King 'Solomun' was Pharoah 'Siamun'

So, 700 wives and 300 concubines? Umm, I don't know. Might have been possible, even that stretching it a bit, for the time of Genghiz Khan in 13th century AD.

But somehow not so sure that, that kind of thing is to be considered that realistic for 1,000 BC kind of time.

Dreamhunter said:

So, 700 wives and 300 concubines? Umm, I don't know. Might have been possible, even that stretching it a bit, for the time of Genghiz Khan in 13th century AD.

But somehow not so sure that, that kind of thing is to be considered that realistic for 1,000 BC kind of time.

Click to expand...

A man could have as many concubines as he wants. It doesn't require any effort. There were Chinese Emperors that had hundreds of concubines. A notable few had over a thousand. It isn't like he impregnated a thousand women.

As for whether King Solomon was the Pharaoh Siamun... uh no stay away from the whacky tabacky.

I'm not even sure that King Solomon existed. David may have, but the timeline is all out of whack. He may not have even been contemporary of the Israelite regime in Gibeah (Saul). Remember that when it comes to history, David has absolutely nothing to do with the Israelites in northern Canaan. David is actually associated to Judah in the south. His association with Israel is a much later invention from the 600s and 500s BC.

Dreamhunter said:

So, 700 wives and 300 concubines? Umm, I don't know. Might have been possible, even that stretching it a bit, for the time of Genghiz Khan in 13th century AD.

But somehow not so sure that, that kind of thing is to be considered that realistic for 1,000 BC kind of time.

Click to expand...

No, and I don't think concubine #47 there ^ had a realistic ...... for 1000 BC kind of time .

Lord Oda Nobunaga said:

As for whether King Solomon was the Pharaoh Siamun... uh no stay away from the whacky tabacky.

I'm not even sure that King Solomon existed. David may have, but the timeline is all out of whack. He may not have even been contemporary of the Israelite regime in Gibeah (Saul). Remember that when it comes to history, David has absolutely nothing to do with the Israelites in northern Canaan. David is actually associated to Judah in the south. His association with Israel is a much later invention from the 600s and 500s BC.

Click to expand...

Solomon seems a concoction , perhaps based on some real prominent empire ruler near contemporary to time of writing up the story .

My early question about the Queen of Sheba ( and the related posts after that ) seem to indicate it was put into the story (or the general knowledge of trade and people and places was padded out with names and and some added detail ) to give Solomon 'cred' like other Empire rulers would have had .

One would think such a wealthy vast and successful empire would have been noticed by the ones next to it and they would have written something about it ?

specul8 said:

Solomon seems a concoction , perhaps based on some real prominent empire ruler near contemporary to time of writing up the story .

Click to expand...

Yeah Solomon sounds made up. The idea of an Israelite Empire was a copy of the actual Assyrian Empire. The basis for Solomon are probably figures like Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal, Nebuchadnezzar, and Cyrus the Great. Come to think of it the illness of Esarhaddon reminds me of the illness of David. While the wisdom of Solomon has an uncanny resemblance to Ashurbanipal, Nebuchadnezzar, and Cyrus. The global empire also seems like a copy of Ashurbanipal. Since the story of Solomon would have been written around the 600s and 500s BC. Not the purported 1000 BC timeframe.

specul8 said:

My early question about the Queen of Sheba ( and the related posts after that ) seem to indicate it was put into the story (or the general knowledge of trade and people and places was padded out with names and and some added detail ) to give Solomon 'cred' like other Empire rulers would have had .

Click to expand...

Yeah the Queen of Sheba seems like a later insertion based on an Assyrian or post-Assyrian understanding of the world. Of course the Ethiopians take this story and go even further with it. Even giving her the name Bilkis and a son by Solomon called Menelik, who goes on to found Ethiopia.

specul8 said:

One would think such a wealthy vast and successful empire would have been noticed by the ones next to it and they would have written something about it ?

Click to expand...

The wealth of Yemen was well known into Greek and Roman periods. So I reckon that is where the writers of the Bible got the idea of Sheba from, even if she was historical.

But if you mean Solomon, that is true. If Solomon was such a big deal then someone would have recorded his existence. Either the Egyptians or the Assyrians. Or even some small fragment in Syria, like Damascus or something.

Lord Oda Nobunaga said:

If Solomon was such a big deal then someone would have recorded his existence. Either the Egyptians or the Assyrians. Or even some small fragment in Syria, like Damascus or something.

Click to expand...

True, true.

He would also have been a threat or rival of sorts to nearby contemporary powers of that supposed circa 1,000 BC era. Chief among them Assyria and Egypt.

So among his oft-claimed 700 brides and 300 concubines, there should have been at least a few if not several minor princesses of Assyria and Egypt obtained via political or inter-dynastic arrangements.

Dreamhunter said:

True, true.

He would also have been a threat or rival of sorts to nearby contemporary powers of that supposed circa 1,000 BC era. Chief among them Assyria and Egypt.

So among his oft-claimed 700 brides and 300 concubines, there should have been at least a few if not several minor princesses of Assyria and Egypt obtained via political or inter-dynastic arrangements.

Click to expand...

That is something that should be brought up more often. The complete lack of international rivals which Solomon had. There is an extremely brief portion in which several kings plotted against him, but nothing comes of that at all. Other than that Solomon marries the daughter of a pharaoh. But if Solomon was so powerful it would have resulted in Assyria, Egypt, and various Phoenician and Syrian states ganging up on him.

If we recall this happened to the Assyrians repeatedly. His contemporary would have been Tiglath Pileser II if Solomon did indeed reign in the 900s BC. At the time Assyria was recovering and rebuilding its strength in Upper Mesopotamia. But in the following century (800s BC) Assyria started invading Syria regularly and multiple coalitions were formed against Assyria, and they involved savage fighting. This was only worse in the 700s BC during the reign of Tiglath Pileser III, in which the Assyrians were forced to invade everything from Babylon and Urartu, all across Syria and Phoenicia, to Israel itself.

Solomon rules a great empire in Canaan and the Trans-Jordan, but seemingly also has hegemony in Syria and Phoenicia. This can't really be explained. As there is no mention of Israelite campaigns in those regions, and no mentions of large coalitions there either. Supposedly his successors had to fight Shoshenq though. In reality Shoshenq ignored Jerusalem and took out the powerful state at Gibeah, as it was a threat to his kingdom. The lack of foreign interest in taking out Solomon is really astounding.

Although I will admit that setting the Israelite Empire in the 900s BC is the perfect century, because aside from Shoshenq a bit later, pretty much nothing of note was happening in the 900s BC. So there would not have been too many opportunities for Israel to be mentioned. But if Israel existed and had so many ties to all these states, it is bizarre that it is not mentioned in any Egyptian inscription or diplomatic text, in any fragment or diplomatic text from a Phoenician or Syrian city, nor in any diplomatic text from Assyria.

Because of the historical association of Saul in the 1000s or 900s BC and the destruction of Gibeah at the hands of Shoshenq, it is hard to actually place David or Solomon into the timeline. David is meant to be a contemporary of Saul but this is probably a later invention. In the Septuagint it is Jeroboam who takes on a similar role to that of David in the Saul story. While Saul seemingly had no real relationship with Jerusalem. But if he did maybe he tried to subjugate Judah, with mixed results, and this is actually where the later association with David in the Bible comes from.

But in any case David might not even have been contemporary with Saul. I think Saul probably reigned in the 1000s BC or early 900s BC. Shoshenq invaded Canaan between 940 and 930 BC. Jeroboam was claimed to have become king around 930 BC, this is not likely to be a coincidence. Probably the leader that overthrew Saul's son was not David but Jeroboam. Shoshenq did not attack Judah at that time (although the Bible claims Shishak sacked Jerusalem in the time of Solomon's successor, but this is made up as Shoshenq does not mention it). So David was either a very minor ruler OR there was nothing in Jerusalem worth sacking at the time.

In fact in Shoshenq's own accounts all the towns he mentions are in the north, he does not even mention Jerusalem. Which if a polity in Jerusalem was powerful it not only could have provided much plunder, but also been a good target to take out so as to eliminate the threat. But Shoshenq did not sack Jerusalem, he sacked multiple towns in the north instead, which means he fulfilled both of those things in the north instead.

That doesn't add up if there was a Jerusalem Empire ruling all of Canaan, or some remnant of it in the south. So in 930 BC either David (or his successor) was an extremely minor player, when Shoshenq was destroying the northern kingdom. OR David in Judah (not in Israel as in actuality David has no connection to Israel or the northern kingdom) had not been ruling yet by 930 BC, possibly making it so that David was from the 800s BC instead of the commonly cited 1010 BC to 970 BC numbers given.

There is a good chance that Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, and maybe even Asa are made up. Asa is the king of Judah at the start of Omri's reign in Israel. Omri who is attested to historically. But Omri seems to have subjugated Judah, so was David the king of Judah at that time? I don't think so. David then was probably a king in Judah after 930 BC but before the reign of Omri in 880 BC. We don't even really know what he did though other than found the "House of David" in Judah. Maybe he was alive before 930 BC but if he was then he must have been so minor that he was neither a threat to Israel in the north, nor to the Egyptians under Shoshenq.

Lord Oda Nobunaga said:

Because of the historical association of Saul in the 1000s or 900s BC and the destruction of Gibeah at the hands of Shoshenq, it is hard to actually place David or Solomon into the timeline. David is meant to be a contemporary of Saul but this is probably a later invention. In the Septuagint it is Jeroboam who takes on a similar role to that of David in the Saul story. While Saul seemingly had no real relationship with Jerusalem. But if he did maybe he tried to subjugate Judah, with mixed results, and this is actually where the later association with David in the Bible comes from.

Click to expand...

Finkelstein suggests David fought a big guy in latter times (than a Bible timeline ) in Greek amour . And he makes the point there easily could have been a "Habiru " ( outlaws outside of the state infiltrating in to the east ) that knocked out a large armored mercenary with a sling ( look up their power , if you are not familiar with it ) and a hero story passed down about it .

Lord Oda Nobunaga said:

But in any case David might not even have been contemporary with Saul. I think Saul probably reigned in the 1000s BC or early 900s BC. Shoshenq invaded Canaan between 940 and 930 BC. Jeroboam was claimed to have become king around 930 BC, this is not likely to be a coincidence. Probably the leader that overthrew Saul's son was not David but Jeroboam. Shoshenq did not attack Judah at that time (although the Bible claims Shishak sacked Jerusalem in the time of Solomon's successor, but this is made up as Shoshenq does not mention it). So David was either a very minor ruler OR there was nothing in Jerusalem worth sacking at the time.

Click to expand...

The archaeology suggests there was not much there either .

Lord Oda Nobunaga said:

In fact in Shoshenq's own accounts all the towns he mentions are in the north, he does not even mention Jerusalem. Which if a polity in Jerusalem was powerful it not only could have provided much plunder, but also been a good target to take out so as to eliminate the threat. But Shoshenq did not sack Jerusalem, he sacked multiple towns in the north instead, which means he fulfilled both of those things in the north instead.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the north was 'where it was at ' and Judah , much less so. And considering they were not probably united as the Bible claims , they might have been no more than rival neighboring states that both had a variety of beliefs and Gods , with some elements of 'Judaism' ( as it came to be later ) in both as well.

If the more northern area suffered more from incursions and devastation, it might have 'knocked it down' to be more equal to Judah . Then also perhaps a lot of people fled Israel into Judah , taking the northern myths and stories with them ?

By Josiah's time maybe he wanted to 're-claim' the north as part of a once single kingdom ?

Lord Oda Nobunaga said:

That doesn't add up if there was a Jerusalem Empire ruling all of Canaan, or some remnant of it in the south. So in 930 BC either David (or his successor) was an extremely minor player, when Shoshenq was destroying the northern kingdom. OR David in Judah (not in Israel as in actuality David has no connection to Israel or the northern kingdom) had not been ruling yet by 930 BC, possibly making it so that David was from the 800s BC instead of the commonly cited 1010 BC to 970 BC numbers given.

There is a good chance that Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, and maybe even Asa are made up. Asa is the king of Judah at the start of Omri's reign in Israel. Omri who is attested to historically. But Omri seems to have subjugated Judah, so was David the king of Judah at that time? I don't think so. David then was probably a king in Judah after 930 BC but before the reign of Omri in 880 BC. We don't even really know what he did though other than found the "House of David" in Judah. Maybe he was alive before 930 BC but if he was then he must have been so minor that he was neither a threat to Israel in the north, nor to the Egyptians under Shoshenq.

Click to expand...

I should look into Omri more .

Lord Oda Nobunaga said:

Solomon rules a great empire in Canaan and the Trans-Jordan, but seemingly also has hegemony in Syria and Phoenicia. This can't really be explained.

Click to expand...

Which to me would point to either a pharaoh (or several pharaohs conflated) of Egypt or a king (or several kings conflated) of Assyria having been the inspiration or "template" for "Solomon". And possibly also his father "David".

The context (my conjecture):
The Israelites after (or close to) liberation from Babylonian captivity would have been a nation in a kind of collective national trauma syndrome. What better way to heal that than a great superhero, or better still a father-son tag team of twin superheroes.

Add in "a prince/king who could speak to all creatures", "an army of sprites/djinns" in his service that could smash any enemy army to bits. Then hey, voila, you've got it made!

They could not have had that in the actual immediate time around that liberation era. Because scribes all around them would have critiqued it big time in terms of "historical accuracy". So, back-project it to a time like four centuries in the past or so to pre-empt that.

Dreamhunter said:

Which to me would point to either a pharaoh (or several pharaohs conflated) of Egypt or a king (or several kings conflated) of Assyria having been the inspiration or "template" for "Solomon".

Click to expand...

It is possible that Shishak is an invention or a conflation of various pharaohs of the 22nd Dynasty. As there was more than one pharaoh called Shoshenq. But I am pretty sure that the purported sacking of Jerusalem by Shishak, was actually the real sacking of Gibeah by Shoshenq I. There is no pharaoh prior to that called Shoshenq who could have been the pharaoh that opposed Solomon. There was an earlier Egyptian official called Shoshenq the Elder during the 21st Dynasty, but this is certainly not who the Bible is referring to. There are also no records of a daughter of pharaoh being sent to Canaan at this time.

Though I don't think any pharaoh was a basis for Solomon. It was probably a Mesopotamian ruler due to a distinct lack of ties between Egypt and Canaan during this time. But lots more ties with Assyria, Babylon, and Persia, especially in the 600s and 500s BC when these texts were written.

Dreamhunter said:

The context (my conjecture):
The Israelites after (or close to) liberation from Babylonian captivity would have been a nation in a kind of collective national trauma syndrome. What better way to heal that than a great superhero, or better still a father-son tag team of superheroes.

Click to expand...

To put it simply, yes. In the reign of Josiah in Judah, which was a subject of Assyria, and Israel in the north had been annexed by Assyria. After the reign of Ashurbanipal it was clear that Assyria was on the verge of collapse. So various states were waiting around to carve up the pieces like a flock of vultures. That is Media and Babylon, but also to some extent Lydia and the Scythian tribes that settled in the Armenian and eastern Anatolian lands, as well as Egypt under Psamtik and Necho, and Judah. The creation of the Solomon, David, and to some extent Joshua story was propaganda for Josiah to claim the north and bring the Israelite subjects over to his side. It didn't work though because as soon as Josiah attempted to grab the north, the Egyptians had the same idea, defeated and killed Josiah in battle, then kept going in a bid to take over Syria, but they were thoroughly routed by the Babylonians. Judah was then invaded twice by the Babylonians and annexed.

Dreamhunter said:

Add in "a king who could speak to all animals", "an army of sprites/djinns" that could smash any enemy army to bits, then voila, you've got it made!

Click to expand...

That sounds badass.

Dreamhunter said:

They could not have had that in the actual immediate time around that liberation era. Because scribes all around them would have critiqued it big time in terms of historical accuracy. So, back-project it to a time like four centuries in the past or so to pre-empt that.

Click to expand...

There is a strong possibility that when Judah wrote these texts at the end of the Assyrian Empire, they were being influenced and even directly written by people from Judah who resented Assyria. Judah shows a great lack of infrastructure and writing, which means that they were probably importing scribes from Israel. Which tells us in part why they were getting their inspiration from the north, because it was written by northern scribes.

Lord Oda Nobunaga said:

The creation of the Solomon, David, and to some extent Joshua story was propaganda for Josiah to claim the north and bring the Israelite subjects over to his side.

Click to expand...

Lord Oda Nobunaga said:

It didn't work though because as soon as Josiah attempted to grab the north, the Egyptians had the same idea, defeated and killed Josiah in battle

Click to expand...

I believe a similar kind of thing (based on my watching of the Turkish historical fiction drama series "Kurulus: Osman") also occurred in pre-Ottoman establishment period, at the tail end of the Seljuk era.

Osman, seeing Seljuk weakened beyond hope, their last ruler the frail restored Sultan Mesut having been poisoned by a rebel faction allied to his usurper nephew Sultan Aladdin II, kind of believed that the duty was on him (his mother happened to have been a Seljuk princess, she was a niece of Sultan Aladdin I, so he indeed had Seljuk lineage) to take over or kind of inherit the Konya-based Seljuk throne.

But then the Tabriz-based Ilkhanid overlord (Ghazan Khan, IIRC) of the Seljuks thought essentially the same thing. So a kind of contest for the now vacant Seljuk throne developed between them.

While they two also had another competitor, the Byzantium empire based in Constantinople, who were also eyeing all or parts of Seljuk lands in Anatolia which they considered as rightfully their ancestral lands that had been lost to the Turks.

Dreamhunter said:

I believe a similar kind of thing (based on my watching of the Turkish historical fiction drama series "Kurulus: Osman") also occurred in pre-Ottoman establishment period, at the tail end of the Seljuk era.

Osman, seeing Seljuk weakened beyond hope, their last ruler the frail restored Sultan Mesut having been poisoned by a rebel faction allied to his usurper nephew Sultan Aladdin II, kind of believed that the duty was on him (his mother happened to have been a Seljuk princess, she was a niece of Sultan Aladdin I, so he indeed had Seljuk lineage) to take over or kind of inherit the Seljuk throne.

But then the Tabriz-based Ilkhanid overlord (Ghazan Khan, IIRC) of the Seljuks thought essentially the same thing. So a kind of contest for the now vacant Seljuk throne developed between them.

Click to expand...

It is a common trend that when large empires are teetering and likely to fall over the edge, that some ambitious princelings will want to pick up the pieces. The Ottomans did a similar thing as the David and Solomon story in that they created a character called Ertugrul as the ancestor of the Ottomans. Even if he was real they embellished. Because this guy was claimed to have fought the Mongols and the Crusaders and so on. All the things needed to improve their legitimacy. While the dream of Osman seems to be a recycling of the Dream of Astyages. The Persians often appealed to the hero Fereydun, but Fereydun and Zahhak are almost certainly based on Cyrus the Great and Astyages. History also repeats itself in a way, Suleiman whose name is derived from Solomon, has surprisingly a lot of parallels with Ashurbanipal, and even Constantine. While his father Selim was a ruthless conqueror like David.

Lord Oda Nobunaga said:

The Ottomans did a similar thing as the David and Solomon story in that they created a character called Ertugrul as the ancestor of the Ottomans.

Click to expand...

Lord Oda Nobunaga said:

Even if he was real they embellished. Because this guy was claimed to have fought the Mongols and the Crusaders and so on.

Click to expand...

You know what? Sometimes in my bathroom ponderings I have even contemplated that Ertugrul might even possibly have been like some kind of back-projected inspiration or part-inspiration for King Arthur!

A bit like how @Alaskansandman said somewhere previously that he considered Siegfried of Norse legend as the inspiration for "Arthur". He also cited somebody a part of whose name was kind of pretty close sounding to "Arthur". But I can't recall that one offhand now.

I mean, besides the quite strikingly close similarity in names, both Arthur and Ertugrul were like riding up and down their respective lands "scrapping with and sometimes beating up marauding enemy armies". Arthur whupping Saxons and early Romans in Britain, Ertugrul smashing Byzantines, Crusaders and Mongols in Anatolia.

Dreamhunter said:

You know what? Sometimes in my bathroom ponderings I have even contemplated that Ertugrul might even possibly have been like some kind of back-projected inspiration or part-inspiration for King Arthur!

Click to expand...

It is likely to be the other way around since King Arthur was known since at least 800 AD and comes from Welsh poetry of the 700s AD, maybe 600s AD. King Arthur is probably based on Ambrosius Aurelianus, Urien ap Rheged, and Selyf ap Cynan. But the broader narrative which emerges later is probably based on King David. Notice the King Arthur, Vortigern, and Merlin dichotomy with King David, Saul, and Samuel.

Dreamhunter said:

A bit like how @Alaskansandman said somewhere previously that he considered Siegfried of Norse legend as the inspiration for "Arthur". He also cited somebody a part of whose name was kind of pretty close sounding to "Arthur". But I can't recall that one offhand now.

Click to expand...

In Britain? Probably the Roman legionary Artorius, or the Welsh-Irish warlord called Arthur.

Dreamhunter said:

I mean, besides the quite strikingly close similarity in names, both Arthur and Ertugrul were both like riding up and down their respective lands "scrapping with and sometimes beating up marauding enemy armies". Arthur whupping Saxons and early Romans in Britain, Ertugrul smashing Byzantines and Mongols in Anatolia.

Click to expand...

In the Welsh source material for Arthur, he was a soldier or general that fought the Saxons in many battles. But the battles mentioned were actually already attributed to Ambrosius Aurelianus, Selyf ap Cynan, and Urien ap Rheged. It must have been obvious that King Arthur was plagiarism because later on Ambrosius Aurelianus was the predecessor of Uther Pendragon, while Urien is straight up mentioned as one of the Knights of the Round Table.

Ertugrul can't really have a linguistic connection to Arthur because it is not Indo-European. But the basis for Ertugrul is probably like Fereydun or Rostam or something like that. Or probably some steppe hero that was only known to the Turks.

There's strong evidence that there was no temple dedicated to Amun-Ra in Jerusalem.
1) Amun's imagery was the most popular during the LBA and remained, though to a lesser extent, popular till Iron II in South-West Levant.

Lord Oda Nobunaga said:

That is something that should be brought up more often. The complete lack of international rivals which Solomon had. There is an extremely brief portion in which several kings plotted against him, but nothing comes of that at all. Other than that Solomon marries the daughter of a pharaoh. But if Solomon was so powerful it would have resulted in Assyria, Egypt, and various Phoenician and Syrian states ganging up on him.

If we recall this happened to the Assyrians repeatedly. His contemporary would have been Tiglath Pileser II if Solomon did indeed reign in the 900s BC. At the time Assyria was recovering and rebuilding its strength in Upper Mesopotamia. But in the following century (800s BC) Assyria started invading Syria regularly and multiple coalitions were formed against Assyria, and they involved savage fighting. This was only worse in the 700s BC during the reign of Tiglath Pileser III, in which the Assyrians were forced to invade everything from Babylon and Urartu, all across Syria and Phoenicia, to Israel itself.

Solomon rules a great empire in Canaan and the Trans-Jordan, but seemingly also has hegemony in Syria and Phoenicia. This can't really be explained. As there is no mention of Israelite campaigns in those regions, and no mentions of large coalitions there either. Supposedly his successors had to fight Shoshenq though. In reality Shoshenq ignored Jerusalem and took out the powerful state at Gibeah, as it was a threat to his kingdom. The lack of foreign interest in taking out Solomon is really astounding.

Although I will admit that setting the Israelite Empire in the 900s BC is the perfect century, because aside from Shoshenq a bit later, pretty much nothing of note was happening in the 900s BC. So there would not have been too many opportunities for Israel to be mentioned. But if Israel existed and had so many ties to all these states, it is bizarre that it is not mentioned in any Egyptian inscription or diplomatic text, in any fragment or diplomatic text from a Phoenician or Syrian city, nor in any diplomatic text from Assyria.

Click to expand...

There's an alternative. The Semitic sequence slmn and variants of it are attested in ANA and ASA inscriptions and can be found in epigraphic databases such as DASI and OCIANA. Then we're talking about proto-Arabic inscriptions that appear after 700 BC in an area that had a kind of nomad empire, Lihyan. Just like slmn the root dwd, is only attested in proto-Arabic.