This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jahuah (talk | contribs) at 22:52, 2 December 2024 (→December 2024: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:52, 2 December 2024 by Jahuah (talk | contribs) (→December 2024: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)December 2024
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Uzziah, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 22:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
I’m trying to be good faith here, I don’t understand why he’s listed as people who’s existence is disputed
- Then please peruse the sources the article cites before editing the article to say something different. Thanks. Remsense ‥ 论 22:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I edited it because the Misplaced Pages page says that both ends of the ‘minimalist’ end and the ‘maximalist’ end agree that he existed. I do not see a good reason to deceive people that Solomon’s existence is in doubt because Misplaced Pages has an ideological bent towards minimalist revisionism. Jahuah (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is an entire Solomon § Historicity section. It likely explains better than I can, so let me know if it answers your questions? Unfortunately, I can't really help you if you've already concluded our intent or tendency is to blatantly deceive.Remsense ‥ 论 22:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I did read it, and it agrees that he existed and that archaeological data corresponds to his time. I’m simply left puzzled as to why Misplaced Pages lists him as “people whose existence is disputed” and then says “Current consensus allows for a historical Solomon’ and then “minimalist and maximalists agree that he existed”. That’s all. Jahuah (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. It makes very clear that there are multifold arguments against a figure fitting his description and corresponding to the attestation in the historical record. I don't mean to be rude, but I'm not sure what to say if you come away from reading that thinking "no one disputes this person's historical existence". That's the category, to reiterate—disputed, not rejected. Remsense ‥ 论 22:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hmph. Whatever. I think there’s a bias here in the editor staff, so I’ll just leave it as is. Jahuah (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. It makes very clear that there are multifold arguments against a figure fitting his description and corresponding to the attestation in the historical record. I don't mean to be rude, but I'm not sure what to say if you come away from reading that thinking "no one disputes this person's historical existence". That's the category, to reiterate—disputed, not rejected. Remsense ‥ 论 22:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I did read it, and it agrees that he existed and that archaeological data corresponds to his time. I’m simply left puzzled as to why Misplaced Pages lists him as “people whose existence is disputed” and then says “Current consensus allows for a historical Solomon’ and then “minimalist and maximalists agree that he existed”. That’s all. Jahuah (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is an entire Solomon § Historicity section. It likely explains better than I can, so let me know if it answers your questions? Unfortunately, I can't really help you if you've already concluded our intent or tendency is to blatantly deceive.Remsense ‥ 论 22:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I edited it because the Misplaced Pages page says that both ends of the ‘minimalist’ end and the ‘maximalist’ end agree that he existed. I do not see a good reason to deceive people that Solomon’s existence is in doubt because Misplaced Pages has an ideological bent towards minimalist revisionism. Jahuah (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is there any good reason why the Uzziah seals are not authentic? Dr. Mykytiuk lists them as authentic contemporary sources on Uzziah in the https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/50-people-in-the-bible-confirmed-archaeologically/. Jahuah (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it's right there in the sentence: they're unprovenanced. There's no reason to assume they are or aren't—we don't know, as far as I understand. Remsense ‥ 论 22:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I haven’t seen any academics journal dispute them, though. Jahuah (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am not an expert here, I will admit. Maybe ask on Talk:Uzziah? Remsense ‥ 论 22:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I haven’t seen any academics journal dispute them, though. Jahuah (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it's right there in the sentence: they're unprovenanced. There's no reason to assume they are or aren't—we don't know, as far as I understand. Remsense ‥ 论 22:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)