Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the Second Temple period/archive1

Timeline of the Second Temple period

Timeline of the Second Temple period (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/Timeline of the Second Temple period/archive1

Nominator(s): SnowFire (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

As a tool for keeping track of a blizzard of events and names, I found it useful to keep a scratch timeline in a Google Doc while I was researching some of the areas in this time period. I decided to turn it into a full proper article, and, well, here we are. There's some comments on methodology on the article talk page for what events were included and which weren't (a 600 year range means that including every single loosely related item isn't feasible), but the short version is that Lester L. Grabbe's "A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period" is the most important source. It's spread across 4 volumes, and is 2100+ pages discussing just about everything of importance on the era, as well as bibliographies where various feuding scholarly opinions about whether this undated line in Josephus refers to something that happened in 145 BCE or 135 BCE or didn't happen at all. This is important when quite a lot (most?) of the dates need a "circa" around them, and have a range of scholarly estimates. This is my first nomination at FLC. SnowFire (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Airship

As always, these are suggestions, not demands. Feel free to refuse with justification.

Lead

• If information in the lead doesn't appear in the body, it needs citations (see WP:LEADCITE) e.g. "Hellenistic Judaism blended both Greek and Jewish traditions." which I can't see cited in the body.
• "A new temple to replace the destroyed Solomon's Temple was built by the returnees, and the Second Temple was finished around 516 BCE." this is a bit clunky, especially the first "a new temple".
• "The Persians were largely tolerant of Judaism. Persian rule lasted for two centuries..." these sentences could easily be combined.
• "was initially a fight for Judean autonomy against a suppression of traditional Judaism" ... by? Why aren't the Seleucids/Ptolemaics mentioned by name in the lead?
• "The revolt's success brought about the formation of an independent Hasmonean kingdom of Judea under the rule of the Hasmonean family which had led the Jewish resistance." could be trimmed à la "The revolt's success brought about the formation of an independent Hasmonean kingdom of Judea, named for the family which had led the resistance." to reduce repetition.
• "That too would end in 37 BCE" the antecedent of the "that" is "the Roman Republic", which is normally stated to end later; presumably you are referring to the end of Hasmonean rule?
• "direct Roman control by the governors of Roman Judea. Direct Roman rule of Judea ..." could be combined and condensed.
• Same for the last two sentences of the paragraph.
  • Added a bullet point for Hellenistic Judaism. (That one is a little tricky in a timeline since it lasts for centuries without really a clear start date - it's not like Alexander waved a magic wand - but went with the Ptolemaic era & the Septuagint.)
  • It could, but then the sentence feels too long if kept combined with the Macedonian conquest. And if we have to have two sentences, I think linking the end of Persian rule with the Macedonian conquest flows better; the short first sentence is on religion, and the longer second sentence is on politics & the regime change. Open to other suggestions, but I'd rather avoid one really long sentence.
  • Honestly, I would have the lead be even shorter if I was going fully by my own preferences to avoid duplication with Second Temple period ("This is a timeline" then bam, straight to it, but FL critierion 2 expects a more detailed lead). Explaining this requires getting into the diadochi successor states which is a little too in-the-weeds for very casual readers; it was Greek rule is the important high-level thing. That said, I added a sentence giving it a shot; take a look.
  • Done. (Although usual disclaimer goes here that as far as contemporary names, it's murkier as to what these polities called themselves - they probably called themselves "Judea" or the like.)
  • Yes, it's the end of Hasmonean client-king status. Unfortunate that the Roman Republic ends in 31 BC and thus could possibly be confused. I rephrased it to just repeat "Hasmonean" again (oh well for it being a close repetition).
  • It's a close repetition but I don't see a good way to combine it? The first sentence is talking about the complex political situation of 4 BC - 63 AD, and the second is talking about vibes. Happy to take suggestions but couldn't really find something satisfactory myself.
  • Similarly, I prefer the shorter, punchier sentences here. Yes, could change the period to "...in which the Romans defeated the Jewish rebels, Jerusalem was conquered... ", but I feel the sentences are more powerful as written. End of an era, period, and then all of the bad stuff in a dramatic list.

Persian Empire

• "of its former territories" might want to specify that includes the region of Judeah.
• Many won't know what "satrapy" means, so a gloss would be helpful.
• "existed...Persian religious policy does allow...as they do not" confusing differences in tense
• " Cambyses expands the Persian Empire further beyond Yehud" it was not previously mentioned that Yehud was the frontier.
• What's the logic behind which Achaemenid kings get their reigns highlighted?
• "Building of the new temple starts in earnest, creating the Second Temple," again clumsy, why not "The building of the Second Temple starts in earnest"?
  • Fair, but I think the next bullet point covers that.
  • Done.
  • Standardized on simple past tense.
  • Hmm, is that really a big deal though? I don't think Yehud being the frontier for a decade is really that important to discuss earlier, I don't get the impression it was a contested warzone or the like. I think the conquest of Egypt is relevant enough for a bullet point but I don't think fully "setting it up" is worth extra text earlier on the boundaries of the Neo-Babylonian Empire or the like.
  • That's a great question! I was trying to focus on the ones with some relevance for Jewish history & literature. Artaxerxes is the big one because Ezra is sent in the seventh year of Artaxerxes rule, but which one is unclear. So we have to list them out. Nehemiah also worked under the reign of Artaxerxes. Darius was the king while the Second Temple was built, so I figure he's relevant to mention as well. Cyrus & Cambyses are mentioned indirectly but only via their relevant deeds, not in terms of their overall reign. Xerxes I is... awkward. He is ARGUABLY the most famous in later years culturally because later literature / adaptations of the Book of Esther generally identify him with Ahasuerus, but this is strictly a later-culture deal and almost assuredly not historical, and thus an awkward fit to a timeline. I stuck with simply saying that the Book of Esther's setting is the Persian era, which seems fair enough. Most other Persian rulers have short reigns that aren't discussed in relation to Jewish history at all.
    • While on this note, the same applies to later rulers. I didn't include a full timeline of every single Roman procurator of Judea either, just the ones where something "interesting" happened and histories bother to say something relevant. Only a single Ptolemaic ruler's reign is mentioned, but it's one with something relevant to Jewish history. (The Seleucid rulers are all pretty relevant, though, at least before quasi-independence.)
  • Rephrased a bit, though not quite as you suggested. (Maybe a me-thing, but this kind of positional designator is weird to do anachronistically. Like "the Second President was born on October 30, 1735" is odd, while "John Adams was born on October 30, 1735" is fine. It was just a temple being built at the time, and it only became the Second Temple As A Title In All Capitals later, in retrospect.)

Macedonian conquest

• Looking back to a previous list I rewrote, List of cities founded by Alexander the Great, there is a disputed tradition that Alexander refounded the city of Samareia (modern Sebastia, Nablus). Might be worth mentioning?
  • I'll give it a look. The timeline does mention Samaria's destruction by John Hyrcanus later, FWIW. The one awkward part is that many Jewish histories simply don't consider the Samaritans of this era Jews at all and thus wouldn't consider this that relevant. (As in, one of the festivals mentioned in Megillat Taanit is the destruction of the Samaritan Temple at Mount Gerizim. Those were not friendly relations!)
  • I added a line on this ( diff).

Ptolemaic Kingdom

• The heading has "301 BCE – 199 BCE" but the intext span is "301–200 BCE". Any reason for the discrepancy?
• "Book of Ecclesiastes (Qohelet)" no clue what "Qohelet" means without clicking on the link, which MOS:NOFORCELINK disapproves of. Same for many other brackets up and down the article (e.g. "Battle of Panium (Paneas)", "priestly source (P)").
• "by Philopator" I don't think it's common to refer to Hellenistic kings by their epithets.
  • It is a little confusing. Jerusalem is conquered in 200 BCE, but the war ends and the boundaries "officially" change in 199 BCE, so the argument is that Ptolemaic rule stops in 200 BCE (the first item on the list), but the era only stops in 199. Also, a lot of the sources for these events say something like "this happened in the 3rd century BC" rather than "in the Ptolemaic era" even though they're near synonymous. If you prefer, though, I'm happy to switch to 199 as the end date; hopefully nobody will be annoyed and betrayed that the long 3rd century BCE now includes 199.
  • All of these are just alternative names for the same thing, e.g. Augustus Caesar (Octavian). This was in case someone recognizes Qohelet but not Ecclesiastes or the like, since it can be a little confusing to read about the Battle of Paneas and not find it in a CTRL-F or being unsure if there was a typo somewhere. We can throw in "also known as", but there's also an argument that this is an exception to NOFORCELINK - that we expect a lot of "click the link for more" on a timeline which is inherently a collection of article links. That said, I've rephrased or thrown in some explanations (diff), feel free to chime in if you think they're still insufficient.
  • Hmm. I agree that for Seleucid kings, I usually see "Antiochus IV" rather than "Epiphanes." But for Ptolemies, I'm not so sure. Hadas's book does indeed refer to him as Philopator for short, though (see p. 16-17), usually after introducing as "Ptolemy Philopator" which is done earlier in this line. Sara Raup Johnson's book does as well (p. 135, 145, 147), and similarly refers to other Pharaohs as such (e.g. just "Philadelphus"). Maybe a difference in styles between literary analysis and other histories? It seems writers on 3 Macc do use the epithets alone.

Seleucid Empire

• Say who Scopas is?
• "Roman troops" first mention of Rome should probably come with a link. Also, "further increasing Roman sway and influence" this is the first we're hearing about any sway/influence. Lastly, the article should probably mention that this battle took place nowhere near Judea.
• "The "Abomination of Desolation" is set up in the Second Temple" the what????
• Say who Lysias is.
• So the rebels took Jerusalem but not the Acra? Might need to say that explicitly—I was quite confused for a bit.
• "The Battle of Caphar-salama occurs." ... and how did it go?
  • Adjusted to "led by" rather than "left by" - he was just the opposing commander.
  • Hmm, this one I disagree. The relevant link is "Battle of Pydna", not the Roman Republican military - if someone is really interested, they'll find links to the Roman Republic military at that article, but that's not the 168 BCE event. And it is the first we're hearing about Roman influence, but that's because Roman influence wasn't that significant in Judea before and therefore not that relevant to mention. It seems Pydna was a turning point where, without the Antigonids to worry about, Rome started meddling more in Seleucid / Ptolemaic disputes. (There's a reason that this one is included despite being very far off - Bar-Kochva includes it in his timeline and thinks it's relevant to the Maccabean Revolt, just because it frees up the threat of a Roman intervention.) Anyway, tried spelling it out a bit more, take a look.
  • That's what it's called! Badass name, I know, metal bands should get one of those things. But no, nobody is really sure WTF it was, so it's difficult to be less mysterious here. Was it an idol? Was it a profaned altar? Was it just the act of pagan sacrifices itself? Whatever it was, the later Jews sure didn't like it (but didn't want to describe it in detail either), and Judas got rid of it after three years. But I'm not sure there's a great way to sum that up. "The Abomination of Desolation, a very very bad something something, is set up..."
  • Done, for Lysias.
  • Correct. I'm a little worried about saying so in the line on the 163 taking of Jerusalem, because we just know that suddenly we're besieging the Acra later, but the sources don't say "We took Jerusalem except the Acra", they say "We took Jerusalem." And then suddenly we're besieging the Acra later, so I guess they didn't take it, but we don't have any details on why or what did happen. (My understanding is that the best guess is that there were a lot more Hellenist-friendly Jews in Jerusalem than the surviving sources would like to admit, and the Maccabees didn't try to take the Acra immediately because they didn't want to provoke a revolt. Which would suggest the Maccabee occupation of Hellenist-friendly Jerusalem was somewhat nominal and didn't stop supplies from reaching the Acra. This wasn't deeply recorded in 1 Maccabees because it's "embarrassing". As a reminder, Jerusalem got wrecked in 168-167, so it wouldn't be surprising if the Maccabee-friendly inhabitants of Jerusalem were killed or enslaved in 168-167, and the main factions that the Seleucids left untouched were the Hellenist-friendly ones there, making the remnants still in the city a natural Seleucid base of power in 167-142. But this is a guess, not a fact.) I did expand the line on the Acra siege, take a look and see if it helps.
  • Added the result.

Hasmonean kingdom

• "Ptolemy son of Abubus" who's this?
• "The community is speculated to be Essenes" by who?
  • Just a name in a book. The only thing he's known for is doing this murder. I added his rank (governor of Jericho), but we really don't know much about him - the main thing he's known for is probably being the source for Dante's naming of Ptolemea in the 9th layer of hell.
  • When unstated, it's "most historians", but I think Wikipedia style is generally to discourage qualifying "consensus" opinions. There are some scholars who think the Qumran community were not Essenes nor particularly close to them in theology, but my understanding is that they're in the minority, and I think writing "speculated" already communicates that this is an educated guess rather than historical fact.

Herodian kingdom

• " into Octavian's victorious side" not sure this makes sense.
  • Agree phrasing was awkward; rephrased it.

Roman Judea and the Herodian tetrarchy

• "Herod Archelaus is deposed as ethnarch" should probably specify that this was done by the Romans.
  • Expanded this. (It was Emperor Augustus himself! Surprised he had time for that... Archelaus musta screwed up bad.)

Aftermath

• Good.

Will continue. If you have the time/inclination, I have another historical FLC which would appreciate some reviews. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! And sure, I'll take a look. Made some replies, and the same disclaimer you made that these are just current thoughts, so feel free to disagree. SnowFire (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Support ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)