Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Biblical
Interpretation
brill.nl/bi
Abstract
is essay uses the rubric of trickster to explore the narrative character of Solomon
as presented in Kings. Using both the broader literary category and the specic
comparand of the Lenape (Delaware) trickster, Wehixamukes, nuances of the biblical
presentation are highlighted and seemingly disparate elements of the biblical Solomon
character are seen as parts of a coherent whole.
Keywords
Solomon, trickster
DOI: 10.1163/156851511X595495
497
2)
A. Velie, e Trickster Novel, in G. Vizenor (ed), Narrative Chance: Postmodern
Discourse on Native American Indian Literatures (Albuquerque: University of Oklahoma Press, 1989), p. 121.
3)
W.J. Hynes and W.G. Doty, eds., Mythical Trickster Figures (Tuscaloosa: University
of Alabama Press, 1993); G. Vizenor, Trickster Discourse, American Indian Quarterly 14 (1990), pp. 277-87; J. Weaver, Trickster Among the Wordies, Christianity
and Crisis 52 (1992), pp. 285-86.
4)
P.M. Arnold, Wildmen, Warriors, and Kings (New York: Crossroad, 1995), p. 158.
5)
A. Velie, Trickster Novel, p. 131; cf. W.J. Hynes, Mapping the Characteristics
of Mythic Tricksters, in W.J. Hynes and W.G. Doty (eds), Mythical Trickster Figures
(Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1993), pp. 34-35.
6)
As per, e.g., K.A. Farmer, e Trickster Genre in the Old Testament (Diss., Southern
Methodist University, 1978); S.B. Niditch, Underdogs and Tricksters: A Prelude to
Biblical Folklore (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1987).
7)
Hynes, Mapping, p. 35; Patterson, Old Testament Use, pp. 389-91.
498
499
500
had seven hundred wives of royal rank and three hundred concubines
(v 3). ese gures are not only unusual for biblical world, they are
blatantly comical.20 ey are the sole example in the Bible of a commonplace in trickster literature, that traditionally trickster was known
for his uncontrollable sexual appetite.21
It is also worth noting that for some tricksters, this appetite runs to
wealth instead of (or in addition to) women.22 Solomons reputation
for wealth rivaled his reputation for wisdom, both in the text of the
Old Testament (1 Kgs 10:14, 27) and in later tradition (Matt 6:2829). In spite of eorts to prove the historicity of Solomons wealth,23
the gures of Solomon receiving twenty-one tons of gold per year are
extraordinary in the Old Testament.
In the biblical tradition, and in 1 Kings in particular, Solomon is
known for his fall, his wealth, and for his wisdom (1 Kgs 4:29-31).24
Like Moses for the Torah and David for the Psalms, Solomon is the
father genius behind the start of the written wisdom genre and the master organizer of the oral wisdom traditions of his people (Proverbs 1-9;
cf. Qoh 1:1). His hokhma skill, ability, cleverness, cunningis seen
20)
501
502
Wehixamukes learns of his great gifts from a divine dream early in his
life.33 And, like Solomon (e.g., 1 Kgs 5:4b, 18), Wehixamukes dominates
his enemies without directly killing them.34
Solomon, too, becomes best known in post-biblical tradition as
one magically powerful. is tradition is well-known in the Quran,35
but is explicit as early as the Sefer HaRazim (ca. AD 400). Even in
the Dead Sea Scrolls, Solomon possesses his famous magic ring
(1QPsApa 1:1-6), the purpose of which is originally exorcistic (cf.
Josephus Ant., 8; Testament of Solomon, ca. AD 350; Questions of
Bartholomew 4:21, 2nd-5th century AD).36 Wisdom 7:21 describes
Solomon as possessing hidden wisdom. Although much in this
book is traditionally sapiential, dening wisdom as in Proverbs or
Sirach, in Wisd 7:15-22, Wisdom is almost magical. Solomon has
sure knowledge of the powers of spirits (v 20) and the actions
of the elements (v 17), Gk. , a term taken from Hellenistic magical texts.37
Wehixamukes is the literal fool in several stories. A tale found in the
1904 collection of Richard Adams,38 the M.R. Harrington papers
33)
503
504
Solomons clever solution sounds very crass, but when compared with
Wehixamukes literature it seems quite familiar.46 e trickster displays
his wisdom by his foolishness, by taking things too literally. Touching
Leaves Woman reported that Wehixamukes, likewise, acted that way
because he wanted to fool people and he wanted to test them.47 Most
importantly, this is not one isolated episode in Solomons career. It is
the grounds for all Israel holding the king in awe, recognizing that
he possessed divine wisdom (v 28) and the only story given to illustrate his wisdom.48
is essay has shown that the biblical character of Solomon can be
understood as a trickster, a gure well-known in folklore study. Traditions of Solomons birth, sexual appetite and consequent fall, wisdom,
and magic all make up this characterization. His paradigmatic example of wisdom parallels the Lenape trickster, Wehixamukes, with whom
Solomon shares other characteristics. is means that the character of
Solomon, whatever the origin of the individual stories, can be seen as
literarily coherent.49 It is possible that these elements were not originally diverse, or that a nal editor has woven a unied character from
diverse elements. In either case, the post-biblical tradition of Solomon
the miracle-worker or even magician ts integrally with this character.
Given the connection of magic or mantic wisdom with biblical wisdom elsewhere (e.g., Genesis 37; 40-41; Dan 1:17, 20), perhaps Solomon the sage originally included Solomon the magician and the
mantic/magical aspect of the Solomonic tradition has been purged from
the material in the major canons, but hinted at in Wisd 7:15-22.
46)
A marked parallel is found in comments made by Charles Elkhair in Michelsons
1912 collection: If you said, Father, take pity on my child, he would take his ax and
put it out of misery. But if you said, Take pity and cure him, he would do it; Bierhorst, White Deer, p. 132, italics original.
47)
Bierhorst, White Deer, p. 82.
48)
e demonstration of his wisdom to the international world is the visit of the
Queen of Sheba. In both cases, the demonstration is primarily witnessed by women,
itself an oddity in the biblical tradition; Czvek, ree Seasons, p. 196.
49)
Contra Lemaire, Salomon, p. 31.