When was the first Temple destroyed, according to the Bible?

Abstract

This article deals with the contradiction between 2 Kgs 25 and Jer 52 regarding the date on which the First Temple was destroyed. Comparing the descriptions of the destruction in Kings and in Jeremiah shows that the two descriptions were borrowed from a common third source. In our view, this common third source is better preserved in Jeremiah 52 than in 2 Kings 25. We therefore deduce that Jeremiah 52 preserves the more exact date of the Temple's destruction: the tenth of Ab. This claim is based on the fact that the description of the destruction in Kings is in any case truncated, and is therefore likely that it contains the textual corruptions as opposed to Jeremiah.

Full text

(1)All Biblical references in this paper are according to the RSV.
(2) E.g. O. THENIUS, Die Bücher der Könige (Leipzig 1873) 474.
(3) J. SKINNER, I & II Kings (The Century Bible; Edinburgh 1893) 254.
(4) See the bibliography cited in D.J.A. CLINES, “Regnal Year Reckoning in the Last
Years of the Kingdom of Judah”, On the Way to the Postmodern. Old Testament Essays
When Was the First Temple Destroyed,
According to the Bible?
When was the first Temple destroyed, according to the Bible? We find two
contradictory answers to this question, one in 2 Kgs 25,7-8, and the other in
Jer 52,12(1).
Jer 52,12-13 2
In the fifth month, on the tenth day of
the month, which was the nineteenth
year of King Nebuchadrezzar, king of
Babylon, Nebuzaradan… burned the
house of the LORD
Kgs 25,8-9
In the fifth month, on the seventh day of
the month, which was the nineteenth
year of King Nebuchadnezzar, king of
Babylon, Nebuzaradan… burned the
house of the LORD
This problem is connected to the larger issue of the relationship between
the destruction narrative in 2 Kgs 25 and that in Jer 52. This article will
suggest a solution to this problem, after examining the different textual
witnesses to Kings and to Jeremiah, and the different attempts scholars have
made to resolve the contradiction.
1. Textual Solutions
According to one group of scholars, differences between the Kings
version and the Jeremiah version regarding the date of the Temple’s
destruction derive from a textual corruption(2).According to one approach,
the earliest text gave the date as the seventh, and later copyists of Jeremiah
accidentally omitted part of the letter shin, and read ayin in its stead. The text
of Kings had the abbreviation bet-shin for the word “on the seventh”, and read
instead bet-ayin, “on the tenth.” Another approach sees the source of the error
as the copying of bet-zayin (on the seventh) instead of bet-yod (on the tenth).
Skinner explains that “[T]he Hebrews marked their numbers by letters
[...] there is great similarity between many of the letters in their alphabet” (3).
These proposals assume that the textual corruption occurred when the
modern Hebrew alphabet was in use, and are not relevant to paleo-Hebrew.
There is no concrete evidence in textual witnesses or manuscripts for
Skinner’s proposal.
2. Chronological Solutions
Some scholars, who dealt with the chronology of the monarchic period,
recorded both of the dates mentioned without coming down on one side or the
other(4).

When Was the First Temple Destroyed 563
Other scholars suggest solving the contradiction between Kings and
Jeremiah by positing that the chronologies used in the two books differ:
according to one chronological system the year began at Nisan while
according to the other system — at Tishri(5). These scholars dealt primarily
with the differences between Kings and Jeremiah in regard to the regnal years
of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 25,8; Jer 52,29), but did not discuss the
contradictory dates of the Temple’s destruction.
3. The Relationship between 2 Kgs 25 and Jer 52 and Its Contribution to the
Solution of the Problem
In order to decide between the date of destruction given in Kings’ version
and that in Jeremiah, we must address a broader question: Did the author of
Kings borrow the description from Jeremiah, or vice-versa? Or, perhaps, did
both of them borrow from a third source?
Jer 52 is generally considered to be a “historical appendix” which was
added to the book of Jeremiah in order to demonstrate that Jeremiah’s
prophecies were realized(6). According to this view, Jeremiah originally
ended at 51,64.
Some scholars hold the view that Jeremiah took the material relating to
the Temple’s destruction from Kings(7). In this view, the relationship between
Isa 36–39 and 2 Kgs 18–20 can be explained in a similar way. This approach
also relies on the fact that the description in the LXX is shorter than that in the
MT(8).
Another view is that the author of Kings took the material from Jeremiah,
since in Jeremiah the description, which also includes the story of the murder
of Gedaliah (Jer 40–41), is much more detailed(9).
R.F. Person(10) sees Jer 52 as a greatly expanded version of an older
version, which is reflected in the LXX. The text in Jeremiah was adapted to
fit that of Kings. The author of Jeremiah took the text from Kings but did not
abbreviate it; rather, he made it fit Jeremiah, added explanations, and
1967-1998 (JSOTSS 292; Sheffield 1998) I, 395-425. See also G. GALIL, The Chronology
of the Kings of Israel and Judah (Leiden – New York 1996) 118, 158.
(5)For bibliography see CLINES, “Regnal Year”.
(6) See W. MCKANE, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah (ICC;
Edinburgh 1996) II, clxxii.
(7) See W.L. HOLLADAY, Jeremiah 2 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia 1989) 439; C.R. SEITZ,
Theology in Conflict. Reactions to the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah (BZAW 176; Berlin
– New York 1989) 165, 197, 268. On the relationship between Jer 39, Jer 52, and 2 Kgs 25
see G. FISCHER, “Jeremia 52 – ein Schlüssel zum Jeremiabuch”, Biblica 79 (1998) 338,
354-355.
(8) G. JANZEN, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (Cambridge, MA 1973); E. TOV, “The
Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in Light of Its Textual History”, The Greek and
Hebrew Bible. Collected Essays on the Septuagint (VTSup 72; Leiden – Boston – Köln
1999) 363-384; L. STULMAN, The Prose Sermons of the Book of Jeremiah. A Redescription
of the Correspondences with the Deuteronomistic Literature in the Light of Recent Text-
critical Research (Atlanta 1986); H.-J. STIPP, “Linguistic Peculiarities of the Masoretic
Edition of the Book of Jeremiah: An Updated Index”, JNSL 23 (1997) 181-202.
(9) SEITZ, Theology, 240-273.
(10) R.F. PERSON, The Kings-Isaiah and Kings-Jeremiah Recensions (BZAW 252;
Berlin – New York 1997) 95-99.
————

564 Michael Avioz
integrated the description into a new context. Person’s reconstruction of the
Urtext of Kings and Jeremiah has the original text as “on the seventh”(11). He
explains his view as follows: “Since a satisfactory decision cannot be made
regarding the original reading, the KH [= the Hebrew version of Kings]
reading is given”(12).
We do not think that the author of Jeremiah took the material in Jer 52
from 2 Kgs 25, but rather that both borrowed from a common third source.
Some of the differences between Jer 52 and 2 Kgs 25 can be explained by
each author using the materials differently. Person’s view that the original
source is Kings, and that Jeremiah borrowed and abbreviated it cannot be
accepted, since some points that appear in Jeremiah do not appear in Kings.
The differences between Jer 52 and 2 Kgs 25 that can be explained in this
way include the different descriptions of Zedekiah in the two books(13); the
different foci of the two books on the fate of the Temple and the sacred
vessels(14); the different descriptions of Gedaliah’s murder(15); as well as
different descriptions of the release of Jehoiachin from prison(16). All of these
points strengthen the argument of some scholars(17) who favour a third
common source from which the authors of Kings and Jeremiah borrowed,
with each author reworking the material to fit the context of his book. While
in Kings, the narrative of the destruction is designed to serve as the final point
about the Kingdom of Judah, depicting its destruction as punishment for the
kings’ sins, the purpose of Jer 52 is to demonstrate that Jeremiah’s prophecies
came to pass.
It seems that this conclusion is to be preferred to any assumption that the
author of Jeremiah took material from Kings, and added to it his own
material, while correcting corruptions.
One ought to take into account the fact that the description of Zedekiah’s
end, as well as that of Jerusalem in Kings is very corrupted(18). The text of
Jeremiah is to be preferred to that in Kings; and the reasonableness of this
preference emerges from an examination of the following arguments:
1. The plural form (“they laid siege”) in Jer 52,4 seems preferable to
the singular in 2 Kgs 25,1. Similarly, the plural form (“they…went
out”) in Jer 52,7 is to be preferred to the singular in 2 Kgs 25,4.
(11) PERSON, Recensions, 101.
(12) PERSON, Recensions, 104.
(13) See H.-J. STIPP, “Zedekiah in the Book of Jeremiah: On the Formation of a Biblical
Character”, CBQ 58 (1996) 627-648; J. APPELGATE, “The Fate of Zedekiah: Redactional
Debate in the Book of Jeremiah”, VT 48 (1998) 137-160, 301-308.
(14) FISCHER, “Jeremia 52 – ein Schlüssel”, 345, 349.
(15) E.W. NICHOLSON, Preaching to the Exile. A Study of the Prose Traditions in the
Book of Jeremiah (Oxford 1970); K.F. POHLMANN, “Erwägungen zum Schlusskapitel des
deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes, oder, Warum wird der Prophet Jeremia in 2 Kön
22-25 nicht erwähnt?”, Textgemäss – Aufsätze und Beitrage zur Hermeneutik des Alten
Testaments. Festschrift E. Wurthwein (eds. A.H.J. GUNNEWEG – O. KAISER) (Göttingen
1979) 94-109; SEITZ, Theology, 215-222.
(16) See, e.g. G. WANKE, Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Baruchschrift (BZAW 122;
Berlin – New York 1971) 115.
(17) P.R. ACKROYD, Exile and Restoration. A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth
Century BC (London 1968) 79-80.
(18) Cf. M. COGAN – H. TADMOR, II Kings (AncB 11; New York 1988) 321.

When Was the First Temple Destroyed 565
2. The sentence (“all the men of war by night”) in
2 Kgs 25,4 is truncated, and the version in Jer 52,7 (“all
the men of war fled”) is preferable19.
3. The list of vessels taken by Nebuchadnezzar in Jer 52 is more detailed.
Compare Jer 52,17-23 to 2 Kgs 25,13-17.
4. Numbers: Instead of seven people, as in Jer 52,25, 2 Kgs 25,19 has
five; instead of five cubits in Jer 52,22, 2 Kgs 25,7 has three cubits. The text
“five cubits” accords with the list in 1 Kgs 7,15.
*
* *
It seems that the contradiction between the books of Kings and Jeremiah
regarding the date of the First Temple‘s destruction cannot be resolved either
by textual emendation or by chronological solutions. We hold that there is no
point in trying to harmonize these contradictory dates, and that only one of the
dates should be regarded as ancient. This date, according to our view, is the
tenth of Ab, as is written in Jeremiah 52(20).
Department of Bible Michael AVIOZ
Bar-Ilan University
Ramat-Gan 52900
Israel
SUMMARY
This article deals with the contradiction between 2 Kgs 25 and Jer 52 regarding
the date on which the First Temple was destroyed. Comparing the descriptions of
the destruction in Kings and in Jeremiah shows that the two descriptions were
borrowed from a common third source. In our view, this common third source is
better preserved in Jeremiah 52 than in 2 Kings 25. We therefore deduce that
Jeremiah 52 preserves the more exact date of the Temple’s destruction: the tenth
of Ab. This claim is based on the fact that the description of the destruction in
Kings is in any case truncated, and is therefore likely that it contains the textual
corruptions as opposed to Jeremiah.
(19) See COGAN – TADMOR, II Kings, 317.
(20) I wish to thank Prof. Dr. George Fischer for reading and commenting on a first
draft of this paper.