Talk:Assyrian siege of Jerusalem

Disease?

Didn't they find that the claimed Assyrian deaths DID co-inside with disease that ravaged the Assyrian army outside Jerusalem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.179.202 (talk • contribs)

I would find that very likely, given the blocking of the springs. But I don't know of any archeological evidence supporting the theory yet. I've added a section on William McNeill's essay in What If? to the article, which covers the disease theory. Kasreyn 19:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Herodotus

Article states that Herodotus based his account on the Tanakh. How is this possible — did Herodotus know Hebrew? He was born two centuries before the Septuagint was translated. Nyttend 15:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but he traveled around the Mediterranean and Black Seas, and so he was likely in contact with people who knew Hebrew. He could reasonably have picked up Jewish stories from Jews. 204.52.215.134 (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Added

I have added the Coords for Jerusalem. (MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

A gas vent?

Another explanation that has been put forth relies on the fact that Jerusalem is "a city set on a hill" and proposes that a vent of some suffocating gas was released in the valley below the city, where the besieging army was encamped. Any epidemic disease would appear and then build over a period of days at least, while the Hebrew account insists that the destruction was the work of a night. Sennacherib and his immediate household presumably survived because the royal pavilion was pitched on an eminence overlooking the army camp. Some forty years ago such a vent destroyed all human and animal life around a lake in western Africa. J S Ayer (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Consensus towards removal of the maintenance tag for more citations?

Thank you to whoever placed the maintenance tag requesting additional citations. At present, the article has gathered and cited

-primary source accounts from the Hebrew side of the conflict (2 Kings, from the Tanakh) -primary source accounts from the Assyrian side of the conflict (Sennacherib's prism) -and two photographic images: one of a tunnel on location from the actual conflict. Another of the prism recording the account, and dated to within 50 years (possibly much less) of the conflict.

Would that all the articles on wikipedia had such rich documentation!

(in addition there are some secondary sources cited, which are of less value, though interesting (Josephus and Herodotus))

If there is consensus, I move that the maintenance tag can now be removed. That is not to say all mystery about this event has been removed. People may believe what they want. But multiple independent primary source accounts have been supplied, from opposite sides of the conflict. You could not ask for much more. People must reach their own conclusions. The article helpfully provides the most important strands of data available.

Good work everyone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobwiley22 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The article needs scholarly secondary sources - not primary source interpretations by Wiki editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.25.11 (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:BANREVERT

This was vandalization? Proof-reading your source and correcting the foolish statement made is vandalizing? I think it is you who vandalizes by removing the comment for readers to check the source of the reference and see the Author is NOT making the claim you attribute to him 2601:246:5B7F:6220:7D56:6A26:D48D:8F33 (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

True, but inessential: it wasn't on page 200, it is on page 301, footnote 13. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I do not believe you. This is not inessential as such an asinine claim of an army of 5,000 Assyrians besieging Jerusalem should be heavily scrutinized. Please copy the footnote from page 301 in chat here for my education. I do not see any such footnote on page 301. 2601:246:5B7F:6220:7D56:6A26:D48D:8F33 (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I entered it in the article, just click on the link, Google Books will display the page. I also reported a scholar who corroborates 5,180, and a scholar who doubts it. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The 4th edition with footnotes provided by William P Brown? This would be a grave misattribution of the Author's view on this Siege. Reading page 261-271 of the first edition shows me what the Author writes is directly antithetical to your "Some Scholars Claim" paragraph. And if you can add the claim of Scholars, then I can give context. 2601:246:5B7F:6220:7D56:6A26:D48D:8F33 (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not Bright's view, I get that, I'm not stupid. But it is the view of many other scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Not many other Scholars. This is your view because you can't fathom the idea of accurate biblical records being maintained and "corroborated" by simple facts such as:

1. Jerusalem was not successfully Sieged by an Assyrian army that defeated Tyre, Phoenecian cities, Neighboring Ashkelon and Ekron, and an Egyptian army headed by Tirhaka.

2. Sannecharib admitting in Assyrian records to leaving behind Jerusalem without having conquered its cities.

3. Hebrew history in 2 Kings 18-19 describing the attempted siege.

No Scholar will explain away such a monumental change of course of the largest empire in the world conducting military campaigns in the Levant at the time with by claiming a measly 5,000 troops turned back around. This is nonsensical. 2601:246:5B7F:6220:7D56:6A26:D48D:8F33 (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Reason for WP:BANREVERT: the IP is either a WP:SOCK of Valen2929 (AKA Shalltwa2ef) or a copycat. Explanation for why I believe that: at [1] the previously indeffed sock removed mainstream Bible scholarship from the article; at [2] the IP falsely accused me of entering that same information in the article (those were originally not my edits, I had just reverted the sock), and explained that my purported edits are Asinine. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BANREVERT is WP:3RR exemption. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

About the number of those who died of the field (not the size of the army, just those who died purportedly because of supernatural action): Dan'el Kahn, published at Cambridge University Press, says that 185,000 is too high, while 5,180 is too low. So, he believes the truth is in the middle. So, either 185,000 or 5,180 is a false dilemma. 5,180 being wrong does not make the KJV right. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)