Rabbi Schwab’s fallback position (in case we were wrong) seems to be the justification that many religious Jews use for accepting the secular date. But there is new information available today that perhaps was not considered by Rabbi Schwab. There is, for example, a cutting edge article by Brad Aaronson titled “Fixing the History Books” (available online at www.starways.net/lisa/essays/heifetzfix.html), which analyzes Dr. Chaim Heifetz’s revisionist interpretation of Persian history. I encourage all readers of The Jewish Press to get hold of the article, which cites historical and archeological evidence that should give heart to those who accept the chronology of Chazal as literal truth.
Dr. Heifetz builds upon work done by Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky in his 1952 study Ages in Chaos. This work challenged the norms of accepted historical chronology, fitting closer to the biblical narrative and shortening Egyptian history by six centuries. Heifetz uses a similar model to attempt a revision of Persian history.
Heifetz questions the reliability of the Greek historians who are the source of the secular dating for this period. Information from this period is sparse; Alexander destroyed the bulk of the Persian records in his conquest. Greek historians, including Herodius, were known to travel around collecting folk tales. Herodius admits to having heard four stories about Cyrus and choosing the one he felt was the most likely. Hardly the most reliable of methods.
Upon reexamination, many of those rejected Greek folk tales actually fit in much better with our biblical text. The Greek accounts of Mesopotamian history before the fall of Babylon are rejected by modern scholars, so why would it surprise anyone that they were wrong about the Persian period?
Ptolemy, one of Alexander’s generals, was made Pharaoh of Egypt. He took upon himself the role of historian, recovering fragments of history from nations he had helped destroy. His famous “king list” distorts our understanding of this period of history. According to Heifetz, the reason Ptolemy’s list has so many kings is because there existed a kind of rotation agreement between the Persian and Median monarchs.
“…although Cyrus II was a subject of Darius I when they conquered Babylon, he became his successor as High King when Darius died,” writes Aaronson. Heifetz’s key to reinforcing the Jewish historical tradition is to differentiate between “King of Kings” and “Emperor” and individual subject kings. These kings did not all rule in succession, he claims; many in fact ruled concurrently. So there is justification, according to Heifetz, to shrink ten kingdoms down to four.
The year 586 BC is the secular date for the destruction of the first Temple. More Jews need to understand that this date conflicts with the Jewish traditional understanding. Orthodox newspapers should make it a policy of at least footnoting any reference to the secular dating in order not to mislead those who accept the traditional understanding.
It is premature to discount the Jewish chronology of events. The sacred walls of secular history, as demonstrated by Dr. Heifetz, are not unshakable. We of all people should know when our holy Temple was destroyed.
