Abstract:
Scholars have proposed several systems of calculating priestly divisions in the hope of correctly calculating the time of the birth of Mĕssiah. I will defend two points. Firstly, that it was well known at the time Rabbi Yose Ben Ḥalaphta composed
I will lay out four systems, and a nomenclature for this paper. For continuous rotations working backward from the destruction of the Temple, CRT (
To compare these on the same basis, I assume the shortest time from the first annunciation to the birth of Messiah, which is 14 months, and the longest time which is 16.5 months. The short time computes both terms from conception at 38 weeks each, and matches the 6th month of Elizabeth with the 1st month of Miryam. The long term, computes 40 weeks from each annunciation, and makes the 1st month of Miyram follow the 6th month of Elizabeth, and allows the delivery of Messiah to be 2 weeks overdue. The difference between the short and long terms is 2.5 months. Since each division serves twice in a year, there are two windows of 2.5 months each year, or 5 months, for which each method will work! Therefore, the chances of a wrong method working by accident for a randomly selected birth date are 5/12 = 42%. On the other hand, the chances of the short term method accidentally working out to the exact date, and both annunciations falling on a new moon day, and both births on a new moon day, etc. for CRT are so small as to be meaningless to compute.
Each method has two calculations, for the two services of Abijah, one for the first service and one for the second service. One method has three calculations here since the lunar year is shorter than the solar year. (I include the Julian day number of each date on the first line of each entry. The proleptic Julian Calendar dates appear on the next line. For the corresponding Roman Calendar dates, add 1 day. The last line gives the lunar month with a Roman numeral, and the day of the month, calculated from the sighted new moon. Column D gives the ideal least time birth date, and Col. E stretches the time line as far as possible, i.e. 2.5 months. This chart only covers dates in 2 BC which meet the requirements of Luke 3:1 and 3:23.)
A B C D E
Yōḥanan Yĕshūa Yōḥanan Yĕshūa Farthest
Conception1 Conception2 birth1 birth2 Limit
Method Service 1st off A+29.5*5+1 A+266 B+266-1 +75
CRT Abijah-1st 1720354 1720502.5 1720620 1720767.5 1720842.5
Jan 27,3 BC Jun 25,3 BC Oct 20,3 BC Mar 17,2 BC May 31,2 BC
XI.9 IV.12 VIII.9 I.10
CRT Abijah-2nd 1720522 1720670.5 1720788 1720935.5 1721010.5
Jul 14,3 BC Dec 10,3 BC Apr 06,2 BC Sep 01,2 BC Nov 15,2 BC
V.I X.1 II.1 VII.1
T1A Abijah-1st 1720284 1720432.5 1720550 1720697.5 1720772.5
Nov 18,4 BC Apr 16,3 BC Aug 11,3 BC Jan 06,2 BC Mar 22,2 BC
VIII.27 I.30 V.29 X.28
T1A Abijah-2nd 1720452 1720600.5 1720718 1720865.5 1720940.5
May 05,3 BC Oct 01,3 BC Jan 26,2 BC Jun 23,2 BC Sep 06,2 BC
II.19 VII.20 XI.19 IV.20
N1A Abijah-1st 1720270 1720418.5 1720536 1720683.5 1720758.5
Nov 04,4 BC Apr 02,3 BC Jul 28,3 BC Dec 23,3 BC Mar 08,2 BC
VIII.13 I.16 V.15 X.14
N1A Abijah-2nd 1720459 1720607.5 1720725 1720872.5 1720947.5
May 12,3 BC Oct 08,3 BC Feb 02,2 BC Jun 30,2 BC Sep 13,2 BC
II.26 VII.27 XI.26 IV.27
N1A Abijah-1st 1720627 1720775.5 1720893 1721040.5 1721115.5
Oct 27,3 BC Mar 25,2 BC Jul 20,2 BC Dec 15,2 BC Feb 28,1 BC
VIII.16 I.18 IV.29 X.17
N1AS Abijah-1st 1720291 1720439.5 1720557 1720704.5 1720779.5
Nov 25,4 BC Apr 23,3 BC Aug 18,3 BC Jan 13,2 BC Mar 29,2 BC
IX.5 II.7 VI.6 X.6
N1AS Abijah-2nd 1720466 1720614.5 1720732 1720879.5 1720954.5
May 19,3 BC Oct 15,3 BC Feb 09,2 BC Jul 07,2 BC Sep 20,2 BC
III.4 VIII.4 XII.3 V.4
These four methods leave two gaps, 1. May 31, 2 BC to June 23, and 2. Sep 20, 2 BC to Dec 15, 2 BC. The missed days are 107, or 30% of the year. So for any random date picked, and then intelligently choosing the right method, the chances of confirming it are 70%. Columns D-E gives the span of dates for each instance of each method. Four of 9 instances cover the Sep. 1, 2 BC date (Tishri 1). And all of the methods cover that date: CRT, T1A, N1A, and N1AS. It is therefore a useless exercise to try to confirm a date without first eliminating the methods which are not actually historical or Biblical.
I was a long time believer in T1A, and then my eyes were opened to some major problems with that system, and to the merits of CRT when I sought to justify on the basis of Scripture what Roger Beckwith and Jack Finegan claimed for T1A. In the process of doing so, I was reading a Rabbinical paper on the subject which cited Deut. 18:6-8:
“And when the Levite comes from one of your gates from all of Yisra’ēl, where he sojourns, and he has come with all the desire of his soul unto the place where Yăhwēh will choose, then he will have served in the name of Yăhwēh his Almĭghty like all his brothers, the Leυi̱yim that are standing there before the face of Yăhwēh. Portion like portion he shall eat, apart from his sales concerning fathers” (Deut. 18:6-8).
The point is that every Levitical Priest must be given equal access to the benefits of serving at the Sanctuary, and all those benefits must be divided up equally. If someone says to a priest that he can serve two weeks a year, and to other priests that they may serve three weeks a year, then that directive is not legal. For it causes some priests to eat unlike their brothers. And the importance of a job at the Sanctuary is underscored by the details of the curse on Eli’s family (1Sam. 2:36).
I am very much more suspicious of arguments based on improbable coincidence than I used to be. Beckwith observed that when the first division is worked backwards from 9 AV, AD 70 to the previous Tishri, that the first division just happens to align with the week for the new moon of Tishri 1. Well it does, and I have no argument that it matches there. But Beckwith’s conclusion (based on the unstated assumption of only a 1/24 chance of accidental alignment, and 23/24 probability that the alignment was due to an annual reset on Tishri 1) was that the divisions reset annually every Tishri 1, hence T1A! But I have worked with calendars enough and astronomy enough to know that it is cyclical by nature, and that what appear to be coincidences too amazing to be called coincidences happen all the time. Exploiting the coincidences and making them seem like intelligent determination is the craft of astrologers. Additionally, it turns out that the first week of Tishri was not the starting point in either the first or Second Temple, so the supposition that a Tishri 1 alignment should mean anything in the first place is incorrect.
The problem with accepting Beckwith’s conclusion is that now I have a number of Scriptures that when put together contradict it, and as a bonus, I have discovered enough new coincidences that agree with those Scriptures to truly think that Beckwith really was taken in by a coincidence. And this he has passed on. But it is really the Scripture that has caused me to switch to CRT. Thankfully, I did not have to reinvent it since it was already correctly calculated by Thomas Lewin in his
T1A has the property of running 24 priestly divisions twice every year, and divisions 1-2 get to repeat a third time in every regular year, and often divisions 1-3. In a leap year with an Adar II, divisions 1-7 can repeat three times. The case with T1A then is often that divisions 1-2 or 3 in the 6th month are immediately followed AGAIN by divisions 1-3 in the seventh month. That is not equitable treatment of the priests! What has just been said about T1A also applies to N1A and N1AS. N1AS has the additional problem that the three skipped weeks put with the 48 weeks of two cycles of 24 add up to 51 weeks, and this may be longer than a lunar year. The shortest lunar year is 353 days, or 50 weeks and 3 days. In some cases the 24th division will only serve once in a year under N1AS. It appears, then, that the only method of rotation that can stand up to Deut. 18:6-8 is CRT.
Finegan stated, “It is difficult to see, however, how such a system could have been carried out without confusion about the calendar, or how it could have been reestablished accurately after such a time as when the temple was desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes on Dec 15, 167 B.C. (1 Macc 1:54), and lay desolate for three years” (§242,
I don’t think Finegan thought this criticism through too well, which is taken straight from Beckwith, whose arguments I deal with later on, because the seventh day Sabbath is a continuously rotating system of seven days, without any connection to astronomical timekeepers of the calendar. The Sabbath can only be determined by counting back to a previous Sabbath. It was the job of the priests to promote and maintain Sabbath observance in Israel. And the priestly rotations are inextricably synchronized with the Sabbath. The divisions begin and end on every Sabbath at noon. There is no confusion at all, except for one who fails to count. Every priest is assigned to a division with a name and a number 1-24. And all one needs to be able to do is to count from 1 to 24. The same division will be on duty every 24 weeks. Keeping Sabbath, where there are no external reminders of the weekdays, requires one to count days from one to seven. Every division knew which division it should follow in the service. The many priests in every division were better than a peg board or tally marks. They kept their place in time. Since there were twenty four divisions, then there were twenty four groups of priests keeping 24 separate counts of 24 weeks to their next service. And apt comparison would be that there are more backup systems to prevent a failure in the counting of the divisions than there are backup computers in the Space Shuttle!
The three years or so that Finegan speaks about the temple being deprived of sacrifice and offering is not logically an argument against CRS. It is only an argument against the long term continuity of CRS, and that by itself is incredibly weak. For a space of three years away from the temple, it is not hard to continue counting the weeks, especially if each division is in the habit of counting weeks in the first place. Keeping the right times was the foundation of sanctifying holy time, an essential part of godliness. The temple service was disrupted also in 63 BC when Pompey invaded it, and may have caused a division to miss its week, or a good part of one. What do priests do in such a case? They keep counting their place in the order, just as Egypt managed to keep counting its continuous cycle of months through all their wars, invasions, and desolations.
We should not be concerned with the length of 24 weeks. It is no harder to count a continuous rotation of 24 weeks than a continuous rotation of seven days. I will show later how a forgotten count could be recovered for the 24 weeks.
According to Ezra 6:18, the divisions were put back in order when the new Temple was finished:
“And they had made stand the priests in their divisions and the Levites in their divisions according to the service of the Almĭghty, which is in Yerūshalem according to what is written in the book of Mōsheh” (Ezra 6:18).
The Second Temple was finished on the 3rd of Adar in the 6th year of King Darius (Ezra 6:15). Adar in the 6th year of Darius was in 515 BC. The 3 day of Adar was Feb. 10, 515 BC, a Thursday. Now like with Solomon’s Temple, they did not start the services immediately. For this year had an Adar II. This time was spent putting the equipment into the temple, and sanctifying the priests, and then the divisions picked up with the week of Nisan 1. When the first Temple had been built, it was finished in month VIII of the 11th year of Solomon, but the priests were not sanctified for it until the first week of the following Tishri, the start of the 12th year of Solomon.
It appears to me that the divisions, even when they were disrupted, were counted in strict sequence, so long as there was a community of priests in the land, and when the disruption was over, the rotation simply continued with the division whose week it was. One the other hand, if the whole people were exiled, then the counting might be suspended, and the divisions would pick up where they left off in the old Temple when the new Temple was built. In other words, the priests could keep to their counting if there were a community of them, and the disruption was relatively short. But if it was a generational disruption, then it would simply be remembered which division was cut off from the old temple, and then that division would head up the rotations in the new Temple.
It would be helpful to know then, which divisions would be on duty in the spring of 515 BC counting back from 9 AV, AD 70, (the synchronized date of the 1st division at the destruction of the Second Temple: Aug 5). And then if we can find the beginning point of the rotations in Solomon’s Temple, and then count forward to its destruction date, then we could find the division whose week it was when the Babylonians burned the Temple. What if we were to find, then, this same division serving first in the spring of 515 BC after the New Temple were opened, or the one following it?
In the Scroll of Bibical Chronology, I show that the First Temple was finished in the 11th year of Solomon and in month VIII. The Temple was opened with a feast of dedication and a week of sanctifying all the priests on Tishri 1 in the year following. This was the 12th year of Solomon. The date for this is 1012 BC. The Law required priests to be consecrated for seven days (Exo. 29:30, 35, 37; Lev. 8:33), so they were at the dedication of Solomon’s Temple (2Chron. 5:3, 11; 1Kings 8:2, 8:65-66). They assembled in the seventh month to bring the ark to the new Temple for the Yōm Teruah feast. Solomon put on a feast all that week while the altar and the priests were sanctified. 2Chron. 5:11 says:
Then it was in the going out of the priests from the holy place that all the priests being found had made themselves holy without regard to divisions.
This appears to mean that the rotation started the following week with the first division. For the text first records that Solomon sent the people away on the 8th day, during the second week of Tishri. Then they returned for the feast of Tabernacles, and then on the 8th day after that, the 22nd of Tishri, the people were not sent away, but they held a solemn assembly on the last great day. (cf. 1Kings 8:65-66 and 2Chron. 7:8-10.). I believe all this to mean that the rotations began with the Sabbath following Tishri 1. This month in question appears thus:
Month: VII ETHANIM, 1012 BC 3128 A.M. Sab. Cyc: 7. Jub. Cyc: 42 Cycle No: 63
Q1: 0.677 A Q2: -0.320 F LG: 61m W: 1.125' AL: 22.6 AV: 12.3
New Moon calculated for longitude: 35.17 and latitude 31.77
Location of calculations: Jerusalem Author: Daniel Gregg
I II III IV V VI VII
~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
↑ │ 1 │ 2 │ 3 │ 4 │ 5 │ 6 │ 7 │
NM │ Oct 7 │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│1352070 │ Seven Days Sanctification of All the Priests│ │
│ │ │ Without Regard to their Divisions │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀██╫██
│ 8 │ 9 │ 10 │ 11 │ 12 │ 13 │ 14 │
│ Oct 14 │ │Y. Kippur│ │ │ │ │
│1352077 │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ First Division: Jehoiarib, Yehoiari̱v̱ │ │ │ │
~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀██╫██
│ 15 │ 16 │ 17 │ 18 │ 19 │ 20 │ 21 │
│Sukkot │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 22 │ 23 │ 24 │ 25 │ 26 │ 27 │ 28 │
│8th Day │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│ 29 │ 30 ↑ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
The Julian day number stands in the position of the 8th day of the month. This is when Solomon sent all the officials away who took part in this special feast for the first week of Tishri. Only the first division stayed on for this week. Now as I elsewhere developed a formula for calculating the division number from the Julian date for the Second Temple, I have also done the same for the First Temple:
Notes: Valid 1012 BC to 587 BC.
Given: Julian_day_number (i.e. JD)
ADD 1 (Eliminates decimal results from the next step)
Divide by 7 (Reduces JD, to consecutive week number)
SUBTRACT 2 (offsets the week so that MOD gives 0 for the
1st division)
Divide by 24 and take the remainder (MOD 24, returns 0-23, one less than the
division number)
ADD 1 (eliminate 0 based counting of the modulus)
Drop any decimal (hint: avoid decimals by choosing a
Result: Priestly_division_number JD for a Sunday.)
How the function looks in a spreadsheet: =INT(MOD((JD+1)/7-2,24)+1)
JD = references a cell with a JD.
The Julian date for the 8th day of the month is 1352077. ADD 1: 1352078. Divide by 7: 193154. SUBTRACT 2: 193152. Find the remainder after division by 24: 0. ADD 1: 1. The priestly division number is 1. So on the Sabbath following the new moon of Tishri 1, the first division was on regular duty.
Now I would like to work a second example. What if we count the divisions backwards proleptically to the week for the new moon of Nisan that year? Here is the calendar for Nisan 1012 BC:
Month: I AVIV, 1012 BC 3128 A.M. Sab. Cyc: 6. Jub. Cyc: 41 Cycle No: 63
Q1: 1.096 A Q2: -0.726 G LG: 90m W: 0.817' AL: 18.5 AV: 18.1
New Moon calculated for longitude: 35.17 and latitude 31.77
Location of calculations: Jerusalem Author: Daniel Gregg
I II III IV V VI VII
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
Division 22 - Gamul (proleptic) ↑ │ 1 │ 2 │ 3 │
AVIV/NISAN NM │New Moon │ │ │
1351888 1351889 1351890 1351891 │ APR 12 │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 4 │ 5 │ 6 │ 7 │ 8 │ 9 │ 10 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 11 │ 12 │ 13 │ 14 │ 15 │ 16 │ 17 │
│ │ │ │Passover │Passover │ Sheaf │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 18 │ 19 │ 20 │ 21 │ 22 │ 23 │ 24 │
│ │ │ │7thULB │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│ 25 │ 26 │ 27 │ 28 │ 29 │
│ │ │ │ │ MAY 10 │
│ │ │ │ │ │
Again I have put up the Julian day number for the week containing the new moon of Nisan. I will use the first day of that week: 1351888. Let us work the math, and find the proleptic division number. Proleptic means before it was instituted. I have a reason for doing that that I will disclose in a while. First ADD 1: 1351889. Divide by 7: 193127. SUBTRACT 2: 193125. MOD 24: 21. ADD 1: 22. The division number is 22. That is the division number of Gamul (1Chron. 24:17).
The Second Temple was burned in 587 BC on the 10th of Av (Jer. 52:12). Jewish tradition puts the fast on 9 Av. The difference will not concern us. The calendar for the month is here:
Month: V AV, 587 BC 3553 A.M. Sab. Cyc: 4. Jub. Cyc: 25 Cycle No: 72
Q1: 1.056 A Q2: -0.239 E LG: 88m W: 1.040' AL: 21.6 AV: 16.5
New Moon calculated for longitude: 35.17 and latitude 31.77
Location of calculations: Jerusalem Author: Daniel Gregg
I II III IV V VI VII
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
↑ │ 1 │ 2 │
AV NM │New Moon │ │
1507222 │ JUL 21 │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 3 │ 4 │ 5 │ 6 │ 7 │ 8 │ 9 ♦ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│1507225 │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 10 │ 11 │ 12 │ 13 │ 14 │ 15 │ 16 │
│14th Division │ │ │ │ │ │
│1507232 │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Jeshebeab│ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 17 │ 18 │ 19 │ 20 │ 21 │ 22 │ 23 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████
│ 24 │ 25 │ 26 │ 27 │ 28 │ 29 ↑ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
The week of the destruction was 1507232. Find the division number. ADD 1: 1507233. Divide by 7: 215319. Subtract 2: 215317. MOD 24: 13. ADD 1: 14. Duty was passed to Jeshebeab, the 14th Division on the 9th of Av at noon, and the Temple was burned on their duty shift. The formula is: [(JD + 1)/7 — 2] MOD 24 + 1.
Using the formula for the Second Temple, let’s see who was on duty in the spring of 515. The Julian date for the week of the new moon of Nisan is 1533412. The Second Temple formula is: = MOD((JD+1)/7+3,24)+1 (Excel Notation). ADD 1: 1533413. Divide by 7: 219059. ADD 3: 219062. MOD 24: 14. ADD 1: 15. Counting back from the destruction of the First Temple to its begining leads us to division 15: Bilgah. As a standard math expression: [(JD + 1)/7 + 3] MOD 24 + 1.
Month: I AVIV, 515 BC 3625 A.M. Sab. Cyc: 6. Jub. Cyc: 48 Cycle No: 73
Q1: 1.131 A Q2: -0.761 G LG: 87m W: 0.936' AL: 19.5 AV: 17.8
New Moon calculated for longitude: 35.17 and latitude 31.77
Location of calculations: Jerusalem Author: Daniel Gregg
I II III IV V VI VII
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
Division Number 15 ↑ │ 1 │ 2 │
AVIV/NISAN NM │New Moon │ │
│ Bilgah │ │ │ │APR 7 │ APR 8 │ │
│1533412 │1533413 │1533414 │1533415 │1533416 │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 3 │ 4 │ 5 │ 6 │ 7 │ 8 │ 9 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 10 │ 11 │ 12 │ 13 │ 14♦ │ 15 │16-1-1 │
│ │ │ │ │Passover │Passover │ Sheaf │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│17-1-2 │18-1-3 │19-1-4 │20-1-5 │21-1-6 │22-1-7 │23-2-8 │
│ │ │ │ │7thULB │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████
│24-2-9 │25-2-10 │26-2-11 │27-2-12 │28-2-13 │29-2-14 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
So going back to the beginning of services in the Second Temple leads us to Bilgah, the 15th division, and this follows the 14th Division during which the First Temple was destroyed.
So, after the special service during the first week of Tishri in 1012 BC, regular services could start in Solomon’s Temple, with the first division. Counting up to the destruction of the Temple on 10 Av, 587 BC, we find the 14th Division on duty, or scheduled to be on duty. They were probably brave enough to sacrifice their lives if they were not already dead. Then when the Second Temple is completed we find that counting back from the First Temple, the 15th Division would be on duty for the week of Nisan 1. And we find a statement in Ezra 6:18 that says they put the divisions in order at that time. Was this the way it really was? For the present, it appears so. It may be that the 14th division was given a rotation in the week before Nisan 1 in 515 also. The inferred idea is that they would pick up where they left off in the First Temple.
The above coincidence appears to me to negate Beckwith’s observation that the first division lands on the week of Tishri 1, AD 69, and then to deduce T1A from it. One can just as well conclude CRT from the Biblical data I have given as Beckwith can conclude T1A from a chance alignment. But I should point out one thing. Beckwith’s chance alignment does not really align! The first division should be on duty on the Sabbath
Luke seems to have carefully constructed his chronology based on the rotation of the priestly divisions. He mentions Abijah once (Luke 1:5), but he refers to the division duty twice more in his narrative (Luke 1:8; 1:23). Luke is writing more than 30 years after the events, but he can interview the primary source: the mother of Yĕshūa̒. Would Luke have placed a threefold emphasis on the division of Abijah, and then connected it with the annunciations and months if he had any knowledge that the rotation was disrupted? It is highly unlikely. Everything Luke does is calculated to give us a chronology in literary style. And such style is frequently used in Scripture to indicate chronological details. The Scripture in Deut. 18:6-8 supports the CRT system, and leaves us wondering how T1A, NIA, or N1AS can meet the requirement to treat all the priests equally. When this system is worked back from 9 AV, AD 70, it fits perfectly with the Luke 1-2 narrative, and connects exactly with a Tishri 1 birth date. It also suggests that both conceptions, and the birth of Yōḥanan were also on new moon days. This arrangement of coincidences is much more agreeable to the Scripture than the single coincidence that Roger Beckwith offers in support of T1A, which turns out according to Chronicles to be an incorrect inception point, proving again the banal proverb:
Abstract:
A good deal of the following, is taken from the lead of John Pratt in this article: Dead Sea Scrolls May Solve Mystery. Pratt’s article is not easy to follow, mainly because he uses the Gregorian Calendar proleptically, instead of following the Julian standard of historians. The procedure is to figure out the exact nature of the lunar data in the texts and the way it aligns with the first Wednesday of the Qumran Solar year, such that the equinox is not too far before it, to justify it being the first Wednesday of the six year solar cycle. Having picked such dates, we will see which ones align with the lunar data, and we will see if the choices that remain agree with the division of Gamul as retro-calculated from 9 Av, AD 70.
The 4Q320 Almanac states that the 29th day of a lunar month fell on the 30th day of the first Solar month. Now there are a lot of ifs and assumptions involved in interpreting this document. The data may represent a real year, in which the division of Gamul fell on the first Wednesday of the first month of the Solar year of Qumran, within a week after the spring equinox, and such that the new moon, as Qumran understood it, fell on the evening of their first day of the month. It is obvious that this arrangement does not happen for every year that the Qumran calendar was used. In fact it is quite rare. The odds of matching the equinox to 7 days before a Wednesday that happens to be a new moon day in the division of Gamul are: 1/7 for the new moon to match the weekday, and 1/4 for the equinox to land in the right week (of a four week range), and 1/24 for the 22nd division to match it: 1/7 x 1/4 x 1/24 = 1/672.
The alignment happens to agree with their interpretation of Genesis chapter one, and probably for this reason was preserved as an Extraordinary Almanac as an instructional aide. This, of course, is an assumption. The alternative is that the Almanac is purely a theory of Genesis one, and that the lunar dates in it never corresponded to any year in the history the Essenes. In that case, 4Q320 is useless for astronomical calculation, and that could well be the case, all fraudulent appearances otherwise. The astronomical details suggest that it was being presented as representing a real year. On the other hand, the repetition of the data suggest that the lunar cycle was finished by a rough rule of approximation, i.e. alternating 29 and 30 day months, without resorting to actual observations for the entries. Knowing this, then, I do not think I am proving much, except that the Qumran documents may be interpreted with good effect in agreement with the priestly divisions counted back from 9 Av, AD 70.
According to the latest views, the 29th day of the first month in 4Q320 was the date of last visibility of the old moon. This is dated in the 30th day of the solar calendar. Thus the first day of the lunar month appears as the 2nd day of the solar calendar. In fact, what is happening is that the Solar calendar is using a sunrise epoch for the day, and the lunar calendar is using sunset epoch. The first day of the lunar month begins half way through the first solar day, at sunset. So the new moon day in the lunar calendar, and the new moon day in the solar calendar overlap in the night following the first day of the solar calendar. Thus begins the month as the Qumran sect thought it did in Genesis. A sister document plots an observation of the moon going past full, made 13 days before the month end. Scholars have concluded that this shows the 29th day to be a date of last visibility. The next day should be the first day of the next lunar month then. The Qumran sect was trying to approximate a conjunction method for their new moon (Lunar day 0), or at least that was the theory. The logic and debate of all of this is something only scroll scholars can appreciate.
The following lists the conjunction of 1. The spring equinox before a Wednesday, 2. The rotation of Gamul (division 22) in the week of that Wednesday. The only date to match the lunar data is 42 BC. The "Date" dates day 1 of the 364 day Qumran year. It is always a Wednesday. DIV gives the division number, calculated back from 9 Av, AD 70, according to the rule: INT([(JD + 1)/7 + 3] MOD 24 + 1). INT means take the integer part of the number and drop the decimal that may result. JD is the Julian date. The Equinox is determined such that the center of the sun (letting refraction have its effect) must set north of due west (270 degrees). The point at the center of the sun must cross 270 going south to north before it drops below the horizon. The first day it manages to do this is defined as the spring equinox. This method is designed to simulate the observational method of people watching for the sun to set in the west to indicate that the new year has begun, usually by aligning it with a set of stones.
The quantity DB is the difference between the Qumran new year day, and the spring equinox. Values more than 7 indicate that a week should be intercalated to realign the 364 day year.
Julian Date DIV Equinox DB Phase 1655768 BC 180 March 31 Wednesday 22 3/23 8 60% 1664168 BC 157 March 30 Wednesday 22 3/23 7 54% 1672568 BC 134 March 30 Wednesday 22 3/23 7 29% 1680968 BC 111 March 29 Wednesday 22 3/23 6 88% 1689368 BC 88 March 28 Wednesday 22 3/22 6 8% 1697768 BC 65 March 27 Wednesday 22 3/22 5 99%1706168 BC 42 March 27 Wednesday 22 3/22 5 0.5% 1714568 BC 19 March 26 Wednesday 22 3/22 4 95% 1722968 AD 5 March 25 Wednesday 22 3/22 3 13% 1731368 AD 28 March 24 Wednesday 22 3/21 3 69%
All this shows is that 4Q320’s Almanac may have been meant to apply to to real dates in 42 BC, and for the six year cycle after that. If scholars should change their minds on the much debated terms in the document, or if the Almanac only represents an ideal alignment, and not a real one, then nothing has been proved. And this probably explains why hardly anyone suggests an astronomical date for the cycle.
Three times in the year all the twenty-four orders of priests were alike entitled to share the pieces of offerings of the festival, and in the shewbread; and on the Feast of Pentecost the distributors say to each priest: "Here is leavened bread for thee, and here is unleavened bread for thee." The order of priests whose regular time of service occurs in the festivals offer the continual daily offerings, vows, and voluntary offerings, and all congregational offerings, and every sacrifice. (Suk 5:5).
This means that a division on duty does not serve a part week, skip a week, and then serve a part week during a festival season. That idea was the basis of N1AS. If the shortest length lunar year is worked out, it will be seen that skipping weeks at the three feasts makes it take 51 weeks to complete the rotations (24*2+3=51). But a lunar year can be as short as 50 weeks and 3 days. It is quite clear that the year can be cut short at 23 divisions, and then start again at 1, omitting the 24th, in an N1AS system. The disorderliness of serving part weeks also does not make sense.
Jack Finegan states:
A saying of Rabbi Abbahu (AD c. 300) recorded in the Jerusalem Talmud (
Rabbi Abbahu certainly believed that the courses were continuous. For his conjecture would be obviously wrong if T1A, N1A, or N1AS were used. In any case the issue behind his conjecture was a supposed tradition, and his calculations were wrong. With CRT, in a space of 24 Jubilees (both 49 and 50 year versions) the same division comes up twice on the day of atonement multiple times while others are left out completely. Here is the test, where I calculate 24 Jubilees using the 49 year method and the 50 year method, and then determine who is on duty on the Day of Atonement, when the Jubilee trumpet is blown, using the rotation formula for the first Temple. Rabbi Abbahu’s calculation is incorrect.
| 49 Yr Method | 50 Yr Method | |||||
| BC………… | NO | JD of Yom Kippur | D#………… | BC…… | Yom Kippur | D# |
| 1004 | 1 | 1354973 | 11 | 1003 | 1355357 | 17 |
| 955 | 2 | 1372897 | 4 | 953 | 1373607 | 8 |
| 906 | 3 | 1390793 | 16 | 903 | 1391885 | 3 |
| 857 | 4 | 1408512 | 4 | 853 | 1410136 | 18 |
| 808 | 5 | 1426584 | 17 | 803 | 1428415 | 14 |
| 759 | 6 | 1444480 | 6 | 753 | 1446664 | 5 |
| 710 | 7 | 1462376 | 19 | 703 | 1464915 | 20 |
| 661 | 8 | 1480271 | 7 | 653 | 1483195 | 15 |
| 612 | 9 | 1498166 | 19 | 603 | 1501444 | 6 |
| 563 | 10 | 1516062 | 8 | 553 | 1519724 | 2 |
| 514 | 11 | 1533957 | 20 | 503 | 1537974 | 17 |
| 465 | 12 | 1551854 | 9 | 453 | 1556223 | 8 |
| 416 | 13 | 1569748 | 21 | 403 | 1574503 | 3 |
| 367 | 14 | 1587644 | 10 | 353 | 1592753 | 18 |
| 318 | 15 | 1605540 | 23 | 303 | 1611032 | 14 |
| 269 | 16 | 1623435 | 11 | 253 | 1629282 | 5 |
| 220 | 17 | 1641331 | 24 | 203 | 1647532 | 20 |
| 171 | 18 | 1659226 | 12 | 153 | 1665812 | 15 |
| 122 | 19 | 1677122 | 1 | 103 | 1684062 | 7 |
| 73 | 20 | 1695017 | 13 | 53 | 1702341 | 2 |
| 24 | 21 | 1712913 | 2 | 3 | 1720591 | 17 |
| 26 | 22 | 1730808 | 14 | 54 | 1741055 | 12 |
| 75 | 23 | 1748734 | 7 | 104 | 1759305 | 4 |
| 124 | 24 | 1766599 | 15 | 154 | 1777585 | 23 |
Even though this Rabbi was incorrect in his calculations, at least he believed the rotations were continuous. Of course, if the rotations had been otherwise (as in T1A, N1A) then the results would have been worse, since the same division would always be on duty at the beginning of Tishri.
The first argument that Beckwith brings against Lewin, on the issue of continuous rotations is that there is no way keep it orderly:
[He alleges that the CRT method] “gave them no yardstick for checking which course ought to be on duty at a particular time, should doubt or disagreement arise” (
Beckwith has not given this much sensible thought. Firstly, the plain method of counting 24 weeks from ones last service to one’s next service works as long as one is diligent to count. The Law requires counting of Sabbaths, counting of the Sabbatical year, counting of the Jubilee, and counting of weeks, days, and Sabbaths to the feast of Weeks. The Egyptians managed to count twelve thirty day months, with 5 leaps days, in their calendar, for centuries after centuries, without any anchor in the actual new moon or the actual year. Their calendar wandered the seasons, yet they managed to keep the sequence of days without missing one! The fact that we can locate the 25 year lunar cycles in their calendar shows that they kept it straight. Also Israel managed to count the days of the week to the Sabbath from the beginning to the present, without missing a day. I show several points where modern astronomical calculation confirms that the count has not been lost.
But there are additional ways that the priests can double check their counting. Firstly, every other division is counting also to their week of service. So one can always cross check with someone of another division what week they are on. Also the chief priests in the Temple surely had accounts and a calendar to mark off daily and weekly.
If the priests wanted to, they could estimate the calendar date that they were due to return. Firstly they take note of the month and day on which their last service began. Now there are 168 days between services of the divisions (24 x 7 = 168). Every division serves 168 days from its last service, or 24 weeks. The priest who wishes a calendar date of his next service adds 5 months and 20 days to his last date of service (29.5 * 5 + 20 = 167.5). Say that the date of the Sabbath beginning the last service was 10/22 (22nd day of the 10th month). Adding 5 to the 10th month is 15, and adding 20 to the 22nd day is 42. If needed Subtract 30 days and add 1 month. It is needed in this case, result: 16/12. If the month number is greater than 12, adjust for Adar II. That is necessary in this case. In the case of no Adar II, subtract 12 from the months: 4/12. The next service will be the sabbath nearest to 4/12 of the next year. In the case of Adar II subtract 13 from the months: 3/12. The next service will be the Sabbath nearest to 3/12 next year. If this is hard for any priests in 28/30 cases the math brain in the Temple can give them a date nearest to their next Sabbath of service.
The reason that there are 2/30 cases in which a date cannot be given, is because Adar II is in doubt when the Spring Equinox falls on Nisan 4-5. Coming round a year from Nisan 4 takes one 11 days past the Nisan 4 to the next equinox, and lands it right on Nisan 15 or 16. The case is too close to call a year in advance in those days. The assumed Nisan might have to become an Adar II. They had to observe so as to make sure Passover would fall in the new year. If the last year began on Nisan 4 or Nisan 5, (i.e. the spring equinox, 11 days before Passover, as the lunar year is 11 days shorter than the solar), then no one can really tell if there will be an Adar II until the 13th new moon is seen. In this case the priests just remember their return day without the Adar II (4/12 in the example above), and if one happens, they subtract one month. The amount of time is exactly the same in either case. It is just arithmetic to confirm weekly counting and double check it. Probably most people calculated without Adar II, and then they simply adjusted for it when it happened. The lunar clock is regular enough that it is always clear which Sabbath lands closest to the date. There are a few other ways of counting. If the people are required to count seven weeks once a year, then surely the priests who teach them that can handle 24! And if they mess up, the scribes and teachers in the Synagogues have been noting the weeks of each priestly course every Sabbath.
It has been suggested that Israel would forget the order of the priestly rotations with a disruption like that of Antiochus Epiphanes. The Temple was made desolate by him for a little over three years. Did the people forget when the Sabbath was during those years? No. Then why should the priests who rotate in and out on the Sabbaths forget their position. Three years is not enough time for hope of return to die. The Law and Prophets make it clear that counting is necessary to keep it. Accurate counting is a religious duty and part of orderliness, which is next to Gŏdliness. Even after the destruction of the Second Temple, the order of the divisions was recounted for at least the next half century, and remembered by scholars for the next hundred years after that. And not only that, but they wrote down the date of the last division to serve in the Temple.
Recovering the order of the divisions is remarkably easy if one is armed with certain facts. Firstly, one needs a standard era that is in practice. The books of Maccabees used the Seleucid Era. Next one needs only note which division was serving at the spring equinox in a given year, and which day of the week the sun set due west. Then using the knowledge of the Babylonians or the Greeks on the length of the year (better than 365.25 which is good enough), one can work out the weekly position of the divisions for the next hundred years without anyone having to count during the whole time. I know this because I simulated it using 365.25 days and simply adding the weeks of the divisions from equinox to equinox. As long one avoids the borderline numbers, the correct rotation can be worked out. This is because the real year (365.2422) does not deviate enough from the schematic year to upset the weekly synchronization in the space of 100 years. It would take about 300 years to screw everything up. But I do not think that any such measure was ever taken, because it was never needed. During the short periods of disruption (three years was the longest) by the Greeks and the Romans (before AD 70) the priests were diligent to keep their rotations in place, even when they were prevented from serving.
The Qumran Scribes regarded the rotations as a method of dating. For that is how they chronicled events in 4Q323-4Q324. See Eiseman and Wise,
Deut. 18:6-8 and 2Chron. 5:11 taken together show that the T1A system is unbiblical. T1A proposes that the divisions under both Temples began so that the New moon of Tishri 1 fell into the week of the first division. And indeed, if T1A had been established in the first Temple, then it would have been the system used in the Second Temple. It follows then that evidence against the use of T1A in the First Temple is also evidence against the use of T1A in the Second Temple.
The Priests cannot properly serve in the Temple before they are sanctified to do so. The Law said that they had to stay near the door of the Sanctuary for seven days during their ordination (Exodus 29:35; Lev. 8:33-35). Now the Ark had been captured by the Philistines in 1142 BC. Shiloh was destroyed then or in the next 20 years, but the Tabernacle had been removed before the destruction of the city. We are not told how it escaped destruction. When the Ark was returned after seven months among the Philistines, it was not reunited with the Tabernacle. It was never put in the Tabernacle again, but when Daυi̱d brought it up to Jerusalem in 1053 BC, it was kept separated from the Tabernacle. The reasons why are not mentioned, but we may well guess that the curse on the house of Eli was the reason they were never again entrusted with the Ark. Although the tabernacle was used at Nob and Gibeon (1Sam. 21:1; 1Chron. 16:37-39), the Ark was not there. It was Daυi̱d’s lifelong policy not to lay a hand on Yăhwēh’s Anointed, even when the Anointed was under a curse. The Anointed High Priest was Abiathar, a descendant of Eli, and he was treated with every respect until he conspired with Adonijah against Solomon. Then the king deposed him from the High Priesthood, and put Zadok in his place.
The new Temple was for the Ark. The Ark had gone from 1142 BC to 1012 BC without a house for it, 131 years by the inclusive count. The last priest to be properly ordained at the door of the tabernacle, wherin the sanctuary was sanctified and graced by the holiness imparted to the Ark and the presence of Yăhwēh would be over 160 years old. Priests were ordained at the age of 30. No doubt priests were ordained in that period of time, but every priest ordained without the Ark in the Tabernacle and the glory of Yăhwēh there would know the inadequacy of such an ordination. They all knew “the glory had departed” (1Sam. 4:21). So they were all reordained when the First Temple was dedicated, “For all the priests being found had consecrated themselves, none watching to divisions” (2Chron. 5:11). And the glory of Yăhwēh filled the new Temple (2Chron. 5:13-14). And fire came down from heaven to burn the first offerings in the Temple (2Chron. 7:1). No priest, and no division of priests had the honor of burning the first offerings. Not only that, they could not enter the Temple to serve (2Chron. 7:2). The feast was a feast of dedication (2Chron. 7:5). Now 2Chron. 7:6 says, “And the priests over their watches stood.” This does not mean the regular rotation had begun, because it was all of the priests who were being sanctified for seven days along with the altar, which according to Law had to be sanctified for seven days. The watches of the priests in this case means that they stayed in the Temple for the required seven days, and did not go out of it (2Chron. 7:9).
During that first week, all the priests stood their watches of seven days, to be sanctified with the altar (2Chron. 7:6). And it says, “they sanctified themselves without keeping to divisions” (2Chron. 5:11). The meaning of “watches” in 2Chron 7:6 is confirmed by Lev. 8:35, “And at the door of the tent of appointment you will remain daytime and night, a seven of days, and you will have kept watch, the watch of Yăhwēh, and will not die, because thus I have been made to be commanded!”
Under this threat of death, no priest would want to engage in the regular service until he had done this. It was only in the week of Yōm Kippūr, the week between the dedication feast and the feast of Tabernalces, which they also kept, that the first division of priests would be put on duty. For it was on the 8th day after the dedication feast that everyone was sent home, that is, everyone except those priests who would take the first duty.
Month: VII ETHANIM, 1012 BC 3128 A.M. Sab. Cyc: 7. Jub. Cyc: 42 Cycle No: 63
Q1: 0.677 A Q2: -0.320 F LG: 61m W: 1.125' AL: 22.6 AV: 12.3
New Moon calculated for longitude: 35.17 and latitude 31.77
Location of calculations: Jerusalem Author: Daniel Gregg
TISHRI - ETHANIM 1012 BC Temple Dedication
I II III IV V VI VII
~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
↑ │ 1 │ 2 │ 3 │ 4 │ 5 │ 6 │ 7 │
NM │ Oct 7 │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Dedication of the Altar & Consecration of the Priests for Seven Days
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀██╫██
│ 8th │ 9 │ 10 │ 11 │ 12 │ 13 │ 14 │
│ │ │Y. Kippur│ │ │ │ │
The First Division serves during the second week of Tishri │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀██╫██
│ 15 │ 16 │ 17 │ 18 │ 19 │ 20 │ 21 │
│Sukkot │ │ │ │ │ │ │
The Second Division serves during the third week of Tishri │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 22 │ 23 │ 24 │ 25 │ 26 │ 27 │ 28 │
│8th Day │ │ │ │ │ │ │
The Third Division serves during the fourth week of Tishri │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│ 29 │ 30 ↑ │
│ │ │
The Fourth Division serves....(Rotations continue to 24 and then repeat
│ │ │ perpetually)
It was the plan of Daυi̱d to institute the rotations of 24 divisions with the new Temple. 1Chron. 28:13 states that the divisions were part of the plan for the new Temple. We see that that the first week of Tishri, in 1012 BC, was spent sanctifying the altar and ALL the priests for seven days. Also seen is that ALL the priests had to remain in the Temple for seven days. And no priest was more special than another. But it says that ALL the priests that were found were consecrated without keeping to their divisions. For this reason T1A is not Scriptural. The first division would serve during the second week of Tishri, and not the first week. Roger Beckwith states that counting back from 9 AV, AD 70 to the first week of Tishri matches with the first division. If there ever had been a T1A system, then that first week of Tishri, AD 69, should have matched with the 24th division, and the second week of Tishri with the 1st division. Beckwith’s claimed match is really a disconfirmation. According to Scripture, we should expect T1A to land the 24th division in AD 69 like this (as marked in red).
Month: VII ETHANIM, AD 69 4208 A.M. Sab. Cyc: 2. Jub. Cyc: 44 Cycle No: 85
Q1: 0.052 B Q2: -0.765 G LG: 46m W: 0.483' AL: 14.9 AV: 9.5
New Moon calculated for longitude: 35.17 and latitude 31.77
Location of calculations: Jerusalem Author: Daniel Gregg
I II III IV V VI VII
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
1st Division ↑ │ 1 │ 2 │ 3 │ 4 │
ETHANIM │New Moon │ │Fast Ged │ │
*24th Division* │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 5 │ 6 │ 7 │ 8 │ 9 │ 10 │ 11 │
2nd Division │ │ │ │Y. Kippur│ │
*1st Division* │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 12 │ 13 │ 14 │ 15 │ 16 │ 17 │ 18 │
│ │ │ │Sukkot │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 19 │ 20 │ 21 │ 22 │ 23 │ 24 │ 25 │
│ │ │ │8th Day │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│ 26 │ 27 │ 28 │ 29 │ 30 ↑ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
If the 1st division begins anew every Tishri, then it should be expected to begin anew
I have to note again, that per Deut. 18:6-8, the CRT system is the only way to treat all the priests with equity. T1A causes two divisions to serve three times every year, and sometimes seven divisions to serve three times in a year, leaving divisions 8-24 at a disadvantage in eating their portions of the offerings. To recap, 2Chron. 5:11 states that the first week of Tishri, all the divisions were sanctified without keeping to their divisions. There was no T1A at the inception of Solomon’s Temple, and therefore no precedent for T1A in the Second Temple. The discovery that rotating back (from 9 Av, AD 70 (first division) to Tishri AD 69, and the first week, for the first division ) does not line up with the inception point is proof of CRT and disproof of T1A. Beckwith’s theory missed by one week. And a near miss is as good as a mile when one builds a theory on happenstance instead of Scripture.
I have mentioned the hazards of astronomically dating 4Q320. But I alluded to something else. There is something in 4Q320 that is not “open to interpretation.” And it is admitted by both Beckwith and Finegan. The 4Q320 text begins the 364 day solar year with the 22nd division of Gamul. And where does that leave the 1st division? It puts it into the second week of the seventh month! Let us map this out according to the Qumran Calendar:
DV SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAB MON 221 2 3 4 XII/I 23 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I 24 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I 1 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I 2 26 27 28 29 301 2 I/II 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 II 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 II 5 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 II 6 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 II 71 2 3 4 5 6 7III 8 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 III 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 III 10 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 III 11 29 30 311 2 3 4 III/IV 12 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 IV 13 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 IV 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IV 15 26 27 28 29 301 2 IV/V 16 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 V 17 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 V 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 V 19 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 V 201 2 3 4 5 6 7VI 21 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 VI 22 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 VI 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VI 24 29 30 311 2 3 4 VI/VII 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 VII 2 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 VII 3 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 VII 4 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 VII/VIII 5 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 VIII 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 VIII 7 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 VIII 8 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 VIII 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IX 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IX 11 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 IX 12 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IX 13 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 IX/X 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 X 15 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 X 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 X 17 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 X/XI 18 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 XI 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 XI 20 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 XI 21 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 XI 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 XII 23 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 XII 24 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 XII 1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 XII 2 29 30 31 XII/I
DV = Division. Each quarter of the 364 day Qumran year has 91 days, composed of two 30 day months and a 31 day month. The first day of each quarter is a Wednesday. The first year of their six year cycle is set so that division 22 falls in the first week of the first month. Why did they start counting from 22? Anyone with a blank slate would begin counting with 1! The reason they began with 22 is that they were handed a tradition from the Temple in Jerusalem. And that tradition was CRT in which the first division had begun
The Qumran sect matched their cycles to the cycles as counted in the Second Temple. But of course, with continuous rotations, the cycles will rematch the luni-solar calendar used in Jerusalem. So let us revisit John Pratt’s calculation of 4Q320 for 42 BC, and see just were the 1st division lands in the LUNAR Tishri. We already knows that it comes in the second week of the Solar Tishri. So let’s check the lunar year:
XII.25 22 II.1 3 III.6 8 IV.5 12 V.3 16 VI.1 20 I.2 23 II.8 4 III.13 9 IV.12 13 V.10 17 VI.8 21 I.9 24 II.15 5 III.20 10 IV.19 14 V.17 18 VI.15 22 I.16 1 II.22 6 III.27 11 IV.26 15 V.24 19 VI.22 23 I.23 2 II.29 7 VI.29 24VII.7 1 VII.14 2 VII.21 3 VII.28 4
Month: VII ETHANIM, 42 BC 4098 A.M. Sab. Cyc: 4. Jub. Cyc: 32 Cycle No: 83
Q1: 0.149 B Q2: -1.015 G LG: 40m W: 0.922' AL: 19.4 AV: 8.0
New Moon calculated for longitude: 35.17 and latitude 31.77
Location of calculations: Jerusalem Author: Daniel Gregg
I II III IV V VI VII
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
↑ │ 1 │ 2 │ 3 │ 4 │ 5 │ 6 │
1706347 │SEP 23 │ │Fast Ged │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 7 │ 8 │ 9 │ 10 │ 11 │ 12 │ 13 │
│ First Division │ │Y. Kippur│ │ │ │
│1706354 │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 14 │ 15 │ 16 │ 17 │ 18 │ 19 │ 20 │
│ │Sukkot │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 21 │ 22 │ 23 │ 24 │ 25 │ 26 │ 27 │
│ │8th Day │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│ 28 │ 29 │ 30 ↑ │
│ │ │ │
I have put in the Julian date for the second week of Tishri: 1706354. Now for the Second Temple the formula for finding the division from the Julian date is: [(JD+1)/7 + 3] MOD 24 +1. First Add 1: 1706355. Divide by 7: 243765. Add 3: 243768. MOD 24: 0. Add 1: 1. The first division serves
Now there is no reason to start counting from 22 unless the cycle has been intelligently synchronized at a different point, namely with the first division starting with the Sabbath
And most importantly of all, CRT agrees perfectly with the data in Luke. It was historically calculated by Thomas Lewin, who though he had the wrong year, at least put the birth of Mĕssiah in the fall. The agreement with Luke is to the exact day in 2 BC. Taking the CRT rotations and Luke’s timing, and the most parsimonious assumptions about the conception dates leads directly to Tishri 1, 2 BC. This is a solution that is much better than Beckwith’s shoddy argument that CRT would fall into confusion for lack of an annual renewal date, and his outlandish claim that the Jews would need a perfect knowledge of astronomy to keep their counting in order.
John Chrysostom (ca AD 349 - 407) claimed that Zechariah was the High Priest, and that he was burning incense on the 10th of Tishri, on the Day of Atonement. Apparently Chrysostom did not read, or take Luke 1:9 seriously, “He [Zechariah] was chosen by lot to enter the Temple of Yăhwēh.” The High Priest was never chosen by lot to burn incense on the Day of Atonement. The High Priest was
Kenneth Doig picks up on this deceitful argument of Chrysostom stating, “A similar path can be followed in an attempt to demonstrate that Chrysostom was essentially correct.” Along the way he also claims, “But, the cycle [of priestly rotations] begun by Solomon did not continue unbroken until the time of Josephus in the first century CE. When Hezekiah reinstituted the Passover in 715 BCE
Doig is merely assuming that the chain was broken. Even if the translation “appointed” were correct, Hezekiah’s action does not prove the chain was broken! It only proves that the divisions that were supposed to be on duty did not show up until he made them show up. The Hebrew text reads, “Then Hezekiah made stand the divisions of the priests, and the Levites upon their divisions,
During a short disruption of the Temple, we may assume that there were communities of priests keeping their respective 24 week counts. The Babylonian exile was another matter. All the divisions were scrambled up during the exile, and only four returned. The exiles remembered when the Sabbath was, but did they remember in 515 BC how many Sabbaths had passed since 10 Av 587 BC? Doig remarks, “With the Babylonian destruction of Solomon's Temple in 586 BCE the priestly service ceased, and the cycle count with it.”
Doig’s conclusion, although technically correct, is overstated. It is overstated, because they could recover the count after loosing it given certain information. The first Temple was destroyed on the day after the Sabbath (10 Av, 587 BC), which can be verified by astronomical calculation. The Seder Olam tradition states that it was destroyed on the day after the Sabbath, but we need not consider that piece of information reliable for my purpose here. If it is assumed that one of the priests remembered the division that was on duty, and which day of the duty it was, when the first Temple was destroyed, then the count of divisions could be recovered, even if no one counted in the 72 years between the destruction of the first Temple, and the opening of the Second Temple (587-515 BC). Or if even one of the other divisions remembered how many weeks their count was on when the Temple was destroyed, and the day of the week that the
First the authorities observe which day and month prior to the opening of the Second Temple is the spring equinox. They do this by marking which day the sun first sets due west moving northward along the western horizon after the winter. They note that this event occurs on 17 Adar II, and that the day of the week is a Sabbath. The date in Julian terms is March 26, or Julian date 1533404.
Given: destruction of Temple 72 years earlier. Given: date of destruction 10 AV. Given: destruction on a Sunday. Given: division D was on duty (14). Given: 72 years later the spring equinox was on 17 Adar II, a Sabbath. Given: year = 365.25 days (known by Babylonians and Persians). Given: month = 29.53 days (known by Babylonians and Persians). Find: which division will be on duty on the spring equinox 72 years later. 72 years = 365.25 x 72 = 26298 days. (72 x 365 + 72 x ¼) 26298 days/ 29.53 days/lunation = 890.55 lunations. (The hardest math problem) 890.55 lunations = 890 lunations 16 days. Count back 16 days to 1 Adar II. Therefore lunation 1 = Nisan 1 = spring equinox 72 years earlier. Four months and 9 days = 29.53 x 4 + 9 = 127 days. Reduce the day count by 127 days: 26298-127 = 26171. Divide by 7: 3738.71. Round to nearest week: 3739. The first week = Division D. The 3739th week = Division D + 3738. 3738 MOD 24 = 18, so The 3739th week = Division D + 18. D = 14. D + 18 = 32. 32 -24 = 8. Division 8 serves the week leading up to the spring equinox of 515. Check: Since the spring equinox fell on the Sabbath, 3/26/515 BC (17 Adar II), the week leading it (#3739) began on 3/20/515 (11 Adar II). The Julian date for this was 1533398. Using the First Temple formula: [(JD + 1)/7 - 2] MOD 24 + 1: [(1533398 + 1)/7 - 2] MOD 24 + 1 = 8. Note: if the weekday of the destruction were forgotten, there there is a possibility that the result could be the 9th division.
Why does this calculation work? It works because counting backwards by the length of an average lunation (29.53 days) never deviates by more than 2 days from the true new moon (in a space of 72 years the cumulative error is only 12.56 hours vs. 29.530588). If the cycle is correctly synchronized then the deviation is only ±1 day. If an even more slightly accurate figure is used 29.5306, then the error accumulates much less slowly. The year length is only needed to determine the total number of lunations. The calculation is in trouble only if the equinox falls near the 15th of the month at the beginning of the year, putting in doubt the possibility of Adar II at the beginning of 587. Since the calculated equinox was on the first day of a month, there is no doubt that it is Nisan. In the actual case, Nisan 1, 587 BC was day 365 of the old year. So the calculation was off by only 1 day. It would have to be off by 14 days to put in doubt the number of lunations. Given these conditions, the nearest number of whole weeks can always be calculated, and therefore the weekly count of priestly divisions can always be recovered using only the knowledge of ancient times, and a valid historical record where the count left off.
The hardest mathematical operations involved are long division and long multiplication. The problem could certainly be worked out by the Persian Magi.
If the returnees thought it important to work out which division should be on duty counting the cycles in the 72 missed years, then they could have done it. But they did not do this. For we find that they probably had a different principle in mind. When counting back from 9 Av, AD 70, we find that the first week of Nisan 515 BC (the week containing the new moon of it) calculates to the 15th division, or the week prior to the 14th division, or the week leading the spring equinox, the 13th. Counting forward from Solmon’s Temple, the 8th division should have been on duty. This is a 5 week difference. No one makes a 5 week error, and no one synchronizes division 15 for the first of Nisan unless they are following a different principle. They either make no error counting through the 72 years, or they start again at the first division, OR they decide not to count through the 72 years, and to pick up the new rotations where the old left off. It appears that they picked up the count left off in 587 with either the 14th division in the week prior to Nisan 1, or with the 15th division in the week of Nisan 1.
It appears that no calculation was done at all, but it was simply remembered what division was on duty when the first temple was destroyed, and then the rotations resumed where they left off. The 14th division in 587 was simply followed by the 15th division in Nisan of 515 BC. Doig, of course assumes that the Temple was destroyed in 586 BC. This error is caused by not taking the 70 year periods correctly. Calculating from 586 BC comes up one year short. The correct calculation from 587 is shown in the Scroll of Biblical Chronology. Likewise, Doig’s date for the dedication of the first Temple is incorrect, because his date for the division of the kingdom, and Solomon’s reign is incorrect. We have to take account of the 390 years in Ezekiel 4:5. It is no accident that the number of years from the division of the kingdom to the date of Ezekiel’s prophecy work out to 390 years. This is proved by the internal evidence which I will not detail here. I will just give the simple calculation. Jehoiachin was exiled in 597 BC, ten years before the destruction of the First Temple. The year is confirmed by the Babylonian Chronicle. In the 5th year of exile, Ezekiel received his vision (Ezek. 1:1, 4:5). The count is inclusive 597 = 1. Subtract 4. Add 4: 593 = 5. Therefore: 593 BC = 390th year. To figure the 1st year of the 390, add 389, subtract 389: 982 BC = 1. The synchronism was given for month IV in 593 BC. So we need to account for the epoch of the years, which may be determined from the epoch of the 30 years given in Ezek. 1:1. This is a Tishri epoch counting from the year of Josiah’s Passover reformation. Solomon’s reign, likewise, uses a Tishri epoch. Month IV of 982 = year 1, and so the 1st of the 390 years began in 983 BC on Tishri 1. The Temple was dedicated in the 12th year of Solomon on the second week of Tishri. His reign was 40 years long. The 40th year was 984 Tishri to 983 Tishri. The 1st of the 390 years begin with the division of the kingdom, counted to the year starting 1 Tishri 983, when Jeroboam rebelled against Rehoboam in the first year of Rehoboam. Subtract/add 28 years to the limits of the 40th year: 12th year = 1012 Tishri to 1011 Tishri. In the second week of Tishri 1012 BC, the rotations began.
Doig remarks on the Second Temple:
Then they appointed the priests to their divisions and the Levites in their orders for the service of God in Jerusalem." (Ezra 6:15,18) This was March 12, 515 BCE. Josephus noted there were "four courses of the priests." (Against Apion 2:8) The Talmud also notes at that time many Levites were missing, and "Four mishmaroth (divisions) returned from the [Babylonian] exile, and they were Jedaiah, Harim, Pashhur and Immer. The prophets amongst them arose and divided them and increased them to twenty-four. [Lots were prepared] and mixed and placed in an urn. First came Jedaiah . . . and Jehoiarib should be subordinate [to him.]" (BT, Ta'anith 27a. See also `Arakin 12b and Ezra 2:36-39) The original divisions were reestablished from the four priestly families, and the cycle count began anew. From the Talmud it seems that Jedaiah was then first, with Jehoiarib last; this would have advanced Abijah to seventh, but still eighth in relation to Jehoiarib. With the "abomination of desolation" by Antiochus Epiphanes on December 8, 167 BCE, (1 Macc. 1:60; Ant. XII 5:4) the priestly service of the divisions again ceased (NT Chronology, Chapter 7).
Ezra 6:15 states that the Temple was finished on 3 Adar. The date that Doig supplies is 12 March, 515 BC. This date can be eliminated from consideration as a completion date, because it was a Sabbath. There were two Adars this year, Adar I and Adar II. The text does not specify which Adar. The 3rd of Adar I was on Thursday, Feb. 10, 515 BC. And this was the completion date. The two month delay between the completion of the building and the dedication of the altar and priests should not disturb us. In fact, any less time is problematic. Solomon’s Temple was finished in the 8th month of his 11th year (1Kings 6:38) and the dedication delayed to 1 Tishri in his 12th year, a total of 11 months. Gill remarks, “Now, though the temple was finished in the eighth month, 1 Kings 6:38, it was not dedicated until the seventh in the following year; it required time to finish the utensils and vessels, and put them in their proper place, and for the drying of the walls, &c.” Ezra 1:7 says that the vessels from the First Temple were returned for the Second Temple. The building of the Second Temple took longer than the first, due to delays. I don’t think Gill’s supposition of the need for mortar to dry is a serious consideration. I assume no mortar was used at all. Probably the time was chosen because the 7th month was the best time logistically to open the new Temple. It may be supposed since there was no issue with the utensils, and due to the long delays, that the Second Temple could be dedicated much sooner than the first. It appears that the authorities decided upon the dedication with the new year:
Month: XIII ADAR_II, 515 BC 3624 A.M. Sab. Cyc: 6. Jub. Cyc: 48 Cycle No: 73
Q1: 1.791 A Q2: -0.199 D LG: 109m W: 1.336' AL: 23.4 AV: 22.4
New Moon calculated for longitude: 35.17 and latitude 31.77
Location of calculations: Jerusalem Author: Daniel Gregg
I II III IV V VI VII
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
↑ │ 1 │ 2 │ 3 │
ADAR_II NM │New Moon │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ MAR 10 │ MAR 11 │ MAR 12 │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 4 │ 5 │ 6 │ 7 │ 8 │ 9 │ 10 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 11 │ 12 │ 13 │ 14 │ 15 │ 16 │ 17 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ EQUINOX │
│ ** │ │ │ │ │ │ 1 │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 18 │ 19 │ 20 │ 21 │ 22 │ 23 │ 24 │
│ Seven Days Dedicating Altar and Priests---------------------- │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│ 25 │ 26 │ 27 │ 28 │ 29 ↑ │
│ 15th Division Begins regular Duty │ NM │
│ │ │ │ │ APR 7 │
The other alternative is that the dedication was in the week before the spring equinox (** above), and that regular service followed with the 14th division. It is only a question of whether the 14th division, whose duty fell on 9-10 Av, 587 BC, was skipped or not, when the succession was resumed.
Josephus refers to the four divisions that returned from Babylon (
Now we need to examine the Mishnah, because it tells us exactly how the division was accomplished, and it was not as Doig suggests, that the order of the divisions was different:
(1) I.e., those of his sub-divisions. (2) In the First Temple, I Chron. XXIV, 7. (3) [Who in the First Temple was second, v. I Chron. ibid.] (4) [Because he refused to return at the time with Ezra, v. n. 4.]
The Numbers of priests were as follows: Jedaiah 973, Immer 1052, Pashhur 1247, Harim 1017. The numbers suggest that no adjustments needed to be made for relative population of the four divisions. Each numbered about 1000. Jedaiah divided 6 ways equals 162/division, Immer: 175. Harim: 169. Pashhur divided six ways equals 207/division. The numbers may have been greater and slightly different each when the four divisions were divided up. The number of years from Ezra 3:1 to Ezra 6:18 was 12 ½. The increase in population could not have been much.
It was first decided that division 14 or 15 would serve first following on from the first Temple when the dedication of the Second was Completed, as described above, and determined by working back from 9 Av, AD 70. Twenty-four lots were prepared. Lots 2, 3, 5, and 16 were placed (on the table) outside the urn. The rest of the lots were put in the urn. Each of the four divisions came and took their original lot off the table and five more out of the urn, making six total. “His portion” means the original portion assigned in 1 Chronicles 24, the lot left out of the Urn. The order of divisions was kept in place, as original. It is implied that Jedaiah drew the first lot among his other five positions. This may not be the case, as the Talmud is only giving a hypothetical. If the original first division later returned from Babylon, then the 162 Priests from Jedaiah (division 2) who had moved into the place of the first division, could not loose their place, because the failure of the first division to return was their transgression, and therefore, their place was lost.
So the case is not as Doig suggested, that division 8 shifted to position 7. Division 8 was kept in position, and its name adopted by 1/6th of one of the four divisions to draw the lot for Abijah. Doig suggests that the divisions lost count and had to begin again at the first after the desolation of Antiochus. This disruption was about three years. As shown with the disruption during Ahaz’s reign, the count was not lost during the first Temple. Even if the count was lost in 587, it could have been recovered, but they appear to have decided to follow the last division of the first temple rather than rotate them in the 72 years between. There is no question of the ability of the priests to figure continuous rotations over the shorter disruptions. They only have to remember the month, day, weekday, and number of the division serving when the disruption occurred. But it is likely that the count was kept through these shorter periods. Finally, onward from Pompey’s disruption (64 or 63 BC), there were no disruptions until the destruction of the Second Temple. Not even Doig argues this. Doig’s argument against the continuity of the divisions from 515 BC onward is fairly the same as Beckwith and Finegan, and appears to me to be purely based on assumption and speculation favorable to their theories. It seems to be rather prejudiced to be willing to accept the continuity of the Egyptian calendar through all of their calamities, and then to deny the ability of the Levitical Priests to keep and accounting over much smaller periods of time.
The Biblical material was not the only record keeping that the Priests had to go on. Scripture was preserved because it was copied. The amount of contemporary record keeping at the time of the first destruction by governments, and the writers of accounts, has to have been 10,000 times the biblical material. It was available as long as the original documents lasted. And it perished for the simple banal reason that it was not deemed worthy to copy. It would appear then that the supposition that the priests must have lost count, or that it was impossible to recover it, are
However, the priestly cycle would have run uninterrupted from at least 67 BCE (Chart IV) until the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. The relationship of this last cycle to the cycles during Solomon's Temple or before the desecration of the Second Temple is unknown. However, the order of priests would likely have remained the same as originally given in Scripture.
As discussed above, we do know the relationship, because we know how it begun with the first Temple, and how it ended with the Second Temple. The formula for converting a Julian date during the First Temple (1012 BC to 587 BC) to a division number is: D = ([(JD + 1)/7 - 2] MOD 24) + 1. The corresponding formula for the Second temple is: D = ([(JD + 1)/7 + 3] MOD 24) + 1. The 15th division in the first week of Nisan in 515 BC is justified in that it follows the 14th division, whose duty it was, when the First Temple was destroyed. So we may additionally say that there is continuity between the two Temples, since the resumed count is taken from the old count.
Since the date of the destruction of the First Temple is important I will discuss it here anew. It is relevant to which division would be on duty from the inception of Solomon’s Temple in 1012 BC, a matter briefly proved before. There are two competing dates for the destruction of the First Temple, one in 587 BC and the other in 586 BC. The 587 BC date is the only one that agrees with Scripture. It states in Zech. 7:5:
“Say unto all the people of the land, and unto the priests, saying, ‘When you had fasted, and mourned in the fifth, and in the seventh, that is this seventieth year, fasting you have fasted for me?’”
It should be noted that the cardinal of seventy is the same as the ordinal of seventy. For example in Lev. 25:10, the plural of five חֲמִשִּׁים means “fiftieth.” In Ezekiel 1:1, the plural of three שְׁלֹשִׁים means “thirtieth.” Likewise the number forty and fortieth appear the same in Hebrew. Gen. 7:4: אַרְבָּעִים. Compare בִּשְׁנַת הָאַרְבָּעִים in Num. 33:38, and in Deut. 1:3. In may be conceded that the words could mean “these seventy years” also. But as some are bound to argue that they were only fasting during a predetermined 70 years, and that it was only the 69th of the seventy, I should point out the perfect tense in Zech. 7:5, “you had fasted....” Further, the text is dated in 7:1 as in the 9th month, which is being past the 5th and 7th months that year, and also in the 4th year of Darius, and the 4th day. This date answers to 7 Nov, 518 BC, a Thursday. Counting back 70 fastings in the 7th month takes the timeline from the 4th year of Darius back to the 5th month of 587 BC. If the destruction were in 586, then the statement in Zechariah 7:5 appears to be untrue.
In Jeremiah 52:29, it states, “in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar he carried away captive from Jerusalem 832 persons.” According to standard Babylonian reign years, this also dates to 587 BC. But then Jer. 32:1 states that the 10th year of Zedekiah was the 18th of Nebuchadnezzar, implying the destruction in the 19th year (the 11th of Zedekiah). 2Kings 25:8 states it was the 19th year, as also Jer. 52:12. Jeremiah 52:12 was likely sourced from 2Kings 25:8. Similar discrepancies concern the year of the deportation of Jehoiachin in 597 BC. 2 Kings 24:12 says it was in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Jeremiah 52:28 implies that it was the 7th year. The Babylonian Chronicle puts it on 2 Adar in the 7th year, but the Babylonian Adar that year was the first month for Judah. So from the Babylonian point of view, it was the 7th year, but in the Judean approximation it was the 8th year. The solution for the 19th year problem is that 2Kings 25:8 is counting the Babylonian reign by a non-accession method from Tishri 605 BC, and so that when it says the 19th year, this is the same as the 18th according to the Babylonians. The Judeans were known to count the Nisan years of Babylonian and Persian Kings on the basis of a Tishri equivalence. For example, see Neh. 1:1 and 2:1.
Besides the 70 years of fasting fitting only with 587, we have a second witness. Ezekiel 33:21 dates a report on the fall of the city to the 10th month and the 12th year of the exile, and the 5th day of the month, i.e. December 20, 587 BC. This is
So we see that with a ready explanation for the discrepant dates of the 7th and 8th year, and the 18th and 19th, that the other evidence points to 587 BC. Doig states in summary fashion:
“The destruction of Solomon's Temple occurred in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar in the year beginning in the spring of 586 BCE. For the fifth month the new moon was first visible at Jerusalem at 3:27 AM on July 9. Saturday, July 18, 586 was Ab 10 by sunrise reckoning and Ab 9 by sunset reckoning. This seems to satisfy Jeremiah, Josephus and the Mishna.9 The division of Jehoiarib was on duty. On that day Solomon's Temple was burnt, late Saturday afternoon, "the going out of the Sabbath" according to `Arakin 11b” (ibid).
Doig’s calculations here are way off. The new moon was indeed on July 9th in 586, but his weekday for 10 Av (Jul 18) is way off. Here is the month he is talking about:
Month: V AV, 586 BC 3554 A.M. Sab. Cyc: 5. Jub. Cyc: 26 Cycle No: 72
Q1: 0.853 A Q2: -0.604 G LG: 86m W: 0.829' AL: 18.8 AV: 15.6
New Moon calculated for longitude: 35.17 and latitude 31.77
Location of calculations: Jerusalem Author: Daniel Gregg
I II III IV V VI VII
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
↑ │ 1 │ 2 │ 3 │ 4 │ 5 │
AV NM │New Moon │ │ │ │ │
JUL 9 │ JUL 10 │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~ ▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒ ~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 6 │ 7 │ 8 │ 9 │ 10 │ 11 │ 12 │
│ │ │ │Fast Day │ │ │ │
│ │ JUL 16 │ JUL 17 │ JUL 18 │ JUL 19 │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 13 │ 14 │ 15 │ 16 │ 17 │ 18 │ 19 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 20 │ 21 │ 22 │ 23 │ 24 │ 25 │ 26 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│ 27 │ 28 │ 29 ↑ │
│ │ AUG 6 │ NM │
We see that the 9th of Av is as far away from the Sabbath as one can be, and even the 10th of Av is too far away. The whole series of days in the Scripture narratives, 7 Av to 10 Av, is midweek. The 10th of Av by sunrise reckoning (marked red) does not overlap the 9th of Av by sunset reckoning (marked blue). To indicate the night between 9 and 10 Av, one has to say that the 9th of Av by sunrise reckoning overlaps the 10th of Av by sunset reckoning. So we see that 586 BC satisfies nothing of the traditional dates. Let us now take a closer look at 587 BC:
Month: V AV, 587 BC 3553 A.M. Sab. Cyc: 4. Jub. Cyc: 25 Cycle No: 72
Q1: 1.056 A Q2: -0.239 E LG: 88m W: 1.040' AL: 21.6 AV: 16.5
New Moon calculated for longitude: 35.17 and latitude 31.77
Location of calculations: Jerusalem Author: Daniel Gregg
I II III IV V VI VII
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
↑ │ 1 │ 2 │
AV NM │New Moon │ │
│ JUL 20 │ JUL 21 │ │
│ 1507222 │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│ 3 │ 4 │ 5 │ 6 │ 7 │ 8 │ 9 ♦ │ 10 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ JUL 29 │Fast Day │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 10th │
│ 13th Division │ │ │ │ │ 9 xxxx │
13th Division>|<14th Division-----
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 10 │ 11 │ 12 │ 13 │ 14 │ 15 │ 16 │
│Fast Day │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ 14th Division │ │ │ │ │ │
1507232
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 17 │ 18 │ 19 │ 20 │ 21 │ 22 │ 23 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████
│ 24 │ 25 │ 26 │ 27 │ 28 │ 29 ↑ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ AUG 18 │
Because the critical spot on the calendar breaks on the weekend, I have tagged 10 Av onto the end of the Sabbath. Also I have shown the limits of 10 Av by sunset reckoning in the blue. The overlap I show with the red
In the above calendar, note the 13th and 14th division times handing off at noon on the Sabbath prior to the burning of the Temple.
Doig presents us with the following chart, to which I have added notes [ ].
| Division of
Abijah Served |
Conception
of John |
Conception
of Jesus |
Birth
of Jesus |
| 5 [BC], Sept. 3-10 | Sep. 10 | Feb. 25 | Nov. 25, 4 |
| 5 [BC], March 19-26 | Mar. 26 | Sep. 11 | June 11, 4 |
| 6 [BC], Oct. 3-10 | Oct. 10 | Mar. 25 | Dec. 25, 5 [BC] |
| 6 [BC], April 18-25 | Apr. 25 | Oct. 10 | July 10, 5 |
| 7 [BC], Nov. 1-8 | Nov. 8 | Apr. 23 | Jan. 23, 5 |
| 7 [BC], May 17-24 | May 24 | Nov. 8 | Aug. 8, 6 |
| 7 [BC], Jan. 18-25 [Incorrect Calculation] | Jan. 25 | July 10 | Apr. 10, 6 |
| 8 [BC], Aug. 3-10 [Incorrect Calculation] | Aug. 10 | Jan. 25 | Oct. 25, 7 |
Doig manages to get the same calendar dates as John Chrysostom for the conception and birth of Jesus, but to do so, he has to go far out of the bounds of the Scripture. Luke 3:1 specifies that John began his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius, which dates between the fall of AD 28 and AD 29. Luke 3:23 states that Yĕshūa̒ was almost 30 toward the fall of this year. Accordingly he was born in 2 BC. Doig takes the supposed death of Herod in 4 BC as more reliable than Luke. The Scripture nowhere gives any calculation by which it can be determined which year Herod died, other than Luke 3:1 and 3:23. The supposed 4 BC death of Herod is based on an errant interpretation of an
Doig further claims that the “whole multitude” is
“And the whole multitude of the people were praying without,.... In the court of the Israelites, whilst Zacharias was in the holy place; though not in the holy of holies, where only the high priest entered: it looks, as Dr. Lightfoot conjectures, as if this was on a sabbath day, since there was such a multitude of people together; for on the weekday, there were only the priests and Levites of the course, and the stationary men, which represented the Israelites, and some of the more devout sort of the people; but here was the whole multitude of the people; or as the Ethiopic version renders it, "all the people were in a full congregation praying": prayer, was wont to be made at the time of incense; hence it is compared to it, Psalm 141:2. And hence it is, that Christ is said to offer up the prayers of all saints, with his much incense, Revelation 8:3.”
Benson remarks:
The whole multitude of the people, &c. — The manner in which the evangelist expresses himself here, shows that a more than ordinary concourse of the people was in the temple on this occasion, from which we may infer that it was a sabbath, or some high festival time; for often on ordinary week-days, few of the people were present at the morning and evening sacrifices, and therefore “four and twenty men were employed to attend this service, as representatives of the people of Israel, to lay their hands on the head of the sacrifice, to pray, and to receive the blessing. These were called, from their office, stationary men.” — Macknight.
The Expositor’s Greek Testament seeks to steer us away from the conclusion that it was a Sabbath, “there might be a crowd within the temple precincts at the hour of prayer any day of the week, not merely on Sabbath or on a feast day (“dies solennis, et fortasse sabbatum,” Bengel)..” The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges says the opposite, “This seems to shew that the vision took place either on a sabbath, or some great feast-day.” Bengel states, “It must therefore have been a solemn day, and perhaps the Sabbath, on which Zacharias entered upon his duty.”
So we do not have to conclude with Doig that the day was a feast day. It was a regular Sabbath on July 13th, 3 BC. Doig states:
Zacharias no doubt hurried home with excitement after sunset on October 10. He lived nearby in the "hill country, a city of Judah." (Luke 1:39) Since Elizabeth was previously barren, it is not necessary to consider a normal fertility cycle. Just as Mary was later immediately pregnant with Jesus after the Annunciation, it is also expected that the miracle of God was not here delayed. Elizabeth likely became pregnant with John the evening of October 10, 6 BCE.
Doig is correct that John was immediately conceived. He is also correct that Yĕshūa̒ was conceived as soon as the Messenger left. We will find that his timeline to December 25th is therefore too long. Doig states that the second announcement was at the 5.5 month mark. Therefore October 10th + 5.5 x 29.5 + 266 should give us a birth date. Adding 428 days to October 10 results in December 11th, 5 BC. This is exactly 2 weeks short of his goal. Doig is implying the child was overdue, and unlikely event because the census appointment would not be that long. Luke 2:6 states that they were
The 5.5 months, Doig proposes is not itself impossible on the supposition that the 5 months is only approximate, but it begs with question why the text says that Elizabeth hid herself for five months and not six. Doig seems to have sensed this problem and has shortened Chrysostom’s time line at this point, choosing to add the necessary two weeks at the end to reach December 25th. Chrysostom, of course, was faced with a greater distance than Doig, in trying to make it from Sept. 25th to December 25th in the next year. There is another interpretation that agrees with the facts. The 6th month was in fact the new moon day of the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, and this was the day of the second announcement. Miryam immediately went to Elizabeth for want of confirmation and ended Elizabeth’s seclusion. That is why Luke says it was five months. Elizabeth conceived on V.1. The announcement to Miryam was on X.1. John was born on II.1, and Yĕshūa̒ on VII.1 (Tishri 1), and the wise men visited on XI.1. Everything was timed perfectly, according to a perfect average gestation, and then all is confirmed by Revelation 12:1-2.