There is an interpretation that this was not an actual occurrence, but an unsubtle warning parable on Solomon’s part.
Solly was not the legitimate heir to the kingdom, but had the throne. The interpretation is that it was a warning to the rightful heir, Adonijah, that he, Solomon, would divide the kingdom with the sword unless the claim was dropped.
True mother = Adonijah
False mother = Solomon
Baby = Israel
Sword = Sword
That interpretation doesn’t make any sense. In the parable, the false mother is apparently okay with dividing the baby with a sword, while the true mother is not. You are saying that Solomon is okay dividing the country with a sword while the true heir is not. Except in the parable, the true mother wins the baby. So Solomon’s parable would be telling the true heir that if he does not pursue his claim to the throne, he would in fact win the throne from Solomon.
Link to column in question:
The story comes right after Solomon prays and asks for wisdom, rather than riches or power, and serves to show how God has answered his prayer. Besides, in traditional Jewish interpretations of the passage, the women are not just single mothers but prostitutes, and it’s unlikely Solomon would identify himself with one.
That’s a pretty lazy article by Cecil, if I may say so. But I agree with Irishman that the interpretation in the OP doesn’t make sense, and in the context of the story it’s clearly intended to be a display of Solomon’s divine wisdom.
The original question to Cecil was whether co-sleeping is dangerous. Death to an infant happens often
enough that the practice has a name, used when discussing the safety.
I’m not clear on the relevance of the parable to the question. Yes, the parable mentions death from bed-smothering, but how does that relate to its prevalence, either in ancient times or today?
Powers &8^]
The question to Cecil asked if there were any recorded instances. Cecil cites an recorded instance in the Bible. May not have been a real instance, but was well enough known that the parable makes sense and is not rejected as impossible - “no parent could possibly smother their own baby in their sleep by rolling on them”.
Meh, not a great article, but whatever.
I’m familiar with this interpretation (first read it in Larry Gonick’s Cartoon History of the Universe in fact), but I always liked the less scholarly version in Joseph Heller’s novel God Knows when David, writing from the afterlife, says, "I’ll clue you in on a secret about that story…
[spoiler]It’s not symbolic and it wasn’t symbolic of great wisdom- my son just wanted to cut a &@#$ing baby in half and was disappointed when he didn’t get to do it.
{Heller’s Solomon is a bit like a deranged Sheldon Cooper}
[/spoiler]
I know that there are many apocryphal writings about Solomon, many if not most of them mystical (he could order demons, was close buds with the archangel Michael, etc.), but I haven’t read most of them. Does the tale of the baby figure in any of them?
My wife and I have “co-slept” with babies, cats, and small dogs for 20 years, and never “overlaid” any of them, nor did it seem probable. Becoming a parent makes one a light sleeper - at least, it did me. Maybe a heavy sleeper, or one on medication/drugs/alcohol, would be more of a danger to a baby, especially a newborn who can’t easily squirm out of the way.
Still, would have been genuinely interested in a serious answer from the Master – is it an infinitessimal chance, or a cause for concern?
Helm
That is probably the lamest Straight Dope article I’ve seen. Come on, is there or isn’t there a public record of this happening outside of the bible?
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal reports a child’s death on Thursday, April 24. 2013. The same family lost a baby Nov. 6, 2007 the same way. The paper also reports a baby death the previous Friday. Alcohol/drugs are often involved, and the paper mentions smoking also. It does happen, and the advice is to avoid it.
Yes. It is best to avoid drinking, drugs, and smoking when one has an infant. The problem is not co-sleeping, but irresponsible parents.
In The Better Angels of Our Nature Steven Pinker mentions the story of Solomon and the baby. He is arguing that the world is a far less violent place now than it was in the past. The significance of this story to his case is that Solomon comes out of it looking wise, however unless he was the kind of ruler that would actually cut a baby in half neither mother needed to worry. Would anyone making a similar suggestion now be lauded for the thought?
“Overlaid” babies was a common death for infants at one time, say among working-class families in Victorian England, but there is a great question as to whether these deaths were accidental versus infanticide. There is also the question of how many of the “overlaying” deaths would be classified as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (that is, an unexplained death of a sleeping infant versus a death caused by the parent accidently smothering a child).
In any case, Solomon aside, there are plenty of historical examples of claims that a child was killed by overlaying (not surprising since we have a term for it).
I will never forget the Doonesbury cartoon when Uncle Duke became governor of American Samoa – and the exact situation arose. It took him a few seconds to remember how this story went in the bible, but he realized it soon enough and said, “Cut it in half!” What made the comic funny was one mother had a thought bubble “Hmmm … seems fair …” while the other one was drawn wide-eyed and says “WHAT!?” That’s such a contrast to a televised biblical movie I saw, when Solomon makes the pronouncement, and one mother say, “No give it to her”, and Solomon chastises the other one “Why were you silent?” and all the actress can do is hang her head. Because really, in a setup like that, what can you say?
It would be just about the most horrible way to wake up I can think of.