The Date of the Destruction of the First Temple According to Seder Olam, The Tosefta and the Babylonian Talmud: Studies in the Development of a Tradition / תאריך חורבן הבית הראשון על-פי 'סדר עולם', התוספתא והבבלי — עיונים בהתפתחותה של מסורת

As is well known, the two biblical verses which date the destruction of the First Temple contradict each other: according to II Kings 25:8, the destruction occurred on the seventh of the month, and according to Jeremiah 52:12, on the tenth of the month. The solution proffered by a tannaitic baraita is that the two dates refer to different aspects of the destruction: the Temple was captured on the seventh, but only burnt on the tenth. This solution is found in all four versions of the baraita: Seder Olam, chapter 27, Tosefta Taʿanit 3:10, Yerushalmi Taʿanit 4:9, and Bavli Taʿanit 29a; nonetheless, there are major variations — in both form and content — among these sources. In addition, the manuscript traditions of two texts, the Tosefta and the Bavli, have been radically revised during the transmission process. The thrust of this article is the search for the more 'original' text. This search may at times be unsuccessful, but it is the responsibility of the scholar to attempt it, and not simply absolve himself of this duty by referring to 'parallel traditions'. Thus each of the individual texts is analyzed in detail. With regard to the Tosefta, it is shown that the earlier rabbinic traditions were altered by the editor of the Tosefta (or his predecessor) in a seemingly minor manner, but which caused radical changes in meaning. The central factor in this alteration was the desire of the re-formulator to emphasize the 'traditional' — i.e. for this re-formulator — date of the destruction, the Ninth of Av, in the context of this baraita which originally did not mention it at all. At a later stage, the manuscript tradition of the Tosefta shows an inclination to conform its text with that of the Babylonian Talmud. Less variation is noted with regard to the Babylonian Talmud text, but what has been done is more difficult to unravel, and several questions remain unanswered at the end of the analysis. Finally, it is shown that Seder Olam has retained an earlier formulation of the tradition than that found in any of the other works. But of course this does not mean that any of these other works necessarily used Seder Olam as their source.