Talk:Missing years (Jewish calendar)

Be Bold
One of the few Haredi ("Ultra-Orthodox") voices who grappled with this problem was Shimon Schwab. Perhaps I ought to work his views into the relevant section, because he advances (and then effectively rejects) a theory that the years in question were deliberately removed from the Jewish calendar. JFW | T@lk  22:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Lerman's Theory
Added a section about Lerman's theory. Goeie 04:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed it (Lerman says the theory does not and was not intended to explain the missing years).Goeie 06:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind elaborating? It sounded convincing (If the year count is an Rabbinic invention it wouldn't be exact)Wolf2191 07:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A shift of the absolute value of the count (eg rounding off) does not really explain the gap. One could just shift everything. True, if there was a pre-existing count and they changed it, they would have to insert a gap somewhere in one direction or other. But that is a big assumption, and it is not Lerman's, that is the point. But I added a piece to Birkat HaHammah.Goeie 11:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Added a small paragraph.Goeie 04:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

First two sections are quite mistaken
The section "Two-year difference within the Hebrew calendar" is wrong and in any case the logic is poor.

The count did change, but only by one year. If you go according to Lerman's theory, the year-counted existed from the 35th century and is based on the idea that Creation took place in Nissan of the first year. One can call this year 0 or year 1, and there was likely a change in convention. Originally it was called year 0, while later it was called year 1.

However, he other addition of 1 is bogus, with all respect.

What happened is that the introduction of the fixed calendar caused a reinterpration of the years without changing the count iself, in an attempt to give place to both the Shita that the world was created in Nissan (called after rabbi Yehoshua}, and the Shita that the world was created in Tishrei (rabbi Eliezer). As it happens, the timing of the physical Molad is only approximately consistent with tradition and midrash if it is assumed that the world was created in Tishrei of (our) year 2. For instance, in (our) year 1, Molad Tishei (being BHR"D) was Yom Sheni, which makes it impossible that Rosh Chodesh, the birtday of Adam HaRishon, was on Yom Shishi of year 1. Also, Molad Nissan of year 1 does not fit Rosh Chodesh on Yom Shishi. Hence, we ended up saying that Adam was created in Tishrei, and in year 2. Because Birkat HaHammah must be (our) year 1, the Shitot of Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer can only be unified by having Nissan first and Tishrei second (see Hilchot Kiddush HaHochesh 9 and 10).

As an aside, this was different before the issue of the fixed calendar came up. Originally, "Rabbi Yehoshua" was being mityashev in the Nissan after the Tishrei of Rabbi Eliezer. This is quite essential - it is even what is behind the very existence of the two Shitot. Important also, because it shows that the Creation in Nissan was the first week of Nissan, and not the week starting Adar 25, which is a later invention, another result of the above Molad problem, but Adar 25 idea does not work out in any case (see Tosefot Rosh HaShana 8).

Anyway, because of this we starting saying that Adam HaRishon was created in year 2. We did not change the years for that. Davka not. So "Today these years would be called 3340 and 3830 AM" is not true. There is a difference of one year only.

To assume that the count changed necessarily with the change of its interpretation assumes that our sages took the count to be objective. The alternative is, however, that the sages felt free to change interpretation, and the evidence for this is quite overwhelming. I will leave it to the original author to fix the logic. If it does not happen within reasonable time, I will do it.

The section "Differences between the standard Hebrew and Gregorian calendars" is so misty that I suggest that it be deleted. I will do so, unless the author improves it.Goeie 05:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I find Lerman's theory highly suspect. It seems unlikely that the sages living when they did should have forgotten to account for the 150 yrs. and 4 kings. It also doesn't take into account the (fairly strong) evidence mentioned in the Hakirah article for a deliberate cover up.


 * The missing 2 years point is very widely held (see for instance artscroll to A"Z 8a) and very likely. You may like lerman, but that doesn't make other ideas wrong.Wolf2191 04:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Lerman does not say that the sages who lived at the time (say 35th century) forgot kings. He argues game-set-and-match in my opinion what is the background of the year-count. The way the sages did this (rounding off to a multiple of 532) causes a natural mismatch. The mismatch was not necessarily addressed by the same sages. Perhaps it was addressed, in the way that we know it, only as late as rabbi Yosi in Seder Olam Goeie 04:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC).


 * 1. We still have a problem in this that we have no record of anything happening during those years, No famous kings, priest, writings, battles. Why was no record left unless it was deliberately concealed?? (Interestingly we have a similar gap in records of the geonic period. Is it possible that during the period of redaction (of Bible, and Talmud) were for some reason deliberately concealed in some way? (pure OR speculation agreed)
 * 2. It really does appear that there was a deliebrate concealment (Hoffman and Krochmal on an apparently deliberate removal from the Mishna Avot)? This is why I don't find Lerman takes care of everything (and I only partially understand his point. Does he take care of the difficulties one would have with the shemitta\Yoval count. That count would have gone on a long time and would have to be taken in account? A difficult conundrum and far from game-set-match. BestWolf2191 05:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There was deliberate concealment, also according to Lerman if you ask him, to defend the calendar and the unity of the Nation.


 * All due respect but to have chronological unity is a very weak reason to go to all that trouble. Particularly since Z'man Shtarot (greek dating) was the norm so I can't see that Lerman's claim for a need of chronological unity convincing. (Interesting that Josephus should have joined in (partially) on this cover up?)Wolf2191 05:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The end of 2,000 years of Torah is a better reason? Anyway the year count is the key for the determination of the Molad BHR"D (From the first Molad Tishrei, Yom Beit, Hour Heh, Resh-Dalet Chalakim, Year 1, you can compute every Molad, but only if you know the year). We want everybody to have the same Rosh Chodesh, and therefore the same Chagim, first of all to preserve unity. Not a weak reason IMHO. After all, we are talking about a major task of the Sanhedrin. Goeie 06:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I think that a final reaction to the Bible would be a far better explanation for all the secrecy and cover-up. Actually, Lerman's idea might explain the mystery behind Sod Ha'Ibur (which is apparently a simple calculation).Wolf2191 06:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect to Shmitta, the answer is obvious. Shmitta is not coupled to the year count, at all. Rather it is coupled to dates of Yishuv HaAretz, Hakamat Beit HaMikdash, complicated, even for the Rambam. The fact that we have a multiple of seven now is a "coincidence". The a priori chance is 1/7. Goeie 05:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that in the Sugya in A"Z (8-9) the calculation is made based on Briyot Olam but I'm a bit hazy on details (need to review)Wolf2191 05:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC).


 * I did not say that other ideas are wrong. I said the section is mistaken. I did not say that the "generally held" view should not be mentioned as being "generally held". But logic says that a change of interpretation does not imply a change in count.Goeie 05:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not? The question is, do we count the first 6 days of creation as a seperate year under the rule of Miktzos Ha'Yom Kulo or do we start counting from the day of the creation of man (perhaps we need to elaborate that section with this information).Wolf2191 05:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I edited "Two-year difference within the Hebrew calendar". I thought to add that Rashi explains Seder Olam such that the Temple stood until 3828, meaning that it was destroyed in 3829, so that one gets to 70 CE with a one-year shift. I feel such a remark would be besides the point being made though. The purpose of "Differences between the standard Hebrew and Gregorian calendars" keeps escaping me but I left it in for now. Please explain/improve. Goeie 09:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed "Two-year difference within the Hebrew calendar", and merged it with the last section, "Evolution of the Hebrew calendar", which was almost empty. Goeie 07:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Interchanged two first sections. Goeie 10:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "it is generally held" regarding the calendar shift of one and two years. Actually, I found that the two-year is not so widely held at all. The one-year shift is widely held, as it has a source in the Gemara and it is the Shita of the Vilna Gaon. But I decided that the shita that there was no shift is too tenable to be disqualified by the "it is generally held" that I wrote before. Goeie 13:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Saadiah
I am placing this here till I can see how best to incorporate it into the article.

"One version of the argument states that the Jews deliberately distorted the dating to hide that the prophecy refers to Jesus"

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.

Wolf2191 03:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A COUPLE NOTES about objectivity.

Would anyone who is defending the secular dating, please cite your sources better? I am attempting to collect all these original source materials. Please cite the titles of the ancient works that allegedly support the secular dating.

Also, at least a couple of the papers listed in the external links, specifically "A Y2K Solution. . ." and "Fixing the Mind. . ." offer absolutely no evidence to support the secular dating, but rather just assume that it is correct and then try to find a reason or justification for the Jews to alter their own calendar. I have not read the other articles in the external links. So if there is an article listed that does the exact opposite, that assumes the Hebrew year count is correct, and then shows where the Greek historians are wrong, please forgive my ignorance of them.

It needs to be noted in the article, that there is a powerful motive for many to not be objective about the Hebrew year count, as the secular dating conveniently allows an interpretation of Daniel 9 to point to Jesus Christ. Brianshoe (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Clouded
The article seems to present things in an extraordinarily clouded, hard-to-follow way.

Can we not make the basic bones of the issue stand out more clearly.

The fundamental issue is that a literal reading of Seder Olam Rabbah, eg as presented by chabad.org gives a date of 423 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem -- way after the accepted dates for eg the Battle of Marathon (490 BC) or Xerxes' invasion of Greece (480 BC); and we have detailed year-by-year chronologies for that period, with multiple different sources matching.

So Seder Olam Rabbah is either wrong on this date (and then one can speculate why); or a wholesale new chronology for the entire history of Classical Greece must be found -- which nobody is proposing (and the comparison with David Rohl is completely misleading).

The article should spell out much sooner that this is the issue, and much more clearly. At the moment, IMO it needlessly makes things very opaque. Jheald (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, while it's far from finished, the Heifetz Chronology has been proposed as a revision of the histories of Egypt, Greece and Persia during this period.


 * Also, the date for the fall of Jerusalem according to the Jewish chronology is 421 BCE, and not 423 BCE. The current Hebrew date according to Seder Olam would be 5770, and not 5768.  The difference is because the count in Seder Olam is a mathematical count from the creation of Adam, which would put the year of Adam's creation as a "Year Zero".  The count in common use today sets the creation of the world in Year 1, and the creation of Adam 6 days later on the first day of Year 2. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are those who have tried to make such chronologies, but nothing that needs to be taken seriously. The Greek chronology is usually skirted around (or victim of severe well-poisoning) precisely because it's so devastating to revisionist chronologies. Other than that I agree. It's weird that the article goes right into "misconceptions", pulling out apologetics before Seder Olam Rabbah is even mentioned. There should be an initial paragraph dealing with the source of the misconception (the comparatively late Seder Olam Rabbah combined with the paucity of contemporary Jewish sources) and the disagreement with the conventional chronology, which is based on Greek, Persian, Babylonian and Egyptian sources, many of them contemporary. After that the article can go into minority viewpoints (the Heifetz revisionisms, etc) and Rabbinic commentaries and other points of interest. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that Wikipedia take a stand on whether the Greek-based chronology is right or whether the Jewish one is right? I think it would be more NPOV to simply state the views.  It's legitimate to say that certain views are controversial, but I disagree about the Heifetz chronology not needing to be taken seriously.  On the contrary, Seder Olam Rabbah is only a few centuries younger than the Greek accounts, and unlike the Greek accounts, which were prepared largely as entertainment, the Jewish account has both continuity of location and a track record of taking history far more seriously -LisaLiel (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not have to take a stand. A stand has already been taken, Wikipedia only has to report. No one apart from a few fringe scholars believe the Seder Olam Rabbah chronology is correct, and with good reason. The Seder Olam Rabbah was written half a millenia after Alexander the Great, while Thucydides wrote during the "missing years", as did Herodotus. Also, Greece was well within the Persian sphere of influence. That the Greek didn't take history as seriously as the Jews doesn't square with reality, and seems to have more to do with prejudice than anything else. One might just as well say that the Jewish accounts were prepared largly as religious edification. Of course, Jewish sources are trusted - when they are close in time to what they relate. The Jewish account of the Assyrian Empire are far more reliable than the Greek, precisely because of this. But no contemporary histories of the Persian period were produced by the Jews, so it's hardly surprising that this is where the Seder Olam Rabbah gets it wrong. Also, the Greek account happens to be supported by Persian and Babylonian sources, including cuneiform tablets with astronomical observations as well as trilingual inscriptions supporting the "Greek" sequence of Persian kings, and contradicting the "Jewish".


 * The point is, these missing years are of interest, but primarely because of the influence it had on the modern Jewish calendar. Rabbinic and scholarly comments on why the Jewish chronology differs should be included, as should the fringe theory that the Jewish chronology is the correct one. But it should not be given undue emphasis. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Which years are "missing"?
I have recently reverted the reverts of a change that I made to the article, since it previously looked as though the "missing years" were the period between the destruction of the first temple and the second. On the contrary, the "missing years" denote the length of time between different datings of the first temple's destruction, one of which is determined in accordance with Babylonian and archaeological sources, the other by working backwards from the date of the second temple's destruction in accordance with an interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27. Archaeological sources tell us that the first temple was destroyed c.587 BCE, while the rabbinic dating sets it at c.423 BCE. The period between those two dates is one of about 164 years, which are described as "the missing years". The length of time between those dates and the date of the destruction of the second temple is not "missing". --Aniboker (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The missing years are an artifact caused by a disagreement about the length of time between the destruction of the First Temple and the destruction of the Second Temple. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That may indeed be what gave rise to the two different dates for the first temple's destruction, but the years that are "missing" are the ones between those two dates (587 BCE and 423 BCE). I suspect we might be saying the same thing, but the way it was worded before made it look as though the missing years were the ones between 587/423 BCE and 69 CE. --Aniboker (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

1828 source
Given the problems with Davidbena's use of primary sources, I'm a little concerned about this edit and have reverted it. Other editors' review is welcome. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Explaining the Jewish Position (in Calibrating Dates)
I am interested in helping to modify this article, "Missing Years (Jewish calendar), and have offered the following suggestions. What do you think?

Alternatively, the cause for this disparity of 52 years can be explained as R. Eliyahu of Vilna, also known as the Gaon of Vilna, explains it in a compendium of his works, entitled "Kol Eliyahu," s.v. ראש השנה, pp. 75-78. Meaning, these collective years do not refer to the entire Persian dynasty, but rather to a timeframe when Persia exercised hegemony over Israel. Their hegemony over Israel effectually ended with the rise of Alexander the Great. If we count backwards 52 years from the 1st year reign of Alexander the Great (318 BCE), the beginning of Greek hegemony over Israel according to Jewish tradition, 34 years prior to Alexander's rise to power brings us to Darius' rebuilding of the temple (352 BCE), while 18 years earlier brings us to the 23rd year of the reign of Cyrus the Great (370 BCE), or what was perceived to have been the beginning of Persian hegemony over Israel. Again, these figures are based on Jewish calculations. See: "Seder Olam," a book of chronologies compiled by 1st century Rabbi and scholar, Rabbi Yossi b. Rabbi Halpetha (Halafta). In other words, from Cyrus' 23rd year of reign to Alexander's rise to power are collected 52 years, based on the regnal years as brought down in Manetho for the Persian kings, and accounting for a 7-12 month interim period when the Magi ruled Persia. Cyrus the Great, according to Herodotus, is said to have reigned 29 years.

The other suggestion for modifying the current article is this:

One of the ways used in verifying the Jewish tradition is this: According to the Third Book of Manetho (See: The Ancient Fragments, ed. I. P. Cory, Esq., p. 65, London 1828. Manetho was the high priest and scribe of Egypt who wrote down his history for Ptolemy Philadelphus.) who brings down eight successive Persian kings and the number of years in which they reigned after Cyrus, Cambyses succeeded his father (Cyrus) and reigned over Persia five years, while Cambyses was succeeded by Darius, the son of Hystaspes, who reigned 36 years. It is this Darius who renewed the decree of Cyrus to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. According to Ezra 6:15, the Temple was finished in the 6th year of the reign of Darius the king. It began to be built in the 2nd year of his reign (Ezra 4:24), in accordance with the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah. This one date, the 6th year of Darius, being the year in which the Second Temple was completed, is perhaps the most crucial date we have in helping us to determine the number of years which have transpired since that time down to our own present age. For if we take this date, comparing it with the time frame mentioned in the Aramaic Scroll of Antiochus, we learn that from the Second Temple's rebuilding till the 23rd year of the reign of Antiochus Eupator, son of Antiochus Epiphanes, who invaded Judaea, there had transpired 213 years in total. Now Antiochus Eupator's father, Antiochus Epiphanes, had died in anno 149 of the Seleucid Era (162 BCE), in which year his son obtained the kingdom, just as we learn from Josephus’ Antiquities (xii.ix.2). Twenty-three years later, that is, in the year 172 of the Seleucid Era, or what was then 139 BCE, which happened to be the 23rd year of the reign of Antiochus Eupator, the Second Temple had already stood some 213 years, meaning, it was built in 352 BCE! If these figures are correct, and we have no reason to doubt them, this puts Darius' 6th year of reign as 353/2 BCE. Seventy years prior to this time was 422 BCE, the beginning of the Babylonian captivity! Davidbena (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Davidbena, this looks like WP:OR from WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Is this explanation in Cory's Ancient Fragments of the Phoenician, Carthaginian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Other Writers (1828) p65 - because all that does is mention Manetho. Where are you getting the above "missing years" chronology from. Which modern source, post 1950, has this chronology? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, In ictu oculi, for your question. Actually, Jews to this very day make use of the Hebrew calendar and of the Jewish system of dating events, which differs from the traditional way that western chroniclers (non-Jewish) practice calibrating the years. The subject matter, of course, is very complex, but still, capable of being understood. There is a 164 year disparity between western chroniclers when affixing a date to Israel's Exile during the Babylonian Captivity (i.e. 586 BCE), as opposed to the Jewish method of 422 BCE. As for which modern source, post 1950, mentions the Jewish chronology, you may wish to see the book (published in Hebrew), "She'arim la'luah ha'ivry" (Gates to the Hebrew Calendar) by Rahamim Sar-Shalom, 1984. It mentions only the Jewish chronology, as we have mentioned above, and brings down important events only by way of the Jewish method used in calibrating dates, but he compares these dates with the Gregorian Calendar and the Muslim (Hijra) Calendar.
 * For other post 1950 modern sources, I will need to visit the Hebrew University library in Jerusalem to check the titles of the other books. BTW: Manetho's eight Persian Kings were mentioned only to bring down the regnal years of Cambyses, who ruled Persia 5 years after his father, Cyrus the Great. So, too, it was necessary to mention him (Manetho) since he shows that Darius (II), the son of Hystaspes, reigned over Persia after Cambyses, and he was the king mentioned in the Book of Ezra and who permitted the Jews to finish building the Second Temple. In other words, our mentioning of Manetho was only to put everything in its proper context with regard to the delineation of years. When these facts are taken in altogether, they stand in full agreement with Jewish tradition.Davidbena (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "She'arim la'luah ha'ivry" (Gates to the Hebrew Calendar) by Rahamim Sar-Shalom, 1984 is cited in English here. It may be better if you work from this. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, In ictu oculi. Since I have the Hebrew book in my personal library at home, I never knew that an English edition also exists. Thanks! Davidbena (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I have looked at the book's "preview" (in English), but it seems to be a collection of different published views on the span of Persian rule (hegemony) based on a remark made in "Seder Olam," chapter 30. Each scholar tries to rectify the discrepancy between "34 years of Persian rule" and a Persian dynasty which lasted much longer. I could not help but be reminded of a letter that I received from a man in the USA, complaining to me about what he saw to be an incredulous statement in the book, Seder Olam. He wrote: "The Seder Olam has contracted the entire Persian period of over 200 years into a (supposed) period of 34 years. That is a huge flaw. The author of the Seder Olam was in fact clueless of the TRUE chronology." To which argument, I replied:

"I think you will agree with me (after we have explained here the true import behind the writer’s words, and why he contracted the entire Persian period into a period of 34 years) that there was really no flaw in this one particular statement. To be even more precise, Seder Olam (chapter 30) says: "Rabbi Yose says: The kingdom of Persia during the time of the Temple lasted [only] 34 years." The key to understanding this timeframe lay in the words “during the time of the Temple.”

The 34-year Persian period must, therefore, be understood in the context of their hegemony over Israel while the Second Temple stood. Meaning, 34 years is the precise timeframe between Alexander the Great's rise to power in 318 BCE and the building of the Second Temple under Darius (II) in 352 BCE - altogether 34 years of hegemony while the Temple stood!Davidbena (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Sacha Stern wrote in his "Calendar and Community, A History of the Jewish Calendar Second Century BCE – Tenth Century CE," p. 106: "A Jewish date is only informative if it can be identified in relation to some other point of reference: typically, another known calendar." Davidbena (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Missing years (Jewish calendar). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141030154541/https://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/me/c/cuneiform_nebuchadnezzar_ii.aspx to https://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/me/c/cuneiform_nebuchadnezzar_ii.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060102222610/http://www.jewishamerica.com/ja/timeline/adm2abr.cfm to http://www.jewishamerica.com/ja/timeline/adm2abr.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Minor question: What is the "R' " before scholar names?
Hi,

just a minor comment from a layperson on the topic who just wandered in onto this page: What is the " R' " placed before the names of (what I assume are) Jewish scholars in the last section of the article? I assume it's some honorific specific to Jewish scholarship (possibly short for "Rabbi"?), but I've never seen it before and I think it's obscure enough (to non-Jews, anyway) that it merits some sort of explanation. If a page for it doesn't exist, maybe just a footnote or, if an abbreviation of a longer title, have it spelt out on §first use?

Thanks, Mike 46.135.8.92 (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, "R" stands for "Rabbi."Davidbena (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Articulating the Sources for the Discrepancy
First, User:Editor2020 and Special:Contributions/Ar2332, I appreciate your edits on this page. You seem to be making some headway and sense out of it all, as the matter was confusing to our ordinary readers. I commend you on your patience and hard work, to make this subject a little easier for our readers. Jewish chronology, as you know, is a very complex subject owing to its divergent views and opinions. The Seder Olam (chapter 30) claims that the Second Temple stood 420 years. This opinion is supported by the Tosefta (Zevahim 13:6) and by the Talmud itself (Jerusalem Talmud, Megillah 18a; Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 11b-12a; Arakhin 12b; Baba Bathra 4a). In the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 8b–9a) and Seder Olam (ibid.), this time-frame of 420 years is divided up between the several hegemonic powers, which years are as follows (from destruction in 68 CE and thence working backwards in time):
 * 103 years (35 BCE–68 CE) = Herod's Dynasty.
 * 103 years (138 BCE–35 BCE) = Hasmonean Dynasty.
 * 180 years (318 BCE–138 BCE) = Grecian hegemony over Israel (Talmud: "wicked kingdom over Israel").
 * (The Talmud adds in Avodah Zarah 8b [end]–9a that the Grecians lived peaceably with Israel 26 years prior to this time, meaning, in 344 BCE)
 * 34 years (352 BCE–318 BCE) = Persian hegemony, referring only to the time that they exercised dominion over Israel during the time when the Second Temple stood, after which their dominion over Israel was taken away from them by the Grecians, when Alexander the Great came to power.
 * Total: 420 years

Please note that the 2nd century Jewish chronicler wrote in Seder Olam Rabbah (chapter 30): "Rabbi Yose says: The kingdom of Persia during the time of the Temple lasted [only] 34 years." Many have misconstrued these words to mean that the author of Seder Olam Rabbah has contracted the entire Persian period of over 200 years into a supposed period of 34 years. According to RASHI, the 34-year Persian period must be understood in the context of their hegemony over Israel while the Second Temple stood. Meaning, 34 years is the precise time-frame between the building of the Second Temple under Darius (I) in 352 BCE (according to Jewish calculations) and Alexander the Great's rise to power in 318 BCE – collected altogether as 34 years of Persian hegemony over Israel while the Temple stood. This time-frame, therefore, does not signify the end of the dynasties in Persia, but rather of their rule and hegemony over Israel before Alexander the Great rose to power. Talmudic exegete, Rabbeinu Chananel, knowing when the Seleucid era commenced, wrote there in his commentary on the Talmudic passage (Avodah Zarah 10a) that Alexander the Great rose to power in 318 BCE, six years before the people began to make use of the Seleucid era counting in 312/11 BCE. It is agreed by all that the Seleucid era counting began in 312/11 BCE. It follows that Rabbeinu Chananel's opinion on Alexander the Great and his reign is merely a reflection of the book, Seder Olam.

Josephus, however, had a different tradition, writing in his work Against Apion 1.22 that Alexander the Great died in the 114th Olympiad, after reigning 12 years. Note that the 114th Olympiad would have corresponded with about 326 BCE, or what was then 15 years before they began to make use of the Seleucid era counting! In fact, most of the chronological dates brought down by Josephus will NOT align with Seder Olam, the book on which rabbinic tradition is so dependent. Here are a few of the more salient examples of where Josephus has carried on a separate tradition of his own, supported in part by the First Book of Maccabees. The dates here appended were written by Josephus in either the Olympiad era counting or the Seleucid era counting, or both. Often, he brings down the number of years that have transpired from a certain date, which also helps us pinpoint this time-frame, and can be used here on Wikipedia, in accordance with WP:CALC.
 * Josephus' Timeline of Events


 * , and the 4th year of the 154th Olympiad
 * , and precisely 27 years before Herod the Great took the city.
 * , and the 4th year of the 154th Olympiad
 * , and precisely 27 years before Herod the Great took the city.
 * , and precisely 27 years before Herod the Great took the city.
 * , and precisely 27 years before Herod the Great took the city.
 * , and precisely 27 years before Herod the Great took the city.
 * , and precisely 27 years before Herod the Great took the city.
 * , and precisely 27 years before Herod the Great took the city.
 * , and precisely 27 years before Herod the Great took the city.
 * , and precisely 27 years before Herod the Great took the city.

What is the most striking of all of Josephus's statements is that he assigns 639 years from the Second Temple's rebuilding till its destruction by Titus in the 2nd year of Vespasian's reign. Assuming that the destruction was indeed in 68 CE (as thought by all rabbinic scholars), this would have put the Second Temple's rebuilding in 571 BCE! If destroyed in 70 CE, this would have put its rebuilding in 569 BCE. There is, at least, a 219 year discrepancy between the figures brought down by Seder Olam and those brought down by Josephus. The 1st century book, Scroll of Antiochus (Chaldaic version), claims, like the Seder Olam, that from the Second Temple's rebuilding till the 23rd year of the reign of Antiochus Eupator, son of Antiochus Epiphanes who invaded Judaea (i.e. in anno 172 of the Seleucid Era, or what was then 139 BCE), there had transpired 213 years in total, meaning, it was rebuilt in 352 BCE. ---Davidbena (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thank you for the all detailed work. I am thinking about how best to incorporate it. First, a question, do you have a source for the second destruction being in 68CE according to the rabbis? Ar2332 (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I just added in some of your rabbinic material (there is more to go). I'm not sure where to put the Josephus material, he was not a rabbi, and also the term "missing years" does not apply to him (if anything he has "extra years"). Perhaps this material would even better go on one of the Josephus pages? Though I'm not sure that is best. Ar2332 (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the source for the Second Temple's destruction being in 68 CE is taken from Maimonides, R. Moses b. Maimon Responsa (vol. 2), ed. Jehoshua Blau, Rubin Mass Ltd. Publishers: Jerusalem 1989, responsum # 389. There, he puts down the year of destruction in anno 380 of the Seleucid era counting (ש"פ למנין שטרות), saying that the Second Temple was destroyed in the month of Av which preceded that year. Meaning, in the lunar month of Tishri began the new Seleucid era year of 380, whereas the Second Temple was destroyed in the lunar month of Av in 379 of the Seleucid era. This date corresponds with the year 68 of our Common era. The same date is brought down in most Siddurim as marking the year of destruction. As for Josephus' figures, these will probably best be incorporated in a different article.Davidbena (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

One year shift
There is a well accepted one year shift in the calendar. Our shemitah we observe in Israel would be one year off without the shift. this shift is stated in Rambam laws of shemitah chapter 10 law 2 and is incorporated by many halachic authorities. I have written this in with sources. So please be respectful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathandavidh (talk • contribs) 12:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of respect, it's a matter of our policies and guidelines. Besides the lack of inline citations and academic sources discussing your primary sources, most of what you have written seems to have been original research. I've explained this on your talk page with links to policies, guidelines, and help with citations. Doug Weller  talk 14:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)