Defective and full Months The Pharisees established rules that limited not only the number of months which could be defective (i.e., only 29 days long) or full (i.e., consisting of a full 30 days) but even limited which months were eligible.
The Mishnah states:
There are never less than four “full” months in the year, nor do more than eight (full) months require to be taken into account.31
In turn, they point out that there were never more than eight or less than four defective months. Meanwhile, a 12 lunar-month year has no less than 352 days and no more than 355 days, while a 13 lunar-month year has no less than 383 days and no more than 385 days.32
These reckonings were further encumbered by other restrictions which ignored the reality of the new moon phases. For example, the last month of the year, Adar—the month which precedes Nisan, the first month of the next year—is always defective,33 as was, except in special cases, the sixth month, Elul.34 The first and seventh months, on the other hand, i.e., Nisan and Tishri, were “never intercalated,” that is, they were always full.35Continue reading “Sanctification of New Moons – Pt. 2”→
The Hillelic Pharisees differed from their religious counterparts in that they followed the Babylonian custom of demanding that there must be witnesses who could testify to a Calendar Court confirming the sighting of the moon’s crescent on the very first day of the new moon. They also required official sanctification of the new moon by their Calendar Court.
Our attention will now shift to examining the rules for sanctification and dissemination for the Hillelic New Moon Day. As we shall see, many of these regulations prove to be arbitrary and counter to scriptural intent.
The Hillelic Pharisees considered it “a religious duty to sanctify (the new moon) on the strength of actual observation.”1 This duty was required, “even though the observation is not necessary for the purpose.”2
As early as about 600 B.C.E., the prophet Jeremiah wrote concerning scribal tampering of Scriptures:
How do you (scribes) say, We are wise, and the laws of Yahweh are with us? Certainly, behold, the pen has practiced deceit, a lie of the scribes. The wise are put to shame; they are terrified and are captured. Behold, the word of Yahweh they have rejected and their wisdom is their own. (Jer. 8:8-9)
There are 134 times when Jewish copyists (Sopherim) of the Masoretic text, believing that certain passages were too often quoted that used the sacred name Yahweh, changed the primitive Hebrew text to read adonai or eloahim instead of Yahweh.Continue reading “The Lying Pen of the Scribes”→
In our last post titled17. Passover – Pentecost Clarity Iwe addressed the four approaches for keeping Pentecost. Of these four systems the oldest is the Aristocratic, which counted the 50 days from the day after the weekly Sabbath following Passover, Sunday to Sunday.
Its antiquity is demonstrated by the fact that both the ancient conservative Samaritan and Sadducean (Boethusian) priesthoods practiced the identical Pentecost system—this despite their loathing for each other.
This common approach among competing branches of the Zadokite priests reflects a common history, indicating that this system was used by the Zadokite priests prior to the fourth century B.C.E. (the time when the Samaritan schism took place).1
Aristocratic System These Aristocratic priests were “heirs to the old Zadokite tradition in Jerusalem.”2This Aristocratic system was later followed by the early Christian assemblies,3demonstrating their belief in its antiquity as well.
As found with the celebration of Passover, there existed a great debate among the various Jewish factions, beginning in about the second century B.C.E., with regard to just how and when one was to count to the Khag of Shabuath (Weeks), also called Pentecost.
This debate was sparked by the fact that there is no direct statement found in Scriptures telling us exactly on which date one is to keep the Festival of Weeks.
In our first installment titled10. Passover – Sadducees & Pharisees I, we discussed the religious philosophy of the Sadducees. With our second installment we will proceed to address the viewpoint of the Pharisees and their power struggle with the Sadducees.
It is within the framework of the evolving political and religious conflict between the Sadducees and Pharisees that we can understand just how and why the Pharisees ultimately became victorious in the officially recognized practice of Passover and Unleavened Bread which we have labeled “Hasidic System B.”
The Pharisees The “Hasidic System B” Passover and Unleavened Bread method originated among the early Hasidim but became dominant as a religious practice because of the political power of their spiritual descendants, the Pharisees.1
From Pharisaism derived what is now called Orthodox Judaism.2Their conflict with the Sadducees was in force from the time of the Hasmonaean revolt.
Did Yahushua the messiah in fact commit blasphemy, an alleged scriptural crime whereby he was convicted and sentenced to death by the religious leaders of Judaea?
Was there actually any scriptural basis for the extreme hatred of Yahushua by these religious leaders resulting in their wanting Yahushua dead?
To those religious leaders who were eventually responsible for Yahushua’s conviction and death sentence, the messiah had this to say:
You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (John 8:44)
Are there any facts to indicate that Yahushua did in fact commit the scriptural crime of “blasphemy” thereby justifying his execution?
If you’re interesting in finding the answers you might want to continue reading as we proceed with our investigation.