ABSTRACT
If we now return to the issue of the visit of the Queen of Sheba to Solomon in the tenth century BC, we can say that the presence of Sabaeans in Dedan at that time is undocumented if we disregard the account in 1 Kings 1012 Chron. 9, the authenticity of which has still to be proved. The Qeturah list indicates a close relationship between IsraelitesIJudaeans and northern Sabaeans around c. 850 and perhaps even earlier. But it is most unlikely that Solomon or any other ruler in Syria in the tenth century BC would have had trade connections with Sabaeans in Yemen, since at present there is hardly any evidence for a Sabaean kingdom there before the ninth or even eighth century B C . ~ ~ ' On the other hand, the story itself belongs to the literary topos documented in several other texts. Of these, psalm 72 may be considered the earliest, since it presupposes the existence of a Jerusalemite king as well as knowledge about South Arabian Saba but without mentioning any frankincense. Since the psalm praises a king in Jerusalem and seems to presuppose acquaintance with Saba in South Arabia, it must have been composed after the establishment of contacts between the South Arabian Sabaeans and Syria and before the fall of the Judaean kingdom in 587 B C . ~ ~ ' In the light of this, the absence of frankincense in psalm 72 as well as among the queen's gifts to Solomon is remarkable. It is very unlikely indeed that the authors would not have mentioned this expensive and exclusive perfume if they had known that it came from the South Arabian Saba. It can be argued that the psalm is somehow connected with the Messianic hopes surrounding the kings Ezekiah or Josiah, i.e. a period when contacts with South Arabia are much more likely than in the time of Solomon. The story of the Queen of Sheba would consequently have been conceived in the same period. Both texts would be older than the establishment of frankincense trade with South Arabia in the late seventh century and belong to the time of Ezekiah.
