Talk:Solomon's Temple

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Lede & Infobox

Hi @Sinclairian: you reverted my edit based on WP:DUE. Could you please clarify what you meant? The whole point of the edit was to make it more NPOV. نعم البدل (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

NPOV does not override WP:REL. There is no reason for adding the Arabic name for a structure existing more than a thousand years before the inception of Arabic and having no relevance to the Arabic language or Arabic culture. Sinclairian (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sinclairian: The Solomon's Temple isn't merely restricted to Judeo-Christian beliefs. It's also relevant to Muslims, hence why there's a section on the article dedicated to the Islamic POV. The Arabic name in the lede would and should reflect this. نعم البدل (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Solomon’s Temple is liminally relevant to the tradition of Islam, whereas it is a centerpiece of Jewish and Christian traditions and history. It’s not even directly mentioned in the Quran. There is no equivalency here. Sinclairian (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sinclairian: That would assume that Islamic beliefs are solely based on the Qur'an which they aren't, and just because there's more emphasis on it in Judeo-Christian beliefs, doesn't mean it has no emphasis in Islam. It does. It has been indirectly mentioned in Quran (while directly mentioned by Caliphs and scholars in Islam). Solomon is also considered a Prophet in Islam. Along with Hekel Sulayman, it's also known as Arabic: البيت المقدس – al-bayt al-muqaddis / the Sacred House. Being the basis of the al-Aqsa Mosque, it definitely has emphasis in Islam, which is why it's fair to include the Arabic names, along with the Hebrew names. نعم البدل (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Look, the Temple was a Jewish holy site which remains of primary significance to Judaism. There is a reason we don’t include Hebrew, Latin, or Greek terms in the ledes for pages like Al-Aqsa or Al-Quds – if the primary significance lends to one group, that group tends to use what would be considered COMMONNAME. Sinclairian (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, the reason why al-Aqsa doesn't have any Hebrew terminology, is because it has no relevance to Judaism – it is a mosque, just as the Second Temple has no Arabic terminology, because it has no relevance to Islam (to my knowledge anyway), but the Solomon's Temple has basis in both Judaism and Islam. نعم البدل (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hebrew speaker here, Al Aqsa does have a Hebrew name and theological meaning in modern Judaism—כיפת הזהב, Kippat HaZahav, meaning "the Dome of Gold". It is rather infamous that Israeli children yell "is this the golden dome?!?" at every golden mosque they pass by. I agree the Arabic name is relevant, but not for the First Temple—rather on the page of the site itself. אתמולתיים (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Non-Hebrew speaker here. Al-Aqsa doesn't have a golden dome. The name refers to either the entire compound or specifically the building at the south end that doesn't have a dome. I'm pretty sure that כיפת הזהב refers to the Dome of the Rock, which is situated in the center of the compound and has a golden dome but isn't a mosque. Zero^talk 00:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

The name isn't accurate, ye אתמולתיים (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Generally we restrict foreign names to original/native ones. Even the Hebrew is questionable because there's no specific term for Solomon's Temple until the Herodian period, as far as I know, but the idea is appropriate. Sometimes we also include local or politically important names, even if they aren't historical (so Arabic at Western Wall, Temple Mount) but this site no longer exists. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal: It's why I removed any foreign names from the infobox and confined it to the lede of the article. I didn't think it was appropriate to include names in other languages in the infobox, but since there are multiple variants/names in different languages, it should have been included in the lede. نعم البدل (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

But do you realize that, by extension, the Arabic terminology is a foreign name as well? Sinclairian (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand that – I don't have any issue with the Hebrew names and would like to keep them in the lede. I just think that for this article the infobox shouldn't have names in other languages apart from English. My point was that the lede should contain both the Hebrew and Arabic names. I do also understand GordonGlottal's point about removing foreign names in the lede, but I'm inclined to disagree with it, respectfully. نعم البدل (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no reason whatsoever to include the Arabic name, just as there is no reason to include the Latin or Greek name (despite both having controlled Jerusalem, and despite it being important in Christianity). If this temple existed (for which there is no direct proof), it was a temple of a small Hebrew kingdom/chiefdom. That makes the Hebrew name relevant, and other languages irrelevant. This is standard WP naming policy. Jeppiz (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

First Temple period = ?

I cannot find a RS for the exact definition of 1TP. Widely used, and certainly not only by biblical literalists, or so I thought. Needed are:

• territory
• starting point (!!)
• end point (easy), and
• category: can it be also used as an archaeological term (archaeological period; it's often used in such a context!), or just for a historical period? (Not quite the same.) It always needs to be mentioned that the historicity of Solomon is doubted, and the date of the establishment of a central, "royal" temple in Jerusalem is very far from consensual.
• Used by whom and in what system/context?

It used to redirect here, then Tombah retargeted the redirect to History of ancient Israel and Judah, then he was blocked indefinitely, and now I reverted his edit.

I understood the term to be a leftover from the time of classical biblical archaeology, sure, but a term that took roots, is widely used, and needs & deserves an explanation.

I take it to mean more or less the Iron Age II, the general time of the Israelite kingdoms, so c. 1000-587/86 BCE. So the starting point not literally connected to a much-doubted, strictly Bible-based calculation of a Solomonic construction. However, History of ancient Israel and Judah is covering both IA I and IA II, and even mentions the Merneptah Stele (c. 1200 BCE). That means: from the very appearance of the new material culture in the hill country. Too early for 1TP, no matter if one goes with 1200 or 1150 BCE.

Maybe Hebrew-language RS could help? Arminden (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Hebrew Language speaker here. First temple period does not have a beginning, as it is defined in contradiction to the Second temple period. In my opinion, it would be best defined to begin when David made Jerusalem his capital, as Temple eras refer not to the Temples themselves rather to the ages of Hebrew sovereignty in Canaan (first until Babylonian exile, second from the Edict of Cyrus to the Roman exile, and a third starting the Israeli Declaration of Independence, despite no temple being built).

That being said, considering the near complete lack of non-biblical sources prior to the foundation of the first temple, covering pre-Templar eras in the same article could be a reasonable choice. אתמולתיים (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 November 2025

Change drawing to reconstruction based on drawing: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Render_of_Solomons_Temple.jpg Carleisenhower (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Nice colors etc, File:Render of Solomons Temple.jpg but why should we use your WP:USERG artwork in this article? From the WP-pov, this is just your artistic vision, based on a maybe copyrighted image, it has no encyclopedic relevance.

And slightly off-topic, I see now that the current WP:LEADIMAGE is uploaded as "own work". If it is what it says it is, we may have to delete that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I've now nominated the current leadimage for deletion, and if I'm right about that (time will tell), your artwork will have to be deleted from Commons as well, since it's derived from a copyrighted artwork. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

We might need a new WP:LEADIMAGE

245–246 CE mural depicting Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem from the Dura Europos Synagogue.

Per above. This one has colors, and is absolutely PD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

C+B-Temple-Fig4-3rdCentADGlassBowlShowingJerusalemTemple

Second one, has no colors, also PD. More alts at Category:Temple of Solomon. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Reconstruction of Solomon's Temple.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Broken anchor

Under "Other contemporary temples," the link to Tel Arad has a broken anchor. It can be replaced with this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Arad#Iron_Age_II_Judahite_fortress;_temple,_ostraca,_reservoir

Or to an unanchored link to Tel Arad. The connection is made fairly clear from the introductory section to the Tel Arad article. Gatsbythegerbil (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Idk what to say

can I add in the countries (infobox) The united monarchy Why only include the end Noam Elyada (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

First temple

The first temple is Göbekli Tepe. No Solomon’s temple ~2026-27966-03 (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Recent discovery of burnt beams supporting the canonical biblical account

The overview paragraph:

"No direct evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple has been found. Due to the extreme religious and political sensitivity of the site, no recent archaeological excavations have been conducted on the Temple Mount. Nineteenth and early-twentieth-century excavations around the Temple Mount did not identify "even a trace" of the complex. Some attribute this to the extensive building done in the area during Herod’s time."

Appears to be stale and/or too rigid of a statement following the recent discovery of burnt beams "believed to have collapsed during the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE" that appear to date approximately to the biblical account of the timeframe proposed.

Suggested action: update the quoted paragraph to reflect the latest status of archaeological findings. NathanWithers (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit: forgot to include source https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/430435 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanWithers (talk • contribs) 12:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Atm, fails WP:PROPORTION. For archaeology, something less news-y would be good. I don't know to what extent Arutz Sheva is considered WP:RS on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva is a junk source. If this holds up it will be covered by more reliable sources. In any case "a wooden beam from the first temple period" is not evidence of the temple. Zero^talk 14:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

It's in more news from today, but in general we'd like something better than news from today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks both. I'll keep monitoring and revert if more reliable sources echo this. NathanWithers (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

A non-newspaper source is here. Burnt beams from a building in the Givalti parking lot area were found for the second time. Their destruction probably dates from the Babylonian invasion when, traditionally, the first temple was destroyed. Unfortunately (as per usual) newspapers are hyping it up, sometimes to the point of claiming that the beams are from first temple itself. Nothing of the sort is suggested; indeed there would be intense pushback to any proposal that the first temple was somewhere other than on the Temple Mount. I don't think it is relevant to this article, but it is certainly fair game for City of David. Zero^talk 03:07, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

"somewhere other than on the Temple Mount" Why? It would not be the first or the last time that the Biblical narratives have inaccurate geographic information. Dimadick (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Of course, but you won't catch the IAA promoting such ideas for something so fundamental as the location of the temple. Zero^talk 12:47, 21 July 2026 (UTC)