04-25-2014, 05:55 PM
From Eiseman's book "Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered"
Especially noteworthy is the absence among the Qumran caches of any text advocating a different
calendar. This absence is striking because the calendar of the Qumran materials was only one of
several in use and seems to have represented a minority position. The calendrical texts are, therefore,
central to any attempt to understand the significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In order to follow the
rather technical expositions of these texts, one must know a few facts about the calendar they
advocate, and about the priestly courses (mishmarot) which served in the Temple at Jerusalem.
The calendar is purely solar, based on a particular understanding of the Creation account found in
Genesis. In its exclusive reliance on the sun, it stands in stark contrast to later Rabbinic Judaism,
which followed a lunisolar calendar of 354 days relying mainly on the moon. Earlier, the Pharisaic
forerunners of Rabbinic Judaism seem to have followed an even more lunar-oriented calendar, though
from the evidence of the Qumran texts, the lunisolar calendar seems already to have gained currency
during at least some of the period of the Scrolls.
He notes the absence of texts advocating a different calendar, then says that from "evidence of the Qumran texts...lunisolar calendar seems to already have gained currency"
If there is an absence of texts of a different calendar, where is the evidence in the texts of the lunisolar calendar?
If the texts represent a minority position, where are the texts that support the majorities position? I have never seen a 2nd temple period lunisolar calendar. The 900+ Dead Sea Scrolls show no evidence of a lunisolar in use.
How can the calendar be purely solar if it always starts on a Wednesday, is 364 days long, and a solar year is 365.25 days long?
The Didascalia points to the use of the lunisolar calendar by the Chief Priests and Pharisees, and the Dead Sea Scroll 364 day calendar by Yeshua and His disciples.
Especially noteworthy is the absence among the Qumran caches of any text advocating a different
calendar. This absence is striking because the calendar of the Qumran materials was only one of
several in use and seems to have represented a minority position. The calendrical texts are, therefore,
central to any attempt to understand the significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In order to follow the
rather technical expositions of these texts, one must know a few facts about the calendar they
advocate, and about the priestly courses (mishmarot) which served in the Temple at Jerusalem.
The calendar is purely solar, based on a particular understanding of the Creation account found in
Genesis. In its exclusive reliance on the sun, it stands in stark contrast to later Rabbinic Judaism,
which followed a lunisolar calendar of 354 days relying mainly on the moon. Earlier, the Pharisaic
forerunners of Rabbinic Judaism seem to have followed an even more lunar-oriented calendar, though
from the evidence of the Qumran texts, the lunisolar calendar seems already to have gained currency
during at least some of the period of the Scrolls.
He notes the absence of texts advocating a different calendar, then says that from "evidence of the Qumran texts...lunisolar calendar seems to already have gained currency"
If there is an absence of texts of a different calendar, where is the evidence in the texts of the lunisolar calendar?
If the texts represent a minority position, where are the texts that support the majorities position? I have never seen a 2nd temple period lunisolar calendar. The 900+ Dead Sea Scrolls show no evidence of a lunisolar in use.
How can the calendar be purely solar if it always starts on a Wednesday, is 364 days long, and a solar year is 365.25 days long?
The Didascalia points to the use of the lunisolar calendar by the Chief Priests and Pharisees, and the Dead Sea Scroll 364 day calendar by Yeshua and His disciples.