My boys and I are in the era of the second temple in school, and I've always had such an unclear picture of this time. I don't understand why it was not a complete outrage when Herod built the third temple -- surely he wasn't going by the prophecies in Daniel. Most histories give vague descriptions calling Herod's work a "renovation" or "expansion." But we know so little about the appearance of the second temple even though extensive archaeology has been conducted on the temple mount. (Though I understand it's been severely limited by Islam.) It seems that the second temple had to be destroyed before it was rebuilt by Herod. Once again, this would have been an outrage, wouldn't it?