Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink
King Solomon Revealed - Astounding!!!
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 16th December 2005
Hi all
One major discovery due to relining the timeline and hence Biblical history has been the astounding discovery of who King Solomon really was. If I am correct it would turn accepted Biblical history on its head. I now know not only why Solomon has never been identified but also why this is and why it has been hidden and the chronology kept as it is to hide it. Before blurting it out though see if you can guess who it was from this description.
He left his home country for 40 years returning when very old.
He wrote beautiful poetry, songs and stories.
He was a great law maker and wrote his laws down on tablets.
He instigated the use of Judges.
He met the great Philosophers and Kings of his day.
He visited Egypt and met their holy men and became respected by them.
When you have worked it out you will be as amazed as I was when I realised it. -
Message 2
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Friday, 16th December 2005
I take it you mean he was really Moses
If that was the case though who was the real Moses? Moses or the Moses that came after? -
Message 3
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Friday, 16th December 2005
Richie,
I had come to same conclusion. If Soloman was really Moses then in the immortal words of Willie Nelson 'I'm my own grandpaw'!
Elistan -
Message 4
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 16th December 2005
Hi Guys
No, not Moses. -
Message 5
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 16th December 2005
Some more clues.
He left his homeland in 590BC.
He wrote one of the greatest myths of our age.
He was born on an Island.
His name was mixed with that of where he was born to make the name Solomon by which he was known in Isreal/Judea. -
Message 6
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Friday, 16th December 2005
Richie,
I had come to same conclusion. If Soloman was really Moses then in the immortal words of Willie Nelson 'I'm my own grandpaw'!
·‘±τΎ±²υ³Ω²Ή²ΤΜύ
Hiya Elistan,
Well apparantly it isnt Moses. He guy we're after was born on an island
now I can't think of any historical Jew born on an island, so Solomon can't have been jewish by this thinking. and I have to be honest by the reckoning put forward I'm wondering if the guy is supposed to be Greek at all, maybe Herodutus??? -
Message 7
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Friday, 16th December 2005
or is it Solon???
but then maybe i am my own bampie?? -
Message 8
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Friday, 16th December 2005
Richie,
I'm thinking that Artorius is trying to guide us towards a greek answer alright, and I thought of Solon as well, but that would make the island Mo, Ma or Mu, and that was just getting too justified and ancient for my taste.
E -
Message 9
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Friday, 16th December 2005
Artorius,
I know you'll probably shift this event as well, but 590s was when the Babylonians captured Jerusalem and sent the jews into captivity, as well as being the period of Solon, a contemporary of Creoseus, whom you have mentioned.
I am very curious to see this timeline, for to overcome a single 'leap of faith', for want of a better phrase, of a Dark Age you seem to want us to make numerous little leaps of faith that will re-stitch the whole ediface of ancient history. I'm not sure any one individual can have enough time and/or resources to accomplish such a monumental task.
Elistan
PS Was it Aesop, that would be cool -
Message 10
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Friday, 16th December 2005
Is there any relevance in Sol-Amun derevitives?
-
Message 11
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 16th December 2005
Hi Guys
Yes, Solon it is, born on Salamis.
I know it's hard to beleive, but look the things Solon did then look at the things Solomon did. Also clears up the question as to why Solomon took an Egyptian wife. He was already known to the Egyptians.
The problem is sorting out the Chronology. Solon was supposed to have visited Creosus, but Creosus was supposed to have expired by the time Solon was around. So there is a cunundrum of dates. If Solon is dated correctly, then Croesus may need to be move further back in time. Or of course Solon further forward. Then we have the problem of Solomon, currently dated to about 928. Bibical dates appear to be about 200-250 years out which puts Solmon to around the time we are looking for. Then if Solomon is moved to this time then the Assyrian dates also need looking at, making it quite a mess. You can see why the revisionists have a lot on their plates. It's a hell of a mess to sort out as result of Egyptian, Biblical and Herodotian chronological errors and duplication. -
Message 12
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 16th December 2005
Hi Elistan,
Yes, I had considered the Sol-Amon idea. Biblical studies have assumed it was a name that may have been taken on when Solomon became King. Previous to going to Isreal, Solons last stop was Cyprus, where he was well recieved and founded the City of Soli. This city has recently been excavated and dated to about 7th C. -
Message 13
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Friday, 16th December 2005
Okay, square the circle of the Babylonian occupation of Jerusalem concurrent to Solon's archonship in Athens (where, apparently, he died). If the Jews were in excile, how could they have had a fabulous kingdom? Also, and I'm no biblical historian, but wasn't Soloman the son of David? Was it a young Solon in Israel who then went to Athens, or vice versa? What reason would a people who consider themselves to be apart from their neighbours due their bloodlines special relationship with their one true god have in accepting a stranger to their shore as their king, no matter how charismatic he was? And why must Soloman be explain as other than he was, a jewish king of a jewish people, who probably packed in all in to shack up with the Queen of Sheba somewhere all the North African coast?
Elistan -
Message 14
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 16th December 2005
Hi Elistan,
It was not unusual for these people having appointed Greeks as kings or protectors. Here is a text from the time of Sargon 720BC-705BC in current chronology where a Greek is appointed. You will notice one of the 'anomolies' of this text which I have not as yet revealed; that the Hittites are mentioned. In fact in the meaning of this text, the Hittites are the people of David and Hati was designated as the area in other texts(esarhaddon)with cities like Judah, Tyre, Moab. In the bible the people of David are said to be `Hattusha'. I have been unable to identify this Greek at the moment.:
c) From Broken Prisms According to the broken Prism A
[Aziru, king] of Ashdod (lacuna) on account of [this crime . . . ] -from . . . Ahimiti ... his younger brother over [them ... ] I made (him) ruler ... tribute ... like (those of) the [former] kings, I imposed upon him. [But these] accursed [Hittites] conceived [the idea] of not delivering the tribute and [started] a rebellion against their ruler; they expelled him . . . (Ia-ma-ni) a Greek, comm[oner without claim to the throne] to be king over them, they made sit down [on the very throne] of his (former) master and [they . . . ] their city of (or: for) the at[tack] (lacuna of 3 lines) ... its neighborhood, a moat [they prepared] of a depth of 20 + x cubits ... it (even) reached the
underground water, in order to----Then [to] the rulers
of Palestine (Pi-lis-te), Judah (Ia-tt-di), Ed[om], Moab (and) those who live (on islands) and bring tribute [and] tamartu -gifts to my lord Ashurβ[he spread] countless evil lies to alienate (them) from me, and (also) sent bribes to Pir'u, king of Musruβa potentate, incapable to save themβand asked him to be an ally. But I, Sargon, the rightful ruler, devoted to the pronouncements (uttered by) Nebo and Marduk, (carefully) observing the orders of Ashur, led my army over the Tigris and the Euphrates, at the peak of the(ir) flood, the spring flood, as (if it be) dry ground. This Greek, however, their king who had put his trust in his own power and (therefore) did not bow to my (divinely ordained) rulership, heard about the approach of my expedition (while I was still) far away, and the splendor of my lord Ashur overwhelmed him and . . . he fled...."
So who is this Greek Ia-ma-ni?. The pronunciation would be Ja-ma-ni: Yamani, Yaman, Amani, Aman, Jemani or similar, possibly a James??. Dont know, cant seem to find what this sort of name in Greek would be. -
Message 15
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 16th December 2005
You can now see the problems of Chronology. The above text is dated to Sargon 721-705BC, yet the current dates for Uzziah of the Bible(Aziru) are:
William F. Albright has dated his reign to 783 BC-742 BC, while E. R. Thiele offers the dates 767 BC-740 BC.
None of these accepted dates are even close to the time of this evidence!!! -
Message 16
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 16th December 2005
Hi all
Okay, it cant be Uzziah. It must be Hezakiah. As he was involved with the defence against the Assyrians at this time. This would put it at the right time in current chronology although this chronology is still hotly debated :
So who is this Greek King appointed at the time of Hezekiah?. -
Message 17
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Friday, 16th December 2005
Why are you faffing around with your hypothesis?? If you are trying to say you have proof that Moses is Solomon, why will you not put us all out of our ignorance and bring us the light we've all been waiting for?? There is no doubt the current chronology is incorrect, as we live in the shadow of history as written by 'our experts' of Victorian biblical history. Nothing on this (very interesting) thread has so far even slightly rocked the the acamedical boat we are all in. Come on Artorious, give us a REALLY BIG clue.
-
Message 18
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 16th December 2005
Hi Plance,
Please read all the thread before commenting. We are looking at the possibility that Solon was Solomon. It's a difficult one due to the chronlogical problems involved. If you could supply anything worthwhile to this idea it would be appreciated. -
Message 19
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Friday, 16th December 2005
Hi Artorious,
Did the Babylonians conquer Jerusalem in 590sBC, and if not then then when (if you will pardon the alliteration)?
Also, Solon was a pure born Athenian, son of Execestides. He had to have been pure born because one could not participate in Athenian democracy unless both your parents were pure born Athenians. That is a right that they were not about to row back on. Also, he became Archon in 594 and didn't leave Athens until around 570-565 for his voyages. How does that square? Likewise he was an old man by the time he would have come to Judea, yet solomon is remember as a young and apochrycally virile man. How does that square?
Elistan -
Message 20
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Friday, 16th December 2005
also the bibke is very clear that Solomon is a son of David. So by having a Greek potentate (which is rather unusual for this period of history) just arriving and the local peoples going "Hurrah" is suspect. Also how would you square the biblical accounts which elevate Solomon. He is the King that God suffers to build him a temple. David is not allowed this. If Solomon was a pagan Greek why would he beinterested in Judaic laws and relgion? Why would he go to the lengths to build an immense temple to a non Greek God? Also since Solomon is chronicaled in the bible from young man to old age when would he have had the time to be the Greek that the Greeks remember??
-
Message 21
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 16th December 2005
Richie and Elistan have mentioned two good arguments. While Greeks and Jewish were not exactly the worst enemies then no Jewish would accept a Greek as a king unless we are talking about a conquest. Ok the bible says that for years the Philistines (Greeks from Cypriots) had taken control of large parts of Palestine including many of Israelians. Then continuously Jewish texts talk about Greeks in Palestine (usually the jewish religious were very cautious about the effect of those pagans that could have on jewish youth). It is widely known that greek colonies were numerous there numbering many 10s ( though not so famous as their western counterparts). I had once read a text that was suggesting that maybe the 'unclear' Samaritans were actually those Jewish who accepted intermarriages with Greeks... That thing probably had happened in large extention due to the fact that these Greek cities there were rarely referred to texts unlike other colonies in western Mediterranean, Minor Asia, Black sea, even Egypt. Myself I would not go so much for the Samaritans but for another middle easterner, the Phoenicians who jumped out suddenly in the greek break: between the fall of Myceneans and the rise of later greek cities. Despite a long tradition of cuneiform and not very at ease with the sea that all previous and contemporary middle easterners (from Summerians to Assyrians and Babylonians) Phoenicians broke all traditions and changed to linear alphabets (coming from egypt or whatever) and took it to the sea like no other Middle easterner but very much like the Greeks. Of course this proves nothing at all, afterall Phoenicians were speaking a by-now dead language of Middle East but then extensive intermarriage, reproductive, cultural whatever is only certain: afterall they lived side by side with Greek cities and all were coastal: the east Mediterranean coast is not that big, that is certain.
However, from that point to come and say that a Greek from Athens would pass for a Jewish so much to become a king? Difficult. Even if he accepted the religion (difficult for a Greek, he would have to "burn bridges behind him"), Jewish (even those more liberal) would not accept him to the extend of making him a king. Then if Solon was a Jewish that arrived in Athens he would only have been a rich and educated one to avoid instant arrest and slavery: you did not exactly enter greek (of course that happened everywhere in the world) cities being a barbarian. Now, even if he was a rich man and well-educated and went there for business or for teaching still Athenians would just listen to him by interest but would not exactly admire him to the extend of making him an Athenian citizen... that would dishonour the city to the extend of losing its place in inter-greek political, religious and athletic events. -
Message 22
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 16th December 2005
Hi Guys
All I have read about Solomon says he left Athens in 590BC. His parents were Athenians indeed, but he was born on Salamis, an Island just off Athens. He left in 590BC and didnt return until an old man at the time of Pisistratus - 560BC -which is 30 years if all these dates are correct. Close to the 40 yars of the Bible, which shouldnt be taken too literally.
You have raised some good points. It is clear that the northern coast of lebanon and palestine etc at this period and before where havens of Greek setters as most of the Sea peoples who we know are the Greeks of Asia minor. The Phoenicians of course another Greek type people. So it follows that it should not be unusual for their to have been a very close links between the various peoples, whether by trade or by war or by supporting each other.
The God of Solon was Jove, not to far different from the Yaweh or Jahova of the Isrealites and Judes and possible having a common ancestor so Solon I guess would not have beentoo put out. Towards the end of his life he returned to the worship of the old gods, mainly due to his foreign wives\harem. Could be why he eventually returned to Athens.
The temple of Solomon is very clearly an Ionian style Greek temple. This type of Temple was the style before 500BC. Even the contents and design are very `Asia Minor'
Solomon was a young man when he came to be King. No age is given in the bible. I would say 25ish.
Solon was about the same age when he left in 590BC. That the Jews claim he was a son of David is suspect to me. Why raise him above his elder brother? Who Solomon then proceeded to kill. Why choose such a young man to build such an important temple? The man needed would have had to be a good organiser, law maker and general strong personality. All that was Solon at a young age. He had already organised Athens with its new Laws and Judges, had retaken Salamis for Athens by guile and warfare and had already founded a city and laid out its plans in Cyprus. He was also trusted by the Egyptians meaning they were the allies and could be counted upon to support Isreal against the Asyrians.
Solomons `empire' wasn't that big. He has been given good press and blown up a bit because he built the temple and expanded his borders somewhat.
One of the biggest clues is the identity of the Egyptian Pharoah at the time - Amasis. Who must be one of the Ramses who I now place in the first millenium Bc not the 2nd.
It's a tall order to match these two up. It came to me in a flash as it were and I dont like to ignore ideas but explore them, even if it does prove to be wrong. -
Message 23
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Saturday, 17th December 2005
Hi Guys
The God of Solon was Jove, not to far different from the Yaweh or Jahova of the Israelites and Judes and possible having a common ancestor so Solon I guess would not have been too put out. Towards the end of his life he returned to the worship of the old gods, mainly due to his foreign wives\harem. Could be why he eventually returned to Athens.
The temple of Solomon is very clearly an Ionian style Greek temple. This type of Temple was the style before 500BC. Even the contents and design are very `Asia Minor'
Solomon was a young man when he came to be King. No age is given in the bible. I would say 25ish.
Solon was about the same age when he left in 590BC. That the Jews claim he was a son of David is suspect to me. Why raise him above his elder brother? Who Solomon then proceeded to kill. Why choose such a young man to build such an important temple? The man needed would have had to be a good organiser, law maker and general strong personality. All that was Solon at a young age. He had already organised Athens with its new Laws and Judges, had retaken Salamis for Athens by guile and warfare and had already founded a city and laid out its plans in Cyprus. He was also trusted by the Egyptians meaning they were the allies and could be counted upon to support Israel against the Asyrians.
Solomonβs `empire' wasn't that big. He has been given good press and blown up a bit because he built the temple and expanded his borders somewhat.
Μύ
Ok first flaw that stands out like the Colossi of Rhodes or the Mausolus of Halicarnassus is this
<<β The God of Solon was Joveβ>>
It wasnβt. Solonβs god would have been Zeus, then maybe Athena (the Patron of Athens) It could also have been many several of other Greek deities of choice, Hera, Poseidon, Apollo ad naseum, and a great many others whoβs names right now escape me. What I am quite sure of however is that if you met Solon and mentioned that he worshipped Jove I am quite sure he would reply with a blank, as he wouldnβt have a clue to whom you were referring. So to make a leap from a Latin God no one had heard of to Yehovah is a rather large one.
Yes Solomon began worshipping alien Gods towards the end of his reign but again that was not unusual for Israelite Kings. In fact this is a common recurrent theme throughout the biblical chapters of Kings 1 and 2.
You seem to make a great deal out of an Ionian Style temple. How do we know it was Ionian? There are no surving pictures of this temple. We have descriptions of the later temples but we have to rely on the bible for Solomonβs temple. And again simply because it could have been Ionian in style does not make Solomon = Solon. Ideas and technology travel. Egyptian temples have colonnades and the Jews of this period would have been far more memories of Egypt (culturally speaking) than they would the Greeks. Also Architects travel. If Solomon were building a temple to God he would have the best workers and designers. It requires a far smaller leap of faith to imagine an Asian Minor Architect traveling to Jerusalem to undertake the building of the Temple than it does Solomon = Solon
Davidβs elder son rebelled against his father. Absolom dies trying to rise against David. And again it was not unusual to find Kings who had multiple wives and therefore multiple potential heirs to raise up sons not necessarily first-born. Primogeniture was not the accustomed practice. The rest of your points do not really have to apply to Solon or Solomon. Anyone could be a good organiser law maker and have a strong personality. This can not be used in any way to elevate Solon to a foreign throne. -
Message 24
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Saturday, 17th December 2005
Hi Plance,
Please read all the thread before commenting. We are looking at the possibility that Solon was Solomon. It's a difficult one due to the chronlogical problems involved. If you could supply anything worthwhile to this idea it would be appreciated.
Μύ
Yes I appear to have jumped in without reading the thread in full and taking in the comments. My apologies. I don't have anything useful to add other than your theory is perfectly plausible. -
Message 25
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Saturday, 17th December 2005
What I don't understand is why Soloman can't be Soloman, and Solon be Solon. Even if you want to redraw thetimeline of events, why do you need to have a convergence of two different historical characters into one?
-
Message 26
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Saturday, 17th December 2005
Hi Elistan and Richie
First of all, I think it is a long shot trying to tie these two up. I am not sure I can solve the chronological difficulties involved but will try.
Richie:
Jove was the former name of Zeus. This was the name he would have used as well as Zeus. Here is one of his poems:
"We humbly beg a blessing on our laws
From mighty jove, and honour, and applause"
The Olympian temple of Zeus was originally the Temple of Jove.
This does prove one thing though, he was quite ancient in using this term, possibly dating him further back in time.
I know that just because the Temple appears to be Ionian doesnt mean that Solomon was Greek. What I am trying to say is that there are obvious Ionian Greek borrowings in the architecture making it quite possible and more than probable that the jews borrowed from the Greeks.
Yes I realise that due to the amount of sons around that others are chosen quite often above their older brothers. It just seems to be that in this case there was more to it.
Ellistan.
It's just a theory, to be debated. There is a tenuous link here. The arguments against such links are pretty powerful, the Assyrian records being one. I have no problem in letting Solomon be Solomon and Solon be Solon until I can solve the problem of whether Assyrian and Babylonioan records are out or not. To tell the truth I would prefer to leave it as it is, for as you can see, that if proven correct, it would be a bit of a shock for the world. -
Message 27
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Saturday, 17th December 2005
I'm sorry but Jove is latin. So I fail to see how a greek god with a greek name (Zeus) would originally be called Jove who until later Roman times was totally unconnected with Zeus
-
Message 28
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Saturday, 17th December 2005
Okay guys,
Another twist in the plot. If Solon was not contemporary with Croesus, as their dates do not co-incide is it possible the Greek historians got the wrong king and that in fact Gyges was meant? This would put Solon in the time of ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr.
Now some say that Solon is not a Greek name(must admit it doesnt sound very Greek to me). They say it is a Hellanised version of Solomon, ie Solomo. So could it be that the origianl name of Solon, was Solomon and that neither of these names was the original name of the person. Now if early Greek wrting was written backwards someone could accidentily read solomo as Omolos, or Omeros. That name being Omeros - ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr. Now if ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr became Solomon , became Solon, it is clear why he has never been identified!!!! Now that adds some spice to the problem. -
Message 29
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Saturday, 17th December 2005
That should obviously read solomon became Solon and ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr.
-
Message 30
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Saturday, 17th December 2005
Elistan, that seem to be a development of early Kleisthenic democracy in order to maintain the land pool within the citizen body. As such Kleisthenes would have fallen foul of the citizenship courts and someone felt they could challenge Pericles citizenship so it seems that members of the aristocratic classes were not pure Athenians in the early fifth century and it cannot be applied to early sixth century Athens. However one would imagine that the early democracy was more concerned with reconciling the effects of the civil disturbances that beset the polis after the fall of the Peisistradid Tyranny. The Spartans found it rather frustrating that after liberating the Athenians from Tyranny they decided to ignore their advice about government.
Dunno about you but I think it needs more than a shared concern for justice and fairness above personal interests to make this one stick. -
Message 31
Posted by Thjodolf (U1900675) on Sunday, 18th December 2005
I have to agree with the sentiments of Elistan in message 25; however, if I may quote from message 26:
"It's just a theory, to be debated. There is a tenuous link here. The arguments against such links are pretty powerful...[but] as you can see, that if proven correct, it would be a bit of a shock for the world".
Very interesting speculation, it could all be true, who knows; however, the burden of proof is with Artorious. Outrageous speculation supported only by (very) "tenuous" links is one thing, real evidence, not actually easy to find for any historical problem at the best of times, is a very different matter. But history, or rather the past, is not set in stone, and I'm prepared to be open-minded; unconvinced, but open-minded. That last sentiment does not apply to Dan Brown and his optimistic use of the term "historical facts"; that man really has an awful lot to answer for. -
Message 32
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Monday, 19th December 2005
Hi All
It seems that to match these two up will take a lot more work. To make it work Solon must be moved back in time by about 60-70 odd years to the time of Gyges, the first Tyrant. Not an impossibiity considering the inacuracies of Herodotus and other later Greek Historians. Aparently some ancient Greek historians did put Solon further into the past but I have been uable to find references to which ones. This would also mean ascertaining wether the story of the laws being given to Athens belong to an earlier time and have been interpolated in to the time before and during Pesisitratus(a later Tyrant) to tell a story involoving Solon, a sort of moral/ethical interpolation. Or wether the dates of this Athens period is wrong. This may be something a Greek historian could look at.
At the moment it is a bit of a red herring in my timeline.
As to Jove, yes it is the latin form of Zeus. The temple probably took on the name Jove in Roman times. I presume Solons poetry has been translated and replaced Zeus with Jove? Anyway, the fact remains that it's not impossible that Solon would have had no problem with Jehova as being the one God. He would probably have known that the people of David were of Hurrian/Hittite descent and so the same as descendants of the Lydians, Carians, Lyceans and others. -
Message 33
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Monday, 19th December 2005
Lolbeble,
Cheers for the clarification of when the citizen=gene pool came into effect. I would have to admit to a lapse into anachronism there. But only a minor one in comparison to the whole scale time juggling artorious is involved with.
Artorious,
Your splicing timelines back and forward so fast that its beginning to sound like a Star Trek plot line!
E -
Message 34
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Monday, 19th December 2005
Artorious,
Out of curiosity, How many people were active in the past? You seem intent on attributing as much as possible to as few as possible -
Message 35
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Monday, 19th December 2005
Hi Ellistan,
The problem is that neither Solomon or ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr have really been identified. Even Solon is nearly mythical. What if they were one and the same person, it would certainly explain a lot. A bit like how the histories of Herodotus have given as more Egyptian Kings than there were(not his fault, modern interpretation). It is wondered how he never mentions the great Egyptian Pharohs - RamsesII or III when in fact he did but called them Psametich and Amasis. Hence we have double the people for at least two people in history(there's many more) and hence the whole idea is not that far fetched. -
Message 36
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Monday, 19th December 2005
Hi Lol,
I am a fan of the original Star Trek and yes this is indeed a matter of travelling in time to see who and where fits where. Once modern chronology was found to be based on lies and the pack of cards fell I feel we should not take too much of accepted history at face value. History as we know is always written by the victors..hence we have no Anglo Saxon record of the defeat at Badon...in fact we have very little record of any Anglo Saxon defeats even though there were many.
Beam me up Scotty! -
Message 37
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Monday, 19th December 2005
The fact that Solon, Soloman and ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr all have mystic around them does not get altered by attributing to one character aspects of the three myth-stories. I really don't see how it 'explains a lot' to have the Greek law-giver and the Jewish Law-giver as one and the same. Nor do I see how the incorporation of the Greek Poet into this persona further answers any questions at all. To mind you are merely further confusing our understanding through these link ups. No one doubts that Herodotus doesn't stand up to modern historical standards, and he was more interested in collecting peoples tales then verifying them. Misnaming a Pharoah, or using a different version of his name, is a far cry from converging key historical characters of different traditions. As for Solon/ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr, surely the homeric legend was already in existence before Solon's birth (whenever you chose to date that). Your initial premise of the dark age being an inaccuracy may bear weight, but I'm afraid you would some pretty substantial evedence to back this claims, and a little more than imaginative spelling.
Elistan -
Message 38
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Monday, 19th December 2005
Hi Ellistan
Agreed that these links are far from proven and are possibly misguided. It would be interesting to know how the dating of Solon and early Greece came about. Obviously the ancients didn't write time as we did, ie they didnt write that Solon - born 638BC. So what was the actual reference to his time of birth? Who wrote it? How does that original reference appear in ancient Greek and how was it then tied to a period in our time scheme? -
Message 39
Posted by Noggin the Nog (U195809) on Friday, 23rd December 2005
If your going to look for name-equivalents for Solomon, a more likely candidate would be the Semitic God Shalman (whose name appears in some of the names of the Assyrian kings).
Most of the old testament was probably written by the Persians, using such history as was available to them - mostly the Assyrian annals.
The equation of Solomon and Solon makes no sense in terms either of any history we know, or the likely purposes of the writers of the OT. It's hardly Velikovskian either.
Noggin -
Message 40
Posted by westcoastnel (U2908125) on Saturday, 7th January 2006
ignore this!
-
Message 41
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Saturday, 7th January 2006
ignore this!Μύ
ignore what?? -
Message 42
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Saturday, 7th January 2006
I agree, ignore this.
The chronology cannot support it. It was phantasy idea. Sorry guys.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.