Talk:Solomon

Minority presented as majority?
The article cites works of Finkelstein and Lester L. Grabbe to claim that the consensus among scholars is that: regardless of whether or not a man named Solomon truly reigned as king over the Judean hills in the tenth century BCE, the biblical description of his apparent empire's lavishness is almost surely an anachronistic exaggeration. However, this review of Grabbe's book seems to contradict that claim: "Grabbe outlines Finkelstein’s low chronology which dates the finds and events of Iron I and IIA a hundred years later than most archaeologists. This chronology has had a major impact on the historical study of the period. One implication of this is that buildings which had been associated with the united monarchy are dated later. With this issue and many others there is no unanimity of opinion."

P. J. Harland states that there is no unanimity of opinion in many topics related to the historicity of the United Monarchy, but he also states that Finkelstein’s low chronology (also followed by Grabbe) is not accepted by most archaeologists. Isn't the lead of the article giving WP:UNDUE weight to a minority opinion as if it represented a (supposed) scholarly consensus? I will wait for other editors' responses. Potatín5 (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You’re more than welcome to add the Garfinkel and Dever sources and quotes back into the article. I think it’s appropriate for those two articles to be at the top. I’m not sure why the reverter removed those refs. (I think you can do that now since those were already there and only one reverter didn’t like them there.)
 * I agree there is not consensus on the extent of the United Monarchy and those are important voices to have. I think the wording is more or less accurate though. That was already the summary of the Historicity section, I just moved it up.
 * The wording of “anachronistic exaggeration” I think still works though. That point is about the details of the *extent* of the kingdom as portrayed in the Bible, which both Garfinkel and Dever is not accurate. I’m open to finding more neutral language for this if people deem that necessary.
 * I’d add that we need to make sure that the body of the article aligns with any changes which achieve consensus. IncandescentBliss (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * One easy solution would be to just add these two sentences from to the sentence already in the lede from the Historicity section of the body, which already have presumed consensus:
 * ”As for Solomon himself, scholars on both the maximalist and minimalist sides of the spectrum of biblical archeology generally agree that he probably existed. However, a historically accurate picture of the Davidic king is difficult to construct.” IncandescentBliss (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The language seems appropriate and representative for an encyclopedia. IncandescentBliss (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that these two sentences are a better summary for the lead. Potatín5 (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Would you like to add it and add appropriate sourcing? I think the group of sources (I think there were 7) from before the recent revert seem like a good, wide range of perspectives from archaeologists and biblical scholars. Maybe we can have them as a note instead of 7 consecutive citations? IncandescentBliss (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we can combine the presumed consensus sentences:
 * “While the biblical description of his apparent empire's lavishness is considered to be exaggerated, a historically accurate picture of the historical Solomon is difficult to construct.”
 * Dever and Garfinkel are very intentional about noting they don’t think the *full* biblical description is accurate. IncandescentBliss (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I propose the following synthesis:
 * "Scholars on both the maximalist and minimalist sides of the spectrum of biblical archeology generally agree that a historical Solomon probably existed. While the biblical description of his apparent empire's lavishness is considered to be exaggerated, a historically accurate picture of Solomon's life and the territorial extent of his kingdom is currently debated."
 * Then we can add sources from both sides. Potatín5 (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds great! Good synthesis. Thank you. Appreciate your collaborative efforts. IncandescentBliss (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * However you choose to phrase it, the problem with Solomon's historicity is his absence from any written texts found so far from the Iron Age Levant. Archaeologists argue whether some of the uncovered buildings of the region can be attributed to Solomon or the Omrides, but we can not be certain without relevant inscriptions. Dimadick (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point. More about the inscriptional evidence should be included in the article. IncandescentBliss (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Shalim. Let’s work toward consensus
Regarding the “his” in the name see “Shalem” entry in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Arguing in favor of the “shalom” reading, the author says,

”the name Selomoh indicates 'His (David's?) Peace', or, more probably, 'His (the deceased's) Healthiness' (STAmM 1980:45-57).”

The “his” is clear in the Hebrew. What’s contested is what follows. I’m happy to just have it as a both sides debate in the article. I haven’t had a chance to look at the more recent literature yet. The above DDD should be included in the article too. Lots of good info on Shalim.

I think this article should have maybe 4 sentences on etymology.

@Sinclarian @Potatín5 tr IncandescentBliss (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * STAMM* IncandescentBliss (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Though I will say a “both sides” conversation should take into account that the consensus reading of the etymology of Jerusalem is in relation to Shalim at the Jerusalem page. Seems like they should align. IncandescentBliss (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Potentially helpful sources regarding Shalim from Jerusalem and Shalim pages:
 * N. Na'aman, Canaanite Jerusalem and its central hill country neighbours in the second millennium B.C.E., Ugarit-Forschungen Vol. 24 (1992), pp275-291.
 * L. Grabbe, Ethnic groups in Jerusalem, in Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition (Clark International, 2003) pp145-163.
 * John Day, Yahweh and the gods and goddesses of Canaan, Sheffield Academic Press 2002, p180
 * G. Johannes Bottereck, Helmer Ringgren, Heinz-Josef Fabry, (eds.) Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, tr. David E. Green, vol. XV, pp. 48–49 William B. Eeerdmanns Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge UK 2006, pp. 45–46
 * Ringgren, H., Die Religionen des Alten Orients(Göttingen, 1979), 212. IncandescentBliss (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Romer, The Invention of God, chapter 7 also IncandescentBliss (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * According to the article on the god Shalim, his name indicates the " "completion" of the day, "sunset" and "peace" ". Shalom is a Hebrew term for "peace". Dimadick (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Image Portrayal
Images portrayed are not accurate representations of the description of King Solomon. Thiago1001 (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "the description of King Solomon" - where's this? Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox portrait
@Remsense Closer up images are an advantage. Faces are the most recognizable parts of people and if we want people to understand what they are looking at, we should show primarily the face.

The Doré portrait has a unclear and undetailed face. For one, it's already zoomed out. Another is that the face can't really be distinguished from the beard. Another is that Solomon's brow droops down to such an extent that his eyes are shadowed. It is true that color is not an inherent advantage, but a color painting is more pleasing to look at than a black and white engraving, so it is more inviting to the reader, at least in my opinion. Even if color is not necessarily an "advantage", I don't see why that justifies reversion. Can you prove that lack of color is an advantage? ― Howard • 🌽33 13:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Infobox portrait, again
@Remsense, I don't really understand how the portrait you chose is any more "historical" than the one I've chosen? According to Wikimedia commons, the portrait you've chosen is from 1700 while the one I've chosen is from 1872. Solomon is said to have lived in the 10th century BCE, so neither portrait is more "historical" than the other. The only reason I chose my this portrait is because it's a high quality scan of a painting and not just a blurry, dark photo of an icon. It's consistent with almost every other Biblical character to have a painted portrait in the infobox. If you are insistent in keeping this icon as the infobox portrait, please use a more high quality photograph. ― Howard • 🌽33 20:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't see how your chosen portrait is any more "random" or "historical" than mine. ― Howard • 🌽33 20:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, I would compare the historical provenance of the artistic traditions each work belongs to as well., e.g. icons versus oriental Romanticism. I'm curious what others think though. Remsense  诉  20:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:PORTRAIT (which we should remember is an essay and neither a guideline nor policy) recommends: Another case where an imaginary depiction will generally be suitable in an article is if it is a well-known, high-quality artwork that is independently notable as such.
 * Therefore it would be prudent to select an artwork which is notable in and of itself, like how Jesus' article features the Christ Pantocrator of Saint Catherine's Monastery, which is a notable artwork by itself. Rubens' famous apostles series is used for each of the twelve apostles (excluding Jude), etc. Can we find a portrait of Solomon which is notable in and of itself? ― Howard • 🌽33 20:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I originally chose Simeon Solomon's portrait since it was a high quality scan of a solitary portrait-painting by a somewhat famous artist. ― Howard • 🌽33 20:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)