Thanks Rosangela. The Midnight Cry quote is good evidence that the Millerites indeed used Karaite reckoning.

But the method itself is questionable at best for the reasons I've given above. I will say again that there is no doubt in my mind that the Millerites arrived at the right date, but the fact that they did not have the right date on two earlier occassions should put us on notice that they were prone to error like all of us, and should underscore for us the real possiblity that although the date is right, that may be inspite of the incorrect method used to reach it.

I'll continue soon with the evidence of how the Astronomical Book is a good fit with scripture.

Mark,

The people of Israel had to observe the barley harvests in order to have ripe barley for the wave sheaf at Passover. Were they incorrect?

The barley offering was only one of several offerings that were prescribed. For example, if the olive harvest failed for several years in a row as it did in Elijah's day, it may have been physically impossible to do replenish the oil for the lamps, to mix oil with the grain offering, to anoint the new priests and rulers etc. That does not pose a serious challenge to the integrety of the sacrificial system if the calendar itself remains intact. But if we insist that the New Year was calculated according to something that occasionally failed, i.e., the barley harvest, the entire system come to a halt in the years there is no harvest. Do you think that is what scripture and God intended?

Your question assumes that the Isrealites based their year on this harvest - something that the evidence does not support in my view - for the above reason and for the others I've given.

In my list of rules above, Rule 4 of the Astronomical Book divides the lunar year into two halves. The purpose of dividing the lunar year appears to be to allow for intercalated lunar months in both the spring and fall rather than only in the spring which is how the modern Jewish calendar is kept in sync with the seasons.

The modern Jewish calendar, like the calendar of the Astronomical Book places the beginning of the year in the spring close to the equinox. But, the Jewish calendar also emphasizes a separate fall-to-fall cycle: The modern Jews calculate the religious year from spring to spring, but their civil year runs from fall to fall.

In contrast, the Astronomical Book has only one starting point, but it, as I mentioned above, appears to make provision for an intercalation of an extra month in either the spring or the fall. Perhaps the modern Jewish custom of dividing the year into civil and religious cycles is a corruption of this provision and/or a corruption of the provision in the Astronomical Book for both a lunar and a solar set of months.

Regarding 1844, here is how the calendar of the Astronomical Book appears to work:

In 1844, March 17 was the first day that the days began to be longer than nights, so under Rule 1, this was the first day of the solar New Year. The first visible new moon probably (see above posts regarding probabilities for new moon sightings) occurred on March 20 and so, under Rule 5 this was the start of the lunar half year. Six lunar months after that date takes us to the new moon of September 13. If this date was after the days began to be shorter than night, no intercalated lunar month would be added. But because the days did not become shorted than the nights until Friday Sept 27 an extra month would be added so that the first new moon of the second half lunar year was Oct 12. The Day of Atonement arrived ten days later from that date. So here is another fit with scripture.

Regarding the crucifixion in 31 AD the calendar from the Astronomical Book works like this:

In 31 AD the first day that was longer than night occurred on March 18, so under Rule 1, this was the first day of the solar New Year. The first visible new moon probably (see above posts regarding probabilities for new moon sightings) occurred on April 10 and so, under Rule 5 this was the start of the lunar half year. Therefore April 24, a Thursday, was the evening of the Passover. Unlike the modern Jewish calendar, this reckoning fits with the gospel accounts that Christ ate the Passover with his disciples on a Thursday.

Hi Mark: I was only reflecting that I'd be interested in what you were studying. I do not have the information on the Jublees and 1844 beyond hearing that it is out there.

The focus on my point was that you are trying to find evidence to support the Thursday night passover, however the Thursday night last supper is only a late development tradition in Church history, only a few centuries old. The early Christian tradition had the last supper on Tuesday night, and current Biblical scholarship is saying that the evidence supports the early tradition and not the latter developed traditon, and wanted to share this with you to be aware of as you study. It gives a harmony between the synoptics and John, with Jesus cellebrating the Essene Passover on Tuesday night, being arrested early Wednesday, having a hearing and spending the required day in prision in the basement of Caiphas's house, taken back out on Thursday for the trials, thursday night beaten by the Roman soldiers, and Friday morning, the day of the Temple passover.

The Synoptic Gospels have the last supper as a passover meal, John does not, John has Jesus death as the ultamate passover meal.

But either way, the current studies do not support the latter tradtion that we read into the text of a Thursday night Last Supper, but supports the earlier tradition of a Tuesday night Last Supper. The Bible does NOT say that the Last Supper was on Thursday night! They do not give a time line but only discussed the supper, what Jesus was going through in the garden, and the trials and that Jesus was on the cross Friday morning. We impose our own timelines into the text. The early centuries of the Christian church had it streaching from Thursday to Friday. It was only later centuries that developed and started to assuming that the text had the Passover was Thursday night and that Jesus went through these trials, time in prision, and beating all within about 8 hours. But Tradition does become very strong and blinds our vision. We need to constantly keep our guard up that we are studing what the scriptures actually say and does not say. The Thursday night last supper was an assumption that developed and was read back into the text in recent centuries.

The Thursday night Last Supper is simply tradition, a late developed tradition which the early Christians did not have, and which modern COSERVATIVE Biblical scholarship and Archaeological studies have become much more open that the earlier Christians had the correct timeline. For further study may I recommend James Flemings "The Last Supper and Crucifiction as Passover" as well as others of his studies on the Crucufiction, including some of his note books which have extensive resources for further studies. You can find their website put in Jim Fleming and Biblical Resources in your search window. Dr. Fleming is the founder and director of Biblical Resources, the Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies, and a professor of archaeology and Biblical studies at Hebrew University in Jersualem Israel.

I hope you find this useful.

Hi Kevin:

I'm familiar with that postion. I have looked into it before now, but I agree with Rosangela that the SOP and scripture support the Thursday night Passover. One of the best authorities on that point is Alfred Edersheim, a 19th century converted Jew and scholar whom Ellen White seems to have drawn material from. In his book The Temple, Its Ministry and Services, he devotes several pages in an appendix to that issue. Edersheim is especially credible because of his vast knowledge of Jewish customs. The only weakness I've seen in his research in general is that he places too much reliance on the accuracy of the Mishnah as a primary source of information on the practises of the Jews before the dispersion. The Mishnah is at best a secondary source but there are not many other sources. Even the DSS's do not provide as much information as scholars had hoped.

Another reason you may like to read him is that he is of the opinion that John the beloved was from the priestly line. In his book you'll see why he thinks that and I have to say, he makes a good case. There are a number of details in John's gospel that point to a more in-depth understanding of the sacrificial system and the temple services. I can't remember for sure but I think some of them relate directly to the Lord's Supper, and while John may not use the term passover, I seem to recall that Edersheim finds more evidence of the Passover in John's account than in the other gospels.