Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] First temple destroyed 586 or 587 BCE?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] First temple destroyed 586 or 587 BCE?
  • Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:51:43 +0200

Dear Liz,

The reason why I sent my first post was not to argue for a particular date or to defend the information of the Tanakh against other sources. But it was to point out two common methodological flaws in modern scholarship: 1) Scholars are too often chewing cud on the opinions of earlier scholars, who were chewing cud on the opinions of earlier scholars, and so on...instead of going to the sources, and 2) Scholars who defend a viewpoint or a theory too often look for, and use data that confirm their position and overlook contradictory data. By following either of these points the real problems of a situation may be overlooked.

Applied to the exile we have the following situation as far as chronology is concerned:

There are only two astronomical diaries (cuneiform tablets with astronomical observations connected with particular regnal years of a king) by which an absolute chronology of the New Babylonian Empire and the first part of the Acheamenid Empire can can be constructed. The first one is Strm Cambys 400, which is connected with Kambyses' 7th year (traditionally 523 B.C.E.), and the second is VAT 4956, conneted with Nebuchadnezar's 37th year (traditionally568 B.C.E.). Many tablets, on the basis of which a relative chronology can be made, seem to confirm the chronology of the mentioned diaries, and this is the accepted chronology. Less known (because nobody has systematically looked for them) are all the tablets that contradict the traditional chronology-but that is not my point here.

My point is that there is a third chronological source, namely the Tanakh, which must be dealt with, i.e., empirically this source exists, and a researcher must take a standpoint regarding this source in one way or another. Two passages dealing with the question are Daniel 9:2 and 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21. If we treat these passages according to the normal rules of lexicon, grammar, and syntax, they say that Jerusalem and Juda was a desolate waste for a full 70 years, and the consequence of this is that one of the three sources must give wrong information.

The wrong way to handle this situation, though this is the rule rather than the exception, is to say: "Archaeology has shown that a 70-year desolation is impossible, so these words must be wrong". A scholar may, after a study of the data, reach the same conclusion, but to conclude before one has made a linguistic and philological analysis would be rather weak. Few persons have made such a linguisitc study; if fact, I am only aware of one scholarly study with a linguistic analysis of the mentioned passages during the last fifty years. A balanced study will also include a linguistic and philological study of VAT 4956 and StrmKambys.

So what I am calling for are independent studies of the sources, particularly linguisitc ones, where scholars do not only follow the traditional and accepted viewpoints, but ask critical questions, and particularly look for contradictory evidence.

Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo




Lisbeth S. Fried wrote:

Dear All,
I have argued for the date 586 for the destruction of the temple in
an excursus on the Jubilee year in Milgrom's commentary on Leviticus Part III that I wrote with Noel Freedman.
I went into all the sources that I could, but I didn't re-evaluate P&D. I am confident that the date is 586 based on cuneiform and biblical
sources.
In a separate article I suggest that the 70 years refers to the time between the destruction of the temple in 586 and its dedication in 516. It should not be taken as a firm date however. Zechariah speaks
of the 70 years of exile in the 2nd year of Darius and again in his
fourth year.
Best,
Liz
Lisbeth S. Fried, Ph. D.
Department of Near Eastern Studies
University of Michigan
2068 Frieze Bldg.
105 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1285 וישובו איש תחת גפנו ותחת תאנתו ואין מחריד
כי פי יהוה צבאות דבר



-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-
bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Yigal Levin
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 5:51 PM
To: b-hebrew
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] First temple destroyed 586 or 587 BCE?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Costa" <tmcos AT rogers.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] First temple destroyed 586 or 587 BCE?



Dear Rolf, the 2nd Temple was rebuilt in 515 BCE. If we take 586/587 BCE

as the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon to the rebuilding of the 2nd
Temple we have a figure of 70 years .


That's one way of looking at it. Another is that the 70 years began with

the

exile of Jehoiachin (see Ezekiel 1:1-2), which was in 597, or even with

the

death of Josiah in 609, which is 70 years before the conquest of Babylon

by

Cyrus.

(I actually agree with Tony)

Yigal






The Temple and its function was integral to the city of Jerusalem, not
necessarily the city itself. Are there any scholars who hold to the

position

you take that the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians occurred in 609 BCE
which I believe is the date you are proposing?

Tony Costa

Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no> wrote:

I have not read this article, but I have done extensive research
regarding the date of the fall of Jerusalem, and have published a
thorough analysis of the biblical material. If we accept that Babylon
was conquered by Cyrus in 539 B.C.E. and take the biblical passages
dealing with the question at face value, I see no way to accept 587 as
the date for the fall of Jerusalem. This date gives room for only 50
years for the exile, but I cannot see how we can avoid accepting a 70
year exile while Jerusalem was *a desolate waste* if we apply the
normal use of lexicon, grammar and syntax to the pertinent biblical
passages.




Best regards

Rolf Furuli

University of Oslo





Tony Costa

"But I do not consider my life of any account
as dear to myself, so that I may finish my course and the
ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify
solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God." (Acts 20:24)
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew



_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page