Wikipedia is a worthless source for the question posed in this thread at least, because anyone can post in it, in addition this thread is looking for the physical evidence like the historical physical evidence in Egypt. Noone can argue with the greatness of the Pharoes because it is selfevident, while Solomon is described as if greater than the Egyptians. Bring a child to Egypt, do not give him any book, and hear him out. The conclusion is straightforward, yet we have books stating nonsense nowdays, such as he was wealthier than any king who ever lived. Would a theory along the following line explain Solomon's possible fictious greateness: " 1. A guy heard that a guy named Solomon existed, and who never went to bed without eating. 2. Some years later, another guy finds that description not too dignified so he rewrote it something like "He was not poor, and was rich". 3. Then another guy come along, did not like the word "poor" in there, and may also have thought that wealthy is a better word than the word rich, so he may have rewritten things into something like "He was wealthy". 4. Then another guy came along, and wanting people to feel special, he may have added, he was "wealthier than any person knows to us". 5. Now you get the idea: Guys kept raising the bar, with their stupidity or their assumption that others are stupid did not pay attention to physical evidence which one hardly fabricate. "The wealthiest in his tribe", "The wealthiest of his time", the "wealthiest among our kings", .... " The wealthiest man who ever lived" (or something close to that): I actually read this one, in a book on sale some years ago. All these guys who added one other lie at a time, forget one thing: Egypt/others wealth is consistent with monuments like in Egypt, while Shlomo's wealth is only in the books (at least so far). The guys in support of Solomon's wealth so far have produced only references from books. Remember guys: you have to prove (using physical evidence) that he was not only wealthy, but the wealthiest man who ever lived. It means his wealth needs to be more than the wealth of egyptians, etc.
wikipedia is not the source it is Josephus. Wikipedia just cited to the source. I do not really care about illogical emotional unsubstantiated argument. We are talking proof. If you guys care to refute the historicity of the passage in Josephus, go for it. Otherwise, that is proof enough to establish Stu lied. Besides how much proof do you expect. If you were to gather all the documents that old, they would fit on a bookshelf. Besides look at the trool b.s. stu throws up. If you cite in context... he says ah you were a fool for providing counter info. If you cite out of context he makes ups crap about you hiding the truth. The guy is the biggest troll in cyber space.
That is a point of this thread, and is the point you do not seem to have subscribed to so far: Quoting a book or other writings is not a proof, the thread is asking for physical evidence. So if you think Solomon was the wealthiest man who ever lived, where is the physical evidence of that wealth? So far, we have counter examples that Egyptians were wealthier than him. So, in a sense, the books that state otherwise have to deal with contradictions by facts from the ground. I frankly do not respect the writing of someone who wants me to believe something at the expense of a physical evidence. Do you you?
Egypt had that wonderful Nile river. The current goes one way and the wind goes the other. They could transport stuff either direction all the time. They had wonderful "bottomland" all along the Nile too. The soil was rich in nutrients and they could produce quality food... Academics and psudo academics seem to have a love affair with Egypt and I suppose they can't really dig into Ancient Israeli culture without looking like a religiously biased person or something like that.. The Ancient Israelis weren't that big of a deal as the scale of cultures of that time goes really, hardly a footnote in history maybe as far as empires go...
If the question is - do you have proof someone was a historical figure. Being mentioned in one of the source historical documents is pretty good evidence. -- If you wish to get in a pissing war about whether Jews or Egyptians were more powerful, I cite you to Cecil B. DeMille and Charlton Heston http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ten_Commandments_(1956_film) If you ask me if I really care either way... the answer is no, not really that is between Heston and Brenner... I mean Moses and Pharoh. Not being a Jew or an Egyptian... I have no dog in that hunt. I was simply pointing out Stu is a clown.
If you exclude the truth, I have no dog in the hunt either. I happen to believe in the story of Moses, because his story is one of a world based on laws, and is not contradicted by facts.In addition, some actual findings (if true) support the story of Moses. Material wealth is not claimed for Moses, while the story of Solomon contains material wealth. This does not diminish Solomon, but it diminishes the writings and the writers, when their writings do not square with facts. It is a reason why I do not rule out that the bible was changed over time.
=========== P tt; Great points; in writing. murray tt And plenty of Saint Paul evidence; plenty of King Solomon evidence [Proverbs]written in the hearts of men, women, children. A wicked ruler is like a loudmouth lion & a charging bear-King Solomon.[proverbs] President Ronald Reagan election winning quote ''some dont even see the bear''.LOL
You guys are funny. You read the bible story book, then make believe that fictional characters in it, like Moses or Solomon, did exist. And you do that only because they chime with your own personal preferences. Even when the actual archaeological evidence, and the actual historical evidence does not confirm any of them at all. You'd be arguing there is evidence of King Arthur or Robin Hood had just the names been mentioned in a Bible. You'd no doubt concede the same and similar stories originating in Canaanite culture in the likeness of Moses and Solomon as myths. But somehow they magically become true when they appear as Hebrew and Christian myths. It's gullible and naive, the consequence of which often turns into some seriously scary adult childishness.
Who said he was great? I thought he was just wise. I'll have to see the literature on the "great" part. But as for his wisdom, Ecclesiastes reveals he was addicted to experimentation. Despite his wisdom he desired to know the outcome of everything. He wanted to know the effect of wine, of multiple wives, of great wealth, etc. So he wasted his life obtaining everything for himself in order to learn their appeal. He had the wisdom to be able to amass them all in one lifetime, but at the end he realized there was no real point to it and concluded that his time would have been better spent fearing God and doing His commandments. For a guy who admits to having wasted his life on seeing what the world had to offer, I'm not sure who you are quoting when you say he was "great." Certainly not Solomon himself.