Talk:Solomon

What the heck does "arrayed in glory" mean? Nosferattus (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

"Arrayed" means "clothed". So: "splendidly clothed". Feline Hymnic (talk)

There's some poor analysis here. The article says, 'Solomon is also revered in Christianity and Islam. In the New Testament, he is portrayed as a teacher of wisdom, though excelled by Jesus of Nazareth,[13] and as arrayed in glory, but excelled by "the lilies of the field".<ref ...>' The point of Jesus' comparison is not to diminish Solomon, but to heighten natural beauty as a proof of God's generosity. Hence that rhetorical expression has no business being here! I'm deleting it with a ref. to this reasoning. Wegesrand (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The supposed paintings of Solomon are wildly inaccurate. Solomon was a man of colour with dreadlocks or long curly hair. From the text, Russian Icons, it give the appropriate and true description of all of the biblical Israelite figures. I was told that the image of Solomon that I had attempted to upload was a more accurate description of what he looked liked. I would like to upload this photo for accuracy. Because the photos of the Israelites that are on this page now give certain people a false sense of superiority, while providing no empirical evidence whatsoever that the depiction that Wikipedia has chosen to accept is accurate. Aenth (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this? Jfire (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Of course I do. Like I said before. Russian Icons. Which even has its own Wikipedia page. This is a PRIMARY SOURCE. These selections date back to the 13 and 1400s. But here's the link for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:King-Solomon-Russian-icon.jpg Aenth (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what "Russian Icons" refers to. I see Russian icons, but that's not a source, it's an article about a form of religious art. You'll have to be more specific about what you're referring to. Jfire (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

So you then, or someone else needs to provide empirical evidence that the depiction or painting of Solomon is accurate I could say the exact same thing. Aenth (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The existing image in the infobox is clearly one artist's interpretation. It's dated and attributed to its creator, and its source is clearly documented on its Commons -- all of which is more than can currently be said about the image you uploaded. Other images throughout the article provide other interpretations.

As far as I can see, the article makes no claims about the historical actuality of Solomon's appearance. It says a historically accurate picture of the Davidic king is difficult to construct. If you want it to instead say Solomon was a man of colour with dreadlocks or long curly hair, you need to provide a reliable source for that claim. Given the overall uncertainty about the historicity of Solomon, I think it's likely that there are no surviving contemporary descriptions or depictions of his physical appearance. Jfire (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

For example, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108558235.010 concludes: There is no solid evidence about the physical or visual appearance of Solomon. Jfire (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

"providing no empirical evidence whatsoever" Empirical evidence for a mythological king? His historicity is about as likely as that of Odysseus. Dimadick (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The article says "Current scholarly consensus allows for a historical Solomon, but regards his reign as king over Israel and Judah in the 10th century BCE as uncertain..." (lead) and in the relevant section: "As for Solomon himself, scholars on both the maximalist and minimalist sides of the spectrum of biblical archeology generally agree that he probably existed [ref]. However, a historically accurate picture of the Davidic king is difficult to construct." Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Bit of a false dichotomy/balance there isn't there: both the maximalist and minimalist sides of the spectrum of biblical archeology – seems like we're missing the perspective of non-biblical archaeology altogether. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Biblical archaeology in this context simply means archaeology that relates to the region and period in which the biblical stories are set. It does not imply anything about the use of the Bible as a historical source. So the perspective of 'non-biblical archaeology', such as the archaeology of medieval China, is simply not relevant here. - Lindert (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

That's not exactly true. Biblical archaeology was directly burnt borne of attempts to prove the historicity of the Bible, and even if modern techniques have improved, the genre suffers from its framing begetting by its very nature a form of confirmation bias. It is meanwhile perfectly possible to conduct Near Eastern archaeology without recourse to the Bible, hence the entirely separate name of that discipline. Biblical archaeology is, as its name suggests and its page attests, a subset of Biblical studies and Levantine archaeology, so part Biblical exegesis. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Obviously Near Eastern archaeology is broader than just biblical archaeology, but any archaeological discussion about a biblical character such as Solomon (the subject of this article) involves biblical archaeology by definition (after all, an archaeologist wouldn't even know the name Solomon were it not for the Bible). - Lindert (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

That being somewhat the point. Because if the name Solomon is not independently attested outside of the Bible by any physical evidence, then this figure is essentially solely the preserve of literary analysis and extrapolation, not anything excavated, i.e. very much the same ballpark as Odysseus. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I have revert an edit of an IP, edit which is apparently based upon the Bible. Well, the Bible is often wrong about what the Bible says. Not odd if you think that it was written by different authors, having different POVs, and telling different stories. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kingdoms of Israel and Judah map 830.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)