Evidence Against The Spring Passover Rule; by Wayne Atchison

Evidence Against The Spring Passover Rule

Evidence For The Observed Calendar Rules

Of The Second Temple

Summary:

Contrary to what has been taught and printed in the past, the ancient astronomy scholars of Israel's Second Temple Era did not use the “Spring Passover Rule". Herein is the astronomical data which confirms this statement. This paper is a “must-read” for everyone interested in debating the calendar issues.

The “Spring Passover Rule" asserts that the first month of a year may begin with the visual crescent closest to the spring equinox, as long as the Passover (the evening as Nisan 15 begins) occurs in the spring.

Over the last 20 years, numerous papers and calendar positions have been published based upon the assumption that this rule was used by the Second Temple's priests to determine the ancient calendar and Holy Days. Because so many brethren and Church Of God organizations have accepted these publications as fact, it is very important to address the validity of this assumption. By demonstrating that the “Spring Passover Rule" was never used by the Second Temple's priests, the positions and conclusions of these previous publications are rendered baseless. By exposing these publications to be baseless, the brethren and Church of God organizations are obligated to rethink their current calendar understanding.

Below is significant historical evidence which demonstrates that the ancient astronomy scholars for the greater area surrounding Jerusalem, Babylon, and Egypt did not employ the “Spring Passover Rule" for calendar determinations.

Some readers may not be familiar with the fact that Jerusalem was the central authority for administering a calendar which was used throughout the greater near east for the purpose of (quoting) "maintaining the unity of Israel". Through significant archaeological finds, this regionally used calendar has been reconstructed, and demonstratively proven to be consistent between the years 531 BC through 70 AD.

As a point of emphasis, not only is there overwhelming historical documentation showing that they did not employ the “Spring Passover Rule", it needs to be stated emphatically that there are no (zero) discovered artifacts which contradict this statement. That is, this author is unaware of any historical / astronomical artifacts which provide any evidence whatsoever in favor of the alleged “Spring Passover Rule" ever actually being used in history by the recognized calendar authorities for Israel and the Second Temple.

Many have been taught that the Hillel II (the modern Jewish) calendar uses the “Spring Passover Rule". However this fallacy is very easily shown to be untrue. For example, in the year 1997 Purim was in the spring, obviously breaking this rule. In fact the rules specified to compute the Hillel II calendar never mention this rule.

Analyzing the historical records is vital to the calendar researcher. The ancients observed an astronomical event in the sky, recorded the date of the event according to their own calendar, and then went about their business. Today we can read their recorded astronomical sightings, then calculate precisely when the astronomical events they saw actually occurred. From this analysis we can derive with certainty the rules they used to determine their own calendar.

From the historical evidence we know that the ancient astronomy scholars maintained synagogues throughout the greater near eastern region, wrote letters regarding upcoming "close calls", and worked in conjunction with each other. They maintained a regional calendar, from Jerusalem to Babylon to Egypt.

From the record we know that the calendar of the Second Temple Era was based upon actual observation of the visual crescent new moon, that the year began with the first visual crescent new moon "in spring", and that Tishri 9 (the day before the day of Atonement) was always "in autumn". All of the evidence demonstrates that Tishri 10, the new year's day for counting Jubilees, was never allowed to be in the summer. When necessary they consistently inserted a 2nd 6th month so that Atonement was celebrated in the fall season. The ancient astronomy scholars adjusted the months, either adding a 2nd 6th month or a 2nd 12th month, as was required to keep the festivals in their season.

It is easy to engage in arguments over how ancient Israel determined the "Sacred Calendar" as long as no one is asked to back up their claims with "objective historical evidence" in the form of recorded documentation and ancient artifacts.

This paper provides the historical data which demonstrates: "This is how they determined their calendar". By basing analysis on astronomical sightings, firm mathematical objective evidence is presented, there is no speculation. Their own data provides the authentic proof required to reconstruct the ancient calendar they used.

The honest researcher is now obligated to either accept the conclusions of this paper, or else they must dispute the historical record and artifacts themselves.

The Itemization Of The Historical Evidence:

Historical Evidence For Years Between 568 and 258 BC:

These astronomical sightings and artifacts are listed because they specifically address the issue of the alleged "Spring Passover Rule". Each demonstrate that they did not use this rule. Each of these years were intercalated with a 2nd 12th month. The third column lists the lunar day of the spring and autumn equinox.

?????????????????

The third column means that the ancient calendar astronomers declared a 2nd 12th month instead of allowing the spring equinox to fall on the lunar day given in the table. For example, in -567 they inserted a thirteenth month because the spring equinox would not come until the fourth day of that (new) month, and consequently, unless they did something, the fall equinox would occur on the twelfth day of the seventh month (which is after the day of Atonement). Another example, in -75 they declared an Adar II rather than allow the equinox to occur on the 10th day of the month. This data demonstrates that they did not use the alleged “Spring Passover Rule".

Historical Evidence From Josephus Antiquities, Book 17, Chapter 6.4, quote: “This Mattias the high priest, on the night before the day when the fast was to be celebrated, seemed, in a dream, to have conversation with his wife; and because he could not officiate himself on that account, Joseph, the son of Ellemus, his kinsman, assisted him in that sacred office. But Herod deprived this Mattias of the high priesthood, and burnt the other Matthias, who had raised the sedition, with his companions, alive. And that very night there was an eclipse of the moon.” This event is the fast on the night before the day of Purim, an Adar 15th, in some year near Herod’s death.

There were only two lunar eclipses between 5 BC and 1 BC that were in the winter. These two choices are (Julian local time): Tuesday morning around 1:30 AM on 03/13/4BC and Thursday night around 7:00 PM on 03/23/5BC. With both choices, the only way to place those eclipses on Adar 15th is to NOT employ the alleged "Spring Passover Rule". When the alleged "Spring Passover Rule" is not used, it happens that both choices fall on Adar 15th . Whichever eclipse this event is referencing, it is clear that they were not using the alleged "Spring Passover Rule" circa 4 BC.

Historical Evidence From The double dated Elephantine Letters (printed as a separate document) demonstrate the same conclusion for the period 485 through 351 BC. All 21 cross dated letters between Jerusalem, Babylon, and Elephantine Egypt, do indeed reconcile using the same consistent calendar determination rules, in which the alleged "Spring Passover Rule" was never used.

Historical Evidence From The Reconstruction of the Babylonian Calendar (printed as a separate document) which is based upon discovered artifacts citing intercalated years, also demonstrates the same conclusion for the period 531 BC through 378 BC, in which the alleged "Spring Passover Rule" was never used.

Historical Evidence From Additional Astronomical Sightings:

"Ancient Planetary Observations And The Validity Of Ephemeris Time", by Robert R. Newton. Copyright 1976. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland 21218. ISBN 0-8018-1842-7. From pages 131 - 140, demonstrates the same conclusion for the period 568 through 76 BC. These astronomical sightings are listed because they address the issue of consistency over a very long time, demonstrating that they used the same intercalation rules for (at least) 500 years, and that the alleged "Spring Passover Rule" was never used.

??????????????????????????????????????

The mass of astronomical sightings demonstrates the use of a consistent set of rules for an observed calendar being used for at least 500 years. This data demonstrates that they did not use the alleged “Spring Passover Rule". The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of a consistent observed calendar.

Evidence Derived From Analysis of "Close Calls":

Following is a list of years between -517 and -377 in which the determination of the first or seventh months were very close to an equinox. Which years the ancient astronomers intercalated, within this time period, is collaborated by the well established work of "Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C. - A.D. 75 by Richard Parker and Waldo Dubberstein. Copyright 1956 by Brown University Press, Providence, Rhode Island. Library of Congress CCN 56-10735". Years in which the spring or autumn equinoxes were not close to a new crescent are not listed.

Note that all the data shows they used the exact same determination rules for at least 144 years. That they determined to intercalate a second twelfth month when the observed-spring equinox morning would fall on the third (or greater) day of the new month. They allowed Nisan to begin as long as the observed-spring equinox morning would fall on or before the second of the new month. (Actually they did not allow a winter beginning on purpose. We see a winter-beginning because we are using computers, but they had clouds, circumstances, and four-hours of calculation-error; which in some years caused them to “guess wrong”. Please read DateLine.doc, “Regarding allowing the crescent to be seen in winter”.)

Also note that the data shows that they allowed Tishri to begin as long as the observed-fall equinox morning would fall on or before the seventh of the month in question. If the equinox fell on the eighth day, they sometimes accepted and sometimes rejected the month. If it fell on the ninth or greater, they always rejected the month, and determined to intercalate a 2nd 6th month instead.

??????????????????????????????????

Note that there were only 30 years having a "close-call" over a span of (-517 through-377) 140 years, and that the alleged "Spring Passover Rule" was never used.

Conclusion:

The objective historical evidence consists of hundreds of astronomical data points covering the timeframe between 568 BC through 4 BC. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the official scribes, who recorded the events of history, never employed the alleged “Spring Passover Rule". The evidence demonstrates that the ancient astronomy scholars did not allow Nisan 2 to be in the winter, nor Tishri 10 to be in the summer. They would add a 2nd 12th month or a 2nd 6th month as was needed to keep these events in season. The objective historical evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of a consistent and simple set of rules for an observed calendar.