Möchten Sie über diese Zeitschrift informiert bleiben? Klicken Sie bitte auf die Buttons, um unsere Alerts zu abonnieren.
Möchten Sie über diese Zeitschrift informiert bleiben? Klicken Sie bitte auf die Buttons, um unsere Alerts zu abonnieren.
The Dates of the 587/6â¯BCE Capture and Destruction of Jerusalem
in TextusSearch for other papers by Henk de Waard in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
The present article examines the dates of the 587/6â¯BCE capture and destruction of Jerusalem, which differ across the parallel accounts in 2â¯Kgs 24:18â25:21 and Jer 52:1â30. I argue that the Masoretic Text of Jer 52:6 gives the correct date of Jerusalemâs capture, even though the relevant phrase is a later insertion. In addition, I propose a new solution for the problem of the variant dates of the cityâs destruction. According to this solution, the original date has been preserved by 2â¯Kgs 25:8, while the date given in Jer 52:12 has been influenced by an incorrect assumption about the date of the capture.
Kauf
Sofortzugang erwerben (PDF-Download und unbegrenzter Online-Zugang):
Institutszugang
Melden Sie sich mit Open Athens, Shibboleth oder Ihren institutionellen Anmeldedaten an.
Persönliche Anmeldung
Melden Sie sich mit Ihrem brill.com-Konto an
| Insgesamt | Letzte 365 Tage | In den letzten 30 Tagen | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aufrufe von Kurzbeschreibungen | 644 | 87 | 4 |
| Gesamttextansichten | 46 | 6 | 0 |
| PDF-Downloads | 101 | 16 | 0 |
The Dates of the 587/6â¯BCE Capture and Destruction of Jerusalem
in TextusSearch for other papers by Henk de Waard in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
The present article examines the dates of the 587/6â¯BCE capture and destruction of Jerusalem, which differ across the parallel accounts in 2â¯Kgs 24:18â25:21 and Jer 52:1â30. I argue that the Masoretic Text of Jer 52:6 gives the correct date of Jerusalemâs capture, even though the relevant phrase is a later insertion. In addition, I propose a new solution for the problem of the variant dates of the cityâs destruction. According to this solution, the original date has been preserved by 2â¯Kgs 25:8, while the date given in Jer 52:12 has been influenced by an incorrect assumption about the date of the capture.
| Insgesamt | Letzte 365 Tage | In den letzten 30 Tagen | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aufrufe von Kurzbeschreibungen | 644 | 87 | 4 |
| Gesamttextansichten | 46 | 6 | 0 |
| PDF-Downloads | 101 | 16 | 0 |
