Keulen - Two Versions of The Solomon Narrative An Inquiry Into The Relationship Between MT 1 Kgs. 2-11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2-11 (2005)

Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative
Supplements
to
Vetus Testamentum
Edited 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. 211 and LXX 3 Reg. 211
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 00083-5889
ISBN 90 04 13895 1
Copyright 2005 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic
Publishers, Martinus Nijho 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 Joabs death (1 Kgs. 2: 28343 Reg.
2: 2834) .............................................................................. 26
3. The duplication of 3 Reg. 2: 89 at 35lo and the
supplementary character of 3546l .................................... 36
4. The arrangement of materials relating to Pharaohs
daughter in MT and the LXX .......................................... 62
5. The description of Solomons provisioning system
(1 Kgs. 4: 15: 133 Reg. 4: 15: 13) .......................... 82
6. Solomons 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: 316: 13 Reg. 5: 326: 1d) ........................ 113
8. The account of the construction of temple and palace
(1 Kgs. 6: 27: 523 Reg. 6: 27: 50) .......................... 131
9. The absence of a counterpart of 1 Kgs. 6: 1114 in
the LXX .............................................................................. 142
10. The account of the installation of the ark (1 Kgs. 8:
1113 Reg. 8: 111) ...................................................... 151
11. The dedication pronouncement (1 Kgs. 8: 1213
3 Reg. 8: 53a) .................................................................... 164
12. The account of Solomons shipping expedition (1 Kgs.
9: 14, 26283 Reg. 9: 14, 2628) ................................ 181
13. The account of Solomons building activities (1 Kgs.
9: 15223 Reg. 10: 22ac) ............................................ 191
14. The account of Solomons sin (1 Kgs. 11: 183 Reg.
11: 18) ................................................................................ 202
15. The account of Solomons adversaries (1 Kgs. 11:
14253 Reg. 11: 1425) ................................................ 222
16. Agreements between 3 Regum and Chronicles vis--vis
1 Kings ................................................................................ 238
17. The relation between the Miscellanies 3 Reg. 2: 35ak
and 46ak 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 signicance of dierences in the
representation of Deuteronomistic text between 1 Kings
and 3 Regum ...................................................................... 294
20. Conclusions .......................................................................... 300
Bibliography ................................................................................ 306
Appendix: Synopsis of 3 Reg. 2: 35ao, 46al 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 Scientic 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 Fernndez 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 Michal 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 Andr 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 dier substantially from their Hebrew
counterparts in MT. Dierences 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 dierences 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 dierences vis--vis 1 Kings that are con-
tained in the book. Pluses and minuses are frequent, as well as word
dierences. 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: 24az). Furthermore, correspond-
ing sections may appear at dierent positions in 3 Regum and 1
Kings, thus causing a dierent arrangement of narrative materials.
Most of these sequence dierences occur in the rst 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 dierences in the rst
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, dierences in the Solomon
Narrative (2: 1211: 43)? Second, in which stage(s) of the textual
history of the book did these dierences 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 12 Samuel and 12 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, ve dierent translation units
can be distinguished in the Codex Vaticanus (LXX B) of 14 Reigns
(henceforth 14 Regum): a = 1 Regum; bb = 2 Reg. 1: 111: 1; bg
= 2 Reg. 11: 23 Reg. 2: 11; gg = 3 Reg. 2: 1221: 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 Thackerays 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. Barthlemy 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 Theodotions 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, 521; A. van der Kooij, De Tekst van Samuel
en het Tekstkritisch Onderzoek, NedThT 36 (1982), 177204, esp. 182f.
2
H.St.J. Thackeray, The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings, JThS
8 (1907), 26278.
3
H.St.J. Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship, London 1921, 17.
4
D. Barthlemy, Les devanciers dAquila (VT.S 10), Leiden 1963.
2 chapter one
LXX into closer conformity with the authoritative Hebrew text. In
Barthlemys 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 c
2
e
2
.
5
Several scholars have criticized the lat-
ter view, arguing that the text attested by b o c
2
e
2
itself reects one
6
or even two
7
revisions. Barthlemys 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 Barthlemy 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
signicantly touched by the Hexaplaric recension either,
9
one is
justied to attach a relatively early date to the text of the gg-section
in this manuscript. The text-critical signicance of 3 Regum lies in
the circumstance that the translation predates the denitive 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
Barthlemy prefers to speak of the Antiochene text rather than of the Lucianic
Recension, 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. Barthlemy, Les problmes textuels de 2 Sam 11,21 Rois 2,11 reconsidrs
la lumire de certaines critiques des Devanciers dAquila, in R.A. Kraft [ed.],
1972 Proceedings for the IOSCS and Pseudepigrapha. Los Angeles, 4 sept. 1972, Missoula
1972, 1689, esp. 7172). Following Barthlemy, this study consistently refers to
Ant. text/manuscripts.
6
Thus E. Tov, Lucian and Proto-Lucian. Toward a New Solution of the
Problem, RB 79 (1972), 10113, esp. 102103.
7
Thus F.M. Cross, The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries
in the Judaean Desert, HThR 57 (1964), 28199, esp. 29596.
8
Barthlemy, however, believes that a second Palestinian recension left its
traces 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 in
the Books of Kings, ZAW 64 (1952), 17889, 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 reect 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 dierent,
possibly older, text tradition than that witnessed by the other version.
The very extensive variations between 1 Kings and 3 Regum and
the ramications 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 eorts 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 elds 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 dierences 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 texte
massortique dans lhistoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 214 (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 12xxi 43 Wevers sought to determine exegetical ten-
dencies in the work of the Greek translator by studying every
instance of apparent mistranslation, inexact rendering, amplication,
omission or rearrangement of text. This inquiry resulted in the
identication 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 Gods transcendence. For reasons of
space, Wevers did not discuss the sizable sequence dierences, 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 dierent Vorlage.
The question of the sequence dierences 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 dierences in a
most thorough manner. The importance of Goodings work lies in
its remarkable ability to connect the question of the sequence dierences
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 Solomons
marriage to Pharaohs daughter,
12
several reorderings in relation to
the account of the construction of the temple and the palace (chs. 67),
13
11
Thackeray, Greek Translators, 26364; J.A. Montgomery and H.S. Gehman,
The Books of Kings (ICC), Edinburgh 1951, 12627, 143, 232, 319.
12
D.W. Gooding, The Septuagints Version of Solomons Misconduct, VT 15
(1965), 32535, esp. 32631.
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 identied as the
driving force behind changes in the (rst) account of Jeroboams rise
to power, i.e., 3 Reg. 11: 2612: 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
Solomons character. A desire to protect Solomons 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: 1213.
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: 1523 to 3 Reg. 10: 22ac eectively excused Solomons
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: 22ac and
possibly also the translation-revision in 10: 26,
20
provided credible
excuses for the multiplication of horses in Solomons 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 Goodings 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 Solomons kingship from 3 Reg. 2: 35a unto 10: 29 was rearranged
15366; id., Temple Specications: A Dispute in Logical Arrangement between
the MT and the LXX, VT 17 (1967), 14372.
14
D.W. Gooding, Ahab according to the Septuagint, ZAW 76 (1964), 26980,
esp. 277; id., Problems of Text and Midrash in the Third Book of Reigns, Textus
7 (1969), 129, esp. 26.
15
D.W. Gooding, The Septuagints Rival Versions of Jeroboams Rise to Power,
VT 17 (1967), 17389.
16
Gooding, Problems of Text and Midrash, 2021.
17
18
Gooding, Misconduct, 33134.
19
D.W. Gooding, Text-sequence and Translation-revision in 3 Reg. IX 10X
33, VT 19 (1969), 44863, esp. 45354; id., Problems of Text and Midrash, 11.
20
Gooding, Text-Sequence, 45463.
6 chapter one
into a grand exposition of the theme of Solomons 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: 35ak and 46al, 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 rst place to the theme of Solomons wisdom and
they are well integrated with the scheme of order in the following
chapters.
22
In Goodings 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 specic 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 dierences between the duplicate translations
in the Miscellanies and the main text suggests that the original trans-
lator and the reviser were dierent persons. The variations between
duplicate translations were partly caused by the circumstance that
the reviser relied on written Hebrew traditions dierent from MT.
Thus some of the material that was incorporated at the time of the
revision, like the plus in 3 Reg. 12: 24az and a few notes in the
Miscellanies, have the appearance of being based on a dierent
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 dierences may reect text traditions diering from
21
Gooding, Problems of Text and Midrash, 2, 11.
22
23
Thus see Gooding, Pedantic Timetabling, 15767 (on 3 Reg. 5: 326: 1d);
id., Misconduct, 33134 (on 3 Reg. 10: 22ac). It should be noted, however, that
Gooding does not categorically reject the view that the re-orderings and re-inter-
pretations already occurred in the original Hebrew Vorlage, for, after declining the
possibility on pages 1718 of Problems of Text and Midrash, he again takes it
into consideration on page 25.
24
Gooding, Problems of Text and Midrash, 2, 1620; 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 Goodings
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 Jeroboams Rise to Power in 3 Reg. 12: 24az, 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 dicult 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 dierence 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
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, 69; V. Peterca,
Ein midraschartiges Auslegungsbeispiel zugunsten Salomos. 1 Kn 8,1213
3 Reg 8,53a, BZ 31 (1987), 27075, esp. 275; id., Solomone nel Libro greco dei
Re, detto Regni. Un analisi del suo ritatto in chiave midrashica, RevBib 30 (1982),
17596 (for a summary of this article see J. Brire, Solomon dans la Septante,
DBS 11, Paris 1991, 47274); 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: 24az)
( JBS 6), Jerusalem 1993, 1315; id., The Contribution of Diverging Traditions
Preserved in the Septuagint to Literary Criticism of the Bible, in L. Greenspoon
and O. Munnich (eds.), VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and
Cognate Studies, Paris 1992 (SCSt 41), Atlanta 1995, 2140, esp. 25f.
28
Z. Talshir, The Image of the Septuagint Edition of the Book of Kings, Tarb.
59 (1990), 249302 [Hebrew], esp. English summary at pages III.
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 oered 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
nd evidence that the reviser made use of textual traditions dierent
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
12 Kings.
34
Up to now, the view that 3 Regum reects 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 Trebolles view, the substantial
dierences 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: 35ak, 46al and 12: 24az into the main body of the
book. The inclusion of these materials occasioned a complete re-
arrangement of the text.
35
Moreover, materials reecting 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), 23349.
32
Talshir, Septuagint Edition, III.
33
H. Hrozn , Die Abweichungen des Codex Vaticanus vom hebrischen Texte in den
Knigsbchern (diss.), Leipzig 1909, esp. 6172.
34
Shenkel, Chronology, esp. 10911.
35
See in particular J.C. Trebolle Barrera, Salomn y Jerobon. Historia de la recen-
sin y redaccin de 1 Reyes 212, 14 (Institucin San Jernimo 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
rst 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 dierences exhibited vis-
-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 dierent 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 discussed
in J.C. Trebolle Barrera, 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
Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989 (SCSt 31), Atlanta 1991, 28599; id., Centena in Libros
Samuelis et Regum. Variantes textuales y composicin literaria en los libros de Samuel y Reyes
(TECC 47), Madrid 1989, 11751.
37
Trebolle Barrera, Centena, 16; J.C. Trebolle Barrera, Redaction, Recension,
and Midrash in the Books of Kings, BIOSCS 15 (1982), 1235, esp. 3031; id.,
Salomn y Jerobon, 35760.
38
J.C. Trebolle Barrera, The Authoritative Functions of Scriptural Works at
Qumran, 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, 95110,
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 rst, 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 sucient notice of this,
they have built their redactional theories partly on the basis of non-
Deuteronomistic material. It goes without saying that this seriously
aects 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-identied 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 :,,
:c:: and :.: by : as reference to the ve 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.
Trebolles plea for the originality of the LXX order in 3 Regum
has gained support from several scholars. According to S.L. McKenzie,
Trebolles work convincingly shows that . . . Goodings 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 de
la composition et de la rdaction deutronomistes avec une publication prliminaire
de 4Q481A, Apocryphe dlise, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Paris 1992,
Leiden/New York 1995, 32742, 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 Trebolles
conclusions concerning the relationship between the MT and LXX-
version of 1 Kings. Yet it takes a fundamentally dierent approach
to the subject. In the introduction to his monograph Septante et texte
massortique dans lhistoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 214, 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 dierences without investigating
whether the variations as a whole exhibit coherence and whether
the dierent versions reect narrative strategies and literary tenden-
cies that explain their particular textual forms. The monograph
intends to ll 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. 214, because important literary dierences
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 Used
by the Chronicler and Translated by the Old Greek, BIOSCS 19 (1986), 1534,
esp. 32.
43
G.N. Knoppers, Two Nations under God. The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and
the Dual Monarchies. Volume I: The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam (HSM
52), Atlanta 1993, passim.
44
A. Schenker, Un cas de critique narrative au service de la critique textuelle
(1 Rois 11,4312,2-3.20), Bib. 77 (1996), 21926; id., Jroboam et la division du
royaume dans la Septante ancienne: LXX 1 Rois 12, 24az, TM 1112; 14 et
lhistoire deutronomiste, in A. de Pury, Th. Rmer, J.-D. Macchi (eds.), Israel con-
struit son histoire. Lhistoriographie deutronomiste la lumire des recherches rcentes (Le Monde
de la Bible 34), Genve 1996, 193236; id., Corve ou ressources de Solomon?
TM 1 Rois 9, 1523 et LXX 3 Rgnes 10, 2325, RevSR 73 (1999), 15164.
45
Schenker, Septante, 14.
12 chapter one
The introduction is followed by a series of case studies that do
not only deal with the major dierences between MT and the LXX
(e.g., the large pluses in 3 Reg. 2: 35ao, 46al and 12: 24az and
the various accounts of the consolidation of Solomons power and
the temple building) but also take into consideration many detail
dierences 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. Solomons dominion and hegemony.
46
3 Reg. 2: 46fg 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 aairs. 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. Solomons behaviour reminds of an Hellen-
istic ruler. The LXX-version of the account of Solomons corve
(3 Regum 10: 2325) 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 rm grip on this group.
2. Solomons 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
Solomons kingship. MT also intimates that Adonijah uses Solomons
respect towards his mother, which in 1 Kgs. 2: 19 is more clearly
elaborated than in the LXX. Adonijahs eorts 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: 3334; 14: 2224).
46
Schenker, Septante, 2227, 4559.
47
introduction 13
3. Emancipation of priesthood from royal supremacy.
48
According to 3 Reg.
2: 35, Solomon appointed Zadok a high priest (iereuw prvtow) in
place of Abiathar. The MT of the corresponding verse, however,
says that Solomon replaced Abiathar by Zadok the priest. In the
list of Solomons ocials 1 Kgs./3 Reg. 4: 26 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. Azariahs position as the rst ocial
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. Azariahs
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 rst 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 reect 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 ::: :,
House of Heigths, of 1 Kgs. 12: 31, which is markedly dierent
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 ociate 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 reected
by the Ant. text shows that MT is secondary to the latter. The
48
49
Schenker, Septante, 103106, 11520, 14247.
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 qualied 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
modications 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. Schenkers 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
reected by the LXX is less unied 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. 25 and 1114. 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
51
52
53
introduction 15
the MT-version, also absolute datings for each edition. For instance,
in 1 Kgs. 12: 18 MT, unlike the LXX, species the means of trans-
portation of Rehoboam from Shechem to Jerusalem.
54
According to
Schenker, the reference to a chariot reects 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 Schenkers 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 dierences 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 briey dealt with,
as it is based on the same literary principles that underlie Schenkers
work: . . . il faut prendre les textes, hbreu ou grec, dans leur
spcicit, dans leur logique propre, sans chercher corriger lun
par lautre.
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 dierences
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.
112 under the headings pronoms, translitterations and semantique. One
peculiarity noted involves the existence of a confusion organise
as to the location and identity of holy places like Sion, the temple
and the altar. For instance, the text of 3 Reg. 7: 3839 (LXX B)
intimates that Solomons palace is identical with the temple. Moreover,
the distribution of various designations of building stone
57
and the
appearance of contrasting chronological notes on the temple build-
ing
58
suggest that the LXX refers to two temples rather than to one:
an old Jebusite sanctuary and a Solomonic extension. Another remark-
54
55
P. Lefebvre, Le troisime livre des Rgnes, in M. dHamonville, F. Vinel
et.al., Autour des livres de la Septante. Proverbes, Ecclsiaste, Nombres, 3
eme
Livre des Rgnes,
Paris 1995, 81122, esp. 82.
56
Lefebvre, Troisime livre des Rgnes, 81.
57
58
16 chapter one
able trait of 3 Regum is a tendency to associate Pharaohs 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 reect Jewish exegesis as attested in the rst 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 unied literary concept behind them
is misleading. Lefebvres 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 oversimplications. 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 Solomons secular con-
structions and on his marriage with Solomons daughter, represent
later additions in the versions presented by 1 Kings and 3 Regum.
A large part of these additions were inserted at dierent 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 signicance to Chronicles when attempting
59
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, Jerusalem
1993, 1*7*, esp. 5*6*.
61
F.H. Polak, The Septuaginta Account of Solomons Reign: Revision and
Ancient Recension, in B.A. Taylor (ed.), X Congress of the International Organization
for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Oslo, 1998, Atlanta 2001, 13964, 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 reects 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: 35ak, 35lo and 46al,
which are peculiar to the LXX, neither t 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, reects a revision, called the main recension (RecM). It
was carried out at an earlier date and aected more passages than
RecL: 1 Kgs. 3: 1; 4: 205: 1; 5: 4 (partly), 5; 6: 1 in its present
form, 1113, 3738; 9: 1525 in its present form, 11: 13 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: 1ad can hardly be described as emerging out
of the disordered sections 1 Kgs. 5: 3132 and 6: 3738; obviously
the textual development went the other way around.
65
Polak is not
very specic 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
Polaks 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 redactiona 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, 14348.
64
65
66
67
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 oered
by the LXX to be secondary to that of MT. Among them, opin-
ions dier 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 dierences 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 denition,
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 diers
from the others in nding 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. Dierent
methods may produce dierent 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, dierent approaches, like Schenkers and Trebolles, 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: 2224 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:
2224 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 dicilior 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 specic in this respect.
68
69
See note 41.
70
Z. Talshir, Literary DesignA Criterion for Originality? A Case Study: 3
Kgdms 12:24az; 1 K 1114, in Y. Goldman and C. Uehlinger (eds.), La double
transmission du texte biblique. Etudes dhistoire du texte oertes en hommage Adrian Schenker
(OBO 179), Fribourg/Gttingen 2001, 4157, 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 conne 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 dierences 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 Textberlieferung,
Literarkritik solche der Textbeschaenheit (H.-J. Stipp, Das Verhltnis von Textkritik
und Literarkritik in neueren alttestamentlichen Verentlichungen, BZ 34 [1990],
1637, esp. 37). A dierent, phase-oriented view on the relationship of literary and
textual criticism is oered by Tov in ch. 7 of Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. In
Tovs opinion, the combination of both disciplines is only fruitful for the study of
dierences that have emerged during the stage of literary growth. Dierences cre-
ated by copyists should not be taken into consideration because these have emerged
during the stage of textual transmission and by consequence belong to the area of
textual criticism (314). This distinction raises questions, however. How is one to dis-
tinguish between dierences created by copyists and dierences created in the process
of 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 dierences, 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 reects deliberate change. The pos-
sibility to distinguish between intentional and unintentional changes,
however, strongly depends on the type of dierence we are dealing
with. In principle, dierences divide into three categories: pluses/
minuses, sequence dierences and word dierences.
72
The measure
of certainty with which the intentional changes can be identied
diers for each category.
Sequence dierences 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 dierences
comprise either sizable variations, or small-scale dierences that dras-
tically aect the meaning of a passage and, as a consequence, must
be intentional. This group is not meant to include sequence dierences
which merely result from the demands of a dierent 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 dierences between the versions of MT and the LXX are
believed to have been created during the stage of literary growth. However, else-
where Tov states that literary developments subsequent to the edition of MT like
the ones he nds in the version of 1 Kings attested by the LXX are excluded from
the discussion (31617). This decision seriously invalidates the quantitative criterion
because these alleged literary developments subsequent to MT all involve sizable
dierences. As the criterion is obviously untenable, it seems that the phase-ori-
ented distinction made by Tov is liable to circular reasoning: The dierence between
literary and textual criticism is dened on the basis of conclusions that result from
the application of literary and textual criticism. A similar objection cannot be raised
against a distinction based on the dierent 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 the
Septuagint in Biblical Research. Revised and Enlarged Second Edition ( JBS 8), Jerusalem
1997, 124f.
73
E. Tov, Some Sequence Dierences between the MT and LXX and their
Ramications for the Literary Criticism of the Bible, JNWSL 13 (1987), 15160,
esp. 15152.
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 dierence 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 dierence 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 dierences 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
dierences obtaining between LXX and the MT reect 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 dierences result
from subtle alteration of the consonantal framework of the Hebrew
(al tiqre). In the LXX, these al tiqre dierences between the Hebrew
Vorlage and proto-MT are indirectly attested.
Intentional and unintentional word dierences 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, 2931; Trebolle Barrera, Text-critical Use, 287f.
introduction 23
(though in this case too, it cannot be excluded that the dierence is
purely accidental). Otherwise, data from the context must be taken
into consideration to nd out whether a textual dierence represents
an intentional or an accidental change.
To sum up, whereas quantitative and word dierences may or may
not be intentional, sizable sequence dierences as a rule are delib-
erate. For that reason, the present study focuses on the latter group.
Signicant quantitative dierences and word dierences 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 dierences between MT and the LXX regarding disposi-
tion and structure of the Solomon Narrative.
4. Procedure
Basically the dierences selected for treatment in this study are ana-
lyzed according to the same procedure. It includes the following
steps:
1. Discussion of the textual dierence with the aid of a synopsis of
the Greek and Hebrew texts.
2. Consideration of the literary context of the textual dierence in
either version. Special notice is taken of the ramications 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 nd 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 dierence in either version. Literary-critical judg-
ments relating to stages preceding the emergence of the textual
dierence 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. Specication 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 Gttingen 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 oered by distinct manuscript
groups have been noted. Special notice is taken of the so-called Ant.
text attested by the manuscripts b o c
2
e
2
. 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 dicilior and
lectio brevis potior: It is more logical to assume that an easy reading has replaced a
dicult one, and a short reading is more likely to be prior to a long one, than the
other way around. To a certain extent, these rules are also valid for the evalua-
tion of sizable intentional changes like the sequence dierences in the Solomon
Narrative. Thus a logical arrangement of materials is likely to be secondary to an
illogical one. However, neither rule should be applied rigidly. It is not impossible
that 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 ideological
correction. By the same token, an editor may have omitted a passage in his Vorlage
for literary or theological reasons. In these instances, however, the literary context
must supply clear indications regarding the motive for the change. Therefore it is
vital to consider how a reading or text form ts in with its particular context.
76
Thus see N. Fernndez Marcos, Literary and Editorial Features of the
Antiochian Text in Kings, in C.E. Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the International Organization
for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Jerusalem, 1986, Atlanta 1987, 287304, esp. 29297.
77
T.M. Willis, The Text of 1 Kings 11:4312:3, CBQ 53 (1991), 3744, esp.
38, 4344; Schenker, cas de critique, 21926.
introduction 25
CHAPTER TWO
THE ACCOUNT OF JOABS DEATH
(1 KGS. 2: 28343 REG. 2: 2834)
1 Kgs. 2: 2534 relate how Solomon eliminated his former rival to
the throne Adonijah and his adherents Abiathar and Joab. Especially
in the section dealing with Joabs punishment, vv. 2834, the LXX
exhibits several deviations from MT, the most striking being a siz-
able plus in v. 29. The dierences 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 t
in one line, it is continued on the next line(s). In that case, the continuation is
marked 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., dierences that have
not been caused by a change from one language system to another) are indicated
(cf. pages 2224). A hyphen is used to indicate a minus that extends over a full
line. When the minus pertains to only part of the line in the parallel text, three
dots are used for each word that is lacking. Word dierences (i.e., words corre-
sponding to one another materially but having dierent semantic ranges) are under-
lined (in the Greek text only).
28a ka ko lyen vw Ivab ::. : .::: 28a
to uo Sarouiaw
ti Ivab n keklikw psv Advniou : :: :: :
ka psv Salvmvn ok klinen :: : :::: :
28ba ka fugen Ivab ew t sknvma to kurou : :: :: ::: 28ba
28bb ka katsxen tn kertvn to yusiasthrou :: ::,: ,: 28bb
29aa ka phgglh t . . . Salvmvn ::: ::: :: 29aa
lgontew
29ab ti fugen Ivab ew tn skhnn to kurou : :: :: :: : 29ab
29ag ka do katxei tn kertvn to yusiasthrou :: :. :: 29ag
29ba ka psteilen Salvmvn ::: ::: 29b
prw Ivab
lgvn
t ggonn soi
ti pfeugaw ew t yusiastrion
ka epen Ivab
ti fobyhn p prospou sou
ka fugon prw krion
the account of joabs death 27
29bb ka psteilen Salvmvn basilew
tn Banaiou un Ivdae . :: :::
lgvn ::
poreou :
ka nele atn ::.:c . . .
ka ycon atn
30 ka lyen Banaiou ::: :: 30
uw Ivdae prw Ivab
ew tn skhnn to kurou : ::
ka epen at :: ::
tde lgei basilew :: ::
jelye .
ka epen Ivab . . . ::
ok kporeomai . . . :
ti de poyanomai :: c :
ka pstrecen Banaiaw uw Ivdae . . . . . . ::: :::
: ::
ka epen t basile
lgvn ::
tde lellhken Ivab :: ::
ka tde pokkrita moi ::. ::
31a ka epen at basilew :: :: :: 31a
poreou
ka pohson at . . . :. . . .
kayw erhken : ::
ka nele atn ::.:c:
ka yceiw atn ::,:
31b ka jarew smeron t ama : : . . . :: 31b
dvren jxeen Ivab :: c: :
p' mo :.:
ka p to okou to patrw mou : : :.::
32a ka pstrecen kriow : ::: 32a
t ama tw dikaw ato ::
ew kefaln ato :::.
w pnthsen tow dusn nyrpoiw ::::: .:c :
tow dikaoiw ka gayow pr atn :::: ::: ,.
ka pkteinen atow n =omfa& :: ::
32b ka patr mou Dauid ok gnv . : : :: 32b
t ama atn
tn Abennhr un Nhr :: ::
rxistrthgon Israhl :: :.:
ka tn Amessa un Ieyer : ::.:
rxistrthgon Iouda : :.:
33a ka pestrfh t amata atn : :::: 33a
ew kefaln ato :: ::
The narrative plot of the section in vv. 2834 is coined by the
conation of two narrative strings. The string prevailing in the rst
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. 2627), Joab fears that he will be
next to experience Solomons wrath (v. 28). Rather than passively
waiting for his execution, Joab ees to YHWHs tent to grasp the
horns of the altar there. At rst, the law of asylum seems to pro-
vide him with the desired protection. When Benaiah, whom Solomon
has sent to nish o 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 Davids death bed
assignment to Solomon to avenge the blood of the commanders
Abner and Amasa by executing their murderer Joab (1 Kgs. 2: 56).
After hearing that Joab refuses to leave the altar, Solomon renews
his order to Benaiah to execute Joab, now alleging Joabs slaughter
of the two commanders as a justication (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 ed 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 Davids house from
the innocent blood shed by Joab. Thus the impression arises that
the obligation to David and his house serves as Solomons true motive
to disregard the law of asylum and to have Joab killed. This is also
suggested by the fact that, when Joabs execution is nally reported
in v. 34, there is no mention of the culprit being removed from the
altar rst, as is required by Exod. 21: 14.
So far, the versions of MT and the LXX agree. There are signicant
detail dierences 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 Adonijahs case rather than Solomons in the matter of
28 chapter two
Davids 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 denitely not the original reading. Montgomery and
Gray
2
have pointed out that, since the expression ::, to turn
aside after, to side with, has a connotation of disaection
3
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 Joabs stance towards Adonijah in v. 28a occasioned a note on
Joabs stance towards a previous pretender, namely Absalom. The
reading attested by the LXX (and by Josephus)
5
probably reects
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 ed 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, Joabs 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 oered 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. .: :::: :: in 1 Kgs. 11: 9.
4
Thus Judg. 9: 3.
5
Josephus, Jewish Ant. VIII, 13.
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 Solomons image.
6
Neither is there good reason to suppose that :: :. represents
a corruption from :: ::,: , i.e., the Hebrew text that is
believed to underlie the LXX.
7
The sizable dierence 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. 29ag
into conformity with each other. A tendency towards assimilation of
parallel passages is a notable feature of the LXX in 3 Reg. 2: 2834.
Note the following instance:
6
Schenker (Septante, 6972) argues that the MT of v. 29ag can be identied as
a secondary development in light of Exod. 21: 14. As we noticed above, there is
no clear indication that Exod. 21: 14 is presupposed in the narrative, either in MT
or in the LXX-version. But even if we assume that the regulation of Exod. 21: 14
plays a role in the background, Schenkers arguments fail to convince. In Schenkers
opinion, the MT-version of v. 29ag has two narrative advantages to that of the
LXX. First, unlike the LXX, it does not make the implication that Joabs execu-
tion is ordered while the latter is holding the altar. Since according to MT Joab
is only beside the altar, Solomon does not trespass the rule of Exod. 21: 14 when
he does not have Joab removed from the altar prior to his execution. Second, in
light of the statement of v. 28bb that Joab has seized the horns of the altar, the
wording of MT v. 29ag seems to imply that meanwhile Joab has let go of the
horns. In doing so, Joab renounces his right for sanctuary and implicitly confesses
guilt.
In my view, Schenker assigns too much narrative signicance to the formulation
of MT v. 29ag. In practice, there is no dierence between Joab holding the horns
of the altar and Joab being near the altar (see the previous discussion). Nor is there
reason 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 diculty
with entering the sanctuary to seize Joab near the altar (v. 30). Schenker argues
that 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 Joab
from the sanctuary before killing him. Both Benaiahs reluctance to enter the sanc-
tuary and Joabs refusal to leave it root in the circumstance that the altar still pro-
tects Joab.
7
A. anda, Die Bcher der Knige (EHAT 9), Mnster 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
lgvn ka epen at basilew
poreou poreou
ka pohson at kayw erhken
ka nele atn ka nele atn
ka ycon atn ka yceiw atn
The pluses of the LXX vis--vis MT are underlined. The LXX
seems to have brought into line the rst and second assignment to
Benaiah according to the sequence gostrike downbury. 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 signicant dierence 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 ed to the altar? And Joab said, Because I was afraid of
you, and I ed 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 psteilen Salvmvn) (::: :::) 29ba
prw Ivab :::
lgvn ::
t ggonn soi : :
ti pfeugaw ew t yusiastrion ::: :: :
ka epen Ivab :: ::
8
Or simply: I was afraid of you and ed 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 apo
prosvpou = :c: (cf. 1 Kgs. 1: 50); 2. legvn = ::; 3. The expression ti
gegonen soi oti may be compared to LXX Isa. 22: 1, ti egeneto soi . . . oti = MT
Isa. 22: 1, : . . . ::; 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 sou
kai efugon prow kurion. Probably, this Greek sentence translates a causal clause
followed by a main clause introduced by the waw of apodosis (see Joon-Muraoka,
176e). If so, the Hebrew is to be translated as: Because I was afraid of you, I
ed to YHWH.
10
The reconstruction presented here is taken from BHK and Burney, Notes, 24.
ti fobyhn p prospou sou :c: :
ka fugon prw krion :: ::::
29bb ka psteilen Salvmvn basilew ::: :: ::: 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 (. . . :::
:::) could have caused the omission of the passage in MT
11
but
it is equally conceivable that it was added to the Vorlage of the LXX
by means of resumptive repetition. According to Barthlemy, the cir-
cumstance that the verb to ee takes dierent complements in
v. 29ba and in vv. 2829a speaks in favour of the literary original-
ity of the plus.
12
Yet it is dicult 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 Joabs answer in v. 29ba does not provide
Solomon with information he did not yet have. Solomon was already
fully acquainted with Joabs role in the Adonijah-coup (cf. v. 22), so
he must have understood why Joab ed to the sanctuary.
13
Nor is
it likely that Solomons question intends to extract a confession about
Joabs part in the coup, since Solomon has Joab executed on dierent
grounds (vv. 3133).
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 ed to the altar. However, 1 Kgs. 1:
5052, a passage dealing with Adonijahs request for asylum, does
not mention a juridical inquiry conducted by the king. Maybe
11
Thus D. Barthlemy, Critique textuelle de lAncien Testament, t. I (OBO 50/1),
Freiburg/Gttingen 1982, 335; Gray, Kings, 105, n. c; Hrozn , Abweichungen, 62;
Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 95; DeVries, 1 Kings, 27.
12
Barthlemy, 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, Bcher der Knige, 41; Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 70.
15
32 chapter two
Solomons 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 rst 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 Joabs
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 Solomons abrupt order to kill Joab in the sanctuary
(cf. MT v. 29b).
17
Joabs answer to Solomon, then, is to be under-
stood as an implicit confession of guilt: Joabs 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 reect 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 oers to aima thw adikiaw
autou, the blood of his unrighteousness, for MT ::. The Greek
reading once more highlights Joabs guilt and in doing so may help
justify Solomons behaviour.
Another possibility is that the expansion in v. 29ba serves to bring
the episode of Joabs ight into conformity with the account of
Adonijahs ight to the sanctuary in 1 Kgs. 1: 5051. 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. Wrthwein, Das Erste Buch der Knige. Kapitel 116 (ATD
11,1), Gttingen 1977, 7, n. 18.
17
Thus H.A. Brongers, 1 Koningen (Prediking van het Oude Testament), Nijkerk
1967, 44; M. Noth, Knige, I.116 (BK 9/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1968, 7, 36.
18
Cf. Gray, Kings, 106; Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 95.
the altar . . . (1 Kgs. 1: 51a). In the LXX-version of the account of
Joabs ight to the sanctuary Solomon learns the same things with
regard to Joab. Solomons servants inform him that Joab grasped
the horns of the altar (v. 29ag) and Joab himself tells Solomon via
the kings messenger that he is afraid of him (v. 29ba). Signicantly, the
two elements which enhance the similarity between the episodes of
1: 5051 and 2: 2829 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: 31b33b four references to blood appear. In
three out of four instances the reference in MT is dierent from its
counterpart in the LXX: V. 31b to aima o dvrean ejexeen: :
c: : (sg. versus pl.); v. 32a to aima thw adikiaw autou::;
v. 32b to aima autvnno counterpart in MT.
In the Greek text the blood mentioned is exclusively Abners and
Amasas. In MT, however, v. 32a seems to make reference to Joabs
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 nd 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 nd 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 fathers house. As long as
Solomon, who acts as the highest judge, omits to punish the assas-
sin, the blood of Joabs 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 Joabs blood back upon his own head.
This seems fair enough, as Joabs death is a righteous punishment
for his own crimes.
34 chapter two
19
Thus M.J. Mulder, 1 Kings. Volume I: 1 Kings 111 (Historical Commentary on
the Old Testament), Leuven 1998, 11920.
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 reect an eort 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 Joabs guilt, seeks to justify Solomons
severe judgment.
20
In v. 32b we nd the parenthetic remark and my father David
did not know, which refers to Davids ignorance concerning Joabs
intentions to kill Abner and Amasa. The LXX adds their blood.
In Schenkers 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 dierent 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 Amasas 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 Joabs
execution reveal two tendencies. First, several deviations bring about
closer conformity between parallel passages. Second, a few devia-
tions tend to amplify Joabs guilt and consequently reduce the rep-
rehensibility of Solomons behaviour. It is not certain whether all
changes derive from the same hand. At least, the Hebraistic avour
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 Text
of I Kings ii 12xxi 43, OTS 8 (1950), 30022, esp. 310.
21
CHAPTER THREE
THE DUPLICATION OF 3 REG. 2: 89 AT 35LO AND
THE SUPPLEMENTARY CHARACTER OF 3546L
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 Shimeis elimination
in ch. 2. Both MT and the LXX recount this story in two parts.
The rst part of it occurs in 2: 89. It relates Davids dying charge
to Solomon to nd a legal pretext to kill Davids former adversary,
Shimei. The second part, recounting how Solomon managed to com-
ply with Davids last will, does not appear until 2: 3646. Unlike
MT, the LXX has this second part preceded by a repetition of the
rst part. The duplicate, counted as 3 Reg. 2: 35lbo, is provided
with a short introductory statement in v. 35la, and its diction is
slightly dierent from 2: 89.
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: 89 at 2: 35lo
for fear that a reader coming across 2: 3646 might not remember
the previous history of the Shimei episode. The slight but unmis-
takable dierence in wording makes it clear that vv. 35lo are not
a straight copy of vv. 89.
A possible explanation might be sought in the circumstance that
the duplicate passages each appear in dierent translation units. As
has been pointed out in the introduction, Thackeray attributed the
sections 2 Reg. 11: 23 Reg. 2: 11 and 3 Reg. 2: 1221: 43 to
dierent 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 bg
and gg, because he found the last characteristic of bg in 3 Reg.
2: 5 and the rst 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 dierent 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 rst part of the Shimei story at 2: 89 falls
outside the coverage of the book. As the second part at 2: 3646
cannot possibly be understood without knowledge of the rst part,
it is conceivable that someone took the initiative to copy the rst
part and insert it immediately before v. 36. The slight dierences
between the two texts, then, might be explained by the somewhat
dierent 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 rst place, it is by no means
sure whether 2: 89 takes priority over 2: 35lo as the original posi-
tion of Davids dying charge in the LXX. Barthlemy has identied
the translation unit bg, to which 2: 89 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: 89. It is signicant that the Ant. text of 3 Reg. 2: 19, 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, 100101. Support for the hypothesis has been expressed by
E. Tov in The LXX Additions (Miscellanies) in 1 Kings 2 (3 Reigns 2), Textus
11 (1984), 89118, esp. 117.
the duplication of 3 reg. 2: 89 at 35lo 37
no correspondence in MT. Internally, the section is clearly marked
o 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: 35ak and 46al. These so-called Miscellanies I and II,
which each constitute a plus vis--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: 35lo and 3646) thus nds itself
embedded in the Miscellanies and makes the impression of being
part of them. As we will see, this state of aairs 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: 89 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 rst is the text of the Shimei episodes.
2. Comparison of the duplicate translations 3 Reg. 2: 89 and 35lo
The following scheme seeks to visualize the dierences between the
versions of MT, the LXX (majority of manuscripts) and the Ant.
text in 2: 89 and 35lo. 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: 35lo Rahlfs 2: 35lo Ant. text 2: 89 Rahlfs 2: 89 Ant. text MT 2: 89
ka n t id. id. id.
ti Dauid zn zn ti tn Dauid
netelato id.
t Salvmvn id. Solomvnti
lgvn id.
1 do id. ka do id. ::
2 met so id. id. met so :.
3 Semei Semeei Semei Semeei .::
uw Ghra id. id. uw Ghra id. id. ::
4 uw uo uw id. :
sprmatow
to Iemini id. Iemenei to Iemeni id. Iemenei ::
5 k Xebrvn k Gabaya k Baourim k Bayoureim (e
2
) ::
6 otow ka otow ka atw id. id. ::
7 kathrsat me id. id. kathrsat me id. id. :::,
The rst thing to be noted is the high degree of agreement between
the Greek of 2: 89 and that of 35lo. 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,
dierences 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 Septuagintazustzen in 1. (3.) Knige 2 und ihren Paralleltexten [diss.], Mainz
1977, 167, n. 1). The verb : 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 four
times 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 the
evidence that the duplicate translations are interdependent.
katran id. katran id. ::,
dunhrn id. dunhrn id. .::
8 n mr& n t mr& t mr& n t mr& ::
poreumhn id. poreumhn id. ::
9 ew parembolw id. id. ew parembolw id. id. : :
10 ka atw id. id. ka atw id. id. ::
11 katbainen katbaine katbh id.
12 ew moi ew ew ew ,:
pantn moi pnthsin pantn mou pnthsin mou
13 p tn Iordnhn id. id. id. ew tn Iordnhn p id. id.
14 ka vmosa id. id. ka vmosa id. id. .:::
at id. at id. ::
15 kat to kurou id. id. id. n kur id. id. ::
lgvn id. lgvn id. ::
16 e id. e id.
yanatvysetai yanatsv se yanatsv se id. id. :
n =omfa& id. id. n =omfa& id. id. ::
17 ka nn id. id. ka o ka s o .:
m id. m id. :
18 ysw atn id. id. ysw atn id. id. :,:
ti id. ti id. :
19 nr frnimow id. id. nr sofw id. id. : :
20 s id. e s id. id.
21 ka gns id. id. ka gns id. id. .:
poiseiw at id. id. id poiseiw at id. id. id. :::. :
22 ka katjeiw id. id. ka katjeiw id. id. ::
tn polin ato id. id. id. tn polin ato id. id. id. : ::
n amati id. id. n amati id. id. :
ew dou id. id. ew dou id. id. :::
12, 13, 15, 19, 20), others implying either dependence on somewhat
dierent source texts or editorial intervention (items 4, 5, 16, 17).
This state of aairs may be accounted for with reference to Barth-
lemys 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: 35lo, then, may represent the older Greek version of the story
of Davids last will regarding Shimei, while the majority of Greek
manuscripts at 2: 89 represent the revised form. In fact, one of the
characteristics of Kaige as established by Thackeray, Barthlemy and
Shenkel can be discerned in 2: 89.
3
Items 5 and 17, and perhaps item 16 as well, suggest that 3 Reg.
2: 89 and 2: 35lbo go back to slightly dierent Hebrew Vorlagen.
Item 5 will be treated later on; as regards item 17, kai nun of v. 35o
corresponds to .: (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 :.
4
It
may be asked whether there ever was a Hebrew source text of 3
Reg. 2: 35lbo in a position corresponding to that held by the Greek
verses. The answer depends on the assessment of the editorial intro-
duction to vv. 35lbo in v. 35la. If this can be shown to reect a
Hebrew source, the paragraph following the introduction must like-
wise have a basis in Hebrew. Unfortunately, the Greek of v. 35la
does 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 : 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 the
Ethiopic) at 2: 9 shows the original reading being supplemented by ou, apparently
inuenced 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 more
conceivable 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 t + inf. makes the
possibility of a Hebrew origin very likely (LXX Additions, 114). This assessment
may be right, but it should be emphasized that the Hebraistic avour 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 : :.::
:: ::: :. (Tov, LXX Additions, 96; J.C. Trebolle Barrera, Testamento
y muerte de David, RB 87 [1980], 87103, esp. 101 = Salomn y Jerobon, 254).
40 chapter three
In determining the relationship between 2: 89 and 35lo we must
take special notice of the Ant. manuscripts. Barthlemy 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. 35lo cite a text form that is thought to be prior to the Kaige
recension, the Ant. text of 2: 89 and the majority text of 2: 35lo
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: 89 has
much more in common with the Kaige text of 2: 89 than with 2:
35lo (see items 4, 5, 6, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20). For its part, the
Ant. text of 2: 35lo more closely resembles the majority text of this
passage than both the Ant. text and the majority text of 2: 89 (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 dierences 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: 89 and 2:
35lo both represent the unaltered OG. Dierences 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 dierences
by saying that dierent translators were responsible for the older
Greek as it is represented by the Ant. manuscripts of 2: 89 and
35lo 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: 89 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: 89 virtually unaltered. The strikingly dierent
Greek of 3 Reg. 2: 35lo, then, would suggest that this translation
is later than its OG-context. The implication of this view is that vv.
35lo were not extant in the Hebrew Vorlage of the gg-section. Vv.
35lo would have been translated from a Hebrew text slightly dierent
7
Barthlemy, Devanciers, 9192.
from what is suggested as the Hebrew basis of 3 Reg. 2: 89, 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: 89 is posterior to
the majority text. In that instance, the close resemblance of the Ant.
text form to the majority text at 2: 89 suggests that the former
underwent inuence from manuscripts presenting the Kaige recension
(note for instance item 19). There is some evidence that the Ant.
texts of 2: 89 and 35lo have been aected 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: 89 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: 89 (item 19). Whatever the option to be preferred here, it
seems safe to assume that the Ant. witnesses of 2: 89 and 2: 35lo
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. 35l46 is surrounded
by two large pluses in the LXX, the so-called Miscellanies I and II,
8
numbered 35ak and 46al. The Miscellanies are peculiar collec-
tions of materials relating to the history of Solomons reign in chs.
311.
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. 35lo, is
intimately connected with the Miscellanies.
8
Throughout the present study, the abbreviations Misc. I and Misc. II are
used to refer to 3 Reg. 2: 35ak and 46al, 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: 35lo resembles part of Misc. I in
oering a translation of a passage which in MT occurs in a dierent
place and which is translated in the main Greek text in a position
corresponding to MT material.
10
Like vv. 35ak and vv. 46al, the
Shimei story through vv. 35l46 provides an example of Solomons
wisdom, namely the resourcefulness shown by Solomon in carrying
out Davids last will with regard to Shimei.
11
The connection with
the wisdom theme is only apparent by the presence of vv. 35lo,
since it is this part of the story that explicitly lays stress on the wis-
dom that was involved in Solomons handling of the case (in par-
ticular v. 35o). Whereas vv. 35lo 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. 35lo 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. 35lo. 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. IShimei storyMisc. 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. 3646 or the entire Shimei story through vv. 35l46. Whatever
the text-historical course of aairs, Goodings claim that the position
10
Gooding, Relics, 97, cf. 3.
11
Gooding, Relics, 97; cf. id., Problems of Text and Midrash, 45; thus also
of the Shimei story in between the two Miscellanies was meant to
make the reader see the Shimei story as another illustration of
Solomons wisdom is tempting.
On the other hand, Goodings arguments in favour of the view
that vv. 35lo were added simultaneously with the Miscellanies fail
to convince. Though vv. 35lo comprise a duplicate translation com-
parable to vv. 46eg, there is one notable dierence between these
duplicates: Unlike the duplicate renderings included in the Miscellanies,
vv. 35lo duplicate a passage in the preceding text of 3 Regum. The
Shimei story also deviates from the genre of the Miscellanies in
oering a complete narrative rather than a mixture of short notes,
narrative fragments, and summary statements. It is, moreover, not
at all certain that vv. 35lo 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 spermatow
is the similarity of : : and . :. 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 gure of Shimei is nowhere
in the second book of Samuel connected with Hebron.
In contrast to Gooding, Schenker regards vv. 35lo, including the
reading Hebron, as original to the LXX and the passage in vv.
89 as a secondary addition made under the inuence of MT.
13
In
Schenkers opinion, Hebron is both less obvious and more signicant
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 :, who depends
on the hospitality of the Judean leader David. This circumstance
would eectively illustrate Shimeis 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 =
::: (contra J.A. Montgomery, The Supplement at End of 3 Kingdoms 2
[I Reg 2], ZAW 50 [1932], 12429, esp. 126).
13
14
Schenker (Septante, 7980) nds another indication for vv. 35lo being prior to
vv. 89 in v. 35n (item 16). He rightly remarks that the phrase he shall not be
put to death by the sword in this verse is dicult: Though David addresses Shimei,
he uses the 3rd person. Schenker considers this phrase to be more original than
the counterpart in 2: 8 of MT and the LXX (I [sc. David] will not put you to
death by the sword) since it oers the hermeneutic key for understanding the
Shimei 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 dierence between these
toponyms involves the interchange of beth and eth. Montgomery is
possibly right that the reading Hebron (::) for Bahurim (:)
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
reshued the consonants of : into :: 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. 35lo is original to the LXX (OG) or not. The
only thing we know for certain about the relationship of vv. 35lo
and the context is that these verses cannot go without the story of
Shimeis execution in vv. 3646. It remains unclear whether vv.
35lo were added to vv. 3646 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 asks
Solomon to bring Shimeis grey head down to the underworld in blood (v. 35o),
he calls for Solomons resourcefulness to nd a pretext to execute Shimei. This is
exactly what Solomon does (vv. 3646). The formulation of 2: 8 of the LXX and
MT, 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. 3646 is not as well
integrated in the narrative context in MT as it is in the LXX.
Though Schenkers argument is ingenious, it is doubtful whether the narrative
ramications of the formulations in v. 8 on the one hand and v. 35n on the other
really dier that much. In v. 8, Davids promise to Shimei not to put him to death
may 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 needs
to nd another pretext for executing Shimei.
Moreover, Schenker fails to explain why in v. 35n Shimei is addressed in the
3rd rather than in the 2nd person. Interestingly, the form yanatvyhsetai also
appears in 2 Reg. 19: 22, that is, one verse preceding the original formulation of
Davids 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 swore
to him. This suggests the possibility that the peculiar formulation of v. 35n results
from inuence of 2 Reg. 19: 2223.
15
Montgomery, Supplement, 126.
16
See 2 Sam. 16: 8; 15: 7f.
4. The original form of the Shimei story in the LXX and the
signicance of 3 Reg. 2: 35ab
A. As the Shimei narrative itself does not suggest a clear reason why
the passage of Davids 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: 35l46 or in the shape of the two episodes
at 2: 89 and 3646. 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: 89 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: 89 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: 89 did not occur in the OG at all. These scholars agree
in considering the section 3 Reg. 2: 35l46 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: 35a46l. 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 reecting 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, 12426; J.A. Montgomery, The Year Eponymate
in the Hebrew Monarchy, JBL 49 (1930), 31119, esp. 31213, n. 4.
18
Trebolle Barrera, Salomn y Jerobon, 25055.
19
20
The numbering is mine; see the synopsis at page 47. In order to avoid con-
fusion with Misc. I numbered vv. 35ak, Greek letters have been used to designate
the component parts of v. 35 proper.
46 chapter three
cation for the supplementary character of 3 Reg. 2: 35a46l. 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 Solomons kingship occurring in ch. 2. The distribution
of these notes over the chapter is somewhat dierent in 1 Kings and
3 Regum:
12b ka toimsyh basilea ato sfdra : :::: :: 12b
24a ka nn z kriow : .: 24a
w tomasn me ::: :
ka yet me :::::
p tn yrnon Dauid to patrw mou : : :::.
35ab ka basilea katvryoto n Ierousalhm
45b ka yrnow Dauid stai toimow : :: : ::: 45b
npion kurou ew tn ana ::.. : :c:
::::: :::: ::::: 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 Davids death, 1 Kgs. 2: 12b marks the
beginning of Solomons 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 Solomons position.
21
However, in MT a note cor-
responding to 3 Reg. 2: 35ab occurs at v. 46b.
22
Apparently, :
::: of MT v. 46b appeared as (or was read as) :::: 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, Salomn y Jerobon, 251 =
Testamento, 99; dierently Noth, Knige, 37; Schenker, Septante, 38, 42.
Hebrew source of v. 35ab.
23
The verb occurring in v. 35ab, kato-
ryoun, is unique to 3 Regum, yet its linkage with ::: (:: Niphal)
is rmly established by the concordance. The fact that elsewhere in
3 Regum the Niphal and Hiphil of :: are translated by words of
the root htoim- does not necessarily imply that v. 35ab originates
with a dierent 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: 1235). 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 basilew :: : 35a
tn Banaiou un Ivdae . :: :::
nt' atou :
p tn strathgan :.:.
35ab ka basilea katvryoto n Ierousalhm
35b ka tn Sadvk tn era : ,:.: 35b
dvken basilew :: :
ew era prton
nt Abiayar :
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 ::: : probably is the older one (thus also Burney, Notes, 25;
Montgomery, Supplement, 12425; Mulder, 1 Kings 111, 121; Noth, Knige, 7;
Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 6465; anda, Bcher der Knige, 43; dierently
Krautwurst, Studien, 172, n. 5; Schenker, Septante, 3839). The question raised by
the 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 of
Solomons political enemies: The verse states that the purge resulted in the con-
solidation of Solomons kingship. To Schenkers credit it should be admitted that
he is capable of assigning meaning to the reading in Jerusalem as it stands in
the LXX.
24
In this connection, reference could be made to 1 Par. 28: 7, where the phrase
::::: :::: is rendered as kai katoryvsv thn basileian autou, whereas
only a few verses earlier ::: was represented by htoimasa (v. 2).
48 chapter three
v. 35a.
25
However, opinions dier 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 Solomons 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. 3646
that it cannot result from editorial intervention but must derive from
a branch of Hebrew textual tradition dierent from MT.
29
In Noths
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: 1335 and 2: 3646 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 eorts 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, Knige, 37; Trebolle Barrera, Salomn y Jerobon, 253.
26
I. Benzinger, Die Bcher der Knige (KHC 9), Freiburg 1899, 14; Gray, Kings,
20, 110; B.O. Long, 1 Kings (FOTL 9), Grand Rapids 1984, 4748, 57; Wrthwein,
Erste Buch der Knige, 25.
27
See in particular anda, Bcher der Knige, 43, and Stade-Schwally, Books of
Kings, 65, 7172; also D.A. Glatt-Gilad, The Deuteronomistic Critique of Solomon:
A Response to Marvin A. Sweeney, JBL 116 (1997), 700703, esp. 701, n. 4;
Hrozn , Abweichungen, 20; R. Kittel, Die Bcher der Knige (HK 1,5), Gttingen 1900,
24; Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 101102; B. Porten, The Structure and Theme
of the Solomon Narrative (1 Kings 311), HUCA 38 (1967), 93128, esp. 124.
28
Burney, Notes, 23; Trebolle Barrera, Salomn y Jerobon, 254.
29
Noth, Knige, 78, 10.
30
Noth, Knige, 11.
31
Noth, Knige, 37.
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: 89 and
2: 3646. This was omitted altogether because of its unimportance
or for its brutality, or the rst act, Davids 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: 35l46 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: 35lo and 2: 3646,
respectively.
3. Misc. II at 3 Reg. 2: 46al.
The rst act of the Shimei story in 3 Reg. 2: 89 is even later than
vv. 35lo, because it lacks the marks of the older Greek translator
which characterize the latter passage. In Montgomerys view, it was
secondarily inserted into ch. 2 to square with MT 1 Kgs. 2: 89.
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, Montgomerys view pre-
sents a problem with respect to the identity of the translation at vv.
35lo.
34
Montgomery seems to accept Thackerays view that the bg-
section is the work of a later translator who lled in the gaps between
the older Greek portions of 1 Reg. 12 Reg. 11: 1 and 3 Reg. 2:
1221: 43 (Montgomery: 3 Reg. 3: 121: 43).
35
Since, according to
Montgomery, the text at 3 Reg. 2: 35lo supplements what was
found lacking in 2: 89, it is a logical assumption that that text was
32
Montgomerys views have been adopted by A. Jepsen (Die Quellen des Knigsbuches,
Halle 1956
2
, 1112).
33
D.W. Gooding, The Shimei Duplicate and its Satellite Miscellanies in 3 Reigns
II, JSSt 13 (1968), 7692, 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. 35lo 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 dicult to see how a sup-
plement to bg could ever exhibit the older Greek. Third, there is
no evidence that originally the rst part of the Shimei story at 2:
89 was not represented in the LXX. All manuscripts, including
those attesting the Ant. text, represent the passage. Fourth, Montgo-
merys claim that bg originally ended at 2: 35ab ignores indications
of a changing translation technique earlier in the chapter.
36
Thackeray,
Barthlemy 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 diculties, the hypothesis that the entire Shimei
story at 2: 35l46 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. 3646 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 Trebolles
opinion, the entire supplement through 3 Reg. 2: 35a46l goes back
to a Hebrew original reecting 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: 3546,
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 rst part, Davids
36
Note the change in rendering of the following Hebrew words occurring through-
out 3 Reg. 2: :: = egv eimi at 2: 2 (Ant. manuscripts: eg) over against eg at
2: 16, 18, 20 (cf. Barthlemy, Devanciers, 72); :.() : = arxvn (thw) dunamevw at
1: 19, 25; 2: 5 (Ant. manuscripts: arxistrathgow) over against arxistrathgow at
2: 32 (two times) (cf. Shenkel, Chronology, 114).
37
Trebolle Barrera, Salomn y Jerobon, esp. 25055, 36769.
last will regarding Shimei, was placed within the frame of Davids
testament (1 Kgs. 2: 1b9), the second part was left in its original
position (1 Kgs. 2: 3646). It follows that in MT 1 Kgs. 2: 89 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 Davids Testament
through 1 Kgs. 2: 1b9.
Several critics have argued that Davids Testament does not link
up smoothly with the narrative context.
38
Thus the correlation between
Davids 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 aairs 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. 24, led Noth to con-
clude that der ganze Abschitt 2: 1b9 wahrscheinlich nicht zum
Grundbestand der Erzhlung 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 14
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 dierence with MT and the Kaige text. The following scheme
compares Kaige, represented here by LXX B, and the Ant. text:
LXX B Ant. text
1a ka gneto met tata
1a ka ggisan a mrai
Dauid poyanen atn ka pyane Dauid
ka koimyh
met tn patrvn ato
1b ka pekrnato 1b ka netelato
Salvmvn u ato t u ato Solomnti
mprosyen to yantou ato
lgvn lgvn
38
Noth, Knige, 9; Gray, Kings, 2122; Wrthwein, Erste Buch der Knige, 89.
52 chapter three
29 Davids testament 29 Davids testament
10 ka koimyh Dauid 10 ka koimtai Dauid
met tn patrvn ato met tn patrvn ato
ka tfh n plei Dauid ka tfh n t plei Dauid
The Ant. text of v. 1 is beset by several diculties which do not
arise in MT and the Kaige text. The two expressions used to desig-
nate Davids death, to die (::) and to sleep with his fathers
(:::. :::), are nowhere juxtaposed in Kings but here. Moreover,
the latter expression is repeated in v. 10, so that Davids death is
announced three times in total. Trebolle argues that, since the Kaige
text and MT in vv. 110 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 Trebolles
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. 1b9). 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 dierent lit-
erary background. The expression to sleep with his fathers (:::
:::.) 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 Davids
reign in vv. 1011. The other expression referring to Davids death,
::, 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 rmly established. This passage, thought
to be part of the original History of Davids succession, was dis-
rupted when the concluding formulae to Davids reign at vv. 1011
were inserted. A next literary stage saw the intrusion of Davids tes-
tament at vv. 1b9, which was accompanied by the Wiederaufnahme
39
Thus already A. Rahlfs (Septuaginta-Studien IIII, Gttingen 1965
2
, [64344]).
of the phrase he (David) slept with his fathers and by consider-
able reworking of v. 1. The text of Davids testament adopted older
elements, like the rst part of the Shimei story in vv. 89. When
the proto-rabbinical tradition divided the continuous narrative as rep-
resented by 3 Reg. 2: 35l46 between 3 Reg. 2: 89 and 3646, it
used the original introduction to the narrative, reected by the Greek
of 3 Reg. 2: 35la, as a model for the introduction of the testament
in v. 1b.
40
Trebolles view on the genesis of Davids 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 dierence 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 Davids 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 Davids Testament.
However, Trebolles claim that it was the proto-Masoretic tradi-
tion that was responsible for transposing the rst part of the Shimei
narrative to Davids testament is confusing. It would imply that the
Ant. text reects a proto-Masoretic redaction in 2: 19 and follows
the non-Masoretic tradition in retaining the original unity of the
Shimei narrative in 2: 35l46. This picture is dicult to reconcile
with the strict distinction Trebolle makes between the tipo textual
masortico and the tipo textual no-masortico 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 Davids
40
That is to say, the Hebrew text underlying the Ant. text of 3 Reg. 2: 1b, :.:
::: :c: ::: ::: , was modelled after the Hebrew Vorlage of v. 35la, : :.:
:: ::: :. .
54 chapter three
testament does not need to imply that the continuous narrative in
2: 35l46 presents the original form of the Shimei story. It may well
be that the two parts of the story, 2: 89 and 3646, were inserted
simultaneously or even successively, as Noth contends, into an older
narrative and that 2: 35lo 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 dierences between 1 Kings and 3
Regum that occur near the boundary between the two chapters:
41
The omission of the rst part of v. 2 plhn o laow hsan in LXX B a
2
is cer-
tainly due to some mishap in the process of copying (cf. Krautwurst, Studien, 311).
1 Kings 3 Regum
2: 3646 Second act of Shimei 2: 3646 Second act of Shimei
narrative narrative
2: 46b And the kingdom was
established in the hands
of Solomon.
2: 46ak Misc. II
2: 46l Solomon the son of
David was king over
Israel and Judah in
Jerusalem.
3: 1 Solomons marriage
with the daughter of
Pharaoh
3: 2 Only the people were 3: 2 Only the people
sacricing were
41
sacricing
at the high places at the high places
for 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 the
YHWH, Lord,
walking in the statutes walking in the statutes
of David his father; of David his father;
only he was sacricing only he was sacricing
and burning incense and burning incense
at the high places. at the high places.
First, 3 Reg. 2: 46l, numbered as the last paragraph of Misc. II,
requires notice:
Salvmvn uw Dauid basleusen p Israhl ka Iouda n Ierousalhm
A comparable note occurs in 3 Reg. 4: 1:
Ka n basilew Salvmvn basilevn p Israhl
In view of the fact that these notes present words of similar import,
the formal dierences 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 anity with the following for-
mulae in 3 Regum:
22: 52 Ka Oxoziaw iw Axaab basleusen p Israhl n Samare&
n tei ptakaidekt Ivsafat basile Iouda
16: 8 Ka Hla uw Baasa basleusen p Israhl
do 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 Jepsens 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 Solomons reign which has been lost in MT.
44
The striking parallel with the rst 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 Solomons rule abroad, v. 46l speaks of Solomons rule
at home, over Israel and Judah in Jerusalem. Since the ensuing
narrative section in 3 Regum 3 deals exclusively with domestic
aairs3 Regum does not contain the note on Solomons marriage
of 1 Kgs. 3: 1v. 46l would make a tting 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 conguration
with the immediately following verses. In the LXX, 3 Reg. 2: 46l
is immediately followed by 3: 23. 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 kings policy regarding the high places. The sequence
at 3 Reg. 2: 46l3: 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 prexed to 3 Reg. 3: 23 to imitate the usual pattern of
the regnal formulae. Since the actual account of Solomons rule does
not start until ch. 3 (ch. 2 having dealt with the aftermath of Solomons
accession and Davids 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, Salomn y Jerobon, 297.
part in the editors decision to insert v. 46l. In MT and the LXX
alike, v. 2 opens with: Only the people were sacricing 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 sacricing 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
qualication in 1 Kgs. 3: 2. As it seems, there is nothing in the pre-
ceding note on Solomons marriage with Pharaohs daughter that
may occasion the use of the restrictive adverb , in v. 2. Neither
a contrast nor a tension can be perceived between Solomons treat-
ment of Pharaohs 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 peoples 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 Solomons rule. It may be argued that 1 Kgs. 2:
46b forms a more strict division between the account of Solomons
accession in ch. 2 and the story of Solomons reign in chs. 310
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 Beurteilungen
der Knige von Israel und Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Knigsbcher,
Bib. 53 (1972), 30139, esp. 308, 31011.
46
Whether v. 46l is simultaneous with the preceding Misc. II is dicult 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 :::: instead of ::: :. He adopted the reference to
Jerusalem when he created v. 46l because he found use to it in his
eort 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 Solomons kingship in Jerusalem
was more appropriately placed in 2: 35ab, i.e., after the episode
recounting the execution of those who once contested Solomons
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, 2326). The sober statement of v. 46l
that Solomon reigned as king over Israel and Judah in Jerusalem does not link up
well with the preceding description of the extent of Solomons 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 no
clear purpose in the context of Misc. II but is appropriate in the context of an
introduction to a new section. In fact, the editions of Rahlfs and Brooke-McLean
take the verse to be an introduction to the following (see also Krautwurst, Studien,
21112, 286).
47
Syntactically, v. 46b could be interpreted as a circumstantial clause aimed at
describing the situation which made it possible for Solomon to become the son-
in-law of Pharaoh (Mulder, 1 Kings 111, 129; cf. Joon-Muraoka, 159d). Evidence
that 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 the
Hexaplaric translation (manuscripts A x) of 1 Kgs. 2: 46b as a genitivus absolutus
dependent on 3: 1 (cf. Krautwurst, Studien, 288).
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 condence 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 Solomons purge
of his opponents. Perhaps the editor wished to create the literary
gure of an inclusio (v. 35a: appointment of Benaiah in place of Joas;
v. 35ab: Solomons 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 rst
episode of the Shimei narrative of 2: 89 preceding the second
episode in 2: 3646. Two phenomena were found to be potentially
threatening to the initial hypothesis, namely the somewhat uncertain
provenance of 2: 89 in the OG as witnessed by the Ant. manu-
scripts and the unied character of the supplement through 3 Reg.
2: 35a46l. 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: 19 fails to
prove the secondary nature of vv. 89 over against the full Shimei
narrative in 3 Reg. 2: 35l46, the features responsible for the sup-
plementary character of 3 Reg. 2: 3546l can be satisfactorily attrib-
uted to editorial intervention. This applies to all of the major dierences
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: 46l3: 3 versus the arrangement of 1 Kgs. 2: 46b3: 3;
3. The presence of the Miscellanies.
Yet it proved dicult to determine the connection between vv.
35lo 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. 35lo.
Nor did it prove possible to link vv. 35lo to the miscellaneous mate-
rial in vv. 35ak and 46ak, respectively. The dierences are so con-
siderablethe episode through vv. 35lo 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-
gesisthat there is good reason to doubt if vv. 35lo 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: 35lo 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.
CHAPTER FOUR
THE ARRANGEMENT OF MATERIALS RELATING TO
PHARAOHS DAUGHTER IN MT AND THE LXX
1. Introduction
In the Solomon Narrative of MT altogether ve 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 dierent 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 Pharaohs 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 dierent positions
held by these notes. This state of aairs leads us to ask two ques-
tions. First, in what sense, and to what extent, do the various
dierences regarding position, context and wording between the cor-
responding sets of notes on Pharaohs daughter in the LXX and
MT aect their purport? Second, what is the most probable text-
historical relationship that can be concluded from an evaluation of
the dierences? In order to deal with these issues in a convenient
way, we divide the material on Pharaohs daughter in three categories:
1. The notes on the accommodation of Pharaohs daughter in 1
Kings and in the main text of 3 Regum.
2. The notes on Solomons dowry in 1 Kings and in the main text
of 3 Regum.
3. The notes on the accommodation of Pharaohs daughter in Misc. I.
2. The materials on the accommodation of Pharaohs 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 nished the construction of his palace, the temple and
the wall of Jerusalemin that order. The wording implies that once
the aforementioned buildings were nished Pharaohs daughter
left the City of David. Indeed, after the report of the construction
and the dedication of palace and templeno mention is made of
the city walla note appears at 1 Kgs. 9: 24 saying that Pharaohs
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, Solomons marriage with Pharaohs 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 Solomons hands may provide a weak
link between the rst 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.
67. Though the particle , 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 dierent issues. The meaning of the introductory particle
is 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, Solomons 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 Pharaohs daughter, but this
link is not conspicuous since there are eight verses between 9: 15
and 24. The summarizing and consequently chronologically indenite
character of these eight verses prevents us from relating the chronol-
ogy of the removal of Solomons 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 5560.
2
See page 68.
pharaohs daughter in mt and the lxx 63
Solomon Narrative. A number of critics have argued that the passages
1 Kgs. 3: 13 (4) and 9: 2425 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 eort to arrange materials concentrically around the temple-
account. Since the position of the note on Solomons worship at the
high places (3: 23) is more or less xed 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 27778.
64 chapter four
3 Reg. 5: 14a 3 Reg. 2: 35cab 1 Kgs. 3: 1
:::: :
.: :: .c
ka laben Salvmvn ka laben , :
tn yugatra Farav tn yugatra Farav .c:
aut ew gunaka
ka esgagen atn ka esgagen atn ::
ew tn plin Dauid ew tn plin Dauid : .:
vw suntelsai atn vw suntelsai atn ::: .
::::
tn okon kurou
ka tn okon auto tn okon atou ::
ka tn okon kurou : ::
n prtoiw
ka t texow Ierousalhm ka t texow Ierousalhm :
:: :::
kuklyen :::
3 Reg. 9: 9a 3 Reg. 2: 35fb 1 Kgs. 9: 24
tte ngagen Salvmvn otvw yugthr Farav .c:
tn yugatra Farav nbainen :.
k plevw Dauid k tw plevw Dauid : .:
ew okon ato ew tn okon atw ::
n kodmhsen aut n kodmhsen at ::: :
n taw mraiw kenaiw
tte kodmhsen tn kran ::: ::
The text portions printed in the rst 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: 35ak.
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 oers 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 Solomons
negotiations with Hiram in 5: 1532 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: 19) 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 operationspalace, temple and city wallin an
order that is dierent 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: 112, respectively). By contrast, the order
presented in 3 Reg. 5: 14a is consonant with the order found in 3
Reg. 67 where the construction of the temple (and the manufac-
ture of the temple utensils) comes before the construction of the
palace (3 Reg. 6: 17: 37; 7: 3850, respectively). As Gooding notes,
the position of 3 Reg. 5: 14a reects 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 all
of 1 Kgs. 3: 1. The former passage lacks a formal equivalent of the phrase And
Solomon 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, and
he took Pharaohs daughter with eaut eiw gunaika, to wife. This expansion
forces an interpretation on the phrase and he took Pharaohs daughter which is
not evident from the diction of 1 Kgs. 3: 1b or 3 Reg. 2: 35c.
of Pharaohs daughterbuilding 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 19 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
Pharaohs 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 Pharaohs daughter in
the City of David until he had nished temple, palace and city wall.
The implication is that Pharaohs daughter was taken out of the City
of David once the aforementioned buildings were completed.
6
It is also signicant to nd 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, 89.
6
Gooding believes that the wording of 3 Reg. 9: 9a not only reects a concern
for exact timetabling but also means to suggest that Solomon actually married the
daughter of Pharaoh on the occasion of her removal (Relics, 7273). The passage
would be an early instance of the interpretation found in later Jewish exegesis that
Solomon married Pharaohs daughter only at, or after, the completion and dedi-
cation of the temple. In support of this interpretation Gooding refers to the fact
that 3 Reg. 9: 9a appears immediately after the divine warning of impending doom
against Jerusalem through vv. 79. Jewish tradition asserted that it was at the
moment when Solomon was being led astray by Pharaohs daughter that the inten-
tion of destroying Jerusalem rst entered Gods mind (Misconduct, 330). This
view clearly overinterprets the LXX since 3 Regum as such does not supply the
slightest hint on the basis of which 3 Reg. 9: 9:a could be understood as a refer-
ence to Solomons marriage (cf. S.J.D. Cohen, Solomon and the Daughter of
Pharaoh: Intermarriage, Conversion, and the Impurity of Women, JANES 1617
[198485], 2337, esp. 29). On the contrary, the fact that 3 Reg. 5: 14a states
explicitly that Solomon rst took the daughter of Pharaoh to wife and then brought
her into the City of David clearly precludes this understanding of 3 Reg. 9: 9a.
Like Gooding, Lefebvre (Troisime livre des Rgnes, 94) sees a connection
between 9: 9a and the preceding verses. In his view, against the background of the
reference to Israels 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 son
esclavage en sallaint avec lEgypte? The connection, however, is highly associa-
tive; the reference to the exodus of v. 9 serves to criticize Israels ingratitude towards
YHWH; as such, it does not entail criticism of Solomons alliance with Pharaoh.
Yet the possibility cannot be excluded that criticism of Solomon is consciously
implied by the order of these verses in the LXX.
66 chapter four
3 Reg. 5: 14ab 3 Reg. 9: 9a
ka esgagen tte ngagen Salvmvn
atn tn yugatra Farav
ew tn plin Dauid k plevw Dauid
vw suntelsai atn
tn okon kurou
ka tn okon auto ew okon ato
n kodmhsen aut
ka t texow Ierousalhm
n taw mraiw kenaiw
1 Kgs. 3: 1b 1 Kgs. 9: 24a
:: :. .c:
: .: : .:
:::: ::: .
:: ::
::: :
: ::
:
:: :::
:::
Just as in 3 Reg. 5: 14ab Solomon is reported to have brought
Pharaohs 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 Solomons actions: eisagein and
anagein, respectively. By contrast, MT oers dierent subjects in 1
Kgs. 3: 1 and 9: 24, does not assign an active role to Solomon in
the migration of Pharaohs daughter to her palace, and employs
dierent verbs to describe the two migrations (:: and :., 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, 308309) the dierences exhib-
ited by 3 Reg. 9: 9a vis--vis 1 Kgs. 9: 24 amount to assigning to Solomon a role
much more tting to his position (Then Solomon brought the daughter of Pharaoh
to his house which he had built for himself ). This interpretation does not account
for the dierent position of the note in the LXX and MT.
8
The variation between (oikon) eautou of 3 Reg. 5: 14ab and (oikon) autou of
9: 9a is insignicant, since either pronoun refers to Solomon. In all likelihood, the
occurrence of a reference to the house of the Lord immediately preceding the ref-
erence to the palace led the translator to use the reexive pronoun in 3 Reg. 5:
14ab, as it forestalls confusion as to the identity of the person referred to (see also
3 Reg. 8: 1a).
Solomons 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 Pharaohs daughter forms part of Solomons palace.
Information to this eect is provided by 1 Kgs. 7: 8. It is to this
passage that the relative clause ::: : of 9: 24 refers.
As was noted above, 3 Reg. 9: 9a appears to take interest in the
chronology of the removal of Pharaohs daughter. There are no signs
of a similar interest in 1 Kgs. 9: 24. Critics have proposed to com-
bine the rst 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 Pharaohs 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 non-temporal function.
11
In that
9
Thus Benzinger, Bcher der Knige, 8485; HALAT, 44; Krautwurst, Studien,
124, n. 1; Noth, Knige, 200, 220; M. Rehm, Das erste Buch der Knige. Ein Kommentar,
Eichsttt 1979, 104; Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 113; anda, Bcher der Knige,
248, 261; O. Thenius, Die Bcher der Knige (KEH), Leipzig 1873
2
, 150; Wrthwein,
Erste Buch der Knige, 109.
10
In this construction, the particle takes a restrictive meaning, no sooner . . .
than (in German: kaum . . ., da). Similar constructions have been claimed to
occur in Gen. 27: 30 and Judg. 7: 19. These instances, however, dier from 1 Kgs.
9: 24 in exhibiting a paronomastic construction and introducing the main clause
by waw rather than by (cf. K. Jongeling, The Hebrew Particle , Dutch Studies
Near Eastern Languages and Literatures 3 [1997], 75108, esp. 9899). In view of the
dierence, it may be seriously doubted whether a syntactical interpretation of 1 Kgs.
9: 24 in the sense of Gen. 27: 30 is justied.
11
Jongeling (Hebrew Particle , 91) ranges 1 Kgs. 9: 24 among the instances
where it is reasonable to expect that only the preposed clause element following
directly on (i.e., in 9: 24 the subject the daughter of Pharaoh) is governed by
it. When this categorization is combined with the notion that usually has a
restrictive or contrastive function ( Jongeling, Hebrew Particle , 100101), we
would have to translate here: But (or: Only) the daughter of Pharaoh went up to
her house . . . In that case, however, it must be accepted that 1 Kgs. 9: 24a does
not link up with the context in a meaningful way. Emendation of as (cf. 3
Reg. 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 create
an improbable sequence of two sentences each beginning with (cf. Krautwurst,
Studien, 124; Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 113). Burney (Notes, 105) proposes to
emend 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 Solomons 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 Pharaohs 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 Solomons dowry
When we consider the treatment of the material on Solomons dowry
in the LXX and MT, we nd that the former brings about a more
natural and intricate connection between related materials than the
latter. Whereas MT presents the note on Solomons marriage and
the note on his dowry as two separate passages in 1 Kgs. 3: 1 and
9: 1617aa, 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 Solomons dowry through
1 Kgs. 9: 1617a interrupts an enumeration of the edices and cities
which Solomon ordered the labour levy to build (vv. 1519):
12
See Gooding, Misconduct, 32631; Problems of Text and Midrash, 89.
::: : 9: 15
::: :: :.:
::::
: :
:::
::::
::: :: :
:.:
::::
::
5: 14b tte nbh Farav basilew Agptou :. .::: .c . . . 9: 16
ka prokatelbeto tn Gazer : :::
ka neprisen atn :: c::
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
Solomons 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 innitive :::: in v. 15 and its objects, i.e., the build-
ing projects mentioned through vv. 1519, is interrupted after v. 16.
The clause in v. 17aa, which resumes the verb :: of v. 15, restores
the connection between this verb and its objects as mentioned in vv.
17b19. Because of the presence of the doublet and the awkward
position in the middle of a list, 1 Kgs. 9: 1617a 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, either
reects a corruption in the Vorlage or represents a Verlegenheitslsung by a translator
who faced a text that he did not completely understand. Unlike its counterpart in
1 Kgs. 9: 16, the Greek phrase juxtaposes rather dissimilar objects, which produces
an odd and ill-balanced statement: He burned it (i.e., Gezer) and the Canaanite
who lived in Mergab. A place named Mergab is mentioned nowhere else in the
LXX or MT. According to P. Srki, the name was meant to refer to Megiddo
(P. Srki, Die Weisheit und Macht Salomos in der Israelitischen Historiographie. Eine tradi-
tions- und redaktionskritische Untersuchung ber 1 Kn. 35 und 911 [Schriften der nnischen
exegetischen Gesellschaft 60], Gttingen 1994, 135, n. 314). The suggestion is an
attractive one, as Megiddo is mentioned alongside Gezer in 1 Kgs. 9: 15 and 3
Reg. 10: 22a. It should, however, be noted that the form Mergab is not particu-
larly close to Hebrew :::. The name is also markedly dierent from transcriptions
of Megiddo elsewhere in 3 Regum. The form Mergab primarily seeks to render
(part of ) the consonantal framework of the Hebrew word underlying it, namely :
in 1 Kgs. 9: 16. The circumstance that the (corrupt?) Hebrew word was preceded
by .: may have led the translator to interpret it as the name of a city. The ele-
ment . was left untranslated. The interpretation of the Hebrew consonantal
sequence as a place name occasioned the change of the following phrase he gave
it into he gave them (i.e., the cities of Gezer and Mergab).
ka tn Xananthn tn katoikonta n .: :: :.:::
Mergab
13
:
ka dvken atw Farav postolw yugatr ato ::: :: . . . ::
gunaik Salvmvn ::: :
ka Salvmvn kodmhsen ::: :: 9: 17aa
tn Gazer : 9: 17ab
In contrast to MT, the LXX presents the passage under consid-
eration in a contextually appropriate position:
5: 14 ka paregnonto pntew o lao :.::: ::: 5: 14
kosai tw sofaw Salvmvn ::: :: .: ::
ka lmbanen dra
par pntvn tn basilvn tw gw ::::: :
soi kouon tw sofaw ato ::: :.:: :
5: 14a ka laben Salvmvn tn yugatra Farav
aut ew gunaka
ka esgagen atn ew tn plin Dauid
vw suntelsai atn
tn okon kurou
ka tn okon auto
5: 14b tte nbh Farav basilew Agptou
ka prokatelbeto tn Gazer
ka neprisen atn
ka tn Xananthn tn katoikonta n Mergab
ka dvken atw Farav postolw
yugatr ato gunaik Salvmvn
ka Salvmvn kodmhsen tn 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 tting dowry. This impression is strengthened by the occurrence
of a time-note tote in v. 14b, which suggests that Pharaohs expe-
dition took place about the same time as Solomons marriage. In
MT the report of Pharaohs expedition through 1 Kgs. 9: 1617aa
is not preceded by a similar note on Solomons 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 dierence 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 Solomons 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 Solomons 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. 14ab of 3 Reg. 5 do not continue the theme of the pre-
ceding section through vv. 914, i.e., Solomons wisdom. Solomons
marriage cannot be possibly considered a manifestation of his wis-
dom, given the fact that 3 Reg. 11: 1 mentions Pharaohs daughter
among the foreign wives who led Solomon astray. The passage at
vv. 14ab 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 Pharaohs daughter
in Misc. I
Having described the position and contextual implications of the
notes relating to Pharaohs 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 Pharaohs 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 35fb
suggests that these notes were meant to express a message dierent
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 connes itself to stating that Solomon took
Pharaohs 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 cut
through the City of David.
v. 35fb In this way the daughter of Pharaoh went up out of the City
of David to her house which he had built for her. Then he
built the citadel.
72 chapter four
Gooding argued that in the context of the sequence between v. 35fa
and fb outvw, in this way, may suggest that Pharaohs 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 Pharaohs 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 dierent aspect of the construction. While the rst 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 signicant 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 Pharaohs 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 Pharaohs
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, 1920. The intentional character of the connection between
v. 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: 2325 that is lacking in the main
text 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 immediately
after 35fa.
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 Pharaohs 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 dicult 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 Solomons
building projects, the construction of the citadel is motivated as
follows:
okodomsai (. . .) tn kran to perifrjai tn fragmn tw plevw Dauid
to build (. . .) the citadel in order to wall in the breach of the City of
David
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 ll 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 Solomons
eorts 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 Pharaohs 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 111, 494.
16
Thus Noth, Knige, 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 Pharaohs daughter was
locked up inside the City of David. On the contrary, 1 Kgs. 9: 24
indicates that, once her palace was nished, 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 connement
in Misc. I. The verse reads as follows: Solomon brought Pharaohs
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 Pharaohs 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 Solomons wife in the house of David an
unhappy aair 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 Pharaohs 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 Pharaohs
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, Solomons wife was safely locked up to prevent her from deling
the holy place.
17
W. Rudolph, Chronikbcher (HAT), Tbingen 1955, 22021; also S. Japhet, I
& II Chronicles (OTL), London 1993, 626.
18
For references see Cohen, Solomon and the Daughter of Pharaoh, 29, 3637
(footnotes).
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
deled by sexual impurity.
20
Possibly the connement of Pharaohs
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 Pharaohs 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 dele the construction
of the temple either by wine or by intermarriage.
23
Seen against
this background, Solomons motive for conning Pharaohs daugh-
ter in the City of David may have been a wish to observe the pro-
hibition on intermarriage (Deut. 7: 34) while being engaged in
temple construction. In this connection, it may be signicant 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 sucient to conclude that the notion of connement of
19
Cohen, Solomon and the Daughter of Pharaoh, 36.
20
Thus see the Damascus Document, Col. XII, l. 12: (. . .) No man should
sleep with his wife in the city of the temple, deling (2) the city of the temple with
their 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;
22
Translation borrowed from Midrash Rabbah. Leviticus (chs. 119 translated by
J. Israelstam; chs. 2037 translated by J.J. Slotki), London 1939.
23
Cohen, Solomon and the Daughter of Pharaoh, 29.
76 chapter four
Solomons 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 Pharaohs 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
diculties 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 dierent 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 Solomons
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 Pharaohs
daughter in one paragraph through 3 Reg. 2: 35cf. 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
Pharaohs 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, 32631;
Problems of Text and Midrash, 89). The primacy of the arrangement of the
LXX is assumed by Burney (Notes, 47); Kittel (Bcher der Knige, 24); anda (Bcher
der Knige, 5354); Trebolle Barrera (Salomn y Jerobon, 296306).
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 reect 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 dicult 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 (implied by tote) of 9: 9a in MT 9: 24 was
replaced by the problematic particle . It is equally dicult 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: 13 and
9: 2425. 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 modication 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 dierently positioned in the Solomon Narrative.
25
See pages 28182, 28586.
26
Note that the sequence of 1 Kgs. 9: 2425 is paralleled in 2 Chron. 8: 1112,
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 hmeraiw
ekeinaiw) does this note imply an intimate connection with the com-
pletion of temple and palace which makes the removal of Pharaohs
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 modications 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 tote
in 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 modied 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 dicult 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--vis the main text of 3 Regum
27
There is a possibility that en taiw hmeraiw ekeinaiw means to represent of
1 Kgs. 9: 24b (cf. Lefebvre, Troisime livre des Rgnes, 90).
28
It should be pointed out here that there is no way of knowing for certain that
the LXX notes were derived from Hebrew notes in the form represented by the
present book of Kings. The text of 3 Reg. 5: 14b suggests that it is based on a
slightly corrupt Hebrew text of 1 Kgs. 9: 16. At least in case of 3 Reg. 9: 9a it is
quite possible that the text which the editor drew upon was not exactly identical
with 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 follow
the text of 2 Chron. 8: 11 because it better answered to his intentions than the
text of 1 Kgs. 9: 24. Even then, the present shape of 3 Reg. 9: 9a suggests some
redactional intervention with the source text. The note diers from its parallels in
Kings and Chronicles alike in its use of time-indicators and in the relative position
it 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 reconstructed
Hebrew Vorlage: the pair eishgagen-anhgagen corresponds to two Hebrew verbs
which, unlike the Greek forms, do not exhibit the same root, :-:. (cf. 2
Chron. 8: 11). However, in this instance it is very doubtful whether the similarity
of the Greek forms has been intentional, since in the LXX eisagein and anagein
are normal translation equivalents of : and :., respectively.
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 modications 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 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 (Salomn y Jerobon, 296306).
This scholar departs from the primacy of the arrangement of the main text of 3
Regum over against that of 1 Kings. The order attested by 1 Kings is believed to
result from a eort to incorporate the (Hebrew) material of the Miscellanies into
the main account of the history of Solomon. Thus some editor of the proto-Masoretic
text undertook to insert the Hebrew text underlying 3 Reg. 2: 35cab in 1 Kgs. 3:
1b, prexed 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 was
redundant after 3: 1b (and apparently also 9: 9a), and transposed 5: 14b to 9:
1617a, employing the device of resumptive repetition.
One weakness of this view is that it fails to explain why the coherent narrative
unit at 3 Reg. 5: 14ab and the well placed note at 9: 9a were sacriced to an
inferior arrangement in 1 Kgs. 3: 1; 9: 1617a, 24. One possible answer is that
the editor was keen on introducing into the text a parallel between 1 Kgs. 3: 13
and 9: 2425. Even then, it remains dicult to see how the text of 1 Kgs. 9: 24
(especially the element ) could be secondary to the (hypothesized) Hebrew Vorlage
of 3 Reg. 2: 35fb.
31
Thus see Montgomery, Supplement, 127; Gooding, Relics, 19, 22. Montgomery
takes the view that the reinterpretation was undertaken by the translator, but it is
also possible that it was the work of an editor of the Hebrew text.
32
Thus Krautwurst (Studien, 124); Montgomery-Gehman (Kings, 214). Tov (LXX
Additions, 94, n. 1), proposes that outvw corresponds to Hebrew , as in Mic. 3:
80 chapter four
. In the overwhelming majority of occurrences in the LXX, outvw
renders : or :. Thus if outvw in v. 35fb reects a Hebrew word
at all, this is most likely to have been : or :.
33
In the situation of
1 Kgs. 9: 24, a text reading :/: instead of would by no means
improve the sense, since : /: does not establish a logical link with
the preceding text. As we have seen, this is dierent in the case of
v. 35f b. Therefore, rather than reecting a textual variant of in
1 Kgs. 9: 24, outvw (:/:) represents an intentional alteration of
original , an editorial device in order to specify the logical con-
nection between v. 35fa and fb.
There is no diculty involved in relating v. 35cab to the Hebrew
text of 1 Kgs. 3: 1. Unlike v. 35fb, v. 35cab also shows a certain
anity 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 dicult 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 denite 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 diculty with this view is that later
in the verse is rendered by tote.
33
Thus also Burney (Notes, 141); Gooding (Relics, 20); DeVries (1 Kings, 130: ::
or :); Trebolle Barrera (Salomn y Jerobon, 300).
34
3 Reg. 5: 14a and 2: 35cab agree in reversing the order of building activities
presented in 1 Kgs. 3: 1, even though they use dierent means (see pages 13839).
They also go together over against MT in not representing a rendition of ::::.
CHAPTER FIVE
THE DESCRIPTION OF SOLOMONS PROVISIONING
SYSTEM (1 KGS. 4: 15: 133 REG. 4: 15: 13)
In comparison with the MT-version of the account of Solomons
administration (1 Kgs. 4: 15: 13), the LXX-version of this account
is both shorter and dierently structured. The following survey visu-
alizes the dierent arrangement of materials:
3 Regum 1 Kings
4: 16 Solomons ocers. 4: 16 Solomons ocers.
4: 7 The prefects providing victuals for 4: 7 The prefects providing victuals for
Solomons household. Solomons household.
4: 819 Their names and districts. 4: 819 Their names and districts.
4: 20 Judah and Israel thriving and
prosperous.
5: 1 The provisioning of Solomons
household.
5: 1 Solomons rule over all the kingdoms
west of the Euphrates untill Egypt.
5: 23 Solomons daily provisions. 5: 23 Solomons daily provisions.
5: 4 Solomons rule over everything 5: 4 Solomons 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 condent and
peaceful.
5: 6 Numbers of Solomons horses,
chariots and horsemen.
5: 78 The provisioning of Solomons
household.
5: 913 Solomons wisdom. 5: 913 Solomons wisdom.
Whereas the Greek version does not contain pluses vis--vis MT, it
reveals sizable minuses: 1 Kgs. 4: 20, 5: 56 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 Solomons court stands immediately before 5: 24 while in MT
it comes only after these verses (at 5: 78).
In the Greek text the material relating to the provisioning of
Solomons 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. 819 list their names and districts; the
next verse, i.e., 5: 1, reports on the normal procedure followed in
providing victuals; vv. 23 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 Solomons dominion and the
peaceful circumstances reigning there. A signicant feature of this
arrangement is that the material dealing with the provisioning sys-
tem, i.e., 3 Reg. 4: 75: 1, constitutes an inclusio:
4: 7 ka t Salvmvn ddeka kayestamnoi
2
p pnta Israhl xorhgen
t basile ka t ok ato
mna n t niaut
gneto p tn na
xorhgen
4: 819 The prefects and their districts providing victuals.
5: 1a ka xorgoun o kayestamnoi otvw
t basile Salvmvn
ka pnta t diagglmata p tn trpezan to basilvw
kastow mna ato
In the longer account of MT, the report on the provisioning is twice
interrupted by text material devoted to dierent items, at 1 Kgs. 4:
205: 1 and 5: 46. The distance between the passages dealing with
the provisioning, 1 Kgs. 4: 7 and 5: 78, 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.
solomons provisioning system 83
A 4: 719 The prefects providing victuals for Solomons household.
B 4: 20 Judah and Israel thriving and prosperous.
C 5: 1 Solomons rule over all the kingdoms west
of the Euphrates unto Egypt.
D 5: 23 Solomons daily provisions.
C' 5: 4 Solomons rule over everything west of the
Euphrates.
Peace in all his domains.
B' 5: 5 Judah and Israel condent and peaceful.
A' 5: 68 Numbers of Solomons horses, chariots and horsemen.
The provisioning of Solomons household.
It may also be noted that the material presented at 5: 78, 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
Solomons horses: And the barley and the cha 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 Solomons 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 Solomons 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: 819. 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, Bcher
der Knige, 36; Knoppers, Two Nations, I, 83, n. 48; Polak, Septuaginta Account,
14849; Trebolle Barrrera, Salomn y Jerobon, 29294; anda, Bcher der Knige, 87;
J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bcher des Alten Testaments,
Berlin 1889
2
, 274.
84 chapter five
in 4: 195: 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 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: 819 and 5: 7 has
been disrupted as a result of (gradual) accretion of the intermediate
material of 4: 205: 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 reshue his working material in the way he did. As
it appears, it is dicult to nd a reason why the note in 3 Reg.*
5: 1
6
was transposed to 5: 7, or why the note on the number of
Solomons 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 Solomons provisioning system to
Solomons administrative powers, he could have done so without
disconnecting 3 Reg.* 4: 819 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 eorts to unravel the literary history of 4: 205: 6 have been made
by Noth (Knige, 61) and Srki (Weisheit und Macht Salomos, 4449).
5
Thus Noth. Srki does not assume that 1 Kgs. 4: 819 and 5: 7 were origi-
nally linked because he assigns 1 Kgs. 5: 23, 68 to the Deuteronomistic Grundbestand
(DtrH). One indication for the literary disunity of the material is the introductory
: in 5: 4 (oti in 3 Reg. 5: 4), which does not link up logically with the preced-
ing verse (thus Benzinger, Bcher der Knige, 22; Noth, Knige, 61).
6
* designates a hypothetical Hebrew source text at that position.
7
This view is also taken by Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 12627; Noth, Knige,
61; Srki, Weisheit und Macht Salomos, 4344.
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 revisers 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
Solomons household. Passages that did not t 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: 78 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: 205: 6 than chs. 45. The distri-
bution of the materials running parallel to 1 Kgs. 4: 205: 10 over
the two Greek accounts is as follows:
1 Kings 3 Regum main text 3 Regum Misc. II
4: 20 2: 46ab
5: 1a 46ba
1b cf. 10: 26ab
1c 46bb
2 5: 2 46ea
3 3 46eb
4a ~4a 46fa
4b 46fb
4c 4b 46ga
5 46gb
6 46i
7 1a
8 1b
9 9 35a
10 10 35b
As can be seen, Misc. II presents almost all the material of 1 Kgs.
4: 205: 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 conned to vv. 24
86 chapter five
and it does not match MT as fully as the portion through 3 Reg.
2: 46eg does.
Vv. 78 of 1 Kgs. 5 are not represented in Misc. II. Since almost
all other materials of 1 Kgs. 4: 205: 10 are represented in the
Miscellanies, vv. 78 are an exception. Within the account of Solomons
provisioning system, vv. 78 are the only verses of which the Greek
renderings occur in a dierent relative position in the LXX-version
of the account. Possibly the detailed and technical character of the
information of 1 Kgs. 5: 78 rendered this passage unt for inclu-
sion into the summary overview of Solomons 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 aairs
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: 205: 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: 24 and 2: 46ega. The
fact that both share ve unique renderings puts their aliation beyond
all doubt.
8
However, the near identity of both passages does not nec-
essarily imply that the Greek of 3 Reg. 5: 24 was duplicated in 2:
46ega. 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: 24 was bor-
rowed for rendition of the Hebrew Vorlage of 2: 46ega 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 dierences obtain.
Can these be adequately explained as modications by the hand of
a reviser or editor or do they suggest the use of dierent Hebrew
source texts after all?
These questions are best addressed by comparing the texts of 3
8
Tov (LXX Additions, 11213) notes the following unique agreements between
3 Reg. 5: 23 and 2: 46e: aleurou kekopanismenou (= , :, ?); . = nomadew;
:(:) = elafvn (plural!); :.: = ka dorkadvn; ::: = kai orniyvn eklektvn.
Reg. 5: 14 and the parallel portions of MT and the miscellaneous
material. The rst verse to be investigated, 3 Reg. 5: 1, has no par-
allel in the Miscellanies.
3 Reg. 5: 11 Kgs. 5: 78
5: 1 ka xorgoun o kayestamnoi otvw : :.: :::::: 5: 7
t basile Salvmvn ::: ::
ka pnta t diagglmata : ,:: :
p tn trpezan to basilvw . . . ::::: :::
kastow mna ato :: :
o parallssousin lgon : :. :
ka tw kriyw ka t xuron :: .:: 5: 8
tow ppoiw ka tow rmasin :::: ::::
ron ew tn tpon :,:: ::
o n basilew : . . . :
kastow kat tn sntajin ato ::c::: :
The dierences 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 Solomons 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 :. Note that the demonstrative pro-
noun outoi is more appropriate in 3 Reg. 5: 1 than : in 1
Kgs. 5: 7, since it is much closer to the prefects of 4: 819 to
whom it refers than its Hebrew counterpart. It seems unlikely
that outoi was changed purposely into outvw.
2. LXX takes the phrase :,:: : as an object to and they
provided Solomon, possibly because it interpreted :, as a
term referring not to persons but to food. It may have under-
stood : , , 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 ta
diaggelmata, 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 :. . Possibly the LXX read
:: . (see for parallassein = :. 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 reect 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 B
and a
2
. It should be noted that other manuscripts exhibit sizable dierences. Several
of these variations, however, have the appearance of being assimilations towards,
or alterations inspired by, the parallel text (cf. Krautwurst, Studien, 202203, 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 in
2: 46f. Rahlfs (Septuaginta-Studien, [573]) interprets the latter instance as homoioteleu-
ton (potamou . . . potamou). Manuscripts M N d e m(txt) pv y* z(txt) read tauta
ta deonta in 2: 46e and add en hmer& mi&. Roughly the same group (M N dh j
m n pw y z) omits 5: 24 altogether. Rahlfs (Septuaginta-Studien, [57273]) con-
vincingly argues that these verses were deleted because they are a doublet of 2:
46ega. The secondary nature of the blank is implied by the fact that Origen does
not oer the passage as a whole sub ast. Apparently, he took it directly from his
LXX-Vorlage. This course of events is also indicated by the Hexaplaric reading ta
deonta in 5: 2 which, as a free rendering of :, does denitely not originate with
Origen himself. All things considered, the text oered by Rahlfs at 2: 46ega and
5: 24, though based on slender textual evidence, is as near to the original LXX
as one can possibly get.
3 Reg. 5: 23 (2: 46e)
10
5: 2 ka tata t donta 2: 46e ka toto t riston : : 5: 2
t Salvmvn t Salvmvn :::
n mr& mi ::
trikonta kroi trikonta kroi : :::
semidlevw semidlevw ::
ka jkonta kroi ka jkonta kroi : :::
1. Neither the main Greek text nor Misc. II presents literal ren-
derings of :. Rather than suspecting a Hebrew dierent from
MT behind each text, one may regard the Greek expressions as
ad sensum renderings of :. 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 : 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 ::/en hmer& mi&.
2. 3 Reg. 2: 46e and 5: 3 have somewhat dierent endings. The
nal word of 5: 3, siteuta (siteutow: fattened), is recognizable
as an adequate rendering of the last word of 1 Kgs. 5: 3, :::
(taken as Qal ptc. pass. :: to fatten). But while ::: acts
11
The ad sensum rendering of : by ta deonta is also known from Exod. 16: 22
and Prov. 30: 8.
12
3 Reg. 2: 46e is the only instance in the LXX where : is rendered by
ariston.
13
Gooding, Relics, 7476.
90 chapter five
lerou lerou :,
kekopanismnou kekopanismnou
5: 3 ka
dka dka :. 5: 3
msxoi klekto msxoi klekto : ,:
ka ekosi ka ekosi :.:
bew nomdew bew nomdew . ,:
ka katn prbata ka katn prbata . ::
ktw lfvn ktw lfvn :: ::
ka dorkdvn ka dorkdvn :.:
:::
ka rnyvn klektn ka rnyvn klektn :::
siteut nomdvn :::
as an adjective to the preceding noun :: , 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 nal word of 2: 46e, nomadvn (nomaw: wan-
dering, pastured), ts 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 ::: in 1 Kgs. 5: 3. May
be the Hebrew Vorlage of v. 46e read a dierent word than :::;
may be nomadvn represents a Verlegenheitslsung by a translator faced
with a word (:::) 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:
msxoi klekto . . . bew nomdew . . .
rnyvn klektn nomdvn
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
15
Cf. LSJ, 1178: nomadew peristerai, wild doves.
3 Reg. 5: 4 (2: 46fga)
5: 4a ti n rxvn 2: 46fa ti n rxvn :: 5: 4a
n pant :::
pran to potamo pran to potamo : :.
2: 46fb p Rafi vw Gzhw ..: :c: 5: 4b
n psin tow basilesin ::::::
pran to potamo : :.
5: 4b ka n at ernh 2: 46ga ka n at ernh : : :::: 5: 4c
k pntvn tn mern k pntvn tn mern ato ::.:::
kuklyen kuklyen ::::
3 Reg. 5: 4 diers from its counterparts 1 Kgs. 5: 4 and 3 Reg. 2:
46f in not presenting a geographical specication of Solomons 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 dierence
between themselves: At the position corresponding to :c 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 :c is the less problematic of
the two. Tiphsah is to be identied with Thapsacus on the Euphrates,
16
so that the expression from Tiphsah to Gaza in 1 Kgs. 5: 4
eectively covers all the land west of the Euphrates.
As to Raphi, the following identications are to be considered:
1. Resapha-Reseph (. 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 Solomons 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 identication involves the absence of a representation
of the nal consonant of . in Rafi. At 4 Reg. 19: 12, LXX
manuscripts oer transcriptions which show metathesis (LXX B
Rafeiw; A Rafey; N Rafew) but no forms that do not represent
the nal 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, identication of Raphi with Raphia
produces an absurd text which appears to conne Solomons rule
west of the Euphrates to a small strip of land in Philistine terri-
tory. It does not seem possible to alleviate this diculty by tak-
ing from Raphi to Gaza as a reference to an area dierent
from all the land beyond the River; the last phrase of v. 46f,
of all kings beyond the River, species previous of all beyond
the River, thereby dictating that from Raphi to Gaza be like-
wise taken as a specication of the preceding phrase. Yet, in spite
of the absurd implications, the identication 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, Knige, 76.
17
Thus Hrozn , Abweichungen, 23. Cf. Krautwurst, Studien, 21011, n. 3.
18
On the location of Rasappa see Gray, Kings, 624; R. Fedden, Syria. A Historical
Appreciation, London 1946, 127.
19
Thus anda, Bcher der Knige, 94.
20
Cf. also LXX Isa. 37: 12 (Rafey, Rafew, Rafeiw).
21
Montgomery, Supplement, 129; Gooding, Relics, 2829.
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 inuence 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 diculties involved in the identication, however, do
not allow us to take a denite stand on the issue.
The text-historical evaluation of the dierence Tiphsah-Raphi
depends on the identication of Raphi that is preferred. If Raphi is
equated with Reseph, Tiphsah of MT is more likely to represent the
secondary reading. Geographically, Tiphsah ts the context better
than Reseph, because the city is situated on the bank of the Euphrates
that is mentioned as the border of Solomons empire. Perhaps more
relevant is the fact that during the 3rd1st 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 Euphratesfrom Raphia to Gaza) and cannot be cred-
ited to represent the original text.
22
23
Montgomery, Supplement, 129.
The text of 3 Reg. 5: 4, which lacks the geographical specications,
is generally taken to reect an earlier textual stage than both 1 Kgs.
5: 4 and 3 Reg. 2: 46f. Thus Montgomery sees the geographical
specication 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: 14 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 Solomons 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 (: :. . . . : :.; peran tou potamou . . . peran tou
potamou).
25
If so, MT represents the older text.
The above analysis of variations between 3 Reg. 5: 24 and its par-
allels demonstrates that most dierences, 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: 205: 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 en
hmer& mi&?). These divergencies do not imply a Hebrew Vorlage dierent
from MT but are to be explained as editorial modications.
To sum up, 3 Reg. 5: 14 is best regarded as a revision of a text
basically identical with 1 Kgs. 4: 205: 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, Salomn y Jerobon, 294;
id., Histoire du texte, 339.
25
Cf. Srki, 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 dierent 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 Polaks opinion, the contrast between the expository logic of 3 Reg. 45
and the lack of expository logic and coherence in 2: 46ai renders it unlikely that
both sections belong to the same secondary revision (Polak, Septuaginta Account,
14849). However, the disposition of Misc. II is not devoid of narrative logic, as
has been shown by Gooding and Schenker (Septante, 1735).
CHAPTER SIX
SOLOMONS PRESTIGE AMONG THE KINGS OF
THE EARTH (3 REG. 5, 10)
Solomons 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--vis MT and to a dierent 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 rst 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. 913 deal with Solomons wisdom. V. 14 pro-
vides a suitable conclusion to this section by indicating a consequence
of Solomons wisdom: People attend upon him to hear him pro-
nounce sayings and teachings. Here the two versions exhibit signicant
dierences. Compare:
1
In order to avoid confusion with vv. 14a and b, which in the LXX follow on
v. 14, Greek letters are used to divide the verse.
2
The phrase elambanen dvra is absent from LXX B A x a
2
, whereas it is marked
by an obelus in the Syrohexapla. The omission of the phrase in the Hexaplaric
manuscripts is in agreement with MT. The fact that it is also lacking in LXX B
might be explained from the inuence of the Hexaplaric text on LXX B (cf. Wevers,
Textual History).
5: 14a
1
ka paregnonto ::: 5: 14a
. . . pntew o lao :.:::
kosai tw sofaw Salvmvn ::: :: .
:::
5: 14b ka lmbanen dra
2
5: 14b
par pntvn tn basilvn tw gw ::::: :
soi kouon tw sofaw ato ::: :.:: :
The MT-version is syntactically dicult. The following translation is
proposed here: People came from all the nations to hear Solomons
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 dierent meanings to the verb .:: 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 Solomons wisdom (v. 14b) came to hear Solomons 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 rst royal visit, and this is not the case. Another diculty of
v. 14 concerns the relationship between the phrases introduced by
::: and :: :. Both the dierent prepositions used and the absence
of the conjunction : preceding : 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 ::: does not apply to :: : in v. 14b. V. 14 speaks of
only one group consisting of representatives of all nations, and the
clause introduced by :: : also refers to this group. Thus :
::::: 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 dierent subjects. The rst 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 dierence 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 : 4.b.) alongside 1 Kgs.
5: 14: :: : : .:::, but there is none to hear you deputed of the king.
Thus also Barthlemy, Critique textuelle, 339; Mulder, 1 Kings 111, 205.
solomons 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 Solomons 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 oered 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 Solomons
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 Solomons 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 rst take a look at
the immediate sequel of v. 14 in the LXX.
3 Reg. 5: 14ab
3 Reg. 5: 14a and b deal with Solomons marriage with Pharaohs
daughter. These verses do not continue the topic of Solomons wis-
dom that is expounded throughout vv. 914. 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
Solomons prestige is Pharaohs willingness to marry o 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 lmbanen dra
v. 14a ka laben Salvmvn tn yugatra Farav aut ew gunaka
v. 14b ka dvken atw Farav postolw yugatr ato 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 dierent semantic
contexts of the verb.
5
The reader, as it were, is invited to see the
taking of gifts and the taking of Pharaohs 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
beneciary 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
Solomons marriage as an illustration of Solomons 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 Solomons repu-
tation as the LXX. Unlike the latter, the Hebrew text does not make
an eort to turn the topic into a theme, an organizing principle,
throughout ch. 5.
3 Reg. 5: 15
More signs of a tendency to magnify Solomons prestige are dis-
cernable in 3 Reg. 5: 1526. 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: 1526 a few curious dierences 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.
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 Hirams servants themselves anointed
Solomon king. This understanding produces a highly peculiar pic-
ture of Solomons 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 psteilen Xiram basilew Trou
touw paidaw atou tow padaw ato
xrsai
6
Thus also Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 154.
100 chapter six
5: 15a ka psteilen Xiram basilew Trou :.:: ::: 5: 15a
tow padaw atou ::.
xrsai
tn Salvmvn ::::
.:: :
::: ::: : :
nt
Dauid
to patrw ato ::
5: 15b ti gapn n Xiram tn Dauid :: : : 5: 15b
psaw tw mraw :::
prow
Salvmvn tn Salvmvn
hkousen gar
oti auton exrisan eiw basilea
anti (Dauid) tou patrow autou nt Dauid to patrw ato
It is clearly impossible to account for the shape of the LXX-text in
terms of parablepsis. The dierence 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 111, 208; Stade-Schwally, Books of
Kings, 81.
:: ::: ::: : : .:: : :::: ::. :.:: ::: 1 Kgs. 5: 15a
:: ::: ::: : ::. :.:: ::: 3 Reg. 5: 15a
It is by no means certain that 3 Reg. 5: 15 actually goes back to a Hebrew text dierent
from 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 dierence with MT involves the absence
of an equivalent of element ::: 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: 35ol 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 eort 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: 1211: 43. However, it remains unclear why this
would have occasioned the reviser to say that Hirams 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 Solomons 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
Solomons 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 dierent ceremonies both of which intend to con-
fer a dierent aspect of royal authority upon Solomon. According
to J. Kuan, 3 Reg. 1 describes the sacral and civil recognition of
Solomons rule by his own people, whereas 3 Reg. 5: 15 refers to
the recognition of Solomons right to rule over Israel by the Tyrian
king.
9
In this view, Solomon as Israels 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 3661.
9
J.K. Kuan, Third Kingdoms 5.1 and Israelite-Tyrian Relations during the
Reign of Solomon, JSOT 46 (1990), 3146, 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 dicult read-
ing, it may be original here.
10
However, since the reviser elsewhere
in 3 Regum is eager to stress Solomons prestige, it is hard to imag-
ine that an overt allusion to Solomons 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 Solomons 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 reect 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 Kuans
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 conned
himself to employing the plain phrase :::: :::, 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 Hirams 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: 12. There it is stated that on the occasion
of Hanuns succession to the throne of Ammon, David wanted to
show his kindness to the new king by sending a delegation (::.)
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 lenvoi dambassadeurs sans
mission en TM est trange.
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
Kuans second observation involves the expression ::: ::. In
all other instances where ::: is used with the verb ::, except in
1 Kgs. 1: 45, it is always followed by the preposition :. Whereas
::: :: of 1 Kgs. 5: 15 thus deviates from the standard pattern,
a normal expression, ::: :::, 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 :. (+ gen-
tilicium) is to be regarded as part of the verbal valency of ::: ::,
that is to say, whether :. is an element the presence of which is
required to have a grammatically satisfactory sentence. As it seems,
omission of :. does not render the expression unintelligible. The
form ::: :: is attested not only in 1 Kgs. 5: 15 but also in 1:
45. Kuans assertion that the form attested by 1 Kgs. 1: 45 is not
original because ::: is not represented by LXX B and the Ant.
text is disputable, to say the least. Absence of the phrase :: :.
does not seem to be sucient 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 (:::) between Hiram and Solomon and they made
a covenant (:). In this setting, : and ::: are contractual
terms.
13
A similar interpretation is oered by Josephus ( Jewish Ant. VIII, 50), . . . and
(Hiram) sent him greetings and congratulations on his present good fortune. The
view that the primary purpose of the ambassy was to congratulate Solomon on the
occasion of his accession to the throne is also represented by more recent exegetes
like anda (Bcher der Knige, 101).
14
T.N.D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite
Kings, Lund 1976, 22427.
104 chapter six
Mettingers 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 (:) with Assyria
and at the same time, oil is brought to Egypt.
It may be noted that Mettingers 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 dierence 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 signicance 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 dierent from the import of the oering
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 Hirams servants.
These diculties do not alter the fact that a diplomatic anoint-
ing ts the context of 3 Reg. 5: 1526 much better than an investi-
turial anointing in connection with Solomons coronation. Mettingers
15
E. Kutsch, Salbung als Rechtsakt im Alten Testament und im alten Orient (BZAW 87),
Berlin/New York 1963, 22627.
16
Mettinger, King and Messiah, 21216, 227. The ANE documents under con-
sideration involve the Hittite royal letter KBo I 14, the Amarna letter EA 34, the
inscription on the statue of Idrimi, king of Alalakh, and an Assyrian ritual.
proposal also oers a plausible frame to understand the background
of the divergencies between the LXX and MT. Since 3 Reg. 5: 15
clearly represents the lectio dicilior 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 Solomons coro-
nation. Since the circumstances in connection with this were known
(1 Kgs. 1: 3240) 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 dierence 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 Solomons anointing would
be in line with the oering 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 Hirams 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 honoric 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 honoric understanding
of the anointing in 3 Reg. 5: 15 raise diculties. Though these may
be somewhat more serious in the latter case, the honoric 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 dierence
from MT that touches on the subject of Solomons position vis--
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 Hirams servants in the job,
Solomon goes on to declare
: :. :::
which is to be rendered as: and I will give you the hire of your
servants. The LXX, on the other hand, has
ka tn misyn douleaw sou dsv 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 Solomons service. Hirams subordinate position vis--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 signies 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 Hirams service. A king
whose rendering of service is designated by this term obviously is
not in a position to turn down Solomons 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 :. :, house
of bondage.
20
3 Reg. 9: 9 mentions the expression oikow douleiaw, which in that position
represents a plus vis--vis MT.
21
Apparently this is the reason why LSJ goes as far as to cite the phrase and
to oer the special translation service for hire (446).
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 : . at 1 Kgs. 5: 20, it seems probable that douleiaw sou
is meant to represent :. ( :. + sux 2 m.s.).
22
Now :. 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 makriai a gunakw sou :: : 8
makrioi o padw sou :. :
otoi o paresthktew npin sou di' lou : :c: :. :
o koontew .::
psan tn frnhsn sou :: . . .
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 oer 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 Solomons 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 Solomons
22
Cf. 3 Reg. 12: 4, where :. 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/Gttingen 1981, 23233; Gray, Kings,
240, n. c; Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 217; Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 116;
anda, Bcher der Knige, 273; Wrthwein, Erste Buch der Knige, 119, 122.
108 chapter six
many wives and concubines. The MT reading, then, might have
been motivated by the wish to remove Solomons 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 Solomons 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 rmly 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 modication on the level of the
Greek text, the attestation of this reading in Vetus Latina and Peshi a
could be due to inuence from the LXX. Though it cannot be ques-
tioned that these versions reveal inuence 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 modication 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: 2327
Outside ch. 5 the LXXs interest in the theme of Solomons power
and prestige nds particular expression in 3 Reg. 10: 2329.
24
Only a few minuscules (part of them being Ant. manuscripts) represent (your)
wives instead of your men: b e
2
g. Minuscules i and y add happy are your
wives and before happy are your men. In all likelihood, these dierences from
MT all involve harmonizations to 3 Reg. 10: 8.
Comparison between this paragraph and its counterpart in 1 Kings
shows that a number of dierences in the LXX together create the
eect of amplifying the picture of Solomons glory and prestige.
Elsewhere in this monograph we will address the question what kind
of procedure brought about the dierence 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 Solomons image.
23 ka megalnyh . . . Salvmvn ::: :: ::: 23
pr pntaw tow basilew tw gw ::: :::
plot ka fronsei :::: :.:
24 ka pntew basilew tw gw . . . ::: 24
ztoun t prsvpon Salvmvn ::: :c :,::
to kosai tw fronsevw ato ::: .:::
w dvken kriow n t kard& ato :::: : ::
25 ka ato feron :: :: 25
kastow t dra ato ::: :
:: ::
. . . skeh xrusa : :::
ka matismn :::::
. . . staktn ka dsmata :::: ,:::
ka ppouw ka minouw c: ::: . . .
t kat' niautn niautn : ::: :::
:c: :: ::: :: 26
26 ka san t Salvmvn :::
tssarew xilidew ::.:: :
yleiai ppoi ew rmata :: . . . . . . . . .
ka ddeka xilidew ppvn :c : :.:::
ka yeto atw ::
n taw plesi tn rmtvn :: .:
ka met to basilvw n Ierousalhm :::: ::.:
26a ka n gomenow pntvn tn basilvn
p to potamo
ka vw gw lloflvn
ka vw rvn Agptou
27 ka dvken basilew :: : 27
t xruson ka
t rgrion n Ierousalhm w lyouw ::: :::: ::
ka tw kdrouw :
dvken w sukamnouw :,:: :
tw n t pedin ew plyow :: :c:::
25
See pages 25061.
110 chapter six
The prevailing theme of the paragraph is indicated in v. 23: Solomons
excessive wealth and wisdom. The following verses elaborate on this
theme. V. 24 and v. 25a explain the connection between Solomons
wisdom and his riches: Whenever people come to hear Solomons
wisdom they present him with a gift. At this point we note an impor-
tant dierence 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 dierent subject of v. 25.
It lacks an equivalent to the :: ::, 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 untting 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 Solomons days silver was not considered a precious enough metal
to be used for the furniture of Solomons palace.
Further dierences obtain between the versions of the LXX and
MT in v. 26. The LXX lacks a rendering of the rst 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 rst 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 oer a striking illustration of Solomons 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, 45455, 463.
27
The reference to gold does not merely intend to stress Solomons tremendous
wealth, as Wevers (Exegetical Principles, 309) assumes.
The plus that the LXX exhibits between v. 26 and v. 27, num-
bered v. 26a, once more emphasizes Solomons 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. 2327 shows a marked
tendency to highlight Solomons status and glory among the kings of
his time. The MT-version lacks a particular interest in Solomons sta-
tus and rather focuses on listing sources and signs of Solomons riches
and power. Thus vv. 2425a of MT describe how Solomons wis-
dom brought about a constant ow of presents; v. 26 deals with the
signs of his military power, v. 27 with the signs of his riches; vv.
2829 indicate Solomons 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. 2329 does not lack all thematic
coherence, its dierences 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-
-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: 14ab, 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 7172 and 291.
112 chapter six
CHAPTER SEVEN
THE ACCOUNT OF THE PREPARATION OF THE
TEMPLE BUILDING (1 KGS. 5: 316: 13 REG. 5: 326: 1D)
In the account of the preparatory work for the construction of the
temple, the LXX shows a variety of dierences from MT, compris-
ing sequence dierences, pluses and minuses and dierences 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 :: :.: 5: 31
::: :: :.::
: , ::
: ::
: ::
= 6: 1b :::c: 5: 32a
::: ::
: :::
::::
5: 32 ka tomasan tow lyouw ka t jla ::: .. :: :: 5: 32b
. . . . . . : ::::
tra th . . . . . .
6: 1 ka genyh : 6: 1
n t tessarakost . . . :: :::::
ka tetrakosiost tei :: :: .::
tw jdou un Israhl : ::: . :
j . . . Agptou .::
t tei t tetrt .: :::
n mhn . . . : ::
. . . . . . . . . t deutr :: : :
basileontow to basilvw . . .:::
Salvmvn p Israhl : ::. :::
. . . . . . . . . :: : ::
6: 1a ka netelato basilew [ :: :.: 5: 31 ]
ka arousin lyouw meglouw [ ::: :: :.:: ]
. . . timouw [ : , :: ]
ew tn yemlion to okou [ : : : ]
ka lyouw pelektouw [ : :: . . . ]
6: 1b ka pelkhsan [ :::c: 5: 32a ]
o uo Salvmvn [ ::: :: ]
Vv. 3132 of 1 Kgs. 5 deal with the preparation of building mate-
rials for the construction of the temple. At the kings 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 identied as
the builders of Solomon and Hiram and the Giblites.
Meanwhile, vv. 3132 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, 2223. 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 ber Solomons Bauten. 1 K.
57, ZAW 3 (1883), 12977, esp. 134: .:, ::c, : [folgen] naturgemss zeitlich
aufeinander . . .
114 chapter seven
ka o uo Xiram [ : ::: ]
ka balan atow [ :::: ]
6: 1c n t tei t tetrt [ .: ::: 6: 37 ]
yemelvsen tn okon kurou [ : : : ]
n mhn Nisv [ : : ]
t deutr mhn [ . . . . . . ]
6: 1d . . . n ndekt niaut [ :. :::: 6: 38a ]
n mhn Baal [ ::: : ]
otow mn gdoow [ ::: : : ]
sunetelsyh okow [ : :: ]
ew pnta lgon ato [ ::::: ]
ka ew psan ditajin ato [ ::c:::::: ]
6: 236 account of temple construction
= 6: 1c : : : .: ::: 6: 37
: :
= 6: 1d :. :::: 6: 38a
::: :
::: : :
: ::
:::::
::c::::::
the actual building of the temple. However, the large quarried stones
mentioned in v. 31 are meant for laying the foundation of the house
(: ::) while the stones and timber mentioned in v. 32 are
intended for building the house (: ::::), 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
dierent 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 Solomons
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: 316: 1 produces
none of the ambiguities and obscurities that aect 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: 11a. A chronological note (v. 1) dating Solomons
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) xing the duration of the preparatory
work at three years conrms this impression. Since construction is
said to have started in the fourth year (3 Reg. 6: 1, 1c) of Solomons
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 ts a general pat-
tern. V. 1c raises the diculty of being uncomfortably close to the
materially identical chronological note in vv. 11a. 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 rst 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 dierent 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 diculties,
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 rst
provide the exact date when construction started (cf. 3 Reg. 6: 1)
before explicitly reporting the laying of foundations (cf. 3 Reg. 6:
1ab).
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 dierence in perspective between the two
versions is brought about in the rst place by the dierent posi-
tioning of the corresponding passages 1 Kgs. 5: 3132a (3 Reg. 6:
1ab) and 1 Kgs. 6: 3738a (3 Reg. 6: 1cd). In addition, other
types of dierences, pluses/minuses and word dierences, can be
2
MT however suers from another problem: If .:: :::: in 1 Kgs. 6: 7
refers to rough hewn blocks from the quarry (thus Mulder, 1 Kings 111, 243), the
question arises how the note in v. 7 relates to the statement ::: :: :::c: in
5: 32.
3
Trebolle Barrera, Salomn y Jerobon, 31318, 324.
seen to contribute signicantly 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 : :::: in
v. 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, :: : :: (1 Kgs. 6: 1), follows logically on the account
of the preparation. As the LXX does not oer 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 rst. 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 ts 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 kings
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 dierent 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 eort to represent the meaning to
quarry (stones), which the verb .:: Hiphil takes in the context
of 1 Kgs. 5: 31 and Qoh. 10: 9. In fact, the continuation eiw ton
yemelion 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 .:: Hiphil, to remove. There is no reason to
suppose that the translator found a dierent 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: 11a, 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:
2930, 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 ::
:, to lay the foundation of the house, yet it may be based
on the same consonantal text as MT. The LXX took : in the
Vorlage not as : + inf. of : Piel, but as the defectively written
construct state of the noun ::, foundation (to be pointed as
: :: ).
7
It is not clear whether this interpretation was inten-
tional. At any rate, together with the verb airousin it has the
eect of turning the text into a reference to the transportation of
stones.
6
Note that the only other occurrence of .:: Hiphil in the book of Kings at 2
Kgs. 4: 4 is also rendered by airein. Elsewhere in the LXX compound forms of
airein appear as equivalents of .:: 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 ::.
6. At the position corresponding to : :: of MT, the LXX has
liyouw apelekhtouw, unhewn stones. In fact, in four instances
out of a total of ve throughout 1 Kings where : 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 :, what
may have led him to translate the term by its opposite sense?
Wevers proposed that the translation reects 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, dicult to see how this specic reg-
ulation concerning the altar could be extended so far as to include
not only the temple but Solomons 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: kai
epelekhsan (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 dierent explanation must be considered. It is conceiv-
able that the translator, coming across the word : for the rst
time in Kings, allowed his understanding of it to be aected by
the verb :::c: (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 : by a
word having the opposite meaning. This ad sensum rendering of
: in 3 Reg. 6: 1b, then, became the standard translation for
the other instances of : 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
120 chapter seven
stone from the quarry (.:: ::::)
10
because 3 Reg. 6: 1ac
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
::::, and the Giblites, in MT. Scholars have questioned
whether :::: 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 Kings
111, 24344.
11
A dierent explanation for the deviating rendering of : by apelekhtow is
oered by Lefebvre (Troisime livre des Rgnes, 102108). Taking up a theory
of K. Rupprecht, Lefebvre assumes that Solomon did not build the temple ex nihilo
but enlarged an old Jebusite sanctuary. While the old building was made of undressed
stone, 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 reected by dierent
designations of the building stone in the LXX, but not in MT. However, Lefebvre
does not specify whether the Greek had a Hebrew basis, what it may have looked
like, 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 (Salomn y Jerobon, 31213) lists the following
occurrences: 1 Esdr. 2: 14 kai naon upoballontai; 6: 19 enebaleto touw yemeliouw
tou oikou kuriou; Isa. 28: 16 embalv eiw ta yemelia Sivn liyon; Job 38: 6 balvn
liyon gvniaion. Expressions construed with balesyai (med.) to denote the laying
of foundations are known from other Greek sources (LSJ, 304305).
13
Thus already Stade, Solomons Bauten, 12977, esp. 134.
14
15
Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 138; Gooding, Pedantic Timetabling, 164; Noth,
Knige, 94; Wrthwein (though hesitant), Erste Buch der Knige, 57.
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 nachtrgliche
Grzisierung) von gebal (in irgend einer abgeleiteten Form) vor-
liegt.
18
In Margolis opinion drfte III Reg. 6 3 (5 32) ebalan
autouw . . . aus Gebalhn = Gebalein (autouw ist dann spter dazu-
gekommen) = ::: verderbt sein; anstatt Ge kann auch Gai-
geschrieben worden sein (vgl. Q
mg
in Hes); nach kai el 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 reects
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 :::: unrepresented. The
same objection can be raised to Kittels opinion that the LXX
wrote ebalan because the presence of Giblites in Jerusalem would
be inappropriate.
21
What, then, is the background of ebalan
autouw? 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). In
VIII, 63, he describes the laying of foundations using the same verb ballein that
is found in 3 Reg. 6: 1b (Balletai men oun t na yemeliouw o basileuw). One
possible explanation of this state of aairs is that Josephus, while working inde-
pendently of the LXX, agreed with 3 Regum concerning the interpretation of
:::: (or a similar form) in his Vorlage. In that case, the rendering ebalan in the
LXX would reect real knowledge about the meaning of the Hebrew term on
the part of the translator. The other explanation is that Josephus simply turned to
the LXX for the interpretation of the diicult episode. This possibility is favoured
by the fact that the context of the passage under consideration in Josephus work
also suggests inuence from the LXX. Thus the passage in Josephus exhibits the
order of the LXX over against MT in putting the date of the beginning of the
temple construction before the note on the founding of the temple (cf. Jewish Ant.
VIII, 6163 and 3 Reg. 6: 11b).
18
Noth, Knige, 87.
19
M.L. Margolis, Miszellen, ZAW 31 (1911), 31315, esp. 313.
20
21
Kittel, Bcher der Knige, 46.
122 chapter seven
read a verb form in his Vorlage. This Hebrew verb possibly was
similar or even identical to the consonantal framework :::: of
MT. In that case, the translator may have taken the nal mem
as a sux 3 m.pl. and rendered it by autouw. Thenius proposed
that the Hebrew text originally represented the verb form :::::
(sie versahen sie mit einem Rande; ::: Hiphil) instead of ::::.
22
Noth, however, objected to this proposal, pointing out that
die . . . angenommene Bedeutung von ::: hi. . . . ist durch nichts
gesichert, und die vorgenommene Verbesserung der Lesung ist
textkritisch nicht begrndet.
23
Indeed, the reading ebalan autouw
does nothing to suggest that ::: : : 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 Grays interesting observation that the
Greek sounds as a despairing transliteration of a Hebrew verb.
It is indeed remarkable that the sequence beth-lamed is reected
by bal(an).
24
If the above considerations are taken into account,
the following picture emerges. Faced with the dicult consonan-
tal sequence identical with or similar to ::::, the translator
decided that it must indicate a verbal form followed by a sux
3 m.pl. Being unable to identify it, he either guessed about its
meaning or simply chose a rendering that tted 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, Bcher der Knige, 54. This suggestion has been followed by KBL and
HALAT, by Burney (Notes, 58), and by the commentaries of DeVries (1 Kings, 78,
83), Gray (Kings, 149), and A. Klostermann (Die Bcher Samuelis und der Knige
[Kurzgefasster Kommentar zu den heiligen Schriften Alten und Neuen Testamentes
sowie zu den Apokryphen], Nrdlingen 1887, 291. To be exact, Klostermann prefers
to read ::::: [Hiphil pf.]). Benzinger (Bcher der Knige, 30) also believes that the
LXX reading can be traced back to ::::: , but only by way of the inner-Hebrew
corruption ::c: (:c: Hiphil). This view must be dismissed as improbable because
elsewhere in the LXX ballein is only used to render :c: Hiphil where the Hebrew
refers to the casting of lots.
23
Noth, Knige, 94; cf. also Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 83.
24
Gray, Kings, 149.
As to the seven items listed here it may be said that in all cases the
LXX oers 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 dierences, these deviations from MT enable the
narrative to proceed logically along the following stages:
1. Preparation of building materials during the rst three years of
Solomons 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 dierences, word dierences,
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 dierence is
accidental can be safely ruled out, since the sizable sequence dierences
are certainly intentional.
It is very dicult to nd 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 eort 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 revisers
reluctance to separate the two chronological notes concerning the
temple building (1 Kgs. 6: 3738a; 3 Reg. 6: 1cd). 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: 1cd owe
their position less to the appropriateness of the literary context than
to the revisers need to nd another place for the section 1 Kgs. 6:
3738a.
A tendency towards yet further improvement of the transparency
124 chapter seven
of 3 Reg. 5: 326: 1d can be noted in later stages of the textual
transmission, as represented by the Ant. manuscripts Z b c
2
e
2
.
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 briey 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 Wellhausens view, the sequence in 3 Reg. 6: 1ad reects the
ancient Hebrew textual stage (= 1 Kgs. 5: 31, 32; 6: 37, 38a).
27
A
later hand replaced 3 Reg.* 6: 1cd by 1 Kgs. 6: 1 and moved the
former notes to the end of the account of the temple building (1
Kgs. 6: 3738a). 1 Kgs. 6: 1 betrays itself as a redactional insertion
by using consistently : instead of (cf. vv. 3738a). 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 aw of this theory is that it is
dicult 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 unglcklichen 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: 1ad is supposed to reect the
original state of the text, it does not oer a counterpart of the demi-
verse where we would expect it, that is, in v. 1b. From Wellhausens
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, 165166.
26
M. Cogan, 1 Kings (AncB 10), New York/London 2001, 236; Gooding, Pedantic
Timetabling, 15766; Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 143; Mulder, 1 Kings 111,
225; Noth, Knige, 103; Stade, Solomons Bauten, 13435; Stade-Schwally, Books
of Kings, 83; anda, Bcher der Knige, 119; probably also Gray and Wrthwein, who
simply seem to take the primacy of the MT arrangement in these verses for granted.
27
Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 267.
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 Wellhausens theory.
28
Polak moreover argues that
the smooth and logical arrangement preserved by the additional
verses 6: 1ad of LXX can hardly be described as emerging out
of a number of disordered sections. However, the qualication of
1 Kgs. 6: 3738a as a disordered section is incorrect, and it is well
conceivable that the smooth arrangement in 3 Reg. 5: 326: 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 oence 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, reects 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 nal 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: 3132 that the hewing of the stone blocks is done on the
Lebanon rather than in Jerusalem, as 3 Reg. 6: 1ab 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: 1ab to 1 Kgs. 5: 3132a.
The basic weakness of this view is the assumption that the Greek
version reects a Hebrew original. As we shall see, the specic char-
acter of the version found in the LXX is closely connected with the
use of the Greek language.
28
Burney, Notes, 5759; Polak, Septuaginta Account, 15253.
29
30
31
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 dierences
between the two versions must be discussed briey.
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. 11 Kgs. 5).
32
As the note in v. 1 is an essential element of
the Deuteronomistic chronological framework, the gure 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: 2941, which reckons 11 generations from Aaron unto
Zadok (reckoning inclusively).
33
Same verse: The LXX lacks an equivalent of : : : 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 identied as the second month. Possibly
the minus is not a deliberate omission at all, but an instance of para-
blepsis (:: : : : ::).
3 Reg. 6: 1a (= 1 Kgs. 5: 31): kai in the phrase liyouw megalouw
timiouw . . . kai liyouw apelekhtouw may or may not correspond to :
in the Vorlage. As it can be understood in the explicative sense as
namely,
35
it does not produce a real dierence with MT, which has
: ::, hewn stones, as an apposition to :, :: ::: ::,
great stones, massive stones.
3 Reg. 6: 1b (= 1 Kgs. 5: 32a): The reading oi uioi Salvmvn kai
oi uioi Xiram reects : : instead of : : of MT. The correctness of
the MT vocalization is beyond doubt. The Greek translator may
32
M. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History ( JSOT.S 15), Sheield 1991
2
, 3444.
33
Thus Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 143; also Gray, Kings, 150; Jones, 1 and 2
Kings, 163.
34
35
Bauer, 776.
have simply mistaken the rare form ::, builders, for the ubiqui-
tous :: .
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 Solomons sons
and Hirams 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. :
instead of Pual : (thus MT). The dierent understanding of :
may not reect intention on the part of the LXX.
Same verse: The reading Nisv (Z e
2
; Neisv: LXX B; Nisvn: b; Nhsv
c
2
) combines dittography of preceding (mh)ni and transliteration of
:.
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 rst month, i.e., Nisan.
39
Possibly the
36
37
There is good reason to assume that the Ant. text (represented by Z b c
2
e
2
)
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: 1a1b 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 Solomons
order. 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 identied with the over-
seers of v. 2.
38
Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 147; Rahlfs, on the other hand, thinks that LXX
B and related manuscripts deliberately replaced obsolete : by the month name that
was customary in a later period, wobei man sich jedoch vergrien und den Nisan
(= April) statt des Ijjar (= Mai) genommen hat (Septuaginta-Studien, [573]). In my
view, it is psychologically improbable that a scribe keen on adapting the old name
according 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 t deuter 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 Solomons 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 t deuter mhni
(also represented by the majority text).
42
This correction, however,
did not overcome the diculty 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 dierences shown by the text
of 3 Reg. 6: 1ab vis--vis the corresponding verses of MT do not
seem to reect a dierent Hebrew consonantal text. We also found
that some of the readings created by these dierences are vital com-
ponents of the story of the laying of the foundations. Together, these
ndings lead us to conclude that the episode on the foundation in
3 Reg. 6: 1ab 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: 3132a to (3 Reg.) 6: 1ab 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.
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:
1ab were created intentionally in conjunction with the text trans-
position. It was argued above, however, that part of these dierences
probably did not reect intention. It is more likely that the rearrange-
ment was carried out by a reviser who, facing a passage (5: 3132)
that seemed to allude to the laying of foundations, decided to trans-
form all of 5: 316: 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 dierences 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 modication. Gooding believed that the phrase ebalan
autouw, 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 dierences in 3 Reg. 6: 1ab
may also derive from the original Greek text. Thus the phrase kai
airousin . . . eiw ton yemelion tou oikou is unlikely to result from free
editorial alteration as it does not imply a Hebrew consonanal text
dierent from that of MT.
43
130 chapter seven
CHAPTER EIGHT
THE ACCOUNT OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPLE
AND PALACE (1 KGS. 6: 27: 523 REG. 6: 27: 50)
The two versions of the Solomon Narrative oer the account of the
building of the temple and Solomons palace in similar positions. A
major dierence 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: 238). 1. Temple structure and interior (6: 236a).
2. Palace (7: 112). 2. Bronze work of temple (7: 137).
1a: And S. built his house for 13 years.
1b: And he completed his entire house.
212: Report of construction.
3. Bronze work of temple (7: 1352). 3. Palace (7: 3850).
38: And S. built his house for 13 years.
3949: 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 dierence is accompanied by the
dierent placement of a note referring to the number of years which
it took Solomon to complete his palace. MT oers this note in
1 Kgs. 7: 1 as the introduction to the actual report of the palace
construction. The LXX parallel to the rst 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 dierence 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 rst 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 reect
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 gure 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 oce. The report in 1 Kgs. 7: 1351 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 gure 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:
2387: 112), the sequence palace-bronze work (7: 1121352)
does not reect 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
(Troisime livre des Rgnes, 8889). Lefebvre translates vv. 3839 as follows: Et
la maison, cest pour lui que Solomon la btit (kai ton oikon eaut kodomhsen)
en treize ans. (39) Et il btit la maison au moyen de la fort du Liban (kai kodomh-
sen ton oikon drum tou Libanou). In Lefebvres opinion, the fact that up to this
point the text did not speak of another house than the House of the Lord leads
the 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: 3738 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 eect of this arrangement is that the manufacture
of the bronze work gives the impression of being an integral part of
the temple construction. This eect also pertains to the chronology.
As in MT, the order temple-palace in the LXX account reects 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 gure 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 nished all his house (7: 50). And it came to pass when
Solomon had nished 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. 67.
2
This account, which groups
mentioning of the Forest of Lebanon in v. 39 adds to the confusion because in
previous chapters wood of the Lebanon is exclusively mentioned in connection with
the temple building. Against the backdrop of this confusion, 3 Reg. 9: 9a would
intimate that Solomon brought Pharaohs daughter into the temple.
However, notes like 3 Reg. 6: 1c, 1d; 8: 1; 9: 1, 10 make it unambiguously clear
that the LXX strictly distinguishes between the temple and the palace. Lefebvres
interpretation of 3 Reg. 7: 3839 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 diculties
regarding chronology that beset the three-part structure of the report
in 1 Kgs. 67. Text-historically, the LXX order is easier to explain
as the outcome of editorial intervention with the dicult 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: 112.
4
In LXX B and
the Ant. text, 3 Reg. 6: 36a reads as follows:
3 Reg. 6: 36a (LXX B, Ant. text) ka kodmhse kataptasma tw
alw
to alm to okou to kat prsv-
pon to nao.
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 objects
themselves (temple versus palace) as in the LXX.
3
Thus Gooding (Pedantic Timetabling, 156). Contra Schenker (Septante, 12930).
4
Burney, Notes, 78, 83; Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 173; Stade, Solomons Bauten,
150; anda, Bcher der Knige, 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 ; 2 Par. 3: 14: kai epoihsen to katapetasma . . .). Though this note
and 3 Reg. 6: 36a appear in roughly corresponding positions within the temple-
accounts of 2 Chronicles and 3 Regum, respectively, and the same Greek term
katapetasma appears in 3 Reg. 6: 36a and 2 Par. 3: 14, the two passages should
not be regarded as parallels (contra Vannutelli, I, 23839). Both context and word-
ing of 2 Chron. 3: 14 indicate that the verse speaks of the veil separating the Holy
of Holies from the main hall (cf. Exod. 26: 31, 33). The curtain of the court of
3 Reg. 6: 36a is an altogether dierent object, that must be compared with the
. .: :: of the tabernacle mentioned in Exod. 35: 17; 38: 18; 39: 40; 40:
8, 33 (see S. Lgasse, Les voiles du temple de Jrusalem: essai de parcours his-
torique, RB 87 [1980], 56089, 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, 1517), the translator writing kai epoihsen Salvmvn . . . thn krhnhn
thw aulhw read :: (= krhnh, spring) instead of original :c . 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) oer a variant reading from which
the reference to the curtain is absent. The variant involves thn aulhn
oikou Kuriou thn esvtathn t (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 nal
part of 1 Kgs. 7: 12. Below the corresponding phrase is underlined
in the Greek text:
1 Kgs. 7: 12b : ::: ::c :: .:
3 Reg. 6: 36a (LXX misc) ka kodmhse tn aln okou Kurou
tn svtthn
t alm to okou to kat prsvpon
to nao.
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
nal 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 oers 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 ::: ::: .:
: :: :::
: :::
1 Kgs. 6: 36 ::c . ::
: :: :::
: :::
(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 . :c in both pas-
sages, the more so in light of 2 Chron. 3: 14. The proposal is faced with serious
diculties, however. First, the type of veil meant by 3 Reg. 6: 36a is consistently
called a :: in MT. Second, the presumed corruption in 3 Reg. 2: 35e is entirely
hypothetical. Third, it is highly doubtful if the aforementioned passages are trans-
lations from the Hebrew rather than original creations in Greek.
The vital dierence 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 aairs is to be accounted for
in the following way. When the Greek editor transposed 6: 3738,
7: 112, 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,
kodomhsen, 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 kodomhse thn aulhn
(oikou Kuriou) thn esvtathn, the verse as a whole is not superous
since it adds new information. The reading of LXX B and the Ant.
text, then, might represent a secondary modication 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 dierent 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 modied its word-
ing in order to bring it in closer conformity with 1 Kgs. 7: 12b.
The manuscripts indicated as LXXmisc, then, would all depend on
the Hexaplaric reading, even though they exhibit the text at 3 Reg.
6: 36a.
6
See Mulder, 1 Kings 111, 298.
7
According to Lgasse, 3 Reg. 6: 36a LXX B est un amalgame partir des
donnes de III Rgnes, vi, 3; II Chron., iii, 4; Exod., xxvii, 16; xxxix, 19; Nomb.,
iii, 26, et lon ne saurait lui attribuer, cet endroit, une base hbraque. Linterpolation
est nanmoins signicative, puisquelle rvle une volont de faire cadrer le temple
de Solomon avec le sanctuaire de lExode (Voiles du temple, 571, n. 46). Note
that Lgasse takes 3 Reg. 6: 36a LXX B to represent the primary form of the
verse in Greek rather than a secondary modication. Irrespective of the question
of 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 :: into the
temple-account could do this by means of katapetasma, since this term matches
:: 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 oered 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--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 dicult to relate the shape of 3 Reg.
6: 36a to the transposition of 6: 3738 and 7: 112 by the editor
of the Greek text. In that event, however, the specic 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 denite 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, 18889;
Willis, Text of 1 Kings 11:4312:3, 4344.
10
It should be mentioned here that the anity between 3 Reg. 6: 36a and
1 Kgs. 7: 12b has also been taken as an argument in favour of the primacy of the
LXX order. According to Trebolle Barrera (Histoire du texte, 334; Redaction,
Recension, and Midrash, 2528; Salomn y Jerobon, 30811) the materials of 1 Kgs.
6: 3738; 7: 112a were forcibly interpolated between the Hebrew Vorlagen of
3 Reg. 6: 36 and 36a. In the process, nearly all of v. 36a would have dropped
from the text except for the phrase : :: (= tou ailam tou oikou). This was
used together with the element ::c ., which was duplicated from 6: 36, to
form 1 Kgs. 7: 12b. The introduction of the latter element occasioned a Wiederaufnahme
between 1 Kgs. 6: 36 and 7: 12(ab):
::c . :: 6: 36 ::: ::: .: 7: 12a
: :: ::: : :: :::
: ::: : :::
: ::: ::c : : .:: 7: 12b
One feature of the construction account of the LXX, brought to
light by the comparison with MT, is that it describes Solomon as
having nished 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. 67 proper. MT does
not show a particular concern for observing the sequence temple-
palace in these notes. In three instances we nd the sequence tem-
ple-palace (1 Kgs. 9: 1, 10, 15), but once the reverse sequence
appears, namely in 1 Kgs. 3: 1. Signicantly, 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 diers 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 dicult to see why MT would
deliberately contradict all other references to the temple building,
including the account of chs. 67. 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 oers a
second parallel of 1 Kgs. 3: 1 in Misc. I, numbered 3 Reg. 2: 35c,
which likewise puts the building of the temple rst. Compare:
3 Reg. 5: 14ab 3 Reg. 2: 35cb 1 Kgs. 3: 1bb
vw suntelsai atn vw suntelsai atn ::: .
::::
tn okon kurou
ka tn okon auto [tn okon ato :
:
ka]
11
tn okon kurou : ::
n prtoiw
Though v. 12b has little meaning both in itself and in the context, it would help
smooth the transition to the description of the cult objects of the : and the inte-
rior court of the temple in the following section 1 Kgs. 7: 1351.
Trebolles claim that v. 12b was meant to form a Wiederaufnahme is dicult to
accept. The passages under consideration do not reveal a strong tendency to con-
form to the textual counterpart. Thus the expressions ::: and : : in 7: 12
are not matched in 1 Kgs. 6: 36, though they are present in the Vorlage of 3 Reg.
6: 3636a. More important, the fact that v. 12b does not make good sense in its
present position renders it very unlikely that the passage is an intentional creation.
11
LXX B and manuscript a
2
omit ton oikon autou kai. The text-critical assess-
ment of this minus is dicult.
138 chapter eight
ka t texow Ierousalhm ka t texow Ierousalhm ::: :::
kuklyen :::
The means used to indicate that the building of the temple preceded
the building of the palace are dierent 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 dierence might indicate that 3 Reg. 2: 35cb
and 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 ts the context of
v. 35cb well. An identical sequence can be encountered in v. 35k. Moreover, the
concluding note at v. 35cg, In seven years he made and nished (it) is a time
indication more appropriate for the construction of temple and city wall than for
the construction of temple, city wall, and palace. As we have seen, MT and the LXX
agree 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 no
time 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 for
the building of temple and city wall.
On the other hand, the longer reading is supported by the great majority of
manuscripts, 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 indulges
in 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 short
reading 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 rst.
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 dicilior in the context of
3 Regum. The short reading, then, may be explained as an harmonization towards
chronological data in the main text of 3 Regum and 1 Kings, and perhaps as an
assimilation towards 1 Kgs. 3: 1bb. Another possibility is that the phrase ton oikon
autou 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,
9091) come to a dierent assessment of the textual dierence and claim the orig-
inality of the shorter reading.
unless we assume that he was not consistent in his attitude towards
his source.
3 Regum contains two other references to Solomons 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 authors). 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 tting 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: 112 to 3850. 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. 67, the revision only aected 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 dierence 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 Solomons 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, 13032.
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 and
Culture of the Ancient Near East 11), Leiden/New York 1997, 34874, esp. 365.
15
Thus also Gooding, Pedantic Timetabling, 155.
CHAPTER NINE
THE ABSENCE OF A COUNTERPART OF 1 KGS. 6: 1114
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 Specications, 15459.
And the word of YHWH came to Solomon :::: :: : 11
saying, ::
As to this house : : 12a
that you are building, :: :
if you walk in my statutes ,: : 12b
and keep my regulations :. :c:::
and observe all my commandments :.::: :::
to walk in them, : :::
then I shall establish my word with you, : :,:
which I spoke unto David your father, : :: : :
and I shall dwell among the Israelites :: :: :: :::: 13a
and not forsake my people Israel. : :: :. :. :: 13b
And Solomon built the temple : ::: :: 14
and completed it. ::::
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 reected 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: 1114 falls into a divine oracle directed to Solomon in
vv. 1113 and a summary-phrase in v. 14. Though the passage inter-
rupts the account of the temple building of vv. 238, it does not
actually disrupt it; rather it separates the paragraph devoted to the
interior divisions, decorations and installations of the temple (vv.
1536) from the preceding one describing the outer structure of the
temple (vv. 210).
1
The oracle deals with the issue of the temple as
YHWHs dwelling place (v. 12a, v. 13a): If Solomon observes YHWHs
commandments, YHWH promises to live among his people, that is,
to have his residence in the temple. From the viewpoint of theme,
then, vv. 1114 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. 1113
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. 1114 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 reects
a pre-Deuteronomistic source, the presence of Deuteronomistic phrase-
ology in vv. 1113 would suggest that these verses are younger than
the surrounding ones. Opinions, however, dier 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 Formation
of 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 Mesopotamian
and Northwest Semitic Writings ( JSOT.S 115), Sheeld 1992, 236; Polak, Septuaginta
Account, 139, 145; Trebolle Barrera, Redaction, Recension, and Midrash, 23.
4
Hurowitz, apparently aware of the diculty, remarks At a later stage in the
transmission of the text, a copyists error dislodged the words :::: : ::
from 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: 1113 to a pre-exilic Deuteronomistic redac-
tion of Kings (thus E. Eynikel, The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the
Deuteronomistic History [OTS 3], Leiden/New York 1996, 5556; 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 Story
of Israel between Settlement and Exile. A Redactional Study of the Deuteronomistic History,
London 1983, 104).
Other scholars assume that vv. 1113 derive from an exilic Deuteronomistic
redaction (thus Benzinger, Bcher der Knige, 34; hesistantly I.W. Provan, Hezekiah and
the Books of Kings. A Contribution to the Debate about the Composition of the Deuteronomistic
History [BZAW 172], Berlin/New York 1988, 112, n. 55; anda, Bcher der Knige,
153; J. Van Seters., In Search of History. Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins
of Biblical History, New Haven 1983, 309; Wellhausen [?], Composition des Hexateuchs,
267, 276; Wrthwein [?], Erste Buch der Knige, 65).
Some exegetes assign the exilic-Deuteronomistic redactional sigla Dtr
2
or DtrN to
our passage (Dtr
2
: Friedman, Exile and Biblical Narrative, 24; F.M. Cross, Canaanite
Myth 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: 1114 in the lxx 143
nature of the phraseology involved: Though a few expressions imply
a Deuteronomistic origin, others show clear anity 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 dierentation 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 Hurowitzs judgment:
The entire passage is most likely a very late addition to the story,
made by an author who is equally uent in Priestly and Deuteronomic
style, namely, one who already is familiar with the entire Pentateuch.
7
A late date of origin of vv. 1113 in MT increases the chance that
the recension represented by the LXX did not yet comprise these
Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk [FRLANT 108], Gttingen 1972, 71,
n. 31; Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 167). M.A. OBrien (The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis:
A Reassessment [OBO 92], Freiburg/Gttingen 1989, 15051, 282) regards vv. 1112
as nomistic.
Eventually, there are scholars who consider vv. 1113 to be a late (post-exilic)
intrusion either of predominantly Deuteronomistic colour (Kittel, Bcher der Knige,
49; Knoppers, Two Nations, I, 9697; Rehm, Erste Buch der Knige, 66; Stade-Schwally,
Books of Kings, 87) or of Priestly colour (Burney, Notes, 6869; S.L. McKenzie, The
Trouble with Kings. The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History [VT.S
42], Leiden/New York 1991, 138; Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 147; Mulder,
1 Kings 111, 20910; Noth, Knige, 105, 118; M.E. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the
Deuteronomic School, Oxford 1972, 337, 350).
6
Three phrases may be considered more typical of Deuteronomistic than of
Priestly language: :.: :: (Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 336, nr. 17); : : ,
(Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 350, nr. 1); :: :. :. : (YHWH being the implied
subject: 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: ,: : (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 :: :: :: :: 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 of
YHWH in his sanctuary, be it temple or Tent of Meeting; cf. Num. 5: 3; 35: 34).
Moreover, anity with P is strongly implied by the striking similarity of 1 Kgs. 6:
12b to Lev. 18: 4a (thus Burney, Notes, 69):
: ::: :.::: ::: :. :c::: 1 Kgs. 6: 12b
: ::: ::: :,: ::. :c:: Lev. 18: 4a
7
Hurowitz, Exalted House, 262, n. 3.
144 chapter nine
verses. Several scholars indeed believe that vv. 1113 were not pre-
sent in the Vorlage of the LXX.
8
An additional indication for the secondary nature of vv. 1113
might be found in 1 Kgs. 11: 910. This passage, which seeks to
explain why YHWH was angry with Solomon, makes reference to
earlier occasions on which YHWH admonished Solomon to keep
YHWHs 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: 1113 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 dierences with
1 Kings, both in the direct environment of 1 Kgs. 6: 1114 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. 67 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 rst 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 Knige,
66; Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 87; Trebolle Barrera, Redaction, Recension, and
Midrash, 23.
9
Note the expression used in 1 Kgs. 6: 11: The word of YHWH came to
Solomon. Cf. THAT I, 439, : (G. Gerleman).
10
Thus Burney, Notes, 68; Friedman, 24; Gray, Kings, 158; Montgomery-Gehman,
Kings, 147; Noth, Knige, 118; Trebolle Barrera, Redaction, Recension, and Midrash,
23.
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. 1113.
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. 1113. 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 dierent 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. 23 and a sec-
tion dealing with topics like windows (v. 4) and side-chambers
(vv. 56, 8). As a structural marker, the note of v. 3b is not inap-
propriately placed.
2. By absence of vv. 1114, the LXX makes no formal division
between vv. 9b10 and v. 15. Both in MT and the LXX, vv.
9b10 and v. 15 deal with the woodwork of the temple. V. 15,
however, diers 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. 110 focus on the
outer structure of the temple.
11
Gooding, Temple Specications, 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.
1114 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. 1113, found
a good use for v. 14 by putting that note at v. 3b. This reviser,
then, might have left out vv. 1114 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. 1113 were simply omitted from
the text faces the diculty that it is unusual for the gg-section of 3
Regum to leave passages of the size and theological weight of 1 Kgs.
6: 1113 without any representation.
13
The fact that 1 Kgs. 6: 1113
records YHWHs own words renders it the more dicult to believe
that the passage was simply deleted in the gg-section.
Another peculiar dierence between the texts of 3 Regum and 1
Kings adds to ones doubts about the originality of 1 Kgs. 6: 1114.
Throughout 1 Kings the term :c::, 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 YHWHs com-
mandments and statutes in 1 Kgs. 2: 3; 6: 12; 8: 58; 9: 4; 11: 33.
14
When :c:: is used in the latter sense, it always appears in con-
nection with terms like :, and :.:. The remarkable thing about
the gg-section of 3 Regum is that, while it duly translates most
instances of :c::, 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 111, 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: 120, most materials of this paragraph are represented in
a dierent form by the Alternative Story, 3 Reg. 12: 24az (especially vv. 24gn).
14
For this see ThWAT V, :c::, 99 (B. Johnson).
The instances of :c:: 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 :c:: is entolh. It has been argued
that entolh is to be seen as the rendering of :c:: here.
15
However,
in the overwhelming majority of instances in the LXXentolh is used
to render :.:, while outside 3 Reg. 9: 4 it is nowhere found as an
equivalent of :c::.
16
Thus, though there is formal correspondence
between kai taw entolaw mou and :c:::, 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 :c:: is due to mishaps in the trans-
mission process. Either the LXX left :c:: unrendered deliberately
in these instances or the Hebrew term was secondarily added in the
tradition reected by MT. No reason comes to mind why the LXX
translators would have taken oence at the use of :c:: as a ref-
erence to YHWHs commandments. It is more likely that :c::
was 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 piklnai kardaw mn prw atn :: ::::: ::: 8: 58
to poreesyai n psaiw dow ato ::::: :::
ka fulssein ::::
psaw tw ntolw ato ka prostgmata ato :,: ::.: . . .
::c:::
netelato tow patrsin mn ::: :. :
9: 4 ka s n poreuyw npion mo :c: : : 9: 4
kayw poreyh Dauid patr sou : : : ::
n sithti kardaw ka n eythti ::: ::::
ka to poien kat pnta ::: :: .: . . .
neteilmhn at :. :
ka t prostgmat mou , . . .
ka tw ntolw mou
:c:::
fuljw ::
11: 33b ka ok poreyh n taw dow mou :: ::::: 11:33b
to poisai t eyw npion mo :.: : ::.:
:c::: ,:
w Dauid patr ato :: ::
two references to :c::, 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 reect 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
:c::. On the other hand, the Ant. manuscripts agree with LXX
B in leaving all instances of :c::, commandments, unrendered
in the gg-section. Moreover, the attestation of the equivalent of :c::
in 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 :c:: got into the Ant. text under inuence of the
Kaige recension.
It is striking to see that in 1 Kgs. 6: 12; 8: 58; 9: 4; 11: 33 :c::
is immediately preceded by :,/,. If we assume that an inter-
polator has been at work in these texts, he must have had a pen-
chant for the sequence :,/,:c::. In 1 Kgs. 11: 33 he
added the full string. In 1 Kgs. 9: 4 he replaced original :.:: as
reected by kai taw entolaw mou by :c::: in order to create the
string. However, in view of the fact that in 1 Kgs. 2: 3 :.: is
allowed to occupy a position between :, and :c::, the possib-
lity must be left open that in 9: 4 :.:: was dropped inadvertently
during the editorial process.
The absence of a rendering of :c:: in the gg-section, however,
admits of another plausible explanation. A key text is 3 Reg. 11: 11:
11 ka epen kriow prw Salvmvn :::: : :: 11
ny' n gneto tata met sou :. : : .
ka ok flajaw :: ::
:
tw ntolw mou
ka t prostgmat mou ,:
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 ta
prostagmata 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 ::c::: is lacking.
18
According to Wevers (Exegetical Principles, 320), the LXX rendered :
as taw entolaw mou because it wanted to avoid the idea that man could break
and my ordinances (:.:: ,/,) 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 reect modications 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: 1113), or because they were
considered redundant (in the case of 11: 33, 34).
Thus, according to this hypothesis the absence of renderings of
:c::, 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: 1114 over against
the LXX.
YHWHs covenant. The fact that Solomon did not observe the stipulations of the
covenant 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: 1113 REG. 8: 111)
In their versions of the story of the installation of the ark MT and
the LXX show remarkable dierences in text quantity:
1
1
The version of 1 Kgs. 8: 111 is also (partially) attested by 4QKgs Frg. 6 (DJD
XIV, 17677). Variation is conned to minor dierences.
8: 1a ka gneto
n t suntelsai Salvmvn
to okodomsai tn okon kurou
ka tn okon auto
met ekosi th
8: 1ba tte jekklhsasen basilew Salvmvn ::: . . . :, 8: 1
pntaw tow presbutrouw Israhl :: :, . . .
::: :::
: : ::: :: ::
::: :::
n Sivn :::
8: 1bb to nenegken tn kibvtn diaykhw kurou :: : ::.:
k plevw Dauid : .:
ath stn Sivn :.
::: ::: ::,: 8: 2
:: :::
8: 2 n mhn Ayanin : :
::
.:: : :
:: :, :: ::: 8: 3a
8: 3 ka ran o erew tn kibvtn : :: ::: 8: 3b
: : ::.: 8: 4aa
8: 4 ka t sknvma to marturou .:: :: 8: 4ab
ka pnta t skeh t gia :, :::::
t n t skhnmati to marturou . . . :: :
::: :: ::.: 8: 4b
8: 5 ka basilew . . . ::: ::: 8: 5a
ka pw . . . Israhl :: .:::
: ::. .::
mprosyen tw kibvto : :c:
8: 5b yontew prbata ka baw ,:: . :: 8: 5b
2
Literally on her holy things. The terms ta agia and ta hgiasmena (Aor. ptc.
agiazein) both reect a reading : (pure things; cf. : II, KBL, 146) instead
of (original) : (staves; cf. : I, KBL, 108); cf. Jer. 4: 11. The evaluation of
the variation in equivalence is dicult. Perhaps the translator opted for the ren-
dering ta agia authw in v. 7 because he took :: as a reference to the holy ves-
sels (ta skeuh ta agia) which the priests were reported to carry into the temple
together with the ark (vv. 34). 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 oers . . . ; the Ant. and Hexaplaric manuscripts, followed
by Rahlfs, oer w . . . ; minuscules d e f h i m n p q s t u v w z have w . . .
w. Grammatically, the relative pronoun w suits the context better than since it
refers back to plakew, whereas lacks a tting antecent in the preceding verse(s).
This does not mean that w . . . w represents the original Greek, however. Strictly
speaking, the second w is incorrect too, since its antecedent rather is the diayhkh
than the plakew.
152 chapter ten
narymhta :c:: :
:: ::: ::
8: 6 ka esfrousin o erew tn kibvtn : :: ::: 8: 6
::
ew tn tpon atw : ::,::
ew t dabir to okou : ::
ew t gia tn gvn :, :, :
p tw ptrugaw tn xeroubin ::: c:: :
8: 7 ti t xeroubin diapepetasmna taw ptrujin c:: :c ::: : 8: 7
p tn tpon tw kibvto : :,::
ka perieklupton t xeroubin :: ::::
p tn kibvtn ka p t gia atw
2
:::.: ::.
pnvyen :.:::
8: 8 ka perexon t giasmna : : :: 8: 8
ka neblponto a kefala tn giasmnvn : : ::
k tn gvn ew prsvpon to dabir : :c:. :,:
ka ok ptnonto jv .: : ::
: : .: ::
8: 9 ok n n t kibvt :: 8: 9
pln do plkew lyinai :: :: :: ,
plkew tw diaykhw
w yhken ke Mvusw n Xvrhb :: :: : : :
3
diyeto kriow met tn un Israhl :: ::. : : :
n t kporeesyai atow k gw Agptou .: : .:
8: 10 ka gneto : 8: 10
w jlyon o erew k to gou :, : :: .:
ka neflh plhsen tn okon : : :: :.:
8: 11 ka ok dnanto o erew : : ::::: 8: 11
stnai :.:
leitourgen ::
p prospou tw neflhw : . :c:
ti plhsen dja kurou tn okon . . . : : :::: :::
As can be seen, the quantitative dierence results mainly from minuses
on the part of the Greek, especially in vv. 14. The LXX exhibits
only one large plus vis--vis MT and sequence dierences between
the versions do not occur at all. The relative brevity of the LXX-
version has not aected 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. 14, repetitive, confusing, and some-
times even outrightly incoherent. The following diculties 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 dierent events and to dierent
groups. In that case, however, another diculty arises. Whereas
these groups join the ceremonies accompanying the installation
of the ark (vv. 35), 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 dierent
designations of the group involved is infelicitous. The LXX-account
at vv. 12 has been considerably more successful in dierentiating
purpose and date of the assembly in Jerusalem (v. 1bbv. 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. 3b4aa.
4
Thus Rehm, Textkritische Untersuchungen, 90; Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 98;
cf. Mulder, 1 Kings 111, 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 sacricing 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
aected by any of the diculties noted above, it has been suggested
more than once that the version of 3 Reg. 8: 111 reects 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 t suntelesai . . . eth. The
adverb tote stresses that Solomons 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
nished 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 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 occur as introduction to the apodosis,
after the protasis has contained a denite notice of the point of
departure. In such a case the usual construction would certainly
be : . . . : (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 avour 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, 2528) and Mulder (1 Kings
111, 37686).
6
Burney, Notes, 104.
7
Cf. Gooding, Pedantic Timetabling, 157, n. 1: It is noticeable that the Greek
with its en t + Inn. and its construing of suntelein with tou + Inn. instead of
with a participle seems to be a literalistic translation of :::: : . Only LXX B*
reads vw sunetelesen.
154 chapter ten
the case with other editorial remarks in 3 Regum, it is dicult
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
prexed 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 :::.
3. The LXX does not represent : . : :: 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 :: :: in v. 9
8
faces the diculty
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
: . : :: 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 reects 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 inuence
from Deut. 9: 9a. This text, reading : :: :: :: ,:
::. : : :, deals with the tablets of the covenant and
may have served as a model for the insertion of : :: in
3 Reg.* 8: 9.
11
Strictly speaking, the addition is not required since
the verb : can be used absolutely to designate the making of
8
Thus Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 100; cf. anda, Bcher der Knige, 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, 27682.
10
Benzinger, Bcher der Knige, 58; Burney, Notes, 109; Kittel, Bcher der Knige, 72;
Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 186; Noth, Knige, 171; anda, Bcher der Knige, 217.
11
Note that the sequence the two stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant of
3 Reg. 8: 9 matches : :: :: : :: of Deut. 9: 11. The latter pas-
sage may have also played a part in the interpolators decision not to separate
plakew thw diayhkhw from plakew liyinai.
a covenant,
12
in the case of which the second : 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 : in his Vorlage is an ellipsis for :
:, he may have rendered it with diatiyenaia verb that in
LXX is used as an equivalent of : only when the latter verb
combines with :
15
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 dicult 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 w.
16
These prob-
lematic textual features render it more likely that plakew thw
diayhkhw 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. 15, 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 difer from MT in making, as it seems, con-
tradictory claims as to the identity of the bearers of the ark. Moreover,
12
Cf. Barthlemy, Critique textuelle, 349.
13
Cf. Mulder, 1 Kings 111, 394.
14
1 Kgs. 8: 21 contains the phrase :::. : : : : :: :.
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 the
Hebrew 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 Israels 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 eects 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.
111 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: 210a, 13b14 follows 1 Kgs. 8: 111
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 ::: :: 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 ::: ::. Instead of to Jerusalem it reads
17
From the viewpoint of chronology, MT would have a better reason than the
LXX to omit the explanatory time-note, because it seems to imply that eleven
months have passed between the completion of the temple (1 Kgs. 6: 38) and the
dedication. In the LXX the time-note would not cause any problem at all, since
3 Reg. 7: 38, 8: 1 and 9: 10 indicate an interval of 13 years between both events.
at Sion, a phrase which renders either :. :
18
or simply :.,
taken as an accusative of local determination.
19
The agreement
between Chronicles and 3 Regum at this point might indicate that
::: :: was not yet present in the Hebrew source texts used by
these witnesses. A similar case can be made for the suxed prepo-
sition :, 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
aliation is presented by periekalupton in v. 7. This rendering pre-
supposes :::: of 2 Chron. 5: 8 rather than :::: of 1 Kgs. 8: 7 (and
4QKgs).
A much more signicant phenomenon concerns the literary char-
acteristics of what is present in MT but missing in the LXX.
Throughout vv. 111 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. 111 are listed
as missing from the LXX:
1. :: :: ::: ::: in v. 1.
2. ::,: (Niphal) and the explanatory note : : .::
22
in
v. 2.
3. ::: :: in v. 4b (the distinction drawn between priests and
Levites being typical of P).
4. (::) . and ::. .:: (being used in a ceremonial con-
nection) in v. 5.
18
The possibility that en stands as an equivalent to : in renderings of the
expression : :, (Hiphil) is attested by 1 Par. 28: 1 (cf. 1 Chron. 28: 1).
19
See Joon-Muraoka, 126h. Another instance of the verb :, being followed
by an accusative of local determination is presented by Josh. 18: 1: :: . . .::,:,
And they assembled . . . to Shiloh.
20
For an overview of P-expressions and their provenance in the Pentateuch see
Burney, Notes, 104107; Cogan, 1 Kings, 27879.
21
Burney, Notes, 104107; Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 26869, 276;
also Hrozn , Abweichungen, 69.
22
This time-note might be taken to indicate the date of the : (cf. Lev. 23: 34)
rather than to explain the obsolete designation : , from which it is sepa-
rated by ::. 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
sucient reason to consider all pluses exhibited by 1 Kgs. 8: 15
over against 3 Reg. 8: 15 as secondary insertions into the older
narrative by a Priestly redactor (R
P
).
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. .:: : (twice in the LXX over against once in MT)
25
in v. 4.
Possibly also :: : :, :::::.
26
2. :, :,: in v. 6.
3. :, 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. 1011 (being related to Exod. 40: 3435).
28
Items like nrs. 4 and 5 dier from the expansionistic phrases in the
rst 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 .:: (:)
29
and :, :,:
30
are very
similar to the former group in their being specications not vital to
the narrative. Burney attributes these to an interpolator SS
P
who
wrote prior to the separation of the recensions reected by MT (and
4QKgs) and the LXX. This looks like a forced attempt to uphold
23
This R
P
is to be distinguished from the Priestly source of the Pentateuch
(Burney, Notes, 107).
24
See also Hurowitz, Exalted House, 26064.
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 one
another (cf. also Burney, Notes, 108).
26
Thus Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 14142.
27
Thus Gray, Kings, 195.
28
Thus Noth, Knige, 18081.
29
The element .:: 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 it
had 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 .:: : (thus also Benzinger, Bcher der
Knige, 57; Kittel, Bcher der Knige, 71). A dierent opinion is held by Gray: As a
repository of the ark, this was a tent of meeting, where Yahweh and the commu-
nity kept tryst (Gray, Kings, 104). In my view, .:: : is a xed designation for
a specic object that cannot be transferred to another object in a functional sense.
30
:, :,: is an apposition to : :: as in 1 Kgs. 6: 16.
the claim that the pluses of the MT-version vis--vis the LXX all
belong to a distinct redaction subsequent to the stage reected by
the LXX. Actually, there is nothing in the materials themselves
suggesting that the Priestly interpolations should be dierentiated
redactionally.
Burneys assertion that even those pluses in 1 Kgs. 8: 15 which
do not reveal Priestly language derive from R
P
is also dicult 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
aairs 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: 111. First, the
absence of a rendering of . in v. 5 is mirrored by the absence
of a rendering of :, in the expression :: :,:: of v. 14. In
both instances the LXX oers 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 modied
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, Knige, 174, 177;
OBrien, Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis, 152; Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 100;
Wrthwein, Erste Buch der Knige, 85. There are two arguments in favour of con-
sidering v. 4aa an integral part of the older narrative. First, the expression : :
diers from :: :, which occurs in v. 1 and v. 6, as being presumably
pre-Deuteronomistic (cf. note its frequent occurrence in the ark narrative of 1 Sam.
46 and 2 Sam. 6). Second, v. 4b (::: :: ::.:) roughly parallels
v. 4aa, its most important dierence with the latter being the mentioning of the
levites in addition to the priests). This state of aairs renders it likely that both
phrases do not derive from the same author. The Priestly element ::: ::
suggests 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. McKenzie
thinks that the phrase was lost in the Vorlage of the LXX because of parablepsis
caused by the ending of the previous verse (::).
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 :: :c:: :
:: ::: of MT. The same Hebrew expression occurs at 1 Kgs. 3: 8
except for the two verbs having changed places. The interchange is
not reected in the Greek text, for the LXX oers 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: 111 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 o.
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 pt mraw : .:: 8: 65b
: .:::
: :. .:
8: 66 ka n t mr& t gd ::: :: 8: 66
japsteilen tn lan . ::
Most critics agree that the plus exhibited by MT is ein spterer
Zusatz im Sinne von 2 Ch 7
9
, wonach . . . die ersten sieben Tage
fr die Tempelweihe beansprucht wurden und dann erst das sieben-
tgige 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 does
not entirely correspond with MT. Rahlfs however believes this reading to be a cor-
rection towards MT (Septuaginta-Studien, [600]).
34
Noth, Knige, 192.
35
Thus Cogan, 1 Kings, 290; Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 201; Stade-Schwally,
2 Chron. 7: 810 ts in with the regulations of Lev. 23: 3443 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) and
they made a solemn assembly (..) on the 8th day . . . and they
made . . . the feast during 7 days (10) and on the 23rd day of the 7th
month he sent the people to their tents.
According to Lev. 23: 3435, 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 rst 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: 1315, 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 reected 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 .:: : : 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 modied this chronology in accordance
with the regulations of Lev. 23 by replacing : : with ::
.:: : : (2 Chron. 5: 3) and by dating the conclusion of
the feast (2 Chron. 7: 910). Subsequently, an interpolator inserted
glosses into the text of 1 Kgs. 8: 2 and 65 that reect 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 Rapids
1982, 223. Dierent views have been advanced, however (thus cf. Mulder, 1 Kings
111, 45758). McKenzie (1 Kings 8, 30) claims that the double occurrence of
: .:: is due to dittography. The dittography would have brought about a mar-
ginal gloss, : :. .:, 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), Tbingen 1966, 321.
162 chapter ten
In sum, the view is advanced here that in 1 Kgs. 8: 111 the ver-
sions of the LXX and MT each reect 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 dicult to
determine the stage of the text in which most omissions were made.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
THE DEDICATION PRONOUNCEMENT
(1 KGS. 8: 12133 REG. 8: 53A)
In 1 Kgs. 8: 1213 Solomon is said to make the following statement
concerning YHWHs entrance into the Holy of Holies:
Then Solomon said, ::: : 12
YHWH has said that he would dwell in :c.: ::: : :
the dense-cloud.
I have surely built an exalted house : :: : :: :: 13
for thee,
a place for thy dwelling forever. :::. ::: :::
The LXX-version of this poetic declaration is found in 3 Reg. 8:
53a, in a context completely dierent from MT:
tte llhsen Salvmvn Then Solomon said
pr to okou regarding the house
w sunetlesen when he had nished
to okodomsai atn building it:
lion gnrisen The sun did YHWH make known
n oran kriow in the heaven.
epen to katoiken He said that he would dwell
n gnf (LXX B: k gnfou) in darkness (LXXB: without darkness).
okodmhson okn mou Build thou my house,
okon kprep saut a lofty house to thee,
to katoiken p kainthtow to dwell upon newness.
ok do ath ggraptai n Behold, is it not written in the
bibl tw dw Book of Song?
The dedication pronouncement in the LXX is considerably longer
than its material counterpart in MT. Sizable pluses vis--vis MT are
presented by the rst 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 dierences occur. The scheme below
visualizes the obvious deviations. For reasons of convenience, the
lines containing the text of the dedication pronouncement proper
are numbered 14.
The question of the purport and the provenance of the dedication
pronouncement is beset by numerous diculties. 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
diculties:
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 en
ouran. 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
nd a deferential formula rather than the plain imperative of line
3 (cf. Solomons prayer in 3 Reg. 8: 2353). 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 53
b
, JThS 10 (1909), 43946,
esp. 440.
the dedication pronouncement 165
8: 53a tte llhsen Salvmvn ::: : 8: 12
pr to okou
w sunetlesen to okodomsai atn
1 lion gnrisen n oran
2 kriow epen to katoiken n gnf :c.: ::: : :
3 okodmhson okn mou okon kprep saut : :: : :: :: 8: 13
4 . . . to katoiken p kainthtow :::. ::: :::
ok do ath ggraptai n bibl tw dw
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 34 is strange, however. Though
the divine oracle sometimes goes without introduction, as Ps. 91:
1416 shows,
3
this introduction can hardly be missed in v. 53a,
because neither the identity of the speaker nor the intention of
lines 34 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 kai
in 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 nal 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 aected by problems of equal weight.
Though the meaning of :: is not rmly established in the context
and the interpretation of Solomons 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
3
4
The assertion that the adverbial use of :::. is unparalleled in MT (thus
Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 103) is not correct since this use is also encountered
in 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 dicult 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 rst line rather imply that a Greek translator
mechanically rendered a somewhat corrupt Hebrew text.
6
Restoration
of this Vorlage text faces several diculties 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
dierences is included.
1. egnvrisen. It is commonly assumed that egnvrisen reects a cor-
rupt Hebrew. Dierent views have been put forward concerning
the shape of the original Hebrew verb. anda speculated that
original : to create was corrupted into : (Piel), to explain.
7
But in the LXX gnvrizein is never used to render : 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 : (:: Hiphil), he set, with : (: Hiphil),
he understood.
8
In support of Wellhausen, several scholars have
noted that the Ant. reading esthsen (for egnvrisen) also suggests
original :.
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 dicult egnvrisen. Moreover, :
5
Contra Peterca, Auslegungsbeispiel, 27375.
6
Dierently Schenker (Septante, 13035), who believes that 3 Reg. 8: 53a is a
faithful rendition of a Hebrew text primary to that of 1 Kgs. 8: 1213.
7
anda, Bcher der Knige, 218.
8
Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 271. Scholars concurring to this view
include Benzinger (Bcher der Knige, 59); Burney (Notes, 111); M. Grg (Die Gattung
des sogenannten Tempelweihspruchs [1 Kg 8,12f.], UF 6 [1974], 5563, esp. 55),
Kittel (Bcher der Knige, 74); E.A. Knauf (Le roi est mort, vive le roi! A Biblical
Argument 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 the
Ancient Near East 11], Leiden/New York 1997, 8195, esp. 82); Noth (Knige, 172);
with reservations, Gray (Kings, 196, n. a); anda (Bcher der Knige, 218).
9
Thus Benzinger, Burney, Gray, Noth, anda (cf. previous note).
10
Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, [622]; Burkitt, Lucianic Text, 44041, 444.
Hiphil is never translated by gnvrizein in the entire LXX. Against
Wellhausens view, Grays suggestion to follow egnvrisen back to
: via : (:: Hiphil, to recognize) at least has the merit
that gnvrizein is actually attested as an equivalent of :, namely
in Job 34: 25. Other attempts to reconstruct the original text
behind egnvrisen start from the assumption that the Greek trans-
lates .:/.: (. 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 .. What, how-
ever, was the original Hebrew form underlying .:/.:? Van
den Born proposed .: (:. 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 .c: (.c Hiphil
imp.) and translated Sun, shine forth in the heaven.
12
Thackeray
made the interesting suggestion to restore ::: .: as :. :
::, (O Sun), the Glory beclouds the heavens.
13
The verb ::.
(Hiphil) is once attested in MT, namely in Lam. 2: 1, and it cer-
tainly ts a context making reference to clouds in 1 Kgs. 8: 1112
(3 Reg. 8: 53a). Klostermann argued that the original Hebrew
read ::: .: :::, Die Sonne wird am Himmel wahrgenom-
men (The sun can be discerned in the sky).
14
The translator
would have misunderstood .: (Niphal ipf.) as .: (Hiphil ipf.,
written defectively). However, an ipf. in Hebrew is not usually
rendered as an Aorist (egnvrisen) in Greek. An argument favour-
ing Klostermanns view is that it does not require us to assume
that : in the Vorlage originally connected with the preceding
clause.
2. The syntactic interpretation of kuriow raises a diculty 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 : cannot introduce a new clause. The clause
11
A. van den Born, Zum Tempelweihspruch (1 Kg viii 12f.), OTS 14 (1965),
23544, esp. 23738.
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), 51832, esp. 520.
14
Klostermann, Bcher Samuelis und der Knige, 315.
168 chapter eleven
would have to begin with : : or :: at least.
15
The Ant.
texts represent kai eipe, which actually implies ::, but kai is
likely to be a later addition meant to guide the reader. Klos-
termanns reconstruction of the rst line (cf. 1.) might solve the
diculty.
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 (:c.: - :c.:) or it represents a misreading by the trans-
lator.
16
:c.: is to be preferred as the original form, since the
conception of YHWHs dwelling in a cloud is supported by sev-
eral texts (e.g., Exod. 20: 21; 1 Kgs. 8: 11). The reading en gnof
could present a later correction on the basis of the Hebrew.
4. oikodomhson oikon mou. The Greek reects : :: . Possibly, the
nun in :: (cf. MT) was accidentally omitted in the Hebrew
Vorlage of the LXX. Wellhausen and Thackeray, however, argue
that the LXX represents the more dicult 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
Wellhausens view, oikodomhson is likely to have been pronounced
by YHWH. The preceding line, however, is pronounced by
Solomon and no change in the speakers identity is indicated after
:c.:. 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
dicult to conceive of Solomon making such a request after the
completion of the temple.
5. oikon ekpreph saut. Many witnesses, like LXX A and the Ant.
manuscripts b o c
2
, 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 :: . Nonetheless, there is no need to assume that
15
Thus Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 102; anda, Bcher der Knige, 218.
16
Tov, Text-critical Use, 137.
17
Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 271; Thackeray, Book of Jashar, 52122,
525.
18
3 Reg. 8 53a; 2 Macc. 3: 26. Furthermore 3 Macc. 3: 17.
euprephw reects a dierent Hebrew, as Wellhausen and anda
did.
19
The rare word :: , dominion, exalted,
20
is rendered
very dierently 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 :: :.
21
6. ::: of MT is not represented in the LXX. Possibly the transla-
tor refrained from rendering ::: 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 :::.
7. tou katoikein. The sux in MT ::: is not represented in LXX
tou katoikein. For the nal kaph in ::: the translator might
have read one (or more) dierent letter(s), which he interpreted
as a preposition prexed to the next word (cf. 6.).
8. epi kainothtow. There is no reason to emend the Greek (thus
Klostermann: ep anvtatou or [ep]anvtatow),
22
since epi kainoth-
tow is well attested in the manuscripts. The Hebrew substratum
of the expression is dicult to establish. Montgomery opts for
:::, 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 :::. In Burkitts view, epi
kainothtow in 3 Reg. 8: 53a may reect : :., for New Moon
feasts.
24
Van den Born prefers to reconstruct ::, Monat
fr Monat.
25
According to Schenker, epi kainothtow suggests that
the translator took : :. 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 (Bcher der
Knige, 219), eupreph implies :: (thus Job 18: 15; cf. euprepeia in 2 Reg. 15: 25
and LXX A of Job 5: 24) by way of :: , beautiful (cf. Jastrow, 865). Schenker
(Septante, 131) thinks of either :: or .: .
20
On the meaning of :: see Mulder, 1 Kings 111, 39899.
21
22
23
24
25
Van den Born, Tempelweihspruch, 241.
26
170 chapter eleven
because they involve retroversions to Hebrew forms still far removed
from the reading :::. that MT has in corresponding position.
Reconstructions taking into consideration the MT reading have
been put forward by Wellhausen, Halvy and Thackeray. They
share the view that epi kainothtow somehow reects : ::. , youth.
In Wellhausens opinion, the translator simply mistook :::. for
:::..
27
Halvy thinks that Jewish exegetes had rst changed
original :::. into :::.: , in unknown places. Subsequently
the translator misinterpreted : ::. : as : ::. : .
28
Thackeray holds
that the Greek translator mistakenly interpreted original ::: . :. ,
in maidenlike style, as : ::. :. , an assumption that seems to
gain support from a similar interpretation of :::.:. in Aquila
Ps. 45: 1. The MT reading would represent another attempt to
make sense of the Hebrew original.
29
The reconstructions of Halvy
and Thackeray are complicated and presuppose stages of textual
development that are not attested in the text tradition. Wellhausens
proposal, on the other hand, has the advantage of simplicity,
though it does not account for the presence of epi. A problem
aecting all three proposals is the absence of instances in the LXX
where kainothw corresponds to :::. . In sum, it does not seem
possible to restore the Hebrew underlying epi kainothtow with rea-
sonable certainty. Perhaps our best conjecture is :::. : because
of the formal similarity to MT :::..
9. ouk idou auth gegraptai en bibli thw dhw. 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: : c::. ::: :. Many scholars, includ-
ing Wellhausen, Thackeray and Noth, argue that the original
Hebrew read not : c:, the Book of Song, but : c:,
the Book of Jashar. Unlike the former designation, a Book
of Jashar is known from other texts, namely Josh. 10: 13 and
27
28
J. Halvy, Recherches bibliques, RSEHA 8 (1900), 193238, esp. 223.
29
Thackeray, Book of Jashar, 52425.
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 3
Reg. 11: 41 and 22: 39 appears to correspond to ::: (Qal ptc. pass.), there is
no problem in retroverting gegraptai in 3 Reg. 8: 53a to :::.
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: 12b13a 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 gnrisen n oran ::: .: :::
kriow epen to katoiken n gnf :c.: ::: : :
okodmhson okn mou : ::
okon kprep saut : :: :
to katoiken p kainthtow :::.: :::
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 suered from
a few corruptions. At least the reconstructed Hebrew words .:
and : 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 :: (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: 1213 relate to
one another. For reasons of convenience, this question is specied
as follows:
1. Is the rst line of the declaration as reected 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: 1213 and 3 Reg. 8: 53a, it should be noted that both quotations are intro-
duced by (= Greek tote; cf. 1 Kgs. 8: 12) and that both imply a contrast between
YHWH 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 dier 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: 1213 and
dropped line 1 in an attempt to identify the :c. with the cloud
that lled the temple (v. 10).
32
The parallelism between lines 12,
as a result of which the :c. is situated in heaven, would have ren-
dered this identication impossible. However, the primacy of v. 53a
over against vv. 1213 as the original position of the poem is dicult
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: 1618), 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 12 neither states nor suggests that the sun is divine.
34
On the
32
33
Barthlemy, Critique textuelle, 35051; 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 israelitischen
und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte (OBO 139), Freiburg/Gttingen 1993, 269306,
esp. 287; Noth, Knige, 172; H.-P. Sthli, Solare Elemente im Jahweglauben des Alten
Testaments (OBO 66), Freiburg/Gttingen 1985, esp. 16, n. 39; J.G. Taylor, Yahweh
and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel ( JSOT.S
111), Sheeld 1993, esp. 13940; Thackeray, Book of Jashar, 530.
34
It is, however, conceivable that the original poem responded to a situation in
which the sun was regarded as a deity. According to Keel-Uehlinger (Jahwe und
die Sonnengottheit, 287), the poem refers to the exile of the Sun-god from the
temple of Jerusalem, previously dedicated to this deity, and its occupation by the
im Wolkendunkel residierenden Wettergott, i.e., YHWH. This view is tempting
since a confrontation of the weather-god YHWH and the Jerusalemite sun-god
contrary, by claiming that YHWH assigned to the sun its place in
heaven, line 1 suggests that the sun is YHWHs servant, subordi-
nate to his will. In his comment on this passage, Schenker rightly
connects it with Ps. 19: 27, where it is stated that the heavens and
the sun declare the glory of YHWH.
35
Thus the concept expressed
in lines 12 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 12 rather stress the
discontinuity between YHWH and the sun.
37
It is dicult to see how
this text could have ever evoked theological objections.
There is a possiblility, however, that a text somewhat dierent
from the Hebrew as reconstructed from line 1 actually gave oence
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: 12b13a, a passage resembling 3 Reg.
8: 53a in several respects (Keel-Uehlinger, Jahwe und die Sonnengottheit, 28185).
In the opinion of Knauf (Le roi est mort, 8384), not even the original poem
addressed the sun as a deity. The lines represented by the LXX originally were
preceded by one or more lines in praise of the supreme deity El who, being the
god of creation, allotted to the sun its place in heaven and even domesticated
YHWH, the unruly weather-god. Knauf s view amounts to a mere guess since we
do not know the content of the original poem except for what has been preserved
by the LXX.
35
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 the
Sun, 14244). 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 12 also imply
a contrast between the sun and the glory covered by the cloud (cf. J. Day, Yahweh
and 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/Gttingen 1993, 18196,
esp. 189). For an overview of other scholars who take 3 Reg. 8: 53a as evidence
that 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), 26981, esp. 270, n. 7. In Mays view, line 1 in the LXX is an elabora-
tion meant to dissociate YHWH from the sun-cult. This is improbable, since there
is no evidence of sun worship in the temple in the period in which the translation
came into being (3rd2nd century BCE).
174 chapter eleven
saw, it seems reasonable to assume that egnvrisen represents the
Hiphil of .. Now the possibility arises that line 1 originally read
the Niphal of . 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 YHWHs will.
The possibility is to be taken seriously that in MT this oensive text
was suppressed altogether, whereas it was subjected to theological
correction in the text tradition underlying the LXX. Lines 12 in
the LXX, then, may reect subtle alteration of a text reading
. . . : : / ::: .:: :::
to
. . . : : / ::: .: :::
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 .:: (Niphal pf.) for .: (Hiphil pf., written defectively). Klostermann
thinks of .: (Hiphil ipf., written defectively) for .: (Niphal ipf.), but the Aorist
in Greek and the presence of : pf. in line 2 do not support reconstruction of
an ipf. in line 1 (cf. page 168).
The motives for the insertion are dicult to establish. Perhaps the
editor thought it appropriate to restore, as Montgomery puts it, the
ne 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: 1213. Another possibility is that the addition was made
in connection with a shift in the theological conception of YHWHs
abode. The dedication prayer reveals some friction between two con-
ceptions regarding the place of YHWHs abode: Does YHWH dwell
in heaven or in his temple, the House of YHWH? Vv. 2730 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 :: ::: in Solomons prayer (vv. 2253) is reserved
for heaven, line 4 of the poem refers to the temple as the :::
:::! In the LXX, a similar inconsistency is not found as the poem
does not contain an equivalent of :: :::. Still, 3 Reg. 8: 53a
does not dier from 1 Kgs. 8: 1213 in making reference to the
temple as YHWHs dwelling-place. Possibly then, line 1 was restored
in the LXX-version in order to reconcile two dierent conceptions
concerning YHWHs dwelling-place and sphere of authority. The
expansion had to make it clear that YHWHs 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 denitive
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 :::.: in youthful vigour(?) rep-
resents an unusual Hebrew which can by no means claim more
39
40
Interestingly, a similar solution can be observed in the Greek version (2
Paralipomena) of the Chronicles parallel to 1 Kgs. 8: 1213. While 2 Chron. 6: 1
(// 1 Kgs. 8: 12) has been rendered faithfully, the Greek of v. 2a shows a slight
expansion: kai egv kodomhka oikon t onomati sou agion soi.
176 chapter eleven
plausability than :::. of MT. As to the rst half of line 4, the
text suggested by the LXX, i.e., :::, is almost certainly secondary
to the reading ::: ::: of MT. The somewhat dierent expres-
sion :: ::: is a characteristic feature of Solomons dedication
speech (1 Kgs. 8: 13, 39, 43, 49; cf. 30). Other expressions in which
:: signies the dwelling of YHWH do not appear in Kings. One
may argue that ::: was added in the textual tradition represented
by MT in order to create the standard expression. However, the
originality of ::: ::: is also suggested by the fact that it forms
part of a parallellismus membrorum:
41
::: ::: / : :: :
This classic poetic gure sits well integrated in the context and con-
sequently is likely to belong to the original poem. It is implausible
that the ne parallel was created by a reviser who just added a sin-
gle word.
What may have been the ground for the absence of ::: 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 ::: :::. In the
portion of Solomons 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
ow of 1 Kgs. 8, vv. 1213 function as a comment on YHWHs
taking possession of the temple as described in vv. 1011. When
Solomon recalls YHWHs statement that he would dwell in dark-
ness, this is meant as a reference either to the darkness of the :
or to the cloud with which YHWHs Glory is shrouded when it
enters the sanctuary.
42
41
Thus O. Loretz, Der Torso eines Kanaanisch-Isralitischen Tempelweihspruches
in 1 Kg 8,1213, UF 6 (1974), 47880, esp. 478.
42
The rst interpretation faces the problem that the : does not seem to have
been absolutely dark (thus Noth, Knige, 182). In favour of the second option it may
be noted that :c. 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
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. 2353 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 nished making all this
prayer and entreaty to YHWH . . .
43
It is also strange to nd that
the time note refers back to the completion of the temple whereas
the previous verses oer 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 YHWHs abode (vv. 30, 36, 39, 45).
45
On balance, it is dicult 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 reects an order that is secondary to MT.
47
theophany of YHWH. A few texts referring to this theophany even bracket together
:c. and :. (Deut. 4: 11; 5: 22; Ps. 97: 2), and it is tempting to assume that in
1 Kgs. 8: 12 :c. just is another term to denote the :., the cloud, mentioned in
the previous verses. Mulder believes both interpretations hold true at the same time
(ThWAT VI, :c., 400).
43
Also Barthlemy, Critique textuelle, 350.
44
See also Gooding, Problems of Text and Midrash, 24.
45
Tov (Sequence Dierences, 15455) argues that in two respects the position
of the dedication in the LXX is less problematical than in MT. First, in MT two
dedications, a prayer (vv. 1213) and a blessing (vv. 1421), are juxtaposed, whereas
in the LXX these are separated. Second, in MT the dedication in vv. 1421 starts
o as if the previous dedication in vv. 1213 had not yet occurred. In the LXX
the 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 the
MT-sections vv. 1213 and vv. 1421 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 priority
of the LXX.
46
Contra Schenker (Septante, 134), who argues that the position held by the pro-
nouncement in MT 1 Kgs. 8: 1213 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 Tovs view, the dierent positions of the poetic dedication in MT and the
LXX, the Deuteronomistic nature of vv. 1453, 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 anities with 3 Reg. 8: 54 and 9: 1:
8: 53a tte llhsen S. pr to okou w sunetlesen to okodomsai
atn
8: 54 ka gneto w sunetlesen S. proseuxmenow prw krion lhn
tn proseuxn
9: 1 ka genyh w sunetlesen S. okodomen tn okon kurou
Direct comparison with 1 Kgs. 8: 54 and 9: 1 shows that v. 53a
reects Hebrew syntax:
:: :c:: :: ::c: ::: :::: : 8: 54
:: :::: ::: :::: : 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:
: :::: ::::: : :. ::: :
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. 1213 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. 1453
is a late addition inserted in MT and the LXX in dierent 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 been
created 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 dierent places in the sources. The sequence dierences
may be more easily explained in terms of diachronical textual development.
48
See for this Schenker, Septante, 131; Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 101.
Taylors view, the relationship between YHWH and the sun as sug-
gested by the context of the original declaration (1 Kgs. 8: 1011)
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 LXXs order. According to the order of MT, Solomon
only turned his face away from the spectacle of the glory-lled tem-
ple after pronouncing the declaration in vv. 1213. The editor, then,
would have taken oence 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
Solomons 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, 13040.
50
See footnote 36 of this chapter.
180 chapter eleven
CHAPTER TWELVE
THE ACCOUNT OF SOLOMONS SHIPPING
EXPEDITION (1 KGS. 9: 14, 26283 REG. 9: 14, 2628)
3 Regum does not represent any of the materials of 1 Kgs. 9: 1525
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 dierences in textual arrange-
ment between 3 Reg. 9: 14, 2628 and the corresponding materials
in MT.
1
1
Rahlfs text printed here is almost identical with LXX B. The Ant. manuscripts
witness a text that agrees with LXX B in order, and that diers from it mainly in
not exhibiting all the individual variants of the latter vis--vis MT. In the follow-
ing cases, the Ant. text corresponds more closely to MT than LXX B: v. 14: LXX
B hnegken MT ::: = 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. The
dependence of the Ant. text on the text form exhibited by LXX B is indicated by
the phrase tvn paidvn autou in v. 27 (= LXX B MT ::.). Signs of sec-
ondary editing appear in the Ant. text of v. 26a: kai epoihsen o basileuw Solomvn
naun. 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, [599601]). Another
indication occurs in the Ant. text of v. 27: laon eidotaw elaunein yalassan (
LXX B elaunein eidotaw yalassan MT .). According to Rahlfs, the sec-
ondary character of the plus laon is suggested by the plural eidotaw (Septuaginta-
Studien, [56061]). The validity of this argument may be questioned, since laow, in
imitation of Hebrew ., 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. Possibly
. was read before . as the result of an eyeskip to the last phrase of v. 27:
::: :. ..
14 ka negken Xiram t Salvmvn ::: ::: 14
katn ka ekosi tlanta xrusou : :: :.: :
[9: 15-25]
26 (aa) ka nan :: 26
(ab) pr o
pohsen basilew Salvmvn ::: :: :.
(b) n Gasivngaber :::..:
tn osan xomnhn Ailay :: :
p to xelouw tw sxthw yalsshw :: c::.
n g Edvm : :
The dierent 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. 1523 are concerned with the forced
labour rather than with the nancial means needed for Solomons
building programme. Before v. 14, vv. 1113 relate that Solomon
gave Hiram 20 cities, which were not to the liking of the king of
Tyre. Evidently, Solomons 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. 1113 bring up related subjects (Solomons
nancial relations with Hiram), they clearly refer to dierent events.
The setting of 3 Reg. 9: 14 is quite dierent from that of its MT
counterpart, since the verse is immediately followed by vv. 2628.
V. 14 and vv. 2628 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 rst 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 dicult. In MT, the rst word of v. 26, ::, constitutes
the object of the verb form :. that comes next. The LXX agrees
with MT in placing the equivalent of ::, kai naun, rst 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 kai
naun is taken as the object of the verb form corresponding with :.,
i.e., epoihsen. As a result the rst words of v. 26, kai naun, can only
182 chapter twelve
27 ka psteilen Xiram n t nh :: ::: 27
tn padvn ato ::.
ndraw nautikow :: ::
lanein edtaw ylassan .
met tn padvn Salvmvn ::: :. .
28 ka lyon ew Svfhra c: ::: 28
ka labon keyen xrusou : :: :,:
katn ka ekosi tlanta :: :.: ::.:
ka negkan t basile Salvmvn ::: ::: :::
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.
solomons shipping expedition 183
9: 14 ka negken Xiram t Salvmvn 9: 28b ka labon keyen xrusou
katn ka ekosi tlanta xrusou katn ka ekosi tlanta
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 reected by the Hebrew of MT. While in v.
28 kai hnegkan matches :::, hnegken of v. 14 corresponds to :::,
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 Goodings judgment: It looks as if the story in vv. 2628,
how Hirams servants went with Solomons 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
diculties:
1. If vv. 1426aa anticipate the result of the shipping expedition to
Sophera, it is peculiar to nd 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 Hirams
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. 1426aa refer to events anterior to those described in the
remainder of vv. 26ab27, 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
dening the connection between vv. 14, 26aa and 26ab27, uper
ou, 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 in
v. 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
Goodings translation of vv. 1426 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 Goodings 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 diculty 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
rst 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 diculties of
its own, may also be considered here. Vv. 1426aa 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 ve 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 nance 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 nancial 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 suers from two weaknesses. First, there is no
need to assume that v. 13 refers to a face-to-face meeting; as Cogan
remarks, Hirams words could have been part of an exchange of let-
ters similar to the one described in 5: 1523.
7
Second, this inter-
pretation leaves unexplained why v. 14 and v. 28b agree concerning
the number of talents. If these verses refer to dierent 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, Goodings 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: 2
means uper ou apparently concerning which.
6
Krautwurst, Studien, 63, n. 2; Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 214.
7
Cogan, 1 Kings, 299.
In addition to the dierences concerning arrangement and tenor of
the two versions there are others. Can these somehow be related to
the dierences noted above?
1. The reading thw esxathw yalasshw, literally the Last Sea, reects
the vocalization :: instead of ::, 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
specication in v. 26 precludes a dierent 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 dierent: And Hiram sent on the ship of his
servants seamen skilled in sailing over the sea. The dierent syn-
tactic structure results from the reading tvn paidvn autou for
MTs ::.. There is a possibility that the dierence 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 Hirams 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 Hirams servants, the question arises
why Hiram did not send a ship of his own. Given these pecu-
liarities, we may doubt whether the dierence represents a delib-
erate change at all. Perhaps it merely reects an error made by
the translator. Faced with a Hebrew text in which the nota objecti
before ::. was lacking, he may have rendered ::. :: 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
dierent from ::. ::.
3. The verb elaunein at v. 27 lacks an equivalent in MT. In all like-
8
This is considered by Mulder, 1 Kings 111, 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 reect a dierent Hebrew source text.
10
Possibly the verb was added to the text to improve its readabil-
ity.
11
Thus MTs seamen acquainted with the sea became sea-
men skilled in sailing over the sea.
None of these dierences seem to relate to the specic 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 nd that the fol-
lowing observations are of interest:
1. Through 3 Reg. 9: 1028, 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: 1525) addressing quite dierent 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 Solomons shipping expedition
through ch. 9: 1428 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. 2628
by inserting material at vv. 1525 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 2628 into
one unit caused the LXX translator or an editor of the Greek text
to remove vv. 1525 from their original position (as represented
by MT).
Perhaps the rearrangement by the LXX served other purposes as
10
11
well. Note that the LXX and MT disagree as to the date of Solomons
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. 1525, this chronological note
applies to vv. 1014 and 2628 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: 1028 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 aair 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 eort to deny all involvement on the part of Solomon in
the aair. 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
2628, 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 of
extension (see BD, 161.2). Cf. tria eth in 5: 32.
13
A tendency to present goods as building materials is perhaps also detectable
elsewhere in 3 Reg. 10: 22a. See page 194.
14
See also pages 29192.
15
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 reect a Hebrew Vorlage
(Vfira = c:). 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 ::., because.
17
On the level of the Hebrew ::.
yields good sense only if v. 26 connects directly with v. 14. This
would suggest that the arrangement attested by 3 Reg. 9: 14, 2628
already existed in the Vorlage. There is an alternative, possibility that
::. 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
17
In four out of six occurrences of uper ou in the LXX the phrase represents
::., namely in 2 Reg. 6: 8; 8: 10 (// 1 Par. 18: 10); 4 Reg. 22: 13. In 1 Reg.
21: 2 it renders plain :.
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 yuma . . . : :,: 9: 25
. . . npion kurou : :c: :
ka sunetlesen tn okon :: :::
9: 26a ka nan :: 9: 26a
pr o
pohsen basilew Salvmvn ::: :: :.
Note that the element : : of 1 Kgs. 9: 25 is not represented by anything in
the Greek translation, whereas uper ou of 3 Reg. 9: 26 does not correspond to any-
thing of MT. The meaning of (:) : in 1 Kgs. 9: 25 is dicult to fathom, and
the verse makes good sense without the phrase. It is not inconceivable, then, that
the LXX decided to leave it untranslated. However, there is a possibility that the
phrase represents the remnant of some gloss that was originally written between
the lines but, in the process of transmission, ended up at dierent places of the
running text; in MT at 9: 25, and in the Vorlage of the LXX at 9: 26. The dierence
in shape between : : and ::. could be the result of subsequent adapta-
tion or corruption. In a later stage of textual development, 3 Reg. 9: 25 (i.e., either
the 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.
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: 1428 was
carried out.
190 chapter twelve
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
THE ACCOUNT OF SOLOMONS BUILDING ACTIVITIES
(1 KGS. 9: 15223 REG. 10: 22AC)
The major part of what MT represents through 1 Kgs. 9: 1525
appears in the LXX at 3 Reg. 10: 22ac. Between the correspond-
ing textual portions many variations occur:
10: 22a . . . ath n pragmatea tw pronomw ::: : 9: 15
w nnegken basilew Salvmvn ::: :: :.:
okodomsai ::::
tn okon kurou : :
ka tn okon to basilvw :::
ka tn kran ::::
to perifrjai
tn fragmn tw plevw Dauid
::: :: :
ka tn Assour :.:
ka tn Magdan ::::
ka tn Gazer ::
[9: 1617a]
ka tn Baiyvrvn ::
tn nvtrv
: 9: 17b
:.:: 9: 18
ka tn Ieyermay : :
: :::
::::: .:: : 9: 19
:::: : :
ka psaw tw pleiw tn rmtvn :: . . . . :
ka psaw tw pleiw tn ppvn :c . . . . :
ka tn pragmatean Salvmvn ::: ,: :
n pragmatesato ,: :
okodomsai ::::
n Ierousalhm ::::
::::::
ka n ps t g ::::
to m katrjai ato :::::
10: 22b pnta tn lan tn poleleimmnon :: .:: 9: 20
p :
to Xettaou
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 dierences
between them inuence their purport?
1
The materials of 1 Kgs. 9: 1522 deal with three aspects of the
labour-levy: 1. the building operations accomplished by the labour-
levy (v. 15; cf. vv. 17b19); 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 specied but probably equals Solomons entire regnal
period. Certainly, the chronological note in v. 10, at the end of 20
years during which Solomon built the templethe latest to be found
in the account preceding vv. 1522, does not indicate the entire
period covered by the paragraph. Yet one might say that the mate-
rial ts the rough chronological order of the Solomon Narrative
1
On the relationship between 3 Reg. 10: 22a and 2: 35i; 46cd, see P.S.F. van
Keulen, The Background of 3 Kgdms 2: 46c, JNWSL 24 (1998), 91110, and
pages 27273.
192 chapter thirteen
ka to Amorraou :

ka to Ferezaou c
ka to Xananaou
ka to Euaou :
ka to Iebousaou ::::
ka to Gergesaou
tn m k tn un Israhl ntvn : :: :::: :
t tkna atn :: 9: 21
t poleleimmna met atow n t g : :: :
ow ok dnanto o uo Israhl :: :: :::: :
joleyresai atow ::
ka ngagen atow Salvmvn ew fron :.::: ::: :.:
vw tw mraw tathw : .
10: 22c ka k tn un Israhl :: :::: 9: 22
ok dvke Salvmvn ew prgma :. ::: ::
ti ato san :
ndrew o polemista ::: ::
ka padew ato ::.:
:::
:::::
ka rxontew tn rmtvn ato ::: ::
ka ppew ato : ::c:
2
Both units present the same sequence of issues (transactions between Solomon
and Hiramlabourlevyocers). See pages 28182.
3
solomons building activities 193
because the construction of the most important buildings mentioned
in vv. 1522the temple and the palacewas 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: 1023 can be seen to run parallel to
1 Kgs. 5: 1532.
2
As regards subject matter, however, there are very
few connections between vv. 1522 and the immediate context. The
subject labour-levy is not in any way prepared for by the pre-
ceding account (vv. 1014), 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 ocers over Solomons
work, v. 23 links up with the statement in v. 22 that Israelites were
appointed to executive oces. All things considered, vv. 1522 in
MT cannnot be said to t the context particularly well.
At rst 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 Solomons
wealth and the sources of his income in 10: 1429. Obviously, the
focus of interest in vv. 22ac is very dierent 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 Solomons chariots
and horsemen.
In spite of the obvious thematic discontinuity between vv. 22ac
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
2222a read as follows:
10: 22 ti naw Yarsiw t basile For the king had a Tarshish-ship
n t yalss at sea
met tn nhn Xiram with the ships of Hiram.
ma di trin tn Once in three years
rxeto t basile naw k Yarsiw a ship came to the king from Tarshish
xrusou ka rgurou with gold and silver
ka lyvn toreutn ka pelekhtn and carved and hewn stones.
In Goodings 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 :: in MT (cf. 1 Kgs. 9: 15) is peculiar.
As a rule, 3 Regum renders ::, 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. 1522 of ch. 9 to their present
position. This person would also have modied 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 nal part of v. 22, xrusiou kai arguriou kai liyvn toreutvn
kai pelekhtvn (Ant. text apelekhtvn), may not be wholly authentic. The adjective
toreutvn, worked in relief , which elsewhere in the LXX consistently refers to
metal objects, may be a mistake for original torneutvn, worked with a chisel
(thus Walters, Text of the Septuagint, 132). An alternative possibility to alleviate the
diculty involved in toreutvn is to assume that the text originally read xrusiou
kai arguriou toreutou kai liyvn apelekhtvn. Whatever the solution that is pre-
ferred, it is dicult to see how the element kai liyvn toreutvn kai pelekhtvn is
to be related to the obscure Hebrew exhibited by MT in corresponding position,
:: c,: :::. Proposals to this eect (e.g., by Gray, Kings, 245, n. a) must
be dismissed as unsuccessful because the reconstructions are still far removed from
the consonantal text of MT. Noth (Knige, 205), Krautwurst (Studien, 65, n. 4), and
Gooding (Misconduct, 33233) are probably correct when they argue that the
Greek has no connection with the Hebrew of MT here.
10: 22a ath n pragmatea tw pronomw This was the business of the spoil
w nnegken basilew Salvmvn which king Solomon brought up
okodomsai to build
tn okon kurou 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 Goodings judgment, then, vv. 1522 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.
Goodings proposal is well considered. Not only does it present
an explanation why the paragraph 1 Kgs. 9: 1522 is located in the
LXX at 3 Reg. 10: 22ac, 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 :) lends support to Goodings 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 Goodings entire
argument rests, namely the idea that pronomh is meant to refer to
the cargo of Solomons 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 ::, by way of the implicit connection between
plunder and labour levy (see above)? Or did pronomh already
appear as a rendering of :: 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 Goodings contention that the paragraph was transposed to 3
Reg. 10: 22ac 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, Corve, 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 :: (Krautwurst, Studien, 65, n. 3). The translation of
Proverbs, however, is rather free and the rendering at 12: 24 may reect an eort
to sharpen the contrast between the fate of the chosen men and the deceitful.
An alternative but remote possibility is that pronomh reects a corruption of origi-
nal :: into :, spoil, or into ::: , plunder, words that have been rendered
by pronomh elsewhere in the LXX. At any rate, the originality of the reading ::
in 1 Kgs. 9: 15 is certain in light of the expression :: :., which is also found
at 5: 27 and 9: 21.
MT in ranging wealth among YHWHs gifts to Solomon (cf. 1 Kgs./3
Reg. 3: 13), one would not expect it to take oence at the impor-
tation of luxury goods in 10: 22 on the basis of Deut. 17: 17.
The diculties noted here do not suce to reject Goodings pro-
posal out of hand. Nevertheless, the somewhat troublesome link
between v. 22a and the nal clause of v. 22 leads one to consider
alternative possibilities to account for the dierences 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 justied 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
rst 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 ::: ::, his dominion (thus 1 Kgs. 9: 19), but
:: :::: (: + innitive + prepositional object), which connects syn-
tactically with the sequel :: .:: (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 dierent from MT, or intentionally read a dierent 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 ve. In
MT no other list of ve 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 dicult 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 Gergesaiou
to the original list on the basis of one of the three aforementioned
specimens. These lists all appear in contexts dealing with the expul-
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: 12 to put the Canaanite nations under
the ban ( Hiphil) by stating that Israel failed to put the descen-
dants of the Canaanite nations under the ban (::). Furthermore,
the relative position of the seven nations named by v. 22b is best
understood as a modication of the MT-list on the basis of Deut.
7: 1. Compare:
3 Reg. 10: 22b Deut. 7: 1 1 Kgs. 9: 20
Hittites Hittites
Girgashites
Amorites Amorites Amorites
Hittites
Canaanites
Perizzites Perizzites Perizzites
Canaanites
Hivites Hivites Hivites
Jebusites Jebusites Jebusites
Girgashites
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 inuence of the Deuteronomy
passage. The lists also agree in presenting the Canaanites as the
fourth item, though 3 Reg. 10: 22b diers 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 dierence from Deut. 7: 1 which
dees explanation is that the Girgashites stand in ultimate position.
The third dierence 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 the
International Symposium for Biblical Studies Tokyo, 57 December 1979, Tokyo 1982, 25967,
esp. 259.
means to say that Solomon conscated money and possessions from
the foreign nations to nance his building programme. Thus the
translator/editor of vv. 22ac 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 inuence 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. 1415); 3. Putting
them under the ban (vv. 1617). 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
eectuated, 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 (signicantly
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 :. In 1 Kgs. 11: 27, where : is likewise used in
the sense of matter, aair, the LXX renders the Hebrew word
with pragma. A little further in 3 Reg. 10: 22a, pragmateia recurs,
this time as an equivalent of ,: (thus also 3 Reg. 9: 1). Now the
translator of v. 22a may have preferred pragmateia to pragma as an
equivalent of : in order to create a parallel within v. 22a:
auth hn h pragmateia thw pronomhw hw anhnegken o basileuw S. okodomhsai
kai thn pragmateian S. hn epragmateusato oikodomhsai
Both phrases reveal the sequel pragmateia + relative clause + oikodomh-
sai. A diculty 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 rst oikodomhsai. Since this second phrase
is logically subordinate to the rst, 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 [auth
hn] h pragmateia S.). Perhaps the Ant. tradition has preserved the
original Greek here but if not, it is clear that it recognized the
signicance of these phrases as structural markers.
There may be other deviations from MT in 3 Reg. 10: 22ac
that likewise bear on the theme oppression of the Canaanite pop-
ulation. The absence of a rendering of ::::: .:: : (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 Pharaohs eorts
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 eectivity of
Solomons 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 .
::::: prior to Solomons reign. Thus the association with this passage is easily
made.
10
Schenker (Septante, 4950) advances the interesting idea that thn Ieyermay in
3 Reg. 10: 22a transcribes (Qir)iath Jearim. The name would correspond to Baalat
in 1 Kgs. 9: 18, a city that is identied as Qiriath Jearim in Josh. 15: 9. In favour
of this view speaks the fact that LXX transcriptions often employ the element Iey
(Hatch-Redpath, Suppl., 7879) to represent the sequence , whereas it is not clear
why the element Ie appears in case Ieyermay represents Tadmor. The identication
proposed by Schenker faces the problem that the element , (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 ,. The
form Ieyermay cannot be retraced to one of the two standard transcriptions the
LXX oers for Qiriath Jearim, kariayiarim(/n) or poliw Iarim, so in all likelihood
the translator either did not read or did not recognize the name Qiriath Jearim in
his Vorlage.
An alternative explanation may be considered, however. Ieyermay may be a tran-
scription of Aramaic : (cf. :: in Targum Jonathan of 1 Kgs. 9: 18).
The translator did not recognize the nota obiecti and took it to be part of the
place-name. Subsequently he added thn in accordance with the other place-names
in the list. In support of this view, we may refer to other possible signs of Aramaic
inuence (glosses?) in the Hebrew Vorlage of 3 Reg. 10: 22ac, like the expression
didonai eiw pragma in v. 22c (see above and footnote 14 of this chapter). If this
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
dierences, at least, seem to support our view that the disposition
of 3 Reg. 10: 22ac is of a secondary nature: The absence of a
counterpart to 1 Kgs. 9: 1617a 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 :. : with didonai eiw pragma in the same
verse.
14
In its current position the section through vv. 22ac makes up a
self-contained unit revealing associative but no explicit links with the
context. Thus the note on Solomons building operations of v. 22a
follows on the statement of v. 22 that Solomons 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. 22ac placed in their pre-
sent position? One attempt at an anwer is made here. When the
reviser lifted vv. 1525 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. 1522 into ch. 10, a section dealing with manifestations
of Solomons wisdom,
15
thereby suggesting that Solomons measures
explanation is correct, Ieyermay must be understood as a reference to Tadmor,
which is a non-Canaanite city.
11
See pages 6972.
12
See page 74.
13
Most manuscripts lack a rendering of ::::: :::. The Ant. manuscripts are
the only ones that oer kai arxontew kai trissoi autou. As kai arxontew recurs a
little 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 of
the Hebrew text (::: - ::; thus Srki, Weisheit und Macht Salomos, 123, n. 260).
14
anda (Bcher der Knige, 260) holds that the translator mistook Hebrew :.
for Aramaic :., labour, and translated accordingly. anda may be right, although
in the LXX Dan. 2: 49 is the only instance where pragma can be shown to rep-
resent a derivation of the root :.. The Greek reading could also represent an
eort on the part of the translator/reviser to turn original :. : into a concrete
reference to the labour undertaken for the extensive building programme as described
in v. 22a.
15
See pages 108112. It may be noted that the list of cities in 3 Reg. 2: 35k,
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 ships
cargo as listed in v. 22.
16
46cd, which parallels a part of 3 Reg. 10: 22a, also seems to serve as an illus-
tration of Solomons wisdom in the context of the Miscellanies.
16
A quite dierent assessment of the text-historical relationship between 1 Kgs.
9: 1522 and 3 Reg. 10: 22ac has been made by Schenker (Corve, passim;
Septante, 4559). This scholar claims that the MT-account represents a reformula-
tion of an original narrative that the LXX has preserved in Greek. Like Gooding
and the present author, Schenker is of the opinion that the dominating theme of
the LXX-version is the construction of military works to control the indigenous
Canaanite population. However, Schenker notes that the view that Solomon had
to compete with the Canaanites for control of the country runs counter to the pic-
ture of undisputed peace in Solomons time that emerges from several other pas-
sages in 3 Regum. The recension responsible for the MT-version would have aimed
at solving this tension. Thus it emphasized the stability of Solomons power by sit-
uating the fortications and works, not in Israel proper, as the LXX does, but out-
side Israel, and by reducing the indigenous Canaanites to mere participants of the
corve and to tax-payers. Schenkers hypothesis is capable of accounting for a num-
ber of dierences between MT and the Greek, but it also raises several problems
that are dicult to solve. In the rst place, the hypothesis does not adequately
explain the reason for the insertion of vv. 1617a in 1 Kgs. 9. As Schenker him-
self admits (Corve, 162; Septante, 57), these verses suggest a strong military pres-
ence of the Canaanites and military weakness on the part of Solomon, who apparently
was not able to capture the city of Gezer. Undoubtedly, the passage is damaging
to the picture of undisputed power and peace under Solomons hegemony that is
presented by the surrounding verses and elsewhere in 1 Kings. Schenker claims
that this tension is a consequence of the revisers intervention with the original
account (Corve, 16061; Septante, 5556), but it is dicult to see why a reviser
would 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 Schenkers proposal is its failure to account for the position held by
the MT-version in ch. 9. As it stands now, vv. 1525 disrupt the narrative conti-
nuity between v. 14 and vv. 2628 that can be observed in the LXX. It remains
obscure how this position should be explained in terms of narrative strategy.
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
THE ACCOUNT OF SOLOMONS SIN
(1 KGS. 11: 183 REG. 11: 18)
The account of Solomons apostasy has come down to us in two
versions widely divergent from each other. The main dierence
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: 18:
1a ka basilew Salvmvn n filognaiow :: : ::: ::: 1a
1b ka san at ::: 3a
::
rxousai ptaksiai :: .:: ::
ka pallaka triaksiai :: ::: :::c:
1ca ka laben
1cb gunakaw llotraw ::: 1b
::
ka tn yugatra Farav .c::
Mvabtidaw ::::
Ammantidaw :::.
Sraw
ka Idoumaaw : . . .
:.
Xettaaw
ka Amorraaw
2a k tn ynn ::: 2
n pepen kriow tow uow Israhl :: ::: :: :
ok eselesesye ew atow : :::
ka ato ok eselesontai ew mw :: ::: :
2b m kklnvsin tw kardaw mn :::: :: :
psv edlvn atn :
2c ew atow kollyh Salvmvn ::: ,: :
to gapsai ::
4a ka genyh n kair grouw Salvmvn ::: :, .: : 4aa
4b ka ok n karda ato telea :: :::: :: 4b
met kurou yeo ato :: :.
kayw karda Dauid to patrw ato :: : ::::
4c ka jklinan a gunakew :: ::: . . . 4ab
The structure of the narrative in 3 Reg. 11: 18 may be outlined
as follows:
V. 1a Introductory statement Solomons many wives and con-
cubines.
Vv. 1b2b Solomons 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).
Solomons love for his foreign wives
(v. 2c).
Vv. 46 Development of In his old age: Faltering commit-
Solomons apostasy ment to YHWH, unlike David
(v. 4ab).
1
The Ant. manuscripts o and c
2
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).
solomons sin 203
a lltriai
tn kardan atou ::::
psv yen atn :
5 tte kodmhsen Salvmvn chln :: ::: :: 7a
t Xamvw ::::: 7ba
edl Mvab ::: ,:
ka t basile atn :::: 7c
edl un Ammvn ::. :: ,:
6 ka t
Astrt :. 5ba
bdelgmati Sidvnvn :. :
7 ka otvw pohsen :. :: 8
psaiw taw gunaijn ato taw llotraiw ::: ::::::
yumvn ::,:
ka yuon
1
::::
tow edloiw atn ::
8 ka pohsen Salvmvn t ponhrn .::: :.: 6
npion kurou : :.:
ok poreyh :: ::
psv kurou :
Foreign wives turn his heart away
after their gods (v. 4c).
He builds high places for the idols
of his foreign wives (vv. 57).
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 Solomons 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 Solomons appetite for women was the
main cause of his unfaithfulness towards YHWH. Solomons desire
to include foreign women in his harem caused him to disregard the
prohibition of Deut. 7: 14 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. Solomons
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 kings 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. 57 proceed to list the tangible consequences
of Solomons 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: Solomons heart is no longer at one with YHWH because his
wives led it astray. An alternative explanation would be that owing to the crum-
bling of Solomons fervour for YHWH (v. 4a), he is no longer able to resist the
temptation 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 Solomons
heart, means to say that in his old age Solomons 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: 18:
solomons sin 205
1a ka basilew Salvmvn n filognaiow :: : ::: ::: 1a
1cb gunakaw
llotraw ::: 1b
::
ka tn yugatra Farav .c::
Mvabtidaw ::::
Ammantidaw :::.
Sraw
ka Idoumaaw : . . .
:.
Xettaaw
ka Amorraaw
2 k tn ynn ::: 2a
n pepen kriow tow uow Israhl :: ::: :: :
ok eselesesye ew atow : :::
ka ato ok eselesontai ew mw :: ::: :
m kklnvsin tw kardaw mn :::: :: : 2b
psv edlvn atn :
ew atow kollyh Salvmvn ::: ,: : 2c
to gapsai ::
1b ka san at ::: 3a
rxousai ptaksiai :: .:: :: ::
ka pallaka triaksiai :: ::: :::c:
::: ::: ::: 3b
4a ka genyh n kair grouw Salvmvn ::: :, .: : 4aa
4c ka jklinan a gunakew :: ::: . . . 4ab
a lltriai
tn kardan ato ::::
psv yen atn :
4b ka ok n karda ato telea :: :::: :: 4b
met kurou yeo ato :: :.
kayw karda Dauid to patrw ato :: : ::::
::: :: 5a
6 t Astrt :. 5ba
bdelgmati Sidvnvn :. :
::: : 5bb
::. ,:
The structure of the account in MT is rather dierent from that in
the LXX:
Vv. 13 Origin of Solomons sin Solomon loves many foreign wives
(vv. 12), thereby transgressing the
Deuteronomic prohibition on inter-
marriage (v. 2a).
Explanation of the rationale behind
the prohibition (v. 2b).
Solomons love for his foreign wives
(v. 2c).
The number of wives and concu-
bines (v. 3a); they lead his heart
astray (v. 3b).
Vv. 48 Development and nature In his old age: Foreign women lead
of Solomons apostasy his aheart astray (v. 4a); by conse-
quence, Solomon not fully com-
mitted to YHWH like David (v. 4b).
Solomons apostasy with foreign
gods (v. 5).
Censure of Solomons apostasy:
Doing evil in the eyes of YHWH;
Solomon not fully committed to
YHWH like David (v. 6).
Outward signs of Solomons apos-
tasy: Building high places and
getting involved in idol worship (vv.
78).
8 ka pohsen Salvmvn t ponhrn . ::: :.: 6
npion kurou : :.:
. . . ok poreyh :: ::
psv kurou :
t Xamvw ::::: 7ba
edl Mvab ::: ,:
: 7bb
::: :c:. :
ka t basile atn :::: 7c
edl un Ammvn ::. :: ,:
7 ka otvw pohsen :. :: 8
psaiw taw gunaijn ato taw llotraiw ::: ::::::
yumvn ::,:
ka yuon ::::
tow edloiw atn ::
As it stands, the section in MT falls into two parts. Vv. 13 deal
with the background of Solomons sin; vv. 48 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 rst 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 Solomons 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 Solomons
wives and concubines, foreign and indigenous alike. The high num-
ber of foreign women implied by MT increases the extent of Solomons
violation of the Deuteronomic prohibition. V. 3b shows that the con-
cern expressed by v. 2c appears to be justied: Solomons foreign
wives are leading him astray.
The second part of the section starts o 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 Solomons apostasy. The chrono-
logical setting of v. 4 and subsequent verses is indicated by : +
time-note in v. 4a. V. 5 and vv. 78 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
Solomons conduct at v. 4b and v. 6 which contrast Solomons 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
solomons 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 rst the issue of the alien origin of Solomons 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 fullment 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 Solomons
eorts 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 YHWHs 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 ts 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
oers the theological verdict of 1 Kgs. 11: 6 in a more natural posi-
tion, i.e., at v. 8.
The dierent arrangement of subject matter causes the image of
Solomon that emerges from either version to be dierent too. In
MT Solomon is presented as a sinner from the outset. The order
of vv. 13 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 Solomons harem is exclusively composed of
non-Israelite women. Solomon only made the mistake to include for-
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 Solomons
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 Solomons apostasy. However, it is dicult
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 reected by the LXX.
4
It proves less dicult 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 eort to mitigate the negative image of Solomon. It appears that
due to a dierent 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 Solomons 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 another
problem as well. If we suppose that MT added the statement and Solomon went
after . . . in v. 5 in order to make Solomons apostasy explicit, it is plausible to
assume that it borrowed the deities mentioned in the second part of the verse from
the Vorlage of 3 Reg. 11: 56 (indicated as Reg.*). In that case, we are forced to
assume 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 inexplicable
variation!), and abstained from either doubling or transposing the reference to
Chemosh in 3 Reg.* 11: 5 (see the scheme on page 210).
solomons sin 209
1 Kgs. 11: 13, the LXX has broken up the identity of both
groups, thereby eectively reducing the extent of Solomons 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: 56).
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 altogether
may be that the citation of 1 Kgs. 11: 7 (3 Reg.* 11: 56) in 2 Kgs. 23: 13 makes
also 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: 56 into conformity
with 2 Kgs. 23: 13.
::: :: 5a
:. : :. 5ba
::. ,: ::: : 5bb
t Xamvw edl Mvab ::: ,: ::::: 7ba
: 7bb
::: :c:. :
ka t basile atn edl un Ammvn ::. :: ,: :::: 7c
6 ka t Astrt bdelgmati Sidvnvn
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 dierent 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
Solomons culpability.
7
There is good reason, however, to regard the
lectio dicilior 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 a
rendering of : Hishtaphal. Perhaps the LXX and the Ant. text reect two dierent
interpretations of a reading :.(): in the Hebrew source text: In the LXX :.():
was interpreted as if it were a form of the Aramaic verb :., to do; in the Ant.
text it was taken as a form of the Hebrew verb :., to serve (correction of the
LXX?). However, it is somewhat improbable that a Hebrew text ever contained
the phrase :.: :.():, because when :. is used in the sense to serve a deity
it is normally construed with an object without prexed preposition : (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 dicult
and unspecic epoihsen. The verb poiein + dat. can be used to render :. + :,
to be active in favour of (e.g., in 4 Reg. 17: 32), but it is doubtful whether in
v. 33 epoihsen t Astart actually reects :.: :.: in the Vorlage. Here the
view is favoured that epoihsen replaced prosekunhsan (t Astart) in the original
Greek 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: 56; 14:
716) and should be interpreted in a redaction-critical rather than a recension-crit-
ical manner (thus also Barthlemy, Critique textuelle, 363; Noth, Knige, 243). Though
the 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 of
the text, but an emendation of (proto-)MT.
solomons sin 211
11: 33 ny n katlipn me :::. : . 11: 33
ka pohsen
6
::::
t Astrt bdelgmati Sidvnvn :. : :.:
ka t Xamvw ka tow edloiw Mvab ::: : :::::
ka t basile atn :::::
prosoxysmati un Ammvn ::.:: :
ka ok poreyh n taw dow mou :: :::::
to poisai t eyw npion mo :.: : ::.:
:c::: ,:
in 3 Reg. 11: 56. 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. 56. Moreover, the LXX of v. 33 brings the addressee of the
punishment in v. 32 into line with the sinner who has elicited YHWHs
anger (cf. vv. 911). 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. 58 and 1113 and thus does not eectively increase
Solomons guilt. In another respect the LXX of v. 33 rather seems
concerned to tone down the harsh qualication of Solomon as an
idol worshipper.
10
It leaves the verb form ::: which, when changed
into the singular, would qualify Solomon as an idolater, unrepre-
sented. Instead of presenting a rendering of ::: the LXX pre-
sents a verb which is unspecic about the nature of Solomons
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: 56. In that case, the choice of the verb may have been
inuenced 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 briey indicated: In v. 10: +
o yeow, either in opposition to yevn etervn in v. 10 or as assimilation to kuriou
yeou Israhl of v. 9. In v. 11: ek xeirow sou for MT :.:, assimilation to ek xeirow
Salvmvn (MT ::: :) in v. 31. In vv. 1213: forms of lambanein for forms of
MT .,, assimilation to v. 34. In v. 13: + thn polin, harmonization to v. 32. In
v. 29: taw entolaw mou kai ta prostagmata mou for MT ,: :, assimilation
to ch. 3: 14 and 9: 6 (or alteration in accordance with the standard formula my
commandments and my ordinances; see page 149). In v. 29: + kai apesthsen
auton ek thw odou, and stood him o from the road, addition intended to rec-
oncile the statements and Ahijah . . . found him in the way and they two were
alone in the eld in the same verse (thus see Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 303).
In v. 32 and v. 36: (ta) duo skhptra for MT () :::(), correction in accor-
dance with vv. 3031. Strangely enough, the correction has not been carried out
in v. 13: skhptron en. Rahlfs supposes that the text was left uncorrected here da
die Zahl der brigen Stmme nicht genannt wird (Septuaginta-Studien, [459]). However,
as a result v. 13 is in conict with v. 36. The reviser of the text represented by
the 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.
wives). At any rate, the alteration eectively deletes the reference
to Solomons idolatry from the text.
Now 1 Kgs. 11 contains another reference to Solomons idolatry
in vv. 1011 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:
Solomons 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: 18, we nd that many
divergencies from the MT-version can be explained adequately as
part of a revision that aimed at reducing the gravity of Solomons
sin (verse numbers are according to MT):
1. The desire to separate the issue of Solomons 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 (::).
2. Wishing to avoid the suggestion that all of Solomons wives turned
his heart away after their godsthis would imply that his entire
harem was composed of foreign womenthe 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 superuous. This explains why
v. 5bb has no exact equivalent in the LXX.
solomons 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: 56.
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 dierent
line of narrative logic: In Solomons old age, his heart was not
at one with YHWH anymore so that his foreign wives could turn
it after their gods. In attributing Solomons weakness to his old
age, the reviser may have tried to provide some excuse for the
kings behaviour.
Not all changes can be related to the above-mentioned tendency,
however. A few dierences 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 Solomons apostasy, to the end of the account.
Interestingly, the tendency to downplay Solomons 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 bdelugma
Sidvnivn, the abomination of the Sidonians, whereas the cor-
responding verses in MT describe the goddess neutrally as :
:.. 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 qualications
of Ashtoreth and Milcom could represent :.: and :,: in the
Vorlage, but may also derive from the translator or a later reviser
of the Greek text.
2. It is standard practice in 3 Regum to render : as yeoi when
the former term is meant to be understood as a reference to (for-
eign) gods.
12
In 3 Reg. 11: 18, however, the translator employed
not only yeoi but also eidvloi.
13
He thus rendered : of
v. 2b and : 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
Solomons wives.
15
Evidently, the translator took interest in elab-
orating this contrast, for instead of oering a literal rendering for
: of v. 4ab he opted for yevn autvn, thereby creating
a pure contrast with kuriou yeou autou (LXX v. 4b).
3. : is usually rendered with (forms of ) legein in the LXX. How-
ever, in v. 2 apeipen is used to render :. The Greek, mean-
ing he spoke disapprovingly, represents an ad sensum rendering.
Other divergencies may not reect intention:
1. mh in v. 2 does not present a literal rendering of :, 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 : in the sense of Syriac
ms[@, so that.
17
It is, however, signicant that both the Peshi ta
12
Cf. Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 316.
13
Perhaps bdelugma (v. 6, v. 33) too, if this term does not reect :.: in the
Vorlage.
14
Similarly, 3 Reg. 11: 33 oers eidvloiw Moab for MT ::: :. The plural
of the Greek results from the reading ::: ::: in the Vorlage. The presence of
copula and preposition before : compelled the translator not to render :
::: as an apposition to ::::, as he had correctly done in v. 5, but to regard the
::: : as a separate group and to translate accordingly: kai toiw eidvloiw Moab.
The translators 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 t the occurrence of yeoi at 3 Reg. 11: 10 (kuriow
o yeowyevn etervn).
16
Contra Noth, Knige, 241; cf. Mulder, 1 Kings 111, 551.
17
Thus Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 245; HALAT, 46, treats :, so that, as
a separate lemma. Knoppers, in making the false claim that the Peshi ta presents
m_[@ in v. 2, seems to have misunderstood Montgomery-Gehman (Two Nations, I,
142).
solomons sin 215
and Targum Jonathan present translations (AhcJ and ::, 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 c, so that. : of MT, then, may result
from a reading error in the transmission process.
18
2. The phrase ouk eporeuyh opisv kuriou suggests : : :
rather than : :: : of MT. When it occurs in a reli-
gious context, the expression : 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 :: , to
follow completely, on the other hand, is always construed with
: 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 reects
an initiative of the translator who was not familiar with the expres-
sion :: . Anyhow, it is dicult to see why a reviser of the
Hebrew text would have replaced :: by :.
A few items imply that MT is not completely identical with the
Hebrew source text underlying the LXX-version:
1. 3 Reg. 11: 56 call the gods of Moab and Ammon eidvloi though
they are referred to as .,:, abominations, in the corresponding
verses of MT. Considering its predilection for dysphemisms (see
above), the LXX would presumably have oered an accurate
translation of :,:, like prosoxyisma in v. 33, if the Vorlage had
contained that Hebrew word. Since eidvlon does not represent
:,: but : one may argue, as in fact several critics do,
20
that
the Vorlage of the LXX in vv. 56 actually read ::: : and
::.:: :. An observation that may support this assumption
is the circumstance that in v. 33 MT likewise speaks of ::: :
and ::.:: :. If the above analysis is correct, it follows that
18
Thus Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 121; Gray, Kings, 253; anda, Bcher der
Knige, 301.
19
The expression : : in 1 Kgs. 18: 21 is an exception that owes its
existence to the literary context in which the worship of Baal is contrasted with the
worship of YHWH.
20
Thus Gray, Kings, 253; Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 232; Noth, Knige, 241;
the occurrence of :,: in 1 Kgs. 11: 5, 7 represents a secondary
development vis--vis the Vorlage of the LXX.
2. The reading kai t basilei autvn in v. 5 and v. 33 goes back
to ::: in the Hebrew Vorlage. In the verse of MT correspond-
ing to v. 5 of the LXX, i.e., v. 7c, the form :: is found. The
originality of the reading ::: 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 t
basilei autvn does not reect any intention on the translators
part. The translator rendered :::, 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 Solomons foreign wives also show
dierences 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, :, closely resembles :
of MT, which corresponds to the fourth item of the LXX-list,
Idoumaiaw. The text-critical assessment of the dierence is dicult.
Several explanations may be considered: 1. : was lost in pre-
MT as a result of parablepsis; 2. The LXX may reect 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 Israels eastern neighbouring nations. However, even if
we consider the single reading of MT to be superior, we do not
have the certainty that : of MT presents the original read-
ing. The circumstance that 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.
solomons sin 217
list in the OT, suggests the possibility that v. 1 originally read
:.
2. The LXX does not oer an equivalent to MT :.. 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: 4c6; cf. 11: 33). Sidon is also men-
tioned in the list of Judg. 10: 6. No good reason comes to mind
why :. 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 Amorraiaw
was appended under the inuence of the latter passage. anda
suggests that Amorraiaw was added to bring the list in closer con-
formity with the prohibitions of Exod. 34: 1516, Deut. 7: 23,
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 nd 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 dierences and their background, we call
attention to one important issue. With regard to chs. 9 and 10 schol-
ars have frequently tried to explain dierences between the versions
of MT and the LXX against the background of the book Deutero-
nomy. For example, in Goodings 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: 1420). More conspicuously than the
account through chs. 9 and 10, the description of Solomons 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
latter chapter nd strong condemnation in Deuteronomy. This prompts
us to consider the dierences between the two versions of the account
of Solomons 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 Solomons sin in words that emphatically recall the regulation
in Deuteronomy. Nor does either version makes an eort to down-
play the fact that Solomon had many wives: Both 1 Kgs. 11: 3 and
3 Reg. 11: 1 list the number of Solomons wives and concubines.
The only notable dierence is that while the LXX clearly distin-
guishes between Solomons multiplication of women and Solomons
intermarriage, MT merely says in v. 1: And Solomon loved many
foreign women. Though the term many (:) provides a link with
Deut. 17: 17 (he shall not multiply [:]), this connection is super-
seded by the quotation of Deut. 7: 12. The arrangement in the
LXX, on the other hand, enables us to recognize Solomons 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 signicant that the LXX-version of the list of
foreign women, in spite of exhibiting several dierences 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 Solomons sin was subjected.
In this chapter we argued that the sequence dierences from MT
in the LXX-version of ch. 11 most likely result from an eort to
smooth out and rearrange the comparatively disordered account we
nd 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
solomons sin 219
The importance of the story of Solomons 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, aects 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 dierence in stance is not only brought about
by mere rearrangement of materials, but also by omissions, addi-
tions and word dierences. This enables us to recognize the improve-
ment of Solomons image as a genuine motive behind the revision.
But whereas several reorderings may have been carried out with a
view to improve Solomons 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 nd that
in 3 Reg. 11: 18 two tendencies converge: one towards improve-
ment of the order of the account and the other towards improve-
ment of Solomons image. As we have seen, there are more sections
in 3 Reg. 211 where both tendencies become apparent, e.g., in
the report of Solomons building activities in chs. 67 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 modications was a concern for logical order, a concern
for Solomons 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--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-
111, 548; Noth, Knige, 244; Provan, Hezekiah, 68, n. 31; Srki, Weisheit und Macht
Salomos, 213; Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 119; Talshir, Septuagint Edition, II;
Wrthwein, Erste Buch der Knige, 132. Among those who claim the primacy of the
LXX arrangement are Benzinger (Bcher der Knige, 77), Burney (Notes, 15254) and
Knoppers (Two Nations, I, 140).
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.
solomons sin 221
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
THE ACCOUNT OF SOLOMONS ADVERSARIES
(1 KGS. 11: 14253 REG. 11: 1425)
The section through 1 Kgs./3 Reg. 11: 1440 deals with Solomons
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: 2640 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 dier 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. 1422 and one on Rezon in vv. 2325. At
the beginning of each paragraph, the name of Solomons 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 Davids reign and another point of time in Solomons reign
(1 Kgs. 11: 15, 21, 24). Thus the following structure can be outlined:
1
1
An utterly dierent interpretation of the narrative and its internal division is
oered by Schenker (Septante, 11213). Schenker argues that the immediate context
of v. 23a implies that the person to whom God raises Rezon as an adversary is
Hadad rather than Solomon. Since Hadad becomes king of Aram (v. 25d) and
Rezon conquers Damascus (v. 24), the conict between them is situated in Aramean
territory. MT stresses the illegitimate origin of Solomons adversaries: Both Hadad
the Edomite and Rezon the general of mercenaries are depicted as usurpers.
Schenkers 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. 1422 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.
1516).
Hadads ight (:) to
Egypt (vv. 1718).
Hadads aliation with
Pharaohs family (vv. 1920).
Hadad request to return
(vv. 2122).
Vv. 2325 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:
Rezons ight (:) from
Hadadezer (v. 23b).
Rezon conquers Damascus
and becomes king (v. 24).
C. Rezons hostility to Israel
during Solomons 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 Hadads actions as an adversary of Solomon. One would expect
to nd an account of Hadads hostility towards Israel following the
episode of his stay in Egypt, but instead the narrative breaks o
abruptly after Hadads asking Pharaohs consent to return to Edom.
2
to Israel all the days of Solomon. Thus v. 25a is a counterpart to the introduction
of the Rezon paragraph in v. 23a. In view of this, the most natural assumption is
that him in v. 23a is meant to refer to Solomon. The parallelism between v. 14a
and v. 23a adds further weight to this identication. Moreover, Schenkers interpretation
of v. 23a is implausible from the perspective of narrative logic. It does not make
sense that YHWH raises a Zobaite or Aramean general, operating in Aramean
territory, 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: 1425 also raises
historical problems, which have been summarized by A. Lemaire as follows: 1. It
is improbable that there already existed an Edomite kingdom in Davids time (cf.
solomons 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 dicult:
And he (i.e., Rezon) was an adversary to Israel ::: :: : 25a
all the days of Solomon, ::: :::
and together with the harm .: 25b
which Hadad . . . :
And he felt a loathing at Israel ::: ,: 25c
and he became king over Aram. :. ::: 25d
The rst part of v. 25b does not connect with the preceding clause
and the relative clause introduced by : breaks o after the sub-
ject . Apart from these grammatical diculties, 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. 1516); 2. The name Hadad better suits an Aramean prince than an Edomite
prince; 3. The naval expeditions from Ezion-Geber (1 Kgs. 9: 2628) would have
been impossible if an Edomite kingdom hostile to Solomon existed at the same time
(A. Lemaire, Les premiers rois aramens dans la tradition biblique, in P.M.M.
Daviau, J.W. Wevers, and M. Weigl [eds.], The World of the Aramaeans I: Biblical
Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugne Dion [ JSOT.S 324], Sheeld 2001, 11343, esp.
130). The text-critical, literary, and historical diculties posed by vv. 1425 lead
Lemaire to posit an interprtation aramenne for these verses: All references to
Edom must be reconstructed as references to Aram. The entire section, then, recounts
the story of Hadad prince of Aram. In Lemaires view, v. 23 is best regarded as
an explicatory gloss on Hadad that attributes to him the title Rezon, i.e., prince
(Lemaire, Premiers rois aramens, 13134).
Lemaires proposal is attractive, not only because it solves historical problems
related to the MT-version but also because it alleviates the diculty of narrative
incoherence in that version. Nevertheless, his proposal also suers from serious aws:
1. The fact remains that MT makes a clear distinction between the two characters
Hadad and Rezon, which is underscored by formal features (cf. above). It is signicant
that the background information on Hadad and Rezon in v. 14 and v. 23 does
not contain the least indication (like the name of a common ancestor) of their being
related, let alone identical, to one another; 2. The explicit reference in v. 18 to
Paran and Midian, which are territories adjacent to Edom, strongly suggests that
the Edomite setting of the beginning of the story is original; 3. In support of his
view that MT vv. 2325a 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 aramens, 134). However, it does not seem likely that
the same gloss was inserted in dierent places in the Hebrew texts underlying MT
and the LXX. Moreover, the identity of Hadad and Rezon is implied neither in
the version of MT nor in that of the LXX; in the latter version, references to Ader
and 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
. is supposed to refer. A few scholars believe that in the origi-
nal narrative some explicit account on Hadads aggressions must
have intervened after verse 22.
3
If Hadad is removed or replaced
by a nite verb form (see below), other options may be considered.
The term might refer to the subsequent statement ::: ,:, And
he despised(?)
4
Israel.
5
In v. 27 the demonstrative pronoun is like-
wise used to refer to a subsequent statement (: : :, This
was the aair 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. Rezons action might have
ended Israelite rule over the town (cf. 2 Sam. 8: 6; see below); as
a consequence it could be interpreted as . for Israel.
Attempts to explain the absence of the predicate in v. 25b in terms
of Hebrew syntax fail to convince because similar elliptical :-
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 ,: (:, Qal) that is found in the Peshi ta, |\t@
(|Os Aphel), suggests that the translator has read ,.: (,:. Hiphil ipf. cons.), he
oppressed. The equivalent oered by the LXX, ebaruyumhsen, he was wrath-
ful, has likewise been taken to render ,. : (thus J.R. Bartlett, An Adversary against
Solomon, Hadad the Edomite, ZAW 88 [1976], 20526, esp. 214; Montgomery-
Gehman, Kings, 246), but the somewhat unusual verb rather presupposes ,: (thus
Noth, Knige, 242; Mulder, 1 Kings 111, 577). In favour of the reading ,.: one
may argue that it makes the evil that Rezon brought to Israel concrete. On the
other hand, ,:. Hiphil requires as a following preposition : rather than :, and it
is historically improbable that Rezon oppressed Israel (Montgomery-Gehman, Kings,
246; Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 125). Thus Barthlemy (Critique textuelle, 362)
concluded that Le verbe ,: du *M est bien en place ici au sens prgnant de
refus de lautorit aboutissant sinsurger contre elle, sens que ce verbe a en Nb
22, 3 et en Pr 3, 11. However, there is still another option, as Lemaire has pointed
out recently: ,: can be construed as an ipf. cons. from the verb .,/:,/.,
(HALAT, 1051a, 1019a, 1047ab), to cut o (Lemaire, Premiers rois aramens,
133). In 2 Kgs. 10: 32 this verb is used to refer to the victories of Hazael, king of
Aram, over Israel. As the narrative contexts of 1 Kgs. 11: 25 and 2 Kgs. 10: 32
resemble one another, Lemaires proposal is certainly attractive.
5
Barthlemy (Critique textuelle, 362) takes the same view with regard to the read-
ing of v. 25b attested by the LXX. Emendation of MT : to , of course, also
requires to see v. 25b as a reference to what comes next (cf. Bartlett, An Adversary
against Solomon, 214).
6
Thus Bartlett, An Adversary against Solomon, 214: can be used to point
ahead 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) . . .
least.
7
Even if a syntactic explanation were acceptable, this would
not do anything to solve the other diculties noted. In view of this,
it is likely that the text of 1 Kgs. 11: 25b has suered from corruption.
This leads us to ask whether the original text can be recovered with
the help of the Versions:
7
Barthlemy (Critique textuelle, 36162), defending the originality of MT, trans-
lates en plus du malheur dont Hadad fut la cause. Noth (Knige, 240) and Wrthwein
(Erste Buch der Knige, 138) oer similar translations: Und dazu das Unglck/Unheil
das Hadad bedeutete. Barthlemy, following Knig ( 283a), refers to the occur-
rence of elliptical :-clauses in 1 Sam. 13: 8 and 2 Chron. 34: 22 which, like
v. 25b, require us to supplement a tting predicate. It is, however, highly doubt-
ful whether any of these instances reect the original Hebrew text rather than a
corrupt form of it.
8
P.S.F. van Keulen, A Case of Ancient Exegesis: The Story of Solomons
Adversaries (1 Kgs. 11: 1425) in Septuaginta, Peshitta, and Josephus, in J. Cook
(ed.), Bible and Computer. The Stellenbosch AIBI-6 Conference. Proceedings of the Association
Internationale Bible et Informatique From Alpha to Byte. University of Stellenbosch 1721
July, 2000, Leiden/Boston 2002, 55571, esp. 56064.
9
Thus Gray, Kings, 263; Hrozn , Abweichungen, 71; Knoppers, Two Nations, I, 161;
226 chapter fifteen
MT . . . ,: : .:
Targum Jon . . . :: :. :: : = . . . (?),.: :. : .:
LXX auth h kakia hn epoihsen Ader kai ebaruyumhsen . . . = . . . ,: :. : .
Vulgate et hoc est malum Adad et odium . . . = (?) . . . : .
Peshi ta . . . |\t@ JJLN KDsJ @\C es (free exegetical modication of MT)
The Versions present texts that are less problematic than MT. The
LXX, Targum, and Peshi ta represent a nite verb form he did
in v. 25b. The LXX and Vulgate, moreover, read a demonstrative
pronoun (presumably reecting Hebrew ) for MT :, 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 oer 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 of MT
v. 25d. As a consequence 3 Reg. 11: 25b, rather than interrupting
the Rezon paragraph through vv. 2325, 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 reects
a stage of the Hebrew text prior to that of MT.
10
Serious objections, however, may be raised against attempts to
overcome the textual diculties presented by v. 25 on the basis of
the LXX. First, MT is dicult 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 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 :. was lost,
since it cannot be missed in the clause :. : 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. 2225 in the LXX is the result of secondary revision.
The only reading represented by the Versions that has a good chance
of reecting the original Hebrew is , 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 specic emendation.
12
10
Gray, Kings, 263; Hrozn , Abweichungen, 71; Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 237,
240; anda, Bcher der Knige, 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
[. . .] : ., This is the harm that he has brought down [. . .]. The
emendation is based upon 2 Sam. 15: 14: . :::. :, and he [sc.
Absalom] will bring evil upon us. In MT this is the only occurrence of the expres-
sion :. . . BDB (623), KBL (597), and ThWAT V (259) take of
The LXX-version shows a wide variety of deviations from MT: pluses
and minuses, word dierences, and sequence dierences. The most
striking feature is that the passage numbered vv. 2325a in MT
appears as the central part of v. 14 in the LXX:
2 Sam. 15: 14 to be the Hiphil of :, thrust, impel, drive out; HALAT
(636) distinguishes between : I and II and identies as the Hiphil of : 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.
1422) may have occasioned corruption of into . Admittedly, in 1 Kgs.
11: 25b we nd no preposition :. followed by an indirect object. If :. is taken
as part of the verbal valency pattern of , the conjecture proposed in v. 25b is
improbable.
228 chapter fifteen
14aa ka geiren kriow satan t Salvmvn :::: :: : ,: 14a
14ab tn Ader tn Idoumaon :
14b ka tn Esrvm un Eliadae tn n Raemay {cf. MT 2325a}
Adrazar basila Souba krion ato
ka sunhyrosyhsan p atn ndrew
ka n rxvn sustrmmatow
ka prokatelbeto tn Damasek
ka san satan t Israhl
psaw tw mraw Salvmvn
14ca ka Ader Idoumaow
14cb k to sprmatow tw basileaw :: .: 14b
n Idouma& :: :
[1522b] [1522]
22c ka nstrecen Ader ew tn gn ato
{cf. LXX 14b} :: :: : ,: 23
.:: :
. : : :
:: ::.::
:: ::. :,: 24
::: :
: ::
,:: ::::
: ::::
,::: :::::
::: :: : 25a
::: :::
25b ath kaka .: 25b
n pohsen Ader :
25c ka baruymhsen n Israhl ::: ,: 25c
25d ka basleusen n g Edvm :. ::: 25d
Other dierences involve the reading Edom in v. 25 for Aram
of MT and the occurrence of a note stating Hadads return from
Egypt to Edom in v. 22c. The main eect of these dierences is
that from v. 14c onward LXX oers 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. 1425 Solomons adversaries A. Introduction: YHWH raises up
as adversaries to Solomon Ader,
Esrom, and Adrazar (v. 14ab).
B. History of Ader (vv. 14c25).
1. Introduction (v. 14c).
2. Flash-back (vv. 1522c).
Joab terrorizing Edom (vv.
1516).
Aders ight to Egypt (vv.
1718).
Aliation with Pharaohs
family (vv. 1920).
Aders request to return
(vv. 2122ab).
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:
1425. Whereas MT deals with Hadad and Rezon as gures 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 diculties which aected 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
Hadad did in v. 25b is contextually appropriate. Second, unlike MT,
the LXX neatly concludes the section on Hadads stay in Egypt by
a note on his return to Edom in v. 22c.
The dierence in narrative structure between the versions of MT
and the LXX is basically caused by the dierent position held by
the Rezon paragraph. A large share of signicant 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. 2325a and the corresponding
verses of the LXX brings to light the following dierences:
:: :: : ,: 23a
14ba ka
tn Esrvm un Eliadae .:: :
tn n Raemay : : : 23b
Adrazar .
basila Souba krion ato :: ::.::
14bb ka sunhyrosyhsan p atn ndrew :: ::. :,: 24aa
ka n rxvn sustrmmatow ::: : 24ab
: :: 24ag
ka prokatelbeto tn Damasek ,:: :::: 24ba
: :::: 24bb
,::: ::::: 24bg
14bg ka san satan t Israhl ::: :: : 25a
psaw tw mraw Salvmvn ::: :::
1. ton en Raemay reects the corruption/misreading :(): :.
The manuscripts exhibit many variants. At least LXX B and the
Ant. manuscripts present forms which show that :(): was
read as the preposition : followed by a toponym.
13
The similar-
ity of these forms to LXX transcriptions of (.::) :: (Ramoth
Gilead)
14
may suggest that the translator took :(): to be a
reference to that town. The corruption/misreading of : : 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 e
2
; ton ek Ramay c
2
; 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 Hadadezers utter defeat
against David in 2 Sam. 8: 312. 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
tting to a local prince in search of a base of power than to a
king like Adrazar.
2. kai sunhyroisyhsan ep auton matches :: :.: ,:, And (men)
were gathered unto him.
3. The LXX does not render : :: (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 sux must
be considered unfortunate.
17
In the LXX no diculty arises as
15
In fact, the Ant. manuscripts read kai ton Adraazar. In all likelihood, kai
ton 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 refers
to Esrom, and his to Ader. Thus the male gure referred to in the ensuing
v. 14bb is also Ader. Schenkers interpretation, however, requires that Adrazar in
v. 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 sense
rather than as the name of a person. Hadadezer of Zobah is mentioned several
times 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 is
not clearly indicated as a distinct person in v. 14ba. However, the reason for this
can be easily surmised. Comparison of v. 14ba with the corresponding portion of
MT 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 rst kai in v. 14ba should
not be taken into account here, since its addition is editorial (see below). May be
the translator stuck as close to the Hebrew as possible because he did not under-
stand his Vorlage due to corruption (or misreading) of : :.
17
To overcome the problem, Gray (Kings, 266, n. c) proposes to read for
MT , while Burney (Notes, 163) and Noth (Knige, 254) hold the phrase to be a
marginal gloss to v. 23b which entered the text at a wrong place.
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 :::, he
seized, instead of ::::, 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 ::,
the marauding band led by Rezon (v. 24a).
5. The clauses : :::: and ,::: ::::: (v. 24bbg) are not repre-
sented in the LXX.
19
In MT, the second clause poses a diculty
with respect to the plural ::::: (Qal). Either we must translate
ad sensum they ruled as kings or emend ::::::, 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 :::: do not link
up well with kai prokatelabeto, may have caused the translator
to leave both clauses altogether untranslated.
21
The remaining dierences between 3 Reg. 11: 14b and 1 Kgs. 11:
2325a relate to the divergent settings in which the corresponding
passages occur in the LXX and MT:
1. The introduction to MT vv. 2325a 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 support
from the fact that the phrase is lacking in the Ant. texts. Its absence is striking
because all other passages through 1 Kgs. 11: 1425 which lack a rendering in
LXX B are translated by the Ant. text (like the nal clause of v. 18 and v. 24bbg).
19
The Ant. manuscripts b o c
2
e
2
, however, do contain a rendering of v. 24bbg:
kai ekayisen en aut kai ebasileusen en Damask. It may represent a later addi-
tion based on MT that was tailored to t in with prokatelabeto of the OG.
20
Cf. Noth, Knige, 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, this
explanation ignores the connection between the absence of this passage in the LXX
and 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) suced.
2. The forms of the concluding notes in 3 Reg. 11: 14bg and
1 Kgs. 11: 25a t 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: 2324, 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 :::: of MT, ::: 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 dicult
to tell to what extent the form of the Greek text of v. 14b reects
intention. On the one hand, the LXX, by mentioning three adver-
saries to Solomon rather than two and implying Israels loss of
Damascus, makes the reverse of Solomons 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:
2325a are printed in italics. Note that the phrase kai Ader o
Idoumaiow 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 refers
to one gure only, either Esrom or Adrazar.
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.
2325a. 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. 2325b, since at the latter point it rudely inter-
rupts the Hadad story (vv. 1422, v. 25b). Conversely, it is con-
ceivable that the unfortunate position of the paragraph in vv. 2325a
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. 2325a 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 reect 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, 16263; G. Vanoni, Literarkritik und Grammatik: Untersuchung
der Wiederholungen und Spannungen in 1 Kn 1112 (ATSAT 21), St. Ottilien 1984,
4243.
24
Thus Vanoni, Literarkritik und Grammatik, 43.
25
Schenker (Septante, 11314) 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: 2022. 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 Hadads ight and his stay in Egypt. We
restrict ourselves to discussing the most important issues, namely the
story of Hadads ight and return:
17a ka pdra Ader :: 17a
atw ka pntew ndrew Idoumaoi : ::: :
tn padvn to patrw ato :: :.:
met ato :
17b ka eslyon ew Agupton .: ::: 17b
ka Ader paidrion mikrn :, .: :
18aa ka nstantai ::,: 18aa
ndrew
k tw plevw Madiam ::
ka rxontai ew Faran c :::
18ab ka lambnousin ndraw met atn :. :: :,: 18ab
c:
ka rxontai :::
.:
prw Farav .c:
basila Agptou .:::
18ba ka eslyen Ader prw Farav 18ba
18bb ka dvken at okon : ::: 18bb
ka rtouw ditajen at :: : :
:
:: : :
MT recounts the ight 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 nd 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 eort to solve a problem
the control of Judah only during the reign of king Jehoram. Schenkers proposal is
based on the assumption that MT in v. 25d refers to Hadads kingship of Aram.
However, this is quite implausible, as was argued above in n. 1.
caused by the transmitted Hebrew text. The problem turns on the
LXX reading of v. 17b. MT v. 17 states that Hadad ed in the
company of Edomite men in order to come to Egypt. For :::
the LXX reads kai eishlyon (Ant. text: eishlyen), and they (Ant.
text: he) went into (Egypt), which reects ::: (Ant. text: :::) 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 Hadads 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 Hadads visit to Pharaoh
that would otherwise remain unclear, it also claries 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
identication 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 Hadads return
from Egypt in 3 Reg. 11: 22:
22bg ka nstrecen Ader ew tn gn atou 22
26
Thus also Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 123.
236 chapter fifteen
In the LXX, this note records Pharaohs compliance with what
Hadad requested him earlier:
21b ka epen Ader prw Farav .c: :: 21b
japsteiln me :::
ka postrcv ew tn gn mou .: ::
In MT, the outcome of Hadads entreaty is not reported; as a con-
sequence the account breaks o abruptly after recording Hadads
renewed request to Pharaoh. In all likelihood, the narrative origin-
ally contained some note on Hadads 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 reects a logical and neces-
sary supplement to the text based on the nal clause of v. 21b.
The passages from vv. 1522 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 reected by the LXX took place is dicult 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: 1425 contains two
dierent 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
Dierently Montgomery-Gehman, Kings, 240.
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN 3 REGUM AND CHRONICLES
VIS--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 4QSam
a,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 dierent 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 reected by MT.
1
The features shared by 3 Regum and Chronicles over against 1
Kings concern both agreements in arrangement and inner-textual
anities. 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 Aulds view, certain omissions in Chronicles and
sequence dierences in 3 Regum combine to demonstrate that much
1
According to F.M. Cross, both the Vorlage of the OG of Samuel and Kings
and the text employed by Chronicles belonged to the Palestinian text tradition
which diered sharply from the (Babylonian) tradition represented by MT (History
of the Biblical Text, 29495). See also Gooding, Relics, 130, n. 122a; Trebolle
Barrera, Centena, 21; id., Redaction, Recension, and Midrash, 3031; id., Salomn
y Jerobon, 359.
2
A.G. Auld, Kings without Privilege, Edinburgh 1994, 10; cf. id., Solomon at
Gibeon, 5*7*.
material of Kings consists of late, redactional, additions. Thus the
accounts of Solomons reign in 3 Regum and Chronicles have in
common over against Kings that they do not start with a note on
Solomons 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 dierent from 1 Kings would indicate
that the redactional materials were inserted at dierent 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 signicance of this group of
agreements and the thorough refutation of Aulds theory by Talshir
render further discussion superuous here.
More important, both quantitatively and qualitatively, are the
diverse anities 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
dierent 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 aliated, 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 insignicant 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--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 dierent
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
:: : ti e lhyw :: : ti e lhyw
: :: katoiksei yew : :: katoiksei yew
met nyrpvn met nyrpvn
:. p tw gw :. p tw gw
1 Kgs. 8: 29 3 Reg. 8: 29 2 Chron. 6: 20 2 Par. 6: 20
:: :: mraw ka nuktw ::: :: mraw ka nuktw
1 Kgs. 8: 66 3 Reg. 8: 66 2 Chron. 7: 10 2 Par. 7: 10
::::: :. p tow gayow ::::. p tow gayow
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. 67. Since the high degree of correspondence is not likely to
result from similar translation technique alone, inuence 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 inuence from 3 Regum, although
there is disagreement on the extent and nature of this inuence.
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 dicult to tell whether the dierent 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
:: ka yusen :: ka yusasen
. . . basilew :: . . .
::: Salvmvn ::: Salvmvn
1 Kgs. 8: 7 3 Reg. 8: 7 2 Chron. 5: 8 2 Par. 5: 8
:::: ka perieklupton :::: ka suneklupten
5
M. Rehm believes that die bereits vorhandene griechische bersetzung der
Bcher Sm und Rg bei der bertragung der Chronik ausdrcklich bentzt wurde
(M. Rehm, Textkritische Untersuchungen zu den Parallelstellen der Samuel-Knigsbcher und
der Chronik [ATA 13/3], Mnster 1937, 47). L.C. Allen rather thinks of the trans-
lator being unconsciously inuenced 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 Chronicles
to 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 a
process of harmonization between them (G. Gerleman, Studies in the Septuagint II.
Chronicles, Lund 1946, 37). With regard to 1 Paralipomena, J.D. Shenkel takes the
view that apart from a number of recensional changes, the translator largely dupli-
cated the synoptic passages from 12 Regum ( J.D. Shenkel, A Comparative Study
of the Synoptic Parallels in 1 Paraleipomena and III Reigns, HThR 62 [1969],
6385, passim).
6
See Allen, Greek Chronicles, 19495, 200, 202, 205206.
1 Kgs. 8: 46 3 Reg. 8: 46 2 Chron. 6: 36 2 Par. 6: 36
: ew gn : ew gn
:: . . . . . . xyrn
. . . . . . . . . ew gn
::, : ,: makrn ka ggw ::, : ,: makrn ggw
1 Kgs. 10: 9 3 Reg. 10: 9 2 Chron. 9: 8 2 Par. 9: 8
. . . stsai ::.: to stsai atn
:.: ew tn ana ::.: ew ana
The rst 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
oered 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 dierent
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 reects 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
::, : ,:; cf. 2 Par. 6: 36), but not so in 3 Reg. 10: 9. There,
the absence of the pronoun auton indicates that in writing sthsai
the 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, 1920.
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 dierences 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 : : :::: 5: 25
ekosi xilidaw krouw puro : : : :.
ka maxir t ok ato ::: :::
ka ekosi xilidaw . . . :.:
bey laou kekommnou : :: :
2 Chron. 2: 9: And behold, as to the woodsmen, the man who
cut the timberI will give your servants 20,000 kors of ground
wheat, 20,000 kors of barley, 20,000 baths of wine and 20,000
baths of oil (: :. : :::).
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 nd
in the LXX a number of 200 baths as the equivalent of the 20 kor
of 1 Kgs. 5: 25. Actually, we nd 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 reect a text tradition that in 1 Kgs. 5: 25 was dierent
from that represented by MT.
8
Other minor cases are listed in McKenzie, 1 Kings 8, 1620.
9
10
Thus Barthlemy, Critique textuelle, 340.
3 Reg. 5: 2930
3 Reg. 5: 2930 1 Kgs. 5: 2930 2 Chron. 2: 17
ka n t Salvmvn :::: : : :.:
bdomkonta xilidew : .:: : .::
arontew rsin ::: :: :::
ka gdokonta xilidew : :::: : ::::
latmvn n t rei : :. : :.
(30) xvrw rxntvn :: :: (30)
tn kayestamnvn :.:
::::
p tn rgvn ::::. :
tn Salvmvn
trew xilidew c: ::: c: : :::
ka jaksioi :: :::: :: :: :
pisttai :.: .::
.: .
o poiontew t rga :::: :.
3 Reg. 2: 35h 1 Kgs. 9: 23 2 Chron. 8: 10
ka otoi o rxontew : : : ::
o kayestamnoi :.: :.:
p t rga ::::. : ::::
to Salvmvn :::: :::
trew xilidew :: ::
ka jaksioi :: :: : ::
pisttai
to lao .: .:
tn poiontvn t rga :::: :.
In 1 Kgs. 5: 2930 we nd the number of Solomons workers listed
as 70,000 bearers of burdens, 80,000 hewers in the mountains and
apart from Solomons supervising ocers 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 oers 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 reects 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, 14748.
244 chapter sixteen
possibility it may be argued that the dierent number in 1 Kgs. 5: 30
is easily explicable as a scribal error (:: ::: for original :: ::).
12
In other respects does the Greek of 3 Reg. 5: 30 not match the
Hebrew of 1 Kgs. 5: 30 either. A striking dierence concerns the
classes of captains in both passages. The syntax of 3 Reg. 5: 30
implies that the supervising ocers are to be separated from the
3,600 foremen. MT, however, identies the 3,600 foremen with the
supervising ocers, for the article in .: refers back to
the :.: : 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 oer a parallel for the rst part of 1 Kgs. 5: 30
mentioning the supervising ocers. The class of the arxontvn tvn
kayestamenvn, 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 briey con-
sider 3 Reg. 2: 35h. The number 3,600 of 3 Reg. 2: 35h diers
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 ocers with
the 3,600 foremen, 3 Reg. 5: 30 separates the supervising ocers from
the same 3,600 foremen.
In Goodings 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 reected 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
13
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
oered 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: 1525. The translator
of 5: 30 did not intend to dierentiate two groups, but the
dierentiation 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: 2941, which reckons 11 generations from Aaron
unto Zadok (reckoning inclusively).
15
3 Reg. 8: 1617
14
Thus also Krautwurst, Studien, 145. Krautwursts argument is dierent from
mine, however. In his opinion, the apparent interest taken in the numbers of work-
ers of Solomon by 5: 2930 requires that the number of supervising ocers is any-
how indicated in the text. This argument fails to convince me.
15
See page 127.
246 chapter sixteen
1 Kgs. 8: 1617 3 Reg. 8: 1617 2 Chron. 6: 57 2 Par. 6: 57
Since the day Since the day Since the day Since the day
when I brought when I brought when I brought when I brought
my 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 diculty, for
it constrasts formerly I have not chosen a city with then I have
chosen Jerusalem. In the context of a reection 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 tting 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.
cont.
1 Kgs. 8: 1617 3 Reg. 8: 1617 2 Chron. 6: 57 2 Par. 6: 57
out of Egypt out of Egypt out of the land of Egypt out of the land of Egypt
I have not chosen I have not chosen I have not chosen I have not chosen
a city a city a city a city
from all the tribes in any one tribe from all the tribes from all the tribes
of Israel of Israel of Israel of Israel
to build a house to build a house to build a house to build a house
that my name that my name that my name that my name
might be there might be there might be there might be there
and I have not chosen and I have not chosen
a man a man
that he might be prince that he might be prince
over my people Israel over my people Israel
but I have chosen (6) but I have chosen [and I have chosen
Jerusalem Jerusalem Jerusalem
that my name that my name that my name
might 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 chosen
David David David David
that he might be that he might be that he might be that he might be
over 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 was
in the heart in the heart in the heart in the heart
of 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 house
to 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: 56 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 (:: . . . ::) or homoioteleuton (. . . : :: ::
: :: ::).
17
The circumstance that thanks to fragment 7 of
4QKgs
18
the full text is now attested as part of the textual tradition
of Kings seems to conrm 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 Hebrischen Bibel, Bd. 7, Leipzig 1914, 232; Talshir,
Contribution, 40, n. 11; Tov, Textual Criticism, 23839; Trebolle Barrera, DJD
XIV, 177; Wevers, Textual History, 180; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 216.
18
See DJD XIV, 177, 180.
19
Tov, Textual Criticism, 23839; Trebolle Barrera, DJD XIV, 177; id., Text-
critical Use, 287.
248 chapter sixteen
made under the inuence 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 rst 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: 68, where YHWHs 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 dicilior 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 reected 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 denite 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: 46 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 111, 407; Stade-Schwally, Books of Kings, 103.
21
3 Reg. 10: 2626a
The last issue to be dealt with here is the most complicated of all.
At 3 Reg. 10: 2626a the LXX has not translated the text of MT
1 Kgs. 10: 26 but a Hebrew text matching 2 Chron. 9: 2526.
22
Moreover, the Greek of 3 Reg. 10: 2626a appears to be virtually
identical with the Greek translation of the Chronicles passage at 2
Par. 9: 2526. How to explain this most curious state of aairs?
Before setting out to answer this question, we must briey discuss
the Chronicles passage. 2 Chron. 9: 2526 forms part of a section
through vv. 2228 which as a whole runs parallel to 1 Kgs. 10:
2228. Vv. 2526, however, clearly diverge from what Kings oers
at the corresponding position at ch. 10. Only the second part of v.
25 takes up material from 1 Kgs. 10: 26.
23
The rst 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 dierence 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 aliations:
22
See the synopsis at the end of this chapter, pages 26364.
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 with
1 Kgs. 10: 26b (= 2 Chron 9: 25b; 1: 14b).
250 chapter sixteen
2 Chronicles 1 Kings
:: : 9: 24 :: : : 10: 25
::: : ::: :
: ::: :: : : : ::: :: : :
:::: ,:: ::::: :::: ,::: :::::
c: ::: c: :::
c ::: ::: : ::: :::
:::: : 9: 25 :::: : 5: 6
::: : c: .: ::: : : .:
::::: :::::
:c : :.::: :c : :.:::
:: .: :: :: .: :: 10: 26b
:: .: :: .:
:::: ::::
We see that the Chroniclers text through vv. 2427 is only a par-
tial parallel to 1 Kgs. 10: 2527. Now it is important to note that
the Chronicler has included the material of 1 Kgs. 10: 2629 ear-
lier in his account, namely at 2 Chron. 1: 1417. Due to its posi-
tion in Chronicles, there can be no doubt that 2 Chron. 9: 2228
represents the immediate parallel to 1 Kgs. 10: 2228. Yet, 2 Chron.
1: 1417 presents a more faithful rendering of 1 Kgs. 10: 2629
than 2 Chron. 9: 2528.
So we nd that the section covering 1 Kgs. 10: 2628 has been
rendered twice in Chronicles: the rst time at 2 Chron. 1 (vv. 1416)
and the second time at 2 Chron. 9 (vv. 2528). 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: 2626a ren-
ders 2 Chron. 9: 2526 or a Hebrew Vorlage ad locum. The issue here
is not whether the Hebrew Vorlage already saw the adoption of the
Chroniclers 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: 2526.
There are good reasons to answer this question in the negative.
In the rst place, with respect to the numbers given of Solomons
horses and chariots, 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles seem to contain two
categories of notes. One category refers to 4,000 or 40,000 :/:,
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.
:::: : 9: 26 :::: :::: 5: 1a?
:::::: ::::::::
:: ::
::c .: ::c
.: :::: .: .: :::: .:
:::: :: :: : 9: 27 :::: :: :: : 10: 27
::: :::
: :
:,:: : :,:: :
:: :c::: :: :c:::
10: 26 exhibits a passage of the second category, 3 Regum oers a
passage of the rst category (3 Reg. 10: 26). As a result this book
lacks a passage of the second category, but exhibits two passages of
the rst 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: 2626a renders a Hebrew text
in the Vorlage of 3 Regum that is identical with 2 Chron. 9: 2526
raises yet another problem.
25
As was noted above, the passage at 2
Chron. 1: 1417 is generally traced to 1 Kgs. 10: 2628. If a Hebrew
text identical with 2 Chron. 9: 2526 originally held the position of
1 Kgs. 10: 26, the possibility is ruled out that 2 Chron. 1: 1417
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: 1417 in 1 Kgs. 10:
2629 was borrowed from Chronicles rather than the other way
around. Perhaps the Chronicler had among his source-material two
dierent versions of Samuel-Kings, each presenting a dierent 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: 1417.
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: 1417 is considered to have been
borrowed from 1 Kgs. 10: 2629.
27
24
The argument has been put forward by Gooding in Text-sequence, 44863,
esp. 46061.
25
This view is taken by Rehm (Textkritische Untersuchungen, 98) and J. Hnel, who
states: Vielmehr sind G B [= LXX B of 3 Reg. 10: 2626a] wie Chronik [= 2
Chron. 9: 2526] nach einem lteren Text der Knigsbcher gearbeitet ( J. Hnel,
Die Zustze der Septuaginta in I Reg 2 35ao und 46al, ZAW 47 [1929], 7679,
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 der
Chronik von ihren Paralleltexten in den Samuel- und Knigsbchern (BZAW 226), Berlin/New
York 1995, 25152; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 196, 236. Especially Japhet (I
& II Chronicles, 52324, 532) and Kalimi (Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten, 252) point
out that the duplication of 1 Kgs. 10: 26f. in Chronicles served a literary purpose.
252 chapter sixteen
Therefore 3 Reg. 10: 2626a is more likely to be a rendering of
2 Chron. 9: 2526 than of an original passage in the Hebrew Vorlage.
28
Now this conclusion does not imply that vv. 2626a necessarily rep-
resent the original Greek translation of the Chronicles passage. It
will be remembered that the Greek of 2 Par. 9: 2526 is virtually
identical with 3 Reg. 10: 2626a. This leaves room for the possi-
bility that the passage in Regum was directly borrowed from 2 Par.
9: 2526. In fact, the simplest way to account for the Greek text in
vv. 2626a is by regarding it as a duplicate of the Paralipomena-
passage.
29
Nevertheless, we should also admit the possibility that 3
Reg. 10: 2626a presents the original Greek translation, which in a
later stage was taken over by 2 Par. 9: 2526.
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 inuenced Paralipomena, but also that sometimes the
reverse is the case, even to the extent that 3 Regum shows more
anity with MT Chronicles than with MT Samuel-Kings.
31
This
state of aairs 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 ts 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 :
32
in 2 Chron. 9: 25 and 3 Reg. 10: 26. In Chronicles
28
Cf. I. Benzinger (Die Bcher der Chronik [KHC 20], Tbingen 1901, 95), who
asserts that 3 Reg. 10: 2626a represent a nachtrgliche Korrektur on the basis
of 2 Chron. 9: 2526.
29
The following scholars have claimed the dependence of vv. 2626a on the
Paralipomena-parallel: Allen (Greek Chronicles, 202); Barthlemy (Critique Textuelle,
33839); Curtis-Madsen (Books of Chronicles, 359); Gooding (Text-sequence, 45663).
30
Thus Krautwurst, Studien, 189; Rehm, Textkritische Untersuchungen, 98.
31
See Allen, Greek Chronicles, 175f.; Rehm, Textkritische Untersuchungen, 34f.; Gerleman,
Studies in the Septuagint, 3035.
32
See for a overview of opinions on the meaning of this word G.I. Davies,
the only other occurrence of : appears in 2 Chron. 32: 28.
There, the Greek translator rendered it as fatnh, crib, trough.
33
This translation reects an understanding of the word utterly
dierent 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 ::: : 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 :::::. The same Greek phrase is found in 3 Reg. 2: 46i,
where in all likelihood it matches ::::: 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 :: 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 :::,
he had, which 2 Par. 1: 14 has translated as kai egeneto aut,
is rendered in 2 Par. 9: 25 by kai hsan t Salvmvn. These vari-
ations in rendering do not necessarily point to the activity of two
dierent translators. All the same, they suggest the possibility.
4. Two observations suggest that the verses immediately preceding
2 Par. 9: 2526 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 :::, spices, is arvmata.
34
URW T in 1 Kings 5: 6 (EVV. 4: 26) and the Assyrian Horse Lists, JSSt 34
(1989), 2538. Either : means something like stall, stable (thus Gesenius
18
,
96; HALAT, 82; Mulder, 1 Kings 111, 19495), or team (of horses). The latter
option gains probability in light of a recently excavated Aramean tablet containing
the phrase wrh.swsyn. wrn, a team of two white horses (see A. Lemaire, Nouvelles
tablettes aramennes [HEO 34], Genve 2001, 1415, 18). Orthographic variation
occurs in the pl. cs. form (: in 1 Kgs. 5: 6; : in 2 Chron. 9: 25).
33
Josephus, when paraphrasing 1 Kgs. 5: 6, likewise translates the Hebrew term
as 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 :::.
35
Furthermore, the term :: in 1 Kgs.
10: 24 and 2 Chron. 9: 23 is represented by fronhsiw in both
Greek translations. Elsewhere in Paralipomena, :: 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 ::.
In 3 Regum, on the other hand, fronhsiw is often found as a
rendering of ::.
36
If the translation of 2 Chron. 9: 2224 basi-
cally reproduces the corresponding passage of 3 Regum, there is
a good chance that vv. 2526 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: 2526 was copied from
3 Reg. 10: 2626a 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:
2626a 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 nding 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 rst 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: 2626a is roughly paralleled by the sequence vv. 46ik
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 ::: : 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.
comes close to the probable meaning of ::: :, stalls for horses.
This raises the possibility that the Hebrew Vorlage of the verses in 3
Regum diered slightly from what is presented by MT. Now it proves
to be dicult to link yhleiai ippoi with a Hebrew not too dierent
from MTs ::: :, but tokadew ippoi appears to oer a good
possibility. It is well conceivable that this translation goes back to
an interchange of and in the Vorlage, producing the reading :
:::,
37
mares carrying foals.
38
The expression yhleiai ippoi, then,
may be explained as a secondary, inner-Greek variant of tokadew
ippoi.
Several exegetes have claimed that the two Greek translations
tokadew ippoi and yhleiai ippoi reect 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 ::: : .
41
More probably, the Greek rendering at 3
Reg. 10: 26 was inuenced by the translation tokadew ippoi of 3
Reg. 2: 46i. The translator may have adopted from v. 46i the idea
37
: = pl. cs. , pregnant (HALAT, 245). However, there is no other
instance in MT where : is followed by a nomen rectum designating the identity
of the foetus. Therefore we should take the possibility into consideration that the
translator took : as a plural in the absolute state and ::: as an apposition to
it, thus disregarding the dierence in gender (which in fact might have been easy
for him because the female form ::: is extremely rare in the OT). The fact that
the phrase tokadew ippoi does not reveal a signicant eort on the translators part
to represent a genitive construction in the Vorlage may also speak in favour of this
view.
38
Cf. already S. Bochartus, Hierozoicon, sive Bipertitum Opus de Animalibus S. Scripturae,
etc. (ex recensione Joh. Leusden), Lugduni Bat./Trajecti ad Rhen. 1692
3
, Cap. IX,
157: In Graeca versione :, vel ::: :, absurde redditur yhleiai, & tokadew
ippoi, quasi : & : legerint, quod foetas signicaret. An alternative possibility
is that the translator, faced with a Hebrew he did not understand, took the initia-
tive to read for (thus Davies, URW T in 1 Kings 5: 6, 31). Montgomery-
Gehman (Kings, 132) and Gray (Kings, 245, n. e) rather think that the translator
associated : with a root cognate with Akkadian ar, to be pregnant (cf. AHw,
72, ar(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 Fernndez 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 independently
of 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 dierent 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 dierent trans-
lation from 3 Reg. 10: 26a. Here we have the interesting phenomenon
that the Greek translation of Kings oers two dierent 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 oers at 1 Kgs. 4: 205: 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 may
correspond to Hebrew : ::::. If v. 46k is regarded as the translation of a Hebrew
text identical with what we have at 2 Chron. 9: 26, there too the Greek phrase
can be found to represent : ::::. The literalism involved in the Greek rendering
sets the verses in Misc. II apart from the text of 3 Reg. 10: 26a, where : :::: is
represented by hn hgoumenow + gen. The remarkable variation in rendering might
lead us to think of two dierent translators. However, it is possible that consider-
ations of context prompted a single translator/reviser to render the same phrase
dierently in 2: 46k and 10: 26a. In this connection, it is important to note that
the 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, 1317, 2329).
There is some reason to suppose that vv. 46b, f represent renderings of the OG
that were transposed or copied from the main text into Misc. II by a reviser (see
page 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 the
other hand, the context did not set limitations to his choice of equivalents. There
he employed the rendering which he apparently preferred: hgoumenow.
The origins of v. 46k are dicult to retrieve. Gooding (Relics, 44) thinks that the
verse is based on a Hebrew text which represents a text tradition of 1 Kgs. 5: 1
somewhat dierent from the MT-version. This alternative text tradition would also
So we nd that 3 Reg. 2: 46i (and possibly 46k) stem(s) from one
Greek translator and 10: 2626a from another. Since especially v.
26 betrays inuence 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: 2626a 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. 2626a
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: 2526, which for its part became the model for 2 Par. 9:
2526.
This raises the question why 3 Reg. 10: 2626a oers 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 dierences which 3 Reg. 10: 2327 exhibits vis--vis 1
Kgs. 10: 2327 reveal a tendency to highlight Solomons prestige
among his fellow kings.
44
This is in particular true of 3 Reg. 10:
2626a. Thus it is conceivable that a reviser replaced the original
Greek text of v. 26 by a translation of the slightly dierent 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 verse
that originally followed on 1 Kgs. 5: 6. This verse, rather than 1 Kgs. 5: 1, may
have been duplicated in 2 Chron. 9: 26. When the original Greek translation of
ch. 5: 16 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: 46ik
and 2 Chron. 9: 2526, but it has the obvious disadvantage that the assumption
of 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 25153.
44
Thus see pages 109112.
258 chapter sixteen
It is not to be ruled out that other concerns regarding Solomons
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 Solomons 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: 2829 was maintained in 3 Reg. 10: 2829. For that rea-
son, it is dicult to believe that whitewashing Solomons character
was the revisers 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 briey consider two passages outside ch. 10, which by
virtue of certain aliations with 3 Reg. 10: 2626a may cast fur-
ther light on the background of our text.
2 Par. 7: 18b 2 Chron. 7: 18b
ok jaryseta soi : ::
nr gomenow n Israhl ::: :: :: :
3 Reg. 9: 5b 1 Kgs. 9: 5b
ok jaryseta soi : ::
nr gomenow n Israhl :: :: :.: :
For two reasons 3 Reg. 9: 5b calls for a comparison with 10: 26a.
In the rst 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 oering a translation
of the Hebrew counterpart of 1 Kings, like the surrounding verses
45
Gooding, Text-sequence, 45455, 463.
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: 39 YHWH
makes a promise to Solomon regarding his kingship in future. V. 5
says that if Solomon keeps YHWHs commandments, then YHWH
shall establish the throne of Solomons 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 identied
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 YHWHs commandments thus far.
The second passage that may be of interest as a background to
3 Reg. 10: 2626a is 2 Reg. 8: 4a.
1 Par. 18: 4a 1 Chron. 18: 4a
ka prokatelbeto Dauid atn :::: : :::
xlia rmata :: :
ka pt xilidaw ppvn :c c: .:::
ka ekosi xilidaw ndrn pezn :: : : :.:
2 Reg. 8: 4a 2 Sam. 8: 4a
ka prokatelbeto Dauid tn ato :::: : :::
xlia rmata . . . . . .
ka pt xilidaw ppvn :c ::.::: :
ka ekosi xilidaw ndrn pezn :: : : :.:
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 oer 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 oence 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-
lators 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 Goodings 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 dierent translation units of
14 Regum.
47
Though it is believed that these sections each render
the text of the OG, they are commonly attributed to dierent 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 14 Regum
had already begun to form one tradition complex.
To sum up, the principal motive why vv. 2626a were revised in
accordance with the Chronicles account was to highlight Solomons
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 Solomons
reign are too disparate in character to permit a single, unambigu-
ous, explanation.
46
47
See Thackeray, Greek Translators, 26278.
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 suered some corruption in MT.
In a few cases, it seems fairly certain that textual features shared
by 3 Regum and Chronicles reect a text form dierent, 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 inuence 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: 2626a was taken from 2 Chron. 9: 2526. 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:
2626a is believed to be the revisers 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 reect 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 aliation.
262 chapter sixteen
S
Y
N
O
P
S
I
S
3

R
e
g
.
-
M
i
s
c
.

I
I
1

K
i
n
g
s
3

R
e
g
.
-
m
a
i
n

t
e
x
t
1

K
i
n
g
s
2

P
a
r
a
l
i
p
o
m
e
n
a

2

C
h
r
o
n
i
c
l
e
s
1
0
:

2
3
k
a
m
e
g
a
l
n
y
h
:
:

1
0
:

2
3
9
:

2
2
k
a
m
e
g
a
l
n
y
h
:
:

9
:

2
2
:
:
:
:
S
a
l
v
m
v
n
:
:
:
S
a
l
v
m
v
n
:
:
:
r

p
n
t
a
w

t
o
w

b
a
s
i
l
e
:
:
:

:
:
:
r

p
n
t
a
w

t
o
w

b
a
s
i
l
e
:
:
:

:
:
:
t
w

g
p
l
o
:
.
:
k
a

p
l
o
:
.
:
k
a

f
r
o
n
s
e
i
:
:
:
:
k
a

s
o
f
&
:
:
:
:
1
0
:

2
4
k
a
n
t
e
w
:
:
:

1
0
:

2
4
9
:

2
3
k
a
n
t
e
w
:
:
:

9
:

2
3
b
a
s
i
l
e
w
o

b
a
s
i
l
e
:
:
:
t
w

g
w

g
t
o
u
n

t

p
r
s
v
p
o
n

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
:
:
:

:
c
:
,
:
:
t
o
u
n

t

p
r
s
v
p
o
n

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
:
:
:

:
c
:
,
:
:
t
o
k
o
s
a
i

t
w

f
r
o
n
s
e
v
w

a
t
o
:
:

.
:
:
:
k
o
s
a
i

t
w

f
r
o
n
s
e
v
w

a
t
o
:
:

.
:
:
:
d
v
k
e
n

k
r
i
o
w
d
v
k
e
n

y
e
n

t

k
a
r
d
&

a
t
o
:
:
:
:
n

k
a
r
d
&

a
t
o
:
:
:
:
1
0
:

2
5
k
a
t
o
f
e
r
o
n
:
:

:

1
0
:

2
5
9
:

2
4
k
a
t
o
f
e
r
o
n
:
:

:

9
:

2
4
k
a
s
t
o
w

t
r
a

a
t
o
:
:

:
k
a
s
t
o
w

t
r
a

a
t
o
:
:

:
:
:

:
:
s
k
e
r
g
u
r
:
:

:
:
s
k
e
h

x
r
u
s
:
:
:
k
a

s
k
e
h

x
r
u
s
:
:
:
k
a
m
a
t
i
s
m
n

s
t
a
k
t
n
,
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
k
a
m
a
t
i
s
m
n

s
t
a
k
t
n
,
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
k
a
s
m
a
t
a
:
:
:
:
k
a
s
m
a
t
a
:
:
:
:
k
a
p
p
o
u
w

k
a
m
i
n
o
u
w
c
:

:
:
:
k
a
p
p
o
u
w

k
a
m
i
n
o
u
w
c
:

:
:
:
t

k
a
t
n
i
a
u
t
n
i
a
u
t
:
:
:

:
:

k
a
t
n
i
a
u
t
n
i
a
u
t
:
:
:

:
:
2
:

4
6
i
k
a
s
a
n

t

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
:
:
:
:

:

5
:

6
1
0
:

2
6
k
a
s
a
n

t

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
9
:

2
5
k
a
s
a
n

t

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
:
:
:
:

:

9
:

2
5
t
e
s
s
a
r
k
o
n
t
a

x
i
l
i
d
e
w
.
:
s
s
a
r
e
w

x
i
l
i
d
e
w
t
s
s
a
r
e
w

x
i
l
i
d
e
w
c
:
.
:
t
o
k
d
e
w

p
p
o
i
:
:
:

l
e
i
a
i

p
p
o
i
y
l
e
i
a
i

p
p
o
i
:
:
:

r
m
a
t
a
:
:
:
:
:
e
r
m
a
t
a
e
r
m
a
t
a
:
:
:
:
:
k
a
d
e
k
a

x
i
l
i
d
e
w
:
.
:
:
:
k
a
d
e
k
a

x
i
l
i
d
e
w
k
a
d
e
k
a

x
i
l
i
d
e
w
:
.
:
:
:
p
p
v
n
p
p
v
n
p
p
v
n
c
k
a
y
e
t
o

a
w
k
a
y
e
t
o

a
t
o
:
(
c
o
n
t
.
)
3

R
e
g
.
-
M
i
s
c
.

I
I
1

K
i
n
g
s
3

R
e
g
.
-
m
a
i
n

t
e
x
t
1

K
i
n
g
s
2

P
a
r
a
l
i
p
o
m
e
n
a

2

C
h
r
o
n
i
c
l
e
s
n

t
a
w

p
l
e
s
i

t
r
m
t
v
n
n

p
l
e
s
i
n

t
r
m
t
v
n
:
:
.
:
k
a

m
e
t

t
o

b
a
s
i
l
v
w
k
a

m
e
t

t
o

b
a
s
i
l
v
w
:
:
.
:
n

I
e
r
o
u
s
a
l
h
m
n

I
e
r
o
u
s
a
l
h
m
:
:
:
:
:
:

:

1
0
:

2
6
1
:

1
4
k
a

s
u
n
g
a
g
e
n

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
:
:
:

:

1
:

1
4
c
:

:
:
r
m
a
t
a

k
a
p
p
e
c
:

:
:
:
:
:
k
a
n
o
n
t
o

a
:
:
.
:
l
i
a

k
a

t
e
t
r
a
k
s
i
a
.
:
:
:
r
m
a
t
a
:
:
:
.
:
:
:
k
a
d
e
k
a

x
i
l
i
d
e
w
:
.
:
:
:
p
p
v
n
:
k
a

k
a
t
l
i
p
e
n

a
:
:
:
.
:
n

p
l
e
s
i
n

t
r
m
t
v
n
:
:
.
:
k
a

l
a
:
:
.
:
m
e
t

t
o

b
a
s
i
l
v
w
:
:
:
:
:
n

I
e
r
o
u
s
a
l
h
m
:
:
:
:
2
:

4
6
k
k
a
r
x
v
n
1
0
:

2
6
a
k
a
g
o
m
e
n
o
w
9
:

2
6
k
a
g
o
m
e
n
o
w
:
:
:
:

:

9
:

2
6
n

p
s
i
n

t
o
w

b
a
s
i
l
e
s
i
n
p
n
t
v
n

t
n

b
a
s
i
l
v
n
p
n
t
v
n

t
n

b
a
s
i
l
v
n
:
:
:
:
:
:

t
o

p
o
t
a
m
o

t
o

p
o
t
a
m
o

t
o

p
o
t
a
m
o
:
k
a
v
w
k
a
v
w
k
a
v
w
.
:
g
l
l
o
f
l
v
n
g
l
l
o
f
l
v
n
g
l
l
o
f
l
v
n
:
:
c

k
a
v
w

v
n

A
p
t
o
u
k
a
v
w

v
n

A
p
t
o
u
k
a
v
w

v
n

A
p
t
o
u
.
:

:
:
:
:

.
:
264 chapter sixteen
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
THE RELATION BETWEEN THE MISCELLANIES
3 REG. 2: 35AK AND 46AK AND THE MAIN TEXT
OF 3 REGUM
Introduction
The LXX-version of the Solomon Narrative contains two collections
of notes on Solomons 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 diers 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-edged 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: 24az. 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 Solomons wisdom: Misc. I highlights the wisdom that is
manifest in Solomons building activities; Misc. II deals with the wis-
dom that is involved in Solomons administration of a vast domin-
ion.
2
The Miscellanies surround the Shimei story through 3 Reg. 2:
35lo, 3646 that may be taken as an illustration of Solomons 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 Solomons wisdom. Gooding argues that this pattern is continued
in the ensuing account: The story of Solomons 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
Solomons wisdom.
4
According to Gooding, this is enough evidence
1
See Tov, LXX Additions, 104105.
2
See Gooding, Relics, 617. Tov objects to considering Solomons wisdom the
central theme of Misc. I and Misc. II, arguing that an opening statement devoted
to Solomons wisdom does not make the whole Miscellany into an anthology of
verses on Solomons wisdom (LXX Additions, 107, 111). Yet the circumstance
that both Misc. I and Misc. II start o with statements on Solomons wisdom can-
not be ignored.
3
See Gooding, Problems of Text and Midrash, 8; id., Shimei Duplicate,
8788; id., Relics, 97.
4
266 chapter seventeen
to show that the duplicate translation in the Shimei story and the
two Miscellanies . . . have been integrated with the LXXs 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 suciently
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 Solomons 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 Solomons
reign begins.
6
To understand the position of the Miscellanies it is
important to note that they appear immediately before the regnal
account of Solomons deeds. It seems as if on this important cross-
roads in the story the Miscellanies mean to give a preliminary sketch
of Solomons reign, a brief outline of high points in two areas for
which Solomons 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: 1235. The Shimei story in 2: 35o46 relates how Solomon man-
aged to full Davids last will concerning Shimei. Like the preced-
ing narrative, it tells what Solomon did to settle aairs 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 Goodings view that the
Shimei narrative in 2: 35lo, 3646 is meant to give an example of
Solomons 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 Solomons wisdom.
There can be no doubt that from a viewpoint of tradition history
both Miscellanies are closely related. They resemble each other in
5
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 of
3 Regum. See pages 5657.
7
See also Schenker, Septante, 44, 8182.
miscellanies 3 reg. 2: 35ak and 46ak 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:
1718).
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: 1213 // 14: 1516; 17: 56 // 18: 9b11) and
alternative, i.e., mutually exclusive, narrative portions (e.g., in MT
1 Sam. 1618). 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 oer an alternative ver-
sion of a cohesive story, like 3 Reg. 12: 24az. 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, 11112.
9
10
Thus Schenker, Septante, 154; Trebolle Barrera, Salomn y Jerobon, 278, 321.
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 specically 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. Signicantly,
in MT the materials corresponding to these notes all appear in
the context of two sections only, namely in 1 Kgs. 4: 205: 8
and 9: 1525. 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 dierent internal arrangement. Moreover,
11
Thus also Gooding, Problems of Text and Midrash, 78; id., Relics, 107108;
id., Shimei Duplicate, 84; id., Pedantic Timetabling, 155.
12
See pages 24446.
the LXX-parallel of 1 Kgs. 9: 1522 also holds a dierent posi-
tion within the Solomon Narrative, namely at 3 Reg. 10: 22ac.
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 sucient 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 reect a Hebrew
13
For instance Schenker, Septante, 59; Tov, LXX Additions.
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 = ::: , (thus Polak,
Septuaginta Account, 14445; Schenker, Septante, 7; Tov, LXX Additions, 114;
cf. I. Soisalon-Soininen, Die Innitive in der Septuaginta [AASF B/132], Helsinki 1965,
115); in v. 46aa kai hn o basileuw Salvmvn fronimow sfodra kai sofow = :
:: : ::: ::: :: (thus Polak, Septuaginta Account, 14647). In addi-
tion, Tov points to Hebraisms in v. 35l and v. 46g (LXX Additions, 114). The
former verse however does not belong to Misc. I in the strict sense. The latter
occurrence is irrelevant as 3 Reg. 2: 46ga has a (nearly exact) counterpart in
5: 4c.
Vorlage.
17
A Greek editor may have experienced little diculty 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 dierent 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 signicant that the Greek
of parts of vv. 35ao and 46al is somewhat dierent 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 briey consider the evidence.
3 Reg. 2: 35a, b oers a translation of 1 Kgs. 5: 910 somewhat
dierent from 3 Reg. 5: 910. The variation is conned 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 dierences, then,
either derive from free variation by one and the same translator or
from a slight modication 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 used
in koin Greek as a time indicator (cf. BD, 402.3; see there for New Testament
occurrences). As regards v. 46aa, Polak admits that there is no Hebrew text known
in which : qualies the rst element of a pair of adjectives but not the second
one. 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: 9
as 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 kardiawxuma kardiaw (:: : in 1 Kgs. 5: 9); arxaivn uivn
arxaivn anyrvpvn (, :: in 1 Kgs. 5: 9).
21
fronimouw Aiguptou (= .: ::) for .: :: of MT; arxaivn as a trans-
lation of , (cf. Krautwurst, Studien, 79, n. 1).
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: 910, because the text does not
suggest that an eort was made to conform it to MT.
3 Reg. 2: 46ega provides a translation of 1 Kgs. 5: 24 that is
very similar to 3 Reg. 5: 24. Dierences involve minor variation
in individual equivalents, a plus and a minus.
22
The deviations in
Misc. II are possibly editorial in nature. The intriguing dierences
regarding the Greek between the parallels in 3 Reg. 2: 46ik and
10: 2626a were discussed in the previous chapter.
Peculiar dierences 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 8994.
23
Thus Krautwurst, Studien, 225.
3 Reg. 2: 35i 3 Reg. 10: 22a
tn Magdv (also Ant.; LXX B: Magav) tn Magdan (LXX B: Madian; Ant.: Mageddv)
tn Baiyvrvn tn pnv tn Baiyvrvn tn nvtrv
3 Reg. 2: 46d
tn Yermai n t rm tn 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 nd as tran-
scriptions of ::: (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 dierences in transcription, the less likely they result from the
inconsistency of one translator.
Concerning the transcriptions oered for Megiddo, the dierences
are modest and do not necessarily suggest dierent 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 signicant is the transcription of . (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 dierence in the rendering of the element
::. in the toponym ::. :: : (Upper Beth-Horon; cf. 1 Kgs.
9: 17, Lower Beth-Horon) could be due to the translators inconsis-
tency. It is conceivable that the translator of 3 Reg.* 10: 22a did
not realize that he had translated the element ::. in 2: 35i
dierently. 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 dierent hands than a single inconsistent translator.
The same conclusion may hold for the dierent transcriptions of
:() (Tadmor; cf. 1 Kgs. 9: 18 Qere). The sizable dierence
between Yermai and Ieyermay makes it dicult 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 dierences between some transcriptions seem
to derive from secondary editing in one of both texts.
In the case of the lists of Solomons ministers in 2: 46h and 4:
16, the Vorlagen were obviously very dierent.
26
Even so, where both
lists agree, the dierences in transcription and translation are so con-
siderable, that the passages must derive from dierent hands.
What text-historical conclusions can be drawn from these dierences
between the Greek of the Miscellanies and the main text? In the
opinion of Tov, the divergent translation equivalents do not imply
that dierent 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 199200, n. 10.
26
For discussions of the dierences in the Greek text see Gooding, Relics, 7792;
Krautwurst, Studien, 21969; M. Rehm, Die Beamtenliste der Septuaginta in
1 Kn 2,46h, in J. Schreiner (ed.), Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch. Beitrge zur Septuaginta.
Festschrift fr Joseph Ziegler (Forschung zur Bibel 1), Wrzburg 1972.
27
to the genuine equivalents in vv. 35a, b and 46e, f, although the
occurrence of free variation in vv. 35a and 46e is dicult 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 dierences are so considerable
that it is hard to resist the conclusion that certain parts of the
Miscellanies stem from a Greek hand dierent 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 dicult 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. 45 and 910. The translator of the latter chap-
ters, then, would have drawn on the Greek of the Miscellanies to
render material parallels in chs. 45 and 9. In that instance, the
dierences in Greek between the counterparts must be assigned to
adaptation of the duplicated materials to the Hebrew Vorlage of chs.
45 and 910.
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 dierences
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: The
translations [of the Miscellanies] are from dierent hands than those in the subse-
quent Old Greek.
2. Only part of the Miscellanies go back to a Hebrew source text
ad locum. Items showing a Greek that diers 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 rst explanation faces the diculty 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 dierence 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.
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 dierences 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 rst 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 Solomons
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 Solomons 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 111,
JSOT 49 [1991], 8797); A. Frisch (Structure and Signicance: The Narrative of
Solomons Reign (1 Kings 112.24), JSOT 51 [1991], 314); K.I. Parker (Repetition
as a Structuring Device in 1 Kings 111, JSOT 42 [1988], 1927); id., The Limits
to Solomons Reign: A Response to Amos Frisch, JSOT 51 [1991], 1521); Porten
(Structure and Theme); Talshir (Reign of Solomon, 234); J.T. Walsh (1 Kings
[Berit Olam; Studies in Hebrew Narrative Art & Poetry], Collegeville 1996, 15056);
D.S. Williams (Once Again: The Structure of the Narrative of Solomons Reign,
JSOT 86 [1999], 4966).
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: 111: 43 and the Solomon Narrative proper,
i.e., the narrative of Solomons kingship throughout 2: 1211: 43.
The latter in turn is to be distinguished from the account of
Solomons reign. The beginning of the account of Solomons king-
ship is marked by the note on Solomons accession to the throne
as an independent ruler in 1 Kgs. 2: 12, whereas its natural con-
clusion lies with the note on Solomons death at 1 Kgs. 11: 43.
2
The account of Solomons regnal deeds does not start o until
3: 1 (or 2: 46b). As most critics have noted, 2: 1246 is entirely
devoted to the justication and consolidation of Solomons king-
ship.
3
Ch. 11 can be considered the other end of the framework
around the central account of Solomons reign through chs. 310.
4
Just as ch. 2 depicts the consolidation of Solomons 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 dened 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 inuence the
delineation of these sections. In some analyses, sections seem to
be dened 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 Solomons kingship is marked o from 1 Kgs. 12:
11 not only by the appearance of the note in 2: 12 but also by the formulaic note
by which it is preceded, i.e., the note on the end of Davids reign in 2: 1011.
Thus the account of Solomons kingship appears to be framed by the same type
of formulaic notes that occur in the remainder of 12 Kings in the context of the
introductory and concluding regnal formulae for the kings of Israel and Judah.
3
E.g., Gray (Kings, 111); Long (1 Kings, 5758); Porten (Structure and Theme,
124); J.T. Walsh (1 Kings, 151); Wrthwein (Erste Buch der Knige, 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: 209: 23. However, the rst part of this section, Welfare of king and
people (4: 205: 8), does not show a direct connection with the theme building.
solomons 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: 515 and 9: 19 (cf. 1 Kgs. 11: 9).
6
Another par-
allel is made up by the similar sequence of topics in 1 Kgs. 3:
14 and 9: 2425. Especially this parallel may be structurally
signicant 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 dierent, 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 Solomons 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 oered by the occurrence of two contrasting
theological appraisals of Solomons kingship in 1 Kgs. 3: 3 and
11: 6, because each of them obviously relates to a dierent phase
of Solomons lifetime (cf. 1 Kgs. 11: 4). The rst explicit critique
of Solomon does not appear until 1 Kgs. 11: 1, but several crit-
ics have argued that a turning point in Solomons 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 Solomons Reign, 62) stress
the signicance of the dream parallel within the structure of the account.
7
The importance of this feature has been recognized by Brettler (Structure of
1 Kings 111, 8892), 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 12 Kings 10) [CBQ.MS
17], Washington D.C. 1986, 8587, 102) and OBrien (Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis,
143), on the other hand, perceive a chiastic structure between 1 Kgs. 3: 1 (v. 1a:
Pharaohs daughter; v. 1b: Solomons building programme) and 9: 1524 (vv. 1523:
Solomons building programme; v. 24: Pharaohs daughter). However, the uneven-
ness in size and coverage of the passages at 1 Kgs. 3: 1b and 9: 1523 renders it
less likely that these texts were meant to be complementary.
8
See for instance the extensive debate on the structure of the Solomon Narrative
in the studies of Frisch, Parker and Williams (cf. footnote 1 of this chapter).
9
A dierent opinion is expressed by M.A. Sweeney (The Critique of Solomon
in the Josianic Edition of the Deuteronomistic History, JBL 114 [1995], 60722,
esp. 61317), who argues that the critique of Solomon permeates the whole nar-
rative and is not conned to the nal portion of it.
278 chapter eighteen
on considerations of structure, but in particular on the Law of
the King of Deut. 17: 1420, which denounces several of
Solomons activities listed in 1 Kgs. 911. By taking many for-
eign wives (1 Kgs. 11: 13), Solomon disregards the prescription
of Deut. 17: 17a; his amassing of silver and/or gold (1 Kgs. 9:
28; 10: 10, 1427 passim) violates the commandment of Deut.
17: 17b; and his horse-trade with Egypt (1 Kgs. 10: 2829) is
reprehensible in the light of Deut. 17: 16. Therefore M. Brettler
identies 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: 19, arguing that YHWHs warning against future apostasy
(vv. 69) anticipates Solomons own failure to remain faithful to
his god.
11
According to J. Walsh, the report of the land sale in
1 Kgs. 9: 1014 reveals a worrying disregard for YHWHs gift
of the land on Solomons part.
12
It stands to reason that the
answer to the question where the account of the unfavourable
period in Solomons 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 Pharaohs 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:
719; 5: 2732; 9: 1014: 11: 28; 12: 4).
13
Yet a certain peri-
odization in the presentation of Solomons 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 Solomons punishment (1 Kgs. 11:
11, 33) indicate that the dierentiation of stages in Solomons 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 111, 95.
11
Noth, Deuteronomistic History, 92, 97. Also Frisch, Structure and Signicance,
6; Parker, Repetition as a Structuring Device in 1 Kings 111, 22, 27.
12
Walsh, 1 Kings, 12022.
13
Sweeney, Critique of Solomon, 61315.
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 not
allowed to marry (1 Kgs. 11: 1, 2) means that Solomons marriage to her, reported
is whether the Law of the King, and indeed the entire Deute-
ronomic Law, was meant to be taken as a criterion to judge
Solomons 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: 1420. 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: 34), no such condem-
nation is found in connection with Solomons other deeds that
violate the Deuteronomic Law. It is telling that in 1 Kgs. 11:
913 Solomons punishment is exclusively motivated with a refer-
ence to the apostasy which resulted from Solomons marriage to
foreign women. The text preceding ch. 11 does not provide any
hint that Solomons riches and trade were reprehensible in YHWHs
eyes.
15
On the contrary, 1 Kgs. 3: 13 indicates that Solomons
wealth is to be regarded as a blessing that fulls YHWHs promise.
The account of chs. 9 and 10 is consonant with this positive view
on Solomons auence. In particular the story of the Queen of
Sheba (1 Kgs. 10: 113) is instructive since it unequivocally glories
Solomons 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.
910, 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 Solomons old age but has started ear-
lier, as is indicated by the internal sequence of 1 Kgs. 11: 14, may also seem to
resist a clear-cut periodization. On the other hand, the decisive turning point for
the worse does not come until Solomons old age, when he is reported to succumb
to the sin of idolatry (1 Kgs. 11: 48). In this connection, it is important to note
that the rationale behind the prohibition quoted in v. 2 is to prevent foreigners
from seducing Israelites to worship dierent gods than YHWH (cf. Deut. 7: 3, 4).
It is not so much Solomons 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.
dierences 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 Solomons 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 Solomons kingship (2: 1246).
a. Solomons accession as sole ruler; his kingship established (2: 12).
b. Elimination of Adonijah (2: 1325) and his accomplices Abiathar
(2: 2627) and Joab (2: 2834).
c. Benaiah and Zadok appointed (2: 35).
d. Elimination of Shimei (2: 3646a).
e. Solomons kingship established (2: 46b).
2. Before the building of the temple (3: 14).
a. Pharaohs daughter brought to the City of David (3: 1).
b. Sacrices at high places (3: 24).
3. Solomons wisdom, riches and prestige (3: 55: 14).
a. First revelation at Gibeon; divine promise of wisdom, riches and
prestige (3: 515).
b. Wisdom in execution of justice: womens trial (3: 1628).
c. Riches and prestige: Solomons ocials (4: 16); his twelve ocers
supplying provisions for his household and horses (4: 75: 8); Judah
and Israels prosperity (4: 20); Solomons dominion (5: 1).
d. Wisdom and prestige: Solomons reputation as a sage (5: 914).
4. Preparations for the building of the temple (5: 1532).
a. Alliance between Hiram and Solomon; provision of building materials
(5: 1526).
b. Labour: levy (5: 2728); burden-bearers and hewers (5: 29); ocers
(5: 30); the hewing and preparing of stones and timber (5: 3132).
5. Building and dedication of the temple (6: 19: 9).
a. Building of the temple (6: 138).
b. Building of the palace (7: 112).
c. Furnishings and utensils of the temple (7: 1347).
d. Transportation of ark and tent (8: 19); YHWHs taking residence
(8: 1011); comment and declaration (8: 1213).
e. Blessing (8: 1421).
f. Prayer (8: 2253).
g. Blessing (8: 5461).
h. Sacrices and consecration (8: 6264); celebration (8: 6566).
i. Second revelation at Gibeon; divine promise concerning kingship and
temple (9: 19).
4. Appendices to the preparations for the building of the temple (9: 1023).
a. Additional transactions between Hiram and Solomon (9: 1014).
b. Labour: levy for Solomons building projects (9: 1522); his ocers
(9: 23).
2. After the building of the temple and the palace (9: 2425).
a. Removal of Pharaohs daughter to her palace (9: 24).
b. Solomons sacrices in the temple (9: 25).
3. Solomons wisdom, riches and prestige (9: 2610: 29).
a. Riches: naval expedition in cooperation with Hiram (9: 2628).
b. Wisdom, prestige and riches: visit of the Queen of Sheba (10: 113).
c. Riches and prestige: gold and luxuries (10: 1422); presents (10:
2327); horse-trade (10: 2829).
6. (1.) Decline of Solomons kingship (11: 143).
a. Solomon led astray by alien women (11: 18).
b. YHWHs wrath: punishment announced (11: 913).
c. Punishment: rise of adversaries Hadad (11: 1422), Rezon (11: 2325)
and Jeroboam (11: 2640).
d. Conclusion: source citation (11: 41); length of Solomons reign (11: 42);
his death, burial and succession (11: 43).
The overall arrangement of the narrative is clearly chronological.
The narrative starts o by relating Solomons eorts to consolidate
his kingship, concludes by reporting the decline of Solomons power
in his old age, and places in between an account of Solomons 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 ve
chronologically arranged major episodes:
1. Solomons early kingship (ch. 2).
2. Events preceding the building of the temple and the palace (chs.
35).
3. The building and dedication of the temple and the palace (chs.
6: 19: 9).
4. Events following the completion of the temple (chs. 9: 1010: 29).
5. Solomons old age (ch. 11).
However, chronological order has not consistently been pursued
beyond these ve 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 Solomons reign as sole ruler.
2: 1338 No time indicated; probably shortly 1st year (?)
afterwards.
2: 3946 At the end of three years (2: 39) following from 3rd year
Solomons warning of Shimei (2: 3637). onward
3: 1 Before the completion of palace, temple before 20th
and city wall. year
3: 2 Before the building of the temple. before 4th year
3: 315 Same period. before 4th year
3: 1628 After divine revelation: Thereupon (3: 16). before 4th
year?
4: 15: 8 No time indicated; refers to conditions
prevailing during Solomons entire reign
(5: 1; 5: 5).
5: 914 No time indicated; 5: 10, 11, 14 suggest
advanced stage of Solomons reign; 5: 12
pertains to all of Solomons lifetime.
5: 1532 Returns to moment shortly after Solomons 1st(?)4th year
accession (5: 15); covers period until
building of the temple proper.
6: 138 Continuation: start of temple construction: 4th11th year
In the 480th year after the Israelites had come
out of Egypt, in the 4th year of Solomons 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: 112 After the building of the temple (cf. 9: 10); 11th24th year
duration of construction of the palace:
13 years (7: 1).
7: 1351 7: 13 returns to indenite point in time
during the building of the temple and/or
the palace; narrated time (duration)
unspecied but not exceeding 20 years.
8: 166* After completion of the temple furnishings: 11th24th year
Thereupon (8: 1). time: in the month of Etanim,
the 7th month (8: 2).
9: 19 After completion of temple and palace in 24th year
(9: 1); after Solomons prayer (9: 3). or later
9: 1014 After completion of temple and palace: At in 24th year
the end of 20 years during which Solomon built and later
the two houses . . . (9: 10).
9: 1523 Retrospective overview pertaining to all of
Solomons reign.
9: 24a After completion of the palace of Pharaohs in 24th year or
daughter (cf. 7: 8). later
9: 24b After Pharaohs daughter taking residence in 24th year or
in her palace: Thereupon. later
9: 25 After dedication of the temple. after 11th24th
year
9: 2628 No time indicated; after rst contacts after 1st? year
between Solomon and Hiram.
10: 113 After the building of the temple: Solomons after 11th year
fame regarding YHWHs name (10: 1).
10: 1429 No time indicated but after completion of after 24th year
palace (10: 1721).
11: 13 No time indicated; advanced stage of
Solomons reign.
11: 413 Solomons old age. ?
11: 14 No time indicated; probably to be connected
with preceding announcement of punishment
(11: 913)*.
11: 1522 Flashback, covering a period extending from
an indenite point of time during Davids reign
until an indenite point of time during
Solomons reign.
11: 23a After announcement of punishment (11: 913).
11: 23b24 Flashback, covering a period extending from
an indenite moment during Davids reign
until an indenite point of time during
Solomons reign.
11: 25 From the beginning of Hadad and Rezons
opposition to Solomon until Solomons
demise.
11: 2627a After announcement of punishment
(11: 913).
11: 27b28 Flashback, covering some span of time
during Solomons reign.
11: 2939 Continuation ashback: About that time
(11: 29).
11: 40 After the uprising of Jeroboam (11: 26).
11: 4142 All of Solomons reign: 40 years (11: 42).
11: 43 Solomon dies. 40th year
* internal chronology not specied
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 specic
period, like 1 Kgs. 4: 15: 14; 9: 1523. These do not quite t 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 aairs described in 1 Kgs. 4: 15: 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 Solomons auence and wisdom, rather serves to
indicate the fullment of YHWHs promise given in 1 Kgs. 3: 1114.
Not only descriptive but also narrative materials have been orga-
nized according to theme rather than chronology. One example may
suce here. The text of 1 Kgs. 2: 39 indicates Solomons third year
as a terminus post quem for the elimination of Shimei. This is well
beyond the date of rst 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 Solomons 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: 1014 and 1523. 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: 1526 and 5: 2732 suggests that the paragraphs
in ch. 9 combine into a higher unit. Thus the unity of 1 Kgs. 9:
1014 and 9: 1522 is dened on the basis of the apparent the-
matic unity of 5: 1532. In the case of the parallel between 1 Kgs.
3: 14 and 9: 2425, 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 Pharaohs
daughter in 1 Kgs. 3: 1 and 9: 24; place of sacrice in 1 Kgs. 3:
24 and 9: 25), but there is no predominant theme unifying 3: 14
and 9: 2425. The only feature common to 3: 1 and 3: 24 is that
these notes relate events that are expressly dated before the com-
pletion of the temple. In itself, this may not be sucient to dene
3: 14 as a structural unit, but in light of 9: 2425 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 Solomons kingship (2: 1235).
a. Solomons accession as sole ruler; his kingship established (2: 12).
b. Elimination of Adonijah (2: 1325) and his accomplices Abiathar
(2: 2627) and Joab (2: 2834).
c. Benaiah and Zadok appointed (2: 35ag); Solomons kingship consolidated
(2: 35b).
2. Manifestations of Solomons wisdom (2: 35a46l).
a. Solomons wisdom in building activities (2: 35ak).
b. Solomons wisdom in the execution of justice: elimination of Shimei
(2: 35l46).
c. Solomons wisdom in government (2: 46ak).
3. Solomons wisdom, riches and prestige (2: 46l5: 14).
a. Introductory statement (2: 46l).
b. First revelation at Gibeon: divine promise of wisdom, riches and
prestige (3: 215).
c. Wisdom in the execution of justice: womens trial (3: 1628).
d. Riches and prestige: Solomons ocials (4: 16); his twelve ocers
supplying provisions for his household and horses (4: 75: 3); Solomons
dominion (5: 4).
e. Wisdom and prestige: Solomons reputation as a sage (5: 914); gifts
from all kings of the earth (5: 14b).
4. Before the building of the temple (5: 14a30).
a. Solomons marriage with Pharaohs daughter (5: 14a); his dowry (5:
14b).
b. Alliance between Hiram and Solomon and provision of building
materials (5: 1626); labour levy (5: 2728); burden-bearers and hewers
(5: 29); ocers (5: 30).
5. Building and dedication of the temple (5: 319: 9).
a. Preparation of materials and laying of foundations (5: 316: 1d).
b. Building of the temple (6: 236a).
c. Furnishings and utensils of the temple (7: 137).
d. Building of the palace (7: 3850).
e. Transportation of ark and tent; sacrices (8: 19); YHWHs taking
residence (8: 1011).
f. Blessing (8: 1421).
g. Prayer (8: 2253).
h. Declaration (8: 53a).
i. Blessing (8: 5461).
j. Sacrices and consecration (8: 6264); celebration (8: 6566).
k. Second revelation at Gibeon: divine promise concerning kingship and
temple (9: 19).
4. Appendices (9: 9a28).
a. Removal of Pharaohs daughter to her palace (9: 9a).
b. Additional transactions between Hiram and Solomon; their naval
expedition (9: 1028).
6. (3.) Solomons wisdom, riches and prestige (10: 129).
a. Wisdom, prestige and riches: visit of the Queen of Sheba (10: 113).
b. Riches and prestige: gold and luxuries (10: 1422).
c. Solomons building projects as a means to oppress the Canaanites
(10: 22ac).
d. Wisdom, riches and prestige: gifts from all kings of the earth (10: 2325);
horses and horse-trade (10: 2629); Solomons dominion (10: 26a).
7. (1.) Decline of Solomons kingship (11: 143).
a. Solomon led astray by alien women (11: 18).
b. YHWHs wrath; punishment announced (11: 913).
c. Punishment: rise of adversaries Ader (Hadad), Esrom (Rezon) and
Adadezer (11: 14aba); Aders rebellion (14bb25); Jeroboams rebellion
and ight (11: 2640).
d. Conclusion: source citation (11: 41); length of Solomons reign (11: 42);
his death and burial; Jeroboams return; Solomons 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 oers 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 Solomons reign.
On lower levels, however, the LXX reveals many sequence
dierences with MT, causing the more detailed division of the text,
at least in some portions, also to be markedly dierent. Apparently,
in the arrangement of materials presented by the LXX-version, tem-
poral sequence, theme and parallelism have played a dierent role
as guiding principles than in MT.
The chronological scheme is as follows:
2: 12 Start of Solomons reign as sole ruler.
2: 1335 No time indicated; probably shortly 1st year (?)
afterwards.
2: 35ak No time indicated; proleptic report of
events and conditions occurring during
later stages of Solomons reign.
2: 35lo Flashback: . . . when David was yet living . . . before S.s
(2: 35l; cf. 2: 89). accession
2: 3638 After elimination of Adonijah and his
accomplices (2: 1335).
2: 3946 After three years (2: 39) following on from 3rd year
Solomons warning of Shimei (2: 3637). onward
2: 46ak No time indicated; proleptic report of
events and conditions occurring during
(much) later stages of Solomons reign.
2: 46l No time indicated; probably beginning of 1st year (?)
Solomons reign.
3: 2 Before the building of the temple. before 4th year
3: 315 Same period. before 4th year
3: 1628 After dream epiphany: Thereupon (3: 16). before 4th
year?
4: 15: 4 No time indicated; refers to conditions
prevailing during Solomons entire reign.
5: 914 No time indicated; 5: 10, 11, 14 suggest
advanced stage of Solomons reign; 5: 12
pertains to all of Solomons lifetime.
5: 1531 Returns to moment shortly after Solomons 1st(?)4th year
accession (5: 15); covers period until
building of the temple proper.
5: 32 Follows gathering of building materials; 1st(?)4th year
period of preparatory activities: during 3 years
(5: 32).
6: 11c Follows preparation: Solomons 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 year
temple: In the 11th year, the month of Baal,
the 8th month (6: 1d).
6: 236a Links up with laying of foundations (6: 1c). 4th11th year
7: 137 After (?) the completion of the temple from 11th year
(6: 236a). onward
7: 3850 Returns to moment following the 11th24th year
completion of the temple (cf. 8: 1);
duration of construction palace: 13 years
(7: 38).
8: 166* After completion of temple and palace: in 24th year
. . . when Solomon had nished building the
temple and the palace after 20 years (8: 1)
. . . in the month of Etanim (8: 2).
9: 19 After completion of temple and palace: in 24th year or
. . . when Solomon had nished building the later
temple and the palace . . . (9: 1); after
Solomons prayer (9: 3).
9: 9a Same period: Thereupon; in those days. in 24th year or
later
9: 1011 Retrospective overview: During the 20 years 4th24th year
in which Solomon was building the two houses
(9: 10).
9: 1213 During the 20 years (9: 10). 4th24th year
9: 1428 During the 20 years (9: 10). 4th24th year
10: 113 No time indicated; probably after the after 11th year
construction of the temple: The queen of
Sheba heard of Solomons name and of the Lords
name (10: 1).
10: 1422 No time indicated but after completion of after 24th year
palace (10: 1721).
10: 22ac Retrospective overview pertaining to
conditions during Solomons building
activities.
Solomons reign.
Solomons reign.
11: 413 Solomons old age (11: 4). ?
11: 14a No time indicated; probably to be
connected with preceding announcement
of punishment (11: 913).
11: 14b From the uprising of Ader, Esrom and
Adadezer (11: 14a) until Solomons demise.
11: 1525 Flashback, covering a period extending from
an indenite point of time during Davids
reign until an indenite point of time
during Solomons reign.
11: 2627a After announcement of punishment (11: 913).
11: 27b28 Flashback, covering some period during
Solomons reign.
11: 2939 Continuation ashback: About that time
(11: 29).
11: 40 After the uprising of Jeroboam (11: 27a).
11: 4142 All of Solomons reign: 40 years (11: 42).
11: 43a Solomon dies. 40th year
11: 43b After Solomons demise: . . . when Jeroboam
heard this . . .
* internal chronology not specied
The Solomon Narrative of 3 Regum shows a special concern for
narrative logic and timetabling. On the level of the overall narra-
tive, the LXXs 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: 14a9: 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 Solomons wisdom whereas
they do not all t 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 Solomons wisdom, their position is functionally important.
Furthermore, a tendency towards thematic arrangement becomes
apparent in the LXXs grouping together of thematically related
materials which in MT appear at dierent places in the account.
Here we may refer to paragraphs 3 Reg. 5: 14ab (= 1 Kgs. 3: 1;
9: 1617) and 9: 1028 (= 1 Kgs. 9: 1014, 2628). 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:
22ac (lacking a rendition of 1 Kgs. 9: 1617) and 3 Reg. 4: 15:
8 (lacking a rendition of 1 Kgs. 5: 56).
Parallelism is a structuring device that gures almost as promi-
nently in the version of the LXX as in the version of MT, but the
parallels in the LXX are dierently construed. The two parallels
between 1 Kgs. 3: 14 and 9: 2425 and between 5: 1532 and 9:
1023 are not encountered in the LXX. For these the LXX has
one parallel between 3 Reg. 5: 14a30 and 9: 9a28. Like its MT
counterparts, the parallel arises from a similar sequence of related
items in two units. In both instances a note on Pharaohs daughter
(3 Reg. 5: 14ab; 9: 9a) is followed by a note on relations between
Solomon and Hiram (3 Reg. 5: 1530; 9: 1028). 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: 14a30 and 9: 9a28
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: 1028 to
the temple construction. While in the MT the dealings between
Solomon and Hiram of 1 Kgs. 9: 1014 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, 711), not just
3 Reg. 2: 35a5: 14 but all of 3 Reg. 2: 35a10: 29 has been built around the
theme of Solomons wisdom.
Thus it is intimated that the dealings between Solomon and Hiram,
as well as the naval expedition (3 Reg. 9: 14, 2628), were under-
taken with a view to acquiring resources and building materials for
the temple. As a result 3 Reg. 9: 1028 makes an exact counter-
part of the paragraph preceding the temple-account in 5: 1530,
which tells about Hirams 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 Pharaohs 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 Pharaohs 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 Solomons reign in 3
Reg. 310.
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 Solomons reign is expressly marked by the occur-
rence of the introductory regnal formula in 3 Reg. 2: 46l. On the
other hand, the dierent character from ch. 2 to that of the fol-
lowing chapters is forcefully stressed by the presence of the Miscellanies,
which do not t 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 Solomons
kingship. His fall is not prepared for in the preceding account. Chs.
310 do not voice any criticism of Solomon. Goodings suggestion
that the combination of 3 Reg. 9: 69 and 9a intimates Solomons
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.
a systematic eort to excuse Solomon for trespassing the Deuteronomic
Law in 3 Reg. 310.
In previous chapters it was argued that the sequence dierences
between 3 Regum and 1 Kings result from revisory activities in the
LXX. Various motives were found to play a role in the revisers
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 editors eorts can most clearly be viewed
in the central section through 3 Reg. 5: 14a9: 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.
68. Thus he moved (1 Kgs.) 3: 1 to (3 Reg.) 5: 14a, excised (1 Kgs.)
9: 1525 and added 3 Reg. 9: 9a.
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 reections. 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 signicance for assessing the text-historical
relationship between the oldest witnesses to the text of Kings, i.e.,
MT and the LXX. In theory, dierences 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 reected 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 aects the text-historical assessment
of chs. 111, 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: 1114; 14: 711, 1416. Conversely, 3 Regum contains no
Deuteronomistic materials that do not appear in 1 Kings. Small-
scale dierences (mostly word dierences) are scattered about the
materials shared by both witnesses. In this respect the Deuteronomistic
texts do not dier from the non-Deuteronomistic ones.
This state of aairs allows us to conclude that the version oered
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
reects a stage in the formative history of the book that is prior to
one (i.e., the nal) 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, dier 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 fty years; here it suces to say that none of the many
Deuteronomistic layers proposed by redaction critics coincides with
the Deuteronomistic materials (pluses/minuses and word-dierences)
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: 1114) 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 Barreras
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 rst.
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 oer 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: 1114; 8: 58; 9: 4; 11: 18, 33. None of them could
convincingly be shown to reect a textual situation secondary to that
of 3 Regum, however.
1
For an overview of opinions on the redactional history of the Deuteronomistic
History as a whole and of Kings in particular see P.S.F. van Keulen, Manasseh
through the Eyes of the Deuteronomists: The Manasseh Account (2 Kings 21: 118) and the
Final Chapters of the Deuteronomistic History (OTS 38), Leiden/New York, 1996, 452;
OBrien, Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis, 323; Provan, Hezekiah, 155.
2
Trebolle Barrera, Histoire du texte, 334f.; id., Redaction, Recension, and
Midrash, 22.
the representation of deuteronomistic text 295
Beyond chs. 111 remarkable dierences 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 oers an
extensive plus through 3 Reg. 12: 24az. 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: 3139; 14:
79, 10b, 1516, 2224 are left unrepresented. A few scholars, there-
fore, assume that the Hebrew Vorlage of the AS originally reected
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 reects 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 t the literary design of the new composition.
5
The absence of a counterpart of 1 Kgs. 14: 120 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: 118) from 3 Kgdms. 14 is undoubtedly secondary and
a result of the interpolation of the AS. Vv. 1920, then, were prob-
ably omitted by accident.
6
A few verses later, the Deuteronomistic passage through 3 Reg.
14: 2224 exhibits intriguing dierences with MT. Since the varia-
tion converges with indications of redactional intervention in MT,
we examine this case more closely.
3
J. Debus, Die Snde Jerobeams (FRLANT 93), Gttingen 1967, 8586, 90; Trebolle
Barrera, Salomn y Jerobon, 16566.
4
Cf. Talshir, Alternative Story, 247, 251.
5
Talshir, Alternative Story, 163259; McKenzie, Trouble, 2140, esp. 3940.
6
Talshir, Alternative Story, 15859.
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 rst 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. 22b24 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 :.:;
v. 22b24 ::,:, 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 kings name it only
makes explicit what is implied elsewhere in the judgment formula.
Since it has the singular form parezhlvsen as the equivalent of ::
,:, 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 briey 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 signicant that neither parallel provides a ren-
dering of, or a material counterpart to, 1 Kgs./3 Reg. 14: 22b24.
Therefore the information oered 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.
22a ka pohsen Roboam : :.: 22a
t ponhrn npion kurou : :.: .
22b ka parezlvsen atn : ::,: 22b
n psin ow pohsan o patrew ato
7
: ::. : :::
ka n taw martaiw atn aw marton :: : :: . . .
23a ka kodmhsan :::: 23a
::
autow chl ka stlaw ka lsh :: ::.:: ::: :
In the sequel of v. 22a the LXX raises some diculties that are
not encountered in MT. The Greek may be rendered as follows
(Rahlfs text): He provoked him (i.e., YHWH) to jealousy by
9
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. 22b23 in the LXX seem to qualify Rehoboams 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 oences which nowhere in the preceding
narrative have been associated with David and Solomon. It is dicult
to believe that the LXX means to accuse these kings of having com-
mitted the sins described in vv. 22b23.
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 Rehoboams fathers had unacceptable implications
for the interpretation of vv. 22b24.
If we prefer to read with LXX B oi paterew autvn for oi paterew
autou, 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 :/: interchange in the Vorlage (:::; cf.
MT :::); 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 nal verdict on Judah as announced in 2 Kgs. 21:
1214; 22: 16 (cf. 23: 2627; 24: 23, 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 dier substantially
from each other in the representation of Deuteronomistic passages.
Minor dierences occur in 1 Kgs./3 Reg. 16: 3033 and 1 Kgs. 21:
1726/3 Reg. 20: 1726. These dierences 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: 11b12a is
likely to result from parablepsis.
All this leads us to conclude that the textual stage reected by 3
Regum does not predate any comprehensive Deuteronomistic redac-
tional stratum present in 1 Kings. Dierences 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 Jerusalem
at this particular stage in the book of Kings is intended as an identity card for
the newly formed state of Judah.
14
Thus McKenzie, Trouble, 58, n. 36.
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 dierences like the transpositions, we argued
that many dierences 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 dierent 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: 14ab versus 1 Kgs. 3:
1 and 9: 1617a; 3 Reg. 6: 27: 37 versus 1 Kgs. 6: 236 and 7:
1352). 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: 326: 1b; 8: 111; 11: 18). 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 Solomons
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: 18). Goodings 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: 1420) could not be conrmed, however. The variations under
consideration all permit alternative explanations, whereas the text of
3 Regum by itself does not provide clear indications that Solomons
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 Solomons horse-trade in 1 Kgs. 10: 2829 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 dierences vis--vis MT. Thus the temple-account in 3 Reg.
67 has Solomon built the temple plus furnishings preceding the
construction of his palace, since it was considered untting for a
pious king like Solomon to engage himself in building his own palace
before nishing 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: 18 oers another example of
a paragraph where a concern for Solomons 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
Solomons 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: 2526
(counted as 3 Reg. 10: 2626a), since the citation from Chronicles
links up well with a tendency to highlight Solomons 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. 67 leaves room for drawing the conclusion that
Solomon, having nished the temple, waited 13 years before dedi-
cating it. Such a conclusion eectively undermines the impression
the LXX wishes to create in regard to Solomons 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 rst place, some of the reorderings in
3 Regum seem to be bound up with the specic phrasing of the
Greek text, notably 3 Reg. 5: 326: 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 reect either dierent readings or dierent
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: 326: 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 oer 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 from
the reviser! In fact, the original Greek may be found in the Miscellanies, where it
was transposed to by the reviser, as in the case of 3 Reg. 2: 46i (see pages 25758).
3
See page 271.
4
5
The second part of 3 Reg. 7: 31 contains a plus vis--vis MT (= 1 Kgs. 7:
45) and all other Versions:
ka pnta t skeh . . . : :::: :
pohsen Xiram t basile Salvmvn ::: ::: :. :
t ok kurou : :
ka o stloi tessarkonta ka ktv
to okou to basilvw
ka to okou kurou
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.
pnta t rga to basilvw
pohsen Xiram
xalk rdhn ::: ::
The plus reads: And the forty eight pillars of the house of the king and of the house of the
Lord; all the works of the king which Hiram made were entirely of bronze. The passage
does not produce a balanced statement since the concrete information on the pil-
lars does not t in with the summarizing statement that all the works which Hiram
made were entirely of bronze. The information on the pillars is more in line with
the enumeration of bronze furnishings and decorations for the temple in 3 Reg. 7:
26b31a, but the nominative form oi stuloi prevents us from connecting the plus
syntactically with preceding verses. It is possible that the statement has a basis in
Hebrew, 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: 4144). However, it is also possible that the Greek simply imitates the
word order of previous Greek verses rather than of a Hebrew source. Given its
poor integration in the context of v. 31, the plus has the appearance of a secondary
insertion. This is also suggested by the fact that panta ta erga tou basilevw a
epoihsen 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 forty
eight pillars.
A statement partly parallelling that of the plus at 3 Reg. 7: 31 appears in
Eupolemus work On the Kings in Judea: Solomon made a portico on the northern
side 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 between
Eupolemus and the Septuagint certain precisely because Josephus account as well
as 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-Greek
Literature [MHUC 3], Cincinnati/New York 1974, 18889). Since the LXX passage
bears 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 the
LXX passage a derivative (Wacholder, Eupolemus, 190, 25051). In Wacholders
view, Eupolemus statement is either a literary invention or a reference to a real
structure of Zerubabels temple.
If Wacholder is right and if the addition in v. 31 stems from the reviser, the
date of composition of Eupolemus work, which is 158/7 BCE, provides the termi-
nus a quo for the revision (Wacholder, Eupolemus, 7). Unfortunately, Wacholders
argument is inconclusive. The basis of agreement between the LXX and Eupolemus
is too slender to prove interdependence. The fact that the forty-eight bronze pil-
lars are assigned to partially dierent edices in LXX and Eupolemus (palace and
temple in the LXX, temple alone in Eupolemus) may even speak against the assump-
tion of interdependence. This leaves room for the possibility that Eupolemus and
the 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 expansion
of 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 dierences in content (mainly in the construction reports of chs.
67 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 dierences are of the Wiederaufnahme-
type, like the pluses in 3 Reg. 2: 29ba and 8: 65ba and the plus in
1 Kgs. 8: 41b42a (corresponding to the minus in 3 Reg. 8: 41b).
These dierences 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: 41b42a
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 concludedrather convinc-
ingly in my viewfrom a few detail dierences 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 Wacholders suspicion that the latter originally was a marginal
note. In this connection it should be noted that there is one other instance where
Eupolemus is likely to depend on 3 Regum: His assertion that Solomon became
king 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 Solomons 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 rather
than the terminus a quo.
From the above it is clear that the question of the relationship between the Greek
plus 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 reviser
at 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 denite view. The plus states that all
Israel kept the feast with Solomon in the house which he had built, eating and drinking
and 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 highlighting
Solomons 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 the
reviser who wished to highlight the blessings of Solomons reign for the people.
7
See pages 1415.
304 conclusions
to reect 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: 1114, 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 insignicance 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
reected by MT.
conclusions 305
BIBLIOGRAPHY
In bibliographic references, abbreviations are according to S.M. Schwertner, Abkrzungsverzeichnis
(TRE), Berlin/New York 1994
2
.
Allen, L.C., The Greek Chronicles: The Relation of the Septuagint of I and II Chronicles to
the 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, Jerusalem
1993, 1*7*.
Barthlemy, D., Les devanciers dAquila (VT.S 10), Leiden 1963.
, Les problmes textuels de 2 Sam 11,21 Rois 2,11 reconsidrs la
lumire de certaines critiques des Devanciers dAquila , in R.A. Kraft (ed.),
1972 Proceedings for the IOSCS and Pseudepigrapha. Los Angeles, 4 sept. 1972, Missoula
1972, 1689.
, Critique textuelle de lAncien Testament, t. I (OBO 50/1), Freiburg/Gttingen
1982.
Bartlett, J.R., An Adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite, ZAW 88 (1976),
20526.
Benzinger, I., Die Bcher der Knige (KHC 9), Freiburg 1899.
, Die Bcher der Chronik (KHC 20), Tbingen 1901.
Bochartus, S., Hierozoicon, sive Bipertitum Opus de Animalibus S. Scripturae, etc. (ex recen-
sione Joh. Leusden), Lugduni Bat./Trajecti ad Rhen. 1692
3
.
Born, A. van den, Zum Tempelweihspruch (1 Kg viii 12f.), OTS 14 (1965), 23544.
Brettler, M., The Structure of 1 Kings 111, JSOT 49 (1991), 8797.
Brire, J. Solomon dans la Septante, DBS 11, Paris 1991, 47274.
Brongers, H.A., 1 Koningen (Prediking van het Oude Testament), Nijkerk 1967.
Burkitt, F.C., The Lucianic Text of 1 Kings VIII 53
b
, JThS 10 (1909), 43946.
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 12 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 1617 (198485), 2337.
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), 28199.
, 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), 2538.
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 Monotheismus
im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte (OBO 139),
Freiburg/Gttingen 1993, 18196.
Debus, J., Die Snde Jerobeams (FRLANT 93), Gttingen 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), Gttingen 1972.
Ehrlich, A.B., Randglossen zur Hebrischen Bibel, Bd. 7, Leipzig 1914.
Elliger, K., Leviticus (HAT 4), Tbingen 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 Culture
of the Ancient Near East 11), Leiden/New York 1997, 34874.
Fernndez Marcos, N., Literary and Editorial Features of the Antiochian Text in
Kings, in C.E. Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint
and Cognate Studies. Jerusalem, 1986, Atlanta 1987, 287304.
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 and
Priestly Works (HSM 22), Chico 1981.
Frisch, A., Structure and Signicance: The Narrative of Solomons Reign (1 Kings
112.24), JSOT 51 (1991), 314.
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), 700703.
Grg, M., Die Gattung des sogenannten Tempelweihspruchs (1 Kg 8,12f.), UF
6 (1974), 5563.
Gooding, D.W., Ahab according to the Septuagint, ZAW 76 (1964), 26980.
, Pedantic Timetabling in 3rd Book of Reigns, VT 15 (1965), 15366.
, The Septuagints Version of Solomons Misconduct, VT 15 (1965), 32535.
, Temple Specications: A Dispute in Logical Arrangement between the
MT and the LXX, VT 17 (1967), 14372.
, The Septuagints Rival Versions of Jeroboams Rise to Power, VT 17
(1967), 17389.
, The Shimei Duplicate and its Satellite Miscellanies in 3 Reigns II, JSSt
13 (1968), 7692.
, Problems of Text and Midrash in the Third Book of Reigns, Textus 7
(1969), 129.
, Text-sequence and Translation-revision in 3 Reg. IX 10X 33, VT 19
(1969), 44863.
, 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.
Hnel, J., Die Zustze der Septuaginta in I Reg 2 35ao und 46al, ZAW 47
(1929), 7679.
Halvy, J., Recherches bibliques, RSEHA 8 (1900), 193238.
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 hebrischen Texte in den Knigsbchern
(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), Sheeld 1992.
Japhet, S., I & II Chronicles (OTL), London 1993.
Jepsen, A., Die Quellen des Knigsbuches, Halle 1956
2
.
Jones, G.H., 1 and 2 Kings (NCeB), Grand Rapids/London 1984.
Jongeling, K., The Hebrew Particle , Dutch StudiesNear Eastern Languages and
Literatures 3 (1997), 75108.
Kalimi, I., Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten: Literarisch-historiographische Abweichungen
der Chronik von ihren Paralleltexten in den Samuel- und Knigsbchern (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 und
biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte
(OBO 139), Freiburg/Gttingen 1993, 269306.
Keulen, P.S.F. van, Manasseh through the Eyes of the Deuteronomists: The Manasseh Account
(2 Kings 21: 118) and the Final Chapters of the Deuteronomistic History (OTS 38),
Leiden/New York, 1996.
, The Background of 3 Kgdms 2: 46c, JNWSL 24 (1998), 91110.
, A Case of Ancient Exegesis: The Story of Solomons Adversaries (1 Kgs.
11: 1425) in Septuaginta, Peshitta, and Josephus, in J. Cook (ed.), Bible and
Computer. The Stellenbosch AIBI-6 Conference. Proceedings of the Association Internationale
Bible et Informatique From Alpha to Byte. University of Stellenbosch 1721 July, 2000,
Leiden/Boston 2002, 55571.
Kittel, R., Die Bcher der Knige (HK 1,5), Gttingen 1900.
Klostermann, A., Die Bcher Samuelis und der Knige (Kurzgefasster Kommentar zu
den heiligen Schriften Alten und Neuen Testamentes sowie zu den Apokryphen),
Nrdlingen 1887.
Knauf, E.A., Le roi est mort, vive le roi! A Biblical Argument 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 the Ancient Near East
11), Leiden/New York 1997, 8195.
Knoppers, G.N., Two Nations under God. The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the
Dual Monarchies. Volume I: The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam (HSM
52), Atlanta 1993.
Kooij, A. van der, De Tekst van Samuel en het Tekstkritisch Onderzoek, NedThT
36 (1982), 177204.
Krautwurst, G., Studien zu den Septuagintazustzen in 1. (3.) Knige 2 und ihren Paralleltexten
(diss.), Mainz 1977.
Kuan, J.K., Third Kingdoms 5.1 and Israelite-Tyrian Relations during the Reign
of Solomon, JSOT 46 (1990), 3146.
Kuenen, A., Historisch-critisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken
des Ouden Verbonds, tweede, geheel omgewerkte uitgave, Deel I, 2, Haarlem
1887.
Kutsch, E., Salbung als Rechtsakt im Alten Testament und im alten Orient (BZAW 87),
Berlin/New York 1963.
Lefebvre, P., Le troisime livre des Rgnes, in M. dHamonville, F. Vinel et al.,
Autour des livres de la Septante. Proverbes, Ecclsiaste, Nombres, 3
eme
Livre des Rgnes,
Paris 1995, 81122.
Lgasse, S., Les voiles du temple de Jrusalem: essai de parcours historique, RB
87 (1980), 56089.
Lemaire, A., Les premiers rois aramens dans la tradition biblique, in P.M.M.
Daviau, J.W. Wevers, and M. Weigl (eds.), The World of the Aramaeans I: Biblical
Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugne Dion ( JSOT.S 324), Sheeld 2001, 11343.
, Nouvelles tablettes aramennes (HEO 34), Genve 2001.
Long, B.O., 1 Kings (FOTL 9), Grand Rapids 1984.
Loretz, O., Der Torso eines Kanaanisch-Isralitischen Tempelweihspruches in
1 Kg 8,1213, UF 6 (1974), 47880.
Margolis, M.L., Miszellen, ZAW 31 (1911), 31315.
May, H.G., Some Aspects of Solar Worship at Jerusalem, ZAW 55 (1937), 26981.
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), 1534.
308 bibliography
, The Trouble with Kings. The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic
History (VT.S 42), Leiden/New York 1991.
Mettinger, T.N.D., King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite
Kings, Lund 1976.
Montgomery, J.A., The Year Eponymate in the Hebrew Monarchy, JBL 49 (1930),
31119.
, The Supplement at End of 3 Kingdoms 2 [I Reg 2], ZAW 50 (1932),
12429.
Montgomery, J.A., and Gehman, H.S., The Books of Kings (ICC), Edinburgh 1951.
Mulder, M.J., 1 Kings. Volume I: 1 Kings 111 (Historical Commentary on the Old
Testament), Leuven 1998.
Noth, M., Knige, I.116 (BK 9/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1968.
, The Deuteronomistic History ( JSOT.S 15), Sheeld 1991
2
.
OBrien, M.A., The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment (OBO 92),
Freiburg/Gttingen 1989.
Parker, K.I., Repetition as a Structuring Device in 1 Kings 111, JSOT 42 (1988),
1927.
, The Limits to Solomons Reign: A Response to Amos Frisch, JSOT 51
(1991), 1521.
Peterca, V., Ein midraschartiges Auslegungsbeispiel zugunsten Salomos. 1 Kn
8,12133 Reg 8,53a, BZ 31 (1987), 27075.
, Solomone nel Libro greco dei Re, detto Regni. Un analisi del suo ritatto
in chiave midrashica, RevBib 30 (1982), 17596.
Polak, F.H., The Septuaginta Account of Solomons Reign: Revision and Ancient
Recension, in B.A. Taylor (ed.), X Congress of the International Organization for
Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Oslo, 1998, Atlanta 2001, 13964.
Porten, B., The Structure and Theme of the Solomon Narrative (1 Kings 311),
HUCA 38 (1967), 93128.
Provan, I.W., Hezekiah and the Books of Kings. A Contribution to the Debate about the
Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (BZAW 172), Berlin/New York 1988.
Rahlfs, A., Septuaginta-Studien IIII, Gttingen 1965
2
.
Rehm, M., Textkritische Untersuchungen zu den Parallelstellen der Samuel-Knigsbcher und
der Chronik (ATA 13/3), Mnster 1937.
, Die Beamtenliste der Septuaginta in 1 Kn 2,46h, in J. Schreiner (ed.),
Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch. Beitrge zur Septuaginta. Festschrift fr Joseph Ziegler
(Forschung zur Bibel 1), Wrzburg 1972.
, Das erste Buch der Knige. Ein Kommentar, Eichsttt 1979.
Rudolph, W., Chronikbcher (HAT), Tbingen 1955.
Srki, P., Die Weisheit und Macht Salomos in der Israelitischen Historiographie. Eine tradi-
tions- und redaktionskritische Untersuchung ber 1 Kn. 35 und 911 (Schriften der
nnischen exegetischen Gesellschaft 60), Gttingen 1994.
Schenker, A., Un cas de critique narrative au service de la critique textuelle
(1 Rois 11,4312,23.20), Bib. 77 (1996), 21926.
, Jroboam et la division du royaume dans la Septante ancienne: LXX
1 Rois 12, 24az, TM 1112; 14 et lhistoire deutronomiste, in A. de Pury, Th.
Rmer, J.-D. Macchi (eds.), Israel construit son histoire. Lhistoriographie deutronomiste
la lumire des recherches rcentes (Le Monde de la Bible 34), Genve 1996, 193236.
, Corve ou ressources de Solomon? TM 1 Rois 9, 1523 et LXX 3 Rgnes
10, 2325, RevSR 73 (1999), 15164.
, Septante et texte massortique dans lhistoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 214
(CRB 48), Paris 2000.
Shenkel, J.D., Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings (HSM
1), Cambridge (Massachusetts) 1968.
bibliography 309
Shenkel, J.D., A Comparative Study of the Synoptic Parallels in 1 Paraleipomena
and III Reigns, HThR 62 (1969), 6385.
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 the
International Symposium for Biblical Studies Tokyo, 57 December 1979, Tokyo 1982,
25967.
Soisalon-Soininen, I., Die Innitive in der Septuaginta (AASF B/132), Helsinki 1965.
Stade, B., Der Text des Berichtes ber Solomons Bauten. 1 K. 57, ZAW 3
(1883), 12977.
Stade, B. and Schwally, F., The Books of Kings. Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text (SBOT
9), Leipzig 1904.
Sthli, H.-P., Solare Elemente im Jahweglauben des Alten Testaments (OBO 66), Freiburg/
Gttingen 1985.
Stipp, H.-J., Das Verhltnis von Textkritik und Literarkritik in neueren alttesta-
mentlichen Verentlichungen, BZ 34 (1990), 1637.
Sweeney, M.A., The Critique of Solomon in the Josianic Edition of the
Deuteronomistic History, JBL 114 (1995), 60722.
anda, A. , Die Bcher der Knige (EHAT 9), Mnster 1911.
Talshir, Z., The Image of the Septuagint Edition of the Book of Kings, Tarb. 59
(1990), 249302 [Hebrew; English summary pages III].
, The Alternative Story of the Division of the Kingdom (3 Kingdoms 12: 24az) ( JBS
6), Jerusalem 1993.
, The Contribution of Diverging Traditions Preserved in the Septuagint to
Literary Criticism of the Bible, in L. Greenspoon and O. Munnich (eds.), VIII
Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Paris 1992
(SCSt 41), Atlanta 1995, 2140.
, The Reign of Solomon in the Making. Pseudo-Connections between 3
Kingdoms and Chronicles, VT 50 (2000), 23349.
, Literary DesignA Criterion for Originality? A Case Study: 3 Kgdms
12:24az; 1 K 1114, in Y. Goldman and C. Uehlinger (eds.), La double trans-
mission du texte biblique. Etudes dhistoire du texte oertes en hommage Adrian Schenker
(OBO 179), Fribourg/Gttingen 2001, 4157.
Taylor, J.G., Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in
Ancient Israel ( JSOT.S 111), Sheeld 1993.
Thackeray, H.St.J., The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings, JThS 8
(1907), 26278.
, New Light on the Book of Jashar (A Study of 3 Regn. VIII 53b LXX),
JThS 11 (1910), 51832.
, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship, London 1921.
Thenius, O., Die Bcher der Knige (KEH), Leipzig 1873
2
.
Tov, E., Lucian and Proto-Lucian. Toward a New Solution of the Problem, RB
79 (1972), 10113.
, The LXX Additions (Miscellanies) in 1 Kings 2 (3 Reigns 2), Textus 11
(1984), 89118.
, Some Sequence Dierences between the MT and LXX and their
Ramications for the Literary Criticism of the Bible, JNWSL 13 (1987), 15160.
, 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., Salomn y Jerobon. Historia de la recensin y redaccin de 1 Reyes
212, 14 (Institucin San Jernimo 10), Valencia 1980.
, Testamento y muerte de David, RB 87 (1980), 87103.
, Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings, BIOSCS 15
(1982), 1235.
310 bibliography
, Centena in Libros Samuelis et Regum. Variantes textuales y composicin literaria en
los 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 Cognate
Studies, Leuven 1989 (SCSt 31), Atlanta 1991, 28599.
, The Authoritative Functions of Scriptural Works at Qumran, 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, 95110.
, Histoire du texte des livres historiques et histoire de la composition et de
la rdaction deutronomistes avec une publication prliminaire de 4Q481A,
Apocryphe dlise, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Paris 1992, Leiden/
New York 1995, 32742.
Van Seters., J., In Search of History. Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of
Biblical History, New Haven 1983.
Vanoni, G., Literarkritik und Grammatik: Untersuchung der Wiederholungen und Spannungen
in 1 Kn 11-12 (ATSAT 21), St. Ottilien 1984.
Wacholder, B.Z., Eupolemus. A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature (MHUC 3), Cincinnati/New
York 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, Cambridge
1973.
Weinfeld, M.E., Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford 1972.
Weippert, H., Die deuteronomistischen Beurteilungen der Knige von Israel und
Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Knigsbcher, Bib. 53 (1972), 30139.
Wellhausen, J., Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bcher des Alten Testaments,
Berlin 1889
2
.
Wevers, J.W., Exegetical Principles underlying the Septuagint Text of I Kings
ii 12xxi 43, OTS 8 (1950), 30022.
, A Study in the Textual History of Codex Vaticanus in the Books of
Kings, ZAW 64 (1952), 17889.
Williams, D.S., Once Again: The Structure of the Narrative of Solomons Reign,
JSOT 86 (1999), 4966.
Williamson, H.G.M., 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCeB), Grand Rapids 1982.
Willis, T.M., The Text of 1 Kings 11:4312:3, CBQ 53 (1991), 3744.
Wrthwein, E., Das Erste Buch der Knige. Kapitel 116 (ATD 11,1), Gttingen 1977.
The following abbreviations are used to refer to editions of biblical sources, dictionaries, and ref-
erence works:
AHw Soden, W. von, Akkadisches Handwrterbuch, IIII, Wiesbaden
19651981.
Bauer Bauer, W., Wrterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Berlin/New York 1971
5
.
BD Blass, F. and Debrunner, A., Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch.
Bearbeitet von F. Rehkopf, Gttingen 1979
15
.
BDB Brown, F., Driver, S.R. and Briggs, C.A. (eds.), A Hebrew and
English Lexicon of the Old Testament, with an Appendix Containing the
Biblical Aramaic, Oxford 1906.
BHK Biblia Hebraica, ed. R. Kittel, Stuttgart 19291937.
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), Oxford
1995.
bibliography 311
DSS Garca Martnez, F., The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. The Qumran
Text in English, Leiden/New York 1994.
Fernndez Marcos Fernndez Marcos, N., and Busto Saiz, J.R., El texto Antioqueno
-Busto Saiz de la biblia griega, II. 12 Reyes (TECC 53), Madrid 1992.
Gesenius Gesenius, W., Hebrisches und Aramisches Handwrterbuch ber das
Alte Testament, I-, Berlin 1987
18
.
HALAT Koehler, L. and Baumgartner, W., Hebrisches und aramisches
Lexikon zum Alten Testament. Dritte Auage new bearbeitet von J.J.
Stamm, IIV, Leiden 19671990.
Hatch-Redpath Hatch, E., and Redpath, H.A., A Concordance to the Septuagint
and the Other Greek Versions of the OT, Oxford 18971906 (reprint
Graz 1954).
Jastrow Jastrow, M., A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and
Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, London 1903 (reprint New
York 1996).
Jewish Ant. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities. Books VVIII (Loeb Classical Library;
Josephus V), translated by H.St.J. Thackeray and R. Marcus,
Cambridge (Massachusetts)/London 1988 (reprint).
Joon-Muraoka Joon, P., A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and Revised by
T. Muraoka (SubBi 14/I, II), Roma 1991.
KBL Koehler, L. and Baumgartner, W., Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti
Libros, Leiden 1958
2
.
Knig Knig, F.E., Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebade der hebrischen Sprache,
IIII, Leipzig 18811897.
LSJ Liddell, H.G., Scott, R. and Jones, H.S., A Greek-English Lexicon,
Oxford 1968
9
.
Rahlfs Rahlfs, A., Septuaginta, id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX
interpretes, Stuttgart 1935.
THAT Jenni, E. and Westermann, C. (eds.), Theologisches Handwrterbuch
zum Alten Testament, III, Mnchen 1978
3
.
ThWAT Botterbeck, G.J. and Ringgren, H. (eds.), Theologisches Wrterbuch
zum Alten Testament, Stuttgart 1973.
Vannutelli, I Vannutelli, P., Libri Synoptici Veteris Testamenti seu Librorum Regum
et Chronicorum Loci Paralleli, I (SPIB), Roma 1931.
312 bibliography
APPENDIX
SYNOPSIS OF 3 REGUM 2: 35AO, 46AL 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 insucient 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.
L
X
X

3

R
e
g
.

M
i
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
i
e
s
M
T

1

K
g
s
.
L
X
X

3

R
e
g
.

m
a
i
n

t
e
x
t
M
T

1

K
g
s
.
L
X
X

2

P
a
r
.
M
T

2

C
h
r
o
n
.
2
:

3
5
a
k
a
d
v
k
e
n

k
r
i
o
w
5
:

9
k
a
d
v
k
e
n

k
r
i
o
w
:

5
:

9
f
r
n
h
s
i
n

t

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
f
r
n
h
s
i
n

t

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
:
:
:
:

:
:
k
a

s
o
f
a
n

p
o
l
l
n

s
f
d
r
a
k
a

s
o
f
a
n

p
o
l
l
n

s
f
d
r
a
:
:
:
:
k
a

p
l
t
o
w

k
a
r
d
a
w
k
a
m
a

k
a
r
d
a
w
:
:

:
m
m
o
w
m
m
o
w
:
:

p
a
r

p
a
r
:
.

c
:
n

y
l
a
s
s
a
n
t
n

y
l
a
s
s
a
n
2
:

3
5
b
k
a
p
l
h
y
n
y
h
5
:

1
0
k
a
p
l
h
y
n
y
h
:
:

5
:

1
0

f
r
n
h
s
i
w
:
:
S
a
l
v
m
v
n
S
a
l
v
m
v
n
:
:
:
s
f
d
r
a
s
f
d
r
a
r

t
n

f
r
n
h
s
i
n
r

t
n

f
r
n
h
s
i
n
:
:
n
t
v
n

r
x
a
v
n

u
n
p
n
t
v
n

r
x
a
v
n

n
y
r
p
v
n
:
:
:
:
k
a
r

p
n
t
a
w

f
r
o
n
m
o
u
w
k
a
r

p
n
t
a
w

f
r
o
n
m
o
u
w
:
:

:
:
:
:
A
p
t
o
u
A
p
t
o
u
.
:
:
:
:

:

3
:

1
.
:

:
:

2
:

3
5
c
k
a
l
a
b
e
n
5
:

1
4
a
k
a
l
a
b
e
n

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
t
n

y
u
g
a
t
r
a

F
a
r
a
v
n

y
u
g
a
t
r
a

F
a
r
a
v
a
u
t
w

g
u
n
a
k
a
k
a
g
a
g
e
n

a
k
a
g
a
g
e
n

a
n
e
w

t
n

p
l
i
n

D
a
u
i
d
w

t
n

p
l
i
n

D
a
u
i
d
v
w

s
u
n
t
e
l
s
a
i

a
n
:
:
:

v
w

s
u
n
t
e
l
s
a
i

a
:
:
:
:
n

o
k
o
n

a
t
o
u
:
n

o
k
o
n

k
u
r
o
u
k
a
n

o
k
o
n

k
u
r
o
u
k
a
n

o
k
o
n

a
u
t
o
n

p
r
t
o
i
w
k
a

t
e
x
o
w

I
e
r
o
u
s
a
l
h
m
:
:
:
:
:
k
a

t
e
x
o
w

I
e
r
o
u
s
a
l
h
m
k
u
k
l
y
e
n
:
:
p
t
t
e
s
i
n
:
:
:
:

6
:

3
8
b
b
p
o
h
s
e
n
:
:

.
:
:
k
a

s
u
n
e
t
l
e
s
e
n
314 appendix
L
X
X

3

R
e
g
.

M
i
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
i
e
s
M
T

1

K
g
s
.
L
X
X

3

R
e
g
.

m
a
i
n

t
e
x
t
M
T

1

K
g
s
.
L
X
X

2

P
a
r
.
M
T

2

C
h
r
o
n
.
2
:

3
5
d
k
a
n

t

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
5
:

2
9
k
a
n

t

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
:
:
:
:

:

5
:

2
9
b
d
o
m
k
o
n
t
a

x
i
l
i
d
e
w
b
d
o
m
k
o
n
t
a

x
i
l
i
d
e
w
.
:
:
r
o
n
t
e
w

r
s
i
n
a
r
o
n
t
e
w

r
s
i
n
:
:
:

:
:
k
a
g
d
o
k
o
n
t
a

x
i
l
i
d
e
w
k
a
g
d
o
k
o
n
t
a

x
i
l
i
d
e
w
:
:
:
:
l
a
t
m
v
n

n

t
r
e
i
l
a
t
m
v
n

n

t
r
e
i
:

:
.
2
:

3
5
e
k
a
p
o
h
s
e
n

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
t
n

y
l
a
s
s
a
n
c
f
.
7
:

1
0
c
f
.
7
:

2
3
k
a
p
o
s
t
h
r
g
m
a
t
a
c
f
.
7
:

1
1
c
f
.
7
:

2
4
k
a

t
o
w

l
o
u
t
r
a
w
c
f
.
7
:

1
7
c
f
.
7
:

3
0
,

3
8
,

4
3
t
o
w

m
e
g
l
o
u
w
k
a

t
o
w

s
t
l
o
u
w
c
f
.
7
:

3
9
c
f
.
7
:

1
5
2
2
k
a
n

k
r
n
h
n
t
w

a
w
k
a
n

y
l
a
s
s
a
n
c
f
.
7
:

1
0
c
f
.
7
:

2
3
t
n

x
a
l
k
n
3

R
e
g
u
m
1

K
i
n
g
s
3

R
e
g
u
m
3

R
e
g
u
m
2
:

3
5
f
k
a
k
o
d
m
h
s
e
n
1
1
:

2
7
(
b
)

S
a
l
v
m
v
n

k
o
d
m
h
s
e
n
:
:

:
:
:
1
1
:

2
7
(
b
)
1
0
:

2
2
a
(
.
.
.
)

k
o
d
s
a
i

(
.
.
.
)
1
2
:

2
4
b

o
t
o
w

k
o
d
m
h
s
e
n
t
k
r
a
n
t
k
r
a
n
:
:
:
k
r
a
n
t
k
r
a
n

n

t
a
r
s
e
s
i
n

o
k
o
u

E
f
r
a
i
m
k
a
l
j
e
i
w

a
w
s
u
n
k
l
e
i
s
e
n
:
:
t
o

p
e
r
i
f
r
j
a
i
o
t
o
w

s
u
n
k
l
e
i
s
e
n
t
n
k
a

d
i
k
o
c
e
n

f
r
a
g
m
f
r
a
g
m
n
t
n

p
l
i
n

D
a
u
i
d
t
w

p
l
e
v
w

D
a
u
i
d
w

p
l
e
v
w

D
a
u
i
d
t
n

p
l
i
n

D
a
u
i
d
t
o

p
a
t
r
w

a
t
o
t
v
w

y
u
g
t
h
r

F
a
r
a
v

9
:

2
4
9
:

9
a
t
t
e

g
a
g
e
n

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
8
:
1
1
a
k
a
n

y
u
g
a
t
r
a

F
a
r
a
v
:

8
:
1
1
a
b
a
i
n
e
n
:
.
n

y
u
g
a
t
r
a

F
a
r
a
v
S
a
l
v
m
v
n

g
a
g
e
n
:
:
:

:
.
k

t
w

p
l
e
v
w

D
a
u
i
d
.
:
k

p
l
e
v
w

D
a
u
i
d
k

p
l
e
v
w

D
a
u
i
d
.
:
w

t
n

o
k
o
n

a
w

o
k
o
n

a
t
o
u
e
w

t
n

o
k
o
n
:
:
k
o
d
m
h
s
e
n

a
:
:

k
o
d
m
h
s
e
n

a
u
t
k
o
d
m
h
s
e
n

a
:
:

n

t
a
r
a
i
w

k
e
n
a
i
w
t
t
e

k
o
d
m
h
s
e
n

t
k
r
a
n
:
:
:
:
:

overview of 3 reg. 2: 35ao, 46al and parallel texts 315

L
X
X

3

R
e
g
.

M
i
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
i
e
s
M
T

1

K
g
s
.
L
X
X

3

R
e
g
.

m
a
i
n

t
e
x
t
M
T

1

K
g
s
.
L
X
X

2

P
a
r
.
M
T

2

C
h
r
o
n
.
2
:

3
5
g
k
a

S
a
l
v
m
v
n

f
e
r
e
n
:
:
:

:
.
:

9
:

2
5
8
:
1
2
t
t
e

n
e
g
k
e
n

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
:
:
:

:
.

8
:
1
2
t
r
e
n

t
n
i
a
u
t
:
:
:

:
.
c

:
:
:
l
o
k
a
u
t
s
e
i
w
:
:
.
l
o
k
a
u
t
m
a
t
a

t

k
u
r
:
:
.
k
a
r
h
n
i
k
:
:
:
:

y
u
s
i
a
s
t
r
i
o
n
:
.

y
u
s
i
a
s
t
r
i
o
n
:

:
.
k
o
d
m
h
s
e
n
:
:

k
o
d
m
h
s
e
n
:
:

k
u
r
n
a
n
t
i

t
o

n
a
o
:
:
:
c
:
k
a
y
u
m
:
,
p
i
o
n

k
u
r
o
u
:
c
:
k
a

s
u
n
e
t
l
e
s
e
n

t
n

o
k
o
n
:
:
:
2
:

3
5
h
k
a
t
o
i

o
r
x
o
n
t
e
w

9
:

2
3
5
:

3
0
x
v
r
r
x
n
t
v
n
:
:

:
:

5
:

3
0
8
:

1
0
k
a
t
o
i

r
x
o
n
t
e
w
:

8
:

1
0
o

k
a
y
e
s
t
a
m
n
o
i
:
.
:
n

k
a
y
e
s
t
a
m
n
v
n
:
.
:
n

p
r
o
s
t
a
t
:
.
:
:
:
:
:
b
a
s
i
l
v
w

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
:
:
:

:
:
:
r
g
a

t
o

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
.
r
g
v
n

t
n

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
:
:
:
.
t
r
e
w

x
i
l
i
d
e
w
:
:
t
r
e
w

x
i
l
i
d
e
w
c
:
:
:
:
p
e
n
t
k
o
n
t
a
:
:
k
a
j
a
k
s
i
o
i
:

:
:
k
a
j
a
k
s
i
o
i
:

:
:
:
:
k
a

d
i
a
k
s
i
o
i
:
:
p
i
s
t
t
a
i
p
i
s
t
t
a
i
r
g
o
d
i
v
k
t
o
n
t
e
w
t
o

l
a
o
u
.
:
.
:
n

t

l
a
.
:
n

p
o
i
o
n
t
v
n

t
r
g
a
:
:
:

:
.

p
o
i
o
n
t
e
w

t
r
g
a
:
:
:

:
.
2
:

3
5
i
k
a
k
o
d
m
h
s
e
n
1
0
:

2
2
a
(
.
.
.
)

k
o
d
s
a
i

(
.
.
.
)
(
.
.
.
)

:
:
:
:
(
.
.
.
)

9
:

1
5
t
n

A
s
s
o
u
r
t
n

A
s
s
o
u
r

k
a
n

M
a
g
d
v
k
a
n

M
a
g
d
a
n
:
:
:
k
a
n

G
a
z
e
r
k
a
n

G
a
z
e
r
(
.
.
.
)

8
:

5
a
(
k
a
k
o
d
m
h
s
e
n
)
(
:
)
8
:

5
a
k
a
n

B
a
i
y
v
r
v
n

t
n
v
k
a
n

B
a
i
y
v
r
v
n

t
n
v
t
r
v
t
n

B
a
i
y
v
r
v
n

t
n
v
:
.
:

9
:

1
7
b
k
a
n

B
a
i
y
v
r
v
n

t
n

k
t
v
k
a

B
a
a
l
a
y
:
.
:
9
:

1
8
8
:

6
a
k
a
n

B
a
a
l
a
y
:
.
:
8
:

6
a
316 appendix
L
X
X

3

R
e
g
.

M
i
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
i
e
s
M
T

1

K
g
s
.
L
X
X

3

R
e
g
.

m
a
i
n

t
e
x
t
M
T

1

K
g
s
.
L
X
X

2

P
a
r
.
M
T

2

C
h
r
o
n
.
2
:

3
5
k
p
l
n
c
f
.
1
0
:

2
2
a
c
f
.
9
:

1
5
m
e
t
k
o
d
o
m
s
a
i

a
n
t
n

o
k
o
n

t
o

k
u
r
o
u
k
a

t
e
x
o
w

I
e
r
o
u
s
a
l
h
m
k
k
l
m
e
t

t
a
t
a
k
o
d
m
h
s
e
n
t
w

p
l
e
i
w

t
a
t
a
w
2
:

3
5
l
k
a
n

t
t
i

D
a
u
i
d

z
n
e
t
e
l
a
t
o

t

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
2
:

1
b

k
a
n
e
t
e
l
a
t
o

t

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
:
:
:

:
.
:

2
:

1
b
u
t
o
u
:
:
:
g
v
n
l
g
v
n
d
o

m
e
t

s
o

S
e
m
e
i
2
:

8
k
a
d
o

m
e
t

s
o

S
e
m
e
.
:
:

:
.

:

2
:

8
u
w

G
h
r
a
u
w

G
h
r
a
w
u
s
p
r
m
a
t
o
w
t
o

I
e
m
i
n
i
t
o

I
e
m
e
n
i
k

X
e
b
r
v
n
k

B
a
o
u
r
i
m
:
:
2
:

3
5
m
o
t
o
w

k
a
t
h
r
s
a
t

m
e
k
a
w

k
a
t
h
r
s
a
t

m
e
:
:
:
,

k
a
t
r
a
n

d
u
n
h
r
n
k
a
t
r
a
n

d
u
n
h
r
:
:

:
:
,
r
&
t
r
&
p
o
r
e
u
m
h
n
p
o
r
e
u
m
h
n
:
:
w

p
a
r
e
m
b
o
l
w
e
w

p
a
r
e
m
b
o
l
2
:

3
5
n
k
a
w

k
a
t
b
a
i
n
e
n
k
a
w

k
a
t
b
h
p
a
n
t
n

m
o
i
e
p
a
n
t
n

m
o
u
,
:
n

I
o
r
d
n
h
n
e
w

t
n

I
o
r
d
n
h
n
k
a
m
o
s
a

a
k
a
m
o
s
a

a
:
:

.
:
:
k
a
t

t
o

k
u
r
o
u
n

k
u
r
g
v
n
l
g
v
n

y
a
n
a
t
v
y
s
e
t
a
i
e

y
a
n
a
t
s
v

s
e
n

=
o
m
f
a
&
n

=
o
m
f
a
&

L
X
X

3

R
e
g
.

M
i
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
i
e
s
M
T

1

K
g
s
.
L
X
X

3

R
e
g
.

m
a
i
n

t
e
x
t
M
T

1

K
g
s
.
L
X
X

2

P
a
r
.
M
T

2

C
h
r
o
n
.
2
:

3
5
o
k
a
2
:

9
k
a
:

2
:

9
n
w

a
n
o
w

a
n
:
,
:
t
i

r

f
r
n
i
m
o
w

s
u
t
i

r

s
o
f
w

e

s
u
k
a

g
n
k
a

g
n

p
o
i
s
e
i
w

a

p
o
i
s
e
i
w

a
:
:
:
.
k
a

k
a
t
j
e
i
w
k
a

k
a
t
j
e
i
w
n

p
o
l
i
n

a
t
o
u
t
n

p
o
l
i
n

a
t
o
u
:
n

a
m
a
t
i
n

a
m
a
t
i
d
o
u
e
d
o
u
:
:
318 appendix
L
X
X

3

R
e
g
.

M
i
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
i
e
s
M
T

1

K
g
s
.
L
X
X

3

R
e
g
.

m
a
i
n

t
e
x
t
M
T

1

K
g
s
.
L
X
X

2

P
a
r
.
M
T

2

C
h
r
o
n
.
2
:

4
6
a

k
a

b
a
s
i
l
e
w

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
f
r
n
i
m
o
w

s
f
d
r
a

k
a

s
o
f
w
k
a

I
o
u
d
a

k
a

I
s
r
a
h
l
:

4
:

2
0
p
o
l
l
o
s
f
d
r
a
m
m
o
w
:
:
w

y
a
l
s
s
h
w
:
.
w

p
l
y
o
w
:
s
y
o
n
t
e
w
:
:
8
:

6
5

s
y
v
n
k
a
n
o
n
t
e
w
:
:
k
a
n
v
n
k
a

x
a
r
o
n
t
e
w
:
:
:
k
a
f
r
a
i
n
m
e
n
o
w
3

R
e
g
u
m
2
:

4
6
b
k
a

S
a
l
v
m
v
n

r
x
v
n
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:

5
:

1
1
0
:

2
6
a
k
a
g
o
m
e
n
o
w
2
:

4
6
k
k
a
r
x
v
n
9
:

2
6
k
a
g
o
m
e
n
o
w
:
:
:
:

:

9
:

2
6
n

p
s
a
i
w

t
a
w

b
a
s
i
l
e
a
i
w
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
n
t
v
n

t
n

b
a
s
i
l
v
n
n

p
s
i
n

t
o
w

b
a
s
i
l
e
s
i
n
p
n
t
v
n

t
n

b
a
s
i
l
v
n
:
:
:
:
:
:

t
o

p
o
t
a
m
o
u

t
o

p
o
t
a
m
o
u

t
o

p
o
t
a
m
o
u
k
a
v
w
k
a
v
w
k
a
v
w
.
:
:
:
c

l
l
o
f
l
v
n
g
l
l
o
f
l
v
n
g
l
l
o
f
l
v
n
:
:
c

.
:

:
:
:
:

.
:
k
a
v
w

v
n

A
p
t
o
u
k
a
v
w

v
n

A
p
t
o
u
k
a
v
w

v
n

A
p
t
o
u
.
:

:
:
:
:

.
:
k
a
s
a
n

p
r
o
s
f
r
o
n
t
e
w
:
:
:
c
f
.

1
0
:

2
5
a
k
a
t
o
f
e
r
o
n
:
:

:

1
0
:

2
5
a
d
r
a
:
:
k
a
s
t
o
w

t
r
a

a
t
o
:
:

:
k
a
d
o
l
e
u
o
n

t

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
:
:
:
:
.
:
s
a
w

t
r
a
w
:
:
w

z
v
w

a
t
o
2
:

4
6
c
k
a

S
a
l
v
m
v
n

r
j
a
t
o

d
i
a
n
o
g
e
i
n
c
f
.
9
:

9
t

d
u
n
a
s
t
e
m
a
t
a

t
o

L
i
b
n
o
u
2
:

4
6
d
k
a
k
o
d
m
h
s
e
n
[
.
.
.
:
:
:

:
]

9
:

1
8
b
1
0
:

2
2
a

(
.
.
.
)

k
o
d
s
a
i

(
.
.
.
)
8
:

4
a
k
a
k
o
d
m
h
s
e
n
8
:

4
a
t
n

Y
e
r
m
a
i

n

t
:
:

n

I
e
y
e
r
m
a
y
t
n

Y
e
d
m
o
r

n

t
:
:


L
X
X

3

R
e
g
.

M
i
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
i
e
s
M
T

1

K
g
s
.
L
X
X

3

R
e
g
.

m
a
i
n

t
e
x
t
M
T

1

K
g
s
.
L
X
X

2

P
a
r
.
M
T

2

C
h
r
o
n
.
2
:

4
6
e
k
a

t
o
t
o

t
r
i
s
t
o
n
5
:

2
k
a

t
a
t
a

t
o
n
t
a
:

5
:

2
t

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
t

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
:
:
:
r
&

m
i
t
r
i
k
o
n
t
a

k
r
o
i
t
r
i
k
o
n
t
a

k
r
o
i
:
:
:
s
e
m
i
d
l
e
v
w
s
e
m
i
d
l
e
v
w
:
:
k
a
k
o
n
t
a

k
r
o
i
k
a
k
o
n
t
a

k
r
o
i
:
:
:
l
e
r
o
u
l
e
r
o
u
:
,
k
e
k
o
p
a
n
i
s
m
n
o
u
k
e
k
o
p
a
n
i
s
m
n
o
u
d
k
a
5
:

3
k
a
k
a
:
.

5
:

3
m
s
x
o
i

k
l
e
k
t
o
s
x
o
i

k
l
e
k
t
o
,
:
k
a
k
o
s
i
k
a
k
o
s
i
:
.
:
e
w

n
o
m
d
e
w
b
e
w

n
o
m
d
e
w
,
:
k
a
k
a
t
n

p
r
b
a
t
a
k
a
k
a
t
n

p
r
b
a
t
a
:
:
k
t
f
v
n
k
t
f
v
n
:
:
:
k
a

d
o
r
k
d
v
n
k
a

d
o
r
k
d
v
n
:
:
:
.
:
k
a
r
n
y
v
n

k
l
e
k
t
n

n
o
m
d
v
n
k
a
r
n
y
v
n

k
l
e
k
t
n

s
i
t
e
u
t
a
:
:
:
:
:
2
:

4
6
f
t
i

r
x
v
n
:

5
:

4
5
:

4
t
i

r
x
v
n
n

p
a
n
t
:
:
:
r
a
n

t
o

p
o
t
a
m
o
u
:
.
r
a
n

t
o

p
o
t
a
m
o

R
a
f
i

v
w

G
z
h
w
.
:

:
c
n

p
s
i
n

t
o
w

b
a
s
i
l
e
s
i
n
:
:
:
:
:
:
r
a
n

t
o

p
o
t
a
m
o
u
:
.
2
:

4
6
g
k
a
n

a
n
h
:
:

:
:
:
:
k
a
n

a
n
h
k

p
n
t
v
n

t
n

m
e
r
n

a
t
o
u
:
:
.
:
:
:
k

p
n
t
v
n

t
n

m
e
r
n
k
u
k
l
y
e
n
:
:
:
k
u
k
l
y
e
n
k
a

k
a
t
k
e
i

I
o
u
d
a

k
a

I
s
r
a
h
l
:

:
:
:

5
:

5
p
e
p
o
i
y
t
e
w
:
:
:
k
a
s
t
o
w

m
p
e
l
o
n

a
t
o
u
:
:
c
:

k
a
n

s
u
k
n

a
t
o
u
:
s
y
o
n
t
e
w

k
a
n
o
n
t
e
w

D
a
n

k
a
v
w

B
h
r
s
a
b
e
e
.
:
:

.
:

s
a
w

t
r
a
w

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
:
:
:

:
:
320 appendix
L
X
X

3

R
e
g
.

M
i
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
i
e
s
M
T

1

K
g
s
.
L
X
X

3

R
e
g
.

m
a
i
n

t
e
x
t
M
T

1

K
g
s
.
L
X
X

2

P
a
r
.
M
T

2

C
h
r
o
n
.
2
:

4
6
h
k
a
t
o
i

o
r
x
o
n
t
e
w
4
:

2
k
a
t
o
i

o
r
x
o
n
t
e
w

:

4
:

2
t
o

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
o
s
a
n

a
t
o
:
:
A
z
a
r
i
o
n

u
w

S
a
d
v
k
A
z
a
r
i
o
u

u
w

S
a
d
v
k
,
:
:

:
t
o
e
r
v
w
k
a

O
r
n
i
o
u

u
w

N
a
y
a
n
4
:

5
a
k
a

O
r
n
i
a

u
w

N
a
y
a
n
:

:
.
:

4
:

5
a
r
x
v
n

t
f
e
s
t
h
k
t
v
n
n

k
a
y
e
s
t
a
m
n
v
n
:
.
:
:
.
k
a

E
d
r
a
m
n

o
k
o
n

a
t
o
u
4
:

3
k
a

E
l
i
a
r
e
f

4
:

3
k
a

A
x
i
a
k
a

S
o
u
b
a

g
r
a
m
m
a
t
e
w
u
w

S
a
b
a

g
r
a
m
m
a
t
e
:
:

c
:
k
a

I
v
s
a
f
a
t

u
w

A
x
i
l
i
d
:
:
:

:
c
:
:
p
o
m
i
m
n
s
k
v
n
k
a

B
a
s
a

u
w

A
x
i
y
a
l
a
m
n
a
m
i
m
n
s
k
v
n
k
a

A
b
i

u
w

I
v
a
b
r
x
i
s
t
r
t
h
g
o
w
k
a

A
x
i
r
e

u
w

E
d
r
a
4
:

6
b

k
a

A
d
v
n
i
r
a
m

u
w

E
f
r
a
:
.
:

4
:

6
b
r
s
e
i
w
n

f
r
v
n
:
:
:
.
k
a

B
a
n
a
i
a

u
w

I
v
d
a
e
.
:

:
:
:
:

4
:

4
w

a
l
a
r
x
a
w
:
.
:
.
k
a

t
o

p
l
i
n
y
e
o
u
4
:

4

k
a

S
a
d
o
u
x

k
a

A
b
i
a
y
a
r
:

,
:
.
:
e
r
e
:
k
a

Z
a
x
o
u
r

u
w

N
a
y
a
n
4
:

5
b

k
a

Z
a
b
o
u
y

u
w

N
a
y
a
n
:
:
:

4
:

5
b
m
b
o
u
l
o
w
t
a
r
o
w

t
o

b
a
s
i
l
v
w
:
:
4
:

6
a
k
a

A
x
i
h
l
:

4
:

6
a
o
k
o
n
m
o
w
:
.
k
a

E
l
i
a
b

u
w

S
a
f
w

p
a
t
r
i
w
L
X
X

3

R
e
g
.

M
i
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
i
e
s
M
T

1

K
g
s
.
L
X
X

3

R
e
g
.

m
a
i
n

t
e
x
t
M
T

1

K
g
s
.
L
X
X

2

P
a
r
.
M
T

2

C
h
r
o
n
.
2
:

4
6
i
k
a
s
a
n

t

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
:
:
:
:

:

5
:

6
1
0
:

2
6

k
a
s
a
n

t

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
9
:
2
5
k
a
s
a
n

t

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
:
:
:
:

:

9
:

2
5
t
e
s
s
a
r
k
o
n
t
a

x
i
l
i
d
e
w
.
:
s
s
a
r
e
w

x
i
l
i
d
e
w
t
s
s
a
r
e
w

x
i
l
i
d
e
w
c
:
.
:
t
o
k
d
e
w

p
p
o
i
:
:
:

l
e
i
a
i

p
p
o
i
y
l
e
i
a
i

p
p
o
i
:
:
:

r
m
a
t
a
:
:
:
:
:
r
m
a
t
a
e
r
m
a
t
a
:
:
:
:
:
k
a
d
e
k
a

x
i
l
i
d
e
w
:
.
:
:
:
k
a
d
e
k
a

x
i
l
i
d
e
w
k
a
d
e
k
a

x
i
l
i
d
e
w
:
.
:
:
:
p
p
v
n
p
p
v
n
p
p
v
n
k
a
y
e
t
o

a
w
k
a
y
e
t
o

a
t
o
n

t
a
w

p
l
e
s
i

t
r
m
t
v
n
n

p
l
e
s
i
n

t
r
m
t
v
n
:
:
.
:
k
a

m
e
t

t
o

b
a
s
i
l
v
w
k
a

m
e
t

t
o

b
a
s
i
l
v
w
:
:
.
:
n

I
e
r
o
u
s
a
l
h
m
n

I
e
r
o
u
s
a
l
h
m
:
:
:
:
:
:

:

1
0
:

2
6
1
:

1
4
k
a

s
u
n
g
a
g
e
n

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
:
:
:

:

1
:

1
4
c
:

:
:
r
m
a
t
a

k
a
p
p
e
c
:

:
:
:
:
k
a
n
o
n
t
o

a
:
:
.
:
l
i
a

k
a

t
e
t
r
a
k
s
i
a
.
:
:
:
r
m
a
t
a
:
:
:
.
:
:
:
k
a
d
e
k
a

x
i
l
i
d
e
w
:
.
:
:
:
p
p
v
n
k
a

k
a
t
l
i
p
e
n

a
t
a
:
:
.
:
n

p
l
e
s
i
n

t
r
m
t
v
n
:
:
.
:
k
a

l
a
:
:
.
:
m
e
t

t
o

b
a
s
i
l
v
w
:
:
:
:
:
n

I
e
r
o
u
s
a
l
h
m
:
:
:
2
:

4
6
k
k
a
r
x
v
n
1
0
:

2
6
a
k
a
g
o
m
e
n
o
w
9
:

2
6
k
a
g
o
m
e
n
o
w
:
:
:
:

:

9
:

2
6
n

p
s
i
n

t
o
w

b
a
s
i
l
e
s
i
n
p
n
t
v
n

t
n

b
a
s
i
l
v
n
p
n
t
v
n

t
n

b
a
s
i
l
v
n
:
:
:
:
:
:

t
o

p
o
t
a
m
o
u

t
o

p
o
t
a
m
o
u

t
o

p
o
t
a
m
o
u
k
a
v
w
k
a
v
w
k
a
v
w
.
:
l
l
o
f
l
v
n
g
l
l
o
f
l
v
n
g
l
l
o
f
l
v
n
:
:
c

k
a
v
w

v
n

A
p
t
o
u
k
a
v
w

v
n

A
p
t
o
u
k
a
v
w

v
n

A
p
t
o
u
.
:

:
:
:
:

.
:
2
:

4
6
l
S
a
l
v
m
v
n

u
w

D
a
u
i
d
4
:

1
k
a

b
a
s
i
l
e
w

S
a
l
v
m
v
n
:
:
:

:
:
:

4
:

1
1
:

1
3
b

k
a
1
:

1
3
b
b
a
s
l
e
u
s
e
n
b
a
s
i
l
e
v
n
:
:
b
a
s
l
e
u
s
e
n
:
:

I
s
r
a
h
l

k
a

I
o
u
d
a

I
s
r
a
h
l
:
:
:
.

I
s
r
a
h
l
:
.
n

I
e
r
o
u
s
a
l
h
m
322 appendix
Allen, L.C. 241, 241 nn56, 253
nn29, 31
Auld, A.G. 17, 17 n60, 238, 238 n2,
239, 253 n29
Barthlemy, D. 2, 2 n4, 3, 3 nn5, 8,
32, 32 n11, 37, 4041, 41 n7, 51,
156 n12, 173 n33, 178 n43,
211 n8, 225 nn45, 226 n7, 243
n10
Bartlett, J.R. 225 nn46
Benzinger, I. 49 n26, 68 n9,
85 n5, 123 n22, 143 n5, 155 n10,
159 n29, 167 nn89, 220 n25,
253 n28
Bochartus, S. 256 n38
Born, A. van den 168, 168 n11,
170, 170 n25
Brettler, M. 276 n1, 278 n7, 279,
279 n10
Brire, J. 8 n26
Brongers, H.A. 33 n17
Burkitt, 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 nn56, 145 nn8, 10, 154,
154 n6, 155 n10, 158, 158
nn2021, 159, 159 nn23, 25, 160,
167 nn89, 203 n1, 220 n25,
225 n3, 231 n17, 234 n23,
298 n11
Campbell, A.F. 278 n7
Cogan, 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 n38
Day, J. 174 n36
Debus, J. 296 n3
DeVries, S.J. 8 n26, 32 n11, 81 n33,
106 n18, 123 n22
Dietrich, W. 143 n5
Ehrlich, A.B. 248 n17
Elliger, K. 162 n36
Emerton, J. 11 n40
Eynikel, E. 143 n5
Fedden, R. 92 n18
Feldman, L.H. 141 n14
Fernndez Marcos, N. 25 n76
Fokkelman, J.P. 33 n16
Friedman, R.E. 143 nn3, 5, 145 n10
Frisch, A. 276 n1, 278 n8,
279 n11
Gerleman, G. 145 n9, 241, 241 n5,
253 n31
Glatt-Gilad, D.A. 49 n27, 278 n7
Gooding, D.W. 5, 5 nn1213, 6,
6 nn1320, 7, 7 nn2124, 8, 8 n25,
9, 19, 37, 37 n1, 39 n2, 40 n4, 43,
43 nn1011, 44, 50, 50 nn3334,
57, 59 n46, 65, 66 nn56, 69,
69 n12, 73, 73 n14, 76 n21, 77
n24, 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 nn2526, 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, 195196, 201 n16,
218, 238 n1, 245, 245 n13, 252
n24, 253 n29, 256 n39, 257 n42,
259, 259 n45, 260261, 261 n46,
266, 266 nn24, 267, 267 n5,
269 n11, 273 n26, 274275,
291 n16, 300, 302, 302 n4
Grg, M. 167 n8
Gray, J. 29, 29 n2, 32 n11, 33 n18,
INDEX OF AUTHORS
49 n26, 68 n11, 84 n3, 92
nn1618, 108 n23, 118 n5, 123,
123 nn22, 24, 125 n26, 145 n10,
159 nn27, 29, 167 nn89, 168,
194 n5, 204 n2, 216 nn18, 20,
231 n17, 244 n11, 226 n9, 227,
227 nn1011, 256 n38, 277 n3
Halvy, J. 171, 171 n28
Hnel, J. 252 n25
Haran, M. 155 n9, 159 n26
Hrozn , 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 nn34, 144,
144 n6, 159 n24, 160 n32
Japhet, S. 75 n17
Jepsen, A. 50 n32, 56, 57 n44
Johnson, B. 147 n14
Jones, G.H. 8 n26, 68 n11, 100 n6,
127 n33, 133 n2, 134 n4, 144 n5,
219 n25, 298 n12
Jongeling, K. 68 nn1011
Kalimi, I. 252 n27
Keel, O. and Uehlinger, C. 173
nn3334, 174 n34
Keulen, P.S.F. van 192 n1, 226 n8,
271 n19, 295 n1
Kittel, 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, 169170, 170 n22,
175 n38, 189, 189 n16
Knauf, E.A. 167 n8, 174 n34
Knoppers, 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 n1
Krautwurst, 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, 273
nn24, 26
Kuan, J.K. 102, 102 n9, 103, 103
nn1011, 104
Kuenen, A. 143 n5
Kutsch, E. 105, 105 n15
Lefebvre, P. 16, 16 nn5558, 17,
17 n59, 66 n6, 79 n27, 121 n11,
132 n1, 133 n1
Lgasse, S. 134 n5, 136 n7
Lemaire, A. 18, 223 n1, 224 n1,
225 n4, 254 n32
Long, B.O. 49 n26, 277 n3
Loretz, O. 177 n41
Margolis, M.L. 122, 122 n19
May, H.G. 174 n37
Mayes, A.D.H. 143 n5
McCarthy, C. 108 n23
McKenzie, 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, 80
nn3132, 85 n7, 92 n16, 108 n23,
121 nn1415, 125 n26, 127
nn3334, 128 n38, 129 n40,
144 n5, 145 n10, 155 n10,
161 n35, 170 n23, 176 n39,
215 n17, 216 n20, 219 n25,
225 nn34, 227 n10, 237 n27,
256 nn3839
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, 2931, 51,
52, 52 n38, 55, 68 n9, 74 n16,
85 nn45, 7, 92 n16, 121 n15,
122, 122 n18, 123, 123 n23, 125
n26, 127 n32, 144 n5, 145 n10,
155 n10, 159 n28, 160 n31, 161
n34, 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
OBrien, 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 n5
Polak, F.H. 17, 17 n61, 18, 18
nn6267, 19, 20, 84 n3, 95 n26,
125126, 143 nn23, 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, 128
nn3839, 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, 253
nn3031, 273 n26
Rudolph, W. 75, 75 n17
Rupprecht, 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, 216
n20, 218, 218 n24, 226 n9, 227
n10, 249, 249 n21
Srki, P. 70 n13, 85 nn45, 7,
94 n25, 200 n13, 220 n25
Schenker, A. 4 n10, 12, 12
nn4445, 13 nn4647, 14 nn4849,
15, 15 nn5053, 16, 16 n54, 19,
20, 20 n68, 25 n77, 30 n6, 32,
32 n15, 35, 35 n21, 43 n11, 44,
44 nn1314, 45 n14, 46, 46 n19,
47 n22, 48 n23, 95 n26, 103 n12,
125, 126, 126 n31, 134 n3, 137 n9,
166 nn23, 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 n8
Soisalon-Soininen, I. 270 n16
Stade, B. 114 n1, 121 n13, 125 n26,
134 n4
Stade, 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, 220
n25, 225 n4, 227 n10, 236 n26,
249 n20, 297 n8
Sthli, H.P. 173 n33
Stipp, H.-J. 21 n71
Sweeney, M.A. 278 n9, 279 n13
Talshir, Z. 8, 8 nn2730, 9,
9 nn3132, 1920, 20 n70, 23
n74, 140 n12, 220 n25, 239,
239 n3, 248 n17, 276 n1, 277 n4,
278 n7, 296, 296 nn46, 299 n13
Taylor, J.G. 173 n33, 174, 174 n36,
180, 180 n49
Thackeray, H.St.J. 2, 2 nn23,
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 n22
Tov, E. 3 n7, 8 n26, 22 n73,
37 n1, 40 nn56, 80 n32,
87 n8, 169 n16, 178 nn45, 47,
187 nn1011, 217 n21, 248,
248 nn17, 19, 266 n1, 268, 268
nn89, 270 nn14, 16, 273, 273 n27,
298 n9
Trebolle Barrera, J.C. 9, 9 n35,
10, 10 nn3639, 11, 11 nn4041,
12, 1820, 23 n74, 40 n6,
46, 46 n18, 47, 47 n22, 49,
49 nn25, 28, 51, 51 n37, 5254,
57 n44, 77 n24, 80 n30, 81 n33,
84 n3, 94 n24, 117, 117 n3, 121
n12, 125, 126, 126 nn2930,
137 n10, 138 n10, 143 n3, 145
nn8, 10, 148 n15, 238, 238 n1,
248, 248 nn17, 19, 268 n10, 295,
295 n2, 296 n3
Van Seters, J. 143 n5
Vanoni, G. 234 nn2324
Wacholder, B.Z. 303 n5, 304 n5
Walsh, J.T. 276 n1, 277 n3, 279,
279 n12
index of authors 325
Walters, P. 129 n41, 194 n5
Weinfeld, M.E. 144 nn56
Weippert, H. 58 n45
Wellhausen, J. 84 n3, 125, 125
n27, 126, 143 n5, 158, 158 n21,
167, 167 n8, 168169, 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 n9
Wrthwein, 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
Genesis
27: 30 68 n10
42: 18 225 n6
43: 11 225 n6
Exodus
1: 11 199 n9
20: 21 169
20: 22 120
21: 14 28, 30 n6
22: 27 45 n14
23: 2 29
25: 8 144 n6
25: 15b 159
26: 31 134 n5
26: 33 134 n5
27: 16 136
29: 45 144 n6
29: 46 144 n6
34: 1516 218
35: 17 134 n5, 136
36: 37 136 n7
38: 18 134 n5, 136, 136 n7
39: 40 134 n5
40: 8 134 n5
40: 33 134 n5
40: 3435 159
Leviticus
18: 3 144 n6
18: 4a 144 n6
20: 23 144 n6
23: 3443 162
23: 3435 162
23: 34 158 n22, 162
26: 3 144 n6
Numbers
5: 3 144 n6
8: 24 225 n6
14: 24 216
14: 35 225 n6
22: 3 225 n4
32: 11 216
32: 12 216
35: 34 144 n6
Deuteronomy
1: 36 216
4: 11 178 n42
5: 22 178 n42
7: 14 204
7: 12 197, 219
7: 1 196197, 218219
7: 23 218
7: 34 76, 280, 280 n14
9: 9a 155
9: 9 156
9: 11 155 n11, 156
16: 1315 162
17: 2 219
17: 1420 218, 279280,
300
17: 16 6, 259, 279, 301
17: 17 6, 188, 196, 219
17: 17a 279
17: 17b 195, 279
20: 11 198
20: 1617 198
20: 17 198
27: 4 15
31: 6 144 n6
31: 8 144 n6
31: 17 144 n6
Joshua
3: 10 196
10: 1213 172 n31
10: 12b13a 172, 174 n34
10: 13 171
14: 8 216
14: 9 216
14: 14 216
15: 9 199 n10
18: 1 158 n19
23: 12b 218
24: 11 196197
Judges
7: 19 68 n10
9: 3 29 n4
10: 6 217 n23, 218
INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES
Masoretic Text
1 Samuel
46 160 n31
8: 3 29 n3
13: 8 226 n7
1618 268
2 Samuel
1: 18 172
3: 27 28
3: 28 35
6 160 n31
6: 17 159 n29
7: 68 249
7: 8 249
8: 312 231
8: 3 231 n16, 233
8: 4a 260
8: 5 231 n16
8: 6 225
8: 12 231 n16
10: 12 103
15: 3 97 n3
15: 7f. 45 n16
15: 14 227 n12, 228 n12
16: 8 45 n16
17: 25 28
18: 2 28
20: 10 28
1 Kings
1: 111: 43 277
1: 12: 11 277 n2
1: 7 28
1: 19 28
1: 3230 106
1: 39 100101
1: 41 28
1: 45 104
1: 5052 32
1: 5051 33
1: 50 31 n9
1: 51a 34
2 277, 282, 285,
288
214 12
2: 1b9 52
2: 24 52
2: 3 147, 149
2: 56 28
2: 89 288
2: 110 53
2: 1011 53, 277 n2
2: 1211: 43 277
2: 1246 277, 281
2: 12 53, 277, 277 n2, 281,
283, 304 n5
2: 12b 47
2: 1338 283
2: 1325 281
2: 13 13
2: 19 13
2: 22 13, 32
2: 2534 26
2: 2627 28
2: 2834 26, 28, 281
2: 28 28, 159 n29
2: 29 26, 159 n29
2: 30 159 n29
2: 30a 28
2: 31 28
2: 353: 1 55
2: 35 281
2: 3646a 281
2: 3637 283
2: 3946 283
2: 39 283, 285
2: 46b3: 3 60
2: 46b 47, 49, 55, 5759,
59 n. 47, 60, 63,
277, 281
310 277
3 145
3: 14 278, 281, 285, 291
3: 13 64, 69, 78, 80 n30
3: 12 63
3: 1 18, 49, 57, 59, 59
n47, 6265, 65 n4,
6768, 75, 7778, 80
n30, 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 n7
3: 1b 65 n4, 67, 69, 80
n30, 278 n7
3: 1bb 138139, 139 n11
3: 24 281
3: 23 64
3: 2 58, 283
3: 315 283
3: 35 282
3: 311 49 n27
3: 3 58 n45, 144 n6,
278279
3: 55: 14 281
3: 515 278, 281
3: 5 70 n13
328 index of scriptural references
3: 8 161
3: 1114 285
3: 11 147
3: 13 196, 280
3: 14 150 n19
3: 1628 281, 283
3: 16 283
3: 28 147
4: 15: 14 285
4: 15: 8 283, 285
4: 26 14
4: 4 14
4: 75: 8 281
4: 75: 3 287
4: 719 279
4: 205: 1 18
4: 205: 8 277 n5, 269
4: 205: 6 257
5 13, 102, 251, 257,
258 n42
5: 1 257 n42, 258 n42,
283
5: 1a 250251
5: 24 272
5: 4 18
5: 5 18, 283, 304 n6
5: 56 291
5: 6 250, 250 n23, 251,
254, 254 nn3233,
255256, 258, 258
n42, 261
5: 8 147
5: 914 281, 283
5: 913 96
5: 910 271
5: 9 271 n20
5: 10 283
5: 11 283
5: 12 283
5: 14 9697, 97 n3, 283
5: 14a 97
5: 14b 97
5: 1532 193, 281, 283, 285,
291
5: 1526 99, 281, 285
5: 1523 185
5: 15 99102, 104, 283,
285
5: 15a 100101, 103
5: 15b 100
5: 16 103
5: 20 107108, 114
5: 2223 114
5: 22 103
5: 23 115
5: 25 243
5: 26 104
5: 2732 279, 285
5: 2728 281
5: 27 195 n7
5: 2930 244
5: 29 114, 119, 281
5: 30 125, 244246, 262,
269, 281
5: 316: 1 130
5: 3132 18, 130, 281
5: 31 256
5: 32 290
67 63, 65, 145
6 65, 124, 133
6: 19: 9 281282
6: 138 281, 283
6: 1 18, 114115, 118,
125, 127, 283
6: 11c 300
6: 1f. 115, 118
6: 238 142
6: 236 114, 300
6: 210 142
6: 7 117 n2, 120, 134
6: 9 116, 143 n4
6: 9a 143, 145146
6: 1114 294295, 305
6: 1113 18
6: 14 116
6: 1536 142
6: 16 159 n30
6: 36 120 n8, 135, 137
n10
6: 3738 18, 127
6: 3738a 117, 124126
6: 37 114115, 124, 128,
157
6: 38 147, 155, 157 n17,
283
6: 38a 114, 124
6: 38b 283
7: 112 65, 281, 283
7: 1 145146, 155, 283
7: 7 147
7: 8 62, 68, 279
7: 11 120 n8
7: 12 120 n8
7: 1352 300
7: 1351 283
7: 1327 281
7: 13 283
7: 4144 303 n5
index of scriptural references 329
7: 45 302 n5
8: 19 281
8: 16b 283
8: 1 132, 283
8: 2 127, 283
8: 7 241242
8: 1011 177, 180, 281
8: 10 173
8: 1112 168
8: 11 169, 174 n36
8: 1213 6, 281
8: 13 177
8: 1453 178 n47, 179 n47
8: 1421 178 n45, 281
8: 14 160
8: 1617 246247
8: 16 248249, 262
8: 21 156, 156 n14
8: 2253 176, 281
8: 2730 176
8: 27 176, 240
8: 29 240
8: 30 177
8: 39 177, 240
8: 41b42a 304
8: 43 177
8: 46 242
8: 49 147, 177
8: 5461 282
8: 54 179
8: 57 144 n6
8: 58 147149, 150 n19,
295
8: 59 147
8: 61 150 n19
8: 6264 282
8: 63 241242
8: 6566 282
8: 65 160162
8: 65b 161
8: 66 161162, 240
911 279
910 13, 18, 145, 218,
280, 283, 285, 300
9: 19 278279, 282283
9: 69 279
9: 1 138, 179, 283
9: 1a 155
9: 3 283
9: 4 147149, 150 n19,
295
9: 56 211 n8
9: 5b 259
9: 6 150 n19, 211 n6
9: 9 211 n6
9: 1010: 29 282
9: 1023 193, 282, 291
9: 1014 193, 279, 282,
284285, 291
9: 10 132, 138, 155, 188,
192, 291
9: 1113 182
9: 11 182
9: 1428 190
9: 14 201 n16
9: 1525 18, 181, 187188,
191, 200, 201 n16,
246, 269, 293
9: 1524 278 n7
9: 1523 6, 182, 278 n7, 284,
285
9: 1522 270, 282, 285
9: 1519 6970
9: 15 63, 6970, 70 n13,
138
9: 16 62, 6970, 70 n13,
79, 79 n28, 99, 279
9: 2628 201 n16
9: 1617 291
9: 1617a 6970, 80 n30
9: 1617aa 6971
9: 1718 268
9: 17 249, 273
9: 17a 70
9: 17ab 70
9: 17b19 70
9: 18 273
9: 21 195 n7
9: 2325 73 n14
9: 23 73 n14, 193,
244246, 269, 282
9: 2425 64, 73 n14, 78, 78
n26, 80 n30, 278,
282, 285, 291
9: 24 6265, 67, 67 n7,
68 n10, 68 n11, 72,
73 n14, 7475,
7778, 79 n28, 80,
80 n30, 81, 278 n7,
279, 282, 285
9: 24a 6667, 68 n11, 74,
284
9: 24b 7879, 79 n27, 284
9: 25 189 n18, 282, 284
9: 2610: 29 282
9: 2628 224 n1, 282, 284,
291
9: 26 279
9: 28 279
10 195, 250251, 280
10: 113 280, 282, 284
10: 1 284
10: 8 108109
10: 9 147, 242
10: 10 279
10: 1429 284
10: 1427 279
10: 1422 282
10: 1721 284
10: 21b 111
10: 2228 250251
10: 2327 258, 282
10: 23 110111
10: 24 110111, 255
10: 2527 251
10: 2526 250
10: 25 110, 250
10: 25a 111
10: 2629 251252
10: 2628 251252
10: 26f. 252 n27
10: 26 110111, 153 n4,
250252, 258259,
301
10: 26b 250, 250 n23
10: 27 110111, 251
10: 2829 259, 279, 282, 301
11 108109, 213, 277,
280, 282
11: 143 282
11: 18 282, 295
11: 14 280 n14
11: 13 18, 210, 279,
284
11: 1 62, 278279,
279 n14
11: 2 279 n14, 280
11: 413 284
11: 48 280 n14
11: 4 278
11: 6 278279
11: 78 284
11: 913 280, 282, 284
11: 910 145, 284
11: 9 29, 145, 278
11: 1011 213
11: 10 216
11: 1113 212
11: 11 213, 279, 296
11: 12 234 n23, 296
11: 1440 222
11: 1422 282
11: 14 284, 296
11: 1522 284
11: 2325 282
11: 23a 284
11: 23b24 284
11: 25 284
11: 26 284
11: 2640 222, 282
11: 2627a 284
11: 27 198
11: 27b28 284
11: 27b 74, 8081
11: 28 279
11: 2939 284
11: 3139 296
11: 3334 13
11: 33 147, 149150, 211,
211 n8, 212213,
217, 279, 295
11: 34 150, 150 n19
11: 38 150 n19
11: 40 284
11: 4142 284
11: 41 282
11: 42 282, 284
11: 4312: 3 4344, 137 n9
11: 43 277, 282, 284
12 15
12: 4 279
12: 18 16
12: 31 1415
12: 32 14
14: 120 147 n13, 296
14: 118 296
14: 79 296
14: 711 294
14: 716 211 n8
14: 10b 296
14: 1416 294
14: 1516 296
14: 1920 296
14: 21 297
14: 2224 13, 20, 296
14: 22 297299
14: 22a 297
14: 22b24 297
14: 22b 297
14: 23a 297
16: 3033 299
16: 31 211 n6
17: 29 1415
17: 32 14
18: 18 216
18: 21 216, 216 n19
18: 28 147
20: 40 147
21: 1726 299
21: 26 216
22: 52 57
22: 54 211 n6
2 Kings
4: 4 119 n6
8: 2022 234 n25
10: 18 211 n6
10: 32 225 n4
12: 3 58 n45
13: 1213 268
14: 3 58 n45
14: 1516 268
15: 3 58 n45
15: 34 58 n45
17 15
17: 56 268
17: 8 144 n6
17: 12 211 n6
17: 13 299
17: 15 216
17: 16 211 n6
17: 19 144 n6, 299
17: 33 211 n6
17: 35 211 n6
17: 37 149
17: 41 211 n6
18: 9b11 268
19: 12 92
21: 3 211 n6
21: 1214 299
21: 15 299
21: 21 211 n6
22: 16 299
22: 17 299
23: 11 173
23: 13 210 n5, 217
23: 2627 299
24: 23 299
24: 20 299
Isaiah
22: 1 31 n9, 33
56: 2 225 n6
Jeremiah
4: 11 152 n2
44: 10 144 n6
44: 23 144 n6
Ezekiel
8: 1618 173
43: 7 144 n6
43: 9 144 n6
Hoshea
12: 2 105
Psalms
19: 27 174
61: 5 166 n4
91: 1416 166
97: 2 178 n42
Job
10: 13 225 n6
18: 15 170 n19
Proverbs
3: 11 225 n4
4: 15 89
30: 8 90 n11
Qoheleth
10: 9 119
Lamentations
2: 1 168
Daniel
9: 24 166 n4
1 Chronicles
5: 2941 127, 246
9: 29 254 n34
9: 30 254 n34
18: 3 231 n16
18: 4a 260
18: 5 231 n16
18: 9 231 n16
28: 1 158 n16
2 Chronicles
1: 1417 251252
1: 1416 251
1: 14 251
1: 14b 250 n23, 254
2: 1 244245
2: 9 243
2: 17 244245
3: 14 134 n5, 135 n5
5: 210a 157
5: 2 157
5: 3 158 n22, 162
5: 6 158
5: 8 158, 241242
5: 10 156 n15
5: 13b14 157
6: 1 176 n40
6: 57 246247
6: 5 248249
6: 18 240
6: 20 240
6: 36 242
7: 5 241242
7: 810 162
7: 910 162
7: 9 161
7: 10 240
7: 18b 259260
8: 46 249
8: 10 244245
8: 1112 78 n26
8: 11 68 n11, 7576,
79 n28
9: 1 254 n34
9: 7 109
9: 8 242
9: 9 254 n34
9: 2228 250251
9: 2224 255
9: 23 255
9: 2427 251
9: 24 250
9: 2528 251
9: 2526 250252, 252
n25, 253,
253 n28, 258,
258 n42, 262,
301
9: 25 250251,
253254, 254
n32, 258259,
261
9: 25b 250 n23
9: 2626a 251
9: 26 251, 257 n42,
258 n42, 259
9: 27 251
12: 14 297
16: 14 254 n34
22: 5 230 n14
32: 27 254 n34
32: 28 254
34: 22 226 n7
Septuaginta
Genesis
30: 30 184 n4
Exodus
16: 22 90 n11
26: 37 136 n7
37: 5 136 n7
37: 16 136 n7
39: 19 136 n7
Numbers
3: 26 136 n7
Deuteronomy
4: 43 230 n14
11: 1 148 n16
20: 14 198
1 Regum
12 50
11: 1 50
21: 2 185 n5, 189
n17
2 Regum
6: 8 185 n5, 189
n17
8: 4a 260261
8: 10 185 n5
11: 23 Reg. 2: 11 36
15: 25 170 n19
19: 22 45 n14
19: 2223 45 n14
3 Regum
112 16
1: 12: 12 37, 60
1: 19 51 n36
1: 25 51 n36
1: 39 100102
1: 5051 34
214 12
211 220
25 15
2 266267, 274,
292
2: 110 53
2: 19 54, 60
2: 1 5254
2: 1b-9 53
2: 1b 54, 54 n40
2: 2 51 n36
2: 3 149, 149 n17
2: 5 36, 51 n36
2: 10 5254
2: 11 37, 51
2: 1221: 43 36, 50
2: 1211: 43 102
2: 1235 48, 267, 286
2: 12 37, 51, 53, 61,
267, 286, 288,
304 n5
2: 1335 49, 288
2: 1325 286
2: 13 13
2: 16 36, 51 n36
2: 18 51 n36
2: 20 51 n36
2: 2627 286
2: 2834 30, 286
2: 29ba 304
2: 32 51 n36
2: 353: 1 55
2: 35 14, 267
2: 35b 286
2: 35a10: 29 6, 291 n16
2: 35a5 291 n16
2: 35a46l 286
2: 35a 86
2: 35ag 286
2: 35ak 7, 9, 18, 65, 286,
288
2: 35ao 13
2: 35b 86
2: 35c 65 n4, 7276, 138
2: 35cb 138139, 139 n11
2: 35cf 77
2: 35ca 79
2: 35cab 64, 80, 80 n30, 81,
81 n34
2: 35cg 139 n11
2: 35d 72, 245
2: 35e 72, 134 n5, 135 n5,
302
2: 35f 7375, 302
2: 35fa 7273, 73 n14,
8081
2: 35fb 64, 7273, 73 n14,
75, 7980, 80 n30,
81
2: 35g 73 n14, 189 n18
2: 35gb 189 n18
2: 35h 73 n14, 244246
2: 35i 192 n1, 249
2: 35k 139 n11, 140, 200
n15, 201 n15
2: 35l 270 n16, 288
2: 35lo 18, 266267, 288
2: 35l46 286
2: 35o46 267
2: 35ol 102
2: 35o 266
2: 3646 266267
2: 3638 288
2: 3637 288
2: 3946 288
2: 39 288
2: 46ak 286, 288
2: 46al 7, 9, 13, 18
2: 46ai 95 n26
2: 46a 18
2: 46ab 86
2: 46b 257 n42
2: 46ba 86
2: 46bb 86
2: 46cd 192 n1, 200 n15,
201 n15
2: 46c 86, 94, 271 n19,
302
2: 46d 86, 94
2: 46eg 87
2: 46ega 87, 89 n10
2: 46e 87 n8, 89, 89 n10,
90, 90 n12, 91
2: 46ea 86
2: 46eb 86
2: 46fg 13
2: 46fga 91
2: 46f 89 n10, 9192, 94,
257 n42
2: 46fa 86, 91
2: 46fb 86, 91
2: 46g 94, 304 n6
2: 46ga 86, 91
2: 46gb 86
2: 46ik 255, 258 n42
2: 46i 86, 254256, 256
n40, 256 n41,
257258, 302 n2
2: 46k 94, 255, 257,
257 n42, 258,
258 n42
2: 46l5: 14 286
2: 46l3: 3 57, 60
2: 46l 267, 267 n6,
270 n15, 286, 288,
292
310 292293
3 57
3: 121: 43 50
3: 14 286
3: 1 286
3: 215 287
3: 24 286
3: 23 57
3: 2 58, 181 n1, 288
3: 315 288
3: 8 161 n33
3: 12 271 n18
3: 13 196
3: 14 150 n19, 212 n9
3: 1628 287288
3: 16 288
3: 28 255 n36
45 266, 274
4 274
4: 15: 8 291
4: 15: 4 288
4: 16 273, 287
4: 1 56
4: 26 14
4: 4 14
4: 6 194 n4
4: 12 272
4: 13 230 n14
5 72, 87, 109, 220,
300
5: 24 87, 272
5: 2 265
5: 4 287
5: 4c 270 n16
5: 914 72, 98, 287, 288
5: 913 96
5: 910 271272
5: 9 255 n36, 271 n18,
271 n20
5: 1011 288
5: 10 255 n36
5: 12 172, 288
5: 14 7172, 96, 9899,
106, 290, 301
5: 14a 96
5: 14b 96, 98, 287
5: 14a9: 28 290, 293
5: 14a30 287, 291
5: 14a 6467, 69, 71, 75,
80 n30, 81, 81 n34,
96 n1, 99, 138, 155,
287, 292293
5: 14ab 72, 80 n30, 98, 112,
291, 300
5: 14ab 67, 67 n8, 69,
138139
5: 14b 69, 71, 79, 79 n28,
96 n1, 99, 287
5: 1532 65, 65 n4
5: 1531 289
5: 1530 291292
5: 1526 99, 105
5: 15 99102, 105108,
128, 289
5: 15a 100101
5: 15b 100
5: 1626 287
5: 20 107108, 128
5: 25 243, 262
5: 2728 287
5: 27 194 n4
5: 28 194 n4
5: 2930 244
5: 29 245, 287
5: 30 125, 244246, 262,
269, 287
5: 319: 9 287
5: 316: 1d 287
5: 326:1b 300, 302
5: 32 188 n16, 289
68 293
67 5, 65, 220, 301
6: 110 146
6: 17: 37 65
6: 11d 289
6: 11c 289
6: 1 18, 246, 262, 289
6: 1ad 18
6: 1c 133 n1, 157
6: 27: 37 300
6: 236 114
6: 236a 287, 289
6: 23 146
6: 3 116, 122
6: 3b 145147
6: 4 146
6: 56 146
6: 7 116117, 121 n11,
126
6: 8 146
6: 9 116
6: 9a 145146
6: 9b10 146
6: 15 146147
6: 36 120 n8
6: 36a 271
7 18
7: 137 287, 289
7: 12b 136137
7: 26b31a 303 n5
7: 31 302, 302 n5, 303
n5, 304 n5
7: 3850 287, 289
7: 3839 16
7: 38 35, 145146, 157
n17, 289
7: 48 120, 120 n8
7: 49 120, 120 n8
7: 50 35, 145146
8 133
8: 111 300
8: 19 287
8: 16b 289
8: 1 133, 133 n1, 289,
290
8: 1a 67 n8, 133134,
140
8: 2 289
8: 4a 260
8: 7 241242
8: 1011 287
8: 1421 287
8: 1617 246247
8: 16 248249
8: 2253 287
8: 2353 165, 178
8: 27 240
8: 29 240
8: 30 177178
8: 36 178
8: 39 177178
8: 41b 304
8: 43 177
8: 45 178
8: 46 242
8: 49 177
8: 53 178 n45
8: 53a 287, 304
8: 5461 287
8: 54 155, 178179
8: 58 148150, 150 n19
8: 61 150 n19
8: 6264 287
8: 63 241242
8: 6566 287
8: 65 157, 160, 304,
304 n6
8: 65b 161
8: 65ba 304 n6
8: 66 161162, 240
910 218, 274
9 66 n6, 274
9: 19 6566, 287, 289
9: 1 66, 133 n1, 138,
154, 179, 198, 289,
301
9: 1a 155
9: 1b 155
9: 2 154
9: 39 260
9: 3 289
9: 4 148150,
150 n19
9: 5 260
9: 5b 259260
9: 69 292
9: 6 150 n19, 212 n9
9: 79 66 n6
9: 9 107, 107 n20, 267
9: 9a-28 287, 291
9: 9a 6466, 66 n6,
67, 67 nn78, 68,
68 n11, 7779,
79 n28, 80 n30,
287, 289293
9: 1028 187188, 287,
291292
9: 10 133, 133 n1, 138,
9: 1011 157 n17, 188, 188
n12, 289
9: 1213 289
9: 13 185
9: 1428 289
9: 14 292, 301 n1, 302
9: 21 107
9: 22 194 n5
9: 2425 286
9: 24a 68 n11
9: 25 189 n18, 286
9: 2628 292
9: 26 212 n11, 251, 301
n1, 302
9: 27 251
10 196, 258, 300
10: 129 287
10: 113 287, 289
10: 1 289
10: 2 255 n35
10: 4 255 n36
10: 6 255 n36
10: 8 108109, 109 n24,
255 n36
10: 9 242
10: 10 255 n35
10: 1429 193
10: 1422 287, 289
10: 1522 200
10: 1721 289
10: 21b 111
10: 22 193, 195196,
200201
10: 22a 70, 74, 138, 188
n13, 249, 271273,
302
10: 22ac 6, 270, 287, 289,
291
10: 22b 218
10: 2329 109, 112, 289
10: 2327 109, 112, 258
10: 2325 13, 287
10: 23 110, 193, 201,
255 n36
10: 2425a 112
10: 24 110111, 255 n36
10: 25 110111
10: 25a 111
10: 2629 287
10: 2626a 250252, 252 n25,
253, 253 n28, 253
n29, 255, 258262,
272, 301
10: 26 6, 110112, 193,
200, 252256, 256
n40, 258, 260261
10: 26a 110, 112, 257,
257 n42, 259260,
287
10: 26ab 86
10: 27 110112, 251
10: 2829 112, 259
1114 15
11 8, 149, 212, 212 n9,
220, 288, 292, 296
11: 143 287
11: 18 287, 300301
11: 13 290
11: 1 74, 109
11: 413 290
11: 4 290
11: 913 287, 290
11: 10 212 n9, 215 n15
11: 11 149150, 150 n19,
212 n9, 213
11: 1213 212 n9
11: 13 212 n9
11: 1440 222
11: 14aba 288
11: 14a 290
11: 14b 290
11: 14bb25 288
11: 1525 290
11: 22 212 n9
11: 2612: 24 6
11: 2640 222, 288
11: 2627a 290
11: 27 265, 271
11: 27a 290
11: 27b28 290
11: 27b 74
11: 2939 290
11: 29 212 n9, 290
11: 3031 212 n9
11: 31 212 n9
11: 31b 210
11: 32 212 n9
11: 3334 13
11: 33 184 n4, 210214,
215 nn1314,
216218
11: 33b 148
11: 34 212 n9
11: 36 212 n9
11: 38 150 n19
11: 40 290
11: 41 171 n30, 255 n36
11: 42 288, 290
11: 43 288
11: 43a 290
11: 43b 290
12 296
12: 4 107, 108 n22
12: 18 194 n4
12: 24az 1, 79, 13, 147 n13,
266, 268, 296
12: 24a 296297
12: 24gn 147 n13
12: 24m 296
14 296
14: 21 56 n42
14: 21a 298
14: 2224 13, 296
14: 22a 297298
14: 22b24 297298
14: 22b23 298
14: 22b 297
14: 23 298
14: 23a 297
14: 29 171 n30
15: 4 6
15: 7 171 n30
15: 23 171 n30
15: 25 56 n42
15: 31 171 n30
16: 5 171 n30
16: 8 56, 56 n42
16: 11b12a 299
16: 14 171 n30
16: 15 56 n42
16: 20 171 n30
16: 27 171 n30
16: 3033 299
2021 6
20: 1726 299
22: 39 171 n30
22: 41 56 n42
22: 46 171 n30
22: 52 56, 56 n42
4 Regum
3: 1 56 n42
8: 28 230 n14
9: 1 230 n14
9: 4 230 n14
9: 14 230 n14
15: 13 56 n42
17: 32 211 n6
17: 37 149
19: 12 92
22: 13 185 n5, 189 n17
1 Paralipomenon
18: 4a 260
18: 10 185 n5, 189 n17
28: 1 158 n18
28: 10 184 n4
2 Paralipomenon
1: 14 254
3: 14 134 n5
5: 8 241242
5: 10 156 n15
67 240
6: 2a 176 n40
6: 57 246247
6: 56 248
6: 18 240
6: 20 240
6: 36 242
7: 5 241242
7: 10 240
7: 18b 259
9: 7 109
9: 8 242
9: 22 255
9: 23 255
9: 24 254
9: 2526 250, 253255, 258
9: 25 254, 256 n41
20: 36 184 n4
22: 5 230
1 Esdras
2: 14 121 n12
6: 19 121 n12
2 Esdras
10: 4 184 n4
2 Maccabees
3: 26 169 n18
3 Maccabees
1: 1 92
3: 17 169 n18
Psalms
79: 9 119 n6
Proverbs
12: 24 195 n7
Ecclesiastes
10: 9 119 n6
Job
5: 24 170 n19
11: 15 81 n32
18: 15 170 n19
34: 25 168
38: 6 121 n12
41: 18 119 n6
Micah
3: 4 80
Haggai
2: 4 184 n4
Isaiah
22: 1 31 n9
28: 16 121 n12
37: 12 92 n20
Ezekiel
47: 12 170
Susanna
31 271 n17
Daniel
2: 49 200 n13
SUPPLEMENTS TO VETUS TESTAMENTUM
2. Pope, M.H. El in the Ugaritic texts. 1955. ISBN 90 04 04000 5
3. 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, 24
March 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 Congrs [international pour ltude de lAncien Testament]. Strasbourg
1956. 1957. ISBN 90 04 02327 5
8. Bernhardt, K.-H. Das Problem der alt-orientalischen Knigsideologie im Alten Testament.
Unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der Geschichte der Psalmenexegese dargestellt
und kritisch gewrdigt. 1961. ISBN 90 04 02331 3
9. Congress Volume, Bonn 1962. 1963. ISBN 90 04 02332 1
11. Donner, H. Israel unter den Vlkern. Die Stellung der klassischen Propheten des 8.
Jahrhunderts v. Chr. zur Aussenpolitik der Knige 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 Congrs [International pour ltude de lAncien Testament]. Genve 1965.
1966. ISBN 90 04 02337 2
17. Congress Volume, Rome 1968. 1969. ISBN 90 04 02339 9
19. Thompson, R.J. Moses and the Law in a century of criticism since Graf. 1970.
ISBN 90 04 02341 0
20. Redford, D.B. A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph. 1970. ISBN 90 04 02342 9
21. Ahlstrm, G.W. Joel and the Temple Cult of Jerusalem. 1971. ISBN 90 04 02620 7
22. Congress Volume, Uppsala 1971. 1972. ISBN 90 04 03521 4
23. Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel. 1972. ISBN 90 04 03525 7
24. Schoors, A. I am God your Saviour. A form-critical study of the main genres in Is. xl-
lv. 1973. ISBN 90 04 03792 2
25. Allen, L.C. The Greek Chronicles. The relation of the Septuagint I and II Chronicles
to the Massoretic text. Part 1. The translators craft. 1974.
ISBN 90 04 03913 9
26. Studies on prophecy. A collection of twelve papers. 1974. ISBN 90 04 03877 9
27. Allen, L.C. The Greek Chronicles. Part 2. Textual criticism. 1974.
ISBN 90 04 03933 3
28. Congress Volume, Edinburgh 1974. 1975. ISBN 90 04 04321 7
29. Congress Volume, Gttingen 1977. 1978. ISBN 90 04 05835 4
30. Emerton, J.A. (ed.). Studies in the historical books of the Old Testament. 1979.
ISBN 90 04 06017 0
31. Meredino, R.P. Der Erste und der Letzte. Eine Untersuchung von Jes 40-48. 1981.
ISBN 90 04 06199 1
32. Emerton, J.A. (ed.). Congress Volume,Vienna 1980. 1981. ISBN 90 04 06514 8
33. Koenig, J. Lhermneutique analogique du Judasme antique daprs les tmoins textuels dIsae.
1982. ISBN 90 04 06762 0
34. Barstad, H.M. The religious polemics of Amos. Studies in the preachings of Amos ii
7B-8, iv 1-13, v 1-27, vi 4-7, viii 14. 1984. ISBN 90 04 07017 6
35. Kraovec, J. Antithetic structure in Biblical Hebrew poetry. 1984. ISBN 90 04 07244 6
36. Emerton, J.A. (ed.). Congress Volume, Salamanca 1983. 1985.
ISBN 90 04 07281 0
37. Lemche, N.P. Early Israel. Anthropological and historical studies on the Israelite
society before the monarchy. 1985. ISBN 90 04 07853 3
38. Nielsen, K. Incense in Ancient Israel. 1986. ISBN 90 04 07702 2
39. Pardee, D. Ugaritic and Hebrew poetic parallelism. A trial cut. 1988.
ISBN 90 04 08368 5
40. Emerton, J.A. (ed.). Congress Volume, Jerusalem 1986. 1988. ISBN 90 04 08499 1
41. Emerton, J.A. (ed.). Studies in the Pentateuch. 1990. ISBN 90 04 09195 5
42. McKenzie, S.L. The trouble with Kings. The composition of the Book of Kings in the
Deuteronomistic History. 1991. ISBN 90 04 09402 4
43. Emerton, J.A. (ed.). Congress Volume, Leuven 1989. 1991. ISBN 90 04 09398 2
44. Haak, R.D. Habakkuk. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09506 3
45. Beyerlin, W. Im Licht der Traditionen. Psalm LXVII und CXV. Ein Entwicklungs-
zusammenhang. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09635 3
46. Meier, S.A. Speaking of Speaking. Marking direct discourse in the Hebrew Bible.
1992. ISBN 90 04 09602 7
47. Kessler, R. Staat und Gesellschaft im vorexilischen Juda. Vom 8. Jahrhundert bis zum
Exil. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09646 9
48. Auffret, P. Voyez de vos yeux. tude structurelle de vingt psaumes, dont le psaume
119. 1993. ISBN 90 04 09707 4
49. Garca Martnez, 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 65th
birthday. 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 to
Malachi. 1994. ISBN 90 04 09987 5
52. Hugenberger, G.P. Marriage as a Covenant. A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics
Governing Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Malachi. 1994.
ISBN 90 04 09977 8
53. Garca Martnez, 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 of
His 65th Birthday. 1994. ISBN 90 04 10052 0
54. Fernndez 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 and
commentary 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 1
57. Marx, A. Les offrandes vgtales dans lAncien Testament. Du tribut dhommage au repas
eschatologique. 1994. ISBN 90 04 10136 5
58. Schfer-Lichtenberger, C. Josua und Salomo. Eine Studie zu Autoritt und
Legitimitt des Nachfolgers im Alten Testament. 1995. ISBN 90 04 10064 4
59. Lasserre, G. Synopse des lois du Pentateuque. 1994. ISBN 90 04 10202 7
60. Dogniez, C. Bibliography of the Septuagint Bibliographie de la Septante (1970-1993).
Avec une prface de Pierre-Maurice Bogaert. 1995. ISBN 90 04 10192 6
61. 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. OConnell, R.H. The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges. 1996. ISBN 90 04 10104 7
64. Harland, P. J. The Value of Human Life. A Study of the Story of the Flood (Genesis
6-9). 1996. ISBN 90 04 10534 4
65. Roland Page Jr., H. The Myth of Cosmic Rebellion. A Study of its Reflexes in
Ugaritic and Biblical Literature. 1996. ISBN 90 04 10563 8
66. Emerton, J.A. (ed.). Congress Volume, Cambridge 1995. 1997.
ISBN 90 04 106871
67. Joosten, J. People and Land in the Holiness Code. An Exegetical Study of the
Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 1726. 1996.
ISBN 90 04 10557 3
68. Beentjes, P.C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. A Text Edition of all Extant Hebrew
Manuscripts and a Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. 1997. ISBN 90
04 10767 3
69. Cook, J. The Septuagint of Proverbs Jewish and/or Hellenistic Proverbs? Concerning the
Hellenistic 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 an
Interpretive 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 an
Interpretive 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 and
Vision. 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. Garca Martnez, F. and Noort, E. (eds.). Perspectives in the Study of the Old
Testament and Early Judaism. A Symposium in honour of Adam S. van der Woude on
the 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. Rsel, H.N. Von Josua bis Jojachin. Untersuchungen zu den deuteronomistischen
Geschichtsbchern 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 and
the Millenium. Essays in Honour of Anthony Gelston. 1999.
ISBN 90 04 10841 6
78. Kraovec, J. Reward, Punishment, and Forgiveness. The Thinking and Beliefs of
Ancient Israel in the Light of Greek and Modern Views. 1999.
ISBN 90 04 11443 2.
79. Kossmann, R. Die Esthernovelle Vom Erzhlten zur Erzhlung. Studien zur Traditions-
und Redaktionsgeschichte des Estherbuches. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11556 0.
80. Lemaire, A. and M. Sb (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 the
Held 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 Micah
2-5. 2001. ISBN 90 04 11936 1
86. McLaughlin, J.L. The Marza in sthe Prophetic Literature. References and Allusions
in 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 7
88. Barrick, W. Boyd The King and the Cemeteries. Toward a New Understanding of
Josiahs Reform. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12171 4
89. Frankel, D. The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School. A Retrieval of Ancient
Sacerdotal Lore. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12368 7
90. Frydrych, T. Living under the Sun. Examination of Proverbs and Qoheleth. 2002.
ISBN 90 04 12315 6
91. Kessel, J. The Book of Haggai. Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud. 2002.
ISBN 90 04 12368 7
92. Lemaire, A. (ed.). Congress Volume, Basel 2001. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12680 5
93. Rendtorff, R. and R.A. Kugler (eds.). The Book of Leviticus. Composition and Re-
ception. 2003. ISBN 90 04 12634 1
94. 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. ber Entstehung und Ziele der Landbeschreibung in
Josua 15. ISBN 90 04 12953 7
96. Lehnart, B. Prophet und Knig im Nordreich Israel. Studien zur sogenannten vorklassi-
schen Prophetie im Nordreich Israel anhand der Samuel-, Elija- und Elischa-
berlieferungen. 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 Second
Temple. 2004. ISBN 90 04 12968 5
99. Flint, P.W. and P.D. Miller, Jr. (eds.) with the assistance of A. Brunell. The
Book 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 his
Sixty-Fifth Birthday. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13738 6
102. Meer, M.N. van der. Formation and Reformulation. The Redaction of the Book of
Joshua 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

Keulen - Two Versions of The Solomon Narrative An Inquiry Into The Relationship Between MT 1 Kgs. 2-11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2-11 (2005)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Keulen - Two Versions of The Solomon Narrative An Inquiry Into The Relationship Between MT 1 Kgs. 2-11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2-11 (2005)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative

overview of 3 reg. 2: 35ao, 46al and parallel texts 315

overview of 3 reg. 2: 35ao, 46al and parallel texts 317

overview of 3 reg. 2: 35ao, 46al and parallel texts 319

You might also like