Talk:Second Temple

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

[Untitled]

"The Second Temple lacked the following holy articles:

The Ark of the Covenant"

It might be mentioned that this item was not present for much of the First Temple as well, King Josiah secreting the item beneath the Holy of Holies (presumably where it remains). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 13:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second Temple was build rather in 417 BC than 516 BC.

Bible says, that “and this house was finished on the third day of the month of Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius.” (Ezra 6:15)
Somehow authors of the article assume that it means Darius I (522-486 BC). However it is impossible: the same Ezra described, how neighboring nations interfered building process:
“Then the people of the land discouraged the people of Judah, and made them afraid to build, and they bribed officials to frustrate their plan throughout the reign of King Cyrus of Persia and until the reign of King Darius of Persia. And in the days of Artaxerxes, Bishlam and Mithredath and Tabeel and the rest of their associates wrote to King Artaxerxes of Persia; the letter was written in Aramaic and translated. Rehum the royal deputy and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to King Artaxerxes as follows" (Ezra 4:4-8)
Next (Ezra 4:9-22) is the full text of letter to the Artaxerxes and his answer, where he orders to cease construction. "Then when the copy of King Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum and the scribe Shimshai and their associates, they hurried to the Jews in Jerusalem and by force and power made them cease. At that time the work on the house of God in Jerusalem stopped and was discontinued until the second year of the reign of King Darius of Persia.” (Ezra 4:23-24)
So, construction started during reign of Cyrus, but was stopped during reign of Artaxerxes, and resumed only at the time of Darius.
Now, let’s see the list of Persian Kings at that time:
Cyrus the Great 560–530 BC
Cambyses II 530–522 BC
Darius I 522–486 BC
Xerxes I 486–465 BC
Artaxerxes I 465–424 BC
Sogdianus 424–423 BC
Darius II 423–405 BC
Artaxerxes II 405–358 BC
So, there was no any king before Darius I with the name Artaxerxes! Since the temple was finished during the reign of Darius which was AFTER Artaxerxes, it could be only the Darius II. It means that temple was finished not in 516, but in 417 BCE. --Историк2010 (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any and all such statements require Reliable Sources. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the chronology seems quite clear from Ezra chapter 4. First it mentions Ahasuerus, 'Xerxes', and then after his reign Artaxerxes, when rebuilding comes to a complete stop.
Ezra 4:6 "At the beginning of the reign of Ahasuerus, the people who were already in the land wrote an accusation against the residents of Judah and Jerusalem. 7 During the time of King Artaxerxes of Persia, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and the rest of his colleagues wrote to King Artaxerxes."
After Artaxerxes, there is a patch of chaos, summed up nicely in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_II. "Artaxerxes I, who died in 424 BC, was followed by his son Xerxes II. After a month and half Xerxes II was murdered by his brother Sogdianus. His illegitimate brother, Ochus, satrap of Hyrcania, rebelled against Sogdianus, and after a short fight killed him, and suppressed by treachery the attempt of his own brother Arsites to imitate his example. Ochus adopted the name Darius (Greek sources often call him Darius Nothos, "Bastard"). Neither the names Xerxes II nor Sogdianus occur in the dates of the numerous Babylonian tablets from Nippur; here effectively the reign of Darius II follows immediately after that of Artaxerxes I."
It also says "The Elephantine papyri mention Darius II as a contemporary of the high priest Johanan of Ezra 10:6".
If Ezra, Johanan and Darius are all alive at the same time (407BC), it would seem the temple had to be rebuilt under Darius II. 220.235.244.37 (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

I notice that this page has been moved from Second Temple of Jerusalem to Second Temple (Judaism) without a move being requested or any discussion on the talkpage.

It looks like a discussion has been had at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. However, this isn't the normal process for moving a page and, for obvious reasons, I don't think it is the best forum for gaining a full range of potential views on the matter.

Had I had chance to consider the arguments for the move, then perhaps I might have been persuaded. However, it seems to me that the Second Temple is primarily a building in antiquity rather than a sort of concept in Judaism. To many people, it will be of primarily secular historical rather than religious or cultural interest. To other people, it may be of interest because it features in the traditional narrative of the life of Jesus.

Either way, can I ask that the page be moved back and the normal process for gaining consensus for a page move be engaged with.

Cheers, --FormerIP (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Former IP: You are wrong. Firstly, there most definitely was a very lengthy discussion reaching consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash since 14 July 2010. Secondly, this page like all the others effected were notified about the proposed redirect, also on 14 July 2010 [1] on their talk pages but now with the "corrected" redirects it's not showing up for some odd reason. So please do not complain now because all users who have this page on their watch lists had more than two weeks to partake, share their their views and make comments and suggestions. Those editors who did were mostly reliable Judaic editors who are trustworthy and responsible. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my detailed response with more information at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#All talk pages, and more, were notified about the discussions and proposed moves Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way Former IP, by your comments here, you are projecting your purely Christian WP:POV it would seem, so that you may want to create an article that deals with how Jesus ties in with the Second Temple. Or how Christianity depicts it, even though the articles do put in Christian views on Judaism holiest building/s. For that matter, how about articles about how Judaism views The Vatican (holiest site to the Catholic Church or Canterbury Cathedral (holiest site to the Church of England and so far no one thinks it's worth it). Jesus as a historical personage supposedly lived at its very end, so it's hard to see what relevance he has to the life and times of it during its 400+ years in an of itself. Please do not forget that the Temple was first and foremost and always remains the most important Jewish religious building of all time while it is very marginal to Jesus and to Christianity. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IZAK. I'm aware of the discussion at the Judaism wikiproject. The fact that the participants were "mostly reliable Judaic editors" is nothing to boast about, though. It seems to me obvious that it is not apporpriate to ignore normal WP procedures for page moves and hold the discussion instead in a forum where a Jewish POV is likely to prevail.
By the way, I am not a Christian and this is not about the content of the article, it is just about the page move. --FormerIP (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FormerIP: Any editors tracking pages such as this one, not restricting anyone and open to everyone, were more than welcome to go to the discussion, so your are nitpicking is pointless. IZAK (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temple discussion at ANI

In response to discussions about correct names for the First and Second Temples held at WP:TALKJUDAISM, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#All talk pages, and more, were notified about the discussions and proposed moves where you may want to add your views to the ongoing discussion. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC:Proper Name for this Article

There seems to be clear consensus to simply label this simply "Second Temple." To make sure I am not misinterpreting anything gonna make a request an uninvolved Admin to review this and make the move. Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NOTE: The following involves three related articles, please comment on all you see fit:

  1. Talk:Solomon's Temple/Archive 2#RfC:Proper Name for this Article
  2. Talk:Second Temple of Jerusalem#RfC:Proper Name for this Article
  3. Talk:Third Temple#RfC:Proper Name for this Article

What is the most appropriate name for this article in the English wikipedia project? Further suggestions should be placed as subsections below, and arguments should be placed in the section corresponding to the desired name. -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Temple of Jerusalem

  • This temple has a more free-form name than the others. I have heard the term, Herod's Temple, before, but it doesn't appear to be as widely known. Conversely, calling this article just the "Second Temple" is cause for confusion in terms of other religious faiths. Thus, calling it the "Second Temple of Jerusalem" seems to be an adequate compromise, as it is specific enough that it is understood what it is likely referring to and because those searching for "Second Temple" would still be able to find it. SilverserenC 18:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unnecessary disambiguation. -- Avi (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Second Temple" alone is not frequently used amongst non-Jewish English-speakers. "...of Jerusalem" is not a disambiguator here. It is more comparable to the use of city names in Hanging Gardens of Babylon or London Astoria. --FormerIP (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per FormerIP. It seems to me the most reasonable naming method that can be applied here. Nahum (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Temple (Judaism)

  • I'm listing this as an idea, since there are Second Temples in other religions, that i've specifically found (even if they don't currently have articles, though one does). Using the specific addition of (Judaism) doesn't harm the title at all and is entirely specific for what the article is about. SilverserenC 21:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per Silver seren here. IZAK (talk) 04:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unnecessary disambiguation at current. -- Avi (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per silver Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support First Temple and Second Temple are the standard names used when studying Jewish History. The (Judaism) part is necessary because the expression by itself could refer to other temples that are second. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is the logical and consistent companion to First Temple (Judaism) and Third Temple (Judaism). While there doesn't seem to be any disagreement on calling them "Second Temple" and "Third Temple", the deciding factor is the naming of "First Temple". This must be called First Temple (Judaism) because other religions have their temples, too. Yoninah (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. per Kuratowski --Shuki (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Temple

  • Note - This was the article's name for the seven years from 2002 to 2009, per the logs. -- Avi (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clearly the primary topic for this search term, no need for any disambiguation. If other articles about different "second temples" wuold be created, they can be listed at Second Temple (disambiguation). Note that, apart from the above objections, the suggested "Second Temple (Judaism)" can easily be confused with the existing Second Temple Judaism. Fram (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. About as commonplace and unobjectionable as can be. Anything else is akin to "fixing what ain't broken". Hertz1888 (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Fixing what ain't broken" would seem to imply changing the article title - but this is not the current article title, the perfectly serviceable "Second Temple of Jerusalem" is. This is not itself broken, so why fix it? --FormerIP (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article's name for the previous seven years (2002-09) is what wasn't broken. The present name is not perfectly serviceable in the eye of every beholder. Second Temple is ample and sufficient, commonplace, primary and familiar. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that's an unreasonable POV (although I dispute "commonplace" and "familiar"), but it does mean that you are saying something needs fixing, after all. --FormerIP (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:UCN and above comments.Griswaldo (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is then name in common usage. It is asserted above that this name causes confusion. I doubt it, but would be willing to consider evidence of real and substantive confusion. There are, after all, many towns named Mecca and even other Parthenons but we don't rename that page Parthenon (Athens).AMuseo (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per Amuseo.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support After thinking about it, I think that the article should be returned to its original name (of 7+ years) and anything specific to Herod's temple should start out as a section in this article. If the section becomes large enough to merit it's own article per WP:SUMMARY (as occurred on HeWiki), we can spin it off then. I do not think that there is enough confusion to warrant the addition of the disambiguation in the title. -- Avi (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per Hertz1888. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per my comments above. --FormerIP (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as there are few if any other temples which would conflict as per WP:NAME, and shorter titles are in general preferred to unnecessarily longer ones. The "of Jerusalem", or similar qualifier, can be added in the text after the link if such is desired. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is the commonly used name. --Redaktor (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Chesdovi (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. JFW | T@lk 12:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herod's Temple

Break this article into two; one for Zerubavel and one for Herod, and rename them...

  • I consider this to be a possibility as well. If either this or Second Temple of Jerusalem gains a majority, I will side with that one. SilverserenC 18:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, the Hebrew wikipedia has two seperate articles: w:he:בית המקדש השני (Second Temple) and w:he:מקדש הורדוס (Herod's temple). -- Avi (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • But what is the difference between them? SilverserenC 19:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very simply and overly compact, per the article, Herod's temple was the name given to the last 50-100 or so years of "Second temple" after Herod made major renovations to it. It was different enough to warrant it's own name in the Mishna/Talmud/Josephus etc. HeWiki used summary style to breifly mention Herod's temple in the "Second" (or whatever we will call it) temples article and spun it off to its own -- Avi (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems to me that splitting it up into Zerubavel and Herod would make it specific enough for our purposes and work well, I think. It sounds like a good idea. SilverserenC 21:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I would split it, I'd rather "Second temple" (or maybe "Second temple (Judaism)" and "Herod's temple" similar to HeWiki, personally, but I am still thinking about the fact that for 7 years it was simply named "Second Temple". -- Avi (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then I see "Second Temple (Judaism)" as a good compromise. A discussion about splitting off Herod's Temple is really something that can be done later. SilverserenC 21:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since it's a terrible idea (Herod upgraded it, he didn't invent or create it) that would in any case violate WP:CFORK because the subject is all about the same continuous Second Temple of Judaism. IZAK (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Do you see how HeWiki handled it? -- Avi (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The notion that Herod built a new temple, as opposed to surrounding the existing one with a massive and magnificent series of new structures, is held by only a tiny minority of responsible scholars. However I would support a subsidiary article on:
Herodian additions to the Second Temple itf the material is too unwieldy for a single article.AMuseo (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at current We should let summary style decide if a new article is needed. Otherwise, Herod's temple should be a section of this article. -- Avi (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Herod's Temple" gives a false impression that Herod's Temple was a new, separate and third structure at the site. They were just additions made to the 2nd Temple. Chesdovi (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose As mentioned above, Herod merely renovated (at most) and/or added surrounding structures to Zerubavel's existing Temple, so it should not be named after him. "Second Temple," with or without any disambiguators necessary, is the most reasonable name, IMHO. Nahum (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Josephus may indicate that Herod completely removed the older structure all the way to it's foundations and reconstructing his own temple in it's place. [1] Yekcidmij (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time for closure?

The RfC's have run for over a month, I think it's time we consider the conclusions. -- Avi (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

  1. ^ Ant 15.11.3

Nothing on architecture?

Surely there should be something about the architecture? I think there's a brief passage in Esra giving the dimensions of the Zerubabbel temple, for example (Ezra 6:3).PiCo (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who and when built the Second Temple?

"The accession of Cyrus the Great of Persia in 538 BCE made the re-establishment of the city of Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple possible."

-Ok, so it was after b.c.e 538. Who by? who was the force behind the proyect?

"According to the Bible, when the Jewish exiles returned to Jerusalem following a decree from Cyrus the Great (Ezra 1:1-4, 2 Chron 36:22-23), construction started at the original site of Solomon's Temple, which had remained a devastated heap during the approximately 70 years of captivity (Dan. 9:1-2). "

-Any thoughts on when was this?


"After a relatively brief halt due to opposition from peoples who had filled the vacuum during the Jewish captivity (Ezra 4), work resumed c. 521 BCE under the Persian King Darius (Ezra 5) and was completed during the sixth year of his reign (c. 518/517 BCE), with the temple dedication taking place the following year."

- c. 521? before comon era or after? what is "c."?

"Around 19 BCE, Herod the Great renovated the Temple, which became known as Herod's Temple.".

- So, 19 b.c.e., I take it we are talking about 521 b.c.e then (of course), but perhaps the article needs revising.


("c." is short for "circa", Latin for "around, about, approximately") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 13:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Second Temple was built largely under the direction of Ezra the Scribe, and in most sources he is given the most credit and his name is associated with the construction. Zerubabel, Nehemias, King Cyrus, these are all leading individuals involved with the construction of the Second Temple. Traditional sources say that the Second Temple was built in 350 BCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 14:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Herod renovated the Second Temple around 19 BCE, magnifying the previous structure significantly. Subsequently, it was referred to as "Herod's Temple", until its destruction, almost 70 years later. Drsruli (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially misleading

This article is about a religious belief, but it often reads as the description of historical facts. This could be misleading for many readers.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that the existence of Solomon's temple was a religious belief; it certainly seems to me that archaeological evidence suggests it is historical fact. 216.37.198.7 (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the second temple, Solomons is the first one. And there is no archaelogicale evidence for even their existence, not just for the intricate details described in the article. If you disagree, add some reliable sources.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some would argue about Solomon's temple, but the second temple is simply described in so many diverse historical sources that denying its existence would be absurd. Even if one does not consider the different books of the Tanakh that mention it, (all of them written by Jews, who had to be eyewitnesses of this temple), note that the historians Josephus and Philo both visited the temple in Jerusalem. Josephus described it in detail. Tacitus, a Roman historian, recounts the destruction of this temple, and he was alive during these events. Certainly there are other sources, but these will suffice. I'm sorry but only hyper-skeptics would doubt the existence of the second temple. And by the way, why would anyone invent a Jewish temple? Lindert (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address your last question first to help explain why the two sources you've cited are unreliable. The importance of the Temple is obvious to anyone that understands the current ongoing tension in Israel/Palestine. The Zionist's claims to Israel are entirely based on Biblical scripture. Without it they have no claim. The importance of the Temple Mount is also obvious. Now to address your sources. Both Josephus and Philo were Jewish, ergo extremely biased. Josephus' work has been considered dubious by many. I'm not familiar with Philo. We do know that Josephus' work has been tampered with for religious purposes, i.e.: an attempt to prove the existence of Jesus has been noticed. The existence of the first Temple has been suspect for quite sometime also. In fact the antiquity of the Jews has been in question for quite some time. Ergo no antiquity- no Temple. Manson 05:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The question is not why anyone would invent a Jewish temple right now, but why in antiquity? Could Josephus foresee the 'current ongoing tension in Israel/Palestine'? Also bear in mind that all peoples and nations in the regions had their own temples. If there was no temple in Jerusalem, this would be a unique situation in the Middle East. And you have not addressed Tacitus, who is seen by many as the greatest historian of the Roman empire. He was in no way sympathetic with the Jewish people. See [2] for his account of the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE. If you read it, you will find much hostility to the Jews. Yet he clearly describes the temple in Jerusalem. And no, the antiquity of the Jews is not and has never been in question. Find me a single historian who denies that the Jewish people lived in Israel centuries prior to the Common Era. There isn't one. -- Lindert (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Temple inscription in greek.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Temple inscription in greek.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A simple suggestion

Instead of contextualizing paragraph two by books of "The Bible," which implies a later, Christian source, the more relevant words "Hebrew Bible" or "Tanakh" (or both) ought to be the terms of definition. Otherwise, one might start to think that "Old Testament" translations, based upon the Greek Septaguint, are the authorities when in fact the Masoretic text of the Tanakh is considered by Jews the obvious standard.Rtelkin (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'Bible' does not at all imply a later Christian source. It is a widely used term for the books considered canonical by Christians, that is not to say that they have a Christian origin. It is also a misunderstanding that translations based on the Septuagint are authoritative for Christians. Nearly all English Bible translations are in fact based on the Masoretic text. Only in Eastern Orthodox streams of Christianity is the Septuagint the standard Bible. In any case, apart from a few fringe groups, Christians realize that the authority of any translation ultimately goes back to the original Hebrew (i.e. for the books of the Bible originally written in Hebrew of course). -- Lindert (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to contextualize

The "Construction" section's 7th paragraph begins "In 1967 Israel captured Old Jerusalem (and the Temple Mount) from Jordan." No other information is given about this; the impression is that Israel invaded Jordan without provocation, when in fact Israel's actions in the 1967 war were in response to a mass attack upon her by Arab countries, including Jordan, after Egypt's General Nasser and the other Arab States allied with Egypt had engaged in an act of war by closing down Israel's ability to ship through the Straits of Tiran with the express and stated purpose of annihilating Israel. This false impression must be corrected if it is to avoid being unintentionally anti-Semitic. Rtelkin (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having a bias against Israel is not the same as being anti-Semitic. Also, I think the current statement is simply concise, not going deep into the political situation because this is not the topic of the article. However, if you feel contextualizing is necessary, just go ahead. Remember Wikipedia's policy to be bold. -- Lindert (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "Rtelkin", Israel was not attacked by any Arab nation in 1967 like you claim. That is not even what the official pro-Zionist propaganda claims. They and Israel claim they were engaging in a "preemptive war" because the Arabs (particularly Nasser and Egypt) were allegedly about to "attack". However even the words and later statements of Israeli leaders contradict this Zionist hasbara (propaganda). For example Yitzhak Rabin is recorded in the French paper Le Monde on February 28, 1968 as saying "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." and also Menachem Begin admitted in the New York Times on August 21, 1982 "In June l967, we had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

And then as for your claim about the Strait of Tiran the wikipedia article there notes; "according to Major General Indar Jit Rikhye, military adviser to the United Nations Secretary General, the accusation of a blockade was 'questionable,' pointing out that an Israeli-flagged ship had not passed through the straits in two years, and that 'The U.A.R. [Egyptian] navy had searched a couple of ships after the establishment of the blockade and thereafter relaxed its implementation.'"

So with the above quotes in mind and many more including ones expressing open greed for land (to make settlements on) the claims about the very, very infrequently used Eilat port that the Strait of Tiran (which was not shown to be "blockaded" to start with via Rikhye's words) would service doesn't excuse Israel's attack.

Completely off-topic and WP:SOAP. -HammerFilmFan

Calendar Date of Destruction

The statement in the section Destruction of the Temple that says the 9th of Av (date of destruction) was July 29 or 30, 70CE is incorrect regardless of the date being Julian or Gregorian. This can be determined using Fourmilab Calendar Converter which is an external link from Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars . According to the moon phase section of the NASA Eclipse web site NASA Moon Phases , for the year 70CE, the new moon conjunction occurred at 0110 UT on July 26 (about 0310 Israel time). According to the link at the top of that same page which leads to NASA Calendar Dates , this July 26 is Julian which the fourmilab calculator confirms. The calculator says the Gregorian date, which obviously was not in effect at that time would have been July 24. The first day of the Hebrew month would most likely have occurred at sundown on Julian July 26 or 27. At sundown the 26th, the moon would have been around 15-17 hours old which is pretty early for seeing, albeit possible. That makes the ninth of AV on August 3 or 4 in 70 CE. In the case that calculations were used because of bad seeing conditions, the August dates are still more accurate than what is contained in the article. I believe the statement regarding the July dates should be removed.--68.209.233.220 (talk) 10:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Babylonian Talmud Tractate Taanit 29a, Tisha B'Av was on Sunday - August 5. In addition, according to the Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin 12a, that year was not a leap and therefore Tisha B'Av was preceded to 8 July.--yoisef yitzchok-talk, 27 Iyar 5779. 10:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External Link : 3D virtual tour of the Second Temple

Hello, I would like to suggest external link of 3d virtual learning tour of the second temple: http://jerusalem.com/tour/jewish_temple_3D

i've added it before, but someone delete it! please add that link Segevsh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strange reference for Yoma 22b re: Presence in the Holy of Holies

In the section "Rebuilding the Temple" it states "According to the Babylonian Talmud (Yoma 22b),[2] however, the Temple lacked the Shekinah, ". I went and look at the reference and the page is from the Jewish Encyclopedia making the claim. I went and looked directly at Yoma 22b and it is a comparison of King Saul and King David. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Presence, the Holy of Holies or the Second Temple. See http://www.on1foot.org/text/babyloniantalmud-yoma-22b or http://juchre.org/talmud/yoma/yoma1.htm#22b 76.126.137.85 (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the Jewish Encyclopedia is wrong on the reference; it should be Yoma 21b, not 22b. Secondly, I've found different translations, one may support the claim, the other does not:
http://juchre.org/talmud/yoma/yoma1.htm#21b (this says the Shekina was present):

But was the fire present at the second Temple?-Surely R. Samuel b. Inia said: What is the meaning of the scriptural verse: And I will take pleasure in it [we-ikabed] and I will be glorified? The traditional reading is we-ikabedah, then why is the [letter] he omitted [in the text]? To indicate that in five things the first Sanctuary differed from the second: in the ark, the ark-cover, the Cherubim, the fire, the Shechinah, the Holy Spirit [of Prophecy], and the Urim-we-Thummim [the Oracle Plate]? I will tell you, They were present, but they were not as helpful [as before].

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/yoma1.html (this could imply the Shekina was not present):

But in the second Temple there was no heavenly fire at all, as R. Samuel b. Inia said: It is written [Haggai i. 8]: "That I may take pleasure in it, and be glorified"; it is written "Veikabed," and it is read "Veikabdah." Why is the "h" missing? This is to hint that five (the numeral value of "h") things were missing in the second Temple. What are they? The ark, the mercy-seat, the cherubim, the heavenly fire, the Shekhina, the Holy Spirit, and the Urim and Tumim. So we see there was no heavenly fire in the second Temple at all? We may say, it was there, only it did not assist in consuming.

Seeing that the reference is both problematic and confusing, I think we should just remove the portion you cited from the article, unless a better source can be found. - Lindert (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Herod's Temple was the 'Third Temple'

I added the following... Note: some scholars refer to Herod's Temple as the "Third Temple"<ref]citation needed</ref]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.11.183 (talk) 11:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

And who might those scholars be? "Second Temple" is, by far, the consensus in both academic, religious and common discourse. Besides, there's an inherent tension in grouping "some scholars" and "citation needed" in the same edit. An actual reference is in order. Poliocretes (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The renovations of the temple began by Herod are date to this statement in the New Testament Joh 2:20 ESV “The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" . This is accepted as the standard reference to establish the start of the temple renovations being 19-20CE. [1] The completion of the renovations is date to 62-63CE.[2]--Ve7wln (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Ve7wln Jan28 2014[reply]

Josephus may indicate that Herod completely removed the older structure all the way to it's foundations and reconstructed his own temple in it's place. [3]Yekcidmij (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jewish Enc.http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14304-temple-of-herod
  2. ^ Josephus Antiquites XX.9,7 (219)
  3. ^ Antiquities 15.11.3

I'm a Bible scholar and Herod's Temple/3rd Temple was destroyed because GOD considered the evil non-Hebrew Herod I to be unworthy of building his temple. 73.85.205.33 (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NOTFORUM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Sages of the Talmud, some of whom lived through the destruction, listed several reasons for Divine Wrath enabled the Destruction of the Temple. However, Herod is not listed as a direct factor. (Also, he is nowhere given credit for building the Temple; he is given credit, and the Sages praised him for this, for renovating and enhancing the Temple.) Drsruli (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How was it destroyed ?

"Titus burnt the place to the ground". You can't burn a stone building down, just the flammable components. Demolition would have been a massive operation if it was built anything like reconstructions show. My guess is that demolition would only have proceded in the context of erecting replacement structures. Rcbutcher (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True. It wasn't. There were stones left.
The "Holy of Holies" which no longer contained the ark (after the Babylonia Destruction), did not exist as before. It was a "veiled area." NT refers to this. The veil was rent and destroyed. The division between the sacred "Holy of Holies", where God was presumed to reside, and the rest of the world was destroyed, horrifying the Jews. Probably lots of secular material that refers to this including Josephus.
Stone can be "threatened" and even chemically altered and destroyed with nearby fire. See (for example) http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/08/are_ancient_ruins_flammable.html.
Perhaps "Titus destroyed the temple" would be more accurate. Student7 (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realised very hot fire could degrade stone. But I agree that in the absence of historical or archaeological info on exactly what happened over time, "destroyed the temple" is a more appropriate conservative statement. The destruction is not disputed. I'll modify the text accordingly. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the chemical make-up of the stone - but the main issue is that wood structures supported much of the stonework - when THAT burns, rocks come crumbling down. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strange dimension text for platform

"It was Herod's plan that the entire mountain be turned into a giant square platform. The Temple Mount was originally intended to be 1600 feet wide by 900 feet broad". Huh ? 1600 x 900 is not square; "wide" means the same as "broad" : should this read 1600 feet long by 900 feet wide ? Are these numbers based on what was actually constructed ? The wording implies there is a difference between the original intention and the actuality. But if we don't know exactly what a cubit was, how can we state what the actual planned measurements were ? Rcbutcher (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing model photograph

"Model of Herod's Temple at the Israel Museum" File:Jerus-n4i.jpg shows multi-level extensions above the North wall of the Temple Mount. The text positions this built-up structure on the South Wall, as do other models. Other models show the North wall as just a simple wall with no upper structures, and article text do not mention any North wall adornments. ?? Rcbutcher (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the photograph until it can be explained. It claims to be from 1998, but other 1990s photos from when it was at Holyland Hotel show the model with Royal Stoa correctly located above Southern wall and Antonia Fortress correctly located in NW corner. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mystery explained : the photograph as originally uploaded was horizontally flipped. I've corrected it. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Construction: Pickaxes

Currently it is common to use the misnomer pickaxe for any type of pick. Having grown up with some knowledge of hand tool nomenclature; I would ask did they use a hand tool with a pick on 1 side & an axe on the other, or did they us a pick, which would have a pick on both sides or only 1 pick point? Rod — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chugiak (talk • contribs) 15:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus in Second Temple (Cleansing of the Temple)

@Hertz1888: I think the account of Jesus going to the Second Temple and driving out the money changers and confirming his divinity should be added to the article under the "Herod's Temple" sub-section. Can it be added to the article? If not what are the problems? Why shouldn't it be added? KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What can be added depends on the usual rules governing verifiability (reliable sourcing) and neutrality or neutral voice. I cannot say with any certainty whether the context for the account is appropriate in this section or article; it's not clear to me where on the page it might belong. It may be best to wait for others to comment—or you could simply go ahead make the edit, subject to WP:BRD. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

inaccurate

"The events take place in the second half of the 5th century BCE." The dates given in the paragraph preceding this statement are in the 500s BCE. That's the 6th century BCE. The 5th century BCE has dates in the 400s. You have copied from two different sources, one of which gives the years in BCE and which is not cited, and the other of which gives them as Xth century (Albright), without fact-checking. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Second Temple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Second Temple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which text tells us that it was built on the site of the First Temple?

Per an ongoing discussion at Talk:Temple Mount, there do not appear to be any sources here which confirm the statement that the Second Temple was built on the same site as the First Temple. Can anyone point to any? Onceinawhile (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this Haaretz piece is interesting. As for sources - page 194, page 49, page 166. Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Factually wrong edits

@Tahc: hi. Please consider what I'm writing here and don't go into edit warring. Thank you.
The article is MAINLY about THE HERODIAN COMPLEX, including the esplanade, retaining walls (incl. Wailing/Western Wall), underground structures, and to a degree remains from the immediate proximity, now part of archaeological parks (S: Ophel, SW: Davidson Centre).

  • Built: "c. 537–516 BCE (first structure, according to biblical narrative);
    late 1st century BCE - mid-1st century CE (Herod's temple)", not "6th – late 1st century BCE (Zerubbabel's temple); late 1st century BCE - 70 CE (Herod's temple)".

The topic is: when BUILT, not how long it stood, so 70 CE doesn't belong here.
Only the Hebrew Bible gives us a narrative about when the temple was rebuilt after the 586 destruction. Wikipedia follows academic practice in quoting the biblical narrative separately from more reliable historical sources. Zerubbabel is not mentioned by any contemporary extra-biblical source. Once this is clearly stated, we may as well give the approximate years calculated based on the biblical text.
It makes sense to separate the first Second Temple from the second, Herodian one onto separate lines.
The Herodian temple was built between c. 20-40 CE (very approx., from memory), according to Josephus and the New Testament (latter re. end of construction work in the 40s or 50s and re-employment of workers for paving streets of Jerusalem).

  • "Ownership: Jerusalem Islamic Waqf". For the Mount (esplanade with above-ground and underground structures in Muslim use) that is the status quo explicitly accepted by Israel, Jordan, PA, is part of international treaties etc. The Wailing/Western Wall and the archaeological parks are indeed two different stories, but that can and must be elaborated in the article.
  • Condition: "Ruin, archaeological park", not "Destroyed. The temple platform is a ruin."

We can discuss that. The Herodian temple proper has never been identified on the ground, let alone excavated, and likely never will be. Te retaining walls, adjacent structures etc., yes. This is the infobox, so again, short info here, more in the article. However, "The temple platform is a ruin" is factually wrong. It's been a relatively well-kept (C19 weeds & cracked pavers aside) Muslim holy shrine for over 1300 years.
Cheers, Arminden (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is this article about?

If you want to make the article about the "about THE HERODIAN COMPLEX" then you can propose changing the article title to reflect that, but until then all editors should improve it as an article about the Second Temple, which was not built "c.537–516". Only the First temple can be said to have been built then.
Since the article is (or should be) mainly about the Second Temple (pending any) change in article name you cannot claim it still exists or is owned by an organization that was nonexistent at the time. Maybe a suitable compromise is to create a second information box about the current temple mount in which top list such facts.
In the middle ages, many Christians saw the Dome of the Rock and assumed it was the Jewish Temple. We don't need to mislead people in making similar mistakes today. tahc chat 19:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tahc: sorry, I'm not being smug, but you do need to read up. The 1st Temple is not well recorded historically, but the Bible has it standing during Solomon's reign, so in the 10th c. BCE. The 2nd Temple is actually - two temples, but they count as one because Herod didn't create a hiatus in the ritual activity while rebuilding the structures. So "Zerubbabel's" (the first "Second Temple") stands from c. 516-20 BCE, then Herod rebuilds the temple proper w/o stopping the priestly activities, therefore his is the "2nd Temple .2" if you want, but still the Second.
I stressed the fact that this article is MAINLY about THE HERODIAN COMPLEX, because that's the fact. We have almost nothing about Zeru & the Hasmoneans. Also, stressing out COMPLEX, i.e. including the stone "casing" built by Herod around the Mount, which is still standing today and includes the Wailing Wall, plus the Ophel etc., which is all what archaeologists were allowed to excavate: outside the Mount proper (the Waqf has its way of stopping research). Cheers, Arminden (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the three temples but I was misled the terminology used. I also failed read the dates very closely. tahc chat 02:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

early Second Temple

"First structure" seems to indicate the first temple--- "Zerubbabel's temple" is a common term for early Second Temple. If you are wish we can discuss an other term for the early second temple. tahc chat 02:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Religious views on successor buildings/concepts

@Duponiuex let's chat here to avoid an edit war. I outlined in my edit summary why I believe the sentences describing Jewish and Eastern Orthodox Christian beliefs about a future institution don't belong in the lead section. Can you please respond with your opposing view instead of just reverting my edit without comment?

Specifically:

a) Religious beliefs (1) about a successor building/concept (2) are twice-removed and not sufficiently relevant WP:REL.

b) The wording favors two religious perspectives over a dozen others and is therefore not neutral WP:NPOV.

c) The article body does not have content about the Third Temple so a summary should not be included in the lead section MOS:LS. Kcerb (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A DRN on this subject has been closed for insufficient discussion. However, Duponiuex if you object to a change- it is your responsibility to discuss it on the talk page. Please engage here to explain why Kcerb's changes are not an improvement, or (preferably) to find a compromise. You are both 1 edit away from an edit war- one user has asked to collaborate, one is not responding. While that does not make continued edits acceptable by either party- it would be better if you engaged here. I have advised them to ask for a WP:3o or conduct a WP:RFC and also advised they request assistance from one of the wiki projects listed at the top of this page. I hope you can find editors willing to work with you to find consensus. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:LEAD indeed dictates that the lead should not contain material not already on the body, bar a handful of exceptions, so, first things first, whoever thinks this material is due needs to first establish it as such by creating an appropriately sourced body of content or new section about it in the article itself. The next step would be ascertaining if this is due in the lead, which, again per MOS:LEAD, is as a default in proportion to the level of coverage in the article itself. This is a guideline not a rule, but as it stands, zero presence in the body does indeed translate to zero legitimacy in terms of due weight in the lead. The other points about NPOV are all a bit by-the-by until there is actually a body of content to discuss, but, as an immediate note on the initial statement: Chabad.org is unreliable. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the contested material, based on consensus here, but was again reverted by Duponiuex without discussion. I've left a warning on the user talkpage of Duponiuex and moved the contested material to the "Destruction" section of the article. Hopefully Duponieux will engage in discussion here before reverting further, or the next stop is WP:ANEW. Mojoworker (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is in parts more on the 2nd T at "Temple in Jerusalem" than here

See Brazen Laver, the Altar of Burnt Offerings, etc. Who has the patience to move over such elements? Arminden (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tombah is a great fan of the second temple period and a frenetic copier of material between pages - perhaps up for the task? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Second Temple lacked the following holy articles...

If I had my way I would delete this and the list of five items after it. The authority for the list is an encyclopedia by Easton from 1897. But Easton is not a primary source and he just cites Ezra 1:7-11, which is a list of items that were returned to the temple under the Persians. Since Exodus 30:23-25 provides the recipe for the holy oil, I don't see how Easton can conclude from Ezra's list that holy oil was not used in the 2nd Temple.

The Talmud (Yoma 21b) further down is a better source on 2nd Temple practice (though admittedly, still not contemporaneous) and it does not mention the holy oil as one of the item the 2nd Temple no longer had. Grubbiv (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

70 AD as the final date?

I came across this scholarly work that seems to question the finality of the destruction in 70 AD, particularly by noting that there was a further round of destruction 135 AD, which rather implies that the 70 AD event was not quite such a total destruction event as sometimes assumed. This would in fact align more obviously with the historical factoid that no Roman temple was set up until after 135 AD with the rededication of Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina - if the temple had been destroyed entirely in 70 AD, why would the Romans wait 65 years to establish their own temple? Such are the questions this raises. This source states that it was destroyed by fires in 70 AD, but only 'obliterated' entirely by Hadrian. At the very least, the article should probably note the ambiguities surrounding this and the 65-year interim. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Destroyed" means damaged to the point of desolation, not that the Romans took a jackhammer to it (as it were.) The whole area was extremely depressed and Jewish livelihoods utterly demolished for the most part. This of course had the effect of seething resentment, and when Hadrian - who was usually an able administrator - foolishly thought he could ignore those feelings and build a new pagan temple w/o issue - after previous governors let the situation alone - resulted in most probably 70% losses of three Roman legions to quiet the Bar Kochba revolt. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No domes

A historian, writing on the subject of The Poem of the Man-God, has stated the following:[1]

les fouilles menées par les équipes des archéologues Nahman Avigad en 1969-1980 dans la cité hérodienne de Jérusalem, et Yigael Shiloh en 1978-1982, dans la cité de David, mettent à mal l’historicité de certaines visions de Maria Valtorta, ainsi par exemple cette description du Temple de Jérusalem
[...]
Il n’y a jamais eu de coupole sur les bâtiments du Temple, comme le révèlent les fouilles des archéologues, confirmant les descriptions de l’historiographe juif Flavius Josèphe (37/38-100) presque contemporain de Jésus, qui a connu le Temple

The source is not centered on the topic. Still, do you believe this information (that the Second Temple never had dome), with this source, can be added to the article (to the 'Second Temple' article)? Veverve (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Bouflet, Joachim (2023). "FRAUDES MYSTIQUES RÉCENTES – Maria Valtorta (1897-1961) – Anachronismes et incongruités". Impostures mystiques [Mystical Frauds] (in French). Éditions du Cerf.

Not factual. "The Temple Mount, where both Solomon's Temple and the Second Temple stood"

There's 0 archaeological or non-Biblical evidence that Solomon's Temple existed much less that it stood at the temple mount. Yet this article is passing this off casually as factual information. Unfortunately, this article feels like this was written to cater to religious sentiments and not to provide factual information.

I suggest more a more clear outlining of what is actually factual and what is part of Jewish religious belief. Omar Jabarin (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per a previous discussion:
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/were-there-jewish-temples-on-temple-mount-yes-1.5411705 As for sources - page 194, page 49, page 166.
Please try and remain neutral in your edits Equine-man (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't provide any non-biblical evidence. An article from Haaretz quoting someone saying it existed at the Temple Mount is not evidence and a person quoting Ezekiel is also not evidence.
Unless you can reference me to something which doesn't rely on the Bible as first reference then that statement is not based on evidence. The second Temple has a variety of historians from Roman time referencing it and archaeological evidence contrary to Solomon's(which we also is a Biblical figure) Temple. This article is also not about the First Temple, and that statement seems redundant. Just clarify that according to Jewish belief Solomon's Temple existed before at the site. That would be more clear and objective. Omar Jabarin (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarly consensus on the First Temple's historicity is noted on the page for the First Temple. Sinclairian (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From that article:
"Previously, many scholars accepted the biblical narrative of the First Temple's construction by Solomon as authentic; however, during the 1980s, skeptical approaches to the biblical text as well as the archaeological record led some scholars to doubt whether there was any Temple in Jerusalem constructed as early as the 10th century BCE.[4] Some scholars have suggested that the original structure built by Solomon was relatively modest, and was later rebuilt on a larger scale.[5] No direct evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple has been found." Omar Jabarin (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very conveniently missing the "Although no remains of the temple have ever been found, most modern scholars agree that the First Temple existed on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem by the time of the Babylonian siege." in the very first paragraph, as well as the rest of the article, including the actual section directly concerning historicity. Sinclairian (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That same article starts with "the First Temple, was a biblical Temple in Jerusalem believed to have existed between the 10th and 6th centuries BCE." which is the exact phrasing I'm aiming for. Casually mentioning that the First Temple stood at the Temple Mount like it's a clear indisputable fact is misleading. Omar Jabarin (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misapplying what the "believed" refers to. Academia agrees that there was a First Temple, and it was located on the Temple Mount and destroyed in the 6th century BC. What the "believed" refers to is not the actual complex's existence, but the timeframe of its construction. It's believed to have been built in the 10th century BC, because this notion is only supported by the biblical text. This is why the lede paragraph ends with, "there is significant debate over the date of its construction and the identity of its builder."
This fact is made clearer by the historicity section of the article (§ Archaeological dating) which begins as follows: "Most scholars today agree that a temple had existed on the Temple Mount by the time of the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem (587 BCE), but the identity of its builder and its construction date are strongly debated." Sinclairian (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, it's worth noting this is the page on the Second Temple, not the First, to which there is huge evidence of its existence on the Temple Mount. I recommend starting with the article Archaeological remnants of the Jerusalem Temple for further information, and then maybe Temple denial. HaOfa (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I suggested breaking down the statement into 2 parts. Because the evidence for the Second Temple is much stronger than the First Temple. Omar Jabarin (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, academia is varied on this. Minimalist Bible scholars generally subscribe to the opinion that we simply don't know for sure because there's simply no evidence of the Temple's existence outside of the Bible which has been proven to very unreliable when it comes to historical facts. They generally say that it's "likely" or "plausible" that the Temple existed because there's evidence of a Jewish Kingdom which they believe had the technological ability to build a Temple but that's basically as far as it goes. Likely or plausible to exist is a different concept than "definitely exists" which is how this article presents Solomon's Temple. Though, considering all the outrage and all the "vandalism" accusations directed at me for simply asking for a better reference than the Bible or a more accurate presentation of the facts. I think I'll just give up; And you may keep presenting uncertain information as certain which is at the end of the day simply misinformation. Omar Jabarin (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing worth noting is that at Temple Mount article Solomon's Temple is addressed in the following way "The Temple Mount is the place where past Jewish temples are commonly believed to have stood" and the word believed is used also in Solomon's Temple article. And according to the article Archaeological remnants of the Jerusalem Temple which is specifically discussing Solomon's Temple it is said that archaeologists are divided over the existence of the temple, so there's not a wide overwhelming scholarly consensus over the certainty of the Solomon's Temple like the previous editor was claiming:
"Because of the religious and political sensitivities involved, no archaeological excavations and only limited surface surveys of the Temple Mount have been conducted since Charles Warren's expedition of 1867–70. As such, archaeologists continue to remain divided over the existence of the Temple. Kathleen Kenyon claimed that there was no archaeological evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple, but this view is disputed by Ernest-Marie Laperrousaz. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman argue that the first Jewish temple in Jerusalem was not built until the end of the 7th century BCE, around three hundred years after Solomon. They believe the temple should not really be assigned to Solomon, who they see as little more than a small-time hill country chieftain, and argue that it was most likely built by Josiah, who governed Judah from 639 to 609 BCE. However, Alan R. Millard argues that this minimalist view is essentially a subjective judgement. Philip Alexander argues against the minimalist view based on the detail presented in the written record."
So, currently the way this article is addressing Solomon's Temple existence at the Temple Mount like a clear indisputable fact is inconsistent with other articles, empirical evidence and even scholarly consensus to some degree.
If despite all this, there's still objection to changing the current wording in the article or simply adding a disputed tag then I'll unfortunately have to conclude that the editors might have some religious bias affecting their decision. Omar Jabarin (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Temple&oldid=1219774599"