[poll id=”18″]
You may also like
I am very (very) pleased to post my translation of Targum Ruth. It can be found here and the opening comments and […]
Share this:
This morning I received an email from Brill letting me know that my article “The Use of Eschatological Lists within the Targumim […]
Share this:
This is behind a pay wall and doesn’t reveal much that you don’t already know, but I thought I would note this […]
Share this:
The Diocese of Lexington (KY) is offering a 5-week “Spiritual Exercise” formation class. The live Zoom sessions started last week, but you […]
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.