Talk:Testament of Solomon

Untitled
The purpose of talking on this page and adding other contributions to this topic on Wikipedia is in order to expand discussion and research about the Testament of Solomon. Prior to its most recent additions, there was little information in regards to the Testament and its important relationship with Western religion and magic. Though I did not add much more I hope it is enough to extend further scholarly research about this topic. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarthBader805 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the work was written by Solomon, even if it claims to have been written by Solomon. It was common around the first, second, and third centuries BCE/CE for people to claim that a work they wrote was actually by an older author (unless Hermes Trismegistus actually was immortal and also suffered from multiple personality disorder). It is not going with "plain fact" to delete scholarly information about the date of work to make it appear that Solomon actually wrote it. If someone can prove that Conybeare is wrong and that Solomon was somehow aware of ideas that would not come up for centuries, then change the info from him to "some scholars claimed..." and then put the new info in as "but evidence shows that..." Wikipedia is not here to push any view point, religious or otherwise. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I just listened to a documentary on books not included in the Biblical Canon and in it this book was mentioned with reference to words ascribed to Jesus, who after casting the demons out of a man is said to have said, "Behold, you have one greater than Solomon among you". And the documentary points out that Jesus and his audience must have been aware of this book for the reference to make its fullest sense. Barring putting these words into the mouth of Jesus by a later narrater for whom the book had become well known, we might want to put the writing of this work at least to the time of or before the life of Christ. Since the book is not in the Christian Canon I don't think this reference to Solomon after an exorcism was the work of someone in the second century. It appears that quote was kept but the book that explains why Jesus would make that reference to Solomon after casting out demons was not. So the quote makes me think the book pre-dates the first century at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.184.102.5 (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Negative presentation of the Queen of Sheba?
Along with the negative presentation she is given in the Bible, the Testament of Solomon presents the Queen of Sheba as a witch, indicating that the author had an awareness of Jewish tradition, which had argued the same.

Where is the Queen of Sheba given a negative presentation in the Bible? Edgar (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC) I don't believe she is. She just came to talk to Solomon because he was so smart. Nothing in the canonical Christian Bible refers to her negatively. Gigasuperbunny (talk) 05:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Free PDF of Dekane und Dekansterbilder?
What is the URL of that free PDF? It is required in order to verify one of the statements in the article. Some religion scholar (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I found it myself, here: http://catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/record=b2204947*eng.
 * It's 56 megabytes, so it would take me a long time to download it though. Some religion scholar (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Glad you found it since the situation at HathiTrust has changed to "search only", and I don't remember how I found it at the Warburg Institute all those years ago. First line of page 49 of Gundel's Dekane und Dekansterbilder says "Im Testamentum Salomonis haben die alten Namen und Gottheiten der Dekane bereits eine doppelte Umgestaltung durchgemact" (or In the Testament of Solomon the old names and gods of the decans have already undergone a double transformation). The following pages of the first part of the citation trace the etymology and history of each name, while page 77 to 81 includes a chart of the decans according to their original Egyptian names and how they changed over time (which forms a bit of the basis for the chart at Decans).
 * Also, the introduction (not included in the Esotericarchives.com version) to the English translation by F.C. Conybeare (who, while specialized on this work, was not focused on decans as Gundel was) likewise affirms that the distinction is merely that they moved from Egyptian and Coptic to "mock Hebrew," but that the 36 spirits are just the 36 decans. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Old Testament?
The first sentence reads "The Testament of Solomon is a Old Testament pseudepigraphical work ascribed to King Solomon." in addition to the grammatical use of "an" before the word 'Old", I believe this is an incorrect statement. There is an Old Testament book called "Song Of Solomon" or "Song of Songs", but this book is not part of any Bible canon that I am aware of. Also, in the 'Dating and Authorship' section, it is written that " its original publication dates sometime between the 1st and 5th centuries". I do not believe any of the Old Testament books are this new. Can we re-word the sentence, and maybe use the word Apocryphal? Wcichello (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I was about to but found that James H. Charlesworth includes it in his book The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: v. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments.[ So if he does, I guess we should. [[User:Doug Weller| Doug Weller ]] talk 19:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And pseudepigrapha are almost never accepted as part of a canon (the Book of Enoch's inclusion in the Ethiopian canon is a rare exception that is excusable on the grounds of historical interest given that it's probably quoted in Jude). Since it was claimed to be by Solomon and the one possible Christian element was probably a later interpolation anyway, the author intended for it to pass off as a "lost" book of the Old Testament.  All of this information is easily sourcable, but I just woke up.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Charlesworth is not a source in the article, nor is his claim even remotely correct (the Old Testament itself is cited as a source for another part of the article, so if we can use it as the source, I think the fact that it does NOT contain The Testament of Solomon is kind of definitive). This misinformation really needs to go. Removing it now. Merennulli (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Old Testament pseudepigrapha" does not mean "pseudepigrapha that is in the canonical Old Testament," it means "pseudepigrapha that presents itself as part of the Old Testament." Ian.thomson (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Using those three words in that order does grammatically mean "pseudepigrapha that is in the canonical Old Testament." If you want to phrase it differently to mean "pseudepigrapha that presents itself as part of the Old Testament" please do so instead of simply reverting the change. I've looked through the other books referenced from pseudepigrapha, and the wording in my edit is consistent with how others are worded, whereas what you reverted to is not. See 2 Baruch for an example of how another article addresses this distinction clearly without the incorrect and misleading phrasing I removed in my now-reverted edit. Merennulli (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)