Talk:Solomon's Stables

Name

The current name (Marwani Mosque Arabic: المصلى المرواني) should be mentioned in the leading sentence, and not deep inside the article.--Fjmustak (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

al-Musallah al-Marwani means Marwani Prayer Hall. It is not considered an independent mosque but as a part of al-Aqsa mosque. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, should the lead be rewritten so that the current use is the main name? --Artoria2e5 🌉 14:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

"Alternative view"

I have restored most of the content that was removed by Goranmilo (talk · contribs) diff.

But I'd like some input about the material he added. It is based on a paper published on the ISESCO website, given at a conference in Amman in November 2004 by Raef Yusuf Najmin, a member of the Restoration Committee for the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, Amman.

However the material seems highly dubious. The assertion that not just this underground complex but the whole of the southern extension of the Temple Mount were built by Hadrian rather than Herod seems profoundly unhistorical. The claim is said to be anchored by similarities with "the Roman Ramla reservoir" -- but if this is a reference to the Pool of Arches, that structure wasn't built until 789 CE.

For the moment I've left this in as an "alternative view". But is it actually a political piece of temple denial barely related to real archaeology? And how should this article best treat such material? (And can anyone produce some sources that critically evaluate such claims?)

For wider input I'm going to flag this at the sponsoring wikiprojects, WP:Palestine and WP:Israel, in the hope of getting some wider attention. Jheald (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Temple Denial

In order for the Islamic anti-zionists to advance their temple denial theory, they have to explain how the Temple mount platform complex, which is undoubtedly real and undoubtedly ancient, got there in the first place, hence, the Herodian masterwork was attributed to Hadrian or the Calif Omar or some other gentile, anything to discredit ANY Jewish heritage in the area. Ericl (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, to use the Temple-denial meme in this article, you need to cite a reliable source that uses the term in connection with Solomon's Stables. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Since no Jewish source ever claimed that the Temple was in this location, it's history has no relevance to Temple Denial. Actually this article is a bit of a shambles. Can anyone see a readable copy of the ISESCO paper; I'm not satisfied with the account given of it but I can't find it. The situation in archaeology is that it is generally accepted that Herod was responsible for the southward extension of the platform, but there is no evidence available concerning the Solomon's Stables area at that time. It is not even certain that they were covered, as there is simply no literary or archaeological evidence either way for it. It is also not known what happened to it during the destruction of Titus or what was rebuilt afterwards. The first probable mention of underground vaults is from the 4th century. A large amount of the southern portico collapsed during an earthquake in the 11th century and was rebuilt; it isn't known what happened to the S's S then either. The pillars holding the roof up now probably originate in the Crusader period even though some of the stones used to build them are Herodian. If a place is repeatedly remodelled over the centuries, what does it mean to ask for its origin? No serious archaeological investigation has been done to solve these riddles. All I have written can be sourced to good sources, but I'm not going to start now as I'm leaving the country quite soon. Here's one to start with: Dan Bahat, one of the most famous archaeologists of Jerusalem, wrote bluntly that the S's S are not Herodian. doi:10.1179/peq.1998.130.1.51 p. 55. Zero^talk 04:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

2019 fire

From all account I see - this was a very minor affair, outside of the hall itself, and extinguished very quickly. It probably only received attention due to the concurrent fire in Paris. I tagged the sub-section as UNDUE as IMHO, given current coverage, it is a WP:NOTNEWS factoid (passes V certainly, but of very little weight). Icewhiz (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The Biblical And Original SOLOMON’s STABLES

The Bible states:

2 Chronicles 9:25 says, “And Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots, and 12,000 horsemen, whom he stationed in the chariot cities and with the king in Jerusalem.”

This would have been a very long time before the time of the Crusaders- when this article claims as the origin of the name “Solomon’s Stables”.

Therefore, there should be a reference in this article pointing that out and pointing to another article (which may already exist) called “Solomon’s Stables (Biblical)”, “Solomon’s Chariot Cities”, or something like that.

I came to Wikipedia seeking info on the Biblical ones - but it is not even mentioned in this article. I may research this and edit this article later but I am new to Wikipedia editing - and a bit busy now.

And I m not sure of the proper protocol. Svranch (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Solomon wouldn't have had stables for 4,000 horses with the accompanying manure, stink, etc. right beside the Temple. That's ridiculous. It may have been NEARBY, in the area, but not right next to the Temple. Also, this section was not part of the temple complex in Solomon's time anyway. It was added at the time of Herod, when the second Temple was built and the whole site was greatly expanded. That's when this part of the structure was built. Also, the name DOES come from the time of the crusaders who thought, because of the way the structure looked, that it might have been the stables of Solomon, but we know it didn't even exist in Solomon's time. ~2026-2678 (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)