QUESTION:  What is "selective scholarship?"

ANSWER:  Selective scholarship (for purposes of this discussion) is simply ignoring evidence which could be detrimental to a certain case you are trying to make. One website, for example, refers to this term when speaking of those who uphold the belief in using only the King James Version of the Bible, where they tell us that one who practices selective scholarship "picks and chooses among the facts to decide which ones to present." When it comes to historical research, however, it is sometimes much more difficult to determine the truth of a certain matter because even the best sources of information can be flawed.  That is why we should not believe only one view of a situation or event, because there are other views which may be in disagreement--and as we should know, they cannot all be right.  When all is said and done, the honest researcher has to weight all the evidence available to him or her to make a decision regarding the validity of any argument.  Even with all the care being exercised in such research, those who disagree with their conclusions may also seek to make the charge of "selective scholarship," when in fact such a charge may be unwarranted.  Also, let's be honest with ourselves--we need to recognize that we are all (to some degree or another) biased with our opinions, and we could be wrong.  I have been wrong about a lot of things throughout my life, and I am sure I will be wrong about something in the future.  However, this is not (in itself) proof of selective scholarship on my part.  In fact, it may be considered evidence of an unbiased researcher to be willing to admit of possible bias--but, again, it remains to be seen how much I allow bias to cloud my judgments, at least in regard to the issues at hand.

QUESTION:  Do you believe that the Talmud, the Seder Olam, and/or the Book of Jubilees are inspired writings, with authority which is above that of Scripture?  And have you engaged in something called "selective scholarship" in regards to the use of these writings, as claimed by the loyal opposition?

ANSWER:  No, I believe that these writings are important but not inspired.  For example, the Sedar Olam is one of the most important documents to evaluate when it comes to Biblical chronology--for it is the oldest complete chronological study of Scripture in existence.  The really humorous part of this whole debate is that I am accused of exalting the Sedar Olam above Scripture because I refer to it often (the Loyal Opposition says:  'one-third of his "supportive evidence" consisted of either the Talmud or the Sedar Olam'), when in fact I and several others have pointed out that the Sedar Olam is a 'redacted' text which also received its chronology from an unknown original and altered it to make Bar Kochba fit the Messianic prophecy of Daniel 9.  So, it is very important for us to study this while recognizing that it has subtracted over 160 years from the actual Bible chronology.  Having said all of that, it could hardly be said that I have exalted this writing above Scripture.

These historical documents are important because they 1) Provide valuable historical information, and 2) Provide valuable cultural information regarding the Jewish people, which gives us background information regarding the life of the Jewish people in Bible times.  Other writings which fall into this category would include the writings of Josephus and Philo, as well as the books of Enoch and 1 & 2 Maccabees. So, when studying Scripture in light of Jewish history and culture, (and when Scripture clearly and directly contradict something in these writings) we should accept the Scriptural account as of supreme importance above all others.  Please note, however, that there are always possible conflicts in our interpretation of Scripture as well as passages from these key historical/cultural writings.  And please note also that historical documents (such as the book of Enoch, the writings of Josephus, etc.) have their own particular biases and potential errors--so we must examine many historical documents before coming to final conclusions, especially in regard to Bible chronology and calendar issues.

Regarding the issue of "selective scholarship," such a charge is easy to throw around, but difficult to prove.  If we were honest with ourselves, we would have to admit that we have all (at one time or another) engaged in some type of "selective scholarship," for we all tend to study an issue based upon our own perspectives and preconceived ideas, focus on what we want to see, and filter out the rest.  Such is human nature--but we should try to avoid doing this.  For example, it has been stated that I have not fully considered the testimony of Josephus regarding the events surrounding the destruction of the second temple (and Jerusalem).  However, I have studied this statement carefully, and find no clear indication that the fire which destroyed the temple started on the 10th of Av.  It is clear that the report of Josephus leads us to understand that the destruction of the temple was completed on the 10th (just as the first time the temple was destroyed), but there is still room for doubt regarding when the fire actually began.  Go here for my more detailed explanation of that issue.

QUESTION:  Am I really engaged in something called "selective scholarship," as [the loyal opposition]  has claimed?

ANSWER:  This is a very critical accusation. My answer, of course, is no.  However, such an answer does not (in and of itself) prove anything.  While it is not my objective to spend a lot of time defending my research methods, I would like to point out that one of the hallmarks of those engaged in "selective scholarship" is that they ignore all the evidence which does not support their view, while upholding evidence which does support their view.  I could, in light of that definition, throw it right back at him--and, indeed, there is evidence to support that (such as the outright rejection of any evidence coming from the Dead Sea Scrolls, in which he calls such presentation of evidence by myself as "data dumping").

While I believe we should consider all the possible evidence regarding the issues we are studying, in practical terms none of us will ever exhaust the research necessary to do that completely.  We can attempt to look at all the evidence, but in reality no one ever looks at all the evidence--because no one is omniscient.  And none of us can claim to be completely without bias.  We simply do the best we can, and continue to update, revise, and sometimes even reverse our position based upon our research as more information becomes available.  But since this accusation is pointed at myself, let's take a closer look at the writings which are used to help us better understand Scripture.

The Talmud

The Talmud is an important historical document (compiled from the second to the fifth century CE) to use in the study of Scripture, for it gives us the opinions of ancient Jewish sages and give us a good idea of the Jewish culture of the post temple era.  Some of those opinions are found to be worthy of our attention, and others not so worthy.  It even gives support for belief in Messiah, for it appears to historically validate his first coming (or, rather, the fact that the Messiah was supposed to come within a certain timeframe, but supposedly did not come), while condemning Yeshua as an evil-doer.  It is not to be considered inspired or infallible.

The Sedar Olam

The Sedar Olam (Seder Olam Rabbah, Wikipedia) was put into writing about 160 CE and is one of the most important documents to evaluate when it comes to Biblical chronology--for it is the oldest complete chronological study of Scripture in existence. The really humorous part of this question regarding selective scholarship is that I am accused of exalting the Sedar Olam above Scripture because I refer to it often, when in fact I and others have pointed out that the Sedar Olam is a 'redacted' text which also received its chronology from an unknown original and altered it to make Bar Kochba fit the Messianic prophecy of Daniel 9. So, while it is very important for us to study to help us understand chronology, we also recognize that it has subtracted over 160 years from the actual Bible chronology. Having said all of that, it could hardly be said that I have exalted this writing above Scripture.  Like the Talmud, it also should not be considered inspired or infallible.

The Book of Jubilees

The Book of Jubilees was written in the second century BCE.  It is a proto-Essene text which was written prior to the time of the division between the various sects, such as Sadduces, Pharisees, Essenes, etc.  "It was well known to Early Christian writers in the East and the West, as well as by the Rabbis."  (Book of Jubilees, Wikipedia)  It is not inspired, it is not infallible, and it contains its own share of errors.  (See Is the Book of Jubilees Inspired?)  It is (along with other ancient Dead Sea Scroll documents, such as the Melchezedek Scroll) useful in helping to determine the typical understanding of the Jubilee cycles, as it supports 49 year cycles.  However, it also supports the idea of a 364 day year (which is a strictly solar calendar; interesting, but not by itself Scriptural.  The Scriptural calendar is lunar-solar), and it's history and chronology contains several well known errors.  (See A Brief Survey of the Book of Jubilees, by Robert C. Newman, for more information on the Book of Jubilees.)

The Book of Enoch

"The Book of Enoch (also 1 Enoch[1]) is a pseudepigraphic work ascribed to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah and son of Jared (Genesis 5:18). While this book today is non-canonical in most Christian Churches, it was explicitly quoted[2]:8 in the New Testament (Letter of Jude 1:14-15) and by many of the early Church Fathers. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church to this day regards it to be canonical. . . .It is argued that all the writers of the New Testament were familiar with it and were influenced by it in thought and diction.[5]"  (The Book of Enoch, Wikipedia)  Like the other writings listed above, I do not believe that the book of Enoch is inspired or infallible.

First and Second Book of Maccabees

"The first book of Maccabees is a book written by a Jewish author after the restoration of an independent Jewish kingdom, probably about 100 BC. It is included in all Christian Bibles ("canons") except most Protestant ones. Jews and most Protestants regard it as generally reliable historically, but not a part of Scripture."  (1 Maccabees, Wikipedia)

"2 Maccabees is a deuterocanonical book of the Bible which focuses on the Jews' revolt against Antiochus IV Epiphanes and concludes with the defeat of the Syrian general Nicanor in 161 BC by Judas Maccabeus, the hero of the work. 2 Maccabees was written in Koine Greek, probably in Alexandria[1], Egypt, c 124 BC.[2] It presents a revised version of the historical events recounted in the first seven chapters of 1 Maccabees, adding material from the Pharisaic tradition, including prayer for the dead and a resurrection on Judgment Day.[2] Catholics and Orthodox consider the work to be canonical and part of the Bible. Protestants and Jews reject most of the doctrinal innovations present in the work."  (2 Maccabees, Wikipedia)

Philo

Philo is a Hellenistic Jewish writer and philosopher from Alexandria Egypt who gives frequent commentary on the books of Torah.  "Philo used allegory to fuse and harmonize Greek philosophy and Judaism.  His method followed the practices of both Jewish exegesis and Stoic philosophy.  His work was not widely accepted."  (Philo, Wikipedia)  He lived in the time of Yahushua.  His commentary has great historical value.  But, I will repeat again for clarification--he is not inspired, and he is not infallible.

Josephus

Josephus "was a first-century Jewish historian and apologist of priestly and royal ancestry who survived and recorded the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. His works give an important insight into first-century Judaism."  (Josephus, Wikipedia)  He is a well known Jewish writer who was captured by the Romans and later released to serve as historian of the Roman-Jewish war about a generation after Messiah came.  His historical statements are considered generally reliable.  Again, while he is a Jewish historian he is also connected with the Romans, as he even became a Roman Citizen--so his viewpoint may tend to favor the Romans above the Jews in certain matters.  He is not inspired, and he is not infallible.  He is a generally reliable historian of the first century CE.

Please understand this is not an exhaustive list of authors and their works.  However, before continuing I am certain that there is even disagreement regarding these brief biographies concerning who is more or less reliable in religious or historical matters.  While this is true, and we may disagree on how much "weight" of authority each of these should have, let us focus on the basic fundamental point that I am attempting to make here--none of these are inspired and none of them are infallible. 

Answering the Charges

Let's start with the book of Jubilees.  I have stated that this book offers proof that the Jubilee cycles were understood by most Jews of the temple and post temple era as being 49 year cycles, not 50 year cycles.  Since the book of Jubilees is such a well known book, written prior to the time of the division of the various sects of Judaism (proto-Essene), we have reason to think that his understanding of the cycles is probably accurate.  However, the unusual calendar which he introduces (364 days per year) marks his work as being based upon the book of Enoch--a book which the loyal opposition has curiously left out of his list of books to consider, which leads me to wonder. . . ?  Well, anyway, the fact that the chronology of the book of Jubilees differs from that of my chronology is not a valid point, since there is no single chronology of Scripture (that I am aware of) which is in total agreement on every point.  My chronology stands or falls based upon its own merit, and should be studied as such (not compared to either the book of Jubilees, the Sedar Olam, the Septuagint, or James Ussher).  When you compare the chronologies in each of these works you will find that they all have differences, sometimes significant differences, and yet I am certain the loyal opposition will not (for instance) accuse the translators of the Septuagint of "selective scholarship"--even though the chronology of Genesis it contains adds several hundred years to the chronology found in the Masoretic Text.  [Many scholars have reason to believe that the Masoretic text provides the most accurate chronology, for reasons we will not explore at this time.] And since I never claimed the book of Jubilees was inspired or inerrant, such an accusation as selective scholarship for that work is really not a valid charge.

Let's talk now about Philo.  Philo says this regarding the command regarding the Jubilees:  "(114) Therefore, the law invites the man who is able to recover his original property within the period of fifty years, or any one of his nearest relations, to use every exertion to repay the price which he received, and not to be the cause of loss to the man who purchased it, and who served him at a time when he was in need of assistance."  (Philo, The Special Laws, II, Chapter 22, Section 114)  Because I said so very little about Philo's statement, this supposedly makes me guilty of selective scholarship.  However, such an accusation as this proves nothing here--for Philo is certainly granted his opinion in his commentary, just as he is granted to have many other opinions--some of which I agree with and others which I disagree with.  Just remember, when we are examining the works of historians we are not pitting one historian against another (unless there is a very good reason).  We are examining all of the available evidence and then rendering a decision based upon the weight of evidence.  If Philo says the cycles are 50 years, but the book of Jubilees, the book of Enoch and Maccabees (both of which the loyal opposition conveniently left out of the list), the Melchezedek Scroll, the chronology of the Sedar Olam, and the chronology of Josephus point to or outright declare the use of continuous seven (or even 49) year cycles--then what do we do?  Can we make Philo right and all the others wrong?  Is it good scholarship to accept the words of Philo and reject all of these other testimonies?  Let us not forget that Philo was a "Hellenistic Jewish writer and philosopher."  Let us also not forget:  Josephus is more of an historian, whereas Philo is more of a philosopher.  His view of Scriptural matters may not necessarily be the correct view, and we would certainly like to have more confirmation from other sources when considering his views.

I have already mentioned in another place how the Sedar Olam used the prophecy of Daniel 9 (with its 490 year cycles) to establish jubilee cycles.  While I mentioned the Josephus statement regarding "every seventh year," what I did not mention is the fact that Josephus gives various dates upon which the Jews celebrated Sabbatical years.  When those dates are determined and plotted on a timeline, they very clearly show continuously repeating seven year cycles over a period of about two centuries!!  Obviously, if the Jubilee cycles were 50 years in duration, such a discrepancy would be clearly seen over a period of several centuries.  [This does not include the additional evidence that can be found in the books of Maccabees, the Sedar Olam, and the Talmud] In addition, when properly understood, they agree completely with the Sabbatical years given in the Jubilee Calendar.

Josephus Confirms Repeating 7 Year Cycles with his Own Recorded Chronology

Well, what about Josephus?  First, it has been said that my interpretation of Josephus' account of the destruction of the second temple in 70 CE is flawed.  However, I disagree.  While Josephus mentions the date of the 10th of Av for the destruction of the first and second temples--the context clearly suggests that the fire started on the 9th of Av (at least for that second temple).  But let's save some time--I will simply provide the link to my explanation of that here.  What about the rest of Josephus' testimony?  Does Josephus tell us that the sabbatical cycles are continuous--to be repeated "every seventh year?"  Yes, he does--and he does it twice.

So, let us consider more of what Josephus has to say about the Sabbatical years--a subject that is paramount to this research.  Josephus has much more information to share with us that many may not be aware of.  He tells us something regarding another prior siege in Israel:

And as the siege was drawn out into length by this means, that year on which the Jews used to rest came on; for the Jews observe this rest every seventh year, as they do every seventh day; (Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus, Book 13, Chapter 8, Section 1)

 

And as the siege was delayed by this means, the year of rest came on, upon which the Jews rest every seventh year as they do on every seventh day. (Wars of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 4)

While the testimony of Josephus concerning exactly which day the fire began to engulf the temple is clearly in doubt (as I have more fully demonstrated in my answers regarding the 9th of Av), there can be no doubt regarding these two statements.  Josephus is plainly telling us that the Sabbatical years were celebrated in unbroken sequence every seventh year, just as the seventh day Sabbath was observed in unbroken sequence every seventh day. Does this line up with what Scripture says?

And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, When all Israel is come to appear before Yahweh thy Elohim in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. (Deuteronomy 31:10-11)

At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release.  (Deuteronomy 15:1)

What does "every seven years" mean?  Does it mean an unbroken sequence of seven year cycles?  Or does it allow for an additional year after 49 of those years expire?  Philo also said the sabbaticals came every seven years, but not as emphatically as Josephus--and the testimony of Philo I have already quoted above seems to indicate his agreement with fifty year cycles.  Josephus here tells us the same thing as Philo regarding the seven year cycles--only much more emphatically ("every seventh year, as they do every seventh day"), so all we need is evidence that Josephus spoke of Sabbatical years covering several centuries, plot their dates accurately, and line them all up in sequence.  If they truly are consecutive unbroken cycles of seven years each, we will surely know. 

Josephus gives several references to Sabbatical years.  In some of those references, we have enough historical and chronological information to determine when exactly each of those years were.  Here are some of those references:

Judas Maccabees defeat at Beth-Sura

But Judas, seeing the strength of the enemy, retired to Jerusalem, and prepared to endure a siege. As for Antiochus, he sent part of his army to Bethsura, to besiege it, and with the rest of his army he came against Jerusalem; but the inhabitants of Bethsura were terrified at his strength; and seeing that their provisions grew scarce, they delivered themselves up on the security of oaths that they should suffer no hard treatment from the king. . . . But then their provisions failed them; what fruits of the ground they had laid up were spent and the land being not ploughed that year, continued unsowed, because it was the seventh year, on which, by our laws, we are obliged to let it lay uncultivated. And withal, so many of the besieged ran away for want of necessaries, that but a few only were left in the temple. (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 12, Chapter 9, Section 5)

Here it says that the defeat of Judas Maccabees came at Beth-Sura in a Sabbatical year (seventh year).  When did this take place?  According to Maccabees, it was the 149th year of the Seleucid era (which, according to the standard courtly manner of counting, was from the fall of 164 to 163 BCE).  Here is the evidence:

A sabbatical year is also mentioned in 1 Maccabees 6:49 which took place at the same time as the battle of Beth-Sura (Maccabees 6:20). Also, Antiochus himself died that very same year (Maccabees 6:16). The siege is dated to the 149th year of the Seleucid Era according to 2 Maccabees 13:1. In 1 Maccabees 6:20, however, the same siege is declared to have taken place in the 150th year of the Seleucid Era, and that year is declared to have been a Sabbatical year.

In the hundred forty and ninth year it was told Judas, that Antiochus Eupator was coming with a great power into Judea, (2 Maccabees 13:1) . . . .

 

Now when the king had taken a taste of the manliness of the Jews, he went about to take the holds by policy, And marched toward Bethsura, which was a strong hold of the Jews: but he was put to flight, failed, and lost of his men: (2 Maccabees 13:18-19)

The context clearly suggests that the events between verse 1 and verses 18-19 took place in close proximity to each other, that is, in the 149th year of the Seleucid Era.

So king Antiochus died there in the hundred forty and ninth year. (1 Maccabees 6:16) . . . .

 

So they came together, and besieged them in the hundred and fiftieth year, and he made mounts for shot against them, and other engines.  (1 Maccabees 6:20) . . . .

But with them that were in Bethsura he made peace: for they came out of the city, because they had no victuals there to endure the siege, it being a year of rest to the land. (1 Maccabees 6:49)

This last text identifies that the “year of rest” was in progress at the same time as the siege of Bethsura, which took place (according to 1 Maccabees) in the 150th year of the Seleucid era. The Seleucid Era is given in commemoration of the entry into Babylon by Seleucus (one of Alexander’s four generals) in August of 312 BCE. (1 Maccabees 1:10).  We know that the author of Maccabees is using that dating system for all of his dates, because he plainly says so in the beginning of his writings:

And there came out of them a wicked root Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king, who had been an hostage at Rome, and he reigned in the hundred and thirty and seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks.   (1 Maccabees 1:10)

But now, because of this apparent discrepancy, we now have a problem--for both dates (149 SE and 150 SE) are being used to describe the same series of events. If we accept the date 149 SE, it would be the year 164/163 BCE.  If we accept the date of 150 SE, it would be the year 163/62 BCE.  Indeed, Benedict Zuckermann himself (who established with his research what is considered the standard position on Sabbatical cycles, called A treatise on the Sabbatical cycle and the Jubilee. FYI: a book that can be found at Bridwell Library, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas) was so perplexed by this apparent conflict that he chose not to include this event as supportive of his Sabbatical cycles. (Please see the reference to this in the Wikipedia article Shmita--Sabbatical years (shemitot) in the Second Temple period.)

What we have to contend with (as we seek to resolve these conflicting dates) is the well known fact that various cities and states in the ancient Seleucid Empire (a Greek State) would each use different dating methods to calculate the Seleucid Era.  [While we will be talking here about the two most common methods, there would actually be four methods to calculate the Seleucid era.]

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, the problem with the dating of events between these two books (1st and 2nd Maccabbees) is that in one book they are using a spring-to-spring calendar (starting from the month of Nisan), and in the other book they are using a fall-to-fall calendar (starting from the month of Tishri). Please note what is said in this regard:

The Jews of post-Biblical times adopted the Greek era of the Seleucids. The Greek era . . . dates from the battle of Gaza in the autumn of the year 312 B.C. This was used by the Jews as early as the Book of Maccabees (I Macc. i. 11), though the author of the first Book of Maccabees deals with the year as beginning with Nisan, while in the second book the beginning of the year is placed in Tishri (see the elaborate discussion in Schürer, ‘Geschichte,’ i. 36-46; and the literature mentioned on p. 46).  The Jewish Encyclopedia, under section entitled “Era”. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=438&letter=E)

So how do we reconcile these apparent differences between the account of 1 Maccabees and the account of 2 Maccabees?  If one book is using a spring-to-spring calendar for that particular event (1 Maccabees) and the other (2 Maccabees) is using a fall-to-fall calendar, the solution is readily available:

While some historians list the date for this event as 163/162, it should be understood that this is based upon a spring to spring calendar, as I have shown here. Please notice that the common point of reference in both of these dating methods is the spring of the year 163 BCE.  Therefore, the only valid way to really harmonize these two dates is to place the defeat of Judas Maccabees at Beth-Sura in the year 163 BCE, in the spring.   This solution actually makes sense, because in the texts of Maccabbees as well as the parallel text of Josephus’ Antiquities, the people of Beth-Sura surrendered quickly when they were besieged by Antiochus Eupator. Evidently, they surrendered quickly because all of their stores of food had been used up by then, since that year which was passing was a Sabbatical year. There is other evidence to support the date for this siege, but we will not go into that lengthy explanation here.

In a fall-to-fall calendar, the event would be dated to the spring of 163 BCE and would put the Sabbatical year mentioned by both Maccabees and Josephus in the year 164/163 BCE of a fall-to-fall calendar.

Herod besieged Jerusalem

Now the Jews that were enclosed within the walls of the city fought against Herod with great alacrity and zeal (for the whole nation was gathered together… Now the three bulwarks were easily erected, because so many hands were continually at work upon it; for it was summer time, and there was nothing to hinder them in raising their works. . . they were distressed by famine and the want of necessaries, for this happened to be a Sabbatic year. The first that scaled the walls were twenty chosen men, the next were Sosius's centurions; for the first wall was taken in forty days, and the second in fifteen more… 3. And now Herod having overcome his enemies… 4. This destruction befell the city of Jerusalem when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls of Rome on the hundred eighty and fifth olympiad, on the third month, on the solemnity of the fast. . . .  (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 14, Chapter 16, Sections 2-4)

. . . nor was there any end of the miseries he brought upon them; and this distress was in part occasioned by the covetousness of the prince regent, who was still in want of more, and in part by the Sabbatic year, which was still going on, and forced the country to lie still uncultivated, since we are forbidden to sow our land in that year. (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews., Book 15, Chapter 1, Section 2)

Now one may ask, “How do we really know that this year-date was 37 BCE?  Well, let’s look more closely at this. Based upon this last statement from Josephus, Herod attacked Jerusalem throughout the spring and summer of what he clearly calls a sabbatical year. Here is some other information from Josephus which identifies that year more precisely.

This destruction befell the city of Jerusalem when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls of Rome on the hundred eighty and fifth olympiad, on the third month, on the solemnity of the fast, as if a periodical revolution of calamities had returned since that which befell the Jews under Pompey; for the Jews were taken by him on the same day, and this was after twenty-seven years' time.  (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 15, Chapter 16, Section 4.)

Pompey put Jerusalem under a siege in 63 BCE, a fairly well known and accurate date.  27 years after this date (counting inclusively) would take us to the year 37 CE.  We know, based upon Josephus' other two accounts (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 15, Chapter 5, Section 2; Wars of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 3), that the seventh year of Herod's reign was also when the Battle of Actium took place (the summer of 31 BCE). Since we know of another solid date in history (the date of the Battle of Actium), which is also declared to be seven years after Herod took control of Jerusalem (again, counting inclusively), we are able to accurately determine this Sabbatical year.

Olympiads were periods of four-year lengths which marked the Greek games. Historians and chronologists know for a certainty that the 185th Olympiad took place between July of 40 BCE and June of 36 BCE. This 185th Olympiad could not have taken place during the summer of 36 BCE, for halfway through the siege they would have entered into the 186th Olympiad. We know what year Gallus and Agrippa were both consuls of Rome—that would be the year 63 BCE. Therefore, the ending of the 27 years, by using inclusive reckoning brings us to the year 37 BCE, a year in which Agrippa and Gallus were still consuls of Rome.   The “fast” is in reference to the “fast of Tammuz” which took place on the 17^th day of the fourth month of the year.  (Wikipedia, Seventeenth of Tammuz, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_of_Tammuz) While 36 BCE might still be considered a possibility, it cannot be 36 BCE because that would place it in the eighth year of Herod's reign, not the seventh.  Therefore, the Sabbatical year Josephus speaks of can be none other than the fall of 38 to the fall of 37 BCE, for the statement of Josephus also says that "it was summer time," and this additional clue lets us know it had to be the summer of 37 BCE--near the end of a Sabbatical year (as his description clearly shows).

In a fall-to-fall calendar, that would put the Sabbatical year of Herod's attack against Jerusalem (mentioned by Josephus) in the year 38/37 BCE.

The Battle of Actium

The Battle of Actium took place on September 2, 31 BCE. This date is well established in chronological history (please see the Wikipedia entry for 31 BCE, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/31_BC). According to Josephus, this was the seventh year of Herod's reign.

2. At this time it was that the fight happened at Actium, between Octavius Caesar and Antony, in the seventh year of the reign of Herod⁽⁸⁾ and then it was also that there was an earthquake in Judea, such a one as had not happened at any other time, and which earthquake brought a great destruction upon the cattle in that country.

 

⁽⁸⁾The reader is here to take notice, that this seventh year of the reign of Herod, and all the other years of his reign, in Josephus, are dated from the death of Antigonus, or at the soonest from the conclusion of Antigonus, and the taking of Jerusalem a few months before, and never from his first obtaining the kingdom at Rome, above three years before, as some have very weakly and injudiciously done. (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 15, Chapter 5, Section 2)

 

3. In a little time after this calamity, Herod came to bring them succors; but he came too late. Now the occasion of that blow was this, that the officers would not obey orders; for had not the fight begun so suddenly, Athenio had not found a proper season for the snares he laid for Herod: however, he was even with the Arabians afterward, and overran their country, and did them more harm than their single victory could compensate. But as he was avenging himself on his enemies, there fell upon him another providential calamity; for in the seventh⁽²⁹⁾ year of his reign, when the war about Actium was at the height, at the beginning of the spring, the earth was shaken, and destroyed an immense number of cattle, with thirty thousand men; but the army received no harm, because it lay in the open air.

 

⁽²⁹⁾This seventh year of the reign of Herod [from the conquest or death of Antigonus], with the great earthquake in the beginning of the same spring, which are here fully implied to be not much before the fight at Actium, between Octavius and Antony, and which is known from the Roman historians to have been in the beginning of September, in the thirty-first year before the Christian era, determines the chronology of Josephus as to the reign of Herod, viz. that he began in the year 37, beyond rational contradiction. Nor is it quite unworthy of our notice, that this seventh year of the reign of Herod, or the thirty-first before the Christian era, contained the latter part of a Sabbatic year, on which Sabbatic year, therefore, it is plain this great earthquake happened in Judea. (Josephus, War of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 3)

We have already established that Herod took Jerusalem in a Sabbatical year, therefore the seventh year of his reign overlaps with a Sabbatical year also.

Charting the Sabbatical Years of Josephus

In summarizing some of this same evidence, along with additional evidence (both from Josephus and 1 and 2 Maccabees), chronologist Godfrey Faussett makes the exact same connection between several key dates as I have--showing that they are conclusive proof of the historical use of 49 year cycles:

There is a difference of opinion as to whether the 50 years between jubilee and jubilee are complete or current years. It seems to me however, that to reckon 50 full years for the jubilee without regard to the Sabbatical cycles very much disturbs that connexion between them, which the account in Leviticus* [*Leviticus 25] implies; and that Bedford's theory of an intervening year, and a new commencement for the next 7 weeks of years, is wholly inadmissible, for the three ascertained Sabbatical years B. C. 37, B. C. 135, and B. C. 163 are, as before shewn, each divisible by 7 with a remainder 2, a coincidence which must have been wholly destroyed by the intervention of 2 and possibly 3 such years of jubilee, as are here supposed. (Sacred Chronology, by Godfrey Faussett, Oxford, p. 290.)

Now let's line all the dates up, including this new date of 135 BCE. given by Faussett:

• 163 BCE (likely Spring)

• 135 BCE

• 37 BCE (certainly Summer)

• 31 BCE (certainly Fall)

Please notice that the amount of time between 163 BCE and 31 BCE covers 132 years (which is well over 2 Jubilee cycles of 50 years each).  Since these dates are confirmed Sabbatical years, then there can be no way that Jubilee cycles of 50 years can fit within such a scheme.  Therefore, Josephus demonstrates by his own account of events that the Jubilee cycles in the Second Temple Era could only consist of continuous 49 year cycles, not 50 year cycles--if, of course, they ever even celebrated Jubilees.

There are other dates which we can confirm, but this is enough to show that the accounts of Josephus establish continuous 7 and 49 year cycles.  Even if there are differences of opinion on when exactly these Sabbatical years line up, there can be no doubt that Josephus is indicating continuous 49 and not 50 year cycles to establish these Sabbatical years.  But let's continue the chart beyond that date until the time of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE:

It has been said that "the jury is still out" regarding how Josephus understood the nature of Sabbatical cycles.  But the evidence from his own writings shows that the jury rendered a verdict on this issue almost 2000 years ago!  Josephus records at least 3 Sabbatical years spanning 132 years, and they are all shown to be continuous (no allowance for a 50 year cycle).  Also, based upon our knowledge of events during this time, the 15th year of Tiberius (which is the start of Yahushua's ministry) comes in the fall of 27 CE.  His ministry is commonly believed to have lasted 3.5 years, which puts the crucifixion in the spring of 31 CE (exactly in the "midst of the week", cf. Daniel 9:24-27).  And finally, it is well known that the temple was destroyed in 70 CE, in the month of Av (which is the spring). The testimony of Josephus (as he describes various sieges taking place in Sabbatical years) puts the time of the temples destruction in a post-Sabbatical year, beyond question.  Josephus, the one who I am accused of not fully considering, fully supports the Sabbatical years given on this website.

Some may be tempted to think that all of these Sabbatical and Jubilee year alignments are based strictly on Josephus.  However, that is simply not the case.  In addition to resorting to the testimony of Josephus, we also use the testimony of 1 and 2 Maccabees, the Sedar Olam, and other resources, to determine the correct Sabbatical years.  While the historical testimonies of Josephus can be relied upon, the same cannot be said of his own chronology.  The simple fact of the matter is that Josephus also published a complete chronology of the world in which he (or one of his editors) was very clearly using the numbers from the Septuagint as the primary basis for his own chronology (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 3, Section 4).  Godfrey Faussett, in his book Sacred Chronology, clearly shows that while Josephus may be a good historian, he is certainly not the most qualified chronologist--as he follows the Septuagint chronology for the individual chronologies, but follows the Masoretic chronology for some of the totals.  He relies heavily upon the Septuagint text (which adds over 1000 years to the total chronology), and yet often his numbers do not add up:

The Chronology of Josephus, in its present state, is a mass of confusion and inconsistency. Indeed after making every allowance for corruptions of his text, both designed and accidental, there remains much reason for supposing that, Chronology being with him but a secondary object, he was not over careful in his calculations, and was even sometimes inconsistent with himself. But though it should thus appear, that it would be unsafe to look to him for the correct outline of a chronological scheme, he may still be an excellent authority for our present purpose, which is rather to discover the source from whence he derived his numbers, than to depend upon his exactness in combining them. (Sacred Chronology, by Godfrey Faussett, Oxford, p. 23.)

As I stated before, Josephus is not without error--and there is proof that he is not all that good with math.  However, as an historian he is much better suited--and his historical statements on when the Sabbatical years came may be better relied upon than his chronological tables.

Now, again (and I hate repeating myself, but sometimes it is necessary), does the above explanation reflect the work of someone engaged in "selective scholarship," as I have been accused of?  How many "straw men" must the loyal opposition set up only to knock them down and then be declared the victor?  Is this really the way to study Scripture--to set up "straw men" and to use character assassination toward the messenger in an attempt to discredit them?  The charge of "selective scholarship" can easily fall to the feet of any of us who choose to see things from our own narrow perspectives.  Of course, as I said before, it is easy to throw such a charge around--but, indeed, it is difficult to prove.  For example, I have been accused of not fully considering the testimony of Josephus.  While I did not immediately respond to every accusation along these lines, nor did I fully explain (at that time) my understanding of Josephus account of the events of Av 8 to 10 in 70 CE, I am confident that the truth will win out in the end--and that is my object, to find the truth (not win the argument, or make myself famous).

Let us consider what we have now:  We have found two exceptions in Leviticus 25 showing the Jubilee cycles do not have to be 50 years, and yet it appears that there is no more room for exceptions in the texts we previously quoted from Deuteronomy (where it says "every seven years").  Josephus repeats that sentiment twice, only much more emphatically ("every seventh year, as they do on every seventh day").  In addition, the recorded dates of Josephus do not allow for a 50 year cycle in the second temple era--even if we allowed for slight errors in the dating of some of these events.  Add to that the book of Jubilees, the Melchizedek Scroll, the chronology of Sedar Olam, the Talmudic formula, and other evidence we haven't even gone into yet; and so where does that leave us?  What this clearly means is that there was no room for a special 50 year cycle, for such a cycle would be several years out of sync with a continuous seven year cycle--as clearly and plainly described twice by Josephus, and twice by Moses.  So, in like manner, to interpret these statements in any other way (or to completely ignore them, as some have done) may also appear worthy of the charge of "selective scholarship."  Whether we agree on a Bible subject or not, it is not wise to make personal attacks of this nature against others--for we may find that the charge will someday return to us also.

W. Glenn Moore

Jubilee Countdown Ministries

PO Box 2015

Burleson, Texas 76097

gmoore_88@lycos.com

Going Back Home?