This and other videos by Nathan are available as podcasts on Spotify and Apple podcast under “Hoshana Rabbah.”
If this message has been a blessing to you, please consider showing your appreciation by making a donation to Hoshana Rabbah at https://www.paypal.com/donate?token=Y…. Thank you!
The winds are blowing once again in the pro-Torah, Hebraic movement, and the weather vane has changed directions. It has moved away from the truth of the Bible and is pointing in some other direction. This new wind of doctrine is causing confusion and strife within the Body of Messiah. This esoteric doctrine is the latest in the endless cavalcade of curious teachings that have paraded past us in the past thirty years. I refer to these as “the flavor of the month, ” and it is a club with many members, who often jump from one novel religious teaching to the next seemingly on a monthly basis. The current doctrine that we will now examine under the lens of Scripture is the so-called Enoch or Zadok calendar.
What? Another calendar?
Oy vey! There’s another new calendar on the Messianic scene, you might be asking yourself? Yep! I hear some of you asking, “Why can’t we just let everyone choose his or her own calendar, decide which days to celebrate the biblical feast on, all go our merry and let the matter drop? Live and let live, as the saying goes.” On the surface, this seems like the charitable approach “to maintain shalom in our ranks.” But is this really the right answer? While some differences of opinion may seem minor like how to pronounce YHVH, the Hebrew name for Elohim, other differences have more serious consequences that will cause major division and strife. The biblical calendar is one example. How is this? In ancient times and according to the Torah, celebrating the biblical feasts including the weekly Sabbath was a unifying factor in the spiritual and cultural landscape of the nation of Israel. YHVH’s sabbaths—weekly and annual—brought people together in a common place for a common purpose, namely, to praise, worship and celebrate YHVH, the God of Israel, and to learn his ways and to be encouraged and spiritually revived in serving and obeying him. If everyone was on a different calendar, how could this occur? Instead of being unified, YHVH’s people would be divided and scattered. Division and strife is not work of the Holy Spirit!
The Zadok calendar, like its predecessors—the lunar Sabbath, plural marriage or polygamy, the boker Sabbath, the flat earth, the vernal equinox calendar, aspects of rabbinic Judaism and mystical Judaism to name a few not to mention the many unbiblical teachings that are rife in the mainstream Christian church—is leading many people away from the simple truth of the Bible and into all sorts of esoteric and extra-biblical teachings. In this case, people are largely using such extra-biblical writings as the pseudepigraphal book of Enoch and Jubilees along with the Dead Sea Scrolls (or DSS for short) and not the Bible as the primary source of information to prove the Zadok calendar. This is troubling in itself for those of us who take the sola Scriptura approach and believe that the Bible and the Bible alone must be the determiner of Truth. Looking to extra-biblical sources is not verboten if these confirms Scripture, but should they be used as the primary source of Truth. No. Never! However, this is this has become the modes operandi of the promoters of the Zadok calendar theory, as I have discussed and proven in exhaustive and well-documented detail in my previous videos and articles on this issue.
But those who are still not sure, I want to confirm, with the receipts, so to speak, the claims that I am making about this interesting new calendar. Perhaps this article will clear away some confusion and help to separate the wheat and chaff. Please read on.
The Enoch-Zadok Calendar Explained
The Enoch calendar is based on a 364-day year (not 3651/4 days) and is first mentioned in the ancient pseudapigraphal book of First Enoch. This calendar purportedly originated with Enoch, the great grandfather of Noah. This is in spite of the fact First Enoch was written in the third or second century BC, some 2,000 years after the time of the biblical Enoch, who died prior to Noah’s flood. This calendar is appealing to a growing number of pro-Torah Christians who are digging into the Hebraic roots of their faith and endeavoring to keep YHVH’s sabbaths, including the weekly Sabbath and biblical feasts, in accordance with the Creator’s Torah-instructions. Since the Enoch calendar purports to be of ancient derivation, some people assume that it may well be the Bible’s original calendar, hence, the one we should use today to determine when to celebrate the feasts.
But how did we get from Enoch until today? And is there a biblical basis for the Enoch calendar? These are excellent questions that will be discussed and hopefully answered below. In the mean time, let’s give an overview of a few of the claims that the advocates of this calendar make.
The claim is made that, since the Enoch calendar supposedly dates to the time of Enoch, it must be the calendar that Moses and the Israelites used back in the Book of Exodus. Whereas the Levitical priests were the keepers and teachers of YHVH’s Torah-law, it is correctly assumed that they would have known when to observe the biblical feasts and thus should have the final say in this matter. At the end of the Israelites wandering in the wilderness, YHVH made an everlasting covenant with Phinehas (or Pinchas), the grandson of Aaron the high priest (the brother of Moses), that to his descendants would be given the priesthood forever (Num 25:12–13), and with that charge came, presumably, the knowledge of the correct biblical calendar.
Moving forward several hundred years to the time of King David, Zadok, a descendent of Phinehas, was the high priest whose progeny carried the mantle of the covenantal promise YHVH made to Phinehas along with again, presumably, the knowledge of the true biblical calendar.
We hear nothing more about Zadok or his descendents until Ezekiel mentions the descendents of Zadok in regards to his famous but enigmatic temple prophecy (Ezekiel chapters 40–48). In this prophecy, YHVH makes the sons of Zadok the officiants in the temple because of their faithfulness to him and his commandments (Ezek 40:46; 43:19ff; 44:15f; 48:11), and it is their role to interpret the Torah-law in matters of controversy including calendric issues (q.v., Deut 17:8–11). Because Ezekiel states that the Zadokites had been faithful to YHVH’s law, they were given this glorious charge. However, there is much debate among Bible scholars concerning whether Ezekiel’s temple is literal or allegorical. Moreover, was it fulfilled in the building of the Second Temple, or is it an allegory referring to Yeshua and the church, or is it a literal temple yet to be built? The prevailing view is that this is a millennial temple—called the Fourth Temple—that is yet to be built. One thing is certain. The Second Temple that was built in the fifth century BC and was destroyed in AD 70 never fit the description of Ezekiel’s temple, and thus Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning the sons of Zadok is for a future time.
Additionally, not letting facts and historical realities stand in their way, the proponents of the Enoch calendar, now referred to as “the Enoch-Zadok calendar” (or simply “the Zadok calendar”), have somehow parlayed the faithful priests mentioned in Ezekiel’s future temple prophecy into the priests living at the time of the Maccabees in the second century BC. This is where the DSS and the Qumran community enter the picture. The DSS were discovered in 1947. The original group of DSS scholars from that era who, based on the evidence available to them at that time, firmly believed that a group of righteous priests had been excommunicated, if you will, from the Jerusalem temple when a group of supposedly illegitimate Maccabean priests took charge thereof in the second century BC. The legitimate (Zadokite) priests fled Jerusalem and established a monastery at Qumran near where the DSS were discovered. It is believed that they were largely the writers of the DSS of which the Book of 1 Enoch is a part of this larger corpus. Since the The Book of Enoch promotes the Enoch calendar, and since, it is believed, that these scrolls dictated the lifestyle practices and theology of the Qumran sectaries, and since, it is assumed, these priests were the literal, biological descendents of Zadok and Phinehas the high priests, and since YHVH said through Ezekiel that the sons of Zadok had been faithful to guard and obey his laws, it is assumed that the Zadok calendar is the true biblical calendar for us to follow today in order accurately keep YHVH’s feasts. Hopefully you followed that line of reasoning, since it is essential to understanding the pro-Zadok calendar argument.
Despite the fact that Ezekiel’s temple is yet to be built, and the Zadokite priesthood as officiants in that temple is for a future era, the proponents of the Zadok calendar still cite Ezekiel 44:15 and 23–24 as proof for their calendar. Ezekiel states that the sons of Zadok will teach YHVH’s people the difference between the holy and unholy, between the unclean and the clean. They will also act as judges in controversies regarding YHVH’s appointed times and Sabbaths (q.v., Deut 17:8–11). This, the claim is made, was fulfilled by the Zadokite priests of the monastery at Khirbet Qumran on the shores of the Dead Sea in Israel beginning in the late second century BC and lasting for about 175 years afterwards. After that, the inhabitants of Qumran disappear from the pages of history until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947.
There is more, but this is the essence of the pro-Zadok calendar argument. The proponents rely solely on extra-biblical books including those of the DSS to prove the validity of the Zadok calendar. Then, almost as an after thought, they reach back into the Bible, which contains not even the slightest allusion to the Zadok calendar, and attempt to “prove” their point by twisting Scriptures, a technique that the anti-Torah and “the law is nailed to the cross” and “done away with” mainstream Christian church has mastered over the centuries to the detriment of Bible truth resulting in the deception of myriads of people who now longer believe in the validity of YHVH’s Torah-law. Old habits die hard!
In what follows, we will critically analyze several of the key elements undergirding the Zadok calendar theory to see if these square with the empirical evidence, and then we will leave it up to you to decide where the truth lies.
The Prophet Malachi Excoriates a Corrupt Priesthood
The writings of the prophet Malachi are perhaps the greatest refutation of the Zadok calender theory that is currently catching the attention of many people. To embrace the Zadok calendar, one literally has to jettison the Book of Malachi from the canon of Scripture. What do I mean? Let’s explore this issue and discover an important historical fact that rips the foundation out from under the Zadok calendar theory.
First we need to explore the historical and contextual background of this last book of the Hebrew Scriptures. or Old Testament (ot). The Book of Malachi was written between ca. 432 to 460 BC. According to Jewish tradition and some biblical scholars, Malachi meaning “my messenger,” may actually be a pseudonym for its author who may have been Ezra the scribe, a descendent of Zadok the high priest (Ezra 7:1–5), and he author of the biblical book named for him. Ezra was also in charge of constructing the Second Temple. Whenever Malachi was written and whoever the author was, the book’s timing is shortly after the rebuilding of the temple.
By way of a quick historical overview, the Jewish exiles had just returned from Babylon circa 516 BC. Among them were members of the tribes of Judah and Levi according to documentation in the both the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Nehemiah mentions a priest by the name of Zadok who helped with the rebuilding to the temple, but whether he was a descendent of Zadok the high priest from the time of David or not, we cannot tell.
The Second Temple was built in the time of Ezra the priest and Haggai the prophet only a few years after the return of the Jewish exiles. Its construction began in about 516 BC when its foundation was laid. A few years later, the temple was completed with the priest serving therein under the oversight of Ezra the scribe and priest and Nehemiah the governor.
Based on the writings of Nehemiah in his book, it can be assumed that the Jews including the priests started out to obey YHVH’s Torah-law to one degree or another. We read that when the Torah was read to them during fall feasts of the seventh month that they confessed their sins and repented (Nehemiah chapters 8 and 9). They then renewed their covenant with YHVH Elohim and promised to obey his commandments (chapter 9) including observing the Sabbath and biblical feasts and putting away their foreign (pagan) wives. However, this spiritual revival was short-lived. Only a short while later some wealthy Jews, including the priests, were charging usury to their fellow Israelites (Neh 5:1–12) in violation of the Torah. Moreover, some priests were still married to non-Levite wives thus defiling the priesthood and were subsequently barred from serving in temple (Neh 7:63–65). According to Nehemiah, up to that time none of the priests had been keeping the law.
This and other videos by Nathan are available as podcasts on Spotify and Apple podcast under “Hoshana Rabbah.”
If this message has been a blessing to you, please consider showing your appreciation by making a donation to Hoshana Rabbah at https://www.paypal.com/donate?token=Y…. Thank you!
A puzzle is a pretty picture that someone took or painted and then cut up into a hundred or a thousand pieces and challenges someone else to reassemble. When all the pieces are assembled, a beautiful scene emerges. Sometimes, however, a piece just doesn’t fit. No matter how hard you try, you cannot cram it into that spot. Yes, you can force jam it in there, and even add some touch-up to help it to match, but it’s still not quite right, and when the puzzle is “completed” the whole picture will be off. This is exactly the case with Bible teachers who are promoting the so-called Enoch-Zadok 364-day year calendar. No matter they cram pieces of the argument together and paint them to match, the picture is still off.
Are you an earnest Bible-Truth seeker who is tired of being lied to in the mainstream Christian church? You know that the gospel message is true. You know and love Yeshua, your Lord and Savior. Now you want to love him in a fuller and more blessed way by making YHVH’s Torah a part of your life. This includes celebrating the Sabbath and biblical feasts. But how? More importantly, when? Enter calendar confusion!
More than six decades ago when I started in this Hebraic, Torah-walk, there was one calendar, then 40 years later a second one came on the scene that was closer to the truth than the first one. Now there are numerous ones all claiming to be biblically accurate including the one that is the subject of this study. Perhaps what follows will help you to unravel the Gordian knot of confusion that surrounds the subject of the biblical calendar, so that we can back to just loving Yeshua by keeping his commandments including the biblical feasts. If this is your desire, then please read on.
The Enoch-Zadok Calendar Explained
The Enoch calendar is based on a 364-day year (not 3651/4 days) and is first mentioned in the ancient pseudepigraphal book of First Enoch. This calendar purportedly originated with Enoch, the great grandfather of Noah. This is in spite of the fact First Enoch was written in the third or second century bc, some 2,000 years after the time of the biblical Enoch, who died prior to Noah’s flood. This calendar is appealing to a growing number of pro-Torah Christians who are digging into the Hebraic roots of their faith and endeavoring to keep YHVH’s sabbaths, including the weekly Sabbath and biblical feasts, in accordance with the Creator’s Torah-instructions. Since the Enoch calendar purports to be of ancient derivation, some people assume that it may well be the Bible’s original calendar, hence, the one we should use today to determine when to celebrate the feasts.
But how did we get from Enoch until today? And is there a biblical basis for the Enoch calendar? These are excellent questions that will be discussed and hopefully answered below. In the mean time, let’s give an overview of a few of the claims that the advocates of this calendar make.
The claim is made that, since the Enoch calendar supposedly dates to the time of Enoch, it must be the calendar that Moses and the Israelites used back in the Book of Exodus. Whereas the Levitical priests were the keepers and teachers of YHVH’s Torah-law, it is correctly assumed that they would have known when to observe the biblical feasts and thus should have the final say in this matter. At the end of the Israelites wandering in the wilderness, YHVH made an everlasting covenant with Phinehas (or Pinchas), the grandson of Aaron the high priest (the brother of Moses), that to his descendants would be given the priesthood forever (Num 25:12–13), and with that charge came, presumably, the knowledge of the correct biblical calendar.
Moving forward several hundred years to the time of King David, Zadok, a descendent of Phinehas, was the high priest whose progeny carried the mantle of the covenantal promise YHVH made to Phinehas along with again, presumably, the knowledge of the true biblical calendar.
We hear nothing more about Zadok or his descendents until Ezekiel mentions the descendents of Zadok in regards to his famous but enigmatic temple prophecy (Ezekiel chapters 40–48). In this prophecy, YHVH makes the sons of Zadok the officiants in the temple because of their faithfulness to him and his commandments (Ezek 40:46; 43:19ff; 44:15f; 48:11), and it is their role to interpret the Torah-law in matters of controversy including calendrical issues (q.v., Deut 17:8–11). Because Ezekiel states that the Zadokites had been faithful to YHVH’s law, they were given this glorious charge. However, there is much debate among Bible scholars concerning whether Ezekiel’s temple is literal or allegorical. Moreover, was it fulfilled in the building of the Second Temple, or is it an allegory referring to Yeshua and the church, or is it a literal temple yet to be built? The prevailing view is that this is a millennial temple—called the Fourth Temple—that is yet to be built. One thing is certain. The Second Temple that was built in the fifth century bc and was destroyed in ad 70 never fit the description of Ezekiel’s temple, and thus Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning the sons of Zadok is for a future time.
Despite the fact that Ezekiel’s temple is yet to be built, and the Zadokite priesthood as officiants in that temple is for a future era, the proponents of the Zadok calendar still cite Ezekiel 44:15 and 23–24 as proof for their calendar. Ezekiel states that the sons of Zadok will teach YHVH’s people the difference between the holy and unholy, between the unclean and the clean. They will also act as judges in controversies regarding YHVH’s appointed times and Sabbaths (q.v., Deut 17:8–11). This, the claim is made, was fulfilled by the Zadokite priests of the monastery at Khirbet Qumran on the shores of the Dead Sea in Israel beginning in the late second century bc and lasting for about 175 years afterwards. After that, the inhabitants of Qumran disappear from the pages of history until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947.
Additionally, not letting facts and historical realities stand in their way, the proponents of the Enoch calendar, now referred to as “the Enoch-Zadok calendar” (or simply “the Zadok calendar”), have somehow parlayed the faithful priests mentioned in Ezekiel’s future temple prophecy into the priests living at the time of the Maccabees in the second century bc. This is where the Dead Sea Scrolls (or dss) and the Qumran community enter the picture. The dss were discovered in 1947. The original group of dss scholars from that era who, based on the evidence available to them at that time, firmly believed that a group of righteous priests had been excommunicated, if you will, from the Jerusalem temple when a group of supposedly illegitimate Maccabean priests took charge thereof in the second century bc. The legitimate (Zadokite) priests fled Jerusalem and established a monastery at Qumran near where the dss were discovered. It is believed that they were largely the writers of the dss of which the Book of 1 Enoch is a part of this larger corpus. Since the The Book of Enoch promotes the Enoch calendar, and since, it is believed, that these scrolls dictated the lifestyle practices and theology of the Qumran sectaries, and since, it is assumed, these priests were the literal, biological descendents of Zadok and Phinehas the high priests, and since YHVH said through Ezekiel that the sons of Zadok had been faithful to guard and obey his laws, it is assumed that the Zadok calendar is the true biblical calendar for us to follow today in order accurately keep YHVH’s feasts. Hopefully you followed that line of reasoning, since it is essential to understanding the pro-Zadok calendar argument.
There is more, but this is the essence of the pro-Zadok calendar argument. The proponents rely solely on extra-biblical books including those of the dss to prove the validity of the Zadok calendar. Then, almost as an after thought, they reach back into the Bible, which contains not even the slightest allusion to the Zadok calendar, and attempt to “prove” their point by twisting Scriptures, a technique that the anti-Torah and “the law is nailed to the cross” and “done away with” mainstream Christian church has mastered over the centuries to the detriment of Bible truth resulting in the deception of myriads of people who now longer believe in the validity of YHVH’s Torah-law. Old habits die hard!
In what follows, we will critically analyze several of the key elements undergirding the Zadok calendar theory to see if these square with the empirical evidence, and then we will leave it up to you to decide where the truth lies.
The Traditional Model of the 1940s Regarding the Qumran Community and the Dead Sea Scrolls
Since the Zadok calendar is revealed in the intertestamental Book of Enoch, a book that is found among the dss, let us first discuss the earliest and traditional view put forth by the first discoverers and translator of the dss from 1947. This view promotes the idea that there is a strong correlation between the Jewish settlement at Khirbet Qumran (or Qumran for short) and the scrolls located in eleven nearby caves. This model is summarized by Geza Vermes (one of the early translators of the scrolls into English from 1962 to 1996) as follows:
[F]rom that place [i.e., Qumran], members of an ancient Jewish religious community, whose centre it was, hurried out one day and in every secrecy climbed the nearby cliffs in order to hide away in eleven caves their precious scrolls. No one came back to retrieve them, and they remained undisturbed for almost 2,000 years. (The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, p. 1)
This early model which connected the Qumran community with the dss also proposed a link between the sect of the Essenes and Qumran sects (ibid., p. 3). Vermes then goes on to make the further connection between the Teacher of Righteousness mentioned in the dss and the Qumran sect.
The principal novelty provided by the manuscripts consists of cryptic allusions to the historical origins of the Community, launched by a priest called the Teacher of Righteousness, who was persecuted by a Jewish ruler, designated as the Wicked Priest. The Teacher and his followers were compelled to withdraw into the desert, where they awaited the impending manifestation of God’s triumph over evil and darkness in the end days, which had already begun. (ibid.)
Vermes then explains what he called the “Maccabaean theory.” He states that the consensus among the earliest dss scholars quickly formed around this theory in 1952 and 1953.
The so-called Maccabean theory, placing the conflict between the Teacher of Righteousness and the politico-religious Jewish leadership of the day in the time of the Maccabaean high priest or high priest Jonathan and/or Simon, was first formulated in my 1953 doctoral dissertation, published in 1953, and was soon to be adopted by such leading specialists as J. T. Milik, F. M. Cross and R. de Vaux. (ibid., p. 4)
Please note that the theories upon which the present Zadok calendar proponents base many of their arguments were put forth by the earliest dss translators who did not, at that time, have all of the dss documents before them,which were only available to later scholars (e.g., Wise, Abeg and Cook who published their translation of the dss in 1996 and 2005) more than 50 years later! The release and translation of the dss has been a painstakingly slow process involving numerous scholars, academic institutions, several countries along with economic and political interests over the past 70 some years. The translation of subsequent dss documents since the 1950s has refined, and in some cases, radically changed some of the theories of the earlier age—a point that Wise et al make in their introductory remarks in their dss translation (A New Translation—The Dead Sea Scrolls). Thus, many scholars who have analyzed and translated more recent scrolls are now questioning the original 1950s theoretic model that purported to link the Qumran sects with the dss and the Teacher of Righteousness. What follows are quotes from various scholars who are now questioning the older views including the Maccabean theory. Why is this important to know? Because the older (out of date) view forms the premise for those teachers who are currently promoting the Zadok calendar. With this in mind, let’s now go on as we put the pieces of the puzzle together. Let’s discover if the original view that links the dss and the Teacher of Righteousness to the Qumran sect still hold true in light of the new discoveries. The validity of the Zadok calendar stands or falls on this understanding.
Did the Qumran Sectarians Write the Dead Sea Scrolls?
The original model assumed that because the dss were found in proximity to the monastery at Qumran, the sectarians must have been their authors and librarians. That is to say, the dss were the sectarians’ writings that revealed how they lived and what they believed. Thus, since the Book of Enoch along with several other intertestamental writings lend credence to the Zadok calendar theory, it is assumed that this must have been the calendar of Qumran. But as we go on, the evidence reveals that this older view is overly broad and cannot be taken carte-blanche and at face value in light of new evidence to the contrary.
Not only were hundreds of different scribes responsible for the [Dead Sea Scrolls] texts, but very few seemed to have written more than one scroll. Only about a dozen “repeats” have at been identified. Needless to say, this situation does not square very well with the theory-now-fact that Qumran scribes produced the scrolls at the site…The logical inference is that most of the scrolls come from elsewhere. Indeed once that much has been conceded, the burden shifts and it becomes necessary to prove that any scrolls were written in Qumran. (A New Translation—The Dead Sea Scrolls, by Wise et al, p. 23)
At most, then, about fifty people inhabited the [Qumran] site, only those who could fit within its walls. (ibid., p. 24)
In the interest of honesty, it would be disingenuous of me to fail to mention the close proximity to Qumran of several of the caves, thus leading the early dss archeologists and translators to assume an intimate connection between the two. As Vermes writes,
With negligible exceptions, scholarly opinion recognized already in the 1950s that the Scrolls found in the caves and the nearby settlement were related. To take an obvious example, Cave 4 with its 575 (or perhaps 555) documents lies literally with a stone’s throw from the buildings. (Vermes, p. 14).
Vermes’ statement is slightly hyperbolic. Unless one has the throwing arm of baseball pitcher, Caves 4 and 5, according to Google maps, are some 600 feet from the nearest Qumran building plus several hundred feet above the valley floor on the face of a cliff. So yes, although the community was located near at least two of the 11 caves (others of which are located miles away), it is not a leisurely stroll from Qumran’s nearest building to the nearest cave unless you have some rock climbing experience. Despite the close proximity of two caves to Qumran, archeological evidence suggests that they may not have been frequently visited by the members of the sect.
Aerial photography has likewise revealed no paths linking the caves where the scrolls were discovered to the site of Qumran. The movement back and forth that would have produced a path evidently did not occur. Thus the caves could not have functioned as separate libraries or repositories to which sectarians would repair for reading and reflection (p. 24).…On can no longer reasonably argue for a strong connection between the site and the scrolls, though the two may have a weak connection; that is, though the site may have been used by the sect, it cannot have been their main location. (Wise et al, p. 25)
Another theory is on the table as to the origins of the dss. Perhaps they were placed in their caves just prior to the Romans’ attacks on Jerusalem in ad 66-67 and again in ad 70, which is more than 100 years after the founding of the Qumran community. As Vermes notes, but refuses to agree with,
More recently Norman Golb of Chicago [professor of Jewish history in the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago] has launched a forceful attack on the common opinion [the Qumran sect is was the source of the dss]. His objections, reiterated in a series of papers, culminated in 1995 in a hefty tome. The target of his criticism is the provenance of the scrolls found at Qumran. According to him, the manuscripts originated in a Jerusalem library (or libraries), the contents of which were concealed in desert caves when the capital was besieged in 67 and 70 ce. (Vermes, p. 19; see also The Dead Seas Scrolls and the First Christians by Robert Eisenman, p. xxiv).
So here is yet another opinion from another scholar. What is the take-away here? The traditional, original view or model proposed by the dss scholars of the early 1950s has since been questioned by several scholars who have access to additional dss manuscripts. Therefore, the Zadokite calendar proponents’ nicely packaged view that the dss, the Qumran Community, the Book of Enoch, the Teacher of Righteousness and the sons of Zadok are all inextricably linked is now being called into question. Stay tuned. We have only just begun to unwrap this package.
Were the Qumran Sect and the Jerusalem Priests Really at Odds With Each Other?
For those of us returning to the pro-Torah, Hebraic roots of our Christian faith, the Sabbath and biblical feasts are fundamental our faith—they outline the Creator’s plan of redemption for sinful man. Recovering these lost biblical truth treasures, that the early church fathers quickly abandoned after the death of the last apostles, is vital to our spiritual growth and development. To keep YHVH’s feast as the Bible instructs, we need to know how and when to celebrate them. The when part necessitates a calendar, but which one? Hopefully the study below will help the reader to navigate these troubled waters.
When I came into the Torah faith more than six decades ago, we knew of only one biblical calendar—the Hillel 2 or rabbinic calendar from ca. AD 360. Then forty years later, a second calendar appeared on the scene—the abib (green in the ear) barley, visible new moon calendar, which was much closer to biblical truth than the previous one. Now, in the last 25 years, numerous other calendars have spontaneously combusted all claiming to be the “true biblical calendar” dividing the body of believers into numerous factions opposed to each other. Many of these calendars rely on extra-Bible sources to substantiate their validity. This is a problem for those of us who look to the Bible as the final word on how to obey YHVH. The latest calendar to emerge center stage is Enoch-Zadok calendar. Is this finally, the truth once and for all delivered and we need to look no further, or is this another sleight of hand on the part of Bible peddlers who have something to sell or a following to build?
How to Examine New Information
I went into the study of the Zadok calendar open-minded. What could I learn? Honestly, I knew very little about the so-called Zadok priesthood, the Qumran community, the Essenes and my understanding of the teachings of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) was rudimentary at best. When examining new information, we must be careful to guard against bias confirmation—that is, looking only to information that confirms our preconceived notions or our deeply held beliefs. Maintaining objectivity and keeping an open mind is essential if one is searching for truth. We must let the facts speak for themselves (in hermeneutics referred to as exegesis) as opposed to reading into the facts our own interpretations and biases (eisegesis). I have been a truth seeker all of my life. Were I not so, I would still be in the church I was born into—12 churches ago! Thus I dove into a study of the Zadok calendar.
Does the Bible or Do Non-biblical Sources Determine Truth?
A big question each person has to ask themselves when determining spiritual truth is whether they are going to rely primarily on the Bible or on non-biblical, secular sources. No one is averse to conducting research using reputable, secular or extra-biblical sources for background information that supports the Bible. However, there is a problem when we look to extra-biblical sources as our primary source of truth, and then reach back into the Bible and cherry pick verses therefrom to “confirm” what the secular sources are saying. This is exactly what mainstream Christianity has been doing for the better part of 2,000 years does when denying the more pro-Torah, Hebraic truths of the Scriptures. We have inherited many lies, and in our search for Truth, many of us have exited the mainstream church system. This chicanery started with the early church fathers in their efforts to disprove the seventh day Sabbath, the biblical feasts, the biblical dietary laws and YHVH’s Torah-law in general. Let’s not repeat their mistakes and end up with a tangled web of truth and error, good and evil where the word of Elohim is made of none effect by men’s traditions and philosophical theologies as Yeshua warned us against (Mark 7:9–13).
With these words of caution ringing in our spirits, let’s now move on to examining the pro-Zadok calendar arguments and see if they line up with sola Scriptura, or are they merely another example of men’s philosophical theologies.
Addressing Pro-Zadok Calendar Arguments—Answered and Refuted
The Enoch-Zadok Calendar Explained
The Enoch calendar is based on a 364-day year (not 3651/4 days) and is first mentioned in the ancient pseudepigraphal Book of First Enoch. This calendar purportedly originated with Enoch, the great grandfather of Noah. This is in spite of the fact First Enoch was written in the third or second century BC, some 2,000 years after the time of the biblical Enoch, who died prior to Noah’s flood. This calendar is appealing to a growing number of pro-Torah Christians who are digging into the Hebraic roots of their faith and endeavoring to keep YHVH’s sabbaths, including the weekly Sabbath and biblical feasts, in accordance with the Creator’s Torah-instructions. Since the Enoch calendar purports to be of ancient derivation, some people assume that it may well be the Bible’s original calendar, hence, the one we should use today to determine when to celebrate the feasts.
But how did we get from Enoch until today? And is there a biblical basis for the Enoch calendar? These are excellent questions that will be discussed and hopefully answered below. In the mean time, let’s give an overview of a few of the claims that the advocates of this calendar make.
The claim is made that, since the Enoch calendar supposedly dates to the time of Enoch, it must be the calendar that Moses and the Israelites used back in the Book of Exodus. Whereas the Levitical priests were the keepers and teachers of YHVH’s Torah-law, it is correctly assumed that they would have known when to observe the biblical feasts and thus should have the final say in this matter. At the end of the Israelites wandering in the wilderness, YHVH made an everlasting covenant with Phinehas (or Pinchas), the grandson of Aaron the high priest (the brother of Moses), that to his descendants would be given the priesthood forever (Num 25:12–13), and with that charge came, presumably, the knowledge of the correct biblical calendar.
Moving forward several hundred years to the time of King David, Zadok, a descendent of Phinehas, was the high priest whose progeny carried the mantle of the covenantal promise YHVH made to Phinehas along with again, presumably, the knowledge of the true biblical calendar.
We hear nothing more about Zadok or his descendants until Ezekiel mentions the descendants of Zadok in regards to his famous but enigmatic temple prophecy (Ezekiel chapters 40–48). In this prophecy, YHVH makes the sons of Zadok the officiants in the temple because of their faithfulness to him and his commandments (Ezek 40:46; 43:19ff; 44:15f; 48:11), and it is their role to interpret the Torah-law in matters of controversy including calendrical issues (q.v., Deut 17:8–11). Because Ezekiel states that the Zadokites had been faithful to YHVH’s law, they were given this glorious charge. However, there is much debate among Bible scholars concerning whether Ezekiel’s temple is literal or allegorical. Moreover, was it fulfilled in the building of the Second Temple, or is it an allegory referring to Yeshua and the church, or is it a literal temple yet to be built? The prevailing view is that this is a millennial temple—called the Fourth Temple—that is yet to be built. One thing is certain. The Second Temple that was built in the fifth centuryBC and was destroyed in AD 70 never fit the description of Ezekiel’s temple, and thus Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning the sons of Zadok is for a future time.
Despite the fact that Ezekiel’s temple is yet to be built, and the Zadokite priesthood as officiants in that temple is for a future era, the proponents of the Zadok calendar still cite Ezekiel 44:15 and 23–24 as proof for their calendar. Ezekiel states that the sons of Zadok will teach YHVH’s people the difference between the holy and unholy, between the unclean and the clean. They will also act as judges in controversies regarding YHVH’s appointed times and Sabbaths (q.v., Deut 17:8–11). This, the claim is made, was fulfilled by the Zadokite priests of the monastery at Khirbet Qumran on the shores of the Dead Sea in Israel beginning in the late second century BC and lasting for about 175 years afterwards. After that, the inhabitants of Qumran disappear from the pages of history until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947.
Additionally, not letting facts and historical realities stand in their way, the proponents of the Enoch calendar, now referred to as “the Enoch-Zadok calendar” (or simply “the Zadok calendar”), have somehow parlayed the faithful priests mentioned in Ezekiel’s future temple prophecy into the priests living at the time of the Maccabees in the second century BC. This is where the Dead Sea Scrolls (or DSS) and the Qumran community enter the picture. The DSS were discovered in 1947. The original group of DSS scholars from that era who, based on the evidence available to them at that time, firmly believed that a group of righteous priests had been excommunicated, if you will, from the Jerusalem temple when a group of supposedly illegitimate Maccabean priests took charge thereof in the second century BC. The legitimate (Zadokite) priests fled Jerusalem and established a monastery at Qumran near where the DSS were discovered. It is believed that they were largely the writers of the DSS of which the Book of 1 Enoch is a part of this larger corpus. Since the The Book of Enoch promotes the Enoch calendar, and since, it is believed, that these scrolls dictated the lifestyle practices and theology of the Qumran sectaries, and since, it is assumed, these priests were the literal, biological descendants of Zadok and Phinehas the high priests, and since YHVH said through Ezekiel that the sons of Zadok had been faithful to guard and obey his laws, it is assumed that the Zadok calendar is the true biblical calendar for us to follow today in order accurately keep YHVH’s feasts. Hopefully you followed that line of reasoning, since it is essential to understanding the pro-Zadok calendar argument.
There is more, but this is the essence of the pro-Zadok calendar argument. The proponents rely solely on extra-biblical books including those of the DSS to prove the validity of the Zadok calendar. Then, almost as an after thought, they reach back into the Bible, which contains not even the slightest allusion to the Zadok calendar, and attempt to “prove” their point by twisting Scriptures, a technique that the anti-Torah and “the law is nailed to the cross” and “done away with” mainstream Christian church has mastered over the centuries to the detriment of Bible truth resulting in the deception of myriads of people who now longer believe in the validity of YHVH’s Torah-law. Old habits die hard!
In what follows, we will critically analyze several of the key elements undergirding the Zadok calendar theory to see if these square with the empirical evidence, and then we will leave it up to you to decide where the truth lies.
One more word of warning. My comments and notes below are mind-numbing in detail and neither intended for the faint of heart of for those looking for a quick overview of this subject. This is a deep dive and is angled for only the most knowledgable and detail-oriented Bible students. Please do not feel bad if this material is difficult to wrap your mind around. Most of my other writings and video presentations on the Zadok calendar, are much less detailed, more digestible, yet still cover the main points. If you get bogged down in what follows, I humbly invite you to check out some of my other material. Or better yet, skip to the end of this article for section entitled “Summary and Conclusion”, which is a short summary and of the following study and my conclusions.
Onward…!
What Proponents of the Zadok Are Saying and My Responses
In what follows, we will critically analyze several of the key elements undergirding the Zadok calendar theory to see if these square with the Bible, and then it will be up to you to decide where the truth lies or whether lies are being peddled for truth. The following are my personal responses and notes after watching several video presentations by several pro-Zadok calendar teachers.
This is a lengthy, deep dive into the so-called Zadok Priestly/Enoch/Qumran/Dead Seas Scrolls Calendar as opposed to the traditional visible crescent new moon/abib barley calendar that was extant in the second temple era and during the time of Yeshua and his followers. This is a detailed, technical and somewhat tedious read. If you are not inclined to slog your way through this, I suggest that you scroll down to the end and read my concluding overview comments.
Division and Strife Within the Messianic, Hebraic Roots Movement
New winds of doctrine and ear tickling teachings are perpetually blowing through the Hebraic roots movement. I refer to it as “The Flavor of the Month Club. A few examples of this include: the lunar Sabbath, following rabbinic Judaism, the flat earth, new calendars, plural marriage or polygamy, unorthodox Bible translations, sacred names cults to name a few.
It seems that many people including some Bible teachers are ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth (2 Tim 3:7). One minute they are championing this new doctrine (and peddling their merchandise to promote it and gaining a following), then the next minute they are promoting some new doctrine and their money grubbing gig repeats itself.
Sadly, the Hebraic roots movement lacks true scholars or those who have learned critical thinking skills, the rules of biblical interpretation or hermeneutics and exegesis which are based on the science of logic. Thus, the movement is full of many unskilled teachers who teach errant doctrines and proffer false information. Buyers beware!
Add to the unskilled teacher the many self-appointed Bible “experts” and “teachers” who have neither been mentored by or are accountable to anyone including spiritual elders, who are more likely to possess knowledge, wisdom and understanding and can help mentor and raise up the aspiring Bible teachers who are new in the faith or their understanding of Torah roots of biblical Christianity.
On top of all of this, enter the internet where anyone can get up and say anything no matter how inaccurate, whacky or off-the-wall ridiculous and gain a following especially if what they are saying is well-packaged and marketed. A good package can make even nonkosher treif look appealing, tantalizing and palatable.
In Matthew 24, Yeshua warned us against false teachers, prophets and those who claim to be anointed (little messiahs, if you will). Even the very elect could be deceived (Matt 24:24 cp. 2 Pet 2:1–3)!
How to Examine New Information
I went into this study open-minded. What can I learn? Honestly, I knew very little about the so-called Zadok priesthood, the Qumran community, the Essenes and my understanding of the teachings of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) was rudimentary at best. When examining new knowledge, we must be careful to guard against bias confirmation—that is, looking only to information that confirms our preconceived notions or our current deeply held beliefs about something. Maintaining objectivity and keeping an open mind is essential if one is searching for truth. We must let the facts speak for themselves (in hermeneutics referred to as exegesis) as opposed to reading into the facts our own interpretations and biases (eisegesis).
A Picture Quickly Began to Form Regarding Zadok Priestly or Enoch Calendar
The more I listened to the proponents of the so-called Zadok calendar, the more I realized that their arguments are fundamentally flawed. A house may look beautiful, but if it is built on a foundation of sand or straw, no matter how wonderful the superstructure may look, it will fall down. I soon discovered, and it is easy to see, that the arguments for the Zadok calendar are built on a foundation of sand or straw. The advocates of the Zadok calendar make many gross and misleading assumptions at the outset and then build their case from that point onward. That is like saying that 2 + 2 = 5, and then building a system of mathematics on that premise. No matter how elaborate and sophisticated that system may look, it is still predicated upon a false premise and is thus erroneous and irrelevant. This is the case with the Zadok calendar.
Don’t Be So Open Minded That Your Brains Fall Out!
There is no doubt that many people who are teaching, promoting and following the Zadok calendar are well meaning and zealous truth seekers. Their heart is intent on serving YHVH Elohim and rediscovering biblical truths that have been lost over time or purposely hidden by Christian and Jewish religious systems. But as we search for truth, we must make certain to get our facts straight before moving into a new belief system, so that we do not repeat the errors of the past. Stay open minded in the search for truth, but keep your wits about you. We can’t be so open minded that our brains fall out and we end up unwittingly following a false teaching.
In recent times, past erroneous belief systems have fallen away as our understanding of Bible truth has been ungraded as we return to the truths of our biblical and Hebraic roots. The problem is that some people are ever learning and never coming to the truth. As soon as a new “truth” comes on the scene, too many people jump on the band wagon of that new doctrine. It was a problem in the first century, and it is a problem now. Sadly, there is always a bevy of well-meaning but misguided teachers, as well as just plain false and greedy peddlers who are all too willing to take people’s money as they promote their new teachings. The Bible warns us against these folks. Therefore and ultimately, it is the duty and responsibility of each Bible student to roll up his or her sleeves and to prove who is right or wrong based on what the Bible says. When you buy an automobile or house, do you just blindly take the seller’s word for it that all is good, or do you investigate, ask questions, and even seek the help of impartial experts to determine if what you are about to purchase is in good condition and is all that it is represented to be? To wit, the Bible instructs us to rightly divide the word of Elohim, to be good Bereans and see if what we are being told lines up with the Scriptures or not, and to prove all things and to hold fast to that which is good. There are no short cuts in this process. It requires hard work and much effort.
Does the Bible or Nonbiblical Sources Determine Truth?
A big question each person has to ask themselves when determining spiritual truth is whether they are going to rely primarily or foundationally on the Bible or primarily on secular sources. I have no problem with looking to reputable, secular or extra-biblical sources for background information that supports what the Bible says. However, there is a problem when we look to extra-biblical sources as our primary source of truth, and then reach back into the Bible and cherry pick verses therefrom to confirm what the secular sources are saying. This is exactly what mainstream Christian theologians and Bible teachers have been doing since the time of the early church fathers in their efforts to disprove the seventh day Sabbath, the biblical feasts, the biblical dietary laws and YHVH’s Torah-law in general. Let’s not repeat their mistakes and end up with a tangled web of truth and error that characterizes much of current Christian theology.
Beware of Sectarianism and Exclusivism Which Can Lead to Cultism
Everyone wants to feel special and unique. This is affirming to our human need for self-esteem and self-worth. Often this leads people to feel the need to be special and better than others because they have something that no one else possesses. Religious people are often prone to this tendency in their search for meaning and truth. To believe that one has an inside track on the truth resulting in membership in an exclusive group that has secret knowledge can be psycho-emotionally empowering. Because of this, some people can be led to believe that they a special relationship with Elohim that no one else has. But being part of an exclusive group is dangerous when what we believe is not based on Bible truth, especially if we are following a personality who is promoting this hidden truth or secret knowledge. This is often the basis for secret societies, clubs, fraternal organizations, political parties and even many religious organizations. This can even become a form of neo-gnosticism. This is how religious cults are formed.
Addressing Pro-Zadok Calendar Arguments
In response to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCXV76e8dgE&list=PLdoqNkN5ekbjKOCFdQTL7o7hIahXOsLiC&index=6 (a teaching by two of Eddie Chumney’s disciples speaking in their local congregation):
The claim is made that the term rosh chodesh is found only three times in the Bible and is not proof that the new month begins at the sighting of the new moon. This is a specious argument and is proof of nothing. The Torah says that a matter must be confirmed in the mouth of two or three witnesses. The Hebrew word chodesh meaning “new moon” is found 279 times in the OT.
The claim is made that Exodus 12:2 does not specifically state this will be the first day of the month or new year. However, it is implied that this is the case since in verse two we read that on the tenth of the month the lamb is separated out for Passover. Day ten makes no sense, unless we are counting from day one of this month, which is implied in verse two. The Scriptures imply many things that are not explicitly spelled out or stated in black and white but the context clearly indicates a fact (e.g., Nadab and Abihu were drunk, do not light a fire on Shabbat if it is a work related fire). Interestingly, of these three verses, the Dead Seas Scrolls Bible reads the same as the Masoretic Text.
Their claim is correct that the Zadok priesthood is the true priestly lineage with YHVH’s authority to judge in controversial matters regarding Torah (Ezek 44:24 cp. Deut 17:8–13), but this does not imply that all of the Essenes were Zadokites (i.e., descendants from Zadaok the high priest), that everything that the Essenes taught was exactly true to Scripture, or that everything that the Pharisees and Sadducees taught was unscriptural. That is like saying that everything that mainstream Christianity teaches is unscriptural. It is not. To say it is would be an ignorant lie.
The assumption is made that many of Yeshua’s disciples were Nazarenes (and thus members of the Qumran community or Essenes including Mary and Martha). There is zero biblical proof of this. For example, if Zechariah, the father of John, was a Nazarene, then how could he continue to officiate as a priest in the temple under the Sadducean system?
It is assumed, without biblical proof, that John was a Nazarene and an Essene.
Supposedly, Yeshua was an Essene based on the etymology of the word Nazarene, which goes back to the Hebrew word branch, which is one of the terms the Qumran community applied to themselves. Isn’t that like saying that because the word law appears in my last name Lawrence, that must mean that I am a law-yer? Also, the Book of Acts refers to the early believers as being of The Way, which was also an Essene term. That’s like saying that because I call myself a Christian, that is proof that I am a Roman Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant or some other type of Christian you want to name. This may or may not be true.
The following is from my own Bible commentary notes on Matthew 2:23 and explains the etymological origins of the words Nazareth and Nazarene:
Nazareth…Nazarene. (Cp. Acts 24:5). Nazareth means “the guarded one”. The name Nazareth is not found in the OT. The closest word similar to it is naziyr (or nazarite) meaning “one who is consecrated, devoted.” Naziyr derives from nazar meaning “to dedicate, consecrate, separate, to keep sacredly separate.” The appellation “the sect of the Nazarenes” was applied to the early redeemed Israelite believers in Acts 24:5 by their enemies.
There is debate among some Bible students about whether the word Nazarene derives from Nazareth. The fact that Matthew juxtaposes the two words in a form of literary parallelism indicates that he saw some etymological, spiritual or prophetic connection between them.
There is no Old Testament prophecy declaring that the Messiah will come from Nazareth or will be called a Nazarene, nor does any known apocryphal or pseudepigraphal text include such a statement. So to what prophecy is Matthew referring? He may be making a wordplay on the similarities between the Hebrew words Nazarene and netzer meaning “branch” as it relates to the Messianic title in Isaiah (Isa 11:1 cp. Isa 53:2) (Commentary on the NT on the OT, p. 11 by Beale and Carson). Keener mentions other Old Testament prophets that likened Messiah to a tree branch (or scion from Judah), although they do not use the Hebrew word netzer in their prophecies(Jer 23:5; Zech 3:8; 6:12) (The IVP Bible Background Commentary—New Testament, p. 51, by Craig S. Keener).
Chumney then quotes Dr. Robert Shriner from his book,Yeshua—He Will Be Called a Nazarene, who says that Matthew (Matt 2:23) is not linking Yeshua to the town of Nazareth (based on linguistics) but is connecting him rather to the sect of the Nazarenes or Essenes. This is further confirmed in Acts 24:5 where Paul is linked with the sect of the Nazarenes (or Essenes). This apparently is positive proof that Yeshua and Paul were connected spiritually to the Essenes. The same scholar asserts that some verses in the NT where the word Nazarene is found associates Yeshua with the town of Nazareth, while others associate him with the Essenes. Both the words Nazarene and of Nazareth are the Greek words (G3480, found 18 times in the NT), while the word Nazareth (G3478) is different, though related. Shriner maintains that the phrase of Nazereth is referring to the Essenes, since if it were referring to being an inhabitant of Nazareth, it would be a different Greek word. Chumney then relates Yeshua being an Essene back to Isaiah 11:1 who is prophetically called “The Branch.” This prophecy is stating, among other things, that Yeshua (and his disciples) would have been connected to the Essene community, which the NT seems to indicate. Chumney then quotes Yair Davidy (a non-scholar and a sloppy historian who makes many unsubstantiated statements in his books) to further substantiate his belief.
The non-biblical book of Jubilees 2:9 (found in the DSS and written ca. 100 to 25 BC) is another supposed proof of the solar-based not lunar-based Zadok calendar for determining Sabbaths, feasts, etc.
Jubilees 6:23 mentions four special days of remembrance that are the first days of certain months each season. This is based on the dates listed during Noah’s flood and were supposedly ordained by Noah.
The claim is made that the Zadok/Enoch calendar year is 364 days long and that the Hillel II calendar is 354 days long. This is false when you intercalate a thirteenth month seven times every 19 years. This makes the abib barley, visible new moon calendar a lunar-solar calendar that now syncs with the solar year of 365.25 days unlike the Enoch calendar of 364 days (1 Enoch Ethiopic Version 73:11; 81:7 cp. 72:4–5).
The Zadok/Enoch calendar is 360 days plus four “special days of remembrance” at the beginning of each season (Jubilees 6:23), which equates to a 364 day year. Proponents of the Zadok calendar claim that Noah (not YHVH) ordained them forever, and therefore, we are mandated to do the same. Where is this in the Bible??? These special days of remembrance are based on the spring equinox. That is how you know when to observe them. This is an unbiblical reckoning since there is neither any mention of the equinox in Scripture nor any command to reckon the biblical calendar thereto.
Proponents of the Zadok calendar claim that because the sun is the greater light and the moon is the lesser light (Gen 1:16), the sun, therefore must regulate the calendar, not the moon which is the lesser light. The claim is also made that all of the ancient calendars (e.g., Babylonian, Egyptian, etc.) were lunar based including the Hebrew calendar, which, it is also claimed came from the Babylon influence while the Jews were in exile. However, it is incorrect to say that the Hebrew calendar is a lunar calendar. It is a lunar-solar calendar.
The claim is made that the new year begins on either the eve of the tenth of the first month at Passover. Therefore, if day 14 is four days after the first day of the month, then day 14 is not really day fourteen as the Bible calls it, but, in reality, is day four on the biblical calendar. This assertion, however, contradicts Scripture—specifically, Exodus 12:2–3, which, if this claim is true, makes no sense when the Torah says to separate the lamb on the tenth day of the month and keep it until the fourteenth day of the month (four days after the tenth of the month), which is actually the first day of the month. This kind of illogical reasoning and twisting of the Scriptures is mind-boggling if not mind-numbing, to say the least!
It is claimed, as supposed proof of the Zadok calendar, that the Bible mentions 12 months in a year two times (Est 2:12; Dan 4:29) and by implication two more times (1 Kgs 4:7; Rev 22:2), but never a thirteenth month as occurs every two to four years on the abib barley, visible new moon calendar. Therefore, the claim is made that the abib barley, visible new moon calendar is not in line with Scripture. On the other hand, the counterclaim can also be made that nowhere does Scripture mention or even make allusions to a vernal equinox, which is critical to and a central component of the Zadok calendar. So where does that leave us? Simply this. Absence of evidence is not validation of a thing one way or the other.
The Zadokites claim that while the Gospel of John gives the Passover on the Pharisee/Sadducee calendar (which Zadokites conflate with the Hillel 2 calendar of A.D. 360), which, according to them, is why John calls this Passover “the feast of the Jews”, while the other Gospel writers supposedly give the timing of the Passover on the Zadok calendar. This apparently clarifies in their minds the confusion between Yeshua’s celebrating an early Passover on the Jewish calendar but actually on the fourteenth day of the first month on the Zadok calendar. The Jews celebrated Passover at the end of the fourteenth going into the fifteenth, which John refers to as the “Jews’ Passover” (John 2:13; 6:4; 11:55). The claim is made that Yeshua actually died when the Passover lambs on the Pharisees’ calendar were being killed. Supposedly, Yeshua and his disciples killed their Passover lamb earlier in accordance with the “true” biblical or Torah/Zadok calendar. This is, supposedly, because “John was a Nazarene” (sic, here Chumney confuses John the Baptist with John the disciple and writer of the Gospel that bears his name), and was thus part of the Qumran community, who referred to themselves as “Nazarenes.” Thus John was signaling that Yeshua as a Nazarene held the true Passover with his disciples earlier, while he actually died on the Pharisees’ calendar (although it was not actually the Passover according to the Zadok calendar). According to the proponents of the Zadok calendar, why did Yeshua die on the Jew’s Passover and not on the “true” Passover according to the Zadok calendar? He did so, they claim, to prove the point that he was the Jews’ Passover Lamb. A major problem with this argument is that John, the Gospel writer was not John the Baptist, and thus a Nazarite or member of the Qumran community as John the Baptist is alleged to have been. John the Revelator and John the Baptist were two different people! So the year that Yeshua died on the Zadok calendar was one day ahead of the Jewish calendar. Thus Joseph and Nicodemus wanted to get Yeshua off the cross before the Sabbath going into the Jews’ first high holy day of Unleavened Bread on their calendar, not on the Zadok calendar for that year. Are you confused yet by this interpretation? It’s a bit mind numbing to say the least!
In this video, Nathan analyzes information brought forth by noted Dead Seas scrolls scholar and biblical historian and linguist, Dr. James Tabor who is a professor emeritus of University of North Carolina. Tabor has been working with the DSS for many decades and is an authority on the subject. As an objective and impartial expert and educator, Nathan was curious to know his views on the subject of the Zadok calendar, the Qumran community, the Essenes and the Dead Sea scrolls. The information that Tabor presents is revealing and flies in the face of what many of the proponents of the Zadok calendar are claiming.
