Predator 2 and Missing years (Jewish calendar): Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
Line 1:
{{redirect|Missing Years|the album by Little Texas|Missing Years (album)}}
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).
== Misconceptions regarding the missing years ==
=== 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.
=== 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|Evolution of the Hebrew calendar]] below.)
=== The missing years and Daniel ===
A popular explanation for the missing years suggests that the Jewish sages interpreted the prophecy in [[Book of Daniel|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 [[Book of Daniel|Daniel]] 9:25 would be hidden. One version of the argument states that the Jews deliberately distorted the dating to hide that the prophecy refers to Jesus. Other 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. The traditional Jewish understanding is that the prophecy relates to the Persian king [[Cyrus II of Persia|Cyrus]] who is also called the "anointed one" in [[Book of Isaiah|Isaiah]] 45:1. The interpretation of the verses as years between the destructions of the temples is due to the 11th century commentator [[Rashi]] writing long after the chronicles giving this difference as 490 years. (Christians also interpreted these verses as years in order to connect them to Jesus although Rashi's interpretation is such that it upholds the tradition that the anointed one in question is Cyrus.)
== Resolving the discrepancy ==
===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.
====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:
* Greek sources: The historians [[Herodotus]], [[Ctesias]], [[Thucydides]], [[Xenophon]], [[Dinon]] and [[Diodorus Siculus]] as well as the philosopher [[Aristotle]], the playwriter [[Aeschylus]] and the Egyptian priest [[Manetho]].
* The [[Royal Canon]] of the astronomer [[Claudius Ptolemy]], which provides astronomically tabulated dates of the kings of the period.
* Persian sources, including king lists like the [[Saros Canon]], as well as other inscriptions such as the [[Behistun inscription]] or the [[Cyrus Cylinder]], and administrative records as the [[Persepolis Fortification Tablets]], and the [[Persepolis Treasury Tablets]].
* Babylonian sources such as astronomical records recording [[eclipse]]s, temple inscriptions and various royal documents including the [[Nabonidus Chronicle]], as well as business documents as the [[Marashu Archive]].
Secular scholars see the discrepancy between the traditional and secular 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 [[Land of Israel|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.
==== Lerman's theory ====
Moshe Lerman suggested a solution to the missing-year problem by pointing out a possible connection between the traditional Hebrew dating and the two Mahzorim (cycles) that are observed in Jewish tradition - the "small" 19-year cycle which is the basis of the Jewish calendar, and the "big" 28-year cycle which determines the year in which [[Birkat HaHammah]], the Blessing of the Sun, is recited. Mathematically, if one knows the position of a certain year in both cycles, one can compute the number associated to the year modulo 532 (19 times 28), given that the starting point of both cycles is year 1.
Lerman's theory really starts with the biblical account of Creation, according to which the Sun was created on the fourth day. Jewish tradition commemorates the creation of the Sun by reciting a special Blessing when the Spring equinox is thought to be occurring at nightfall before the fourth day of the week, the moment the Sun is assumed to have been created (Babylonian Talmud, Berachot 59b). Jewish law stipulates that the Blessing be said every 10,227 (28 times 326.25) days. The next date set is April 8 2009 ([[5769 (Hebrew year)]|Hebrew year 5768]). Because the astronomical year is slightly shorter than 365.25 days, the date of the Blessing shifts away from the Spring equinox as history proceeds. A simple astronomical calculation shows that 84 cycles of 28 years before 5769, in the Jewish year 3417, the Spring equinox was in the beginning of the night before the fourth day of the week as stipulated by the Talmud. Lerman takes this as a hint that the astronomically astute Jewish sages of the time concluded that the Jewish year 3417 was a first year in the cycle of 28 years. Moreover, Lerman suggests that these same Jewish sages would have reasoned that year 3421 was a first year in the 19-year cycle, in accordance with an ancient tradition that the world was created in the first week of the month of Nissan. They would have concluded this from the Spring equinox occurring early in the night leading to the fourth day of the Jewish month of Nissan in the Jewish year 3421.
Lerman surmises that the Jewish sages at the time could argue for a determination of the position of their years in both cycles and could therefore compute the absolute year-count modulo 532 years. They were left with a number of options, 532 years apart from each other, and Lerman suggests that they chose the dating closest to what seemed to be the truth according to biblical accounts. This provides a solution to the missing-year problem: If such was the beginning of the Jewish year-count, and no such count existed before, only dates later than the beginning of the 34 Jewish century would be historically reliable. The sages evidently fixed the small mismatch between their understanding of the biblical accounts and the dating that they had computed by contracting the length of the Babylonian exile, and they legally defined future equinox times by instituting the 28-year cycle, to protect the Hebrew dating against future change, and to leave a remembrance to what they had done.
This theory not only explains the existence of the missing-years period, but also its approximate length: It naturally accounts for a mismatch between zero and one half of 532 years. In addition, it paints a uniquely substantial background for the otherwise mysterious Blessing of the Sun.
==== Missing years in Jewish tradition ====
R' [[Azariah dei Rossi]], in his magnum opus, Me'or Einayim, was likely the first Jewish authority to state that the traditional Hebrew dating is not historically precise regarding the years before the second Temple.
R' [[Nachman Krochmal]] in ''Guide to the perplexed of our times'' (Heb.) points to the greek name Antigones 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.
R' [[David Zvi Hoffman]] points out that the Mishna in Avot (1:4) in describing the chain of tradition uses the plural "accepted from them" even though the previous Mishna only mentions one person. He posits that there must have been another Mishna mentioning two sages that was later removed.
It has also been pointed out that certain calculations in the Talmud compute better according to the secular dating (Y2K solution to the Chronology Problem, Hakirah Vol. 3).
Three reasons are given as to why the Rabbis may have deliberately removed years from the timeline.
*1. R' [[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.
*2. The Y2K solution proposed in the Hakirah article suggests that the sages were concerned with the acceptance of the [[Mishna]]. There existed a Rabbinical tradition that the year 4000 marked the close of the "era of Torah". They therefore arranged the chronology so that the redaction of the Mishna should coincide with that date and thus have a better chance of acceptance.
*3. Moshe Lerman suggests that the sages who instituted the Hebrew dating were concerned with unifying a chronically dispersed Jewish nation, and deemed an attractive selling story for their enactment more important than historical accuracy.
====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.{{Fact|date=February 2007}}
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.{{Fact|date=February 2007}}
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 the Great|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 [[Tannaim|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.
===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. Lerman's theory as well as the Y2K solution are cases in point. In this view, both the traditional dates and those of secular scholars are correct if the changing structure of the Hebrew calendar is acknowledged.
== References ==
* ''Jewish History in Conflict: A Study of the Major Discrepancy between Rabbinic and Conventional Chronology'', by Mitchell First (Jason Aronson, 1997)
* ''Talmudic and Rabbinic Chronology'', by Edgar Frank (New York: Feldheim 1956)
* ''Chronology of the Ancient World'', by E.J. Bickerman (Cornell University Press, 1968, 1982)
* ''The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy''. Robert R. Newton (The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, 1977)
* ''Daniel 9'' in ''You Take Jesus and I'll Take God'' by S. Levine, revised edition, Hamoroh Press, Los Angeles, 1980 - explains the Jewish understanding of ''Daniel'' 9:24-27
* R' Shimon Schwab in “Comparative Jewish Chronology in Jubilee Volume for Rav Yosef
Breuer” pp. 177-197.
* David Zvi Hoffman "Ha'mishna Rishona" (Heb.)
* [http://www.starways.net/lisa/essays/heifetzfix.html Fixing the History Books, Dr. Chaim S. Heifetz's Revision of Persian History, by Brad Aaronson] - Jewish scholarly critique of secular dating
* [http://www.talkreason.org/articles/fixing1.cfm Fixing the Mind by Alexander Eterman] - a refutation of Heifetz's critique.
* [http://becomingone.org/cp/cp3.htm Secular Chronology by Walter R. Dolen] - Christian scholarly critique of secular dating
* [http://groups.msn.com/JudaismFAQs/history.msnw Jewish Dating System] - defense of modern secular dating
* [http://www.jewishamerica.com/ja/timeline/adm2abr.cfm Significant Events In Jewish And World History] - timeline based on traditional Jewish sources
* [http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/5096 Why Do We Live in the Year 5765? by Moshe Lerman]
[[Category:Jewish history]] - theory about the origins of the Hebrew dating
* [http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%203%20Epstein.pdf A Y2K solution to the Chronology Problem]
[[Category:Jewish history]] - theory based on calculations in the Talmud
[[Category:Hebrew calendar]]
[[Category:Chronology]]
[[yi:אידישער קאלענדאר#.D7.A4.D7.A2.D7.9C.D7.A2.D7.A0.D7.93.D7.99.D7.92.D7.A2_.D7.99.D7.90.D7.A8.D7.9F_.D7.90.D7.99.D7.9F_.D7.93.D7.99_.D7.90.D7.99.D7.93.D7.99.D7.A9.D7.A2_.D7.99.D7.90.D7.A8_.D7.A6.D7.99.D7.99.D7.9C.D7.95.D7.A0.D7.92]]
|