Psalm of Solomon 17: An Historical Reference to Herod the Great?

Posted onAuthorTim Keyes

King Solomon in Old Age by Gustav Dore, 1866.
Plate from La Grande Bible de Tours. Public Domain.

The Psalms of Solomon are a pseudepigraphal work written in the mid-to-late first century BCE. It consists of eighteen psalms (songs or poems) that stylistically resemble the biblical psalter. In its most general sense, a pseudepigraphal work is an ancient writing ascribed to some authoritative person(s), that has either been demonstrated to not have been written by the author(s) to whom it has traditionally been ascribed, or the authorship cannot be verified. Dating analysis (content and grammar) demonstrates that these Psalms could not possibly have been written by King Solomon. Two theories exist regarding why the work was ascribed to him. First, one of the Psalms of Solomon (17) bears a strong resemblance to the canonical Psalm 72 that is traditionally ascribed to King Solomon. The second, alternate theory, is that these psalms were so highly regarded that Solomon’s name was attached to them to keep them from being ignored or forgotten—a common characteristic of pseudepigraphal and apocryphal works. Both theories benefit from the reference in 1 Kings 4:32 which reads, “He [Solomon] spoke three thousand proverbs, and his songs were one thousand and five.”

The author(s) were likely a part of an unidentified community living in Jerusalem during the middle of first century BCE.1 The earliest of the psalms were evidently written just prior to Pompey’s arrival in 63 BCE, the latest documented event is Herod the Great’s siege of Jerusalem in 37/36 BCE,2 and is part of the focus of this thesis. The corpus was likely redacted later.3 The original collection was likely only Psalms 2–17, with the redactor adding Psalms 1 and 18 as an introduction and conclusion.

“The Psalms of Solomon are believed to have been composed in Hebrew. Unfortunately, there are no extant Hebrew manuscripts, and the collection only survives in whole or in part, in eleven Greek and five Syriac manuscripts. None of these manuscripts is earlier than the tenth century, with the single exception of a 7th century CE Syriac fragment.”4

The character of these psalms ranges from lamentations to entreaties, thanksgiving, wisdom literature, and prophecy. The collection is largely historical, and records catastrophic events brought upon Jerusalem by unidentified “foreign enemies”. The collection describes how God decreed that Jerusalem would capitulate to these enemies because of her iniquities. “Davidic usurpers” (6) are pronounced by God to receive special punishment due to their exorbitant sins (8). “Despite these calamities, the community of the psalmist managed to survive. The collection ends with the expectation of a Davidic Messiah, who would rule in Jerusalem, and punish both the Jewish and Gentile sinners.”5

Psalm of Solomon 17 is by far the most significant of the collection. The Psalm describes a Davidic messianic figure who will purge Jerusalem of the Gentiles, gather the exiles, and “shepherd the Lord’s flock in righteousness” (40). This Psalm draws on the canonical Psalm 72 and is witness to the extensive and fervent messianic hopes of that time.

The Psalm begins and ends with a petition to God who is “king forever and ever” (1; 46).

Verses 11–20 describe a “lawless one” who “…laid waste to our land…”. He is described as a “foreign enemy” (13), whose “heart was alien toward God”, and “did in Jerusalem all things nations [Gentiles] do for their gods” (14). While the identity of the “dragon” and the one who defiled the Temple in Psalm of Solomon 2 is easily recognized as Pompey,6 we should not immediately assume that the “lawless one” of Psalm 17 is one and the same. While the conditions described in this Psalm reflect the political unrest at the time of Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II,7 that historically includes Pompey, the “lawless one” of Psalm of Solomon 17 fits Herod the Great as well as, and frankly better than, Pompey.

As an Idumean (an Edomite, or descendant of Esau), regardless of his proselytized Judaism, Herod was looked upon by “real” Jews as a “foreign enemy”. Additionally, the phrase “In his foreignness the enemy acted arrogantly, and his heart was alien from our God” (13), fits Herod to a “T” and makes the following verse, “And he did in Jerusalem all the things the nations do for their gods in their own cities” make even more sense. There is no doubt Pompey killed thousands of Jews when he attacked the entered the Temple in 63 BCE, but he did not spoil the Temple, did not continue to hunt down the Hasmoneans, (rather confirming Hyrcanus II as high priest), and rather quickly departed Judea never to return. In contrast, Herod made a career of “…[doing] in Jerusalem [and all of Judea] all the things the nations do for their gods in their own cities”. He continually Romanized and Hellenized the client kingdom, renaming cities to honor Caesar, building Greek-style gymnasiums, holding Olympic games, displaying honorific graven images, and inaugurating gladiatorial games in Jerusalem and Caesarea Maritima.8 As a “practicing” Jew, who obeyed the Law for appearance’s sake, and disregarded it when it suited him, the phrase “…his heart was alien from our God”, hits the bullseye again. The psalmist writes that the “foreign enemy” acts like a Gentile, therefore implying he is “Jewish”. Additionally, if the “Davidic usurpers” of verses 5–6 are indeed the Hasmoneans, then “…a man alien to our race” of verses 7–8 fits Herod, who exterminated the last of the Hasmonean line—Antigonus II, Aristobulus III, and Hyrcanus II.9 If Herod is the protagonist of Psalm of Solomon 17,10 then the siege described must be the one unleashed upon Jerusalem by Herod and the Roman general Sosius in 37 BCE.

A large portion of the Psalm is a prayer for the restoration of the Davidic line (21–43).

The Psalms of Solomon are clearly pseudepigraphal, ascribed the name of a famous person who could not possibly have written them to loan them credibility. This was common to the intertestamental period when most pseudepigraphal and apocryphal works were written. The question of canonicity does not invalidate the work. This is clearly an historical work that existed in antiquity, recording events witnessed by the author(s), but also redacted later. Unlike certain pseudepigraphal and apocryphal works, the Psalms of Solomon do not suffer from problems of internal textual integrity. There is a consensus that the Psalms of Solomon emerged from Jerusalem. “The group responsible for these psalms is also to be situated within the confines of the city, since they suffered the effects of corrupt Jewish leadership, knew of the activities of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin, and experienced first-hand [the] siege of the city. The collection lacks any rural imagery, and the vices condemned by the psalmist have a particular urban perspective, largely focusing upon the contemporary political situation and events within Jerusalem.”11

In Psalm of Solomon 17, we have another historical reference to Herod the Great.

Footnotes:

  1. The Psalms of Solomon cannot readily conform to our understanding of the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, or any other known Jewish group. It is best to consider these psalms as the product of an unknown Jewish group residing within Jerusalem during the first century BCE/CE. There is virtually no evidence that supports maintaining a Pharisaical authorship of these psalms. Instead, the piety of the collection depicts a group in isolation from the Temple community, that believed that they alone constituted the righteous. These psalms denounced as sinners virtually every individual and institution of the day, including the Temple establishment, the Sanhedrin, the king, local judges, and the common people. It is likely that the community of the Psalms of Solomon even numbered the Pharisees among these sinners. These psalms should rather be viewed as a further witness to the theological diversity that existed within various Jewish sectarian groups residing in Jerusalem during this period.
  2. The traditional date of Herod’s siege is 37 BCE; this author believes the correct date is 36 BCE.
  3. The content of the Psalms combined with the absence of any reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, suggests that the Psalms of Solomon was translated and redacted into Greek prior to 70 CE.
  4. Atkinson, Kenneth. https://sites.uni.edu/atkinson/cvdocuments/books.html; Retrieved June 10, 2022.
  5. Atkinson, Kenneth. https://sites.uni.edu/atkinson/cvdocuments/books.html; Retrieved June 10, 2022.
  6. Psalm of Solomon 2 documented not only the capture of Jerusalem by this figure, but also his later murder in Egypt.
  7. Psalm of Solomon 15 quite clearly describes the civil war between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, between 67–63 BCE. Gentile intervention is never mentioned, suggesting rather exclusively the unrest between the two Hasmonean princes.
  8. The Jerusalem games are cited in Josephus, Antiquities 15.8.1. The Caesarea games are citied in Antiquities 16.5.1-2; and Josephus, Wars, 1.21.8.
  9. After he was taken captive as part of the Siege of Jerusalem, Herod bribed Roman triumvir Marcus Antonius to execute Antigonus II (~36 BCE). Herod had Aristobulus III drowned in a pool in Jericho (~36/35 BCE). And lastly, Herod executed Hyrcanus II (following Antony’s defeat at Actium; 30 BCE). If the death of Hyrcanus is truly implied here, the Psalm had to have been composed later than 30 BCE.
  10. “Protagonist” is a subjective term here. While this enemy exacts punishment upon the Davidic usurpers (making him a hero or protagonist), he is still clearly a “foreign enemy”.
  11. Atkinson, Kenneth. https://sites.uni.edu/atkinson/cvdocuments/books.html; Retrieved June 10, 2022.

This article is indebted to the works of Dr. Kenneth Atkinson, Professor of History at the University of Northern Iowa.