|
|
The year 1998 C.E. is equivalent to the Jewish year 5758, according to the reckoning of the Hebrew calendar. It is accepted that the Second Temple was destroyed in approximately the year 70 C.E., 1,928 years ago. This would correspond to the Hebrew year 3830. If there was a period of 490 years between the destruction of the First Temple and the destruction of the Second Temple, then the First Temple was destroyed in the Hebrew year 3340.
Just when you thought it was simple somebody has to throw a monkey wrench into it. So here goes. Secular dating puts the first destruction at 587 B.C.E., this should correspond to the Hebrew year 3173 and not 3340. This is a difference of approximately 167 years, a considerable amount of time. The discrepancy between the chronology of the Seder Olam and conventional dating actually goes back as far as the capture of Jerusalem by King David. Conventional dating places this event around the year 1000 B.C.E., while the Seder Olam places this event at approximately 867 BCE. See M. First, Jewish History in Conflict.
Answer for yourself: Why is there such a difference between Hebrew and conventional dating?
Answer for yourself: And which one is most accurate? Since scholars on both sides are so divided on this point it is beyond the scope of this short article to thoroughly investigate this issue. However, for the sake of adding some clarity to the prophecy of Daniel 9, we will briefly examine several possible answers to these questions.
The oldest record of Jewish chronology is the Seder Olam Rabbah. It was edited by Jose ben Halafta, who died in the year 160 C.E. According to this chronology, the First Temple was destroyed in the Hebrew year 3338. The Second Temple was built in the year 3408 and stood for 420 years; it was destroyed in the year 3828. The Seder Olam counts a total of 490 years between the destruction of the First and Second Temples, which would account for the 70 sevens of Daniel's prophecy.
Michoel Drazin, in his book, Their Hollow Inheritance, identified the following Biblical timeline based on the dating of the Seder Olam:
The exodus from Egypt occurred in 2448, as is clear from the lifetimes of the following men (as recorded in Genesis and Exodus): Adam (1--930), Methusaleh (687--1656), Shem (1558--2158), Jacob (2108--2255), Amram (2255--2392), Moses (2368 + 80 [his age at the time of the exodus] = 2448). Construction of the First Temple began in the fourth year of King Solomon's reign, i.e., 480 years after the exodus (I Kings 6:1). Solomon reigned for another thirty--six years, (I Kings 11:42) whereupon a succession of kings occupied the throne for 374 years, until the First Temple was destroyed (II Chronicles 12:13 to 36:11). Thus, 2448 + 480 + 36 + 374 = 3338. (Drazin, Their Hollow Inheritance, p. 90-91
Unlike the Christian dating of Daniel 9 the prophecy of Daniel 9 works out very accurately according to the chronology of the Jewish Seder Olam and Jewish interpretation of their own Bible.
However, the question of the discrepancy between Hebrew and conventional dating still remains. Edgar Frank, in his book Talmudic and Rabbinical Chronology , states
It is a well known fact, for instance, that the First Temple was destroyed in 586 and the Second Temple consecrated in 516 BCE and destroyed in 70 CE. The Second Temple, therefore, stood 585 years, while according to Jewish chronology, it stood only 420 years ... According to the SO [Seder Olam] and Ab.Zar. [Abodah Zara] 9a, during the Second Commonwealth the Persians reigned 34 years, the Greeks 180, the Hasmoneans 103 and the Romans 103 years, which gives us a total of 420 or, compared with 585 years, a difference of 165 years. This mistake seems to lie in the time of the reign of the Persians which was much longer than 34 years (Frank, Talmudic and Biblical Chronology, p. 9, n. 1).
Scholars in support of conventional dating cite fourteen kings (some identify as many as seventeen) that reigned for approximately 207 years during the Persian empire. However, in defense of the Jewish view, some Hebrew scholars and commentators note that Daniel 11:1-2 refutes this claim.
Daniel 11:
1 Also I in the first
year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.
2
And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three
kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by
his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of
Grecia.
Here we find the author of Daniel identifying only three kings that reigned during the Persian empire. According to Rashi, the "three kings in Persia" are identified as Cyrus the Persian, Ahasuerus, and Darius the Persian. The fourth king includes the first Darius, Darius the Mede. Alternatively, Ibn Ezra rejects this interpretation. "In his opinion, three more kings excludes Cyrus, in whose reign this vision took place. This is indicated by the word od, more. And the fourth includes Cyrus as the first. The chronology of the kings is 1. Cyrus; 2. Ahasuerus (the husband of Esther) who is identical with Artachshasta of Ezra 4; 3. Darius, under whose rule the Temple was rebuilt; 4. Artachshast (in Ezra 6-8, Nechemiah 2 and 5), under whose rule Nechemiah rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem. Since he is the last of the Persian kings, and must therefore be the king who was beaten and killed by Alexander, he must also have been named Darius, since this is known to be the name of the Persian king defeated by Alexander. He thus arrives independently at the same conclusion as the Sages (Rosh HaShananh 2b) that Artachshast was a generic name used by all the Persian kings [as the Egyptian kings were all titled Pharoah]." Goldwurm, p. 282-3.
Other Jewish commentators believe that the Jewish sages who wrote the Seder Olam purposely altered their chronology so as to confuse anyone who might try to predict the time of the coming of the Messiah. They supposedly did this in accordance with a command found in Daniel 12:4, which states, "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end ..."But again this refers specifically to the 12th chapter of Daniel and not to the 9th chapter.
Rav Shimon Schwab, one of the proponents of the theory that the Sages hid these missing years, writes,
In Sanhedrin 97b we find a stern condemnation of all those who conjecture the Messianic date from the last chapter of Daniel. ["What is meant by 'but at the end it shall speak and not lie'? R. Samuel ben Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: Blasted be the bones of those who calculate the end. For they would say, since the predetermined time has arrived, and yet he has not come, he will never come. But [even so] wait for him, as it is written, Though he tarry wait for him." Sanhedrin 97b.] These mysteries are to remain "closed and sealed until the end of time." Had it not been for the fact that important parts of those prophecies had been left out or were purposely obscured, the clues for the Messianic date found in Daniel might have yielded the desired results. This was rendered impossible through the hiding of certain data and chronological material (Schwab, Rav Shimon, "Comparative Jewish Chronology?" in Selected Speeches, p. 270).
Rav Schwab goes on to explain that the Sages introduced a new system of counting years called, minyan shtaros, the "Era of Contracts." It is also referred to as the Seleucid Era and began in 312-311 BCE. This non-Jewish accounting was in use by the Sages until the Middle Ages and is still used by some Eastern groups to this day. According to Rav Schwab, the adoption of a non-Jewish calendar for religious documents was "part of the scheme to 'close up the words and seal the book.'" (ibid., p. 271-2).
Rav Schwab offers his views as only a possibility and as a way to "compile a comparative chronology acceptable to Orthodox Jewry and secular historians alike" (ibid., p. 261). In conclusion he states, "Our traditional, universally accepted Jewish way of counting the years lvre't haolam (Heb: from the beginning of the world) is sacred territory which only fools do not fear to tread upon" ( ibid., p. 284).
As the controversy between the Hebrew and conventional chronology has yet to be resolved, we are left with two choices. We can accept the interpretation that Daniel 9 refers to the abomination of the statute of Zeus set upon the altar of sacrifice by Antiochus in the year 167 BCE. Or, we can accept the chronology of the Seder Olam and the interpretation that Daniel 9 refers to the period between the destruction of the two Temples. It should be noted that even historians who agree with the conventional chronology contradict one another at various points. For example, aside from the uncertainty about the number of Persian kings who reigned during this period, there is also disagreement as to the year Cyrus began his reign, some placing the date at 539 BCE, others as early as 559 BCE. In the end, neither of the possibilities lend any support for the Christian messianic interpretation of Daniel 9. It would seem that once again Jewish exegesis is correct and Gentile Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures flawed. So what else is new?