This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I dont know how many times altered pages to correct this, But Hiram, King of Tyre and Hiram Abif are two completely different people. --Comment by IP editor 213.131.101.106 on 3 February 2006
The Wikipedia article List of Kings of Tyre indicates different years of reign for Hiram, his predecessor and his successor. Which is correct??-- Jeffro77 04:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
This article build upon the biblical references, but written as if these absolute historical facts! --Comment by IP editor 217.73.17.61 at 06:54, 19 September 2006.
What sources are there for this Hiram I? What inscriptions mention him by name? And for that matter, what was his name in Phoenician? (his name is given here in Hebrew, which seems odd). Did he ever exist outside the Hebrwe bible? PiCo 13:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Ahiram, is supposed to be Hiram like in the Bible. Unfortunately, it is not. The inscription on the edge of the Cover lid says: "This is the Tomb of Ahiram King of Jubail" (Byblos) and Sidon. It does not mention Tyr at all. The tomb was discovered by the French in the early 1930's and the dating has always been mid-fourteenth century BC. Some historians later on argued that this dating "must" be shifted to cope with the commonly known tenth century era of King Salomon. Today we see the dating of the year 1000 roughly (per Wikipedia) for that purpose. The actual city of Tyr in Lebanon never recorded in its entire history the name of such a king by the name of Hiram. Tyr is known to resist Alexander's invasion of the Middle East (333 BC) and to have Roman ruins. The above-the-ground tomb that is located 10 Km to the east of Tyr is locally called the tomb of Hiram without any proof, no inscriptions have been found around it. The text in Wikipedia somehow makes us think that the sarcophagus in the picture is the same as the one east of Tyr. IT SAYS: [the entry on Hiram in the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (1890-1906) indicates that "his tomb is two hours' walk southeast of Tyre, a colossal limestone sarcophagus on a high pedestal".[1] The tomb was subsequently moved to the Beirut National Museum, where it is now on display.] This text is completely out of line, please correct it as there are two distinct sarcophagi: the one in Byblos with inscriptions illustrated in the picture(discovered by Pierre Montet 1934 in Byblos/Jubail and dated mid 14th century) and the one east of Tyr (by Brockhaus and Efron) without any inscriptions nor dating. Respectfully, Noureddine 19:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I haven't. What does it say that is relevant to this discussion?-- Dougweller ( talk) 17:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no archeological evidence that shows a king based in Judah growing rich in any substantial way. See The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman. p.132. There is no evidence of big buildings or a large enough population in and around Jerusalem which according to the Bible was part of a wealthy and powerful united kingdom.
I'm not sure I have the correct tag for this, but it's a proposal to split off the Biblical materian into a separate article. Sumerophile ( talk) 23:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Adding (Biblical) to a title is not a naming convetion regularly used on Wikipedia PeRshGo ( talk) 21:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2024 and 15 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jgrand24 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Jgrand24 ( talk) 20:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Jgrand24 thanks for your great contributions, I want to point out however that the existence of the United Monarchy is still a matter of ongoing debate among scholars, with different viewpoints regarding its historicity and the extent of its existence. The Bible cannot be taken as a historical source for face value. I suggest you edit your text to clarify this issue, we cannot introduce assumptions based on a religious text as facts like this. Best regards. Canaanito ( talk) 09:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I dont know how many times altered pages to correct this, But Hiram, King of Tyre and Hiram Abif are two completely different people. --Comment by IP editor 213.131.101.106 on 3 February 2006
The Wikipedia article List of Kings of Tyre indicates different years of reign for Hiram, his predecessor and his successor. Which is correct??-- Jeffro77 04:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
This article build upon the biblical references, but written as if these absolute historical facts! --Comment by IP editor 217.73.17.61 at 06:54, 19 September 2006.
What sources are there for this Hiram I? What inscriptions mention him by name? And for that matter, what was his name in Phoenician? (his name is given here in Hebrew, which seems odd). Did he ever exist outside the Hebrwe bible? PiCo 13:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Ahiram, is supposed to be Hiram like in the Bible. Unfortunately, it is not. The inscription on the edge of the Cover lid says: "This is the Tomb of Ahiram King of Jubail" (Byblos) and Sidon. It does not mention Tyr at all. The tomb was discovered by the French in the early 1930's and the dating has always been mid-fourteenth century BC. Some historians later on argued that this dating "must" be shifted to cope with the commonly known tenth century era of King Salomon. Today we see the dating of the year 1000 roughly (per Wikipedia) for that purpose. The actual city of Tyr in Lebanon never recorded in its entire history the name of such a king by the name of Hiram. Tyr is known to resist Alexander's invasion of the Middle East (333 BC) and to have Roman ruins. The above-the-ground tomb that is located 10 Km to the east of Tyr is locally called the tomb of Hiram without any proof, no inscriptions have been found around it. The text in Wikipedia somehow makes us think that the sarcophagus in the picture is the same as the one east of Tyr. IT SAYS: [the entry on Hiram in the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (1890-1906) indicates that "his tomb is two hours' walk southeast of Tyre, a colossal limestone sarcophagus on a high pedestal".[1] The tomb was subsequently moved to the Beirut National Museum, where it is now on display.] This text is completely out of line, please correct it as there are two distinct sarcophagi: the one in Byblos with inscriptions illustrated in the picture(discovered by Pierre Montet 1934 in Byblos/Jubail and dated mid 14th century) and the one east of Tyr (by Brockhaus and Efron) without any inscriptions nor dating. Respectfully, Noureddine 19:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I haven't. What does it say that is relevant to this discussion?-- Dougweller ( talk) 17:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no archeological evidence that shows a king based in Judah growing rich in any substantial way. See The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman. p.132. There is no evidence of big buildings or a large enough population in and around Jerusalem which according to the Bible was part of a wealthy and powerful united kingdom.
I'm not sure I have the correct tag for this, but it's a proposal to split off the Biblical materian into a separate article. Sumerophile ( talk) 23:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Adding (Biblical) to a title is not a naming convetion regularly used on Wikipedia PeRshGo ( talk) 21:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2024 and 15 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jgrand24 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Jgrand24 ( talk) 20:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Jgrand24 thanks for your great contributions, I want to point out however that the existence of the United Monarchy is still a matter of ongoing debate among scholars, with different viewpoints regarding its historicity and the extent of its existence. The Bible cannot be taken as a historical source for face value. I suggest you edit your text to clarify this issue, we cannot introduce assumptions based on a religious text as facts like this. Best regards. Canaanito ( talk) 09:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)