Sermon Tone Analysis

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.