Talk:Hiram I

Untitled
I dont know how many times altered pages to correct this, But Hiram, King of Tyre and Hiram Abif are two completely different people. --Comment by IP editor 213.131.101.106 on 3 February 2006

Years of reign
The Wikipedia article List of Kings of Tyre indicates different years of reign for Hiram, his predecessor and his successor. Which is correct??--Jeffro77 04:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

whatever the bible says is true???
This article build upon the biblical references, but written as if these absolute historical facts! --Comment by IP editor 217.73.17.61 at 06:54, 19 September 2006.


 * Much of this article is based upon archaeological evidence (including inscribed monuments) as well as upon information from classical authors such as Josephus. Yes, some material is from biblical sources and not otherwise attested. Bejnar 18:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Added source of comments above. --Bejnar 21:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Historicity
What sources are there for this Hiram I? What inscriptions mention him by name? And for that matter, what was his name in Phoenician? (his name is given here in Hebrew, which seems odd). Did he ever exist outside the Hebrwe bible? PiCo 13:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "...his name is given here in Hebrew, which seems odd..." Not so odd: 1 Kings 7:14 says Hiram was a widow's son of the tribe of Naphtali. BubbleDine (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, he does exist outside the Bible, please see, e.g., Vance, Donald R. (March 1994) "Literary Sources for the History of Palestine and Syria: The Phœnician Inscriptions Part I" The Biblical Archaeologist 57(1), pp. 2-19. --Bejnar 18:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe Vance's findings should go in the article - the importance of this lies in the large body of evidence that Solomon's kingdom never existed. PiCo 13:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Vance's findings are in the article. Didn't you read it? It is available via JSTOR, if the large library nearby you doesn't have The Biblical Archaeologist.  Most of this Wikipedia Hiram I article is from non-biblical sources. For example, the carved limestone sarcophagus of Hiram (Ahiram), king of Tyre, bearing a Phoenician inscription, 10th century BC is in the National Museum of Lebanon, Beirut; see the image in the Encyclopedia Britannica here. --Bejnar 16:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue of the existence or non-existence of Solomon's kingdom, or more to the point, the size of the Hebraic state in the BCE 900s, is not terribly relevant to the Hiram I article. There is plenty of evidence from Phoenician, Assyrian and Egyptian sources that there was a kingdom at the time between Tyre/Byblos and Egypt. --Bejnar 16:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hiram I's name in Phoenician has no vowels, like Hebrew which borrowed the Phoenician script to replace its earlier script. One transcription of the Phoenician version of Hiram's name (with vowels guessed at) is AkhirAm, another is Ahiram. (Ref: Albright, W. F. and Dougherty, R. P. (February 1926) "From Jerusalem to Baghdad down the Euphrates" Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 21: pp. 1-21, p. 3.) Apparently the supposition is that the initial "H" was aspirated. Since he is commonly known in English as Hiram, that is the appropriate name for the article. --Bejnar 16:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Among the non-biblical sources is the historian Josephus who says that letters between Solomon and Hiram were preserved in the archives at Tyre. (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, bk. viii, chaps. 2-6) He also quotes the historians Dius and Menander of Ephesus, who say that Hiram was the son of King Abi-baal. Although Josephus's interpretation of these sources has been questioned. (Ref: Katzenstein, H. J. (January 1965) "Is There Any Synchronism between the Reigns of Hiram and Solomon?" Journal of Near Eastern Studies 24(1/2): pp. 116-117.) --Bejnar 16:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no need to sound defensive, I'm simply trying to clarify the question of Hiram I's proveable existence for my own reasdons. There are no large libraries near me - I live in Phnom Penh, Cambodia - and I don't have access to JSTOR, and this is why I'm asking you for the information. The only piece of information linked to Vance in the article is the statement that he was suceeded by Baal-Eser I and Ittobaal - if the Vance footnote is meant to cover more than that it doesn't indicate the fact clearly. I personally have doubts about accepting Josephus - he's saying in effect that the Tyrian archives from the 10th century had survived into the ist, a thousand years of seige and fire, which is frankly unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely. But the 10th century sarcophagus is more solid (pardon the little joke): how erliable is the dating, or did someone simply decide it must be from the 10th century because it mentions Hiram? I repeat, I'm simply asking for information, since you seem very knowledgeable on tbhis. PiCo 04:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Answered on PiCo's talk page, as it seems to be personal, and does not seem entirely relevant to the article. --Bejnar 06:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hiram the King of Jubail and Sidon
Ahiram, is supposed to be Hiram like in the Bible. Unfortunately, it is not. The inscription on the edge of the Cover lid says: "This is the Tomb of Ahiram King of Jubail" (Byblos) and Sidon. It does not mention Tyr at all. The tomb was discovered by the French in the early 1930's and the dating has always been mid-fourteenth century BC. Some historians later on argued that this dating "must" be shifted to cope with the commonly known tenth century era of King Salomon. Today we see the dating of the year 1000 roughly (per Wikipedia) for that purpose. The actual city of Tyr in Lebanon never recorded in its entire history the name of such a king by the name of Hiram. Tyr is known to resist Alexander's invasion of the Middle East (333 BC) and to have Roman ruins. The above-the-ground tomb that is located 10 Km to the east of Tyr is locally called the tomb of Hiram without any proof, no inscriptions have been found around it. The text in Wikipedia somehow makes us think that the sarcophagus in the picture is the same as the one east of Tyr. IT SAYS: [the entry on Hiram in the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (1890-1906) indicates that "his tomb is two hours' walk southeast of Tyre, a colossal limestone sarcophagus on a high pedestal".[1] The tomb was subsequently moved to the Beirut National Museum, where it is now on display.] This text is completely out of line, please correct it as there are two distinct sarcophagi: the one in Byblos with inscriptions illustrated in the picture(discovered by Pierre Montet 1934 in Byblos/Jubail and dated mid 14th century) and the one east of Tyr (by Brockhaus and Efron) without any inscriptions nor dating. Respectfully, Noureddine 19:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you read Vance, Donald R. (March 1994) "Literary Sources for the History of Palestine and Syria: The Phœnician Inscriptions" The Biblical Archaeologist 57(1), pp. 2-19 ? --Bejnar 23:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't. What does it say that is relevant to this discussion?--Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No Evidence of a Solomon Who Grew Rich
There is no archeological evidence that shows a king based in Judah growing rich in any substantial way. See The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman. p.132. There is no evidence of big buildings or a large enough population in and around Jerusalem which according to the Bible was part of a wealthy and powerful united kingdom.

Proposal to split Biblical stuff into a separate article (i.e. King Hiram (Biblical))
I'm not sure I have the correct tag for this, but it's a proposal to split off the Biblical materian into a separate article. Sumerophile (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding (Biblical) to a title is not a naming convetion regularly used on Wikipedia PeRshGo (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Phoenicians - Cunning Seafarers
— Assignment last updated by Jgrand24 (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Recent additions
@Jgrand24 thanks for your great contributions, I want to point out however that the existence of the United Monarchy is still a matter of ongoing debate among scholars, with different viewpoints regarding its historicity and the extent of its existence. The Bible cannot be taken as a historical source for face value. I suggest you edit your text to clarify this issue, we cannot introduce assumptions based on a religious text as facts like this. Best regards. Canaanito (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)