So…Would that Make the Kid Half Jewish?

There’s something that’s been bothering me since my days as a student in Catholic elementary school. I guess you could call it a theological question, but I’d be more inclined to classify it as a matter of common sense. And maybe this is an issue that only bothers me, but I have to say that I was never much impressed by King Solomon’s wisdom.

In 1 Kings 3:16-28, you’ll find one of the most retold stories of the Hebrew Scriptures (otherwise known as the Old Testament). The syntax of the story varies depending on which version of the Bible you’re holding, but the gist of the story always remains the same. According to the New American Catholic Bible, the story goes something like this:

16: [T]wo harlots came to the king and stood before him.
17: One woman said: “By your leave, my lord, this woman and I live in the same house, and I gave birth in the house while she was present.
18: On the third day after I gave birth, this woman also gave birth.
19: This woman’s son died during the night; she smothered him by lying on him.
20: Later that night she got up and took my son from my side, as I, your handmaid, was sleeping. Then she laid him in her bosom, after she had laid her dead child in my bosom.
21: I rose in the morning to nurse my child, and I found him dead. But when I examined him in the morning light, I saw it was not the son whom I had borne.”

22: The other woman answered, “It is not so! The living one is my son, the dead one is your child, the living one is mine!” Thus they argued before the king.

23: Then the king said: “One woman claims, ‘This, the living one, is my child, and the dead one is yours.’ The other answers, ‘No! The dead one is your child; the living one is mine.'”
24: The King continued, “Get me a sword.” When they brought the sword before him,
25: he said, “Cut the living child in two, and give half to one woman and half to the other.”
26: The woman whose son it was, in the anguish she felt for it, said to the king, “Please, my lord, give her the living child–please do not kill it!” The other, however, said, “It shall be neither mine nor yours. Divide it!”
27: The king then answered, “Give the first one the living child! By no means kill it, for she is the mother.”

28: When all Israel heard the judgment the king had given, they were in awe of him, because they saw that the king had in him the wisdom of God for giving judgment.

This is the passage cited by Christians and Jews alike when they speak of the wisdom of King Solomon. Am I the only one who has a problem with this? God told the king to make a threat on an infant’s life in order to solve a custody dispute? Good thinking, KS. Cut the little bastard in half. It’s a well-known fact that babies can learn to live without functional digestive systems. I know, King Solomon was most likely trying to get a rise out of the real mother, but did he really have to go to such an extreme? If you ask me, the king sounds more sadistic than noble. What benevolent monarch threatens to murder a child in front of a parent? (Well, you know, excluding that practical joke God pulled on Abraham and Isaac back in Chapter 22 of Genesis.)

I do admit that King Solomon’s threat on the kid’s life amounts to a shrewd tactical decision on his part, but I think the author of the book of 1 Kings might be embellishing to the point of hyperbole. For example, if you were a con-woman trying to commit a state-sanctioned kidnapping, why in God’s name would you encourage your king to kill the kid whom you’re trying to obtain? “He’s my kid, I love him very much, but I’d gladly cut him in half to spite this chick standing next to me.” Right. And then there’s that line about all of Israel being in “awe” of King Solomon after hearing about this historical judgment. If that’s not a shining endorsement for masturbation in the Jewish and Christian faiths, then I don’t know what is.

From where I stand, the story of King Solomon depicts an arbitrator getting extremely lucky after making a risky decision. The whole thing borders on recklessness. If he had actually cut the kid in half, he would have been regarded as a tyrant. If both of the women had cried out in equal despair, Solomon would have ended up looking like a sadistic, ineffectual ass. But luckily for the king, the lying woman reacted to Solomon’s bluff in the worst possible way. We’re left, therefore, with two possibilities: (1) The author of the story exaggerated some of the facts, presumably for King Solomon’s benefit; or (2) The events played out exactly how they were recorded, and thus it can be said that King Solomon merely outsmarted a dimwit. In all candor, neither alternative is very flattering.

Sorry Solomon. You may have been a great man, but that baby-chopping story doesn’t impress me.