jess

hello all!

I have a question--- the one in the topic line: Could Solomon *really* have married Pharoh's daughter?

I recently watched a documentary/edutainment show on PBS where it was mentioned that the Egyptians refused to let princesses marry foreigners for fear that the foreigners would then have a claim on the Egpytian throne. There is a record of one man pleading to have a princess as a wife and being refused on these grounds, and then asking for ' a pretty woman, for who is to know she isn't a princess?'.

And then, in 1 Kings 3:1, it says that Solomon allied himself with Egypt by marrying Pharoh's daughter. T

I see three options.
1) he did, because the law was relaxed but there is no histroical record of it being so.
2) the historians were wrong, and he could have married an Egyptian, but not a princess
3) Solomon did marry a princess, but he was not a pure Israelite (he was Egyptian descent himself)

Are there more options? Does anyone have an solid references (as opposed to quotes of quotes and movie factoids like I have) to back this up? Any way of finding out about this further? I've been searching, but you guys know so very much... help?

Toto

Other possibilities:

4) Solomon never married the 700 wives that are recorded for him. Later historians just added wives to pump up his credibility and make his kingdom appear to be more important. If Solomon had been as important as the Bible claims, he would have had 700 wives and 300 concubines, including at least one Egyptian princess.

5) Solomon never even existed, never had a palace, wives, concubines. . . .

jess

Sorry, I forgot your #5!

But 4 should be 4 & 5 (two seperate points), and then *5* is an impossibility (the second half of four) If the Egyptians *never* removed the law that said princesses can't marry non egyptians, then it really doesn't matter *how* powerful Solomon was, y'know? In addition, he married her right after becoming king, when he was still weak...

I am working under the assumptijn that Solomon existed for the arguement. While *I* am fine thinking that he didn't, I'd like to prove or disprove the likelyhood of this marriage based on Egyptian law and the bible as written, accepting the bible as truth for this instance...

Toto

Did the writers of the Bible know that Egypt had such a law?

Did they care?

If their purpose was to show how important, divinely blessed, etc. Solomon was, that gives them a motive for what they wrote. The motive was not to present actual history, or even believable history by modern "realistic" standards.

Egyptian law and the Bible seem to contradict each other. Why make this assumption?

andrewcriddle

IIUC the refusals to let a foreign prince marry an Egyptian Princess occurred during the 18th Dynasty.

Solomon's marriage if historical would have occurred with a princess of the 21st dynasty roughly 400 years later.

I'm not sure if we can assume that conventions would have remained the same over centuries and several changes of dynasty.

It is even possible that the extreme weakness of the 21st dynasty, ruling IIUC only part of Egypt, may have made it more ready to enter into foreign marriage alliances.

Andrew Criddle

offa

It's about locations. The pharaoh is a title and Egypt is a pseudo location. It is like Damascus and Galilee, these locales are local to Judah. It's like in Ohio, we have a town named Kansas.

offa

jess

Thank you all.

offa--- I have one for you--- Uriah means 'the Lord is my light' (a strange name for a non-Jew) and Bathsheba is the daughter of Eliam or 'God's people'--- so David, God's 'chosen' rapes the daughter of 'God's people', 'the one who belongs to' (NT quote) 'the Lord is my light'.

Thanks for the solid answer Andrew Criddle. I can use that.

Toto, I'm writing a novel based in that time period. I am using the bible as a plot line, and thus I *must* assume that it is correct, because it is in my 'world'. Does that make sense?

Thank you!

offa

The way that I read it is that David was a eunuch in the first place and the story about him lying with Uriah's wife is a fable in order to conceal his ineptude. The reason I feel he is a eunuch is because he had long flowing hair and that he tended his father's sheep (harem). Using the twelve year rule an offspring is not counted as a Child until he celebrates his bar mitzvah. Only then can David be a Father, and the Child does not belong to him. The sacred blood belongs to the mother in any case. David's wives already had husbands and his concubines were raped by one of his Children. Saul's daughter did not have children by him and his final girl could not arouse him. You just have to put two plus two together. And remember, David and Jonathan were pretty close as if he was Jonathan's catamite, another trait given to eunuchs. King Herod the Great had a catamite per Josephus, so it was not uncommon for strange bedfellows in those days of yore!
with David being closer to Herod's time than we are.

offa