Biblical Interpretation 19 (2011) 496-504 brill.nl/bi

BiblicalInterpretation

orn

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI: 10.1163/156851511X595495

Solomon the Trickster

Robert D. Millere Catholic University of America

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

e biblical character of Solomon is ambiguous at every point. He is wisest of the wise, ruler of Israels golden age and maximum territorial expansion, and builder of the Temple. Yet he is also the lascivious lover, the one who rst important foreign cults into Israel. is essay argues that seemingly disparate literary images of Solomon can actually be read as parts of an integral narrative character, if we use the right lensin this case, a Fourth-World lens. is essay examines the character of Solomon under this rubric of trickster, a character regularly invoked by scholars of both the literary study of the Old Testament and of the folkloric study of its composition to understand certain personages of the Bible, although never Solomon. is study illustrates how such an understanding can highlight the texts intent in its portrayal of the Israelite king. e folklore character of the trickster is particularly prominent in indigenous cultures,1 and the most important mythic gure in most

1) R.D. Patterson, e Old Testament Use of an Archetype: the Trickster, JETS 42 (1999), 385.

R.D. Miller / Biblical Interpretation 19 (2011) 496-504 497

tribes of American Indians.2 Scholars have identied the trickster, the deceiving clown, in cultures of all times and places, from the Mesopo-tamian Enki to Bugs Bunny.3 Nevertheless, dening the exact param-eters of this gure is quite dicult. He is perhaps the most elusive gure in mythology and literature; scholars recognize him when they see him.4 Trickster means dierent things to dierent people.5 Broadly speaking, tricksters are marginal gures who disrupt the world view that a given culture perceives as the natural order of things. But their chaos and marginality, their breaking of taboos, is itself placed within societal systems; in eect, they serve as codes for structuring the astructural. Beyond this, we should be wary of making more gen-eralizations, such as that the trickster is of marginal social status, reliant on self, and an agent of change.6 In what follows, we will see the best approach is to compare particular trickster characters, rather than the phyletic type. In recent years, biblical scholars have identied several tricksters in the biblical text. e most common such identication is Jacob, with his various deceptions of Isaac, Laban, and others, as well as himself being the victim of deception by Laban and by his own sons, another common trait of tricksters.7 Other characters labeled as tricksters include

2) A. Velie, e Trickster Novel, in G. Vizenor (ed), Narrative Chance: Postmodern Discourse on Native American Indian Literatures (Albuquerque: University of Okla-homa 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 Quar-terly 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 R.D. Miller / Biblical Interpretation 19 (2011) 496-504

Joseph,8 Abraham, Isaac, Esther,9 David,10 Edens serpent, and even God.11 Biblical tricksters dupe and delude as battle strategy (Ehud, Jael), for personal safety (Abraham, Isaac), or for justices sake (Joseph).12 Yet in most cases it is the heroes of the stories who are the tricksters. eir actions are not criticized, at least not explicitly, and this is to be expected for such characters. e trickster had positive spiritual value [in] antiquity, which valued the trickster gure as an important part of religion.13 Solomon has not hitherto been considered as a trickster as is here proposed. Various elements of the Solomon narrative will be compared with features of the trickster character. e historicity of the texts account of Solomon is actually unimportant; historical gure or literary character makes little dierence for this study. Nevertheless, when study-ing the trickster, the importance of readings of the character cannot be ignored.14 For this reason, post-biblical traditions about Solomon will also be considered. Finally, since the trickster trope exists only in its discreet examples, the particular story of 1 Kings 3:16-28 will be exam-ined in comparison with the Lenape (Delaware) trickster, Wehixamukes. Tricksters often are born in some abnormal manner. is is partic-ularly true of American Indian tricksters.15 In the case of Solomon, the

8) Patterson, Old Testament Use, p. 389.9) Niditch, Underdogs.10) A. Velie, e Biblical Trickster: David, paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting (Atlanta, 2003).11) C. Fontaine, Tricksters in the Bible, Witness 81.7-8 (1998), pp. 8-10; J.E. Ander-son, Jacob, Laban, and a Divine Trickster? Perspectives in Religious Studies 36 (2009): 3-23.12) Patterson, Old Testament Use, pp. 387-89.13) Arnold, Wildmen, p. 158.14) G. Vizenor, Trickster Discourse, in G. Vizenor (ed), Narrative Chance: Postmod-ern Discourse on Native American Indian Literatures (Albuquerque: University of Okla-homa Press, 1989), p. 193.15) L. Makarius, e Myth of the Trickster, in W.J. Hynes and W.G. Doty (eds), Mythical Trickster Figures (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1993), pp. 73-74. In Hawaii, the trickster Maui is fathered by a supernatural stranger, although the details vary: Maui is not the child of Hina by Akalana in the natural way but is begot-ten one day when she has a longing for seaweed, goes out to the beach at Kaanomalo to gather some, and, nding a mans loincloth on the beach, puts it on and goes to

R.D. Miller / Biblical Interpretation 19 (2011) 496-504 499

abnormality is the story of his mother, Bathsheba. e story of David and Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11) is quite familiar, and its interpretation is beyond the scope of this essay, but although the child of their adulter-ous union (or rape) dies, the birth of Solomon in 2 Sam 11:27 clearly closes the pericope. Solomons birth, therefore, is part of this sordid and abnormal episode, as Matt 1:6 recognizes. Solomon does little actual tricking. e best example is the epi-sode of the payment of King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kgs 9:10-14. Hiram is owed twenty cities, but foolishly accepts them from Solomon sight unseen. Solomon hands over twenty worthless cities in Galilee. In 9:13, Hiram says, What kind of cities are these that you have given me, my brother? So they are called the land of Cabul to this day. In an exhaustive study of the Solomon cycle in 1 Kings, Jung Ju Kang concludes that Solomon is not portrayed as a great king who fails, nor as a total failure from the start, but as one fatally awed from the start.16 Solomon, however, is not so much a tragic gure like Oedipus as a negative example for the Deuteronomistic historian, a showcase of the consequences of immorality.17 at is precisely the role of the trick-ster, to demonstrate what happens when morals are not observed.18 Specically, 1 Kings 11:1-13 states that the start of his doing what was displeasing to Yahweh (11:6) was that he loved many foreign women (11:1). Tricksters often show the vulnerability that our sex-uality often visits on us.19 is same passage from 1 Kings says, He

sleep. e child born from this adventure is named Maui. A. Fornander, Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folk-lore (Honolulu: Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, 1916-1919), vol. 5, pp. 536-39.16) J.J. Kang, e Persuasive Portrayal of Solomon in 1 Kings 1-11 (Bern: Peter Lang, 2003). An equally comprehensive study by Czvek concludes that Solomon depicts the paradigmatic shrewd Oriental monarch; T. Czvek, ree Seasons of Charismatic Leadership (Regnum Studies in Mission, 17; Oxford: Regnum Books, 2006).17) Kang, Persuasive Portrayal, pp. 263-302; W. Brueggemann, Ancient Israel on Political Leadership, Political eology 8 (2007), pp. 459-62.18) W.J. Hynes and W.G. Doty, Introducing the Fascinating and Perplexing Trick-ster Figure, in W.J. Hynes and W.G. Doty (eds), Mythical Trickster Figures (Tusca-loosa: University of Alabama Press, 1993), p. 7; W.J. Hynes, Inconclusive Conclusions, in W.J. Hynes and W.G. Doty (eds), Mythical Trickster Figures (Tusca-loosa: University of Alabama Press, 1993), pp. 207-208.19) Arnold, Wildmen, p. 159.

500 R.D. Miller / Biblical Interpretation 19 (2011) 496-504

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 com-monplace 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 6:28-29). 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 mas-ter organizer of the oral wisdom traditions of his people (Proverbs 1-9; cf. Qoh 1:1). His hokhma skill, ability, cleverness, cunningis seen

20) Contra L.S. Schearing, A Wealth of Women, in L.K. Handy (ed.) e Age of Solomon (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East. 11; Leiden: Brill, 1997), p. 431, who sees no textual comment on the size of the harem. Solomons harem is not merely about conspicuous wealth. Clearly, Solomons lasciviousness is contrasted to Davids nal impotence (1 Kings 4). Solomons insatiable acquisition of wisdom, women, and weaponry are a remarkable contrast to aged and failing David, who is no longer a force in the boardroom, battleeld, or bedchamber; B.A. Power, All the Kings Horses Narrative Subversion in the Story of Solomons Golden Age, in J.R. Wood, J.E. Harvey, and M. Leuchter (eds), From Babel to Baby-lon (LOHB/OTS, 455; New York: T & T Clark, 2006), p. 113.21) Velie, Trickster Novel, p. 135. Tales of the tricksters sexual prowess are ubiqui-tous, as, e.g., Coyotes Amorous Adventures, in R. Erdoes and A. Ortiz (eds), Amer-ican Indian Trickster Tales (New York: Penguin-Putnam, Inc., 1998), pp. 55-56.22) A. Williams, Trickster and Pranksters (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2000), p. 73. For an example, see C. Ballard, Inquiry into Native American Literature and Mythology, Wicazo Sa Review 9 (1993), p. 14.23) A. Millard, Solomon in All His Glory, Vox Evangelica 12 (1981), pp. 5-18.24) S.C. Mimouni, La Figure Messianique de Salomon dans le Judasm Ancien, in J.-L. Bacqu-Grammont and J.-M. Durand (eds), LImage de Salomon (Cahiers de la Socit Asiatique, n.s., 5; Paris: Peeters, 2007), p. 41.

R.D. Miller / Biblical Interpretation 19 (2011) 496-504 501

as foundational for Israels cultural traditions, in spite of his sinful end. Such is the trickster: a recurrent theme in trickster tales is that, even after taking into account all the anarchic social behavior, the trick-ster contributes substantially to the birth and evolution of culture.25 Solomons wisdom, moreover, is always the cunning () of Gene-sis 2s trickster serpent (Prov 1:1-7). Solomons wisdom has been con-sidered a Persian-period addition to the earlier traditions of wealth and women,26 but in terms of characterization, they are part of the same lit-erary trope. To advance the analysis of Solomon as trickster further, we should compare Solomon with a specic trickster, and here that comparand will be the trickster of the Lenape mythology, Wehixamukes27. He is a miracle-working wise fool, a trickster and a hero.28 is particular trickster is foolish as the one who misunderstands, who takes all metaphors literally and misapplies ambiguous instructions, and in so doing both becomes comically foolish and saves his people.29 Such a trickster is found also in the Wyandot, Cayuga, Micmac, Seneca, and Onondaga traditions.30 Yet in the Lenape and Wyandot traditions only, he is also magically powerful.31 His martial prowess is supernatural, and he has the power to heal the sick.32 Like Solomon (1 Kgs 3:5-15),

25) W.G. Doty and W.J. Hynes, Historical overview of theoretical issues, in W.J. Hynes and W.G. Doty (eds), Mythical Trickster Figures (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1993), pp. 22-23.26) A. Lemaire, Salomon dans lHistoire, in J.-L. Bacqu-Grammont and J.-M. Durand (eds), LImage de Salomon (Cahiers de la Socit Asiatique, n.s., 5; Paris: Pee-ters, 2007), p. 29.27) Technically, Whixamuks, or, Wa-e-aqon-oo-kase.28) J. Bierhorst, Mythology of the Lenape (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1995), pp. 9-10.29) D. Nichols, Legends of the Delaware Indians and Picture Writing by Richard Adams (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1997), p. 6.30) Bierhorst, Mythology, pp. 83-84.31) Bierhorst, Mythology, pp. 83-84; Bierhorst, White Deer, p. 87. Other tricksters are magically powerful, but only the Lenape/Wyandot combines the literal fool and the magically powerful; Hynes, Mapping, pp. 39, 41. While it is possible that some of these stories were adapted from European sources, no Lenape trickster story is known to have a direct European parallel; Bierhorst, White Deer, p. 131.32) Bierhorst, White Deer, p. 132.

502 R.D. Miller / Biblical Interpretation 19 (2011) 496-504

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 Hellenis-tic 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) Nichols, Legends, p. 3; Bierhorst, White Deer, p. 88.34) Nichols, Legends, pp. 7-8; Bierhorst, White Deer, pp. 91-92. For discussion of Solomon as deceptive king, see S. Lasine, Solomon and the Wizard of Oz, in L.K. Handy (ed), e Age of Solomon (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East, 11; Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 375-91.35) Also in the Quran (27:26-42), Solomon explicitly tricks the Queen of Sheba; for discussion, see Walter Brueggemann, Solomon (Columbia: University of South Caro-lina Press, 2005), p. 234.36) P.A. Torijano, Solomon the Esoteric King (JSJSup, 73; Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp. 55-56, 77-85; G. Klaniczay, e Ambivalent Model of Solomon for Royal Sainthood and Royal Wisdom, in I. Biliarsky and R.G. Paun (eds), e Biblical Models of Power and Law (Rechtshistorische Reihe 366; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2008), p. 89. For full discussion of Josephus Solomon, see L.H. Feldman, Josephus View of Solomon, in L.K. Handy (ed), e Age of Solomon (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East, 11; Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 348-74.37) Torijano, Solomon, p. 93. On the possibility that the in Qoh 2:8 refers not to coers or breasts but to magical powers, see G. Sasson, In e Footsteps of the Tradition About Solomon the Magician in the Literature of the Sages, Jewish Studies Internet Journal 6 (2007), pp. 37-38, in Hebrew. If accurate, this would reect a con-siderably earlier association of Solomon with such powers.38) Nichols, Legends.

R.D. Miller / Biblical Interpretation 19 (2011) 496-504 503

collected 1907-1910 in eastern Oklahoma,39 the Truman Michelson collection from 1912 Oklahoma,40 and the Carl F. Voeglin collection from 1930 Oklahoma41 involves Wehixamukes hearing a fellow-war-rior yearn for a turkey to dip in his lard. Wehixamukes assists by cap-turing a live turkey [and] dipping it in the lard, the turkey gasping for breath.42 From the Adams, Harrington, Voeglin, and Michelson col-lections is a story where the hunters are sent out individually in search of bear. e one who rst sees a hole is to call the others. Wehixamukes calls his fellows when he nds a tiny hole left in a tree by a woodpeck-er.43 From the Harrington, Voeglin, and Michelson collections, a tale tells of Wehixamukes and the other hunters being told to kill the rst thing they see. Wehixamukes fullls this command to the letter by killing his hunting companion.44 e great Lenape traditionalist of the mid-20th century, Nora ompson Dean or Touching Leaves Woman, related a tale where Wehixamukes followed instructions to bind medic-inal bark on an injury by tying himself to a tree.45 All of these stories are much older than the date of their recording and were a part of the Lenape traditional folklore for centuries. Solomon, too, is the man-who-misunderstands, in 1 Kgs 3:16-28. When the two prostitutes come before him, each arguing that the liv-ing child is hers, Solomons response is to order the child be cut in half. e story and its outcome are quite familiar, and the true mother shows herself by preferring to lose the child rather than see him killed.

39) Box OC-160, folder 1; Box OC-161, folder 1; Box OC-163, folder 9, National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution, New York.40) Ethnological and Linguistic Field Notes from the Munsee in Kansas and the Del-aware in Oklahoma, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.41) Delaware Texts, International Journal of American Linguistics 11 (1945), pp. 105-19.42) Nichols, Legends, p. 4; Bierhorst, Mythology, pp. 47, 51-52, 60-61; Htakonanulaxk, e Grandfathers Speak: Native American Folk Tales of the Lenap People (New York: Interlink Publishing Group, 1994), pp. 80-81.43) Nichols, Legends, p. 5; Bierhorst, Mythology, pp. 47, 51-52; Bierhorst, White Deer, pp. 92-93; Htakonanulaxk, Grandfathers, p. 79.44) Bierhorst, Mythology, pp. 47, 51-52; Bierhorst, White Deer, pp. 93-94; Htako-nanulaxk, Grandfathers, p. 82.45) Bierhorst, White Deer, p. 83.

504 R.D. Miller / Biblical Interpretation 19 (2011) 496-504

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 illus-trate 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. Tradi-tions of Solomons birth, sexual appetite and consequent fall, wisdom, and magic all make up this characterization. His paradigmatic exam-ple 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 origi-nally 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 wis-dom elsewhere (e.g., Genesis 37; 40-41; Dan 1:17, 20), perhaps Sol-omon 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; Bier-horst, 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.