Wisdom, Power, Worship: Solomon’s Reign—1 Kings 1–12

2019 ◽  
pp. 198-208
Author(s):  
Ellen F. Davis

FOLLOWING THE REMARKABLY frank and intimate views of Saul’s tortured mind and David’s troubled family, the account of Solomon may at first seem dry by comparison. For the most part, reports of palace intrigue end with the death of David (1 Kgs 2:10–11). The inside view of Solomon’s reign focuses on something that has played little or no role in the preceding royal accounts: the apparatus of monarchy. The chapters treated here include a list of royal officials and regional prefects (4:1–19), almost certainly the oldest official document in the Bible. Included also are detailed reports on requisitions of food for the royal banquet table and fodder for the royal stables (5:2–8 Heb., 4:22–28 Eng.). Banqueting was an essential vehicle of diplomacy in the ancient world,...

2000 ◽  
Vol 25 (87) ◽  
pp. 3-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amos Frisch

The appearance of the Exodus motif in several books of the Bible has been the subject of several studies. The present article examines the use of the Exodus motif in chs. 1–14 of the first book of Kings, first identifying explicit references, and concluding with more oblique ones. These allusions appear in passages attributed to various redactional layers, and are raised by a variety of figures (the narrator, God, the characters). Through their very appearance, the Exodus allusions contribute to the overall unity of the text. It is proposed that these references serve several different functions: to heighten the importance of the United Kingdom and its link to the Exodus; to abet the assessment of the characters of Solomon and Jeroboam, including the reversal of the assessment concerning them; to underscore the debt of fealty to God, and the justification of the punishment meted out against the sinners. Conversely, they highlight the commitment of God to his people, leading to their pardon.


Author(s):  
Sara M. Koenig

The biblical texts about Bathsheba have notorious gaps, even by the laconic standards of Hebrew narrative. Post-biblical receptions of the story flesh out the terse chapters of 2 Samuel 11–12 and 1 Kings 1–2, ascribing feelings and motives to Bathsheba and David that are not contained in the Hebrew text. This essay examines the intersection of reception history and feminist biblical scholarship by considering eleven novels about Bathsheba from the twentieth and twenty-first century. These novels expand Bathsheba’s character beyond the text, but in fairly gender stereotypical ways, such that feminist readers of the novels may be left wanting more.


Author(s):  
Stephen Fowl

The use of material images of various gods (idols) in religious worship has a long history and a central place in the polytheistic religions of the ancient world. The worship of these gods is strictly prohibited in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This practice is generally referred to as idolatry. In addition, the making of images of the one God along with the use of such images in worship is also considered idolatry within these three monotheistic faiths. In the ancient societies within which Judaism, Christianity and, later, Islam emerged, almost all aspects of life were touched by the presence of idols. For a Jew (particularly in the diaspora) or a Christian to faithfully negotiate one’s way through the activities of daily life in such a world required sustained attentiveness and resolve. Over time, idolatry became more generally and metaphorically associated with ideas, motivations, beliefs and commitments that draw believers’ attention away from God. In some instances in Christianity, idolatry simply becomes a synonym for sin. Although it is not common today for Jews, Christians or Muslims to worship fabricated images of their own or other gods, some of the ongoing philosophical and theological issues concern how God’s creation can manifest the invisible God. In what ways, if any, can the created world mediate God truthfully to humans? Can such things as icons be instrumental in the worship of the one God without that worship being idolatrous? In recent French phenomenological writing, some of these issues receive attention. Although these concerns may seem distant from those of the Bible and Quran, they share a common recognition that idolatry stems from a failure of attentiveness, an inability or unwillingness to focus one’s attention and desire upon God in the face of myriad distractions.


Author(s):  
John R. Spencer

Within the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament there is a provision for six cities of refuge (“cities of intaking” [ערי מקלט]), where someone who has unintentionally committed murder can go and not be subject to blood revenge (Exodus 20:12–14; Numbers 35:9–28; Deuteronomy 4:41–43, 19:1–13; Joshua 20; 1 Chronicles 6). This practice has been described as refuge, asylum, and sanctuary, and the cities have been given all three of these labels, which has resulted in differing understandings of the intention of these cities. The basic legal issue is the distinction between intentional and unintentional killing. For most societies in the ancient Near East, including ancient Israel, the idea of “blood revenge” (an “eye for an eye”; lex talionis) was the way in which the killing of a member of your clan or family was avenged (Exodus 21:23). The distinction made in association with the cities of refuge/asylum was how to deal with an individual who accidentally, without intention, killed another (Exodus 21:12–14; Number 35:16–28). Also associated with this idea is the nature of sanctuary or asylum that one can obtain when one reaches a cultic center with an altar (1 Kings 1:50–53; 2:23–24). One should also note that all the cities of refuge are also Levitical Cities (1 Chronicles 6), but it is not clear what the role of the Levites was in such a city of refuge. Among the issues associated with these cities are the following: Did they actually exist, or were they simply a fiction created at a later period of time? If they were real, what was their historical context? Was it premonarchic, the time of David and Solomon, related to the centralization of Josiah, or postexilic? When were the texts composed (a question associated with the previous issue and raising wonderings about different hands in the composition of the texts associated with the idea of asylum cities)? What is the connection between altars of sanctuary and the cities of refuge, and why the apparent replacement of altars with cities? Who and how was the validity of the claim of unintentional killing (Numbers 35:24–25; Joshua 20:4) decided, even if the killer was a “sojourner” (gēr) (Joshua 20:9)? What was the consequence of the death of the high priest (Numbers 35:27; Joshua 20:6), and how it was related to some concept of atonement? What was the relationship between the different biblical presentations of refuge or asylum? What was the connection with the Levites (See Oxford Bibliographies in Biblical Studies articles Levi/Levites) and Levitical Cities? Finally, what is the relevance to today’s society with its issues of sanctuary for immigrants and sojourners?


1988 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
John T. Kirby

The publication of George Kennedy'sNew Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticismmarked the full realization of a growing trend in NT criticism, whereby scholars are beginning to look beyond the limitations of form- and source-criticism for another viable hermeneutical tool. Rhetorical criticism has its origins in the classical canons conceptualized and formulated by the principal rhetoricians of Greek and Roman antiquity, such as Aristotle and Quintilian. This methodology sprang from roots in the ancient world; rhetoric was ‘one of the constraints under which New Testament writers worked’. But it has a universality that transcends its own cultural boundaries, as well as an extraordinary practicality: ‘ … it does study a verbal reality, our text of the Bible, rather than the oral sources standing behind that text, the hypothetical stages of its composition, or the impersonal workings of social forces, and at its best it can reveal the power of those texts as unitary messages’’. Often, too, it is capable of slashing through exegetical Gordian knots that prove otherwise intractable. The ability of rhetorical criticism to evaluate even the more opaque or mystical portions of the NT is a measure of its effectiveness.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document