Talk:Solomon's Temple/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Josephus claims"? and "Yahweh"

To Jews, "Yahweh" is a name of God. Writing it as "Yahweh's temple" makes it confusing. Solomon made a temple for God. "Claims" insinuates there's a debate, and that Josephus is a minor view. He isn't. Josephus states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potter's best (talk • contribs) 19:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

But Yahweh doesn't always refer to God. We should be specific and follow the archaeology where there are inscriptions or reasons to think that the word Yahweh may not mean the monotheistic God of Israel and we should not just substitute "God" for Yahweh. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Please stop making that change until you have consensus for it. The "states" or even better "says" change is fine; the "Yahweh" > "God" thing is not. As Doug said we locate this in the archeology and the narrative in a scholarly fashion, and that is all about "Yahweh". I don't know what you mean by "God". Jytdog (talk)

Because "says" is better than "states"? right? talking about an edit war, how, because I dared argue with you? According to Jewish sources, the temple was made for Yahweh, the God of the Jews. see Kings i chapter 3-4. "Yahweh" refers to G-d consistently throughout Jewish sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potter's best (talk • contribs) 22:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Your objection to "claims" was fine. Doesn't matter if it is "states" or "says". I prefer "says" as it is simple and 'states' is kind of wierdly formal but yes "claims" should be replaced. This is discussed in the MOS here: WP:CLAIM. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The Ivory pomegranate says "house of ---h" - it's a big leap from that on a 13th century BCE artefact to the monotheistic God of Israel. Tel Arad may have been dedicated to may have been dedicated to Yahweh and Asherah - again, not the monotheistic God. I've edited the article to be accurate about what we can actually read on the inscription. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

First, it states with certainty not just that it existed but when it was built. We shouldn't be stating as fact something that is disputed.

Secondly, it mentions archaeologists. Anyone reading that would likely assume there's been archaeological excavations of the temple, but that is not the case. If it were we'd have archaeological evidence.

And although we have no physical evidence, we tell readers that we know what kind of stone was used. I see violations of NPOV and VERIFY. Doug Weller talk 07:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You are entirely correct. Can you propose alternative infobox contents? Zero^talk 08:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes per WP:INFOBOX, fields are for facts. Where things are complex or uncertain, I don't think we should have anything in a given field. I had removed Solomon as builder, as that is legend, and the date, as that is uncertain. Agree with the original comments about type of stone and archeologists as well. Is it really disputed that it existed? I don't think that is so... Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

While we cannot affirm its builder, the existence of the structure isn't legitimately disputed in academics. There is enough proof of its existence that having an infobox is indeed warranted. That being said, it is indeed somewhat unfounded that we include Solomon or Jerusalem stone as certain facts. So I propose a slight compromise. I am performing an additional edit to the infobox for review. If it is not acceptable, it will be deleted and this will be the last on the matter. However, should it be acceptable, we will play it by ear. BedrockPerson (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Contrary to what BedrockPerson claims, the existence of the temple is not a fact. It may have existed (I personally believe it did), but we do not know. If it existed, we're not sure where it stood. Probably on the Temple Mount, but that's also an assumption not a fact. If it existed and if it stood on the Temple Mount, we still don't know its measures, who built it, etc. The Bible is not a reliable source for the temple. I see very little point in having an infobox at all, given that there is virtually no single verifiable fact in the infobox. Jeppiz (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, this is getting pointless. Jytdog, Doug Weller and myself have all explained the problems with having an infobox of this kind. Not only does BedrockPerson completely ignore the consensus, they also continue to edit war even after Jytdog warned them for their edit warring. To summarize: there is a consensus against claiming "facts" in the infobox, there is one single user in favour of it, that user is edit warring, has been warned for edit warring, but just continues to edit war. I'm afraid I have to log off, but I hope someone can do the necessary for paperwork for the block BedrockPerson seems to be applying for. In the meantime, I've restored the last consensus version from before all the recent edit warring by BedrockPerson. We cannot claim as facts things for which there is no consensus, and finding some dubious cherry picked sources does not change that. Over and out for me for today. Jeppiz (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no edit war. I have simply taken what you have provided in the infobox and assigned references to it. There is no indication of an edit war, in fact I find it odd that you are crying edit war when I am backing up references you yourself left in the infobox. Each reference provided is used in other articles, with the possible exception of The Temple Database, which was only used to affirm the compound's height. If we are to consider declaring these references unfit for an article pertaining to their subject matter, I suggest that we comb through every related page and remove them. No unconfirmed or speculative (i.e. ineligible) information was inserted into the infobox. As it stands now, what little evidence we have for this page is being used to its fullest, and there are no implausible, or even unsupported, arguments being made. There is no consensus approved version at this point, it's all just been either you or me. Now that being said, I am aware the term 'consensus' in this parameter is not confined to a number of people, but I have not broken any rules regarding either inserting information OR engaging in an edit war. All I have done is add resources and references to help solidify the viability of the information provided. In fact, all the aforementioned people did in regards to the edit box was slap [citation needed] on a multitude of items, most of which were covered and cited later in the article. If we're letting improvement on such a horrendous edit job pass for vandalism or unconstructive editing, I don't know what I can even say. I'm not going to undo the page or any edits, I feel soon an actual edit war will erupt one way or another. Right now, I'm just going to back off, and let the higher-ups take care of all of this. I'm sorry for causing any grief but at this point, its too late in the day to be dealing with this particular brand of conflict. Just, do whatever you want, I don't care. I'm at least keeping the picture of the Temple up. Regardless, the infobox was a bad choice to begin with, even if these people are erroneously deeming ipso facto information to be wholly false. @Doug Weller: to officially end this at his earliest convenience. BedrockPerson (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that removing the infobox is the best option. Otherwise there will just be a small number of fields with most of them qualified by some clause which is equivalent to "according to the Bible", and I don't think that will be sufficiently useful. BedrockPerson, it is clear you do not have consensus for your version. If you want to continue you should present your proposal here and be prepared to argue for each part of it. Incidentally, the "Excavation dates" field is thoroughly misleading since there have been no excavations at all. Zero^talk 23:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Zero0000: You know I didn't even notice that those dates were listed. It must have gotten carried over when I copy/pasted the Second Temple infobox and I forgot to delete it. Hm. BedrockPerson (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• i support removing the infobox from this article. there are too few fields we can use and it will just become a magnet for argument. Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: the erroneous depictions of the Temple form and process. Considering that the Temple is as much allegorical as functional this is very important imho.

Just a very general comment; though an important one imho.

I have yet to find a diagram which faithfully represents the Temple as described in the major Biblical texts; those included here being no exception.

Of course there are some puzzling paragraphs in the texts, which are certain to confuse the average reader, but anyone seriously studying the texts ought to be able to figure out how or why the scribes occasionally fell into 'error' when putting down certain details. For one, the scribes were not architects and so when describing the measurements they seemed to have no strictly formal canon of mensuration. Of the many features of the Temple some are measured internally and others include in the measure, for no apparent reason, the walls containing the space.

Secondly, I have yet to come across a diagram which correctly depicts the positioning of the temple's Pillars; Jachin and Boaz. All of the texts describe the pillars as being located within the vestibule which is a partially enclosed porch. N.B. the Hebrew letter for 'house' is Bet (which has the form of an open room or partially enclosed space). There is a clue to this allegory (symbolism) in the case of the town of Bethlehem 'Bet Lechem'; house of Bread, located not so far from the main City of Jerusalem.

Within the Holy Place (the Knave - the largest of the rooms of the House) of Solomon's Temple there is a station for the display of the twelve pieces of the 'Bread of the Presence' along with the golden lampstands (the Menorah).

So - the two pillars should be placed within the Vestibule, not outside of it and being gated from the outside (Eastern aspect, and thus being gated, in sight of the Altar and it's court - and perhaps within sight of the Sea of Bronze at the Southeast corner). Between the two pillars within the gated Vestibule is also where the ten steps leading up the raised platform of the Temple House were situated; NOT as so many 'scholars' seem inclined to site them. Only a golden chain work stands before the door of Holy of Holies which reflects the Golden Gates sited before the Vestibule's East side ( it's West end - the site of the huge four leaved main doors).

I sincerely hope that these comments will be of assistance to the earnest student of the Temple - it's true form - and the allegory or occult symbolism that it was constructed to purposely contain.

John M Kendal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.148.220 (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Nebuchadnezzar II siege link

Is there anyway to link the normal page on Nebuchadnezzar II's siege of Jerusalem and the more common date rather than just the specialized page and their date, or indicate it's a debated date? It's a little odd to click on the link and be on a different page.Kismetmiss (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC) ---Thank you for correction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kismetmiss (talk • contribs) 03:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source

@2601:646:8A00:F348:21E2:465E:D6C7:86A2: Wikipedia is no WP:RS is one of the first things one has to learn as a Wikipedia editor, see WP:CIRCULAR. It just not need being said all over the place. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Archaeological remnants of the Jerusalem Temple

Just a reminder we have to keep these two articles in line. I'm not sure about the Archaeological remnants of the Jerusalem Temple's lead. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I've made a couple of edits here to provide balancing references, since there are two academically accepted positions on Solomon, being the Minimalist (we know nothing) and the Maximalist positions. Martin Turner (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the historicity of Solomon has much bearing on the temple itself - he was the mythical namesake (of our current title, we could've also titled this as "First Temple") - however the temple persisted long after Solomon. Icewhiz (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: yes, let's just stick to the archaeology issues for this. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Archaeology: list of "proofs" needs massive overhaul

What's now under "Other" is worthless (no info on where the finds were made, how they prove Temple existence and/or location), and the source is dead. Arminden (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Spiritual legacy

Nothing in Judaism (-kabbalah) or Christianity (-FM)? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Solomon's Temple was 60 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high

I added "The house that King Solomon built for the LORD was 60 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high." {[bibleref2|1 Kings|6:2[} 2601:580:109:6120:31F3:AC1F:3069:1B2E (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Concerning Freemasonry

The article states that there is a connection between the Temple ajd Freemasonry, but does not give any examples of how it relates, particularly in the ritual. It's odd that there are onky a few lines on the topic, and no detail. If no one objects, I can expand the section a little to elaborate more, while also giving citations. Pepe Oats (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

These are later myths and legends, nothing to do with the time when the Temple existed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The legends and Freemasonry are related to the topic, and they have a section in the article that is rather thin. Since Freemasonry is a notable thing in itself, and it is related to the topic of the article, it should at least have more than "Freemasonry's rituals are related to the Temple" and explain how they related.

I should also mention that the Temple's existence itself is contested, and could be, and has been, described as a myth and legend. I believe the Temple existed mind you, but to claim it is established fact that it existed is ignoring a sizable academic and popular belief that it didn't.

Pepe Oats (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Since the temple is associated with a mythological king, Solomon, its existence has been disputed for a long time. Nobody has been able to find anything confirming Solomon's existence, much less the supposed king's building projects. Dimadick (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that most scholars would grant the point that there was a temple, probably small, probably not Solomon's and probably Pagan. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The temple is generally accepted (whether built by Solomon or not, the existence of Solomon, and the scope of Solomon's rule (e.g. Solomon could have existed - just not as grand as described)) as historical. Regarding pagan rituals - the general consensus these a-days is that there was a progression of beliefs in the first temple. The temple originally probably had a physical representation of Y' and probably housed worship only for Y' (as the ethnic god of Israelites - just as Moabites had Chemosh) - and there was pagan worship of other gods outside. There were also additional temples elsewhere, also dedicated to Y' (e.g. - see recent find at Tel Lachish - [1]). At the end of the first temple era, there was an attempt to centralize worship to Jerusalem and remove imagery. Icewhiz (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Visiting Solomon's Temple, as it is described in the Bible, would be a highly disturbing experience for Orthodox Jews, who hold to aniconism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources

An explanation as to why the Times of Israel is not a reliable source is needed. Here come the Suns (talk)

Why to include it as a reliable source better??Mr.User200 (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Please explain why a mainstream media outlet is not a reliable source, thank you. Here come the Suns (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

1st) Is not a Archaelogical Historical Source for the weight of that claim. For thta type of claim more than one source is needed.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Give another source claiming that and i will revert.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

here you go: Israel heralds first direct evidence of King Solomon’s Temple Here come the Suns (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

And another: Israel Displays First Temple-era Pottery Found on Temple Mount Here come the Suns (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok for the fact that there's an active archaeological site, not for commentary about evidence. That needs peer reviewed archaeological reports and in fact preferably commentary on those. The media often gets this stuff wrong, not to mention the political context. Doug Weller talk 19:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that policy requires us to provide a peer reviewed archaeological report in order to claim that there were archaeological findings? What is that policy? Here come the Suns (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

As stated above, most scholars would concede the reality of a temple there. The question is: whose temple? And temple of which religion, precisely? Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The material removed with a dubious claim of "unreliable source" did not make any claim with regards to whose temple it was. It simple stated "In 2016, similar findings of olive pits, bones and pottery shards were found, in situ, on the Temple Mount itself."Here come the Suns (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Coogan, Michael (2010). "4. Thou Shalt Not: Forbidden Sexual Relationships in the Bible". God and Sex. What the Bible Really Says (1st ed.). New York, Boston: Twelve. Hachette Book Group. p. 105. ISBN 978-0-446-54525-9. Jerusalem was no exception, except that it was barely a city—by our standards, just a village. In David's time, its population was only a few thousand, who lived on about a dozen acres, roughly equal to two blocks in Midtown Manhattan. Further, it is common sense that such village would have its own temple. So, the mere existence of the temple is not disputed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Reread what I wrote. Here come the Suns (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yup, as far as I am concerned, it is not an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Text in the lede

I reverted text added by Here come the Suns for three reasons. One is that it was largely based on a JCPA article, not on the Times, and JCPA is a highly unreliable propaganda organization. The second is that opinions like "illegal" and "evidence" must not be presented as facts in Wikipedia's voice. The third is that the lead is already longer than it should be and the Temple Mount Sifting Project already has a section later in the article. Zero^talk 02:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It is precisely because "the Temple Mount Sifting Project already has a section later in the article" that it deserves mention in the lede- the lede needs to fairly and accurately summarize the article. We can discuss the length of such mentions in the lede, the exact wording and the sources used to support them, but to claim that it should be removed from the lede because it has a section later in the article is a gross misunderstanding of how the lede should be written.

I don't think the lede is particularly long for an article of this size, but a suggestion on how to trim it down would be to remove the false claim that "No archaeological excavations have been allowed on the Temple Mount during modern times"

Do you want to take a stab at formulating a short sentence that replaces the above with one that mentions the sifting project, or would you like me to give it a shot? Here come the Suns (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not a false claim. It is the truth. The Sifting Project is not an archaeological excavation on the Temple Mount. Moreover, this is not the Temple Mount article. Given that the Sifting Project has so far contributed almost nothing to knowledge about "Solomon's Temple", it is dubious that it should be mentioned at all. Zero^talk 00:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It is a false claim - Israel Displays First Temple-era Pottery Found on Temple Mount. There is a section in the article about the sifting project, thus is it proper to summarize the section in the lede. Do you want to take a stab at formulating a short sentence that mentions the sifting project, or would you like me to give it a shot? Here come the Suns (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

"a full archaeological excavation could not be carried out, just a hasty job of documentation and collection", ok it is something that can be mentioned. However the Sifting Project is not an archaeological excavation on the Temple Mount. Any accusations could also be accompanied by "The Waqf has not conducted significantly works that would damage finds beneath the surface in recent years" from the same article. Zero^talk 03:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

"Discoveries found in situ on Temple Mount dating to the late First Temple period, excavated and collected by the Israel Antiquities Authority over the last 10 years"; It may not have been a "full archaeological excavation" ( a claim no-one has made), but it is clear that the claim that "No archaeological excavations have been allowed on the Temple Mount during modern times" is false, and has no place in the article, let alone its lede.

The sifting project, while not conducted on the mount itself, is of material removed from the mount, thus it is relevant (as evidence by the fact it has its own section in the article), and a sentence explaining the context- it is hard to excavate on the mount itself, thus archaeologists are forced to sift through rubble off site - belongs in the lead.

Do you want to take a stab at formulating a short sentence that mentions the sifting project, or would you like me to give it a shot? Here come the Suns (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Revert made by here come the Suns.

Please avoid un explained reverts made on Zero000 and Volunter Marek edits on opening part of the article.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The explanation is provided right above your comment, I don't know how you could have possibly missed it. Here come the Suns (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

No clear explanation given, anyway your edit was reverted by VM. Please stop that behaviour.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

a very clear explanation was given, namely - that the current lead which states no excavations were done is wrong, and I provided reliable sources to that effect. If you don't understand my explanation, ask, and I will be happy to explain it to you, but please refrain form falsely claiming I made an "unexplained evert". This is not the first time you've done this, and I'm growing a little tired of it. Here come the Suns (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Wooden beams

The very old dates for wooden beams from the al-Aqsa mosque were obtained in the late 1970s and published in 1983. About 2016 the radiocarbon dating was repeated using more modern techniques and only Byzantine period dates were found. (Y. Baruch, R. Reich & D. Sandhaus, A decade of archaeological exploration on the Temple Mount, Tel Aviv, 45:1, 3–22, https://doi.org/10.1080/03344355.2018.1412057). So the relevance of these beams to the article has evaporated. Zero^talk 01:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Modern excavations

In modern times, the Israel Antiquities Authority took advantage of a Waqf project to lay an electric cable in order to conduct a partial excavation, during which artifacts dating to the late first temple period were discovered in situ for the first time.[3] In parallel, a massive project is currently underway to sort rubble created when Jordan's Waqf dug new entrances on the mount, potentially destroying a great deal of ancient material in what the former director of the Israel Antiquities Authority called "an archaeological crime".

@Aroma Stylish: Can you explain your edits? The sentences describe excavations unearthing artifacts from the late first temple period. Not sure how they are related to Solomon's Temple? ImTheIP (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

No evidence of the temple has been found in these investigations. Evidence of human occupation from the right period is not enough. The electric cable excavation found some pottery fragments, animal bones and carbonized olive pits. Zero^talk 03:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how I thought. Artifacts from the first temple period is not the same thing as artifacts from the first temple itself.ImTheIP (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

::::It's obviously related, specially the part where it says "...a massive project is currently underway to sort rubble created when Jordan's Waqf dug new entrances on the mount, potentially destroying a great deal of ancient material in what the former director of the Israel Antiquities Authority called "an archaeological crime".", since this could uncover more artifacts.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see the obvious relation. That the director of the Israeli Antiquities Authority called it an "an archaeological crime" doesn't to me seem related to Solomon's Temple at all.ImTheIP (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, this is clear WP:SYNTH. Zero^talk 04:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Thanks for the source. Do you think you can add a timestamp to the video? ImTheIP (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Yup, 16:40-19:30, especially 18:00-18:30 (speaking of the mound of David's Jerusalem}. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that Aroma Stylish was blocked as a sock. Doug Weller talk 11:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Zhomrom's additions

Zhomrom, your edit implies that there is evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple:

Scholars doubt the veracity of the Biblical account as little evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple has been found

"Little evidence" is more than nothing, but the correct amount is "no evidence":

• Lundquist: The single most important fact regarding the Temple of Solomon is that there are no physical remains of the structure. There is not a single object or artifact that can be indubitably connected with the Temple of Solomon
• Finkelstein & Silbermann: And the archaeological evidence in Jerusalem for the famous building projects of Solomon is nonexistent. The Temple is of course one of Solomon's "famous building projects."
• Gálik: There is much written about this one among the most famous temple in human history. It is also one of the buildings most writhed in mystery because no archaeological remains confirm the biblical writings about it. Since up to now nothing has been found that could be verified as something which could be regarded as trustworthy, since just few items allegedly regarded as such, are now considered as modern fake or forgery.
• Porzia & Bonnet Faced with a total lack of material evidence [for Solomon's Temple]

The other part of your change implies that the Temple is mentioned in extra-Biblical accounts:

the Temple is rarely mentioned in extra-Biblical accounts.

Also incorrect:

• Finkelstein & Silbermann: Moreover, for all their reported wealth and power, neither David nor Solomon is mentioned in a single known Egyptian or Mesopotamian text.
• Porzia & Bonnet: Epigraphic evidence relating to the temple is equally non-existent.
• Kalimi: As of today, no inscription or epigraphic source from or about Salomon has been found in the Land of Israel, nor in any other ancient Near Eastern Land.

The artifacts now described in the lead are forgeries. The ivory pomegranate was the subject of a lengthy investigation and was deemed a forgery by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA). That's as good of a scientific consensus as it gets. The guy who found it still thinks it is authentic. Water is wet. The Jehoash Inscription was also deemd a forgery by the IAA.

Onto the Tel Arad inscription:

However, ostraca recovered from a ruined temple at Tel Arad speak of a "House of Yahweh" which most scholars have identified as Solomon's Temple,

The sources you added does not corroborate the text. Dever writes: This may be a reference to the earlier tripartite temple of Arad brought to light by Aharoni, or it may refer to the temple in Jerusalem.. Porzia & Bonnet writes:

The only authentic inscription which mentions a byt yhwh is ostracon 18 (recto, line 9) from Tel Arad, from the mid-8th century, but neither the context nor the location of this temple are known (Aharoni, 1981: 35-38; Ahituv, 2008: 119-122; Dobbs-Allsopp et al., 2005: 37-41)

Note that they reference Aharoni 1981 which you added to support the claim about "most scholars"... You are playing fast and loose with the sources here and adding claims that they do not support. ImTheIP (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

"that the Temple is mentioned in extra-Biblical accounts" Would not the term "extra-Biblical account" also include references to the Temple in other Jewish narratives, such as the Talmud? Dimadick (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the reference is to non-Biblical literary evidence that is contemporary to the first temple. Nobody questions that there are plenty of examples written much later, such as the Talmud. Zero^talk 13:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, I am not trying to discount that there is a complete disparity of evidence related to Solomon's Temple. That's not an argument, even if I genuinely believed the opposing arguments, the evidence is too overwhelming. However your sources are being used to make points they aren't making or are contradicted by later sources. I'll run down your points as you were so kind in laying them out clearly:

• Finkelstein & Silbermann: Moreover, for all their reported wealth and power, neither David nor Solomon is mentioned in a single known Egyptian or Mesopotamian text. — This is true, but this has nothing to do with the temple building. It's also a bit obtuse, David is mentioned on the Tel Dan Stele which is indeed neither Egyptian or Mesopotamian, but the text seems to imply he's completely unattested (that may just be me, though)
• Porzia & Bonnet: Epigraphic evidence relating to the temple is equally non-existent. — As my addition states, the Tel Arad ostraca is seen as referring to the Temple. Yes, it is the lone wolf (as of yet) that explicitly names the Temple, but it still exists (the chronology argument I'll also tackle)
• Kalimi: As of today, no inscription or epigraphic source from or about Salomon has been found in the Land of Israel, nor in any other ancient Near Eastern Land. — Again, absolutely true, however Solomon's existence (though Finkelstein concedes he is at least semi-historical) is irrelevant to the matter at hand — the Temple building. I at no point have argued that Solomon was indeed the true builder of the Temple itself.
• Porzia & Bonnet Faced with a total lack of material evidence [for Solomon's Temple] — Simply wrong. Numerous bulla,, scales and weights inscribed with terminology used in relation to the First Temple in the Tanakh and the remains of sacrifices, juglets, and storage jars dating to the 8th/7th century BC have been found by the Waqf and IAA alike.

• (The ivory pomegranate and inscription) — Listen, I hate arguing about these kinds of thing because I detest archeological forgeries, regardless of whatever agency of viewpoint their genuinity may or may not support. Do I think the Jehoash inscription is fake? Of course I do, but that's only based on circumstantial evidence. All proceedings to formally declare it a forgery came to the same conclusion — there was no conclusive evidence. Does that suddenly make it genuine, just because there's a chance it is? Of course not. But it's my opinion that we have a duty as an encyclopedic source to acknowledge the confusingly substantial scholastic proponency to the artifact's genuity. Yes, it's likely, but at the end of the day, it's still contested. The ivory pomegranate is a much different story. Aside from it coming from Golan's collections, the points that were used to actually show it was a forgery were contested in 2008 by Yitzhak Roman — specifically, he showed that the analysis which allowed it to be considered a forgery was inaccurate (he showed that the ancient crack did run through the inscription and that the patina was natural). Again, I get it, it's suspicious to just accept a seriously valuable genuine artifact was found by a known forger, but it's circumstantial against the actual facts of the matter.

• "The only authentic inscription which mentions a byt yhwh is ostracon 18 (recto, line 9) from Tel Arad, from the mid-8th century, but neither the context nor the location of this temple are known" (Aharoni, 1981: 35-38; Ahituv, 2008: 119-122; Dobbs-Allsopp et al., 2005: 37-41) — This one is simply outdated. The source I provided in the next sentence showed as much: Ostracon 18 referes enigmatically to the "House of Yahweh," the Temple in Jerusalem. There was a temple at Arad, but it had been demolished about 700 B.C.E., well before the Arad Ostraca.

It also seems you have been incredibly selective with what you quote from your sources. That Finkleman and Silbermann work you cited in your edit and as evidence above? The one that had nothing to do with the Temple and only said that David and Solomon couldn't have been wealthy? On that same page, page 128, the authors state, unequivocally, that there was a First Temple, just that it wasn't built until 200 years after the Bible says it was. In fact, the passage you cited is used as evidence for this claim.

I am not here to doubt the claim that "Solomon's" Temple is sparsely attested, I know better than to argue with facts. But, as I said in my edit summary: The sources are either outdated, contradictory, or being used to make points that are not at all reflected by the sources themselves. So yes, my edit implies there is evidence for the First Temple, because there is evidence for the First Temple. Zhomron (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• This article is about Solomon's Temple. That is, the temple called Solomon's Temple as described in the Bible. I have cited you four scholarly sources that sees no evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple: Lundquist, Finkelstein & Silbermann, Gálik, and Porzia & Bonnet. You have not cited a single claiming that there is some evidence for Solomon's Temple. Consequently, your edit that changed "no evidence" to "little evidence" is not supported by the sources.
• What you bring up as counterarguments is a large number of red herrings. The Tel Dan Stele is irrelevant because no scholar has written that it supports the existence of Solomon's Temple.
• "As my addition states, the Tel Arad ostraca is seen as referring to the Temple" Your addition is directly contradicted by Porzia & Bonnet (2017): Epigraphic evidence relating to the temple is equally non-existent and neither the context nor the location of this temple [mentioned in the Arad inscription] are known, and by Kalimi (2018): As of today, no inscription or epigraphic source from or about Salomon has been found in the Land of Israel, nor in any other ancient Near Eastern Land. Dever (2003) writes that the ostraca may refer to the temple in Jerusalem. That is a far cry from your "is seen as referring to"!
• "however Solomon's existence (though Finkelstein concedes he is at least semi-historical) is irrelevant to the matter at hand" It clearly is not irrelevant. If Solomon never existed, then, by the rules of the universe, Solomon didn't build a temple in Jerusalem.
• "Porzia & Bonnet "Faced with a total lack of material evidence [for Solomon's Temple]" — Simply wrong." Your claim that they are wrong is without substance. You need to reference scholarly sources ruling them wrong. Clickbait articles in the Israeli press doesn't count.
• "(The ivory pomegranate and inscription)" Your personal views of the provenance of the ivory pomegranate and the Jehoash inscription are also irrelevant. Scholarly sources have deemed these forgeries. None have deemed them authentic.
• "there was a First Temple, just that it wasn't built until 200 years after the Bible says it was" What does the word "just" mean here? A temple built 200 years after Solomon's supposed reign can hardly be called Solomon's Temple.

Note that the stable version of the article read: There is no archaeological evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple, and the building is not mentioned in surviving extra-biblical accounts. You changed this to: Scholars doubt the veracity of the Biblical account as little evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple has been found and the Temple is rarely mentioned in extra-Biblical accounts. Unless you can provide sources corroborating "little evidence" and "rarely mentioned" your change cannot go into Wikipedia and will be reverted. ImTheIP (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The First Temple is Solomon's Temple. The Temple is called "Holy House" in the Bible, not Solomon's Temple. The Wikipedia page, "First Temple", is a redirect to this page. If you want to go off about semantics, make a move request. I'm not having you delete clear epigraphic evidence of a First Temple because Solomon is in the page title. Don't be obtuse. Zhomron (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No, sorry you are the one being incredibly obtuse here. You are attempting to insert your own interpretation here (which I see that Doug Weller has already warned you about). You must understand that it doesn't matter one iota how great of an historian you actually are, if you can't support your claims with sources then they don't belong on Wikipedia. Before your edit the sentence read: There is no archaeological evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple, and the building is not mentioned in surviving extra-biblical accounts. That sentence was supported by a footnote leading to a page in a book supporting it. You changed it to Scholars doubt the veracity of the Biblical account as little evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple has been found and the Temple is rarely mentioned in extra-Biblical accounts. The footnote that adorns the sentence does not support it. The sentence is therefore a lie and must be removed from Wikipedia. ImTheIP (talk) 09:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with ImTheIP, I don't see any evidence here. Ikjbagl (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dimadick, Zhomron, Zero0000, and Tgeorgescu: It appears this discussion have reached an impasse. Pinging other editors who have shown an interest in this article. Your input would be appreciated. ImTheIP (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you should paraphrase the Porzia & Bonnet phrase in Wikipedia's text. It seems to be both the most recent and most relevant source. Dimadick (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that most scholars would grant the point that there was a temple, probably small, probably not Solomon's and probably Pagan. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Quoting myself. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Compromise. Hopefully this settles it. Zhomron (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

References

"Worship" section belongs in "Biblical Narrative"

The "Worship" section is misleading and should be moved to "Biblical narrative". The section currently presents several stories from a religious text as though they are factual. Placing them under a separate section named "Worship" implies to the reader that there is evidence (1) that the structure existed as described by the story and (2) that the activities mentioned actually took place at that structure. "Architecture" is a subsection of "Biblical narrative" for this exact reason, because the only information comes from religious text and conjecture. Ikjbagl (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I concur. The entire Article refers to a biblical narrative. Since Solomon is fictional, it is highly unencyclopedic to give dates for this building out of legend that is assigned to him. Whatever building existed in the location, it is very doubtful that reliable sources exist to verify its properties, given that the location is buried deep under the current platform of the Temple Mount, that did not exist in the time usually assigned to Solomon. ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Solomons-temple-sam-lawlor-724551.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)