Talk:Second Temple period

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lim177.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

adding section proposal

I want to add a subsection about Herod. He is such an important figure in the Second Temple Period, and I want to show that importance in this article. I want to put more information that is specific to him using Cohen's "Roman Domination," pages 267-273. If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page.Lim177 (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Suggest this article is merged with Second Commonwealth as they cover exactly the same topic. I do not have a preference for which should be the main name. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Second Tempel period" is the common name, as far as I know, not only in English, but in other languages too, whereas "second Commonwealth" is imo not used, Ajnem (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This is now done. No other views provided in last 6 weeks so I assume not controversial. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Second Commonwealth?

Who refers to this period as the Second Commonwealth? Seriously, who? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Herod's Temple was the 'Third Temple'

I added the following... Note: some scholars refer to Herod's Temple as the Third Temple<ref]citation needed</ref]. - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Artificial period divisions

@Tombah: Re: this edit - The Hasmonean period is just part of the Hellenistic period - at best, if a separate section is needed, it should be a subhead - both sections currently refer to Seleucid rule. The same with the next two sections - a dynasty is not a period - the period is the Roman Period. It's right there: the Roman-era material, e.g. on Roman Judea, is artificially split up. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Uh huh, let's hear the evidence, @Tombah:, in support of the edit summary "these are exactly the key periods when discussing the history and archeology of Second Temple period Jerusalem. Scholars differentiate Hasmonean Jerusalem from previous Hellenistic rulers, same about Herodian and direct Roman rule." Article is not about Jerusalem btw. Selfstudier (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Absent a reply, restoring Iskandar version, happy to self revert if the case can be made. Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You don't need me, "Hellenistic" or "Roman" are too broad terms, they span centuries. It is useless to use these terms to discuss delicate political, social, architectural, and economic issues. Try a quick search on Google Scholar, and you will find sources such as:

• Mazar, B. (1970). The Excavations South and West of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem: The Herodian Period. The Biblical Archaeologist, 33(2), 47-60.
• Rozenberg, S. (2009). Wall Paintings of the Hellenistic and Herodian Period in the Land of Israel. In Herod and Augustus (pp. 247-266). Brill.
• Fiensy, D. A. (1991). The social history of Palestine in the Herodian period: The land is mine (Vol. 20). Mellen.
• Netzer, E. (1977). The winter palaces of the Judean kings at Jericho at the end of the second temple period. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 228(1), 1-13. "two within the Hasmonean period and the third, Herodian. The large concentration of… Among the finds (mostly dated to the end of the Hasmonean period)"
• Schwartz, J., & Peleg, Y. (2011). 6. Notes On The Virtual Reconstruction Of The Herodian Period Temple And Courtyards. In The Temple of Jerusalem: From Moses to the Messiah (pp. 69-90). Brill.
• Efron, J. (1987). Studies on the Hasmonean period (Vol. 39). Brill.
• Baruch, E. (1998). The economic hinterland of Jerusalem in the Herodian period. Qatedrah le-tôldôt Eres Yísra'el el we-yîššûbah, (89), 41-62.
• Rosenfeld, B. Z. (1988). The'Boundary of Gezer'Inscriptions and the History of Gezer at the end of the Second Temple Period. Israel exploration journal, 235-245. " The Hasmonaean period (the end of the second century BCE), or the Roman-Herodian period, spanning the end of the first century BCE..."
• Geva, H. (1983). Excavations in the Citadel of Jerusalem, 1979–1980: Preliminary Report. Israel exploration journal, 55-71. "In view of the stratigraphy, features of construction and the pottery analysis, we tend to date its origin to the Hasmonean period"

Tombah (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll be waiting your self-revert. Tombah (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Some misunderstanding here, what I was looking for is something that confirms scholarly usage generally ("these are exactly the key periods when discussing the history and archeology of Second Temple period [Jerusalem]") The above appear to be some sources using the sub divisions. Seems to me that finding a source or sources using some subdivision is not difficult, that's not the issue though. @Iskandar323:? Selfstudier (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

As you say, there is Jerusalem, and then there is the whole region. Many if not most of the sources above are specific to Jerusalem. They also show an internal lack of adherence to the previous setup on this page - see the second example: Hellenistic and Herodian Period in the Land of Israel - so using Herodian but not Hasmonean. This is because because Herodian and Hasmonean are not terms that have widespread currency. Hellenstic Period and Roman Period are pan-Mediterranean terms for classifying history and archaeology, with a usage to match. While "Herodian" might be a useful division when studying a single 200-year sample of excavated pottery at a given archaeological site, it is less useful (/useless) for characterizing the entire period of Roman hegemony over the region. As I mentioned, the previous page structure contained contradictions - after 6CE, Judea was a full Roman Province ruled by a governor, but at least part of the details of this was sitting under "Herodian dynasty" - that's nonsensical. Broad geographies encompassing various different levels of statehood demand broad period terms. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Jewish history is a bit more complex than that. Tombah (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't have to be complex, we are talking about section headers, all that's needed is a demonstration that this or that division is commonly used by (whoever). This article is not intended to be an article about Jewish history? There is an article Second Temple Judaism which has a section called "Periods", it's just a list though and the article doesn't really make use of it as such. Selfstudier (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Jewish history has yet more combinations of naming terms, but like Second Temple Judaism prefers a Hellenistic/Hasmonean split and then Roman. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The Hasmonean section should be nested under the Hellenistic period - as it is, we've got one narrative about the Seleucids and Antiochus split between level 2 headers, and Hellenistic doesn't mean Seleucid; it just means a period of Greek influence, which continued under the Hasmoneans. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The whole article begins to look like we are just rewriting everything already in History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel, why is all this info needed twice? Selfstudier (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

We have "History of Greece" followed by "Ancient Greece" and then "Classical Greece" and finally "Classical Athens" for precisely the same reason. Once you zoom in, you can see more details. The Second Temple period cannot be adequately covered in the "History of Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel", as its scope is too wide. Using the same reasoning, this article shouldn't go into too much detail about each sub-period - each deserves its own article ("Yehud", "Hasmonean Kingdom", "Roman Judaea", etc). The question here is which information should be shown at each level and which should be saved for the bottom level. Tombah (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not really zooming in that much compared to History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel, just covering a more limited time period. It is extremely duplicative of History of ancient Israel and Judah, while covering this material in less detail. The fact that half the article is now copied from elsewhere is a pretty strong clue to all this. And yes, more is sometimes less. So the question as to whether it is just a historical POVFORK is valid. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion on the History of ancient Israel and Judah page. The post-587/6 BCE content on that page needs to be removed, and this article should continue from that point in time on, making the two pages mutually exclusive but comprehensive of ancient Jewish history. Tombah (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

That's not the usual procedure, spinouts to sub articles in greater detail are common usually because of size. This is not a spinout this is an agglomeration of material cobbled together from other articles, a fork basically. I also question why we have a non standard period here. I appreciate it may be a standard for Jewish history but this is English WP, most readers who might recognize Iron age or something like that won't have a clue what "Second Temple period" means (I had to go look it up myself). Selfstudier (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the term used frequently in Jewish historiography to refer to the period from 516 BCE to 70 CE. I've never come across another name for this time period. Tombah (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I share Self's concerns that from a normal reader's perspective this may seem an arbitrary way to divide the material. Why, for instance, does the history need to be separated onto separate pages at all? Why can terms like First Temple Period and Second Temple Period not simply redirect to the relevant sections on a broader timeline covering the iron age developments through to the Roman period. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The articles for these periods should cover much more than just the historical events. The two periods have their own distinct religious, linguistic, literary, demographic and political aspects that need to be attended. See my below links from the Oxford and Cambridge handbook/guide for more info. Tombah (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The two periods have their own distinct religious, linguistic, literary, demographic and political aspects that need to be attended If this is true, then restrict the article scope to that (maybe change the article title as well) and leave the history stuff where it is/was. At the moment the article just looks like a big fork of the history in other articles. Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Mover material delay

@Tombah: At History of ancient Israel and Judah you left an edit summary noting that you were moving material here while deleting a truly huge volume of material and sources, but I don't actually see it copied here. A) What's the hold up? And B) Might you be being a little hasty? The discussion on that page ended rather abruptly, and was not very thorough. I'm not sure if there is a well rounded consensus for cutting that material off in the mid-6th century. I share Self's concerns that from a normal reader's perspective, that may be quite an arbitrary way to break up rather contiguous historical material. Perhaps the question is: why should readers have to stop in the 6th century and change article? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the "First Temple period" and the "Second Temple period" are two distinct periods in Jewish history that are frequently distinguished in historiography on the topic. This distinction has been made by numerous experts and can be found in a plethora of sources on ancient Jewish history. Cambridge Guide to Jewish History, Religion, and Culture differentiates between "The Hebrew Bible and the Early History of Israel" (chapter 1) and "The Second Temple Period" (chapter 2). The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies discusses the Second Temple period in two chapters [(3) Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, (4) The Literature of the Second Temple Period] before moving on to the "Talmudic period" and "medieval Jewry". The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for instance, asks its Jewish history graduates to choose between specializing in knowledge of the biblical period, the Second Temple and Mishnaic/Talmudic periods, the medieval period, and the modern period(s). Well, in regards to changing articles, I don't see why this is a problem. If readers want to read about post-Alexander Greece, they must switch from "Classical Greece" to "Hellenistic Greece". I don't see how this case differs from others. Tombah (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

History of ancient Israel and Judah, Israel, History of Israel are not organized like that. Jewish history is (by way of a heading) and I can see an argument for doing it in an article with a title like that but even then the sub periods of it spin out to the usual periods. So I still don't see why we need all the duplication everywhere. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Check the template for "History of Israel". The sources show this is the correct way to go - I believe we need to fix this at all of this pages. By the way, the French Wikipedia follows the same chronology; they have separate articles for "Israël antique" (also a featured article) and the "Période du Second Temple". There is also a piece for "Histoire de l'Israël antique" that examines just the historical events of the Late Bronze Age until the 6th century BCE. Tombah (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Fr or any other WP can do whatever they like, this is English WP. And what I think is that there is/was nothing wrong with the way it is/was before you started copying/shuffling things about. Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

No offense, but based on your earlier remarks—you were unfamiliar with the term until today—it appears you could learn more about ancient Jewish history before making such a statement. I would be delighted to assist. Tombah (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is getting off-topic: it doesn't matter what one template or one foreign language Wiki says. You are proposing drastically altering large numbers of stable history pages based on what seems like a bit of a personal conviction. You also didn't address the missing material. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not just one foreign language Wikipedia, as I demonstrated above; it's also the official Cambridge and Oxford books on Jewish history, and many many other sources. Regarding the missing information, it seems that the majority of what I took out of the other article has already been added here by the two of us, with better wording and better sources. Just to make sure we didn't miss anything, I'll have another look. You're welcome to join me. Tombah (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

No doubts on historicity of religious texts?

I know of a couple of authors who go great length to disprove the value of Biblical texts as sources of factual history. See Biblical Minimalism. As this viewpoint is becoming more and more prevalent, there should at least be an advisory paragraph at the start of the page, explaining that the article transports religious, not scientific, ideas. --2A01:C22:3544:CC00:C44F:32C:D3CD:4054 (talk) 2A01:C22:3544:CC00:C44F:32C:D3CD:4054 (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)