Talk:Solomon's Temple/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Merge

Seems like this article and Temple in Jerusalem should be merged. Jdavidb 17:03, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• No, it should not be merged as the article on the Temple in Jerusalem is a kind of disambiguation page that links to other articles on the First Temple which was Solomon's Temple, the Second Temple that was built 70 years after the first one was destroyed, and the improved Herod's Temple, (and finally the brief discussion about the Third Temple (no article on this, yet).) IZAK 08:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The {} sign/s

One or more of the sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning have been removed pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 08:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is this so?

I read the following in the article on 10th of July 09: "Muslim authorities, who control the Temple Mount, prohibit Jewish visitors from praying or bringing ritual objects there." I believe it is of importance to substantiate such information with sources. I don't know if it is true or not, that is not the question, but what is of great concern is that the information signifies a biased position, which make me skeptical of the credibility of the given information. That, in it self, reduces the quality of the article. It is not so that the information should not stay, given that it is right, but with respect to the delicate political and religious situation, it would be largely beneficial if such information was given with precision, for instant regarding what the prohibition for Jewish visitors really are. I think it is a qualified guess that we are here talking of a jurisdiction that is a matter of some treaty. This should be referred. To say that muslim authorities are in control of the Temple Mount need a more detailed explanation in order to not break with the neutrality standards of Wikipedia. --Xact (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Legendary material recently inserted

An anonymous editor recently inserted the following material:

Tradition holds that giant hairy demons helped to build the Great Temple of Solomon. Their great strength was useful in the carrying of the heavy stone blocks. God gave Solomon a holy ring to control the demons with. The symbol on the ring was the Star of David, a holy seal.

The guards of the Great Temple later became the Knights Templar, a group closely associated with the Freemasons. In 1307 A.D., Philip IV of France suppresses Knights Templar for witchcraft and heresies, citing their pentagram symbol (actually the Star of David) as one of the 'proofs' of ties to demons. The Freemasons and Knights Templar went on to build thousands of churches and hid holy artifacts in them, reputedly the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy Grail, and others.

Later, the similar pentagram symbol was used by Satanic cults in attempts to summon demons.

I've removed it for now, pending some more information about it. What are the sources for it? Jayjg 15:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It would be interesting to have a section on fables regarding the building of the temple by demons. These can be found for example in Myth and Legends: Ancient Israel by Angelo S. Rappoport (a difficult read) and I'm sure also in Legends of the Jews by Louis Ginzberg. Basically culled from various Midrashic works. There are also Islamic sources with related or variant fables about Solomon and the demons. Kuratowski's Ghost 01:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To my knowledge the Star of David is not a pentagram. --Xact (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Please remove the material on templar and the Beis HaMikdash. They were never helpful. They came and murdered the JEws praying in JErusalem, an have persecuted us continually. It is nutty and revolting to have them in as though they are helpful. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.126.88 (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Star of David and Pentagram have nothing in common. Please do not attribute to Jewish sites and view the use of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.126.88 (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Legendary material recently inserted, pt. 2

Bismillahir Rahman ir Rahim

I recommend considering removal of the section entitled "Solomon's Reign" on the same basis. A group of "master-builders" were employed to erect "masonry" so that the foundation would be level??? Puleeez... Follow the link about Hiram I also. I'm not removing it because I don't feel like I have a neutral POV myself, but something to consider...

Actually in the 1 Kings in the King James bible there is no mention of "master-builders" but rather thousands of labourers and stonesquarers. In fact the stonesquarers in the King James version are refered to as Gebalites, or the inhabitants of Gebal,in the hebrew text. They worked with Solomon's men and Hiram's men to make the stones. If there are citations for the legend above mentioned I too would like to see them. Even if it can be refered to as a belief by an obscure group, I could accept that but not as long as it is stated with no proof or citation. Heck I'd even accept a citation like "from my uncle who told my sister's friends roommates aunt who told me." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.160.231 (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Star of David has six points, pentagram has five points within a circle, a pentacle is a five pointed star. None of which relate to the symbol of Solomon. I came here because I tried to read the article on Solomon's Temple, but it was impossible to read (mainly due to writing style). But this 'legendary' story of demons? Get real! There's a reason that there are many generations of stonemasons, they're the people who did the building. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.145.219 (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion requested

I have noticed that there has been a major move to unify a number of articles on matters relating to the history of the Hebrew peoples by automatically and without discussion or qualification or room for dissenting views to reclassify everything so that the word "Hebrew" is substituted for the word "Jew" or "Jewish". This revisionism is a form of nunc pro tunc, meaning in legal and Orwellian terminology "now for then" where the history of yesterday vanishes with the stroke of a pen or computer key. I personally believe that this is a dishonest approach to history by treating it as propaganda to advance a particular viewpoint which is not shared by all people and in this case not by all Jewish people or scholars who are Jews. I have stated similar views elsewhere on a more controversial topic, but I believe that it can be discussed here since the question of whether the Temple existed is not under debate at all, that is accepted as proven fact. Therefore I would like to read a discussion on this very narrow issue of whether everything can now be classified as "Jewish" when "Hebrew" is the accurate discription. I specifically draw attention to the very first opening line on the article page. Please, let us stick to the facts and not allow allow passions to enter this discussion. Thank you. MPLX/MH 15:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Solomon was from the tribe of Judah, his Temple was in the territory of Judah. Citizens of Judah were Jews, by definition. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"... his Temple was in the territory of Judah. Citizens of Judah were Jews, by definition." How is that possible when the Kingdom of Judah had yet to be created? MPLX/MH 18:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Even in the united Kingdom of Israel the tribe of Judah had a specific territory, and the Temple was located exclusively in the Kingdom of Judah for 400 years or so. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I hope you see where this is going ... "Even in the united Kingdom of Israel the tribe of Judah had a specific territory, and the Temple was located exclusively in the Kingdom of Judah for 400 years or so." So it was the JEWISH Temple according to your interpretation because "... the tribe of Judah had a specific territory, and the Temple was located exclusively in the Kingdom of Judah for 400 years or so. So how about EVERYONE ELSE? Didn't they count? They were collectively HEBREWS who had been called Israelites by nationality. Anyway you slice it this current rebranding is a latter day nunc pro tunc. MPLX/MH 23:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jew originally meant "citizen of Judah". That's where the Temple was built, and who mostly used it for its entire existence. Jayjg | (Talk) 02:20, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I repeat the following line from the article itself: "In the beginning of his reign, King Solomon of the united Kingdom of Israel ..." I believe that addresses the very point that I am trying to make and I also believe that it makes it plain that all of the statements about Judah are therefore besides the point. MPLX/MH 07:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not getting your point. It was briefly the Temple of all Israelites, and then for hundreds of years the Temple of the Jews. Where do Hebrews come into it? Jayjg | (Talk) 21:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You know, I think this is a moot point. Hebrews are, by common useage, Jews. Is any distinction made between descendents of the tribe of Judah and descendents of the tribe of Benjamen? Of course not. They are all Jews. It stinks of anti-semitism to say that Israelite tribes of the old testement are somehow completely different than those Jews who live now. Revisionists have also said that Jesus was not a Jew, but he was.--Quodfui 20:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know any common usage which establishes Hebrews, Hebrew or Jews before they exist. The origin of jews as jews is tied to the establishment of the kingdom of judah after the building of the temple. It isn't tied to the tribe of Judah, or for that matter to the sons of Israel but to the secession of Judah from the kingdom of Solomon after his death. Israel can't be tied to the Merenptah stele either as the relevant passage refers to the people of Syria. The closest descendents of the old testament jews are probably the modern palestinians. The Russian jews who first settled modern Israel after world war II are in many ways more Indo European than semitic.Rktect

Reporting actual dates about when temple construction and other events referred to in the article occurred would be very helpful.

Greetings. I see a couple of major points being missed here which is confusing the discussion. One, the Temple was NOT in the territory of the tribe of Judah as is being claimed. The whole point of Jerusalem being the seat of the government and the eternal Hebrew (or as we say today, Jewish) capital was to make sure it was in no one tribes' jurisdiction. In an innovation much like modern capitals such as Washingotn DC (District of Columbia meaning that it resides in no one state's territory but rather belongs to the union), Jerusalem was ruled by the Kingdom of Israel as a whole. The Bible relates this story specifically, and King David is addressing the problem of where to establish his capital (which first was Hebron, which actually is in the territory of Judah).

The Hebrew army together (with soldiers of all tribes) conquers the fortified city of Jerusalem from the Jebusites and David declares a national city for all tribes. To say it was under the jurisdiction of only Judah because it is surrounded by it, is the same as saying that it was under the jurisdiction of Judah when the Jebusites still ruled it (because Judah still surrounded it); or more to the point, as if to say Washington DC is part of Maryland.

Once the federation breaks up of course, and the Kingdom of Judah is established, then of course, Judah as a tribe and kingdom controls Jerusalem (and hence the Temple) independently of the Northern Tribes. But even then, Judah never claimed exclusivity on the Temple. On the contrary. It encouraged Jews from the Northern Tribes to make the pilgrimages and make the sacrifices to the Temple as their common religion required.

Secondly, about the argument here in the nomenclature of Hebrew vs Jew. Jew and Judaism today are used as Hebrew or Israelite should be. This is fine for day to day talk, but to be precise, it is a misnomer itself. A Jew in the bible is a member of the tribe of Judah. The other "Jews" who are members of other tribes are not Jews, but Simonites, Benjaminites, etc respectively. However, the religion they practice is identical and common to all... the Hebrew religion. The nation they are all members of is Israel. Judah is but one of the tribes. It does not have a separate religion. However, just like Americans may call themselves Texans, or Virginians, Jews were used to referring to themselves by their Tribe. When the other tribes subsequently virtually disappeared (Simon and Benjamin trough mixing into Judah, and the other tribes by the Assyrian subjugation, slaughter, and dispersion) is when the misnomer then comes to be.

All the Hebrews and Israelites left, and all those who practice the Hebrew religion, are members of the tribe of Judah. These are the Hebrews that are scattered over the world, and they call themselves Jews (since they are). When they were asked who they were, they answered "Jews". When every Hebrew left, and every practicer of the Hebrew religion alive is a Jew, then these terms become interchangeable. Europeans then knew a Jew is a Hebrew and a Hebrew a Jew. They never met a Reubenite. So then it follows that the religion that this Jew practices, must be Judaism. It is logical, but technically inaccurate. Especially since other Hebrews not from Judah did survive, including the Levites and Cohens (who are also Levites), Benjamnites and Simonites. These people were not Jews, as in members of the tribe, but definitely were "Jews" as we refer to the nation and religion today.

In conclusion, its a matter of intent. Today I recognize that the term Judaism refers to the religion, and Jew is a practicer of that religion (and member of that nation). By this modern usage, then I see no problem calling the Temple Jewish. That is fine as long as we know this is an anachronism (but so is speaking in English in relation to them). They would NOT have called the Temple Jewish. If someone more technically wants to claim that it is the temple of Judah and of Jews (as in members of that tribe alone), then he is mistaken. It was a Hebrew or Israelite Temple. In the Bible, Jacob, father of the 12 tribes, has his name changed to Israel. This is precisely why, all Hebrews, of any of the 12 tribes (or 13 depending on how you count) are Israelites. All sons of Israel. Erikdired 15:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Erik

I have read some of the discussion below. While it is nice to see folks trying to separate the truth from falsehood, you have missed the forest for the trees. It is not correct to use the term "Hebrews". To use that term is Christian naming of Jews. We never call our selves a Hebrew like that usage. So by using it you are in essence acting as a colonialist. Or worse. So please don't even consider use of the term. Thank you . Elisheva —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.126.88 (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The date of the temple's construction

is given as the fourth year of Solomons reign c 970-931 BC, Siamon c 975 - 935 BC

The start of the temple

6:1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of Jehovah.

completion of the temple

At length, in the Autumn of the eleventh year of his reign, seven and a half years after it had been begun, the temple was completed. For thirteen years there it stood, on the summit of Moriah, silent and unused. The reasons for this strange delay in its consecration are unknown. At the close of these thirteen years preparations for the dedication of the temple were made. The Temple remained empty for only eleven months, until the month of Tishri in the year following its completion. Thus the Temple was dedicated at the autumnal new-year festival.

Attempted rebuilding, fourth century

An anon has edited the article on Julian the Apostate to include reference to an attempt to rebuild the Temple:

In 363 Julian, on his way to engage Persia, stopped at the ruins of Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem. In keeping with his effort to foster religions other than Christianity, Julian ordered the Temple rebuilt. A personal friend of his, Ammianus Marcellinus, wrote this about the effort:

Julian thought to rebuild at an extravagant expense the proud Temple once at Jerusalem, and committed this task to Alypius of Antioch. Alypius set vigorously to work, and was seconded by the governor of the province; when fearful balls of fire, breaking out near the foundations, continued their attacks, till the workmen, after repeated scorchings, could, approach no more: and he gave up the attempt.

However, many scholars believe it was an earthquake, common in the region, that ended the attempt to rebuild the Temple.

The anon has provided no source for the quotation from Ammianus Marcellinus or for any of the other material. I mention it here in the hope that someone knowledgeable about Solomon's Temple can correct any errors or provide a reference. JamesMLane 17:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here are two interesting sources which give a somewhat different picture. [1] [2] Jayjg ^(talk) 18:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is Bible Study not History

A page referencing bible verses as references can only be bible study or literary criticism, NOT HISTORY.

This topic needs to be subtitled "Bible Study" or rewritten to say something on the order of "little is known about the actual history of Solomon's temple, although tradition, transmitted primarily though biblical references, asserts that ...

Again, there isn't anything wrong with an article that is a bible study or a religious article. But religious tradition masquerading as history is inappropriate.

True, reading the Biblical text alone will not produce a good article, but it has some value when used in conjunction with other methods of inquiry, especially archaeology and comparative religion. Together these can form a reasonable foundation for a set of educated guesses about the nature and appearance of the temple. I've tried to do this properly, attributing the purely Biblical stuff where appropriate and bringing in the other analyses where I can. —E. Underwood 23:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, the opinion that it's mostly or completely made up certainly exists. I should read Israel Finkelstein's books on the archaeology of ancient Israel and see what he has to say about the Temple. —E. Underwood 03:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Finkelstein is very clear on this: There is no archeological trace of monumental architecture in the period of Salomo. The alleged Salomonic stables in Megiddo are Omridic. Collegavanerik 07:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Given the extremely controversial nature of the claim that a 'first temple' existed why is this part of the discussion page so small? To claim a 'first temple' in this article must surely be non-npov.Rykalski 19:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The intro attributes the Biblical account to the Bible, but agree that in its present form much of the "History" section is essentially a repetition of the Biblical account. Since the Biblical account is definitely relevant and important material, suggest dividing the present "History" section into two components, a "Biblical Account" or similarly titled section recapitulating the Biblical narrative, and a "Contemporary historical perspectives" or a similarly titled section giving various theories about its historicity. --Shirahadasha 03:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: I do think it's worth pointing out that unlike many other encyclopedias, Wikipedia has purposefully adapted a neutral point of view policy which means that it doesn't attempt to judge between different perspectives on the subject as long as all are notable, reliably sourced, and attributed. The encyclopedia intentionally provides both religious and academic accounts and doesn't judge between them, although readers must be informed which is which (religious accounts can't be presented as scientific and vice versa). So the "Bible study" components are parfectly appropriate article content and shouldn't be deleted, although archeological and other perspectives are also most definitely welcome and should be added where missing or weak. Readers make up their own mind what methods they use to learn about the world and what they choose to believe. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The policy on reliable sources requires a 'reliable publication process'; something which the bible does not possess (given its vastly complex textual history). As such it should not be used for historical purposes other than for the history of the systems of belief it is a holy text for. History of ideas/beliefs is a crucial endeavour but this entry in wikipedia is not about the history of beliefs about the 'first temple'; far from it. The assumption of this article is that there was a temple of solomon and that the bible is a source of historical information about that holy building. If the introduction to this entry stressed that it was concerned with beliefs about a 'the temple' then the whole article would be using the bible in a reliable and authoritative way.Rykalski 13:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Who is this: period of Salomo. Salomo? It is King Solomon or Shlomo. And if you want to know what is real, Finkelstein is not a good source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.126.88 (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Salomo is the German, Dutch, and Catalan name of Jedidiah, biblical שלמה. The real problem of the article is that there is no trace of any such king to be found in the archeological and historical record of the respective period. King Solomon is a myth, just as King Arthur. There is also no trace of Yhvh worshiping in the respective period. The whole thing is Jewish beliefs projected into the past, the creation of an alternative history to give significance to an otherwise insignificant bunch of people in the buffer zone between the real ancient high cultures and superpowers of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia. Just as the King Arthur myth is an attempt to glorify an era that had no glory in reality. (if anyone disagrees: show me the hard evidence) Cush (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Date of destruction

No mention in this article; History of ancient Israel and Judah says 587 BC and is specific that it was the 9th of Av; I know the latter is tradition (Tisha B'Av); if the year is correct, that should be in this article, no? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:22, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Everyking's edit at my request

"Everyking (restore material cut anonymously without explanation. If you think this section is wrong, please take it to talk)". This edit by Everyking is at my request, and the comment is mine. My browser is having problems handling this page. Please, address me, not Everyking, on any issues about this edit.

Cut from article

I just wanted to point out that the following material was recently cut from the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:19, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

When the Temple was constructed it was, together with Solomon's palace, by far the most splendid pile of buildings that the Hebrews had ever seen. The influence of environment may be seen in the description of Solomon's Temple. With the lapse of time Israel's fortunes declined, and the age of Solomon seemed even more glorious in comparison with later obviously decadent periods; and this increased the tendency to exaggerate the splendor of the Temple. Moreover, religious reforms made some of the arrangements of the Temple seem unorthodox, and various scribes may have amplified its description; as they did not always have the same point of view, present accounts are confused to a degree. One of the exaggerations of later times probably produced all those statements which declare that the inner parts of the Temple and all its implements were overlaid with gold.

As a result of editorial reworking of the description, the narrative in Kings contains no account of the great brazen altar which stood before the Temple. Ex. 20:24 et seq. provided that an altar might be made of earth or unhewn stone; and as it offended a later age to think that Solomon made an altar of bronze, its description was removed from 1 Kings 6. Nevertheless it is recorded elsewhere (1 Kings 8:64; 2 Kings 16:14) that it was a part of the furniture of the original Temple. Later scribes, too, are responsible for those statements which represent David as desiring to build the Temple, and as making preparation for it. Had he desired to build it he certainly could have done so. But in his reign the nomadic idea still prevailed, and a tent was thought to be Yhwh's proper dwelling (comp. 2 Sam. 6:6). Later generations, to whom the Temple seemed a necessity, could not understand why so venerated a man as David did not build it; hence these statements.

This paragraph is largely an anti-Bible POV polemic making numerous unsubstantiated speculations and it also contradicts itself. For example it says that "the narrative in Kings contains no account of the great brazen altar" and then points out that it is in fact mentioned in Kings (1 Kings 8:64; 2 Kings 16:14). All this talking of exaggerated description and changed texts is not substantiated. We don't have enough archaeological evidence to say whether there are exaggerations. Claims of text changes are not supported by any known manuscripts. The paragraph clearly doesn't deserve to be in the article. I tried to rewrite it from a NPOV but once the wild speculation, unsubstantiated claims and contradictions are removed there is nothing left! Kuratowski's Ghost 01:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WEll, here is more. You had written:

"But in his reign the nomadic idea still prevailed, and a tent was thought to be Yhwh's proper dwelling "

That is so nutty. Who gave you that idea? There are reasons why it was not buildt by him, and not what you write. If you are not going to study you should not go writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.126.88 (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

When was it constructed?

Quick question, when was Solomon's Temple first constructed? Anyone have any dates? Great article by the way DVD+ R/W 06:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Biblical account, or Masonic?

"Amongst them was the master builder Hiram (the son of a Tyrian father and Israelite mother, not to be confused with the king)." This is inserted into what otherwise seems to be a Biblical account. Unless I am mistaken this has no scriptural basis, just the Freemasons' Hiram Abiff. Am I missing something here? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You're obviously missing 1 Kings 17:13-15

"king Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre. He was the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a worker in brass; and he was filled with wisdom and understanding and skill, to work all works in brass. And he came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work. Thus he fashioned the two pillars of brass ......"

Maybe the term master builder is presumptious, what's the best term for someone who works in brass? Kuratowski's Ghost 00:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Other than "a worker in brass"? Could be a "metalsmith", or even a "master metalsmith", but it is certainly not a "master builder", which is more or less a person who came up through the craft and engineering side and to the point of becoming more or less the equivalent of an architect. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The Master Builder or arch tectos in antiquity is a trained or educated scribe knowledgable in the sorts of things covered by Vitruvius in the Ten Books of Architecture, the fundamental principles, the departments, the site of a city, the city walls, the direction of the streets with respect to the winds, and the sites for public buildings, what we call master planning, building materials to include stone, timber and metals as well as plaster and paint; ceramic tiles, cements. caulking, glass; symetry and proportion, what we call the greek orders, types of buildings, the plumbing and construction of aqueducts wells, cisterns, water rams, the importence of various natural philosophies, and finally the precise workings of every type of machine.Rktect 16:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The working in brass is a subset of that knowledge. In particular given the detail of proportion mentioned in Kings 1: the sacred geometry of proportions that Vitruvius touches on in books three and four is demomstrated by the relation between the volume calculated in baths and the dimensions given in cubits. If the diameter is taken from brim to brim to the inside edge or ID of the bath while the diameter is measured encompasing it round about or to the OD, then the math problem is to determine its thickness or difference between ID and OD pased on the description of the brim.

7:22 And upon the top of the pillars was lily-work: so was the work of the pillars finished.

7:23 And he made the molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and the height thereof was five cubits; and a line of thirty cubits compassed it round about. 7:24 And under the brim of it round about there were knops which did compass it, for ten cubits, compassing the sea round about: the knops were in two rows, cast when it was cast.

WEll, if Hiram's mother was from Naphtali, that makes him a Jew. I don't remember seeing that elsewhere. Look here, this is an internet site which has accurate translations. What you are copying as Kings I 17:13-15 is not. Here it is:

Melachim I - Chapter 17

13. Elijah said to her, "Do not fear. Come and do as you said, but first make for me a small cake from there and bring it out to me, and for you and your son make last. 14. For thus has spoken the Lord, the God of Israel, 'The pitcher of flour shall not end nor will the flask of oil be diminished until the day the Lord gives rain upon the land.' " 15. She went and did as Elijah had said, and she and he and her household ate [many] days.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/15901/jewish/Chapter-17.htm In case you care, it is also not in II Kings, 17.

Hiram is discussed in I Kings 5: 15 - 26 - And it actually does give you the reason why Dovid HaMelech did not build it:

15. And Hiram king of Tyre sent his servants to Solomon, for he had heard that they had anointed him king in place of his father, for Hiram was ever a lover of David. 16. And Solomon sent to Hiram, saying. 17. You knew my father, David, that he could not build a house for the name of [G-d] of the wars which surrounded him, until the L--d put them under the soles of his feet. 18. And now the L-- d has given me rest on every side, (there is) neither adversary nor evil occurrence. 19. And, behold, I purpose to build a house for the name of the L--d .. as the L -- d spoke to David my father, saying, 'Your son whom I will set upon your throne in your place, he shall build a house for My name.' 20. And now, command that they hew me cedar trees out of Lebanon, and my servants shall be with your servants, and I will give you hire for your servants according to all that you shall say, for you know that (there is) not among us any who is skilled to hew timber like the Zidonians. 21. And it was, when Hiram heard the words of Solomon, that he rejoiced greatly, and said, "Blessed be the L-- d this day, who has given to David a wise son over this great people." 22. And Hiram sent to Solomon, saying, "I have heard that which you have sent me, I will do all your desires concerning cedar wood, and concerning cypress wood. 23. My servants shall bring (them) down from Lebanon to the sea, and I will make them into rafts (to go) by the sea to the place that you shall send me, and will separate them there, and you will transport (them), and you shall accomplish my desire, in giving food for my household. 24. And Hiram gave Solomon cedar wood and cypress wood (according to) all his desire. 25. And Solomon gave Hiram twenty thousand measures of wheat (for) food to his household, and twenty measures of beaten oil, thus gave Solomon to Hiram year by year. 26. And the Lord gave Solomon wisdom, as He had promised him, and there was peace between Hiram and Solomon, and they both made a league together.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/15889/jewish/Chapter-5.htm

Where did you get that quotation from??

By the way, if you want a date for starting to build it, here it is: Of course, you would have to know what the other dates were first... http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/15890/showrashi/true/jewish/Chapter-6.htm

Finally this phrase: master builder Hiram - I checked the rest of Kings I, and it is not there.

You folks do not know your stuff. The problem is what you are called a "bible" is not. It is a fiction. And deeply flawed. Elisheva —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.126.88 (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Help needed for Identification

I have an Arabic textbook that names a certain Israelite person by the name "Heiqoq" or حیقوق (English transliteration is mine, so it may be inaccurate).

It is said that he was a guardian to the temple of Solomon. He was captured by the babylonians and remained in their prison for some years. After beeing freed by Cyrus, he went to Ecbatana and remained there until he died, and was buried somewhere nearby.

Can anybody help me identify this person?--Zereshk 02:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I found the answer. It was Habakkuk.--Zereshk 01:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Where's the science, archeology & neutral evidence?

There's very little factual information in this article. I for one would be interested in how the construction and destruction is dated, not to mention the outlook and materials, and based on which sources. This looks more like biblical-article than encyclopedic article - This is the reason I NPOVed this. - G3, 13:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any?

(disclaimer: I don't know beans about ancient history)

I don't think labeling anything that happens to be so ancient as to have very limited corroboration as NPOV is reasonable, though I agree that it shouldn't be presented as indisputable fact; it's simply all we've got.

If we create articles with the contents of all the ancient cuneiform tablets of tax records, do we say that's NPOV? For all we know, the tax collectors lied and were skimming, or the peasants hid assets.

this stuff simply happened too long ago for us to know very much about it; the odds of multiple detailed descriptions of the history of one building surviving undistorted for three thousand years are minute at best; it's impressive enough that we have one description.

it might make sense to adopt a standard for articles based on or drawn from ancient texts to have a section on corroborating evidence, and some kind of label or tag indicating the limited nature of source material. I just don't think NPOV quite covers it, though; it's just single source data, or, if you like, Single POV.

Yes, and single POV can rarely be a neutral point of view. Although I also do see your point, and think that there should be a something like {{BIBLE}} to represent biblical content instead of factual verifiable information. In my opinion, as there apparently exists very little historical information about the temple, the article's content should represent the actual state of knowledge and most of the contents of this article should be moved to Solomon's Temple (Bible/mythology) (or somesuch) because of the lack of cautionary template indicating more or less unreliable source(s). - G3, 23:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No

. . .archaeological evidence, anyway. Not a trace. In fact, according to Finkelstein and Silberman, there's no evidence that there was anything more than a small village on the site during the time of David and Solomon—though there were larger settlements in the Bronze Age and the later Iron Age. --anon

So most of this article should be moved to Solomon's Temple (mythology) similarly as biblical (and other mythological source) deluge is under Deluge (mythology) as opposed to Deluge. - G3, 01:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Except evidence of the First Temple has been found in Wakf construction refuse. Its also pretty clear that you have no understanding of the difference between historical tradition and myth and that what you desire is not neutrality but anti-Bible POV. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Are you claiming that bible is unbiased historical evidence? It's not anti-Bible POV but anti-Bible as NPOV POV - Relying blindly on one unverifiable book is inherently biased viewpoint. - G3, 16:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

How are archaeological remains found in construction refuse reliance on one book? And if artifacts keep being found that verify clains in that book (actually a collection of many books written by many people) in what sense is it unverifiable? Kuratowski's Ghost 20:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is archaeological evidence then it should be represented here. This is what I want: Multiple sources of evidence instead of a *single* unverifiable source - As this article stands now the existence of the temple is left to belief, belief in Bible, instead of any physical or multiple literary, historical, evidence. I for one would like to know did the temple exist, what evidence there is for the existence of the temple and what did the temple really look like. This encyclopedic article takes the biblical account as a fact without questioning it...at all: This is not neutral, nor does it give this article any credibility. - G3, 22:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

>> The first temple look like this: http://www.freewebs.com/nidud/temple.pdf

The Bible is not a single book but a collection of many books written by different people and the temple is mentioned in several books, so its not a single source. Apply the same extremist standards as you want to other areas of history and one is left with absolutely nothing. We can dismiss e.g. Columbus' journey to America as myth if you apply such standards. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Father Christmas appears in a lot of books and in other places; should claims of his non-existence be dismissed as anti-santa POV? You may have noticed that the conventional name of this collection of books you mention is The Bible and that this collection of works has been treated as a single text for sometime now (when its been edited, translated, etc,) Rykalski 11:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This is nutty. Of course there is current proof of the Temple's existence. WE find more every day. There is absolutely no doubt about the proofs of the essential facts, which do absolutely validate what the Torah has written. It appears that those of you arguing and writing need to go and learn a lot more prior to putting material on Wiki pedia as though you know what you are writing. There are experts and there are proofs, but you just don't know about it all. If any of you go to Israel, the Israelis can show you absolute proofs for it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.126.88 (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No it's not nutty. The problems with the 'evidence' presented is set out in several places on this talk page, and indeed elsewhere in wikipedia (e.g. The Copenhagen School (theology)) and needs to be fully discussed.Rykalski (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

speculation and misinterpretation

Saying Due to the extensive rebuilding of the Second Temple in later centuries, few remains. . . is speculation. There are other possible reasons that no remains were found: The destruction might have been thorough, the remnants might have been quarried (quod non fecerunt barbari, fecerunt Barberini, except the temple was already destroyed, wasn't it), they might have been destroyed sometime after the completion of the Second Temple, or they might not have been there in the first place. Speculation of this kind can be attributed to its source but should not presented as unquestioned fact.

This is a misrepresentation: (Only recently discovered remains in the refuse from an extensive construction project performed on the Temple Mount by the Islamic Wakf in November of 1999 are known. [3][4])

Careful examination of the sources (the first one is a polemic, the second has a decent survey of the artifacts) reveals that nowhere does anyone claim that actual parts of the First Temple have been found. Neither specifically names any part of the structure itself. Both speak of numerous remains from the First Temple period (i.e. the middle Iron Age), which may be the source of the misunderstanding, but these are mainly ceramics—no masonry or anything that can be definitively linked to the Temple itself.

67.68.248.177 05:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It is unclear that no remains were found. The fact that the Muslim authorities prevented legitimate archeological excavationa and inappropriately disposed of artifacts themselves is notable and sourced, although I agree that this is not itself evidence that remains were ever there and the inference is not a necessary one. I agree with the change in opening sentence, but would amend rather than delete the next sentence to:

The only remains from the relevant period known are recently discovered remains taken from refuse from an extensive construction project performed on the Temple Mount by the Islamic Wakf in November of 1999. It is not, however, clear whether these remains contain evidence of a Temple structure from this period.[5][6])

This language would satisfy both concerns. --Shirahadasha 13:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

External links

http://www.freewebs.com/nidud/temple.pdf, decribed as "Model of the first temple", seems to me to be nothing more than a PDF on a personal website with someone's anonymous efforts to illustrate 1 Kings 6. Is there any reason to keep this? - Jmabel | Talk 17:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Latter-day Saint Temples

Should there be some mention that three of the 100+ temples of LDS Church are patterned (loosely) on Solomon's temple. See Laie Hawaii Temple, Cardston Alberta Temple and Mesa Arizona Temple. Bytebear 07:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, assuming that is citable, it certainly belongs. - Jmabel | Talk 19:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Surreal

The reference to "surealist" (besides the misspelling) seems to come out of nowhere. What does any of this have to do with surrealism? Perhaps just "unrealistic" was meant? - Jmabel | Talk 20:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And I see that it is followed not long after by "irrealist". I am guessing that this is all simply someone's poor English. - Jmabel | Talk 20:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Similarly (I can only suspect), why is the underground hydraulic system "grandiose"? Who, precisely, is bieng accused of overreaching, and by whose standards was this in poor taste? - Jmabel | Talk 20:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And, again raising some of the same issues, what are "source living waters"? - Jmabel | Talk 20:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam and worse?

The repeated admonitions in the text to "see www.jerusalem-4thtemple.org" strike me as dubious. In fact, they make me wonder about whether this site (heavily used as a refrence in the article) should be trusted at all. I tried removing these once, putting them in ordinary footnotes; they were restored. I won't claim to be at all expert on the topic, but this "smells wrong" to me. - Jmabel | Talk 20:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The more I look at this article, the more I suspect that it is little more than a polemic for an idiosyncratic view: "the Temple could in no way have stood on the rock culminating the ancient Jewish citadel… For all the details, mathematical data and references, concerning this masterstroke-historical manipulation in Jerusalem (which, according to Natan, succeeded brilliantly until this day), and concerning (also according to Natan) the blind persistency of magisterial and complacent errors in history and archaeology, see the book online: The Temple of Solomon could not stand on its Water Tower at www.jerusalem-4thtemple.org." - Jmabel | Talk 20:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Went ahead and reverted back to my last (Dec 6.) revert. --Shirahadasha 21:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A user named User:Nnatan was here on December 6 with a similar set of edits. I reverted them several times and explained on his talk page why the source web site and self-published book don't meet the WP:RS criteria. Perhaps the two users are related. --

Shirahadasha 21:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This was, precisely, User:Nnatan making more or less the same edits again after you had reverted. - Jmabel | Talk 05:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Shirahadasha: you removed "according to the Bible" from the lead, restored massive arbitrary capitalization, removed Charles Warren's first name, removed normal English-language formatting of numbers, and did almost nothing to address my issue about www.jerusalem-4thtemple.org. That is to say, apart from removal of the dubious Natan material, your edit had a lot of liabilities. I'm not going to try to address the www.jerusalem-4thtemple.org thing, or the generally dubious content, but I am going to revert quite a bit of what you did, but this is still a mess. - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha! www.jerusalem-4thtemple.org, the site I was complaining about as a weak source, is written by ... N. Natan. So, Shirahadasha, when you removed that section (and reverted a lot of my cleanup) you left intact masses of material attributable to no one by N. Natan.

Unless some established editor gives me good reason to the contrary in the next couple of days, I will remove the massive material attributable only to this non-reliable source, and would welcome it if someone else does so sooner. - Jmabel | Talk 05:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Since no one else is addressing this, I will simply remove the dubious material. - Jmabel | Talk 05:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss with editors who refer to commonplaces and cliches of dictionaries or nomenklature encyclopedias. I have too much work to do. So either you do not erase my contributions (and correct only my english) or I erase your contributions until you block me. So you decide : either a creative encyclopedia or a robotintellectual encyclopedia. Natan 22 december 2006

You will be blocked after your first move in this direction. Please discuss your contributions in small pieces. Unfortunately we are not "creative encyclopedia" whatever you mean. It is not "robotintellectual" either. Wikipedia is a compilation of things already published in reputable sources. Please see our policies: "wikipedia:Verifiability", "No original research" and "reliable sources". If you have other sources corroborating your edits, other than your book, we can talk. I understand your book was big work, but was it discussed by other historians/experts? `'mikka 07:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Every fact Natan presents can be checked with precise REFERENCES, which is not the case of many of your wrong informations based on common places Dictionaries and Encyclopedias. Your only reaction is that of a censor of a totalitarian thought and ignorance. Natan 27 december 2006. If you use the content of my website (Temple Hydraulic System) which is MY EXCLUSIVE COPYRIGHT you MUST quote the precise reference : www.jerusalem-4thtemple.org, or delete the whole content. Some editors can decide to remain ignorant (jmabel, mikka, Shirahadasha|Shirahadasha) but not dishonest : I wont tolerate it and take wikipedia and its dishonest editors to Court.

Nnatan February 2007

Actually, as I've said above, your site does not meet our criteria for a reliable source, and should not be cited. But, actually, if someone wanted to quote it, you almost certainly have no way to prevent any paraphrase that would normally fall within fair use: ideas cannot be copyrighted. By the way, Wikipedia policy is quite clear that you cannot both threaten to sue us and simultaneously participate as an editor. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Since we've established that the Natan Foundation isn't a reliable source, moved this paragraph to Talk and added a {{Fact}} tag to previous paragraph (which appears to have the same source.) These underground cisterns of the ancient Jewish citadel provided, solely by gravity and through appropriate underground channels, the source waters needed in the sanctuary mikvahs and brazen laver, for all the exacting rites of purification prescribed by Jewish scripture. The sanctuary stood, therefore, downstream of these underground cisterns, on a platform which was later destroyed by Emperor Hadrian, after the crushing of the last revolt of the Jews, led by Bar Kochba and Rabbi Akiva (the main architect of the Mishnah) in their last attempt to rebuild the Temple in 135. The Temple had an underground Hydraulic System. <ref>[http://www.jerusalem-4thtemple.org www.jerusalem-4thtemple.org]</ref> Best, --Shirahadasha 15:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please - I did see the Natan site, and he has indeed done his homework as you have not. My intent is not to defend him, but you so obviously know so much less that you are in no position to remove his edits and corrections. I have read much on the topic, and he is an expert. I can't absolutely vouch for every word he writes, but it is very solid material. Go spend time and read his material. It will take time, but it is great. --- Next you critique that the word "bible" was removed: Bible" And well it should have been, as the non-Jewish translations over the centuries are no longer accurate. They are just not worth using, as they will just get you all mixed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.126.88 (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And here I see this comment you have made:

Since we've established that the Natan Foundation isn't a reliable source, ....

No you have not established anything of the sort. You have only established that you are not a scholar, and are not in a position to establish very much at all on this topic. If you care so much about it, please go and study - find a Chabad House with a rabbi who will teach you Torah through Noahide Laws. Elisheva —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.126.88 (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Outside view

As a totally stranger to the topic, please allow me to make a comment. The article misses the discussion of alternative hypothesis about the possible location of the temple. It seems that NNatan is not alone in assuming that the temple could have been somewhere else. How notable are these alternatives? Do they deserve coverage in the article? `'mikka 07:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If someone can bring forward sources on this that are of the sort usually acceptable to Wikipedia, I'm open to it being in the article. To the best of my knowledge, no one has done so. I've never seen anything non-crackpot on this, but that doesn't mean it isn't out there, this is not my specialty. - Jmabel | Talk 23:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are debating the location, you are missing the point again. The rock dome area is clearly one of idolatry and could not possibly be holy. Everyone knows this. NNatan seems to have done his research, at least much much better then Mabel here has. Elisheva —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.126.88 (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Description

Maybe this is insignificant, but what exactly is "a regular tower"? Tzittnan 22:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wall of the First Temple claimed found by Dr. Eilat Mazar!

Eilat Mazar, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center's "Institute for the Archeology of the Jewish People",claims she has found remains of a wall of the First Temple in her ongoing excavations at the City of David in Jerusalem. She says in the article that "it is the largest site from King David's time ever to have been discovered." Link: Jerusalem Post, March 29, 2007: First Temple wall found in City of David.

This is a further quote from the article: "A 20-meter-long section of the 7-meter-thick wall has now been uncovered. It indicates that the City of David once served as a major government center, Mazar said. Mazar estimates less than a quarter of the entire wall has been uncovered so far." However according to article there is a controversy among archaeologists as to whether Dr. Mazar has actually uncovered the palace built for King David in the 10th century BCE. Chrisbak 22:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Full citations requested

The article still contains sections that may have been copied without citations from a source like the 1897 Easton's Bible Dictionary or the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. These sources tend to be both opinionated and somewhat out of date. Citations also tend to have abbreviations and missing info that may be fine for an expert but won't enable a non-expert to verify content. Am asking editors to provide full citations in new content and to do what they can to provide citations for existing content where missing. Generally speaking, paragraphs should begin with "according to" or similar to indicate whose viewpoint is being given, as this topic involves numerous claims and points of view and we need to take care not to present a particular POV as fact. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the need for citations, but I don't think paragraphs need to begin with an "according to" unless scholarly/authoratative opinion is evenl;y divided, or at the least that there is a significant minority opinion: otherwise a simplt statement would be enough, plus ciatation. I really would like to see this article cleaned up.PiCo 08:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"Excoted"

This is an insulting and hostile statement - Fighting words one would say:

These vessels especially excited the admiration of the Jews.

"excited ... the Jews..."?? Give us a break. Who was there to see our reaction? "Excited the Jews." Ick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.126.88 (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Brazen Sea

The article describes the brazen sea thusly

The brazen Sea (Laver), 5 meters wide, 2.5 meters deep and with a circumference of 15 meters, rested on the backs of twelve oxen (1 Kings 7:23-26). The Book of Kings gives its capacity as "2,000 baths" (80,000 liters); the Chronicler inflates this to three thousand baths (120,000 liters) (2 Chr. 4:5-6) and states that its purpose was to afford opportunity for the purification by immersion of the body of the priests (in everflowing living source Waters). (According to Talmud tractate Mikwaoth, a "bath" of 40 seahs is the minimum permissible size for a Mikvah).

The lavers, each of which held "forty baths" (1 Kings 7:38), rested on portable holders made of bronze, provided with wheels, and ornamented with figures of lions, cherubim, and palm-trees. These vessels especially excited the admiration of the Jews. The author of the books of the Kings describes their minute details with great interest (1 Kings 7:27-37). Josephus reported that the vessels in the Temple were composed of Orichalcum in the Antiquities of the Jews. According to 1 Kings 7:48 there stood before the Holy of Holies a golden altar of incense and a table for showbread. This table was of gold, as were also the five candlesticks on each side of it. The implements for the care of the candles—tongs, basins, snuffers, and fire-pans—were of gold; and so were the hinges of the doors.

The biblical dimensions are given as ten cubits wide and 5 deep. and the volume is given in in 1 kings as 2000 baths and in chronicles as 3000 baths with a bath 12 US gallons. If 10 cubits are to be taken as 5 m. then a cubit would be 500 mm. The only cubit that size would be first a non biblical ordinary or median cubit rather than a sacred or long cubit, which seems odd for a temple, and secondly agree with neither computation for the number of baths.

Given the two different volumes and the wrong cubit either the whole passage should be taken as gloss, probably added well after the period referred to, or the author incorrect. Its also mentioned that the circumference is decorated with gourds or spheres in two rows and that the thickness of the brazen sea is a hand. Subtracting the gourds under the brim and the stated thickness from the dimension of 10 cubits diameter to the brim makes the diameter of the contained hemisphere 9 cubits one hand and at five hands to a cubit, its radius 23 hands and its capacity 2446 baths

If Wikipedia is intended to be useful it should be at least internally consistent.Rktect 12:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Boy you folks are really getting to be offensive. Who is this guy? This is no credential against a real archeologist.

Associate Professor of Religion (Hebrew Bible studies

How fluent is your Hebrew, current and ancient?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.126.88 (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Pi = 3

The following was removed by User:Zero0000 with "(remove inappropriate pseudoscience with unreliable source. this could be a subject for a separate article but better sources would be needed)" I copy it here in case someone wants to pursue it further.

These measures would imply that for a perfectly circular shape π should value 3. The interpretation of the biblical passage is still disputed and many have tried to conciliate the Biblical text and geometry.

--Error (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Shelomith/Temech Seal

I just edited the "Solomon's Temple" article to provide additional details and correct some small mistakes in the few sentences under "Archaeological Evidence" that introduced into the discussion the so-called "Temech" seal. You can follow those changes in the history, of course. A couple of the edits were just minor stylistic points, such as cleaning up the punctuation or clarifying that Mazar publicized the seal in January 2008; she had found it during excavations in the summer of 2007. I also added material relevant to the current scholarly debate over the seal, in which the majority opinion holds that Mazar read the seal backward, and that it really reads "Shelomith," not "Temech."

However, I really don't think the seal is relevant to the topic of Solomon's temple at all. I recommend that the entire discussion of that seal be deleted. Even if Mazar's reading is correct (which is quite improbable, as all leading epigraphers who have spoken on the matter think she's wrong), and even if the seal's "Temech" was the same "Temech" mentioned in the book of Nehemiah (which cannot be proven; if you found a nametag reading "Hi, I'm George," in an archaeological layer dated to 1950-2050 AD, how would you know to which "George" it belonged?), that still has no archaeological bearing on Solomon's temple. The iconography on the seal certainly doesn't suggest Solomon's temple, but Babylonian worship. So even though I edited the material instead of deleting it, I think deleting it is actually the best course.

- Christopher Heard, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Religion (Hebrew Bible studies), Pepperdine University

Drchrisheard (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information here and the clear discussion on your website. I'd say to remove the sentences about the seal from this article, at least until there's a peer-reviewed discussion of the find. EALacey (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Change the year designations from BCE to BC and CE to AD

When dealing with the matters and historical figures and places that deal with Christianity and Judaism it is proper to use BC and AD not BCE and CE. I feel that it would be more appropriate to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkybuddy82 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

At what point did the Solomon's Temple become a "matter" for Christianity?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

BC/AD may be appropriate for Christianity, but not for Judaism; BCE/CE can be appropriate for both. Per previous discussions, a great many editors & scholars prefer BCE/CE because of its faith-neutrality. In the case of this article in particular, what "substantive reason" (phrase from WP:SEASON) could there be for making a systematic change from the dating scheme previously established? Hertz1888 (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you making the rules on Wikipedia now, Funkybuddy? Please read WP:SEASON to find out what they actually are. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This excerpt, from WP:DATE, addresses the topic head-on: "In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Enough said. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

2nd that. Abe Froman (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"...Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor..." Since this is the rule, the the dating mechanism should be reverted to AD/BC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.39.96 (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would there be doubt, at this point, or a substantial reason to change styles? The system in use was established a long time ago, in practice & per discussion (as above), and has remained relatively stable. Respect for faith-neutral, scholarly language might be another strong reason for leaving things be. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. One of the major uses of the BCE/CE convention is to allow Biblical scholars - Jewish, Christian, and Muslim, to share a dating system not named after a particular religion. The article is stable in the BCE/CE style, and there are clearly good reasons to keep it that way and no good reason to change it. I might not say this if it was about, say, a Christian Saint, but in this case it is about something dear to the heart of a non-Christian religion. Doug Weller (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, since no part of this temple has been dug up and no extrabiblical confirmation of its actual existstence exists, assigning precise dates is in fact like assigning dates to Camelot castle. It really does not matter which style is used, and both styles are inherently Christian anyways. Cush (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

King Solomon's Temple and Freemasonry link

There is a link which is a speculative opinion from Freemasonry point of view which adds nothing to the information about the Temple from other sources. I see no reason to retain it as it deals more with Freemasonry then the Temple.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is blatantly NPOV. It assumes that the biblical story is literally true with no mention of any of the scholars who disagree. Doug Weller (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean POV. Bytebear (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I must not have been fully awake! Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Without wishing to offend, but what if the tag of this article was changed to "the fictional temple of Solomon. There is no archeological evidence AT ALL for the existence of this building, as I am sure the contributers are aware, yet this remains unmentioned throughout the article. Again, religious sensibilities maybe important but so is the truth. The7thdr (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Bablylonians recorded the defeat of the Kingdom of Judah and the physical destruction of the temple, as well as the loot they took from it, hence it was a building which was destroyed. See: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/04/Nebo-Sarsekim-Found-in-Babylonian-Tablet.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Hyams (talk • contribs) 14:21, 28 January 2010

That's a Creationist website hosting an article from a Creationist journal, so hardly a reliable source. And where does it say the Babylonians recorded the physical destruction of the temple? Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hardly a reliable source? So why is it being used numerous times on the Exodus Decoded article? John Hyams (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to change the page name as this article discuses what is known as the Temple of Solomon. Whether it is fictonal or not does not need to be implied by the title. Not every event or structure mentioned in the Bible, needs to have (mythology) in the title, e.g. Crossing the Red Sea. Wikipedia is not a factual encyclopedia. (Mythology) is usually used to disambiguate. It can be placed in Category:Abrahamic mythology if necessary. Chesdovi (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Defining topic clearly would resolve disputes

I notice that the David article starts out: "This article is about the biblical king."

I propose we follow this example by putting the statement: "This article is about the biblical:Solomon's Temple." at the top of the article. This would make it clear that is an article about a bible story, not actual events, so we can leave out all the "according to the bible" phrases.

However, this leaves no place for the "Archaeological evidence" and other non-biblical material. They could go into a separate article, but might that violate the [[7]] "editing guideline" which is mind-boggling to me.

But anyway, I will add the "This article is about the biblical:Solomon's Temple" statement and remove the "according to the bible" phrases and move the non-biblical stuff to a new article entitled "Archaeological evidence for Solomon's Temple".

In a few days if nobody objects. Fourtildas (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I object. They belong together. The archaeological evidence backs up the biblical account. It is blatantly POV of you to propose editing on the assumption that the bible story (this or any other) is not about actual events. Let's leave the article alone. The analogy with the King David article is tenuous at best. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with POV, it is about providing sources according to Wikipedia standards. If the topic of the article is a description of a bible story, then sourcing to the bible is fine (with me, at least). But if it is represented explicitly or implicitly as reality, then sourcing policies should be respected. There are several bible story articles where this situation exists and similar disputes have been held. Is there a central place (rather than the various talk pages) where this issue could be discussed? I think the bible story articles should be moved (renamed) as Jewish Mythology (or Christian or Judaochristian). Then we could have real History articles based on reliable secondary sources, preferably peer-reviewed academic, as Wikipedia advertises but seldom does. Is anyone here not Judaochristian? How do you feel about Judaochristian legends and beliefs being "History" while your own corresponding legends and beliefs are "Mythology". Fourtildas (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no archeological evidence backing up the biblical account of the so-called Temple of Solomon. There is no trace of a temple from the respective period anywhere on the Temple Mount, and even the actual location of the building is up for speculation. Until somebody digs up some real evidence (and thus ends all speculation) the story remains what it has always been: just a religiously motivated folk tale. Cush (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no archaeological evidence that backs up the Biblical account. The Temple is a religious story, myth, what have you so far as archaeological evidence is concerned. What Fourtildas doesn't understand is that the only reason that the David article has that on the top is because there are other David articles that someone just typing in David might want, so that sentence is solely for disambiguation purposes and wouldn't be there if there wasn't a possibility of confusion. The lead in both articles has a phrase like "according to the Bible" which I think is necessary. Doug Weller (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fourtildas, talk:WikiProject Religion here [8] might be a place to raise the issue. Doug Weller (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the article talk page is the place to raise this. The general view is that Wikipedia doesn't make judgments like characterizing Biblical accounts as myths, it provides what various people say. See WP:NPOV. Because of problems including both lack of access and destruction of evidence, a lack of archeological evidence isn't necessarily telling here. There has to be a systematic attempt to collect evidence for its lack to have the kind of probative value you are suggesting. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree with your comments about the archaeological evidence. Are you really saying that, for instance, the archaeological evidence shows Jerusalem at the appropriate time to have been little more than a village, that you would say what you have just said? Doug Weller (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia does not judge biblical accounts as myths is in fact a shortcoming, after all Wikipedia does so with other religions for no obvious reason. I don't see why Jewish beliefs would be less mythical than, say, ancient Egyptian beliefs. I would suggest that all faiths, existing or extinct, should be treated equally. And if, as in the case of the biblical narrative, history is created from a tale, lack of evidence is the criterion that kills the issue. Until real hard evidence can be presented, the biblical account has as much to say about reality as the Silmarillion... Cush (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No doubt biblical literature includes both mythical and historical elements (except to those who say everything there is literally true). Fortunately, as editors we don't have to decide which part is myth and which reflects history. As Shirahadasha indicates, WP reports what other people (preferably experts) say. It would be wrong (presumptuous, OR) to pre-emptively label anything scripturally-related as myth - or not. The reader would want to know about verification through archaeology or other means - whether the evidence is positive, negative, or inconclusive. This belongs in the article, not separated & out of sight. In other words, it belongs right where it is now. No changes needed or appropriate. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. For an example of a similar topic dealt with in a like fashion, see Troy. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

But Troy has been excavated, while the Temple of Solomon is just religious fiction up to now. Cush (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Weakness or not, WP:NPOV is one of the Five pillars of Wikipedia and, as the policy says, non-negotiable. Talk pages are not intended for airing personal views. The article needs to indicate what's a scriptural narrative, what's a historian's account, etc. Given different views, people are grown-ups and can decide for themselves who and what to believe. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's ok as long as a scriptural narrative is not presented as a historical account (not a historian's account, what's that?). The article on egyptian Set has a "(mythology)" suffix in the title, but in fact Solomon and his temple are no less mythical than the egyptian deity, so why not treat Solomon as Set is treated? Why the distinction and thus judgement? Cush (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That could be simply because there is no unified AE religion or definitive texts. However, I have realised that to be NPOV the lead must reflect doubts as to its existence, so I've added a sentence to it and revised the 2nd para to make it clear that the dates are according to the Bible. Doug Weller (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I see, but terms like "some modern scholars" are always problematic, because that sounds like a weasel expression. The fact of the matter is that there is no archeological evidence and thus archeologists and those who use the outcome of their work doubt its existence, while those who hold on to the temple's existence do so out of faith (i.e. personal POV).

Btw, there is no unified view on biblical Jewish history or the beliefs derived from it either. And I do have a problem with religiously interpreted events of the past being presented as factual history. The Bible only renders one perspective and wishful historization and cannot be trusted as an absolute source. Cush (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

But the whole point of WP:NPOV is that nothing can be trusted as an absolute source. A standard approach to Biblical events is to present the Biblical narrative and then perspectives on the narrative. The article is on the Temple described in the Bible. The whole point of [[WP:NPOV}] is to ensure that article content isn't dictated by editors' personal viewpoints. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of the archaeological situation is that the Waqf has consistently prohibited archaeological excavation of the Temple Mount, so the evidence available is mostly the stuff thrown out in the Kidron valley when the bulldozers have done their work with the occassional ability to do a little surreptitious checking. (See [9] and [10]) Moreover, some have been claiming to have found relevant archaeological evidence. See [11], [12] [13]. Given these circumstances, I don't see how a claim that there is a uniform consensus that archaeological evidence flatly contradicts the Biblical account in its entirety is sustainable. I understand there are serious questions about the dating of events and Prof. Finkelstein and others argue that major buildings didn't exist until more than a century after traditional dates based on interpretations of the Biblical narratives and have argued that Jerusalem as a city was later than the time normally attributed to Solomon. However, even Dr. Finkelstein's view doesn't seem to be uncontested. Even this is different from saying nothing existed at all, and these controversies can all be convered. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 10:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The biblical account states that 1) there was a king Solomon (Jedidiah) and 2) that he had a temple built somewhere on Mount Moriah. There is no archeological or non-biblical historical confirmation for either of these claims. Finkelstein would be the first to agree. So what exactly are you trying to say? Cush (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::::It's not that there's just a lack of evidence of a temple, there's a lack of any evidence of an empire ruled by Solomon or David, or in fact that an empire ruled by anyone during that time. Nothing. (66.229.247.48 (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC))

Are you saying the sources disagreeing with Finkelstein are unreliable? (see above.) More to the point, Wikipedia doesn't assume academic views are correct, it simply gives the different views. There are plenty of encyclopedias in the market place that give a scientific point of view pre-eminence over other viewpoints, but the community has rejected making Wikipedia one in favor of a much more robust version of neutral point of view that expressly includes neutrality between scientific and non-scientific viewpoints. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: The Shalem Center, affiliated with Hebrew University, has a specific mission for its archaeloogical projects of attempting to find arcaheological evidence relevant to Biblical narratives. Its findings have been published in general sources. Its researchers have been making very broad claims from the things they've found, including completely disputing Dr. Finkelstein's account. I don't claim to have subject-matter expertise to weigh these matters, but I do want to make sure that the article isn't being used for ideological purposes and that the neutral point of view policy is fully complied with. The policy is to be neutral in disputes between religous views and historians, among many other kinds of disputes. WP:NPOV/FAQ#Religion requires careful neutrality in such disputes, using language like "NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to say something like this: 'Many adherents of this faith believe X, and also believe that members of this group have always believed X; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z.'" A claim that a religious view is a myth or never happened stated as fact in the article lead would be inconsistent with the policy's guidance. We say what theologians hold and what historians find, whether this is truth or not is not for Wikipedia to say. The basis for the policy is explained by Larry Sanger early in the history of Wikipedia, and Larry's extended explanation ("Larry's Big Reply") is still cited in the WP:NPOV policy. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

All I am saying is that since there is no whatsoever evidence the article should reflect that and not be written in in-universe style but in in-religion style. I have no problem with articles about religious doctrine, as long as they are presented as such, but on Wikipedia often not even the distinction of Israelites from Hebrews and/or Jews is made, as if those were all the same. And of course the article should be written not by editors who are affiliated with Judaism, or Evangelicalism, or who are otherwise incapable of rendering a subjective encyclopedic entry. Cush (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty I wouldn't object to renaming the article "First Temple" to avoid involving the title in controversy over whether it was actually built by Solomon or existed in the period traditionally attributed. That said, the Bible and the various takes people have on it are part of Wikipedia's universe. A phrase like "in-universe" is applicable only to fiction, and WP:NPOV prevents characterizing beliefs and points of view one disagrees with as fiction. Bible narratives and features are presented as such, with various views of them then applied. If you object to applying WP:NPOV as the policy outlines, suggest trying to have the policy changed. If you have a less basic objection, you might want to bring it up with WP:BIBLE. I note that you haven't commented on the material disagreeing Prof. Finkelstein's view. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as you cannot lead me to the excavation site the issue of this article is purely religious. Whether you call it Solomon's Temple or First Temple is ultimately irrelevant as long as the only source for the alleged past existence of the building is Jewish doctrine, i.e. fiction. Subsequently the in-universe style of this article is not justified. Cush (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to adding the word "Biblical" to the introduction, but I would object to language characterizing it as "fiction." Aside from the fact that Wikipedia can't take a position on the truth of the Bible and view of it as "fiction" is simply your view, your view seems to have less support among archaeologists than you claim. Even Professor Israel Finkelstein, who has been perhaps the most notable critic of the existence of a Solomon at the time claimed, would hold that a First Temple in Jerusalem is quite plausible but simply more recent than the traditional chronology would hold. But there are people who disagree with Professor Finkelstein. See e.g. [14], [15] [16]. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Archeology does not back up Solomon's existence. It is in fact a fictitious biblical character, who may have been based on a real figure. The name cannot be found on any artifact or in any historical source outside the Bible. His existence lacks all confirmation from non-Jewish sources. So whoever's temple it was it was not Solomon's. This article should be moved to "First Temple of Jerusalem". As for now, this article is about a biblical tale with no foundation in reality. Exclusively. Cush (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm sorry, I am actually keen on this idea of a magnificent temple (the Ark is also a wonderful idea, but there simply is no evidence anywhere outside of the Tanakh, and without further evidence it can be considered no more than a myth. This is not how it is presently portrayed in this article. The7thdr (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else getting a bit of a laugh when reading the discussion? Shirahadesha and others are not saying the Bibleical accounts are true or not. He/she and others are saying that many historians and many sources believe that the existance of temple is true. Wether or not it is true is up to the reader. Please read Wikipedia guidelines, you cannot just say "It's fiction because it's not outside X source." If we put such scrutiny on things as this, a lot of history today would be "fiction," The article is not stating that the Biblical accounts are true, it is simply stating that the majority of historians believe that it is plausable and contend that the Biblical accounts may be more or less accurate. Wikipedia cannot state that the Bible/Qu'ran/etc are true or not and cannot assert it as fiction simply because it's in someone's holy book. That's just not a NPOV to assert that. 67.77.70.240 (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. This article is written in an in-universe style, it deals with Solomon as a real historical figure and with the temple as a real historical building. The article text assumes that the Bible is a reliable source for the past existence of the temple. So the requirements are somewhat different and the sources must be accurate and reliable. Otherwise, describing any building of Tirion in an in-universe style would be just as justified Cush (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Just from curiosity, what would an out-of-universe style look like? PiCo (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

In-universe means to present something fictional as something that is real, embedding it into a real context. However there is no such context for Solomon nor any buildings he might have had erected. For all we know Solomon is a mythical character created to depict some kind of "Golden Age", pretty much like King Arthur.

Image of Temple reappearing on WP

I have removed the picture "Jerusalem Ugglan 1", because whatever it depicts, it is certainly not the First temple according to Biblical descriptions. The thing in the picture would even dwarf the Herodian Temple. This is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia, not a platform for religionist propaganda material. Cush (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Cush on this, even if there was such a temple, it wouldn't have looked like the picture. How about [17]? dougweller (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That already is in the article. Cush (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So it is, I'd looked at so many pictures I was confused, sorry. dougweller (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You have nothing to apologize for. And I'd rather have excavation reports than fancy images. :-) Cush (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that I would rather have excavation reports, but those don't seem likely given the current political climate. There are plenty of other images of the first temple, which more closely follow the Biblical description. So I'd be happy to find a free one and until then I am content to settle for an artistic depiction, particularly if it is labeled that way. I would worry if anyone reading the article looked at the picture and thought, that is exactly the way Jerusalem looked in 600 BC. I'm not sure we're in any danger of that. Rather, to me, it is like any other artist's imaginative effort, to be appreciated as art. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I am not against having artistic depictions in the article, as long as they are somewhat accurate. But the image you had re-posted was way over the top. Cush (talk)

3D Images of Temple

I doubt that the 3D model featured in the newly added picture does in fact show the Temple of Solomon. Can please be verified, upon which excavation reports and historical records this model was created? Especially the extent of the courts seems more like belonging to the Herodian temple. Cush (talk)

I am responsible for the creation of the 3-D model "The Temple of Solomon" and its associated images which I have placed on this page. I based all dimensions and depictions on Sir Isaac Newton's book: "The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended (London: 1728)." Chapter 5 of this book is titled "A Description of the Temple of Solomon". His references were taken from the scriptures. This book is online and the link to this specific chapter can be found here.

The model I created using Google Sketchup can be found here. There has been some artistic liberty taken by me in this model which I do not believe interferes with people seeking to learn more about this topic. Based on my research Sir Isaac Newton has made one of the most exhaustive attempts at recreating this structure. If there is more accurate or detailed information that anyone else knows of, please let me know so I can make changes to my model. Epictatus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC).

Well, artistic liberty is ok, as long as it serves the article. If, however, the temple you designed, somehow only seeks to make a core piece of Judaism grander, then we are in trouble. Could you add references to the excavation reports or some description that justify the size of the temple and the existence and extent of the surrounding courts, please? Cush (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal : 3D Images of Temple

I realize now that the 3D-Images are based on drawings by Isaac Newton (who is mentioned in the article). That explains the extent of the Temple compound, which seems so completely unlikely large for the time frame and the Israelites' possibilities in temple-building. I suggest the removeal of the images along with the sketch by Isaac Newtion, as it will lead people to believe in an aggrandized Temple that has no basis in actual archaeological and historical research. · CUSH · 17:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is a diagram based on the measurements given in the bible itself? Chesdovi (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

1. The bible is not a reliable source for such information. Neither is Isaac Newton.

2. The bible does not give measurements for extensive surrounding courts. The images seem to merge Solomon's and Herod's temples. · CUSH · 07:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Solomon's Temple/Second Temple

"The temple was reconstructed between 516 BCE and 70 CE and this structure is commonly called the Second Temple. The construction is described in the Book of Ezra and the rebuilding was authorized by Cyrus the Great of Persia and ratified by Darius the Great of Persia. This building was destroyed by the Roman Empire in 70 CE during the First Jewish-Roman War by the general Titus, who later became emperor. (see Arch of Titus for a depiction of the spoils)."

Strictly speaking, that second temple isn't Solomon's Temple, but rather the Second Temple (figures). They looked different. Plus nobody doubts the existence of the Second Temple, though some do the First. There should be separate articles for the two temples. PiCo (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The temple that was begun in 516 BCE would be the "second" temple, however that one was knocked down when Herod had it rebuilt and expanded. So the Herodian temple would be the "third". Cush (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There's reason to doubt there was much demolition of the main structure at the time, and in any event we can't call things by whatever name we like just because it makes sense to us personally. Consensus is that it's called the "Second Temple" until its destruction in 70. 192.91.173.36 (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I know that. I was just pointing out the lack of arithmetic skills of some folks. Cush (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV issues still not addressed

In fact I think the article is getting worse. The fact is that no conclusive evidence has been found for the existence of this structure. The removal of a section questioning the historicity of the Bible for this period has now removed any doubts in the article about the reality of the Temple. There is a significant point of view that the temple did not exist, and it seems difficult to get that represented in the article. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that no conclusive evidence has been found for the existence of this structure. That's nonsense, at least as far as the Second Temple goes, and the only real reason to doubt the existence of the first is an extreme, almost pathological, Biblical skepticism or minimalism. Even for the First Temple: there's 10th century BCE masonry on the retaining wall of the Temple Mount, which was obviously built to support something. That's as "conclusive" as much other evidence for structures for that period. 192.91.173.36 (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If your house was sacked and burned, and sacked and burned, how much evidence would there be that you lived there? Sweetmoose6 (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

1. show us that masonry.

2. the problem with the 1st Temple is that its alleged builder Solomon is absent from real history and the temple itself is absent from the archaeological record. so the fact of the matter is that we neither know whether there was a temple at all and what it real dimensions would have been. Cush (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for pushing revisionist history and promoting fringe views, no mainstream historian claims that the temple didn't exist and no mainstream archaeologist doubts that the retaining wall was part of the temple structure. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, if there is so much evidence that these "mainstream historians" can show, why don't you just refer to that evidence? Show us the excavated foundations, please. Show us the contemporary non-Jewish sources that mention the temple. Show us the contemporary non-Jewish sources that mention Solomon. We both know there is no evidence, neither archaelogical nor historical, in spite of at least 150 years of thorough search. A retaining wall is just that, but no temple. Just another terrace of the Millo.

You see, verifiability means, that in theory everyone could take a shovel and dig for the temple and find the remains of what the article claims. It is of course convenient for your "mainstream historians" who trust the bible that digging on the Temple Mount is not likely to be allowed anytime soon. Cush (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot more citation and attribution would be useful

On a topic like this, where even the most basic facts are in some degree of dispute, it would really be helpful if it were clear where everything is sourced from. For example, "according to the Bible" and "according to the Talmud" are very vague: chapter and verse should be cited. "As depicted in a 3-D computer model" is useless: it should say what text the model follows. Etc. - Jmabel | Talk 06:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It also seems to me that we should reproduce some scholars' remarks on the difficulty of evaluating the accuracy of the Biblical (and other) descriptions of the Temple. For example, the Jewish Encyclopedia article "Temple of Solomon" has two paragraphs discussing issues of exaggeration and of modifications by scribes reproducing ancient texts. It also has quite a bit of other interesting material that is not in our article (which, given that it is in the public domain, we may borrow freely). - Jmabel | Talk 07:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Commented-out remarks removed from article

I've removed two commented-out remarks from the lede and brought them here for discussion. They are not remarks to editors, they are possible additional text, and they should either be in or out, not lurking.

1. After "Beit HaMikdash": "house the __ who is holy"
2. After "Jerusalem": "Akkadian URU Uru Šalim ki"

My take: a literal translation of Beit HaMikdash might be useful; an ancient rendition of Jerusalem might belong in the Jerusalem article, but not here. - Jmabel | Talk 06:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"in Jerusalem"

Where the lede says "the first temple of the ancient religion of the biblical Israelites in Jerusalem": was there a prior Israelite temple elsewhere, of which I'm unaware? Presuming not, this wording is quite clumsy, especially since later in the same sentence we say "on the hill called Zion in Jerusalem". - Jmabel | Talk 06:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course. The Ark of the Covenant was housed in a shrine at Shiloh, before it was transferred to Jerusalem (after its conquest by David). All through the Judges period and the reign of Saul Jerusalem was not part of the Israelite confederacy. Cush (talk) 07:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

So when you say "of course", are you saying the shrine at Shiloh was also called a "temple"? Because I thought that related to the grandness of the structure, an influence from pagan cultures, and was not a term previously in Judaism. - Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Any building of worship is a temple. What are you getting at? Cush (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You say "Any building of worship is a temple." Absolutely not. Even within Judaism, Orthodox Jews would object to their synagogues being called "temples". Conservative Jews don't use the term, either. Both would say "there is only one Temple". Also, very few Christians t call their churches "temples". Further, if "any building of worship is a temple," then to say that Solomon's Temple was the first temple of the religion in Jerusalem would mean that they had no place of worship in that city before building this grand structure, which seems beyond unlikely. - Jmabel | Talk 20:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to call your temple a temple or soemthing else that is your business. And maybe you should just read the Bible (books 1+2 Samuel, 1 Kings), the you'll know about the principal place of worship (the place of the Ark) in Jerusalem from the conquest by David to the construction of the First Temple by Solomon. Cush (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The term "temple" in its strict sense is only the Jerusalem temple In the sentence quoted it is obvious that it referes to earlier temple-like constructions as well. And that is easily enough to understand and not a problem in English. It could be disambiguated by omitting the first "in Jerusalem" and just say "the first temple of the ancient religion of the biblical Israelites, originally constructed by King Solomon on the hill called Zion in Jerusalem". Debresser (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, Solomon's temple was not built on Zion but on Moriah. And it was not the first temple of the biblical Israelites. Read the fucking Bible. Cush (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It certainly was the first temple. All others were either tabernacles or Bamot. Shlomke (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The shrine in Shilo was specifically not called a Temple, but a tabernacle. Shlomke (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So it's a temple that could theoretically be moved. The fact that the word "templum" did not yet exist does not mean that the structure is not what the word means. A temple is a structure reserved for religious or spiritual activities, such as prayer and sacrifice, or analogous rites. That's what the sanctuary at Shiloh was. Period. Cush (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the bible Solomon was the first to have built the temple, as all other places of worship were specifically not called a temple and did not have temple status. Your insistence on calling all previous places of worship temples is original research. Shlomke (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it is knowing the meaning of words. And you have no clue what OR is. Cush (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, what I was driving at in my first remark (but leaving somewhat open, because I have only read the Bible in English translation, being quite illiterate in Hebrew), is basically what Debresser and Shlomke are saying (minus the remark about Zion). - Jmabel | Talk 22:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Temple is neither a Hebrew nor an English word. It designates a site or edifice that is used for purposes of worship and religious conduct. I don't see why the shrine at Shiloh would not be a temple when it was exactly used as such. Same function -> same designation. Or do I miss some religious urge to make Solomon's temple the "first" ? Cush (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with Jewish history knows that there were only two Holy Temple's. Both were in Jerusalem. are you going to tell me that every place the Jews worshiped was called a temple, then we'd have quite a few thousand temples. You'd probably think every present day synagogue is a temple too. This is your own veiw you are making up and is OR. Shlomke (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The mishkan in the desert and Shilo is generally translated as "Tabernacle". That's the mainstream term for this pre-Temple place of worship. Unlike the Temples, it was not a fixed structure, but was portable. Even if it stayed in one place (Shilo) for well over three centuries. I don't know why it's so important to Cush to mislabel this. -Lisa (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Synagogues are temples, churches are temples, mosques are temples, tabernacles are temples. The word has a too wide meaning to limit the usage to the the two better known buildings in Jerusalem. And anyone familiar with the biblical text (≠ Jewish history) knows that there were more than just two temples on top of Mount Moriah. The Ark was housed there even before Solomon built his temple. Then there was the temple of Zerubbabel, which Herod knocked down and built completely new. Cush (talk) 07:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That's completely OR. You don't get to redefine terms to make yourself comfortable. Words mean what they mean. -Lisa (talk) 13:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Words mean what they mean. Exactly. That is why we won't bow to Jewish redefinitions of words just to let you force your religiously motivated POV into articles again and again. You only want to narrow the meaning of "temple" to create some kind of exclusiveness for Solomon and his edifice. Your Lisa-fundamentalism shows. As usual. Cush (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that the text of our article says "according to the Hebrew Bible", the Jewish definition of the term would be the relevant one, no? - Jmabel | Talk 01:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Temple, or templum, is not a Hebrew word and there exists no Jewish definition of the word. Judaism is not a language. The Hebrew words that are used for the edifice are even less specific than temple already is.

And btw, "according to the Hebrew Bible" means what? Is Solomon or the temple not contained in earlier Bibles, Jewish or Christian? I had already tried to replace "Hebrew Bible" with "Bible" to make the POV more neutral, but I was reverted.

Does medieval/modern Judaism own this article? Cush (talk) 06:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Hebrew Bible" simply means what some people call the "Old Testament". But that term is heavily loaded with Christian POV and is offensive to many Jews. Where on earth did you get the idea that there's anything medieval or modern about the Hebrew Bible? -Lisa (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Hebrew Bible" means a very specific version of what some people (you mean Christians, can't you even say it?) call the "Old Testament", namely the Masoretic text, which is a medieval work and reflects Jewish doctrine at the time, especially when it comes to dates given in the text. Modern Judaism is based on the Masoretic text. I really do not see the improvement in using "Hebrew Bible" over "Bible", if the respective information is contained in whatsoever edition of Bible. Cush (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't be objecting if it said "Old Testament". That's what Hebrew Bible means. Fine. RfC it is, then. -Lisa (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be most happy if it said either "Bible" or "Tanakh". If you go into a store and buy a book titled "Hebrew Bible" you will get a printed version of the Masoretic text, so don't tell me that's not what "Hebrew Bible" means. Cush (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Shlomke, the subject has been solved by adding that comma. And although you are technically right about the word "temple", there is something as using words in broad meanings as well. Especially since this is English and not Hebrew. I really would leave things as they are, both in the article, as well as in this discussion. Debresser (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect foul play...

After reading a novel called Solomon's Angels by Doreen Virtue, I suspect foul play. Has anyone ever considered the possibility that King Solomon had a heated argument with his architect and friend, Hiram, over a woman named Queen Makeda and killed him by spilling liquid bronze on him? Perhaps it was out of guilt for killing his good friend that he placed the blame on 3 masons who were only jailed for 1 month following release with compensation. (69.109.156.184 (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC))

The content of novels is no material for a WP article. Cush (talk) 07:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed this ...

Israeli archaeologist Eilat Mazar observes that archaeological evidence of Solomon's Temple has been found within remains taken from refuse from an extensive construction project performed on the Temple Mount by the Islamic waqf in November 1999.

The sources cited (Arutz Sheva and Har Habayt) hardly constitute reliable sources for the purposes of this article. I have added instead a scholarly source from 2001 which states clearly that no archaeological remains of Solomon's Temple have been found. This is the mainstream viewpoint. The frigne viewpoint expressed above needs better sourcing, if it is to be included at all. Tiamut^talk 20:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

POV wording about conflicting dates, etc.

Per the discussion above we now seem to have the first paragraph sorted out, at least to my satisfaction. Now, the second paragraph as it stands:

According to the Bible, it functioned as a religious focal point for worship and the sacrifices known as the korbanot in ancient Judaism. Completed in 960 BCE, it was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE. According to the Talmud these are false dates, as the First Temple stood for 410 years and was destroyed in the year 420 BCE.

1. This is footnoted "See Seder Olam Rabbah." Does that mean to say to see the Talmudic work Seder Olam Rabbah (in which case the citation really ought to be more precise) or see our article Seder Olam Rabbah, in which case it belongs inline in the article, not in a footnote.
2. "Completed in 960 BCE, it was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE." What is the source for those dates?
3. "According to the Talmud these are false dates": really a rather POV wording, and I'd think it should say something more like "The Talmud implicitly gives different dates". Precise citation would be good. I suspect a lot of that article comes from the Jewish Encyclopedia; I'm guessing that the JE gives more precise Talmudic citations.
4. As to those Talmudic dates: the matter is discussed at Seder Olam Rabbah, but the citation there is very vague as well. Again, this may come from the JE and citations may have been lost along the way, I don't know.

I'm simply not expert enough on any of this to feel I should be making the edits, which is why I'm coming here, pointing out what is confusing to me as a reader, and hoping others will help sort this out. - Jmabel | Talk 03:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• It has been a week and no one has addressed this. - Jmabel | Talk 06:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have found a source and will try to reword the lead. Chesdovi (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Rename page: Solomon's Temple (Mythology)?

The article should be moved to the category : Solomon's Temple (Mythology): Conflicting dates arise from the possibility that the whole matter with the Temple may just be a fiction story created after the 5th century B.C. For example, I was intrigued to read in the Bible the greek name Joppe ("Ιόππη") and not some Phoenician or Hebrew name for the port where cedar would have been imported for the Temple. This is very strange for a scribe living during or very soon after an alleged period of Hebrew supremacy in the region. In addition, the earliest date this name appears in the greek literature(TLG) is in 5th century (in Scylax Perieg.: Work #001 104.23). Therefore, the text containing the description could not be earlier than that and hence it can not be considered to present information about an actual building. I am satisfied that the article should be moved to the category : Solomon's Temple (Mythology). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.200.217 (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Temple of Solomon cannot be considered as "Mythology" since it was destroyed by the Babylonians (according to their own records). There was a physical temple, which was destroyed in war. That is unless the Babylonians themselves are considered to be mythology. John Hyams (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

More about the evidences for the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/04/Nebo-Sarsekim-Found-in-Babylonian-Tablet.aspx John Hyams (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why have you posted this twice? That's not a reliable source, it's a Creationist website. Also, I couldn't find the evidence for the destruction of the temple, what did I miss? Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Twice because the same answer was valid in two discussion topics. I related to the website above. John Hyams (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Found these comments on the tablet (nothing about destroying Solomon's Temple though) [18] and [19] - read the pdf attached to the page. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's stick to the latest discussions. I can't comment on its use in other articles, it still isn't a reliable source and you haven't answered my question. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, first: Exodus Decoded is an article which you have recently edited (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Exodus_Decoded&action=history) and there you commented the quality of sources given there. You did not say anything there about the creationist website, but if you now say that this website is not reliable, so with your premission I will use your argument when I'll edit that article. I will be happy to see you make the same statement about that website on the Exodus Decoded discussion board.

Second: I will try to find the exact references for the Babylonian seige/loot of Jerusalem, although I cannot devote all my time for this. I encourage other editors to look for it, some may exist here (I don't have much time to make the research): http://www.britishmuseum.org/search_results.aspx?searchText=Nebuchadnezzar+II+tablets . But regardless of whether I can find these Babylonian records on the Internet, there's another issue: if the First Temple is "mythical", why call the Second Temple "second"? If the first did not exist, the second would have been called "first". The Second Temple was a reconstruction (of the first, known as the Temple of Solomon). John Hyams (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the source issue is subtler than I thought given that he is a real archaeologist, but in any case it doesn't seem to say anything about destroying Solomon's Temple. Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't seen your edit just above when I edited this section, but as I said, this is not the simple issue I was thinking it was when you originally said the article claimed the tablet proved the destruction of Solomon's Temple. I'm concerned that you are starting to use your own opinions to argue for a Solomon's Temple. And I'm not claiming there are no Babylonian records for the sige/loot of Jerusalem, I am asking you, once again, where the article you referenced mentions the destruction of Solomon's Temple.

What Exodus Decoded may need is more clearly attributed statements. And my recent edit there was about what looked like an inappropriate section, 'previous research' doesn't belong in that specific article although it might belong in articles about specific subjects that Exodus Decoded deals with. I wasn't making a general comment about the sources used in the article, just that specific section. Edit summaries aren't for comments about articles in general, that's why we have talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the given biblearchaeology.org article refers only to the siege/desctruction of Judah/Jerusalem, and it does not give details about the destruction of the temple building. However, there are other credible resources, such as (not limited to) the British Museum, from which info may be obtained regarding where and when the Babylonians wrote (bragged) about the destruction of the temple building (I've heard about this evidence years ago, but I can't put my finger on it now). And apart of that, my agrument regarding "second" comes after "first" (above) still stands. John Hyams (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion from intro needed?

The lead has this para: The temple was rebuilt in a much more modest form in 516 BCE, following the return of the Jews from the Babylonian Captivity. This construction, commonly called the Second Temple, is described in the Book of Ezra and was authorized by the Persian king Cyrus the Great and ratified by Darius the Great. In 20 BCE, Herod the Great announced that the old temple would be torn down and replaced by a much more impressive structure. This temple, known as Herod's Temple, stood until 70 CE, when it was destroyed during the First Jewish-Roman War by the Roman general Titus. (Herod's Temple is seen as superseding its predecessor, and so is still counted as part of the Second Temple era.) Jewish eschatology commonly includes the belief that a Third Temple will be built.

All very true, but the Second Temple wasn't Solomon's, nor was Herod's. Isn't this off-topic for the article?

Rebuilding the Temple from 516 BCE on should be mentioned, the rest should be removed. CUSH 15:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

According to secular historians?

"According to secular historians, the Temple was completed in around 960 BCE and destroyed by the Babylonians in 587/6 BCE"? Can I see a list of them please? Dougweller (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The list would be Albright, Thiele, Galil, maybe Kitchen. The sentence is quite correct. For a ref use Kenneth Kitchen, How We Know When Solomon Ruled: Israel's Kings, BAR September/October 2001.

Note here, but not in the article, that it's quite legitimate to try to find dates BCE for the biblical events like this, provided one bears in mind that we're discussing a literary artefact - in other words, equating modern dates to the Book of Kings doesn't imply that they really happened, just that if they did, this might be about when. PiCo (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, but I think this looks as though it's endorsing its historicity. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Endorsing its historicity? But that is the case regarding the study of all ancient history. The only evidence we have for the Battle of Uruk is a stone inscription; why should that have more historical weight and veracity than the Bible? Chesdovi (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A good question from Chesdovi. The answer is that the bible is not an artefact found in situ, in the way that ancient inscriptions such as the Tel Dan stele (to take a random example) are found. The oldest manuscripts for the bible date from about 150 years before the current era, which is hundreds of years after the events they record - and that in turn raises the question of the prior history of the biblical text. The biblical chronology is especially suspect: it counts off from an act of Divine creation which clearly never happened, and ends 4,000 years later with the rededication of the Temple in 164 BC, following the defilement under Seleucus. Events are marked within that four thousand year framework according to significant numbers: the Exodus, for example, occurs 480 years before the construction of the First Temple, then another 480 years to the Temple's destruction, then a further 480 to 164 BC. There's also a count by generations which mirrors the count by years: ten generations from Adam to Moses, each of them the progenitor of the human race, then a further ten to Abraham, plus ten from Judah to David (the three patriarchs Abraham-Isaac-Israel stand outside this pattern). So, with a chronology which is clearly concerned with symbolism rather than history, it's not surprising that historians don't use it to measure real time. (which is not to say that the kings in Kings aren't real - many of the names are known from the archaeological record - just that, although part of the bible is clearly based on history, it's not safe to treat it as a historical record).PiCo (talk) 11:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

We treat the Bible as a primary source. "Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources. The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted. Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." We can use it as the source for what it says, but not for the veracity of what it says, if you follow me. Dougweller (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

For your argument to hold in relation to this article, you would need to show thatthe Bible is indeed a primary source for these events, and you would also need to show that it is "reliable". Both are very problematic. Zero^talk 13:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean. The article cites the biblical verses. Do you mean a primary source for historians? Chesdovi (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a primary source for what it contains, but that is true of all books even novels. It is unknown whether it is a primary source for the early events it describes. If it was written by a person contemporary to those events, it is a primary source for them. If it was written much later, it isn't. Zero^talk 14:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is made clear throughout the article that all infomation is derived soley from the biblical account. There is no worry that the account may be construed as fact. Chesdovi (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Does my adding "According to the Bible" in the article solve this problem? The lead mentions that no archeological stuff has been found. Chesdovi (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Some such formulation is the way it is usually done. Zero^talk 13:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The formulation "According to secular historians, ..." reads as if there is some consensus among secular historians on this matter. But there isn't. In fact some very prominent historians (Yisrael Finkelstein, Zeev Herzog, etc etc) are not even willing to agree that Solomon existed. (They don't say he didn't exist, but they say there is no evidence for it.) So the text as it stands is not balanced; it should give an overview of the range of opinion. I'm also not sure the phrase "secular historians" is a proper one to use in Wikipedia even if the given source used it (which it seems not to). If it means "non-rabbinical", that is too Judeocentric a description. If it means "non-religious", it is probably wrong since Albright and Thiele (not sure of the others you mentioned) were deeply religious. Maybe "academic historians" is better? Zero^talk 14:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Biblical historians?" That would remove any doubt that their study is based soly on the Bible and remove the problem of concensus amoung other historians in general. Chesdovi (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If someone were to base his work soly on the Bible he would not be a historian but a theologian. And saying "secular historian" is redundant. Historical research is to be based on the evidence, not the researcher's convictions. When a source does more than interpret the evidence, then it's not a reliable source. CUSH 18:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the word "secular" crept in here as the article relates to a religious subject and the word secular would refer to dates and timeframes being used which are at odds with the traditional dates given by the Jewish religious sources. Therefore I don't think secular is redundant in this article. As the only source for the existence of the Temple is the Bible; it must follow that any dates given as estimates for events occurring in it, stem from the Bible only. Therefore "Biblical historians" seems in order here. (It goes without saying that the Biblical historians have used non-biblical historic records to corroborate their claims.) Chesdovi (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The word "secular" (used in relation to the 960 BCE date for the Temple's construction) seems to be being used in opposition to the Seder Olam Rabbah's date of 832 BCE. The seder olam is, of course, totally and unashamedly religious. Personally I'd get around this by dropping all reference to the seder olam - it's dates for a whole range of history are just plain wrong.PiCo (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, among traditional Jews, (the only ones who are in no doubt this very structure actually existed), the rabbinic tradition is regarded as authentic. We would not really add the Seder Olam dates to any other article. Chesdovi (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is no a traditional Jew. CUSH 18:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What is it then? An atheist? Chesdovi (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It does not take preference for any particular religious view. That one group holds a certain POV will not lead into WP making that POV its own and presenting that as the balanced NOPV it is supposed to provide. CUSH 11:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That's precisly the reason why we have mentioned the two dissenting views in the lead. Chesdovi (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that the body of the article doesn't discuss the date of the Temple of details of the construction, so I've retitled the Location section as Construction and added a paragraph. Please note, though, that I wrote it pretty much off the top of the head - please check it for me. Hope this helps PiCo (talk) 07:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Biblical historians" is a phrase that would upset many modern archaeologists, since they see their job as investigation of the historical facts, not investigation of the Biblical story. So I don't think it is good. I think that what we need is a more specific reference to individuals. We can say that traditional source S says that the temple was built in the year X, that archaeologists A and B proposed the year Y, and archaeologist C said there is no certain evidence of a first temple at all. Something like that, with references naturally. Zero^talk 11:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Today’s archaeologists do not date history per se, but provide evidence to corroborate or dispel the accepted dates which have been reconstructed by earlier historians using ancient non-biblical texts or artifacts, such as the writings of Herodotus, Claudius Ptolemy and the Persepolis Fortification Tablets. For any modern historian to date an event in the Bible, they can only use the accounts given in the Bible as their guide for giving a date, which would correspond with the non-biblical historical dates. Therefore, although the Bible only mentions "Cyrus" as the Persian king who conquered Babylonia and let the Jews return to Jerusalem, biblical historians will match the unknown "Cyrus" with Cyrus the Great who, according to modern day historians, took Babylonia in 538BC. Traditional Jewish sources, however, state that this happened in 372BC, 166 years later. I would prefer to use secular historian, as that implies historians which used secular sources only for dating history, as opposed to using the religious texts. If you could provide a differing opinion to the 586BC year for destruction, I would be interested. Chesdovi (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that 586BCE or 587BCE is firmly established as when Jerusalem was taken by the Babylonians. The difficulty is in relating that to the Jewish temple. It is remarkably hard to obtain concise information on this because most sources mix up the Biblical account and the non-Biblical evidence in such a way that it is hard to tell them apart. We read that the destruction of the temple has been proved to have been in 586BCE, but what that means is that the Biblical story of the destruction of the temple has been correlated with the capture of Jerusalem and the date for the latter is applied to the former. At the moment I'm not sure there is any contemporary non-Biblical source that even mentions a temple in Jerusalem during the "first temple period", but I'm interested in hearing of one. The founding of the first temple is even more of a problem because as far as I know there is almost nothing in the Biblical account that can be matched against the external record at all. Finkelstein argues that Jerusalem was barely a city at all at the time when (according to Biblical chronology) the first temple was established. Zero^talk 07:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing of the biblical story can be matched with actual history prior to circa 850 BCE. That includes the very existence as such kings as Solomon and David, so that even naming this article "Solomon's temple" is dubious. CUSH 11:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

So what name do you suggest? "First Temple of Jerusalem"? John Hyams (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the current title. It is a common recognisable name and doesn't prejudge the historical accuracy (consider Slartibartfast). Zero^talk 07:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Although not relevant to this article, regarding the "very existence as such kings as Solomon and David", King Solomon's copper mines may have been dicovered in 2008:

• http://www.pnas.org/content/105/43/16460.full
• http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/soc/10-22KingSolomon.asp John Hyams (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If these mines do not on some artifact hold the name "Solomon" (or Jedidiyah) or a description of events that match the biblical narrative, their discovery does nothing to confirm Solomon's existence.

And yes, "First Temple of Jerusalem" is preferable. CUSH 07:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"At the moment I'm not sure there is any contemporary non-Biblical source that even mentions a temple in Jerusalem during the "first temple period", but I'm interested in hearing of one. Zero^talk 07:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)"'. Find a source and we should add something to this effect after "To date, no archaeological evidence for Solomon's Temple has been found" in the lead. Chesdovi (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

We should use the common name of Solomon's Temple. I don't think the title is pov. I don't see how 'First Temple' is better, particularly as it implies there was no temple before then, which seems unlikely. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

But with a non-existent Solomon this is a purely biblical edifice and should not be presented as historical by assigning building dates. I agree that "First Temple" would be inaccurate, since the Jebusites (and/or Hyksos) would surely have had temples of their own. Maybe "First Temple of Jerusalem that according to the Bible was used for Yhwh worship" would do? :-) CUSH 16:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that this subject has ample RS citing its name and accompanying dates is reason to keep the title and given dates. Wikipedia is not the truthbearer of civilisation, but a compendium of it. Compare: Hanging Gardens of Babylon. Chesdovi (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If the title is to be changed to "First Temple of Jerusalem" (as the predecessor of the Second Temple of Jerusalem) it's fine by me. John Hyams (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with just numbering the temples is the weak arithmetic of Judaism. Because the "Second Temple" is actually the third. After the destruction of the temple allegedly erected under a king Solomon, a new temple was built at the site beginning in 516 BCE (which would be the second). That temple, however, was completely knocked down when Herod began the building of his temple (which is only called the "Second"). CUSH 18:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the Second Temple is the second; Herod's Temple is the third, sort of, as a reconstruction of the second that was built hundreds of years prior to Herod (when the Cyrus the Great allowed the Jews to return to their land). John Hyams (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, Herod's Temple is called the Second Temple. · CUSH · 22:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)