Sermon Tone Analysis

Question: Should we observe the visual new moon crescent: as observed locally, or as it is seen from Jerusalem, which?

Analysis: This is not a simple question.

It is not really a question about the rules of the calendar, but about the administration of applying the rules over a full 360 degree earth.

I will attempt to break it out logically.

There are two basic approaches: 1) is to “Use An International Date Line Approach”, and 2) is to “Keep It As You Observe It Approach”.

A.) Use An International Date Line Approach: Here are the steps in logic:

1.) My location in Bend Oregon is 121.30

degrees west, and Jerusalem is about 35.22 east.

This nets about 156.52 degrees separation from Jerusalem.

Half around the globe would be 180 degrees from Jerusalem, or at about longitude 144.78 degrees west.

Thus, my local is about 23.5 degrees short of being half way around the earth from Jerusalem.

2.) It takes about 12 hours for the earth to rotate half way around.

This is 15 degrees every hour.

So 156.52 degrees means that my sunsets are about (156.52 ~/ 15) 10.43 hours after Jerusalem's sunsets.

3.) Since I am about 10.43 (from now on I will use 11) hours after Jerusalem, the moon has around 11 hours of time to grow in its new crescent visibility by the time I try to see it in Bend.

4.) This means that if Jerusalem observers can see the crescent, then I certainly can see it.

5.) This means that if Jerusalem observers cannot see the crescent, then 11 hours later I may possibly be able to see it.

Now, what if the Jerusalem observers do not see the crescent, but I do?

Do they accept my report, or do I ignore my own sighting and wait 24 hours, letting the Jerusalem observers finally see it first?

6.) Before the above questions can be answered, this question must be answered first: “How far west of Jerusalem do they allow observers to see the new crescent, so that the observers in Jerusalem will also accept their sightings as being valid for themselves?”

7.) Look at this question from the reverse direction.

If you were standing 1 mile east of Jerusalem, and did not see the crescent, but the observers 1 mile west of you did see it, would you (just 1 mile away) have to wait 23.9999 hours before you kept the new moon?

8.) One needs to keep in mind that sighting a new crescent is in itself a "lucky" event.

The "luck" comes in the form of "no clouds", "no haze or dust", "no humidity", "not too windy", "the moon was bright enough", and "the moon was above the horizon long enough for it to get dark enough".

This is to say that it is easy for one person to spot the new crescent while the people "right over the hill" do not.

In practice we must all be willing to accept the sighting of another person as if it were our own.

9.) Therefore it is reasonable that observers 1 mile east of Jerusalem should be willing to accept a sighting from someone 1 mile west of themselves.

The same would hold true for the observers in Jerusalem.

In fact, the Jerusalem synod would allow witnesses to come and give testimony of the new crescent 18 hours later, all the way up to 12 noon the next day.

The main point is that sightings from western observers were considered valid.

10.)

But how far west of themselves are the observers in Jerusalem willing to accept?

How about 100 miles?

How about ¼ the way around the earth?

How about ½ the way around the earth?

Half way around the earth would effectively establish an International Date Line in the Pacific Ocean beyond the Oregon coast but before Hawaii.

11.) Now half way means that the Jerusalem observers will accept a westerner's sighting 12 hours later, all the way up until the next morning their time.

Since we have telephones and the Internet, we can assume instant communication of valid sightings.

This means that the Jerusalem observers will not know until morning if the day is a new moon day or not.

They may have up to 12 hours of uncertainty.

[Note that some may suggest that the International Date Line be at Jerusalem.

In this approach a new crescent is observed over Jerusalem, and then instantaneously the whole earth is informed of the new month.

Notice that this approach has exactly the same uncertainty of 12 hours, just that it effects those ½ day east of Jerusalem.

That is, those east of Jerusalem are already into their night, but they will not know if it’s a new month night until it is Jerusalem’s turn at trying to see the new crescent.

Thus, it does not matter where you place the International Date Line, ½ of the earth will have the 12 hours of uncertainty problem.

Also, as an additional problem with setting Jerusalem as the International Date Line: if Jerusalem does not see the crescent, then everyone west of it must wait.

This means that those west may actually see the new crescent in their sky, but be prevented from observing it for 24 hours, waiting for Jerusalem to see it first.

That is, observers west of Jerusalem may see the crescent in their sky, but cannot count it for another 24 hours.

Thus, ½ of the earth is not allowed to observe their own new crescent, and the other half has 12 hours of uncertainty.

Most agree that placing the International Date Line at Jerusalem is a very poor administration.]

12.)

But what about the observers that live 1 mile on the far side of "half way around the earth"?

If no westerner's saw the crescent, do they still have to wait a full 24 hours before they keep the new moon, even though they saw it in their sky?

13.)

Most agree that ignoring the crescent seen over your own sky, and having to wait another 24 hours to observe the new moon, when Jerusalem is going to see it in just a few hours or minutes, is a poor administration.

The solution to #12 is that those observers beyond the International Date Line need to observe the new moon as they see it.

For example, those in China or Babylon would observe it as they see it, knowing that Jerusalem will do the same just a few hours later.

14.) Thus, with this approach we have three main administrative problems:

½ of the earth west of Jerusalem is waiting up to 12 hours in uncertainty,

or

½ of the earth west of Jerusalem must wait up to 24 hours because Jerusalem did not see it first,

and

½ of the earth east of Jerusalem are to keep the new moon as they observe it, knowing Jerusalem will see it in a few hours.

15.)

The advantage to this approach is that the whole earth is synchronized to keeping the new moon on the same Gregorian calendar day as Jerusalem.

Only a few people really find this advantage to be a serious consideration.

The ancient calendar has nothing to do with the modern Gregorian calendar.

16.)

The only positive reason for choosing this administrative approach is that the focus of the whole earth is centered on Jerusalem.

This focus sounds Biblical, until you consider that everyone living prior to our modern computers and telephones could not have been able to keep this calendar, as they had no way to know what the folks in Jerusalem could or could not see.

Only in our modern times is this administrative approach a consideration.

B.) Keep It As You Observe It Approach: Note that this is also the same approach that ½ of the earth must use anyway to implement the International Dateline Approach.

Here are the steps in logic:

17.) Just as with the Sabbath, sunset occurs and the next day begins.

So also each observer keeps the new month as it comes to them.

When they see the new crescent, they start the new month.

18.) Individuals and groups will also accept other observer’s sightings.

Since we have telephones and the Internet, we can assume instant communication of validated sightings.

This acceptance has two directions: accepting sightings east of yourself, and accepting sightings west of yourself.

These will be addressed starting with #22 below.

19.)

Thus, with this approach the new month begins starting at some “first observers' " longitude on the earth.

Those west of the “first observers" know that it is the new moon night, while those more than 10 degrees east of the “first observers" know that their region could not see it yet.

If you cannot see it, then there is nothing to celebrate until the next night anyway.

20.)

The advantages to this approach is that it is very simple, has a historical basis in that it is the same method as Sabbath observance, and there is no delay in knowing if the new month has started.

21.)

One disadvantage to this approach is that some observers may decide to accept a sighting, while other observers “next door” decide to wait a day.

This looseness goes against the idea that God’s Holy Days must be on a specific day for everyone, or else.

A similar disadvantage is that some larger Church groups may not want to have the Holy Days scheduled on different Gregorian calendar dates.

For example, Denver on one date and New York (who did not see the crescent yet) waiting to the next day.

One solution is to allow any sighting on the west coast of California or Oregon to be acceptable for the whole group in the United States, so both New York and Denver are scheduled on the same Gregorian date.

One of the biggest objections to this approach is that the whole earth is not synchronized to keeping the new moon as it is proclaimed as sanctified in Jerusalem.

22.) Accepting sightings east of yourself: If the crescent is sighted east of yourself, then that means that you have even a better chance to see it then did they.

The eastern observer saw the crescent first, more time elapses while the earth spins to your more western longitude, the moon grows even brighter, and then you can see it.

Therefore sightings by an observer at a specified longitude are accepted by all others at or after (west of) that observer’s longitude.

For example, if observers in Denver see the crescent, then everyone west of Denver would accept the sightings too.

23.) Accepting sightings west of yourself: As explained in #8 above, it is only practical that each of us accept a sighting from a more western observer.

The question posed is: “How far west of yourself do you allow observers to see the new crescent, so that you will also accept their sightings as being valid for yourself?”

This is the same question as posed in #6 above with the International Date Line Approach.

The answer in that approach is 12 hours.

But can we establish an authoritative basis for an answer?

24.)

The first question to ask is one of motives: “Am I waiting for another observer because it was cloudy and I just could not verify the crescent, or, do I know that there was really no way I could have seen the crescent, but I am still waiting because I want to keep the same day as those who are west of me?”

This question of motives is very important, but it does not matter how we would answer.

What matters is how the astronomy scholars of the Second Temple Era would have answered.

Our logic should be based upon the authority of their calendar (not ours).

25.)

It can be argued that the observed calendar of the Second Temple Era, by allowing witnesses all the way until noon the next day, 18 hours later, demonstrates that they not only were willing to accept 18 hours of uncertainty, but also suggests that they would accept a western sighting even though they knew it was improbable for the crescent to be seen over Jerusalem.

26.) Okay, lets analyze this.