One can get a good indication how important an interpreter of the historical books Theodoret was and remained at least for the first millennium from the evidence of Catenae, that of Procopius (Scholia) and others (e.g. CatLeipzig), even if he himself was not averse to borrowing' from Diodore. This popularity suggests that Theodoret's work was not time-conditioned by mentioning political specifics of his own time. He approached Sam-Ki from the starting-place of the Pentateuch, as it were, and in that way is not prone to over-contextualise in his interpretations. Two recent works dealing with ninth-century interpretations, which might be classified as 'Reception-Historical', are very different. M. Riedel ('Biblical Echoes in the Taktika of Leo VI' [2018]) has outlined Photius' pupil Leo VI's 'self-identification with Solomon', in turn responding to J. Haldon's 2014 monograph on the same work. Solomon is portrayed as judicious, fearing the Lord in a Deuteronomic way, living out the wisdom of his own proverbs. More critical of such discourse as 'totalising' (Foucault via A. Cameron) is the study by Y. Stouraitis on the imperial ideology of holy war, with the monarch as one who kept true to Deut 20, in his Krieg und Frieden in der politischen und ideologischen Wahrnehmung in Byzanz (2009). Theodoret, by contrast, is better understood as presenting an image of a king who is no straightforward hero, fit for imitation, but as one whose figure encompasses saint (son of God) and sinner (deviating from the law of God). His judgements are neutral about Imperial ideology, for his categories are theological and larger. The paper will look at how his treatment of 2Ki 1-11 according to the text of Quaestiones in Reges et Paralipomena: ed. N. Fernandez Marcos (1984), contained a theological impression of Solomon's story that is neither lost in ancient history nor drowned in Byzantine historical reception.