Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

When reading literature about the Babylonian the destruction of Jerusalem I always wonder which year it took place. Some books says 586 B.CE. and some says 587 B.CE. Is this because one don't know? Or is there some other reason? If one don't know, what are the arguments for one or the other of these dates?

I also know the Jehovahs witness says it was in 607 and if someone has anything to say about the facts that contradict this year I would love to hear it.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

Source from wikipedia

There has been some debate as to when the second siege of Jerusalem took place. Though there is no dispute that Jerusalem fell the second time in the summer month of Tammuz (Jeremiah 52:6), William F. Albright dates the end of Zedekiah's reign (and the fall of Jerusalem) to 587 BC, whereas Edwin R. Thiele offers 586 BC.[10]

Thiele's reckoning is based on the presentation of Zedekiah's reign on an accession basis, which was used for most but not all of the kings of Judah. In that case, the year that Zedekiah came to the throne would be his zeroth year; his first full year would be 597/596 BC, and his eleventh year, the year Jerusalem fell, would be 587/586 BC. Since Judah's regnal years were counted from Tishri in autumn, this would place the end of his reign and the capture of Jerusalem in the summer of 586 BC.[10][11]

share|improve this answer
2  
I have two minor issues with this answer: 1) I personally don't like to see answers that are nothing more than text quoted directly from today's wikipedia page on the subject, and 2) Its actually tough enough to follow that I could use a summarization. –  T.E.D. Sep 18 '13 at 13:52
    
I was afraid if I summarise it, I will conclude some important information. Anyway next time I will post the answer in my onw way, not quoated. @T.E.D. –  moudiz Sep 18 '13 at 14:17
    
You can edit your answer and do both. I assure you, if you do not correctly summarize due to missing some important detail or nuance, someone here will point it out to you. :-) –  T.E.D. Sep 18 '13 at 14:25
    
I down-voted this answer because it is simply a cut and paste from wikipedia, (it does not even bother to remove the meaningless wiki footnotes) with no additional sources, citations, verifications or analysis. This site is not a place to simply cut and paste from wiki, nor should wiki be allowed to become the de-facto source for all historical information. –  user2590 Sep 19 '13 at 5:31
    
@Vector I will re write it on my own way, I am still new here. –  moudiz Sep 19 '13 at 6:00

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.