Solomon in the Gospels and Acts—Saint of Sinneer?

Contents 3 Editorial: More of the same in these last days 7 John A. Davies, Solomon in the Gospels and Acts—Saint or Sinner? 23 Nickolas A. Fox, The mechanisms of unity: The social identity-forming power of the eucharist 37 Francis Otobo, The Holy Spirit and Luke’s infancy narrative: Reading a legitimatory role 57 Patrick Cole, Global evangelism in Jesus’ Temple destruction/ last times discourse in Luke-Acts and in synoptic tradition: Confluence, congruence, intertextual linkages, and connective shaping 93 James R. Harrison, ‘Wonders in the heaven above’ (Acts 2:19): The Graeco-Roman portent mentality and terata in Luke-Acts 117 Christoph Stenschke, Human flourishing and the Paul of the book of Acts 131 Andrew Stewart, Herod Agrippa II: The embodiment or extinction of Israel’s hope? Book Reviews 145 Walter Ameling, Hannah M. Cotton, Werner Eck et al. (eds.), Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae / Palaestinae 146 Folker Siegert, Johann Maier, Frieder Lötzsch (eds.), Rechtsgeschichtlicher Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Band I: Einleitung, Arbeitsmittel und Voraussetzungen 148 Richard Bauckham, “Son of Man,” Volume 1: Early Jewish Literature 151 Udo Schnelle, Manfred Lang (Hrsg.), Texte zum Matthäusevangelium Teilband 2: Matthäus 11–28. Neuer Wettstein: Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus Band I/1.2 152 Nathan C. Johnson, The Suffering Son of David in Matthew’s Passion Narrative 154 Gene L. Green, Vox Petri: A Theology of Peter 157 Michael F. Bird, A Bird’s-Eye View of Luke and Acts: Context, Story, and Themes 159 Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, Luke in His Own Words: A Study of the Language of Luke-Acts in Greek 161 Chris Seglenieks, Johannine Belief and Graeco-Roman Devotion: Reshaping: Devotion for John’s Graeco-Roman Audience Solomon in the Gospels and Acts—Saint or Sinner? JOHN A. DAVIES Abstract How do the Gospels and Acts view King Solomon? Is he the flawed king of the book of Kings, responsible for the dissolution of the kingdom of Israel? Or is he the idealised figure of Chronicles? From Jesus’ teaching recorded in Matthew and Luke, and other material (and omissions) in the Gospels and Acts, we learn something more of the character and ministry of Jesus and the values of his Kingdom by way of comparison and contrast with Solomon and his achievements. H ow do the writers of the Gospels and Acts regard King Solomon? There is just a handful of explicit references to Solomon in these five New Testament books. Of these mentions, two are in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus (Matt. 1:6–7); there are two pairs of synoptic parallels where Solomon is mentioned in Jesus’ teaching (Matt. 6:29 // Luke 12:27; Matt. 12:42 // Luke 11:31); there are three references to ‘Solomon’s portico’ in the temple precincts (John 10:23; Acts 3:11; 5:12); and there is one reference to Solomon as the builder of the first temple (Acts 7:47). Beyond these there is no mention of Solomon in the rest of the New Testament. He is not among the heroes of faith in Hebrews 11 which includes such marginal characters as Samson and Jephthah. As we shall see below, there are a number of other passages in the Gospels and Acts evocative of Israel’s third king, the son and successor of David and the builder of Israel’s temple. Solomon is sometimes considered a ‘type’ of Christ with the expectation that a ‘type’ has to be a largely positive figure to be worthy of comparison with Jesus. Whether or not we use the language of ‘type’ (τύπος, Rom. 5:14), there is both comparison and contrast between Solomon and Jesus in the New Testament. Solomon in the Old Testament The portrayal of Solomon in the Old Testament is far from straightforward.1 While the Primary History (Joshua—Kings) and the later Chronicles have rather different portraits of Solomon, in both of these his forty-year reign in some senses represented the high point of Israel’s history. 1 For general treatments of the characterisation of Solomon in the Old Testament and later tradition, see Handy, ‘Solomon᾽; Brueggemann, Solomon; Verheyden (ed.), Figure; Herbst, Development. JOURNAL OF GOSPELS AND ACTS RESEARCH VOL. 8 7 SOLOMON IN THE GOSPELS AND ACTS—SAINT OR SINNER? Following the conquest of Canaan, the turmoil of the period of the Judges, and Saul’s troubled reign, there had been (according to Kings) a struggle to consolidate the unity of the tribes under king David as well as a time of dynastic rivalry. Solomon, with the ailing David’s blessing, and with some palace intrigue, emerged as the winner (1 Kgs 1). Solomon’s reign is said to be marked by peace and security (4:24–25 [Heb. 5:4–5]). His trading empire and political influence were extensive (4:21,24 [Heb. 5:1,4]. He accrued large quantities of gold, silver, and other precious items (9:14,28; 10:2,10,11,14,21,22). Solomon enjoyed a cooperative relationship with his near neighbours, such as Hiram of Tyre (5:1–12), and a favourable reputation with those further abroad like the queen of Sheba (10:1–13). It is for his ‘wisdom’, a royal enterprise (Prov. 20:26; 25:2; 31:1), that Solomon is best remembered. When invited, he had prayed for a ‘listening heart’ so as to ‘discern between good and evil’ (1 Kgs 3:9), and his ‘wisdom’ was celebrated at home and abroad (3:28; 4:29–34 [Heb. 5:9–14]; 5:12 [Heb. 5:26]; 10:4,6,7,8). The bulk of the account in Kings of Solomon’s reign is devoted to the preparations for, and building of, the palace complex and its royal chapel, the temple in Jerusalem, along with all their relevant furnishings (1 Kgs 5–7). The construction program marked the terminus of the exodus from Egypt, the expectation of the promised ‘rest’ (6:1; 8:56). But a clearly negative note is sounded in 1 Kings 11. Solomon’s many foreign wives and concubines with their idolatrous influence is often seen as a sad aberration in the latter stages of Solomon’s reign from what is an otherwise commendatory account. Raymond Dillard, for example, sees two distinct periods in the Kings account of Solomon’s reign, ‘a time of blessing and obedience (1 Kgs 1–10) followed by apostasy and judgment in the form of the schism (1 Kgs 11–12)’.2 Even if, with Martin Noth, we extend the negative tone back into chapter 9, there would still be a perception that Solomon gets a substantially positive press in Kings.3 The depiction of Solomon in Sirach is along these lines—a wise king whose reign was marked by peace, affluence, and international prestige in his youth, but who later brought ruin to the kingdom through subjecting himself to women (Sir. 47:12–23). Yet such a reading, a Solomon who is largely remembered for his positive attributes and accomplishments, would be at odds with the general biblical criterion for the evaluation of kings—their unswerving loyalty to Yhwh and suppression of idolatrous worship. It is also counter to a general biblical principle that one’s standing with God is not determined on some balance of good and bad behaviour over one’s lifetime. As Ezekiel 18 makes clear, past sinful behaviour is not taken into account when one repents and returns to God in obedience (Ezek. 18:21–22) and, equally, past righteousness counts for nothing when one turns away from Yhwh (Ezek. 18:24). What matters is the orientation of one’s heart at the moment of God’s assessment, and the narrator’s assessment of Solomon is that ‘his heart was not true to the Lord his God, as was the heart of his father David’ (1 Kgs 11:4). This prompts us to engage in a careful rereading of 1 Kings 1–10. This would suggest that the writer is nowhere near as positive about Solomon and his enterprises as is often imagined, and there are now a number of scholars who note the more nuanced stance towards Solomon’s reign by the historian of Kings.4 While it is possible that the historian of Kings was using a source, perhaps an official royal archive or a work based on this (see e.g. the ‘Book of the Acts of Solomon’, 1 Kgs 11:41), which was consistently congratulatory of Solomon’s achievements, we should be open 2 3 4 8 Dillard, ‘The Chronicler’s Solomon’. Noth, Deuteronomistic History, 60. There are intermediate positions: Kenik, Design; Frisch, ‘Structure’; Parker, ‘Solomon’; Knoppers, Two Nations 1: 57–134. See Walsh, ‘Characterization’; Sweeney, ‘Critique’; Hays, ‘Has the Narrator Come to Praise Solomon?’; Avioz, ‘Characterization’; Davies, ‘Discerning’. OCTOBER 2024 SOLOMON IN THE GOSPELS AND ACTS—SAINT OR SINNER? to the historian making use of this source within his own agenda which was, at least in part, to provide a theological rationale for the breakup of the kingdom and the slide into exile (1 Kgs 9:1–9; 11:26–40; 2 Kgs 17:7–20), as well as to offer hope for a life for the nation beyond exile (1 Kgs 8:34; 2 Kgs 25:27–30).5 The impetus that led to exile has its origin in Solomon’s unfaithful behaviour. The account seems to be structured so as to draw attention to Solomon’s flagrant breaches of the very things kings are explicitly forbidden to do, or the people are warned to look out for in their future kings—acquiring horses, with specific mention of Egypt as the source, taking many wives, amassing silver and gold, and the imposition of forced labour (Deut. 17:14–20; 1 Sam. 8:11–18; cf. 1 Kgs 4:26; 10:25–29). The requirement of the king to have close to hand a copy of the torah and to obey it, ‘neither exalting himself above other members of the community nor turning aside from the commandment, either to the right or to the left’ (Deut. 17:20) is clearly honoured in the breach in Solomon’s case. The marriages Solomon contracts involve forbidden alliances with foreign nations with resulting idolatrous practices. Pharaoh’s daughter is singled out from the outset and her presence is felt throughout the narrative (1 Kgs 3:1; 7:8; 9:16,24; 11:1), and while from one perspective this represents a diplomatic coup, it introduces a theme which is never far from the surface—Israel’s bondage in Egypt—and Solomon’s behaviour is at times closer to that of a despotic Pharaoh than an ideal king over God’s people. The ‘high places’ which feature in the assessment of subsequent Judean kings make their appearance at the outset of the Solomon account. While prior to the building of the temple one might expect these traditional cult sites to have a place in the worship of Yhwh (witness the practice of Samuel, 1 Sam. 9:12), the way they are introduced in 1 Kings 3:2 (raq ‘however’), before the account of Solomon’s visit to the high place at Gibeon (v.4), indicates disapproval, and by 11:7 the high places are explicitly said to be for the worship of foreign gods. The final assessment of Solomon in 1 Kings 11:6 that he ‘did what was evil in the sight of the Lord’ is damning. But this is not the first time that a characterisation of Solomon as an ‘offender’ has been made. Even before Solomon’s accession, his mother’s words, ‘It will come to pass, when my lord the king sleeps with his ancestors, that my son Solomon and I will be offenders’ (1 Kgs 1:21), will prove to be prophetic. Though in context the words, addressed to David, mean that Solomon, together with his mother, would be treated as a political ‘offender’ should Solomon’s brother become king, in retrospect the word carries the force of an ‘offender’ (ḥaṭṭa, normally translated ‘sinner’) against God. When Solomon does become king, he is the one to ‘offend’ through his brutal treatment of his political rivals (1 Kgs 2:13–46). The words for ‘sinner’ and ‘evil’ thus bracket Solomon’s reign. With the writer’s final assessment of Solomon in mind, we go back and revisit even the apparently glowing descriptions in earlier chapters. Are his wealth, prestige, and even wisdom deliberately highlighted for a rhetorical purpose? There are echoes of the Garden of Eden in much of the account, such that Solomon is cast as a new Adam figure. We note his acclamation as king at Gihon, one of the primeval rivers of Genesis (Gen. 2:13), and the garden imagery which pervades the account of his reign.6 If Solomon is a new Adam, like the first Adam he fails the obedience test. When, in the context of a catalogue of Solomon’s construction works, we read of ‘whatever Solomon desired to build in Jerusalem, in Lebanon, and in all the land of his dominion’ (1 Kgs 9:19), our sense of a man out of control is confirmed. This pejorative tone is perpetuated in Ecclesiastes. Here the fictive Solomon (who else could we be intended to picture as ‘the son of David, king in Jerusalem’, Eccl. 1:1?) speaks of his building and landscaping achievements: 5 6 Lovell, Kings. Davies, ‘Discerning’, 48–49. JOURNAL OF GOSPELS AND ACTS RESEARCH VOL. 8 9 SOLOMON IN THE GOSPELS AND ACTS—SAINT OR SINNER? I made great works; I built houses and planted vineyards for myself; I made myself gardens and parks, and planted in them all kinds of fruit trees. I made myself pools from which to water the forest of growing trees (Eccl. 2:4–6).7 The word ‘houses’ (bottim) includes the sort of royal buildings mentioned in 1 Kings 7:1–12. This ‘Solomon’ echoes the description (1 Kgs 9:19) of the king’s unrestrained appetite: ‘Whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them; I kept my heart from no pleasure’ (Eccl. 2:10). All of this is, on reflection, evaluated as ‘vanity and a chasing after wind’ (v.11). The book of Chronicles gives an account from one perspective of the Davidic dynasty, with a focus on the establishment and maintenance of legitimate worship centred on the temple. In this, Solomon of course plays a vital role. In his portrayal of Solomon (2 Chr. 1–9) the Chronicler has expunged practically all of the negative notes from his source in Kings and added some positive ones of his own. Even those aspects of the Kings account that, because of their framing, might be considered negative (such as the acquisition of horses, or the amassing of silver and gold), the Chronicler would seem to view positively as signs of divine blessing (2 Chr. 9:13–28). Whereas the Solomon of Kings had come to power through bitter rivalry and connivance before a bedridden David (1 Kgs 1–2), the Chronicler’s Solomon has no rival, is publicly endorsed by David, enthusiastically acclaimed by all the people, and, above all, divinely approved (1 Chr. 22:7–10; 28:6; 29:22–25). Where possible, the reigns of David and Solomon are closely associated, particularly in their intergenerational venture of temple building (e.g. 1 Chr. 22:5,7,17; 23:1; 28:11; 29:1,23; 2 Chr. 1:1; 3:1; 5:1; 7:10; 11:17; 30:26; 33:7; 35:3). No mention is made of Solomon’s multitudinous foreign wives and their idolatrous influence. It is Rehoboam, not Solomon, who is given the blame for the division of the kingdom (2 Chr. 10). In contrast with Kings, Chronicles makes the barest mention of Solomon’s palace and other buildings (2 Chr. 7:11; 8:1,11; 9:16–20), but gives prominence to the temple, its attendants, and services (2 Chr. 3–5), not just in the account of Solomon’s reign (where the temple and its dedication looms large, as it does in Kings), but beyond. There is a build-up to it before Solomon’s reign (from 1 Chr. 6:10), with repeated references after Solomon has departed the scene (to 2 Chr. 35:3) to the temple and Solomon’s role. The groundplan of the Chronicler’s temple may approximate the reality of the first temple (though it is four times the height of the one in Kings!: 1 Kgs 6:2; 2 Chr. 3:4), but the resources allocated for its construction far exceed anything feasible. The value of the silver alone would be in excess of 35 billion US dollars, with a further billion dollars’ worth of gold (1 Chr. 22:14). Hyperbole can be an effective literary device.8 An ancient reader would be expected to realise that something other than sober history writing is involved here. We have in Chronicles an account of an idealised temple, written against the background of a far more modest restoration temple, set in the era of a united Israel, and with some echoes of the Mosaic tabernacle, intended to inspire confidence in and foster commitment to upholding the legitimate cult as the hope for Israel’s future.9 Chronicles emphasises the era of Solomon’s reign as one of rest for the people and a time when Yhwh comes to dwell among them (1 Chr. 22:9, 18; 28:2; 2 Chr. 6:41).10 The account has the 7 8 Unless otherwise stated, biblical citations are from the NRSV. For another obvious example of hyperbole in the Solomon account, see 2 Chr. 1:9 where the population of Solomon’s kingdom is said to be ‘as numerous as the dust of the earth’. For the Chronicler’s use of hyperbole, see Klein, ‘How Many in a Thousand?’ 9 Van Seters establishes the concern of the Chronicler for demonstrating continuity of the temple institutions from the past, through the present, into the future: Van Seters, ‘The Chronicler’s Account’. 10 See Braun, ‘Solomon’, 582–86. 10 OCTOBER 2024 SOLOMON IN THE GOSPELS AND ACTS—SAINT OR SINNER? characteristics of eschatology, somewhat on the trajectory on which also lie Ezekiel’s visionary temple and city (Ezek. 40–48), those of the Qumran Temple Scroll (11Q19 and 11Q20), and the New Jerusalem of Revelation 21.11 Like Solomon’s temple, its builder is projected as an eschatological figure. The Solomonic age, with its national unity and temple focus, is held up as an ideal to be aspired to by the returned Yehud community because it is envisaged as an age when God was truly worshipped as he ought to be.12 Chronicles gives us the Solomon we would like to remember, and one for whom we may yet hope. While Kings focuses on the unfolding tragedy of a ‘Paradise Lost’, Chronicles suggests the prospect for a ‘Paradise Regained’. It should not be a problem that a character who lived hundreds of years earlier should be remembered differently at different times and in different contexts. The tendency among some scholars to downplay the negatives of the Kings account and focus on Solomon’s achievements could be motivated (at least subconsciously) by the desire to harmonise the Solomon of Kings with the Chronicler’s Solomon. But just as we must do in Gospels scholarship, we should allow each synoptic account of Solomon’s reign its own voice. Another factor may be the attribution to, or association with, Solomon of several Old Testament books. The book of Proverbs may well contain some of the thousands of proverbs Solomon is said to have composed (1 Kgs 4:32; Prov. 1:1; 10:1; 25:1). But Solomon’s association with Ecclesiastes and the Song that bears his name is surely intended to be fictive (Eccl. 1:1; Song 1:1,5; 3:7,9,11; 8:11,12). We also have the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works associated with his name, the Wisdom of Solomon (late first century bce to early first century ce), the Psalms of Solomon (first century bce), the Odes of Solomon (first to second centuries ce) and the Testament of Solomon (first to third centuries ce). Solomon in the New Testament So which Solomon do we have in the New Testament? The Solomon of the Primary History, with his tarnished image, or the Chronicler’s more saintly Solomon? Or some other Solomon, perhaps a composite figure, or one influenced by popular folklore in Second Temple Judaism? Solomon in and out of the Genealogies Both Matthew and Luke give a genealogy of Jesus which traces his ancestry through king David. However, while Matthew traces Jesus’ line through David’s son Solomon and the line of succession of Judean kings (Matt. 1:6–11), Luke offers an alternative lineage through another of David’s sons, Nathan (Luke 3:31). It may be that Matthew gives the legal line of descent through Solomon, legitimising Jesus’ messianic claims, while Luke gives a more realistic lineage.13 Or Luke may be deliberately avoiding mention at this point of Solomon, the king responsible for the breakup of the kingdom, perhaps espousing the ‘Branch Christology’ that emerges from some Old Testament prophetic expectation—that the messiah would come from a ‘branch’ or ‘shoot’ that comes from David but not from the anticipated messianic line through Solomon (Isa. 11:1; Mic. 5:2 [Heb. 5:1]; 11 12 13 See Stinespring, ‘Eschatology’; Williamson, ‘Eschatology’. For the depiction of the future temple in the Temple Scroll, see Davies, ‘The Temple Scroll and the Missing Temple’; Davies, ‘The Temple Scroll from Qumran’. Mosis, Untersuchungen, 164–69. See Bruce, ‘Genealogy’; Marshall, Luke, 158. JOURNAL OF GOSPELS AND ACTS RESEARCH VOL. 8 11 SOLOMON IN THE GOSPELS AND ACTS—SAINT OR SINNER? Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16).14 Luke makes no reference to the Messiah in his genealogy, whereas Matthew has three (Matt. 1:1,16,17). Matthew’s reference to Solomon’s parentage is as follows: ‘And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah’ (Matt. 1:6). Given that this is a departure from Matthew’s standard pattern (listing only the father), we look for an explanation. The only other such deviations are the references to Tamar (v.3) and Rahab and Ruth (v.5). Various explanations for these are offered, including the presumed Gentile origin of each of the women (though we do not know this in the case of Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother). Whatever else may be intended, the reference to Solomon’s parentage in this way (naming Uriah but not Bathsheba) calls attention to David’s adultery and murder (2 Sam. 11), an inauspicious start to Matthew’s treatment of Solomon. We also note that the section of fourteen generations that begins in this way with David ends in the judgement of exile (Matt. 1:11). Both Gospel writers, then, in their different ways, hint at a less than fulsome appraisal of Solomon. Solomon and the Lilies The name Solomon occurs twice in the teaching of Jesus: in the pericope which contrasts Solomon’s glory with the beauty of ‘lilies’ (Matt. 6:25–34 // Luke 12:22–31) and in the allusion to the queen of Sheba’s experience of Solomon’s wisdom (Matt. 12:42 // Luke 11:31). These are generally assumed to have their source in the ‘Q’ material.15 Matthew 6:28–29 reads: ‘And why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these’ (cf. Luke 12:27–28). These verses are set in a context dealing with ‘worry’ (Matt. 6:25–34). The verb μεριμνᾶν, ‘worry’, or ‘be overly preoccupied with’, occurs in vv.25,27,28,31,34 where Jesus counsels against being overly concerned with the affairs of daily life—food and drink, clothing, as well as one’s lifespan (or height).16 Such concern is not restricted to the poor, which may be implied by the English word ‘worry’. The wealthy may exhibit such a preoccupation (μεριμνᾶν) with their possessions (Sir. 31:1), a fact which is relevant to the mention of Solomon. Concern with clothing is clearly in view in vv.25,28 which use the verb ἐνδύειν for ‘wear (clothes)’ and Luke uses ἀμφιέζειν ‘clothe’ (Luke 12:28), while both Matthew and Luke use the noun ἔνδυμα ‘clothing’ (Matt. 6:25,28; Luke 12:23) within the pericope. Further, the word ‘spin’ (νήθειν, Matt. 6:28; Luke 12:27) reinforces the notion of garment manufacture.17 What the reader of the English Bible will not pick up is that the word used to describe Solomon being ‘clothed’ is not one of these words, but the verb περιβάλλειν (Matt. 6:27, cf. v.31; Luke 12:27). In the central comparison between Solomon’s glory and the ‘lilies’, translations will almost invariably have something like NRSV’s ‘even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these’. However, while the verb περιβάλλειν in the middle voice can be translated ‘wear, be clothed’ (e.g. Rev. 19:8), its primary meaning as given by BDAG is ‘to encompass by erecting something around’. It 14 For the significance of the Lukan genealogy, see Fitzmyer, Luke I–IX, 490–505; Doble, ‘Something Greater’, 182–86; Bauckham, Jude, 315–73; Bolt, ‘Breathing In Enoch’, 166–68. 15 For comparison of the differences and textual variants of Matt. 6:25–33 and Luke 12:22–31 and their Q source see Skeat, ‘Lilies’; Dillon, ‘Ravens’; Naveros Córdova, ‘Q [Luke] 12:27’; Gundry, ‘Spinning the Lilies’; Olsthoorn, Jewish Background, 7–18. 16 For this pejorative sense of μεριμνᾶν, as well as its proper exercise, cf. 1 Cor. 7:32–34. 17 The Western text of Luke 12:27 has οὔτε νήθει οὔτε ὑφαίνει ‘neither spin nor weave’. 12 OCTOBER 2024 SOLOMON IN THE GOSPELS AND ACTS—SAINT OR SINNER? can be used, for example, of the erection of an encompassing wall.18 It is also the word used for ‘surrounding’ oneself with wealth and opulence.19 There is no mention in the Old Testament of Solomon’s attire, though we are told of the splendour of the clothing of his attendants (1 Kgs 10:5; 2 Chr. 9:4), and one might assume, as does later tradition, that his own royal vestments were truly resplendent.20 While Solomon’s royal attire is doubtless part of the picture Jesus intends his listeners to contemplate, the verb περιβάλλειν encourages the reader to think more broadly of that with which Solomon surrounded himself, notably his luxurious palace and the other royal buildings in Jerusalem, and their magnificent contents (1 Kgs 5–7). These buildings included the House of the Forest of the Lebanon, the Hall of Pillars, the Hall of the Throne, the Hall of Justice, and the ‘house for Pharaoh’s daughter’ and presumably also for his other wives and concubines (7:1–12). Moreover, Solomon’s building projects extended throughout the land (9:19). Further, we note Jesus’ use of the word ‘glory᾽ (δόξα) to describe that which surrounds Solomon. Matthew’s previous use of the word was in 4:8 where it characterises ‘all the kingdoms of the world’ with which the devil tried to tempt Jesus. We might then detect a negative edge to the word when applied to Solomon, something the English words ‘pomp’ or ‘aggrandisement’ might capture. Various efforts have been made to identify the precise flowers intended by τὰ κρίνα, traditionally rendered ‘lilies’.21 However, these discussions are beside the point for our purposes. The term could well apply to wildflowers in general (note the change to ‘grass’ in v.30 and cf. Isa. 40:6–8). More to the point (and generally overlooked) is the fact that representations of ‘lilies’ (LXX κρίνα) adorn various aspects of Solomon’s temple, notably the capitals on top of the pillars in the vestibule, and the lily-shaped brim of the enormous ‘sea’ (1 Kgs 7:8,12; 2 Chr. 4:5) and these in turn echo the floral motifs that were to adorn the lampstands of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:31,33,34; Num. 8:4). There is thus a direct verbal link between the ‘lilies’ of Jesus’ saying and Solomon’s temple. Solomon’s lilies, for all the artistry and craftsmanship that went into them, were ‘made with human hands’ like the rest of the temple (cf. Acts 7:48 below) and thus no match for God’s handiwork. We have noted the negative frame in which the writers of Kings and Ecclesiastes present Solomon’s public works (the extravagant and vain enterprises of a self-aggrandising megalomaniac). When Jesus speaks of Solomon’s ‘glory’ with which he surrounded and adorned himself, then, we may discern more than a simple contrast of degree. There would seem to be more than a hint of a pejorative undertone.22 Further, Jesus observes that lilies do not ‘toil’ (κοπιᾶν, Matt. 6:28; Luke 12:27) and thus, by contrast, draws attention to the labour involved in Solomon’s construction enterprises, labour that was conscripted, placing a heavy burden on the people (1 Kgs 5:13,14; 11:28; 12:10).23 Ecclesiastes, speaking with Solomon’s voice, reflects negatively on all his ‘toil’ (Eccl. 2).24 Solomon exhibits the forbidden attitude of being overly preoccupied with his glory.25 Jesus’ followers are to seek the values of a different kingdom and the ‘righteousness’ Solomon failed to exhibit (Matt. 6:33; cf. Isa. 9:7). 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Herodotus, Hist., 6.46.2; Polybius, Hist., 4.65.11. Herodotus, Hist., 3.71.4; Polybius, Hist., 7.1.1. Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 477. Olsthoorn, Jewish Background, 45–49; Fitzmyer, Luke X–XXIV, 979; Instone-Brewer, Prayer and Agriculture, 236–38. Davies and Allison rightly ask, ‘Does the text imply a slight disparagement of Solomon?’: Matthew 1: 655. For Solomon’s exploitative practices, rather than trust in God, see Soggin, ‘Compulsory Labor’; Carter, ‘Solomon’. Similar sentiments are found in Prov. 23:4 and Psa. 127:1, both associated with Solomon. The rabbis of the first and second centuries ce were highly critical of Solomon for his obsession with his own glory (Sanh. 104b). See Olsthoorn, Jewish Background, 49. JOURNAL OF GOSPELS AND ACTS RESEARCH VOL. 8 13 SOLOMON IN THE GOSPELS AND ACTS—SAINT OR SINNER? Solomon and the Queen of Sheba The second overt reference to Solomon in Jesus’ teaching is found in Matthew 12:42 and Luke 11:31 in substantially the same form. ‘The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and see, something greater than Solomon is here!’ (Matt. 12:42). These words are part of a discussion Jesus has with the scribes and Pharisees, prompted by their sceptical attitude to Jesus and their request for a ‘sign’ (v.38). Jesus responds by referring to Jonah and his experience in the belly of the sea monster.26 The reference to Jonah and the immediately following reference to the visit of ‘queen of the South’ to Solomon are to be taken closely together (Luke reverses the order of Solomon and Jonah but still keeps them together). They are bound by the fact that both the Ninevites and the queen are Gentiles, as well as by the common formula, ‘see, something greater than Jonah / Solomon is here!’ (Matt. 12:41,42). While the formula is not identical, we might also compare these with 12:6, ‘I tell you, something greater than the temple is here’. The visit of the queen of the South, that is, the trade and diplomatic mission of the queen of Sheba (probably situated in southern Arabia) to Solomon’s court, is recorded in 1 Kings 10:1–13 and 2 Chronicles 9:1–12. The queen’s visit serves as a foil for the display of Solomon’s wealth and ‘wisdom’. If, as noted above, his wealth has a negative connotation in Kings, what about his ‘wisdom’? In 1 Kings 3:3–15 Solomon is commended for seeking wisdom, and is granted by God ‘a wise and discerning mind’ (v.12), but what we are told this ‘wisdom’ consisted of is all manner of general knowledge and, on the international stage envisaged in 4:29–34 and 10:1–13, may not have ‘the fear of the Lord’ as its uppermost concern. When the queen says to Solomon that Yhwh ‘has made you king to execute justice and righteousness’ (10:9), because of the subtle critique of Solomon throughout, the reader of Kings is entitled to see this as a veiled rebuke by the author, for these qualities have not been foremost in his portrait of Solomon. However, the Chronicles account of the visit of the queen is closely parallel, and, with its different framing, is to be read as a celebration of that with which Solomon has been endowed. So when Jesus compares his mission and message (‘greater’ is neuter) with Solomon’s reign, it may be simply a matter of degree, though, more likely, there is a stronger contrast implied (and likewise with Jonah—hardly an exemplary prophet). It is Jesus, through the ‘sign’ he has just given—the Jonah-like interment of the Son of Man for three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (12:40)—who will exhibit ‘justice and righteousness’. Herein lies true wisdom.27 Jesus transcends the priestly (v.6), prophetic (v.41), and royal (v.42) institutions of the Old Testament. The Feast of Dedication One of the Gospel references to Solomon, with a further two in Acts, is to the portico of Solomon (John 10:23; Acts 3:11; 5:12).28 John tells us that Jesus was walking in this impressive colonnade, situated on the eastern side of the temple complex. This served as a meeting space, a place for discussion of Scripture. While this is of course part of Herod’s redevelopment, the name of Solomon that is attached to this wing of the temple precincts is a reminder of the first temple’s builder. While Herod’s grand extension of the modest Second Temple was a sight to behold, one of the architectural wonders of the ancient world (Mark 13:1; Josephus, Ant. 15:11), in any reference to the temple in the first century ce the name of Solomon will not be too far from the minds of speaker or listeners. 26 For the ‘sign of Jonah’ see particularly Moscicke, ‘Jesus’ Three-day Journey’. 27 It is also possible that Jesus’ ‘wisdom’ has a particular focus here in terms of his control over evil spirits. See Perkins, ‘Greater than Solomon’; see also the discussion under ‘Son of David’ below. 28 Barrett, Acts, 44. 14 OCTOBER 2024 SOLOMON IN THE GOSPELS AND ACTS—SAINT OR SINNER? The Gospel of John records Jesus’ activity and teaching in association with the Jewish festivals—Passover, Tabernacles, Dedication, and an unnamed feast.29 There is a close association of these with the temple, the centre of religious life for Palestinian Jews and those in the diaspora. At each festival he attends Jesus takes the opportunity to speak of the fulfilment in himself and his mission of what the festival with its temple focus stood for (John 2:13–25; 5:1—6:71; 7:2–52; 11:55— 19:42). So the detail that John records, that the discussion in 10:24–30 took place on the feast of Dedication and in Solomon’s portico, is likely to be significant.30 John does not waste words. This festival (Hanukkah) commemorates the rededication of the temple by Judas Maccabeus after its desecration by the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes (1 Macc. 4:36–59). Its designation in Greek is ‘the Renewal’ (τὰ ἐγκαίνια). The Jewish authorities (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι) ask Jesus how long he is going to keep them in suspense as to whether he is the Messiah. The idiomatic expression they use is literally, ‘How long will you take away our life?’ The irony is that it is they who will take away Jesus’ life, for this encounter, with its threat of stoning (v.31), is the climactic one before the resolve to have Jesus put to death (11:53). As is often the case, Jesus’ answer is indirect: I have told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name testify to me; but you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep. My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand. What my Father has given me is greater than all else, and no one can snatch it out of the Father’s hand. The Father and I are one (John 10:24–30). Here again is ‘something greater than Solomon’ or his temple. The real ‘dedication’ or ‘consecration’ (ἁγιάζειν, v.36) is not that performed by the Maccabees (1 Macc. 4:48), or before them by Solomon (1 Kgs 8:64; 2 Chr. 2:4; 7:7), but that of Jesus by the Father, a prelude to his impending sacrifice. Jesus’ ‘works’ (ἔργα, vv.25,32,33,37,38) surpass those of Solomon. In the LXX ἔργον (in both singular and plural) is a theme word for Solomon’s achievements, notably the temple (3 Kgdms 5:30[X2]; 7:2[X2],6[X2],8,12,15,16,19[X2],26,31,32,37,45; = 1 Kgs 5:16[X2]; 7:14[X2],18[X2],19,28,29,33[X2],40,45,47,51,8[sic]). If Jesus’ interlocutors had Solomon and his ‘works’ in mind as a model for the Messiah and his activity, Jesus’ ‘works’, in contrast to Solomon’s, have eternal value. Jesus’ life-giving ‘works’ have been evidenced in preceding chapters (John 4:34; 5:36; 7:3,21; 9:3,4). It is Jesus who brings true ‘renewal’, transformed lives as people respond to his summons. In fellowship with him his sheep are the new temple community, a theme evident elsewhere in John (2:19–22; 14).31 Far from the blasphemer ‘the Judeans’ accuse Jesus of being (do they have Antiochus’ blasphemy in mind?), Jesus has adduced evidence that it is God’s work he has been doing, for he is one with God and therefore worthy of their worship.32 Solomon’s Temple in Stephen’s Speech The early church had a range of attitudes to the temple.33 On the one hand they continued to respect it and its institutions while it remained standing. Solomon’s portico served as a meeting place (Acts 3:11; 5:12). But they were well aware of its transitory nature and of the fact that Jesus fulfilled what the temple was designed to represent, God dwelling among his people (Matt. 12:6; 29 See Yee, Jewish Feasts; Attridge, ‘Temple’; Wheaton, Role; Daise, Feasts. 30 While some see the setting as incidental, Wheaton is one who appreciates the significance John gives to the occasion: Role, 159–82. 31 See Davies, ‘Mansions’. 32 The theme of worship is developed by Wheaton, Role, 179–82. 33 See Attridge, ‘Temple’. JOURNAL OF GOSPELS AND ACTS RESEARCH VOL. 8 15 SOLOMON IN THE GOSPELS AND ACTS—SAINT OR SINNER? 24:2; 28:20; John 2:19-21). The speech of Stephen in Acts 7 is one of the important speeches of the book of Acts. In it Stephen recounts the successive leaders God sent to deliver Israel, each one of whom suffered some form of rejection. No doubt aware of Jesus’ teaching about the fulfilment of the temple in himself, and his prophecy of the destruction of the temple, Stephen spoke in these terms just before his stoning: But (δέ) it was Solomon who built a house for him. Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made with human hands; as the prophet says, ‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me’, says the Lord, ‘or what is the place of my rest? Did not my hand make all these things?’ (Acts 7:47–50). It is not clear that the δέ of v.47 should be read as adversative, which would imply a contrast between Solomon’s temple and the ‘dwelling place’ (σκήνωμα) David had sought to build (v.46). The Scriptural background to this reference would seem to be Psalm 132:5 (LXX 131:5) which (as often the case with citations of Scripture) is to be read against the background of the whole psalm, with its several references to the temple and God’s commitment to it (vv.7,8,13,14), coupled with God’s dynastic promise to David and his ‘anointed’ heir (χριστός, vv.10,11,12,17). As this promise is explicitly conditional on covenant faithfulness, which Solomon fell short of, it must refer to another, and Luke has been demonstrating who this ‘Messiah’ is (Acts 2:31,36; 3:20). The other Scripture citation (‘the prophet’) is from Isaiah 66:1–2, which includes words not explicitly cited by Stephen, but which are relevant to its significance: Thus says the Lord: ‘Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is my resting place? All these things my hand has made, and so all these things are mine’, says the Lord. ‘But this is the one to whom I will look, to the humble and contrite in spirit, who trembles at my word’ (Isa. 66:1–3). In his prayer of dedication, Solomon had said something similar (2 Chr. 6:18), and had just prior to this echoed the conditional nature of God’s dynastic commitment (vv.16–17). While the reference to Solomon’s temple as ‘made with human hands’ (χειροποιήτοιϛ) is often taken as a denunciation of the temple (for χειροποίητα is the LXX word for idols, Lev. 26:1; Isa. 2:18), it is more, in context, a rejection of Solomon, for his association with idolatry. It is to another χριστός ‘Messiah’ that Stephen points his listeners, one who is humble and righteous.34 Jesus as ‘Son of David’ Finally, we should consider whether behind the references to Jesus as ‘son of David’, we are to discern specifically the figure of Solomon. One pericope where Solomon would seem to be in view is that of Jesus’ entry to Jerusalem on a donkey to the shout ‘Hosanna to the Son of David!’ (Matt. 21:9). Whatever the crowds may have understood, the scene evokes the proclamation of Solomon as king (1 Kgs 1:32–40). Jesus’ route into Jerusalem from Bethphage would have taken him past the Gihon spring, the site of Solomon’s acclamation. Not only is Solomon the only king of David’s line said, like Jesus, to ride on an equid at his acclamation as king on the outskirts of Jerusalem, but, strikingly, on both occasions we read of the earth shaking (1 Kgs 1:40; Matt. 21:10). The parallels serve to bring into focus the contrasts. Solomon rides on the royal mule (1 Kgs 1:33,38,44), Jesus on a lowly borrowed donkey (Matt. 21:5; cf. Zech. 8:9). Solomon’s acclamation is accompanied by fanfare and his retinue is arranged (1 Kgs 1:38,39). Jesus’ entry to the seat of his kingdom is 34 Dobie, ‘Something Greater’. 16 OCTOBER 2024 SOLOMON IN THE GOSPELS AND ACTS—SAINT OR SINNER? without fanfare, but accompanied by the spontaneous shouts of the crowd (Matt. 21:8–9). Of the sixteen times the appellation ‘son of David’ is used in the Gospels, no fewer than ten are addressed to Jesus in the context of appeals for or celebration of healings or exorcisms (Matt. 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30,31; 21:15; Mark 10:47,48; Luke 18:38,39).35 While ‘son of David’ was adopted by Christians as a messianic designation, evidence for its use in this sense prior to the time of Jesus is minimal and there was not an unambiguous expectation during the ministry of Jesus that the Messiah, when he came, would be responsible for curing physical ailments. Nor were those seeking Jesus’ attention likely to be aware of his royal ancestry. While it is somewhat speculative, we should not dismiss the suggestion that behind the appeals to Jesus as ‘son of David’ we are to glimpse the Solomon of popular imagination. This has been argued, for example, by James Charlesworth with particular reference to Mark 10:47,48 which speaks of Bartimaeus’ appeal to Jesus as son of David for his sight to be restored.36 Within the Old Testament, ‘son of David’ particularly refers to Solomon (2 Chr. 1:1; 13:6; 35:3; Prov. 1:1; Eccl. 1:1; 1 Esd. 1:3).37 Thus, while the Primary History (Kings) avoids the expression, the Chronicler, as noted above, wants to closely associate Solomon with his father David. Within Hellenistic Judaism there developed a folkloric tradition of Solomon as a magician.38 This was based on 1 Kings 4:29–34 (Heb. 5:9–14), the passage which outlines Solomon’s proverbial ‘wisdom’. This ‘wisdom’ extended to Solomon’s encyclopaedic knowledge of plants, which presumably included their medicinal properties. The first century bce Wisdom of Solomon (7:20) has Solomon rejoicing in the insight he has been given into ‘the natures of animals and the tempers of wild animals, the powers of spirits and the thoughts of human beings, the varieties of plants and the virtues of roots’. Further, Solomon is given esoteric knowledge (κρυπτά, v.21). Josephus also knows of a tradition of Solomon as a healer (Ant. 8:44–46).39 Belief in and the practice of magic was widespread in Jewish circles of the first century ce (witness the magicians Simon in Acts 8:9 and Bar-Jesus in Acts 13:6). There was understood to be a close connection between illness, or disability, and demonic influence (e.g. Matt. 9:32; 12:22; Mark 1:34; 6:13). The demons responsible for physical ailments and all sorts of ills needed to be held in check or overcome. It is against this background that the figure of Solomon is portrayed as an exorcist in works such as the Testament of Solomon (perhaps a third century ce reworking of a first century ce Jewish work).40 Chapter 18 depicts Solomon with extensive knowledge of which demon is responsible for which ailment, including eye conditions, and the measures needed to overcome them. Charlesworth proposes, then, that blind Bartimaeus may have invoked Jesus as a Solomon redivivus figure. For the superstitious belief that the departed might make a reappearance, compare Herod’s fear that John the Baptist, whom he had beheaded, had come back (Matt. 14:2). It would appear, then, that ‘son of David’ came to be associated with a royal healing figure and the popular image of Solomon may be the best fit as a model for such a healer. Whatever associations the appellation ‘son of David’ may have had for those who used it of Jesus, the Gospel 35 Of the remainder, one, as noted above, is shouted at Jesus’ triumphal entry to Jerusalem (Matt. 21:9), two are in the discussion as to whether the Messiah is in fact David’s son (Matt. 22:42; Mark 12:35; see below), and three are genealogical references (Matt. 1:1,20; Luke 3:31). 36 Charlesworth, ‘Solomon’; cf. Duling, ‘Solomon’; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 132; Collins, Mark, 509–10. Lane rejects any messianic reference on the part of Bartimaeus, but less convincingly sees it as ‘a respectful form of address colored by the vivid Davidic associations of Jerusalem but informed by the conviction that Jesus was the instrument of God for bringing healing and blessing to the land’: Lane, Mark, 388. 37 The only other individual so styled is the otherwise unknown Jerimoth (2 Chr. 11:18). 38 See McCown, ‘The Christian Tradition’. 39 Duling, ‘The Eleazar Miracle’. 40 Duling, ‘Testament’, 940–43. JOURNAL OF GOSPELS AND ACTS RESEARCH VOL. 8 17 SOLOMON IN THE GOSPELS AND ACTS—SAINT OR SINNER? writers would want their readers to see its messianic significance, whether or not the figure of Solomon is particularly in mind. The discussion as to whose son the Messiah is is instructive: Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them this question: ‘What do you think of the Messiah? Whose son is he?’ They said to him, ‘The son of David.’ He said to them, ‘How is it then that David by the Spirit calls him Lord, saying, “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet’”? David thus calls him Lord, how can he be his son?’ No one was able to give him an answer, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions (Matt. 22:41–46). It is Jesus’ framing of the question that results in the Pharisees giving their answer ‘the son of David’. It does not follow that they would independently have used ‘son of David’ as a messianic title. Jesus’ response, while not absolutely negating Davidic ancestry for the Messiah, at least demonstrates the inadequacy of such a designation. Given the understanding that David is the speaker of Psalm 110:1, the ‘Lord’ who is invited to sit at God’s right hand must be someone greater than simply David’s offspring. So Jesus is not encouraging the understanding that ‘son of David’ should be used as a messianic title. If it were so understood when addressed to him, we would expect him to urge silence, as he does when he is recognised as Messiah (Mark 8:29–30; 9:9; Luke 4:41). He does not do this with Bartimaeus (Mark 10:46–52) or anyone else who addresses him as son of David. While the discussion of Charlesworth reflected above has sharply distinguished a messiah from Solomon redivivus as an exorcist and healer, perhaps a sharp distinction cannot be maintained. In time, at least, we might expect the two anticipated figures to merge. A catalyst for this could be the portrayal of Solomon in Chronicles as an ideal eschatological model. The Psalms of Solomon (first century bce) depicts a messiah figure, addressed as ‘son of David’ who looks rather like the Chronicler’s Solomon—pre-eminent in wisdom and justice, adorning Jerusalem, upholding the worship of Yhwh, receiving tribute from foreign rulers who come to admire his glory (PsSol. 17:21–46), with the caveat that (unlike Solomon) he will not rely on horses or amass silver and gold.41 Conclusion The Solomon we encounter in the New Testament draws on elements of both the flawed king of the Old Testament’s Primary History and the eschatological ideal of Chronicles, along with Second Temple developments of this royal figure. There may be elements of the popular image of Solomon as an exorcist and healer in the minds of those who address Jesus as ‘son of David’, though the Gospel writers would want us to hear in these words a messianic title. Jesus both outshines and stands in marked contrast with these Solomons. He is David’s true son and heir, whether his lineage be traced through the official royal line, or bypasses it. He is the ultimate Temple-builder of a Temple not made with human hands. Jesus’ work surpasses that of Solomon and it is not for his own aggrandisement. He is the embodiment of wisdom, the humble King who is truly worthy of the tribute and worship of the nations. John A. Davies Sydney College of Divinity [email protected] 41 18 So Wright, ‘Psalms of Solomon’, 641. OCTOBER 2024 SOLOMON IN THE GOSPELS AND ACTS—SAINT OR SINNER? Bibliography Attridge, H. W. ‘The Temple and Jesus the High Priest in the New Testament’, in J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), Jesus and Temple: Archaeological Explorations (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2014), 21–37. Avioz, M. ‘The Characterization of Solomon in Solomon’s Prayer (1 Kings 8)’, Biblische Notizen 126 (2005), 18–28. Barrett, C. K. The Acts of the Apostles: A Shorter Commentary (London: T & T Clark, 2002). Betz, H. D. The Sermon on the Mount (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995). Bauckham, R. Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990). Bolt, P. G. ‘Breathing In Enoch to Breathe Out Jesus: Two Examples of Luke’s Apocalypticism’, in P. G. Bolt (ed.), The Future of Gospels and Acts Research (Sydney: SCD, 2021), 153–88. Braun, R. ‘Solomon, the Chosen Temple Builder: The Significance of 1 Chronicles 22, 28, and 29 for the Theology of Chronicles’, JBL 95 (1976), 581–90. Bruce, F. F. ‘Genealogy of Jesus Christ’, in J. D. Douglas (ed.), The New Bible Dictionary (London: Inter-Varsity, 1962), 458–59. Brueggemann, W. Solomon: Israel’s Ironic Icon of Human Achievement (Columbia, OH: University of South Carolina Press, 2005). Carter, W. ‘Solomon in All His Glory: Intertextuality and Matthew 6.29’, JSNT 65 (1997), 3–25. Charlesworth, J. H. ‘Solomon and Jesus: The Son of David in Ante-Markan Traditions (Mk 10:47)’, in L. B. Elder, D. L. Barr, and E. S. Malbon (eds.), Biblical and Humane: A Festschrift for John H. Priest (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1996), 125–51. Collins, A. Y. Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007). Daise, M. A. Feasts in John: Jewish Festivals and Jesus’ ‘Hour’ in the Fourth Gospel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). Davies, J. A. ‘Mansions in the Sky or the Indwelling of the Spirit (John 14:1–4)?’, JGAR 3 (2019), 87–111. Davies, J. A. ‘“Discerning between Good and Evil”: Solomon as a New Adam in 1 Kings’, Westminster Theological Journal 73 (2011), 39–58. Davies, J. A. ‘The Temple Scroll and the Missing Temple of the New Covenant’, RTR 57 (1998), 1–21. Davies, J. A. ‘The Temple Scroll from Qumran and the Ultimate Temple’, RTR 57 (1998), 70–79. JOURNAL OF GOSPELS AND ACTS RESEARCH VOL. 8 19 SOLOMON IN THE GOSPELS AND ACTS—SAINT OR SINNER? Davies, W. D. and D. C. Allison Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. Vol. 1. Matthew 1–8 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988). Dillard, R. B. ‘The Chronicler’s Solomon’, Westminster Theological Journal 43 (1981), 289–300. Dillon, R. J. ‘Ravens, Lilies, and the Kingdom of God (Matthew 6:25–33 / Luke 12:22–31)’, CBQ 53 (1991), 605–27. Dobie, P. ‘Something Greater than Solomon: An Approach to Stephen’s Speech’, in S. Moyise (ed.), The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North (JSNTSup; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 181–207. Duling, D. C. ‘The Eleazar Miracle and Solomon’s Magical Wisdom in Flavius Josephus’s Antiquitates Judaicae 8:42–49’, HTR 78 (1985), 1–25. Duling, D. C. ‘Testament of Solomon’, in J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 1: 935–87. Duling, D. C. ‘Solomon, Exorcism, and Son of David’, HTR 68 (1973), 235–52. Evans, C. A. Mark 8:27–16:20 (WBC; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988). Fitzmyer, J. A. The Gospel according to Luke I–IX (AB; New York, NY: Doubleday, 1981). Fitzmyer, J. A. The Gospel according to Luke X–XXIV (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1985). Frisch, A. ‘Structure and Significance: The Narrative of Solomon’s Reign (1 Kings 1–12:24)’, JSOT 51 (1991), 3–14. Gundry, R. H. ‘Spinning the Lilies and Unravelling the Ravens’, in The Old Is Better: New Testament Essays in Support of Traditional Interpretations (WUNT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 149–70. Handy, L. K. ‘Solomon’, in B. T. Arnold and H. G. M. Williamson (eds.), Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005), 921–29. Hays, J. D. ‘Has the Narrator Come to Praise Solomon or to Bury Him? Narrative Subtlety in 1 Kings 1–11’, JSOT 28 (2003), 149–74. Herbst, J. W. Development of an Icon: Solomon before and after King David (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2017). Instone-Brewer, D. Prayer and Agriculture (Traditions of the Rabbis from the Era of the New Testament, 1; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010). Kenik, H. A. Design for Kingship: The Deuteronomistic Narrative Technique in 1 Kings 3:4–15 (SBLDS; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1983). Klein, R. W. ‘How Many in a Thousand?’ in M. P. Graham, K. G. Hoglund, and S. L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Historian (JSOTS; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 270–82. 20 OCTOBER 2024 SOLOMON IN THE GOSPELS AND ACTS—SAINT OR SINNER? Knoppers, G. N. Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies. 2 vols. (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1993, 1994). Lane, W. L. The Gospel according to Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974). Lovell, N. The Book of Kings and Exilic Identity: 1 and 2 Kings as a Work of Political Historiography (LHB/OTS; London: T&T Clark, 2021). Marshall, I. H. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Exeter: Paternoster, 1978). McCown, C. C. ‘The Christian Tradition as to the Magical Wisdom of Solomon’, Journal of the Palestinian Oriental Society 2 (1922), 1–24. Moscicke, H. M. ‘Jesus’ Three-day Journey in the Belly of the Sea Monster: Jonah Typologies and Traditions in Matthew’s Passion Narrative’, JGAR 7 (2023), 21–38. Mosis, R. Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (Freiburg: Herder, 1973). Naveros Córdova, N. ‘Q [Luke] 12:27: The Lilies of the Field and the Kingdom of God’, CBQ 82 (2020), 48–63. Noth, M. The Deuteronomistic History (JSOTS; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981 [1957]). Olsthoorn, M. The Jewish Background and the Synoptic Setting of Mt 6,25–33 and Lk 12, 22–31 (Jerusalem: Franciscan, 1975). Parker, K. ‘Solomon as Philosopher King? The Nexus of Law and Wisdom in 1 Kings 1–11’, JSOT 53 (1992), 75–91. Perkins, L. ‘“Greater than Solomon” (Matt 12:42)’, TrinJ ns. 19 (1998), 207–17. Skeat, T. C. ‘The Lilies of the Field’, ZNW 37 (1938), 211–14. Soggin, J. ‘Compulsory Labor under David and Solomon’, in T. Ishida (ed.), Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982), 239–57. Stinespring, W. F. ‘Eschatology in Chronicles’, JBL 80 (1961), 209–19. Sweeney, M. A. ‘The Critique of Solomon in the Josianic Edition of the Deuteronomistic History’, JBL 114 (1995), 607–22. Van Seters, J. The Chronicler’s Account of Solomon’s Temple-building: A Continuity Theme’, in M. P. Graham, K. G. Hoglund, and S. L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Historian (JSOTS; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 283–300. Verheyden, J. (ed.) The Figure of Solomon in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Tradition: King, Sage and Architect (Themes in Biblical Narrative; Leiden: Brill, 2013). Walsh, J. T. ‘The Characterization of Solomon in 1 Kings 1–5’, CBQ 57 (1995), 471–93. JOURNAL OF GOSPELS AND ACTS RESEARCH VOL. 8 21 SOLOMON IN THE GOSPELS AND ACTS—SAINT OR SINNER? Wheaton, G. The Role of Jewish Feasts in John’s Gospel (SNTS Monograph; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015). Williamson, H. G. M. ‘Eschatology in Chronicles’, TynBul 28 (1977), 115–54. Wright, R. B. ‘Psalms of Solomon’, in J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1985), 2: 639–70. Yee, G. A. Jewish Feasts and the Gospel of John (Zacchaeus Studies. New Testament; Wilmington, DE.; Michael Glazier 22 OCTOBER 2024