[poll id=”18″]
You may also like
Who made these up? Why is it that biblical book abbreviations do not have periods and are not italicized but rabbinic works […]
Share this:
I am trying to finally knock out this article and as is often the case the introduction is proving the greatest challenge. […]
Share this:
I finally got around to posting the transcription I made years ago of TgLam for my doctorate and the subsequent book. The text is […]
Share this:
I am in the final stages of preparing my paper on the transformation of the character of Ruth in her Targum and […]
6 thoughts on “Poll: You tell me, was it 587 BCE or 586 BCE?”
I love that your question about this on Twitter a couple of days back is ranking higher than a Wikipedia page!
http://skitch.com/samharrelson/bdtsp/586-or-587-bce-google-search
Oh, and 587.
Now THAT is the measure of success! Thanks for posting this Sam:
By the way, this discussion from the b-Hebrew list that comes up in the Google search is actually pretty good.
So… the question is… to believe Wikipedia (587 BCE) or the Jewish Virtual Library (586 BCE)? When I entered your question in Google search, it gave me http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/The_Temple.html as the first ranked page.
Coincidentally that follows the scholarship in that older works say 586 (Telushkin as cited by JVL) and more recent scholarship that uses 587 (Wiki).
All of my student handouts say 587/586 BCE. Don’t even get me started about Solomon’s date.