The Chronicler’s Portrayal of Solomon as the King of Peace within the Context of the International Peace Discourses of the Persian Era

Jonker: The Chronicler’s portrayal of Solomon OTE 21/3 (2008), 653-669      655 

 

on the work. Many studies

8

 confirm the likelihood of Knoppers's view by indicating 

that one should assume a good system of communication between Greece, Egypt and 

Persia long before the advent of Hellenism. It seems reasonable to assume that the 

literati in Jerusalem would also have had access to international discourses and tradi-

tions from (particularly) Greek and Persian cultures (although not necessarily in writ-

ten form). 

 

My intention in this contribution is therefore to situate Chronicles in an interna-

tional arena. It is certainly not to repudiate traditional inner-Yehudite interpretations 

of the book, but rather to create an awareness of the multidimensional nature of the 

communication that we witness in this literature. It spoke in more than one direction; 

it participated in more restricted but also in wider (international) discourses.  

 

In order to investigate Chronicles within a wider international discourse, I shall 

focus on the Chronicler's portrayal of Solomon against the background of Greek and 

Persian discourses on peace. 

B 

SOLOMON, THE KING OF PEACE IN CHRONICLES 

The narrative about Solomon can be found in 2 Chronicles 1-9. However, the signifi-

cance of Solomon for the Chronicler already becomes clear in the portrayal of David's 

speeches in which he (David) indicates that he is preparing to build the temple in Jeru-

salem. Particularly important in this regard are the speeches reported in 1 Chronicles 

22 and 28-29, since they are entirely part of the Chronicler's Sondergut (i. e. the 

Chronicler's own material)

9

 – an indication of the writer's deliberate reworking of the 

earlier traditions.

10

 

                                                 

 

8

  Cf. e. g. the discussion in Kuhrt (2007: Ch 15). She states: ‘The speed and efficiency of 

the Achaemenid communication service, with its relays of fast mounted messengers, were 

legendary’ (2007:732). Cf. also Wiesehöfer (2005:115-119). 

9

  All the material from 1 Chr 22-29 is the Chronicler's own. Cf. Klein (2006:431): ‘From 

here to the end of 1 Chronicles, there is no canonical Vorlage on which the Chronicler de-

pends, though he clearly used the materials describing the transition from Moses to Joshua in 

Deuteronomy 31 and Joshua 1 in constructing the speeches in 1 Chronicles 22 and 28, and he 

also utilized 1 Kgs 5:17-19 (3-5) as well as other materials from the Deuteronomistic His-

tory.’ 

10

  I am taking seriously the warning by Knoppers (2004) in the introduction to his Chroni-

cles commentary not to over-interpret the Chronicler's differences from his Vorlage. One 

should take into account the possibility that the Chronicler worked with pre-stages, or other 

traditions, of the texts in Samuel-Kings than those we have available in the MT. Knoppers 

(2004:70) formulates the following rule of thumb: ‘(W)hen studying synoptic passages, the 

Chronicler's deviations from MT Kings may be more safely ascribed to his creativity than his 

deviations from MT Samuel may be.’ Knoppers therefore emphasises the value of text-criti-

cal studies in the interpretation of Chronicles. He (2004:70-71) continues: ‘Text-critical 

---

656     Jonker: The Chronicler’s portrayal of Solomon OTE 21/3 (2008), 653-669       

 

 

Two speeches are reported in 1 Chronicles 22: in verses 6-16 David addresses 

Solomon, his son, and in verses 17-19 he issues a command to all the leaders of Israel. 

Although there is no Vorlage in Samuel-Kings for these speeches, scholars

11

 have 

shown convincingly that the Chronicler has most probably fashioned them according 

to the material found in Deuteronomy 31 and Joshua 1, where the transition from 

Moses to Joshua is described. The same applies to the speeches reported in chapters 

28-29. In 1 Chronicles 28:2-12 David addresses all the leaders of Israel, in 28:29-32 

he addresses Solomon again, and in 29:1-3 the whole assembly. All these speeches 

show signs that they were deliberately fashioned according to the model of the transi-

tion of leadership from Moses to Joshua. 

 

However, our focus here will not be on this theologically significant 

characteristic of the Chronicler's version, namely the refashioning of the Moses-

Joshua tradition.

12

 We will rather focus on the specific portrayal of Solomon as ‘a man 

of rest’ and king of ‘peace’. Let us consider the relevant texts now. 

 

In David's speech to his son, Solomon, reported in chapter 22, we read the fol-

lowing: 

7 David said to Solomon, ‘My son, I had planned to build a house to the 

name of the Lord my God. 8 But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 

“You have shed much blood and have waged great wars; you shall not build 

a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood in my sight on 

the earth. 9 See, a son shall be born to you; he shall be a man of rest

13

 

(

שׁי ִא

ה ָחוּנ ְמ 

). I will give him rest

14

 (

חונ

 Hif'il) from all his enemies on every 

side; for his name shall be Solomon (

הֹמלֹ ְשׁ

), and I will give peace (

םולֹ ָשׁ

) and 

                                                                                                                                                        

 

studies do not free us from speculation about the Chronicler's use of earlier biblical materials, 

but they do provide scholars with more precise tools with which to examine the respective 

textual traditions. On the one hand, caution is dictated in attributing tendentious intention to a 

Chronicles text whenever it differs from Genesis or Samuel, as the alleged change may be 

due either to the textual tradition represented by the Chronicler's Vorlage or to textual cor-

ruption. On the other hand, when neither of these two options seems likely, especially in 

dealing with the text of Kings, one can with confidence more clearly recognize those in-

stances in which the Chronicler consciously made a change in his text. Employing the in-

sights gained by text-critical studies of the Chronicler's sources affords scholars greater con-

trol over the available date and, hence, more precision and accuracy in determining the com-

positional technique and ideology of the Chronicler’. 

11

  See the good summaries of studies on this aspect in Knoppers (2004: 783-788) and Klein 

(2006: 431-440). 

12

  See the commentaries of Knoppers (2004) and Klein (2006) for good discussions of this 

aspect. 

13

  Here I deviate from the NRSV translation which has ‘peace’. 

14

  See previous footnote. 

---