETS 42


(1999), 385.
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011

DOI: 10.1163/156851511X595495

R.D. Miller / Biblical Interpretation 19 (2011) 496-504

497

tribes of American Indians.2 Scholars have identied the trickster, the


deceiving clown, in cultures of all times and places, from the Mesopotamian Enki to Bugs Bunny.3 Nevertheless, dening the exact parameters of this gure is quite dicult. He is perhaps the most elusive
gure in mythology and literature; scholars recognize him when they
see him.4 Trickster means dierent things to dierent people.5
Broadly speaking, tricksters are marginal gures who disrupt the world
view that a given culture perceives as the natural order of things. But
their chaos and marginality, their breaking of taboos, is itself placed
within societal systems; in eect, they serve as codes for structuring the
astructural. Beyond this, we should be wary of making more generalizations, such as that the trickster is of marginal social status, reliant
on self, and an agent of change.6 In what follows, we will see the best
approach is to compare particular trickster characters, rather than the
phyletic type.
In recent years, biblical scholars have identied several tricksters in
the biblical text. e most common such identication is Jacob, with
his various deceptions of Isaac, Laban, and others, as well as himself
being the victim of deception by Laban and by his own sons, another
common trait of tricksters.7 Other characters labeled as tricksters include

2)
A. Velie, e Trickster Novel, in G. Vizenor (ed), Narrative Chance: Postmodern
Discourse on Native American Indian Literatures (Albuquerque: University of Oklahoma Press, 1989), p. 121.
3)
W.J. Hynes and W.G. Doty, eds., Mythical Trickster Figures (Tuscaloosa: University
of Alabama Press, 1993); G. Vizenor, Trickster Discourse, American Indian Quarterly 14 (1990), pp. 277-87; J. Weaver, Trickster Among the Wordies, Christianity
and Crisis 52 (1992), pp. 285-86.
4)
P.M. Arnold, Wildmen, Warriors, and Kings (New York: Crossroad, 1995), p. 158.
5)
A. Velie, Trickster Novel, p. 131; cf. W.J. Hynes, Mapping the Characteristics
of Mythic Tricksters, in W.J. Hynes and W.G. Doty (eds), Mythical Trickster Figures
(Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1993), pp. 34-35.
6)
As per, e.g., K.A. Farmer, e Trickster Genre in the Old Testament (Diss., Southern
Methodist University, 1978); S.B. Niditch, Underdogs and Tricksters: A Prelude to
Biblical Folklore (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1987).
7)
Hynes, Mapping, p. 35; Patterson, Old Testament Use, pp. 389-91.

498

R.D. Miller / Biblical Interpretation 19 (2011) 496-504

Joseph,8 Abraham, Isaac, Esther,9 David,10 Edens serpent, and even


God.11 Biblical tricksters dupe and delude as battle strategy (Ehud,
Jael), for personal safety (Abraham, Isaac), or for justices sake (Joseph).12
Yet in most cases it is the heroes of the stories who are the tricksters.
eir actions are not criticized, at least not explicitly, and this is to be
expected for such characters. e trickster had positive spiritual value
[in] antiquity, which valued the trickster gure as an important part
of religion.13
Solomon has not hitherto been considered as a trickster as is here
proposed. Various elements of the Solomon narrative will be compared
with features of the trickster character. e historicity of the texts
account of Solomon is actually unimportant; historical gure or literary
character makes little dierence for this study. Nevertheless, when studying the trickster, the importance of readings of the character cannot be
ignored.14 For this reason, post-biblical traditions about Solomon will
also be considered. Finally, since the trickster trope exists only in its
discreet examples, the particular story of 1 Kings 3:16-28 will be examined in comparison with the Lenape (Delaware) trickster, Wehixamukes.
Tricksters often are born in some abnormal manner. is is particularly true of American Indian tricksters.15 In the case of Solomon, the
8)

Patterson, Old Testament Use, p. 389.


Niditch, Underdogs.
10)
A. Velie, e Biblical Trickster: David, paper presented at the Society of Biblical
Literature annual meeting (Atlanta, 2003).
11)
C. Fontaine, Tricksters in the Bible, Witness 81.7-8 (1998), pp. 8-10; J.E. Anderson, Jacob, Laban, and a Divine Trickster? Perspectives in Religious Studies 36 (2009):
3-23.
12)
Patterson, Old Testament Use, pp. 387-89.
13)
Arnold, Wildmen, p. 158.
14)
G. Vizenor, Trickster Discourse, in G. Vizenor (ed), Narrative Chance: Postmodern Discourse on Native American Indian Literatures (Albuquerque: University of Oklahoma Press, 1989), p. 193.
15)
L. Makarius, e Myth of the Trickster, in W.J. Hynes and W.G. Doty (eds),
Mythical Trickster Figures (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1993), pp. 73-74.
In Hawaii, the trickster Maui is fathered by a supernatural stranger, although the
details vary: Maui is not the child of Hina by Akalana in the natural way but is begotten one day when she has a longing for seaweed, goes out to the beach at Kaanomalo
to gather some, and, nding a mans loincloth on the beach, puts it on and goes to
9)

R.D. Miller / Biblical Interpretation 19 (2011) 496-504

499

abnormality is the story of his mother, Bathsheba. e story of David


and Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11) is quite familiar, and its interpretation is
beyond the scope of this essay, but although the child of their adulterous union (or rape) dies, the birth of Solomon in 2 Sam 11:27 clearly
closes the pericope. Solomons birth, therefore, is part of this sordid
and abnormal episode, as Matt 1:6 recognizes.
Solomon does little actual tricking. e best example is the episode of the payment of King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kgs 9:10-14. Hiram
is owed twenty cities, but foolishly accepts them from Solomon sight
unseen. Solomon hands over twenty worthless cities in Galilee. In 9:13,
Hiram says, What kind of cities are these that you have given me, my
brother? So they are called the land of Cabul to this day.
In an exhaustive study of the Solomon cycle in 1 Kings, Jung Ju
Kang concludes that Solomon is not portrayed as a great king who fails,
nor as a total failure from the start, but as one fatally awed from the
start.16 Solomon, however, is not so much a tragic gure like Oedipus
as a negative example for the Deuteronomistic historian, a showcase of
the consequences of immorality.17 at is precisely the role of the trickster, to demonstrate what happens when morals are not observed.18
Specically, 1 Kings 11:1-13 states that the start of his doing what
was displeasing to Yahweh (11:6) was that he loved many foreign
women (11:1). Tricksters often show the vulnerability that our sexuality often visits on us.19 is same passage from 1 Kings says, He
sleep. e child born from this adventure is named Maui. A. Fornander, Collection of
Hawaiian Antiquities and Folk-lore (Honolulu: Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum,
1916-1919), vol. 5, pp. 536-39.
16)
J.J. Kang, e Persuasive Portrayal of Solomon in 1 Kings 1-11 (Bern: Peter Lang,
2003). An equally comprehensive study by Czvek concludes that Solomon depicts
the paradigmatic shrewd Oriental monarch; T. Czvek, ree Seasons of Charismatic
Leadership (Regnum Studies in Mission, 17; Oxford: Regnum Books, 2006).
17)
Kang, Persuasive Portrayal, pp. 263-302; W. Brueggemann, Ancient Israel on
Political Leadership, Political eology 8 (2007), pp. 459-62.
18)
W.J. Hynes and W.G. Doty, Introducing the Fascinating and Perplexing Trickster Figure, in W.J. Hynes and W.G. Doty (eds), Mythical Trickster Figures (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1993), p. 7; W.J. Hynes, Inconclusive
Conclusions, in W.J. Hynes and W.G. Doty (eds), Mythical Trickster Figures (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1993), pp. 207-208.
19)
Arnold, Wildmen, p. 159.

500

R.D. Miller / Biblical Interpretation 19 (2011) 496-504

had seven hundred wives of royal rank and three hundred concubines
(v 3). ese gures are not only unusual for biblical world, they are
blatantly comical.20 ey are the sole example in the Bible of a commonplace in trickster literature, that traditionally trickster was known
for his uncontrollable sexual appetite.21
It is also worth noting that for some tricksters, this appetite runs to
wealth instead of (or in addition to) women.22 Solomons reputation
for wealth rivaled his reputation for wisdom, both in the text of the
Old Testament (1 Kgs 10:14, 27) and in later tradition (Matt 6:2829). In spite of eorts to prove the historicity of Solomons wealth,23
the gures of Solomon receiving twenty-one tons of gold per year are
extraordinary in the Old Testament.
In the biblical tradition, and in 1 Kings in particular, Solomon is
known for his fall, his wealth, and for his wisdom (1 Kgs 4:29-31).24
Like Moses for the Torah and David for the Psalms, Solomon is the
father genius behind the start of the written wisdom genre and the master organizer of the oral wisdom traditions of his people (Proverbs 1-9;
cf. Qoh 1:1). His hokhma skill, ability, cleverness, cunningis seen

20)

Contra L.S. Schearing, A Wealth of Women, in L.K. Handy (ed.) e Age of


Solomon (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East. 11; Leiden:
Brill, 1997), p. 431, who sees no textual comment on the size of the harem. Solomons
harem is not merely about conspicuous wealth. Clearly, Solomons lasciviousness is
contrasted to Davids nal impotence (1 Kings 4). Solomons insatiable acquisition
of wisdom, women, and weaponry are a remarkable contrast to aged and failing
David, who is no longer a force in the boardroom, battleeld, or bedchamber;
B.A. Power, All the Kings Horses Narrative Subversion in the Story of Solomons
Golden Age, in J.R. Wood, J.E. Harvey, and M. Leuchter (eds), From Babel to Babylon (LOHB/OTS, 455; New York: T & T Clark, 2006), p. 113.
21)
Velie, Trickster Novel, p. 135. Tales of the tricksters sexual prowess are ubiquitous, as, e.g., Coyotes Amorous Adventures, in R. Erdoes and A. Ortiz (eds), American Indian Trickster Tales (New York: Penguin-Putnam, Inc., 1998), pp. 55-56.
22)
A. Williams, Trickster and Pranksters (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2000), p. 73. For an
example, see C. Ballard, Inquiry into Native American Literature and Mythology,
Wicazo Sa Review 9 (1993), p. 14.
23)
A. Millard, Solomon in All His Glory, Vox Evangelica 12 (1981), pp. 5-18.
24)
S.C. Mimouni, La Figure Messianique de Salomon dans le Judasm Ancien, in
J.-L. Bacqu-Grammont and J.-M. Durand (eds), LImage de Salomon (Cahiers de la
Socit Asiatique, n.s., 5; Paris: Peeters, 2007), p. 41.

R.D. Miller / Biblical Interpretation 19 (2011) 496-504

501

as foundational for Israels cultural traditions, in spite of his sinful end.


Such is the trickster: a recurrent theme in trickster tales is that, even
after taking into account all the anarchic social behavior, the trickster contributes substantially to the birth and evolution of culture.25
Solomons wisdom, moreover, is always the cunning ( )of Genesis 2s trickster serpent (Prov 1:1-7). Solomons wisdom has been considered a Persian-period addition to the earlier traditions of wealth and
women,26 but in terms of characterization, they are part of the same literary trope.
To advance the analysis of Solomon as trickster further, we should
compare Solomon with a specic trickster, and here that comparand
will be the trickster of the Lenape mythology, Wehixamukes27. He is a
miracle-working wise fool, a trickster and a hero.28 is particular
trickster is foolish as the one who misunderstands, who takes all
metaphors literally and misapplies ambiguous instructions, and in so
doing both becomes comically foolish and saves his people.29 Such a
trickster is found also in the Wyandot, Cayuga, Micmac, Seneca, and
Onondaga traditions.30 Yet in the Lenape and Wyandot traditions only,
he is also magically powerful.31 His martial prowess is supernatural,
and he has the power to heal the sick.32 Like Solomon (1 Kgs 3:5-15),
25)

W.G. Doty and W.J. Hynes, Historical overview of theoretical issues, in


W.J. Hynes and W.G. Doty (eds), Mythical Trickster Figures (Tuscaloosa: University
of Alabama Press, 1993), pp. 22-23.
26)
A. Lemaire, Salomon dans lHistoire, in J.-L. Bacqu-Grammont and J.-M.
Durand (eds), LImage de Salomon (Cahiers de la Socit Asiatique, n.s., 5; Paris: Peeters, 2007), p. 29.
27)
Technically, Whixamuks, or, Wa-e-aqon-oo-kase.
28)
J. Bierhorst, Mythology of the Lenape (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1995),
pp. 9-10.
29)
D. Nichols, Legends of the Delaware Indians and Picture Writing by Richard Adams
(Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1997), p. 6.
30)
Bierhorst, Mythology, pp. 83-84.
31)
Bierhorst, Mythology, pp. 83-84; Bierhorst, White Deer, p. 87. Other tricksters are
magically powerful, but only the Lenape/Wyandot combines the literal fool and the
magically powerful; Hynes, Mapping, pp. 39, 41. While it is possible that some of
these stories were adapted from European sources, no Lenape trickster story is known
to have a direct European parallel; Bierhorst, White Deer, p. 131.
32)
Bierhorst, White Deer, p. 132.

502

R.D. Miller / Biblical Interpretation 19 (2011) 496-504

Wehixamukes learns of his great gifts from a divine dream early in his
life.33 And, like Solomon (e.g., 1 Kgs 5:4b, 18), Wehixamukes dominates
his enemies without directly killing them.34
Solomon, too, becomes best known in post-biblical tradition as
one magically powerful. is tradition is well-known in the Quran,35
but is explicit as early as the Sefer HaRazim (ca. AD 400). Even in
the Dead Sea Scrolls, Solomon possesses his famous magic ring
(1QPsApa 1:1-6), the purpose of which is originally exorcistic (cf.
Josephus Ant., 8; Testament of Solomon, ca. AD 350; Questions of
Bartholomew 4:21, 2nd-5th century AD).36 Wisdom 7:21 describes
Solomon as possessing hidden wisdom. Although much in this
book is traditionally sapiential, dening wisdom as in Proverbs or
Sirach, in Wisd 7:15-22, Wisdom is almost magical. Solomon has
sure knowledge of the powers of spirits (v 20) and the actions
of the elements (v 17), Gk. , a term taken from Hellenistic magical texts.37
Wehixamukes is the literal fool in several stories. A tale found in the
1904 collection of Richard Adams,38 the M.R. Harrington papers
33)

Nichols, Legends, p. 3; Bierhorst, White Deer, p. 88.


Nichols, Legends, pp. 7-8; Bierhorst, White Deer, pp. 91-92. For discussion of
Solomon as deceptive king, see S. Lasine, Solomon and the Wizard of Oz, in
L.K. Handy (ed), e Age of Solomon (Studies in the History and Culture of the
Ancient Near East, 11; Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 375-91.
35)
Also in the Quran (27:26-42), Solomon explicitly tricks the Queen of Sheba; for
discussion, see Walter Brueggemann, Solomon (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2005), p. 234.
36)
P.A. Torijano, Solomon the Esoteric King (JSJSup, 73; Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp.
55-56, 77-85; G. Klaniczay, e Ambivalent Model of Solomon for Royal Sainthood
and Royal Wisdom, in I. Biliarsky and R.G. Paun (eds), e Biblical Models of Power
and Law (Rechtshistorische Reihe 366; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2008), p. 89. For full
discussion of Josephus Solomon, see L.H. Feldman, Josephus View of Solomon, in
L.K. Handy (ed), e Age of Solomon (Studies in the History and Culture of the
Ancient Near East, 11; Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 348-74.
37)
Torijano, Solomon, p. 93. On the possibility that the
in Qoh 2:8 refers
not to coers or breasts but to magical powers, see G. Sasson, In e Footsteps of the
Tradition About Solomon the Magician in the Literature of the Sages, Jewish Studies
Internet Journal 6 (2007), pp. 37-38, in Hebrew. If accurate, this would reect a considerably earlier association of Solomon with such powers.
38)
Nichols, Legends.
34)

R.D. Miller / Biblical Interpretation 19 (2011) 496-504

503

collected 1907-1910 in eastern Oklahoma,39 the Truman Michelson


collection from 1912 Oklahoma,40 and the Carl F. Voeglin collection
from 1930 Oklahoma41 involves Wehixamukes hearing a fellow-warrior yearn for a turkey to dip in his lard. Wehixamukes assists by capturing a live turkey [and] dipping it in the lard, the turkey gasping for
breath.42 From the Adams, Harrington, Voeglin, and Michelson collections is a story where the hunters are sent out individually in search
of bear. e one who rst sees a hole is to call the others. Wehixamukes
calls his fellows when he nds a tiny hole left in a tree by a woodpecker.43 From the Harrington, Voeglin, and Michelson collections, a tale
tells of Wehixamukes and the other hunters being told to kill the rst
thing they see. Wehixamukes fullls this command to the letter by
killing his hunting companion.44 e great Lenape traditionalist of the
mid-20th century, Nora ompson Dean or Touching Leaves Woman,
related a tale where Wehixamukes followed instructions to bind medicinal bark on an injury by tying himself to a tree.45 All of these stories
are much older than the date of their recording and were a part of the
Lenape traditional folklore for centuries.
Solomon, too, is the man-who-misunderstands, in 1 Kgs 3:16-28.
When the two prostitutes come before him, each arguing that the living child is hers, Solomons response is to order the child be cut in half.
e story and its outcome are quite familiar, and the true mother
shows herself by preferring to lose the child rather than see him killed.
39)
Box OC-160, folder 1; Box OC-161, folder 1; Box OC-163, folder 9, National
Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution, New York.
40)
Ethnological and Linguistic Field Notes from the Munsee in Kansas and the Delaware in Oklahoma, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
41)
Delaware Texts, International Journal of American Linguistics 11 (1945), pp. 10519.
42)
Nichols, Legends, p. 4; Bierhorst, Mythology, pp. 47, 51-52, 60-61; Htakonanulaxk,
e Grandfathers Speak: Native American Folk Tales of the Lenap People (New York:
Interlink Publishing Group, 1994), pp. 80-81.
43)
Nichols, Legends, p. 5; Bierhorst, Mythology, pp. 47, 51-52; Bierhorst, White Deer,
pp. 92-93; Htakonanulaxk, Grandfathers, p. 79.
44)
Bierhorst, Mythology, pp. 47, 51-52; Bierhorst, White Deer, pp. 93-94; Htakonanulaxk, Grandfathers, p. 82.
45)
Bierhorst, White Deer, p. 83.

504

R.D. Miller / Biblical Interpretation 19 (2011) 496-504

Solomons clever solution sounds very crass, but when compared with
Wehixamukes literature it seems quite familiar.46 e trickster displays
his wisdom by his foolishness, by taking things too literally. Touching
Leaves Woman reported that Wehixamukes, likewise, acted that way
because he wanted to fool people and he wanted to test them.47 Most
importantly, this is not one isolated episode in Solomons career. It is
the grounds for all Israel holding the king in awe, recognizing that
he possessed divine wisdom (v 28) and the only story given to illustrate his wisdom.48
is essay has shown that the biblical character of Solomon can be
understood as a trickster, a gure well-known in folklore study. Traditions of Solomons birth, sexual appetite and consequent fall, wisdom,
and magic all make up this characterization. His paradigmatic example of wisdom parallels the Lenape trickster, Wehixamukes, with whom
Solomon shares other characteristics. is means that the character of
Solomon, whatever the origin of the individual stories, can be seen as
literarily coherent.49 It is possible that these elements were not originally diverse, or that a nal editor has woven a unied character from
diverse elements. In either case, the post-biblical tradition of Solomon
the miracle-worker or even magician ts integrally with this character.
Given the connection of magic or mantic wisdom with biblical wisdom elsewhere (e.g., Genesis 37; 40-41; Dan 1:17, 20), perhaps Solomon the sage originally included Solomon the magician and the
mantic/magical aspect of the Solomonic tradition has been purged from
the material in the major canons, but hinted at in Wisd 7:15-22.

46)
A marked parallel is found in comments made by Charles Elkhair in Michelsons
1912 collection: If you said, Father, take pity on my child, he would take his ax and
put it out of misery. But if you said, Take pity and cure him, he would do it; Bierhorst, White Deer, p. 132, italics original.
47)
Bierhorst, White Deer, p. 82.
48)
e demonstration of his wisdom to the international world is the visit of the
Queen of Sheba. In both cases, the demonstration is primarily witnessed by women,
itself an oddity in the biblical tradition; Czvek, ree Seasons, p. 196.
49)
Contra Lemaire, Salomon, p. 31.

Potrebbero piacerti anche