The Kings of Israel – 7 / Solomon – 2

King Solomon  – Biblical Text vs. History

As with David, it is difficult to assess as history the biblical traditions regarding Solomon’s reign. In the absence of contemporary Hebrew texts or references to Solomon in ancient Near Eastern texts, we must depend almost exclusively on the Bible and archaeology.

The principal parts of 1 Kings 1–11 contain an early literary tradition that appears to have been taken from a now-lost account of Solomon’s reign, referred to in the Bible as “the Acts of Solomon” (1 Kings 11:41), which was probably written not long after Solomon’s death. The lost account presented Solomon as a typically wise king since it could not speak about his glory at war.  However, this early tradition is often mixed with later Deuteronomistic additions and with emendations by later editors.  For instance, two different literary traditions seem to have been combined in 1 Kings 9:26–10:13, concerning the journey to Ophir and the visit of the Queen of Sheba. Part of the early tradition preserved in Kings tries to justify and exalt Solomon. This is even truer of later traditions. For example, 2 Chronicles 8:3–4 refers to Solomon’s expedition to northern Syria: “And Solomon went to Hamath-Zobah and took it. He built Tadmor [Palmyra] in the wilderness and all the store-cities which he built in Hamath.” However, the Hebrew text of 1 Kings 9:15–18, which lists Solomon’s building projects, does not mention Hamath-Zobah or Tadmor. These names are probably a conforming alteration of 1 Kings 9:15–18 by the author of Chronicles.  In the same way, the Hebrew text of 1 Kings 9:19 mentions “Lebanon,” in addition to Jerusalem, as a place where Solomon conducted building activities; however, “Lebanon” is missing in some manuscripts of the Greek translation known as the Septuagint and probably has no historical basis.

Relations with Egypt

Although Egypt is hardly mentioned as a political power in the biblical accounts of David’s reign, several pharaohs did play an important role in Solomon’s day. At the beginning of Solomon’s reign, a pharaoh attacked Gezer. This pharaoh, as earlier mentioned, was probably Siamun, one of the last pharaohs of the XXIst Dynasty.  Although Egyptian texts thus far discovered do not confirm the matrimonial alliance between Solomon and the pharaoh’s daughter, several studies have tried to show that there was a strong Egyptian cultural influence at Solomon’s court. As evidence, these studies cite the design of the royal cabinet  and Solomon’s organization of the country into 12 administrative districts.  Regarding the 12 administrative districts, however, some scholars contend that the influence went in the opposite direction.  That the same type of administrative organization appears at about the same time in Israel as in Egypt is probably not a mere coincidence, although the direction of influence is not entirely clear. It is also quite possible that the literary tradition of the 12 sons of Jacob and of the 12 tribes of Israel finds its origin in this organization into 12 administrative districts, as Gösta W. Ahlström has suggested.  The notion of 12 tribes of Israel would thus be a retrojection from this period to the patriarchal age.

Another pharaoh mentioned in the biblical account of Solomon’s reign (in connection with Jeroboam’s revolt [1 Kings 11:26–42]) is called “Shishak.” This is Pharaoh Sheshonk, the founder of the XXIInd Dynasty. Shishak was a strong personality who wanted to restore Egyptian power, especially in the ancient Egyptian province of Canaan. His accession to the throne (c. 945 B.C.E.) probably marks a turning point in Solomon’s reign. Instead of an ally and friend, Shishak was hostile to the Israelite king and supportive of all his opponents. Finally, in the fifth year of the reign of Solomon’s successor and son, Rehoboam, Shishak organized a military expedition against the kingdoms of Judah and Israel (1 Kings 14:25–28).

It is therefore not surprising to find Shishak supporting Jeroboam’s revolt. This political and military threat—and the independence of Damascus—probably increased the financial strains on Solomon. He received less tribute and had to spend more money on defense.

Nonetheless, if we put aside overstatements and later additions, and discount for the flattering style of most of the texts, the principal points of the biblical tradition seem generally trustworthy. We can rely most heavily on passages that are close in style to contemporaneous annals and administrative texts.

Our extrabiblical knowledge of the history of the region during this period provides information regarding several aspects of Solomon’s reign, especially in connection with his relations with Egypt,  but also with Phoenicia and Sheba. And archaeology helps us to understand Solomon’s reputation as a builder, as well as the social transformation that took place during his reign.

Relations with Phoenicia

 A literary tradition sheds some light on the relationship between Israel and Phoenicia at this time. Preserved in Phoenician annals, the tradition has been transmitted to us second- or thirdhand through Menander of Ephesus, Alexander Dius Polyhistor and Josephus.  Although we must read these works with some caution, because they evolved indirectly via two or three Greek intermediaries, they are part of a serious literary tradition; they reflect the use of actual Tyrian archives or annals telling about the principal military expeditions and building activities of the Phoenician kings.  Some kind of Solomonic annals probably existed as a contemporaneous parallel—and may well have been partly inspired by the Phoenician annals. Thus Josephus quotes Dius Polyhistor, probably from his history of Phoenicia:

On the death of Abibalus [Abibaal], his son Hirom came to the throne. He leveled up the eastern part of the city with embankments, enlarged the town, united it by a causeway to the temple of Olympian Zeus, which was isolated on an island, and adorned it with offerings of gold; he also went up to Libanus and had timber cut down for the construction of temples.

Menander of Ephesus, as quoted by Josephus, writes of a similar tradition.  Even if these texts present historical problems of their own and differ in detail, they were probably originally based on the same annals of Tyre and thus shed some light on the cultural and commercial relations between Hiram and Solomon. Furthermore, other late traditions as well as some Phoenician inscriptions confirm the important part played by the Phoenicians, mainly the Tyrians, in the maritime trade of the Red Sea during the first millennium BCE.

The Queen of Sheba

 Although in the Bible the story of the Ophir expedition through the Red Sea is now intertwined with the expedition of the Queen of Sheba (1 Kings 9:26–10:22), these two events should not be confused. The Queen of Sheba did not come on Phoenician-Israelite ships plying the Red Sea but traveled instead on camels and brought with her primarily spices. These two features are characteristic of the Arabian peninsula. Although the story of the Queen of Sheba contains various literary and legendary themes and was clearly written to glorify Solomon, Assyrian texts of the eighth and seventh centuries BCE do mention a kingdom of Sheba in Arabia and several queens of northern Arabian kingdoms.  Other Assyrian texts, connected with Hindanu on the Middle Euphrates, show that the international South-Arabian trade was already in place in about 890 BCE  In light of these texts, we know that an official mission of Sheba could well have come from southern Arabia to Jerusalem in the second half of the tenth century BCE

Relations with Edom—or Aram?

 The confused story of Hadad the “Edomite” and “Rezon the son of Eliyada” (1 Kings 11:14–22) probably represents a distorted image of a historical tradition concerning the first king of Damascus: the Aramean Prince (Rezon) Hadad, son of Eliyada,  whose revolt Solomon apparently did not dare to crush by a military expedition, which means that Solomon probably did not control any Aramean country.