According to one reading of 2 S 12=4, it was Bathsheba that gave her son the name of Solomon. She may have done so. In the OT more instances are mentioned of the names of children beint' given bv their mother than by their father. In a num- ber of cases the names are said to have been given by both parents, and that may have been so as regards Solomon, althou-h the evidence for David's p.articipation in the act is positive, and that for Bathsheba's only problematical. Accord- in- to one account of David's naming of Solomon, he is repre- sented as having acted under the belief that God had expressly tlirectod him to give the child the name he did. The Chronicler (1 Ch 229) describes him as telling his successor that he had himself proposed to build a temple to J", but that the word of J" had forbidden him because of the blood he had shed, while promising him that the work would be accomphshed by a son who would bear the name of Solomon, and have a rei-n of peace and quietness. Whether that statement be histoncaUy accurate or not cannot he decided by the merely historical evidence in our possession. There is, however, no internal impossibihty in the account of the state of mind ascribed to David. On the contr.an-, that is psycholo-ically quite natural. The name Shilijmiih (Solomon) means ' peaceful,' ' pacific" like the Gr. Jreiueus and Ger. Friedrich. And when Solomon was born, David was a man whose strength had been exhausted in war- fare, and who was keenlv sensible of the blessings of peace both for a kin- and a kingdom. Hence it was altogether natural that at tSat period of time he should have given the name Solomon to a son on whom he placed high expectations and for whom he desired a happier life than his own, and very con- ceiv.able even that he may have felt that God directed him to name his child as he did. The name was certainly one which indicated well a prominent and distinctive feature of both the character and reign of Solomon. Althou-h he ruled as on absolute monarch, allowed no rivals, and did not hesitate to crush dangerous adversaries, he was not naturally cruel, and had no taste for war. He was a man of peace— the most peace-loving, perhaps, of the Hebrew kings; and under his swav there was for about forty years in Palestine, not absolute peace indeed, either as regards contentment within or cessation ot hostility from without, but such peace as the Hebrew nation had never known before or was ever to know again.
2. The Svurces.— The chief sources of informa- tion regarding the life and rpi<;n of Solomon are rontained in the books of Kings and Chronicles. The narrative in Kings (1 K 1-11-") is clo.sely con- nected with a section of the books of Samuel (2 S 11-20). The latter is also a continuous nar- rative. It leads steadily up to the story in Kings, and shows in a graphic and picturesque way what obstacles blocked the way of Solomon's accession to the throne, and how unlikely it was that he would have reached it had J" not specially loved and favoured him. Along with the narrative in Kings it forms a whole in which there is both unity of plan and simUarity of style. Both of our oldest sources arc far frou\ being contemporary documents. The record in King.s is historically much the more valuable ; but the compilation even of Kings cannot have been completed until about 400 years after the death of Solomon. The com- pilation of Chronicles was not completed until at least three centuries later.
The author of the account in Chron. made use of the account in Kin-s and added to it onlv little information of a strictly historical character. The author of the account in Kings refers (1 K ll'") to an older account ' the book of the annals of Solomon.' The author of the account in Chron. refers (2 Ch »») to (0) ■ the words of Nathan the prophet, (6) the pro- phecy of Ahiiah the Shilonite,' and (c) 'the vision of Iddo the seer ' See artt. Kisos and CllROSiCLBS. Through the hands of what authors and editors Kings and Chron. pa^ed before they reached their present form no one knows, and even the process by which thev became what they are has been only vaguely Ascertained. The loss of older records than those wluch we possess i» all the more to be regretted, u both Kiiigi
and Chron. were written largely under the influence of religiom motives and with a view to religious edification. Merely to record events and trace their comicxiona, causes, and course 01 movement had no mterest for the authors of them. What thev were chicHv concerned with was how they might make kno'wn the hand and voice of God in His dealings with Israel, and with her friends and foes. The authors of the accounts in Samuel, Kings, and Chron. were manifestly men of limited views, men of their tuue, and much infiuenced in what they wrote by the feelings and beliefs prevalent in their social medium They are entitled, however, to be credited with honesty and piety In mtcntion. Their account has its faults. Although they assign a comparatively large space to Solomon, thej- give us no very precise or vivid description either of his private life or public career, and no distinct view of the order of succession of events in his reign. They may not be wholly to blame for that, nor may it be much to be rc-retted that they did not succeed better. Seemingly, the character of Solomon was one exceptionaUv difficult to portray. Saul and David were far more interesting personages, and it is natural that they should have been presented in a far more lifelike manner. Solomon is left bv his biographers an imposing but very in- distinct figure. Was that, however, not just as it should be? Was not want of reality his great want ? If so, could he have been more truly and wisely represented than he was? The accounts given of him in both Kiu-s and Chron. are priestly in tone and tendencv, but that in Chron. is much more so than that m Kin-s. 'The general view given of the character and rcign of Solomon in the latter is far more discriminating than that m the former. \\Tiile m Kings the glory of Solomon is dwelt on with patriotic pride, the mischievousness of his conduct is also clearly set forth, whereas in Chron. what tends to glonfy him is alone dwelt on, and what was unworthy of his reputation, jud-ed of from a Levitical point of view, is either passed over unnoticed or very slightly mdicated. There are no traces, however, of conscious dishonesty in the Chromcler, no grounds for holding him to have stated what he did not beheve, while it is of great advantage to have two accounts which so far agree and so far differ. The Chronicler assumed certain preconcep- tions current in his age as to the history of his people to be unquestionably true, and wrote his history in conformity with those preconceptions. That, however, is what all historians do, even the most advanced and critical. History cannot be written without preconceptions, and preconceptions cannot but lead to conclusions which must appear to those who do not accept them falsifications of the historical data. The Chronicler's pride in the glorv of Solomon and in the position attained by Israel under him, the exaggerated importance which he assigned to priests and priestly things, his prodigaUtyas regards number, and other peculiarities, are themselves most instructive, because characteristic of him not as an individual merely, but also as » representative of the time and society to which he belonged. H& estimate of the conduct of Solomon does not substantiaUy differ from that given in Kings. It amounts to a severe con- demnation—one all the more severe coming as it does from a writer so biassed in his favour— of the evil which he had done notwithstanding bis vast means and opportmuties of domg good.