Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC)

Merge

To simplify the chronology discrepancies, may i suggest a merge?--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

597 or 598 BC?

The month of Chislev (Nov-Dec) of the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar is 599 BC, and the fall of Jerusalem is Addar the following year (598 BC). How is it then that the siege is dated to 597 BC? Cornelius (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Erroneous Topic-wide Chronology

Historical Events

• King Jehoiakim becomes a vassal to Babylon. (2 Kings 24:1)

1st siege of Jerusalem (iSOJ)

• King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon besieges Jerusalem during which King Jehoiakim dies and his son, Jehoiachin succeeds him as king. (Daniel 1:1,2; 2 Kings 24:6)

2nd siege of Jerusalem (iiSOJ)

• Three months later, King Nebuchadnezzar again besieges Jerusalem. King Jehoiachin is exiled to Babylon along with the royal family, nobles, soldiers and craftsmen. (2 King 24:10,15)
• Nebuchadnezzar installs Zedekiah, Jehoiachin’s uncle, as king. (2 Chronicles 36:9,10)

Final siege against Jerusalem (FSOJ)

• King Zedekiah rebels against Babylon and allies with Egypt. (Ezekiel 17:15)
• King Nebuchadnezzar besieges Jerusalem. (2 Kings 25:1)
• Egypt’s movements cause Babylon to lift it’s siege. (Jeremiah 37:5)
• Upon repelling the Egyptians Babylon resumes it’s assault on Jerusalem. (Jeremiah 37:7,8,9,10)
• Jerusalem falls, is razed and burned to the ground. (2 Kings 25:8,9,10)

Controversy over the precise date of FSOJ continues to make the absolute dating of this event as well as iSOJ and iiSOJ problematic.

Now, according to the Cyrus Cyllinder, King Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylon in October 539 B.C.E.. Cyrus’ first regal year began in the spring of 538 B.C.E. This means that the Jews would be back in their homeland by October 537 B.C.E. or “the seventh month (Tishri)” as Ezra 3:1 states. Since this date for Israel’s repatriation after its seven decade exile in Babylon is based on the pivotal year of 539 B.C.E, and is, therefore, authoritative, this makes:

1. Ab 607 BCE the legitimate year for FSOJ
2. 617 BCE the year for 2SOJ and
3. 618 BCE the year for 1SOJ

Given the whole host of articles pertaining to this period in ancient Jewish history that need to be corrected to these dates, I kindly solicit your help to make these changes effective as soon as possible. I welcome any and all efforts to make this coordinated effort as smooth and efficient as possible, thanks! Maxximiliann (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop trying to push your religious views on Wikipedia.

Despite your poor appeal to authority of the Cyrus Cylinder, it says nothing at all about the Jews returning the year after Cyrus' decree. Josephus and Ezra indicate that construction of the temple foundations began in Cyrus' second year, and that the Jews were in their homeland the year before, which was 538. Beyond that, the 70 years weren't a period of exile, but were a period during which all the surrounding nations were subject to Babylon.

Comparison of 2 Kings and Jeremiah with BM 21946 not only confirms the secular chronology, but also shows the JW chronology to be impossible:

• BM 21946 provides a continuous year-by-year record of Nebuchadnezzar's activities, and shows Nebuchadnezzar returning to the 'Hatti-land' straight after his enthronement. However, the JW chronology has Nebuchadnezzar doing 'a lot of nothing' from his enthronement up until 620 BCE.
• With the JW's 20-year 'adjustment', Nebuchadnezzar's 601 BCE attack on Egypt should be moved to 621 BCE. However, 621 BCE falls before their reckoning of when Jehoiakim began paying tribute. This is problematic for the JW chronology because Josephus gives the attack on Egypt as the reason for Jehoiakim's refusal to pay tribute after three years. ("But on the third year, upon hearing that the king of Babylon made an expedition against the Egyptians, he did not pay tribute," Antiquities of the Jews, Book X, Chapter 6.) If the attack on Egypt is placed in 619 BCE, such that the subsequent request for Jehoiakim's tribute were made on Nebuchadnezzar's return to Babylon in early 618 BCE, this would mean Jehoiakim's refusal to pay would fall in the second year of paying tribute rather than the third. This would suggest that the attack on Egypt would have to have been in 618 BCE. However, BM 21946 (rows 5 to 7 on the reverse) places the attack on Egypt in Kislev (December), at the same time the JW chronology says Nebuchadnezzar was laying siege to Jerusalem.
• Adjusting for the 20-year gap in JW chronology, Nebuchadnezzar's demand for tribute from Jehoiakim in his accession year should be placed in 624 BCE. However, they will not admit there was a siege on Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, despite both BM 21946 (rows 12 and 13 on the front) and Berossus attesting to Nebuchadnezzar's presence in the region to demand tribute in Sebat (February 604 BCE). Instead, they state that Jehoiakim was "compelled" to pay tribute (without acknowledging that this was to curtail a siege) in what they claim was 'really' Nebuchadnezzar's 'first year of Jehoiakim's vassalage', which they place in 620 BCE.
• The JW chronology constrains the period for which Jehoiakim paid tribute from early 620 BCE to mid-618 BCE (about 2.5 years). This contradicts BM 21946 (rows 12, 13, and 15 to 17 on the front, and rows 1 to 5 on the reverse), which places Nebuchadnezzar in the region to exact tributes on various occasions, from his accession year through to his fourth year, which should be 625 BCE (early 624 BCE) until 621 BCE when adjusting for the JW's 20-year gap. Their alternative chronology further contradicts BM 21946 (row 8 on the reverse), which says Nebuchadnezzar stayed in Babylon during his fifth year (620 BCE in JW chronology).
• In addition to the problems the JW chronology causes regarding the reason for which Jehoiakim refused to pay tribute after three years, it also creates further problems for the timing of events between Jehoiakim's refusal to pay and the siege that resulted in most of the Jews being exiled to Babylon in 597 BCE. 2 Kings 24:2 states that in between these two events, various "marauder bands" of "Chaldeans", "Syrians", "Moabites" and "the sons of Ammon" attacked Judah. BM 21946 (rows 9 and 10 on the reverse) states that Nebuchadnezzar sent these "companies" in his sixth year, which—after adjusting for the extra 20 years in JW chronology—should be 619 BCE. However they constrain these "marauder bands" to the latter half of 618 BCE—which would be Nebuchadnezzar's seventh year in their interpretation—when BM 21946 (row 11 on the reverse) says the siege itself took place. BM 21946 (rows 6 to 10 on the reverse) places three full years between the attack on Egypt and the siege on Jerusalem, but the JW chronology forces all these events into late 618 BCE.

It is therefore sufficient to say that the JW view is not compatible with the known facts of the matter, and should not be included at Wikipedia articles about historical subjects.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

False. Your exegesis of Jeremiah 25:25 is specious, puerile. Verses 12-14 & 17-26 lists those who would suffer Jehovah God's judgment; 'drink from his cup of the wine of his rage.' (25:15,16) It most certainly does not assert what you mendaciously allege. As I've already explicated, the seventy years of desolation Jerusalem had to experience was precisely that. (2 Chronicles 36:20,21; Jeremiah 25:12; Zechariah 1:12; Daniel 9:2; Zechariah 7:5; Jeremiah 29:10) Nowhere is this figure presented as allegorical or figurative in any way, shape or form.

I didn't even mention Jeremiah 25:25 here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Withal, you just finished stating, "Josephus and Ezra indicate that construction of the temple foundations began in Cyrus' second year, and that the Jews were in their homeland the year before, which was 538." At worst this would put the desolation of Jerusalem at 608 BCE, nowhere near the figures you're trying to push.

In effect, you're repudiating your own argument for a later date, therefore, your entire confused argument is laid bare for what it is, pure sophistry. —Maxximiliann talk 02:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You're drawing incorrect and irrelevant conclusions about the beginning of the '70 years', and you conferring your own interpretation of the 70 years onto what I've said doesn't mean that 'I' have 'repudiated my own argument'. There is considerable evidence that 597 is the correct year for the siege when Zedekiah was appointed king and that 587 is the correct year for Jerusalem's destruction. The assertions about 70 years of exile beginning in 607 BCE are not supported by any sources not associated with numerology of the Bible Student movement and related denominations, including Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect? Really? Here, pull out your calculator and follow along: 537 + 70 = ??? Incorrect indeed ... —Maxximiliann talk 00:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Your selected end point is the wrong event for the period in question, and also the wrong year for the event you've selected. Seriously, just stop.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Argumentum assertio. Sorry, try again. —Maxximiliann talk 00:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of distortions in the 'history' presented by Maxximiliann at the beginning of this section. Errors marked in red. Additional details in green. Historical Events

• King Jehoiakim becomes a vassal to Babylon. (Daniel 1:1,2; 2 Kings 24:1) The JW chronology distorts Daniel 1:1 to refer to 'vassalage' rather than Jehoiakim's reign; the verse refers to events in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim (without counting his accession year); BM 21946 indicates this in early 604 BCE
• Jehoiakim is vassal to Babylon for three years (2 Kings 24:1); BM 21946 indicate this period to be from 604 BCE until Nebuchadnezzar's failed attack on Egypt in 601 BCE
• Jerusalem is attacked by various groups (2 Kings 24:2); BM 21946 indicates that Nebuchadnezzar sent these groups in 599 BCE

1st siege of Jerusalem (iSOJ)

• King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon besieges Jerusalem during which King Jehoiakim dies and his son, Jehoiachin succeeds him as king. (Daniel 1:1,2; 2 Kings 24:6) BM 21946 indicates this siege beginning in late 598 BCE

2nd siege of Jerusalem (iiSOJ)

• Three months later, King Nebuchadnezzar again besieges Jerusalem. King Jehoiachin is exiled to Babylon along with the royal family, nobles, soldiers and craftsmen. (2 King 24:10,15) The sieges Maxximiliann calls "iSOJ" and "iiSOJ" are the same siege, which lasted for a little over three months. BM 21946 indicates that it ended in early 597 BCE.
• Nebuchadnezzar installs Zedekiah, Jehoiachin’s uncle, as king. (2 Chronicles 36:9,10)

The alternative chronology offered by Maxximiliann is the theological opinion of Jehovah's Witnesses, but is not compatible with the known facts of the period, and therefore should not be used as a basis in historical articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

According to the Cyrus Cyllinder, King Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylon in October 539 B.C.E.. Cyrus’ first regal year began in the spring of 538 B.C.E. This means that the Jews would be back in their homeland by October 537 B.C.E. or “the seventh month (Tishri)” as Ezra 3:1 states. Since this date for Israel’s repatriation after its seven decade exile in Babylon is based on the pivotal year of 539 B.C.E, and is, therefore, authoritative, this makes:

1. Ab 607 BCE the legitimate year for FSOJ
2. 617 BCE the year for 2SOJ and
3. 618 BCE the year for 1SOJ

It's all elementary arithmetic, really. —Maxximiliann talk 00:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The fall of Babylon in 539 BCE is not in dispute. Most sources indicate 538 for the return of the Jews, however your dogmatic selection of 537 is irrelevant, as the 70 years ended in 539 when the nations were no longer serving Babylon. Further, it has already been demonstrated that historical sources absolutely do not fit the alternative theological opinion of history that you are pushing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Argumentum assertio. I've already explicated ad nauseum why your exegesis is grossly fallacious. —Maxximiliann talk 02:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not 'my exegesis'. The entire Neo-Babylonian period is extremely well attested by secular sources, including extant Babylonian records from the period.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Year Notion to Common Era - Title and Date Format Change

The title of this article should be changed to Siege of Jerusalem (597 BCE), and the dates within the article should be changed from BC->BCE and AD->CE to reflect neutral academic terminology of the Common Era that does not carry with it any religious or ethnocentric bias.

As this article has nothing to do with Christianity or Christian-influenced Western culture, there is no reason for the date notion to ve based around the birth of Christ (BC meaning Before Christ and AD Anno Domini, Latin for "in the year of our Lord."). Also because this article is related to another religion, Judaism, I believe it is extra important for there to be religious objectivity, making Before the Common Era/Common Era the appropriate choice.

According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, chronological notation can be changed when it makes sense for the article. While it gives specific examples of when to use to Julian or Gregorian calendar, early societies in the Near East are not explicitly stated. Using BCE/CE also follows the standards set by the majority of leading manuals of style including those for Encyclopædia Britannica, American National Biography, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, MLA, Chicago Manual of Style, AP Stylebook, and more.

My previous edits reflect this change in date format in the articles.016bells (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@016bells: The guidance at MOS:ERA states: An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content. Are you contending that since this is a First Temple period Judaic history article, it should use BCE? Mojoworker (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mojoworker: I see this as valid specific reasons to its content to make the change according to the rules, in that it is overtly biased to frame one religion in the chronological context of an entirely separate religion because it reinforces religious hegemony, with one religion being implicitly noted as dominant over the other. In this case the religion being dominated by Christian framing happens to be Judaism, but I think this should apply to articles relating to any other religion. Maybe some people aren't aware of the way rhetorical strategies have implications... 016bells (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@016bells: Then your next step is to open a Requested Move discussion here by following the instructions at WP:RM#CM. Mojoworker (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

References