1
First Kings 1–11 and the Succession Narrative
Interpreting 1 Kings 1–11
So goes our earliest extant evaluation of the Old Testament’s depiction of Solomon, from the second century BCE book of Sirach. Just prior to its concluding hymn of praise, Sirach offers a summary and evaluation of a number of Old Testament figures, including King Solomon. Sirach clearly is enamored with Solomon’s wisdom—not surprising, since scholars regard most of Sirach as “wisdom” literature, following the tradition of Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes. Sirach furthermore reads Solomon as a king who was righteous and successful at the start of his reign, only to succumb to the wiles of foreign women later on, leading Israel to ruin in the process.
Sirach’s interpretation of Solomon has endured through the ages. Following his account, Solomon’s story even today is often taught something like this: Solomon was a good king, specially selected by Yahweh to succeed his father David. As a young ruler, Solomon humbly asks for wisdom to lead Israel. This request so pleases Yahweh that he grants Solomon not only incomparable wisdom, but incomparable wealth and fame as well. Under Solomon’s leadership, Israel reaches the height of its prosperity and influence, achieving international acclaim, and Solomon constructs Israel’s greatest monument, the temple. But in the midst of his acclaim and accomplishments, Solomon marries foreign wives who turn his heart to foreign gods, away from Yahweh. Solomon’s reign ends in ruin, presaging Israel’s long trajectory toward exile.
The problem with this reading, however, is the presence of a number of statements within 1 Kgs 1–10 that appear to be critical of the king. While scholars have typically held that, on the whole, these chapters represent a favorable description of Solomon’s accomplishments (a few scholars argue that the positive section ends with 1 Kgs 8), more and more acknowledge that certain statements throughout the Solomon narrative were deliberately placed in order to cast a negative light on the king. First Kings nevertheless presents Solomon’s chief accomplishment, the construction of the temple in Jerusalem, in seemingly glowing terms. The temple dedication appears not simply as a highlight of Solomon’s reign, but as a pinnacle of the Deuteronomistic History (henceforth “DH”) as a whole. This leads to the question: Why might 1 Kgs 1–10 portray Solomon in both positive and negative terms?
A few studies appearing over the past several decades try to answer this question synchronically, that is, by trying to make sense of the MT as a whole in its current form. In chapter 2 I briefly discuss works by Kim Parker, Jung Ju Kang, and Eric Seibert that purport to show that passages that appear critical of Solomon in 1 Kgs 1–10 either should not be taken to be critical within their historic, literary contexts, or else work to provide the reader a rich portrayal of the Solomon story. First Kings commentaries which use a synchronic approach often reach similar conclusions.
This book takes a different path. Yes, Israelite scribes certainly composed works containing a great deal of literary complexity. But a diachronic reading will allow us to attribute texts featuring disparate ideologies to different writers, allowing us to trace the development of a text. For the Solomon story in particular, a diachronic approach greatly helps us to interpret 1 Kgs 1–11. Most importantly, we best understand 1 Kgs 1–11 when we consider that its final major revision was made only after 2 Sam 11–20 had been inserted into the broader narrative. The pre-exilic Solomon story, comprised of much of 1 Kgs 3–11, portrayed King Solomon as a king of great bureaucratic power, who suffered disaster when he became involved with foreign women. Signs of danger were prevalent throughout this early edition of the Solomon story; its author was not quite describing the Solomon of Sirach! The Solomon story was then revised during the exile, making Solomon into a darker figure throughout, even more interested in power at the expense of righteous behavior. And the key to this “revisionist” Solomon is 1 Kgs 1–2, which connects the story of David’s reign to the story of the reign of his son.
The Approach of This Work
This book works within the framework of the “Double Redaction” theory (“DblR”) of the composition of the Deuteronomistic History (“DH”). The DH encompasses the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, and 1–2 Kings. The DblR, generally credited to Frank Moore Cross, holds that the DH was initially put together in the late seventh century BCE during the reign of King Josiah, then underwent a significant revision during the exile. The scribe responsible for the Josianic edition, often referred to as “Dtr1” (“Dtr” being the commonly accepted abbreviation for both “Deuteronomistic Historian” and “Deuteronomistic History”), arranged older written materials into a narrative covering the history of Israel from the wilderness period to the Josianic era, adding his own connecting passages and speeches to proclaim his ideology. His theology strongly reflects the theology of Deuteronomy; hence the designation “Deuteronomistic.” Dtr1’s exilic successor “Dtr2” updated Dtr1’s work, bringing the history into the exilic period, and making certain other revisions along the way to reflect concerns of his exilic setting.
Supporters of the DblR often debate over which specific passages belong to which Dtr. Furthermore, some DblR advocates propose multiple Dtr2’s, while others posit that the Josianic version of the DH itself represented a revision of some earlier wo...