Impeccable Solomon?

A Study of Solomon’s Faults in Chronicles

Yong Ho Jeon

• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN:
  9781610978101
  9781498262279
• eBook ISBN:
  9781498276610
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Commentary

Solomon's idolatry, his murder of his political enemies, and his role in the breakup of the kingdom, which are bluntly presented in Kings, are omitted in Chronicles. Is King Solomon presented as impeccable in Chronicles, in stark contrast to his portrayal in Kings? Is Solomon idealized in Chronicles at the cost of honest writing of history? To this question, the consensus view says, "Yes." However, Yong Ho Jeon takes a different route and maintains that the Chronicler's portrait of Solomon is much more nuanced than many suppose. Jeon employs a "reader-sensitive" approach that considers the biblical writer's intention to use his readers' prior knowledge and the reading process itself to present a portrait of Solomon. Applying this methodology results in a new interpretation of Solomon not only in Chronicles but in Kings as well.

1

Introduction

1. The “Impeccable Solomon” Interpretation and Questions Raised about It

The idea that Solomon is idealized in Chronicles has a long history. It has long been recognized that Solomon’s faults, which appear in Kings, do not appear in the Chronicler’s portrayal of the king, and that the omission is intended to idealize Solomon.1 On the other hand, Solomon in Chronicles suffered scholarly neglect, in contrast to David in Chronicles, who has received abundant attention in relation to the purpose of Chronicles.2 A distinct change within these trends has been perceived in the last few decades.3 Modern biblical scholarship interpreted Solomon in Chronicles as being under the shadow of David, at best as a mere follower of his father David.4 He then began to receive significant attention from scholars such as Rudolph.5 Eventually Solomon in Chronicles was promoted, by later commentators like A. Caquot, Braun, Mosis, and Dillard, into the position of ideal king who was, in some senses, of an even higher status than his father David.6

A brief summary of arguments of Braun and Mosis will suffice here. Braun observes that David and Solomon have an equal status in Chronicles, in three respects. Firstly, Solomon is presented as a divinely chosen king just like David (1 Chr 17:11; 22:7–10; 28:6). Secondly, Solomon’s kingship is presented as enjoying all Israel’s “unanimous” assent and support just as David’s had been (1 Chr 29:22b–25a). Thirdly, Solomon is presented as a king dedicated to the cult, more specifically to the Jerusalem temple and its functionaries, just like his father David (e.g., 2 Chr 8:12–16).7

However, Braun goes beyond simply seeing David and Solomon as equal. He thinks that Solomon appears to “surpass” David at least in two points. Firstly, the Chronicler presents Solomon as impeccable through providing an apologetic for Solomon against the king’s presentation in Kings, by omitting the content of 1 Kgs 11, which describes Solomon’s apostasy. Additionally, Solomon’s worship in a high place in his early reign is vindicated by additional material which tells us that the tabernacle of Moses was there. According to Braun, moreover, Solomon obeys God perfectly without a single failure. Secondly, Solomon appears to “surpass” David as the chosen one to build the temple, from which David is disqualified. Therefore, for Braun, Solomon is presented in Chronicles as in certain ways superior to David, who is portrayed as having some flaws and as being rejected by God as the temple builder.8

Nevertheless, Braun believes that the Chronicler intended to present the work of David and Solomon as “a single unit centering in the erection of the temple.”9 He cites three occasions that explicitly show this paralleling of David and Solomon. Firstly, David and Solomon are mentioned together in 2 Chr 7:10 in the context of the dedicatory feast of the temple, while in its Kings only David is mentioned. Secondly, David and Solomon are mentioned together again in 2 Chr 11:17, as a standard for Rehoboam, the subsequent king. Lastly, the two kings’ names are mentioned side by side in 2 Chr 35:3–4, as instruction-givers for the Jerusalem cult.10 Hence, Braun proposes that Solomon’s status is presented as fundamentally the same as David’s in Chronicles.

Therefore, Braun’s argument for Solomon’s superiority to David, as the chosen temple builder and impeccable king, does not necessarily mean that David is inferior to Solomon. For example, he admits that, in the matter of the founding of the dynasty, “David’s pre-eminence” is observed.11 Rather, his intention is to correct the “imbalance” in the discussion of Chronicles, which had usually put its focus on the significance and pre-eminence of David, overlooking the significance of Solomon.12

While Braun proposes a moderate view of Solomon’s superiority over David in that the two kings have basically equal status, Mosis proposes a bolder view that Solomon is fundamentally superior to David. His view of Solomon’s superiority is derived from his observation of three patterns in the king’s portrayal in Chronicles: he observes three paradigms of kings in Chronicles, of which Saul, David, and Solomon provide respective archetypes. According to Mosis, Saul represents the exilic state through disobedience to God, and David represents a recovery state from an exilic situation through repentance and obedience to God, while Solomon represents the ideal state in which God’s blessing is fully enjoyed in the kingdom.13 Kings after Solomon are regarded as following either Saul or David, but no king fits the paradigm of Solomon.14 For Mosis, Solomon is in fact the archetype of the coming messianic king. In tune with this, the wealth and glory of Solomon are nothing but the projection of messianic splendor. Likewise, the Gentile nations’ abundant tribute to Solomonic Israel is also a projection of the messianic era.15

We will refute, in subsequent sections, Braun’s argument that Solomon is presented as impeccable in Chronicles, but here we can briefly refute Mosis’ view of Solomon’s superiority over David as providing the best paradigm. Firstly, and fundamentally, it is questionable whether his three paradigms provide overall convincing frameworks. While his observation of the contrast between Saul and David concerning their attitude toward the ark is convincing, his distinction between David and Solomon as separate paradigms is not: the parallel which apparently appears between David’s reign and Solomon’s does undermine Mosis’ view. If the unity between David’s reign and Solomon’s in relation to the temple building, as Braun suggests, is accepted, Mosis’ view cannot be strongly maintained. Additionally, it is observed that while Hezekiah is explicitly compared to David (2 Chr 29:2), at the same time the portrayal of Hezekiah’s reign follows that of Solomon, as Williamson convincingly shows.16

Furthermore, it is in fact observed that the evaluations of some kings refer neither to David nor to Saul in Chronicles. There are subsequent kings who are evaluated as not as good as David, but are still regarded as not as bad as Saul. For example, while for an evaluation of the good king, Jehoshaphat, David is mentioned as an archetype (2 Chr 17:3), but for an “average quality king,” Jotham, David is not mentioned at all. In fact, the Chronicler presents several kings as “average quality,” who are neither as good as David, nor as bad as Saul. This phenomenon does not fit into Mosis’ simplistic framework of kings in Chronicl...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: The Problem of an Idealized Solomon in Chronicles and its Dilemma
• Chapter 3: The Problem of the Interpretations of the Solomon Narrative in Kings and a New Interpretation
• Chapter 4: The Nature and Purpose of Chronicles
• Chapter 5: Two Literary Features of Chronicles
• Chapter 6: The Deuteronomic Law and Chronicles
• Chapter 7: A New Interpretation of the Solomon Account in Chronicles
• Chapter 8: Conclusion
• Biblography