Journal for the Study of the

Oldhttp://jot.sagepub.com/
Testament

Structure and Its Significance: the Narrative of Solomon's Reign

(1 Kings 1-12.24)
Amos Frisch
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 1991 16: 3
DOI: 10.1177/030908929101605101

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jot.sagepub.com/content/16/51/3.citation

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal for the Study of the Old Testament can
be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jot.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jot.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Sep 1, 1991

What is This?

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on November 18, 2014

 3-

STRUCTURE AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE:

THE NARRATIVE OF SOLOMON’S REIGN (1 KINGS 1-12.24)

Amos Frisch
Department of Bible, Bar-Ilan University
Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel

The article by K.I. Parker! made refreshing reading, for even today,
when, as evidenced by numerous publications, the literary investiga-
tion of the Bible is in a flourishing state, the narrative of Solomon’s
reign (hereafter NSR) has still not received adequate attention.
Literary analysis has tended to focus upon narratives as to whose unity
there is general concurrence, and this means that certain narratives
and books (Samuel in particular) have been extensively discussed,
while NSR, which is not notably unified, has been neglected. That it
should have been subjected to literary study at all is cause for
gratitude, and all the more so when the approach is one which casts
new light upon old problems through its analysis of structure-some-

thing of immense importance in understanding the message of the

work.22
Parker’s thesis may be summarized by some phrases fiom his
article: ’The contradictions and inconsistencies will be viewed as part

1. K.I. Parker, ’Repetition as a Structuring Device in 1 Kings 1-11’, JSOT 42

(1988), pp. 19-27.
2. The importance of discovering structure, and the significance of structure in
understanding the message of the text is demonstrated in the works of
J.P. Fokkelman (e.g. Narrative Art in Genesis—Specimens of Stylistic and
Structural Analysis [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975; reprinted Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1991]) and of U. Simon (e.g. ’The Story of Samuel’s Birth—Structure, Genre and
Meaning’, in Studies in Bible and Exegesis. II. Presented to Yehuda Elitzur [ed. U.
Simon; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1986], pp. 57-110 [Hebrew]).

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on November 18, 2014

4

of a deliberate narrative strategy’, and ’Those events which are des-

cribed in chs. 1-8 are duplicated (albeit with important differences) in
chs. 9-11 of the narrative’.’ The narrative falls into two parts. These
are divided into six episodes, which run in parallel with the corre-

sponding episode in the other part. The first part gives a favourable
account of Solomon for the way in which he combines Torah and
wisdom, whereas ’the hostile description of Solomon in 9-11.13
’2
occurs when wisdom has become antagonistic to Torah...
Since I have been engaged for a number of years in the study of
NSR, I feel obliged to offer some notes on Parker’s interesting thesis
and to present an alternative suggestion.

1. Notes on Parker’s Thesis

1.1. Previous Studies. These should not be ignored, especially when
they arrive at related conclusions. At least two other studies should
have been mentioned. The first is by B. Portent while his analysis is
completely different from Parker’s, his pioneering attempt to point
out the symmetrical structure of NSR and its extraordinary level of
organization deserves remark. Among other points, he notes the
parallels between the two pairs of passages which speak respectively
of the agreement with Hiram and the levy (Parker’s episodes 4-5 in
the first part and 3-4 in the second). The second article is that by
Y.T. Radday,4which not only deals with this piece of parallelism but
lays bare the concentric structure according to which there is a
parallel between the sections in the first part of NSR and the sections
in the second part. (I will not urge the case for my own dissertation,
which is in Hebrew with an English summary.’)

1.2. Boundaries of the Narrative. The author seems to take for

granted that 1 Kings 1-11 constitutes a defined unit, the symmetrical

1. Parker, ’Repetition’, pp. 20, 21.

2. Parker, ’Repetition’, p. 25.
3. B. Porten, ’The Structure and Theme of the Solomon Narrative (I Kings 3-
11)’, HUCA 38 (1967), pp. 93-128.
4. Y.T. Radday, ’Chiasm in Kings’, Linguistica Biblica 31 (1974), pp. 55-56.
5. A. Frisch, The Narrative of Solomon’s Reign in the Book of Kings (PhD
Thesis, Bar-Ilan University, 1986), pp. 33-64 (Hebrew).

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on November 18, 2014

 5

structure which he ascribes to providing confirmation of this.’ But

it
there is no general consensus on this point, and it would have been
preferable to see it discussed and reasons given for the view that the
narrative begins in ch. 1 and concludes in ch. 11. The detection of
symmetry is not in itself sufficient proof that these chapters comprise
a narrative block, since symmetry to an even higher degree might

possibly be found even if NSR were delimited differently.

1.3. Topics of the Episodes. While Parker’s establishment of the
boundaries separating the episodes is persuasive, problems arise with
the names given to them in the service of the symmetrical structure. I
take as an example the heading ’Solomon’s attitude towards God’,
which is applied both to the episode made up of chs. 6-8, which deals
with building of the Temple (and Solomon’s palace), and to the
parallel episode in the second part (11.1-13), which describes
Solomon’s sins and the Lord’s response. This title is appropriate to
those passages which (in the style customary in Kings) appraise the
king in religious terms. Two such are to be found in NSR: ’And
Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of David his father’
(3.3), and ’And Solomon did that which was evil in the sight of the
Lord’ (11.6), with their surrounding verses. But while Parker gives
the title to the passage in ch. 11, he places 3.3 in an episode headed
’Dream’, so blotting out vv. 1-3. The title ’Solomon’s attitude towards
God’ would fit the context of 3.3 far better than it does the episode on
the building of the Temple.

1.4. Neglected Parallels. I note here only two of the indubitable

parallels which even in a study of symmetry have received no atten-
tion. The close mutual relationship displayed by 6.11-13 and 9.1-9
depends primarily upon literary type but also upon topic, vocabulary
and even structure.2 There is fikewise a marked symmetry between
3.1-3 and 11.1 ff.3

1.5. Detachment of an Episode from its Context. While Solomon’s

vision after the dedication of the Temple (9.1-9) admittedly looks

1. Parker, p. 21.
2. See below, §2.35.
3. See below, §2.32.

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on November 18, 2014

6

forward and prepares us for his fall into sin, its principal force is as
God’s response to Solomon’s activities. It is connected with the
dedication of the Temple both in the narrator’s prefatory remarks
(9.1) and in God’s opening words (v. 3). The phrase ’this house’
appears three times in the vision (once in v. 3 and twice in v. 8), and
’the house’ once (v. 7), and these repetitions stress the relation of the
vision as a whole to the dedication. In view of this it is surprising that
Parker should have detached it from chs. 6-8 and made it into the
beginning of the second half of NSR, shorn of any connection with
everything that has gone before.
1.6. Character of Part 2. The second part of NSR, defined by Parker
as ’hostile to Solomon’, also contains descriptions favourable to him
and his achievements as to wisdom, wealth and honour, while explicit
criticism is confined to ch. 11. Even if the criticism in fact begins at
9.1, as Parker urges (rightly, in my view; indeed, there are more such
hints to be identified),’ it should be explained why nothing open is said
until the beginning of ch. 11.

1.7. Neglected Contradictions. Parker deals well with the function of

the various repetitions, but what about contradictions? What is the
attitude towards Solomon’s marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh-
acceptance (3.1-3) or disapproval ( 11.1 )? Are the Israelites also
involved in the corv6e (see 5.27-28 [EVV 5.13-14] as against 9.20-22)?
These contradictions can certainly be resolved, but a discussion
focusing upon harmony and unity ought to take account of them.

2. An Alternative Thesis
In the light of these considerations I should like to put forward a brief
statement of the alternative thesis contained in my doctoral dissertation.

2.1. Boundaries of the Narrative

Of what continuous block within the Book of Kings does Solomon
constitute the subject? For the following reasons, I would suggest
1 Kgs 1-12.24.22

1. See my thesis, The Narrative of Solomon’s Reign, pp. 54-60.

2. J. Liver (’The Book of the Acts of Solomon’, Bib 48 [1967], pp. 89ff.)

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on November 18, 2014

 7

2.1.1. As to specifying the point at which the text begins, even

though David’s reign formally ends only at 2.10-12, what goes before
functions (if only as a result of being placed in Kings) as a description
of the inception of Solomon’s reign; this remains true whether or not
chs. 1-2 served at some earlier stage as the concluding account of
David’s reign (and in particular as the end of the pre-biblical source
called ’the Succession Narrative’).’ Moreover, certain passages which
appear in chs. 1-2.12 form part of a larger whole whose other
sections come after 2.12-for example, Adonijah’s promise of fidelity
to Solomon (1.50-51), which serves as preparation for the description
of his death when Solomon adjudges him to have violated his
undertaking (2.13-25).
2.1.2. Just as the beginning of NSR is not determined by the formal
statement of the end of David’s reign, neither (I would argue) does its
ending come, as in the general consensus, with which Parker concurs,
at the formal statement of the end of Solomon’s reign (11.41-43). For
such an arrangement excludes the narrative of the division of the
kingdom (ch. 12) and so creates a serious split between a prophecy

discerns the obvious connection between chs. 11 and 12, but discusses not the
biblical account but that of the pre-biblical source, The Book of the Acts of Solomon.
As for Parker, although he considers the end of ch. 11 to mark the end of NSR, he
seems at one point to recognize that ch. 12 must form part of it, when he finds a

parallel between the problems of succession at the beginning and at the end of the
narrative: ’The problem... arises once again in the conclusion of the narrative, this
time in reference to the weakening of Solomon’s power and the breakup of his
kingdom. With the death of Solomon, two factions are again in competition for the
throne: Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, and Jeroboam, Solomon’s labour minister’
(pp. 21-22).
1. This distinction between the functions of the narrative according to its
I & II Kings [The Century Bible;
different contexts is well expressed by J. Skinner (
Edinburgh: T.C. & E.C. Jack, 1904], p. 57): ’According to the present arrangement
of the text these two chapters form an appropriate introduction to the account of
Solomon’s reign in chs. III-XI... In its original context, however, the narrative
belonged to the history of David rather than to that of Solomon.’ Cf. also
S. Zalevsky’s approach in his Solomon’s Ascension to the Throne (Jerusalem:
Y. Marcus, 1981 [Hebrew]). On the delimitation of biblical units according to the
’final form’ of the text without any great concern for the ’generic’ discrimination of
putative pre-biblical sources, see D.M. Gunn, The Fate of King Saul : An
Interpretation of a Biblical Story (JSOTS, 14; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), pp. 12-
13.

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on November 18, 2014

8

and its fulfilment, although they are in close textual proximity.

Theologically, the schism is perceived by Kings not only as the incep-
tion of a new state of affairs wholly severed from everything that pre-
cedes it, but also, and principally, as the ending of a state of affairs,
the punishment for Solomon’s wrongdoing at the close of his reign.
Furthermore, Solomon’s punishment begins as early as 11.14ff. with
the rebellions of Hadad and Rezon, these being followed by the
description of the beginning of Jeroboam’s ascent to power (vv.
26ff.). To fix the limit of NSR at the end of ch. 11is therefore to
separate a prophecy from its immediate realization and to isolate the
stages of Solomon’s punishment from one another.
2.1.3. Further grounds for seeing ch. 12 as part of NSR are as
follows:
1. Although in the account of the schism Solomon is no longer
alive, his shade seems to hover over it. He is frequently men-
tioned, and these allusions (both by name and in terms of his
relationship to Rehoboam) are made by numerous figures:
the people, Rehoboam, the young men, God, and the narrator
himself.’ Two references at the end of the narrative stand out
in particular, for in them the new king is called ’Rehoboam
the son of Solomon’ (vv. 21, 23)-a striking redundancy
which brings into prominence the way in which Solomon’s
times stand behind the events of the schism.’
2. Chapters 11-12, taken together, display a strong connec-
tion-thematically, linguistically and structurally-with chs.
1-2 (the beginning of NSR) and provide a kind of closing of
the circle. Each pair of chapters contains a political narrative
about Solomon’s rivals which describes the change that takes
place in their status: the fall of Adonijah and the rise of

1. The people: v. 4 (twice); Rehoboam: v. 9 (citing the people) and v. 14 (twice,

then answering the people according to the elders’ advice); the young men: v. 10
(twice, once when citing the people’s demand) and v. 11(twice); the Lord, v. 23;
and the narrator, vv. 2, 6, 21.
2. See A. Frisch, ’Shemaiah the Prophet versus King Rehoboam: Two Opposed
Interpretations of the Schism (1 Kings xii 21-4)’, VT 38 (1988), pp. 466-67. The
literary functions of the name-form ’X ben Y’ are discussed by
D.J.A. Clines, ’X, X ben Y, ben Y: Personal Names in Hebrew Narrative Style’,
VT 22 (1972), pp. 266-87 (type d).

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on November 18, 2014

 9

Jeroboam respectively. In each case the candidate who loses

out is the one with the best chance and the best right to the
throne (Adonijah is David’s eldest surviving son, as we are
told in 1.6 and as Solomon himself admits in 2.22); and the
startling ascent of his rival is perceived as the work of God.
It has not been remarked that these reversals are described in
similar terms: ’However the kingdom has turned about (20m)
and become my brother’s, for it was his from the Lord’
(2.15), and ’So the king did not hearken to the people; for it
was a turn of affairs (i1:Jo) brought about by the Lord, that

he might establish his word...’ (12.15). Structurally too the

resemblance is great.’1
3. Even if NSR is delimited with a blind fidelity to the appear-
ance of opening and closing formulae, we encounter a

difficulty with regard to the story of the schism, for, while

the formal statement of the end of Solomon’s reign is indeed
to be found at the end of ch. 11, the schism is not preceded
by an equivalent statement about the inception of the new
reign; this appears only in 14.21, immediately after the for-
mula about the end of the reign of Jeroboam-as to the
beginning of which there is no formula anywhere in the
book. Are we obliged to view ch. 12 as part of the narrative
of Jeroboam’s reign? This too presents difficulties, for the
narrator plainly devotes more attention to Rehoboam’s camp
than to Jeroboam’s, and descriptions of the former are placed
at strategic points in the story: at the beginning (v. 1), in
the long central block (vv. 6-11), and at the conclusion
(vv. 21-24). In other words, the incident is described in the
main from the point of view of the king of the house of
David, and yet it is not formally included in the description
of Rehoboam’s reign.

2.2. Structure
2.2.1. Only after the scope of NSR has been determined can we turn
to questions of structure. As a starting point let us take the largest
single block, the description of the construction and dedication of the
Temple, including God’s response to Solomon’s prayer (6.1-9.9).

1. See below, §2.3.1.

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on November 18, 2014

10

Around this long section, which contains 164 out of the 458 verses of
NSR, are two short units which help to complete it and which parallel
each other; the first (5.15-32 [EVV 5.1-18]) depicts the preparation for
construction-the agreement with Hiram and the raising of a work
levy-and the second (9.10-25) gives further details of the relations
between Solomon and Hiram and of the corv6e for Solomon’s various
building projects.’ This latter unit closes with two verses which bring
to a conclusion the entire topic of the building of the Temple (9.24-
25). From this one can go on to determine the boundaries of the other
units, in line with thematic and formal considerations, and the
structure of NSR overall.
2.2.2.I would suggest that NSR be divided up as follows:
1. The Beginning of Solomon’s Reign: From Adonijah’s
Proclamation of Himself as King until the
Establishment of Solomon’s Reign 1.1-2.46
2. Solomon and the Lord: Loyalty and the Promise of
Reward 3.1-15
3. The Glory of Solomon’s Reign: Wisdom, Rule,
Riches and Honour 3.1 (~5.142
4. Towards Building the Temple: Collaboration with
Hiram, and the Corvde for the Temple 5.15-323
5. The Building and Dedication of the Temple 6.1-9.9
~6. In the Wake of Building the Temple: Trade with
Hiram, and the Corvde for Building Projects 9.10-25
7. The Glory of Solomon’s Reign: Trade, Riches,
Wisdom and Honour 9.26-10.29
8. Solomon and the Lord: Disloyalty and the Announce-
ment of Punishment 11.1-13
9. The End of Solomon’s Reign: Rebellions against
Solomon and the Division of the Kingdom 11.14-12.24

1. In the first of these units the conscription of the Israelites is mentioned,

whereas the other stresses that (9.22). This is not
necessarily a contradiction. Several scholars have offered solutions which may be
divided into two categories: distinctions between the terms used in the opposed
statements, and distinctions between the periods to which they refer.
2. English versions 3.16-4.34.
3. English versions 5.1-18.

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on November 18, 2014

 11

2.3. Connections between Parallel Units

Parallel units display numerous elements in common as to topic,
structure, motifs and vocabulary. We shall look briefly at the
principal points.
2.3.1. Units 7 and 9. It has already been noted (in §2.1.3) that these
units have matter in common with regard to topic and language. Now
that the exact limits of each unit have been laid down, I may remark
their similarity of structure. Each is made up of four secondary units,
and these two series of secondary units correspond with each other.
This is especially evident in the concluding formulations (2.10-12;
11.41-43). Before each comes the address made to the candidate for
kingship by the man who appoints him (David to Solomon; Ahijah to
Jeroboam). The narrative in the first secondary section of Unit 1 is
parallel to that in the last secondary section of Unit 9: the surprising
resolution of the confrontation over the throne. Both stories deal with
Solomon, although in neither is he the king. The narrative in the final
sub-unit of Unit 1 is parallel with the first one in Unit 9: the success
or failure of Solomon’s various rivals. The symmetrical relationships
of the sub-units can be shown diagrammatically as follows:

2.3.2. Units 2 and 8. These two units stand out from the surround-
ing text in that both offer a religious appraisal of Solomon’s actions in
terms of the theological link between a given type of behaviour and its
recompense: fidelity to God and a promise of reward in Unit 2 (the
vision at Gibeon, which begins at 3.4, is effectively an assurance that
Solomon’s faithfulness-mentioned in v. 3-will be rewarded), as
against disloyalty and the announcement of retribution to come in Unit
8. Both units also share a combination of motifs with regard to
Solomon’s foreign marriages and worship in high places, but whereas
in the first it is stressed that his marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh
does not interfere with his devotion to the Lord, whom he serves in
the high places (v. 2 explains that sacrifices were offered there
because the Temple had not yet been erected), the second depicts the

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on November 18, 2014

12

unfavourable influence of his numerous heathen wives’ and the

consequent building of pagan high places.’ The structure of the two
units is likewise similar, for each is divided into two parts which
evaluate his actions (3.1-3; 11.1-8) and each describes God’s response
(3.4-15; 11.9-13); and their extensive shared vocabulary should also
be mentioned.
2.3.3. Units 3 and 7. Both units present the glory of Solomon’s
reign, which constitutes a realization of the promises made to him at
Gibeon, and stress the uniqueness of his wisdom, which brings him
honour in the form of visits made to him by other kings to hear his
determinations (compare the similar formulation of 5.9, 14 [EVV 4.29,
34] and 10.23-24).
2.3.4. Units 4 and 6. The marked similarity of these units as to topic
and structure has been discussed by other scholars, including Parker,
and is sufficiently evident.
2.3.5. Unit 5. This focal unit contains a parallel between two
transmissions to Solomon of the word of the Lord, at the beginning
(6.11-13) and at the end (9.1-9), each of which presents him with the
law of reward and punishment in the context of the building of the
Temple. The two visions also display a common structure, each
consisting of three parts dealing with related subjects, as can be seen
from the following diagram:
Vision 1 (6.11-13) Vision 2 (9.1-9)
11 (Introduction) 1-2 (Introduction)
1. 12a The Building of the Temple 1. 3 The Building of the Temple
2. 12b Fidelity to the Covenant 2. 4-5 Fidelity and its Reward
3. 12c-13 The Reward of Fidelity 3. 6-9 Disloyalty and its Punishment

We also find a noticeable similarity of language. These are the

principal points: the descriptions of the reward begin with the same

1. Pharaoh’s daughter is mentioned in both contexts. This need not involve two
contradictory assessments, since she is mentioned in 11.1separately from the other
foreign women ( ) and this may be interpreted as expressing a different
view of her marriage from those of the other foreign women (K.F. Keil,
Commentary on the Books of Kings [trans. J. Murphy; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1857], I, p. 186; cf. C.F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings
[Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903], p. 154). Moreover, there is no mention of any
’high place’ built for her.
2. See, e.g., Porten, ’Structure and Theme’, pp. 112-13.

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on November 18, 2014

 13

We also find a noticeable similarity of language. These are the

principal points: the descriptions of the reward begin with the same
word, ’ncPi1, (’and I will establish’) (6.12; 9.5); fidelity is spoken of
by each with the same opening phrase, ~5~ G~t (’if you will walk’), and
is founded upon the three identical verbs in the same order: ’walk’
(~5~), ’do’ (i1û;)11) and ’keep’ (TnV) (6.12; 9.4); and the verb ’to leave’
(:JTl1) appears at the conclusion of each vision as a leading term (6.13;
9.9), although with a considerable difference, for in the first it forms
part of the assurance of God’s eternal connection with Israel, and in
the second it features in the theological explanation for the overthrow
of Israel to be uttered by the heathen passing through the land.
I would submit that the variety of points just adduced provides a
firm basis for my proposed view of the structure of NSR, of parallel
units ranged in a concentric manner. In addition, there is a ’logical’
connection (which takes a number of forms) between each of the
consecutive units.

2.4. The Meaning of the Structure

The concentric structure which we have uncovered in NSR brings out
the importance of the description of the building of the Temple. It
would seem that the Temple is drawn into prominence not only
because of the affection in which it is held by the author/editor of
Kings, but also because it is regarded as Solomon’s most significant
work. But in addition to emphasizing the focal unit, the structure also
helps to illuminate the parallel units which complement each other (as
when details are added of the glory of Solomon’s reign). As against
relationships of equivalence and completion which obtain between
most of the paired units, the link between Units 2 and 8 is one of
marked contrast. (The same, with less force, is true of Units 1 and 9
and the two visions in the focal unit.) Possibly this should not be
regarded as a deviation from the pattern, but rather as the key to the
real nature of the other parallels, for close reading uncovers hints of
criticism towards Solomon in Units 6 and 7, particularly if these are
compared with their parallel units. The criticism is merely implied
and not explicit, for the author/editor does not conceal the material
achievements of Solomon’s reign-these indeed constitute part of the
fulfilment of the promises made to Solomon in his vision at Gibeon-
but he also sees the other side of the splendour, the injury to religious
ideals which has accompanied these achievements. He expresses this

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on November 18, 2014

14

ambivalent view in Units 6 and 7 through the use of material from

early sources whose attitude was one of admiration, but to which he
finds a variety of ways of adding suggestions of criticism. This hinted
criticism joins with the explicit criticism of Units 8 and 9, which
begins with Solomon’s outright sins in multiplying foreign wives and
establishing idolatrous high places; and so a wide-ranging contrast is
set up between the last four units of NSR and the first four, the
description of the Temple mediating between them. This contrast
highlights into prominence the conception of reward and punishment
whereby Solomon’s fidelity to the Lord brings blessing upon him, and
his rule is graced with success, while disloyalty leads to misery and to
his son’s loss of power over the tribes of Israel.

ABSTRACT

After detailed observations on K.I. Parker’s thesis (’Repetition as a Structuring

Device in 1 Kings 1-11’, JSOT 42 ( 1988], pp. 19-27), another theory about the
structure of the narrative of Solomon’s reign in Kings (NSR) is presented. In the
light of literary-theological considerations, the scope of NSR is held to be 1 Kings
1.1-12.24. The narrative consists of 9 units arranged in a concentric structure, at the
centre of which stands the description of the Temple (6.1-9.9). This structure not

only emphasizes the Temple, but also suggests criticism of Solomon after the focal
unit, at first implied and then (from 11.1) explicit. The contrast between the last units
and their parallels gives weight to the concept of reward and punishment: Solomon’ss
loyalty to God yields blessings, whereas disloyalty causes misfortunes climaxing
with his son losing his rule over the tribes of Israel.

Downloaded from jot.sagepub.com at Bar-Ilan university on November 18, 2014