Content uploaded by Michael Avioz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michael Avioz on Mar 01, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
[Textus 22 (2005) 87–94]
The Date of the Destruction of the First Temple in Ancient
Versions and in Early Biblical Interpretation
Michael Avioz
The date of the destruction of the first temple is recorded in two
contradictory biblical sources: according to 2 Kgs 25:8, the date is the
seventh of Ab, while in Jer 52:12 it is the tenth of Ab. In a previous article,
we tried to decide between the two versions.
1
Our conclusion was that the
date in Jer 52 is to be preferred over the one in Kings. In the present article
we will examine and evaluate the testimony of different textual witnesses to
Kings and to Jeremiah as well as the early biblical interpretation of this
issue.
Ancient Translations
The LXX
B
to Kings and Jeremiah accord with the MT in this matter: the
passage in Kings is rendered as “the seventh,” while the passage in
Jeremiah is rendered as “the tenth”.
2
A description of the Babylonian
conquest of Jerusalem is also found in Jer 39:4–13, but this text is missing in
the LXX.
The date of “the tenth,” which appears in Jer 52, also appears in the
Aramaic Targum and in the Vulgate ad loc.
3
1
M. Avioz, “When Was the First Temple Destroyed According to the Bible?,”
Biblica 84 (2003) 562–565.
2
For the LXX to Kings, see A.E. Brooke, N. McKlean, and H. St. J. Thackeray (eds.),
The Old Testament in Greek According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, II: The Later
Historical Books (Cambridge, 1930). For the LXX to Jeremiah see A. Rahlfs (ed.),
Septuaginta (Stuttgart, 1935); J. Ziegler, ed., Ieremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae
(Göttingen, 1957).
3
See P.-M. Bogaert, “Les trois formes de Jérémie 52 (MT, LXX, VL),” in Tradition
and the Text: Studies offered to Dominique Barthelémy in Celebration of his 70th Birthday
(ed. G.J. Norton and S. Pisano; OBO 109; Göttingen, 1991) 8
Michael Avioz 88
However, we find a different version in the Lucianic recension of Kings
(boc
2
e
2
), in the Peshitta and in a number of Hebrew medieval
MSS
of Kings.
In these we find the version “the ninth.”
4
It seems to us that we cannot infer from this similarity that the Greek and
the Syriac translators had a different Hebrew Vorlage.
5
A more probable
explanation is that both the Peshitta and the Lucianic recension were
influenced by a Jewish tradition preserved by the sages that fixed the date
of the fast day commemorating the destruction on the ninth of Ab.
6
4
In Greek: . For a general discussion of the Lucianic recensions
characteristics, see J.D. Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek
Text of Kings (Cambridge, Mass., 1968) 8–11; E. Tov, “Lucian and Proto-Lucian:
Toward a New Solution of the Problem,” in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected
Essays on the Septuagint (VTSup 72; Leiden, 1999; first published in RB 79 [1972] 101–
113) 477–488; S. Olofsson, The LXX Version: A Guide to the Translation Technique of the
Septuagint (Stockholm, 1990) 59–61, 170–171; B.A. Taylor, The Lucianic Manuscripts of
I Reigns (2 vols.; HSM 50–51; Atlanta, 1993) vol. 2; G. Galil, “The Chronological Data
in the Septuagint to the Book of Kings,” Shnaton 11 (1997) 56–77 (Heb.). For a critical
edition of the Peshitta to Kings, see The Old Testament in Syriac According to the
Peshitta Version, II/4: Kings (Leiden, 1976). For the medieval Hebrew
MSS
, see G.B. De
Rossi, Variae lectiones Veteris Testamenti (4 vols.; Parma 1784–1788; repr. Amsterdam,
1969) 2:261
5
Scholars disagree regarding the question whether the Lucianic text reflects the
Old Greek translation or is based upon a different Hebrew Vorlage. See the
bibliography listed in Tov, “Lucian and Proto-Lucian,” 152, n. 13. On the
relationship between the Peshitta and the LXX, see J. Cook, “Are the Syriac and
Greek Versions of the
(Prov 1 to 9) Identical? (On the Relationship between
the Peshitta and the Septuagint),” Textus 17 (1993) 117–132; M.H. Szpek, “On the
Influence of the Septuagint on the Peshitta,” CBQ 60 (1998) 251–266. In Cook’s view,
the overall influence of the LXX on the Peshitta is minimal. In Zipor's view, we
should not assume that the Syriac translator had a copy of the LXX. See M.A. Zipor,
Tradition and Transmission: Studies in Ancient Biblical Translation and Interpretation (Tel
Aviv, 2001) 28–29 (Heb.). Similarly, see G. Greenberg, Translation Technique in the
Peshitta to Jeremiah (Leiden, 2002) ch. 11.
6
See J. Gray, I & II Kings (OTL; London, 1964) 698, n. a. On the relationship
between the Peshitta and the rabbinic midrashim, see Y. Maori, The Peshitta Version
of the Pentateuch and Early Jewish Exegesis (Jerusalem, 1995) (Heb.).
The Date of the Destruction of the First Temple 89
A close look at the way the Peshitta translates the dates of the
Babylonians’ breach into Jerusalem and the date of the destruction calls
attention to an interesting phenomenon. In Jer 52:6,
MS
9a1 fam is identical to
the MT “fourth month”. In
MS
7a1, the seventh month is given, but that is
improbable, if we assume that the famine in Jerusalem preceded its
destruction.
The date of the famine in MT Jer 52:6 is the fourth month, but MT 2 Kgs
25:3 gives only
without mentioning the exact month. In
MS
7a1
of the Peshitta, the statement
(“in the fifth month”) appears, so
that the famine, the Babylonian breach into the city of Jerusalem and the
destruction of the Temple occurred on the very same day. This is in
opposition to the statement in Jer 52:6, according to which a month passed
between the enemy breach into the city and the burning of the Temple.
7
The translators of the Peshitta therefore changed the date intentionally to
one that postdates the seventh of Ab, as in the MT. It would seem that we
could expect the date
as in Jer 52 and in the Peshitta there, and since
this was not done, it would seem that the date
was used to accord
with the rabbinic tradition
We find one more mention of “the ninth.” The MT to Jer 39:2, the LXX
B
and the Peshitta give the “ninth” (i.e. of Tammuz) as the date of the breach
into the city. The MT to Kings and the Peshitta to 2 Kgs 25:3 and to Jer 52:6
all give the ninth of the month as the time of the famine, despite the fact that
they refer to different months.
We can therefore conclude: It is doubtful whether the Peshitta’s translators
had a different version from the MT.
8
The accord between the Peshitta and
7
See D.M. Walter, “The Peshitta of II Kings” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton Theological
Seminary, 1964) 233. See also D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament (3
vols.; OBO 50/1; Fribourg–Göttingen, 1982–1992) 1:423. Greenberg, Translation
Technique, 88–92, argues that there is no proof that the translator of Jeremiah was
influenced by the translation of Kings.
8
O. Thenius, Die Bücher der Könige (KEHAT; Leipzig, 1873) 474 holds that the MT
does not contradict the date found in the Peshitta, which was
established by the rabbis, since the ninth of the month after dark is already
Michael Avioz 90
the Lucianic recension, which also has the version “on the ninth” does not
necessarily mean that this is an ancient reading.
9
The translators of the
Peshitta were either mistakenly influenced by the prevalence of ‘ninth’ in
the accounts or may have changed the dates deliberately in order to accord
with the rabbinic tradition.
10
The Evidence in the Book of Baruch
We read in Bar 1: 2:
And these are the words of the book which Baruch [...] wrote in Babylon in the
fifth year, on the seventh day of the month, at the time when the Chaldeans took
Jerusalem and burned it with fire.11
Even though there is generally a close relationship between the book of
Baruch and the MT of Jeremiah
12
the text here seems identical to that in
____________
considered to be the tenth. This harmonistic claim does not seem to resolve the
inconsistency.
9
M.J. Mulder, “The Use of The Peshitta in Textual Criticism,” in La Septuaginta en
la investigacion Contemporanea (ed. N. Fernandez Marcos; IOSCS 5 Congress; Madrid,
1985) 44, 53.
10
Sincere thanks to Dr. Gillian Greenberg of the Department of Jewish Studies,
UCL, London, for sharing her views on this matter with me.
11
The translation is according to R.H. Charles, “2 Baruch, or The Syriac
Apocalypse of Baruch,” in Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (2 vols.;
ed. R.H. Charles; Oxford, 1913) ad loc. Moore suggests to add the words “of the fifth
month”, based upon 2 Kings 25:8. He argues that the letter was written in 581 B.C.
See C.A. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions (AB; Garden City, NY,
1977) 267, 269. However, the LXX of Baruch does not contain these words, and Tov
does not accept this emendation. See E. Tov, The Book of Baruch (Greek and Hebrew):
Texts and Translations (Missoula, Mont., 1975)
12
See Tov, The Book of Baruch; idem, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and
Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–
3:8 (Missoula, Mont. 1975) 111–133. In Thackeray's view, the first half of the book of
Baruch was translated by the same Greek translator of Jer 29–51. See H. St. J.
Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint
(Cambridge, 1909) 12–13.
The Date of the Destruction of the First Temple 91
Kings (“on the seventh”), rather than to that in Jer 52. However, it does not
appear that the author of Baruch used here a Hebrew text of Jeremiah which
is different than that of the MT.
According to Goldstein,
13
the author of Baruch accepted the version in
Kings (the seventh of Ab), knowing that the rabbis had adopted a
harmonistic solution, saying that the burning of the Temple began on the
seventh of Ab and ended on the tenth of Ab. But this explanation is highly
speculative since (a) it depends on the dating of the book of Baruch: if the
book is to be dated to the second or first century
B
.
C
.
E
.,
14
such an
explanation is irrelevant, and (b) there is the possibility that “the fifth year”
relates to Jehoiachin’s exile in 597
B
.
C
.
E
., and not to the destruction of the
temple in 586
B
.
C
.
E
.
15
According to the following verses, the temple seems to
still be functioning (Bar 1:7, 10, 14; 2:16).
The Evidence of Josephus
16
Josephus deals with the date of the destruction both in Antiquities of the Jews
and in The Jewish War. According to Antiquities of the Jews, X, 146, the Temple
was destroyed on the first day of Ab. It is difficult to determine what
Josephus’ sources for this might have been, or if he had any sources for this
claim. It seems that Josephus determined this date based on Ezek 26:1,
which states: “In the twelfth year, on the first of the month, the word of the
Lord came to me.”
17
In this prophecy, Ezekiel criticizes Tyre for rejoicing at
13
J.A. Goldstein, “The Apocryphal Book of Baruch,” PAAJR 46–47 (1979–1980) 181,
n. 8
14
See D. Mendels, “Baruch, Book of,” ABD 1: 620.
15
See the discussion in O.H. Steck, Das apokryphe Baruchbuch: Studien zu Rezeption
und Konzentration “Kanonischer” Überlieferung (Göttingen, 1993) 18.
16
For the text of Josephus I rely on: H. St. J. Thackeray, R. Marcus et al., Josephus
(LCL; Cambridge, Mass, 1926–1965).
17
The book of Ezekiel is almost never mentioned in Jewish Antiquities, and seldom
in the other Writings of Josephus. In Ant. X, 104–107, Josephus mentions the material
from Ezekiel, which is connected to reconstructing the regnal period of Zedekiah of
Michael Avioz 92
Jerusalem’s destruction, but does not specifically mention the month in
which the destruction took place. It seems that Josephus interpreted the
“first of the month” in this verse as a reference to the first of Ab in the year
586 BCE.
18
In contrast, in Jewish War VI, 250, 268, Josephus determines that the date of
the destruction was the “tenth of the month of Ab.” He adds: “The tenth of
the month Loos [=Ab], the day on which of old it had been burnt by the
king of Babylon”.
19
This chronological determination was based on his
assumption that the Temple was destroyed 470 years, six months and ten
days after it had been built by Solomon (Ant. X, 147).
In Schwartz' view, the many contradictions between The Jewish War and
the Bible teach that Josephus drew on his memory rather than on any
written source.
20
Against this, Mason argues that “In any case, since
____________
Judah. It therefore emerges that Josephus also used material from Ezekiel in regard
to the date of the destruction.
18
It appears that this verse refers to some period after the enemy's entry into the
city on the ninth of Tammuz, or to the first of Elul, after the city was burned. See
M. Greenberg, The Book of Ezekiel 21–37 (AB; New York, 1997) 529–530. Greenberg
notes the connection between Ezek 26 and Jer 52:5 (
). See further in D.J.A. Clines, “Regnal Year Reckoning in the Last Years
of the Kingdom of Judah,” in
On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays
1967–1998 (2 vols.; JSOTSup 292–293; Sheffield, 1998) 1:395–425. In y. Taan. 4:6 (68c),
one opinion holds that the Temple was destroyed on the first of Ab:
19
In regard to Josephus’ historical accuracy, see H.K. Bond, “New Currents in
Josephus Research,” Currents in Research, Biblical Study 8 (2000) 177–178. Regarding
Josephus’ description of the First Temple’s destruction, see C.T. Begg, Josephus Story
of the Later Monarchy (AJ 9, 1–10,185) (Leuven, 2000) 586ff.
On the question of the biblical text that Josephus used, see H.W. Attridge, The
Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus
(Missoula, Mont., 1976) 30–33; P. Piovanelli, “Le Texte de Jérémie utilizé par Flavius
Josèphe dans le X
e
Livre des Antiquités Judaïques,” Henoch 14 (1992) 11–36 (esp. 20–
36); Begg, Josephus Story, 1–3, 623–626; L.H. Feldman, Josephus’ Interpretation of the
Bible (Berkeley, 1998) 23–36.
20
S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics (Leiden, 1990) 25.
The Date of the Destruction of the First Temple 93
Josephus does not set out to discuss the Bible in Jewish War, that work
presents an inadequate text base for comparison with Ant[iquities].”
21
Rabbinic Interpretation
The rabbis attempted a harmonistic solution to the contradiction:
22
(b. Taan. 29a)
According to this explanation, three days passed between the Babylonians’
entry into the Temple and the time they burned it. The rabbis posit that both
versions are correct. Most of the medieval and traditional interpreters also
take a harmonistic approach similar to this one.
23
21
S. Mason, “Review of S. Schwartz...,” Ioudaios Review 2 (1992) [ftp://ftp.lehigh.
edu/pub/listserv/ioudaios-review/2.1992/schwartz.mason.008].
22
The sources in which this solution appears, with certain differences, are: Seder
Olam Rabba, ch. 27 (C.J. Milikowski, “Seder Olam: A Rabbinic Chronography” [Ph.D.
diss., Yale University, New Haven, Conn., 1981] 415); t. Taan, 3:10 (340 ff.); y. Taan
4:9 (69b ff.), which parallels Meg. 1:6 (70c); and b. Taan 29a. On the differences
among these, see Ch. Milikowsky, “The Date of the Destruction of the First Temple
according to ‘Seder Olam’, the Tosefta, and the Babylonian Talmud: Studies in the
Evaluation of a Tradition,” Tarbiz 64 (1993) 487–500 (Heb.). b. Roš Haš. 18b also states
that “Both the First and Second Temples were destroyed on the ninth of Ab.” In
Price’s view, the beraita in the Tosefta deals with the destruction of the Second
Temple not the of the First. See J.J. Price, Jerusalem Under Siege: The Collapse of the
Jewish State 66–70 C.E. (Leiden, 1992) 170–171.
23
On the rabbis’ attitude towards chronology, see J. Heinemann, “The Attitude of
the Rabbis to Biblical Chronology,” in Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East
Dedicated to S.E. Loewenstamm (ed. Y. Avishur and J. Blau; Jeusalem, 1978) 145–152
(Heb.). In y. Ta’an., ch. 4 (68c) we find the following very justified statement:
(“There is here an error in numbering”). Among those who followed
the rabbinical solution are: Radak, R. Joseph Kara, Malbim, as well as K.F. Keil,
Commentary on the Books of Kings (ET; Edinburgh, 1867) 179; M. Boleh, The Book of
Jeremiah (Da'at Mikra; Jerusalem, 1983) 649 (Heb.). See also Y. Schachar, “The
Destruction of the Temple in R. Akibah’s Concept and the Designation of the Fast
Days,” Zion 68 (2003) 154 (Heb.), who claims that “there is no real inconsistency
between the sources.” However, a different approach is taken by the Moroccan
Michael Avioz 94
However, the London and Vienna manuscripts of the Tosefta on Taan.
3:10, as well as the printed edition, have the following text:
. And in the previous passage in the Tosefta
we find:
24
.
Does this version reflect a Hebrew text that differs from the MT? In
Milikowsky’s view, we are dealing here with a unique understanding of the
narrative in 2 Kgs 25.
25
The story does not state in which month the enemy
entered the city, and the Tosefta’s author therefore connected the fifth
month, given in v. 8 as the date on which the Temple was burned, to the
mention of the ninth day in regard to the enemy entering the city. We
advanced a similar explanation above regarding the Peshitta.
In this context, R. Yohanan’s determination is particularly interesting. He
states: “Were I a member of that generation, I would have established (the
fast day) on the tenth day of the month” (b. Taan 29a). Similarly, “Rabbi
Jeremiah taught in the name of R. Hiyya bar Abba: It would have been
correct in principle to fast on the tenth day, for on it the Temple was
burned” (y. Meg. 70c). It seems that these passages base themselves on the
idea that much of the conflagration took place on the tenth of Ab, but
behind them lies a certain level of uncertainty regarding the date on which
the First Temple was destroyed. This uncertainty is demonstrated in the
phenomenon of some rabbis fasting on the ninth of Ab and some fasting on
the tenth of Ab (y. Taan. ch. 4; 25b).
____________
commentator R. Raphael Berdugo, who claims that “in the First temple, the fire was
set at the Tenth of Ab and in the second—at the ninth.” See his Mesamchei Lev:
A Commentary to the Bible (ed. S. Mashash; Jerusalem 1991) 390.
24
In other passages in rabbinic literature, the date of the First Temple’s destruction
is also given as the ninth of Ab. See for example,
(Tanhuma-Buber, Numbers, 1).
25
Milikowsky, “The Date of the Destuction,” 494