Talk:Solomon's Temple

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This entry incorporates text from the public domain Easton's Bible Dictionary, originally published in 1897.
Solomon's Temple 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:
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Judaism Portal
Solomon's Temple is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[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)

Please remove the material on templar and the Beis HaMikdash. They were never helpful. They came and murdered the JEws praying in JErusalem, an have persecuted us continually. It is nutty and revolting to have them in as though they are helpful. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.126.88 (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Star of David and Pentagram have nothing in common. Please do not attribute to Jewish sites and view the use of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.126.88 (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2008 (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)
I don't know any common usage which establishes Hebrews, Hebrew or Jews before they exist. The origin of jews as jews is tied to the establishment of the kingdom of judah after the building of the temple. It isn't tied to the tribe of Judah, or for that matter to the sons of Israel but to the secession of Judah from the kingdom of Solomon after his death. Israel can't be tied to the Merenptah stele either as the relevant passage refers to the people of Syria. The closest descendents of the old testament jews are probably the modern palestinians. The Russian jews who first settled modern Israel after world war II are in many ways more Indo European than semitic.Rktect

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

Greetings. I see a couple of major points being missed here which is confusing the discussion. One, the Temple was NOT in the territory of the tribe of Judah as is being claimed. The whole point of Jerusalem being the seat of the government and the eternal Hebrew (or as we say today, Jewish) capital was to make sure it was in no one tribes' jurisdiction. In an innovation much like modern capitals such as Washingotn DC (District of Columbia meaning that it resides in no one state's territory but rather belongs to the union), Jerusalem was ruled by the Kingdom of Israel as a whole. The Bible relates this story specifically, and King David is addressing the problem of where to establish his capital (which first was Hebron, which actually is in the territory of Judah).

The Hebrew army together (with soldiers of all tribes) conquers the fortified city of Jerusalem from the Jebusites and David declares a national city for all tribes. To say it was under the jurisdiction of only Judah because it is surrounded by it, is the same as saying that it was under the jurisdiction of Judah when the Jebusites still ruled it (because Judah still surrounded it); or more to the point, as if to say Washington DC is part of Maryland.

Once the federation breaks up of course, and the Kingdom of Judah is established, then of course, Judah as a tribe and kingdom controls Jerusalem (and hence the Temple) independently of the Northern Tribes. But even then, Judah never claimed exclusivity on the Temple. On the contrary. It encouraged Jews from the Northern Tribes to make the pilgrimages and make the sacrifices to the Temple as their common religion required.

Secondly, about the argument here in the nomenclature of Hebrew vs Jew. Jew and Judaism today are used as Hebrew or Israelite should be. This is fine for day to day talk, but to be precise, it is a misnomer itself. A Jew in the bible is a member of the tribe of Judah. The other "Jews" who are members of other tribes are not Jews, but Simonites, Benjaminites, etc respectively. However, the religion they practice is identical and common to all... the Hebrew religion. The nation they are all members of is Israel. Judah is but one of the tribes. It does not have a separate religion. However, just like Americans may call themselves Texans, or Virginians, Jews were used to referring to themselves by their Tribe. When the other tribes subsequently virtually disappeared (Simon and Benjamin trough mixing into Judah, and the other tribes by the Assyrian subjugation, slaughter, and dispersion) is when the misnomer then comes to be.

All the Hebrews and Israelites left, and all those who practice the Hebrew religion, are members of the tribe of Judah. These are the Hebrews that are scattered over the world, and they call themselves Jews (since they are). When they were asked who they were, they answered "Jews". When every Hebrew left, and every practicer of the Hebrew religion alive is a Jew, then these terms become interchangeable. Europeans then knew a Jew is a Hebrew and a Hebrew a Jew. They never met a Reubenite. So then it follows that the religion that this Jew practices, must be Judaism. It is logical, but technically inaccurate. Especially since other Hebrews not from Judah did survive, including the Levites and Cohens (who are also Levites), Benjamnites and Simonites. These people were not Jews, as in members of the tribe, but definitely were "Jews" as we refer to the nation and religion today.

In conclusion, its a matter of intent. Today I recognize that the term Judaism refers to the religion, and Jew is a practicer of that religion (and member of that nation). By this modern usage, then I see no problem calling the Temple Jewish. That is fine as long as we know this is an anachronism (but so is speaking in English in relation to them). They would NOT have called the Temple Jewish. If someone more technically wants to claim that it is the temple of Judah and of Jews (as in members of that tribe alone), then he is mistaken. It was a Hebrew or Israelite Temple. In the Bible, Jacob, father of the 12 tribes, has his name changed to Israel. This is precisely why, all Hebrews, of any of the 12 tribes (or 13 depending on how you count) are Israelites. All sons of Israel. Erikdired 15:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Erik

I have read some of the discussion below. While it is nice to see folks trying to separate the truth from falsehood, you have missed the forest for the trees. It is not correct to use the term "Hebrews". To use that term is Christian naming of Jews. We never call our selves a Hebrew like that usage. So by using it you are in essence acting as a colonialist. Or worse. So please don't even consider use of the term. Thank you . Elisheva —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.126.88 (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The date of the temple's construction

is given as the fourth year of Solomons reign c 970-931 BC, Siamon c 975 - 935 BC

The start of the temple

6:1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of Jehovah.

completion of the temple

At length, in the Autumn of the eleventh year of his reign, seven and a half years after it had been begun, the temple was completed. For thirteen years there it stood, on the summit of Moriah, silent and unused. The reasons for this strange delay in its consecration are unknown. At the close of these thirteen years preparations for the dedication of the temple were made. The Temple remained empty for only eleven months, until the month of Tishri in the year following its completion. Thus the Temple was dedicated at the autumnal new-year festival.

[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)
Given the extremely controversial nature of the claim that a 'first temple' existed why is this part of the discussion page so small? To claim a 'first temple' in this article must surely be non-npov.Rykalski 19:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The intro attributes the Biblical account to the Bible, but agree that in its present form much of the "History" section is essentially a repetition of the Biblical account. Since the Biblical account is definitely relevant and important material, suggest dividing the present "History" section into two components, a "Biblical Account" or similarly titled section recapitulating the Biblical narrative, and a "Contemporary historical perspectives" or a similarly titled section giving various theories about its historicity. --Shirahadasha 03:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Note: I do think it's worth pointing out that unlike many other encyclopedias, Wikipedia has purposefully adapted a neutral point of view policy which means that it doesn't attempt to judge between different perspectives on the subject as long as all are notable, reliably sourced, and attributed. The encyclopedia intentionally provides both religious and academic accounts and doesn't judge between them, although readers must be informed which is which (religious accounts can't be presented as scientific and vice versa). So the "Bible study" components are parfectly appropriate article content and shouldn't be deleted, although archeological and other perspectives are also most definitely welcome and should be added where missing or weak. Readers make up their own mind what methods they use to learn about the world and what they choose to believe. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The policy on reliable sources requires a 'reliable publication process'; something which the bible does not possess (given its vastly complex textual history). As such it should not be used for historical purposes other than for the history of the systems of belief it is a holy text for. History of ideas/beliefs is a crucial endeavour but this entry in wikipedia is not about the history of beliefs about the 'first temple'; far from it. The assumption of this article is that there was a temple of solomon and that the bible is a source of historical information about that holy building. If the introduction to this entry stressed that it was concerned with beliefs about a 'the temple' then the whole article would be using the bible in a reliable and authoritative way.Rykalski 13:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Who is this: period of Salomo. Salomo? It is King Solomon or Shlomo. And if you want to know what is real, Finkelstein is not a good source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.126.88 (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2008 (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)

WEll, here is more. You had written:

"But in his reign the nomadic idea still prevailed, and a tent was thought to be Yhwh's proper dwelling "

That is so nutty. Who gave you that idea? There are reasons why it was not buildt by him, and not what you write. If you are not going to study you should not go writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.126.88 (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2008 (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)
The Master Builder or arch tectos in antiquity is a trained or educated scribe knowledgable in the sorts of things covered by Vitruvius in the Ten Books of Architecture, the fundamental principles, the departments, the site of a city, the city walls, the direction of the streets with respect to the winds, and the sites for public buildings, what we call master planning, building materials to include stone, timber and metals as well as plaster and paint; ceramic tiles, cements. caulking, glass; symetry and proportion, what we call the greek orders, types of buildings, the plumbing and construction of aqueducts wells, cisterns, water rams, the importence of various natural philosophies, and finally the precise workings of every type of machine.Rktect 16:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The working in brass is a subset of that knowledge. In particular given the detail of proportion mentioned in Kings 1: the sacred geometry of proportions that Vitruvius touches on in books three and four is demomstrated by the relation between the volume calculated in baths and the dimensions given in cubits. If the diameter is taken from brim to brim to the inside edge or ID of the bath while the diameter is measured encompasing it round about or to the OD, then the math problem is to determine its thickness or difference between ID and OD pased on the description of the brim.
7:22 And upon the top of the pillars was lily-work: so was the work of the pillars finished.
7:23 And he made the molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and the height thereof was five cubits; and a line of thirty cubits compassed it round about. 7:24 And under the brim of it round about there were knops which did compass it, for ten cubits, compassing the sea round about: the knops were in two rows, cast when it was cast.

WEll, if Hiram's mother was from Naphtali, that makes him a Jew. I don't remember seeing that elsewhere. Look here, this is an internet site which has accurate translations. What you are copying as Kings I 17:13-15 is not. Here it is:

Melachim I - Chapter 17

13. Elijah said to her, "Do not fear. Come and do as you said, but first make for me a small cake from there and bring it out to me, and for you and your son make last. 14. For thus has spoken the Lord, the God of Israel, 'The pitcher of flour shall not end nor will the flask of oil be diminished until the day the Lord gives rain upon the land.' " 15. She went and did as Elijah had said, and she and he and her household ate [many] days.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/15901/jewish/Chapter-17.htm In case you care, it is also not in II Kings, 17.

Hiram is discussed in I Kings 5: 15 - 26 - And it actually does give you the reason why Dovid HaMelech did not build it:

15. And Hiram king of Tyre sent his servants to Solomon, for he had heard that they had anointed him king in place of his father, for Hiram was ever a lover of David. 16. And Solomon sent to Hiram, saying. 17. You knew my father, David, that he could not build a house for the name of [G-d] of the wars which surrounded him, until the L--d put them under the soles of his feet. 18. And now the L-- d has given me rest on every side, (there is) neither adversary nor evil occurrence. 19. And, behold, I purpose to build a house for the name of the L--d .. as the L -- d spoke to David my father, saying, 'Your son whom I will set upon your throne in your place, he shall build a house for My name.' 20. And now, command that they hew me cedar trees out of Lebanon, and my servants shall be with your servants, and I will give you hire for your servants according to all that you shall say, for you know that (there is) not among us any who is skilled to hew timber like the Zidonians. 21. And it was, when Hiram heard the words of Solomon, that he rejoiced greatly, and said, "Blessed be the L-- d this day, who has given to David a wise son over this great people." 22. And Hiram sent to Solomon, saying, "I have heard that which you have sent me, I will do all your desires concerning cedar wood, and concerning cypress wood. 23. My servants shall bring (them) down from Lebanon to the sea, and I will make them into rafts (to go) by the sea to the place that you shall send me, and will separate them there, and you will transport (them), and you shall accomplish my desire, in giving food for my household. 24. And Hiram gave Solomon cedar wood and cypress wood (according to) all his desire. 25. And Solomon gave Hiram twenty thousand measures of wheat (for) food to his household, and twenty measures of beaten oil, thus gave Solomon to Hiram year by year. 26. And the Lord gave Solomon wisdom, as He had promised him, and there was peace between Hiram and Solomon, and they both made a league together.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/15889/jewish/Chapter-5.htm
Where did you get that quotation from??

By the way, if you want a date for starting to build it, here it is: Of course, you would have to know what the other dates were first... http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/15890/showrashi/true/jewish/Chapter-6.htm

Finally this phrase: master builder Hiram - I checked the rest of Kings I, and it is not there.

You folks do not know your stuff. The problem is what you are called a "bible" is not. It is a fiction. And deeply flawed. Elisheva —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.126.88 (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2008 (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)
Father Christmas appears in a lot of books and in other places; should claims of his non-existence be dismissed as anti-santa POV? You may have noticed that the conventional name of this collection of books you mention is The Bible and that this collection of works has been treated as a single text for sometime now (when its been edited, translated, etc,) Rykalski 11:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This is nutty. Of course there is current proof of the Temple's existence. WE find more every day. There is absolutely no doubt about the proofs of the essential facts, which do absolutely validate what the Torah has written. It appears that those of you arguing and writing need to go and learn a lot more prior to putting material on Wiki pedia as though you know what you are writing. There are experts and there are proofs, but you just don't know about it all. If any of you go to Israel, the Israelis can show you absolute proofs for it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.126.88 (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2008 (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)

Since we've established that the Natan Foundation isn't a reliable source, moved this paragraph to Talk and added a {{Fact}} tag to previous paragraph (which appears to have the same source.) These underground cisterns of the ancient Jewish citadel provided, solely by gravity and through appropriate underground channels, the source waters needed in the sanctuary mikvahs and brazen laver, for all the exacting rites of purification prescribed by Jewish scripture. The sanctuary stood, therefore, downstream of these underground cisterns, on a platform which was later destroyed by Emperor Hadrian, after the crushing of the last revolt of the Jews, led by Bar Kochba and Rabbi Akiva (the main architect of the Mishnah) in their last attempt to rebuild the Temple in 135. The Temple had an underground Hydraulic System. <ref>[http://www.jerusalem-4thtemple.org www.jerusalem-4thtemple.org]</ref> Best, --Shirahadasha 15:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


Please - I did see the Natan site, and he has indeed done his homework as you have not. My intent is not to defend him, but you so obviously know so much less that you are in no position to remove his edits and corrections. I have read much on the topic, and he is an expert. I can't absolutely vouch for every word he writes, but it is very solid material. Go spend time and read his material. It will take time, but it is great. --- Next you critique that the word "bible" was removed: Bible" And well it should have been, as the non-Jewish translations over the centuries are no longer accurate. They are just not worth using, as they will just get you all mixed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.126.88 (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And here I see this comment you have made:

Since we've established that the Natan Foundation isn't a reliable source, ....

No you have not established anything of the sort. You have only established that you are not a scholar, and are not in a position to establish very much at all on this topic. If you care so much about it, please go and study - find a Chabad House with a rabbi who will teach you Torah through Noahide Laws. Elisheva —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.126.88 (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2008 (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)

If you are debating the location, you are missing the point again. The rock dome area is clearly one of idolatry and could not possibly be holy. Everyone knows this. NNatan seems to have done his research, at least much much better then Mabel here has. Elisheva —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.126.88 (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2008 (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)

[edit] Full citations requested

The article still contains sections that may have been copied without citations from a source like the 1897 Easton's Bible Dictionary or the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. These sources tend to be both opinionated and somewhat out of date. Citations also tend to have abbreviations and missing info that may be fine for an expert but won't enable a non-expert to verify content. Am asking editors to provide full citations in new content and to do what they can to provide citations for existing content where missing. Generally speaking, paragraphs should begin with "according to" or similar to indicate whose viewpoint is being given, as this topic involves numerous claims and points of view and we need to take care not to present a particular POV as fact. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the need for citations, but I don't think paragraphs need to begin with an "according to" unless scholarly/authoratative opinion is evenl;y divided, or at the least that there is a significant minority opinion: otherwise a simplt statement would be enough, plus ciatation. I really would like to see this article cleaned up.PiCo 08:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Excoted"

This is an insulting and hostile statement - Fighting words one would say:

These vessels especially excited the admiration of the Jews.

"excited ... the Jews..."?? Give us a break. Who was there to see our reaction? "Excited the Jews." Ick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.126.88 (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Brazen Sea

The article describes the brazen sea thusly

The brazen Sea (Laver), 5 meters wide, 2.5 meters deep and with a circumference of 15 meters, rested on the backs of twelve oxen (1 Kings 7:23-26). The Book of Kings gives its capacity as "2,000 baths" (80,000 liters); the Chronicler inflates this to three thousand baths (120,000 liters) (2 Chr. 4:5-6) and states that its purpose was to afford opportunity for the purification by immersion of the body of the priests (in everflowing living source Waters). (According to Talmud tractate Mikwaoth, a "bath" of 40 seahs is the minimum permissible size for a Mikvah).

The lavers, each of which held "forty baths" (1 Kings 7:38), rested on portable holders made of bronze, provided with wheels, and ornamented with figures of lions, cherubim, and palm-trees. These vessels especially excited the admiration of the Jews. The author of the books of the Kings describes their minute details with great interest (1 Kings 7:27-37). Josephus reported that the vessels in the Temple were composed of Orichalcum in the Antiquities of the Jews. According to 1 Kings 7:48 there stood before the Holy of Holies a golden altar of incense and a table for showbread. This table was of gold, as were also the five candlesticks on each side of it. The implements for the care of the candles—tongs, basins, snuffers, and fire-pans—were of gold; and so were the hinges of the doors.

The biblical dimensions are given as ten cubits wide and 5 deep. and the volume is given in in 1 kings as 2000 baths and in chronicles as 3000 baths with a bath 12 US gallons. If 10 cubits are to be taken as 5 m. then a cubit would be 500 mm. The only cubit that size would be first a non biblical ordinary or median cubit rather than a sacred or long cubit, which seems odd for a temple, and secondly agree with neither computation for the number of baths.

Given the two different volumes and the wrong cubit either the whole passage should be taken as gloss, probably added well after the period referred to, or the author incorrect. Its also mentioned that the circumference is decorated with gourds or spheres in two rows and that the thickness of the brazen sea is a hand. Subtracting the gourds under the brim and the stated thickness from the dimension of 10 cubits diameter to the brim makes the diameter of the contained hemisphere 9 cubits one hand and at five hands to a cubit, its radius 23 hands and its capacity 2446 baths

If Wikipedia is intended to be useful it should be at least internally consistent.Rktect 12:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Boy you folks are really getting to be offensive. Who is this guy? This is no credential against a real archeologist.

Associate Professor of Religion (Hebrew Bible studies

How fluent is your Hebrew, current and ancient?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.126.88 (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Shelomith/Temech Seal

I just edited the "Solomon's Temple" article to provide additional details and correct some small mistakes in the few sentences under "Archaeological Evidence" that introduced into the discussion the so-called "Temech" seal. You can follow those changes in the history, of course. A couple of the edits were just minor stylistic points, such as cleaning up the punctuation or clarifying that Mazar publicized the seal in January 2008; she had found it during excavations in the summer of 2007. I also added material relevant to the current scholarly debate over the seal, in which the majority opinion holds that Mazar read the seal backward, and that it really reads "Shelomith," not "Temech."

However, I really don't think the seal is relevant to the topic of Solomon's temple at all. I recommend that the entire discussion of that seal be deleted. Even if Mazar's reading is correct (which is quite improbable, as all leading epigraphers who have spoken on the matter think she's wrong), and even if the seal's "Temech" was the same "Temech" mentioned in the book of Nehemiah (which cannot be proven; if you found a nametag reading "Hi, I'm George," in an archaeological layer dated to 1950-2050 AD, how would you know to which "George" it belonged?), that still has no archaeological bearing on Solomon's temple. The iconography on the seal certainly doesn't suggest Solomon's temple, but Babylonian worship. So even though I edited the material instead of deleting it, I think deleting it is actually the best course.

- Christopher Heard, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Religion (Hebrew Bible studies), Pepperdine University

Drchrisheard (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information here and the clear discussion on your website. I'd say to remove the sentences about the seal from this article, at least until there's a peer-reviewed discussion of the find. EALacey (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change the year designations from BCE to BC and CE to AD

When dealing with the matters and historical figures and places that deal with Christianity and Judaism it is proper to use BC and AD not BCE and CE. I feel that it would be more appropriate to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkybuddy82 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

At what point did the Solomon's Temple become a "matter" for Christianity?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
BC/AD may be appropriate for Christianity, but not for Judaism; BCE/CE can be appropriate for both. Per previous discussions, a great many editors & scholars prefer BCE/CE because of its faith-neutrality. In the case of this article in particular, what "substantive reason" (phrase from WP:SEASON) could there be for making a systematic change from the dating scheme previously established? Hertz1888 (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you making the rules on Wikipedia now, Funkybuddy? Please read WP:SEASON to find out what they actually are. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This excerpt, from WP:DATE, addresses the topic head-on: "In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Enough said. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
2nd that. Abe Froman (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] King Solomon's Temple and Freemasonry link

There is a link which is a speculative opinion from Freemasonry point of view which adds nothing to the information about the Temple from other sources. I see no reason to retain it as it deals more with Freemasonry then the Temple.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article is blatantly NPOV. It assumes that the biblical story is literally true with no mention of any of the scholars who disagree. Doug Weller (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)