Talk:Solomon/Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I find it atrocious that the account of a historical figure such as Solomon be left to authors whose whole premise is that he may not have even existed. To quote the thesis of their book: "there is no archaeological evidence for the existence of Abraham, the Patriarchs, Moses, or the Exodus, and that the monarchies of David or Solomon were much smaller than the Bible implies. The statement, "There is no archeological evidence" -- could be said of any number of world figures whose existence the authors choose not to question. I am particularly appalled by their contention that the bible (and the history of the Jewish nation) was 'created' to "further the religious reform and territorial ambitions of the Kingdom of Judah."

   Shades of the daVinci hoax!  

What is more plausible, given the incredible resiliency of the Jewish people, is that they were truly blessed by the direct intervention of God. Furthermore, it would not make sense to write the bible accounts in the honest detail we have, given the countless failings of the central characters. YBatwork 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)