by John P. Pratt
24 Jan 2014, 1 Flower (Sacred Round)
©2014 by John P. Pratt. All rights Reserved.
| 1. Round |
| 1.1 Vientena |
| 1.2 Trecena |
| 1.3 Trecenas |
| 1.4 Clock |
| 2. Mormon |
| 2.1 Light |
| 2.2 Quickening |
| 2.3 Birth |
| 2.4 Evil |
| 2.5 Life |
| 2.6 Death |
| 2.7 Spirit |
| 2.8 Chance |
| 3. Conclusion |
| Notes |
From the beginning of this research into sacred calendars there has been a problem that just has not gone away. There seem to be two versions of several of the sacred calendars, and religious adherents to one version or the other have held tenaciously to their version as the "one true calendar". This dilemma has pulled me into its whirlpool also when one version of the Uniform Enoch Calendar was published, and then later it was replaced by a slightly different, but seemingly slightly better version. The purpose of this article is to suggest that both versions could be correct, where one calendar is based on moving into the light and the other on the transition into darkness. Before considering a solution, first let us look at a classic example of the problem.
There is a classic problem found in the four gospels of the New Testament. On the one hand, the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke make it clear that Last Supper was a Passover meal. These authors see no problem with that claim, but matter-of-factly state that it was on the day when the passover lamb was slain and subsequently eaten at the feast that evening. Then they go on to describe the Crucifixion with no mention of Passover.
On the other hand, John describes things very differently. He wrote decades after the other three and apparently to include details which they had omitted, such as the entire first year of the Savior's ministry. He does not even mention the Last Supper in the context of a Passover feast. Instead, he makes a huge point of the concept that Jesus was the Passover Lamb, as John the Baptist had taught. He points out that Jesus was slain at the same time that the Passover lambs were being sacrificed, including details such a none of His bones being broken as was the case with the paschal lambs (John x).
So what is going on here? Was the Last Supper a Passover meal or not. Or did Jesus die at the same time that the lambs did, with the feast following the night after the Last Supper? The only satisfactory solution to this problem known to me was buried in a footnote in my first published article on calendars.[] It pointed out clear evidence found by others that the Galileans (Jesus and his disciples) used a different calendar from the Judeans. The evidence is that the Galileans used a calendar on which the day began at sunrise (Mat x:X), whereas the Judeans used a calendar on with the day began at sunset, similar to the modern Hebrew Calendar.
John seems to even make that point. He points out the Passover of the Crucifixion was a "feast of the Jews" (John 19:xx KJV) as if he were not one of them. Indeed, the word translated "Jews" in Greek means "Judeans". After all, Judean and Jew both derive from Judah. But rather than review any other evidence here for two calendars at the time of Christ, let us consider the question of the timing of the Last Supper.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that there were indeed two calendars, as it appears because the synoptic writers give no hint that Jesus was making an exception to the rule and eating the Last Passover Supper on day early. Given two calendars, was one "right" and one "wrong"? Must we choose between them? Could the both somehow be correct, but used for different purposes? Somehow the synchronism of the sacrifice of the Passover lambs at the same hour (3 p.m.) that the Great Sacrifice was being made is very compelling that the Judean calendar had huge merit. But could it not also be that Jesus was using the very calendar given to Moses, where He fulfilled every jot and tittle of the law?
Before attempting to answer that question, let us look at a similar controversy, which the Lord Himself seems involved in.
There has also been a long standing issue about when the Hebrew year begins. In fact the confusion seems to arise from the Bible itself. On the one hand, the tradition beginning of the year was in the autumn, as it is today on the modern Hebrew Calendar. For example, the dates given in the account of the Great Deluge say that the rain began in the second month, which is counted from the fall.
But at the time of Moses, the Lord changed that, so that the year began in the spring, and months were then numbered from the spring. Today, the Hebrew Calendar appears to be a hybrid: the months are still numbered from the spring but the year begins in the fall. That is, the year begins on the Feast of Trumpets, called Rosh Hashanah, meaning "Beginning (head) of the year" on the first day of the seventh month (Tishri).
Moreover, even in the law of Moses after the Lord changed the start of the year, the law still counts Sabbath years from the autumn (Lev. 25). So again we can ask, "What is going on here?"
In all of my work, the Hebrew calendar that begins day in the evening has appeared to be the "correct" one, or at least the one used throughout all of history. One answer to the problem that has occurred to me years ago is that the Lord gave the law of Moses so that Jesus could fulfill it at the Passover of the Last Supper, while the Judeans who would be using a version modeled after the Babylonian model they used in the captivity would crucify Him with the lambs. That way Jesus would be technically "correct" whereas the meaning symbolism of the lamb would still be fulfilled.
All of that thinking has been mostly speculation, so nothing more has been said in my articles after that initial footnote. In my work, the first day of the first spring month is called "New Year" because the new year in the fall already has another name: Feast of Trumpets. Moreover, in the law of Moses that feast is never called the beginning of the year because the year had just been changed to begin in the spring.
There is an obvious correlation of the light patterns between the day and the year. Each is a cycle of light and darkness which seems to have four similar time markers. The question of when the cycle starts is precisely the question being address in this article, but for the sake of discussion let us say it begins with the light comes. That occurs at sunrise for the day, and in the spring for the year. The high point of light of the day is at noon, and in the year it is during the summer. Similarly sunset corresponds to autumn and midnight to winter.
When one is designing a calendar, it seems to make sense to have the day and the year begin at corresponding points. For example, that is done on our modern Gregorian calendar: the day begins at midnight and the year begins in winter. Both are times of minimum light, and hence minimum activity, so the choice makes a lot of logical sense.
Using the same reasoning for the Hebrew Calendar one would expect the version that begins the year in the spring to also begin the day at sunrise. That indeed is the case with the calendar given to Moses. Similarly on the modern Hebrew calendar, the day begins at sunset and the year begins in the autumn. There may be exceptions to this rule, but I don't know any with certainty for sacred calendars.
While the situation with the day and year seems clear, there is similar symbolism for the month. Our Gregorian month is no longer tied to the moon, but on the Hebrew calendars it is. That is, the beginning of the month is very near the new moon.
The moon had four phases which also correspond to the periods of increasing and decreasing light. The new moon occurs when the moon is totally dark (invisible), when it is nearly between the earth and the sun. That would correspond to midnight and winter. Then it goes to the First Quarter phase, when the right half of the face is lit. As a youth that nomenclature was confusing because the moon is half lit at the quarter phase. Confusing or not, that is the terminology used. That phase is like spring and sunrise. The comes the full moon when it is opposite of the sun in the sky and hence the face is fully lit up. That is like noon or summer. Finally comes the Last Quarter which is like autumn or sunset. It requires about 29.5 days to complete those four phases. Hence that length of time is known as a month ("moonth").
In all calendars known to me which use the month, the beginning of the month is at or near the new moon. I've never seen a calendar which begins the month at the full moon. So for consistency, the month beginning a new moon (greatest darkness) would fit a calenar like the Gregorian which begins the day at midnight and the year in winter. But that has not been the case with the Hebrew calendar, so until now it has been tacitly assumed in my work that the moon is treated separately.