Seder Olam
By Daniel Gregg
Abstract: My main object here is to extract useful information concerning the priestly rotations during the Second Temple era, and to reverse engineer the true timing of the Sabbatical year cycles from Seder Olam, and to show how these cycles are used to establish the time of Messiah's birth, and a proper understanding of Daniel 9.
- Introduction
- The Same Month
- The Same Day
- The Same Week Day
- The Same Priestly Division
- Salvaging The Priestly Divisions
- The Priestly Rotations and 3-2 BC
- The Same Sabbath Year Cycle
- Falling Into The Trap
- The Dark Ages
- Back Filling Seder Olam
- Maimonides Wins The Argument
- The Blow Back
- 3830 Impllies 3340
- Deleting History
- Daniel 9
- Back to the Index Page
Introduction
Seder Olam means "order of the world"; it is the Rabbinic Jewish chronology of Scripture. It is considered a midrashic source predating the written Mishnah. The work was composed by Rabbi Yose ben Halafta around AD 150. The main purpose of the work was to recast the chronological narrative of Scripture and history since the time of the Babylonian exile to fabricate a fraudulent explanation of Daniel 9.
In order for a deception to work best, it has to be based on a lot of correct data mixed with a minimum of fabricated data to carry off the aim of the deception. The correct data is used to gain the trust of the intended audience, and then the fraudulent data is positioned in such a way that a conclusion may be drawn from it, but the audience is incapable or ill-equipped to test that particular data to see if it is true or not.
Knowing the correct explanation of Daniel 9 applies to Messiah Yeshua, our task will be to cancel out the deceptive part and see what historical truth may have been recorded beneath the deception.
The claims of Seder Olam, (1) The Temple was destroyed both times in the same month Av; this will prove true in 587 BC and AD 70. (2) The Temple was destroyed both times on the same days of the month, Av 9-10; this will prove true. (3) The Temple was destroyed both times on the first day of the week; this will prove true in AD 70, but false in 587 BC. (4) The first and second Temples were both destroyed in the going out of the Sabbath year, year 1 of the cycle; this will prove false in both cases. (5) The second Temple was destroyed in AD 69; this will prove false by one year. (6) AD 69 was the going out of a Sabbath year; this will prove true. (7) The sabbath year cycle was calculated such that the 50th year was the first year of the next Jubilee period after the Babylonian exile; this proves true. (8) The sabbath year cycle was calculated such that the first year of the next cycle was the year after the 50th year before the Babylonian exile; this will prove false. (9) From the destruction of the first Temple to the second was 490 years; this will prove false. (10) The first and second Temples were destroyed during the service of the first Priestly division; this will prove false for 587 BC and true for AD 70.
The fraud. The aim of the fraudulent art was to prove that the Seventy Sevens (sabbatical years or periods) that Daniel 9 prophesied concerning Messiah really dated to the destruction of the Second Temple. I will not go into the numerous details here which this fraud ignored or got wrong about Daniel 9. Our task will be to eliminate the data necessary for the fraud and see what useful information remains. The useful information will be (a) the key synchronization for the priestly divisions, and (b) the timing of the Sabbath year.
The Same Month
This claim proves to be true. The Scripture places the first destruction in the month of Av. See 2 Kings 25:8-9 and Jeremiah 52:12-13. Additionally, the fast of the 5th month (Av) is mentioned in Zechariah 7:3-5 and 8:19.
Josephus places the second destruction in the month of Lous (Josephus, Jewish War, 6.4.5 §250), which is month 10 in the Macedonian Calendar. In Judea, Nisan was translated into Xanthicus (that is month 6) equivalent in the Macedonian Calendar. The table calculates forward to Lous.
| Month | Number | Month | Number |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nisan | 1 | Xanthicus | 6 |
| Iyyar | 2 | Artemisios | 7 |
| Siwan | 3 | Daisios | 8 |
| Shoshanim | 4 | Panemos | 9 |
| Av | 5 | Lous | 10 |
In the Seleucid Era, the Babylonians had regularized the addition of Adaru II, so that Nisanu would always be the first new moon after the spring equinox. Because the Macedonian calendar, prior to that time, was haphazard, the Seleucid kings decided the Macedonian calendar would add a second Xanthicus whenever the Babylonians added a second Adar. For this reason we know for AD 70, Lous was July 28, AD 70 to August 26, AD 70. It also happens that using the biblical intercalation, which allows the spring equinox to fall all the way up to Nisan 15, that the calendar for this year aligned Nisan 1 in Judea with Nisanu 1 in Babylon. This is based on certain knowledge that the 2nd Temple was destroyed by Vespasian in his 2nd year as Emperor, per Josephus' War 6.269 and War 6.435. Vespasian was hailed as emperor on July 1, AD 69 by the legions of Alexandria. His second year began on that date in AD 70. The 2nd year began before Av 9, AD 70 and the final fall of the city (cf. Suetonius, Life of Vespasian 6.3, Tacitus, Histories 2.79). His reign began in Alexandria on July 1, but the legions in Judea swore allegiance to him on July 3. That day (July 1) was ever after celebrated as the first year of his reign. "But when their action became known, Tiberius Alexander, prefect of Egypt, was the first to compel his legions to take the oath for Vespasian on the Kalends of July, the day which was afterwards celebrated as that of his accession; then the army in Judaea swore allegiance to him personally on the fifth day before the Ides of July" (Suetonius, Life 6.3). Tacitus, "The transfer of the imperial power to Vespasian began at Alexandria, where Tiberius Alexander acted quickly, administering to his troops the oath of allegiance on the first of July. This day has been celebrated in later times as the first of Vespasian's reign, although it was on the third of July that the army in Judea took the oath before Vespasian himself, and did it with such enthusiasm that they did not wait even for his son Titus, who was on his way back from Syria and was the medium of communication between Mucianus and his father."
The Same Day
This is substantially correct, although for the First Temple the 7th and 10th days of Av are recorded (2 Kings 25:8 and Jer. 52:12), and for the Second Temple the 9th of Av is recorded in Seder Olam, and the 10th of Lous in Josephus (10 Av, when converted). The justification for the fast on 9 Av is more or less the selection of a date for the height of the destructive fire or the beginning of it.
The Same Weekday
Seder Olam tells us that the Second Temple was destroyed on Av 9, on a Sunday, the first day of the week. This actually calculates correctly, as we can see here:
Month: V AV, AD 70 4209 A.M. Sab. Cyc: 2. Jub. Cyc: 44 Cycle No: 85
Q1: 0.919 A Q2: -0.309 F LG: 80m W: 1.029' AL: 21.0 AV: 15.2
New Moon calculated for longitude: 35.17 and latitude 31.77
Location of calculations: Jerusalem Author: Daniel Gregg
I II III IV V VI VII
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 1 │
AV │New Moon │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 2 │ 3 │ 4 │ 5 │ 6 │ 7 │ 8 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 9 │ 10 │ 11 │ 12 │ 13 │ 14 │ 15 │
│Fast Day │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 16 │ 17 │ 18 │ 19 │ 20 │ 21 │ 22 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 23 │ 24 │ 25 │ 26 │ 27 │ 28 │ 29 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│ 30 │
│ SUN │ MON │ TUE │ WED │ THR │ FRI │ SAT │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│ JUL 28 │ 1746833.21770631
│ 130 │ 23 Delaiah
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│ JUL 29 │ JUL 30 │ JUL 31 │ AUG 1 │ AUG 2 │ AUG 3 │ AUG 4 │
│ 131 │ 132 │ 133 │ 134 │ 135 │ 136 │ 137 │ 24 Maaziah
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│ AUG 5 │ AUG 6 │ AUG 7 │ AUG 8 │ AUG 9 │ AUG 10 │ AUG 11 │
│ 138 │ 139 │ 140 │ 141 │ 142 │ 143 │ 144 │ 1 Jehoiarib
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│ AUG 12 │ AUG 13 │ AUG 14 │ AUG 15 │ AUG 16 │ AUG 17 │ AUG 18 │
│ 145 │ 146 │ 147 │ 148 │ 149 │ 150 │ 151 │ 2 Jedaiah
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│ AUG 19 │ AUG 20 │ AUG 21 │ AUG 22 │ AUG 23 │ AUG 24 │ AUG 25 │
│ 152 │ 153 │ 154 │ 155 │ 156 │ 157 │ 158 │ 3 Harim
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒
│ AUG 26 │
│ 159 │ 4 Seorim
However, if we do the same calculation for 587 BC, we discover that it is false:
Month: V AV, 587 BC 3553 A.M. Sab. Cyc: 4. Jub. Cyc: 25 Cycle No: 72
Q1: 1.056 A Q2: -0.239 E LG: 88m W: 1.040' AL: 21.6 AV: 16.5
New Moon calculated for longitude: 35.17 and latitude 31.77
Location of calculations: Jerusalem Author: Daniel Gregg
I II III IV V VI VII
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 1 │ 2 │
AV │New Moon │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 3 │ 4 │ 5 │ 6 │ 7 │ 8 │ 9 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 10 │ 11 │ 12 │ 13 │ 14 │ 15 │ 16 │
│Fast Day │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 17 │ 18 │ 19 │ 20 │ 21 │ 22 │ 23 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████
│ 24 │ 25 │ 26 │ 27 │ 28 │ 29 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ SUN │ MON │ TUE │ WED │ THR │ FRI │ SAT │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│ JUL 21 │ JUL 22 │ 1507222.22368559
│ 118 │ 119 │ 12 Jakim
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│ JUL 23 │ JUL 24 │ JUL 25 │ JUL 26 │ JUL 27 │ JUL 28 │ JUL 29 │
│ 120 │ 121 │ 122 │ 123 │ 124 │ 125 │ 126 │ 13 Huppah
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│ JUL 30 │ JUL 31 │ AUG 1 │ AUG 2 │ AUG 3 │ AUG 4 │ AUG 5 │
│ 127 │ 128 │ 129 │ 130 │ 131 │ 132 │ 133 │ 14 Jeshebeab
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│ AUG 6 │ AUG 7 │ AUG 8 │ AUG 9 │ AUG 10 │ AUG 11 │ AUG 12 │
│ 134 │ 135 │ 136 │ 137 │ 138 │ 139 │ 140 │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒
│ AUG 13 │ AUG 14 │ AUG 15 │ AUG 16 │ AUG 17 │ AUG 18 │
│ 141 │ 142 │ 143 │ 144 │ 145 │ 146 │
The 587 BC date misses by one day. It cannot be easily bumped forward a day by invoking weather, because the previous month was already 30 days! Rabbi Yose made the claim that it was the first day of the week. This is a claim that no one then could actually check. Or it was so hard to check that no one could trust the checking.
To what should we ascribe the claim that the destructions both happened on the first day of the week? Due to Hellenistic philosophy (or Platonic symmetries and ideals) of the mathematical timeline circling back, the Rabbis accepted "integral age" theory. And they did not just apply it to the conceptions and deaths of important persons. They also applied it to events. In fact, Seder Olam says they are applying it. They justified this by noting the known correspondences, and then unwisely trusted this pagan philosophy to extrapolate additional correspondences! The Talmud (Arachin 11b) explicitly states: "Good things are brought about on a meritorious day, and evil things on a day of guilt."
The Same Priestly Division
As can be seen from the calendar for 587 BC, the priestly division would be switched from No. 13 Huppah, to No. 14 Jeshebeab on the Sabbath Av 9. These are the divisions which would be calculated from the 12th year of Solomon, starting in the second week of Tishri. See the charts. Once again, we have to explain this claim by an application of integral age theory. This sort of claim carries weight with authorities who claim it, and people who cannot double check on them. For they are caught asking why the correspondence occurs, and find themselves unable to resist the conclusion that it was divinely arranged or ordained.
This attribution of divine influence on events by means of speculation and assumption is extremely dangerous to truth. It is warranted to suppose that divine influence occurred when you first have historical proof of the alignment. But it is prophesying out of one's own heart to take a guess based on a philosophy and then to suggest to people that it was divinely ordained.
Salvaging The Priestly Divisions
Even though the 587 BC weekday is wrong, and the 587 BC division is wrong for the First Temple, we can salvage the Priestly Divisions in AD 70, where the month, the 9th of Av, and the weekday are indeed correct, as proved by astronomical retro-calculation. The priestly division in 587 BC is also wrong. The incorrect correspondences for 587 BC are explained as an application of cosmic philosophy borrowed from pagan Greece. But we can salvage the divisional dating. Just like the other data for AD 70 proved correct, the division dating also proves correct. We should expect it to.
The first reason why is that the AD 70 destruction is contemporary with the claims made for the date. The priestly divisions were counting the weeks before the destruction, because they had to count them as a matter of custom all the time. And, migrating north, they continued counting them afterwards for hundreds of years—arguably, in the extreme for a thousand years! Ancient Synagogues were actually built with roster mosaics for tracking the divisions. Sabbaths were actually tracked by announcing which division would in theory be on duty, even after the destruction of the Second Temple. (cf. The Caesarea Inscription: Excavated 1962 by Michael Avi-Yonah; cf. liturgical poetry: the piyyutim sung in Synagogues every single Sabbath; "The regular watches (mishmarot) return to their places weekly... even when the Temple no longer stands" [Yerushalmi Ta'anit 4:6, 68d; Babylonian Talmud: Arachin 11b]).
Additionally, the Talmud mentions a pun that was current in the Jewish community, "The division of Jehoiarib handed over to the enemy." Even the post-destruction town that this division migrated to is mentioned (Meron). In the Jerusalem Talmud (Yerushalmi Ta'anit 4:5) and Kohelet Rabbah, a bittersweet Aramaic play on words explicitly derided the division for its presence at the collapse of the sanctuary. It states: "Jehoiarib, a man of Meron, the town of Masarbaye" (יהויריב גברה מירון קרתה מסרביי). The wordplay is decoded through the town name Masarbaye because the root letters spell out "he delivered" (masar) "the house" (bayta) "to the enemy/haters" (le-senāyya). It was a cultural joke meaning: "Jehoiarib, a man of Meron, from the town of 'He-Handed-Over-The-Temple-To-The-Enemy.'"
From the foregoing facts, it should be clear that the Jewish community did not misremember which division was on duty when the Temple fell. In fact, Rabbi Yose Halafta could hardly have gotten away with making it up. And finally, no dicernible motivation can be found for making this up, other than the slight possibility that it was the first division. However, it also works the other way. The fact that it was the first division would only cause it to stick in the memory all the more. It should be noted that Josephus was in the first division, and he was present at the destruction of the Second Temple. It should be noted that Yose's father, Halafta was also a primary source on the matter. For this reason, the divisional synchronization for the first division at the fall of the Second Temple is an independent witness to the priestly rotations.
The Priestly Rotations and 3-2 BC
Tracking back to 3—2 BC:
AD 70 Aug 4—Aug 11 No. 1 Jehoiarib Av 8-15 AD 70 Jul 28—Aug 4 No. 24 Maaziah Av 1-8 AD 70 Jul 21—Jul 28 No. 23 Delaiah IV.24-V.1 .. .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ......... .......... AD 70 Apr 7—Apr 14 No. 8 Abijah I.7-I.14 .. .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ......... .......... 4 BC Aug 4—Aug 11 No. 8 Abijah V.11-V.18+ 3 BC Jan 19—Jan 26 No. 8 Abijah XI.1-XI.8* 3 BC Jul 6—Jul 13 No. 8 Abijah IV.23-IV.30 3 BC Dec 21—Dec 28 No. 8 Abijah X.12-X.19* 2 BC Jun 7—Jun 14 No. 8 Abijah IV.4-IV.11-
If you have ever solved the intersection of two lines in a plane, defined by two equations, then you will have an idea of what is going on here. Luke gives us five months and the gestation period of Messiah from the division of Abijah. This comes to exactly 14 months and 1 day. The Shepherds' chronology eliminates the * dates. The + choice makes Yeshua too old for Luke 3:23. The - choice makes him too young. This leaves only the underlined service period for the division of Abijah before the conception of Yochanan the Baptist.
The matter is also confirmed because the service period ends on the last day of the month IV.30. The five months are not like Roman months. They are full lunar months. The moon data is actually an independent witness matching Luke's timeline. months and one day comes to Tishri 1, 2 BC.
The Same Year of the Sabbath Year Cycle
The Final Seder Olam claim we will deal with will be its statement that both Temples were destroyed in the "going out of the Sabbatical year." Originally this was meant to be year 1 of the cycle, but Jews have debated whether it is the Sabbath year itself or year 1 of the cycle. On the face of it, 587 BC and AD 70 cannot both agree with this. It would require different Sabbath cycles for it to agree.
Again, we can attribute the claim for the first temple to integral age theory. It is derived from Hellenistic philosophy. But it is psychologically convincing to people who don't know the synchronism was made up based on speculation. Who, after all, but God, would arrange such a coincidence? Since the modulus of the difference between 587 BC and AD 70 does not permit the claim for both years, we must investigate it only for AD 70.
But the motivation for the coincidence is not just integral age theory, or the destiny of an ill-fated year. It was the desire to work Daniel 9 between the two destructions. In the Rabbinic literature the figures 70 and 420 are used. 490 is never mentioned. This was probably to conceal the matter from anyone listening in on the discussion unless they knew the real reason for it. 420 and 70, of course, add up to 490. And 490 years track 70 sabbath year cycles, i.e. the Seventy-Sevens from Daniel 9:24.
In the original plan of Seder Olam, as concevied by Jose Halafta, the destruction was supposed to be in year 491 counting inclusively from 3338 AM, which is the world era date in Seder Olam for the destruction of the first Temple, i.e. 3338 = year 1 and 3328 = year 491. This is the only way that the first 490 years track Seventy-Sevens. The 420th year is the number of complete years the Temple is supposed to have stood, and the 421st year is the destruction year.
The World Era dates given in Seder Olam, 3338 and 3828 use the older Tannaitic Era. While 421 and 491 mod 7 equal 1, i.e. the first year of the cycle, 3828 mod 7 is 6. This means the world era used by the Tanaaim was ill conceived to synchronize the sabbath cycle with the creation of the world.
The first step was that later Jewish scholars used knowledge of when year 1 of the Sabbatical year cycle was, to actually lock the destruction date down to 380 SE, which is AD 69, which is year 421, which is year 491, without making any changes to Seder Olam, which counted Adam from year 1. By locking the date to 380 SE, they give us the knowledge of when year 1 of the Sabbatical year cycle fell.
But 3828 mod 7 was still 6. The scholars wanted a formula to convert the Tannaitic world era to a position number in the sabbatical year cycle. So they came up with the rule to "add 2", this 3828 + 2 = 3830, and 3830 mod 7 = 1. 3830 doesn't mean anything here in terms of the world Era. It just the result of the add 2 before doing the mod 7 math. But it did underline the fact that the world era was ill-defined by Yose ben Halafta! With all the Hellenistic math symmetries in Seder Olam for the two destructions, it would be ideal if the world era came up with a proper mod 7 without adding 2! But Rabbi Yose did not think of it. And because he did not the fraud is exposed. 3828 Tannaitic was pegged to AD 69 via 380 SE on the knowledge of where the first year of the Sabbatical cycle actually was.
So we owe the AD 69 date for the destruction to when the first year of the cycle actually was. And we can salvage the timing of the Sabbath year from the mistake.
Back Filling Seder Olam
After the Church and the Roman State united, the situation for the Jewish academies in Israel became increasingly precarious until they were forced to dissolve about the year AD 400. Earlier, in AD 359, the Sanhedrin in Tiberias under Rabbi Hillel II published a pre-calculated version of the Jewish Calendar. They had to work with the Anno Mundi year from the sum of years in the pre-existing theory of Rabbi Yose ben Halafta. The Sages also had to get the Jerusalem Talmud hastily completed during this era of decline, foreseeing that by AD 425, the office of the Jewish Nasi (The Patriarchate) was abolished by Rome.
If the chronological data in Seder Olam are added up, the destruction of the First Temple comes at the year 3338. Adding 490 years to this year brings the date to 3828 for the destruction of the Second Temple. Also, the creators of the calculated calendar assumed that the autumn equinox aligned with Tishrei 1 at the beginning of year 1, the year of Adam's creation. They aimed to publish the calculation with the 19 year Metonic cycle.
There was a problem, however. They could not make year 1 of the world (the year of Adam's creation) the first year of a 19 year cycle! Here is why. The 19 year cycle added a 13th month in years 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 19. No other sequence of intercalation years was possible. If any other sequence of years was selected, then the next cycle would have to use a different pattern of intercalation years. There would be no regular 19 year cycle.
If the fall equinox is on Tishri 1, then the spring equinox comes on Nisan 6 or 7. If the next year after this is a regular year, then the spring equinox lands at least 10 days later, on *Nisan 16 or 17. When this happens, the year has to be intercalated. And to match the 19 year cycle, it has to be year 3 of the 19. For this reason, the year of Adam's creation has to be year 2 of the 19 year cycle. If it were year 1 of the 19 year cycle, then year 2 would not be intercalated, and an illegal Nisan would occur with the spring equinox after the Passover started!
For this reason, the year of Adam's creation has to be year 2 of the 19 year cycle. But this looks very untidy. In a perfectly symmetrical world, the 19 year cycle ought to line up with the first year of the world. This would look like an ad hoc 18 year cycle at the front of the 19 year cycles. To fix this problem, the Sanhedrin under Hillel II added a year called tohu (nought) before the creation of Adam, making the year of Adam's creation year 2, making the destruction of the First Temple 3339, and the destruction of the Second Temple, 3829.
So the year 3828 was relabeled 3829. It was still the year Tishrei 1, AD 68 to Tishrei 1, AD 69. It just had a new number with it, designed to obscure the fact that the 19 year cycle began in year 2 of the cycle.
Now, one might wonder how the Sages managed to get the autumnal equinox to line up with Tishrei 1 in the year 3760 BC, and not only that, but on a Friday, day 6, the day of Adam's creation. Here is the secret. The length of the solar year used by the Rabbinic Calendar is just ever so slightly off its true value, and the length of the lunar cycle is just slightly off. This is not a problem that is noticed right away, as things drift out of alignment with the sun and moon very slowly. However, there is room to fiddle with these numbers enough to synchronize the equinox and the new moon day in any year one wants to, provided that year is several millennia in the past where there are no records to tell where the sun and moon were. One just has to increase or decrease the period by a matter of seconds to move the sun or moon into position, even if in the targeted year they are a whole 15 days out of alignment. The Rabbinic year length and lunation length was derived from observational averages, developed by the Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks. The necessary small fudge factor was applied to the length of the solar year to make the alignment work in 3760 BC! Rav Ada defined the solar year as precisely 365 days, 5 hours, 55 minutes, and 25+25/57ths seconds. This value cannot be derived by any number of observations of year lengths averaged out. It is entirely artificial, meant to make the alignment work out for the Seder Olam year of Adam's creation.
The original text of Seder Olam still has a glaring mathematical problem. And the added year did nothing to fix it, because it was before Adam's creation. The chronology of Genesis is based on age, calculated by completed years. Adam lived 930 years and then he died. This means 930 whole years, or completed years. To be age 930 when one dies requires a zero year before one is the age of 1 year. See Adam's Birth Year. The whole chronology from Adam to the Deluge crashes without it.
The year of chaos (tohu) raised the destruction date of the Second Temple to 3829, pegged to AD 69. And this is the World Era that was adopted around the year AD 800 or so. Among Jews the Seleucid Era fell out of use between then and the 16th century.
Falling Into the Trap
I have integrated in the modern Jewish world era into the charts next to AD 70 on the far left (where AD 69 = 3829 AM). This era did not exist at the time. In fact this era had no footprint in economic contracts or daily usage until well after around AD 800, and that was mostly in Europe. The position is just a proleptic-back-calculation, and no Jew would have ever heard of it.
We can say the same thing for the Era of Adam, or the World Era derived from the Tannaim (where AD 69 = 3828), which I have drawn in on the left. This Era never had a contractual or daily usage footprint, ever. It is a theoretical era constructed from year sums back to creation in Seder Olam. It only saw usage in scholarly debates from much later when Rabbis were vainly trying to solve chaotic Talmudic chronological problems.
The era of the destruction—variously termed the Hurban, or Churban era—is another timeline I have drawn in at the left. In the standard formulation, year one is mapped onto AD 70, i.e. 69.T/70.T. This, too, represents a proleptic calculation; no contemporary evidence suggests that ancient Jews kept an active, running count of this era in daily contracts or public documents. In practice, at least three competing versions of this era emerged over the centuries. The version physically carved on the Zoar Tombstones shifts the baseline backwards, counting year 1 as AD 69 (68.T/69.T). And a version implied by Maimonides calculation suggests the era began AD 70.T/71.T equal to year 1. Because no one actively utilized this era until centuries after the Temple fell, it inevitably became the flashpoint for contentious chronological debates. A fourth variant was even cobbled together by certain medieval chroniclers who erroneously back-calculated the Roman imperial line to place the destruction in AD 68.
So what eras were actually counted by Jews? The Seleucid Era was counted (Minyan Shtarot), with 381 SE mapped to Tishrei 1, AD 69 to Tishrei 1, AD 70. The years of Nero were counted. The years of the Province of Arabia were counted. Roman consuls were named. Roman civic calendar dates were named. A short lived era of Bar-Kochba was used. And the Sabbatical cycle was counted. We have direct evidence of its use in agricultural contracts during the Bar-Kokhba Revolt.
So now, imagine the following scene in the years after AD 150 when Rabbi Yose ben Halafta's teachings on Jewish chronology were becoming popular:
If a Jewish farmer kept the Sabbath year, maintaining his count, and accepted Seder Olam on faith, then he reckoned the destruction in AD 69, because 67T/68T was the Sabbath year. If another Jew knew the actual date of the destruction, when Vespasian and Titus were consuls (a highly memorable combination!), and accepted Seder Olam on faith, then he shifted the sabbath year forward one year to AD 68T/69T and put the destruction in AD 70 so that he would not have to doubt Seder Olam. Soon they would meet up and compare notes. They would discover they did not agree on when the Sabbath year was. Then they would argue.
This argument has been going on for centuries since Seder Olam was foisted upon the Jewish people to foil Daniel 9. It must be understood that this precise argument is a direct fallout of Rabbi Yose's chronological theory. If Seder Olam had never been published, the Sabbath year debate would never have happened. But because of this theory the Sages were ensnared into a trap created by one of their own: Rabbi Yose.
Because of this trap, attempting to use the Sabbath years to improperly frame the destructions of the first and second Temples, the actual timing of the Sabbath year was thrown into confusion. History placed the destruction in AD 70, the second year of the Sabbatical cycle (69T/70T). And history placed the first destruction in the fourth year of the Sabbatical cycle (588T/587T). The AD 70 destruction date was one year later than the first year of the cycle. The confused result is obvious for anyone who placed their faith in Rabbi Yose ben Halafta. Those who had been counting the Sabbath year cycle would believe any calculation leading to AD 69, because this was the first year after the Sabbath year 67T/68T. Those who read the date in terms of Vespasian's consulship or the Seleucid Era would be led straight to AD 70.
The splitting of opinions is the direct result of Rabbi Yose's religious need to unite the first year of the cycle and the destruction date, and the fact that in the real world, the Sabbath year and the destruction were separated by a complete ordinary year. Once this is realized, then the fraud is exposed. But to maintain faith in Rabbi Yose, his teaching must—at all costs, be maintained. And the cost was the Sabbath year. It was moved forward a year to accommodate the historical dating of the destruction in AD 70. But those who kept a Sabbatical year count, and yet had faith in Rabbi Yose, moved the destruction date back to AD 69. And any claims for AD 70 were blamed on the corruptions of the Gentiles.
The Dark Ages
There was never any real serious debate among the known Sages supporting shifting the Sabbath year one year ahead to accommodate AD 70 until after the Sanhedrin dissolved shortly after AD 359. The correct Sabbath year count was preserved, and when the AD 70 dating surfaced, it was a contest between faith in Rabbi Yose and Gentile claims. A Jew like Josephus, saying otherwise, was dismissed as a traitor. Other Jews were also dismissed, because during the first four centuries AD, there were severe divisions in Jewry. The Rabbinic paradigm had not triumphed or imposed an authoritarian monolithic Judaism on the Jewish People. This was only finalized by Maimonides. All the Talmudic calculations through the Geonim have the Sabbath year in the right place. However, all the seeds of the split had been sown.
Since Rabbinic Judaism, (and here I mean that survivial of it from the Babylonian Academies) had not yet triumphed after AD 400 over the Jewish people, the potential for this debate to flare up remained. But the details are somewhat murky in the period from AD 400 to AD 800.
The chief apologetic tool in determining the Sabbath year cycle was the destruction era invented afterward and counted backwards. The Sages arranged this era to place year one in AD 69.T/70.T. The rule given for the Sabbath year was to add 1 and divide by 7. This yields year 2 of the Sabbath cycle as the first year of the destruction Era. The required faith in Rabbi Yose led to putting the event itself one year earlier in the first year of the cycle, AD 68T/AD 69T. This standard rendition of the Era of Destruction was explained as exclusive counting, i.e. counting years after the destruction, and not including the year for the destruction itself.
During the dark period of AD 400 to 800 in the Holy Land, dominated by Church suppressions and Islamic conquests, the last gasp of the true Sabbatical year died out. In AD 363, the Galilee earthquake struck, devastating the major Rabbinic centers. This was right after the AD 358/359 promulgation of the calculated calendar. In AD 749 another catastrophic earthquake reduced the cities to absolute rubble. There was also the plague of Justinian in AD 541 and the plague of Amwas in AD 639. Waves of the bubonic plague eliminated up to a third of the population. Around this demographic collapse, the Zoar Tombstones fall silent around AD 578. The Rabbinic sects were later forced into fierce competition with the rising Karaite sects, who established a powerful presence in the Holy Land. Furthermore, Islamic authorities favored the Karaites by granting them separate political and legal recognition.
Now the Karaites computed a shifting sabbath year every 50 years. This is because they counted the first year of a new Jubilee cycle as the next year after the 50th. But the Torah counts inclusively, e.g. when the 8th and 9th year are mentioned, this is a designation of the years after the 7th. It does not mean that a new cycle starts after the 9th year. Likewise, the 50th year is the way of saying the year after the 49th. It is not saying year 1 counts after the 50th. But the new cycle is renewed on the 50th year. So when the Karaites rose up in the Holy Land, from AD 900 to 1100, the Sabbatical year observance was disputed all across the cycle, and not just the difference of a year.
Maimonides Wins the Argument
Maimonides starts out with 3829 (AD 69) for the destruction year. He then interprets "going out of the seventh" as the tail end of it, 2 months before its Tishrei 1 ending. This interpretation shifts the Sabbath year forward one year. Subsequent scholars returned to the opinion that it was after the Sabbath year; instead of realizing the Sabbath year position of Maimonides was dependent on the interpretation of "going out of the seventh" they let the position of the Sabbath year as determined by Maimonides stand. They then bumped the destruction to 3830 so it would be in the first year of the cycle, according to the original interpretation rejected by Maimonides.
How did Maimonides justify this? He used the elegant calculation that 3829 mod 7 = 0, and thus shows that the sabbath cycle is calculated from the tohu year, and year one of the 19 year cycle. He bypassed using the Standard Churban Era, and used his example as 4936 AM, which he said was 1107 of the destruction era. It was 1107 of the Standard destruction era! But by not using the Geonic calculation on this, i.e. add 1, and then perform mod 7, which would yield 2, he performed 4936 mod 7, and arrived at 1, which is compatible with his wanting 3829 to be Sabbatical.
We should note that his deception is clever, because he selected 4936 AM for the example. This gives a mod 7 = 1 result, the first year of the cycle. If one does not watch out one might mistake this cycle year 1 as agreement that the destruction was in cycle year 1. It is not. The implicit assumption behind using AM for mod 7 is that 4936 lines up with destruction year 1106, as if counting from year 1 = 70T/71T. Maimonides says he his using Geonic methods, but he actually is not. He tricked the community into adopting the proto-Zuckermann cycle. The trick was exposed, but the Sabbath year had stuck, and so scholars simply adopted 3830, and used 3830 mod 7 = 1 to restore the first year of the cycle as the Talmudic position of the destruction. And so by the telephone game, 3830 ended up in 70 AD, where the destruction actually was, without the Jewish community ever admitting they had inherited a mistake dating back to Rabbi Yose ben Halafta.
The Blow Back
The immediate fury broke in the 12th century. Rabbi Abraham ben David of Posquières (Raavad), launched a scathing attack right in his famous Hasagot (glosses on the Mishneh Torah). Raavad immediately spotted that Rambam was unilaterally rewriting the text to fit his timeline. In his gloss on Hilchot Shemittah V'Yovel 10:5, Raavad explicitly rejects Rambam’s attempt to discard the Geonic formula and mockingly notes that Rambam's semantic interpretation of "motzaei shevi'it" as the tail-end of the Sabbatical year is a total linguistic fabrication. Raavad argued that the Geonic calculation was a preserved, unbroken oral legacy that could not be legally overridden by Rambam’s elegant Anno Mundi (AM) modulo formulas.
As the Mishneh Torah grew wildly popular, later medieval codifiers like the Rashba (Rabbi Solomon ben Adret) and Rabbi Yosef Karo (author of the Shulchan Aruch) faced a massive practical crisis. On a theoretical level, they agreed with the Raavad: the Talmud explicitly required the Temple's destruction to be in Year 1 of the cycle (motzaei shevi'it), not at the tail end of the Sabbatical year. On a practical level, the Jewish community had already widely adopted Rambam’s Sabbatical years. His proto-Zuckermann cycle was the operational reality on the ground in Israel and Egypt.
The rabbis realized that if they corrected the history to match the Talmud text properly, they would have to tell the entire Jewish world that they were eating forbidden agricultural products during what they thought was the Sabbatical year. To change the community's Sabbatical practice by a full 12 months would have caused catastrophic confusion, massive financial loss, and communal fragmentation.
To escape this trap, the later codifiers executed a brilliant, unspoken compromise. In the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 67), the law is formally codified following the Geonic tradition for the textual definition (the destruction was in a Year 1), but it leaves Rambam’s mathematical grid untouched.
o pull this off, the rabbis simply detached Rambam's grid from Rambam's narrative. They agreed with the Geonim that the destruction year must be a Year 1 (mod 7 = 1). They looked at Rambam’s grid, saw that 3829 left a remainder of 0, and saw that 3830 left a remainder of 1.
By simply declaring 3830 AM as the year of the destruction, they could: (a) Satisfy the Talmudic rule that the destruction was in Year 1 of the cycle. (b) 1. Leave Rambam's active Sabbatical grid completely undisturbed for the living community.
The rabbis essentially treated Rambam like a brilliant mathematician who used the wrong historical data to construct a flawless clock. They rejected his historical interpretation, exposed his semantic trick, but kept his clock. By letting 3830 AM stand as a composite historical anchor point, the Rabbinate silently corrected the chronology to 70 CE—the actual historical year of the Roman destruction—while letting the community continue counting the Shemittah cycle exactly as Rambam had engineered it, one year later than it had originally been.
3830 Implies 3340
The 3830 date for the destruction of the Temple implies that the first Temple, per Seder Olam accounting, was destroyed in 3340. However, there is no way to add this year up with Seder Olam, even using the extra Tohu year. So the 3830 fix created a contradiction with Seder Olam.
Shortening History
Seder Olam puts the destruction of the First Temple in 3338 AM and the Second Temple in 3828. An inclusive count from one year to the next is 491 years (3828 — 3338 + 1 = 491). The correct dates are 587 BC and AD 70. In the charts I have the correct Anno Mundi dates, 3553 AM and 4209 AM. Again the inclusive count is (4209 — 3553 + 1 = 657) six-hundred and fifty-seven years. The difference between the two figures is 166 years (657 — 491 = 166), which is one more than the usual 165 stated. This is because scholars used to say 586 BC instead of the correct 587 BC. So we see that Seder Olam deleted 166 years from history.
Now since the Jewish communities had been using the Seleucid Era for 381 years when the Second Temple was destroyed, they had this many years allotted to the Greek period. The Babylonian exile lasted 70 years. So we add this to 381. 381 + 70 = 451. Seder Olam allots 12 years for Alexander the Great (the true figure being 14). So now we have consumed 463 years, and now we have less than 30 years left for the Persian period. Seder Olam also has no accounting of the time between Alexander's death and the battle of Gaza which inaugurated the counting of the Seleucid Era on Tishrei 1 (ΔΙ 1), 312 BC. What we are faced with is an impossible shortening of the Persian period, which actually was from 539 BC to 331 BC, 209 years (inclusive count).
But the Scripture says, "And now the truth I tell you thee. Behold, yet three kings are standing for Persia. And the fourth will make wealthy with wealth greater than all, and according to his strength through his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece. And will have stood up a mighty king, and he will have ruled a great dominion, and he will have done according to his pleasure..." (Dan. 11:2-3).
He says three kings yet are standing for Persia, which means one of them is already standing. The first is Darius the Mede for 9 years. The second is Cyrus styled Cambyses for 8 years. Pseudo-Bardia stood for Media and was rejected. Darius is the third king for 36 years. Ahasuerus styled Xerxes is the fourth king for 21 years. And it is he who planned the invasion of Greece in his third year, and his sixth saw the battle of Thermopylae, with Xerxes at Sardis. In his seventh Xerxes left for Susa. Amestris got her revenge, and Esther was appointed the new Queen.
The Scripture abridges the rest of the Persian period, not because it did not exist, but because the prophet is not required to report every detail. The three kings yet, are the number of kings until the fourth, and not until the end of the empire. What happens after the fourth is left to history, and the prophecy jumps to the final Greek response under Alexander the Great.
To this day Jewish sects like Chabad believe in the Seder Olam shortening of history. They track Rabbi Yose's justification. Yose observed the fact that the Persian rulers are known by their throne names. This is true. But he also claimed that all the subsequent kings were the same as the previous kings. That part is not true.
It must be seriously considered that Rabbi Yose's ability to interpret Hebrew is compromised by his anti-Messiah point of view. If we look into Daniel 9, we will see that the prophecy concerns the holy people and the holy city. Within the timeline of the prophecy, "everlasting righteousness" comes in (Dan. 9:24); iniquity is purged (וּלְכַפֵּר עָוֺן). It must happen concerning Jerusalem and concerning Daniel's people, "thy people," which refers to the Jewish people, as Daniel was from the tribe of Judah after the northern kingdom had been scattered. The key word in the text is נֶחְתַּךְ (has been cut) or has been divided by cutting apart, or has been finally decreed, i.e. the decision is made and further deliberation is cut off).
The word is a double entendre. The Seventy-Sevens actually have been cut apart into Seven-Sevens, Sixty-Two Sevens, and One Seven-Period. We do see that there is a space between the 62 sevens and the 70th seven-period (שָׁבוּעַ אֶחָד). The final Seven involves making strong a covenant for one seven. In the midst of the seven, the sacrifices are caused to stop. Rabbi Yose's model has the destruction of the city in year 1 of the cycle. A complete Seventy-Sevens have already happened. It is now the 491st (aka 421st) year. The sacrifices ceased on the 17th day of the 4th month per Josephus. This is outside of the final seven period per Seder Olam.
Since the final seven is divided from the rest, it is permitted to have the destruction of the city in the gap, however far the division goes, but it is not permitted to have the sacrifice and offering cease after the final seven period completes. The middle of the seven (חֲצִי) is not a vague sense like right up against its terminus also, as if someone would argue that the destruction took place in the Sabbatical year itself. But the specification for the daily extends unto 2300 evening mornings, i.e. 1150 days. And also the desolation is said to be for a time, times, and half a time. Half means Half.
Since Rabbi Yose's timeline does not have a ceasing of the offering within the 490 years, his claim that it was fulfilled is invalid. And where is that seven year covenant? There isn't one.
Christian interpreters like to spiritualize the ceasing of the offerings at the cross, but concerning the Jews (Daniel's people) or the city (Jerusalem), they did not cease then. But Rabbi Yose is pro-Temple, so he cannot use this argument.
The final seven is indeed cut apart from the 7 and 62 because all the items that must fit between the beginning of the first seven and the end of the last seven have not happened yet. The Jews have not been collectively purged from iniquity. In particular, they have not been purged from the iniquity of rejecting the Messiah. Messiah is the one who cleanses us from all sin. Without Messiah, there is no final purgation.
Daniel 9
The reader can inspect the charts for the true explanation of Daniel 9. The prophecy kicks off with a decree from Artaxerxes I to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. Then a period of seven sevens passes (Seven Sabbatical Years), and Ezra, the First Anointed, comes to restore worship at the Jerusalem Temple. Then sixty-two Sevens follow this, which are sixty-two Sabbath years, until we come to the Sabbath year AD 32T/33T. Immediately after the 62 Sevens, the Second Anointed One, Yeshua of Nazareth, is cut off from the land of the living on Nisan 14, AD 34.
Subsequently, the city and the Temple are destroyed in AD 70, as mentioned in Daniel 9:25-26. The people of a coming prince, which are the Romans, hail Vespasian as Emperor, as predicted by Josephus, on the basis of the same prophecy. This city is destroyed after the year of the four emperors (AD 69) in AD 70, in the second year of Vespasian.
At some date in the future, a Third Temple will be restored by the lost sheep of Israel, who will also restore the Sabbaths of the land, and the Jubilee year. The fallen tent of David will be restored so that the remnant of mankind may seek the Most High. For the Torah shall again go forth from Jerusalem, and the word of Yahweh from the Mountain of Holiness. And at the end of that time, Israel will be tested, but will not again be exiled to the nations.
One Seven remains to be fulfilled in the future, when the future lawless one, who seeks to change the appointed times, and law, will cause the sacrifice and offering to cease for 42 months (Dan. 7:25). Messiah Yeshua will descend from heaven, and the Mount of Olives will split in two. Half will go north. Half will go south. Then, Israel will fly on the wings of a great eagle through the valley of the mountains to the wilderness to be protected for a time, times, and half a time. Before the end of the final seven, iniquity will be purged from the nation.