questions about Solomon's stables

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards!

I have heard from time to time of the stables of Solomon. I suppose I could look on the internet and find what is out there, but I am equally curious of the cultural and social significance. Do ruins still exist? What purpose did they originally serve (to hold horses, duh...), what kind of horses and why so elaborate? Why did Solomon put such effort into this building and others, going far beyond his "mandate" to build a Temple for the Lord? Do the stables of Solomon still hold any cultural significance? Perhaps this is better asked in the Judaism section, but I thought it proper to ask in the archeology section.

Many thanks in advance.

 

[dauer]

Solomon had many horses, many wives, and he enslaved the populous in order to build his Temple. Oy, what a mentch. Why did he have stables? We could also ask why it is written that he had divine wisdom and why he decided to have a temple in the first place. He was modeling Israel after the great empires and himself after the great kings/emperors/pharoahs.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, dauer!

Thank you for your response.

May I presume you do not hold Solomon in very high esteem? Is this the common view of Judaism as a whole, or is it merely your view? I am sincerely curious. I have always held Solomon in pretty high regard, I find his teaching relatively easy to understand and apply in my life. I also value your point of view, I have learned a lot from you. So I am a little confused...

I guess I can see your point about modelling after great kings, but is he not ranked among the better kings of Israel? I am curious if the stables were for war horses, considering that even though David was a warrior, God directed Solomon's reign in a rather peaceful manner. Perhaps that is why Solomon drifted, not enough to keep him busy and out of trouble? Vanity of vanities...

I'm just trying to get a little background of the time and place, and the significance Solomon holds/held for the Jewish people. We are cousins after all, , or at least I am inclined to think so.

 

[dauer]

juantoo,

My view is not the traditional view. Liberal Jews who seriously investigate the bible often side with modern scholarship over issues of historicity. By claiming divine wisdom, he was able to further marginalize the kohanim. But if I had to choose between him or David as a friend, I'd choose him because he's smart and wasn't vicious in the same way to people who got in his way. Solomon it really seems was working toward some sort of reform, but I have to wonder at his motives. I don't think there's any way to access those.

Mythically however I think Solomon is a really cool guy, and David cool. But I view them both as archetypes in sacred history and not real people, sorta like spiderman or hercules, only more meaningful to me. If you are interested specifically in the traditional view I can supply that too.

I have a lot of notes on Solomon from a course I took that I can look through later but there is suggestion he was not David's son also. He established forced labor. He started taxing the people. He had close relationships with the Phoenecians. Got into heavy trade. Gave away 3 cities part of the tribe of Asher to pay for his debt.

If you look at Deuteronomy 17:14-20 (Christian numbering may be a little different) it says a king should not have many horses, many wives, not amass silver and gold, not send people back to Egypt. And all these things Solomon ends up doing. It may be a polemic originally. I think that might also mention that the king must be descended from the tribe of Judah, or something else that would disqualify Solomon if he's not David's son.

But I was missing a lot of classes and ended up dropping that one. I do have more explicit information about some things though. I'm not sure about the stables. I think he was just living luxuriously. Even historically, I try to relate to David and Solomon as I understand them, that they were acting as they did because of the time and place in which they lived, and perhaps also due to their natural psychological inclinations. So while it goes against the standards of today, I think it's quite normal for the leaders of that time and by viewing it this way I can even try to see through their eyes.

Dauer

Did I address even one question you asked? I'm sorry. A little out of it.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, dauer!

Thank you for your post!

I would be most happy to hear anything else you might be able to provide.

 

[dauer]

juantoo,


I have my notes from the class I took which was taught by a particularly unforgiving profesor of the biblical critical school. So it's all based on that approach. I have some possible prooftexts for Solomon's not being David's son but that's a little unrelated to the thread and probably warrants a thread of its own. I'm going to be a little busy for the next few days but when I have time I'll see if I can put it all together in a thread.

Dauer

 

[juantoo3]

Cool! Thanks!

 

[queenofsheba]

There are no archeological remains found from the time of Solomon, but they could be under the ground in Jerusalem. The problem is that it's hard to get permission to dig there: it might be under muslim territory. The second temple was built above the first, so there must be something.

 

[florian]

juantoo,




If you look at Deuteronomy 17:14-20 (Christian numbering may be a little different) it says a king should not have many horses, many wives, not amass silver and gold, not send people back to Egypt. And all these things Solomon ends up doing.

Dauer

The mention of Solomon's horses and wives reminded me that I read somewhere (perhaps a quote from the Talmud ) that a student once complained that God never gave any reasons for his commandments The reply was that in the only 2 cases where God did give reasons i.e. in the 2 passages from Deuteronomy mentioned

A king should not have many wives... "that his heart turn not away: "

A king should not have many horses to himself.. " lest he cause the people to return to Egypt"

The result was that Solomon broke both these particular commandments because he could deny that his intentions were those stated .The 'moral' of this being that if you make a rule , dont give any reason for it since that only gives opportunity for an excuse to get around it .
BTW I remember when visiting the Western wall of the Temple site that some arches were pointed out to us as being called "Solomons Stables" but were in fact part of the base of Herod's temple mound .