The History of the Genesis of the 'Second' Temple (?)

[MrMacSon]

If Yonatan Adler and Russell Gmirkin (and others) are correct about overt Judaism's' late origins, then what of the history of the First [Solomon] Temple and the history of the Second Temple and its origins?

Adler may not address the Second Temple: he certainly doesn't have a chapter on it: see the Table of Contents. It's probably beyond his scope.

Wikipedia says:

The accession of Cyrus the Great of the Achaemenid Empire in 559 BCE made the re-establishment of the city of Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple possible.[3][4] Some rudimentary ritual sacrifice had continued at the site of the first temple following its destruction.[5] According to the closing verses of the second book of Chronicles and the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, when Jewish exiles returned to Jerusalem following a decree from Cyrus the Great (Ezra 1:1–4, 2 Chronicles 36:22-23), construction started at the original site of the altar of Solomon's Temple.[1] These events represent the final section in the 'historical' narrative of the Hebrew Bible.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Te ... _narrative

1. Schiffman, Lawrence H. (2003). Understanding Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism. New York: KTAV Publishing House. pp.48–49.
2. Ezra 6:15,16
3. Albright, William (1963). The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra: An Historical Survey. HarperCollins College Division.
4. Singer, Isidore; et al., eds. (1901–1906). "Temple, The Second," The Jewish Encyclopedia.* New York: Funk & Wagnalls.
5. Zevit, Ziony (2008) "From Judaism to Biblical Religion and Back Again," The Hebrew Bible: New Insights and Scholarship. NY Univ. Press. p.166.

* The Jewish Encyclopaedia also has:

1. The Temple of Herod : https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles ... e-of-herod
2. Temple, Plan of Second : https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles ... -of-second

Wikipedia notes that, following its conquest by Alexander the Great, Judea became part of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt until 200 BCE, and then part of the Seleucid empire (when Antiochus III the Great of Syria defeated Pharaoh Ptolemy V Epiphanes at the Battle of Paneion).

Rededication by the Maccabees

---

.
... Following the Maccabean Revolt against the Seleucid empire, the Second Temple was rededicated and became the religious pillar of the Jewish Hasmonean Kingdom; as well as culturally associated with the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah.[24][25]

[order of the first two paragraphs reversed here]
Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes launched a massive campaign of repression against the Jewish religion in 168 BCE. The reason he did so is not entirely clear, but it seems to have been related to the King mistaking an internal conflict among the Jewish priesthood as a full-scale rebellion. Jewish practices were banned, Jerusalem was placed under direct Seleucid control, and the Second Temple in Jerusalem was made the site of a syncretic Pagan-Jewish cult. This repression triggered exactly the revolt that Antiochus IV had feared ...

... The main phase of the revolt lasted from 167–160 BCE and ended with the Seleucids in control of Judea, but conflict between the Maccabees, Hellenized Jews, and the Seleucids continued until 134 BCE, with the Maccabees eventually attaining independence.

... In 164 BCE, the Maccabees captured Jerusalem, a significant early victory. The subsequent cleansing of the temple and rededication of the altar on 25 Kislev is the source of the festival of Hanukkah. The Seleucids eventually relented and unbanned Judaism, but the more radical Maccabees, not content with merely reestablishing Jewish practices under Seleucid rule, continued to fight, pushing for a more direct break with the Seleucids ...

... [later] [after] the conflict ceased...Hyrcanus and Antiochus VII joined themselves in an alliance, with Antiochus making a respectful donation of a sacrifice at the Temple.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabean_Revolt [see also the excerpt about Daniel and related works in the second post below]
.

24. Kaufmann, Kohler (1901–1906) "Ḥanukkah," in Singer, Isidore; et al. (eds.). The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.
25. Goldman, Ari L. (2000) Being Jewish: The Spiritual and Cultural Practice of Judaism Today. Simon & Schuster. p. 141. ISBN 978-0-684-82389-8.


Hasmonean dynasty and Roman conquest

---

There is some evidence from archaeology that further changes to the structure of the Temple and its surroundings were made during the Hasmonean rule ... The Roman general Pompey, who was in Syria..., sent his lieutenant to investigate the [Hasmonean] conflict in Judaea ...
The Romans besieged and took the city in 63 BCE. The priests continued with the religious practices inside the Temple during the siege. The temple was not looted or harmed by the Romans. Pompey himself, perhaps inadvertently, went into the Holy of Holies and the next day ordered the priests to repurify the Temple and resume the religious practices.
.

(not much info here on "further changes to the structure of the Temple and its surroundings")

Herod's Temple

---

The writings of Flavius Josephus and the information in tractate Middot of the Mishnah had for long been used for proposing possible architectures for the Temple up to 70 CE.[1] The discovery of the Temple Scroll as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 20th century provided another possible source. Lawrence Schiffman states that, after studying Josephus and the Temple Scroll, he found Josephus to be historically more reliable than the Temple Scroll.[27]

Temenos expansion, date and duration

Reconstruction of the temple under Herod began with a massive expansion of the Temple Mount temenos [Greek: τέμενος: land assigned as an official domain]. For example, the Temple Mount complex initially measured 7 hectares (17 acres) in size, but Herod expanded it to 14.4 hectares (36 acres) and so doubled its area.[28] Herod's work on the Temple is generally dated from 20/19 BCE until 12/11 or 10 BCE. Writer Bieke Mahieu dates the work on the Temple enclosures from 25 BCE and that on the Temple building in 19 BCE, and situates the dedication of both in November 18 BCE.[29]

Religious worship and temple rituals continued during the construction process.[30]

Extent and financing

The old temple built by Zerubbabel was replaced by a magnificent edifice. Herod's Temple was one of the larger construction projects of the 1st century BCE.[31] Josephus records that Herod was interested in perpetuating his name through building projects, that his construction programs were extensive and paid for by heavy taxes, [and] that his masterpiece was the Temple of Jerusalem [Jewish War].

Later, the sanctuary shekel was reinstituted to support the temple as the temple tax.[32]

Elements

Platform, substructures, retaining walls
Mt. Moriah had a plateau at the northern end, and steeply declined on the southern slope. It was Herod's plan that the entire mountain be turned into a giant square platform. The Temple Mount was originally intended[by whom?] to be 1,600 feet (490 m) wide by 900 feet (270 m) broad by 9 stories high, with walls up to 16 feet (4.9 m) thick, but had never been finished. To complete it, a trench was dug around the mountain, and huge stone "bricks" were laid. Some of these weighed well over 100 tons, the largest measuring 44.6 by 11 by 16.5 feet (13.6 m × 3.4 m × 5.0 m) and weighing approximately 567-628 tons.[33][unreliable source?]

Court of the Gentiles
The Court of the Gentiles was primarily a bazaar, with vendors selling souvenirs, sacrificial animals, food. Currency was also exchanged, with Roman currency exchanged for Tyrian money, as also mentioned in the New Testament account of Jesus and the Money Changers, when Jerusalem was packed with Jewish pilgrims who had come for Passover ...

Above the Huldah Gates, on top the Temple walls, was the Royal Stoa, a large basilica praised by Josephus as "more worthy of mention than any other [structure] under the sun"; its main part was a lengthy Hall of Columns which includes 162 columns, structured in four rows.[36]

The Royal Stoa is widely accepted to be part of Herod's work; however, recent archaeological finds in the Western Wall tunnels suggest that it was built in the first century during the reign of Agripas, as opposed to the 1st century BCE.[37]

Inner courts
According to Josephus, there were ten entrances into the inner courts, four on the south, four on the north, one on the east and one leading east to west from the Court of Women to the court of the Israelites, named the Nicanor Gate [War 5.5.2; 198; m. Mid. 1.4]. According to Josephus, Herod the Great erected a golden eagle over the great gate of the Temple.[43]

Roofs
Joachim Bouflet [fr] states that "the teams of archaeologists Nahman Avigad in 1969-1980 in the Herodian city of Jerusalem, and Yigael Shiloh in 1978-1982, in the city of David" have proven that the roofs of the Second Temple had no dome. In this, they support Josephus' description of the Second Temple.[44]

Pinnacle
The accounts of the temptation of Christ in the gospels of Matthew and Luke both suggest that the Second Temple had one or more 'pinnacles':

"Then he [Satan] brought Him to Jerusalem, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, 'If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here'."[38]

The Greek word used is πτερύγιον (pterugion), which literally means a tower, rampart, or pinnacle.[39] According to Strong's Concordance, it can mean little wing, or by extension anything like a wing such as a battlement or parapet.[40] The archaeologist Benjamin Mazar thought it referred to the southeast corner of the Temple overlooking the Kidron Valley.[41]

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple#Archaeology and, as presented above:

1. The Temple of Herod : https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles ... e-of-herod
2. Temple, Plan of Second : https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles ... -of-second

---

---

So, what to make of this preliminary history?
Of the reliance on biblical narratives for the early—and even most of—the history of the Second Temple?

[MrMacSon]

Daniel

The Book of Daniel appears to have been written during the early stages of the revolt around 165 BCE, and would eventually be included in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament.[note 4] While the setting of the book is 400 years earlier in Babylon, the book is a literary response to the situation in Judea during the revolt (Sitz im Leben); the writer chose to move the setting either for esoteric reasons or to evade scrutiny from would-be censors. It urges its readers to remain steadfast in the face of persecution. For example, Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar orders his court to eat the king's rich food; the prophet Daniel and his companions keep kosher and eat a diet of vegetables and water, yet emerge healthier than all the king's courtiers.[78] The message is clear: defy Antiochus's decree and keep Jewish dietary law. Daniel predicts the king will go insane; Antiochus's title, "Epiphanes" ("Chosen of God"), was mocked by his enemies as "Epimanes" ("Madman"), and he was known to keep odd habits. When Daniel and the Jews are threatened with death, they face it calmly, and are saved in the end, a relevant message among Jewish opposition to Antiochus IV.[79][80]

The final chapters of the book of Daniel include apocalyptic visions of the future. One of the motives for the author was to give heart to devout Jews that their victory was foreseen by prophecy 400 years earlier.[81] Daniel's final vision refers to Antiochus Epiphanes as the "king of the north" and describes his earlier actions, such as being repelled and humiliated by the Romans in his second campaign in Egypt, but also that the king of the north would "meet his end".[79] Additionally, all those who had died under the king of the north would be revived, with those who suffered rewarded while those who had prospered would be subjected to shame and contempt.[1] The main historical items taken away from Daniel is in its depiction of the king of the north [Antiochus Epiphanes] desecrating the temple with an abomination of desolation, and stopping the tamid, the daily sacrifice at the Temple; these agree with the depictions in 1 and 2 Maccabees of the changes at the Second Temple.[79][82]

Related works

Other works appear to have at least been influenced by the Maccabean Revolt include the Book of Judith, the Testament of Moses, and parts of the Book of Enoch. The Book of Judith is a historical novel that describes Jewish resistance against an overwhelming military threat. While the parallels are not as stark as Daniel, some of its depictions of oppression seem influenced by Antiochus's persecution, such as General Holofernes demolishing shrines, cutting down sacred groves, and attempting to destroy all worship other than of the king. Judith, the story's heroine, also bears the feminine form of the name "Judas".[83] The Testament of Moses, similar to the Book of Daniel, provides a witness to Jewish attitudes leading up to the revolt: it describes persecution, denounces impious leaders and priests as collaborators, praises the virtues of martyrdom, and predicts God's retribution upon the oppressors. The Testament is usually considered to have been written in the first century CE, but it is at least possible it was written much earlier, in the Maccabean or Hasmonean era, and then appended onto with first century CE updates. Even if it was entirely written in the first century CE, it was still likely influenced by the experience of Antiochus IV's reign.[84][85] The Book of Enoch's early chapters were written around 300–200 BCE, but new sections were appended over time invoking the authority of Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah. One section, the "Apocalypse of Weeks", is hypothesized to have been written around 167 BCE, just after Antiochus's persecution began.[86] Similar to Daniel, after the Apocalypse of Weeks recounts world history up to the point of the persecution, it predicts that the righteous will eventually triumph, and encourages resistance.[87] Another section of Enoch, the "Book of Dreams", was likely written after the Revolt had at least partially succeeded; it portrays the events of the revolt in the form of prophetic dream visions.[88]

A more uncertain work that has nevertheless attracted much interest is the Qumran Habakkuk Commentary, part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Qumran religious community was not on good terms with the Hasmonean religious establishment in Jerusalem, and is believed to have favored the Zadokite line of succession to the High Priesthood. The commentary (pesher) describes a situation wherein a "Righteous Teacher" is unfairly driven from their post and into exile by a "Wicked Priest" and a "Man of the Lie" (possibly the same person). Many figures have been proposed as the identity of the people behind these titles; one theory goes that the Righteous Teacher was whoever held the High Priest position after Alcimus's death in 159 BCE, perhaps a Zadokite. If this person even existed, they lost their position after Jonathan Apphus, backed by his Maccabee army and his new alliance with Seleucid royal claimant Alexander Balas, took over the High Priest position in 152 BCE. Thus, the Wicked Priest would be Jonathan, and the Qumran community of the era would have consisted of religious opposition to the Hasmonean takeover: the first Essenes. The date of the work is unknown, and others scholars have proposed different candidates as possible identities of the Wicked Priest, so the identification with Jonathan is only a possibility, yet an intriguing and plausible one.[89][90]

Later analysis and historiography

In the First and Second Books of the Maccabees, the Maccabean Revolt is described as a collective response to cultural oppression and national resistance to a foreign power. Written after the revolt was complete, the books urged unity among the Jews; they describe little of the Hellenizing faction other than to call them lawless and corrupt, and downplay their relevance and power in the conflict.[69][91] While many scholars still accept this basic framework, that the Hellenists were weak and dependent on Seleucid aid to hold influence, this view has since been challenged. In the revisionist view, the heroes and villains were both Jews: a majority of the Jews cautiously supported Hellenizing High Priest Menelaus; Antiochus IV's edicts only came about due to pressure from Hellenist Jews; and the revolt was best understood as a civil war between traditionalist Jews in the countryside and Hellenized Jews in the cities, with only occasional Seleucid intervention.[92][93][94] Elias Bickerman is generally credited as popularizing this alternative viewpoint in 1937, and other historians such as Martin Hengel have continued the argument.[95][82] For example, Josephus's account directly blames Menelaus for convincing Antiochus IV to issue his anti-Jewish decrees.[20][96] Alcimus, Menelaus's replacement as High Priest, is blamed for instigating a massacre of devout Jews in 1 Maccabees, rather than the Seleucids directly.[20] The Maccabees themselves fight and exile Hellenists as well, most clearly in the final expulsion from the Acra, but also in the earlier countryside struggles against the Tobiad clan of Hellenist-friendly Jews.[16]

In general, scholarly opinion is that Hellenistic historians were biased, but also that the bias did not result in excessive distortion or fabrication of facts, and they are mostly reliable sources once the bias is removed.[97] There exist revisionist scholars who are inclined to discount the reliability of the primary histories more aggressively, however.[98] Daniel R. Schwartz argues that Antiochus IV's initial attacks on Jerusalem from 168–167 BCE were not out of pure malice, as 1 Maccabees depicts, or a misunderstanding as 2 Maccabees depicts (and most scholars accept), but rather suppressing an authentic rebellion whose members were lost to history, as the Hasmoneans wished to show only themselves as capable of bringing victory.[8] Sylvie Honigman argues that the depictions of Seleucid religious oppression are misleading and likely false. She advances the view that the loss of civil rights by the Jews in 168 BCE was an administrative punishment in the aftermath of local unrest over increased taxes; that the struggle was fundamentally economic, and merely interpreted as religiously driven in retrospect.[82] She also argues that the moralistic slant of the sources means that their depictions of impious acts by Hellenists cannot be trusted as historical. For example, the claim that Menelaus stole temple vessels to pay for a bribe to Antiochus is merely aimed at delegitimizing them both.[99] John Ma argues that the Temple was restored in 164 BCE upon petition by Menelaus to Antiochus, not liberated and rededicated by the Maccabees.[73] These views have attracted partial support, but have not become a new consensus themselves. Modern defenders of more direct readings of the sources cite that evidence of such an unrecorded popular rebellion is thin-to-non-existent. Assuming that Antiochus IV would not have started an ethno-religious persecution for irrational reasons is an ahistorical position in this criticism, as many leaders both ancient and modern clearly were motivated by religious concerns.[82][100]

Later scholars and archaeologists have found and preserved various artifacts from the time period and analyzed them, which have informed historians on the plausibility of various elements in the books.[65] For recent examples, a stele (the "Helidorus stele") was discovered and deciphered in 2007 that dated from around 178 BCE, and gives insight to Seleucid government appointments and policy in the era immediately preceding the revolt.[101][102] The Givati Parking Lot dig in Jerusalem from 2007–2015 has found possible evidence of the Acra; it might resolve a seeming contradiction between Josephus's account of the Acra's fate (he claimed it was torn down) and 1 Maccabees's account (it was merely occupied) in favor of the 1 Maccabees version.[103][104]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabean_Revolt#Daniel

Almost immediately previously:

2 Maccabees is an abridgment by an unknown Egyptian Jew of a lost five-volume work by an author named Jason of Cyrene. It is a separate work from 1 Maccabees and not a continuation of it. 2 Maccabees has a more directly religious focus than 1 Maccabees, crediting God and divine intervention for events more prominently than 1 Maccabees; it also focuses personally on Judas rather than other Hasmoneans. It has a special focus on the Second Temple: the controversies over the position of High Priest, its pollution by Menelaus into a Greek-Jewish mix, its eventual cleansing, and the threats by Nicanor at the Temple.[72] 2 Maccabees also represents an attempt to take the cause of the Maccabees outside Judea, as it encourages Egyptian Jews and other diaspora Jews to celebrate the cleansing of the temple (Hanukkah) and revere Judas Maccabeus.[72][66] In general, 2 Maccabees portrays the prospects of peace and cooperation more positively than 1 Maccabees. In 1 Maccabees, the only way for the Jews to honorably make a deal with the Seleucids involved first defeating them militarily and attaining functional independence. In 2 Maccabees, intended for an audience of Egyptian Jews who still lived under Greek rule, peaceful coexistence was possible, but misunderstandings or troublemakers forced the Jews into defensive action.[73][74]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabean_Revolt#Writings

[rgprice]

I suspect that the so-called "First Temple" is purely mythical. I doubt quite strongly that claims about the so-called "First Temple" are even based on any original temple for Yahweh. The "First Temple" is just an entirely fabricated literary device used to create precedent for the so-called "Second Temple".

And even the supposed "Second Temple" likely did not really become "the" Temple until the rise of the Hasmonaeans. One may notice the Maccabean claims of a proliferation of heretical temples created by the Seleucids. I suspect that in reality this claim is a sort of cover for the existence of such temples from the Persian era. I suspect that the "reclamation of the Temple" was in fact the initial establishment of the Temple. Not that the Second Temple didn't already exist, but that it did not really obtain its unique status until the Hasmonaean administration.

What the Maccabean narrative does is provide a cover for the prior existence of polytheistic "Judaism". According to the Maccabean narrative, Palestine, or at least Jerusalem, was a Torah observant community from Persian times up to the Seleucid administration. And then the Seleucids started corrupting the situation, to which the Maccabees reacted and opposed.

I suspect that the "real story", however, is that the Maccabees implemented a new set of conditions in Jerusalem/Palestine, while claiming that this revolutionary new state of affairs was a "restoration". It is also likely that this claim of "restoration" did not occur immediately, but is something that happened in the decades following the revolt, after the Hasmonaeans had become well established.

I hate to use this example, but think of it like the Nazi takeover in Germany. When the Nazis came to power, one of the things they claimed was that they were restoring Germany to its "true heritage". Or even like American conservatives, who often talk about "Constitutional Originalism" while in fact putting forward radical new interpretations of the law that have no precedent. For example claiming that the 2nd Amendment is about a "personal right to own guns" and that this is "what the founders intended", even though the 2nd amendment clearly talks about protection of the STATE and "WELL REGUALTED" militias, and the fact that gun control laws have been in place in America SINCE the time of the founding of the country!

But again, the point is that it is not uncommon for movements and administrations to claim to be "restoring the honor and values of the past", when they are in fact advancing radical new agendas that have no precedent in the past. I strongly believe this is what took place under the Hasmonaeans, who set about implementing the radical manifesto embodied in the Torah. The legitimacy of "the Temple" and the later Hasmonaean administration, was rooted in the mythology of the supposed "First Temple".

[Secret Alias]

I agree with you on this one. Jerusalem was not a holy place (except for Molech rituals) until the period of Jewish nationalism dated to the Hellenistic period.

I hate to use this example, but think of it like the Nazi takeover in Germany. When the Nazis came to power, one of the things they claimed was that they were restoring Germany to its "true heritage".

No comment. It's better stated like this. The Pentateuch is about the northern Israelite tradition. Gerizim and Ebal as twin poles. Ladders to heaven (or "lost" mountain tops that lead to heaven). Once we take the time to look at the manner in which Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and Joshua are explicitly connected with this and only this locale it makes sense that "Jerusalem" holiness came from a later period. Qumran evidences Gerizim holiness among the oldest factions of Judea. There are no parallel "Jerusalem" traditions among the Samaritans, the guardians of the true traditions of Israel. https://members.tripod.com/osher_2/realHebron1.htm

[andrewcriddle]

See Ostracon 18 for probable extra Biblical evidence of the First Temple.

Andrew Criddle

[rgprice]

See Ostracon 18 for probable extra Biblical evidence of the First Temple.

Andrew Criddle

Other scholars doubt whether the inscription refers to the Jerusalem temple.

And anyway, I don't doubt that there were temples dedicated to Yahweh going back into the 9th century or earlier. I'm saying that I don't think the narratives about the Temple have any historical basis. They aren't based on real knowledge about a real Temple, they are more recent imaginings about a presumed temple.

It's like if today I were to write a story about a "tribe of Native Americans". I can invent a story about Native Americans from the 1600s. And there were actually native Americans living in the 1600s. And I may even use the name of a real tribe that existed in the 1600s. But my story is just a modern invention, it is not based on any real recollection of such a tribe.

Just look at something like 2 Baruch. 2 Baruch uses the soc-called First Temple, destroyed by the Babylonians. But it isn't based on that writers real knowledge of the so-called First Temple, nor on real accounts of it. It is an imagined narrative used allegorically to describe the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.

I'm saying I think the narratives from most other Jewish scriptures are no different.

[StephenGoranson]

I do not follow what you wrote in this thread, rgprice. Or, in other words such seems self-contradictory.

On one hand you wrote
".... I don't doubt that there were temples dedicated to Yahweh going back into the 9th century or earlier...."

Yet earlier you wrote
"I suspect that the so-called "First Temple" is purely mythical. I doubt quite strongly that claims about the so-called "First Temple" are even based on any original temple for Yahweh. The "First Temple" is just an entirely fabricated literary device used to create precedent for the so-called "Second Temple"."

If you do not doubt that such temples existed, then why did you default to asserting (with exceedingly certain rhetoric) that a Jerusalem one did not exist?

[rgprice]

I mean the First Temple described in detail in the scriptures is just made up. That there were temples to Yahweh was of course true. It's like if I write a story about a special colony ship that came in America in 1590 called the Santa Nocha. That there were Spanish colony ships that came to America during that era is true. There may have even been one called the Santa Nocha. But my story about the Santa Nocha would be entirely made up from my imagination.

Yes there were temples to Yahweh. There may even have been a large main temple to Yahweh in Jerusalem. But the stories about it, written sometime between the 5th century BCE and the 2nd century BCE, are not based on historical accounts of such a temple, they are just inventions of the writers.

[StephenGoranson]

Not quite.
Whether a later writer is using "historical accounts" (which is at least possible) or not (also possible), or a mix, is a question for scholarship.
Your default to one extreme is merely your preference--not scholarship.

[rgprice]

Not quite.
Whether a later writer is using "historical accounts" (which is at least possible) or not (also possible), or a mix, is a question for scholarship.
Your default to one extreme is merely your preference--not scholarship.

That's true. I believe I said "I suspect".