tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post4515181352442320380..comments2023-06-15T09:41:19.355-05:00Comments on NT/History Blog: Occam's 69 WeeksBill Heromanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-90854016921904836132009-05-06T14:28:00.000-05:002009-05-06T14:28:00.000-05:00I didn't quote O, BB. But thanks very much for th...I didn't quote O, BB. But thanks very much for the more precise rendering. I think you're correct.<br /><br />Please keep the comments coming, and feel free to introduce yourself, as your blog handle seems pretty anonymous. But either way, thanks for stopping by and leaving feedback. :)Bill Heromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-46114843661295488712009-05-06T09:51:00.000-05:002009-05-06T09:51:00.000-05:00Just browsing by and I wanted to set the record st...Just browsing by and I wanted to set the record straight on Ockham's Razor. Ockham's razor is not "the simplest explanation is the best. It is more precisely "Do not multiply causes unnecessarily." Sometimes a more complicated explanation is necessary sometimes it isn't. But don't add a cause if one already fully explains the situation. Enjoyable blog so far :)BBrotbeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02759775312666569208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-9231939729109268712009-02-11T07:27:00.000-06:002009-02-11T07:27:00.000-06:00Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification, Peter. ...Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification, Peter. That works fine either way, I think.<BR/><BR/>If Lk.4:19 is [even partly] about the literal Jubilee, it could still have been a few years away at the time of Jesus' speaking.Bill Heromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-44922100061594564882009-02-11T06:54:00.000-06:002009-02-11T06:54:00.000-06:00Bill, I meant 33/34 as a sabbatical year, so agree...Bill, I meant 33/34 as a sabbatical year, so agreeing with Zuckerman and you. Probably where I differ is in seeing the jubilee year as the same year as the sabbatical (one year in every 49) and not the following year. I know there is controversy about this one but it seems to me, from what I have read, that my position fits the biblical data and Jewish practice better than yours.<BR/><BR/>I suppose that Bob Pickle is taking Jesus' announcement in Luke 4:19 as the literal proclamation of a jubilee year. I would take it more symbolically.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-82771192860227713472009-02-10T22:27:00.000-06:002009-02-10T22:27:00.000-06:002006. Not 1996.2006. Not 1996.Bill Heromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-77841799232778116902009-02-10T22:26:00.000-06:002009-02-10T22:26:00.000-06:00Correction: credit where credit is due. Maybe. ...Correction: credit where credit is due. Maybe. ;) I remembered tonight that I actually seedpicked the idea of counting inclusively from Bob Pickle, when I read his website in 1996. <A HREF="http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/sabbatical-years.htm" REL="nofollow">Bob said</A>, "Christ dying after a ministry of 3½ years would put His death in the spring of 31 AD, the precise middle of a sabbatical cycle..."<BR/><BR/>I'm guessing we can blame more prophetic logic for Bob's bad chronology on the cross, but as I recall it was the words "middle of a sabbatical cycle" which stuck sideways in my brain and led to the mix of ideas proposed in this post. It pays to read everybody!<BR/><BR/>Anyway, maybe I don't have an original contribution, here, but maybe it's an original 'twist'. ;)<BR/><BR/>By the way, Bob's overall effort to defend Zuckerman is very impressive, although I'm not an expert on the issues involved there. And also, I'm not into prophecy...Bill Heromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-81277534535564091892009-02-10T21:58:00.000-06:002009-02-10T21:58:00.000-06:00Thanks for that, Peter. Let's hope some christian...Thanks for that, Peter. Let's hope some christian OT scholars are out there who'll share your reaction.<BR/><BR/>Regarding Ezra, it seems 458/7 was indeed a retroactive sabbatical year, and even if we call it a "jubilee", it was a very unique one. Thus, it did not take the place of "year one" in the next [first] cycle, as normal Jubilee years always did.<BR/><BR/>According to Finegan, Zuckerman puts a sabbath year in 33/34 and Wacholder puts it in 34/35, but I believe your suggestion is 32/33, which would be unique. Finegan sided with Zuckerman, and so do I. ;)<BR/><BR/>As I said in my post, the years being off by one wouldn't affect my basic point about counting the weeks from Artaxerxes to the Cross, inclusively.Bill Heromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-51299986651709948632009-02-10T11:43:00.000-06:002009-02-10T11:43:00.000-06:00Interesting analysis. The weeks being sabbatical c...Interesting analysis. The weeks being sabbatical cycles makes much more sense than counting in "prophetic months".<BR/><BR/>If 458 BC was the start of a year of jubilee proclaimed by Ezra, then 33 AD, 490 years later, also was. So it started in the autumn after Jesus' ascension, completing the fit of the main Jewish festivals into the events of his life.<BR/><BR/>This all depends on the sabbatical cycle being restarted after the exile by Ezra, which apparently the Talmud teaches (b. ‘Arak. 32b, also Seder ‘Olam Ch. 30, according to one private source I have). On the pre-exilic cycle a sabbatical year started in 574 BC, which would not fit these calculations.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.com