Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Raymond de Hoop <rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl>]

At 22-05-2001 23:40 Peter Kirk <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org> wrote:

> The problem we then have is that we have no evidence (apart from very
> limited archaeological material which is mostly arguing from silence) about
> your historical Solomon, if he is not the same as the Solomon presented in
> the Bible. 

I do not exclude the bible as a possible historical source, but I take into
account that some of the sources of e.g. the Deuteronomistic History had a
(in my personal view) clear ideological purpose, while there is also a (in
my view, but not solely) theological bias. So, in that respect I put these
documents on one par with the Mesha stele.
It is the difference between a photograph and a painting. The bible offers a
painting of that person, not a photo. But a painting (similar to photos
nowadays) can be retouched, that happened to the painting of Solomon several
times (in case we assume a Dtr redaction in 1 Kings 1-11). So with "the
same" I meant the same PICTURE as described in the Bible and the historical
person.

> In fact we don't even know which historical age to put him in,
> unless we take the datings in Kings very literally. The more conventional
> dating is Iron Age IIA, but one scholar has suggested Late Bronze IIA, a
> contemporary of Pharaoh Haremheb. This earlier dating might be a better
> setting for the author of Proverbs and Qoheleth.

There are also archaeologists who suggest that it may be later than Iron Age
IIA. Yet, that is not my point here. It is whether the archaeological
remnants suggest such a ful-blown state as the Bible depicts it; they don't.
They suggest an "early-state" or a state in its formative stage.

> I accept that there is the possibility of arguing on linguistic grounds that
> Kings does reflect the historical Solomon but Qoheleth does not,

That is one of the arguments, but the arguments are cumulative, not
seperately decisive. But it are arguments, no evidence.

> but any
> argument that Qoheleth does not match a reconstructed historical Solomon
> falls immediately on the speculative nature of that reconstructed Solomon.

Every description of Solomon is a reconstruction, even the one of the Bible,
or of those who don't describe him as a historical person. But also the
description of Solomon by one who considers 1 Kings 1-11 as a reliable
source is a reconstruction, for he uses different sources and his own
interpretation of these sources.
 
> To put it simply, in the absence of extra-Biblical evidence, either (as Dave
> Washburn seems to hold) the historical Solomon is the same as the literary
> Solomon; or else (as Thomas Thompson seems to hold) we have no historical
> Solomon, only a literary one. I don't see a tenable middle ground.

Here again you misinterprete my "same". I wrote

>> that is the picture the Hebrew Bible wants us to have from him, [which]
>> is not necessarily the same as the historical picture.

So, the same denotes the picture of the person involved. Not the person, I
consider the Solomon as described in 1 Kings 1-11 as a historical person as
you do (I suppose). Yet I have my doubts whether the details concerning this
person are presented correctly in every aspect.

Regards,
Raymond