Tuesday, May 22, 2007

The Missing Years In Jewish Chronology

Very important contribution:


http://emet.blog-city.com/the_missing_years_in_jewish_chronology.htm

The Missing Years In Jewish Chronology

posted Monday, 21 May 2007
I have always been fascinated by the "missing years" in Jewish chronology and it is something that I really want to explore in more depth in later posts. For a bit of a background to this issue, see this Wikipedia article

I have addressed the issue once before in this post, which includes R'Biberfeld's solution to the problem. R'Biberfeld preposal can be found in his scholarly polemic "Universal Jewish History" which is available online in its entirety here. It is a very interesting book, which although dated, does contain some fascinating ideas and sources.

A rather new approach which has recently appeared can be found in the 3rd volume of the Hakira Journal. The article entitled "A Y2K solution to the Chronology Problem" is available for download here. I will hopefully analyze this solution in a later post.

What I really want to post up is a fascinating piece by R' Saadia Gaon in his Emunot v'Deot relating to this issue. It can be found in Chapter 9 of the "Treatise of Redemption" (pg 322 of the Yale English Edition). R'Saadia Gaon in his critique of the Christian interpretation of some passages in Daniel, makes the claim that the Christians intentionally altered the calendar so that the dates of their view of redemption would coincide with their understanding of scripture. R'Saadia Gaon makes the accusation that they intentionally added dynasties to their list of kings to achieve this effect (the opposite of the views championed by the article in Hakira and R'Shimon Shwab). Here is the quote in full:

However the clearest [refutation of all lies in the fact that from the time when this revelation was made to Daniel until the date which they believe [to have been the time of the fulfillment of the prophecies regarding the redemption], only 285 years had elapsed. Now the total sum [mentioned in the book of Daniel] is 490 years. Of this number of year 70 were taken up by the period preceding the building of the second temple, and 420 by that of its existence.

I have found, then, that the advocates [of the Christian doctrine] had no other means [of supporting their theory] except the contention that an addition is to be made in the chronological calculation. They maintain, namely, that the government of the Persian over Palestine existed for a period of something like 300 years before that of the Greeks and that the number of their kings during this period was seventeen. However, I have refuted this contention on their part from the text of the book of Daniel itself, [pointing out] that it was impossible that between the time of the government of Babylon and that of the Greeks more than four Persian kings should have rules over Palestine. For the angle said to Daniel, peace be upon him: And as for me, in the first years of Darius the Mede, I stood up to be a supporter and a stronghold unto him. And now, I will declare unto thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all; and when he is waxed strong through his riches, he shall stir up against the real of Greece (Daniel 11:1,2). The above statement has thus been explained from every aspect.

These are, then, the arguments that may be offered in refutation of the doctrine of the Christians aside from the objections to be raised against their theory of the suspension of the laws of the Torah and those that might be urged against them on the subject of the Unity of God, and other matters, which cannot properly be presented in this book.

The eight treatise has hereby been completed.


38 comments:

  1. What about all the unearthed Persian documents, etc. and Herodotus' Greek history, that clearly point to more time for the Persian Empire? Have you run your theory by Prof. David Levene of NYU? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In the final analysis, there is nothing Christian about the contention that the first Beit Mikdash was destroyed some 165 years before the year 3338, as claimed in Seder Olam. This comes from Babylonian records which can nowadays be dated exactly because the historical data in these records are interleaved with data about lunar eclipses.

    The best explanation of the missing years seems to be by Dr. Moshe Lerman who showed convincingly that the Jewish count of the years started around the year 3400. He based himself on the date that we say Bircat HaHamah once every 28 years, and on some subtle mathematics regarding the small and big Mahzorim of the calendar. It follows from his approach that the year count only approximately reflects the time of Creation according to Tenach. The English site of A7 once had an article about this, and there is a much more detailed Hebrew version floating around also. As it happens, from 3400 onwards there is no significant disagreement between the various calendars. The disagreement is only regarding data before the year 3400, which on the Jewish side were retroactively computed by Rav Yosi, author of Seder Olam. We have no basis for saying that they are historically valid.

    From what Rav Saadia Gaon writes, it seems that the Christians of his time based themselves on the Greek version of history, which is more accurate than Seder Olam.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We've been through all this before. The "evidence" is smoke and mirrors. I just wanted to bring forward a RSG I had not been aware of. If someone wanted to distrust a Tanna, he certainly will distrust a Gaon...

    ReplyDelete
  4. >We've been through all this before. The "evidence" is smoke and mirrors.<

    You are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There's nothing wrong in Judaism with not accepting everything...how about the belief that a field mouse can be created from dirt? Nobody's perfect. Also, Rabbi Azariah Del Rossi came up with the same 165 years.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Everything is wrong about not accepting Chazal's transmission of history. The major foundation of religion's edifice is that history.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "The major foundation of religion's edifice is that history."

    You are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "You are wrong."

    Of course. Anyone who accepts the 165 year gap as real is compelled to seek a different basis for Judaism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So in other words, you under no circumstances will accept the 165 year gap no matter what evidence I provide because that would mean that Chazal was incorrect which in your mind can't be.Ergo,describing that evidence to you is a waste of my time because you won't ever grant that I'd be correct regardless of the evidence provided. Am I correct in that analysis?

      Delete
    2. If you can prove Chazal incorrect I would have no problem accepting the evidence. To date, no one has provided such proof. I do have a problem with the assumption that Chazal were lying. That is unacceptable.

      Delete
    3. I sent you one example which shows that Seder Olam was incorrect to date Darius before Cyrus.

      Delete
    4. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol31/v31n027.shtml#08

      Delete
  9. Different from what? I do not believe that you honestly checked the evidence regarding the plus or minus 165 years.

    First of all, the truth is the basis of Judaism. We accept the truth from who said it. If your basis is different, you indeed have to look for a different basis.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Replies
    1. It's a False dilemna that either Chazal is correct or they lied. It could just be a mistake because oral tradition doesn't preserve details like chronology well.
      Let us see 2 examples from Apocyrpha wich appear to use it instead of historical records (like Sefer Melochim)
      Judith 1:1 says that Nebuchadnezzar was King of Assyria and ruled from Nineveh. The writer clearly didn't look at (to just name a few) Melochim Beis 24:1, Yirmiya 25:9 which say that he was King of Bovel and the author was most likely relying on a mistaken oral tradition.
      For another example let us look at Tobit 14 which says that Nebuchadnezzar and Achashveirosh(Xerxes) conquered Assyria and destroyed Nineveh together.Another example of a mistake caused by oral tradition changing details.

      For some details specifically about chronology I refer you to this paper:https://www.scribd.com/document/258002666/Oral-Tradition-and-Chronology

      Delete
    2. Let's start with this:

      https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/expositor/series1/10_397.pdf

      Delete
    3. Next:

      https://www.velikovsky.info/ages-in-chaos/

      Delete
    4. In short, one needs to start with Alexander the Great and work backwards. One MUST do so on the basis of the assumption that there are no missing years, and that our version of history is the most accurate.

      Delete
    5. About Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Egypt I think line 17 on page 83 of the referred to book is a little problematic as it implies that he fought the Egyptian princes who ruled the Delta as opposed to a foreign army.https://archive.org/details/recordsofpastbei04sociiala/page/82. His throwing up his hands with Yechezkel 29:12 is annoying.

      About Velikovsky, I’ve joined the waitlist for his book on Archive.org I will just say that his synchronism of Ipuwer with the Exodus is wrong. “A man regards his son as his enemy. Confusion [. . .] another. Come and conquer; judge [. . .] what was ordained for you in the time of Horus, in the age [of the Ennead . . .]. The virtuous man goes in mourning because of what has happened in the land [. . .] goes [. . .] the tribes of the desert have become Egyptians everywhere.”(https://www.ancient.eu/article/981/the-admonitions-of-ipuwer/) just doesn’t shtim with the Exodus narrative

      Here’s how the Babylonian chronology which confirms the existence of the missing years and all years from 625 to 76 CE is calculated. https://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/babylon/babycal_converter.htm
      So no, we need not back-calculate from Alexander’s invasion of Egypt. It can be established on a basis totally independent of Greek sources.(Which you have some unexplainable hatred of.) Seder Olam historically can from there be proven objectively wrong.

      Delete
    6. "So no, we need not back-calculate from Alexander’s invasion of Egypt" the last phrase "of Egypt" in the prior comment was a mistake.

      Delete
    7. The only way to do this right is to start from the assumption that Tanach - not Seder Olam, for now - is the correct chronology and work from there. You are starting from the assumption that the secular chronology is correct and working from that point. That is unconvincing.

      Delete
    8. Why is the assumption that the secular chronology is correcy when I've explained how for the relevant period it is unconvincing?
      What exactly do you mean by starting from Tanakh being the correct chronology exactly?

      Delete
    9. I'm starting from where we have solid dates and back-calculating.

      Delete
    10. From where in Tanakh on to be more specific? Any place I want?

      Delete
  11. Perhaps they had a good reason? Perhaps to prevent Chishuvei HaKets. I think that is what Rav Schwab said. Ask his family - easy in Monsey - why he withdraw this, whether it was truth or pressure.

    Perhaps Chazal just did not know all dates exactly but they judged that a convincing calendar was critical for the survival of judaism in galus?

    I know another reason which I do not want to write. It is close to what Rav Schwab wrote, but different. It might be that if you would accept the evidence according to its merits, without cheshbonos about the status of Chazal, you might be given insight about Chazal that is reserved to the purest seekers of truth.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The correct chronology for the period of the Hebrew kings, one that agrees with the schedule of Sabbatical years, is posted online at http://www.prophecysociety.org/books/SC2012/SC-frontcover.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. Following all the discussions about the calendars, I find missing one important fact. According to the secular dating, and that Jerusalem was said to be rebuilt according to the decree of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerses-- from the decree of Artaxerses in his 7th year, there would be exactly 490 years to the martyrdom of the first xtian martyr, 3 and a half years after the cruxifiction of JC. So obviously xtians altered the calendar so that Daniel chapter 9 would point directly to JC. The historian Josephus says there were 246 years of Persia and counts the 490 years from the prophet Jeremiah's prediction of the temple being rebuilt, leading the 490 years to end with the first Channukuh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BTW, Bible scholars say that interpretation is wrong
      See here for details:https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1dts7i/does_this_explain_the_chronology_of_the_seventy/

      Delete
  14. When reading the book of Deutotonmy Chapter 1:3
    It says as follows

    Deuteronomy 1American Standard Version (ASV)

    1 These are the words which Moses spake unto all Israel beyond the Jordan in the wilderness, in the Arabah over against Suph, between Paran, and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Di-zahab.
    2 It is eleven days' journey from Horeb by the way of mount Seir unto Kadesh-barnea.
    3 And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, that Moses spake unto the children of Israel, according unto all that Jehovah had given him in commandment unto them;
    plz explain verse 3

    ReplyDelete
  15. Most of these Kings are confirmed by Achamenid Royal inscriptions alone https://www.livius.org/sources/content/achaemenid-royal-inscriptions
    For the Cyrus-Cambyses-Bardiya (Smerdis)-Darius I chronology see the Behistun inscription column 1 lines 27 -61
    Lines 6-11 of the Gate of all nations confirms that Xerxes I was after Darius I https://www.livius.org/sources/content/achaemenid-royal-inscriptions/xpa/
    For confirmation that Artaxerxes I was after Xerxes I see the Hall of Hundred Columns inscription https://www.livius.org/sources/content/achaemenid-royal-inscriptions/a1pb/
    After this there appears to have been a brief civil war https://www.livius.org/articles/person/ctesias-of-cnidus/
    We know he didn't make this up(https://www.livius.org/articles/person/xerxes-ii-and-sogdianus/) from nowhere because Sogndianus is mentioned by Manetho as being for a short time King of Egypt.
    Darius II was the son of Artaxerxes I as confirmed by a gold tablet from Ecbatana https://www.livius.org/sources/content/achaemenid-royal-inscriptions/d2ha/
    On a column base in Ecbatana Artaxerxes II left an inscription confirming he was the son of Darius II https://www.livius.org/sources/content/achaemenid-royal-inscriptions/a2ha/
    An inscription at the Palace of Darius added during repairs confirms that Artaxerxes III was the son of Artaxerxes II https://www.livius.org/sources/content/achaemenid-royal-inscriptions/a3pa/
    BM 71537 says that Arses (Artaxerxes IV) was the son of Umakush the Akkadian version of Artaxerxes III's real name. https://books.google.com/books?id=S6BevAUWSGAC&pg=PA423&lpg=PA423&dq=BM+71537+text&source=bl&ots=n_Bbp4RgOY&sig=ACfU3U3x-w6iD18rfnbjZ_Hr3DnK8h-l0A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjaofG9w6jgAhVQTd8KHYX9B8oQ6AEwAXoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=BM%2071537%20text&f=false
    Alexander fought Darius III so we have a wealth of information on him by the Greeks.https://www.livius.org/articles/person/darius-iii-codomannus/.
    For Artaxerxes V see https://www.livius.org/articles/person/artaxerxes-v-bessus/
    I think this confirms the correctness of the Secular chronology with barely any resort to Greek sources.
    What you do with the theological problems it raises, I really don't know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Asa brief perusal of the inscriptions reveals no dates, all chronological arrangements are guesswork. You have a bigger problem with this website. It has no Purim...

      Delete
  16. And yet, the oldest independent source we evidently have evidently corroborates Tanach. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berossus

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RYGB, Tanakh's historical reliability is a seperate topic. If you wish to discuss that and the historicity of things like the Megilla,כיבוש הארץ under Yehoshua etc. please e-mail me. It is ultimately irrelevant to the question of the missing years. I have a number of examples of contradictions I could toss at you here but I will refrain from doing so because it’s for another time.

      “As a brief perusal of the inscriptions reveals no dates, all chronological arrangements are guesswork.”

      Here’s a list of contemporaneous Babylonian texts that give dates https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc24.pdf now that you've acknowledged that I've demonstrated that these Persian kings existed.

      I’m sorry I couldn’t go in depth as I did last time but that took a lot of research.

      Delete
    2. First, I do not concede the Persian chronology. The inscriptions do not record King I, King II and King III a la The Cat in the Hat. To me it is clear that the various kings with the same names must be compacted. An attempt to do so is here: https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j03_1/j03_1_128-134.pdf

      Second, the events of the Megillah are directly related to the question of the Missing Years.

      Moreover, if one rejects the historicity of Jewish History, there is no point to remain Jewish.

      Delete
    3. "Second, the events of the Megillah are directly related to the question of the Missing Years."

      How does it affect the historicity of the missing years?

      "Moreover, if one rejects the historicity of Jewish History, there is no point to remain Jewish."
      That is a topic that needs be addressed however it ultimately has no bearing on if the secular chronology is correct or not. That is simply not under discussion here.

      The guy you linked to who tries to suggest that Artaxerxes is another name for Darius in Ezra clearly forgets about Ezra 6:14 which says ושבי יהודיא בנין ומצלחין בנבואת חגי נביאה [נביא] וזכריה בר־עדוא ובנו ושכללו מן־טעם אלה ישראל ומטעם כורש ודריוש וארתחששתא מלך פרס
      I am unaware of any instance in which the Vav is used to indicate a dual name. It is established by the Behistun inscription that Cyrus and Darius aren't alternative names.A conflation is also impossible as Ezra 6:1 says that Darius looked for a decree by Cyrus and quoted it in his decree implying it's HIGHLY unlikely that in our pasuk that the names refer to the same person. If it said דריוש ארתחששתא or "Darius Artaxerxes" instead of "Darius and Artaxerxes" the case for that would be much more convincing.
      A3PA also explicity has multiple Artaxerxes's and these are visible in the transliteration https://www.livius.org/sources/content/achaemenid-royal-inscriptions/a3pa/

      Delete
    4. 1. Any resolution of the issue must take Purim as axiomatic.

      2. I was just using that as an example.

      Delete
    5. "1. Any resolution of the issue must take Purim as axiomatic.
      Says who? According to secular chronology, if Purim is historical the seventh year of Xerxes (Achasveirosh) was 497 BCE.
      "2. I was just using that as an example."
      RYGB, if one inscription says "I am Rechovom ben Shlomo and I built this palace" and another one found elsewhere says "I am Shlomo ben Dovid and I exiled Yerovoam" It is entirely reasonable to establish a line of Dovid-Shlomo-Rechovom which is what I did here with the aforementioned inscriptions.

      Delete
  17. New discovery at https://rygb.blogspot.com/2019/02/new-evidence-that-165-missing-years-are.html

    ReplyDelete