In 1 Kings 9:12-13. Hiram. the male monarch of Tyre. is described as non pleased with the sort of towns that King Solomon has given him. Possibly anticipating for something that would hold equaled all the pine. cedar and gold that he gave Solomon. Hiram questioned the King about the towns that he received. On the other manus. 2 Chronicles 8:2 simply references that Solomon reconstructed the small towns that Hiram had given. after which he settled the Israelites in these small towns.
Following the transitions in 1 Kings 9:10-28. Hiram named the 20 towns in Galilee he received from Solomon as the Land of Cabul. The word “Cabul” means ‘what does non please’ in Phoenician. The fact that the Hiram named the land Solomon has given him “Cabul” suggests that. so. Hiram was non pleased at all with the gestures of the King. Possibly the ground to Hiram’s displeased reaction is that he gave all the pine. cedar and gold that Solomon wanted merely to acquire 20 lands which did non accommodate his gustatory sensation.
It might hold been the instance that Hiram had high outlooks in return of his gestures to Solomon. On the other manus. 2 Chronicles 8:2 suggests that Hiram gave the towns to Solomon alternatively of Solomon purportedly giving Hiram the 20 towns in Galilee in 1 Kings 9:11. In 2 Histories 8:2. it is mentioned that Solomon “rebuilt” the metropoliss he received. connoting that the metropoliss were non in good status. In the same transition. we are besides told that Solomon finally placed the Israelites to populate in those rebuilt metropoliss.
The transition appears to indicate us the thought that Solomon was a male monarch who was out to develop the undeveloped and to spread out his rule through the resources he garnered from his conquerings. Furthermore. Solomon’s work forces together with Hiram’s crewmans returned place from Ophir presenting four hundred and 50 endowments of gold to Solomon in 2 Histories 8:17-18. On the contrary. 1 Kings 9:28 narrates the same fleet of work forces sailing to Ophir but merely presenting four hundred and 20 endowments of gold to Solomon.
The disagreement in the sum of gold delivered suggests at least two thoughts: one is that Solomon was either extremely exultant or non in his feats and two is that he was either a well-respected swayer or non by his topics. In kernel. the histories provided in 2 Histories 8:1-18 suggest that Solomon was a male monarch who was extremely exultant so much so that Hiram was compelled to give him metropoliss which Solomon so rebuilt.
On the other manus. the histories provided in 1 Kings 9:10-28 suggest that Solomon was a swayer who. in general. did non give the appropriate dues to people who expected much from him insomuch as he was a swayer who the royal topics can easy steal from due in portion to a deficiency of honestness and regard. I think the two histories differ with regard to the descriptions of the character and the actions of Solomon because of differing perceptual experiences towards Solomon.
I think the inclusion of the displeased reaction of Hiram in 1 Kings 9:12-13 may propose that some people saw Solomon at the clip of his regulation as person who could merely care less about how other people may see him and respond against his actions. On the contrary. the skip of Hiram’s reaction in 2 Histories 8:2 may propose that how people viewed Solomon with respect to his actions was irrelevant since he may hold been seen as a righteous swayer who provided for his topics their necessities.
In general. the description of Solomon’s reign in 1 Kings is non merely “based on a assortment of beginnings with a different provenance” but besides “displays hints of different phases of redaction” ( Talshir. p. 233 ) or the combination of multiple beginning texts. thereby proposing that the differences in the histories can be mostly attributed to their several authors. In both 2 Samuel 8:1-18 and 1 Histories 18:1-17. the victory of David in all of his wars are narrated.
In all of the wars revealed in the two histories. David is portrayed as an able leader who is really much capable of occupying districts and still non burying to do offerings to God such as the gold and Ag feats. Both histories agree that the Lord helped David wherever he went. bespeaking that the Lord was pleased with the attempts of David. However. one major difference between the two histories is that. in 2 Samuel 8:2. David is described as holding been able to get the better of the Moab forces which was followed by the executing the few staying Moabites.
In the choice procedure. the Moabites were made to lie on the land in a line and those who were within two lines were put to decease while those in the 3rd length were given the opportunity to populate under the regulation of David. Apparently. nil about the procedure of the executing was reference throughout 1 Histories 18:1-17. The inclusion of the description of the executing of the Moabites in 2 Samuel 8:2 gives a unsmooth image of how David was purportedly pitiless towards his conquered topics.
The transition gives us the feeling that. although David was sort adequate to “randomly” let some of the Moabites to populate. he was however a leader and a warrior who showed small mercy towards those who have survived the onslaught of his ground forcess. The apparently elaborate history of the executing of the Moabites creates an eerie mental environment. looking as a ocular reminder that David was a vanquisher who displayed his authorization and power with small clemency. And yet. David is still portrayed in the same transition as an staying retainer of the Lord who ne’er forgets to supply his offerings to God.
It signifies that. since the Lord helped David wherever he went. nil can stand against the manner and the temperament of David. In kernel. it appears that the place of the author in 2 Samuel 8:1-18 is that David was a devout retainer of the Lord while being a ruthless vanquisher who can easy take the lives of his conquered topics harmonizing to his will. On the other manus. the author of 1 Chronicles 18:1-17 seems to propose that David was blessed by the Lord and that he was a leader who devoutly served and gave offerings to the Lord without the intimation of pitilessness revealed in 2 Samuel 8:2.
The two histories differ chiefly because David. I think. was a swayer hated in his clip by those who became victims of his military actions. It is hence non surprising that at least one history refering to David’s military progresss gave several inside informations about how people were executed depending on the determination of David. However. those who saw David as a righteous swayer and those who benefitted from his victory are more inclined to set David on a more positive respect. Roddy L.
Braun suggests that the Chronicler—the author of the book of Chronicles—presents David’s kingship as “greeted by the assorted battalions of Israel with immediate and enthusiastic unanimity” ( Braun. p. 503 ) unlike the several authors of Samuel and Kings. Such fluctuations in Hagiographas can barely be reconciled about wholly and that the lone manner to avoid the barbarous circle that can get down from the failure to accommodate the histories. as Sara Japhet suggests. is “by analyzing the affair from its positive aspects—not from what is omitted. but from what is existent” ( Japhet. P.
206 ) . Therefore. it is non needfully the instance that the differences in the histories mean that one history is true and the other is non. While Solomon may be portrayed in Kings rather otherwise from Chronicles or while David may be portrayed in Samuel otherwise from Chronicles. the differences may non basically mean the truthfulness or falsity of either one of the histories.
Rather. the presence of extra inside informations in the each history provides more insight into the lives of Kings David and Solomon. Works Cited Braun. Roddy L. “Solomonic Apologetic in Chronicles. ” Journal of Biblical Literature 92. 4 ( 1973 ) : 503-16. Japhet. Sara. “Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles. ” Journal of Biblical Literature 98. 2 ( 1979 ) : 205-18. Talshir. Zipora. “The Reign of Solomon in the Making. ” Vetus Testamentum 50. 2 ( 2000 ) : 233-49