I've been doing a lot of research into the Jubilee and how it was counted, and I've come to something of an impasse at this point. I wanted to throw this question out there for the community to see if anyone had any logical thoughts or arguments, or even more preferable, some historical evidence, to demonstrate the counting method for the Jubilee cycle.
Let me say up front that I am not looking for an explanation of what a Jubilee is, or the various interpretations people have made concerning how they worked or were counted. I don't need a lecture. Before you type anything, assume that I'm thoroughly well versed in the subject. What I'm looking for is proof or logic to help me clarify the counting method.
The primary information we have is derived from Ezekiel 1:1–2. We are fortunate with that passage, because the "fifth year of Jehoiachin's captivity" can be definitively deduced to beginning in Nisan of 594 BCE per Jehoiachin being taken captive on the 2nd of Adar in 597 BCE, in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign by Babylonian reckoning (BM 21946 in Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonians Chronicles, 102), or his eighth year by Hebrew reckoning (2 Kgs. 24:12). In the fifth year of his captivity (the year running from Nisan to Nisan, 594 BCE to 593 BCE), on the 5th of Tammuz (the fifth day of the fourth month), i.e. late May or early June of 594 BCE, it is "the thirtieth year."
By Jewish count, that year was the twelfth year of Nebuchadnezzar. It was the fourth year of Zedekiah. It was the fifth year of the captivity. This "thirtieth" year has no correlation to any known epoch or dating convention apart from the Jubilee cycle. Ergo, it is the thirtieth year of the Jubilee. Jubilee years, as best as can be proven, are counted from Tishri to Tishri (bRosh Hash. 8b). That makes Tishri to Tishri, 595 BCE to 594 BCE, the thirtieth year of the Jubilee, and the only definitively datable Jubilee that we have any record of.
Per the particulars of Leviticus 25, the Jubilee runs concurrent with the Sabbatical year cycle. It also shares many of the same practices.
Where the complication comes in is the Sabbatical year. The question for which I am looking for proof or logical arguments is whether the year of the Jubilee is the year of the Sabbatical year, or the year following the Sabbatical year. The problem we have is that if the Jubilee follows the Sabbatical year, then everything done in the Jubilee is a duplication. The land, as one example, is left fallow for two years in a row. One year without sowing or reaping was enough of a concern that the law made a provision for it, saying that God would bless the harvest of the sixth year so they would have enough for three years, that being the seventh when they couldn't sow or reap, the eighth when there's nothing to reap because nothing was sown the previous year, and the ninth, while they are waiting for the harvest of the eighth year sowing to be ripe. No provision is ever made for four years, which is what would be required if there were two fallow years in a row. As the Talmud also argues, the law also says that you were to sow and reap for six years, whereas the Jubilee would leave only five years to sow and reap. So, from two separate directions, there is a valid reason to suspect that the fiftieth year of the Jubilee coincided with the forty-ninth year, or the final Sabbatical year of the cycle.
On the flip side of that, there is a very simple and logical argument, given by way of example from a simple week. There are seven days in a week. You can designate "on the eighth day," but the week is still only seven days. The eighth day is simply synonymous with the first day of the new week. The two enumerations are autonomous. So, in the case of the Jubilee, you count seven weeks of years, and on the fiftieth year, you sanctify the year and proclaim the Jubilee. The fiftieth year, like the eighth day, doesn't disrupt the new forty-nine year count, any more than the eighth day disrupts the seven day count of the week. This method, in my opinion, is the natural reading of the scripture, and I do believe it is the intended method being suggested.
But then there is another complication. We are told in Talmudic tradition (bTa'an 29a) that the first temple was destroyed either in the Sabbatical year itself, or in the year following the Sabbatical year. Reputable Hebrew scholars have translated the relevant statement both ways, and from a point of comparison, we can definitively say that the second temple was destroyed in the year following a Sabbatical year. If the two instances were, in fact, the same in the particular details, then arguably, the first temple was also destroyed in a year following the Sabbatical year.
Historically, if the temple was destroyed in 587 BCE (the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar by Hebrew reckoning), the Sabbatical year in question would have had to run from either Tishri to Tishri, 589 BCE to 588 BCE, or Tishri to Tishri, 588 BCE to 587 BCE. When you couple these two years with the cyclical count from Ezekiel's thirtieth year, you end up with the fiftieth year (Tishri to Tishri, 575 BCE to 574 BCE) falling either in the Sabbatical year, or in the year preceeding the Sabbatical year.
The one interpretation that is not viable is having the cycle grossly preceed the Sabbatical year. In this case, if the first temple was destroyed in the Sabbatical year, then the count puts the fiftieth year concurrent with the forty-eighth year of the cumulative septennates. If the first temple was destroyed in the year following the Sabbatical year, then the fiftieth year coincides with the forty-ninth year. This would cause the Jubilee and Sabbatical year to run concurrently, allowing six years of sowing and reaping, only a single fallow year, and the need for only the three-year provision of a strong sixth year crop rather than a four-year provision that the Bible never gives.
From another point of view, the Talmud doesn't always get its history right. If the count should properly be the fiftieth year following the forty-ninth year, with the fiftieth year being simultaneously the first year of the new septennate, just as the eighth day would follow the seventh day, but simultaneously be the first day of the new week, then the Sabbatical year would necessarily have to fall two years before the destruction of the temple, not one, making the proper Sabbatical year Tishri to Tishri, 590 BCE to 589 BCE.
I don't consider the Jubilee aligning with the forty-eighth year of the septennates plausible. So, we can rule out the Sabbatical year coinciding with the year of the first temple's destruction.
All that said, proofs and logic for the remaining points of view are welcomed.
1) Should the count be a continuing string of forty-nine year periods, with a fiftieth year following each, declared the Jubilee, concurrent with the first year of the new forty-nine-year count, just as in the example of an eighth day overlapping two seven-day weeks? This is the natural reading of the commandment, but it does result in two fallow years, and probably famine on more than one occassion. No provision for an extra fallow year is ever given in scripture.
2) Should the count be forty-nine years, with the forty-ninth year, from Jubilee to Jubilee inclusively, reckoned the fiftieth year? In effect, this would mean that the forty-ninth year, fiftieth year, and first year are all synonymous, but also autonomous. This counting may be a little strange, but it does put the Sabbatical year in one of the traditional years relative to the destruction of the first temple. It also eliminates the complication of the extra fallow year.
As a bit of an addendum to the study, let me add that we do have evidence of a Sabbatical year during the reign of Zedekiah. In Jeremiah 34:8–22, there is a Sabbatical year. It's more than conspicuous. By all accounts, it is before the 10th of Tebeth in the ninth year of Zedekiah (Jer. 39:1, 52:4). Because they had done right in releasing servants, etc., due to the Sabbatical year of release, but then essentially recanted on the covenant they made with Zedekiah and took their servants back, God promised to, "cause them to return to this city" (speaking of the Babylonians), indicating that in the year in question, the Babylonians had already been there, had left, and would now return because of the people's sin, which the Babylonians did do on the tenth day of the tenth month in the ninth year of Zedekiah. With Ezekiel's cycle definitive, if the year of the Sabbatical year in Jeremiah 34:8–22 can be definitively ascertained, the entire question of the Jubilee can be solved once and for all.
Edit for Additional Material:
There does appear to be a potential fixed date for a Sabbatical year during the first temple period. Isaiah 37:30, just before the end of the siege by Sennarcharib, talks about eating whatever grows of its own self during that present year, and the year following, with sowing, planting, and reaping in the third year.
During the first year (their present year), what crops there were awaiting harvest that year would have no doubt been destroyed by the besieging army. So, they had to eat whatever grew in the aftermath. But there's no viable reason that I have read anywhere that justifies leaving the land unsown during the following year. It's deliberately left fallow. Sowing and reaping isn't reinstituted until the third year. This, in my opinion, is a conspicuous indication that the second year was a Sabbatical year.
Sennacherib came to power in 705 BCE, and we know from the Sennacherib Prism, columns 2 and 3, that he besieged Jerusalem during his third campaign in 703 BCE. So, by all accounts, the latter half of 703 BCE was the sixth year of the Sabbatical cycle, with the Sabbatical year itself running Tishri to Tishri, 702 BCE to 701 BCE.
When I extrapolated the cycle forward from that, the result was the temple being destroyed in the second year following the Sabbatical year, and the fiftieth year counted forward from Ezekiel's thirtieth year falling in the first year of the cycle.
Ergo, it would appear that despite the difficulties presented by two consecutive fallow years, the appropriate, and documentable method of counting the Jubilee is to count continuous forty-nine year cycles, with the fiftieth year hallowed and the Jubilee declared. But the fiftieth year is also the first year of the new cycle, just as the eighth day is the first day of the new seven-day cycle for a week.
This would also put the Sabbatical year during the reign of Zedekiah from Tishri to Tishri, 590 BCE to 589 BCE, which begins in Tishri in the eighth year of Zedekiah and ends in Tishri of Zedekiah's ninth year. Nebuchadnezzar came to besiege Jerusalem three months later, on the tenth day of the tenth month, in the ninth year of Zedekiah. A very timely fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy.
I DO still want more evidence if anyone can provide any. Any other curious instances where a Sabbatical year might have been subtly mentioned. So, keep the info coming if anyone has any.
www.catholicculture.org
