Solomon's Early Reign (2 Chr 1:1-17)

The story of Solomon as presented by the Chronicler (Chr) is inspired by the narratives found in 1 Kings. The description of Solomon’s reign provides continuity with the reign of David and affirms that God’s promise to David was fulfilled in the reign of his son and in the construction of the temple. Chronicles presents a more positive depiction of Solomon's reign than the book of Kings. A major portion of the narrative about Solomon’s reign is dedicated to events related to the construction of the temple. This dominant theme in the Solomonic narrative is seen as the realization of the promise made to David and the culmination of David's preparation for the building of the temple. The Chr also focuses on Solomon's wisdom and wealth. These gifts were given to him to prove the Chr’s agenda that Solomon was blessed because of his obedience. In 1 Chr 29:25 it is said of Solomon that “the LORD highly exalted Solomon in the sight of all Israel and bestowed on him royal splendor such as no king over Israel ever had before.” Because of Solomon’s obedience, God blessed him with wealth and wisdom, which he used to build the temple.

1:1-6 / The Chr begins his narrative about Solomon’s reign by introducing
him as the son of David. This introduction emphasizes that Solomon is continuing David’s work and that in him God was establishing David’s house. According to the Chr, Solomon’s reign began with a religious pilgrimage to the holy place at Gibeon. This pilgrimage occurred after Solomon established himself firmly over his kingdom (v.1). The establishment of the kingdom in Solomon's hand (cf. 1 Kgs 2:46b) may reflect the problems Solomon had in his struggle against Adonijah, his older brother (1 Kgs 1:1-2:46). The same phrase is used to describe the beginning of the reign of Rehoboam (12:13), Abijah (13:21), Jehoshaphat (17:1), and Jehoram (21:4). This expression is used by the Chr to indicate that a new king assumed the throne after overcoming some opposition. The religious focus of the Chr is evident in his declaration that the LORD was with Solomon and that he greatly blessed him.

Because the Chr omits Solomon's struggle with Adonijah, Solomon’s first act as king becomes his visit to the high place at Gibeon (v.3). The narrative in Chronicles differs slightly from 1 Kgs 3:4-15. The book of Kings presents the visit to Gibeon as a personal pilgrimage of the new king. The Chr, however, says that Solomon went to Gibeon with all the leaders in Israel (v.2). These leaders represented the tribal organization of early Israel (cf. 1 Chr 28:1). Among these leaders were the commanders of thousands (1 Chr 13:1), commanders of hundreds (1 Chr 13:1), judges (1 Chr 17:8), the leaders in Israel (1 Chr 11:3), and the heads of families (1 Chr 15:2). These leaders represented all Israel. Solomon led the whole assembly in this religious pilgrimage. At Gibeon, Solomon and the assembly worshiped the LORD and inquired of him (v.5). While Kings says that Gibeon “was the most important high place” (1 Kgs 3:4), the Chr defends Gibeon as a proper place of worship by saying that the Tent of Meeting and the altar of bronze made by Bezalel, ben Uri ben Hur, under the direction of Moses were in Gibeon (Exod. 40:17-19; 1 Chr 16:39-40; 21:29). The Ark was in Jerusalem under the tent David had made when he brought the Ark of God from Kiriath Jearim (1 Chr 15:1). Solomon offered a large offering upon the bronze altar. The large number, a thousand, may be a hyperbole used by the Chr to show Solomon’s dedication to the worship of God. On this occasion, the Chr uses a large number in order to magnify Solomon’s devotion to God. The Chr says that Solomon went up to the bronze altar, and offered sacrifices before Yahweh (v.6). This expression, missing in 1 Kings, affirms that Solomon acted as a priest at this occasion (cf. JPS: “Solomon ascended the bronze altar”).

1:7-13 / The theophany narrative in vv.7-13 is an abbreviation of 1 Kgs 3:3-
15. There are several differences between Kings and Chronicles. The Chr does not mention that God appeared to Solomon in a dream, although that may be implied in the fact that the theophany occurred at night. In the postexilic period dreams had fallen into disrepute because of past abuse (cf. Jer 23:23-28). The Chr omits Solomon’s statement that he was a “little child” maybe in an effort to present Solomon as a capable leader. The Chr also omits God’s exhortation to Solomon to obey the law (1 Kgs 3:14). This omission may reflect the Chr’s view that Solomon had already been exhorted by David to keep the law (1 Chr 22:13). God appeared to Solomon and offered to grant him any request to help him discharge his duties as king and govern the people (v.7), which God identifies as my people (v. 11). God’s words to Solomon serve to emphasize that Solomon’s rule over Israel was divinely ordained. Solomon acknowledged God’s great kindness toward his father (v. 8) and requested that God confirm his promise to David. The reference to the people being as numerous as the dust of the earth (v.9) is a reference to the promise God made to Abraham (Gen 13:16) and to Jacob (Gen 28:14). Instead of power and possessions, Solomon asked for wisdom and knowledge to rule over the people (v.10). “Wisdom” refers to the ability to rule righteously. “Knowledge” means the intellectual discernment to make right decisions. The promise Solomon alluded to in his request (v. 9) refers to God’s promise made to David in 1 Chronicle 17. God’s promise assured David that one of his sons would succeed him (1 Kgs 17:11) and that he would build a house for God (1 Kgs 17:12). God granted Solomon what he had requested and in addition promised to bless and prosper him with the wealth, riches and honor which he did not request (v. 11). The Chr wants to emphasize that Solomon’s wealth and wisdom are the result of his obedience to God. After worshiping the LORD at Gibeon, Solomon returned to Jerusalem and reigned over all Israel. The Chr omits Solomon’s sacrificing before the Ark after he returned to Jerusalem (1 Kgs 3:15).

1:14-17 / The accumulation of great wealth by Solomon was seen as the
fulfillment of God's promise. God had promised to give Solomon great wealth and now the Chr describes it. Solomon had 1,400 chariots and 12,000 horses or horsemen (the Hebrew word Päräšîm can be translated either as horses or horsemen). According to 2 Chr 9:25 Solomon had 4,000 stalls for his horses and chariots. Solomon placed some of the horses and chariots in Jerusalem and in chariot cities he had built for them throughout Israel. Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer have been identified as Solomon's chariot cities, but this identification has been questioned by some archaeologists. Archaeologists question whether the structures at Megiddo are to be identified as stables or storehouses. They also question whether these structures should be associated with Solomon or be assigned to Ahab, king of Israel.

Solomon accumulated his wealth by acting as a merchant. He imported chariots from Egypt and horses from Egypt and from Kue, a region in southeast Asia Minor identified with Cilicia. Solomon sold the horses and chariots to all the kings of the Hittites and of the Arameans. The Hittites were an Indo-European people who occupied most of the central Anatolian plateau (modern Turkey). The Arameans consisted of a confederation of city-states who flourished at the end of the second millennium in the area occupied by modern day Syria. Chariots were probably introduced into Egypt by the Hyksos about 1800 BCE. These chariots were usually drawn by two horses. The price of a chariot was six hundred shekels of silver and the price of a horse was a hundred and fifty shekels. Thus, a chariot cost four times the price of a horse. Solomon became so rich with his commercial ventures that it was said that silver and gold became as common as the stones in the hills of Israel and the expensive cedar became as plentiful as the sycamore-fig trees found in the Shephelah, the low foothills of Judah (cf. 1 Kgs 10:27; 1 Chr 27:28). The Chr does not criticize Solomon for accumulating wealth, rather he received favorable approval because his role in international trade brought him wealth, riches, and honor. Thus, the Chr is emphasizing that Solomon’s riches were the result of God’s blessings because Solomon’s wealth was to be used in the building of the Temple.

Additional Notes

1:1 / Established himself. The NIV translation implies that Solomon’s
accession to the throne came after he overcame the political struggles with Adonijah. The KJV’s translation, “was strengthened in his kingdom” suggests that it was the LORD who placed Solomon on the throne. The words the LORD his God was with him emphasize the LORD’s role in giving Solomon the throne.

1:3 / Assembly. The Hebrew word qāhāl is used to designate a gathering or an
assembly of any sort but the word is used more often to designate an assembly gathered together for religious purposes.

1:5 / Inquired of him. The text here is ambiguous. It could be translated
“inquired of it,” that is, the bronze altar. This is the translation adopted by the NRSV.

1:8 / Great kindness. The Hebrew word hesed, which is generally translated
great kindness, mercy, and steadfast love means loyalty and it refers to a deep commitment that comes out of a covenant obligation.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Solomon

The Wisdom of Old Age

James Ball Naylor (1860-1945) was a physician and also a prolific writer of early Ohio history. He wrote poetry and historical novels, with a focus on the struggles between frontier settlers and Indian tribes in the Ohio territory. Recently, I found one of his quotes that speaks about the wisdom of old age:

King David and King Solomon
Led merry, merry lives,
With many, many lady friends
And many, many wives;
But when old age crept over them,
With many, many qualms,
King Solomon wrote Proverbs
And King David wrote the Psalms

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: David, Proverbs, Psalms, Solomon

Traces of the First Temple Found

Israel National News is reporting that traces of the First Temple have been found during the digging of a trench in the Temple Mount. The following is an excerpt from the news report:

The unauthorized dig of a trench this past summer by the Moslem Waqf on the Temple Mount had a thin silver lining: Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) personnel monitoring the trench-digging have, for the first time.

It was assumed that precious findings were destroyed.

The IAA studied an archaeological level dating to the First Temple Period, exposed in the area close to the south-eastern corner of the raised platform surrounding the Dome of the Rock.

Jerusalem District Archaeologist Yuval Baruch uncovered fragments of ceramic table wares, animal bones, and more. The finds date from the 8th to 6th centuries BCE; the First Temple existed between the 9th and 5th centuries BCE, having been built by King Solomon in 832 and destroyed in 422 BCE.

The archaeological team - Baruch of the IAA, Prof. Sy Gitin, Director of the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, Prof. Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University and Prof. Ronny Reich of Haifa University - reached the conclusion, after examining the finds, that their characteristics and location may aid scholars in reconstructing the dimensions and boundaries of the Temple Mount during the First Temple Period.

The finds include fragments of bowl rims, bases and body sherds, the base of a juglet used for the ladling of oil, the handle of a small juglet, and the rim of a storage jar. The bowl sherds were decorated with wheel burnishing lines characteristic of the First Temple Period.

The Israel Antiquities Authority is promising to hold a conference to discuss the findings and the reasons it associates these finding with the First Temple.

I hope that this conference is held as soon as possible. There are so many news coming out of this dig in the Temple Mount that the Israel Antiquities Authority should make an official statement of what is fact and what is propaganda.

Claude Mariottini
Profesor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, Solomon, Temple , Temple Mount

A Rare Coin Found at Gezer

In an article published in the Star-Telegram.com, Steven Ortiz, an associate professor of archaeology and biblical studies at Southwestern Baptist Seminary, is reporting that a dig at a fortification in Gezer has revealed collapsed mud-brick walls which were probably burned by the Assyrians in the eighth century B.C.

In addition, archaeologists also found a cylinder seal with the image of a king, with his outstretched bow in hand, and riding on a animal. Archaeologists also found a silver coin dating to the reign of Ptolemy IV (207-205 B.C.). According to Ortiz, the coin is only the third of its kind excavated in Israel.

According to Ortiz, the people working at Gezer “were quite surprised at the preservation of the Assyrian destruction.”

Read the complete news report by visiting the Star-Telegram.com.

Of course, Jim West is skeptical about the findings. Jim wrote:

Perhaps it’s time to remind ourselves that without substantive evidence, the marriage of the Bible to scrapings in the dirt is tenuous at best; and the use of any and every bit of remains as linkage to the biblical narrative is disingenuous and ultimately misleading.

I wonder what it would take to convince Jim that some archaeological findings may demonstrate that some events in the Bible are based on historical facts.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, Gezer, Solomon

The Lost Kings of the Bible: A Review

On Sunday, May 6, 2007, The National Geographic Channel will present the “Lost Kings of the Bible.” This program is a study of the reign of David and Solomon and a discussion of recent archaeological discoveries that have a bearing on the historical events described in the biblical text.

The blurb describing the program summarizes the content of the program: “Are two of the most famous kings of the Bible - King David and King Solomon - mythical heroes or made of flesh and blood?” The program will explore what the National Geographic Channel calls “groundbreaking new evidence that may provide answers to these questions.”

The purpose of this post is to review some of the issues that will be raised by the program and addressed by some of the archaeologists that were interviewed in the program. The issues discussed in this post are in the forefront of the debate raging in scholarly circles on the historicity of David and his monarchy.

The question that has been raised by biblical scholars and archaeologists concerns the historical reliability of the biblical texts. In recent years, archaeologists have claimed that the patterns of settlement in the land of the Bible have cast doubts about whether there was a united monarchy during the days of David and Solomon.

The traditional view says that after the death of Saul, David became the king of Judah first and then of Israel. David became the king of a united Israel. David’s kingdom grew and became a small empire. With the conquest of neighboring nations, David’s kingdom covered a territory that extended from the borders of Egypt all the way to the Euphrates.

However, this view has been challenged by archaeologists. In their book, The Bible Unearthed, Finkelstein and Silberman (p. 131) say that there is no archaeological evidence for David’s conquests or for his empire. Their conclusion was that archaeologists misdated the evidence for David and Solomon by a century (p. 142).

Some biblical scholars are skeptical about the historicity of the Davidic monarchy. In his review of Storia d’Israele: Introduzione alla storia d’Israele e Giuda dalle origini alla rivolta di Bar Kochbà by Alberto J. Soggin, Jim West wrote:

One overarching question that needs further address (not only by Soggin but by most historians of ancient Israel) is, How can so much be said about so many when historical sources are so few (and almost fairly said, nonexistent)? How can Soggin really say what he says about the Davidic monarchy when there is no historical source for it?

After discussing the problem of history vs. historiography, Jim concludes:

In short, what Soggin brilliantly offers us here is theology in the makeup of history. If the makeup is scrubbed off and the pristine skin of theology laid bare for what it is, we have a simple retelling of the story of the Bible. Or perhaps an archaeological example will be better. If the patina of theology is scrapped [sic] off the underlying historical events, the one who scrapes will soon discover that the patina is so thick that the actual artifact is forever encased and hence lost unless the patina is thoroughly shattered, which would sadly also shatter the membrane-thin artifact beneath. What Soggin (and virtually all other historians of ancient Israel) offers us is more patina on the existing patina of historicism. If this is not the case, I have a simple solution: let two or three witnesses (aside from the biblical text) be called and testify to what they have seen and heard or else admit the hearsay nature of the evidence and dismiss the case called Historical Ancient Israel as unfounded.

There are three witnesses (aside from the biblical text) that mention the house of David: the Tel Dan Stela, the Mesha Stela, and the Karnak Inscription.

The Tel Dan Stela. The discovery and publication of the fragments of the Tel Dan inscription revealed for the first time the existence of “the house of David.” This reference to David in the Tel Dan Stela is the first time that the name of David appears in a non-biblical material. Although a few scholars have made an attempt at translating byt-dwd as the “Temple of Dod,” this translation has been almost universally rejected. Dod as the name of a god does not appear in any ancient literature.

The Tel Dan mentions a king of Israel and a king from the House of David. Although the fragments are broken, the names have been identified with Jehoram, son of Ahab and king of Israel, and Ahaziah, a king from the house of David.

The Mesha Stela. The second reference to the House of David appears in the stela of Mesha, king of Moab. Mesha ruled in the 9th century B.C. Mesha had been paying tribute to Israel since the days of Omri but after the death of Ahab, Omri’s son, he rebelled and reconquered several cities that were under Israelite control, including the city of Horonen, which was under the control of the house of David.

The Karnak Inscription. The third reference to the house of David may be found in the Karnak inscription in Thebes. The inscription celebrates Shishak’s victory against the Asiatics.
Shishak, also known as Shoshenq I, was a Libyan and the founder of the Twenty-Second Dynasty of Egypt. Shishak invaded Canaan in the fifth year of Rehoboam, son of Solomon and king of Judah. The information about his presence in Canaan is found in 1 Kings 14:25-26 and in 2 Chronicles 12:2-9. According to the biblical text, Shishak took as tribute the wealth of the temple and the treasures of the royal palace. The inscription lists the places in Israel and Judah that Shishak said he conquered. Among the names listed there is a list of places located in “the heights of David.”

In addition to this possible evidence for the name of David, other recent archaeological discoveries are shedding light on the tenth century and events associated with the life of David. For instance, I have written about the discovery of David’s palace by Eilat Mazar and about Aren Maeir’s discovery of a broken piece of pottery containing an inscription in early Semitic style spelling with the name of Goliath.

More and more archeologists are discovering evidence that David was a real person. The discovery of inscriptions bearing the title “the house of David” tends to substantiate that David was a real person. Now, there is no reason to deny the historicity of David and his house.

As for the reality of a monarchy, the recent findings may not be enough yet to prove that there was a government in Jerusalem during David’s reign. Was David the leader of an Iron Age chiefdom? Is the concept of a united monarchy the legacy of the post-exilic community?

As Finkelstein and Silberman wrote:

There is hardly a reason to doubt the historicity of David and Solomon. Yet there are plenty of reasons to question the extent and splendor of their realm. If there was no big empire, if there were no monuments, if there was no magnificent capital, what was the nature of David’s realm?

I do not believe that the “Lost Kings of the Bible” will answer this question. Until a few years ago, some people were willing to say that David and Solomon never existed and that they were invented to promote a utopian view of a united Israel.

Today we can say with certainty that there was a “house of David” and that someone was called “Goliath.” Today we can say that Omri, Ahab, Jehoram, Jehu, Jehoash, Menahem, Pekah, and Hoshea, kings of Israel, are mentioned in extra-biblical documents. We can also say with certainty that David, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Uzziah, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah, kings of Judah, are also mentioned in extra-biblical documents.

What else is buried in the remains of old cities? What kinds of written material are buried that have not yet been discovered? We do not know what else will be discovered a few years from now or in the next decade. But one thing is sure: little by little we are learning that the lost kings of the Bible are being found, one at the time.

References:

Biran, Avraham. “‘David’ Found at Dan.” Biblical Archaeology Review (March/April 1994): 26-39.

Finkelstein, Israel and Neil A. Silberman. The Bible Unearthed. New York: The Free Press, 2001.

Kitchen, K. A. “A Possible Mention of David in the Late Tenth Century BCE, and the Deity *Dod as Dead as the Dodo?” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 76 (1997): 29-44.

Lemaire, Andre. “‘House of David’ Restored in Moabite Inscription.” Biblical Archaeology Review (May/June 1994): 30-37.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: David, Karnak Inscription, Lost Kings of the Bible, Mesha Stela, Solomon, Tel Dan Stela

Lost Kings of the Bible

The National Geographical Channel will present “Lost Kings of the Bible” on Sunday, May 6, 2007, at 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, 9:00 p.m. Central. The program deals with the reign of King David and whether or not David was a real person.

The following is a short description of the content of “Lost Kings of the Bible” provided by the
National Geographical Channel:

Are two of the most famous kings of the Bible - King David and King Solomon - mythical heroes or made of flesh and blood? Jews, Christians, and Muslims have all chronicled the fantastic lives of these kings but skeptics have historically dismissed the stories for their lack of proof. Now, in Lost Kings of the Bible, the National Geographic Channel explores the groundbreaking new evidence that may provide answers to these questions.

The new evidence mentioned above is the Tel Dan Inscription. Scholars agree that the Tel Dan Inscription mentions “the house of David” and gives evidence to the historicity of David. This is a program worth watching.

To watch a brief video of “Lost Kings of the Bible,” click here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

UPDATE: Jim West has a post about the “Lost Kings of the Bible.” In his post he has comments from Eric H. Cline and Aren Maeir who are participants in the program. Both of them agree that the program is balanced and gives a fair presentation of the scholarly debate about David and Solomon. I specially recommend that you read Cline’s comment.

UPDATE II: I have written a post reviewing the issues discussed in the program. Read "The Lost Kings of the Bible: A Review."

Tags: Archaeology, David, Solomon, Tel Dan Inscription