The Chronography of Daniel 9 and Jubilees in the Shadow of the Seleucid Era
Abstract
The Levitical jubilee cycle was originally a chronological structure for marking the progress of sabbatical and jubilee years. In the second century B.C.E., the writers of Daniel 9 and the book of Jubilees were among the first to transform the jubilee cycle into a mode of conceptualizing the pro¬gress of history and the place of the Judean people in that history. In this article, I examine their adaptations of this cycle as a way to structure time and reflect on the progress of history. I argue that they employed this structure as an epochal mode of chronicling history in imitation of the Seleucid Era. In this context, the Levitical jubilee emerges, alongside other chronographic strategies such as the Danielic four empires schema and the ten weeks of the Apocalypse of Weeks, in order to construct an alternative to the Seleucid Era for understanding the history of Judea and its people.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
- Authors
- Kaplan, J.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kaplan, Jonathan
- ORCID
- Kaplan, Jonathan
- Venue
- Journal of Ancient Judaism
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2019-05-19
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 116-135
- ISSN
- 1869-3296 (ISSN-L)
- 2196-7954
- OpenAlex
- W3004093127
- Semantic Scholar
- d7632af1699673958f08e274234436af6b790577
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of ancient Judaism (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Biblical Studies and Interpretation
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Classical Antiquity Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Philosophy, History, and Historiography
- Keywords
- Daniel 9, jubilee, chronography, sabbatical year, Second Temple Judaism
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review