Talk:Hebrew calendar/Archive 3

Dubious text [Aug 2009]

The value 29d12h793p for the molad interval is identical to the value in the Babylonian System B (about 300 BCE), and in Ptolemy's Almagest (2nd century CE), and is approximately equal to 29.530594 days.[51] This is as close to the correct value of 29.530589 days as it is possible for a value to come that is rounded off to whole parts (1/18 minute). So the molad interval is about 0.6 seconds too long. Put another way, if the molad is taken as the time of mean conjunction at some reference meridian, then this reference meridian is drifting slowly eastward. If this drift of the reference meridian is traced back to the mid-4th century CE, the traditional (but probably incorrect) date of the introduction of the fixed calendar, then it is found to correspond to a longitude midway between the Nile River and the end of the Euphrates River. The modern molad moments match the mean solar times of the lunar conjunction moments near the meridian of Kandahar, Afghanistan, more than 30° east of Jerusalem.

--Starting at "Put another way", I don't see any sense in this uncited material. It feels to me like someone's original research. Any drift of some periodic moments relative to the length of a day can be translated into changes of meridians; so what? Is there a reliable source for these observations being of significance to anyone? McKay (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the conclusion of Dr. Irv Bromberg of the University of Toronto in Reference meridian of the Hebrew calendar. He mentions the modern 30° shift in his Rectified Hebrew calendar. It was added to this article in a slightly different form by Bromberg on 30 March 2007. — Joe Kress (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

not dissimilar? [Oct 2009]

I changed "...the Sumerian calendar, which was not dissimilar in structure from the Hebrew one" to "...the Sumerian calendar, which was similar in structure to the Hebrew one." I agree with George Orwell that the not-un- idiom is useless. (See Orwell's Politics and the English Language for his rant.) —MiguelMunoz (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Used by a growing number of Christians? [Nov 2009]

That first sentence says that the Hebrew calendar is used by a growing number of Christians. Really? I'd love to see a source for that statement. Even better would be if there were some numbers of the growth in adoption of the Hebrew Calendar. --Chrisspurgeon (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, removing uncited material. 97.85.185.160 (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

High latitudes [2010-2012]

"In higher latitudes, where during the summer the sun does not sink below the horizon, and during the winter does not rise above it, the days are counted in summer from midday., i.e., from one upper crossing of the meridian by the sun to the next crossing; in the winter, from midnight to midnight, i.e., from one lower crossing of the meridian by the sun to the next". This does not make sense: In the spring, sunset is progressively approaching midnight, whereas in autumn, sunset is progressivley approachin midday, so the opposite should be the case. The link to the calendar article in the Jewish Encyclopedia is apparently dead.  Andreas  ^(T)

I agree that the quote must be a mistake, either of the person who wrote it here or perhaps even of the source (entry "Calendar" in The Jewish Encyclopedia Volume 3, Funk and Wagnalls, New York, 1916.)--it is very easy to say exactly the opposite of what you mean. In the polar regions (inside the Arctic and Antartic Circles) there will be a time in the spring when sunset is about 11:59 pm one day and no sunset the next, and then sometime in the summer there will be a time when there is finally a sunset again about 11:59 pm. It does not make sense to have the legal sunset jump from 11:59 pm to noon from one day to the next and then later jump from noon to 11:59 pm. Rather, during the time of the "midnight sun" the day would start at midnight. Of course from fall to winter there would be a time when the day starts at noon. I am pretty sure what they meant to say is something like the following, but I do not like to put it into the article without some backup.

"In polar regions, during the period around the summer solstice when the sun does not sink below the horizon, days are counted from midnight to midnight; and during the period around the winter solstice when the sun does not rise above the horizon, the days are counted from midday to midday."Stone-turner (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The quotation from the 1916 Funk & Wagnalls Jewish Encyclopedia is accurate. It occurs on p. 501 of volume 3, in the 2nd column. The "Calendar" entry is signed "M. F." which refers to Michael Friedländer (1833-1910). Nor is it obvious that Friedländer's rule is wrong, since the article gives no details of implementation.--Mockingbird0 (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Edwin Thiele [Jul-Aug 2010]

Edwin Thiele, by this statement:

"Edwin Thiele has concluded that ancient Kingdom of Israel counted years using the ecclesiastical new year (which was the practice of Babylon, as well as other countries of the region), while the Kingdom of Judah counted years using the civil new year,[15] a practice followed to this day."

...is incorrect. The kingdom of Judah used the same system as the kingdom of Israel, which is the Nisan-Nisan years (ecclesiastical and not the civil). The civil year involves the Tishri-Tishri reckoning of the year, which is 3 months prior from Nisan; but the civil year is not always so reckoned (depends on the nation who defines it). Babylon used the ecclesiastical year, that is true. Source: The Chronology of the Old Testament, 16th ed., Floyd Nolan Jones, ISBN-10 0-89051-416-X, ISBN-13 978-0-89051-416-0, p. 118-123, etc. Jones refutes some of Thiele's errors, citing the very book reference given (The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings).

The best thing is to just remove this statement completely.

Mdoc7 (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If what you say is correct, that both ancient Israel and Judah counted years Nisan-Nisan, as did Babylon, then where did the current practice of counting years Tishri-Tishri come from? Obviously, the custom must have been picked up from somewhere along the way. Thiele's explanation and analysis seems very persuasive. At least it only indicates that it is his opinion, and not a statement of fact. Ewawer (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have now tracked down the source cited above, and can see what the problem is. Jones talks about the month numbers, which follow the Nisan-Nisan year. Thiele deals with the year number, which is not the same thing. It is the same as the current practice, where the year is incremented on 1 Tishri, while the month numbers are still based on Nisan being the first month. Ewawer (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Conversion between Jewish and civil dates [Aug 2010]

The section starts out: "The list below gives the time when the Jewish year is due to start over a period of nineteen years:

   7.36 1/18 A.M. Tuesday, 16th March, 2010
   5.08 14/18 A.M. Monday, 4th April, 2011
   1.57 8/18 P.M. Friday, 23rd March, 2012"

What are these? They look like Nisan molads, but they do not correspond to the times and dates I found on a website. I think the writer should explain what they are and what they do. I don't think that something that just works without explanation is really appropriate here. A converter would do as well and would be a lot easier. Stone-turner (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Zmanim... [Sept 2010]

If 'Zmanim' is going to redirect here, there should probably be a reference, definition, or at least a use in context of the word... -24.96.204.85 (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The first month [Sept 2010]

While Tishrei is the start of a new year, it is not considered the first month. Nisan is the first month of the Jewish year (Tishrei is the 7th). I would suggest someone revert/correct the edits that are contrary to this. Thanks. Yydl (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Essene calendar [May 2011]

DGG has pointed out that the Essenes used their own calendar. Nothing has been done to put this in the article since 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.119.12 (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There is now a reference to the Essenes' calendar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.34.86 (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

History of [Sept 2011]

It would be nice if someone could flesh this out a little. Presumably the Jewish tradition holds that his calendar has been in use for 5772 years now. What is the historical-critical perspective on how long it has been in use?Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

February 2013 Question: Does anyone think this question is not suitably answered within the article at this point? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixing a Year [Dec 2011-Jan 2012]

Could someone please explain how the Jewish (or Hebrew) people indicated a year, or period of time, before the 3rd century? Would they say "under such and such a king" or "when so-and-so was High Priest?" or did they have a numbering system? Or did they use all these systems variously depending on circumstances? Campolongo (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

When the kingdoms of Judah and Israel existed, they used the king's regnal years. Later, they used the reigns of the Persian kings. (See examples in the Bible.) Jews in Egypt in the 5th century BC used both the Egyptian reign years and the Persian reign years (we have documents from the period). Later, Seleucid Era dates (counting from 311 BC) were used, and these were used in the Jewish community for centuries. Of course, one can assume they also used other dates as High Priest dates sometimes. Stone-turner (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like important info and relevant to the topic, doesn't it? It would be nice if Stone-turner, or anyone else properly informed, could add a section on this, with examples. I'm not up to it - I came here hoping to find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campolongo (talk • contribs) 17:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

February 2013 Question: Ditto this: Does anyone think it's not sufficiently covered now? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Calendar article with no calendar [Dec 2012]

I appreciate the content here but this is a calendar article with no calendar. Reading through it was tough to mentally put one together too; therefore, will someone with knowledge of this topic, please create one and add it as a section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.138.104.250 (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I can appreciate that comment. Truth tell, though,

1. The article Gregorian calendar, for example, doesn't have one, either.
2. There are plenty of good calendars on the Internet already, and some of them have "External Links" from this article.
3. A lot of people think they know a lot about this topic, but it's pretty complex, and you need to be careful.

I don't have time to do what you've asked, nor to undertake a major redo of this article (which I think would be useful). I may be able to try to tackle the first section ("Structure"), though, and that might help you picture things a little better. Better give me a good solid month (at minimum) to clear time for it, though. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done StevenJ81 (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Table in Seasonal Drift Section [Dec 2012-Jan 2013]

In the section on Seasonal Drift, the table "Comparison of vernal full moon to actual dates of Passover: 2001–2020" has nothing to do with the drift; it just gives the full moon during one 19-year metonic cycle. I will delete it sometime unless there is discussion to the contrary.

To really see the drift, one should give the time and date in Gregorian (or better yet, how long from the equinox) of the Tishrei molad at the same year of the cycle (or, a multiple like every 95 years) over the course of several centuries. Stone-turner (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest going to the Jewish Calendar Studies page of Kalendis (see hyperlink under "Date Converters," then surf around that site). Dr. Irv Bromberg covers this exhaustively. If anyone ever tackles this here, the proper comparator is Nisan 15 and the northward equinox—not the Tishrei molad and the southward equinox—because the halachic calibration requirement is for Passover to be "in the [northern hemisphere] spring." StevenJ81 (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:ERA [Feb 2013]

This page was established with the AD/BC labels for the Dionysian era and should retain them. No, Jews themselves do not believe in Jesus's divinity; yes, taking the NT literally would mean he gestated for about 8 years.

Nonetheless, yes, we have to mention it because not doing so would be a disservice to our readers; yes, the era is based upon his birth regardless of how one expresses it; and, more to the point, yes, this is Wiki policy and should stop being reverted from its repeated restoration.

Using AD no more "endorses" Christianity than AM "endorses" a need to revise the age of the Earth article. — LlywelynII 09:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Noticed the archive above. Seems specious, though, since consensus seemed to have been imposed by fiat. Maybe the current editors are in disagreement with my take, though, and we can settle this by being more clear:

Retain AD/BC

[Page creator]

Arcturus

Olegnarac

jguk

Lly

Avoid AD/BC owing to article focus

Joe Kress

JFW

squell

RachelBrown

Humus sapiens

Kaiserhatner

[StevenJ81]

— LlywelynII 09:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You said, "Using AD no more 'endorses' Christianity than AM 'endorses' a need to revise the "Age of the Earth Article." Is that really so? Jews (and I am one) are very sensitive on this issue. After all, anno domini certainly means "The year of the Lord," and is often rendered as "The year of our Lord" (as if representing the more extended Anno Domini Nostri Jesu Christi).

Whether people are too quick to change era styling in topics of general interest–and more particularly whether they try to block reversion in topics of general interest–is a topic broader than I care to address at this time. You would have a hard time arguing, however, that even in articles of general interest, use of BCE/CE instead of BC/AD makes the article less understandable. I think most people understand both sets of styling.

On Jewish topics–and WP:NPOV not withstanding, this is a Jewish topic–it is customary (even if only as a matter of cultural courtesy) to use BCE/CE styling, not BC/AD styling. And with respect to the WP:ERA, I would argue categorically that this is squarely within the bounds of "unless there are reasons specific to its content". Here, there are.

Finally, even if you want to argue under WP:ERA that the styling should not have been changed, it was–eight years ago. Since then, this article has consistently been styled using BCE/CE. Accordingly, I think the burden of evidence at this point would fall on one who wishes to change the styling away from BCE/CE, not one who wants to leave it as is. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I only noticed you actually made those changes after I read your note on the talk page. I truly wish you had come here first, instead of moving unilaterally. I tried to be careful and only revert actual styling changes, not grammar, and you are certainly correct about things like AM 5773 instead of 5773 AM. However, I would appreciate it if you would not make further attempts to restore "BC/AD" without establishing a consensus here first. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of the documentation above (along with the back-and-forth edit warring documented by the page's history) is that the page was already "moved unilaterally" to CE/BCE from AD/BC without a strong consensus. It's basically "she started it" except we can document who did and it was your side.

Regardless, (a) It's hard to be mad at someone classy enough to acknowledge the article improvements made by the guy they're arguing against & to take the time to change just the bits they disagreed with.

(b) I can understand (though personally disagree with) the idea that the contents of the article are so inherently "Jewishy" that Jewish conventions should supersede general policy in the way that an article on fish and chips should be written in British English regardless of how it started. (My own feeling is that [regardless of nomenclature] the AD/CE calendar is the Christian calendar in precisely the same way that this AM calculation is the Jewish one; that CE/BCE is not an inherent part of the Jewish faith; and that, being calendars, there's no religious animus, disrespect, or wounded feelings in recognizing that.)

(c) There was a previous discussion I hadn't noted and are (barely) more editors at present who support the move to CE/BCE.

So, yeah, while you have the onus backwards here, it's been a year or two since the last edit war over this and I'm fine with letting it sit the current way while other editors chime in and break the deadlock one way or the other. Yashy coach. — LlywelynII 14:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved to status quo ante (avoid AD/BC owing to article focus) at User talk:LlywelynII#HCEra — StevenJ81 (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

[Added strikethrough to above comment to avoid confusion.]

That overstates it, though, buster. [See point (b).] I added yr name to the appropriate column above and we'll just let the other editors chime in over time. — LlywelynII 14:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. (Are you "Lly" above?)

Let me respond briefly to your (b) above. First, a question: What is "Jewishy" enough content, then? I would argue that this topic is at least as Jewish as "Fish and Chips" is British. (Personally, I like fish and chips ... and vinegar.)

Second, if people really translated anno domini according to the Latin in front of us (i.e., "the year of the Lord"), I could almost buy your argument. But in almost any work in English, the equivalent language is written out as "the year of our Lord", as in

Done in the city of Washington, this fifth day of February, in the year of our Lord the Two Thousand Thirteenth, and of American Independence the Two Hundred Thirty-Seventh

In other words, AD is almost always used as shorthand for the longer phrase Anno Domini Nostri [Jesu Christi]. And in my view, once you add in "our", things are different.

That said, in the section that was most about parallel calendars (i.e., the calculations section), I left the AD and BC references in place. As you suggested above, once you are talking about the Julian or Gregorian calendar per se (and leaving out the possibility of using ab urbe condita for Julian), it is reasonable to use the AD/BC styling, even in this article. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Grammar [Feb 2013]

Unrelated issue: with all of the compound modifiers this article uses, kindly remember to hyphenate them. "...in the 2nd century" is fine, but "the 2nd century computation" ain't. — LlywelynII 10:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Here, I agree with you 100%. The whole article needs a fair amount of work. But I can't tackle it right now. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)