Missing years (Jewish calendar)

Dating in academic sources

Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC)

Main page: Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC)

Both the Babylonian Chronicles and the Bible indicate that Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem. The Babylonian Chronicles (as published by Donald Wiseman in 1956) establish that Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem the first time on 2 Adar (16 March) 597 BCE.^[1] Before Wiseman's publication, E. R. Thiele had determined from the biblical texts that Nebuchadnezzar's initial capture of Jerusalem occurred in the spring of 597 BCE,^[2] while other scholars, including William F. Albright, more frequently dated the event to 598 BCE.^[3]

Second siege and destruction of the First Temple

Main page: Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC)

According to the Bible, Nebuchadnezzar installed Zedekiah as king after his first siege,^[4] and Zedekiah ruled for 11 years before the second siege resulted in the end of his kingdom.^[5]

Although there is no dispute that Jerusalem fell the second time in the summer month of Tammuz,^[6] Albright dates the end of Zedekiah's reign (and the fall of Jerusalem) to 587 BCE, whereas Thiele offers 586 BCE.^[7] Thiele's reckoning is based on the presentation of Zedekiah's reign on an accession basis, which was used for most but not all of the kings of Judah. In that case, the year that Zedekiah came to the throne would be his first partial year; his first full year would be 597/596 BCE, and his eleventh year, the year Jerusalem fell, would be 587/586 BCE. Since Judah's regnal years were counted from Tishrei in autumn, this would place the end of his reign and the capture of Jerusalem in the summer of 586 BCE.^[7][8]

Dating in traditional Jewish sources

A variety of rabbinic sources state that the Second Temple stood for 420 years.^[9] The rabbis placed the destruction of the Second Temple in 68 CE,^[10] implying that it was built in 352 BCE. Adding 70 years between the destruction of the First Temple and the construction of the Second Temple, it follows that the First Temple was destroyed in 422 BCE.

This date is about 165 years after the accepted year of 587 BCE. This discrepancy is referred to as "missing years".

Details of rabbinic chronology

According to the Talmud^[11] and Seder Olam Rabbah,^[12] the Second Temple stood for 420 years, with the years divided up as follows:

103 years (35 BCE–68 CE) = Herod's Dynasty.

103 years (138 BCE–35 BCE) = Hasmonean Dynasty.

180 years (318 BCE–138 BCE) = Grecian rule over Israel

34 years (352 BCE–318 BCE) = Persian rule while the Second Temple stood (not including additional years of Persian rule before the Temple's construction).

The date of 318 BCE for the Greek conquest of Persia was later confirmed by Rabbeinu Chananel, who wrote^[13] that Alexander the Great rose to power six years before the beginning of the Seleucid era (which occurred in 312/11 BCE).^[14][15]

Seventy years passed between the destruction of the First Temple and the building of the Second Temple,^[16] so construction of the Second Temple in 352 BCE implies that the First Temple was destroyed in 422 BCE.

Similarly, Megillat Antiochus implies that the Second Temple was built in 352 BCE, and thus that the First Temple was destroyed in 422 BCE.^[17]

The figure of 420 years is derived from the prophecy of seventy weeks in Daniel 9:24–27, which the rabbis interpreted as referring to a period of 490 years which would pass between the destructions of the First and Second Temple - 70 years between the Temples, plus 420 years of the Second Temple.^{[citation needed]}

Two-year difference within the Hebrew calendar

Today, Hebrew dating places the creation of the world near the end of 1 AM and afterwards the first year of Adam's life as 2 AM. However, Seder Olam Rabba shows that the Hebrew dating originally counted the first year of Adam's life as "Year Zero" AM.^{[citation needed]} This may mean that the Hebrew dating has shifted in the course of history such that traditional dating of ancient events appears two years earlier than the modern Hebrew dating would be.^[18]

Rabbinic tradition^[19] says that the First Temple was destroyed in 3338 AM and the Second Temple in 3828 AM. If there was no calendar shift, the Common Era equivalents would be 423 BCE and 68 CE, respectively. If there was a calendar shift, the destructions would have taken place in 3339 and 3829 AM, or in 3340 and 3830 AM, and the Common Era equivalents would be 422 BCE and 69 CE, respectively, or 421 BCE and 70 CE.

If there was no calendar shift, the length of the missing-years period would be 163 years (586 minus 423). If there was a calendar shift, the length of the missing-years period would be 164 or 165 years.

Proposed explanations

If traditional dates are assumed to be based on the standard Hebrew calendar, then the differing traditional and modern academic dating of events cannot both be correct. Attempts to reconcile the two systems must show one or both to have errors.

Missing reign lengths in the Hebrew dating

Scholars see the discrepancy between the traditional and academic date of the destruction of the First Temple arising as a result of Jewish sages missing out the reign lengths of several Persian kings during the Persian Empire's rule over Israel. Modern scholars tally ten Persian kings whose combined reigns total 208 years. By contrast, ancient Jewish sages only mention four Persian kings totaling 52 years. The reigns of several Persian kings appear to be missing from the traditional calculations.

Missing years in Jewish tradition

Azariah dei Rossi^[20] was likely the first Jewish authority to claim that the traditional Hebrew dating is not historically precise regarding the years before the Second Temple.^{[21]:262 [22]:82 [23]:77}

Nachman Krochmal^[24] agrees with dei Rossi,^[22]:51 pointing to the Greek name Antigonos mentioned in the beginning of Avot as proof that there must have been a longer period to account for this sign of Hellenic influence. He posits that certain books of the Bible such as Kohelet and Isaiah were written or redacted during this period.

David Zvi Hoffmann points out that the Mishnah in Avot (1:4) in describing the chain of tradition uses the plural "accepted from them" even though the previous Mishnah only mentions one person. He posits that there must have been another Mishnah mentioning two sages that was later removed.^{[citation needed]}

The traditional account of Jewish history shows a discontinuity in the beginning of the 35th century: The account of Seder Olam Rabbah is complete only until this time. It has been postulated that this work was written to complement another historical work, about subsequent centuries until the time of Hadrian, which is no longer extant.^{[citation needed]}

It appears that Jewish dating systems only arose in the 35th century, so that precise historical records would naturally have existed only from that time onwards.^{[citation needed]} The Minyan Shtarot system, used to date official Jewish documents, started in the year 3449. According to Moshe Lerman,^[25] the year-count "from Creation" was established around the same time (see Birkat Hachama for elaboration).

It has also been posited that certain calculations in the Talmud compute better according to the academic dating. Two possible harmonizations are proposed by modern rabbis:

• Shimon Schwab points to the words "seal the words and close the book" in the book of Daniel as a positive commandment to obscure the calculations for the Messiah mentioned within, so that the true date of the Messiah's arrival would not be known.^[26] However, Schwab later withdrew this suggestion for numerous reasons.^{[21]:281-285 [22]:66–67 [23]:67–68, 93}

• An alternative solution suggests that the sages were concerned with the acceptance of the Mishnah. There existed a rabbinical tradition that the year 4000 marked the close of the "era of Torah". The authors of the Ḥakirah article propose that the sages therefore arranged the chronology so that the redaction of the Mishnah should coincide with that date and thus have a better chance of acceptance.^{[23]:67–115}

Critiques of academic dating

The Babylonian Chronicles are known to be lacking in certain regnal years ascribed to some kings, besides disagreeing in other places with the ancient Egyptian records outlining the regnal years of eight successive Persian kings, preserved in the Third Book of Manetho.^[27]

References

Notes

Bibliography

0.00 (0 votes) Original source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing years (Jewish calendar). Read more