Solomon, The Chosen One

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

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1061882?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/1061882?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress



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








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








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








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








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








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








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








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








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








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








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








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








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








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








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








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








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








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

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	zavier-mainyu
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Solomon, The Chosen One

Documents