Talk:Temple in Jerusalem

Views of the Temple

Is thank tha laft edat to tha page (18:49, Mar 12, 2005 24.118.175.236 (→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)

Existence of Temple

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)

• A Historical Method for Using Biblical Sources (Non-fundamentalist)

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 (anonmoos@io.com)

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).

Maimonides views on sacrifices

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

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?

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Храм I.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Non-Latin scripts and translations require reliable sources

@Zhomron: If we're going to include translated names, especially in non-Latin scripts, we'll need to see reliable secondary sources which precisely document their spelling and orthography, or we will end up with disputes over which version is correct which cannot be resolved effectively by those of us who don't write Hebrew or Akkadian. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Zhomron: you dismissively told me to "try scrolling down" to the citation; the article body has script which is un-pointed, cites an unreliable source, which does not list any Hebrew-script translations. Elizium23 (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

No term in the Akkadian language is mentioned in the Article, Wikipedia has an entire convention system for transliteration of Hebrew, and the cited "spellings" are in the sources of the article. Here's a tip: if you don't speak the language, don't weigh in on whether or not the translation is correct. There's only one word for "house", "the", "second", and "holy" in Hebrew, just like in every other language, and we don't have a dictionary citation for every English language word in an article because it is redundant and stupid. Zhomron (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You need to reference WP:RS Elizium23 (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You need to obtain a basic understanding of the Hebrew language. Zhomron (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPA Elizium23 (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see a personal attack in stating the fact that you understand neither the language nor the procedure in how this website handles these matters. For God's sake, did you even check the Hebrew or Arabic Wikipedia counterpart articles for citations of the primary sources of the spellings in their native languages? Zhomron (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You need to observe WP:V, and respect your readership. Elizium23 (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)