A critique of:
SUN, MOON, STARS, & PRIESTS
How Do They Relate to Yah's Calendar Work?
by Bill and Karen Bishop
~~~~~
Synthesised Review and Critique
This article presents a thorough exploration of the Qumran calendar, engaging with historical sources such as the Book of Jubilees, Psalms, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, alongside practical considerations for agricultural cycles. The analysis effectively conveys the calendrical framework's simplicity, theological underpinnings, and self-correcting intercalation mechanisms.
Strengths of the article include:
Engagement with Primary Sources: The integration of scriptural and historical texts provides a well-supported foundation for the discussion.
Clarity and Accessibility: The explanation of concepts like intercalation and the equinox is concise and accessible to readers without prior expertise.
Defensibility: The article consistently defends its thesis with logical arguments and appeals to historical authenticity.
However, areas for improvement were identified:
Repetitiveness: Some points are reiterated excessively, which risks diluting the core arguments.
Bias: The tone, particularly when dismissing alternate views, can come across as inflexible, potentially alienating readers who hold differing perspectives.
Generalisation: Claims about historical adherence to the calendar by figures like Yeshua and Paul could benefit from more nuanced evidence and less reliance on assumptions.
Overloading of Details: While detail is a strength, the dense presentation could overwhelm readers. Strategic restructuring or summarisation of key points may enhance readability.
Distinctive Review and Critique of Each Pericope
Pericope 1: Introduction
Strengths: Establishes the article's focus clearly, highlighting the importance of the Qumran calendar and its perceived authenticity.
Critique: The introduction would benefit from a broader contextualisation of the topic to engage readers unfamiliar with the historical or theological framework.
Pericope 2: Scriptural Basis
Strengths: Effective use of scripture to anchor the argument. The discussion on the equinox and its agricultural significance is compelling.
Critique: Some interpretations, like those of Psalm 19, feel overextended and could use more contextual justification.
Pericope 3: Historical Adherence
Strengths: Strong emphasis on historical continuity and its relevance to modern practice.
Critique: The claim that the Qumran calendar was universally adhered to by key Scriptural figures is speculative and needs cautious framing or stronger evidence.
Pericope 4: Simplicity and Practicality
Strengths: Highlights the accessibility of the calendar, making it relatable for practical use.
Critique: Repetition detracts from the otherwise concise explanation, and examples could be streamlined.
Pericope 5: Polemic Against Alterations
Strengths: Passionate defence of the Qumran calendar as divinely inspired and historically validated.
Critique: The dismissive tone towards alternative views may seem overly dogmatic. Acknowledging the legitimacy of differing interpretations could foster greater inclusivity.
Pericope 6: Concluding Argument
Strengths: Provides a robust summary of the calendar's merits and a clear call to action for adherence.
Critique: The conclusion reiterates earlier points unnecessarily, and a more concise wrap-up could leave a stronger impression.
Introduction
Many calendars are circulating today, and a handful of these are called Enochian or Zadokian calendars. They are not all the same, even though they typically claim to come from the Dead Sea Scrolls (henceforth DSS)? What exactly is the calendar that emerged from the DSS? How is it different from some of these other calendars? They may be similar, but there is a single calendar system that
carries through in a pure form in the scrolls. Only when the actual criterion set forth in the scrolls is maintained do we have a pure scroll calendar with all its attributes intact and Yah's divinely ordained patterns in place. That is what we want to consider in this writing, but first we'll see how Scripture points to it.
In the first pages of our Bible, Moses records Yah's Words about His creation. In this narrative, we find:
Genesis 1:14-16
(14) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: (15) And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. (16) And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
It is obvious that time-keeping from an earthly perspective is indicated here, but how are we to ascribe these lights to a calendar? Do they tell us when to begin a year or how to intercalate? What does the term intercalate even mean, and how does it apply to the calendar we decide to use? This study proposes to examine how the lights of Heaven relate to the calendar of the DSS and its function.
Critical Review and Logical Fallacy Analysis
Strengths of the Pericope
Introduction of Topic: The passage effectively introduces the topic of Enochian and Zadokian calendars and distinguishes between the various calendars under these labels. It creates curiosity about their differences and the implications of their use.
Use of Genesis: By citing Genesis 1:14-16, the pericope aligns its argument with a widely respected and foundational scriptural source. This appeals to its likely audience by grounding the discussion in Scripture.
Critique of Logical Fallacies
Equivocation Fallacy:
The term "calendar" is used ambiguously. While the Dead Sea Scrolls may mention specific calendrical systems, the pericope implies that there is a single "pure" calendar in these texts. This is an oversimplification, as the DSS include various texts with potentially differing calendar interpretations.
The use of the word "pure" is subjective and presupposes a divine standard without providing evidence for why this particular calendar meets that criterion.
Appeal to Ignorance:
The pericope assumes that because other calendars may differ or not align perfectly with DSS criteria, they are inherently impure or incorrect. It does not sufficiently consider the possibility that the DSS themselves may contain inconsistencies or variations.
Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning):
The argument presupposes that the DSS calendar is "Yah's divinely ordained pattern" without proving this claim. It starts with the assumption that this calendar is correct and then interprets the evidence to fit that conclusion.
Hasty Generalisation:
The assertion that only a single calendar system is "pure" in the DSS lacks detailed evidence or references. The DSS include a variety of texts, and extracting a singular, definitive calendrical system from them is more complex than this claim suggests.
Critique of Lack of Source Citation
Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) Calendar Details:
While the passage claims a single calendar emerges in a "pure form" from the DSS, it does not provide specific references to scroll fragments or documents (e.g., 4Q320 or 4Q321). This undermines the argument's credibility, as it relies on general claims without evidence.
Theological Assertions:
Statements like "Yah's divinely ordained patterns" are presented as fact but are not substantiated with citations from primary sources or respected theological studies.
Scientific and Calendrical Concepts:
The pericope introduces the term "intercalate" but does not define it clearly or cite sources explaining its relevance to the DSS calendar. For a technical term, some context or reference is necessary to aid understanding.
Areas of Improvement
Provide Evidence:
Include references to specific DSS manuscripts and scholarly interpretations to substantiate claims about the calendar system.
Clarify Terminology:
Ensure consistent use of terms like "calendar" and "pure."
Acknowledge Complexity:
Recognise the diversity within the DSS texts and engage with alternative interpretations or scholarly debates.
Avoid Assumptive Language:
Words like "obvious" and "divinely ordained" should be supported with arguments or citations rather than assuming the audience agrees.
Summary
The pericope introduces a thought-provoking topic but is weakened by logical fallacies, unsupported claims, and a lack of source citations. Providing evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls and engaging more rigorously with alternative perspectives would strengthen its argument.
Intercalation
Let's start with the word intercalation. It takes 365.24667 for the sun's yearly path around the earth. Since we live on the earth and the sun dictates our agricultural growing cycles, we must correlate our calendars to the reality of the sun's relationship TO the earth. It is really that simple. On the Gregorian
calendar we use in America, our typical year is 365 days, but the solar year is . 24667 days longer. That means we fall behind the solar reality by roughly 1⁄4 day each year until we adjust for that differential. So - we adjust our calendar with an extra day (February 29) every four years, which brings us back into close proximity to the solar reality. The .24667 fractional day in the solar cycle makes it impossible for ANY calendar to completely synchronize with the reality of the yearly solar cycle without a periodic adjustment. When and how every calendar makes this adjustment is called intercalation. The timing for such intercalation and the amount of days involved when it occurs will vary from one calendar to another – depending on the calendar's format.
Critical Review and Logical Fallacy Analysis of the Pericope on Intercalation
Strengths
Clear Definition of Intercalation:
The passage explains the concept of intercalation effectively, making the subject accessible to readers unfamiliar with calendrical adjustments.
It highlights the practical need to adjust calendars based on solar realities, providing a tangible example in the Gregorian calendar.
Grounding in Observational Reality:
The pericope emphasises the scientific basis for calendar adjustments, such as the length of a solar year and its relation to Earth’s agricultural cycles. This makes the argument relatable and grounded in observable phenomena.
Critique of Logical Fallacies
Appeal to Simplicity:
The statement, "It is really that simple," oversimplifies the complex history and science of calendar systems. Intercalation involves diverse methodologies across cultures and contexts, and not all are based on the solar year.
Implied Universality:
The argument assumes that all calendars must align with the solar year due to its agricultural significance. This overlooks lunar and lunisolar calendars (e.g., Hebrew and Islamic calendars) that serve cultural and religious purposes, sometimes independent of agricultural needs.
Strawman Fallacy:
By focusing exclusively on the Gregorian calendar, the passage avoids addressing how other systems handle intercalation. For instance, it implies that any calendar not making solar-based adjustments is somehow "wrong" without explicitly saying so, potentially misrepresenting other systems’ objectives.
Critique of Lack of Source Citation
Scientific Figures:
The solar year length, given as 365.24667 days, is precise but uncited. Credibility would improve with a reference to an authoritative astronomical source.
Historical Context:
The Gregorian calendar's intercalation system is described accurately, but no historical or scholarly source is cited to confirm these details or provide context.
Comparative Analysis:
No sources or examples from alternative calendars (e.g., Julian, Islamic, or Jewish) are provided to illustrate the diversity of intercalation methods.
Recommendations for Improvement
Provide Sources:
Cite astronomical or calendrical studies for the solar year length and intercalation practices. For example, reference the International Astronomical Union (IAU) or historical texts about the Gregorian reform.
Acknowledge Alternative Systems:
Include a brief mention of lunar or lunisolar calendars, explaining that they follow different intercalation principles and objectives.
Avoid Oversimplifications:
Replace phrases like "It is really that simple" with more nuanced language acknowledging the complexities of intercalation.
Enhance Comparisons:
Add specific examples of how intercalation varies between calendars, such as the Hebrew calendar’s addition of a 13th month during leap years.
Summary
The pericope effectively introduces the concept of intercalation but is weakened by oversimplifications, a narrow focus on the Gregorian calendar, and a lack of citations. Expanding the discussion to include other calendrical systems and providing sources would significantly enhance its accuracy and depth.
Analyzing Genesis 1:14
Genesis 1:14 says that the lights in the sky are for signs, seasons, days, and years. Notably absent are two periods of time: weeks and months. This leads us to consider that weeks and months may be derived by other means – such as by counting. In our book The Scriptural Calendar Then and Now, we build a strong case that both the weeks and the months are determined solely by counting days
in accordance with the structural schema of the DSS calendar. For instance, we count seven days, and we have a week. On the calendar of the scrolls, we likewise count 30 days, and we have a month. Using the moon to determine months may just be one of those ways that seems to be right to man as in
Proverbs 14:12, and we concur that this type of rationale can lead to erroneous conclusions:
Proverbs 14:12
(12) There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
The word “signs” here is the Hebrew word Strong's H226 ('owth) – sign, marker, signal, banner, token, ensign, standard. The word “seasons” in this verse is Strong's H4150 (moed) – appointed time,
feast, season. There are other possibilities as well, but it can simply mean “seasons” (as in the 4 quarters of the year) - just as it is translated in Genesis 1:14. We understand that the equinoxes and solstices provide the markers in the sky for Yah's 4 “seasons”. They are the “signs” referenced in Genesis 1:14. The sun provides these markers, and determines when each one will appear. The sun
and moon are faithful witnesses together to determine the division of day and night in order for days to be counted, and that appears to be the sole timing duty of the moon for Yah's sacred calendar.
Critical Review and Logical Fallacy Analysis of the Pericope on Genesis 1:14
Strengths
Engagement with Scripture:
The passage draws directly from Genesis 1:14 and explores Hebrew terms like 'owth and moed, demonstrating an attempt at a detailed exegesis.
Connection to DSS Calendar:
It ties the discussion to the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), providing a contextual framework for its calendrical claims.
Consideration of Lunar Observations:
By addressing the potential misuse of the moon in determining months, the passage identifies an alternative view on calendrical systems.
Critique of Logical Fallacies
Selective Interpretation (Cherry-Picking):
The claim that weeks and months are not mentioned in Genesis 1:14 and must therefore be determined solely by counting days is an argument from silence. It assumes that the absence of explicit reference means there is no connection to the celestial bodies, which is not necessarily true. Other scriptures, such as Psalm 104:19 (“He appointed the moon for seasons”), clearly link the moon to timekeeping.
Misapplication of Proverbs 14:12:
The passage applies Proverbs 14:12 to dismiss lunar month determinations as human reasoning leading to error. This creates a false dichotomy, implying that any rationale differing from the DSS system is inherently flawed or sinful without substantiating this claim.
Equivocation Fallacy:
The word moed is interpreted to mean "seasons" in Genesis 1:14 while acknowledging other meanings such as "appointed time" or "feast." The passage assumes moed refers exclusively to equinoxes and solstices without considering its frequent use for Yahweh’s feasts in the Torah (e.g., Leviticus 23).
Circular Reasoning:
The argument assumes the DSS calendar’s accuracy and structure as a premise while attempting to prove its validity. For example, it states that weeks and months are determined solely by counting because the DSS calendar dictates this, but offers no external evidence to validate this system.
Critique of Lack of Source Citation
Absence of Scholarly Support:
The passage lacks citations for interpretations of 'owth and moed. Scholarly or linguistic resources (e.g., Strong’s Concordance, lexicons) should be referenced to substantiate these definitions.
No Supporting Evidence for DSS Assertions:
The claim that weeks and months in the DSS calendar are based solely on counting days is unsubstantiated. Historical or textual evidence from the scrolls themselves should be cited.
Neglect of Comparative Calendrical Systems:
The dismissal of lunar observations lacks engagement with evidence from historical or Scriptural calendars (e.g., Hebrew or Babylonian systems), which often incorporate lunar cycles.
Recommendations for Improvement
Broaden Scriptural Context:
Include references to other verses, such as Psalm 104:19 or Numbers 28:11, which link the moon to timekeeping, to present a balanced argument.
Cite Historical Sources:
Provide specific DSS texts or scholarly studies to validate claims about the structure and methodology of the DSS calendar.
Clarify Equinox and Solstice Markers:
Explain why equinoxes and solstices should be considered moedim (appointed times) and how this aligns with the broader Scriptural narrative.
Avoid Over Reliance on Proverbs 14:12:
Replace the use of this verse with a stronger argument against the lunar month system, grounded in empirical evidence or scriptural analysis.
Summary
This pericope raises interesting points about Genesis 1:14 and the DSS calendar but suffers from selective interpretation, unsupported assertions, and logical fallacies. Strengthening the argument requires more robust citations, consideration of alternative perspectives, and clearer connections to Scriptural and historical evidence.
New Moon
The word for “new moon” in our Old Testament Scripture is always the same Hebrew word Strong's H2320 (chodesh), which is used 274 times in Scripture. Yet it is only translated as “new moon” 20 times, so about 93% of the time it is returningtothegarden.com Page 2 of 12 11/04/24 rendered as something else. Etymologically, this word indicates a repeating cycle - the ending of one cycle, a transition, and the entering into the next. Over the years, this etymological meaning has been obscured. We realize that when we go from one language to another, a great deal can be lost or misconstrued, and when going from the Hebrew of the preserved manuscripts to English, this can be very pronounced. It can be somewhat like trying to relate calculus in a language that a first grade student can understand. The barrier from one language to another can be hard to cross properly. A Hebrew word can have several meanings, even contradictory meanings or contronyms. Despite the best efforts
of translators, the English rendering will never reflect all of these meanings. This problem can be magnified when societal corruption and cultural changes play a role in translation. The proper translation may be compromised by this type of cultural bias. It may ignore a more accurate meaning which existed before the cultural change. This means that our current Bible translation for the word
“chodesh” may not match Yah's original intent. If you refer to our writing titled Qumran and Mishneh Torah or view our video by the same name, we explain how this “new moon” translation was unfortunately based on the Babylonian culture carried forward after the captivity and recorded as “law” in rabbinic literature. It seems that our English translations (both Scriptural and Lexical) were then drawn
from this Babylonian rabbinic foundation. So – this Babylonian bias is carried forward into our English translation of “chodesh”. Then by what we might call circular reasoning, the persistent dependence on the luni-solar calendar methodology in our own culture today is largely due to this unfortunate English
translation.
Critical Review and Logical Fallacy Analysis of the Pericope on the Word "New Moon"
Strengths
Focus on Hebrew Linguistics:
The pericope highlights the word chodesh (Strong’s H2320) and provides insight into its frequency and etymological nuances. This is a valid approach to deepening understanding of Scriptural terminology.
Awareness of Translational Challenges:
The discussion acknowledges the inherent difficulties in translating ancient Hebrew into English, especially concerning cultural and societal influences.
Historical Contextualisation:
The pericope attempts to situate the translation of chodesh within the broader context of Babylonian captivity and subsequent rabbinic interpretations.
Critique of Logical Fallacies
Overgeneralisation:
The claim that the translation of chodesh as "new moon" is entirely a result of Babylonian influence is overly simplistic. While Babylonian culture may have influenced some post-exilic Jewish practices, the Scriptural text itself (e.g., 1 Samuel 20:5, Numbers 10:10) uses chodesh in ways that clearly suggest lunar observation for timekeeping.
Circular Reasoning:
The argument assumes that the luni-solar calendar's persistence in modern times is entirely due to the "erroneous" translation of chodesh. This conclusion is derived from the premise that Babylonian influence corrupted the term—a premise that has not been substantiated with evidence from the Scriptural text or historical sources.
Etymological Fallacy:
The pericope leans heavily on the etymological root of chodesh to assert its "true" meaning. This approach overlooks the importance of contextual usage, which often determines a word's specific meaning over its root derivation.
Reductive View of Translation:
The suggestion that English translations universally reflect Babylonian cultural bias is a hasty generalisation. Translational choices are influenced by a wide range of factors, including linguistic tradition, context, and comparative study of manuscripts.
Critique of Lack of Source Citation
Absence of Supporting Evidence:
The pericope fails to cite any linguistic, historical, or Scriptural studies to support its claims about the Babylonian origin of the term chodesh. This weakens its argument and invites scrutiny.
No Reference to Ancient Manuscripts:
If the argument centres on Babylonian influence, evidence from primary sources such as rabbinic literature (e.g., Mishnah, Talmud) or comparative studies of Babylonian and Scriptural calendars should be included.
Unsubstantiated Cultural Claims:
The assertion that cultural corruption and bias led to the "persistent dependence on the luni-solar calendar" is presented without reference to historical developments in calendrical science.
Key Issues in Reasoning
Selective Historical Analysis:
The pericope ignores the evidence of lunar-based timekeeping in pre-exilic Israel. For example, the sighting of the new moon and the observance of new moons are described in Isaiah 66:23 and Ezekiel 46:1-3, predating Babylonian captivity.
Misrepresentation of Translational Practices:
The portrayal of translations as inherently biased towards Babylonian traditions undermines the credibility of centuries of Scriptural scholarship without providing alternative evidence.
Neglect of Broader Scriptural Context:
The pericope does not address the harmonious relationship between the solar and lunar cycles in the Torah, such as the explicit command to observe months (chodeshim) for feast days (Exodus 12:2, Leviticus 23).
Recommendations for Improvement
Contextual Usage Analysis:
Analyse chodesh in various scriptural contexts, highlighting passages where it refers explicitly to lunar observation.
Cite Primary and Secondary Sources:
Provide citations from scholarly works on Hebrew linguistics, calendrical studies, and ancient Near Eastern practices to substantiate claims.
Balanced Historical Perspective:
Acknowledge the possibility of Babylonian influence without dismissing the longstanding lunar-based traditions in Israel’s timekeeping.
Clarify Terminological Claims:
Define the nuanced meanings of chodesh (e.g., "month," "new moon") with examples from Scripture, lexicons, and concordances.
Summary
This pericope raises valid points about the complexity of translating chodesh but falls short due to over generalisation, lack of evidence, and logical inconsistencies. It could be improved by incorporating contextual analyses, historical evidence, and scholarly sources to substantiate its claims.
Yareach – Moon
While the English occasionally indicates “new moon” as the translation for “chodesh”, the Hebrew word for “moon” is actually something else entirely: Strong's H3394 (yareach). The only time this word is used is in reference to our physical moon. It is exclusive and distinct in its application. The proper Hebrew rendering for “new moon” would be הירח מולד) molad ha yareach) - (mo.lad' ha.ya'.re.ach). This can easily be confirmed using: , molad = birth and ha = the, so we have a literal meaning of “birth of the moon”. Likewise, at chabad.org we see that molad is the birth of the new moon: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/216238/jewish/Molad-Times.htm ... it is customary to announce the time that the molad (birth of the new moon) occurs in Jerusalem, so that it can be kept in mind while saying the blessing.
If “new moon” was a proper translation for the new phase of the moon in our English Bible, this Hebrew rendering would have been used instead of “chodesh”. However, that is not the case. “Chodesh” was used in the manuscripts because the indication was never to be “new moon” at all.
Critical Review and Logical Analysis of the Pericope on Yareach (Moon)
Strengths
Clear Distinction Between Terms:
The pericope highlights a meaningful linguistic distinction between yareach (moon) and chodesh (often translated as “new moon” or “month”), focusing on their different applications in the Hebrew language.
Reference to External Sources:
The inclusion of links to Chabad.org and languagedrops.com provides supporting material for the explanation of the term molad ha-yareach as “birth of the moon.”
Etymological Clarification:
The explanation of molad as “birth” and its connection to the moon is a valid linguistic observation, offering insight into how Hebrew describes lunar phenomena.
Critique of Logical Fallacies
False Assumption of Exclusivity:
The argument assumes that if molad ha-yareach is the technical term for the "birth of the moon," then chodesh cannot refer to the same concept. This is not substantiated and overlooks the versatility of Hebrew terms depending on context.
Selective Evidence:
While molad ha-yareach is indeed a Hebrew term used in modern and rabbinic contexts to describe the new moon, the assertion that chodesh cannot imply “new moon” in the Scriptural context is not substantiated with textual or historical evidence.
Circular Reasoning:
The pericope argues that because chodesh was chosen over molad ha-yareach in Scriptural manuscripts, it must not mean "new moon." However, this conclusion is based on the assumption that the ancient Hebrew lexicon functioned identically to modern rabbinic Hebrew, which is itself unproven.
Etymological Fallacy:
The argument leans heavily on the etymology of molad and yareach to determine the “correct” term, disregarding the contextual use of chodesh in Scriptural passages where it is often associated with lunar events (e.g., Psalm 81:3, Numbers 10:10).
Issues in Reasoning
Inconsistent Application of Hebrew Usage:
The pericope highlights yareach as the exclusive word for the physical moon but fails to acknowledge that Scriptural Hebrew often uses terms like chodesh to indicate associated concepts such as "month" and "new moon" depending on the context.
Neglect of Scriptural Context:
The analysis does not address verses like 1 Samuel 20:5-6, where chodesh is used to mark the "new moon festival" (often celebrated at the sighting of the new moon). These passages suggest a direct connection between chodesh and lunar cycles.
Modern Terminology Projected onto Ancient Texts:
The argument conflates modern rabbinic Hebrew (e.g., molad ha-yareach) with the linguistic practices of ancient Israel, without evidence that the terminology was consistent across both periods.
Absence of Historical and Linguistic Evidence
No Discussion of Pre-Rabbinic Sources:
The pericope does not address ancient Hebrew inscriptions, Qumran texts, or the Septuagint, which could clarify how chodesh was understood in antiquity.
No Lexical References:
It fails to reference standard lexicons (e.g., Brown-Driver-Briggs, HALOT) or other authoritative sources that explain chodesh as encompassing both "month" and "new moon" in Scriptural Hebrew.
Limited Scope of External Evidence:
The cited sources (languagedrops.com and Chabad.org) focus on modern or rabbinic Hebrew but do not substantiate claims about the original Scriptural context of chodesh.
Recommendations for Improvement
Engage with Scriptural Context:
Explore passages where chodesh is explicitly linked to lunar cycles or the start of months in Scriptural observances (e.g., Numbers 28:11-15, Ezekiel 46:1-3).
Provide Historical-Linguistic Evidence:
Reference ancient sources such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Samaritan texts, or the Septuagint to demonstrate how chodesh and molad ha-yareach were used in antiquity.
Address Lexical Ambiguity:
Acknowledge that Hebrew words often carry multiple meanings, and explain why chodesh may encompass both “new moon” and “month” depending on context.
Expand Supporting Sources:
Include references to reputable academic works on Scriptural calendars and Hebrew linguistics to strengthen claims.
Summary
While the pericope provides an interesting etymological exploration of yareach and molad ha-yareach, its argument suffers from oversimplification, selective evidence, and lack of historical support. To improve, it should incorporate a broader analysis of chodesh within Scriptural and linguistic contexts, engage with diverse textual evidence, and avoid projecting modern terminology onto ancient practices.
Yerah – the Lunar Cycle
However, we do know that the moon has its own cyclic pattern or its own version of “chodesh” (repeated cycle) reckoning. The full moon is the common focal point in our agricultural communities. Actually the Farmer's Almanac lists a primary name (as well as several other potentials) for the full moon of each month, such as the “snow moon” for February, because heavy snow falls this time of year. Likewise, there are 13 references to such a cycle in our Bible. The Hebrew word for this type of cycle is Strong's H3391 (yerah). An example of this word is seen in Exodus 2:2 regarding the mother of Moses. The moon is a loose gauge for the span of a month, and that was all the mother of Moses needed to observe for the timing she needed to consider. However in the 13 times in the Bible that “yerah” is mentioned, there is no precedent to indicate that this word even remotely implied a liturgical (priestly or festival) use. There are actually three moon names mentioned in our Bible, all of Canaanite origin. There are multiple spellings for these moons, but we'll use the common English spellings of Zif, Bul, and Ethanim. Zif is mentioned twice, while Bul and Ethanim get only one mention each. All of these references are within a three-chapter span (6-8) in the book of 1 Kings. Just as our culture has a moon for each month with specific names, we see that this may have been so with certain cultures in Scriptural days as well. Zif is a lunar renewal that occurs during the second month of the religious year which is in the spring. Accordingly, the Word Zif means blossoms, bloom, brightness. Ethanim is the lunar renewal that occurs in the seventh month of the year which is in early fall, so it means ever-flowing streams. It is presumed this name was due to the need of flowing water for the planting season at this time of year when the rains were few. Bul is the lunar renewal that occurs in the eighth month of the year which is in the middle of the fall season. Appropriately then, the word Bul means rain, withering, increase, produce. All three names are connected in our Scriptural text to the Hebrew word “yerah” (the lunar cycle) as well
as the word “chodesh”. The use of “chodesh” indicates a renewing “cycle”, and “yerah” tells us which type of cycle – the lunar cycle. However, this type of cycle (the lunar month) is never shown Scripturally to relate to liturgical use. This abbreviated segment about “yerah” is a quick nuts and bolts version. If you
want to dig a little bit deeper with us on this topic, we have we can provide more input. We can send you the digital notes on an involved study of this very subject. Unfortunately, the full study is just too lengthy for this writing. Just notify us with your request for our writing called Lunar Cycles – Detailed Version, and provide us with your email address so we can get it to you. We need to reiterate here that the lunar cycle is not at all the same as the solar month. Astronomically they do not match, and that is the reason for so much differential between the rabbinic calendar in use today and the one revealed in
the Dead Sea Scrolls, which actually matches Scriptural criteria much better! We should note that the intercalation required by the luni-solar calendar is the periodic addition of a full month, which is 1/12 of a year – quite a large amount of time relative to seasonally-based agricultural concerns! The take-away here is that the moon really has no bearing on Yah's calendar timing at all – except to work in tandem with the sun as the lesser light to rule over the night.
Critical Review and Analysis of "Yerah – the Lunar Cycle"
Strengths
Etymological Insight:
The pericope introduces the term yerah (Strong's H3391), accurately identifying it as a word associated with the lunar cycle and drawing attention to its occurrences in Scripture.
Connection to Scriptural Culture:
The mention of ancient lunar names such as Zif, Bul, and Ethanim highlights how certain months were tied to agricultural cycles and cultural contexts in Scriptural times.
Cultural and Agricultural Context:
The explanation of how names like Zif (blossoms) and Ethanim (ever-flowing streams) reflect the seasonal and environmental realities of ancient Israel is valuable for understanding Scriptural chronology.
Discussion of Calendar Systems:
The reference to differences between the rabbinic calendar and the Dead Sea Scrolls calendar touches on an important topic in Scriptural studies and calendar reckoning.
Practical Approach:
The invitation to explore the topic further with supplementary resources, such as the "Lunar Cycles – Detailed Version," shows a willingness to engage readers who wish to deepen their understanding.
Critique of Logical and Factual Assertions
Dismissal of Liturgical Connection:
The pericope asserts that yerah (lunar cycle) has no connection to liturgical use in Scripture. This claim lacks sufficient evidence, as Scriptural texts frequently use the lunar cycle to set the timing of Yahweh's convocations (e.g., Exodus 12:2, Psalm 81:3). While yerah may not be the primary term for such events, the moon's cycles are undeniably integral to the Scriptural calendar.
Inconsistent Terminological Claims:
The pericope describes yerah as indicating a lunar cycle while chodesh refers to a renewal cycle. However, these terms overlap in practice, as seen in their interchangeable usage in passages like 1 Kings 6:1. This overlap undermines the attempt to rigidly separate their meanings.
Sweeping Generalisation:
The claim that "the moon really has no bearing on Yah's calendar timing at all" is overly broad. This ignores passages where the moon's phases determine specific observances (e.g., the timing of the new moon in Numbers 10:10 and the full moon during Passover in Psalm 81:3).
Calendar Comparisons Without Substantiation:
The comparison between the rabbinic calendar and the Dead Sea Scrolls calendar lacks depth. While the Dead Sea Scrolls' solar calendar is often viewed as distinct, it does not necessarily "match Scriptural criteria much better" without detailed analysis.
Oversimplification of Intercalation:
The statement on intercalation as a "full month" addition simplifies the complexity of ancient calendar systems. While true in general, the luni-solar calendar’s intercalation practices were intricately tied to agricultural and astronomical observations.
Issues in Reasoning
Reductionist View of the Moon’s Role:
The pericope attempts to minimise the moon's importance in the Scriptural calendar by relegating it to a secondary role ("lesser light to rule the night"). This interpretation disregards the explicit mention of the moon's role in marking mo'edim (appointed times) in Genesis 1:14.
Reliance on Modern Interpretations:
The suggestion that the lunar cycle lacks liturgical significance leans on modern interpretations without addressing the historical and cultural context of the Scriptural text.
Inadequate Exploration of Terms:
The distinctions between yerah and chodesh could benefit from more rigorous linguistic and contextual analysis, as both terms relate to lunar and monthly cycles in varying ways.
Recommendations for Improvement
Expand Scriptural Analysis:
Include passages like Numbers 28:11-15 and 2 Chronicles 2:4, where the moon's phases are integral to the Scriptural calendar. This would provide a more balanced view of the moon's role.
Address Historical Calendar Systems:
Provide a detailed comparison of the rabbinic calendar, Dead Sea Scrolls calendar, and Scriptural reckoning to substantiate claims about their differences and merits.
Engage Scholarly Sources:
Reference academic works on ancient Hebrew calendars and lexicons to strengthen linguistic claims, such as the nuanced meanings of yerah and chodesh.
Clarify Lunar and Solar Roles:
Discuss the complementary roles of the sun and moon in the Scriptural calendar, aligning with Genesis 1:14 and other relevant texts.
Acknowledge Overlapping Usage:
Recognise that while yerah and chodesh are distinct, they often overlap in describing lunar-related cycles in Scripture.
Summary
The pericope provides valuable insights into the term yerah and its cultural and agricultural context. However, its arguments downplay the moon's role in the Scriptural calendar and rely on oversimplified assertions. A more nuanced approach, supported by thorough scriptural, linguistic, and historical evidence, would greatly enhance its credibility and depth.
The Priestly Rotation
There is some conjecture that the priestly rotation as noted in scrolls 4Q320-4Q330 dictates when intercalation is to be determined for the calendar of the scrolls. We have worked with these Mishmerot scrolls, and they do indicate that there was an attempt to merge solar and lunar data to form this construct for priestly course rotation. However “attempt” is the key word here. Penguin Classics provides an overview for us (emphasis ours): The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English by Penguin Classics – pp 347 Twelve fragmentary manuscripts from Cave 4, palaeographically dated to the late
second century BCE, present in various forms the peculiar 'solar' calendar – constructed in six-year sequences – of the Qumran community. Their year consisted of twelve months of thirty days each, plus four extra days added to each of the four seasons ... .Some documents from 4Q(320 and 321) ATTEMPT TO combine this calendar with the various priestly courses which served in turn in the Temple for a week at a time from one sabbath to the following Friday. They also combine it with the dates of the full moon given according to the days of the week of duty of the priestly course, the date of the solar month, and the equivalent date of the lunar calendar of mainstream Judaism... .
This ATTEMPT appears to propose a pattern for priestly service that incorporated both solar and lunar considerations, allowing for a complete rotation in priestly service every six years. When coordinating the solar and lunar schematic data in this manner, it presented an idealized image of the sun and the moon roughly realigning every three years. Then by doubling this time span, it would work out for 13 full cycles of the 24 priestly course rotations to be completed, so the priestly rotations could be back to their starting point every six years. Then the sun, the moon, and the priestly courses would all be realigned to begin another six year segment of time. Each priestly course would serve for a one-week interval (from the onset of the weekly Sabbath into the following Friday), when the next priestly course took over. This consistent change of courses was based on the solar data of the calendar that is routinely presented in the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, these manuscripts reflect an ATTEMPT to combine this data with compiled lunar data. The lunar data was based on scribal notations of “dwq” and “x” to depict new and full lunar phases. Ironically, there is considerable disagreement yet today within academia
regarding the actual definitions for “dwq” and “x” as they are used in the lunar data logs, and some academic opinions are totally opposite the views of other scholars! The solar calendar used by Qumran is schematic, so it must be intercalated - periodically realigned to the actual solar year. This calendar was already in place when these manuscripts were composed, as verified by the wording “Their year
consisted of twelve months of thirty days each, plus four extra days added to each of the four seasons” in the quote above. Then these Mishmerot manuscripts show an attempt to align lunar data onto this preexisting solar calendar. In order to do this, the lunar data too must be re-orchestrated into a schematic format. The lunar schema then requires intercalation as well - the addition of an extra lunar month (much like mainstream rabbinic literature required) every three years in order to synchronize with its solar counterpart. We realize that Enoch spent considerable time working through the lunar phases
in his writings – as though they might somehow correlate to the solar year which he also described. However, in the days of Enoch, there may actually have been more synchronicity between the sun and the moon to warrant this. We know the length of our solar year has changed over time, thus the need today for intercalation. There have been repeated attempts – very dedicated attempts - to realize such a synchronization between the solar and lunar data since the discovery of the scrolls, some using even more complex and extensive patterning, but all is seemingly to no avail. We actually have a very capable friend who has devoted years of study to try to do this, and he acknowledges that there simply is no perfect fit. Consequently, there is no evidence that this ATTEMPTED synchronization was ever
implemented, as we have found no further mention of such a system being used throughout the scrolls, and certainly no foolproof means to determine intercalation for the calendar of the scrolls. Attempting to merge two sets of schematic data – each with its own intercalation – onto a single calendar configuration seems to generate problems. Conceptually, these schemas seem to coordinate nicely. However, observationally, this 6-year schematic method does not realistically hold up. We have read scores of papers in academia by those who have actively worked with the scrolls, comparing and contrasting the scrolls as they deciphered them, and there seems to be a consensus that the moon simply does not have any role whatsoever in the liturgical calendar of the scrolls. They have determined that only the solar-based 364-day calendar was used for liturgical purposes: Qumran Calendars: A Survey of Scholarship 1980 2007 – by Jonathan Ben-Dov and Stephane Saulnier, p 152 Ben-Dov and Horowitz (2005:116) maintain that, although the Qumranic calendar experts kept constant record of a schematic lunar orbit, this record had no cultic-liturgical implications. Rather, 'at Qumran, sacred time was exclusively regulated by the 364 day year'. Note that “cultic” (as in this quote) is simply a DSS term to indicate: of or relating to religious practice. Likewise, “liturgical” relates to litergy and worship. These “cultic-liturgical implications” would then be associated with the observance of the sacred Feast days, etc. In a similar vein, Jonathan Ben-Dov amplifies this view in another of his works: The 364-Day Year in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Jewish Pseudepigrapha by Jonathan Ben-Dov p 89 There is no function for the lunar phases in the ritual calendar. The religious life of the community was dictated by the 364-day calendar alone; the yahad had no festival or sacrifice which depended on lunar movements, such as the first of the month, the full moon, etc. ... Also, when the phases of the moon are indicated in
the calendrical documents, they are always indicated schematically and never by actual observation. In sectarian circles, the schematic year [the solar-based 364- day year] remained the exclusive mechanism to calibrate sacred time, although some other calculations were maintained alongside it for various other purposes.
Review and Critique of: The Priestly Rotation
The pericope provides an in-depth analysis of the priestly rotation and its potential alignment with calendrical systems, specifically those reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). Below is a detailed critique of its structure, content, and academic rigor:
Strengths
Use of Authoritative Sources:
The inclusion of works such as Penguin Classics and scholarly analyses by Jonathan Ben-Dov adds credibility. These references align the discussion with respected academic perspectives.
Detailed Analysis of Calendrical Systems:
The text explains the mechanics of the Qumran 364-day solar calendar, the six-year cycle, and attempts to synchronize it with lunar phases. This level of detail helps readers understand the technical aspects of the priestly rotation.
Clarity of Scholarly Consensus:
By quoting experts like Ben-Dov and Horowitz, the pericope emphasises that lunar phases played no liturgical role at Qumran. It effectively presents the consensus that the community relied exclusively on a solar calendar.
Acknowledgment of Challenges:
The text highlights the difficulties in reconciling solar and lunar cycles. Repeated use of the term “attempt” underscores the experimental nature of these ancient systems.
Weaknesses and Suggestions
Excessive Repetition:
Overuse of terms like “attempt” (often in capital letters) reduces readability. Streamlining these points can make the narrative more engaging.
Over-reliance on Secondary Sources:
While Penguin Classics and related commentaries are valuable, direct quotations from primary DSS materials (e.g., 4Q320-4Q330) would strengthen the argument.
Limited Comparative Context:
The discussion narrowly focuses on Qumran. A brief comparison with other Jewish calendrical systems from the Second Temple period would offer richer context.
Stylistic Issues:
The frequent use of block quotes interrupts narrative flow. Paraphrasing key ideas and reserving block quotes for the most critical points could improve readability.
Insufficient Exploration of Broader Implications:
The text touches on the exclusion of lunar cycles from sacred time but could delve deeper into its theological and social implications for the Qumran community.
Recommendations
Streamline and Consolidate:
Merge repetitive discussions about synchronization attempts and intercalation challenges to avoid overexplaining.
Incorporate Visual Aids:
Adding diagrams or tables to depict the priestly rotations, solar calendar, and intercalation process would make complex concepts more accessible.
Deepen Contextual Analysis:
Address the theological or sectarian reasons for the Qumran community’s adherence to a solar calendar over a lunisolar one.
Engage with Dissenting Views:
Present unresolved debates or alternative interpretations to offer a balanced perspective.
Emphasize Primary Texts:
Directly reference and analyse fragments of 4Q320-4Q330 to ground the discussion in primary evidence.
Conclusion
The pericope effectively illuminates the intricacies of the Qumran calendrical system and its relation to priestly rotations. However, reducing repetition, incorporating direct evidence, and broadening the contextual scope could enhance its accessibility and academic depth. These adjustments would make the discussion more engaging and comprehensive for both scholarly and general audiences.
The Stars
Then we have the stars. The star-based calendar is now sometimes touted to be the calendar that requires NO INTERCALATION. How do the stars fit into this calendar picture? While the stars form a backdrop that loosely aligns to the change of the months in the mazzaroth, they also loosely align to the change of seasons and years when combined with the equinox and solstice markers. A complete cycle of the sun through the Mazzaroth in the stars is a called a “sidereal year”. Some proclaim that a complete circuit of the sun through the stars makes a perfect year. However we don't live in the stars, so a year on earth is based on the relativity of the earth to the sun (which dictates our agriculture).
A complete solar cycle for the earth is called the “solar (or tropical) year”. Ideally these two cycles - the sidereal and the solar (or tropical) - would match exactly. THEN we could say that the complete cycle of the sun through the stars was a perfect year. However, today's reality proves otherwise. When researching the sidereal year, we found the following link which does a wonderful job of pointing to the difference between the two: https://www.britannica.com/science/year#ref120290 The solar year (365 days 5 hours 48 minutes 46 seconds), also called tropical year, or year of the seasons, is the time between two successive occurrences of the vernal equinox (the moment when the Sun apparently crosses the celestial equator moving north).
Because of the precession of the equinoxes (an effect of a slow wobble in Earth’s rotation), the solar year is shorter than the sidereal year (365 days 6 hours 9 minutes 10 seconds), which is the time taken by the Sun to return to the same place in its annual apparent journey against the background of the stars. At the moment of creation, the timing of the solar year and the sidereal year might have been aligned, and that alignment might have continued until something happened to cause this “slow wobble”. Some Scriptural references might seem to allude to a correlation between these two types of years in the days those references were written. However we can easily observe today that this correlation has been loosening over time due to the wobble of the Earth. In our present reckoning of time, the evidence emphatically shows that the lengths of these two types of years are simply no longer aligned. We can easily see that today the sidereal year is no longer in step with the solar year. The 20-minute differential between the two does not seem to be a lot – UNTIL – these 20-minute differentials are heaped on one another over the years. So, let's work with this for a minute. The solar year is roughly 20.4 minutes shorter than the sidereal year. A day is 1440 minutes. If we divide 1440 by
20.4, we see that in just over 70 years, the sidereal will be a full day longer than the solar year. Over time, this differential continues to grow. Yah provides specific timing for the spring festival days of His calendar, beginning with the 14th day of the 1st month. When the ripened barley is to be waved, it
must be at the right stage of maturity. As time passes, the differential between the solar and the sidereal year becomes greater and greater. Eventually, the barley harvest will have passed before the first month even arrives on the sidereal calendar – UNLESS it has been intercalated! Granted this is down the road quite a ways, but the fact that the differential will keep growing shows that using a sidereal year to form our calendars will take us further and further away from the equinox each year unless intercalation occurs on the sidereal calendar. An astrological Ephemeris uses calculations to compensate for the wobble and compile data of a simulated realignment of the stars to the earth over the years. However, this does not realign the stars to the earth, it only provides a picture of what would be if the change had not occurred. Actual astronomical data provides the picture of reality, and the differential will continue to increase over time.
Review and Critique of: The Stars
This pericope delves into the relationship between the sidereal year, the solar year, and their implications for calendrical systems. It aims to evaluate the claim that a star-based (sidereal) calendar requires no intercalation, contrasting this with the reality of agricultural and astronomical cycles.
Strengths
Scientific Explanation:
The text provides a clear distinction between the sidereal year and the solar year, citing reliable sources like Britannica. The definitions and differences, including the role of Earth’s axial precession, are explained succinctly and effectively.
Engagement with Scriptural Context:
The discussion connects astronomical observations to Scriptural instructions, such as the timing of Yahweh’s convocations. This connection between theology and astronomy adds depth to the analysis.
Quantitative Analysis:
The calculation demonstrating the growing discrepancy between the sidereal and solar years over time is a strong point. This quantitative approach clarifies the challenges of using a sidereal calendar for agricultural or festival purposes.
Focus on Practical Implications:
The potential for misalignment between the barley harvest and the first month on a sidereal calendar is a practical observation that highlights the need for intercalation.
Acknowledgment of Historical Considerations:
The suggestion that the sidereal and solar years may have once been aligned invites further exploration of historical and theological interpretations.
Weaknesses and Suggestions
Repetition:
The pericope repeats certain points, such as the growing discrepancy between sidereal and solar years, multiple times. Consolidating these observations would improve readability and conciseness.
Overemphasis on Hypotheticals:
While the idea of initial alignment at creation is intriguing, it lacks evidence and may distract from the more practical arguments. This section could be reframed as a hypothesis rather than an assertion.
Narrow Scope of Analysis:
The discussion does not address how other ancient cultures reconciled sidereal and solar cycles or the broader historical use of star-based calendars. Including this context would enrich the argument.
Technical Language without Clarification:
Terms like “astrological ephemeris” and “simulated realignment” are not fully explained, which may alienate readers unfamiliar with astronomy. A brief explanation or footnotes would enhance accessibility.
Limited Theological Exploration:
While the pericope mentions Scriptural references, it does not explore theological interpretations or scriptural examples in detail. Adding this depth would better connect the discussion to its intended audience.
Lack of Visual Aids:
Including diagrams showing the sidereal and solar years, the Earth’s wobble, and their implications on the calendar would make complex concepts easier to grasp.
Recommendations
Streamline Content:
Avoid repeating points about the growing differential and intercalation. Focus instead on the implications of these findings.
Expand Historical Context:
Discuss how other cultures or sects, such as the ancient Babylonians or Qumran community, addressed similar calendrical challenges.
Clarify Technical Terms:
Provide simplified explanations or add footnotes for less familiar terms.
Include Scriptural Examples:
Elaborate on how the discrepancy between sidereal and solar years aligns or conflicts with Scriptural instructions for Yahweh’s convocations.
Visual Representation:
Use tables, timelines, or diagrams to show the difference between sidereal and solar years and how the discrepancy compounds over time.
Conclusion
The pericope provides a thoughtful examination of the sidereal calendar's limitations, particularly in light of Scriptural instructions for sacred convocations. However, reducing repetition, clarifying technical terms, and incorporating historical and theological insights would enhance its impact. Visual aids and a deeper exploration of scriptural implications could further engage and inform the audience.
The Sun:
The Book of Jubilees concurs with many other manuscripts from the caves of Qumran. In The Book of Jubilees we find: Jubilees – The Hermeneia Translation by James C. VanderKam: Jubilees 2:8-10:8) On the fourth day the Lord made the sun, the moon, and the stars. He placed them in the heavenly firmament to shine on the whole earth, to rule over day and night and to separate between light and darkness. 9) The Lord appointed the sun as a great sign above the earth for days, Sabbaths, months, festivals, years, Sabbaths of years, jubilees, and all cycles of the years. 10) It separates between light and darkness and (serves) for well-being so that everything that sprouts and grows on the earth may prosper. These three types he made on the fourth day. Verse 9 explains that the sun is to be used exclusively to determine the timing for the calendar. Verse 10 then tells us why the sun has this magnified role – that everything that sprouts and grows may prosper. The calendar of the scrolls is
built around keeping the Festival dates at their proper times. These dates are agriculturally based, and it is the heat and light of the sun that produces the crops. The moon and the stars have little to no bearing on crop development at all!
At the equinox, spring begins. It is the time in Yah's seasonal changes for the heat and light of the sun to be optimal for His agricultural cycles to begin. He has commanded the timing of His festivals according to this seasonal protocol. The spring feasts begin in the middle of the 1st month of the year, so it is important to begin this month at the right time. Starting the year at the equinox ensures that the heat and light of the sun are at just the right level for proper crop maturity for the festivals that fall in the first month. The vernal (spring equinox is the line going out to all the earth (Psalm 19:4) to signal that the time is prime for Yah's yearly cycles to occur on schedule.
Psalms 19:4-5 (4) Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, (5) Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
The sun is as a strong man here, and this line produced by the sun represents the signal that the exiting year has ended and the sun can begin the new year (the “race”) to allow for that growth. Starting this “race” of the new year's cycle at any other time – such as adding an extra month periodically on a luni-solar calendar - simply will not produce the same result. One month is 1/12 of a year, which can be too great an adjustment. The year 2016 was a good example. It was highly disputed that year whether or not to add a 13th lunar month. If it was added, the barley might well be past the prime stage for waving at the proper time, and if it was not added, the barley might not be ripe enough. It was a “no win” scenario. With the carefully structured calendar of the scrolls, Yah's masterful ordering of the seasons presents the optimal conditions to maximize the proper maturity of the crops for the festivals, and this calendar always begins the new year within a single week of the equinox, so there will be no such problem. He does things right!! https://www.torahtimes.org/writings/qumran-calendar/article.html - The Qumran Calendar It so happens that the Qumran calendar in 4Q320 ... set up the cycle to follow the spring equinox, and then aimed to calculate the first Wednesday after it as the first day of their 364 day year. In our article titled New Year, we explain that the calendar must always have even weeks, beginning each year on a weekday 4. So - if the typical 52 weeks of the scroll calendar ends before the equinox arrives, we simply wait an extra week for the equinox, and begin the new year the next weekday 4 (Wednesday): This is the intercalation that keeps this calendar in sync with the actual solar year. If equinox occurs on a weekday 4 (Wednesday), the new year will begin that same day. That will be like it was when the lights of the Heavens were put in place on weekday 4 of creation: https://www.torahtimes.org/writings/qumran-calendar/article.html - The Qumran Calendar assumes that the first of Nisan fell on a Wednesday on the day of the spring equinox when the world was created, ... .
The old year must end before the new can begin. The scrolls consider the equinox to be the marker that the old year is complete so the new year can begin. Therefore, we should never begin a new year until it arrives. When the 52 complete weeks are past and the equinox has not arrived, we must wait for it before beginning the next year. This necessitates an extra full week at the end of the old year before we can begin the new year on the following weekday 4 (Wednesday). This happens roughly every 6 years, and it is the intercalation that provides the realignment to the solar reality. Waiting for this quinox marker is inherent within the calendar of the scrolls, making it self-correcting. No instructions are needed. Just follow the protocol of the scroll criteria to start the year each and every year, and it falls right into place. Again, our article titled New Year will shed more light.
We may sound overly adamant, or it may seem that we are too quick to reject the alterations suggested by others. That is not because we want to be inflexible, but because we must profess what we have been shown, and it is important to us to abide by our commitment to the body of Messiah. It is our commitment to strive to present the pure and unadulterated calendar of the scrolls – just as it is found there. That is because we have found it to be the historically documented authentic calendar of antiquity used by Yah's people. We have noted that regardless of how pleasing any other calendar version may seem, and how much they might seem to be right in the eyes of man, there is no other
calendar which has the historically documented verification that this calendar has. We find evidence that it was used by Noah, used during the wilderness days of the exodus from Egypt, used in the days of David and Solomon, used in the 7th century BCE, and we know it was used by the ordained high priesthood of Zadok and his descendants until Qumran came under siege. Likewise, there is evidence
that Y'shua and his disciples, as well as Paul used this calendar in the early days of Christendom - in spite of coercion by rabbinic Judaism to keep the adulterated oral law version brought forward from Babylon by Hillel. We understand that it may not be to everyone's liking, and it may not be the calendar some people would choose in this “natural human state”. However, this calendar of the scrolls just is what it is, being clearly presented in the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts. Unfortunately, there have been many attempts to tweak a little here, and adjust a little there to make “so called improvements” to this calendar - ways that seem right to man. We realize that such attempts by man to improve that which has been shown to be divinely orchestrated by Yah can put one on very dangerous ground (Prov 14:12). Therefore, we do not condone any deviation whatsoever from the actual calendar (and the function of it) as presented in the scrolls. We adamantly believe that the calendar of the scrolls MUST remain in its pure form, and that is what we endeavor to present to the body of Messiah today. So – we await the equinox and start the year on the next weekday 4 (Wednesday) each and every year. It is really that simple. This simplicity makes a great deal of sense, since our Yah is not an Elohim of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). This form of intercalation allows all Yah's people to be able to create
their own calendar without any complex configurations or calculations. Checking a sundial once a year and counting days is really all we need to do to keep this calendar. The schematic structure of this creation-based Sabbath calendar which Yah provided for his people is profound beyond measure, yet it is so simple a child could follow it, which may have been His intent all along!
Review and Critique: The Sun
This pericope provides a detailed argument for the Qumran calendar, rooted in both textual evidence from the Book of Jubilees and interpretative connections with the Tanakh and Dead Sea Scrolls. Here's a breakdown of its strengths and areas that could be improved:
Strengths:
Textual Basis:
The citation from Jubilees 2:8-10 is well-placed, showing the sun's role in determining the calendar according to the text. The use of Psalms 19:4-5 further enriches the argument by linking it to canonical Scripture.
References to historical practices, such as those attributed to Noah, the Zadokite priests, and Yeshua, give weight to the claim of the calendar’s historical authenticity.
Clarity in Structure:
The explanation of how the calendar aligns with the equinox is clear and systematic, particularly the description of the intercalation process and the rationale for beginning the year on a Wednesday following the equinox.
Emphasis on Divine Order:
The argument frames the calendar as divinely instituted and inherently self-correcting, which resonates with readers seeking a system reflective of Yahweh’s design.
Practical Application:
The simplicity of the described calendar is appealing. The claim that it can be managed with minimal calculations positions it as accessible to all, supporting the idea of inclusivity in Yahweh’s commands.
Critique of Logical and Factual Assertions
Appeal to Authority Fallacy: The article refers to various sources (like the Book of Jubilees, Psalms 19:4-5, and Qumran manuscripts) as authoritative texts, implying that because these sources say something is true, it must be correct. However, without further critical analysis or engagement with opposing views, this is an appeal to authority, which doesn’t prove the validity of the claims. It’s essential to question whether these sources genuinely establish the "correct" calendar timing or if alternative interpretations might also be valid.
False Dichotomy: There’s a suggestion that choosing a solar calendar (as prescribed by the Qumran texts) is the only way to ensure proper agricultural cycles and festival observance. The argument implies that any deviation (like using a luni-solar calendar) will lead to disastrous agricultural consequences (such as the barley not being ripe in time). This creates a false dichotomy, implying that either one follows the Qumran solar calendar or the agricultural and spiritual outcomes will be detrimental. There’s no consideration of other potential solutions or adjustments.
Over generalization/Unwarranted Conclusion: The claim that adding an extra month to a luni-solar calendar will "simply not produce the same result" when compared to a solar calendar is an overgeneralization. The reasoning behind this is not thoroughly examined, and other factors influencing crop growth (such as climate, soil conditions, etc.) are not sufficiently considered. It assumes a single factor (the exact timing of the equinox) determines agricultural success, which is overly simplistic.
Begging the Question: The assertion that the Qumran calendar is the "historically documented authentic calendar" relies on the idea that the calendar is divinely orchestrated and must be followed precisely. This argument assumes the premise that the calendar is divinely ordained without providing independent evidence to support that claim. It also implies that deviations from this calendar are inherently wrong, without addressing potential theological or practical justifications for alternate systems.
Circular Reasoning: The article states that the calendar of the scrolls "just is what it is," and implies that its structure is self-evidently correct because it is historically documented. This circular reasoning fails to establish why this specific calendar should be followed today, aside from its historical documentation and adherence by certain ancient communities.
Areas for Improvement:
Over-reliance on Jubilees:
While Jubilees is a valuable historical text, it is not universally accepted as Scripture. The argument would benefit from stronger reliance on canonical texts for those who might not regard Jubilees with the same authority.
Selective Evidence:
The critique of the luni-solar calendar mentions practical challenges (e.g., the 2016 barley harvest scenario) but does not acknowledge how adherents of the luni-solar system might resolve these issues. This omission could lead to accusations of bias.
Assumptions about Historical Use:
The claim that figures like Noah and Yeshua used this calendar is intriguing but speculative. Stronger evidence, such as corroborative archaeological or textual findings, would strengthen these assertions.
Tone:
While passion for the subject is commendable, phrases like “we must profess what we have been shown” and “very dangerous ground” may alienate readers who seek an academic tone rather than an admonitory one.
Over Generalisation of Simplicity:
The statement that “a child could follow it” could be interpreted as overly simplistic, especially given the nuanced understanding required to interpret ancient texts and astronomical data.
Connection to Broader Contexts:
The argument focuses heavily on the Qumran texts but would benefit from engaging with modern calendrical debates, such as those between proponents of the lunar, luni-solar, and purely solar systems.
Recommendations:
Balance the Evidence:
Incorporate perspectives from proponents of other calendars to present a more balanced discussion. Addressing counter arguments strengthens credibility.
Strengthen Canonical Ties:
Use additional canonical references (e.g., Genesis 1:14-18 or Leviticus 23) to demonstrate how the Qumran calendar aligns with broader Scriptural principles.
Refine Tone:
Avoid language that may come across as dogmatic. An academic tone invites engagement and dialogue rather than defensiveness.
Clarify Historical Claims:
If making claims about historical usage by Scriptural figures, specify the basis for these assertions, including any supporting evidence or scholarly consensus.
Address Practical Considerations:
Acknowledge and address how this calendar might integrate into modern contexts, especially in diverse religious communities.
By addressing these points, the article could appeal more broadly to both advocates and sceptics of the Qumran calendar, fostering constructive discussion rather than polarisation.
e’Bed Doulos N.D.P.
2024.11.29