Talk:Solomon/Archive 1

Vandalism

"Queen of Sheba had hot unprotected sweaty monkey sex with King Solomon". This I guess is some vandalism by a quite immature person. Could someone fix this? I dont have an account yet and do not wanna mess up something, I just wanted to point this out. Thanks! 84.135.75.95 (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Later legend

ok, so where does the popular story of two women claiming to be the mother of a baby come to see king solomon to decide who the mother is... he proclaims to cut the child in half, and the real mother says "no, i'd rather she have him than he be cut"; solomon says "ah ha! you must be the true mother!" and gives the baby to her instead... where does this fit in?

I moved this section from "Fall and Decline" to the "Wisdom" section.

Given name

Since the Hebrew name is given, shouldn't the Arabic Suleiman also be mentioned? -- Chris Q

Certainly. Please feel free to add it, along with what Suleiman means in Arabic if you know. Edit boldly! :-) Wesley

OK - I am pretty sure it is "Peaceful" in Arabic also

Disambig

I'm not sure of the best way to disambiguate this page. Solomon is also the name of a famous British pianist. User:David Martland

Birth of Solomon

How could Solomon be born 1035 BCE, be King 965 BCE and assume the throne at 16 or 18 years of age?

Solomon's decline

I'm new here so I'm a little hesitant to just edit this myself. But I believe the statement that Solomon's decline was blamed on his polygamy and wealth is not accurate.

As far as polygamy - The Hebrew Bible does not discourage polygamy in any way, and many of the greatest men of the Bible had multiple wives (Abaraham, Jacob, Moses, David). Specific to Solomon, it's not the fact that he had multiple wives that is the problem, it's the fact that the wives were foreign.

"King Solomon loved many foreign women: not only Pharaoh’s daughter but Moabites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites, from those peoples of whom Yahweh had said to the Israelites, ‘You are not to go among them nor they among you, or they will be sure to sway your hearts to their own gods.’ But Solomon was deeply attached to them." - 1 Kings 11:1-2

It's not even clear that his marriages are actually what led God to get angry with Solomon - ultimately it's the fact that Solomon followed the gods of his wives and built shrines and whatnot to them.

As far as the wealth - I'm not sure where this is coming from at all. Solomon's wealth is portrayed in the Bible as a blessing from God, not as a source of Solomon's downfall.

Basically I think the concepts that polygamy and wealth are bad things on Solomon's part reflect more modern Christian points of view that developed much much later rather than simply reading what the Bible itself says about it. Leftfist 16:33, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The {} sign/s

One or more of the sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning have been removed pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 08:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"In the Bible"

"In the Bible, the prophet Nathan informs David..." This is like saying "In the Library I read that..." Can we get some references to actual books? --Wetman 04:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the latest changes; aside from many other issues with it, the phrase "According to some modern apologetic interpretations of Jewish law" was a bit much. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

mmm, yes indeed. The references to actual passages in the books would still improve this article. --Wetman 19:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So, "a bit much" means that a complete reversion of my edit was warranted? I Removed the problem paragraph as it was not directly related to Solomon. Perhaps the comment about loophole belongs at the Uriah the Hittite --GoodOlDude

In case you haven't noticed, the Torah is a real book, with the amount of manuscripts they have confirming its authenticity, no one should doubt it.

The comment was not that the Torah is a false source; the comment was that "in the Bible" is not very specific, as it is a very big book. Actual books, as in, in 'which book' of the Bible/Tanakh etc. Djcartwright 06:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig 2

I put up a Disambig page, see Solomon (Disambiguation). I did not include all pages that have the name solomon in it, for their seems to be over two dozon pages. Feel free to put up some more links. :)

And I deleted it. Please read the rule about disambiguation pages: they are for things known as solomon, not for things part of which name contains the word "solomon". See an example how to do this: Solomon Grundy (disambiguation). mikka (t) 02:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The first rule about Disabiguation Pages is that they be of assistance to the Wikipedia reader, a point that is sometimes overlooked. --Wetman 03:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Picture of him please get one.

If we don't disambiguate at Solomon, then we have to do so here. I know nothing about the African king, but Solomon the pianist is known only by his first name. Mark ¹ 22:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please verify anon's

I reverted non-commented anon's edition of 09:06, 6 August 2005, who changed "1 Solomon" reference into "2 Solomon". Please verify the reference. The edit pretty much looks like vigilance probing, made popular by these idiots journalists. I apologize, If I am wrong.mikka (t) 07:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV on the footnote?

The second paragraph of the footnote seems quite POV and overly confrontational. I get the impression it was added later since it doesn't quite follow from the first paragraph. Opinions? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 14:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology

Do we have archeological remains from the Solomon era? Egyptian or Phoenician documents? I.e., something independent of the Bible and the later Quran.

Nope. Not a sou. Some pretty impressive masonry has been claimed as Solomonic, but is now accepted as dating from later kings of the line of Omri (israel). The general consensus is that David and Solomon ruled over a tiny mountain principality, and that the united kingdom is a myth concocted by the much later kings of Judah in the 7th century to justify a campaign to conquer the kingdom of Israel. Don't forget to sign off with four tildes. PiCo 07:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finkelstein's redating of these layers is a minority position. The majority of archaeologists still see them as Solomonic.--Rob117 22:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finkelstein's minimalisim has been now completely discredited. The Gates are accepted as Solomonic. Every major archaeologist now agrees (except the stubborn Finkelstein). The dating of the Gezer gate has now be confirmed twice! Once in 1991 and again last year. The page on Solomons Building does not even mention the Gates at Hazor Megiddo and Gezer! This page has been dominated by a minority position in archaeology and needs to be redone!

The story of the excavation of King Solomon's Gate at Tel Gezer

To back up Rob117's comment - & the one below it - there is a healthy current debate in archaeology on this issue. I'm currently studying it at uni & the impression I've received - though I couldn't be dogmatic & am not an expert - is that Finkelstein's position is not the majority view (whatever one's personal position may be.) It seems the author of this article has been overly influenced by Finkelstein's point of view, which takes a very minimalist approach to the Old Testament account. This article is therefore good but a little biassed & I'm surprised it hasn't been properly flagged up as such. I'm also surprised that there are only three references for the whole article (two of which are to Finkelstein.) On the basis of my understanding and that of the above two commentators, I am about to edit the sentence stating that the 'majority' of archaeologists see the building works in Northern Israel as Omride. I couldn't honestly say for certain what the majority view is (although as I say, my impression is that most still bow to the more conventional school or variations thereof), but unless the author himself can say for certain, he should surely leave the edit untouched - otherwise feel free to undo it but add a supporting reference (other than Finkelstein!) Ab0u5061 14:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finkelstein's view is certainly not minimalist. He is "middle of the road", as the Minimalists would claim that the Bible was not composed to early Hellenistic times. Finkelstein sees it beginning during the reign of Hezekiah. John D. Croft 07:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

I have suggested that Sulayman be merged into King Solomon, based on the precedent that Dawud redirects to David. The same would have to happen with their disambiguation pages as well; currently Solomon (disambiguation) and Sulayman (disambiguation) are two completely separate lists. Does anyone disagree? -leigh (φθόγγος) 21:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they are both talking about the same man.

I don't think I agree. While Sulayman would merge nicely into King Solomon the merged disambiguation pages would be terribly cluttered. Both Sulayman (disambiguation) and Solomon (disambiguation) should link to a merged version of King Solomon. 12.215.194.140 10:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation pages don't have to merge. The first on the Sulayman (disambiguation) is King Solomon + King Solomon and Sulayman are the same persons. Just like there are many Muhammed's but the Muhammed page is about the prophet, there are many Solomon's but the Solomon or Sulayman page should be about the prophet. We can just add "For other people named Solomon or Sulayman, see Solomon (disambiguation) or Sulayman (disambiguation)" in the same manner of the Muhammedpage Blubberbrein2 00:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with merge. Big articles are split, not smaller articles are merged in larger. Sylayman is King Solomon in Islamic tradition, a well-defined separate topic and deserves a separate article. mikka (t) 01:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to disagree too. The person is the same, but the tales some are same and some are different. Mukadderat 03:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"No merge" sounds sensible based on the above. But clearly the articles need to refer to each other, with explanation based on "Sylayman is King Solomon in Islamic tradition", and I think that this should be prominent in each article. — Johan the Ghost _seance 11:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the articles should definitely be merged. Describing the same historical figure from two different points of view in two different articles seems to me to be against the spirit of Wikipedia. (See WP:NPOV.) There doesn't seem to be any major dissagreement between the two accounts, so it should be possible to write a good unified article. Of course there should be sections devoted specifically to the two different accounts, and possibly even subarticles. (This is my opinion on all articles describing the same historical figure from two different points of wiew (unless the two are so different that it could be argued they are no longer describing the same person). Maybe the discussion should be more centralized, rahter than on individual articles' talk pages.) --PeR 11:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that you don't understand both NPOV and the goal of keeping articles separate. For starters, let me remind you that King Solomon is both historical figure and legendary figure. While it is OK to have a single article to describe K.S. as a historical person, it is pretty much natural to keep tales about him from different sources in different articles. Mukadderat 21:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be afraid! I do understand NPOV. If there is a need to keep tales separate, then I don't disagree with subarticles when the main article becomes too long. The main article should then summarize and link to the subarticles. (Presently, there are no tales in the Sulayman article.) --PeR 21:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sulayman should not be merged with King Solomon. The Quranic version of events is very different and borders on the spiritual side. Sulayman is belived to have commanded armies of Jinn (a concept totally alien to the biblical version of King Solomon), along with a court of animals. But I do agree that both Sulayman and king Solomon should be mentioned in each others articles.Bless sins 19:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is any record from Egypt artefact about King Solomon, because he is buy a number of horses and he married with princess of Egypt? (Zimonz 13:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

There's clearly no consensus for a merge, so I've removed the tags. Henry ^Flower 19:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency

The article says:

The biblical Book of Proverbs, written by Solomon, ...

but Book of Proverbs says:

The tradition ascribing some proverbs to Solomon, described as "without valid foundation" in the Jewish Encyclopedia, 1901-06, continued nevertheless to be uncritically accepted among many Christians, ...

This inconsistency needs to be resolved by someone who knows more about it than me. — Johan the Ghost _seance 20:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain passages within Proverbs written by Solomon, also someone should add that he is a prospective author for Ecclesiasties.

Story of the Two Mothers

Agree. I find the placement of the story within Solomon's wisdom quite agreeable. I am most interested in the multi-cultural span of the myth. --Steve 05:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon's Mines

A book is mentioned at the end of the article without a link or further info.--04:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The dates seem off

And isn't BC POV? - Sparky 04:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, no. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree both about the dates and dating... It seems to be in poor taste to use BC in an article about a Jewish King. Are Christian fanatics running around changing BCE to BC again? - Sparky 13:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content forking

Why is this page called "Biblical account of..."??? There is no page entitled "King Solomon" that this page could be a subpage of, and the page Solomon (ancient) contains nothing that contradicts what is present here. This is a clear case of WP:POVFORK. The fundamental strength of Wikipedia is that people from several different points of view can cooperate to write better articles than will be the case if each POV starts its own article.

Consider what would happen if the article on George W. Bush was removed and replaced by Christian view on George W. Bush, Muslim view on George W. Bush, Buddhist view on George W. Bush, etc.

On the other hand it might be reasonable to have separate articles Adam and Eve / Adam (prophet of Islam) because these can be considered different myths (although of a common origin). But nobody is disputing that Solomon was a real (flesh and blood) person.

--PeR 21:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that an article called the Biblical account of king Solomon has a subsection on Solomon in the Koran... Frikle 12:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightst a llion (?) 10:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move me back to Solomon -- Requested move

The recent rename was a case of POV forking. Solomon (now a redir) should be the main entry, and Biblical account of... - a redir. The article may have a section titled "Biblical account" and other sections of encyclopedic interest. I hope we are not going to move main entries for Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Muhammad, etc. to be redirs. Speaking of which, what are we going to do with Solomon (ancient)? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re what are we going to do with Solomon (ancient)? My question exactly. Can anyone explain how these various pages for Solomon cropped up as independent articles? I'm not able to come up with a plausible rationale. Ande B 03:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ande: Because Solomon (ancient) is only in itself a redirect to Biblical account of King Solomon thus when Biblical account of King Solomon will become a redirect to Solomon, as per this vote, so will Solomon (ancient) be turned into a redirect to Solomon. IZAK 15:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks like I wasn't being very attentive! Ande B 17:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IZAK 12:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ande B 23:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No one maintains that there were two separate people, documented respectively in the Jewish and Islamic scriptures. Solomon is the Latin-derived English name for the presumed single person, and labeling as "Solomon" the discussion of the article whose focus is not the person but one tradition's PoV about him is confusing in a way that undercuts NPoV.
--Jerzy•t 02:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm trying to make sense of the above statement by Jerzy but I cannot. Can someone interpret this for me? Ande B 02:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerzy: This reminds one of the quote "What's in a name?" Wikipedia is not just a lexicon of names, and it cannot be. While names are presented, yet they cannot be disembodied from their original most widespread known and accepted context/s to be split up into a thousand relative usages. In this case the Biblical usage is best known for obvious reasons because Solomon is an important Biblical figure, and what the Koran has to say about him or any others from the Biblre is secondary, because Islam makes a later context and usage, and without the Bible's presentation of Solomon the Koran would never have heard of him in the first place. If an article wishes to present its subject in its most famous, best known, and conventionally accepted context, it cannot then be accused of being "POV". Islam's view of Solomon is POV, the person of Solomon is not. IZAK 15:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving my (and others) point. If there was a historical S., than any evidence has to be mentioned first. As for the religious records, the hebrew version comes first, then greek/latin scripts, then the Quran. English bible translations came last, about 2000 years late(r). In German for example he is called Salomon, and others may have other names, too. --Matthead 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your point was, it has not been proved. You have, instead, demonstrated that the character commonly known as Solomon has received somewhat different treatment in different cultures. The German spelling, nor any other, isn't relevant to your charge of POV. I don't see anyone claiming that there is only one true Solomon, as you have asserted. IZAK could just as easily have added that not just the Islamic tradition but the Jewish and Christian traditions can demonstrate viewpoints. An umbrella article simply makes more sense here. Why would anyone use the current title as a search term? Ande B.

Support --Shlomke 03:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed. It is POV that the Solomon of the bible is "the Solomon", as it is only one of several written records, see also Qur'anic account of Sulayman (and even Shlomo). Also, it has to be made clear what in the article just recounts the bible, and which parts (if any) are NPOV. Where is historical evidence on Solomon? --Matthead 22:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see where moving / renaming the article to "Solomon" in any way indicates POV. It is under an all inclusive "Solomon" title that the various histories or legends can be compared without making any POV assumptions. The article does not appear to be so overlong that it necessitates coverage by several articles. As far as your question about "historical evidence on Solomon," again, I don't see how that is even an issue for this discussion. It would be appropriate to examine such evidence, or lack thereof as well as interpretations about any evidence, in an article about "Solomon." Ande B 23:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to "Solomon" indicates that this is the original, proper name, which is not NPOV. The disambig-article deserves to be called "Solomon" only, and the biblical figure can be listed as one of different links. See also Siegfried, which does not redirect to the Nibelungenlied figure, even though a a Wagner opera, Siegfried&Roy and others are named after the legend.--Matthead 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are carrying a misconception of what the move is about and what the naming conventions mean. The legends all arise from a common source and have received alternate spellings (suitable to the language of those variations). Alternate spellings are not sufficient reason to have separate articles although by anticipating the regular use of those spellings, redirects are appropriate. For some reason you seem to be convinced that selecting a particular spelling is indicative of POV when it is not. Full descriptions and comparisons of the different traditions can be best accommodated in a single article that doesn't contain a weird and limiting title. Ande B. 21:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know why the Quranic Solomon gets his own page, in fact I would prefer to see the different acccounts discussed together. However, asking if some aspects ought to be broken out isn't the issue here, the issue is where the main page ought to be kept. Dr Zak 16:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Solomon" should be the current diambig-page, also linking to this bible account here.--Matthead 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The figure from the Bible is the best known Salomon. Dr Zak 05:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As a reader, I expect this matter to be presented here.--Panairjdde 13:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The account is interesting because it describes the figure, not the other way around. The historical figure is the main point of the article. --Alvestrand 15:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support'. Most common meaning of the word.--agr 02:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Hi Humus: Your hunch about the Solomon article/s is correct. Biblical account of King Solomon should be moved and redirected to Solomon which should be about the MAIN character in history, who happens to be the Biblical Solomon. There are other precedents for this, how about Abraham, David, Joseph -- are we going to mess those up as well? Obvioulsy not, and this sets a bad precedent. If people want to have a page that leads to other "Solomons" or to show other uses of the name, then use should be made of a Solomon (disambiguation) page. It is ridiculous that Solomon's fame is presented as stemming from an Islamic POV, when that subject deals with the Koran (how about Solomon in the Qu'ran for that?) So it needs some sorting, and the original Solomon, alone should remain as the only name for the king by that name. This is just another example of how a few people who seem to know nothing about a subject can get together, make a little vote, and create entirely false moves. I don't have enough time to deal with that right now. Best wishes. IZAK 12:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC) (Copied this here from my Talk page - ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

By the way, Solomon in the Qu'ran actually exists as Qur'anic account of Sulayman, thus Solomon in the Qu'ran can become a redirect to Qur'anic account of Sulayman. IZAK 18:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely this article should be moved /renamed "Solomon". The current title is absurd, to be charitable. No-one will enter the search term Biblical account of King Solomon so having this as the title of the main entry makes no sense. Ande B 23:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, let's not be hasty. Maybe someone could put together a proposed tree of articles and redirects. I confess I've become confused about what's where. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Question about preferred terminology

I have a question about terminology in the article. I have no expertise in this area so I'm just hoping for a bit of discussion or explanation of the use of the phrase Hebrew bible. Is this sufficiently accurate, is it sugestive of a Christian POV? Would a more neutral phrase such as "Hebrew religious texts" be less POV or simply more confusing? I'm sure this has been discussed before, I'd just like a little insight. Ande B. 20:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer Tanakh? Actually, "Hebrew Bible" is a neutral term used by scholars. The pro-Christian term is "Old Testament." Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 08:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The least POV is "Hebrew scriptures" as both camps see these works as scriptures and they were written in Hebrew. This avoids Christians getting upset at the use of the word "Bible" when in their opinion you are only speaking about half the Bible. The Christian's New Testament was written in Greek.--Wowaconia 05:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decline of Solomon

I miss some explanations about Solomon's downfall.

I gather his kingdom split in two after his death, and this has been attributed to problems with Solomon's character.

Such an argument does not seem very convincing to me. If internal conflicts burst out after Solomon's death, it would seem to me that Solomon was helping to keep the kingdom together, not splitting them apart. You don't rebel against a king after his death, you rebel against his successor. (Or no successor manage to hold the kingdom together in the same way, or whatever.)

It just seems to me that conflicts of succession, or simply internal conflicts blooming up after the death of a powerful king are far more believable explanations of the problems after his death than faults in Solomon himself.

Could someone with more insight to this explain? Sverre 16:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict started under Solomon, but Rehoboam made them worse. Solomon placed a heavy tax burden on his subjects to support his building projects. I think the tribe of Judah was exempt from the labor, but I'm not sure. Check out 1 Kings 12, especially verses 4 & 14: " "Your father [Solomon]put a heavy yoke on us, but now lighten the harsh labor and the heavy yoke he put on us, and we will serve you."....he [Rehoboam] followed the advice of the young men and said, "My father made your yoke heavy; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions." If Rehoboam had followed the advice of the elder advisors (verse 7) he would have had a lot less trouble. To wit: "If today you will be a servant to these people and serve them and give them a favorable answer, they will always be your servants." (NIV) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 07:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon's Egyptian bride's name

Solomon's egyptian bride is not named in the Hebrew scriptures and the previous name in the article for her of Tahpenes appears to have been in error as 1 Kings 11:19-21 gives that name to a different person. There are several competing theories on what her name is, so I dropped the reference to Tahpenes that was here. I'm going to begin an article on the tradition around this figure and looked here first to see if there was already an article. In the article about her, I'll note the competing theories over what her name might be.--Wowaconia 00:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I found on the Biblical person named Tahpenes from http://www.alabaster-jars.com/biblewomen-q.html "Tahpenes was the Pharaoh of Egypt's wife. As she was a queen, she may have been his first wife. Her sister was given to Hadad, a refugee from David's massacre in Edom, as wife. Her sister had a son, who Tahpenes weaned and had cared for with Pharaoh's children."

Here is the quote from 1 Kings 11:19 19 And Hadad found great favour in the sight of Pharaoh, so that he gave him to wife the sister of his own wife, the sister of Tahpenes the queen.

--Wowaconia 00:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Egyptians rarely gave their princesses to foreign rulers as wives until the 25th (Nubian) Dynasty (~752 BC – 721 BCE). As earlier they practiced hypergamy, Egyptian princesses could only marry someone of higher status than themselves (which either meant the next Pharaoh or they stayed single), and the Egyptians considered all foreign kings as of lower status. Both Amenhotep III and Rameses II got into trouble with neighbouring kingdoms as a result of their refusal to allow royal princesses marry foreigners (This makes the Akhnesenamen letter all the more shocking from an Egyptian point of view). John D. Croft 07:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon's ethnic make-up

Since King Solomon is such a great historical figure, I think it is necessary to dedicate a section to his ethnic make-up. It has been confirmed that Bathsheba was a descendant of Noah's son Ham (who uhm.. did not produce people of lily-white complexion). When I viewed Bathsheba's article, the picture shows a lily-white female?? Panda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.159.230.175 (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Birthplace

Isnt it incorrect to say that his birthplace was Palestine? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elatanatari (talk • contribs) 00:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Story of the Two Mothers

Two other people have inquired about where to find the story of the two mothers; they are both told that the story was moved from one section to another, but it doesn't seem to be included at all. Since this tale is so central to the modern-day view of Solomon, it is a glaring omission. Can somebody add it please? I'll do it myself if no one else does, but I'd prefer it be recounted by someone with a little more authority on the subject.Minaker 00:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judgment of Solomon. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shalim

I have requested a citation for the etymologies that interpret Yerushalayim as the 'city of Solomon.' - Also, I have removed the following:

The Association of Shalim with a "high place", like the Mount of Zion, suggests that the temple of Solomon may have initially been a temple to Shalim, administered by an early priest-king (the Melchizedek). If this is the case, it could explain the size of "Solomon's Empire" stretching from Palmyra to Ezion Geber, as the realm over which Shalim was honoured.

This is highly speculative and also needs documenting if it is to be reinserted. Is Shalim attested to as a deity in the region this late, in a Jerusalem now dominated by Hebrews?

Further, I have to agree with other users who have commented on here that the article in general is written with a largely minimalist view and has very little mention of how dynamic the debate that is going on in archaeology really is. For any real understanding of what's going in this field, the views of Finklestein at Tel Aviv University must also be balanced by consideration of the views of other prominent archaeologists, such as Eliat Mazar at Hebrew University, who have a completely different view of tenth-century Jerusalem. Brando130 16:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Sheba

The Queen of Sheba was not a wife of Solomon, and a do wish! That people would take away the Quranic account, as since it was written 1650 years after the event it is hardly historically accurate!

The Stories of Solomon too were written down a long time after the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age collapse too. People still debate the accuracy of Solomon too. John D. Croft 07:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence, "The queen is described as visiting with a number of gifts including rare spices, and bringing with her a number of riddles, but upon meeting Solomon being offered anything by him, whereupon she left satisfied." in this section is nonsensical, and requires revision. But, since I do not know what the author was trying to say, I cannot revise it.--68.46.20.154 (talk) 05:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Legend"

I don't think this uncommented anonymous edit should pass without mention: it removed the phrase "Legends say," leaving the article asserting as fact that he was born in Jerusalem. I have no opinion on what the article should say, but just felt that this probably merits discussion (and certainly this sort of edit merits an edit summary). - Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contested move request

The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM. —Dekimasu よ! 06:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: as this has already expired, I have removed it from WP:RM for the time being. Dekimasu よ! 06:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Solomon → King Solomon — King Solomon is the standard attribution when discussing this person. —Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Controversial. It may pass; I may support it; but it involves the whole question of WP:NCNT. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - i'm ot following the "controversy". the wikilink you give says what i thought when i posted at the 'uncontroversial' section, i.e. "use the most common form of the name used in English". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Jaakobou. "Solomon" is too ambiguous, since this is a common surname and given name, except when used with a stock phrase like "Song of Solomon". However, Solomon of Israel would appear to be the proper article name per the conventions on naming royalty articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this suggestion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not; Solomon of Israel is not English usage, it is arguable as biblical scholarship, and the Name of Kingdom format is recommended only for European rulers because they use the same namestock. (I would not argue its application to Moslem rulers on the same grounds, but not here.) This Solomon is the primary usage of Solomon. (But all this demonstrates that the question is controversial; let's have a WP:RM request in normal form, where all these details can be discussed.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just to make things clear - which version is your preferred one? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Solomon; it is possible that arguments for King Solomon might persuade me, but I'd have to see them. Others will oppose on the grounds that King is basically redundant, and will provoke requests for its addition where it is entirely redundant, such as Edward II of England. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect placement

The section titled "A Thousand and One Nights" is placed under the section of 'Islamic view of Solomon'. I don't think this is correct, but not sure. Please let me know.

First, it had been innappropriately labeled "Arabian Nights". I changed that to "A Thousand and One Nights". Incidentally, this is not an Arabian work of literature, but rather a Persian one, albeit one that comes after the Islamic era. Nevertheless, is this simply a matter of confusing Arabic with Islamic? I believe it is, and, that the section may be better placed under another section.JSteinbeck2 (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pride's site on King Solomon's Gates

I've removed this King Solomon's Gate from the external links. It's a personal web site, weird, wrong. The website owner, a computer programmer was a volunteer on an excavation and isn't a reliable source in any way.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon's final years

I was looking for information on what happened to Solomon in his later years. I remember learning as a kid that he had wives that worshiped false gods, and despite his wisdom, he joined them and abandoned the God of Israel. Furthermore, his son Rehoboam ended up paying for the sins of his father. I came to Wikipedia to refresh my memory, but the article mentions none of this. I would like to ask someone who is more familiar with this to add this content to this article. - grubber (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit on Buildings & Related Works

The editor removing the cite request stated it had been almost a year, but the request is dated March this year so I figure at most not quite 4 months. He then changed "some consider this to be an implausibly large amount of money." to " many consider this to be a rather modest amount of money^[1]." But that is not what Kitchen says on p. 134. He doesn't mention 'many' or indeed anyone else, and he calls it modest compared to gold Alexander took from various conquests, and Kitchen is also taking as true Solomon's alleged wealth, which of course if it was just a city-state is at best exaggerated. He also writes "This is not unexpected as the area was devastated by the Babylonians then rebuilt and destroyed several times^[2]." but page 123 is only about the size of the temple. I'm reverting it for these reasons. Doug Weller (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Solomon an historical figure?

This may have been covered in a project, but I'd rather ask it here to get the opinions of editors familiar with this article. Is Solomon considered an historical figure, or because the Bible is the primary source of information about him, is he more legendary?

I ask because he was added to List of occultists, based on the legend that he had demonic (Jinn) assistance to build the temple. If he's a figure of legend, then this is a valid addition, because it deals with one variation on the legend. If he's a figure of history, then it is not (IMO) a valid addition, because it concerns legend aspects of a real person.

Rather than let an edit war fester there, I'm asking here. Is he an historic figure? Or more directly, should he be on the list of occultists? —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical figure

I find it atrocious that the account of a historical figure such as Solomon be left to authors whose whole premise is that he may not have even existed. To quote the thesis of their book: "there is no archaeological evidence for the existence of Abraham, the Patriarchs, Moses, or the Exodus, and that the monarchies of David or Solomon were much smaller than the Bible implies. The statement, "There is no archeological evidence" -- could be said of any number of world figures whose existence the authors choose not to question. I am particularly appalled by their contention that the bible (and the history of the Jewish nation) was 'created' to "further the religious reform and territorial ambitions of the Kingdom of Judah."

   Shades of the daVinci hoax!

What is more plausible, given the incredible resiliency of the Jewish people, is that they were truly blessed by the direct intervention of God. Furthermore, it would not make sense to write the bible accounts in the honest detail we have, given the countless failings of the central characters. YBatwork 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC) moved from assesement comment page. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I find the article extremely biased as it does not really take Bible Unearthed seriously - like using the term king instead of warlord.

Article does not read as if it is describing a probably fictional character, and I think Bible unearthed only concedes might have existed.

--82.12.11.142 (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is a biblical character, which is not science. Hence he did not exist. Portillo (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

King Solomon's mines discovered

It is found. It should be added. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon History edits don't make sense

User:WorldPowerMan has made a series of edits which don't seem to make sense. Following WP:BRD procedure, we should discuss here on the talk page.

Solomon was already King at the time..there was no other King as the kingdom had not yet been divided. You will need some other source apart from a cartoon history to make those edits stick. Please explain and provide more sources for consideration here. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biblical accounts

Someone please explain to me why biblical figures are the only people who seem to require an obligatory "The bible account states..." before every sentence. In other words there are plenty of people in antiquity mentioned in a random carving here or there or a religious text who don't require prefixes before every single statement. It is just absurd to me that a reference won't do here but it will just about everywhere else. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to be specific if you want a serious answer. Articles on both mythical and historical figures are expected to state sources. And it is quite clear that there is not a prefix 'before every single statement' in this article. So exactly what are you complaining about? dougweller (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Solomon is useful to state where and when the biblical account is used, as some of it (e.g. God's wrath over his wives' pagan practices) is not in the realm of provable history. That the bible states that God was angry about such and such is an historical datum. Whether God really was angry or, indeed, even exists at all, is not such a datum...neither is it something which wikipedia editors are qualified to judge...Let the reader decide...Colin4C (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look up the articles on other ancient kings. For Ramses the II we don't say "The Mortuary temple of Ramesses II at Abydos" states... To the issue of "provability", show me anything that is alleged to have happened 3,000 years ago and show me how it is "provable." Today with video, DNA and science you can hardly prove things in court, even events that are alleged to have happened recently. So what about a rock or a scroll that has been sitting in the ground for thousands of years? You base your evidence on the best available source and the Bible should be cited like anything else. Also regarding provability what standard are you using? More likely than not, beyond a reasonable doubt? And even then how do you quantify that? My point is that the Bible should be used like a reference. I see no reason to doubt it is less credible than any other ancient source. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to learn more about it. A lot of ancient sources are contemporary, most of the Bible was written centuries after the events it describes, for a start. dougweller (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that no scholar suggests that Ramesses II was other than a historical figure, which is definitely not the case for Solomon. WIth Ramesses II we have a lot of contemporary evidence attesting to his existence. And the mortuary temple is cited. There is just no comparison here. dougweller (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the case mentioned the Egyptian sources describe the Pharoahs such as Ramesses the II as living Gods and in the afterlife as joining the celestial pantheon. In such a case we would say "according to the Egyptian sources Ramesses II was a living God", not just state that he was a God without qualification. The same with the Bible which states, inter alia, that God was angry with Solomon, that the sun stopped during a battle involving Joshua and that Jesus walked on water and later ascended to heaven, etc, etc. That these statements are made in the bible is an historical datum, that they should be stated as facts, without source data, is less so. If we give the sources then the reader of the wikipedia is at liberty to make his own mind whether or not to believe them or not. Colin4C (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colin I think you and I are talking past one another. I have no problem with what you are talking about and never have been. What I am complaining about is that the Bible makes certain factual statements, which should be sourced like anything elses because other ancient texts are not held to the same standard of credibility. Mr. Weller is certainly arrogant in his assumption I need to learn more about the biblical origin, but my point is that the figures from the Bible are treated differently than almost any other ancient figure who are mentioned in most other ancient texts. Mr. Weller also takes Egypt's most famous king and compares his status amongst historians with a king whose civilisation has been wiped over by conquering armies numerous times. That is an unfair comparison and he misses my point that the use of "The biblical account states..." is used in a cynical way by the people who write it to mean "This document mentions/is used by a current religion, so it can't be trusted as history, but here is what it states..." Sweetmoose6 (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I should correct the last statement that I don't really believe every person who uses "This biblical account states..." means what I say they meant. But that is the way it comes across.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the formula "according to the bible" or "according to the Book of Kings" or whatever is value neutral. As none of us is in possession of a time machine to check whether the biblical account is accurate or not I think the safest bet is to source all statements. Maybe archeologists will unearth Solomon's palace next year or the year after. Who knows...but until then, best to be on the safe side, by sourcing all statements IMHO...which is also recommended by the wikipedia guidlines. Colin4C (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is not about whether or not we should source statement. I agree it should all be sourced. It is the way it is sourced. Most other sources appear in a reference section or at the end of a block of text. The issue is 1) that by prefacing the statement it is like adding a disclaimer and 2) it decreases the readability as According to ... is not stylistically very good. That is my objection. I think it is fine though to begin an entire section with: The following is found in the book of Kings... Then talk about it. It reads better. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it is common sense to use "according to X" in the case of strange occurences and bizarre phenomena. E.g.: "According to Suetonius, after he was killed, Caesar's soul ascended to heaven in the form of a comet" is better than "Ceasar was killed and shortly afterwards his soul ascended to heaven in the form of a comet (The Twelve Ceasars, Chapter 1 by Suetonius). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin4C (talk • contribs)

Sorry if you thought I was arrogant Sweetmoose, but you did seem to be comparing statements written centuries after an event with contemporary statements (numerous in various differnent locations as well). And that doesn't work for me at least. dougweller (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Colin: I am referring to statements in general like "According to the biblical text, Solomon was the third king of Israel". So if Seutonius said, Caesar was murdered in the Senate. His soul rose to heaven in the form of a comet." I would think it would be appropriate to use "According to Seutonius for the latter rather than the former. To Mr. Weller, I probably wasn't clear enough. The point I was making was a broad one rather than a specific one. The point was that other kings in other historical contexts get very different treatment than those mentioned in the Bible, even though the source material may be similar or worse. Ramses certainly has a vast amount of source material, but there are many kings who have entire articles written on them based on scant records, which are cited like other sources regardless of whether they mention religion or not, and regardless of whether they are contemporary or not. Ramses was perhaps not the best example. Plus I still think there it is difficult to prove or disprove that the accounts in Samuel and Kings were not taken from contemporary records. Again, how do you prove anything that happened 3,000 years ago with any certainty? Sweetmoose6 (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also apologize to Mr. Weller for implying your comment was arrogant. I have no way of knowing if you meant it that way or not. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Cited

The statement "Archeological excavation however finds no evidence of complex societies in Judah or in Edom, where Khirbat en-Nahas lay, during this period." does not have a solid source and is a vital part of the "Historical Figure" section of this article. It should either be cited or redefined as not being complete fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.76.6 (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical Accounts - 1 Kings 10:27 - This Could be Secularly Feasible

The verse in the NIV Bible, 1 Kings 10:27, states that King Solomon devalued silver ("as plentiful in Jerusalem as stone") and the Cedars of Lebanon ("as common as the sycamore-fig trees that grow in the foothills of Judah").

I myself am Christian, and thus take the Bible as Holy Text, but this paricular verse facinates me.

Mansa Musa temporarily devalued gold, as he gave out golden stuff on a pilgramage from Africa to Mecca.

If Mansa Musa could devalue gold, it would not be too hard for King Solomon to devalue silver, right?

I think this deserves mention. Solomon was wealthy, and was real, like it or not, faith or not. I do believe he even built a Temple that was decimated in the Roman Conquest and/or the darn Crusades. --TurtleShroom! :) ^†Jesus Loves You and Died for you!^† 16:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article can only reflect what published and reliable (see WP:RS have written about the subject. Since if there was a Solomon's Temple it was the destroyed First Temple, destroyed long before there were any Christians, and the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans (and decimated means cut by 10%, by the way) his Temple was destroyed what, 2500 years ago at least? dougweller (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Roman's destroyed Herod's temple - the foundations of which are now under a certain mosque that was covered in gold in the 1930's by an ally of Hitler.

--82.12.11.142 (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Important matter to be taken care of by Biblical scholars on wikipedia.

Why, on the title of every article related to the Bible, is there a rendition of how it is said in Arabic and/or some other langauges like Ge'ez? Greek translations of the Bible were done hundreds of years prior to the Arabic. This is a major issue on wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.92.28 (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Young is not a RS

Now we are getting specific - But what do you mean by RS. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also even if Young is someone who holds a particular view on another subject why does that invalidate their inclusion here? :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also my apologies for the last reversion. I had missed the fact that the section was reworked rather than just removed. It was the removal that seemed inappropriate to me. We can work on what "should" be in the section, rather than just take it all away. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have you read WP:RS? Bible and Spade, which was one of the references, is an inerrantist (Creationist) journal and is not a RS. Young himself is a recently retired IBM systems analyst. Why would we use him? Dougweller (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the time of your response I had just worked out that you meant WP:RS. The fact that he might be a 'retired IBM systems analyst' shouldn't count against him. It would certainly count for him more if he had academic credentials as well though. It would be worth using the material to which he refers with a more measured wording. The observation he makes is potentially valid. And the source does have some lesser weight than others might have, but again to dismiss it completely when the source is well cited seems too far. If the claim that was being made was itself contentious or outrageous I would be more concerned, however the point made is not really of that character just badly worded in the original edit. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't put the Wikilink in. As I said, why use him? What makes him a reliable source by our standards? We can find good, solid scholars backing those dates, and we also need to make sure that we have any other scholarly sources that have any different views on the dates. But Young? Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birth

It says unknown, but I am holding an encyclopedia in my hand right now called Great Lives From History that says he was born c. 991 B.C —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.246.97 (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias are not reliable sources. We don't even know if he existed. The only possible source for his birthdate that we know of would be the Bible, and it doesn't give one. Dougweller (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know that he existed, but we do know that the Book of Kings and Chronicles have long narratives about him - it's those narratives that we're treating. The date in the encyclopedia, by the way, is Thiele's reconstruction of the most probable date - the "raw" date available from Kings is different. Thiele's reasoning has probably majority support among scholars, but there are some who doubt that anything reliable can be made of the Biblical chronology. PiCo (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most protestants consider the Genealogy differences between Matthew and Luke as of Mary and of Joseph. It was the custom of the time to use the male name (family name) even when referring to the lineage of the wife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.161.188.11 (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revising the lead

I cut the lead down a bit - nothing too radical, used most of the material in it, but made it more concise. What's needed is that it reflect the rest of the material in the article - there's a great deal that's not touched on. PiCo (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what number child was king solomon???

could some one say among his brotherrs and sisters what number child was solomon??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.125.92 (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

role of bathsheba -- remarkably unspecified

In the article, "although Bathsheba now pleaded on Adonijah's behalf. " This implies that B. knowingly and actively lobbied for A. But we are told remarkably little about B's thoughts or feelings, &c. Why could she not have understood that this was a godsend to Solomon, and pass on the idea, knowing S. would handle it as he did?

I don't think we should impute intentions that are not explicitly in the text. (Let alone the historical question.) Be sensitive to ambiguities.

Ta! Must run. ABS (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sulayman In Arabic

From the beginning of the article, a correction shall be made to the name of Solomon in the various languages: in Arabic the name is not mentioned << Persian: سليمان>>. This is Arabic because Iran reads in Arabic writing and the Kuran in Persia is written in Arabic. A correction makes the article look complete. Noureddine (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eeeer?

So he died in c.932BCE but ruled to 931BCE. Anyone more than me that find that odd? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edifice might been constructed on the sea bed between Yemen and Africa

Quran informs us that the Sun worshiping of Saba kingdom was discovered by a Hoopoe. They hid their worshiping, but when the Great King Solomon was informed he sent a letter ordering them to stop their doing. The distance from Jerusalem to Saba is about 2000 km, Hoopoe could not take the risk of traveling this distance without permission or an excuse.

Hoopoe came late to Solomon that meant the hoopoe was not a super Hoopoe but only a bird with the ability of an ordinary Hoopoe.

So the Hoopoe is one main Key to know where the Edifice was.

Between Saba and the surroundings there were mountains, Solomon’s hosts passed through the valley of Ants. Saba could be seen from the air so it was logic to be seen by the Hoopoe if his flight was close.

Rough levels for the area are as the following: ( -23 m) - Sea bed near the beach

    		(+43 m) - Beach
    		(+1330 m) - Marib dam
    		(+2110 m) - Nearby mountains
    		(+996 m) - Desert behind mountains

The hoopoe is an ordinary bird with a limited speed. During his flight he saw the people of Saba kingdom worshiping the sun; he flew closer to make sure; that made him late to attend the council of Solomon. Hoopoe was absent and nobody knew where he was. He could be punished by Solomon; Hoopoe cannot take a risk by flying from Palestine to Yemen without reasons or permission.

He was late and without excuse, so his flight must be short and close to both Solomon’s council and Saba.

The distance between Solomon’s council and Kingdom of Saba must not be long.

The same Hoopoe took Solomon’s letter to Saba. It was not difficult for the Hoopoe to carry it and he did not get tired, it is not a long distance.

It was a brief letter but they knew it was from the Great King Solomon who was very famous, people in Saba must know him well. Saba was also famous and strong kingdom. They hid their sun worshiping. If their doing were public then many must knew about it. Solomon’s hosts were huge nobody discovered the secrete worshiping. Saba succeeded in hiding their doing until Hoopoe discovered their doing.

The situation of Saba went critical, they sent a gift, but when Solomon rejected it, they preferred to go to him that was safer than to let Solomon’s hosts entering Saba. They were very close, Saba could not stand against Solomon hosts from entering Saba,

Solomon refused the gift and asked his soldiers to bring the throne of Saba before their coming. If Solomon was in Palestine, then the arrival of the Queen would take long time. Time was another important key, Saba was close therefore the Queen will come soon, and the bringing of the Throne before her coming meant many things. It is prove of Solomon’s power.

Two extraordinary Solomon's soldiers replied him: The first was a demon, but the second was one who had a knowledge from the book, the second’s ability was more powerful than the ability of the demon

Any thing is easer with knowledge support, but without knowledge any thing appears more difficult, the second soldier was faster than the Demon.

Demon said he could bring the throne before Solomon stand up from his seat, it was a period of time until finishing the council (End of council)

The second time was shorter which is until the return of Solomon’s Terminal hosts (During the council time)

Some body understood that the second time is “within the twinkling of an eye!” (this is as shown in the translation) but really this time is very short, and there is an important word mentioned which declare that the bringing of the throne took longer time than the time required for just twinkling of an eye, the meaning of this word is “then when “ َ فَلَمّا رَآهُ مُسْتَقِرّاً عِندَهُ ! Then when (Solomon) saw it placed firmly before him,

Any creature’s ability is controlled by what he was given by Allah, maybe he is faster because of his ability or his knowledge but at the end it is to a certain limit. The abilities of soldieries were limited, and they were obeying Solomon’s orders. Second soldier was faster but he needed time. Both times were correlated by council’s events; Soldier’s abilities were not out of time. Abilities were of bringing the Throne during the council time, by logic, Saba was not far from the Solomon’s council, if it was then time required to bring throne might be longer than the council time …

Solomon Edifice is close to Saba

But where could it be? The suitable place for containing the Edifice and the huge and many Jinn’s made around the Edifice must be wide and far from people. Only jinn were there when Solomon died. Quran informs us about many other keys, Quran informs us about the builder of the edifice, the material ….. So, the Edifice can be known where it was. Notice the following very important points

The Edifice was built not by human but by Jinns and demons, they were builders and divers. Edifice was a tall building constructed from glass and copper, this kind of building which was done by builders and divers of Jinn must not be over land, but so like building must be in water where glass is a Prime building material, on land, buildings were made of stones and woods , in water the builder must know diving and they must be not human, in water tall building is essential for ventilation

Solomon asked Allah to give him a unique Kingdom . No one before or after Solomon has a kingdom in the sea , Only Solomon has a large kingdom both in land and sea,

Jinns made many huge status ,structures,… and others around the Edifice, these things are essential for building in the sea. But on land they could harm peoples during construction and after that it will be a famous place for people to visit. No body discovered these Jinn’s structures yet , the possibility of being on the sea bed is very logic, if these things were on land many people must know about , and many people must go there many times, and so like places can not be forgotten easily, the Edifice was far away from people, it was only for Solomon to worship far from people.

Quran informs us that " Allah let a Font of molten brass to flow for Solomon; and there were Jinns that worked in front Of him, by the leave of his Lord, and if any of them turned aside from Our command, We made him taste of the Penalty of the Blazing Fire." , as known in the sea bed there are many volcanoes, so the molten copper are there available for jinn to use for their made,

Solomon could order the wind to blow his ship from the Edifice to the holy land or where he wanted, the wind made his travel fast, the one month trip could be done during a few hours because of the ordered wind. Edifice was far from the Holy land.

Solomon died in the Edifice and no human asked about him, his Kingdom was large and no body knew where he was. If his Edifice was on land human or birds could enter the Edifice, that means Solomon used to be alone there in the Edifice for worship, and Edifice was far from birds and humans.

When Solomon died no human or bird entered into his Edifice, any human can know that he was dead, and that means Solomon was far from humans (the land) he was under water in his Edifice (made of glass) , jinn stayed out side and around the edifice in the hard work.

When the queen of Saba wanted to enter the Edifice, she thought she was entering into water, that means she passed over a bridge of glass over water,

Many stories about Solomon were accompanied with the sea, like his ring and the fish, also the jinn and the bottle….

Conclusions: The Edifice was constructed on the sea bed, while its entrance was above water surface to allow air come in and out , and there was only one gate, where no body enter their except Solomon. Solomon trips from/to the Edifice and the holly land was by using wind ships ordering the wind to blow to wherever he wanted Now, due to the subsidence of the sea bed, the Edifice is completely under water and is covered by sediments, this also happened to the structures built about the Edifice

Old Peoples thought Gazan area was the place where Solomon’s hosts were gathered, Gazan is very close to Saba, there are many valleys, mountains and islands. The beach is nearly flat, where the sea bed is shallow, this area has not been discovered yet by archeologists

The Edifice and the surroundings (Jinn made) are cover by sediments in the bed of sea between Yemen and Africa needs someone to discover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.252.95.36 (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Testament characters

Abraham - Amenemhet I

Jacob - Yakubher

Moses - Thuthmose III

David - Psusennes I

Solomon - Siamun

WillBildUnion (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the original research guidelines and the reliable source guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im aware of the guidelines, this is not original research, and it's on talk page so it should not be problem. The hyksos were hebrews and hebrews rose in power in Egypt. This is not original research. All this can be backed up by university sources, but at this point I only leave this to the talk page.WillBildUnion (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it on the talk page does not make it "not original research." Provide those sources with proper citations, or else it remains in the realm of original research. Also, the identification between the Hebrews and the Hyksos is not universally accepted among scholars. At most, you would be able to put "John Smith in This is my book on history, believes that..." Ian.thomson (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no place on Wikipedia for original research. Sure, some people believe what you believe, but until you come up with mainstream reliable sources there's no room for it, and I know it is not the majority view. Dougweller (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Empire

How can there have been a Christian Ethiopian Empire for +2900 years? As far as I'm aware, this is 2010 AD...as in 890 years away from 2900.184.60.8.38 (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wording was clumsy. I didn't read it the way you did, but I see your point, and I've reworded it. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still didn't like it, though I did understand it better. I think maybe there's just too much extraneous information. Like, do we really need to know the break ended when a legitimate heir got the thrown back? I feel like people can click a link if they want that kind of detail. For the time being, I left it. Douglas A. Whitfield (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subtitle Issues and Reorganization

Currently the first subtitle is the Biblical Account, causing few issues. While the otherwise outsourced statement "Solomon had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines." can be reconciled by simply looking up at the subtitle, it still unnerving to see. An addition to to the phrase, resulting in "According to biblical accounts, Solomon had seven hundred....(verses)", would be redundant unfortunately, resulting in a need for the change in the subtitle. The subtitle's use itself also comes under question. For the majority of the section, up until its final subsections, there is strong content pertaining to what the reader would expect: a Biblical and purely Biblical account of Solomon's life, with just enough use of experts' takes on things where explanation was necessary, offered, and cited. Titles such as Islamic Perspective(Islamic View of Solomon being it's parent article) do not belong under this. The politics of the kingdom and the tactics of the military not described by the Bible can go elsewhere in the article. The Jewish Tradition title falls in a similar category. The Subtitle is Biblical Account, and tradition is by most definitions and in most religions, what is not written, but assumed and practiced based on interpretations of the religious text. I'm moving the text about Islam down to Religions and Solomon, and I suggest someone do the same with Jewish Traditions. 68.195.25.161 (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC) If one would like to replace some of the introductory text in Religions and Solomon>Islam with the more concise and simple text that came from the blanking out of any mention of Islam from the Biblical account section, it's in the history. I think I'm going to loan it so Simple English. 68.195.25.161 (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrian data

While it's true that the bible mentions Hiram of Tyre as a contemporary of Solomon, there is no non-biblical data validating this. The only thing that s study of Menander's Tyrian king-lists can do, therefore, is to set a date for Hiram. The authors of the three books cited all make clear that their work is based on the assumption that the data in Kings is historical - but this remains an assumption. PiCo (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josephus specifically cites the Tyrian records as stating that Hiram sent materials and gold to Solomon for the construction of the temple. Now, while the accuracy of Josephus can certainly be questioned (although his citations of the Tyrian records and Menander seem to be accepted for other purposes as being true citations), on face the account in Against Apion is independent of the biblical account. For example, see Against Apion 1:17. (conveniently available at wikisource: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Against_Apion/Book_I) --68.255.105.48 (talk) 09:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

when did solomon live

Although the text in the tanach does not explicitly state when solomon ruled, there is a simple calculation that one can do to reach this number: the talmud in 8th chapter of Sanhedrin says that Solomon suled 476 years after the exodus from Egypt. The exodos was hebrew year 2448. add 476 years we arrive at 2924. Convert to gregorian date and it is 876 BC.

Look at Seder Hadoros p 156, who arrives at this same date using the same calculation. He says that we know that Solomon became king at 12 (Temurah 15), He ruled for 40 years (explicit in Navi- Melachim 1, chapter 11, verse 42 ), bringing his age to 52. Also see Sifre which states that he lived 52 years.

Before reverting, please check out my sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averyk (talk • contribs) 15:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what Wikipedia calls original research. You can't do that here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree- when I quote from sources and also specify the calculations, that does not make it original research ! Please explain why my sources are not acceptable before reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averyk (talk • contribs) 22:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it looked to me like you were doing your own calculations based upon the sources you were citing. I've mentioned this at WP:JUDAISM. Since the current dates have been stable for some time, I suggest we leave them the way they are and let a few more editors participate in this discussion. My guess is that various sources have proposed various dates for Solomon and some even doubt that he's anything but a mythological character and it may be difficult to list any dates at all without violating WP:NPOV. However, I think the most sensible thing to do is leave the article in its stable form until we can form some kind of consensus. Does that seem fair to you? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair. Please let me know what you think to be a reasonable time. --Averyk (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think a reasonable time has probably come and gone. I suspect that if the thing were properly researched the result would be that a range of dates for Solomon have been discussed by reliable sources with no particular one ever having been established as definitive, but since no one has seen fit to address this subject except you and me, despite my having notified what I regard as the most relevant project, I'll just revert to your version. I'll be damned if I'm going to try to fight that fight alone. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon at Death

Solomon could not have died around 80 because David was 30 when he became king at Saul's death. David then at 37 took Jerusalem with only 33 years left to reign until he was 70 and ruled 40 years. Because Solomon was born to BathSheba it says that she lived below the palace in Jerusalem which they had taken in David's 7th year of reign. The original research of Josephus book 8, 7:8 who dared to write against wikipedia policy in 98ad says he became king at 14 (ruled 80 and dies at 94) translates as ruled 40 and died at 54. (Same as Hirom at 53.) Thus David took Jerusalem at 37, lived 19 years until Solomon was born at 56, and David dying at 70 outlived Solomon 16 years. 98.144.71.174 (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very clever, it does sound like you are onto something. Unfortunately, our policy is not to publish original research, which means you should have chosen somewhere else other than wikipedia to debut this point. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

solomon

--86.31.198.218 (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)--86.31.198.218 (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)im just suggesting here is this KING SOLOMON or was there another KING solomon and mmabie at the top dont make it a bit crouded with the names that say his name in other ways[reply]

The name of the subject will always be given in his native language at the top of the article. The additional alternate languages are appropriate given the nature of the subject and number of religious works that write about him. —C.Fred (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I disagree. I do not see the relevance of all these languages. I do think it distracts from the subject and makes the first line difficult to read. Hebrew is of course a given, Arabic is reasonable, seeing that the name appears in the Quran. The Greek appears only in translations and other secondary works. The same for Latin (a dead language!), Persian and Turkish. What, if I may ask, is the rationale for not including e.g. Russian or Chinese? -- Lindert (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Lindert. Beyond the Hebrew and Arabic and maybe Greek, everything else is unnecessary and distracting. Ckruschke (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

I would certainly agree that Persian, Turkish, and Latin can go. Specifically flagging the modern english spelling as coming from a transliteration of the greek is useful, imo. And the forms related to Hebrew are also likely useful. --68.255.105.48 (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've removed the Persian, Latin and Turkish, kept the Greek. Any objections or further suggestions? Lindert (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yiddish maybe (if it's different to the Hebrew)? --Grammarbishop8 (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Accounts and Legends

Most of the stories listed in the 'Fictional accounts and legends' section are religious, so it's not fair to call them fictional. Wouldn't it be fairer to call them 'Non-biblical accounts' unless they have been written as fiction?--Jcvamp (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Religious texts are all fictional, at least the parts about anything supernatural. The entire biblical story about Solomon is a fictional account and a legend. Solomon is the biblical King Arthur, nothing more. The archaeological and historical evidence for Solomon is precisely zero, as well as for everything else the Bible assigns to the time prior to circa 850 BCE. David and Solomon, the "golden age" kings, are a later inventions (after 6th century BCE) to aggrandize Jewish alternative history.

'Non-biblical accounts' or 'Extrabiblical stories' would be more appropriate, indeed. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Cush: Do you realize you are using naturalism as a dogma here, no different from how religious fundamentalists reason? You are stating as fact things you have no knowledge of. Even from a historical perspective it is ridiculous to say that there is "zero historical evidence" for Solomon, because one cannot simply dismiss the accounts of in the Hebrew Bible as irrelevant to history. That is exactly what the books of Kings and Chronicles are: history books. There is of course disagreement among scholars as to the level of accuracy, but that is true of every single ancient historical account. Also, are you aware that most scholars now recognize David as a historical Hebrew king based on extra-biblical mentions of him (mainly Tel Dan Stele, 8-9th century BC):

The Tel Dan inscription generated a good deal of debate and a flurry of articles when it first appeared, but it is now widely regarded (a) as genuine and (b) as referring to the Davidic dynasty and the Aramaic kingdom of Damascus.'^[3]

So while you can hold to the view that David was a post-exilic invention, that is not the consensus of scholars, which is what Wikipedia is based on.

Speaking myself as a firm believer that David and Solomon were legendary and didn't exist (at all, let alone in the form they're presented in the Bible), I must agree that Wikipedia is based on scholarly consensus -- and scholarly consensus even amongst revisionists and archaelogists who question the Bible is against my position, and in support of the existence of David and Solomon, even if it was in the form of chieftans of a poor and relatively sparsely-populated kingdom.129.240.190.72 (talk) 10:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcvamp: I agree, we should strive towards neutrality, we could also call them 'later accounts' or something like that, to distinguish them from the only primary sources about Solomon (i.e. those in the Hebrew Bible).Lindert (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ On the reliability of the old testament by K A Kitchen p134
^ On the reliability of the old testament by K A Kitchen p123
^ Grabbe, L. L. (2007). Reflections on the Discussion. In L. L. Grabbe (Ed.), Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty (L. L. Grabbe, Ed.) (333). London: T&T Clark.

The Tel Dan inscription is no evidence for the biblical stories in any way. "House of David" only hints at some person of that name, maybe indeed the real person at the nucleus of the biblical fiction. The only people who accept David and Solomon as historical are religiously motivated "academics", e.g. Kitchen. Everybody else has by now dismissed the Bible as a reliable source for anything prior to the Divided Monarchy period.

There is no trace of either David or Solomon/Jedidiyah outside of the Bible. No recorded correspondence, no artefacts, no architecture that could be assigned to either character. The Bible is a creation of wishful history by Jews in the 5 last centuries BCE. There was no Sojourn in Egypt, no Exodus, no Wandering, no Conquest of Canaan, no Judges period, no United Moarchy period. ♆ CUSH ♆ 09:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The only people who accept David and Solomon as historical are religiously motivated 'academics'": If you think only one side engages in wishful thinking, think again. All people are biased one way or another. To dismiss people's credentials and scholarship simply because they hold different suppositions than yourself is an ignorant approach. The purpose of Wikipedia's NPOV policy is exactly contrary to that; we should include all scholarly viewpoints and not try to read people's minds to figure out who's biased and who isn't. Lindert (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check. History is determined by archaeologists and historians, not by biblical scholars = theologians. Theological scholarly viewpoints are only relevant in contexts of religion, not history. Solomon is not a historical figure, otherwise there would be direct evidence. Text in a book written roughly 500 years after the time frame it allegedly describes is not evidence. That is as if someone were to write a book today about the Elisabethan period from hearsay. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Until someone comes up with excavation reports that present artifacts, architecture, or writings that contain any of Solomon's names, Solomon is no more than a fictional character in a religious book. This is an encyclopedia, not a religious platform. ♆ CUSH ♆ 09:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When did I appeal to 'biblical scholars'? I did not (and btw, many biblical scholars are not religious). I'm talking about archaeologists and historians. Maybe you should read 'The Birth & Death of Biblical Minimalism' (on this very topic) by Yosef Garfinkel, PhD, professor of Archaeology of the Biblical Period at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is not alone. Even minimalists like Finkelstein accept now that David was a historical figure. And remember that the primary extrabiblical evidence for David was discovered only in 1993. Who knows what will be discovered in the coming years. It's not very smart to be all dogmatic about the non-existence of a biblical person, when you consider history. Skeptics in the past also denied that king Sargon II of Assyria and Belshazzar of Babylon ever existed. Neither of them is mentioned in the ancient king lists and not a single ancient historian names them (apart from the bible). They have been thoroughly refuted by archaeology. Finally, you seem quite certain that you know when the books of Kings and Chronicles were written, but is that not the field of these biblical scholars? Even if you were right about when they were written, it is quite fallacious to dismiss them as hearsay. It is widely recognized that these books relied on earlier, more detailed accounts. You would have noticed this if you read Kings and Chronicles. see Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible for a list of sources referenced in these books. By your logic I could never trust a modern biography of Genghis Khan, simply because it was written many centuries after he lived. Of course such a biography would be based on much earlier accounts. The same with Kings and Chronicles, and of course this is the only way that one could write such a book, because both span several centuries. Lindert (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tel Dan stele is no extrabiblical evidence for the biblical tales surrounding David and Solomon. One occurrence of the term "Beit Dud" does not verify the whole fantastical narratives. There seems to have been some David, but that's not sufficient to verify the biblical David. Religious primary texts are generally not a reliable source, and using them to prove a point is original research. The Bible is through its nature as a ideologically manipulated and manipulative text not acceptable as a reliable source, primary or otherwise. Without artifacts or direct correspondences bearing any of Somolon's names there is no historicity for Solomon. Same goes for David and everything else in "Jewish" history. People who invent deities certainly have no trouble inventing history. Subsequently, an encyclopedia needs to be careful which sources to classify as reliable. ♆ CUSH ♆ 15:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, are there any proposed changes to the article still being discussed on this thread, or is this just an "I'm right and you're wrong" contest? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right; I got carried away a bit. Though the discussion could be useful because it's about the reliability of some of the primary sources for the article's subject, I don't see this going anywhere right now. As there are no immediate contested changes, it may be better to close this. We'll see when more specific issues come up. Lindert (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what is inferred by use of the term Solomonish?

To put this in context, somebody has told me they think i have found a Solomonish solution. Reading up on Solomon he seems to be as well known for his sins as his wisdom. I have found many references to the term Solomonish on the net, but none explaining what is inferred by that term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibbsyns3 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually not the right place to ask such questions, the reference desk would be better. This talk page is for discussing improvements for the article. However, a 'Solomonish solution' probably refers to the Judgement of Solomon, an episode where Solomon ruled between two women fighting over an infant son. -- Lindert (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the answer. apologies for putting it on the wrong page. i assume wiki-someone will delete this thread - but in closing will suggest the solomon entry is updated to add reference to use of the term Solomonish. i found many uses of the term in researching prior to posting this question. thanks again. ng — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.105.108.195 (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies necessary, new users cannot be expected to know how everything works, it was just meant as information (and it's not that important anyway). Actually, I cannot find the word 'Solomonish' in my dictionary, 'Solomonic' seems to be the adjective of 'Solomon'. To add it to the article, we would need a reliable source for it. -- Lindert (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

I removed some vandalism on this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.65.160 (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Servant vs. Slave

Might slave be a better term to use instead of servant in "... when he went to Gath to retrieve some runaway servants ...". Does anybody retrieve runaway 'servants'?

Probably because the King James Version of 1 Kings 2:40 says: And Shimei arose, and saddled his ass, and went to Gath to Achish to seek his servants: and Shimei went, and brought his servants from Gath. Ckruschke (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Either Or but not both

King Solomon sinned by acquiring too many wives and horses because he thought he knew the reason for the Biblical prohibition and thought it did not apply to him. When King Solomon married the daughter of the Egyptian Pharaoh, a sandbank formed which eventually formed the "great nation of Rome" - the nation that destroyed the Second Temple (Herod's Temple). Solomon gradually lost more and more prestige until he became like a commoner. Some say he regained his status while others say he did not.

The above exists in two places. Under Sins and Punishment and under Religious Solomon. One of them needs to go. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article begins with the End, Solomon's demise. It's disconserting to the reader. I am reluctant to edit a religious article and will seek consensus of available editors before any article editing, ```Buster Seven Talk 14:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, go ahead. I don't think the order of the narrative is that controversial actually, and the duplicate section obviously needs to go. I would say the paragraph above fits best in the 'Judaism' section, but that sure could use some restructuring and ideally expansion. - Lindert (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the sections "Historical figure" and "Criticism" should be merged in a single section "Historicicity of Solomon", as the latter could be taken as referring to criticism of Solomon himself, an interesting subject but not quite the same. PatGallacher (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When King Solomon married the daughter of the Egyptian Pharaoh, a sandbank formed which eventually formed the "great nation of Rome" - can someone please explain that sentence to me, I don't understand it.Smeat75 (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally found it after a fruitless search earlier. Pharaoh's daughter (wife of Solomon) "The Talmud at Sanhedrin 21b says that "When Solomon married Pharaoh's daughter, Gabriel descended and stuck a reed in the sea, which gathered a sand-bank around it, on which was built the great city of Rome." - the paragraph it is in may be OR by the way. Dougweller (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism section

Isn't it a bit short? And the bit about him sinning is - well, just bad. Eg from The Significance of Yavneh and Other Essays in Jewish Hellenism By Shaye J. D. Cohen "Solomon's polygamy is condemned because it turned him away from God (1 Kings 11:3b). The law on kingship in Dcut. 17, which clearly refers to Solomon, says only (17: 17) that the king "shall not multiply svivcs for him- self, lest his heart turn away (from God)." A prohibition of foreign wives is not mentioned. (d) Solomon's intermarriage is condemned because it turned him away from God (1 Kings 11:1-2). Perhaps the original condemnation mentioned only the Canaanite wives (cf. Judges 3:5-6 and 1 Kings 16:31), and only later were the Moabitc, Ammonite, and Edomite women included as well. Solomon sinned either by worshiping the foreign gods himself (1 Kings 11:4-6) or by allowing his foreign wives to do so (1 Kings 11:7-8). (c) Last, Pharaoh's daughter is added to the foreign wives who led Solomon astray (1 Kings 11:1). Although it completes the block of four nations of Dcut. 23, the reference to Pharaoh's daughter almost certainly is a gloss. The chapter has no evidence that Solomon worshiped Egyptian gods or allowed his wife to do so. The syntax of the verse is very awkward..."[1]

And the sandbank stuff should either be removed or explained. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Books of Wisdom Attribution to Solomon is Essentially Legendary

Editors should be able to locate statements by experts of the Tanakh that the attribution of many of the books of Wisdom to Solomon is fictitious and legendary. Ecclesiastes, an existential tract in the Kierkegaard vein, can never be ascribed to a Hebrew King like Solomon who had no reasons to suffer the anxieties of Koheleth. The Book of Sirach has been clearly attributed by all experts to the grandson of Sirach. Similarly the Wisdom of Solomon is not attributed to Solomon by any expert of the Old Testament. Proverbs is a collection of wisdom sayings staging the female Wisdom figure. Its attribution to Solomon is also regarded as utterly fictitious. Editors should extract the quotations from the top OT experts, especially those who have focused on the Wisdom books, summarizing their conclusions concerning attribution of the Wisdom books, and mention them in the article. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

radiocarbon dating for copper mines in edom and deconstruction of Solomon

From PNAS http://www.pnas.org/content/105/43/16460.short 71.163.117.143 (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a suggested edit for this page? Ckruschke (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Solomons 666 talents of Gold can we add this to it?

Can we add

It may be that the verse in Revelation 13:18 is referring to King Solomon when it says 'number of a man'

18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

????

Themainman69 (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is that noteworthy? Magical numerological connections with the much later Book of Revelation are not listed at WP:Identifying reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been fair to mention Karl Gottlieb Mauch, the German explorer and geographer who found the remains... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.7.175 (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would require a lot of really really good reliable sources, seeing how Karl Mauch isn't credited with finding Solomon's grave, but stumbling upon Great Zimbabwe. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood Details Lacking

I noticed today that under Biblical Account Solomon is introduced into the article only at the point his father is dying. I sought to do a subsection, following only what the Bible mentions, to launch the section, headed Childhood, drawing on details from 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles, that tell of his birthplace, his parents' marriage, Solomon's siblings and half-siblings. But no sooner did I add it then it was deleted, with explanation "non primary sources" were needed.Cloptonson (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On further thought, I've restored the section. Editor2020, Talk 04:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a WP:Primary Source, but in this case I think it's OK. Editor2020, Talk 04:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Solomon had to come from somewhere.Cloptonson (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Readability

I made several rewrites to enhance clarity and conciseness. Also trimmed a long and tedious Bible passage and replaced it with a brief description of what it says. Hope it meets with approval. SereneRain (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon's Wives

Rewrote this for clarity, moved a paragraph to the Arts and Literature section. 700 wives and 300 concubines? Solomon was a franchised pimp. I should open a brothel named King Solomon's Mines. SereneRain (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sins and Punishment

I want this section removed or sharply reduced, but I don't feel bold enough to gut such a large beast. This extended ramble goes into great detail concerning the Biblical narrative's disapproval of Solomon's allowing his wives to import their national deities, which is worth a mention, and I put that in the Wives section. Then it drags in the Book of Deuteronomy, which has no connection to the narrative of Solomon, in order to point out that Solomon violated several laws written there. Finally it tells us, "Just as Deuteronomy 17 warns, collecting horses and chariots takes Israel back to Egypt," whatever that means, before treating us to an extended passage from I Kings in which God personally tells Solomon that He's going to punish him by tearing his kingdom apart after he's dead. This all serves well to support the common Christian doctrine that God punished Israel because Solomon was idolatrous. However, it requires the eyes of faith to see the connection between Solomon's morality, the dissolution of the united kingdom and Deuteronomy, so it should be rewritten in consideration of those who are unable to read through the eyes of faith. Sins and Punishment isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a sermon. Placing a sermon in an encyclopedia is a sin and wading through this poorly written and very badly formatted mess is a punishment. Feedback, please. SereneRain (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death ...

"He dies ... at around 80 years of age." How you this age? --109.193.56.200 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe dating

Mixing the Seder Olam dating with contemporary scholars' dating seems to me like WP:FRINGE/PS. The problem is indeed discussed at Missing years (Jewish calendar), but Solomon is not an WP:COATRACK for such discussion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that depends on where you live. In the West, they rely upon the Modern dating system. Here, in Israel, Jews still mostly rely upon the Old dating system bequeathed to them by their ancestors. For example, whenever counting the numbers of years since the Second Temple's destruction on the Ninth of Av Fast day, it is always based on the year 68 CE instead of 70 CE. Likewise, the destruction of the First Temple, in Jewish tradition, was in 422 BCE instead of 586 BCE.Davidbena (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that you speak for Israeli scholars who live by publish or perish, you speak instead for the true believers. May I remind you that Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia? Seder Olam dating is pseudoscience for Israeli scholars for the same reason that Ussher chronology is pseudoscience. Here we coddle neither Jewish true believers nor Christian ones. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think both datings should be given, but the article chould make it clear which is which, and where they come from. At the moment it doesn't - which is "conventional"? It depends whose conventions you are looking at. Invoking WP:FRINGE/PS here is inappropriate. Johnbod (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did not say that it has no meaning whatsoever. What I meant is that the Seder Olam dating is meaningful for true believers. It has no traction whatsoever in academic historical scholarship and it is therefore no wonder that Lemaire and other scholars cited in the article have completely ignored its point. Assuming that it were relevant for scholars, it would make a huge difference. But it is up to mainstream scholars to acknowledge that it is indeed a huge issue in the history of Israel or it is just a dating set forth by true believers, which has no value besides its cultic use. What I oppose is mixing mainstream dating with cultic dating in the same paragraph. See WP:GEVAL. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a WP:OR problem with rendering WP:PRIMARY religious sources. Seder Olam is a 2nd century CE writing and it cannot be cited as contemporary scholarship. There is another contemporary WP:SOURCE needed to tell us that its dating would still be relevant to present-day scholarship. Personally, I doubt that such a source, if it exists, would pass WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policy on Primary and Secondary Sources states explicitly that Primary Sources can occasionally be used.Davidbena (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARY sources are to be used like this: "According to 1 Kings 10:14, Solomon received yearly 666 talents of gold." All judgements about relevance, meaning, whether 666 talents is few or much, etc., should be left to WP:SECONDARY sources. Citing Seder Olam does not verify the claim that Seder Olam would be relevant as 21st century scholarship, since the authors of Seder Olam completely ignored 21st century scholarship, for obvious reasons. Mixing contemporary mainstream scholarship dating with ancient dating which has only cultic relevance is an example of pseudo-scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is not allowed according to WP:OR is using an ancient primary religious source in order to argue against a contemporary secondary source written by a full professor. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone suggesting this? What paragraph are you referring to? Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod:It's the "Unlike Lemaire" claim at [2]. He stated below that he does not argue against Lemaire, but the words could be construed that way. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you term the "Jewish" date is more normally called the Masoretic; what you term the "Jewish-adjusted" date is more properly termed the Seder Olam dating; and the Samaritan dating is a variant of the Masoretic, though neither is likely the original. None of these are scholarly and none have any followers outside quite extreme Christian and Jewish religious factions. The Seder Olam calendar, in particular, is ridiculous from the point of view of known history, compressing the entire Persian Empire into 52 years. No modern scholars put the exodus in the 15th/16th centuries, nor in the 13th/14th; the consensus is that there was no exodus. Our article reflects this.
— PiCo (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC), [3]

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

God forbid to say that I am arguing against a Professor, whose works I've translated. I am simply showing that there are conflicting views to this subject, and every man is free to decide for himself.Davidbena (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps after the holiday I'll search for a contemporary source to prove that this is the view of the vast majority of religious Jews today in Israel; religious Jews who are also graduates of seminaries, such as the Jewish Theological Seminary.Davidbena (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a democracy, so it does not matter what most Jews think about it (or, for that matter, what most Christians or Muslims think about it). It matters what most scholars have written about it in reliable sources. There is one thing expressing the mass of Fat Man in either pounds or kilograms, since such units can be easily converted. It is a quite different thing to give equal weight to two calendars which are mutually incompatible. It's not a matter of using Julian or Gregorian calendar, it is a matter of leaving out properly documented events and time spans, which could not have happened in the Seder Olam dating. So, while I don't deny that in your religion such dating system plays a special role, Wikipedia considers as fact what most scholars say that it is a fact, regardless of their religion. See e.g. WP:NPOV, which does not say that all opinions are equal, but that facts should be presented as facts and religious opinions as religious opinions. On matters of theological dogma, Wikipedia is neutral. On matters of scientific or historical fact, Wikipedia isn't neutral. E.g. if Israel Finkelstein would express historical dates as a true believer in Seder Olam, he would be ridiculed as an inane buffoon. While he is also known for contesting chronologies, he does this for objectively assessable reasons, not because of his particular religious bias. As User:Ian.thomson has put it, "Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will objectively expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children)." Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I have been pinged, I'll go with this: Jewish encyclopedia says "971 to 931", almost identical to our article. I think the article could specify that Seder Olam Rabba claims Solomon lived in the 800s, with no commentary as to its acceptance or denial by anyone (Jew, gentile, scholar, or believer) without reliable sources. Currently, there is no source that establishes that any significant number of Jews side with Seder Olam Rabba over modern scholarship, and the Jewish Encyclopedia would indicate otherwise. Likewise, the commentary about it being out of sync with modern scholarship is (at the moment) unsourced, though could easily and immediately be followed with "although the Jewish Encyclopedia gives 971 to 931." And if the section is truly about Jewish belief, then the material should be placed in the article's section on Jewish belief instead of chronology. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, I agree that my addition is unsourced, but it is clear that a 2nd century CE text has been quoted as the source of Davidbena's claim and that it is a primary religious source, so a document believed on faith by religious believers. About the lack of traction in contemporary scholarship I don't have a source yet, however, as User:PiCo pointed out, the Seder Olam dating is so very much at odds with the history known to scholars, that neutral scholars simply do not defend its veracity. There might be some Yeshiva professors who defend it because of their fideism, but as far as even the secular Israeli academia is concerned, it does not make for a serious contemporary scholarly chronology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that it pretty much wrong in the face of all other scholarship, that either means we need to move it to the religious views section or that we need to drop it. If we had a source that demonstrated that most Jews reject that dating claim and that it was historically insignificant, I'd be more inclined to drop it. In absence of such claims, I'm inclined towards simply mentioning it in the religious views section, counterbalanced by the Jewish Encyclopedia. We shouldn't include any unsourced commentary, even if we happen to agree that that commentary is correct. Whatever our suspicions or claims about fideist acceptance, without a source we can't even claim that much in the article. I've carried out the changes I suggested. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your edit. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2016

This edit request to Solomon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

restore: evidence for the wealth of Solomon and his kingdom was discovered in ancient silver-hoards, which were found in Israel and Phoenicia and recognized for their importance in 2003. The evidence from the hoards shows that the Levant was a center of wealth in precious metals during the reign of Solomon and Hiram, and matches the texts that say the trade extended from Asia to the Atlantic Ocean. Biblical texts say that Solomon made silver 'as common in Jerusalem as stones,' and ancient Greek and Roman authors also talked about the very long-distance trade that the Bible mentions in relation to Solomon and Hiram.^[1]

This page is inappropriately shaped by Doug Weller's biases, whose record is well-known. There is no sock puppetry. There is a need to restore evidence from the published record that Doug Weller persistently deletes without any kind of appropriate justification. This is outrageous 'editing' and Wikipedia needs to consider what it is allowing here. The information is published and highly relevant, and demonstrated. If Doug Weller weren't trolling the pages he likes to treat as his personal editing job, no one would need to attempt to dodge the trolling by using different names. Outrageous. As ever Doug Weller needs to have his work edited, supervised, by someone who is not a friend, and does not share his biases.

Unbelievable Editing Practices (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's still in the article although reworded and placed under "historicity" which is where it belongs. As for no socks, there have bee several confirmed socks adding material from this source. This looks like another one given their comments. Doug Weller talk 08:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add that the protection was added by an SPI clerk due to the sockpuppetry. This.editor though is not connected to those socks, he's another sock. Doug Weller talk 09:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. clpo13_(talk) 19:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marked request as answered --Cameron11598 (Converse) 07:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'succession and administration'

The first paragraph of this section contains absolutely nothing relevant to Solomon. The opening phrase "according to the First Book of Kings, when David was old ..." may as well lead the second paragraph. TheNuszAbides (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Solomon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130924012912/http://gfhandel.org/43to100.html to http://www.gfhandel.org/43to100.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ Thompson, Christine; Skaggs, Sheldon. "King Solomon's Silver? Southern Phoenician Hacksilber Hoards and the Location of Tarshish". Internet Archaeology (35). doi:10.11141/ia.35.6.

[1] On the reliability of the old testament by K A Kitchen p134

[2] On the reliability of the old testament by K A Kitchen p123

[3] Grabbe, L. L. (2007). Reflections on the Discussion. In L. L. Grabbe (Ed.), Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty (L. L. Grabbe, Ed.) (333). London: T&T Clark.

[4] Thompson, Christine; Skaggs, Sheldon. "King Solomon's Silver? Southern Phoenician Hacksilber Hoards and the Location of Tarshish". Internet Archaeology (35). doi:10.11141/ia.35.6.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]