With the end of the holiday season and the Gregorian New Year behind us, we look forward to the beginning of the Holiday cycle and the Spring feasts once more. This time of year comes with discussions on the calendar and how it is to be calculated appropriately. For all of Judaism and most of those coming out of mainstream Christianity to learn the Torah, the calendar established by Hillel II is the one that is accepted and followed.
There are, however, fringe movements that place a heavy emphasis and confidence in the Apocryphal and Pseudepigrapha books, some of which were found among the Qumran Caves in the decade between 1946 and 1956, while others are part of the Septuagint. Many within these fringe movements believe these particular books to be canonical and inspired scripture which were removed from the canon by either the Pharisees, the early Roman church, or both.
There are varying unconfirmed hypotheses on how or why these books were "removed from scripture" and who is responsible. Not all of the texts found at Qumran and within the Septuagint are revered and valued to this degree, as many seem to be unimportant to these fringe sects of Torah-practicing Christians, such as numerous Mezuzah scrolls, The Rule of Community, the War Scroll, and others found in the Caves and parts of the Septuagint, such as the book of Judith, Additions to Esther, and the books of Esdras.
These fringe sects tend to follow alternative calendars to the Hillel II calendar. Many may ask why. Why Re-invent the wheel? When there is an authoritative source of knowledge on the ancient traditions of the Jewish people readily available to reference, why would one disregard this resource and attempt to piece together something on their own?
There is an automatic assumption that if a doctrine, practice, or philosophy has its origins among the Pharisees that it must be outright incorrect without question. This assumption is a carryover from the conditioning and indoctrination many are exposed to in any normative Christian church, being taught from the earliest point in our walk with G-d that "The Pharisees are the bad guys that Jesus came to correct and dispel." This sentiment finds its way into the discovery of the Torah for many. Combining this with conspiracy theories about the Pharisees plotting to remove books from the canon which speak on the subject of the calendar, it's very easy to see how and why someone would go out of their way to figure out some alternative to whatever was established by the Pharisees.
Implicit to this is the idea that there was a correct practice at one point. That at some point, so far back in history that there is almost no evidence to determine what practices were being utilized that might have differed from what we know of Pharisaic practice, there was an understanding of the correct practice and that at some point in history, prior to the 1st century BCE, this original correct practice was subverted by whatever existed in the time of Yeshua and was forgotten by time, only evidenced in the texts of the community that preserved the writings revealing very small parts of this ancient, lost, correct practice with very little detail. Naturally, this would lead one to try and piece together whatever the Pharisees attempted to conceal with these small pieces of evidence incidentally left behind.
The attitude becomes thus, "It may not be correct, but it makes sense in my head, and it's not what the Pharisees were doing, so it must be closer to correct." Being anti-Pharisee in many ways is becoming a metric used by the fringe to determine how correct a practice might be. Because of this, there is no single alternative calendar all observe on the fringe; rather, each community may have its own unique calendar they follow. The crossover and commonality they share are that the calendars they each observe have been derived by them, generally from their own study of two of those above-mentioned extra-biblical books in particular.
To address the topic of the calendars and the reliability of the specific Apocryphal/Pseudepigraphal books in question we must take a deeper look into:
Current observable fringe calendars
The Biblical consistency of fringe calendars
The historicity of the books from which they derive
The Biblical Consistency of the books from which they derive
Extra-biblical Customs of the Qumran Community
Current Observable Fringe Calendars
The current observable fringe calendars are allegedly derived from Enoch I and Jubilees. When looking online, you may find many different titles and variations of a variety of calendars, all of which claim some form of authoritative origin from the book of Enoch and Jubilees.
Some names you are likely to come across are:
The Creators Calendar
The Luni/Solar Calendar
The Zadok Calendar
The Enochian Calendar
Many of the variations of these calendars attempt to unite what is found in Enoch and Jubilees with that which is stated in the text of scripture, namely in Genesis.
"Then God said, "Let lights in the expanse of the sky be for separating the day from the night. They will be for signs and for seasons and for days and years. They will be for lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the land." And it happened so. Then God made the two great lights—the greater light for dominion over the day, and the lesser light as well as the stars for dominion over the night. God set them in the expanse of the sky to shine on the land and to have dominion over the day and over the night and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good." -Genesis 1:14-18
Many conclude this directly indicates the Sun is for determining days, the Moon is for determining months, and the Stars are for determining seasons and years. It seems logical enough, except the heavenly bodies are not perfectly in sync. There are several theories as to why this is the case, some supposing a catastrophic event such as the flood could have thrown the system out of sync, while others believe the extra hours of daylight granted to Joshua in Joshua 10 may have thrown things out of sync. What we do know with certainty is each heavenly body has its own cycle of rotation (its own year), and the Solar year is longer than the Lunar year.
The Solar year (or tropical year) is precisely 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 46 seconds (365.242 days). The Lunar year is 354 days. About 10 days shy of the year described in the book of Enoch, which is itself 1 day, 5 hours, 48 mins, and 46 seconds less than the solar year. Some of the calendars try to reconcile these discrepancies via the addition of days to months or months to years where necessary, which illustrates a level of influence being drawn and derived from the Hillel II Calendar, as it adds a second month of Adar periodically in a 19-year cycle to rectify the difference between the solar and lunar year(More on this later).
Though a difference some variations of these calendars often have with the Hillel II calendar is they might add the extra month a year earlier or later than the Hillel II calendar would based on whether or not Passover will occur before or after the equinox. If, for instance, Passover will naturally fall before the equinox, as in the year 2020 when Passover was 10 days before the equinox, some of these fringe sects will choose to add a month to the year and postpone observing Passover until after this additional month, so as to ensure that Passover takes place after the equinox when it is "officially" spring. Generally, those observing a calendar of this sort still honor the 7th day weekly Sabbath without interrupting the 7 day cycle on behalf of the New Moon.
Other variations of these alternative calendars directly interrupt the 7 day weekly cycle on behalf of the New Moon and the beginning of a new month. There are two versions in particular of this variety, and they differ only in the recognition of the new moon as a legitimate day.
The more popular of the two recognizes what is often called "New Moon Day" which in these sects, is believed to be equal to the Sabbath in its importance. This New Moon day is recognized as the first day of the month, as well as a Sabbath, which would make the next day (the 2nd day of the month) the first day of the week. Because of this, the weekly Sabbaths for every month will always fall on the 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th days of the month. This interpretation attempts to make every feast day fall on the weekly Sabbath.
Depending on whether or not the sect utilizing this mode of determining months and weeks is rigid in their interpretation of Enoch and Jubilees, most months will have 30 days (as we will see soon), which means the weekly Sabbath will fall on the 29th. The next day, the 30th, will be the first day of the week, which will then be followed by New Moon day (Regarded as a Sabbath), which is followed by the first day of the week again in the following month. Thus the continuous 7-day cycle established in Genesis 1 is interrupted.
The second version of this same style calendar is only minorly different. New Moon day is still honored as establishing the beginning of a new month and the point at which the 7-day weekly cycle is interrupted/reset. It is not, however, regarded as the 1st day of the month. It is instead considered as a day that "does not count," often called a "non-day". The reasoning for this is that the New Moon day itself has no visible moon, and because the moon does not shine, the day is not counted as a real, actual day. So in this reckoning, the New Moon initiates the month, but the first true day of the month is the next day. So rather than the day following New Moon Day being the 2nd of the month as in the above method of reckoning, in this current method, it would be the 1st day of the month, as well as the 1st day of the week. This ultimately places the weekly Sabbath on the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th of every month, which means the 29th is the first day of the week, the 30th is the second, and then New Moon Day again to initiate the new month followed by the 1st day of the week/month again and the cycle resets.
The biblical consistency of fringe calendars
The main problem with this idea of resetting the week with the head of the month and the dates on which the weekly Sabbath would consequently always fall, is that scripture itself blatantly disproves that this was ever the case in Israel.
Then Jonathan said to him, "Tomorrow is the New Moon. You'll be missed because your seat will be empty. On the third day, you must go down quickly and come to the place where you hid as you did on that day, and remain close to the stone Ezel. I will shoot three arrows to the side of it, as though I were shooting at a target. Now look, I will send a lad saying, 'Go, find the arrows.' If I specifically say to the lad, 'See, the arrows are on this side of you—get them,' then come; for it is safe for you and no danger, as Adonai lives. But if I say to the boy: 'Look, the arrows are beyond you,' then go your way, for Adonai has released you. But as for the matter which I and you have spoken about, behold, Adonai is between me and you forever." -1 Samuel 20:18-23
At this point, David and Jonathan are speaking to one another on the last day of the month and are anticipating the New Moon and head of the new month the next day (Or with the arrival of the evening as the lunar calendar renders it). What happens next?
"So David hid himself in the field, and when the New Moon came, the king sat down to eat a meal. So the king sat on his seat—as usual, the seat by the wall—Jonathan stood up and Abner sat down by Saul's side, but David's place was empty. Nevertheless, Saul said nothing that day, for he thought, "It must be an accident; he must be ceremonially unclean—yes, that's it, he's unclean." Yet it came to pass on the day following the New Moon, the second day, that David's place was still empty. So Saul asked his son Jonathan, "Why didn't Jesse's son come to the meal yesterday or today?" -1 Samuel 20:24-27
Two days after the New Moon(the second day of the month) now Saul notices David has missed their dinner a second time.
"So Jonathan rose up from the table in fierce anger, and did not eat food the second day of the new month, for he was grieved over David, because his father had dishonored him. It came to pass in the morning that Jonathan went out to the field at the time appointed with David, and a little lad was with him." -1 Samuel 20:34-35
So now, on the third day of the month, Jonathan is going to his arranged meeting with David where he intends to warn David of Saul's anger and that David is not safe in the area. What happens next on that third day of the month is very telling.
Then David got up and left, while Jonathan returned to the town. David went to Nob to Ahimelech the kohen. Ahimelech was afraid to meet David, so he said to him, "Why are you alone and no one with you?" David said to Ahimelech the kohen, "The king has commissioned me with a matter, and told me: 'Let no one know anything about the mission on which I am sending you, or with what I have commissioned you.' So, I have directed the young men to such and such a place. So now, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread or whatever can be found." The kohen answered David saying, "There is no common bread on hand, but there is consecrated bread—so long as the young men have kept themselves from women." "Of course women have been kept from us, as on previous campaigns," David answered the kohen. "So the young men's vessels were holy, though it was an ordinary mission—how much more so will their vessels be holy today!" So the kohen gave him consecrated bread, for there was no bread there but the bread of the Presence, which was taken out from the presence of Adonai in order to replace it with hot bread on the day it was taken away. -1 Samuel 21:1-7
So David and his men left to go to Nob, which was a priestly town in the vicinity of Jerusalem. There he met with a priest (Ahimelech) and requested food to eat. The priest only had the bread of the presence, which the passage explains he had removed from the presence to replace it with hot, freshly baked bread. This is an important detail because the Torah actually does explain when new bread was to be baked for the presence.
"Also you are to take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes of it, with two tenths of an ephah in each cake. Then you are to set them in two rows, six in a row, on the pure gold table before Adonai. Set pure frankincense on each row, as a memorial portion for the bread, an offering by fire to Adonai. Every Yom Shabbat he is to set it in order before Adonai continually. It is an everlasting covenant on behalf of Bnei-Yisrael." - Leviticus 24:5-8
According to Leviticus, this third day, David receives the old bread of the presence because it had been replaced with fresh bread that very day, was the Sabbath day. This dispels any notion of a set date every month for the weekly Sabbath. Especially if that notion insists the Sabbath can only be the 7th, 14th, and 21st, and 28th OR the 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th. Scripture gives us a clear example of the Sabbath falling on the month's third day.
Enoch
The historicity of Enoch
The calendar(s) allegedly "preserved" by the Qumran community is derived from 2 Pseudepigraphal books (Enoch and Jubilees), one of which is a commonality shared between the Sadducees and the Essenes (Jubilees). It should first be noted, for the sake of dispelling confusion, that there is not 1 book of Enoch; there are 3. Enoch I, Enoch II and Enoch III. When scholars refer to "The book of Enoch," they are referring to Enoch I. The oldest complete variation is the Ethiopian version written in the Ge'ez Language and dates back no further than the 15th century. Though in its own right, Enoch I is not simply one singular book, rather it's a compilation of numerous books by numerous authors (appearing to be no less than 4) written over a span of time and compiled into a singular compendium which came to be called "Enoch" later in history.
The books which make up what we now call "The book of Enoch" are:
Chapters 1-36: Book of Watchers/Book of Giants
Chapters 6-11: Fragments of the Book of Noah
Chapters 37-71: Book of the Parables (aka: Book of Similitudes)
Chapters 72-82: Book of the Luminaries/Astronomical Book
Chapters 83-90: The Dream Visions
Chapters 91-104: Critical Structure
Chapter 105: God and Messiah to dwell in Man
Chapters 106-107: Latin fragment of the book of Noah
Chapter 108: Appendix added later
The order in which these books are organized is not based on historical chronology, nor are all of these books among those found in the Qumran caves. The Scrolls from Qumran that have been discovered are scant and lack the diversity of the books which make up "The Book of Enoch". The following list illustrates each scroll found at Qumran attributed to being part of Enoch I.
The book in Enoch I, which it is presumed to be a fragment of, the language it is written in, and the time period the parchment is dated from.
Scroll 1Q19
Fragment: Book of Noah
Language: Hebrew
Herodian Period
37BCE-73CE
Scroll 1Q23-24
Fragment: Book of Giants
Language: Aramaic
Time Period: Hasmonean/Hellenistic Roman Period
Date: 140BCE-37BCE
Scroll 2Q26
Fragment: Book of Giants
Language: Aramaic
Time Period: Herodian Period
Date: 37BCE-73CE
Scroll 4Q201-212
Fragment: The Astronomical book [Book of Luminaries]& The Enoch Scroll
Language: Aramaic
Time Period: Hasmonean Period
Date: 140BCE - 37BCE
Scroll 4Q530-33
Fragment: Book of Giants
Language: Aramaic
Time Period: Hasmonean Period
Date: 140BCE - 37BCE
Scroll 6Q8
Fragment: Book of Giants
Language: Aramaic
Time Period: Herodian Period
Date: 37BCE-73CE
As you can see, only 3 different books of "Enoch I" today are among the Qumran Scroll findings. Most are presumed to be fragments of the Book of Giants and give accounts that are not found in the Ethiopian Translation. Half are on parchments dated to the Hasmonean Period. It is important to note carbon dating on parchment does not tell us when a text was written, it tells us when the animal whose skin was used to make the parchment on which the text is written died. This means the text written on the parchment would date to a later time, perhaps much later and perhaps not. It was a common practice to reuse old parchment at the time, which makes the actual age of the written text in these documents nearly indistinguishable.
Most of these texts are collections of many small fragments of parchment with some writing on them. Most are too small to even rightly discern or translate into English. The only one with any real substantive size and discernible written text is from 4Q209¹. Unfortunately, even this fragment only has about 2 paragraphs worth of writing².
This fragment of the Book of Luminaries is also a point where the Ethiopian Translation deviates in both content and length from the version found in the Qumran scrolls. Not only is this fragment (& 4Q208) the largest and most substantial of the scrolls, but it is also the oldest and it is the supposed source of the calendars observed by the fringes of Torah practicing Christianity today. However, portions of its content are present in the Book of Giants, which suggests it was compiled at a later date.
In the Book of Luminaries description of the cosmos and calendar, the earth is flat with a dome over it and has 12 gates through which the sun and moon pass upon rising and setting in each of the 12 months of the year. Being more Solar oriented, this calendar concludes exactly 364 days divided into 4 sections of 91 days each assigning 30 days to every month with the exception of the 3rd, 6th,9th, and 12th months, providing the last month of each quarter with one extra day. This is about as much detail as can be derived about any calendar from Enoch I regarding the solar calendar and it is relatively consistent with what has been discerned from 4Q524 and 11Q19-21: Temple scroll, Hebrew, Herodian period (both).
The temple scroll also specifies that the first day of the year was always the 4th day of the week after the spring equinox, a tradition presumed to have been adopted by the community at Qumran based on the record in Genesis of the creation of the sun and moon happening on the 4th day of creation week. Enoch I also describes a Lunar calendar, which begs the question; why do fringe groups insist on using one calendar over the other? While the calendar described in the temple scroll is consistent with Enoch I, it also outlines a cycle of additional holidays, which the Biblical text never makes any mention of. Those Holidays will be discussed later.
Because of the way this calendar is set up, every day of every week of every month would be the same year in and year out. At first, this may appear to be a confirmation of the system described above, where the New Moon resets the weekly cycle. Such a system would certainly accomplish the same thing, as each holiday and weekly Sabbath would always fall on the same day of the Week, Month, and Year. However, given that the starting day of the year is already acknowledged as the 4th day of the week, we can conclude the Qumran community clearly recognized the continuous, uninterrupted 7-day weekly cycle with no reset. This would also preclude the annual feasts from always falling on a weekly Sabbath. In fact, if the first day of the year is the 4th day of the week (Wednesday), then Passover, which is the 14th day of the first month (Exodus 12:1-10), would always fall on a Tuesday.
Due to this calendrical system being roughly 1 & 1/4 day short of the actual Solar cycle, with no evidence of there having been any periodic intercalating months, this calendar would only take a few generations before it results in the spring feasts being celebrated in the winter months.
This inherent reality suggests that there are 3 possibilities regarding the practice of this calendar and its timeframe:
1. The Qumran community did add periodic intercalating months but never wrote about this practice anywhere in the literature they kept concerning the calendar. This seems highly unlikely.
2. The calendar found in the Qumran texts was only in practice for a brief period of time, having begun around the time the documents that detail it are dated to. This would indicate these writings are also themselves, recent in Israeli antiquity and the traditions therein, did not exist prior to these very documents themselves (i.e. post Maccabean period).
3. The calendar found in the Qumran texts was not one that was put in practice, but was a theoretical calendar that represented an ideal perfect calendar for a perfect world with a perfect solar and lunar cycle. This will be further explored later within this study.
As previously mentioned, some fringe sects of Torah practicing Christianity do add periodic intercalating months, but that is a tradition they are borrowing from the Hillel II calendar, as there is no evidence of the calendar described in the Temple Scroll, Enoch I, or Jubilees having incorporated intercalating months. So while rejecting the Hillel II calendar, they still borrow from its method of intercalating months in an effort to make their rendition of this Enochian calendar consistent with the actual solar cycle, avoiding seasonal drift.
Additionally, most do not observe the additional holidays which this calendar prescribes. There appears to be a bit of picking/choosing with regard to how strictly these fringe sects want to honor the practices of this community they regard as having preserved proper practices and scriptural texts.
The Biblical consistency of Enoch
One very common claim made by proponents of the divinity and/or reliability of Enoch I, is that it was quoted/referenced in the New Testament. There is a bit of irony to this line of argumentation in that many of those who stand by this claim will likewise contend that such texts as the Talmud, Midrash, Mishnah, and Zohar are in no way whatsoever divine or reliable. Again, this is primarily due to their origin in Pharisaic Judaism and the later Rabbinic Judaism.
The reason this is ironic is that if we are to presume that a mere passing thematic similarity or vague reference to a similar subject matter is a basis for deeming an ancient text as canonical scripture, let alone a direct quote or word-for-word citation, then each of the above mentioned Rabbinic Jewish Texts can equally be deemed scripture. A case could be argued, based on such criteria, that they are more so scripture than Enoch I or Jubilees. There are only four primary passages from the New Testament which are presumed by these fringe sects to be either citations from or references to Enoch I, whereas the references to and citations from the Talmud, Midrash, and Mishnah, which are found in the New Testament, are absolutely ubiquitous.
In fact, in "The New Testament and the Mishnah: A Cross-Reference Index", Charles R. Gianotti cites Mishnaic references directly pertaining to no less than 23 passages of the New Testament. In "The Bible, The Talmud, and The New Testament", Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik also discusses numerous points of crossover, which he argues support a compatibility of Rabbinic Judaism with the Christian New Testament, and in "The Rabbinic Gospel of Mark" by Lapid Publications, nearly every page is absolutely filled with relevant citations from all the above, to include even the Zohar, that pertains to whatever handful of verses from Marks Gospel are at the top of each page, and that's just the Gospel of Mark.
All this is not to build a case that the Mishnah, Talmud, etc. should be included in the biblical canon. On the contrary, as valuable and immensely reliable as they are for proper understanding of both the Old and New Testaments. The Canon of the Tanakh was established well before the time of Christianity, and its current form is identical to what was originally established. The Sages who determined what books would be included in the Tanakh were much wiser and knew much better the criteria for being included. They chose not to include Enoch I, Jubilees, or any of the content of the other Rabbinic texts/Oral traditions, for good reason (which is beyond the scope of this study).
The purpose of bringing up this ironic contention is to precisely establish the inconsistency of reasoning. A mere reference or citation of something external to scripture does not provide enough evidence for presuming that the entire book also containing that writing should be included in the canon or be assumed to be entirely reliable.
Aside from Rabbinic citations and references found in the New Testament, there are also numerous references and citations from secular non-biblical and non-Jewish writings and teachers such as Aratus (Acts 17:28), Menander (1 Cor 15:33), and Epimenides (Titus 1:12). Could Paul have secretly intended to elevate the words of these secular teachers to the level of divine inspiration? Is it more reasonable to presume that seeing value in one saying from an extra-biblical source is not a validation of the entire text from which it was referenced? Understand this question is granting that the New Testament even does reference Enoch at all, which will be further examined.
First, we must explore a second instance of inconsistent standards having been applied to the process of validation. While it's one thing to assume a text is reliable or divine based on presumed references to it in the New Testament, it's another thing to ignore references from the Tanakh that exhibit some similarity.
An account found in Enoch I resembles visions from two of the prophets. One is more of a structural resemblance, while the other is more closely related but only in substance. Below is the account from Enoch I:
"And there I saw One who had a head of days, And His head was white like wool, And with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of a man, And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels. And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, concerning that Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, (and) why he went with the Head of Days? And he answered and said unto me: This is the son of Man who hath righteousness, With whom dwelleth righteousness, And who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden, Because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him, And whose lot hath the pre-eminence before the Lord of Spirits in uprightness for ever." -Enoch I 46:1-3
The most obvious reference to something vaguely similar to this in Tanakh is found in the book of Daniel:
"I was watching in the night visions. Behold, One like a Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days, and was brought into His presence. Dominion, glory and sovereignty were given to Him that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will never pass away, and His kingdom is one that will not be destroyed." -Daniel 7:13-14
The information being provided to Enoch in this narrative is given with the intention he will relay it to his son. This premise presents us with the first scriptural inconsistency we find in Enoch I. In Genesis, it is clear that Enoch ascended to heaven as a final destination rather than experiencing a natural human death.
Jared lived 162 years, then fathered Enoch. Jared lived 800 years after he fathered Enoch, and he fathered sons and daughters. So all of Jared's days were 962 years, and then he died. Enoch lived 65 years, then fathered Methuselah. Now Enoch walked with G-d continually for 300 years after he fathered Methuselah, and he fathered sons and daughters. So all of Enoch's days were 365 years. And Enoch continually walked with G-d—then he was not there, because G-d took him. Methuselah lived 187 years and fathered Lamech. 26 And Methuselah lived 782 years after he fathered Lamech, and he fathered other sons and daughters. So all of Methuselah's days were 969 years, and then he died. -Genesis 5:18-27
Notice that it is specified and made abundantly clear that Enoch's father, Jared died. The narrative then continues to make it equally clear that Enoch's son Methuselah died. Sandwiched directly between these two, however, is an account that deviates from the clear precedence of the text. Enoch did not die. Enoch was taken, by G-d. Yet the narrative of the Book of Enoch is such that Enoch was "taken" by G-d for the purpose of receiving a revelation to be relayed to someone still living. The implication is that this account more closely resembles the style of the temple vision shown to Ezekiel, where Ezekiel often expresses that he was "taken" by G-d and then shown the vision he returned to share, hence the existence of the book of Ezekiel. Enoch, however, did not return to share anything. His "being taken" was in place of experiencing the death his father and son experienced.
Citations of Enoch in the New Testament
Now the question of citations from Enoch I in the New Testament: Did Yeshua or the Apostles quote from the book of Enoch? As stated above, there are four primary citations from the New Testament, which are presumed by some to be either direct quotations from Enoch I or, at the very least, referencing Enoch I.
Be like the angels
The first instance is found in each of the Synoptic Gospels and appears in Matthew 22:29-30, Mark 12:24-25, and Luke 20:34-36. The main "proof text" which some presume to be a confirmation that "Yeshua accepted Enoch I as scripture," is only found in Matthew and Mark.
But answering, Yeshua said to them, "You've gone astray, because you don't understand the Scriptures or the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. -Matthew 22:29-30
Yeshua said to them, "Isn't this the reason you've gone astray, because you don't understand the Scriptures or the power of God? For when they rise up from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. -Mark 12:24-25
The claim is that Yeshua accuses the Sadducees of not understanding the scriptures, continuing to explain how angels in heaven do not marry. Since Enoch and Jubilees are the only books that mention it is forbidden for angels to marry, then they must be the "scriptures" right?
While Yeshua is indeed referring to that of which the Sadducees are ignorant, the problem is Yeshua doesn't say angels are forbidden from marrying, nor is the logic consistent with the narrative of Enoch. Yeshua states that in the resurrection, we will be like the angels in heaven, neither marrying nor being given in marriage. In Enoch, however, angels can marry. The angels in Enoch which have married are not in heaven but rather on earth as we are now, where we have the ability to marry. In order to provide consistency in this logic, if in heaven we won't marry and neither do angels, then on earth we marry and so should angels.
Additionally, Yeshua never states "it is written" as he does when quoting scripture every other time, nor is Enoch or Jubilees the only document or teaching from the time that explains that angels don't marry. Enoch I and Jubilees are the only two that insist angels can marry but are forbidden to (indicating a level of free will equal to that of humanity among angels). Still, Talmudic literature is replete with discussion on angels, long having acknowledged that not only do angels not marry, but aren't even capable due to a lack of human free will, and them being spiritual beings. Furthermore, as will be discussed later on, the book of Jubilees is, in fact, a Sadducee tradition; they certainly would have been familiar with it. They would not, however, have been familiar with any Talmudic teachings concerning the lack of free will in angelic beings. Could those portions of the Talmud be what Yeshua is calling "scripture"? Likely not. It seems rather apparent the scripture Yeshua is referring to is the scripture he continues to quote:
"But concerning the dead being raised, haven't you read in the book of Moses about the burning bush? How God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'?[He's not the God of the dead, but of the living. You have gone far astray!" -Mark 12:26-27
His Reference to Scripture was not in response to the question of marriage in the afterlife but rather a correction of the Sadducee's position that there will not be a resurrection. The notion that Yeshua here is making a reference to Enoch I, let alone acknowledging it as scripture, is easily dispelled by examining the entire passage within its context.
When the angels sinned...
The next New Testament "proof text" for Enoch I is found in 2nd Peter.
For God did not spare angels when they sinned, but threw them into Sheol[other translations may read Tartarus]. He put them in chains of gloomy darkness, to be held until the judgment. -2 Peter 2:4
This is, at the very best, a passive reference, but there isn't much to go off. The speculation is that the "angels when they sinned" is a reference to the unholy union detailed in the book of Enoch and that the "chains of gloomy darkness" is a reference to Enoch 54:1-5. The reference makes mention of chains having been prepared for Azazel and his hosts. Peter gives no detail on the nature of the sin in question, and the idea of chains for a spiritual being is a clear anthropomorphism.
Furthermore, as a native Hebrew speaker, Peter would have understood that "Malakh" in Hebrew simply means "messenger." While it can and does refer to what we would call angels throughout the Tanakh, it also refers to human messengers throughout the Tanakh. Given that prophets are also messengers from G-d, and Peter just gave warning of such false prophets who had already risen among the people before (2 Peter 2:1), it is just as likely he is referring to those same false prophets who were not spared, but were bound in Sheol (the grave) by the chains of death (anthropomorphism).
The very best argument Enoch I can derive from this passage is as follows: given the date and timeframe of the few fragments of Enoch I found in Qumran, as well as Peter's lack of quoting from anywhere he considers to be a "written" source, it is most likely that both Enoch and Peter are drawing from a common source. Most likely, an already existing Midrash in which the only thing we can confirm, given the other written sources surrounding the events with angels and men in Genesis (which will be discussed shortly), is that angels sinned. The notion of that sin being sexual is not specifically referenced by Peter, nor is it found in other rabbinic documents or Targums from the time period through the 2nd century CE (Targum Onkelos). Enoch is actually unique in specifying the "sin" in question to be of a sexual nature within this time.
Angels abandoned their proper place
The next and probably most popular "New Testament proof text" for Enoch I is found in Jude.
"And the angels—who did not keep their own position of authority but deserted their proper place—He has kept in everlasting shackles under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great Day. In the same way as these angels, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them—having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after a different sort of flesh—are displayed as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire." -Jude 1:6-7
This, as with 2 Peter, is very simple. Just like in 2 Peter, angels are said to have transgressed, and just like 2 Peter, those angels are mentioned as being in chains. As found in 2 Peter, Jude mentions these "Angels" instantly after having given a warning about false prophets, and just like in 2 Peter, Jude makes no mention of any source text from which he is quoting. Jude does, however, make mention of sexual sin, but that is in reference to Sodom, not the "angels ."
The comparison Jude makes between Sodom and the angels in question is that they are displays of the suffering of the punishment of eternal fire. Sodom is not eternally burning, though it was destroyed. This example and comparison are hardly applicable to eternal angels, but it is directly applicable to false prophets, such as those involved in Korah's rebellion in Numbers 16. In the rebellion of Korah, the ground opens up into an abyss and it swallows up everyone who was part of the rebellion. Jude seems to reference this rebellion, speaking of the ground opening up into an abyss that swallows all those in the company of the rebellious, just like what 2 Peter talks about.
An interesting side note is Jude also mentions a dispute between the archangel Michael and Satan over the body of Moses, which is certainly NOT a reference to Enoch I, but a further indication that Jude and Enoch may both be drawing from a common source. Furthermore, Jude doesn't refer to Enoch in any direct way until verse 14. With this verse, he mentions something somewhat similar to what is written about in Enoch I 1:9. Still, he negates to mention this in the form of any quote or citation, still a further indication that this is likely an oral tradition with which Jude and one of the numerous authors of Enoch I were both familiar.
One like the son of man & the Nephilim dilemma
The 4th and final New Testament proof text for Enoch is in none other than Revelation:
Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned, I saw seven golden menorot. In the midst of the menorot, I saw One like a Son of Man, clothed in a robe down to His feet, with a golden belt wrapped around His chest. His head and His hair were white like wool, white like snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire. His feet were like polished bronze refined in a furnace, and His voice was like the roar of rushing waters. In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came forth a sharp, two-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining at full strength. -Revelation 1:12-16
This verse is very similar to Enoch I 46:1-3, cited above. Enoch's account, however, seems to be a hybrid between the account in Daniel 7:13-14, and this account from Revelation. See, both Enoch and Daniel make a clear distinction between "the one of ancient days" or "the one who had a head of days" as Enoch I calls him, and the figure of the "Son of Man." In both Enoch and Daniel, these are two different figures and entities. However, Enoch I describes the one with a head of days as having hair white like wool, whereas Revelation here describes the son of man as having this feature.
If any level of inspiration has been ascribed to Enoch I, there arises an inherent conflict of; who has the hair white like wool, the one of Ancient days, or the son of man? This becomes quickly resolved if Enoch is removed from the mix. According to Revelation, the son of man, also mentioned in Daniel, is the one with hair white like wool. The inconsistency of Enoch I with the biblical accounts serves only to confuse. Given that G-d Himself is showing John this vision, it is impossible that John is drawing from a common source as Enoch or even referencing Enoch. Instead this would serve as evidence that this portion of Enoch may not actually have been written until after John's time, and instead, Enoch is using John's Revelation as a source document.
Another inconsistency with the biblical text which any follower of Yeshua should find concerning Enoch I, is how it ultimately names Enoch as "The Son of Man":
"And he (i.e. the angel) came to me and greeted me with His voice, and said unto me: This is the Son of Man who is born unto righteousness; And righteousness abides over him, And the righteousness of the Head of Days forsakes him not.' And he said unto me: 'He proclaims unto thee peace in the name of the world to come; For from hence has proceeded peace since the creation of the world, And so shall it be unto thee for ever and for ever and ever." -Enoch I 71:14-15
This title is used throughout the text of scripture, and nearly every time it appears, it simply means "human being" and has no other connotation. The account from Daniel 7 uses it in reference to a figure understood to be the Messiah. Some might argue on this basis that, at the very least, in Daniel, it is used as a messianic title. This conclusion is not very clear from the text. Rather, this title is used in the exact same context as the rest of Tanakh, in the context of meaning "human being." The particular human being it refers to in Daniel is the Messiah. So rather than being a "Messianic title" in Daniel 7, it is a title referring to the Messiah. Slight difference but important.
While the title "Son of man" is not a messianic title in the Tanakh, it is frequently used directly as a messianic title throughout the New Testament, this being one particular reason some scholars believe the Book of Enoch to be an early CE Christian text rather than a late BCE Jewish text. Enoch, in a similar fashion to the New Testament, uses this title in such a way that it would seem to be exclusive to the figure of the Messiah, deviating from the precedence of the Tanakh. Aside from this, there is the issue of Genesis 6, which gives an account of certain marital unions which yielded offspring that became legendary in their day.
Now when humankind began to multiply on the face of the ground and daughters were born to them, then the sons of G-d saw that the daughters of men were good and they took for themselves wives, any they chose. Then Adonai said, "My Spirit will not remain with humankind forever, since they are flesh. So their days will be 120 years. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, whenever the sons of G-d came to the daughters of men, and gave birth to them. Those were the mighty men of old, men of renown. -Genesis 6:1-4
Introduced in this passage are 4 character types:
The sons of G-d
The Daughters of Man
The Nephilim
The men of renown
In Enoch I, the Nephilim and "men of renown" are conflated with one another. The Nephilim are the product and offspring of a marital union between the "sons of G-d" which Enoch I makes out to be angelic beings, and the "daughters of men" which Enoch I takes to be human women.
Before getting into the text of Enoch I, there are a couple of reasons to be skeptical of this interpretation right off the bat. The first is that the mention of the Nephilim is both a digression from thought and narrative. The narrative of the "sons of G-d" mating with "daughters of men" has already been brought into full view, then the passage takes a split second to break away from the narrative to mention that "the Nephilim were present." If this narrative was the origin of the Nephilim (being the men of renown), this fact might have been mentioned at the very beginning of the passage to introduce the Nephilim before telling the story of how they came about. After this, a direct tie between the Nephilim and the "men of renown" at the end of this narrative would be logical. One could even concede that if no mention of the Nephilim occurred in the passage until the point in the narrative when the men of renown are mentioned, this would be sufficient, essentially telling the story of how the men of renown came about and then making mention that they were also called "Nephilim." Neither of these happen to be the case.
The passage initiates the narrative of the unholy marital union, randomly digresses to mention the Nephilim as a side note, then resumes the narrative, which culminates in the birth of the "men of renown ." The author clearly had no intention of the Nephilim being confused or conflated with the "Men of renown," and this fact will be explored shortly.
First, a look at the text of Enoch I to understand why this interpretation has pervaded Christianity:
"And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children. And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin. And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing. Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended ⌈in the days⌉ of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders: Sêmîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl. These are their chiefs of tens. And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones." -Enoch I 6:1-7:6 (From the Book of Watchers)
This passage has shaped Christian interpretation of Genesis 6, and even how concordances translated "Nephilim" for a very long time. Most Strongs concordances today will have the corresponding number 05353 for "Nephil," and the translation will be "Giant ." Many translations even read, "There were Giants on the earth in those days." The word נְּפִלִ֞ים (Nephilim) comes from the root נָפַל (Naphal), which connotes the action of falling or very simply means "to fall ." Nephilim, then is its plural tense, which would translate as "The fallen" or "Fallen ones," not Giants. This seems like a reference to "fallen angels," which at first appears to be a confirmation of the above account in Enoch I, as well as the common Christian interpretation that fallen angels mated with human women. Aside from the problem of angels and humans being of different "kind," and the fact that G-d made everything to reproduce "after it's own kind," another other problem that comes about by understanding the Nephilim to be fallen angels is that the "sons of G-d" must now be something else besides angels. In fact, this is exactly what is found among numerous Rabbinic commentators and throughout Rabbinic literature.
First, to address the very title "Sons of G-d ."Is this an accurate rendering of the Hebrew text? Many may insist yes, that בְנֵי־אֱלֹהִים֙ (Bnei Elohim) does, in fact, mean "sons of G-d." This would be absolutely correct if that's what the Hebrew text of Genesis actually said, but it isn't. The Hebrew text of Genesis says is בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ (Bnei Ha-Elohim). The presence of the definite article הָֽ (Ha-which means "The" in English) effectively alters how the following noun in question is to be comprehended. While in its perfect tense, "Elohim" is a singular noun referring to G-d, it has numerous alternative definitions which are plural inherently. An example of such is in Psalm 82:6, which, even according to Yeshua in John 10:34, doesn't seem to reference either G-d or Angelic beings but instead, it references human beings given the context of the question he is being asked. Psalm 82 is understood to refer to the Sanhedrin, in which case, rather than "gods," a better translation would be "judges ." This, as well as "powers," "rulers," and "authorities," is precisely how it is translated in the Schottenstein Edition Interlinear Chumash, which states "the sons of the rulers." Even Rashi, one of the foremost Biblical Hebrew Scholars of the 11th century, interprets it to mean "sons of princes and rulers." He does acknowledge that "princely angels" is an alternative possibility, but his translation follows the plain meaning of "rulers," referring to men of power and authority. More interesting is that for all the areas where Ramban (another extraordinary & renown Torah scholar of the 13th century) disagrees with Rashi, he does not dispute this translation. Furthermore, even older documents such as the Targum Jonathan relate this exact idea that the "Nephilim" are fallen angels and that the "Bnei HaElohim" are, in fact, human beings who are figures of authority and in positions of rulership. It even mentions the angels by name.
"Schamchazai and Uzziel, who fell from heaven, were on the earth in those days; and also, after the sons of the Great had gone in with the daughters of men, they bare to them: and these are they who are called men who are of the world, men of names." -Targum Jonathan on Genesis 6:4
It should be noted, Jews today do not consider Enoch I to be authoritative or reliable, whereas Targum Jonathan is regarded to be a reliable source. The position in this passage, which can be derived from such sources, is that the "Bnei HaElohim" were human men who had grown up in the class of lordship and higher political authority and that these men forcibly took from the lower class women they desired, as many as they desired, and that the Nephilim are fallen angels who were present when this occurred. This is not to discount the involvement of the fallen angels in the matter of this union of the upper class (likely the seed of Seth) with the lower class (likely the seed of Cain). The mention of the Nephilim right in the middle of the narrative may hint that the Nephilim were involved in this occurrence to some capacity. Even though Ramban seems to agree with Rashi's translation, he suggests in his opinion that the most accurate direct reading of the passage, is that "Angels mated with human women" but that this interpretation itself necessitates a lengthy explanation of the inherent mystical nature of the passage, and that even if that's how the passage reads literally, it is not intended to be interpreted literally. Such an interpretation could even be derived from the Midrash Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, which follows this interpretation
Rabbi said: The angels who fell from their holy place in heaven saw the daughters of the generations of Cain walking about naked, with their eyes painted like harlots, and they went astray after them, and took wives from amongst them, as it is said, "And the sons of Elohim saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose" -Midrash, Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 22:4
How does this midrash explain how this is possible? That angels could mate with human women?
Rabbi Joshua said: The angels are flaming fire, as it is said, "His servants are a flaming fire" (Ps. 104:4), and fire came with the coition of flesh and blood, but did not burn the body; but when they fell from heaven, from their holy place, their strength and stature (became) like that of the sons of men, and their frame was (made of) clods of dust, as it is said, "My flesh is clothed with worms and clods of dust(Job 7:5)" -Midrash, Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 22:5
Very interesting choice of words as we read in Pirkei Avot the definition of a "Clod".
[There are] seven things [characteristic] in a clod, and seven in a wise man: A wise man does not speak before one who is greater than he in wisdom, And does not break into his fellow's speech; And is not hasty to answer; He asks what is relevant, and he answers to the point; And he speaks of the first [point] first, and of the last [point] last; And concerning that which he has not heard, he says: I have not heard; And he acknowledges the truth. And the reverse of these [are characteristic] in a clod. -Pirkei Avot 5:7
Given the definition of a wise man here, it would seem that a "Clod" (the contrast of a wise man) is a foolish man. Better yet, a man without conscience who has relegated himself as nothing more than a beast as Adam himself was, prior to having the divine breath breathed into his nostrils, no more than a clod of dirt. This fits directly in tandem with the opening verses of the passage and the reason G-d gives for his spirit not remaining with man.
The implication derived from all this is that fallen angels may have either possessed or heavily influenced these foolish men from the seed of Seth, who held positions of authority, to lay with the women born from Cain's seed, and in so doing can be credited with the accomplishment. This interpretation allows for the alternate interpretation while still maintaining its non-literal nature so that it doesn't contradict the plain reading of "Bnei HaElohim" about human beings. There is a fair amount of irony in all this though. The notion of angels mating with humans pervades Christian theological circles, while the idea that it was sons of Sons of Seth mating with daughters of Cain is a minority view in Christendom. Conversely, in Judaism, it is the reverse. The majority opinion is that Seths' descendants mated with Cain's descendants, and the minority view is that angels mated with humans.
Jubilees
The historicity of Jubilees
Regarding Jubilees, one must first note that it is a retelling of Genesis 1-Exodus 12, and the author seems to bounce between word-for-word citations from the canon, removing words from the canon, and embellishing on the canon with their own additions and interpretations. The purpose for this appears to be an attempt on the part of the author to reconcile perceived contradictions and superimpose divine authority onto personal interpretation. This is often accomplished throughout the book via the words "For this reason it is ordained and written on the heavenly tablets" and in fact, this exact wording is used to place a sense of divine emphasis on the necessity to observe this Enochian Calendar:
For this reason it is ordained and written on the heavenly tablets, that they should celebrate the feast of weeks in this month once a year, to renew the covenant every year. And this whole festival was celebrated in heaven from the day of creation till the days of Noah" twenty-six jubilees and five weeks of years: and Noah and his sons observed it for seven jubilees and one week of years, till the day of Noah's death, and from the day of Noah's death his sons did away with (it) until the days of Abraham, and they eat blood -Jubilees 6:17-18
Like the Book of Enoch, the text of Jubilees, which are among the Qumran scrolls, are only tiny fragments of scrolls. Below is a list of each scroll fragment, the language it is written, and the period of history to which the parchment is dated.
Scroll 2Q19-20
Language: Hebrew
Herodian Period
37BCE-73CE
Scroll 4Q216-220
Language: Hebrew
Herodian Period
37BCE-73CE
Scroll 4Q483
Language: Hebrew
Herodian Period
37BCE-73CE
Scroll 11Q12
Language: Hebrew
Herodian Period
37BCE-73CE
If you are wondering why 4Q483 is highlighted, this is because it isn't officially documented as a scroll of the book of Jubilees; it is a paraphrase of either Genesis or Jubilees, but there is uncertainty regarding which. It is mentioned here to grant Jubilees its most robust possible defense in this examination. Aside from the above, there are other scrolls found in Qumran Cave 4 that contain content and narrative which resembles Jubilees but is not identical; these are called "Pseudo-Jubilees" (4Q225-227: Hebrew, Herodian Period).
Unlike Enoch I, upon comparing the Hebrew on each small fragment of Jubilees with the Ethiopian Translation, it seems the Book of Jubilees is fairly accurate to the Ethiopian Version. However, just as in Enoch's case, the contents of the Qumran scrolls do not make up the totality of what is written in the document we now call "The Book of Jubilees," but rather only parts of it. As with Enoch I, the oldest known complete document of Jubilees is the Ethiopian Version.
One primary reason for skepticism about Jubilees is that it is inherently reliant on Enoch I, which has already proven to have more than one problem. Enoch, however, makes no claim to exclusivity on the calendar (as it details two calendars), nor does it give the same detail on the calendar as found in Jubilees, which does make an emphatic claim of exclusivity and condemns other calendars for their accounting of the lunar cycle and seasonal drift. Given the Lunar calendar of Enoch I, this presents some disunity between Enoch I and Jubilees despite its heavy reliance on Enoch I.
For I know and from henceforth will I declare it unto thee, and it is not of my own devising; for the book (lies) written before me, and on the heavenly tablets the division of days is ordained, test they forget the feasts of the covenant and walk according to the feasts of the Gentiles after their error and after their ignorance. For there will be those who will assuredly make observations of the moonâ€" how (it) disturbs the seasons and comes in from year to year ten days too soon. For this reason the years will come upon them when they will disturb (the order), and make an abominable (day) the day of testimony, and an unclean day a feast day, and they will confound all the days, the holy with the unclean, and the unclean day with the holy; for they will go wrong as to the months and sabbaths and feasts and jubilees. For this reason I command and testify to thee that thou mayst testify to them; for after thy death thy children will disturb (them), so that they will not make the year three hundred and sixty-four days only, and for this reason they will go wrong as to the new moons and seasons and sabbaths and festivals, and they will eat all kinds of blood with all kinds of flesh. -Jubilees 6:35-38
What is most fascinating about this passage is that it explicitly mentions feasts falling on "Unclean Days," which could be a reference to an insistence on Feast days being limited to falling on the weekly Sabbath (as modern fringe sects observe). The Sabbath is a Holy day, thus, it makes sense that the other days would be viewed as "unclean" by a hyper legalist sect. The irony, though, is that in these communities, according to the calendar they have extrapolated from these texts, the weekly Sabbath shifts and breaks the continuous 7-day cycle in its efforts to maintain an extra-biblical and overly elevated status of "Sabbath" as a title to attribute to the New Moon and head of the month.
This difference in the calendar and the subsequent observance of Feast Days on different days, is actually corroborated by a footnote in the Jerusalem Talmud which discusses how and when the counting of the Omer is to be initiated:
The ˋomer is a measure, a tenth of an epha, about 3.5 liter, of new barley grain which is offered in the Temple to permit the consumption of grain from the new harvest. It has to be brought on the day after the Sabbath (Lev. 23:15) which in rabbinic tradition is the second day of the Feast of unleavened bread, in the Sadducee tradition of the Book of Jubilees the day following the Feast, and in Boethusian tradition on the Sunday in the Feast. The common testimony of Philo and Josephus shows that rabbinic tradition was followed in the Temple service. The ˋomer had to be brought to the Temple on a fixed date, even if this date was a Sabbath (except for Boethusians for which this never could happen.) Therefore it is clear that there is a biblical prescription to cut the barley on the Sabbath if that is the day on which the grain has to be offered. The Two Breads are the only leavened bread ever permitted in the Temple precinct; they have to be presented to the altar (but not offered on it) on the festival of Weeks (Lev. 23:17), which falls on the 50th day after the ˋomer, on the same day of the week as the ˋomer. These Two Breads permit the use of new wheat in the Temple service. R. Eliezer concludes from an argument of "equal cut", since both the ˋomer and the Two Breads are referred to in the verse as "first fruits" that they follow the same rules and, therefore, if the two loaves were not baked before the Sabbath they may be baked on the Sabbath. -Jerusalem Talmud: Shabbat 19:1:2-footnote 25
Interesting how we can observe three different modes of initiating the Omer count by offering the new Barley grain based on how these three sects interpreted the word "Sabbath." The Pharisees understood the word "Sabbath" here in this passage to refer to the first day of unleavened bread (Pesach), so the second day of unleavened bread would then be "the day after the Sabbath." Per their own tradition, the Sadducees believed this to be the day after the feast itself, which would be the day of Pesach itself. A belief that might have caused it to fall on what they possibly reckoned to be the weekly Sabbath, if the modern interpretations of the Enochian Calendar are correct. This would also imply the 14th of Nisan would fall on a Friday evening, making the 15th at sunrise (the day following the feast which would be held the evening of the 14th) the 7th day of the week and thus the weekly Sabbath itself. This presumes modern calendrical interpretations based on Enoch and Jubilees are correct.
The Boethusians (who some believe to be a sect of Sadducees themselves) waited to offer the Omer and begin its count until the Sunday following the weekly Sabbath. As this is mentioned regarding the Pharisaic rendering of the weekly Sabbath while no mention of an alternative rendering of the Sabbath is made, it is unlikely that any such system existed. Thus the modern interpretation, which would alter the continuous 7-day weekly cycle, would be incorrect. However, this alternative calendar mentioned in Enoch and Jubilees would seem to have been Sadducee tradition along with the Qumran community, and elsewhere in the Talmud, we can again determine that even the Sadducees who maintained the tradition of Jubilees still rendered the weekly Sabbath in accordance with Pharisaic custom. It is regarding Sabbath observance and the perimeter that constitutes the Eruv (a community which can be traveled with on the Sabbath without violating the mandate regarding a sabbath days journey) on the Weekly Sabbath that both Sadducees and Boethusians are ultimately treated no differently than and only moderately distinguishable from Gentiles. This is discussed at length in Talmud³, which is a discussion on whether or not the property of a Sadducee or Boethusian may be included in an Eruv on Shabbat when neither one is considered Shomer Shabbas (Sabbath compliant).
One noteworthy aspect of those citations is the absence of any indication of an alternative rendering of the weekly Sabbath. No mention is made of the Sadducees honoring the weekly Sabbath on a different day. The discussion surrounds a seeming contradiction of practice where in one instance, a Sadducee may renounce the rights to his property so it may be included in the Eruv and thus used for travel on the Sabbath and, conversely, another statement which forbids even this. Ultimately the two conflicting statements are reconciled to indicate publicity and intention. The Sadducee who may renounce his property rights so his property can be included in the Eruv and thus traveled on the Sabbath is "an apostate who violates the Sabbath privately," while the Sadducee whose property cannot be traversed under any circumstances regardless of their renouncing rights to it, is "an apostate who violates the Sabbath publicly⁴." So it would seem even the Sadducees who kept the tradition of the book of Jubilees found no basis for interrupting the 7-day weekly cycle to ensure Sabbaths always fell on the exact dates of every month otherwise, this would doubtlessly be one of the accusations the Pharisees would have railed at them. Instead, the Pharisees and the Talmud seem to be under the impression that there is universal agreement on the weekly Sabbath.
Biblical Consistency of Jubilees
The book of Jubilees recounts Genesis and the first half of Exodus (roughly) in terms of Jubilee cycles (hence the title). Mathematically it appears Jubilees supposes a Jubilee to be a period of 50 years. The book makes constant mention of the numbers of weeks, which can get confusing if you don't first understand that by "week" it means a period of 7 years within the Jubilee cycle. Then it may mention which year within that "week" is being referred to. One of the more significant causes for skepticism of Jubilees is its own internal consistency as well as it's consistency with the biblical text. A particular example of this is in the account of Abraham:
"And in this thirty-ninth Jubilee, in the second week in the first year, Terah took to himself a wife, and her name was 'Edna, the daughter of 'Abram, the daughter of his father's sister. And in the seventh year of this week she bare him a son, and he called his name Abram, by the name of the father of his mother; for he had died before his daughter had conceived a son." -Jubilees 11:13-14
This places Abraham's birth in the 39th Jubilee in the second week in the 7th year of the week (so 38 cycles of 50 years have been completed and now 14 years into the 39th cycle of 50 years). If we utilize this method in counting from 0, this puts Abraham's birth at roughly 1914 years from 0. Fast forward a few chapters in the book:
"And it came to pass in the first week in the forty-fourth jubilee, in the second year, that is, the year in which Abraham died, that Isaac and Ishmael came from the Well of the Oath to celebrate the feast of weeks -that is, the feast of the first fruits of the harvest-to Abraham, their father, and Abraham rejoiced because his two sons had come." -Jubilees 22:1
This states Abraham died in the 2nd year within the first seven-year period of the 44th Jubilee cycle. So again, 43 Jubilees (50-year periods) have passed, and time is now two years into the 44th Jubilee cycle (about 2152 from zero). According to this, Abraham's life span was 238 years or 4 Jubilees, 5 "weeks" and 3 years. The trouble is that the next chapter provides an entirely different timeline for Abraham's lifespan.
"And he(Abraham) lived three jubilees and four weeks of years, one hundred and seventy-five years, and completed the days of his life, being old and full of days." -Jubilees 23:8
According to this verse, Abrahams lifespan was 178 years. 3 Jubilees (150 years) and 4 weeks (28 years) for a total of 178 years. Given the number of 238 above, there is 60 years and an entire Jubilee missing somewhere. According to this, if Abraham was born 14 years into the 39th Jubilee, then adding three jubilees and 4 "weeks" of years places his death in the 42nd Jubilee in the 7th year of the 6th week, a clear contradiction to the account in Genesis, which says very plainly Abraham lived 175 years (Genesis 25:7). Not only is the book of Jubilees inconsistent with the biblical text but it's internally inconsistent in and of itself, which lends to the idea that the calendars mention between Enoch I and Jubilees are likely theoretical and were not put into practice as suggested by Greg Doudna⁵:
"It has been suggested that the 364-day calendar of many Qumran texts might have been used in the Temple in the time of John Hyrcanus I and Alexander Jannaeus and sporadically at later times (Glessmer 1999: 273-74). But others such as Baumgarten (1987) and Stern (2000, 2010) have suspected the 364-day calendar of the Qumran texts did not involve repudiation of the lunar calendar in practice, but could have represented an ideal rather than intended to be practiced in real life."
Doudna goes on in the article to explain how precisely accurate and consistent the Hillel II calendar is (which he refers to as "the modern Hebrew calendar" or "the lunar calendar" as in the quote above). The Zodiac of scroll 4Q318 is in Aramaic and dates to the Herodian period. It is consistent with the Modern Hillel II calendar and only helps to strengthen the case for its reliability and gives us better insight into the calendar that would have been in practice during the lifetime of Yeshua. The fact that regardless of the calendars presented in Enoch I and Jubilees, The Scrolls concerning the actual Zodiak themselves are consistent with the current calendar observed by Judaism at large is very telling, even concerning the practices of the sects in Qumran.
Extra-biblical customs of the Qumran Community
This notion is being explored for no other reason than that one of the single greatest bones the fringe sects who value these texts and observe alternative calendars based on them have to pick with the Hillel II calendar and Orthodox Judaism at large is, as stated early on in this article, the origin with Pharisaic Judaism. The taboo of "adding to the Torah." Many refuse to even celebrate Chanukah or Purim because they are not commanded within the written Torah.
Because Enoch I and Jubilees are, in many cases, the only Qumran texts they are familiar with, an assumption is made that the "true undefiled" faith and practice of Torah was "preserved and protected" by this community from those confounded Pharisees. Many would probably be shocked to learn that these communities also had their own extra-biblical traditions and holidays, which they "added" and observed. As mentioned earlier, the temple scroll (4Q524 and 11Q19-21) describes a calendar consistent with the one described in detail in Enoch I, which also mentions particular holidays the community at Qumran added to the holiday cycle. Among these are:
The Day of Ordination for Priests (Month 1, Day 1-8)
The Festival of New Wine (Month 5, Day 3)
The Festival of Oil (Month 6, Day 22)
The Festival of The Offering of Wood (Month 6, Day 23-29)
This serves as evidence against any notion that this community "preserved the true faith" or "guarded proper observance" or any other platitudes attributed to this community by the anti-Pharisee and anti-Rabbinic fringes of Torah-practicing Christianity in their effort to legitimize and validate their disdain for Rabbinic authority. Messiah Yeshua stated clearly in Matthew 23 that the Pharisees hold the authority of Moses (the seat of Moses) and that what they say is what his followers are to observe. He never spoke any such words regarding Essenes, Zadokites, or the Qumran community. He observed Chanukkah along with the Pharisees (John 10:22), whereas he is never said to have ever observed any of these additional holidays found in the calendar of the Qumran texts. Furthermore, from what can be discerned in the Gospel narratives, Yeshua most certainly maintained whatever calendar the Pharisees of his time observed.
Given that the Temple was still standing in Yeshua's day, there was no set calendar, as each year would have been evaluated as to whether or not a leap year was in order. Between 320CE and 385CE, Hillel II was the last Nasi of the standing Sanhedrin. His duty was to determine the head of the month and year. Recognizing that the future would bring about an end to a central Sanhedrin for all of Judaism, he established the methods by which communities could independently calculate the monthly and yearly cycles, and this was finalized into the current calendar of Judaism today.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the alternative, numerous variations of calendars employed by myriads of small fringe sects of the pro-Torah movement, hardly find a basis in the document from which they claim to derive. Furthermore, those documents have a shaky history at best and have not been well preserved by any standard, which could deem them as being reliable sources. At their best, they present useless redundancies of content already discussed in the actual biblical text. At their worst, they offer blatant contradictions with the biblical text and additions of practice not condoned by any Sanhedrin. Other documents found among those same texts affirm the accuracy of the Hillel II Calendar rather than the alternative vaguely described in these texts and may have only represented an ideal and may not have been put into practice. Any who claim that Hillel II "changed," "altered," or "corrupted" the calendar is either lying or simply ignorant of the history and effort that went into developing the Hillel II calendar as well as the documentation or lack thereof, for any alternative calendar they have invented by their interpretations from unreliable and uninspired texts which contradict the scriptures.
References & Footnotes
¹ Plate 847, Fragment 1
² https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/manuscript/4Q209-1 ³ Bavli (Babylonian Talmud) Tractate Eruvin 68b:15 and in Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 2:16
⁴ Eruvin 69a:6
⁵ The Sect of the Qumran Texts and its Leading Role in the Temple in Jerusalem During Much of the First Century BCE: Toward a New Framework for Understanding (Part II)" https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/2014/04/dou388028
Commenti