Jeffro
Steinmann is also correct. Good on him. The selected sources that incorrectly place the end of the siege in the wrong year also have the wrong year for the start of the siege. No surprises here.
--
The matter is further complicated by debate about the length of the siege of Jerusalem. Further, I have just accessed the book by Robb Andrew Young who supports 587 BCE rather than 586. In his study on page 21 he states "The correct date of 587 BCE for the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem is substantiated by examination of the exile of Jehoiachin".Then in the very next paragraph, he begins "It is thus preferable, in my opinion, to date the fall of Jerusalem to 587 BCE".
Methinks rather an odd comment considering he discusses the subject at some length of som 4 pages with extensive footnotes.
scholar JW