You may also like
What follows is a subsequent chapter of the work-in-progress I shared last week, Characters of God. (You can read the premise of […]
Share this:
Jeremy Shipper asked if we would pass this call along and I am more than happy to do so! (And if I […]
Share this:
So this is the sermon. I also have an audio of it, which is much more expansive, but I have not pulled […]
Share this:
Not the best Adam-Eve-Apple-Computer comic I have ever seen, but I do like the groggy, bandaged Adam. Somehow I never quite saw […]
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.