solomon, the chosen one
TRANSCRIPT
8/12/2019 Solomon, The Chosen One
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/solomon-the-chosen-one 1/19
Solomon, the Chosen OneAuthor(s): G. W. AhlströmReviewed work(s):Source: History of Religions, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Nov., 1968), pp. 93-110Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1061882 .
Accessed: 11/02/2013 14:39
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to History
of Religions.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:39:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/12/2019 Solomon, The Chosen One
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/solomon-the-chosen-one 2/19
0.
W. Ahlstrom
SOLOMON,
THE
CHOSEN
ONE*
As
we
commence
this
study
of
Israelite
kingship,
it is
important
for
us
to
realize
that
the
election
and
appointment
of
a
king
has
two
aspects.
One is
ideological
or
religious;
the
other
is
historical.
Of
course,
historians
have
regarded
kingship
in
Israel
as
a
purely
historical
institution.
It is
not
my
intention to
deny
this.
How-
ever,
Israelite
kingship
also involves an
ideological
or,
what we
may
term,
a
"theological"
side,
and
this
is
equally
as
important.
Unfortunately,
this
side has
been somewhat
neglected
in
modern
discussions
of
Israelite
kingship.
This is
particularly
true in
the
case of
the
enthronement of
king
Solomon. Most scholars have
thought a priori that Solomon was chosen
by
king
David alone,
although,
ideologically,
we
know that the
king
was
always
chosen
by
his
god,
as
well as
by
his
own
father or
by
his
people.
Viewed
from
an
ideological
perspective,
kingship
was a divine
institution
both in
Mesopotamia
and
in
Israel.
In
Mesopotamian
*
I
wish
to
express
my gratitude
to
Rev. Glendon E.
Bryce,
M.A.,
for
stylistically
improving
the
text.
The
following
abbreviations
have been
used:
AfO-Archiv fir Orientforschung.
ANET-Ancient
Near
Eastern
Texts
(ed.
J. B.
Pritchard).
ARM-Archives
Royales
de
Mari.
ATD-Das
Alte
Testament
Deutsch.
BK-Biblischer
Kommentar.
BWANT-Beitrdge
zur
Wissenschaft
vom Alten
und Neuen Testament.
BZ-Biblische
Zeitschrift.
EHPhR-Etudes
d'histoire et de la
philosophie
religieuses.
FRLANT-Forschungen
zur
Religion
und
Literatur des
Alten und Neuen
Testa-
ments.
93
This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:39:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/12/2019 Solomon, The Chosen One
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/solomon-the-chosen-one 3/19
Solomon,
the Chosen One
culture
kingship
was
commonly
regarded
as
an institution
sent
down
from
heaven.l
It
was the divine choice
which
provided
the
fundamental ideological basis for kingship,2 even in the case of a
usurper. Kingship
was
also considered
a
divine
institution
in
Israel.
Ps.
89:4-5 states
that
the
covenant
between Jahweh
and
the
king,
David,
was made
according
to
the
will
of Jahweh
(cf.
vs.
20
ff.).
According
to Ps.
2:7,
the
king
is
the son of
Jahweh,
who
is
his
begetter.
Again,
in
Ps.
89:27,
the
basis
of
kingship
is both
divine
adoption
and
firstborn
sonship.3 Alluding
to
this
oracle,
II
Sam.
7:14 states that
Jahweh has declared
that he
shall be
the
father of the king, and the king shall be his son. There can be little
doubt
that in
Israel
kingship
was
ideologically
regarded
as a
divine
institution,
and the
choice of the
god
was a decisive
matter
in this.
On
the
other
hand,
the
historical books of
the Old
Testament
regard
kingship
as a historical
institution. Of
course,
this
must
be
qualified.
For this
perspective
depends
upon
the attitude
of
the
tradents
relative
to
the
material with which
they
are
dealing,
whether pro aut contra. The strong position which some modern
interpreters
of
the
Old Testament
have
adopted
in
favor
of
a
purely
historical
understanding
of
kingship
is due
in
part
to
this
fact.
By
basing
their
interpretations
of Israel's
kingship
upon
those
of
the
HUCA-Hebrew
Union
College
Annual.
JBL-Journal
of
Biblical
Literature.
JCS-Journal
of Cuneiform
Studies.
JNES-Journal
of
Near
Eastern
Studies.
JQR-Jewish
Quarterly
Review.
JSS-Journal of Semitic Studies.
JThSt-Journal
of
Theological
Studies.
KAI-H. Donner and
W.
Rollig,
Kanaandische
und Aramdische
Inschriften.
KAR-Keilschriftstexte
aus Assur
religiosen
Inhalts
(ed.
E.
Ebeling).
SE--Svensk
Exegetisk
Arsbok.
SKAT-Kommentar
zum Alten
Testament
(ed.
E.
Sellin).
SVT-Supplements
to Vetus Testamentum.
ThZ-Theologische
Zeitschrift.
UT-Ugaritic
Textbook
(Analecta
Orientalia
38).
U
UA-Uppsala
Universitets
Arsskrift.
VAB- Vorderasiatische Bibliothek.
VT-Vetus Testamentum.
ZA
W-Zeitschrift fiir
die
alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft.
ZfA-Zeitschrift
fur Assyriologie.
ZfThK-Zeitschrift fiir
Theologie
und Kirche.
1
Th.
Jacobsen,
The
Sumerian
King
List2
(1964),
pp.
58-59;
H. W. F.
Saggs,
The Greatness
that was
Babylon (1962),
p.
359;
S.
N.
Kramer,
The
Sumerians
(1963), p.
186;
A. L.
Oppenheim,
Ancient
Mesopotamia.
Portrait
of
a
Dead Civiliza-
tion
(1964),
pp.
98,
176. Cf. D.
J.
McCarthy,
Treaty
and Covenant
("Analecta
Biblica,"
No.
XXI
[1963]),
p.
85.
2
Cf.
R. de
Vaux,
"Le roi
d'Israel,
vassal
de
Yahve,"
in
Mklanges
E.
Tisserant
(1964), pp.
121-22.
3
Ahlstrom,
Psalm
89
(1959),
pp.
52-53,
111-112.
94
This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:39:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/12/2019 Solomon, The Chosen One
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/solomon-the-chosen-one 4/19
History
of
Religions
tradents,
such
scholars have concluded
that Israelite
kingship
was
a
purely
human
institution.4
If
there are hints in the text
indi-
cating that kingship in Israel involved something more, these are
either
ignored
or
rationalized.5
In
dealing
with the
problem
of
kingship
in
Israel,
it is
necessary
to discuss
the
concept
of the so-called charismatic
kingship.
Since
the
time
of
A.
Alt,
reflection
concerning
the
judges
of Israel
has
centered
around the
two
concepts
of
"charisma"
and
kingship.
The
judges
themselves
were
regarded
as charismatic
leaders,
as
were
the
kings
of the
northern
kingdom,
Israel.
The
kings
of
Judah,
however, were not at all associated with charisma because they
were
deemed
dynastic
heirs
of
the house of David.
Thus,
charis-
matic
kingship
and
dynastic
kingship
were dissociated
from
one
another.
Since
these
two kinds
of
kingship
were
incompatible,
scholars
concluded
that
kingship
in
Israel was
essentially
different
from that in
Judah.
Allegedly,
the charismatic
rulership,
dating
from the
period
of the
judges,
had
survived
in
the
North,
and
this
fact
was
used
not
only
to
explain
the difference between North-
Israelite and
Davidic
kingship
but
also
to
provide
some
rationale
for
the
many
dynastic
changes
which had occurred
in
Israel.6
Before
proceeding
further,
it
would be
helpful
to note
the mean-
ing
of the
term
"charismatic."
In
Greek
Xcapio/a
is
the result
issuing
from
Xa'ps- "grace, favor").
It
is
a
gift
of favor. "Charis-
matic"
kingship
may
be
considered,
then,
in
one of
two
ways,
as
it
relates
to our
previous
discussion.
From
one
point
of
view
it
is
the
people,
or the
father
of the
king,
who
choose
him.
This
we
may
call
the
human
charisma.
From the
other
point
of
view,
it is
the
deitywho
chooses the
king.
Of
course,
this is
accomplished
through
a
vision,
through
a
prophet,
or
through
some
liturgical
act
by
which
the
king
can
be
said
to have
received divine
gifts,
such
as the
spirit,
nl.
This
represents
the
religious
charisma.
It is a
religious
aspect
we
find
here,
in
other
words,
a
theological
understanding
of
charisma.
Indeed,
this
conception
of the
nature
of
the divine
charisma
was
very
common in
the ancient Near East.7 Also
it
4
A. Alt, H. Frankfort, M. Noth, among others.5
There
is
no
need
to
go
further into
this
problem
here;
see
my
article
"Die
Konigsideologie
in
Israel,"
ThZ,
XVIII
(1962),
205
ff.
6
Alt,
"Das
K6nigtum
in
den
Reichen
Israel und
Judah," VT,
I
(1951),
2 ff.
A
criticism of
Alt's
thesis is
given
by
T.
C.
G.
Thornton,
"Charismatic
Kingship
in
Israel and
Judah,"
JThSt,
XIV
(1963),
1
ff.
7
See
KAR
III:
105:14;
F.
J.
Stephens
in ANET
(1950),
p.
387. Cf.
Oppenheim,
The
Interpretations
of
Dreams
in
the
Ancient
Near
East
(1956), p.
254,
no.
27;
Ahlstr6m,
"Der
Prophet
Nathan
und
der
Tempelbau",
VT,
XI
(1961),
123;
Thornton,
op.
cit.
(see
n.
6),
pp.
4-5;
A.
Goetze,
"Esarhaddon's
Inscription
from
Nippur,"
JCS,
XVII
(1963),
129.
95
This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:39:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/12/2019 Solomon, The Chosen One
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/solomon-the-chosen-one 5/19
Solomon,
the Chosen One
should
be
remembered
that these two
ideas are
not
mutually
exclusive.
Both
the
human and the
divine
charisma are involved
in the institution of
kingship.
Alt himself
thought
that
kingship
in
Israel,
that
is,
in
the
northern
kingdom,
should be
called
charismatic
(cf. above)
but
that this cannot be the
case
in
the
kingdom
of
Judah,
where an
established
Davidic
dynasty
ruled.
This
judgment,
however,
is not
wholly supported by
the
Old
Testament itself.
The
kings
of
Israel,
not
only
Omri
and
Jehu
but
also Jeroboam
I and
Baasha,
were
themselves
founders
of
dynasties,
even
if these
dynasties
were
short-lived because of
political
instability.8
To
accept
the thesis of
Alt would
involve,
a
priori,
the
acceptance
of
every
usurper
as
a
charismatic
king,
that
is,
a
king having
either a
divine
or
a human
charisma.
Furthermore,
does
not Alt's
view
imply
an unwarranted
value
judgment
?
And,
how
are
we to
judge
the
legal
and
religious
procedure
of election
and selection
?
If,
according
to
Alt,
only
the
northern
kingdom
possessed
divine
charismatic
kingship,
then
the
history
of
the
northern
kingdom
ought
to
be considered
the
regular expression of the divine will. Yet this would be tantamount
to
saying
that
all
of the chaos
and
anarchy
caused
by
the
dynastic
changes
in
Israel,
particularly
in the later
period,
had the
blessing
of Jahweh
( )
when,
in
fact,
they
could
be
regarded
as
an act
of
judgment.
For
that
matter,
we
know
that
Jahweh
was
always
more
in-
terested
in
order
than
in
chaos.9
By
the
very
nature of
his
aim,
a
usurper
would
try
to
convince
the
people
that
he had the
approval
and support of the god. To achieve this he would appeal to the
royal
ideology
of
divine
election.
As a
rule,
he
needed a
prophetic
oracle
on
which to
base his
claim,
such
as are
found in
I
Kings
11:30
ff.,
and
14:14
(cf.
16:2-3,
11;
II
Kings
9:1
ff.).
Thus,
the
theory
that the
multiplication
of
dynasties
in Israel
was an
indi-
cation
of
the
survival
of
the charismatic
rulership
is
hardly plaus-
ible.10
It would
appear
to us
that the reverse
would
be true.
8
Cf.
Thornton,
op.
cit.
(see
n.
6),
p.
5.
It
should
be
noted that Alt
himself
(op.
cit.
[see
n.
6],
p.
8)
acknowledged
divine
designation
to kingship in the cases of
Jeroboam
I
and
Baasha.
9
One
should
note the utterance
in Hos. 8:4 where
the
prophet
makes
a
general
statement
to
the
effect
that
the
kings
of Israel are
not
kings
by
the
grace
of
Jahweh,
but
only by
the
will
of the
unrighteous
people
Israel.
Hosea
finds no
divine
charisma
in Israel.
Consequently,
one
cannot use
this
prophet
to
support
Alt's
thesis.
10
In
this
connection,
we
should
pay
attention
to
Noth's
idea
of
kingship
in
Israel
compared
with
kingship
in the
old oriental
kingdoms.
He states that
in the
Near
East
kingship
was considered
a
divine
institution,
but in
Israel,
however,
it
must
be understood
as a
historical
institution
(Geschichte
Israelss
[1956], p.
204).
The
objection
may
be
raised that
in both cases
kingship
must be understood
as
a
96
This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:39:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/12/2019 Solomon, The Chosen One
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/solomon-the-chosen-one 6/19
History
of
Religions
Charismatic
kingship
willed
by
the
deity
would
best be
expressed
in
political stability.
As
an
example
of
this,
we
may
consider
the
struggle
of
Omri
to
gain
the
throne. When
J.
M. Miller states that "Omri had
as-
cended
the
throne
by legitimate
means,"ll
I
cannot
agree.
This
is
hardly
in
accordance
with
the historical data
reported
in I
Kings
16:9ff. This
text
informs us
that Zimri
conspired
against
king
Elah
and
murdered
him,
thus
providing
Omri
with
his chance
to
seize
the
throne. When
verse
16 states
that
all
Israel
(Q3;,
l,
possibly
a
terminus
technicus for the
assembly)
made Omri
king
when
they
heard that Zimri had ascended the
throne,
it
obviously
implies
that
we are
dealing
with
two
parties,
one
supporting
Zimri and
the other
favoring
Omri. After
Omri
had
successfully
eliminated Zimri
and the
party
supporting
him,
a
new rival
by
the
name
of Tibni
emerged.
At this
point
the text
(v. 21)
clearly
states
that the
people
were divided
into two factions.
However,
it
was
only
after
the
passage
of
several
years
of
time
and the
death
of
Tibni
that
Omri was able
to secure the throne for himself.12
Thus,
we perceive that the three pretenders to the throne are not a sign
of
legitimacy
and
divine
favor,
but are
merely
the
occasion
of
factionalism,
rebellion,
and a
power
struggle
in the
kingdom.
One
person
had
to
ascend
to the
throne,
legitimate
or not.13
In the
case
of the
judges
(Zt'br),
the characteristic feature
of the
divine
charisma
should
be
the
gift
of Jahweh's
spirit,
ruah,
as in
the case
of the
kings.
The
text
of
the Book
of
Judges
states
that
some
judges
do have the
ruah,
namely,
Othniel
(3:10),
Gideon
(6:34, who is never called t3v1 ), and Samson (13:25). However,
not
all
judges
have this
divine
gift. Jephtah
becomes,
according
to the
text,
ruler
through
an
agreement
with
the
men
of
Gilead
(11:9-10).
Later,
when he
goes
to
war
against
the
Ammonites,
the
text
states
that
the
ruiah of
Jahweh
came
upon
him
(11:29).
Therefore,
one
could
assume that
Jephtah
became
a ruler
without
the
divine
designation
and
charisma.14
historical institution; and, from a religious point of view, in both cases it must be
understood
as a
divine
institution.
11
J. M.
Miller,
"The Fall of
the House
of
Ahab," VT,
XVII
(1967),
321.
12
E.
Voegelin
has
maintained
that "the
sources reveal no
antidynastic
motive
on the occasion
of
either
the
succession or
the overthrow"
in
this
case
(Israel
and
Revelation
[1956],
p.
317,
n.
2).
13
J.
Bright
says
that
we
do
not
know
whether
Omri
could
establish his
kingship
with
"prophetic
designation"
(A
History
of
Israel
[1960],
p.
219).
14
In
this
connection it
should be
noticed that
Jephta
is called
pt
p
vtn
("head
and
ruler"), chieftain, 11:11;
cf.
R.
Smend,
who
says,
"Fiihrer
in
Krieg
und
Frieden"
(Jahwekrieg
und
Stdmmebund
[1963],
p.
38),
which,
of
course,
is
the same as
ruler. See also
F.
Delitzsch,
Biblical
Commentary
on the
Prophecies of
97
This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:39:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/12/2019 Solomon, The Chosen One
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/solomon-the-chosen-one 7/19
Solomon,
the Chosen One
In
the
case of
Ehud,
one
of
the
so-called minor
judges,15
the
text does
not
say
that the
ra.ah
was
bestowed
upon
him.
It is
said,
however,
that he is the choice of Jahweh. Like
many
of the other
judges,
he is a
savior
(Sltnv
)
whom
Jahweh
has raised
up
(p7"1)
to
the
children
of Israel
(3:15).
Since Jahweh
has made
him
a
leader,
he
is the divine
choice. His "charisma"
is the
fact
that he
rules
by
the will of
Jahweh.
Judging
from the
song
of Deborah
(Judg.
5:6
ff.),
which
describes
the chaotic
conditions
in
the
Israelite
community
just
before the
time of
Deborah,
the next
"judge,"
Shamgar
ben
Anat,
was probably a Canaanite ruler.16If this is true, it is not surprising
that we
do not hear
anything
about the
r4ah
of Jahweh
being
given
to him.
Perhaps,
instead,
he
received the ruah
of Anat
Nor do we hear
of
the r?iah
in
connection
with
Barak,
Deborah,
Tola,
Jair, Elon, Ibzan,
or
Abdon.l7
Perhaps
we should abandon
the
characterization of
the
judges
as charismatic
leaders,
parti-
cularly
if
the
basis of
this is the
mention of the
ruah. Or should we
think
of
two kinds
of
judges,
Noth
notwithstanding
?18
Isaiah
(1886)
I,
134.
Still,
in
later
monarchial
time,
p?p
meant
the leader of a
community;
cf. Isa.
3:6;
Mic.
3:19.
See
also
J.
Pedersen,
Israel
(1940),
III-IV,
76.
Jephta
is
called
tm1
first
in connection
with his death
(Judg.
12:7).
This
could,
of
course,
be the
narrator's
way
of
explaining
how he looked
upon
the
position
of
Jephta;
cf.
J. van der
Ploeg,
"Sdpat
et
Mi?pd f,"
Oudtestamentische Studien II
(1943),
149.
15
According
to
Noth,
the so-called
minor
judges
are
to be considered as
judges
in our
modern
understanding
of the
word,
and
as such
they
were officials
at the
central cult
place,
"Das Amt der 'Richters
in
Israel,'
"
Festschrift
A.
Bertholet
[1950],
pp.
404
ff.,
414);
cf.
Noth,
Geschichte
Israels,
pp.
97
ff.
For
a criticism of
this
hypothesis,
see A. van
Selms, "Judge Shamgar," VT,
XIV
(1964),
294
ff.
Van Selms has maintained that the word
used
"by
the author
of
the whole book"
(Judges)
"from
oral tradition without a
literary
intermediate
stage,
is not
'judge'
but
the word hosia' and its
derivations"
(p.
296).
For the
ambiguity
in the term
tmB,
see H.
Cazelles,
"Institutions et
terminologie
en Deut6ronome
I
6-17,"
SVT,
XV
(1966),
108-9.
16
The name
Shamgar
may
be
a
Hurrian
name;
cf.
Noth,
Die Israelitischen
Personennamen
im Rahmen der
gemeinsemitischen
Namengebung
(B
WANT,
XLVI,
1928),
xix;
E.
Taubler,
Biblische Studien
(1958),
p.
170;
S.
Yeiven,
"Did the
Kingdoms
of
Israel
have
a
Maritime
Policy?"
JQR,
L
(1959-60),
196,
n. 12. Cf.
also van
Selms,
op.
cit.
(see
n.
15),
pp.
303-4;
Eva
Danelius,
"Shamgar
ben
'Anath,"
JNES,
XXII
(1962),
191
ff.;
and G.
Anzou,
who furthermore thinks that
Shamgar
is the
same as Sammah
the
Hararite
in
II
Sam. 23:11
(La
force
de
l'esprit [1966],
p.
194). This seems, however, impossible because of Judg. 5:6 ff.;
see
J.
L.
McKenzie,
The World
of
the
Judges
(1966),
p.
125.
Shamgar
ben Anat
may
be
a Canaanite
kinglet
or
prince
(chieftain)
whose name
has a
compound
ben
Anat,
which
is
understood as a
"royal" designation
or
prerogative;
cf.
Ahlstrom,
Psalm
89,
p.
186,
n. 4. See
also C.
H.
Gordon,
Greek
and Hebrew Civilizations
(1965),
pp.
61-62.
It
may
be mentioned
that an
Egyptian
princess, daughter
of
Ramses
II,
was called
Bnt-'nt;
see J. H.
Breasted,
A
History of
Egypt (1923),
p.
449;
S.
Morenz,
Agyptische
Religion (1960),
p.
252,
n.
38.
17
For
the
minor
judges appearing
as
rulers,
see R.
Patai,
"Hebrew Installation
Rites",
HUCA,
XX
(1947),
161.
18
R.
de Vaux
believes that
the title
"judge"
has been
"wrongly
extended to
the
98
This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:39:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/12/2019 Solomon, The Chosen One
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/solomon-the-chosen-one 8/19
History
of
Religions
We should
also
be careful to note that the
term
olt
does
not
necessarily
imply something
essentially
different
than
would be
covered
by
the term
']7
("king'").
In
Canaan,
as well as in
Israel,
these
two words are
roughly
synonymous.
In
Ugaritic
tpt
is
used
in
parallelism
with mlk
(UT
51
:IV:43-44).19
Albright,
for
instance,
maintains that tt2fmeans
"prince"
in
early
Canaanite
usage.20
From
Exod.
2:14;
I
Sam.
8:5,
20;
II
Sam.
15:4;
II
Kings
15:5;
Ps.
2:10;
Prov.
8:16;
Isa.
16:5,
40:23;
Hos.
7:7;
and
Amos
2:3
(where
it
is
used
in
parallelism
with
zoii,
cf. Mic.
7:3),
we
learn that
Ottt
has
to do with the
royal
functions
of
ruling
and
judging21
(cf. I
Kings
7:7; Mic. 4:14).22
We have
observed
that
tJ1w
can mean
"military
chief,"
"ruler,"
and also
"petty prince."
As
a ruler the
1tf
decides
cases and
"judges."
For
this
reason
it is
possible
to
perceive
that
this
word
is an old
synonym
for
the
Canaanite
term for
king,
melek;
and
to
conclude that the introduction of
kingship
in
Israel
cannot
be a
pure
innovation.
Perhaps
the
change
between the
period
of
the
"judges"
and the era
following
Saul's
kingship
has
not
been
as
cataclysmic as has often been advocated. One could ask whether
there
really
was
a difference in
character,
or
whether
the
difference
was
merely
one of
degree.23
In
this case
the
"introduction"
of
kingship
would
imply
that
all Israelite tribes
for the
first
time
came under one head
and
thereby
gave
a
greater
allegiance
than
before to
their
leader.
Only
at this
point
can
we
begin
to
consider
Israel as
a
nation on the soil of
Canaan.
If
our observation is
correct,
the
great
new
kingdom
of
Israel
begins with Saul, and he is its king. As king he is chosen by Jahweh
(I
Sam.
9:16,
15:11);
he has the
ruah
of
Jahweh
(10:6
ff.
11:6);
he is
Jahweh's
mdshiah,
the
anointed
one,
Messiah
(I
Sam.
12:3, 5,
heroes
who
saved
some
part
of the
people
from
oppression."
Hence we
should
have
to deal
with a
"permanent
institution of
the tribal
federation:
instead of
a
political
head,
it had a
judge
to whom
all
could
appeal"
(Ancient
Israel
[1965],
p.
151).
19
Ahlstr6m,
Aspects
of
Syncretism
in
Israelite
Religion
(1963),
p.
19;
W.
Richter,
"Zu den 'Richtern
Israels,'
"
ZAW,
LXXVII
(1965),
58
ff.,
cf.
pp.
40
ff.;
S. Rin-
Sh. Rin, "Ugaritic-OT Affinities II," BZ, XI (1967), 174.
20
"The Biblical
Period,"
in
L. Finkelstein
(ed.),
The
Jews,
I
(1950),
20.
21
H.
W.
Hertzberg,
"Die
Entwicklung
des
Begriffes
trta
im
AT,"
ZAW,
XL
(1922),
256
ff.;
I.
Benzinger,
Hebrdische
Archdologie3
(1937),
p.
263;
E.
Sellin,
"Das
Zwolfprophetenbuch,"
SKA
T,
XII:
1,
206. See also
Pedersen, op.
cit.
(see
n.
14),
p.
46;
K.
Hj.
Fahlgren,
seddkd
(1932),
p.
122;
R.
Vuilleumir-Bessard,
La
tradition
cultuelle
d'Israil
("Cahiers
Th6ologiques,"
XLV
[1960]),
63-64.
22
To
Mic.
4:4,
see
W.
Beyerlin,
Die
Kulttraditionen
Israels
in der
Verkiindigung
des
Propheten
Micha
in
FRLANT,
LXXII
(1959),
19
ff.;
E.
Hammershaimb,
Some
Aspects of
Old
Testament
Prophecy
from
Isaiah
to Malachi
(1966),
p.
36.
23
Cf.
D.
A.
McKenzie,
"The
Judge
of
Israel," VT,
XVII
(1967),
121.
99
This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:39:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/12/2019 Solomon, The Chosen One
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/solomon-the-chosen-one 9/19
Solomon,
the Chosen One
24:7).24
Through
the
priest-prophet
Samuel,
who
"performs"
the
divine
will,
Saul
is
anointed
king.
As the
one
chosen
by
Jahweh
and
given
the
rz.ah
of
Jahweh,
his
kingship
is
charismatic;
it has
the divine
charisma.25 That
David is
the
chosen
king26
instead of
Saul
and that he
has
got
the
same "divine"
gifts
as
Saul
does
not
need to
be
elaborated
at
this
point.
Instead the
discussion
below
will
concentrate
upon
his son
Solomon.
First, however,
it
should be
emphasized
that
the
general
principle
is that the
deity
announces,
mostly
through
the
oracle,
that
he has elevated and chosen a man
as
king.27
Such
an
action
implies
that the one chosen has
the
divine blessing. After this he stands in a special relationship to the
deity,
a
relationship
which is
a
religious
one,
not
a
physical
one.
At
the
coronation
the
king
would receive
several
divine
"qualities
or
abilities."
Certainly,
we
could
agree
with
Thornton
that
kingship
in this
part
of the world-and
that includes Israel-was charis-
matic.28
Now
we
may
turn to
the
election
and
appointment
of
Solomon
as
king.
It has
been
generally
maintained that
Solomon
ascended
to
the throne of his father, David, by means of palace intrigue.
Allegedly,
it
was David who
arranged
for
his
coronation
without
consulting
Jahweh
or
the
people. According
to this
view there
is
no
possibility
that
any
shadow of the divine
choice
fell
upon
Solomon.29
As J.
Bright
has
expressed
it,
"Solomon
could
not
even
24
Cf.
R. de
Vaux,
Les institutions
de l'Ancien Testament
(1958),
p.
163.
25
As
a
guarantee
of the divine election
of
Saul,
three
signs
should occur after
he
had been
anointed,
I
Sam. 10:1
ff.;
cf.
J. R.
Porter,
Moses and
Monarchy
(1963),
pp.
10-11.
26
Cf. R. A. Carlson, David, the Chosen King (1964).
27
King
Ur-Ninurta
of the first
dynasty
of Isin
is in
a
hymn
called
the "chosen
cedar"
(A.
Falkenstein,
"Sumerische
religiSse
Texte,"
ZfA,
XLIX
[1949], 129).
Entemenna
of
Lagash
is "the heart-chosen
of
Nanshe"
(E. Sollberger,
"On
two
Early Lagas
Inscriptions
in
the
Iraq
Museum," Sumer,
XIII
[1957], 61).
Esar-
haddon
is "chosen
in steadfastness
by
Ellil"
(i-tu-ut
kun lib-bi
dEn-lil)
(Goetze,
op.
cit.
[see
n.
7],
p.
129).
Cf.
also
Codex
Hammurabi,
111:24
ff.
For
the Sumerian-
Babylonian
king
as
the son
of the
god,
see A. W.
Sjoberg,
Orientalia,
XXXV
(1966),
288
ff.;
and
Religion
och
Bibel,
XX
(1961),
14
ff.;
cf.
W.
W.
Hallo,
Early
Mesopotamian
Royal
Titles
(1957), pp.
134-35.
From the
West-Semitic
area
we
can
mention
king
Zakir
as
chosen
by
Baalshamen
(see
Donner and
Rollig,
KAI,
no.
202A,
11.3-4).
28
Tornton,
op.
cit.
(see
n.
6),
pp.
2 ff. It should be noted
that H.
Ringgren
says
that we "have no instance in Israel of the
king
being
elected and called by God,
but
this
is
a
common
idea
in
the ancient
Near East"
(The
Messiah
in
the Old
Testament
[1956],
p.
41).
On
the
same
page,
however,
Ringgren
refers
to the
term
pnri
("chosen")
and
to the
passages
II
Sam.
21:6 and Ps.
89:3(4).
He could also
have
compared
this
with
Ps.
89:20 ff.
and
Ps.
132:11,
even if here the
term
-,nt:
does
not
occur.
Cf. also
Ps.
22:10-11
and
the
king
in his
role
as
the
suffering
servant
speaking
about
himself as
chosen
by
Jahweh
already
from
his
mother's
womb.
For a
Sumerian
parallel,
see
Hallo,
"The
Coronation
of
Ur-Nammu,"
JCS,
XX
(1966),
133
ff.,
141.
29
Alt, op.
cit.
(see
n.
6),
pp.
6-7;
Noth, "Gott,
K6nig,
Volk
im
Alten
Testament,"
ZfThK,
XLVII
(1950),
177;
and Geschichte
Israels3,
pp.
186
ff.;
E.
Nielsen,
100
This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:39:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/12/2019 Solomon, The Chosen One
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/solomon-the-chosen-one 10/19
History
of
Religions
claim
the
fiction
of
charismatic
gifts.
The
old
pattern
for
the
selection of
leadership
was
broken."30
On the basis of several
texts,
it
appears
to me that the view
mentioned above
is not
wholly
correct.
First,
we
observe
this
in
the oracle
of Nathan
in
II Sam.
7:14.
It is
possible
to
regard
Nathan's
statement in
the
preceding
verses
(7:12
if.)
as
referring
to Solomon.31
Here
the
relation of the
king
to
the
deity
is
made
very
clear.
Then,
in verse
14,
Jahweh
promises
that
David's
successor shall become the
son of
Jahweh,
and
Jahweh
shall
be
his
father.32
Certainly,
this is charisma in
the
highest
potens
The
passage clearly shows the ideological (or should I say, "theo-
logical")
relationship
between
the
deity
and
the
king.
As
the
anointed
one,
Solomon
is
a
part
of
this
charismatic
relationship.33
Grundrids
af
Israels
Historie
(1959),
p.
86;
M. A.
Beek,
Geschichte
Israels
von
Abraham bis
Bar
Kochba
(1961),
p.
61;
K.-H.
Bernhardt,
Das
Problem
der
alt-
orientalischen
Konigsideologie
im
Alten
Testament
(SVT,
VIII
[1961]),
161,
n.
2;
G.
von
Rad,
Gesammelte
Studien zum
Alten
Testament
(1958),
p.
178;
cf.
Ringgren,
Israelite
Religion
(1966),
pp.
210
ff.;
D.
G.
Evans,
"Rehoboam's
Advisers
at
Shechem,
and
Political Institutions
in
Israel and
Sumer," JNES,
XXV
(1966),
274-75.
30
Bright, op. cit. (see n. 13), p. 190; cf. also A. Soggin, "Der offiziell gef6rderte
Synkretismus
in
Israel wahrend
des
10.
Jahrhunderts,"
ZAW,
LXXVIII
(1966),
191. M. Tsevat
sees
the
phenomenon
as
a
"stabilization of
kingship by
making
it
independent
of
the
charisma",
"The House of
David in
Nathan's
Prophecy,"
Biblica,
XLVI
(1965),
356.
Here we
ought
to
consider
Noth's treatment of I
Sam.
11:15.
He
states
that
Saul
was
proclaimed
king
at
Gilgal
before
Jahweh,
"d.h. im
dortigen
Heiligtum."
Then,
surprisingly enough,
he
adds: "Dieser
Vorgang
war,
wenn
auch
im
Heilig-
tum
stattfindend
und
mit sakraler
Weihe
umgeben,
doch
selbst
nich
eigentlich
ein
sakraler Akt wie
etwa die
Berufung
eines
charismatischen
Fuhrers,
sondern
ein
politischer
Akt"
( ) (Geschichte
Israels3,
p. 158).
(Noth
is
here
followed
by,
among
others,
Smend,
op.
cit.
[see
n.
14],
p.
47,
and
H.-J.
Kraus,
Worship
in
Israel
[1966], p. 179). This is a complete denial of the holiness of a sanctuary and
the
religious
significance
of
the
actions
performed
at
it.
How can
one
declare
that
a
performance
at a
sanctuary
is
only
a
political
act
having
no
sacral
connotations
at all? If
a
political
act
is
performed
in a
temple
or
sanctuary
it
is
also a
holy
act,
otherwise
it would be
a
profanation
of the
holy
place
(and,
according
to
Noth,
what
must have
happened).
Furthermore,
Noth
tries to
make
a
distinction
between
the
people
acting
"als sakraler
Stammebund"
and
"als
Volk."
But
he
fails to
show
any
real
difference between the
two. When
Saul
was
made
king,
the
"Stammebund" should
have
declared itself
non-scaral and
constituted
itself
as
a
profane
"Volk."
But,
of
course,
this
was
not
done
because the
coronation
was
a
sacral act.
Another
aspect
missed
by
Noth is
found
in
the
phrase
in
verse
14,
which
states
that Israel went to
Gilgal
to
renew
the
kingship
(,nqint
nv
vrnnr).
Thus,
verse 15
concerns
the renewal of the
kingship
at
the
sanctuary
of
Gilgal,which is a sacral act. In this connection one
could,
of
course,
ask
whether
the
text
does not
suggest
the New
Year
festival with the
reconstitution of
the
kingship
and
through
this of
the whole
people;
cf.
G.
Kraeling,
"The
Real
Religion
of
Israel,"
JBL,
XLVII
(1928),
156-57.
31
Ringgren,
Israelite
Religion,
p.
225.
32
For this
oracle,
see
my
book
Psalm
89,
pp.
111-12,
182
ff.
(with
lit.),
and
"Der
Prophet
Nathan
und
der
Tempelbau,"
op.
cit.
(see
n.
7),
pp.
120
ff. I
have
not
said
that
Nathan
spoke against
Jahweh,
as J.
Schreiner
maintains
(Sion-Jerusalem
[1963],
p.
88).
33
We
are not
dealing
with a
physical
relationship
as
has
often
been
thought
by
critics of
the
phenomenon
"divine"
kingship.
101
This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:39:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/12/2019 Solomon, The Chosen One
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/solomon-the-chosen-one 11/19
Solomon, the Chosen
One
Second,
we
may proceed
a
step
further
and
show
what is
in-
volved
in
the
accession of
Solomon
to
the
throne.
According
to
II
Sam.
12:25,
the
prophet
Nathan
gave
Solomon
the name
Jedidjah,
a
name
given,
by
the
way,
by
the will
of
Jahweh,
m;11;m1
1J2.34
This name
consists
of
the two
components
;',
the
short
form of the name
Jahweh,
and
T'T,
meaning
"the
beloved
one"35
(this
in itself
is
a
variant of
T'T7).
n
another
study,
I
have
maintained36
that
this
name
itself
is an
announcement that
Solomon
is
the chosen
one,
the
beloved
one
of
Jahweh,
the
chosen
successor
of
David.
Furthermore,
the
phrase
Im
1=5?3
nforms
us that it is Jahweh who has chosen him.
Already long
before
his
enthronement
he has been
designated
heir to the
throne
by
the
prophet.
This
is not
an unusual
phenomenon
in
the
ancient
Near
East. Often
one
of the
royal
sons would be
designated
crown
prince
through
an
oath,
sometimes
an
ade,37
and
then
sub-
sequently
installed
as such after
the
gods
had
given
their consent.
Or,
the
king,
it
might
be
said,
had been commanded
by
the
gods
to
proclaim
one
of his
sons
as
heir.38
Possibly
these
parallel
phenomena provide an explanation for the occasion to which
Nathan
and Bat-Sheba
refer when
they
ask David
whether he had
taken
an
oath
that Solomon
should succeed
him on the throne
(I
Kings
1:13,
17,
cf.
8:20).
We
cannot
merely
assume
that
Nathan
and
Solomon's
mother
invented
this oath39
in
order
to
34
Ahlstr6m,
"Der
Prophet
Nathan
und der
Tempelbau,"
op.
cit.
(see
n.
7),
p.
122,
n.
4.
See
now
also P. A.
H. de
Boer
who thinks
that the
phrase
mn;r::is:
is
an
addition,
"II
Samuel
12:25" in Studia
Biblica
et
Semitica,
(Festschrift
Th. C.
Vriezen) [1966], pp.
27
ff.).
H.
Donner
and
W.
Rollig
translate
3Sap
"durch die
Gnade," KAI, II (1964), 40. We should observe that it is unclear if II Sam. 12:25
really
refers
to
the birth
of Solomon
as
is
usually thought.
35
Cf.
the
name
Ia-di-du-um
in
Mari,
ARM, VIII,
No.
69,
4.
See
further,
Noth,
Die israelitischen
Personennamen
im
Rahmen
der
gemeinsemitischen
Namengebung,
op.
cit.
(see
n.
16), pp.
183,
223;
J.
J.
Stamm,
"Der Name
des
Konigs
Davids,"
SVT,
VII
(1960),
165
ff.
36
Ahlstrom,
"Der
Prophet
Nathan
und der
Tempelbau,"
op.
cit.
(see
n.
7),
pp.
122-23.
37
For
adg
meaning
the
stipulations
in a
vassal-treaty,
see
D.
J.
Wiseman,
"The
Vassal-Treaties
of
Esarhaddon,"
Iraq,
XX
(1958),
81;
and de
Vaux,
who
compares
this term
with
nlmr,
Melanges
E.
Tisserant,
p.
128;
cf.
also J.
A.
Thompson,
"Expansions
of the
-t Root,"
JSS,
X
(1965),
222
ff.
38
S.
Smith,
"The
Practice
of
Kingship
in
Early
Semitic
Kingdoms,"
in
Myth,
Ritual,
and
Kingship
(1958),
pp.
59-60;
I.
Engnell,
Studies in Divine
Kingship
in
the
Ancient
Near
East
(1943)
(2nd
ed.
1967),
p.
81,
n.
8;
R.
Borger,
"Die Inschriften
Asarhaddons,
Konigs
von
Assyrien,"
AfO
(Beiheft
9,
1956),
p.
40,
1.8
ff.;
M.
Streck,
VAB VII:2
(1916),
4,
1. 11
ff.;
de
Vaux,
Melanges
E.
Tisserant,
pp.
121-22.
Incidentally,
the
installation
of Joshua
as the
successor
of Moshe
has been
given
the form
of a crown
prince
installation.
Jahweh
commands Moshe
to choose
Joshua,
to
put
his hand
upon
him,
to
give
of his
tnl
to
Joshua,
and
to
place
him
before
the
priest
Eleazar
and
the
congregation
(Num.
27:18
ff.;
cf.
Engnell,
op.
cit.
[this
note],
p.
211).
39
As
suggested
by
M.
L.
Newman,
Jr.,
in
The
People
of
the Covenant
(1962),
p.
167.
102
This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:39:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/12/2019 Solomon, The Chosen One
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/solomon-the-chosen-one 12/19
History
of
Religions
assure the
accession of
Solomon
(cf.
1
Kings
1:
28-31).
Yet,
we
may
be
permitted
to
hypothesize
that David's
oath
could have been
taken at the
very
same time that Nathan
gave
Solomon the name
Jedidjah
by
the
order
of
Jahweh.40
For
our
study
we are
compelled
to conclude that
Solomon
did
not come to
the throne
only
as a result of
a
sudden
palace
intrigue.
The
reference to
the
oath
which David
had
sworn reveals that
Nathan's and
Bat-Sheba's
intervention
must be
regarded
as the
climax of a
long
series of
politico-religious
struggles
in
Jerusalem
and in
the
kingdom
of
David.41
In
fact
the term
"palace-intrigue"
itself is not very accurate. Nathan and Bat-Sheba were merely
acting
upon
a
promise
that
had
once
been
given.42 Naturally,
it
was
in
their best interest to see that
the
king
fulfilled
this
promise.
In
so
doing they
were
protecting
themselves as
well
as their
protege
(I
Kings
1:12).
The
accession of
Solomon
to
the throne must
not
only
be
ex-
plained historically
but also accounted
for on
ideological
and
theo-
logical grounds.
Such
an account
is
provided
for
in
I
Kings
1:48,43
where David says:
Ble
ne
a
of
se
t
rnd
Blessed be
Jahweh,
the
god
of
Israel,
who
has
today
given
one to sit
upon
my
throne.
Here we
find
an
expression
of
the
religious
motivation behind
Solomon's kingship. Although the king is appointed by his father,
he is also chosen
by
his
god.
Solomon
has
come
upon
the
throne
40
The
prophet
has been
sent,
nibr,
by
Jahweh,
II
Sam.
12:25,
and
thus we
may
assume
that
he has delivered an
oracle.
;n, nlasia
could,
therefore,
be
regarded
as
parallel
to
nizl
and as an
extension of its
meaning.
41
See
my
discussion in "Der
Prophet
Nathan ..
.,"
op.
cit.
(n.
7),
pp.
123-24.
Perhaps
it is
surprising
that
Adonijah suddenly
gave up
his
self-appointed
king-
ship
so
easily
when he heard that Solomon had
been
anointed
king.
With
the
support
of
Joab-and
that could have meant the whole
army-he
should
have
had no reason
to
fear
Solomon,
who
only
had David's
bodyguard
under
Benajah
to
protect
him. The
explanation
why Adonijah gave
up
is
that he had no
legal
and
moral
support
from David and
perhaps
that he was aware that the
people
knew
this. He was never
designated
as
the
heir,
as Solomon
was. The
oracle had
never
"appointed"
him. He and the
people
knew this.
42
It
is thus not
quite right
to
say,
as Cornelius
Loew,
that
Bat-Sheba
and
Nathan
"induce"
the old David to
appoint
Solomon
(Myth,
Sacred
History,
and
Philosophy [1967],
p.
128).
43
Carlson
(op.
cit.
[see
n.
26])
believes
that
this
verse,
introduced
by
the
phrase
nfl:-'1,
is
Deuteronomic,
and
he
says:
"The
builder of the
temple
is
finally
enthroned with
'Yahweh's
help'
"
(p.
205,
n.
4).
Even
if
this
is
true,
nothing
for-
bids
the
assumption
that the so-called
Deuteronomist has made
use of a
common
concept concerning
the
way
in which
a
king
ascended
the
throne.
103
This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:39:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/12/2019 Solomon, The Chosen One
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/solomon-the-chosen-one 13/19
Solomon,
the Chosen One
in
accordance
with the will of
Jahweh
(cf.
I
Chron.
29:
1).
He is the
chosen
one
(II
Chron.
1:8-9),
and
even
the
queen
of
Sheba
recog-
nizes this
(I
Kings
10:9;
II Chron.
9:8).
The same
thing
is true in the
passage
concerning
Solomon's
enthronement
in
I
Kings
2.
In
2:15
Solomon's
brother
Adonijah
complains
that the
kingship
has been
taken
away
from him
by
Jahweh.
As a matter of
fact,
Adonijah
even asserts that
Jahweh
has
given
it
to
Solomon,
1'
nl'r
1iTq
"D.
In
2:24
Solomon
himself
states
that
Jahweh
has
caused
him
to sit
upon
the throne
of
his
father David.
It
is
by
the
very
word
of Jahweh44 that his
god
has
built him a "house." It is Jahweh who established him (n'n'n;)
and made
him
sit
(,51tlqi)
on the throne
(cf.
8:20;
II
Chron.
6:10).
Both
David and
Adonijah,
as well as
Solomon
himself,
have
recognized
and
expressed
confidence in
the
divine
choice.45
One
other
passage may
be
considered
in
this connection.
In his
prayer
at the
sanctuary
at
Gibeon,
Solomon
again
declares that
it
is
Jahweh
who has
made him
king
after
his
father David:46
;5*i
mm;
nnsni
".*
nin
nnn
N31
nKr
7K
N?
And now
Jahweh,
my
god,47
You
let make
your
servant
king
instead
of
David,
my
father.
And
I was a
little
boy,
I did not
know
the
going
out
and
the coming
in.
(I
Kings
3:7)
44
This
may
be a
reference to both II
Sam. 7:11 and 12:25.
45
Concerning
this,
Noth maintains
that even if
David,
Adonijah,
and Solomon
expressed
their faith
in the divine
choice,
the narrators
have not
explicitly
stated
anywhere
that
"Jahwe
die
Thronnachfolge
Salomos
bewirkt
habe,"
K6nige
(BK
IX:
1),
1964,
39.
However,
to
establish the fact
that
the
people
at
the
time
of
Solomon
may
have
regarded kings
as
divinely
chosen,
the
conception
of
this
particular
narrator
is less
important.
He
has
here
dealt
with traditional
concepts.
Compare
I
Chron. 29:
1.
46
It
is
impossible
to
deny
this
idea
by
saying,
for
instance,
that the
composition
is
later
than the
actual
happenings.
Even if
Solomon's
prayer
could be called
a
composition
of the D historian, as
many
scholars believe, this does not mean
that all
the words and ideas that
here
are
put
into
the
mouth of Solomon are
invented
by
the
composer.
Especially
those words which refer to Solomon
as
the
divine
choice would
not have been taken into
the
composition
if
they
did
not
represent
the
ideological
fact.
Thus,
we
may
conclude
that
the
Deuteronomist
has
no
objection
to this idea. On
the
contrary,
he has
seen this
as the
only legitimate
way
for a man to
ascend
to the
throne.
It
can
be
mentioned
that J.
Liver
con-
siders
I
Kings
3:4-15
as
having "originated
in
circles close
to the
royal
court"
of
Solomon,
"The Book
of the Acts of
Solomon,"
Biblica,
XLVIII
(1967),
81.
47
For the
phrase
"my
god"
as
originally
a
royal
prerogative,
see
my
book
Psalm
89,
pp.
114-15.
104
This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:39:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/12/2019 Solomon, The Chosen One
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/solomon-the-chosen-one 14/19
History
of
Religions
M.
Noth
regards
this
verse
merely
as an emotional declaration on
the
part
of
Solomon
showing
his
own
lack
of
confidence
in
his
ability
to handle the
responsibilities
of a
king.
Solomon
only
speaks
of
himself as
blessed,
endowed
(begnadet),
by
Jahweh.
When
he
speaks
of himself as
a
boy
(-S)
who does not
know
his
"going
out" or
his
"coming
in,"
Solomon
consciously
under-
estimates himself.48
Thus,
Noth
regards
the
phrase
NI1
neK
as
an admission
on
the
part
of
Solomon
of
his
inability
to
handle
all
of the
daily
matters
pertaining
to
kingship.49
If
the
phrase
does
refer
to
all of the
regular
duties of
a
king,
which,
of
course,
would
include his cultic
responsibilities,
then Noth's interpretation
could be considered.
However,
there
is
another
way
of
looking
at this. The
phrase,
K:1
nw2,
may
have
been
used
by
Solomon
in a
much more
qualified
sense.
There
are other instances
where it is used
this
way,
such as
in the
blessing
formulas
in
Deut.
28:1-650
and
31:2.
In the
second
of
these two
passages
Moshe
says
that
he
can
no
longer
lead
Israel,
that
is,
be its
"ruler"
(cf.
Num.
27:21),
because
he
is
no
longer able to "go out and come in." It has been advocated that
this
refers
to
the
Holy
War,
but
it
may
also refer to some
other
responsibility
in the cult. The
same
may
be said of
Josh.
14:11,
where
X:ll
nr
~1l
follows
,anrb?,
indicating
that the
phrase
"to
go
out
and
come
in"
does
not
necessarily
refer to activities
related
to war.
The
passage
in
Num.
27:15-23,
mentioned
above,
also
helps
to
establish
the
meaning
of this
phrase.
It
describes
how
Joshua was
selected by Jahweh and installed as the successor of Moshe.51 In
the
congregation,
assembled
in
the
cult,
the
;s75,52
Moshe calls
for a man who can
"go
out
and come
in"
(m2',
K',
v.
16-17)
and
"who
shall lead them out
and
bring
them
in,
that
the
;ly
of
Jahweh
be
not
as
sheep
which have no
shepherd."
Moshe is
48
This
is not
very convincing.
I
rather think
that Solomon
tells
us
the fact
about
something
that
has
not been
quite
clear
yet.
49
Noth,
"K6nige,"
op.
cit.
(see
n.
45),
p.
51.
50
Von
Rad,
Das
fiunfte
Buch Mose
(ATD
VIII
[1964]),
124-25.
51
With
regard
to this
passage,
Carlson
(op.
cit.
[see
n.
26])
maintains that the
"culmination of this motif is reached in Deut.
31:14-15, 23,
where Yahweh
himself commissions Joshua
in a
special epiphany.
This is
entirely
consistent,
remembering
the Tetrateuch's
own
ideological
view
of
Yahweh's
epiphany
in
the
cloud of Sinai and the
pillar
of
cloud in the desert"
(p. 241).
52
For
m;n
as the cult
congregation,
see J.
Wellhausen,
Die
Composition
des
Hexateuchs und
der hist.
Bucher
des Alten Testaments3
(1889),
p.
229;
J.
Pedersen,
op.
cit.
(see
n.
14) (1926),
I-II,
p.
506;
A.
Causse,
"Du
groupe ethnique
A
la
com-
munaute
religieuse,"
EHPhR,
XXXIII
(1937),
220,
n.
3;
H. S.
Nyberg,
"Korah's
uppror (Num.
16
f.),"
SEA,
XII
(1947),
231;
C.
U.
Wolff, JNES,
VI
(1947),
100-1;
A.
Kuschke,
"Die
Lagervorstellung
der
priesterschriftlichen
Erzahlung,"
ZAW,
LXIII
(1951),
99.
105
This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:39:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/12/2019 Solomon, The Chosen One
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/solomon-the-chosen-one 15/19
Solomon, the
Chosen One
directed
by
Jahweh
to
"install" Joshua and
to
impart
to
him
his
Tn1,his
splendor
or
"majesty"
(v. 20).
Then
Joshua
is
to
ask the
priest
Eleazar about the
tV?PZ,
which is revealed
through
the
'urim
(v. 21).
All of this
has
to
be
done
in
the
presence
of
Jahweh,
that
is,
it was a
sacral action.
The
text
proceeds:
According
to his mouth
they
shall
go
out
and
accord-
ing
to
his word
they
shall come
in,
he and all the
sons
of Israel with
him and the
whole
congregation.
Here
it is obvious
that the two terms we
are
considering
are not
only
connected
with warfare53 but also with some cultic
action.
The use of the
term
,ln'7
n this
connection
and the
priestly
function,
which
gives
directions for Joshua's words about
"going
out and
coming
in,"
are evidence
for such an association.
Consequently,
Jahweh's
command to
Moshe to install
Joshua
relates to the
cult;
it is
a
cultic
phenomenon involving
a ritual
procedure
of
some
kind.54
The
same is true of Exod.
28:35. Here the
phrase
about Aaron's
going
"in
and
out" before
Jahweh,
mn;m
10,55
is
clearly
cultic
language.
In another
context,
connected
with the
stipulations
about
I53
Q'"
n
Lev.
16,
we meet
with
the same
verbs
(1Nt:
Ins
ftS
...).
The rule
is that when Aaron
is
going
into the
t1,n
;1"X
(v. 17),
no
one
else is
to
be
there,
at least not
until he
comes
out.
The verse
following
this also uses
KS'
in
connection
with Aaron's
"exodus"
to the
altar,
lnatnn
KStri.
In
Ezek.
46:10,
MKS
nd
Kl=
are related to
the
prince's
entrance
to and exit
from
the
temple
with
his
people.
Similarly,
Ps.
121:8
further
illuminates
the
use
of
these terms when
it
says:
z*w5
-r7
rna
Kll
Irnm
n;v
mmn-r
May
Jahweh
keep
(protect) your
going
out and
your
coming
in
from now and
for ever.
As
a
"psalm
of ascent"
(mnrt),
this
obviously
reflects some
liturgical
occurrence.56 The two verbs
(13:
and
HS')
refer to ritual
53
See J. M.
Myers,
II Chronicles
("The
Anchor
Bible,"
No.
13
[1965]),
p.
4.
54
For this
passage,
see
Porter,
op.
cit.
(see
n.
25),
p.
17.
55
The
phrase
is
not
noted
by
Noth
in his
commentary,
Exodus
("The
Old
Testament
Library"
[1962]).
56
Cf.
Kraus,
Psalmen
(BK
XV:2,
1961),
p.
835.
Engell
(op.
cit.
[see
n.
38])
calls
it "an
enthronement
festival
liturgy....
That
the
king
is the
subject
is
confirmed
by
such
expressions
as
p?n'7,
sr
,
p13'
',
V"
(p.
212).
J.
Morgenstern's
treatment
of this
psalm
does
not take
into consideration the
heading,
which
does
not har-
monize
with
Morgenstern's
idea
of the
speaker
as
traveling
through
the
desert
106
This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:39:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/12/2019 Solomon, The Chosen One
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/solomon-the-chosen-one 16/19
History
of
Religions
processions
in and
out of
the
temple,
if not some
kind of
an
"exodus."
Since Ezek. 46:10 is
pertinent
to our discussion of this
psalm,
it
is
important
that we consider
the context of
this
verse.
The
preceding
verse
speaks
about
the
people
of
the
land
coming
to
Jerusalem
for the
great
festivals
held there. Verse
10 asserts
that
the
wtli,
"the
prince,"
shall
"come
in"
and
"go
out" with
the
people
on
such
an
occasion.
However,
it
is
not
necessary
for us
to
follow
the Peshitta
and harmonize
this verse with verse
8,
as
some
scholars do.57 The
present
text can
be
explained
as
it stands.58
Verse 8 states that the
'it,
after offering the ;nrln, a meal or
cereal
offering,
at
the festival
of
the
day
of the New
Moon,
must
make
his
entrance
and his exit
by
the
same
gate.
In
verses
9 and
10,
a
different cultic
situation
is
envisaged,
the
nvqrui,
the
occasions
when the
people
of
the
countryside
were
supposed
to
make
a
pilgrimage
to Jerusalem.
In
other
words,
the cultic situa-
tion
which
is
involved
in
verses
9 and 10 is not the same as
that
implied
in
verse 8.
Therefore,
we
may
conclude
that the two
verbs,
K1n
and rs', in 46:10, and the role of the
'tIv
mentioned
there
refer
to some
kind
of
a
cultic entrance
and exodus.
This
discussion
enables
us to understand
the
setting
of Ps.
121:8.
As we have
already
indicated,
this verse
may
well refer to
certain
kinds
of
ritual
processions
in and out of
the
temple.
Of
course,
the
meaning
of
nP1a7;
'T
in
verse
1
has been
much dis-
cussed.
H.-J.
Kraus,
among
others,
has
suggested
a
combination
of
ideas
involving
some
kind of cultic
procession
together
with
a
song of ascent and a pilgrimage song.59 It may be that the first
verse
of
this
psalm
marks
it off
as a
pilgrimage
song.
In
this case
the R131
'INKS
in
verse
8
would
refer to
a cultic
procession.
Having
established
the
range
of
meaning
involved
in this
phrase
used in
I
Kings
3:7,
we are now
able
to
explain
its association with
King
Solomon.
Already
we
have
mentioned
Noth's
interpreta-
tion,60
which
holds that
this
phrase may
refer to
the
activity
of a
"with
its
lurking dangers,"
especially
from
peoples
in the mountains. Verse
4
"introduces a
disturbing
and
incongruous
note" ("Psalm 121," JBL, LVIII
[1939]),
311 ff. The
psalm
may
be
regarded
as a
song
constructed
upon
the old
cultic
ideas
concerning
the
servant
of
Jahweh,
particularly
his
presence
in
the
valley
of
death.
See further
my
book,
Psalm
89,
pp.
144-45.
57
Cf.
W.
Eichrodt,
Der
Prophet
Hesekiel
(ATD,
XXII:2
[1966]),
407.
58
When no
Hebrew
manuscript
has
an
alternative
reading,
in
my
opinion
the
best
procedure
is to
leave
the Hebrew
text as
it stands.
59
Kraus, "Psalmen,"
op.
cit.
(see
n.
56),
pp.
XX ff. S.
Mowinckel relates
psalms
such
as
this to the
procession
of the annual
festival
of the
New
Year and Jahweh's
enthronement,
Psalmenstudien
II
(1922),
4-5,
107
ff. and
IV
(1923),
3-4.
60
Cf.
supra,
p.
105.
107
This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:39:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/12/2019 Solomon, The Chosen One
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/solomon-the-chosen-one 17/19
Solomon,
the
Chosen One
king
at
a
time of
war
or
to his
ordinary
duties.
Now,
however,
we
can see another
implication emerging
from
Solomon's
"under-
estimation" of himself, that is, that as a
boy,
lS7,
he does not
know
his
"going
out" nor his
"coming
in."
This
is
an indication
that Solomon
is
chosen to
be
king by
Jahweh
at
such a
tender
age
that
he is unable to
fulfil his cultic
responsibilities.
Possibly
he had
not
yet
learned
how
to
do them. After
all,
according
to
this
verse,
he
was
still a
7tP
Sm3;
n other
words,
he was not
yet
a man.61
A
little
boy
was
not considered
to
be
very
wise.
Wisdom
is never
associated
with a na'ar
(Isa.
3:4;
Eccles.
10:
16).
If we ask what responsibilities are involved here, we may be
able to
answer
from the clue
given
in
the
phrase
XK1nK NSK K1
Could
these
words not
refer
to
certain kinds of
cultic
processions
as well
as
to other
phenomena
related to
the
worship
of
Israel ?62
If
we
agree
that
processions
are meant
by
these
words,
we do
leave
ourselves
open
to the
objection
that
this
kind
of
religious
function
was
by
no
means difficult.
The
young
king
could
simply
be
put
in
his
place
in line
of
march,
leaving
the
rest of the
obliga-
tions to the priests. Yet, even if this is true, there would have been
one
function that
the
young king
might
not
have been
able to
perform,
namely,
to
ascend to
the altar
and to sacrifice.
As
a
youth,
the
newly
anointed
priest-king
would
have
found
it
difficult to ascend to
the altar
before the whole
congregation
and
sacrifice to Jahweh.
Perhaps
also some
other
rites
could
be
con-
sidered, as,
for
instance,
a
procreation
rite.63 Because
of
the nature
61
For
is:
meaning
"steward,
warrior"
or
"mercenary
soldier"
or "armor-
bearer," see Albright, "The Seal of Eliakim and the Latest Preexilic History of
Judah,
with
some Observations
on
Ezekiel,"
JBL,
LI
(1932),
88
ff.;
de
Vaux,
"Les combats
singuliers
dans l'Ancien
Testament,"
Studia
Biblica et Orientalia
I
("Analecta
Biblica,"
No. 10
[1959]),
369.
The
phrase
1p
iz
can mean
a
young
servant
or
warrior
as,
for
instance,
in I Sam. 20:35.
From
this and
the other
instances
where it
occurs
it
is clear that
na'ar
qdton
means
a
juvenile,
a
person
under
age
(I
Kings
3:7,
11:17;
II
Kings
5:14;
Isa.
11:6).
62
The
phrase
lnsi:
is in Ps.
68:8
parallel
to
lp::a
("your
walking
step
by
step");
cf.
Judg.
5:4;
and
Hab.
3:12-13.
The stem
nm7
occurs
also
in II Sam.
6:13,
in
connection
with
the
procession
of the
Ark
going
up
to
Jerusalem.
-Ts
denotes
the
marching
step
by
step;
cf. also
II
Sam.
22:37;
and
Ps.
18:37.
63
There
is a
possibility
to make
a connection
between
the
"going
out and
coming,
in" motif and the idea expressed by Solomon in I Kings 3:9. Solomon here asks
to be
able
to
discern,
understand
"good
and
evil"
(vS
^:t
1,:
I
,15),
which
has
to do with the sexual
knowledge
and
ability.
For this
phrase,
cf.
Deut.
1:39;
II
Sam.
19:36;
Isa.
7:15-16;
and
Gen.
2:17, 3:5,
22. See
Engell,
"
'Knowledge'
and
'Life' in the
Creation
Story,"
SVT,
III
(1955),
115-16;
Ringgren,
"Ar
den
bibliska
skapelseberattelsen
en
kulttext ?"
SEA,
XIII
(1948),
19-20;
cf.
K.
Budde,
"Die
Erklarung
des
Namens
Kaijn
in
Gen.
4,
1,
ZAW,
XXXI
(1911),
148-49;
Bo
Reicke,
"The
Knowledge
Hidden in
the
Tree
of
Paradise,"
JSS,
I
(1956),
193
ff.;
R.
Gordis,
"The
Knowledge
of
Good and Evil
in
the Old
Testament
and
the
Qumran
Scrolls,"
JBL,
LXXVI
(1957),
123 ff. We
remember
that Moshe
said
he
was
too old
for the
"going
out and
coming
in,"
and Solomon
said
he
was
too
young
108
This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:39:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/12/2019 Solomon, The Chosen One
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/solomon-the-chosen-one 18/19
History
of
Religions
of the
texts and the
information
given
in
them,
it
cannot
be
wholly
demonstrated
whether we here have
to
deal with
some
kind of
;*yn?,64
that
is,
the exit
and
ascent to
the
place
of
sacrifice,
or with a
procreation
rite.
Perhaps
Solomon could
have
meant
both. One
thing
is, however,
certain: Solomon's statements
in
I
Kings
3:7,
9
are
not
expressions
for his lack of confidence
or
for
his
underestimation of
himself.
In
conclusion,
we
may
assert
that the
ideas of divine election
and
"charismatic"
kingship
must
be
associated
with
the
election
and
appointment
of
a
king
both in
Israel
and
in
Judah.
The
idea
that
there was a real difference between these two states
relating
to
royal
ideology
is
a
fabrication
of
scholarly
imagination.
In
both
kingdoms
we
find
the
notion of
divine election.
In
both
kingdoms
we
find
the
idea of
divine
charisma.
In both
kingdoms
we
find
the
concept
of
divine
establishment. The
kingdom
is
always
con-
stituted
by
the
deity,
and
the
king
is
always
appointed by
Jahweh
(Deut. 17:15).65
Actually,
it
may
be
said
that
by choosing
a
man,
Jahweh
has
chosen a dynasty (cf. Saul,66, David, Jeroboam, Jehu). H. Donner
has
argued
that
in
principle
the
charismatic
concept
is contained
within
the
dynastic
kingdom
but that
the
charisma
does not
concern
the
individual
king
as
much as the
dynasty
itself.67
Donner has
drawn
our
attention
here to
something
that has been
overlooked.
However,
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
the
very
for it.
Thus,
both
these
phrases
refer to
a
mature man
who is
still
in
his
procrea-
tive
years.
With
this in mind, we could ask ourselves whether Solomon in I Kings
3:7,
9 is
referring
to
some
procreation
rite. This
rite,
then,
he
was
not
yet
able to
perform.
He
did
not
yet
have
the
ability
to
beget.
64
Cf.
Engell (Studies
in
Divine
Kingship
.
.
.,
p.
212)
who
has maintained
that
Solomon
became
king
"when
not
yet
authorized
as
crown
prince
to
officiate
in the
'going
up'
(;pra)
of
the
enthronement
festival".
Concerning
the
concept
of
priest-
king,
H. M.
Orlinsky
advocates
that
Solomon
"constituted
himself
as
priest
and
diviner"
("The
Seer in
Ancient
Israel,"
Oriens
Antiquus,
IV
[1965],
168).
However,
the
text,
I
Kings
8,
does
not
state
this. It
only says
that Solomon
fulfilled
some
priestly
functions,
which
from
a
religio-historical
point
of view
is in
accordance
with
the
tradition
he
carried
on. The text
does not show that
we here
should find
an
innovation.
On the
contrary,
one
gets
the
impression
that
we meet
with a
common
royal
function
from
time
immemorable. Cf. Gen.
14:18
ff.;
Ps. 110.
See,
among
others,
G.
Widengren,
Psalm 110
(UUA,
1941:7,
1),
pp.
21-22;
I.
Hunt,
"Recent
Melkizedek
Study,"
in
J.
L.
McKenzie
(ed.),
The
Bible
in
Current
Catholic
Thought
(1962),
pp.
21
ff.
If
my
interpretation
of
ani
nsi
is
right,
Orlinsky's
thesis
is
untenable.
65
Porter,
op.
cit.
(see
n.
25),
p.
25.
66
Saul's
kingship
intended
as a
hereditary
one
is
shown
by
the
position
of
Jonathan,
I
Sam.
20:31;
cf.
13:13-14;
and
we know that
the
dynastic
line
was
upheld by
Isbaal;
cf.
Beyerlin,
"Das
K6nigscharisma
bei
Saul,"
ZAW,
LXXIII
(1961),
186
ff.,
196-97;
Carlson,
op.
cit.
(see
n.
26),
p.
52,
n. 2.
67
Donner,
"Art
und
Herkunft
des
Amtes der
Koniginmutter
im Alten
Testa-
ment,"
Festschrift
J.
Friedrich
(1959),
p.
144,
n.
158.
109
This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:39:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/12/2019 Solomon, The Chosen One
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/solomon-the-chosen-one 19/19
Solomon,
the Chosen One
reverse
of
this is
also
true.
It
is
the
individual
king
who is
the
bearer of the
reality
inherent within the
dynasty.
Thus,
properly
speaking, he is the one who is the divine choice and the possessor
of
the
charismatic
gifts.
The
above-mentioned
passages
concerning
Solomon's
accession to the throne
show
that
he
was
the
divine
choice.68
As another
example
of the
dynastic principle
we
may
again
refer
to Ps. 89.
In
the
oracle
concerning
David
in
verse
20,
he is the
chosen
one,
yet proceeding
further in the
psalm
we
find
that
it is
the
descendants of
David who are chosen as
well
(vss.
30
ff.,
cf.
v. 4). The same is true for Ps. 132: 10-11. Here the phrase In'tD,
your
annointed
one,69
your
messiah
(v. 10),
shows that the
king
belongs
to
Jahweh.
His
very
existence
as
king
is
due
to
the will
of
Jahweh.
Thus,
verse
11
says
that
17-on:)
n'K '13
'n5n
("of
the
fruit of
thy body
I
will make
[one]
sit on
your
throne").
Not
only
David
but
every king
has
been
placed
on the
throne
by
Jahweh.
Not
only
the
king
chosen at
this
moment
but
also
his
descendants
have been selected
by
Jahweh to
rule.
Speaking as a historian, one may say that the election and
appointment
of a
king
in
Israel
is
the choice of the
people,
or of
his
father,
or
perhaps
of the court.
But in
the last
analysis,
even
if
this
is
true,
ideologically
it is
Jahweh,
not the
people,
who
chooses
the
king.
The choice
must
be made
by
Jahweh,
and this is
true both
in Israel and
in
Judah.
68
Also
in the
case
of
Solomon
we
can
find
the
people's
acclamation
of
the chosen
one.
The
people
were
"rejoicing
with
great joy,
so
that
the earth
was
split by
their
noise"
(I Kings 1:40).
69
The anointment
symbolizes
the arrival of Jahweh's
ruah,
which makes the
king
a
participant
in
the holiness
of
Jahweh,
as
de
Vaux has
expressed
it.
He also
maintains
that
the anointment can
be understood as
a sacrament
that
makes
the
Israelite
king
a
vassal
of
Jahweh
(Melanges
E.
Tisserant,
pp.
119
ff.).
110