Talk:Solomon's Temple

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Jewish history. An attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.

Project Jewish history To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: History of the Jews in the Land of Israel Copyedit: International response to the Holocaust, Henry Cohen (? add categories), History of the Jews during World War II, Antisemitism Cleanup: Xueta (quite a mess) Stubs: Category:Jewish history stubs, Category:Jewish biography stubs NPOV: Category:Hasmoneans Other: Review: Föhrenwald (expanded) Translate: from German: Judensau

Contents 1 Merge 2 The {} sign/s 3 Legendary material recently inserted 4 Legendary material recently inserted, pt. 2 5 Discussion requested 6 Attempted rebuilding, fourth century 7 This is Bible Study not History 8 Date of destruction 9 Everyking's edit at my request 10 Cut from article 11 When was it constructed? 12 Biblical account, or Masonic? 13 Help needed for Identification 14 Where's the science, archeology & neutral evidence? 14.1 Is there any? 14.1.1 No 15 speculation and misinterpretation 16 External links 17 Latter-day Saint Temples 18 Surreal 19 Linkspam and worse? 20 Outside view 21 Description 22 Wall of the First Temple claimed found by Dr. Eilat Mazar!

[edit] Merge

Seems like this article and Temple in Jerusalem should be merged. Jdavidb 17:03, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• No, it should not be merged as the article on the Temple in Jerusalem is a kind of disambiguation page that links to other articles on the First Temple which was Solomon's Temple, the Second Temple that was built 70 years after the first one was destroyed, and the improved Herod's Temple, (and finally the brief discussion about the Third Temple (no article on this, yet).) IZAK 08:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The {} sign/s

One or more of the sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning have been removed pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 08:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Legendary material recently inserted

An anonymous editor recently inserted the following material:

Tradition holds that giant hairy demons helped to build the Great Temple of Solomon. Their great strength was useful in the carrying of the heavy stone blocks. God gave Solomon a holy ring to control the demons with. The symbol on the ring was the Star of David, a holy seal.

The guards of the Great Temple later became the Knights Templar, a group closely associated with the Freemasons. In 1307 A.D., Philip IV of France suppresses Knights Templar for witchcraft and heresies, citing their pentagram symbol (actually the Star of David) as one of the 'proofs' of ties to demons. The Freemasons and Knights Templar went on to build thousands of churches and hid holy artifacts in them, reputedly the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy Grail, and others.

Later, the similar pentagram symbol was used by Satanic cults in attempts to summon demons.

I've removed it for now, pending some more information about it. What are the sources for it? Jayjg 15:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It would be interesting to have a section on fables regarding the building of the temple by demons. These can be found for example in Myth and Legends: Ancient Israel by Angelo S. Rappoport (a difficult read) and I'm sure also in Legends of the Jews by Louis Ginzberg. Basically culled from various Midrashic works. There are also Islamic sources with related or variant fables about Solomon and the demons. Kuratowski's Ghost 01:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Legendary material recently inserted, pt. 2

Bismillahir Rahman ir Rahim

I recommend considering removal of the section entitled "Solomon's Reign" on the same basis. A group of "master-builders" were employed to erect "masonry" so that the foundation would be level??? Puleeez... Follow the link about Hiram I also. I'm not removing it because I don't feel like I have a neutral POV myself, but something to consider...

[edit] Discussion requested

I have noticed that there has been a major move to unify a number of articles on matters relating to the history of the Hebrew peoples by automatically and without discussion or qualification or room for dissenting views to reclassify everything so that the word "Hebrew" is substituted for the word "Jew" or "Jewish". This revisionism is a form of nunc pro tunc, meaning in legal and Orwellian terminology "now for then" where the history of yesterday vanishes with the stroke of a pen or computer key. I personally believe that this is a dishonest approach to history by treating it as propaganda to advance a particular viewpoint which is not shared by all people and in this case not by all Jewish people or scholars who are Jews. I have stated similar views elsewhere on a more controversial topic, but I believe that it can be discussed here since the question of whether the Temple existed is not under debate at all, that is accepted as proven fact. Therefore I would like to read a discussion on this very narrow issue of whether everything can now be classified as "Jewish" when "Hebrew" is the accurate discription. I specifically draw attention to the very first opening line on the article page. Please, let us stick to the facts and not allow allow passions to enter this discussion. Thank you. MPLX/MH 15:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Solomon was from the tribe of Judah, his Temple was in the territory of Judah. Citizens of Judah were Jews, by definition. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"... his Temple was in the territory of Judah. Citizens of Judah were Jews, by definition." How is that possible when the Kingdom of Judah had yet to be created? MPLX/MH 18:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Even in the united Kingdom of Israel the tribe of Judah had a specific territory, and the Temple was located exclusively in the Kingdom of Judah for 400 years or so. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I hope you see where this is going ... "Even in the united Kingdom of Israel the tribe of Judah had a specific territory, and the Temple was located exclusively in the Kingdom of Judah for 400 years or so." So it was the JEWISH Temple according to your interpretation because "... the tribe of Judah had a specific territory, and the Temple was located exclusively in the Kingdom of Judah for 400 years or so. So how about EVERYONE ELSE? Didn't they count? They were collectively HEBREWS who had been called Israelites by nationality. Anyway you slice it this current rebranding is a latter day nunc pro tunc. MPLX/MH 23:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jew originally meant "citizen of Judah". That's where the Temple was built, and who mostly used it for its entire existence. Jayjg | (Talk) 02:20, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I repeat the following line from the article itself: "In the beginning of his reign, King Solomon of the united Kingdom of Israel ..." I believe that addresses the very point that I am trying to make and I also believe that it makes it plain that all of the statements about Judah are therefore besides the point. MPLX/MH 07:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not getting your point. It was briefly the Temple of all Israelites, and then for hundreds of years the Temple of the Jews. Where do Hebrews come into it? Jayjg | (Talk) 21:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You know, I think this is a moot point. Hebrews are, by common useage, Jews. Is any distinction made between descendents of the tribe of Judah and descendents of the tribe of Benjamen? Of course not. They are all Jews. It stinks of anti-semitism to say that Israelite tribes of the old testement are somehow completely different than those Jews who live now. Revisionists have also said that Jesus was not a Jew, but he was.--Quodfui 20:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Reporting actual dates about when temple construction and other events referred to in the article occurred would be very helpful.

[edit] Attempted rebuilding, fourth century

An anon has edited the article on Julian the Apostate to include reference to an attempt to rebuild the Temple:

In 363 Julian, on his way to engage Persia, stopped at the ruins of Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem. In keeping with his effort to foster religions other than Christianity, Julian ordered the Temple rebuilt. A personal friend of his, Ammianus Marcellinus, wrote this about the effort:

Julian thought to rebuild at an extravagant expense the proud Temple once at Jerusalem, and committed this task to Alypius of Antioch. Alypius set vigorously to work, and was seconded by the governor of the province; when fearful balls of fire, breaking out near the foundations, continued their attacks, till the workmen, after repeated scorchings, could, approach no more: and he gave up the attempt.

However, many scholars believe it was an earthquake, common in the region, that ended the attempt to rebuild the Temple.

The anon has provided no source for the quotation from Ammianus Marcellinus or for any of the other material. I mention it here in the hope that someone knowledgeable about Solomon's Temple can correct any errors or provide a reference. JamesMLane 17:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here are two interesting sources which give a somewhat different picture. [1] [2] Jayjg ^(talk) 18:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This is Bible Study not History

A page referencing bible verses as references can only be bible study or literary criticism, NOT HISTORY.

This topic needs to be subtitled "Bible Study" or rewritten to say something on the order of "little is known about the actual history of Solomon's temple, although tradition, transmitted primarily though biblical references, asserts that ...

Again, there isn't anything wrong with an article that is a bible study or a religious article. But religious tradition masquerading as history is inappropriate.

True, reading the Biblical text alone will not produce a good article, but it has some value when used in conjunction with other methods of inquiry, especially archaeology and comparative religion. Together these can form a reasonable foundation for a set of educated guesses about the nature and appearance of the temple. I've tried to do this properly, attributing the purely Biblical stuff where appropriate and bringing in the other analyses where I can. —E. Underwood 23:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, the opinion that it's mostly or completely made up certainly exists. I should read Israel Finkelstein's books on the archaeology of ancient Israel and see what he has to say about the Temple. —E. Underwood 03:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Finkelstein is very clear on this: There is no archeological trace of monumental architecture in the period of Salomo. The alleged Salomonic stables in Megiddo are Omridic. Collegavanerik 07:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date of destruction

No mention in this article; History of ancient Israel and Judah says 587 BC and is specific that it was the 9th of Av; I know the latter is tradition (Tisha B'Av); if the year is correct, that should be in this article, no? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:22, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Everyking's edit at my request

"Everyking (restore material cut anonymously without explanation. If you think this section is wrong, please take it to talk)". This edit by Everyking is at my request, and the comment is mine. My browser is having problems handling this page. Please, address me, not Everyking, on any issues about this edit.

[edit] Cut from article

I just wanted to point out that the following material was recently cut from the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:19, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

When the Temple was constructed it was, together with Solomon's palace, by far the most splendid pile of buildings that the Hebrews had ever seen. The influence of environment may be seen in the description of Solomon's Temple. With the lapse of time Israel's fortunes declined, and the age of Solomon seemed even more glorious in comparison with later obviously decadent periods; and this increased the tendency to exaggerate the splendor of the Temple. Moreover, religious reforms made some of the arrangements of the Temple seem unorthodox, and various scribes may have amplified its description; as they did not always have the same point of view, present accounts are confused to a degree. One of the exaggerations of later times probably produced all those statements which declare that the inner parts of the Temple and all its implements were overlaid with gold.

As a result of editorial reworking of the description, the narrative in Kings contains no account of the great brazen altar which stood before the Temple. Ex. 20:24 et seq. provided that an altar might be made of earth or unhewn stone; and as it offended a later age to think that Solomon made an altar of bronze, its description was removed from 1 Kings 6. Nevertheless it is recorded elsewhere (1 Kings 8:64; 2 Kings 16:14) that it was a part of the furniture of the original Temple. Later scribes, too, are responsible for those statements which represent David as desiring to build the Temple, and as making preparation for it. Had he desired to build it he certainly could have done so. But in his reign the nomadic idea still prevailed, and a tent was thought to be Yhwh's proper dwelling (comp. 2 Sam. 6:6). Later generations, to whom the Temple seemed a necessity, could not understand why so venerated a man as David did not build it; hence these statements.

This paragraph is largely an anti-Bible POV polemic making numerous unsubstantiated speculations and it also contradicts itself. For example it says that " the narrative in Kings contains no account of the great brazen altar" and then points out that it is in fact mentioned in Kings (1 Kings 8:64; 2 Kings 16:14). All this talking of exaggerated description and changed texts is not substantiated. We don't have enough archaeological evidence to say whether there are exaggerations. Claims of text changes are not supported by any known manuscripts. The paragraph clearly doesn't deserve to be in the article. I tried to rewrite it from a NPOV but once the wild speculation, unsubstantiated claims and contradictions are removed there is nothing left! Kuratowski's Ghost 01:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] When was it constructed?

Quick question, when was Solomon's Temple first constructed? Anyone have any dates? Great article by the way DVD+ R/W 06:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical account, or Masonic?

"Amongst them was the master builder Hiram (the son of a Tyrian father and Israelite mother, not to be confused with the king)." This is inserted into what otherwise seems to be a Biblical account. Unless I am mistaken this has no scriptural basis, just the Freemasons' Hiram Abiff. Am I missing something here? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You're obviously missing 1 Kings 17:13-15

"king Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre. He was the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a worker in brass; and he was filled with wisdom and understanding and skill, to work all works in brass. And he came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work. Thus he fashioned the two pillars of brass ......"

Maybe the term master builder is presumptious, what's the best term for someone who works in brass? Kuratowski's Ghost 00:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Other than "a worker in brass"? Could be a "metalsmith", or even a "master metalsmith", but it is certainly not a "master builder", which is more or less a person who came up through the craft and engineering side and to the point of becoming more or less the equivalent of an architect. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed for Identification

I have an Arabic textbook that names a certain Israelite person by the name "Heiqoq" or حیقوق (English transliteration is mine, so it may be inaccurate).

It is said that he was a guardian to the temple of Solomon. He was captured by the babylonians and remained in their prison for some years. After beeing freed by Cyrus, he went to Ecbatana and remained there until he died, and was buried somewhere nearby.

Can anybody help me identify this person?--Zereshk 02:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I found the answer. It was Habakkuk.--Zereshk 01:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where's the science, archeology & neutral evidence?

There's very little factual information in this article. I for one would be interested in how the construction and destruction is dated, not to mention the outlook and materials, and based on which sources. This looks more like biblical-article than encyclopedic article - This is the reason I NPOVed this. - G3, 13:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there any?

(disclaimer: I don't know beans about ancient history)

I don't think labeling anything that happens to be so ancient as to have very limited corroboration as NPOV is reasonable, though I agree that it shouldn't be presented as indisputable fact; it's simply all we've got.

If we create articles with the contents of all the ancient cuneiform tablets of tax records, do we say that's NPOV? For all we know, the tax collectors lied and were skimming, or the peasants hid assets.

this stuff simply happened too long ago for us to know very much about it; the odds of multiple detailed descriptions of the history of one building surviving undistorted for three thousand years are minute at best; it's impressive enough that we have one description.

it might make sense to adopt a standard for articles based on or drawn from ancient texts to have a section on corroborating evidence, and some kind of label or tag indicating the limited nature of source material. I just don't think NPOV quite covers it, though; it's just single source data, or, if you like, Single POV.

Yes, and single POV can rarely be a neutral point of view. Although I also do see your point, and think that there should be a something like Template:BIBLE to represent biblical content instead of factual verifiable information. In my opinion, as there apparently exists very little historical information about the temple, the article's content should represent the actual state of knowledge and most of the contents of this article should be moved to Solomon's Temple (Bible/mythology) (or somesuch) because of the lack of cautionary template indicating more or less unreliable source(s). - G3, 23:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No

. . .archaeological evidence, anyway. Not a trace. In fact, according to Finkelstein and Silberman, there's no evidence that there was anything more than a small village on the site during the time of David and Solomon—though there were larger settlements in the Bronze Age and the later Iron Age. --anon

So most of this article should be moved to Solomon's Temple (mythology) similarly as biblical (and other mythological source) deluge is under Deluge (mythology) as opposed to Deluge. - G3, 01:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Except evidence of the First Temple has been found in Wakf construction refuse. Its also pretty clear that you have no understanding of the difference between historical tradition and myth and that what you desire is not neutrality but anti-Bible POV. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you claiming that bible is unbiased historical evidence? It's not anti-Bible POV but anti-Bible as NPOV POV - Relying blindly on one unverifiable book is inherently biased viewpoint. - G3, 16:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

How are archaeological remains found in construction refuse reliance on one book? And if artifacts keep being found that verify clains in that book (actually a collection of many books written by many people) in what sense is it unverifiable? Kuratowski's Ghost 20:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is archaeological evidence then it should be represented here. This is what I want: Multiple sources of evidence instead of a *single* unverifiable source - As this article stands now the existence of the temple is left to belief, belief in Bible, instead of any physical or multiple literary, historical, evidence. I for one would like to know did the temple exist, what evidence there is for the existence of the temple and what did the temple really look like. This encyclopedic article takes the biblical account as a fact without questioning it...at all: This is not neutral, nor does it give this article any credibility. - G3, 22:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

>> The first temple look like this: http://www.freewebs.com/nidud/temple.pdf

The Bible is not a single book but a collection of many books written by different people and the temple is mentioned in several books, so its not a single source. Apply the same extremist standards as you want to other areas of history and one is left with absolutely nothing. We can dismiss e.g. Columbus' journey to America as myth if you apply such standards. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] speculation and misinterpretation

Saying Due to the extensive rebuilding of the Second Temple in later centuries, few remains. . . is speculation. There are other possible reasons that no remains were found: The destruction might have been thorough, the remnants might have been quarried (quod non fecerunt barbari, fecerunt Barberini, except the temple was already destroyed, wasn't it), they might have been destroyed sometime after the completion of the Second Temple, or they might not have been there in the first place. Speculation of this kind can be attributed to its source but should not presented as unquestioned fact.

This is a misrepresentation: (Only recently discovered remains in the refuse from an extensive construction project performed on the Temple Mount by the Islamic Wakf in November of 1999 are known. [3][4])

Careful examination of the sources (the first one is a polemic, the second has a decent survey of the artifacts) reveals that nowhere does anyone claim that actual parts of the First Temple have been found. Neither specifically names any part of the structure itself. Both speak of numerous remains from the First Temple period (i.e. the middle Iron Age), which may be the source of the misunderstanding, but these are mainly ceramics—no masonry or anything that can be definitively linked to the Temple itself.

67.68.248.177 05:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It is unclear that no remains were found. The fact that the Muslim authorities prevented legitimate archeological excavationa and inappropriately disposed of artifacts themselves is notable and sourced, although I agree that this is not itself evidence that remains were ever there and the inference is not a necessary one. I agree with the change in opening sentence, but would amend rather than delete the next sentence to:

The only remains from the relevant period known are recently discovered remains taken from refuse from an extensive construction project performed on the Temple Mount by the Islamic Wakf in November of 1999. It is not, however, clear whether these remains contain evidence of a Temple structure from this period.[5][6])

This language would satisfy both concerns. --Shirahadasha 13:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

http://www.freewebs.com/nidud/temple.pdf, decribed as "Model of the first temple", seems to me to be nothing more than a PDF on a personal website with someone's anonymous efforts to illustrate 1 Kings 6. Is there any reason to keep this? - Jmabel | Talk 17:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latter-day Saint Temples

Should there be some mention that three of the 100+ temples of LDS Church are patterned (loosely) on Solomon's temple. See Laie Hawaii Temple, Cardston Alberta Temple and Mesa Arizona Temple. Bytebear 07:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, assuming that is citable, it certainly belongs. - Jmabel | Talk 19:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surreal

The reference to "surealist" (besides the misspelling) seems to come out of nowhere. What does any of this have to do with surrealism? Perhaps just "unrealistic" was meant? - Jmabel | Talk 20:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And I see that it is followed not long after by "irrealist". I am guessing that this is all simply someone's poor English. - Jmabel | Talk 20:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Similarly (I can only suspect), why is the underground hydraulic system "grandiose"? Who, precisely, is bieng accused of overreaching, and by whose standards was this in poor taste? - Jmabel | Talk 20:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And, again raising some of the same issues, what are "source living waters"? - Jmabel | Talk 20:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspam and worse?

The repeated admonitions in the text to "see www.jerusalem-4thtemple.org" strike me as dubious. In fact, they make me wonder about whether this site (heavily used as a refrence in the article) should be trusted at all. I tried removing these once, putting them in ordinary footnotes; they were restored. I won't claim to be at all expert on the topic, but this "smells wrong" to me. - Jmabel | Talk 20:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The more I look at this article, the more I suspect that it is little more than a polemic for an idiosyncratic view: "the Temple could in no way have stood on the rock culminating the ancient Jewish citadel… For all the details, mathematical data and references, concerning this masterstroke-historical manipulation in Jerusalem (which, according to Natan, succeeded brilliantly until this day), and concerning (also according to Natan) the blind persistency of magisterial and complacent errors in history and archaeology, see the book online: The Temple of Solomon could not stand on its Water Tower at www.jerusalem-4thtemple.org." - Jmabel | Talk 20:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Went ahead and reverted back to my last (Dec 6.) revert. --Shirahadasha 21:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A user named User:Nnatan was here on December 6 with a similar set of edits. I reverted them several times and explained on his talk page why the source web site and self-published book don't meet the WP:RS criteria. Perhaps the two users are related. --

Shirahadasha 21:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This was, precisely, User:Nnatan making more or less the same edits again after you had reverted. - Jmabel | Talk 05:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Shirahadasha: you removed "according to the Bible" from the lead, restored massive arbitrary capitalization, removed Charles Warren's first name, removed normal English-language formatting of numbers, and did almost nothing to address my issue about www.jerusalem-4thtemple.org. That is to say, apart from removal of the dubious Natan material, your edit had a lot of liabilities. I'm not going to try to address the www.jerusalem-4thtemple.org thing, or the generally dubious content, but I am going to revert quite a bit of what you did, but this is still a mess. - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha! www.jerusalem-4thtemple.org, the site I was complaining about as a weak source, is written by ... N. Natan. So, Shirahadasha, when you removed that section (and reverted a lot of my cleanup) you left intact masses of material attributable to no one by N. Natan.

Unless some established editor gives me good reason to the contrary in the next couple of days, I will remove the massive material attributable only to this non-reliable source, and would welcome it if someone else does so sooner. - Jmabel | Talk 05:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Since no one else is addressing this, I will simply remove the dubious material. - Jmabel | Talk 05:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss with editors who refer to commonplaces and cliches of dictionaries or nomenklature encyclopedias. I have too much work to do. So either you do not erase my contributions (and correct only my english) or I erase your contributions until you block me. So you decide : either a creative encyclopedia or a robotintellectual encyclopedia. Natan 22 december 2006

You will be blocked after your first move in this direction. Please discuss your contributions in small pieces. Unfortunately we are not "creative encyclopedia" whatever you mean. It is not "robotintellectual" either. Wikipedia is a compilation of things already published in reputable sources. Please see our policies: "wikipedia:Verifiability", "No original research" and "reliable sources". If you have other sources corroborating your edits, other than your book, we can talk. I understand your book was big work, but was it discussed by other historians/experts? `'mikka 07:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Every fact Natan presents can be checked with precise REFERENCES, which is not the case of many of your wrong informations based on common places Dictionaries and Encyclopedias.

Your only reaction is that of a censor of a totalitarian thought and ignorance.

Natan 27 december 2006.

If you use the content of my website (Temple Hydraulic System) which is MY EXCLUSIVE COPYRIGHT you MUST quote the precise reference : www.jerusalem-4thtemple.org, or delete the whole content.

Some editors can decide to remain ignorant (jmabel, mikka, Shirahadasha|Shirahadasha) but not dishonest : I wont tolerate it and take wikipedia and its dishonest editors to Court.

Nnatan February 2007

Actually, as I've said above, your site does not meet our criteria for a reliable source, and should not be cited. But, actually, if someone wanted to quote it, you almost certainly have no way to prevent any paraphrase that would normally fall within fair use: ideas cannot be copyrighted. By the way, Wikipedia policy is quite clear that you cannot both threaten to sue us and simultaneously participate as an editor. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

As a totally stranger to the topic, please allow me to make a comment. The article misses the discussion of alternative hypothesis about the possible location of the temple. It seems that NNatan is not alone in assuming that the temple could have been somewhere else. How notable are these alternatives? Do they deserve coverage in the article? `'mikka 07:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If someone can bring forward sources on this that are of the sort usually acceptable to Wikipedia, I'm open to it being in the article. To the best of my knowledge, no one has done so. I've never seen anything non-crackpot on this, but that doesn't mean it isn't out there, this is not my specialty. - Jmabel | Talk 23:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Description

Maybe this is insignificant, but what exactly is "a regular tower"? Tzittnan 22:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wall of the First Temple claimed found by Dr. Eilat Mazar!

Eilat Mazar, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center's "Institute for the Archeology of the Jewish People",claims she has found remains of a wall of the First Temple in her ongoing excavations at the City of David in Jerusalem. She says in the article that "it is the largest site from King David's time ever to have been discovered." Link: Jerusalem Post, March 29, 2007: First Temple wall found in City of David.

This is a further quote from the article: "A 20-meter-long section of the 7-meter-thick wall has now been uncovered. It indicates that the City of David once served as a major government center, Mazar said. Mazar estimates less than a quarter of the entire wall has been uncovered so far." However according to article there is a controversy among archaeologists as to whether Dr. Mazar has actually uncovered the palace built for King David in the 10th century BCE. Chrisbak 22:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)