Part 1: Amazing discoveries regarding the creation of the world, paradise, the flood and the Tower of Babel.
Part 2: Truth and Legend about the Patriarchs.
Part 3: Folk tradition or truth?
Part 4: Moses in a halo of myths
Part 5: The Age of Struggle and Heroism
The most brilliant period in the history of Israel falls on 1040-932 BC and, therefore, lasts a little over a century. Even if you add to this the reign of Samuel, the greatest prophet after Moses and the actual founder of the monarchy, you still get only a century and a half. What a tiny amount of time compared to the entire history of Israel! The era of the united state is, in essence, the time of the reign of three Israelite kings: Saul (1040-1012 BC), David (1012-972 BC) and Solomon (972-932 BC). In 932 BC, ten northern tribes split off, as a result of which two kingdoms at war with each other arise: Judah and Israel.
Almost all of our information about this era is drawn from the Bible, more precisely, from the four Books of Kings and two books of chronicles, also known as the books of Chronicles ("things left out, bypassed"), since the Greek translators of the Bible mistakenly believed that the books of the chronicles contain information missed in previous books.
There are discrepancies among biblical scholars regarding the timing of these books. For a long time it was believed that the authorship of the Books of Kings belongs to King Solomon and the prophets Gad and Nathan. According to the Talmud, the author of these books was the prophet Jeremiah. This view is also shared by some biblical scholars.
Promotional video:
The books of chronicles were, in all likelihood, created in the second half of the fourth century BC. This is evidenced, in particular, by the abundance of Arameisms in their language. One thing is beyond doubt: the authors of the final version of the text were scribal priests, supporters of the religious reforms carried out by King Josiah (640-609 BC). This is evidenced by the pronounced desire to evaluate all historical events in a theocratic spirit. From the point of view of the compilers of the Bible, the first duty of kings was to serve the god Yahweh and obey the high priests. The assessment of all their activities depends entirely on the extent to which they have met these requirements.
Saul was in conflict with the high priest Samuel and therefore does not enjoy the favor of the compilers. But to David, a faithful friend of the priestly class, they show boundless leniency. They try to portray some of his crimes as the result of a fatal coincidence of circumstances, others justify religious considerations. For example, David destroyed seven descendants of Saul, allegedly on the direct orders of Yahweh. The history of this era was recorded after a very long time, partly after several centuries. This, of course, negatively affected the reliability of the above books of the Bible. Nevertheless, they contain a lot of information that can be considered historically true. This applies primarily to events depicted with a multitude of surprisingly realistic, vivid and dramatic details, typical for the presentation of true facts.
The fact that the compilers of the Bible did not shut up a number of acts and crimes that do no honor to such national heroes as David or Solomon convincingly proves that they had some reliable historical sources at their disposal. Moreover, they, of course, were by no means guided by the idea of impartial historical objectivity; such concepts were completely alien to the people of that era. In all likelihood, the compilers could not pass over in silence the unsightly facts because they were too well known among the people.
The destruction of the descendants of Saul or the idolatry of Solomon in Jerusalem are events that have certainly been preserved in the memory of many generations. As a result, from the multitude of legends, myths and folk tales, it was possible to select a handful of basic facts that allow partially reconstructing the true picture of the life of the Israeli people in that era. The first book of Kings begins with a short but very dramatic biography of the high priest Elijah and his sons. How much vitality there is in this tragic image! It seems that it would not seem too bold to suppose that in reality there was a high priest named Eli, who won the respect of all the Israeli tribes by his piety.
Internal political relations were very favorable for Elijah. Shiloh, the religious capital of Israel, was located on the territory of the very large and influential tribe of Ephraim. In addition, this territory was located in the center of the country and, therefore, did not suffer from enemy raids, while the tribes living in the north, east and south were forced to desperately resist the onslaught of neighboring peoples. The tribe of Judah, which had long fought with the tribe of Ephraim for influence in Israel, fell under the rule of the Philistines and ceased to play any political role for a while. Hence the hegemony of the Ephraim tribe, which led to the concentration of secular and religious power in the hands of the high priest Elijah.
For the first time after the death of Moses, the cherished dream of the Yahvists came true: a theocratic regime was established in Israel. But a regime based on the moral authority of the individual could not be lasting. Eli understood this and therefore tried to ensure that the position of high priest was inherited in his family. His plans were destroyed by his sons, whose profligacy and impiety alienated the people. Eli himself was too old to fight it.
The decline of his family's influence and the loss of the ark of the covenant would have led, perhaps, to the final destruction of the theocracy, had it not been strengthened again by the prophet Samuel.
The Books of Kingdoms pass over in silence the military and political consequences of the defeat of the Israelites at Aphek. But from a number of comments that we find in other books of the Bible, we can conclude that the Philistines fully used their victory.
The entire central part of the country was under their control, and Philistine troops were stationed in many Israeli cities. This continued for twenty years until King Saul appeared on the historical arena. It is also significant that the compilers of the Bible do not mention a single word in the Books of Kingdoms about the fate of Shiloh, the then capital of Israel. An attentive reader draws attention to a strange fact:
The prophet Samuel, who replaced Elijah, did not stay in the holy city, where the tent of Moses and the ark of the covenant was located, but moved to Ramaphaim.
And what was the fate of Shiloh? We find an indirect answer to this question in the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, where it is said (chapter 7, verse 12):
"Go to my place in Shiloh, where I first appointed my name to abide, and see what I did to him for the wickedness of my people Israel."
In addition to this information, another passage from the same book (chapter 26, verse 9) can serve: "This house will be like Shiloh, and this city will be empty, will remain without inhabitants." It is clear from these quotes that the Philistines destroyed Shiloh, which simply ceased to exist as the capital of Israel. This event is so engraved in the people's memory that even four hundred years later Jeremiah cites it as an example of God's wrath. The priests - the compilers of the Bible cleverly sidestepped this issue, placing the main emphasis on the triumphal march of the ark of the covenant through the Philistine cities. Archeology finally clarified the issue. In 1926-1929, a Danish expedition discovered the ruins of Silom about twenty-two kilometers south of the city of Shechem. On one of the hills they even found a place where, in all likelihood, there was a sacred tent with the altar of Yahweh and the ark of the covenant. Most importantly, the ruins dating back to the eleventh century BC bear clear traces of fire and violent destruction.
Thus, it was possible to establish precisely that Shiloh fell a victim to the Philistine invaders. Obviously, Moses' tent - the most valuable national monument in Israel - died in the fire. But what happened to the ark of the covenant? Everything that is told in the Bible is too fantastic to be true. If the Philistines did capture the ark of the covenant, why did they abandon it after seven months? Of course, one can accept the hypothesis that the Philistines suffered some natural disaster or an epidemic at that time, and popular superstition interpreted this as the revenge of an Israeli deity. This is consistent with our information about the religious beliefs of ancient peoples.
The cult of one's own gods did not at all exclude belief in the existence and power of alien, hostile deities. Therefore, in the story of the amazing fate of the ark of the covenant, perhaps, there is some grain of truth.
In this story, one episode is especially incomprehensible. At Bethsamis, Yahweh killed fifty thousand seventy Israelites because some of them dared to look inside the ark of the covenant. This is, of course, the fanatical fanatics version. But it must be based on some genuine event preserved in the memory of generations. Researchers have speculated a lot trying to explain this mysterious incident. Some believe that the Israelites stole the ark of the covenant from the temple of Dagon. The Philistines rushed after them, caught up with Bethshemesh, and there a battle took place, in which the number of Israelite soldiers named in the Bible died. The ark was saved and hidden in Kiriath-Jarim. But this theory has a weakness; the question arises: why did the compilers of the Bible portray the lost defenders of the ark of the covenant as criminals,committed sacrilege and punished by Yahweh?
There is another hypothesis, according to which the ark of the covenant never fell into the hands of the Philistines and immediately after the defeat at Aphek was taken to Kiriath-Jarim. The bloody massacre of the inhabitants of Bethsamis was revenge on the part of other Israeli tribes for refusing to participate in the war against the Philistines. Hence the negative attitude of the Bible authors towards them. It is, of course, difficult to establish how much this hypothesis of civil war is true, but in fact, the behavior of the inhabitants of Vephsamis seems strange, who, in the terrible time of the war with the Philistines, calmly harvested wheat in the fields, as if the defense of independence and the ark of the covenant did not concern them at all.
After Elijah, Samuel took over the reins. However, this did not happen immediately after the defeat at Aphek. Only many years later Samuel's influence was strengthened so much that he became the de facto ruler of Israel, thus restoring the theocratic regime that had been shaken.
Jews rank Samuel among their greatest prophets. Even the Catholic Church considers him a saint and herald of Christ. Saint Jerome claims that the Emperor Arcadius (378-408 AD) transported the remains of Samuel from Ramaphaim to Thrace, and his daughter Pulcheria (405-453 AD), in turn, took him to Constantinople and solemnly buried him in a specially built mausoleum. Over time, so many legends were created around the personality of Samuel that the compilers of the Bible no longer knew exactly who he was and what his activities were. Of course, the entire cycle of stories about his mother, birth, conversation with Yahweh and prophecies concerning Elijah is the fruit of folk fantasy.
We find in the biblical text a number of mutually exclusive information that obscures the historical picture. Here is one example: at the beginning of the story, Samuel is depicted as a famous person throughout the country. But already in the ninth chapter, he is just a local soothsayer, about whom Saul learns from his servant. So, for no reason, an outstanding priest is relegated to the rank of a petty sorcerer who, for a small fee, advises how to find the missing donkeys.
Now, of course, it is no longer possible to restore the truth. The contradiction, in all likelihood, is caused by the fact that the compilers of the Bible combined two different folk traditions into one plot, not caring about their logical agreement. So, we have no choice but to accept at face value what seems most likely in the biblical story. There is almost no doubt that Samuel was the high priest and judge, that after the death of Eli and the destruction of Shiloh, he made Ramaphaim his residence, that he anointed Saul on the kingdom, and then, having come into conflict with him over priestly privileges, promoted David to as a contender for the throne.
These bare facts are quite consistent with what we know about social and political relations in the ancient world. From the materials found by archaeologists, we know that the priests tried to establish a theocratic regime also in countries such as Sumer, Assyria and Egypt. The conflicts that arose on this basis between the secular authorities and the priestly elite were quite common and natural from the point of view of social processes. Samuel, thanks to his moral authority, was able to restore a theocratic regime in Israel. Like Eli, he dreamed that the office of high priest and judge would become hereditary in his family.
According to the Bible, these plans were thwarted by Samuel's vile and corrupt sons. This explanation, of course, is extremely primitive and rather has the character of an edifying parable; the real reason for the fall of theocracy and the emergence of the monarchy should be sought much deeper - in the then political and social situation.
After the defeat at Aphek and during the reign of Samuel, the country suffered from the Philistine yoke. And then the conviction took root that only a leader with outstanding military talent could free the people from invaders, a leader who, following the example of the kings of neighboring states, would take the royal throne.
In a word, the unification of the tribes in a single state under the rule of a strong monarch seemed to be a panacea for all misfortunes. This sober political realism gained more and more adherents as people became convinced that the high priest, with his sacrifices, prayers and calls to repentance, was essentially powerless.
The class relations of that time also contributed to the growth of these sentiments. After the conquest of Canaan, many of the Israelites settled in cities. As a result, a stratum of wealthy merchants, landowners, officials, military leaders and tribal elders was formed. Such a rich man with three thousand sheep and a thousand goats was the same Nabal who refused to provide food for David.
On the other hand, the poverty of the broad masses of the people, ruined by taxes and debts, grew.
The new privileged stratum needed to protect their property from the onslaught of disadvantaged tribesmen, and such protection could only be provided by the monarchical system. Let us recall that Abimelech seized power with the support of the elite of the city of Shechem and was overthrown by a popular uprising. As the class contradictions intensified, the power of the tsar grew, eventually turning into a despot of the eastern type. Saul was still a patriarchal king, a peasant king:
he retained the same simplicity of manners and in his free time he personally engaged in cattle breeding. David already had a large court and a harem, and in relation to his subjects, he often admitted arbitrariness. Finally, Solomon establishes an order reminiscent of the slave-owning Egypt of the era of the construction of the great pyramids. He forces tens of thousands of his subjects into slave labor in the felling of Lebanese forests, in the quarries of Jordan and on the construction sites of Jerusalem.
Already at the time of Samuel, the property elite acquired such political influence that, despite the opposition, it was able to achieve the election of a tsar. The election meetings in Massif and Gilgal must have been very tumultuous. Indeed, the Bible specifically emphasizes that Saul did not take revenge on the people who voted against him. Samuel, for obvious reasons, was also an opponent of the monarchy.
He perceived the demand to elect a king as a personal offense and defeat, for he hoped that both religious and secular power would pass in his family from father to son. He bitterly asked the representatives of the tribes what his fault was, why he was being deprived of his power, and depicted in the darkest colors the dangers threatening them from the king. When this did not work, he declared that by rejecting the theocratic authority of the high priest, they thereby rejected Yahweh.
In the end, Samuel had to give in to persistent demands, but nevertheless he did not intend to give up actual power and conducted the matter so that the future king would remain an obedient instrument in his hands. That is why the choice of Samuel fell on a young man from a modest family, belonging to the smallest of the Israelite tribes. Samuel founded the school of the prophets and in this school, according to the Bible, formed his candidate, instilling in him obedience towards the high priest, as well as loyalty to the god Yahweh and the laws of Moses.
As you know, he was cruelly deceived in his expectations. The timid young man turned into a brilliant commander and an energetic ruler who made independent decisions. On this basis, a sharp conflict arose between Saul and Samuel, and the latter outwardly withdrew from political activity. In reality, he began a fierce secret struggle with his rebellious pet. Seeking to overthrow him from the throne, he anointed David to reign. The conflict escalated into open war, when Saul ordered the killing of all the priests of the temple in Nomb for helping David. So, we have here a typical conflict common in the history of mankind between secular and ecclesiastical authorities. For the sake of completeness, it is worth dwelling on a kind of institute, which we call the school of the prophets. These were associations of raging religious fanaticsfirst appeared in Israel around 1000 BC They were usually located near such major religious centers as Gibeah, Bethel, Ramaphaim, and later also Samaria.
Attacks of religious ecstasy were not alien to Samuel, Saul, or David.
Saul, returning home from Ramaphaim, met a group of prophets and allowed himself to be drawn into their ecstatic dancing and chants. A second attack of insanity happened to him after receiving news of the siege of the city of Jabes. He then hacked two oxen with which he plowed the land. The third time this happened to him in Ramaphaim, where he came in pursuit of David. Samuel came out to meet him with his prophets and, having hypnotized him with dancing, singing and exclamations, involved him in his round dance. The First Book of Kingdoms (chapter 10, verse 5) says:
"… and when you enter the city there, you will meet a host of prophets descending from on high, and before them a psalter and a tympanum, and a flute and a harp, and they prophesy."
This description proves that crowds of fanatics and religious mystics, strikingly reminiscent of the dervishes of Islam, roamed the country. These Israelite prophets wore linen clothes and special belts and, like dervishes, collected alms. Their religious rites included not only chants, dances and divination, but also self-flagellation, torture of the body with various instruments of torture.
It is significant that these prophets appeared rather late in the arena of Israel's religious life. This proves that collective ecstatic prophecy was not a local, Israeli phenomenon. The question of its origin is still open. However, the prevailing opinion is that the Israelites borrowed it from the Canaanites, along with the cult of Baal, Astarte and other Phoenician deities. It is believed that the homeland of such schools of prophets was Phrygia, in Asia Minor, and from there the schools penetrated into Phenicia and Canaan. In the Third Book of Kingdoms it is said (chapter 18, verse 19) that the queen Jezebel was supported by four hundred Phoenician prophets.
It should be noted that this phenomenon was not alien to other peoples. Suffice it to recall the ancient Greek orgies in honor of Apollo and Dionysius. Herodotus talks about inspired men who walked around Greece and prophesied in verse. In Israel, the movement of the prophets took on savage forms. The prophet Hosea (seventh century BC), wanting to prove to the Jews that, worshiping foreign gods, they commit a grave sin of adultery, lived for three years with a fallen woman and with another man's wife. The prophet Isaiah (eighth century BC) walked naked through the city to warn the inhabitants of Jerusalem that Yahweh would so bare their sinful city, depriving it of all riches.
For several centuries, groups of itinerant prophets were common in Canaan. The Israelites treated them with superstitious fear and respect, listening to their prophecies, and did not refuse alms. Over time, however, all sorts of charlatans, who are called false prophets in the Bible, began to infiltrate the ranks of the holy men. Through their fault, the people began to treat the prophets with hostility and even despise them. This is evident, in particular, from the questions that the inhabitants of Gibeah asked each other: "Is Saul also among the prophets?" As David danced before the ark of the covenant, his wife Michal declared with contempt that his behavior was unworthy of a king. The sage and mentor of the people Amos strongly objected when he was called a prophet.
Under the influence of the teachings of the prophets, as well as political calamities and suffering, the Jews gradually deepened their religion, until it finally, after the Babylonian captivity, turned into pure monotheism. This evolution should, naturally, lead to the elimination of primitive forms of collective prophecy. The prophets of the highest order, whose writings were included in the Bible, had nothing to do with the prophets wandering around the country. But they did not appear in the historical arena of Israel as "deus ex machina", but were undoubtedly the fruit of centuries of development of collective religious prophecy.
The tragic story of Saul is known to us exclusively from the Bible, and we, in fact, cannot say how true it is. Therefore, the discovery of any physical evidence, to some extent confirming the biblical version, is an exciting event. Such an event took place in 1922, when the American archaeologist and orientalist Albright found in Tel el-Fulla, five kilometers from Jerusalem, the ruins of Gibeah, the capital of Saul. Excavations showed that it was a powerful mountain fortress, simple and strict in design, but completely inaccessible. It was defended by corner towers and two lines of stone block walls. Secret passages and food stores were located between the walls.
Among the ruins, a huge number of bronze arrowheads and stone sling shells were found. Scientists have established that the ruins date back to the second half of the eleventh century BC, that is, during the reign of the first Israelite king. The ruins of Beth San was also discovered, where the Philistines mocked Saul's body. According to the Bible, they placed the head of the unfortunate king in the temple of Dagon, his armor in the temple of Astarte, and hung his torso on the city wall. The height of the ruins was more than twenty-three meters - they consisted of eighteen layers belonging to different eras.
The lowest layer dates back to the fourth millennium BC, and hence Beth San was one of the oldest cities in Canaan. But for us the most interesting thing is that in the layer belonging to the era of Saul, the ruins of two temples located next to each other - Dagon and Astarte - were discovered, which are mentioned in the Bible. The stones of these temples witnessed the last act of the Philistine-Israel conflict, which ended in the death of the courageous king and his three sons. Along the way, archaeologists have uncovered a historical detail that the Bible writers silenced. A thick layer of ash, smoked stones and broken figurines of the gods prove irrefutably that the city fell victim to a surprise attack and fire. This suggests that David destroyed Beth-san in retaliation for mocking the body of his predecessor.
The story of David, as we have already noted many times when speaking about other sections of the Bible, is composed of folk tales that have been passed down from generation to generation for centuries. The compilers included them in the Bible without noticing or giving importance to the contradictions they contain.
Some examples of these contradictions are worth citing to show the difficulties biblical scholars face in trying to establish historical truth. If we try to answer the question of how David ended up in the court of King Saul, we are in a quandary. The Bible gives two completely different versions. From the sixteenth chapter of the First Book of Kingdoms, we learn that David was brought to the palace because he skillfully played the harp and won the favor of the king by his playing. Meanwhile, chapter seventeen reports that David attracted Saul's attention with his victory over Goliath. The winner of Goliath was an unknown shepherd boy, Saul ordered to bring him to him and asked:
"Whose son is this young man?" - therefore, he did not know him before.
Another, even more curious example is the question of the murder of Goliath.
The widespread version according to which David killed Goliath in single combat is based on the First Book of Kingdoms. When we read the Second Book of Kingdoms, we are overwhelmed by amazement, as we learn that Goliath was not killed by David, but by a certain Elchanan from Bethlehem. Biblical scholars have repeatedly tried to explain or somehow smooth over these discrepancies. In the case of Goliath, a discovery was made that unexpectedly put scientists on the trail. It turned out that we, in essence, do not know the name of Saul's successor on the Israeli throne. “David”, as in the Mari texts “davidum”, is not a proper name, but a title or nickname denoting a leader or guardian. Having found this out, many Bible scholars have concluded that David and Elchanan are one and the same person.
So, if we assume that Goliath was killed by the Bethlehem shepherd Elchanan, whom the grateful people of Israel later named David, the contradiction will disappear as if by magic. But even if we completely agree with this hypothesis, there are still many other contradictions that reduce the historical value of the biblical legends. The Bible mixes facts with legends, old folk legends with later additions, and no matter how hard scientists try, they will never be able to establish the truth completely. A typical example of this inconsistency is the claim that David took Goliath's head to Jerusalem. This, of course, is a much later insertion: after all, we know that David conquered Jerusalem much later, already being the king of Israel.
There is also a legend that David was responsible for most of the psalms in the Bible. The Psalms undoubtedly had a greater impact on the minds of subsequent generations than other books of the Old Testament. These are religious lyrics, distinguished by beauty and richness of moods, expressing a whole range of feelings:
from despondency, humility and despair to hope, faith, joyful ascent, gratitude and cheerfulness. The majestic simplicity of these poems, their laconicism, severity of style and heart-winning religious fervor have made them an inexhaustible source of inspiration for many poets, artists and composers.
The main idea of these religious hymns is monotheism. They are the apotheosis of the greatness and power of Yahweh, who gives people love, knows how to forgive them the most serious sins, but is also inexorable in anger and merciless in punishment. This is already the concept of a deity of the highest order, a deity that dictates moral laws to man. But the cosmology of these poems is as primitive as in the time of Abraham. Yahweh sits on the throne in heaven, he is surrounded by angels, the earth is flat and surrounded by the ocean, terrible monsters of chaos and evil are fighting the forces of order and creation.
Only later will Yahweh triumph, and the land will be ruled by the kings from the clan of David. The name of the psalms comes from the Greek word "psallein" - "to touch the strings with your fingers." The word psalmos denotes a stringed instrument, probably of Phoenician origin, or a song performed to the accompaniment of this instrument. Psalms six and eleven begin with the note: "On eight strings." This undoubtedly means that the psalm should be accompanied by an accompaniment on eight strings. It says a lot for the fact that the text was divided into solo parts and choir parts. Each poem was a kind of litany or antiphon, which are an integral component of various rites and liturgical ceremonies.
The authorship of David, as mentioned above, is a legend. Analysis of the text of the psalms irrefutably proves that most of them could not have been created before the Babylonian captivity and were included in the Bible only in the third century BC. Their content reflects the religious beliefs and socio-political relations characteristic of the last, post-Babylonian period of Jewish history. Even the elegiac lament, supposedly composed by David after the death of Saul and Jonathan, is actually borrowed from the ancient collection of hymns - the Book of the Righteous.
This does not mean that David was not a poet or musician. The Israelis, as we have already noted, were distinguished by exceptional musicality. A fresco discovered in Beni Hassan depicts musicians among Jewish shepherds with lyres in hand.
From inscriptions in Egypt and Mesopotamia, we learn that Israel sent orchestras and ensembles of dancers to these countries. There were also women's orchestras. The Jewish king Hezekiah (721-693 BC), trying to ingratiate himself with the Assyrian king, Sinaherib, sent him a group of singers and singers.
With such a rich musical tradition, it would not be surprising if some of Israel's kings turned out to be talented poets and composers.
The beauty of archeology lies precisely in the fact that sometimes it suddenly turns into an irrefutable scientific truth some historical tradition about which we doubted, whether it is true or legend. This happened with the biblical story about the capture of Jerusalem by David. Thanks to one sensational discovery, we are now quite sure that David conquered this Jebusite stronghold, and we even know by what miracle he succeeded. We deliberately say "miracle", because the fortress was located on the top of an impregnable rock and for four hundred years successfully repelled all enemy attacks.
The biblical story of her conquest is laconic and vague. It follows from it that Joab managed to take the fortress by cunning:
he got there through some secret channel and attacked the Jebusites from the rear.
As often happens with archaeological discoveries, the mystery came to light by accident. In 1867, an English officer, Captain Warren, surveyed Jerusalem and its environs. He became interested in the source of Ain Sitti Mariam in the Kidron Valley, known in the Bible as Gihon. Among the ruins of a Muslim mosque, Warren discovered a hole leading into the depths of the earth. Going down the steps carved into the rock, he reached an underground reservoir with spring water. Despite the darkness, Warren noticed a circular hole in the rock just overhead. Having procured a ladder and a rope, he climbed deeper. It was a channel carved into the wall, which ran first horizontally and then vertically. Warren climbed it with great difficulty and at a height of thirteen meters saw a corridor with steps carved into the stone, leading into a dimly lit cave.
From there, along a narrow crevice, he got out and, to his amazement, was convinced that he was inside the ancient walls of the city.
The tunnel, as established by scientists, was built at the end of the second millennium BC, and of course this is the very channel through which Joab entered the city. It is not difficult to imagine how this happened. First, Joab himself made his way through the canal with a rope, then he dragged all his soldiers there and attacked the defenders of the fortress from the inside, while David attacked from the outside.
Jerusalem was one of the most powerful strongholds in Canaan, but it had its Achilles heel: there was no water in the city. In peacetime, the inhabitants descended to the Gikhon spring, but in the event of a siege, the path to the source was cut off. And so they carved a tunnel with steps in the rock. Vessels were lowered along it on a rope, and someone, hidden in the lower cave, filled them with water from a reservoir.
The existence of the passage was kept in the strictest confidence. How Joab visited him, we do not know. One of the prisoners must have let slip or the Israeli soldiers accidentally heard a vessel with water hitting the rock.
The story of the first two kings of Israel can be attributed to the masterpieces of world literature. Saul's struggle with the priests in defense of his throne, a gloomy, eerie scene in a woman-sorceress in Endor, the collapse of his life's work and suicide, then the stormy life of David, his bitter old age, poisoned by rebellions and palace intrigues - all these are episodes of a truly Shakespearean tragedy …
Both kings are depicted as outstanding personalities, deeply human in their merits, shortcomings and crimes; both have their own merits, both shock us with the strength and passion of their feelings. From the sometimes naive biblical legends, bright, lively and multifaceted human characters arise. What a wonderful psychological study, for example, is the description of Saul's gradual mental decline, poisoned by the poison of suspicion and envy! Also striking is the realism with which the compilers of the Bible depicted the dark, ugly side of David's character, despite the fact that, as a faithful servant of the priests, he was their favorite hero. Their personal sympathies turned out to be powerless in the face of irrefutable historical documents with which they had to reckon.
The biblical text clearly shows the attitude of the compilers to both kings. Saul, the enemy of the priests, is depicted as a black person, despite the fact that his lifestyle is hardly worthy of condemnation. But David, the favorite of the priests, ascends to heaven, and his crimes and unseemly deeds are obscured or depicted with extraordinary condescension. Despite the fact that David was a usurper who walked to the throne on corpses, it cannot be denied that he is one of the most distinguished and honored personalities in the history of Israel. As a commander, conqueror and founder of the state, he deservedly became the pride of his people.
Strikingly quickly, however, David turned into an oriental despot and a pampered sybarite. His numerous harem, venal court circles, mired in intrigues and squabbles, the influence of various favorites and favorites - such is a stunning picture of the gradual moral decline of this major statesman. It also seems dubious to say that David was a faithful Yahvist. If he worshiped only Yahweh, then where did the statue come from in his house, which Michal dressed up in her husband's clothes and put in bed? This is our well-known home god, the subject of a pagan cult, forbidden and persecuted by the Yahvists.
As for the attitude of David towards the priests, there is every reason to assume that he supported them solely for political reasons. A native of the tribe of Judah and also a usurper who robbed the legitimate dynasty of Saul, he was not popular with most northern Israelite tribes. The fact that his personal guard consisted of foreign, mainly Philistine, mercenaries testifies to how insecure he felt on the throne. David tried his best to win the favor of the northern tribes. This explains the mourning he declared for Saul, the magnificent funeral of the deceased king, as well as the order to bury the hanged descendants of Saul (when the people became agitated, moved by Rizpah's behavior). But, as the rebellions of Absalom and Ziba prove, all of David's efforts came to nothing.
And that's why he turned to the priests and leaned on them. The alliance with the priests, of course, was based on a number of compromises, sometimes very strange, such as, for example, a compromise on the position of the high priest. Zadok was the lawful high priest with headquarters in Gibeon, in northern Canaan. David, being king of the Jews, appointed his friend and advisor Abiathar as high priest. When he united both parts of Canaan under his rule, the delicate question arose of who would retain the high office. David never wanted to remove Abiathar, who was his devoted friend and helper.
Zadok, too, could not be deprived of his post, so as not to arouse the anger of the northern tribes. Therefore, for the first and last time in the history of Israel, it was decided to leave both high priests in office. This abnormal situation was changed only by Solomon, who expelled Abiathar for supporting the claims of Adonijah to the throne. Since then, the position of the high priest passed in the Sadok family from father to son. From there subsequently arose the party of the Sadducees, which for many centuries monopolized the office of high priest and all other major offices in the Jerusalem temple.
In the Bible, we sometimes come across laconic remarks that shed bright light on some issues. Let's take a case related to David as an example. We remember that he intended to build a temple in Jerusalem. The prophet Nathan told him then that Yahweh was used to living in a tent and did not want a stone house. According to the Bible, David obediently abandoned his plans, although he had already managed to prepare wood and precious metals for construction. But now we read the fifth chapter (verse 3) of the Third Book of Kingdoms and rub our eyes in amazement. In a letter to the Phoenician king Hiram, Solomon explains that the constant wars that he had to fight prevented David from building the temple.
So everything becomes clear. Here, as in everything else, David was guided primarily by political considerations, and not just following the instructions of the prophet.
It should be added that Nathan, who defends the tent temple, was the spokesman for an influential group of religious purists who sought to preserve the old patriarchal customs of the era of Moses, were opposed to the growth of cities, etc.
David was a harsh and merciless ruler, but at the same time he was an outstanding statesman and a far-sighted diplomat who knew how to use even religious institutions and moods for his political goals. His achievements in building the Israeli state are beyond question, and therefore it is not surprising that subsequent generations idealized him. It was considered the greatest honor to prove one's kinship with the house of David. Therefore, it is also understandable why the evangelists, justifying the historical mission of the humble teacher from Nazareth, Jesus Christ, emphasized that he was a descendant of the greatest of the kings of Israel. Solomon was the first king of Israel to inherit the throne.
But he also came to this throne in an atmosphere of struggle and intrigue. If his mother Bathsheba, an ambitious and energetic woman, did not enjoy the support of the group of the prophet Nathan and did not put pressure on the king, Solomon would remain, in all likelihood, one of the many anonymous royal sons, about whom we know almost nothing. Undoubtedly, Adonijah, the fourth son of David, had more rights to the throne, supported by the high priest Abiathar and the main military leader Joab.
Solomon spared Abiathar, but ordered to kill Joab and Adonijah, although he promised to keep the latter alive. He was right in his own way. To establish himself on the throne, he needed to get rid of a dangerous rival and intimidate his supporters. This state of affairs was not unique to Israel. The huge harems of oriental despots, numerous male offspring and the absence of any legal norms on the issue of succession to the throne led to the fact that the forcible elimination of pretenders to the throne was often inevitable. This dark custom existed, in particular, at the court of the Byzantine emperors, where it became an almost legal act of state accompanying the coronation.
Solomon was a peaceful ruler. Having inherited a large and strong state from his father, he reigned for forty years (972-932 BC). During this time he did not fight a single big war. Not even dealt with the Aramaic Razon, who expelled the Israeli garrison from Damascus and declared himself king. It seemed then an incident of minor importance, and Solomon's mistake was that he failed to foresee how serious a threat to Israel would eventually become the new Aramaic kingdom.
Solomon's historical merit consisted in the fact that he turned a poor agricultural country with a patriarchal tribal system into a single, economically and militarily strong state, enjoying great prestige in the international arena. He was a good administrator, diplomat, builder and merchant. In his time, Israel was famous for the splendor of its capital and the unprecedented luxury of the royal court.
The authority of Solomon is evidenced even by the fact that the proud Pharaoh gave him his daughter to wife. Evidence of Solomon's power and influence was also his monstrously large harem, the excessive brilliance with which he surrounded himself, and the unusually domineering treatment of his subjects, whom he treated like slaves. With all these shortcomings, however, the positive aspects of Solomon's reign cannot be denied. After all, it was he who superbly rebuilt Jerusalem and made it a real capital. The temple erected by him became the only center and symbol of the Jewish religion. His merits in improving the country's defense capability are undeniable - recall the construction of a system of fortified cities and the reorganization of the army by the introduction of war chariots.
Solomon also tried to develop handicrafts and sea trade in Israel, bringing specialists from Phenicia for this purpose. The clear functioning of the state administration was ensured by the bureaucratic hierarchy, built on the Phoenician, Syrian and Egyptian models. Solomon was also a consummate diplomat. His greatest achievements in this field were marriage with the daughter of the pharaoh and cooperation with King Hiram, without whose help he would not have been able to achieve his goals. Thanks to Solomon's business savvy, Israel was a prosperous country. In the Third Book of Kingdoms it is said about this (chapter 10, verse 27): "And the king made silver in Jerusalem equal to simple stones, and cedars, according to their abundance, made equal to sycamore trees growing in low places."
This, of course, is a hyperbole characteristic of the Eastern style, but we have data proving that to a certain extent it corresponds to reality. It is known that Solomon's annual income, which consisted of trade profits, taxes, and tribute to Arab vassals, was six hundred and sixty-six talents (about twenty-two thousand eight hundred and twenty-five kilograms of gold), not counting supplies in kind collected from the Israeli population. The flourishing of agriculture in Israel is evidenced by the fact that Solomon supplied Hiram with twenty thousand measures of wheat and twenty thousand measures of vegetable oil annually. Of course, farmers were subjected to cruel exploitation, but still such colossal supplies of agricultural products are possible only in conditions of prosperity.
Archaeological finds introduced us to many aspects of the then life. In particular, they testify to a fairly high standard of living.
Countless expensive cosmetic bowls made of alabaster and ivory, variously shaped bubbles, tweezers, mirrors and hairpins prove that Israeli women of that era cared about their appearance. They used perfume, blush, creams, myrrh, henna, balsam oil, cypress bark powder, red nail dye and blue eyelid. Most of these drugs were imported from abroad, and such imports are typical for a rich country. In addition, archaeologists have confirmed the rapid process of urban growth, which conservative Yahvists fought so fiercely back in the days of David.
Agriculture was still the leading branch of the national economy, but landowners lived mainly in cities. As all Canaanite cities were surrounded by walls, they became more and more overpopulated. Houses, mostly two-story, were built on every free piece of land along narrow and cramped streets. The main part of the Israeli dwelling was a large room on the first floor. The women cooked there food and baked bread, and the whole family gathered there for joint meals. There was no furniture. Even wealthy people ate and slept on mats. The rooms on the upper floor were climbed by stone steps or wooden ladders. In the summer they slept on rooftops, where a refreshing breeze blew. A lot of onions and garlic were eaten. The food was simple and nutritious. The main food was fried and boiled wheat, various cereals, lentils,cucumbers, beans, fruits and honey. They ate meat only on holidays.
They drank mainly sheep and cow milk, while wine was consumed very sparingly.
From what sources did King Solomon draw his wealth? For a long time, scientists questioned everything that was said about this in the Bible - it was too fantastic and vague.
In the Third Book of Kingdoms (chapter 10, verses 28, 29) we read: “The horses for King Solomon were brought from Egypt and from Kuva; tsarist merchants bought them from Kuva for money. The chariot from Egypt was received and delivered for six hundred shekels of silver, and the horse for one hundred and fifty. In the same way, with their own hands, they delivered all this to the kings of the Hittites and the kings of Aramaic. It says only that King Solomon bought horses and chariots, but nothing is said about the fact that he also sold them. Meanwhile, as a result of archaeological research, it is precisely established that he was engaged in mediation in trade between Egypt and Asia, traded horses and chariots.
In 1925, an American archaeological expedition discovered the ruins of the city of Megiddo in the historic Jezreel Valley. This city was of great strategic importance: it defended the northern borders of the valley, a trade route from Asia to Egypt passed through it. David and Solomon turned Megiddo into a strong fortress, but the city existed already in the third millennium BC It was there that the secret of Solomon was revealed.
Among the ruins were discovered stables he built for four hundred and fifty horses. They were located around a large area where the horses must have been circled and watered, and where horse fairs were probably held. The size and location of these stables on the main trade route proves that Megiddo was the main base for the horse trade between Asia and Egypt. Solomon bought horses in Cilicia and sold them, most likely, to Egypt, from where he, in turn, took out chariots, selling them in Mesopotamian markets.
According to the Bible, Solomon built a merchant fleet with the help of Phoenician specialists and sailors, which stood in the port of Ezion-Gaver in the Gulf of Aqaba and every three years traveled to the country of Ophir, bringing from there gold and exotic goods. The Bible Students were interested in two questions:
1) where was the mysterious country of Ophir?
2) what could an agricultural country like Canaan bring to Ophir?
About which country is called Ophir in the Bible, they still argue.
They call India, Arabia, Madagascar. Famous American Orientalist
Albright concluded that this was Somalia. Other scholars pay attention to the frescoes in one of the Theban temples. It depicts a dark-skinned queen from a certain country of Punt.
The signature under the fresco says that Egyptian ships brought from this country gold, silver, ebony and mahogany, tiger skins, live monkeys and Negro slaves. It was suggested that Punt and the biblical Ophir are one and the same. The answer to the second question was given by archeology. In 1937, archaeologist Nelson Gluck stumbled upon a copper mine dug into the rock in the desert valley of Wadi al-Arab. The ruins of the stone barracks in which the miners lived, and the wall to protect against attacks from the robber tribes of the desert, convinced Gluck that this was Solomon's mine.
Near the Gulf of Aqaba, where the ruins of the port of Ezion Gaver had already been discovered under a layer of sand, Gluck made an even more important discovery. On a vast site surrounded by a fortress wall, there was a large number of copper smelting furnaces. The chimneys were facing with holes to the north, from where the constant sea winds blow. In this ingenious way, it was possible to easily maintain the temperature required for melting. Through these discoveries, we learned that Solomon was not only a skillful horse trader, but also an industrialist. In all likelihood, he held a monopoly on copper production, which allowed him to dictate prices and receive the huge profits mentioned in the Bible.
The fame of the wisdom of Solomon, his wealth and the luxury of his court spread throughout the world. Ambassadors from all over the world traveled to Jerusalem to conclude treaties of friendship and trade agreements. The inhabitants of the capital almost daily greeted corteges of exotic guests, bringing generous gifts to the king. And they were undoubtedly proud that their hometown had become such a major trade and diplomatic center. Once there was a rumor about the arrival of a caravan of the Queen of Sheba from distant Arabia. The people took to the streets and enthusiastically greeted the queen, who was traveling accompanied by a large crowd of courtiers and slaves. At the rear of the procession was a long row of camels laden with sumptuous gifts for Solomon.
Who was this legendary queen, the heroine of one of the most exciting biblical stories?
Now this is already known, and the story of this discovery is so curious that it is worth telling.
Back in the nineteenth century, southern Arabia, home of spices and incense, which the ancient Romans called Happy Arabia (Arabia felix), was closed to Europeans. The "unfaithful dogs" who dared to set foot in the country of Muhammad were threatened with death. And yet there were daredevils "in whom curiosity and thirst for adventure were stronger than fear. The Frenchman EK. Halevy and the Austrian Dr. E. Glaser disguised themselves as Arabs and went to the forbidden country. After many adventures and difficulties, they came across in the desert on the ruins of a huge city, which, as it turned out later, it was called Merib. There, in particular, they discovered and brought to Europe a number of mysterious inscriptions. The sensational discovery aroused tremendous interest in scientific circles.
Arab merchants, sensing the conjuncture, began a brisk trade in Meribian inscriptions. Thus, in the hands of scientists were several thousand stone fragments, covered with letters based on the Palestinian alphabetical system. Among the fragmentary information about gods, tribes and cities, the names of four South Arabian states were also read: Minea, Gadhramaut, Kataban and Sava. The country of Sava is also mentioned in the Assyrian documents of the eighth century BC It says that Mesopotamia carried on a lively trade with this country, buying there mainly spices and incense. The kings of Sheba bore the title "mukarrib", which means "priest-prince".
Their residence was the city of Merib, the ruins of which were found in the south of the Arabian Peninsula (in today's Yemen). The city was located in the mountains, at an altitude of two thousand meters above the level of the Red Sea. Among the countless columns and walls, the old legendary temple of Haram Bilkis, near Merib, stood out for its splendor. It was an oval structure with a beautiful portal, to which there were stone steps lined with bronze. Numerous columns and pilasters, as well as fountains in the vast courtyard, give a complete picture of the former splendor of the temple. From the inscriptions we learn that it was erected in honor of the Arab god Ilumkug.
As a result of careful research, it was possible to establish what were the sources of the prosperity of the Sheba kingdom. A huge, twenty meters high, dam raised the level of the Adganaf River, from where an extensive network of irrigation canals led. Thanks to irrigation, Sava was a land of extraordinary fertility.
The inhabitants were mainly engaged in the cultivation of various kinds of spices, which were exported to a number of countries. This continued until 542 AD, when, due to constant raids and wars, the dam collapsed. The blooming garden was swallowed up by the desert sands. It can be assumed why the Queen of Sheba gathered to visit Solomon. The trade route, called the Incense Route, along which the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Sheba exported their goods to Egypt, Syria and Phenicia, went along the Red Sea and crossed the territories subordinated to Israel. Therefore, the safe advance of the caravans depended on the goodwill of Solomon. The Queen of Sheba came with a purely practical purpose: with generous gifts and the promise of a share in profits to persuade the Israeli king to conclude a treaty of friendship.
But the folk fantasy passed over in silence the character of the visit and gave everything a romantic touch. Solomon, allegedly struck by the queen's bright beauty, was inflamed with passion for her and had a son from her. The Abyssinians to this day claim that the Negus dynasty originated from him. It is worth mentioning another legend related to Solomon. The treasury of the temple in Aksum, the former capital of Abyssinia, supposedly contains the ark of the covenant. How did he get there? Tradition says that his son and the queen of Sheba stole him from the temple of Solomon, leaving a forgery in Jerusalem. Thus, the original Moses ark of the covenant is supposedly in Aksum. It is the greatest shrine of the Abyssinians, and no one living has the right to see it.
During the Moskal holiday, in honor of the end of the rainy season, a copy of the ark is exhibited for public viewing.
Solomon became the embodiment of wisdom for subsequent generations of the Jewish people.
This is not surprising. The years of his reign were the period of the highest economic and political prosperity of Israel, the only period of power, peace and prosperity in the history of the country. True, only the bright sides of Solomon's reign have been preserved in the memory of generations, while the shadow ones are consigned to oblivion. And yet there were many of these shadow sides, and they must be remembered in order to recreate a true picture of that era. We know what colossal profits were brought to Solomon by the trade and production of copper. And yet he cannot be called a prudent and far-sighted owner. His extravagance and craving for eastern luxury led to the fact that he could not return Hiram one hundred and twenty talents and was forced to transfer twenty Galilean cities to the Tyrian king in payment of the debt. This was the step of a bankrupt, caught in a financial impasse.
As follows from the biblical legends, the entire burden of the costs of building, equipping and maintaining the royal court fell primarily on the shoulders of the Canaanite population. Suffice it to recall that more than two hundred thousand people were driven annually to forced labor in Lebanese forests, in quarries on the banks of the Jordan River and on construction sites. This monstrous system of slave labor was no different from the system of the pharaohs of the era of the construction of the great pyramids. If we take into account that, according to the census of the population conducted by David, in Israel and Judea there were at that time a million two hundred thousand men, it is not difficult to imagine what a huge percentage of his subjects the king exploited for forced labor.
Such economic coercion could not but entail profound social shifts. Every year the gap between the rich and the powerless poor, exhausted by taxes and labor service, widened. Discontent grew in the lower classes, fermentation began. Even the priests who were allies of the king in David's time had reason to murmur. Subsequent generations, remembering the great merits of Solomon, forgave him idolatry, which he practiced openly even in the courtyard of the Jerusalem Temple. But of course this outraged the priests of his day. In the huge harem of the king were women of all races and religions. There were Hittite women, Moabites, Edomites, Ammonites, Egyptians, Philistines, Canaanites, and so on. Together with their customs, they brought their gods to the palace. Solomon, especially in the last years of his life,remained under the strong influence of his favorites and, yielding to their persuasion, established various idolatrous cults. It is known, for example, that the cult of Baal, Astarte and Moloch were practiced in the courtyard of the temple. And since the masses, especially in the north of the country, were very sympathetic to the Canaanite gods, the example of the king did not at all contribute to the strengthening of Yahvism.
David and Solomon united, it is true, all the tribes in a single state, but they never achieved spiritual unity. Political and racial antagonism continued to exist between the tribes of northern and southern Canaan. Even David was fully aware of the alienation between the two groups of the population and on his deathbed said about Solomon: “I have commanded him to be the leader of Israel and Judah” (1 Kings, chapter 1, verse 36).
In this regard, Solomon made a fatal mistake, unforgivable for a major statesman. He divided his country into twelve tax districts, obliged to supply a certain amount of agricultural products for the needs of the royal court and the army. At the same time, it is striking that the list of districts does not include the territory of Judah. From this we can conclude that Judas, the tribe of David and Solomon, was exempted from tax. Such a privilege should inevitably have embittered other tribes, especially the proud Ephraim tribe, which constantly vied with Judah over priority in Israel.
Already in the reign of David, menacing cracks appeared on the building of state power. The rebellion of Absalom and Ziba was, in essence, a rebellion of the northern tribes against the hegemony of Judah. These tribes supported Ishbosheth and Adonijah against David and Solomon as pretenders to the throne, which proves the strength of internal conflicts that ultimately led to the split of the state.
Solomon's biggest mistake was that he never cared about consolidating the foundations of his state. Due to his short-sightedness and selfishness, he thoughtlessly exacerbated dangerous antagonism between the tribes, which led to disaster after his death. The first dangerous signs were revealed even during the life of Solomon, when the rebellion of the tribe of Ephraim broke out under the leadership of Jeroboam. Jeroboam was defeated, but he managed to escape to Egypt, where Pharaoh (Sheshonk) Susakim met him very cordially.
This was the second warning, since it proved that Egypt harbors some hostile intentions towards the kingdom of Israel and therefore supports all who contribute to its weakening and split. Indeed, five years after the death of Solomon, Susakim invaded Judea and barbarously robbed the Jerusalem temple (about 926 BC). The impotence of Solomon in relation to Razon, who declared himself king of Damascus during the reign of David, also had serious historical consequences. Despite the fact that the usurper constantly ravaged Israel's northern borders, Solomon never dared to give him a decisive rebuff.
After the split of Israel and Judea, the Aramaic kingdom of Damascus gained great power and fought with Israel for many years. This made it easier for Assyria to conquer Syria in the eighth century BC, and in 722 BC to conquer Israel and drive ten Israeli tribes into Babylonian slavery. After the fall of Assyria, a struggle broke out between the New Babylonian kingdom and Egypt for Syria and Canaan, which ended in 586 with the conquest of Judea and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans.
Based on these facts, it must be said that the reign of Solomon, with all its splendor and apparent wealth, was not successful. As a result of the pernicious policies and despotism of the king, Israel, shaken by internal social conflicts, was steadily going to ruin. It is not surprising that immediately after the death of the king, the power, with such difficulty created by David, fell apart into two separate weak states, occupied with constant internecine wars.
It is necessary to dwell on the traditional and widespread opinion that the authorship of the Song of Songs and the Book of Proverbs belongs to King Solomon. The Bible says that Solomon composed one thousand and five songs and three thousand parables, which reflected his extraordinary wisdom. The Song of Songs is one of the most wonderful and peculiar erotic poems in all world literature. Her beautiful rhythmic phrases, white-hot with the heat of exotic metaphors and comparisons, overwhelm with their truly oriental sensuality. Not surprisingly, for many generations of poets, artists and musicians, she was an inexhaustible source of inspiration, a cup filled to the brim with the magic drink of poetry.
This is how the young hero of the poem addresses his beloved:
How beautiful you are, how attractive, beloved, by your sweetness! This camp is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like bunches of grapes. I thought: I would climb onto a palm tree, grab onto its branches; and your breasts would be instead of bunches of grapes, and the smell from your nostrils as from apples.
The girl portrays her sweetheart like this:
His head is pure gold; his curls are wavy, black like a raven. His eyes are like doves in streams of water …
His cheeks are a fragrant flower garden, rows of fragrant plants; his lips are lilies, exuding fluid myrrh; his hands are golden round timber, seated with topaz; his belly is like an ivory statue overlaid with sapphires; his legs are marble pillars, set on golden soles.
The poem also contains wonderful pictures of nature.
Let's take as an example a description of the spring landscape on Mount Carmel:
The winter has already passed; the rain has passed, stopped; flowers have appeared on the ground, the time for singing has come, and the voice of the turtledove is heard in our country; the fig trees have budged, and the vines bloom and give off an incense. Arise, my beloved, my beautiful, come out!
Fiery outpourings of love are strung on a plot canvas reminiscent of ancient pastorals. The king fell in love with a simple village girl named Shulamita. He took the Shulamite into his harem, but never managed to gain her favor. The girl remained faithful to her lover, a shepherd from her home village. Among the palace luxury, surrounded by the care and affection of her master, Shulamita constantly yearns for those happy days when she, together with her beloved, tended a flock of sheep in the mountains; at night she dreams of his strong and sweet embrace.
In the end, love wins and the lovers reunite. This poem, which is a masterpiece of love lyrics, had an amazing destiny. The very fact that she found herself among the canonical books of the Old Testament is puzzling.
How could a poem, imbued with such an unequivocal sensibility, be counted among religious writings? Researchers have never been able to definitively answer this question. Apparently, the compilers of the "scripture" included the poem in the Bible in the belief that the author was King Solomon.
As the builder of the Jerusalem temple, Solomon was idealized to such an extent that it would be simply sacrilege to attribute to him the authorship of an erotic poem.
Consequently, the compilers of the Bible reasoned, in the Song of Songs, not love, but religious feelings are expressed, and if the author gave them the form of a love allegory, it was only in order to make the poem more intelligible for his fellow believers. Not everyone, however, was always convinced of the correctness of this interpretation. It is no coincidence that one of the most famous Israeli rabbis, Akiba (50-135 AD), urged the people not to desecrate the Song with songs and not sing it in taverns. More than once the question arose as to whether the poem was correctly ranked among the canonical works. Over time, however, tradition won out.
The Song of Songs became part of the Jewish liturgy and is performed on the first day of the Passover. It is read as a mystical drama with division into monologues, dialogues and choir parts. The content of the poem supposedly expresses the successive changes in the attitude of the Israelites towards the god Yahweh from the moment of the exodus from Egypt until the time when “the chosen people will get rid of earthly torments and will forever unite with God. In the third century AD, the poem triumphantly crosses the threshold of the Catholic Church, of course, in a modified interpretation. The beloved is Jesus Christ himself, the beloved is the church or the soul of a Christian, and in the choir, under the guise of friends of a couple in love, angels, prophets and patriarchs are hiding.
True, in the fifth century, doubts began to arise again about the religious nature of the poem. Some, in particular, suggested that Solomon wrote a poem in defense of one of his wives, a dark-skinned Egyptian, the daughter of the Pharaoh, who was not popular in Jerusalem due to her skin color. However, thanks to the vigilance of the Church and the Inquisition, it was not until the eighteenth century that researchers truly critically approached the Song of Songs. But even then it never occurred to anyone to question the authorship of Solomon.
On the contrary, everyone was at a loss as to which of the royal favorites was hidden behind the image of the Sulamita. They called in turn either the daughter of King Hiram, whom Solomon supposedly met for the first time on Mount Carmel, then the Egyptian princess, then the Queen of Sheba, then, finally, the Sunammite Avisag, who was brought in due time to the old king David to warm him. All guesses, thanks to their romantic coloring, found many adherents, especially among artists and writers, and were reflected in works of art and literature.
These hypotheses were, however, refuted in 1873 by the Prussian consul in Damascus I. G. Vezstein. While observing the wedding rites of the Syrian peasants, he noticed a striking similarity between their ritual songs and the biblical Song of Songs. Here is what Wezstein writes in his memoirs:
»The best days in the life of a Syrian peasant are the first week after the wedding. The newlyweds then represent the king and queen, they are served by all the villagers.
Weddings are celebrated by the Syrians mainly in March, the most beautiful month of the year. The time of the rains had already passed, and the sun did not burn as mercilessly as in the following months. The holiday is held in the open air - on the current, dotted at that time with wildflowers. The newlyweds sit on a specially erected throne, and the guests dance around them and sing - sometimes singly or in chorus. The songs celebrate the physical beauty of the young couple. The bride and groom, dressed in lush wedding dresses, do nothing all week, only sit on the throne, served by the wedding guests, listen to songs and watch the men compete in agility. From time to time the bride rises and dances to draw the groom's attention to her beauty."
Through comparisons, scholars have come to the conclusion that the Song of Songs is a collection of Israeli folk songs associated with wedding ceremonies. Such songs can be found in the folklore of any nation. Usually they are associated with certain ritual actions and thus form an integral composition. These songs have long been widespread in the Middle East and, according to Vezstein, have survived to this day. Syrian peasants sing them today at their weddings.
We only learned about the deep antiquity of these songs when we managed to decipher the cuneiform script of Mesopotamia. Researchers have read two erotic poems, which are, without any doubt, anthologies of songs that the bride sang to her royal groom. According to Sumerian custom, the king was obliged to marry one of the priestesses of the goddess of love Inanna once a year in order to provide the country with a good harvest. The love poem performed by the bride is strikingly reminiscent of some excerpts from the Song of Songs. Let's take the following quatrain as an example:
Beloved, dear to my heart! Your beauty is sweet as honey. O lion, dear to my heart! Your beauty is sweet as honey.
The folklore origin of the Song of Songs excludes, of course, the authorship of Solomon and thereby refutes the biblical tradition.
Modern science has finally confirmed the correctness of this conclusion.
Philological analysis of the Song of Songs revealed that the language of the poem is at least several centuries younger than the Hebrew language of Solomon's era. Numerous Arameisms and Hellenisms irrefutably prove that the poem was written after the Babylonian captivity, that is, after 532 BC, when the influence of Greek culture was very strong in Palestine. Archaeological discoveries in Egypt, Syria, and Mesopotamia have also refuted another tradition of attributing the Book of Proverbs to King Solomon. The Bible says that Solomon surpassed all the wisdom of Egypt.
The meaning of this phrase became clear only after reading the Egyptian hieroglyphs.
It turned out that the reputation of the Egyptians as very wise people had its own reasons.
Already during the reign of the fifth dynasty of the pharaohs (about 2450-2315 BC), the court nobleman Ptagotep compiled for his son a collection of everyday advice, set out in the form of short proverbs. A truly rich life experience found expression in them, for by the time the collection was compiled, the author was already one hundred and ten years old. Even more interesting is a collection of instructive maxims by the Egyptian sage Amenemope dating back to the sixteenth century BC. We learned from the cuneiform tables that the Sumerians, Assyrians, Chaldeans and Phoenicians also had similar collections.
When comparing all this material with the biblical Book of Proverbs, it turned out that the latter contains many borrowings from these much more ancient collections. There are even completely identical thoughts and expressions. This does not mean that the original Israeli proverbs are completely absent from the Book of Proverbs. But most of the parables in the Bible are undoubtedly of foreign, non-Jewish origin. They must have spread throughout the Middle East and also penetrated Canaan. The Israelites took them as their own and subsequently attributed them to the wisdom of Solomon.
Continuation: "Am I my brother's keeper?"
Author: Zenon Kosidovsky
