Talk:Second Temple

message: "The Second Temple lacked the following holy articles:
The Ark of the Covenant"
It might be mentioned that this item was not present for much of the First Temple as well, King Josiah secreting the item beneath the Holy of Holies (presumably where it remains).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 13:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Untitled] 

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

message: NOTE: The following involves three related articles, please comment on all you see fit:
#Talk:Solomon's Temple/Archive 2#RfC:Proper Name for this Article
#Talk:Second Temple of Jerusalem#RfC:Proper Name for this Article
#Talk:Third Temple#RfC:Proper Name for this Article
What is the most appropriate name for this article in the English wikipedia project? Further suggestions should be placed as subsections below, and arguments should be placed in the section corresponding to the desired name. -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fixing what ain't broken" would seem to imply changing the article title - but this is not the current article title, the perfectly serviceable "Second Temple of Jerusalem" is. This is not itself broken, so why fix it? --FormerIP (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's name for the previous seven years (2002-09) is what wasn't broken.  The present name is not perfectly serviceable in the eye of every beholder.  Second Temple is ample and sufficient, commonplace, primary and familiar. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying that's an unreasonable POV (although I dispute "commonplace" and "familiar"), but it does mean that you are saying something needs fixing, after all. --FormerIP (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Herodian additions to the Second Temple itf the material is too unwieldy for a single article.AMuseo (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC:Proper Name for this Article

message: * This temple has a more free-form name than the others. I have heard the term, Herod's Temple, before, but it doesn't appear to be as widely known. Conversely, calling this article just the "Second Temple" is cause for confusion in terms of other religious faiths. Thus, calling it the "Second Temple of Jerusalem" seems to be an adequate compromise, as it is specific enough that it is understood what it is likely referring to and because those searching for "Second Temple" would still be able to find it. SilverserenC 18:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Temple of Jerusalem

message: * I'm listing this as an idea, since there are Second Temples in other religions, that i've specifically found (even if they don't currently have articles, though one does). Using the specific addition of (Judaism) doesn't harm the title at all and is entirely specific for what the article is about. SilverserenC 21:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Temple (Judaism)

message: *Note - This was the article's name for the seven years from 2002 to 2009, per the logs. -- Avi (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fixing what ain't broken" would seem to imply changing the article title - but this is not the current article title, the perfectly serviceable "Second Temple of Jerusalem" is. This is not itself broken, so why fix it? --FormerIP (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's name for the previous seven years (2002-09) is what wasn't broken.  The present name is not perfectly serviceable in the eye of every beholder.  Second Temple is ample and sufficient, commonplace, primary and familiar. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying that's an unreasonable POV (although I dispute "commonplace" and "familiar"), but it does mean that you are saying something needs fixing, after all. --FormerIP (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Temple

message: *I consider this to be a possibility as well. If either this or Second Temple of Jerusalem gains a majority, I will side with that one. SilverserenC 18:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Herodian additions to the Second Temple itf the material is too unwieldy for a single article.AMuseo (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Break this article into two; one for Zerubavel and one for Herod, and rename them...

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

message: Surely there should be something about the architecture? I think there's a brief passage in Esra giving the dimensions of the Zerubabbel temple, for example (Ezra 6:3).PiCo (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing on architecture? 

message: "The accession of Cyrus the Great of Persia in 538 BCE made the re-establishment of the city of Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple possible."
:-Ok, so it was after b.c.e 538. Who by? who was the force behind the proyect? 
"According to the Bible, when the Jewish exiles returned to Jerusalem following a decree from Cyrus the Great (Ezra 1:1-4, 2 Chron 36:22-23), construction started at the original site of Solomon's Temple, which had remained a devastated heap during the approximately 70 years of captivity (Dan. 9:1-2). "
:-Any thoughts on when was this? 
"After a relatively brief halt due to opposition from peoples who had filled the vacuum during the Jewish captivity (Ezra 4), work resumed c. 521 BCE under the Persian King Darius (Ezra 5) and was completed during the sixth year of his reign (c. 518/517 BCE), with the temple dedication taking place the following year."
:- c. 521? before comon era or after? what is "c."?   
"Around 19 BCE, Herod the Great renovated the Temple, which became known as Herod's Temple.".
:- So, 19 b.c.e., I take it we are talking about 521 b.c.e then (of course), but perhaps the article needs revising.
("c." is short for "circa", Latin for "around, about, approximately")  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 13:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who and when built the Second Temple? 

message: This article is about a religious belief, but it often reads as the description of historical facts. This could be misleading for many readers.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was unaware that the existence of Solomon's temple was a religious belief; it certainly seems to me that archaeological evidence suggests it is historical fact. 216.37.198.7 (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the second temple, Solomons is the first one. And there is no archaelogicale evidence for even their existence, not just for the intricate details described in the article. If you disagree, add some reliable sources.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, some would argue about Solomon's temple, but the second temple is simply described in so many diverse historical sources that denying its existence would be absurd. Even if one does not consider the different books of the Tanakh that mention it, (all of them written by Jews, who had to be eyewitnesses of this temple), note that the historians Josephus and Philo both visited the temple in Jerusalem. Josephus described it in detail. Tacitus, a Roman historian, recounts the destruction of this temple, and he was alive during these events. Certainly there are other sources, but these will suffice. I'm sorry but only hyper-skeptics would doubt the existence of the second temple. And by the way, why would anyone invent a Jewish temple? Lindert (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

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

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Temple inscription in greek.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Instead of contextualizing paragraph two by books of "The Bible," which implies a later, Christian source, the more relevant words "Hebrew Bible" or "Tanakh" (or both) ought to be the terms of definition.  Otherwise, one might start to think that "Old Testament" translations, based upon the Greek Septaguint, are the authorities when in fact the Masoretic text of the Tanakh is considered by Jews the obvious standard.Rtelkin (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The term 'Bible' does not at all imply a later Christian source. It is a widely used term for the books considered canonical by Christians, that is not to say that they have a Christian origin. It is also a misunderstanding that translations based on the Septuagint are authoritative for Christians. Nearly all English Bible translations are in fact based on the Masoretic text. Only in Eastern Orthodox streams of Christianity is the Septuagint the standard Bible. In any case, apart from a few fringe groups, Christians realize that the authority of any translation ultimately goes back to the original Hebrew (i.e. for the books of the Bible originally written in Hebrew of course). -- Lindert (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A simple suggestion 

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

message: Hello,
I would like to suggest external link of 3d virtual learning tour of the second temple:
http://jerusalem.com/tour/jewish_temple_3D
i've added it before, but someone delete it! 
please add that link
Segevsh (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link : 3D virtual tour of the Second Temple 

message: I added the following... Note: some scholars refer to Herod's Temple as the "Third Temple"<ref]citation needed</ref].
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.11.183 (talk) 11:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And who might those scholars be? "Second Temple" is, by far, the consensus in both academic, religious and common discourse. Besides, there's an inherent tension in grouping "some scholars" and "citation needed" in the same edit. An actual reference is in order. Poliocretes (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

text: See WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NOTFORUM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herod's Temple was the 'Third Temple' 

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

message: "Model of Herod's Temple at the Israel Museum" :File:Jerus-n4i.jpg shows multi-level extensions above the North wall of the Temple Mount. The text positions this built-up structure on the South Wall, as do other models. Other models show the North wall as just a simple wall with no upper structures, and article text do not mention any North wall adornments. ?? Rcbutcher (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the photograph until it can be explained. It claims to be from 1998, but other 1990s photos from when it was at Holyland Hotel show the model with Royal Stoa correctly located above Southern wall and Antonia Fortress correctly located in NW corner. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Mystery explained : the photograph as originally uploaded was horizontally flipped. I've corrected it. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing model photograph

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

message: I think the account of Jesus going to the Second Temple and driving out the money changers and confirming his divinity should be added to the article under the "Herod's Temple" sub-section. Can it be added to the article? If not what are the problems? Why shouldn't it be added? KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What can be added depends on the usual rules governing verifiability (reliable sourcing) and neutrality or neutral voice. I cannot say with any certainty whether the context for the account is appropriate in this section or article; it's not clear to me where on the page it might belong.  It may be best to wait for others to comment—or you could simply go ahead make the edit, subject to WP:BRD. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus in Second Temple ([[Cleansing of the Temple]]) 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Second Temple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100809163227/http://www.feeljerusalem.com/videos/the_southern_wall.html to http://www.feeljerusalem.com/videos/the_southern_wall.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100809163222/http://www.feeljerusalem.com/photos/jerusalem_photos.html?page=gallery&subject_id=1&image_id=1&lang=2&pageNum=1 to http://www.feeljerusalem.com/photos/jerusalem_photos.html?page=gallery&subject_id=1&image_id=1&lang=2&pageNum=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Second Temple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091223040459/http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/battles/panion200bc.html to http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/battles/panion200bc.html
*Added  tag to http://old.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0148:book=1:section=31
*Added  tag to http://www.dinur.org/resources/resourceCategoryDisplay.aspx?categoryid=554&rsid=478
*Added  tag to http://www.dinur.org/resources/resourceCategoryDisplay.aspx?categoryid=554&rsid=478
*Added  tag to http://www.dinur.org/resources/resourceCategoryDisplay.aspx?categoryid=431&rsid=478
*Added  tag to http://www.dinur.org/resources/resourceCategoryDisplay.aspx?categoryid=554&rsid=478
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Per an ongoing discussion at Talk:Temple Mount, there do not appear to be any sources here which confirm the statement that the Second Temple was built on the same site as the First Temple. Can anyone point to any? Onceinawhile (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: this Haaretz piece is interesting. As for sources - page 194, page 49, page 166. Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which text tells us that it was built on the site of the First Temple? 

message: ::If you want to make the article about the "about THE HERODIAN COMPLEX" then you can propose changing the article title to reflect that, but until then all editors should improve it as an article about the Second Temple, which was not built  "c.537–516". Only the First temple can be said to have been built then. 
::Since the article is (or should be) mainly about the Second Temple (pending any) change in article name you cannot claim it still exists or is owned by an organization that was nonexistent at the time. Maybe a suitable compromise is to create a second information box about the current temple mount in which top list such facts. 
::In the middle ages, many Christians saw the Dome of the Rock and assumed it was the Jewish Temple. We don't need to mislead people in making similar mistakes today. tahc chat 19:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of the three temples but I was misled the terminology used. I also failed read the dates very closely. tahc chat 02:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: What is this article about?

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

message: @Duponiuex let's chat here to avoid an edit war. I outlined in my edit summary why I believe the sentences describing Jewish and Eastern Orthodox Christian beliefs about a future institution don't belong in the lead section. Can you please respond with your opposing view instead of just reverting my edit without comment?
Specifically:
a) Religious beliefs (1) about a successor building/concept (2) are twice-removed and not sufficiently relevant WP:REL. 
b) The wording favors two religious perspectives over a dozen others and is therefore not neutral WP:NPOV. 
c) The article body does not have content about the Third Temple so a summary should not be included in the lead section MOS:LS. Kcerb (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A DRN on this subject has been closed for insufficient discussion. However, Duponiuex if you object to a change- it is your responsibility to discuss it on the talk page. Please engage here to explain why Kcerb's changes are not an improvement, or (preferably) to find a compromise. You are both 1 edit away from an edit war- one user has asked to collaborate, one is not responding. While that does not make continued edits acceptable by either party- it would be better if you engaged here. I have advised them to ask for a WP:3o or conduct a WP:RFC and also advised they request assistance from one of the wiki projects listed at the top of this page. I hope you can find editors willing to work with you to find consensus. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:LEAD indeed dictates that the lead should not contain material not already on the body, bar a handful of exceptions, so, first things first, whoever thinks this material is due needs to first establish it as such by creating an appropriately sourced body of content or new section about it in the article itself. The next step would be ascertaining if this is due in the lead, which, again per MOS:LEAD, is as a default in proportion to the level of coverage in the article itself. This is a guideline not a rule, but as it stands, zero presence in the body does indeed translate to zero legitimacy in terms of due weight in the lead. The other points about NPOV are all a bit by-the-by until there is actually a body of content to discuss, but, as an immediate note on the initial statement: Chabad.org is unreliable. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the contested material, based on consensus here, but was again reverted by Duponiuex without discussion. I've left a warning on the user talkpage of Duponiuex and moved the contested material to the "Destruction" section of the article. Hopefully Duponieux will engage in discussion here before reverting further, or the next stop is WP:ANEW. Mojoworker (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious views on successor buildings/concepts 

message: See Brazen Laver, the Altar of Burnt Offerings, etc. Who has the patience to move over such elements? Arminden (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Tombah is a great fan of the second temple period and a frenetic copier of material between pages - perhaps up for the task? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is in parts more on the 2nd T at "Temple in Jerusalem" than here 

message: If I had my way I would delete this and the list of five items after it. The authority for the list is an encyclopedia by Easton from 1897. But Easton is not a primary source and he just cites Ezra 1:7-11, which is a list of items that were returned to the temple under the Persians. Since Exodus 30:23-25 provides the recipe for the holy oil, I don't see how Easton can conclude from Ezra's list that holy oil was not used in the 2nd Temple.
The Talmud (Yoma 21b) further down is a better source on 2nd Temple practice (though admittedly, still not contemporaneous) and it does not mention the holy oil as one of the item the 2nd Temple no longer had. Grubbiv (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Second Temple lacked the following holy articles... 

message: I came across this scholarly work that seems to question the finality of the destruction in 70 AD, particularly by noting that there was a further round of destruction 135 AD, which rather implies that the 70 AD event was not quite such a total destruction event as sometimes assumed. This would in fact align more obviously with the historical factoid that no Roman temple was set up until after 135 AD with the rededication of Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina - if the temple had been destroyed entirely in 70 AD, why would the Romans wait 65 years to establish their own temple? Such are the questions this raises. This source states that it was destroyed by fires in 70 AD, but only 'obliterated' entirely by Hadrian. At the very least, the article should probably note the ambiguities surrounding this and the 65-year interim. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "Destroyed" means damaged to the point of desolation, not that the Romans took a jackhammer to it (as it were.)  The whole area was extremely depressed and Jewish livelihoods utterly demolished for the most part. This of course had the effect of seething resentment, and when Hadrian - who was usually an able administrator - foolishly thought he could ignore those feelings and build a new pagan temple w/o issue - after previous governors let the situation alone - resulted in most probably 70% losses of three Roman legions to quiet the Bar Kochba revolt. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: 70 AD as the final date?

message: A historian, writing on the subject of The Poem of the Man-God, has stated the following:
:les fouilles menées par les équipes des archéologues Nahman Avigad en 1969-1980 dans la cité hérodienne de Jérusalem, et Yigael Shiloh en 1978-1982, dans la cité de David, mettent à mal l’historicité de certaines visions de Maria Valtorta, ainsi par exemple cette description du Temple de Jérusalem
:[...]
:Il n’y a jamais eu de coupole sur les bâtiments du Temple, comme le révèlent les fouilles des archéologues, confirmant les descriptions de l’historiographe juif Flavius Josèphe (37/38-100) presque contemporain de Jésus, qui a connu le Temple
The source is not centered on the topic. Still, do you believe this information (that the Second Temple never had dome), with this source, can be added to the article (to the 'Second Temple' article)? Veverve (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  No domes