While it is true that the placement of some events cannot be accurately determined, the information for this particular event is derivable from the available data, and I am yet to see anyone dispute that with any actual data that is compatible with the facts. It is frustrating to see something portrayed as arbitrary, when it actually is not. Also (and less importantly) the arbitrariness is fodder for nutters who support 607 to rant about not knowing a precise 'alternative' date for the fall.
Supporting 587 acknowledges the difference between Jeremiah's reference to reigns with how the Babylonians reckoned the years (based on the scriptures already presented). In so doing, it also inherently resolves the supposed contradiction between Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1. Supporters of 586 assume that Daniel contradicts Jeremiah, Jeremiah contradicts himself, and Jeremiah contradicts Babylonian sources.
It is also worth noting at this point that it doesn't matter whether 'Jeremiah' or 'Daniel' or your neighbour's aunty Mavis was the 'real' author of the books, or if the books were really written at a particular time. The point is that valid historical information can be derived from them.
586BC
by Jeffro 27 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Jeffro
-
LittleToe
I agree with what you're saying but, to cut to the chase, some data does lead us to 586 and some to 587 when taken in isolation. Since we're only talking about a difference in mere months, over a span of 2590+ years, why does the precise year according to the arbitarily chosen Gregorian calendar matter so much to you personally, when it hadn't even been invented at the time? What further claims/beliefs are you using it as a foundation to?
-
Jeffro
You seem to think I have some ulterior motive beyond wanting facts to be known. I'm not sure why you think this. But it doesn't matter.
You state that some of the data on its own works with 586. That's like saying 'some of the data on its own says the earth is flat'. It is meaningless. -
LittleToe
It is meaningless.
Like the rest of this conversation.
Ok, ok, you just have a peculiar penchant for an obscure date in history, unrelated to anything else in the whole wide world aside from some elusive quality of "truth". Ever heard of the term "discussion"? Can't say I didn't at least attempt to help give your thread some air time. Enjoy
-
Jeffro
It's like this. To me, it is bleedingly obvious that it was 587, and all of the facts seem to agree with that. It strikes me as odd then that there would be so many who would still say that it was in 586. This leads me to think that there is something more going on - some motive for people saying it was in 586, though I can't for the life of me figure out what that might be.
Maybe I have single-handedly solved something that scholars have somehow not been able to reconcile. I know I'm good, but I don't think I'm that good. So, what's the missing piece that supposedly makes 586 a viable candidate?
(I am aware of the basic fact that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar spanned part of 587 and part of 586, but that is not relevant to the timing of Jerusalem's fall in the 5th month.) -
Doug Mason
Firstly, I am not particularly fussed if one says Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 or a year later in 586.
Jack Finegan in his book "Light from the Ancient Past", pages 592-596 presents a detailed and balanced analysis of the dating of this event. After considering the options, Finegan decided "the seventh and tenth days of the fifth month when the city was finally destroyed were August 15 and 18, 586". If you wish, I could make an OCR scan of the pages.
The month of Ab (Jul/Aug) is the fifth month, whether the writer was using the Nisan (March/April) calendar or the Tishri (Sept/Oct) calendar: "We find ourselves concerned chiefly with two Jewish years, one beginning in the spring on Nisan 1, one beginning in the fall on Tishri 1. Regardless of which year is used, numbering of the months is normally in sequence from Nisan." Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Jack Finegan, Item 170 (page 92), also Item 167 (pages 90-91). See also "The Chronology of Ezra 7" by Horn and Wood.
Doug -
Jeffro
Jack Finegan in his book "Light from the Ancient Past", pages 592-596 presents a detailed and balanced analysis of the dating of this event. After considering the options, Finegan decided "the seventh and tenth days of the fifth month when the city was finally destroyed were August 15 and 18, 586". If you wish, I could make an OCR scan of the pages.
Is Finegan's desicion compatible with Jeremiah's reckoning of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year as not including a separate accession year? If not, it doesn't really fit. I would be interested to see the scan.
The month of Ab (Jul/Aug) is the fifth month, whether the writer was using the Nisan (March/April) calendar or the Tishri (Sept/Oct) calendar: "We find ourselves concerned chiefly with two Jewish years, one beginning in the spring on Nisan 1, one beginning in the fall on Tishri 1. Regardless of which year is used, numbering of the months is normally in sequence from Nisan." Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Jack Finegan, Item 170 (page 92), also Item 167 (pages 90-91). See also "The Chronology of Ezra 7" by Horn and Wood.
Yes, the fifth month is inarguably around August on the Gregorian calendar, and that puts it in the first part of the year that corresponds to the period from March/April 587 to March/April 586. This is further confirmed by the later killing of Gedeliah in Tishri (October-ish) of the same year.
-
jeanV
Oded Lipschits in his recent book "The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem" (published by Eisenbrauns) places it in 586. There is a detailed analysis of historical and scriptural references. I have not yet read the book so I can't tell you why he says 586 and not 587.