Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
LXX solomon
Citation preview
Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative
Supplements
to
Vetus TestamentumEdited by the Board of the Quarterly
H.M. Barstad – Phyllis A. Bird – R.P. Gordon
A. Hurvitz – A. van der Kooij – A. Lemaire
R. Smend – J. Trebolle Barrera
J.C. VanderKam – H.G.M. Williamson
VOLUME 104
Two Versions of the
Solomon Narrative
An Inquiry into the Relationship between
MT 1 Kgs. 2–11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2–11
by
Percy S.F. van Keulen
BRILL
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2005
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data
LC Control Number: 2004062847
ISSN 00083-5889ISBN 90 04 13895 1
© Copyright 2005 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The NetherlandsKoninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic
Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated,stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to
The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
printed in the netherlands
CONTENTS
Preface ........................................................................................ vii
1. Introduction .......................................................................... 1
2. The account of Joab’s death (1 Kgs. 2: 28–34—3 Reg.
2: 28–34) .............................................................................. 26
3. The duplication of 3 Reg. 2: 8–9 at 35l–o and the
supplementary character of 35–46l .................................... 36
4. The arrangement of materials relating to Pharaoh’s
daughter in MT and the LXX .......................................... 62
5. The description of Solomon’s provisioning system
(1 Kgs. 4: 1–5: 13—3 Reg. 4: 1–5: 13) .......................... 82
6. Solomon’s prestige among the kings of the earth
(3 Reg. 5, 10) ...................................................................... 96
7. The account of the preparation of the temple building
(1 Kgs. 5: 31–6: 1—3 Reg. 5: 32–6: 1d) ........................ 113
8. The account of the construction of temple and palace
(1 Kgs. 6: 2–7: 52—3 Reg. 6: 2–7: 50) .......................... 131
9. The absence of a counterpart of 1 Kgs. 6: 11–14 in
the LXX .............................................................................. 142
10. The account of the installation of the ark (1 Kgs. 8:
1–11—3 Reg. 8: 1–11) ...................................................... 151
11. The dedication pronouncement (1 Kgs. 8: 12–13—
3 Reg. 8: 53a) .................................................................... 164
12. The account of Solomon’s shipping expedition (1 Kgs.
9: 14, 26–28—3 Reg. 9: 14, 26–28) ................................ 181
13. The account of Solomon’s building activities (1 Kgs.
9: 15–22—3 Reg. 10: 22a–c) ............................................ 191
14. The account of Solomon’s sin (1 Kgs. 11: 1–8—3 Reg.
11: 1–8) ................................................................................ 202
15. The account of Solomon’s adversaries (1 Kgs. 11:
14–25—3 Reg. 11: 14–25) ................................................ 222
16. Agreements between 3 Regum and Chronicles vis-à-vis
1 Kings ................................................................................ 238
17. The relation between the Miscellanies 3 Reg. 2: 35a–k
and 46a–k and the main text of 3 Regum ...................... 265
18. The structure of the Solomon Narrative in MT and
the LXX .............................................................................. 276
19. The text-historical significance of differences in the
representation of Deuteronomistic text between 1 Kings
and 3 Regum ...................................................................... 294
20. Conclusions .......................................................................... 300
Bibliography ................................................................................ 306
Appendix: Synopsis of 3 Reg. 2: 35a–o, 46a–l and
parallel texts ............................................................................ 313
Index of Authors ........................................................................ 323
Index of Scriptural References .................................................. 327
vi contents
PREFACE
This study represents the tangible result of a research project that
was carried out from 1996 until 1999. The Netherlands Organization
for Scientific Research (NWO) granted the funds for the project.
Soon after the original manuscript was completed, Adrian Schenker
published a study on the same subject (2000). Since Schenker unfolds
a number of new ideas, I thought it necessary to incorporate an
extensive discussion of his work into mine. The interaction with his
views caused me to elaborate on my own arguments. As a result the
original manuscript was considerably expanded.
Now that this study sees publication in the series Supplements to
Vetus Testamentum, I would like to thank all those who helped me in
achieving this result. A few of them deserve special mention.
First, I wish to acknowledge my great indebtedness to Professor
Arie van der Kooij for the stimulating guidance he has provided.
Thanks are also due to Professor Natalio Fernández Marcos and
Professor Julio Trebolle Barrera for the hospitality they offered me
in Madrid and the useful conversations I had with them.
Furthermore, I am very grateful to Dr Michaël van der Meer and
drs. Bram van Putten for the necessary feedback they gave me, and
to Dr Jan Bloemendaal for his valuable suggestions to improve the
English of the manuscript.
Finally, I wish to thank Professor André Lemaire for accepting
the manuscript for Supplements to Vetus Testamentum.
Percy S.F. van Keulen
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1. The Problem
The Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the LXX
includes several books that differ substantially from their Hebrew
counterparts in MT. Differences between the LXX and MT of
Joshua, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel do not only include
variations which arose accidentally in the transmission process, but
also differences in formulation, text quantity and arrangement which
result from deliberate intervention with the shape of the biblical text.
The LXX-version of 1 Kings, variously designated as 3 Regum, 3
Reigns, or 3 Kingdoms, ranks together with Jeremiah as the book
that diverges most drastically from the formulation attested by MT.
The student of 3 Regum is not only struck by the high rate but
also by the diversity of differences vis-à-vis 1 Kings that are con-
tained in the book. Pluses and minuses are frequent, as well as word
differences. Some of the pluses in 3 Regum consist of duplicate ren-
derings of passages appearing elsewhere in the translation. One plus
even involves a rival version of events already recounted in the pre-
ceding narrative (i.e., 3 Reg. 12: 24a–z). Furthermore, correspond-
ing sections may appear at different positions in 3 Regum and 1
Kings, thus causing a different arrangement of narrative materials.
Most of these sequence differences occur in the first half of the book.
Another peculiar deviation from MT, typical of the second half of
3 Regum, pertains to the chronological data for kings following
Solomon.
In this study we will focus on the sizable differences in the first
half of the book, that is to say, the section devoted to the Solomon
Narrative. Basically, two questions will concern us. First, what is the
background of the substantial, “deliberate”, differences in the Solomon
Narrative (2: 12–11: 43)? Second, in which stage(s) of the textual
history of the book did these differences arise?
These questions are not only of importance to the student of the
LXX, but also to the literary critic of Kings. In order to explain
why this is so, we must shortly go into the textual history of 3
Regum.1 In the LXX, 1 Kings forms part of a work designated
Basileivn, “Reigns”, which comprises the books of Samuel and
Kings. The four volumes into which Basileivn (henceforth Regum)
is divided correspond to 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings, respectively.
The literary unity of the work that is suggested by the single name
is not matched by unity of translation. In 1907 H.St.J. Thackeray
argued convincingly that on the basis of divergent renderings of
Hebrew words, roots and expressions, five different translation units
can be distinguished in the Codex Vaticanus (LXX B) of 1–4 Reigns
(henceforth 1–4 Regum): a = 1 Regum; bb = 2 Reg. 1: 1–11: 1; bg= 2 Reg. 11: 2–3 Reg. 2: 11; gg = 3 Reg. 2: 12–21: 43; gd = 3
Reg. 22 and 4 Regum.2 Thackeray attributed the portions bg and
gd to a single hand on account of similar translation characteristics.
The literal character of the translation contained in these portions
and a stylistic similarity to the translation of Theodotion led him to
conclude that they had not been written earlier than 100 bce. The
sections a, bb, and gg represent older translations that may or may
not be the work of separate translators.3 In Thackeray’s judgment,
portions bg and gd, each describing an episode of decline and fall in
the history of the monarchy, were meant to supplement what these
early translators had passed over as unedifying history.
The division of translation units proposed by Thackeray has found
general acceptance. However, by now most LXX scholars have aban-
doned the view that the sections bg and gd represent original trans-
lations, as Thackeray assumed. In 1963 D. Barthélemy showed that
these portions belong to a layer of translation-revision of the older
LXX-text that is also attested by the Dodekapropheton scroll of
Na al ever and fragments of Theodotion’s translation.4 This com-
prehensive translation-revision, dubbed “Kaige recension”, dates from
the beginning of the 1st century ad and aims at bringing the older
1 For more detailed descriptions of the textual history of 3 Regum see J.D.Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings (HSM 1),Cambridge (Massachusetts) 1968, 5–21; A. van der Kooij, “De Tekst van Samuelen het Tekstkritisch Onderzoek”, NedThT 36 (1982), 177–204, esp. 182f.
2 H.St.J. Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings”, JThS8 (1907), 262–78.
3 H.St.J. Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship, London 1921, 17.4 D. Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila (VT.S 10), Leiden 1963.
2 chapter one
LXX into closer conformity with the authoritative Hebrew text. In
Barthélemy’s judgment, the portions bg and gd of LXX B represent
the Kaige recension of the original LXX, while the “Old Greek”
(henceforth OG) has been preserved in the “Antiochian” (henceforth
Ant.) manuscripts b o c2 e2.5 Several scholars have criticized the lat-
ter view, arguing that the text attested by b o c2 e2 itself reflects one6
or even two7 revisions. Barthélemy’s views on the recensional char-
acter of the portions bg and gd, on the other hand, have met with
general though not unanimous approval and are fully accepted in
this study.
It is important to note that according to Barthélemy the gg-sec-tion in LXX B and related manuscripts has not been subjected to
the Kaige recension.8 Since 3 Regum in LXX B has not been
significantly touched by the Hexaplaric recension either,9 one is
justified to attach a relatively early date to the text of the gg-section
in this manuscript. The text-critical significance of 3 Regum lies in
the circumstance that the translation predates the definitive stan-
dardization of the text of 1 Kings in MT. Being the oldest surviv-
ing formulation of the book, 3 Regum is of considerable relevance
to the formative history of 1 Kings. Prolonged research in the com-
position, theology and phraseology of Kings has made it abundantly
clear that the process of literary growth that the book went through
has been both lengthy and complex. In light of this, the possibility
emerges that the text of 3 Regum, which is both older than and
widely at variance with the text of MT 1 Kings, represents a stage
5 Barthélemy prefers to speak of the “Antiochene text” rather than of the “LucianicRecension”, because, in his view, the text does not bear the character of a “recen-sion” and the tradition that relates it to the historic Lucian is unreliable (D. Barthélemy, “Les problèmes textuels de 2 Sam 11,2–1 Rois 2,11 reconsidérésà la lumière de certaines critiques des ‘Devanciers d’Aquila’”, in R.A. Kraft [ed.],1972 Proceedings for the IOSCS and Pseudepigrapha. Los Angeles, 4 sept. 1972, Missoula1972, 16–89, esp. 71–72). Following Barthélemy, this study consistently refers to“Ant. text/manuscripts”.
6 Thus E. Tov, “Lucian and Proto-Lucian. Toward a New Solution of theProblem”, RB 79 (1972), 101–13, esp. 102–103.
7 Thus F.M. Cross, “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveriesin the Judaean Desert”, HThR 57 (1964), 281–99, esp. 295–96.
8 Barthélemy, however, believes that a second “Palestinian” recension left itstraces in 3 Regum, but he gives no examples of its reading (Devanciers, 142).
9 Thus J.W. Wevers, “A Study in the Textual History of Codex Vaticanus inthe Books of Kings”, ZAW 64 (1952), 178–89, esp. 189.
introduction 3
in the literary development of the text that precedes the formula-
tion of MT. Just as well, however, 3 Regum may reflect a literary
development that is subsequent to the text form attested by MT. In
this connection, it is worthwhile noting that the scanty fragments of
1 Kings found in Qumran witness to a text that basically agrees
with MT.10 A third possibility to be considered is that one of both
formulations represents a later revision, yet one based on a different,
possibly older, text tradition than that witnessed by the other version.
The very extensive variations between 1 Kings and 3 Regum and
the ramifications these might have for the literary criticism of the
book have attracted the attention of many scholars in the course of
time. Yet, in comparison with other areas of Old Testament schol-
arship research into the literary and text-historical aspects of 3 Regum
has started late. Though incentives towards study of the subject date
back to the early years of the 20th century, it was not until 1950
that systematic efforts at detailed evaluation of the variation between
3 Regum and 1 Kings commenced. Ever since, however, interest in
the subject has grown rapidly, especially over the last 25 years, when
developments in the fields of redaction criticism and Qumran stud-
ies directed scholarly attention to the textual history of the books of
Samuel-Kings.
2. History of research
Over the years two main directions have become manifest in the
study of the differences between 1 Kings and 3 Regum. One claims
that 3 Regum represents a midrashic revision of a text basically iden-
tical with what has been handed down as MT 1 Kings. The other
holds that 3 Regum is based on a text type of Kings representing
a stage in the literary development of the book prior to what is rep-
resented by the text of MT.
As early representatives of the former direction should be mentioned
here Thackeray and J.A. Montgomery. Both take the view that the
divergencies in 3 Regum are the work of the translator, who wished
10 For a list of the Qumran material on Kings see A. Schenker, Septante et textemassorétique dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 2–14 (CRB 48), Paris 2000,2, n. 5.
4 chapter one
to amplify and paraphrase the narrative.11 In 1950 J.W. Wevers
devoted a separate study to the problem of the variations. In an
article entitled “Exegetical Principles underlying the Septuagint Text
of 1 Kings ii 12–xxi 43” Wevers sought to determine exegetical ten-
dencies in the work of the Greek translator by studying “every
instance of apparent mistranslation, inexact rendering, amplification,
omission or rearrangement of text.” This inquiry resulted in the
identification of three tendencies: 1. a tendency towards harmoniza-
tion and rationalization; 2. a tendency to exalt Solomon and to
blacken “enemies of the kingdom” as Joab, Jeroboam, the Northern
Kingdom and Ahab; 3. theologically inspired variations, comprising
a tendency towards condemnation of pagan practices, concern for
cultic correctness and stress on God’s transcendence. For reasons of
space, Wevers did not discuss the sizable sequence differences, pluses
and minuses in 3 Regum and by consequence it remains unclear
whether he attributes these to the intervention of the translator or
to a different Vorlage.
The question of the sequence differences was to receive serious
treatment a few years later in the work of D.W. Gooding. From
1964 onward, this scholar published a series of articles in which he
undertook to discuss the problem of the sequence differences in a
most thorough manner. The importance of Gooding’s work lies in
its remarkable ability to connect the question of the sequence differences
with exegetical traits of the LXX-text. In brief, Gooding argues that
the important variations between 3 Regum and 1 Kings reveal two
tendencies on the part of the LXX: 1. a tendency to present text-
materials in a strictly logical, or chronological order; 2. a tendency
to whitewash leading characters as David, Solomon, Jeroboam, and
Ahab.
“Pedantic timetabling”, as Gooding calls it, has been the leading
consideration behind the rearrangement of the notes on Solomon’s
marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter,12 several reorderings in relation to
the account of the construction of the temple and the palace (chs. 6–7),13
11 Thackeray, “Greek Translators”, 263–64; J.A. Montgomery and H.S. Gehman,The Books of Kings (ICC), Edinburgh 1951, 126–27, 143, 232, 319.
12 D.W. Gooding, “The Septuagint’s Version of Solomon’s Misconduct”, VT 15(1965), 325–35, esp. 326–31.
13 D.W. Gooding, “Pedantic Timetabling in 3rd Book of Reigns”, VT 15 (1965),
introduction 5
and the interchange of chs. 20 and 21 in the Ahab Narrative of 3
Regum.14
A concern for the image of leading characters is identified as the
driving force behind changes in the (first) account of Jeroboam’s rise
to power, i.e., 3 Reg. 11: 26–12: 24,15 the LXX-version of the his-
tory of Ahab, and the comparison between evil kings and David
made in 3 Reg. 15: 4.16 In particular, Gooding draws attention to
alterations within the Solomon Narrative that aim to whitewash
Solomon’s character. A desire to protect Solomon’s image as a pious
king played a role in the reordering of the accounts of the building
of temple and palace, as well as the transposition and reinterpreta-
tion of the dedication speech 1 Kgs. 8: 12–13.17 Other alterations
aimed at justifying activities of Solomon that might appear ques-
tionable in light of the Deuteronomic Law. Thus the transposition
of 1 Kgs. 9: 15–23 to 3 Reg. 10: 22a–c effectively excused Solomon’s
accumulation of silver and gold (cf. Deut. 17: 17) by suggesting that
he needed these metals for the building of the temple,18 and that he
simply received what other people brought on account of his wis-
dom.19 By the same token, the reordering in 3 Reg. 10: 22a–c and
possibly also the translation-revision in 10: 26,20 provided credible
excuses for the multiplication of horses in Solomon’s reign (cf. Deut.
17: 16): Solomon needed the horses for the defense of his kingdom
and the high number of them mainly resulted from the many gifts
other kings presented him.
In Gooding’s view, the reinterpretation of the leading characters
in 3 Regum, especially of Solomon, is intimately linked with a large-
scale reordering of 3 Regum as a whole. In the LXX, the account
of Solomon’s kingship from 3 Reg. 2: 35a unto 10: 29 was rearranged
153–66; id., “Temple Specifications: A Dispute in Logical Arrangement betweenthe MT and the LXX”, VT 17 (1967), 143–72.
14 D.W. Gooding, “Ahab according to the Septuagint”, ZAW 76 (1964), 269–80,esp. 277; id., “Problems of Text and Midrash in the Third Book of Reigns”, Textus7 (1969), 1–29, esp. 26.
15 D.W. Gooding, “The Septuagint’s Rival Versions of Jeroboam’s Rise to Power”,VT 17 (1967), 173–89.
16 Gooding, “Problems of Text and Midrash”, 20–21.17 Gooding, “Problems of Text and Midrash”, 22–25.18 Gooding, “Misconduct”, 331–34.19 D.W. Gooding, “Text-sequence and Translation-revision in 3 Reg. IX 10–X
33”, VT 19 (1969), 448–63, esp. 453–54; id., “Problems of Text and Midrash”, 11.20 Gooding, “Text-Sequence”, 454–63.
6 chapter one
into a grand exposition of the theme of Solomon’s wisdom.21 All sec-
tions within the account can be seen to deal with an aspect of that
wisdom. Within the general scheme, an important role is assigned
to the so-called Miscellanies 3 Reg. 2: 35a–k and 46a–l, which have
no counterpart in MT in a corresponding position. These collections
of notes which partly duplicate material from the running text were
contrived to give first place to the theme of Solomon’s wisdom and
they are well integrated with the scheme of order in the following
chapters.22
In Gooding’s judgment, the reorderings and the reinterpretations
are basically from the same hand. In several cases the reinterpreta-
tions can be seen to be bound up with the specific wording of the
Greek text, so that they are not likely to derive from the Vorlage.23
The alterations, however, did not enter the Greek text at the time
of its original translation but as a result of some later revision. The
occurrence of certain differences between the duplicate translations
in the Miscellanies and the main text suggests that the original trans-
lator and the reviser were different persons. The variations between
duplicate translations were partly caused by the circumstance that
the reviser relied on written Hebrew traditions different from MT.
Thus some of the material that was incorporated at the time of the
revision, like the plus in 3 Reg. 12: 24a–z and a few notes in the
Miscellanies, have the appearance of being based on a different
Hebrew text.24
In dealing with cases of reinterpretations and reorderings, Gooding
frequently comes up with parallels from rabbinic sources in order to
demonstrate that a certain matter had the interest of Jewish exegetes.
This, he feels, provides a clue as to how we should regard the text
of 3 Regum. Over long stretches, the Greek follows MT rather
closely, and here differences may reflect text traditions differing from
21 Gooding, “Problems of Text and Midrash”, 2, 11.22 Gooding, “Problems of Text and Midrash”, 4–6.23 Thus see Gooding, “Pedantic Timetabling”, 157–67 (on 3 Reg. 5: 32–6: 1d);
id., “Misconduct”, 331–34 (on 3 Reg. 10: 22a–c). It should be noted, however, thatGooding does not categorically reject the view that the re-orderings and re-inter-pretations already occurred in the original Hebrew Vorlage, for, after declining thepossibility on pages 17–18 of “Problems of Text and Midrash”, he again takes itinto consideration on page 25.
24 Gooding, “Problems of Text and Midrash”, 2, 16–20; id., Relics of Ancient Exegesis:A Study of the Miscellanies in 3 Reg. 2 (MSSOTS 4), Cambridge 1976, 111.
introduction 7
MT. Elsewhere, however, the text shows exegetical tendencies that
remind of free targum or midrash. This mixture of bible text and
midrash leads Gooding eventually to characterize 3 Regum as a
commentary on the text of 1 Kings.25
Several modern scholars have expressed their approval of Gooding’s
conception of 3 Regum as a midrashic revision of a text form sim-
ilar to MT, though in varying degrees.26 In particular the work of
Z. Talshir seeks to carry further and modify the midrashic model
introduced by Gooding. Talshir, too, takes the view that the revi-
sion was concerned with rearranging the troublesome sequence of
the original and reinterpreting its leading characters.27 Two major
publications, one on 3 Reg. 11,28 the other on the “Alternative Story”
of Jeroboam’s Rise to Power in 3 Reg. 12: 24a–z, aim at demon-
strating the midrashic character of these sections.29
More explicitly than Gooding, Talshir acknowledges that “it is
impossible to separate form from contents and ideas and difficult to
estimate what initially prompted the reviser to interfere with his
source.”30 The somewhat obscure message of 3 Regum is due to the
circumstance that the revision was only partial and did not involve
the creative rewriting of sources that characterizes the work of the
Chronicler. Despite the principal difference between the two revi-
sions elaborating the book of Kings, Talshir argues that the redac-
tion processes underlying 3 Regum and Chronicles were similar.
Comparative study shows that that the reviser of 3 Regum and the
25 Gooding, “Problems of Text and Midrash”, 25–29.26 E.g., S.J. DeVries, 1 Kings (Word Biblical Commentary 12), Waco 1985, lix;
G.H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings (NCeB), Grand Rapids/London 1984, 6–9; V. Peterca,“Ein midraschartiges Auslegungsbeispiel zugunsten Salomos. 1 Kön 8,12–13 – 3 Reg 8,53a”, BZ 31 (1987), 270–75, esp. 275; id., “Solomone nel Libro greco deiRe, detto Regni. Un analisi del suo ritatto in chiave midrashica”, RevBib 30 (1982),175–96 (for a summary of this article see J. Brière, “Solomon dans la Septante”,DBS 11, Paris 1991, 472–74); E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Minnea-polis/Assen/Maastricht 1992, 177, 316.
27 Z. Talshir, The Alternative Story of the Division of the Kingdom (3 Kingdoms 12: 24a–z)( JBS 6), Jerusalem 1993, 13–15; id., “The Contribution of Diverging TraditionsPreserved in the Septuagint to Literary Criticism of the Bible”, in L. Greenspoonand O. Munnich (eds.), VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint andCognate Studies, Paris 1992 (SCSt 41), Atlanta 1995, 21–40, esp. 25f.
28 Z. Talshir, “The Image of the Septuagint Edition of the Book of Kings”, Tarb.59 (1990), 249–302 [Hebrew], esp. English summary at pages I–II.
29 Talshir, however, shows remarkable restraint to ascribe the “Alternative Story”to the literary activity of the reviser (see Alternative Story, 15, 279).
30 Talshir, Alternative Story, 14.
8 chapter one
author of Chronicles sometimes offered similar solutions to the same
problems.31 In contrast to both Wevers and Gooding, Talshir claims
that the revision preceded the translation into Greek. She does not
find evidence that the reviser made use of textual traditions different
to MT, as Gooding supposes.32
The second mainstream in the study into the relationship between
3 Regum and 1 Kings is constituted by those who claim that 3
Regum in a substantial number of the sizable divergences from MT
1 Kings represents an older text form. H. Hrozn may be men-
tioned as one of the early exponents of this direction.33 More recently,
J.D. Shenkel argued that the chronological data of the regnal for-
mulae in the OG of 3 and 4 Regum (in 4 Regum attested by the
“proto-Lucianic” text) should be given priority over those in MT
1–2 Kings.34
Up to now, the view that 3 Regum reflects a textual stage prior
to 1 Kings has undoubtedly found its most elaborate expression in
the work of J.C. Trebolle Barrera. In several case studies and mono-
graphs Trebolle seeks to demonstrate that the OG of the book of
Kings is to be taken as a faithful witness to a Hebrew text tradition
independent from, and actually superior to, the (proto-)rabbinical
tradition represented by MT. In Trebolle’s view, the substantial
differences obtaining between the text forms do not result from a
midrashic revision of the Greek text or its Hebrew Vorlage, but from
intensive editorial activity in the text tradition underlying MT
1 Kings. One important aspect of this editorial activity involved the
incorporation of supplementary materials preserved by the gg-section
as 3 Reg. 2: 35a–k, 46a–l and 12: 24a–z into the main body of the
book. The inclusion of these materials occasioned a complete re-
arrangement of the text.35 Moreover, materials reflecting secondary
literary developments were in many places introduced into the text
31 Talshir, “Contribution”, 33f.; Z. Talshir, “The Reign of Solomon in the Making.Pseudo-Connections between 3 Kingdoms and Chronicles”, VT 50 (2000), 233–49.
32 Talshir, “Septuagint Edition”, I–II.33 H. Hrozn , Die Abweichungen des Codex Vaticanus vom hebräischen Texte in den
Königsbüchern (diss.), Leipzig 1909, esp. 61–72.34 Shenkel, Chronology, esp. 109–11.35 See in particular J.C. Trebolle Barrera, Salomón y Jeroboán. Historia de la recen-
sión y redacción de 1 Reyes 2–12, 14 (Institución San Jerónimo 10), Valencia 1980,passim.
introduction 9
by means of the technique of resumptive repetition or Wiederaufnahme.36
Thus the majority of minuses occurring in 3 Regum should not be
interpreted as omissions, but as additions on the part of the proto-
Masoretic tradition.
For Trebolle, the text of 3 Regum is the most important instru-
ment at our disposal to recover the Hebrew archetype of Kings, that
is, the text from which the text types or recensions represented by the
OG and MT have developed. This means that in evaluating the
substantial variations between MT and the LXX of 1 Kings one
must as a rule credit the text form witnessed by the latter as rep-
resenting the archetypical text. Trebolle calls for a strict method-
ological discipline in retracing the path towards this Urtext.37 The
first step must involve establishing the OG. In the gg-section, both
LXX B and Ant attest the OG. In gd, it has been preserved in the
proto-Lucianic stratum of the Ant. texts, which indirectly is also
attested in readings of the Vetus Latina. The second stage is that of
reconstructing the Vorlage of the OG as closely as possible. Though
the possibility of occasional “targumisms” in the translation must
be taken into account, the majority of the differences exhibited vis-
à-vis MT go back to the Vorlage, which is reproduced with a high
degree of literalness. The third stage moves still further back towards
the Hebrew archetype. This stage is concerned with what Trebolle
often refers to as “recensional history”, that is, the study of the devel-
opment of the different recensions that evolved from the archetype.38
Trebolle stresses that in determining the more authentic text form
arguments based on the formal aspects of a given text should take
precedence over arguments based on “tendencies”, because the lat-
ter are easily exposed to the fantasies and biases of the exegete.39
36 A considerable number of interpolations of this type in 1 Kings are discussedin J.C. Trebolle Barrera, “The Text-critical Use of the Septuagint in the Books ofKings”, in C.E. Cox (ed.), VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint andCognate Studies, Leuven 1989 (SCSt 31), Atlanta 1991, 285–99; id., Centena in LibrosSamuelis et Regum. Variantes textuales y composición literaria en los libros de Samuel y Reyes(TECC 47), Madrid 1989, 117–51.
37 Trebolle Barrera, Centena, 16; J.C. Trebolle Barrera, “Redaction, Recension,and Midrash in the Books of Kings”, BIOSCS 15 (1982), 12–35, esp. 30–31; id.,Salomón y Jeroboán, 357–60.
38 J.C. Trebolle Barrera, “The Authoritative Functions of Scriptural Works atQumran”, in E. Ulrich and J. Vanderkam (eds.), The Community of the Renewed Covenant.The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Notre Dame (Indiana) 1993, 95–110,esp. 103.
39 Trebolle Barrera, “Redaction, Recension, and Midrash”, 25.
10 chapter one
The importance of the LXX as a witness to the Urtext of Kings
has certain consequences for the literary and redaction criticism of
Kings. The exegete who tries to reconstruct the formative history of
Kings, and does so without establishing the textual history of the
book first, runs the risk of working on the basis of a late text form
and, as a consequence, of attributing to Deuteronomistic redactors
the work of subsequent editors.40 Comparison of the OG with MT
shows that part of the alleged Deuteronomistic material of 1 Kings
is absent in the OG and consequently must derive from later edi-
tors. As most redaction critics have not taken sufficient notice of this,
they have built their redactional theories partly on the basis of non-
Deuteronomistic material. It goes without saying that this seriously
affects the validity of their analyses. Therefore the analysis of the
recensional history ought to be carried out “methodically prior to
the literary analysis of the chronologically prior history of the com-
position and redaction of the critically-identified Urtext.”41
According to Trebolle, recensional history of the Hebrew text of
Kings did not stop with the formation of the text types represented
by MT and the OG. MT itself underwent further recensional devel-
opment in 2 Kings, which included substitution of the terms twqj,
μyfpçm and twxm by hrwt as reference to the five books of the Law.
The Kaige and Hexaplaric recensions of the LXX thus respond to a
previous editorial and recensional process of the Hebrew text. This
sequence of recensions represents one of two text traditions that can
be traced in several translations. One tradition goes back to the Old
Hebrew text, that is, the text form closest to the archetype. It has
been preserved in the translations of the OG and the Vetus Latina.
On the other hand, a tradition of revision and re-edition becomes
manifest in the “Masoretic recension”, the Kaige and Hexaplaric
recensions, and the Vulgate.
Trebolle’s plea for the originality of the LXX order in 3 Regum
has gained support from several scholars. According to S.L. McKenzie,
Trebolle’s work convincingly shows that “. . . Gooding’s very negative
position on the value of the LXX as a witness to the text of 1 Kings
40 J.C. Trebolle Barrera, “Histoire du texte des livres historiques et histoire dela composition et de la rédaction deutéronomistes avec une publication préliminairede 4Q481A, ‘Apocryphe d’Élisée’”, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Paris 1992,Leiden/New York 1995, 327–42, esp. 334f.
41 Trebolle Barrera, “Redaction, Recension, and Midrash”, 32.
introduction 11
can no longer be maintained. The OG is not just an important inde-
pendent witness to a variant text type, but the evidence indicates
that it should probably be regarded, generally speaking, as the best
text of 1 Kings extant.”42 A similar view comes to the fore in the
work of G.N. Knoppers, to mention a recent exegete of Kings.43
The recent work of A. Schenker concurs with most of Trebolle’s
conclusions concerning the relationship between the MT and LXX-
version of 1 Kings. Yet it takes a fundamentally different approach
to the subject. In the introduction to his monograph Septante et texte
massorétique dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 2–14, which
builds on a few articles that were published earlier,44 Schenker
expounds his aims and methods.45 In the past, scholars tended to
focus on the analysis of separate differences without investigating
whether the variations as a whole exhibit coherence and whether
the different versions reflect narrative strategies and literary tenden-
cies that explain their particular textual forms. The monograph
intends to fill this gap. Its aim is to determine the particular char-
acter of each version and to perceive its literary logic and coher-
ence. It also seeks to establish the relationship between the two textual
forms and their relative and absolute chronology. The analysis pro-
vided is limited to chs. 2–14, because important literary differences
accumulate in these chapters. Since passages unique to the LXX-
version exhibit a number of Hebraisms, the Greek translation appears
to have faithfully rendered a Hebrew source. Thus the comparison
is between two Hebrew versions, one of which has been preserved
in Greek translation only. Since both versions represent self-con-
tained literary works that were prepared for publication by some
scribal authority, one is allowed to speak of two editions.
42 S.L. McKenzie, “1 Kings 8: A Sample Study into the Texts of Kings Usedby the Chronicler and Translated by the Old Greek”, BIOSCS 19 (1986), 15–34,esp. 32.
43 G.N. Knoppers, Two Nations under God. The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon andthe Dual Monarchies. Volume I: The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam (HSM52), Atlanta 1993, passim.
44 A. Schenker, “Un cas de critique narrative au service de la critique textuelle(1 Rois 11,43–12,2-3.20)”, Bib. 77 (1996), 219–26; id., “Jéroboam et la division duroyaume dans la Septante ancienne: LXX 1 Rois 12, 24a–z, TM 11–12; 14 etl’histoire deutéronomiste”, in A. de Pury, Th. Römer, J.-D. Macchi (eds.), Israel con-struit son histoire. L’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes (Le Mondede la Bible 34), Genève 1996, 193–236; id., “Corvée ou ressources de Solomon?TM 1 Rois 9, 15–23 et LXX 3 Règnes 10, 23–25”, RevSR 73 (1999), 151–64.
45 Schenker, Septante, 1–4.
12 chapter one
The introduction is followed by a series of case studies that do
not only deal with the major differences between MT and the LXX
(e.g., the large pluses in 3 Reg. 2: 35a–o, 46a–l and 12: 24a–z and
the various accounts of the consolidation of Solomon’s power and
the temple building) but also take into consideration many detail
differences that are believed to reveal characteristic traits and motives
of each version. This analysis reveals that it is in particular the MT-
version which tends to highlight or develop certain themes:
1. Solomon’s dominion and hegemony.46 3 Reg. 2: 46f–g describe Solomon
as a ruler who receives tribute from all lands between the
Palestinian-Egyptian border and the Euphrates without interven-
ing in their internal affairs. The corresponding portions of MT
in 1 Kgs. 5 and 9, on the other hand, portray Solomon as a
ruler who exerts direct dominion over his territory; he has cities
built throughout his empire and he freely exploits the resources
of vassal kingdoms. Solomon’s behaviour reminds of an Hellen-
istic ruler. The LXX-version of the account of Solomon’s corvée
(3 Regum 10: 23–25) intimates that his power is threatened by
the remnant of the ancient Canaanite population in Israelite ter-
ritory. This suggestion is not made in the MT-version; there,
Solomon is presented as holding a firm grip on this group.
2. Solomon’s righteousness and obedience to the law.47 There is less to blame
Solomon for in MT than in the LXX. According to MT, Solomon
is basically right in suspecting Adonijah of evil intentions (1 Kgs.
2: 22). Contrary to custom (cf. 1 Kgs. 1: 16, 23, 31) Adonijah
does not bow and prostrate himself for Bathsheba (1 Kgs. 2: 13
unlike 3 Reg. 2: 13), thus betraying his grief and anger about
Solomon’s kingship. MT also intimates that Adonijah uses Solomon’s
respect towards his mother, which in 1 Kgs. 2: 19 is more clearly
elaborated than in the LXX. Adonijah’s efforts to oust Solomon
entirely justify the harsh punishment he receives from Solomon.
Furthermore, MT accuses the people of Judah and its ancestors
rather than Solomon and the Davidic dynasty of committing the
grave sin of idolatry which caused YHWH to divide the king-
dom of Israel (cf. 1 Kgs./3 Reg. 11: 33–34; 14: 22–24).
46 Schenker, Septante, 22–27, 45–59.47 Schenker, Septante, 60–76, 121–25.
introduction 13
3. Emancipation of priesthood from royal supremacy.48 According to 3 Reg.
2: 35, Solomon appointed Zadok a high priest (iereuw prvtow) inplace of Abiathar. The MT of the corresponding verse, however,
says that Solomon replaced Abiathar by Zadok the priest. In the
list of Solomon’s officials 1 Kgs./3 Reg. 4: 2–6 both Zadok and
Abiathar are mentioned as priests in v. 4. At the top of the list
there appears one Azariah son of Zadok who in MT but not in
the LXX is called a priest. Azariah’s position as the first official
listed implies that he, at least in the MT-version, is to be con-
sidered the most important priest of the kingdom. Neither this
priest nor his father Zadok were appointed by Solomon. Azariah’s
father Zadok cannot be identical with Zadok the priest of David
and Solomon mentioned in 4: 4, because it is inconceivable that
the son would be listed in first position and the father only in
sixth. To sum up, unlike the LXX, MT in chs. 2 and 4 care-
fully avoids to say or suggest that Solomon appointed the high
priest. A tendency towards emancipation of priesthood from royal
supremacy is apparent in the Exile but also in the second part
of the 2nd century bce when Jonathan Maccabaeus was appointed
high priest. Thus MT seems to reflect later historical conditions
than the LXX.
4. Anti-Samaritan polemics.49 MT associates the origin of the Samaritans
with the cult policy of Jeroboam I. The expression twmb tyb,
“House of Heigths”, of 1 Kgs. 12: 31, which is markedly different
from “houses on heigths” of the LXX, is a conscious reference
to the Samaritan sanctuary on Mount Gerizim. From 1 Kgs. 12:
32 it can be inferred that Jeroboam climbed the altar of this sanc-
tuary beside the altar at Bethel. The LXX of the corresponding
passage merely says that Jeroboam climbed the altar of Bethel.
Moreover, MT says that the clergy which Jeroboam appointed
in order to officiate in the sanctuaries was completely non-Levitic.
According to the LXX, however, only a part of it was of non-
Levitic origin. Similar anti-Samaritan tendencies appear in 1 Kgs.
17: 29, 32. Comparison with the old LXX of these verses reflected
by the Ant. text shows that MT is secondary to the latter. The
48 Schenker, Septante, 28–37, 146–47.49 Schenker, Septante, 103–106, 115–20, 142–47.
14 chapter one
allusions to the sanctuary on mount Gerizim in 1 Kgs. 12: 31
and 17: 29 suggest a date of 300 bce as a terminus a quo because
the sanctuary was established after Alexander the Great conquered
Palestine. There is reason to believe that MT Deut. 27: 4 altered
the original reading Gerizim into Ebal in order to deny the Mosaic
origin of the Samaritan sanctuary. The theological correction, per-
haps to be qualified as tiqqun soferim, appears to have been made
after the 3rd century bce because the LXX does not have it. It
derives from the same circles that intervened in the texts of
1 Kgs. 12 and 2 Kgs. 17. The terminus ad quem for the various
modifications is provided by the destruction of the sanctuary on
mount Gerizim in 128 bce.
The monograph deals with more texts and themes than can be enu-
merated here. Schenker’s treatment of several of these will be dis-
cussed in detail in the following chapters. In all instances, Schenker
concludes that the presentation of MT is secondary to that of the
LXX. As a work of literature, the edition of the Hebrew text as
reflected by the LXX is less unified than the MT edition.50 It exhibits
traces of literary growth and redactional development that have been
retouched in the latter, like the occurrence of evident doublets through
chs. 2–5 and 11–14. From the narrative point of view, striking fea-
tures of the LXX-version are the portrayal of Solomon as a morally
ambivalent king and a critical attitude towards the house of David.51
These elements did not survive in the MT edition. The latter, then,
is to be regarded as a correction of the previous edition.52 Points of
contact with Deut. 27: 4 suggest that the correction was made by
the same literary and theological authority that was responsible for
the “corrections of the scribes” in the Pentateuch.53 The most probable
date for the MT edition is sometime between 140 and 130 bce.A conspicuous feature of the monograph is that it seeks to relate
textual information typical of one version to historical and geo-
graphical data known from biblical and extra-biblical sources. These
external data enable Schenker to posit relative and, with respect to
50 Schenker, Septante, 154.51 Schenker, Septante, 155.52 Schenker, Septante, 149–50.53 Schenker, Septante, 151, 157–58.
introduction 15
the MT-version, also absolute datings for each edition. For instance,
in 1 Kgs. 12: 18 MT, unlike the LXX, specifies the means of trans-
portation of Rehoboam from Shechem to Jerusalem.54 According to
Schenker, the reference to a chariot reflects circumstances from the
Hellenistic era since before that period there was no passable road
from Shechem to Jerusalem.
This example also illustrates another feature of Schenker’s study:
It shows a marked tendency to assign maximal literary and histori-
cal meaning to the variations between the versions. In an attempt
to characterize the literary tenor and historical setting of each ver-
sion, it takes into account not only large-scale variations but also
small ones. Detail differences of an allegedly literary nature receive
full attention and play a large part in the characterization of each
version.
At this point the work of P. Lefebvre may be briefly dealt with,
as it is based on the same literary principles that underlie Schenker’s
work: “. . . il faut prendre les textes, hébreu ou grec, dans leur
spécificité, dans leur logique propre, sans chercher à corriger l’un
par l’autre.”55 Like Schenker, Lefebvre believes that the LXX has
preserved textual materials that do not appear in MT, like the
Miscellanies.56 Lefebvre, however, also assigns several literary differences
with MT to the hands of the LXX translators. In an extensive arti-
cle he discusses a few literary aspects and themes typical of 3 Reg.
1–12 under the headings pronoms, translitterations and semantique. One
peculiarity noted involves the existence of a “confusion organisée”
as to the location and identity of holy places like Sion, the temple
and the altar. For instance, the text of 3 Reg. 7: 38–39 (LXX B)
intimates that Solomon’s palace is identical with the temple. Moreover,
the distribution of various designations of building stone57 and the
appearance of contrasting chronological notes on the temple build-
ing58 suggest that the LXX refers to two temples rather than to one:
an old Jebusite sanctuary and a Solomonic extension. Another remark-
54 Schenker, Septante, 140–41.55 P. Lefebvre, “Le troisième livre des Règnes”, in M. d’Hamonville, F. Vinel
et.al., Autour des livres de la Septante. Proverbes, Ecclésiaste, Nombres, 3eme Livre des Règnes,Paris 1995, 81–122, esp. 82.
56 Lefebvre, “Troisième livre des Règnes”, 81.57 Lefebvre, “Troisième livre des Règnes”, 101–108.58 Lefebvre, “Troisième livre des Règnes”, 92–93.
16 chapter one
able trait of 3 Regum is a tendency to associate Pharaoh’s daugh-
ter with destruction; even the city of Gezer, which gave Pharaoh as
a dowry to his daughter, is associated with devastation.59 Elements
like these may reflect Jewish exegesis as attested in the first centuries
ad. Unfortunately, when dealing with these aspects of 3 Regum
Lefebvre does not distinguish essentially between what he regards to
be old materials, like the Miscellanies, exegetical developments in
the Hebrew Vorlage, and exegetical developments in the translation.
Since the thematic tendencies noted are scattered over several liter-
ary levels, the suggestion of a unified literary concept behind them
is misleading. Lefebvre’s views on the literary history of 3 Regum
and its text-historical relationship with 1 Kings remain unclear.
The theories expounded above have in common that they describe
the relationship between 3 Regum and 1 Kings in terms of a one-
sided development, either in one direction or the other. Recently, a
few scholars have criticized these views as oversimplifications. They
argue that 1 Kings and 3 Regum represent alternative versions deriv-
ing from an older text form. According to A.G. Auld, this textual
basis could have been a common source underlying Kings and
Chronicles.60 It lacked most of the “miscellaneous” notes shared by
1 Kings and 3 Regum but largely absent from Chronicles. The mis-
cellaneous materials, such as the notes on Solomon’s secular con-
structions and on his marriage with Solomon’s daughter, represent
later additions in the versions presented by 1 Kings and 3 Regum.
A large part of these additions were inserted at different points in
either version, depending on thematic and literary considerations.
Since the additions are roughly identical for each version, Auld seems
to suggest that one scribal community purposely created divergent
versions.
F.H. Polak, too, argues that 1 Kings and 3 Regum each contain
signs of secondary revision alongside primary elements.61 Polak, how-
ever, does not assign special significance to Chronicles when attempting
59 Lefebvre, “Troisième livre des Règnes”, 92–94.60 A.G. Auld, “Solomon at Gibeon: History Glimpsed”, in S. A ituv and B.A.
Levine (eds.), Eretz-Israel. Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies 24, Jerusalem1993, 1*–7*, esp. 5*–6*.
61 F.H. Polak, “The Septuaginta Account of Solomon’s Reign: Revision andAncient Recension”, in B.A. Taylor (ed.), X Congress of the International Organizationfor Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Oslo, 1998, Atlanta 2001, 139–64, esp. 162.
introduction 17
to reconstruct earlier stages of Kings. In his opinion, the LXX-version
represents a late recension (RecL) of the book.62 The syntax of con-
necting clauses unique to the LXX-account indicates that the Greek
faithfully reflects a Hebrew source text. Retroversion of 3 Reg. 2:
46a suggests a Hebrew style that is characteristic of the late Persian
and the Greek period.63 As the pericopes 2: 35a–k, 35l–o and 46a–l,
which are peculiar to the LXX, neither fit the context of ch. 2 well
nor reveal any logical disposition, they must be assigned to the late
recension. Other interventions of RecL involve the chronological note
in 3 Reg. 6: 1 and the arrangement of ch. 7.
MT, too, reflects a revision, called the main recension (RecM). It
was carried out at an earlier date and affected more passages than
RecL: 1 Kgs. 3: 1; 4: 20–5: 1; 5: 4 (partly), 5; 6: 1 in its present
form, 11–13, 37–38; 9: 15–25 in its present form, 11: 1–3 in its pre-
sent form.64 Polak considers the order of these passages secondary
to that of their LXX counterparts because the latter exhibit more
narrative logic and coherence. Thus the smooth and logical arrange-
ment of 3 Reg. 6: 1a–d can hardly be described as emerging out
of the disordered sections 1 Kgs. 5: 31–32 and 6: 37–38; obviously
the textual development went the other way around.65 Polak is not
very specific about the reasons why MT replaced a logical order of
materials by a less logical one. In case of chs. 9 and 10, he merely
notes that the revised arrangement of MT was possibly meant to
prove that Solomon was not dependent on Hiram in all matters.66
Polak’s comparison of the two versions of the Solomon Narrative
leads him to undertake a tentative reconstruction of its earlier stages.67
In his view, the following stages can be discerned: 1. the ancient
Solomon Narrative; 2. the so-called “wisdom redaction”—a concept
borrowed from A. Lemaire; 3. Deuteronomistic redaction. This link-
age of text-historical data and literary-critical analysis may be con-
sidered a new step in the research history of Kings, as it goes
considerably beyond the issue of Deuteronomistic additions on which
Trebolle focuses.
62 Polak, “Septuaginta Account”, 149, 164.63 Polak, “Septuaginta Account”, 143–48.64 Polak, “Septuaginta Account”, 164.65 Polak, “Septuaginta Account”, 152.66 Polak, “Septuaginta Account”, 161.67 Polak, “Septuaginta Account”, 162–64.
18 chapter one
The above overview of the history of research into the relationship
between 3 Regum and 1 Kings makes it clear that currently there
is a wide diversity of opinions as to how this relationship is best
understood.
On the one hand, several scholars consider the text form offered
by the LXX to be secondary to that of MT. Among them, opin-
ions differ as to the stage in which the revision took place: in the
Hebrew Vorlage (thus Talshir), in connection with the translation (thus
Wevers, though in respect to part of the differences only), or some-
time during the transmission of the Greek text (Gooding). On the
other hand, scholars like Trebolle Barrera and Schenker advocate
the primacy of the text form represented by the LXX. By definition,
this text form must already have existed in Hebrew. Polak endorses
the view of Schenker, Trebolle and Talshir that (part of ) 3 Regum
constitutes a faithful translation of a Hebrew Vorlage, but he differs
from the others in finding primary along with secondary elements
both in MT and in the text form witnessed by the LXX.
What factors cause the scholarly assessments of the character of
the versions and the genetic relationship between them to be so
diverse? One evident factor involves choice of method. Different
methods may produce different results. However, there is no obvi-
ous one-to-one relationship between the views held and the meth-
ods followed. Similar contextual approaches, like those of Gooding
and Schenker, actually give rise to contrasting views. On the other
hand, different approaches, like Schenker’s and Trebolle’s, lead to
roughly similar views.
Therefore other factors also need to be considered. One factor
has to do with the use of biblical and extra-biblical data as refer-
ence points for determining the literary character and historical set-
ting of each version. Both the choice of reference material and the
way it is used contribute to divergent assessments of the versions.
Thus Gooding and Talshir refer to early Jewish exegesis and to bib-
lical and para-biblical rewriting tendencies in order to demonstrate
the midrashic character of 3 Regum. Schenker, on the other hand,
draws attention to historical, religious and geographical data which
may suggest that the version attested by the LXX is anterior to the
MT-version.
Scholarly judgment of the relationship between the versions also
depends on the extent to which literary-critical analysis and redac-
tion-critical analysis are taken into account, in particular with respect
introduction 19
to the Deuteronomistic sections. Whereas a few scholars, notably
Talshir and Polak, are well aware of the value of literary and redac-
tion criticism for the assessment of the development of the versions
and their relationship, others devote little attention to these areas of
investigation. Thus when dealing with the Deuteronomistic passage
1 Kgs. 14: 22–24 in MT and the LXX, Schenker altogether refrains
from discussing redactional theories, in spite of the fact that these
may be quite relevant for establishing which version of 1 Kgs. 14:
22–24 is anterior to the other.68 Trebolle even questions the posi-
tion of redaction criticism as an independent discipline, since he takes
the view that theories on the distribution of Deuteronomistic redac-
tional strata in Kings should be reconsidered in light of the text form
attested by the LXX.69
The last factor to be mentioned here (though there may be more)
concerns the aspect of probability. As Talshir puts it: “Is a change
better perceived in one direction or the other? Is it more logical that
A turned into B, or rather that B turned into A?”70 It is revealing
to see that scholars disagree on this fundamental issue. The midrashists
hold the principle that the version that exhibits more literary coher-
ence and narrative logic than its counterpart is most likely to be sec-
ondary. They argue that it is more likely that an illogical, incoherent
order is replaced by a logical one than the other way around. The
argument runs parallel to the rule of lectio difficilior in textual criti-
cism. According to other scholars, notably Schenker and Polak, lit-
erary coherence and logic are indications of the original form of a
text. Particular interests and concerns may have led a later reviser
to interfere with the original textual arrangement and to replace it
by a less logical one. It is evident that the plausibility of this line of
argumentation heavily depends on these scholars’ ability to recover
and present the alleged motives of the later reviser in a convincing
way. As we saw, Schenker adduces a variety of motives, while Polak
is not very specific in this respect.
68 Schenker, Septante, 123–25.69 See note 41.70 Z. Talshir, “Literary Design—A Criterion for Originality? A Case Study: 3
Kgdms 12:24a–z; 1 K 11–14”, in Y. Goldman and C. Uehlinger (eds.), La doubletransmission du texte biblique. Etudes d’histoire du texte offertes en hommage à Adrian Schenker(OBO 179), Fribourg/Göttingen 2001, 41–57, esp. 53.
20 chapter one
3. Aim of the monograph
In view of the above, it is hard to resist the conclusion that to a
certain degree the variety of opinions on the relationship between
the LXX and MT is due to subjective preferences and personal
choices regarding approach, methodological principles, reference mate-
rials, etc. It is the more surprising to see, then, that there is little
debate among textual critics on methods of analysis and their actual
application in case studies. Several scholars confine themselves to
presenting their views without paying due attention to the results of
earlier studies, in particular of those which touch on literary and
redaction criticism. One reason for this may be that comparative
analysis, like so many other disciplines, tends to proceed inductively:
In order to explain various phenomena in a coherent way a theo-
retical model is developed that does not leave room for alternative
views in individual cases. In order to prevent comparative textual
analysis from operating in a vacuum, however, it is necessary that
textual critics discuss and assess previously advanced views before
launching new theories.
The present study, therefore, aims at assigning a prominent place
to discussion and evaluation of extant views on individual cases. It
will also take into consideration redaction criticism in several pas-
sages where textual differences between the versions converge with
inner-textual indications of a complex literary development. In these
instances, literary-critical arguments may be of relevance for the text-
critical (or text-historical) evaluation of the relationship between our
two versions, for instance when a plus in one version shows features
that are considered characteristic of a particular redactional layer.71
71 In referring to textual criticism and literary criticism, this study follows the dis-tinction made by H.-J. Stipp: “Textkritik analysiert Daten der Textüberlieferung,Literarkritik solche der Textbeschaffenheit” (H.-J. Stipp, “Das Verhältnis von Textkritikund Literarkritik in neueren alttestamentlichen Veröffentlichungen”, BZ 34 [1990],16–37, esp. 37). A different, phase-oriented view on the relationship of literary andtextual criticism is offered by Tov in ch. 7 of Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. InTov’s opinion, the combination of both disciplines is only fruitful for the study ofdifferences that have emerged during the stage of literary growth. Differences cre-ated by copyists should not be taken into consideration because these have emergedduring the stage of textual transmission and by consequence belong to the area oftextual criticism (314). This distinction raises questions, however. How is one to dis-tinguish between differences created by copyists and differences created in the processof literary growth in advance? At this point Tov introduces a quantitative criterion:
introduction 21
The focus of the monograph is on those variations that result from
an intentional textual alteration in one version. This means that we
are only interested in one group of differences, since a considerable
part consists of errors made by scribes during the transmission of
the text. Exact delineation of the group of intentional variations is
an unfeasible enterprise, because in many cases it is simply impos-
sible to tell whether a variation reflects deliberate change. The pos-
sibility to distinguish between intentional and unintentional changes,
however, strongly depends on the type of difference we are dealing
with. In principle, differences divide into three categories: pluses/
minuses, sequence differences and word differences.72 The measure
of certainty with which the intentional changes can be identified
differs for each category.
Sequence differences nearly always result from intentional alter-
ations of textual arrangement. Consequently they play a key role in
our investigation.73 The instances designated as “sequence differences”
comprise either sizable variations, or small-scale differences that dras-
tically affect the meaning of a passage and, as a consequence, must
be intentional. This group is not meant to include sequence differences
which merely result from the demands of a different language sys-
tem or the application of a particular style of translation.
Pluses/minuses may or may not result from deliberate addition/
omission of a passage in one witness. As to this kind of variation,
one should always count with the possibility that a plus/minus was
The sizable, large-scale differences between the versions of MT and the LXX arebelieved to have been created during the stage of literary growth. However, else-where Tov states that “literary developments subsequent to the edition of MT” likethe ones he finds in the version of 1 Kings attested by the LXX are excluded fromthe discussion (316–17). This decision seriously invalidates the quantitative criterionbecause these alleged literary developments subsequent to MT all involve “sizabledifferences”. As the criterion is obviously untenable, it seems that the phase-ori-ented distinction made by Tov is liable to circular reasoning: The difference betweenliterary and textual criticism is defined on the basis of conclusions that result fromthe application of literary and textual criticism. A similar objection cannot be raisedagainst a distinction based on the different nature of the textual data. For that rea-son, the distinction made by H.-J. Stipp is to be preferred.
72 These categories have been taken from E. Tov, The Text-critical Use of theSeptuagint in Biblical Research. Revised and Enlarged Second Edition ( JBS 8), Jerusalem1997, 124f.
73 E. Tov, “Some Sequence Differences between the MT and LXX and theirRamifications for the Literary Criticism of the Bible”, JNWSL 13 (1987), 151–60,esp. 151–52.
22 chapter one
created by erroneous omission of a passage in the course of textual
transmission. This is especially likely when a passage extant in one
witness but absent in another has a beginning or ending identical
with the text immediately following or preceding it. On the other
hand, when a minus in one witness can be explained as a case of
homoioarchton or homoioteleuton, it is equally possible to explain the cor-
responding plus in the other witness as a case of resumptive repetition
or Wiederaufnahme.74 A passage extant either in MT or the LXX may
derive from a stage in the literary growth of the text that is not yet
represented by the other version. Editors, redactors and glossators
who inserted such a passage into the transmitted text made it some-
times begin or end with the same words as the section immediately
following or preceding, respectively, the point of intrusion. In order
to decide whether a quantitative difference is to be interpreted text-
critically as a case of homoioarchton/homoioteleuton (often summarily des-
ignated as parablepsis) or literary-critically as a case of resumptive repetition,
the critic must rely on contextual indications.
A word difference between MT and the LXX obtains where a
Greek word formally corresponding to a Hebrew one does not rep-
resent an exact translation equivalent of that Hebrew word. Part of
these differences may be unintentional, that is to say, they result
from faulty copying during the transmission either of pre-/proto-
MT, of the Hebrew text from which the Vorlage of the LXX derived,
or of the Greek text of the LXX. In many instances, however, word
differences obtaining between LXX and the MT reflect intention. A
word may have been consciously changed in the Hebrew stage pre-
ceding MT and the LXX-Vorlage, the translator may have decided
to depart from his Vorlage, or an editor may have changed the trans-
mitted LXX-text. Some of the intentional word differences result
from subtle alteration of the consonantal framework of the Hebrew
(al tiqre). In the LXX, these al tiqre differences between the Hebrew
Vorlage and proto-MT are indirectly attested.
Intentional and unintentional word differences cannot always be
easily distinguished from each other. When a Greek word cannot be
traced back to a Hebrew word bearing formal resemblance to the
corresponding word in MT, intentional change may be assumed
74 Cf. Talshir, “Contribution”, 29–31; Trebolle Barrera, “Text-critical Use”, 287f.
introduction 23
(though in this case too, it cannot be excluded that the difference is
purely accidental). Otherwise, data from the context must be taken
into consideration to find out whether a textual difference represents
an intentional or an accidental change.
To sum up, whereas quantitative and word differences may or may
not be intentional, sizable sequence differences as a rule are delib-
erate. For that reason, the present study focuses on the latter group.
Significant quantitative differences and word differences of which the
intentional character is strongly suggested by contextual data are also
taken into consideration. In fact, the monograph deals with most of
the major differences between MT and the LXX regarding disposi-
tion and structure of the Solomon Narrative.
4. Procedure
Basically the differences selected for treatment in this study are ana-
lyzed according to the same procedure. It includes the following
steps:
1. Discussion of the textual difference with the aid of a synopsis of
the Greek and Hebrew texts.
2. Consideration of the literary context of the textual difference in
either version. Special notice is taken of the ramifications the vari-
ation has for the structure and purport of the literary unit to
which it belongs. Other variations within the same literary con-
text are also considered in order to find out whether they can
be correlated. Thus the measure of internal coherence of each
text form is determined.
3. (If opportune:) Evaluation of the literary-critical inquiries con-
ducted with regard to the literary unit (section, paragraph) that
contains the difference in either version. Literary-critical judg-
ments relating to stages preceding the emergence of the textual
difference are not taken into account.
4. (If opportune:) Discussion of extra-biblical data in the realms of
history, geography and history of religion that may provide indi-
cations for the absolute or relative dating of the versions of MT
and the LXX.
5. Specification of the genetic relationship between the texts at vari-
ance with each other. The text form that can be most adequately
24 chapter one
explained in terms of a revision of the other has the best chance
of being secondary.75 The possibility that two divergent text forms
derive from a common ancestor is also considered.
6. In case the text form attested by the LXX is believed to be sec-
ondary to MT, the textual stage in which the revision took place
(Vorlage, translation, or redaction of the transmitted LXX-text) is
established.
7. Reconstruction of the process of revision in one version.
It stands to reason that the present study is primarily interested in
the oldest text form of 3 Regum that can be recovered from the
manuscripts. As the Göttingen critical edition of 3 Regum has not
yet been published, the text used in this study is that of Rahlfs’ edi-
tion. Occasionally variant readings offered by distinct manuscript
groups have been noted. Special notice is taken of the so-called Ant.
text attested by the manuscripts b o c2 e2. In comparison with the
important Codex Vaticanus (LXX B), this pre-Hexaplaric text exhibits
numerous minor variations. Though most may be ascribed to edi-
torial activity,76 the possibility cannot be excluded that a few of them
represent the original LXX-text over against the other manuscripts.
Lately, scholars have drawn attention to the so-called mixed group
of manuscripts (labelled LXX misc, comprising manuscripts N d e
f h m p q s t v w y z) as a possible source of ancient manuscript
readings.77 Of this group too, a few interesting variant readings are
taken into consideration.
75 In textual criticism this principle has given shape to rules as lectio difficilior andlectio brevis potior: It is more logical to assume that an easy reading has replaced adifficult one, and a short reading is more likely to be prior to a long one, than theother way around. To a certain extent, these rules are also valid for the evalua-tion of sizable intentional changes like the sequence differences in the SolomonNarrative. Thus a logical arrangement of materials is likely to be secondary to anillogical one. However, neither rule should be applied rigidly. It is not impossiblethat an editor consciously disturbed the internal order of a neatly structured pas-sage in order to stress a particular point or to make a theological or ideologicalcorrection. By the same token, an editor may have omitted a passage in his Vorlagefor literary or theological reasons. In these instances, however, the literary contextmust supply clear indications regarding the motive for the change. Therefore it isvital to consider how a reading or text form fits in with its particular context.
76 Thus see N. Fernández Marcos, “Literary and Editorial Features of theAntiochian Text in Kings”, in C.E. Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the International Organizationfor Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Jerusalem, 1986, Atlanta 1987, 287–304, esp. 292–97.
77 T.M. Willis, “The Text of 1 Kings 11:43–12:3”, CBQ 53 (1991), 37–44, esp.38, 43–44; Schenker, “cas de critique”, 219–26.
introduction 25
CHAPTER TWO
THE ACCOUNT OF JOAB’S DEATH
(1 KGS. 2: 28–34—3 REG. 2: 28–34)
1 Kgs. 2: 25–34 relate how Solomon eliminated his former rival to
the throne Adonijah and his adherents Abiathar and Joab. Especially
in the section dealing with Joab’s punishment, vv. 28–34, the LXX
exhibits several deviations from MT, the most striking being a siz-
able plus in v. 29. The differences between the versions are indi-
cated in the synopsis below:1
1 In the type of synoptic scheme presented here parallel texts are arranged accord-ing to clause (i.e., a group of phrases containing one verbal or nominal predication).A single line does not contain more than one clause. When a clause does not fitin one line, it is continued on the next line(s). In that case, the continuation ismarked by denting (e.g., see the second line of the Greek column in the above syn-opsis). Only the so-called non-obligatory transformations (i.e., differences that havenot been caused by a change from one language system to another) are indicated(cf. pages 22–24). A hyphen is used to indicate a minus that extends over a fullline. When the minus pertains to only part of the line in the parallel text, threedots are used for each word that is lacking. Word differences (i.e., words corre-sponding to one another materially but having different semantic ranges) are under-lined (in the Greek text only).
28a ka‹ ≤ ékoØ ∑lyen ßvw Ivab ba+;/yAd[' ha;B¢; hŸ[;muV]h'w“ 28atoË ufloË Sarouiaw –
˜ti Ivab ∑n keklikΔw Ùp¤sv Advniou hY±:nIdoa} yr¢et}a' hŸf;n: ba;%/y yK¢ika‹ Ùp¤sv Salvmvn oÈk ¶klinen hf-;n: al¢o μw £løov;b]a' yràej}a'w“
28ba ka‹ ¶fugen Ivab efiw tÚ skÆnvma toË kur¤ou hw±:hy“ lh,a¢oAlŸa, bŸa;/y sn:ºY:w" 28ba28bb ka‹ kat°sxen t«n kerãtvn toË yusiasthr¤ou >j'Bâez“Mih' twnèor“q'B] q£zEt}Y"w"ô 28bb29aa ka‹ éphgg°lh t“ . . . Salvmvn hmo%lov] Ël,M¢,l' dG⁄¤"Ywu" 29aa
l°gontew –29ab ˜ti ¶fugen Ivab efiw tØn skhnØn toË kur¤ou hw±:hy“ lh,a¢oAla, bŸa;/y sn•: yK¢i 29ab29ag ka‹ fidoÁ kat°xei t«n kerãtvn toË yusiasthr¤ou j'B-ez“Mih' lx,a¢e h£NEhiw“ 29ag29ba ka‹ ép°steilen Salvmvn hm⁄olov] tlŸ'v]YIw" 29b
prÚw Ivab –l°gvn –t¤ g°gon°n soi –˜ti p°feugaw efiw tÚ yusiastÆrion –ka‹ e‰pen Ivab –˜ti §fobÆyhn épÚ pros≈pou sou –ka‹ ¶fugon prÚw kÊrion –
the account of joab’s death 27
29bb ka‹ ép°steilen Salvmvn ı basileÁw –tÚn Banaiou uflÚn Ivdae [di è:y/hy“Aˆb, Whyé:n:B]Ata,
l°gvn r™moaleporeÊou Ëlàeka‹ ênele aÈtÚn >wôBoA[g"P] . . .ka‹ yãcon aÈtÒn –
30 ka‹ ∑lyen Banaiou Why⁄:n:b] abŸoY:w" 30uflÚw Ivdae prÚw Ivab –
efiw tØn skhnØn toË kur¤ou hw:$hy“ lh,a¢oAla,ka‹ e‰pen aÈt“ wyl⁄;ae rm,aY!Ow"tãde l°gei ı basileÊw ËŸl,MŸ,h' rºm'a;AhôKo¶jelye )ax+eka‹ e‰pen Ivab . . . rm,aYèOW"oÈk §kporeÊomai . . . alo˜ti œde époyanoËmai tWm-a; hp¢o yK¢ika‹ ép°strecen Banaiaw uflÚw Ivdae . . . . . . Why:•n:B] bv,Y:wŸ"– rb¢;D: ËŸl,MŸ,h'Ata,ka‹ e‰pen t“ basile› –l°gvn rm+oaletãde lelãlhken Ivab ba;/y rBà,dIAhôKoka‹ tãde épok°krita¤ moi .ynIôn:[; hkàow“
31a ka‹ e‰pen aÈt“ ı basileÊw Ël,M%,h' wl¢o rm,aYéOw" 31aporeÊou –ka‹ po¤hson aÈt“ . . . hŸce[} . . .kayΔw e‡rhken rB+,DI rv¢,a}K'ka‹ ênele aÈtÚn wBoA[g"p]Wka‹ yãceiw aÈtÚn wT-or“b'q]W
31b ka‹ §jare›w sÆmeron tÚ aÂma μN$:ti ym¢eD“ . . . t;§roysih}w" 31b˘ dvreån §j°xeen Ivab ba+;/y Ëp¢'v; rŸv,a}
ép' §moË yl+'[;meka‹ épÚ toË o‡kou toË patrÒw mou .yôbia; tyBàe l['meW
32a ka‹ ép°strecen kÊriow hw:!hy“ by*vihew“ 32atÚ aÂma t∞w édik¤aw aÈtoË wmo⁄D:Ata,efiw kefalØn aÈtoË wc%aoroAl['
…w épÆnthsen to›w dus‹n ényr≈poiw μyçin:oa}·AyônEv]Bi [g∞"P; rv¢,a}to›w dika¤oiw ka‹ égayo›w Íp¢r aÈtÚn W!NMŸ,m, μyb¶ifow“ μyqŸiDIx'
ka‹ ép°kteinen aÈtoÁw §n =omfa¤& br,j+,B' μg∞Er]h'Y"W"32b ka‹ ı patÆr mou Dauid oÈk ¶gnv [d-:y: al¢o d£wId; ybàia;w“ 32b
tÚ aÂma aÈt«n –tÚn Abennhr uflÚn Nhr rŸnEAˆK, rn•Eb]a'Ata,érxistrãthgon Israhl la+er;c]yI ab¢;x]Arc'ka‹ tÚn Amessa uflÚn Ieyer rt,£y<Aˆb, acà;m;[}Ata,w“érxistrãthgon Iouda .hdâ:Why“ abà;x]Arc'
33a ka‹ §pestrãfh tå a·mata aÈt«n μŸh,ymed“ Wbºv;/“ 33aefiw kefalØn aÈtoË ba+;/y var¢oB]
The narrative plot of the section in vv. 28–34 is coined by the
conflation of two narrative strings. The string prevailing in the first
half of the passage unwinds the story of the elimination of the
Adonijah party. After Solomon has settled the score with his oppo-
nents Adonijah and Abiathar (vv. 26–27), Joab fears that he will be
next to experience Solomon’s wrath (v. 28). Rather than passively
waiting for his execution, Joab flees to YHWH’s tent to grasp the
horns of the altar there. At first, the law of asylum seems to pro-
vide him with the desired protection. When Benaiah, whom Solomon
has sent to finish off Joab, orders him to come out of the tent, the
latter understandably refuses to obey, claiming that he wants to die
near the altar (v. 30a). Benaiah, for his part, does not let himself be
provoked into violating the right of sanctuary and returns to Solomon
to receive further instructions. At this point (v. 31) a second narra-
tive string becomes manifest. It reaches back to David’s death bed
assignment to Solomon to avenge the blood of the commanders
Abner and Amasa by executing their murderer Joab (1 Kgs. 2: 5–6).
After hearing that Joab refuses to leave the altar, Solomon renews
his order to Benaiah to execute Joab, now alleging Joab’s slaughter
of the two commanders as a justification (cf. 2 Sam. 3: 27; 20: 10).
According to Exod. 21: 14, anyone who kills another man deliber-
ately must be taken from the altar he has fled to and be put to
death. Possibly, knowledge of this regulation is implied in the nar-
rative. As it is, however, Solomon motivates his instruction to Benaiah
by stressing the need to exonerate himself and David’s house from
the innocent blood shed by Joab. Thus the impression arises that
the obligation to David and his house serves as Solomon’s true motive
to disregard the law of asylum and to have Joab killed. This is also
suggested by the fact that, when Joab’s execution is finally reported
in v. 34, there is no mention of the culprit being removed from the
altar first, as is required by Exod. 21: 14.
So far, the versions of MT and the LXX agree. There are significant
detail differences between the two, however:
1. While MT of v. 28a says that Joab did not side with Absalom,
the LXX says that Joab did not side with Solomon. In view of the
preceding narrative, both readings are correct. When Absalom rose
against his father, Joab remained loyal to David (2 Sam. 17: 25; 18:
2). On the other hand, 1 Kgs. 1: 7, 19, 41 make it clear that Joab
supported Adonijah’s case rather than Solomon’s in the matter of
28 chapter two
David’s succession. It goes without saying that in the context of the
elimination of the Adonijah-faction a reference to Solomon seems to
be much more to the point than a reference to Absalom. Yet
“Solomon” is definitely not the original reading. Montgomery and
Gray2 have pointed out that, since the expression yrja hfn, “to turn
aside after, to side with”, has a connotation of disaffection3 and rebel-
lion,4 it could hardly have been used of the legitimate Solomon-fac-
tion. On the other hand, the phrase is certainly appropriate in relation
to Absalom. It is imaginable that in the original narrative the note
on Joab’s stance towards Adonijah in v. 28a occasioned a note on
Joab’s stance towards a previous pretender, namely Absalom. The
reading attested by the LXX (and by Josephus)5 probably reflects
intervention of a scribe who “corrected” “Absalom” into “Solomon”.
2. The second variation between MT and the LXX that deserves
attention occurs in v. 29ag. In the LXX Solomon receives word that
Joab, having fled to the tent of YHWH, is holding the horns of the
altar. The content of this message exactly matches the description
of events in v. 28b. According to MT, however, Solomon is not
informed that Joab holds the horns of the altar, he is merely told
that Joab is “by the altar”. In the presentation of the LXX, Solomon
is fully aware that he violates the right of asylum when he orders
Benaiah to strike down Joab. But in the presentation of MT, Solomon
acts on information that is not entirely accurate. If it is supposed
that the law of asylum only applies to one holding the horns of the
altar, Joab’s standing “by the altar” might have provided Solomon
with an opportunity to have the commander killed without break-
ing the law. The reading of MT, then, would seem to have the
intention to protect Solomon against the charge that he purposely
ignored the law.
Upon closer consideration, however, this line of thought does not
hold. The reading offered by MT does not present Solomon with a
credible excuse, since Solomon certainly was aware that Joab, while
2 J. Gray, I & II Kings (OTL), London 1964, 106; Montgomery-Gehman, Kings,94.
3 Thus Exod. 23: 2; 1 Sam. 8: 3; cf. μ[m wbbl hfn in 1 Kgs. 11: 9.4 Thus Judg. 9: 3.5 Josephus, Jewish Ant. VIII, 13.
the account of joab’s death 29
being near the altar, could grasp the horns whenever the circum-
stances required him to. Thus there is not enough reason to assume
that v. 29ag in MT represents a deliberate change of an older read-
ing as witnessed by the LXX in order to protect Solomon’s image.6
Neither is there good reason to suppose that jbzmh lxa represents
a corruption from jbzmh twnrqb zjeao, i.e., the Hebrew text that is
believed to underlie the LXX.7 The sizable difference between both
Hebrew phrases renders it unlikely that the former derives from the
latter.
Thus attempts to explain the MT of v. 29ag as being secondary
to the reconstructed Hebrew substratum of LXX v. 29ag are uncon-
vincing. On the other hand, the reading of the LXX can be sim-
ply explained from an attempt to bring the report of the narrator
at v. 28bb and the content of the message to Solomon in v. 29aginto conformity with each other. A tendency towards assimilation of
parallel passages is a notable feature of the LXX in 3 Reg. 2: 28–34.
Note the following instance:
6 Schenker (Septante, 69–72) argues that the MT of v. 29ag can be identified asa secondary development in light of Exod. 21: 14. As we noticed above, there isno clear indication that Exod. 21: 14 is presupposed in the narrative, either in MTor in the LXX-version. But even if we assume that the regulation of Exod. 21: 14plays a role in the background, Schenker’s arguments fail to convince. In Schenker’sopinion, the MT-version of v. 29ag has two narrative advantages to that of theLXX. First, unlike the LXX, it does not make the implication that Joab’s execu-tion is ordered while the latter is holding the altar. Since according to MT Joabis only beside the altar, Solomon does not trespass the rule of Exod. 21: 14 whenhe does not have Joab removed from the altar prior to his execution. Second, inlight of the statement of v. 28bb that Joab has seized the horns of the altar, thewording of MT v. 29ag seems to imply that meanwhile Joab has let go of thehorns. In doing so, Joab renounces his right for sanctuary and implicitly confessesguilt.
In my view, Schenker assigns too much narrative significance to the formulationof MT v. 29ag. In practice, there is no difference between Joab holding the hornsof the altar and Joab being near the altar (see the previous discussion). Nor is therereason to believe that Joab, by temporarily letting go of the horns of the altar,would lose the right of sanctuary. If so, Benaiah would not have found difficultywith entering the sanctuary to seize Joab near the altar (v. 30). Schenker arguesthat Benaiah did not want to seize Joab in the sanctuary because it is not an appro-priate place for an execution. Benaiah, however, could easily have removed Joabfrom the sanctuary before killing him. Both Benaiah’s reluctance to enter the sanc-tuary and Joab’s refusal to leave it root in the circumstance that the altar still pro-tects Joab.
7 A. anda, Die Bücher der Könige (EHAT 9), Münster 1911, 41; cf. C.F. Burney,Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings, Oxford 1903, 23.
30 chapter two
v. 29bb v. 31a
l°gvn ka‹ e‰pen aÈt“ ı basileÊwporeÊou poreÊou
ka‹ po¤hson aÈt“ kayΔw e‡rhkenka‹ ênele aÈtÚn ka‹ ênele aÈtÚnka‹ yãcon aÈtÒn ka‹ yãceiw aÈtÚn
The pluses of the LXX vis-à-vis MT are underlined. The LXX
seems to have brought into line the first and second assignment to
Benaiah according to the sequence “go—strike down—bury”. It sim-
ply supplemented in one passage what was lacking there in comparison
with the parallel. A similar tendency towards assimilation comes to
the fore in the extensive plus to be discussed next.
3. The most significant difference between MT and the LXX con-
cerns the plus in 3 Reg. 2: 29b, which reads in translation: “(And
Solomon sent) a message to Joab: What is the matter with you that
you have fled to the altar? And Joab said, ‘Because I was afraid of
you, and I fled to the Lord.’8 And king Solomon sent a message
to . . .” There are strong indications that this passage goes back to
a Hebrew original. It exhibits the same kind of translation-Greek as
the surrounding verses and various Hebraisms can be noticed.9 As
a consequence the plus can easily be retroverted into Hebrew:10
29ba (ka‹ ép°steilen Salvmvn) (hmlç jlçyw) 29baprÚw Ivab bawyAla
l°gvn rmalt¤ g°gon°n soi ˚l hyh hm˜ti p°feugaw efiw tÚ yusiastÆrion jbzmAla tsn ykka‹ e‰pen Ivab bawy rmayw
8 Or simply: “I was afraid of you and fled to the Lord” (so-called ˜ti recitativum,see BD, § 470.1; Bauer, 1168).
9 The following Hebraisms are to be noted: 1. The expression fobeisyai apoprosvpou = ynpm ary (cf. 1 Kgs. 1: 50); 2. legvn = rmal; 3. The expression tigegonen soi oti may be compared to LXX Isa. 22: 1, ti egeneto soi . . . oti = MTIsa. 22: 1, yk . . . ˚lAhm; 4. The appearance of kai at the head of a clause. In par-ticular, note should be taken of the use of kai in oti efobhyhn apo prosvpou soukai efugon prow kurion. Probably, this Greek sentence translates a causal clausefollowed by a main clause introduced by the waw of apodosis (see Joüon-Muraoka,§ 176e). If so, the Hebrew is to be translated as: “Because I was afraid of you, Ifled to YHWH.”
10 The reconstruction presented here is taken from BHK and Burney, Notes, 24.
the account of joab’s death 31
˜ti §fobÆyhn épÚ pros≈pou sou ˚ynpm ytary ykka‹ ¶fugon prÚw kÊrion hwhyAla swnaw
29bb ka‹ ép°steilen Salvmvn ı basileÁw hmlç ˚lmh jlçyw 29bb
The Hebrew background of the passage as such does not allow to
draw conclusions regarding its text-historical value. Either the text
dropped out in MT or was inserted into the Vorlage of the LXX.
Critics have argued that parablepsis due to homoioarchton (. . . jlçywjlçyw) could have caused the omission of the passage in MT11 but
it is equally conceivable that it was added to the Vorlage of the LXX
by means of resumptive repetition. According to Barthélemy, the cir-
cumstance that the verb “to flee” takes different complements in
v. 29ba and in vv. 28–29a speaks in favour of the literary original-
ity of the plus.12 Yet it is difficult to see why the variation is more
likely to have been introduced by the original author than by a later
hand.
To judge whether the passage is simultaneous with its context or
not, one must also consider its purport and narrative function. Seen
against the background of the story of the purge of the Adonijah-
faction, it is clear that Joab’s answer in v. 29ba does not provide
Solomon with information he did not yet have. Solomon was already
fully acquainted with Joab’s role in the Adonijah-coup (cf. v. 22), so
he must have understood why Joab fled to the sanctuary.13 Nor is
it likely that Solomon’s question intends to extract a confession about
Joab’s part in the coup, since Solomon has Joab executed on different
grounds (vv. 31–33).14 According to Schenker, v. 29ba describes the
customary juridical procedure when the law of asylum is invoked.15
In that event, the king, who is also a judge, has to establish guilt
or innocence of the petitioner. Solomon, therefore, would wish to
learn the reasons why Joab fled to the altar. However, 1 Kgs. 1:
50–52, a passage dealing with Adonijah’s request for asylum, does
not mention a juridical inquiry conducted by the king. Maybe
11 Thus D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, t. I (OBO 50/1),Freiburg/Göttingen 1982, 335; Gray, Kings, 105, n. c; Hrozn , Abweichungen, 62;Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 95; DeVries, 1 Kings, 27.
12 Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 335.13 Thus also B. Stade and F. Schwally, The Books of Kings. Critical Edition of the
Hebrew Text (SBOT 9), Leipzig 1904, 70.14 Cf. anda, Bücher der Könige, 41; Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 70.15 Schenker, Septante, 70–71.
32 chapter two
Solomon’s question is merely meant to challenge Joab to leave the
sanctuary so that he can be seized outside. Reference to Isa. 22: 1,
where a similarly structured question occurs, may support the view
that the question at v. 29ba has a provocative tone. If this inter-
pretation is correct, it is quite possible that v. 29ba belongs to the
original narrative. It is not illogical for Solomon to try to lure Joab
outside the safety of the sanctuary first before ordering Benaiah to
kill him. It could, however, be argued that there is nothing in the
passage supporting the notion of a setup. Only after hearing Joab’s
answer does Solomon order his elimination. As a consequence it
remains doubtful whether v. 29ba really adds information that changes
or complicates the plot of the narrative. Fokkelman may be right
that the passage detracts from the pregnancy of the narrative and
by consequence is not likely to be original.16
If the passage lacks a clear function in the progress of the narra-
tive, for what reason was it inserted at all? One possible answer is
that the scene of v. 29ba was added to the story to mitigate the
bluntness of Solomon’s abrupt order to kill Joab in the sanctuary
(cf. MT v. 29b).17 Joab’s answer to Solomon, then, is to be under-
stood as an implicit confession of guilt: Joab’s fear discloses his bad
conscience.18 As we noted before, the logic of the narrative does not
warrant the scene at all, but the expansion may rather reflect a con-
cern for the image of Solomon than a concern for narrative logic.
This interpretation gains probability in light of another reading pecu-
liar to the LXX. In v. 32a, the LXX offers to aima thw adikiawautou, “the blood of his unrighteousness”, for MT wmdAta. The Greek
reading once more highlights Joab’s guilt and in doing so may help
justify Solomon’s behaviour.
Another possibility is that the expansion in v. 29ba serves to bring
the episode of Joab’s flight into conformity with the account of
Adonijah’s flight to the sanctuary in 1 Kgs. 1: 50–51. With regard
to Adonijah the following is reported to Solomon: “Behold, Adonijah
is afraid of king Solomon and behold, he has grasped the horns of
16 J.P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. Volume I: King David,Assen 1981, 399; cf. E. Würthwein, Das Erste Buch der Könige. Kapitel 1–16 (ATD11,1), Göttingen 1977, 7, n. 18.
17 Thus H.A. Brongers, 1 Koningen (Prediking van het Oude Testament), Nijkerk1967, 44; M. Noth, Könige, I.1–16 (BK 9/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1968, 7, 36.
18 Cf. Gray, Kings, 106; Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 95.
the account of joab’s death 33
the altar . . .” (1 Kgs. 1: 51a). In the LXX-version of the account of
Joab’s flight to the sanctuary Solomon learns the same things with
regard to Joab. Solomon’s servants inform him that Joab grasped
the horns of the altar (v. 29ag) and Joab himself tells Solomon via
the king’s messenger that he is afraid of him (v. 29ba). Significantly, the
two elements which enhance the similarity between the episodes of
1: 50–51 and 2: 28–29 are missing in MT. Thus one motive for
altering the text of v. 29ag and creating v. 29ba seems to have been
a desire to strengthen the analogy between the Joab-episode and the
Adonijah-episode.
4. Through 3 Reg. 2: 31b–33b four references to blood appear. In
three out of four instances the reference in MT is different from its
counterpart in the LXX: V. 31b to aima o dvrean ejexeen—μnj ymd˚pç rça (sg. versus pl.); v. 32a to aima thw adikiaw autou—wmdAta;
v. 32b to aima autvn—no counterpart in MT.
In the Greek text the blood mentioned is exclusively Abner’s and
Amasa’s. In MT, however, v. 32a seems to make reference to Joab’s
blood. It has been argued that the phrase “and YHWH will turn
back his blood upon his own head” in this verse actually refers to
the blood of Amasa and Abner that has been shed by Joab.19 Thus
in v. 33a we find “their blood (pl.) will return to his head”, which
means that Joab will be put to death for shedding the blood of
Amasa and Abner. However, if v. 32a was meant to refer to the
blood of the army commanders, we might expect to find “their
blood”, as in v. 33a (and LXX v. 32b), rather than “his blood”.
The reading “his blood” moreover makes good sense. In v. 31b
Solomon orders Benaiah to remove the blood of Abner and Amasa
from Solomon himself and from his father’s house. As long as
Solomon, who acts as the highest judge, omits to punish the assas-
sin, the blood of Joab’s victims, i.e., the guilt for his crime, rests on
Solomon. As a consequence there is no other option for Solomon
than to have Joab executed. Now the blood that Solomon is going
to shed also poses a threat to him and his house. For that reason
Solomon asks YHWH to turn Joab’s blood back upon his own head.
This seems fair enough, as Joab’s death is a righteous punishment
for his own crimes.
34 chapter two
19 Thus M.J. Mulder, 1 Kings. Volume I: 1 Kings 1–11 (Historical Commentary onthe Old Testament), Leuven 1998, 119–20.
In contrast to “his blood”, the expression “the blood of his unright-
eousness” of the LXX refers to the blood shed by Joab. As such,
the expression is perfectly in agreement with the other references to
blood in v. 31b and v. 33a. The LXX may reflect an effort to bring
v. 32a as represented by MT in conformity with the conception
expressed in the adjacent verses. In addition, there is a possibility
that the LXX, by highlighting Joab’s guilt, seeks to justify Solomon’s
severe judgment.20
In v. 32b we find the parenthetic remark “and my father David
did not know”, which refers to David’s ignorance concerning Joab’s
intentions to kill Abner and Amasa. The LXX adds “their blood”.
In Schenker’s opinion, this expression refers to possible murders com-
mitted by Abner and Amasa.21 Thus the LXX would convey that
David had no knowledge of any crime committed by the two army-
commanders that would justify their being put to death. However,
there is good reason to suppose that the phrase in the LXX has a
meaning not different from that in MT. In 2 Sam. 3: 28 David,
upon hearing that Joab has murdered Abner, is said to declare: “I
and my kingdom are forever innocent before YHWH concerning
the blood of Abner, the son of Ner.” Since the parenthetic remark
in v. 32b alludes to this passage (in Samuel there occurs no similar
statement by David concerning Amasa’s death), it seems likely that
the LXX plus “their blood” is an expansion made in accordance
with 2 Sam. 3: 28. In that case, “their blood” certainly refers to the
blood of Abner and Amasa that has been shed by Joab.
In sum, the deviations from MT in the LXX-account of Joab’s
execution reveal two tendencies. First, several deviations bring about
closer conformity between parallel passages. Second, a few devia-
tions tend to amplify Joab’s guilt and consequently reduce the rep-
rehensibility of Solomon’s behaviour. It is not certain whether all
changes derive from the same hand. At least, the Hebraistic flavour
of v. 29ba suggests that this passage goes back to an editorial inser-
tion in the Hebrew Vorlage.
20 Thus also J.W. Wevers, “Exegetical Principles underlying the Septuagint Textof I Kings ii 12–xxi 43”, OTS 8 (1950), 300–22, esp. 310.
21 Schenker, Septante, 73–74.
the account of joab’s death 35
CHAPTER THREE
THE DUPLICATION OF 3 REG. 2: 8–9 AT 35L–O AND
THE SUPPLEMENTARY CHARACTER OF 35–46L
1. Introduction
One of the most intriguing phenomena of 3 Regum is the occur-
rence of duplicate translations. The case of duplication that is dis-
cussed here occurs in connection with the story of Shimei’s elimination
in ch. 2. Both MT and the LXX recount this story in two parts.
The first part of it occurs in 2: 8–9. It relates David’s dying charge
to Solomon to find a legal pretext to kill David’s former adversary,
Shimei. The second part, recounting how Solomon managed to com-
ply with David’s last will, does not appear until 2: 36–46. Unlike
MT, the LXX has this second part preceded by a repetition of the
first part. The duplicate, counted as 3 Reg. 2: 35lb–o, is provided
with a short introductory statement in v. 35la, and its diction is
slightly different from 2: 8–9.
For what reason, or due to what kind of process, does the LXX
represent two translations of one and the same passage within a dis-
tance of a mere 30 verses? One possibility can be ruled out out of
hand, namely that the LXX inserted a copy of 2: 8–9 at 2: 35l–o
for fear that a reader coming across 2: 36–46 might not remember
the previous history of the Shimei episode. The slight but unmis-
takable difference in wording makes it clear that vv. 35l–o are not
a straight copy of vv. 8–9.
A possible explanation might be sought in the circumstance that
the duplicate passages each appear in different translation units. As
has been pointed out in the introduction, Thackeray attributed the
sections 2 Reg. 11: 2–3 Reg. 2: 11 and 3 Reg. 2: 12–21: 43 to
different translators on the basis of a number of translation charac-
teristics. The distribution of characteristics did not enable Thackeray
to establish the exact dividing line between the translation units bgand gg, because he found the last characteristic of bg in 3 Reg.
2: 5 and the first characteristic of gg not until 2: 16. His claim that
the transition occurs between 3 Reg. 2: 11 and 12 is primarily
founded on the fact that in the Ant. manuscripts the division between
the books of 2 and 3 Regum is situated here. Carrying further the
thought that the beginning of the gg-section corresponds to an ancient
book division in Regum, one may speculate that this section was
written on a different scroll than the previous section. Possibly, the
Greek text simply followed the division of the Hebrew source text,
even though MT 1 Kings and all Greek witnesses but the Ant. text
agree in localizing the book division immediately before 1: 1. Now,
one consequence of transposing the beginning of 3 Regum from
1: 1 to 2: 12 is that the first part of the Shimei story at 2: 8–9 falls
outside the coverage of the book. As the second part at 2: 36–46
cannot possibly be understood without knowledge of the first part,
it is conceivable that someone took the initiative to copy the first
part and insert it immediately before v. 36. The slight differences
between the two texts, then, might be explained by the somewhat
different recensional histories of the translation units in which they
appear.
Though this hypothesis, which in its essentials originates with
Gooding,1 provides a coherent explanation for the duplication, sev-
eral features of 3 Reg. 2 cast doubt on its plausability. The follow-
ing reservations should be made. In the first place, it is by no means
sure whether 2: 8–9 takes priority over 2: 35l–o as the original posi-
tion of David’s dying charge in the LXX. Barthélemy has identified
the translation unit bg, to which 2: 8–9 belongs, as a recension under-
taken to bring the OG into line with MT. This would mean that
there is a possibility that the OG did not yet contain these verses
in 2: 8–9. It is significant that the Ant. text of 3 Reg. 2: 1–9, which,
at least in its pre-Lucianic stratum, is believed to represent a stage
closer to the OG than Kaige, shows certain features which suggest
that it is secondary in its context.
In the second place, note should be taken of what may be termed
the “supplementary character” of the text portion stretching from 3
Reg. 2: 35a to 2: 46l. This section is separated from the previous
one by a note of concluding character in 3 Reg. 2: 35ab which has
1 Gooding, Relics, 100–101. Support for the hypothesis has been expressed by E. Tov in “The LXX Additions (Miscellanies) in 1 Kings 2 (3 Reigns 2)”, Textus11 (1984), 89–118, esp. 117.
the duplication of 3 reg. 2: 8‒9 at 35l‒o 37
no correspondence in MT. Internally, the section is clearly marked
off from the context by the appearance of two paragraphs of a sim-
ilar summarizing character at the beginning and the end of it, that
is, in 2: 35a–k and 46a–l. These so-called Miscellanies I and II,
which each constitute a plus vis-à-vis the text represented by MT in
corresponding position, are not integrated in the narrative and chrono-
logical framework of the Solomon Narrative in 3 Regum. The full,
continuous Shimei narrative (2: 35l–o and 36–46) thus finds itself
embedded in the Miscellanies and makes the impression of being
part of them. As we will see, this state of affairs has prompted sev-
eral critics to argue that the full form of the narrative in the sup-
plement is original and the fragment in 2: 8–9 a (yet) later addition.
The complicated textual and literary situation around the Shimei
episodes calls for a thorough investigation, which must take into
account the compositional and textual history of all of 3 Reg. 2.
The issue to be discussed first is the text of the Shimei episodes.
2. Comparison of the duplicate translations 3 Reg. 2: 8–9 and 35l–o
The following scheme seeks to visualize the differences between the
versions of MT, the LXX (majority of manuscripts) and the Ant.
text in 2: 8–9 and 35l–o. For reasons of convenience, the text is
divided into 22 items to which reference will be made in the fol-
lowing discussion.
38 chapter three
It. 2: 35l–o Rahlfs 2: 35l–o Ant. text 2: 8–9 Rahlfs 2: 8–9 Ant. text MT 2: 8–9
ka‹ §n t“ id. id. id.¶ti Dauid z∞n z∞n ¶ti tÚn Dauid§nete¤lato id.t“ Salvmvn id. Solomvntil°gvn id.
1 fidoÁ id. ka‹ fidoÁ id. – hN∞Ehiw“2 metå soË id. id. metå soË – – :ÚM][i·3 Semei Semeei Semei Semeei y[Ÿim]ôvi
uflÚw Ghra id. id. uflÚw Ghra id. id. arè:GEAˆb,4 uflÚw ufloË uflÚw id. Aˆb,
sp°rmatow –toË Iemini id. Iemenei toË Iemeni id. Iemenei ynIymiy“h'
5 §k Xebrvn §k Gabaya §k Baourim ı §k Bayoureim (e2) μ‹yrijuB'mi6 otow ka‹ otow ka‹ aÈtÚw id. id. aWhŸw“7 kathrãsatÒ me id. id. kathrãsatÒ me id. id. yŸnIl'l]qi
The first thing to be noted is the high degree of agreement between
the Greek of 2: 8–9 and that of 35l–o. Though the agreement could
be partly due to a similar style of translation, the fact that the two
paragraphs share a rendering that is otherwise not used in the LXX
suggests a genetic connection between them.2 On the other hand,
differences are frequent, some of a stylistic nature (items 6, 8, 11,
2 In particular item 7 is of interest (thus also Gooding, Relics, 100; G. Krautwurst,Studien zu den Septuagintazusätzen in 1. (3.) Könige 2 und ihren Paralleltexten [diss.], Mainz1977, 167, n. 1). The verb ≈rm occurs four times in the OT; in three instances,including 1 Kgs. 2: 8, the Niphal is found. Only in 3 Reg. 2: 8 is the verb trans-lated by a word derived from the stem odun-. odunhrow appears altogether fourtimes in the LXX. Less indicative are items 9 and 18, since these involve equiva-lents that are not unusual in the LXX. Yet these parallel renderings add to theevidence that the duplicate translations are interdependent.
the duplication of 3 reg. 2: 8‒9 at 35l‒o 39
katãran id. katãran id. hl¢;l;q]Ùdunhrån id. Ùdunhrån id. tx,r+,m]nI
8 §n √ ≤m°r& §n tª ≤m°r& √ tª ≤m°r& √ §n tª ≤m°r& √ μwyOB]§poreuÒmhn id. §poreuÒmhn id. yT¢ik]l,
9 efiw parembolãw id. id. efiw parembolãw id. id. μyI n -:j}m'10 ka‹ aÈtÚw id. id. ka‹ aÈtÚw id. id. AaWôjw“11 kat°bainen kat°baine kat°bh id. dr¶"y:12 efiw moi efiw efiw efiw y!tiar:q]li
épantÆn moi épãnthsin épantÆn mou épãnthsin mou13 §p‹ tÚn Iordãnhn id. id. id. efiw tÚn Iordãnhn §p‹ id. id. ˆDe+r“Y"h'14 ka‹ vÖmosa id. id. ka‹ vÖmosa id. id. [ôb'V;Ÿa,w:
aÈt“ id. aÈt“ id. wlo¶15 katå toË kur¤ou id. id. id. §n kur¤ƒ id. id. hŸw:hyôb'
l°gvn id. l°gvn id. rm+oale16 efi id. efi id. Aμai
yanatvyÆsetai yanat≈sv se yanat≈sv se id. id. Út]yômia}i§n =omfa¤& id. id. §n =omfa¤& id. id. .br,ôj;B,
17 ka‹ nËn id. id. ka‹ oÈ ka‹ sÊ oÈ !hT;['w“mØ id. mØ id. -Ala'
18 éyƒ≈s˙w aÈtÒn id. id. éyƒ≈s˙w aÈtÒn id. id. WhQ+en"T]˜ti id. ˜ti id. yKi è i
19 énØr frÒnimow id. id. énØr sofÚw id. id. μk;j; çyOaài20 sÊ id. e‰ sÊ id. id. hT;a-:21 ka‹ gn≈s˙ id. id. ka‹ gn≈s˙ id. id. T;Ÿ[]d'ôy:w“
ì poiÆseiw aÈt“ id. id. id ì poiÆseiw aÈt“ id. id. id. wúL+Ahc,[}ôT' rv,¢a} ta¢e22 ka‹ katãjeiw id. id. ka‹ katãjeiw id. id. ”Tá;d“r'/hw“
tØn poliån aÈtoË id. id. id. tØn poliån aÈtoË id. id. id. w i ètob;yceAta,§n a·mati id. id. §n a·mati id. id. Ÿμd:B]efiw údou id. id. efiw údou id. id. .lwôaov]
12, 13, 15, 19, 20), others implying either dependence on somewhat
different source texts or editorial intervention (items 4, 5, 16, 17).
This state of affairs may be accounted for with reference to Barthé-
lemy’s hypothesis that the bg-section exhibits a recension of an older
Greek text, the so-called Kaige recension, while the gg-section repre-
sents the older Greek without recensional alterations. The text through
2: 35l–o, then, may represent the older Greek version of the story
of David’s last will regarding Shimei, while the majority of Greek
manuscripts at 2: 8–9 represent the revised form. In fact, one of the
characteristics of Kaige as established by Thackeray, Barthélemy and
Shenkel can be discerned in 2: 8–9.3
Items 5 and 17, and perhaps item 16 as well, suggest that 3 Reg.
2: 8–9 and 2: 35lb–o go back to slightly different Hebrew Vorlagen.
Item 5 will be treated later on; as regards item 17, kai nun of v. 35o
corresponds to ht[w (cf. 1 Kgs. 2: 9), whereas kai ou of 2: 9 may
well be an inner-Greek corruption of original kai su, a reading which
occurs in the Ant. text of 2: 9 and which corresponds to htaw.4 It
may be asked whether there ever was a Hebrew source text of 3
Reg. 2: 35lb–o in a position corresponding to that held by the Greek
verses. The answer depends on the assessment of the editorial intro-
duction to vv. 35lb–o in v. 35la. If this can be shown to reflect a
Hebrew source, the paragraph following the introduction must like-
wise have a basis in Hebrew. Unfortunately, the Greek of v. 35ladoes not supply unambiguous evidence in favour of a Hebrew Vorlage.5
All we can say is that a Hebrew background is within the bounds
of possibility.6
3 The characteristic concerns item 19: Kaige in bg renders the radical μkj exclu-sively by forms with sof- whereas gg predominantly uses forms with fron- (cf.Shenkel, Chronology, 114).
4 The sequence kai su ou of the Ant. manuscripts (indirectly also attested by theEthiopic) at 2: 9 shows the original reading being supplemented by ou, apparentlyinfluenced by the majority reading kai ou (cf. Gooding, Relics, 99; Krautwurst,Studien, 168, n. 1). Corruption of original kai su mh into kai ou mh is the moreconceivable since, as Krautwurst puts it, “die Konstruktion mit ou mh und Konj.Aorist die bestimmteste Verneinungsform ist.”
5 Tov points out that the occurrence of the construction en tƒ + inf. makes thepossibility of a Hebrew origin very likely (“LXX Additions”, 114). This assessmentmay be right, but it should be emphasized that the Hebraistic flavour of the con-struction does not necessarily imply a Hebrew origin (cf. BD, § 404.1).
6 Both Tov and Trebolle Barrera reconstruct this Hebrew Vorlage as dwd dw[bwrmal hmlç ta hwx yj (Tov, “LXX Additions”, 96; J.C. Trebolle Barrera, “Testamentoy muerte de David”, RB 87 [1980], 87–103, esp. 101 = Salomón y Jeroboán, 254).
40 chapter three
In determining the relationship between 2: 8–9 and 35l–o we must
take special notice of the Ant. manuscripts. Barthélemy assumed, as
most scholars nowadays do, that the Ant. manuscripts in the bg-sec-tion basically attest the OG text that was left untouched by the Kaige
recension.7 It would not be unreasonable, then, to suppose that, since
vv. 35l–o cite a text form that is thought to be prior to the Kaige
recension, the Ant. text of 2: 8–9 and the majority text of 2: 35l–o
are basically identical or at least very close to each other. That is
not the case however. It appears that the Ant. text of 2: 8–9 has
much more in common with the Kaige text of 2: 8–9 than with 2:
35l–o (see items 4, 5, 6, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20). For its part, the
Ant. text of 2: 35l–o more closely resembles the majority text of this
passage than both the Ant. text and the majority text of 2: 8–9 (see
items 6, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20). To complete the picture, the Ant.
texts of both passages share a few features over against the major-
ity texts (item 8, the form apanthsin in 12, 13, 16), but they also
exhibit striking differences both where the Ant. texts run parallel to
the majority texts (items 6, 11, 15, 17, 19, 20) and where they do
not (items 2, 4, 5).
How should this complex relationship be accounted for? First, we
can brush aside the possibility that the Ant. texts of 2: 8–9 and 2:
35l–o both represent the unaltered OG. Differences like items 5, 6,
11 and 12 go beyond mere variation of translation equivalents as
may occur in the work of one translator. To account for the differences
by saying that different translators were responsible for the older
Greek as it is represented by the Ant. manuscripts of 2: 8–9 and
35l–o means overlooking the fact that there are unique agreements
between both texts (mainly item 7).
Thus other explanations must be taken into consideration. It is
not impossible that the Ant. text of 2: 8–9 indeed represents the
OG. Its similarity to the Kaige text attested by the majority of man-
uscripts might be explained by assuming that the Kaige recension
adopted the OG of 2: 8–9 virtually unaltered. The strikingly different
Greek of 3 Reg. 2: 35l–o, then, would suggest that this translation
is later than its OG-context. The implication of this view is that vv.
35l–o were not extant in the Hebrew Vorlage of the gg-section. Vv.
35l–o would have been translated from a Hebrew text slightly different
7 Barthélemy, Devanciers, 91–92.
the duplication of 3 reg. 2: 8‒9 at 35l‒o 41
from what is suggested as the Hebrew basis of 3 Reg. 2: 8–9, but
in spite of this the translation heavily depended on the Greek of the
latter passage.
The other possibility is that the Ant. text of 2: 8–9 is posterior to
the majority text. In that instance, the close resemblance of the Ant.
text form to the majority text at 2: 8–9 suggests that the former
underwent influence from manuscripts presenting the Kaige recension
(note for instance item 19). There is some evidence that the Ant.
texts of 2: 8–9 and 35l–o have been affected by a later revision,
aimed at creating some uniformity of expression (items 8, 12, 13,
16). This would mean that both Ant. texts are not closer to the OG
than the majority texts.
The latter view runs counter to the assumption that the Ant. text
of 2: 8–9 presents the older Greek over against the majority texts.
The advantage of this view to the previous one is that it depicts a
less complicated textual development and that it can account more
adequately for the presence of a Kaige characteristic in the Ant. text
of 2: 8–9 (item 19). Whatever the option to be preferred here, it
seems safe to assume that the Ant. witnesses of 2: 8–9 and 2: 35l–o
do not represent more faithful witnesses to the OG than the major-
ity manuscripts. From now on we will focus on the majority read-
ings of both passages.
3. The relationship between the Shimei story and the Miscellanies
in 3 Regum
As it stands, the entire Shimei story through vv. 35l–46 is surrounded
by two large pluses in the LXX, the so-called Miscellanies I and II,8
numbered 35a–k and 46a–l. The Miscellanies are peculiar collec-
tions of materials relating to the history of Solomon’s reign in chs.
3–11.9 They comprise duplicate translations, translations of passages
present in MT but not rendered in the main text of 3 Regum, and
editorial comments. Several scholars have argued that from a liter-
ary point of view the entire Shimei story, or at least vv. 35l–o, is
intimately connected with the Miscellanies.
8 Throughout the present study, the abbreviations “Misc. I” and “Misc. II” areused to refer to 3 Reg. 2: 35a–k and 46a–l, respectively.
9 See also chapter 17 of the present study.
42 chapter three
In his seminal study on the nature of the Miscellanies, Gooding
makes interesting observations on their relationship with the Shimei
narrative. First, the episode in 2: 35l–o resembles part of Misc. I in
offering a translation of a passage which in MT occurs in a different
place and which is translated in the main Greek text in a position
corresponding to MT material.10 Like vv. 35a–k and vv. 46a–l, the
Shimei story through vv. 35l–46 provides an example of Solomon’s
wisdom, namely the resourcefulness shown by Solomon in carrying
out David’s last will with regard to Shimei.11 The connection with
the wisdom theme is only apparent by the presence of vv. 35l–o,
since it is this part of the story that explicitly lays stress on the wis-
dom that was involved in Solomon’s handling of the case (in par-
ticular v. 35o). Whereas vv. 35l–o could have stood in their present
position in the text and made perfect sense before the Miscellanies
were added, they, on the other hand, need the presence of the Shimei
story to make their position in the text intelligible. This means that
the Miscellanies were either secondarily grouped around the Shimei
story or that vv. 35l–o were compiled and added simultaneously with
the Miscellanies by the editor of the Miscellanies. Gooding tries to
make a case for the latter possibility by speculating that traces of
midrashic interpretation, which he holds to be a characteristic fea-
ture of the Miscellanies, also occur in vv. 35l–o. In his view, the
phrase uiow spermatow (item 4) might have been introduced in con-
junction with Xebrvn (item 5) in order to explain that Shimei, in
spite of his living in the Judean town Hebron, was a member of the
tribe of Benjamin.
Gooding is probably right in suspecting deliberation behind the
sequence Misc. I—Shimei story—Misc. II. Structural agreements and
a certain coordination of materials apparent between the two
Miscellanies indicate that they have a common background. The cir-
cumstance that there are two Miscellanies rather than one, then,
could mean either that the Shimei story constitutes a secondary intru-
sion or that the Miscellanies were deliberately grouped around either
vv. 36–46 or the entire Shimei story through vv. 35l–46. Whatever
the text-historical course of affairs, Gooding’s claim that the position
10 Gooding, Relics, 97, cf. 3.11 Gooding, Relics, 97; cf. id., “Problems of Text and Midrash”, 4–5; thus also
Schenker, Septante, 44, 81–82.
the duplication of 3 reg. 2: 8‒9 at 35l‒o 43
of the Shimei story in between the two Miscellanies was meant to
make the reader see the Shimei story as another illustration of
Solomon’s wisdom is tempting.
On the other hand, Gooding’s arguments in favour of the view
that vv. 35l–o were added simultaneously with the Miscellanies fail
to convince. Though vv. 35l–o comprise a duplicate translation com-
parable to vv. 46e–g, there is one notable difference between these
duplicates: Unlike the duplicate renderings included in the Miscellanies,
vv. 35l–o duplicate a passage in the preceding text of 3 Regum. The
Shimei story also deviates from the genre of the Miscellanies in
offering a complete narrative rather than a mixture of short notes,
narrative fragments, and summary statements. It is, moreover, not
at all certain that vv. 35l–o bear the mark of misdrashic exegesis.
Though it is conceivable that the reading “Hebron” gave rise to a
midrashic addition in v. 35l, the obvious background of spermatowis the similarity of arg ˆb and [rz ˆb. This leaves the possibility open
that spermatow merely represents a double reading.12 More impor-
tant, Gooding omits to explain why “Bahurim” was replaced by
“Hebron”. As he himself points out, the figure of Shimei is nowhere
in the second book of Samuel connected with Hebron.
In contrast to Gooding, Schenker regards vv. 35l–o, including the
reading “Hebron”, as original to the LXX and the passage in vv.
8–9 as a secondary addition made under the influence of MT.13 In
Schenker’s opinion, “Hebron” is both less obvious and more significant
in the narrative context than “Bahurim”. The fact that the Judean
city of Hebron is mentioned as the home town of the Benjaminite
Shimei would indicate that the latter is a stranger, a rg, who depends
on the hospitality of the Judean leader David. This circumstance
would effectively illustrate Shimei’s foolishness to curse David.14
44 chapter three
12 The secondary character of spermatow over against Ghra is implied by the cir-cumstance that at its present position it distorts the sequence uiow tou Iemini =ynymyhAˆb (contra J.A. Montgomery, “The Supplement at End of 3 Kingdoms 2 [I Reg 2]”, ZAW 50 [1932], 124–29, esp. 126).
13 Schenker, Septante, 77–79.14 Schenker (Septante, 79–80) finds another indication for vv. 35l–o being prior to
vv. 8–9 in v. 35n (item 16). He rightly remarks that the phrase “he shall not beput to death by the sword” in this verse is difficult: Though David addresses Shimei,he uses the 3rd person. Schenker considers this phrase to be more original thanthe counterpart in 2: 8 of MT and the LXX (“I [sc. David] will not put you todeath by the sword”) since it offers the hermeneutic key for understanding theShimei narrative. The apodictic formulation of v. 35n prevents Solomon from still
In my view, a more sober judgment on “Hebron” is preferable.
In Hebrew, “Hebron” and “Bahurim” share three consonants, while
mem and nun sound similarly. One important difference between these
toponyms involves the interchange of beth and eth. Montgomery is
possibly right that the reading “Hebron” (ˆwrbj) for “Bahurim” (μyrjb)is just one of the “clumsy errors characteristic of the oldest Greek.”15
However, since it is stated in Samuel that Shimei was a supporter
of Absalom, it is by no means impossible that a midrashic hand
reshuffled the consonants of μyrjb into ˆwrbj in order to associate
Shimei with the town from which Absalom rose in rebellion against
David.16
In view of the lack of unambiguous indications, it is impossible
to tell whether vv. 35l–o is original to the LXX (OG) or not. The
only thing we know for certain about the relationship of vv. 35l–o
and the context is that these verses cannot go without the story of
Shimei’s execution in vv. 36–46. It remains unclear whether vv.
35l–o were added to vv. 36–46 independently of or simultaneously
with the Miscellanies, whether the Miscellanies were added to the
(full) Shimei story or the other way around.
executing Shimei for having cursed David (cf. Exod. 22: 27). So, when David asksSolomon to bring Shimei’s grey head down to the underworld in blood (v. 35o),he calls for Solomon’s resourcefulness to find a pretext to execute Shimei. This isexactly what Solomon does (vv. 36–46). The formulation of 2: 8 of the LXX andMT, “I [sc. David] will not put him to death by the sword”, on the other hand,leaves the possibility open to Solomon of executing Shimei on the charge of hav-ing cursed king David. By consequence, the episode in vv. 36–46 is not as wellintegrated in the narrative context in MT as it is in the LXX.
Though Schenker’s argument is ingenious, it is doubtful whether the narrativeramifications of the formulations in v. 8 on the one hand and v. 35n on the otherreally differ that much. In v. 8, David’s promise to Shimei not to put him to deathmay imply that the matter, juridically spoken, is closed. Since Solomon is not enti-tled to condemn Shimei on the charge of having cursed David anymore, he needsto find another pretext for executing Shimei.
Moreover, Schenker fails to explain why in v. 35n Shimei is addressed in the3rd rather than in the 2nd person. Interestingly, the form yanatvyhsetai alsoappears in 2 Reg. 19: 22, that is, one verse preceding the original formulation ofDavid’s oath to Shimei: “Today no man in Israel shall be put to death (yanatvyh-setai) . . . (23) And the king said to Shimei: ‘You shall not die.’ And the king sworeto him.” This suggests the possibility that the peculiar formulation of v. 35n resultsfrom influence of 2 Reg. 19: 22–23.
15 Montgomery, “Supplement”, 126.16 See 2 Sam. 16: 8; 15: 7f.
the duplication of 3 reg. 2: 8‒9 at 35l‒o 45
4. The original form of the Shimei story in the LXX and the
significance of 3 Reg. 2: 35ab
A. As the Shimei narrative itself does not suggest a clear reason why
the passage of David’s last will regarding Shimei should occur twice
within a fairly close distance, it is reasonable to assume that the
duplication of this text in the LXX is not original. Thus the Shimei
story must have entered the LXX either as the continuous narra-
tive presented by 3 Reg. 2: 35l–46 or in the shape of the two episodes
at 2: 8–9 and 36–46. Comparison with the arrangement of the
Shimei story in MT may lead us to believe that the latter possibil-
ity is the more likely of the two. However, even if the LXX in its
present form presents a counterpart of 1 Kgs. 2: 8–9 in corresponding
position, it is not certain whether these verses stood there from the
outset, since the translation unit bg, to which 3 Reg. 2: 8–9 belongs,
is part of a recension of the OG towards MT. In fact, several crit-
ics, Montgomery,17 Trebolle Barrera,18 and Schenker,19 argue that
3 Reg. 2: 8–9 did not occur in the OG at all. These scholars agree
in considering the section 3 Reg. 2: 35l–46 to be the original form
of the Shimei narrative. Whereas Schenker believes that this section
forms an integral part of the LXX, Montgomery and Trebolle Barrera
take it to be part of a block of supplementary material that, in their
view, ranges from 3 Reg. 2: 35a unto 46l. Among themselves,
Montgomery and Trebolle Barrera hold contrasting opinions as to
the antiquity of the arrangement of the supplement and in particu-
lar of the Shimei story in 3 Reg. 2: 35a–46l. Whereas the former
considers it to be secondary to that of MT in every respect, the lat-
ter assumes that it goes back to a Hebrew Vorlage reflecting a tex-
tual stage anterior to MT.
Montgomery and Trebolle Barrera approach the question of the
Shimei story in the context of the discussion of the composition and
genesis of ch. 2 in MT and the LXX as a whole. Both regard 3
Reg. 2: 35ab,20 a note not represented in MT, as an important indi-
17 Montgomery, “Supplement”, 124–26; J.A. Montgomery, “The Year Eponymatein the Hebrew Monarchy”, JBL 49 (1930), 311–19, esp. 312–13, n. 4.
18 Trebolle Barrera, Salomón y Jeroboán, 250–55.19 Schenker, Septante, 81.20 The numbering is mine; see the synopsis at page 47. In order to avoid con-
fusion with Misc. I numbered vv. 35a–k, Greek letters have been used to designatethe component parts of v. 35 proper.
46 chapter three
cation for the supplementary character of 3 Reg. 2: 35a–46l. Other
scholars, like Noth and Burney, also recognize the importance of 3
Reg. 2: 35ab for reconstructing the literary history of ch. 2. Before
discussing the views of Montgomery and Trebolle Barrera, we will
consider the note at 3 Reg. 2: 35ab more closely.
B. 3 Reg. 2: 35ab constitutes one of several allusions to the estab-
lishment of Solomon’s kingship occurring in ch. 2. The distribution
of these notes over the chapter is somewhat different in 1 Kings and
3 Regum:
12b ka‹ ≤toimãsyh ≤ basile¤a aÈtoË sfÒdra .dôaom] wtokul]m' ˆKàoTiw" 12b
24a ka‹ nËn zª kÊriow hŸw:hy“Ayj' hT%;['w“ 24a˘w ≤to¤mas°n me ynIn"y%kih‘ rv¢,a}ka‹ ¶yetÒ me yŸnIb'~yviwYêów"
§p‹ tÚn yrÒnon Dauid toË patrÒw mou yb+ia; dw∞ID: aŸSeKiAl['
35ab ka‹ ≤ basile¤a katvryoËto §n Ierousalhm –
45b ka‹ ı yrÒnow Dauid ¶stai ßtoimow ˆw i èkon: hy è ,h]yI dwI$d; aS¢ekiw“ 45b§n≈pion kur¤ou efiw tÚn afi«na .μôl;/[Ad[' h£w:hy“ ynèEp]li
– .hômolov]Aly"B] hn:wko`n: hkà;l;m]M'h'w“ 46b
The notes not occurring in portions of direct speech are each posi-
tioned where one section of the narrative gives way to another.
Following the report of David’s death, 1 Kgs. 2: 12b marks the
beginning of Solomon’s reign as an independent king, 3 Reg. 2:
35ab marks the end of the purge of the Adonijah-faction, and
1 Kgs. 2: 46b concludes the account of the elimination of enemies
and opponents of Solomon and his father. The two notes last men-
tioned each constitute a plus in one witness against the other. Wevers
interpreted one of these, v. 35ab, as an addition to the LXX intent
on underlining Solomon’s position.21 However, in MT a note cor-
responding to 3 Reg. 2: 35ab occurs at v. 46b.22 Apparently, dybhmlç of MT v. 46b appeared as (or was read as) μlçwryb in the
21 Wevers, “Exegetical Principles”, 307.22 Thus Burney, Notes, 25; Hrozn , Abweichungen, 29; Montgomery, “Supplement”,
124; Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 64; Trebolle Barrera, Salomón y Jeroboán, 251 =“Testamento”, 99; differently Noth, Könige, 37; Schenker, Septante, 38, 42.
the duplication of 3 reg. 2: 8‒9 at 35l‒o 47
Hebrew source of v. 35ab.23 The verb occurring in v. 35ab, kato-ryoun, is unique to 3 Regum, yet its linkage with ˆwkn (ˆwk Niphal)
is firmly established by the concordance. The fact that elsewhere in
3 Regum the Niphal and Hiphil of ˆwk are translated by words of
the root htoim- does not necessarily imply that v. 35ab originates
with a different translator.24
The placement of v. 35ab deserves particular notice. The formula
“The kingdom was established in Jerusalem” makes an appropriate
conclusion of the section dealing with the elimination of the Adonijah-
faction (3 Reg. 2: 12–35). It is immediately followed by the state-
ment at v. 35b that Solomon appointed Zadok as (high) priest in
place of Abiathar. This note parallels the note on the appointment
of Benaiah in v. 35a and is likewise to be considered part of the
narrative on the elimination of Adonijah and his accomplices. Thus
it seems as if the concluding formula of v. 35ab comes too early:
35a ka‹ ¶dvken ı basileÁw |eËl,M⁄,h' ˆTŸeYIw" 35atÚn Banaiou uflÚn Ivdae [ i èd:y:/hy“Aˆb, Whyé:n:B]Ata,ént' aÈtou wyT;j]T'§p‹ tØn strathg¤an ab-;X;h'Al['
35ab ka‹ ≤ basile¤a katvryoËto §n Ierousalhm –35b ka‹ tÚn Sadvk tÚn fler°a ˆheKoh' qwºdox;Ata,w 35b
¶dvken ı basileÁw Ël,M,+h' ˆt'¢n:efiw fler°a pr«ton –ént‹ Abiayar >rôt;y:b]a, tj'T'
Most scholars account for the peculiar position of v. 35ab by regard-
ing the note at v. 35b as a secondary addition modelled after
23 The reading hmlç dyb probably is the older one (thus also Burney, Notes, 25;Montgomery, “Supplement”, 124–25; Mulder, 1 Kings 1–11, 121; Noth, Könige, 7;Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 64–65; anda, Bücher der Könige, 43; differentlyKrautwurst, Studien, 172, n. 5; Schenker, Septante, 38–39). The question raised bythe narrative of ch. 2 is whether kingship will be established in the hands of Solomon,not whether it will be established in Jerusalem or in some other place. Recently,Schenker has argued for the originality of Jerusalem because, in his opinion, v. 35ab opens a section stretching to v. 45 that has Jerusalem as its dramatis locus.In my view, v. 35ab rather concludes the preceding section on the elimination ofSolomon’s political enemies: The verse states that the purge resulted in the con-solidation of Solomon’s kingship. To Schenker’s credit it should be admitted thathe is capable of assigning meaning to the reading “in Jerusalem” as it stands inthe LXX.
24 In this connection, reference could be made to 1 Par. 28: 7, where the phrasewtwklmAta ytwnykhw is rendered as kai katoryvsv thn basileian autou, whereasonly a few verses earlier ytwnykh was represented by htoimasa (v. 2).
48 chapter three
v. 35a.25 However, opinions differ as to whether the position of
v. 35ab at the end of the Adonijah section is more original than
that of 1 Kgs. 2: 46b at the end of the Shimei story. Various crit-
ics believe that 1 Kgs. 2: 46b is original because it marks the end
of the story of the Davidic succession,26 or because it is required as
an explanatory introduction to the announcement of 1 Kgs. 3: 1
that Solomon became the son-of-law of Pharaoh.27 Others, like Burney
and Trebolle Barrera, hold v. 35ab to be original because the estab-
lishment of Solomon’s kingdom is closely linked with the elimina-
tion of his enemies Adonijah and Joab.28 Noth, too, believes that v.
35ab predates v. 46b, but on the ground that the concluding for-
mula is so inappropriately placed before the Shimei story vv. 36–46
that it cannot result from editorial intervention but must derive from
a branch of Hebrew textual tradition different from MT.29 In Noth’s
view, the concluding notices at 2: 12b, 2: 35ab (preserved only in
the LXX) and 2: 46b (preserved only in MT) correspond to subse-
quent stages of the literary history of ch. 2, in which the supple-
ments 2: 13–35 and 2: 36–46 were added successively.30 Only after
v. 35b was appended to v. 35ab did the tradition from which MT
evolved drop the latter note because of the concluding formula in
v. 46b.31
We will resume the question of the text-historical relation between
3 Reg. 2: 35ab and 1 Kgs. 2: 46b in a later stage, when dealing
with the transition between chs. 2 and 3 of 3 Regum. First, we will
discuss the views of Montgomery and Trebolle Barrera, which both
assign to 3 Reg. 2: 35ab a prominent place in their efforts to recon-
struct the textual and compositional history of 3 Regum 2.
25 Thus Burney, Notes, 25; Montgomery, “Supplement”, 124; id., “Year Eponymate”,313, n. 4; Noth, Könige, 37; Trebolle Barrera, Salomón y Jeroboán, 253.
26 I. Benzinger, Die Bücher der Könige (KHC 9), Freiburg 1899, 14; Gray, Kings,20, 110; B.O. Long, 1 Kings (FOTL 9), Grand Rapids 1984, 47–48, 57; Würthwein,Erste Buch der Könige, 25.
27 See in particular anda, Bücher der Könige, 43, and Stade-Schwally, Books ofKings, 65, 71–72; also D.A. Glatt-Gilad, “The Deuteronomistic Critique of Solomon:A Response to Marvin A. Sweeney”, JBL 116 (1997), 700–703, esp. 701, n. 4;Hrozn , Abweichungen, 20; R. Kittel, Die Bücher der Könige (HK 1,5), Göttingen 1900,24; Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 101–102; B. Porten, “The Structure and Themeof the Solomon Narrative (1 Kings 3–11)”, HUCA 38 (1967), 93–128, esp. 124.
28 Burney, Notes, 23; Trebolle Barrera, Salomón y Jeroboán, 254.29 Noth, Könige, 7–8, 10.30 Noth, Könige, 11.31 Noth, Könige, 37.
the duplication of 3 reg. 2: 8‒9 at 35l‒o 49
C. Montgomery takes the view that the Greek translation of what
was once 2 Regum originally ended with 2: 35ab. The book did
not contain a rendering of the Shimei story at 1 Kgs. 2: 8–9 and
2: 36–46. This was omitted altogether “because of its unimportance
or for its brutality”, or the first act, David’s legacy, was omitted “so
that the whole story might be told as a unit at a later point.” The
Shimei story at 3 Reg. 2: 35l–46 entered the text of 2 Regum as
part of a large supplement which a later hand inscribed on spare
folios at the end of the volume. This supplement comprised:
1. Misc. I stretching from the note on Zadok at 3 Reg. 2: 35b up
to 2: 35k.
2. The two acts of the Shimei story at 3 Reg. 2: 35l–o and 2: 36–46,
respectively.
3. Misc. II at 3 Reg. 2: 46a–l.
The first act of the Shimei story in 3 Reg. 2: 8–9 is even later than
vv. 35l–o, because it lacks the marks of the older Greek translator
which characterize the latter passage. In Montgomery’s view, it was
secondarily inserted into ch. 2 to square with MT 1 Kgs. 2: 8–9.32
As Gooding has pointed out, this theory on the background of
the textual arrangement in 3 Reg. 2 raises several problems. First,
Montgomery leaves unresolved whether the Miscellanies were trans-
lated by the translator of the Shimei story or by others and whether
the hand(s) who translated the supplement was (were) also responsi-
ble for its insertion in 2 Regum.33 Second, Montgomery’s view pre-
sents a problem with respect to the identity of the translation at vv.
35l–o.34 Montgomery seems to accept Thackeray’s view that the bg-section is the work of a later translator who filled in the gaps between
the older Greek portions of 1 Reg. 1–2 Reg. 11: 1 and 3 Reg. 2:
12–21: 43 (Montgomery: 3 Reg. 3: 1–21: 43).35 Since, according to
Montgomery, the text at 3 Reg. 2: 35l–o supplements what was
found lacking in 2: 8–9, it is a logical assumption that that text was
32 Montgomery’s views have been adopted by A. Jepsen (Die Quellen des Königsbuches,Halle 19562, 11–12).
33 D.W. Gooding, “The Shimei Duplicate and its Satellite Miscellanies in 3 ReignsII”, JSSt 13 (1968), 76–92, esp. 81.
34 Gooding, “Shimei Duplicate”, 80.35 Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 20.
50 chapter three
translated, or at least inserted, subsequent to the translation of bg.Yet vv. 35l–o are considered to render the older Greek! Since
Montgomery holds that there never was an older Greek translation
of the textual portion covered by bg, it is difficult to see how a sup-
plement to bg could ever exhibit the older Greek. Third, there is
no evidence that originally the first part of the Shimei story at 2:
8–9 was not represented in the LXX. All manuscripts, including
those attesting the Ant. text, represent the passage. Fourth, Montgo-
mery’s claim that bg originally ended at 2: 35ab ignores indications
of a changing translation technique earlier in the chapter.36 Thackeray,
Barthélemy and Shenkel are able to connect these indications with
a shift of translation units between 3 Reg. 2: 11 and 12, but
Montgomery is not.
Faced with these difficulties, the hypothesis that the entire Shimei
story at 2: 35l–46 was part of a large supplement at the end of the
bg-section does not hold.
D. Contrary to Montgomery, Trebolle Barrera believes that the LXX
witnesses to a stage in the literary development of ch. 2 that is ante-
rior to what is represented by MT. Trebolle agrees with Burney and
Noth that v. 35ab is an ancient concluding formula to which the
Shimei story in vv. 36–46 was appended in a subsequent stage of
literary growth.37 However, Trebolle does not share the view of
Burney and Noth that the portions between 3 Reg. 2: 35a and 46l
which are not matched there by MT are subsequent to it. In Trebolle’s
opinion, the entire supplement through 3 Reg. 2: 35a–46l goes back
to a Hebrew original reflecting an earlier textual stage than MT.
This original consisted of a compilation of fragmentary Hebrew texts,
including the undivided Shimei story. The text of 1 Kgs. 2: 35–46,
on the other hand, presents a redactional reworking that is charac-
teristic of the “proto-rabbinical” text type. Thus while 3 Reg. 2 pre-
serves the original unity of the Shimei story, the proto-rabbinical
tradition split the narrative up in two parts. The first part, David’s
36 Note the change in rendering of the following Hebrew words occurring through-out 3 Reg. 2: ykna = egv eimi at 2: 2 (Ant. manuscripts: egΔ) over against egΔ at2: 16, 18, 20 (cf. Barthélemy, Devanciers, 72); abx(h) rç = arxvn (thw) dunamevw at1: 19, 25; 2: 5 (Ant. manuscripts: arxistrathgow) over against arxistrathgow at2: 32 (two times) (cf. Shenkel, Chronology, 114).
37 Trebolle Barrera, Salomón y Jeroboán, esp. 250–55, 367–69.
the duplication of 3 reg. 2: 8‒9 at 35l‒o 51
last will regarding Shimei, was placed within the frame of David’s
testament (1 Kgs. 2: 1b–9), the second part was left in its original
position (1 Kgs. 2: 36–46). It follows that in MT 1 Kgs. 2: 8–9 is
not original. Having arrived at this conclusion, Trebolle Barrera
draws attention to another issue of relevance for the text-historical
analysis of 3 Reg. 2, namely the literary history of David’s Testament
through 1 Kgs. 2: 1b–9.
Several critics have argued that David’s Testament does not link
up smoothly with the narrative context.38 Thus the correlation between
David’s last will and the account of its realization has been found
wanting in some respects, and the picture of a dying king taking
interest in political affairs hard to reconcile with the image of the
half-senile king that emerges in ch. 1. This argument, combined with
the indisputably Deuteronomistic origin of vv. 2–4, led Noth to con-
clude that “der ganze Abschitt 2: 1b–9 wahrscheinlich nicht zum
Grundbestand der Erzählung zu rechnen [ist].” This assessment may
seem to get support from an intriguing phenomenon in the textual
tradition of this paragraph to which Trebolle Barrera has called
attention.
As has already been pointed out, in the translation units of 1–4
Regum where the majority manuscripts represent the Kaige recension,
the Ant. text in its proto-Lucianic substratum basically coincides with
the older Greek. This circumstance renders the Ant. text an important
textual witness. In 3 Reg. 2: 1, 10, the Ant. text reveals an inter-
esting difference with MT and the Kaige text. The following scheme
compares Kaige, represented here by LXX B, and the Ant. text:
LXX B Ant. text1a ka‹ §g°neto metå taËta
1a ka‹ ≥ggisan afl ≤m°raiDauid époyane›n aÈtÒn ka‹ ép°yane Dauid
ka‹ §koimÆyhmetå t«n pat°rvn aÈtoË
1b ka‹ épekr¤nato 1b ka‹ §nete¤latoSalvmvn ufl“ aÈtoË t“ ufl“ aÈtoË Solom«nti
¶mprosyen toË yanãtou aÈtoËl°gvn l°gvn
38 Noth, Könige, 9; Gray, Kings, 21–22; Würthwein, Erste Buch der Könige, 8–9.
52 chapter three
2–9 David’s testament 2–9 David’s testament10 ka‹ §koimÆyh Dauid 10 ka‹ koimçtai Dauid
metå t«n pat°rvn aÈtoË metå t«n pat°rvn aÈtoËka‹ §tãfh §n pÒlei Dauid ka‹ §tãfh §n tª pÒlei Dauid
The Ant. text of v. 1 is beset by several difficulties which do not
arise in MT and the Kaige text. The two expressions used to desig-
nate David’s death, “to die” (twm) and “to sleep with his fathers”
(wytwbaAμ[ bbç), are nowhere juxtaposed in Kings but here. Moreover,
the latter expression is repeated in v. 10, so that David’s death is
announced three times in total. Trebolle argues that, since the Kaige
text and MT in vv. 1–10 present a perfectly coherent account, it
does not make sense to explain the Ant. text of v. 1 as a composi-
tion based on MT and its (Kaige) translation.39 The fact that the Ant.
text of v. 1 can be easily retroverted to Hebrew opens the possibil-
ity that it represents a reading that is anterior to MT. In Trebolle’s
opinion, this text has preserved traces of the process of literary growth
which have been eliminated in MT. First, the double occurrence of
the phrase “and he (David) slept with his fathers” in v. 1a and
v. 10 is an instance of Wiederaufnahme indicating that the account at
the end of v. 1a was interrupted by a later insertion comprising the
entire testament of David (vv. 1b–9). Second, the peculiar juxta-
position of the two expressions designating death in v. 1a is to be
explained from the forced combination of material from different lit-
erary background. The expression “to sleep with his fathers” (bkçwytwbaAμ[) in v. 1a is a typical element of the concluding formulae
of the reigns of individual kings in the book of Kings, so that its
appropriate literary ambiance is the concluding formulae to David’s
reign in vv. 10–11. The other expression referring to David’s death,
twm, is normal of historical narratives and prophetic legends. Trebolle
proposes that the part of v. 1a containing this expression originally
continued in v. 12: “It happened after these things that David died.
(v. 12) And Solomon took his seat upon the throne of David his
father and his kingship was firmly established.” This passage, thought
to be part of the original “History of David’s succession”, was dis-
rupted when the concluding formulae to David’s reign at vv. 10–11
were inserted. A next literary stage saw the intrusion of David’s tes-
tament at vv. 1b–9, which was accompanied by the Wiederaufnahme
39 Thus already A. Rahlfs (Septuaginta-Studien I–III, Göttingen 19652, [643–44]).
the duplication of 3 reg. 2: 8‒9 at 35l‒o 53
of the phrase “he (David) slept with his fathers” and by consider-
able reworking of v. 1. The text of David’s testament adopted older
elements, like the first part of the Shimei story in vv. 8–9. When
the proto-rabbinical tradition divided the continuous narrative as rep-
resented by 3 Reg. 2: 35l–46 between 3 Reg. 2: 8–9 and 36–46, it
used the original introduction to the narrative, reflected by the Greek
of 3 Reg. 2: 35la, as a model for the introduction of the testament
in v. 1b.40
Trebolle’s view on the genesis of David’s testament is intriguing.
He is certainly right in calling attention to the Ant. reading of 3
Reg. 2: 1, since it is hardly possible to see this verse as a revision
of a Greek text corresponding with Kaige/MT. On the one hand,
the Ant. text of v. 1 does not exhibit the kind of difference that
leads us to think of it as a revision intent on changing content or
chronology. On the other hand, it is out of the question to see this
text as a stylistically motivated revision, since the unnecessary and
unusual repetitions of the announcement of David’s death in v. 1
and v. 10 render it stylistically inferior to MT. By contrast, the text
form represented by MT could well be explained as a revision of a
Hebrew text underlying the Ant. text of 3 Reg. 2: 1 that was meant
to change order and style of the latter. Moreover, the type of rep-
etition occurring in the Ant. text of 3 Reg. 2: 1 and 10, the so-
called Wiederaufnahme, is a well-known device accompanying the
insertion of texts and as such it makes the impression of being an
authentic relic of the formative process underlying David’s Testament.
However, Trebolle’s claim that it was the proto-Masoretic tradi-
tion that was responsible for transposing the first part of the Shimei
narrative to David’s testament is confusing. It would imply that the
Ant. text reflects a proto-Masoretic redaction in 2: 1–9 and follows
the non-Masoretic tradition in retaining the original unity of the
Shimei narrative in 2: 35l–46. This picture is difficult to reconcile
with the strict distinction Trebolle makes between the “tipo textual
masorético” and the “tipo textual no-masorético” of the OG that is
(basically) witnessed by the Ant. texts.
In my opinion, the circumstance that the Ant. text of 3 Reg.
2: 1 provides vital indications for the secondary nature of David’s
40 That is to say, the Hebrew text underlying the Ant. text of 3 Reg. 2: 1b, wxywwtwm ynpl wnb hmlç ta, was modelled after the Hebrew Vorlage of v. 35la, dwd dw[brmal hmlç ta hwx yj.
54 chapter three
testament does not need to imply that the continuous narrative in
2: 35l–46 presents the original form of the Shimei story. It may well
be that the two parts of the story, 2: 8–9 and 36–46, were inserted
simultaneously or even successively, as Noth contends, into an older
narrative and that 2: 35l–o were added even later in the tradition
underlying the OG.
5. The transition from ch. 2 to ch. 3 in 3 Regum
Whatever the earliest form of the Shimei narrative may have been,
the view that the materials between 1 Kgs./3 Reg. 2: 35 and 3: 1
represent a supplement or appendix to the previous text accords well
with the appearance of a note of an obviously concluding character
at 3 Reg. 2: 35ab. Critics have adduced a few arguments why the
position of this note would be more original than that of the cor-
responding note at 1 Kgs. 2: 46b. However, in the scholarly debate
up to now, one relevant issue has not received due attention. It con-
cerns the transition from ch. 2 to ch. 3 in 3 Regum. The following
scheme visualizes the drastic differences between 1 Kings and 3
Regum that occur near the boundary between the two chapters:
41 The omission of the first part of v. 2 plhn o laow hsan in LXX B a2 is cer-tainly due to some mishap in the process of copying (cf. Krautwurst, Studien, 311).
the duplication of 3 reg. 2: 8‒9 at 35l‒o 55
1 Kings 3 Regum
2: 36–46 Second act of Shimei 2: 36–46 Second act of Shimei narrative narrative
2: 46b “And the kingdom was established in the handsof Solomon.”
2: 46a–k Misc. II2: 46l “Solomon the son of
David was king overIsrael and Judah in Jerusalem.”
3: 1 Solomon’s marriagewith the daughter of Pharaoh
3: 2 “Only the people were 3: 2 “Only the people sacrificing were41 sacrificing
at the high places at the high placesfor there was no house for there was no house built for the name of built for the name of YHWH in those days. the Lord until now.
3: 3 And Solomon loved 3: 3 And Solomon loved theYHWH, Lord,walking in the statutes walking in the statutesof David his father; of David his father;only he was sacrificing only he was sacrificingand burning incense and burning incenseat the high places.” at the high places.”
First, 3 Reg. 2: 46l, numbered as the last paragraph of Misc. II,
requires notice:
Salvmvn uflÚw Dauid §bas¤leusen §p‹ Israhl ka‹ Iouda §n Ierousalhm
A comparable note occurs in 3 Reg. 4: 1:
Ka‹ ∑n ı basileÁw Salvmvn basileÊvn §p‹ Israhl
In view of the fact that these notes present words of similar import,
the formal differences between them are the more conspicuous. A
few formal features that are not shared by 4: 1 reveal the true nature
of the note at v. 46l. With regard to structure, v. 46l resembles cer-
tain introductory regnal formulae in 3 and 4 Regum which open
with the subject.42 It shows particular affinity with the following for-
mulae in 3 Regum:
22: 52 Ka‹ Oxoziaw ÍiÚw Axaab §bas¤leusen §p¤ Israhl §n Samare¤& §n ®tei •ptakaidekãtƒ Ivsafat basile› Iouda
16: 8 Ka‹ Hla uflÚw Baasa §bas¤leusen §p‹ IsrahldÊo ¶th §n Yersa
One regular component of the introductory formulae, i.e., the name
of the capital, is also found in v. 46l. On the other hand, v. 46l
lacks what is to be considered the standard element of the intro-
ductory formulae in Kings/Regum, namely a reference to the length
of reign of the king under consideration.43 The absence of a chrono-
logical note contradicts Jepsen’s view that v. 46l is the original intro-
42 See 3 Reg. 14: 21; 15: 25; 16: 8, 15; 22: 41, 52; 4 Reg. 3: 1; 15: 13.43 Also Krautwurst, Studien, 285.
56 chapter three
ductory formula of Solomon’s reign which has been lost in MT.44
The striking parallel with the first part of 1 Kgs. 22: 52 rather sug-
gests that v. 46l seeks to imitate the rough pattern of the introduc-
tory formula without adopting all its basic constituents. This leads
us to think of it as a secondary, editorial, creation.
Why has this note been placed at the juncture of chs. 2 and 3?
Gooding interprets its position in connection with Misc. II by which
it is preceded. Whereas several verses in Misc. II, namely 46b, f and
k, deal with Solomon’s rule abroad, v. 46l speaks of Solomon’s rule
at home, “over Israel and Judah in Jerusalem.” Since the ensuing
narrative section in 3 Regum 3 deals exclusively with domestic
affairs—3 Regum does not contain the note on Solomon’s marriage
of 1 Kgs. 3: 1–v. 46l would make a fitting introduction to it. Though
this explanation is by no means implausible, I believe the main
ground for the presence of v. 46l must be sought in its configuration
with the immediately following verses. In the LXX, 3 Reg. 2: 46l
is immediately followed by 3: 2–3. The latter passage comprises a
theological appraisal of Solomon in v. 3a surrounded by notes on
the worship of people and king at the so-called high places (v. 2
and v. 3b, respectively). Now theological judgments similar to v. 3a
appear throughout the book of Kings as standard elements of the
regnal accounts of individual kings. Their usual position is immedi-
ately after the introductory formulae. They are often followed by
notes on the king’s policy regarding the high places. The sequence
at 3 Reg. 2: 46l–3: 2, 3 roughly conforms to this standard order,
even though the appearance of a notice on the high places prior to
the actual theological appraisal in v. 3a deviates from the pattern.
Against this background it is well conceivable that the presence
of v. 46l has something to do with the fact that the LXX lacks ren-
derings of 1 Kgs. 2: 46b and 3: 1 in a parallel position. V. 46l may
have been prefixed to 3 Reg. 3: 2–3 to imitate the usual pattern of
the regnal formulae. Since the actual account of Solomon’s rule does
not start until ch. 3 (ch. 2 having dealt with the aftermath of Solomon’s
accession and David’s legacy), the fact that the introductory formula
appears only at 3 Reg. 2: 46l is explicable from the overall struc-
ture of the Solomon Narrative.
There is a possibility that another factor may also have played a
44 Jepsen, Quellen, 13; also Trebolle Barrera, Salomón y Jeroboán, 297.
the duplication of 3 reg. 2: 8‒9 at 35l‒o 57
part in the editor’s decision to insert v. 46l. In MT and the LXX
alike, v. 2 opens with: “Only the people were sacrificing at the high
places.” Similar clauses are used elsewhere in Kings to restrict or
qualify the favourable theological judgments on a few Judean kings:
“He did what is right in the eyes of YHWH, only the high places
did not disappear, the people were still sacrificing and burning incense
on the high places.”45 It is unclear, however, why the note regard-
ing the worship of the people takes the form of a restriction or
qualification in 1 Kgs. 3: 2. As it seems, there is nothing in the pre-
ceding note on Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter that
may occasion the use of the restrictive adverb qr in v. 2. Neither
a contrast nor a tension can be perceived between Solomon’s treat-
ment of Pharaoh’s daughter and his religious policy to permit the
use of the high places. In the LXX, on the other hand, the restric-
tive clause in 3 Reg. 3: 2 links up with 2: 46l. In view of this con-
nection, the restriction at v. 2 may intend to express that Solomon,
in spite of his kingship over Israel and Judah, did not interfere with
the people’s forbidden cult at the high places. Why he did not do
so, then, is explained in the second part of the verse: The people
could not be blamed for worshipping at the high places since the
temple had not yet been built.
Now there are some interesting agreements between 3 Reg. 2: 46l
and the note in 1 Kgs. 2: 46b (cf. 3 Reg. 2: 35ab) that may sug-
gest that the former note was meant to replace the latter. First, both
3 Reg. 2: 46l and 2: 35ab conclude with the phrase en Ierousalhm.
Second, 3 Reg. 2: 46l and 1 Kgs. 2: 46b hold similar positions in
the Solomon Narrative, since they appear immediately preceding the
actual account of Solomon’s rule. It may be argued that 1 Kgs. 2:
46b forms a more strict division between the account of Solomon’s
accession in ch. 2 and the story of Solomon’s reign in chs. 3–10
than 3 Reg. 2: 46l, due to the absence of Misc. II from 1 Kings.
However, it is by no means impossible that 3 Reg. 2: 46l predates
Misc. II, so that the two notes once may have held comparable posi-
tions.46 Third, it is quite possible that the note at 1 Kgs. 2: 46b was
45 This type of formulaic notice is found at 2 Kgs. 12: 3; 14: 3; 15: 3, 34. Cf.also 1 Kgs. 3: 3. See further H. Weippert, “Die ‘deuteronomistischen’ Beurteilungender Könige von Israel und Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Königsbücher”,Bib. 53 (1972), 301–39, esp. 308, 310–11.
46 Whether v. 46l is simultaneous with the preceding Misc. II is difficult to ascer-
58 chapter three
actually meant to be understood as an introduction to 3: 1.47 In that
case, 3 Reg. 2: 46l and 1 Kgs. 2: 46b do not only exhibit agree-
ments regarding form and position, but also regarding function.
The aspect of function also provides us with a plausible reason
why the note at 1 Kgs. 2: 46b would have been replaced by a note
like 3 Reg. 2: 46l. It is conceivable that some editor decided to sub-
stitute v. 46b by an introductory formula better conforming to the
standard introductory formulae that occur throughout Kings. Probably
this editor had a Hebrew text of 1 Kgs. 2: 46b at his disposal that
read μlçwryb instead of hmlç dyb. He adopted the reference to
Jerusalem when he created v. 46l because he found use to it in his
effort to imitate the standard introductory regnal formula. Subsequently,
he moved the Hebrew text of v. 46b to v. 35ab, where it was duly
translated by the LXX as kai h basileia katvryouto en Ierousalhm.
At this point we should make a distinction between the motive
for the removal of v. 46b from its context and the motive for the
transposition of this note to 2: 35ab. The editor may have found
that the note on the establishment of Solomon’s kingship in Jerusalem
was more appropriately placed in 2: 35ab, i.e., after the episode
recounting the execution of those who once contested Solomon’s
legitimate kingship, than between the Shimei story and the regnal
account of Solomon. May be a concern for the proper position of
this note was the principal, or even the only, motive for the editor
to transpose it to 2: 35ab. In that case, there is less ground to suspect
tain. At least there is no apparent reason to interpret v. 46l as a structurally inte-gral part of Misc. II (contra Gooding, Relics, 23–26). The sober statement of v. 46lthat Solomon reigned as king over Israel and Judah in Jerusalem does not link upwell with the preceding description of the extent of Solomon’s dominion (vv. 46b,c, d, f, and k), and the grandeur and blessing of his kingship (vv. 46a, b, e, g, i).The sudden designation of Solomon as “Solomon son of David” in v. 46l has noclear purpose in the context of Misc. II but is appropriate in the context of anintroduction to a new section. In fact, the editions of Rahlfs and Brooke-McLeantake the verse to be an introduction to the following (see also Krautwurst, Studien,211–12, 286).
47 Syntactically, v. 46b could be interpreted as a circumstantial clause aimed atdescribing “the situation which made it possible for Solomon to become the son-in-law of Pharaoh” (Mulder, 1 Kings 1–11, 129; cf. Joüon-Muraoka, § 159d). Evidencethat scribes, exegetes, and translators of the Hellenistic-Roman age actually took 1 Kgs. 2: 46b as an introductory note to the following statement in 3: 1 is sup-plied by Josephus’ paraphrase of the passage at Jewish Ant. VIII, 21, and by theHexaplaric translation (manuscripts A x) of 1 Kgs. 2: 46b as a genitivus absolutusdependent on 3: 1 (cf. Krautwurst, Studien, 288).
the duplication of 3 reg. 2: 8‒9 at 35l‒o 59
that the presence of v. 46l and the absence of a representation of
1 Kgs. 2: 46b in parallel position are related phenomena in the
LXX.
We cannot say with confidence why the note in 2: 35ab has been
placed before the note on the appointment of Zadok rather than
after it, that is, at the very end of the section on Solomon’s purge
of his opponents. Perhaps the editor wished to create the literary
figure of an inclusio (v. 35a: appointment of Benaiah in place of Joas;
v. 35ab: Solomon’s kingdom established; v. 35b: appointment of
Zadok in place of Abiathar).
6. Conclusion
This chapter departed from the hypothesis that a shift in book divi-
sion from 3 Reg. 1: 1 to 2: 12 prompted the duplication of the first
episode of the Shimei narrative of 2: 8–9 preceding the second
episode in 2: 36–46. Two phenomena were found to be potentially
threatening to the initial hypothesis, namely the somewhat uncertain
provenance of 2: 8–9 in the OG as witnessed by the Ant. manu-
scripts and the unified character of the “supplement” through 3 Reg.
2: 35a–46l. The preceding examination has shown that these phe-
nomena in the main do not invalidate the initial hypothesis. Whereas
the textual evidence of the Ant. version of 3 Reg. 2: 1–9 fails to
prove the secondary nature of vv. 8–9 over against the full Shimei
narrative in 3 Reg. 2: 35l–46, the features responsible for the sup-
plementary character of 3 Reg. 2: 35–46l can be satisfactorily attrib-
uted to editorial intervention. This applies to all of the major differences
between MT and the LXX: 1. The position of the concluding note
in 3 Reg. 2: 35ab versus 1 Kgs. 2: 46b; 2. The arrangement of
3 Reg. 2: 46l–3: 3 versus the arrangement of 1 Kgs. 2: 46b–3: 3;
3. The presence of the Miscellanies.
Yet it proved difficult to determine the connection between vv.
35l–o and other elements of the “supplement” in terms of relative
chronology. The notes in 3 Reg. 2: 35ab and 2: 46l, which are
probably interrelated, could not be linked to the episode in vv. 35l–o.
Nor did it prove possible to link vv. 35l–o to the miscellaneous mate-
rial in vv. 35a–k and 46a–k, respectively. The differences are so con-
siderable—the episode through vv. 35l–o repeats an earlier passage;
its literary genre is narration rather than description; it does not fall
60 chapter three
outside the chronological framework of the Solomon Narrative as
the Miscellanies do; it does not exhibit any trace of midrashic exe-
gesis—that there is good reason to doubt if vv. 35l–o are simulta-
neous with the two Miscellanies.
While a Hebrew origin might be considered for all elements of
the “supplement”, only in the case of 3 Reg. 2: 35l–o are there con-
crete though slight indications that these verses go back to a Hebrew
basis in corresponding position. This may suggest that the beginning
of the translation unit gg in 3 Reg. 2: 12 coincides with a book divi-
sion in the Hebrew Vorlage.
the duplication of 3 reg. 2: 8‒9 at 35l‒o 61
CHAPTER FOUR
THE ARRANGEMENT OF MATERIALS RELATING TO
PHARAOH’S DAUGHTER IN MT AND THE LXX
1. Introduction
In the Solomon Narrative of MT altogether five references to the
daughter of Pharaoh are found: at 1 Kgs. 3: 1; 7: 8; 9: 16, 24;
11: 1. These notes also appear in the Solomon Narrative of 3 Regum,
but three of them hold positions that are radically different from
that of their MT counterparts. In addition, two notes are duplicated
in the so-called Misc. I, so that the total number of verses making
reference to Pharaoh’s daughter in 3 Regum is seven. Between cor-
responding notes of MT and the LXX several word variations occur,
some of which seem to be connected with the different positions
held by these notes. This state of affairs leads us to ask two ques-
tions. First, in what sense, and to what extent, do the various
differences regarding position, context and wording between the cor-
responding sets of notes on Pharaoh’s daughter in the LXX and
MT affect their purport? Second, what is the most probable text-
historical relationship that can be concluded from an evaluation of
the differences? In order to deal with these issues in a convenient
way, we divide the material on Pharaoh’s daughter in three categories:
1. The notes on the accommodation of Pharaoh’s daughter in 1
Kings and in the main text of 3 Regum.
2. The notes on Solomon’s dowry in 1 Kings and in the main text
of 3 Regum.
3. The notes on the accommodation of Pharaoh’s daughter in Misc. I.
2. The materials on the accommodation of Pharaoh’s daughter in
1 Kings and the main text of 3 Regum
1 Kgs. 3: 1 states that Solomon, when he became the son-in-law of
Pharaoh, put the daughter of the Egyptian king in the City of David
until he had finished the construction of his palace, the temple and
the wall of Jerusalem—in that order. The wording implies that once
the aforementioned buildings were finished Pharaoh’s daughter
left the City of David. Indeed, after the report of the construction
and the dedication of palace and temple—no mention is made of
the city wall—a note appears at 1 Kgs. 9: 24 saying that Pharaoh’s
daughter came up from the City of David to the palace that Solomon
had built for her. Since what the former note has hinted at is explic-
itly stated by the latter, these notes may be considered to make up
a pair.
The two notes have in common that they stand as more or less
solitary passages in their respective contexts. The subject matter of
1 Kgs. 3: 1, Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter, is not
prepared for by previous verses nor carried further by following ones.
The fact that the marriage might be seen as foreign recognition of
the consolidation of power in Solomon’s hands may provide a weak
link between the first part of 3: 1 and 2: 46b.1 The events to which
reference is made in the second half of the verse, the building of
the temple and the palace, are told only three chapters later, in chs.
6–7. Though the particle qr at the beginning of v. 2 implies a link
with the preceding verse, there is no evident logical connection
between v. 1 and v. 2.
1 Kgs. 9: 24 neither shows an obvious relation to its textual envi-
ronment. The verses preceding and following this passage deal with
widely different issues. The meaning of the introductory particle ˚ais nebulous, but it certainly does not indicate a logical connection
with the preceding verse.2 From the perspective of content, the explicit
reference to the construction of the temple, Solomon’s palace and
the wall of Jerusalem in 1 Kgs. 9: 15 recalls 1 Kgs. 3: 1. It may
thus prepare the way for the note on Pharaoh’s daughter, but this
link is not conspicuous since there are eight verses between 9: 15
and 24. The summarizing and consequently chronologically indefinite
character of these eight verses prevents us from relating the chronol-
ogy of the removal of Solomon’s daughter in v. 24 to information
from the context.
The best explanation for the position of the notes at 1 Kgs. 3: 1
and 9: 24 is supplied by an overall analysis of the structure of the
1 See discussion on pages 55–60.2 See page 68.
pharaoh’s daughter in mt and the lxx 63
Solomon Narrative. A number of critics have argued that the passages
1 Kgs. 3: 1–3 (4) and 9: 24–25 run parallel and function as formal
markers in the narrative.3 What kind of structure is exactly implied
by the parallelism is a moot point among scholars, but there is good
reason to believe that the notes were placed in their present position
in an effort to arrange materials concentrically around the temple-
account. Since the position of the note on Solomon’s worship at the
high places (3: 2–3) is more or less fixed as the introduction to the
narrative of the dream epiphany at Gibeon, this note is likely to
have acted as the basis upon which the parallel structure was built.
We now turn to the LXX. The pair of notes at 1 Kgs. 3: 1 and 9:
24 is matched by two sets of notes in 3 Regum. The parallel mate-
rials in MT and the LXX are laid out in three columns:
3 See pages 277–78.
64 chapter four
3 Reg. 5: 14a 3 Reg. 2: 35cab 1 Kgs. 3: 1
mm+olov] ˆT¢ej't]YIw"μyIr-:x]mi Ël,m¢, h[or“P'Ata,
ka‹ ¶laben Salvmvn ka‹ ¶laben jQ¢ 'YIw"tØn yugat°ra Farav tØn yugat°ra Farav h[o$r“P'AtB'Ata,•aut“ efiw guna›kaka‹ efisÆgagen aÈtØn ka‹ efisÆgagen aÈtØn hŸ;a,Ÿybiy“w"efiw tØn pÒlin Dauid efiw tØn pÒlin Dauid dw±ID: ry[¢iAla,ßvw suntel°sai aÈtÚn ßvw suntel°sai aÈtÚn wto%LoK' d[¢'
twnOªb]litÚn o‰kon kur¤ouka‹ tÚn o‰kon •autoË tÚn o‰kon aÈtou wŸútyBeAta,
ka‹ tÚn o‰kon kur¤ou hw±:hy“ tyB¢eAta,w“§n pr≈toiw
ka‹ tÚ te›xow Ierousalhm ka‹ tÚ te›xow Ierousalhm μ£l'iv;Wry“ tmà'/jAta,w“kuklÒyen >bybâis;
3 Reg. 9: 9a 3 Reg. 2: 35fb 1 Kgs. 9: 24
tÒte énÆgagen Salvmvn oÏtvw yugãthr Farav h[o%r“P'AtB' Ëa¢'tØn yugat°ra Farav én°bainen hŸt;l]ô[;§k pÒlevw Dauid §k t∞w pÒlevw Dauid dw±ID: ry[¢imeefiw o‰kon aÈtoË efiw tÚn o‰kon aÈt∞w Ht;yBeAla,˘n ”kodÒmhsen •autƒ ˘n ”kodÒmhsen aÈtª Hl-;Ahn:ôB; rv¢,a}§n ta›w ≤m°raiw §ke¤naiw
tÒte ”kodÒmhsen tØn êkran >awôLoøMih'Ata, hnè:B; za;
The text portions printed in the first column appear in the main
text of 3 Regum, while the material in the second column forms
part of the so-called Misc. I at 3 Reg. 2: 35a–k.
Broadly speaking, the notes included in Misc. I are in closer agree-
ment with MT than those in the main text of 3 Regum (see below).
However, since the Greek translation of Kings as a whole is found
in the main text, the notes in 3 Reg. 5: 14a and 9: 9a are to be
taken as the primary counterparts to the MT notes.
3 Regum offers the counterparts of 1 Kgs. 3: 1 and 9: 24 in posi-
tions that establish a more intimate link with the episode of the con-
struction of temple and palace than the notes in 1 Kings.4 The
passage at 3 Reg. 5: 14a almost immediately precedes the account
of the building of the temple, that is to say, if the report of Solomon’s
negotiations with Hiram in 5: 15–32 is counted as its beginning.
The other note at 3 Reg. 9: 9a comes immediately after the report
of the second dream epiphany (3 Reg. 9: 1–9) which concludes the
account of the building and dedication of the temple.
Not only are the two notes in the LXX located nearer to the
account of the building of temple and palace than their counterparts
in MT, they also conform more strictly to it with regard to the order
in which they make reference to building activities. 1 Kgs. 3: 1 pre-
sents these building operations—palace, temple and city wall—in an
order that is different from the sequence observed in 1 Kgs. 6 and
7 where the construction of the temple precedes the construction of
the palace (1 Kgs. 6; 7: 1–12, respectively). By contrast, the order
presented in 3 Reg. 5: 14a is consonant with the order found in 3
Reg. 6–7 where the construction of the temple (and the manufac-
ture of the temple utensils) comes before the construction of the
palace (3 Reg. 6: 1–7: 37; 7: 38–50, respectively). As Gooding notes,
the position of 3 Reg. 5: 14a reflects a pedantically literal interpre-
tation of the sequence of events indicated in the same note: removal
4 There can be no doubt that the text of 3 Reg. 5: 14a is meant to match allof 1 Kgs. 3: 1. The former passage lacks a formal equivalent of the phrase “AndSolomon became the son-in-law of Pharaoh, the king of Egypt”, but it compen-sates for this omission by expanding kai elaben Salvmvn thn yugatera Farav, “andhe took Pharaoh’s daughter” with eautƒ eiw gunaika, “to wife”. This expansionforces an interpretation on the phrase “and he took Pharaoh’s daughter” which isnot evident from the diction of 1 Kgs. 3: 1b or 3 Reg. 2: 35c.
pharaoh’s daughter in mt and the lxx 65
of Pharaoh’s daughter—building of the temple (including preparatory
activities)—building of the palace.5
Particularly striking is the appearance of the time note “in those
days” in 3 Reg. 9: 9a, which lacks an equivalent in the MT coun-
terpart of 1 Kgs. 9: 24a. The expression refers to the time when
the events narrated in the preceding verses 1–9 took place, that is,
the time immediately following the completion of temple and palace
(see 3 Reg. 9: 1). In pinning down the time of the migration of
Pharaoh’s daughter very precisely to the completion of temple, palace
and city wall, 3 Reg. 9: 9a conforms strictly to 3 Reg. 5: 14a.
According to the latter note, Solomon put Pharaoh’s daughter in
the City of David until he had finished temple, palace and city wall.
The implication is that Pharaoh’s daughter was taken out of the City
of David once the aforementioned buildings were completed.6
It is also significant to find that the notes at 3 Reg. 5: 14a and
9: 9a exhibit greater formal correspondence than their MT coun-
terparts. This becomes clear when the following synopsis is studied:
5 Thus Gooding, “Problems of Text and Midrash”, 8–9.6 Gooding believes that the wording of 3 Reg. 9: 9a not only reflects a concern
for exact timetabling but also means to suggest that Solomon actually married thedaughter of Pharaoh on the occasion of her removal (Relics, 72–73). The passagewould be an early instance of the interpretation found in later Jewish exegesis thatSolomon married Pharaoh’s daughter only at, or after, the completion and dedi-cation of the temple. In support of this interpretation Gooding refers to the factthat 3 Reg. 9: 9a appears immediately after the divine warning of impending doomagainst Jerusalem through vv. 7–9. Jewish tradition asserted that it was at themoment when Solomon was being led astray by Pharaoh’s daughter that the inten-tion of destroying Jerusalem first entered God’s mind (“Misconduct”, 330). Thisview clearly overinterprets the LXX since 3 Regum as such does not supply theslightest hint on the basis of which 3 Reg. 9: 9:a could be understood as a refer-ence to Solomon’s marriage (cf. S.J.D. Cohen, “Solomon and the Daughter ofPharaoh: Intermarriage, Conversion, and the Impurity of Women”, JANES 16–17[1984–85], 23–37, esp. 29). On the contrary, the fact that 3 Reg. 5: 14a statesexplicitly that Solomon first took the daughter of Pharaoh to wife and then broughther into the City of David clearly precludes this understanding of 3 Reg. 9: 9a.
Like Gooding, Lefebvre (“Troisième livre des Règnes”, 94) sees a connectionbetween 9: 9a and the preceding verses. In his view, against the background of thereference to Israel’s exodus from Egypt (v. 9), the action of v. 9a becomes ques-tionable: “Le peuple sorti de la maison de servitude ne retourne-t-il pas à sonesclavage en s’allaint avec l’Egypte?” The connection, however, is highly associa-tive; the reference to the exodus of v. 9 serves to criticize Israel’s ingratitude towardsYHWH; as such, it does not entail criticism of Solomon’s alliance with Pharaoh.Yet the possibility cannot be excluded that criticism of Solomon is consciouslyimplied by the order of these verses in the LXX.
66 chapter four
3 Reg. 5: 14ab 3 Reg. 9: 9a
ka‹ efisÆgagen tÒte énÆgagen SalvmvnaÈtØn tØn yugat°ra Faravefiw tØn pÒlin Dauid §k pÒlevw Dauidßvw suntel°sai aÈtÚntÚn o‰kon kur¤ouka‹ tÚn o‰kon •autoË efiw o‰kon aÈtoË
˘n ”kodÒmhsen •aut“ka‹ tÚ te›xow Ierousalhm
§n ta›w ≤m°raiw §ke¤naiw
1 Kgs. 3: 1b 1 Kgs. 9: 24a
h;ŸaŸ,ybiy“w" hŸt;l]ô[; h[o%r“P'AtB' Ëa¢'dw±ID: ry[¢iAla, dw±ID: ry[¢ime
twn•Ob]li wto%LoK' d[¢'wŸútyBeAta, Ht;yBeAla,
Hl-;Ahn:ôB; rv¢,a}hw±:hy“ tyB¢eAta,w“
μl'iv;Wry“ tmà'/jAta,w“>byôbis;
Just as in 3 Reg. 5: 14ab Solomon is reported to have brought
Pharaoh’s daughter into the City of David, in 9: 9a he is said to
have brought her up from the City of David to his palace.7 Both
reports use related verbs to describe Solomon’s actions: eisagein and
anagein, respectively. By contrast, MT offers different subjects in 1
Kgs. 3: 1 and 9: 24, does not assign an active role to Solomon in
the migration of Pharaoh’s daughter to her palace, and employs
different verbs to describe the two migrations (awb and hl[, respec-
tively). Moreover, whereas 3 Reg. 9: 9a says that Solomon brought
his wife up to his palace and thus establishes a direct link with v.
14a of 3 Reg. 5,8 which also speaks about the construction of
7 According to Wevers (“Exegetical Principles”, 308–309) the differences exhib-ited by 3 Reg. 9: 9a vis-à-vis 1 Kgs. 9: 24 amount to assigning to Solomon a rolemuch more fitting to his position (“Then Solomon brought the daughter of Pharaohto his house which he had built for himself ”). This interpretation does not accountfor the different position of the note in the LXX and MT.
8 The variation between (oikon) eautou of 3 Reg. 5: 14ab and (oikon) autou of9: 9a is insignificant, since either pronoun refers to Solomon. In all likelihood, theoccurrence of a reference to the house of the Lord immediately preceding the ref-erence to the palace led the translator to use the reflexive pronoun in 3 Reg. 5:14ab, as it forestalls confusion as to the identity of the person referred to (see also3 Reg. 8: 1a).
pharaoh’s daughter in mt and the lxx 67
Solomon’s palace, no such direct link is apparent in MT. The link
between 9: 24 and 3: 1 becomes clear only when it is realized that
the house of Pharaoh’s daughter forms part of Solomon’s palace.
Information to this effect is provided by 1 Kgs. 7: 8. It is to this
passage that the relative clause hlAhnb rça of 9: 24 refers.
As was noted above, 3 Reg. 9: 9a appears to take interest in the
chronology of the removal of Pharaoh’s daughter. There are no signs
of a similar interest in 1 Kgs. 9: 24. Critics have proposed to com-
bine the first part of v. 24, roughly corresponding to 3 Reg. 9: 9a,
syntactically with the second part of the verse making reference to
the building of the Millo.9 V. 24, then, would say: “As soon as the
daughter of Pharaoh went up from the City of David to her house
which he had built for her, he then built the Millo.”10 Here the
emphasis lies with the building of the Millo, not with the chronol-
ogy of the migration of Pharaoh’s daughter. If a syntactical con-
nection between v. 24a and b is rejected, there is no other option
than to assign to the particle ˚a a non-temporal function.11 In that
9 Thus Benzinger, Bücher der Könige, 84–85; HALAT, 44; Krautwurst, Studien,124, n. 1; Noth, Könige, 200, 220; M. Rehm, Das erste Buch der Könige. Ein Kommentar,Eichstätt 1979, 104; Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 113; anda, Bücher der Könige,248, 261; O. Thenius, Die Bücher der Könige (KEH), Leipzig 18732, 150; Würthwein,Erste Buch der Könige, 109.
10 In this construction, the particle ˚a takes a restrictive meaning, “no sooner . . .than” (in German: “kaum . . ., da”). Similar constructions have been claimed tooccur in Gen. 27: 30 and Judg. 7: 19. These instances, however, differ from 1 Kgs.9: 24 in exhibiting a paronomastic construction and introducing the main clauseby waw rather than by za (cf. K. Jongeling, “The Hebrew Particle ˚a”, Dutch Studies—Near Eastern Languages and Literatures 3 [1997], 75–108, esp. 98–99). In view of thedifference, it may be seriously doubted whether a syntactical interpretation of 1 Kgs.9: 24 in the sense of Gen. 27: 30 is justified.
11 Jongeling (“Hebrew Particle ˚a”, 91) ranges 1 Kgs. 9: 24 among the instanceswhere it is reasonable to expect that only the preposed clause element followingdirectly on ˚a (i.e., in 9: 24 the subject “the daughter of Pharaoh”) is governed byit. When this categorization is combined with the notion that ˚a usually has arestrictive or contrastive function ( Jongeling, “Hebrew Particle ˚a”, 100–101), wewould have to translate here: “But (or: Only) the daughter of Pharaoh went up toher house . . .” In that case, however, it must be accepted that 1 Kgs. 9: 24a doesnot link up with the context in a meaningful way. Emendation of ˚a as za (cf. 3Reg. 9: 9a), which is advocated by Gray (Kings, 234), Jones (1 and 2 Kings, 218),and Montgomery-Gehman (Kings, 214), is uncommendable since this would createan improbable sequence of two sentences each beginning with za (cf. Krautwurst,Studien, 124; Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 113). Burney (Notes, 105) proposes toemend 1 Kgs. 9: 24a in accordance with 2 Chron. 8: 11, but this view presup-poses a corruption process too complex to be very probable.
68 chapter four
case too, the chronological aspect of the removal is not the central
issue of the statement.
In sum, the references to the removal of Solomon’s wife are coor-
dinated more profoundly in the main text of the LXX than in MT.
With regard to position, the LXX notes are more closely tied to the
report of the building operations on which the chronology of the
removal of Pharaoh’s daughter (1 Kgs. 3: 1b/3 Reg. 5: 14ab) is
founded than their MT counterparts. Both this tendency towards
exact time-tabling, as Gooding calls it,12 and the pursuit of formal
correspondence between related notes can be explained from a con-
cern for narrative logic and transparency.
3. The material regarding Solomon’s dowry
When we consider the treatment of the material on Solomon’s dowry
in the LXX and MT, we find that the former brings about a more
natural and intricate connection between related materials than the
latter. Whereas MT presents the note on Solomon’s marriage and
the note on his dowry as two separate passages in 1 Kgs. 3: 1 and
9: 16–17aa, the LXX has these notes combined into a single con-
tinuous passage, 3 Reg. 5: 14a and b.
In MT the passage on the acquisition of Solomon’s dowry through
1 Kgs. 9: 16–17a interrupts an enumeration of the edifices and cities
which Solomon ordered the labour levy to build (vv. 15–19):
12 See Gooding, “Misconduct”, 326–31; “Problems of Text and Midrash”, 8–9.
pharaoh’s daughter in mt and the lxx 69
sM'⁄h'Arb'd“ hz<!w“ 9: 15hmo%løov] Ël,M¢,h' hl¢;[‘h,Arôv,a}
t°/nb]lihw•:hy“ tyBŸeAta,
wŸútyBeAta,w“awLø+Mih'Ata,w“
μl-;v;Wry“ tm¢'/j taew“w[àoj;Ata,w“wDogIm]Ata,w“>rz,ôG:Ata,w“
5: 14b tÒte én°bh Farav basileÁw AfigÊptou hl%;[; μyIr'⁄x]miAËl,ôm, h[oŸr“P' . . . 9: 16ka‹ prokatelãbeto tØn Gazer rŸz<GŸ<Ata, dK¶ol]YIw"ka‹ §nepÊrisen aÈtØn va+eB; Hp¢;r“c]YIw"
The passage follows directly on the mentioning of Gezer at the end
of v. 15. Its apparent purpose at this point of the list is to explain
how Solomon acquired Gezer. Though the digression is thematically
not inapt, the point of the digression in the middle of the list of
Solomon’s building projects is awkward. The same can be said about
the presence of a doublet at v. 17a. From the viewpoint of content,
the clause “and Solomon built Gezer” is redundant because the con-
struction of Gezer has already been told in v. 15. From a syntacti-
cal viewpoint, however, the clause in v. 17aa cannot be missed. Due
to the presence of the explanatory note at v. 16, the connection
between the infinitive twnbl in v. 15 and its objects, i.e., the build-
ing projects mentioned through vv. 15–19, is interrupted after v. 16.
The clause in v. 17aa, which resumes the verb hnb of v. 15, restores
the connection between this verb and its objects as mentioned in vv.
17b–19. Because of the presence of the doublet and the awkward
position in the middle of a list, 1 Kgs. 9: 16–17a cannot be judged
to be smoothly integrated in the context.
70 chapter four
13 The reading of the LXX, kai ton Xananithn ton katoikounta en Mergab, eitherreflects a corruption in the Vorlage or represents a Verlegenheitslösung by a translatorwho faced a text that he did not completely understand. Unlike its counterpart in1 Kgs. 9: 16, the Greek phrase juxtaposes rather dissimilar objects, which producesan odd and ill-balanced statement: “He burned it (i.e., Gezer) and the Canaanitewho lived in Mergab.” A place named Mergab is mentioned nowhere else in theLXX or MT. According to P. Särkiö, the name was meant to refer to Megiddo(P. Särkiö, Die Weisheit und Macht Salomos in der Israelitischen Historiographie. Eine tradi-tions- und redaktionskritische Untersuchung über 1 Kön. 3–5 und 9–11 [Schriften der finnischenexegetischen Gesellschaft 60], Göttingen 1994, 135, n. 314). The suggestion is anattractive one, as Megiddo is mentioned alongside Gezer in 1 Kgs. 9: 15 and 3Reg. 10: 22a. It should, however, be noted that the form Mergab is not particu-larly close to Hebrew wdgm. The name is also markedly different from transcriptionsof Megiddo elsewhere in 3 Regum. The form Mergab primarily seeks to render(part of ) the consonantal framework of the Hebrew word underlying it, namely grhin 1 Kgs. 9: 16. The circumstance that the (corrupt?) Hebrew word was precededby ry[b may have led the translator to interpret it as the name of a city. The ele-ment ry[ was left untranslated. The interpretation of the Hebrew consonantalsequence as a place name occasioned the change of the following phrase “he gaveit” into “he gave them” (i.e., the cities of Gezer and Mergab).
ka‹ tÚn Xanan¤thn tÚn katoikoËnta §n ry[iB; bvàeYOh' y i ènI[}n"K]ôh'Ata,w“Mergab13 gr-:h;
ka‹ ¶dvken aÈtåw Farav épostolåw yugatr‹ aÈtoË wTobil] μyj+iLuvi . . . HŸn:T]YIôw"gunaik‹ Salvmvn >hômolov] tv,aàe
ka‹ Salvmvn ”kodÒmhsen hŸmolov] ˆb,Y•Iw" 9: 17aatØn Gazer rz<G:±Ata, 9: 17ab
In contrast to MT, the LXX presents the passage under consid-
eration in a contextually appropriate position:
pharaoh’s daughter in mt and the lxx 71
5: 14 ka‹ pareg¤nonto pãntew ofl lao‹ μyMi+['h¢;AlK;mi W!aboŸY:w" 5: 14ékoËsai t∞w sof¤aw Salvmvn húmløov] tm¢'k]j; tae ['mØ ov]loika‹ §lãmbanen d«ra –
parå pãntvn t«n basil°vn t∞w g∞w ≈r,a+;h; yk¢el]m'AlK; tŸaeme˜soi ≥kouon t∞w sof¤aw aÈtoË >/ôtm;k]j;Ata, W[m]v; rvà,a}
5: 14a ka‹ ¶laben Salvmvn tØn yugat°ra Farav•aut“ efiw guna›ka
ka‹ efisÆgagen aÈtØn efiw tØn pÒlin Dauidßvw suntel°sai aÈtÚn
tÚn o‰kon kur¤ouka‹ tÚn o‰kon •autoËka‹ tÚ te›xow Ierousalhm
5: 14b tÒte én°bh Farav basileÁw AfigÊptouka‹ prokatelãbeto tØn Gazerka‹ §nepÊrisen aÈtØn
ka‹ tÚn Xanan¤thn tÚn katoikoËnta §n Mergabka‹ ¶dvken aÈtåw Farav épostolåw
yugatr‹ aÈtoË gunaik‹ Salvmvnka‹ Salvmvn ”kodÒmhsen tØn Gazer
The episode of Pharaoh providing his daughter with a wedding gift
makes a smooth and natural sequel to the report of her marriage
at 5: 14a. Due to its position following v. 14a, v. 14b seems to sug-
gest that Pharaoh captured Gezer in order to secure for his daugh-
ter a fitting dowry. This impression is strengthened by the occurrence
of a time-note tote in v. 14b, which suggests that Pharaoh’s expe-
dition took place about the same time as Solomon’s marriage. In
MT the report of Pharaoh’s expedition through 1 Kgs. 9: 16–17aais not preceded by a similar note on Solomon’s marriage nor is it
introduced by a time-note linking it to events told in previous verses.
As a result one cannot be sure whether Pharaoh took Gezer with a
view to endowing his daughter with a suitable wedding gift.
Another difference of a contextual character between the LXX
and MT emerges in the last phrase of 3 Reg. 5: 14b, “and Solomon
built Gezer.” In the setting of the LXX this phrase does not repeat
information already given a few verses before, as it does in MT. On
the other hand, in MT the note on Solomon’s rebuilding of Gezer
has a direct link with the theme of the surrounding verses, whereas
in LXX it has not. The Greek note merely provides a suitable con-
clusion to the story of Solomon’s acquisition of Gezer. It says that
Gezer was not left in ruins but that Solomon rebuilt it. From a
contextual point of view, then, the concluding note is not better
located in the LXX than in MT.
Vv. 14a–b of 3 Reg. 5 do not continue the theme of the pre-
ceding section through vv. 9–14, i.e., Solomon’s wisdom. Solomon’s
marriage cannot be possibly considered a manifestation of his wis-
dom, given the fact that 3 Reg. 11: 1 mentions Pharaoh’s daughter
among the foreign wives who led Solomon astray. The passage at
vv. 14a–b only carries further what is described in v. 14 as a con-
sequence of that wisdom, namely the prestige that Solomon enjoys
with the kings of the earth. This theme is further developed in the
rest of ch. 5. We will return to this topic later.
4. The materials on the accommodation of Pharaoh’s daughter
in Misc. I
Having described the position and contextual implications of the
notes relating to Pharaoh’s daughter in the main text, we shift our
attention to the other set of notes, contained in Misc. I and numbered
3 Reg. 2: 35c and 35fb. Whereas in MT and in the main text of
3 Regum the notes on the accommodation of Pharaoh’s daughter
are separated from each other by several chapters, in Misc. I they
stand at a distance of only a few verses from each other. Just as in
MT and the main text of the LXX, in I Misc. these notes surround
text portions relating to the topic of temple building (3 Reg. 2: 35d,
e). In spite of this agreement, the setting of 3 Reg. 2: 35c and 35fbsuggests that these notes were meant to express a message different
from that of the parallel notes in the main text of 3 Regum.
Unlike its parallels in MT and the Greek main text, the note at
v. 35c does not refer to a marriage between Solomon and the
Egyptian princess. It confines itself to stating that Solomon “took”
Pharaoh’s daughter. V. 35fb is an almost exact equivalent of the
Hebrew text of 1 Kgs. 9: 24, probably except for the introductory
outvw. In the present context of v. 35fb, this word cannot but refer
to the preceding statement of v. 35fa. The sequence of these notes
is as follows:
v. 35fa Solomon built a citadel (with) a rampart on top. He cutthrough the City of David.
v. 35fb In this way the daughter of Pharaoh went up out of the Cityof David to her house which he had built for her. Then hebuilt the citadel.
72 chapter four
Gooding argued that in the context of the sequence between v. 35faand fb outvw, “in this way”, may suggest that Pharaoh’s daughter
left her abode through a breach in the City of David made by
Solomon.14 This argument could be carried further. Since it is a rea-
sonable assumption that the princess would not take the trouble to
leave the quarter through a breach in the wall if she had the oppor-
tunity to pass through a gate, we may conclude that the narrative
implies that Solomon had virtually walled in Pharaoh’s daughter in
the City of David. The statement of v. 35c that Solomon “took” the
Egyptian princess, probably in order to bring her to the City of
David, adds to the impression that Misc. I wants us to believe that
her stay there was compulsory.
A peculiar feature of v. 35f is that the construction of the citadel
is reported twice, one at the beginning and once at the end of the
verse. These notes are no material duplicates, but each seems to deal
with a different aspect of the construction. While the first note deals
with the shape of the citadel, the second is concerned with the
chronology of the construction in relation to the other events described
in v. 35f. The significant focus on the chronology suggests that the
construction of the citadel was considered to be intrinsically linked
with the other events described in v. 35f. Now, if partial demolition
of the City of David was carried out to get Pharaoh’s daughter out,
the subsequent construction of a citadel may have been carried out
to restore the City of David. Thus v. 35f would suggest the follow-
ing order of events:
1. A breach is made in the City of David in order to get Pharaoh’s
daughter out.
2. The princess moves from the City of David to her new palace.
3. The citadel is built in the context of reparation of the breach
and restoration of the City of David.
14 Gooding, Relics, 19–20. The intentional character of the connection betweenv. 35fa and fb is also implied by the sequence of vv. 35fb, 35g, and 35h in Misc.I. These verses present a translation of 1 Kgs. 9: 23–25 that is lacking in the maintext of 3 Regum. However, instead of following the order of verses in MT, Misc.I has placed the rendering of 1 Kgs. 9: 23 after those of 9: 24 and 25. By conse-quence, the rendering of 1 Kgs. 9: 24, i.e., 3 Reg. 2: 35fb, appears immediatelyafter 35fa.
pharaoh’s daughter in mt and the lxx 73
Interestingly, v. 35f does not stand on its own in suggesting a con-
nection between these events. As we saw above, 1 Kgs. 9: 24 indi-
cates a temporal connection between Pharaoh’s daughter going up
to her palace and the building of the citadel. However, the logic of
the connection is not clear, partly because of the difficult ˚a at the
beginning of v. 24a.15 A much clearer link is discernible in 3 Reg.
10: 22a. This note expressly connects the building of the citadel and
the restoration work on the City of David. Amidst a list of Solomon’s
building projects, the construction of the citadel is motivated as
follows:
ofikodom∞sai (. . .) tØn êkran toË perifrãjai tÚn fragmÚn t∞w pÒlevw Dauid
to build (. . .) the citadel in order to wall in the breach of the City ofDavid
In 1 Kgs. 11: 27b the two building activities are merely juxtaposed:
“Solomon built the Millo. He closed the breach of the City of his
father David.” Nevertheless, here too a logical connection between
the two events may be assumed, in that the Millo (“Filling”) was
meant to fill up the breach in the City of David.16 In the transla-
tion of this passage at 3 Reg. 11: 27b the suggestion of a connec-
tion is lost, since “Millo” is rendered with “citadel”.
Whereas 3 Reg. 10: 22a, and possibly 1 Kgs. 11: 27b, indicate
that the Millo/citadel was built with a view to closing the breach
of the City of David, neither verse informs us about the cause of
the breach. Perhaps the combined statements of 1 Kgs. 9: 24 and
11: 27b in MT hint at a course of events similar to what is described
at 3 Reg. 2: 35c, f, but this is uncertain. 3 Reg. 10: 22a certainly
does not hint at the possibility that the breach resulted from Solomon’s
efforts to remove the daughter of Pharaoh.
Thus it appears that the way the three afore-mentioned events are
linked in 3 Reg. 2: 35c, f, is unique to Misc. I.
Inevitably, the question arises why the reviser would make the sug-
gestion that Pharaoh’s daughter was locked up inside the City of
David during the construction of the temple, the palace and the wall
of Jerusalem. Misc. I does not provide a clue. The parallel verses
15 See Mulder, 1 Kings 1–11, 494.16 Thus Noth, Könige, 257.
74 chapter four
in 1 Kings (3: 1) and the main text of 3 Regum (5: 14a) seem to
imply that after marrying the daughter of Pharaoh, Solomon brought
her to the City of David because her palace had yet to be built.
Neither 1 Kings nor 3 Regum suggests that Pharaoh’s daughter was
locked up inside the City of David. On the contrary, 1 Kgs. 9: 24
indicates that, once her palace was finished, the daughter of Pharaoh
went there on her own initiative.
2 Chron. 8: 11, a passage partially matching 3 Reg. 2: 35fb, may
throw some light on the background of the suggestion of confinement
in Misc. I. The verse reads as follows: “Solomon brought Pharaoh’s
daughter up from the City of David to the house which he had built
for her, for he said, ‘My wife shall not live in the house of David
king of Israel, for the places to which the ark of YHWH has come
are holy’.” Thus according to the conception of the Chronicler,
Solomon built a palace for Pharaoh’s daughter in order to put an
end to her stay in the City of David, because her presence there
posed a threat to the holiness of the place. Apparently, the Chronicler
considered the stay of Solomon’s wife in the house of David an
unhappy affair which had to be over as soon as possible. It is obvious
that this view is not shared by Misc. I, for there it is suggested that
Solomon took pains to prevent Pharaoh’s daughter from leaving the
City of David prematurely! Yet the mere fact that the daughter of
Pharaoh was regarded as a source of impurity in 2 Chron. 8: 11
may provide a valuable clue for the interpretation of 3 Reg. 2: 35c, f.
With regard to the nature of the impurity caused by Pharaoh’s
daughter, Rudolph and others have argued that in 2 Chron 8: 11
Solomon is trying to distance menstrual pollution from the ark.17
Fear of menstrual pollution of holy places, especially of the temple,
is known to have been an issue of some importance in post-biblical
Judaism.18 It is not impossible, then, that Misc. I wished to make
clear that during the construction of the temple, when the inner-
most parts of the temple had not yet been properly marked or fenced
in, Solomon’s wife was safely locked up to prevent her from defiling
the holy place.
17 W. Rudolph, Chronikbücher (HAT), Tübingen 1955, 220–21; also S. Japhet, I& II Chronicles (OTL), London 1993, 626.
18 For references see Cohen, “Solomon and the Daughter of Pharaoh”, 29, 36–37(footnotes).
pharaoh’s daughter in mt and the lxx 75
An alternative interpretation of 2 Chron. 8: 11 may also be applied
to the situation depicted in Misc. I. According to S. Cohen, the fact
that in 2 Chron. 8: 11 Solomon does not say “a woman shall not
live in the house of David” but “my wife shall not live” implies that
Solomon was trying to avoid the pollution which results from the
relations between husband and wife.19 Interestingly, Qumran litera-
ture contains instructions intent on preventing the temple from being
defiled by sexual impurity.20 Possibly the confinement of Pharaoh’s
daughter in the City of David had a similar background: In order
to avoid impurity due to sexual intercourse during the holy act of
temple construction, Solomon locked up Pharaoh’s daughter in the
City of David.
A third interpretation is a slight variation of the second. Later
Jewish exegetes claim that Solomon married the daughter of Pharaoh
only after the completion of the temple.21 Thus Midrash Rabbah
Leviticus 12: 5 states: “Rabbi Yudah said: All the seven years dur-
ing which Solomon was building the temple he did not drink wine.
After he had built it and taken Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh,
to wife, he drank wine that night . . .”22 On this, Cohen comments,
“According to R. Yudah, Solomon did not defile the construction
of the temple either by wine or by intermarriage.”23 Seen against
this background, Solomon’s motive for confining Pharaoh’s daugh-
ter in the City of David may have been a wish to observe the pro-
hibition on intermarriage (Deut. 7: 3–4) while being engaged in
temple construction. In this connection, it may be significant that 3
Reg. 2: 35c, unlike its parallels, does not explicitly state that Solomon
married the daughter of Pharaoh prior to his bringing her to the
City of David.
I believe indicating these possible motives is as far as we can go
here. It is sufficient to conclude that the notion of confinement of
19 Cohen, “Solomon and the Daughter of Pharaoh”, 36. 20 Thus see the Damascus Document, Col. XII, l. 1–2: “(. . .) No man should
sleep with his wife in the city of the temple, defiling (2) the city of the temple withtheir impurity (. . .)” (translation borrowed from DSS, 42). See further Temple Scroll,Col. XLV, l. 11.
21 For references see Cohen, “Solomon and the Daughter of Pharaoh”, 29;Gooding, “Misconduct”, 328–29.
22 Translation borrowed from Midrash Rabbah. Leviticus (chs. 1–19 translated by J. Israelstam; chs. 20–37 translated by J.J. Slotki), London 1939.
23 Cohen, “Solomon and the Daughter of Pharaoh”, 29.
76 chapter four
Solomon’s wife in Misc. I is not improbable within the context of
Jewish exegesis.
5. Text-historical assessment
How do the corresponding sets of notes regarding Pharaoh’s daugh-
ter relate to each other in terms of textual history? An answer to
this question may be found by establishing which notes pose fewer
difficulties than their counterparts regarding wording, position and
tenor. It is assumed here that the notes that pose the least problems
are more likely to have been evolved from their counterparts than
the other way around.
The different arrangement of the corresponding notes in the main
text of 3 Regum and 1 Kings points to intentional transposition of
materials in at least one witness. There is a theoretical possibility
that the positions of the materials in both witnesses are secondary
to an earlier arrangement which has not been preserved. In my view,
however, the secondary character of the LXX order in relation to
MT can be argued with reasonable plausibility.24 The above analy-
sis has shown that the arrangement of materials in the LXX is supe-
rior to that of MT in several respects.
The LXX has brought together the respective notes on Solomon’s
wedding and dowry into a continuous paragraph that connects well
with the context. MT, on the other hand, presents these notes as
separate, solitary verses that bear no obvious connection with sur-
rounding verses or interrupt a given sequence. Furthermore, the
LXX has combined the notes on the accommodation of Pharaoh’s
daughter in one paragraph through 3 Reg. 2: 35c–f. These notes as
well as the note in 9: 9a are positioned much closer to the materi-
als on the building of temple and palace, to which they refer, than
their counterparts in MT.
It may be objected that while the arrangement of the material on
Pharaoh’s daughter reveals more concern for narrative logic in the
LXX than in MT, these materials, especially 1 Kgs. 3: 1 and 9: 24,
24 Thus also Montgomery-Gehman (Kings, 102), Gooding (“Misconduct”, 326–31;“Problems of Text and Midrash”, 8–9). The primacy of the arrangement of theLXX is assumed by Burney (Notes, 47); Kittel (Bücher der Könige, 24); anda (Bücherder Könige, 53–54); Trebolle Barrera (Salomón y Jeroboán, 296–306).
pharaoh’s daughter in mt and the lxx 77
can be shown to act as structural markers in the arrangement of
MT, but not in that of the LXX.25 From the viewpoint of structure,
then, the order shown by MT would seem to result from editorial
activity intent on improving the cohesion and structure of the Solomon
Narrative. Since the Chronicler seems to have already been acquainted
with the arrangement in 1 Kings,26 the order witnessed by 3 Regum
would reflect an even older Hebrew text form.
In order to decide which arrangement takes priority over the other
we must consider the corresponding notes and ask whether it is more
logical that note A turned into B or that B turned into A. On the
basis of the analysis conducted above the conclusion is difficult to
resist that the version of the MT-notes is inferior to that of their
counterparts in the LXX with respect to comprehensibility and for-
mal agreement with related notes. Therefore the MT-notes cannot
be plausibly explained as being secondary to the corresponding notes
of 3 Regum. For example, if 3 Reg. 9: 9a is believed to represent
a Hebrew note that is more original than MT 1 Kgs. 9: 24, it is
hard to explain why za (implied by tote) of 9: 9a in MT 9: 24 was
replaced by the problematic particle ˚a. It is equally difficult to
explain why the phrase “Then Solomon brought up the daughter of
Pharaoh (. . .) into his house” of 3 Reg. 9: 9a would have been
changed into “and the daughter of Pharaoh went up to her house”
of 1 Kgs. 9: 24, since the former phrase constitutes the better par-
allel to “and he brought her into the City of David” of 1 Kgs. 3: 1.
Furthermore, if the note at 3 Reg. 9: 9a was transposed to 1 Kgs.
9: 24 in MT for structural reasons, it is unaccountable why it was
expanded with a note on the Millo (1 Kgs. 9: 24b), since the presence
of that note rather disturbs the parallel between 1 Kgs. 3: 1–3 and
9: 24–25. In brief, it is extremely unlikely that position and form of
the MT notes are secondary to that of their LXX counterparts.
Conversely, the comparatively easier text of the LXX-notes could
well be seen as a modification of the text represented by MT.
Particular attention must be paid to the circumstance that a num-
ber of deviations from the MT-notes have to do with the fact that
the LXX-notes are differently positioned in the Solomon Narrative.
25 See pages 281–82, 285–86.26 Note that the sequence of 1 Kgs. 9: 24–25 is paralleled in 2 Chron. 8: 11–12,
while it is without equivalent in 3 Regum.
78 chapter four
This is particularly evident for 3 Reg. 9: 9a. Not only by its posi-
tion but also by the choice of time-indicators (tote, en taiw hmeraiwekeinaiw) does this note imply an intimate connection with the com-
pletion of temple and palace which makes the removal of Pharaoh’s
daughter to her own palace possible. The aforementioned time-indi-
cators as well as the absence of a representation of 1 Kgs. 9: 24b,
then, may be interpreted as modifications of the source text to a
new environment and purpose.27 Another textual feature which may
be seen as an adaptation to a new context is the introductory totein 3 Reg. 5: 14b (without equivalent in 1 Kgs. 9: 16).28
In conclusion, the view is taken here that the LXX (or the text-
type represented by it) meant to improve the narrative logic and
arrangement of materials as shown by MT. In order to reach this
end, the editor responsible for the arrangement of the LXX-version
did not only transpose the notes but also slightly modified their
form. Whether the alterations witnessed by the LXX derive from
the translator himself, from a later editor, or from an editor of the
Hebrew Vorlage, is difficult to establish in the absence of unambiguous
indications.29
Finally, a few words should be devoted to the text-historical posi-
tion of 3 Reg. 2: 35ca and 35fb vis-à-vis the main text of 3 Regum
27 There is a possibility that en taiw hmeraiw ekeinaiw means to represent za of1 Kgs. 9: 24b (cf. Lefebvre, “Troisième livre des Règnes”, 90).
28 It should be pointed out here that there is no way of knowing for certain thatthe LXX notes were derived from Hebrew notes in the form represented by thepresent book of Kings. The text of 3 Reg. 5: 14b suggests that it is based on aslightly corrupt Hebrew text of 1 Kgs. 9: 16. At least in case of 3 Reg. 9: 9a it isquite possible that the text which the editor drew upon was not exactly identicalwith 1 Kgs. 9: 24 but agreed more closely to the Chronicles parallel in 2 Chron.8: 11. The editor or translator of 3 Reg. 9: 9a may even have decided to followthe text of 2 Chron. 8: 11 because it better answered to his intentions than thetext of 1 Kgs. 9: 24. Even then, the present shape of 3 Reg. 9: 9a suggests someredactional intervention with the source text. The note differs from its parallels inKings and Chronicles alike in its use of time-indicators and in the relative positionit occupies in the Solomon Narrative.
29 Note that one aspect of the LXX arrangement, the agreement between 3 Reg.5: 14a and 9: 9a, is more distinct in the Greek text than in the reconstructedHebrew Vorlage: the pair eishgagen-anhgagen corresponds to two Hebrew verbswhich, unlike the Greek forms, do not exhibit the same root, aybh-hl[h (cf. 2Chron. 8: 11). However, in this instance it is very doubtful whether the similarityof the Greek forms has been intentional, since in the LXX eisagein and anageinare normal translation equivalents of aybh and hl[h, respectively.
pharaoh’s daughter in mt and the lxx 79
and 1 Kings. It is a moot point among scholars whether, and if so,
to what extent, some narrative structure can be perceived in the pre-
sentation of materials in the Miscellanies. Above we advanced the
view that, as far as vv. 35cab, 35fa and fb are concerned, a certain
logical connection between these statements is probable. Comparison
with the parallel materials in 1 Kings reveals features in these notes
which could be explained as modifications to a new purpose and
context. This would imply that the notes in the context of Misc. I
are products of editorial activity and by consequence of a secondary
nature.30
In particular the texts of 3 Reg. 2: 35fa and fb show signs of
dependence on the MT notes. The former note is widely believed
to be based on a re-interpretation of the Hebrew of 1 Kgs. 11: 27b.31
As far as this re-interpretation is intentional, it may entail an edi-
torial activity connected with the arrangement of materials in the
Miscellanies.
The note at 3 Reg. 2: 35fb looks as a faithful rendering of 1 Kgs.
9: 24 except for one item. This exception, outvw, provides the log-
ical connection between v. 35fa and fb. A few scholars have argued
that outvw was meant to render ˚a without implying this logical con-
nection.32 However, nowhere else in the LXX does outvw translate
30 The opposite view is taken by Trebolle Barrera (Salomón y Jeroboán, 296–306).This scholar departs from the primacy of the arrangement of the main text of 3Regum over against that of 1 Kings. The order attested by 1 Kings is believed toresult from a effort to incorporate the (Hebrew) material of the Miscellanies intothe main account of the history of Solomon. Thus some editor of the proto-Masoretictext undertook to insert the Hebrew text underlying 3 Reg. 2: 35cab in 1 Kgs. 3:1b, prefixed as a gloss 3: 1a, and placed the Hebrew of 2: 35fb at 9: 24. In con-nection with these alterations, he suppressed the note at 5: 14a because it wasredundant after 3: 1b (and apparently also 9: 9a), and transposed 5: 14b to 9:16–17a, employing the device of resumptive repetition.
One weakness of this view is that it fails to explain why the coherent narrativeunit at 3 Reg. 5: 14a–b and the well placed note at 9: 9a were sacrificed to aninferior arrangement in 1 Kgs. 3: 1; 9: 16–17a, 24. One possible answer is thatthe editor was keen on introducing into the text a parallel between 1 Kgs. 3: 1–3and 9: 24–25. Even then, it remains difficult to see how the text of 1 Kgs. 9: 24(especially the element ˚a) could be secondary to the (hypothesized) Hebrew Vorlageof 3 Reg. 2: 35fb.
31 Thus see Montgomery, “Supplement”, 127; Gooding, Relics, 19, 22. Montgomerytakes the view that the reinterpretation was undertaken by the translator, but it isalso possible that it was the work of an editor of the Hebrew text.
32 Thus Krautwurst (Studien, 124); Montgomery-Gehman (Kings, 214). Tov (“LXXAdditions”, 94, n. 1), proposes that outvw corresponds to Hebrew za, as in Mic. 3:
80 chapter four
˚a. In the overwhelming majority of occurrences in the LXX, outvwrenders hKo or ˆKe. Thus if outvw in v. 35fb reflects a Hebrew word
at all, this is most likely to have been hKo or ˆKe.33 In the situation of
1 Kgs. 9: 24, a text reading hKo/ˆKe instead of ˚a would by no means
improve the sense, since hKo/ˆKe does not establish a logical link with
the preceding text. As we have seen, this is different in the case of
v. 35fb. Therefore, rather than reflecting a textual variant of ˚a in
1 Kgs. 9: 24, outvw (hKo/ˆKe) represents an intentional alteration of
original ˚a, an editorial device in order to specify the logical con-
nection between v. 35fa and fb.
There is no difficulty involved in relating v. 35cab to the Hebrew
text of 1 Kgs. 3: 1. Unlike v. 35fb, v. 35cab also shows a certain
affinity with the corresponding note in the main text of 3 Regum,
i.e., 5: 14a.34
In sum, the material in 3 Reg. 2: 35cab, 35fa and fb seems to
represent a reworking of texts similar to, or identical with, 1 Kgs.
3: 1, 9: 24 and 11: 27b, respectively. It is difficult to tell whether
the combination of these materials in Misc. I was done by an edi-
tor on the level of the Hebrew or by the translator himself. The
material seems to permit both views. A more definite answer can
only be given in the context of a comprehensive inquiry into the
Miscellanies and their relationship with 1 Kings and 3 Regum.
4; Job 11: 15. As he himself points out, the difficulty with this view is that laterin the verse za is rendered by tote.
33 Thus also Burney (Notes, 141); Gooding (Relics, 20); DeVries (1 Kings, 130: hkkor ˆk); Trebolle Barrera (Salomón y Jeroboán, 300).
34 3 Reg. 5: 14a and 2: 35cab agree in reversing the order of building activitiespresented in 1 Kgs. 3: 1, even though they use different means (see pages 138–39).They also go together over against MT in not representing a rendition of twnbl.
pharaoh’s daughter in mt and the lxx 81
CHAPTER FIVE
THE DESCRIPTION OF SOLOMON’S PROVISIONING
SYSTEM (1 KGS. 4: 1–5: 13—3 REG. 4: 1–5: 13)
In comparison with the MT-version of the account of Solomon’s
administration (1 Kgs. 4: 1–5: 13), the LXX-version of this account
is both shorter and differently structured. The following survey visu-
alizes the different arrangement of materials:
3 Regum 1 Kings
4: 1–6 Solomon’s officers. 4: 1–6 Solomon’s officers.4: 7 The prefects providing victuals for 4: 7 The prefects providing victuals for
Solomon’s household. Solomon’s household.4: 8–19 Their names and districts. 4: 8–19 Their names and districts.
4: 20 Judah and Israel thriving and prosperous.
5: 1 The provisioning of Solomon’s household.
5: 1 Solomon’s rule over all the kingdomswest of the Euphrates untill Egypt.
5: 2–3 Solomon’s daily provisions. 5: 2–3 Solomon’s daily provisions.5: 4 Solomon’s rule over everything 5: 4 Solomon’s rule over everything
on the west bank of the on the west bank of the Euphrates. Euphrates.Peace in all his domains. Peace in all his domains.
5: 5 Judah and Israel confident and peaceful.
5: 6 Numbers of Solomon’s horses, chariots and horsemen.
5: 7–8 The provisioning of Solomon’s household.
5: 9–13 Solomon’s wisdom. 5: 9–13 Solomon’s wisdom.
Whereas the Greek version does not contain pluses vis-à-vis MT, it
reveals sizable minuses: 1 Kgs. 4: 20, 5: 5–6 and the central part
of 5: 4 are not represented in the Greek text. The material that is
common to both witnesses exhibits basically the same order, with
one noticeable exception: In the LXX, the note on the provisioning
of Solomon’s court stands immediately before 5: 2–4 while in MT
it comes only after these verses (at 5: 7–8).
In the Greek text the material relating to the provisioning of
Solomon’s house is presented as a continuous paragraph that shows
a logical arrangement.1 V. 7 of ch. 4 tells about the duty of the pre-
fects to supply victuals; vv. 8–19 list their names and districts; the
next verse, i.e., 5: 1, reports on the normal procedure followed in
providing victuals; vv. 2–3 present a list of victuals needed for one
day. By way of conclusion, v. 4 accounts for this rich food supply
by referring to the large extent of Solomon’s dominion and the
peaceful circumstances reigning there. A significant feature of this
arrangement is that the material dealing with the provisioning sys-
tem, i.e., 3 Reg. 4: 7–5: 1, constitutes an inclusio:
4: 7 ka‹ t“ Salvmvn d≈deka kayestam°noi2 §p‹ pãnta Israhl xorhge›nt“ basile› ka‹ t“ o‡kƒ aÈtoËm∞na §n t“ §niaut“ §g¤neto §p‹ tÚn ßnaxorhge›n
4: 8–19 The prefects and their districts providing victuals.
5: 1a ka‹ §xorÆgoun ofl kayestam°noi oÏtvwt“ basile› Salvmvnka‹ pãnta tå diagg°lmata §p‹ tØn trãpezan toË basil°vwßkastow m∞na aÈtoË
In the longer account of MT, the report on the provisioning is twice
interrupted by text material devoted to different items, at 1 Kgs. 4:
20–5: 1 and 5: 4–6. The distance between the passages dealing with
the provisioning, 1 Kgs. 4: 7 and 5: 7–8, is so considerable that the
connection between them is no longer apparent. As a consequence
it is not immediately clear to whom “these” (prefects) in v. 7 refers.
Yet to say that the MT-account is nothing but a collection of loosely
connected items would be incorrect. Some concentric structure can
be discerned:
1 Thus Gooding, Relics, 42.2 Recurring terms are underlined.
solomon’s provisioning system 83
A 4: 7–19 The prefects providing victuals for Solomon’s household.B 4: 20 Judah and Israel thriving and prosperous.C 5: 1 Solomon’s rule over all the kingdoms west
of the Euphrates unto Egypt.D 5: 2–3 Solomon’s daily provisions.C' 5: 4 Solomon’s rule over everything west of the
Euphrates.Peace in all his domains.
B' 5: 5 Judah and Israel confident and peaceful.A' 5: 6–8 Numbers of Solomon’s horses, chariots and horsemen.
The provisioning of Solomon’s household.
It may also be noted that the material presented at 5: 7–8, which
is infelicitously far removed from its counterpart in 4: 7, appears to
be well-placed in another respect. V. 8 refers to the feeding of
Solomon’s horses: “And the barley and the chaff for the chariot-
horses they used to bring to the place where he might be, each
according to his charge.” In the order of MT, this subject is prepared
for by v. 6, which states the number of horses owned by Solomon.
In the arrangement of the LXX the note on the feeding of horses
at 3 Reg. 5: 1b comes unexpectedly, since the main text of the LXX
up to that point is devoid of any reference to Solomon’s horses.
Nevertheless, there can hardly be any doubt that the arrangement
of the LXX-version is superior to that of MT. Unlike the latter, the
former shows thematic coherence: From 3 Reg. 4: 7 unto 5: 3 all
verses bear on the subject of the provisioning of Solomon’s house-
hold. Several exegetes consider the LXX-version to be primary to
the MT-version, which in their opinion has undergone redactional
expansion.3 Most of them feel that the passage appearing at 1 Kgs.
5: 7 cannot be original there and must originally have stood at the
position where the LXX has it now, that is, immediately following
the list of prefects in 4: 8–19. Now the fact that the arrangement
of the LXX coincides with what may seem to be the original sequence
3 Thus Burney, Notes, 47; Gray, Kings, 135; Hrozn , Abweichungen, 27; Kittel, Bücherder Könige, 36; Knoppers, Two Nations, I, 83, n. 48; Polak, “Septuaginta Account”,148–49; Trebolle Barrrera, Salomón y Jeroboán, 292–94; anda, Bücher der Könige, 87;J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments,Berlin 18892, 274.
84 chapter five
in 4: 19–5: 1 does not necessarily imply that the LXX is a real wit-
ness to the older text form. It is conceivable that the LXX in these
verses represents a correction which happens to be in line with the
original sequence. In that case, the relative disorder of the MT-
version is to be accounted for in a literary-critical way. In my view,
there are two good reasons to believe that the arrangement of MT
is rather the result of a complex formative history than of a revision
of a text form à la LXX.
First, the form of the MT-account is easier to understand as the
result of a formative literary process than as a revision of a text sim-
ilar to or identical with the LXX-version.4 In the former case, we
must assume that the original unity of 1 Kgs. 4: 8–19 and 5: 7 has
been disrupted as a result of (gradual) accretion of the intermediate
material of 4: 20–5: 6.5 On the other hand, if we regard the MT-
version as a revision and expansion of a text similar to the LXX-
version, we are obliged to explain why the reviser deemed it necessary
to expand and reshuffle his working material in the way he did. As
it appears, it is difficult to find a reason why the note in 3 Reg.*
5: 16 was transposed to 5: 7, or why the note on the number of
Solomon’s horses and chariots was placed at 5: 6. As a matter of
fact, the interpolation of redactional material as such does not require
the transposition of 3 Reg.* 5: 1. If the reviser intended to widen
the theme of the account from “Solomon’s provisioning system” to
“Solomon’s administrative powers”, he could have done so without
disconnecting 3 Reg.* 4: 8–19 and 5: 1. Explanation of this move
in terms of improvement of structure is unsatisfactory, since the
account of MT shows no great concern for structural clarity. It makes
more sense, then, to regard the well-structured, coherent version of
the LXX as a revision of the less coherent MT than the other way
around.7
4 Elaborate efforts to unravel the literary history of 4: 20–5: 6 have been madeby Noth (Könige, 61) and Särkiö (Weisheit und Macht Salomos, 44–49).
5 Thus Noth. Särkiö does not assume that 1 Kgs. 4: 8–19 and 5: 7 were origi-nally linked because he assigns 1 Kgs. 5: 2–3, 6–8 to the Deuteronomistic Grundbestand(DtrH). One indication for the literary disunity of the material is the introductoryyk in 5: 4 (oti in 3 Reg. 5: 4), which does not link up logically with the preced-ing verse (thus Benzinger, Bücher der Könige, 22; Noth, Könige, 61).
6 * designates a hypothetical Hebrew source text at that position.7 This view is also taken by Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 126–27; Noth, Könige,
61; Särkiö, Weisheit und Macht Salomos, 43–44.
solomon’s provisioning system 85
The second reason for holding the MT-version primary is that, if
the LXX-version is considered to be a revision of the former, it is
possible to reconstruct the intention as well as the strategy behind
the revision in a plausible manner. The reviser’s probable goal must
have been the improvement of the thematic coherence and logical
sequence of the original (MT) account. He decided that the the-
matic focus of the revised account was to be the provisioning of
Solomon’s household. Passages that did not fit the exposition of this
theme (1 Kgs. 4: 20; 5: 1, 5, 6) were removed and the remaining
material put into a logical order. This occasioned the transposition
of 5: 7–8 to 3 Reg. 5: 1.
Interestingly, the passages of the MT-account that are not repre-
sented in the LXX-version are all rendered in Misc. II. In addition,
Misc. II includes a rendering of nearly all the material of which a
translation is extant in 3 Reg. 5. Thus it appears to present a more
complete rendering of 1 Kgs. 4: 20–5: 6 than chs. 4–5. The distri-
bution of the materials running parallel to 1 Kgs. 4: 20–5: 10 over
the two Greek accounts is as follows:
1 Kings 3 Regum main text 3 Regum Misc. II
4: 20 – 2: 46ab5: 1a – 46ba
1b cf. 10: 26ab –1c – 46bb2 5: 2 46ea3 3 46eb4a ~4a 46fa4b – 46fb4c 4b 46ga5 – 46gb6 – 46i7 1a –8 1b –9 9 35a10 10 35b
As can be seen, Misc. II presents almost all the material of 1 Kgs.
4: 20–5: 6 in the same order as MT, though not without interrup-
tion (thus see 3 Reg. 2: 46c and d). In the main text of 3 Regum
the textual portion running parallel with MT is confined to vv. 2–4
86 chapter five
and it does not match MT as fully as the portion through 3 Reg.
2: 46e–g does.
Vv. 7–8 of 1 Kgs. 5 are not represented in Misc. II. Since almost
all other materials of 1 Kgs. 4: 20–5: 10 are represented in the
Miscellanies, vv. 7–8 are an exception. Within the account of Solomon’s
provisioning system, vv. 7–8 are the only verses of which the Greek
renderings occur in a different relative position in the LXX-version
of the account. Possibly the detailed and technical character of the
information of 1 Kgs. 5: 7–8 rendered this passage unfit for inclu-
sion into the summary overview of Solomon’s power and glory as
presented by the Miscellanies. This limited complementarity suggests
that some coordination was pursued in the distribution of materials
over the Miscellanies and the main text. Given this state of affairs
it is tempting to assume that the reviser of the original Greek trans-
lation at 3 Reg. 5 placed a full rendering of 1 Kgs. 4: 20–5: 6 in
Misc. II.
In what stage of the text were these revisory and editorial activ-
ities carried out? The possibility that the revision took place in the
Greek text is emphatically suggested by the striking similarity in
wording between the accounts of 3 Reg. 5: 2–4 and 2: 46e–ga. The
fact that both share five unique renderings puts their affiliation beyond
all doubt.8 However, the near identity of both passages does not nec-
essarily imply that the Greek of 3 Reg. 5: 2–4 was duplicated in 2:
46e–ga. It is conceivable that the same Greek translator translated
Hebrew Vorlagen of both passages. We should even consider the the-
oretical possibility that the translation of 3 Reg. 5: 2–4 was bor-
rowed for rendition of the Hebrew Vorlage of 2: 46e–ga that had
originally been left untranslated for some reason.
The question of the relationship between the parallel portions of
3 Reg. 5 and Misc. II is further compounded by the fact that, against
a background of basic similarity in wording, detail differences obtain.
Can these be adequately explained as modifications by the hand of
a reviser or editor or do they suggest the use of different Hebrew
source texts after all?
These questions are best addressed by comparing the texts of 3
8 Tov (“LXX Additions”, 112–13) notes the following unique agreements between3 Reg. 5: 2–3 and 2: 46e: aleurou kekopanismenou (= qd jmq ?); y[r = nomadew;lya(m) = elafvn (plural!); ybxw = ka‹ dorkadvn; μyrbrbw = kai orniyvn eklektvn.
solomon’s provisioning system 87
Reg. 5: 1–4 and the parallel portions of MT and the miscellaneous
material. The first verse to be investigated, 3 Reg. 5: 1, has no par-
allel in the Miscellanies.
3 Reg. 5: 1–1 Kgs. 5: 7–8
5: 1 ka‹ §xorÆgoun ofl kayestam°noi oÏtvw hL,a⁄eh; μybŸiX;NIh' W°lK]l]kiw“ 5: 7t“ basile› Salvmvn hmo%løov] Ël,M¢,h'Ata,ka‹ pãnta tå diagg°lmata b i èreQ;h'AlK; taáew“§p‹ tØn trãpezan toË basil°vw . . . hmo`lov]AËl,ôM,h' ˆtà'l]vuAla,ßkastow m∞na aÈtoË wc-d“oj; vya¢i
oÈ parallãssousin lÒgon >rôb;D; WrD“['y“ aløàoka‹ tåw kriyåw ka‹ tÚ êxuron ˆb,T+,h'w“ μyr¢i[oV]h'w“ 5: 8
to›w ·ppoiw ka‹ to›w ërmasin vk,r;-l;w“ μysi`WSl'¬ron efiw tÚn tÒpon μŸ/qM;h'Ala, Wabi%y:
o ín ¬ ı basileÊw μV;+A . . . hy<h]ôyI rv¢,a}ßkastow katå tØn sÊntajin aÈtoË >wôfoP;v]miK] vyai
The differences between the Greek and Hebrew texts are especially
notable in v. 1a (= 1 Kgs. 5: 7). In translation the text of 1 Kgs.
5: 7 reads: “And these prefects supplied provisions for king Solomon
and all who drew near king Solomon’s table, each man in his month.
They let nothing be lacking.” 3 Reg. 5: 1a, on the other hand, reads:
“And thus the prefects supplied provisions to king Solomon, namely
all the orders for the table of the king, each man in his month.
They did not omit anything.” The notable features of the LXX are
the following:
1. outvw may well be a corruption of outoi (thus the Ant. text),
which corresponds to MT hlah. Note that the demonstrative pro-
noun outoi is more appropriate in 3 Reg. 5: 1 than hlah in 1
Kgs. 5: 7, since it is much closer to the prefects of 4: 8–19 to
whom it refers than its Hebrew counterpart. It seems unlikely
that outoi was changed purposely into outvw.2. LXX takes the phrase brqhAlk taw as an object to “and they
provided Solomon”, possibly because it interpreted brqh as a
term referring not to persons but to food. It may have under-
stood breq;, “approaching”, in the sense of “what is destined, meant
for” and then rendered ad sensum with diaggelmata, “orders”,
“deliveries”. Since the second kai introduces the object panta tadiaggelmata, it must be taken to mean “namely”.9 The Ant. text
9 Bauer, 776.
88 chapter five
has kata (“according to”) for kai. This looks as an attempt to
improve the text.
3. parallassousin matches the hapax Wr`D“['y“. Possibly the LXX read
Wrb]['y" (see for parallassein = rb[ Qal also Prov. 4: 15). The
reason why the Praesens of parallassein is used here is unclear
( praesens historicum?). The other main clauses of v. 1 present imper-
fecta (exorhgoun, ˙ron), probably to indicate that the actions
described are iterative. The imperfect parhllasson of the Ant.
manuscripts represents secondary levelling.
4. o basileuw may reflect an addition in the LXX or in its Vorlage
that was intended to avoid confusion as to the identity of the
subject of the relative clause preceding it.
Except for the last item, these deviations from MT in the Greek
version do nothing to improve meaning, internal order or setting of
the text, so that they cannot be regarded as deliberate alterations.
10 Rahlfs’ text, which is followed here, is almost exclusively based on LXX Band a2. It should be noted that other manuscripts exhibit sizable differences. Severalof these variations, however, have the appearance of being assimilations towards,or alterations inspired by, the parallel text (cf. Krautwurst, Studien, 202–203, notes).Thus the Ant. text adds en hmer& mi& in 2: 46e, reads kai nomadvn both in 5: 3(instead of siteuta) and 2: 46e (instead of nomadvn), and omits apo . . . potamou in2: 46f. Rahlfs (Septuaginta-Studien, [573]) interprets the latter instance as homoioteleu-ton (potamou . . . potamou). Manuscripts M N d e m(txt) p–v y* z(txt) read tautata deonta in 2: 46e and add en hmer& mi&. Roughly the same group (M N d–h jm n p–w y z) omits 5: 2–4 altogether. Rahlfs (Septuaginta-Studien, [572–73]) con-vincingly argues that these verses were deleted because they are a doublet of 2:46e–ga. The secondary nature of the blank is implied by the fact that Origen doesnot offer the passage as a whole sub ast. Apparently, he took it directly from hisLXX-Vorlage. This course of events is also indicated by the Hexaplaric reading tadeonta in 5: 2 which, as a free rendering of μjl, does definitely not originate withOrigen himself. All things considered, the text offered by Rahlfs at 2: 46e–ga and5: 2–4, though based on slender textual evidence, is as near to the original LXXas one can possibly get.
solomon’s provisioning system 89
3 Reg. 5: 2–3 (2: 46e)10
5: 2 ka‹ taËta tå d°onta 2: 46e ka‹ toËto tÚ êriston μj,ôl, yhàiy“w" 5: 2t“ Salvmvn t“ Salvmvn hmoløov]A§n ≤m°r& miò dj-;a, μwyO§l]triãkonta kÒroi triãkonta kÒroi rŸKo μyçàiloøv]semidãlevw semidãlevw tl,so+ka‹ •jÆkonta kÒroi ka‹ •jÆkonta kÒroi rKo` μyVàiviW“
1. Neither the main Greek text nor Misc. II presents literal ren-
derings of μjl. Rather than suspecting a Hebrew different from
MT behind each text, one may regard the Greek expressions as
ad sensum renderings of μjl. Both testify to an awareness on the
part of the translator(s) that “bread” in the introductory phrase
of 1 Kgs. 5: 2 cannot be taken literally in view of the rest of the
verse. The rendering encountered in the main text, ta deonta,
“needs, requirements”, aptly captures μjl in the wider sense of
“food”.11 More fanciful is the translation to ariston, “meal, lunch”.12
It implies that the vast quantities of food listed in v. 46e served
for one meal a day only. Gooding may be right to see here a
deliberate exaggeration.13 The fact that v. 46e, unlike its coun-
terparts, does not state that the provisions supplied were for one
day may have something to do with this particular rendering.
Since it is normal use to have a meal every day, we may imag-
ine that the translator/editor of v. 46e considered it unnecessary
to represent dja μwyl/en hmer& mi&.
2. 3 Reg. 2: 46e and 5: 3 have somewhat different endings. The
final word of 5: 3, siteuta (siteutow: “fattened”), is recognizable
as an adequate rendering of the last word of 1 Kgs. 5: 3, μyswba(taken as Qal ptc. pass. sba “to fatten”). But while μysiWba} acts
11 The ad sensum rendering of μjl by ta deonta is also known from Exod. 16: 22and Prov. 30: 8.
12 3 Reg. 2: 46e is the only instance in the LXX where μjl is rendered byariston.
13 Gooding, Relics, 74–76.
90 chapter five
éleÊrou éleÊrou >jm'q;kekopanism°nou kekopanism°nou
5: 3 ka‹d°ka d°ka hr;Ÿc;[} 5: 3mÒsxoi §klekto‹ mÒsxoi §klekto‹ μyai%riB] rq⁄;b;ka‹ e‡kosi ka‹ e‡kosi μyràic][,w“bÒew nomãdew bÒew nomãdew y[ir] riq;B;ka‹ •katÚn prÒbata ka‹ •katÚn prÒbata ˆax-o ha;m¢eW§ktÚw §lãfvn §ktÚw §lãfvn lY•:a'ôme db'l]·ka‹ dorkãdvn ka‹ dorkãdvn y!bix]W
rWm+j]y"w“ka‹ Ùrn¤yvn §klekt«n ka‹ Ùrn¤yvn §klekt«n μyriBur]b'Wsiteutã nomãdvn >μyôsiWba}
as an adjective to the preceding noun μyriBur]B', its Greek coun-
terpart siteuta cannot be linked to the preceding orniyvn eklek-tvn because of its accusative ending. In fact, siteuta refers back
to the much earlier probata. As Gooding notices, this long gap
between the noun and the adjective is very awkward.14 May be
the translator found it more appropriate to link the notion “fat-
tened” to sheep than to birds.
Unlike siteuta, the final word of 2: 46e, nomadvn (nomaw: “wan-
dering”, “pastured”), fits the preceding noun grammatically as an
adjective. The combination orniyvn nomadvn may be translated
as “wild birds”.15 Nothing about nomadvn suggests that the trans-
lator had any idea of the meaning of μyswba in 1 Kgs. 5: 3. May
be the Hebrew Vorlage of v. 46e read a different word than μyswba;may be nomadvn represents a Verlegenheitslösung by a translator faced
with a word (μyswba) he did not know; may be nomadvn is purely
editorial. In favour of the latter possibility speaks the fact that v.
46e shows a parallel sequence of the adjectives eklektoi-nomadew:
mÒsxoi §klekto‹ . . . bÒew nomãdew . . .Ùrn¤yvn §klekt«n nomãdvn
This use of nomadvn as a structuring device suggests that the term
derive from free editing. In that case, the renderings ariston and
nomadvn may point to editorial interference in the Greek text of
Misc II.
14 Gooding, Relics, 74.15 Cf. LSJ, 1178: nomadew peristerai, “wild doves”.
solomon’s provisioning system 91
3 Reg. 5: 4 (2: 46f–ga)
5: 4a ˜ti ∑n êrxvn 2: 46fa ˜ti ∑n êrxvn hd,¢ro aWh|AyKi 5: 4a§n pant‹ lk;B]
p°ran toË potamoË p°ran toË potamoË rh%;N:h' rb,[¢eA2: 46fb épÚ Rafi ßvw Gãzhw hZ±:['Ad['w“ jŸs'p]Timi 5: 4b
§n pçsin to›w basileËsin yke`l]m'Alk;B]p°ran toË potamoË rh-;N:h' rb,[e¢
5: 4b ka‹ ∑n aÈt“ efirÆnh 2: 46ga ka‹ ∑n aÈt“ efirÆnh w i èløo hy:h;è μwloøv;w“ 5: 4c§k pãntvn t«n mer«n §k pãntvn t«n mer«n aÈtoË wyr;b;[}AlK;mikuklÒyen kuklÒyen >byôbiS;mi
3 Reg. 5: 4 differs from its counterparts 1 Kgs. 5: 4 and 3 Reg. 2:
46f in not presenting a geographical specification of Solomon’s domin-
ion “beyond the River” (i.e., west of the Euphrates). The texts of
1 Kgs. 5: 4 and 3 Reg. 2: 46f also exhibit a remarkable difference
between themselves: At the position corresponding to jspt Misc. II
has Rafi. The dissimilarity of both toponyms suggests that the vari-
ation is due not to textual corruption but to deliberate alteration.
Geographically, the MT reading jspt is the less problematic of
the two. Tiphsah is to be identified with Thapsacus on the Euphrates,16
so that the expression “from Tiphsah to Gaza” in 1 Kgs. 5: 4
effectively covers all the land west of the Euphrates.
As to Raphi, the following identifications are to be considered:
1. Resapha-Reseph (πx,r, of 2 Kgs. 19: 12),17 a city situated in the
Syrian desert not far way from Tiphsah.18 As a place marking
the extreme extension of Solomon’s empire northeastwards unto
the Euphrates, it is somewhat less appropriate than Tiphsah, since
it does not lie on the bank of the river proper.19 The major weak-
ness of the identification involves the absence of a representation
of the final consonant of πx,r< in Rafi. At 4 Reg. 19: 12, LXX
manuscripts offer transcriptions which show metathesis (LXX B
Rafeiw; A Rafey; N Rafew) but no forms that do not represent
the final consonant.20
2. The city of Raphia ca. 22 km southwest of Gaza.21 The place is
mentioned in 3 Macc. 1: 1 as the site of a battle that took place
217 bce. On the face of it, identification of Raphi with Raphia
produces an absurd text which appears to confine Solomon’s rule
west of the Euphrates to a small strip of land in Philistine terri-
tory. It does not seem possible to alleviate this difficulty by tak-
ing “from Raphi to Gaza” as a reference to an area different
from “all the land beyond the River”; the last phrase of v. 46f,
“of all kings beyond the River”, specifies previous “of all beyond
the River”, thereby dictating that “from Raphi to Gaza” be like-
wise taken as a specification of the preceding phrase. Yet, in spite
of the absurd implications, the identification with Raphia might
hit the mark in v. 46f. Gooding has drawn attention to an inter-
16 Thus Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 129; Gray, Kings, 137; Noth, Könige, 76.17 Thus Hrozn , Abweichungen, 23. Cf. Krautwurst, Studien, 210–11, n. 3.18 On the location of Rasappa see Gray, Kings, 624; R. Fedden, Syria. A Historical
Appreciation, London 1946, 127.19 Thus anda, Bücher der Könige, 94.20 Cf. also LXX Isa. 37: 12 (Rafey, Rafew, Rafeiw).21 Montgomery, “Supplement”, 129; Gooding, Relics, 28–29.
92 chapter five
esting rabbinical debate on the location of Tiphsah recorded in
the Babylonian Talmud (Megillah, 11a): “. . . and the other said
that Tiphsah and Gaza are near one another (and that what is
meant is that) as he (Solomon) ruled over Tiphsah and Gaza, so
he ruled over over all the world.” Rafi, then, might be “a delib-
erate exegetical substitution, that puts the better known Raphia
for the less known Tiphsah . . . and that what the phrase implies
is that just as Solomon ruled over Raphia and Gaza, so he ruled
over the whole region west of the Euphrates.”22 Since the
Miscellanies reveal several midrashic features, it would not be far-
fetched to suspect influence of Jewish exegesis behind the read-
ing Rafi. The reason why Raphia and no other place would have
been chosen as a substitute for Tiphsah is obscure. May be
Montgomery is right that Gaza suggested to the Egyptian Jewish
scribe the neighbouring Raphia.23
Given the Egyptian-Palestine background of the LXX, it may be
slightly more plausible to identify Raphi with Raphia than with
Reseph. The difficulties involved in the identification, however, do
not allow us to take a definite stand on the issue.
The text-historical evaluation of the difference Tiphsah-Raphi
depends on the identification of Raphi that is preferred. If Raphi is
equated with Reseph, Tiphsah of MT is more likely to represent the
secondary reading. Geographically, Tiphsah fits the context better
than Reseph, because the city is situated on the bank of the Euphrates
that is mentioned as the border of Solomon’s empire. Perhaps more
relevant is the fact that during the 3rd–1st century bce Resapha
seems to have been hardly more than a caravan station, while
Thapsacus was a genuine city that may have enjoyed some renown
in Antiquity as the place where Alexander the Great crossed the
Euphrates. Tiphsah, then, might represent an actualization.
If, on the other hand, Raphi is equated with Raphia, there can
be no doubt that it is secondary to Tiphsah. The equation produces
a statement that, as it stands, is intrinsically contradictory (all land
west of the Euphrates—from Raphia to Gaza) and cannot be cred-
ited to represent the original text.
22 Gooding, Relics, 29.23 Montgomery, “Supplement”, 129.
solomon’s provisioning system 93
The text of 3 Reg. 5: 4, which lacks the geographical specifications,
is generally taken to reflect an earlier textual stage than both 1 Kgs.
5: 4 and 3 Reg. 2: 46f. Thus Montgomery sees the geographical
specification at 1 Kgs. 5: 4 as a later intrusion. The addition in 1
Kgs. 5: 4 would have been glossed later into 3 Reg. 2: 46f.24 However,
if we assume a certain coordination between 3 Reg.* 5: 1–4 and
Misc. II, it is quite possible that the reviser considered the geo-
grapical details of v. 4b more appropriately placed within the set-
ting of Misc. II, which contains several references to the geography
of Solomon’s empire (cf. 2: 46c, d, f, g, k), than within the setting
of 3 Reg. 5.
A simpler explanation of the minus in 3 Reg. 5: 4 is that the part
“beyond the River . . . of all kings” was dropped from the text due
to parablepsis sometime during the transmission of the Hebrew or
Greek text (rhnh rb[ . . . rhnh rb[; peran tou potamou . . . peran toupotamou).25 If so, MT represents the older text.
The above analysis of variations between 3 Reg. 5: 2–4 and its par-
allels demonstrates that most differences, when taken individually, do
not admit of unambiguous conclusions regarding the generic rela-
tion between the parallel texts. However, when the variations are
considered in their entirety, they reveal some tendency: While Misc.
II presents a more complete parallel to 1 Kgs. 4: 20–5: 6 than the
main Greek text, it does not correspond as exactly to the Hebrew
of MT as the main Greek (cf. ariston; nomadvn; the absence of enhmer& mi&?). These divergencies do not imply a Hebrew Vorlage different
from MT but are to be explained as editorial modifications.
To sum up, 3 Reg. 5: 1–4 is best regarded as a revision of a text
basically identical with 1 Kgs. 4: 20–5: 8. The probable purpose of
the revision was to improve order and coherence of the older Hebrew
text. The Greek does not supply unambiguous indications for the
textual stage in which the revision was undertaken (the Hebrew text
or the translation in Greek).
Concerning the relationship between the main text of ch. 5 and
24 Montgomery, “Supplement”, 129; Trebolle Barrera, Salomón y Jeroboán, 294;id., “Histoire du texte”, 339.
25 Cf. Särkiö, Weisheit und Macht Salomos, 44.
94 chapter five
Misc. II, two models may be considered. One is based on the assump-
tion that the reviser himself coordinated the distribution of materi-
als over the main text and Misc. II.26 Materials he found no use for
in the main text he transposed to Misc. II. In order to present this
material in a meaningful way, he duplicated some other parts of the
account of ch. 5 into Misc. II. A few editorial traits in the Greek
of Misc. II might suggest that the reviser worked in the translated
text.
The other model rejects the view that the reviser coordinated the
distribution of materials over the main text and Misc. II. It simply
considers Misc. II as a later addition by a different hand that partially
duplicated material from the main text of ch. 5 and partially sup-
plemented what was found lacking there (in comparison with MT).
Which model is preferable to the other one is a question that
must be answered later.
26 In Polak’s opinion, the contrast between the expository logic of 3 Reg. 4–5and the lack of expository logic and coherence in 2: 46a–i renders it unlikely thatboth sections belong to the same secondary revision (Polak, “Septuaginta Account”,148–49). However, the disposition of Misc. II is not devoid of narrative logic, ashas been shown by Gooding and Schenker (Septante, 17–35).
solomon’s provisioning system 95
CHAPTER SIX
SOLOMON’S PRESTIGE AMONG THE KINGS OF
THE EARTH (3 REG. 5, 10)
Solomon’s status among his royal colleagues is a topic that receives
considerable attention in the Solomon Narrative. The subject takes
a more prominent place in 3 Regum than in 1 Kings due both to
the occurrence of pluses vis-à-vis MT and to a different arrange-
ment of subject matter. A comparison of the sections where the sub-
ject is addressed, chs. 5 and 10 of 1 Kings and 3 Regum, makes
this clear.
3 Reg. 5: 14
The first indication of the LXX taking special interest in the sub-
ject obtains at 3 Reg. 5: 14. In 3 Regum and 1 Kings alike, the
preceding verses vv. 9–13 deal with Solomon’s wisdom. V. 14 pro-
vides a suitable conclusion to this section by indicating a consequence
of Solomon’s wisdom: People attend upon him to hear him pro-
nounce sayings and teachings. Here the two versions exhibit significant
differences. Compare:
1 In order to avoid confusion with vv. 14a and b, which in the LXX follow onv. 14, Greek letters are used to divide the verse.
2 The phrase elambanen dvra is absent from LXX B A x a2, whereas it is markedby an obelus in the Syrohexapla. The omission of the phrase in the Hexaplaricmanuscripts is in agreement with MT. The fact that it is also lacking in LXX Bmight be explained from the influence of the Hexaplaric text on LXX B (cf. Wevers,“Textual History”).
5: 14a1 ka‹ pareg¤nonto W!aboŸY:w" 5: 14a. . . pãntew ofl lao‹ μyMi+['h¢;AlK;mi
ékoËsai t∞w sof¤aw Salvmvn hmo-lov] tm¢'k]j; tae ['ûmv]loi
5: 14b ka‹ §lãmbanen d«ra2 – 5: 14bparå pãntvn t«n basil°vn t∞w g∞w ≈r,a+;h; yk¢el]m'AlK; tŸaeme
˜soi ≥kouon t∞w sof¤aw aÈtoË >wôtom;k]j;Ata, W[m]v; rv,àa}
The MT-version is syntactically difficult. The following translation is
proposed here: “People came from all the nations to hear Solomon’s
wisdom, (sent) by all the kings of the earth who had heard of his
wisdom.” One peculiarity of v. 14 as it stands is that it requires us
to attach two different meanings to the verb [mç within the distance
of a few words, namely “to hear, listen to” and “to hear of ”. The
reason for this is that it does not make sense to say that kings who
heard Solomon’s wisdom (v. 14b) came to hear Solomon’s wisdom
(v. 14a), unless it is assumed that the author meant to say that the
kings returned to Solomon after a previous visit. In that event, how-
ever, we may expect the preceding account to contain a reference
to a first royal visit, and this is not the case. Another difficulty of
v. 14 concerns the relationship between the phrases introduced by
lkm and lk tam. Both the different prepositions used and the absence
of the conjunction w“ preceding tam render it unlikely that v. 14 jux-
taposes two distinct groups: “People came from all the nations . . .
(and ) from all the kings of the earth.” As a consequence the partitive
aspect of lkm does not apply to lk tam in v. 14b. V. 14 speaks of
only one group consisting of representatives of all nations, and the
clause introduced by lk tam also refers to this group. Thus tam≈rah yklmAlk means to say that the people coming to Solomon were
sent by their royal masters.3
Whereas v. 14 in 1 Kgs. 5 consists of a single main clause deal-
ing with one subject, v. 14 in 3 Reg. 5 comprises two main clauses
dealing with different subjects. The first clause does not speak of
people from all the nations coming to Solomon, but speaks sum-
marily of “all the nations”, which, even if it is not meant to be
understood literally, may suggest a greater number of visitors “than
people of all nations” of MT. The second clause presents a state-
ment that does not occur in MT: “And he (i.e., Solomon) took gifts
from all the kings of the earth, whoever heard (of ) his wisdom.”
The difference with the situation in MT is caused by the presence
of a phrase that has no counterpart in the Hebrew of v. 14b, elam-banen dvra. This plus combines with the sequel to create a sentence
that has no parallel in MT. Since akouein + gen. means both “to
3 Cf. 2 Sam. 15: 3, which is cited in BDB (86, sub taeme 4.b.) alongside 1 Kgs.5: 14: ˚lmh tam ˚lAˆya [mçw, “but there is none to hear you deputed of the king.”Thus also Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 339; Mulder, 1 Kings 1–11, 205.
solomon’s prestige among the kings of the earth 97
hear” and “to hear of ”, the LXX of v. 14b allows for the inter-
pretation that the kings themselves came to hear Solomon’s wisdom
(though this interpretation is not required).
It is noticeable that the Greek translator, when he came upon
v. 14, switched from the Aorist, which is predominant in the nar-
rative sections preceding and following v. 14, to the imperfect (paregi-nonto, elambanen, hkouon). He may have done so in order to make
clear that the actions indicated in v. 14 have an iterative aspect:
People were constantly coming to Jerusalem and kings offered pre-
sents to Solomon not on a single occasion but continuously.4
We may conclude that the picture of Solomon as a ruler who is
held in high esteem by all other kings is more clear-cut in the LXX-
version of v. 14 than in MT. Whereas MT does not go beyond the
statement that delegates of all kings of the earth came to Solomon’s
court, the LXX not only says that all nations came to Jerusalem,
but also that all kings of the earth sent, or even handed over per-
sonally, gifts to Solomon.
V. 14 alone provides too slender a basis of evidence for the asser-
tion that the LXX took special interest in Solomon’s prestige. But
the sequel of v. 14 in the LXX reveals a continuous interest in the
subject, especially when the LXX-account in the rest of ch. 5 is
compared with the MT-version. Seen in this light, it appears that
v. 14 of the LXX introduces a theme that is elaborated in the fol-
lowing account. To substantiate this claim, we first take a look at
the immediate sequel of v. 14 in the LXX.
3 Reg. 5: 14a–b
3 Reg. 5: 14a and b deal with Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s
daughter. These verses do not continue the topic of Solomon’s wis-
dom that is expounded throughout vv. 9–14. They rather link up
with the special subject introduced at v. 14b, i.e., the high stature
Solomon enjoys among the kings of the earth. One clear sign of
Solomon’s prestige is Pharaoh’s willingness to marry off his daugh-
ter to the Israelite king. It is worth noting that the passage carries
further the motive of taking gifts of v. 14. Compare:
4 See BD, § 325.
98 chapter six
v. 14 ka‹ §lãmbanen d«rav. 14a ka‹ ¶laben Salvmvn tØn yugat°ra Farav •aut“ efiw guna›kav. 14b ka‹ ¶dvken aÈtåw Farav épostolåw yugatr‹ aÈtoË gunaik‹
Salvmvn
The recurrence of the verb lambanein helps to create a sense of con-
tinuity between v. 14 and v. 14a, in spite of the different semantic
contexts of the verb.5 The reader, as it were, is invited to see the
taking of gifts and the taking of Pharaoh’s daughter as related events.
The gift motive also comes to the fore in v. 14b, where it is stated
that Pharaoh gave to his daughter two cities as a dowry. The real
beneficiary of this donation, of course, is Solomon, which is made
clear by the concluding note “And Solomon rebuilt Gezer.”
As was noted above, MT has distributed the material corresponding
to 3 Reg. 5: 14a and b over 1 Kgs. 3: 1 and 9: 16. That is to say,
1 Kings deviates from 3 Regum in not exploiting the subject of
Solomon’s marriage as an illustration of Solomon’s prestige. This is
hardly surprising when it is realized that MT at v. 14 does not dis-
play the same measure of interest in the topic of Solomon’s repu-
tation as the LXX. Unlike the latter, the Hebrew text does not make
an effort to turn the topic into a theme, an organizing principle,
throughout ch. 5.
3 Reg. 5: 15
More signs of a tendency to magnify Solomon’s prestige are dis-
cernable in 3 Reg. 5: 15–26. The paragraph describes relations
between Solomon and Hiram of Tyre in connection with prepara-
tions for the temple building. Between this paragraph and the cor-
responding one in 1 Kgs. 5: 15–26 a few curious differences occur.
The most striking of these appears at the very beginning, in v. 15.
MT here reads: “Then Hiram king of Tyre sent his servants to
Solomon, for he had heard that they had anointed him king in place
of his father David, for Hiram had always loved David.” The LXX
has: “Then Hiram king of Tyre sent his servants to anoint Solomon
in place of David, for Hiram had always loved David.” Below the
Greek and Hebrew texts have been set out in parallel columns:
5 lambanein in v. 14a forms part of an idiomatic expression.
solomon’s prestige among the kings of the earth 99
The meaning of the MT-version of v. 15 does not pose serious prob-
lems to the exegete. The phrase “for he had heard that they had
anointed him king” refers back to the ceremony described in 1 Kgs.
1: 39. The explicatory remark “because Hiram had loved David all
the time” must be taken in a political sense and probably alludes to
the existence of some kind of political or commercial alliance between
Hiram and David. The sending of envoys to Solomon, then, had
the purpose not only of congratulating him on his accession, but
also of sounding him out about his stance towards Tyre and of start-
ing negotiations with him.6
The LXX-version poses more problems to the exegete. On the
face of it, v. 15 seems to say that Hiram’s servants themselves anointed
Solomon king. This understanding produces a highly peculiar pic-
ture of Solomon’s kingship. It is also hard to reconcile with the view
expressed by 1 Kgs./3 Reg. 1: 39 that Zadok anointed Solomon
king.
Would it not be possible, then, that the LXX-version is the result
of faulty copying during the transmission of the text? The shape of
the Greek text seems to preclude this possibility. This becomes evi-
dent when we compare the text of 3 Reg. 5: 15 (Rahlfs) with the
literal translation of 1 Kgs. 5: 15 that is presented by the Hexapla:
3 Reg. 5: 15a Hexapla 3 Reg. 5: 15a LXX (Rahlfs)
kai apesteilen Xiram basileuw Turou kai ép°steilen Xiram basileÁw TÊroutouw paidaw aÈtou toÁw pa›daw aÈtoË
xr¤sai
6 Thus also Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 154.
100 chapter six
5: 15a ka‹ ép°steilen Xiram basileÁw TÊrou rwxo¶AËl,ôm, μrŸ:yji jl'v]YIw"· 5: 15atoÁw pa›daw aÈtou w!yd;b;[}Ata,
xr›sai –tÚn Salvmvn hm+oløov]Ala,
– [m'+v; yKi¢– Ël,m,`l] Wjàv]m; w i ètoao yKià
ént‹ tj'T'¢Dauid –toË patrÚw aÈtoË Whybi-a;
5: 15b ˜ti égap«n ∑n Xiram tÚn Dauid d£wId;l] μ i èr:yji hyè:h; bheao yKi¢ 5: 15bpãsaw tåw ≤m°raw >μyômiY:h'AlK;
prowSalvmvn tÚn Salvmvnhkousen garoti auton exrisan eiw basileaanti (Dauid) tou patrow autou ént‹ Dauid toË patrÚw aÈtoË
It is clearly impossible to account for the shape of the LXX-text in
terms of parablepsis. The difference in syntactic construction of the
Greek passages unambiguously points to an intentional alteration of
word order and, where required, adaptation of forms in accordance
with grammatical rules.
The same reasoning applies if we assume that the variation arose
in the Hebrew stage of the text. The literal character of the trans-
lation of 3 Regum allows us to tell with a reasonable degree of cer-
tainty what the hypothetical Hebrew Vorlage of v. 15a would have
looked like. Here too, comparison between the two versions indi-
cates that the divergencies result from deliberate revision rather than
from scribal error:7
7 Against Burney, Notes, 53; Mulder, 1 Kings 1–11, 208; Stade-Schwally, Books ofKings, 81.
solomon’s prestige among the kings of the earth 101
whyba tjt ˚lml wjçm wta yk [mç yk hmlçAla wydb[Ata rwxA˚lm μryj tlçyw 1 Kgs. 5: 15a
whyba ùd tjt hmlçAta wjçm l wydb[Ata rwxA˚lm μryj jlçyw 3 Reg. 5: 15a
It is by no means certain that 3 Reg. 5: 15 actually goes back to a Hebrew text differentfrom MT, however.
Since it thus appears that the form of the Greek text is intentional,
we are obliged to come up with an explanation of the meaning of
the passage. One striking difference with MT involves the absence
of an equivalent of element ˚lml in 3 Reg. 5: 15. Unlike MT, the
LXX does not say in so many words that Solomon was anointed
king. This leaves the possibility open that the unction mentioned in
3 Reg. 5: 15 does not refer to an investiturial rite at all.
However, if we do assume that the setting of the unction men-
tioned in 3 Reg. 5: 15 is a “coronation ceremony” just as in 1 Kgs.
5: 15, the question emerges how the relationship between the notes
at 3 Reg. 1: 39 and 5: 15 is to be seen.
Could it be that the reviser of 3 Regum turned v. 15 into a ref-
erence to a coronation ceremony because the report of the corona-
tion ceremony in 1 Kgs. 1: 39, to which 1 Kgs. 5: 15 refers, was
not included in the version of 3 Regum in which the reviser was
working? The possibility merits consideration. In the case of 3 Reg.
2: 35o–l it was suggested that this passage was inserted because the
gg-section did not cover the verses where it originally stood and
because the continuation of the Shimei-story would be unintelligible
without this passage.8 The adjustment might be seen in the context
of an effort to present the Solomon Narrative in the gg-section as
an independent work that can be read and understood without fore-
knowledge of passages not included in the section. In the case of 3
Reg. 5: 15, the original text may have been altered in order to delete
a reference to an event not included in the Solomon Narrative
through 3 Reg. 2: 12–11: 43. However, it remains unclear why this
would have occasioned the reviser to say that Hiram’s servants
anointed Solomon.
The assumption that 3 Reg. 5: 15 describes the original corona-
tion ceremony is problematic on other grounds too. In view of the
keen sense of chronology discernable in 3 Regum, it is somewhat
peculiar that an event marking the very beginning of Solomon’s king-
ship is only reported after an extensive description of his deeds as
a king. Though 1 Kgs. 5: 15, too, focuses on an early stage of
Solomon’s kingship and thus also seems to be chronologically dis-
continuous with the preceding narrative in ch. 5, it does not report
on the original coronation but merely refers back to it.
These objections do not apply if 3 Reg. 1: 39 and 5: 15 are taken
as references to two different ceremonies both of which intend to con-
fer a different aspect of royal authority upon Solomon. According
to J. Kuan, 3 Reg. 1 describes the sacral and civil recognition of
Solomon’s rule by his own people, whereas 3 Reg. 5: 15 refers to
the recognition of Solomon’s right to rule over Israel by the Tyrian
king.9 In this view, Solomon as Israel’s new king needed the recog-
nition of Hiram because Israel was the inferior partner in an eco-
nomic or political alliance with Tyre.
The main problem with this interpretation of v. 15 is that it implies
that Solomon as a ruler was dependent on the goodwill of other
kings. This view is at odds with the image of Solomon that is evoked
8 See above chapter 3, pages 36–61.9 J.K. Kuan, “Third Kingdoms 5.1 and Israelite-Tyrian Relations during the
Reign of Solomon”, JSOT 46 (1990), 31–46, esp. 35.
102 chapter six
by the preceding account in ch. 5, namely that of a sovereign ruler
who is on an equal footing with the mighty kings of the earth. Kuan
argues that, since this represents the ideologically more difficult read-
ing, it may be original here.10 However, since the reviser elsewhere
in 3 Regum is eager to stress Solomon’s prestige, it is hard to imag-
ine that an overt allusion to Solomon’s dependence on Hiram would
have been allowed to survive in the text. In addition, such an allu-
sion is not consonant with the conspicuous relief shown by Hiram
when Solomon’s response to his diplomatic overtures appears to be
friendly: “And it came to pass, as soon as Hiram heard the words
of Solomon, that he rejoiced greatly and said: Blessed be God today
who has given to David a wise son over this numerous people”
(v. 21).
In support of his proposal, Kuan points to two features which
might imply that MT does not reflect the original Hebrew.11 One
concerns the “function” of the servants in the text: Whereas they
play a functional role in the LXX, they do not in MT. In Kuan’s
view, this has caused the translators of the Peshi ta to add an explana-
tory note, “and Hiram sent to Solomon and congratulated him”, at
the end of the verse to clarify the servants’ function.
This argumentation, however, is based on an incorrect under-
standing of the notion of “sending”. If the narrator wanted Hiram
to send a concrete message to Solomon, he might have confined
himself to employing the plain phrase hmlçAla μryj jlçyw, “And
Hiram sent to Solomon.” In v. 16 and v. 22 of the same chapter
this formula is used to designate the exchange of royal messages.
Yet Hiram’s primary purpose in v. 15 is not to ask or inform Solomon
concerning a particular subject; in fact, no concrete message is
recorded. The true nature of the embassy to Solomon becomes clear
in light of 2 Sam. 10: 1–2. There it is stated that on the occasion
of Hanun’s succession to the throne of Ammon, David wanted to
show his kindness to the new king by sending a delegation (wydb[)
which had to convey his sympathy to Hanun concerning the loss of
his father. In all likelihood, in 1 Kgs. 5: 15a Hiram has similar
intentions.12
10 Kuan, “Third Kingdoms 5.1”, 32; also Schenker, Septante, 140.11 Kuan, “Third Kingdoms 5.1”, 33.12 Contra Schenker (Septante, 140), who holds that “l’envoi d’ambassadeurs sans
mission en TM est étrange.”
solomon’s prestige among the kings of the earth 103
The additional note in the Peshi a is a free, yet partially correct,
interpretation of the purpose of the embassy that was added because
an explicit explanation was felt missing in MT, not because some
function had to be assigned to the servants.13
Kuan’s second observation involves the expression ˚lml jçm. In
all other instances where ˚lml is used with the verb jçm, except in
1 Kgs. 1: 45, it is always followed by the preposition l[. Whereas
˚lml jçm of 1 Kgs. 5: 15 thus deviates from the standard pattern,
a normal expression, hmlçAta jçml, can be retroverted from the
Greek of the LXX.
This observation, too, cannot be made into a real argument in
favour of the LXX reading. It is questionable whether l[ (+ gen-
tilicium) is to be regarded as part of the verbal valency of ˚lml jçm,
that is to say, whether l[ is an element the presence of which is
required to have a grammatically satisfactory sentence. As it seems,
omission of l[ does not render the expression unintelligible. The
form ˚lml jçm is attested not only in 1 Kgs. 5: 15 but also in 1:
45. Kuan’s assertion that the form attested by 1 Kgs. 1: 45 is not
original because ˚lml is not represented by LXX B and the Ant.
text is disputable, to say the least. Absence of the phrase larçy l[does not seem to be sufficient reason to question the originality of
the expression.
The arguments adduced by Kuan in support of his proposal fail
to convince. Therefore we must consider other possible interpreta-
tions. T. Mettinger has argued that the unction referred to in 3 Reg.
5: 15 has a contractual setting.14 The remark that Hiram had always
loved David would point to the existence of close diplomatic ties
between them. Through his embassy to Solomon, Hiram would have
tried to achieve the renewal of an already existing treaty. This enter-
prise was successful, as can be concluded from 1 Kgs. 5: 26: “And
there was peace (μwlç) between Hiram and Solomon and they made
a covenant (tyrb).” In this setting, tyrb and μwlç are contractual
terms.
13 A similar interpretation is offered by Josephus ( Jewish Ant. VIII, 50), “. . . and(Hiram) sent him greetings and congratulations on his present good fortune.” Theview that the primary purpose of the ambassy was to congratulate Solomon on theoccasion of his accession to the throne is also represented by more recent exegeteslike anda (Bücher der Könige, 101).
14 T.N.D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the IsraeliteKings, Lund 1976, 224–27.
104 chapter six
Mettinger’s proposal is certainly well taken. Taking up observa-
tions made by E. Kutsch,15 Mettinger associates the anointing men-
tioned in 3 Reg. 5: 15 with a royal practice attested in Ancient Near
Eastern royal letters and inscriptions of the 2nd millennium bce to
send oil when a new king assumes kingship in another country.16
From these documents it can be gathered that the delivery of oil
was meant as a token of peace and goodwill. Once accepted, the
symbolic gift of oil could develop into a treaty endorsing the friendly
relations between the two countries. A biblical reminiscence to this
use occurs in Hosh. 12: 2: “They make a treaty (tyrb) with Assyria
and at the same time, oil is brought to Egypt.”
It may be noted that Mettinger’s interpretation of 3 Reg. 5: 15
does not quite tally with the picture presented by the ANE paral-
lels, since they do not speak with so many words of a rite of anoint-
ing. Another difference reveals itself as to the import of the action.
As it stands, the anointing mentioned in 3 Reg. 5: 15 cannot be
taken in the sense of a mere diplomatic gesture intended to prepare
the way for a formal contract between the two countries. The phrase
“to anoint Solomon in place of his father David” indicates that the
anointing as such had the significance of a Perfektionszeichen, that is,
it implies the conclusion of a treaty. This import of the unction in
3 Reg. 5: 15 is not only different from the import of the offering
of oil as is implied by the ANE records, but it also raises the ques-
tion of how it should be combined with the circumstance that the
actual making of a treaty between Solomon and Hiram is not stated
until v. 26. There is a possibility that v. 15 merely states the pur-
pose of the visit without implying the actual performance of the unc-
tion; or the phrase “in place of his father David” may be dismissed
as an element that the reviser failed to delete when he rearranged
v. 15 with a view to refer to a diplomatic unction by Hiram’s servants.
These difficulties do not alter the fact that a diplomatic anoint-
ing fits the context of 3 Reg. 5: 15–26 much better than an investi-
turial anointing in connection with Solomon’s coronation. Mettinger’s
15 E. Kutsch, Salbung als Rechtsakt im Alten Testament und im alten Orient (BZAW 87),Berlin/New York 1963, 226–27.
16 Mettinger, King and Messiah, 212–16, 227. The ANE documents under con-sideration involve the Hittite royal letter KBo I 14, the Amarna letter EA 34, theinscription on the statue of Idrimi, king of Alalakh, and an Assyrian ritual.
solomon’s prestige among the kings of the earth 105
proposal also offers a plausible frame to understand the background
of the divergencies between the LXX and MT. Since 3 Reg. 5: 15
clearly represents the lectio difficilior the LXX would have preserved
the original reading.17 The reason for the development of the read-
ing preserved in MT would be that the diplomatic anointing was
later mistaken for the anointing in connection with Solomon’s coro-
nation. “Since the circumstances in connection with this were known
(1 Kgs. 1: 32–40) and since nothing indicated Tyrian participation,
the statement about the anointing in 3 Reg. 3: 15 took the charac-
ter of an erratic block that had to be removed.”
This view accounts for the difference between MT and the LXX
in a logical, plausible way. Yet the circumstance that much of the
variation in ch. 5 can be explained from a tendency on the part of
the LXX-version to magnify the stature and prestige of Solomon
under his fellow kings raises the question whether a similar expla-
nation is not possible with regard to the variation in v. 15.
Thus the possibility must be considered that 3 Reg. 5: 15 describes
the anointing of Solomon as an homage that Hiram paid to the
young and already famous king. Thus Solomon’s anointing would
be in line with the offering of presents by foreign kings in honour
of his wisdom (v. 14).18 The reviser of 5: 15 maintained the phrase
“because Hiram had always loved David” because he, too, wished
to convey that Hiram’s initiative had a diplomatic background.
Perhaps this explains why he did not delete the phrase “instead of
his father David” (anti Dauid tou patrow autou), which seems out of
place in the context of a purely honorific anointment. The anoint-
ment of Solomon “instead of his father David”, then, was meant
to express that Hiram wanted his relation with Solomon, who had
come in place of his father, to become as good as his relation with
David was.
It appears that both a contractual and a honorific understanding
of the anointing in 3 Reg. 5: 15 raise difficulties. Though these may
be somewhat more serious in the latter case, the honorific interpre-
tation is more appropriate in the context of 3 Reg. 5. Whatever
interpretation is favoured, the anointing referred to by the LXX
17 Mettinger, King and Messiah, 227.18 Similarly DeVries, 1 Kings, 78.
106 chapter six
implies that Hiram attached great importance to being on good terms
with king Solomon. In this regard, 3 Reg. 5: 15 contributes to bol-
stering the image of Solomon as a mighty king.
3 Reg. 5: 20
A little later in the same narrative the LXX exhibits another difference
from MT that touches on the subject of Solomon’s position vis-à-
vis his fellow kings, in particular Hiram. In 1 Kgs. 5: 20 Solomon
urges Hiram to order his servants to fell cedars on the Lebanon.
After stating that his servants will assist Hiram’s servants in the job,
Solomon goes on to declare
Úl] ˆTia, Úyd<b;[} rk'c]W
which is to be rendered as: “and I will give you the hire of your
servants.” The LXX, on the other hand, has
ka‹ tÚn misyÚn doule¤aw sou d≈sv soi
which may be translated as: “and I will give you the hire for your
service.” Thus the LXX has it that Hiram himself, not his servants,
is in Solomon’s service. Hiram’s subordinate position vis-à-vis Solomon
is also indicated by the term douleia. Its common meaning is
“bondage”, “slavery”, and it is used in this sense throughout the
LXX.19 In 3 Regum, douleia appears at 5: 20, 9: 9, 21 (LXX A)
and 12: 4. In the latter three instances it clearly signifies compul-
sory service.20 At 3 Reg. 5: 20, where douleia is preceded by misyon,it cannot be taken to mean “slavery”, because the translation “reward
for your slavery” is a contradictio in terminis.21 All the same, the term
is suggestive of the compulsory character of Hiram’s service. A king
whose rendering of service is designated by this term obviously is
not in a position to turn down Solomon’s request. It seems likely
that 3 Regum intends to depict Hiram as a minor partner of Solomon.
19 Note for instance the standard rendering oikow douleiaw for μydb[ tyb, “houseof bondage”.
20 3 Reg. 9: 9 mentions the expression oikow douleiaw, which in that positionrepresents a plus vis-à-vis MT.
21 Apparently this is the reason why LSJ goes as far as to cite the phrase andto offer the special translation “service for hire” (446).
solomon’s prestige among the kings of the earth 107
A similar conclusion can be reached when the argumentation is
brought down to the level of the Vorlage of 3 Reg. 5: 20. Given the
reading Úyd,Ÿb;[} at 1 Kgs. 5: 20, it seems probable that douleiaw souis meant to represent ˚tdb[ (hd;bo[} + suffix 2 m.s.).22 Now hd;bo[} has
a somewhat wider semantic range than douleia, as it denotes plain
labour and rendering of service as well as compulsory service and
slavery. As a consequence in the Vorlage of 3 Reg. 5: 20 the notion
of subordination would not be so apparent as on the level of the
Greek. Nevertheless, this does not alter the fact that Hiram himself
is addressed as a servant and thus counts as the inferior partner of
Solomon.
In sum, the LXX-versions of v. 15 and v. 20 show that the ten-
dency observable in the earlier parts of 3 Reg. 5 to present Solomon
as a powerful and prestigious king among his colleagues is also pre-
sent in the Hiram narrative.
3 Reg. 10: 8
8 makãriai afl guna›k°w sou Úyv,+n:a} yr¢ev]a' 8makãrioi ofl pa›d°w sou Úyd¢,b;[} yrev]a'otoi ofl paresthkÒtew §n≈piÒn sou di' ˜lou dym+iT; ÚŸyn!<p;l] μyd¶im][oôh; hL,a-eofl ékoÊontew μy[im]Voh'
pçsan tØn frÒnhs¤n sou >Ëôt,m;k]j;Ata, . . .
In 1 Kgs. 10: 8 the Queen of Sheba exclaims: “Happy are your
men, happy are your servants who stand before you continually,
hearing your wisdom.” For “your men”, LXX B, the Ant. text, the
Vetus Latina and the Peshi ta offer “your wives”. Most critics tend
to accept the latter reading as the original one.23 It has been argued
that “your men” is unlikely to be original because of the tautology
it creates with “your servants”. Moreover, in the mouth of the Queen
of Sheba the reference to Solomon’s wives sounds quite natural, as
she may identify herself more readily with women than with men.
The reference is also in line with ch. 11, which speaks of Solomon’s
22 Cf. 3 Reg. 12: 4, where hdb[ is rendered by douleia.23 C. McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic
Text of the Old Testament (OBO 36), Freiburg/Göttingen 1981, 232–33; Gray, Kings,240, n. c; Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 217; Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 116;anda, Bücher der Könige, 273; Würthwein, Erste Buch der Könige, 119, 122.
108 chapter six
many wives and concubines. The MT reading, then, might have
been motivated by the wish to remove Solomon’s wives, who are
strongly condemned in ch. 11, from the text.
However, the aforementioned points could also be turned into
arguments in favour of the view that “your wives” is a correction
of “your men”. In this connection, it is of interest to note that the
LXX-version of 11: 1(ab), unlike the MT-version of this verse, does
not condemn the fact that Solomon had many wives. As a result
the information of v. 1ab as such adds to the image of Solomon as
a mighty and glorious king. The LXX might, therefore, not have
bothered to make the Queen of Sheba refer to Solomon’s wives.
The priority of the MT reading in 1 Kgs. 10: 8 gains probabil-
ity in light of the fact that the parallel in 2 Chron. 9: 7 also refers
to “your men”. That reading is also firmly established in the LXX
of 2 Par. 9: 7.24
On the other hand, the wide attestaton of “your wives” in the
Versions of 1 Kgs. 10: 8 is not to be disregarded. If “your wives”
in 3 Reg. 10: 8 is considered a modification on the level of the
Greek text, the attestation of this reading in Vetus Latina and Peshi a
could be due to influence from the LXX. Though it cannot be ques-
tioned that these versions reveal influence from the LXX, the fact
remains that, especially the Peshi ta of Kings, is basically a transla-
tion from a Hebrew Vorlage. Furthermore, it is remarkable that the
Hexaplaric manuscripts maintain the reading “your wives” in spite
of its being at variance with MT.
On balance, though there are good grounds for taking “your wives”
of 3 Reg. 10: 8 as an exegetical modification of “your men” as rep-
resented by MT, it cannot be ruled out that “your wives” represents
the original text and “your men” a later development.
3 Reg. 10: 23–27
Outside ch. 5 the LXX’s interest in the theme of Solomon’s power
and prestige finds particular expression in 3 Reg. 10: 23–29.
24 Only a few minuscules (part of them being Ant. manuscripts) represent “(your)wives” instead of “your men”: b e2 g. Minuscules i and y add “happy are yourwives and” before “happy are your men”. In all likelihood, these differences fromMT all involve harmonizations to 3 Reg. 10: 8.
solomon’s prestige among the kings of the earth 109
Comparison between this paragraph and its counterpart in 1 Kings
shows that a number of differences in the LXX together create the
effect of amplifying the picture of Solomon’s glory and prestige.
Elsewhere in this monograph we will address the question what kind
of procedure brought about the difference in perspective between
MT and the LXX, especially in 3 Reg. 10: 26.25 Here we are mainly
interested in describing the variations between the versions of MT
and the LXX and in stating the implications for Solomon’s image.
23 ka‹ §megalÊnyh . . . Salvmvn hmo+løov] Ël,M,¢h' lD'g“YIw" 23Íp¢r pãntaw toÁw basile›w t∞w g∞w ≈r,a-;h; yk¢el]m' lKomiploÊtƒ ka‹ fronÆsei >hôm;k]j;l]W rv,[l]
24 ka‹ pãntew basile›w t∞w g∞w ≈r,a+;h; . . . Alk;Ÿw“ 24§zÆtoun tÚ prÒsvpon Salvmvn hm-olov] yn∞EP]Ata, μyviq]b'm]
toË ékoËsai t∞w fronÆsevw aÈtoË wto+m;k]j;Ata, ['ŸmoŸ;v]li∏w ¶dvken kÊriow §n tª kard¤& aÈtoË >wôBoliB] μyhi`loa‘ ˆtà'n:Arv,a}
25 ka‹ aÈto‹ ¶feron μya¢ibim] hM;h¢ew“ 25ßkastow tå d«ra aÈtoË wto^j;n“mi vya¢i
– π°s,k, yl¢eK]. . . skeÊh xrusa bh;¶z ylŸek]Wka‹ flmatismÒn tŸ/ml;c]W. . . staktØn ka‹ ≤dÊsmata μym+,c;b]W qv,nE∞w“ka‹ ·ppouw ka‹ ≤miÒnouw μyd-Ir;p]W μysiWs . . .tÚ kat' §niautÚn §niautÒn >s hôn:v;B] h£n:v;Arb'D“
– μ‹yvir;p;W bk,r¢, hJmoloøv] πso¢a‘Y<w" 2626 ka‹ ∑san t“ Salvmvn wloAyhiy“w"
t°ssarew xiliãdew tŸ/ameA[B'r]a'w“ πl,a,¶yÆleiai ·ppoi efiw ërmata bk,r+, . . . . . . . . .ka‹ d≈deka xiliãdew flpp°vn μyv-ir;ôP; πl,a, rcà;[;AμynEv]W
ka‹ ¶yeto aÈtåw μŸjen“Y"w"§n ta›w pÒlesi t«n èrmãtvn bk,r+,h; yrE¢[;B]ka‹ metå toË basil°vw §n Ierousalhm >μôl;v;WryBi Ël,M,`h'Aμ[iw“
26a ka‹ ∑n ≤goÊmenow pãntvn t«n basil°vn –épÚ toË potamoË –ka‹ ßvw g∞w éllofÊlvn –ka‹ ßvw ır¤vn AfigÊptou –
27 ka‹ ¶dvken ı basileÁw |eËl,Má,h' ˆTeŸYIw" 27tÚ xrus¤on ka‹ –tÚ érgÊrion §n Ierousalhm …w l¤youw μynI-b;a}K; μl'v;WryBi πs,Kà,h'Ata,
ka‹ tåw k°drouw μyzIr;a}h; tae¢w“¶dvken …w sukam¤nouw μymàiq]ViK' ˆ itià'n:tåw §n tª pedinª efiw pl∞yow >bôrol; hl;peVeB'Arv,a}
25 See pages 250–61.
110 chapter six
The prevailing theme of the paragraph is indicated in v. 23: Solomon’s
excessive wealth and wisdom. The following verses elaborate on this
theme. V. 24 and v. 25a explain the connection between Solomon’s
wisdom and his riches: Whenever people come to hear Solomon’s
wisdom they present him with a gift. At this point we note an impor-
tant difference between MT and the LXX. Whereas the former
speaks of “the whole earth” visiting Solomon, the latter says that
“all kings of the earth” come to visit him. As a consequence, in the
LXX not “the whole earth” but the kings mentioned in v. 24 are
the implicit subject of v. 25: “And they brought each their presents,
objects of gold and garments, myrrh and spices, and horses and
mules, year by year.” Now the LXX exhibits a minus in the list of
presents that may be connected with the different subject of v. 25.
It lacks an equivalent to the πsk ylk, the silver objects, which in
MT are listed before the objects of gold. Did the LXX omit this
item because it considered the less precious silver an unfitting gift
for kings to present the mighty Solomon with? The assumption is
quite tempting in light of the remark of 3 Reg./1 Kgs. 10: 21b that
in Solomon’s days silver was not considered a precious enough metal
to be used for the furniture of Solomon’s palace.
Further differences obtain between the versions of the LXX and
MT in v. 26. The LXX lacks a rendering of the first sentence of
the MT-version: “And Solomon gathered together chariots and horse-
men.” The LXX moreover deviates from MT in saying that Solomon
had 40,000 broodmares for his chariots and 12,000 horsemen rather
than 1,400 chariots and 12,000 horsemen. As the LXX does not
render the first sentence of v. 26 in MT, it admits the interpreta-
tion that the 40,000 mares actually were the horses listed among the
(tributary) gifts in the preceding verse.26 The large number, then,
may offer a striking illustration of Solomon’s prestige among the
kings of the world. Perhaps the mentioning of gold alongside silver
(MT: silver only) in v. 27 as metals that became as common as boul-
ders in Jerusalem served a similar purpose, namely to exemplify that
the amount of gold which Solomon received from his fellow kings
was huge.27
26 Thus also Gooding, “Text-sequence”, 454–55, 463.27 The reference to gold does not merely intend to stress Solomon’s tremendous
wealth, as Wevers (“Exegetical Principles”, 309) assumes.
solomon’s prestige among the kings of the earth 111
The plus that the LXX exhibits between v. 26 and v. 27, num-
bered v. 26a, once more emphasizes Solomon’s supreme interna-
tional position: “And he was ruler of all the kings from the River
until the land of the Philistines, and until the borders of Egypt.”
Thus we note that the LXX-version of vv. 23–27 shows a marked
tendency to highlight Solomon’s status and glory among the kings of
his time. The MT-version lacks a particular interest in Solomon’s sta-
tus and rather focuses on listing sources and signs of Solomon’s riches
and power. Thus vv. 24–25a of MT describe how Solomon’s wis-
dom brought about a constant flow of presents; v. 26 deals with the
signs of his military power, v. 27 with the signs of his riches; vv.
28–29 indicate Solomon’s horse trade as another source of income.
In the LXX, the latter verses do not bear a particular connection
with the preceding verses and appear to constitute a paragraph that
stands by itself.
Though the MT-version of vv. 23–29 does not lack all thematic
coherence, its differences from the LXX cannot be satisfactorily
explained in terms of meaningful alterations of an older Hebrew ver-
sion. On balance, then, there can be hardly any doubt that the
LXX-version of these verses represents a secondary development vis-
à-vis MT.
Conclusion
The deviations from MT that were discussed above have in com-
mon that they tend to emphasize glory and prestige of Solomon
among his fellow kings. This tendency renders it very likely that they
represent a secondary development in the text attested by the LXX.
Regarding the placement of 3 Reg. 5: 14a–b, other motives, like a
concern for a consistent, logical arrangement of materials, may also
have played a role.28 Perhaps we are dealing here with converging
motives.
28 See pages 71–72 and 291.
112 chapter six
CHAPTER SEVEN
THE ACCOUNT OF THE PREPARATION OF THE
TEMPLE BUILDING (1 KGS. 5: 31–6: 1—3 REG. 5: 32–6: 1D)
In the account of the preparatory work for the construction of the
temple, the LXX shows a variety of differences from MT, compris-
ing sequence differences, pluses and minuses and differences in con-
tent. There is good reason to assume that several of these are related
to each other. The textual relationship between the two accounts is
shown in the scheme below.
= 6: 1a Ël,M,^h' wx¢'y“w" 5: 31twlø⁄roG“ μyn!Ib;a} W°[SiY"w"
tw i èroq;y“ μynéIb;a}tyIB;h' dSàey"l]
>tyôzIg: ynèEb]a'= 6: 1b UWl|s]p]YIôw" 5: 32a
h i èmoløov] ynéEBoμw"r"`oyji yNèEboW
μyl-ib]GIh'w“5: 32 ka‹ ≤to¤masan toÁw l¤youw ka‹ tå jÊla μynèIb;a}h;w“ μyxài[eh; Wny i èkiY:w" 5: 32b
. . . . . . >tyô iK;h' twnOèb]litr¤a ¶th . . . . . .
6: 1 ka‹ §genÆyh yhi¢y“w" 6: 1§n t“ tessarakost“ . . . hn:∞v; μyn∞I/mv]bi
ka‹ tetrakosiost“ ¶tei hn:flv; twao¢me [B¢'r“a'w“t∞w §jÒdou ufl«n Israhl la¢ er;c]yIAyônEB] taxe¢l]§j . . . AfigÊptou μ°yIr'x]miA≈r,ôa,met“ ¶tei t“ tetãrtƒ ty[i⁄ybir]h; hn!:V;B'§n mhn‹ . . . wz$I vr,jo¢B]. . . . . . . . . t“ deut°rƒ ynI±Veh' vr,jo¢h' aWhª
basileÊontow toË basil°vw . . .Ëlàom]liSalvmvn §p‹ Israhl la- er;c]yIAl[' h£molv]
. . . . . . . . . >hôw:hyl' tyIB'h' ˆb,YIèw"6: 1a ka‹ §nete¤lato ı basileÁw [ Ël,M,h' wx¢'y“w" 5: 31 ]
ka‹ a‡rousin l¤youw megãlouw [ twlø⁄doG“ μynI!b;a} W°[SiY"w" ]. . . tim¤ouw [ twri è oq;y“ μynéIb;a} ]efiw tÚn yem°lion toË o‡kou [ tyIB;h' dSà ey"l] ]ka‹ l¤youw épelekÆtouw [ >tyôzIg: ynEèb]a' . . . ]
6: 1b ka‹ §pel°khsan [ Wl|s]p]YIôw" 5: 32a ]ofl uflo‹ Salvmvn [ h iìmolv] ynEéBo ]
Vv. 31–32 of 1 Kgs. 5 deal with the preparation of building mate-
rials for the construction of the temple. At the king’s command, large
stones were quarried to lay the foundation of the temple and timber
and stones were hewn and prepared in order to build the temple.
Presumably, various groups were involved in these activities. The 3 m.pl.
subject of v. 31 may refer back to the “stonecutters in the moun-
tains” mentioned in v. 29 while the workmen engaged in the dress-
ing and hewing of stones and timber (v. 32) may be identified as
the builders of Solomon and Hiram and the Giblites.
Meanwhile, vv. 31–32 raise questions as to the nature, location
and relationship of the activities reported. On the face of it, a log-
ical sequence of activities seems to be implied.1 The quarrying of
large, precious stones is followed by the dressing and preparation of
stones and timber. The provision of timber seems to be implied by
5: 20, 22–23. The preparatory episode is appropriately concluded
by a chronological note at 1 Kgs. 6: 1 that marks the beginning of
1 Thus also B. Stade, “Der Text des Berichtes über Solomons Bauten. 1 Kö.5–7”, ZAW 3 (1883), 129–77, esp. 134: “[ySh, lsp, ˆykh [folgen] naturgemäss zeitlichaufeinander . . .”
114 chapter seven
ka‹ ofl uflo‹ Xiram [ μwroyji ynEèboW ]ka‹ ¶balan aÈtoÊw [ μyl-ib]GIh'w“ ]
6: 1c §n t“ ¶tei t“ tetãrt– [ ty[i+ybir“ôh; hŸn:V;B' 6: 37 ]§yemel¤vsen tÚn o‰kon kur¤ou [ hw:–hy“ tyBe¢ dS'yU ]§n mhn‹ Nisv [ >wôzI jr'£y <B] ]t“ deut°rƒ mhn‹ [ . . . . . . ]
6: 1d . . . §n •ndekãtƒ §niautƒ [ hre⁄c][, tj'Ÿa'h; h°n:V;b'W 6: 38a ]§n mhn‹ Baal [ lWB% jr"y<∞B] ]
otow ı mØn ı ˆgdoow [ yn±IymiV]h' vd,t¢oh' aWh ]sunetel°syh ı o‰kow [ tyIB+'h' hl¢;K; ]efiw pãnta lÒgon aÈtoË [ wyr:b;D“Alk;l] ]ka‹ efiw pçsan diãtajin aÈtoË [ /fP;v]miAlk;l]W ]
6: 2–36 account of temple construction
= 6: 1c hw:-hy“ tyB¢ e dS'yU ty[+iybir“ôh; hŸn:V;B' 6: 37>wôzI jr'£y <B]
= 6: 1d hr⁄ec][, tjŸ'a'h; h°n:V;b'W 6: 38alWB% jr'y∞<B]
ynI±ymiV]h' vr<j¢oh' aWhtyIB'+h' hl¢;K;wyr:`b;D“Alk;l]
/fP;v]miAlk;l]W
the actual building of the temple. However, the large quarried stones
mentioned in v. 31 are meant for laying the foundation of the house
(tyIB'h' dSey"l]) while the stones and timber mentioned in v. 32 are
intended for building the house (tyIB;h' twnOb]li), which either means the
construction of the superstructure or the construction of both super-
structure and foundation. On the basis of this distinction, v. 31 and
v. 32 each seem to report the preparation of building materials for
different parts of the temple. If that is the case, the report for each
part is incomplete: While v. 31 is silent on the dressing of the foun-
dation stones, v. 32 does not mention the quarrying of the stones
that were subsequently dressed and prepared.
Second, whereas the report on the preparation of building materials
for the house (5: 32) is followed by an account of the construction
(6: 1f.), the report on the preparation of materials for the foundation
in 5: 31 is not followed by an account of the laying of foundations.
1 Kgs. 6: 1 merely says that temple construction began “in the fourth
year, in the month of Ziv, that is the second month” of Solomon’s
reign. Only in light of the note in 6: 37, “in the fourth year the
house of YHWH was founded, in the month of Ziv”, is it evident
that 1 Kgs. 6: 1 actually pertains to the founding of the temple.
Third, MT fails to report the transportation of stones from the
quarry to the building site, though it mentions the transportation of
timber (5: 23).
In sum, then, the presentation of events in MT is unbalanced and
ambiguous.
The LXX-account corresponding to 1 Kgs. 5: 31–6: 1 produces
none of the ambiguities and obscurities that affect MT. The account
exhibits the following arrangement of subject matter:
1. 3 Reg. 5: 32. The preparation of the stones and the timber over
a period of three years.
2. 3 Reg. 6: 1–1a. A chronological note (v. 1) dating Solomon’s
order to take the stones to the foundation of the temple (v. 1a).
3. 3 Reg. 6: 1b. The hewing and “casting down” of stones, that is,
activities pertaining to the laying of foundations.
4. 3 Reg. 6: 1c. A chronological note dating the laying of founda-
tions in the fourth year.
5. 3 Reg. 6: 1d. A chronological note dating the completion of the
temple in the 11th year.
the preparation of the temple building 115
Contrary to MT, the LXX follows a strictly chronological order.
The successive stages in the course of action are neatly distinguished,
partially by the use of time-indicators. The counterpart of 1 Kgs. 5:
32b, i.e., 3 Reg. 5: 32, is positioned at the head of the account,
thus suggesting that preparation of building materials took place prior
to the beginning of all building operations. The presence of a chrono-
logical note (absent in MT) fixing the duration of the preparatory
work at three years confirms this impression. Since construction is
said to have started in the fourth year (3 Reg. 6: 1, 1c) of Solomon’s
reign, it is evident that the period of preparatory work coincides
with the three preceding years. The events following this three-year
period are described in an order of temporal succession: In his fourth
year (v. 1), Solomon gave command, whereupon workmen took the
stones that had been quarried to the building site of the temple
(v. 1a; cf. below); subsequently, the “sons” of Solomon and Hiram
dressed the stones and used them to lay the foundation (v. 1b).
The account is concluded by chronological notices dating the laying
of the foundations of the temple (v. 1c) and its completion (v. 1d).
These notes may seem to be somewhat oddly positioned, especially
the latter one. It has no connection with the subject of the found-
ing of the temple, and its appearance preceding the report of the
actual temple building seems to be premature. However, the tem-
ple-account contains several notes that bracket together the building
and the completion of the house, even where reference to the latter
is contextually inappropriate (see for instance 3 Reg. 6: 3; 3 Reg./1
Kgs. 6: 9; 1 Kgs. 6: 14), so that v. 1d at least fits a general pat-
tern. V. 1c raises the difficulty of being uncomfortably close to the
materially identical chronological note in vv. 1–1a. It is somewhat
odd that both the command and the execution of that command
are provided with a full chronological note though the dates involved
are identical and the notes stand at a short distance from each other.
Another peculiarity of the Greek version is that it provides infor-
mation that, at least at first sight, does not seem to tally with the
sequel. 3 Reg. 6: 1b states: “And the sons of Solomon and the sons
of Hiram hewed (epelekhsan) (the stones) and laid them for a foun-
dation.” However, in 3 Reg. 6: 7 we read: “And the house, when
it was being built, it was built with rough hewn stones. And there
was not heard hammer or ax (pelekuw) or any iron tool in the house
when it was being built.” In all likelihood, the hewing of stones
reported in v. 1b is meant to be understood as taking place at the
116 chapter seven
location of the future temple, since the previous verse speaks about
the transportation of stones (airousin liyouw), apparently from the
quarry to the building site. Therefore the tension between the two
passages cannot be solved by assuming that the hewing of stones
was done at a place different to the building site to which v. 7 makes
reference. A better solution is to assume that v. 7 merely pertains
to the stage in which the superstructure of the temple was con-
structed and not to the stage of the laying of foundations that is
described in v. 1b. In this connection, it is important to note that
3 Reg. 6: 7 appears in the middle of a passage dealing with the
construction of the superstructure. In MT no similar problem arises,
since it intimates that the working of the stone blocks took place in
the Lebanon rather than at the building site in Jerusalem (cf. 1 Kgs.
5: 32).2
Though the LXX-account thus is not entirely devoid of difficulties,
it does not show the ambiguity and obscurity that characterizes the
MT-version. As Trebolle Barrera has pointed out, the form of the
temple-account in the LXX is typical of many biblical and extra-
biblical records on the construction of temples.3 These records first
provide the exact date when construction started (cf. 3 Reg. 6: 1)
before explicitly reporting the laying of foundations (cf. 3 Reg. 6:
1a–b).
To summarize, content and tenor of each version may be char-
acterized as follows: MT deals extensively with the preparatory work
and is silent on the actual laying of the foundations; the LXX, on
the other hand, is brief on general preparations and rather explicit
on the founding of the temple.
It is quite obvious that the difference in perspective between the two
versions is brought about in the first place by the different posi-
tioning of the corresponding passages 1 Kgs. 5: 31–32a (3 Reg. 6:
1a–b) and 1 Kgs. 6: 37–38a (3 Reg. 6: 1c–d). In addition, other
types of differences, pluses/minuses and word differences, can be
2 MT however suffers from another problem: If [sm hmlçAˆba in 1 Kgs. 6: 7refers to rough hewn blocks from the quarry (thus Mulder, 1 Kings 1–11, 243), thequestion arises how the note in v. 7 relates to the statement hmlç ynb wlspyw in5: 32.
3 Trebolle Barrera, Salomón y Jeroboán, 313–18, 324.
the preparation of the temple building 117
seen to contribute significantly to the particular character of each
account. These variations are the following ones:
1. The LXX does not represent the phrases “to build the house”
of 1 Kgs. 5: 32b and “(then) he built the house of YHWH” of
6: 1. As a consequence, in the LXX no references to the build-
ing of the temple (either the superstructure or the entire con-
struction) appear in a context that is devoted to the laying of
foundations. In the arrangement of MT, the plus tybh twnbl inv. 32 may mark the transition from the preparatory episode to
the construction episode (6: 1f.).
2. In MT, the announcement of the beginning of the temple build-
ing, hwhyl tybh ˆbyw (1 Kgs. 6: 1), follows logically on the account
of the preparation. As the LXX does not offer an equivalent of
this phrase in 3 Reg. 6: 1, the verse is devoid of a main clause.
This circumstance requires us to connect v. 1 syntactically with
the next verse, reading kai eneteilato o basileuw . . . (3 Reg. 6:
1a). By consequence, 3 Reg. 6: 1 does not date the construction
of the temple but the moment when Solomon issued an order to
lay the foundation of the temple. Gooding proposed that the LXX
here wished to forestall the suggestion that Solomon built and
completed the temple within the period of a month.4 It seems
more probable that the reference to the beginning of the build-
ing of the house (either the superstructure alone or the entire
construction) was considered inappropriate here as the laying of
the foundations had to be reported first. Such pedantic reason-
ing is quite in line with the tendency noted elsewhere in 3 Regum.
3. The note “during three years” in 3 Reg. 5: 32 fits the strictly
chronological presentation of events in the LXX-account. It inti-
mates that the phase of preparation precedes that of the laying
of the foundations, which starts in the fourth year. The period
of three years moreover suggests that Solomon started preparations
immediately after his accession. The absence of the note in MT,
on the other hand, does not seem to serve a particular purpose.
4. The MT of v. 31 is to be translated as follows: “At the king’s
order, they quarried great stones, hewn stones to lay the foundations.”5
4 Gooding, “Pedantic Timetabling”, 160.5 Translation borrowed from Gray, Kings, 148.
118 chapter seven
Translation of the formal equivalent of 1 Kgs. 5: 31 in 3 Reg.
6: 1a produces a somewhat different text: “they carried great stones . . .
to the foundation” (airousin . . . eiw ton yemelion). MT situates the
quarrying, and possibly also the subsequent dressing of the stones,
in the mountains (cf. 1 Kgs. 5: 29). The LXX, on the other hand,
focuses on the transportation of stones from the quarry to the
foundation site in Jerusalem. The translation airousin (praesens his-toricum) does not reveal an effort to represent the meaning “to
quarry (stones)”, which the verb [sn Hiphil takes in the context
of 1 Kgs. 5: 31 and Qoh. 10: 9. In fact, the continuation eiw tonyemelion rules out the possibility that airousin refers to the quar-
rying of stones. Rather, airein in 3 Reg. 6: 1a represents the
basic meaning of [sn Hiphil, “to remove”. There is no reason to
suppose that the translator found a different word in the Vorlage
or purposely departed from it.6 This interpretation of 3 Reg. 6:
1a leads us to take the verse preceding 6: 1–1a, i.e., 5: 32, as a
general reference to activities prior to the transportation of the
building materials, including the preliminary dressing of stones at
the quarry. The circumstance that the labourers mentioned in 5:
29–30, who cut trees and hewed stones in the mountains, appear
as the natural subject of v. 32, supports this understanding. The
obvious impression created by the LXX is that the preparation
of the stones and timber was done at the Lebanon.
5. The phrase eiw ton yemelion tou oikou does not represent dSey"l]tybh, “to lay the foundation of the house”, yet it may be based
on the same consonantal text as MT. The LXX took dsy in the
Vorlage not as l] + inf. of dsy Piel, but as the defectively written
construct state of the noun d/sy“, “foundation” (to be pointed as
tybh rsoyli).7 It is not clear whether this interpretation was inten-
tional. At any rate, together with the verb airousin it has the
effect of turning the text into a reference to the transportation of
stones.
6 Note that the only other occurrence of [sn Hiphil in the book of Kings at 2Kgs. 4: 4 is also rendered by airein. Elsewhere in the LXX compound forms ofairein appear as equivalents of [sn Hiphil: apairein Judg. 5: 4; ejairein Eccl. 10:9; epairein Job 41: 18; metairein Ps. 79: 9.
7 Hatch-Redpath (629c) lists six other instances where yemelion, -ow is the for-mal equivalent of d/sy“.
the preparation of the temple building 119
6. At the position corresponding to tyzg ynba of MT, the LXX has
liyouw apelekhtouw, “unhewn stones”. In fact, in four instances
out of a total of five throughout 1 Kings where tyzg is found, the
Greek text has apelekhtow.8 Since the Hebrew of MT does not
contain one particular term or expression that can be assumed
to be the equivalent of apelekhtow and no reason comes to mind
why MT would have changed “unhewn” into “hewn”, the Greek
term certainly represents a secondary development. Provided that
the translator was familiar with the true meaning of tyzg, what
may have led him to translate the term by its opposite sense?
Wevers proposed that the translation reflects “an archaizing ten-
dency on the part of G, a rabbinic conceit based on Ex. xx 22
[= xx 25] according to which altars were to be made of unhewn
stone only.”9 It is, however, difficult to see how this specific reg-
ulation concerning the altar could be extended so far as to include
not only the temple but Solomon’s palace as well (see 3 Reg. 7:
48, 49). Moreover, according to v. 1b the unhewn stones were
actually dressed before they were used for the foundation: kaiepelekhsan (i.e., liyouw megalouw timiouw . . . kai liyouw apelekh-touw) . . . kai ebalan autouw. Since even the most careless trans-
lator/editor is not likely to overlook the fact that a theological
concept introduced in one clause is already invalidated by the
next, a different explanation must be considered. It is conceiv-
able that the translator, coming across the word tyzg for the first
time in Kings, allowed his understanding of it to be affected by
the verb wlspyw (epelekhsan) at 1 Kgs. 5: 32 in his Vorlage. He
may have argued that it does not make sense to say that stones
already hewn were hewn. Consequently he rendered tyzg by a
word having the opposite meaning. This ad sensum rendering of
tyzg in 3 Reg. 6: 1b, then, became the standard translation for
the other instances of tyzg in the remainder of 1 Kings. This inter-
pretation is not at variance with the statement of 1 Kgs. 6: 7
that the house, i.e., the superstructure, was built of “undressed
8 3 Reg. 6: 1a (= 1 Kgs. 5: 31), 36 (= 1 Kgs. 6: 36); 7: 48 (= 1 Kgs. 7: 11),49 (= 1 Kgs. 7: 12).
9 Wevers, “Exegetical Principles”, 314.
120 chapter seven
stone from the quarry” ([sm hmlçAˆba)10 because 3 Reg. 6: 1a–c
explicitly refers to the dressing of the foundation stones.11
7. The phrase ebalan autouw, “they cast (laid) them [sc. the stones]
down (as a foundation)”, describes the activity that is central to
the arrangement of materials in the LXX version of the account.12
For that reason it is important to determine the text-historical
relationship between the Greek phrase and its formal counterpart
μylbghw, “and the Giblites”, in MT. Scholars have questioned
whether μylbghw of MT represents the original consonantal sequence
of the Hebrew, and whether the interpretation that is recorded
in MT is in accordance with how the word was meant to be
understood in the original Hebrew. Unlike the workmen of Solomon
and Hiram, the inhabitants of Gebal/Byblos are not mentioned
in the preceding account and as a consequence their appearance
in v. 32 is somewhat surprising.13 It has been argued that from
a historical viewpoint Giblites may well have been engaged in
the building of the temple, whereas it is unlikely that later edi-
tors of the text would have introduced Gentiles as cooperators.14
This argument has led various scholars to accept the MT read-
ing as authentic and the reading attested by the LXX as sec-
ondary.15 This judgment is accepted here, though it is somewhat
10 The Greek rendering liyoiw akrotomoiw argoiw, “rough-hewn, undressed stones”conveys roughly the same sense as the Hebrew phrase. Thus see Mulder, 1 Kings1–11, 243–44.
11 A different explanation for the deviating rendering of tyzg by apelekhtow isoffered by Lefebvre (“Troisième livre des Règnes”, 102–108). Taking up a theoryof K. Rupprecht, Lefebvre assumes that Solomon did not build the temple ex nihilobut enlarged an old Jebusite sanctuary. While the old building was made of undressedstone, so that when it was being built iron tools could be dispensed with (6: 7),Solomon used dressed stone for the additions. The distinction is reflected by differentdesignations of the building stone in the LXX, but not in MT. However, Lefebvredoes not specify whether the Greek had a Hebrew basis, what it may have lookedlike, and why the aforementioned distinction was lost in MT.
12 Similar expressions with ballein to describe this action are known from else-where in the LXX. Trebolle Barrera (Salomón y Jeroboán, 312–13) lists the followingoccurrences: 1 Esdr. 2: 14 kai naon upoballontai; 6: 19 enebaleto touw yemeliouwtou oikou kuriou; Isa. 28: 16 embalv eiw ta yemelia Sivn liyon; Job 38: 6 balvnliyon gvniaion. Expressions construed with balesyai (med.) to denote the layingof foundations are known from other Greek sources (LSJ, 304–305).
13 Thus already Stade, “Solomons Bauten”, 129–77, esp. 134.14 Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 138.15 Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 138; Gooding, “Pedantic Timetabling”, 164; Noth,
Könige, 94; Würthwein (though hesitant), Erste Buch der Könige, 57.
the preparation of the temple building 121
peculiar that the reading “Giblites” is only represented by the
younger textual witnesses,16 whereas even an early witness like
Josephus seems to follow the reading attested by the LXX.17 As
to the character of the Greek reading, Noth and Margolis argued
that it is to be seen as an inner-Greek corruption. Noth suspected
“dass in kai (en)ebalan eine Verballhornung (und nachträgliche
Gräzisierung) von gebal (in irgend einer abgeleiteten Form) vor-
liegt.”18 In Margolis’ opinion “dürfte III Reg. 6 3 (5 32) ebalanautouw . . . aus Gebalhn = Gebalein (autouw ist dann später dazu-
gekommen) = μylib]GI verderbt sein; anstatt Ge kann auch Gai-geschrieben worden sein (vgl. Qmg in Hes); nach kai fiel gai- aus;
was blieb, wurde als Verbum aufgefasst, und so erhielt es Augment
und Objekt.”19 The weakness of this argumentation lies in the
complexity of the corruption process that is described. Another
possibility, suggested by Gooding, is that ebalan autouw reflects
“a deliberate alteration on the part of an “interpreter-translator”
in order to eliminate unsuitable Gentiles from the building of the
temple.”20 But if the interpreter really had this intention, it would
have been very easy for him to leave μylbghw unrepresented. The
same objection can be raised to Kittel’s opinion that the LXX
wrote ebalan because the presence of Giblites in Jerusalem would
be inappropriate.21 What, then, is the background of ebalanautouw? On the face of it, the Greek suggests that the translator
16 I.e., Hexaplaric manuscripts A n x, the Syrohexapla, and the pointing by MT. 17 When Josephus paraphrases 1 Kgs. 5: 32, he mentions the builders of Solomon
and Hiram but is conspicuously silent about the Giblites ( Jewish Ant. VIII, 60). InVIII, 63, he describes the laying of foundations using the same verb ballein thatis found in 3 Reg. 6: 1b (Balletai men oun tƒ naƒ yemeliouw o basileuw). Onepossible explanation of this state of affairs is that Josephus, while working inde-pendently of the LXX, agreed with 3 Regum concerning the interpretation ofμylbghw (or a similar form) in his Vorlage. In that case, the rendering ebalan in theLXX would reflect real knowledge about the meaning of the Hebrew term on the part of the translator. The other explanation is that Josephus simply turned tothe LXX for the interpretation of the difficult episode. This possibility is favouredby the fact that the context of the passage under consideration in Josephus’ workalso suggests influence from the LXX. Thus the passage in Josephus exhibits theorder of the LXX over against MT in putting the date of the beginning of thetemple construction before the note on the founding of the temple (cf. Jewish Ant.VIII, 61–63 and 3 Reg. 6: 1–1b).
18 Noth, Könige, 87.19 M.L. Margolis, “Miszellen”, ZAW 31 (1911), 313–15, esp. 313.20 Gooding, “Pedantic Timetabling”, 165.21 Kittel, Bücher der Könige, 46.
122 chapter seven
read a verb form in his Vorlage. This Hebrew verb possibly was
similar or even identical to the consonantal framework μylbghw of
MT. In that case, the translator may have taken the final mem
as a suffix 3 m.pl. and rendered it by autouw. Thenius proposed
that the Hebrew text originally represented the verb form μWlBig“Y"w"(“sie versahen sie mit einem Rande”; lbg Hiphil) instead of μylbghw.22
Noth, however, objected to this proposal, pointing out that
“die . . . angenommene Bedeutung von lbg hi. . . . ist durch nichts
gesichert, und die vorgenommene ‘Verbesserung’ der Lesung ist
textkritisch nicht begründet.”23 Indeed, the reading ebalan autouwdoes nothing to suggest that μWlyBig“Y"w" actually was the Hebrew verb
that the translator meant to render. We can only assume with a
reasonable degree of certainty that the LXX interpreted the
Hebrew of its Vorlage, whatever it looked like, as a verb form.
Note should be taken of Gray’s interesting observation that the
Greek “sounds as a despairing transliteration of a Hebrew verb.”
It is indeed remarkable that the sequence beth-lamed is reflected
by bal(an).24 If the above considerations are taken into account,
the following picture emerges. Faced with the difficult consonan-
tal sequence identical with or similar to μylbghw, the translator
decided that it must indicate a verbal form followed by a suffix
3 m.pl. Being unable to identify it, he either guessed about its
meaning or simply chose a rendering that fitted his intention to
elaborate on the laying of foundations in his presentation. Perhaps
he also tried to counterbalance his embarrassment with the Hebrew
by preserving the phonetic sequence characteristic of the Hebrew
word. So he found ebalan autouw.
22 Thenius, Bücher der Könige, 54. This suggestion has been followed by KBL andHALAT, by Burney (Notes, 58), and by the commentaries of DeVries (1 Kings, 78,83), Gray (Kings, 149), and A. Klostermann (Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige[Kurzgefasster Kommentar zu den heiligen Schriften Alten und Neuen Testamentessowie zu den Apokryphen], Nördlingen 1887, 291. To be exact, Klostermann prefersto read μWlyBig“hiw“ [Hiphil pf.]). Benzinger (Bücher der Könige, 30) also believes that theLXX reading can be traced back to μWlyBig“Y"w", but only by way of the inner-Hebrewcorruption μWlyPiY"w" (lpn Hiphil). This view must be dismissed as improbable becauseelsewhere in the LXX ballein is only used to render lpn Hiphil where the Hebrewrefers to the casting of lots.
23 Noth, Könige, 94; cf. also Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 83.24 Gray, Kings, 149.
the preparation of the temple building 123
As to the seven items listed here it may be said that in all cases the
LXX offers a reading that is either vital or functional to the devel-
opment of the account of the laying of foundations. In combination
with the sequence differences, these deviations from MT enable the
narrative to proceed logically along the following stages:
1. Preparation of building materials during the first three years of
Solomon’s reign.
2. In the fourth year: Solomon orders the transportation of stones
to the foundation site.
3. The hewing of the hitherto unhewn stones.
4. The laying of the foundations.
Moreover, the absence of premature references to the building of
the house (i.e., the superstructure) in the LXX (at least before v. 1d)
is favourable to the internal coherence of the narrative.
Thus a large proportion of the sequence differences, word differences,
pluses and minuses which the LXX exhibits over against MT reveals
a tendency to relate the laying of the foundations as a distinct episode
prior to the account of the building of the temple proper. Conversely,
the variation as shown by MT over against the LXX does not reveal
a tendency in some direction. The possibility that this difference is
accidental can be safely ruled out, since the sizable sequence differences
are certainly intentional.
It is very difficult to find a reason why the transparent, coherent
account as is represented by the LXX would be transformed into
the less carefully structured account of MT. Conversely, it can be
plausibly argued that the LXX-version represents an effort to improve
order and structure of the older account as represented by MT. The
less fortunate position of v. 1d could be explained from the reviser’s
reluctance to separate the two chronological notes concerning the
temple building (1 Kgs. 6: 37–38a; 3 Reg. 6: 1c–d). Thus when the
time note of 1 Kgs. 6: 37 was transposed to the beginning of ch. 6
in order to serve as the conclusion of the report on the temple foun-
dation, the time note of 1 Kgs. 6: 38a came along. In addition, we
should consider the possibility that the notes in 3 Reg. 6: 1c–d owe
their position less to the appropriateness of the literary context than
to the reviser’s need to find another place for the section 1 Kgs. 6:
37–38a.
A tendency towards yet further improvement of the transparency
124 chapter seven
of 3 Reg. 5: 32–6: 1d can be noted in later stages of the textual
transmission, as represented by the Ant. manuscripts Z b c2 e2.25
While the majority of scholars agree that the preparation report as
witnessed by the LXX represents a secondary development to the
version presented by MT,26 Wellhausen, Burney, Trebolle Barrera,
Schenker and Polak take the opposite view. We will briefly discuss
the arguments these scholars adduce in favour of the primacy of the
LXX-version in order to see if they pose a threat to our theory.
In Wellhausen’s view, the sequence in 3 Reg. 6: 1a–d reflects the
ancient Hebrew textual stage (= 1 Kgs. 5: 31, 32; 6: 37, 38a).27 A
later hand replaced 3 Reg.* 6: 1c–d by 1 Kgs. 6: 1 and moved the
former notes to the end of the account of the temple building (1
Kgs. 6: 37–38a). 1 Kgs. 6: 1 betrays itself as a redactional insertion
by using consistently çdj instead of jry (cf. vv. 37–38a). In the LXX,
this note was later inserted at a very unfortunate location, between
5: 30 and 6: 1a, “um so unpassender, da er ja durch 6, 37.38 vol-
lkommen ersetzt wird.” The main flaw of this theory is that it is
difficult to accept that 3 Reg. 6: 1, which like its MT counterpart
follows 5: 32 (= MT 5: 32b), represents a late addition into the LXX
“an einer ganz unglücklichen Stelle.” Apart from the fact that the
three-stage redactional process envisaged by Wellhausen is simply
too complex to be very plausible, 3 Reg. 6: 1 sits well integrated in
the context, even though it is close to v. 1c where most of the infor-
mation of v. 1 is repeated. As Gooding has pointed out, the theory
is strangely confused concerning the original position of 1 Kgs. 5:
32b. Whereas the passage in 3 Reg. 6: 1a–d is supposed to reflect the
original state of the text, it does not offer a counterpart of the demi-
verse where we would expect it, that is, in v. 1b. From Wellhausen’s
assertion that 3 Reg. 6: 1 is a later insertion made between 5: 30
and 6: 1a we can infer that he does not situate 1 Kgs. 5: 32b imme-
diately following v. 30 either, though the demi-verse appears exactly
25 For this see Gooding, “Pedantic Timetabling”, 165–166.26 M. Cogan, 1 Kings (AncB 10), New York/London 2001, 236; Gooding, “Pedantic
Timetabling”, 157–66; Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 143; Mulder, 1 Kings 1–11,225; Noth, Könige, 103; Stade, “Solomons Bauten”, 134–35; Stade-Schwally, Booksof Kings, 83; anda, Bücher der Könige, 119; probably also Gray and Würthwein, whosimply seem to take the primacy of the MT arrangement in these verses for granted.
27 Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 267.
the preparation of the temple building 125
in that position in the LXX as 3 Reg. 5: 32. Where, then, was
1 Kgs. 5: 32b?
Similar criticism may be voiced against Burney and Polak, who
basically adopt Wellhausen’s theory.28 Polak moreover argues that
“the smooth and logical arrangement preserved by the ‘additional’
verses 6: 1a–d of LXX can hardly be described as emerging out
of a number of disordered sections.” However, the qualification of
1 Kgs. 6: 37–38a as a disordered section is incorrect, and it is well
conceivable that the smooth arrangement in 3 Reg. 5: 32–6: 1d
results from revision, at least on the level of the Greek.
Trebolle Barrera argues that the fact that the LXX-version, with
respect to arrangement of materials and content, resembles other
ANE reports on temple construction indicates that it is prior to MT.
Later editors would have transposed the phrase “the builders of
Solomon and the builders of Hiram and the Giblites” from its orig-
inal position (corresponding to 3 Reg. 6: 1b) to 1 Kgs. 5: 32a because
they took offence to the presence of gentiles in the construction nar-
rative.29 Elsewhere, however, Trebolle Barrera claims that the read-
ing represented by 3 Reg. 6: 1b, ebalan autouw, reflects the original
text rather than “the Giblites” of MT.30 Moreover, it could be argued
that the standard form of the construction report is more likely to
mark the final stage in the development of the temple-account than
its starting point.
Schenker draws attention to the seeming inconsistency between 3
Reg. 6: 1b and 7 that was noted above.31 As it is intimated in 1
Kgs. 5: 31–32 that the hewing of the stone blocks is done on the
Lebanon rather than in Jerusalem, as 3 Reg. 6: 1a–b suggests, MT
is perfectly coherent. Consequently MT may represent a revision
that eliminated the aforementioned inconsistency by transferring the
Hebrew verses corresponding to 3 Reg. 6: 1a–b to 1 Kgs. 5: 31–32a.
The basic weakness of this view is the assumption that the Greek
version reflects a Hebrew original. As we shall see, the specific char-
acter of the version found in the LXX is closely connected with the
use of the Greek language.
28 Burney, Notes, 57–59; Polak, “Septuaginta Account”, 152–53.29 Trebolle Barrera, Salomón y Jeroboán, 318.30 Trebolle Barrera, Salomón y Jeroboán, 324.31 Schenker, Septante, 135–36.
126 chapter seven
In sum, though scholars advocating the primacy of the LXX-ver-
sion have raised several important issues, their arguments are found
to be either wanting or inconclusive. Therefore we adhere to the
primacy of the MT-version.
Before we enter into the question on which textual level the re-
arrangement is most likely to have occurred, the remaining differences
between the two versions must be discussed briefly.
3 Reg. 6: 1: “in the 440th year”; 1 Kgs. 6: 1: “in the 480th year”.
The 480 years indicated in MT are the sum of all relevant chrono-
logical data occurring in the Deuteronomistic History up to this point
(Deut. 1–1 Kgs. 5).32 As the note in v. 1 is an essential element of
the Deuteronomistic chronological framework, the figure 480 must
also derive from the Deuteronomistic author. The 440 years of the
LXX may represent a correction towards the priestly genealogy in
1 Chron. 5: 29–41, which reckons 11 generations from Aaron unto
Zadok (reckoning inclusively).33
Same verse: The LXX lacks an equivalent of çdjh awh wz in MT.
Since the archaic name for the second month is evidence of the
authenticity of MT (cf. 1 Kgs. 6: 37, 38; 8: 2) the minus of the
LXX may represent a secondary development.34 The passage may
have been omitted to avoid contradiction with 3 Reg. 6: 1c, where
another month, i.e., Nisv, is identified as the second month. Possibly
the minus is not a deliberate omission at all, but an instance of para-
blepsis (ynçh çdjh awh wz çdjb).
3 Reg. 6: 1a (= 1 Kgs. 5: 31): kai in the phrase liyouw megalouwtimiouw . . . kai liyouw apelekhtouw may or may not correspond to w“in the Vorlage. As it can be understood in the explicative sense as
namely,35 it does not produce a real difference with MT, which has
tyzg ynba, “hewn stones”, as an apposition to twrqy μynba twldg μynba,“great stones, massive stones”.
3 Reg. 6: 1b (= 1 Kgs. 5: 32a): The reading oi uioi Salvmvn kaioi uioi Xiram reflects ynEB] instead of ynEBo of MT. The correctness of
the MT vocalization is beyond doubt. The Greek translator may
32 M. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History ( JSOT.S 15), Sheffield 19912, 34–44.33 Thus Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 143; also Gray, Kings, 150; Jones, 1 and 2
Kings, 163.34 Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 144.35 Bauer, 776.
the preparation of the temple building 127
have simply mistaken the rare form ynEBo, “builders”, for the ubiqui-
tous ynEB].On the other hand, it is not impossible that the rendering uioi is
deliberate. As was argued above, due to certain deviations from MT
in 3 Reg. 5: 15 and 20, relations between Solomon and Hiram seem
to be more intimate in the presentation of the LXX than in that of
MT. In 3 Reg. 6: 1b the reading uioi is in keeping with this; the
statement that princes of both royal houses worked together in found-
ing the house of YHWH demonstrate the close alliance between
Solomon and Hiram. Perhaps Gooding is right that Solomon’s sons
and Hiram’s sons performed some kind of foundation ceremony.36
Another possibility is that uioi was meant to be understood as a
designation of servants. In this connection it is of interest to note
that a few Greek manuscripts (M and minusculs) read douloi, “ser-vants”, which has the appearance of being an interpretation of uioi.37
3 Reg. 6: 1c (= 1 Kgs. 6: 37): eyemelivsen represents Qal pf. ds'y:instead of Pual dS'y (thus MT). The different understanding of dsymay not reflect intention on the part of the LXX.
Same verse: The reading Nisv (Z e2; Neisv: LXX B; Nisvn: b; Nhsvc2) combines dittography of preceding (mh)ni and transliteration of
wzI.38 The inner-Greek corruption could easily arise since the name
of the month is not represented in 3 Reg. 6: 1. Origen in his com-
mentary on John reads Neisan which is intended to make sense of
Neisv as a reference to the first month, i.e., Nisan.39 Possibly the
36 Gooding, “Pedantic Timetabling”, 161.37 There is good reason to assume that the Ant. text (represented by Z b c2 e2)
too understood “the sons of Solomon and the sons of Hiram” as references to ser-vants rather than to royal princes. The Ant. text of 3 Reg. 6: 1a–1b reads in trans-lation as follows: “And the king ordered the overseers (arxousin) to bring (enegkein)great stones [. . .] and the sons of Solomon and the sons of Hiram brought (hnegkan)(them) and laid them as a foundation (enebalon). The recurrence of the verb fer-ein in v. 3 makes it clear that the verse is meant to report the execution of Solomon’sorder. Since it is reasonable to suppose that the same group was involved in tak-ing and carrying out this order, the “sons” of v. 3 may be identified with the over-seers of v. 2.
38 Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 147; Rahlfs, on the other hand, thinks that LXXB and related manuscripts deliberately replaced obsolete wzI by the month name thatwas customary in a later period, “wobei man sich jedoch vergriffen und den Nisan(= April) statt des Ijjar (= Mai) genommen hat” (Septuaginta-Studien, [573]). In myview, it is psychologically improbable that a scribe keen on adapting the old nameaccording to his own calendar would make such a grave mistake.
39 See Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, [573].
128 chapter seven
above-mentioned forms likewise mean to refer to the month Nisan.40
The phrase tƒ deuterƒ mhni, which has no counterpart in MT, is
best explained as an addition intended to bring the date of the found-
ing of the temple into line with the date of Solomon’s order at 3
Reg. 6: 1. The addition must predate the reading Nisv or at least
the moment that it was taken to refer to the month of Nisan.41 The
inconsistency that arose when Nisv-Nisan entered the text was sub-
sequently removed by the insertion of kai before tƒ deuterƒ mhni(also represented by the majority text).42 This correction, however,
did not overcome the difficulty that in v. 1c the laying of the foun-
dations is dated one month before the moment at which, according
to v. 1, Solomon issued an order to make preparations for the foun-
dation. To sum up, if the reading Nisv is intended to refer to the
month of Nisan, the text of 3 Reg. 6: 1c (without kai) is both self-
contradictory and inconsistent with v. 1. This observation is of no
consequence for an assessment of the relationship between MT and
the LXX in these verses since the inconsistency is due to an inner-
Greek corruption.
It was noted above that (some of ) the differences shown by the text
of 3 Reg. 6: 1a–b vis-à-vis the corresponding verses of MT do not
seem to reflect a different Hebrew consonantal text. We also found
that some of the readings created by these differences are vital com-
ponents of the story of the laying of the foundations. Together, these
findings lead us to conclude that the episode on the foundation in
3 Reg. 6: 1a–b is peculiar to the Greek level and did not yet exist
in the Hebrew text of the Vorlage of these verses.
We also argued that the transposition of materials from (1 Kgs.)
5: 31–32a to (3 Reg.) 6: 1a–b was motivated by the desire to tell
events in a logical and chronological order. Thus the episode of the
laying of foundations was moved from a position where it preceded
the report on the preparatory activities (5: 32b) to a position where
it followed this report. Since the description of the laying of the
foundations probably arose on the level of the Greek text, we are
40 Thus Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 147; Gooding, “Pedantic Timetabling”, 159.41 The original Greek may have resembled ziou (o) or deiou (n). See P. Walters,
The Text of the Septuagint. Its Corruptions and their Emendations, Cambridge 1973, 90,299, n. 12.
42 Thus Gooding, “Pedantic Timetabling”, 159.
the preparation of the temple building 129
led to assume that the transposition of materials also took place on
the level of the Greek. Either the translator himself or a later reviser,
then, is to be held responsible for the rearrangement. The former
possibility implies that the word deviations from MT in 3 Reg. 6:
1a–b were created intentionally in conjunction with the text trans-
position. It was argued above, however, that part of these differences
probably did not reflect intention. It is more likely that the rearrange-
ment was carried out by a reviser who, facing a passage (5: 31–32)
that seemed to allude to the laying of foundations, decided to trans-
form all of 5: 31–6: 1 into a continuous, logically ordered, account
of the preparation of building materials and the foundation of the
temple.
It is not quite clear which differences relating to the account of
the foundation already occurred in the Greek text before the reviser
intervened and which ones were created by the reviser in the process
of editorial modification. Gooding believed that the phrase ebalanautouw, which is central to the presentation of events in the LXX,
evoked several alterations in the surrounding verses.43 Indeed, the
only expression explicitly designating the laying of foundations is
likely to have already been present in the Greek text known to the
reviser. In addition, however, other differences in 3 Reg. 6: 1a–b
may also derive from the original Greek text. Thus the phrase kaiairousin . . . eiw ton yemelion tou oikou is unlikely to result from free
editorial alteration as it does not imply a Hebrew consonanal text
different from that of MT.
43 Gooding, “Pedantic Timetabling”, 163–65.
130 chapter seven
CHAPTER EIGHT
THE ACCOUNT OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPLE
AND PALACE (1 KGS. 6: 2–7: 52—3 REG. 6: 2–7: 50)
The two versions of the Solomon Narrative offer the account of the
building of the temple and Solomon’s palace in similar positions. A
major difference between the LXX and MT involves the sequence
in which the constituent parts of the building account are presented,
as is shown by the following scheme:
1 Kings 3 Regum
1. Temple structure and interior (6: 2–38). 1. Temple structure and interior (6: 2–36a).
2. Palace (7: 1–12). 2. Bronze work of temple (7: 1–37).1a: “And S. built his house for 13 years.”1b: “And he completed his entire house.”2–12: Report of construction.
3. Bronze work of temple (7: 13–52). 3. Palace (7: 38–50).38: “And S. built his house for 13 years.”39–49: Report of construction.50: “And S. completed his entire house.”
Basically, part two and part three of MT appear in the LXX in
reversed order. This sequence difference is accompanied by the
different placement of a note referring to the number of years which
it took Solomon to complete his palace. MT offers this note in
1 Kgs. 7: 1 as the introduction to the actual report of the palace
construction. The LXX parallel to the first part of the Hebrew note
occurs in 3 Reg. 7: 38, preceding the report of the palace construction.
The LXX parallel to the second part of the note appears after the
report, in 7: 50. Though the explicit subject in 3 Reg. 7: 50 cre-
ates a small difference with 1 Kgs. 7: 1b, it is reasonable to assume
that the two verses are material counterparts.
The sequence followed in the MT-account creates a tripartite divi-
sion temple-palace-temple. The account first deals with the genuine
construction work on temple and palace before turning to the mat-
ter of the casting of the bronze work of the temple. The order in
which both construction activities is recounted is meant to reflect
temporal consecution. This can be inferred from 1 Kgs. 9: 10, where
a time of 20 years is given for the construction of temple and palace
together. The figure of 20 is arrived at by adding the period of seven
years which is indicated for the erection of the temple in 1 Kgs. 6:
38b and the period of 13 years indicated for the building of the
palace in 1 Kgs. 7: 1a.
It should be noted that 1 Kgs. 9: 10 does not take into account
a particular period of time for the casting of the bronze furnishings
of the temple. The reference to the completion of the temple in 1
Kgs. 9: 10 is likely to relate to the completion of the bronze work
of the temple as well, since the bronze vessels and utensils are indis-
pensable for the temple office. The report in 1 Kgs. 7: 13–51 does
not indicate the time it took to manufacture these, but the large
scale of the activities listed leads us to believe that it certainly took
more than one year. As a consequence the figure given in 9: 10
would exceed 20 years if the bronze vessels were supposed to have
been manufactured after the completion of the palace. The impli-
cation of this is that, contrary to the sequence temple-palace (6:
2–38—7: 1–12), the sequence palace-bronze work (7: 1–12—13–52)
does not reflect a chronological order. In other words, the casting
of the bronze vessels must have been undertaken sometime during
the 20 years of construction activities relating to temple and palace.
The uncertain chronology of the work on the bronze furnishing may
have been the reason why the MT of 1 Kgs. 8: 1 has not provided
the dedication of the temple, which is told immediately after the
paragraph on the bronze furnishing, with a time note, as the LXX
does, but has contented itself with the vague “then”.
The order encountered in the LXX basically creates a bipartite
division temple-palace. Only after dealing with the construction of
the temple together with all its interior elements and bronze fur-
nishing does the narrative shift to the building of the palace.1 The
1 Taking his starting point in the text of LXX B, Lefebvre argues that 3 Reg.7: 38 leaves it open whether or not the focus shifts from the temple to the palace(“Troisième livre des Règnes”, 88–89). Lefebvre translates vv. 38–39 as follows: “Etla maison, c’est pour lui que Solomon la bâtit (kai ton oikon eautƒ ƒkodomhsen)en treize ans. (39) Et il bâtit la maison au moyen de la forêt du Liban (kai ƒkodomh-sen ton oikon drumƒ tou Libanou).” In Lefebvre’s opinion, the fact that up to thispoint the text did not speak of another house than the House of the Lord leadsthe reader to believe that this is the house that Solomon built for himself. The
132 chapter eight
chronological notices concerning the building of temple and palace
in 1 Kgs. 6: 37–38 and 7: 1 appear in the LXX elsewhere, so that
in the latter the construction account in ch. 6 is not separated from
the sequel. The effect of this arrangement is that the manufacture
of the bronze work gives the impression of being an integral part of
the temple construction. This effect also pertains to the chronology.
As in MT, the order temple-palace in the LXX account reflects tem-
poral sequence. But unlike MT, the section on the building of the
temple in the LXX also includes the casting of the bronze furnish-
ings. Since the LXX agrees with MT in counting a period of 20
years for the building of temple and palace together (3 Reg. 8: 1a;
9: 10), it is clear that the period attributed to the temple building
is also meant to cover the manufacture of the bronze work. Even
when the temple-account of the LXX, unlike MT, does not explic-
itly state that the building took seven years, this figure can be eas-
ily calculated by combining the time notes of 3 Reg. 7: 38, 8: 1a
and 9: 10. A similar sense of strict chronology becomes manifest in
the transition from the account of the construction of the palace to
the account of the temple dedication in ch. 8. Unlike MT, the LXX
places the note on the completion of the palace where it is chrono-
logically appropriate, namely immediately after the report of the con-
struction of the palace. The subsequent note in 8: 1a again refers
to the completion of the palace for the purpose of dating the ded-
ication. The statements of 3 Reg. 7: 50 and 8: 1a combined make
it emphatically clear that the dedication is meant to be understood
as taking place immediately after the completion of the palace: “And
Solomon finished all his house (7: 50). And it came to pass when
Solomon had finished building the house of the Lord and his own
house after 20 years, then king Solomon assembled all the elders of
Israel (8: 1) . . .”
On balance, the simpler and more transparent order of the two
versions seems to occur in 3 Reg. 6–7.2 This account, which groups
mentioning of the Forest of Lebanon in v. 39 adds to the confusion because inprevious chapters wood of the Lebanon is exclusively mentioned in connection withthe temple building. Against the backdrop of this confusion, 3 Reg. 9: 9a wouldintimate that Solomon brought Pharaoh’s daughter into the temple.
However, notes like 3 Reg. 6: 1c, 1d; 8: 1; 9: 1, 10 make it unambiguously clearthat the LXX strictly distinguishes between the temple and the palace. Lefebvre’sinterpretation of 3 Reg. 7: 38–39 is in no sense warranted by the context.
2 Admittedly, Jones is correct in stating that “the order of the MT is logical in
the construction of temple and palace 133
together related topics in two blocks, moreover avoids the difficulties
regarding chronology that beset the three-part structure of the report
in 1 Kgs. 6–7. Text-historically, the LXX order is easier to explain
as the outcome of editorial intervention with the difficult MT-order
than the other way around. This assessment is in accordance with
the judgment that the LXX-version cannot possibly represent the
original construction account since it absurdly implies that following
the completion of the temple Solomon waited 13 years before bring-
ing up the ark!3
The rearrangement of the building account in the LXX may not
only have left traces in 3 Reg. 7: 38, 50; 8: 1a. Several scholars
have argued that the appearance of a plus at 3 Reg. 6: 36a is also
to be connected with the transposition of 7: 1–12.4 In LXX B and
the Ant. text, 3 Reg. 6: 36a reads as follows:
3 Reg. 6: 36a (LXX B, Ant. text) ka‹ ”kodÒmhse katap°tasma t∞w aÈl∞wtoË afilåm toË o‡kou toË katå prÒsv-pon toË naoË.
As it seems, no other text, either in MT or in the LXX, refers to
a curtain in the temple court.5 An odd feature is the use of the verb
that it deals with the buildings before moving to describe any of the furnishings”(1 and 2 Kings, 173). Yet this order, which is based on the nature of the objects(structures versus furnishings), is less obvious than an order based on the objectsthemselves (temple versus palace) as in the LXX.
3 Thus Gooding (“Pedantic Timetabling”, 156). Contra Schenker (Septante, 129–30).4 Burney, Notes, 78, 83; Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 173; Stade, “Solomons Bauten”,
150; anda, Bücher der Könige, 150, 169, 206.5 Note should be taken of the fact that the temple-account in Chronicles like-
wise contains a reference to the manufacture of a curtain (2 Chron. 3: 14: c['Y"w". . . tk,roP;h'Ata,; 2 Par. 3: 14: kai epoihsen to katapetasma . . .). Though this noteand 3 Reg. 6: 36a appear in roughly corresponding positions within the temple-accounts of 2 Chronicles and 3 Regum, respectively, and the same Greek termkatapetasma appears in 3 Reg. 6: 36a and 2 Par. 3: 14, the two passages shouldnot be regarded as parallels (contra Vannutelli, I, 238–39). Both context and word-ing of 2 Chron. 3: 14 indicate that the verse speaks of the veil separating the Holyof Holies from the main hall (cf. Exod. 26: 31, 33). The “curtain of the court” of3 Reg. 6: 36a is an altogether different object, that must be compared with therxjh r[ç Ës'm; of the tabernacle mentioned in Exod. 35: 17; 38: 18; 39: 40; 40:8, 33 (see S. Légasse, “Les voiles du temple de Jérusalem: essai de parcours his-torique”, RB 87 [1980], 560–89, esp. 568, 571, n. 46).
Furthermore, scholars have proposed that (the Hebrew basis of ) part of 3 Reg.2: 35e originally referred to the “curtain of the court”. According to Hrozn(Abweichungen, 15–17), the translator writing kai epoihsen Salvmvn . . . thn krhnhnthw aulhw read tk'reB] (= krhnh, “spring”) instead of original tk,røP;. Montgomery
134 chapter eight
oikodomein, “to build”, which seems inappropriate to designate the
manufacture of a curtain. Now a number of manuscripts belonging
to the group of so-called “mixed texts” (labelled LXX misc, here
represented by M N d e m p q t) offer a variant reading from which
the reference to the curtain is absent. The variant involves thn aulhnoikou Kuriou thn esvtathn tƒ (“the outer court of the House of the
Lord”) for katapetasma thw aulhw tou. Interestingly, part of the verse
attested by the mixed group corresponds almost exactly to the final
part of 1 Kgs. 7: 12. Below the corresponding phrase is underlined
in the Greek text:
1 Kgs. 7: 12b tybh μlalw tymynph hwhyAtyb rxjl3 Reg. 6: 36a (LXX misc) ka‹ ”kodÒmhse tØn aÈlØn o‡kou Kur¤ou
tØn §svtãthnt“ afilåm toË o‡kou toË katå prÒsvpon toË naoË.
Now it is striking to see that the material counterpart of 1 Kgs. 7:
12 in the LXX, which occurs in 3 Reg. 7: 49, does not render the
final part of the verse indicated above as v. 12b. This circumstance
may suggest that 3 Reg. 6: 36a (LXX misc) actually is the coun-
terpart of 1 Kgs. 7: 12b. In fact, Origen offers exactly this text at
7: 12b. It should also be noted that 3 Reg. 6: 36a (LXX misc) and
1 Kgs. 7: 12b are preceded by similar notes. Both 1 Kgs. 6: 36 and
7: 12a refer to courts (the “inner court” and the “great court”, respec-
tively) and they provide identical descriptions of their construction:
1 Kgs. 7: 12a bybs hlwdgh rxjwtyzg μyrwf hçlçμyzra ttrk rwfw
1 Kgs. 6: 36 tymynph rxjhAta ˆbywtyzg μyrwf hçlçμyzra ttrk rwfw
(“Supplement”, 127) thinks of a corruption process in the Greek text (katapetasma—krhnh). Both scholars see a connection between 3 Reg. 2: 35e and 6: 36a.
It may be tempting to presuppose the same expression rxjh tk,roP; in both pas-sages, the more so in light of 2 Chron. 3: 14. The proposal is faced with seriousdifficulties, however. First, the type of veil meant by 3 Reg. 6: 36a is consistentlycalled a Ës;m; in MT. Second, the presumed corruption in 3 Reg. 2: 35e is entirelyhypothetical. Third, it is highly doubtful if the aforementioned passages are trans-lations from the Hebrew rather than original creations in Greek.
the construction of temple and palace 135
The vital difference between both passages is that the meaning of
1 Kgs. 7: 12b is obscure in the context,6 while the more extensive
information of 3 Reg. 6: 36a makes good sense.
May be this complex textual state of affairs is to be accounted for
in the following way. When the Greek editor transposed 6: 37–38,
7: 1–12, he left v. 12b in its place, so that it now immediately fol-
lowed on 6: 36. Subsequently he turned the short Greek fragment,
unintelligible as it were, into a note informing the reader about the
location of the outer court. To this end, he supplied a verb form,
ƒkodomhsen, which he copied from 3 Reg. 6: 36, and appended a
note on the location of the porch, which he based on 3 Reg. 6: 3
(kai to ailam kata prosvpon tou naou . . .). Though the beginning
of v. 36a duplicates the beginning of v. 36, kai ƒkodomhse thn aulhn(oikou Kuriou) thn esvtathn, the verse as a whole is not superflous
since it adds new information. The reading of LXX B and the Ant.
text, then, might represent a secondary modification of this text,
based on Exod. 27: 16; 35: 17; 38: 18.7 In favour of this hypothe-
sis may speak the fact that the expression “to build a curtain” can-
not possibly be original.
A different view has been taken by Rahlfs.8 This scholar argues
that the reading of LXX misc originates with Origen. Taking the
text of 3 Reg. 6: 36a (as represented by LXX B and the Ant. text)
as the equivalent of 7: 12b, Origen would have modified its word-
ing in order to bring it in closer conformity with 1 Kgs. 7: 12b.
The manuscripts indicated as LXX misc, then, would all depend on
the Hexaplaric reading, even though they exhibit the text at 3 Reg.
6: 36a.
6 See Mulder, 1 Kings 1–11, 298.7 According to Légasse, 3 Reg. 6: 36a LXX B “est un amalgame à partir des
données de III Règnes, vi, 3; II Chron., iii, 4; Exod., xxvii, 16; xxxix, 19; Nomb.,iii, 26, et l’on ne saurait lui attribuer, à cet endroit, une base hébraïque. L’interpolationest néanmoins significative, puisqu’elle révèle une volonté de faire cadrer le templede Solomon avec le sanctuaire de l’Exode” (“Voiles du temple”, 571, n. 46). Notethat Légasse takes 3 Reg. 6: 36a LXX B to represent the primary form of theverse in Greek rather than a secondary modification. Irrespective of the questionof whether LXX B represents a primary or a secondary textual stage, it is worth-while noting here that the Greek hand who wished to introduce the Ës;m; into thetemple-account could do this by means of katapetasma, since this term matchesËs;m; in LXX Exod. 26: 37; 37: 5 (= MT 36: 37), 16 (= MT 38: 18); 39: 19; Num.3: 26.
8 Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, [574].
136 chapter eight
The identity of the Hexaplaric text of 3 Reg. 7: 12b and LXX
misc of 3 Reg. 6: 36a admits of yet another explanation than the
one offered by Rahlfs. When Origen altered the order of the Greek
text in accordance with MT, he may have recognized the reading
represented by LXX misc in 3 Reg. 6: 36a as the equivalent of
1 Kgs. 7: 12b. Subsequently he moved it to the position corresponding
to the verse in MT and indicated the pluses vis-à-vis MT by an
obelus.
Now it is clear that in 3 Reg. 6: 36a the text of LXX B and the
Ant. manuscripts does not reveal the same measure of agreement
with 1 Kgs. 7: 12b as the text of LXX misc. By consequence, if the
former is considered to be the primary text form after all, as Rahlfs
maintains, it will be far more difficult to relate the shape of 3 Reg.
6: 36a to the transposition of 6: 37–38 and 7: 1–12 by the editor
of the Greek text. In that event, however, the specific form of 3
Reg. 6: 36a, with its peculiar features like the verb oikodomein and
the long chain of genitives, needs another explanation.
Central to the question of the most original state of the text of 3
Reg. 6: 36a is the text-historical assessment of LXX misc. Scholars
have argued that in individual cases the group of mixed texts may
well have preserved OG readings in Kings that were lost in all other
manuscripts.9 Since a comprehensive study of these manuscripts is
lacking up till now, we cannot take a definite standpoint. It is, how-
ever, clear that several textual phenomena are best explained if LXX
misc is taken to represent the most original text of 3 Reg. 6: 36a.10
9 Schenker, “cas de critique”, 219, 226; Wevers, “Textual History”, 188–89;Willis, “Text of 1 Kings 11:43–12:3”, 43–44.
10 It should be mentioned here that the affinity between 3 Reg. 6: 36a and 1 Kgs. 7: 12b has also been taken as an argument in favour of the primacy of theLXX order. According to Trebolle Barrera (“Histoire du texte”, 334; “Redaction,Recension, and Midrash”, 25–28; Salomón y Jeroboán, 308–11) the materials of 1 Kgs.6: 37–38; 7: 1–12a were forcibly interpolated between the Hebrew Vorlagen of3 Reg. 6: 36 and 36a. In the process, nearly all of v. 36a would have droppedfrom the text except for the phrase tybh μlal (= tou ailam tou oikou). This wasused together with the element tymynph rxj, which was duplicated from 6: 36, toform 1 Kgs. 7: 12b. The introduction of the latter element occasioned a Wiederaufnahmebetween 1 Kgs. 6: 36 and 7: 12(ab):
tymynph rxjh ta ˆbyw 6: 36 bybs hlwdgh rxjl 7: 12atyzg yrwf hçlç tyzg μyrwf hçlç
μyzra ttrk rwfw μyzra ttrk rwfwtybh μlalw tymynph hwhy tyb rxjlw 7: 12b
the construction of temple and palace 137
One feature of the construction account of the LXX, brought to
light by the comparison with MT, is that it describes Solomon as
having finished the temple and all its appurtenances before building
his own palace. The intentional, rather than coincidental, character
of this arrangement becomes manifest when we consider the refer-
ences to the building of temple and palace occurring in the Solomon
Narrative outside the construction account chs. 6–7 proper. MT does
not show a particular concern for observing the sequence temple-
palace in these notes. In three instances we find the sequence tem-
ple-palace (1 Kgs. 9: 1, 10, 15), but once the reverse sequence
appears, namely in 1 Kgs. 3: 1. Significantly, whereas the LXX
agrees with MT in displaying the order temple-palace in 3 Reg.
9: 1, 10 and 10: 22a (= 1 Kgs. 9: 15), it differs from MT in revealing
the sequence palace-temple in the material counterpart of 1 Kgs.
3: 1, located at 3 Reg. 5: 14a. The possibility that the MT of
1 Kgs. 3: 1 would have reversed an original order temple-palace
can be safely excluded, since it is difficult to see why MT would
deliberately contradict all other references to the temple building,
including the account of chs. 6–7. Therefore the order exhibited by
3 Reg. 5: 14a is certainly secondary to that of 1 Kgs. 3: 1.
In this connection, it is relevant to note that 3 Regum offers a
second parallel of 1 Kgs. 3: 1 in Misc. I, numbered 3 Reg. 2: 35c,
which likewise puts the building of the temple first. Compare:
3 Reg. 5: 14ab 3 Reg. 2: 35cb 1 Kgs. 3: 1bb
ßvw suntel°sai aÈtÚn ßvw suntel°sai aÈtÚn wto%LoK' d['¢twn•Ob]li
tÚn o‰kon kur¤ouka‹ tÚn o‰kon •autoË [tÚn o‰kon aÈtoË w
ïtyBeAta,
ka‹]11 tÚn o‰kon kur¤ou hw±:hy“ tyB¢eAta,w“§n pr≈toiw
Though v. 12b has little meaning both in itself and in the context, it would helpsmooth the transition to the description of the cult objects of the μla and the inte-rior court of the temple in the following section 1 Kgs. 7: 13–51.
Trebolle’s claim that v. 12b was meant to form a Wiederaufnahme is difficult toaccept. The passages under consideration do not reveal a strong tendency to con-form to the textual counterpart. Thus the expressions bybs and tybh μla in 7: 12are not matched in 1 Kgs. 6: 36, though they are present in the Vorlage of 3 Reg.6: 36–36a. More important, the fact that v. 12b does not make good sense in itspresent position renders it very unlikely that the passage is an intentional creation.
11 LXX B and manuscript a2 omit ton oikon autou kai. The text-critical assess-ment of this minus is difficult.
138 chapter eight
ka‹ tÚ te›xow Ierousalhm ka‹ tÚ te›xow Ierousalhm μl'v;Wry“ tmà'/jAta,w“kuklÒyen >byôbis;
The means used to indicate that the building of the temple preceded
the building of the palace are different in 3 Reg. 2: 35cb and 5:
14ab. Instead of putting the items in the “correct” order from the
outset, like the latter note, 3 Reg. 2: 35cb puts the palace before the
temple but then goes on to explain that the temple was built en prv-toiw, i.e., prior to the palace. Probably the author/editor of 3 Reg.
2: 35cb resorted to this circumstantial way of expressing that the
building of the temple took priority over the palace because he was
reluctant to deviate from his model, 1 Kgs. 3: 1bb, in reversing the
order of building items. The author of 5: 14ab apparently did not
have this kind of scruples, for he has simply reversed the order of
1 Kgs. 3: 1bb. The difference might indicate that 3 Reg. 2: 35cband 5: 14ab, in spite of revealing identical views on the sequence
of construction activities, do not originate with the same author,
On the one hand, the sequence temple-wall of Jerusalem fits the context of v. 35cb well. An identical sequence can be encountered in v. 35k. Moreover, theconcluding note at v. 35cg, “In seven years he made and finished (it)” is a timeindication more appropriate for the construction of temple and city wall than forthe construction of temple, city wall, and palace. As we have seen, MT and the LXXagree in calculating a period of seven years for the building of the temple alone,and one of 20 years for the construction of temple and palace together, while notime is indicated for the building of the city wall. The number of seven years may,therefore, have been arrived at by simply adding together the time indicated forthe building of temple and city wall.
On the other hand, the longer reading is supported by the great majority ofmanuscripts, notably also by the Ethiopic, “the closest congener to B” (Montgomery,“Supplement”, 126), and by the Ant. manuscripts (though the slightly varying read-ing oikodomhsai autou ton oikon kai raises the suspicion of secondary harmoniza-tion towards 1 Kgs. 3: 1). As Gooding notes, “the fact that B frequently indulgesin omissions would incline one to think that the longer reading is original” (Relics,124, n. 17). A further objection to be raised against the originality of the shortreading is that en prvtoiw has no evident function in it, since the fact that the tem-ple is mentioned before the city wall already suggests that it was built first.
On balance, the longer reading may seem to have a better chance of being orig-inal than the short reading since it constitutes the lectio difficilior in the context of 3 Regum. The short reading, then, may be explained as an harmonization towardschronological data in the main text of 3 Regum and 1 Kings, and perhaps as anassimilation towards 1 Kgs. 3: 1bb. Another possibility is that the phrase ton oikonautou kai dropped out during the process of textual transmission due to parablep-sis (ton oikon . . . ton oikon). Gooding (Relics, 124, n. 17) and Krautwurst (Studien,90–91) come to a different assessment of the textual difference and claim the orig-inality of the shorter reading.
the construction of temple and palace 139
unless we assume that he was not consistent in his attitude towards
his source.
3 Regum contains two other references to Solomon’s building
activities without material counterpart in 1 Kings, namely 3 Reg.
2: 35k and 8: 1a. Either note witnesses to a special concern for the
proper order of these activities on the part of their author’s). 3 Reg.
2: 35k expressly states that Solomon built a number of cities only
after the construction of the temple and the city wall of Jerusalem.
3 Reg. 8: 1a, on the other hand, supports the sequence of activities
indicated by the LXX by providing it with a fitting chronological
scheme.
In sum, we are led to conclude that the consistent application of the
order temple-palace in the LXX is a result of editorial activity.12
The most important aspect of the revision concerned the transposi-
tion of the palace account from 7: 1–12 to 38–50. The transposi-
tion was accompanied by editorial alterations on the edges of the
paragraph, at 3 Reg. 7: 38, 50; 8: 1a, and perhaps also at 6: 36a.
Outside chs. 6–7, the revision only affected 1 Kgs. 3: 1.
The driving force behind the editorial intervention could well have
been a desire to introduce logical arrangement and chronological
clarity in the important temple-account. A tendency to exhibit a
more transparent order than the counterpart section in 1 Kings is
discernable in a number of places in 3 Regum. Not in all instances
where there is reason to ascribe the sequence difference to the ini-
tiative of the LXX does it seem possible to perceive more funda-
mental motives than a desire to improve the order of presentation.
Yet in the case of the temple-account there is ground to suspect that
other motives played a role. When paraphrasing the construction of
temple and palace, Josephus seems to make an attempt to forestall
potential criticism on Solomon’s role in the process.13 He states that
the building of the palace took much longer than of the temple for
the following reasons: God himself had assisted in the building of the
latter; the materials for the palace had not been prepared as in the
case of the temple; and the palace was not built with the same indus-
try as the temple had been since it was a dwelling for kings and not
12 Thus also Gooding, “Pedantic Timetabling”, 156; Talshir, “Contribution”, 34.13 Josephus, Jewish Ant. VIII, 130–32.
140 chapter eight
for God. This apology for Solomon throws light on the motive behind
Josephus’ decision to postpone the account of the building of the
palace until after the description of the temple dedication and the
second dream epiphany. Apparently, Josephus wanted to protect
Solomon against the charge that he showed lack of piety in starting
the building of his palace while not yet having completed the build-
ing of the temple.14 In Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities we have an instance
of a literary work later than the Greek translation of Kings but
belonging to the same cultural realm of Jewish exegesis. The fact
that Josephus changed the order of description of temple and palace
which he found in his source (MT and possibly LXX) in order to
uphold the image of Solomon as a pious king, then, suggests that
the transposition of the palace account in 3 Regum was prompted
by the same motive.15
14 Thus see L.H. Feldman, “Josephus’ View of Solomon”, in L.K. Handy (ed.),The Age of Solomon. Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium (Studies in the History andCulture of the Ancient Near East 11), Leiden/New York 1997, 348–74, esp. 365.
15 Thus also Gooding, “Pedantic Timetabling”, 155.
the construction of temple and palace 141
CHAPTER NINE
THE ABSENCE OF A COUNTERPART OF 1 KGS. 6: 11–14
IN THE LXX
In the middle of the account of the temple building MT exhibits a
passage which is not found in the LXX. It is quoted here in full:
1 Cf. Gooding, “Temple Specifications”, 154–59.
And the word of YHWH came to Solomon hmolov]Ala, hw±:hy“Arb'D“ y!hiy“ôw" 11saying, ;>rômoaleAs to this house hW¤<h' tyIBŸ'h' 12athat you are building, hn<$bo hT¢;a'Arv,a}—if you walk in my statutes y!t'QojuB] Ël¶ eTeAμai 12band keep my regulations hç+,[}ôT' yf¢'P;v]miAta,w“and observe all my commandments y£t'/x]miAlK;Ata, Tà;r“m'v;w“to walk in them, μh-,B; tk,l¢,l;then I shall establish my word with you, ËTai y!rib;D“Ata, yti¶moqih}w"which I spoke unto David your father, >Úyôbia; dwèID:Ala, yTir“B'`DI rv,àa}and I shall dwell among the Israelites la-er;c]yI yn∞EB] Ëwto`B] yTi+n“k'v¢;w“ 13aand not forsake my people Israel. >s lôaer;c]yI yMài['Ata, bzO[‘a, alàow“ 13bAnd Solomon built the temple tyIB'h'Ata, h iìmolov] ˆb,YéIw" 14and completed it. >Whôlek'y“w"
How to interpret the absence of this sizable passage from the LXX?
Do these verses belong to a stage in the literary genesis of the account
that is posterior to the form reflected by the LXX? Or is there rea-
son to suppose that they were omitted in the LXX or in its Hebrew
Vorlage?
Literary-critical analysis
1 Kgs. 6: 11–14 falls into a divine oracle directed to Solomon in
vv. 11–13 and a summary-phrase in v. 14. Though the passage inter-
rupts the account of the temple building of vv. 2–38, it does not
actually disrupt it; rather it separates the paragraph devoted to the
interior divisions, decorations and installations of the temple (vv.
15–36) from the preceding one describing the outer structure of the
temple (vv. 2–10).1 The oracle deals with the issue of the temple as
YHWH’s dwelling place (v. 12a, v. 13a): If Solomon observes YHWH’s
commandments, YHWH promises to live among his people, that is,
to have his residence in the temple. From the viewpoint of theme,
then, vv. 11–14 do not appear to be ill-placed after the paragraph
on the erection of the temple proper.2
Several critics have argued for the intrusive character of vv. 11–13
on the basis of an alleged instance of resumptive repetition in v. 14.3
The argument does not carry conviction. Rather than resuming the
phrase immediately preceding v. 11, v. 14 duplicates v. 9a.4
It is not so much the position of vv. 11–14 as their linguistic
coinage that leads most scholars to regard them as an insertion into
the context. Since the account of the temple building probably reflects
a pre-Deuteronomistic source, the presence of Deuteronomistic phrase-
ology in vv. 11–13 would suggest that these verses are younger than
the surrounding ones. Opinions, however, differ as to the literary
provenance of the passage.5 One reason for the dissension is the
2 Contra Polak, who considers the passage to be “totally out of context” (“Sep-tuaginta Account”, 145).
3 Burney, Notes, 68; R.E. Friedman, The Exile and Biblical Narrative. The Formationof the Deuteronomistic and Priestly Works (HSM 22), Chico 1981, 24; V.A. Hurowitz,“I have Built You an Exalted House.” Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamianand Northwest Semitic Writings ( JSOT.S 115), Sheffield 1992, 236; Polak, “SeptuagintaAccount”, 139, 145; Trebolle Barrera, “Redaction, Recension, and Midrash”, 23.
4 Hurowitz, apparently aware of the difficulty, remarks “At a later stage in thetransmission of the text, a copyist’s error dislodged the words whlkyw tybhAta ˆbywfrom their place and mistakenly relocated them in their present position in v. 9”(Exalted House, 236). This looks like special pleading to save the case of Wiederaufnahme.
5 A few scholars attribute 1 Kgs. 6: 11–13 to a pre-exilic Deuteronomistic redac-tion of Kings (thus E. Eynikel, The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of theDeuteronomistic History [OTS 3], Leiden/New York 1996, 55–56; A. Kuenen, Historisch-critisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds, tweede,geheel omgewerkte uitgave, Deel I, 2, Haarlem 1887, 404; A.D.H. Mayes, The Storyof Israel between Settlement and Exile. A Redactional Study of the Deuteronomistic History,London 1983, 104).
Other scholars assume that vv. 11–13 derive from an exilic Deuteronomisticredaction (thus Benzinger, Bücher der Könige, 34; hesistantly I.W. Provan, Hezekiah andthe Books of Kings. A Contribution to the Debate about the Composition of the DeuteronomisticHistory [BZAW 172], Berlin/New York 1988, 112, n. 55; anda, Bücher der Könige,153; J. Van Seters., In Search of History. Historiography in the Ancient World and the Originsof Biblical History, New Haven 1983, 309; Wellhausen [?], Composition des Hexateuchs,267, 276; Würthwein [?], Erste Buch der Könige, 65).
Some exegetes assign the exilic-Deuteronomistic redactional sigla Dtr2 or DtrN toour passage (Dtr2: Friedman, Exile and Biblical Narrative, 24; F.M. Cross, CanaaniteMyth and Hebrew Epic. Essays in the History of Religion of Israel, Cambridge [Massachusetts]1973, 287; DtrN: W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche
no counterpart of 1 kgs. 6: 11‒14 in the lxx 143
nature of the phraseology involved: Though a few expressions imply
a Deuteronomistic origin, others show clear affinity with Priestly lan-
guage.6 Since one cannot omit either the Priestly or the Deuteronomistic
elements from the oracle without destroying its basic structure and
message, internal literary-critical differentation of the text is not com-
mendable. Several redaction critics have downplayed or ignored either
the Priestly or Deuteronomistic element in an attempt to correlate
the passage with redactional layers that are believed to surface else-
where in Kings (and the Deuteronomistic History). However, liter-
ary analysis is better served if the linguistic ambiguity of the passage
is fully acknowledged. This ambiguity points to a late date of ori-
gin. We may quote here Hurowitz’s judgment:
The entire passage is most likely a very late addition to the story,made by an author who is equally ‘fluent’ in Priestly and Deuteronomicstyle, namely, one who already is familiar with the entire Pentateuch.7
A late date of origin of vv. 11–13 in MT increases the chance that
the recension represented by the LXX did not yet comprise these
Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk [FRLANT 108], Göttingen 1972, 71,n. 31; Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 167). M.A. O’Brien (The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis:A Reassessment [OBO 92], Freiburg/Göttingen 1989, 150–51, 282) regards vv. 11–12as “nomistic”.
Eventually, there are scholars who consider vv. 11–13 to be a late (post-exilic)intrusion either of predominantly Deuteronomistic colour (Kittel, Bücher der Könige,49; Knoppers, Two Nations, I, 96–97; Rehm, Erste Buch der Könige, 66; Stade-Schwally,Books of Kings, 87) or of Priestly colour (Burney, Notes, 68–69; S.L. McKenzie, TheTrouble with Kings. The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History [VT.S42], Leiden/New York 1991, 138; Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 147; Mulder, 1 Kings 1–11, 209–10; Noth, Könige, 105, 118; M.E. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and theDeuteronomic School, Oxford 1972, 337, 350).
6 Three phrases may be considered more typical of Deuteronomistic than ofPriestly language: ytwxm rmç (Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 336, nr. 17); hwhy rbd μyqh(Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 350, nr. 1); larçy ym[Ata bz[ al (YHWH being the impliedsubject: Deut. 31; 6, 8, 17; 1 Kgs. 6: 13; 8: 57; Hurowitz, Exalted House, 262, n. 3). One phrase is equally at home in P and Dtr: ytqjb ˚lh (Lev. 18: 3; 20:23; 26: 3; 1 Kgs. 3: 3; 6: 12; 2 Kgs. 17: 8, 19; Jer. 44: 10: 23; Ezek. [13 times]).The phrase larçy ynb ˚wtb ˆkç is more distinctive of P than of Dtr (Exod. 25: 8;29: 45, 46; 1 Kgs. 6: 13; Ezek. 43: 7, 9; these instances refer to the dwelling ofYHWH in his sanctuary, be it temple or Tent of Meeting; cf. Num. 5: 3; 35: 34).Moreover, affinity with P is strongly implied by the striking similarity of 1 Kgs. 6:12b to Lev. 18: 4a (thus Burney, Notes, 69):
μhb tkll ytwxmAlkAta trmçw hç[t yfpçmAtaw 1 Kgs. 6: 12bμhb tkll wrmçt twqjAtaw wç[t yfpçmAta Lev. 18: 4a
7 Hurowitz, Exalted House, 262, n. 3.
144 chapter nine
verses. Several scholars indeed believe that vv. 11–13 were not pre-
sent in the Vorlage of the LXX.8
An additional indication for the secondary nature of vv. 11–13
might be found in 1 Kgs. 11: 9–10. This passage, which seeks to
explain why YHWH was angry with Solomon, makes reference to
earlier occasions on which YHWH admonished Solomon to keep
YHWH’s commandments. Interestingly, mention is made only of the
two dream epiphanies described in 1 Kgs. 3 and 9. May be the ora-
cle in 1 Kgs. 6: 11–13 was ignored because, since it was imparted
by a prophet,9 it was not believed to have the same impact on
Solomon as a direct revelation of YHWH in a dream. Nevertheless,
the silence about this oracle in 1 Kgs. 11: 9 is remarkable.
Comparative textual analysis
The account of 3 Regum exhibits a number of differences with
1 Kings, both in the direct environment of 1 Kgs. 6: 11–14 and
farther removed from these verses, which may have a bearing on
the question of the textual history of the passage under consideration.
First we must consider a group of notes of the pattern “Solomon
built the (his) house and completed it (his house).” The account of
the temple and palace construction in 1 Kgs. 6–7 presents notes of
this type at 6: 9a, 14 and 7: 1. In the LXX the note of 1 Kgs.
6: 9a is rendered in 3 Reg. 6: 9a in a position corresponding to
that of the MT-note, while the first half of 1 Kgs. 7: 1 is matched
by 3 Reg. 7: 38 and the other half by 3 Reg. 7: 50.
The note at 1 Kgs. 6: 14 is not matched by a translation in cor-
responding position, but at 3 Reg. 6: 3b the LXX has an identical
note, which at that position does not correspond to anything of MT.
Several scholars have expressed as their opinion that 1 Kgs. 6: 14
means to resume an identical note in 6: 9a.10 There is reason to
8 Thus Burney, Notes, 68; Hrozn , Abweichungen, 67; Rehm, Erste Buch der Könige,66; Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 87; Trebolle Barrera, “Redaction, Recension, andMidrash”, 23.
9 Note the expression used in 1 Kgs. 6: 11: “The word of YHWH came toSolomon.” Cf. THAT I, 439, rbd (G. Gerleman).
10 Thus Burney, Notes, 68; Friedman, 24; Gray, Kings, 158; Montgomery-Gehman,Kings, 147; Noth, Könige, 118; Trebolle Barrera, “Redaction, Recension, and Midrash”,23.
no counterpart of 1 kgs. 6: 11‒14 in the lxx 145
question this interpretation, however. Since the total number of notes
is the same in MT and the LXX, namely three, and the notes in
1 Kgs./3 Reg. 6: 9a and 1 Kgs. 7: 1/3 Reg. 7: 38, 50 can be con-
vincingly correlated, it is tempting to assume that the ones in 1 Kgs.
6: 14 and 3 Reg. 6: 3b likewise correlate with each other. This
would mean that the position of either 1 Kgs. 6: 14 or 3 Reg. 6:
3b results from later editorial interference. If the note at v. 14 is
found to be original there, it is likely that the LXX (or its Vorlage),
while moving this note to v. 3b, has simply left out vv. 11–13.
Conversely, if 3 Reg. 6: 3b represents the original note, it may well
be that in the textual tradition underlying MT the note was trans-
ferred to v. 14 to facilitate the insertion of vv. 11–13. The question
arising here is which position is most likely to be original.
It is obvious that the references to the completion of the temple
in 3 Reg. 6: 3b, 9a and 1 Kgs. 6: 9a, 14, when taken literally,
appear prematurely in the account of the temple construction. Gooding
is certainly right to describe the function of these notes as marking
the transition from the preceding to the following topic.11 We should
ask, then, about the consequences of their different positions in the
LXX and MT for the internal division of the account. In this regard,
the following observations are of interest:
1. The note at 3 Reg. 6: 3b appears between the section on the
dimensions of the temple and the porch in vv. 2–3 and a sec-
tion dealing with topics like windows (v. 4) and side-chambers
(vv. 5–6, 8). As a structural marker, the note of v. 3b is not inap-
propriately placed.
2. By absence of vv. 11–14, the LXX makes no formal division
between vv. 9b–10 and v. 15. Both in MT and the LXX, vv.
9b–10 and v. 15 deal with the woodwork of the temple. V. 15,
however, differs from the preceding verses in dealing with the
interior lining of the walls. V. 15, then, could also be grouped
together with the following verses, since these focus on the inte-
rior arrangements of the temple, whereas vv. 1–10 focus on the
outer structure of the temple.
11 Gooding, “Temple Specifications”, 148.
146 chapter nine
Since the connection between v. 15 and the surrounding verses can
be variously interpreted, our sole clue is the correspondence between
3 Reg. 6: 3b and 1 Kgs. 6: 14. Now it is hard to see why, if vv.
11–14 were subsequently inserted, the reviser responsible for the
insertion would have thought it necessary to omit v. 3b. Conversely,
it is well conceivable that a reviser, while omitting vv. 11–13, found
a good use for v. 14 by putting that note at v. 3b. This reviser,
then, might have left out vv. 11–14 in order to improve the homo-
geneity of the temple-account.12
It should be stressed, however, that the correlation between 3 Reg.
6: 3b and 1 Kgs. 6: 14 remains a mere, albeit well-founded, assump-
tion. Moreover, the view that vv. 11–13 were simply omitted from
the text faces the difficulty that it is unusual for the gg-section of 3
Regum to leave passages of the size and theological weight of 1 Kgs.
6: 11–13 without any representation.13 The fact that 1 Kgs. 6: 11–13
records YHWH’s own words renders it the more difficult to believe
that the passage was simply deleted in the gg-section.
Another peculiar difference between the texts of 3 Regum and 1
Kings adds to one’s doubts about the originality of 1 Kgs. 6: 11–14.
Throughout 1 Kings the term fpçm, which occurs 23 times, is used
in various ways. It occurs as a judicial term in 1 Kgs. 3: 11, 28
(two times); 7: 7; 8: 49, 59 (two times); 10: 9; 20: 40. It assumes
other meanings in 1 Kgs. 5: 8 (“commission”); 6: 38 (“plan”); 18:
28 (“custom”). Finally, it occurs as a reference to YHWH’s com-
mandments and statutes in 1 Kgs. 2: 3; 6: 12; 8: 58; 9: 4; 11: 33.14
When fpçm is used in the latter sense, it always appears in con-
nection with terms like twqj and twxm. The remarkable thing about
the gg-section of 3 Regum is that, while it duly translates most
instances of fpçm, it leaves the term unrepresented where it is used
in the sense of “commandments” in MT. In addition to 1 Kgs. 6:
12, the following passages should be noted:
12 Similarly Mulder, 1 Kings 1–11, 209, and Provan, Hezekiah, 112, n. 55.13 Thus it is of interest to note here that while 3 Regum does not contain a full
translation of 1 Kgs. 14: 1–20, most materials of this paragraph are represented ina different form by the “Alternative Story”, 3 Reg. 12: 24a–z (especially vv. 24g–n).
14 For this see ThWAT V, fpvm, 99 (B. Johnson).
no counterpart of 1 kgs. 6: 11‒14 in the lxx 147
The instances of fpçm in 1 Kgs. 8: 58 and 11: 33b are without rep-
resentation in the corresponding passages of 3 Regum. In 3 Reg.
9: 4 the formal counterpart of fpçm is entolh. It has been argued
that entolh is to be seen as the rendering of fpçm here.15 However,
in the overwhelming majority of instances in the LXX entolh is used
to render hwxm, while outside 3 Reg. 9: 4 it is nowhere found as an
equivalent of fpçm.16 Thus, though there is formal correspondence
between kai taw entolaw mou and yfpçmw, the former expression is
an unlikely rendering of the latter.
It is highly improbable that in all three Greek passages listed here
the absence of a rendering of fpçm is due to mishaps in the trans-
mission process. Either the LXX left fpçm unrendered deliberately
in these instances or the Hebrew term was secondarily added in the
tradition reflected by MT. No reason comes to mind why the LXX
translators would have taken offence at the use of μyfpçm as a ref-erence to YHWH’s commandments. It is more likely that μyfpçmwas added to a text which, like the Vorlage of the LXX, did not yet
contain the term in the sense of “commandments”. The matter is
somewhat compounded by the fact that the book of Kings contains
15 Trebolle Barrera, “Histoire du texte”, 336.16 The other instance listed in Hatch-Redpath, Deut. 11: 1 (LXX A), is invalid.
148 chapter nine
8: 58 §pikl›nai kard¤aw ≤m«n prÚw aÈtÚn wyl-;ae Wnbeb;l] twFàoh'l] 8: 58toË poreÊesyai §n pãsaiw ıdo›w aÈtoË wyk;r;D“Alk;B] tk,l¢,l;ka‹ fulãssein rmoŸv]loiw“
pãsaw tåw §ntolåw aÈtoË ka‹ prostãgmata aÈtoË w!yQ;juw“ wyt¶;/x]mi . . .– wyf+;P;v]miWì §nete¤lato to›w patrãsin ≤m«n >Wnyôteboa}Ata, h£W:xi rvà,a}
9: 4 ka‹ sÁ §ån poreuyªw §n≈pion §moË yn"$p;l] Ële¢TeAμai hT;|a'w“ 9: 4kayΔw §poreÊyh Dauid ı patÆr sou ÚŸybŸia; dw•ID: Ël⁄'h; rvŸ,a}K'
§n ısiÒthti kard¤aw ka‹ §n eÈyÊthti rv,y±b]W bb¢;leAμt;B]ka‹ toË poie›n katå pãnta lko`K] twcÈ[}l . . .ì §neteilãmhn aÈt“ Úyti-yWIxi rv¢,a}ka‹ tå prostãgmatã mou yQ'ju . . .
ka‹ tåw §ntolãw mou –– yf'P;v]miW
fulãj˙w >rômov]Ti11: 33b ka‹ oÈk §poreÊyh §n ta›w ıdo›w mou yk'%r:d“bi Wk™l]h;Aaôlow“ 11:33b
toË poi∞sai tÚ eÈy¢w §n≈pion §moË y iìn"y[eB] rvá;Y:h' twcŸ[}l'– yf'P;v]miW ytà'Qojuw“
…w Dauid ı patØr aÈtoË >wyôbia; dwèId;K]
two references to μyfpçm, “commandments”, namely in 1 Kgs. 2: 3
and 2 Kgs. 17: 37, which are duly rendered by the Ant. text tra-
dition. Since outside the gg-section the Ant. manuscripts are believed
to reflect a text closer to the OG than that represented by all other
extant manuscripts, it may be tempting to conclude that in the Vorlage
of the OG the passages in question already contained the word
μyfpçm. On the other hand, the Ant. manuscripts agree with LXX
B in leaving all instances of μyfpçm, “commandments”, unrendered
in the gg-section. Moreover, the attestation of the equivalent of μyfpçmin 3 Reg. 2: 3 is not supported by all Ant. manuscripts.17 This leaves
room for the possibility that in 3 Reg. 2: 3 and 4 Reg. 17: 37 the
renderings of μyfpçm got into the Ant. text under influence of the
Kaige recension.
It is striking to see that in 1 Kgs. 6: 12; 8: 58; 9: 4; 11: 33 μyfpçmis immediately preceded by twqj/μyqj. If we assume that an inter-
polator has been at work in these texts, he must have had a pen-
chant for the sequence twqj/μyqj—μyfpçm. In 1 Kgs. 11: 33 he
added the full string. In 1 Kgs. 9: 4 he replaced original ytwxmw as
reflected by kai taw entolaw mou by yfpçmw in order to create the
string. However, in view of the fact that in 1 Kgs. 2: 3 twxm is
allowed to occupy a position between twqj and μyfpçm, the possib-
lity must be left open that in 9: 4 ytwxmw was dropped inadvertently
during the editorial process.
The absence of a rendering of μyfpçm in the gg-section, however,
admits of another plausible explanation. A key text is 3 Reg. 11: 11:
11 ka‹ e‰pen kÊriow prÚw Salvmvn hm$olov]loi hw:¤hy“ rm,aYO!w" 11ény' œn §g°neto taËta metå sou ËM+;[i taW§OAht;y“ôh; rv¢,a} ˆ['y"ka‹ oÈk §fÊlajaw T;Ÿr“m'Ÿv; alo¶w“– yt¢iyriB]
tåw §ntolãw mou –ka‹ tå prostãgmatã mou yt+'Qojuw“
The situation in this verse is similar to 3 Reg. 8: 58 and 9: 4 to
the extent that the LXX presents the string taw entolaw mou kai taprostagmata mou for less usual combinations of theological-juridical
terms in the Hebrew text.18 Since the string “my commandments
17 In manuscript o of 3 Reg. 2: 3 an equivalent of wyfpçmw is lacking.18 According to Wevers (“Exegetical Principles”, 320), the LXX rendered ytyrb
as taw entolaw mou because it wanted to avoid the idea that man could break
no counterpart of 1 kgs. 6: 11‒14 in the lxx 149
and my ordinances” (ytwxmw ytqj/yqj) is rather frequent in 1 Kings
and 3 Regum,19 it is well conceivable that the readings of 3 Reg.
8: 58, 9: 4 and 11: 11 reflect modifications in accordance with the
standard expression. Other formulaic combinations of references to
law, commandments, ordinances etc. in the Vorlage of the LXX, like
those in 1 Kgs. 6: 12; 11: 33, 34, were simply left unrendered because
of contextual reasons (in the case of 6: 11–13), or because they were
considered redundant (in the case of 11: 33, 34).
Thus, according to this hypothesis the absence of renderings of
μyfpçm, “commandments”, in the LXX is entirely due to editorial
interference with a source text similar to MT. The term fell victim,
not to systematic suppression, but to revision (including omission) of
the formulaic phrases of which it forms part.
On balance, it seems that no conclusive evidence can be adduced
either pro or contra the primacy of 1 Kgs. 6: 11–14 over against
the LXX.
YHWH’s covenant. The fact that Solomon did not observe the stipulations of thecovenant does not imply that Solomon had the power to break it, however.
19 In 1 Kings the combination occurs in 3: 14; 6: 12; 8: 58, 61; 9: 4, 6; 11: 34,38. In 3 Regum it is found in 3: 14; 8: 58, 61; 9: 4, 6; 11: 11, 38.
150 chapter nine
CHAPTER TEN
THE ACCOUNT OF THE INSTALLATION OF THE ARK
(1 KGS. 8: 1–11—3 REG. 8: 1–11)
In their versions of the story of the installation of the ark MT and
the LXX show remarkable differences in text quantity:1
1 The version of 1 Kgs. 8: 1–11 is also (partially) attested by 4QKgs Frg. 6 (DJDXIV, 176–77). Variation is confined to minor differences.
8: 1a ka‹ §g°neto –§n t“ suntel°sai Salvmvn –toË ofikodom∞sai tÚn o‰kon kur¤ou –
ka‹ tÚn o‰kon •autoË –metå e‡kosi ¶th –
8: 1ba tÒte §jekklhs¤asen ı basileÁw Salvmvn hm¢oløov] . . . lh¢eq]y" za¢; 8: 1pãntaw toÁw presbut°rouw Israhl lae^r;c]yI yn∞Eq]zI . . . Ata,
– t°/FM'h' yv¢ear:AlK;Ata,– l iìaer:c]yI ynéEb]li twb⁄oa;h; yaeŸycin“– hmolov] Ël,M,h'Ala,
§n Sivn μl-;v;Wry“8: 1bb toË énenegke›n tØn kibvtÚn diayÆkhw kur¤ou h iìw:hy“AtyrIB] ˆwíroa}Ata, twlo|[}h'ôl]
§k pÒlevw Dauid d£wID: ry[àimeaÏth §st‹n Sivn >ˆwôYOxi ayhià– hŸmoløov] Ël,M¶,h'Ala, Wl⁄h}QŸ;YIw" 8: 2– la+er;c]yI vya¢iAlK;
8: 2 §n mhn‹ Ayanin μy£nIt;ôaeh; jr"yè<B]– gj-;b,– >yô[iybiV]h' vd<joàh' aWh¶– lae-r;c]yI yn∞Eq]zI lKo` WaboÈY:w" 8: 3a
8: 3 ka‹ ∑ran ofl flere›w tØn kibvtÚn >ˆwôroa;h;Ata, μy£nIh}Koh' Waèc]YIw" 8: 3b– hŸw:hy“ ˆwr¶oa}Ata, Wl|[}Y"ôw" 8: 4aa
8: 4 ka‹ tÚ skÆnvma toË martur¤ou d[+e/m lh,ao¢Ata,w“ 8: 4abka‹ pãnta tå skeÊh tå ëgia vd,Qoh' ylàeK]AlK;Atôa,w“tå §n t“ skhn≈mati toË martur¤ou . . . lh,a-oB; rv¢,a}
– >μôYIwIl]h'w“ μy£nIh}Koh' μt+;ao Wl¢[}Y"w" 8: 4b8: 5 ka‹ ı basileÁw . . . hmo%lov] Ël,M¢,h'w“ 8: 5a
ka‹ pçw . . . Israhl laer:c]yI td¶'[}Alk;w“– wTo`ai wyl+;[; μydi¢[;/Nh'
¶mprosyen t∞w kibvtoË ˆwro-a;ôh; ynE∞p]li8: 5b yÊontew prÒbata ka‹ bÒaw rq+;b;W ˆaxo¢ μŸyjiB]z"m] 8: 5b
2 Literally “on her holy things”. The terms ta agia and ta hgiasmena (Aor. ptc.agiazein) both reflect a reading μyrbh (“pure things”; cf. dB' II, KBL, 146) insteadof (original) μydbh (“staves”; cf. dB' I, KBL, 108); cf. Jer. 4: 11. The evaluation ofthe variation in equivalence is difficult. Perhaps the translator opted for the ren-dering ta agia authw in v. 7 because he took wyrb as a reference to the holy ves-sels (ta skeuh ta agia) which the priests were reported to carry into the templetogether with the ark (vv. 3–4). The variation however may also be purely stylistic.
3 The two relative pronouns in v. 8 are variously represented in the Greek manu-scripts. Thus LXX B offers ë . . . ë; the Ant. and Hexaplaric manuscripts, followedby Rahlfs, offer ìw . . . ì; minuscules d e f h i m n p q s t u v w z have ìw . . .ìw. Grammatically, the relative pronoun ìw suits the context better than ë since itrefers back to plakew, whereas ë lacks a fitting antecent in the preceding verse(s).This does not mean that ìw . . . ìw represents the original Greek, however. Strictlyspeaking, the second ìw is incorrect too, since its antecedent rather is the diayhkhthan the plakew.
152 chapter ten
énar¤ymhta Wriìp]S;yIAaôløo rvá,a}– >bôrome WnM;yI aløoàw“
8: 6 ka‹ efisf°rousin ofl flere›w tØn kibvtÚn ˆwroŸa}Ata, μynIh}Koh'· Wabi¢Y:w" 8: 6– hw:éhy“AtyrIB]
efiw tÚn tÒpon aÈt∞w w iìmo/qm]Ala,efiw tÚ dabir toË o‡kou tyIB'`h' rybiàD“Ala,efiw tå ëgia t«n èg¤vn μyv-id:Q’h' vd<qo¢Ala,ÍpÚ tåw pt°rugaw t«n xeroubin >μyôbiWrK]h' ypeàn“K' tj'T'Ala,
8: 7 ˜ti tå xeroubin diapepetasm°na ta›w pt°rujin μyIp+'n:K] μyvi¢r“Po μŸybiWrK]h' yKi¶ 8: 7§p‹ tÚn tÒpon t∞w kibvtoË ˆwro-a;ôh; μw£qom]Ala,
ka‹ periekãlupton tå xeroubin μy iìbiruK]h' WKsáoY:w"§p‹ tØn kibvtÚn ka‹ §p‹ tå ëgia aÈt∞w2 wyD:B'Al['w“ ˆwroàa;h;Al['§pãnvyen >hl;[]ôm;l]mi
8: 8 ka‹ Ípere›xon tå ≤giasm°na μ‹yDIB'h' W JkrIa}Y"w 8: 8ka‹ §nebl°ponto afl kefala‹ t«n ≤giasm°nvn μyDI•B'h' yveŸar: W°ar:YEw"
§k t«n èg¤vn efiw prÒsvpon toË dabir rybi+D“h' ynE∞P]Al[' vd<QoŸh'Aˆmika‹ oÈk »ptãnonto ¶jv hx;Wj-h' War:yE aloàøw“– >hôW<h' μwYOàh' d['μv+; Wyh]YI∞w"
8: 9 oÈk ∑n §n tª kibvt“ ˆwro+a;ôB; ˆyaeª 8: 9plØn dÊo plãkew l¤yinai μyn±Ib;a}h; twto¢lu y!nEv] qr'%plãkew t∞w diayÆkhw –
ìw ¶yhken §ke› Mvus∞w §n Xvrhb bre-joB] hv,`m μ iìv; j'NIèhi rv,Ÿa}ì3 di°yeto kÊriow metå t«n ufl«n Israhl la+er;c]yI yn∞EB]Aμ[i hŸw:hy“ tr'¶K; rv,Ÿa}§n t“ §kporeÊesyai aÈtoÁw §k g∞w AfigÊptou >μyIôr:x]mi ≈r,aà,me μ£t;axeB]
8: 10 ka‹ §g°neto yhÈiy“w" 8: 10…w §j∞lyon ofl flere›w §k toË èg¤ou vd,q-o h'Aˆmi μy£nIh}Koh' taxeàB]ka‹ ≤ nef°lh ¶plhsen tÚn o‰kon >hôw:hy“ tyBeàAta, ale`m; ˆnè:[;h,w“
8: 11 ka‹ oÈk ±dÊnanto ofl flere›w μynIi èh}Koh' Wlák]y:Aaôløow“ 8: 11st∞nai dmào[}l'leitourge›n tre`v;lo]
épÚ pros≈pou t∞w nef°lhw ˆn -:[;ôh, ynèEP]mi˜ti ¶plhsen dÒja kur¤ou tÚn o‰kon . . . >hôw:hy“ tyBeàAta, h£w:hy“Ad/bk] alàem;AyKi
As can be seen, the quantitative difference results mainly from minuses
on the part of the Greek, especially in vv. 1–4. The LXX exhibits
only one large plus vis-à-vis MT and sequence differences between
the versions do not occur at all. The relative brevity of the LXX-
version has not affected the comprehensibility of the account. The
many pluses of the MT-version, on the other hand, render the nar-
ration of events, especially in vv. 1–4, repetitive, confusing, and some-
times even outrightly incoherent. The following difficulties are peculiar
to the MT-version:
1. The turn “Then convoked Solomon the elders of Israel . . . to
king Solomon in Jerusalem . . .” of v. 1 is ungrammatical.4
2. According to v. 1, Solomon summoned to Jerusalem “the elders
of Israel, all the heads of the tribes, the chiefs of the fathers of
the Israelites.” V. 2, on the other hand, states that “all the men
of Israel (were) assembled to king Solomon.” Taken literally, “all
the men of Israel” also includes the group indicated in v. 1, which
causes the statement of v. 2 partly to overlap v. 1. When being
read in a less strict, more indulgent manner, both statements could
be understood as referring to different events and to different
groups. In that case, however, another difficulty arises. Whereas
these groups join the ceremonies accompanying the installation
of the ark (vv. 3–5), v. 2 describes the purpose of the assembly
of all the men of Israel as “the festival”, namely the Feast of
Tabernacles. Perhaps the primary task of v. 2 is to provide the
occasion referred to by v. 1 with a date, but then the different
designations of the group involved is infelicitous. The LXX-account
at vv. 1–2 has been considerably more successful in differentiating
purpose and date of the assembly in Jerusalem (v. 1bb–v. 2).
3. The explanatory note in v. 2b “it is the 7th month” does not
link up directly with the phrase it seeks to explain but is sepa-
rated from it by “at the festival”.
4. V. 3a states that “all the elders of Israel came.” The information
is redundant after v. 2 (cf. note 2).
5. The last clause of v. 4, “and the priests and the levites brought
them” repeats information from vv. 3b–4aa.
4 Thus Rehm, Textkritische Untersuchungen, 90; Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 98;cf. Mulder, 1 Kings 1–11, 379. A similar phenomenon occurs in 1 Kgs. 10: 26.
the installation of the ark 153
6. V. 5a is overfull: “And king Solomon and all the assembly of
Israel which assembled to him (were) along with him before the
ark sacrificing sheep and cattle that could not be numbered nor
counted for quantity.”
Among exegetes it is commonly assumed that the verbose, unbal-
anced text of MT is the result of a complex process of literary
growth. Since the comparatively brief version of the LXX is not
affected by any of the difficulties noted above, it has been suggested
more than once that the version of 3 Reg. 8: 1–11 reflects a text-
historical stage anterior to the form witnessed by MT.5 Before inves-
tigating the plausibility of the suggestion, we should take note of the
fact that the Greek text in the form in which it has come down to
us shows various traces of editorial activity. The following issues
require notice:
1. Within the constellation of 3 Reg. 8: 1, the clause introduced by
tote (v. 1b) must be interpreted as the apodosis to the protasis
consisting of the temporal clause en tƒ suntelesai . . . eth. The
adverb tote stresses that Solomon’s order to summon the elders
to Jerusalem comes immediately after the completion of the tem-
ple and the palace: “And it came to pass, when Solomon had
finished building the house of the Lord and his own house after
20 years, (that) then king Solomon assembled all the elders of Israel
in Sion . . .” Given the introductory za of v. 1b, it is highly improb-
able that the position of v. 1a is original. As Burney points out,
“in no single case does za occur as introduction to the apodosis,
after the protasis has contained a definite notice of the point of
departure. In such a case the usual construction would certainly
be w . . . yhyw (cf. 9: 1, 2).”6 Burney concluded from this that v. 1a
is to be regarded as an addition to the Greek text. However, the
Hebraistic flavour of v. 1a leaves room for the possibility that the
Greek renders a Hebrew text in corresponding position.7 As is
5 For instance, recently by McKenzie (“1 Kings 8”, 25–28) and Mulder (1 Kings1–11, 376–86).
6 Burney, Notes, 104.7 Cf. Gooding, “Pedantic Timetabling”, 157, n. 1: “It is noticeable that the Greek
with its en tƒ + Infin. and its construing of suntelein with tou + Infin. instead ofwith a participle seems to be a literalistic translation of t/Lok'b] yhiy“w". Only LXX B*reads vw sunetelesen.”
154 chapter ten
the case with other editorial remarks in 3 Regum, it is difficult
to decide whether the Greek is a faithful rendering of a Hebrew
source text or a free creation imitating the diction of other pas-
sages (like 3 Reg. 5: 14a; 8: 54; and 9: 1a). Whatever the orig-
inal language of v. 1a, it is striking that the editor, when he
prefixed v. 1a to v. 1b, did not adjust the latter verse to the new
syntactic environment. While v. 1a has probably been modelled
after 1 Kgs. 9: 1a, the time note “after 20 years” is based on
1 Kgs. 9: 10, or it represents an inference from 6: 38 and 7: 1.
2. 3 Reg. 8: 1ba has en Sivn for μlçwry.3. The LXX does not represent hzh μwyh d[ μç wyhyw of 1 Kgs. 8: 8.
The statement may have been omitted because it did not apply
anymore in the days of the translator/editor. The view that the
plus is “a gloss which crept into the text at the wrong place, and
which was intended for μynbah twjl in v. 9”8 faces the difficulty
that the ark had disappeared from the sanctuary as early as the
late pre-exilic period.9 At any rate, the absence of a rendering of
hzh μwyh d[ μç wyhyw in 3 Reg. 8: 8 does not relate to the origi-
nal state of the Hebrew text in 1 Kgs. 8: 8.
4. 3 Reg. 8: 9 exhibits the plus plakew thw diayhkhw. Several critics
assume that it reflects an addition made in the Vorlage of the LXX
to provide the second relative clause with an antecedent.10 However,
it is striking that the plus does not appear where it is syntacti-
cally most appropriate, namely immediately preceding the second
relative clause. Its awkward position could be due to influence
from Deut. 9: 9a. This text, reading tyrbh tjwl μynbah tjwl tjqlμkm[ hwhy trk rça, deals with the tablets of the covenant and
may have served as a model for the insertion of tyrbh tjwl in
3 Reg.* 8: 9.11 Strictly speaking, the addition is not required since
the verb trk can be used absolutely to designate the making of
8 Thus Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 100; cf. anda, Bücher der Könige, 217.9 See M. Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel. An Inquiry into Biblical
Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School, Winona Lake 1985, 276–82.10 Benzinger, Bücher der Könige, 58; Burney, Notes, 109; Kittel, Bücher der Könige, 72;
Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 186; Noth, Könige, 171; anda, Bücher der Könige, 217.11 Note that the sequence “the two stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant” of
3 Reg. 8: 9 matches tyrbh twjl μynbah tjl ynçAta of Deut. 9: 11. The latter pas-sage may have also played a part in the interpolator’s decision not to separateplakew thw diayhkhw from plakew liyinai.
the installation of the ark 155
a covenant,12 in the case of which the second rça perhaps is to
be taken in a temporal sense (“when YHWH has made [a
covenant] . . .”).13 The circumstance that the text of 1 Kgs. 8: 21,
which has much in common with v. 9,14 contains the full expres-
sion may have invited the addition in v. 9. An alternative option
is that plakew thw diayhkhw does not go back to the Vorlage of
the LXX. In that case, the phrase could derive from the trans-
lator. Being aware that trk in his Vorlage is an ellipsis for trktyrb, he may have rendered it with diatiyenai—a verb that in
LXX is used as an equivalent of trk only when the latter verb
combines with tyrb15—and added what seemed to be lacking in
the Hebrew text. On the other hand, if plakew thw diayhkhw were
original in the Greek text, it is difficult to explain why the phrase
occurs after aw eyhken ekei Mvushw en Xvrhb. Moreover, the rela-
tive pronoun introducing the second relative clause would have
been ¥n (diayhkhw . . . hn dieyeto kuriow), not ëw.16 These prob-
lematic textual features render it more likely that plakew thwdiayhkhw is not original in the Greek text. The phrase, which
derives from Deut. 9: 9, 11, may be an ad sensum addition invited
by dieyeto, possibly in the shape of a marginal gloss that entered
the text in the wrong place.
We now turn to the minuses in the Greek account. Like the above-
mentioned items, they may result from revisory activity. One ground
for their omission in the LXX could have been a desire for a well-
structured, tidy account that avoids the repetitions and inconsisten-
cies of MT. In this connection, it is noticeable that the minuses are
concentrated in vv. 1–5, that is, the portion of the narrative pro-
ducing most of the unevennesses and redundancies in MT.
But the LXX-text does not solve all inconsistencies. V. 1 and
v. 3 do not basically difffer from MT in making, as it seems, con-
tradictory claims as to the identity of the bearers of the ark. Moreover,
12 Cf. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 349.13 Cf. Mulder, 1 Kings 1–11, 394.14 1 Kgs. 8: 21 contains the phrase wnytbaAμ[ trk rça hwhy tyrb μçArça ˆwra.15 The parallel at 2 Par. 5: 10, while adopting dieyeto from 3 Reg. 8: 9, may
have omitted plakew thw diayhkhw because that phrase is not represented in theHebrew text of 2 Chron. 5: 10.
16 Cf. footnote 3 of this chapter.
156 chapter ten
the LXX sometimes omits information that is not redundant within
the narrative. Thus the statement of v. 5 that the king and all Israel
found themselves in front of the ark is not prepared for by a refer-
ence to Israel’s being summoned to Jerusalem in the preceding
account, as it is in MT (cf. 1 Kgs. 8: 2).
Imperfections like these might be regarded as side effects result-
ing from a narrative strategy to simplify a top-heavy, unbalanced
account by shortening it. But the LXX-text also exhibits minuses
which do not contribute to improving the transparency of the story
in any way. Why, for example, would the LXX omit the reference
to the festival, i.e., the Feast of Tabernacles, when that festival is
explicitly mentioned in 3 Reg. 8: 65? Since it is celebrated in the
7th month, the explanatory time-note of 1 Kgs. 8: 2 is correct and
no reason comes to mind why the LXX would not present it.
Elsewhere in 3 Regum notes explaining obsolete names for months
have not been omitted. In 3 Reg. 6: 1c the LXX even exhibits a
note that is not represented in the corresponding verse of MT
1 Kgs. 6: 37. Seen in this light, it is doubtful whether the note of
1 Kgs. 8: 2 was ever extant in the Hebrew text tradition underly-
ing the LXX.17
There are two more reasons for doubting whether the LXX of vv.
1–11 is based on a text which was in exact agreement with MT. In
a few cases, the LXX agrees with the Chronicles text that runs par-
allel to 1 Kgs. 8: 11 against the text of Kings. For the greater part
of it, the text of 2 Chron. 5: 2–10a, 13b–14 follows 1 Kgs. 8: 1–11
rather closely. But towards the end of 2 Chron. 5: 2, the Hebrew
deviates from the corresponding text of 1 Kgs. 8: 1 in omitting the
element hmlç ˚lmh that was found to be grammatically awkward
and redundant in 1 Kings. As a result 2 Chron. 5: 2 has the unprob-
lematic phrase “Then Solomon assembled the elders etc . . . to
Jerusalem.” Like the Chronicles passage, the text of 3 Reg. 8: 1b
does not represent hmlç ˚lmh. Instead of “to Jerusalem” it reads
17 From the viewpoint of chronology, MT would have a better reason than theLXX to omit the explanatory time-note, because it seems to imply that elevenmonths have passed between the completion of the temple (1 Kgs. 6: 38) and thededication. In the LXX the time-note would not cause any problem at all, since3 Reg. 7: 38, 8: 1 and 9: 10 indicate an interval of 13 years between both events.
the installation of the ark 157
“at Sion”, a phrase which renders either ˆwyx la18 or simply ˆwyx,
taken as an accusative of local determination.19 The agreement
between Chronicles and 3 Regum at this point might indicate that
hmlç ˚lmh was not yet present in the Hebrew source texts used by
these witnesses. A similar case can be made for the suffixed prepo-
sition wta, which is redundant in 1 Kgs. 8: 5 and without repre-
sentation in the corresponding verses of 3 Reg. 8: 5 and 2 Chron.
5: 6. It is possible that the agreement between 3 Regum and 2
Chronicles in the aforementioned instances results from convergent
correction of the source text. A less ambiguous indication of textual
affiliation is presented by periekalupton in v. 7. This rendering pre-
supposes wskyw of 2 Chron. 5: 8 rather than wksyw of 1 Kgs. 8: 7 (and
4QKgs).
A much more significant phenomenon concerns the literary char-
acteristics of what is present in MT but missing in the LXX.
Throughout vv. 1–11 MT contains several Priestly expressions and
phrases.20 Wellhausen and in particular Burney have pointed to a
certain correlation between these Priestly-oriented passages and minuses
in the LXX.21 The following Priestly elements of vv. 1–11 are listed
as missing from the LXX:
1. twbah yayçn twfmh yçarAlkAta in v. 1.
2. wlhqyw (Niphal) and the explanatory note çdjh awh y[ybçh22 in
v. 2.
3. μywlhw μynhkh in v. 4b (the distinction drawn between priests and
Levites being typical of P).
4. (larçy) td[ and wyl[ μyd[wnh (being used in a ceremonial con-
nection) in v. 5.
18 The possibility that en stands as an equivalent to la in renderings of theexpression la lhqh (Hiphil) is attested by 1 Par. 28: 1 (cf. 1 Chron. 28: 1).
19 See Joüon-Muraoka, § 126h. Another instance of the verb lhq being followedby an accusative of local determination is presented by Josh. 18: 1: hløvi . . .wlhQ;yw,“And they assembled . . . to Shiloh.”
20 For an overview of P-expressions and their provenance in the Pentateuch seeBurney, Notes, 104–107; Cogan, 1 Kings, 278–79.
21 Burney, Notes, 104–107; Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 268–69, 276;also Hrozn , Abweichungen, 69.
22 This time-note might be taken to indicate the date of the gj (cf. Lev. 23: 34)rather than to explain the obsolete designation μyntah jry, from which it is sepa-rated by gjb. Note that it is used in the former sense by 2 Chron. 5: 3.
158 chapter ten
For Burney, the absence of these expressions from the LXX is
sufficient reason to consider all pluses exhibited by 1 Kgs. 8: 1–5
over against 3 Reg. 8: 1–5 as secondary insertions into the older
narrative by a Priestly redactor (RP).23 However, the LXX does not
consistently omit all Priestly elements.24 The following have been
noted to occur in MT and the LXX alike:
1. d[wm lha (twice in the LXX over against once in MT)25 in v. 4.
Possibly also lhab rça çdqh ylkAlkAtaw.26
2. μyçdqh çdqAla in v. 6.
3. çdqh in v. 8 and v. 10.
4. The note of v. 8 on the staves (perhaps presupposing the regu-
lation of Exod. 25: 15b that the staves of the ark should not be
removed).27
5. The description in vv. 10–11 (being related to Exod. 40: 34–35).28
Items like nrs. 4 and 5 differ from the expansionistic phrases in the
first group because of their size and their importance to the narra-
tive framework. It is somewhat doubtful whether they may be put
on a par with the secondary Priestly expansions of the former group.
However, items like d[wm (lha)29 and μyçdqh çdqAla30 are very
similar to the former group in their being specifications not vital to
the narrative. Burney attributes these to an interpolator SSP who
wrote prior to the separation of the recensions reflected by MT (and
4QKgs) and the LXX. This looks like a forced attempt to uphold
23 This RP is to be distinguished from the Priestly source of the Pentateuch(Burney, Notes, 107).
24 See also Hurowitz, Exalted House, 260–64.25 It is plausible that the plus tou marturiou in 3 Reg. 8: 4b was added to make
the designations of the Tent of Meeting in vv. 4a and b exactly correspond to oneanother (cf. also Burney, Notes, 108).
26 Thus Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 141–42.27 Thus Gray, Kings, 195.28 Thus Noth, Könige, 180–81.29 The element d[wm must be secondary to v. 4 because the tent which is car-
ried into the temple is the one David had spread to accommodate the ark after ithad been brought back to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6: 17; 1 Kgs. 1: 39; 2: 28, 29, 30).This tent is nowhere else referred to as d[wm lha (thus also Benzinger, Bücher derKönige, 57; Kittel, Bücher der Könige, 71). A different opinion is held by Gray: “As arepository of the ark, this was a tent of meeting, where Yahweh and the commu-nity kept tryst” (Gray, Kings, 104). In my view, d[wm lha is a fixed designation fora specific object that cannot be transferred to another object in a functional sense.
30 μyçdqh çdqAla is an apposition to tybh rybdAla as in 1 Kgs. 6: 16.
the installation of the ark 159
the claim that the pluses of the MT-version vis-à-vis the LXX all
belong to a distinct redaction subsequent to the stage reflected by
the LXX. Actually, there is nothing in the materials themselves
suggesting that the Priestly interpolations should be differentiated
redactionally.
Burney’s assertion that even those pluses in 1 Kgs. 8: 1–5 which
do not reveal Priestly language derive from RP is also difficult to
defend. Thus whereas 1 Kgs. 8: 4aa is not represented by the LXX,
it is likely to have belonged to the original narrative.31
Thus it is obvious that the LXX neither lacks all the younger
Priestly materials nor represents all the older materials. This state of
affairs would suggest that the text-form attested by the LXX basi-
cally results from the shortening of an older text that is (partly) pre-
served in MT.32 There are two further indications that a tendency
at abridgment underlies the minuses in 3 Reg. 8: 1–11. First, the
absence of a rendering of td[ in v. 5 is mirrored by the absence
of a rendering of lhq in the expression larçy lhqAlk of v. 14. In
both instances the LXX offers “all Israel” (paw/panta Israhl) for a
longer Hebrew of MT. The uniformity created by the LXX is more
likely to represent a secondary development than the diversity of the
Hebrew expressions. According to 1 Kgs./3 Reg. 8: 65, Solomon
celebrated the festival following the dedication in the presence of
“all Israel”. It is not inconceivable, then, that some reviser modified
the references to the assembly in v. 5 and v. 14 in accordance with
the terminology of v. 65. Harmonizations like this are a frequent
element in the Greek Solomon Narrative and are also found else-
where in 3 Reg. 8.
31 Thus among others, McKenzie, “1 Kings 8”, 33; Noth, Könige, 174, 177;O’Brien, Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis, 152; Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 100;Würthwein, Erste Buch der Könige, 85. There are two arguments in favour of con-sidering v. 4aa an integral part of the older narrative. First, the expression hwhy ˆwradiffers from hwhyAtyrb ˆwra, which occurs in v. 1 and v. 6, as being presumablypre-Deuteronomistic (cf. note its frequent occurrence in the ark narrative of 1 Sam.4–6 and 2 Sam. 6). Second, v. 4b (μywlhw μynhkh μta wl[yw) roughly parallels v. 4aa, its most important difference with the latter being the mentioning of thelevites in addition to the priests). This state of affairs renders it likely that bothphrases do not derive from the same author. The Priestly element μywlhw μynhkhsuggests the possibility that v. 4b is a secondary expansion modelled after v. 4aa.In that instance, the latter verse is to be attributed to the older narrative. McKenziethinks that the phrase was lost in the Vorlage of the LXX because of parablepsiscaused by the ending of the previous verse (ˆwrahAta—ˆwraAta).
32 Thus also Cogan, 1 Kings, 291; Hurowitz, Exalted House, 264.
160 chapter ten
Further indication of a tendency to shorten a longer text is sup-
plied by v. 5b. There, anariymhta corresponds to alw wrpsyAal rçabrm wnmy of MT. The same Hebrew expression occurs at 1 Kgs. 3: 8
except for the two verbs having changed places. The interchange is
not reflected in the Greek text, for the LXX offers a reading basi-
cally identical with 3 Reg. 8: 5b: ow ouk ariymhyhsetai.33 This may
suggest that the Greek of 3 Reg. 8: 5b simply summarized a longer
Hebrew text.
Though it thus seems to be likely that 3 Reg. 8: 1–11 presents an
abridged version of a longer Vorlage, there are good reasons to doubt
whether that Vorlage was entirely identical with MT. The absence of
a representation of “at the festival, that is the 7th month” can hardly
be explained as a deliberate omission (see above) and the element
may well be a gloss that entered the text only after the LXX-tra-
dition had branched off.
Interestingly, MT 1 Kgs. 8 exhibits another plus over against the
LXX that almost certainly is a late interpolation and shows some
literary relationship with the gloss at v. 2. In 1 Kgs. 8: 65 MT indi-
cates that the festival following the dedication lasted “7 days and 7
days, 14 days.” The next verse, however, states that Solomon sent
the people away on the 8th day! This inconsistency is not encoun-
tered in the LXX:
8: 65bb •ptå ≤m°raw μymiy: t[à'b]vi 8: 65b– μym-iy: t[¢'b]viw“– >μwôyO r£c;[; h[à;B;r“a'
8: 66 ka‹ §n tª ≤m°r& tª ÙgdÒ˙ y!nIymiV]h' μwYO•B' 8: 66§jap°steilen tÚn laÚn μ[+;h;Ata, jL'¢vi
Most critics agree that the plus exhibited by MT is “ein späterer
Zusatz im Sinne von 2 Ch 79, wonach . . . die ersten sieben Tage
für die Tempelweihe beansprucht wurden und dann erst das sieben-
tägige ‘Fest’ zu begehen war.”34 It is even likely that the gloss in
v. 65b was directly inspired by, or borrowed from, the Chronicles
passage.35 Now it is important to note that the chronology of
33 At 3 Reg. 3: 8, the Ant. texts present a more extensive reading which doesnot entirely correspond with MT. Rahlfs however believes this reading to be a cor-rection towards MT (Septuaginta-Studien, [600]).
34 Noth, Könige, 192. 35 Thus Cogan, 1 Kings, 290; Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 201; Stade-Schwally,
the installation of the ark 161
2 Chron. 7: 8–10 fits in with the regulations of Lev. 23: 34–43 con-
cerning the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles. Here are the
relevant passages of the Chronicles section:
(8) And Solomon made the festival in that time, 7 days . . . (9) andthey made a solemn assembly (trx[) on the 8th day . . . and theymade . . . the feast during 7 days (10) and on the 23rd day of the 7thmonth he sent the people to their tents.
According to Lev. 23: 34–35, the Feast of Tabernacles starts at the
15th day of the 7th month, lasts 7 days and is concluded by a solemn
assembly on the 8th day. Seen against this background, the 23rd
day on which Solomon sent the people home is the first day after
the festival, i.e., the 9th day.36 However, according to 3 Reg. 8: 66,
and also to 1 Kgs. 8: 66, Solomon sent the people away on the 8th
day. Whereas this chronology is not in line with the regulations of
Lev. 23, it is in perfect agreement with the regulations regarding the
Feast of Tabernacles of Deut. 16: 13–15, since these limit the festi-
val to seven days without making reference to a solemn assembly
on the 8th day. Apparently, the description of the Feast of Tabernacles
in ch. 8 originally reflected this Deuteronomic conception. The ref-
erence to the 7th month in 1 Kgs. 8: 2, however, is alien to this
Deuteronomic concept; the period is mentioned in the Priestly direc-
tion of Lev. 23: 34, not in Deut. 16. It is tempting to assume that
not only the gloss of 1 Kgs. 8: 65 was inspired by Chronicles, but
also the time note y[ybçh çdjh awh of v. 2. The following develop-
ment, then, may be pictured: The original chronology regarding the
Feast of Tabernacles agreed with Deut. 16. It has been preserved
by the LXX. The Chronicler modified this chronology in accordance
with the regulations of Lev. 23 by replacing μyntah jryb with ghby[ybçh çdjh awh (2 Chron. 5: 3) and by dating the conclusion of
the feast (2 Chron. 7: 9–10). Subsequently, an interpolator inserted
glosses into the text of 1 Kgs. 8: 2 and 65 that reflect the Chronicles
conception of the chronology of the Feast of Tabernacles.
Books of Kings, 109; H.G.M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCeB), Grand Rapids1982, 223. Different views have been advanced, however (thus cf. Mulder, 1 Kings1–11, 457–58). McKenzie (“1 Kings 8”, 30) claims that the double occurrence ofμymy t[bç is due to dittography. The dittography would have brought about a mar-ginal gloss, μwy rç[ h[bra, which found its way into the text. To me this compli-cated scenario seems somewhat far-fetched, however.
36 Cf. K. Elliger, Leviticus (HAT 4), Tübingen 1966, 321.
162 chapter ten
In sum, the view is advanced here that in 1 Kgs. 8: 1–11 the ver-
sions of the LXX and MT each reflect later developments. By and
large, the LXX moves further away from the common Vorlage than
MT, owing to the considerable omissions in the Greek version.
Attempts to correlate the LXX-minuses with a redactional stage in
the composition of the narrative prior to MT are unsuccesful. The
LXX-version is best regarded as deriving from a Hebrew text that
was largely identical with MT. In all likelihood, the omissions were
intended to improve the structure of the narrative. A similar desire
for clarity may underlie the time note in 3 Reg. 8: 1a. Whereas a
few deviations from MT like those at v. 1a, v. 5b and v. 8 probably
occurred in the Greek text, it is not inconceivable that most minuses
of the Greek account originated from the Hebrew Vorlage. Unfor-
tunately, the literal character of the translation renders it difficult to
determine the stage of the text in which most omissions were made.
the installation of the ark 163
CHAPTER ELEVEN
THE DEDICATION PRONOUNCEMENT
(1 KGS. 8: 12–13—3 REG. 8: 53A)
In 1 Kgs. 8: 12–13 Solomon is said to make the following statement
concerning YHWH’s entrance into the Holy of Holies:
Then Solomon said, hm-oløv] rm'¢a; za;` 12YHWH has said that he would dwell in >lpâ,r:[}B; £Køv]li rm'+a; hw∞:hy“
the dense-cloud.I have surely built an exalted house Ël-; lbuz] tyBàe ytiynüIb; hnOèB; 13
for thee,a place for thy dwelling forever. >μymâil;/[ ÚT]b]vil] ˆwkøàm;
The LXX-version of this poetic declaration is found in 3 Reg. 8:
53a, in a context completely different from MT:
tÒte §lãlhsen Salvmvn Then Solomon saidÍp¢r toË o‡kou regarding the house…w sunet°lesen when he had finishedtoË ofikodom∞sai aÈtÒn building it:¥lion §gn≈risen “The sun did YHWH make known§n oÈran“ kÊriow in the heaven.e‰pen toË katoike›n He said that he would dwell§n gnÒfƒ (LXX B: §k gnÒfou) in darkness (LXX B: without darkness).ofikodÒmhson o‰kÒn mou Build thou my house,o‰kon §kprep∞ saut“ a lofty house to thee,toË katoike›n §p‹ kainÒthtow to dwell upon newness.”oÈk fidoÁ aÏth g°graptai §n Behold, is it not written in the bibl¤ƒ t∞w ”d∞w Book of Song?
The dedication pronouncement in the LXX is considerably longer
than its material counterpart in MT. Sizable pluses vis-à-vis MT are
presented by the first line of the dedication pronouncement, the
source citation at the end and the second part of the introductory
statement. Moreover, in the text portions that are common to the
LXX and MT, several word differences occur. The scheme below
visualizes the obvious deviations. For reasons of convenience, the
lines containing the text of the dedication pronouncement proper
are numbered 1–4.
The question of the purport and the provenance of the dedication
pronouncement is beset by numerous difficulties. It is not our inten-
tion to deal with these problems in full. Rather, we focus on the
question of the text-historical relationship between the versions of
the LXX and MT. The Greek of 3 Reg. 8: 53a exhibits several
difficulties:
1. It is not entirely clear whether kuriow is to be construed as the
subject of the clause preceding or following it. Since it is natural
to suppose that the identity of the syntactic subject is revealed in
the opening clause of a declaration, kuriow is more likely to be
taken as the subject to the preceding clause hlion egnvrisen enouranƒ. This would mean, however, that the opening clause shows
a word-order (object-predicate-adjunct-subject) that is anomalous
in Greek (though not so in Hebrew).
2. In the LXX the verb gnvrizein is never construed with objects
denoting astral bodies. As Burkitt notes, “egnvrisen makes no obvi-
ous sense, it is a quite peculiar word to use in this context, such
a word as would naturally come to a translator mechanically
translating a corrupt text he did not understand.”1
3. The identity of the person pronouncing “build thou my house”
is questionable. Since no change of speaking subject is indicated
in line 3 we are led to assume that it is Solomon who is mak-
ing the petition. This seems to be the more obvious as the pre-
ceding line refers to YHWH in the 3rd person. But in the case
of a humble request addressed to the deity, one would expect to
find a deferential formula rather than the plain imperative of line
3 (cf. Solomon’s prayer in 3 Reg. 8: 23–53). The use of the imper-
ative suggests that it is YHWH who orders Solomon to build “my
1 F.C. Burkitt, “The Lucianic Text of 1 Kings VIII 53b”, JThS 10 (1909), 439–46,esp. 440.
the dedication pronouncement 165
8: 53a tÒte §lãlhsen Salvmvn hmø-løv] rm¢æa; za… 8: 12Íp¢r toË o‡kou –
…w sunet°lesen toË ofikodom∞sai aÈtÒn –1 ¥lion §gn≈risen §n oÈran“ –2 kÊriow e‰pen toË katoike›n §n gnÒfƒ >lpâ,r:[}B; ˆKø`v]li rm+'a; hw∞:hy“3 ofikodÒmhson o‰kÒn mou o‰kon §kprep∞ saut“ Ël-; lbuz“ tyBàe ytiynüIb; hnOèB; 8: 134 . . . toË katoike›n §p‹ kainÒthtow >μymâil;/[ ÚT]b]vil] ˆwkøàm;
oÈk fidoÁ aÏth g°graptai §n bibl¤ƒ t∞w ”d∞w –
house”, that is, the temple. Since the temple has already been
completed, line 3, in order to make sense, must be taken as a
citation of an earlier instruction of YHWH.2 The citation char-
acter of line 3 is in keeping with the fact that Solomon is the
speaking subject of v. 53a. The absence of a proper introduction
to the oracle as cited in lines 3–4 is strange, however. Though
the divine oracle sometimes goes without introduction, as Ps. 91:
14–16 shows,3 this introduction can hardly be missed in v. 53a,
because neither the identity of the speaker nor the intention of
lines 3–4 are obvious in light of the context. Another problem is
posed by the juxtaposition of “build thou my house” and “a lofty
house to thee” in line 3. Possibly, an asyndetic connection is
implied. YHWH, then, would instruct Solomon to build not only
the temple, but also a lofty palace for himself. But there is no
manuscript evidence supporting this interpretation. None of the
Ant. manuscripts, which otherwise tend to add or change words
in order to produce an accessible text, has inserted kai between
mou and oikon. Indeed, there is no single manuscript attesting kaiin this place. This implies that the Greek scribes never under-
stood the connection between the two parts of the imperative in
the above sense.
4. The meaning of epi kainothtow, literally “upon newness”, is obscure
in the context of the final clause. Does this expression refer to
the newly built palace or temple? Does it perhaps mean to say
that the dwelling ushers in a new period? Or is it to be under-
stood as “once again”, that is, does it indicate a resumption of
the dwelling?
The Hebrew text of MT is not affected by problems of equal weight.
Though the meaning of lbz is not firmly established in the context
and the interpretation of Solomon’s declaration raises many ques-
tions, the statement as a whole is coherent and its meaning clear.4
Therefore one possibility to account for the present Greek text can
be immediately brushed aside, namely that the Greek translator or
2 Schenker, Septante, 132.3 Schenker, Septante, 132.4 The assertion that the adverbial use of μymlw[ is unparalleled in MT (thus
Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 103) is not correct since this use is also encounteredin Ps. 61: 5 and Dan. 9: 24.
166 chapter eleven
a later redactor reworked the text on his own initiative.5 It is quite
improbable that a free midrashic reworking produces an obscure,
grammatically difficult text while the text believed to represent the
original version is transparent.
The peculiarity of the above-mentioned Greek expressions and the
word order of the first line rather imply that a Greek translator
mechanically rendered a somewhat corrupt Hebrew text.6 Restoration
of this Vorlage text faces several difficulties that are discussed below.
This discussion bears also on the issue of the original form of the
Greek text, so that an assessment of the most important textual
differences is included.
1. egnvrisen. It is commonly assumed that egnvrisen reflects a cor-
rupt Hebrew. Different views have been put forward concerning
the shape of the original Hebrew verb. anda speculated that
original ar:B; “to create” was corrupted into raeBe (Piel), “to explain”.7
But in the LXX gnvrizein is never used to render raeBe and it is
implausible that a perfectly understandable expression “YHWH
created the sun” could develop into the nonsensical “YHWH
explained the sun”. Wellhausen maintained that egnvrisen arose
from confusion of ˆykh (ˆwk Hiphil), “he set”, with ˆybh (ˆyb Hiphil),
“he understood”.8 In support of Wellhausen, several scholars have
noted that the Ant. reading esthsen (for egnvrisen) also suggests
original ˆykh.9 The translation “YHWH set the sun in the heav-
ens” certainly makes good sense. However, as Rahlfs and Burkitt
have noted,10 esthsen in the Ant. manuscripts is only too likely
an attempt to ameliorate the difficult egnvrisen. Moreover, ˆyb
5 Contra Peterca, “Auslegungsbeispiel”, 273–75.6 Differently Schenker (Septante, 130–35), who believes that 3 Reg. 8: 53a is a
faithful rendition of a Hebrew text primary to that of 1 Kgs. 8: 12–13.7 anda, Bücher der Könige, 218.8 Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 271. Scholars concurring to this view
include Benzinger (Bücher der Könige, 59); Burney (Notes, 111); M. Görg (“Die Gattungdes sogenannten Tempelweihspruchs [1 Kg 8,12f.]”, UF 6 [1974], 55–63, esp. 55),Kittel (Bücher der Könige, 74); E.A. Knauf (“Le roi est mort, vive le roi! A BiblicalArgument for the Historicity of Solomon”, in L.K. Handy [ed.], The Age of Solomon.Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium [Studies in the History and Culture of theAncient Near East 11], Leiden/New York 1997, 81–95, esp. 82); Noth (Könige, 172);with reservations, Gray (Kings, 196, n. a); anda (Bücher der Könige, 218).
9 Thus Benzinger, Burney, Gray, Noth, anda (cf. previous note).10 Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, [622]; Burkitt, “Lucianic Text”, 440–41, 444.
the dedication pronouncement 167
Hiphil is never translated by gnvrizein in the entire LXX. Against
Wellhausen’s view, Gray’s suggestion to follow egnvrisen back to
ˆykh via rykh (rkn Hiphil, “to recognize”) at least has the merit
that gnvrizein is actually attested as an equivalent of rykh, namely
in Job 34: 25. Other attempts to reconstruct the original text
behind egnvrisen start from the assumption that the Greek trans-
lates [ydwh/[ydwy ([dy Hiphil). This by no means is an unreason-
able assumption, because elsewhere in the LXX gnvrizein is almost
exclusively used to translate Hiphil and Niphal of [dy. What, how-
ever, was the original Hebrew form underlying [ydwh/[ydwy? Van
den Born proposed dy[wh (dw[ Hiphil, “to order”, “to summon”),
but it is doubtful if this verb is appropiate to refer to the setting
of the sun in the sky.11 Burkitt reconstructed [pe/h ([py Hiphil
imp.) and translated “Sun, shine forth in the heaven.”12 Thackeray
made the interesting suggestion to restore μymçb [ydwh as b[y dwhμymç, “(O Sun), the Glory beclouds the heavens.”13 The verb bw[(Hiphil) is once attested in MT, namely in Lam. 2: 1, and it cer-
tainly fits a context making reference to clouds in 1 Kgs. 8: 11–12
(3 Reg. 8: 53a). Klostermann argued that the original Hebrew
read μymçb [dwy çmç, “Die Sonne wird am Himmel wahrgenom-
men” (“The sun can be discerned in the sky”).14 The translator
would have misunderstood ['dEW:yI (Niphal ipf.) as ['dI/y (Hiphil ipf.,
written defectively). However, an ipf. in Hebrew is not usually
rendered as an Aorist (egnvrisen) in Greek. An argument favour-
ing Klostermann’s view is that it does not require us to assume
that hwhy in the Vorlage originally connected with the preceding
clause.
2. The syntactic interpretation of kuriow raises a difficulty concern-
ing the shape of the Vorlage text. As argued above, it seems nat-
ural to take kuriow as the subject of the previous clause. In that
case, eipen marks the beginning of the next clause. However, the
Hebrew equivalent rm'a; cannot introduce a new clause. The clause
11 A. van den Born, “Zum Tempelweihspruch (1 Kg viii 12f.)”, OTS 14 (1965),235–44, esp. 237–38.
12 Burkitt, “Lucianic Text”, 441.13 H.St.J. Thackeray, “New Light on the Book of Jashar (A Study of 3 Regn.
VIII 53b LXX)”, JThS 11 (1910), 518–32, esp. 520.14 Klostermann, Bücher Samuelis und der Könige, 315.
168 chapter eleven
would have to begin with rma awh or rmayw at least.15 The Ant.
texts represent kai eipe, which actually implies rmayw, but kai is
likely to be a later addition meant to guide the reader. Klos-
termann’s reconstruction of the first line (cf. 1.) might solve the
difficulty.
3. ek (g)nofou. The aforementioned reading is attested by LXX B.
Either it goes back to interchange of beth and mem in the Hebrew
Vorlage (lpr[b - lpr[m) or it represents a misreading by the trans-
lator.16 lpr[b is to be preferred as the original form, since the
conception of YHWH’s dwelling in a cloud is supported by sev-
eral texts (e.g., Exod. 20: 21; 1 Kgs. 8: 11). The reading en gnofƒcould present a later correction on the basis of the Hebrew.
4. oikodomhson oikon mou. The Greek reflects ytiybe hnEB]. Possibly, the
nun in ytynb (cf. MT) was accidentally omitted in the Hebrew
Vorlage of the LXX. Wellhausen and Thackeray, however, argue
that the LXX represents the more difficult and consequently orig-
inal reading here.17 Whatever its text-historical background, the
Greek text raises the problem of the identity of the speaker. In
Wellhausen’s view, oikodomhson is likely to have been pronounced
by YHWH. The preceding line, however, is pronounced by
Solomon and no change in the speaker’s identity is indicated after
lpr[b. According to Thackeray, the singer, being Solomon, asks
YHWH to assist in the building of “my” house, i.e., the temple
which he has designed for Him. But as we noted above, it is
difficult to conceive of Solomon making such a request after the
completion of the temple.
5. oikon ekpreph sautƒ. Many witnesses, like LXX A and the Ant.
manuscripts b o c2, have eupreph for ekpreph (LXX B). The adjec-
tive ekprephw is encountered two times in the LXX.18 3 Reg. 8:
53a is the only occurrence of ekprephw where it can be shown to
render a Hebrew word. Apart from 3 Reg. 8: 53a, there are six
occurrences of euprephw in the LXX. It is nowhere found as an
equivalent of lbuz“. Nonetheless, there is no need to assume that
15 Thus Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 102; anda, Bücher der Könige, 218.16 Tov, Text-critical Use, 137.17 Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 271; Thackeray, “Book of Jashar”, 521–22,
525.18 3 Reg. 8 53a; 2 Macc. 3: 26. Furthermore 3 Macc. 3: 17.
the dedication pronouncement 169
euprephw reflects a different Hebrew, as Wellhausen and anda
did.19 The rare word lbuz“, “dominion”, “exalted”,20 is rendered
very differently in the LXX and one may agree with Burkitt that
oikon eupreph (or ekpreph) in 3 Reg. 8: 53a represents a mere
guess at the meaning of lbz tyb.21
6. ˆwkm of MT is not represented in the LXX. Possibly the transla-
tor refrained from rendering ˆwkm in his Vorlage because he found
the term already implied in katoikein. However, the literalness of
the translation in the rest of the dedication pronouncement argues
against this view. It is reasonable to assume that the LXX Vorlage
did not contain ˆwkm.
7. tou katoikein. The suffix in MT ˚tbçl is not represented in LXX
tou katoikein. For the final kaph in ˚tbçl the translator might
have read one (or more) different letter(s), which he interpreted
as a preposition prefixed to the next word (cf. 6.).
8. epi kainothtow. There is no reason to emend the Greek (thus
Klostermann: epÉ anvtatou or [ep]anvtatow),22 since epi kainoth-tow is well attested in the manuscripts. The Hebrew substratum
of the expression is difficult to establish. Montgomery opts for
hknjb, “at the dedication”, but the equivalence lacks concrete tex-
tual support.23 Burkitt, Schenker and Van den Born start from
the other LXX occurrence of kainothw in Ezek. 47: 12, where
thw kainothtow corresponds to MT wyçdjl. In Burkitt’s view, epikainothtow in 3 Reg. 8: 53a may reflect μyçdj l[, “for New Moon
feasts”.24 Van den Born prefers to reconstruct μyçdjl, “Monat
für Monat”.25 According to Schenker, epi kainothtow suggests that
the translator took μyçdj l[ in the abstract sense of newness,
which he believes is a correct interpretation of the Hebrew in the
context of line 4.26 These proposals are not entirely convincing
19 According to Wellhausen (Composition des Hexateuchs, 271) and anda (Bücher derKönige, 219), eupreph implies hw<n: (thus Job 18: 15; cf. euprepeia in 2 Reg. 15: 25and LXX A of Job 5: 24) by way of hw<an:, “beautiful” (cf. Jastrow, 865). Schenker(Septante, 131) thinks of either hw<n: or μy[in:.
20 On the meaning of lbuz“ see Mulder, 1 Kings 1–11, 398–99.21 Burkitt, “Lucianic Text”, 441.22 Klostermann, Bücher Samuelis und der Könige, 315.23 Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 192.24 Burkitt, “Lucianic Text”, 442.25 Van den Born, “Tempelweihspruch”, 241.26 Schenker, Septante, 131.
170 chapter eleven
because they involve retroversions to Hebrew forms still far removed
from the reading μymlw[ that MT has in corresponding position.
Reconstructions taking into consideration the MT reading have
been put forward by Wellhausen, Halévy and Thackeray. They
share the view that epi kainothtow somehow reflects μymiWl[}, “youth”.
In Wellhausen’s opinion, the translator simply mistook μymlw[ for
μymiWl[}.27 Halévy thinks that Jewish exegetes had first changed
original μymlw[ into μymiWL[iB], “in unknown places”. Subsequently
the translator misinterpreted μymiWL[iB] as μymiWl[}B'.28 Thackeray holds
that the Greek translator mistakenly interpreted original t/ml;[}Al[',“in maidenlike style”, as μymiWl[} l[', an assumption that seems to
gain support from a similar interpretation of t/ml;[}Al[' in Aquila
Ps. 45: 1. The MT reading would represent another attempt to
make sense of the Hebrew original.29 The reconstructions of Halévy
and Thackeray are complicated and presuppose stages of textual
development that are not attested in the text tradition. Wellhausen’s
proposal, on the other hand, has the advantage of simplicity,
though it does not account for the presence of epi. A problem
affecting all three proposals is the absence of instances in the LXX
where kainothw corresponds to μymiWl[}. In sum, it does not seem
possible to restore the Hebrew underlying epi kainothtow with rea-
sonable certainty. Perhaps our best conjecture is μymiWl[}B' because
of the formal similarity to MT μymlw[.
9. ouk idou auth gegraptai en bibliƒ thw ƒdhw. This phrase exhibits
the standard formula of the Greek source citations in the gg-section of LXX 3 Regum and the Ant. text of 4 Regum.30 As a
consequence the Hebrew can be reconstructed with a high degree
of certainty: ryçh rpsAl[ hbwtk ayh alh. Many scholars, includ-
ing Wellhausen, Thackeray and Noth, argue that the original
Hebrew read not ryçh rps, the “Book of Song”, but rçyh rps,
the “Book of Jashar”. Unlike the former designation, a “Book
of Jashar” is known from other texts, namely Josh. 10: 13 and
27 Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 271.28 J. Halévy, “Recherches bibliques”, RSEHA 8 (1900), 193–238, esp. 223.29 Thackeray, “Book of Jashar”, 524–25.30 In 3 Regum: 11: 41; 14: 29; 15: 7, 23, 31; 16: 5, 14, 20, 27; 22: 39, 46.
Minor variations involve gegraptai/gegrammena and epi/en. Since gegraptai in 3Reg. 11: 41 and 22: 39 appears to correspond to μybwtk (Qal ptc. pass.), there isno problem in retroverting gegraptai in 3 Reg. 8: 53a to hbwtk.
the dedication pronouncement 171
2 Sam. 1: 18. However, all manuscripts agree in reading “Book
of Song” in 3 Reg. 8: 53a. The existence of a “Book of Song”
that was attributed to Solomon is not a remote possibility, since
Solomon is said to have written 5,000 songs (3 Reg. 5: 12).
Meanwhile, there is some ground to suppose that the quotations
Josh. 10: 12b–13a and 3 Reg. 8: 53a are from the same collec-
tion.31 In that case, the fact that the name “Book of Jashar” is
found more often than “Book of Song” may argue in favour of
the originality of the former.
In view of the many uncertainties involved in retroverting the Greek
of the dedication pronouncement, reconstruction of the Vorlage can
only be tentative. Perhaps the underlying Hebrew looked like this:
¥lion §gn≈risen §n oÈran“ μymçb [dwh çmçkÊriow e‰pen toË katoike›n §n gnÒfƒ lpr[b ˆkçl rma hwhyofikodÒmhson o‰kÒn mou ytyb hnbo‰kon §kprep∞ saut“ ˚l lbz tybtoË katoike›n §p‹ kainÒthtow μymwl[b tbçl
This proposal is based on the assumption that the reconstruction
requiring least deviations from the text form that is actually attested
by other witnesses (MT) can claim most credibility. The Hebrew
text the translator had in front of him seems to have suffered from
a few corruptions. At least the reconstructed Hebrew words [dwhand ytyb may not be authentic. The original Hebrew behind the
former word can only be guessed at, but the latter is certainly to
be corrected as ytynb (see above).
We now turn to the question of how the hypothetical Hebrew text
underlying 3 Reg. 8: 53a and the text of 1 Kgs. 8: 12–13 relate to
one another. For reasons of convenience, this question is specified
as follows:
1. Is the first line of the declaration as reflected by the LXX an
original or a secondary feature?
31 In addition to the similarity of the source-name and the poetic genre of Josh.10: 12–13 and 3 Reg. 8: 53a, it should be noted that both quotations are intro-duced by za (= Greek tote; cf. 1 Kgs. 8: 12) and that both imply a contrast betweenYHWH and the sun (cf. footnote 36 of this chapter).
172 chapter eleven
2. Is the primary text in those portions represented by both versions
to be found in MT or in the LXX?
3. Is the position of the pronouncement more original in MT or in
the LXX?
1. Since there are no textual features suggesting the possibility that
line 1 was omitted as a result of parablepsis, either its absence in MT
or its presence in the LXX must be intentional.
Most scholars are convinced that the long version of the poetic
declaration represented by the LXX is more original than the short
version represented by MT. Opinions differ as to the grounds for
the absence of line 1 in (proto-)MT, however. Schenker argues that
a later redactor transposed the passage to 1 Kgs. 8: 12–13 and
dropped line 1 in an attempt to identify the lpr[ with the cloud
that filled the temple (v. 10).32 The parallelism between lines 1–2,
as a result of which the lpr[ is situated in heaven, would have ren-
dered this identification impossible. However, the primacy of v. 53a
over against vv. 12–13 as the original position of the poem is difficult
to maintain, as will be argued below.
Several critics believe that the reference to the sun was suppressed
in (proto-)MT for dogmatic reasons.33 According to Thackeray, the
statement of line 1 may have looked like coming perilously near to
sun worship. As the OT contains several references to sun worship
in the temple (e.g., 2 Kgs. 23: 11, Ezek. 8: 16–18), later Jewish
exegetes may have been ill-disposed toward everything assigning
divine status to the sun. As it stands, however, the (Greek) text of
lines 1–2 neither states nor suggests that the sun is divine.34 On the
32 Schenker, Septante, 135.33 Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 350–51; O. Keel and C. Uehlinger, “Jahwe und
die Sonnengottheit von Jerusalem”, in W. Dietrich and M.A. Klopfenstein (eds.),Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischenund altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte (OBO 139), Freiburg/Göttingen 1993, 269–306,esp. 287; Noth, Könige, 172; H.-P. Stähli, Solare Elemente im Jahweglauben des AltenTestaments (OBO 66), Freiburg/Göttingen 1985, esp. 16, n. 39; J.G. Taylor, Yahwehand the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel ( JSOT.S111), Sheffield 1993, esp. 139–40; Thackeray, “Book of Jashar”, 530.
34 It is, however, conceivable that the original poem responded to a situation inwhich the sun was regarded as a deity. According to Keel-Uehlinger (“Jahwe unddie Sonnengottheit”, 287), the poem refers to the exile of the Sun-god from thetemple of Jerusalem, previously dedicated to this deity, and its occupation by the“im Wolkendunkel residierenden Wettergott”, i.e., YHWH. This view is temptingsince a confrontation of the weather-god YHWH and the Jerusalemite sun-god
the dedication pronouncement 173
contrary, by claiming that YHWH assigned to the sun its place in
heaven, line 1 suggests that the sun is YHWH’s servant, subordi-
nate to his will. In his comment on this passage, Schenker rightly
connects it with Ps. 19: 2–7, where it is stated that the heavens and
the sun declare the glory of YHWH.35 Thus the concept expressed
in lines 1–2 may be that YHWH, who himself dwells in darkness,
ordered the sun to reveal his glory in the universe. Though the sun
is associated with YHWH as his servant and herald, the poem is far
from implying continuity between the God of Israel and the physi-
cal sun, as Taylor maintains.36 In fact, lines 1–2 rather stress the
discontinuity between YHWH and the sun.37 It is difficult to see how
this text could have ever evoked theological objections.
There is a possiblility, however, that a text somewhat different
from the Hebrew as reconstructed from line 1 actually gave offence
to orthodox exegetes. Attempts to establish the form of that text
amount to speculation. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that it only
takes slight alterations in the proposed reconstruction of line 1 to
get a text that is likely to have evoked dogmatic objections. As we
Zedek seems also to be implied in Josh. 10: 12b–13a, a passage resembling 3 Reg.8: 53a in several respects (Keel-Uehlinger, “Jahwe und die Sonnengottheit”, 281–85).
In the opinion of Knauf (“Le roi est mort”, 83–84), not even the original poemaddressed the sun as a deity. The lines represented by the LXX originally werepreceded by one or more lines in praise of the supreme deity El who, being thegod of creation, allotted to the sun its place in heaven and even domesticatedYHWH, the unruly weather-god. Knauf ’s view amounts to a mere guess since wedo not know the content of the original poem except for what has been preservedby the LXX.
35 Schenker, Septante, 132.36 Taylor notes “an apparent association between the ‘glory of the Lord’ of the
narrative (i.e., 1 Kgs. 8: 11) and the ‘Sun’ of the poetic fragment” (Yahweh and theSun, 142–44). In fact, the correspondence lies between the glory in the cloud (v.11) and the invisible YHWH in the dense cloud (line 2 of the poem). In contrast-ing the radiant sun in the sky and the deity in the dense cloud, lines 1–2 also implya contrast between the sun and the glory covered by the cloud (cf. J. Day, “Yahwehand the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan”, in W. Dietrich and M.A. Klopfenstein[eds.], Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitis-chen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte [OBO 139], Freiburg/Göttingen 1993, 181–96,esp. 189). For an overview of other scholars who take 3 Reg. 8: 53a as evidencethat YHWH and the sun were actually equated, see Day, “Yahweh and the Gods”,189, n. 30.
37 Thus H.G. May, “Some Aspects of Solar Worship at Jerusalem”, ZAW 55(1937), 269–81, esp. 270, n. 7. In May’s view, line 1 in the LXX is an elabora-tion meant to dissociate YHWH from the sun-cult. This is improbable, since thereis no evidence of sun worship in the temple in the period in which the translationcame into being (3rd–2nd century BCE).
174 chapter eleven
saw, it seems reasonable to assume that egnvrisen represents the
Hiphil of [dy. Now the possibility arises that line 1 originally read
the Niphal of [dy where the LXX probably represents a Hiphil.38
Instead of “He (YHWH) made the sun known in heaven” of the
LXX, this text might have read “The sun made itself known in
heaven (but YHWH said to dwell in the dense cloud).” Here the
sun is depicted as a being that does not depend on YHWH’s will.
The possibility is to be taken seriously that in MT this offensive text
was suppressed altogether, whereas it was subjected to theological
correction in the text tradition underlying the LXX. Lines 1–2 in
the LXX, then, may reflect subtle alteration of a text reading
. . . rma hwhy / μymçb [dwn çmç
to
. . . rma hwhy / μymçb [dwh çmç
Perhaps the latter text of line 1 was the original one after all and
the former one a corruption that was subsequently omitted in MT.
It thus seems possible to conceive of a version of line 1 that was
suppressed for theological reasons. The absence of the source citation
from MT cannot be explained from the same theological motives,
however. Given the closeness of the two minuses, it is not improb-
able that these textual phenomena are somehow connected. We must,
therefore, consider an alternative explanation that may account for
both.
Possibly, line 1 and the source citation represent additions made
by some editor in the Vorlage of the LXX. The claim made in the
source citation might be taken seriously. The editor did not invent
line 1 himself, but took it from a known source, the Book of Song
or the Book of Jashar. Perhaps the dedication pronouncement as we
have it in MT only represents a fragment of a larger poem that was
included in this collection of songs. All the editor did was enlarging
the declaration by one line quoted from the poem. The expansion
prompted him to cite his source, as it were to indicate the origin of
the addition.
38 Perhaps [dwn (Niphal pf.) for [dwh (Hiphil pf., written defectively). Klostermannthinks of ['dI/y (Hiphil ipf., written defectively) for ['dEW:iyI (Niphal ipf.), but the Aoristin Greek and the presence of rma pf. in line 2 do not support reconstruction ofan ipf. in line 1 (cf. page 168).
the dedication pronouncement 175
The motives for the insertion are difficult to establish. Perhaps the
editor thought it appropriate to restore, as Montgomery puts it, “the
fine theological contrast between the so evident sun and the Deity
who will not be seen”,39 that is not found in the poetic fragment in
1 Kgs. 8: 12–13. Another possibility is that the addition was made
in connection with a shift in the theological conception of YHWH’s
abode. The dedication prayer reveals some friction between two con-
ceptions regarding the place of YHWH’s abode: Does YHWH dwell
in heaven or in his temple, the “House of YHWH”? Vv. 27–30 seek
to solve the tension by declaring that, though YHWH himself dwells
in heaven, his name is present in the temple.40 Nevertheless, while
the designation ˚tbç ˆwkm in Solomon’s prayer (vv. 22–53) is reserved
for heaven, line 4 of the poem refers to the temple as the ˆwkm˚tbçl! In the LXX, a similar inconsistency is not found as the poem
does not contain an equivalent of ˚tbç ˆwkm. Still, 3 Reg. 8: 53a
does not differ from 1 Kgs. 8: 12–13 in making reference to the
temple as YHWH’s dwelling-place. Possibly then, line 1 was restored
in the LXX-version in order to reconcile two different conceptions
concerning YHWH’s dwelling-place and sphere of authority. The
expansion had to make it clear that YHWH’s decision to take up
residence in a house built by man does not imply that he renounces
his authority in heaven (cf. v. 27).
In sum, the primacy both of the long and of the short version is
defendable. In the absence of conclusive indications, no definitive
position can be taken. It only seems certain that line 1 goes back
to a Hebrew text.
2. As the divergency between the two versions of line 3 of the dec-
laration probably derives from a corruption on the part of the LXX,
the question of the primacy only concerns line 4. It remains doubt-
ful what Hebrew text underlied the LXX in the second part of this
line, but the proposed reading μymwl[b “in youthful vigour”(?) rep-
resents an unusual Hebrew which can by no means claim more
39 Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 190.40 Interestingly, a similar solution can be observed in the Greek version (2
Paralipomena) of the Chronicles parallel to 1 Kgs. 8: 12–13. While 2 Chron. 6: 1(// 1 Kgs. 8: 12) has been rendered faithfully, the Greek of v. 2a shows a slightexpansion: kai egv ƒkodomhka oikon tƒ onomati sou agion soi.
176 chapter eleven
plausability than μymlw[ of MT. As to the first half of line 4, the
text suggested by the LXX, i.e., tbçl, is almost certainly secondary
to the reading ˚tbçl ˆwkm of MT. The somewhat different expres-
sion ˚tbç ˆwkm is a characteristic feature of Solomon’s dedication
speech (1 Kgs. 8: 13, 39, 43, 49; cf. 30). Other expressions in which
bçy signifies the dwelling of YHWH do not appear in Kings. One
may argue that ˆwkm was added in the textual tradition represented
by MT in order to create the standard expression. However, the
originality of ˚tbçl ˆwkm is also suggested by the fact that it forms
part of a parallellismus membrorum:41
˚tbçl ˆwkm / ˚l lbz tyb
This classic poetic figure sits well integrated in the context and con-
sequently is likely to belong to the original poem. It is implausible
that the fine parallel was created by a reviser who just added a sin-
gle word.
What may have been the ground for the absence of ˆwkm from the
text type underlying the LXX? Accidental omission is possible yet
improbable by absence of homoioarchton or -teleuton. Above we con-
sidered the possibility that the word was omitted deliberately in order
to avoid confusion concerning the identity of the ˚tbçl ˆwkm. In the
portion of Solomon’s prayer preceding 3 Reg. 8: 53a, the expres-
sion is used not in reference to the temple but to the heaven (vv.
39, 43, 49; cf. v. 30).
3. As it seems, the poetic fragment in MT links up better with the
preceding verses than its counterpart in the LXX. In the narrative
flow of 1 Kgs. 8, vv. 12–13 function as a comment on YHWH’s
taking possession of the temple as described in vv. 10–11. When
Solomon recalls YHWH’s statement that he would dwell in dark-
ness, this is meant as a reference either to the darkness of the rybdor to the cloud with which YHWH’s Glory is shrouded when it
enters the sanctuary.42
41 Thus O. Loretz, “Der Torso eines Kanaanäisch-Israëlitischen Tempelweihspruchesin 1 Kg 8,12–13”, UF 6 (1974), 478–80, esp. 478.
42 The first interpretation faces the problem that the rybd does not seem to havebeen absolutely dark (thus Noth, Könige, 182). In favour of the second option it maybe noted that lpr[ is not a reference to thick darkness as such, but more partic-ularly denotes the dark cloud that is one of the phenomena accompanying the
the dedication pronouncement 177
Unlike the MT-version, the LXX-version of the declaration can
hardly be said to sit well embedded in the context of ch. 8. The
introductory time note in v. 53a puts an end to the uninterrupted
direct speech through vv. 23–53 and consequently it sets the decla-
ration apart from the preceding prayer. However, the subsequent
verse bypasses the declaration by explicitly linking up with the prayer:
“And it came to pass, when Solomon had finished making all this
prayer and entreaty to YHWH . . .”43 It is also strange to find that
the time note refers back to the completion of the temple whereas
the previous verses offer a far more exact and recent date for chrono-
logical reference.44 It would have been natural for v. 53a to take the
completion of the prayer as the referential point, as v. 54 actually
does. Furthermore, the pronouncement does not take up issues raised
in the verses of the prayer immediately preceding it. The wider con-
text provides only one possible point of contact, namely the theme
of heaven as YHWH’s abode (vv. 30, 36, 39, 45).45
On balance, it is difficult to believe that the unfortunate position
of the pronouncement in LXX is the original one.46 Conversely,
there are no good grounds to question the originality of the posi-
tion held by the pronouncement in MT. We may assume, then, that
the LXX reflects an order that is secondary to MT.47
theophany of YHWH. A few texts referring to this theophany even bracket togetherlpr[ and ˆn[ (Deut. 4: 11; 5: 22; Ps. 97: 2), and it is tempting to assume that in1 Kgs. 8: 12 lpr[ just is another term to denote the ˆn[, the cloud, mentioned inthe previous verses. Mulder believes both interpretations hold true at the same time(ThWAT VI, lpr[, 400).
43 Also Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 350.44 See also Gooding, “Problems of Text and Midrash”, 24.45 Tov (“Sequence Differences”, 154–55) argues that in two respects the position
of the dedication in the LXX is less problematical than in MT. First, in MT twodedications, a prayer (vv. 12–13) and a blessing (vv. 14–21), are juxtaposed, whereasin the LXX these are separated. Second, in MT the dedication in vv. 14–21 startsoff as if the previous dedication in vv. 12–13 had not yet occurred. In the LXXthe problem does not occur as the poetic dedication only appears in v. 53.
In view of their divergent shapes and contents, it is highly doubtful whether theMT-sections vv. 12–13 and vv. 14–21 should be seen as two rivalling dedications,however. They rather seem to supplement one another. Notwithstanding his eval-uation of the internal order of MT, Tov does not argue in favour of the priorityof the LXX.
46 Contra Schenker (Septante, 134), who argues that the position held by the pro-nouncement in MT 1 Kgs. 8: 12–13 is more easily explicable as a contextual adap-tation of the Hebrew Vorlage in 3 Reg. 8: 53a than the other way around.
47 In Tov’s view, the different positions of the poetic dedication in MT and theLXX, the Deuteronomistic nature of vv. 14–53, and the juxtaposition of two ded-
178 chapter eleven
Possibly, the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX already presented the
declaration at v. 53a. The introductory statement at v. 53a repre-
sents typical translation Greek.48 Language and syntactic texture of
the introduction show strong affinities with 3 Reg. 8: 54 and 9: 1:
8: 53a tÒte §lãlhsen S. Íp¢r toË o‡kou …w sunet°lesen toË ofikodom∞saiaÈtÒn
8: 54 ka‹ §g°neto …w sunet°lesen S. proseuxÒmenow prÚw kÊrion ˜lhntØn proseuxØn
9: 1 ka‹ §genÆyh …w sunet°lesen S. ofikodome›n tÚn o›kon kur¤ou
Direct comparison with 1 Kgs. 8: 54 and 9: 1 shows that v. 53a
reflects Hebrew syntax:
tazh hnjthw hlpthAlk ta hwhyAla llpthl hmlç twlkk yhyw 8: 54hwhyAtybAta twnbl hmlç twlkk yhyw 9: 1
In light of the Greek and Hebrew texts of 8: 54 and 9: 1, the
Hebrew underlying v. 53a might be reconstructed as follows:
wta twnbl wtwlkk tybh l[ hmlç rma za
However, it cannot be entirely ruled out that the introduction of
v. 53a derives from an editor who simply imitated the style of sim-
ilar Greek notes in the context.
The editor who transposed vv. 12–13 to v. 53a must have been
the same who added the introductory statement. There may not
have been a particular reason why he chose to refer to the com-
pletion of the temple instead of, say, the completion of the prayer.
Both 1 Kings and 3 Regum supply similar cases where a reference
to the completion of the temple is fully inappropriate in view of the
context and merely seems to serve as a device to mark a shift from
one paragraph to another.
The grounds for the transposition, meanwhile, are uncertain. In
ications in MT (see footnote 45 of this chapter), combine to suggest that vv. 14–53is a late addition inserted in MT and the LXX in different places.
This view presupposes that there were at least two source documents in circula-tion in which the additions were made. Moreover, the additions must have beencreated and inserted by the same scribal circle, as they cannot have existed previ-ously as independent documents. This raises the question for what reason the scribe(s)inserted their materials at different places in the sources. The sequence differencesmay be more easily explained in terms of diachronical textual development.
48 See for this Schenker, Septante, 131; Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 101.
the dedication pronouncement 179
Taylor’s view, the relationship between YHWH and the sun as sug-
gested by the context of the original declaration (1 Kgs. 8: 10–11)
goes a long way towards accounting for both the placement of the
poetic declaration in v. 53a in the LXX and the omission of line 1
in MT.49 The context of the allegedly original declaration does not
suggest continuity between YHWH and the sun at all, however.50
Gooding makes the interesting suggestion that considerations of piety
lie behind the LXX’s order. According to the order of MT, Solomon
only turned his face away from the spectacle of the glory-filled tem-
ple after pronouncing the declaration in vv. 12–13. The editor, then,
would have taken offence at a text suggesting that Solomon did not
pay due reverence to the Glory and accordingly transposed the pas-
sage. By removing the pronouncement this editor managed to uphold
Solomon’s image as a pious king, since Solomon is said to turn away
his face immediately following the entrance of the Glory into the
temple.
49 Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun, 130–40.50 See footnote 36 of this chapter.
180 chapter eleven
CHAPTER TWELVE
THE ACCOUNT OF SOLOMON’S SHIPPING
EXPEDITION (1 KGS. 9: 14, 26–28–3 REG. 9: 14, 26–28)
3 Regum does not represent any of the materials of 1 Kgs. 9: 15–25
in a position corresponding to that of the MT. By consequence, v.
26 of 3 Reg. 9 follows immediately on v. 14 (Rahlfs’ numbering).
The following synopsis visualizes the differences in textual arrange-
ment between 3 Reg. 9: 14, 26–28 and the corresponding materials
in MT.1
1 Rahlfs’ text printed here is almost identical with LXX B. The Ant. manuscriptswitness a text that agrees with LXX B in order, and that differs from it mainly innot exhibiting all the individual variants of the latter vis-à-vis MT. In the follow-ing cases, the Ant. text corresponds more closely to MT than LXX B: v. 14: LXXB hnegken ≠ MT jlçyw = Ant. text kai apesteile; v. 26: LXX B uper ou ≠ MT(minus) = Ant. text (minus); v. 28: LXX B 120 talents ≠ MT 420 talents = Ant.text 420 talents. In all likelihood, the Ant. text form derives from secondary edit-ing, including assimilation towards MT, of a Greek text identical with LXX B. Thedependence of the Ant. text on the text form exhibited by LXX B is indicated bythe phrase tvn paidvn autou in v. 27 (= LXX B ≠ MT wydb[Ata). Signs of sec-ondary editing appear in the Ant. text of v. 26a: kai epoihsen o basileuw Solomvnnaun. The Ant. text not only omits uper ou but also normalizes the word-order wit-nessed by LXX B (= MT; thus also Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, [599–601]). Anotherindication occurs in the Ant. text of v. 27: laon eidotaw elaunein yalassan (≠LXX B elaunein eidotaw yalassan ≠ MT μyh y[dy). According to Rahlfs, the sec-ondary character of the plus laon is suggested by the plural eidotaw (Septuaginta-Studien, [560–61]). The validity of this argument may be questioned, since laow, inimitation of Hebrew μ[, can be construed with the plural (e.g., see 3 Reg. 3: 2).If laon is unlikely to be original, it is because of its redundancy in v. 27. Possiblyμ[ was read before μyh y[dy as the result of an eyeskip to the last phrase of v. 27:hmlç ydb[ μ[.
14 ka‹ ≥negken Xiram t“ Salvmvn Ël,M-<l' μr:yji jlà'v]YIw" 14•katÚn ka‹ e‡kosi tãlanta xrus¤ou >bhâ;z: rKà'Ki μyrIc][,w“ haà;me
[9: 15-25]26 (aa) ka‹ naËn ynIfla’w: 26
(ab) Íp¢r o –§po¤hsen ı basileÁw Salvmvn hmø⁄løv] Ël,M,Ÿh' h°c;[;
(b) §n Gasivngaber rb,G<!Aˆwyoêx][,B]tØn oÔsan §xom°nhn Ailay twløäaeAta, rvá,a}§p‹ toË xe¤louw t∞w §sxãthw yalãsshw πWsAμy" tpà'c]Al['§n gª Edvm >μwdøâa‘ ≈r<aà≤B]
The different arrangement of materials has implications for the nar-
rative position of v. 14 in both accounts. In MT, the statement “and
Hiram sent the king 120 talents of gold” has no intrinsic links with
the immediate context. Vv. 15–23 are concerned with the forced
labour rather than with the financial means needed for Solomon’s
building programme. Before v. 14, vv. 11–13 relate that Solomon
gave Hiram 20 cities, which were not to the liking of the king of
Tyre. Evidently, Solomon’s gift is meant to be understood as a kind
of payment for goods delivered (cf. v. 11). As a consequence the
action reported in v. 14 cannot be taken to continue the preceding
narrative episode and must represent an independent item. While
the passages at v. 14 and vv. 11–13 bring up related subjects (Solomon’s
financial relations with Hiram), they clearly refer to different events.
The setting of 3 Reg. 9: 14 is quite different from that of its MT
counterpart, since the verse is immediately followed by vv. 26–28.
V. 14 and vv. 26–28 deal with similar topics. Both passages refer
to the receipt of a large amount of gold by Solomon and both
attribute an important role to Hiram. It seems that in 3 Regum the
two passages do not just stand together as thematically related though
materially unconnected items. They rather combine into a single nar-
rative unit.
The first indication for this is provided by the grammatical con-
struction of v. 26 as witnessed by LXX B. The text of this verse is
syntactically difficult. In MT, the first word of v. 26, ynaw, constitutes
the object of the verb form hç[ that comes next. The LXX agrees
with MT in placing the equivalent of ynaw, kai naun, first but then
comes up with an expression, uper ou, which does not represent any-
thing of MT in corresponding position. The presence of uper ou,
the meaning of which will be determined below, precludes that kainaun is taken as the object of the verb form corresponding with hç[,
i.e., epoihsen. As a result the first words of v. 26, kai naun, can only
182 chapter twelve
27 ka‹ ép°steilen Xiram §n tª nh‹ y!nIa’B;î μr¶:yji jl'Ÿv]YIw" 27t«n pa¤dvn aÈtoË wyd+:b;[}Ata,êndraw nautikoÁw twY±OnIa’ yv¢´n“a'§laÊnein efidÒtaw yãlassan μY–:h' y[ed“yOmetå t«n pa¤dvn Salvmvn >hmøâløv] ydèEb][' μ[i
28 ka‹ ∑lyon efiw Svfhra hr:ypi/a Wabø¢Y:w" 28ka‹ ¶labon §ke›yen xrus¤ou bh+;z: μŸV;mi Wj¶q]YIw"
•katÚn ka‹ e‡kosi tãlanta rK-;Ki μyrIc][,w“ twaøàmeA[B'r“a'ka‹ ≥negkan t“ basile› Salvmvn >hmøâløv] Ël,M,h'Ala, WabiY:w"
be understood as a continuation of the clause begun in v. 14: “And
Hiram brought to Solomon 120 talents of gold (26) and a ship . . .”2
The second indication of the connection between the two passages
involves certain points of agreement between v. 14 and v. 28b:
2 As a consequence Rahlfs omits a full stop after 3 Reg. 9: 14.3 Gooding, “Text-sequence”, 450.
solomon’s shipping expedition 183
9: 14 ka‹ ≥negken Xiram t“ Salvmvn 9: 28b ka‹ ¶labon §ke›yen xrus¤ou•katÚn ka‹ e‡kosi tãlanta xrus¤ou •katÚn ka‹ e‡kosi tãlanta
ka‹ ≥negkan t“ basile› Salvmvn
Common to these verses are the verb (ferein) and the number of
talents of gold (120). The agreements are remarkable in view of the
fact that they are not reflected by the Hebrew of MT. While in v.
28 kai hnegkan matches wabyw, hnegken of v. 14 corresponds to jlçyw,and in v. 28 the Hebrew text does not state the number of talents
to be 120, but 420. The fact that these points of agreement between
v. 14 and v. 28 do not occur in MT suggests that they relate to the
alternative arrangement of materials in the LXX.
How is the connection between v. 14 and following verses to be
seen in light of the agreement between v. 14 and v. 28? Here we
may quote Gooding’s judgment: “It looks as if the story in vv. 26–28,
how Hiram’s servants went with Solomon’s servants and brought
Solomon 120 talents of gold, is intended to explain what v. 14 means
when it says that Hiram brought Solomon 120 talents of gold.”3 Thus
v. 14 would act as a proleptic statement, a kind of heading shortly
summarizing the ensuing narration. This view however raises a few
difficulties:
1. If vv. 14–26aa anticipate the result of the shipping expedition to
Sophera, it is peculiar to find the delivery of a ship mentioned
alongside the delivery of gold. After all, Hiram did not bring a
ship in addition to the 120 talents of gold, he rather brought a ship
carrying 120 talents of gold.
2. From a narrative point of view, v. 26aa does more than sum-
marizing the end of the account; the statement regarding Hiram’s
delivery of a ship also marks the beginning of the narrative proper.
V. 27 speaks of Hiram sending seamen in the ship, implying that
this is the ship mentioned in the previous verse. This would mean
that the statement in v. 26aa is ambiguous from a narrative point
of view.
3. If vv. 14–26aa refer to events anterior to those described in the
remainder of vv. 26ab–27, the connection between both passages
can only be judged to be clumsy. In order to explain this, we
must look more closely at the meaning of v. 26. The expression
defining the connection between vv. 14, 26aa and 26ab–27, uperou, means “for the sake of which” if the ensuing clause is taken
to refer to events which temporally precede those hinted at in
vv. 14, 26aa. It was noted above that the position of uper ou inv. 26 prevents kai naun from being taken as the object of epoih-sen. As a result epoihsen is left without an object and must be
understood intransitively.4 Gooding’s translation of vv. 14–26 takes
all this into account: “And Hiram brought to Solomon 120 tal-
ents of gold and a ship, for the sake of which (gold) Solomon the
king wrought in Ezion-Geber which is near Elath on the shore
of the Last Sea in the land of Edom.” In Gooding’s judgment,
v. 26 means to say that Solomon built a port to accommodate
the vessel that brought the 120 talents of gold. This interpreta-
tion of the second half of v. 26 is lucid and makes good sense
in the context of the narrative. A difficulty is posed by the fact
that uper ou refers back to the neuter antecedent xrusiou in v.
14. The bypassing of naun is syntactically odd and illogical, because
it is the ship for the sake of which Solomon built a port in the
first place. But this judgment may be too strict, as it is conceiv-
able that uper ou was meant to be understood as an ad sensum
reference to the 120 talents of gold and the ship together.
An alternative interpretation, which however presents difficulties of
its own, may also be considered here. Vv. 14–26aa could be regarded
as part of a continuous narrative rather than as as a note antici-
pating the information of v. 28. This interpretation requires that the
phrase uper ou is taken to mean “because” instead of “for the sake
of which”. Though in classical Greek uper ou does not mean “because”,
4 The intransitive use of poiein is attested in a number of instances in the LXX,e.g., in Gen. 30: 30; 3 Reg. 11: 33; 1 Par. 28: 10; 2 Par. 20: 36; 2 Esdr. 10: 4;Hag. 2: 4.
184 chapter twelve
the phrase seems to have this meaning in four out of five LXX
occurrences outside 3 Reg. 9: 26.5 Gooding argued against assign-
ing this meaning to the expression in 3 Reg. 9: 26 because it would
not yield good sense in that context. However, the following trans-
lation seems to make quite good sense: “And Hiram brought to
Solomon 120 talents and a ship because Solomon had wrought in
Ezion-Geber . . .” In other words, Hiram sent 120 talents of gold to
Solomon to finance the construction of a port and the ship for the
expedition. Solomon is depicted as the king who takes the lead: he
plans the shipping expedition and sets out to build a harbour; sub-
sequently Hiram supplies the financial resources, the vessel and the
seamen (v. 27).
If the view is abandoned that v. 14 and v. 28b are references to
the same event, an alternative explanation for the similarity between
these verses must be given. The diction of v. 13 may suggest that
there was a face-to-face meeting between Solomon and Hiram (“And
he said: ‘What are these cities that you have given me, my brother?’ ”).
Perhaps hnegkan in v. 14 is to be understood in the context of this
personal conference: Hiram did not sent the gold and the ship to
Solomon (thus MT), but rather took these things with him to the
conference.6
This interpretation suffers from two weaknesses. First, there is no
need to assume that v. 13 refers to a face-to-face meeting; as Cogan
remarks, Hiram’s words could have been part of an exchange of let-
ters similar to the one described in 5: 15–23.7 Second, this inter-
pretation leaves unexplained why v. 14 and v. 28b agree concerning
the number of talents. If these verses refer to different events rather
than to the same event, there is no apparent narrative reason for
the agreement.
As noted above, it is the combination of agreements between v.
14 and v. 28a that leads one to think of these verses as referring to
the same event. All things considered, Gooding’s views still seem best
capable of explaining the unique features of the LXX in a coher-
ent and literary meaningful way.
5 2 Reg. 6: 8; 8: 10 (// 1 Par. 18: 10); 4 Reg. 22: 13. Only in 1 Reg. 21: 2means uper ou apparently “concerning which”.
6 Krautwurst, Studien, 63, n. 2; Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 214.7 Cogan, 1 Kings, 299.
solomon’s shipping expedition 185
In addition to the differences concerning arrangement and tenor of
the two versions there are others. Can these somehow be related to
the differences noted above?
1. The reading thw esxathw yalasshw, literally the “Last Sea”, reflects
the vocalization π/sAμy instead of πWsAμy, “Sea of Reeds”, of MT.
In spite of the deviation, the LXX cannot have had in mind
another sea than the Sea of Reeds,8 as the detailed geographical
specification in v. 26 precludes a different understanding.
2. V. 27 of MT is to be translated as “And Hiram sent his servants
on the ship, seamen acquainted with the sea.” The version of the
LXX is notably different: “And Hiram sent on the ship of his
servants seamen skilled in sailing over the sea.” The different syn-
tactic structure results from the reading tvn paidvn autou for
MT’s wydb[Ata. There is a possibility that the difference repre-
sents a deliberate alteration. The version of the LXX stresses the
Tyrian origin of the ship. As such, it accords well with the state-
ment of 3 Reg. 9: 14, 26 that it was Hiram who sent the ship.
On the other hand, the statement that is produced by the devi-
ation from MT is odd. If the deviation implies that Hiram’s ser-
vants were in charge of the ship, it is unclear why Hiram should
sent seamen along with the ship. If v. 27 rather means to say
that the ship is owned by Hiram’s servants, the question arises
why Hiram did not send a ship of his own. Given these pecu-
liarities, we may doubt whether the difference represents a delib-
erate change at all. Perhaps it merely reflects an error made by
the translator. Faced with a Hebrew text in which the nota objecti
before wydb[ was lacking, he may have rendered wydb[ ynab mechan-
ically by a genitivus possessivus. A third possibility worth consider-
ing is that tvn paidvn autou was meant to be understood not as
a genitivus possessivus (as it is assumed in the above translation) but
as a genitivus partitivus (“some of his servants”).9 This genitive merely
nuances the text witnessed by MT and does not imply a Hebrew
different from wydb[Ata ynab.
3. The verb elaunein at v. 27 lacks an equivalent in MT. In all like-
8 This is considered by Mulder, 1 Kings 1–11, 518.9 Thus Gooding, “Text-sequence”, 452.
186 chapter twelve
lihood, it presents a non-variant, that is, a deviation from MT in
the LXX that does not reflect a different Hebrew source text.10
Possibly the verb was added to the text to improve its readabil-
ity.11 Thus MT’s “seamen acquainted with the sea” became “sea-
men skilled in sailing over the sea.”
None of these differences seem to relate to the specific form of the
narrative in MT and the LXX.
When we try to establish the most probable genetic relationship
between the versions of MT and the LXX, we find that the fol-
lowing observations are of interest:
1. Through 3 Reg. 9: 10–28, the LXX presents the materials deal-
ing with economic relations between Solomon and Hiram in an
uninterrupted sequence. In MT, on the other hand, the same
material is distributed over two paragraphs which are separated
by a section (1 Kgs. 9: 15–25) addressing quite different topics.
2. While in MT v. 14 connects poorly with the context, the same
verse in the LXX is closely linked to following verses. This is
suggested not only by the parallels occurring between v. 14 and
v. 28b, but also by the logical connection between v. 14 and
v. 26f. that is established by uper ou.
We may conclude that the account of Solomon’s shipping expedition
through ch. 9: 14–28 is more homogeneous and internally more
coherent, in the LXX than in MT. No reason comes to mind why
MT would have disrupted the cohesion between v. 14 and vv. 26–28
by inserting material at vv. 15–25 that does not bear an obvious
connection with its context. Conversely, it is well conceivable that a
desire to combine the thematically related vv. 14 and 26–28 into
one unit caused the LXX translator or an editor of the Greek text
to remove vv. 15–25 from their original position (as represented
by MT).
Perhaps the rearrangement by the LXX served other purposes as
10 Tov, Text-critical Use, 154.11 Tov, Text-critical Use, 46.
solomon’s shipping expedition 187
well. Note that the LXX and MT disagree as to the date of Solomon’s
dealings with Hiram. MT says that these dealings took place “at the
end of 20 years in which Solomon built the two houses” (1 Kgs. 9:
10). The LXX, on the other hand, maintains that they happened
“during the 20 years in which Solomon built the two houses” (3
Reg. 9: 10).12 In the absence of vv. 15–25, this chronological note
applies to vv. 10–14 and 26–28 alike. As a consequence the supply
of building materials (v. 11) and gold (v. 28) is dated to the same
period as the construction of the temple and the palace. The simul-
taneity creates the impression that these materials were actually meant
to be used for the building of the temple and the palace.13 In this
manner, the connection between 3 Reg. 9: 10–28 and the preced-
ing account of the building of temple and palace is enhanced.14
Another possible motive for the rearrangement has been proposed
by Gooding.15 In his view, the LXX attempted to describe the naval
enterprise as an affair initiated and carried through by Hiram in
order to protect Solomon from the charge that he was at pains to
amass gold (cf. Deut. 17: 17). However, the LXX does not seem to
make an effort to deny all involvement on the part of Solomon in
the affair. Solomon is still reported to have built a harbour, to have
sent seamen on the ship and to have received 120 talents of gold.
Whatever the precise motives underlying the rearrangement, the
version of the LXX cannot be considered an improvement to that
of MT. As it stands now, the LXX has it that Hiram sent a ship
to Ezion-Geber. This is an implausible suggestion, as there is no
direct connection over sea between Tyre and Ezion-Geber.
Finally, the level at which the rearrangement took place must be
established. Central to this issue is the question of the background
of the expression providing the syntactic link between vv. 14 and
26–28, i.e., uper ou. As the Greek of v. 26 seems to follow the
unusual word-order of the Vorlage faithfully (cf. 1 Kgs. 9: 26: object-
12 The chronological note eikosi eth in 3 Reg. 9: 10 represents an accusative ofextension (see BD, § 161.2). Cf. tria eth in 5: 32.
13 A tendency to present goods as building materials is perhaps also detectableelsewhere in 3 Reg. 10: 22a. See page 194.
14 See also pages 291–92.15 Gooding, “Text-sequence”, 453–54.
188 chapter twelve
subject-predicate), it is not implausible that uper ou is somehow
anchored in the Hebrew text. Klostermann held uper ou to be an
inner-Greek corruption of original Vfira.16 Originally, the Greek of
v. 26a would have read kai naun Vfira epoihsen etc. This reading
produces a coherent text, which may well reflect a Hebrew Vorlage
(Vfira = hrypwa). However, there is not the least manuscript sup-
port for the view that uper ou is an inner-Greek corruption of Vfira.
Elsewhere in the LXX, instances of uper ou appear as renderings
of Hebrew rçaAl[, “because”.17 On the level of the Hebrew rçaAl[yields good sense only if v. 26 connects directly with v. 14. This
would suggest that the arrangement attested by 3 Reg. 9: 14, 26–28
already existed in the Vorlage. There is an alternative, possibility that
rçaAl[ entered the Hebrew Vorlage exhibiting the order of MT as
some kind of gloss.18
However, though it is not inconceivable that uper ou of v. 26 has
a basis in Hebrew, the expression may just as well be an editorial
device that was inserted in the Greek text to connect v. 14 and
16 Klostermann, Bücher Samuelis und der Könige, 328.17 In four out of six occurrences of uper ou in the LXX the phrase represents
rçaAl[, namely in 2 Reg. 6: 8; 8: 10 (// 1 Par. 18: 10); 4 Reg. 22: 13. In 1 Reg.21: 2 it renders plain rça.
18 Thus comparison between 1 Kgs. 9: 25 and 26 and the Greek translation of these verses at 3 Reg. 2: 35g and 9: 26, respectively, reveals an interesting phenomenon:
2: 35gb ka‹ §yum¤a . . . wTø%ai ryf¢eq]h'w“ 9: 25. . . §n≈pion kur¤ou hw–:hy“ yn∞Ep]li rv,a}
ka‹ sunet°lesen tÚn o‰kon :tyIBâ;h'Ata, μL'viw“9: 26a ka‹ naËn ynIfla’w: 9: 26a
Íp¢r o –§po¤hsen ı basileÁw Salvmvn hmø⁄løv] Ël,M,Ÿh' h°c;[;
Note that the element rça wta of 1 Kgs. 9: 25 is not represented by anything inthe Greek translation, whereas uper ou of 3 Reg. 9: 26 does not correspond to any-thing of MT. The meaning of (rça) wta in 1 Kgs. 9: 25 is difficult to fathom, andthe verse makes good sense without the phrase. It is not inconceivable, then, thatthe LXX decided to leave it untranslated. However, there is a possibility that thephrase represents the remnant of some gloss that was originally written betweenthe lines but, in the process of transmission, ended up at different places of therunning text; in MT at 9: 25, and in the Vorlage of the LXX at 9: 26. The differencein shape between rça wta and rçaAl[ could be the result of subsequent adapta-tion or corruption. In a later stage of textual development, 3 Reg. 9: 25 (i.e., eitherthe Hebrew Vorlage or the translation itself ) would have been transposed to 2: 35g.This reconstruction amounts to pure speculation, and it will not be used as an argu-ment in the assessment of the text-historical relationship between MT and the LXX.
solomon’s shipping expedition 189
v. 26. Because of this uncertainty in regard to the textual back-
ground of uper ou, we better rely on external arguments for estab-
lishing the level at which the rearrangement of 1 Kgs. 9: 14–28 was
carried out.
190 chapter twelve
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
THE ACCOUNT OF SOLOMON’S BUILDING ACTIVITIES
(1 KGS. 9: 15–22—3 REG. 10: 22A–C)
The major part of what MT represents through 1 Kgs. 9: 15–25
appears in the LXX at 3 Reg. 10: 22a–c. Between the correspond-
ing textual portions many variations occur:
10: 22a . . . aÏth ∑n ≤ pragmate¤a t∞w pronom∞w sM'⁄h'Arb'd“ hz<!w“ 9: 15∏w énÆnegken ı basileÁw Salvmvn hmø%løv] Ël,M¢,h' hl¢;[‘h,Arvâ,a}ofikodom∞sai t°/nb]li
tÚn o‰kon kur¤ou hw•:hy“ tyBeŸAta,ka‹ tÚn o‰kon toË basil°vw /!tyBeAta,w“ka‹ tÚ te›xow Ierousalhm –ka‹ tØn êkran awLø+Mih'Ata,w“
toË perifrãjai –tÚn fragmÚn t∞w pÒlevw Dauid –
– μl-;v;Wry“ tm¢'/j taew“ka‹ tØn Assour lxøøøàj;Ata,w“ka‹ tØn Magdan wDø`gIm]Ata,w“ka‹ tØn Gazer >rz<Gê:Ata,w“
[9: 16–17a]ka‹ tØn Baiyvrvn ˆrø`jø tyBà´Aa,w“tØn énvt°rv –– >ˆwTøâj]T' 9: 17b– tlä;[}B'Ataâ≤w“ 9: 18
ka‹ tØn Ieyermay rmøà “T'Ataâ≤w“– >≈r<aâ;B; rB;d“MiB'– tŸ/nK]s]Mihâ' yr•E[;AlK; taeŸw“ 9: 19– hmø+løv]li Wy§h; rv¢≤a}
ka‹ pãsaw tåw pÒleiw t«n èrmãtvn bk,r<+h; yr¢E[; . . . tŸaew“ka‹ pãsaw tåw pÒleiw t«n flpp°vn μyv-ir:P;h' yr¢E[; . . . taew“ka‹ tØn pragmate¤an Salvmvn hmø%løv] qv,j¢e ta¢ew“
∂n §pragmateÊsato qŸv'j; rv-≤a}ofikodom∞sai twnO•b]li
§n Ierousalhm μl'v;WryBi– ˆwnO±b;L]b'W
ka‹ §n pãs˙ tª gª ≈r<aà≤ lkø`b]WtoË mØ katãrjai aÈtoË >wTøâl]v'm]m,
10: 22b pãnta tÚn laÚn tÚn Ípoleleimm°non rt;Ÿ/Nh' μ[;h;·AlK; 9: 20épÚ AˆmitoË Xetta¤ou –
In order to determine the text-historical relationship between the
parallel materials, two questions need to be answered: How are these
texts embedded in their respective contexts and how do the differences
between them influence their purport?1
The materials of 1 Kgs. 9: 15–22 deal with three aspects of the
labour-levy: 1. the building operations accomplished by the labour-
levy (v. 15; cf. vv. 17b–19); 2. the reason why Solomon raised the
labour-levy (v. 21); 3. its ethnic composition (v. 20, v. 22). The para-
graph bears the character of an overview covering a span of time
that is not specified but probably equals Solomon’s entire regnal
period. Certainly, the chronological note in v. 10, “at the end of 20
years during which Solomon built the temple”—the latest to be found
in the account preceding vv. 15–22—, does not indicate the entire
period covered by the paragraph. Yet one might say that the mate-
rial fits the rough chronological order of the Solomon Narrative
1 On the relationship between 3 Reg. 10: 22a and 2: 35i; 46c–d, see P.S.F. vanKeulen, “The Background of 3 Kgdms 2: 46c”, JNWSL 24 (1998), 91–110, andpages 272–73.
192 chapter thirteen
ka‹ toË Amorra¤ou yrI⁄møa‘h;– yT¶ijih'
ka‹ toË Fereza¤ou y!ZIrIP]h'ka‹ toË Xanana¤ou –ka‹ toË Eua¤ou yWI∞jih'ka‹ toË Iebousa¤ou ysi+Wby“h'w“ka‹ toË Gergesa¤ou –
t«n mØ §k t«n ufl«n Israhl ˆntvn >hM;hâe laer:c]yI ynèEB]miAaløâ rvö,a}tå t°kna aÈt«n μh,%ynEB] 9: 21
tå Ípoleleimm°na metÉ aÈtoÁw §n tª g˙ ≈r<a;+B; μ~h,yrEj}a' Wr¶t]nO rv,Ÿa}oÓw oÈk §dÊnanto ofl uflo‹ Israhl laer:c]yI ynèEB] Wlök]y:Aaløâ rvá,a}§joleyreËsai aÈtoÊw μm-;yrIj}h'îl]ka‹ énÆgagen aÈtoÁw Salvmvn efiw fÒron dbe+[Asm'l] h~møløv] μl¶e[}Y"w"
ßvw t∞w ≤m°raw taÊthw >hZê<h' μwYOèh' d['`10: 22c ka‹ §k t«n ufl«n Israhl lae+r:c]yI y!nEB]miW 9: 22
oÈk ¶dvke Salvmvn efiw prçgma db,[-; hmø`løv] ˆtà'n:Aaløâ˜ti aÈto‹ ∑san μhe|AyKi
êndrew ofl polemista‹ hm;%j;l]Mih' yv¢en“a'ka‹ pa›dew aÈtoË w!yd"b;[}w"
– wyr¢:c;w“– wyv;+liv;w“
ka‹ êrxontew t«n èrmãtvn aÈtoË wBø`k]rI yràEc;w“ka‹ flppe›w aÈtoË >s wyvâ;r:p;W
2 Both units present the same sequence of issues (transactions between Solomonand Hiram—labour—levy—officers). See pages 281–82.
3 Gooding, “Misconduct”, 331–34.
solomon’s building activities 193
because the construction of the most important buildings mentioned
in vv. 15–22—the temple and the palace—was reported in the pre-
vious chapters. It should also be noted that the position of the para-
graph makes good sense within the overall structure of the Solomon
Narrative, because 1 Kgs. 9: 10–23 can be seen to run parallel to
1 Kgs. 5: 15–32.2 As regards subject matter, however, there are very
few connections between vv. 15–22 and the immediate context. The
subject “labour-levy” is not in any way prepared for by the pre-
ceding account (vv. 10–14), nor is it taken up by the verses follow-
ing it. Only the end of the paragraph may show a point of contact
with the context: By giving the number of chief officers over Solomon’s
work, v. 23 links up with the statement in v. 22 that Israelites were
appointed to executive offices. All things considered, vv. 15–22 in
MT cannnot be said to fit the context particularly well.
At first glance the corresponding paragraph in the LXX does not
seem to occupy an appropriate position either. Being positioned
between 3 Reg. 10: 22 and 23, it interrupts the report on Solomon’s
wealth and the sources of his income in 10: 14–29. Obviously, the
focus of interest in vv. 22a–c is very different from that in the sur-
rounding verses. Only one item, touched upon by both v. 22a and
v. 22c, can be seen to return at v. 26, namely Solomon’s chariots
and horsemen.
In spite of the obvious thematic discontinuity between vv. 22a–c
and their textual environment, it has been argued that these verses
connect well with the surrounding ones. According to Gooding,3
v. 22a is to be seen as the continuation of the previous verse. Vv
22–22a read as follows:
10: 22 ˜ti naËw Yarsiw t“ basile› For the king had a Tarshish-ship§n tª yalãss˙ at seametå t«n nh«n Xiram with the ships of Hiram.m¤a diå tri«n §t«n Once in three years≥rxeto t“ basile› naËw §k Yarsiw a ship came to the king from Tarshish
xrus¤ou ka‹ érgur¤ou with gold and silverka‹ l¤yvn toreut«n ka‹ pelekht«n and carved and hewn stones.
In Gooding’s opinion, the link between v. 22a and the preceding
verse is provided by the word pronomh. The choice of this word as
a translation equivalent of sm in MT (cf. 1 Kgs. 9: 15) is peculiar.
As a rule, 3 Regum renders sm, “labour-levy”, as forow, a transla-
tion also used in v. 22b.4 The equivalent found in v. 22a, pronomh,
is used to designate “spoil” elsewhere in the LXX. As the spoil may
contain prisoners of war who were often used as labour-gangs, there
is a possibility that pronomh in v. 22a was meant to be taken in the
extended meaning of “labour-levy”. But if pronomh were allowed its
normal meaning “spoil”, it could be easily taken as referring to the
cargo of the ships mentioned in the preceding verse.5 V. 22a, then,
would explain that the materials that Solomon imported by ship
were used for his building operations. The initiative for employing
pronomh would have been taken either by a reviser or the original
translator when he transposed vv. 15–22 of ch. 9 to their present
position. This person would also have modified the composition of
the cargo listed at v. 22. As Gooding puts it: “MT says that the
ship brought gold and silver, ivory and apes and peacocks; the LXX
lists only gold and silver and carved and hewn stone, that is, the
LXX list contains nothing that would not be useful for building,
which the following verse declares to have been the purpose of the
pronomh.” In this way, Solomon is excused for the importation of
4 At 3 Reg. 4: 6; 5: 27 (2×), 28; 10: 22b; 12: 18.5 The Greek of the final part of v. 22, xrusiou kai arguriou kai liyvn toreutvn
kai pelekhtvn (Ant. text apelekhtvn), may not be wholly authentic. The adjectivetoreutvn, “worked in relief ”, which elsewhere in the LXX consistently refers tometal objects, may be a mistake for original torneutvn, “worked with a chisel”(thus Walters, Text of the Septuagint, 132). An alternative possibility to alleviate thedifficulty involved in toreutvn is to assume that the text originally read xrusioukai arguriou toreutou kai liyvn apelekhtvn. Whatever the solution that is pre-ferred, it is difficult to see how the element kai liyvn toreutvn kai pelekhtvn isto be related to the obscure Hebrew exhibited by MT in corresponding position,μyyktw μypqw μybhnç. Proposals to this effect (e.g., by Gray, Kings, 245, n. a) mustbe dismissed as unsuccessful because the reconstructions are still far removed fromthe consonantal text of MT. Noth (Könige, 205), Krautwurst (Studien, 65, n. 4), andGooding (“Misconduct”, 332–33) are probably correct when they argue that theGreek has no connection with the Hebrew of MT here.
194 chapter thirteen
10: 22a aÏth ∑n ≤ pragmate¤a t∞w pronom∞w This was the business of the spoil∏w énÆnegken ı basileÁw Salvmvn which king Solomon brought upofikodom∞sai to buildtÚn o‰kon kur¤ou etc. the house of YHWH etc.
great quantities of gold and silver, an enterprise which is prohibited
to the king by Deut. 17: 17b. A further excuse appears at the end
of v. 22a: “Solomon built in Jerusalem and in all the land so that
none of the people should rule over him that was left of the Hittites, Amorites,
etc.” In Gooding’s judgment, then, vv. 15–22 of 1 Kgs. 9 were trans-
posed and adjusted to their new context in ch. 10 in order to pro-
tect Solomon against objections that could be raised against him on
the basis of the Deuteronomic Law.
Gooding’s proposal is well considered. Not only does it present
an explanation why the paragraph 1 Kgs. 9: 15–22 is located in the
LXX at 3 Reg. 10: 22a–c, but it also accounts for a number of
deviations from MT in the Greek text. Moreover, the absence of a
conjunction before auth (cf. MT hzw) lends support to Gooding’s view
that the opening clause of v. 22a in the LXX links up with the pre-
ceding verse.6
Nevertheless, the crucial assumption upon which Gooding’s entire
argument rests, namely the idea that pronomh is meant to refer to
the cargo of Solomon’s ship, is not entirely convincing. If v. 22a
refers back to the building materials mentioned in the preceding
verse, which were all acquired by peaceful trading, why are these
materials designated as “spoil”? Did the translator, or a reviser aware
of the Hebrew underlying pronomh, opt for pronomh in order to pre-
serve a link with sm, by way of the implicit connection between
“plunder” and “labour levy” (see above)? Or did pronomh already
appear as a rendering of sm in a Greek text that originally held a
position corresponding to that of 1 Kgs. 9: 15 and did the reviser
simply transpose that text to 3 Reg. 10: 22a?7 Another problem con-
cerns Gooding’s contention that the paragraph was transposed to 3
Reg. 10: 22a–c to rescue Solomon from the charge of having amassed
luxury goods for his personal pleasure (v. 22). As the LXX follows
6 Thus also Schenker, “Corvée”, 158; id., Septante, 53.7 In this connection, it should be noted that at Prov. 12: 24, too, pronomh is
found as an equivalent to sm' (Krautwurst, Studien, 65, n. 3). The translation ofProverbs, however, is rather free and the rendering at 12: 24 may reflect an effortto sharpen the contrast between the fate of the “chosen men” and the “deceitful”.An alternative but remote possibility is that pronomh reflects a corruption of origi-nal sm' into zB', “spoil”, or into hS;viM], “plunder”, words that have been renderedby pronomh elsewhere in the LXX. At any rate, the originality of the reading sm'in 1 Kgs. 9: 15 is certain in light of the expression smh hl[h, which is also foundat 5: 27 and 9: 21.
solomon’s building activities 195
MT in ranging wealth among YHWH’s gifts to Solomon (cf. 1 Kgs./3
Reg. 3: 13), one would not expect it to take offence at the impor-
tation of luxury goods in 10: 22 on the basis of Deut. 17: 17.
The difficulties noted here do not suffice to reject Gooding’s pro-
posal out of hand. Nevertheless, the somewhat troublesome link
between v. 22a and the final clause of v. 22 leads one to consider
alternative possibilities to account for the differences between the
corresponding paragraphs of MT and the LXX.
If we regard v. 22a as the introduction to a new unit rather than
as a continuation of the preceding verse, we are justified to deal
with the form of the Greek paragraph and its position in the Solomon
Narrative as two distinct issues. In keeping with this procedure, we
first ask whether the deviations from MT reveal one tendency or
another that could help us understand the purport of the paragraph
regardless of its current position in ch. 10.
One striking feature of the paragraph is that several of its devia-
tions from MT connect with the theme “control of the indigenous
Canaanite population”. In this regard, the most important passage
is tou mh katarjai autou at the end of v. 22a. Obviously, the trans-
lator did not render wTøl]v'm]m,, “his dominion” (thus 1 Kgs. 9: 19), but
wúB lvøM]mi (ˆmi + infinitive + prepositional object), which connects syn-
tactically with the sequel rt;/Nh' μ[;h;AlK; (cf. 1 Kgs. 9: 20). As a result
the text states that Solomon carried out his extensive building pro-
gramme lest his rule was threatened by the children of the Canaanite
inhabitants whom the Israelites had been unable to expel. We can-
not tell whether the translator misread his Vorlage, faithfully rendered
a reading different from MT, or intentionally read a different Hebrew
(al tiqre). But if no intention was involved, at least this reading may
have prompted him to make two further changes.
One of these occurs in v. 22b. Here the Greek version of the list
of nations reveals special interest in the Canaanites. The LXX men-
tions seven nations, whereas MT in 1 Kgs. 9: 20 lists only five. In
MT no other list of five is found that enumerates all the nations
mentioned in 1 Kgs. 9: 20. The LXX-version of the list, on the
other hand, has its seven items in common with lists in Deut. 7: 1;
Josh. 3: 10; 24: 11. Since it is difficult to conceive of a reason why
MT would have shortened an original enumeration of seven items,
the LXX probably added kai tou Xananaiou and kai tou Gergesaiouto the original list on the basis of one of the three aforementioned
specimens. These lists all appear in contexts dealing with the expul-
196 chapter thirteen
sion of the Canaanites. Either the translator or an editor supple-
mented from these lists what he found lacking in his Vorlage. In all
likelihood, he used Deut. 7: 1 as his principal model. V. 22b matches
the command of Deut. 7: 1–2 to put the Canaanite nations under
the ban (μrj Hiphil) by stating that Israel failed to put the descen-
dants of the Canaanite nations under the ban (μmyrjhl). Furthermore,
the relative position of the seven nations named by v. 22b is best
understood as a modification of the MT-list on the basis of Deut.
7: 1. Compare:
3 Reg. 10: 22b Deut. 7: 1 1 Kgs. 9: 20
Hittites HittitesGirgashites
Amorites Amorites AmoritesHittites
CanaanitesPerizzites Perizzites PerizzitesCanaanitesHivites Hivites HivitesJebusites Jebusites JebusitesGirgashites
Outside 3 Reg. 10: 22b the only list comprising seven items and
beginning with the Hittites is found in Deut. 7: 1. Probably the
translator/editor of v. 22b moved the Hittites from their original
position to the head of the list under the influence of the Deuteronomy
passage. The lists also agree in presenting the Canaanites as the
fourth item, though 3 Reg. 10: 22b differs from Deut. 7: 1 in hav-
ing it preceded by the Perizzites. Perhaps the fact that the sequence
Perizzites-Canaanites-Hivites is found in Josh. 24: 11 occasioned this
deviation from Deut. 7: 1. The only difference from Deut. 7: 1 which
defies explanation is that the Girgashites stand in ultimate position.
The third difference from MT that might be connected with the
theme “oppression of the nations” is the use of pronomh in v. 22a.
In the biblical books preceding 3 Regum, pronomh is always used to
designate the plunder that Israel has taken from other nations. The
term is obviously connected with military requisition.8 Perhaps v. 22a
8 Thus J.A. Soggin, “Compulsory Labor under David and Solomon”, in T. Ishida(ed.), Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays. Papers Read at theInternational Symposium for Biblical Studies Tokyo, 5–7 December 1979, Tokyo 1982, 259–67,esp. 259.
solomon’s building activities 197
means to say that Solomon confiscated money and possessions from
the foreign nations to finance his building programme. Thus the
translator/editor of vv. 22a–c may have sought to diversify the forms
of exploitation of the hostile nations. Possibly he got his inspiration
from Deut. 20. In light of the obvious Deuteronomic influence on
the list of nations at v. 22b this is not a remote possibility. Deut.
20 lists three measures against the inhabitants of Canaanite cities
who resist the Israelites: 1. Subjecting them to forced labour (v. 11);
2. Killing them and taking plunder from them (vv. 14–15); 3. Putting
them under the ban (vv. 16–17). Interestingly, Israel is told to impose
the latter measure on the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites,
Hivites and Jebusites (v. 17). These are the very people of whom it
is said in v. 22b that the Israelites were unable to eliminate them.
Since the appropriate measures outlined in Deut. 20 could not be
effectuated, it seems as if the LXX means to say that Solomon sub-
jected the indigenous Canaanite population to the other measures
indicated in that chapter. Thus the taking of plunder (significantly
called pronomh in Deut. 20: 14) from the Canaanites is described in
3 Reg. 10: 22a and the conscription of labour force in v. 22b.
In the LXX-paragraph, the distinction between the two measures
last mentioned is marked structurally by the use of the word prag-mateia. V. 22a presents the only occurrence in the LXX where prag-mateia renders rbd. In 1 Kgs. 11: 27, where rbd is likewise used in
the sense of “matter, affair”, the LXX renders the Hebrew word
with pragma. A little further in 3 Reg. 10: 22a, pragmateia recurs,
this time as an equivalent of qv,je (thus also 3 Reg. 9: 1). Now the
translator of v. 22a may have preferred pragmateia to pragma as anequivalent of rbd in order to create a parallel within v. 22a:
198 chapter thirteen
auth hn h pragmateia thw pronomhw hw anhnegken o basileuw S. ofikodomhsaikai thn pragmateian S. hn epragmateusato oikodomhsai
Both phrases reveal the sequel pragmateia + relative clause + oikodomh-sai. A difficulty is presented by the fact that the phrase thn prag-mateian S. belongs to the long series of grammatical objects throughout
v. 22a that depend on the first oikodomhsai. Since this second phrase
is logically subordinate to the first, one might object that the text
cannot possibly have employed both formulaic phrases to introduce
two distinct, alternative measures versus the Canaanites. It is of inter-
est to note, however, that the Ant. texts read kai h pragmateia S.
for kai thn pragmateian S., thus putting both phrases syntactically
on a par (compare auth hn h pragmateia thw pronomhw . . . kai [authhn] h pragmateia S.). Perhaps the Ant. tradition has preserved the
original Greek here but if not, it is clear that it recognized the
significance of these phrases as structural markers.
There may be other deviations from MT in 3 Reg. 10: 22a–c
that likewise bear on the theme “oppression of the Canaanite pop-
ulation”. The absence of a rendering of twnksmh yr[Alk taw (cf.
1 Kgs. 9: 19) may have something to do with the fact that the phrase
calls to mind Exod. 1: 11.9 There it is reported that Pharaoh’s efforts
to control the numbers of the Israelites by forcing them to build
store-cities completely fail. Did the translator/editor remove the link
with Exod. 1: 11 in order not to cast doubt upon the effectivity of
Solomon’s measures? Or did he want to prevent Solomon from being
compared to the Pharaoh? Another deviation to be mentioned here
concerns the nature of the place-names mentioned in the LXX.
Schenker has argued that the toponyms appearing in the LXX-ver-
sion, unlike their MT counterparts, all have a Palestinian setting. If
this is correct, it might suggest that the translator/editor omitted ref-
erences to Tadmor (cf. 1 Kgs. 9: 18 Qere) and the Lebanon (cf. 1
Kgs. 9: 19) from his text in order to restrict the location of the
building projects to the territory where the Canaanite workers lived.10
9 Note that Exod. 1: 11 is the sole biblical reference to the building of yr[twnksmh prior to Solomon’s reign. Thus the association with this passage is easilymade.
10 Schenker (Septante, 49–50) advances the interesting idea that thn Ieyermay in3 Reg. 10: 22a transcribes (Qir)iath Jearim. The name would correspond to Ba‘alatin 1 Kgs. 9: 18, a city that is identified as Qiriath Jearim in Josh. 15: 9. In favourof this view speaks the fact that LXX transcriptions often employ the element Iey(Hatch-Redpath, Suppl., 78–79) to represent the sequence ty, whereas it is not clearwhy the element Ie appears in case Ieyermay represents Tadmor. The identificationproposed by Schenker faces the problem that the element rq (Qir-) is not repre-sented, but it is not impossible that this was lost in the process of textual trans-mission. In that instance, the Hebrew Vorlage may already have lacked rq. Theform Ieyermay cannot be retraced to one of the two standard transcriptions theLXX offers for Qiriath Jearim, kariayiarim(/n) or poliw Iarim, so in all likelihoodthe translator either did not read or did not recognize the name Qiriath Jearim inhis Vorlage.
An alternative explanation may be considered, however. Ieyermay may be a tran-scription of Aramaic rmdt ty (cf. rwmdt ty in Targum Jonathan of 1 Kgs. 9: 18).The translator did not recognize the nota obiecti ty and took it to be part of theplace-name. Subsequently he added thn in accordance with the other place-namesin the list. In support of this view, we may refer to other possible signs of Aramaicinfluence (glosses?) in the Hebrew Vorlage of 3 Reg. 10: 22a–c, like the expressiondidonai eiw pragma in v. 22c (see above and footnote 14 of this chapter). If this
solomon’s building activities 199
To sum up, the view is taken here that several deviations from
MT could be explained from elaboration of the theme “oppression
of the Canaanite population” on the part of the LXX. Other
differences, at least, seem to support our view that the disposition
of 3 Reg. 10: 22a–c is of a secondary nature: The absence of a
counterpart to 1 Kgs. 9: 16–17a in v. 22a;11 the presence of a note
explaining the reason why the citadel was built (v. 22a);12 the, prob-
ably accidental, omission of a part of v. 22c;13 perhaps, the render-
ing of the expression db,[, ˆtn with didonai eiw pragma in the same
verse.14
In its current position the section through vv. 22a–c makes up a
self-contained unit revealing associative but no explicit links with the
context. Thus the note on Solomon’s building operations of v. 22a
follows on the statement of v. 22 that Solomon’s ship brought build-
ing materials, without actually saying that these materials were used
for the building. V. 22c and v. 26 both deal with the topic of horses
and chariots, but without implying any logical connection between
the two statements.
Why, then, were the materials of vv. 22a–c placed in their pre-
sent position? One attempt at an anwer is made here. When the
reviser lifted vv. 15–25 of ch. 9 out of their original context, he did
not preserve this unit integrally but split it up in order to distribute
the constituent materials over other parts of 3 Regum. Thus he
inserted vv. 15–22 into ch. 10, a section dealing with manifestations
of Solomon’s wisdom,15 thereby suggesting that Solomon’s measures
explanation is correct, Ieyermay must be understood as a reference to Tadmor,which is a non-Canaanite city.
11 See pages 69–72.12 See page 74.13 Most manuscripts lack a rendering of wyçlçw wyrçw. The Ant. manuscripts are
the only ones that offer kai arxontew kai trissoi autou. As kai arxontew recurs alittle later, it is tempting to suppose that the phrase was lost in most Greek wit-nesses due to parablepsis. Perhaps the parablepsis already occurred on the level ofthe Hebrew text (wyrçw - yrçw; thus Särkiö, Weisheit und Macht Salomos, 123, n. 260).
14 anda (Bücher der Könige, 260) holds that the translator mistook Hebrew db[for Aramaic adb[, “labour”, and translated accordingly. anda may be right, althoughin the LXX Dan. 2: 49 is the only instance where pragma can be shown to rep-resent a derivation of the root db[. The Greek reading could also represent aneffort on the part of the translator/reviser to turn original db,[, ˆtn into a concretereference to the labour undertaken for the extensive building programme as describedin v. 22a.
15 See pages 108–112. It may be noted that the list of cities in 3 Reg. 2: 35k,
200 chapter thirteen
against the Canaanites are to be seen as another token of his wis-
dom. His decision to place the section between 3 Reg. 10: 22 and
23 may have been inspired by the consideration that v. 22 could be
easily turned into a smooth transition to the new section. All the
translator/reviser had to do was to alter the composition of the ship’s
cargo as listed in v. 22.16
46c–d, which parallels a part of 3 Reg. 10: 22a, also seems to serve as an illus-tration of Solomon’s wisdom in the context of the Miscellanies.
16 A quite different assessment of the text-historical relationship between 1 Kgs.9: 15–22 and 3 Reg. 10: 22a–c has been made by Schenker (“Corvée”, passim;Septante, 45–59). This scholar claims that the MT-account represents a reformula-tion of an original narrative that the LXX has preserved in Greek. Like Goodingand the present author, Schenker is of the opinion that the dominating theme ofthe LXX-version is the construction of military works to control the indigenousCanaanite population. However, Schenker notes that the view that Solomon hadto compete with the Canaanites for control of the country runs counter to the pic-ture of undisputed peace in Solomon’s time that emerges from several other pas-sages in 3 Regum. The recension responsible for the MT-version would have aimedat solving this tension. Thus it emphasized the stability of Solomon’s power by sit-uating the fortifications and works, not in Israel proper, as the LXX does, but out-side Israel, and by reducing the indigenous Canaanites to mere participants of thecorvée and to tax-payers. Schenker’s hypothesis is capable of accounting for a num-ber of differences between MT and the Greek, but it also raises several problemsthat are difficult to solve. In the first place, the hypothesis does not adequatelyexplain the reason for the insertion of vv. 16–17a in 1 Kgs. 9. As Schenker him-self admits (“Corvée”, 162; Septante, 57), these verses suggest a strong military pres-ence of the Canaanites and military weakness on the part of Solomon, who apparentlywas not able to capture the city of Gezer. Undoubtedly, the passage is damagingto the picture of undisputed power and peace under Solomon’s hegemony that ispresented by the surrounding verses and elsewhere in 1 Kings. Schenker claimsthat this tension is a consequence of the reviser’s intervention with the originalaccount (“Corvée”, 160–61; Septante, 55–56), but it is difficult to see why a reviserwould consciously undermine his own narrative strategy by inserting a passage that(according to Schenker) was never part of the original narrative. A second prob-lem besetting Schenker’s proposal is its failure to account for the position held bythe MT-version in ch. 9. As it stands now, vv. 15–25 disrupt the narrative conti-nuity between v. 14 and vv. 26–28 that can be observed in the LXX. It remainsobscure how this position should be explained in terms of narrative strategy.
solomon’s building activities 201
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
THE ACCOUNT OF SOLOMON’S SIN
(1 KGS. 11: 1–8—3 REG. 11: 1–8)
The account of Solomon’s apostasy has come down to us in two
versions widely divergent from each other. The main difference
between these versions concerns the order of the materials contained
in them. An overview of divergencies is provided by the two syn-
optic schemes presented below. In each of them the full text of one
version is set out against the corresponding portions of the other.
First, we consider the text of 3 Reg. 11: 1–8:
1a ka‹ ı basileÁw Salvmvn ∑n filogÊnaiow μyváin: bh'|a; hmø%løv] Ël,M¢,h'w“ 1a1b ka‹ ∑san aÈt“ wlø¢Ayhiy“w" 3a
– μyvi%n:êrxousai •ptakÒsiai twaø+me [b¢'v] t~/rc;ka‹ pallaka‹ triakÒsiai twaø-me vlø¢v] μyvig“l'pâiW
1ca ka‹ ¶laben –1cb guna›kaw éllotr¤aw twYOërIk]n: 1b
– twBø`r"ka‹ tØn yugat°ra Farav h[ø-r“P'AtB'Ata,w“Mvab¤tidaw twY•Obia}/mAmman¤tidaw t~/YnIM’['SÊraw –ka‹ Idouma¤aw tYO±midø¢a} . . .
– tYO¡nId“xeXetta¤aw >tYOêTijika‹ Amorra¤aw –
2a §k t«n §yn«n μyI$/Gh'Aˆmi 2œn épe›pen kÊriow to›w uflo›w Israhl lae⁄r:c]yI ynE!B]Ala, h°w:hy“Arm'aâ; rv¢,a}oÈk efiseleÊsesye efiw aÈtoÊw μh,%b; Wabø¢t;Aaløâka‹ aÈto‹ oÈk efiseleÊsontai efiw Ímçw μk,+b; Wabø¢y:Aalø μ~hew“
2b mØ §kkl¤nvsin tåw kard¤aw Ím«n μk,+b]b'l]Ata, WF¢y" !kea;Ùp¤sv efid≈lvn aÈt«n μh-≤yheløa‘ yrEj}a'
2c efiw aÈtoÁw §kollÆyh Salvmvn hmø`løv] qbà'D: μhä,B;toË égap∞sai >hbâ;h}a'l]
4a ka‹ §genÆyh §n kair“ gÆrouw Salvmvn hmø+løv] tn∞"q]zI t~[el] yhiy“w" 4aa4b ka‹ oÈk ∑n ≤ kard¤a aÈtoË tele¤a μlev; wbø¶b;l] hy:h;~Aaløw“ 4b
metå kur¤ou yeoË aÈtoË wyh;+løa‘ hw∞:hy“Aμ[ikayΔw ≤ kard¤a Dauid toË patrÚw aÈtoË >wybâia; dywèID: bb'l]Ki
4c ka‹ §j°klinan afl guna›kew WF¢hi w!yv;n: . . . 4ab
The structure of the narrative in 3 Reg. 11: 1–8 may be outlined
as follows:
V. 1a Introductory statement Solomon’s many wives and con-cubines.
Vv. 1b–2b Solomon’s sin Solomon takes foreign wives (v. 1b), thereby transgressing the Deute-ronomic prohibition on intermar-riage (v. 2a).Explanation of the rationale behind the prohibition (v. 2b).Solomon’s love for his foreign wives (v. 2c).
Vv. 4–6 Development of In his old age: Faltering commit-Solomon’s apostasy ment to YHWH, unlike David
(v. 4a–b).
1 The Ant. manuscripts o and c2 read eyumia kai eyue, which represents a har-monization towards the 3rd person singular of the context (contra Burney, Notes,154; Knoppers, Two Nations, I, 143).
solomon’s sin 203
afl éllÒtriai –tØn kard¤an aÈtou wbø+b;l]Ata,Ùp¤sv ye«n aÈt«n μyr-Ijea} μyh¢iløa‘ yrEj}a'
5 tÒte ”kodÒmhsen Salvmvn ÍchlÚn hm;%B; hmø⁄løv] hn!<b]yI z°a; 7at“ Xamvw v~/mk]li 7baefid≈lƒ Mvab ba;+/m ≈Q¢uvika‹ t“ basile› aÈt«n Ël,møÈl]W 7cefid≈lƒ ufl«n Ammvn >ˆwMøâ[' ynèEB] ≈Quvi
6 ka‹ tª –Astãrt˙ tr<Tø+v][' 5babdelÊgmati Sidvn¤vn μyn–Idøxi yheløa‘
7 ka‹ oÏtvw §po¤hsen hç;+[; ˆk¢ew“ 8pãsaiw ta›w gunaij‹n aÈtoË ta›w éllotr¤aiw twYO–rIk]N:h' wyv;n:Alk;l]
§yum¤vn twrøàyfiq]m'ka‹ ¶yuon1 twjø`B]z"m]Wê
to›w efid≈loiw aÈt«n >ˆhâ,yheløale8 ka‹ §po¤hsen Salvmvn tÚ ponhrÚn [r"h I;iimàøløv] c['Yé"w" 6
§n≈pion kur¤ou hw–:hy“ yn∞Ey[eB]oÈk §poreÊyh aLäemi aløàw“
Ùp¤sv kur¤ou hw¡:hy“ yràEj}a'…w Dauid ı patØr aÈtoË >wybâia; dwèId:K]
Foreign wives turn his heart away after their gods (v. 4c).He builds high places for the idols of his foreign wives (vv. 5–7).
V. 8 Conclusion Solomon does evil in the eyes of YHWH; he does not walk behind YHWH like David.
The LXX-version of the narrative carefully describes the successive
stages in the development of Solomon’s alienation from YHWH. As
it seems, the material is arranged in a logical sequence. V. 1a supplies
the background information necessary for the narrative to unfold. The
bare fact that Solomon was a lover of women and consequently had
a very extensive harem is not censured in the LXX-version.2 Yet
the author makes it clear that Solomon’s appetite for women was the
main cause of his unfaithfulness towards YHWH. Solomon’s desire
to include foreign women in his harem caused him to disregard the
prohibition of Deut. 7: 1–4 on Canaanite-Israelite intermarriage.
According to v. 2b, the regulation was meant to prevent the Israelites
from turning their hearts away to other gods than YHWH. Solomon’s
disregard of this prohibition constitutes a sin in its own right but,
as v. 2b and v. 2c explain, it also made him susceptible to the much
more serious sin of venerating foreign deities. V. 4 states that Solomon
came close to committing this sin: In his old age, the king’s fervour
for YHWH had slackened so that he was unable to resist the entreaties
of his wives to accommodate the cult of their gods.3 Note that v. 4c
takes up the expression also used in the warning following the pro-
hibition “to turn his heart away after their gods”, thereby stressing
the link with v. 2b. Vv. 5–7 proceed to list the tangible consequences
of Solomon’s changed attitude towards YHWH: The king built high
places to the deities of all of his foreign wives. Thus v. 8a concludes
that Solomon ended up doing what is evil in the eyes of YHWH.
This censure marks a more progressed state of sinfulness than the
2 Thus Gray, Kings, 252.3 The copula kai in v. 4c, which lacks an equivalent in MT, is taken here in
the explicative sense: Solomon’s heart is no longer at one with YHWH because hiswives led it astray. An alternative explanation would be that owing to the crum-bling of Solomon’s fervour for YHWH (v. 4a), he is no longer able to resist thetemptation posed by his foreign wives.
204 chapter fourteen
judgment expressed by v. 4a. The comparisons with David that are
appended to the evaluations of v. 4b and v. 8a strengthen the pic-
ture of steady decline. The evaluation of v. 4b, mentioning Solomon’s
heart, means to say that in his old age Solomon’s inner commit-
ment to YHWH was faltering. V. 8b then proceeds to notice that
Solomon did not walk after YHWH, that is to say, his unfaithful-
ness became manifest in his religious policy.
Next we turn to the account in 1 Kgs. 11: 1–8:
solomon’s sin 205
1a ka‹ ı basileÁw Salvmvn ∑n filogÊnaiow μyváin: bh'|a; hmø%løv] Ël,M¢,h'w“ 1a1cb guna›kaw –
éllotr¤aw tw úYürIk]n: 1b– twBø`r"ka‹ tØn yugat°ra Farav h[ø-r“P'AtB'Ata,w“Mvab¤tidaw twYO•bia}/mAmman¤tidaw t~/YnIM’['SÊraw –ka‹ Idouma¤aw tYO±midø¢a} . . .– tYO¡nId“xeXetta¤aw >tYOêTijika‹ Amorra¤aw –
2 §k t«n §yn«n μyI$/Gh'Aˆmi 2aœn épe›pen kÊriow to›w uflo›w Israhl lae⁄r:c]yI ynE!B]Ala, h°w:hy“Arm'aâ; rv¢,a}oÈk efiseleÊsesye efiw aÈtoÊw μh,%b; Wabø¢t;Aaløâka‹ aÈto‹ oÈk efiseleÊsontai efiw Ímçw μk,+b; Wabø¢y:Aalø μ~hew“mØ §kkl¤nvsin tåw kard¤aw Ím«n μk,+b]b'l]Ata, WF¢y" !kea; 2bÙp¤sv efid≈lvn aÈt«n μh-≤yheløa‘ yrEj}a'efiw aÈtoÁw §kollÆyh Salvmvn hmø`løv] qbà'D: μhö,B; 2ctoË égap∞sai >hbâ;h}a'l]
1b ka‹ ∑san aÈt“ wlø¢Ayhiy“w" 3aêrxousai •ptakÒsiai twaø+me [b¢'v] t~/rc; μyvi%n:ka‹ pallaka‹ triakÒsiai twaø-me vlø¢v] μyvig“l'pâiW– >wBøâliAta, wyv;n: WFàY"w" 3b
4a ka‹ §genÆyh §n kair“ gÆrouw Salvmvn hmø+løv] tn∞"q]zI t~[el] yhi%y“w" 4aa4c ka‹ §j°klinan afl guna›kew WF¢hi w!yv;n: . . . 4ab
afl éllÒtriai –tØn kard¤an aÈtoË wbø+b;l]Ata,Ùp¤sv ye«n aÈt«n μyr-Ijea} μyh¢iløa‘ yrEj}a'
4b ka‹ oÈk ∑n ≤ kard¤a aÈtoË tele¤a μlev; wbø¶b;l] hy:h~;Aaløw“ 4bmetå kur¤ou yeoË aÈtoË wyh;+løa‘ hw∞:hy“Aμ[ikayΔw ≤ kard¤a Dauid toË patrÚw aÈtoË >wybâia; dywèID: bb'l]Ki– yr¢Ej}a' hmø+løv] Ël,Y∞Ew" 5a
6 tª ÉAstãrt˙ tr<Tø+v][' 5babdelÊgmati Sidvn¤vn μyn–Idøxi yheløa‘– μKø+l]mi yr¢Ej}a'w“ 5bb– >μynêIMø[' ≈Quvi
The structure of the account in MT is rather different from that in
the LXX:
Vv. 1–3 Origin of Solomon’s sin Solomon loves many foreign wives (vv. 1–2), thereby transgressing the Deuteronomic prohibition on inter-marriage (v. 2a).Explanation of the rationale behind the prohibition (v. 2b).Solomon’s love for his foreign wives (v. 2c).The number of wives and concu-bines (v. 3a); they lead his heart astray (v. 3b).
Vv. 4–8 Development and nature In his old age: Foreign women lead of Solomon’s apostasy his aheart astray (v. 4a); by conse-
quence, Solomon not fully com-mitted to YHWH like David (v. 4b).Solomon’s apostasy with foreign gods (v. 5).Censure of Solomon’s apostasy: Doing evil in the eyes of YHWH; Solomon not fully committed to YHWH like David (v. 6).Outward signs of Solomon’s apos-tasy: Building high places and getting involved in idol worship (vv. 7–8).
206 chapter fourteen
8 ka‹ §po¤hsen Salvmvn tÚ ponhrÚn [r"h; hmøöløv] c['Yé"w" 6§n≈pion kur¤ou hw–:hy“ yn∞Ey[eB]. . . oÈk §poreÊyh aLöemi aløàw“Ùp¤sv kur¤ou hw¡:hy“ yràEj}a'…w Dauid ı patØr aÈtoË >wybâia; dwèId:K]
5 tÒte ”kodÒmhsen Salvmvn ÍchlÚn hm;%B; hmø⁄løv] hn<!b]yI z°a; 7at“ Xamvw v~/mk]li 7baefid≈lƒ Mvab ba;+/m ≈Quvi– rh;ÈB; 7bb– μl-;v;Wry“ yn∞EP]Al[' rv,a}ka‹ t“ basile› aÈt«n Ël,møÈl]W 7cefid≈lƒ ufl«n Ammvn >ˆwMøâ[' ynèEB] ≈Quvi
7 ka‹ oÏtvw §po¤hsen hç;+[; ˆk¢ew“ 8pãsaiw ta›w gunaij‹n aÈtoË ta›w éllotr¤aiw twYO–rIk]N:h' wyv;n:Alk;l]§yum¤vn twrøàyfiq]m'ka‹ ¶yuon twjø`B]z"m]Wêto›w efid≈loiw aÈt«n >ˆhâ,yhelale
As it stands, the section in MT falls into two parts. Vv. 1–3 deal
with the background of Solomon’s sin; vv. 4–8 describe the process
by which Solomon succumbed to idolatry and the outward signs of
this development. The transition between the two parts is marked
by the repetition of the note that his foreign wives led his heart
astray.
Contrary to the LXX, MT characterizes Solomon as a sinner
already in the first verse of the narrative. Solomon commits a sin
by “loving” foreign women, that is, by adopting them into his harem,
which is an action in conscious violation of the Deuteronomic pro-
hibition (v. 2). More than the LXX, MT stresses the numerousness
of Solomon’s foreign wives. Whereas the LXX of v. 1 says that
Solomon was a lover of women, the MT of v. 1 says that Solomon
loved many foreign women. In addition, the order of MT raises the
suggestion that the wives and concubines of whom the number is
given by v. 3 are all of foreign descent. The corresponding verse in
the LXX, on the other hand, refers to the total number of Solomon’s
wives and concubines, foreign and indigenous alike. The high num-
ber of foreign women implied by MT increases the extent of Solomon’s
violation of the Deuteronomic prohibition. V. 3b shows that the con-
cern expressed by v. 2c appears to be justified: Solomon’s foreign
wives are leading him astray.
The second part of the section starts off with repeating the note
of v. 3b in v. 4a. This time the statement serves as an introduction
to the account of the development of Solomon’s apostasy. The chrono-
logical setting of v. 4 and subsequent verses is indicated by yhyw +
time-note in v. 4a. V. 5 and vv. 7–8 link up with the conclusion of
v. 4a that Solomon succumbed to idolatry by naming the deities
involved and describing the measures that Solomon took to accom-
modate their cult. The account is interrupted by evaluations of
Solomon’s conduct at v. 4b and v. 6 which contrast Solomon’s behav-
iour with that of his father David. V. 6 presents a more severe con-
demnation than v. 4, using the pattern of the standard judgment
formulae in Kings: “X did right/evil in the eyes of YHWH” + com-
parison. A similar sequence is presented by the corresponding verses
of the LXX (v. 4 and v. 8; see above).
A comparison between the versions of MT and the LXX makes it
clear that the latter shows a more transparent and logical structure
than the former. Though it is possible to detect a rough overall order
solomon’s sin 207
in the account of MT, a more detailed look reveals that several indi-
vidual notes are oddly placed. The following features may be noted:
1. The position of the note in v. 3a is awkward. Materially, this
note links up with the remark of v. 1 that Solomon loved many
women. Its belated appearance at v. 3a is due to the circum-
stance that first the issue of the alien origin of Solomon’s wives
is dealt with in v. 1b and v. 2. However, at v. 3a the note inter-
rupts the logical sequence between v. 2b and v. 3b; the latter
verse notes the fulfilment of the prediction made at v. 2b that
foreign nations could turn the heart of the Israelites away behind
their gods.
2. V. 3b and v. 4a provide the same information. The former verse
is to be considered redundant. The note in v. 4a presents the
information in a chronological setting and consequently it sup-
plies a better point of departure for the ensuing paragraph than
v. 3b.
3. The theological verdict at v. 6 interrupts the report of Solomon’s
efforts to accommodate the cult of other deities. The note would
be more in place in v. 8, as it presents a natural conclusion to
the entire paragraph and prepares adequately for the transition
to the subsequent verses dealing with YHWH’s anger.
The LXX-version is not troubled by any of these problems. It pre-
sents the note on the number of foreign wives (= 1 Kgs. 11: 3a) at
v. 1b where it fits in smoothly with the preceding statement that
Solomon was a lover of women. Since the LXX has nothing to
match 1 Kgs. 11: 3b, the doublet occurring in MT between v. 3b
and v. 4a is lacking in the Greek version. Furthermore, the LXX
offers the theological verdict of 1 Kgs. 11: 6 in a more natural posi-
tion, i.e., at v. 8.
The different arrangement of subject matter causes the image of
Solomon that emerges from either version to be different too. In
MT Solomon is presented as a sinner from the outset. The order
of vv. 1–3 in MT implies that the wives and concubines of whom
the numbers are given in v. 3a all involve foreign women. As a con-
sequence the impression arises that the king systematically ignores
the Deuteronomic commandment. The LXX, on the other hand,
does not imply that Solomon’s harem is exclusively composed of
non-Israelite women. Solomon only made the mistake to include for-
208 chapter fourteen
eign women into his harem. As a consequence his sin does not look
as massive in the LXX as it does in MT. Another important fea-
ture of the LXX-version is that it does not have Solomon follow
after foreign deities and build an altar on the mountain opposite
Jerusalem (cf. 1 Kgs. 11: 5a and 7bb, respectively).
What do these divergencies in structure and purport tell about the
text-historical relationship between the two versions? In principle, it
is not inconceivable that a reviser turned the well-balanced account
as represented by the LXX into the repetitious, less transparent one
of MT in order to stress a particular issue. As the gravity of Solomon’s
sins stands out more clearly in the latter account, one might sup-
pose that the original account was reordered and expanded in order
to emphasize the extent of Solomon’s apostasy. However, it is difficult
to see in what way items as the relocation of LXX v. 8 to MT
v. 6 and the addition of v. 3b could possibly contribute to the achieve-
ment of this goal. As it is absurd to assume that a logical order was
altered into a less logical one without obvious reason, MT is unlikely
to represent a version that is secondary to that reflected by the LXX.4
It proves less difficult to explain the LXX-version in terms of a
revision of an original account as represented by MT. The logical
sequence that governs the LXX-version suggests that dissatisfaction
with the structure of the original may have been a motive behind
the revision. Yet there is reason to believe that improvement of the
internal narrative logic was less an end in itself than the result of
an effort to mitigate the negative image of Solomon. It appears that
due to a different arrangement of materials the LXX-version is capa-
ble of drawing a more positive picture of Solomon than the MT-
version:
1. Unlike MT, the LXX does not imply that Solomon’s harem
consisted exclusively of foreign women. By changing the order of
4 The view that MT represents a revision of the LXX-version runs into anotherproblem as well. If we suppose that MT added the statement “and Solomon wentafter . . .” in v. 5 in order to make Solomon’s apostasy explicit, it is plausible toassume that it borrowed the deities mentioned in the second part of the verse fromthe Vorlage of 3 Reg. 11: 5–6 (indicated as Reg.*). In that case, we are forced toassume that MT followed an oddly inconsistent borrowing strategy: While it trans-posed the reference to Ashtoreth in 1 Kgs. 11: 5ba from 3 Reg.* 11: 6, it dou-bled the reference to Milcom of 3 Reg.* 11: 5 in 1 Kgs. 11: 5bb (with inexplicablevariation!), and abstained from either doubling or transposing the reference toChemosh in 3 Reg.* 11: 5 (see the scheme on page 210).
solomon’s sin 209
1 Kgs. 11: 1–3, the LXX has broken up the identity of both
groups, thereby effectively reducing the extent of Solomon’s sin
of intermarriage.
2. The LXX does not describe Solomon himself as an active idol-
ater, because it does not represent the statement of 1 Kgs. 11: 5
that Solomon served other gods (“And Solomon went after Ahstoreth
and Milcom”). The references to Ashtoreth and Milcom in the
same verse appear in the LXX in the context of a list of gods
for whom Solomon built a high place (3 Reg. 11: 5–6).5 The
note on the location of the high place for Chemosh of 1 Kgs.
11: 7bb is also left unrendered. The strategy followed by the LXX
is visualized in the following scheme:
5 The reason why the reviser did not delete the reference to Ashtoreth altogethermay be that the citation of 1 Kgs. 11: 7 (3 Reg.* 11: 5–6) in 2 Kgs. 23: 13 makesalso reference to Ashtoreth. By transposing the phrase of 1 Kgs. 11: 5ba to 3 Reg.*11: 6, he was able to bring the list of deities in 3 Reg.* 11: 5–6 into conformitywith 2 Kgs. 23: 13.
210 chapter fourteen
– hmø+løc] Ël,Y∞Ew" 5aμyn–Idøxi yheløa‘ tr<Tø+v][' yr¢Ej}a' 5ba
– >μynêIMø[' ≈Quvi μKø+l]mi yr¢Ej}a'w“ 5bb
5 tÒte ”kodÒmhsen Salvmvn ÍchlÚn hm%;B; hmø⁄løv] hn!<b]yI z°a; 7at“ Xamvw efid≈lƒ Mvab ba;+/m ≈Quvi v~/mk]li 7ba– rhÈ;B; 7bb– μl-;v;Wry“ yn∞EP]Al[' rv,a}ka‹ t“ basile› aÈt«n efid≈lƒ ufl«n Ammvn >ˆwMøâ[' ynèEB] ≈Quvi Ël,møÈl]W 7c
6 ka‹ tª ÉAstãrt˙ bdelÊgmati Sidvn¤vn
Our impression that in these verses the LXX seeks to protect Solomon
from the charge of active idolatry receives support from 3 Reg. 11:
33. When the prophet Ahijah tears his mantle in twelve portions
and urges Jeroboam to take ten, he explains this action by deliver-
ing a divine message: “Behold, I shall rend the kingdom from the
hand of Solomon and I shall give you ten tribes . . .” (3 Reg. 11:
31b). The motivation follows in v. 33. Here the text of the LXX is
markedly different from MT:
The text of MT is grammatically inconsistent as it switches from the
plural at the beginning of v. 33 (“because they have abandoned me”)
to the singular at the end of the verse (“as David his father”). The
LXX, on the other hand, is consistent in using the singular. It has
been argued that the reading of MT represents an attempt to soften
Solomon’s culpability.7 There is good reason, however, to regard the
lectio difficilior of MT as primary to the LXX-version.8 The latter can
be explained as an harmonization, not only intent on solving the
grammatical tensions inside v. 33, but also on bringing the content
of this verse in agreement with information in the wider context.
Thus the deities listed in v. 33 are exactly the same as those mentioned
6 The Ant. text reads edouleuse. Nowhere in the LXX is douleuein used as arendering of hwj Hishtaphal. Perhaps the LXX and the Ant. text reflect two differentinterpretations of a reading db[(y)w in the Hebrew source text: In the LXX db[(y)wwas interpreted as if it were a form of the Aramaic verb db[, “to do”; in the Ant.text it was taken as a form of the Hebrew verb db[, “to serve” (correction of theLXX?). However, it is somewhat improbable that a Hebrew text ever containedthe phrase trtç[l db[(y)w, because when db[ is used in the sense “to serve a deity”it is normally construed with an object without prefixed preposition l (cf. in Kings:1 Kgs. 9: 6, 9; 16: 31; 22: 54; 2 Kgs. 10: 18; 17: 12, 16, 33, 35, 41; 21: 3, 21).A simpler explanation is that in the Ant. text edouleuse had to replace the difficultand unspecific epoihsen. The verb poiein + dat. can be used to render hç[ + l,“to be active in favour of ” (e.g., in 4 Reg. 17: 32), but it is doubtful whether inv. 33 epoihsen t˙ Astart˙ actually reflects trtç[l ç[yw in the Vorlage. Here theview is favoured that epoihsen replaced prosekunhsan (t˙ Astart˙) in the originalGreek text.
7 Thus Knoppers, Two Nations, I, 187.8 A shift from singular to plural (“Israel”) as occurs in 1 Kgs. 11: 33 is also
noticeable in other divine oracles of Deuteronomistic origin (cf. 1 Kgs. 9: 5–6; 14:7–16) and should be interpreted in a redaction-critical rather than a recension-crit-ical manner (thus also Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 363; Noth, Könige, 243). Thoughthe verb forms in v. 33 may have been originally singular (as most scholars assume,see Provan, Hezekiah, 99, n. 18), the LXX does not represent the original state ofthe text, but an emendation of (proto-)MT.
solomon’s sin 211
11: 33 ényÉ œn kat°lip°n me ynIWb%z:[} rv¢,a} ˆ['y∞" 11: 33ka‹ §po¤hsen6 WÔwj}T'v]YêIw"
tª Astãrt˙ bdelÊgmati Sidvn¤vn ‹ynIdøxâi yh¢eløa‘ tJr<Tøv]['l]ka‹ t“ Xamvw ka‹ to›w efid≈loiw Mvab ba;+/m yh¢eløa‘ v~/mk]lika‹ t“ basile› aÈt«n μKø`l]mil]Wprosoxy¤smati ufl«n Ammvn ˆwMø-['AynêEb] yh¢eløa‘
ka‹ oÈk §poreÊyh §n ta›w ıdo›w mou yk'%r:d“bi Wkl]h;Aaløâw“toË poi∞sai tÚ eÈy¢w §n≈pion §moË ynë"y[eB] rvá;Y:h' twçøŸ[}l'– yf'P;v]miW ytà'Qøjuw“
…w Dauid ı patØr aÈtoË >wybâia; dwèId:K]
in 3 Reg. 11: 5–6. In the latter passage it is Solomon, not Israel,
who is accused of building high places for these gods. Therefore it
may be that the LXX has brought v. 33 into line with the information
of vv. 5–6. Moreover, the LXX of v. 33 brings the addressee of the
punishment in v. 32 into line with the sinner who has elicited YHWH’s
anger (cf. vv. 9–11). In fact, the same tendency towards harmo-
nization and assimilation can be noticed elsewhere in 3 Reg. 11.9
The use of the singular in v. 33 seems to make Solomon the only
culprit. However, the accusation merely repeats the judgments con-
tained in vv. 5–8 and 11–13 and thus does not effectively increase
Solomon’s guilt. In another respect the LXX of v. 33 rather seems
concerned to tone down the harsh qualification of Solomon as an
idol worshipper.10 It leaves the verb form wwjtçh which, when changed
into the singular, would qualify Solomon as an idolater, unrepre-
sented. Instead of presenting a rendering of wwjtçh the LXX pre-
sents a verb which is unspecific about the nature of Solomon’s
activities in favour of the foreign gods: Solomon is said to have
“laboured” (epoihsen) for Ashtoreth and the other gods.11 Possibly
this is a veiled reference to the building of high places stated in 3
Reg. 11: 5–6. In that case, the choice of the verb may have been
influenced by 3 Reg. 11: 7, where epoihsen + dative implicitly refers
to the building of high places (“and so he did for all his foreign
9 The following harmonizations in 3 Reg. 11 are briefly indicated: In v. 10: +o yeow, either in opposition to yevn etervn in v. 10 or as assimilation to kuriouyeou Israhl of v. 9. In v. 11: ek xeirow sou for MT ˚yl[m, assimilation to ek xeirowSalvmvn (MT hmlç dym) in v. 31. In vv. 12–13: forms of lambanein for forms ofMT [rq, assimilation to v. 34. In v. 13: + thn polin, harmonization to v. 32. Inv. 29: taw entolaw mou kai ta prostagmata mou for MT ytqjw ytyrb, assimilationto ch. 3: 14 and 9: 6 (or alteration in accordance with the standard formula “mycommandments and my ordinances”; see page 149). In v. 29: + kai apesthsenauton ek thw odou, “and stood him off from the road”, addition intended to rec-oncile the statements “and Ahijah . . . found him in the way” and “they two werealone in the field” in the same verse (thus see Wevers, “Exegetical Principles”, 303).In v. 32 and v. 36: (ta) duo skhptra for MT dja(h) fbç(h), correction in accor-dance with vv. 30–31. Strangely enough, the correction has not been carried outin v. 13: skhptron en. Rahlfs supposes that the text was left uncorrected here “dadie Zahl der übrigen Stämme nicht genannt wird” (Septuaginta-Studien, [459]). However,as a result v. 13 is in conflict with v. 36. The reviser of the text represented bythe LXX must have simply overlooked the fact that v. 13 needed adjustment.
10 Thus also Wevers, “Exegetical Principles”, 309.11 The intransitive use of poiein also occurs in 3 Reg. 9: 26. Cf. footnote 7 of
this chapter.
212 chapter fourteen
wives”). At any rate, the alteration effectively deletes the reference
to Solomon’s idolatry from the text.
Now 1 Kgs. 11 contains another reference to Solomon’s idolatry
in vv. 10–11 that has not been deleted or mitigated in the LXX.
This instance might pose a threat to the view that the LXX-version
sought to protect Solomon against the charge of idolatry. Whereas
the narrator in v. 10 remarks that Solomon had been warned in
two dream revelations “by no means to go after other gods and to
be careful to do what the Lord God commanded him”, YHWH
himself condemns Solomon in v. 11 for not keeping “my com-
mandments and my ordinances which I commanded to you.” There
is no doubt that in v. 11 the LXX, like MT, makes the implication
that Solomon did walk after other gods. However, it is the implicit
nature of this accusation that distinguishes 3 Reg. 11: 11 from 1
Kgs. 11: 5a and 33, where it is explicitly stated that Solomon com-
mitted idolatry. It should be noted that nowhere in ch. 11 the LXX
seems to obscure the fact that Solomon was unfaithful to YHWH:
Solomon’s unfaithfulness is unequivocally denounced in 3 Reg. 11:
8 and 33. As it seems, only where the source text explicitly accused
Solomon of committing idolatry did the reviser interfere.
Shifting back our attention to 3 Reg. 11: 1–8, we find that many
divergencies from the MT-version can be explained adequately as
part of a revision that aimed at reducing the gravity of Solomon’s
sin (verse numbers are according to MT):
1. The desire to separate the issue of Solomon’s foreign wives from
the issue of the great quantitiy of wives prompted the reviser to
put v. 3 behind v. 1a, to add the editorial phrase “and he took
(foreign) wives” (kai elaben gunaikaw [allotriaw]) before v. 1b
and to delete from v. 1b the adjective “many” (twbr).
2. Wishing to avoid the suggestion that all of Solomon’s wives turned
his heart away after their gods—this would imply that his entire
harem was composed of foreign women—the reviser altered “his
wives” of v. 4ab into “the foreign wives” (ai gunaikew ai allotriai).3. As noted above, the reviser left v. 5a (“And Solomon went after
. . .”) unrepresented and put the rest of the verse behind v. 7.
The presence of a reference to Milcom of the Ammonites in
v. 7c made a rendering of v. 5bb superfluous. This explains why
v. 5bb has no exact equivalent in the LXX.
solomon’s sin 213
4. According to v. 7bb Solomon built the high place to Chemosh
on the mountain opposite Jerusalem. The location adds a notion
of provocation to the sin of building high places. For this reason
it may have been omitted from 3 Reg. 11: 5–6.
5. In MT the phrase “and so he did for all his foreign wives” in v. 8
is tightly linked with v. 7, since it refers back to the building of
high places that is mentioned in the previous verse. To maintain
the connection, the reviser put v. 8 behind the remnant of v. 5.
6. According to v. 4, when Solomon was old, his wives turned away
his heart after other gods so that his heart was not at one with
YHWH anymore. The version of the LXX presents a different
line of narrative logic: In Solomon’s old age, his heart was not
at one with YHWH anymore so that his foreign wives could turn
it after their gods. In attributing Solomon’s weakness to his old
age, the reviser may have tried to provide some excuse for the
king’s behaviour.
Not all changes can be related to the above-mentioned tendency,
however. A few differences show that improvement of the internal
logic to a certain extent was a purpose in itself:
1. The redundant v. 3b has not been represented in the LXX-
version.
2. The reviser transposed the evaluation from v. 6, where it inter-
rupts the account of Solomon’s apostasy, to the end of the account.
Interestingly, the tendency to downplay Solomon’s commitment to
the cult of foreign deities does not prevent the LXX-version from
condemning contact with gentile practices and deities more clearly
than MT does:
1. In 3 Reg. 11: 6 and 33 Ashtoreth is designated as bdelugmaSidvnivn, “the abomination of the Sidonians”, whereas the cor-
responding verses in MT describe the goddess neutrally as yhlaμyndx. In a similar fashion, the LXX of v. 33 does not speak of
the “god of the Ammonites”, as MT does, but of the “provoca-
tion (prosoxyisma) of the Ammonites”. The derogatory qualifications
of Ashtoreth and Milcom could represent tb[wt and ≈wqç in the
Vorlage, but may also derive from the translator or a later reviser
of the Greek text.
214 chapter fourteen
2. It is standard practice in 3 Regum to render μyhla as yeoi when
the former term is meant to be understood as a reference to (for-
eign) gods.12 In 3 Reg. 11: 1–8, however, the translator employed
not only yeoi but also eidvloi.13 He thus rendered μhyhla of
v. 2b and ˆhyhla of v. 8 as eidvloiw autvn, “their idols” (LXX
vv. 2b, 7).14 In LXX v. 4c, on the other hand, he stuck to yeoi,probably to maintain the contrast drawn in this verse between
YHWH, the God of Solomon (LXX v. 4b) and the gods of
Solomon’s wives.15 Evidently, the translator took interest in elab-
orating this contrast, for instead of offering a literal rendering for
μyrja μyhla of v. 4ab he opted for yevn autvn, thereby creating
a pure contrast with kuriou yeou autou (LXX v. 4b).
3. rma is usually rendered with (forms of ) legein in the LXX. How-
ever, in v. 2 apeipen is used to render rma. The Greek, mean-
ing “he spoke disapprovingly”, represents an ad sensum rendering.
Other divergencies may not reflect intention:
1. mh in v. 2 does not present a literal rendering of ˆka, “surely”,
of MT. Given the basically literal character of the Greek trans-
lation contained in the gg-section, it is not obvious that mh rep-
resents a free translation of the Hebrew particle.16 Montgomery
assumed that the translator interpreted ˆka in the sense of Syriac
ms[@, “so that”.17 It is, however, significant that both the Peshi ta
12 Cf. Wevers, “Exegetical Principles”, 316. 13 Perhaps bdelugma (v. 6, v. 33) too, if this term does not reflect tb[wt in the
Vorlage.14 Similarly, 3 Reg. 11: 33 offers eidvloiw Moab for MT bawm yhla. The plural
of the Greek results from the reading bawm yhlalw in the Vorlage. The presence ofcopula and preposition before yhla compelled the translator not to render yhlabawm as an apposition to çwmk, as he had correctly done in v. 5, but to regard thebawm yhla as a separate group and to translate accordingly: kai toiw eidvloiw Moab.The translator’s extreme faithfulness to his Vorlage in this instance might imply that,in general, he was reticent to modify the text.
15 A similar explanation may fit the occurrence of yeoi at 3 Reg. 11: 10 (kuriowo yeow—yevn etervn).
16 Contra Noth, Könige, 241; cf. Mulder, 1 Kings 1–11, 551.17 Thus Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 245; HALAT, 46, treats ˆka, “so that”, as
a separate lemma. Knoppers, in making the false claim that the Peshi ta presentsm_[@ in v. 2, seems to have misunderstood Montgomery-Gehman (Two Nations, I,142).
solomon’s sin 215
and Targum Jonathan present translations (AhcJ and amld, respec-
tively) that are in accordance with mh of the LXX. The simplest
way to account for this agreement is to assume that the Vorlagen
of these Versions read ˆp, “so that”. ˆka of MT, then, may result
from a reading error in the transmission process.18
2. The phrase ouk eporeuyh opisv kuriou suggests hwhy yrja ˚lh alrather than hwhy yrja aLemi al of MT. When it occurs in a reli-
gious context, the expression yrja ˚lh normally designates idol
worship (in the book of Kings: 1 Kgs. 11: 5, 10; 18: 18, 21; 21:
26; 2 Kgs. 17: 15). The form represented by the LXX, i.e., with
YHWH as an object, is unusual.19 The expression yrja aLemi, “tofollow completely”, on the other hand, is always construed with
hwhy as an object (Num. 14: 24; 32: 11, 12; Deut. 1: 36; Josh.
14: 8, 9, 14). The reading witnessed by the LXX is, therefore, to
be considered inferior to that of MT. The former possibly reflects
an initiative of the translator who was not familiar with the expres-
sion yrja aLemi. Anyhow, it is difficult to see why a reviser of the
Hebrew text would have replaced yrja aLemi by yrja ˚lh.
A few items imply that MT is not completely identical with the
Hebrew source text underlying the LXX-version:
1. 3 Reg. 11: 5–6 call the gods of Moab and Ammon eidvloi though
they are referred to as μyxqç, “abominations”, in the corresponding
verses of MT. Considering its predilection for dysphemisms (see
above), the LXX would presumably have offered an accurate
translation of ≈wqç, like prosoxyisma in v. 33, if the Vorlage had
contained that Hebrew word. Since eidvlon does not represent
≈wqç but μyhla one may argue, as in fact several critics do,20 that
the Vorlage of the LXX in vv. 5–6 actually read bawm yhla and
ˆwm[Aynb yhla. An observation that may support this assumption
is the circumstance that in v. 33 MT likewise speaks of bawm yhlaand ˆwm[Aynb yhla. If the above analysis is correct, it follows that
18 Thus Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 121; Gray, Kings, 253; anda, Bücher derKönige, 301.
19 The expression hwhy yrja ˚lh in 1 Kgs. 18: 21 is an exception that owes itsexistence to the literary context in which the worship of Baal is contrasted with theworship of YHWH.
20 Thus Gray, Kings, 253; Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 232; Noth, Könige, 241;anda, Bücher der Könige, 303.
216 chapter fourteen
the occurrence of ≈wqç in 1 Kgs. 11: 5, 7 represents a secondary
development vis-à-vis the Vorlage of the LXX.
2. The reading kai tƒ basilei autvn in v. 5 and v. 33 goes back
to μklm in the Hebrew Vorlage. In the verse of MT correspond-
ing to v. 5 of the LXX, i.e., v. 7c, the form ˚lm is found. The
originality of the reading μklm in the Vorlage of 3 Reg. 11: 5 is
strongly suggested by the parallels in 1 Kgs. 11: 33 and 2 Kgs.
23: 13. The Greek translation raises the question of the antecedent
of autvn. The combined evidence of v. 5 and v. 33 suggest that
autvn is best taken in a proleptic sense, i.e., as a reference to
the Ammonites mentioned a few words later. Probably kai tƒbasilei autvn does not reflect any intention on the translator’s
part. The translator rendered μklm, which he did not recognize
as a name, literally, without bothering about the sense of the
Greek in the context.
The two versions of the list of Solomon’s foreign wives also show
differences of which the background is uncertain:
1. The third item in the LXX-list, i.e., Suraw, is not represented in
MT. Its probable Hebrew basis, tymra, closely resembles tymdaof MT, which corresponds to the fourth item of the LXX-list,
Idoumaiaw. The text-critical assessment of the difference is difficult.
Several explanations may be considered: 1. tymra was lost in pre-
MT as a result of parablepsis; 2. The LXX may reflect a double
reading in the Hebrew Vorlage; 3. The LXX supplies two alter-
native translations for one Hebrew original;21 4. The second item
may have been added by an editor of the Greek text who found
it in a deviant Hebrew manuscript.22 The addition of one of both
items may have been done with a view to present the complete
series of Israel’s eastern neighbouring nations. However, even if
we consider the single reading of MT to be superior, we do not
have the certainty that tymda of MT presents the original read-
ing. The circumstance that μra is found in the list of Judg. 10:
6,23 which resembles 1 Kgs. 11: 1 more closely than any other
21 Cf. Tov, Text-critical Use, 129.22 Thus Hrozn , Abweichungen, 49.23 Judg. 10: 6 refers to (the gods of ) Aram, Sidon and Moab, (the gods of ) the
Ammonites and the Philistines, in that order.
solomon’s sin 217
list in the OT, suggests the possibility that v. 1 originally read
tymra.
2. The LXX does not offer an equivalent to MT tyndx. The minus
is remarkable since a few verses later Solomon is reported to have
accommodated the gods of his Moabite, his Ammonite and his
Sidonian wives (3 Reg. 11: 4c–6; cf. 11: 33). Sidon is also men-
tioned in the list of Judg. 10: 6. No good reason comes to mind
why tyndx would have been omitted intentionally. It may have
been skipped by accident in the process of textual transmission,
or it was added in the (pre-)MT to bring the list into line with
the statement in v. 5.
3. The last item of the LXX list, kai Amorraiaw, has no counter-
part in MT. The Amorites follow immediately on the Hittites in
the list of 3 Reg. 10: 22b and it may well be that kai Amorraiawwas appended under the influence of the latter passage. anda
suggests that Amorraiaw was added to bring the list in closer con-
formity with the prohibitions of Exod. 34: 15–16, Deut. 7: 2–3,
and Josh. 23: 12b, all of which refer to marriage with the indige-
nous people of Palestine proper (cf. Deut. 7: 1).24 However, if this
were the case, we would expect to find more items added than
just one. In its present form, the list indicates four foreign nation-
alities over against two Canaanite ones. Whatever the background
of the reference, since there is no obvious reason why MT should
have omitted it, it is best regarded as an addition in the version
represented by the LXX.
Having described the main differences and their background, we call
attention to one important issue. With regard to chs. 9 and 10 schol-
ars have frequently tried to explain differences between the versions
of MT and the LXX against the background of the book Deutero-
nomy. For example, in Gooding’s view, the LXX in these chapters
reveals the intention to excuse Solomon for, or to exonerate him
from, breaking Deuteronomic regulations, in particular those of the
Law of the King (Deut. 17: 14–20). More conspicuously than the
account through chs. 9 and 10, the description of Solomon’s down-
fall in ch. 11 is marked by Deuteronomic theology and law. Several
of the actions which Solomon is reported to have committed in the
24 anda, Bücher der Könige, 301.
218 chapter fourteen
latter chapter find strong condemnation in Deuteronomy. This prompts
us to consider the differences between the two versions of the account
of Solomon’s downfall in light of their relationship with the Deutero-
nomic Law. Can one of both versions be shown to have more points
of contact with Deuteronomy than the other?
The answer, it seems, must be no. Both versions explicitly condemn
the sin of intermarriage with reference to the Deuteronomic Law.
The multiplication of women, which is prohibited to the king in
Deut. 17: 17, is not censured explicitly. Neither version contains an
explicit quotation of the Deuteronomic regulation, as in v. 2, or
describes Solomon’s sin in words that emphatically recall the regulation
in Deuteronomy. Nor does either version makes an effort to down-
play the fact that Solomon had many wives: Both 1 Kgs. 11: 3 and
3 Reg. 11: 1 list the number of Solomon’s wives and concubines.
The only notable difference is that while the LXX clearly distin-
guishes between Solomon’s multiplication of women and Solomon’s
intermarriage, MT merely says in v. 1: “And Solomon loved many
foreign women.” Though the term “many” (br) provides a link with
Deut. 17: 17 (“he shall not multiply” [hbr]), this connection is super-
seded by the quotation of Deut. 7: 1–2. The arrangement in the
LXX, on the other hand, enables us to recognize Solomon’s harem
policy as a violation of two distinct Deuteronomic commandments. In
this respect, the LXX-version shows a tighter link with Deuteronomy
than MT.
This does not entitle us to speak of a tendency on the part of the
LXX, however. It is significant that the LXX-version of the list of
foreign women, in spite of exhibiting several differences from the
MT-version, does not show a notable approximation towards the ref-
erence-list in Deut. 7: 1 in comparison with MT. Apparently, the
relationship with Deuteronomy has not been a major issue in the
revision to which the account of Solomon’s sin was subjected.
In this chapter we argued that the sequence differences from MT
in the LXX-version of ch. 11 most likely result from an effort to
smooth out and rearrange the comparatively disordered account we
find attested in MT. In fact, many scholars have expressed similar
opinions.25
25 Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 233; Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 232; Mulder, 1 Kings
solomon’s sin 219
The importance of the story of Solomon’s downfall for the over-
all assessment of the relationship between the two versions of the
Solomon Narrative lies in the fact that in ch. 11 the rearrangement,
perhaps more than anywhere else in 3 Regum, affects the picture
of Solomon that arises from the text. In the LXX Solomon, for all
his faults, is not the idol worshipper and, possibly, not the system-
atic sinner against the Deuteronomic prohibition on intermarriage,
that he is in MT. The difference in stance is not only brought about
by mere rearrangement of materials, but also by omissions, addi-
tions and word differences. This enables us to recognize the improve-
ment of Solomon’s image as a genuine motive behind the revision.
But whereas several reorderings may have been carried out with a
view to improve Solomon’s image, all of them can be adequately
accounted for from a desire for structural transparency and logical
order. With regard to the sequence alterations, then, we find that
in 3 Reg. 11: 1–8 two tendencies converge: one towards improve-
ment of the order of the account and the other towards improve-
ment of Solomon’s image. As we have seen, there are more sections
in 3 Reg. 2–11 where both tendencies become apparent, e.g., in
the report of Solomon’s building activities in chs. 6–7 and in the
account of his international contacts in ch. 5. In these sections, how-
ever, it could not exactly be established whether the driving force
behind the modifications was a concern for logical order, a concern
for Solomon’s image, or perhaps both. The text-historical analysis
of 3 Reg. 11 shows that in this chapter the two tendencies are con-
nected. Thus they must represent the work of one and the same
reviser.
In which stage of the text did the revision of ch. 11 take place?
We have seen that the translator is certainly to be held accountable
for a few word changes vis-à-vis his source text. Some of them are
tendentious (apeipen, eidvloi, bdelugma, prosoxyisma) in that they
stress the reprehensible character of alien worship. These changes,
however, have no clear ideological points of contact with the ten-
1–11, 548; Noth, Könige, 244; Provan, Hezekiah, 68, n. 31; Särkiö, Weisheit und MachtSalomos, 213; Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 119; Talshir, “Septuagint Edition”, II;Würthwein, Erste Buch der Könige, 132. Among those who claim the primacy of theLXX arrangement are Benzinger (Bücher der Könige, 77), Burney (Notes, 152–54) andKnoppers (Two Nations, I, 140).
220 chapter fourteen
dencies which played a role in the revision; consequently there is no
reason to consider the reviser identical with the translator. On the
other hand, there is no positive evidence that the Vorlage of the LXX
already exhibited the revision either. Editorial additions are both too
sparse and succinct to supply convincing evidence of a Hebrew basis.
solomon’s sin 221
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
THE ACCOUNT OF SOLOMON’S ADVERSARIES
(1 KGS. 11: 14–25—3 REG. 11: 14–25)
The section through 1 Kgs./3 Reg. 11: 14–40 deals with Solomon’s
enemies Hadad, Rezon, and Jeroboam. In MT as well as in the
LXX the paragraphs on Hadad and Rezon are closely connected,
whereas the paragraph on Jeroboam in 11: 26–40 constitutes a sep-
arate unit. The former paragraphs exhibit certain features, both
regarding form and content, that are largely absent from the latter.
The Edomite prince Hadad and the Syrian warlord Rezon are exter-
nal enemies of Solomon and it is said that YHWH raised both
(1 Kgs. 11: 14, 23, 25; 3 Reg. 11: 14). Jeroboam, on the other hand,
is an enemy from the inside who is said to have raised his hand
against the king. While MT and LXX differ as to the arrangement
of corresponding materials within the Hadad-Rezon section, they
agree with respect to the arrangement of materials in the Jeroboam
section. This implies that the ancient revisers responsible for the re-
arrangement already took the Hadad-Rezon paragraphs as one unit
distinct from the Jeroboam paragraph.
In MT, the account of Hadad and Rezon divides into a para-
graph on Hadad in vv. 14–22 and one on Rezon in vv. 23–25. At
the beginning of each paragraph, the name of Solomon’s adversary
is introduced by the phrase: “And YHWH/God raised up as an
adversary to Solomon/him . . .” This introductory statement is fol-
lowed by a retrospective covering events between some point of time
in David’s reign and another point of time in Solomon’s reign
(1 Kgs. 11: 15, 21, 24). Thus the following structure can be outlined:1
1 An utterly different interpretation of the narrative and its internal division isoffered by Schenker (Septante, 112–13). Schenker argues that the immediate contextof v. 23a implies that the person to whom God raises Rezon as an adversary isHadad rather than Solomon. Since Hadad becomes king of Aram (v. 25d) andRezon conquers Damascus (v. 24), the conflict between them is situated in Arameanterritory. MT stresses the illegitimate origin of Solomon’s adversaries: Both Hadadthe Edomite and Rezon the general of mercenaries are depicted as usurpers.
Schenker’s interpretation raises objections, however. It should be noted that v. 25a concludes the short history of Rezon by stating that he was an adversary
Vv. 14–22 1. S.’s adversary Hadad A. Introduction: “And YHWH raised up as an adversary to Solomon Hadad the Edom-ite.” (v. 14).
B. Flash-back: – Joab terrorizing Edom (vv.
15–16).– Hadad’s flight (jrb) to
Egypt (vv. 17–18).– Hadad’s affiliation with
Pharaoh’s family (vv. 19–20).– Hadad request to return
(vv. 21–22).Vv. 23–25 2. S.’s adversary Rezon A. Introduction: “And God raised
up as an adversary to him Rezon the son of Eliada.” (v. 23a).
B. Flash-back:– Rezon’s flight (jrb) from
Hadadezer (v. 23b).– Rezon conquers Damascus
and becomes king (v. 24).C. Rezon’s hostility to Israel
during Solomon’s reign (v. 25); his kingship of Aram.
Despite the transparent overall structure, the presentation of mate-
rials within each paragraph raises some questions. First, it is pecu-
liar that the Hadad paragraph does not contain the slightest report
of Hadad’s actions as an adversary of Solomon. One would expect
to find an account of Hadad’s hostility towards Israel following the
episode of his stay in Egypt, but instead the narrative breaks offabruptly after Hadad’s asking Pharaoh’s consent to return to Edom.2
to Israel all the days of Solomon. Thus v. 25a is a counterpart to the introductionof the Rezon paragraph in v. 23a. In view of this, the most natural assumption isthat “him” in v. 23a is meant to refer to Solomon. The parallelism between v. 14aand v. 23a adds further weight to this identification. Moreover, Schenker’s interpretationof v. 23a is implausible from the perspective of narrative logic. It does not makesense that YHWH raises a Zobaite or Aramean general, operating in Arameanterritory, as an adversary of an Edomite prince dwelling in Egypt. Here and in v. 25a Schenker approaches the question of grammatical antecedence too rigidly.
2 Apart from literary problems, the account through 1 Kgs. 11: 14–25 also raiseshistorical problems, which have been summarized by A. Lemaire as follows: 1. Itis improbable that there already existed an Edomite kingdom in David’s time (cf.
solomon’s adversaries 223
Second, the distinction between the two paragraphs is somewhat
blurred by the occurrence of a reference to Hadad in the middle of
the Rezon paragraph. The phrase in question, numbered v. 25b, is
syntactically difficult:
And he (i.e., Rezon) was an adversary to Israel laer:c]yIl] ˆf¶;c; yhŸiy“w" 25aall the days of Solomon, hmø+løv] ym¢ey“AlK;and together with the harm h[;r:h;Ata,w“ 25bwhich Hadad . . . dd-:h} rv¢,a}And he felt a loathing at Israel lae+r:c]yIB] ≈Ÿq;Y!:w" 25cand he became king over Aram. >μrâ:a}Al[' Ëlø`m]YIw" 25d
The first part of v. 25b does not connect with the preceding clause
and the relative clause introduced by rça breaks off after the sub-
ject ddh. Apart from these grammatical difficulties, v. 25b causes
confusion as to the identity of the implicit subject of v. 25cd. One
is inclined to think that v. 25cd resumes the explicit subject of the
vv. 15–16); 2. The name “Hadad” better suits an Aramean prince than an Edomiteprince; 3. The naval expeditions from Ezion-Geber (1 Kgs. 9: 26–28) would havebeen impossible if an Edomite kingdom hostile to Solomon existed at the same time(A. Lemaire, “Les premiers rois araméens dans la tradition biblique”, in P.M.M.Daviau, J.W. Wevers, and M. Weigl [eds.], The World of the Aramaeans I: BiblicalStudies in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion [ JSOT.S 324], Sheffield 2001, 113–43, esp.130). The text-critical, literary, and historical difficulties posed by vv. 14–25 leadLemaire to posit an “interprétation araméenne” for these verses: All references toEdom must be reconstructed as references to Aram. The entire section, then, recountsthe story of Hadad prince of Aram. In Lemaire’s view, v. 23 is best regarded asan explicatory gloss on Hadad that attributes to him the title “Rezon”, i.e., “prince”(Lemaire, “Premiers rois araméens”, 131–34).
Lemaire’s proposal is attractive, not only because it solves historical problemsrelated to the MT-version but also because it alleviates the difficulty of narrativeincoherence in that version. Nevertheless, his proposal also suffers from serious flaws:1. The fact remains that MT makes a clear distinction between the two charactersHadad and Rezon, which is underscored by formal features (cf. above). It is significantthat the background information on Hadad and Rezon in v. 14 and v. 23 doesnot contain the least indication (like the name of a common ancestor) of their beingrelated, let alone identical, to one another; 2. The explicit reference in v. 18 toParan and Midian, which are territories adjacent to Edom, strongly suggests thatthe Edomite setting of the beginning of the story is original; 3. In support of hisview that MT vv. 23–25a represent a gloss, Lemaire points out that the (roughly)corresponding passage of the LXX appears elsewhere, namely in v. 14b (cf. syn-opsis on page 228), where it runs parallel to the introduction of Hadad in v. 14a(Lemaire, “Premiers rois araméens”, 134). However, it does not seem likely thatthe same gloss was inserted in different places in the Hebrew texts underlying MTand the LXX. Moreover, the identity of Hadad and Rezon is implied neither inthe version of MT nor in that of the LXX; in the latter version, references to Aderand Esrom are separated by kai (1st in v. 14b).
224 chapter fifteen
immediately preceding verse, i.e., “Hadad”. However, the reference
to Aram in v. 25d brings it home that Rezon rather than Hadad is
meant to be the subject of v. 25cd. It is moreover unclear to what
h[r is supposed to refer. A few scholars believe that “in the origi-
nal narrative some explicit account on Hadad’s aggressions must
have intervened after verse 22.”3 If “Hadad” is removed or replaced
by a finite verb form (see below), other options may be considered.
The term might refer to the subsequent statement larçyb ≈qyw, “And
he despised(?)4 Israel”.5 In v. 27 the demonstrative pronoun is like-
wise used to refer to a subsequent statement (rça rbdh hzw, “This
was the affair of . . .”).6 Another option may be to regard the note
in v. 25a as an allusion to the statement of v. 24b that Rezon and
his band took up residence in Damascus. Rezon’s action might have
ended Israelite rule over the town (cf. 2 Sam. 8: 6; see below); as
a consequence it could be interpreted as h[r for Israel.
Attempts to explain the absence of the predicate in v. 25b in terms
of Hebrew syntax fail to convince because similar elliptical rça-
clauses are both rare in MT and textually controversial, to say the
3 Burney, Notes, 162; Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 240.4 The formal equivalent to MT ≈qyw (≈wq Qal) that is found in the Peshi ta, |\t@
(|Os Aphel), suggests that the translator has read qx,Y:w" (qwx Hiphil ipf. cons.), “heoppressed”. The equivalent offered by the LXX, ebaruyumhsen, “he was wrath-ful”, has likewise been taken to render qx,Y:w" (thus J.R. Bartlett, “An Adversary againstSolomon, Hadad the Edomite”, ZAW 88 [1976], 205–26, esp. 214; Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 246), but the somewhat unusual verb rather presupposes ≈qyw (thusNoth, Könige, 242; Mulder, 1 Kings 1–11, 577). In favour of the reading qx,Y:w" onemay argue that it makes the evil that Rezon brought to Israel concrete. On theother hand, qwx Hiphil requires as a following preposition l rather than b, and itis historically improbable that Rezon oppressed Israel (Montgomery-Gehman, Kings,246; Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 125). Thus Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 362)concluded that “Le verbe ≈qyw du *M est bien en place ici au sens prégnant derefus de l’autorité aboutissant à s’insurger contre elle, sens que ce verbe a en Nb22, 3 et en Pr 3, 11.” However, there is still another option, as Lemaire has pointedout recently: ≈qyw can be construed as an ipf. cons. from the verb ≈xq/≈wq/hxq(HALAT, 1051a, 1019a, 1047ab), “to cut off ” (Lemaire, “Premiers rois araméens”,133). In 2 Kgs. 10: 32 this verb is used to refer to the victories of Hazael, king ofAram, over Israel. As the narrative contexts of 1 Kgs. 11: 25 and 2 Kgs. 10: 32resemble one another, Lemaire’s proposal is certainly attractive.
5 Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 362) takes the same view with regard to the read-ing of v. 25b attested by the LXX. Emendation of MT taw to taz, of course, alsorequires to see v. 25b as a reference to what comes next (cf. Bartlett, “An Adversaryagainst Solomon”, 214).
6 Thus Bartlett, “An Adversary against Solomon”, 214: “taz can be used to pointahead to something yet to be commanded or explained (cf. Gen. 42: 18; 43: 11;Num. 8: 24; 14: 35; Isa. 56: 2; Job 10: 13) . . .”
solomon’s adversaries 225
least.7 Even if a syntactic explanation were acceptable, this would
not do anything to solve the other difficulties noted. In view of this,
it is likely that the text of 1 Kgs. 11: 25b has suffered from corruption.
This leads us to ask whether the original text can be recovered with
the help of the Versions:
7 Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 361–62), defending the originality of MT, trans-lates “en plus du malheur dont Hadad fut la cause.” Noth (Könige, 240) and Würthwein(Erste Buch der Könige, 138) offer similar translations: “Und dazu das Unglück/Unheildas Hadad bedeutete.” Barthélemy, following König (§ 283a), refers to the occur-rence of elliptical rça-clauses in 1 Sam. 13: 8 and 2 Chron. 34: 22 which, like v. 25b, require us to supplement a fitting predicate. It is, however, highly doubt-ful whether any of these instances reflect the original Hebrew text rather than acorrupt form of it.
8 P.S.F. van Keulen, “A Case of Ancient Exegesis: The Story of Solomon’sAdversaries (1 Kgs. 11: 14–25) in Septuaginta, Peshitta, and Josephus”, in J. Cook(ed.), Bible and Computer. The Stellenbosch AIBI-6 Conference. Proceedings of the AssociationInternationale Bible et Informatique “From Alpha to Byte”. University of Stellenbosch 17–21July, 2000, Leiden/Boston 2002, 555–71, esp. 560–64.
9 Thus Gray, Kings, 263; Hrozn , Abweichungen, 71; Knoppers, Two Nations, I, 161;anda, Bücher der Könige, 312.
226 chapter fifteen
MT . . . ≈qyw ddh rça h[rhAtawTargum Jon . . . dyrmw ddh db[d atçb tyw = . . . (?)qxyw ddh hç[ rça h[rhAtawLXX auth h kakia hn epoihsen Ader kai ebaruyumhsen . . . = . . . ≈qyw ddh hç[ rça h[rhAtazVulgate et hoc est malum Adad et odium . . . = (?) . . . ddh rça h[rhAtazPeshi ta . . . |\t@ JJLN KDsJ @ˆ…\C es (free exegetical modification of MT)
The Versions present texts that are less problematic than MT. The
LXX, Targum, and Peshi ta represent a finite verb form “he did”
in v. 25b. The LXX and Vulgate, moreover, read a demonstrative
pronoun (presumably reflecting Hebrew taz) for MT taw, thereby
turning v. 25b into an intelligible nominal clause (LXX: “This is the
evil which Hadad did.”). Whereas in v. 25b the Targum and Vulgate
only represent a partial improvement on the text as witnessed by
MT, both the LXX and the Peshi ta offer syntactically coherent
texts. The Peshi ta certainly represents a late exegetical development,
as I have contended elsewhere.8 The LXX has a better chance of
preserving the ancient text in v. 25b. In fact, several critics have
attempted to restore the original Hebrew text on the basis of the
LXX.9 This textual witness is particularly interesting because it moves
directly from v. 22 to v. 25bcd and reads Edvm for μda of MT
v. 25d. As a consequence 3 Reg. 11: 25b, rather than interrupting
the Rezon paragraph through vv. 23–25, makes up an integral part
of a continuous Hadad paragraph extending from v. 15 until v. 25d.
It has been assumed that the LXX in these verses faithfully reflects
a stage of the Hebrew text prior to that of MT.10
Serious objections, however, may be raised against attempts to
overcome the textual difficulties presented by v. 25 on the basis of
the LXX. First, MT is difficult to account for in terms of a devel-
opment secondary to the text represented by the LXX. If the note
on Hadad originally stood after v. 22, how did it get into its unfor-
tunate position at MT v. 25b? According to Gray,11 the MT-cor-
ruption μra occasioned the displacement of v. 25d* to the end of
the passage dealing with Rezon of Aram, but this view does not
explain why v. 25bc* too got displaced. Second, it is unlikely that
during the textual transmission of pre-MT the verb hç[ was lost,
since it cannot be missed in the clause ddh hç[ rça and is sur-
rounded there by other words. Rather, the verb in the Targum and
the LXX was added ad sensum, either in the Hebrew text underly-
ing these Versions or directly in either translation. Third, it will be
argued below that there is good reason to believe that the arrange-
ment of vv. 22–25 in the LXX is the result of secondary revision.
The only reading represented by the Versions that has a good chance
of reflecting the original Hebrew is taz, implied by the LXX and
the Vulgate. Otherwise, the Versions do not appear to be particu-
larly helpful in restoring the original text of v. 25b.
As it is, we can only speculate on the original form and place of
the note in v. 25b. It may represent an ancient gloss on Hadad that
entered the running text in the wrong place and in a mutilated form,
or the position of the note may be original but the reference to
Hadad may not. Neither the present consonantal text nor the con-
text favours a specific emendation.12
10 Gray, Kings, 263; Hrozn , Abweichungen, 71; Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 237,240; anda, Bücher der Könige, 299, 312; Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 124.
11 Gray, Kings, 263, n. f.12 One conjectural emendation is suggested here. Perhaps the original text read
[. . .] j''yDIhi rça h[rhAtaz, “This is the harm that he has brought down [. . .].” Theemendation is based upon 2 Sam. 15: 14: h[rhAta wnyl[ j'yDIhiw“, “and he [sc.Absalom”] will bring evil upon us.” In MT this is the only occurrence of the expres-sion l[ h[r jyDIhi. BDB (623), KBL (597), and ThWAT V (259) take j'yDIhi of
solomon’s adversaries 227
The LXX-version shows a wide variety of deviations from MT: pluses
and minuses, word differences, and sequence differences. The most
striking feature is that the passage numbered vv. 23–25a in MT
appears as the central part of v. 14 in the LXX:
2 Sam. 15: 14 to be the Hiphil of jdn, “thrust”, “impel”, “drive out”; HALAT(636) distinguishes between jdn I and II and identifies jyDIhi as the Hiphil of jdn II,“schwingen” (Qal). The dictionaries agree on the probable meaning of the expres-sion in 2 Sam. 15: 14. The proximity of v. 25b to the paragraph on Hadad (vv.14–22) may have occasioned corruption of jydh into ddh. Admittedly, in 1 Kgs.11: 25b we find no preposition l[ followed by an indirect object. If l[ is takenas part of the verbal valency pattern of jyDIhi, the conjecture proposed in v. 25b isimprobable.
228 chapter fifteen
14aa ka‹ ≥geiren kÊriow satan t“ Salvmvn hmø+løv]li !f;c; hw•:hy“ μq,Y:!w" 14a14ab tÚn Ader tÚn Idouma›on ym-idøa}h; dd¢"h} tae14b ka‹ tÚn Esrvm uflÚn Eliadae tÚn §n Raemay {cf. MT 23–25a}
Adrazar basil°a Souba kÊrion aÈtoËka‹ sunhyro¤syhsan §pÉ aÈtÚn êndrewka‹ ∑n êrxvn sustr°mmatowka‹ prokatelãbeto tØn Damasekka‹ ∑san satan t“ Israhl
pãsaw tåw ≤m°raw Salvmvn14ca ka‹ Ader ı Idouma›ow14cb §k toË sp°rmatow t∞w basile¤aw Ël,Mä,h' [r"Zé<mi 14b
§n Idouma¤& >μwdøâa‘B, aWh[15–22b] [15–22]
22c ka‹ én°strecen Ader e‹w tØn g∞n aÈtoË{cf. LXX 14b} ˆf;+c; /!l μyhàiløa‘ μq,Y:!w" 23
[d-:y:l]a,AˆB, ˆwzO¡r“Ata,rz<[à,d“d"h} taäeme jr"B; rv¢,a}
>wynê:døa} hb;/xAËl,mâ,μyvi+n:a} w!yl;[; ≈Bø¶q]YIw" 24
dWd+G“Arc' yh¢iy“w"μt-;aø dw¡ID: grøàh}B'
q~c,M~,d" Wk¶l]YEw"Hb;+ Wbv]Y∞Ew"
>qc,Mâ;d"B] Wkl]m]YIwê"laer:c]yIl] ˆf¶;c; yhŸiy“w" 25ahmø+løv] ym¢ey“AlK;
25b aÏth ≤ kak¤a h[;r:h;Ata,w“ 25b∂n §po¤hsen Ader dd-:h} rv¢,a}
25c ka‹ §baruyÊmhsen §n Israhl laer:c]yIB] ≈Ÿq;Y:!w" 25c25d ka‹ §bas¤leusen §n gª Edvm >μrâ:a}Al[' Ëlø`m]YIw" 25d
Other differences involve the reading “Edom” in v. 25 for “Aram”
of MT and the occurrence of a note stating Hadad’s return from
Egypt to Edom in v. 22c. The main effect of these differences is
that from v. 14c onward LXX offers a continuous narrative of Hadad
the Edomite. The story ends with stating that Hadad (called Ader
in LXX) became king of Edom and the preceding narrative is not
interrupted by a paragraph on Rezon. In fact, Hadad is the pre-
vailing character of the entire narrative from v. 14a unto v. 25: He
is mentioned at the very beginning (v. 14a) and at the conclusion
(v. 25) of the account.
The structure of the LXX-account is as follows:
Vv. 14–25 Solomon’s adversaries A. Introduction: YHWH raises up as adversaries to Solomon Ader, Esrom, and Adrazar (v. 14ab).
B. History of Ader (vv. 14c–25). 1. Introduction (v. 14c).2. Flash-back (vv. 15–22c).
– Joab terrorizing Edom (vv. 15–16).
– Ader’s flight to Egypt (vv. 17–18).
– Affiliation with Pharaoh’s family (vv. 19–20).
– Ader’s request to return (vv. 21–22ab).
– His return (v. 22c).3. Ader menacing Israel; his
kingship of Edom (v. 25).
The account does not exhibit the bipartite structure of 1 Kgs. 11:
14–25. Whereas MT deals with Hadad and Rezon as figures of com-
parable narrative importance, the LXX completely subordinates the
latter to the former. The introductory statement of v. 14ab men-
tions Esrom and Adrazar as two additional adversaries whom YHWH
raised to Solomon (cf. v. 14bg) and the narrator only spends a few
remarks on them before moving on to Ader (v. 14c). From then on,
the narrative is entirely devoted to the Edomite prince.
It is important to note that the two difficulties which affected the
story in MT do not appear in the LXX. First, in the arrangement
of materials as witnessed by the LXX the short reference to the evil
solomon’s adversaries 229
Hadad did in v. 25b is contextually appropriate. Second, unlike MT,
the LXX neatly concludes the section on Hadad’s stay in Egypt by
a note on his return to Edom in v. 22c.
The difference in narrative structure between the versions of MT
and the LXX is basically caused by the different position held by
the Rezon paragraph. A large share of significant textual variations
between the two versions is found in the materials comprising this
paragraph. This circumstance raises the question about the rela-
tionship between the textual variations and the position of the para-
graph. Comparison between MT vv. 23–25a and the corresponding
verses of the LXX brings to light the following differences:
– ˆf;+c; /!l μyhàiløa‘ μq,Y:!w" 23a14ba ka‹ –
tÚn Esrvm uflÚn Eliadae [d-:y:l]a,AˆB, ˆwzO¡r“Ata,tÚn §n Raemay taäeme jrO"B; rv¢,a} 23bAdrazar rz<[à,d“d"h}basil°a Souba kÊrion aÈtoË >wynê:døa} hb;/xAËl,mâ,
14bb ka‹ sunhyro¤syhsan §pÉ aÈtÚn êndrew μyvi+n:a} w!yl;[; ≈Bø¶q]YIw" 24aaka‹ ∑n êrxvn sustr°mmatow dWd+G“Arc' yh¢iy“w" 24ab– μt-;aø dw¡ID: grøàh}B' 24agka‹ prokatelãbeto tØn Damasek q~c,M~,d" Wk¶l]YEw" 24ba– Hb;+ Wbv]Y∞Ew" 24bb– >qc,Mâ;d"B] Wkl]m]YIwê" 24bg
14bg ka‹ ∑san satan t“ Israhl laer:c]yIl] ˆf¶;c; yhiŸy“w" 25apãsaw tåw ≤m°raw Salvmvn hmø+løv] ym¢ey“AlK;
1. ton en Raemay reflects the corruption/misreading tam(j)rb rça.
The manuscripts exhibit many variants. At least LXX B and the
Ant. manuscripts present forms which show that tam(j)rb was
read as the preposition b followed by a toponym.13 The similar-
ity of these forms to LXX transcriptions of (d[lg) twmr (Ramoth
Gilead)14 may suggest that the translator took tam(j)rb to be a
reference to that town. The corruption/misreading of tam jrb in
the LXX suggests that Adrazar was interpreted as the name of
another adversary of Solomon alongside Hadad and Rezon: “And
13 En Raemmaaer LXX B; ton ek Raemay b e2; ton ek Ramay c2; cf. Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, [577].
14 Thus compare Ramvy: Deut. 4: 43 (LXX B); 3 Reg. 4: 13 (LXX A); Rammvy:Deut. 4: 43 (LXX A); Remay: 4 Reg. 9: 4 (LXX A); Remmvy: 4 Reg. 8: 28; 9: 1,14 (LXX B); 2 Par. 22: 5 (LXX A).
230 chapter fifteen
the Lord raised up as an adversary to Solomon Ader the Idumean
and Esrom the son of Eliadae (who lived) in Raemath, [and]15
Adrazar king of Soubah his master.”16 The circumstance that the
LXX apparently ranges Adrazar among the adversaries of Solomon
causes surprise in light of the report of Hadadezer’s utter defeat
against David in 2 Sam. 8: 3–12. Moreover, it leads to confu-
sion as to the identity of the 3 m.s. object and subject in the
sequel of v. 14b. Whereas v. 24 of MT unambiguously refers to
Rezon, the corresponding clauses of the LXX could also refer to
Adrazar, though gathering men into a band is an action more
fitting to a local prince in search of a base of power than to a
king like Adrazar.
2. kai sunhyroisyhsan epÉ auton matches wyla Wxb]Q;YIw", “And (men)
were gathered unto him.”
3. The LXX does not render μta dwd grhb (v. 24ag). In MT this
clause connects with the preceding one to produce the meaning,
“And he became leader of a band when David killed them.” If
v. 24ag is taken to refer to the men who were gathered to form
a marauding band, MT does not make good sense. If the clause
is meant to refer to the Zobaites mentioned in v. 23, either its
position in the middle of v. 24 or the use of the suffix μta must
be considered unfortunate.17 In the LXX no difficulty arises as
15 In fact, the Ant. manuscripts read kai ton Adraazar. In all likelihood, kaiton was added to bring Adraazar into line with the other adversaries mentioned(ton Ader . . . kai ton Esrvm . . . kai ton Adraazar).
16 According to Schenker (Septante, 113) “the king of Soubah his master” refersto Esrom, and “his” to Ader. Thus the male figure referred to in the ensuing v. 14bb is also Ader. Schenker’s interpretation, however, requires that Adrazar inv. 14ba is taken as part of a toponym: “who is in Raemath-Adrazar”. In my view,it is improbable that the translator meant “Adrazar” to be understood in this senserather than as the name of a person. Hadadezer of Zobah is mentioned severaltimes in the OT (2 Sam. 8: 3, 5, 12; cf. 1 Chron. 18: 3, 5, 9), but a place Raemath-Adrazar is not mentioned elsewhere. It is true that, contrary to Esrom, Adrazar isnot clearly indicated as a distinct person in v. 14ba. However, the reason for thiscan be easily surmised. Comparison of v. 14ba with the corresponding portion ofMT suggests that the translator followed his Vorlage closely; he refrained from intro-ducing items into the text which had no equivalents in the Vorlage. Thus he had“Adrazar” not preceded either by kai or by ton. The first kai in v. 14ba shouldnot be taken into account here, since its addition is editorial (see below). May bethe translator stuck as close to the Hebrew as possible because he did not under-stand his Vorlage due to corruption (or misreading) of tam jrb.
17 To overcome the problem, Gray (Kings, 266, n. c) proposes to read μra forMT μta, while Burney (Notes, 163) and Noth (Könige, 254) hold the phrase to be amarginal gloss to v. 23b which entered the text at a wrong place.
solomon’s adversaries 231
the problematic clause is absent. There is some ground for the
suspicion that it was not in the Vorlage of the LXX.18
4. kai prokatelabeto implies that the translator read dklyw, “he
seized”, instead of wklyw, “they went”, of MT. There is a con-
nection between either reading and the sequel in the LXX and
MT (cf. below). The plural of MT refers to the men of the dwdg,the marauding band led by Rezon (v. 24a).
5. The clauses hb wbçyw and qçmdb wklmyw (v. 24bbg) are not repre-
sented in the LXX.19 In MT, the second clause poses a difficulty
with respect to the plural wklmyw (Qal). Either we must translate
ad sensum “they ruled as kings” or emend whwklmyw, “they made
him king” (Hiphil), for which there is no textual support.20 Still
the latter proposal is preferable to the former, since it may explain
why Rezon is not explicitly mentioned as the subject of the fol-
lowing clause in v. 25a. Provided that the Vorlage of the LXX in
v. 24 was identical with MT, the aforementioned problem, in
addition to the fact that the plural verb forms wbçyw do not link
up well with kai prokatelabeto, may have caused the translator
to leave both clauses altogether untranslated.21
The remaining differences between 3 Reg. 11: 14b and 1 Kgs. 11:
23–25a relate to the divergent settings in which the corresponding
passages occur in the LXX and MT:
1. The introduction to MT vv. 23–25a in v. 23a, “And God raised
up an adversary to him”, has no counterpart in LXX v. 14b,
18 The view that v. 24ag represents a later addition receives additional supportfrom the fact that the phrase is lacking in the Ant. texts. Its absence is strikingbecause all other passages through 1 Kgs. 11: 14–25 which lack a rendering inLXX B are translated by the Ant. text (like the final clause of v. 18 and v. 24bbg).
19 The Ant. manuscripts b o c2 e2, however, do contain a rendering of v. 24bbg:kai ekayisen en aut˙ kai ebasileusen en Damaskƒ. It may represent a later addi-tion based on MT that was tailored to fit in with prokatelabeto of the OG.
20 Cf. Noth, Könige, 242, 255.21 The possibility should not be overlooked that during the transmission of either
the Hebrew or the Greek text the passage in question fell out due to homoioteleuton(“. . . he seized Damascus . . . they/he ruled as king in Damascus.”). However, thisexplanation ignores the connection between the absence of this passage in the LXXand the reading prokatelabeto.
232 chapter fifteen
because there the whole passage links up with v. 14a, a phrase
stating the same as 1 Kgs. 11: 23a. In order to connect v. 14a
and v. 14b, simple kai (v. 14ba) sufficed.
2. The forms of the concluding notes in 3 Reg. 11: 14bg and
1 Kgs. 11: 25a fit in with their respective contexts; because the
LXX in v. 14 lists Ader, Esrom, and Adrazar as adversaries,
v. 14bg uses the plural (“And they were adversaries . . .”).22 1 Kgs.
11: 23–24, on the other hand, deals only with Rezon and as a
consequence the concluding note v. 25a is in the singular (“And
he was an adversary . . .”).
It is important to note that the LXX ends the short passage in
v. 14bb by stating that Rezon (?) seized Damascus. Unlike the neu-
tral wklyw of MT, dklyw unequivocally designates a military opera-
tion. According to 2 Sam. 8: 3, David put garrisons in Aram-Damascus.
Seen against this background, the LXX reading is not only the more
appropriate of the two but also expresses more clearly than MT the
Israelite defeat involved in the capture of Damascus by either Esrom
or Adrazar. Yet the textual problems noted above render it difficult
to tell to what extent the form of the Greek text of v. 14b reflects
intention. On the one hand, the LXX, by mentioning three adver-
saries to Solomon rather than two and implying Israel’s loss of
Damascus, makes the reverse of Solomon’s kingship more concrete
than MT does. On the other hand, the somewhat obscure text of
v. 14ba reveals no strong tendency towards narrative sophistication.
Less ambiguous indications that the arrangement of materials in
the LXX is secondary can be found by studying the setting of 3
Reg. 11: 14b in its context. In the scheme presented at page 228,
those parts of the Greek text that are represented in 1 Kgs. 11:
23–25a are printed in italics. Note that the phrase kai Ader oIdoumaiow in v. 14ca doubles ton Ader ton Idoumaion of v. 14ab. MT
does not represent v. 14ca and there is no reason why it should,
since 1 Kgs. 11: 14b links up smoothly with v. 14a. In the LXX
there is no direct connection between the beginning and the end of
v. 14 because of the presence of v. 14b. As a consequence v. 14cb
22 The Ant. manuscripts have the singular, probably in continuation of the sin-gular of the preceding phrases. As a consequence v. 14bbg of the Ant. text refersto one figure only, either Esrom or Adrazar.
solomon’s adversaries 233
would not make good sense if it were not preceded by v. 14ca. The
latter phrase, then, must be seen in close connection with the occur-
rence of v. 14b.
Theoretically, it is conceivable that the Hebrew equivalent of
v. 14ca dropped out when v. 14b (LXX) was transposed to vv.
23–25a. However, it is much more likely that v. 14ca was added in
conjunction with the insertion of v. 14b (LXX). The phrase, then,
might be a resumptive repetition of v. 14ab, intended to repair the
syntactic disturbance caused by the insertion of v. 14b. Since the
presence of v. 14ca in the LXX is syntactically required, while its
absence in MT is not, the second option is to be preferred.23 The
text tradition of the OT shows many similar cases of resumptive rep-
etition used as a device to accommodate the insertion of secondary
text portions. Another indication of the intrusive character of v. 14b
is the grammatically inadequate connection with v. 14a: satan in
v. 14a is in the singular though in the sequel three adversaries are
mentioned.24
The likelihood of the LXX being secondary is further enhanced
when we consider what may have occasioned the transposition of
the “Rezon-Hadadezer passage” from one position to the other. It
is hard to see why that passage, if it originally stood in v. 14b, was
transposed to vv. 23–25b, since at the latter point it rudely inter-
rupts the Hadad story (vv. 14–22, v. 25b). Conversely, it is con-
ceivable that the unfortunate position of the paragraph in vv. 23–25a
occasioned its transposition to v. 14b. As was noted above, at v. 14b
the notes on Esrom and Adrazar do not interfere with the contin-
uous Ader narrative. Thus the removal of the Rezon paragraph from
vv. 23–25a and the insertion of this paragraph between both halves
of v. 14, seem to serve the same purpose, i.e., the purpose to restore
the integrity of the Hadad account.
On balance, the LXX is likely to reflect an order at v. 14 and
v. 25 that is secondary to that of MT.25 The main motive for the
23 Thus also Burney, Notes, 162–63; G. Vanoni, Literarkritik und Grammatik: Untersuchungder Wiederholungen und Spannungen in 1 Kön 11–12 (ATSAT 21), St. Ottilien 1984,42–43.
24 Thus Vanoni, Literarkritik und Grammatik, 43.25 Schenker (Septante, 113–14) takes the opposite view. In his opinion, central to
the arrangement of MT is the fact that it reads Aram for original Edom in v. 25d.The alteration was made with a view to solving the inconsistency between 3 Reg.*11: 25 and 2 Kgs. 8: 20–22. According to the latter passage, Edom revolted from
234 chapter fifteen
rearrangement, again, seems to be improvement of structure, which
was accomplished by the concentration of related narrative materials.
A similar concern for narrative logic on the part of the LXX is
revealed by the account of Hadad’s flight and his stay in Egypt. We
restrict ourselves to discussing the most important issues, namely the
story of Hadad’s flight and return:
17a ka‹ ép°dra Ader dd"a} jr¢"b]YIw" 17aaÈtÚw ka‹ pãntew êndrew Idouma›oi μyYI⁄midøa} μyviŸn:a}w" a°Wht«n pa¤dvn toË patrÚw aÈtoË wybäia; ydàEb]['memetÉ aÈtoË wTø`ai
17b ka‹ efis∞lyon efiw A‡gupton μyIr-:x]mi awbø¢l; 17bka‹ Ader paidãrion mikrÒn >ˆfâ;q; r['nè" dd"h}w"
18aa ka‹ én¤stantai W!mq~uY:w" 18aaêndrew –§k t∞w pÒlevw Madiam ˆy:±d“Mimi
ka‹ ¶rxontai efiw Faran ˆr-:aP; Wabø`Y:w"18ab ka‹ lambãnousin êndraw metÉ aÈt«n μM;⁄[i μyviŸn:a} W°jq]YIw" 18ab
– ˆr:%aP;mika‹ ¶rxontai Wabø¶Y:w"– μ~yIr~"x]mi
prÚw Farav h[ø¢r“P'Ala,basil°a AfigÊptou μyIr"+x]miAËl,mâ,
18ba ka‹ efis∞lyen Ader prÚw Farav – 18ba18bb ka‹ ¶dvken aÈt“ o‰kon tyIb'% wlø¢AˆT,YIw" 18bb
ka‹ êrtouw di°tajen aÈt“ wlø+ rm'a¢; μ~j,l,Ÿw“– >wløâ ˆt'nè: ≈r<a,w“
MT recounts the flight of a single group of Edomite men around
Hadad from Edom over Midian and Paran to Pharaoh in Egypt.
The LXX, on the other hand, distinguishes between two groups: 1.
Hadad and the Edomite men; 2. Men from the city of Madiam.
Both parties end up in Egypt (v. 17b; v. 18ab). According to v. 18ab,
the party from Madiam takes men with them. Apparently, these men
are the Edomite party, for when Pharaoh receives the men from
Madiam in audience, we find that Hadad is among them (v. 18ba).
The account of the LXX is clearly more complicated than that
of MT and may be understood as an effort to solve a problem
the control of Judah only during the reign of king Jehoram. Schenker’s proposal isbased on the assumption that MT in v. 25d refers to Hadad’s kingship of Aram.However, this is quite implausible, as was argued above in n. 1.
solomon’s adversaries 235
caused by the transmitted Hebrew text. The problem turns on the
LXX reading of v. 17b. MT v. 17 states that Hadad fled in the
company of Edomite men in order to come to Egypt. For awblthe LXX reads kai eishlyon (Ant. text: eishlyen), “and they (Ant.
text: he) went into (Egypt)”, which reflects wabyw (Ant. text: awbyw) in
the Vorlage.26 Coming across v. 18aa in the Hebrew text, either the
reviser or the translator himself may have faced the problem that
the verse describes a journey to Egypt through Midian and Paran,
while v. 17b had already recounted Hadad’s entrance into Egypt.
To avoid a narrative doublet, the reviser/translator added an explicit
subject to the text of v. 18aa, men from the city of Madiam, thereby
introducing a new group alongside the Edomite men of v. 17. He
then omitted “from Paran” from v. 18ab, thereby creating the pos-
sibility to identify the men referred to in this verse with the Edomite
group. He also omitted “to Egypt” from v. 18ab (cf. MT: “They
went to Egypt, to Pharaoh.”), because the arrival of the men from
Madiam there was already implied by the fact that they could pick
up the Edomite men (cf. v. 17b, v. 18ab). The only weak spot in
this reconstruction is that the arrival of the men from Madiam, via
Paran, in Egypt is nowhere explicitly stated.
It may be noted that v. 18ba is vital to the account as presented
by the LXX. Not only does this phrase state Hadad’s visit to Pharaoh
that would otherwise remain unclear, it also clarifies the identity of
the 3 m.s. subject to which the narrative shifts in v. 18b. MT has
nothing to correspond to v. 18ba and it does not need to either.
Since the Edomite party is the undisputed subject of 1 Kgs. 11: 18a,
it is evident that Hadad is among the men visiting Pharaoh, so that
identification of the 3 m.s. subject in v. 18b is not strictly required.
On the other hand, repetition of a subject last mentioned in v. 17a
would not have been inconvenient in 1 Kgs. 11: 18b. Its absence
from MT may, therefore, imply that v. 18ba never formed part of
the text tradition underlying MT.
The same line of reasoning applies to the note on Hadad’s return
from Egypt in 3 Reg. 11: 22:
22bg ka‹ én°strecen Ader efiw tØn g∞n aÈtou – 22
26 Thus also Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 123.
236 chapter fifteen
In the LXX, this note records Pharaoh’s compliance with what
Hadad requested him earlier:
21b ka‹ e‰pen Ader prÚw Farav h[ø+r“P'Ala, d~d"h} rm,aYO•w" 21b§japÒsteilÒn me ynIjeL]v'ka‹ épostr°cv efiw tØn g∞n mou >yxâir“a'Ala, Ëlàeaew“
In MT, the outcome of Hadad’s entreaty is not reported; as a con-
sequence the account breaks off abruptly after recording Hadad’s
renewed request to Pharaoh. In all likelihood, the narrative origin-
ally contained some note on Hadad’s return, since Hadad could only
have grown into a genuine adversary of Israel by operating from
Edomite territory.27 However, if the LXX in v. 22bg is thought to
preserve the original text, its absence from MT cannot be accounted
for. Thus it is more likely that v. 22bg reflects a logical and neces-
sary supplement to the text based on the final clause of v. 21b.
The passages from vv. 15–22 discussed above reveal the same
sense for narrative order and logic on the part of the LXX that we
encountered in v. 14 and v. 25. All evidence implies that MT (includ-
ing the minuses over against the LXX) presents a more original
order than the LXX, even if it does not represent the original nar-
ratives of Hadad and Rezon. The textual stage in which the revi-
sion reflected by the LXX took place is difficult to determine. The
typical translation-Greek encountered in the pluses at v. 18ba and
v. 22bg might suggest a Hebrew substratum. On the other hand,
these phrases only resume elements from the preceding verses and
they may well be an original creation in Greek. The important vari-
ation noted in v. 17b undisputedly has a basis in Hebrew, but this
does not necessarily imply that the revision of LXX v. 18 was orig-
inally made in the Vorlage too. In favour of a revision of the Greek
text may speak the circumstance that 3 Reg. 11: 14–25 contains two
different renderings of the name Edom: Edvm in vv. 15a and 25d
and Idoumaia in vv. 14cb, 15b, 16a, 16b. It may be tempting to
ascribe one rendering to the translator and the other to the reviser
(Edvm?).
27 Differently Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 240.
solomon’s adversaries 237
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN 3 REGUM AND CHRONICLES
VIS-À-VIS 1 KINGS
Introduction
At several points of the Solomon Narrative in 3 Regum deviations
from 1 Kings agree with features of the parallel account in Chronicles.
The approximation varies from exact correspondence between the
Greek of 3 Regum and the Hebrew of Chronicles to agreement in
the reference to particular subjects.
The Qumran texts 4QSama,b have been taken to support the view
that the text of Samuel translated in the LXX and used for Chronicles
was of a type different from that attested in MT. As in the LXX
the books of Samuel and Kings make up a single tradition complex
(with translation units crossing the dividing lines of books), scholars
have advanced similar views with regard to the version of Kings
from which 3 Regum was translated. Thus Auld, Cross, and Trebolle
Barrera, to mention a few scholars, have argued that the Vorlage of
3 Regum stood closer to the version of Kings used by Chronicles
than to the version reflected by MT.1
The features shared by 3 Regum and Chronicles over against 1
Kings concern both agreements in arrangement and inner-textual
affinities. In particular Auld has drawn attention to the former group
in support of his claim that there once existed “a text containing
more or less simply the material common to both Samuel-Kings and
Chronicles.”2 In Auld’s view, certain omissions in Chronicles and
sequence differences in 3 Regum combine to demonstrate that much
1 According to F.M. Cross, both the Vorlage of the OG of Samuel and Kingsand the text employed by Chronicles belonged to the Palestinian text traditionwhich differed sharply from the (Babylonian) tradition represented by MT (“Historyof the Biblical Text”, 294–95). See also Gooding, Relics, 130, n. 122a; TrebolleBarrera, Centena, 21; id., “Redaction, Recension, and Midrash”, 30–31; id., Salomóny Jeroboán, 359.
2 A.G. Auld, Kings without Privilege, Edinburgh 1994, 10; cf. id., “Solomon atGibeon”, 5*–7*.
material of Kings consists of late, redactional, additions. Thus the
accounts of Solomon’s reign in 3 Regum and Chronicles have in
common over against Kings that they do not start with a note on
Solomon’s marriage and do not interrupt the report of the building
of the temple and its furnishings by an account of the building of
the palace and a date of the completion of the temple. The cir-
cumstance that in these cases the LXX has the material that is absent
from Chronicles in a position different from 1 Kings would indicate
that the redactional materials were inserted at different places in the
accounts of 3 Regum and 1 Kings. It should be stressed that the
agreements noted by Auld are few and of a negative nature. In my
view, Talshir has convincingly argued that the alternative arrange-
ments of materials in Chronicles and 3 Regum represent diverse
solutions to problems which the fragmentary nature of Kings posed
to later editors/revisers.3 The limited significance of this group of
agreements and the thorough refutation of Auld’s theory by Talshir
render further discussion superfluous here.
More important, both quantitatively and qualitatively, are the
diverse affinities occurring between verses of Chronicles and 3 Regum
which are at variance with parallel verses in Kings. Might these not
imply that 3 Regum and Chronicles relied on a version of Kings
different from that represented by MT? In a study into the texts of
1 Kings 8 used by the Chronicler and the Greek translator, S.L.
McKenzie answers this question in the negative, pointing out that
the instances where Chronicles and 1 Kings go together over against
3 Regum are more numerous than the instances where Chronicles
and 3 Regum side against 1 Kings.4 Consequently McKenzie holds
the versions in Kings and Chronicles to be affiliated, while he regards
3 Regum (gg-section) as an independent witness to a variant text
type. In his view, the instances where Chronicles and 3 Regum agree
against 1 Kings are comparatively insignificant and involve mainly
parallel secondary developments.
McKenzie is certainly right to stress the proportion of the agree-
ments between Chronicles and Kings over against the agreements
between Chronicles and 3 Regum. One should, however, be aware
of the possibility that some of the disagreements between Chronicles
3 Thus see Talshir, “Reign of Solomon”. 4 McKenzie, “1 Kings 8”, 16, 31.
3 regum and chronicles vis-à-vis 1 kings 239
and 3 Regum may result from revisory activities in the latter work.
Moreover, if the entire book of Chronicles is taken into considera-
tion, the existence of several striking similarities with 3 Regum over
against Kings still leaves open the possibility that in these instances
Chronicles and 3 Regum depend on a version of Kings different
from that represented by MT. The circumstance that the Chronicler
sometimes sides with 3 Regum and sometimes with 1 Kings, then,
might indicate that he employed either more than one text form or
a single, hybrid, text as a source.
In a number of instances use of an identical source text is only
one of several possible explanations to account for the agreements.
Where exact equivalence between the Greek of 3 Regum and the
Hebrew of Chronicles occurs, there is a possibility that the Vorlage
of the former has been assimilated to Chronicles. If the wording of
the relevant passage in 3 Regum moreover is identical with the Greek
of the parallel in Paralipomena, the possibility of assimilation towards
the Greek of Paralipomena must likewise be taken into considera-
tion. In the following instances, all three possibilities apply:
1 Kgs. 8: 27 3 Reg. 8: 27 2 Chron. 6: 18 2 Par. 6: 18
μn:±m]auhâ' yKiª ˜ti efi élhy«w μn±:m]auhâ' yKiª ˜ti efi élhy«wμyhiløa‘ bvà eyE katoikÆsei ı yeÚw μyhiløa‘ bvàeyE katoikÆsei yeÚw
– metå ényr≈pvn μd:a;h;Ata, metå ényr≈pvn≈r<a-;h;Al[' §p‹ t∞w g∞w ≈r<a-;h;Al[' §p‹ t∞w g∞w
1 Kgs. 8: 29 3 Reg. 8: 29 2 Chron. 6: 20 2 Par. 6: 20
μ/yw: hl;y“l' ≤m°raw ka‹ nuktÒw hl;y“l'w: μm;/y ≤m°raw ka‹ nuktÒw
1 Kgs. 8: 66 3 Reg. 8: 66 2 Chron. 7: 10 2 Par. 7: 10
hb;/Fh'AlK; l[' §p‹ to›w égayo›w hb;/Fh'Al[' §p‹ to›w égayo›w
An important factor in determining the relative probability of each
possibility involves the nature of the general relationship between the
LXX translations of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. It has been noted
for long that there are marked correspondences between the synop-
tic sections of Regum and Paralipomena, which in some passages
almost amount to exact parallelism. Among these passages are the
chapters from which the above examples have been taken, i.e., 2
Par. 6–7. Since the high degree of correspondence is not likely to
result from similar translation technique alone, influence from one
translation on the other must be assumed.
240 chapter sixteen
In principle, studies in the Greek of Paralipomena agree that the
translator of the book underwent influence from 3 Regum, although
there is disagreement on the extent and nature of this influence.5
While most critics accept the possibility of (secondary) assimilation
towards 3 Regum, G. Gerleman and L.C. Allen moreover leave the
possibility open of assimilation in the opposite direction.6 Given the
fact that in Hellenistic Jewry Chronicles and Kings had an equal
status and authority, it is quite conceivable that the text of 3 Regum
comprises instances of (secondary?) assimilation and harmonization
towards Paralipomena. In regard to the items noted above, it fol-
lows that it remains difficult to tell whether the different readings of
3 Regum correspond to the original source text, to a Hebrew text
having been assimilated towards Chronicles, or to the Greek of the
parallel in Paralipomena.
In the following instances, indications in favour of a basis in
Hebrew may seem to be somewhat less ambiguous:
1 Kgs. 8: 63 3 Reg. 8: 63 2 Chron. 7: 5 2 Par. 7: 5
jB'z“YIw" ka‹ ¶yusen jB'z“YIw" ka‹ §yus¤asen . . . ı basileÁw Ël,M,h' . . .
hmøløv] Salvmvn hmøløv] Salvmvn
1 Kgs. 8: 7 3 Reg. 8: 7 2 Chron. 5: 8 2 Par. 5: 8
WKsøY:w" ka‹ periekãlupton WSk'y“w" ka‹ sunekãlupten
5 M. Rehm believes that “die bereits vorhandene griechische Übersetzung derBücher Sm und Rg bei der Übertragung der Chronik ausdrücklich benützt wurde”(M. Rehm, Textkritische Untersuchungen zu den Parallelstellen der Samuel-Königsbücher undder Chronik [ATA 13/3], Münster 1937, 47). L.C. Allen rather thinks of the trans-lator being unconsciously influenced by 3 Regum, especially in the well known sto-ries (L.C. Allen, The Greek Chronicles: The Relation of the Septuagint of I and II Chroniclesto the Massoretic Text [VT.S 25], Leiden 1974, 183). In the opinion of G. Gerleman,“the correspondence in the wording of the Greek synoptic texts is largely due to aprocess of harmonization between them” (G. Gerleman, Studies in the Septuagint II.Chronicles, Lund 1946, 37). With regard to 1 Paralipomena, J.D. Shenkel takes theview that apart from a number of recensional changes, the translator largely dupli-cated the synoptic passages from 1–2 Regum ( J.D. Shenkel, “A Comparative Studyof the Synoptic Parallels in 1 Paraleipomena and I–II Reigns”, HThR 62 [1969],63–85, passim).
6 See Allen, Greek Chronicles, 194–95, 200, 202, 205–206.
3 regum and chronicles vis-à-vis 1 kings 241
1 Kgs. 8: 46 3 Reg. 8: 46 2 Chron. 6: 36 2 Par. 6: 36
≈r<a,Ala, efiw g∞n ≈r<a,Ala, efiw g∞nbyE/ah; . . . . . . §xyr«n
. . . . . . . . . efiw g∞n hb;/rq] waø hq;/jr“ makrån ka‹ §ggÊw hb;/rq] /a hq;/jr“ makrån μ §ggÁw
1 Kgs. 10: 9 3 Reg. 10: 9 2 Chron. 9: 8 2 Par. 9: 8
. . . st∞sai /dymi[}h'l] toË st∞sai aÈtÚnμl;[øl] efiw tÚn afi«na μl;/[l] efiw afi«na
The first item is the least convincing of those listed here. The fact
that 2 Par. 7: 5 does not support the reading of 2 Chron. 7: 5 (note
the criss-cross correspondence between 1 Kgs. 8: 63 and 2 Par. 7:
5 and between 3 Reg. 8: 63 and 2 Chron. 7: 5) renders it doubt-
ful whether 3 Reg. 8: 63 goes back to a Hebrew original. It may
also be noted that the title “king” is the object of frequent plus-
minus variation between 3 Regum and 1 Kings. Since this kind of
variation can easily arise from a tendency towards explicit formula-
tion or harmonization, there is a good chance that the readings
offered by 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles represent independent editor-
ial developments.7
The remaining items enable us to determine the nature of the
textual relationship with more certainty. 3 Reg. 8: 7 matches the Heb-
rew of 2 Chron 5: 8 over against that of 1 Kgs. 8: 7. The different
wording of 2 Par. 5: 8 rules out the possibility that the Greek of 3
Reg. 8: 7 was borrowed from the Paralipomena parallel. Obviously,
the agreement between 3 Reg. 8: 7 and 2 Chron 5: 8 originates
with the Hebrew source text.
Interestingly, in 3 Reg. 8: 46 and 10: 9 the Greek reflects more
closely the text of the corresponding verses in Chronicles than that
in Kings, yet it does not present an exact equivalent of the Hebrew
of the Chronicles parallel. In the former verse this phenomenon
could be attributed to translation technique (makran kai egguw for
hbwrq wa hqwjr; cf. 2 Par. 6: 36), but not so in 3 Reg. 10: 9. There,
the absence of the pronoun auton indicates that in writing sthsaithe translator did not base himself on 2 Chron. 9: 8 or 2 Par. 9: 8
but rather shared with Chronicles the same type of source text.
7 Cf. McKenzie, “1 Kings 8”, 19–20.
242 chapter sixteen
The above items only involve a selection of minor deviations in
3 Regum about which there is reason to suspect that they render a
Hebrew similar to that presented by the Chronicles parallel.8 The
Solomon Narrative of 3 Regum also includes differences that show
a more sizable correspondence with Chronicles. These items, which
require more detailed discussion, are dealt with below.
3 Reg. 5: 25
5: 25 ka‹ Salvmvn ¶dvken t“ Xiram μr:⁄yjil] ˆt'Ÿn: h°møløv]W 5: 25e‡kosi xiliãdaw kÒrouw puroË μ~yFiji rKø¶ πl,a,Ÿ μ°yrIc][,ka‹ maxir t“ o‡kƒ aÈtoË wtø+ybel] tl,K¢m'ka‹ e‡kosi xiliãdaw . . . μyràIc][,w“bey §la¤ou kekomm°nou tyt-iK; ˆm,v¢, rKø`
2 Chron. 2: 9: “And behold, as to the woodsmen, the man whocut the timber—I will give your servants 20,000 kors of groundwheat, 20,000 kors of barley, 20,000 baths of wine and 20,000baths of oil (πla μyrç[ μytb ˆmçw).”
An odd feature of 1 Kgs. 5: 25 is that it employs a measure for
cereals, the kor, for indicating an amount of beaten oil. In its trans-
lation of this item the LXX appropriately employs a measure of liq-
uids, the bath. As one kor equals ten baths, we would expect to find
in the LXX a number of 200 baths as the equivalent of the 20 kor
of 1 Kgs. 5: 25. Actually, we find the number of 20,000 baths. To
this Wevers remarks: “G changed the measure to the bath (. . .) but
exaggerated the amount to 20,000 baths in line with the 20,000
measures of wheat.”9 There is reason to question this interpretation,
however, since the amount of 20,000 baths oil is also encountered
in the parallel passage of 2 Chron. 2: 9. It is improbable that the
LXX and the Chronicler would have altered the amount indicated
in Kings in an identical manner independently of each other. The
number of 20,000 baths in 3 Reg. 5: 25 is more likely to have been
adopted from the Chronicles passage,10 or the texts of 3 Regum and
Chronicles reflect a text tradition that in 1 Kgs. 5: 25 was different
from that represented by MT.
8 Other minor cases are listed in McKenzie, “1 Kings 8”, 16–20. 9 Wevers, “Exegetical Principles”, 308.
10 Thus Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 340.
3 regum and chronicles vis-à-vis 1 kings 243
3 Reg. 5: 29–30
3 Reg. 5: 29–30 1 Kgs. 5: 29–30 2 Chron. 2: 17
ka‹ ∑n t“ Salvmvn hmøöløç]løi yháiy“w" μh⁄,me c['Y"!w"•bdomÆkonta xiliãdew πl,a, μy[àib]vi π~l,a,~ μy[àib]via‡rontew êrsin lB-;s' ac¢enO lB;+s'ka‹ ÙgdoÆkonta xiliãdew πl,a, μynèImøv]W πl,a, μynèImøv]WlatÒmvn §n t“ ˆrei >rhâ;B; bxà ejø rh-;B; bx¢ ejø(30) xvr‹w érxÒntvn yrEŸC;mi db'l]· (30)t«n kayestam°nvn μyb¶iX;NIh'
h~møløv]li§p‹ t«n ¶rgvn hk;+al;M]h'Al[' rv¢,a}t«n Salvmvntre›w xiliãdew μypil;a} tv,løàv] μ~ypil;a} tv, ªløv]Wka‹ •jakÒsioi twaø-me vlø¢v]W twaø+me vv¢ ew“§pistãtai μyd¢Irøh; dybài[}h'l] μyjiX]n"m]
μ[;+B; >μ[â;h;Ata,ofl poioËntew tå ¶rga >hkâ;al;M]B' μyci`[øh;
3 Reg. 2: 35h 1 Kgs. 9: 23 2 Chron. 8: 10
ka‹ otoi ofl êrxontew yr¢Ec; hL,a¢ e yr¶Ec; hL,aeŸw“ofl kayestam°noi μybi%X;NIh' μybiyxiN“h'§p‹ tå ¶rga h~k;al;M]h'Al[' rv¶ ,a} Ël,M,l'Arv,a}toË Salvmvn hmø+løv]li hmø`løv]tre›w xiliãdew μyVimij} μyV¢imij}ka‹ •jakÒsioi twaø-me vm¢ ej}w" μyIt-;am;W§pistãtai μyd¢Irøh; μydIrøh;toË laoË μ[;+B; >μ[â;B;t«n poioÊntvn tå ¶rga >hkâ;al;M]B' μyci[øh;
In 1 Kgs. 5: 29–30 we find the number of Solomon’s workers listed
as 70,000 bearers of burdens, 80,000 hewers in the mountains and
“apart from Solomon’s supervising officers who were in charge of
the work, 3,300 who had control over the people who laboured in
the work.”11 For the latter group, 3 Reg. 5: 30 offers the number
of 3,600. This number corresponds to that given in the two extant
Chronicles parallels of 1 Kgs. 5: 30, 2 Chron. 2: 1, and 17. 3 Reg.
5: 30, then, could have borrowed the number of 3,600 from the
Chronicles texts, or the Greek reflects a Hebrew text which origi-
nally read 3,600 like 2 Chron. 2: 1 and 17. In favour of the latter
11 Translation borrowed from Gray, Kings, 147–48.
244 chapter sixteen
possibility it may be argued that the different number in 1 Kgs. 5: 30
is easily explicable as a scribal error (twam çlç for original twam çç).12
In other respects does the Greek of 3 Reg. 5: 30 not match the
Hebrew of 1 Kgs. 5: 30 either. A striking difference concerns the
classes of captains in both passages. The syntax of 3 Reg. 5: 30
implies that the supervising officers are to be separated from the
3,600 foremen. MT, however, identifies the 3,600 foremen with the
supervising officers, for the article in μ[b μydrh refers back to
the μybxnh yrç of the beginning. The background of the Greek read-
ing is hard to establish. It is of interest to note that, from a formal
point of view, 2 Chron. 2: 17 gives some ground for the distinction,
since it does not offer a parallel for the first part of 1 Kgs. 5: 30
mentioning the supervising officers. The class of the arxontvn tvnkayestamenvn, then, could be meant to be understood as being iden-
tical with the group mentioned in 2 Chron. 8: 10 (1 Kgs. 9: 23).
Before drawing conclusions, however, we must also briefly con-
sider 3 Reg. 2: 35h. The number 3,600 of 3 Reg. 2: 35h differs
both from the number given in its Hebrew counterpart 1 Kgs. 9:
23 (550) and from the number in the Chronicles parallel of 1 Kgs.
9: 23, i.e., 2 Chron. 8: 10 (250). Thus it is likely to represent an
assimilation either towards 3 Reg. 5: 30 or directly to 2 Chron. 2:
1, 17. In light of the occurrence in Misc. I of an exact duplicate of
3 Reg. 5: 29 at 2: 35d, the former option is the more plausible one.
The identical number of 3,600 strongly suggests that 3 Reg. 2: 35h
means to refer to the same group of epistatai as 3 Reg. 5: 30.
Ironically, however, this feature only emphasizes the incompatibility
of the views expressed in both texts. For while 3 Reg. 2: 35h, in
line with 1 Kgs. 5: 30 and 9: 23, equates the supervising officers with
the 3,600 foremen, 3 Reg. 5: 30 separates the supervising officers from
the same 3,600 foremen.
In Gooding’s opinion, the positioning of 3 Reg. 5: 30 in the main
text and of 2: 35h in Misc. I indicates that the view laid down in
1 Kgs. 9: 23 and reflected by 2: 35h was discarded in (the main
text of ) 3 Regum in favour of the view expressed by 3 Reg. 5: 30.13
In that case, however, the question arises why 3 Reg. 2: 35h and
12 Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 272.13 Gooding, Relics, 62–63.
3 regum and chronicles vis-à-vis 1 kings 245
5: 30 have the identical number of 3,600. As the reviser responsi-
ble for the transposition of 9: 23 to 2: 35h had no ground to sug-
gest identity of the two groups indicated in these passages, it follows
that not only the Vorlage of 5: 30 but also that of 9: 23 already
offered the number of 3,600.
In my view, an alternative possibility worth considering is that the
Greek translation of 9: 23 was transposed to Misc. I not so much
because it contradicted 5: 30 but in the context of a comprehensive
rearrangement of the materials in 1 Kgs. 9: 15–25. The translator
of 5: 30 did not intend to differentiate two groups, but the
differentiation arose unintentionally since the second part of the verse
referring to the foremen is not logically dependent on xvriw.14 At
least the identical numbers of 5: 30 and 2: 35h indicate that a later
editor took pains to suggest that both verses referred to the same
group. Thus, whereas the number of 3,600 in 3 Reg. 5: 30 may be
original and superior to the number of 3,300 of 1 Kgs. 5: 30, the
number 3,600 of 2: 35h represents a later adaptation towards 5: 30.
3 Reg. 6: 1
The LXX deviates from MT in counting 440 years between the
exodus and the beginning of the temple foundation. As we noted
earlier, the number may have been inferred from the priestly geneal-
ogy in 1 Chron. 5: 29–41, which reckons 11 generations from Aaron
unto Zadok (reckoning inclusively).15
3 Reg. 8: 16–17
14 Thus also Krautwurst, Studien, 145. Krautwurst’s argument is different frommine, however. In his opinion, the apparent interest taken in the numbers of work-ers of Solomon by 5: 29–30 requires that the number of supervising officers is any-how indicated in the text. This argument fails to convince me.
15 See page 127.
246 chapter sixteen
1 Kgs. 8: 16–17 3 Reg. 8: 16–17 2 Chron. 6: 5–7 2 Par. 6: 5–7
Since the day Since the day Since the day Since the daywhen I brought when I brought when I brought when I broughtmy people Israel my people Israel my people my people
The purport of the passage in 1 Kings may be summarized as fol-
lows: whereas YHWH never had the intention to have a temple
built for himself, the man whom YHWH chose to become a leader
of Israel, namely David, planned to build one. Because of its word-
ing, v. 16 creates a false contrast between “formerly I have not cho-
sen a city” and “then I have chosen David.”
The parallel text of 3 Regum does not present this difficulty, for
it constrasts “formerly I have not chosen a city” with “then I have
chosen Jerusalem.” In the context of a reflection on the background
of the temple building, the statement at the end of v. 16 that YHWH
chose David as a leader owes its relevance to the next verse (v. 17),
where it is stated that David planned to build the temple. In this
connection, it is only fitting that v. 16 has not extended the con-
trast between “once” and “then” to the choice of a leader, since in
16 Not in LXX B.
3 regum and chronicles vis-à-vis 1 kings 247
cont.
1 Kgs. 8: 16–17 3 Reg. 8: 16–17 2 Chron. 6: 5–7 2 Par. 6: 5–7
out of Egypt out of Egypt out of the land of Egypt out of the land of EgyptI have not chosen I have not chosen I have not chosen I have not chosena city a city a city a city from all the tribes in any one tribe from all the tribes from all the tribesof Israel of Israel of Israel of Israelto build a house to build a house to build a house to build a housethat my name that my name that my name that my namemight be there might be there might be there might be there
and I have not chosen and I have not chosena man a manthat he might be prince that he might be princeover my people Israel over my people Israel
but I have chosen (6) but I have chosen [and I have chosenJerusalem Jerusalem Jerusalemthat my name that my name that my namemight be there might be there might be there]16
but I have chosen and I have chosen and I have chosen (6) and I have chosenDavid David David Davidthat he might be that he might be that he might be that he might beover my people Israel. over my people Israel. over my people Israel. over my people Israel.(17) And it was (17) And it was (7) And it was (7) And it wasin the heart in the heart in the heart in the heartof David, my father, of my father of David, my father, of David, my father,to build a house to build a house to build a house to build a houseto the name to the name to the name to the name of YHWH, of the Lord, of YHWH, of the Lord,the God of Israel. the God of Israel. the God of Israel. the God of Israel.
the context of v. 16 the question of leadership has no relevance of
its own.
The Chronicles passage, on the other hand, does not show this
restraint, for it creates a full contrast in regard to the choice of a
city for the name and the choice of a leader over Israel. The text
of 2 Par. 6: 5–6 in LXX B follows yet another logic, in the absence
of a reference to the choice of Jerusalem. It draws a contrast with
respect to the choice of a leader, but the issue of leadership is sub-
ordinate to the question of temple building. Thus the line of thought
is as follows: While in the distant past YHWH chose neither a loca-
tion for the temple nor a leader, in the near past he has chosen a
leader who planned to build the temple. The majority reading of
the verse conforms to the Chronicles passage. Since the phrase in
brackets may have easily dropped out due to homoioarchton (kai ejele-jamhn . . . kai ejelejamhn), the minus in LXX B is best regarded as
being secondary.
Several scholars tend to believe that part of the original text as
attested by 2 Chron. 6: 5 was omitted in 1 Kgs. 8: 16 due to
homoioarchton (rjbaw . . . rjbaw) or homoioteleuton (. . . μç ymç twyhl μç ymç twyhl).17 The circumstance that thanks to fragment 7 of
4QKgs18 the full text is now attested as part of the textual tradition
of Kings seems to confirm the correctness of this opinion.
What does this view imply for the evaluation of the LXX read-
ing? Tov and Trebolle Barrera argue that the original reading was
partially preserved in 3 Regum.19 This raises the question why another
part of the original reading has not been preserved. The shape of
the minus in 3 Reg. 8: 16 renders it improbable that it arose through
parablepsis (homoioteleuton) parallel with, yet independent from, 1 Kgs.
8: 16. Possibly, the reference to the election of a prince was delib-
erately omitted so as to highlight the contrast between “formerly I
have not chosen a city” and “then I have chosen Jerusalem.” An
alternative possibility is that the reference to the election of Jerusalem
represents a later addition to a text identical with 1 Kgs. 8: 16,
17 A.B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel, Bd. 7, Leipzig 1914, 232; Talshir,“Contribution”, 40, n. 11; Tov, Textual Criticism, 238–39; Trebolle Barrera, DJDXIV, 177; Wevers, “Textual History”, 180; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 216.
18 See DJD XIV, 177, 180.19 Tov, Textual Criticism, 238–39; Trebolle Barrera, DJD XIV, 177; id., “Text-
critical Use”, 287.
248 chapter sixteen
made under the influence of text traditions as represented by Chronicles
and 4QKgs.
These interpretations of the LXX reading are based on the presump-
tion that the long version attested by Chronicles and 4QKgs represents
the original reading and the short one attested by MT a secondary
development. Nevertheless, there is good reason to assume that the
long version is secondary to the short one.20 As Stade-Schwally noted,
the plus in Chronicles has historical fact against it, for David was not
the first king chosen by YHWH. Moreover, anda has made the
interesting observation that 1 Kgs. 8: 16 may be seen as a free quo-
tation of 2 Sam. 7: 6–8, where YHWH’s rejection of a permanent
sanctuary is contrasted with his decision to elect David as a leader
(v. 8). In these verses no reference is made to the election of Jerusalem
as in 3 Reg. 8: 16 and 2 Chron. 6: 6.21 Given that the text of 1
Kgs. 8: 16 stands out as the lectio difficilior of the three versions, it is
tempting to see the pluses in 3 Reg. 8: 16 and 2 Chron. 6: 5 (4QKgs)
as successive expansions, undertaken to supplement what was seem-
ingly lacking in the original text. In that case, the already expanded
Hebrew text as reflected by 3 Reg. 8: 16 was expanded a second
time in 2 Chron. 6: 5. This view requires us to assume that the
expansions were undertaken in a comparatively early stage in the
literary history of Kings, because the evidence of 4QKgs suggests
that the second expansion was already present in the source text of
Kings used by the Chronicler. This would mean that the expansion
in 3 Reg. 8: 16 dates back to the period well before the composi-
tion of Chronicles. On the whole, the complexity of the text-critical
case under consideration does not allow us to take a definite stand.
3 Reg. 10: 22a (2: 35i)
1 Kgs. 9: 17 lists Lower Beth-Horon as one of the cities that were
built by Solomon. The counterparts to this verse in 3 Reg. 10: 22a
and 2: 35i mention Upper Beth-Horon, whereas the Chronicles par-
allel in 2 Chron. 8: 4–6 mentions both Upper and Lower Beth-
Horon. Has the original text been preserved fully in Chronicles and
only partially in 3 Regum and 1 Kings?
20 Cf. Mulder, 1 Kings 1–11, 407; Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 103.21 anda, Bücher der Könige, 221–22.
3 regum and chronicles vis-à-vis 1 kings 249
3 Reg. 10: 26–26a
The last issue to be dealt with here is the most complicated of all.
At 3 Reg. 10: 26–26a the LXX has not translated the text of MT
1 Kgs. 10: 26 but a Hebrew text matching 2 Chron. 9: 25–26.22
Moreover, the Greek of 3 Reg. 10: 26–26a appears to be virtually
identical with the Greek translation of the Chronicles passage at 2
Par. 9: 25–26. How to explain this most curious state of affairs?
Before setting out to answer this question, we must briefly discuss
the Chronicles passage. 2 Chron. 9: 25–26 forms part of a section
through vv. 22–28 which as a whole runs parallel to 1 Kgs. 10:
22–28. Vv. 25–26, however, clearly diverge from what Kings offers
at the corresponding position at ch. 10. Only the second part of v.
25 takes up material from 1 Kgs. 10: 26.23 The first part of v. 25
probably draws on 1 Kgs. 5: 6, while v. 26 might go back to 1 Kgs.
5: 1a. The most notable difference between the parallel texts con-
cerns the number of stalls; the number of 40,000 stalls mentioned
at 1 Kgs. 5: 6 has been reduced to 4,000 in 2 Chron. 9: 25. The
following scheme visualizes the textual affiliations:
22 See the synopsis at the end of this chapter, pages 263–64.23 However, see Josephus, Jewish Ant. VIII, 4, where it appears that in the
Hebrew text used by Josephus 1 Kgs. 5: 6 was followed by a passage identical with1 Kgs. 10: 26b (= 2 Chron 9: 25b; 1: 14b).
250 chapter sixteen
2 Chronicles 1 Kings
μya¢iybim] μh¢ ew“ 9: 24 μya¢ibim] hM;h¢ ew“ 10: 25wtø^j;n“mi vya¢i wtø^j;n“mi vya¢i
bh¶;z: yleŸk]W π°s,k, yl¢ eK] bh¶ ;z: yleŸk]W π°s,k, yl¢ eK]μymi+c;b]W qv,n∞E t~/ml;c]W μymi+c;b]W qv,n∞Ew“ t~/ml;c]W
μyd-Ir:p]W μysiWs μyd-Ir:p]W μysiWs>p hnê:v;B] hn¡:v;Arb'D“ >s hnê:v;B] hn¡:v;Arb'D“
hmø⁄løv]li yhiŸy“w" 9: 25 hmø%løv]li yh¢iy“w" 5: 6μ~ysiWs twyO•r“aâu μypiŸl;a} t°['B'r“a' μysiWs twOèr“au πl,aä, μy[àiB;r“a'
twbø+K;r“m'W wbø-K;r“m,l]μyv-ir:P; πl,a` , rcà;[;AμynEv]W >μyvâir:P; πl,a` , rcà;[;AμynEv]W
bk,r<+h; yr¢E[;B] μ~jeyNIY"w" bk,r<+h; yr¢E[;B] μ~jen“Y"w" 10: 26bËl,M` ,h'Aμ[iw“ Ël,M` ,h'Aμ[iw“>μlâ;v;WryBi >μlâ;v;WryBi
We see that the Chronicler’s text through vv. 24–27 is only a par-
tial parallel to 1 Kgs. 10: 25–27. Now it is important to note that
the Chronicler has included the material of 1 Kgs. 10: 26–29 ear-
lier in his account, namely at 2 Chron. 1: 14–17. Due to its posi-
tion in Chronicles, there can be no doubt that 2 Chron. 9: 22–28
represents the immediate parallel to 1 Kgs. 10: 22–28. Yet, 2 Chron.
1: 14–17 presents a more faithful rendering of 1 Kgs. 10: 26–29
than 2 Chron. 9: 25–28.
So we find that the section covering 1 Kgs. 10: 26–28 has been
rendered twice in Chronicles: the first time at 2 Chron. 1 (vv. 14–16)
and the second time at 2 Chron. 9 (vv. 25–28). The latter section,
however, is not a strict parallel to 1 Kgs. 10, but takes up material
from 1 Kgs. 5 as well.
The question to be asked next is whether 3 Reg. 10: 26–26a ren-
ders 2 Chron. 9: 25–26 or a Hebrew Vorlage ad locum. The issue here
is not whether the Hebrew Vorlage already saw the adoption of the
Chronicler’s passage into vv. 26 and 26a or not. The question rather
is whether the Vorlage of our Greek verses originally consisted of a
Hebrew text of the same type as 2 Chron. 9: 25–26.
There are good reasons to answer this question in the negative.
In the first place, with respect to the numbers given of Solomon’s
horses and chariots, 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles seem to contain two
categories of notes. One category refers to 4,000 or 40,000 twra/twyra,“stalls”, “cribs”, or “teams”, for chariots. Notes of this type are found
in 1 Kgs. 5: 6 and 2 Chron. 9: 25. The other category says that
Solomon gathered chariots and horses and it speaks of 1,400 char-
iots owned by Solomon. This type of note appears in 1 Kgs. 10: 26
and 2 Chron. 1: 14. Either category is represented by one passage
in each book, except for 3 Regum. At the position where 1 Kgs.
3 regum and chronicles vis-à-vis 1 kings 251
lve/m yhàiy“w" 9: 26 lve/m hy•:h; hmø%løv]W 5: 1a?μyk-il;M]h'Alk;B] twkø+l;m]M'h'Alk;B]
r~h;N:h'Aˆmi r~h;N:h'AˆmiμyT+iv]liP] ≈r<a¢ ,Ad['w“ μyTi+v]liP] ≈r<a¢ ,>μyIrâ:x]mi lWbàG“ d['w“ μyIr-:x]mi lWb¢G“ d['w“
μl'v;WryBi πs,Kä ,h'Ata, Ël,Má,h' ˆTeŸYIw" 9: 27 μl'v;WryBi πs,Kä,h'Ata, Ël,Má,h' ˆTeŸYIw" 10: 27μyn–Ib;a}K; μyn–Ib;a}K;
μyzI$r:a}h; ta¢ ew“ μyzI$r:a}h; ta¢ ew“μymiàq]ViK' ˆtö'n: μymiàq]ViK' ˆtä'n:
>brøâl; hl;peV]B'Arv,a} >brøâl; hl;peV]B'Arv,a}
10: 26 exhibits a passage of the second category, 3 Regum offers a
passage of the first category (3 Reg. 10: 26). As a result this book
lacks a passage of the second category, but exhibits two passages of
the first category. Since the situation in 3 Reg. 10: 26 is directly
responsible for the textual imbalance in 3 Regum, v. 26 is less likely
to represent the original Hebrew as well as 1 Kgs. 10: 26 does.24
The assumption that 3 Reg. 10: 26–26a renders a Hebrew text
in the Vorlage of 3 Regum that is identical with 2 Chron. 9: 25–26
raises yet another problem.25 As was noted above, the passage at 2
Chron. 1: 14–17 is generally traced to 1 Kgs. 10: 26–28. If a Hebrew
text identical with 2 Chron. 9: 25–26 originally held the position of
1 Kgs. 10: 26, the possibility is ruled out that 2 Chron. 1: 14–17
derives from a Hebrew text in the same position. Where would this
Chronicles paragraph come from then? Could it present an original
creation of the Chronicler himself ? This view has the improbable
implication that the counterpart of 2 Chron. 1: 14–17 in 1 Kgs. 10:
26–29 was borrowed from Chronicles rather than the other way
around. Perhaps the Chronicler had among his source-material two
different versions of Samuel-Kings, each presenting a different text
tradition at 1 Kgs. 10: 26. The Chronicler may have employed both
text traditions in his account, presenting one in its authentic setting
and moving the other to 2 Chron. 1: 14–17.26 The majority of schol-
ars, however, do not endorse the view that the Chronicler had at
his disposal two divergent versions of (the prototype of ) Samuel-
Kings. Generally, 2 Chron. 1: 14–17 is considered to have been
borrowed from 1 Kgs. 10: 26–29.27
24 The argument has been put forward by Gooding in “Text-sequence”, 448–63,esp. 460–61.
25 This view is taken by Rehm (Textkritische Untersuchungen, 98) and J. Hänel, whostates: “Vielmehr sind G B [= LXX B of 3 Reg. 10: 26–26a] wie Chronik [= 2Chron. 9: 25–26] nach einem älteren Text der Königsbücher gearbeitet” ( J. Hänel,“Die Zusätze der Septuaginta in I Reg 2 35a–o und 46a–l”, ZAW 47 [1929], 76–79,esp. 79).
26 Thus Hrozn , Abweichungen, 28.27 Thus E.L. Curtis and A.A. Madsen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Books of Chronicles (ICC), Edinburgh 1910, 318; Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 532; I.Kalimi, Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten: Literarisch-historiographische Abweichungen derChronik von ihren Paralleltexten in den Samuel- und Königsbüchern (BZAW 226), Berlin/NewYork 1995, 251–52; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 196, 236. Especially Japhet (I& II Chronicles, 523–24, 532) and Kalimi (Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten, 252) pointout that the duplication of 1 Kgs. 10: 26f. in Chronicles served a literary purpose.
252 chapter sixteen
Therefore 3 Reg. 10: 26–26a is more likely to be a rendering of
2 Chron. 9: 25–26 than of an original passage in the Hebrew Vorlage.28
Now this conclusion does not imply that vv. 26–26a necessarily rep-
resent the original Greek translation of the Chronicles passage. It
will be remembered that the Greek of 2 Par. 9: 25–26 is virtually
identical with 3 Reg. 10: 26–26a. This leaves room for the possi-
bility that the passage in Regum was directly borrowed from 2 Par.
9: 25–26. In fact, the simplest way to account for the Greek text in
vv. 26–26a is by regarding it as a duplicate of the Paralipomena-
passage.29 Nevertheless, we should also admit the possibility that 3
Reg. 10: 26–26a presents the original Greek translation, which in a
later stage was taken over by 2 Par. 9: 25–26.30
As was noted at the beginning of this chapter, the relationship
between the Greek of the synoptic portions of 3 Regum and 2
Paralipomena is a complex issue. Scholars have found that the text
of 3 Regum influenced Paralipomena, but also that sometimes the
reverse is the case, even to the extent that 3 Regum shows more
affinity with MT Chronicles than with MT Samuel-Kings.31 This
state of affairs means that we must rely on concrete clues in our
passages that may give us insight into their text-historical relation.
Thus it may be asked which of both passages regarding vocabulary
and diction fits in best with the broad context of the translation unit
to which it belongs. The passage revealing terms and expressions
that are unusual for its translation context may be most likely to be
secondary to it.
Certain features of the Greek of the parallel passages suggest that
the translation has a better chance to be original in 3 Regum than
in Paralipomena:
1. The most important indication involves the Greek renderings of
the term hw:r“au32 in 2 Chron. 9: 25 and 3 Reg. 10: 26. In Chronicles
28 Cf. I. Benzinger (Die Bücher der Chronik [KHC 20], Tübingen 1901, 95), whoasserts that 3 Reg. 10: 26–26a represent a “nachträgliche Korrektur” on the basisof 2 Chron. 9: 25–26.
29 The following scholars have claimed the dependence of vv. 26–26a on theParalipomena-parallel: Allen (Greek Chronicles, 202); Barthélemy (Critique Textuelle,338–39); Curtis-Madsen (Books of Chronicles, 359); Gooding (“Text-sequence”, 456–63).
30 Thus Krautwurst, Studien, 189; Rehm, Textkritische Untersuchungen, 98.31 See Allen, Greek Chronicles, 175f.; Rehm, Textkritische Untersuchungen, 34f.; Gerleman,
Studies in the Septuagint, 30–35.32 See for a overview of opinions on the meaning of this word G.I. Davies,
3 regum and chronicles vis-à-vis 1 kings 253
the only other occurrence of hwra appears in 2 Chron. 32: 28.
There, the Greek translator rendered it as fatnh, “crib”, “trough”.33
This translation reflects an understanding of the word utterly
different from what is shown by the rendering yhleiai, “female”,
which in 2 Par. 9: 25 occurs in the phrase yhleiai ippoi, “mares”.
The same phrase yhleiai ippoi is found in 3 Reg. 10: 26. Within
the setting of 3 Regum, yhleiai ippoi can be found to be con-
ceptually similar to the Greek translation of μysws twra in 1 Kgs.
5: 6 (cf. 3 Reg. 2: 46i) by tokadew ippoi. Thus it may seem that
the rendering yhleiai is better at home in 3 Regum than in
2 Paralipomena. We will return to this issue later.
2. The phrase eiw armata in 3 Reg. 10: 26 and 2 Par. 9: 25 does
not present an exact translation of the Hebrew found at 2 Chron.
9: 25 twbkrmw. The same Greek phrase is found in 3 Reg. 2: 46i,
where in all likelihood it matches wbkrml of 1 Kgs. 5: 6 as a
translation. It is tempting to assume that eiw armata of 3 Reg.
10: 26 was copied from 2: 46i.
3. The second part of 2 Chron. 9: 25 parallels the second part of
2 Chron. 1: 14b. The translator of the latter passage read the
verb form μjeNIY"w" and rendered it as katelipen auta. In 2 Par.
9: 25 and 3 Reg. 10: 26, however, the same verb is rendered as
eyeto auta/autouw. Furthermore, the Hebrew expression wlAyhyw,“he had”, which 2 Par. 1: 14 has translated as kai egeneto autƒ,
is rendered in 2 Par. 9: 25 by kai hsan tƒ Salvmvn. These vari-
ations in rendering do not necessarily point to the activity of two
different translators. All the same, they suggest the possibility.
4. Two observations suggest that the verses immediately preceding
2 Par. 9: 25–26 were taken from the corresponding verses of
3 Regum. First, hdusmata in 2 Par. 9: 24 is a term occurring
only here throughout the entire book. The standard equivalent
used by Paralipomena for Hebrew μymçb, “spices”, is arvmata.34
“ URW T in 1 Kings 5: 6 (EVV. 4: 26) and the Assyrian Horse Lists”, JSSt 34(1989), 25–38. Either hwra means something like “stall”, “stable” (thus Gesenius18,96; HALAT, 82; Mulder, 1 Kings 1–11, 194–95), or “team (of horses)”. The latteroption gains probability in light of a recently excavated Aramean tablet containingthe phrase wrh.swsyn. wrn, “a team of two white horses” (see A. Lemaire, Nouvellestablettes araméennes [HEO 34], Genève 2001, 14–15, 18). Orthographic variationoccurs in the pl. cs. form (twra in 1 Kgs. 5: 6; twyra in 2 Chron. 9: 25).
33 Josephus, when paraphrasing 1 Kgs. 5: 6, likewise translates the Hebrew termas fatnh ( Jewish Ant. VIII, 41).
34 Thus in 1 Chron. 9: 29, 30; 2 Chron. 9: 1, 9 (two times); 16: 14; 32: 27.
254 chapter sixteen
In 3 Regum, on the other hand, hdusmata appears four times as
an equivalent of μymçb.35 Furthermore, the term hmkj in 1 Kgs.
10: 24 and 2 Chron. 9: 23 is represented by fronhsiw in both
Greek translations. Elsewhere in Paralipomena, hmkj is consis-
tently rendered as sofia (cf. v. 22). 2 Par. 9: 23 is the only instance
in the books where fronhsiw appears as an equivalent of hmkj.
In 3 Regum, on the other hand, fronhsiw is often found as a
rendering of hmkj.36 If the translation of 2 Chron. 9: 22–24 basi-
cally reproduces the corresponding passage of 3 Regum, there is
a good chance that vv. 25–26 too are based on the Regum
parallel.
Admittedly, none of the above observations as such is conclusive evi-
dence in favour of the view that 2 Par. 9: 25–26 was copied from
3 Reg. 10: 26–26a rather than the other way around. Nevertheless,
taken together they may be a strong indication in favour of the orig-
inality of the Regum passage.
The next question that must be dealt with is whether 3 Reg. 10:
26–26a is original in the context of the translation unit of 3 Regum.
Were these verses present from the very outset or were they inserted
afterwards as part of some editorial activity? One important factor
that must be taken into account in finding an answer to this ques-
tion is that both v. 26 and v. 26a have counterparts elsewhere in
3 Regum. It was already noted that the first part of v. 26 may be
compared with 3 Reg. 2: 46i. The parallel to v. 26a follows imme-
diately on 3 Reg. 2: 46i, namely at v. 46k. Thus the order of
3 Reg. 10: 26–26a is roughly paralleled by the sequence vv. 46i–k
in ch. 2.
The problem of the text-historical relationship between these verses
is an intricate one. With regard to 3 Reg. 2: 46i, the following obser-
vations can be made. In all likelihood, the verse corresponds to MT
1 Kgs. 5: 6. Thus tokadew ippoi matches μysws twra of MT. We
already noted that the same Hebrew phrase underlies the transla-
tion yhleiai ippoi in 3 Reg. 10: 26. Neither yhleiai ippoi, literally“female horses”, nor tokadew ippoi, “brood mares”, “pregnant mares”,
35 In 3 Reg. 10: 2, 10 (two times), 25.36 In 3 Reg. 3: 28; 5: 9, 10; 10: 4, 6, 8, [23,] 24; 11: 41.
3 regum and chronicles vis-à-vis 1 kings 255
comes close to the probable meaning of μysws twra, “stalls for horses”.
This raises the possibility that the Hebrew Vorlage of the verses in 3
Regum differed slightly from what is presented by MT. Now it proves
to be difficult to link yhleiai ippoi with a Hebrew not too different
from MT’s μysws twra, but tokadew ippoi appears to offer a good
possibility. It is well conceivable that this translation goes back to
an interchange of a and h in the Vorlage, producing the reading t/rh;μysws,37 “mares carrying foals”.38 The expression yhleiai ippoi, then,
may be explained as a secondary, inner-Greek variant of tokadewippoi.
Several exegetes have claimed that the two Greek translations
tokadew ippoi and yhleiai ippoi reflect the same idea.39 Both trans-
lations indeed agree in their making reference to mares. However,
it is important to note that the notion “for breeding” is not repre-
sented in any sense by the phrase yhleiai ippoi.40 For this reason,
yhleiai ippoi is unlikely to present a direct translation of a Hebrew
text reading μysws twrøh;.41 More probably, the Greek rendering at 3
Reg. 10: 26 was influenced by the translation tokadew ippoi of 3
Reg. 2: 46i. The translator may have adopted from v. 46i the idea
37 t/rh; = pl. cs. hr<h;, “pregnant” (HALAT, 245). However, there is no otherinstance in MT where twrh is followed by a nomen rectum designating the identityof the foetus. Therefore we should take the possibility into consideration that thetranslator took twrh as a plural in the absolute state and μysws as an apposition toit, thus disregarding the difference in gender (which in fact might have been easyfor him because the female form hsws is extremely rare in the OT). The fact thatthe phrase tokadew ippoi does not reveal a significant effort on the translator’s partto represent a genitive construction in the Vorlage may also speak in favour of thisview.
38 Cf. already S. Bochartus, Hierozoicon, sive Bipertitum Opus de Animalibus S. Scripturae,etc. (ex recensione Joh. Leusden), Lugduni Bat./Trajecti ad Rhen. 16923, Cap. IX,157: “In Graeca versione twra, vel μysws twyra, absurde redditur yhleiai, & tokadewippoi, quasi twrh & twyrh legerint, quod foetas significaret.” An alternative possibilityis that the translator, faced with a Hebrew he did not understand, took the initia-tive to read h for a (thus Davies, “ URW T in 1 Kings 5: 6”, 31). Montgomery-Gehman (Kings, 132) and Gray (Kings, 245, n. e) rather think that the translatorassociated twra with a root cognate with Akkadian arû, “to be pregnant” (cf. AHw,72, arû(m) V).
39 Gooding, “Text-sequence”, 457; Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 132.40 For this reason the Antiochene tradition, which has assimilated the text of
3 Reg. 10: 26 [= 10: 29 in the edition of Fernández Marcos-Busto Saiz] to 2: 46i,adds tou tiktein after ippvn yhleivn eiw armata.
41 Moreover, there is little chance that the same corruptions arose independentlyof one another in the Hebrew Vorlagen of 3 Reg. 2: 46i and 2 Par. 9: 25.
256 chapter sixteen
that the Hebrew refers to “mares”. For some reason he did not
adopt the notion tokadew, “for breeding”, but contented himself with
referring to mares proper. Possibly he varied the translation on
account of the discrepant numbers of horses given in these texts.
Thus he could have wished to create the impression that both pas-
sages deal with different categories of horses. Or, if there were two
translators rather than one, the later one may have opted for mares
proper in 3 Reg. 10: 26 because they are more likely to serve as
horses for chariots than brood mares.
The issue of the relationship between 3 Reg. 10: 26a and 2: 46k
is barely less complicated than the connection between 10: 26 and
2: 46i. Apparently, both verses present translations of exactly iden-
tical Hebrew. Only 3 Reg. 2: 46k involves an untterly different trans-
lation from 3 Reg. 10: 26a. Here we have the interesting phenomenon
that the Greek translation of Kings offers two different renderings
of a Hebrew text which is not extant in MT 1 Kings but appears
in MT 2 Chronicles.
Both vv. 46i and k form part of Misc. II, which for the greater
part presents a translation of what MT offers at 1 Kgs. 4: 20–5: 6.
V. 46i is among this material. Though v. 46k does not form part
of the Greek verses that correspond to the Hebrew of 1 Kings 5,
there are good reasons to consider this verse simultaneous with them.42
42 The phrase hn arxvn en + dat. of v. 46k also appears in v. 46b and v. 46f.Since v. 46b is likely to be a (partial) translation of 1 Kgs. 5: 1, hn arxvn en maycorrespond to Hebrew b lçwm. If v. 46k is regarded as the translation of a Hebrewtext identical with what we have at 2 Chron. 9: 26, there too the Greek phrasecan be found to represent b lçwm. The literalism involved in the Greek renderingsets the verses in Misc. II apart from the text of 3 Reg. 10: 26a, where b lçwm isrepresented by hn hgoumenow + gen. The remarkable variation in rendering mightlead us to think of two different translators. However, it is possible that consider-ations of context prompted a single translator/reviser to render the same phrasedifferently in 2: 46k and 10: 26a. In this connection, it is important to note thatthe phrase (Salvmvn) hn arxvn en . . . is a recurrent feature of Misc. II (vv. 46b,f, k) which functions as a structural marker (cf. Gooding, Relics, 13–17, 23–29).There is some reason to suppose that vv. 46b, f represent renderings of the OGthat were transposed or copied from the main text into Misc. II by a reviser (seepage 94). If that reviser was responsible for the Greek text of v. 46k, it is con-ceivable that he adjusted it to the diction of vv. 46b, f. In 3 Reg. 10: 26a, on theother hand, the context did not set limitations to his choice of equivalents. Therehe employed the rendering which he apparently preferred: hgoumenow.
The origins of v. 46k are difficult to retrieve. Gooding (Relics, 44) thinks that theverse is based on a Hebrew text which represents a text tradition of 1 Kgs. 5: 1somewhat different from the MT-version. This alternative text tradition would also
3 regum and chronicles vis-à-vis 1 kings 257
So we find that 3 Reg. 2: 46i (and possibly 46k) stem(s) from one
Greek translator and 10: 26–26a from another. Since especially v.
26 betrays influence from 3 Reg. 2: 46i, the material in ch. 10 must
be secondary to the latter passage. The reviser who transposed the
original translation of 1 Kgs. 5: 6 to Misc. II (as 3 Reg. 2: 46i) may
have also been responsible for presenting a rendering of 2 Chron.
9: 25 at 3 Reg. 10: 26.
The implication of this is that 3 Reg. 10: 26–26a was not part of
the primitive Greek translation. This view concurs well with the con-
clusion reached above that the literary unit represented by vv. 26–26a
is not original in ch. 10.43 Presumably the original text of 3 Reg.
10: 26 involved a translation of 1 Kgs. 10: 26 as presented by MT.
In a later stage a reviser replaced it by a direct translation of 2
Chron 9: 25–26, which for its part became the model for 2 Par. 9:
25–26.
This raises the question why 3 Reg. 10: 26–26a offers a translation
of the synoptic parallel in Chronicles rather than of the corresponding
passage in 1 Kings. It was argued earlier in this monograph that
some of the differences which 3 Reg. 10: 23–27 exhibits vis-à-vis 1
Kgs. 10: 23–27 reveal a tendency to highlight Solomon’s prestige
among his fellow kings.44 This is in particular true of 3 Reg. 10:
26–26a. Thus it is conceivable that a reviser replaced the original
Greek text of v. 26 by a translation of the slightly different Chronicles
parallel because he found that the latter was better in keeping with
his own interests.
be exhibited by 2 Chron. 9: 26. A similar view is held by Montgomery (“Supplement”,128).
A second possibility worth considering is that v. 46k matches a Hebrew versethat originally followed on 1 Kgs. 5: 6. This verse, rather than 1 Kgs. 5: 1, mayhave been duplicated in 2 Chron. 9: 26. When the original Greek translation ofch. 5: 1–6 was transposed to Misc. II, the text of v. k likewise moved to its pre-sent position. Afterwards, the Hebrew Vorlage of v. k was dropped in MT 1 Kgs.5. This proposal is capable of explaining the curious parallelism of 3 Reg. 2: 46i–kand 2 Chron. 9: 25–26, but it has the obvious disadvantage that the assumptionof a Hebrew counterpart of v. 46k once existing in ch. 5 is entirely speculative.
The third, perhaps most probable, option is that the reviser who was responsi-ble for the creation of Misc. II added for literary reasons a translation of 2 Chron.9: 26 as v. 46k.
43 Thus see pages 251–53.44 Thus see pages 109–112.
258 chapter sixteen
It is not to be ruled out that other concerns regarding Solomon’s
image also played a part. Gooding has made the suggestion that the
note at 1 Kgs. 10: 26, “and Solomon gathered together chariots and
horsemen”, might have been considered harmful to the image of
Solomon because it exposed Solomon as a violator of the rule of
Deut. 17: 16 prohibiting the king to acquire many horses.45 The
original Greek translation of 1 Kgs. 10: 26 would have been replaced
by a rendering of 2 Chron. 9: 25 because the latter passage did not
contain the potentially harmful clause. The omission of that clause
also allowed a sequence of thought between v. 25 and v. 26 that
suggests that Solomon’s 4,000 mares actually were the horses listed
among the tributary gifts mentioned in v. 25. But, as Gooding him-
self points out, if the Greek text really wished to excuse Solomon
for the fact that he possessed so many horses, it is strange to see
that the passage concerning the import of horses from Egypt in 1
Kgs. 10: 28–29 was maintained in 3 Reg. 10: 28–29. For that rea-
son, it is difficult to believe that whitewashing Solomon’s character
was the reviser’s main motive in changing the older Greek transla-
tion in 10: 26. All we can say is that it perhaps played some role.
Finally, we briefly consider two passages outside ch. 10, which by
virtue of certain affiliations with 3 Reg. 10: 26–26a may cast fur-
ther light on the background of our text.
2 Par. 7: 18b 2 Chron. 7: 18b
oÈk §jaryÆseta¤ soi Ú~l] tr¶EK;yIAaløâénØr ≤goÊmenow §n Israhl >laâer:c]yIB] lv e/m vyai+
3 Reg. 9: 5b 1 Kgs. 9: 5b
oÈk §jaryÆseta¤ soi Ú~l] tr¶EK;yIAaløâénØr ≤goÊmenow §n Israhl >laâer:c]yI aSàeKi l['me vyai+
For two reasons 3 Reg. 9: 5b calls for a comparison with 10: 26a.
In the first place, it is the only instance in 3 Regum outside 10: 26a
where the term hgoumenow appears. Second, this text bears the same
relationship to its counterparts in Kings, Chronicles and Paralipomena
as 3 Reg. 10: 26a. That is to say, rather than offering a translation
of the Hebrew counterpart of 1 Kings, like the surrounding verses
45 Gooding, “Text-sequence”, 454–55, 463.
3 regum and chronicles vis-à-vis 1 kings 259
do, it renders the Hebrew parallel text in 2 Chron. 7: 18b. Just like
3 Reg. 10: 26a, the Greek of 9: 5b is identical with the Greek of
the parallel text in 2 Paralipomena.
The points of contact between 3 Reg. 10: 26a and 9: 5b noted
here render it very likely that these passages derive from the same
hand. In order to understand the background of 3 Reg. 9: 5b, we
must consider its immediate literary context. In 3 Reg. 9: 3–9 YHWH
makes a promise to Solomon regarding his kingship in future. V. 5
says that if Solomon keeps YHWH’s commandments, then YHWH
shall establish the throne of Solomon’s kingdom for ever as “I spoke
to David your father, saying, there shall not fail thee a man to rule
in Israel.” MT has in v. 5b: “. . . there shall not fail thee a man on
the throne of Israel.” In light of 3 Reg. 10: 26a it becomes clear
that the ruler of Israel once promised to David must be identified
as Solomon himself. This connection between chs. 9: 5 and 10: 26a
may suggest that Solomon, in the eyes of the translator of these
verses, had kept YHWH’s commandments thus far.
The second passage that may be of interest as a background to
3 Reg. 10: 26–26a is 2 Reg. 8: 4a.
1 Par. 18: 4a 1 Chron. 18: 4a
ka‹ prokatelãbeto Dauid aÈt«n WNM,⁄mi dywID~: d°Køl]YIw"x¤lia ërmata bk,r<$ πl,a¢,ka‹ •ptå xiliãdaw ·ppvn μyvi+r:Pâ; μ~ypil;a} t[¶'b]viw“ka‹ e‡kosi xiliãdaw éndr«n pez«n yl-ig“r" vya¢i πl,a` , μyràIc][,w“
2 Reg. 8: 4a 2 Sam. 8: 4a
ka‹ prokatelãbeto Dauid t«n aÈtoË WNM,%mi dwI¤D: dKøŸl]YIw"x¤lia êrmata . . . . . .ka‹ •ptå xiliãdaw flpp°vn μyvi+r:P; t~/ameA[b'v]W πl,a¶ ,ka‹ e‡kosi xiliãdaw éndr«n pez«n yl-ig“r" vya¢i πl,a` , μyràIc][,w“
This text reads: “And David took his 1,000 chariots and 7,000 horse-
men and 20,000 footmen.” Here too, the Greek text of Regum devi-
ates from its Vorlage to offer a translation of the synoptic parallel in
Chronicles. The interesting thing about this passage is that just like
3 Reg. 10: 26 it is concerned with military force, in particular with
the number of chariots and horsemen. And just like the 3 Regum
passage, it follows the numbers of the Chronicles parallel over against
the numbers provided by its Vorlage.
With regard to 3 Reg. 10: 26, Gooding has proposed that its pri-
260 chapter sixteen
mary purpose was to alleviate the discrepancy between Kings and
Chronicles concerning the number of brood mares indicated.46 In
his view, a later editor of the Greek text took offence at the diver-
gent numbers in the Greek translation of 1 Kgs. 5: 6 and 2 Chron.
9: 25. He then solved the problem by banishing the original trans-
lator’s rendering of 1 Kgs. 5: 6 to Misc. II and placing a rendering
of 2 Chron. 9: 25 at 3 Reg. 10: 26. Apparently this later editor con-
sidered the numbers supplied by Chronicles more reliable than the
numbers provided by 3 Regum and accordingly corrected the Greek
text by borrowing the Chronicles version.
A similar concern for consistency between the Regum and Chronicles
texts regarding numbers reveals itself in 2 Reg. 8: 4a. This may lend
support to Gooding’s conviction that the issue of divergent numbers
between Chronicles and 3 Regum was in fact an important, if not
the conclusive, factor behind v. 26. It is not to be ruled out that
the correction of 2 Reg. 8: 4a and 3 Reg. 10: 26 towards the par-
allel text of Chronicles was carried out by the same editorial hand.
These passages, however, belong to two different translation units of
1–4 Regum.47 Though it is believed that these sections each render
the text of the OG, they are commonly attributed to different trans-
lators. Yet, it is not to be ruled out that a later editor worked dur-
ing a stage of textual transmission when the books of 1–4 Regum
had already begun to form one tradition complex.
To sum up, the principal motive why vv. 26–26a were revised in
accordance with the Chronicles account was to highlight Solomon’s
prestige and glory. An additional motive may have been the desire
to bring the divergent numbers of horses mentioned in Kings and
Chronicles into agreement with each other.
Conclusion
The previous discussion makes it clear that the unique agreements
between Chronicles and 3 Regum as regards the account of Solomon’s
reign are too disparate in character to permit a single, unambigu-
ous, explanation.
46 Gooding, “Text-sequence”, 458–62.47 See Thackeray, “Greek Translators”, 262–78.
3 regum and chronicles vis-à-vis 1 kings 261
In the question of the divergence in number between 1 Kgs. 5:
30 and 3 Reg. 5: 30, the agreement between the latter text and the
Chronicles parallel is best interpreted as an indication that 1 Kgs.
5: 30 suffered some corruption in MT.
In a few cases, it seems fairly certain that textual features shared
by 3 Regum and Chronicles reflect a text form different, and actu-
ally secondary, to that represented by MT. We may refer here to
the agreement between the parallels to MT 1 Kgs. 8: 16 in 3 Regum,
Chronicles and 4QKgs.
Direct influence from Chronicles on 3 Regum seems to underlie
the number 440 in 3 Reg. 6: 1. Presumably, the number is inferred
from a passage in Chronicles that has no counterpart in Samuel-
Kings.
The number of 20,000 bath in 3 Reg. 5: 25 may likewise have
been borrowed from Chronicles, but in this case there is a possibil-
ity that the Vorlage of 3 Reg. 5: 25 had the number in common with
the version of Kings used by the Chronicler.
If our analysis is correct, the Hebrew text translated by 3 Reg.
10: 26–26a was taken from 2 Chron. 9: 25–26. In other words, like
the number of 440 in 3 Reg. 6: 1 these verses presuppose the exis-
tence of some form of the book of Chronicles. Since 3 Reg. 10:
26–26a is believed to be the reviser’s work, it is tempting to assume
that other borrowings from Chronicles also stem from the reviser.
On balance, a small number of unique agreements between
Chronicles and 3 Regum may reflect agreements in their respective
source texts over against the present text of MT 1 Kings. However,
the existence of agreements between Chronicles and 1 Kings over
against 3 Regum renders it unlikely that Chronicles and 3 Regum
depended on a similar source text. In all likelihood, the mutual rela-
tionship between MT 1 Kings and the Hebrew text forms underly-
ing Chronicles and 3 Regum is one of partial affiliation.
262 chapter sixteen
SY
NO
PSIS
3 R
eg.-M
isc. I
I1 K
ings
3 R
eg.-main
text
1 K
ings
2 P
aralipom
ena
2 C
hron
icles
10:
23
ka‹ §
mega
lÊny
hld
gyw
10:
23
9:
22
ka‹ §
mega
lÊny
hld
gyw
9:
22
˚lmh
˚lmh
Salv
mvn
hmlv
Salv
mvn
hmlv
Íp¢r
pãn
taw
toÁw
bas
ile›
wyk
lm l
kmÍp
¢r p
ãnta
w to
Áw b
asil
e›w
yklm
lkm
t∞w
g∞w
≈rah
≈rah
ploÊ
tƒrv
[lka
‹ plo
Êtƒ
rv[l
ka‹ f
ronÆ
sei
>hmk
jlw
ka‹ s
of¤&
>hmk
jlw
10:
24
ka‹ p
ãnte
wlk
w 10:
24
9:
23
ka‹ p
ãnte
wlk
w 9:
23
basi
le›w
ofl b
asil
e›w
yklm
t∞w
g∞w
≈rah
t∞w
g∞w
≈rah
§zÆt
oun
tÚ p
rÒsv
pon
Salv
mvn
hmlv
ynp
Ata
μyvq
bm§z
Ætou
n tÚ
prÒ
svpo
n Sa
lvmv
nhm
lv y
npAt
a μy
vqbm
toË
ékoË
sai t
∞w f
ronÆ
sev
w aÈ
toË
wtmk
jAta
[mv
lék
oËsa
i t∞w
fro
nÆse
vw
aÈto
Ëwt
mkjA
ta [
mvl
∏w ¶
dvke
n kÊ
riow
μyhl
a ˆt
nArv
a∏w
¶dv
ken
ı ye
Úwμy
hlah
ˆtn
Arva
§n t
ª ka
rd¤&
aÈt
oË>wb
lb§n
kar
d¤&
aÈto
Ë>wb
lb10:
25
ka‹ a
Èto‹
¶fe
ron
μyab
m hm
hw 1
0:
25
9:
24
ka‹ a
Èto‹
¶fe
ron
μyay
bm μ
hw 9
: 24
ßkas
tow
tå d
«ra
aÈt
oËwt
jnm
vya
ßkas
tow
tå d
«ra
aÈt
oËwt
jnm
vya
πsk
ylk
skeÊ
h ér
gurç
πsk
ylk
skeÊ
h xr
usç
bhz
ylkw
ka‹ s
keÊh
xru
sçbh
z yl
kwka
‹ flma
tism
Òn s
takt
Ønqvn
w tw
mlcw
ka‹ fl
mati
smÒn
sta
ktØn
qvn
w tw
mlcw
ka‹ ≤
dÊsm
ata
μymc
bwka
‹ ≤dÊ
smat
aμy
mcbw
ka‹ ·
ppou
w ka
‹ ≤mi
Ònou
wμy
drpw
μys
wska
‹ ·pp
ouw
ka‹ ≤
miÒn
ouw
μydr
pw μ
ysws
tÚ k
atÉ §
niau
tÚn
§nia
ut“
>hnv
b hn
vArb
dtÚ
kat
É §ni
autÚ
n §n
iaut
Òn>hnv
b hn
vArb
d2:
46i
ka‹ ∑
san
t“ S
alv
mvn
hmlv
l yh
yw 5:
610:
26
ka‹ ∑
san
t“ S
alv
mvn
9:
25
ka‹ ∑
san
t“ S
alv
mvn
hmlv
l yh
yw 9:
25
tess
arãk
onta
xil
iãde
wπl
a μy
[bra
t°ss
arew
xil
iãde
wt°
ssar
ew x
iliã
dew
μypl
a t[
bra
tokã
dew
·ppo
iμy
sws
twra
yÆle
iai ·
ppoi
yÆle
iai ·
ppoi
μysw
s tw
yra
efiw
ërma
tawb
krml
efiw
ërma
taefi
w ër
mata
twbk
rmw
ka‹ d
≈de
ka x
iliã
dew
πla
rc[A
μynv
wka
‹ d≈
deka
xil
iãde
wka
‹ d≈
deka
xil
iãde
wπl
a rc
[Aμy
nvw
flpp°
vn
>μyv
rpflp
p°v
nflp
p°v
nμy
vrp
ka‹ ¶
yeto
aÈt
åwka
‹ ¶ye
to a
ÈtoÁ
wμ~j
ynyw
3 regum and chronicles vis-à-vis 1 kings 263
(con
t.)
3 R
eg.-M
isc. I
I1 K
ings
3 R
eg.-main
text
1 K
ings
2 P
aralipom
ena
2 C
hron
icles
§n t
a›w
pÒle
si t
«n
èrmã
tvn
§n p
Òles
in t
«n
èrmã
tvn
bkrh
yr[
bka
‹ met
å to
Ë ba
sil°
vw
ka‹ m
etå
toË
basi
l°v
w˚l
mhAμ
[w§n
Ier
ousa
lhm
§n I
erou
salh
m>μlv
wryb
hmlv
πsa
yw 10:
26
1:
14
ka‹ s
unÆg
agen
Sal
vmv
nhm
lv π
sayw
1:
14
μyvr
pw b
krër
mata
ka‹
flppe
›wμy
vrpw
bkr
wlAyhy
wka
‹ §g°
nont
o aÈ
t“wl
Ayhy
wtw
amA[
braw
πla
x¤li
a ka
‹ tet
rakÒ
sia
twam
A[br
aw π
labk
rër
mata
bkr
πla
rc[A
μynv
wka
‹ d≈
deka
xil
iãde
wπl
a rc
[Aμy
nvw
μyvr
pflp
p°v
nμy
vrp
μjnyw
ka‹ k
at°l
ipen
aÈt
åμj
nywbk
rh y
r[b
§n p
Òles
in t
«n
èrmã
tvn
bkrh
yr[
bka
‹w
ı la
Úw˚l
mhAμ
[wme
tå t
oË b
asil
°vw
˚lmh
Aμ[
>μlv
wryb
§n I
erou
salh
m>μlv
wryb
2:
46k
ka‹ ∑
n êr
xvn
10:
26a
ka‹ ∑
n ≤g
oÊme
now
9:
26
ka‹ ∑
n ≤g
oÊme
now
lvwm
yhy
w 9:
26
§n p
çsin
to›
w ba
sile
Ësin
pãnt
vn
t«n
basi
l°v
npã
ntv
n t«
n ba
sil°
vn
μykl
mhAl
kbép
Ú to
Ë po
tamo
Ëép
Ú to
Ë po
tamo
Ëép
Ú to
Ë po
tamo
Ërh
nhAˆm
ka‹ ß
vw
ka‹ ß
vw
ka‹ ß
vw
d[w
g∞w
éllo
fÊlv
ng∞
w él
lofÊ
lvn
g∞w
éllo
fÊlv
nμy
tvlp
≈ra
Aka
‹ ßv
w ır
¤vn
Afig
Êpto
uka
‹ ßv
w ır
¤vn
Afig
Êpto
uka
‹ ßv
w ır
¤vn
Afig
Êpto
uμy
rxm
lwbg
d[w
264 chapter sixteen
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
THE RELATION BETWEEN THE MISCELLANIES
3 REG. 2: 35A–K AND 46A–K AND THE MAIN TEXT
OF 3 REGUM
Introduction
The LXX-version of the Solomon Narrative contains two collections
of notes on Solomon’s deeds as a king which in the positions held
by them disrupt the logical and chronological order of the running
account. These texts, called Miscellanies, consist of near duplicates
of passages from the main text of 3 Regum, translations of passages
that have a counterpart in 1 Kings but not in the main text of 3
Regum, and elements that have neither a parallel in the main text
of 3 Regum nor in 1 Kings. In the preceding chapters of this study
it appeared that in those cases where the arrangement of sections
in 3 Regum differs from that in 1 Kings, the Miscellanies often can
be seen to contain materials parallelling that of the sections involved
(either in the Greek main text or in 1 Kings).
The questions aroused by the Miscellanies are so complex and
diverse that they have given rise to lengthy publications, including
a full-fledged monograph and a dissertation. It lies far beyond the
scope of the present work to deal with these questions in their entirety.
In previous chapters we discussed issues connected with the Miscellanies
as far as they were relevant for understanding the shape of the main
text in the LXX. Here we will dwell on the question of the rela-
tionship between the Miscellanies and the main text in a more gen-
eral way. The important aspects of this question are dealt with below.
The position of the Miscellanies
For the greater part the Miscellanies duplicate (or parallel) materials
which in the main text of 3 Regum appear between 5: 2 and 11: 27.
Several verses have no counterpart in the main text of 3 Regum
but correspond to materials appearing in MT 1 Kgs. 4, 5 and 9.
As the arrangement of materials in the main body of 3 Regum is
roughly chronological, the position of the Miscellanies is inappro-
priate: Not only do most items appear prematurely, but some of
them are also unwarranted because they occur in the ensuing narrative
in the appropriate narrative setting.1 In this respect, the Miscellanies
bear some resemblance to the other large-scale plus contained in 3
Regum, the so-called Alternative Story (AS) in 12: 24a–z. Like the
Miscellanies, the AS for one part consists of duplicates of materials
contained in the main text of 3 Regum and for another part of
materials which have no counterpart in the main text. The AS dis-
rupts the chronological order of the account in which it is embed-
ded by repeating (or rather retelling) considerable episodes of the
Jeroboam and Rehoboam narratives preceding it. The occurrence
of units like the Miscellanies and the AS, which do not tally with
the chronological framework of the surrounding account, is the more
peculiar since the main text of 3 Regum, compared with 1 Kings,
reveals a marked concern to present materials in a logical order.
From a thematic point of view the position of the Miscellanies
may look somewhat less unfortunate. Each Miscellany illuminates an
aspect of Solomon’s wisdom: Misc. I highlights the wisdom that is
manifest in Solomon’s building activities; Misc. II deals with the wis-
dom that is involved in Solomon’s administration of a vast domin-
ion.2 The Miscellanies surround the Shimei story through 3 Reg. 2:
35l–o, 36–46 that may be taken as an illustration of Solomon’s wis-
dom in the execution of justice (see esp. 2: 35o).3 As a consequence
3 Reg. 2 shows a succession of sections, each dealing with an aspect
of Solomon’s wisdom. Gooding argues that this pattern is continued
in the ensuing account: The story of Solomon’s visit in Gibeon, the
story of the two harlots, the accounts in chs. 4 and 5, in sum, all
units following ch. 2 contribute to the exposition of the theme of
Solomon’s wisdom.4 According to Gooding, this “is enough evidence
1 See Tov, “LXX Additions”, 104–105.2 See Gooding, Relics, 6–17. Tov objects to considering Solomon’s wisdom the
central theme of Misc. I and Misc. II, arguing that an opening statement devotedto Solomon’s wisdom does not make the whole Miscellany into “an anthology ofverses on Solomon’s wisdom” (“LXX Additions”, 107, 111). Yet the circumstancethat both Misc. I and Misc. II start off with statements on Solomon’s wisdom can-not be ignored.
3 See Gooding, “Problems of Text and Midrash”, 8; id., “Shimei Duplicate”,87–88; id., Relics, 97.
4 Gooding, “Problems of Text and Midrash”, 5–11.
266 chapter seventeen
to show that the duplicate translation in the Shimei story and the
two Miscellanies . . . have been integrated with the LXX’s scheme
of order in the main body of the text up to 9: 9.”5
Though there is much merit in this view, it does not sufficiently
explain why the Miscellanies have been positioned in ch. 2 and not
elsewhere in the account. A plausible answer to this question may
be found by considering the structure of the Solomon Narrative.
Though the account of Solomon’s kingship opens at 2: 12, the sec-
tion unto 2: 35 is exclusively concerned with recounting how Solomon
succeeded in eliminating his former opponents and consolidating his
power. It is not until 2: 46l that the actual account of Solomon’s
reign begins.6 To understand the position of the Miscellanies it is
important to note that they appear immediately before the regnal
account of Solomon’s deeds. It seems as if on this important cross-
roads in the story the Miscellanies mean to give a preliminary sketch
of Solomon’s reign, a brief outline of high points in two areas for
which Solomon’s kingship had created a distinction for itself.
Now it must be conceded that the Miscellanies enclose a narra-
tive unit that, by its nature, belongs to the introductory section in
2: 12–35. The Shimei story in 2: 35o–46 relates how Solomon man-
aged to fulfil David’s last will concerning Shimei. Like the preced-
ing narrative, it tells what Solomon did to settle affairs that arose
around his succession to the throne. Why, then, is Misc. I placed
immediately before the Shimei story rather than between the Shimei
story and Misc. II? The answer ties in with Gooding’s view that the
Shimei narrative in 2: 35l–o, 36–46 is meant to give an example of
Solomon’s wisdom.7 In order to present the Shimei story in this man-
ner, it is required that the wisdom theme is explicitly stated in
advance. This is what Misc. I does in 2: 35a: “And the Lord gave
understanding to Solomon and very much wisdom . . .” Only because
it is preceded by Misc. I can the Shimei story be recognized as an
illustration of Solomon’s wisdom.
There can be no doubt that from a viewpoint of tradition history
both Miscellanies are closely related. They resemble each other in
5 Gooding, “Problems of Text and Midrash”, 8.6 From the viewpoint of composition, 3 Reg. 2: 46l is not to be counted as the
conclusion of Misc. II, but as the beginning of the regnal account in the sequel of3 Regum. See pages 56–57.
7 See also Schenker, Septante, 44, 81–82.
miscellanies 3 reg. 2: 35a‒k and 46a‒k 267
regard to their opening statements and the nature of materials con-
tained in them. In one respect Misc. II even seems to continue Misc.
I: It carries further the list of cities of 2: 35i in 46d (cf. 1 Kgs. 9:
17–18).8 However, to conclude from this that both Miscellanies may
once have constituted a single unit, as Tov does, is questionable.9
The clear distinction in theme and the double occurrence of an
introduction to the wisdom theme, i.e., in 2: 35a and 46a, rather
indicate that the Miscellanies were designed as two separate units
from the outset. It is highly probable, then, that the positions they
hold in the surviving manuscripts of 3 Regum are original.
The origin of the Miscellanies
As remarked above, the Miscellanies as a whole are chronologically
inappropriate and duplicate several materials also appearing in the
main text of 3 Regum. The question is whether this situation rep-
resents a stage in the literary formation of Kings that is anterior to
or a development that is subsequent to what is represented by MT.
It is a well-known fact that the books included in the Deuteronomistic
History have seen a long and complex literary and redactional devel-
opment. Traces of this may be found in the occurrence of doublets
(e.g., 2 Kgs. 13: 12–13 // 14: 15–16; 17: 5–6 // 18: 9b–11) and
alternative, i.e., mutually exclusive, narrative portions (e.g., in MT
1 Sam. 16–18). In the opinion of a few scholars, the existence of
parallels between the Miscellanies and the main text of the LXX is
a phenomenon that likewise is to be connected with the literary and
redactional growth of the book of Kings.10 In MT the doublets would
subsequently have been suppressed, resulting in the elimination of
the Miscellanies as recognizable units.
The problem with this view is that the presence of the Miscellanies
cannot well be accounted for in terms of the formative history of
the book. On the one hand, they do not offer an alternative ver-
sion of a cohesive story, like 3 Reg. 12: 24a–z. In view of their lack
of internal narrative cohesion, it is unlikely that they ever formed
integral, independent documents which originally circulated outside
8 Tov, “LXX Additions”, 111–12.9 Tov, “LXX Additions”, 112.
10 Thus Schenker, Septante, 154; Trebolle Barrera, Salomón y Jeroboán, 278, 321.
268 chapter seventeen
the book of Kings. On the other hand, they cannot be adequately
explained as purely redactional creations either. The historical books
do not contain anything fully comparable to the Miscellanies. As it
seems, nowhere did redactional or editorial activity result in the for-
mation of extensive, chronologically premature summaries consisting
of materials that recur in the ensuing narrative in more appropriate
contexts. It may also be noted that Deuteronomistic language, which
is a characteristic element of many redactional passages in Kings, is
absent from the Miscellanies.
Since the Hebrew text of MT does not comprise literary phe-
nomena reminiscent of the Miscellanies it is tempting to assume that
their presence is specifically connected with the Greek translation.
Further indications for this may be found when the relationship
between the Miscellanies and the main text of 3 Regum is studied.
Connections between the contents of the Miscellanies and the main text
Several features of the Miscellanies point to a certain connection
with the particular arrangement of the main text of 3 Regum:
1. The Miscellanies share particular interests with the main text, like
a concern for the appropriate order of building activities (2: 35c,
f, i, k).11
2. The note in 2: 35h shows a striking agreement with a verse occur-
ring in the main text at 5: 30 that touches on the same subject.
This agreement does not occur between the counterparts of the
afore-mentioned notes in 1 Kgs. 9: 23 and 5: 30, respectively.12
3. A considerable part of the Miscellanies consists of notes that ren-
der passages extant in 1 Kings but absent from the main text of
3 Regum: 2: 35fb, g, h, i (last item); 46a, bb, d, gb, i. Significantly,
in MT the materials corresponding to these notes all appear in
the context of two sections only, namely in 1 Kgs. 4: 20–5: 8
and 9: 15–25. The LXX-parallels of these sections are not only
briefer, as they lack the materials that appear in the Miscellanies,
but they also show a different internal arrangement. Moreover,
11 Thus also Gooding, “Problems of Text and Midrash”, 7–8; id., Relics, 107–108;id., “Shimei Duplicate”, 84; id., “Pedantic Timetabling”, 155.
12 See pages 244–46.
miscellanies 3 reg. 2: 35a‒k and 46a‒k 269
the LXX-parallel of 1 Kgs. 9: 15–22 also holds a different posi-
tion within the Solomon Narrative, namely at 3 Reg. 10: 22a–c.
One gains the impression that with regard to the distribution of
materials a certain coordination has been pursued between the
Miscellanies and the main text.
These phenomena do not constitute sufficient evidence to establish
the nature of the relationship between the Miscellanies and the main
text with absolute certainty. It is not impossible that these collec-
tions represent secondary additions of materials that were found miss-
ing in the main text, duplicates from that main text, alternative
translations, editorial remarks etc. From a text-historical point of
view, however, the simplest and perhaps most appealing explanation
for their existence is that they were compiled by the same (editor-
ial) hand that was responsible for the shape of the main text.
If, for the moment, we accept the hypothesis that a single hand
was responsible for the coordination and correlation of materials
between the Miscellanies and the main text, the question emerges
in which textual stage these activities took place. Most scholars are
inclined to the view that the Miscellanies in their entirety were orig-
inally written in Hebrew, that is to say, they regard the two Miscellanies
as translations of two Hebrew texts ad locum.13 The evidence in sup-
port of this view is found in the appearance of Hebraistic render-
ings in passages that have no recognizable counterpart in the main
text of 3 Regum or in 1 Kings.14 The Miscellanies count only two
passages of this kind, namely v. 35k and v. 46aa.15 In both, Hebraistic
constructions have been detected.16 It is, however, not beyond rea-
sonable doubt that the constructions in question reflect a Hebrew
13 For instance Schenker, Septante, 5–9; Tov, “LXX Additions”.14 Tov, “LXX Additions”, 113–14. 15 3 Reg. 2: 46l is not ranged among Misc. II since from a literary perspective
this verse is best regarded as part of the subsequent unit.16 In v. 35k plhn meta to oikodomhsai auton = wtnb yrja qr (thus Polak,
“Septuaginta Account”, 144–45; Schenker, Septante, 7; Tov, “LXX Additions”, 114;cf. I. Soisalon-Soininen, Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta [AASF B/132], Helsinki 1965,115); in v. 46aa kai hn o basileuw Salvmvn fronimow sfodra kai sofow = yhywμkjw dam ˆwbn hmlç ˚lmh (thus Polak, “Septuaginta Account”, 146–47). In addi-tion, Tov points to Hebraisms in v. 35l and v. 46g (“LXX Additions”, 114). Theformer verse however does not belong to Misc. I in the strict sense. The latteroccurrence is irrelevant as 3 Reg. 2: 46ga has a (nearly exact) counterpart in 5: 4c.
270 chapter seventeen
Vorlage.17 A Greek editor may have experienced little difficulty in
bringing the language of his own additions into conformity with the
literal, Hebraistic translation-Greek of the surrounding verses.18 Other
verses of the Miscellanies do have a counterpart in the main text
but suggest a Hebrew basis that is different from that of the paral-
lel passage, like vv. 35e (partially; cf. 6: 36a), 35f (cf. 11: 27) and
46c (cf. 10: 22a).19 In these instances, however, we have no absolute
certainty that the Hebrew Vorlage stood ad locum.
If the Miscellanies go back to integral Hebrew units, the presumed
coordination and correlation with the main text must have occurred
on the level of the Hebrew. As was remarked above, however, a
Hebrew text like MT does not contain anything even vaguely rem-
iniscent of the Miscellanies. Moreover, it is significant that the Greek
of parts of vv. 35a–o and 46a–l is somewhat different from that of
corresponding notes in the main text. This would be an indication
that editorial activity in the Miscellanies and the main text took place
on the level of the Greek. Let us briefly consider the evidence.
3 Reg. 2: 35a, b offers a translation of 1 Kgs. 5: 9–10 somewhat
different from 3 Reg. 5: 9–10. The variation is confined to the ren-
dering of individual equivalents and a plus.20 There can be no doubt
that the translations are kindred since the Greek verses exhibit a few
distinct agreements over against MT.21 The detail differences, then,
either derive from free variation by one and the same translator or
from a slight modification of the Greek of one of both texts by a
later hand. In favour of the second possibility the circumstance speaks
that the translation in Misc. I is more literal than in the main text
17 It is even doubtful whether plhn meta to oikodomhsai auton of v. 35k repre-sents a genuine Hebraism, since the construction meta to + inf. is frequently usedin koinè Greek as a time indicator (cf. BD, § 402.3; see there for New Testamentoccurrences). As regards v. 46aa, Polak admits that there is no Hebrew text knownin which dam qualifies the first element of a pair of adjectives but not the secondone. The only parallel is in biblical Greek, namely in Sus. 31.
18 With respect to v. 46aa, the author may have taken 3 Reg. 3: 12 and 5: 9as his examples.
19 On 3 Reg. 2: 46c see Van Keulen, “Background of 3 Kgdms 2: 46c”.20 Between 3 Reg. 2: 35a, b and 5: 9 the following variations in equivalents
obtain: platow kardiaw—xuma kardiaw (bl bjr in 1 Kgs. 5: 9); arxaivn uivn—arxaivn anyrvpvn (μdq ynb in 1 Kgs. 5: 9).
21 fronimouw Aiguptou (= μyrxm ymkj) for μyrxm tmkj of MT; arxaivn as a trans-lation of μdq (cf. Krautwurst, Studien, 79, n. 1).
miscellanies 3 reg. 2: 35a‒k and 46a‒k 271
and, as a consequence, could well represent a later correction. This
correction must have been made on the basis of a non-MT type
text like that rendered by 3 Reg. 5: 9–10, because the text does not
suggest that an effort was made to conform it to MT.
3 Reg. 2: 46e–ga provides a translation of 1 Kgs. 5: 2–4 that is
very similar to 3 Reg. 5: 2–4. Differences involve minor variation
in individual equivalents, a plus and a minus.22 The deviations in
Misc. II are possibly editorial in nature. The intriguing differences
regarding the Greek between the parallels in 3 Reg. 2: 46i–k and
10: 26–26a were discussed in the previous chapter.
Peculiar differences in the transcription of Hebrew toponyms are
noticeable between 2: 35i, 46d and the (partial) counterparts of these
verses in 10: 22a. The following items require notice:
22 See pages 89–94.23 Thus Krautwurst, Studien, 225.
272 chapter seventeen
3 Reg. 2: 35i 3 Reg. 10: 22a
tØn Magdv (also Ant.; LXX B: Magav) tØn Magdan (LXX B: Madian; Ant.: Mageddv)tØn Baiyvrvn tØn §pãnv tØn Baiyvrvn tØn énvt°rv
3 Reg. 2: 46d
tØn Yermai §n tª §rÆmƒ tØn Ieyermay
Variation in the transcription of the same Hebrew toponym is a
phenomenon that occasionally occurs in the main text when the
name in question is infrequent.23 Thus in LXX B we find as tran-
scriptions of wdgm (Megiddo) Mekedv in 3 Reg. 4: 12 and Madian in
10: 22a, while 2: 35i has Magdv. The phenomenon may be due to
the inconsistency of one translator, to a shift of translators, or to the
carelessness of scribes. The text-historical assessment of individual
cases is not easy. In general it might be said that the more sizable
the differences in transcription, the less likely they result from the
inconsistency of one translator.
Concerning the transcriptions offered for Megiddo, the differences
are modest and do not necessarily suggest different literary prove-
nance. It is important to note that two other items of the list of
cities in 2: 35i and 10: 22a, Gezer and Hazor, have been transcribed
identically. Particularly significant is the transcription of rxj (cf.
1 Kgs. 9: 15) as Assour; it is found nowhere in the LXX but in
2: 35i and 10: 22a.24 This may indicate that both verses originally
go back to one translator.
In theory, the peculiar difference in the rendering of the element
ˆwyl[h in the toponym ˆwyl[h ˆwrwj tyb (Upper Beth-Horon; cf. 1 Kgs.
9: 17, Lower Beth-Horon) could be due to the translator’s inconsis-
tency. It is conceivable that the translator of 3 Reg.* 10: 22a did
not realize that he had translated the element ˆwyl[h in 2: 35i
differently. Yet this explanation does not really convince. If the trans-
lator was consistent in his peculiar transcription of Hazor, why did
he not observe the same consistency in his rendering of Upper Beth-
Horon? In this instance the variation is better explained by assum-
ing different hands than a single inconsistent translator.
The same conclusion may hold for the different transcriptions of
rmdt(Ata) (Tadmor; cf. 1 Kgs. 9: 18 Qere). The sizable difference
between Yermai and Ieyermay makes it difficult to believe that these
forms derive from the same translator. Schenker argued that the lat-
ter form indicates Qirjath-Jearim rather than Tadmor.25 In that
instance the item would be irrelevant for establishing the relation-
ship between the Greek of the Miscellanies and the main text.
All things considered, against the background of the obvious rela-
tionship between the Greek of the two lists of toponyms in 2: 35i
and 10: 22a the sizable differences between some transcriptions seem
to derive from secondary editing in one of both texts.
In the case of the lists of Solomon’s ministers in 2: 46h and 4:
1–6, the Vorlagen were obviously very different.26 Even so, where both
lists agree, the differences in transcription and translation are so con-
siderable, that the passages must derive from different hands.
What text-historical conclusions can be drawn from these differences
between the Greek of the Miscellanies and the main text? In the
opinion of Tov, the divergent translation equivalents do not imply
that different persons rendered the Miscellanies and the main text
of 3 Regum.27 This view is defendable as long as the focus is directed
24 See Krautwurst, Studien, 153, n. 2.25 See pages 199–200, n. 10.26 For discussions of the differences in the Greek text see Gooding, Relics, 77–92;
Krautwurst, Studien, 219–69; M. Rehm, “Die Beamtenliste der Septuaginta in 1 Kön 2,46h”, in J. Schreiner (ed.), Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch. Beiträge zur Septuaginta.Festschrift für Joseph Ziegler (Forschung zur Bibel 1), Würzburg 1972.
27 Tov, “LXX Additions”, 113.
miscellanies 3 reg. 2: 35a‒k and 46a‒k 273
to the genuine equivalents in vv. 35a, b and 46e, f, although the
occurrence of free variation in vv. 35a and 46e is difficult to account
for. However, when the transcription variants between vv. 35i, 46d,
h and the corresponding verses in the main text are taken into con-
sideration, the picture changes. The differences are so considerable
that it is hard to resist the conclusion that certain parts of the
Miscellanies stem from a Greek hand different from the translator
of the main text.28 This hand may be held responsible for a few
alternative translations as well as for the slight editing of passages
duplicated from the main text.
If elements of the Miscellanies indeed represent variant translations,
the assumption that the Miscellanies in their entirety were an inte-
gral part of the Hebrew Vorlage of 3 Regum is difficult to defend.
The only viable option is to assume that the part of the gg-section
containing the Miscellanies was translated by another hand than the
part containing chs. 4–5 and 9–10. The translator of the latter chap-
ters, then, would have drawn on the Greek of the Miscellanies to
render material parallels in chs. 4–5 and 9. In that instance, the
differences in Greek between the counterparts must be assigned to
adaptation of the duplicated materials to the Hebrew Vorlage of chs.
4–5 and 9–10.
The Greek of the main text, however, does not supply evidence
of a change in style and translation technique taking place some-
where between chs. 2 and 4. Therefore the view that the Miscellanies
in their entirety were already part of the Hebrew Vorlage is best aban-
doned. In my opinion, three possible explanations of the differences
between the Greek of the main text and the Miscellanies remain:
1. The (Greek) text of the Miscellanies already existed when the
translator/reviser of the main text set to work. He incorporated
both units into the Solomon Narrative and exploited the Greek
of several elements of the Miscellanies for his translation of dupli-
cate passages in the main text. The form in which the Miscellanies
circulated before they were incorporated in the main text and
the original language of these independent units remains obscure.
28 Thus also Gooding, Relics, 111; cf. Montgomery, “Supplement”, 129: “Thetranslations [of the Miscellanies] are from different hands than those in the subse-quent Old Greek.”
274 chapter seventeen
2. Only part of the Miscellanies go back to a Hebrew source text
ad locum. Items showing a Greek that differs from that of dupli-
cates in the main text either derive from an interpolator or have
undergone secondary editing.
3. The Miscellanies were compiled by a reviser of the Greek (main)
text. He transposed several verses of the main text to the Mis-
cellanies, duplicated other ones virtually unaltered, but also included
variant translations, probably by his own hand, and translations
of texts representing variants of Hebrew verses translated in the
main text. This is the view taken by Gooding.
The first explanation faces the difficulty that, if the Miscellanies once
circulated independently of the main text, they probably constituted
a single unit. As it was argued above, however, structure and posi-
tion of the Miscellanies suggest that they have been created as two
units from the outset. The second possibility is merely theoretical,
as there are no indications that the Miscellanies evolved in two stages
of literary growth. The third possibility is the only one that is capa-
ble of explaining both the presumed coordination of materials and
the difference in Greek between the main text and the Miscellanies.
It stands to reason, then, to consider the third explanation to be the
most likely of the three. In sum, the Miscellanies are the creation
of the reviser of the Greek main text.
miscellanies 3 reg. 2: 35a‒k and 46a‒k 275
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
THE STRUCTURE OF THE SOLOMON NARRATIVE
IN MT AND THE LXX
The order in which disparate materials are presented within a lit-
erary unit can provide a clue of how the content of that unit is
meant to be understood. This may in particular be true of the
Solomon Narrative. The notable sequence differences between the
versions of MT and the LXX show that the editor responsible for
them attached great interest to the order in which the materials
belonging to the narrative were presented. Therefore comparative
inquiry into the organization of the narrative in MT and the LXX
may be an important aid in identifying the views and interests pecu-
liar to each version. In order to get a clear picture of the structure
of the LXX-version we will first describe and interpret the structure
of MT.
Investigations into the structure of the Solomon Narrative of MT
which have been carried out up to now show that four issues in
particular determine the outcome of the structural analysis:
1. The extent of the Solomon Narrative and the extent of the account of Solomon’s
reign. Among scholars, there is a large amount of controversy
about the macro-structural divisions of the Solomon material in
Kings.1 This controversy focuses on two questions: 1. Can the
outer parts of the Solomon Narrative be found to frame a clearly
recognizable smaller unit dealing with Solomon’s regnal deeds; 2.
Where are the beginning and ending of the Solomon Narrative
1 Thus compare the views of M. Brettler (“The Structure of 1 Kings 1–11”,JSOT 49 [1991], 87–97); A. Frisch (“Structure and Significance: The Narrative ofSolomon’s Reign (1 Kings 1–12.24)”, JSOT 51 [1991], 3–14); K.I. Parker (“Repetitionas a Structuring Device in 1 Kings 1–11”, JSOT 42 [1988], 19–27); id., “The Limitsto Solomon’s Reign: A Response to Amos Frisch”, JSOT 51 [1991], 15–21); Porten(“Structure and Theme”); Talshir (“Reign of Solomon”, 234); J.T. Walsh (1 Kings[Berit Olam; Studies in Hebrew Narrative Art & Poetry], Collegeville 1996, 150–56);D.S. Williams (“Once Again: The Structure of the Narrative of Solomon’s Reign”,JSOT 86 [1999], 49–66).
and, possibly, the account that is framed by it, to be located?
With regard to these issues, I take the view that a distinction
should be made between the collection of Solomon materials
throughout 1 Kgs. 1: 1–11: 43 and the Solomon Narrative proper,
i.e., the narrative of Solomon’s kingship throughout 2: 12–11: 43.
The latter in turn is to be distinguished from the account of
Solomon’s reign. The beginning of the account of Solomon’s king-
ship is marked by the note on Solomon’s accession to the throne
as an independent ruler in 1 Kgs. 2: 12, whereas its natural con-
clusion lies with the note on Solomon’s death at 1 Kgs. 11: 43.2
The account of Solomon’s regnal deeds does not start off until
3: 1 (or 2: 46b). As most critics have noted, 2: 12–46 is entirely
devoted to the justification and consolidation of Solomon’s king-
ship.3 Ch. 11 can be considered the other end of the framework
around the central account of Solomon’s reign through chs. 3–10.4
Just as ch. 2 depicts the consolidation of Solomon’s power, ch. 11
recounts the decline of that power.
2. The delineation of narrative sections on the basis of theme. Smaller nar-
rative units, “paragraphs”, can usually be defined with relative
ease on the basis of genre (e.g., prophecy, list, narration, prayer)
and/or theme. Often there are several possible ways of grouping
these small units into larger sections. Examination of the struc-
tural analyses hitherto conducted shows that views on the struc-
ture of the Solomon Narrative as a whole tend to influence the
delineation of these sections. In some analyses, sections seem to
be defined rather on the basis of arguments relating to overall
structure than on the basis of internal thematic coherence.5
3. The interpretation of parallels and repetitions in terms of literary structure.
2 Note that the account of Solomon’s kingship is marked off from 1 Kgs. 1–2:11 not only by the appearance of the note in 2: 12 but also by the formulaic noteby which it is preceded, i.e., the note on the end of David’s reign in 2: 10–11.Thus the account of Solomon’s kingship appears to be framed by the same typeof formulaic notes that occur in the remainder of 1–2 Kings in the context of theintroductory and concluding regnal formulae for the kings of Israel and Judah.
3 E.g., Gray (Kings, 111); Long (1 Kings, 57–58); Porten (“Structure and Theme”,124); J.T. Walsh (1 Kings, 151); Würthwein (Erste Buch der Könige, 28).
4 Cf. Talshir, “Reign of Solomon”, 234.5 E.g., Porten (“Structure and Theme”, 125) discerns a large section “Building”
in 1 Kgs. 4: 20–9: 23. However, the first part of this section, “Welfare of king andpeople” (4: 20–5: 8), does not show a direct connection with the theme “building”.
solomon’s narrative in mt and the lxx 277
The Solomon Narrative exhibits several internal parallels and rep-
etitions which may function as formal markers. One parallel, sug-
gested by the narrative itself, involves the pair of dream epiphanies
in 1 Kgs. 3: 5–15 and 9: 1–9 (cf. 1 Kgs. 11: 9).6 Another par-
allel is made up by the similar sequence of topics in 1 Kgs. 3:
1–4 and 9: 24–25. Especially this parallel may be structurally
significant Since its constituent parts are only loosely connected
with the immediate context, their present position may be due to
considerations of general structure.7 In practice it does not prove
possible to credit all parallels (like the two mentioned above) as
formal markers of equal importance since they sometimes give
rise to different, even mutually exclusive, divisions of the narrative.8
4. The division of the narrative into portions positive to Solomon and critical
to Solomon. Most critics have observed that the unambiguously neg-
ative aspects of Solomon’s reign, i.e., his sin, his punishment and
his adversaries, are dealt with towards the end of the Solomon
Narrative.9 An important indication for the intentional nature of
this arrangement is offered by the occurrence of two contrasting
theological appraisals of Solomon’s kingship in 1 Kgs. 3: 3 and
11: 6, because each of them obviously relates to a different phase
of Solomon’s lifetime (cf. 1 Kgs. 11: 4). The first explicit critique
of Solomon does not appear until 1 Kgs. 11: 1, but several crit-
ics have argued that a turning point in Solomon’s reign is to be
located earlier in the account. Their argument is based not only
6 Noth (Deuteronomistic History, 92, 97), Parker (“Repetition as a Structuring Device”,22, 27) and Williams (“Structure of the Narrative of Solomon’s Reign”, 62) stressthe significance of the dream parallel within the structure of the account.
7 The importance of this feature has been recognized by Brettler (“Structure of1 Kings 1–11”, 88–92), Glatt-Gilad (“Deuteronomistic Critique”, 701), Porten(“Structure and Theme”, 98), and Talshir (“Reign of Solomon”, 236). A.F. Campbell(Of Prophets and Kings. A Ninth-Century Document (1 Samuel 1–2 Kings 10) [CBQ.MS17], Washington D.C. 1986, 85–87, 102) and O’Brien (Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis,143), on the other hand, perceive a chiastic structure between 1 Kgs. 3: 1 (v. 1a:Pharaoh’s daughter; v. 1b: Solomon’s building programme) and 9: 15–24 (vv. 15–23:Solomon’s building programme; v. 24: Pharaoh’s daughter). However, the uneven-ness in size and coverage of the passages at 1 Kgs. 3: 1b and 9: 15–23 renders itless likely that these texts were meant to be complementary.
8 See for instance the extensive debate on the structure of the Solomon Narrativein the studies of Frisch, Parker and Williams (cf. footnote 1 of this chapter).
9 A different opinion is expressed by M.A. Sweeney (“The Critique of Solomonin the Josianic Edition of the Deuteronomistic History”, JBL 114 [1995], 607–22,esp. 613–17), who argues that the critique of Solomon permeates the whole nar-rative and is not confined to the final portion of it.
278 chapter eighteen
on considerations of structure, but in particular on the “Law of
the King” of Deut. 17: 14–20, which denounces several of
Solomon’s activities listed in 1 Kgs. 9–11. By taking many for-
eign wives (1 Kgs. 11: 1–3), Solomon disregards the prescription
of Deut. 17: 17a; his amassing of silver and/or gold (1 Kgs. 9:
28; 10: 10, 14–27 passim) violates the commandment of Deut.
17: 17b; and his horse-trade with Egypt (1 Kgs. 10: 28–29) is
reprehensible in the light of Deut. 17: 16. Therefore M. Brettler
identifies 1 Kgs. 9: 26 as the exact starting point of the division
that is negative to Solomon.10 Others situate the beginning of the
dark episode still earlier in the narrative. Noth points to 1 Kgs.
9: 1–9, arguing that YHWH’s warning against future apostasy
(vv. 6–9) anticipates Solomon’s own failure to remain faithful to
his god.11 According to J. Walsh, the report of the land sale in
1 Kgs. 9: 10–14 reveals a worrying disregard for YHWH’s gift
of the land on Solomon’s part.12 It stands to reason that the
answer to the question where the account of the unfavourable
period in Solomon’s life begins depends on the interpretation of
the materials of the Solomon Narrative. Sweeney has asserted
that no such point can be located since implicit critique of Solomon
is noticeable throughout the entire narrative, as is indicated by
the scattered notes relating to his marriage with Pharaoh’s daugh-
ter (1 Kgs. 3: 1; 7: 8; 9: 16, 24; 11: 1) and in the paragraphs
dealing with his mistreatment of the northern tribes (1 Kgs. 4:
7–19; 5: 27–32; 9: 10–14: 11: 28; 12: 4).13 Yet a certain peri-
odization in the presentation of Solomon’s reign can hardly be
denied in light of the double appraisals in 1 Kgs. 3: 3 and 11:
6. The theological character of these verdicts, as well as the reli-
giously motivated character of Solomon’s punishment (1 Kgs. 11:
11, 33) indicate that the differentiation of stages in Solomon’s life
relates to his religious policy and his attitude towards YHWH,
not to his foreign or internal politics.14 The question arising next
10 Brettler, “Structure of 1 Kings 1–11”, 95.11 Noth, Deuteronomistic History, 92, 97. Also Frisch, “Structure and Significance”,
6; Parker, “Repetition as a Structuring Device in 1 Kings 1–11”, 22, 27.12 Walsh, 1 Kings, 120–22.13 Sweeney, “Critique of Solomon”, 613–15.14 However, it should be conceded that the fact that the daughter of Pharaoh is
included in the list of women coming from people with whom Israelites were notallowed to marry (1 Kgs. 11: 1, 2) means that Solomon’s marriage to her, reported
solomon’s narrative in mt and the lxx 279
is whether the “Law of the King”, and indeed the entire Deute-
ronomic Law, was meant to be taken as a criterion to judge
Solomon’s actions. Since the book of Kings forms part of the
Deuteronomistic History which as a whole is dominated by the
Deuteronomic Law, one is entitled to evaluate the aforementioned
actions in light of Deut. 17: 14–20. However, whereas in 1 Kgs.
11: 2 Solomon is expressly condemned in light of the Deuteronomic
Law (by way of a quotation of Deut. 7: 3–4), no such condem-
nation is found in connection with Solomon’s other deeds that
violate the Deuteronomic Law. It is telling that in 1 Kgs. 11:
9–13 Solomon’s punishment is exclusively motivated with a refer-
ence to the apostasy which resulted from Solomon’s marriage to
foreign women. The text preceding ch. 11 does not provide any
hint that Solomon’s riches and trade were reprehensible in YHWH’s
eyes.15 On the contrary, 1 Kgs. 3: 13 indicates that Solomon’s
wealth is to be regarded as a blessing that fulfils YHWH’s promise.
The account of chs. 9 and 10 is consonant with this positive view
on Solomon’s affluence. In particular the story of the Queen of
Sheba (1 Kgs. 10: 1–13) is instructive since it unequivocally glorifiesSolomon’s wealth and wisdom. In sum, the narrative itself sug-
gests no earlier turning point in the evaluation of Solomon than
1 Kgs. 11. Only within the scope of the Deuteronomistic History
does the amassing of gold and horses, which is related in 1 Kgs.
9–10, come under criticism, but this perspective is secondary to
the context of the Solomon Narrative in Kings.
This overview of issues pertaining to the structure of the Solomon
Narrative may help us understand the nature and import of the
in 1 Kgs. 3: 1, is condemned in retrospect. The circumstance that the objection-able multiplication of wives is not limited to Solomon’s old age but has started ear-lier, as is indicated by the internal sequence of 1 Kgs. 11: 1–4, may also seem toresist a clear-cut periodization. On the other hand, the decisive turning point forthe worse does not come until Solomon’s old age, when he is reported to succumbto the sin of idolatry (1 Kgs. 11: 4–8). In this connection, it is important to notethat the rationale behind the prohibition quoted in v. 2 is to prevent foreignersfrom seducing Israelites to worship different gods than YHWH (cf. Deut. 7: 3, 4).It is not so much Solomon’s preference for foreign women, then, that is objec-tionable, but the fact that he is oblivious to the risk they mean for the proper wor-ship of YHWH.
15 Cogan, 1 Kings, 297; Knoppers, Two Nations, I, 124, 135.
280 chapter eighteen
differences in structure we can notice between the versions of MT
and the LXX.
The Structure of the Solomon Narrative in MT
The arrangement of the account of Solomon’s kingship in 1 Kings
seems to have been determined by three organizational principles:
chronology, theme and parallelism. The following scheme proposes
a division of the Solomon Narrative taking into account these factors:
1. Consolidation of Solomon’s kingship (2: 12–46).a. Solomon’s accession as sole ruler; his kingship established (2: 12).b. Elimination of Adonijah (2: 13–25) and his accomplices Abiathar
(2: 26–27) and Joab (2: 28–34).c. Benaiah and Zadok appointed (2: 35).d. Elimination of Shimei (2: 36–46a).e. Solomon’s kingship established (2: 46b).
2. Before the building of the temple (3: 1–4).a. Pharaoh’s daughter brought to the City of David (3: 1).b. Sacrifices at high places (3: 2–4).
3. Solomon’s wisdom, riches and prestige (3: 5–5: 14).a. First revelation at Gibeon; divine promise of wisdom, riches and
prestige (3: 5–15).b. Wisdom in execution of justice: women’s trial (3: 16–28).c. Riches and prestige: Solomon’s officials (4: 1–6); his twelve officers
supplying provisions for his household and horses (4: 7–5: 8); Judah and Israel’s prosperity (4: 20); Solomon’s dominion (5: 1).
d. Wisdom and prestige: Solomon’s reputation as a sage (5: 9–14).
4. Preparations for the building of the temple (5: 15–32).a. Alliance between Hiram and Solomon; provision of building materials
(5: 15–26).b. Labour: levy (5: 27–28); burden-bearers and hewers (5: 29); officers
(5: 30); the hewing and preparing of stones and timber (5: 31–32).
5. Building and dedication of the temple (6: 1–9: 9).a. Building of the temple (6: 1–38).b. Building of the palace (7: 1–12).c. Furnishings and utensils of the temple (7: 13–47).d. Transportation of ark and tent (8: 1–9); YHWH’s taking residence
(8: 10–11); comment and declaration (8: 12–13).e. Blessing (8: 14–21).f. Prayer (8: 22–53).
solomon’s narrative in mt and the lxx 281
g. Blessing (8: 54–61).h. Sacrifices and consecration (8: 62–64); celebration (8: 65–66).i. Second revelation at Gibeon; divine promise concerning kingship and
temple (9: 1–9).
4’. Appendices to the preparations for the building of the temple (9: 10–23).a. Additional transactions between Hiram and Solomon (9: 10–14).b. Labour: levy for Solomon’s building projects (9: 15–22); his officers
(9: 23).
2’. After the building of the temple and the palace (9: 24–25).a. Removal of Pharaoh’s daughter to her palace (9: 24).b. Solomon’s sacrifices in the temple (9: 25).
3’. Solomon’s wisdom, riches and prestige (9: 26–10: 29).a. Riches: naval expedition in cooperation with Hiram (9: 26–28).b. Wisdom, prestige and riches: visit of the Queen of Sheba (10: 1–13).c. Riches and prestige: gold and luxuries (10: 14–22); presents (10:
23–27); horse-trade (10: 28–29).
6. (1’.) Decline of Solomon’s kingship (11: 1–43).a. Solomon led astray by alien women (11: 1–8).b. YHWH’s wrath: punishment announced (11: 9–13).c. Punishment: rise of adversaries Hadad (11: 14–22), Rezon (11: 23–25)
and Jeroboam (11: 26–40).d. Conclusion: source citation (11: 41); length of Solomon’s reign (11: 42);
his death, burial and succession (11: 43).
The overall arrangement of the narrative is clearly chronological.
The narrative starts off by relating Solomon’s efforts to consolidate
his kingship, concludes by reporting the decline of Solomon’s power
in his old age, and places in between an account of Solomon’s major
achievement, the building and dedication of the temple. The latter
event is carefully dated and serves as a referential point to deter-
mine the relative chronology of other events and, as a consequence,
their place within the account. Thus the account divides into five
chronologically arranged major episodes:
1. Solomon’s early kingship (ch. 2).
2. Events preceding the building of the temple and the palace (chs.
3–5).
3. The building and dedication of the temple and the palace (chs.
6: 1–9: 9).
4. Events following the completion of the temple (chs. 9: 10–10: 29).
5. Solomon’s old age (ch. 11).
282 chapter eighteen
However, chronological order has not consistently been pursued
beyond these five episodes. On the lower level of individual units,
thematic and structural concerns have equally determined the arrange-
ment of materials. The following list gives an overview of the rela-
tive chronological position of every individual paragraph in the
narrative by taking into account explicit time-indicators (italicized)
and by making inferences from the context.
2: 12 Start of Solomon’s reign as sole ruler.2: 13–38 No time indicated; probably shortly 1st year (?)
afterwards.2: 39–46 At the end of three years (2: 39) following from 3rd year
Solomon’s warning of Shimei (2: 36–37). onward3: 1 Before the completion of palace, temple before 20th
and city wall. year3: 2 Before the building of the temple. before 4th year3: 3–15 Same period. before 4th year3: 16–28 After divine revelation: Thereupon (3: 16). before 4th
year?4: 1–5: 8 No time indicated; refers to conditions
prevailing during Solomon’s entire reign (5: 1; 5: 5).
5: 9–14 No time indicated; 5: 10, 11, 14 suggest advanced stage of Solomon’s reign; 5: 12 pertains to all of Solomon’s lifetime.
5: 15–32 Returns to moment shortly after Solomon’s 1st(?)–4th yearaccession (5: 15); covers period until building of the temple proper.
6: 1–38 Continuation: start of temple construction: 4th–11th yearIn the 480th year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt, in the 4th year of Solomon’s reign, in the month of Ziv, the 2nd month (6: 1); completion: In the 11th year, the month of Bul, the 8th month (6: 38); duration: 7 years (6: 38b).
7: 1–12 After the building of the temple (cf. 9: 10); 11th–24th yearduration of construction of the palace:13 years (7: 1).
7: 13–51 7: 13 returns to indefinite point in time during the building of the temple and/or the palace; narrated time (duration) unspecified but not exceeding 20 years.
8: 1–66* After completion of the temple furnishings: 11th–24th year Thereupon (8: 1). time: in the month of Etanim, the 7th month (8: 2).
9: 1–9 After completion of temple and palace in 24th year (9: 1); after Solomon’s prayer (9: 3). or later
solomon’s narrative in mt and the lxx 283
9: 10–14 After completion of temple and palace: At in 24th yearthe end of 20 years during which Solomon built and laterthe two houses . . . (9: 10).
9: 15–23 Retrospective overview pertaining to all of Solomon’s reign.
9: 24a After completion of the palace of Pharaoh’s in 24th year ordaughter (cf. 7: 8). later
9: 24b After Pharaoh’s daughter taking residence in 24th year or in her palace: Thereupon. later
9: 25 After dedication of the temple. after 11th–24th year
9: 26–28 No time indicated; after first contacts after 1st? yearbetween Solomon and Hiram.
10: 1–13 After the building of the temple: Solomon’s after 11th yearfame regarding YHWH’s name (10: 1).
10: 14–29 No time indicated but after completion of after 24th yearpalace (10: 17–21).
11: 1–3 No time indicated; advanced stage of Solomon’s reign.
11: 4–13 Solomon’s old age. ?11: 14 No time indicated; probably to be connected
with preceding announcement of punishment (11: 9–13)*.
11: 15–22 Flashback, covering a period extending from an indefinite point of time during David’s reign until an indefinite point of time during Solomon’s reign.
11: 23a After announcement of punishment (11: 9–13).11: 23b–24 Flashback, covering a period extending from
an indefinite moment during David’s reign until an indefinite point of time during Solomon’s reign.
11: 25 From the beginning of Hadad and Rezon’s opposition to Solomon until Solomon’s demise.
11: 26–27a After announcement of punishment (11: 9–13).
11: 27b–28 Flashback, covering some span of time during Solomon’s reign.
11: 29–39 Continuation flashback: About that time(11: 29).
11: 40 After the uprising of Jeroboam (11: 26).11: 41–42 All of Solomon’s reign: 40 years (11: 42).11: 43 Solomon dies. 40th year
* internal chronology not specified
284 chapter eighteen
In some instances, the nature of the source material itself may suggest
the application of other principles than chronology in the organization
of the narrative. We are dealing here with paragraphs of a descriptive
nature which are hard to pin down chronologically to a specific
period, like 1 Kgs. 4: 1–5: 14; 9: 15–23. These do not quite fit the
chronological frame in the sense that they relate to a period that has
already, or not yet, been dealt with in the narrative. Theme rather
than chronology seems to have dictated the position of these para-
graphs. Thus the affairs described in 1 Kgs. 4: 1–5: 8 do not relate
especially or exclusively to the period preceding the building of the
temple. At its present position this paragraph, in combining materi-
als that bear on Solomon’s affluence and wisdom, rather serves to
indicate the fulfilment of YHWH’s promise given in 1 Kgs. 3: 11–14.
Not only descriptive but also narrative materials have been orga-
nized according to theme rather than chronology. One example may
suffice here. The text of 1 Kgs. 2: 39 indicates Solomon’s third year
as a terminus post quem for the elimination of Shimei. This is well
beyond the date of first contacts between Hiram and Solomon that
we may reasonably assume on the basis of 1 Kgs. 5: 15. Yet the
elimination of Shimei is not related after 5: 15 but in the context
of the paragraph dealing with the consolidation of Solomon’s power
in ch. 2. A consequence of the application of other structuring prin-
ciples than chronology alone is that some paragraphs appear to be
analeptic or proleptic from a strictly chronological point of view.
A special concern for structure reveals itself in a parallel arrange-
ment of similar paragraphs before and after the central account of
the temple building. That these paragraphs combine into higher
structural units is only apparent in light of a parallel sequence of
paragraphs elsewhere in the Solomon Narrative. This is the case
with the paragraphs in 1 Kgs. 9: 10–14 and 15–23. There are no
striking agreements in theme between these passages to suggest that
they constitute a literary unit. Only the parallel sequence of mate-
rials in 1 Kgs. 5: 15–26 and 5: 27–32 suggests that the paragraphs
in ch. 9 combine into a higher unit. Thus the unity of 1 Kgs. 9:
10–14 and 9: 15–22 is defined on the basis of the apparent the-
matic unity of 5: 15–32. In the case of the parallel between 1 Kgs.
3: 1–4 and 9: 24–25, neither text can be said to make up a the-
matic unit. These passages are recognized as counterparts on the
basis of a parallel sequence of related topics (residence of Pharaoh’s
daughter in 1 Kgs. 3: 1 and 9: 24; place of sacrifice in 1 Kgs. 3:
solomon’s narrative in mt and the lxx 285
2–4 and 9: 25), but there is no predominant theme unifying 3: 1–4
and 9: 24–25. The only feature common to 3: 1 and 3: 2–4 is that
these notes relate events that are expressly dated before the com-
pletion of the temple. In itself, this may not be sufficient to define
3: 1–4 as a structural unit, but in light of 9: 24–25 it becomes appar-
ent. The pattern arising from the distribution of parallel units sug-
gests that the Solomon Narrative was built concentrically around the
central temple-account:
1.2.3.
4.5. temple-account
4’.2’.3’.
6.
The central position of the temple-account is in agreement with the
observation made above that the construction of the temple has been
used as a referential point in the chronology of the Solomon Narrative.
The Structure of the Solomon Narrative in the LXX
The following division is proposed:
1. Consolidation of Solomon’s kingship (2: 12–35).a. Solomon’s accession as sole ruler; his kingship established (2: 12).b. Elimination of Adonijah (2: 13–25) and his accomplices Abiathar
(2: 26–27) and Joab (2: 28–34).c. Benaiah and Zadok appointed (2: 35ag); Solomon’s kingship consolidated
(2: 35b).
2. Manifestations of Solomon’s wisdom (2: 35a–46l).a. Solomon’s wisdom in building activities (2: 35a–k).b. Solomon’s wisdom in the execution of justice: elimination of Shimei
(2: 35l–46).c. Solomon’s wisdom in government (2: 46a–k).
3. Solomon’s wisdom, riches and prestige (2: 46l–5: 14).a. Introductory statement (2: 46l).
286 chapter eighteen
b. First revelation at Gibeon: divine promise of wisdom, riches and prestige (3: 2–15).
c. Wisdom in the execution of justice: women’s trial (3: 16–28).d. Riches and prestige: Solomon’s officials (4: 1–6); his twelve officers
supplying provisions for his household and horses (4: 7–5: 3); Solomon’s dominion (5: 4).
e. Wisdom and prestige: Solomon’s reputation as a sage (5: 9–14); gifts from all kings of the earth (5: 14b).
4. Before the building of the temple (5: 14a–30).a. Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter (5: 14a); his dowry (5:
14b).b. Alliance between Hiram and Solomon and provision of building
materials (5: 16–26); labour levy (5: 27–28); burden-bearers and hewers (5: 29); officers (5: 30).
5. Building and dedication of the temple (5: 31–9: 9).a. Preparation of materials and laying of foundations (5: 31–6: 1d).b. Building of the temple (6: 2–36a).c. Furnishings and utensils of the temple (7: 1–37).d. Building of the palace (7: 38–50).e. Transportation of ark and tent; sacrifices (8: 1–9); YHWH’s taking
residence (8: 10–11).f. Blessing (8: 14–21).g. Prayer (8: 22–53).h. Declaration (8: 53a).i. Blessing (8: 54–61).j. Sacrifices and consecration (8: 62–64); celebration (8: 65–66).k. Second revelation at Gibeon: divine promise concerning kingship and
temple (9: 1–9).
4’. Appendices (9: 9a–28).a. Removal of Pharaoh’s daughter to her palace (9: 9a).b. Additional transactions between Hiram and Solomon; their naval
expedition (9: 10–28).
6. (3’.) Solomon’s wisdom, riches and prestige (10: 1–29).a. Wisdom, prestige and riches: visit of the Queen of Sheba (10: 1–13).b. Riches and prestige: gold and luxuries (10: 14–22).c. Solomon’s building projects as a means to oppress the Canaanites
(10: 22a–c).d. Wisdom, riches and prestige: gifts from all kings of the earth (10: 23–25);
horses and horse-trade (10: 26–29); Solomon’s dominion (10: 26a).
7. (1’.) Decline of Solomon’s kingship (11: 1–43).a. Solomon led astray by alien women (11: 1–8).b. YHWH’s wrath; punishment announced (11: 9–13).
solomon’s narrative in mt and the lxx 287
c. Punishment: rise of adversaries Ader (Hadad), Esrom (Rezon) and Adadezer (11: 14a–ba); Ader’s rebellion (14bb–25); Jeroboam’s rebellion and flight (11: 26–40).
d. Conclusion: source citation (11: 41); length of Solomon’s reign (11: 42); his death and burial; Jeroboam’s return; Solomon’s death and his succession (11: 43).
The Solomon Narrative in the LXX roughly exhibits the same struc-
ture as its counterpart in MT. It basically follows a chronological
order and offers the account of the temple building in central posi-
tion. As in MT, the outer chapters 2 and 11 stand more or less
aloof from the central account of Solomon’s reign.
On lower levels, however, the LXX reveals many sequence
differences with MT, causing the more detailed division of the text,
at least in some portions, also to be markedly different. Apparently,
in the arrangement of materials presented by the LXX-version, tem-
poral sequence, theme and parallelism have played a different role
as guiding principles than in MT.
The chronological scheme is as follows:
2: 12 Start of Solomon’s reign as sole ruler.2: 13–35 No time indicated; probably shortly 1st year (?)
afterwards.2: 35a–k No time indicated; proleptic report of
events and conditions occurring duringlater stages of Solomon’s reign.
2: 35l–o Flashback: . . . when David was yet living . . . before S.’s (2: 35l; cf. 2: 8–9). accession
2: 36–38 After elimination of Adonijah and his accomplices (2: 13–35).
2: 39–46 After three years (2: 39) following on from 3rd year Solomon’s warning of Shimei (2: 36–37). onward
2: 46a–k No time indicated; proleptic report of events and conditions occurring during (much) later stages of Solomon’s reign.
2: 46l No time indicated; probably beginning of 1st year (?)Solomon’s reign.
3: 2 Before the building of the temple. before 4th year3: 3–15 Same period. before 4th year3: 16–28 After dream epiphany: Thereupon (3: 16). before 4th
year?4: 1–5: 4 No time indicated; refers to conditions
prevailing during Solomon’s entire reign.5: 9–14 No time indicated; 5: 10, 11, 14 suggest
advanced stage of Solomon’s reign; 5: 12 pertains to all of Solomon’s lifetime.
288 chapter eighteen
5: 15–31 Returns to moment shortly after Solomon’s 1st(?)–4th yearaccession (5: 15); covers period until building of the temple proper.
5: 32 Follows gathering of building materials; 1st(?)–4th yearperiod of preparatory activities: during 3 years(5: 32).
6: 1–1c Follows preparation: Solomon’s order to lay in 4th year the foundations: In the 440th year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt, in the 4th year, in the month of Ziv, the 2nd month . . . (6: 1); laying of foundations: In the 4th year, in the month of Nisan, the 2nd month (6: 1c).
6: 1d Anticipatory note: Date of completion of in 11th yeartemple: In the 11th year, the month of Baal, the 8th month (6: 1d).
6: 2–36a Links up with laying of foundations (6: 1c). 4th–11th year7: 1–37 After (?) the completion of the temple from 11th year
(6: 2–36a). onward7: 38–50 Returns to moment following the 11th–24th year
completion of the temple (cf. 8: 1);duration of construction palace: 13 years(7: 38).
8: 1–66* After completion of temple and palace: in 24th year. . . when Solomon had finished building the temple and the palace after 20 years (8: 1). . . in the month of Etanim (8: 2).
9: 1–9 After completion of temple and palace: in 24th year or . . . when Solomon had finished building the latertemple and the palace . . . (9: 1); after Solomon’s prayer (9: 3).
9: 9a Same period: Thereupon; in those days. in 24th year or later
9: 10–11 Retrospective overview: During the 20 years 4th–24th yearin which Solomon was building the two houses (9: 10).
9: 12–13 During the 20 years (9: 10). 4th–24th year9: 14–28 During the 20 years (9: 10). 4th–24th year10: 1–13 No time indicated; probably after the after 11th year
construction of the temple: The queen of Sheba heard of Solomon’s name and of the Lord’s name (10: 1).
10: 14–22 No time indicated but after completion of after 24th yearpalace (10: 17–21).
10: 22a–c Retrospective overview pertaining to conditions during Solomon’s building activities.
10: 23–29 No time indicated; advanced stage of Solomon’s reign.
solomon’s narrative in mt and the lxx 289
11: 1–3 No time indicated; advanced stage of Solomon’s reign.
11: 4–13 Solomon’s old age (11: 4). ?11: 14a No time indicated; probably to be
connected with preceding announcement of punishment (11: 9–13).
11: 14b From the uprising of Ader, Esrom and Adadezer (11: 14a) until Solomon’s demise.
11: 15–25 Flashback, covering a period extending from an indefinite point of time during David’s reign until an indefinite point of time during Solomon’s reign.
11: 26–27a After announcement of punishment (11: 9–13).11: 27b–28 Flashback, covering some period during
Solomon’s reign.11: 29–39 Continuation flashback: About that time
(11: 29).11: 40 After the uprising of Jeroboam (11: 27a).11: 41–42 All of Solomon’s reign: 40 years (11: 42).11: 43a Solomon dies. 40th year11: 43b After Solomon’s demise: . . . when Jeroboam
heard this . . .
* internal chronology not specified
The Solomon Narrative of 3 Regum shows a special concern for
narrative logic and timetabling. On the level of the overall narra-
tive, the LXX’s sense for timetabling is evident from the manner it
has arranged the materials relating to the building and dedication
of the temple, that is, the portion covering 5: 14a–9: 28. As previ-
ous chapters have shown, the LXX presents events relating to the
temple building in an order that is more chronologically orientated
than MT. The chronological arrangement is supported by time-indi-
cators which have no counterpart in MT: “for three years” in 5:
32; “after 20 years” in 8: 1; “in those days” in 9: 9a. Outside the
central section devoted to the temple the LXX does not appear to
have taken more interest in a strict chronological presentation of
events than MT. Apparently, the importance of the subject “temple
construction” was such as to prompt the LXX to take special care
of a correct presentation of events.
By and large, theme can be assigned a more prominent role as
a mode of structure in the LXX than in MT, even at the expense
of chronology. In the portion until 3 Reg. 5: 14, all sections seem
to describe some aspect or manifestation of Solomon’s wisdom whereas
290 chapter eighteen
they do not all fit in with the overall chronological scheme of the
Solomon Narrative.16 Thus Misc. I and Misc. II, which are not
matched by anything in MT at a corresponding position, are chrono-
logically inappropriate, but, as they advance and develop the theme
of Solomon’s wisdom, their position is functionally important.
Furthermore, a tendency towards thematic arrangement becomes
apparent in the LXX’s grouping together of thematically related
materials which in MT appear at different places in the account.
Here we may refer to paragraphs 3 Reg. 5: 14a–b (= 1 Kgs. 3: 1;
9: 16–17) and 9: 10–28 (= 1 Kgs. 9: 10–14, 26–28). Other LXX
paragraphs prove to be thematically more homogeneous than their
MT counterparts because they are devoid of materials constituting
digressions from the main theme. This is the case with 3 Reg. 10:
22a–c (lacking a rendition of 1 Kgs. 9: 16–17) and 3 Reg. 4: 1–5:
8 (lacking a rendition of 1 Kgs. 5: 5–6).
Parallelism is a structuring device that figures almost as promi-
nently in the version of the LXX as in the version of MT, but the
parallels in the LXX are differently construed. The two parallels
between 1 Kgs. 3: 1–4 and 9: 24–25 and between 5: 15–32 and 9:
10–23 are not encountered in the LXX. For these the LXX has
one parallel between 3 Reg. 5: 14a–30 and 9: 9a–28. Like its MT
counterparts, the parallel arises from a similar sequence of related
items in two units. In both instances a note on Pharaoh’s daughter
(3 Reg. 5: 14a–b; 9: 9a) is followed by a note on relations between
Solomon and Hiram (3 Reg. 5: 15–30; 9: 10–28). Interestingly, the
LXX employs the same subject matter for its parallels as the MT,
namely “the daughter of Pharaoh” and “Hiram”.
The parallel in the LXX between 3 Reg. 5: 14a–30 and 9: 9a–28
is intimately linked with the central temple-account and, in a sense,
can be considered part of it. Particularly notable is the clever manner
in which the LXX has connected the section 3 Reg. 9: 10–28 to
the temple construction. While in the MT the dealings between
Solomon and Hiram of 1 Kgs. 9: 10–14 are dated after the completion
of temple and palace (9: 10), the LXX states that these dealings took
place during the 20 years in which temple and palace were built.
16 In the opinion of Gooding (“Problems of Text and Midrash”, 7–11), not just3 Reg. 2: 35a–5: 14 but all of 3 Reg. 2: 35a–10: 29 has been built around thetheme of Solomon’s wisdom.
solomon’s narrative in mt and the lxx 291
Thus it is intimated that the dealings between Solomon and Hiram,
as well as the naval expedition (3 Reg. 9: 14, 26–28), were under-
taken with a view to acquiring resources and building materials for
the temple. As a result 3 Reg. 9: 10–28 makes an exact counter-
part of the paragraph preceding the temple-account in 5: 15–30,
which tells about Hiram’s help in the gathering of construction mate-
rials for the temple.
The other element of the parallel is based on a literal interpreta-
tion of the contents of 3 Reg. 5: 14a. This passage relates the bring-
ing of Pharaoh’s daughter into the City of David to the building of
the temple, since the princess is to stay in the City of David until
the moment the temple is completed. Once the dedication of the
temple and the second revelation of YHWH to Solomon have been
reported, 3 Reg. 9: 9a duly notes that “in those days” Solomon
brought up Pharaoh’s daughter from the City of David to his palace.
Eventually, a few remarks should be made on the relationship between
the outer chapters and the central account of Solomon’s reign in 3
Reg. 3–10.
The contrast between ch. 2 and the subsequent regnal account is
more profound in the LXX than in MT. On the one hand, this is
due to the circumstance that in 3 Regum the transition to the cen-
tral account of Solomon’s reign is expressly marked by the occur-
rence of the introductory regnal formula in 3 Reg. 2: 46l. On the
other hand, the different character from ch. 2 to that of the fol-
lowing chapters is forcefully stressed by the presence of the Miscellanies,
which do not fit in with the narrative and chronological framework
of the central account. Since the Miscellanies introduce the theme
that is carried further in the central account, ch. 2 is best regarded
as a combination of narrative prologue and thematic introduction.
As in MT, ch. 11 in the LXX marks the turning point in Solomon’s
kingship. His fall is not prepared for in the preceding account. Chs.
3–10 do not voice any criticism of Solomon. Gooding’s suggestion
that the combination of 3 Reg. 9: 6–9 and 9a intimates Solomon’s
condemnation was already dismissed as unfounded.17 Neither is there
reason to suppose that, in comparison with MT, the LXX has made
17 See page 66 n. 6.
292 chapter eighteen
a systematic effort to excuse Solomon for trespassing the Deuteronomic
Law in 3 Reg. 3–10.
In previous chapters it was argued that the sequence differences
between 3 Regum and 1 Kings result from revisory activities in the
LXX. Various motives were found to play a role in the reviser’s
decision to transpose sections from one position to another: con-
centration of thematically related materials, narrative logic and chronol-
ogy, and theological and ideological considerations. Analysis of the
order of the Solomon Narrative in the LXX shows that the editor
was also committed to provide the Greek version with a transpar-
ent overall structure. The editor’s efforts can most clearly be viewed
in the central section through 3 Reg. 5: 14a–9: 28. In order to stress
the central importance of the temple, the reviser took pains to arrange
similar materials concentrically around the temple-account in chs.
6–8. Thus he moved (1 Kgs.) 3: 1 to (3 Reg.) 5: 14a, excised (1 Kgs.)
9: 15–25 and added 3 Reg. 9: 9a.
solomon’s narrative in mt and the lxx 293
CHAPTER NINETEEN
THE TEXT-HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF
DIFFERENCES IN THE REPRESENTATION OF
DEUTERONOMISTIC TEXT BETWEEN
1 KINGS AND 3 REGUM
The book of Kings contains many passages of Deuteronomistic prove-
nance, ranging from theological verdicts on individual kings to lengthy
orations and reflections. These texts are generally held to represent
a later stage in the compositional history of the book. For that rea-
son they are of special significance for assessing the text-historical
relationship between the oldest witnesses to the text of Kings, i.e.,
MT and the LXX. In theory, differences regarding the representa-
tion and distribution of the Deuteronomistic material may reveal
whether 3 Regum represents a literary stage in the development of
the book that either precedes or follows that reflected by 1 Kings.
It is evident that this question can only be addressed satisfactorily
when all the Deuteronomistic texts in 1 and 2 Kings are taken into
consideration. Such an enterprise goes beyond the scope of this study.
However, since the question also affects the text-historical assessment
of chs. 1–11, a few remarks are in order here.
The vast majority of Deuteronomistic texts are represented in 1
Kings and 3 Regum alike. A few passages are lacking in 3 Regum:
6: 11–14; 14: 7–11, 14–16. Conversely, 3 Regum contains no
Deuteronomistic materials that do not appear in 1 Kings. Small-
scale differences (mostly word differences) are scattered about the
materials shared by both witnesses. In this respect the Deuteronomistic
texts do not differ from the non-Deuteronomistic ones.
This state of affairs allows us to conclude that the version offered
by 3 Regum does not precede the stage of Deuteronomistic activity
as a whole. However, since 3 Regum contains less Deuteronomistic
material than 1 Kings there is a possibility that the Greek version
reflects a stage in the formative history of the book that is prior to
one (i.e., the final) phase of Deuteronomistic activity.
Nowadays most redaction critics agree that Kings, and indeed the
Deuteronomistic History as a whole, underwent several Deuteronomistic
redactions.1 Opinions, however, differ on the rationale behind these
redactions and the materials produced by them. We need not dis-
cuss the wide range of redactional theories that have been advanced
over the last fifty years; here it suffices to say that none of the many
Deuteronomistic layers proposed by redaction critics coincides with
the Deuteronomistic materials (pluses/minuses and word-differences)
unique to 1 and 2 Kings and lacking from 3 and 4 Regum. This
does not rule out that some editorial connection between parts of
this material exists; in fact, such a possibility is considered in ch. 9
(6: 11–14) of this study. Yet, as a whole this material is too diverse
in form and content to assign it to one redactional layer. Moreover,
some of the elements prove to be tightly connected with Deuterono-
mistic passages that are actually represented in 3 Regum. From the
viewpoint of redaction criticism there is no good reason to ascribe
these elements to a separate redactional stage. Trebolle Barrera’s
assertion that recensional history takes priority over redaction criti-
cism,2 so that, with regard to Kings, redactional theory should take
its point of departure with the text of 3 Regum rather than with
that of 1 Kings, must be dismissed on two grounds: 1. It does not
do justice to the position of literary criticism as an independent dis-
cipline which analyzes, or at least should analyze, all versions of a
biblical book unprejudiced; 2. It is based on the presupposition that
the version of 3 Regum is anterior to that of 1 Kings, which should
be proven first.
While the text of 3 Regum does not seem to predate any Deute-
ronomistic redactional stage present in Kings, it may precede the
appearance of single passages of Deuteronomistic tone in Kings, or
it may offer an earlier version of a Deuteronomistic text that it shares
with Kings. In previous chapters we discussed some of these pas-
sages: 1 Kgs. 6: 11–14; 8: 58; 9: 4; 11: 1–8, 33. None of them could
convincingly be shown to reflect a textual situation secondary to that
of 3 Regum, however.
1 For an overview of opinions on the redactional history of the DeuteronomisticHistory as a whole and of Kings in particular see P.S.F. van Keulen, Manassehthrough the Eyes of the Deuteronomists: The Manasseh Account (2 Kings 21: 1–18) and theFinal Chapters of the Deuteronomistic History (OTS 38), Leiden/New York, 1996, 4–52;O’Brien, Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis, 3–23; Provan, Hezekiah, 1–55.
2 Trebolle Barrera, “Histoire du texte”, 334f.; id., “Redaction, Recension, andMidrash”, 22.
the representation of deuteronomistic text 295
Beyond chs. 1–11 remarkable differences in the representation of
Deuteronomistic passages between the two versions occur in partic-
ular in chs. 12 and 14. The comparison between MT and the LXX
in these chapters is complicated by the fact that 3 Regum offers an
extensive plus through 3 Reg. 12: 24a–z. Broadly speaking, this text
duplicates materials present in chs. 11, 12 and 14 of 1 Kings and
3 Regum. Since the narrative in the supplement parallels the story
of Rehoboam and Jeroboam in the main text, it must be viewed as
a self-contained literary unit alongside the main text of 3 Regum.
Interestingly, this “Alternative Story”, as it is aptly called by
Z. Talshir, lacks important Deuteronomistic passages that occur in
the parallel sections of 1 Kings: The materials of 11: 31–39; 14:
7–9, 10b, 15–16, 22–24 are left unrepresented. A few scholars, there-
fore, assume that the Hebrew Vorlage of the AS originally reflected
a literary stage that was not subjected to Deuteronomistic redaction.3
However, Deuteronomistic phraseology does appear in paragraphs
24a and 24m of the AS. There is no good reason to consider these
Deuteronomistic phrases secondary additions to the AS, as has been
done by those who wish to maintain the pre-Deuteronomistic date
of the narrative.4 Possibly the AS only reflects one early stage of
Deuteronomistic edition that precedes later phases. In my opinion,
the explanation proposed by Talshir and McKenzie is more convincing.
These scholars argue that most Deuteronomistic passages present in
the source material (MT) were omitted from the AS simply because
they did not fit the literary design of the new composition.5
The absence of a counterpart of 1 Kgs. 14: 1–20 in the main text
of 3 Regum is best explained in connection with the presence of the
AS. According to Talshir, “the omission of the story of the sick child
(1 Kgs. 14: 1–18) from 3 Kgdms. 14 is undoubtedly secondary and
a result of the interpolation of the AS.” Vv. 19–20, then, were prob-
ably omitted by accident.6
A few verses later, the Deuteronomistic passage through 3 Reg.
14: 22–24 exhibits intriguing differences with MT. Since the varia-
tion converges with indications of redactional intervention in MT,
we examine this case more closely.
3 J. Debus, Die Sünde Jerobeams (FRLANT 93), Göttingen 1967, 85–86, 90; TrebolleBarrera, Salomón y Jeroboán, 165–66.
4 Cf. Talshir, Alternative Story, 247, 251.5 Talshir, Alternative Story, 163–259; McKenzie, Trouble, 21–40, esp. 39–40.6 Talshir, Alternative Story, 158–59.
296 chapter nineteen
1 Kgs. 14: 22 is part of the regnal formulae on king Rehoboam.
According to the normal pattern of the regnal formulae in Kings,
the introductory notes on the reign of Rehoboam in v. 21 should
be followed by a verdict on the same king. The first half of v. 22
actually shows the formulaic pattern typical of the evaluations of
individual kings: “He did good/evil in the sight of YHWH.” However,
v. 22a is anomalous in naming a subject and in making it explicit
as “Judah”.8 Throughout vv. 22b–24 “Judah” remains subject, though
in this section it is not construed with verb forms in the singular,
as is the case in v. 22a, but with verbs in the plural (v. 22a ç[yw;v. 22b–24 wanqyw, etc.).
The LXX, too, deviates from the pattern in naming a subject in
v. 22a. On the other hand, it conforms to the pattern with regard
to the identity of the subject. In specifying the king’s name it only
makes explicit what is implied elsewhere in the judgment formula.
Since it has the singular form parezhlvsen as the equivalent of wanqyw, no disagreement in number arises between this verb and the
previous one, §poihsen.Two other material parallels of 1 Kgs. 14: 22 agree with the LXX-
version. A parallel in the AS (3 Reg. 12: 24a) likewise has Rehoboam
as the (implicit) subject of the judgment formula, while 2 Chron. 12:
14 briefly states “he (i.e., Rehoboam) did evil.” However, both the
AS and Chronicles constitute literary compositions in their own right
and their authors may have handled their source material freely. In
this connection it is significant that neither parallel provides a ren-
dering of, or a material counterpart to, 1 Kgs./3 Reg. 14: 22b–24.
Therefore the information offered by these parallels is considered
irrelevant for establishing the relationship between MT and the LXX.
7 LXX B oi paterew autvn.8 See Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 138.
the representation of deuteronomistic text 297
22a ka‹ §po¤hsen Roboam hdö:Why“ c['Yé"w" 22atÚ ponhrÚn §n≈pion kur¤ou hw•:hy“ yn∞Ey[eB] [r"h;
22b ka‹ parezÆlvsen aÈtÚn wtø%aø Wa¢n“q'y“w" 22b§n pçsin oÂw §po¤hsan ofl pat°rew aÈtoË7 μt;+bøa} Wc¢[; rv¢,a} lKømika‹ §n ta›w èmart¤aiw aÈt«n aÂw ¥marton >Wafâ;j; rvà,a} μt;aFøj'B] . . .
23a ka‹ ”kodÒmhsan Wn!b]YIw" 23a– hM;háeAμg"
•auto›w Íchlå ka‹ stÆlaw ka‹ êlsh μyr-Ivea}w" twbø`Xem'W twmøàB; μhä,l;
In the sequel of v. 22a the LXX raises some difficulties that are
not encountered in MT. The Greek may be rendered as follows
(Rahlfs’ text): “He provoked him (i.e., YHWH) to jealousy by9 every-
thing his fathers did, that is,10 by the sins they committed.” When
in Kings/Regum the phrase “his fathers” is used in relation to an
individual king, it always refers to his royal ancestors. In light of
this, vv. 22b–23 in the LXX seem to qualify Rehoboam’s ancestors
David and Solomon as evildoers.11 The condemnation of David, how-
ever, is inconsistent with the image of David as the examplary pious
king that is maintained in other regnal formulae throughout Kings.
Moreover, v. 23 describes offences which nowhere in the preceding
narrative have been associated with David and Solomon. It is difficult
to believe that the LXX means to accuse these kings of having com-
mitted the sins described in vv. 22b–23.12
The absurd implications of the LXX reading may be a mere unin-
tentional consequence of editorial intervention with a text resembling
that of MT. The following may have happened. Some editor who
took exception to the anomalous subject “Judah” in the judgment
note of v. 22 replaced it by “Rehoboam”. He adjusted verb forms
and possessive pronouns to this new subject which, unlike “Judah”
of MT, only allows a singular, but he was oblivious to the fact that
the reference to Rehoboam’s fathers had unacceptable implications
for the interpretation of vv. 22b–24.
If we prefer to read with LXX B oi paterew autvn for oi paterewautou, the above argument does not hold. The former reading, how-
ever, demonstrates the secondary character of v. 22a in the LXX
even more clearly, because in the present constellation of LXX B,
autvn is unusually far removed from its antecedent, i.e., “Judah” in
v. 21a.
The interpretation of 3 Reg. 14: 22 as a text secondary to the
MT-version of the verse does not account for the shape of the lat-
ter. The peculiarities of v. 22 in MT may be more adequately
explained by narrative or redaction-critical analysis than by text-his-
torical comparison. In all likelihood, the deviation from the standard
9 The LXX reading en goes back to m/b interchange in the Vorlage (lkb; cf.MT lkm); see Tov, Text-critical Use, 137.
10 kai is taken here in the explicative sense (Bauer, 776; BD, § 442).11 Also Burney, Notes, 192.12 Cf. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 276.
298 chapter nineteen
pattern of judgment formulae was inspired by considerations of nar-
rative strategy. V. 22 and following verses make it unambiguously
clear that the people of Judah were wicked ever since the beginning
of the kingdom of the same name.13 This evaluation is in line with
the accusations found in 2 Kgs. 17: 13, 19; 21: 15; 22: 17. It sets
the stage for the final verdict on Judah as announced in 2 Kgs. 21:
12–14; 22: 16 (cf. 23: 26–27; 24: 2–3, 20). It is quite conceivable
that 1 Kgs. 14: 22 owes its present form to redactional intervention.14
Following ch. 14, MT and the LXX do not differ substantially
from each other in the representation of Deuteronomistic passages.
Minor differences occur in 1 Kgs./3 Reg. 16: 30–33 and 1 Kgs. 21:
17–26/3 Reg. 20: 17–26. These differences do not cause drastic
changes in focus or tenor, nor can they be linked with some redac-
tional stratum. One remarkable minus in 3 Reg. 16: 11b–12a is
likely to result from parablepsis.
All this leads us to conclude that the textual stage reflected by 3
Regum does not predate any comprehensive Deuteronomistic redac-
tional stratum present in 1 Kings. Differences in the representation
of Deuteronomistic material are mainly due to later editorial inter-
vention with the text of (the Hebrew basis of ) 3 Regum.
13 Cf. Talshir, Alternative Story, 245: “The explicit reference to Judah and Jerusalemat this particular stage in the book of Kings is intended as an ‘identity card’ forthe newly formed state of Judah.”
14 Thus McKenzie, Trouble, 58, n. 36.
the representation of deuteronomistic text 299
CHAPTER TWENTY
CONCLUSIONS
In the preceding chapters we approached the versions of the Solomon
Narrative in MT and the LXX as two literary documents in their
own right that pursue their own literary strategies in the represen-
tation of roughly parallel materials. Taking our point of departure
with patently intentional differences like the transpositions, we argued
that many differences can be seen as coherent changes made in one
version. The criterion of direction, applied to the particular form of
parallel literary units, was employed in order to establish the genetic
relationship between both versions.
The present study shows that in almost all cases where MT and
the LXX exhibit a different order, there is good reason to consider
the arrangement of the LXX secondary to that of MT. The LXX
groups together thematically related materials which in MT appear
scattered over the account (e.g., 3 Reg. 5: 14a–b versus 1 Kgs. 3:
1 and 9: 16–17a; 3 Reg. 6: 2–7: 37 versus 1 Kgs. 6: 2–36 and 7:
13–52). In passages where the presentation of events in MT is con-
fused, the LXX exhibits a logical order of temporal sequence (e.g.,
3 Reg. 5: 32–6: 1b; 8: 1–11; 11: 1–8). In these instances MT does
not seem to suggest the existence of underlying motives that satis-
factorily justify its less logical order. As we may assume that a reviser
is more inclined to straighten a confused text than to disrupt a well-
structured one without apparent reason, the transparent arrangement
of the LXX is to be considered secondary to that of MT.
In another group of variations, the LXX reading seems to create
a picture of Solomon more favourable of him than the correspond-
ing MT reading. Thus we noted a tendency to increase Solomon’s
prestige among his fellow kings (especially in 3 Reg. 5 and 10), to
glorify his wisdom (notably in the Miscellanies) and to downplay his
idolatry (in 3 Reg. 11: 1–8). Gooding’s claim that 3 Regum shows
a tendency to exonerate Solomon from any blame for not having
kept the commandments laid down in the Law of the King (Deut.
17: 14–20) could not be confirmed, however. The variations under
consideration all permit alternative explanations, whereas the text of
3 Regum by itself does not provide clear indications that Solomon’s
amassing of gold or his gathering of horses was sensed as a prob-
lem. In this connection it is telling that the LXX has retained the
paragraph on Solomon’s horse-trade in 1 Kgs. 10: 28–29 which ren-
ders him extremely susceptible to criticism in light of Deut. 17: 16.
The two tendencies noted above can be seen to converge in sev-
eral differences vis-à-vis MT. Thus the temple-account in 3 Reg.
6–7 has Solomon built the temple plus furnishings preceding the
construction of his palace, since it was considered unfitting for a
pious king like Solomon to engage himself in building his own palace
before finishing the building of the temple. The reordering, how-
ever, also entails a concentration of similar materials, and it brings
the temple-account into strict conformity with the order of con-
struction indicated in several notes elsewhere in the Solomon Narrative
(e.g., 3 Reg. 5: 14; 9: 1). 3 Reg. 11: 1–8 offers another example of
a paragraph where a concern for Solomon’s image appears to be
inextricably bound up with a concern for logical arrangement. These
passages show that the sense for logical order and the concern for
Solomon’s image should be attributed to a single reviser.
This reviser may also be held responsible for replacing the origi-
nal rendering of 1 Kgs. 10: 26 by a translation of 2 Chron. 9: 25–26
(counted as 3 Reg. 10: 26–26a), since the citation from Chronicles
links up well with a tendency to highlight Solomon’s power. A few
assimilations to the parallel account of Chronicles in 3 Regum per-
haps derive from the same hand.
It should be noted that some of the rearrangements undertaken
by the reviser inadvertently created absurd narrative situations. Thus
the rearrangement of the accounts of the construction of temple and
palace in 3 Reg. 6–7 leaves room for drawing the conclusion that
Solomon, having finished the temple, waited 13 years before dedi-
cating it. Such a conclusion effectively undermines the impression
the LXX wishes to create in regard to Solomon’s piety. Situations
like these, however, once more demonstrate the secondary nature of
the arrangement in 3 Regum, as the original narrative is very unlikely
to have made such an absurd implication.1
1 Reference could be also made here to the combination of 3 Reg. 9: 14, 26,which makes the improbable implication that Hiram sent a ship from the Medi-terranean to the Gulf of Aqaba. See page 188.
conclusions 301
In what stage of the text did the revision take place? There are two
reasons to assume that the text subjected to revision was the Greek
one, possibly the OG. In the first place, some of the reorderings in
3 Regum seem to be bound up with the specific phrasing of the
Greek text, notably 3 Reg. 5: 32–6: 1b, 9: 14, 26, and 10: 22a.
Second, the Greek shows signs of two hands, especially between the
editorial Miscellanies and the main text, who relate to each other
as the reviser to the original translator.2 In our view, the Miscellanies
do not constitute additions without any direct connection with the
main text. Rather, they are intrinsically linked with the rearrangements
in the main text and they owe their existence to the reviser.
Though the reviser worked on the basis of the Greek translation,
he must have drawn upon Hebrew texts for his revision. This becomes
apparent from a few notes in the Miscellanies, in particular 2: 35e,
35f and 46c, which seem to reflect either different readings or different
interpretations (al tiqre) of Hebrew texts that appear in 1 Kings or
that are represented in Greek in the main text of 3 Regum.3 Further-
more, it is possible that the reviser had recourse to the Hebrew text
in a few instances where he combined rearrangement and reinter-
pretation of content, as in 3 Reg. 5: 32–6: 1b. There is no need to
assume, as Gooding does, that the reinterpretations and reorderings
of the revision were taken from a Hebrew source.4 None other than
the reviser took the initiative for the re-arrangement of the Greek
text.
When the revision took place cannot be established with certainty.
An intriguing parallel between a statement unique to 3 Reg. 7: 31
and a passage from Eupolemus might offer a clue, but the agree-
ment can be variously interpreted.5 The circumstance that all LXX
2 This is not to suggest that the Greek of the Miscellanies always derives fromthe reviser! In fact, the original Greek may be found in the Miscellanies, where itwas transposed to by the reviser, as in the case of 3 Reg. 2: 46i (see pages 257–58).
3 See page 271.4 Gooding, “Problems of Text and Midrash”, 25–27.5 The second part of 3 Reg. 7: 31 contains a plus vis-à-vis MT (= 1 Kgs. 7:
45) and all other Versions:
ka‹ pãnta tå skeÊh . . . lh,aøh; μyl¢iKeh'AlK; taew“ì §po¤hsen Xiram t“ basile› Salvmvn hmø`løv] Ël,Mà,l' μrä:yji hcà;[; rv,Ÿa}
t“ o‡kƒ kur¤ou hw–:hy“ tyB¢eka‹ ofl stËloi tessarãkonta ka‹ Ùktv –
toË o‡kou toË basil°vw –ka‹ toË o‡kou kur¤ou –
302 conclusions
manuscripts of Regum, except the Hexaplaric ones, attest to the
revised text, suggests that the revision was carried out in an author-
itative scribal community in an early stage in the transmission process
of the Greek text.
pãnta tå ¶rga toË basil°vw –ì §po¤hsen Xiram –xalkç êrdhn >frâ:møm] tv,jø`n“
The plus reads: “And the forty eight pillars of the house of the king and of the house of theLord; all the works of the king which Hiram made were entirely of bronze.” The passagedoes not produce a balanced statement since the concrete information on the pil-lars does not fit in with the summarizing statement that all the works which Hirammade were entirely of bronze. The information on the pillars is more in line withthe enumeration of bronze furnishings and decorations for the temple in 3 Reg. 7:26b–31a, but the nominative form oi stuloi prevents us from connecting the plussyntactically with preceding verses. It is possible that the statement has a basis inHebrew, since in preceding Greek verses the same word order noun-cardinal (v. 31: oi stuloi tessarakonta kai oktv) can be seen to imitate the Hebrew (1 Kgs. 7: 41–44). However, it is also possible that the Greek simply imitates theword order of previous Greek verses rather than of a Hebrew source. Given itspoor integration in the context of v. 31, the plus has the appearance of a secondaryinsertion. This is also suggested by the fact that panta ta erga tou basilevw aepoihsen Xiram resumes part of the preceding phrase kai panta ta skeuh a epoih-sen Xiram. The resumption facilitated the insertion of the statement about the fortyeight pillars.
A statement partly parallelling that of the plus at 3 Reg. 7: 31 appears inEupolemus’ work On the Kings in Judea: “Solomon made a portico on the northernside of the temple and supported it with forty-eight bronze pillars” (Eusebius,Praeparatio Evangelica IX, 34: 9). The resemblance of the two passages raises the ques-tion of their relationship. B.Z. Wacholder deems the interdependence betweenEupolemus and the Septuagint certain precisely because Josephus’ account as wellas the architectural experts contradict the existence of the pillars as original ele-ments of the Solomonic temple (B.Z. Wacholder, Eupolemus. A Study of Judaeo-GreekLiterature [MHUC 3], Cincinnati/New York 1974, 188–89). Since the LXX passagebears the marks of an interpolation and, unlike Eupolemus, fails to state the func-tion and location of the pillars, the Eupolemus passage must be original and theLXX passage a derivative (Wacholder, Eupolemus, 190, 250–51). In Wacholder’sview, Eupolemus’ statement is either a literary invention or a reference to a realstructure of Zerubabel’s temple.
If Wacholder is right and if the addition in v. 31 stems from the reviser, thedate of composition of Eupolemus’ work, which is 158/7 BCE, provides the termi-nus a quo for the revision (Wacholder, Eupolemus, 7). Unfortunately, Wacholder’sargument is inconclusive. The basis of agreement between the LXX and Eupolemusis too slender to prove interdependence. The fact that the forty-eight bronze pil-lars are assigned to partially different edifices in LXX and Eupolemus (palace andtemple in the LXX, temple alone in Eupolemus) may even speak against the assump-tion of interdependence. This leaves room for the possibility that Eupolemus andthe interpolator either recorded genuine information about the Second Temple inde-pendently of one another or drew upon a common source. If, however, interde-pendence is assumed, Eupolemus’ coherent statement may just as well be an expansionof the succinct reference to the pillars in 3 Reg. 7: 31 as the other way around,
conclusions 303
Not all variations between 3 Regum and 1 Kings could be con-
nected with the intentions of the reviser as outlined above. These
variations include harmonizations, rationalizations, pluses and minuses
and differences in content (mainly in the construction reports of chs.
6–7 that have not been taken into consideration in this study). A
few pluses in the Greek text show a strongly Hebraistic colour, like
3 Reg. 2: 29ba and 8: 53a, and these may go back to a Hebrew
Vorlage. A few quantitative differences are of the “Wiederaufnahme”-
type, like the pluses in 3 Reg. 2: 29ba and 8: 65ba and the plus in
1 Kgs. 8: 41b–42a (corresponding to the minus in 3 Reg. 8: 41b).
These differences are more likely to constitute intentional additions
than accidental omissions due to parablepsis, because there are several
of them. In our view, pluses in 3 Reg. 2: 29ba and 1 Kgs. 8: 41b–42a
are best regarded as editorial expansions peculiar to the Hebrew
source underlying 3 Regum and 1 Kings, respectively.6
As a consequence it would be wrong to say that the MT of 1
Kings should always and everywhere be given priority over the text
form represented by 3 Regum. In a few instances the Greek of
3 Regum may preserve a textual stage prior to that of the corre-
sponding Hebrew of 1 Kings. Schenker concluded—rather convinc-
ingly in my view—from a few detail differences between Kings and
Regum that the former expresses an anti-Samaritan tendency that
is absent from the latter.7 In these instances, the LXX readings seem
even if we accept Wacholder’s suspicion that the latter originally was a marginalnote. In this connection it should be noted that there is one other instance whereEupolemus is likely to depend on 3 Regum: His assertion that Solomon becameking at the age of twelve (Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica IX, 30: 8; cf. IX, 34: 20)seems to be based on 3 Reg. 2: 12 (1 Kgs. 2: 12 does not state Solomon’s age).If we assume that Eupolemus derived his statement about the pillars from 3 Reg.7: 31, the date of 158/7 BCE indicates the terminus ante quem for the revision ratherthan the terminus a quo.
From the above it is clear that the question of the relationship between the Greekplus at 3 Reg. 7: 31 and the Eupolemus passage cannot be a solved in a satisfac-tory fashion. Since it is moreover unclear if the interpolation stems from the reviserat all, 3 Reg. 7: 31 is better not used as a means to date the LXX revision.
6 As to 3 Reg. 8: 65ba, one cannot give a definite view. The plus states that allIsrael kept the feast with Solomon in the house which he had built, eating and drinkingand rejoicing before the Lord our God. Interestingly, another plus referring to Israel eat-ing and drinking occurs in Misc. II (3 Reg. 2: 46g) in a context highlightingSolomon’s wise government. The short phrase esyiontew kai pinontew is not rep-resented in the counterpart of 3 Reg. 2: 46g at 1 Kgs. 5: 5. It is not inconceiv-able, then, that the pluses in 2: 46g and 8: 65 both represent additions by thereviser who wished to highlight the blessings of Solomon’s reign for the people.
7 See pages 14–15.
304 conclusions
to reflect the older Hebrew text. Moreover, there remains a slight
possibility that a few seemingly Deuteronomistic passages that are
absent from 3 Regum, in particular 1 Kgs. 6: 11–14, represent late
additions to the pre-MT text.
This does not alter the fact that by and large the presentation
and arrangement of materials in the Greek Solomon Narrative, and
indeed in the rest of 3 Regum, is secondary to that of 1 Kings,
including all Deuteronomistic passages.
In the introduction to this monograph we noted that in the text-his-
torical inquiry into the relationship between 3 Regum and 1 Kings
basically three positions are discernible. Several scholars hold the
LXX-version to be the result of a midrashic revision of a Hebrew
text similar to MT. Others regard MT as a revision of a Hebrew
text similar to the Vorlage of 3 Regum. Recently it has been argued
that both 1 Kings and 3 Regum are to be considered revisions of
an older text form. Though the present study has found that there
are instances where 3 Regum indirectly attests an older text form
than 1 Kings, these shrink into insignificance when they are com-
pared with the multitude of cases where the text of MT must be
given priority. Therefore the results of our inquiry lead us to side
with those who regard the LXX-version of the Solomon Narrative
basically as the product of a Greek revision of the Hebrew text
reflected by MT.
conclusions 305
BIBLIOGRAPHY
In bibliographic references, abbreviations are according to S.M. Schwertner, Abkürzungsverzeichnis(TRE), Berlin/New York 19942.
Allen, L.C., The Greek Chronicles: The Relation of the Septuagint of I and II Chronicles tothe Massoretic Text (VT.S 25), Leiden 1974.
Auld, A.G., Kings without Privilege, Edinburgh 1994.———, “Solomon at Gibeon: History Glimpsed”, in S. A ituv and B.A. Levine
(eds.), Eretz-Israel. Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies, Vol. 24, Jerusalem1993, 1*–7*.
Barthélemy, D., Les devanciers d’Aquila (VT.S 10), Leiden 1963.———, “Les problèmes textuels de 2 Sam 11,2–1 Rois 2,11 reconsidérés à la
lumière de certaines critiques des ‘Devanciers d’Aquila’”, in R.A. Kraft (ed.),1972 Proceedings for the IOSCS and Pseudepigrapha. Los Angeles, 4 sept. 1972, Missoula1972, 16–89.
———, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, t. I (OBO 50/1), Freiburg/Göttingen1982.
Bartlett, J.R., “An Adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite”, ZAW 88 (1976),205–26.
Benzinger, I., Die Bücher der Könige (KHC 9), Freiburg 1899.———, Die Bücher der Chronik (KHC 20), Tübingen 1901.Bochartus, S., Hierozoicon, sive Bipertitum Opus de Animalibus S. Scripturae, etc. (ex recen-
sione Joh. Leusden), Lugduni Bat./Trajecti ad Rhen. 16923.Born, A. van den, “Zum Tempelweihspruch (1 Kg viii 12f.)”, OTS 14 (1965), 235–44.Brettler, M., “The Structure of 1 Kings 1–11”, JSOT 49 (1991), 87–97.Brière, J. “Solomon dans la Septante”, DBS 11, Paris 1991, 472–74.Brongers, H.A., 1 Koningen (Prediking van het Oude Testament), Nijkerk 1967.Burkitt, F.C., “The Lucianic Text of 1 Kings VIII 53b”, JThS 10 (1909), 439–46.Burney, C.F., Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings, Oxford 1903.Campbell, A.F., Of Prophets and Kings. A Ninth-Century Document (1 Samuel 1–2 Kings
10) (CBQ.MS 17), Washington D.C. 1986.Cohen, S.J.D., “Solomon and the Daughter of Pharaoh: Intermarriage, Conversion,
and the Impurity of Women”, JANES 16–17 (1984–85), 23–37.Cogan, M., 1 Kings (AncB 10), New York/London 2001.Cross, F.M., “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the
Judaean Desert”, HThR 57 (1964), 281–99.———, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Essays in the History of Religion of Israel,
Cambridge (Massachusetts) 1973.Curtis, E.L. and Madsen, A.A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of
Chronicles (ICC), Edinburgh 1910.Davies, G.I., “ URW T in 1 Kings 5: 6 (EVV. 4: 26) and the Assyrian Horse
Lists”, JSSt 34 (1989), 25–38.Day, J., “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan”, in W. Dietrich and
M.A. Klopfenstein (eds.), Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismusim Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte (OBO 139),Freiburg/Göttingen 1993, 181–96.
Debus, J., Die Sünde Jerobeams (FRLANT 93), Göttingen 1967.DeVries, S.J., 1 Kings (Word Biblical Commentary 12), Waco 1985.Dietrich, W., Prophetie und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteron-
omistischen Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 108), Göttingen 1972.
Ehrlich, A.B., Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel, Bd. 7, Leipzig 1914.Elliger, K., Leviticus (HAT 4), Tübingen 1966.Eynikel, E., The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History
(OTS 3), Leiden/New York 1996.Fedden, R., Syria. A Historical Appreciation, London 1946.Feldman, L.H., “Josephus’ View of Solomon”, in L.K. Handy (ed.), The Age of
Solomon. Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium (Studies in the History and Cultureof the Ancient Near East 11), Leiden/New York 1997, 348–74.
Fernández Marcos, N., “Literary and Editorial Features of the Antiochian Text inKings”, in C.E. Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagintand Cognate Studies. Jerusalem, 1986, Atlanta 1987, 287–304.
Fokkelman, J.P., Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. Volume I: King David,Assen 1981.
Friedman, R.E., The Exile and Biblical Narrative. The Formation of the Deuteronomistic andPriestly Works (HSM 22), Chico 1981.
Frisch, A., “Structure and Significance: The Narrative of Solomon’s Reign (1 Kings1–12.24)”, JSOT 51 (1991), 3–14.
Gerleman, G., Studies in the Septuagint II. Chronicles, Lund 1946.Glatt-Gilad, D.A., “The Deuteronomistic Critique of Solomon: A Response to
Marvin A. Sweeney”, JBL 116 (1997), 700–703.Görg, M., “Die Gattung des sogenannten Tempelweihspruchs (1 Kg 8,12f.)”, UF
6 (1974), 55–63.Gooding, D.W., “Ahab according to the Septuagint”, ZAW 76 (1964), 269–80.———, “Pedantic Timetabling in 3rd Book of Reigns”, VT 15 (1965), 153–66.———, “The Septuagint’s Version of Solomon’s Misconduct”, VT 15 (1965), 325–35.———, “Temple Specifications: A Dispute in Logical Arrangement between the
MT and the LXX”, VT 17 (1967), 143–72.———, “The Septuagint’s Rival Versions of Jeroboam’s Rise to Power”, VT 17
(1967), 173–89.———, “The Shimei Duplicate and its Satellite Miscellanies in 3 Reigns II”, JSSt
13 (1968), 76–92.———, “Problems of Text and Midrash in the Third Book of Reigns”, Textus 7
(1969), 1–29.———, “Text-sequence and Translation-revision in 3 Reg. IX 10–X 33”, VT 19
(1969), 448–63.———, Relics of Ancient Exegesis: A Study of the Miscellanies in 3 Reg. 2 (MSSOTS 4),
Cambridge 1976.Gray, J., I & II Kings (OTL), London 1964.Hänel, J., “Die Zusätze der Septuaginta in I Reg 2 35a–o und 46a–l”, ZAW 47
(1929), 76–79.Halévy, J., “Recherches bibliques”, RSEHA 8 (1900), 193–238.Haran, M., Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel. An Inquiry into Biblical Cult
Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School, Winona Lake 1985.Hrozn , H., Die Abweichungen des Codex Vaticanus vom hebräischen Texte in den Königsbüchern
(diss.), Leipzig 1909.Hurowitz, V.A., “I have Built You an Exalted House.” Temple Building in the Bible in Light
of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings ( JSOT.S 115), Sheffield 1992.Japhet, S., I & II Chronicles (OTL), London 1993.Jepsen, A., Die Quellen des Königsbuches, Halle 19562.Jones, G.H., 1 and 2 Kings (NCeB), Grand Rapids/London 1984.Jongeling, K., “The Hebrew Particle ˚a”, Dutch Studies—Near Eastern Languages and
Literatures 3 (1997), 75–108.Kalimi, I., Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten: Literarisch-historiographische Abweichungen
der Chronik von ihren Paralleltexten in den Samuel- und Königsbüchern (BZAW 226),Berlin/New York 1995.
bibliography 307
Keel, O. and Uehlinger, C., “Jahwe und die Sonnengottheit von Jerusalem”, in W. Dietrich and M.A. Klopfenstein (eds.), Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung undbiblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte(OBO 139), Freiburg/Göttingen 1993, 269–306.
Keulen, P.S.F. van, Manasseh through the Eyes of the Deuteronomists: The Manasseh Account(2 Kings 21: 1–18) and the Final Chapters of the Deuteronomistic History (OTS 38),Leiden/New York, 1996.
———, “The Background of 3 Kgdms 2: 46c”, JNWSL 24 (1998), 91–110.———, “A Case of Ancient Exegesis: The Story of Solomon’s Adversaries (1 Kgs.
11: 14–25) in Septuaginta, Peshitta, and Josephus”, in J. Cook (ed.), Bible andComputer. The Stellenbosch AIBI-6 Conference. Proceedings of the Association InternationaleBible et Informatique “From Alpha to Byte”. University of Stellenbosch 17–21 July, 2000,Leiden/Boston 2002, 555–71.
Kittel, R., Die Bücher der Könige (HK 1,5), Göttingen 1900.Klostermann, A., Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige (Kurzgefasster Kommentar zu
den heiligen Schriften Alten und Neuen Testamentes sowie zu den Apokryphen),Nördlingen 1887.
Knauf, E.A., “Le roi est mort, vive le roi! A Biblical Argument for the Historicityof Solomon”, in L.K. Handy (ed.), The Age of Solomon. Scholarship at the Turn ofthe Millennium (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East11), Leiden/New York 1997, 81–95.
Knoppers, G.N., Two Nations under God. The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and theDual Monarchies. Volume I: The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam (HSM52), Atlanta 1993.
Kooij, A. van der, “De Tekst van Samuel en het Tekstkritisch Onderzoek”, NedThT36 (1982), 177–204.
Krautwurst, G., Studien zu den Septuagintazusätzen in 1. (3.) Könige 2 und ihren Paralleltexten(diss.), Mainz 1977.
Kuan, J.K., “Third Kingdoms 5.1 and Israelite-Tyrian Relations during the Reignof Solomon”, JSOT 46 (1990), 31–46.
Kuenen, A., Historisch-critisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boekendes Ouden Verbonds, tweede, geheel omgewerkte uitgave, Deel I, 2, Haarlem1887.
Kutsch, E., Salbung als Rechtsakt im Alten Testament und im alten Orient (BZAW 87),Berlin/New York 1963.
Lefebvre, P., “Le troisième livre des Règnes”, in M. d’Hamonville, F. Vinel et al.,Autour des livres de la Septante. Proverbes, Ecclésiaste, Nombres, 3eme Livre des Règnes,Paris 1995, 81–122.
Légasse, S., “Les voiles du temple de Jérusalem: essai de parcours historique”, RB87 (1980), 560–89.
Lemaire, A., “Les premiers rois araméens dans la tradition biblique”, in P.M.M.Daviau, J.W. Wevers, and M. Weigl (eds.), The World of the Aramaeans I: BiblicalStudies in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion ( JSOT.S 324), Sheffield 2001, 113–43.
———, Nouvelles tablettes araméennes (HEO 34), Genève 2001.Long, B.O., 1 Kings (FOTL 9), Grand Rapids 1984.Loretz, O., “Der Torso eines Kanaanäisch-Israëlitischen Tempelweihspruches in
1 Kg 8,12–13”, UF 6 (1974), 478–80.Margolis, M.L., “Miszellen”, ZAW 31 (1911), 313–15.May, H.G., “Some Aspects of Solar Worship at Jerusalem”, ZAW 55 (1937), 269–81.Mayes, A.D.H., The Story of Israel between Settlement and Exile. A Redactional Study of the
Deuteronomistic History, London 1983.McKenzie, S.L., “1 Kings 8: A Sample Study into the Texts of Kings Used by the
Chronicler and Translated by the Old Greek”, BIOSCS 19 (1986), 15–34.
308 bibliography
———, The Trouble with Kings. The Composition of the Book of Kings in the DeuteronomisticHistory (VT.S 42), Leiden/New York 1991.
Mettinger, T.N.D., King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the IsraeliteKings, Lund 1976.
Montgomery, J.A., “The Year Eponymate in the Hebrew Monarchy”, JBL 49 (1930),311–19.
———, “The Supplement at End of 3 Kingdoms 2 [I Reg 2]”, ZAW 50 (1932),124–29.
Montgomery, J.A., and Gehman, H.S., The Books of Kings (ICC), Edinburgh 1951.Mulder, M.J., 1 Kings. Volume I: 1 Kings 1–11 (Historical Commentary on the Old
Testament), Leuven 1998.Noth, M., Könige, I.1–16 (BK 9/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1968.———, The Deuteronomistic History ( JSOT.S 15), Sheffield 19912.O’Brien, M.A., The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment (OBO 92),
Freiburg/Göttingen 1989.Parker, K.I., “Repetition as a Structuring Device in 1 Kings 1–11”, JSOT 42 (1988),
19–27.———, “The Limits to Solomon’s Reign: A Response to Amos Frisch”, JSOT 51
(1991), 15–21.Peterca, V., “Ein midraschartiges Auslegungsbeispiel zugunsten Salomos. 1 Kön
8,12–13—3 Reg 8,53a”, BZ 31 (1987), 270–75.———, “Solomone nel Libro greco dei Re, detto Regni. Un analisi del suo ritatto
in chiave midrashica”, RevBib 30 (1982), 175–96.Polak, F.H., “The Septuaginta Account of Solomon’s Reign: Revision and Ancient
Recension”, in B.A. Taylor (ed.), X Congress of the International Organization forSeptuagint and Cognate Studies. Oslo, 1998, Atlanta 2001, 139–64.
Porten, B., “The Structure and Theme of the Solomon Narrative (1 Kings 3–11)”,HUCA 38 (1967), 93–128.
Provan, I.W., Hezekiah and the Books of Kings. A Contribution to the Debate about theComposition of the Deuteronomistic History (BZAW 172), Berlin/New York 1988.
Rahlfs, A., Septuaginta-Studien I–III, Göttingen 19652.Rehm, M., Textkritische Untersuchungen zu den Parallelstellen der Samuel-Königsbücher und
der Chronik (ATA 13/3), Münster 1937.———, “Die Beamtenliste der Septuaginta in 1 Kön 2,46h”, in J. Schreiner (ed.),
Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch. Beiträge zur Septuaginta. Festschrift für Joseph Ziegler(Forschung zur Bibel 1), Würzburg 1972.
———, Das erste Buch der Könige. Ein Kommentar, Eichstätt 1979.Rudolph, W., Chronikbücher (HAT), Tübingen 1955.Särkiö, P., Die Weisheit und Macht Salomos in der Israelitischen Historiographie. Eine tradi-
tions- und redaktionskritische Untersuchung über 1 Kön. 3–5 und 9–11 (Schriften derfinnischen exegetischen Gesellschaft 60), Göttingen 1994.
Schenker, A., “Un cas de critique narrative au service de la critique textuelle (1 Rois 11,43–12,2–3.20)”, Bib. 77 (1996), 219–26.
———, “Jéroboam et la division du royaume dans la Septante ancienne: LXX 1 Rois 12, 24a–z, TM 11–12; 14 et l’histoire deutéronomiste”, in A. de Pury, Th.Römer, J.-D. Macchi (eds.), Israel construit son histoire. L’historiographie deutéronomisteà la lumière des recherches récentes (Le Monde de la Bible 34), Genève 1996, 193–236.
———, “Corvée ou ressources de Solomon? TM 1 Rois 9, 15–23 et LXX 3 Règnes10, 23–25”, RevSR 73 (1999), 151–64.
———, Septante et texte massorétique dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 2–14(CRB 48), Paris 2000.
Shenkel, J.D., Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings (HSM1), Cambridge (Massachusetts) 1968.
bibliography 309
Shenkel, J.D., “A Comparative Study of the Synoptic Parallels in 1 Paraleipomenaand I–II Reigns”, HThR 62 (1969), 63–85.
Soggin, J.A., “Compulsory Labor under David and Solomon”, in T. Ishida (ed.),Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays. Papers Read at theInternational Symposium for Biblical Studies Tokyo, 5–7 December 1979, Tokyo 1982,259–67.
Soisalon-Soininen, I., Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta (AASF B/132), Helsinki 1965.Stade, B., “Der Text des Berichtes über Solomons Bauten. 1 Kö. 5–7”, ZAW 3
(1883), 129–77.Stade, B. and Schwally, F., The Books of Kings. Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text (SBOT
9), Leipzig 1904.Stähli, H.-P., Solare Elemente im Jahweglauben des Alten Testaments (OBO 66), Freiburg/
Göttingen 1985.Stipp, H.-J., “Das Verhältnis von Textkritik und Literarkritik in neueren alttesta-
mentlichen Veröffentlichungen”, BZ 34 (1990), 16–37.Sweeney, M.A., “The Critique of Solomon in the Josianic Edition of the
Deuteronomistic History”, JBL 114 (1995), 607–22.anda, A. , Die Bücher der Könige (EHAT 9), Münster 1911.
Talshir, Z., “The Image of the Septuagint Edition of the Book of Kings”, Tarb. 59(1990), 249–302 [Hebrew; English summary pages I–II].
———, The Alternative Story of the Division of the Kingdom (3 Kingdoms 12: 24a–z) ( JBS6), Jerusalem 1993.
———, “The Contribution of Diverging Traditions Preserved in the Septuagint toLiterary Criticism of the Bible”, in L. Greenspoon and O. Munnich (eds.), VIIICongress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Paris 1992(SCSt 41), Atlanta 1995, 21–40.
———, “The Reign of Solomon in the Making. Pseudo-Connections between 3Kingdoms and Chronicles”, VT 50 (2000), 233–49.
———, “Literary Design—A Criterion for Originality? A Case Study: 3 Kgdms12:24a–z; 1 K 11–14”, in Y. Goldman and C. Uehlinger (eds.), La double trans-mission du texte biblique. Etudes d’histoire du texte offertes en hommage à Adrian Schenker(OBO 179), Fribourg/Göttingen 2001, 41–57.
Taylor, J.G., Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship inAncient Israel ( JSOT.S 111), Sheffield 1993.
Thackeray, H.St.J., “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings”, JThS 8(1907), 262–78.
———, “New Light on the Book of Jashar (A Study of 3 Regn. VIII 53b LXX)”,JThS 11 (1910), 518–32.
———, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship, London 1921.Thenius, O., Die Bücher der Könige (KEH), Leipzig 18732.Tov, E., “Lucian and Proto-Lucian. Toward a New Solution of the Problem”, RB
79 (1972), 101–13.———, “The LXX Additions (Miscellanies) in 1 Kings 2 (3 Reigns 2)”, Textus 11
(1984), 89–118.———, “Some Sequence Differences between the MT and LXX and their
Ramifications for the Literary Criticism of the Bible”, JNWSL 13 (1987), 151–60.———, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis/Assen/Maastricht 1992.———, The Text-critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Revised and Enlarged
Second Edition ( JBS 8), Jerusalem 1997.Trebolle Barrera, J.C., Salomón y Jeroboán. Historia de la recensión y redacción de 1 Reyes
2–12, 14 (Institución San Jerónimo 10), Valencia 1980.———, “Testamento y muerte de David”, RB 87 (1980), 87–103.———, “Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings”, BIOSCS 15
(1982), 12–35.
310 bibliography
———, Centena in Libros Samuelis et Regum. Variantes textuales y composición literaria enlos libros de Samuel y Reyes (TECC 47), Madrid 1989.
———, “The Text-critical Use of the Septuagint in the Books of Kings”, in C.E.Cox (ed.), VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and CognateStudies, Leuven 1989 (SCSt 31), Atlanta 1991, 285–99.
———, “The Authoritative Functions of Scriptural Works at Qumran”, in E. Ulrichand J. Vanderkam (eds.), The Community of the Renewed Covenant. The Notre DameSymposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Notre Dame (Indiana) 1993, 95–110.
———, “Histoire du texte des livres historiques et histoire de la composition et dela rédaction deutéronomistes avec une publication préliminaire de 4Q481A,“Apocryphe d’Élisée”, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Paris 1992, Leiden/New York 1995, 327–42.
Van Seters., J., In Search of History. Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins ofBiblical History, New Haven 1983.
Vanoni, G., Literarkritik und Grammatik: Untersuchung der Wiederholungen und Spannungenin 1 Kön 11-12 (ATSAT 21), St. Ottilien 1984.
Wacholder, B.Z., Eupolemus. A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature (MHUC 3), Cincinnati/NewYork 1974.
Walsh, J.T., 1 Kings (Berit Olam; Studies in Hebrew Narrative Art & Poetry),Collegeville 1996.
Walters, P., The Text of the Septuagint. Its Corruptions and their Emendations, Cambridge1973.
Weinfeld, M.E., Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford 1972.Weippert, H., “Die ‘deuteronomistischen’ Beurteilungen der Könige von Israel und
Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Königsbücher”, Bib. 53 (1972), 301–39.Wellhausen, J., Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments,
Berlin 18892.Wevers, J.W., “Exegetical Principles underlying the Septuagint Text of I Kings
ii 12–xxi 43”, OTS 8 (1950), 300–22.———, “A Study in the Textual History of Codex Vaticanus in the Books of
Kings”, ZAW 64 (1952), 178–89.Williams, D.S., “Once Again: The Structure of the Narrative of Solomon’s Reign”,
JSOT 86 (1999), 49–66.Williamson, H.G.M., 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCeB), Grand Rapids 1982.Willis, T.M., “The Text of 1 Kings 11:43–12:3”, CBQ 53 (1991), 37–44.Würthwein, E., Das Erste Buch der Könige. Kapitel 1–16 (ATD 11,1), Göttingen 1977.
The following abbreviations are used to refer to editions of biblical sources, dictionaries, and ref-erence works:
AHw Soden, W. von, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch, I–III, Wiesbaden1965–1981.
Bauer Bauer, W., Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Berlin/New York 19715.BD Blass, F. and Debrunner, A., Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch.
Bearbeitet von F. Rehkopf, Göttingen 197915.BDB Brown, F., Driver, S.R. and Briggs, C.A. (eds.), A Hebrew and
English Lexicon of the Old Testament, with an Appendix Containing theBiblical Aramaic, Oxford 1906.
BHK Biblia Hebraica, ed. R. Kittel, Stuttgart 1929–1937.Brooke-McLean Brooke, A.E., McLean, N. and Thackeray, H.St.J., The Old Testament
in Greek. II/II: I and II Kings, Cambridge 1930.DJD XIV Ulrich, E. and Cross, F.M. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4. IX. Deuteronomy,
Joshua, Judges, Kings (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 14), Oxford1995.
bibliography 311
DSS García Martínez, F., The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. The QumranText in English, Leiden/New York 1994.
Fernández Marcos Fernández Marcos, N., and Busto Saiz, J.R., El texto Antioqueno -Busto Saiz de la biblia griega, II. 1–2 Reyes (TECC 53), Madrid 1992.Gesenius Gesenius, W., Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das
Alte Testament, I-, Berlin 198718.HALAT Koehler, L. and Baumgartner, W., Hebräisches und aramäisches
Lexikon zum Alten Testament. Dritte Auflage new bearbeitet von J.J.Stamm, I–IV, Leiden 1967–1990.
Hatch-Redpath Hatch, E., and Redpath, H.A., A Concordance to the Septuagintand the Other Greek Versions of the OT, Oxford 1897–1906 (reprintGraz 1954).
Jastrow Jastrow, M., A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli andYerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, London 1903 (reprint NewYork 1996).
Jewish Ant. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities. Books V–VIII (Loeb Classical Library;Josephus V), translated by H.St.J. Thackeray and R. Marcus,Cambridge (Massachusetts)/London 1988 (reprint).
Joüon-Muraoka Joüon, P., A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and Revised byT. Muraoka (SubBi 14/I, II), Roma 1991.
KBL Koehler, L. and Baumgartner, W., Lexicon in Veteris TestamentiLibros, Leiden 19582.
König König, F.E., Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebaüde der hebräischen Sprache,I–III, Leipzig 1881–1897.
LSJ Liddell, H.G., Scott, R. and Jones, H.S., A Greek-English Lexicon,Oxford 19689.
Rahlfs Rahlfs, A., Septuaginta, id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXXinterpretes, Stuttgart 1935.
THAT Jenni, E. and Westermann, C. (eds.), Theologisches Handwörterbuchzum Alten Testament, I–II, München 19783.
ThWAT Botterbeck, G.J. and Ringgren, H. (eds.), Theologisches Wörterbuchzum Alten Testament, Stuttgart 1973–.
Vannutelli, I Vannutelli, P., Libri Synoptici Veteris Testamenti seu Librorum Regumet Chronicorum Loci Paralleli, I (SPIB), Roma 1931.
312 bibliography
APPENDIX
SYNOPSIS OF 3 REGUM 2: 35A–O, 46A–L AND
PARALLEL TEXTS
The text portions of MT 1 Kings running parallel with items of the
Miscellanies have been divided into two columns. Where the
Miscellanies duplicate the main Greek text and a Hebrew parallel
(MT) is extant in a position corresponding to that of the main Greek
text, the Hebrew text appears in the fourth column. The Hebrew
parallel (MT) appears in the second column when the Greek main
text does not contain a rendering of the Hebrew or when the ren-
dering occurs in a position not corresponding to that of the Hebrew
text. When the six columns set out below are insufficient to represent
all relevant parallels, as in 3 Reg. 2: 35f and 46b, an alternative
division of columns, marked by a frame, has been used.
LXX 3
Reg.
Miscellan
ies
MT 1
Kgs
.LXX 3
Reg.
main
text
MT 1
Kgs
.LXX 2
Par
.M
T 2
Chr
on.
2:
35a
ka‹ ¶
dvke
n kÊ
riow
5:
9ka
‹ ¶dv
ken
kÊri
owμy
hiŸløa‘
°TeYIw"
5:
9fr
Ònhs
in t
“ S
alv
mvn
frÒn
hsin
t“
Sal
vmv
nhm
øäløv]li
hmá;k]j
;ka
‹ sof
¤an
poll
Øn s
fÒdr
aka
‹ sof
¤an
poll
Øn s
fÒdr
ada
ø-m] hB
¢er“h' h
n¡:Wbt]W
ka‹ p
lãto
w ka
rd¤a
wka
‹ xÊm
a ka
rd¤a
wbl
e+ bj'r
ø¢w“…
w ≤
êmmo
w…
w ≤
êmmo
wlw
jøÈK'
≤ pa
rå≤
parå
l[' r
v,a}
tpà'c]A
tØn
yãla
ssan
tØn
yãla
ssan
>μYê:h
'2:
35b
ka‹ §
plhy
Ênyh
5:
10
ka‹ §
plhy
Ênyh
b~r<Te~w
" 5:
10
≤ fr
Ònhs
iwtm
¢'k]j;
Salv
mvn
Salv
mvn
hmø+løv
]sf
Òdra
sfÒd
raÍp
¢r t
Øn f
rÒnh
sin
Íp¢r
tØn
frÒ
nhsi
ntm
`'k]j;mâe
pãnt
vn
érxa
¤vn
ufl«
npã
ntv
n ér
xa¤v
n én
yr≈
pvn
μd<q-≤AynEB
]AlK;
ka‹ Í
p¢r
pãnt
aw f
ron¤
mouw
ka‹ Í
p¢r
pãnt
aw f
ron¤
mouw
tmà'k]j
; lKøm
iWA
figÊp
tou
Afig
Êpto
u>μyIr
â:x]mi
hmø+løv
] ˆT¢ej
't]YIw"
3:
1μy
Ir-:x]mi
Ël,m¢,
h[ø`r“P
'Ata,
2:
35c
ka‹ ¶
labe
nhQ
¢'YIw"5:
14a
ka‹ ¶
labe
n Sa
lvmv
ntØ
n yu
gat°
ra F
arav
h[ø%r“P
'AtB'A
ta,
tØn
yuga
t°ra
Far
av•a
ut“
efiw
gun
a›ka
ka‹ e
fisÆg
agen
aÈt
Ønh~;a
~,ybiy“w"
ka‹ e
fisÆg
agen
aÈt
Ønefi
w tØ
n pÒ
lin
Daui
ddw
I±D: ry
[¢iAla
,efi
w tØ
n pÒ
lin
Daui
dßv
w su
ntel
°sai
aÈt
Únwt
ø%LøK' d
[¢'ßv
w su
ntel
°sai
aÈt
Úntw
nO•b]li
tÚn
o‰ko
n aÈ
tou
/!tyB
eAta,
tÚn
o‰ko
n ku
r¤ou
ka‹ t
Ún o
‰kon
kur
¤ou
hw:±hy
“ tyB
¢eAta,w
“ka
‹ tÚn
o‰k
on •
auto
˧n
pr≈
toiw
ka‹ t
Ú te
›xow
Ier
ousa
lhm
μl'v;W
ry“ t
mà'/jA
ta,w“
ka‹ t
Ú te
›xow
Ier
ousa
lhm
kukl
Òyen
>byb
âis;§n
•pt
å ¶t
esin
Whn¡Eb
]YIw" 6:
38b
b§p
o¤hs
en>μynêIv
; [b'v
à,ka
‹ sun
et°l
esen
314 appendix
LXX 3
Reg.
Miscellan
ies
MT 1
Kgs
.LXX 3
Reg.
main
text
MT 1
Kgs
.LXX 2
Par
.M
T 2
Chr
on.
2:
35d
ka‹ ∑
n t“
Sal
vmv
n5:
29
ka‹ ∑
n t“
Sal
vmv
nhm
øäløv]li
yháiy“w"
5:
29
•bdo
mÆko
nta
xili
ãdew
•bdo
mÆko
nta
xili
ãdew
πl,a,
μy[àib
]via‡
ront
ew ê
rsin
a‡ro
ntew
êrs
inlB
-;s' ac
¢enOka
‹ Ùgd
oÆko
nta
xili
ãdew
ka‹ Ù
gdoÆ
kont
a xi
liãd
ewπl
,a, μy
nèImøv]W
latÒ
mvn
§n t
“ ˆ
rei
latÒ
mvn
§n t
“ ˆ
rei
>rhâ;B
; bxàej
ø2:
35e
ka‹ §
po¤h
sen
Salv
mvn
tØn
yãla
ssan
cf.
7:
10
cf.
7:
23
ka‹ t
å Íp
osth
r¤gm
ata
cf.
7:
11
cf.
7:
24
ka‹ t
oÁw
lout
∞raw
cf.
7:
17
cf.
7:
30,
38,
43
toÁw
meg
ãlou
wka
‹ toÁ
w st
Êlou
wcf
.7:
3–9
cf.
7:
15–22
ka‹ t
Øn k
rÆnh
nt∞
w aÈ
l∞w
ka‹ t
Øn y
ãlas
san
cf.
7:
10
cf.
7:
23
tØn
xalk
∞n
3 R
egum
1 K
ings
3 R
egum
3 R
egum
2:
35f
ka‹ ”
kodÒ
mhse
n11:
27(b
) Sa
lvmv
n ”
kodÒ
mhse
nhn
∞:B; h~m
øløv]1
1:
27(b
)10:
22a
(...) ”
kodÒ
m∞sa
i (...)
12:
24b o
tow
–ko
dÒmh
sen
tØn
êkra
ntØ
n êk
ran
awL+M
ih'Ata
,tØ
n êk
ran
tØn
êkra
n §
n ta
›w ê
rses
in o
‡kou
Efr
aim
ka‹ t
åw §
pãlj
eiw
aÈt∞
wsu
n°kl
eise
nrg
"Øs;to
Ë pe
rifr
ãjai
oto
w su
n°kl
eise
ntÚ
nAt
a,tÚ
nka
‹ di°
koc
en
frag
mÚn
≈r<P,È
frag
mÚn
tØn
pÒli
n Da
uid
t∞w
pÒle
vw
Daui
ddw
èID: ry
[`it∞
w pÒ
lev
w Da
uid
tØn
pÒli
n Da
uid
toË
patr
Úw a
ÈtoË
>wybâia
;
oÏtv
w yu
gãth
r F
arav
h[ø%r“P
'AtB'
Ëa¢' 9
: 24
9:
9a
tÒte
énÆ
gage
n Sa
lvmv
n8:1
1a
ka‹ t
Øn y
ugat
°ra
Far
avh[
ø%r“P'At
B'Ata
,w“ 8:1
1a
én°b
aine
nh~t
;l][â;
tØn
yuga
t°ra
Far
avSa
lvmv
n én
Ægag
enh~m
øløv] h
l¶;[‘h,
§k t
∞w p
Òlev
w Da
uid
dwI±D:
ry[¢im
e§k
pÒl
evw
Daui
d§k
pÒl
evw
Daui
ddy
wI±D: r
y[¢ime
efiw
tÚn
o‰ko
n aÈ
t∞w
Ht;yB
eAla,
efiw
o‰ko
n aÈ
tou
efiw
tÚn
o‰ko
nty
IB'l'
˘n ”
kodÒ
mhse
n aÈ
tªHl
-;Ahn:B
â; rv¢,a
}˘n
”ko
dÒmh
sen
•aut
ƒ˘n
”ko
dÒmh
sen
aÈt˙
Hl-;Ah
n:Bâ; r
v¢,a}
§n t
a›w
≤m°r
aiw
§ke¤
naiw
tÒte
”ko
dÒmh
sen
tØn
êkra
n>awL
âMih'At
a, hn
è:B; za
;
overview of 3 reg. 2: 35a‒o, 46a‒l and parallel texts 315
LXX 3
Reg.
Miscellan
ies
MT 1
Kgs
.LXX 3
Reg.
main
text
MT 1
Kgs
.LXX 2
Par
.M
T 2
Chr
on.
2:
35g
ka‹ S
alv
mvn
én°f
eren
hmø^lOv
] hl¢;[
‘h,w“ 9
: 25
8:1
2tÒ
te é
nÆne
gken
Sal
vmv
nhm
øäløv] h
lá;[‘h,
za¢; 8
:12
tre›
w §n
t“
§ni
autƒ
hn:¤V;B
' μym
iŸ[;P] v
*løv;
ılok
aut≈
seiw
twlø¢[
øıl
okau
t≈ma
ta t
“ k
ur¤ƒ
hw–:hy
l' tw
lø`[ø
ka‹ e
firhn
ikåw
μymi%l
;v]W§p
‹ tÚ
yusi
astÆ
rion
j~'Be~z“M
ih'Al[
'§p
‹ tÚ
yusi
astÆ
rion
hw:±hy
“ jB∞'z
“mi l[
'˘
”ko
dÒmh
sen
hn∞:B;
rv¢,a}
˘ ”
kodÒ
mhse
nhn
¡:B; rv
à,a}t“
kur
¤ƒhw
:±hyl'
ép°n
anti
toË
nao
Ë>μlâ;W
ah; y
nèEp]li
ka‹ §
yum¤
ary
f¢eq]h'w
“rv
`,a} wT
ø%ai§n
≈pi
on k
ur¤o
uhw
–:hy“ y
n∞Ep]li
ka‹ s
unet
°les
en t
Ún o
‰kon
>tyIB
â;h'Ata
, μL`'v
iw“2:
35h
ka‹ o
toi
ofl ê
rxon
tew
yr¢Ec;
hL,a¢e
9:
23
5:
30
xvr‹
w ér
xÒnt
vn
yrEŸC;m
i db'l
]· 5:
30
8:
10
ka‹ o
toi
êrx
onte
wyr
¶Ec; hL
,aeŸw“ 8
: 10
ofl k
ayes
tam°
noi
μybi%X
;NIh'
t«n
kaye
stam
°nv
nμy
b¶iX;NIh
't«
n pr
osta
t«n
μybäiX
;NIh'
h~møløv
]liba
sil°
vw
Salv
mvn
hmø`løv
] Ël,M
à,l'Arv
,a}rv
¶,a}rv
¢,a}§p
‹ tå
¶rga
toË
Sal
vmv
nhm
ø+løv]li
h~k;al
;M]h'Al
['§p
‹ t«
n ¶r
gvn
t«n
Salv
mvn
hk;+al
;M]h'Al
['tr
e›w
xili
ãdew
μyVim
ij}tr
e›w
xili
ãdew
μypil
;a} tv
,løàv]
pent
Ækon
taμy
V¢imij}
ka‹ •
jakÒ
sioi
twaø-m
e vm¢ej
}w"ka
‹ •ja
kÒsi
oitw
aø-me v
lø¢v]W
ka‹ d
iakÒ
sioi
μyIt-;a
m;W§p
istã
tai
μyd¢Ir
øh;§p
istã
tai
μyd¢r
øh;§r
godi
vkt
oËnt
ewμy
dIrøh;
toË
laou
μ[;+B;
μ[;+B;
§n t
“ l
a“>μ[â;B
;t«
n po
ioÊn
tvn
tå ¶
rga
>hkâ;a
l;M]B'
μyc`i[
øh;ofl
poi
oËnt
ew t
å ¶r
ga>hkâ;a
l;M]B'
μyci[
øh;2:
35i
ka‹ ”
kodÒ
mhse
n10:
22a
(...) ”
kodÒ
m∞sa
i (...)
(...) t
/nb]li
(...) 9
: 15
tØn
Ass
our
tØn
Ass
our
rxøàj;A
ta,
ka‹ t
Øn M
agdv
ka‹ t
Øn M
agda
nwD
ø`gIm]At
a,w“
ka‹ t
Øn G
azer
ka‹ t
Øn G
azer
(...) >rz
<Gê:Ata
,w“8:
5a
(ka‹
”ko
dÒmh
sen)
(ˆb,Y⁄w")
8:
5a
ka‹ t
Øn B
aiyv
rvn
tØn
§pãn
vka
‹ tØn
Bai
yvrv
n tØ
n én
vt°
rvtØ
n Ba
iyv
rvn
tØn
ênv
ˆwyO±l][
,hâ; !/r
/j t
yB¶eAt
a,>ˆwTøâj
]T' ˆr
ø`jø ty
BàeAta
,w“ 9:
17b
ka‹ t
Øn B
aiyv
rvn
tØn
kãtv
ˆwTø-j]T
'h' ˆwr
ø/j t
yBàeAt
a,w“
ka‹ t
å Ba
alay
tlä;[}B
'Ataâ,w
“9:
18
8:
6a
ka‹ t
Øn B
aala
ytl
;%[}B'At
aâ,w“8
: 6a
316 appendix
LXX 3
Reg.
Miscellan
ies
MT 1
Kgs
.LXX 3
Reg.
main
text
MT 1
Kgs
.LXX 2
Par
.M
T 2
Chr
on.
2:
35k
plØn
cf.
10:
22a
cf.
9:
15
metå
tÚ
ofiko
dom∞
sai a
ÈtÚn
tÚn
o‰ko
n to
Ë ku
r¤ou
ka‹ t
Ú te
›xow
Ier
ousa
lhm
kÊkl
ƒme
tå t
aËta
”ko
dÒmh
sen
tåw
pÒle
iw t
aÊta
w2:
35l
ka‹ §
n t“
¶ti
Dau
id z
∞n§n
ete¤
lato
t“
Sal
vmv
n2:
1b k
a‹ §
nete
¤lat
o t“
Sal
vmv
nhm
øàløv]At
a, wx
äy“w" 2:
1b
ufl“
aÈt
ouwnO¡b
]l°
gvn
l°gv
n>rmøâa
lefid
oÁ m
etå
soË
Seme
i2:
8ka
‹ fido
Á me
tå s
oË S
emeÛ
y[iŸm]v
âi ÚM][
i· hN∞Eh
iw“ 2:
8ufl
Úw G
hra
uflÚw
Ghr
aar
à:GEAˆb
,ufl
Úwufl
ÚwAˆb,
sp°r
mato
wto
Ë Ie
mini
toË
Ieme
niyÔnIy
miy“h'
§k X
ebrv
n§k
Bao
urim
μyrIj
uB'mi
2:
35m
oto
w ka
thrã
satÒ
me
ka‹ a
ÈtÚw
kat
hrãs
atÒ
mey!nIl
'l]qâi a
Wh~w“
katã
ran
Ùdun
hrån
katã
ran
Ùdun
hrån
tx,r<+m
]nI hl
¢;l;q]
§n √
≤m°
r&tª
≤m°
r&μw
yO¡B]
§por
euÒm
hn√
§por
euÒm
hnyT
¢ik]l,
efiw
pare
mbol
ãwefi
w pa
remb
olãw
μyIn–:t
}m'2:
35n
ka‹ a
ÈtÚw
kat
°bai
nen
ka‹ a
ÈtÚw
kat
°bh
dr¶"y:AaW
hâw“
efiw
épan
tÆn
moi
efiw
épan
tÆn
mou
y!tiar
:q]li
§p‹ t
Ún I
ordã
nhn
efiw
tÚn
Iord
ãnhn
ˆDE+r“Y
"h'ka
‹ vÖm
osa
aÈtƒ
ka‹ v
Ömos
a aÈ
t“wl
ø¶ [bâ'V
;Ÿa,w:
katå
toË
kur
¤ou
§n k
ur¤ƒ
h~w:hy
bâ'l°
gvn
l°gv
nrm
ø+ale
efi y
anat
vyÆ
seta
iefi
yan
at≈
sv s
eÚt
]ymâia}A
μai
§n =
omfa
¤&§n
=om
fa¤&
>br<j
â;B,
overview of 3 reg. 2: 35a‒o, 46a‒l and parallel texts 317
LXX 3
Reg.
Miscellan
ies
MT 1
Kgs
.LXX 3
Reg.
main
text
MT 1
Kgs
.LXX 2
Par
.M
T 2
Chr
on.
2:
35o
ka‹
2:
9ka
‹w“
2:
9nË
nh~T
;['mØ
éyƒ
≈s˙
w aÈ
tÒn
oÈ m
Ø éy
ƒ≈
s˙w
aÈtÒ
nWh
Qe+n"T
]Ala'
˜ti é
nØr
frÒn
imow
su
˜ti é
nØr
sofÚ
w e‰
su
hT;a-;
μk;j;
vyaài
yKäi
ka‹ g
n≈s˙
ka‹ g
n≈s˙
T~;[]d"y
ê:w“ì
poiÆ
seiw
aÈt
ē
poiÆ
seiw
aÈt
“wL
ø+Ahc,[
}Tâ' rv
¢,a} ta
¢eka
‹ kat
ãjei
wka
‹ kat
ãjei
wTá;d
“r"/hw
“tØ
n po
liån
aÈt
outØ
n po
liån
aÈt
ouwt
øäb;yceA
ta,
§n a
·mat
i§n
a·m
ati
μd:B]
efiw
údou
efiw
údou
lwaøâv
]
318 appendix
LXX 3
Reg.
Miscellan
ies
MT 1
Kgs
.LXX 3
Reg.
main
text
MT 1
Kgs
.LXX 2
Par
.M
T 2
Chr
on.
2:
46a k
a‹ ∑
n ı
basi
leÁw
Sal
vmv
nfr
Ònim
ow s
fÒdr
a ka
‹ sof
Òwka
‹ Iou
da k
a‹ I
srah
lla
er:c]yIw“
hd¶:Wh
y“ 4:
20
poll
o‹μy
Bi+r"
sfÒd
ra…
w ≤
êmmo
wlw
jøàK'
≤ §p
‹ t∞w
yal
ãssh
wμY
¡:h'Al[
'Arv,a
}efi
w pl
∞yow
brø-l;
§sy¤
onte
wμy
làik]aø
8:
65 §
sy¤v
nka
‹ p¤n
onte
wμy
tivøw“
ka‹ p
¤nv
nka
‹ xa¤
ront
ew>μyj
âimec]W
ka‹ e
Èfra
inÒm
enow
3 R
egum
2:
46b
ka‹ S
alv
mvn
∑n ê
rxv
nlv
e/m h
y•:h; h
mø%løv]W
5:
110:
26a
ka‹ ∑
n ≤g
oÊme
now
2:
46k
ka‹ ∑
n êr
xvn
9:
26
ka‹ ∑
n ≤g
oÊme
now
lve/m
yhàiy
“w" 9:
26
§n p
ãsai
w ta
›w b
asil
e¤ai
wtw
kø+l;m]M
'h'Alk
;B]pã
ntv
n t«
n ba
sil°
vn
§n p
çsin
to›
w ba
sile
Ësin
pãnt
vn
t«n
basi
l°v
nμy
k-il;M]h
'Alk;B
]r~h
;N:h'Aˆmi
épÚ
toË
pota
mou
épÚ
toË
pota
mou
épÚ
toË
pota
mou
r~h;N:h
'Aˆmi
ka‹ ß
vw
ka‹ ß
vw
ka‹ ß
vw
d['w“
μyTi+v
]liP] ≈
r<a¢,
g∞w
éllo
fÊlv
ng∞
w él
lofÊ
lvn
g∞w
éllo
fÊlv
nμy
Ti+v]liP
] ≈r<a
¢,Aμy
Ir-:x]mi
lWb¢G
“ d[`'w
“ka
‹ ßv
w ır
¤vn
Afig
Êpto
uka
‹ ßv
w ır
¤vn
Afig
Êpto
uka
‹ ßv
w ır
¤vn
Afig
Êpto
u>μyIr
â:x]mi l
WbàG“
d['w“
ka‹ ∑
san
pros
f°ro
ntew
μyvàiG
Im'cf
. 10:
25a
ka‹ a
Èto‹
¶fe
ron
μya¢ib
im] hM
;h¢ew“ 1
0:
25a
d«ra
hjä;n“m
ißk
asto
w tå
d«
ra a
ÈtoË
wtø^j;n
“mi vy
a¢ika
‹ §do
Êleu
on t
“ S
alv
mvn
hmø`løv
]Ata,
μydàIb
][øw“
pãsa
w tå
w ≤m
°raw
ymàey“AlK
;t∞
w zv
∞w a
ÈtoË
>wyYê:j
'2:
46c
ka‹ S
alv
mvn
≥rja
to d
iano
¤gei
ncf
.9:
9tå
dun
aste
Êmat
a to
Ë L
ibãn
ou2:
46d
ka‹ a
ÈtÚw
”ko
dÒmh
sen
[...h~m
øløv] ˆ
b,Y•Iw"] 9
: 18b
10:
22a (
...) ”
kodÒ
m∞sa
i (...)
8:
4a
ka‹ ”
kodÒ
mhse
nˆb
,YèIw"8:
4a
tØn
Yer
mai §
n tª
§rÆ
mƒrB
;d“MiB'
rmøàd“T
'Ata,
tØn
Ieye
rmay
tØn
Yed
mor
§n t
ª §r
Æmƒ
rB-;d“M
iB' rm
ø`d“T'At
a,≈r
<aâ;B;
overview of 3 reg. 2: 35a‒o, 46a‒l and parallel texts 319
LXX 3
Reg.
Miscellan
ies
MT 1
Kgs
.LXX 3
Reg.
main
text
MT 1
Kgs
.LXX 2
Par
.M
T 2
Chr
on.
2:
46e
ka‹ t
oËto
tÚ
êris
ton
5:
2ka
‹ taË
ta t
å d°
onta
μj,lâ,
yhàiy“w"
5:
2t“
Sal
vmv
nt“
Sal
vmv
nhm
ø`løv]A
§n ≤
m°r&
miò
dj-;a,
μwyO∞l
]tr
iãko
nta
kÒro
itr
iãko
nta
kÒro
ir~K
ø μyv
àiløv]
semi
dãle
vw
semi
dãle
vw
tl,sø+
ka‹ •
jÆko
nta
kÒro
ika
‹ •jÆ
kont
a kÒ
roi
rKø` μ
yVàiviw
“él
eÊro
uél
eÊro
u>jm'q
;ke
kopa
nism
°nou
keko
pani
sm°n
oud°
ka5:
3ka
‹ d°k
ahr
:Ÿc;[} 5
: 3
mÒsx
oi §
klek
to‹
mÒsx
oi §
klek
to‹
μyai%r
IB] rq
;⁄b;ka
‹ e‡k
osi
ka‹ e
‡kos
iμy
ràIc][,w
“bÒ
ew n
omãd
ewbÒ
ew n
omãd
ewy[
ir“ rq
ä;B;ka
‹ •ka
tÚn
prÒb
ata
ka‹ •
katÚ
n pr
Òbat
aˆa
xø- ha
;m¢eW§k
tÚw
§lãf
vn
§ktÚ
w §l
ãfv
nlY
•:a'mâe d
b'l]·
ka‹ d
orkã
dvn
ka‹ d
orkã
dvn
rWm+j
]y"w“ y!b
ix]Wka
‹ Ùrn
¤yv
n §k
lekt
«n
nomã
dvn
ka‹ Ù
rn¤y
vn
§kle
kt«
n si
teut
a>μys
âiWba}
μyrIB
ur“b'W
2:
46f
˜ti ∑
n êr
xvn
hd¢<rø
aWh|A
yKi 5
: 4
5:
4˜t
i ∑n
êrxv
n§n
pan
t‹lk
;B]p°
ran
toË
pota
mou
rh;%N:h
' rb,[
¢eAp°
ran
toË
pota
moË
épÚ
Rafi
ßv
w Gã
zhw
hZ:±['A
d['w“
j~s'p]T
imi§n
pçs
in t
o›w
basi
leËs
inyk
el]m'Al
k;B]
p°ra
n to
Ë po
tamo
urh
-;N:h' r
b,[¢e
2:
46g
ka‹ ∑
n aÈ
t“ e
firÆn
hwl
øä hy:h
à; μwl
øv;w“
ka‹ ∑
n aÈ
t“ e
firÆn
h§k
pãn
tvn
t«n
mer«
n aÈ
tou
wyr:b;[
}AlK;m
i§k
pãn
tvn
t«n
mer«
nku
klÒy
en>byb
âiS;mi
kukl
Òyen
ka‹ k
at–
kei I
ouda
ka‹
Isr
ahl
lae⁄r:c
]yIw“ hd
:ŸWhy“
b*v,YEw"
5:
5pe
poiy
Òtew
jf'b,%l
;ßk
asto
w Íp
Ú tØ
n êm
pelo
n aÈ
tou
/!np]G"
tj'T¶'
vya¢i
ka‹ Í
pÚ t
Øn s
uk∞n
aÈt
ouwt
ø+n:aâeT]
tj't¢'w
Ҥs
y¤on
tew
ka‹ p
¤non
tew
épÚ
Dan
ka‹ ß
vw
Bhrs
abee
[b'v-;
ra¢eB]A
d['w“
ˆD:mi
pãsa
w tå
w ≤m
°raw
Sal
vmv
n>s h
møâløv]
ymàey“
lKø`
320 appendix
LXX 3
Reg.
Miscellan
ies
MT 1
Kgs
.LXX 3
Reg.
main
text
MT 1
Kgs
.LXX 2
Par
.M
T 2
Chr
on.
2:
46h
ka‹ o
toi
ofl ê
rxon
tew
4:
2ka
‹ ot
oi o
fl êrx
onte
w μy
rIC;h'
hL,aàew
“ 4:
2to
Ë Sa
lvmv
no„
∑sa
n aÈ
toË
wlø-Ar
v,a}
Aza
rion
uflÚ
w Sa
dvk
Aza
riou
uflÚ
w Sa
dvk
qwd
ø`x;Aˆb
, Why
è:r“z"[}
toË
fler°
vw
>ˆhâeKøh
'ka
‹ Orn
iou
uflÚw
Nay
an4:
5a
ka‹ O
rnia
uflÚ
w N
ayan
ˆt;n:Aˆb
, Why
è:r“z"[}w
" 4:
5a
êrxv
n t«
n §f
esth
kÒtv
n§p
‹ t«
n ka
yest
am°n
vn
μyb-iX
;NIh'Al
['ka
‹ Edr
am§p
‹ tÚn
o‰k
on a
Ètou
4:
3ka
‹ Eli
aref
πr<jøáy
lia‘ 4
: 3
ka‹ A
xia
hYë:jia
}w"ka
‹ Sou
ba g
ramm
ateÁ
wufl
Úw S
aba
gram
mate
›wav
;yvi y
nèEB] μ
yr-Ip]s
øka
‹ Iv
safa
t ufl
Úw A
xili
ddW
lyjia
}AˆB,
fpà;v;/
hy“
Ípom
imnπ
skv
n>ryK
âiz“M'h'
ka‹ B
asa
uflÚw
Axi
yala
mén
amim
nπsk
vn
ka‹ A
bi u
flÚw
Ivab
érxi
strã
thgo
wka
‹ Axi
re u
flÚw
Edra
Û4:
6b k
a‹ A
dvni
ram
uflÚw
Efr
aaD
:b]['AˆB,
μrà:ynId
øa}w" 4
: 6b
§p‹ t
åw ê
rsei
w§p
‹ t«
n fÒ
rvn
>sMâ'h
'Al['
ka‹ B
anai
a ufl
Úw I
vda
e[d
:y:/hy“Aˆb
, Why
è:n:b]W
4:
4§p
‹ t∞w
aÈl
arx¤
awab
-;X;h'Al
['ka
‹ §p‹
toË
pli
nye¤
ou4:
4 k
a‹ S
adou
x ka
‹ Abi
ayar
rt;y:b
]a,w“ q
wdøàx;w
“fle
re›w
>s μ
ynêIh}K
ka‹ Z
axou
r ufl
Úw N
ayan
4:
5b k
a‹ Z
abou
y ufl
Úw N
ayan
ˆtä;n:AˆB
, dWb
áz:w“ 4:
5b
ˆh`eKø
ı sÊ
mbou
low
•ta›
row
toË
basi
l°v
w>Ël,M
â,h' h[
à,rE4:
6a
ka‹ A
xihl
rv;yj
ia}w" 4
: 6a
ofiko
nÒmo
wty
IB-;h'Al
['ka
‹ Eli
ab u
flÚw
Saf
§p‹ t
∞w p
atri
çw
overview of 3 reg. 2: 35a‒o, 46a‒l and parallel texts 321
LXX 3
Reg.
Miscellan
ies
MT 1
Kgs
.LXX 3
Reg.
main
text
MT 1
Kgs
.LXX 2
Par
.M
T 2
Chr
on.
2:
46i
ka‹ ∑
san
t“ S
alv
mvn
hmø%løv
]li yh
¢iy“w" 5:
610:
26 k
a‹ ∑
san
t“ S
alv
mvn
9:2
5ka
‹ ∑sa
n t“
Sal
vmv
nhm
ø⁄løv]li
yhiŸy“w"
9:
25
tess
arãk
onta
xil
iãde
wπl
,aä, μy
[àiB;r“a
't°
ssar
ew x
iliã
dew
t°ss
arew
xil
iãde
wμy
piŸl;a}
t*['B'r
“a'to
kãde
w ·p
poi
μysiW
s tw
Oèr“au
yÆle
iai ·
ppoi
yÆle
iai ·
ppoi
μ~ysiW
s tw
yO•r“aâu
efiw
ërma
tawb
ø-K;r“m,l
]efi
w ër
mata
efiw
ërma
tatw
bø+K;r“m
'Wka
‹ d≈
deka
xil
iãde
wπl
,a, rc
à;[;Aμy
nEv]W
ka‹ d
≈de
ka x
iliã
dew
ka‹ d
≈de
ka x
iliã
dew
πl,a,
rcà;[;A
μynEv
]Wflp
p°v
n>μyv
âir:P;
flpp°
vn
flpp°
vn
μyv-ir
:P;ka
‹ ¶ye
to a
Ètåw
ka‹ ¶
yeto
aÈt
oÁw
μ~jeyNIY
"w"§n
ta›
w pÒ
lesi
t«
n èr
mãtv
n§n
pÒl
esin
t«
n èr
mãtv
nbk
,r<+h; y
r¢E[;B]
ka‹ m
etå
toË
basi
l°v
wka
‹ met
å to
Ë ba
sil°
vw
Ël,M,h
'Aμ[iw
Ҥn
Ier
ousa
lhm
§n I
erou
salh
m>μlâ;v
;WryB
ihJm
øløv] π
sø¢a‘Y<w"
10:
26
1:
14
ka‹ s
unÆg
agen
Sal
vmv
nhJm
øløv] π
sø¢a‘Y<w"
1:
14
μyvir
:p;W b
k,r¢<
ërma
ta k
a‹ flp
pe›w
μyvir
:p;W b
k,r¢<
wløAyhiy
“w"ka
‹ §g°
nont
o aÈ
t“wl
øAyhiy
“w"t~/
ameA[
B'r“a'w
“ πl<a
¶,x¤
lia
ka‹ t
etra
kÒsi
at~/
ameA[
B'r“a'w
“ πl,a
¶,bk
,r<+ër
mata
bk,r<+
πl,a`,
rcà;[;A
μynEv
]Wka
‹ d≈
deka
xil
iãde
wπl
,a, rc
à;[;Aμy
nEv]W
μyv-ir
:Pâ;flp
p°v
nμy
v-ir:Pâ;
μ~jen“Y"w
"ka
‹ kat
°lip
en a
Èta
μ~jen“Y"w
"bk
,r<+h; y
r¢E[;B]
§n p
Òles
in t
«n
èrmã
tvn
bk,r<+h
; yr¢E[
;B]ka
‹w“
ı la
ÚwËl
,M,h'Aμ
[iw“
metå
toË
bas
il°v
wËl
,M,h'Aμ
[i>μlâ;v
;WryB
i§n
Ier
ousa
lhm
>μlâ;v
;WryB
i2:
46k
ka‹ ∑
n êr
xvn
10:
26a
ka‹ ∑
n ≤g
oÊme
now
9:
26
ka‹ ∑
n ≤g
oÊme
now
lve/m
yhàiy
“w" 9:
26
§n p
çsin
to›
w ba
sile
Ësin
pãnt
vn
t«n
basi
l°v
npã
ntv
n t«
n ba
sil°
vn
μyk-il
;M]h'Al
k;B]
épÚ
toË
pota
mou
épÚ
toË
pota
mou
épÚ
toË
pota
mou
r~h;N:h
'Aˆmi
ka‹ ß
vw
ka‹ ß
vw
ka‹ ß
vw
d['w“
g∞w
éllo
fÊlv
ng∞
w él
lofÊ
lvn
g∞w
éllo
fÊlv
nμy
Ti+v]liP
] ≈r<a
¢,Aka
‹ ßv
w ır
¤vn
Afig
Êpto
uka
‹ ßv
w ır
¤vn
Afig
Êpto
uka
‹ ßv
w ır
¤vn
Afig
Êpto
uμy
Ir-:x]mi
lWb¢G
“ d['w
“2:
46l
Salv
mvn
uflÚw
Dau
id4:
1ka
‹ ∑n
ı ba
sile
Áw S
alv
mvn
hmø+løv
] Ël,M
¢,h' y!h
iy“wê" 4:
11:
13b k
a‹1:
13b
§bas
¤leu
sen
basi
leÊv
nËl
,m,§b
as¤l
euse
nËl
øm]YIw"
§p‹ I
srah
l ka
‹ Iou
da§p
‹ Isr
ahl
>laâer
:c]yIAl
K;Al[
'§p
‹ Isr
ahl
>laâer
:c]yIAl
['§n
Ier
ousa
lhm
322 appendix
Allen, L.C. 241, 241 nn5–6, 253nn29, 31
Auld, A.G. 17, 17 n60, 238, 238 n2,239, 253 n29
Barthélemy, D. 2, 2 n4, 3, 3 nn5, 8,32, 32 n11, 37, 40–41, 41 n7, 51,156 n12, 173 n33, 178 n43, 211 n8, 225 nn4–5, 226 n7, 243n10
Bartlett, J.R. 225 nn4–6Benzinger, I. 49 n26, 68 n9,
85 n5, 123 n22, 143 n5, 155 n10,159 n29, 167 nn8–9, 220 n25, 253 n28
Bochartus, S. 256 n38Born, A. van den 168, 168 n11,
170, 170 n25Brettler, M. 276 n1, 278 n7, 279,
279 n10Brière, J. 8 n26Brongers, H.A. 33 n17Burkitt, F.C. 165 n1, 167, 167
n10, 168, 168 n12, 170, 170 nn21, 24
Burney, C.F. 30 n7, 31 n10, 47, 47 n22, 48 n23, 49, 49 n25, 49 n28, 51, 51 n36, 68 n11, 77 n24, 81 n33, 84 n3, 97 n3, 101 n7, 123 n22, 125, 126, 126 n28, 134 n4, 143 n3, 144 nn5–6, 145 nn8, 10, 154, 154 n6, 155 n10, 158, 158nn20–21, 159, 159 nn23, 25, 160,167 nn8–9, 203 n1, 220 n25, 225 n3, 231 n17, 234 n23, 298 n11
Campbell, A.F. 278 n7Cogan, M. 125 n26, 158 n20,
160 n32, 161 n35, 185, 185 n7, 280 n15
Cohen, S.J.D. 75 n18, 76, 76 nn19, 21, 23
Cross, F.M. 3 n7, 143 n5, 238, 238 n1
Curtiss, E.L. and Madsen, A.A.252 n27, 253 n29
Davies, G.I. 253 n32, 256 n38Day, J. 174 n36Debus, J. 296 n3DeVries, S.J. 8 n26, 32 n11, 81 n33,
106 n18, 123 n22Dietrich, W. 143 n5
Ehrlich, A.B. 248 n17Elliger, K. 162 n36Emerton, J. 11 n40Eynikel, E. 143 n5
Fedden, R. 92 n18Feldman, L.H. 141 n14Fernández Marcos, N. 25 n76Fokkelman, J.P. 33 n16Friedman, R.E. 143 nn3, 5, 145 n10Frisch, A. 276 n1, 278 n8,
279 n11
Gerleman, G. 145 n9, 241, 241 n5,253 n31
Glatt-Gilad, D.A. 49 n27, 278 n7Gooding, D.W. 5, 5 nn12–13, 6,
6 nn13–20, 7, 7 nn21–24, 8, 8 n25,9, 19, 37, 37 n1, 39 n2, 40 n4, 43,43 nn10–11, 44, 50, 50 nn33–34,57, 59 n46, 65, 66 nn5–6, 69, 69 n12, 73, 73 n14, 76 n21, 77n24, 80 n31, 81 n33, 83 n1, 90, 90 n13, 91, 91 n14, 92, 92 n21, 93 n22, 95 n26, 111 n26, 118, 118 n4, 121 n15, 122, 122 n20,125, 125 nn25–26, 127 n33, 128,128 n36, 129 nn40, 42, 130 n43,134 n3, 139 n11, 140 n12, 141 n15,142 n1, 146, 146 n11, 154 n7, 178 n44, 183, 183 n3, 184, 185,186 n8, 188, 188 n15, 193, 193 n3,194, 194 n5, 195–196, 201 n16,218, 238 n1, 245, 245 n13, 252n24, 253 n29, 256 n39, 257 n42,259, 259 n45, 260–261, 261 n46,266, 266 nn2–4, 267, 267 n5, 269 n11, 273 n26, 274–275, 291 n16, 300, 302, 302 n4
Görg, M. 167 n8Gray, J. 29, 29 n2, 32 n11, 33 n18,
INDEX OF AUTHORS
49 n26, 68 n11, 84 n3, 92nn16–18, 108 n23, 118 n5, 123,123 nn22, 24, 125 n26, 145 n10,159 nn27, 29, 167 nn8–9, 168, 194 n5, 204 n2, 216 nn18, 20, 231 n17, 244 n11, 226 n9, 227, 227 nn10–11, 256 n38, 277 n3
Halévy, J. 171, 171 n28Hänel, J. 252 n25Haran, M. 155 n9, 159 n26Hrozn , H. 9, 9 n33, 32 n11,
47 n22, 49 n27, 84 n3, 92 n17, 134 n5, 145 n8, 158 n21, 217 n22, 226 n9, 227 n10, 252 n26
Hurowitz, V.A. 143 nn3–4, 144, 144 n6, 159 n24, 160 n32
Japhet, S. 75 n17Jepsen, A. 50 n32, 56, 57 n44Johnson, B. 147 n14Jones, G.H. 8 n26, 68 n11, 100 n6,
127 n33, 133 n2, 134 n4, 144 n5,219 n25, 298 n12
Jongeling, K. 68 nn10–11
Kalimi, I. 252 n27Keel, O. and Uehlinger, C. 173
nn33–34, 174 n34Keulen, P.S.F. van 192 n1, 226 n8,
271 n19, 295 n1Kittel, R. 49 n27, 77 n24, 84 n3,
122, 122 n21, 144 n5, 155 n10, 159 n29, 167 n8
Klostermann, A. 123 n22, 168, 168 n14, 169–170, 170 n22, 175 n38, 189, 189 n16
Knauf, E.A. 167 n8, 174 n34Knoppers, G.N. 12, 12 n43, 84 n3,
144 n5, 203 n1, 211 n7, 215 n17,220 n25, 226 n9, 280 n15
Kooij, A. van der 2 n1Krautwurst, G. 39 n2, 40 n4,
48 n23, 55 n41, 56 n43, 59 n46, 59 n47, 68 n9, 68 n11, 80 n32, 89 n10, 92 n17, 139 n10, 185 n6, 194 n5, 195 n7, 246 n14,253 n30, 271 n21, 272 n23, 273nn24, 26
Kuan, J.K. 102, 102 n9, 103, 103nn10–11, 104
Kuenen, A. 143 n5Kutsch, E. 105, 105 n15
Lefebvre, P. 16, 16 nn55–58, 17, 17 n59, 66 n6, 79 n27, 121 n11,132 n1, 133 n1
Légasse, S. 134 n5, 136 n7Lemaire, A. 18, 223 n1, 224 n1,
225 n4, 254 n32Long, B.O. 49 n26, 277 n3Loretz, O. 177 n41
Margolis, M.L. 122, 122 n19May, H.G. 174 n37Mayes, A.D.H. 143 n5McCarthy, C. 108 n23McKenzie, S.L. 12 n42, 144 n5,
154 n5, 160 n31, 162 n35, 239, 239 n3, 242 n7, 243 n8, 296, 296 n5, 299 n14
Mettinger, T.N.D. 104, 104 n14,105, 105 n16, 106 n17
Montgomery, J.A. 4, 29, 44 n12, 45, 45 n15, 46, 46 n17, 47, 47 n22,48 n23, 49, 49 n25, 50, 50 n32, 51, 92 n21, 93 n23, 94, 94 n24,134 n5, 139 n11, 170, 176, 215,258 n42, 274
Montgomery, J.A. and Gehman, H.S.5 n11, 29 n2, 32 n11, 49 n27, 50 n35, 68 n11, 77 n24, 80nn31–32, 85 n7, 92 n16, 108 n23,121 nn14–15, 125 n26, 127nn33–34, 128 n38, 129 n40, 144 n5, 145 n10, 155 n10, 161 n35, 170 n23, 176 n39, 215 n17, 216 n20, 219 n25, 225 nn3–4, 227 n10, 237 n27, 256 nn38–39
Mulder, M.J. 34 n19, 48 n23, 59 n47, 74 n15, 97 n3, 101 n7, 117 n2, 121 n10, 125 n26, 136 n6, 144 n5, 147 n12, 153 n4,154 n5, 156 n13, 162 n35, 170 n20, 178 n42, 186 n8, 215 n16, 219 n25, 225 n4, 249 n20,254 n32
Noth, M. 33 n17, 47, 47 n22, 48 n23, 49, 49 nn25, 29–31, 51,52, 52 n38, 55, 68 n9, 74 n16, 85 nn4–5, 7, 92 n16, 121 n15, 122, 122 n18, 123, 123 n23, 125n26, 127 n32, 144 n5, 145 n10, 155 n10, 159 n28, 160 n31, 161n34, 167 n8, 167 n9, 171, 173 n33, 177 n42, 194 n5, 211 n8,
324 index of authors
215 n16, 216 n20, 220 n25, 225 n4, 226 n7, 231 n17, 232 n20,278 n6, 279 n11
O’Brien, M.A. 144 n5, 160 n31, 278 n7, 295 n1
Parker, K.I. 276 n1, 278 n6, 278 n8,279 n11
Peterca, V. 8 n26, 167 n5Polak, F.H. 17, 17 n61, 18, 18
nn62–67, 19, 20, 84 n3, 95 n26,125–126, 143 nn2–3, 270 n16
Porten, B. 49 n27, 276 n1, 277 nn3, 5, 278 n7
Provan, I.W. 143 n5, 147 n12, 211 n8, 220 n25, 295 n1
Rahlfs, A. 53 n39, 89 n10, 128nn38–39, 136, 136 n8, 137, 167,167 n10, 181, 181 n1, 212 n9, 230 n13
Rehm, M. 68 n9, 144 n5, 145 n8,153 n4, 241 n5, 252 n25, 253nn30–31, 273 n26
Rudolph, W. 75, 75 n17Rupprecht, K. 121 n11
anda, A. 30 n7, 32 n14, 49 n27, 68 n9, 77 n24, 84 n3, 92 n19, 104 n13, 108 n23, 125 n26, 134 n4, 143 n5, 155 nn8, 10, 167, 167 nn7, 9, 169 n15, 170, 170 n19, 200 n13, 216 n18, 216n20, 218, 218 n24, 226 n9, 227n10, 249, 249 n21
Särkiö, P. 70 n13, 85 nn4–5, 7, 94 n25, 200 n13, 220 n25
Schenker, A. 4 n10, 12, 12 nn44–45, 13 nn46–47, 14 nn48–49,15, 15 nn50–53, 16, 16 n54, 19,20, 20 n68, 25 n77, 30 n6, 32, 32 n15, 35, 35 n21, 43 n11, 44, 44 nn13–14, 45 n14, 46, 46 n19, 47 n22, 48 n23, 95 n26, 103 n12,125, 126, 126 n31, 134 n3, 137 n9,166 nn2–3, 167 n6, 170, 170 nn19,26, 173, 173 n32, 174, 174 n35,178 n46, 179 n48, 195 n6, 199, 199 n10, 201 n16, 222 n1, 223 n1,231 n16, 234 n25, 235 n25, 267 n7,268 n10, 270 nn13, 16
Shenkel, J.D. 2 n1, 9, 9 n34, 40, 40 n3, 51, 51 n36, 241 n5
Soggin, J.A. 197 n8Soisalon-Soininen, I. 270 n16Stade, B. 114 n1, 121 n13, 125 n26,
134 n4Stade, B. and Schwally, F. 32 n13,
32 n14, 47 n22, 48 n23, 49 n27, 68 nn9, 11, 108 n23, 125 n26, 144 n5, 145 n8, 153 n4, 155 n8,160 n31, 161 n35, 166 n4, 169 n15, 179 n48, 216 n18, 220n25, 225 n4, 227 n10, 236 n26, 249 n20, 297 n8
Stähli, H.P. 173 n33Stipp, H.-J. 21 n71Sweeney, M.A. 278 n9, 279 n13
Talshir, Z. 8, 8 nn27–30, 9, 9 nn31–32, 19–20, 20 n70, 23 n74, 140 n12, 220 n25, 239, 239 n3, 248 n17, 276 n1, 277 n4,278 n7, 296, 296 nn4–6, 299 n13
Taylor, J.G. 173 n33, 174, 174 n36,180, 180 n49
Thackeray, H.St.J. 2, 2 nn2–3, 4, 5 n11, 36, 40, 50, 51, 168, 168 n13, 169, 169 n17, 171, 171 n29, 173, 173 n33, 261 n47
Thenius, O. 68 n9, 123, 123 n22Tov, E. 3 n7, 8 n26, 22 n73,
37 n1, 40 nn5–6, 80 n32, 87 n8, 169 n16, 178 nn45, 47, 187 nn10–11, 217 n21, 248, 248 nn17, 19, 266 n1, 268, 268nn8–9, 270 nn14, 16, 273, 273 n27,298 n9
Trebolle Barrera, J.C. 9, 9 n35, 10, 10 nn36–39, 11, 11 nn40–41,12, 18–20, 23 n74, 40 n6, 46, 46 n18, 47, 47 n22, 49, 49 nn25, 28, 51, 51 n37, 52–54, 57 n44, 77 n24, 80 n30, 81 n33, 84 n3, 94 n24, 117, 117 n3, 121n12, 125, 126, 126 nn29–30, 137 n10, 138 n10, 143 n3, 145nn8, 10, 148 n15, 238, 238 n1, 248, 248 nn17, 19, 268 n10, 295,295 n2, 296 n3
Van Seters, J. 143 n5Vanoni, G. 234 nn23–24
Wacholder, B.Z. 303 n5, 304 n5Walsh, J.T. 276 n1, 277 n3, 279,
279 n12
index of authors 325
Walters, P. 129 n41, 194 n5Weinfeld, M.E. 144 nn5–6Weippert, H. 58 n45Wellhausen, J. 84 n3, 125, 125
n27, 126, 143 n5, 158, 158 n21,167, 167 n8, 168–169, 169 n17,170, 170 n19, 171, 171 n27, 245 n12
Wevers, J.W. 3 n9, 5, 9, 19, 35 n20,47, 47 n21, 67 n7, 96 n2, 111 n27,120 n9, 137 n9, 149 n18, 212 n9,
212 n10, 215 n12, 243, 243 n9, 248 n17
Williams, D.S. 276 n1, 278 n6, 278 n8
Williamson, H.G.M. 162 n35, 248 n17, 252 n27
Willis, T.M. 25 n77, 137 n9Würthwein, E. 33 n16, 49 n26,
52 n38, 68 n9, 108 n23, 121 n15,125 n26, 143 n5, 160 n31, 220 n25,226 n7, 277 n3
326 index of authors
Genesis27: 30 68 n1042: 18 225 n643: 11 225 n6
Exodus1: 11 199 n920: 21 16920: 22 12021: 14 28, 30 n622: 27 45 n1423: 2 2925: 8 144 n625: 15b 15926: 31 134 n526: 33 134 n527: 16 13629: 45 144 n629: 46 144 n634: 15–16 21835: 17 134 n5, 13636: 37 136 n738: 18 134 n5, 136, 136 n739: 40 134 n540: 8 134 n540: 33 134 n540: 34–35 159
Leviticus18: 3 144 n618: 4a 144 n620: 23 144 n623: 34–43 16223: 34–35 16223: 34 158 n22, 16226: 3 144 n6
Numbers5: 3 144 n68: 24 225 n614: 24 21614: 35 225 n622: 3 225 n432: 11 21632: 12 21635: 34 144 n6
Deuteronomy1: 36 2164: 11 178 n425: 22 178 n427: 1–4 2047: 1–2 197, 2197: 1 196–197, 218–2197: 2–3 2187: 3–4 76, 280, 280 n149: 9a 1559: 9 1569: 11 155 n11, 15616: 13–15 16217: 2 21917: 14–20 218, 279–280,
30017: 16 6, 259, 279, 30117: 17 6, 188, 196, 21917: 17a 27917: 17b 195, 27920: 11 19820: 16–17 19820: 17 19827: 4 1531: 6 144 n631: 8 144 n631: 17 144 n6
Joshua3: 10 19610: 12–13 172 n3110: 12b–13a 172, 174 n3410: 13 17114: 8 21614: 9 21614: 14 21615: 9 199 n1018: 1 158 n1923: 12b 21824: 11 196–197
Judges7: 19 68 n109: 3 29 n410: 6 217 n23, 218
INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES
Masoretic Text
1 Samuel4–6 160 n318: 3 29 n313: 8 226 n716–18 268
2 Samuel1: 18 1723: 27 283: 28 356 160 n316: 17 159 n297: 6–8 2497: 8 2498: 3–12 2318: 3 231 n16, 2338: 4a 2608: 5 231 n168: 6 2258: 12 231 n1610: 1–2 10315: 3 97 n315: 7f. 45 n1615: 14 227 n12, 228 n1216: 8 45 n1617: 25 2818: 2 2820: 10 28
1 Kings1: 1–11: 43 2771: 1–2: 11 277 n21: 7 281: 19 281: 32–30 1061: 39 100–1011: 41 281: 45 1041: 50–52 321: 50–51 331: 50 31 n91: 51a 342 277, 282, 285,
2882–14 122: 1b–9 522: 2–4 522: 3 147, 1492: 5–6 282: 8–9 2882: 1–10 532: 10–11 53, 277 n22: 12–11: 43 2772: 12–46 277, 281
2: 12 53, 277, 277 n2, 281,283, 304 n5
2: 12b 472: 13–38 2832: 13–25 2812: 13 132: 19 132: 22 13, 322: 25–34 262: 26–27 282: 28–34 26, 28, 2812: 28 28, 159 n292: 29 26, 159 n292: 30 159 n292: 30a 282: 31 282: 35–3: 1 552: 35 2812: 36–46a 2812: 36–37 2832: 39–46 2832: 39 283, 2852: 46b–3: 3 602: 46b 47, 49, 55, 57–59,
59 n. 47, 60, 63,277, 281
3–10 2773 1453: 1–4 278, 281, 285, 2913: 1–3 64, 69, 78, 80 n303: 1–2 633: 1 18, 49, 57, 59, 59
n47, 62–65, 65 n4,67–68, 75, 77–78, 80n30, 81, 81 n34, 99,138, 139 n11, 140,277, 278 n7, 279,280 n14, 281, 283,285, 291, 293, 300
3: 1a 80 n30, 278 n73: 1b 65 n4, 67, 69, 80
n30, 278 n73: 1bb 138–139, 139 n113: 2–4 2813: 2–3 643: 2 58, 2833: 3–15 2833: 3–5 2823: 3–11 49 n273: 3 58 n45, 144 n6,
278–2793: 5–5: 14 2813: 5–15 278, 2813: 5 70 n13
328 index of scriptural references
3: 8 1613: 11–14 2853: 11 1473: 13 196, 2803: 14 150 n193: 16–28 281, 2833: 16 2833: 28 1474: 1–5: 14 2854: 1–5: 8 283, 2854: 2–6 144: 4 144: 7–5: 8 2814: 7–5: 3 2874: 7–19 2794: 20–5: 1 184: 20–5: 8 277 n5, 2694: 20–5: 6 2575 13, 102, 251, 257,
258 n425: 1 257 n42, 258 n42,
2835: 1a 250–2515: 2–4 2725: 4 185: 5 18, 283, 304 n65: 5–6 2915: 6 250, 250 n23, 251,
254, 254 nn32–33,255–256, 258, 258n42, 261
5: 8 1475: 9–14 281, 2835: 9–13 965: 9–10 2715: 9 271 n205: 10 2835: 11 2835: 12 2835: 14 96–97, 97 n3, 2835: 14a 975: 14b 975: 15–32 193, 281, 283, 285,
2915: 15–26 99, 281, 2855: 15–23 1855: 15 99–102, 104, 283,
2855: 15a 100–101, 1035: 15b 1005: 16 1035: 20 107–108, 1145: 22–23 1145: 22 103
5: 23 1155: 25 2435: 26 1045: 27–32 279, 2855: 27–28 2815: 27 195 n75: 29–30 2445: 29 114, 119, 2815: 30 125, 244–246, 262,
269, 2815: 31–6: 1 1305: 31–32 18, 130, 2815: 31 2565: 32 2906–7 63, 65, 1456 65, 124, 1336: 1–9: 9 281–2826: 1–38 281, 2836: 1 18, 114–115, 118,
125, 127, 2836: 1–1c 3006: 1f. 115, 1186: 2–38 1426: 2–36 114, 3006: 2–10 1426: 7 117 n2, 120, 1346: 9 116, 143 n46: 9a 143, 145–1466: 11–14 294–295, 3056: 11–13 186: 14 1166: 15–36 1426: 16 159 n306: 36 120 n8, 135, 137
n106: 37–38 18, 1276: 37–38a 117, 124–1266: 37 114–115, 124, 128,
1576: 38 147, 155, 157 n17,
2836: 38a 114, 1246: 38b 2837: 1–12 65, 281, 2837: 1 145–146, 155, 2837: 7 1477: 8 62, 68, 2797: 11 120 n87: 12 120 n87: 13–52 3007: 13–51 2837: 13–27 2817: 13 2837: 41–44 303 n5
index of scriptural references 329
7: 45 302 n58: 1–9 2818: 1–6b 2838: 1 132, 2838: 2 127, 2838: 7 241–2428: 10–11 177, 180, 2818: 10 1738: 11–12 1688: 11 169, 174 n368: 12–13 6, 2818: 13 1778: 14–53 178 n47, 179 n478: 14–21 178 n45, 2818: 14 1608: 16–17 246–2478: 16 248–249, 2628: 21 156, 156 n148: 22–53 176, 2818: 27–30 1768: 27 176, 2408: 29 2408: 30 1778: 39 177, 2408: 41b–42a 3048: 43 1778: 46 2428: 49 147, 1778: 54–61 2828: 54 1798: 57 144 n68: 58 147–149, 150 n19,
2958: 59 1478: 61 150 n198: 62–64 2828: 63 241–2428: 65–66 2828: 65 160–1628: 65b 1618: 66 161–162, 2409–11 2799–10 13, 18, 145, 218,
280, 283, 285, 3009: 1–9 278–279, 282–2839: 6–9 2799: 1 138, 179, 2839: 1a 1559: 3 2839: 4 147–149, 150 n19,
2959: 5–6 211 n89: 5b 2599: 6 150 n19, 211 n6
9: 9 211 n69: 10–10: 29 2829: 10–23 193, 282, 2919: 10–14 193, 279, 282,
284–285, 2919: 10 132, 138, 155, 188,
192, 2919: 11–13 1829: 11 1829: 14–28 1909: 14 201 n169: 15–25 18, 181, 187–188,
191, 200, 201 n16,246, 269, 293
9: 15–24 278 n79: 15–23 6, 182, 278 n7, 284,
2859: 15–22 270, 282, 2859: 15–19 69–709: 15 63, 69–70, 70 n13,
1389: 16 62, 69–70, 70 n13,
79, 79 n28, 99, 2799: 26–28 201 n169: 16–17 2919: 16–17a 69–70, 80 n309: 16–17aa 69–719: 17–18 2689: 17 249, 2739: 17a 709: 17ab 709: 17b–19 709: 18 2739: 21 195 n79: 23–25 73 n149: 23 73 n14, 193,
244–246, 269, 2829: 24–25 64, 73 n14, 78, 78
n26, 80 n30, 278,282, 285, 291
9: 24 62–65, 67, 67 n7, 68 n10, 68 n11, 72,73 n14, 74–75,77–78, 79 n28, 80,80 n30, 81, 278 n7,279, 282, 285
9: 24a 66–67, 68 n11, 74,284
9: 24b 78–79, 79 n27, 2849: 25 189 n18, 282, 2849: 26–10: 29 2829: 26–28 224 n1, 282, 284,
2919: 26 279
330 index of scriptural references
9: 28 27910 195, 250–251, 28010: 1–13 280, 282, 28410: 1 28410: 8 108–10910: 9 147, 24210: 10 27910: 14–29 28410: 14–27 27910: 14–22 28210: 17–21 28410: 21b 11110: 22–28 250–25110: 23–27 258, 28210: 23 110–11110: 24 110–111, 25510: 25–27 25110: 25–26 25010: 25 110, 25010: 25a 11110: 26–29 251–25210: 26–28 251–25210: 26f. 252 n2710: 26 110–111, 153 n4,
250–252, 258–259,301
10: 26b 250, 250 n2310: 27 110–111, 25110: 28–29 259, 279, 282, 30111 108–109, 213, 277,
280, 28211: 1–43 28211: 1–8 282, 29511: 1–4 280 n1411: 1–3 18, 210, 279,
28411: 1 62, 278–279,
279 n1411: 2 279 n14, 28011: 4–13 28411: 4–8 280 n1411: 4 27811: 6 278–27911: 7–8 28411: 9–13 280, 282, 28411: 9–10 145, 28411: 9 29, 145, 27811: 10–11 21311: 10 21611: 11–13 21211: 11 213, 279, 29611: 12 234 n23, 29611: 14–40 22211: 14–22 282
11: 14 284, 29611: 15–22 28411: 23–25 28211: 23a 28411: 23b–24 28411: 25 28411: 26 28411: 26–40 222, 28211: 26–27a 28411: 27 19811: 27b–28 28411: 27b 74, 80–8111: 28 27911: 29–39 28411: 31–39 29611: 33–34 1311: 33 147, 149–150, 211,
211 n8, 212–213,217, 279, 295
11: 34 150, 150 n1911: 38 150 n1911: 40 28411: 41–42 28411: 41 28211: 42 282, 28411: 43–12: 3 43–44, 137 n911: 43 277, 282, 28412 1512: 4 27912: 18 1612: 31 14–1512: 32 1414: 1–20 147 n13, 29614: 1–18 29614: 7–9 29614: 7–11 29414: 7–16 211 n814: 10b 29614: 14–16 29414: 15–16 29614: 19–20 29614: 21 29714: 22–24 13, 20, 29614: 22 297–29914: 22a 29714: 22b–24 29714: 22b 29714: 23a 29716: 30–33 29916: 31 211 n617: 29 14–1517: 32 1418: 18 21618: 21 216, 216 n19
index of scriptural references 331
18: 28 14720: 40 14721: 17–26 29921: 26 21622: 52 5722: 54 211 n6
2 Kings4: 4 119 n68: 20–22 234 n2510: 18 211 n610: 32 225 n412: 3 58 n4513: 12–13 26814: 3 58 n4514: 15–16 26815: 3 58 n4515: 34 58 n4517 1517: 5–6 26817: 8 144 n617: 12 211 n617: 13 29917: 15 21617: 16 211 n617: 19 144 n6, 29917: 33 211 n617: 35 211 n617: 37 14917: 41 211 n618: 9b–11 26819: 12 9221: 3 211 n621: 12–14 29921: 15 29921: 21 211 n622: 16 29922: 17 29923: 11 17323: 13 210 n5, 21723: 26–27 29924: 2–3 29924: 20 299
Isaiah22: 1 31 n9, 3356: 2 225 n6
Jeremiah4: 11 152 n244: 10 144 n644: 23 144 n6
Ezekiel8: 16–18 17343: 7 144 n643: 9 144 n6
Hoshea12: 2 105
Psalms19: 2–7 17461: 5 166 n491: 14–16 16697: 2 178 n42
Job10: 13 225 n618: 15 170 n19
Proverbs3: 11 225 n44: 15 8930: 8 90 n11
Qoheleth10: 9 119
Lamentations2: 1 168
Daniel9: 24 166 n4
1 Chronicles5: 29–41 127, 2469: 29 254 n349: 30 254 n3418: 3 231 n1618: 4a 26018: 5 231 n1618: 9 231 n1628: 1 158 n16
2 Chronicles1: 14–17 251–2521: 14–16 2511: 14 2511: 14b 250 n23, 2542: 1 244–2452: 9 2432: 17 244–2453: 14 134 n5, 135 n55: 2–10a 1575: 2 157
332 index of scriptural references
5: 3 158 n22, 1625: 6 1585: 8 158, 241–2425: 10 156 n155: 13b–14 1576: 1 176 n406: 5–7 246–2476: 5 248–2496: 18 2406: 20 2406: 36 2427: 5 241–2427: 8–10 1627: 9–10 1627: 9 1617: 10 2407: 18b 259–2608: 4–6 2498: 10 244–2458: 11–12 78 n268: 11 68 n11, 75–76,
79 n289: 1 254 n349: 7 1099: 8 2429: 9 254 n34
9: 22–28 250–2519: 22–24 2559: 23 2559: 24–27 2519: 24 2509: 25–28 2519: 25–26 250–252, 252
n25, 253, 253 n28, 258,258 n42, 262,301
9: 25 250–251,253–254, 254n32, 258–259,261
9: 25b 250 n239: 26–26a 2519: 26 251, 257 n42,
258 n42, 2599: 27 25112: 14 29716: 14 254 n3422: 5 230 n1432: 27 254 n3432: 28 25434: 22 226 n7
index of scriptural references 333
Septuaginta
Genesis30: 30 184 n4
Exodus16: 22 90 n1126: 37 136 n737: 5 136 n737: 16 136 n739: 19 136 n7
Numbers3: 26 136 n7
Deuteronomy4: 43 230 n1411: 1 148 n1620: 14 198
1 Regum1–2 5011: 1 5021: 2 185 n5, 189
n17
2 Regum6: 8 185 n5, 189
n178: 4a 260–2618: 10 185 n511: 2–3 Reg. 2: 11 3615: 25 170 n1919: 22 45 n1419: 22–23 45 n14
3 Regum1–12 161: 1–2: 12 37, 601: 19 51 n361: 25 51 n361: 39 100–1021: 50–51 342–14 122–11 2202–5 152 266–267, 274,
2922: 1–10 53
2: 1–9 54, 602: 1 52–542: 1b-9 532: 1b 54, 54 n402: 2 51 n362: 3 149, 149 n172: 5 36, 51 n362: 10 52–542: 11 37, 512: 12–21: 43 36, 502: 12–11: 43 1022: 12–35 48, 267, 2862: 12 37, 51, 53, 61,
267, 286, 288, 304 n5
2: 13–35 49, 2882: 13–25 2862: 13 132: 16 36, 51 n362: 18 51 n362: 20 51 n362: 26–27 2862: 28–34 30, 2862: 29ba 3042: 32 51 n362: 35–3: 1 552: 35 14, 2672: 35b 2862: 35a–10: 29 6, 291 n162: 35a–5 291 n162: 35a–46l 2862: 35a 862: 35ag 2862: 35a–k 7, 9, 18, 65, 286,
2882: 35a–o 132: 35b 862: 35c 65 n4, 72–76, 1382: 35cb 138–139, 139 n112: 35c–f 772: 35ca 792: 35cab 64, 80, 80 n30, 81,
81 n342: 35cg 139 n112: 35d 72, 2452: 35e 72, 134 n5, 135 n5,
3022: 35f 73–75, 3022: 35fa 72–73, 73 n14,
80–812: 35fb 64, 72–73, 73 n14,
75, 79–80, 80 n30,81
2: 35g 73 n14, 189 n18
2: 35gb 189 n182: 35h 73 n14, 244–2462: 35i 192 n1, 2492: 35k 139 n11, 140, 200
n15, 201 n152: 35l 270 n16, 2882: 35l–o 18, 266–267, 2882: 35l–46 2862: 35o–46 2672: 35o–l 1022: 35o 2662: 36–46 266–2672: 36–38 2882: 36–37 2882: 39–46 2882: 39 2882: 46a–k 286, 2882: 46a–l 7, 9, 13, 182: 46a–i 95 n262: 46a 182: 46ab 862: 46b 257 n422: 46ba 862: 46bb 862: 46c–d 192 n1, 200 n15,
201 n152: 46c 86, 94, 271 n19,
3022: 46d 86, 942: 46e–g 872: 46e–ga 87, 89 n102: 46e 87 n8, 89, 89 n10,
90, 90 n12, 912: 46ea 862: 46eb 862: 46f–g 132: 46f–ga 912: 46f 89 n10, 91–92, 94,
257 n422: 46fa 86, 912: 46fb 86, 912: 46g 94, 304 n62: 46ga 86, 912: 46gb 862: 46i–k 255, 258 n422: 46i 86, 254–256, 256
n40, 256 n41,257–258, 302 n2
2: 46k 94, 255, 257, 257 n42, 258, 258 n42
2: 46l–5: 14 2862: 46l–3: 3 57, 602: 46l 267, 267 n6,
334 index of scriptural references
270 n15, 286, 288,292
3–10 292–2933 573: 1–21: 43 503: 1–4 2863: 1 2863: 2–15 2873: 2–4 2863: 2–3 573: 2 58, 181 n1, 2883: 3–15 2883: 8 161 n333: 12 271 n183: 13 1963: 14 150 n19, 212 n93: 16–28 287–2883: 16 2883: 28 255 n364–5 266, 2744 2744: 1–5: 8 2914: 1–5: 4 2884: 1–6 273, 2874: 1 564: 2–6 144: 4 144: 6 194 n44: 12 2724: 13 230 n145 72, 87, 109, 220,
3005: 2–4 87, 2725: 2 2655: 4 2875: 4c 270 n165: 9–14 72, 98, 287, 2885: 9–13 965: 9–10 271–2725: 9 255 n36, 271 n18,
271 n205: 10–11 2885: 10 255 n365: 12 172, 2885: 14 71–72, 96, 98–99,
106, 290, 3015: 14a 965: 14b 96, 98, 2875: 14a–9: 28 290, 2935: 14a–30 287, 2915: 14a 64–67, 69, 71, 75,
80 n30, 81, 81 n34,96 n1, 99, 138, 155,287, 292–293
5: 14a–b 72, 80 n30, 98, 112,291, 300
5: 14ab 67, 67 n8, 69,138–139
5: 14b 69, 71, 79, 79 n28,96 n1, 99, 287
5: 15–32 65, 65 n45: 15–31 2895: 15–30 291–2925: 15–26 99, 1055: 15 99–102, 105–108,
128, 2895: 15a 100–1015: 15b 1005: 16–26 2875: 20 107–108, 1285: 25 243, 2625: 27–28 2875: 27 194 n45: 28 194 n45: 29–30 2445: 29 245, 2875: 30 125, 244–246, 262,
269, 2875: 31–9: 9 2875: 31–6: 1d 2875: 32–6:1b 300, 3025: 32 188 n16, 2896–8 2936–7 5, 65, 220, 3016: 1–10 1466: 1–7: 37 656: 1–1d 2896: 1–1c 2896: 1 18, 246, 262, 2896: 1a–d 186: 1c 133 n1, 1576: 2–7: 37 3006: 2–36 1146: 2–36a 287, 2896: 2–3 1466: 3 116, 1226: 3b 145–1476: 4 1466: 5–6 1466: 7 116–117, 121 n11,
1266: 8 1466: 9 1166: 9a 145–1466: 9b–10 1466: 15 146–1476: 36 120 n86: 36a 271
index of scriptural references 335
7 187: 1–37 287, 2897: 12b 136–1377: 26b–31a 303 n57: 31 302, 302 n5, 303
n5, 304 n57: 38–50 287, 2897: 38–39 167: 38 35, 145–146, 157
n17, 2897: 48 120, 120 n87: 49 120, 120 n87: 50 35, 145–1468 1338: 1–11 3008: 1–9 2878: 1–6b 2898: 1 133, 133 n1, 289,
2908: 1a 67 n8, 133–134,
1408: 2 2898: 4a 2608: 7 241–2428: 10–11 2878: 14–21 2878: 16–17 246–2478: 16 248–2498: 22–53 2878: 23–53 165, 1788: 27 2408: 29 2408: 30 177–1788: 36 1788: 39 177–1788: 41b 3048: 43 1778: 45 1788: 46 2428: 49 1778: 53 178 n458: 53a 287, 3048: 54–61 2878: 54 155, 178–1798: 58 148–150, 150 n198: 61 150 n198: 62–64 2878: 63 241–2428: 65–66 2878: 65 157, 160, 304,
304 n68: 65b 1618: 65ba 304 n68: 66 161–162, 240
9–10 218, 2749 66 n6, 2749: 1–9 65–66, 287, 2899: 1 66, 133 n1, 138,
154, 179, 198, 289,301
9: 1a 1559: 1b 1559: 2 1549: 3–9 2609: 3 2899: 4 148–150,
150 n199: 5 2609: 5b 259–2609: 6–9 2929: 6 150 n19, 212 n99: 7–9 66 n69: 9 107, 107 n20, 2679: 9a-28 287, 2919: 9a 64–66, 66 n6,
67, 67 nn7–8, 68,68 n11, 77–79, 79 n28, 80 n30,287, 289–293
9: 10–28 187–188, 287,291–292
9: 10 133, 133 n1, 138,9: 10–11 157 n17, 188, 188
n12, 2899: 12–13 2899: 13 1859: 14–28 2899: 14 292, 301 n1, 3029: 21 1079: 22 194 n59: 24–25 2869: 24a 68 n119: 25 189 n18, 2869: 26–28 2929: 26 212 n11, 251, 301
n1, 3029: 27 25110 196, 258, 30010: 1–29 28710: 1–13 287, 28910: 1 28910: 2 255 n3510: 4 255 n3610: 6 255 n3610: 8 108–109, 109 n24,
255 n3610: 9 24210: 10 255 n35
336 index of scriptural references
10: 14–29 19310: 14–22 287, 28910: 15–22 20010: 17–21 28910: 21b 11110: 22 193, 195–196,
200–20110: 22a 70, 74, 138, 188
n13, 249, 271–273,302
10: 22a–c 6, 270, 287, 289, 291
10: 22b 21810: 23–29 109, 112, 28910: 23–27 109, 112, 25810: 23–25 13, 28710: 23 110, 193, 201,
255 n3610: 24–25a 11210: 24 110–111, 255 n3610: 25 110–11110: 25a 11110: 26–29 28710: 26–26a 250–252, 252 n25,
253, 253 n28, 253n29, 255, 258–262,272, 301
10: 26 6, 110–112, 193,200, 252–256, 256n40, 258, 260–261
10: 26a 110, 112, 257, 257 n42, 259–260,287
10: 26ab 8610: 27 110–112, 25110: 28–29 112, 25911–14 1511 8, 149, 212, 212 n9,
220, 288, 292, 29611: 1–43 28711: 1–8 287, 300–30111: 1–3 29011: 1 74, 10911: 4–13 29011: 4 29011: 9–13 287, 29011: 10 212 n9, 215 n1511: 11 149–150, 150 n19,
212 n9, 21311: 12–13 212 n911: 13 212 n911: 14–40 22211: 14a–ba 28811: 14a 290
11: 14b 29011: 14bb–25 28811: 15–25 29011: 22 212 n911: 26–12: 24 611: 26–40 222, 28811: 26–27a 29011: 27 265, 27111: 27a 29011: 27b–28 29011: 27b 7411: 29–39 29011: 29 212 n9, 29011: 30–31 212 n911: 31 212 n911: 31b 21011: 32 212 n911: 33–34 1311: 33 184 n4, 210–214,
215 nn13–14,216–218
11: 33b 14811: 34 212 n911: 36 212 n911: 38 150 n1911: 40 29011: 41 171 n30, 255 n3611: 42 288, 29011: 43 28811: 43a 29011: 43b 29012 29612: 4 107, 108 n2212: 18 194 n412: 24a–z 1, 7–9, 13, 147 n13,
266, 268, 29612: 24a 296–29712: 24g–n 147 n1312: 24m 29614 29614: 21 56 n4214: 21a 29814: 22–24 13, 29614: 22a 297–29814: 22b–24 297–29814: 22b–23 29814: 22b 29714: 23 29814: 23a 29714: 29 171 n3015: 4 615: 7 171 n3015: 23 171 n3015: 25 56 n42
index of scriptural references 337
15: 31 171 n3016: 5 171 n3016: 8 56, 56 n4216: 11b–12a 29916: 14 171 n3016: 15 56 n4216: 20 171 n3016: 27 171 n3016: 30–33 29920–21 620: 17–26 29922: 39 171 n3022: 41 56 n4222: 46 171 n3022: 52 56, 56 n42
4 Regum3: 1 56 n428: 28 230 n149: 1 230 n149: 4 230 n149: 14 230 n1415: 13 56 n4217: 32 211 n617: 37 14919: 12 9222: 13 185 n5, 189 n17
1 Paralipomenon18: 4a 26018: 10 185 n5, 189 n1728: 1 158 n1828: 10 184 n4
2 Paralipomenon1: 14 2543: 14 134 n55: 8 241–2425: 10 156 n156–7 2406: 2a 176 n406: 5–7 246–2476: 5–6 2486: 18 2406: 20 2406: 36 2427: 5 241–2427: 10 2407: 18b 2599: 7 1099: 8 2429: 22 2559: 23 2559: 24 2549: 25–26 250, 253–255, 258
9: 25 254, 256 n4120: 36 184 n422: 5 230
1 Esdras2: 14 121 n126: 19 121 n12
2 Esdras10: 4 184 n4
2 Maccabees3: 26 169 n18
3 Maccabees1: 1 923: 17 169 n18
Psalms79: 9 119 n6
Proverbs12: 24 195 n7
Ecclesiastes10: 9 119 n6
Job5: 24 170 n1911: 15 81 n3218: 15 170 n1934: 25 16838: 6 121 n1241: 18 119 n6
Micah3: 4 80
Haggai2: 4 184 n4
Isaiah22: 1 31 n928: 16 121 n1237: 12 92 n20
Ezekiel47: 12 170
Susanna31 271 n17
Daniel2: 49 200 n13
338 index of scriptural references
SUPPLEMENTS TO VETUS TESTAMENTUM
2. Pope, M.H. El in the Ugaritic texts. 1955. ISBN 90 04 04000 53. Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Presented to Harold Henry Rowley by
the Editorial Board of Vetus Testamentum in celebration of his 65th birthday, 24March 1955. Edited by M. Noth and D. Winton Thomas. 2nd reprint of the first(1955) ed. 1969. ISBN 90 04 02326 7
4. Volume du Congrès [international pour l’étude de l’Ancien Testament]. Strasbourg1956. 1957. ISBN 90 04 02327 5
8. Bernhardt, K.-H. Das Problem der alt-orientalischen Königsideologie im Alten Testament.Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Geschichte der Psalmenexegese dargestelltund kritisch gewürdigt. 1961. ISBN 90 04 02331 3
9. Congress Volume, Bonn 1962. 1963. ISBN 90 04 02332 111. Donner, H. Israel unter den Völkern. Die Stellung der klassischen Propheten des 8.
Jahrhunderts v. Chr. zur Aussenpolitik der Könige von Israel und Juda. 1964.ISBN 90 04 02334 8
12. Reider, J. An Index to Aquila. Completed and revised by N. Turner. 1966.ISBN 90 04 02335 6
13. Roth, W.M.W. Numerical sayings in the Old Testament. A form-critical study. 1965.ISBN 90 04 02336 4
14. Orlinsky, H.M. Studies on the second part of the Book of Isaiah. — The so-called‘Servant of the Lord’ and ‘Suffering Servant’ in Second Isaiah. — Snaith, N.H.Isaiah 40-66. A study of the teaching of the Second Isaiah and its consequences.Repr. with additions and corrections. 1977. ISBN 90 04 05437 5
15. Volume du Congrès [International pour l’étude de l’Ancien Testament]. Genève 1965.1966. ISBN 90 04 02337 2
17. Congress Volume, Rome 1968. 1969. ISBN 90 04 02339 919. Thompson, R.J. Moses and the Law in a century of criticism since Graf. 1970.
ISBN 90 04 02341 020. Redford, D.B. A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph. 1970. ISBN 90 04 02342 921. Ahlström, G.W. Joel and the Temple Cult of Jerusalem. 1971. ISBN 90 04 02620 722. Congress Volume, Uppsala 1971. 1972. ISBN 90 04 03521 423. Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel. 1972. ISBN 90 04 03525 724. Schoors, A. I am God your Saviour. A form-critical study of the main genres in Is. xl-
lv. 1973. ISBN 90 04 03792 225. Allen, L.C. The Greek Chronicles. The relation of the Septuagint I and II Chronicles
to the Massoretic text. Part 1. The translator’s craft. 1974.ISBN 90 04 03913 9
26. Studies on prophecy. A collection of twelve papers. 1974. ISBN 90 04 03877 927. Allen, L.C. The Greek Chronicles. Part 2. Textual criticism. 1974.
ISBN 90 04 03933 328. Congress Volume, Edinburgh 1974. 1975. ISBN 90 04 04321 729. Congress Volume, Göttingen 1977. 1978. ISBN 90 04 05835 430. Emerton, J.A. (ed.). Studies in the historical books of the Old Testament. 1979.
ISBN 90 04 06017 031. Meredino, R.P. Der Erste und der Letzte. Eine Untersuchung von Jes 40-48. 1981.
ISBN 90 04 06199 132. Emerton, J.A. (ed.). Congress Volume,Vienna 1980. 1981. ISBN 90 04 06514 833. Koenig, J. L’herméneutique analogique du Judaïsme antique d’après les témoins textuels d’Isaïe.
1982. ISBN 90 04 06762 0
34. Barstad, H.M. The religious polemics of Amos. Studies in the preachings of Amos ii7B-8, iv 1-13, v 1-27, vi 4-7, viii 14. 1984. ISBN 90 04 07017 6
35. Kraàovec, J. Antithetic structure in Biblical Hebrew poetry. 1984. ISBN 90 04 07244 636. Emerton, J.A. (ed.). Congress Volume, Salamanca 1983. 1985.
ISBN 90 04 07281 037. Lemche, N.P. Early Israel. Anthropological and historical studies on the Israelite
society before the monarchy. 1985. ISBN 90 04 07853 338. Nielsen, K. Incense in Ancient Israel. 1986. ISBN 90 04 07702 239. Pardee, D. Ugaritic and Hebrew poetic parallelism. A trial cut. 1988.
ISBN 90 04 08368 540. Emerton, J.A. (ed.). Congress Volume, Jerusalem 1986. 1988. ISBN 90 04 08499 141. Emerton, J.A. (ed.). Studies in the Pentateuch. 1990. ISBN 90 04 09195 542. McKenzie, S.L. The trouble with Kings. The composition of the Book of Kings in the
Deuteronomistic History. 1991. ISBN 90 04 09402 443. Emerton, J.A. (ed.). Congress Volume, Leuven 1989. 1991. ISBN 90 04 09398 244. Haak, R.D. Habakkuk. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09506 345. Beyerlin, W. Im Licht der Traditionen. Psalm LXVII und CXV. Ein Entwicklungs-
zusammenhang. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09635 346. Meier, S.A. Speaking of Speaking. Marking direct discourse in the Hebrew Bible.
1992. ISBN 90 04 09602 747. Kessler, R. Staat und Gesellschaft im vorexilischen Juda. Vom 8. Jahrhundert bis zum
Exil. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09646 948. Auffret, P. Voyez de vos yeux. Étude structurelle de vingt psaumes, dont le psaume
119. 1993. ISBN 90 04 09707 449. García Martínez, F., A. Hilhorst and C.J. Labuschagne (eds.). The Scriptures and
the Scrolls. Studies in honour of A.S. van der Woude on the occasion of his 65thbirthday. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09746 5
50. Lemaire, A. and B. Otzen (eds.). History and Traditions of Early Israel. Studies pres-ented to Eduard Nielsen, May 8th, 1993. 1993. ISBN 90 04 09851 8
51. Gordon, R.P. Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets. From Nahum toMalachi. 1994. ISBN 90 04 09987 5
52. Hugenberger, G.P. Marriage as a Covenant. A Study of Biblical Law and EthicsGoverning Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Malachi. 1994.ISBN 90 04 09977 8
53. García Martínez, F., A. Hilhorst, J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten, A.S. van der
Woude. Studies in Deuteronomy. In Honour of C.J. Labuschagne on the Occasion ofHis 65th Birthday. 1994. ISBN 90 04 10052 0
54. Fernández Marcos, N. Septuagint and Old Latin in the Book of Kings. 1994.ISBN 90 04 10043 1
55. Smith, M.S. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Volume 1. Introduction with text, translation andcommentary of KTU 1.1-1.2. 1994. ISBN 90 04 09995 6
56. Duguid, I.M. Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel. 1994. ISBN 90 04 10074 157. Marx, A. Les offrandes végétales dans l’Ancien Testament. Du tribut d’hommage au repas
eschatologique. 1994. ISBN 90 04 10136 558. Schäfer-Lichtenberger, C. Josua und Salomo. Eine Studie zu Autorität und
Legitimität des Nachfolgers im Alten Testament. 1995. ISBN 90 04 10064 459. Lasserre, G. Synopse des lois du Pentateuque. 1994. ISBN 90 04 10202 760. Dogniez, C. Bibliography of the Septuagint – Bibliographie de la Septante (1970-1993).
Avec une préface de Pierre-Maurice Bogaert. 1995. ISBN 90 04 10192 661. Emerton, J.A. (ed.). Congress Volume, Paris 1992. 1995. ISBN 90 04 10259 0
62. Smith, P.A. Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito-Isaiah. The Structure, Growth and Author-ship of Isaiah 56-66. 1995. ISBN 90 04 10306 6
63. O’Connell, R.H. The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges. 1996. ISBN 90 04 10104 764. Harland, P. J. The Value of Human Life. A Study of the Story of the Flood (Genesis
6-9). 1996. ISBN 90 04 10534 465. Roland Page Jr., H. The Myth of Cosmic Rebellion. A Study of its Reflexes in
Ugaritic and Biblical Literature. 1996. ISBN 90 04 10563 866. Emerton, J.A. (ed.). Congress Volume, Cambridge 1995. 1997.
ISBN 90 04 10687167. Joosten, J. People and Land in the Holiness Code. An Exegetical Study of the
Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26. 1996.ISBN 90 04 10557 3
68. Beentjes, P.C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. A Text Edition of all Extant HebrewManuscripts and a Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. 1997. ISBN 9004 10767 3
69. Cook, J. The Septuagint of Proverbs – Jewish and/or Hellenistic Proverbs? Concerning theHellenistic Colouring of LXX Proverbs. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10879 3
70,1 Broyles, G. and C. Evans (eds.). Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of anInterpretive Tradition, I. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10936 6 (Vol. I);ISBN 90 04 11027 5 (Set )
70,2 Broyles, G. and C. Evans (eds.). Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of anInterpretive Tradition, II. 1997. ISBN 90 04 11026 7 (Vol. II);ISBN 90 04 11027 5 (Set )
71. Kooij, A. van der. The Oracle of Tyre. The Septuagint of Isaiah 23 as Version andVision. 1998. ISBN 90 04 11152 2
72. Tov, E. The Greek and Hebrew Bible. Collected Essays on the Septuagint. 1999.ISBN 90 04 11309 6
73. García Martínez, F. and Noort, E. (eds.). Perspectives in the Study of the OldTestament and Early Judaism. A Symposium in honour of Adam S. van der Woude onthe occasion of his 70th birthday. 1998. ISBN 90 04 11322 3
74. Kassis, R.A. The Book of Proverbs and Arabic Proverbial Works. 1999.ISBN 90 04 11305 3
75. Rösel, H.N. Von Josua bis Jojachin. Untersuchungen zu den deuteronomistischenGeschichtsbüchern des Alten Testaments. 1999. ISBN 90 04 11355 5
76. Renz, Th. The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel. 1999.ISBN 90 04 11362 2
77. Harland, P.J. and Hayward, C.T.R. (eds.). New Heaven and New Earth Prophecy andthe Millenium. Essays in Honour of Anthony Gelston. 1999. ISBN 90 04 10841 6
78. Kraàovec, J. Reward, Punishment, and Forgiveness. The Thinking and Beliefs ofAncient Israel in the Light of Greek and Modern Views. 1999.ISBN 90 04 11443 2.
79. Kossmann, R. Die Esthernovelle – Vom Erzählten zur Erzählung. Studien zur Traditions-und Redaktionsgeschichte des Estherbuches. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11556 0.
80. Lemaire, A. and M. Sæbø (eds.). Congress Volume, Oslo 1998. 2000.ISBN 90 04 11598 6.
81. Galil, G. and M. Weinfeld (eds.). Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical His-toriography. Presented to Zecharia Kallai. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11608 7
82. Collins, N.L. The library in Alexandria and the Bible in Greek. 2001. ISBN 90 04 11866 7
83,1 Collins, J.J. and P.W. Flint (eds.). The Book of Daniel. Composition and Reception,I. 2001. ISBN 90 04 11675 3 (Vol. I);ISBN 90 04 12202 8 (Set )
83,2 Collins, J.J. and P.W. Flint (eds.). The Book of Daniel. Composition and Reception,II. 2001. ISBN 90 04 12200 1 (Vol. II); ISBN 90 04 12202 8 (Set ).
84. Cohen, C.H.R. Contextual Priority in Biblical Hebrew Philology. An Application of theHeld Method for Comparative Semitic Philology. 2001. ISBN 90 04 11670 2(In preparation).
85. Wagenaar, J.A. Judgement and Salvation. The Composition and Redaction of Micah2-5. 2001. ISBN 90 04 11936 1
86. McLaughlin, J.L. The Marz¿aÈ in sthe Prophetic Literature. References and Allusionsin Light of the Extra-Biblical Evidence. 2001. ISBN 90 04 12006 8
87. Wong, K.L. The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel 2001. ISBN 90 04 12256 788. Barrick, W. Boyd The King and the Cemeteries. Toward a New Understanding of
Josiah’s Reform. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12171 489. Frankel, D. The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School. A Retrieval of Ancient
Sacerdotal Lore. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12368 790. Frydrych, T. Living under the Sun. Examination of Proverbs and Qoheleth. 2002.
ISBN 90 04 12315 691. Kessel, J. The Book of Haggai. Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud. 2002.
ISBN 90 04 12368 792. Lemaire, A. (ed.). Congress Volume, Basel 2001. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12680 593. Rendtorff, R. and R.A. Kugler (eds.). The Book of Leviticus. Composition and Re-
ception. 2003. ISBN 90 04 12634 194. Paul, S.M., R.A. Kraft, L.H. Schiffman and W.W. Fields (eds.). Emanuel. Studies
in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov.2003. ISBN 90 04 13007 1
95. Vos, J.C. de. Das Los Judas. Über Entstehung und Ziele der Landbeschreibung inJosua 15. ISBN 90 04 12953 7
96. Lehnart, B. Prophet und König im Nordreich Israel. Studien zur sogenannten vorklassi-schen Prophetie im Nordreich Israel anhand der Samuel-, Elija- und Elischa-Überlieferungen. 2003. ISBN 90 04 13237 6
97. Lo, A. Job 28 as Rhetoric. An Analysis of Job 28 in the Context of Job 22-31. 2003.ISBN 90 04 13320 8
98. Trudinger, P.L. The Psalms of the Tamid Service. A Liturgical Text from the SecondTemple. 2004. ISBN 90 04 12968 5
99. Flint, P.W. and P.D. Miller, Jr. (eds.) with the assistance of A. Brunell. TheBook of Psalms. Composition and Reception. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13842 8
100. Weinfeld, M. The Place of the Law in the Religion of Ancient Israel. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13749 1
101. Flint, P.W., J.C. VanderKam and E. Tov. (eds.) Studies in the Hebrew Bible,Qumran, and the Septuagint. Essays Presented to Eugene Ulrich on the Occasion of hisSixty-Fifth Birthday. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13738 6
102. Meer, M.N. van der. Formation and Reformulation. The Redaction of the Book ofJoshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13125 6
103. Berman, J.A. Narrative Analogy in the Hebrew Bible. Battle Stories and Their Equi-valent Non-battle Narratives. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13119 1
104. Keulen, P.S.F. van. Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative. An Inquiry into the Rela-tionship between MT 1 Kgs. 2-11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2-11. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13895 1
