SOLOMON (sol' môn; Heb. $:LOMO80H, shelomoh; LXX Salwmw/n, G4898, Salomon). The third and the last king of the United Kingdom of the twelve tribes.
I. Dates. Two alternative sets of dates for Solomon’s forty-year reign (1 Kings 11:42) are favored by scholars: (1) 971-931, as proposed by Thiele, and (2) 961-922, as proposed by Albright. Solomon began construction on the temple* in his fourth year (1 Kings 6:1), a project which lasted seven years (1 Kings 6:38). He then spent thirteen years building his palace (1 Kings 7:1), after which he began the rebuilding of the structure known as the Millo (1 Kings 11:27). It is apparently after Solomon’s twenty-fourth year, and in any case after 945 B.C. (the accession date of Shishak*), that Jeroboam fled into Egypt* (1 Kings 11:40).
II. The Organization of His Kingdom. Solomon made a drastic reorganization of his kingdom into twelve administrative districts which were with some exceptions not based upon the old tribal areas (1 Kings 4:1-20). This arrangement seems to have been effected in the second half of his reign after the transfer of towns in the Acco* plain to Hiram* (1 Kings 9:12-13), as these are missing from the list. Each of the districts was to provide food for the court for one month (1 Kings 4:7).
The demands for provisions could have been prodigious. An interesting ninth-century Assyrian parallel to Solomon’s fourteen-day feast (1 Kings 8:65) has come to light in the stele* of Ashurnasirpal II* found at Nimrud (Calah*). The king boasted: “The happy people of all the lands together with the people of Kalhu [Calah], for ten days I feasted. . . .” There were 69,574 party guests!
Many scholars believe that Solomon’s administration owed much to Egyptian prototypes, as the titles of his various officers seem to be the Hebrew equivalents of Egyptian titles.
Solomon introduced a fundamental change in Israel’s military organization—a reliance upon chariotry. His father David had disabled the horses* which he had captured from the king of Zobah in Syria (2 Sam 8:4). We are told that Solomon had 4,000 stalls (see Stables) for horses and 12,000 horses (2 Chron 9:25). If one assumes teams of three horses, including a reserve horse, for each chariot,* the figure of stalls would accord with the number of 1,400 chariots (1 Kings 10:26) which Solomon is said to have had.
III. Building Activities. Solomon was the greatest builder in Israel’s history before Herod the Great (see Herod, Building Activities of). Some earlier scholars, e.g., G. Leroux in 1913, had dismissed the biblical accounts of Solomon’s building activities as late inventions of the sixth century. A considerable number of archaeological discoveries now lend substance to these accounts.
A. Megiddo. The famous “Solomon’s Stables” at the key site of Megiddo* were demonstrated by Yadin in 1960 to belong to the later city* of Ahab* (ninth century). The excavators estimated that there were about 450 stalls originally. Since these have been left in situ, it is possible that Solomonic stables may lie underneath these which are visible.
An indisputable Solomonic structure is the magnificent gate* with three chambers on each side. This has been associated by Yadin with the casemate wall* dated to stratum IVB. The stables, on the other hand, are linked with a later solid wall with alternating salients and recesses. Yadin’s reinvestigation of the Megiddo stables was prompted by the discovery that the Solomonic gate at Hazor* was built in conjunction with casemate walls.
Yadin’s excavations in 1966-67 have identified two splendid palatial buildings as Solomonic. (Aharoni, however, believes they are Davidic.) These are building 6000 in the N and building 1723 in the S. Both are built of fine ashlar* blocks similar to those used in the Solomonic gate. The northern palace has been compared to Assyrian buildings called bit hilani, which were used as ceremonial palaces. This may have been used by Solomon on his visits to Megiddo. The southern building has been compared to the ninth century palace of Kilamuwa at Zincirli and may have served as the residence of the governor.
Recent investigations have also shown that the approaches to the underground water system, originally dated to the twelfth century, should now be attributed to Solomon’s period.
B. Hazor. The great Canaanite* mound of Hazor, N of the Sea of Galilee,* abandoned since the time of the conquest under Joshua, was refortified by Solomon as one of his royal cities. Yadin’s excavations in 1955-59 revealed that Solomon enclosed just the western part of the acropolis* with a casemate wall furnished with a triple gate identical to that found at Megiddo.
C. Gezer. On the basis of 1 Kings 9:15, which linked Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer,* Yadin suspected that there might be a similar Solomonic gate at Gezer, an important city guarding the road from the coast to Jerusalem.* A reexamination of what Macalister, who excavated Gezer early in the 1900s, had called a Maccabean castle, revealed to Yadin half of such a gateway. Excavations by the Hebrew Union College under W. Dever have confirmed Yadin’s hunch. The recent clearing has also revealed that there were low plastered stone benches in all six of the rooms of the triple gateway (cf. Gen 19:1; 2 Sam 15:2-6; 1 Kings 22:10 et al. for the gate as the place for public transactions). In one room there was a large stone trough for drinking water for animals.
D. Jerusalem. Excavations in Jerusalem from 1961 to 1967 by K. Kenyon were undertaken to discover the limits of the OT city in the area of Ophel, the SE hill just S of the SE corner of the present walled city. Very little was discovered that could be attributed to the Solomonic period.
1. The Temple. In 1966 clearance on the E side of the Haram, the Herodian temple platform, revealed a straight join some 33 m. (109 ft.) from the SE corner between Herodian masonry and stones with heavy bosses to the N. M. Dunand identified the latter as similar to Persian construction of the sixth-fifth centuries. This may then indicate the southern edge of Zerubbabel’s* temple, which in turn no doubt continued Solomon’s platform.
According to 1 Kings 6:2, the temple was 27.4 m. (60 cubits) long, 9.1 m. (20 cubits) wide, and 13.7 m. (30 cubits) high. Since Solomon employed Phoenician* craftsmen* (1 Kings 7:13 ff.), we can be sure that the temple incorporated a number of elements of foreign inspiration. In 1936 a ninth-century temple was discovered at Tell Ta‘Yinat* E of Syrian Antioch,* which, though two-thirds the size of Solomon’s temple, had a tripartite plan of (1) vestibule, (2) holy place, and (3) holy of holies strikingly similar to Solomon’s building. Like the columns Jachin and Boaz (1 Kings 7:21) the Ta‘Yinat temple also had two columns in the front of the building. Ussishkin has called attention to another parallel of a ninth-tenth-century royal chapel at Hamath.* A tripartite Late Bronze Canaanite temple at Hazor has sometimes been cited as a possible prototype.
After a thorough examination of all possible prototypes of Solomon’s temple, Busink, while acknowledging the Phoenician inspiration of certain elements, stresses the basic originality of Solomon’s temple design.
Various features of the temple appurtenances may be illustrated by archaeological finds. The winged cherubim* which served as decorative devices may have been similar to winged figures found on ivories from Megiddo and Nimrud. The bronze* laver (basin*) resting on oxen* (1 Kings 7:23-26) may be compared to a large stone basin from Cyprus* which rests upon bulls’ heads. Basins on wheels (eleventh century B.C.) from Cyprus must have been similar to the wheeled stands (NEB “trolleys,” 1 Kings 7:27 ff.) used in the temple.
2. The Palace. We do not know the exact relationship of Solomon’s temple to his palace, but from the fact that the temples at Ta‘Yinat and Hamath were smaller than the palaces, scholars have been led to describe Solomon’s temple as a royal chapel. This should not lead us to underestimate the temple’s significance for the nation as Jehovah’s first permanent shrine.
Solomon’s palace may have been similar to the palaces uncovered at Megiddo (see above). The structure called “the house of the forest of Lebanon” (1 Kings 7:2) was a great hypostyle* hall 45.7 m. (100 cubits) long, 23 m. (50 cubits) wide, and 13.7 m. (30 cubits) high, with three or four rows of cedar* pillars. It was used in part as an armory (Isa 22:8). For his Egyptian wife Solomon built a separate house (1 Kings 7:8; 9:24).
3. Millo. Both David and Solomon devoted their attention to the building up of the Millo, “Filling” (2 Sam 5:9; 1 Kings 9:24; 11:27), an enigmatic structure, which has been identified by Kenyon as the precarious terraces on the E side of Ophel which were in constant need of repair.
IV. Trading Enterprises. A. Hiram of Tyre. King Hiram* of Tyre,* who had been David’s ally (1 Kings 5:1-12), actively aided Solomon by supplying him with gold,* timber, and craftsmen, and by cooperating with Solomon in his maritime ventures. In exchange for these favors Solomon ceded to Hiram a district in the area of Acco called Cabul (1 Kings 9:11-14).
The Tarshish* ships* (1 Kings 10:22) which were employed by Solomon in cooperation with Hiram were originally vessels which went to Tarshish, a word which means “smeltery,” perhaps to the distant Phoenician colony of Tartessus in S Spain, or to Sardinia (the ninth-century Nora inscription from Sardinia contains the word “Tarshish”). Albright’s thesis that Phoenician expansion in the western Mediterranean is to be dated to the era of Solomon and of Hiram and not after the Greek expansion in the eighth century B.C., as held by classical historians, has received added support by the acquisition by the Seville Museum in 1963 of an eighth-century Phoenician inscription. F. M. Cross in 1979 dated a Phoenician fragment from Nora in Sardinia to the eleventh century B.C.
B. Cilicia. Though Solomon was content to leave the Mediterranean maritime trade in the hands of Hiram, he controlled the overland trade and in particular the important traffic in horses. The KJV translation of 1 Kings 10:28 has obscured this by translating “linen yarn” for a Hebrew phrase which actually means “from Que,” i.e., from Cilicia,* the region in SE Turkey where the best horses were to be obtained. Solomon thus served as the middleman between Egypt* and the Neo-Hittite and Aramaean states (1 Kings 10:29).
C. The Arabah and Ezion Geber. The Edomite* threat did not prevent Solomon’s great project of establishing a port at Ezion Geber near Elath* (1 Kings 9:26) to give him access to trade in the Red Sea* and beyond. In 1938-40 N. Glueck excavated Tell el-Kheleifeh, a small tell* a short distance from the shore, now located in Jordanian territory, which he identified as Ezion Geber. A building enclosed in an area protected by a casemate wall was originally interpreted by Glueck as a smeltery because of holes in the wall which he thought were flue-holes but has now been reinterpreted as a storehouse* and/or granary.* Rothenberg has recently suggested that the actual port of Ezion Geber may be located at the Jeziret Fara’un (now called the Coral Island by the Israelis) 12.9 km. (8 mi.) SW of Elath.
Glueck attributed the considerable evidence of copper mining in the Arabah, the valley between the Dead Sea* and Elath, to Solomon. Additional sites were discovered in the 1950s and 1960s by Rothenberg, who demonstrated that the copper-bearing ores were smelted in open pits on charcoal* fires fanned by bellows. In 1969 Rothenberg discovered at the base of the so-called “Solomon’s Pillars,” a favorite tourist site at Timnah N of Elath, an Egyptian temple with inscriptions of the Nineteenth-Twentieth Dynasties from Seti I (1318-1304) down to Ramses V (1160-1156). He now suggests that it was these Egyptian kings, rather than the Judean kings of the tenth-sixth centuries, who were responsible for all the copper mines in the Arabah—a suggestion which Glueck steadfastly rejected.
D. The Queen of Sheba and Arabia. Evidence of Solomon’s far-flung renown is found in the visit of the Queen of Sheba* (an area in SW Arabia* near Yemen and Aden). According to 1 Kings 10:1-3 the queen came to test Solomon’s famed wisdom. It is quite probable that she also made the arduous journey of 2413 km. (1500 mi.) through rugged terrain with commercial interests in mind.
Earlier critics rejected this account as folkloristic, arguing that the Sabeans* were still nomadic at this period. Work by Wendell Phillips and W. F. Albright from 1950-53 has now established that the Sabeans preceded the Minaeans in the early first millennium B.C., and that they had a sedentary and even literate civilization. Albright (1958) has affirmed the possibility of contact between Solomon and S Arabia.
In 1957 J. Kelso discovered an inscribed S Arabian clay* seal* dated to the ninth century at Bethel.* Despite doubts raised by Yadin, G. W. Van Beek, and A. Jamme, authorities on S Arabia stoutly affirm the seal’s authenticity.
E. Ophir. The joint Red Sea fleet of Solomon and Hiram made voyages every three years (1 Kings 10:22) to a distant port called Ophir* (1 Kings 10:11), from which they brought back a variety of objects including fine gold.* That this was not a legendary land is proven by the discovery of an eighth-century ostracon* with the text “Ophir gold . . .” at Tell Qasile.* Ophir has been variously placed in: (1) S Arabia (J. Montgomery, J. Gray, O. Eissfeldt); (2) the Somali coast of E. Africa (W. Albright, J. Myers); (3) NW India (R. Barnett).
V. Marriages. Solomon’s great international prestige is demonstrated by the fact that he was given a pharaoh’s daughter in marriage. References are made to this Egyptian wife in no less than five passages (1 Kings 3:1; 7:8; 9:16; 9:24 [cf. 2 Chron 8:11]; 11:1). This is the only firmly attested instance in which a king of Egypt deigned to give his daughter in marriage to an alien. In the Amarna* Age a Babylonian king who sought to marry an Egyptian princess was rebuffed by Amenophis III, who wrote: “From of old a daughter of the king of Egypt has not been given to anyone” (cf. Herodotus 3.1).
A. The Egyptian Pharaoh. As the Bible does not give us the name of the pharaoh in question, scholars have had to speculate upon the identity of Solomon’s Egyptian father-in-law. In view of the weakness of the Twenty-first Dynasty which seemed to make a capture of Gezer,* which was given as a dowry, unlikely, earlier scholars (Alt, Breasted, Olmstead) had suggested Shishak,* the vigorous founder of the Twenty-second Dynasty. More recently, scholars have favored one of the last two kings of the Twenty-first Dynasty, Siamun or Psusennes II. The approximate dates of these two kings are probably: Siamun (978-960) and Psusennes II (960-945). Evidence in favor of Siamun includes a monument found at Tanis* showing the king smiting an enemy who holds a double axe, an Aegean weapon perhaps of the Philistines, and a scarab* with the pharaoh’s name found at Tell el-Far‘ah (Sharuhen).
B. Gezer as a Dowry. In 1924 Albright, who was troubled by the fact that Macalister, the excavator of Gezer, reported no signs of destruction in the early tenth century B.C., suggested the emendation in 1 Kings 9:16 of Gezer to Gerar,* a less significant city* to the S. This emendation has now been shown to be unjustified, as the recent Hebrew Union College excavations at Gezer yielded dramatic evidence of a destruction in the mid-tenth century which left up to 1.2 m. (4 ft.) of debris and ash. Other sites which may have been destroyed in this campaign include Tell el-Far‘ah and Tel Mor, the seaport of Ashdod.*
C. Other Wives. According to 1 Kings 11:3, Solomon had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, among whom were Moabite,* Ammonite,* Edomite,* Sidonian, and “Hittite*” women (1 Kings 11:1). The mother of Rehoboam, Solomon’s successor, was Naamah, an Ammonite princess. Hellenistic sources suggest that Solomon married the daughter of Hiram of Tyre.*
VI. Religious Devotion. Solomon began his reign humbly asking for wisdom from Jehovah (1 Kings 3:3-15) and seeking to honor the Lord by building His temple. His prayer of dedication at the completion of the temple (1 Kings 8:12-62) was answered by a second vision from the Lord (1 Kings 9). In later years, however, his foreign wives led him astray in the worship of other deities (1 Kings 11:4-6). Solomon’s construction of a high place* for Chemosh on the Mount of Olives* (1 Kings 11:7) is vividly illustrated by a pagan cult center with two pillars discovered by Kenyon on the slopes of Ophel, dated c. 700 B.C.
VII. Solomon’s Reputation. A. Literary Renown. Solomon, of course, was famed for his wisdom, which included his judicial insight (1 Kings 3:16-28) and his literary ability. He was the author of 3,000 proverbs and 1,005 songs (1 Kings 4:32). Specific compositions which are ascribed to Solomon include Proverbs 10:1-22, 16; 25:1-29:27; and Psalms 72 and 127.
In the apocrypha we have the Wisdom of Solomon (after 100 B.C.), in the Pseudepigrapha* the Psalms of Solomon (c. 100 B.C.), and in Syriac literature the Odes of Solomon (c. A.D. 100).
B. Magic and Legend. Solomon is one of the most popular figures in magic and in legend. By the first century A.D., Solomon’s seal on a ring was considered to be a potent magical device by which to exorcise* demons as demonstrated before Vespasian* (Jos. Antiq. 8.47). Solomon’s reputation continued to expand in later Jewish, Aramaic,* and Arabic literature and magical lore.
The most interesting legend surrounds the visit of the Queen of Sheba to Solomon. This story was developed in the Ethiopian national saga, the Kebra Nagast, “Glory of the Kings,” written down in the fourteenth century, to include the begetting of a son, Menelik, the presumed ancestor of the modern emperor Haile Selassie.
Bibliography: I. General. D. Hubbard, “Solomon,” NBD (1962), 1201-4; J. Myers, “Solomon,” IDB, 4 (1962), 399-408; O. Eissfeldt, The Hebrew Kingdom (1965); J. Myers, II Chronicles (1965); J. Gray, I and II Kings, 2d ed. (1970); J. R. Bartlett, “An Adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite,” ZAW, 88 (1976), 205-26. II. The Organization of His Kingdom. Y. Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands (1963); Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible (1967), 272-80; T. Mettinger, Solomonic State Officials (1971); D. B. Redford, “Studies in Relations between Palestine and Egypt . . . The Taxation System of Solomon,” Studies in the Ancient Palestinian World, ed. J. W. Wevers and D. B. Redford (1972), 141-56; B. Halpern, “Sectionalism and the Schism,” JBL, 93 (1974), 519-32; E. W. Heaton, Solomon’s New Men (1974); Y. Aharoni, “The Solomonic Districts,” Tel Aviv, 3 (1976), 5-15; C. Hauer, “The Economics of National Security in Solomonic Israel,” JSOT, 18 (1980), 63-73. III. Building Activities. Y. Yadin, “Solomon’s City Wall and Gate at Gezer,” IEJ, 8 (1958), 80-86; id., “New Light on Solomon’s Megiddo,” BA, 23 (1960), 62-68; D. Ussishkin, “King Solomon’s Palace and Building 1723 in Megiddo,” IEJ, 16 (1966), 174-86; id., “Building IV in Hamath and the Temples of Solomon and Tell Tayanat,” IEJ, 16 (1966), 104-10; K. Kenyon, Jerusalem (1967); Y. Yadin, “The Fifth Season of Excavations at Hazor, 1968-1969,” BA, 32 (1969), 49-78; id., “Megiddo of the Kings of Israel,” BA, 33 (1970), 66-96; T. Busink, Der Tempel von Salomo bis Herodos (1970); W. Dever et al., “Further Excavations at Gezer, 1967-71,” BA, 34 (1971), 94-132; K. Kenyon, Royal Cities of the OT (1971), 36-70; H. Schmid, “Der Tempelbau Salomos in religionsgeschichtlicher Sicht,” Archäologie und Altes Testament, ed. A. Kuschke and E. Kutsch (1970), 241-50; Y. Aharoni, “The Solomonic Temple, the Tabernacle and the Arad Sanctuary,” Orient and Occident, ed. H. Hoffner (1973), 1-8; D. Ussishkin, “King Solomon’s Palaces,” BA, 36 (1973), 78-105; J.A. Gutmann, ed., The Temple of Solomon (1976); C. Davey, “Temples of the Levant and the Buildings of Solomon,” TB, 31 (1980), 107-46. IV. Trading Enterprises. W. Albright, “Was the Age of Solomon without Monumental Art?” Eretz Israel, 5 (1958), 1*-9*; id., “The Role of the Canaanite in the History of Civilization,” in G. E. Wright, ed., The Bible and the Ancient Near East (1961), 328-62; B. Rothenberg, “Ancient Copper Industries in the Western Arabah,” PEQ, 94 (1962), 5-71; id., “Ecyon-Gébèr,” Bible et Terre Sainte, 72 (1965), 10-16; R. Barnett, Illustrations of OT History (1966); N. Glueck, Rivers in the Desert, 2d ed. (1968); B. Rothenberg, “King Solomon’s Mines No More,” ILN (15 November 1969), 32-33; id., “The Egyptian Temple of Timna,” ILN (29 November 1969), 28-29; G. W. Van Beek and A. Jamme, “The Authenticity of the Bethel Stamp Seal,” BASOR, 199 (1970), 59-65; N. Glueck, The Other Side of the Jordan, 2d ed. (1970); id., “Iron II Kenite and Edomite Pottery,” Perspective, 12 (1971), 45-56; F. M. Cross, “The Old Phoenician Inscription from Spain Dedicated to Hurrian Astarte,” HTR, 64 (1971), 189-95; N. Glueck, “Tel el-Kheleifeh,” Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. H. Goedicke (1971), 225-42; B. Rothenberg, Timna (1972); B. Peckham, “Israel and Phoenicia,” Magnalia Dei, ed. F. M. Cross et al. (1976), 231-44; L. Berkowitz, “Has the U.S. Geological Survey Found King Solomon’s Gold Mines?” BAR, 3 (1977), 1, 28-33; S. B. Hoenig, “Tarshish,” JQR, 69 (1978), 181-82; F. M. Cross, “Early Alphabetic Scripts,” Symposia, ed. F. M. Cross (1979), 103-11. V. Marriages. A. Malamat, “The Kingdom of David and Solomon in Its Contact with Egypt and Aram Naharaim,” BA, 21 (1958), 96-102; id., “Aspects of the Foreign Policies of David and Solomon,” JNES, 22 (1963); S. Horn, “Who Was Solomon’s Egyptian Father-in-Law?” BR, 12 (1967), 3-17; P. Montet, Egypt and the Bible (1968); K. A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1973), 281-83; H. D. Lance, “Solomon, Siamun, and the Double Ax,” in Cross, Magnalia Dei, 209-23; A. R. Green, “Solomon and Siamun,” JBL, 97 (1978), 353-67. VI. Solomon’s Reputation. L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Bible (1956); J. Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition (1961); E. Ullendorff, “The Queen of Sheba,” BJRL, 45 (1963), 486-504; J. B. Pritchard, ed., Solomon and Sheba (1974); B. Bamberger, “Solomon and Sheba,” JQR, 66 (1976), 245-46.
EY