The fragments of ancient historians quoted by Josephus (Ant. Vlll. ii. 6), by Eusebius of Ca>sarea (Prwp. El', ix. 34), and by Clemens Alex. {Strom. i. 386) add little, if anything, to our knowledge of Solomon beyond what is stated in Kings and Chronicles. The narrative of Josephus himself in Ant. vm. i.-viii. depends almost entirely on the Biblical records. Where he deviates from them, he is rarely to be trusted. It is noteworthy tliat he describes Solomon as a powerful sorcerer. That liad already become in his time a generally accepted belief among the Jews, and probably was not confined to them. It is especially as a sor- cerer and lord over the elements, animals, aphrcets and jinn, that he is renowned in the East. The Oriental imagination has run riot in the invention of legends regarding him.*
The writinns long attributed to Solomon, to be found in the''OT or the Apocryplia, cannot in the present state of opinion among Biblical critics as
• Jewish legends of the kind referred to are to be found in the Targum on Ecdes. an.l II. Targ. on Esther. For those ii. the KorM see suras 21. 27. 28. 37. For the ^TlT^l^.n it Rabbis see Eisenmen-er, Entdeck. Jvd. Solff., "",«■ . ^°' Mohammedan stories. Weil, JliM. ^">^ (UrilutielmannfT. 226 ff.; Baring Gould, Legends o/ OT Charactfrt vol. u. ch. XNxvii. f.: and Lane's Thousand and One i\ighu ilndey. t ^Suleiman ibn David'). Hettinger's H,^ Or., berbelots /Mt Or 333 and the historians AbuUeda, Tabari, ond Ludolpn (IJist. Eth.) may also be referred to. M. D. Conw^v in ha hiloinon and Solomunic Lileralnre (Open Court Pub. Co., Chicago, 1900) deals with the Solomon mythology as a whole m an ingenious but often very arbitrary way. He considers tie external and historical data insutbcient to prove certainly IBM on individual Solomon ever existed ' (p. 1>
SOLOMON
SOLOilOX
561
to tlieir autliorsliip lie assumed to supply materials for Ills biography. He may have been the author of a few of the Vs:ilms and a number of the I'ro- verbs, but to prove him so and to establish which are his i^ difhciilt. The Sokg of Songs cainiot be his, but it has a historical value deponilent neither upon its date nor its authorshij), hut on its testimony to the impression which Solomon's character had left on certain Jewish minds. The Wisdom of Solomox, which professes to have Solomon for author, shows what impression he had left on a very dillcrcnt class of minds at a otill later date. As to the relation of KCCLESI- USTF.."! to Solomon, see art. in the present work and in Enc. Bihlii-a ; of. also Sir 42""^. Con- siderable sideliglit has been cast on the Solomonic age in Israel by ar(,h<L'ologicaI and historical investigations, but it has not so much incniased our knowledge of Solomon himself as of his build- ings, the topo^Taphy of his capital, the geography of his kingdom, the ethnology and ancient history of it, and the state of the countries with which the Israel of his time was brought into contact, — subjects which cannot be dealt with in this article. Modern criticism of the Hibli('al sources haa dis- pelled many erroneous views regarding Solomon's life and reign ; b\it it has, of course, not increased, and cannot be e.\pected to increase, that know- ledge of positive facta regarding them, which is the great desideratum.
3. Birth, parentrirje, and traininrj. — The account of the birth of Solomon in 2 S 12-''- '•* conveys the impression that he was tlie second child of David and Bathsheba. The lists of their childnn in 2 S 3", 1 Ch 3», and 1 Cli l^^ on the otlier hand, Beem to imply that he was their fourth child, their youngest son, and that Shammua (or Shiinea), Shobab, ami Nathan had been previously born to them, as in all those lists his name is mentioned last. No (juite satisfactory e.xiilanation of the ipparcnt discrepancy has yet been given. The likeliest, perhaps, is that Solomon was mentioned last .-us being tlie most important muTnl>cr of the family group, the heir to his father's throne.
Nathan, by his rebuke of David, lost none of his influence with either him or Uathslieba, and con- tinued to be the friend of both. He prophesied good for their child, and strongly supported his cause at the moment when it was most in danger. Owing to that and the vagueness of a plirase in 2 S 12-^, he has very generally been held to have had the charge of Solomon's education. There is, however, no real foundation for the opinion. Scarcely any information is given us regarding Solomon previous to his elevation to the throne. It may safely be infirrffl from what he was in manhood that his I'llncat ion liad not been neglected in youth, and that he must have lncn very recep- tive of learning and ciger to excel in accomplish- ments; but there is nothing to indicate that he was trained under any prophet, or that he was in sympathy with anything distinctive of prophetic toiicliini.' or prophetic ideals of life. Tlicre is no trace of Nathan, or any other proi>het, having had any inllueme over him when king. The prophetic ministry almost disappeared duiiiig his reign. What prophets there were in Israel in his day were opposed to his policy. Far more probably ho waa educated in his father's palace. In various respects the court of David must li.ave been the best school possible for the education of David's successor, while in others one most apt to develop the defects so conspicuous in Solomon's aftirlife. The atmosphere of a court presided over by David, and agitated by the internal dissensions and con- flicting pa.ssions to which despotic power and polygamy combined necessarily gave rise, cannot have been favourable to his healthy moral growth.