Enoch's calendar - Background to the times of John the Baptist

[steve53]

I would like to see Beckworth’s sources on this solar “Essene” Calendar.

I doubt very strongly the Essenes used anything like it, though they were very familiar with the movements of the sun through the year and how it related to the Lunar Calendar.

And the theory that Qumran was an Essene colony has been pretty much debunked. Josephus is clear that they lived IN cities and towns in special houses and worked in the community.

 

[BartholomewB]

As you say, the Greek system works well, but it is not what God gave to Moses. So, from the Essene point of view, it was more than just ‘change’ ; it was interference with something that was ‘holy’ . That would be why they were so angry.

For most people it probably wasn’t a problem. The new system kept time and that was all that mattered. However, when we study the Shemitah through the Hasmonean period, we notice that Sabbatical years were regularly accompanied with famine. The reason for this was because the start-point of the Sabbath years had been switched from Nisan to Tishri. Consequently the planting season (tishri-bul) had to be deferred till the following year.

The other problem pertained to the Jubilee. It got lost in the New Year change.

That raises a few further questions! Am I correct in thinking that that the calendar that God gave to Moses is described in the books of Enoch and Jubilees, but nowhere in the canonical OT?

And is it possible to date the switch to the Greek lunar calendar? Under the Seleucids, I would imagine. But in that case, it would seem only natural for the Hasmonean rulers to have switched back again. In fact, we’d have expected that to be up at the top of Alexander Jannaeus’ list of priorities, wouldn’t we, given the religious background to the revolt of the Maccabees? Or did he in fact do that?

 

[BartholomewB]

I should add that, when I say “under the Seleucids,” I’m just guessing, on the assumption that before the conquest of Alexander the Great, no ruler of any country in the East would have had any reason to adopt a Greek calendar, would they?

 

[steve53]

Whether they used a solar or lunar calendar, the ancient Greeks kept track of their years in 4 years cycles called Olympiads which were based on their Olympic Games which were held every 4 years. As this celebrates a sporting event, though they did have horse races and plays and music competitions, this is an additional reason why the Jewish religious establishment would have absolutely no interest in adopting a Greek based calendar, or anything remotely Greek.

 

[Cyberseeker]

BartholomewB:

That raises a few further questions! Am I correct in thinking that that the calendar that God gave to Moses is described in the books of Enoch and Jubilees, but nowhere in the canonical OT?

No, I don’t think so. It can be made to work with the sun but it fails to synchronize with the moon. Moses system synchronized both sun as well as moon, although not as the Greeks did it. I think that the ancient system was lost during tumultuous times following the destruction of the temple in 587 BC. By Hasmonean times some were trying to rediscover the Sabbatic formula. The Enochian calendar was their attempt to reconstruct the original, but no, I dont think they got it right.

BartholomewB:

And is it possible to date the switch to the Greek lunar calendar? Under the Seleucids, I would imagine. But in that case, it would seem only natural for the Hasmonean rulers to have switched back again. In fact, we’d have expected that to be up at the top of Alexander Jannaeus’ list of priorities, wouldn’t we, given the religious background to the revolt of the Maccabees? Or did he in fact do that?

Not a ‘switch’ but more like a gradual erosion. After the Babylonian invasion it becomes apparent that Babylonian, Persian and Greek elements were added to it. The all-important month of Abib (Deuteronomy 16:1) reappears after the captivity as ‘Nisan,’ a Babylonian name. (Nisanu) Sometime after that, Jubilee observances ceased, then New Year was shifted from Abib to Tishri. We don’t know exactly when these changes took place. I suspect Jubilee stopped soon after Nehemiah.

Hecataeus of Abdera, a Greek historian who lived during the conquests of Alexander, is credited with saying, “Under the rule of nations during latter times, namely, Persians and Macedonians … the Jews greatly modified the traditions of their fathers”. (Diodorus Siculus 40:31) Alfred Edersheim adds, “after their return from exile, the Jews dated their years according to the Selucidic era.” (The Temple-Its Ministry and Services, ch.10) It is known that the Selucid New Year was Dios which was the Greek equivalent to Tishri, so it would be fair to surmise that the New Year change came about then.

BartholomewB:

I should add that, when I say “under the Seleucids,” I’m just guessing, on the assumption that before the conquest of Alexander the Great, no ruler of any country in the East would have had any reason to adopt a Greek calendar, would they?

That seems reasonable. Also, the Greek calendar was in its early development through Alexanders time, so it makes sense that its enforcement came later.

 

[BartholomewB]

No, I don’t think so. It can be made to work with the sun but it fails to synchronize with the moon. Moses system synchronized both sun as well as moon, although not as the Greeks did it. I think that the ancient system was lost during tumultuous times following the destruction of the temple in 587 BC. By Hasmonean times some were trying to rediscover the Sabbatic formula. The Enochian calendar was their attempt to reconstruct the original, but no, I dont think they got it right.

Not a ‘switch’ but more like a gradual erosion. After the Babylonian invasion it becomes apparent that Babylonian, Persian and Greek elements were added to it. The all-important month of Abib (Deuteronomy 16:1) reappears after the captivity as ‘Nisan,’ a Babylonian name. (Nisanu) Sometime after that, Jubilee observances ceased, then New Year was shifted from Abib to Tishri. We don’t know exactly when these changes took place. I suspect Jubilee stopped soon after Nehemiah.

Hecataeus of Abdera, a Greek historian who lived during the conquests of Alexander, is credited with saying, “Under the rule of nations during latter times, namely, Persians and Macedonians … the Jews greatly modified the traditions of their fathers”. (Diodorus Siculus 40:31) Alfred Edersheim adds, “after their return from exile, the Jews dated their years according to the Selucidic era.” (The Temple-Its Ministry and Services, ch.10) It is known that the Selucid New Year was Dios which was the Greek equivalent to Tishri, so it would be fair to surmise that the New Year change came about then.

That seems reasonable. Also, the Greek calendar was in its early development through Alexanders time, so it makes sense that its enforcement came later.

Okay, Cyberseeker, thank you once again. I think you’ve answered all my questions now!

Regards
Bart

 

[steve53]

Josephus in “Against Apion” argues that the Jewish culture is far more ancient than the Greeks. As I remember, Josephus said the High Priest’s can trace their lineage back 4,000 years.

If the Jews had a stable priesthood it is unlikely they would let outside influences alter their Calendar, which has religious overtones.

 

[patrick457]

I would like to see Beckworth’s sources on this solar “Essene” Calendar.

I doubt very strongly the Essenes used anything like it, though they were very familiar with the movements of the sun through the year and how it related to the Lunar Calendar.

And the theory that Qumran was an Essene colony has been pretty much debunked. Josephus is clear that they lived IN cities and towns in special houses and worked in the community.

Only a minority completely accepts the conclusions made by Fr. Roland de Vaux (who dug the area) nowadays, but the theory isn’t completely debunked. Many still accept his basic claim that the inhabitants were some kind of religious sect - likely Essenes or some kind of Essenes - and certain key dates about the site (that the site stopped being a sectarian settlement when it was destroyed once in AD 68, for example). I agree the theory that Qumran was a sectarian - even if not specifically ‘Essene’ - settlement has still something going for it, at least when compared to the other alternative theories (that it was a fort, a villa, a pottery-manufacturing center, etc.)

The way I see it, how do we know whether the term ‘Essene’ (or Essaios) actually encompassed a variety of Jewish ascetic sects? (Kind of like how ‘gnostic’ actually describes a variety of different sects that have a few traits in common. Or ‘Christian’, even.) I mean, Josephus also speaks of ‘another order of Essenes’ that allowed marriage different from the celibate one he described in detail (and is attested in other authors like Philo). So I think there’s still a possibility that the Community was actually some type of ‘Essene’, even if they were not exactly the specific ‘order’ of Essene found in Josephus.

In fact, some of the more recent theories actually harmonize some of the theories: Qumran may have been a kind of secular settlement - a fortress or villa, but at the same time (or rather, afterwards) also a center for a Jewish religious sect.

Archaeologist Joan Taylor (The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea) actually proposed that Qumran was originally an Hasmonean fortified settlement built in the time of Alexander Jannaeus. Somewhere during Herod the Great’s reign, the site was occupied by the Essenes (she agrees with Josephus’ description of them; she thinks that far from being a small, reclusive sect they were actually numerous, influential and public - in fact, she thinks that Herod - who we know was in good terms with the Essenes - was the one who bequeathed Qumran to the Essenes), who developed the area and turned it into one of their centers.

A French scholar (Jean-Baptiste Humbert) had a similar idea: Qumran was actually founded for a different purpose before Essenes took over the site. Humbert however thinks the site was originally a Hasmonean villa that was abandoned in the mid-1st century BC. The Essenes then rebuilt the area and turned it into a sort of small pilgrimage/worship center for their sect (although a sparsely-populated one).

Another scholar, Robert Cargill, agreed with Taylor: Qumran was a Hasmonean (140-130 BC) fortress reoccupied by a religious sect who developed the site “in a communal, non-military fashion.” Cargill criticizes the original proponents of the ‘Qumran as fortress’ theory (Israeli archaeologists Yizhar Hirschfeld, Yizhak Magen, and Yuval Peleg) for throwing the baby with the bathwater: he thought that their observations of Qumran (originally) being a secular area were right, but he thought that their idea of Qumran never becoming a sectarian settlement (it was ‘just’ a secular site through and through) was too much. He also took other scholars up to task for, well, also throwing the baby with the bathwater: “scholars may have been reluctant to embrace the fortress theory because until now, every scholar who has accepted the fortress theory has ultimately rejected Qumran’s association with the Dead Sea Scrolls.”

IMHO Qumran - during its secular phase - is more likely to be a fortress than a villa, because it’s really too plain, too drab to be one. (There are no luxury items - fine ware, that kind of stuff - or decorations at Qumran such as you see in contemporary villas and mansions in Jerusalem or Jericho. If it was a villa, it would have been an exceptionally poor one.)

 

[Cyberseeker]

Good comments Patrick. One thing is for sure, they had strict, legalistic religious views. If they were not an actual ‘Essenic’ group, they were similar at least.

Similar modern groups exist today. I am thinking of the ‘Hebraic Roots’ movement, which is a legalistic offshoot from the modern Messianic fellowships.