Archaeologists reconstructed the burning of Jerusalem in 586 BCE
1–10 of 22 posts
Re: Archaeologists reconstructed the burning of Jerusalem in 586 BCE
#2Awesome, it is crazy to be an archeologist these days! But you need to have a lot of patience before you discover something to apply the existing technology.
Re: Archaeologists reconstructed the burning of Jerusalem in 586 BCE
#3Re: Archaeologists reconstructed the burning of Jerusalem in 586 BCE
#4I find it jarring that the article says there’s no historical account other than the one from the Bible, but then gets into detailed geopolitical dynamics which I’m going to guess is not in the Bible.
Re: Archaeologists reconstructed the burning of Jerusalem in 586 BCE
#5I find it jarring that the article says there’s no historical account other than the one from the Bible, but then gets into detailed geopolitical dynamics which I’m going to guess is not in the Bible.
[1] https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/2023-08-21/ty-article-ma...
[2] https://archive.is/kZ9QL (2017)
[3] https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/2023-07-02/ty-article/is...
Re: Archaeologists reconstructed the burning of Jerusalem in 586 BCE
#6I find it jarring that the article says there’s no historical account other than the one from the Bible, but then gets into detailed geopolitical dynamics which I’m going to guess is not in the Bible.
2 Chronicles 36 outlines this stuff almost directly.
Re: Archaeologists reconstructed the burning of Jerusalem in 586 BCE
#7Re: Archaeologists reconstructed the burning of Jerusalem in 586 BCE
#8[flagged]
Re: Archaeologists reconstructed the burning of Jerusalem in 586 BCE
#9I find it jarring that the article says there’s no historical account other than the one from the Bible, but then gets into detailed geopolitical dynamics which I’m going to guess is not in the Bible.
I agree the presentation of the article was a bit sloppy, but there's evidence from Babylonian records[2] that
1) Judah was a client state of Babylon during Nebuchadnezzar II's reign
2) Jerusalem was sieged in 597BC
3) Afterwards Babylon installed a client king
The Babylonian records are weak but it is consistent with the Hebrew Bible[3] and agrees with the archeological evidence. Sadly we don't have Babylonian records of any second siege of Jerusalem. So it is reasonable to treat the Hebrew Bible story of the second siege as being a plausible treatment of the history, partially validated by the recent archeological evidence.
[1] https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09b24.htm#1 and https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09b25.htm#1 for instance
[2] E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_Chronicle
[3] https://www.biblica.com/bible/?osis=niv:2%20Kings%2024:10%E2...
Re: Archaeologists reconstructed the burning of Jerusalem in 586 BCE
#10[flagged]