[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Ioudaios: calendar, Enoch/Jub., 7Q5
These messages appeared on the Ioudaios list and may be of interest to the
Orion group.
Avital Pinnick
list moderator
Orion
>From rml17@cornell.eduWed Apr 10 21:03:53 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 09:49:17 -0400
From: Rebecca Lesses <rml17@cornell.edu>
Reply to: ioudaios-l@Lehigh.EDU
To: First Century Judaism Discussion Forum <ioudaios-l@Lehigh.EDU>
Subject: Re: 4QMMT & seventh day
4QMMT and a number of other Qumran documents (including Jubilees, found at
Qumran among other places) document a solar calendar that defines exactly
which day of the week a particular date should fall on -- but this is not
the luni-solar calendar followed by other Jews. On MMT as evidence for
first century Judaism -- I was under the impression that it was probably
from mid-second century BCE, and thus would not be a particularly good
guide to Jewish groups of the first century CE.
Rebecca Lesses
Visiting Assistant Professor
Cornell University
Near Eastern Studies
(607) 255-7119
e-mail: rml17@cornell.edu
>From jduff@jesus.ox.ac.ukWed Apr 10 21:04:17 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 15:20:46 +0100 (BST)
From: Jeremy Duff <jduff@jesus.ox.ac.uk>
Reply to: ioudaios-l@Lehigh.EDU
To: First Century Judaism Discussion Forum <ioudaios-l@Lehigh.EDU>
Subject: Calendars/Sabbaths and Enoch/Jubilees/Qumran
The question of calculating the Sabbath has come up in a number of
recent postings. I tried to do some work on the calendrical systems
used by Jews in the period around the first century last year when
I was looking at the Enochic literature. I give a summary of it
below. Hopefully this will be a contribution to the thread on the
Sabbath. I would also be very interested in getting feedback from
others on the topic generally.
I have three questions which are dependent on what I have written
below but I will give here so that people can decide whether they
want to delete this whole posting now!
1. Do others agree with my surmise about the use of the two different
calendars by Jews at this time?
2. Is there any other evidence for what calendars were used
generally by Jews around this period?
3. If I am right in supposing that the Enochic literature and Jubilees use
(and propose vigorously) a different calendar to that used by other Jews at
the time,
would this not imply that these texts could have only had a very limited
acceptance/circulation among Jews? At least, those Jewish leaders who thought
about calendars could not have agreed that these texts were worth taking
notice of. This could point to Enoch/Jubilees as not being particularly
representative of Jews at the time in other matters, or at least suggests
that these texts may not have been widely thought of as worth reading.
========================
Jeremy Duff
D. Phil. Student
Jesus College, Oxford
==========================================================================
*** Ethiopic Enoch
The text commonly called 1 Enoch (or "Ethiopic Enoch") seems to
assume and put forward a calendar of 364 days per year. This calendar
is fixed by calculation. Such calculations can be done most easily with
reference to the sun. The year consists of four periods of 91 days each
- the gap between each solstice and equinox. Each of these four periods
can then be split into three months - either each having 30 days and
there being one extra day at the beginning or end of the quarter, or two
months of 30 days and one of 31 days. Using such a system the moon can
also be predicted, though it does not fit very neatly.
Chapter 72-82 of Ethiopic Enoch deal generally with this calendar (though
there are references in the rest of Ethiopic Enoch to show that the
calendar was probably also assume by the writers of those parts of the "text"
as well - 72 and 82 are the clearest and also the statements in 74.9-17 and
79.5-6. Chapters 73,74,78,79 all try to relate the calendar to the moon. This
is not a sign of a different calendar - once one has a fixed calendar of
364 days per year one can calculate both the moon's and the sun's path.
There is a major problem with such a calendrical system, however: the
astronomical and therefore agricultural year has 365.24 days per year not
364. Hence if one follows this calendar one will find that your calendar
falls out of sequence with the agricultural one. Such a discrepancy is
noted in Ethiopic Enoch (80.1-7). The writer however declares that it is
not his calendar that is wrong, however, but the stars!
The major advantage of such a calendar, however, is that 364 is divisible
by 7. Therefore the same day is the Sabbath each year. This also means that
the festivals fall on the same day each year. Behind the use of such a calendar
therefore, one can probably detect a type of "natural theology" - "God
created the earth and the astronomical bodies, God also ordained the Sabbath.
Therefore the astronomical bodies and the seasons must reflect the
Sabbatical pattern - the year must be divisible into sevens".
*** Jubilees and Qumran texts
Without wanting to lay out all the references we see the same calendar at
work in Jubilees (particularly 6.23-38 but it also underlies all the
dates on which the festivals are celebrated throughout the work). The Aramaic
fragments of Enoch from Qumran are partial and yet do seem to reveal the
same calendar as in Ethiopic Enoch (particularly 4QEnAsb frag 26 line 3
cf. Ethiopic Enoch 79.2-5).
Various of the Qumran texts (as well as the Enoch and Jubilees ones) also
seem to suppose that this calendar being used. The clearest example is
11QPsa col. 27 where David's works are given (e.g. 364 psalms for the
perpetual offerings of each day). Also Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice
(4Q400-407, 11Q5-6) must rely on such a system since only
under it can Sabbaths be given exact dates in relation to the months, as is
done here. 1 QS 10.7ff hints at this system by its reference to four season.
The 26 courses of priests mentioned in 1QM 2.1-2 would fit this calendar well
since in it there are exactly 52 weeks a year.4Q394 (4QMMTa) frag 1 col 1
seems to be the end of a description of a calendar but the text breaks
off and so only reveals that there are 36? days a year. However, the fact that
a precise number of days per year can be give suggests that this fixed calendar
is being used. CD 16.3-4 (basically present in some cave four MSS of Jubilees)
points to Jubilees as a source of calendrical instruction.
It is sometimes suggested that 11QT 19 describes a calendar. However, although
its descriptions will fit this fixed calendar, they are not more specific than
Numbers 28.11-29.6 itself, and can fit almost any calendar. Yadinprove it
involves a fatal non sequitor - he shows that the first fruits of the
oilis a fixed day every year.
*** A lunar calendar?
As I indicated above some have see the discussion of the moon in Ethiopic Enoch
73, 74, 78, 79; Aramaic Enoch 4QEnAsta and 4Q503 (Daily Prayers) as a
sign of a different calendar (lunar as opposed to solar). The crucial thing
about the calendar in Enoch and Jubilees is that it is by calculation
rather than by observation. You know how long the year is and so one can
calculate the sun and the moon. In an observatory system (the year starts when
a certain astronomical phenomenon is observed) one can calculate neither.
*** Evidence of disputes
There is also evidence that there was a matter of dispute over the calendar.
Ethiopic enoch 80.1-7 and Jubilees 6.23-38 reveal this. 1QS 1.14-15, 10.1-8;
CD 3.14-15, 10.17-21 lay great stress on calendrical correctness, which may
well imply it was a matter of dispute. Furthermore 1QpHab 11.4-9 seems to
suggest that the "community" had a different day of atonement that the
"wicked priest". That a 4MMT text deals with the calendar (mentioned above)
may also suggest that calendars were a matter of dispute among Jews at the
time.
*** Other Evidence
My knowledge of calendars among Jews not reflected by the Enochic, Jubilees
or Qumran texts is somewhat vague. The Mishnah seems to suppose an observatory
system (R.Sh., in particular 1.3-5; Arak. 2.2; Eduy. 7.7, Meg. 1.4, Erub.
3.7 and Shebi. 10.2) - such a system is in many ways better than a fixed one
since each time the astronomical phenomenon in question is observed the
calendar is brought back into line with the astronomical cycles. One cannot
calculate dates in the next year though, as one could with the Enochic
fixed system (and with a modern western fixed system).
Jospehus and Philo both also seem to refer to an observatory system
A.J. 3.237-257; De spec. leg. 2.140; Vita Mosis 2.224; De spec. leg.
2.155; De spec. leg. 2.210). Similarly the canons of Anatolius HE 7.32.16-19
which claim to represent a very old tradition reveal a calendar
similar to that suggested by the Mishnah.
Sirach 43.6-7, 50.6 and Ezek.Trag. 156-7 perhaps also support the use of
an observatory calendar.
I know of no other evidence that would allow us to see what calendar was used
generally by Jews of the period. I surmise that Jews generally used an
observatory calendar similar to that suggested in the Mishnah. Some, however,
used the calculatory system which is found in some Qumran texts, Jubilees
and Enoch. Support for this come from the references to calendrical disputes
given above. At what point this split occurred (and disappeared) is
difficult to say, though various of the accounts of the early/pre-history of
the "Qumran sect" try to given some ideas (also using Daniel 7.25).
*** Sabbath Calculation
As regards how one calculates the Sabbath. In the observatory system there is
no way of fixing it. One simply has to count seven days from the last one. In
the calculatory system once one has fixed one Sabbath all the others can be
calculated. Jubilees seems to have fixed the day on which the astronomical
bodies were created as the first day of the year and then the first
Sabbath was on the fourth day. This gives the first day of each year as a
Wednesday and everything else follows.
To give proper bibliographical references to this would only further
extend the intolerable length of this still further. But I should mention:
BECKWITH R.T., 1992, The Essene Calendar and the Moon: A reconsideration,
RQ 59, 457-466
JAUBERT A., 1953, Le Calendrier des Jubilis et de la secte de Qumrbn. Ses
origines biblique, VT 3, 250-264 (see also VT 7)
VANDERKAM J.C., 1979, The Origin, Character and Early History of the
364-Day Calendar: A reassessment of Jaubert's Hypotheses, CBQ 41, 390-411
====================================
Three questions given at top of posting.
>From del2@cus.cam.ac.ukWed Apr 10 21:04:44 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 16:30:54 +0100 (BST)
From: Dr DR de Lacey <del2@cus.cam.ac.uk>
Reply to: ioudaios-l@Lehigh.EDU
To: First Century Judaism Discussion Forum <ioudaios-l@Lehigh.EDU>
Subject: Re: Calendars/Sabbaths and Enoch/Jubilees/Qumran
On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, Jeremy Duff wrote:
> 1. Do others agree with my surmise about the use of the two different
> calendars by Jews at this time?
We should note that the ancients seem to have been happy with a number of
different calendars (see articles on "calendar" or "time" in (eg)
Encyclopaedia Britannica) and even limiting the options to 2 may be
over-restrictive. It seems likely that in captivity the Jews had to keep
*at least* two calendars going and that subsequently there was unclarity
as to which to apply in the Land. The Torah itself knows of two options
for New Year.
> 2. Is there any other evidence for what calendars were used
> generally by Jews around this period?
Well this is part of the big problem of what we do know about "Jews in
general". No doubt in Jerusalem what happened in the Temple was pretty
well definitive unless you had strong grounds for objecting (as the
Essenes appear to have, according to Josephus). But for home-based
festivals I suspect there was a good deal of "every man doing what was
right in his own eyes" -- at least as soon as you got into the
countryside. But what sort of "evidence" is likely to have survived?
> 3. If I am right in supposing that the Enochic literature and Jubilees use
> (and propose vigorously) a different calendar to that used by other Jews at
> the time,
> would this not imply that these texts could have only had a very limited
> acceptance/circulation among Jews? At least, those Jewish leaders who thought
> about calendars could not have agreed that these texts were worth taking
> notice of. This could point to Enoch/Jubilees as not being particularly
> representative of Jews at the time in other matters, or at least suggests
> that these texts may not have been widely thought of as worth reading.
>
Only if you assume a monochrome "Judaism" with a rigidly-imposed
orthodoxy. Look at the sort of materials which turn up in the Cairo
Genizah! (Having said that -- all this is rushed and from memory -- I
simply don't *know* what calendrical options are represented in the
Genizah. When time allows me I'll try to find out.)
Literary & Linguistic Computing Centre, Cambridge University
Taylor-Schechter Genizah Research Unit, Cambridge University Library
del2@cam.ac.uk http://www.cam.ac.uk/Libraries/Taylor-Schechter
>From sytzevdl@xs4all.nlWed Apr 10 21:05:00 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:48:53 +0200
From: Sytze van der Laan <sytzevdl@xs4all.nl>
Reply to: ioudaios-l@Lehigh.EDU
To: First Century Judaism Discussion Forum <ioudaios-l@Lehigh.EDU>
Subject: DSS fragment?
Twice-yearly (Christmas & Easter), religion editors do their best to inform
us of the progresses made by scholars in the quest for the historical Jesus.
This year's coverage by "Time" (April 8) had a page on the Magdalen Papyrus
fragments (P64) and the claim made by the German papyrologist C.P. Thiede,
that these fragments belong to the oldest extant witnesses for dating the
New Testament before 70 c.e. (it was even covered by last month's local
Jehovah's witnesses' issue "Watchtower," which was very happy to have, at
last, some "good news" from today's NT scholarship ;-). According to Time,
Thiede "argues that a scroll fragment unearthed at the Essene community at
Qumran in 1972 almost certainly contains a passage from Mark's Gospel."
Perhaps someone on this list could tell me which scroll fragment is being
referred to? Thanks.
P.S. I just read Yirmiyahu Ben-David's posting on the Magdalen fragments.
This is P64 (my Aland tells me these fragments are Matthew 26: 7-8; 10;
14-15; 22-23; 31-33).
Sytze van der Laan, (post-grad)
Free University, Amsterdam, NL.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
LEGEIICECTHNENMECWTOYKOCMOY (Pap. Ox. 1)
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>From RGGOLDENBERG@ccmail.sunysb.eduWed Apr 10 21:05:17 1996
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 12:25:06 -0500 (EST)
From: RGGOLDENBERG@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Reply to: ioudaios-l@Lehigh.EDU
To: First Century Judaism Discussion Forum <ioudaios-l@Lehigh.EDU>
Subject: Heptamera
As this discussion of ancient Jewish calendars wanders further and further
from the original question, I would like to return to the basic fact with
which we began: despite the hair-trigger readiness of ancient Jews to
denounce one another for religious infractions, nobody ever claims that
somebody else is observing the Sabbath on the wrong day! To me this
implies that:
a) the cycle has a single origin, from which it diffused throughout the
Jewish world. This would have been easier if that origin was very early,
when the "Jewish world" was still fairly compact and not yet deeply riven
by faction.
and b) counting units of seven days is not very hard to do. Once the cycle
was established, people didn't lose count. Words like "meticulous" have
crept into this discussion which give the different impression that it
would have required constant vigilance to maintain the cycle accurately,
but I just don't see that. It must be borne in mind that most Jews lived
among other Jews and didn't bear unaided responsbility to keep this going.
On the other hand, could the cycle of seven daily psalms have originated as
a kind of mnemonic? It's easier to remember yesterday's psalm than to keep
track of how many undifferentiated days have passed since the last Sabbath.
Bob Goldenberg
SUNY/Stony Brook
>From FC@teol.ku.dkWed Apr 10 21:05:45 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 22:08:42 GMT +100
From: Frederick Cryer <FC@teol.ku.dk>
Reply to: ioudaios-l@Lehigh.EDU
To: First Century Judaism Discussion Forum <ioudaios-l@Lehigh.EDU>
Subject: re: calendars et sim.
Jeremy, Bob et al.--
I have written extensively on the various types of calendars in use
in early Judaism in a number of articles:
Biblica 66 *1985) 241-261 ("The Interrelationships of Gen 5,32; 11,10-
11 and the Chronology of the Flood"
Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 1 (1987) 116-122 ("The 360-
Day Calendar Year and Early Judaic Sectarianism"; NB: "sectarianism"
is an expression I would no longer use today)
SJOT 2 (1987) 1-27 (To the One of Fictive Music: OT Chronology and
History).
There is also a very nice section on calendars in the new
Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (ed. J. Sasson)
And there are earlier still useful works by Jack Finegan, E. Bickerman
and others.
PS--Bob, Enoch lambasts those who use other calendars for not getting
their feast days right; naturally, this means that they miss their
Sabbaths, too.
>From donm@ns.uca.rain.niWed Apr 10 21:06:03 1996
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:41:00 -0700 (MST)
From: "Donald Murphy s.j." <donm@ns.uca.rain.ni>
Reply to: ioudaios-l@Lehigh.EDU
To: First Century Judaism Discussion Forum <ioudaios-l@Lehigh.EDU>
Subject: Re: DSS fragment?
Though I do not have the text of the Time article in front of me, it is
probable that the "scroll fragment unearthed at the Essene community at
Qumran" is the fragment identified as 7Q5. The date of discovery of the
fragment is not 1972; this year refers to the date of publication (in
Biblica, the journal of the Pontifical Biblical Insitute of Rome) of the
hypothesis of Jose O'Callaghan, Greek papyrologist and presently Dean of
the Biblical Institute, that 7Q5 is actually the text of Mark 6,52-54.
On Saturday, March 30, 1996, "La Prensa Literaria" here in Managua,
Nicaragua, published a Spanish translation ("El misterio de Qumran") of
an article by the Italian journalist Vittorio Messori. This article is
based primarily on a recent article by O'Callaghan in Civilta Catolica --
and presumably on personal interviews with O'Callaghan and others. In
his article O'Callaghan, according to Messori, is able to cite many
European scholars -- including Thiede --as supporting his 1972 hypothesis.
After reading Messori's article I posted a request to Crosstalk (the list
of some 2,400 persons following the Jesus2000 Internet debate between
Dominica Crossan, Marcus Borg, and Luke Timothy Johnson) sponsored by
HarperCollins of San Francisco regarding the Historical Jesus. I
requested scholarly information regarding O'Callaghan's hypothesis. Leo
Percer kindly responded, informing me that Ioudaios-L had discussed at
some length a similar thesis of Thiede late in 1994 and at the beginning
of 1995. My study of the List of Archives (9412e and 9501a) provided me
with some evaluations of Thiede's papyrological capablities; so far I
have discovered only one person who queried whether there was some
connection with the earlier O'Callaghan hypothesis.
Leo Percer informed me that Larry Hurtado could very probably give me
excellent help regarding my request. I haven't communicated with him
yet, since I want to find more time to delve into later archives on
Joudaios-L. I suspect that he will know a lot more about the validity or
lack of validity not only of Thiede's work but also of O'Callaghan's
original hypothesis.
Who knows? Perhaps Larry Hurtado -- or another expert -- will read your
message and my present reply -- and answer us both!
Don Murphy, S.J.
Universidad Centroamericana (UCA)
Managua, Nicaragua, Central America
On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, Sytze van der Laan wrote:
> Twice-yearly (Christmas & Easter), religion editors do their best to inform
> us of the progresses made by scholars in the quest for the historical Jesus.
> This year's coverage by "Time" (April 8) had a page on the Magdalen Papyrus
> fragments (P64) and the claim made by the German papyrologist C.P. Thiede,
> that these fragments belong to the oldest extant witnesses for dating the
> New Testament before 70 c.e. (it was even covered by last month's local
> Jehovah's witnesses' issue "Watchtower," which was very happy to have, at
> last, some "good news" from today's NT scholarship ;-). According to Time,
> Thiede "argues that a scroll fragment unearthed at the Essene community at
> Qumran in 1972 almost certainly contains a passage from Mark's Gospel."
> Perhaps someone on this list could tell me which scroll fragment is being
> referred to? Thanks.
>
> P.S. I just read Yirmiyahu Ben-David's posting on the Magdalen fragments.
> This is P64 (my Aland tells me these fragments are Matthew 26: 7-8; 10;
> 14-15; 22-23; 31-33).
>
> Sytze van der Laan, (post-grad)
> Free University, Amsterdam, NL.
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> LEGEIICECTHNENMECWTOYKOCMOY (Pap. Ox. 1)
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
>