Meditations for - Restorers of Zion



Meditations for

Rosh Ha-Hodashim, the New Year

7: Counting the Years – How?

A Survey of Sources, with Our Conclusion

Following is a list of the sources we examined, which try to reconstruct the years from the Exodus (skip down to the blue summary to see the end result as far as dating this year, compared with the only modern Jewish attempt published in Segula, Appendix 6).

A comparison led us to conclude that the reckoning of Bruno Kolberg (Appendix 1) is the most developed, accurate, scholarly and successful in integrating the scriptural records without contradicting them. Therefore we dated Nisan 2012 as 3469 AE (After the Exodus).

Appendix 1: Dating the Exodus – Bruno Kolberg page 2

Appendix 2: Dating the Exodus – Edwin R. Thiele page 3

Appendix 3: Dating the Exodus – James Ussher page 6

Appendix 4: Dating the Exodus from Solomon

by Encyclopedia Judaica page 6

Appendix 5: Dating by David & Solomon – two

simplistic calculations page 7

Appendix 6: Dating the Exodus – Yaakov Medan

(Segula, April 2011) page 8

Appendix 7: Dating by Seleucus I, with Segula logic page 9

Appendix 8: Dating by Darius – Segula vs.

Encyclopedia Britannica page 9

Appendix 9: Dating the Exodus – John Bright page 10

Appendix 10: Jewish Explanation of the Gap (163-165 Years)

(Wikipedia) page 11

Appendix 11: Protestant Explanation of the Gap (240 Years)

(short Ussher version) page 20

Appendix 12: Protestant Gap of 240 Years

(speculation, references, quotes from

Seder Olam Rabba) page 21

Appendix 1: Dating the Exodus – Bruno Kolberg

From "Redating the Hebrew Kings", Bruno Kolberg 2010

Full file available on-line at: download/Redating.pdf

[Page 1:]

Accordingly, all calendars that use Thiele’s date [see our Appendix 2] to fix Biblical events before 931/30 B.C. are likewise doubtful. As this study proposes, an earlier date of 942/41 B.C. for the division of the kingdom, also called the disruption or schism, is more Biblically sound. This leads to the following milestone dates:

Jacob’s entry into Egypt .................................................................................................1887 B.C.

The exodus......................................................................................................................1457 B.C.

Solomon’s fourth year (when the temple foundation was laid) ........................................978 B.C.

The beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem.................................. January, 588 B.C.

The fall of Jerusalem............................................................................................... July, 587 B.C.

A noteworthy outcome of the above chronology is that the following time-bridges in the Bible follow consecutively. They also span a total interval of 1,300 years:

Exod 12:40....... The 430-year interval of Israel’s stay in Egypt ..........................1887–1457 B.C.

1 Kgs 6:1.......... Solomon’s fourth year was the 480th year after the exodus.........1457–978 B.C.

Ezek 4:5 ........... The 390-year span of Israel’s iniquity............................................978–588 B.C.

2 Kgs 25:1–3.... The 19-month siege of Jerusalem...................................................588–587 B.C.

In this study, the following principles for chronological reckoning will be upheld:

• The regnal notices for the Hebrew kings have been accurately recorded in the Masoretic Text (MT) as translated by the King James Version of the Bible (KJV). These notices have no scribal errors or emendations.

• Where the regnal data in the MT disagrees with the Greek manuscripts, the MT is to be preferred. Similarly, where the MT data disagrees with secular texts such as the Assyrian Eponym Canon (as presently dated), the MT is to be preferred.

Guided by these principles, the study will outline a calendar of milestone dates from Abraham to the fall of Jerusalem. Although particular attention will be paid to the kings of the divided monarchy era, their associations with extra-Biblical texts, especially Neo-Assyrian inscriptions, are a vital consideration in this work.

Kolberg placed the Exodus at 1457 BCE, placing us (as of April 2012) in the year 3469 after the Exodus (145 years after the Segula calculation).

Appendix 2: Dating the Exodus – Edwin R. Thiele

[from Wikipedia – for further documentation see and also ]

Edwin R. Thiele (1895–1986) was an American missionary in China, an editor, archaeologist and Old Testament professor. He is best known for his chronological studies of the Hebrew kingdom period.

Reception of Thiele’s work:

Thiele's chronological reconstruction has not been accepted by all of the scholarly consensus, but it should be pointed out that neither has any other scholar’s work in this field. Yet the work of Thiele and those who followed in his steps has achieved acceptance across a wider spectrum than that of any comparable chronology, so that Assyriologist D. J. Wiseman wrote, “The chronology most widely accepted today is one based on the meticulous study by Thiele,” and, more recently, Leslie McFall: “Thiele’s chronology is fast becoming the consensus view among Old Testament scholars, if it has not already reached that point.”

Although criticism has been leveled at numerous specific points in his chronology, his work has won considerable praise even from those who disagree with his final conclusions. Nevertheless, even scholars sharing Thiele's religious convictions have maintained that there are weaknesses in his argument such as unfounded assumptions and assumed circular reasoning.

In his desire to resolve the discrepancies between the data in the Book of Kings, Thiele was forced to make improbable suppositions ... There is no basis for Thiele's statement that his conjectures are correct because he succeeded in reconciling most of the data in the Book of Kings, since his assumptions ... are derived from the chronological data themselves...”

In response to the “circular reasoning” argument, Kenneth Strand has pointed out several archaeological finds that were published after Thiele produced his chronology, and which verified Thiele’s assumptions or conclusions vs. the chronological systems of other scholars such as Albright that were posited before Thiele’s work. In scientific methodology, the ability to predict new results that were not known when a theory was formulated is regarded as support for the provisional acceptance of a theory until a better theory can be produced.

Despite the various criticisms Thiele's methodological treatment remains the typical starting point of scholarly treatments of the subject, and his work is considered to have established the date of the division of the Israelite kingdom.

[From various online discussions:]

Flaws in Thiele’s work

Dependence on Assyrian Data –

Modern scholars seek to make the Bible fit in with the chronologies of other nations. For example, Thiele makes a number of assumptions from observations of Assyrian stone tablets that, he believes, warrant a revision of the king list in I and II Kings. Thiele's sole warrant for favoring his dating over that of James Ussher [see our Appendix 3] is his attempt to reconcile the king lists of the Divided Kingdoms (Northern and Southern) with the chronology of the Assyrians. The point being that in the absence of non-biblical sources, Thiele too would adopt Ussher’s chronology, since Ussher’s chronology is based on exactly what the Bible says when taken at face value.

Ussher calculated King Jehu as having acceded to the throne of Israel (and also killing King Ahaziah of Judah) in 884 BC. However Thiele argues that The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III mentions a king identified as Jehu, son of Omri as paying tribute to King Shalmaneser III in 841 B.C. Shalmaneser III mentions that in the eighteenth year of his reign he went against "Hazael of Aram", shut him up in "Damascus, his royal city", and "received tribute of the men of Tyre, Sidon and of Jehu, the son of Omri".’

This is a 43-year difference compared with the Bible. Which is correct - the Bible or the Assyrian inscription? Thiele opts for the latter and moves forward the date of Jehu's campaign from 884 BC to 841 BC. That movement alone accounts for 43 of the 45 years by which the Ussher and Thiele dates of the Exodus and the Temple are discrepant.

Violence Done to the Biblical Record –

Thiele assumes that the Assyrian inscription is correct, and that the Bible is in error. To make the Bible fit in with the Black Obelisk, he was forced to greatly compress the history of the Northern Kingdom after Jehu. To collapse the Biblical history, he created overlapping reigns of kings so that the total length of the period is significantly shortened.

For example, the Bible says that Uzziah was 16 years old when his father (King Amaziah) died, and Uzziah was made king. And Uzziah reigned 52 years. Thiele argues that Uzziah's reign overlaps with that of his father, so when his father died, Uzziah had already been reigning 24 years. This would mean that Uzziah began to reign 8 years before he was even born! Scripture actually says:

“And they brought him [Amaziah, Uzziah’s father] on horses, and he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David. And all the people of Judah took Azariah [Uzziah] who was sixteen years old, and made him king in place of his father Amaziah” (2 Kings 14:20,21).

“In the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel, Azariah [Uzziah] the son of Amaziah king of Judah began to reign. He was sixteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned fifty-two years in Jerusalem …” (2 Kings 15:1,2).

By all rules of exegesis, one would conclude that Uzziah was made king after the death of his father when he was 16 years old. This event happened in the 27th year of Jeroboam.

As another example, the Bible clearly says that: 1) Menachem began to reign in the 39th year of Uzziah, and Menachem reigned for 10 years, followed by his son, Pekahiah, who reigned for two years; 2) Pekahiah was murdered by his commander, Pekah, who in turn reigned for 20 years. By normal rules of exegesis, this would be the most normal way to understand the text:

“In the thirty-ninth year of Azariah [Uzziah] king of Judah, Menachem the son of Gadi began to reign over Israel, ten years in Samaria” (2 Kings 15:17). “And Menahem slept with his fathers. And Pekahiah his son reigned in his place. In the fiftieth year of Uzziah [Azariah] king of Judah, Pekahiah the son of Menahem began to reign over Israel in Samaria, two years.…

But Pekah the son of Remaliah, a commander of his, conspired against him and struck him in Samaria, in the palace of the king’s house, with Argob and Arieh, and fifty men of the Gileadites with him. And he killed him and reigned in his place.… In the fifty-second year of Uzziah [Azariah] king of Judah, Pekah the son of Remaliah began to reign over Israel in Samaria, twenty years” (2 Kings 15:22—27).

However, Thiele states that Pekah began to reign in the 39th year of Uzziah, not the 50th. While Ussher assumed the primacy of Scripture, Thiele assumed the primacy of secular historical records (what Ussher called "profane history").

Larry Pierce in particular (a Latin scholar and translator of Ussher’s work) contends that Thiele had no right, according to the accepted canons of Biblical scholarship, to impart different meanings to verses that follow the same pattern without sufficient reason. Even if Thiele did have that right, Pierce maintains that Thiele's clues, such as they are, are not grounded in anything approaching certainty.

The Assyrian Records Discredited –

Eugene Faulstich (author of History, Harmony, and the Hebrew Kings) discovered that much of the information on the Black Obelisk that is attributed to Shalmaneser was taken from earlier monuments. This plagiarism was so common in Assyrian history that the father of Shalmaneser III pronounced a special curse on kings who tried to steal his fame by ascribing to themselves deeds he had done. Faulstich goes on to document inconsistencies among the Black Obelisk, the Tigris Inscriptions, the Statue Inscriptions and the Bull-Colossi.

This type of historical revisionism results in the collapsing of historical events into a shorter time frame. (Ref: Faulstich, E.W., History, Harmony & The Hebrew Kings, Chronology Books, Spencer, Iowa, pp. 143—157, 1986.)

 

Thiele placed the Exodus at 1446 BCE, placing us today (spring 2012) in the year 3458 after the Exodus, 134 years after the Segula calculation.

Appendix 3: Dating the Exodus – James Ussher

[Summary:]

James Ussher (1581-1656) was the Anglican archbishop of Armagh, Ireland, and "Primate of All Ireland," meaning the head of the Anglican Church in Ireland. He was one of the most respected scholars and theologians of his time, and traveled widely in search of original documents, or at least the oldest versions of them he could find. The many books and documents he collected throughout his life were to form the nucleus of the great library at Trinity College in Armagh.

James Ussher, in The Annals of the World, placed the Exodus at 1491 BCE.

This places us (in spring 2012) at 3503, 179 years later than the Segula calculation.

Appendix 4: Dating the Exodus – from “Solomon” by Enc. Jud.

[From "Chronological and Background Charts of the Old Testament" J.H. Walton, Zondervan 1952]

“I Kings 6:1 designates 480 years from the Exodus to Solomon's dedication of the Temple. The dedication was 966.” That would set the Exodus at 1446 BCE.

But Scripture actually says: "In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the LORD."

[Encyclopedia Judaica vol. 15, p. 98: "Solomon":]

“Solomon began his reign 967 B.C.” The 4th year of his reign would have begun about April 964 if we count by the Jewish "year of kings" (which begins in the spring).

By that reckoning, the Exodus was at 964 + 480 = 1444 BCE, placing us (in spring 2012) at 3456 after the Exodus. This is 132 years later than the Segula calculation.

Appendix 5: Dating by David & Solomon – two simplistic calculations

1. From “Dating the Exodus: Another View” by Gary Greenberg

[From KMT, A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt, Summer 1994. The file can be found at: ]

The dating of Solomon’s fourth year to 1017 B.C. is based on the chronology of the Judean kings from Solomon to the destruction of the Temple. Based on the lengths of reign for each of the successive kings (as chronicled in 1 and 2 Kings), the period in question is 430 years long, and there is abundant evidence that the destruction of the Temple occurred at about 587 B.C.

Using this date for Solomon's 4th year, and adding 480, we arrive at 1497 BCE for the Exodus, putting us (spring 2012) in the year 3509 after the Exodus, 185 years beyond the Segula calculation.

2. From “The Chronology of King David” by Murrell Selden, April 7, 2000. [The entire file is found at: )

Summary of the Matter: Two means have been found to estimate the rulership of Cyrus the Great over Babylon.  Both point to 538 B.C.E. as the date.  Once that date is computed, one merely goes back 70 years to the capture of Babylon in the days of King Zedekiah.  One then can compute quite well the years of reign of all the Kings of Judah, Solomon, and David.  From this, it is evident that King David ruled around 1077 B.C.E. to 1037 B.C.E.

This puts the Exodus at 1514 BCE, and us (in spring 2012) at 3526, 202 years later than the Segula calculation.

Appendix 6: Dating the Exodus – Rabbi Yaakov Medan

[From "A Revolutionary Calendar" by Yaakov Medan, printed in Segula Magazine of Jewish History, April 2011]

The Exodus took place in 2448 A.M. [from Creation] This calculation is based on the number of years listed in Genesis up to the birth of Isaac (2048 years), with the addition of the 400 years of slavery revealed to Abraham at the Brit Bein Habetarim, the Covenant of the Pieces (an easy date to remember is Abraham's birth in the year 1948 – AM of course).

No Thousands

Based on this calculation, it turns out that Seleucus I came to power exactly 1000 years after the Exodus, as stated by the author of Seder Olam [see our Appendix 12]; counting from the Exodus, the building of the Temple of Solomon commenced in the year 480, as quoted above from the book of Kings. Rabbinic tradition and the Biblical text indicate that the Temple was destroyed 410 years later. Seventy years after the destruction of the First Temple, the Jews began to build the Second Temple, in the second year of the reign of Darius of Persia (see Zechariah 1:12, and compare with Haggai 1:14, both prophecies made in that same year).

According to Seder Olam, the whole of the Persian era, from the building of the Second Temple to the reign of Seleucus I [by Chronological and Background Charts of the Old Testament, 312 BCE], totaled only 40 years – bringing us to the year 3448, exactly 1000 years after the Exodus.

The number of years in the Seleucid era is thus aligned with the number of years from the Exodus, as calculated from the Biblical text. The Geonim, who used the shatarot dating system [i.e. dating of loan deeds], left the count from the Seleucid era in place as a technicality, without the thousands, since they were actually counting the years from the Exodus, just as the Hebrew letters whose numerical value are used to indicate the number of years from the Creation are generally written today without the number of thousands.

If the Exodus was in 1312 BCE (2448 A.M.), this puts us (as of spring 2012) in the year 3324 after the Exodus.

Appendix 7: Dating by Seleucus I, with Segula logic

[From “Seleucus I, Macedonian King of Asia,” at ]

Seleucus (c. 358-281 B.C.), son of Antiochus (one of Philip's generals), fought in the Companion cavalry and later became commander of the crack heavy infantry formation, the Hypaspistae. He took Perdiccas' side immediately after Alexander's death, but was later instrumental in his murder following the failure of the Egyptian campaign. Antipater appointed him governor of Babylon in 321. But in 316 Antigonus drove him out of Babylon and he fled to Egypt, where he joined Ptolemy in the war against Antigonus. He returned to Babylon in 312 and steadily extended his authority over the eastern provinces. After campaigning in India he made peace with the Indian ruler Chandragupta, receiving in return a corps of elephants which played a part in his 301 victory at Ipsus over Antigonus. At the partition of Antigonus' domains, Seleucus added Syria to his territories and founded his western capital at Antioch. In 285 his most threatening rival, Antigonus' son Demetrius, surrendered and in 281 Seleucus turned on his former ally Lysimachus. He invaded Lysimachus' territories in western Asia Minor and at the battle of Corupedium defeated and killed him. But when he crossed to Europe to claim Lysimachus' Thracian kingdom, he was assassinated by Ptolemy Ceraunus, the son of Ptolemy I.

If the "1000 years after the Exodus" explanation for the rabbinical use of the Geonim dating from Seleucus I is correct, that dates the Exodus at 1312 BCE. This would place us (as of the Segula article, June 2011) in the year 3323 after the Exodus, as Medan stated.

Appendix 8: Dating by Darius – Segula vs. Encyclopedia Britannica

[Primary Contributor: J.M. Munn-Rankin ]

Darius I: by name Darius the Great (born 550 BC—died 486), king of Persia in 522–486 BC, one of the greatest rulers of the Achaemenid dynasty, who was noted for his administrative genius and for his great building projects. Darius attempted several times to conquer Greece; his fleet was destroyed by a storm in 492, and the Athenians defeated his army at Marathon in 490.

[From the Segula article:]

Based on this calculation, it turns out that Seleucus I came to power exactly 1000 years after the Exodus, as stated by the author of Seder Olam; counting from the Exodus, the building of the Temple of Solomon commenced in the year 480, as quoted above from the book of Kings. Rabbinic tradition and the Biblical text indicate that the Temple was destroyed 410 years later. Seventy years after the destruction of the First Temple, the Jews began to build the Second Temple, in the second year of the reign of Darius of Persia (see Zechariah 1:12, and compare with Haggai 1:14, both prophecies made in that same year).

Using 521 for the second year of Darius I, and counting backward through 70 (years of exile) + 410 (years of the Temple) + 480 (to the Exodus), we arrive at 1481 BCE for the Exodus, putting us at the time of the Segula article in the year 3492 after the Exodus – 169 years beyond the Segula calculation.

Appendix 9: Dating the Exodus – John Bright

[From Wikipedia - (biblical_scholar) ]

John Bright (25 September 1908 – 26 March 1995), was an American biblical scholar, the author of several important books including the influential A History of Israel (1959), currently in its fourth edition (Westminster John Knox Press, 2000). He was closely associated with the American school of Biblical criticism pioneered by William F. Albright, which sought to marry archaeology to a defense of the reliability of the Bible, especially the earlier books of the Old Testament.

[From the publisher:]

Westminster John Knox Press, 2000 - History - 533 pages

Unsurpassed for nearly half a century, and now with a new introduction and appendix by William P. Brown, John Bright's "A History of Israel" will continue to be a standard for a new generation of students of the Old Testament. This book remains a classic in the literature of theological education.

How Bright’s Work Influences the Dating of the Exodus

[From “The Date of the Exodus: The Historical Study of Scripture” by Dennis Brachter, The Voice Christian Resource Institute. For his own criticism of the results, see the rest of the article at ]

1) 1 Kings 6:1 – “In the four hundred eightieth year after the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD.”

This verse gives a time period of 480 years between the exodus and the beginning of Solomon’s work on the Jerusalem temple. From John Bright’s chronology, Solomon ascended the throne around 961 BC, which would make the fourth year of his reign and the beginning of temple construction about 959-957 BC (see Israelite Kings [Brachter’s chart, ].) If we assume that the number 480 is to be taken as a precise number of years, much as we would count years on a calendar today, working backward from this date we arrive at a date around 1440 BC for the exodus. This is the primary origin of the 1440 BC date for the exodus.

2) Judges 11:26 – “While Israel lived in Heshbon and its villages, and in Aroer and its villages, and in all the towns that are along the Arnon, three hundred years, why did you not recover them within that time?”

This occurs in a message from Jephthah the Judge to the king of the Ammonites, trying to persuade him to stop campaigns against the Israelites in the Tranjordan territory. The king of Ammon was attempting to retake some of the Ammonite territory that had been lost to Israel in the time of Moses. Jephthah had sent an envoy asking the King of Ammon’s withdrawal, to which he had responded by asking that the Israelites return all the territory they had taken in the Tranjordan area. Jephthah’s argument was that the Israelites had controlled that territory since Moses led the people through the land (Num 21), and if the Ammonites had not been able to take back the land in the 300 years since then, he saw no reason to return it willingly now.

The time period of the Judges is notoriously difficult to define, simply because there are few details that can be cross-referenced for precise dating. If we follow the generally accepted chronology of John Bright, the period of the Judges was between 1200 and 1020 BC. If we allow for the activity of the other Judges, we can roughly place the time period of Jephthah around 1100 BC. Counting back from this date, we arrive at a date around 1400 BC for the time of Moses’ conquest of Heshbon. By adding another 40 years for the wilderness wandering, this leaves a date approximately 1440 BC for the exodus.

Using 958 BCE for Solomon's 4th year, and counting backward 480 years, we arrive at 1438 for the Exodus, putting us (as of spring 2012) in the year 3450 after the Exodus, 126 years beyond the Segula calculation.

Appendix 10: Jewish Explanation of the Gap (163-165 Years)

[From Wikipedia. To see footnotes with sources, go to: (Jewish_calendar) ]

Missing years (Jewish calendar)

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 and the modern secular dating for it (586 BCE) that results if its traditional date 3338 AM (Anno Mundi) is interpreted according to the standard Hebrew calendar.

Since about the 3rd century CE, the Jewish calendar has used the Anno Mundi epoch (Latin for "in the year of the world", Hebrew: לבריאת העולם), abbreviated AM or A.M and also sometimes referred to as the Hebrew era. According to Rabbinic reckoning, the beginning of "year 1" is not Creation, but about one year before Creation, with the new moon of its first month (Tishrei) to be called molad tohu (the mean new moon of chaos or nothing).

The Jewish calendar's epoch (reference date), 1 Tishrei 1 AM, is equivalent to Monday, 7 October 3761 BCE in the proleptic Julian calendar, the equivalent tabular date (same daylight period) and is about one year before the traditional Jewish date of Creation on 25 Elul AM 1, based upon the Seder Olam Rabbah of Rabbi Yossi ben Halafta, a 2nd century CE sage [see our Appendix 12]. Thus, adding 3760 before Rosh Hashanah or 3761 after to a Julian or Gregorian year number after 1 CE will yield the Hebrew year. For earlier years there may be a discrepancy.

Differences between the standard Hebrew and Gregorian calendars

The traditional dates of events in Jewish history are often expressed in relation to the Gregorian calendar. For example, the traditional Jewish date for the destruction of the First Temple (3338 AM = 423 BCE) differs from the modern scientific date, which is usually expressed using the Gregorian calendar as 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 of events before the Second Temple era are assumed to be using the standard Hebrew calendar, they refer to different objective years than those of the secular dates. The discrepancy is some 165 years.

The conflict does not necessarily imply that either the traditional dates or the secular dates must be objectively wrong. It is possible that the traditional dates did not use a consistent calendar matching the year count of the standard Hebrew calendar. It could be that one or more substantial calendar shifts have occurred, or the years counted might in certain periods have differed from astronomical years. Taking into account the possibility of a changing structure of the Hebrew calendar, theoretically, both the traditional dates and those of secular scholars could be correct. Even so, the account of history in the traditional sourcebook Seder Olam Rabba, and in particular its description of the period of Persian domination, seems to be irrevocably at odds with modern scientific understanding.

Furthermore, the modern Hebrew calendar cannot be used to calculate Biblical dates because new moon dates may be in error by ±2 days and months may be in error by ±2 months. The latter accounts for the irregular intercalation (adding of extra months) that was performed in three successive years in the early 2nd century, according to the Talmud.

Two-year difference within the Hebrew calendar

Today, Hebrew dating places the creation of the world near the end of "Year One" AM and afterwards the first year of Adam's life as "Year Two" AM. However, Seder Olam Rabba shows that the Hebrew dating originally counted the first year of Adam's life as "Year Zero" AM. 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 (Edgar Frank, Talmudic and Rabbinic Chronology, 1956). Alternatively, it could be that there was no calendar shift, or a shift of only one year, as the discrepancies regarding Adam's year of creation (he was not born) may only, or partially, reflect different views of the process of Creation.

Rabbinic tradition says that the First Temple was destroyed in "year 3338" AM and the Second Temple in "year 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 our years 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.

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" (Mosiach) mentioned in Daniel 9:25 would be hidden. 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.

These explanations come from the ambiguous meaning of the word 'week' in Hebrew, which means 'a heptad', or a group of seven. The Hebrew word for 'week' is used to refer to periods of seven days as well as seven years. The understanding of this number as referring to 490 years can also be found in Seder Olam. Christians also interpreted these verses as years and connect them to Jesus, although Rashi's interpretation is such that it upholds the tradition that the anointed one in question is the Persian king Cyrus. See Prophecy of Seventy Weeks.

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

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

Greek sources: The historians Herodotus, Ctesias, Thucydides, Xenophon, Dinon and Diodorus Siculus as well as the philosopher Aristotle, the playwright 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 eclipses, 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 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.

Missing years in Jewish tradition

R' Azariah dei Rossi, in Me'or Einayim (c. 1573), was likely the first Jewish authority to claim 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 (Hebrew, 1851) points 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.

R' David Zvi Hoffman (1843–1921) 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 been noted that 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. 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. The Minyan Shtarot system, used to date official Jewish documents, started in the year 3449 [AM]. According to Lerman's thesis, the year-count "from Creation" was established around the same time (see Birkat Hachama).

It has also been posited that certain calculations in the Talmud compute better according to the secular dating (Y2K solution to the Chronology Problem, Hakirah Vol. 3).

Two 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. However, R' Schwab withdrew this suggestion, labeling it a mere thought experiment.

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". The authors of the Hakirah article propose that the Sages therefore arranged the chronology so that the redaction of the Mishna should coincide with that date and thus have a better chance of acceptance.

Critiques of secular dating

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 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 only one Alexander of Macedonia fought a king Darius of Persia, not two Alexanders 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 has not yet been achieved 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.

Years each Temple stood

Rabbinic authority Baal Haturim indicates from Exodus 25:8 that the first temple stood 410 years, and the second for 420 years.

The 70 years between the first and second temple supports the above-noted 490 years, and 70 CE (3828 AM) minus 490 years = 3338 AM (421 BCE).

Appendix 11: Protestant Explanation of the Gap (240 Years) (short Ussher version)

[From Bible Probe - ]

Was the Jewish Seder Olam of the 2nd century calculated dishonestly on purpose to hide the fact that Daniel's 70-week Prophecy pointed directly to Jesus of Nazareth as the awaited Jewish Messiah? by J. R. Church

Western civilization uses a calendar that dates from the First Advent of Christ. To us, it is [at the time of writing] the year A.D. 2005. The term A.D. is an acronym for Anno Domini, Latin for, "in the year of the Lord." That is, approximately 2,005 years ago, Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

In 1658, Bishop James Ussher set the date for the birth of Christ at 4 B.C., claiming that our calendar was in error by four years. Since he had no political authority to push the calendar back four years, he had to leave it at 1653 (the publishing date for The Annals of the World), but claimed, nevertheless, that we were as much as four years off.

According to Ussher, Adam was created on Friday, six days after the new moon of September/October in 4004 B.C., giving added importance to the birth of Christ being exactly 4,000 years after Adam. Today in A.D. 2005, it is generally believed among Christians that Adam was created around 6,009 years ago and that Jesus was born about 2,009 years ago.

However, the Jewish calendar says that this year [2005 AD] is 5765 A.M. The term A.M. is an acronym for Anno Mundi, Latin for "from the creation of the world." — claiming that Adam was created only 5,765 years ago. When comparing the Jewish calendar to our modern calendar, we are faced with 240 missing years.

READ FULL ARTICLE at Prophecy in the News by clicking link below....

Appendix 12: Protestant 240 Year Gap - speculations, references:

Philologos

Bible Prophecy Research

Title: 5760+240=6000

Submitted by: research-bpr@

Date: July 2, 2000

URL:

5760 + 240 = 6000

[pic]

Millennium Fever Catching As Year 6000 Approaches

ben Yosef



Millennium fever is sweeping the land. The technological world is nervous over the chaos and confusion that might ensue when the year changes from 1999 to 1000 or 00 or remains stuck at '99 on older PCs, software and chip-based technology. The political world is caught up in its plans for a Global World Village and New World Order including an "orchestrated" peace in the Middle East. But the religious world, that´s where the fever is often accompanied with symptoms of hysteria.

The time-liners, doomsayers and arm-chair prophets are having a field day with the year 2000. And as the world prepares for its next birthday, (which should be reckoned from the Jewish Calendar, we contend), get ready for the Grim Reaper costumes and street walkers made up as “The End Is Here”-sandwiches.

With events “quickening” in the Middle East and such upheavals as the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the crash of the Berlin Wall, weather gone weird world wide and mankind-threatening pestilence and viruses, something out of the ordinary does appear to be going on. The question

is whether this is Apocalypse Now or later? For a moment, let's forget about 2000. Where did 2000 come from anyway? Most people believe 2000 commemorates the 2000th year since the birth of Christ or the Messiah. But the best historical accounts place that landmark in the year 4 B.C., the date that documents the death of King Herod.

If Hashem (G-d) is wanting to let us in on the little secret about the End Times, there´s a better way of doing it than counting down 2000 years. It is called the Seder Olam Rabbah, a Jewish instrument written in the year 240 C.E. (about 1,760 years ago) that records historical events from the start of Creation according to a pre-determined 6,000-year plan.

This countdown operates on the assumption that mankind is allotted 6 (six) one-thousand year “days” and then comes the Day of Hashem, which also lasts a thousand years. What is frightening/exciting/relieving, (choose your own adverb), about the 6,000-year calendar is how closely the last 2,000 years tie to the Gentile reckoning of years.

On its face, this would not seem to be so evident as the year from Creation 5760 according to Seder Olam Rabbah coincides with 1999-2000. That would make it appear that mankind has another 240 years to make a mess of things and this generation shouldn´t worry too much unless some cyber-genetic freeze technology makes it possible to go to sleep now and wake up 240 years in the future. And the way the world is headed, who would want to do that?

But wait a second, it appears that someone forgot to wind that 6000-year clock a few times and it may be a few seconds off, in fact, as much as 7,568,864,000 seconds (or about 240 years) according to the Encyclopedia Judaica and other authoritative writings. Interesting that this figure

"240" keeps cropping up!

In an article headed SEDER OLAM, Encyclopedia Judaica records:

“Yose b. Halafta, the presumed author of Seder Olam Rabbah, probably had access to old traditions that also underlay the chronological computations of the Jewish Hellenistic chronographer Demetrius (third century B.C.E.). The most significant confusion in Yose´s calculation is the compression of the Persian period, from the rebuilding of the Temple by Zerubbabel in 516 B.C.E. to the conquest of Persia by Alexander (331 B.C.E.) to no more than 34 years.”

Students of ancient history know that the Persian period actually spanned 185 years from its start in 516 B.C.E. to the conquest by Alexander. If Seder Olam Rabbah reckoned the Persian period as only 34 years, then the clock is off 151 years for this interval alone.

Also, according to George Foot Moore´s, “Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era,” Volume I, page 6, Seder Olam Rabbah allotted the period of the Medes and Persians together only 52 years. Again ancient history records that Cyaxares I, founded the Median Empire in 625 B.C.E. The Medes ruled 109 years before the start of the Persian empire in 516 B.C.E.

The compression of 109 years that the Median Empire reigned to just 18 years (52 years of Mede and Persian rule minus 34 years of only Persian rule), requires another 91 year adjustment to the 6000-year calendar.

The two adjustments taken together (151 years and 91 years) add 242

years to the Hebrew calendar, making 2000 the year 5760 plus 242 or

6,002!!

However, there is also a mistake in our favor (assuming we want to prolong the world-changing events of the 7th millennium) found in the reckoning of the years from Creation.

It seems that the Seder Olam Rabbah records the destruction of the Second Temple as occurring in the year 3828 from Creation. That translates to 68 C.E. rather than the 70 C.E. which history records. That would make the events of the year 3828 from Creation (or 4070 when adjusted for the period of the Medes and Persians) to have occurred two years later than Seder Olam Rabbah reckons them. . If they occurred later, (or the year 4070 coincides with the year 70 C.E.), then the calendar today should be adjusted two years back to -- you guessed it, 6000! This means we are NOW in the 6000th year since Creation, and the world officially becomes 6000 years old on the next Rosh Hashanah. That date is September 30, 1999.

[pic]

Seder 'Olam Rabbah

(Encyclopedia Judaica, CD ROM edition, "Seder Olam Rabbah")

The work is divided into three parts, each consisting of ten chapters. Part one enumerates the dates of major events from the creation of the world until the death of Moses and the crossing of the Jordan by the Israelites under Joshua; part two, from the crossing of the Jordan to

the murder of Zechariah, king of Israel; part three, chapters 21-27, from the murder of Zehariah to the destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar; and chapter 28, from the destruction of the Temple to the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus. Chapter 29 and the first part of chapter 30 cover the Persian period, which is stated to be only 34 years. The larger part of chapter 30 contains a summary of events from the conquest of Persia by Alexander until the Bar Kokhba Revolt. This

summary may be an epitome of a large section shortened by some later editor uninterested in post-biblical history. The book is written in a dry but clear Hebrew style. It is embellished with midrashic interpretations of biblical passages which are used as sources for the chronological calculations.

Yose b. Halafta, the presumed author of Seder Olam Rabbah, probably had access to old traditions that also underlay the chronological computations of the Jewish Hellenistic chronographer Demetrius (third century B.C.E.). The most significant confusion in Yose's calculation is the compression of the Persian period, from the rebuilding of the Temple of Zerubbabel in 516 B.C.E. to the conquest of Persia by Alexander, to no more than 34 years.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Seder=order

Olam=world

Rabbah=great

Seder Olam Rabbah = The Great Order of the World

(there is a "Small Order of the World" called Seder Olam Zuta)

[pic]

Seder Olam Rabbah

(Jewish Encyclopedia 1901)

Seder 'Olam Rabbah: Earlest post-exilic chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language. In the Babylonian Talmud this chronicle is several times referred to simply as the "Seder 'Olam" (Shab. 88a; Yeb. 82b; Nazir 5a; Meg. 11b; 'Ab. Zarah 8b; Niddah 46b), and it is quoted as such

by the more ancient Biblical commentators, including Rashi. But with the twelfth century it began to be designated as "Seder 'Olam Rabbah," to distinguish it from a later, smaller chronicle, "Seder 'Olam Zuta"; it was first so designated by Abraham ibn Yarhi ("Ha-Manhig," p. 2a, Berlin, 1855). In its present form the work consists of thirty chapters, each ten chapters forming a section, or "gate." It is a chronological record, extending from Adam to the revolt of Bar Kokba, in the reign of Hardrian; but the chronicle is complete only up to the time of Alexander the Great; the period from Alexander to Hadrian occupies a very small portion of the work--the end of the thirtieth chapter. It may be concluded, therefore, that originally the "Seder 'Olam" was more extensive, and that it consisted of two parts, the second of which, dealing with the post-Alexandrian period, has been lost, with the exception of a small fragment that was added by the copyists to the

first part. Many passages quoted in the Talmud are missing in the present edition of the "Seder 'Olam."

The Author probably designed the work for calendrical purposes, to determine the era of the Creation; his system, adopted as early as the third century (see Era), is still followed. Adhering closely to the Bible texts, he endeavored not only to elucidate many passages, but also to determine certain dates which are not indicated in the Bible, but which may be inferred by calculation. In many cases, however, he gave the dates according to tradition, and inserted, besides, the sayings and halakot of preceding rabbis and of his contemporaries. In discussing

Biblical chronology he followed three principles: (1) to assume that the intention of the Biblical redactor was, wherever possible, to give exact dates; (2) to assign to each of a series of events the shortest possible duration of time, where necessary, in order to secure agreement with the

Biblical text; and (3) to adopt the lesser of two possible numbers. The following examples will illustrate the manner in which these principles are applied. The confusion of languages is said to have taken place in the days of Peleg (Gen 10:25). The author concludes that the first year

of Peleg's life can not be meant, as at the time of the confusion Peleg had a younger brother, Joktan, and the latter had several children; nor could it have occurred during the middle years of his life, for Peleg lived 239 years, and the designation "middle years" is not an exact one

(Gen 11:18-19); had the redactor intended to indicate only a general period, he would have used the phrase "in the days of Peleg and Joktan." The Bible must therefore mean that the confusion of languages took place in the last year of Peleg's life, and by comparing the dates of the previous generations, the author concluded that it occurred 340 years after the Flood, or 1,996 years after the creation of the world.

After dealing, in the first ten chapters, with the chronology of the period from the creation of the world to the death of Moses, the writer proceeds to determine the dates of the events which occurred after the Israelites, led by Joshua, entered the Holy Land. Here Biblical chronology presents many difficulties, dates not being clearly given; and in many cases the "Seder Olam" was used by the later Biblical commentators as a basis of exegesis. Thus, it is known that from the

entry of the Israelites into the Holy Land to the time of Jephthah a period of 300 years elapsed (Judges 11:26). By computing the life periods of the Judges and assuming that Jephthah sent his message, in which he alluded to the 300 years, in the second year of his rulership, the writer concluded that the reign of Joshua lasted twenty-eight years. It may be added that he placed the making of he image for Micah (ib. xvii. 1 et seq.) and the destruction of nearly the whole tribe of

Benjamin in consequence of the wrong done to the Levite and his concubine in Gibeah (ib. xix. 1 et seq.) in the time of Othniel.

It is further stated that Solomon began to build the Temple in the fourth year of his reign, 480 years after the Exodus (1 Kings 6:1), that is, 440 years after the Israelites entered the Holy Land. Thus there was a period of 140 years from the second year of Jephthah to the building of the Temple. The author of the "Seder 'Olam" concluded that the forty years during which the Israelites were harrassed by the Philistines (Judges 13:1) did not begin after the death of Abdon, as it would seem, but after that of Jephthah, and terminated with the death of Samson. Consequently there ws a period of eighty-three years from the second year of Jephthah to the death of Eli, who ruled forty years (1 Sam 4:18), the last year of Samson being the first of Eli's judgeship. At that time the Tabernacle was removed from Shiloh, whither it had been transferred from Gilgal, where it had been for fourteen years under Joshua; consequently it remained at Shiloh for a period of 869 years, standing all that time on a stone foundation. It is also to be concluded that Samuel judged Israel for eleven years, which with the two years of Saul (ib. 13:2), the forty of David's reign (1 Kings 2:11), and the four of Solomon's reign, make fifty-seven years, during which the Tabernacle

was first at Nob, then at Gibeon. The chronology of the Kings was more difficult, as there were differences to reconcile between the books of Kings and of Chronicles. Here especially the author applied the principle of "fragments of years" ("shanim mekutta'ot"), by which he regarded the remainder of the last year of any king's reign as indentical with the first of his successor's. In the twentieth chapter, which closes the second part ("Baba Mezi'a"), the author deals with the forty-eight prophets that flourished in the land of Israel. Beginning with Joshua, the author reviews the whole prophetic period which terminated with Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, elucidating as he proceeds many obscure points. Thus, the prophet mentioned in Judges 6:8 was, according to the "Seder 'Olam," Phinehas, and the man of G-d that came to Eli (1 Sam. 2:27) was Elkanah.

The prophecy of Obadiah occurred in the time of Amaziah, King of Judah (comp., however, Yalk., Obad.), and those of Joel, Nahum, and Habakkuk in the reign of Manasseh. After devoting the twenty-first chapter ot the prophets that lived before the conquest of the land, to the seven prophetesses, and to the seven prophets of the Gentiles, the author resumes the chronology of the Kings. He continues it to the end of ch. 27, where he reaches the destruction of the Temple, which, according to his computation, occurred after it had existed 410 years, or 3,338 years after the creation of the world. Then follow the seventy years of the Captivity and the 420 years of the Second Temple, which was destroyed, as may be seen, in the year 3828 of the Creation.

The 420 years of the Second Temple are divided into the following period: the demoniation of the Persians, 34 years; of the Greeks, 180 years; of the Maccabees, 103 years; of the Herods 103 years. It will be seen that the allowance, contrary to historical facts, of only thirty-four years for the Persian domination in necessary if agreement with the Biblical text is to be insisted upon; for it is tated (Dan. 9:24) that the second exile was to take place after the seventy Sabbaths of years (=490 years). If from this number the seventy years of the first Captivity be deducted, and the beginning of Alexander's domination over Palestine be placed, in accordance with Talmudical evidence, at 386 years before the destruction of the Second Temple, there remain only thirty- four for the Persian rule.

From the destruction of the Second Temple, which, according to the "Seder 'Olam," occurred at the end of the last week of the Sabbatical year, to the suppression of Bar Kokba's revolt, or the destruction of Bethar, was a period of fifty-two years. But the text here is very confused, and gave rise to various emendations and interpretations (comp. Salzer in Berliner's "Magazin,"

iv.141 et seq.).

...As for the dates, they had not the Canon of Ptolemy to operate with, but only four names of the Persian kings in the confusing disorder in which they occur in the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, and they were consequently always far out of the way in their chronolgoy of the Persian period. The oldest rabbinical manual of chronology, the Seder 'Olam Rabbah, allows for the dominion of the Medes and Persians but fifty-two years in all, and from the rebuilding of the temple to the overthrow of the Persian monarchy by Alexander only thirty-four.* This compression of the history brought Ezra into the same generation with Zerubbabel and Joshua, who rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem. With this generation he is consistently associated in Jewish tradition. He was, it is said, a student of the law in Babylonia under Baruch son of Neriah,

the disciple and amanuensis of Jeremiah, and went up to Jerusalem only after the death of his master; this explains why he did not accompany Zerubbabel and Joshua in their return. According to the Seder 'Olam, Ezra and his party arrived in Jerusalem the year following the completion of the temple. Others, however, have him go up with Zerubbabel and Joshua and begin with them the building of the temple, finding his name in Neh 7, 7, Azariah (of which Ezra is an abridged

form; cf. Neh. 12, I). The most probably conjecture about the three "sheep" who, at the opening of the new epoch, began to build up the ruinous house in Enoch 8:9, 72, is that Zerubbabel, Joshua, and Ezra are meant.

*Abodah Zarah 8b-9a (R. Jose bar Halafta, a special authority in chronology). Leaving the Medes ("Darius the Mede" in Daniel) out of the reckoning, our chronology (after Ptolemy) gives, from the first year of Cyrus as king of Babylon (538) to the end of Darius III (332), 206 years, and from the completion of the second temple (516) to the same terminus, 184 years. On the names of the Persian kings see also Rosh ha-Shanah 3b, bottom...See Note I.

Note I

In the Yalkut (II, sect. 1068) the extract from Seder 'Olam exhibits a somewhat different text and enumeration, giving three Persian kings and one Median. Artahshasta (our "Artaxerxes") was taken to be a royal title borne by all these kings whatever their personal names, and thus confusion was worse confounded.

[pic]

From Judaism In the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of  Tannaim, George Foot Moore:

...the Seder 'Olam, a chronological synopsis of biblical history from Adam down to the age of Alexander (Daniel), and a continuation in brief to the destruction of the second temple and the war under Hadrian. The endeavor to fix the dates of Hebrew history by the data given in the Scriptures had been made by an earlier chronologer, Demetrius, probably an Alexandrian Jew, of whose work only scanty fragments have survived. The Book of Jubilees imposes its peculiar system on the history from Adam to Moses. For the post-exilic period the author of Seder 'Olam had no sufficient sources, and his schematic chronology of the Persian centuries and thereafter...is widely in error. In c. 30* the destruction of the temple (70 AD), 490 years after the first destruction, begins a new era (from the Destruction of the Temple), while, as the author remarks, in the Diaspora the Seleucid era (312 BC) was commonly employed. The last chapters are evidently mutilated, and, between that and the attempts to fill up the conclusion, are often unintelligible.

*According to the rabbinical chronology, the second temple stood for 420 years (Yoma 9a, Johanan). This is the sum of the numbers in Seder 'Olam, c. 30 (34 years from the completion of the Temple to Alexander; 180 for the Greek kings; 103 for the Asmonaean kingdom; 103 for Herod and his house).--On the schematic chronology of Seder 'Olam see I. Loeb in Revue des Etudes Juives, XIX, 202-205.-- Compare the chronological data in Josephus, Bell. Jud, vi. 10, I (cf. vi. 4, 8 sect. 269 f.). In the place last cited Josephus gives the second temple, from the rebuilding by Haggai (in the second year of the reign of Cyrus) to its destruction by Titus, a duration of 639 years and 45 days. On the chronology of Josephus the monograph by Peter Brinch (1699), reprinted in Havercamp's edition, may be consulted for a collection of the scattered data, especially in the Antiquities, and a criticism of Voss.

[pic]

From the Introduction to "The Astronomically and Agriculturally Corrected Biblical Hebrew Calendar", Michael Rood;

"Noted chronologist Rabbi Shimon Schwab believed that there exists a chronological gap of at least 165 missing years. Schwab suggested that this gap was imposed as an interpreted mandate from the scroll of Daniel to 'seal up the word and close the book.' He speculated that Daniel had the authority to expunge certain historical events from his writings, and the sages may have assumed that same right as they eliminated critical chronological information under the premise of 'sealing up the book.' In Pesachim 62b, we learn of the Book of Genealogies, which contained a wealth of genealogical information up to the time of Ezra, the main author. The Talmud, without explanation, informs us that the Book of Genealogies was hidden."

[Rami the son of Rab Judah said: Since the day that the Book of Genealogies was hidden, the strength of the Sages has been impaired and the light of their eyes has been dimmed. (Soncino Talmud, Pesachim 62b)]

[pic]

In the May 1999 version of Israel Today there is an article titled: The Mystery of the 240 Missing Years. "In the article, David Rohl, and Egyptologist and Archaeologist, found hieroglyphics that provided a synchronization of the Jewish and Egyptian calendars. He asserts that 240 years are missing from modern Jewish reckoning, bringing us to 'the prophetic year 6000.'"

Source:  

[pic]

In the Kabbala it states:

"240 years before the seventh millennium (i.e., the year 6000 from creation), the lower waters will rise and cover the entire world, and only Eretz Yisroel [the Land of Israel] will remain, which will float on the surface of the water like Noach's Ark; they will approach Gan Aiden [Garden of Eden], the place from which the four rivers leave. The people who survive will be completely righteous, and there they will be whitened, purified, and made spiritual." (Yalkut Reuveini, Shichechus Leket, "Eretz Yisroel v'Chutz L'Aretz," 6; in the name of the Rokeach--Gali Razyah)

(Quoted by Rabbi Pinchas Winston in his "Perceptions" email list, )

Excerpts from

Comparative Jewish Chronology (pp177-197)

in Jubilee Volume for Rav Yosef Breuer

by Rabbi Simon Schwab

[deleted his presentation of the traditional Jewish chronology pp177-180]

4. The Torah-true historian is now confronted with a truly vexing problem.

Ancient history of the Babylonian and Persian Empires presents us with

completely different data. These figures can hardly be doubted for

they appear to be the result of painstaking research by hundreds of

scholars and are borne out by profound erudition and by ever increasing

authoritative evidence. Sometimes small discrepancies of a year or tow

at the most have yet to be accounted for, but complete agreement seems

to be almost within reach at the present time�. Since according to Ezra

(6:15) the Second Temple was completed in the sixth year of Darius I,

the date following the secular chronology must have been 517 BCE; i.e.,

exactly 70 years after the date (again, established by secular historians)

for the destruction of the First Temple (587 BCE). Consequently the first

year of the era of the Second Temple was 517 BCE and not 351 BCE. As

long as we cannot doubt the date given for the destruction of the Second

Temple (70 CE) we are compelled to admit that the Bayis Sheini must

have existed for no less than 586 years instead of the 420 years given

by tradition. This amounts to a discrepancy of over 165 years compared

with our Jewish way of reckoning!

5. Furthermore there are at least nine Persian kings beginning with Cyrus

(seven of these reigned subsequent to the consecration of the Temple)

until the beginning of the Greek Era, during a period of well over 200

years. Compare with these figures the statements of Seder Olam and of

Talmudic-Rabbinic literature (Seder Olam 30, Rosh Hashanah 3b) which know

of only four Median-Persians kings ruling over a period of not more than

52 years, of which only 34 years belong to the period subsequent to the

building of the Second Temple.

6. The gravity of this intellectual dilemma posed by such enormous

discrepancies must not be underestimated. The unsuspecting students

-- including the pupils of our Yeshivoth and Beth Jacob High Schools --

are faced with a puzzle that appears insoluble. How could it have been

that our forebears had no knowledge of a period in history, otherwise

widely known and amply documented, which lasted over a span of 165 years

and which was less than 600 years removed in time from the days of the

Sages who recorded our traditional chronology in Seder Olam? Is it really

possible to assume that some form of historical amnesia had been allowed

to take possession of the collective memory of an entire people? This

should be quite like assuming that some group of recognized historians

of today would publish a textbook on medieval history, ignoring all the

records of, say, the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries of the Common

Era. Would this not seem inconceivable even for those who, unfortunately,

do not possess the necessary emunas chachomim to accept the world of

our Sages?

7. This enormous discrepancy between sacred tradition and secular data

would appear at first glance to frustrate any and all hope that it might

be possible to compile a comparative chronology acceptable to Orthodox

Jewry and secular historians alike. To faithful believers in the veracity

of our most sacred literature, both Biblical and Rabbinic, there seems

to be left only the following two alternatives between which to choose:

One: Faithfully to put our trust in the superior wisdom of our

inspired teachers of Torah who have arrived at the absolute Truth and,

consequently, to reject categorically and absolutely the right of any

secular scientist, even the most objective in his field to contradict our

convictions. In this case, it would mean that we would have to declare

that these 165 years which our Tradition has ignored are, in fact,

non-existent, and have been conjectured by secular historians out of the

clear blue sky. According to this method of reasoning, it would follow

that all the historical developments reported in connection with the

timetable of ancient history referring to that period are not history

but fiction and based on misinterpretation and misleading evidence.

Or Two: We might accept the unanimous opinion of secular historians

as coming as close to the objective truth as that is possible, but

make an ingenious attempt to interpret the Biblical data and to treat

the traditional Rabbinic chronology as mere Aggadic homily which may

lend itself to symbolic or allegorical evaluation.

This dilemma is most unfortunate. For it would appear that the only course

to take would be either to "correct" secular ancient history by 165 years

which we would then have to call "fictitious" or else to declare that

our traditional calendar is based not on historical calculations but on

Aggadic pronouncements. Even centuries ago, in his "Me'or Eynayim" (35),

Azariah de Rossi, a controversial figure in the annals of our people,

criticized the puzzling texts of Seder Olam and of the Talmud, much to

the righteous indication of contemporary and later Rabbinic scholars

(cf. R. David Gans in Tzemach David (#3448) and R. Jacob Emden to Seder

Olam 30).

....

9. Before we go any further, let us state our opinion emphatically that

the saintly Baal HaMeor neither could nor ever would have "rejected" any

statement by a Mishnaic authority and certainly not one by Rabbi Yossi

ben Chafta who is the author of Seder Olam... A special significance

was attached to the pronouncements of R. Josi..(Eruv. 51a, Gittin 67a,

Avoth de R. Nathan 18)cf. Jerus. Talmud end of Gittin VI...

10. In our case there were also Midrashic authorities who disagreed

with R. Josi i.e., Pirkei De R. Eliezer (49)... However our traditional

chronology is based on Seder Olam because of the authority of its

author. It is therefore quite inconceivable that any post-Talmudic teacher

could possibly "reject" those chronological calculations which have been

made the subject of many a Talmudic discussion....

......

B.

1. There seems to be left, as yet unexplored, only one avenue of

approach to the vexing problem confronting us. It should have been

possible that our Sages -- for some unknown reason -- had "covered up"

a certain historic period and purposely eliminated and suppressed all

records and other material pertaining thereto. If so what might have

been their compelling reason for so unusual a procedure? Nothing short

of a Divine command could have prompted our Chazal, those saintly "men

of truth" to leave out completely from our annals a period of 165 years

and to correct all data and historic tables in such a fashion that the

subsequent chronological gap could escape being noticed by countless

generations, known to a few initiates only who were duty-bound to keep

the secret themselves.

2. In the course of our inquiry, we do indeed find a Divine command

conveyed by an angel to Daniel to "seal the words and close the book"

at the end of a long prophesy which begins in Chapter 11:1 and ends at

Chapter 12:4 in the Book of Daniel....

[response]

The previous posts ahve demonstrated that reconciling the two chronologies

is nigh impossible. We then must ask, not as academicians, but as

bbeleiving Jews, which one shall we accept and affirm. It seems to me

that these murky waters will be best navigated with the lantern of emuna

and commitment. As such, conventional chronolgy must be rejected because

it leads to the following three conclusions:

1. Daniel 11:2 is not correct as he speaks of only 4 Persian kings. It

also makes interpreting Ezra6:14 more difficult. How can we accept

such a conclusion. Granted the generations of Kohanim Gedolim in

Nehemia12:10-11 work out easier according to conventional chronology;

yet it is possible to expalin these verses sufficiently satisfactorily

according to Seder Olan.

2. Our count m'brias haolam for the past two thousands yers is incorrect

and would have to be amended. Intellectual honesty would require that. Can

you imagine doing that and changing dating of all shtoros?

3. The chain of the msora from Avos 1,1 snaps between Men of Knesses

Hagdolah and Shimon Hatsadik, who was, as we know, form the remnants

of knesses hagdola (unless you say that it was a supreme body that was

constantly repopulated over 160 years)

So we need to consign this question to the bin of kushios that we all

keep half filled but uphold the Chazal's chronology in practice.

On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 02:21:30PM -0400, Mlevi...@ wrote:

: 2. Our count m'brias haolam for the past two thousands yers is incorrect

: and would have to be amended....

I took RAA to ask the same question. A kesuvah reads "leminyan she'anu

monim kan". One could argue (and I have) that we are intentionally

covering the possibility that the count is wrong. As a dating system,

it would still date contracts in a valid manner.

: 3. The chain of the msora from Avos 1,1 snaps between Men of Knesses

: Hagdolah and Shimon Hatsadik, who was, as we know, form the remnants

: of knesses hagdola (unless you say that it was a supreme body that was

: constantly repopulated over 160 years)

That's exactly what R' Schwalb's theory said.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download