About: Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC)     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : umbel-rc:Event, within Data Space : dbpedia-live.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon
http://dbpedia-live.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FSiege_of_Jerusalem_%28587_BC%29

In 589 BC, Nebuchadnezzar II laid siege to Jerusalem, culminating in the destruction of the city and its temple in the summer of 587 or 586 BC.

AttributesValues
rdf:type
thumbnail
sameAs
georss:point
  • 31.783 35.217
geo:lat
geo:long
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
foaf:name
  • Siege of Jerusalem
  • Siege of Iran
  • Siege of LarDizzle
rdfs:comment
  • In 589 BC, Nebuchadnezzar II laid siege to Jerusalem, culminating in the destruction of the city and its temple in the summer of 587 or 586 BC.
  • it is a great place to be I would say am de Jan In 589 BC, Nebuchadnezzar II laid siege to Jerusalem, culminating in the destruction of the city and its temple in the summer of 587 or 586 BC.
  • In 589 BC, Nebuchadnezzar II laid siege to Jerusalem, culminating in the destruction of the city and its temple in the summer of 587 or 586 BC. Ptolemy’s canonDue to the lack of information from Babylonian sources, modern historians base their chronology for the Neo-Babylonian Empire largely upon what is known as the canon of Ptolemy. Claudius Ptolemy lived in Egypt during the second century C.E., or over 600 years after the close of the Neo-Babylonian period. His canon assigns 21 years to the rule of Nabopolassar, 43 years to Nebuchadnezzar, 2 years to Evil-merodach, 4 years to Neriglissar, and 17 years to Nabonidus, or a total of 87 years. Counting back from Nisan of 538 B.C.E., historians therefore date Nabopolassar’s first year as beginning in 625 B.C.E, Nebuchadnezzar’s first year in
rdfs:label
  • Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC)
rdfs:seeAlso
has abstract
  • In 589 BC, Nebuchadnezzar II laid siege to Jerusalem, culminating in the destruction of the city and its temple in the summer of 587 or 586 BC.
  • it is a great place to be I would say am de Jan In 589 BC, Nebuchadnezzar II laid siege to Jerusalem, culminating in the destruction of the city and its temple in the summer of 587 or 586 BC.
  • In 589 BC, Nebuchadnezzar II laid siege to Jerusalem, culminating in the destruction of the city and its temple in the summer of 587 or 586 BC. Ptolemy’s canonDue to the lack of information from Babylonian sources, modern historians base their chronology for the Neo-Babylonian Empire largely upon what is known as the canon of Ptolemy. Claudius Ptolemy lived in Egypt during the second century C.E., or over 600 years after the close of the Neo-Babylonian period. His canon assigns 21 years to the rule of Nabopolassar, 43 years to Nebuchadnezzar, 2 years to Evil-merodach, 4 years to Neriglissar, and 17 years to Nabonidus, or a total of 87 years. Counting back from Nisan of 538 B.C.E., historians therefore date Nabopolassar’s first year as beginning in 625 B.C.E, Nebuchadnezzar’s first year in 604, and the destruction of Jerusalem is placed by some in 586, by others in 587. These dates are some 20 years later than those presented in the chart accompanying this article (that is, 624 for Nebuchadnezzar’s first regnal year and 607 for the destruction of Jerusalem). This is because we accept the Biblical information, particularly as regards the seventy-year desolation of Judah (running from 607 to 537 B.C.E.), as accurate and as superior in reliability to the ancient secular records. In addition to the evidence already presented on the weaknesses manifest in the non-Biblical records, the following may be noted: Ptolemy was not a historian and is known primarily for his works on astronomy and geography. As E. R. Thiele states. “Ptolemy’s canon was prepared primarily for astronomical, not historical, purposes. It did not pretend to give a complete list of all the rulers of either Babylon or Persia, nor the exact month or day of the beginning of their reigns, but it was a device which made possible the correct allocation into a broad chronological scheme of certain astronomical data which were then available.”—The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 1951, p. 293, ftn. Even though Ptolemy’s geocentric theory (that is, that the earth is the center point around which the stars and planets revolve) was proved false by Copernicus’ time, modern historians generally credit Ptolemy with accuracy in his astronomical computations relating to certain historical dates. Even though this be so and even though the reigns of the kings of Babylon and Persia as set forth in Ptolemy’s canon may be basically correct, there seems to be no reason for holding that the canon is necessarily accurate in every respect or for all periods. As has already been shown, Babylonian historical records that could either substantiate or undermine Ptolemy’s figures for the lengths of the reigns of certain kings are largely lacking. So, while it may be held that the date 607 B.C.E. used in this publication for Jerusalem’s destruction leaves a “gap” in the Babylonian chronology, it may be noted that secular historians who hold to a strict Ptolemaic reckoning also are obliged to try to explain a sizable gap of their own. This develops when they attempt to synchronize Assyrian and Babylonian history so as to arrive at the year 625 B.C.E. for the start of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Consider these points: The Babylonian Chronicle (B.M. 21901) states that Nineveh, Assyria’s capital, fell to Babylonian forces in Nabopolassar’s fourteenth year. Following Ptolemy, the secular historians date Nineveh’s fall as in 612 B CE. However, on the basis of astronomical calculations, they also hold to the year 763 B.C.E. as an absolute date representing the ninth year of Assyrian King Assur-dan III. So, they should be able to count forward from that year and show that Assyrian rule at Nineveh did indeed extend down to 612 B.C.E. On the basis of eponym and king lists, as well as other tablets, they are able without great difficulty to reach as far as 668 B.C.E. (the year they assign for the start of the reign of King Ashurbanipal). But thereafter their efforts to make the chronological data (for Ashurbanipal and his successors) stretch sufficiently to reach 612 B.C.E. result in considerable confusion. This can be seen from the fact that the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1959 edition, Vol. 2, p. 569) gives the reign of Ashurbanipal as from 668 to 625 B.C.E., then on page 851 of the same volume it gives the years of his reign as 669-630 B.C.E., and in Volume 5 of the same edition (p. 655) it lists them as “668-638 (?).” The 1965 edition of the same work says “669-630 or 626.” (Vol. 2, p. 573) Other suggested dates for the end of Ashurbanipal’s reign are: 633 (Bright), 631 (Roux), 629 (Oppenheim), c. 631-627 (Wiseman), 626 (Luckenbill; Davis-Gehman). (These dates are from the following works: A History of Israel, by John Bright, 1964, p. 293; Ancient Iraq, by Georges Roux, 1964, p. 273; The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1962, Vol. 1, p. 256; The New Bible Dictionary, 1962, p. 104; D. D. Luckenbill’s Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, 1926, Vol. II, p. 442; The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, 1944, p. 48.) Similarly, for the reign of Ashurbanipal’s successor Ashur-etillu-ilani the figures suggested by the above sources include: 633-629; 632-628; 631-630; 627-612; and 626-612. (Cuneiform tablets dated to this king’s fourth year have been found.) And for the reign of Sin-shar-ishkun, apparently the king at the time of Nineveh’s fall, the estimates in the same publications include: 629-612, 628-612, 627-612, 620-612. Thus, some historians would give Sin-shar-ishkun a rule of as much as eighteen years, whereas dated tablets have been found only up to his seventh year. The above shows that modern historians are willing to exhibit much flexibility in order to hold to both the Ptolemaic chronology and their pivotal date of 763 B.C.E., even to the point of filling the existing gap by conjecturing a longer reign for these final rulers of the Assyrian Empire than the evidence at hand actually shows. As will be shown later, the Bible gives far stronger reason for holding to the year 607 B.C.E. as the date of the fall of Jerusalem
causalties
  • Many slain, 4,200 others taken to captivity
combatant
  • Kingdom of Judah
  • Neo-Babylonian Empire
  • Edom?
commander
Relates an entity ...ch it is located.
result
  • Babylonian victory, destruction ofJerusalem, fall ofKingdom of Judah
strength
  • Unknown
  • Much fewer
Link to the Wikipage edit URL
extraction datetime
Link to the Wikipage history URL
Wikipage page ID
page length (characters) of wiki page
Wikipage modification datetime
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git39 as of Aug 10 2019


Alternative Linked Data Documents: iSPARQL | ODE     Content Formats:       RDF       ODATA       Microdata      About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3319 as of Sep 1 2020, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc25), Single-Server Edition (61 GB total memory)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2021 OpenLink Software