Conquest of Jerusalem - 597 BCE

[PaulBoyerFan]

I was just wondering why 1st Nephi doesn't mention the conquest of Jerusalem around 597 BCE by the Babylonians? After all, the book begins at the beginning of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, who ascended to the throne after Jerusalem was sacked, the contents of the temple plundered, and most of the leading residents taken into captivity in Babylon (2 Kings 24). And why are the residents of Jerusalem said to be incredulous that Jerusalem could be destroyed in 1st Nephi, when they had just witnessed the city's devastation? 1 Nephi 2:13, for example, says of Laman and Lemuel, " Neither did they believe that Jerusalem, that great city, could be destroyed according to the words of the prophets. And they were like unto the Jews who were at Jerusalem, who sought to take away the life of my father."

[volgadon]

Try Jeremiah 28 onwards.

[Mortal Man]

I was just wondering why 1st Nephi doesn't mention the conquest of Jerusalem around 597 BCE by the Babylonians? After all, the book begins at the beginning of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, who ascended to the throne after Jerusalem was sacked, the contents of the temple plundered, and most of the leading residents taken into captivity in Babylon (2 Kings 24). And why are the residents of Jerusalem said to be incredulous that Jerusalem could be destroyed in 1st Nephi, when they had just witnessed the city's devastation? 1 Nephi 2:13, for example, says of Laman and Lemuel, " Neither did they believe that Jerusalem, that great city, could be destroyed according to the words of the prophets. And they were like unto the Jews who were at Jerusalem, who sought to take away the life of my father."

2 Kings 24:

10

[jadams_4242]

I was just wondering why 1st Nephi doesn't mention the conquest of Jerusalem around 597 BCE by the Babylonians? After all, the book begins at the beginning of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, who ascended to the throne after Jerusalem was sacked, the contents of the temple plundered, and most of the leading residents taken into captivity in Babylon (2 Kings 24). And why are the residents of Jerusalem said to be incredulous that Jerusalem could be destroyed in 1st Nephi, when they had just witnessed the city's devastation? 1 Nephi 2:13, for example, says of Laman and Lemuel, " Neither did they believe that Jerusalem, that great city, could be destroyed according to the words of the prophets. And they were like unto the Jews who were at Jerusalem, who sought to take away the life of my father."

Isnt that excatly why lehi was directed to leave..? {destruction}

[Bill Hamblin]

In the first siege in 597 the city was not captured by force nor destroyed; it surrendered after a siege, and was made a vassal state, and was forced to pay tribute (hence the despoiling of the temple). It was destroyed and the temple was destroyed in the second siege in 587-586. The first siege was a defeat, but Jerusalem had been a vassal of foreign powers (Assyria and Egypt) for a century before that. The 586 siege left the city in ruins and its temple destroyed.

[dougtheavenger]

I was just wondering why 1st Nephi doesn't mention the conquest of Jerusalem around 597 BCE by the Babylonians? After all, the book begins at the beginning of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, who ascended to the throne after Jerusalem was sacked, the contents of the temple plundered, and most of the leading residents taken into captivity in Babylon (2 Kings 24). And why are the residents of Jerusalem said to be incredulous that Jerusalem could be destroyed in 1st Nephi, when they had just witnessed the city's devastation? 1 Nephi 2:13, for example, says of Laman and Lemuel, " Neither did they believe that Jerusalem, that great city, could be destroyed according to the words of the prophets. And they were like unto the Jews who were at Jerusalem, who sought to take away the life of my father."

Jeremiah was predicting the destruction of the temple as early as 629 BC

http://www.jewishvir.../vjw/Yemen.html

[ElfLord]

Jeremiah was predicting the destruction of the temple as early as 629 BC

http://www.jewishvir.../vjw/Yemen.html

[Mortal Man]

In the first siege in 597 the city was not captured by force nor destroyed; it surrendered after a siege, and was made a vassal state, and was forced to pay tribute (hence the despoiling of the temple). It was destroyed and the temple was destroyed in the second siege in 587-586. The first siege was a defeat, but Jerusalem had been a vassal of foreign powers (Assyria and Egypt) for a century before that. The 586 siege left the city in ruins and its temple destroyed.

1 Nephi 13: ...and many should be carried away captive into Babylon.

So, immediately after Nebuchadnezzar "carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths" such that "none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land", Lehi reads in ominous vision that some of Jerusalem's inhabitants (presumably poor people) would be taken captive sometime in the future? That must have come as quite a shock.

[ElfLord]

1 Nephi 13: ...and many should be carried away captive into Babylon.

So, immediately after Nebuchadnezzar "carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths" such that "none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land", Lehi reads in ominous vision that some of Jerusalem's inhabitants (presumably poor people) would be taken captive sometime in the future? That must have come as quite a shock.

The problem is... you are going off the chronology of a text that was translated from the Mesoretic source.

I read somewhere that the discrepancies of years and Chronologies between the Mesoretic text and the LXX text can differ as widely as 1400 years.

What does the LXX say about the verses you are quoting?

[David Bokovoy]

Hello PaulBoyerFan,

I was just wondering why 1st Nephi doesn't mention the conquest of Jerusalem around 597 BCE by the Babylonians? After all, the book begins at the beginning of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, who ascended to the throne after Jerusalem was sacked, the contents of the temple plundered, and most of the leading residents taken into captivity in Babylon (2 Kings 24). And why are the residents of Jerusalem said to be incredulous that Jerusalem could be destroyed in 1st Nephi, when they had just witnessed the city's devastation? 1 Nephi 2:13, for example, says of Laman and Lemuel, " Neither did they believe that Jerusalem, that great city, could be destroyed according to the words of the prophets. And they were like unto the Jews who were at Jerusalem, who sought to take away the life of my father."

Thanks for raising an interesting issue.

Biblical scholars refer to the mindset that Laman and Lemuel manifest as the notion of the

[Bill Hamblin]

1 Nephi 13: ...and many should be carried away captive into Babylon.

So, immediately after Nebuchadnezzar "carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths" such that "none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land", Lehi reads in ominous vision that some of Jerusalem's inhabitants (presumably poor people) would be taken captive sometime in the future? That must have come as quite a shock.

The first captivity was bad. The second was worse (2 Kgs 25). So? Jerusalem was not "destroyed" (1 Ne 1.13) in the first siege. There were Jews taken captive in the second siege.

[phaedrus ut]

1 Nephi 13: ...and many should be carried away captive into Babylon.

So, immediately after Nebuchadnezzar "carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths" such that "none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land", Lehi reads in ominous vision that some of Jerusalem's inhabitants (presumably poor people) would be taken captive sometime in the future? That must have come as quite a shock.

It's not a big deal that Nephi didn't mention this, those trivial details are ignored all the time. However do you know about the bullseye in the Book of Mormon with Nahom and NHM?

Phaedrus

[Zakuska]

1 Nephi 13: ...and many should be carried away captive into Babylon.

So, immediately after Nebuchadnezzar "carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths" such that "none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land", Lehi reads in ominous vision that some of Jerusalem's inhabitants (presumably poor people) would be taken captive sometime in the future? That must have come as quite a shock.

Shock?

Have I missed something...

THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM: AN INSIDE VIEW

Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem on the 10th day of the 10th month (roughly January) of 588 BC, which was in the 9th year of Jehoiachin and Zedekiah.

This is 9 years AFTER Lehi preached.

[Fifth Columnist]

I was just wondering why 1st Nephi doesn't mention the conquest of Jerusalem around 597 BCE by the Babylonians? After all, the book begins at the beginning of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, who ascended to the throne after Jerusalem was sacked, the contents of the temple plundered, and most of the leading residents taken into captivity in Babylon (2 Kings 24). And why are the residents of Jerusalem said to be incredulous that Jerusalem could be destroyed in 1st Nephi, when they had just witnessed the city's devastation? 1 Nephi 2:13, for example, says of Laman and Lemuel, " Neither did they believe that Jerusalem, that great city, could be destroyed according to the words of the prophets. And they were like unto the Jews who were at Jerusalem, who sought to take away the life of my father."

All of these really tough questions are easily answered once you accept that Nephi, Laman, Lemuel, etc., are fictional characters in a book of fiction. Accepting this doesn't mean that you have to jettison the BOM as a source of spiritual inspiration.

[mapman]

All of these really tough questions are easily answered once you accept that Nephi, Laman, Lemuel, etc., are fictional characters in a book of fiction. Accepting this doesn't mean that you have to jettison the BOM as a source of spiritual inspiration.

It's not a really tough question. Jerusalem wasn't destroyed until after Lehi left.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

All of these really tough questions are easily answered once you accept that Nephi, Laman, Lemuel, etc., are fictional characters in a book of fiction. Accepting this doesn't mean that you have to jettison the BOM as a source of spiritual inspiration.

No need to look at it that way, but if it helps you out, more power to you.

[David Bokovoy]

All of these really tough questions are easily answered once you accept that Nephi, Laman, Lemuel, etc., are fictional characters in a book of fiction. Accepting this doesn't mean that you have to jettison the BOM as a source of spiritual inspiration.

Interesting that this could be considered a "really tough question." In my mind, Laman and Lemuel's perspective on the "inviolability of Jerusalem

[Mortal Man]

Interesting that this could be considered a "really tough question." In my mind, Laman and Lemuel's perspective on the "inviolability of Jerusalem

[nosmelone]

Shock?

Have I missed something...

This is 9 years AFTER Lehi preached.

"The Destruction of Jerusalem, An Inside View" where is this from? This is great information I would just like a little background if possible. Thanks!

[David Bokovoy]

So Laman and Lemuel held to the "inviolability of Jerusalem" as the temple was being pillaged and tens of thousand of their friends and relatives were being hauled away captive?

That would be like standing on ground zero on 9/12/2001 and declaring that New York could never be attacked.

Sorry, Brother, but not a very good analogy. They certainly knew that Jerusalem not only could but had been "attacked."

A more appropriate analogy would be like standing on ground zero on 9/12/2001 and stating that because of promises God had made in sacred texts, New York might experience great tragedy but would never be destroyed.

[Bill Hamblin]

So Laman and Lemuel held to the "inviolability of Jerusalem" as the temple was being pillaged and tens of thousand of their friends and relatives were being hauled away captive?

That would be like standing on ground zero on 9/12/2001 and declaring that New York could never be attacked.

You need to look at the Babylon-Jerusalem situation from the context of the Assyria-Jerusalem situation. The precise same type of vassal-tributary relationship was established between Hezekiah and Assyria. Assyria conquered all of Judah, Jerusalem was besieged, Jerusalem paid vast tribute, thousands went into captivity, and Isaiah declared it a triumph of Yahweh because Jerusalem and the temple were spared. Those in the age of the Babylonian conquest saw the first conquest by the Babylonians in precisely the same light. Despite the captives and tribute, Yahweh saved Jerusalem and the Temple. Get it. Both Jeremiah and Lehi reject this ideology. Despite the initial salvation of Jerusalem during the first siege (just like the Assyrian siege), destruction of the city and temple were potentially at risk without repentance.

This is not a historical problem. Why do you insist on making it one?

[David Bokovoy]

You need to look at the Babylon-Jerusalem situation from the context of the Assyria-Jerusalem situation. The precise same type of vassal-tributary relationship was established between Hezekiah and Assyria. Assyria conquered all of Judah, Jerusalem was besieged, Jerusalem paid vast tribute, thousands went into captivity, and Isaiah declared it a triumph of Yahweh because Jerusalem and the temple were spared. Those in the age of the Babylonian conquest saw the first conquest by the Babylonians in precisely the same light. Despite the captives and tribute, Yahweh saved Jerusalem and the Temple. Get it. Both Jeremiah and Lehi reject this ideology. Despite the initial salvation of Jerusalem during the first siege (just like the Assyrian siege), destruction of the city and temple were potentially at risk without repentance.

This is not a historical problem. Why do you insist on making it one?

And as demonstrated by the sources I cited, Jews had good textual reasons to adhere to the perspective Laman and Lemuel held:

"God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved: God shall help her."

"The LORD of hosts defend Jerusalem; defending also he will deliver it."

Historical evidence shows that Jews during this time period held the perspective of the 'Inviolability of Jerusalem" to the point that they had a difficult time reconciling their sacred texts with historical reality. So if anything, this dissonance is actually a bull's eye for the BofM.

[Bill Hamblin]

And as demonstrated by the sources I cited, Jews had good textual reasons to adhere to the perspective Laman and Lemuel held:

"God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved: God shall help her."

"The LORD of hosts defend Jerusalem; defending also he will deliver it."

Historical evidence shows that Jews during this time period held the perspective of the 'Inviolability of Jerusalem" to the point that they had a difficult time reconciling their sacred texts with historical reality. So if anything, this dissonance is actually a bull's eye for the BofM.

Yup. And most of Jeremiah is contextualized in the period between the sieges, during which most of the prophets and rulers rejected Jeremiah's message of coming doom to Jerusalem. Indeed, the 587 rebellion occurred in part precisely because the court was sure Yahweh would protect Jerusalem.

[Robert F. Smith]

So Laman and Lemuel held to the "inviolability of Jerusalem" as the temple was being pillaged and tens of thousand of their friends and relatives were being hauled away captive?

That would be like standing on ground zero on 9/12/2001 and declaring that New York could never be attacked.

You and others on this thread have missed the main point:

The First Book of Nephi begins after Nebuchadrezzar's siege has ended on Babylonian 2 Addaru (= 16 March 597 BC) and King Jehoiachin and his retainers have been taken captive to Babylon (where he is finally released from prison in 562 BC, II Kings 25:27). Jehoiachin and that siege are not mentioned by Nephi for the same reason that biblical books regularly proceed to tell their particular story by taking up where the previous book left off. We might speculate that the Book of Lehi actually contained such details (but Martin Harris lost it), but we know that the portions of Jeremiah which were on the Brass Plates likely included the siege of 597 and all the events leading up to it (1 Nephi 5:13).

In fact Nephi starts with the commencement of the first year of the reign of King Zedekiah of Judah, who took the throne on about 10 Nisannu = 22 April 597 BC (I Nephi 1:4). Indeed, Lehi is called as a prophet at that time, and the First Book of Nephi is concerned almost exclusively with the meaning of Lehi's visions and the trek of his clan into South Arabia.

Snide remarks and ridicule do not indicate a serious effort to understand anything, or to come to grips with real scholarship.

[Anijen]

This is actually a bulls eye for the Book of Mormon as stated by Hamblin and Bokovoy the destruction was later. Does the BofM verify this? yes see 2 Nephi 1:4,

2 Nephi 1:4

For, behold, said he, I have aseen a vision, in which I know that Jerusalem is destroyed; and had we remained in Jerusalem we should also have perished. (between 588-677 B.C.)