The unit dedicated to the reign of Solomon in the Books of Kings is composed of an extraordinary mixture of different materials, presenting an excellent example of a work in the making whose process of formation is still clearly apparent. The parallel material in the Septuagint of 3 Kingdoms, on the one hand, and in the Books of Chronicles, on the other, show major differences in comparison with the Books of Kings. This article touches on the intriguing question of whether 3 Kingdoms (LXX) and Chronicles preserve stages previous or parallel to the formation of the Books of Kings or are rather later redactions based on a version similar to the canonical version. More specifically, it is argued that there are no straightforward interrelations between the seemingly similar features reflected in 3 Kingdoms and Chronicles - contra A.G. Auld's simplistic approach to the history of Kings versus Chronicles.
Hebrew epigraphy evidences that the Babylonian-Aramaic month names replaced the numeral names toward the end of the Second Temple period. The use of the Babylonian-Aramaic month names in the books of Nehemiah and Esther reflects the language of the Aramaic administration at the court of the Persian king, not earlier then the middle of the 5th century B. C. E. The author of Esther employs, in addition, a compound formula that combines both name types. It also occurs in two glosses in the book of Zechariah. Since in this formula the numeral names are explained by their Babylonian equivalents—and not the other way round—it must have originated in a late period in which the ordinals were already replaced by the Babylonian names. The compound formula under discussion, therefore, cannot be a clue for an early date for Esther.