Talk:Second Temple

Page move

I notice that this page has been moved from Second Temple of Jerusalem to Second Temple (Judaism) without a move being requested or any discussion on the talkpage.

It looks like a discussion has been had at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. However, this isn't the normal process for moving a page and, for obvious reasons, I don't think it is the best forum for gaining a full range of potential views on the matter.

Had I had chance to consider the arguments for the move, then perhaps I might have been persuaded. However, it seems to me that the Second Temple is primarily a building in antiquity rather than a sort of concept in Judaism. To many people, it will be of primarily secular historical rather than religious or cultural interest. To other people, it may be of interest because it features in the traditional narrative of the life of Jesus.

Either way, can I ask that the page be moved back and the normal process for gaining consensus for a page move be engaged with.

Cheers, --FormerIP (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Former IP: You are wrong. Firstly, there most definitely was a very lengthy discussion reaching consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash since 14 July 2010. Secondly, this page like all the others effected were notified about the proposed redirect, also on 14 July 2010 [1] on their talk pages but now with the "corrected" redirects it's not showing up for some odd reason. So please do not complain now because all users who have this page on their watch lists had more than two weeks to partake, share their their views and make comments and suggestions. Those editors who did were mostly reliable Judaic editors who are trustworthy and responsible. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• See my detailed response with more information at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#All talk pages, and more, were notified about the discussions and proposed moves Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• By the way Former IP, by your comments here, you are projecting your purely Christian WP:POV it would seem, so that you may want to create an article that deals with how Jesus ties in with the Second Temple. Or how Christianity depicts it, even though the articles do put in Christian views on Judaism holiest building/s. For that matter, how about articles about how Judaism views The Vatican (holiest site to the Catholic Church or Canterbury Cathedral (holiest site to the Church of England and so far no one thinks it's worth it). Jesus as a historical personage supposedly lived at its very end, so it's hard to see what relevance he has to the life and times of it during its 400+ years in an of itself. Please do not forget that the Temple was first and foremost and always remains the most important Jewish religious building of all time while it is very marginal to Jesus and to Christianity. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi IZAK. I'm aware of the discussion at the Judaism wikiproject. The fact that the participants were "mostly reliable Judaic editors" is nothing to boast about, though. It seems to me obvious that it is not apporpriate to ignore normal WP procedures for page moves and hold the discussion instead in a forum where a Jewish POV is likely to prevail.

By the way, I am not a Christian and this is not about the content of the article, it is just about the page move. --FormerIP (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP: Any editors tracking pages such as this one, not restricting anyone and open to everyone, were more than welcome to go to the discussion, so your are nitpicking is pointless. IZAK (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Temple discussion at ANI

In response to discussions about correct names for the First and Second Temples held at WP:TALKJUDAISM, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#All talk pages, and more, were notified about the discussions and proposed moves where you may want to add your views to the ongoing discussion. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC:Proper Name for this Article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

NOTE: The following involves three related articles, please comment on all you see fit:

1. Talk:Solomon's Temple#RfC:Proper Name for this Article
2. Talk:Second Temple of Jerusalem#RfC:Proper Name for this Article
3. Talk:Third Temple#RfC:Proper Name for this Article

What is the most appropriate name for this article in the English wikipedia project? Further suggestions should be placed as subsections below, and arguments should be placed in the section corresponding to the desired name. -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Second Temple of Jerusalem

• This temple has a more free-form name than the others. I have heard the term, Herod's Temple, before, but it doesn't appear to be as widely known. Conversely, calling this article just the "Second Temple" is cause for confusion in terms of other religious faiths. Thus, calling it the "Second Temple of Jerusalem" seems to be an adequate compromise, as it is specific enough that it is understood what it is likely referring to and because those searching for "Second Temple" would still be able to find it. Silverseren^C 18:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Unnecessary disambiguation. -- Avi (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. "Second Temple" alone is not frequently used amongst non-Jewish English-speakers. "...of Jerusalem" is not a disambiguator here. It is more comparable to the use of city names in Hanging Gardens of Babylon or London Astoria. --FormerIP (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support as per FormerIP. It seems to me the most reasonable naming method that can be applied here. Nahum (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Second Temple (Judaism)

• I'm listing this as an idea, since there are Second Temples in other religions, that i've specifically found (even if they don't currently have articles, though one does). Using the specific addition of (Judaism) doesn't harm the title at all and is entirely specific for what the article is about. Silverseren^C 21:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support, per Silver seren here. IZAK (talk) 04:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Unnecessary disambiguation at current. -- Avi (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support per silver Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support First Temple and Second Temple are the standard names used when studying Jewish History. The (Judaism) part is necessary because the expression by itself could refer to other temples that are second. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This is the logical and consistent companion to First Temple (Judaism) and Third Temple (Judaism). While there doesn't seem to be any disagreement on calling them "Second Temple" and "Third Temple", the deciding factor is the naming of "First Temple". This must be called First Temple (Judaism) because other religions have their temples, too. Yoninah (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. per Kuratowski --Shuki (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Second Temple

• Note - This was the article's name for the seven years from 2002 to 2009, per the logs. -- Avi (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly the primary topic for this search term, no need for any disambiguation. If other articles about different "second temples" wuold be created, they can be listed at Second Temple (disambiguation). Note that, apart from the above objections, the suggested "Second Temple (Judaism)" can easily be confused with the existing Second Temple Judaism. Fram (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. About as commonplace and unobjectionable as can be. Anything else is akin to "fixing what ain't broken". Hertz1888 (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"Fixing what ain't broken" would seem to imply changing the article title - but this is not the current article title, the perfectly serviceable "Second Temple of Jerusalem" is. This is not itself broken, so why fix it? --FormerIP (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The article's name for the previous seven years (2002-09) is what wasn't broken. The present name is not perfectly serviceable in the eye of every beholder. Second Temple is ample and sufficient, commonplace, primary and familiar. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that's an unreasonable POV (although I dispute "commonplace" and "familiar"), but it does mean that you are saying something needs fixing, after all. --FormerIP (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UCN and above comments.Griswaldo (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support This is then name in common usage. It is asserted above that this name causes confusion. I doubt it, but would be willing to consider evidence of real and substantive confusion. There are, after all, many towns named Mecca and even other Parthenons but we don't rename that page Parthenon (Athens).AMuseo (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support, per Amuseo.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support After thinking about it, I think that the article should be returned to its original name (of 7+ years) and anything specific to Herod's temple should start out as a section in this article. If the section becomes large enough to merit it's own article per WP:SUMMARY (as occurred on HeWiki), we can spin it off then. I do not think that there is enough confusion to warrant the addition of the disambiguation in the title. -- Avi (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Per Hertz1888. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per my comments above. --FormerIP (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support as there are few if any other temples which would conflict as per WP:NAME, and shorter titles are in general preferred to unnecessarily longer ones. The "of Jerusalem", or similar qualifier, can be added in the text after the link if such is desired. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support This is the commonly used name. --Redaktor (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Chesdovi (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. JFW | T@lk 12:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Herod's Temple

Break this article into two; one for Zerubavel and one for Herod, and rename them...

• I consider this to be a possibility as well. If either this or Second Temple of Jerusalem gains a majority, I will side with that one. Silverseren^C 18:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note, the Hebrew wikipedia has two seperate articles: w:he:בית המקדש השני (Second Temple) and w:he:מקדש הורדוס (Herod's temple). -- Avi (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    • But what is the difference between them? Silverseren^C 19:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Very simply and overly compact, per the article, Herod's temple was the name given to the last 50-100 or so years of "Second temple" after Herod made major renovations to it. It was different enough to warrant it's own name in the Mishna/Talmud/Josephus etc. HeWiki used summary style to breifly mention Herod's temple in the "Second" (or whatever we will call it) temples article and spun it off to its own -- Avi (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    • It seems to me that splitting it up into Zerubavel and Herod would make it specific enough for our purposes and work well, I think. It sounds like a good idea. Silverseren^C 21:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    • If I would split it, I'd rather "Second temple" (or maybe "Second temple (Judaism)" and "Herod's temple" similar to HeWiki, personally, but I am still thinking about the fact that for 7 years it was simply named "Second Temple". -- Avi (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Then I see "Second Temple (Judaism)" as a good compromise. A discussion about splitting off Herod's Temple is really something that can be done later. Silverseren^C 21:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose since it's a terrible idea (Herod upgraded it, he didn't invent or create it) that would in any case violate WP:CFORK because the subject is all about the same continuous Second Temple of Judaism. IZAK (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Do you see how HeWiki handled it? -- Avi (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The notion that Herod built a new temple, as opposed to surrounding the existing one with a massive and magnificent series of new structures, is held by only a tiny minority of responsible scholars. However I would support a subsidiary article on:

Herodian additions to the Second Temple itf the material is too unwieldy for a single article.AMuseo (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose at current We should let summary style decide if a new article is needed. Otherwise, Herod's temple should be a section of this article. -- Avi (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose "Herod's Temple" gives a false impression that Herod's Temple was a new, separate and third structure at the site. They were just additions made to the 2nd Temple. Chesdovi (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose As mentioned above, Herod merely renovated (at most) and/or added surrounding structures to Zerubavel's existing Temple, so it should not be named after him. "Second Temple," with or without any disambiguators necessary, is the most reasonable name, IMHO. Nahum (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Time for closure?

The RfC's have run for over a month, I think it's time we consider the conclusions. -- Avi (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nothing on architecture?

Surely there should be something about the architecture? I think there's a brief passage in Esra giving the dimensions of the Zerubabbel temple, for example (Ezra 6:3).PiCo (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Who and when built the Second Temple? =

"The accession of Cyrus the Great of Persia in 538 BCE made the re-establishment of the city of Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple possible."

-Ok, so it was after b.c.e 538. Who by? who was the force behind the proyect?

"According to the Bible, when the Jewish exiles returned to Jerusalem following a decree from Cyrus the Great (Ezra 1:1-4, 2 Chron 36:22-23), construction started at the original site of Solomon's Temple, which had remained a devastated heap during the approximately 70 years of captivity (Dan. 9:1-2). "

-Any thoughts on when was this?

"After a relatively brief halt due to opposition from peoples who had filled the vacuum during the Jewish captivity (Ezra 4), work resumed c. 521 BCE under the Persian King Darius (Ezra 5) and was completed during the sixth year of his reign (c. 518/517 BCE), with the temple dedication taking place the following year."

- c. 521? before comon era or after? what is "c."?

"Around 19 BCE, Herod the Great renovated the Temple, which became known as Herod's Temple.".

- So, 19 b.c.e., I take it we are talking about 521 b.c.e then (of course), but perhaps the article needs revising.

Potentially misleading

This article is about a religious belief, but it often reads as the description of historical facts. This could be misleading for many readers.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware that the existence of Solomon's temple was a religious belief; it certainly seems to me that archaeological evidence suggests it is historical fact. 216.37.198.7 (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the second temple, Solomons is the first one. And there is no archaelogicale evidence for even their existence, not just for the intricate details described in the article. If you disagree, add some reliable sources.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, some would argue about Solomon's temple, but the second temple is simply described in so many diverse historical sources that denying its existence would be absurd. Even if one does not consider the different books of the Tanakh that mention it, (all of them written by Jews, who had to be eyewitnesses of this temple), note that the historians Josephus and Philo both visited the temple in Jerusalem. Josephus described it in detail. Tacitus, a Roman historian, recounts the destruction of this temple, and he was alive during these events. Certainly there are other sources, but these will suffice. I'm sorry but only hyper-skeptics would doubt the existence of the second temple. And by the way, why would anyone invent a Jewish temple? Lindert (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll address your last question first to help explain why the two sources you've cited are unreliable. The importance of the Temple is obvious to anyone that understands the current ongoing tension in Israel/Palestine. The Zionist's claims to Israel are entirely based on Biblical scripture. Without it they have no claim. The importance of the Temple Mount is also obvious. Now to address your sources. Both Josephus and Philo were Jewish, ergo extremely biased. Josephus' work has been considered dubious by many. I'm not familiar with Philo. We do know that Josephus' work has been tampered with for religious purposes, i.e.: an attempt to prove the existence of Jesus has been noticed. The existence of the first Temple has been suspect for quite sometime also. In fact the antiquity of the Jews has been in question for quite some time. Ergo no antiquity- no Temple. Manson 05:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The question is not why anyone would invent a Jewish temple right now, but why in antiquity? Could Josephus foresee the 'current ongoing tension in Israel/Palestine'? Also bear in mind that all peoples and nations in the regions had their own temples. If there was no temple in Jerusalem, this would be a unique situation in the Middle East. And you have not addressed Tacitus, who is seen by many as the greatest historian of the Roman empire. He was in no way sympathetic with the Jewish people. See [2] for his account of the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE. If you read it, you will find much hostility to the Jews. Yet he clearly describes the temple in Jerusalem. And no, the antiquity of the Jews is not and has never been in question. Find me a single historian who denies that the Jewish people lived in Israel centuries prior to the Common Era. There isn't one. -- Lindert (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Temple inscription in greek.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Temple inscription in greek.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A simple suggestion

Instead of contextualizing paragraph two by books of "The Bible," which implies a later, Christian source, the more relevant words "Hebrew Bible" or "Tanakh" (or both) ought to be the terms of definition. Otherwise, one might start to think that "Old Testament" translations, based upon the Greek Septaguint, are the authorities when in fact the Masoretic text of the Tanakh is considered by Jews the obvious standard.Rtelkin (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The term 'Bible' does not at all imply a later Christian source. It is a widely used term for the books considered canonical by Christians, that is not to say that they have a Christian origin. It is also a misunderstanding that translations based on the Septuagint are authoritative for Christians. Nearly all English Bible translations are in fact based on the Masoretic text. Only in Eastern Orthodox streams of Christianity is the Septuagint the standard Bible. In any case, apart from a few fringe groups, Christians realize that the authority of any translation ultimately goes back to the original Hebrew (i.e. for the books of the Bible originally written in Hebrew of course). -- Lindert (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Failure to contextualize

The "Construction" section's 7th paragraph begins "In 1967 Israel captured Old Jerusalem (and the Temple Mount) from Jordan." No other information is given about this; the impression is that Israel invaded Jordan without provocation, when in fact Israel's actions in the 1967 war were in response to a mass attack upon her by Arab countries, including Jordan, after Egypt's General Nasser and the other Arab States allied with Egypt had engaged in an act of war by closing down Israel's ability to ship through the Straits of Tiran with the express and stated purpose of annihilating Israel. This false impression must be corrected if it is to avoid being unintentionally anti-Semitic. Rtelkin (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Having a bias against Israel is not the same as being anti-Semitic. Also, I think the current statement is simply concise, not going deep into the political situation because this is not the topic of the article. However, if you feel contextualizing is necessary, just go ahead. Remember Wikipedia's policy to be bold. -- Lindert (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

In response to "Rtelkin", Israel was not attacked by any Arab nation in 1967 like you claim. That is not even what the official pro-Zionist propaganda claims. They and Israel claim they were engaging in a "preemptive war" because the Arabs (particularly Nasser and Egypt) were allegedly about to "attack". However even the words and later statements of Israeli leaders contradict this Zionist hasbara (propaganda). For example Yitzhak Rabin is recorded in the French paper Le Monde on February 28, 1968 as saying "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." and also Menachem Begin admitted in the New York Times on August 21, 1982 "In June l967, we had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

And then as for your claim about the Strait of Tiran the wikipedia article there notes; "according to Major General Indar Jit Rikhye, military adviser to the United Nations Secretary General, the accusation of a blockade was 'questionable,' pointing out that an Israeli-flagged ship had not passed through the straits in two years, and that 'The U.A.R. [Egyptian] navy had searched a couple of ships after the establishment of the blockade and thereafter relaxed its implementation.'"

So with the above quotes in mind and many more including ones expressing open greed for land (to make settlements on) the claims about the very, very infrequently used Eilat port that the Strait of Tiran (which was not shown to be "blockaded" to start with via Rikhye's words) would service doesn't excuse Israel's attack.

Calendar Date of Destruction

The statement in the section Destruction of the Temple that says the 9th of Av (date of destruction) was July 29 or 30, 70CE is incorrect regardless of the date being Julian or Gregorian. This can be determined using Fourmilab Calendar Converter which is an external link from Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars . According to the moon phase section of the NASA Eclipse web site NASA Moon Phases , for the year 70CE, the new moon conjunction occurred at 0110 UT on July 26 (about 0310 Israel time). According to the link at the top of that same page which leads to NASA Calendar Dates , this July 26 is Julian which the fourmilab calculator confirms. The calculator says the Gregorian date, which obviously was not in effect at that time would have been July 24. The first day of the Hebrew month would most likely have occurred at sundown on Julian July 26 or 27. At sundown the 26th, the moon would have been around 15-17 hours old which is pretty early for seeing, albeit possible. That makes the ninth of AV on August 3 or 4 in 70 CE. In the case that calculations were used because of bad seeing conditions, the August dates are still more accurate than what is contained in the article. I believe the statement regarding the July dates should be removed.--68.209.233.220 (talk) 10:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

External Link : 3D virtual tour of the Second Temple

Hello, I would like to suggest external link of 3d virtual learning tour of the second temple: http://jerusalem.com/tour/jewish_temple_3D

i've added it before, but someone delete it! please add that link Segevsh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Strange reference for Yoma 22b re: Presence in the Holy of Holies

In the section "Rebuilding the Temple" it states "According to the Babylonian Talmud (Yoma 22b),[2] however, the Temple lacked the Shekinah, ". I went and look at the reference and the page is from the Jewish Encyclopedia making the claim. I went and looked directly at Yoma 22b and it is a comparison of King Saul and King David. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Presence, the Holy of Holies or the Second Temple. See http://www.on1foot.org/text/babyloniantalmud-yoma-22b or http://juchre.org/talmud/yoma/yoma1.htm#22b 76.126.137.85 (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the Jewish Encyclopedia is wrong on the reference; it should be Yoma 21b, not 22b. Secondly, I've found different translations, one may support the claim, the other does not:

http://juchre.org/talmud/yoma/yoma1.htm#21b (this says the Shekina was present):

But was the fire present at the second Temple?-Surely R. Samuel b. Inia said: What is the meaning of the scriptural verse: And I will take pleasure in it [we-ikabed] and I will be glorified? The traditional reading is we-ikabedah, then why is the [letter] he omitted [in the text]? To indicate that in five things the first Sanctuary differed from the second: in the ark, the ark-cover, the Cherubim, the fire, the Shechinah, the Holy Spirit [of Prophecy], and the Urim-we-Thummim [the Oracle Plate]? I will tell you, They were present, but they were not as helpful [as before].

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/yoma1.html (this could imply the Shekina was not present):

But in the second Temple there was no heavenly fire at all, as R. Samuel b. Inia said: It is written [Haggai i. 8]: "That I may take pleasure in it, and be glorified"; it is written "Veikabed," and it is read "Veikabdah." Why is the "h" missing? This is to hint that five (the numeral value of "h") things were missing in the second Temple. What are they? The ark, the mercy-seat, the cherubim, the heavenly fire, the Shekhina, the Holy Spirit, and the Urim and Tumim. So we see there was no heavenly fire in the second Temple at all? We may say, it was there, only it did not assist in consuming.

Seeing that the reference is both problematic and confusing, I think we should just remove the portion you cited from the article, unless a better source can be found. - Lindert (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2013 (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].