Talk:Solomon's Temple

Leadimage

Current

MACCOUN(1899) p099 SOLOMON'S TEMPLE

Salamoni templom Chipiez rekonstrukciója

Heinrich Bünting's view of the Temple of Solomon

C+B-Temple-Fig4-3rdCentADGlassBowlShowingJerusalemTemple

I don't like the current image, according to Commons [1] it's a recent work by a netizen. It has nice colours, though.

IMO we should use some older, pre CGI imagening. Commons has several possibilities [2]. Adding a few examples. Opinions, editors? I think the 1899 one is ok. Of course, no image is also a solution. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Those three images of yours are anachronistic, based on some old painter's imagination without basis on reality, adopting styles that have no resemblence to ancient Israelite or Phoenician architecture. The digital rendering that I added is loosely based on biblical description, including the molten sea, the famous columns and other iconic symbols of the first temple.--Michael ben Zvi (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC) strike sock

"loosely based on biblical description" goes for all of them. The current image is non-WP:RS published WP:OR. "some old painter" is pretty much WP-standard in this kind of article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree that any of the older images would be better. Zoeperkoe (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, "loosely based on biblical description" is your guess (it's a good guess), there's no info on Commons to base that on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

As far as the existing images on Commons are concerned, File:Francois Vatable, reconstructie van de tempel van Salomo (detail).jpg and File:Храм I.jpg are the most relatively 'accurate' (i.e. unanachronistic + resembling actual Israelite/Phoenician architecture) representations at our disposal... that said, I'd 100% go with the former in place of the latter, as aside from quality, it seems to take a modicum of artistic liberty when it comes to depicting the temple itself, what with the tiling. Zhomron (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The Russian one looks nice, but is sadly anonymous. Francois Vatable is fine by me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Amending a previous copyright violation, I've uploaded the best (i.e. accurate) depiction of the Temple locally to Wikipedia, in accordance with non-free image use policy. It can be found here. Barring any further issues, I will be placing this image in the infobox. Zhomron (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Since there are plenty of free images, I don't see how non-free will work. IMO, "accurate" isn't really the issue here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

…why would we keep a lead image we know is inaccurate? Isn’t that like having a picture of Michelangelo on Einstein’s page under the rationale of “eh, they’re both people so it’s fine” Zhomron (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The historicity of Solomon and related stuff is quite weak and lost to history, "unknowable" as someone said in relation to Moses. "Accurate" here is a matter of Bible-text, faith. Interpretation by artist is unavoidable, like the snow-white walls and shining bronze in the red one. If there was a Rembrandt, I'd take that, even if he'd made it with horns on, like Moses. "According to the Bible" is not a minus, but there are other factors. Like I said, I'm ok with Vatable, "accurate" or not. But I'm ok with others too, for example 3rdCentADGlassBowl which is really old. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to debate the historicity of Solomon. This is about the temple itself, the temple which actually existed irrespective of Solomon. We know, generally, what it looked like. Zhomron (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

We know what the Bible says. The article disagrees with you: "Because of the religious and political sensitivities involved, no archaeological excavations and only limited surface surveys of the Temple Mount have been conducted since Charles Warren's expedition of 1867–70.[69][70][71] There is no solid archaeological evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple, and the building is not mentioned in surviving extra-biblical accounts.[8]" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting that you conveniently skip the intermediate sentence There is a general agreement that a ritual structure existed on the Temple Mount by the point of the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem, however serious doubts remain in attributing it or its construction to Solomon, or any king roughly contemporaneous to his lifetime.[8] The temple's existence and the existence of Solomon are not mutually exclusive despite the strong connection between the two, regardless of when it was built and who truly built it, consensus agrees that the Temple did exist and was destroyed during the indicated siege of Jerusalem. But, I digress. If nothing else, its descriptions in the bible should be accurately matched by the lead image. All the renderings do not follow the basic description of what the Temple is said to have looked like, they are rendered either as Greek style temples, Baroque style churches, or they have fantastically unrealistic additions such as the huge brick spires both the former lead image and some of the above examples portray. Zhomron (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"There is a general agreement that a ritual structure existed on the Temple Mount by the point of the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem, however serious doubts remain in attributing it or its construction to Solomon, or any king roughly contemporaneous to his lifetime.[8] " is pretty far from "We know, generally, what it looked like." What we have is artists musings. We can use them, or not. If there is one that has been well noted in scholarly literature, that is a WP-good choice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Fourth paragraph of lede

The fourth paragraph of the lede currently begins:

There is a general agreement that a ritual structure existed on the Temple Mount by the point of the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem, however serious doubts remain in attributing it or its construction to Solomon, or any king roughly contemporaneous to his lifetime.

By way of background, this sentence was added by Zhomron on 3 February 2021 and subsequently moved by them to the start of the paragraph. I removed it here and Zhomron immediately reinstated it, with a slightly expanded citation.

The original citation was Finkelstein & Silberman The Bible Unearthed, pp128-129. The new citation is for pp128-132. To be clear, I am sure this is a reliable source.

My difficultly is that the sentence as written does not accurately reflect what the source says. The sentence makes two claims. Firstly, that there is general agreement as to the existence of a ritual structure by the time of the Babylonian siege. The source says nothing about this. The pages referred to discuss the situation during the presumed reigns of David and Solomon and make no reference to the time of the siege.

The second claim is that serious doubts remain as to the Temple's construction either by Solomon or by any roughly contemporaneous king. The source does say that there is no archaeological evidence for a Solomonic Temple and it is not mentioned in extra-biblical sources (and we correctly cite it in the following sentence in this respect). But it goes on to say "strong arguments have been marshaled to counter some of the minimalists' objections", namely the possible eradication of earlier remains by Herodian construction and the weakness of Egypt and Mesopotamia during this period. The authors do not express a view as to whether there was or was not a Temple, but leave it for readers to judge. Therefore it seems to me to be WP:SYNTHESIS to say "serious doubts remain".

It is worth noting that on p235, the authors state "Monumental building techniques—such as the use of ashlar masonary and Proto-Aeolic capitals that typified the elaborate Omride building sytle in the northern kingdom—did not appear in the sourth before the seventh century BCE," although they then go on to mention "royal structures" in Jerusalem as potentially having achieved "some measure of impressiveness, if not grandeur." One could reasonably deduce from this that any temple in Jerusalem before the 7th century must have been modest, but again the authors do not actually say this.

I have mixed feelings about this, because I do think the sentence is probably correct, but for it to stay in the article, it needs a better source, IMHO. Actually, probably 2 sources: one for "general agreement" and one for "serious doubts remain". Havelock Jones (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

This makes sense, and I agree on "probably correct, but for it to stay in the article, it needs a better source". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I also agree. Achar Sva (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Ditto. WP:SYNTH should be avoided. Zhomron (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

We can't claim the historicity of the temple based on a source that doubts the historicity. The lack of archaeological evidence is essential to mention. Dimadick (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. But even still, if the same sources also accept the (albeit significantly few) attestations of the temple as historical, where exactly does that leave us in terms of how to frame it? Zhomron (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

New image

The source is this but I see no information about it. Why is it more accurate? When was it created and who created it? @Tom Bahar: do you know? Doug Weller talk 13:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Like I said in the leadimage discussion above, I don't think "accurate" is much of an issue. James Tissot maybe? The source page states "© Studio Har Moria". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure who created this photo, but as someone familiar with biblical archeology, and having seen ancient Israelite motives with my own eyes (I live in Jerusalem, few kilometers from the City of David and the Israel Museum) - I can see that the suggested depiction is actually based on Israelite motives from the Iron Age (for example, Proto Aeolic capitals, which are known for being common in Israelite and Phoenician architecture), something that cannot be said on the 17th century depiction. Gråbergs Gråa Sång - Sorry, but I strongly disagree with you. Accuracy should be a consideration when describing an ancient, historic building. Moreover, this article states that Solomon's Temple was based on Phoenician design, and the leadimage should match that. Tom Bahar (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

This is not an article about a historical building, at least not according to the article. All depictions are artist musings more or less based on biblical text. Since the September discussion (such as it was) found a consensus for the Vatable pic, and comments were made against File:Храм I (I asked about it at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Commons_image_File:Храм_I.jpg), I don't think the leadimage should be changed without new discussion first agreeing it's a good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Factual accuracy in the lead

The first para says "It was built during Solomon's reign over the United Kingdom of Israel and was fully constructed by c. 957 BCE.[citation needed]" - but although citations can be found, the 4th paragraph clearly says "Although most scholars today agree that a temple existed on the Temple Mount by the time of Nebuchadnezzar II's siege of Jerusalem, its construction date and the identity of its builder are debated.[8]...Since the 1980s, skeptical approaches to the Biblical text and the archaeological record led some scholars to doubt whether any temple at all was constructed in Jerusalem in the 10th century BCE.[9] Others suggested that Solomon's original temple was modest, and was later rebuilt in a larger scale during the late-monarchical period.[10] No direct evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple has been found,[11][12] nonetheless, no real archaeological excavations have ever been conducted on the Temple Mount due to the extreme political sensitivity of the site." The alleged date of construction is also in the infobox. Doug Weller talk 14:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I hope I'm not taking liberties, but it seems the entire slant of this post is about factual accuracy, which is a very specific concern. I've tweaked the title and maintenance tag accordingly. As with many biblically linked pages, there seems to have been a cumulative blurring of biblical story and historical fact in the editing of this page. It will need careful teasing apart. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The lead was a bit of an abomination - too long objectively, five paragraphs and bouncing all over the place in terms of contents. I've attempted a bit of a trim. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I very much agree, thanks.@Iskandar323 Doug Weller talk 16:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Minor detail, but IMO a WP:LEAD like this should almost never include names of specific scholars (Fabio Porzia and Corinne Bonnet), but their ideas is fine if "lead-worthy". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems like we also have a bit of the old 'in-the-lead-but-not-in-the-body-problem' there too - so the question of leadworthiness is a pertinent one. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Two birds with one stone - I just lobbed both rather granular statements on a single piece of archaeological evidence back to where they belong. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The red image, again

Image under discussion

By the same artist

I've removed it 3 times from the article since yesterday, so I'm getting close to WP:EW. It's an "own work", uploaded to Commons in 2010. In short, it's fan art. It looks impressive, a bit like the Holyland Model of Jerusalem, and has colors, but it's only the artistic vision/WP:OR of the anonymous uploader. So my view is that it shouldn't be used here.

Opinions, editors? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The article has way too many imaginary images and this is far down the list of significance. So I don't think we should have it. Zero^talk 10:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Present-day location associations in the infobox

The lines in the infobox implying that the location of Solomon's temple is A) known, B) where the Dome of the Rock stands, and C) that its "public access" is the same as the Temple Mount are counter-factual. Solomon's temple remains a thing of myth whose precise location is fundamentally unknown. Setting aside the completely unevidenced claims that the Dome of the Rock is where it stood (this is not even known for the Second Temple), there is even debate over whether Mount Moriah was actually the same thing as the Temple Mount. The "public access" line is meanwhile obviously intended for extant religious buildings (like the actual Temple Mount space), and not something that should just be copied across to articles on things presumed to have existed there. The map and coordinates are likewise tenuous. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Moons of Io: Given this edit, in which you restored this seemingly counter-factual information, this thread is primarily for you. What am I missing here? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The location of the temple is widely sourced: Here is one from a couple of days ago [3] Moons of Io (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"It is known to Jews as the Temple Mount, site of two Biblical temples" reads like "in Jewish faith", doesn't it? Also, while BBC and other news-orgs are often good sources, a WP-article like this should focus on WP:RS books and scholarly articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Almost any of the 200 sources used for the Western Wall would cover that stonework as being built by Herod, rebuilding on the site of Solomon's original temple. Moons of Io (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Herod was involved in building the wall, yes, that is a historical fact, but that bears absolutely no relation to the unevidenced assertions above. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Virtually all scholars accept that a Yawhist temple existed on the Temple Mount by the time of the Babylonian destruction; the debate is mostly surrounding its construction date and the identity of the builder. Moreover, the majority of scholars agree that the Second Temple was built at exactly the same location as the first one, so Herod's walls do support the mainstream academic view that the First Temple was located on the Temple Mount. Let's steer away from conspiracy theories please. The Temple's precise location on the Temple Mount and identification with the (platform of the) Dome of the Rock are less certain, but it is the prevalent view in literature. One recent debate, for example, was whether the Holy of Holies was located above what is today known as the Foundation Stone, or the temple's altar, but both views concur that both Temples were situated in this precise region of the Mount. Tombah (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Such debate has been going on for centuries. It is characterised by reliance on tradition and argumentation rather than actual evidence. Both scholars and crackpots engage in it. Zero^talk 10:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

My main problem here is certain features of the religious building infobox template that are clearly aimed at contemporary structures: I'm not sure if the template is even meant to be used for historic structures, let alone a non-extant 3,000-year-old one that is indeed the stuff of hypothesis and debate, hence why details such as access are inappropriate, along with, one might argue, a map pin maintaining the pretence that an exact location is known. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there was a temple. I don't think it was Solomon's. I don't think it was big. I don't think it was monotheistic.

If the real Temple "of Solomon" ever gets excavated, I guess Orthodox Jews and Conservative Evangelicals would not be delighted and would have vehement reactions. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Map and geographical coordinates in infobox

Given that the location of the original temple is unknown, as even the likes of Finkelstein admit, is there an particular reason why there should be a mildly POV-ish map and coordinates giving it a precise location? (Especially when this feature is clearly actually designed to locate modern buildings (hence the modern map), not ancient ones.) As it stands, it appears to be simple providing unsubstantiated information than comes more from the realm of religious and political fantasy than it does the realm of evidence, and is largely serving simply to bloat the infobox. If readers want to know where the temple mount is, as the presumed location of Solomon's temple, they can click on its link. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary tag

{{Update inline|date=April 2024|reason=The source is from like a 100 years ago.}}

Hi CycoMa1. I took the freedom to remove the tag. I find it irrelevant, once it's been made clear that it's all exclusively based on the Bible. They could understand biblical prose perfectly well 120 years ago, functional illiteracy among apparently educated people is rather our problem today than it was back then. What can be challenged is the Bible text, but that A. has nothing to do with the JE being pre-WWI, and B. for the period in question the biblical compilation was proven to be rather factual, the authors likely had royal and Temple archives to work from. Arminden (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

"Model of the First Temple"

"Model of the First Temple, included in a Bible manual for teachers (1922)"

Accordung to the book where the picture is taken from (and by the look of it) I think it's a model of the Herodian Temple and not of Solomon's. 2003:E4:AF1D:6778:BD89:A2F5:809B:F794 (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)