Missing years (Jewish calendar)

Both the Babylonian Chronicles and the Bible indicate that Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem. The Babylonian Chronicles (as published by Donald Wiseman in 1956) establish that Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem the first time on 2 Adar (16 March) 597 BCE.[2] Before Wiseman's publication, E. R. Thiele had determined from the biblical texts that Nebuchadnezzar's initial capture of Jerusalem occurred in the spring of 597 BCE,[3] while other scholars, including William F. Albright, more frequently dated the event to 598 BCE.[4]

According to the Bible, Nebuchadnezzar installed Zedekiah as king after his first siege,[5] and Zedekiah ruled for 11 years before the second siege resulted in the end of his kingdom.[6]

Although there is no dispute that Jerusalem fell the second time in the summer month of Tammuz,[7] Albright dates the end of Zedekiah's reign (and the fall of Jerusalem) to 587 BCE, whereas Thiele offers 586 BCE.[8] Thiele's reckoning is based on the presentation of Zedekiah's reign on an accession basis, which was used for most but not all of the kings of Judah. In that case, the year that Zedekiah came to the throne would be his first partial year; his first full year would be 597/596 BCE, and his eleventh year, the year Jerusalem fell, would be 587/586 BCE. Since Judah's regnal years were counted from Tishrei in autumn, this would place the end of his reign and the capture of Jerusalem in the summer of 586 BCE.[8][9]

According to the Talmud[16] and Seder Olam Rabbah,[17] the Second Temple stood for 420 years, with the years divided up as follows:

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

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

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

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

The date of 318 BCE for the Greek conquest of Persia was later confirmed by Rabbeinu Chananel, who wrote[18] that Alexander the Great rose to power six years before the beginning of the Seleucid era (which occurred in 312/11 BCE).[19][20]

Seventy years passed between the destruction of the First Temple and the building of the Second Temple in the seventy first year,[21] so construction of the Second Temple in 352 BCE implies that the First Temple was destroyed in 423 BCE.

Similarly, Megillat Antiochus implies that the Second Temple was built in 352 BCE, and thus that the First Temple was destroyed in 423 BCE.[22]

The figure of 420 years is derived from the prophecy of seventy weeks in Daniel 9:24–27, which the rabbis interpreted as referring to a period of 490 years which would pass between the destructions of the First and Second Temple - 70 years between the Temples, plus 420 years of the Second Temple, starting in the 71st year after the destruction.

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

Azariah dei Rossi[23] was likely the first Jewish authority to claim that the traditional Hebrew dating is not historically precise regarding the years before the Second Temple.[24]^:262 [25]^:82 [26]^:77

Nachman Krochmal[27] agrees with dei Rossi,[25]^:51 pointing to the Greek name Antigonos mentioned in the beginning of Avot as proof that there must have been a longer period to account for this sign of Hellenic influence. He posits that certain books of the Bible such as Kohelet and Isaiah were written or redacted during this period.

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

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. According to Moshe Lerman,[28] the year-count "from Creation" was established around the same time (see Birkat Hachama for elaboration).

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

• Shimon Schwab points to the words "seal the words and close the book" in the book of Daniel as a positive commandment to obscure the calculations for the Messiah mentioned within, so that the true date of the Messiah's arrival would not be known.[29] However, Schwab later withdrew this suggestion for numerous reasons.[24]^:281-285 [25]^:66–67 [26]^{:67–68, 93}

• An alternative solution suggests that the sages were concerned with the acceptance of the Mishnah. There existed a rabbinical tradition that the year 4000 marked the close of the "era of Torah". The authors of the Ḥakirah article propose that the sages therefore arranged the chronology so that the redaction of the Mishnah should coincide with that date and thus have a better chance of acceptance.[26]^:67–115

Attempts have been made to reinterpret the historical evidence to agree with the rabbinic tradition. 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 dating (such as those of Peter James and David Rohl) and mainstream scholarship rejects such approaches. Where and how the Gregorian or Julian calendric differential gets factored in, remains another argument entirely.

The Babylonian Chronicles are known to be lacking in certain regnal years ascribed to some kings, besides disagreeing in other places with the ancient Egyptian records outlining the regnal years of eight successive Persian kings, preserved in the Third Book of Manetho.[30]