Talk:Historical Sabbatical Years

The Sabbatical Years

There are two names that stand out in the debate over the sabbatical year cycle. These being the names Benedict Zuckermann, and Ben Zion Wacholder. Both have produced tables showing what they believe to be the sabbatical cycle, with Mr Wacholder making his table of years, one year later than Mr Zuckerman.

It is of interest that the modern nation of Israel is currently counting a cycle of 7 years which is in alignment with those of Mr Zuckermann.

While the discussion as to which is correct may continue for some time to come, I, from my own studies, have concluded that the dates proposed by Mr Zuckermann are correct. There are several studies that I have worked on over the years, which have helped me come to this decision.

One of the most important studies that I did was involving the Jubilee Cycle of years and the references in the scriptures to the 14th and 15th years of Hezekiah, which speak of back to back Sabbatical Years. This is the only biblical reference that implies a Year of Jubilee. Projecting the table of dates from Mr Zuckermann, from BC 457, backwards, the date for the 14th year of Hezekiah works out to be BC 702.

While this is one year out to the accepted date of BC 701, as supported by the published work of Mr Thiele, it should be noted, that in the preface of his book, Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Mr Thiele describes briefly the work involved in working out a chronological pattern, that was in full accord with the biblical data. And that his first dating of his early chronological pattern resulted in the 14th year of Hezekiah to be BC 702.

His published work records his pattern of the reigns of kings of Judah and Israel, after making some changes to his early chronological pattern. I have come to the conclusion that this early pattern was indeed correct. And in my studies, I have been working to reconstruct this early pattern.

Also significant is the fact that the fourth year of Jehoiakim, which is dated to BC 604, and is the 23rd year of the warnings of Jeremiah, aligns to this cycle of years, 98 years after Hezekiahs 14th year, and 147 years prior to the decree of Ezra in AD 457.

Another good example can be taken from the recorded history of the Apostle Paul as found in the New Testament. Luke, in the Book of Acts has recorded a significant amount of historical data, some of which is able to be dated. And in his own writings, Paul also includes some historical data, which can be linked to that of Luke. A solid dated event is the first collection of Paul, recorded in Acts 12, which is connected to the death of Herod, commonly dated to AD 44. This was during Paul's first Mission Trip. There is an event in Pauls First Mission Trip which needs to be taken into consideration, and that is when he was stoned, and left for dead.

In Acts 20 there is recorded a second collection of Paul. This is at the end of his Third Mission Trip, and is commonly dated to about AD 57. There is an interesting reference in 2 Cor 12:1-4 where Paul refers to a person having an out of body experience some 14 years earlier. There is a case that could be made that Paul is in fact refering to himself. If this is so, then the incident would be placed during his First Mission Trip, when he was stoned. According to this reconning, the date for the taking of the second collection to Jerusalem can be refined to be in AD 58. This being of course, 14 years after the taking of the first collection to Jerusalem in AD 44.

While there may be some disagreement with this dating of the collections, another question more pertinant would be how do these collections tie in with the Sabbatical Years. The answer lies in the fact that both of these dates for the two collections of Paul, AD 44 and AD 58, both fall on the Third Year of the cycle of 7 years, which is called the Year of Tithes. Deut 26:12. This being based on the Zuckermann Table of dates.

If Pauls conversion were to be dated in AD 34, then there are two other visits to Jerusalem, which can be dated, one being 3 years later, in AD 37, and another 14 years later, Gal 2:1, in AD 51, being the Council of Jerusalem. Both of these dates, based on the coversion of Paul in AD 34, would place the two visits to Jerusalem, again, in the Third Year of the cycle of 7. Joined together, this would mean that Paul made a visit to Jerusalem, every 7 years, on the Year of Tithe, the Third Year of the Cycle of 7.

Another study revolved around the prophetic time period of the 42 Months, or 1260 days, also referred to as Time, Times, and the Dividing of Time. An historical interpretation of this time period, during the time of the Reformation, had this time period of 1260 years being dated from AD 538, to AD 1798. This is found to once again align to the cycle of years based on the table by Mr Zuckermann.

Based on my reconstruction of what I believe to be a chronological pattern that is very close to that of Mr Thiele's early work, prior to his major realignment of the reign of Pekah, I have found that the Sabbatical Cycle can be traced back through the reigns of the kings of Judah, all the way back to Solomon. What I found is that the 4th year of Solomon is a Sabbatical Year, which is the year he started construction of the temple, and the dedication of the temple, after 7 years building, also falls on a Sabbatical, and this event also aligns with the Jubilee Cycle based on the table of Mr Zuckermann. Of interest is that the 3rd year of Jehoshaphat, on my reconstructed chronological pattern, also falls on a Sabbatical Year.

From the time of Solomons 4th year, going further back, there are 2 significant time periods, these being the 480 years, and prior to this, the 430 years, of which 400 years is a slightly smaller timeframe. Again, there is much debate over just when the 430 years start. What I found, from my studies, is that if you link the 400 year period, to the birth of Isaac, when Abraham is 100 years old, and count back the further 30 years, you get a point where Abraham is 70. And this I believe to be when he was called out of Ur. From there, with his father, Terah, they traveled to Haran, where they stopped. After the death of his father, 5 years later, Abraham receives his second call, at age 75. Based on this linking of the time periods to the life of Abraham, the Sabbatical Cycle, can be traced right back to the birth of Abraham.

The birth of Abraham is commonly dated to being 2008 years after Creation. However, I believe there is evidence to show that this should actually be 2009. The difference of one year, is to be found in dating the birth of Aphaxed. The common count is to place his birth 2 years after the start of the flood. However, a closer inspection of events would indicate, from the time Noah and his family entered the Ark, to the time they came out, was 1 full year. And the text would indicate that it is 2 years after they came out of the Ark, that Arphaxed was born.

This would make the birth of Arphaxed 1659 years after Creation, being a Sabbatical Year. And also makes the Birth of Abraham a Sabbatical Year. Based on this count, the Sabbatical Years can also be traced back through the preflood era, right back to Creation itself.

NormanOrr (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to traditional Jewish dating, the birth of Abraham occurred 1948 years after Creation. (See Abraham#Abraham and the biblical chronology. Yoninah (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dating the birth of Abraham

In working through the genealogical information for the period after the flood, one area of discussion is in regard to the age of Terah, at the birth of Abraham. According to the text, Gen 11:26, Terah was 70 when he begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran. In Gen 11:32 he died in Haran aged 205.

Because Abraham is listed first, he is considered by some to be the first born. This means Terah was age 70. And this is commonly referred to as the Short Chronology. However, according to Gen 12:4 Abraham was age 75, when at the death of his father, Terah, he was called to leave Haran. Counting back from the death of Terah at age 205, the birth of Abraham would have 75 years earlier, when Terah was age 130. This is commonly referred to as the Long Chronology.

In my calculating the birth of Abraham to have been 2009 years after Creation, I have used the long chronology, as well as taking into account the year of the flood.

NormanOrr (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained revert of August 30 2015

Since 2009 this article has had a tag at the beginning that states “The Lead Section of this article may need to be rewritten.” On 29 August 2015 I provided a lead section, incorporating a basic overview, but also preserving some of the text that was already there in the introductory paragraph. The unexplained revert means the “Lead rewrite” tag that was put there 6 years ago is back in effect, and the problem it addresses remains unresolved. I am asking the person who did this revert to explain why it was done. There are other issues in the main text that need to be resolved, such as the various dead links, and improvements should not be subject to arbitrary deletions with no explanation. Also, 46.64.242.75, it would be useful if you get a user name and a talk page. Please respond on this present talk page. Chronic2 (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no response from 46.64.242.75 explaining why he reverted my entry of 29 Aug 2015 (30 August 1:53 Wikipedia time). That entry was meant to address a genuine problem in the article, as shown by the “Lead Rewrite” tag; the initial page was created by pasting from the Shmita page and never cleaned up. I have therefore restored to my entry of 30 August 1:53.

There are other problems with the article. One is the statement at the end of the “Seder Olam” section, apparently made by someone who supports the Zuckermann chronology: “It would be hoped that studies which interpret the Seder Olam passage as supporting ‘the year after a Sabbatical year’ will do a similar analysis to see if linguistic and contextual arguments can construe the Seder Olam passage to support the ‘year-after’ position.”

Wishful thinking like this should not be substituted for a reference to a study that actually did what was wished for. I am rather conversant with this field, and I know of no study that refutes the linguistic and contextual argument that negates any possible interpretation of the Seder Olam passage to mean the “year after”. Hopeful thinking should not take the place of published scholarship.

Chronic2 (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Chronic2[reply]

I removed the edit because at the time I didn't think it was helpful to the article at the time however since that research and recent addition to the article I can see that it does actually add to the article so I will not be reverting again and I apologise for the earlier revert and also for my delayed response do you simply to the fact that I didn't know that are comment had be posted on here. (46.64.242.75 (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

--Thanks for the explanation. Chronic2 (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How far back does the current cycle of sabbatical years go reliably

I'm a little lost in some of the discussion above. In the modern state of Israel the current seven-year cycles are aligned with Zuckermann's calculations. Fine. Can anyone here tell me how far back use of this version of the cycle is reliably known to go?

I'm asking for the following reason. I'm in the process of creating a template that returns a variety of information on the Hebrew calendar year. It's currently located at User:StevenJ81/sandbox/Hebrew year template. I am including:

Title. Year number according to the traditional count.
Section 1. Effective year type (because I give the day of the week on which Rosh Hashanah and Pesach fall, and state whether the year is full, regular or deficient).
Section 2. Machzor Katan (19-year cycle), including identification of the year as intercalated (13-month) or regular
Section 3. Machzor Gadol (28-year cycle), including identification of a year where Birkat Hachamah is said.
Section 4. 7-year sabbatical cycle, including whether the year is ma'aser sheni, ma'aser oni, or shmitta.

Section 1 depends on having a fully programmed table of Rosh Hashanah dates. Right now, there is only a small table, so display of this section is suppressed when the year number is not available in the underlying table.

Sections 2 and 3 are dealt with as proleptic, so they always display.

I'm concerned about section 4. At the moment, it's always displayed, making it also proleptic. But since this is clearly not correct—no allowance for exile interruptions, nor for Jubilees—I would like to suppress the display of this for once we get into disputed territory. (I'm really not looking for the template to be a source of argument; I assume for the most part people will use it to know the facts about the current year.) So I'm just wondering how far back there is reliable evidence for use of the current cycle.

Thanks for your help. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shmita

Wouldn't this article be better as a subsection of Shmita? Editor2020 (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Editor2020: Support, with the caveat that the first step is to eradicate the WP:OR from this article. Daask (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Daask and Editor2020: Support per the above. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would support having "Historical Sabbatical Years" as a sub-section of Shmita on the condition that the traditional Jewish dates are also configured into the tables, since there is a specific way that the Seventh-year, according to Jewish law, is to be calculated, namely by counting 7 consecutive years 7 times for a total of 49 years, the 50th year being the Jubilee, and the 51st year being the first year of the new seven year cycle. This obviously would leave us with different dates. Otherwise, I'm fine with keeping two separate articles, since the emphasis is slightly different for both articles.Davidbena (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Completed merge, although I haven't tidied up as suggested above. Perhaps this can best be done at the new destination where there may be more eyes watching. Klbrain (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Y Merger complete.

Poorly written

"Another public reading of the Law, suggesting a Sabbatical year"

It is not explained what public reading of the Law has to do with a Sabbatical year. The word "another" suggests you can look back in the article and find a previous mention of "public reading of the law". There is none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.50.228.61 (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading

"According to the widely accepted Biblical chronology of Edwin Thiele"

It should be pointed out that Thiele believed certain texts in the Bible were not original, but were changed or added by later editors, the evidence being they simply do not fit his chronology. Thiele confesses this in his book, "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings." He claimed to know the correct data from Assyrian sources. Since there is no textual evidence that the texts were ever changed, it is misleading to call Thiele's innovation "Biblical chronology" since it does not actually agree with the Biblical data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.50.228.61 (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on profound errors

"But the first year could not be a Sabbatical year, because in it the people were allowed to eat “what grows of itself,” for which the Hebrew word is ספיח ." (from the article)

A plain reading of the Torah shows that the people were allowed to eat what grows of itself in a sabbatical and jubilee year. They were not allowed to harvest in any commercial sense. Personal use of what grew was allowed. See Lev. 25:6-7 where permission is given for everyone to eat off the land.

The article therefore reflects an interpretation and logic that does not fit the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.50.228.61 (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]