King Solomon and the ‘Anatomy’ of Wisdom

Introduction: The Body and Royal Ideology

‘In politics, stature is everything,’ stated the handsome, 6′2″ presidential candidate, William Conway, in a U.S. Television series, House of Cards, echoing royal ideologies from across many cultural milieus in the ancient Near East (ANE). In recognition of this, recent studies of kingship in general and Israelite kingship in particular have been dominated by a focus on the body and its physicality. ¹ Thus, a number of scholars have explored the construction of royal bodies in text and image in antiquity, interrogating the interplay between the physique of various monarchs, their legitimation, and competence. ² Focusing on this dynamic in cuneiform sources, for example, I. Winter explains that Mesopotamian textual and visual materials produced a set of ideal attributes for the royal body, consisting of ‘an accumulation of good form or breeding, auspiciousness, vigor/vitality, and, specifically, sexual allure or charm’ (Winter, 1996: 11–12, 19). Discussing Naram-Sin and other kings who follow him, Winter argues that they construct their ‘body’ ideology based on The Epic of Gilgamesh, which ascribes extraordinary strength and sexual vigour to the young ruler of Uruk. Additionally, in Mesopotamian omen texts, a king’s perfect body, especially its right side, was viewed as a good portent for the king’s nation (Winter, 1996: 12). Likewise, in his analysis of the body of the king in ancient Israel, M.W. Hamilton surveys the Deuteronomistic History, royal Psalms, and prophets exploring their conceptualization(s) of kingship by means of the materiality of the royal body and its performance in military, religio-political and private domains (Hamilton, 2005). ³ In fact, in 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 Kings, Saul (1 Sam. 9.2; 10.23–24), David (1 Sam. 16.12; 17.42), Absalom (2 Sam. 14.25–26) and Adonijah (1 Kgs 1.6) are described as exceptionally handsome men. Using studies on the body as a means of communication, Hamilton observes that when David appears on the scene, the reference to his looks (1 Sam. 16.12; 17.42) is ‘not merely a bit of physiognomatic trivia, but a serious attempt to address the question of how a king’s body should appear’, and in 1 Samuel, David is cast ‘as a high-status male of the sort who could become king’ (Hamilton, 2005: 129). He also points out that ‘[w]hen juxtaposed with the Saul story, then, this exchange on David’s body is an attempt to deconstruct a simplistic understanding of the royal body in which mere stature and impressive musculature suffice as an icon of kingship’ (Hamilton, 2005: 129–30, 135). Granted, in 1 Samuel 16, the size of David’s body appears to be of no relevance to his election for kingship, and in fact, a more superior body is bypassed in the process, i.e. that of Eliab (1 Sam. 16.6–7). Yet, the interest in his exterior, and in that of other royal males, does persist. In the context of such enduring body rhetoric in relation to the throne, it is surprising that 1 Kings 1–11 offers no commentary on Solomon’s physique. Despite the lack of an explicit characterization of Solomon’s appearance, Solomon’s material, however, is not entirely devoid of body politics. Unlike his predecessors’ portrayal, Solomon’s description in 1 Kings 1–11 is inwardly oriented, with his characterization focusing on his heart as a signifier of wisdom and the multifaceted accomplishments as its outcome.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that a large number of ancient texts do not dichotomize their presentation of subjects, divine and human―that is, they combine the description of one’s body with a notation on their wisdom, collapsing both the somatic and noetic greatness into a single profile. This double focus, for example, is found in the depiction of Marduk, who was exceedingly wise and whose ‘figure was well developed’, whose ‘members were incomprehensibly wonderful’ (EE I 87, 93) (Lambert, 2013: 55). It is part of Gilgamesh’s portrayal, as he is both wise and ‘…perfect in [his] beauty, by human standards [he was] very handsome’ (GE I, 61–62) (George, 2003: 543). It is likewise present in King Adad-Nirari II’s propagandistic self-description – ‘the state of my members they [the gods] have brought to perfection, so that my lordly body heaped up wisdom’ (Grayson, 1976: 85). The king of Tyre in Ezekiel is said to be ‘the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty’ (Ezek. 28.12), and the matriarch Sarai in the Genesis Apocryphon, with all her beauty, also possessed great wisdom (1QapGen 20 7–8). Overlaying individuals’ body-scapes with wisdom qualities, these texts, as it were, merismically create ideological ‘dossiers’ of comprehensive personal excellence. Arguably then, if one aspect of the characterizing ‘merism’ is omitted, i.e. ‘external’/physical or ‘internal’/noetic, the remaining one is brought into starker relief. This is particularly significant for Solomon, whose reign comes after the reign of David, at whose anointing God unequivocally says that unlike humans who care about the exterior, he cares about the ‘stuff’ on the inside (1 Sam. 16.7). As will be argued below, decoupling beauty and wisdom, 1 Kings subordinates the former to the latter; ultimately, however, it subordinates the latter to the Torah. ⁴

The nexus between the body and its sentient faculties has already been addressed in a number of articles and monographs. Thus, for example, in a series of publications, N. Shupak has analysed those organs of the body which appear in Egyptian and Israelite sources related to the world of education and wisdom (Shupak, 1985, 1987, 1993, 2003). M. Malul in turn has explored biblical epistemology subdividing the concept of knowledge into cognitive, sensory and practical knowledge and examining core terminology associated with each domain. Assessing the language for internal and external processes involved in cognition, he investigated the various senses and their corresponding sense organs (Malul, 2002; cf. Avrahami, 2012). Although L. Quick’s work on the body in 4QWiles of the Wicked Woman is not primarily concerned with wisdom per se, she does helpfully observe that in antiquity, ‘the body itself was understood to be a sentient object’ (Quick, 2020: 242). Building on these and similar studies, the following discussion will explore the construction of Solomon’s wisdom in 1 Kings 1–11 via bodily features engaged in knowledge acquisition, knowledge transference and knowledge application. With this restricted focus, this study will analyse ways in which 1 Kings magnifies royal wisdom by means of rhetorically enlarged body parts, by the conflation of organs of cognition and their functions, and via a comparison of the king to the well-established icons of sagacity. ⁵ It will argue that while 1 Kings continues to use the body as a means of communication, the messages and emphases within the text are readjusted in search of a differently nuanced model of kingship. With the failed attempts to ascend the throne by Absalom and Adonijah, both of whom were handsome, the Deuteronomistic ideals of kingship are now tested out on Solomon via an introspective look at his inner ‘assets’. ⁶

With respect to the highly laudatory presentation of Solomon’s reign in 1 Kings 1–10, K.L. Younger, Jr., explains that in ‘describing the splendour of their kingdoms, most kings of varying political and economic power of many different nations in the ancient Near East utilized a great amount of hyperbole since this most effectively communicated their royal ideology’ (Younger, 1990: 162). ⁷ Additionally, a number of scholars have demonstrated that some biblical traditions likewise employ excessive, overly emphatic language, which is not coincidental and/or inconsequential to their overall messages. Using these insights and examining strategies of scribal subversion in 1 Kings 1–11, E.A. Seibert in turn asserts that when encountered in the text, ‘exaggerated rhetoric’ and ‘superfluous assurances’ should be carefully considered. In fact, he claims, ‘political propaganda – a literary technique known for rhetorical excess – seems to have been one very effective way to disguise scribal subversion’ (Seibert, 2006: 88). ⁸ Thus, he argues, 1 Kings 1–11 abounds in subversive elements which are embedded in a pro-Solomonic material. The following analysis will offer a reading of Solomon’s wisdom by dissecting and evaluating its building blocks – the heart, the ear and the innards/guts – as part of 1 Kings’ characterization of the king, which is fraught with rhetorical excess. This selective focus on Solomon’s anatomy of wisdom will in the end lead to broader observations regarding the king and his reign in 1 Kings 1–11.

Solomon’s ‘Hearing Heart’

As pointed out by Younger, hyperbole is characteristic of ANE royal accounts in general and ‘the utopian ideological language’ of the Solomonic narrative in particular (Younger, 1990: 162). The first example of excess in the construction of Solomon’s embodied wisdom concerns his heart. ⁹ The prominence of this organ in Solomon’s material emerges in an oneiric dialogue with God at Gibeon, where the king prays for a ‘hearing heart’/לב שמע‎ to govern and to judge God’s people (1 Kgs 3.9, 11). ¹⁰ As the seat of sentience, volition and agency, the heart is an essential element in the Deuteronomistic discourse on piety in general (e.g. Deut. 4.29; 6.5, 6; 10.12; 11.13; 13.4; 26.16; 30.2) and royal piety in particular (e.g. Deut. 17.14–20; 1 Sam. 10.9; 13.14; 1 Kgs 2.4; 3.6; 9.4; 14.8). Hence, as noted by W.A. Brueggemann, by asking God for a wise/hearing heart, Solomon longs to be ‘a good, Yahweh-oriented, Torah-informed king’ (Brueggemann, 2000: 48). In the words of N.H Snaith, he seeks to be ‘the perfect Deuteronomic king’ (Snaith, 1954: 41, 42). Furthermore, in the case of some kings, the heart appears in the so-called incomparability formulae, in other words, superlative evaluations of kings and their performance (e.g. 2 Kgs 23.25) (Knoppers, 1992: 412, 413). The incomparability formula in 1 Kings 1–11 likewise features the heart to speak of Solomon’s pre-eminence, and in his material, it is specifically linked to his wisdom – ‘I give you a wise and understanding heart unlike any which has ever preceded you; nor shall anyone like you arise again’ (1 Kgs 3.12). In fact, G. Knoppers argues that both Solomon’s dream and the incomparability formula in 1 Kings 3 do not legitimize him as a king but set out ‘the particular contours of his reign’, in other words, wisdom, wealth and fame (Knoppers, 1993: 82).

The element of excess in Solomon’s prayer, however, lies in the qualities that he desires in his ‘heart’, in other words, it needs to be able to ‘hear’. In the ancient world, both the heart and the ear were thought to be involved in epistemological processes. Hence, the skill of hearing/listening was closely associated with wisdom (cf. Prov. 1.8, 33; 4.1, 10–11; 5.1, 7; 8.6, 32–34, etc.), and in educational settings, an ‘ear that hears’/אזן שמעת‎ was a highly desirable asset (Prov. 15.31; cf. 18.15; cf. ‘an attentive ear’/אזן‎ מקשבת‎ [Sira 3.29; 6.32–33]). Furthermore, both Deuteronomy and Proverbs understand listening as listening to God’s commandments, which in turn leads to wisdom (e.g. Deut. 4.5–6). Regarding the phrase ‘a hearing heart’ in 1 Kings 3, N. Shupak notes a parallel in Egyptian literature, citing Amen-ḥetep, a royal architect, who states in his biography that ‘he has a hearing heart (sḏm ib pw) seeking counsel regarding strange things, like one whose heart understands them…’ (Ukr. IV 7–8) (Shupak, 1985: 203–04; cf. Malul, 2002: 148, n. 89). She explains that the expression is a hapax legomenon, although the link between hearing and the heart is also attested to in a set of instructions by Ptaḥḥotep, a Pharaoh’s vizier – ‘He who hears is beloved of God. He who does not hear is one whom God hates. It is the heart which makes of its owner a hearer or a non-hearer’ (Shupak, 1985: 203). She further observes that even though the collocation a ‘hearing heart’ is unique in both Israelite and Egyptian literature, in both cases, it belongs to the ‘texts of the king’s court’ (Shupak, 1985: 205–06). ¹¹ Of relevance here is also the Akkadian ḫissat libbi/ ‘hearing of the heart’, in other words, ‘wisdom’ or ‘cleverness of mind’. Appearing in Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions – for example, of Adad-nirari II (911–891 BCE) and Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 BCE) – this phrase is linked, in some cases, to the fashioning of cultic images and the rebuilding of temples (CAD, Ḫ: 202; Sweet, 1990: 52). ¹² Whatever the origin of the phrase ‘a hearing heart’ in 1 Kings 3, of pertinence here is that it conflates the functions of two organs involved in knowledge acquisition, albeit at different stages – the ear and the heart. Because the ear’s function was ‘to receive information from the outside and to convey it to a person’s interior’ (Shupak, 1993: 276; cf. Shupak, 1987: 113–16), the reshuffling of roles among the body parts involved in this process, and thus bypassing its conventional stages, achieves an accelerated version of discernment. ¹³ As noted by W.A. Brueggemann, Solomon’s prayer indicates that the king seeks not just cleverness or discernment but also that he wants to ‘be attuned to Yahweh’s guidance and purpose for justice’ (Brueggemann, 2000: 48). ¹⁴ As argued here, he asks for an ‘upgrade’ of such qualities and prerogatives.

Furthermore, collapsing the functions of two organs into one, the phrase ‘a hearing heart’, and its ANE counterparts, could be viewed as a case of literary synaesthesia. In a clinical sense, synaesthesia is a psychological condition whereby individuals experience ‘one kind of sensory stimulus simultaneously as another’ (Butler and Purves, 2014: 1). S. Butler explains that ‘[r]oughly contemporary … with modern interest in this clinical phenomenon has been the broader application of synaesthesia to the sensory blending experienced by all readers, synaesthetes or not. This happens through literature’s “use of metaphors in which terms relating to one kind of sense-impression are used to describe sense-impressions of other kinds”…’ (Butler and Purves, 2014: 1; cf. O’Malley, 1957: 391–411). Besides the collocation a ‘hearing heart’, this literary strategy is observed in biblical traditions wherein other surprising abilities and actions are attributed to the heart– such as walking (2 Kgs 5.26; Ezek. 20.16; 33.31; Job 31.7), seeing (Qoh. 1.16–17), touching (Hos. 4.11; Job 15.12), and speaking (Ps. 27.8; Prov. 15.28; 27.2) (Avrahami, 2012: 129). An analogous phenomenon is attested to in passages in which the ear appears to assume the faculties typically associated with the haptic sense, that is, to take/grasp. ¹⁵ Granted, a variety of paradigms for thinking about noetic process(es) in Israel could have been held either concurrently or developed, and adhered to, at different stages in history. ¹⁶ In fact, noting ‘the intermeshing of the internal and external planes of knowledge’ in the Hebrew Bible, Malul argues against rigid, linear schematizations of biblical epistemic processes (Malul, 2002: 148–49). Nevertheless, participating in these intermeshed or ‘synaesthetic’ modes of noetics, Solomon’s prayer highlights hearing among the different ways of experiencing the world, which in turn coheres well with mainstream ANE conceptualizations of wisdom.

Writing on modes of communication in ancient Mesopotamia, B. Foster observes that ‘[t]ransmission of knowledge outside formal education relied on the spoken word… From this process came “understanding,” the basic metaphors for the acquisition of which in Akkadian derived from hearing and tasting. The understanding person had “heard widely,” or “had the taste of” (ṭēmu) something, in his ear and mouth respectively. Through these two portals, the Mesopotamians believed, knowledge was absorbed by the human mind’ (Foster, 2005: 249). ¹⁷ In fact, in Akkadian the words for ‘ear’ (ḫasῑsu(m), uznu(m)), denote both the ear aperture and its function (hearing) and understanding/wisdom, appearing in the profiles of ANE gods and kings from the third to the first millennium BCE. ¹⁸ Conceptualised via an embodied metaphor (i.e. having ‘broad/wide ears’) – géštug gal (Sum.) and uznātu rapšātu (Akk.; cf. palkû ḫasῑsi/uzni) (Seux, 1967: 19–20, 22, 81–82, n. 38, 101–02, 402–03; Kalugila, 1980: 39–61) – wisdom features in the construction of divine powers of discernment. Emphasizing and embellishing the visual and auditory models of cognition, The Babylonian Epic of Creation, for example, portrays the god Marduk as having four large ears and four eyes. ¹⁹ Hence, he is described as ‘incapable of being grasped with the mind, hard even to look on. Four were his eyes, four his ears, … His four ears grew large, And his eyes likewise took in everything’ (EE I 95, 97–98) (Lambert, 2013: 55–56). ²⁰ Later in The Epic, when his fifty names are pronounced, he is designated as ‘Irugga,…, who grasps all wisdom, is comprehensive in understanding [hearing]’ (EE VII 103, 104) (Lambert, 2013: 130–31). Similar terminology appears in the description of Nabu, the god of wisdom, learning and writing, who is said to possess ‘great, broad intelligence [ears]’/lē’u rap-ša uzn[u] (KAR 25 ii 32) and who is ‘vast in wisdom [ears], wise in the art of writing’/rap-šá uzni āšiši šukāmu (ZA 61 50 i 42, 44; [CAD, R: 165–66; CAD, U/W: 369–71]). Likewise, Ninisinna, the goddess of healing, was known for her ‘great (broad) intelligence’/rap-šat uzni, literally, ‘wide ears’ (K.3371:2, 4; [CAD, R: 166]). ²¹ In The Etiological Myth of the Seven Sages, the sages are described as having been endowed by Ea with ‘wide understanding’/[u]z-na ra-pa-áš-ta (Reiner, 1961: 1–11). ²²

Similarly, the vital linkage between hearing and wisdom is attested to in numerous royal accounts, whereby wisdom is cast as a gift from the gods, often bestowed on kings straight from the heart of a deity (Seux, 1967: 22, 81–82, n. 38). Discussing widely used self-referential royal titles, E. Frahm explains that many Mesopotamian kings claim to be ‘wise’.

They use Sumerian epithets such as (lú-)geštug-dagal-la ‘(man) of wide understanding’ (literally, ‘(man) with a wide ear’), lú-igi-gál-tuku ‘knowledgeable man’ (literally, ‘man who has what requires eyes’), or gal-zu-níg-nam-ma ‘who is wise in everything’, and Akkadian ones such as āhiz nēmeqi ‘who has acquired deep wisdom’, eršu ‘crafty’, hāsis kal šipri ‘clever in every type of work’, and mūdû ‘knowledgeable’, among others (Frahm, 2011: 509). ²³

Embedded in propagandistic descriptions of kings, the notion of wisdom located in ‘broad ears’ indicates the kings’ ability to hear and understand communications from the gods. Therefore, this idea represents the derivative nature of royal wisdom ― in other words, it presupposes rulers’ access to the divine realm rather than rulers’ cognitive powers or intelligence (Seux, 1967: 19–20, 22; Sweet, 1990: 65). ²⁴ The ability to commune with the gods and reflect their wisdom back to the subjects, among other things, was often linked to building and restoration projects undertaken by ANE monarchs. ²⁵ Thus, in an inscription regarding the rebuilding of Nineveh, Esarhaddon uses a set of conventional epithets of self-praise, stating, ‘By means of the great intelligence [wide ears] (and) vast understanding [hearing] [that] the sage [of the gods], the prince, the god Nudimmud, gave to me, it occurred to me [to] (re)populate th[at] city, to re[novate] the shrines, (and) to make [the cult center shine…]’ (Leichty, 2011: 197). ²⁶ At another point, he prays to the gods for craftsmen with supernatural wisdom to fashion divine statues and to build a temple: ‘Will it be with human beings who do not hear and do not see, who do not know themselves and whose lives are unknown?’ He then prays for the craftsmen themselves, saying, ‘… give them a high ear (great wisdom) so that they may perform this work like Ea their creator’ (Leichty, 2011: 107; Sweet, 1990: 54–55). In his dedicatory inscription to Marduk (L ⁴ ), Ashurbanipal, Esarhaddon’s successor, boasts of his immense scholarly achievements for which he takes full credit; however, he sees his wisdom as a gift from the gods. ‘Marduk, the sage of the gods, gave me wide understanding and broad perceptions (uz-nu ra-pa-áš-tu ḫa-si-su palku-u) as a gift. Nabû, the scribe of the universe, bestowed on me the acquisition of all his wisdom as a present’ (Livingstone, 2007: 100; Sweet, 1990: 55–56).

Germane to the discussion at hand is that in this apologetic text, Assurbanipal, whose ascension to the throne involved the ‘elimination’ of his older brother(s), emphasizes his extensive education as a principal factor that contributed to his election as king (Finn, 2017: 80). A somewhat similar dynamic can be detected in Solomon’s case – namely his succession to the throne became possible after other contenders to kingship had been removed (1 Kings 1–2) and his wisdom, at least later in life, is equated with his encyclopaedic knowledge (1 Kgs 4.29–34). Hence, despite its initial association with judicial matters (1 Kgs 3.9, 16–28; cf. Deut. 1.16–18), Solomon’s ‘hearing heart’ eventually comes to ‘encompass all the activities (judicial, military, political and cultic) expected of a Deuteronomistic king’ (Wray Beal, 2014: 87). Additionally, because in 1 Kings 3 Solomon converses with God in a dream, he has been compared to other ANE monarchs who receive directives from the gods to build or rebuild cities and/or shrines through nocturnal visions and dreams (Van Leeuwen, 2010: 399–422). Due to Solomon’s mediatory/representative role as a king, Solomon’s synaesthetically ‘upgraded’ heart was supposed to listen in two directions, namely, God-ward and people-ward. ²⁷ Regarding this, it is noteworthy that after 1 Kings 8, which is saturated with Solomon’s pleas for God to hear his people’s supplications (1 Kgs 8.28, 29, 30[x3], 32, 34, 36, 39, 43, 45, 49, 52; cf. 8.59) and to judge their cases (1 Kgs 8.31–32 [cf. 1 Kgs 3.9; 3.16–28]; cf. 1 Kgs 8.44–45, 49), there is no mention of Solomon’s own involvement in his subjects’ legal matters. ²⁸ This in turn may suggest that in his prayer, Solomon reassigns the task of hearing and judging the people back to God, and in so doing, he gives up, at least partially, the gift of the ‘hearing heart’. Additionally, given Solomon’s later apostacy, it becomes clear that at some point the God-ward ‘listening’ also stopped. This cause-and-effect dynamic was already anticipated in the book of Deuteronomy, where ‘[f]ailure to listen [Deut. 4.5–6] (and thus failure at wisdom) leads to idolatry (Deut. 4.15–31)’ (Wray Beal, 2014: 91). ²⁹ Hence, among the ‘wide-eared’ ANE monarchs with the privileged position to listen to their divine patrons, Solomon is the one who stops listening to YWHW (1 Kgs 11.10–11). Incidentally, an Egyptian school text claims that ‘the pupil’s ear is upon his back, he hears when he is flogged’ (Anastasi III 3,13) (Shupak, 1993: 277). In 1 Kings 11, Solomon, a king who stopped listening, is chastised by God through the revolt of foreign monarchs (vv. 14–40), which the Davidic covenant formulates as ‘a rod wielded by men’, as ‘floggings inflicted by human hands’ (2 Sam. 7.14 [NIV]; cf. 1 Kgs 11.11).

The King’s ‘Guts’

The embodied noetics in Solomon’s story is likewise seen in the case of two harlots and one child in 1 Kings 3. In it, Solomon demonstrates his judicial competence by listening closely to the plaintiff and the defendant. As noted by many, in deciding the case at hand, the king is able to take notice of the rare word ילוד‎/a ‘newborn/baby’ used by the biological mother for her child and, among other things, this term of endearment helps him ‘hear’/discern her true maternity (vv. 26, 27). Additionally, however, it is worth noting that after Solomon’s ruling, his subjects recognize that he had judicial wisdom from God ‘inside him’/בקרבו‎ (v. 28). ³⁰ Of significance for the discussion at hand is that קרב‎/‘the inner part’ of the body, like ‘the heart’/לב‎, could hold and accommodate both noetic and affective processes. As S. Rattray and J. Milgrom observe, ‘[t]houghts, emotions, dispositions, and other abstract qualities were thought of as being localized “inside” human beings’ (Rattray, Milgrom, 1974: 150). ³¹ Relatedly, the idea that wisdom could be housed in one’s interior/belly is attested to in ancient Egypt, as seen from the phrase ‘casket of the belly.’ N. Shupak explains that the word for ‘casket’/hnw in Egyptian literature represents ‘a box, a receptacle for books. [Hence,] the belly is a casket containing thoughts, plans and words, instead of books’ (Shupak, 1993: 295–96). ³² As will be shown below, in Egypt’s sapiential texts, to inflate one’s wisdom, one’s belly could be rhetorically enlarged – that is described as a wide, spacious granary. Similar symbolism and similar ‘expansionist’ strategies are detected in the Akkadian formulae ṣurru šad-lu karaš šitūlti/‘[of] broad/far-reaching mind/heart, wise in counsel’ and šadlu ṣur-ru karaš ritpāšu/‘[of] wide mind/heart, wide-hearted’, as the semantic field of ṣurru and karšu can include ‘stomach’, ‘belly’, and ‘womb’ as well as ‘heart’ (CAD, Ṣ: 260; CAD, Š/1: 49; CAD, K: 225).

Of interest here is that the corporeal aspect in the construction of Solomon’s wisdom – ‘the wisdom of God was inside him’ – features in the case of two mothers battling for one child. In this story, the language of embodiment, proximity and intimacy is present throughout (מאצלי‎/‘from my side’; בחיקה‎/‘by her breast’; בחיקי‎/‘by my breast’ [v. 20]), but it becomes particularly prominent, when the disputed child is about to be cut in two – that is, the biological mother becomes distraught, and her compassion for the baby burns within her/כי־נכמרו רחמיה על־בנה‎ (v. 26). The Hebrew word representing compassion (רחמיה‎) is derived from רחם‎/‘womb’, which in this context cannot be overlooked. That is, in a complicated case of two women and one baby, the biological mother’s ‘womb’ burns inside her, the king observes it and gives a wise ruling. ³³ With heightened emphasis on the royal heart earlier in the chapter, it is worth noting that it is not Solomon’s heart that is said to accommodate his wisdom in this story (cf. 1 Kgs 10.24) but rather his guts, his innards; it is his visceral noetics (חכמת אלהים בקרבו‎) that are recognized by his subjects as his judicial genius (לעשות משפט‎ [v. 28]). Incidentally, in addition to the general idea of ‘inside,’ the term קרב‎ could also stand for the womb of a pregnant woman, as is seen from its usage in Gen. 25.22. ³⁴ Hence, deciding the fate of a baby, the text brings two bellies together – maternal and royal – amplifying, among other forms of intelligence, Solomon’s primal instincts, his intuition. ³⁵ Since in 1 Kings 3, Solomon deals with a challenging dispute between two social outcasts, his performance reflects the skills of Moses’ legal mind (‘bring me any case too hard for you’ [Deut. 1.17]) and the impartial judging Moses expected of his leaders (‘hear both small and great alike’ [Deut. 1.17]). Although Solomon’s קרב‎ does not feature in the censuring portion of his chronicle (1 Kings 11), alongside other elements of corporeality in his profile, it does contribute to the overall rhetoric of subversion. Highlighting Solomon’s role as a judge, a role he eventually abandons, קרב‎ anticipates a shift in Solomon’s values and priorities and thus underscores the king’s later downfall.

Solomon’s ‘Oversized’ Heart

Another element of subversion in Solomon’s anatomy of wisdom appears in 1 Kings 4, namely that Solomon was gifted with a breadth of understanding (literally, ‘broadness of heart’/רחב לב‎) as measureless as the sand on the seashore (1 Kgs 4.29 [ET]; cf. 3.12). As indicated earlier, in biblical construction(s) of personhood, the heart serves as a repository for thought, conscience, emotions and agency (Fabry (1974–): 399–434). In the book of Deuteronomy and wisdom texts, the heart is further profiled as a receptacle of God’s commandments, of his Torah (McConville, 2013: 137). Of further significance here is that even though a number of texts speak of the importance and desirability of having a wise heart (e.g., Prov. 16.23; 22.17–18; 23.12, 15; 29.8; cf. Eccl. 9.1; Ps. 90.12), in some traditions a לב‎/‘heart’ in itself, without further descriptors, can represent wisdom or intelligence (Job 11.12; 12.3; Prov. 15.32). The lack of these qualities, however, is communicated by the collocation חסר־לב‎/‘a lacking/vacuous/or an altogether absent heart’ (Prov. 6.32; 7.7; 9.4, 16; 10.13, 21; etc.; cf. 28.16 [חסר תבונות‎]), which according to some texts is a fatal misfortune. ³⁶ Given such usage of the heart in sapiential texts and the ‘broadness of heart’/רחב לב‎ in 1 Kings 4, one can think of wisdom, or its absence, in terms of the rhetorical spectrum constructed by means of hearts of varied proportions – a nonexistent heart/חסר־לב‎, a normal-sized one/לב‎, and the one that is enlarged/רחב לב‎. In light of this, the augmentation of Solomon’s ‘heart’ in his profile as a sage-king pushes him away from the centre of the scale, which already signifies wisdom and puts him in a category all by himself, in other words, he is really wise. In fact, Solomon’s ‘oversized’ heart is rhetorically correlated with his equally ‘oversized’ kingdom, as both are said to be ‘as vast as the sand by the sea’ (1 Kgs 4.20, 29; cf. 3.8, 9); such correlation in turn positions him as an ideal, that is, perfectly equipped and thus perfectly matched, ruler for his people. As has been demonstrated earlier (and will be further illustrated below), the tendency to modify and/or amplify body parts in self-referential, propagandistic rhetoric was a conventional way of representing superior wisdom in antiquity.

Regarding the collocation ‘broadness of heart’/רחב לב‎ in 1 Kings 4, of relevance for the discussion at hand is that Psalm 119 links a similar concept to Torah piety. In the Psalm, against some adversarial forces, the psalmist reflects on the benefits of Torah study, stating that God through his word enlarges the psalmist’s heart (כי תרחיב לבי‎ [v. 32]). ³⁷ In another vignette, he uses the language of ‘broadness’ to speak of his transformed circumstances, which again is attained through a focused engagement with the Torah – ‘I will walk about in freedom/ברחבה‎ [literally, ‘in a broad space’], for I have sought out your precepts’ (v. 45; cf. Ps. 18.37; Job 36:16). Later, however, he observes that the Torah itself, or its commandments, are ‘exceedingly broad’/רחבה מצותך מאד‎ (v. 96). ³⁸ Although, belonging to a different stanza, the following verses (vv. 98–100) state that God’s commandment makes the psalmist wiser than his enemies (מאיבי תחכמני‎ מצותך‎), more understanding than all his teachers (מכל־מלמדי השכלתי‎), and more discerning than the aged (מזקנים אתבונן‎). Cumulatively then, Psalm 119 suggests that when one’s heart is made ‘broad’ by the Torah, whose precepts are likewise ‘broad,’ one’s existence is marked by freedom, literally, ‘breadth/spaciousness.’ Noting that the phrase כי תרחיב לבי‎ in Ps. 119.32 is rare, K.A. Reynolds links it with רחב לב‎ in 1 Kings 4, stating that it refers to enhanced intellectual powers, hence wisdom. In support of his reading, he cites Prov. 4.10–19, where following the sage’s admonition, a young man is envisaged as being able to run unhindered, presumably in the way of wisdom (ואם־‎ תרוץ לא תכשל‎ [Prov. 4.12]). Relatedly, Ps. 119.32 speaks of running in the way of God’s commandments (דרך־מצותיך ארוץ‎) connecting it to the psalmist’s ‘enlarged heart’ (Reynolds, 2010: 195–96). Such a kinaesthetic mode of Torah piety and the increased noetics as its outcome in Psalm 119 cohere well with a broad Deuteronomistic vision of royal piety in 1 Kings 1–11, whereby the king is expected to walk in obedience to God and keep his decrees and commands (1 Kgs 2.3; 3.3, 14; 6.12; 9.4–7; 11.33, 38; cf. 8.6–9) (George, 2002: 442–59). ³⁹ Hence, as noted by K.I. Parker, Solomon’s wisdom and judicial shrewdness are ‘contingent upon his obedience to the Torah’ (Parker, 1992: 78).

Furthermore, the aforesaid element of surplus in the construction of Solomon’s wisdom is also present in a claim that he was wiser than all the sages of the East and Egypt (1 Kgs 4.29–34; cf. 10.23). Regarding this assertion, W. Brueggemann states that ‘the references to “east” and “Egypt” intend to encompass the entire world of learning that was on the horizon of the narrative’ (Brueggemann, 2005: 116). ⁴⁰ In the book of Proverbs, a sage with a Solomonic alias likewise implements a merism but of a cosmic calibre circumscribing the unsearchableness of royal hearts onto the high heavens and the deep earth (Prov. 25.3). In Ezekiel’s polemic against the prince of Tyre, the Tyrian goes further and usurps ‘the heart of God(s)’/לב אלהים‎ (Ezek. 28.2, 6). Containing ‘fantastic dimensions of his hubris’ (Block, 1998: 94–97), Ezekiel’s diatribe confronts the prince on a few fronts – excessive arrogance (גבה לבך‎ [vv. 2, 5, 17]), wrongly assumed divinity and misused wisdom (Hamilton, 2005: 229–31). ⁴¹ Inflating Solomon’s wisdom merismically and placing him alongside ANE sages, 1 Kings 4 calls for a consideration of embodied wisdom in extrabiblical sources. ⁴² Of pertinence here is that the collocation ‘broadness of heart’/רחב לב‎ from 1 Kings 4 resonates with ANE formulations which rhetorically augment body parts associated with knowledge, theoretical or otherwise. Thus, speaking of the belly (the seat of intelligence), and the heart housed within, an Egyptian text, Pap Deir el Médineh I, employs a set of similes to connote the idea of exceptional wisdom – ‘As for the belly of a man, it is wider than granary, deeper than a deep pool, a man’s field-hedge, which is impossible to encompass, and the heart is the guard (of the belly)’ (r. 5, 2–6) (Shupak, 1993: 293, 407). ⁴³ Stretching the dimensions of the belly, and by extension those of the heart sheltered inside, such metaphorization of wisdom via corporeal and architectural symbolism attains a superlative quality.

On the other hand, in cuneiform sources, phrases such as ṣurru šad-lu karaš šitūlti/‘[of] broad/far-reaching heart, wise in counsel’ or šadlu ṣur-ru karaš ritpāšu/‘[of] wide mind/heart, wide-hearted’ (CAD, Ṣ: 260; CAD, Š/1: 49; CAD, K: 225) appear in the profiles of gods, heroes, kings and sages, indicating their wisdom and/or extraordinary intellect. ⁴⁴ Thus, in Enuma Elish, Marduk is described as someone whose ‘mind/heart is wide, his heart is all-controlling’/ra-pa-áš lib-ba-šú la-a-ʾ-iṭ ka-ras-su (EE VI 138) (Lambert, 2013: 118–19). He also possesses a ‘heart’ that is deep and a ‘mind’ (heart/inside) that is wide/ru-u-qu lìb-ba-šú ra-pa-aš ka-ra-as-su (EE VII 155) (Lambert, 2013: 132–33; CAD, R: 155). ⁴⁵ In a similar vein, Sargon declares that he was endowed with intelligence and broad knowledge (šadal kar-še/‘broad/wide heart/interior’) by Ea and Belet-Ili, which enabled him to be a successful military leader (TCL 3 23 [CAD, K: 225; Kalugila, 1980: 54–56]). Sennacherib in turn is portrayed as ^dNIN.ŠI.KÙ iddina kar-šú ritpāšu, namely being provided by Ninšῑku with ‘spacious mind/inner core/heart’ (CAD, K: 225), ⁴⁶ and Assurbanipal is said to be šadlu ṣur-ru karaš ritpāšu/‘[of] wide mind/heart, wide-hearted’ (CAD, K: 225; CAD, Ṣ: 260). Combining body parts standing for the seat of intellect (e.g. ṣurru/‘heart’, ‘stomach’, ‘inside’, karšu/karašu/‘stomach’, ‘interior of the body’, ‘heart’) with adjectives such as šadlu/‘wide/broad’ or the verb rapāšu/‘to be/become broad/enlarged’, similar epithets appear in other texts, increasing the wisdom of renowned individuals and echoing Solomon’s skill set in 1 Kings 4 (Sweet, 1990: 53–57). Gifted with such qualities, these heroes and kings are praised for excelling in a multitude of domains – administration, military operations, monumental building projects, scribal arts, and so on. Endowed with ‘an oversized heart’, Solomon in turn is ‘able to take care of the organization of his kingdom, to bring prosperity and peace to his land and people, to carry out the building of the temple and to administer justice. He is also said to possess immense knowledge, including science as well as fine arts and philosophy (1 Kgs 5:12–13)’ (Gillmayr-Bucher, 2013: 73–74). ⁴⁷

Formulated as an ‘enlarged heart’, the surplus of Solomon’s wisdom, however, is one of the elements of subversion in his characterization. Against the vision set out in the so-called law of the king – that is, not to acquire many horses, not to take numerous wives, and not to accumulate wealth, but to adhere to the Torah (Deut. 17.14–20; cf. 7.1–4) – 1 Kings 10–11 indicates that Solomon violated these prohibitions (1 Kgs 10.26, 27; 11.1–4). ⁴⁸ Relatedly, his apostasy is presented through a heart-based pun – the heart of Solomon/שלמה‎ was no longer faithful/שלם‎ to Yahweh (1 Kgs 11.4; cf. 8.61). Fragmented via dangerous liaisons, Solomon’s ‘wide heart’ in the end proved to be deficient. Furthermore, with its dense concentration of ‘hearts’ (x6), 1 Kings 11 brings three hearts together, explicitly or implicitly – two royal and one divine. First, it compares Solomon’s heart with that of his father, finding Solomon’s inferior to David’s on the devotion and self-awareness fronts ― that is, David walked before God in ‘uprightness’ (בישרת לבב‎) and ‘integrity’ of heart (בְּתָם־לֵבָ֣ב‎) (1 Kgs 3.6; 9.4; cf. 1 Kgs. 11.4, 6) and his heart was able to ‘strike him’ (ויך לב־דוד אתו‎), that is, to show remorse after having sinned (1 Sam 24.5 [ET]; 2 Sam 24.10). Despite Solomon’s prayer for similar virtues in him and his subjects in 1 Kings 8, they seem to be missing in Solomon in his old age. Secondly, indicting the king for apostasy, the text also states that Solomon’s heart turned away from YHWH (vv. 4, 9) and mentions competing sanctuaries built by the king for foreign deities (vv. 7, 8). By adding these shrines to the charges against Solomon, the text brings YHWH’s own temple, and his heart housed by it (1 Kgs 9.3), into the diatribe. Contextually then, the king’s heart is cast as having turned away from God’s own heart (cf. 1 Kgs 8.58). ⁴⁹ Triangulating these hearts to spotlight Solomon’s infidelity, the text underscores the deficit of his character.

Additionally, with such focus on the king’s interior, the text echoes traditions with the ‘attack on the royal heart’ motif dealing primarily with arrogant foreigners – the king of Assyria and ‘the greatness of his heart’/גדל לבב‎ (Isa. 10.12; cf. 9.9), the king of Babylon and his ambitious heart (Isa. 14.13–14), the prince of Tyre and his ‘raised up heart’/גבה לבך‎ (Ezek. 28.2, 5, 17; cf. לב אלהים‎), the king of South and his ‘lifted up heart’/רם לבב‎ (Dan. 11.12[ק‎]). Read intertextually with 1 Kings 11, these polemics against foreign rulers and their hearts variously ‘amplified’, bring an added degree of censure to Israel’s monarch. Moreover, unpacking the pun in 1 Kgs 11.4, M. Garsiel states that since Solomon/שלמה‎ was no longer faithful to God/לא …שלם‎, he was no longer ‘Solomon’, and he was no longer himself (Garsiel, 1991: 206, 280, n. 90; Weitzman, 2011: 13–14). Hence, a trajectory from a ‘wide-hearted’ sage-king to a monarch whose loyalty to God is irreparably compromised is a trajectory to self-erasure. ⁵⁰ Also, because Solomon’s ‘oversized’ heart is a match for his ‘oversized’ kingdom (1 Kgs 4.20, 29), the fragmentation of the former anticipates the impending fragmentation of the latter. Recalling the stipulations of the covenant with David, 1 Kings 11 indicates that the course of Israel’s monarchy will be changed forever.

Conclusion

Discussing ANE royal inscriptions marked by metaphoric language, Younger observed that within such language there is ‘a stratification of meaning, in which an incongruity of sense on one level produces an influx of significance on another’ (Younger, 1990: 164). Rhetorically altered, Solomon’s ‘enlarged heart’ and ‘the heart that hears’ are physical aberrations; they are anatomical incongruities. Embedded in an ideological document, however, they create an ‘influx of significance’, boosting Solomon’s status and competence as a sage-king. Within the broader context of his reign, however, these incongruities deconstruct his misappropriated wisdom, leading to the de/construction of his royal ideology. The surplus of wisdom granted to the king at the beginning of his reign eventually becomes corroded and disintegrates into a striking lack of character. With his natural (1 Kgs 2.6, 9) and preternatural powers of discernment (1 Kings 3, 4), along with his love (1 Kgs 3.3), Solomon was on course to surpass his father (1 Kgs 1.37, 47) and become the next ‘benchmark’ by which future kings could be measured. However, in the end, his ‘wide/broad’ heart was found lacking. ⁵¹ As indicated earlier, separating the royal ‘exterior’/beauty and the royal ‘interior’/wisdom in Solomon’s material, the text subordinates the former to the latter. Ultimately, however, it subordinates the latter to a much higher ideal, namely the Torah. Regarding Israel’s discourses on power, politics, religion and gender, M. Hamilton argued that biblical texts circumscribe them on the royal body (Hamilton, 2005: 2). As has been argued here, in 1 Kings 1–11, these discourses are mapped onto the royal ‘oversized’ and synaesthetically ‘upgraded’ heart and its marked transformation within the Solomonic narrative. Channelling these discourses, the heart becomes one of the vehicles of the Deuteronomistic critique of the king. As previously mentioned, according to William Conway, a presidential hopeful in House of Cards, ‘In politics, stature is everything.’ Bypassing the exterior and focusing on the noetic dimension of Solomon’s profile, 1 Kings 1–11 indicates that in the Deuteronomistic vision of kingship, character is a harder currency.