Talk:Temple in Jerusalem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Views of the Temple[edit]

Is thank tha laft edat to tha page (18:49, Mar 12, 2005 (→Rebuilding the Temple today)) needs looking at. The text is as follows:

That would be a very convenient point of view, almost as convenient as creating a Jewish state in Siberia. However, it appears that the Al-Aqsa Mosque started being treated as the third holiest site in Islam only after Israel was created and even more so after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. It also appears that Arabs create claims and things parallel to everythig described in the Jewish Holly Books, including a people and mosque on the Temple Mount. This all was well summarized by Arafat when he said that "there is no single stone in Jerusalem connected to the Jewish history".
The Jewish point of view is that it is not up to people or the state to rebuild the Temple, but up to the Mochiach (Messiah) when he comes.

Beside a handful of typos, it's lacks encyclopaedia style, which leads me to suspect the veracity and the NPOV of the information added in the edit. The Ephialtist 20:20, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

It definately strikes me as very NPOV, and rather strongly biased. I vote for immediate and and complete removal. --oknazevad 22:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ah, someone removed it now, cool. The Ephialtist 12:19, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Third Temple[edit]

RK removed text about the Third Temple which is yet to be built. It is the opinion of the Jews that the prophecies in the Jewish Scriptures are true and will be fulfilled. Those prophecies include the building of the Third Temple. If we hold that they are not true, then there is no reason to believe that any of it is true. Which means that the Jews, in essence, do not Abraham, no Issac, no Jacob. Which means that Chrisitanity can not be true, because the its central figure Jesus would have been fulfilling prophecies that are not true.

How does the community of the wikipedia handle an issue like this?

RK Why do you believe that it is not the belief of Jews that a Third Temple will be built?

[CB]In my case, I don't believe thats the belief of Jews because I'm a Jew myself. I believe the paragraph should be rephrase.

Every year at Pessach Jews say "Jerusalem rebuilt", meaning the Temple. The rebuilding of the Temple will happen one day when the Dome of the Rock, which was built as an insult to Jews and Christians, is removed.... Rabbi Fivish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC) --

How can the concept that Bahá'u'lláh's tablets to the rulers of the world are a fulfillment of the prophecy of the Temple be incorporated here? (See the third paragraph of the introduction[1] to The Summons of the Lord of Hosts.) It is significant that Bahá'u'lláh contrasts interpretations of the prophecies.

Leif 19:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Names of God[edit]

Its a big mistake but we really dont know how to pronounce god's name and we are not allowed to say it. The spelling of HIS name does not have to do with its pronounciation. And therefore we say "HaShem" which means "His name". I am jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Genius (talkcontribs)

This is correct. His name is not to be said even if it was known how to pronounce it. Jehovah is not even close. It is an ignorant construction based on a false premise. Only the High Priest in the Jerusalem Temple on Yom Kippur was alowed to say His name. There has been no Temple since 70AD. We say "His name". ....Rabbi Fivish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, I suppose the common circumlocution to avoid the Tetragrammaton would have been something else, probably many other circumlocutions from Mishnah (esp.) should be listed, but Scripture is full of 'the House of the LORD' (I don't read Hebrew). This point certainly needs to be explained and linked with the Yahweh entry. --MichaelTinkler

140 occurrances of 'the house of the LORD' in KJB ;) But "beit jahveh" was used not only to refer to THE Temple in Jerusalem, but to any temple of the Hebrew God in any odd place; as well as metaphorically. On the other hand, "beit ha-mikdash" refers unequivocally to the Temple in Jerusalem. I suppose that the phrase itself dates to Mishnaic times and not to the biblical times; but it's been in continuous use ever since. I'm not knowledgable enough to expand on the relationships of various terms in this entry; I'm merely a Hebrew speaker living in Israel with enough knowledge of the Hebrew tradition to correct the obviously absurd statement that 'beit jahveh' is the normal Hebrew name for the Temple. Maybe someone more knowledgable will come along and set things straight. --AV

sorry, I hadn't read this before the last revision to the main entry - I was away from my computer with the edit screen sitting there. I'll change it back. --MichaelTinkler

on the other hand, having just re-read what I wrote, I said "the name given in Scripture." So, edit your qualification about other temples into the main entry, Anatoly. --MichaelTinkler

did that, although perhaps a bit awkwardly, please feel free to reword. I'll try to remember and come back to this entry later, I was going to do some reading on the history of the Temple anyway in the near future. --AV
if you get interested in the reconstructions published since the Renaissance, Stanley Tigerman's book (whose name is escaping me at the moment) is a great thing. --MichaelTinkler

Animal sacrifices[edit]

"the reconstruction of the Temple would require the recommencement of animal sacrifices, something which few Jews would like to happen."

I don't know anything about this. These sacrifices wouldn't be appreciably different from current "kashrut" slaughter practices, would they? (Apologies if I misuse the terms here.)

If animals were slaughetered in a rebuilt Temple, I believe that according to Jewish law they would be slaughtered in the same way that kosher laws require animals to be slaughtered today. RK 07:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Dear all, too much emphasis was placed in animal sacrifices along the article. The temple major purpose was to be a place of prayer and holyness. It was also the place were the scripts were kept.

There are entire books written about sacrifices in the temple. I cannot think of any source that says that the main purpose of the temple was prayer, in fact besides prayers connected with sacifices I cannot think of any prayers said in the temple. Modern Jewish prayers as we know it only came into being after the distruction of the temple. And what scripts are you refering to? Jon513 16:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
User:RK, Shechita in the temple is exactly the same as in standard kosher slaughter. Not only can it be performed by non-Kohanim, but there's a discussion in Pesachim expressly permitting women to perform shechita on their own korban pesach. They go right into the azaryah to do this along with the men, they don't do it in the Ezrat Nashim., if you have a reliable source that the primary purpose of the Temple was prayer, you are welcome to supply it, but I know of many reliable sources that say otherwise. Jon513, my understanding is there were indeed a number of standard prayers said in the Temple, for example the priestly blessing, the Barechu, and the Ahavat Rabbah prayer (the one we say just before the Shema), even if one doesn't count Psalms, and of course private prayer (see e.g. Hannah). I don't think the fact that they were said during the course of the Avodah makes them any less prayers, so it would certainly be reasonable to include prayer as a purpose and have a section on it. But primary purpose is another matter. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Isaiah 56:7 calls it a "house of prayer" implying that prayer was a key purpose. --Jms2000 16:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
1 Kings 8:20 "The LORD has kept the promise he made: I have succeeded David my father and now I sit on the throne of Israel, just as the LORD promised, and I have built the temple for the Name of the LORD, the God of Israel. 21 I have provided a place there for the ark, in which is the covenant of the LORD that he made with our fathers when he brought them out of Egypt." This suggests that the purpose or one of the purposes was to provide a place for the ark. 1 Kings 8:28 "Yet give attention to your servant's prayer and his plea for mercy, O LORD my God. Hear the cry and the prayer that your servant is praying in your presence this day." From here you can conclude that there was indeed praying. 1 Kings 8:30 "When your people Israel have been defeated by an enemy because they have sinned against you, and when they turn back to you and confess your name, praying and making supplication to you in this temple". And so on. I insist the major purpose was not animal sacrifice but prayer, holyness and a place for the ark. Animal sacrifice was just one of many ways of offering tribute to G'd, as many other people of the time did, but not the only way and definetly not the purpose. CB.
There are hundreds of Biblical passages about the Temple as well as a variety of other religious and historical sources. I would hesitate to give what might be undue weight to two selected quotes. I fear that attempting to extrapolate a claim about what the Temple was historically regarded as or used for from a couple of our personal favorite Bible passages might also be regarded as original research. I believe these Wikipedia policies require us to rely on notable religious and historical scholars and merely reflect their different points of view, rather than attempting to fashion our own Bible commentary, or offer our own opinion. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I added a secton on Tenple Services based on the prayer service described in Mishna Tamid 5:1, which was the basis for key parts of the traditional Jewish Shacharit service recited today. I also added the Isaiah 56:7 quote to the section on the prophets. --Shirahadasha 00:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Just tried to quote one of the original sources. I see we agree on the fact that there were prayers. Now, attempting to extrapolate a claim about what the Temple was historically regarded as or used for, from a couple of our favorite personal bible scholars might also not be regarded as Original Research. So how can we determine if the claim being discussed is misleading or not? Even quotes from some scholars pointing out that the purpose of the temple was other, would not be enough. So at the end, the point would be made or not based on the reputation of the scholar making one claim or the other? Could you please supply us with the author who claims that "animal sacrifices" was the primary purpose of the temple? I will then try to address my point shortly based on this. Thank you in advance, and sorry for making this discussion longer. I just think its important for the sake of the veracity of the article.
As but one example, the daily prayer for acceptance (I just added the text) asks for acceptance of "the fire-offerings of Israel and their prayer" -- in that order. (This order is kept verbatim in the Amidah prayer in Orthodox Judaism to this day. That order is repeated elsewhere. I don't think Wikipedia has to take a position on which is most important. But the reality is, there's a lot to say on the sacrificial services in the Temple, less to say on the prayers. It's just that so much more was said on the one than on the other in the sources. The Talmud has one Tractate (Brachot on prayer -- and whole books (all of Kedoshim, most of Moed and portions of the rest) on sacrifices, Similarly, the Hebrew Bible has whole books on sactifices. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Using your own arguments, we can not extrapolate a claim about what the Temple was historically regarded as or used for, from a couple of our favorite TALMUD passages. Animal sacrifice was one of the ways of worshiping and as you well say, is well documented. But the fact that there was animal sacrifice doesn't make it the primary purpose. This is misleading. Is confusing goals with means to achieve them. Wikipedia doesnt have to take a position, but it did. The article writes that its purpose was "...primarily for the offering of sacrifices ". I think your original proposal of referencing well known historical and biblical scholars is the best way to refine this article on this and other issues under discussion.Carlos Benaim 12:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd be willing to change the text to "sacrifices and prayer" consistent with the quote I offered. The quote is not merely a favorite Talmud passage, it is what what the priests themselves said in the Temple every day, and it's the statement that Rabbinic Judaism chose to put into every Amidah prayer -- Judaism's central prayer -- as it's key statement about the Temple. Thus there is extensive evidence that the statement is one that both the Temple ritual and Rabbinic Judaism regarded as a particularly important statement. It's not my own POV. This order also reflects the weight of the primary sources. The Hebrew Bible and Talmud said much more about sacrifices than about prayers. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I still disagree. If a paragraph is to be quoted, then we should accept and give more weight to the Kings section of the bible as King Solomom built the temple and specified its purpose (which I did above). The order of the words "sacrifice and prayer" you quoted, does not prove nor disprove the issue under discussion. As to the statement that more is said about sacrifices than prayers, it needs to be proved (you should provide references of scholars who researched and concluded this). I tend to believe this is the case of the Talmud but not the Hebrew Bible. However, I have no basis for this claim212.150.23.196 11:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Compromise proposal[edit]

I've changed the text to "for the offering of sacrifices known as the korbanot and for public and private prayer" as a compromise proposal consistant with the quote I provided, what the priests themselves said in the Temple about what it was they were doing. The quote asked for acceptance of the "fire-offerings of Israel and their prayer", stating things in that order. --Shirahadasha 19:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC) May I suggest "for national worship of G'd"? Animal sacrifices and prayers can be explained in next sentences as the ways worship was performed212.150.23.196 11:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Existence of Temple[edit]

This is not my area of expertise, but I think it is true that there is no evidence except for the Bible account that the first temple actually existed. If I'm not mistaken, that point should be made in the article. -- zero 13:53, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That is true. Some mainstream non-fundamentalist historians believe that the Bible contains historically accurate information, especially after the era of the Biblical patriarchs. I don't think anyone in the mainstream disputes the existence of Herod's Temple on the Temple Mount (sometimes called the third temple), which was an expansion of the Second Temple on Temple Mount; it doesn't seem that much of a strech to accept the Bible's claim that there was a first Temple. If we were talking about some other building described in the Bible, in which we had no archaeological or textual evidence, then perhaps the default position could be that the structure didn't exist. But in this case, we have archaeological evidence and textual evidence that the 3rd and 2nd Temple existed, so it seem rational to assume the existence of a 1st Temple, unless the argument is that the 2nd Temple really was the 1st. Still, I have no problem with noting the lack of direct archaeological evidence for the 1st Temple. Elsewhere I have put out a query on this issue; I am curious to see what sort of replies we will get. RK 16:37, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

RK, maybe you should expand "messianic era" in your discussion of the future rebuilding of the Temple for the benefit of readers not familiar with basic Judaism. -- zero 02:03, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hhere is my understanding of the consensus of the archaeological and historical community. Textual evidence outside the Bible, and its agreement with textual evidence inside the Bible, and additional archaeological evidence, all come to the same conclusion: Herod's Temple certainly existed; and the Second Temple, which Herod's Temple was an expansion of, certainly existed. The existence of the First Temple has no direct physical proof, but since the Second Temple certainly existed (and always was known as the Second Temple) historians have little or no doubt that the First Temple existed. The following point is important: Muslim Arabs in control of the Temple Mount forbid archaeologists from doing any work in this area. Thus, the lack of direct archaeological evidence for the First Temple is not due to a lack of trying, but because this Muslim group forbids any such evidence to be studied in the first place. Consider these points:

From: Ken Down
Subject: Re: Evidence for First Temple in Jerusalem?
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Date: 2003-08-23 23:15:54 PST
There is no archaeological evidence for any of the temples, partly because the destruction was so thorough, partly because the site has been built on. There is, of course, the temple platform, which has the famous "straight joint" on the east, where you have Herodian masonry to the south and Israelite(?) masonry to the north. There is also evidence of monumental masonry tumbled down into the Tyropoean Valley in 70 AD (we have excavated some of it), but there is nothing particularly "temple" about it. It could have come from anything - a palace, a fortress, a particularly fine villa.
Of course, I have no doubt that it did come from the temple and its associated buildings, but I could not prove that. The literary evidence is another thing and there is enough of it to make the existance of a temple pre-70 AD certain. However the only evidence for a First Temple is the record in the Hebrew Scriptures and the physical evidence of the Israelite(?) masonry of the temple platform.
From: AnonMoos (
Subject: Re: Evidence for First Temple in Jerusalem?
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish.moderated
Date: 2003-08-22 06:44:11 PST
There ain't gonna be too much on-site archaeological evidence for the first temple, because that site has been rebuilt several times, and some of the later builders dug down to bedrock to lay their foundations. Whatever evidence there is is still probably buried under the "Haram" platform, but the temple mount "waqf" has been conducting intentional malicious vandalism operations for a number of decades to try to ensure that no such evidence is found. However, there is an (unprovenanced) ivory mace head which is thought to be associated with first temple ritual. More generally, it's known that all the city-states and small kingdoms of the region had central temples, so there's no particular reason to suspect Judah of being radically different (when the Bible and the comparative evidence of the period agree with each other).

Archaelogical work[edit]

It is true that the Muslim Waqf forbids archaelogical work on the Temple Mount, that has little actual effect since the Jewish opposition to such work would be overwhelming anyway. On one of your other points, the existence of the second temple says nothing at all about the existence of the first temple and you are quite wrong about the opinion of archaelogists on this. You would have been right 50 years ago when most archaelogy in Israel was done for the purpose of confirming the Biblical account, but by now that is not true. -- zero 00:43, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Huh? Are you claiming that Israeli archaeologists now deny the existence of Herod's Temple and the Second Temple? I have never read any such thing, ever. This is a most extraordinary claim which flies in the face of everything I have ever read on this subject. OTOH, if you are not claiming that Israeli archaeologists deny the existence Herod's Temple and the Second Temple, then please state precisely what it is that you are trying to say. Are you claiming that they admit the existence of Herod's Temple and the Second Temple, but deny the existence of the First Temple? I do not know what it is that you are trying to imply. RK 00:50, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think its quite clear what he's trying to say: "the existence of the second temple says nothing at all about the existence of the first temple". Just because archaeologists accept to the existence of a building called the Second Temple, doesn't mean they automaticly accept the existance of the First Temple. It's quite possible that the Second Temple was called such solely because the people who built it believed there had been an earlier temple. - Efghij 01:09, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

Its not that clear to me. Perhaps this is because I have met many people who categorically deny that any Jewish Temple ever existed there, despire the fact that historians are certain that it existed, and that some of it is still there today. But if your explanation is what he meant, that is a much lesser claim. I don't think I would agree with those views, but it is interesting. If possible, it would nice see some citations from mainstream historians on this newer view. I certainly don't mind incorporating newer research. RK 01:16, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Efghij understood correctly. The thing about the second temple is that there are various bits of evidence from outside the Bible, such as Josephus. One can still debate things like when it was built but I think it is generally accepted that it existed. On the other hand, the first temple has no support outside the Bible as far as I know. Moreover, the archaelogical evidence suggests that Jerusalem was a very minor rundown place at the alleged time of the first temple and that other places were more important. See for the view of Israel Finkelstein on this. Not everyone agrees with him on this of course but I know from speaking to one of his colleagues that his view is a mainstream one. -- zero 01:55, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

From what I remember from my days of hanging out in the Near Eastern and Judaic Studies department of a certain place, the views of zero and Efghij are not just considered plausible among historians - they are pretty much the mainstream position. Controversial "findings" aside (see the fake pomegranate - see also some reports of rather controversial new excavations) we have, as of yet, no archaelogical evidence of the existence of the First Temple, let alone its exact location; we don't have any extra-biblical textual evidence either. There is no reason why there couldn't have been a pre-exilic temple somewhere, and some buildings do get destroyed fairly thoroughly; still, the First Temple seems curiously reluctant to exist outside the text. Hasdrubal 15:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: my Usenet posting which you quoted above -- to just say "the Muslim Waqf forbids archaelogical work on the Temple Mount" is totally and utterly inadequate as an overall description of the situation, since the temple mount Waqf has conducted extensive excavation and underground construction operations at the site, and an important part of the reason for these aforementioned excavation and underground construction operations was to carry out a very intentional and deliberately calculated plan to destroy any evidence for the existence of the ancient Jewish temple (whether first or second).

Re: the first temple -- all the kingdoms and city-states of the region during the early first millennium B.C. had a temple dedicated to the national or city-state patron god, so why should we expect Jerusalem to be any different? When comparative evidence agrees with the text of the Bible, then the burden of proof is on the skeptics. (The issue of the exact degree of magnificence of the first temple is quite another question.)

Re: the Solomonic kingdom. The thing to understand is that both Egyptian and Mesopotamian states were relatively weak during that period, and unable to extend much influence beyond their borders to the Israel-Canaan area. So the reason why there's not any contemporary Egyptian or Mesopotamian documentary evidence for the Davidic-Solomonic kingdom is exactly the same reason why the Davidic-Solomonic kingdom found it relatively easy to expand -- i.e. neither Eyptian nor Mesopotamian states had much interest in the area at the time. Furthermore, the Davidic-Solomonic kingdom was not really much of an "empire". They managed to keep internal Israelite factionalism to a relatively low level, and the brilliant generalship of a few individuals allowed the united Israelites to militarily temporarily overawe the Philistines, persuade the Phoenicians that it was worth their while to deal with the Israelites, and cause the neighboring small kingdoms of Geshur, Moab, and Edom to pay a nominal tribute at least part of the time (and of course, the Israelite monarchs didn't have to worry about international interference because Egypt and Mesopotamia were divided and weak). However, as soon as Israelite factionalism got out of control, and the new generals were less individually brilliant, and Egypt and Mesopotamia started regaining strength, then the whole Israelite "empire" fell apart with extreme rapidity. This is all pretty much there in the Bible, if you read carefully.


Third Temple, again[edit]

With regard to the Third Temple:

"Furthermore, there are many ritual impurity constrictions that are difficult to resolve, making the building's construction a practical impossibility."

This is interesting, but left unexplained in the article. Can anyone elaborate? — Trilobite (Talk) 20:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Diaspora prior to & contemp. w/ Babylonian exile[edit]

Related wikipod Jewish diaspora more correctly uses term diaspora beginning w/ Bablylonian exile 597 BCE; there was demographic diffusion even before the earlier 'Assyrian exile.' The largest and most important Jewish city before Roman times wasn't Jerusalem, it was Ptolemaic Alexandria in Egypt (one million Jewish residents in two of its five sections). Tribune 07:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Julian's apotheosis[edit]

This part about emperor Julian's failed effort being just for his own glorification puzzles me quite a lot. It would certainly have been most unwise of the emperor - who was against the Christians but moved rather subtly in this - to commit such a blatant heresy, certainly the one effort which would immediately have rallied all the Jews of the empire against him, possibly even united with the Christians!

There is AFAIK no evidence that Julian wanted to harm the Jews. One might suspect he tried to rebuild the Temple to get at the Christians by strengthening the status of their mother-religion, but a temple to himself?! --Sponsianus 21:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Priest massacre[edit]

Will the person who keeps inserting this blurb please cite some sources. None of the pages I've found seem to indicate this. As long as you have a good source for this I have no problem for it, but I haven't seen one yet. Hirudo 19:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC) See article on Pompey in the Encyclopaedia Judaica. Erudil 18:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


the LDS section contains loads of information more than is necessary about LDS in general, much of it not related to the Temple at all, and also there's POViness in talking about prophecy as fact Dave 02:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've edited it.--Meamcat 06:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Maimonides views on sacrifices[edit]

I have corrected a common misconception of Maimonides vision of the third temple. Although there are modern opinions that there will be no animal sacrifices in the third temple, opinions dating before the 19th century all seem to concur that they will happen, including the oft misunderstood Maimonides/Rambam...

"However there are some modern opinions, that sacrifices would not take place in a rebuilt Temple. Sometimes these opinions are mistakenly based on the scholar Maimonides's book "A Guide for The Perplexed", where he states "that God deliberately has moved Jews away from sacrifices towards prayer, as prayer is a higher form of worship". However, this must be understood as purely a philosophical idea, in light of the fact that he not only clearly states in his book "The Mishna Torah" that animal sacrifices will take place in the third temple, but also goes into great detail explaining how they will be carried out."

Egyptian temple[edit]

The picture of the temple at the beginning of the article seems a lot like an Egyptian temple. Was this because of Egyptian influence on the Isrealites?

Names for Temple[edit]

I don't know how to enter hebrew characters, but perhaps some other expressions for the Temple could be given at the beginning - Bet Elohim; Bet Adonai; Hekhal; Har Elohim; etc? --ADMH 23:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Problematic section[edit]

The section entitle "Modern Critical Scholarly interpretation of the Temple in Jerusalem" needs a lot of work. I literally (not figuratively, as some people mean when they say literally) have no idea what it is trying to say. Does Mary Ann Tolbert believe that Jews were/are pagans? Many of the sentences are undisputed except for the scholarly tone of "Yahweh" instead of God such as the quotes for Isaiah and Ezekiel. Is this saying anything? Is it trying to? If it is not cleaned up soon I am removing it.Jon513 01:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Biblical1 has retitled the section "Scholarly Consensus", and is apparently now claiming this viewpoint is a universally-believed contemporary scholarly consensus based on exactly two sources cited none from particularly well-known universities. If you look the two books up you'll see they received a lot of criticism. From my perspective Biblical1 has a basis for adding the point of view, attributed as the POV of the individuals cited, but does not have a basis for presenting it as fact or as a universally-held consensus view. --Shirahadasha 05:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have located a CV for Mary Ann Tolbert here [2]. She is the George H. Atkinson Professor of Biblical Studies and Executive Director of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry at the Pacific School of Religion. Here is a CV for Stephen L. Harris. [3]. He is Professor and Chair, Department of Humanities and Religious Studies, California State University, Sacramento. Sufficiently reliable to use sources and for these views to stand as individual views, but claim of consensus clearly has not been established --Shirahadasha 05:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Biblical1 is not very clear as to whether Y was a monotheistic god or not. In fact, this kind of material should never be presented as "scholary consensus" without at least some supportive proof that it is indeed so. JFW | T@lk 08:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I tend to shy away from removing stuff like this, even when appropriate to do so, for fear that I'll be labeled a right-wing religious zealot who removes everything not stated in the Talmud. But here I think removal of the information is warranted. Jon513 19:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


Yahweh is the ancient God of Israel. Judaism in antiquity has its roots in polytheism. This means Yahweh was a God among a divine council. You will not see monotheism in the Old Testament until later redactors and in wisdom literature (psalms and proverbs).

On this note, Shirahadasha has done well looking at the individual information for a consensus among scholars, however, the professor's religion(s) and clubs have nothing whatsoever to do with the research. Thus Shirahadasha pulling up "Executive Director of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies" is an attempt to discredit the author.

The only fact I have yet to find numerous sources for resides in priestly sources thinking the temple is 2 miles below heaven in the 6th century BCE. Irrecovable of this, the information is a printed article introducing the Oxford Study Bible, a bible given to students partaking in academic religious studies (objective information). This article is from acadamia, it is a published work.

I encourage all to do their own objective research.

I fear this article is displacing "fact" with "fiction" simply because it makes a mockery out of certain prophetic interpretations of history.

I will also add that the Jewish historian Josephus has a famous quote in regards to this temple, it is "the one temple for the one god". In other words, it was the ONLY place to worship Yahweh. Priests harvested the jewish temple until its seige and burning in 70 AD, eventually eradicting this priestly theology and causing synagogues and rabbi's to be the mainstay in Judaism.


I would also like to add that our goal is all the same here, objective information.

I attributed sources to my research.. So far no one has presented information that conflicts with the facts I've presented.

I am also afraid Shirahadasha is mistaking biblical scholarship with theological studies. There is a difference. Public institutions are not allowed to give a religious bias, the goal is objectivity. Private schools are quite the opposite. Thus the research from the scholars and academia field is not to be discredited because it goes against a certain person's religious talmud view. The view of the talmud is to in the "according to" section, this based on the fact it utilizes a theological view of history, ie Babylon overcame Judah because of the transgressions or sins of one of the monarchs. This incorrect theorem is exactly a theorem, it can be discredited through science (the archaeological record). The facts I presented are not theorems, therefore Shirahadasha had no grounds to edit the information presented..

Please utilize sources when disputing information. Not discrediting authors by mentioning their support of gay clubs. How Shirahadasha was able to edit my articles is a problem that must be addressed, others have been taken on his/her alterations due to the idea that it doesn't "sound right," never mind if it is right, as Shirahadasha and others can't disprove the information, simply the fact that it is "doesn't sound right" is grounds for editing to some. This is a mockery of wikipedia.

I would also like to add that Shirahadasha wrote the following :

Biblical scholarship, and particularly interpretions of the more difficult mystical prophetic visions such as those found in the first chapter of Ezekiel, is highly subjective and even speculative. While interpretations from scholars representing various points of view are welcome on Wikipedia, claims that a particular favorite scholar's opinion on this type of subject matter represents the sole "objective" fact are unfortunately inconsistant with Wikipedia's WP:Neutral point of view policy

Biblical scholarship ( a form of religious studies )is an objective view at prophetic visions such as that of Ezekiel. In other words, it expreses apathy to all sides, it has no bias. It is the ONLY objective view ALLOWABLE in the main sections of wikipedia.

The very definition of religious studies counters what is said..

Religious studies is the multi-disciplinary, secular study of religion. It is distinct from theology and incorporates multiple disciplines and methodologies including the sociology, psychology, philosophy, and history of religion in addition to comparative religion.

I presented the information with sources, Shirahadasha attempted to discredit the sources because he/she thought their institution "wasn't famous". (I question if Shirahadasha is actually familar with public education/universities in the United States.) Again, this is an ad hominem fallacy, as Shirahadasha cannot dispute the information itself, he/she is attempting to discredit the author. (This due to the fact they he/she still hasn't presented objective research to counter facts)

I would like to present the following article here:

This consensus is one of the peices I wrote. As you can see, the sources are numerous, and my only goal is truth. I would not write such an article unless I had reliable sources; reliable sources are not based on their practiced institutions nor their sexual preferences as Shirahadasha mentioned.

Also I am rather tired, I have spent too much time on this topic. I would very much like to add more sources however I am still a bit confused as to why it the information is still in question.


Before I leave, I would like to say it is unfortunate I go to such lengths to dispute things of this sort. It is discouraging to present information to share, only to have it disputed by claims that end up being hollow.

Biblical1 06:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

biblical1, you are bordering very close to violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Jon513 09:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize as I have defended numerous articles in the past few days, many from those who have a prophetic view of history. I am doing my best to present objective information.


I see from your contribution history that you are relatively new to Wikipedia. As you can see some of your edits have run into opposition from other editors. This is a normal situation. Here are a couple of suggestions for navigating it:

First, Wikipedia is a wiki, a collective undertaking which is a social product. Everyone gets to edit everything, so there's no ownership and no "my" article. The community has powers to resolve disputes, including the ability to lock articles and make decisions. Second, as in any social undertaking, ones behavior in communicating influences people's decisions, whether or not it should. I want to point out two things in this regard. One is the Wikipedia policies of WP:Assume good faith and WP:No personal attacks. There's no reason to assume that my reporting Professor Tolbert's academic institution and title -- facts you acknowledge are relevant to establishing her reliability as a source -- was done to attack or discredit her, particularly since I mentioned I accepted her suitability. Similarly, there was no need (or factual basis) to question my familiarity with the American educational system etc. I also want to point out that there are established policies for what kinds of content Wikipedia accepts, and you're not at liberty to propose policies of your own. One of them is that the person making the edit has to establish that the content is notable and reliably sourced, and the community has no obligation to provide research to prove the contrary. Another is that Wikipedia serves religous people as anyone else and theological and religious subjects and points of view, properly sourced and attributed, are considered legitimate content. You have to learn and work within these policies.

But even more importantly, the way one uses facts to establish an argument in the Talk pages inevitably influences how people judge the perceived credibility of ones edits. I'd like to point out a couple of things in this regard. Your argument drew a distinction between "religious" and "theological" studies, arguing that people engaged in the latter have "religious bias" and can't be reliable as sources. But a source you cited, Mary Ann Tolbert, turns out to be doing "Studies in Religion and Ministry" at a private denominationally-affiliated theological seminary -- in other words, "theological studies" exactly as you defined them. One would expect that a person with strong opinions about who is reliable would do homework to ensure that their own sources are consistent with those opinions. Next, you inferred a large number of things from my mere mention of one of Mary Ann Tolbert's fields of academic study, "Gay and Lesbian Studies in Religion and Ministry." You mentioned "discrediting authors by mentioning their support of gay clubs," "sexual preferences", etc. But to me, the most decisive issue is the extraordinary inference you drew from the Josephus quote "the one temple for the one god". You said "In other words, it was the ONLY place to worship Y-." Now it it is true that the dictionary definition of a "temple" is "a place of worship", but "The temple in Jersualem" doesn't have a meaning as simple as the dictionary one. The Temple was associated with a particular type of worship. Whether other types of worship (such as individual or synagogue prayer) were going on, or sanctioned, is a question the quote doesn't answer.

I'm also concerned by some of the things that have been written on the Christianity pages. I found you admitted that you didn't know Paul of Tarsus' view of the Ressurrection Talk:Paul of Tarsus, something one would expect someone who writes a "Scholarly Consensus" claim ought to know. I also found various complaints on that page and your own talk page similar to ones that have been made here. See e.g. Lostcaesar's comment on Talk:Paul of Tarsus, "What I called 'absurd' was presenting the pbs information as though it were stone fact, that is to say they express an opinion, a point of view, and the article ought to reflect that. I don't mind it being in there, I mind an opinion substituted for a fact."

I've tried to provide a very careful, thorough analysis because I don't reach conclusions about these things lightly or without explaining why. But it it would seem that you might want to rethink the approach here. The many comments you've been recieving about what you've been doing on Christianity-related topics, e.g. Carl.bunderson's comment on your Talk page "Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia"; "Could you please refrain from readding a substandard POV passage to Christianity again and again" by Str1977; -- look all too similar to conclusions that people are drawing here. I would urge you to pay careful attention to Wikipedia policies, avoid personal attacks, and be very careful about the inferences you are drawing from your sources. I also suggest being a bit less ambitious about your edits starting out. It might be better to start by simply using a source or two to add a new point of view in a short section, rather than attempting to add large sections or a whole "Scholarly consensus" as one of the first things one does. Best wishes, --Shirahadasha 17:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the response. I think my main difficulty has been correctly formatting sources. I should perhaps write the isbn and page number, along with collect multiple others.

It is not my intention to present false information, if it is so, than by all means refute this, as the correct information is the end anyway.

My elaboration on paul's resurrection can be found on the discussion page under paul of tarsus, as ive pulled from sources and posted them there.

I think it's best if we both address the information in question

The Temple in Jerusalem was originally built as a house for Yahweh or the God of Ancient Israel. Priests in the sixth century B.C.E. believed the Temple was two miles below the heavenly dwelling of God [1] The ancient temple was seen as a place where Yahweh frequently visited and where he sat on his throne from the holy Ark of the Covenant. Disloyalty to this Ark and Yahweh's house would later be a reason why many Prophets condemned Israel, many individuals thought the Temple of Jerusalem would never fall due to the Angel that saved them of Assyrian conflict in 701 B.C.E.[2] According to the prophet Isaiah, Yahweh proclaimed he would save the city, and "The angel of the Lord went out and struck down a hundred and eighty-five thousand men in the Assyrian camp; when morning dawned, they all lay dead." (Isaiah 37:36). This account of the miraculous angel who saved the holy temple is later disputed when the Assyrian leader Sennacherib states his troops sealed Jerusalem, "like a bird in a cage".

The Prophet Ezekiel also has visions of Yahweh seated in the temple of Jerusalem. Yahweh's seat had wheels accompanied by animals, "Each had four faces and each four wings; their legs were straight, and their hoofs were like the hoofs of a calf, glistening and gleaming like bronze. (Isaiah 1:6-7). Ezekiel also sees Yahweh leave the sacred temple before it's destroyed by the Babylonian ruler Nebuchadnezzar in 587 B.C.E

Ezekiel then sees the "glory of Yahweh" rise from its traditional seat between the gold cherubim in the Temple's innermost sanctuary and pass through the city gates to the east. This strange event is probably meant to show that Yahweh's kavod (a Hebrew term that can be translated as "glory" or "influence") has permanently abandoned the Temple and now roams the world, operating in new and unpredictable ways. [2]

Now perhaps it's best if I classify this as "biblical criticism". I'm unaware how the Talmud interprets the writings of Ezekiel as well.

Also I would like to address the source. The article Reading the Bible, by Mary Ann Tolbert appears on pages 3-11 in the Oxford Study Bible, Oxford Study Press, 1992. ISBN 0195290011. This bible is used for religious studies students undertaking a bibilical studies class at public universities. I am unaware if Tolbert is a theological studies teacher at a private institution, however I can only assume her work must be objective to appear in such a textbook.

I believe the information in question was the idea that priests thought it to be 2 miles below heaven. This concept is not too far-fetched as the Temple harvested the Ark of the Covenant. This ark, utilized in the book of Joshua, was held by Priests who blew Rams horns, ultimatley causing the walls of Jericho to fall down. (see Joshua)

The historian Josephus spoke about the room "Holy of Holies" as well :"According to Josephus, the bejeweld curtain veling the Sanctuary's innermost room, the Holy of Holies, depicted a panarama of heaven." Pg 351, Understanding the Bible, McGraw Hill, 2003 0767429168

I have not done further research as those sources seem to satisfy 'objective' matters. Prior to the temple going down in 70, the Sadducees controlled it's priesthood (priests mind you, not rabbi's). The Sadducees claimed to be of the Zadok line and the temple was the one place to properly worship, they were not anti-dynastic cult, this meaning they supported the priests of the Zadokites from Solomon and David. The Sadducees adaptation that the temple was the one place to worship yahweh is the essence of the quote from Josephus, 'one temple for the one God'. Josephus also attributes the fall in 70 to the political Zealots, a formed party dedicated to evicting the Romans. The zealots refused to give up, Josephus alludes that the General Titus had not originally intended to descecrate Jerusalem. Nevertheless, its seige for 18 months resulted in it's ransacking and the elimination of the Sadducees. This gave way to "formative Judaism", as sacrifices at the temple were seen as retribution for the people's sins.

It is said that when ben Zakkai visited the ruins of Jerusalem with another rabbi, his companion lamented the fact that with the Temple gone, their religion had no means of making the atonement sacrifices necessary to cleanse the people from sin. Ben Zakkai reportedly answered that henceforth "deeds of love" - humanitarian service - would replace the old system of animal sacrifice. He then quoted the Scripture in which God declares, "I require mercy, not sacrifice (Hos 6.6)" Professor Harris, Page 370

I would also like to point out that the first part of the Talmud wasn't completed until 200 CE, 130 years after the fall of the Temple. Thus I don't suppose the Talmud would reflect quite well with the Sadducees and their temple, as they are largely reformed Pharisees and 'diaspora' Jews. The above however is objective. Perhaps the sources should be included along with "according to".. but research in the biblical studies field is scholarly research not to be confused with religious views.

Heavenly Matters

The prophet Elija, prior to the Jerusalem temple, publicly ascended into heaven in the bible. People in ancient israelite religion once believed you climb the tower of babel lead into heaven too. Humans could be 'like the divine' in otherwords. The temple was seen as this place to worship yahweh. This can be observed in Genesis 11, also page 50 of Harris' book.

In the Babel episode, the author (Genesis 11) represents humanity's prideful attempt to erect a structure high enough to "reach heaven" as an offense against Yahweh. Accordingly, Yahweh thwarts human ambition by overthrowing the ziggurat, scattering its builders abroad, and confusing their languages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biblical1 (talkcontribs)

Firstly can everyone PLEASE sign their post with four ~~~~ and indent their responses with a : or two. I am having a lot of trouble following the discussion.
I have a lot of trouble understanding the above post. First, "I believe the information in question was the idea that priests thought it to be 2 miles below heaven. This concept is not too far-fetched as the Temple harvested the Ark of the Covenant. This ark, utilized in the book of Joshua, was held by Priests who blew Rams horns, ultimately causing the walls of Jericho to fall down. (see Joshua)". I don't see any logical idea in these sentences. It seems to be a non sequitur.
Next, quoting the words " 'one temple for the one God'" to mean that there is no other place to worship God as opposed to no other temple to worship God is POV at best OR at worst (also strange that this is coming from someone who belives that "Judaism in antiquity has its roots in polytheism." - yet at the same time ignores a reference to the one God).
And how does what the tower of babel people (Babylonians?) believed relate to what the Jews believed 2000 years later? Jon513 13:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree. I'm also troubled by this reply. It seems to combine legitimate information with non-sequitor additions/extrapolations. I'm concerned that the content in dispute, the Scholarly Concensus section, may be doing the same thing. --Shirahadasha 12:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Article locked[edit]

I have protected the article per this request. Please resolve any issues regarding article content in accordance with Wikipedia's "Consensus editing" principles. If anyone feels this article protection is unwarranted or if the conflicts have been resolved, please feel free to contact me on my talk page, and I will respond according to my best judgment as quickly as possible. Thank you for your coöperation, and keep in mind...editing wikipedia should be fun, not a battlefield. Thanks, Tomertalk 07:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup needed[edit]

{{cleanup}} The section titled "Archaeological evidence" needs footnotes to document its claims with specific sources. The section immediately following, "References", needs to be integrated into the existing References section, and wikified. "Further reading" needs to have the actual content moved into the main article somewhere, and the citation integrated with the References section. (But first the article needs to be unlocked.) -- Beland 20:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Role in Jewish Services[edit]

Should "tradutuibak" read "traditional"? The former, is, I believe, nonsense, or a typo; accordingly, I have made the appropriate correction.--Lance6968 05:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to resolve problematic section[edit]

Remove the current Scholarly Consensus section in its entirety (Move to User:Biblical1's user area). Biblical1 is welcome to add relevant comments from his prefered critical scholars in a section called e.g. Critical Scholarship Perspectives as long as all material is sourced and attributed, but should not label the material as a "consensus" or similar, and should not put it in the introduction or main narrative. --Shirahadasha 03:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


I agree, perhaps consensus was an improper term. I will do my best to attribute sources in a later section in the future, Critical Scholarship Perspectives seems fine to me.

Biblical1 08:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for settling this folks, just a quick note, keep WP:MOS capitalization in mind [i.e., "Critical scholarship perspectives" [or whatever] instead of "Critical Scholarship Perspectives"] for section titles. OK, that said, I'm unprotecting the article. Have fun and be nice to each other ;-) Tzom qal lekulam. Tomertalk 23:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

N. Natan's material[edit]

Nnatan (talk · contribs) has been editing here and at Solomon's Temple drawing apparently on nothing but his own self-published, which certainly does not meet our usual standard for reliable sources. I have cleared out this material to the best of my ability at Solomon's Temple and have requested him to stop adding his non-peer-reviewed original research to that article. I would suggest that someone ought to do the same here. - Jmabel | Talk 22:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Natan gives ALL precise References which can be checked by serious scholars for every fact exposed.

Natan 27 december 2006

Odd formatting[edit]

What's up with all the odd bold text? Example: " ...(still existing NOWADAYS and which can be checked by any COMPETENT scientist) , UNDERGROUND HYDRAULIC SYSTEM which reveals itself..." The all-Caps style seems weird, too. Basesurge 16:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The Ancient Temple was real - the future Temple, problematic[edit]

The claim that the First Temple did not exist at all is nihilistic nonsense. No serious scholar makes such a claim. As to a Temple in the future: It could be possible to build such a temple without damaging the Mosques - but not without infuriating Muslims. Erudil 18:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

BC/AD v. BCE/CE[edit]

an anonymous user ( changed all of the era to bc/ad style. I don't really care. If anyone does, feel free to change it back. see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras for guidelines on this issue. Jon513 17:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

done. --Stlemur 18:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should definitely remain in the BC/AD style. This is a religious topic and cannot be separated from that reality. If someone thinks the Jewish calendar is more appropriate, I wouldn't object, but a secular/progressive/atheist approach to denoting the Christian year is ridiculous.Bilcarter (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but don't forget that these political correctors are often not very bright: CE can stand for 'Christian Era' and BCE for 'Before the Christian Era'. Both these interpretations are, of course, far more 'Christian' than just 'Before Christ' because they allude to a religion whereas 'Before Christ' just an historical fact. So they shoot themselves in the foot. AD/BC should be used as using CE/BCE is making a statement, whatever the intended reason. (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


GPS coordinates please. I would like to find this place in Google Earth.

link to google maps (31.778063, 35.23515). Jon513 11:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

First temple artifacts[edit]

In the lede paragraph--I hope there will be a better source than the Israeli National News. I dont think we can use them to say that what was found was temple artifacts rather than the more neutral " possible ritual remains from the first Temple period" . and the wording "archeologists have confirmed" implies a settled consensus, not a very recent discovery : possibley: "archeologists have reported."DGG (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Existence of King Solomon[edit]

I've been to Israel, and I've seen the temple, so despite my atheism, I've never questioned the existence of the temple until recently. I took for granted that because the second temple existed, and is called the second temple, that there was a first temple. Because the first temple was built by Solomon, I took for granted that King Solomon also existed. However, I have just watched these very convincing videos that show there is absolutely no archaeological evidence for the existence of King Solomon. This returns to the question of whether the first temple ever existed. I think my current answer must be "I don't know", but I will remain skeptical until more digging is conducted on the site. Regardless, if a first temple did exist, you can not say it was built by King Solomon, as there is no evidence he ever existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The scholar in that video goes way beyond contemporary consensus scholarship in questioning scriptural history, so I would take his view with a grain of salt. That said, I'd love to know what historians make of the evidence. My sources aren't good at that sort of judgment call. Leadwind (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Josiah listening to the reading of the law by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld
Personally, I think you will have a hard time finding a scholar who claims there was no First Temple. Clearly, Jerusalem existed as a city, it was sacked by the Babylonians, c. 587 BCE. Ancient cities generally also had a city temple. The Siloam inscription is relevant here, note also the use of the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet, not the square script adopted (after the Babylonian exile) for most biblical texts. The bigger question is who built the first temple and did David and Solomon actually exist or are they just legendary, as for example King Arthur. This is fully open to debate. The story of King Josiah finding a Torah scroll in the temple is interesting (2 Chronicles 34:14, 2 Kings 22:8) . (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Temple in Jerusalem[edit]

Hoe werd vastgesteld welke toewijzingen voor de tempeldienst de priesters in Israël ontvingen?

Van de 24 door koning David ingestelde priesterafdelingen waren er 16 uit het huis van Eleazar en 8 uit het huis van Ithamar (1Kr 24:1-19). Aanvankelijk keerden er echter priesters uit slechts vier van de afdelingen uit de Babylonische ballingschap terug (Ezr 2:36-39). Sommigen opperen het denkbeeld dat de vier teruggekeerde families zo onderverdeeld werden dat er opnieuw 24 afdelingen waren, zodat de oorspronkelijke organisatorische regeling voortgezet kon worden. Alfred Edersheim onderstelt in zijn boek The Temple (1874, blz. 63) dat dit tot stand werd gebracht doordat elke familie vijf loten trok voor degenen die niet waren teruggekeerd en er aldus uit hun groepen twintig extra afdelingen werden gevormd waaraan zij de oorspronkelijke namen gaven. Zacharias, de vader van Johannes de Doper, was een priester uit de achtste afdeling, die van Abia. Doch indien de bovenstaande zienswijze de juiste is, kan het zijn dat hij geen nakomeling van Abia was, maar slechts tot de afdeling behoorde die Abia’s naam droeg (1Kr 24:10; Lu 1:5). Aangezien wij niet over de volledige inlichtingen beschikken, kunnen er dienaangaande geen definitieve conclusies worden getrokken.

De dienst van de priesters in de tempel werd georganiseerd onder het opzicht van verschillende beambten. Bepaalde diensten werden door het lot toegewezen. Elk van de 24 afdelingen verrichtte tweemaal per jaar een week dienst. Gedurende de feesttijden, wanneer er net als bij de inwijding van de tempel duizenden slachtoffers door het volk werden gebracht, verrichtte klaarblijkelijk de gehele priesterschap dienst (1Kr 24:1-18, 31; 2Kr 5:11; vgl. 2Kr 29:31-35; 30:23-25; 35:10-19). Een priester mocht ook op andere tijdstippen dienst verrichten, zolang hij de dienstdoende priesters maar niet belemmerde in de uitoefening van hun taak. Volgens de rabbijnse overleveringen waren de priesters tijdens Jezus’ aardse leven zo talrijk dat de week van dienst over de verschillende families die de afdeling vormden, werd verdeeld, zodat elke familie — afhankelijk van de grootte — een of meer dagen dienst deed.

Wat waarschijnlijk als het eervolste van de dagelijkse diensten werd beschouwd, was het branden van reukwerk op het gouden altaar. Dit werd gedaan nadat het offer was gebracht. Tijdens het branden van het reukwerk stond het bijeengekomen volk buiten het heiligdom en bad. Volgens de rabbijnse overlevering werd door het lot bepaald wie deze dienst mocht verrichten, maar iemand die al een keer aan de beurt was geweest mocht niet meeloten tenzij alle aanwezigen al een keer aan de beurt waren geweest (The Temple, blz. 135, 137, 138). Indien dit zo is, zou een priester deze eer gewoonlijk slechts eenmaal in zijn leven te beurt vallen. Zacharias verrichtte deze dienst toen de engel Gabriël aan hem verscheen om aan te kondigen dat Zacharias en zijn vrouw Elisabeth een zoon zouden krijgen. Toen Zacharias uit het heiligdom kwam, kon de bijeengekomen menigte aan zijn uiterlijk en aan zijn onvermogen om te spreken gewaarworden dat hij in het heiligdom een bovennatuurlijk gezicht had gehad, en zo werd deze gebeurtenis algemeen bekend. — Lu 1:8-23.

Het schijnt dat de priesters elke sabbatdag het voorrecht hadden het toonbrood te verwisselen. Het was ook op de sabbat dat de priesterafdeling die een week dienst had verricht, haar dienst beëindigde en de nieuwe afdeling met haar taak voor de volgende week begon. Deze en andere noodzakelijke taken die door de priesters werden behartigd, werden niet als een schending van de sabbat beschouwd. — Mt 12:2-5; vgl. 1Sa 21:6; 2Kon 11:5-7; 2Kr 23:8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The talk page guidelines make it clear that English is preferred on the talk page. This post in Dutch, replete with numerous biblical references, is probably off-topic. Unless someone comes up with a translation in a day or two so the community can see what it says, I'll delete. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


"An Islamic shrine, the Dome of the Rock, has stood on the site of the Temple since the late 7th Century CE, and the al-Aqsa Mosque, from roughly the same period, also stands on the Temple courtyard."

I've heard about this since like ever, but i have never seen proof, would someone direct me to a neutral source that proves this so called "fact"? --Michael1408 00:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what exactly are you looking for proof of? Tad Lincoln (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That the Dome of the rock stands on the site of the temple, sorry for the late reply --Michael1408 05:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael1408 (talkcontribs)

Astronomy and dating Solomon's temple[edit]

"Solomon's Temple ... has been dated astronomically to 957 BCE" How do you use astronomy to date a building that no longer exists? For that matter, how would you use astronomy to date any building? Just curious.PiCo (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

History of the Temple[edit]

This article could use a section outlining the history of the Temple. A lot happened in relation to it. Some of this appears in the lead, but it should be in the body, too. Leadwind (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, please, if you can, at least enough to get the section started. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct names for the First and Second Temples[edit]

Discussion about the correct names for the First and Second Temples at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Temple discussion at ANI[edit]

In response to #Correct names for the First and Second Temples above, 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) 05:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No evidence this temple existed[edit]

the first paragraph introduce the temple as if its an undisputed fact that it existed. Someone should add "is believed by X or Y group to be/have been ..... etc --Omarello2 (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You are invited to read Temple Denial, which is linked from this article. You will find Prof. Davila's comments particularly illuminating. HupHollandHup (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Era style[edit]

This article was stable for years in the BCE/CE era style. Then, with [this edit] on 9 September 2010, it was changed to BC/AD by an IP with no edit summary and no attempt at discussion or consensus. Since this constitutes a clear-cut violation of WP:ERA I'm changing it back. Anyone who would like to try to create a consensus for a change may do so here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


The 4th paragraph of the section on construction and demolition was very confusing, due to its not being chronologically arranged. This was remedied by moving one sentence, and deleting a reference to "over a century later," which became erroneous. No other changes were made in the composition, just the chronological rearrangement. If someone is offended by this, feel free to revert. StavinChain (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent history[edit]

I do not think mentioning that the Jordanians had invaded Jerusalem prior to the Israelis affects the 'Neutrality' of the article. And if you feel this is irrelevant, then it could be argued by the same count that the whole piece is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeetg (talkcontribs) 03:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There was no mention of Jordanian invasion. As Jordan had not previously captured the Old City from Israel or "the Jews" (as you put it), "re-captured" is inaccurate. The neutrality question solely concerns the general tone. It could be argued that the entire section is, at best, only distantly related to the Temple and its history, and perhaps should be stricken entirely. Let's see what other editors have to say on that.
Saying "moved section" in your edit summary without mentioning that you also edited the content raises suspicions of evasiveness. To avoid such suspicions, please be more precise and forthcoming in your edit summaries. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Useful additional information[edit]

The article would benefit from a floor plan of the temple, with some size indications. Also, there must be more archeological information? A little more would be of interest. Wcmead3 (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

After leaving this comment, I looked at the Second Temple article. Why is this article separate from that one? That article contains some of the content I asked about in the previous post. Wcmead3 (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

"In the Talmud"[edit]

The section stated in the header blatantly violates NPOV. Could someone get around to rewriting or removing this? --The one that forgot (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it violates NPOV. It says they are the "theological reasons," not the objective scientific or historical reasons. I've added one word to clarify it, making it "traditional theological reasons" The heading further makes tthe situation clear: thwese aee the reasons give in the Tlamud. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Archaeological evidence[edit]

I added the most recent reports on this which is haaretz here ". But as Prof. Israel Finkelstein, a world-renowned expert on Jerusalem archaeology, spells out in an email to Haaretz, "There is no scholarly school of thought that doubts the existence of the First Temple." read more: "

so I took this out sorry I didn't sign Sadya goan (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The Double Gate[edit]

To whom it may concern:

According to Hershel Shanks, both, the double and triple gates are known as the Hulda Gates, after the prophetess Huldah.[1] Israeli author and archaeologist, Meir Ben-Dov, however, holds a different view. He writes that only the Double Gate was called the Hulda Gates.[2] The Triple Gates, though obviously once in use, are now not known by their original name. In Mishnah Middot 1:3, we learn that during the late Second Temple period, only one gate was in use by the people on the Southern Wall of the Temple Mount, namely, the Huldah Gates, and "that served for coming in and for going out." It is, therefore, plain that people used the Hulda Gates for entering the Temple Mount, while others used the same gate for exiting the Temple Mount; the principle in Judaism being that in whatever gate one enters, he leaves by a different gate (Mishnah Middot 2:2), while walking in a counter clock-wise direction (towards his/her right). If, let's say, someone entered the Kifunos Gate on the west side, he could theoretically have exited through the Hulda Gates. A person entering the Hulda Gates could exit through the Kifunos Gate on the west. Since we are unable to render a judgment in this matter (i.e. on "whose opinion is the right one" and "whose opinion is in error"), it is perhaps best for us that we keep the picture's caption (in the article's section "Physical layout") neutral per entering and exiting.


  1. ^ Shanks, Hershel (1995). Jerusalem, an Archaeological Biography. Random House. pp. 141–151. ISBN 978-0-679-44526-5..
  2. ^ Meir Ben-Dov (1980). Rubenstein, Chaim (ed.). Israel Guide - Jerusalem (in Hebrew). 10. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, in affiliation with the Israel Ministry of Defence. p. 67. OCLC 745203905.

Davidbena (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)