Constantine and the Edicts of Toleration

The Great Man Theory of history is discredited but sill influences popular History, and with no one is that more apparent then Constantine.  Both people who like Constantine and people who hate him love to paint him as a singular nexus point for why the centuries following him seem so different from the centuries preceding him.

The AD 313 Edict of Toleration wasn't made by Constantine alone, it was co-authored with Licinius, Constantine didn't rule the East, where most of the persecution was happening, till a decade later.  Licinius would be accused of backing off on this toleration later but most historians now view that as propaganda, he actually possibly became a Christian himself at some point, that's Absolutely the impression Lactantius gives in his account.  Also there is no Evidence of Licinius being worshiped as Pharoah in Egypt even though he controlled Egypt for over a decade directly succeeding Maximinus Daza from Egypt's Perspective.

But more then that the first Edict of Toleration was the one issued by Galerius on April 30th AD 311.  Galerius was one of the chef architects of The Great Persecution to begin with so it making him synymous with how it ends is pretty awkward.  But this edict was made over a year and a half before the Battle of Milvian Bridge.

After Galerius died Maximinus Daza revived Persecution in the East, but he didn't rule all the East, it was shared with Licinius, exactly who controlled the Province of Asia is hard to determine with sources I can easily find online.  And claims that Maxentius persecuted Christians are even more provably false then Licinius, Lactantius in Of the Manner in which The Persecutors Died in chapter 43 refers to Maximinus Daia (what he calls Daza for some reason) as the only adversary left even though Maxentius was still in power in Rome at the time referred to.

Galerius seems to have genuinely believed in the Christian God in some capacity when he made his Edict.

"Wherefore it will be the duty of the Christians, in consequence of this our toleration, to pray to their God for our welfare, and for that of the public, and for their own; that the commonweal may continue safe in every quarter, and that they themselves may live securely in their habitations."

There is evidence some regions were on the way to booming majority Christian already before the Diocletian Persecution started.  And Paganism still thrived in certain regions into the fifth century.  

One ruler's fixation alone would never be enough to entirely change a nation's religious destiny.  Akhenaton tried to completely change Egypt's religion and it failed utterly with everything he built falling apart as soon as he died, same with Aurelian's Sol Invictus protect in the 3rd Century.

I don't think Nero Persecuted Christians

Few Extra-Biblical traditions of Early Church History seem as unquestionable.  Nero's supposed Persecution of Christians is treated as the next chapter of Church History right after the narrative of Acts ends.  Hollywood movies depicting it are called Biblical Epics, and I will continue to enjoy those movies in-spite of how fictional I now view them to be, but there were also certain things I always felt they got wrong.

The thing is, the closer to Biblical History a tradition is, the more likely it is evidence in The Bible itself could work against it.  I already did a post arguing that Peter never went to Rome, which included my deconstructing the assumption that the Ascension of Isaiah was talking about Nero at all.  (And now I have this follow up post.)  I even already there questioned the assumption that Paul was Martyred in Rome, though he certainly did go there.

Here is a fact that is somewhat little known, the Trail before Caesar (we know Nero was Caesar at the time because it's after Felix's time as Governor of Judea ended) Paul was awaiting when the narrative of Acts ended, is kind of recorded in Scripture elsewhere.  2 Timothy 4 verses 16-18, often considered the last of Paul's Epistles to be written.

At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.  Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.  And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

The implication of these verses is clearly that Paul was acquitted.

Now plenty of scholars are aware of this.  But some insist Paul returned to Rome a second time later and was killed then, by the very same Emperor who had acquitted him before.  Sometimes specifically saying 2 Timothy 1:16-17 refers to this second imprisonment, but to me the context of the letter clearly makes that the same imprisonment he records the resolution of quoted above.

Now some have interpreted the above verses as being about Paul's escapes recorded in Acts. But the way he says "out of the mouth of the Lion" makes me think he's referring to The Seat of Caesar, to the Beast that yes I do still view as being in a sense the Roman Government.  I've also seen it argued that what Paul said elsewhere in that chapter is implying he's about to die.  Well he could have been dying of old age, but I don't necessarily think that verse is implying immanent death.

The only authentic Epistle of Clement of Rome says in chapter 5 that Paul went to the "Extremity of The West" (or "limits of the west" in Bart Ehrman's translation).  Many strangely quote this passage as backing up Paul being martyred in Rome when in my view it does not, it seems on it's own without bringing our assumptions into it, to be saying the "Extremity of the West" is where Paul met his fate.

Now "extremity of the west" is an expression used in Secular Pagan Roman writings to refer to Spain, so this can be read as just confirming Paul fulfilled his stated desire to go to Spain from Romans 15:24&28.  

Maybe if Paul was martyred by a Roman Emperor it was a later one.  The second Emperor tradition says persecuted Christians was Domitian.  And sometimes people use against the Domitian persecution the same argument I'll bring up later against Neronian persecution, that Christians and Jews weren't distinguished in Roman law yet.  However that ignores that Suetonius records Jews being persecuted under Domitian, and unlike many other things Suetonius talks about this he was an eye witness to.

An overarching theme of the Book of Acts is that the Roman Governmental authorities under Claudius and Nero are the good guys during this era, Christian Persecution came from local mobs, which in Judea were often riled up by the Sadducees.  Tradition has chosen to vilify a Caesar that Paul was confident would rule in his favor.  Also while Nero still ruled the Christians hiding in Pella were protected by Nero's ally Agrippa II.

Under the Flavians, as well as the following emperors, it served the new Dynasty to vilify Nero for the same reason it served the Tudors and Stuarts to vilify Richard III during the time of Shakespeare.  And meanwhile during this same era and later many "Early Church Fathers" were trying to appeal to these same Roman Emperors (or their successors) and the people who supported them, often addressing their Apologies to them directly.  So at some point I think Christians like Tertullian wanted to pin the blame on Nero for the illicit legal status they had, and then Suetonius and (a redactor of )Tacitus listed persecuting Christians among the things they attributed to Nero because Christians were saying it, it was just another story going around.

Though maybe part of the desire of later Christians to see Nero as their Enemy came from how much they inherited from certain Stoics.  In the first century AD Musonius Rufus sounds like a modern American Evangelical on Sexual morality more so then any New Testament author.  He was part of the Stoic opposition to Nero but later the only Philosopher Vespasian allowed to stay in Rome.  And Stoic criticism of Nero was continued by Epicetus.

The villainous reputation of Nero largely comes from Roman Historians of the Senatorial Class (chiefly Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio), who loved to slander the Julio-Claudians as depraved because of their semi-Plebian origins, but loved Vespasian-Titus and the "Five Good Emperors" because they came from their class and so were good to them.  Thing is the common people of the Empire were oppressed by heavy Taxes under those Senatorial Emperors.

There is plenty of evidence however that the common people were happy under Nero.  Even the Christian source John Chrysostom acknowledged that.  Plutarch in his allusions to Nero is also more favorable, as well as Lucan.  The biography of Appolonius of Tyana also records how Nero was loved by the Greeks in the Eastern Provinces.  And the Talmud has a favorable memory of Nero also.  In fact one reason many later Christians started thinking the Antichrist would be Nero resurrected somehow was because before then those who liked Nero had started believing he would come back to save them from Flavian oppression, he became Greco-Rome's King Arthur.

One purely modern detail of the traditions about Nero's persecution is the tying it into the bad reputation of Poppaea Sabina his second wife, it seems the Hollywood versions feel they need a Jezebel/Delilah figure.  Poppaea was depicted as a scheming Femme Fatale by those senatorial sources.  But Josephus who actually knew her personally paints a very different picture in his autobiography.  Josephus depicts her as practically a Proselyte and mentions among her Jewish friends an actor Nero was a fan of.

Now some have suggested Poppaea's Jewish associations are why her influence would have been against Paul.  But that would be the case only if the Jews who had her ear were Sadducees.  But based on Josephus being a Pharisee, and that I think his shipwreck was the same as Paul's, I doubt that. Plus Gentile Proselytes might have been inclined to like Paul's message even if they didn't fully become believers in Jesus and The Gospel.

Some histories are confused by how Josephus could possibly be talking about the same woman the other sources are, even if one or both is exaggerated to suit their bias.  I say just look at Anne Boleyn, to the Catholics of Tudor England she was explicitly compared to Jezebel, but Protestants sometimes paint her as a saint in for example the film Anne of the Thousand Days.

Acte was a mistress of Nero, archaeology has shown there were Christians in her household as either slaves or freedmen, leading some to speculate she herself may have been one.  Modern fictionalizations often place her in conflict with Poppaea, wanting to make her the Betty to Poppaea's Veronica.  But they were actually on the same side when trying to influence Nero, both being pro-Seneca and anti-Agrippina.  So for all we know they could have had a threesome.

Also the Gallio in Acts 18 was Seneca's brother, so that's further evidence Senaca's influence would have been against persecuting Christians or convicting Paul.

Some secular scholars have already questioned the historicity of the Neronian persecution.  But in a way they're not going as far as I am here, as they do think something happened, but distinguish it from a systemic persecution.

One of the arguments they do bring up is the lack of legal distinction between Jews and Christians before the time of Trajan. The early second century correspondence between Pliny and Trajan clearly show there was no prior policy on what to do about Christians, surely the Neronian persecution and accusation they tried to burn Rome would have been relevant to bring up here?  And the Roman persecution they did face before was a product of persecutions the Jews suffered under Domitian.  But since the evidence from the Talmud and Josephus show The Jews in Rome had it good under Nero, there is no reason to think Nero killed any Christians.

And these Secular critics have also pointed out that Tacitus account must be derivative of something he heard from Christians and not Roman legal records since he got the kind of Governor Pilate was wrong (he said Procurator when Pilate was a Prefectus).  And Suetonius was certainly willing to record things based on pure rumor.  His account of the death of Caligula and Claudius becoming emperor is clearly based on Josephus's account (he mentioned Josephus so was aware of him) but the differences are all the tabloid style scandals he spices it up with.

This effects Preterism because Nero is the only of the first century Emperors where any plausible way to make their name's Gemetria equal 666 exists, and even that is tortured since it uses Aramaic not Greek.  But also the assumption that Nero persecuted Christians is necessary to make it possible that John's exile to Patmos was under Nero, yet even the traditional view of the Neronian persecution makes it local in Rome only.  All the facts I laid out above make John's exile far more plausible under Domitian's Jewish persecution (if it was an Exile at all). 

Persecuting Christians isn't the only evil thing attributed to Nero that I think is slander.   But he is someone who became ruler of the world at a young age, and so could have cracked under the pressure a few times and certainly perfect. 

I think Poppaea probably died of a miscarriage and the claim Nero kicked her to death was probably another of Suetonius's tabloid rumors.  

I don't think Sporus was actually Castrated agaisnt their will (if at all), I suspect they were in fact what we'd today call a Trans Woman. The part about them resembling Poppea and Nero calling them by her name doesn't show up till Casisus Dio, even Suetonius doesn't report that and he certainly would have if the story was already around.

If the rumors of the Incest with Agrippina were true, he'd be the victim in that case, he was probably still a minor by modern standards when that started since he was only 17 when he became Emperor.  However a book called Women of the Caesars (I'm not sure which book on Amazon with that title was the one I read, it came in Red) argues for a more positive portrayal of Agrippina and thus agaisnt such rumors, but it did so supporting the negative portrayal of Poppaea which I view as wrong.

So I feel there is a lot of evidence to re-evaluate how we view Nero.

I became aware of this Article thanks to Religion For Breakfast on Twitter.
https://www.academia.edu/26841558/The_Myth_of_the_Neronian_Persecution
There are differences between his view and mine, he does still think Paul was executed in Rome in the 60s, I think regardless of where Paul died he lived into the 90s and had been to Spain before then.  And arguing the term "Christian" didn't exist yet I view as wrong since I believe Acts to be true History. But it's still an interesting article.

The History for Atheists Blog has a post defending the authenticity and reliability of Tacitus accounts of the Fire and Persecution in which context he makes his reference to Jesus.
https://historyforatheists.com/2017/09/jesus-mythicism-1-the-tacitus-reference-to-jesus/
That defense of Tacitus remains the main weakness to my thesis here.  Though uncritically accepting Tacitus still doesn't change that we can't prove Paul was martyred in Rome, in fact it becomes odd that Tacitus didn't mention Peter or Paul if there were prominent leaders of this new religion killed here.

Still as much as I agree with this blog on many subjects regarding the Historicity of Jesus, I still view Tacitus as problematic.  The issue of being dependent on one very late manuscript and getting the kind of Governor Pilate was wrong I can't so easily write off.  And O'Neill's argument that people who just assumed Nero set the fire wouldn't mention Scapegoats I can't really buy either, his falsely blaming others for it would only make his tyranny look worse. I mean I get why Christian sources maybe wouldn't want to remind people they were accused of this, but the Pagan Roman sources shouldn't be leaving out such a vital detail.  And in my opinion the early Christians would not have been that afraid of it.  

Here is another Article from an Atheist Website deconstructing the arguments in defense of the Tacitus account.

https://vridar.org/2022/01/13/rome-burning-the-christian-problem-in-the-annals-of-tacitus/

The traditional dates for Paul and Peter's martyrdom also predate them ever being linked to the fire since they were 67 AD.  Which interestingly is a year in which Nero wasn't even in Rome, he was touring Greece at that time.

Thersities the Historian has talked about how many Roman Persecutions are exaggerated.  Saying only the Diocletian (really Galerian's) persecution was as extreme as the Christians imagined the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century persecutions to be.  Many Emperors were labeled persecutors when really it was local persecutions that happened during their reign.  Tertullian who was a contemporary says Septimius Severus was well disposed to the Christians.

And the thing is, it's possible even the idea of Christian persecution being linked to being blamed for a fire has it's origins in the Galerian persecution because there was a fire in Nicomedia (which was Diocletian's capital in the east) that Galerian blamed on the Christians.

No account of the Neronian Persecution that can be proven to have existed before the 300s links it to the Fire of 64 AD.  Tacitus is the only one really even claimed to have existed that far back which does, and our oldest manuscript for Tacitus is Carolingian, and all younger manuscripts are known to go back to that one.

Here's a link where you can read Lactantius's Of the Manner in which The Persecutors Died. 

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0705.htm

The text in the later part of chapter 2 asserts that Nero persecuted Christian, I still believe that idea emerged in the 2nd Century maybe even late first, but he doesn't tie it to the Fire or anything like a Fire.  

Later in chapter 14 and 15 he is one of our main contemporary sources on the role the Fire in Nicomedia played in the Diocletian Persecution, he was a contemporary and had been in Nicomedia.  If the idea that Nero's Persecution was tied to Christians being blamed for that Fire already existed you'd think he's mention it, the Biblical way he's trying to present all this would be well served by pointing out ways in which History was repeating itself, but he doesn't.

Even Eusebius still knows of no connection to a Fire in Rome when discussing the Neronian Persecution in Book II chapter 25 of Church History, in fact he doesn't cite any source older then Tertullian who says he's basing it on Roman Records but that could honestly just be Suetonius, but it's also the same text where Tertullian is claiming Tiberius tried to have Jesus added to the Roman Pantheon, a claim no historian takes seriously.  And Eusebius also records the Nicomedia fire in Book VIII chapter 6.

Update October 27th 2024: I've discovered however another similar incident that could have inspired the Christians being blamed for the Fire of Rome Narrative.  Josephus in Wars of The Jews Book 7 Chapter 3 Section 3 talks about events in Antioch in 67 AD which include a persecutions of the Jews justified by accusing them of plotting to burn down the city.

You'd think if something similar had happened to what was then still a sect of Judaism in Rome only 3 years earlier it'd also be something Josephus would have noted somewhere.

Since Antioch is the other City that Peter is traditionally the first Bishop of and since his martyrdom was traditionally dated to 67 AD, maybe he was actually Martyred as part of this Jewish Persecution?

Hebrew and Base Number Systems

 I have a theory called Languages of The Table of Nations where I argue that the language we now call Hebrew was a Canaanite language in origin and the original language of Abraham and his family wasn't one we classify as "Semitic" at all.

Recently I watched videos on alternate Base Number Counting systems by jan Misali, videos titled a better way to count and seximal responses.  They consider the best system to be Base 6 or Seximal, but a lot of discussion of Base 12 aka Dozenal comes up.

Why is this relevant to that earlier post of mine?  Because the Hebrew Language is clearly the product of a Base 10 culture, Ten is the highest number with it's own unique word, when you see "eleven" or "twelve" in English Bibles it's a translation of words that strictly speaking mean 10+1 or 10+2.  That fits the Canaanite origin, like their Alphabet the Greeks seem to have gotten their Base 10 bias from the Phoenicians then passed it on to Rome and modern Europe.

But a lot about the Culture of the Hebrew Bible suggests a more natural affinity for something else.  At first glass it would seem like Hebrew was somewhat chaotically using both Base 12 and Base 7, a Dozen and a Week.  Overall there is more apparent base 12, 12 tribes, 12 months in a year, contexts where a year is thought of as 360 days even though that doesn't astronomically perfectly fit, 24 courses for the Priesthood.  While 7 is used a lot multiples of 7 are only used by itself and by 10.

Thing is 7 as an important number can make sense in a Base 6 system, indeed the origin story of The Sabbath is God creating The World in 6 days then resting.  And then all the base 12 looking stuff can also come from doubling up Base 6. And then going back to the calendar 30 months is better explained by a Base 6 system being 5 times 6.

10 is likely to be a common number even in a non Decimal based culture just from the influence of having 10 fingers.  But symbolically speaking some of the most notable uses of 10 in The Bible seem to represent incompletion, like the Northern Kingdom being 10 of the 12 tribes.  But if 12 was the Base 11 would be the more natural number of incompletion, 10 as a doubling of 5 makes sense as an association with incompletion in a Base 6 culture.  

And then in Daniel 2, Daniel 7 and Revelation the number 10 is associated with the Kingdoms of the Beast's Empire.  And the modern dominance of Base 10 does come from Rome's influence, including the Metric System coming from the French Revolution's fetishization of Roman ideas.  That's why it annoys me how the most popular alternative to Metric is called "Imperial", it's misleading, metric is what actually comes from the original Evil Empire.

It is also my theory that Abraham and his family were originally Hurrians.  I've googled to see if any historians or archeologists think they know what the Hurrians original base counting system was, but all that comes up is discussion of how they adopted the Mesopotamian system later.

Debates about when to celebrate "Easter".

 First, a reminder that "Easter" is a word used only in English and sometimes other Germanic languages.  All of the Greek and Latin speaking ancients I'm about to talk about actually said "Pascha" everywhere modern English discussions/translations of them like Wikipedia say "Easter".

Also, by the First Century the word Peshach/Pascha was being used for all the Nisan Holy Days together and not just the 14th, but this looser application is anticipated by Deuteronomy 16 and Ezekiel 45 21-24.  That's why in Acts 12 it's still Pascha after the Days of Unleavened Bread have started.

First I want to discuss how the Quartodecimanism debate that went on in the Second Century was not the same thing as the arguments modern Hebrew Roots/Torah Observant Christians have with mainstream Western Christianity, or even the same thing as the debate that was had at the Council of Nicaea.

Both sides of the original Quartodeciman controversy were using the same calendar, and it seems like it was a lunar Calendar, if it was exactly the same Calendar the Jews of the time were using or not I don't know for sure but I think it probably was.  The debate was about whether the main celebration (Feast being the word used) should be on the 14th of Nisan (the position of the Quartodecimans) or the following Sunday which seems to be what most Christians were doing. The Sunday observers fasted through the 14th till Sunday morning.

It wasn't a debate between two entirely different methods of when to calculate anything, but a debate about whether the day Jesus was Crucified, or the Day He Rose from the Dead should be the day of the Feast.  Or in the context of Leviticus 23, Exodus 12 and Numbers 28, the day the Passover Lamb is killed or First Fruits, which is always on the morning after the Sabbath hence Sunday.

Modern Torah observant Christians often assume the Quartodecimans were the ones on their side of the dispute, and anyone who wanted to do anything but hide under their beds on a Sunday must have been closet Pagan sun worshipers.

The truth is both sides of the dispute were adding to the Torah by seeing a full Fast as being required at all.  But if you read Leviticus 23 more closely, specifically verses 9 through 14 which are about First Fruits.  Verse 14 says.

"And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brought an offering unto your God: it shall be a statute for this age throughout your generations in all your dwellings."

So, it sounds like a fast of sorts ends on First Fruits.  It's also interesting that Esther's fast was at the time when Passover would normally be celebrated, but it lasted three days trough the 14th and 15th days of the month, leading to her final victory on the 17th.

Melito of Sardis' Passover teaching clearly teaches the Torah being done away with, so no the Quartodecimans were not the Hebrew Roots people of their time.

To Christians the two most important events in history are the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  I would argue that the Resurrection is more important, in the Sermon on Mar's Hill in Acts 17 Paul's presentation of The Gospel to a gentile audience does not directly refer to the Death of Jesus at all, but the climax is definitely The Resurrection.  In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul refers to both the Crucifixion and the Resurrection at the beginning, but the rest of the chapter is primarily about the Resurrection.

Crucifixion Day is a day to mourn (which is often an appropriate time to Fast in Jewish thought), The Resurrection is what we celebrate.

Polycrates_of_Ephesus defended the Quartodeciman position by citing the long established traditions of the Churches in Asia.  But I've already talked about how The Bible itself gives us reasons to suspect that region was where things first started going wrong.

The debate about Easter at the Council of Nicaea is also highly misunderstood.  This debate was only about first if Christians should use the same Lunar Calendar as the Jews, and then if all Churches should use the same calendar.  There was not even any disagreement that it should be a Lunisolar Calendar.

The Council's final decision was that it should be determined independent of the Jewish calendar, and that there should be a universal agreement.  But what that final calendar was took a long time to form.

And it wasn't till centuries later that the Roman Church started making a deliberate effort to make sure Christian Passover never lines up with Jewish Passover, doing that is arguably just as much in violation of Nicaea's decision as adopting the Jewish reckoning would be, since that's not a truly independent decision.

Nicaea was addressing a disagreement that began in the late 3rd Century, so it predated Constantine's influence but was still a century after the Quartodeciman controversy.

One of the arguments against the Jewish Reckoning made at this time was that it sometimes had Passover happening before the Spring Equinox.  Now that makes it seem to me like a form of the modern Rabbinic Jewish calendar is what they were breaking with here, and indeed it seems to have developed at the same time this Christian disagreement started.  The modern Kariate reckoning has if anything the opposite problem, a tendency to happen maybe a little too long after the Equinox.  

Did the Church's developing Anti-Semitism play some factor in why this happened?  Possibly, but just as Anti-Semites criticizing Israel doesn't make criticism of the Israeli Government inherently Anti-Semitic, there is likewise disagreement even among Jews on if the Rabbinic calendar is correct.

I'm not a legalist, I don't think it's a big deal if we're technically observing things on the wrong day.  But I wanted to clarify how neither of these disputes were an Ancient Hebraic Christian practice being suppressed by a Solar Calendar using organized Church.  The origin of the current method the Roman Catholic Church and most Protestant Churches use is much longer and more complicated.

I have come to think we should abandon the Lunar Calendar assumption altogether, but that's not something any of these Early Christians are known to have considered.

I'm now thinking the Biblical Day does begin at Sunrise

I wrote my post arguing agaisnt the Lunar Calendar assuming Biblical days begin and end at Sunset, but I'm now addressing that question.

I discovered some websites like these.

http://www.isawthelightministries.com/daystarts.html

https://www.bibletimemarkers.com/a-day-begins-at-sunrise

I am not at this time endorsing anything else on those sites.  But the first one I notice does support a Rapture view similar to mine was when I was a Futurist in being at the 7th Trumpet and before the Bowls.  That site however is still assuming a Lunar Calendar for determining the Months, which I am now highly skeptical of.  I also probably do not agree with their Passion Week chronology.

Both argue that during the Creation Week, the Day is when God does the work, and at the end of each day it describes the times of Sunset and Sunrise (evening and morning) following.  The first act of Creation is the creation of Light, which thematically supports the day beginning at Sunrise.  Then in Genesis 1:5, 15-16 and 18 the Day is listed before the Night.  Like many other times later on when referring to "forty days and forty nights" or "three days and three nights", in fact almost any time you see "nights" plural, and there are 27 verses that refer to "day and night".  Also the Sun is always listed before the moon in verses like Genesis 37:9, Deuteronomy 4:19. 17:3 and 33:14.  And in Numbers 28 the daily sacrifices are listed as morning first then evening.

In Leviticus 23 a few things make more sense when you remove the Sunset to Sunset based assumptions.  And this is the most important chapter to understanding the Torah Calendar.

What's said about the 14th of Nisan and Passover when compared to Exodus 12 and other Passover passages is a lot less confusing if the days begin and end at sunrise, since then the evening is the middle of the day.  

But the Yom Kippur instructions are what's really revealing.  The Day of Atonement is the Tenth day of the Seventh Month, that was determined already back in chapter 16.  But in verse 32 the Ninth Day is mentioned for some reason.  What the verse seems to be saying is this 24 hour period that functions like a Sabbath begins at the Sunset of the 9th and ends the next Sunset.  The emphasis on that here clearly implying that's not when actual calendar days begin and end, doing it that way here is a special occasion.

I have argued in the past agaisnt viewing Yom Kippur as a Fast day.  But this understanding of verse 32 can negate my main argument, since it can allow the Fast to be from Sunset of the 9th to the Sunset of the 10th so that in the Evening of the 10th you eat the meat of Sacrificed Animals, similar to how the 14th as Passover works in this model.

Likewise is Exodus 12:18, everywhere else the Seven Days of Unleavened Bread are 15-21 of the First Month, but in this passage it includes the Evening of the 14th making it consist of 8 evenings.  

This also explains how confused the Rabbinic Jewish observance of Passover is.  While Deuteronomy 16 and Ezekiel 45 provide Hebrew Bible precedent for expanding the use of the word Passover to cover the entire seven day Feast of Unleavened Bread, the change to a Sunset based observance causing the Evening of the 14th to become the Evening of the 15th explains why Rabbinic observance basically forgets that the 14th is Passover.  

Rabbinic tradition does call the 14th the Fast of the Firstborn.  Originally that was clearly tied to the 14th being the day the Egyptian First Born were killed and Israel's spared, but that is supposed to be happening during the Seder so the Sunset based reckoning now has that happening on the 15th so why the 14th is called the Fast of the Firstborn is something the Rabbis struggle to explain.

Speaking of Rabbinic tradition, Fasts are still traditionally supposed to begin at Sunrise, so that sounds like a carry over from the original reckoning.

1 Samuel 30:17 also arguably makes more sense on a Sunrise to Sunrise calendar.

It also mirrors the Torah year better.  Biblically the year begins in Spring, and Dawn is essentially the Spring of the day, hence Sunrise sometimes being refereed to as "dayspring".

Malachi says Jesus is the Sun of Righteousness, and the Fourth Gospel says He is the Light, and Peter calls Him the Lightbearer, there is also the Womb of the Morning reference in Psalm 110.  Revelation says Jesus is the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega.  So the day beginning and ending with Sunrise fits that typological pattern.

Which then leads to overlooked details of the Passion narrative.  Matthew 27:57 and Mark 15:42 depict the evening following the Crucifixion as still the day before The Sabbath.  And John 20:19 depicts the Evening following when Jesus had Risen and been seen Risen as still the First Day of The Week.

The KJV translation of Matthew 28:1 seems to say the Sabbath ends at Sunrise, but other better translations are clear that it's only that Daw came some time after the Sabbath ended.

Maybe the Torah's Calendar was never a Lunar or Lunisolar Calendar?

First some terminology clarification.  The traditional Rabbinic Hebrew Calendar we're used to calling a Lunar Calendar is strictly speaking a Lunisolar Calendar, the phases of the Moon come first but synchronization is done with a Solar year so the seasons don't drift out of place.  The same is true of the popular variants like the Samaritan Calendar, the Kariate method and the proposed Lunar Sabbath model.  A strictly Lunar Calendar would be something like the Islamic Calendar which makes no attempt to reconcile and so Ramadan has fallen all over the Gregorian Calendar.

But I've lately been questioning the traditional assumption that the Torah's Calendar is Lunar at all.

Let's start with the fact that Genesis 1 on the Fourth Day defines the Moon as ruling the Night not Months.  The positions of the Stars are what helps us keep track of what time of year it is.

The Torah has completely different words for Month and Moon, that is not what I'd expect from an ancient strictly Lunar month based culture.  Month is Chodesh/Hodesh (Strongs Number 2320) while Moon is Jerah/Yerach (3394).  There are a few places where the latter word is used of a passage of time, but that's because even without a lunar calendar the concept of a month is still tied poetically to the Moon somewhat as it's phases come at least close.

Japan for example had a Lunar Calendar until 1873, and that's why their language uses the same word for both Month and Moon, Tsuki.  That's why in the English version of episode 6 of my favorite Anime, Noir, it sounds weird when Mireille says "so many Months and Years have passed", in a language where all the word "month" means is a fraction of a year my mind goes "why even include months in that expression?".  But I'm pretty sure in the Japanese she's saying "so many Tsuki and Hi", Hi being an alternate word for both Sun and Year and sometimes Day.  So a more poetic yet equally literal translation would be "so many Moons and Suns have passed" which sounds more right poetically even if technically equally as redundant.

The phrase "Rosh Chodesh" gets translated "New Moon" sometimes because of our traditional assumptions, but Rosh means the beginning or head of something not "New".  Colossians 2:16 is the one New Testament reference to the Jewish concept of the "Rosh Chodesh", and it again uses a Greek word for Month, not Selene the word for the Moon.

Because we think of it as the Crescent New Moon so much talk about Rosh Chodesh is spent on saying we don't know for certain exactly when it is till it happens.  With Dispensationalists saying it typologically fits the Pre-Trib Rapture and "no man knowth the day or the hour" verses.  But there is one clear Biblical reference to people knowing for certain the next day is a Rosh Chodesh, 1 Samuel 20:5.

The Torah never talks about the Full Moon, even in regards to the Holy Days that should happen about then on a Lunar or Lunisolar calendar.  Two verses elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible are often translated as referring to the Full Moon, but those are highly disputable.  For Psalm 81 I don't know how to translate it but my hunch is it's about the Jubilee Yom Kippur sounded Shofar.  The word for "feast" used here is sometimes used of Sacrificial animals like Exodus 23:18, Psalm 118:27 and Isaiah 29:1, so that could be the Yom Kippur Sin Offering in this verse.  The root of the word thought to refer to the Full Moon appears in Leviticus 16:13 where it's translated "cover".

And then there is all the evidence that The Bible clearly thinks of a Month as being 30 days not 29 and a half.  It's there when you do the math of the Flood chronology of Genesis 7 and 8 with 5 months being exactly 150 days beginning on the 17th of the second month and ending on the 17th of the seventh month.  And it's also in Revelation with 42 Months, 1,260 days and three and a half years being treated as synonymous time periods.  

Genesis 1:14-19 discuses the Sun (greater light), Moon (lesser light) and stars being made for signs and for seasons and for days and for years.  But you'll notice in verse 16 the Sun is made and talked about first, it has priority.  And months are seemingly missing from the discussion.

Psalm 104:19 is an obscure unspecific verse, it doesn't prove anything especially not agaisnt the wait of all this counter evidence.

It is well known that the  modern Hebrew Calendar was influenced by the Babylonian Calendar during the Captivity, the names we're now used to calling the Hebrew months come from Babylon for one thing.  Well the thing is Babylon had a Lunisolar Calendar, so even that aspect of it could be Babylonian in origin.

Lunar Calendars were more popular with the ancient Pagans then you might expect given the modern popular narrative that ancient Paganism always started with Sun worship.  In fact the most prominent not at all Lunar Calendar used by Pagans in classical antiquity was the Civil Egyptian calendar, but even they originally had a Lunar one which they kept using for ceremonial purposes.  Even in Greece the Attic Lunar Calendar's main purpose was for how they observed Pagan festivals.

Now as much as Christians often love to see all things Egyptian as bad, it wasn't the Egyptians much of the Torah is telling the Israelites not to be like, it was the Canaanites, (When Jerusalem is derogatorily called "Sodom and Egypt" it's about them being inhospitable to strangers not any particular customs.).  One of the Canaanite tribes was the Amorites, Babylon first became a major player in Mesopotamia under it's Amorite dynasty, so that Babylonian calendar could be Canaanite in origin.

There is one indisputable difference between the Torah Calendar and the Civil Egyptian Calendar, and that is when to start it.  Exodus 13:4 and 23:15 proclaims Aviv (the time of the Barley Harvest, early Spring) to be the first month while the Egyptian Calendar starts near the Autumnal Equinox.

It is a common traditional conjecture that before Exodus 12 the first season was Fall rather then Spring, and that in at The Exodus YHWH is swapping the First and Seventh months.  I'd been thinking of making a post on how we can't entirely prove that using Scripture alone and so shouldn't build so many theories on it.  But since they were in Egypt for several generations it's very possible the Egyptian Calendar was their starting point and what month to make the first month was the only change YHWH is making in Exodus 12.  Though different agricultural and climate circumstances in Canaan probably brought further differences over time, the Egyptian Calendar was organized around 3 seasons rather then 4 because of how much they were ruled by the flooding of the Nile.

In a hypothetical Torah based Solar Calendar the Intercalary month of five or six days (if that was the method used for synchronization) would go between Adar and Nisan rather then in September.  (BTW, those 5 days were when the Egyptians observed the birthdays of Osiris and Horus, not anywhere near Christmas.  And the Egyptian new year was September 11th on our calendar coincidentally enough.)  Or maybe you would try to put them before the Seventh Month to keep Yom Teruah close to the Fall Equinox.  

Genesis 1:14 is possibly using Signs in place of Months, I have over the years gone back and forth on the Mazzaroth/Gospel in the Stars theory.  Maybe fellow Mazzaroth proponents should consider that the Star Signs can be an alternative to the Moon for how to determine the months of the year.  Josephus did refer to Nisan as being when the Sun is in Aries, in the first century the Sun entered Aries around the Spring Equinox, and that month is indeed when the Barley Harvest happens.  The Romans had a Seven Day Barley Festival similar to Unleavened Bread that was the 12-18th of April, but due to the awkwardness of Caesar's revisions that may be off from when in the Sun's journey it was supposed to be.

It is popular to theorize that Revelation 12:1 is describing some astronomical alignment involving the Moon. If it is it could be an exception and not proof the months are usually defined by the Moon.  But I'm skeptical of that altogether, I think it's probably a purely supernatural vision and not something predictable using Stelarrium.

Now I do believe the Passover through Pentecost of Christ's Passion, Resurrection and sending of the Holy Spirit was likely based on what the Jews of the time were doing regardless of if it was still accurate.  But it may be it happened to be a year when they did line up, or at least close enough that First Fruits was the right Sunday.  

But maybe not all the Jews were already using the Babylonian Calendar in Christ's time?  Maybe it was originally mainly the Pharisees, who became the only sect to survive the 70 AD war?  It was the Sadducees who actually controlled the Priesthood and The Temple, and according to Josephus they were a Torah only sect.  But that's all conjecture.

The Qumran Community who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls also rejected the Lunar Calendar, the Temple Scroll is our main source on their Calendar but it's discussed in other scrolls too.  I don't think that Calendar is right either, like the Lunar Sabbath model it wants to synchronize the monthly and yearly cycle to the weekly cycle by giving every 3rd month an extra day creating a 364 day year.  They make the first day of the year a Wednesday because that was the day the Sun and Moon were created.  But at least they correctly placed First Fruits and Pentecost on Sundays.  Weeks are not even remotely mentioned in the Genesis 1 account of the fourth day, so they aren't connected to the sun, moon or stars.

The Book of Jubilees was popular with them because it too rejected the Lunar Calendar (Chapter 6 verses 32-37, this Calendar also seems to be endorsed by Enoch 72-82).  But indeed Jubilees has the same problem as the Temple Scroll system.  In fact it's criticism of the lunar system is a little hypocritical since it doesn't line up perfectly with the seasons either, being one day short of a solar year will inevitably create the same issue even if it'd take longer.

The Hebrew Roots movement has a lot of irrational fear of Sun Worship wrapped up into it.  Obviously actually worshiping the actual Sun or Moon or any other inanimate object is a Sin.  But Malachi does call Jesus the Sun(Shamash) of Righteousness, there is no equivalent title making the Moon a symbol of Jesus.  So I have no problem believing Jesus Rose from The Grave at Sunrise on a Sunday Morning, or that he was born on or soon after the Winter Solstice.  I'd rather base my calendar on the astronomical object that is explicitly a symbol of Jesus then one that is not.

You might ask "are you gonna also question if Biblical days begin and end with Sunset?"  Well I did originally write this assuming the stranded Sunset based structure, that issue will have to be considered in a separate post.

But I'm not just disagreeing with the current Hebrew Roots movement here.  This may shock you to learn but the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and other mainstream Christian Churches do use the Moon to calculate "Easter".  It's just that explaining why it doesn't always line up with Rabbinic Passover is complicated.  In most Languages "Easter" is just called Pascha.  If Catholic "Easter" was just a Christianized Spring Solstice festival as many allege it would consistently happen in the 20s of March.

Also remember that as a Six-Day Young Earth Creationist I do believe originally the Solar and Lunar cycles were in sync and there was no need to choose between them.  I think that was the case at least until the Flood but maybe also till the time of Joshua or even Hezekiah.