[poll id=”18″]
You may also like
I will be preaching Sunday evening and I was looking over the lectionary for the day. It is Proper 20 Year C following the […]
Share this:
As usual, it is probably better heard than read. The audio is here. Proper 23 (28) (October 9, 2016) First reading and […]
Share this:
A long title. I shall have to find a shorter version, but it gets at the challenge we often find in Targumic […]
Share this:
It is well known to those who give the Book of Ruth even a cursory reading that Boaz is older than Ruth […]
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.