1) And the Lord gave insight to Solomon, and very great wisdom and a broad heart like the sand at the sea.
2) And the wisdom of Solomon increased beyond the insight of the ancient sons and beyond all the insightful [people] of Egypt.
3) And Solomon took the daughter of Pharaoh [as] a wife. And he brought her into the city of David until he finished it, his building the house and the house of the Lord at first and the wall surrounding Jerusalem. In seven years he made [them] and finished [them] and completed [them].
4) And for Solomon there were 70,000 of lifters lifting and 80,000 quarriers in the mountain.
5) And Solomon made the sea and the supports and the great wash-basins and the pillars and the fountains of the courtyard and the bronze sea. And he built the citadel and its fortification. And he divided the city of David.
6) Thus the daughter of Pharaoh went up from the city of David to her house, the one that Solomon built her. And then he built the citadel.
7) And Solomon offered thrice in the year burnt offerings and peace offerings on the altar that he built the Lord and he burned incense before the Lord. And he finished the house.
8) And these [were] the officers, the ones in charge of the work of the king, Solomon: 3700 commanders of the people of the laborers of the work.
9) And he built the Assoud and the Magdo and the Gazer and the Baithoron and the Ano and the Baldath.
10) Only after his building the Lord-house and the wall surrounding Jerusalem, after these he built these cities.
11) And in David’s still living [= while David was still alive], he commanded Solomon, saying, “Dude! With you is Semei son of Gera son of Iemenei [= the Benjaminite] from Gabatha.
12) “And this one cursed me [with]a dreadful curse on the day that I went to the barracks.
13) “And he went down, me to meet upon the Jordan. And I sword to him by the Lord, saying ‘If I will kill you with the sword…’
14) “And now: not will you leave him unpunished, for a man of insight [are] you. And you will know what you will do to him. And you will bring down his gray hair in blood to Hades.”

Comments on the Text

This lengthy plus in the Greek traditions when contrasted with MT contains a number of distinctions among the Greek versions, but mostly the texts share common readings. For example, vv. 1, 5, and 14 are identical in Ant. and LXX. Other verses are essentially identical, but for minor differences. Thus, Ant. in v. 6 includes an “and” lacking in LXX before the final phrase, the word for “three” in v. 7 differs between the versions, v. 10 in Ant. lacks a definite article before “Lord” (thus the unusual translation above which allows the article before “house” to perform double-duty), and v. 12 in Ant. begins with a conjunction missing in LXX, as well as attesting a demonstrative pronoun after “day” that is missing in LXX. These minor differences hardly change the meaning and the priority of one reading over the other can only be determined with some difficulty and, likely, with recourse to a Hebrew text no longer transmitted in the form attested by the Greek here (though scattered throughout 1 Kings 1–11). Other differences are more substantial and deserve more attention.

The Greek attests different words for the first case of “wisdom” of v. 2. The word attested in Ant. is clearly recensional, as I (and others) have argued elsewhere. To describe his wisdom, LXX includes “very,” which Ant. lacks. The “ancient sons” appear in two transposed versions. In both of these latter cases as well, one could certainly argue that Ant. appears to be a recensional attempt to correct the text more toward a Vorlage like 5:10 in MT. That could suggest that LXX has priority in every case in this verse (and it is not even internally consistent with its repetition of this information in 5:10).

The Lucianic text (Ant.) includes the subject “Solomon” and “[as] a wife” in the first phrase of v. 3. When compared with the Masoretic transmission of this information found in 3:1b, LXX appears more similar, suggesting it might be recensional in this case. The verbal clause describing his finishing building the house and the temple is different in the versions, with Ant. presenting a more cumbersome and perhaps unrevised version. Particularly the lack of specificity about the first house mentioned piques the reader’s curiosity. The versions use different words for “around.” One could argue that Ant. is more consistent, using the same term in v. 10—which LXX does not—but it is perhaps as likely that LXX represents an error rooted in dittography with the following word. The verse in Ant. essentially ends with a duplicate translation for “and he finished,” which is both superfluous and something that reoccurs with the Ant. text of Kings at various points.

Verse 4 opens with plural (Ant.) vs. singular (LXX) verb. LXX betters matches the Hebrew usage and could be regarded as stemming from a recension, though the Ant. reading is better Greek. Similarly, the “lifters” are in the nominative case in LXX, but in the genitive in Ant., with Ant. again attesting the better Greek. Determining priority in these cases remains difficult, though I tend to favor LXX presenting a revision toward the Hebrew usage in each case.

Two more substantive differences appear in v. 8: Ant. includes the title “king” before Solomon’s name and reads 3700 vs. LXX’s 3600. In these cases, LXX better reflects the Masoretic transmission of this information at 5:30, meaning it could be editorial here. However, it remains possible that the difference in the number, which is only really effects 1–2 letters, could represent a corruption within the Greek tradition in either direction. Nonetheless, I tend to favor Ant. as the older version in these cases due to the proximity of LXX to MT.

The list of cities in v. 9 contains some noteworthy differences. First, the name “Assoud” in Ant. clearly presents a corrupted form of “Hazor.” Yet, this corruption is decidedly more likely within the Hebrew tradition, meaning that this error could actually represent an incorrect transliteration of the Hebrew Vorlage of OG. The second to last phrase in Ant. includes an “and” missing in LXX and the final locations vary between the witnesses. While LXX generally matches the Masoretic transmissions of these names and Ant. could be regarded as a series of corruptions within the Greek transmission, these names remain otherwise unattested in the Greek Bible. However, the name “Ano” does appear as the name for Jeroboam’s wife in the Greek plus after 12:24, and the name “Baldath” strongly resembles the Greek transliteration of the name of Job’s friend Bildad. Possibly Ant. attests the OG in these cases, but it is difficult to determine what stood behind these readings.

The opening phrase of v. 11 contains a number of transpositions between the versions. To me, this case in LXX appears to present a recension, likely consistent with kaige, for a more isomorphic translation of the Hebrew phrase בהיות דוד חי (cf. 2 Sam 12:18 for the same phrasing, the only other case in the Bible). That would commend Ant. as the OG here. Ant. lacks any reference to the “seed” found in LXX. The LXX version could well be corrupt, though it is difficult to explain what led to this corruption (similarity to 2:33 with the repetition of “seed”? Confusion/dittography of Hebrew זרע and גרא?). The location included at the verse’s end differs between the versions: it is Gabatha in Ant. and Hebron in LXX. While it is possible to regard LXX as a corruption of the form found at 2:8 MT, Ant. differs markedly. This name appears otherwise in the majority Greek tradition of the Bible only at Esth 12:1, where it presents the name of a eunuch hiding with Mordechai. Likely the Γαβαθα in Ant. represents a corruption within the Greek for Γαβαθων (= Hebrew Gibbethon; cf. 1 Kgs 15:27; 16:15 and 17). That would commend Ant. as presenting a distinct Hebrew parent from that of MT and LXX.

Verse 13 presents a transposition of the object “me” between the versions in the first phrase. Likely, LXX represents a corrective toward the Masoretic transmission of this information as found in 1 Kgs 2:8, which is also more similar to the Greek versions there. That could commend Ant. as the OG in this case. The verb for “die” is active with a definite object in Ant., but passive in LXX. In this case, I see two possibilities: 1) LXX represents an error in the Greek transmission, in which θανατωσω σε corrupted to θανατωθησε…; 2) LXX represents the OG which was corrected in Ant. and MT so that David’s swearing remained true. After all, in LXX David’s swears “if you should die by the sword…,” which does in fact come to pass, albeit not by David’s hand or instruction, which Ant. and MT still permit. Currently I tend to favor the latter option as the correct one, though I am admittedly still open to both. It should be noted that neither of these versions conform to David’s swear as actually transmitted in 2 Sam 19:24.

17) And the report arrived at Joab, the son of Sarouia, (for he was a follower after Orneia and after Solomon he did not follow). And Joab fled to the Lord’s tent and grasped the horns of the altar.
18) And it was reported to Solomon, saying, “yes, Joab had fled to the Lord’s tent, and dude! He is grasping the horns of the altar. And the king, Solomon, sent to Joab, saying, “What is for you that you have fled to the altar?” And Joab said, “Yes, I was afraid before your face and fled to the Lord.” And Solomon sent Banaias, son of Ioad, saying, “Go and kill him and bury him.”
19) And Banaias son of Ioad went to Joab, to the Lord’s tent and said to him, “Thus said the king, ‘come out!’” And Joab said, “No, I will not come out, for here I will die.” And Banaias sent and he spoke to the king, saying, “Thus Joab has said and thus he has answered me.”
20) And he said to him, the king [did], saying, “Go and do to him just as he has said and kill him and bury him and remove today the blood that Joab poured out freely from me and from the house of my father.
21) “And the Lord has sent the blood of his injustice to his head that he met the two men, those more righteous and better than he, and he killed them with the sword and my father did not know—Abner son of Ner, Israel’s general, and Amessa son of Iether, Judah’s general.
22) “And I will bring back this blood to his head and to the head of his seed until eternity. And for David and for his seed and for his house and for his throne there will be peace until eternity from the Lord.”
23) And Banaias son of Ioad went up and struck him and killed him and buried him with his funeral rites in the desert.
24) And the king, Solomon, set Banaias son of Ioad instead of Joab over the army. And the kingdom was prepared in Jerusalem. And Saddouk the priest the king, Solomon, set as high priest instead of Abiathar.

Comments on the Text

These verses present a number of differences, particularly between the Greek versions. The usage of the definite article remains inconsistent between the Greek versions. Thus, in v. 17, Ant. lacks the definite article before “son of Sarouias” and before “Lord.” In both cases Ant. attests a text more consistent with MT, which has no particle that these articles would be translating. Verse 18 in Ant. also lacks the article before the first mention of “Lord” in Ant., but does have it in the second case, where it is missing in LXX. The shorter readings in vv. 17–18 in Ant. match the Hebrew and could be editorial, being more consistent with recensional techniques like kaige. The longer reading of Ant. in v. 18 would seem to commend Ant. as the older reading, though this case cannot be contrasted with MT, which lacks the phrase entirely. In this regard, Ant. also includes the article before “head” in vv. 21–22, where it is lacking in LXX and would not attest anything explicitly in MT. These cases could again favor Ant. as the OG against LXX. However, the tendency changes again in v. 22 before “eternity,” in which Ant. does not preserve the article, but LXX does. Taken together, it appears likely that both Ant. and LXX underwent editing regarding the usage of the article in these few verses and neither of them precisely reflects the OG.

In v. 18 the opening verb form differs between Ant. and LXX, with LXX presenting a more precise translation of MT’s third-person singular passive as opposed to Ant.’s third-person active plural. The difference in minimal and both can adequately reflect MT, but LXX does so more isomorphically making it more likely editorial. Similarly, the verb “fled” is in the imperfect in Ant., which LXX tends to avoid, as it also does in this case. One must postulate that either Ant. preferred imperfect or that LXX avoided it. Both options are possible and a more global study would be necessary to determine which is the case. The word for the tent in v. 18 is more consistent in Ant. and, therefore, likely not OG. The terminology for Solomon differs between the two mentions in the witnesses to v. 18. LXX and Ant. each refer to “Solomon” in one case and “Solomon, the king” in one case, but they differ in which case which nomenclature is used. In the first case, the only one for which there is a Hebrew pendent, LXX matches MT, meaning that it might be a revision.

All of the differences in v. 19 bring Ant. closer to MT, meaning that it would well be recensional here. The prepositional phrase “to him” in Ant. more explicitly matches MT than LXX does (LXX records it simply as an a dative indirect object). As with MT, Ant. lacks Banaias’s patronymic.

In v. 20 Ant. refers to the “freely” poured blood in a syntactically distinct place from the other (matching) witnesses, which could mean that LXX presents a textual revision toward MT.

Verse 21 features different numerals for “two” in the Greek witnesses, though it would be difficult to ascertain which is the older version. However, Ant. refers to the “men,” like MT, instead of the “people” like LXX. Ant. matches the shorter reading of MT lacking “their blood,” which LXX attests. In these latter cases, therefore, Ant. presents a potentially edited text toward something more like MT. The usage of “men,” for example, is more consistent even with kaige translational technique.

Ant. opens the first sentence of v. 22 with a verb including a preposition. LXX is more consistent with MT in its translation, and therefore perhaps a revision in this case. The Greek witnesses use different prepositions before “eternity” and thus different forms for “eternity” (genitive in Ant. as opposed to accusative in LXX). In this case, the phrasing in MT more closely matches LXX.

The opposite is again true in v. 23: Ant. includes a verb unattested in LXX, but matches the phrasing in MT more explicitly, even including “him” (and not Joab) as the direct object. However, Ant. refers to Joab’s grave, as opposed to his “house” as in LXX and MT. Likely this could present a case in which Ant. was emended to make more sense of a difficult reading. Why should Joab be buried in his house?

Finally, in v. 24 Ant. includes Solomon’s name after his title in the opening and closing phrases, which distinguishes it from MT and LXX. Ant. reads “instead of Joab” instead of “instead of him” as in MT and LXX. In all of these cases, LXX could be understood as a revision of a text like Ant. toward a text like MT, but the opposite would be unlikely. Nonetheless, Ant. refers to Joab being over the “army,” as opposed to over the “command” as in LXX. Ant. better matches MT and makes more sense, making LXX the lectio difficilior in that case.

15) And to Abiathar the priest, the king—Solomon—spoke, “Get yourself to Anathoth, to your field and to your house, for a man of death are you on this day! And not will I kill you because you bore the covenantal ark of the Lord before David, my father, and because you were mistreated in all of the mistreatment of my father.”
16) And Solomon banished Abiathar from becoming priest of the Lord in order to fulfill the word of the Lord that he spoke against the house of Eli in Silo.

Comments on the Text

Even though this text only covers two verses, it presents a number of distinctions in the versions. In general, the Antiochene text recounts a longer text, particularly in v. 15.

First, Ant. mentions the name “Solomon” after “the king,” which distinguishes it from the other versions. This difference could be the result of later editing for clarity within Ant. or evidence that the name went missing in the Hebrew tradition, toward which LXX was corrected. On the other hand, Ant. lacks the emphatic “you” found in LXX after the imperative, but reflects MT in this case, suggesting that Ant. likely does not attest OG. In the phrase “to your field” Ant. has a definite article lacking in LXX. The translation in LXX reflects the technique of kaige, meaning that LXX might have been adjusted here. More substantially, Ant. follows the reference to the field with a phrase reading, “and to your house,” which is lacking in both of the other witnesses. Being the longest text with this reading, Ant. may likely not present OG in this case. When referring to Abiathar as a man of death, LXX and Ant. read the subject (“you”) and the verb (“are”) in opposite orders. Either of them presents a good candidate for OG, but LXX tends to more specifically reflect Hebrew syntax, which could imply that it stems from later revision consistent with kaige. Ant. lacks the definite article in LXX before covenant. In doing so, Ant. tends to reflect translation technique closer to kaige, as the article in this Greek phrase reflects no element in the Hebrew text. Ant. includes the proper name “David” before the first instance of “my father,” which matches MT and may therefore be recensional. Finally, the word for “all” differs between the Greek versions, with Ant. lacking an α at the opening of the term in LXX. The more unusual LXX form could be OG in this case.

Verse 16 attest fewer distinctions among the Greek witnesses. First, Ant. reads the preposition “to” before “priest,” which has no pendent in the Hebrew. LXX might lack it due to revision. Again, Ant. is longer in a second case in v. 16, including a definite article before “to fill.” As LXX lacks this particle, but having it would be more consistent with kaige technique, likely LXX presents the OG here. Finally, Ant. presents a form of the proper noun “Shiloh” that is more consistent with Hebrew orthography and likely presents a revision. Notably, LXX has the form “Selom,” which appears to be the OG of this geographical place, as still found in the first chapters of Samuel.

1) And Solomon sat upon the throne of David, his father, and his kingdom was very prepared.
2) And Orneias, the son of Angeith, went to Beersabee, the mother of Solomon, and he did obeisance to her. And she said to him, “Is your coming peace?” And he said, “Peace.”
3) And he said, “A word for me to you.” And she said to him, Beersabee [did], “speak!”
4) And he said to her, “You know that for me was the kingdom. And upon me to reign all Israel set their face. But the kingdom turned and was for my brother, for from the Lord was [it] for him.
5) “And now, one small request I ask from you; you should not turn your face away.” And she said to him, Beersabee [did], “speak!”
6) And he said to her, Orneia [did], “Please speak to Solomon, the king, for he will not turn your face away, and he will give me Abeisak the Somaneite for a wife.”
7) And she said to him, Beersabee [did], “Good. I will speak about you to the king.”
8) And Beersabee went to the king, Solomon, to speak to him about Orneia. And the king, Solomon, arose to escort her. And he kissed her and sat upon his throne. And he set a throne for the mother of the king, and she sat on his right.
9) And she said to him, “One small request I would ask from you. You should not turn my face away.” And he said to her, the king [did], “Ask, my mother, for I will not turn you away.”
10) And she said, “Please give Abeisak the Somaneite [to] Orneia, your brother, for a wife.”
11) And Solomon, the king, answered and said to his mother, “And to what end are you requesting Abeisak for Orneia for a wife? And request for him the kingdom, for he is the brother of me, the greater one than me! And for him [was] Abiathar the priest, and to him was Joab, son of Sarouia, the general a friend.”
12) And the king, Solomon, swore by the Lord, saying, “Thus may he—the God—do to me, and thus may he add! Yes, in [surrendering] his life did Orneia speak this word!
13) “And now, as the Lord lives, who prepared me and put me on the throne of David, my father, and who made me a house, just as he—the Lord—said to me: yes, today Orneia will surely die!”
14) And Solomon, the king, sent out by the hand of Banaia son of Ioad, and he killed Orneia. And Orneia died on that day.

Comments on the Text

Noting the greater similarity between the Greek versions in this pericope when contrasted with the preceding ones is of utmost importance. The versions differ less in their number, as well as in the quality of their variants. The amount of kaige influence in LXX is strongly reduced, as should become apparent. This observation is not new, yet it is nonetheless worth reiterating. Ant. also appears to have more recensional elements than in some preceding passages, making it a more problematic witness of the OG in some cases.

For those unfamiliar with the Lucianic textual tradition, it is worth noting that the book of Kings only begins with this passage in that textual tradition, as opposed to the first notice about Abishag in the other versions. That might be significant for appreciating the compositional history of the books of Samuel and Kings.

Verse 1 in Ant. perfectly reflects MT and lacks the plus including Solomon’s age attested in LXX. Otherwise Ant. also perfectly matches LXX in this verse. This observation tends to validate the more consistent readings of the versions from here on out, though an important difference still appears in this case. Since Solomon’s age in LXX presents somewhat of a problem, Ant. likely transmits a revised version in lacking the plus of LXX.

Three differences appear in verse 2: 1) Ant. includes the definite article before “mother of Solomon” that is missing in LXX (but also not literally present in MT, though syntactically implied therein). 2) The change in the subject from Orneias to Beersheba is simpler in Ant., and a more direct translation of MT, using only the simple “and.” LXX, on the other hand, reads, “but this one [feminine],” making the change in subject more obvious. 3) Finally, Ant. has an indirect object for Beersheba’s speech (“to him”) missing in LXX and MT. In the first and last cases, LXX and MT read together, whereas in the middle case, Ant. looks more similar to MT. That could commend Ant. as OG in cases 1 and 3, but unlikely is it such in 2.

The Antiochene text of v. 3 opens matching MT, but not LXX, by reintroducing Orneias’s speech. Here, it may not be OG and even appears more like kaige than LXX does. Ant. presents the longest version of the second sentence, including both the mention of the indirect object (which matches LXX, but not MT) and the subject (which matches neither of the other versions). The priority is unclear in these cases, but the conforming readings against MT make them likely OG at least, if not representative of a distinct Vorlage. The inclusion of the subject in Ant. could evince editing exclusive to that textual tradition.

The only difference between the Greek versions in v. 4 consists of distinct conjugations of the last two occurrences of the verb “to be.” They are each good reflections of the Hebrew, so on this internal evidence alone, it would be impossible to say which form is OG. More study is required over the whole of the versions and how they translate this verb. We’ll stick a pin in that and hopefully be able to return to this problem once I have fully digitized Ant. (So I don’t have to search it manually, you know.)

Verse 5 presents only one “small” difference between Ant. on the one hand and LXX and MT on the other: only Ant. reports that the request is “small.” The usage in Ant. matches that in v. 9, suggesting that Ant. could represent a correction for consistency.

The subject of the first sentence in v. 6 is explicit in Ant., but only implicit in the other versions. The shorter reading may be older, as the text-critical rule of thumb lectio brevior commends. Ant. matches LXX with the inclusion of the indirect object, both against MT, and indicative of their quality as OG, whether as the product of a distinct Vorlage or not. But Ant. matches MT against LXX in recording whose face will turn from whom. Ant. and MT both state that the king will not “turn your face,” whereas LXX notes that he will not “turn his face from you.” That might suggest that LXX is OG there.

There’s only one difference in v. 7: Ant. has the indirect object “to him,” but the other witnesses do not. That’s it. The Greek tends to favor these indirect objects in this passage, so maybe this is OG.

Verse 8 Ant., unlike the others, includes the name “Solomon” a second time. Ant. uses a slightly different word for “meet,” including a change in the object’s case, as well as a shorter form of the verb “kiss.” The terms in Ant. differ from the more standard equivalents attested in LXX, suggesting that they may be the OG readings.

A single difference in v. 9 distinguishes the Greek versions. Ant. reads “my face,” but LXX reads “your face.” In this case Ant. matches MT and appears to better reflect the conclusion of the verse. That makes it an unlikely candidate for the OG. However, the Greek versions also match each other against MT by including “to him” before Beersabee’s speech to the king, perhaps indicating that they stem from a distinct Vorlage, or at least that the OG was distinct from MT in that case, whether the result of a distinct Vorlage or not.

Other than the orthography of the proper nouns, only two variants distinguish the Greek versions in v. 10. The first is the use of δὴ in Ant. instead of δὲ in LXX. LXX likely attests a mistake within the Greek tradition in this case (cf. v. 6) and should be restored to look like Ant. In the other case, LXX includes the definite article before the name Orneia, which matches MT more closely in a style reminiscent of kaige. Perhaps this presents a later corrective in this case. Ant. could be OG with both its readings in this verse.

The verb “to ask,” in its first appearance in v. 11 differs between the Greek witnesses, with Ant. closely reflecting MT in a manner essentially consistent with kaige. Since MT reads the participle, the best Greek translation would be a present tense, as in Ant., not the past, as in LXX. Ant. also contains a longer reading than LXX or MT, including “for a wife” as part of the request. This looks like an adaptation for the sake of consistency. When describing Orneia, Ant. uses the definite article before “brother,” which distinguishes it syntactically from LXX and MT. In this instance, LXX again looks slightly like a kaige translation, particularly when contrasted with Ant. The final difference among the Greek versions in this verse attests the opposite phenomenon: LXX includes an article before the word “son,” which does not appear in MT. Ant. lacks it, making it look more like MT. That again makes Ant. reflect a translation technique more similar to kaige in this verse (as in the first instance) than LXX does.

Verse 12 differs only in the Greek versions regarding the orthography of the proper name Orneia / Adonias.

Three matters differ in the Greek versions of v. 13: 1) Ant. is consistent in its usage of the relative particle “who” and matches MT in this regard, whereas LXX does not; 2) the king notes in Ant. (and only in Ant.) that the Lord spoke to him; and 3) the repetition and emphasis on the certainty of Orneia’s death that day in Ant. implies a figura etymologica in the Vorlage inapparent in the other witnesses. How to evaluate these differences? The first case probably indicates that the inconsistent usage of pronouns and particles in LXX resulted from an error in the Greek transmission. The difference is inconsequential (αυτος vs. ος) and most easily explained that way. That would imply that Ant. attests the OG in that case. The second case also favors Ant. as the OG, since the statement that the Lord spoke to Solomon in this regard is inconsistent with any other biblical text. That makes an adaptation toward a text like Ant. unlikely. The third case seems to commend Ant. as the OG as well, since no reason exists for the text to have otherwise been changed from a text like LXX to a text like Ant., while the opposite cannot be said. LXX better reflects MT, making a change away from something like Ant. at least more plausible and consistent with translational techniques in the vein of kaige.

The only difference among the Greek versions in v. 14 is the inclusion of the definite article and the name “Orneia” as the object whom the king struck. LXX just reads “him” as the object, a closer reflection of MT. With the longer reading in Ant. the duplication at this verse’s conclusion stands out much more pronounced in the Greek, suggesting—in addition to its distance from MT—that Ant. could be OG in this case. It is worth reiterating that the conclusion of this verse in MT probably presents the youngest version, meaning that it should be rejected here as diachronically determinative, which opens up new avenues for literary-critical evaluations of this passage. An older version apparently recounted the death of Adonijah/Orneia twice.