Mashal Le-Melekh: The Search for Solomon

Abstract

Many references to Solomon in the Bible seem to be the outcome of innerbiblical exegesis applied to earlier texts. This study highlights the particular forms of exegesis that were used and their proximity to later midrashic explanation. By submitting earlier narratives to midrashic techniques, the books of Writings reveal their relatively late dating. However, the use of these techniques does not automatically discredit the historical kernel of a particular reference; rather, it lends it an interpretive “spin,” enlarging the character of Solomon to legendary proportions.

The case for extensive inner-biblical interpretation has been made by Michael Fishbane in his comprehensive volume, and more recently by Yair Zakovitch in two separate books.¹ In this paper, we will attempt to show how various types of inner-biblical interpretation were marshaled to develop the character of a single biblical figure, King Solomon. While the natural focus of such a search is the resultant image of Solomon, we would like to investigate the exegetical methods that were used to paint this portrait, in order to assess their implications for dating those books in which they appear and their relation to the origins of midrashic explanation. Though our main interest lies in the methods used to expand the image of Solomon, we shall nevertheless be paying attention to the portrait of Solomon that was drawn and the impression it made on subsequent writers.² In Bialik and Ravnitsky’s Sefer Ha-Aggadah, King David is accorded twenty-three entries and Solomon twenty. Yet David’s legends take up seven pages and those for Solomon, nine.³ David’s entries, at least in name, are all historical, while the longest chapters allotted to Solomon are entitled “Solomon’s Throne” and “Solomon as King and Commoner,” two subjects which are respectively midrashic elaborations of several verses⁴ and a legendary motif with no scriptural basis at all. Louis Feldman, an acknowledged expert on Josephus, notes that the Roman-Jewish historian devoted more external evidence to support his account of Solomon in Antiquities of the Jews than for any other biblical character.⁵ The inspiration for all this interest in Solomon can only have been his image in the Bible.

Appropriating the title of Moshe Shamir’s novel about Alexander Jannaeus, King Solomon is presented in Kings as melekh basar va-dam, a flesh and blood monarch.⁶ Yet in other books he appears, to adopt the rabbinic phrase, to be more like a mashal le-melekh, a metaphorical king.⁷ It would indeed seem that the case of Solomon bears out the estimation that “historical biography occupies a kind of no-man’s-land between history and literature.”⁸

Indeed, some of his appearances are historical, others literary. The former sort is to be found in the books of Samuel and Kings,⁹ likewise in the histories of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah.¹⁰ Between the early and late histories, Solomon appears several times in Writings in books that we would class as literary compositions.¹¹ However, the Latter Prophets make no reference to him, neither with regard to the historical past nor the eschatological future.¹² Because the image of Solomon in Chronicles has been much commented upon, and may serve as a yardstick against which to measure his role in other parts of the Bible, we shall begin from there.

1. Chronicles

It is universally held that Chronicles, written in or after the Restoration period, offers a unique perspective on the same history that was presented earlier in Samuel and Kings.¹³ Michael Fishbane has pointed out that the Chronicler was able to turn history to his advantage by (a) reinterpreting the earlier sources, and (b) writing a revisionist history.¹⁴ An example of reinterpretation which he cites that is relevant to the image of Solomon is the following: in his prayer on the occasion of the dedication of the Temple in 1 Kgs 8:25, Solomon reminds God what He had promised his father David:

If only your descendants will look to their way and walk before Me as you have walked before Me, your line on the throne of David shall never end.

The same verse is slightly altered in 2 Chr 6:16:

If only your children will look to their way and walk in [the path of] my teachings as you have walked before Me.

By changing one word, reading in place of , the Chronicler re-interpreted the passage in Kings to accord with post-exilic ideals of Israelite piety. This is the equivalent of the rabbinic midrashist looking into a canonical Bible and reinterpreting words to arrive at a different meaning. Fishbane himself describes the above verse in 1 Kgs 8:25 as having been “aggadically revised.”¹⁵ I assume he means to say that by rewriting the verse, the Chronicler imparted a new sense to an old text in accord with his beliefs, while midrash accomplished the same by rereading.

The other thing that Chronicles does is to retell the earlier history in a different fashion, by addition and omission. There is a clear midrashic motif in revisionist re-telling as well, for here too the Chronicler remolds the past in order to instruct the present.¹⁶ The retold history of David and Solomon presents them as kings without blemish, shining examples for the Restoration period. This point is made by anyone who has dealt with Chronicles:

This author sought to put forward his political program not as such, but in the form of a history of bygone times—specifically, a retelling of much of the biblical books of Samuel and Kings. It was no doubt the mode of return that led this author, like so many others, to present his ideas not as innovations but as a return to the glorious past. That is, by omitting some things and adding others, this author reshaped the past and so made it into a more perfect model of what he himself wished to prescribe for the future.¹⁷

Aside from rewriting history and engaging in inner-biblical interpretation, the author of Chronicles made use of another midrashic technique to get across his message––the wordplay on names. Solomon’s birth is announced in Chronicles as follows:

Solomon will be his name and I shall confer peace and quiet on Israel in his time

(1 Chr 22:9).

Fishbane comments: “The Chronicler reminds the nation—aggadically—that the Temple of Jerusalem was, and is, founded on peace.”¹⁸ Once again “aggadically” means through the use of midrashic technique, this time the wordplay. Biblical name-puns at birth—Noah from zeh yenahamenu, Isaac because Sarah laughed (wa-titshaq)—are not linguistic etymologies, but pseudo-derivations that suit the story. Such biblical wordplays were the prototype for the “al tiqre” derashot and name derivations to be found later in rabbinic midrash, in which biblical words or names are revocalized or divided into two words or more to produce a new characterization. With little effort Solomon’s name could imply both wholeness and peace, shalem and shalom. And so, besides the above etymology Shelomo-shalom, we find in Chronicles an additional wordplay on his name:

And you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with single mind and fervent heart

(1 Chr 28:9).

Both wordplays enhance the image that the Chronicler wants to draw for Solomon: a man of peace (shalom) and perfection (shalem).¹⁹

Rewriting texts and punning with names in Chronicles suggests that with time, the earlier texts and the personages within them had achieved special status. The book of Kings had become canonical and the names had become iconic; consequently, “Solomon” in Chronicles was polished to perfection. His is closely linked there to peace and the Temple, subjects relevant to the Restoration period. By whitewashing Solomon’s image and turning history into instruction, the Chronicler has written a type of midrash.²⁰

The generally accepted date for the composition of Chronicles is the end of the Persian period in the fourth century B.C.E., about 600 years after Solomonic times.²¹ By way of comparison, George Washington, 150 years after his death (if not sooner), had become a symbol of sterling character around whom legends had grown. Solomon’s legendary status in Chronicles should therefore not surprise us. The shift from history to literature was made through the midrashic techniques of revising and retelling, as well as the use of etymological wordplays.²²

Having seen that Solomon’s role in Chronicles is that of an exemplar, I will move on to the other books of the Writings in which Solomon is cited—Psalms, Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and Ezra-Nehemiah—to investigate whether his name is invoked as part and parcel of a historical record, or whether he has been revived and his scope enlarged as a result of innerbiblical interpretation.

2. Psalm 72

The first mention of Solomon in Psalms comes in the form of an attribution:

Psalm 72:1, 2, 3, 7, 10

(1) Of Solomon. O God, endow the king with Your judgments, The king’s son with Your righteousness; (2) that he may judge Your people rightly, Your lowly ones, justly. (3) Let the mountains produce well-being (shalom) for the people, the hills, the rewards of justice… (7) that the righteous might flourish in his time and well-being (shalom) abound, till the moon is no more… (10) Let kings of Tarshish and the islands pay tribute, kings of Sheba and Seba offer gifts.

This psalm was identified by Gunkel as a Royal Psalm. “Gunkel emphasized as their distinguishing feature the fact that they deal with a king who must be regarded as a native Israelite monarch of the pre-exilic period.”²³ If so, this psalm seems tailor-made for King Solomon. Endowing a king and his son with justice and righteousness so that the latter might judge equitably can easily be understood as referring to David and Solomon; after all, about the first we were told: “David executed true justice among all his people” (2 Sam 8:15). Of the latter the Lord said, “You did not ask for long life, you did not ask for riches … you asked for discernment in dispensing justice” (1 Kgs 3:11).²⁴

The mention of Sheba is an additional link to Solomon. Further, we find two wordplays on his name, “Let the mountains produce well-being for the people,” and “and well-being abound till the moon is no more.” Mitchell Dahood thinks that “this prayer may well have been composed by a functionary of the Solomonic court. The language is in some verses very archaic, while vss. 1, 8, 10, 15 can all be applied to King Solomon.”²⁵

Yet all the above, which some may take as the plain sense of the psalm, may also be used to prove that this psalm was attributed to Solomon through late inner-biblical interpretation. Rather than containing facts about the life of Solomon, the psalm was attributed to Solomon (li-Shelomo) after taking a second look at the completed psalm in context. Chapter 72 closes the second book in Psalms, whose composition was ascribed to David in the final verse (“End of the prayers of David son of Jesse”). The entire psalm was therefore understood to be David’s last will and testament to his son (li-Shelomo), referred to as ben melekh in the first verse.²⁶

To be more specific, inner biblical interpretation read melekh and ben melekh not as parallel expressions for “king”²⁷ but rather as referring to two separate personages, a particular father and son, namely David and Solomon. This is the classic midrashic approach to parallel expressions.²⁸ Further, the psalm identifies unknown persons with known ones, also a midrashic trait. Based on such readings, once the psalm was captioned “To Solomon,” in the sense of “concerning Solomon,” it was easy enough to see the words shalom (twice), Sheba (twice), and “foreign kings bearing tribute” as referring to him or to events in his life.²⁹ “Reading Solomon back” into the psalm in these ways is typical of midrash.³⁰

3. Psalm 127

Like the first example, the second mention of Solomon in Psalms is also an attribution.

Psalm 127:1–5

A song of ascents. Of Solomon. Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain on it; unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman keeps vigil in vain

(Ps 127:1).

The entire psalm seems to be a brief collection of general proverbs and universal truths. If so, verse 1 had no particular house or city in mind.³¹ However, Psalm 127 is part of the fifteen Songs of Ascent, Psalms 120–134, that were sung on the steps of the Holy Temple and make explicit reference to the House of the Lord (Ps 122:1). In this context, bayit “house” in Psalm 127 was understood to be a reference to the Temple³² and ͑ir “city” to Jerusalem. This follows a midrashic pattern known as en-ella: “en bayit ella bet hamikdash v’en ͑ir ella Yerushalayim,” “‘House’ means none other than the Holy Temple and ‘city’ means nothing else but the holy city.” It was thus perfectly natural to ascribe the entire psalm to Solomon, who is described in Kings as the builder of the Temple, his own palace, and other buildings in Jerusalem.³³ Add to this the implicit reference to Solomon in verse 2, yedido “His loved one,” which recalls Solomon’s other name, Yedidiah, and we have inner-biblical midrash at its best.³⁴

4. Proverbs

Solomon is identified as the author of the book of Proverbs or of individual collections within it three times: (Prov 1:1), “The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel,” reminiscent of the beginning of Ecclesiastes; Prov 10:1, “The proverbs of Solomon”; Prov 25:1, “These too are proverbs of Solomon, which the men of King Hezekiah of Judah copied.” Are these ascriptions historical?

More than fifty years ago, following the discovery of Egyptian wisdom writings and their similarity to Proverbs, Walter Baumgartner wrote that “there is now again more disposition to treat seriously the ascription of both [the second collection, 10:1–22:16 and the fifth, chapters 25–29] to Solomon who, according to I Kings v. 9–14 and x. 1–10 was himself a ‘sage’ and composer of proverbs.”³⁵ However, the attribution of the entire book to Solomon in the first verse may well reflect an identification of Proverbs (Mishle) with the literary output ascribed to Solomon in 1 Kgs 5:12: “He composed three thousand proverbs,” where the term mashal is used. Bruegemann makes short shrift of the contention that any of these attributions are historical:

The first of these may be regarded as a late designation by the framers of the Book of Proverbs as canonical literature. The second is perhaps a late designation for an earlier, precanonical collection. And the third, Scott believes, bears witness to the time and activity of Hezekiah, but not the time of Solomon. In any case, these three superscriptions provide no basis for historical judgment.³⁶

5. The Song of Songs

The tendency to ascribe Solomonic authorship to Psalms and Proverbs might be called pseudo-historical, meaning that the ascriptions are presented as being historically true. Matching up an anonymous work with a famous person in the Bible continues on into classical midrash. However, in the case of The Song of Songs, King Solomon is clearly a literary trope; he has morphed into metaphor. I shall examine all seven references to him in this light.

Chapter 1:1–– “The Song of Songs, by Solomon” can also mean “The Song of Songs concerning Solomon.” This sense accords well with the rabbinic allegorical interpretation of the Song, in which Solomon is a metaphor for the Almighty, based on a rabbinic wordplay which turns Hebrew shelomo into an acronym: “the King to whom peace belongs,” .³⁷ As we saw in Chronicles, Shelomo and shalom go well together (reinforced in the rabbinic dictum by alliterative shelo).³⁸

However, a simple or straightforward reading of the verse gives the impression of Solomonic authorship. According to Michael V. Fox, “Solomon was the logical candidate for the authorship of this book because his name is mentioned in it and because he was famous both for the number of his wives and for his songs.”³⁹ In other words, ascribing this work to Solomon is, among other things, the result of applying the information in 1 Kgs 5:12, that Solomon was a composer of songs. But to assume that the songs he wrote were in the nature of love poetry because 1 Kgs 11:1 declared that he loved many women and 11:3 told of his many wives and concubines is a type of reasoning that might be called midrashic.

Nonetheless, some scholars seek and find historical Solomon to be embedded in the Song. Explaining Songs 3:9–11, “King Solomon made him a palanquin,” , Magne Saebø maintains that “the intent of the verses is to focus upon the historical Solomon, the rich and illustrious roi du soleil of ancient Israel.”⁴⁰ Apparently he was influenced by the narrative style of the verse to assume that it ostensibly records historical fact.⁴¹

However, Saebø concedes that other references to Solomon in the Song may be literary and not historical. So, (Song 8:10–11), “Solomon had a vineyard in Baal-Hamon,” while narrative in form, is not necessarily a statement of fact but a fanciful contrast between the legendary wealthy king and the poor shepherd: “This subtle way of using the wealth of Solomon has, to some extent, made the king a type-figure, a typos, in the framework of the literary composition. In this and other respects, the song may be understood as a multileveled literary composition.”⁴²

That the Song is literature and not history has long been known to others. Fox finds no historical references at all to Solomon in the entire poem: “King Solomon is not one of the characters of the Song. Mentioned only as the archetypal rich monarch with many wives, he is a foil for the boy, in the same way that the queens and concubines [ ], are foils for the girl in 6:9.”⁴³ To say that Solomon is not a character in the Song means that he is not a historical personage but an icon for certain themes.⁴⁴ We will go through all the remaining references to Solomon in the Song to see how he serves as a literary persona rather than a historical character.

Song 1:5–– ––“I am dark but comely, O daughters of Jerusalem, Like the tents of Kedar, Like the pavilions of Solomon.” Everywhere in the Bible, ohel, “tent” and yeriah are parallel words. Therefore, yeriot, like oholē, must connote a temporary structure and cannot be a reference to the Temple or palace of Solomon.⁴⁵ However, from the literary point of view, if “dark” and “comely” are antithetic, then so are Kedar and Solomon. “Like the tents of Kedar” is a simile for black, illustrating shehora ani, while “Like the pavilions of Solomon” must echo navah, beautiful. If “Kedar” stands for dark, then no matter what yeriot means, “Solomon” connotes brightness and beauty.

Song 1:7–– ––“Let me not be as one who strays”–– literally, “For why should I be as one who strays.”⁴⁶ Note, however, that is heteronymous (or homographic) with Shelomo . Coming just two verses after a reference to Solomon and between references to “the king” in Song 1:4, “The King has brought me to his chambers,” and 1:12, “While the King was on his couch,” it may be intended as a pun. We have already established the proclivity for wordplays on Solomon’s name in Chronicles.

Song 3:7–8––“There is Solomon’s couch.” Above I noted Fox’s observation that “Solomon” is used as a foil by which to contrast the young man in our song, the dod. Here is a prime example: we are told that Solomon, the legendary lover, had sixty bodyguards around his bed, “because of terror by night.” What exactly did he have to fear? “As Ibn Ezra perceives,” writes Fox, “Solomon is only a mashal in 3:7–11. Ibn Ezra’s interpretation is unusual and worth quoting.”⁴⁷ Ibn Ezra alludes to the fact that “Solomon” is being used to set off the young dod, to the detriment of Solomon. In the remaining references to Solomon, we shall see this function repeated.

Song 3:9–10––“King Solomon made him a palanquin of wood from Lebanon. He made its posts of silver, its back of gold, its seat of purple wool. Within, it was decked with love by the maidens of Jerusalem.” The loveseat that Solomon built reflects his great wealth. It is constructed of gold, silver, and royal purple. “it was decked with love” may be a reference to the phrase “and the Lord loved him” (2 Sam 12:24), said of Solomon when he was born, but in fact a wordplay on the name Yedidiah in the following verse (2 Sam 12:25).⁴⁸ In the Song, however, the text speaks of women’s love for Solomon, not God’s love for him. In place of a chariot made of bronze or iron, as befits a king who wages war, he has a seat made of “soft” materials––gold, silver, wool, inlaid with love. Following the description of armed guards around his bed, this depiction of his loveseat is no more complimentary, and means to draw an invidious comparison with the dod, as we will point out in the next verse.

Song 3:11–– —“O Maidens of Zion, go forth and gaze upon King Solomon.” In 1:6, , Zakovitch translates, “Don’t stare at me,” “don’t look at me critically because I am dark.” In our verse as well, may be understood as “Look at him with criticism and scorn.” The harsh gaze of the maidens of Zion follows from the previous two verses. Since Solomon had his warriors doing guard duty about his bed while he spent his time constructing a coach for trysts, is it any wonder that the maidens did not look upon him favorably? Song 3:11 supplies further cause for their scorn: they observed him “wearing the crown that his mother gave him on his wedding day, on his day of bliss.” The royal crown symbolizes courage, strength, and, on occasion, victory. Successful in battle, David removes the crown from the head of the king of Rabbat Ammon and places it on his own (2 Sam 12:30). Likewise Mordechai, emerging victorious over Haman, “left the king’s presence in royal robes … with a magnificent crown of gold” (Esther 8:15). However, a crown placed upon the king’s head by his mother does not connote heroism or manliness.

In retrospect, the entire passage (Song 3:7–11) marks King Solomon as an icon for the legendary lover, to be contrasted with the young shepherd. The shepherd has but one beloved; he and his ra’aya dwell in a home built of cedars and cypresses (Song 1:17), not gold and silver; their bed is verdant with grass (1:16), not upholstered with royal purple wool. More courageous than Solomon, they lie together in the outdoors and fear not the night.

Song 8:11–12

Solomon had a vineyard in Baal Hamon. He had to post guards in the vineyard: a man would give for its fruit a thousand pieces of silver. I have my very own vineyard: you may have the thousand, O Solomon, And the guards of the fruit two hundred!⁴⁹

If all the previous verses could be read as irony, this final reference to Solomon is explicitly in this style. The above two verses are sung by the young shepherd.⁵⁰ Throughout the Song, kerem ‘vineyard’ is a metaphor for the body of the beloved. King Solomon’s “vineyard” is his harem noted in 1 Kgs 11:3, which he now has to divide up (for natan can mean, “he gave the vineyard over”) among, or give a percentage to, the “sharecroppers.” “You may have the thousand, O Solomon,” thus refers to the thousand wives mentioned in the verse from Kings. The joke is again on King Solomon: Song 8:11–12 echoes Song 3:7–8 as explained above. Solomon had to post guards in his metaphorical vineyard, just as he had to do around his bed, in order to watch over the many women.⁵¹ Once again, Solomon is but a foil for the dod, when the young lover exclaims: “I have my very own vineyard” (Song 8:12), meaning, “She is my beloved, and mine alone,” unlike Solomon, who has to entrust his women for safekeeping.

In sum, the image of Solomon in the Song is a far cry from the historical Solomon in Kings. Solomon comes across not as a king to be treated with reverence but as the “fall guy” by whom to set off the virtues of the young lover. He is an icon for one both wealthy and effete, possibly also the butt of humor. From a paragon of a king, he has become a parody. Could it be that the Song intended to criticize Solomon’s many marriages, as recorded in 1 Kgs 11:1–7?

6. Ezra-Nehemiah

Among the list of people who returned to Judah from Babylonia, we find the temple servants or netinim, followed by a group called “the sons of the slaves of Solomon,” also translated as “the sons of Solomon’s servants.” This last group is twice mentioned, once in the listing and once in the final tally, in two identical lists found in Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 2:55 // Neh 7:57; Ezra 2:58 // Neh 7:60).⁵² In addition, this class of people, “the sons of Solomon’s servants,” appears in the first verse of another list that begins in Neh 11:3, again paired with the netinim. These citations may well reflect the tradition recorded in 1 Kgs 9:20–22 that Solomon made of the Canaanites and “their descendants who remained in the land … of these Solomon made a slave force” (1 Kgs 9:21) for building the Temple and his palace.⁵³ Perhaps their later descendants now formed a group among the returnees in Ezra’s day. This is rendered even more plausible by the words “as is still the case” at the end of the report in Kings (1 Kgs 9:21), which means that “Solomon’s slaves” or their descendants were a known entity to the post-exilic editor of Kings. If so, the notice about the sons of Solomon’s servants in Ezra-Nehemiah may be a true historical reference. Sarah Japhet thinks that there is “no room for doubt that the Nethinim and the sons of Solomon’s servants were a social reality in the discussed period.”⁵⁴ Neither netinim nor bene ‘avde shelomo are mentioned in the book of Kings.⁵⁵

The name “Solomon” appears twice more in Nehemiah. The first reference, “The singers and gatekeepers [serving] in accord with the ordinance of David and Solomon his son” (Neh 12:45), equates father and son with regard to outfitting the Temple. This fits well with the notion in Chronicles that both David and Solomon were partners in the construction of the Temple, as opposed to the tradition in Kings.⁵⁶ Perhaps the close association between father and son developed by the Chronicler explains why the vav conjunctive is missing here–– .⁵⁷

The second mention of Solomon is more revealing: chastising the people over the issue of foreign wives, Nehemiah brings Solomon as an example:

It was just in such things that King Solomon of Israel sinned! Among the many nations there was not a king like him, and so well loved was he by his God that God made him king of all Israel

(Neh 13:26).

The phrase is based on the etymology for Solomon’s name, which appears in 2 Sam 12:24, when his birth is announced: “She [Bathsheba] bore a son and she named him Solomon. The Lord favored him.” In place of the expected derivation for the name Shelomo, we find the unrelated phrase, “The Lord favored him” . This is followed immediately by: (2 Sam 12:25) “and he was named Yedidiah at the instance of the Lord,” which the NJPS glosses as, “Beloved of the Lord.” That is to say, Solomon was given two names, Shelomo and Yedidya. The implied etymology for Yedidiah is yedid yah, “friend of God,” rendered in the previous verse as “and the Lord loved him.”⁵⁸

In line with this triple wordplay “Solomon-Yedidiah-love,” “love” became a byword for Solomon. So one finds, “And Solomon loved the Lord and followed the practices of his father David” (1 Kgs 3:3) . Further connections between Solomon and the root ahb ‘to love’ are less flattering: “King Solomon loved many foreign women” … such Solomon clung to and loved–– (1 Kgs 11:1–2). Above we pointed out that this association lies behind “its interior decked with love” in Songs 3:10 and perhaps behind the entire association of the Song with Solomon.⁵⁹ The various connections between Solomon and the root “to love” turn him into a literary conceit in place of an historical figure.

Returning to Neh 13:26, , “and so well loved was he by his God,” this part of the verse is based, as stated above, on the etymology in 2 Sam 12:25 for the name Yedidiah.⁶⁰ Nehemiah’s citing of Solomon’s sin at the beginning of the verse seems to be based on 1 Kgs 11:1, “King Solomon loved many foreign women.” This part of Nehemiah’s memoirs may therefore be a retelling of the earlier sources in Samuel and Kings, rather than a text that preserves any genuine historical knowledge about Solomon.⁶¹

7. Conclusion

References to Solomon in many instances seem to be the outcome of inner-biblical exegesis. In Chronicles, this takes the form of midrashic interpretations and re-telling as well as the use of wordplays. While the use of wordplays does not automatically discredit the historical kernel of a particular narrative, it does put a midrashic spin on the interpretation; the later account, by adding wordplays to the earlier account, reveals its own midrashic nature and hence relative late dating. But the identification of midrashic techniques in the Writings leads us to ask: in what way is Solomon in the Writings different from Solomon in Kings?

Those who defend the historicity of Solomon in Kings look to the sources mentioned, the Chronicles of the kings of Judah, Israel, and the Book of the Deeds of Solomon, as a mark of authenticity.⁶² Other scholars think that the literary Gattung of each chapter is sufficient grounds to distinguish between “true” history writing and other styles of composition found therein.⁶³ A closer look reveals that while Kings and Chronicles differ in their depiction of the reign of Solomon, they are not necessarily different in their method of history-writing.⁶⁴ “Why should we assume that the compilers of 1 Kgs 3–11 utilized their sources any differently [than the Chronicler], or for that matter that the 1 Kings rendition of the incident in question is to be trusted over that of 2 Chronicles [2 Chr 8:1–12 reverses the meaning of 1 Kgs 9:10–14]?”⁶⁵ Does this mean that the same argument I have made for the midrashic picture of Solomon in Chronicles can be made also for Kings? To attempt an answer, I present a list of wordplays related to Solomon from Kings and from Chronicles:

Wordplays

1 Kings

2:13

5:1

5:2

5:4

5.26

7:51

8:63

9:25

10:1

11:4

11:29–

31

1 Chronicles

22:9

28:9

29:19

2 Chronicles

1:18

5:1

8:16

In the above list, 1 Kings has eleven wordplays on the name Solomon as compared to six in 1 and 2 Chronicles. While none of those in 1 Kings are etymologies, they all qualify as wordplays.⁶⁶ If I were to add the etymology for Yedidiah from the word ahav in 2 Sam 12:24 which then inspires several implicit wordplays for Solomon as well, the number of puns in early prophets on the name Solomon would rise to fifteen.⁶⁷ One could argue that some of these plays exist only in the eye of the beholder. For example, the very first (1 Kgs 2:13), taken from the Succession Narrative, a text that is usually cited as the example par excellence for historical writing about Solomon,⁶⁸ seems wholly “natural” and hence not a wordplay at all. I would answer that had the author chosen to, he could have substituted another greeting in place of hashalom bo’ekha, which places shalom one word after Shelomo. Further, this play is reiterated once more in the response, vayomer shalom. Hence, all may be counted as wordplays. In sum, one may speak of literary artifice in Kings as well as in Chronicles.

However, not every pun is “midrashic” in the sense of a biased interpretation. Most of the above wordplays in 1 Kings are alliterative and may be considered rhetorical flourishes; their literary nature in no way affects the historicity of the narrative.⁶⁹ On the other hand, as previously mentioned above, the use of wordplay may perhaps signal a later rewriting of the primal history, an authorial or editorial embellishment of the original. Even so, the wordplay would not necessarily render the original history fiction. Nonetheless, the many wordplays cited from Kings, four from the same chapter, say something about composition in Kings and perhaps also about the time of composition relative to the events.⁷⁰

This study of a single character and his treatment in the Bible does not allow for sweeping conclusions about historical characters and their literary representation. Some readers, taking note of the numerous wordplays, might decide that the writing is fiction and not history. Others may realize that the presence of literary traits in writing does not render it fictional; all literature stands at a remove from the subject it writes about. This is as true of Kings as it is for Chronicles. Whether the narratives about Solomon are history, have an historical kernel, or are fanciful legend will remain a matter of debate. If intent matters, the authors of Kings are writing history while the Chronicler, in the context of the biblical canon, is writing an interpretation of those events.⁷¹

On the other hand, non-narrative material in the Writings such as poetry, psalms, and proverbs does not even feign historical accuracy. In attributing anonymous works––several psalms, Proverbs, and the Song of Songs––to Solomon, the Bible provides the prototype for another midrashic tendency, the identification of compositions of unknown authorship with known biblical personalities.⁷² Together with other midrashic techniques we have seen–– punning on Solomon’s name, turning Solomon into metaphor in the Song of Songs, taking a general noun as a proper one (e.g. assuming that Bayit equals the Temple or that melekh is David and ben melekh is Solomon)––the books of the Writings have made of Solomon a mashal, a byword for wisdom, wealth, and the love of women, a trend which continues on in postbiblical Jewish literature. Since much of the Writings is classed as Wisdom literature, inner-biblical interpretation found within the Writings and based on proto-midrashic techniques might point to a continuum between biblical Wisdom and subsequent rabbinic midrash literature.⁷³