Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC)

Copyright violation

Removed archaeology section, copyright violation from [1]--Doug Weller (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Terracotta Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Needs improvement

The article was really, really, really bad. Now it's just quite bad. Can other editors please help, particularly with sources. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, just read the article as it ran before you relaunched it and it did suck phenomenally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.151.79 (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

A quick improvement would be the transformation of dates from "BC/AD" to "BCE/CE", and for obvious reasons. Having in the past been chastised for making such improvements, I leave it to others to effect, and I grumble under my breath at the religious bias by which Christianity is permitted to contextualize all of history, even in a supposedly "neutral" site like Wikipedia. (If such an adjustment is permitted, feel free to email me, or mention it on my talk page (I'm not sure how Wikipedians communicate just yet).BarakZ (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No it would not. Wikipedia is neutral and that means protecting articles from biased opinions such as the one you have just expressed. Don't pretend that you are discomfited by so-called "religious bias". It exists in all societies even secular ones so it is quite unbelievable that you are exposed to some unreasonable pressure from BC dating, which has long been the accepted convention in the English language and still is.--193.62.184.55 (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I've changed them to BCE, except in reference to article names. Changing the actual article name introduces issues of consistency across a very large number of articles, so that may need to be discussed more broadly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverted back to BC per WP:ERA and consistency. We shouldn't have the article's title be BC and the content use BCE, that's unnecessarily confusing and inconsistent. Also, per WP:ERA, BC and BCE are equally acceptable on the encyclopedia, and the notation should not be changed without good reason and proper lengthy discussion and consensus on the talk page. BarakZ, BC/AD are no more a "religious bias" in favor of Christianity than using Wednesday or January are biased in favor of paganism. Not to mention, changing to "BCE/CE" does nothing to change the inherent bias of the epoch divide, it only covers it up with a euphemism — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 15:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Since WP:ERA considers BCE to be equally acceptable, your citing it as the reason to revert makes no sense. The vast majority of articles dealing with subjects related to Jewish History use CE/BCE, which is more than just a euphemism. It allows people to refer to dates without implicitly agreeing to Christian theology.--Steveklein (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:ERA doesn't just say that the two are both allowed on Wikipedia. It says that an article cannot be changed from BC to BCE, or vice versa, without consensus for the change first being established on the talk page. So FoxCE reverted because the change without consensus was a violation of Wikipedia norms. Basically, once an article is established in one format, that format continues to be used consistently unless there is agreement among editors to change it. In this case, the article was created using the "BC" format, so, since this is a contentious issue on Wikipedia and there is a bias in favor of first usage, it will probably stay that way indefinitely. Alephb (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Erroneous Topic-Wide Chronology

Historical Events

• King Jehoiakim becomes a vassal to Babylon. (2 Kings 24:1)

1st siege of Jerusalem (iSOJ)

• King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon besieges Jerusalem during which King Jehoiakim dies and his son, Jehoiachin succeeds him as king. (Daniel 1:1,2; 2 Kings 24:6)

2nd siege of Jerusalem (iiSOJ)

• Three months later, King Nebuchadnezzar again besieges Jerusalem. King Jehoiachin is exiled to Babylon along with the royal family, nobles, soldiers and craftsmen. (2 King 24:10,15)
• Nebuchadnezzar installs Zedekiah, Jehoiachin's uncle, as king. (2 Chronicles 36:9,10)

Final siege against Jerusalem (FSOJ)

• King Zedekiah rebels against Babylon and allies with Egypt. (Ezekiel 17:15)
• King Nebuchadnezzar besieges Jerusalem. (2 Kings 25:1)
• Egypt's movements cause Babylon to lift it's siege. (Jeremiah 37:5)
• Upon repelling the Egyptians Babylon resumes it's assault on Jerusalem. (Jeremiah 37:7,8,9,10)
• Jerusalem falls, is razed and burned to the ground. (2 Kings 25:8,9,10)

Controversy over the precise date of FSOJ continues to make the absolute dating of this event as well as iSOJ and iiSOJ problematic.

Now, according to the Cyrus Cyllinder, King Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylon in October 539 B.C.E.. Cyrus' first regal year began in the spring of 538 B.C.E. This means that the Jews would be back in their homeland by October 537 B.C.E. or "the seventh month (Tishri)" as Ezra 3:1 states. Since this date for Israel's repatriation after its seven decade exile in Babylon is based on the pivotal year of 539 B.C.E, and is, therefore, authoritative, this makes:

1. Ab 607 BCE the legitimate year for FSOJ
2. 617 BCE the year for 2SOJ and
3. 618 BCE the year for 1SOJ

Given the whole host of articles pertaining to this period in ancient Jewish history that need to be corrected to these dates, I kindly solicit your help to make these changes effective as soon as possible. I welcome any and all efforts to make this coordinated effort as smooth and efficient as possible, thanks! Maxximiliann (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop trying to push your religious views on Wikipedia.

Despite your poor appeal to authority of the Cyrus Cylinder, it says nothing at all about the Jews returning the year after Cyrus' decree. Josephus and Ezra indicate that construction of the temple foundations began in Cyrus' second year, and that the Jews were in their homeland the year before, which was 538. Beyond that, the 70 years weren't a period of exile, but were a period during which all the surrounding nations were subject to Babylon.

Comparison of 2 Kings and Jeremiah with BM 21946 not only confirms the secular chronology, but also shows the JW chronology to be impossible:

• BM 21946 provides a continuous year-by-year record of Nebuchadnezzar's activities, and shows Nebuchadnezzar returning to the 'Hatti-land' straight after his enthronement. However, the JW chronology has Nebuchadnezzar doing 'a lot of nothing' from his enthronement up until 620 BCE.
• With the JW's 20-year 'adjustment', Nebuchadnezzar's 601 BCE attack on Egypt should be moved to 621 BCE. However, 621 BCE falls before their reckoning of when Jehoiakim began paying tribute. This is problematic for the JW chronology because Josephus gives the attack on Egypt as the reason for Jehoiakim's refusal to pay tribute after three years. ("But on the third year, upon hearing that the king of Babylon made an expedition against the Egyptians, he did not pay tribute," Antiquities of the Jews, Book X, Chapter 6.) If the attack on Egypt is placed in 619 BCE, such that the subsequent request for Jehoiakim's tribute were made on Nebuchadnezzar's return to Babylon in early 618 BCE, this would mean Jehoiakim's refusal to pay would fall in the second year of paying tribute rather than the third. This would suggest that the attack on Egypt would have to have been in 618 BCE. However, BM 21946 (rows 5 to 7 on the reverse) places the attack on Egypt in Kislev (December), at the same time the JW chronology says Nebuchadnezzar was laying siege to Jerusalem.
• Adjusting for the 20-year gap in JW chronology, Nebuchadnezzar's demand for tribute from Jehoiakim in his accession year should be placed in 624 BCE. However, they will not admit there was a siege on Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, despite both BM 21946 (rows 12 and 13 on the front) and Berossus attesting to Nebuchadnezzar's presence in the region to demand tribute in Sebat (February 604 BCE). Instead, they state that Jehoiakim was "compelled" to pay tribute (without acknowledging that this was to curtail a siege) in what they claim was 'really' Nebuchadnezzar's 'first year of Jehoiakim's vassalage', which they place in 620 BCE.
• The JW chronology constrains the period for which Jehoiakim paid tribute from early 620 BCE to mid-618 BCE (about 2.5 years). This contradicts BM 21946 (rows 12, 13, and 15 to 17 on the front, and rows 1 to 5 on the reverse), which places Nebuchadnezzar in the region to exact tributes on various occasions, from his accession year through to his fourth year, which should be 625 BCE (early 624 BCE) until 621 BCE when adjusting for the JW's 20-year gap. Their alternative chronology further contradicts BM 21946 (row 8 on the reverse), which says Nebuchadnezzar stayed in Babylon during his fifth year (620 BCE in JW chronology).
• In addition to the problems the JW chronology causes regarding the reason for which Jehoiakim refused to pay tribute after three years, it also creates further problems for the timing of events between Jehoiakim's refusal to pay and the siege that resulted in most of the Jews being exiled to Babylon in 597 BCE. 2 Kings 24:2 states that in between these two events, various "marauder bands" of "Chaldeans", "Syrians", "Moabites" and "the sons of Ammon" attacked Judah. BM 21946 (rows 9 and 10 on the reverse) states that Nebuchadnezzar sent these "companies" in his sixth year, which—after adjusting for the extra 20 years in JW chronology—should be 619 BCE. However they constrain these "marauder bands" to the latter half of 618 BCE—which would be Nebuchadnezzar's seventh year in their interpretation—when BM 21946 (row 11 on the reverse) says the siege itself took place. BM 21946 (rows 6 to 10 on the reverse) places three full years between the attack on Egypt and the siege on Jerusalem, but the JW chronology forces all these events into late 618 BCE.

It is therefore sufficient to say that the JW view is not compatible with the known facts of the matter, and should not be included at Wikipedia articles about historical subjects.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

False. Your exegesis of Jeremiah 25:25 is specious, puerile. Verses 12-14 & 17-26 lists those who would suffer Jehovah God's judgment; 'drink from his cup of the wine of his rage.' (25:15,16) It most certainly does not assert what you mendaciously allege. As I've already explicated, the seventy years of desolation Jerusalem had to experience was precisely that. (2 Chronicles 36:20,21; Jeremiah 25:12; Zechariah 1:12; Daniel 9:2; Zechariah 7:5; Jeremiah 29:10) Nowhere is this figure presented as allegorical or figurative in any way, shape or form.

Withal, you just finished stating, "Josephus and Ezra indicate that construction of the temple foundations began in Cyrus' second year, and that the Jews were in their homeland the year before, which was 538." At worst this would put the desolation of Jerusalem at 608 BCE, nowhere near the figures you're trying to push.

In effect, you're repudiating your own argument for a later date, therefore, your entire delirious argument is laid bare for what it is, utter sophistry. —Maxximiliann talk 03:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You've just pasted the same response that you left at Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC)[2], and it's just as irrelevant here as it was there. As with the other Talk page, I didn't even mention Jeremiah 25:25 here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

And how exactly does that change the fact that your argument is still deliriously fatuous? —Maxximiliann talk 05:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

If you're just going to make idiotic pointless rhetorical dismissive statements instead of addressing facts already presented, you should just leave.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you hard of reading?! How exactly does anything you've prattled on about change the fact that your argument is still deliriously fatuous?—Maxximiliann talk 00:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Your actions have been reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The 70 years mentioned in the Old Testament don't need to be a full 7-decade period anymore than Thucydides' "Pentakontaetia" ("50 years peace" covers ~39 years, much of which had no peace), or the Hundred Years' War being two separate conflicts over more than 100 years. Similarly, the "Hundred Days" when Napoleon returned from Elba as Emperor of France again was technically 111 days. The fact that Daniel (Dan. 9:2) checks the Persian registers with respect to the date when Jeremiah's 70 years are to pass could be either as a general reference point (i.e. how many years has it been - over a generation or not), or it could be Daniel's own personal belief that isn't necessarily the case. It was just as literal an event/time period, with just as much rounding.Cornelius (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend the editors here to look at the WP article Cyrus Cylinder and they will see that it is now highly, highly disputed by numerous scholars that it has any application to the Biblical stories of the Jews' return to Judea from Babylon, which in any case was almost certainly not a single event but a gradual process. This is an argument about the dates of events in a "traditional" narrative that many experts now believe is unreliable in many details.Smeat75 (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm already aware of the Cyrus cylinder, and as I've already indicated, I completely agree with you that it doesn't support the chronology asserted by Maxximiliann.

Cyrus allowed the Jews (and others) to return to their homeland in and after the first year of his reign. Many of the Jews remained in Babylon; others went back at various times. In any case, there is far too much archaeological evidence for the rest of the Neo-Babylonian period to indulge any theory of 70 years of exile starting from Jerusalem's destruction, especially when most of the exiled Jews were already in Babylon many years before that.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That there were Jews in Babylonia prior to the final siege is noted by the Bible itself. That doesn't relate to the "70" years which refers to the time period that the state ceased to exist and was in exile (e.g. cf. Ezra 3:1 - the Jews return as "one man"). Jews that stayed behind are noted by Josephus. The 70 years are a euphemism, rounded for the fact that this was over a generation, coupled with the symbolic value of 7/70. Cornelius (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Renassault: Policy is to go by what reliable sources say, not our own calculations which would be original research. Doug Weller talk 11:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

587 or 586?

The article seems to zig-zag between 587 and 586 BC for the siege date. What do scholars think today? Even if there is no consensus, I feel the two dates should be given in a way side-by-side or something that doesn't look like two different authors who believed either year wrote the article (?). Cornelius (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Answered my own question: 587 BC. Judah used the Non-Accession Year Reckoning System at this point, which means Zedekiah's Year 1 is March, 597 BC - September 597 BC (Judean New Year in Sept. from which kings' years were counted). His Year 2 is therefore, Sept. 597 - Sept. 596 BC. Therefore his 11th year is Sept. 588 - Destruction of Jerusalem 587 BC.

This is confirmed by Jeremiah 52:12//2 Kings 25:8 (19th year of Nebuchadnezzar) vs the Babylonian Accession Reckoning used (for whatever reason) in Jeremiah 52:29 (18th year). For the Judean reckoning, the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar would've been 588-587 BC, because his first was Sept. 6/7, 605 BC - Jewish New Year (late Sept.) 605 BC (Jer. 25:1; 46:2), making his Year 2: Sept. 605 - Sept. 604 BC. The same date is arrived at if the regnal year began in March in Judah (which is more likely). Cornelius (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Renassault: You were correct when you asked "what do the scholars think". That's what the article should reflect, see my comment above. Doug Weller talk 11:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright, well in that case, I recently saw the somewhat recent book by Mazar, 'Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000 - 586 BCE' (1990) give, as the title suggests, the date of 586. But I was somewhat under the impression that 587 was the more accepted date. Also, should we do the 587/586 mention or? What scholars are the majority? Do you even know? "My" calculations I derived from some of these scholars. Cornelius (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I've posted to 3 Wikiprojects asking for help. User:Jeffro77, any comments? If we can show that both dates have several reliable sources, we'll have to go with both I guess. But sources are required. Doug Weller talk 09:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Duly noting Wikipedia is not a source, the Hebrew wikipedia states 586: [3] [4].Icewhiz (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC) And in a seemingly more main article - [5] 586 or 587.Icewhiz (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

And here - [6] - 586 or 587.Icewhiz (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

From a quick google scholar search - it would seem 586 or 587 (jerusalem nebuchadnezzar 586 vs. jerusalem nebuchadnezzar 587) are more or less equally mentioned, with some sources mentioning both as possibilities and others stating just one. Google books in Hebrew and English also supports similar use. My conclusion is that both should be stated. Here's one discussion of this - [7]. I believe the source of the disagreement is according to which king you count - the Judean or Babylonian once - which leads to dates that are off by one year. There are also some others issues. In short this doesn't seem definitive either way - so it should be 586 or 587 (it is at least agreed to have been in the summer, Tamuz). Many of the sources covering biblical periods try to stick to one chronology throughout (and not do /s when they are 1-2 years off) - which would explain why some sources don't go into the level of detail of why each date might A or B when they are close.Icewhiz (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The two views have both been around for a long time, and so both need to be mentioned. The correct year is 587 BCE, which can be demonstrated by comparison of the original Babylonian and Jewish sources. Elements of confusion that influence supporters of 586 BCE include:

• References to Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year at 2 Kings 25:8 and Jeremiah 52:12 (the latter being a direct copy from 2 Kings), though comparison with the Babylonian interpolation regarding Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year at Jeremiah 52:29 for the same year confirms that the prior reference to Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year includes Nebuchadnezzar's accession year.
• The reference to the 12th year (of exile) at Ezekiel 32:1, which is actually as a result of the exile in 597 BCE beginning prior to Nisan of that year.
• Thiele's ambiguous conclusion that the accession system is 'occasionally' used for kings of Judah.

Comparison of the various texts actually demonstrates considerable uniformity for the reckoning of the various regnal systems:

• 2 Kings uses Nisan/non-accession dating for Israel, Tishri/non-accession dating for Judah and Nisan/non-accession dating for Babylon.
• Jeremiah uses Tishri/non-accession dating for Judah and Nisan/non-accession dating for Babylon, except for the Babylonian interpolation at Jeremiah 52:28-30, which uses Nisan/accession dating (and is conspicuously absent from 2 Kings chapter 25 which is the original source for the rest of Jeremiah chapter 52).
• Ezekiel counts Nisan-based years of exile starting from Nisan 598 BCE, because the exile began prior to Nisan of 597 BCE.
• Daniel uses Nisan/accession dating for all reigns.

But in short, as previously stated, both views are widespread and need to be reported in the article in a manner consistent with the available sources. Note that this does not mean that the article should just randomly switch between the two, which is confusing, as has been pointed out. 587 BCE should be used in the infobox and in the Siege section, but the presentation of Thiele's view in the Chronological notes section is mostly reasonable, with my only objection that the tone of the section is probably a bit confusing since it seems to conclude with a final assertion that 586 BCE is 'actually correct', even though the section can be interpreted as simply presenting a plausible alternative.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, although I was under the impression Judah must've used a Nisan Accession Calendar (and Israel a Tishri Non-Accession), which is how we get an extra 7 years from Rehoboam to Jehu on Israel's side. The Babylonian sources regarding Jehoiakim's accession maybe make it difficult for Judah to have a Tishri Non-Accession Year vs a Nisan Non-Accession one pp.18-19 - although the author seems to make a Tishri calendar fit.

Jeremiah 52:28-30 does make sense as an Exilic/post-Exilic interpolation that records some numbers after the fact (using Babylon's Accession Reckoning); I assumed Jeremiah used Babylonian records, but the fact that Kings doesn't have this shows it's an interpolation as you point out.

What Babylonian sources confirm 587 BC btw? I'm curious.Cornelius (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Whilst there are not (to my knowledge) direct Babylonian sources available for the events in 587 BCE itself, BM 21946 refers to events earlier in Nebuchadnezzar's reign that correspond to events depicted in 2 Kings and Jeremiah and confirm the different regnal systems used. For example, row 11 on the reverse of BM 21946 ("In the seventh year, the month of Kislev, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched to the Hatti-land") refers to Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year for his siege on Jerusalem in late 598 BCE (Kislev = November/December), which is consistent with the Babylonian interpolation at Jeremiah 52:28, but corresponds to his 8th year (including his accession year) for the same event depicted in 2 Kings 24:12 as his 8th year.

Nebuchadnezzar's reign
Year starting…	Events in BM 21946 also depicted in Bible	Accession	BM21946	Non-accession	Bible
Nisan 605	Becomes king (August)	0	Front, rows 10-11	1	Jeremiah 25:1
	Returns to Syro-Palestine (January/February 604)		Front, rows 12-13		2 Kings 24:1; Daniel 1:1
Nisan 604	Demands tribute throughout Syro-Palestine	1	Front, rows 15-7, 23, reverse, rows 1-5	2	2 Kings 24:1a
Nisan 603		2		3
Nisan 602		3		4
Nisan 601	Attacks Egypt (December)	4	Reverse, rows 6-7	5
	Jehoiakim refuses to pay tribute (early 600) (Josephus cites Nebuchadnezzar's attack on Egypt as Jehoiakim's reason for refusal to pay tribute)				2 Kings 24:1b
Nisan 600		5		6
Nisan 599	Sends marauders throughout Syro-Palestine (December)	6	Reverse, rows 9-10	7	2 Kings 24:2
Nisan 598	Besieges Jerusalem (December-March), Jehoiakim killed (December), exiles taken (March)	7	Reverse, rows 11-13	8	2 Kings 24:6-17; Jeremiah 52:28
Nisan 597		8		9
Nisan 596		9		10
Nisan 595		10		11
Nisan 594		11		12
Nisan 593		12		13
Nisan 592		13		14
Nisan 591		14		15
Nisan 590		15		16
Nisan 589		16		17
Nisan 588		17		18
Nisan 587		18		19	2 Kings 25:8; Jeremiah 52:29
Nisan 586		19		20

Hence the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar indicated at 2 Kings 25:8 (corresponding to the Babylonian reference to his 18th year at Jeremiah 52:29) indicates that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE, not 586 BCE.

(The approx. 7 year 'difference' between Israel and Judah from Rehoboam to Jehu is primarily a result of a co-regency of Jehoram and Jehoshaphat, not a compounded difference of accession years. It's been a while since I've looked at it closely but decision table analysis of various reigns during the divided monarchy does confirm that Israel used Nisan-based dating, Judah used Tishri-based dating, and neither used accession years; but that's way out of scope here. However, note above that it is not even necessary to debate the regnal systems of Israel and Judah to determine that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year without accession and 19th year with accession places the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE rather than 586.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Jeffro77 - you make a compelling case for 587 (while noting 586 should be mentioned). Reading your analysis, it is based on a number of assumptions regarding regnal (and calendar) counting methods (based, presumably on analysis of other dates in each source (which are, at times, not 100% coherent and with a few mistakes) and asserting lesser reliability of one. I am unable to contribute on the merits of the case, in this subject mater, at your level - but I have one question - to what degree is this view currently adopted by others who are experts in the field? Is it an equal 586/587 split? 80-20? Mostly 587 while recognizing 586 is still possible? 586 clearly outdated view?Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Both dates are given in a large number of sources, which is why both views must necessarily be stated at this article. This article has been titled in favour of 587 BCE since its inception, and looking at the article's history, there has only ever been one attempt to rename the article (to Siege of Jerusalem (589–586 BC)), which was quickly reverted[8]. But it's not anything as straightforward as an 80-20 split. Nor does it seem that one view is universally preferred over the other among Catholic/Protestant/Jewish/secular (etc) sources either. Part of the difficulty of properly assessing sources on the matter lays in meaningfully quantifying which ones discuss the timing of the event rather than those that merely mention a year for the event in passing. Given that there is firm consensus among historians about the start of Nebuchadnezzar's reign (accession year = 605 BCE), and that the original texts specify the event occurring in a specific year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, with reference to both accession and non-accession dating systems, and also correlates both dating systems with another well-documented event in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th/8th year (accession/non-accession), there is no good reason for disputing the simple arithmetic for arriving at 587 BCE for his 19th year (including accession year). I'm yet to see a convincing argument for the assignment of 586 BCE for the event, and despite some not entirely superficial ambiguity in the biblical texts, the timing of the event given in the Bible does not actually conflict with the Babylonian source material. Among many sources, it seems to be more about whichever year has been accepted by the author as a tradition, often just repeating the view of either Albright or Thiele rather than any actual analysis of the original texts. Donald Wiseman, William F. Albright and Andrew Steinmann, already cited in the article, support 587 BCE.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Placing a date range on the name (e.g.589-7) might make sense (as in Siege of Sevastopol (1854–55), Siege of Sevastopol (1941–42), Siege of Jerusalem (636–637)) as the siege itself lasted 2 years (the sacking of Jerusalem took place in 587(or 6) - the siege itself was longer) - though ranging here is more difficult with the differing offset. If neither view of 586 vs. 587 is clearly more widely accepted we should give them roughly equal weight IMHO. There are situations in which, on Wiki, we can quantify a clear error and disregard/tone it down it - but I don't think this is one of them. My 2 cents.Icewhiz (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any objection to a span of years in the title. Sources vary on the length of the siege as to whether it was 18 or 30 months. Abraham Malamat, cited in the article with a detailed quote, supports a siege of 30 months (early 589 until mid 587), which is an accurate assessment of the original texts. 586 is wrong, but as I've clearly stated, we do have to present what sources say.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources offer both 587 and 586, there is no consensus. It strictly doesn't matter that Jeffro77 did a lot of "own research" leading him to opt for 587. Ultimately, what we have in the article are Albright (587) vs Thiele (586), and Jeremiah (18th year) vs 2 Kings (19th year). I see no good reason (certainly not a Wiki-relevant one) to prefer the one over the other. I've reworded accordingly. Please mind that the respective section doesn't end with a source anyway, which makes it anyone's playground - and that's below standard. Without a reliable source, my conclusion is as good as anyone else's. Arminden (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

First off, your assertion of a distinction between "Jeremiah (18th year) vs 2 Kings (19th year)" is incorrect. Jeremiah (counting accession years as part of the reign) refers to Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year at Jeremiah 32:1 during the siege and Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year at Jeremiah 52:12 at the end of the siege. Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year not counting accession year is the same year as his 19th year counting his accession year, and both are 587 BCE.

This is not merely a result of 'my research'. From the fact that the Babylonian chronicle BM 21946 gives Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year (not counting accession year) as the year of the first exile (Wiseman), it is simple arithmetic to establish that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year (not counting accession year) is 587 BCE and not 586 BCE, which is supported by the Babylonian interpolation at Jeremiah 52:28-30. (Note that Adar 597 BCE prior to Nisan is still the same year that started in 598 BCE in the Babylonian calendar. Also compare corresponding references at 2 Kings 24:12 and 25:8.)

18-7 = 19-8 = 11 = 598-587.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Your edits misrepresent both Thiele and Wiseman. Thiele's view is already indicated in its own paragraph. Thiele does not simply say 586 'because it is the 19th instead of 18th year so it's one year later'. Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year including his accession year is his 18th year without counting his accession year. Thiele arrives at 586 BCE because of his assumptions about Zedekiah's reign, not because he 'adds a year to Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year'. 587 BCE is the correct year, and the year indicated by Wiseman. 586 BCE is included in the lead sentence of the article because it is a widely held (though incorrect) view based on Thiele's assumptions, but 586 BCE should not be appended to the paragraph that specifies Wiseman's interpretation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I re-read the article by Siegfried H. Horn I linked above, and I don't know if I have some kind of optical problem, but I could've sworn he advocated a non-accession Fall reckoning. Essentially he argues somewhat convincingly to me for a 586 BC date. But one thing I agree with him is there's no way a non-accession reckoning was used if we trust 2 Ki 24 that Jehoiakim reigned 11 years, because the Babylonian Chronicles date Megiddo to 609, so Tishri 609 would've been his accession. If 2 Kings used Fall accession for Jehoiakim, it most likely had sources that used it for Zedekiah. Everything matches except Jer. 46:2, which clearly uses Spring Accession reckoning, and Jer. 52:28-30 which has no problem for Nebuch's 7th year = Spring Accession, but the 18th puts the Fall in 587 BC. Horn goes around this by saying this was the raiding parties alluded to in 2 Ki 24:2 (which caused the death of Jehoiakim who died before the siege was in place), and that the captives are far too low in Jer. 52:28-30 compared to the parallel in 2 Ki 25.

That seems much more plausible to me than the PDF linked to in the article arguing for 587 BC, which not only ignores Jehoiakim's 11th year(!). The contradiction of non-accession in Jer. 25:3 which makes Josiah die in his 32nd year he arbitrarily says means there was a switch in the calendar from accession to non-accession somewhere in the time between 2 Ki 22:1-24:1 (p.35). I mean I can fully believe there were a bunch of different reckoning methods in Judah, maybe more than two. Even if Babylonian documents were discovered telling which year it was, I don't think it would be possible to untangle the calendars used in the Bible because there's a million different combinations. Cornelius (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

one thing I forgot to mention. The wiki here says the Siege took 30 months. I would really like to know the scholarly consensus because if the source is the PDF that's linked there for the 587 BC date, it has the sketchiest logic in chronology I've read: it literally argues that the months were counted from Nisan while the years from Tishri. So the tenth month of the 9th Year of Zedekiah is actually the tenth month from Nisan (=4th month from Tishri) of the 9th Year, while the fifth month of his 11th becomes the 11th month from Tishri that falls in his 11th Year. Thus a siege that lasts a year and a half becomes two and a half years. That's absurd. And the one place where this logic is contradicted, in Jeremiah 28, the author excuses that the readers of Jeremiah would've thought it was a failed prophecy, so the year was kept as Year 4 month 7 instead of Year 5.... a 2.5 year siege is not warranted by the text. Cornelius (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources disagree. Shaye J. D. Cohen gives both at http://ruml.com/thehebrewbible/notes/20-Notes.pdf tgeorgescu (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The article already presents the reasoning used by proponents of both 586 and 587.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your confusion about what constitutes "the first month" in the ancient Hebrew calendar, see Hebrew calendar#New year. In short, it confirms that Nisan was always reckoned as "the first month", even though the 'civil' year starts from Tishri ("the seventh month").--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your failure to read the source cited in the article, Jeremiah 28:1, 14 does not use this absurd logic as the same (and ONLY) source for this 2.5 year siege notes, and waves it away as "his readers would've gotten confused so he said 'same year'" - kind of like in every case; he only reinterprets it to have his Non-Accessioning work.

Any other sources? Cornelius (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Chapter 28 of Jeremiah is not set during, and does not refer to, the siege resulting in Jerusalem's destruction (instead referring to a purported false claim by Hananiah in 594 BCE that Nebuchadnezzar would be defeated two years from then). On the other hand, comparison of Ezekiel 24:1 and 33:21 plainly shows that the period from the start of the siege until a few months after the end of the siege (when Ezekiel learns of the city's destruction) was three years, not two.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Renassault: It is not our task to second guess mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. We may pass judgment if a source is reliable for the claim made, but that's basically all our control over scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jeffro77 Since we're now using normal years, please note this is 3 years and not 30 months, and probably means Ez 24:1 refers to when Ezekiel received the prophecy or is speaking proleptically as in "today Jerusalem's fate is sealed" (similarly in Luke 23:43 - "today you will be with me in paradise"). Also, the 12th Year 10th Month of the Exile would mean Ezekiel is using a Tishri calendar (10th month would have to be around August), the earliest year for the Exile would be 598 BC month 1 in the Fall, so are we really arguing for a destruction in 585 BC?

@Tgeorgescu Do you really think one source that doesn't even look peer-reviewed but is someone's personal hypothesis is mainstream? I asked for more sources and got greeted by 2 bible verses, useful as they could be, still highly interpretive. Here's a source that uses an 18 month siege: [Bickerman, E. J. “Nebuchadnezzar and Jerusalem.” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 46/47 (1979): 69 - https://www.jstor.org/stable/3622457]

At this point it'd be easier to admit the 30-month siege is highly suspect at best. Cornelius (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jeffro77 Ezekiel learns of the fall on the same day it falls (Ezekiel 24:25-7), there is no delay in the news reaching him, so that date is not questionable. Also Jeremiah 28 is the logic the source cited uses, and it is not 2 years as the source interprets it to be 2 months, not 14 months according to that author's logic. Cornelius (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu Sorry, I misread the article I cited. This one by Thiele claims the siege began in 588 BC regardless of calendar. - p.23 Cornelius (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Your suggestion that ‘Ezekiel learns of Jerusalem’s fall the same day’ is complete nonsense and demonstrative of your lack of understanding of the subject. The fugitive in chapter 24 leaves Jerusalem on the day it's destroyed, but getting to Ezekiel took extra time. He didn’t teleport to Babylon, and other verses specify the fall and the news reaching Ezekiel are in different months. Just go away.—Jeffro77 (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Your issue is with Ezekiel 24:25-6 not me: "Son of man, know that on the day I take their stronghold from them, their pride and joy, the delight of their eyes and the longing of their hearts, as well as their sons and daughters, on that day a fugitive will come to you and report the news."

If Ezekiel is in Babylon then clearly his "same day" isn't literal here nor in Ezekiel 24:1. Cornelius (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

No problem at all for me. Suggesting that the 5th day of the 10th month of the 12th year of exile (Ezekiel 33:21) is the same day as the 7th day of the 5th month of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year (2 Kings 25:8) is plainly wrong regardless of any calendar system relevant to the period. Various Bible commentaries explain that 'the day' that the fugitive escapes Jerusalem is not the same as 'the day' that he later talks to Ezekiel, with an obvious period required to get from Jerusalem to Babylon (and the word translated 'day', Strong's H3117, is not restricted in meaning to a literal day anyway). In any case, Ezekiel chapter 24 wasn't actually written on 'the day' presented in verse 1, but it was all written later rather than being a 'prediction' at the start of the siege. Seriously, just go away.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Friend, I don't know why you took all of this personally, from the beginning. I have no problem it being 587 or 586 or 2025, I'm just curious which year it is and dumbfounded the sources can be so numerous and so inconclusive. Either way, this is the last thing I noticed and it's still a mystery: Ezekiel's start: Year 9, Month 10, Day 10 matches 2 Ki 25 and Jer 52 - so it's definitely the day Nebuch besieged Jerusalem. And he's counting it from the years of Zedekiah's reign. But in Ez. 33:21 he mentions from the years of the Exile. If we look at 2 Ki 25:27-30, the end of the 37th year of the Exile falls in the reign of Amel-Marduk. This is likely historical because Amel-Marduk released the king of Tyre, so it's not like his obscure name was randomly slapped to a number (despite v.29 as if the "rest of the days of the king of Babylon" aren't a few months). This means the Exile was counted from Nisan 598 BC, no other way Jehoiachin's release could happen 38 years later in Amel-Marduk's reign. This makes sense if Year 12 is 586 and not 585 BC. Tenth month Fifth Day could easily be a transposition of Fifth month Tenth day - Jer. 52:12 Cornelius (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Either way you don't have 3 years based on Ezekiel because Zedekiah did not have a 12th year 10th month, so it is not referring to a 2.5+ year siege. Cornelius (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Please note that a 30 month siege means 586 BC, because Year 9, month 10 would be ~January 588 BC. Since Zedekiah does not have more than 11 years and 5 months, Year 12, Month 10 means the news traveled 1.5 years so it's not proving anything but the assumption. Unless a text equates different years in months (e.g.Year 1 Month 5 - Year 2 Month 7 is 2 months), either reckoning is logically valid. Cornelius (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, never mind, 2.5 years would be 587 BC with a Non-Accession Fall reckoning like the cited author assumed (Jan. 590 BC), 586 BC if Accession Fall Reckoning Cornelius (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Ezekiel 26:1 - Year 11, day 1 (of Month 1 presumably), the gate being broken into may imply Jerusalem falls not long after, in Zedekiah's 11th Year. Cornelius (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

References to Jonah?

The chronological table makes two references to "Jonah". The Book of Jonah has nothing to do with tjis article, but I'm hesitant to delete a reference just because I don't understand it. Does anyone else know what those references are about? If not, they're probably spurious and should be deleted. Joe in Australia (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The table (since removed) compared ("Cf.") prepositions regarding Nebuzaradan's presence at/in Jerusalem with verses from Jonah in relation to Jonah's purported presence in/at Nineveh. The comparison added nothing significant, and if the table is restored, the references to Jonah are not required.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Steinmann is not a reliable source

There's a whole section in this article that does nothing but reprint the opinions of Andrew Steinmann on the timeline of the destruction of Jerusalem. But Andrew Steinmann is not a reliable source on the chronology of biblical events: here he is arguing for the fringe Young-Earth Creationist perspective. Now, it's always possible that Mr. Steinmann is right about some of his dates. If his dates are supportable from reliable sources, then we should just cite those sources, and there's no need to lean on a WP:FRINGE character for chronology. If his dates aren't supportable from reliable sources, there's no reason to have it on Wikipedia. One of the relevant Wikipedia policies covering this kind of thing is WP:RS. Alephb (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

A table is useful to the article. The Young Earth Creationist views of the source have no bearing on the period presented and the dates given in the table ostensibly agree with the actual history of the period. However, citing that particular source could imply credibility of his other unhistorical views. Therefore agree that a better source should be relied upon.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I can see your point about the possibility of a person's views on Creation being separate from their views on 587 BC. In the interests of being succinct, I left off some other things I know about Steinmann. For example, Steinmann wrote an article called The Mysterious Numbers of the Book of Judges. In it, he announces that the consensus view (that the chronology of Judges is in too difficult a state to be unravelled) is wrong and that an absolute chronology of the period really can be put together from the Bible. In a footnote on page four, he argues that some calculations in the Talmud (written in 500-ish AD) help back up his date for the Exodus (1446 BC). He thinks the Jubilee cycle was accurately kept up by the priests of the Israelites from the Exodus until at least 38 BC, when he is using Jewish sabbatical years (there's seven of them in each Jubilee cycle), to help date the kingship of Herod, in his paper, When Did Herod the Great Die?. So Steinmann is idiosyncratic about a topic that he uses to date stuff over the whole span from 1446 to 38, a span which the fall of Jerusalem falls squarely inside of. Now, it is possible that Steinmann's work on the fall of Jerusalem isn't affected by those idiosyncracies, but it's more than just the creationism we're dealing with here. Alephb (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alephb and Jeffro77: if you're interested in chronology, Jubilee (biblical) has a whole section devoted to Steinmann's comments, and Historical Sabbatical Years is a disaster, with "if this than that" and "could this...." Doug Weller talk 13:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Edom?

Various Biblical accounts of the siege claim that the Edomites joined the Babylonians in sacking Jerusalem. A few state however that the Bible only mentioned Edom not helping Judah. Rather or not they did, and rather there's other evidence of that happening, is it worth being in the article and table? I added Edom as a combatant in the table with a question mark to indicate uncertainty, and it was reverted. J390 (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

not the way to go

@Jeffro77: hi. You have bulk-reverted my last edit in a way that I find upsetting. Now I see you started edit-warring, which is absolutely inadmissible once I called you to the talk-page.

Under "Chronological notes" one reads, my edit included and bolded:
"Jeremiah ... gives the relative date for the end of the two sieges as Nebuchadnezzar's seventh and eighteenth year, respectively. [no opening bracket] The same events are elsewhere dated at 2 Kings 24:12 and 2 Kings 25:8 as Nebuchadnezzar's eighth and nineteenth years, including his accession year. [no closing bracket] Identification of Nebuchadnezzar's eighteenth year for the end of the siege places the event in the summer of 587 BC, while his nineteenth year would correspond to 586 BC."

What you have reverted:

In the infobox:

• 1) You put back in the useless additional spacing in the infobox
• 2) "Date 589 to 587/586 BC" - you removed /586

At "Chronological notes":

• 3) "the relative date for the end of the two sieges" back to "the relative periods for the end of the two sieges"
• 4) "Nebuchadnezzar's seventh and eighteenth year" back to "Nebuchadnezzar's seventh and eighteenth years"
• 5) "The same events are elsewhere dated at..." back to "The same periods are elsewhere described at..."
• 6) That sentence placed back between brackets.
• 7) "Nebuchadnezzar's eighteenth year for the end of the siege places the event in the summer of 587 BC, while his nineteenth year would correspond to 586 BC" - you removed the part behind the comma.

One by one:

• 1) No good reason for that. Bulk-reverting is wrong by definition. But here it's minor.
• 2) There is no consensus on 587 vs 586. You are pushing your own POV, but that doesn't matter or count on Wiki. The consensus is: leave them both in (see discussions above), as a majority of sources still offer 586. Publish academic papers and change the consensus, then come here and amend accordingly.
• 3) The "end of a siege" has a date, not a period. If you meant to say "the period including the 2 dates for the end of the 2 sieges", that's not supported by the text. I agree the plural is required, "relative dates", but you've re-reverted my edit, so I can't fix it (not going into silly edit-warring).
• 4) I don't care.
• 5) The text speaks of "eighth and nineteenth year(s)", these are numbers or dates, not descriptions. So the "events are dated" rather than described. Dated to, not as, that was a mistake in my edit.
• 6) Brackets: not required, as it's an equal part of the demonstration, not a subordinated or "aside" comment.
• 7) The crux: Please explain how, if the 18th year = 587, the 19th ≠ 586 (BCE)? How is here mathematics suspended? Maybe it's about regnal years vs. our Gregorian calendar years, but if the month is fixed, then this thought doesn't apply.

I have placed a question in my edit summary, which you haven't honoured with an answer: why should Jeremiah be rather believed than 2 Kings, and Albright over Thiele? Any good reason?

• First and foremost: the entire paragraph is completely unsourced, anything you say is your private opinion. Edit-warring on which source to follow is not allowed either, but that I can understand; edit-warring on pushing through one's private, unsupported opinion and original research is silly at best.

As you might imagine, I have very little intellectual or emotional (?!) investment in either date. That's not the point: someone's editing crusades done in a sloppy manner and aggressively at the same time, are.

I don't think I have officially called for blocks and bans yet, but you're very close to getting me there. I don't mind discussing and accepting different opinions, but I do mind your behaviour, and quite a bit. Arminden (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

As already explained at Talk in the original section above, your edit misrepresents both Thiele and Wiseman. No major objections to putting your changes back in the infobox, but your changes to the view expressed by Wiseman (and Albright), which also mischaracterises Thiele's reason for choosing 586, is entirely unsupportable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The crux: you don't understand that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year using the Babylonian dating system doesn't count his accession year as his first regnal year, and that it is the same year as the reckoning of his 19th year when his accession year is counted as a regnal year. This is the same reason for the 'difference' between the reference in the Babylonian chronicle to Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year whereas 2 Kings 24:12 refers to the same year as his 8th year.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

As to your claim that it is unsourced, the paragraph cites Wiseman giving Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year for the first siege, and the Bible verses provided in the paragraph indicate an event another eleven years later, which is simple arithmetic and doesn't require explicit sourcing. But at your insistence I will add an additional source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

PS: We're talking events from c. 2600 years ago. Science accepts documents from contemporary royal or temple archives (clay tablets, carved inscriptions) as reliable in terms of chronology. However, Jeremiah and 2 Kings are biblical books not preserved in original copies (clay or stone), copied for zillions of times before they were more or less canonised, and which were never intended as history books in the first place. Albright & Thiele were biblical literalists (a way to say fundamentalists). What makes you believe you can set firm dates? Are you a biblical literalist/fundamentalist? Arminden (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The only relevant part of this is dealt with above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I have added sources with quotes. I would encourage you to read Rodger Young's extended analysis to help you understand the subject better.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Do I get you right, you only insist on keeping 586 out, ALLL my other edits are OK with you and you only bulk-reverted out of... whatever?

Second: I'm not even starting to go into that. I didn't "misrepresent" anyone, as I don't care to read either Albright, Thiele, or Wiseman (great name, by the way). Neither are you "representing" anyone, as no source is quoted in the entire section. I'm just drawing a conclusion based on the (completely unsourced) argument offered at present in the text. I'm not here as a student of theology, but as a WP editor approaching an article from a user's point of view: I want reliable data in a nutshell. When reliable means: no firm dates and no consensus, then that's the reliable and correct thing to write.

On that base: you have no logical argument in place. You cannot mix different ancient sources with their different level or reliability and say "Mommsen says A=B+1, Walt Disney says B=C+2, so A=C+3". The Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle is accepted as a good source for precise dating; Jeremiah & 2 Kings, in Borat's words: not so much. So 2 Adar (16 March) 597 BC for the first conquest is not a problem, but adding "Jeremiah/Kings years" to "Chronicle years" to get to a precise date - not a good thing to do in 2021.

And to wrap it up: The Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle was published in 1956 (!). If scholars would accept your approach, they'd have had a full lifetime to remove 586 from every book published in the last few decades. Not the case. What does it tell you? Plus: nothing matters as long as you do your own research and don't place inline sources one can look up. As it is now, me or anyone can blank 80% of the article and WP rules would fully support that. So do yourself a favour and don't argue with me, argue with yourself when you get carried away. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Your lack of understanding of the subject and disinterest in understanding it is not my responsibility. I have already provided additional sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Great that you did. That is the only relevant thing here: quoting scholars the right way. WP is for users who look up trustworthy and searchable information, not for editors to "fight it out". I am not lacking any type of relevant understanding, and especially not any that's required on WP. And that is: not to redo your effort in figuring out your sources and reading them up again in search for what you're talking about. That's not required of any editor going through an existing article. Now it's good, so have a great day. Arminden (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps in future you will be less aggressive in demanding that editors respond at Talk after they already had responded at Talk twice.[9][10] It is indeed quite frustrating when editors make accusations, demand discussion at Talk, ignore the response at Talk, and then revert to their preferred version before launching into a tirade.

I have changed your reference to "dates" back to "periods" because Jeremiah 52:28-30 states the years in which the events occurred, not dates.

I trust the matter is resolved now.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Your subsequent changes are okay, though analysis as done by Wiseman, Rodgers and others confirms that 587 is the correct year rather than just 'theories' (which is also being misused as the term applies in a scientific context), and the two positions are not merely 'fifty-fifty'. You have also added repetitive sourcing for Thiele's view but not given similar treatment to sources for the 587 position.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jeffro77: I would never call a year a period. Maybe you can think of a clearer wording, but I won't go back to it.

Using ping helps a lot. Yesterday for instance I was fixing details or working on larger issues on a good dozen pages, there's no way I can guess where to look for possible messages. Reverts do show up as "red alarms", pings also show up, all else doesn't.

No sources is no good. That's where any discussion about substance ends. I can apologise for my tone, no problem, I'm sorry, but I cannot accept bulk-reversals under any circumstance (that would also be worth an apology, but I strictly don't put a value on that), and especially when done w/o a searchable explanation. It's not done, you'd hate it as much as anyone, and it's counterproductive and disruptive.

Sure it's resolved. Fixing the data wasn't anything out of the ordinary.

I do appreciate your knowledge and input, so maybe you can take a look at what I wrote here below. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

You didn't ping me when you initially added your complaints at the Talk page, even though you snidely accused me of 'original research' (though a basic arithmetical calculation based on Wiseman is not original research). You apparently made no effort to even check whether I had responded at Talk when I reverted your changes, instead leaping straight to threats about "blocks and bans". A good place to look for responses is under your own comments. I don't generally ping when I am responding to an existing thread created by someone other than me that has no other participants (and your comment added to a stale thread from four years ago is essentially a new thread.)

I can't accept the insertion of factually incorrect material, which I consider more egregious than reverting a few minor changes in addition to a significantly incorrect change that misrepresents sources. It would have been more appropriate for you to just add a {{citation needed}} template at the end of the 587 paragraph.

A year is quite definitely a period of time (and also an orbital period in the technical sense). But if I think of a better term I'll change it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

For all I can see, both dates/arguments are still being vehiculated. Change 'theories' with 'arguments' or better still, I'll remove the word "theory" from both headings leaving just the years. OK? I don't know if it's 50-50 or 95-5, I can't appreciate that. I have added repetitive sourcing for Thiele's view? Don't know what you mean. I moved the source details to the first occurrence, and now that's the lead, so editors can find them easier. I didn't give similar treatment to sources for the 587 position? I didn't give any treatment to either. Didn't add, didn't remove anything, apart from naming the main supporters in the lead and placing the two sub-headings. Actually wrong, the only thing I did add are the 3 biblical books, out of the reference section and into the article text proper, and those are in support of 587. So honestly, I don't understand what you mean. Please, don't make 587 into a crusade, nobody is out to dismiss or discredit it. Arminden (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Both positions are still certainly advanced, with 586 primarily favored in certain evangelical circles and often simply because it is often repeated with no actual consideration of the evidence, but 586 is quite definitely wrong as is outlined in the sources I provided and also evident from the basic arithmetic previously provided.

You moved the citation for Thiele's position to the lead, giving it prominence, but did not similarly treat any citations for the alternative position.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Rather than relying on a false dichotomy of 'Thiele vs Albright' (both of whom advanced their positions before the 1956 publication of the translated Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle), I have updated the lead to reflect that more recent analysis confirms 587.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Jeffro77 , please stop. Stop your crusade. See the heading here: yours is "not the way to go". Not on WP. I appreciate your additional information and thorough understanding of a difficult subject, but I don't appreciate your way of pushing a theory, however sound it may look, with words reflecting a degree of absolute certainty that cannot be claimed. It's all based on biblical texts for Zeus' sake, and based on that very same "source" it's not just the Jehovah's Witnesses that can "prove" that it was 607 (70 years of exile; read it again here: "70 years before 537/38 would be 607/608. The 'scholars' who are stuck on 587 or 586 are relying on a Latin copy of an Armenian script translated from a lost Greek record written by Eusebius who quotes a timeline of Babylonian kings written down 200 years after the fact by a Babylonian priest named Berossus (the same Berossus who wrote about dog-headed horses and fish who walked upright and spoke)."). Nobody can "establish" in 2004 what happened over 2.5 millennia ago based on analysis of the Hebrew Bible, as opposed to: based on contemporary sources discovered in situ by archaeological excavations (tablets, papiry, other inscriptions). Mr Young is a private researcher and biblical maximalist who went into studying biblical chronology after retiring from a long career with IBM (see CV here). His paper was published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, which was launched in 1958 with the article "The Infallibility of Scripture and Evangelical Progress." Maybe JETS did progress since (pls excuse the pun), but I wouldn't be sure historians take it as the final word on - anything. So definitely, do contribute all of its conclusions, but not as the divine Truth from Mount Sinai. Arminden (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the thread heading says "not the way to go" after I stripped out your misrepresentative personal attack (feel free to apologise for that by the way). Your implication that anything that is 'only in the Bible' cannot be relied upon is a fallacy of division. (Back in reality, any individual claim would have to be assessed on its merits, and whilst much in the Bible is unhistorical, the information—that is, the data underlying the storytelling—in the Bible about the Neo-Babylonian period (with the exception of Daniel which was written much later) is consistent with the period.) Your snide comments such as "divine Truth from Mount Sinai" are irrelevant, and if I were religious I would consider them a personal attack also (which in any case seems to be your misguided intent). You could assert that 586 is equally viable because the source material is 'only in the Bible', but the fact is either that a) the source material is plausible and the correct year is 587 or b) the source material is unreliable and no year can be suggested. (And citing a forum about JWs view about 607 as 'evidence' that they're not the only ones is not particularly convincing. But the only reference on that page to any 'scholar' 'proving' 607 is Rolf Furuli, a JW, so it's not clear what your point is. The Bible never mentions "70 years of exile" and nor do any other contemporary sources, so it would be quite hypocritical to assert that it is inappropriate to say something based only on the Bible and in the same breath rely on something that is not based on any original source at all.) The fact that a journal was launched in 1958 is hardly relevant to an article published in 2004, and in any case you insist on lending additional credence to Thiele who published his views in 1951. (Your attempt at poisoning the well regarding JETS is at best no more pertinent than pointing out that Thiele was a 7th-day Adventist, but much less so unless you're suggesting Young wrote the first issue.) But it is good that you point out that Young has a background in computing and logic in addition to his biblical studies. Your actual change to the article wasn't too bad, though I've cleaned it up to more properly indicate Young's conclusion and sources. I have moved the fact that Young considered the biblical sources to that statement rather than having a separate 'disclaimer' at the end of the paragraph, and added that Young also considered neo-Babylonian sources for related events.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Jeffro77, you just don't get my point. I have nothing to apologise for. My heading (which I had to look up for, forgot about it) was "Jeffro77: "my way or the highway" not the way to go", and I still do stand behind it. My problem with you is that - unless pushed hard - you only present one side and eliminate everything else. And that side, or theory, no matter how sound it looks to you and maybe to me too, is not the accepted final truth, nor can it be (thank you for the Grabbe quotation btw), because it's not based on scholarly reliable sources. All the rest you got wrong, because you split hairs rather than get the general idea. Yes, the Bible is a source to a certain degree, but never a sufficient ultimate RS in the scholarly debate. Never. Because a) it was never meant to be a chronicle, and b) it's not a contemporary document, each part having been written Zeus knows when, redacted Apollo knows how many times, and the current canonical version includes Priapus knows how many scribal errors, may Hades have mercy on my shadow. If you present a case as if it were set in stone, then I'll do what any editor here should do, and amend it. That's good WP practice. On the talk-page I let out some of my frustration, but the article is what matters, so there I'm trying to be accurate and to the point. Take a balloon ride and look at things from above, the view can be revealing - and nice. And sorry for the potential offence if you're a Hellenic Neo-Polytheist. Arminden (talk) 05:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand the point you're trying to make. You're just wrong. I don't contend that my version of the article is necessarily 'best', nor have I been the only contributor to the article (nor was it me who added Bible verses as sources), though it has certainly been improved since the abomination it was before the first time I ever looked at it.[11] You've complained based on your own misunderstanding of the dating systems used in the various sources (e.g. edit summary: "why should Jeremiah be rather believed than 2 Kings, and Albright over Thiele? Any good reason?"). You've made personal attacks, including threats of banning because of your own failure to look under your own comments at Talk. You've accused me of 'original research', though adding 11 to a number is not 'original research', and I subsequently provided an additional source anyway. Your claim that I "only present one side and eliminate everything else" is demonstrably a lie, since I have quite clearly retained Thiele's conclusion and reasoning regarding 586 in the article. You've provided no sources that explain why 586 should (or could) be preferred, but only alluded to the fact that there are sources that still say it, though they are simply repeating a tradition from the 1950s that has since been disproven.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

We have a "Biblical narrative" section. A "Scientific research" section needs to follow.

The Nabuchadnezzar Chronicle, the assessment of the historicity of the three relevant biblical books, archaeological research in Jerusalem & Judah as well as in Babylon and elsewhere: what is the current state of knowledge? This was very much a historical event with huge long-term implications until this day, and the Hebrew Bible isn't the unquestioned source of all sources anymore. Arminden (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC).

It seems unlikely that we would need a "scientific research" section, which isn't the way other historical articles are treated, and the suggested presentation seems to be to provide a pointy contrast between "scientific" and "biblical". If at some point Neo-Babylonian records of the specific event are found, they would be added and presentation could be changed accordingly, but it still wouldn't be a "scientific research" section. That is not to say that a more suitably named section could not provide other information if available. If you have specific sources in mind, please provide them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Various events of the Neo-Babylonian period described in the Old Testament are corroborated by Neo-Babylonian sources (e.g. the first siege and primary exile in early 597 BCE). I'm not aware of any source contesting the fact that Jerusalem was subsequently destroyed by the Babylonians at all, and there is archeological confirmation that the city was destroyed, but dating methods (such as carbon 14 dating) are not so accurate that they would confirm a specific date. Whilst we do not currently have Neo-Babylonian attestation for the specific year that Jerusalem was destroyed, we do have corroboration from BM 21946 for the year of the initial siege and exile (Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, excluding accession year), and the Bible agrees with the dating of those events, providing references to the same year both including (2 Kings 24:12) and excluding (Jeremiah 52:28) accession years. The Bible's additional references to the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year (including accession year; 2 Kings 25:8, Jeremiah 52:12), corresponding to his 18th year excluding accession year (Jeremiah 52:29), 11 years after the initial siege are not outlandish, fanciful or 'unscientific' claims to be automatically dismissed simply because they are 'biblical'. The 'biblical' records in this case are no less reliable than the Neo-Babylonian records.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I have added a sentence to the lead making it more clear why the article presents a biblical narrative section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thiele

Thiele is a bit outdated. Find sources writing in the last 20 years or so. Achar Sva (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Arminden has complained that I haven't provided sources (despite the fact that I have), but has provided no sources that explain why 586 should (or could) be the correct year. Also, sources that simply mention 586 (or any other year) in passing are not sufficient to support the point. (Thiele and Albright are foundational to the subject generally, and they should not be removed as sources, but more recent sources should be added.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Is the aim of this article simply to set the dates for the siege?Achar Sva (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of the article is to present any suitably sourced information about the Babylonian siege that ended with Jerusalem’s destruction in Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year (18th year excluding accession year). Recent discussion at Talk has been in regard to whether greater prominence should be given to the view that the siege may have occurred in 586 rather than 587 but that isn’t the sole purpose of the article. If you have sources about other aspects of the siege that would benefit the article, they would be most welcome, particularly if you know of any secondary sources that discuss any extrabiblical accounts of the siege, archeological findings etc.—Jeffro77 (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolute carbon dates => 586 BC

Unless you can find faults in Boaretto's peer-reviewed work, like circular reasoning or smth else, it's confirming the 586 BC date: see here. Arminden (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Abstract: "... the historically secure stratigraphic horizon of the Babylonian destruction in 586 BC. The latter is verified by 100 single-ring measurements between 624 to 572 BC." Arminden (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

No. The study assumes 586 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem rather than identifying it as the specific year that Jerusalem was destroyed. Radiocarbon dating is not precise enough to specifically identify a single exact year, so whether the study were to assume 587 BCE or 586 BCE would not have any impact on its actual findings. It was not the purpose of the study to identify whether the correct year was 587 BCE or 586 BCE, and instead identifies certain samples in the layer that correlate to the period of Jerusalem's destruction at the end of Iron Age IIC. Though the article refers to the year of Jerusalem's destruction as 586 BCE (based on tradition), it was not a specific year identified by the dating methods used in the study. Similarly, the article makes no claim about other samples being dated to exact years, instead providing year ranges consistent with the precision of radiocarbon dating.--Jeffro77 Talk 09:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Table S6 on page 62 lists 15 samples that the study attributes to the layer of Jerusalem's destruction. Of those 15 samples, the precision margins given for the Libby Age does not allow for either 586 BCE or 587 BCE for 4 of the samples (RTD 9612 is too early, and RTD 10753, 9613 and 10755 are too late), allows for 587 BCE but not 586 BCE for one of the samples (RTD 10525, lower extent), and allows for either of the two years for the remaining samples.--Jeffro77 Talk 10:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

​What about the tree rings? You forgot to address "Babylonian destruction in 586 BC. The latter is verified by 100 single-ring measurements between 624 to 572 BC." VERY specific years, can't get more specific than that, and it's based on exactly dated natural phenomena. Looks like your 587 Crusade/activism has hit rock bottom, it's hard science with absolute dates vs relative dates & interpretatiins. Arminden (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No. The tree didn't have a date stamp on it. The relative dating for the tree rings is based on the assumption that Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BCE rather than 587 BCE. The tree rings are useful for indicating one year after the other, but are not a definitive indication of when the city was actually destroyed.--Jeffro77 Talk 10:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Your misrepresentation/misinterpretation of the study’s intent, methodology and findings is demonstrated by your misleading selective quotation from the abstract. The actual statement in question says “Using these sequences, we identify regional offsets in atmospheric 14C concentrations c. 720 BC, and in the historically secure stratigraphic horizon of the Babylonian destruction in 586 BC. The latter is verified by 100 single-ring measurements between 624 to 572 BC.” The latter period in question is “in the historically secure stratigraphic horizon of the Babylonian destruction in 586 BC” in contrast to the “atmospheric 14C concentrations c. 720 BC”. The tree rings confirm the period in the range around 624 BCE BCE to 572 BCE, but the selection of 586 BCE is just a traditional dating for the city’s destruction. The only absolute dating provided by the tree rings is that each ring represents a year, but the relative placement of the years assigned for the set of tree rings is not more precise than what is provided by C14 radiocarbon dating. Neither the abstract nor the full text study claims there was some more precise dating method used to identify 586 BCE.—Jeffro77 Talk 12:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)