Answers Doubful Dispuation about Biblical Calendar by Wayne Atchison
Dear Festival Observer:
Some have expressed concern regarding the aspect of the calendar issue generating disunity among the brethren. Of greatest concern is the fear that some brethren will choose to keep the Holy Days one month later than others, and therefore groups will be split in attendance numbers for the Holy Days. A primary example would be the Sunriver Oregon feast site, in which some yet unknown number of brethren may decide to not attend the traditional Hillel II feast held in September, but rather will choose to observe the Observed Calendar of the Second Temple Era's feast one month later. Some view this as being divisive, and therefore view the Observed Calendar, which causes brethren to make a choice, as being “divisive”.
Following are specific topic-sections which combine to address these concerns. [Abbreviation: the Observed Calendar of the Second Temple Era (OCSTE) ]
The Astronomy Of Calendar Determination Is Not Explained In The Bible:
Many are bewildered by the fact that they base there lives on the authority of the Bible, but yet the Bible does not address the issue of how to determine the calendar. No where in the Bible do we have a verse: “Thus says YHWH, you shall determine My Calendar as follows”. The absence of being able to reference chapter and verse as the authority for which calendar to use leaves many brethren feeling perplexed. Without the authority of the Bible, how can the question ever be answered?
When we reach for a cookbook and read the directions for making a cake, we are not surprised that the cookbook is written with specific assumptions about the reader’s culinary skills and vocabulary? No cookbook can contain all information. Each cookbook must assume that the reader has acquired, or has access to, knowledge not contained within the cookbook. For example, specific aspects of temperatures, measures, methods, experience in do this and don’t do this, as well as sanitation habits, will be considered external knowledge by the cookbook’s author. If needed, the reader must acquire this external knowledge elsewhere.
Likewise we should not be upset when we discover that the Bible does not teach us about mathematics, geometry, the real length of the Egyptian cubit, chemistry, mechanics, or even the astronomy of calendar determination. These topics are external knowledge. The Bible assumes that the reader either already knows, does not need to know, or has the ability to find out, the external information.
It may be very hard for some brethren to admit, but the fact is that the astronomy of calendar determination is simply not written down in the Bible. It is external knowledge to the Bible.
Now what does it mean, the fact that the Bible is silent about the astronomy of the calendar it references. One, it could mean that the calendar rules were assumed to be common knowledge, everybody knew how to figure it out, so there was never any reason to explain it. Two, it could mean that the astronomy of calendar determination was known by others, that is, everybody knew that the calendar was determined by others, and so there was never any reason to explain it.
It is not an understatement to acknowledge that the historical evidence strongly supports the second alternative. Others, external to the Bible’s text, were responsible for learning astronomy. It was they who determined the calendar, and everybody knew that they did. The problem and the question we have before us today is to identify whom the “others” were. As history progressed away from the time of the Exodus, it is a certainty that many “others” became calendar authorities for their own sects and religions.
Once it is understood that the astronomy of calendar determination is external knowledge to the Bible, then it becomes our goal to look for secular artifacts and historical evidence to answer our modern calendar questions. For example, do we accept the history which allows our calendar authority to be Hillel ben Judah, or in contrast, do we accept the history which allows our calendar authority to be the Levitical priesthood of the Temples of YHWH in Jerusalem and in Elephantine?
Genesis 1:14 and the Observed Calendar of the Second Temple Era:
The OCSTE is a very simple calendar. In Genesis 1:14 YHWH created Mowadahs (Strongs #4150). Many debate the definition of the word “Mowadah”, but whatever may be its original definition, in Leviticus 23:2 YHWH specifies the calendar dates for each of His Mowadahs. In Genesis 1:14 it is the sun and the moon which are listed as the two entities by which time is measured, and the Mowadahs are established. Consider the simplicity of the OCSTE with the Genesis 1:14 criteria.
1.) Each month begins with the visible new crescent.
Some esteem the molad (the astronomical conjunction of the sun and moon as seen from the earth) to be the beginning of the lunar month. It may be argued back that the moon cannot be seen by the human eye at its molad. And if it cannot be seen, how can it then be “observed”? But this argument is unconvincing. The point is that it does not matter what we living today may argue, one way or the other. What matters is: “How did the official priesthood of YHWH determine the beginning of the months?”
In the presentation of the OCSTE, in the file Calnospo.rtf, are several tables of astronomical data. Each ancient sighting provides us with a mathematically fixed time in history, correlated to a month and day value specified in their own ancient calendar. Each observation demonstrates that they did not use the molad, but waited one to three days later, and used the new crescent as the rule for determining each lunar month.
2.) Each new year begins with the new moon crescent “of spring”.
But what does it mean to be “in spring”? Is it okay as long as the Passover is “in spring”, or is it that both the sun and the moon must be “in spring”? Again, it does not matter what we living today may argue, one way or the other. What matters is: “How did the official priesthood of YHWH determine the beginning of their years?”
In the presentation of the OCSTE, in the file Enc202o.rtf page 29, is a quote which fully and unambiguously answers this question. Here is this quote again: Eusebius, wrote of the mathematician Anatolius of Alexander's condemnation of the changed Jewish calendar saying: "Hense, also, those that place the first month (Abib) in it (the zodiacal sign before the equinox) and that fix the fourteenth of the month by it, commit, as we think, no little and no common blunder. But neither is this our opinion only, but it was also known to the Jews anciently, and before Messiah, and was chiefly observed by them, as we learn from Philo, Josephus, and Musaeus; and not only these, but also from those still more ancient, . . . "
Here the new calendar is being condemned because it allows Abib to begin prior to spring (while the sun is still in the winter zodiac sign). This quote unambiguously identifies and then strongly condemns the “Spring Passover Rule” that many calendars, such as the Hillel II Calendar, allow.
Notice that the mathematician condemns the “Spring Passover Rule” by citing a list of ancient calendar authorities. This quotation demonstrates that any calendar which allows the first month of the year to begin while the sun is still in winter is a change from the traditional calendar of the ancient authorities.
In contrast, in the presentation of the OCSTE, in the file Calnospo.rtf, are several long tables of astronomical sightings. The date of each sighting, spanning over 300 years of data, and without any exceptions whatsoever, all demonstrate that they began the years when the new crescent was “in spring”. Further, all data points demonstrate that not even once did they ever allow a month to be Abib just because its 14th would be “in spring”. They always, every single time, waited for the next new crescent to begin the year.
Thus, the simplicity of the OCSTE as it follows the directive of Genesis 1:14 is manifest. When the sun and moon both signal “spring”, the year begins.
I received this email:
“Hello, . . . I do have a specific question. The first one is concerning the timing of how to calculate the first month of the year. I have been told that it should be the new moon closest to the vernal equinox. That is the only explanation that I was given. What I want to know is who said that it was the one closest even if it is before? . . . Thank you,”
This email asks the right “first question”, it asks: “Who said so?”
Since the astronomy of calendar determination is external knowledge from the Bible, we cannot answer this question: “YHWH says so”. We can use the Bible for clues and for finding minimal criteria (like Genesis 1:14), but without the Bible we must admit that we are left with only human calendar authorities to choose from.
Once we make this admission, then we can proceed to search the long list of possible calendar system candidates to be our very own calendar authority we will choose to follow. It is a matter of fact that throughout history there have been (and still are) scores, if not hundreds, of different calendar variations used by the many sects of Judaism and Christianity. Remember, that each such calendar variation was somebody’s chosen authority. But without the Bible, what is the criteria by which we choose a calendar authority to follow? Asking this question a different way: “Which human calendar authority will be our answer to: ‘Who says so?’ ”
Consider that the man Hillel ben Judah, the author of the Hillel II Calendar, was a man forced by circumstances to create a calendar so that any village anywhere in the world could compute the Holy Days. Contrast this authority with the OCSTE, which was the calendar used by the Levitical priesthood of the Old Testament to determine the dates they would sacrifice and perform the ceremonies within the Temple of YHWH. This calendar was not forced by circumstances, but was the calendar of choice by Israel's priesthood.
Can there be any other human criteria more authoritative than the authority of the Bible’s priesthood and the Temple’s sacrificial ceremonies? Since the calendar dates given throughout the Bible are also correlated to the sacrificial ceremonies of the Temple, and since the Bible is the ultimate authority, then the calendar system used in the Bible by the priests in the Temple must be the higher and the preferred authority. If we can answer the question: "Who says so?" with the answer: "The official priesthood of ancient Israel", then why would we settle for any lessor authority?
Perhaps some of the hesitation in accepting the authority of the OCSTE is that some readers are not aware of the vast extant of lands and territory to which Israel had expanded. When we read of the “priesthood of Israel” some may limit their thoughts to mean “priests living in Jerusalem”. But the facts of archaeology demonstrate just the opposite. A priest of Israel could be a practicing priest anywhere, from Parthian India to Alexandria Egypt.
For example: In my calendar presentation, in the file “Elephant.rtf”, are presented double dated Elephantine letters. Some may not be aware that Elephantine is historically extremely significant. The significance of the Elephantine island in the Nile river is that Israel had another huge and fully functioning Temple of YHWH built on this island. In this Temple the Levitical priests of Israel proclaimed and held the Mowadahs during the time Solomon’s Temple was destroyed, and they held the Mowadahs in parallel with the Second Temple, until the time the Elephantine Temple was destroyed. As a matter of historical record, the demonstration that both Temples of YHWH used the exact same calendar is monumental in its significance.
Not Black, Not White, But Integrity:
Some have argued that because neither the OCSTE nor the Hillel II Calendar are found in the Bible, no one can judge which calendar observance would constitute "sin" or "not sin". Since it is not a matter of Biblically defined "sin", it does not matter which calendar system is used.
They continue this progression in thought to suggest that unity is more important than being technically correct. Those which would choose the OCSTE, or the Karaite Calendar, should consider the fact that the majority of people do not, and should therefore decide to go along with the majority and keep the Hillel II Calendar instead, for the sake of unity.
Even so, most of those who argue this point will concede that their argument breaks down for issues like the Sabbath and sexual morality. They will agree that a follower of the Messiah should not go along with the majority for the sake of unity for issues that clearly involve Biblically defined "sin". For example, it is agreed that to not keep the Sabbath as the Sabbath on the Sabbath would be "sin". Therefore, just because billions of other people keep Sunday does not mean that we should keep Sunday, even for the sake of unity. It is agreed that unity is not the overriding factor when it comes to issues of "sin".
But how do we, as followers of the Messiah, make decisions and judgements on matters which are not clearly discussed in the Bible? For example, "smoking". Tobacco smoking is not a subject found in the Bible, but yet many consider "smoking" to be a "sin". Why? Who says so? Point is that however you answer, you are forced to decide upon a topic not covered in the Bible. Either way, you are making a judgment without having any clear chapter and verse. Likewise with any other subject that is not directly found in the Bible.
Those who make the argument that the minority should yield to the majority on matters not discussed in the Bible, may consider that they would be compelled to start "smoking" if it happened to be that the majority in church were "smokers". You may dismiss this argument as being contrived until you re-experience second hand smoke from a room full of smokers during church services. Point is that there are non-Biblical subjects and situations when the minority should not yield to the majority even for the sake of unity.
Consider the following story:
A married man and women are both followers of the Messiah. All of their lives they enjoyed eating tuna fish, and even though they both follow the rules for clean and unclean meats, they never even once seriously considered that tuna fish may not be a clean fish to eat.
One day the man reads some material and becomes convinced that tuna fish does not fully meet the Biblical criteria for being a clean fish. He becomes convinced that the preferred stance on tuna fish should be that it is unclean. He then decides that from that day forward he will no longer eat tuna fish.
Now, stop right here in the story and ask: "Why does a follower of the Messiah ever decide to stop doing something, and opt for doing something else?" Let us stipulate that this man was a very good and righteous follower prior to the tuna fish issue. Why then does he even bother to try to implement "something else" in his lifestyle?
We know the answer to this. It is more than trying to avoid "sin". It is more than trying to be "more perfect". It is more than "our conscience". It is a matter of "self integrity". Once we become convinced to do or to not do something, it is a matter of our own integrity that we carry out our own convictions. It is part of our character development that we can be trusted to follow our own understanding and convictions.
Which of us would fully trust the man who was convinced that something was "wrong", but went ahead and practiced it anyway? Which of us would fully trust the man who was convinced that something was "right", but went ahead and did something else anyway?
We can perceive "right" and "wrong" when they are "black and white". But can we perceive "right" and "wrong" when they are matters of integrity, when they are "preferred versus discarded" choices?
Back to the story. The man shows his wife the same material. She reads and understands the material, but does not agree with her husband's conclusion. She says: "Technically they may have only microscopic scales on only part of their body, but also technically they still have some scales somewhere on their body, so therefore they are clean fish. The wife then decides that she will continue to eat tuna fish.
Now, stop here in the story and ask: "Is either the man or the woman somehow "wrong" in their choices?" They have each chosen opposite paths, at least as far as the tuna fish path. The author contends that both are "right", even though they have chosen opposite paths. Each are acting in accordance with their own integrity. Both have, with all honesty, understood the tuna fish issue and made choices which allow their conscience to not be violated.
Back to the story. One day an argument ensues between the man and woman because dinner was prepared in which the only thing to eat was a tuna fish salad. The man argues that his convictions should have been addressed, and that an alternative to eating tuna fish should have been provided. The woman argues back that two meals would be too expensive, that the man should be more conciliatory, and for the sake of unity just eat the tuna fish like she does.
Now, at this point in the story we have the man faced with the same situation as are those who prefer to keep the OCSTE. They are convinced that one course of action is their preferred choice, but are challenged that for the sake of keeping unity they should just do what everyone else is doing.
The author argues that this situation distills down to being a matter of trust. Which of us would ever completely trust the man in this story, trusting him to always do the right thing, if he gave into the situation and ate the tuna fish? It is not a question of "right" and "wrong" as in "black and white". It is not even a question of "sin". It is a question of integrity and trust. If the man is truly convinced that tuna fish is unclean, than that man should not eat it.
Most readers can relate to having conscience pangs, even calling it sin, if they compromise and eat what they believe they should not eat. But how is it that this analogy is the same as a preferred choice regarding the calendar? Is the calendar now equal to sin? The answer is not “sin”, the answer is “in the mind’s eye”.
We are talking about a preferred choice, a choice not directly found in the Bible, but still a choice none the less. At some point in time, in the man’s own mind, he begins to feel that he cannot compromise or go back on that choice. This is not a judgement of “sin” against the woman of the story, but it is a judgement of trust and integrity for the man of the story.
If you do not like the story about tuna fish, then imagine a similar story about chocolate versus strawberry ice cream. Its still the same point. If, in the mind of the man, he is fully convinced that his personal preferred choice is to not eat chocolate ice cream, then the woman of the story is “wrong” in asking him to violate his own conscience.
This analogy does not apply to the person who is not fully convinced to keep the OCSTE. Not being fully convinced, they can decide to keep it or not to keep it and feel no serious pangs of conscience. However, the point of the story, is that for those people who are fully convinced to keep the OCSTE, that to ask them to go back and to keep something else anyway, even for the sake of unity, is the same as asking them to eat the unclean. At some point in time, in the mind of the man of the story, and in the mind of the man who is fully convinced to keep the OCSTE, the pangs of conscience are too serious to violate.
Also, further consider that the man of this story must decide to not be conciliatory. He must decide to break unity. He must decide to do what he is convinced is the right thing to do, even while everyone else may decide otherwise. If he does, at least this man can be trusted to always do what he is convinced he should do.
But consider the harsh and damming accusations that will be made against this man when he does decide to follow his own convictions. It will be said that he is causing disunity. He is spreading discord. He is being defiant to authority. He is a bad follower of the Messiah. Whether you consider these accusations true or untrue depends upon your point of view. Are you the one wanting him to go ahead and just eat the tuna fish, or are you the one convinced to not eat the tuna fish.
In contrast, it must be pointed out that the woman in this story should be reprimanded for being so self absorbed that she would ask another follower to break their conscience and trust worthiness just to follow her. After all, this is really the bottom line? Who will the man in this story follow? His wife, the group, or his own integrity?
Why use the term “self-absorbed” to describe the woman’s position? Just ponder who she is really concerned about?
Those who are truly convinced that the OCSTE is the preferred calendar, really have no other alternative than to follow their own convictions. Others who do not agree need to look beyond themselves, and be concerned for the eternal value of those who choose differently. Those who disagree should at least allow the OCSTE followers to demonstrate their own self integrity and trust worthiness, and to do so without the damming accusations.
Dishonest Criticism:
Some have criticized the OCSTE because its rules cannot be directly found in the Bible. If chapter and verse are the sole criteria for judging the validity of a calendar system, then it is only fair to apply the same criteria to the Hillel II calendar they are following. For example, where are the postponement rules of the Hillel II calendar found in the Bible? Where does the Bible say that the Hillel II Calendar can slowly slip away from being in synchronization with the seasons? If the acceptance criteria you set up forces you to discard one calendar system, then it is only honest that you discard the other calendar systems which also cannot meet your criteria. It is being dishonest to discard the OCSTE for not meeting an arbitrary set of acceptance criteria, but then to also not discard the Hillel II Calendar which also does not meet this same set of criteria.
It is understood that the following assertion is very hard for many to accept, but at some point the following assertion must be stated and then addressed.
Consider what is actually being accomplished by insisting that the sole criteria for accepting or discarding a proposed calendar system is that the proposed calendar system's rules must be found somewhere in the Bible. By insisting on this, what is really being done is to force the acceptance criteria to remain open to human interpretation. And, here is the hard part, by forcing it to be open to human interpretation, anyone can claim to be a calendar expert. This may sound harsh, but ponder this for awhile and you will understand that it is the blunt truth.
Those who can keep the objective historical evidence (like hundreds of years of astronomical sightings, historical references, and double dated letters) away from being allowed as the acceptance criteria, and can keep the Bible as the only acceptance criteria, can then retain their own calendar expert status, as one man's interpretation sounds just as good as the next man's interpretation. This then keeps the calendar debates going on endlessly.
It is a matter of fact that when one person cites chapter and verse, for example proclaiming that the barley harvest must be a criteria for the calendar, that numerous other people will immediately jump up in disagreement about the interpretation or the application of that scripture. In contrast, objective historical evidence cannot be argued, as it exists and is real data. Objective historical evidence can only be evaluated.
From this point of view it is possible that for this very reason YHWH decided that the astronomy of calendar determination must be external knowledge from the Bible. For if YHWH taught us astronomy in the Bible, we humans would then interpret and apply those versus into thousands of calendar sects. At least by having the astronomy of calendar determination external from the Bible, we today have only a few truly authoritative choices to consider.
Looking In A Mirror:
For those who argue for unity in sacrifice of integrity, consider turning the situation around. What if almost everyone started to use the OCSTE, and you were one of the few "hold-outs". Would you like it if we insisted that you were a bad person because you would not just go along with everyone else and keep the feast a month later this year?
Also, use the above mirror-perspective to better evaluate in your own mind how much of your decision to stay with the Hillel II Calendar is merely a matter of "resistance to change", more than it is a matter of truly disagreeing with it.
Also, please re-read Romans 14:1-12 from within the context of the calendar issue. Ii is not suggested that these versus were written with the calendar as the context, but they still provide us with a very valuable perspective on how to handle diversity.
Whichever calendar system you decide to follow, it is important that you demonstrate integrity, and follow your own convictions.
In Service To The Brethren,
Wayne L. Atchison,
An Elder in the Body of the Messiah