[poll id=”18″]
You may also like
Non Sequitur had this comic today. Non Sequitur by Wiley There are, of course, so many things that could be said here. […]
Share this:
I am still testing this plugin and I thought for this test I would put my SBL paper from 2006 where I […]
Share this:
UPDATE: See my comment on the end about suitability for children. My wife and daughter, knowing that I love comics and cartoons, […]
Share this:
I will attending the Seventy-First International Meeting of the Catholic Biblical Associate of America at Fordham in two weeks. Anyone else going? […]
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.