The above is, in subsUance, all that is related of the famous visit of the Sabx'aii queen to Solomon ; and it is also the oriyrin and basis of all that has been fabled about herself and her visit by the Kabbis, Arabs, Persians, and Abvssiiiians. Many modern critics pronounce even the Biblical account of it (1 K lOMy, repeated in 2 Ch !)1-12) to be manifestly lej^endary. And it may be a Icj^end. There is no historical eviden<:e to the contrary' except the clear and positive statement made by Kinj^ But it is certainly not manifestly legendary. Wellhausen, Stade, Klostennann, Benzinger, and other eminent critics all content themselves with mere assertion to that effect.
The fame of the glory of Solomon was largely posthumous. Great as it w-as amonjj his contemj>orarie3, the whole course of BXibsequent Hebrew history tended to increase it. After hie reign the Hebrew people passed through stages of humiliation and aflliction while clinging tenaciously to the belief that they were tiod's elect and had a glorious future before them. To endure the present, they were always providentially constrained to magnify the past. The more they sank, the more they com- forted themselves by thinking of what they had been and imagining what they could be. And the age of Solomon was the golden age of their history, and Solomon himself their most brilliant and renowned king. Hence there was in the OT an idealiziition of kingship founded on the character of the personality, life, and reign of Solomon, and inijtelled and guided by a truly tliviiie inspiration which has been of immense signifi- cance to the world, it forms a large and precious portion of Messianic pro])hecy. The initial impulse to the close connexion of Solomon with it may, perhaps, have been Nathan's jiromise to Uivid (2 8 7" 16 and 1 Ch n'OH) that J" would raise up to him a seed that should build up the bouse of the Lord, and whose kingdom and throne would bo established for ever. As soon, howe\er, as we go further we find ourselves in an alto- gether unreal world. Jewi.sh liabbis indulged in the most ex- travagant exaggerations as to the gifts and glory of Solomon. Christian writers followed suit, and showed themselves almost as credulous and inventive.
15. Religion of Solomon. — The Biblical historio- graphers who have tre.-ited of the reign of Solomon regarded him as having fallen far short of his father in piety. While pronouncing David a man according to God's own heart (1 S I'J", 1 K ll"""), they have so spoken of Solomon's death (I K 11", 2 Ch U^') as to have given rise to a long controversy among the Church Fathers as to his salvation.* • St. Augustine and the Latin Fathers generally pronounced against, and St. Chrysostom and the Greek Fathers in favour of, belief in his salvation. Calmet, in his Did., s.v. 'Salomon, Nouvelle Dissert, de la salut du Salomon,' has collected the opinions. Dante unites liim in Paradise with the four (^e&G schoolmen, and makes Aquinas thus describe him : — 'The mth light. Goodliest of all, is by such love inspired. That all your world craves tidings of his doom : Within there is the lofty light, endowed With sapience so jirofound, if tnitli be truth. That with a ken of such wide amplitude Ko second has arisen.'
—Par. X. 108-114 (0«ry • tr.) The third line is the rendering of Dante's : *Ghe tutto 11 mondo Lag^A no gola di taper novella.'
5C8
SOLOMON
SOLOMOJS"
Now, tlii.t Solomon's piety was not so warm and intense as UaviU's is wliat no one will iiuestion, j'ct that it was in some respects superior may well be maintained, and can even scarcely l)e denied by any one who attempts to judge of David and Solomon from a Christian standpoint. With good gifts and great qualities, David had terrible defects. While intensely real, his faith in J" was coinpar.-itively crude and unenlightened. Hence his piety was compatible with such horrid deeds as his conduct towards Uriah, his allowing the innocent sons of Saul to be ' hung up unto the Lord in Gibeon ' (2 S 2P- »), and his ruthless treatment of the Moab- ites (2 S 8-) and Ammonites (2S 12^').
The memory of Solomon is unstained by such acts. His faith in J", however otherwise inferior to David's, was so much more rational and ethical as to save him from much which David did. He too had faith in J", but a considerably ditierent faith, and one implying a higher and worthier conception of J". I'lie general tendency of his reign was towards spiritual enlightenment. The Solomonic age was not one of spiritual decadence on tiie \\ hole, but a distinct spiritual advance in important respects on the age of the 'judges' and of the lirst two kings ; and doubtless Solomon contributed more to its being so than any other person. The interest of revelation required a Solomon as well as a Samuel, Saul, or David. David's signilicance as a king in relation to the Messiah was as a victorious warrior ; Solomon's as the prince of peace — no inferior honour. There is no warrant for reckoning Solomon among the sceptics. The son of David could not fail to have been taught to revere and honour J". The com- mencement of his rei"n was marked by a display of ardent piety towards J", and the expression of humble dependence on His guidance. Tlirougliout his reign he acted as temporal head of the Hebrew theocracy, as chief of the ministers of J" in Israel. He delighted in the offlces of Divine worship. Some have denied, but without apparent proof, that he took part in what have been called dis- tinctly priestly acts— slaying the victims and oti'er- ing incense. All the other acts of worship— all those which the Hebrew prophets deemed most sacred and spiritual — he is clearly recorded to have performed. In connexion with the building of the temple, he showed his anxiety to render to J" a worth}- expi-ession of gratitude for His kind- ness towards David and himself. His praj'er at the dedication of the temple, the substantial authen- ticity of which there seems to be no reason to doubt, is one of the grandest devotional utterances to be found in pre-Christian devotional literature.