Jump to content

Talk:Solomon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image Portrayal

[edit]

Images portrayed are not accurate representations of the description of King Solomon. Thiago1001 (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the description of King Solomon" - where's this? Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely correct. The image and images depicted of Solomon are 100% inaccurate. The true images, or as close to true as you can get, are found in the Russian Icons text. It depicts all of the biblical Israelites, and also Jesus Christ as a so called black man. Aenth (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BCE/BC

[edit]

I think this page should use BC instead of BCE since it is dealing with a figure in Christianity. HutchDoesStuff (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant. See MOS:ERA, which states the actual criterion we use in articles—i.e., we retain the style first used within each article. Remsense ‥  14:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I suppose I should add—if we were to make this a primary factor in deciding to switch as a matter of course, there are strong objections I can imagine to describing Solomon primarily as "a figure in Christianity", wouldn't you agree? Remsense ‥  14:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

arrayed in glory

[edit]

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

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

False depiction of Solomon

[edit]

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)[reply]

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