Did Jeruselm fall in 587 or 586 BCE?

Doug Mason

I came across this article written in 2004 by an Evangelical.

“When did Jerusalem Fall?”, Rodger Young, Journal of the Evangelical Society [JETS], 47/1 (March 2004), 21-38.

http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf

These are the Conclusions of the 18-page analysis

(1) Jerusalem fell in the fourth month (Tammuz) of 587 BC. All sources which bear on the question—Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and 2 Kings—are consistent in dating the event in that year.

(2) Ezekiel consistently dated events from the time that Jehoiachin was taken captive in early 597 BC. He used Tishri years in all his reckoning.

(3) Similarly, 2 Kings 24–25 consistently used Tishri years and non-accession reckoning for Judean kings. For Nebuchadnezzar, non-accession years, starting in Nisan, were used.

(4) In the writings of Jeremiah (which excludes the ﬁfty-second chapter), Jeremiah consistently used Tishri years for Judah, as did Ezekiel and the source for the last chapters of 2 Kings. This is in harmony with the usage of Judah throughout the monarchic period, in contrast to Thiele’s assumption that Jeremiah and Ezekiel used Nisan reckoning for Judah. Jeremiah used non-accession years for the kings of Judah and for Nebuchadnezzar. There is not enough information to determine if he started the years for Nebuchadnezzar in Tishri or Nisan; both assumptions ﬁt the data.

(5) All three sources are internally consistent and consistent with each other. There are no texts which bear on the question of the chronology of the last years of the Judean monarchy and the fall of Jerusalem which do not ﬁt the methods described here regarding how the biblical authors treated the history of their times.

(6) None of these conclusions was arrived at by forcing presuppositions on the data found in the scriptural text received from the Masoretes, except perhaps the presupposition that when the data conﬂicted with one of our hypotheses, then any reasonable set of hypotheses which did not conﬂict with the data was to be preferred over the set which produced conﬂict. This approach may be contrasted with an approach which says that when a favorite set of hypotheses conﬂicts with the data, the data will be declared in error and no further effort will be expended to see if another set of hypotheses offers a better explanation.

(7) The use of Decision Tables reveals that previous studies have overlooked many possibilities that were entirely consistent with the ideas of the author of the study, but which were not explored simply because they were never thought of. This failure to explore all the possibilities has been a major problem in the studies of OT chronology, and one that has led to signiﬁcant confusion in the chronologies produced. It is to be hoped that future studies will not declare that some new solution is to be preferred, or the text needs to be emended, until it is demonstrated that there are no other sets of hypotheses that better explain the data. Ignoring this practice will reduce the credibility of the study.

Doug Mason

Apologies for misspelling "Jerusalem"

smiddy3

Please forgive my ignorance but does it really matter ? A discrepancy of just one year ? of so long ago ?

It`s not as though it would be the only discrepancy to be found in the Bible Scriptures.

Phizzy

Thanks Doug,

That is a question that has long occurred to me, as I have seen both dates mentioned, usually together as in " 587 or 586 BCE " or sometimes as 587/586 BCE. I wondered where the doubt as to pinpointing the exact date came from, so thank you for your research and for Posting it here.

Of course this is of no huge importance to most people, even serious Scholars of the Bible perhaps, but if one gets in to a discussion with a believing J.W, to have a hint of doubt, even a month or two, is something they will latch on to to try to discredit the proof. Of course in doing so they would still be ignoring the circa 20 year error in their own organizations spurious and ridiculous claim about the date of Jerusalem's destruction.

If my memory serves, a Poster on here some years ago, Ann O'Mally (I think that name is a pun !) showed that the Babylonian Clay tablets we have about their Astronomical calculations prove the year was 587 BCE too.

Thank you again.

Betheliesalot

I just asked 'siri" When was Jerusalem destoyed? and she told me "the answer is 587 BC. Case settled , google has all the answers.

scholar

Doug Mason

Hi Doug

Actually, Young's article proves 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem as the only viable candidate for that event and demonstrates the wisdom and methodology used by the celebrated WT scholars during the forties. It was the said scholar who first introduced Young's scholarship to this forum many years ago and scholar did so because the article demonstrates the role of Methodology in developing a Bible Chronology. the article which is difficult for most readers to understand does not resolve the confusion about the 586/587 debate which remains even to this day a sore point for historians and scholars. Young's article is simply a hypothesis and therein lies the problem whereas WT Bible Chronology is easily understood, simple and is based on all biblical, secular and historical data. in short, it works and works well because it makes Bible prophecy intelligible.

scholar JW emeritus

Phizzy

Oh Jeez, "Scholar" is back, peddling the same old nonsense that has been debunked on here so often, don't engage with the Troll.

Bobcat

Hi Doug,

Here is the Wikipedia article on it. Look also at the text in Reference 2 at the bottom.

You might also find this post of interest. (It is not directly related to the 587/86 issue, but does involve it.) All of WT dating (from the split in the kingdom and on back) is grounded on 607 BCE as the fall of Jerusalem, and 390 (from Ezek chap. 4) added to that to reach the split in the kingdom.

Finkelstein

It was the said scholar who first introduced Young's scholarship to this forum many years ago

Its funny this idiot only posts a comment on the forum whenever there is talk about the date of the final destruction of ancient Jerusalem .

Said scholar is not a real bible scholar but a practicing JWS, which ironically there never has been a academically trained bible scholar, even to the man who gave the organization its name J Rutherford. ( corrupt charlatan)

There is overwhelming evidence through archeological findings and the bible itself that the final destruction of ancient Jerusalem was indeed 586 BCE.

The only thing the JWS hold to is the 70 years of desolation calculation back from the release of the Israelites from Babylon.

Not very intellectually honest or Scholarly

a watcher

Who cares? What has that got to do with my personal relationship with Jehovah? Nothing.

Did Jeruselm fall in 587 or 586 BCE?

Share this