At page 146 (electronic version) of ‘Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, Prof VanderKam makes the following statement about the work of another scholar in the late 1959’s, J.T. Milik’s ‘Ten Years of Discovery in the Judean Wilderness. In Milik’s work, VanderKam states:

quote:

---

He [Milik] adds the somewhat unexpected detail that some Qumran calendrical works correlated three entities: the 364-day system, the twenty four priestly mishmarot, and a lunar calendar. Emphasis in the original.

---

Further on, at page 150 (electronic version), VanderKam quotes Milik directly:

quote:

---

. . .In one of the synchonistic tables, [found at Qumran] in addition to the correspondence between the day of their solar calendar and the first day of their lunar month, they also note the day of their solar month on which the new moon falls . . .

---

What Milik is saying is that not only did the Qumran religious leaders cross-reference the first day of the lunar month with the corresponding date on their solar calendar, they also cross-referenced the new moon conjunction with their solar date. Why? The former cross-referencing appears to be for the reason I suggested above – so that they could celebrated the Biblical new moon feasts. The likely reason for cross-referencing the conjunctions appears to be to assist in their intercalation calculations that kept the lunar part of their calendar accurate in the same way that noting the times of the equinox and solstice would be necessary to keep the solar half of their calendar accurate.

I indicated above that although applying the AB solar calendar to the spring feast of 31AD harmonizes the requirement in Lev 23 that the sheaf must be waved on the ‘morrow after the Sabbath’ with Ellen White’s statement that the sheaf was waved on the second day of Passover week, applying the AB solar calendar to the Day of Atonement in 1844 does not seem to work. But today as I was reading VanderKam’s book, at page 158 (e-version) I came across this statement from a manuscript found in cave 11 of Qumran called the Psalms scroll. It says:

quote:

---

And he [King David] wrote psalms: three thousand six hundred; and songs to be sung before the altar over the perpetual offering for every day of the year: three hundred and sixty four; and songs to be sung for the Sabbath offering: fifty two songs; and for the offering at the beginning of the month, and for all the days of the festivals and for the Day of Atonement: thirty songs.

---

At Qumran there are two kinds of manuscripts – those that accurately transcribe the canonical books of scripture and extra-canonical literature. The above manuscript is extra-canonical, so we have to be very careful before accepting it as accurate, but it is a fascinating passage for several reasons: It not only states that King David followed a 364 day calendar, it also categorizes the new month ritual separately from the other holidays in the same way that the scripture I cited above distinguishes the ‘new moons’ from the 'set feasts’.

Interestingly, the breakdown is more specific here than in scripture. Whereas in the 11 passages I cited above we only have the distinction between ‘new moons’ and ‘set feasts’, here we have 30 songs/days to work with - twelve songs for the monthly offerings and one for the Day of Atonement which leaves 17 for the feast days. This number matches Lev 23 where we see that we have the 1 day for Passover, + 7 days of Unleavened Bread + 1 for Pentecost + 8 for the Feast of Tabernacles = 17. What struck me about the passage though is that the Day of Atonement is not classed with the other 17 days, suggesting that unlike the rest of the ‘fixed’ or ‘set’ feast days that use the solar half of the AB calendar, the Day of Atonement was, like the New Moon feasts, linked to the lunar month. If that is the case, that would solve the problem of reconciling Oct 22 to the AB calendar. I’ll look at this more closely as well. I’ll just sign off here by saying that my initial feeling is that there is a good ‘fit’ with the types because the moon is a symbol of regeneration as occurs on the Day of Atonement, the Day of Atonement is announced on the lunar new moon at the Feast of Trumpets and for other reasons.

Rosangela, I think I have come across a breakthrough that confirms the 364 day year directly from Genesis. Earlier in the thread I pointed out, as others have, that the pre-flood calendar used 30 day months. It does this by giving the time-line for a consecutive 150 day/5 month period. But today, for the first time, I noticed that there is not one, but two 150 day periods. The first period is in verse 7:24 which is the time that the rain began to fall until the water reached its high point. We’re told that this period ran from the 17th of the second month to the 17th of the seventh in verse 8:4.

The second period is in verse 8:3 which tells us that it took another 150 day period for the water to recede. This period is defined in verses 5 and 14 as running from the 1st of the 10th month to the 27th of the second month of the following year.

quote:

---

….
8:3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. . . .
8:5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth [month], on the first [day] of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.
8:14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.

---

Here is how the numbers add up: Three months of 30 days remain in the year from the 1st of the tenth month to the 30th of the twelfth month = 90 days. The AB calendar then adds the four intercalated days: 90 + 4 = 94. Then add from the first day of the first month of the new year to 26th* of the second month: 30 +26 = 56. Add the two together and we have 56 + 94 = 150. In other words if our starting and ending days for this period are correct, and the months have 30 days, the year must have 364 days.

*Why we must end the receding period on the 26th of the second month rather than the 27th is that verse 14 says the ground was dry on the 27, meaning that the water had stopped receding by the end of the 26th.

I’ll see if I can find two or more reputable, learned Hebrew authorities to see if my interpretation of the text is reasonable. As the scripture says, the truth should be established on the testimony of two reliable witnesses. In the mean time, please share this with Juarez. I’d really like his input at this point, if at all possible, and, I’d like yours.

Since starting this thread, my understanding of the AB calendar is basically the same but my view of how it is intercalated and how the Hebrew feasts fit into it, including the crucifixion and October 22, 1844, has evolved somewhat so I’ll give a brief summary of what my current positions are:

The AB calendar combines three years, the lunar year of 354 days, the solar year of 364 days and the ‘base’ year of 360 days. It provides for an eight-year cycle between intercalations and, during the 8 year cycle, requires an extra lunar month of 30 days to be added to the lunar year at the end of years 3, 5 and 8.

The lunar intercalation system I suggest at the end of year eight is a likely candidate for how the lunar aspect was kept in sync with the observed new moon. However I’ve modified my suggestion on the solar intercalation; rather than adding a third and fourth week on certain eight year cycles, the more likely method would have been to intercalate no more than two weeks on any given year, so that the new year begins within a week of the equinox.

Regarding the crucifixion, this calendar allows it in a more likely, that is, earlier, part of the spring than what we are forced to accept if Karaite reckoning is used – April 27. And, it would agree with Ellen White’s two statements that, to date, no Adventist scholars have been able to reconcile with Karaite reckoning. The statements I’m referring to are 1) that the “time of the Passover corresponded to the close of March or the beginning of April” DA. 76 and 2) that the sheaf was waved on the second day of Unleavened Bread.

These two statements have proven to be incompatible with the Karaite calendar, but Adventists in general still follow that reckoning and some SDA theologians are prepared to say Ellen White is wrong on the above statements. Who are we going to go with? If the evidence did not support her, I would say ‘maybe she is wrong on these points’, but the evidence that we lacked before is now available from Scripture and Qumran and other sources to confirm and harmonize her statements. True, it means discarding Karaite reckoning, but it also means adopting a calendar that harmonizes with Scripture.

I've stated the main evidence against Karaite reckoning: the Flood narrative and the account of the Exodus. Both events, written by Moses, show that there was a calendar in existence both before the flood and afterwards. To think that a man of Moses intellect would not see the potential for confusion in basing the flood account on one calendar and basing the history of the exodus and the sacrificial system on another is not easy to entertain. It is much more probable that Moses knew this and made no qualifying statement regarding the flood account because the calendar at the flood and the calendar at the exodus were the same.

But, Rosangela, let me ask you and Juarez something: You have done research on the supposed inconsistency or tension in her statement on the wave sheaf being presented on the second day. You found that an Adventist conference leader had written to her and pointed out the supposed tension and you quoted her reply through her secretary. Ellen White sent back the message that she was instructed to write certain things, and that her work could not possibly include interpreting the large volume of her writing. Her advice to the man who asked her to explain the passage was that he should study it out to find the underlying harmony.

I’ve asked you and Juarez to have a second look and I have not heard from you, but now I am pointing out that Ellen White advises you and Juarez to do the same, but not only that, she gives this advice in the context of this very statement that you claim is wrong. I hope you will follow her counsel. Providence has its reasons for her advising this pastor to restudy this very issue.

From page 77 of Juarez’ book

quote:

---

[Elder R.] Munson wrote to Ellen White about this seeming contradiction, and her secretary
gave the following reply:

When these questions come before Sister White, she often says that the Lord hasgiven her the work of writing what she has written, but not of trying to explain every seemingly difficult passage. If she were to take up the burden of harmonizing seemingly contradictory passages, she would not have time to do her regularly appointedwork of writing out the words of instruction and admonition that she does write for the Church. She therefore appeals to her brethren to search the Scriptures, and to compare her writings with the Scriptures, and with other portions of her own writings,and thus seek to discover, if possible, the harmony that exists. You will readily understand the reason why she could not enter into all the queries that come to her; and your good judgment will tell you that it is well for us who study her writings, to seek to understand them in the light of other portions of her writings, and by the aidof the daily study of the Scriptures.

Letter of C. C. Crisler, secretary of Ellen G. White, to Elder R. W. Munson of the Australasian Union Conference, November 27, 1908.

---

Notice in the above quote – the ‘harmony that exists’. This suggests that she is quite confident of her statement regarding the wave sheaf.

The AB calendar does not resolve the issue of Thursday vs. a Friday Passover. I’m retracting my suggestion above that the Passover could have been set by the lunar part of the AB calendar, because it seems clear that the Passover is one of the ‘set feasts’ that is embedded in the solar rather than lunar months of the calendar. The other suggestion I made seems to be the more likely one – that under some authority such as the lost instructions by King David for the temple ritual, or the precedent set by Solomon at the dedication of the temple, the Passover lambs, because of their large numbers, could be offered and eaten on the day before the Passover. In the Mosaic law, this sacrifice, unlike certain other offerings, could only be eaten on the day it was offered at the temple, which meant that if the Passover lamb was slain one day earlier, it also had to be eaten on that day. Numbers 9:12.

At this point, it is not necessary to locate the exact date of the crucifixion in 31 AD using the AB calendar because unlike with Karaite and Rabbinical reckoning where there are only two or three possible dates, under the AB calendar there is a two week range relative to the Julian calendar of when the Passover may have been kept. Of course the ‘range’ is relative - on the AB calendar, the feasts were ‘set’ and did not vary.

If someone was to try to find the exact Crucifixion date using this calendar, that will probably involve establishing the intercalation system with more certainly and then synchronizing the eight-year cycle with the known Sabbatical and Jubilee (J&S) cycles.

Regarding October 22, 1844, I mentioned that the Day of Atonement was announced on the first day of the seventh month, and that the connection to the lunar month is supported in the Psalm scroll from Qumran. The lunar part of the AB calendar could agree with Karaite reckoning in about 2 or 3 years of the eight year cycle, but because of the AB’s two day drift during the cycle, it would be ‘off’ by a day for the other years. This means that October 22, 1844 is a very possible date on the AB calendar, and given that we know it is correct, that date could be used to help in synchronizing the calendar with the sabbatical cycle.

Daryl and Rosangela:

Since starting the above thread, my understanding of the AB calendar has evolved quite a bit. I'm wondering what you both think of the suggestion of deleting it. I've said things in it that would be confusing to someone new to the topic. If you think it should stay I have a summary of about 500 words that I can add to it, but if you think deleting it is OK - my preference - I can use my summary to open a new thread. What do you both think? Also, if anyone else has comments, they are welcome.

Here is a summary of the evidence so far that the calendar of the Astronomical Book, (the AB) found in the latter part of I Enoch, is indeed the calendar of scripture:


1) A prophetic year in the Bible has 360 days divided into 12 months of 30 days. The AB calendar is based on this year. The solar part of the calendar adds another 4 intercalated days at the end of the year, while the lunar part has six days less. The Karaite calendar is unrelated to the prophetic year.

2) The AB calendar agrees with scripture in that it uses both the sun and moon as time-keepers as stated in the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2. The Karaite uses the moon and the barley crop.

3) The Karaite month can have either 29 or 30 days. The lunar months of the AB calendar also have 29 or 30 days but they are not used to reckon time. In the AB calendar the solar months with 30 days are used and this agrees with scripture in that all passages where the days of the month are given, the month always has 30 days.

4) The account of the flood confirms that the ancient calendar had 30 day months and a 364 day year. (To see how Genesis 7 and 8 allow us to calculate the year’s length see page 5, January 28 post towards the bottom.) The Karaite year is never 364 days. It varies and can have as few as 354 and as many as 385 or 386 days, but never 364 days.

5) Moses, who wrote the account of the flood also wrote the ceremonial law. This law fits the AB calendar. The ceremonial law divides the holy days into the Sabbaths, determined by the weekly cycle, the new moons determined by the lunar cycle, and the ‘set feasts’ determined by the solar months of AB calendar. Modern Jews and Karaites are in error in their calculation of the feast days which they base on the lunar cycle. The biblical evidence to support this is also posted mainly on page 5 of the thread but also in the earlier pages.

6) Ellen White states that the time of the Passover occurred in late March to early April. This statement agrees with the AB calendar but cannot be reconciled to the Kariate calendar in 31 AD, the year of the crucifixion. In that year, the Passover by Karaite reckoning is late April. In contrast, this statement does agree with the AB reckoning of the Passover and also has support in the DSS manuscripts from Qumran. This is also discussed in more detail on page 5.

7) Ellen White states that the sheaf of first fruits was waved on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. This agrees with the AB calendar because in that calendar the second day of Unleavened Bread is always a Sunday. In the Karaite calendar the sheaf is waived on a Sunday, but the Sunday is only occasionally on the second day of Unleavened Bread. Therefore, this statement by Ellen White also cannot be reconciled to Karaite reckoning but does agree with the AB calendar. An Adventist conference leader from Australia pointed out to Ellen White that her statement regarding the sheaf appeared to conflict with Karaite reckoning and a Thursday Passover, but she sent back word through her secretary urging the man to study to find the ‘harmony that exists’. This statement from her secretary’s letter and more on this topic is covered on page 5.

8) October 22 is the correct date according to Ellen White and the Adventist pioneers for the Day of Atonement in 1844. Both the Karaite and the AB calendars agree on that date. This is a divine co-incidence. In this case, the Millerites arrived at the right date using an unscriptural method. The Karaites themselves confirm that in 1844 they observed the Day of Atonement on September 23. Providentially, the Millerites arrived at the right date using Karaite reckoning. If they had used AB reckoning, they would have also arrived at the correct date. This is also covered in more detail on page 5.

Mark,

Greetings. I´m finally at home after almost a two-month absence.

I would like to call your attention to the following points:

1) Please note well the words of Ellen White’s secretary: “She therefore appeals to her brethren to search the Scriptures, and to compare her writings with the Scriptures, and with other portions of her own writings, and thus seek to discover, if possible, the harmony that exists.” Prophets are human beings and make some slips now and then. For instance, in 1858 Ellen White writes about Herod as if the same Herod who took part in Christ's trial also killed James (see EW 185), when in fact the former was Herod Antipas and the latter was Herod Agrippa. In the Bible we could mention, for instance, two slips of Matthew. In 23:35 he quotes Jesus as mentioning Zechariah the son of Berechiah, although Jesus was referring to Zecharaiah the son of Jehoiada (see 2 Chron. 24:20-22). In 27:9 he mentions Jeremiah when in fact he was referring to the writings of Zachariah.

2) In 1844 the 10th day of the seventh month was October 22/23, so the first day of the seventh month was October 13/14. Using 30-day months with the intercalation at the end of the year, the first day of the first month would have been April 16, and Passover would have fallen on April 29, a Monday. So,

a) The Passover definitely did not fall at the end of March/beginning of April that year, but at the end of April;

b) Nisan 15 did not fall on a Sabbath, but on Tuesday;

c) The first, 15th and 22nd days of the seventh month were not seventh-day Sabbaths.

I just now read Mark's request to delete this topic.

Aa deleting this topic would set a presidence (spelled correctly???), I am not in favour of deleting this topic.

The topic could be moved to a different forum.