Missing years (Hebrew calendar)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

The missing years in the Hebrew calendar refer to a discrepancy of some 165 years between the traditional Hebrew dating for the destruction of the First Temple (3338 AM) and the modern secular dating for it (586 BCE) that results if the traditional date is interpreted according to the standard Hebrew calendar (making 3338 AM = 421 BCE).

Contents

[edit] Misconceptions regarding the missing years

[edit] Two-year difference within the Hebrew calendar

Today, Hebrew dating places the creation of the world near the end of "Year One" AM and afterward the first year of Adam's life as "Year Two" AM. However, the traditional sourcebook Seder Olam Rabba shows the Hebrew dating originally counted the first year of Adam's life as "Year Zero" AM. Thus the traditional Hebrew dating for ancient events appears two years earlier than the modern Hebrew dating would. (Edgar Frank, Talmudic and Rabbinic Chronology, 1956.)

Rabbinic tradition says the First Temple was destroyed in "year 3338" AM and the Second Temple in "year 3828" AM. There can be some confusion. Today these years would be called 3340 and 3830 AM. If the traditional Hebrew years are assumed to be years of the modern Hebrew calendar system, the dates for the destructions of the First and Second Temples would erroneously shift to 423 BCE and 68 CE, respectively, from 421 BCE and 70 CE.

[edit] Differences between the standard Hebrew and Gregorian calendars

The traditional dates of events in Jewish history, interpreted as dates in the standard Hebrew calendar era, are often used interchangeably with the modern secular dates according to the Gregorian calendar. For example, year 3338 AM on the Hebrew calendar is typically equated to 586 BCE. Implicit in this practice is the view that if all the differences in structure between the Hebrew and Gregorian calendars are taken into consideration, the two dates can be derived from each other. This is not the case; if the traditional dates are assumed to be using the standard Hebrew calendar era, they refer to different objective years than those of the secular dates.

The possibility remains however that the traditional dates did not use a consistent calendar matching the year count of the standard Hebrew calendar. (See the explanation involving the Evolution of the Hebrew calendar below.)

[edit] The missing years and Daniel

A popular explanation for the missing years suggests that the Jewish sages interpreted the prophecy in Daniel 9:24–27 as meaning that there would be 490 years from the destruction of the First Temple to the destruction of the Second Temple and, working backwards from the destruction of the Second Temple (in 3828 AM), wrongly dated the destruction of the First Temple (in 3338 AM).

A variation on this argument states that the Jews deliberately altered the dating so that the true date of the "anointed one" mentioned in Daniel 9:25 would be hidden. An antisemitic version of the argument states that the Jews deliberately distorted the dating to hide that the prophecy refers to Jesus. Well-meaning apologists have countered with claims that the dating was indeed altered for one or another reason and should be understood as fable not history.

However, these explanations are problematic, as the verse in question refers to a period of "70 weeks," that is, 490 days, not years. While Christian commentators have indeed interpreted these verses as years to try and connect them to Jesus, the traditional Jewish understanding is that they refer to 490 literal days (This is wrong according to Rashi who says, in commentary on Daniel 9:24, "'seventy weeks,' this phrase refers to seventy times seven years, or 490 years.") and that the prophecy relates to the Persian king Cyrus, who is also called the "anointed one" in Isaiah 45:1.

[edit] Resolving the discrepancy

[edit] Mistakes in the Hebrew or secular dating

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

[edit] Missing reign lengths in the Hebrew dating

Those supporting the modern secular dating reject the Hebrew Bible as an historical source as many of its claims have no independent corroborating sources. Later Jewish chronicles and commentaries are dismissed on the grounds that they were written centuries after the events they date and are based either directly on the Hebrew Bible or on oral traditions.

The modern secular dating of the Babylonian and Persian periods is therefore reconstructed using the following sources:

Secular scholars see the discrepancy between the traditional and secular date of the destruction of the Second 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 secular 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.

[edit] Critiques of secular dating

Those supporting the traditional dating point out that many statements made by classical historians, as well as those contained in ancient inscriptions, are also made without corroborating sources. In addition the Greek sources are based largely on hearsay and oral tradition. Thus the systematic ignoring of the Hebrew Bible and other Jewish sources on such grounds is unjustified bias.[citation needed]

It is emphasized that key events in the period, such as the destruction of the First Temple, the assassination of Gedaliah and the foiled extermination of Jews at the time of Purim, were events that have been commemorated every year by Jews since their occurrence and thus account of their dates have always been kept.[citation needed]

The astronomical data used by the secular historians has been criticized. Physicist and science historian Robert R. Newton has found Ptolemy's work to contain errors and fraudulent observations. (Bickerman questions if the Royal Canon is actually the work of Ptolemy.) Dolan notes that Babylonian records of astronomical events are subject to interpretation as they do not clearly distinguish between eclipses and weather phenomena; moreover eclipses may have been missed or their extent misrecorded as a result of observation conditions. Dolan also notes that the dates of ancient texts have also been the subject of interpretation due to broken texts and uncertainty about ordering. Aaronson points out that the Persian inscriptions consist only of names and titles with virtually no explanatory content, and that the identification of the individuals mentioned is also a matter of interpretation. (Aaronson also notes that some ancient Persian sources, such as two of the inscriptions of Arsames and Ariaramnes, have subsequently been revealed to be forgeries.)

Aaronson and Heifetz note that the Greek sources contradict each other and the archaeological sources and reconciling the difference involves additional interpretation. They argue that the sources can be interpreted in a manner consistent with the traditional dating as well as with the secular dating. They consider the reigns of certain Median and Persian monarchs to have been overlapping whereas the secular dating counts them as non-overlapping. They are also argue that certain kings named in Greek sources who have been counted as separate monarchs are in fact the same individual - in particular they argue that the Alexander of Macedonia who fought a king Darius of Persia in the historical sources is one person, not two as the secular dating requires.

The following sources are thus taken into consideration in support of the traditional dating:

  • The internal chronology of the Hebrew Bible.
  • Transmitted tradition regarding the dates of annually commemorated events.
  • The Tannaitic chronicle Seder Olam Rabba and later chronicles such as the Seder Olam Zuta, Seder Ha-Dorot and Toldot Am Olam.
  • Comments on historical events in other Jewish writings such as the Talmud and the commentaries of Rashi.
  • The secular Greek writings of the Jewish historian Josephus and the national traditions preserved by the Persian historian Firdausi.
  • The Greek, Babylonian and Persian sources cited by those supporting the secular dating, but interpreted in a manner consistent with the traditional dating.

This approach to the discrepancy is the most problematic. The reinterpretation of the Greek, Babylonian and Persian sources that is required to support the traditional dating has been achieved only in parts and appears to be impossible to achieve in its entirety. Similar problems face other attempts to revise secular dating (such as those of Peter James and David Rohl) and mainstream scholarship rejects such approaches.

[edit] Evolution of the Hebrew calendar

An alternative approach to resolving the discrepancy takes into consideration that the structure of the Hebrew calendar changed at different periods, and that the traditional dates should not be understood as dates on the standard Hebrew calendar. In this view, both the traditional dates and those of secular scholars are correct if the changing structure of the Hebrew calendar is acknowledged.

[edit] References

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/s/Missing_years_%28Hebrew_calendar%29_bd7b.html"
In other languages