Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On 9/18/06, Peter Kirk wrote:

> Indeed, as I wrote:
> > But this reconstruction does require an emendation to Nehemiah 2:1. And
> > it does require that jubilee cycles were still being recognised in this
> > post-exilic period.
> >
> >
> Please don't quote my own points back at me as arguments against me.

Sorry about that, I missed that particular sentence.  While your
identification of arrival at "1/5, 3 days rest, and 55 days building" is
interesting, there are still problems:

1) Nehemiah is consistent in relating the year 20 to Artaxerxes,
especially in Neh 5:14, where it is pretty much spelled out.
2) Nehemiah 2's Nisan after before Nehemiah 1's Kislev on the same
year.  Either you conclude that the year 20 in Neh 1 is a different
convention from Neh 2's year 20, or you conclude that Nehemiah
used an autumnal calendar.  An autumnal calendar would make
the calculations of the start of work in Ab equivalent to the 11th
month, not the 5th.  The autumnal calendar bit is further elaborated
and discussed here:
http://www.shef.ac.uk/bibs/DJACcurrres/Postmodern1/Autumn.html
(point 7)

I will relate to the Talmud/Young article bits after I read the article(s)
again.

Yitzhak Sapir