Appendix III

APPENDIX III
THE JEWISH AND MACEDONIAN MONTHS COMPARED WITH THE JULIAN CALENDAR
1. נִיסָן
|Nisan
|Ξανθικός
|April.
|
2. אִיָּר
|Ijjar
|Ἀρτεμίσιος
|May.
|
3. סִיוָן
|Sivan
|Δαίσιος
|June.
|
4. תַּמּוּז
|Tammuz
|Πάνεμος
|July.
|
5. אָב
|Ab
|Λῷος
|August.
|
6. אֱלוּל
|Elul
|Γορπιαῖος
|September.
|
7. תִּשְׁרִי
|Tischri
|Ὑπερβερεταῖος
|October.
|
8. מַרְחֶשְׁוָן
|Marcheshvan
|Δῖος
|November.
|
9. כִּסְלֵו
|Chisleu
|Ἀπελλαῖος
|December.
|
10. טֵבֵת
|Tebeth
|Αὐδυναῖος
|January.
|
11. שְׁבָט
|Shebat
|Περίτιος
|February.
|
12. אֲדָר
|Adar
|Δύστρος
|March.
|
The Jewish names of the months, as has been now thoroughly established by the cuneiform inscriptions, are of Babylonian-Assyrian origin. On the tablet of months discovered at Nineveh the names are given as follows (see Schrader, The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, London 1885-1888, vol. ii. p. 69): Nisaannu, Airu, Sivanu, Duuzu, Abu, Ululu, Tasritav, Araah samna, Kisilivu, Tibituv, Sabatu, Addaru.—Within the realm of Judaism the most ancient document which gives the names of the months in regular succession is the Megillath Taanith, which was edited sometime during the first Christian century, since it is quoted in the Mishna (see vol. i. of this work, p. 163). Of later witnesses we need here mention only the little-known Christian Josephus, who, in his Hypomnesticum, c. 27, gives the following list (Fabricius, Codex pseudepigraphus Vet. Test. t. ii. Appendix, also in Gallandi, Bibl. patr. t. xiv., and Migne, Patrolog. graec. t. cvi.): Νησάν, Εἴαρ, Σιουάν, Θαμούζ, Ἄβ, Ἐλούλ, Ὀσρί [read Θισρί], Μαρσαβᾶν, Χασελεῦ, Τηβήθ, Σαβάθ, Ἀδάρ. In regard to the several names the oldest proofs and examples, apart from the cuneiform inscriptions, occur in the following passages:—
1. נִיםָן, Nehemiah 2:1; Esther 3:7; Mishna, Pesachim iv. 9; Shekalim iii. 1; Rosh hashana i. 1, 3, 4; Taanith i. 2, 7, iv. 5; Nedarim viii. 5; Bechoroth ix. 5. Euting, Nabatäische Inschriften aus Arabien (1885), n. ii. 4, v. 3, x. 7, xi. 7, xii. 9, xvi. 3, xx. 8, xxi. 4; De Vogüé, Syrie centrale, Inscriptions sémitiques (1868), Palmyrenische Inschriften, n. i. 2, 4, 6, 18, 23, 25, 26, 27, 32, 34, and elsewhere.—The Greek Νισάν occurs in Esra apocr. v. 6; Additions to Esther i. 1; Josephus, Antiq. i. 3. 3, ii. 14. 6, iii. 8. 4, 10. 5, xi. 4. 8.
2. אִיָּר, Rosh hashana i. 3; Euting, Nabatäische Inschriften, n. viii. 10, ix. 9, xiii. 8, xxvii. 13; De Vogüé, Inscript. sémit. Palmyren. n. 88.—Ἰάρ, Josephus, Antiq. viii. 3. 1.
3. סִיוָן, Esther 8:9; Shekalim iii. 1; Bechoroth ix. 5; De Vogüé, Palmyren. n. 33a and 33b.—Σιουάν, Bar_1:8.
4. תַּמּוּז, Taanith iv. 5, 6.
5. אָב, Pesachim iv. 5; Shekalim iii. 1; Rosh hashana i. 3; Taanith ii. 10, iv. 5, 6; Megilla i. 3; Bechoroth ix. 5; Euting, n. vii. 5; De Vogüé, n. 5, 28, 29, 73, 84, 103.—In Josephus, Antiq. iv. 4. 7, we have the reading Ἀββά (more correctly Ἀβά). It is, indeed, only a conjectural reading introduced by Bernard, but it is a well-conceived conjecture. For the Σαβά adopted, in accordance with the manuscripts by Niese, cannot possibly have been written by Josephus.
6. אֱלוּל, Nehemiah 6:15; Shekalim iii. 1; Rosh hashana i. 1, 3; Taanith iv. 5; Bechoroth ix. 5, 6; Euting, n. i. 3; De Vogüé, n. 78, 79, 123a I.—Ἐλούλ, 1Ma_14:27.
7. תִּשְׁרִי, Shekalim iii. 1; Rosh hashana i. 1, 3, 4; Bechoroth ix. 5, 6; De Vogüé, n. 17, 22, 85, 123a II.—In Josephus, Antiq. viii. 4. 1, where editions since Hudson have Θισρί, Niese reads Ἀθύρει. But Hudson’s reading, which is supported by the form used by older Latin writers, is without doubt the correct one.
8. מַרְחֶשְׁוָן, Taanith i. 3, 4.—Μαρσουάνης, Josephus, Antiq. i. 3. 3.—On the Palmyrene inscriptions this month is called Kanun, כנון, De Vogüé, n. 31, 63, 64.
9. כִּסְלֵו, Zechariah 7:1; Nehemiah 1:1; Rosh hashana i. 3; Taanith i. 5.—Χασελεῦ, 1Ma_1:54; 1Ma_4:52; 2Ma_1:9; 2Ma_1:18; 2Ma_10:5; Josephus, Antiq. xii. 5. 4, 7. 6.—On the Palmyrene inscriptions the name is given in the form כסלול, Kislul or Kaslul (De Vogüé, n. 24, 75).
10. טֵבֵת, Esther 2:16; Taanith iv. 5; Euting, n. iii. 2, xiv. 9, xv. 8; De Vogüé, n. 66, 123a III.—Τεβέθος, Josephus, Antiq. xi. 5. 4.
11. שְׁבָט, Zechariah 1:7; Rosh hashana i 1; Euting, n. iv. 9; De Vogüé, n. 67, 89.—Σαβάτ, 1Ma_16:14.
12. אֲדָר, frequently in the Book of Esther, and also in Additions to that book; Shekalim i. 1, iii. 1; Rosh hashana i. 3; Megilla i. 4, iii. 4; Nedarim viii. 5; Edujoth vii. 7; Bechoroth ix. 5; Euting, n. xxiv. 6; De Vogüé, n. 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 94, 117, 119.—Ἀδάρ, 1Ma_7:43; 1Ma_7:49; 2Ma_15:36; Josephus, Antiq. iv. 8. 49, xi. 6. 2, xii. 10. 5.—אְדָר הָרִאשׁוֹן and אֲדָר הַשֵּׁנִי, Megilla i. 4; Nedarim viii. 5.
The Jewish months continued always to be, what the “months” of all civilised nations originally were, actual lunar months. Since the astronomical length of a month is equivalent to 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, 3 seconds (Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 43), then it must follow that in actual practice months of 29 and mouths of 30 days must pretty regularly alternate with one another.—But twelve such lunar months would give only 354 days, 8 hours, 48 minutes, and 38 seconds (Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 66), whereas the solar year embraccs 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 48 seconds (Ideler, i. 35, 66) The difference between a lunar year of twelve months and the solar year is 10 days and 21 hours. In order to do away with this difference a month must be intercalated, at least, in every third year, sometimes even in the second. It was observed in very early times that a sufficiently accurate equation would be reached, if three times in every eight years a month were intercalated (the difference in eight years amounting to 87 days). Acquaintance with this cycle of eight years, this “Octaeteris,” was possessed by those who arranged the Greek games for every fourth year; for the cycle of four years is only got by halving that of eight years.[1586] But even as early as the fifth century before Christ, the astronomer Meton of Athens proposed a still more exact system of equation, a cycle of nine years, in which a month had to be seven times intercalated.[1587] This was considerably in advance of the eight years’ cycle in accuracy, since in this case in 19 years only a difference of somewhere about 2 hours remained (Ideler, i. 47), whereas in the eight years’ cycle in 8 years there was a remaining difference of 1½ days.
[1586] Compare on the antiquity of the “Octaeteris,” Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 304 f., ii. 605; Boeckh, Zur Geschickte der Mondcyclen der Hellenen (Jahrbücher für class. Philol. 1. Supplementbd. 1855-1856), p. 9 ff.; Adolf Schmidt, Handbuch der griechischen Chronologie, herausg. von Rühl, Jena 1888, pp. 61-95.
[1587] According to Diodorus, xii. 36, Meton made known his system in B.C. 433-432. Compare also Theophrastus, de signis tempestatum, c. 4; Aelian, Variae historiae, x. 7.—But the introduction of the system of Meton at Athens did not take place, as Boeckh was the first to prove, until some time later (according to Usener, B.C. 312; according to Unger, between B.C. 346 and B.C. 325, see Philologus, xxxix. 1880, p. 475 ff.; Dürr is in favour of the former view in Die Reisen des Kaisers Hadrian, 1881, p. 90 ff.). Compare, generally, on the Calendar of the Athenians, Mommsen, Chronologie, Untersuchungen über des Kalenderwesen der Griechen insonderheit der Athener, 1883, and Adolf Schmidt, Handbuch der griechischen Chronologie, 1888.
How far, then, had the Jews in the time of Christ advanced in the knowledge of these matters? They, naturally, had a general sort of acquaintance with them. But, unless all indications are deceitful, they did not in the time of Jesus Christ possess as yet any fixed calendar, but on the basis of a purely empirical observation, on each occasion they began a new month with the appearing of the new moon, and likewise on the basis of each repeated observation intercalated a month in the spring of every third and second year, in accordance with the rule that the Passover under all circumstances must fall after the vernal equinox.[1588]
[1588] For the view that the Jews had even in the time of Christ a fixed calendar, Wieseler has argued with special vigour (Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, p. 401 if.; Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien. p. 296 ff.).—The correct view is given, e.g., by Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 512 ff.; Gumpach, Ueber den altjüdischen Kalendar, pp. 117 ff., 137 ff.; Caspari, Chronological and Geographical Introduction to the Life of Jesus Christ, p. 10 f.
1. The author of the astronomical pieces in the Book of Enoch was aware that the year has six months of 30 days each and as many of 29 days each;[1589] and Galen, in the second century after Christ, says that “the people of Palestine” divide the period of every two months, embracing 59 days, into two unequal halves, so that they reckon to one month 30 days, and to the other 29 days.[1590] But it would be a mistake if we were from this to draw the conclusion that the duration of the months was à priori strictly determined. Even in the age of the Mishna, in the second Christian century, this cannot have been the case; for the whole legislation of the Mishna rests on the presupposition that the new month, without previous reckoning, was begun each time upon the new moon becoming visible. So soon as the appearance of the new moon was proved by credible witnesses before the competent court at Jerusalem and later at Jamnia, the new moon was solemnized, and, after all the rites had been observed, messengers were sent in order to notify the opening of the new month. So, at least, was it done during the six months in which it was of importance on account of the existence of any festival: in Nisan on account of the Passover, in Ab on account of the Fast, in Elul on account of the New Year, in Tizri on account of the arrangement of the feast days of that month, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles; in Chisleu on account of the feast of the Dedication of the Temple, in Adar on account of the feast of Purim, and so long as the temple stood, in Adar also on account of the little Passover.[1591] Since, naturally, it was known pretty accurately when the appearing of the new moon was to be expected, every effort would be made so as to fix the date wherever possible upon the right day. But the duration of the particular months was not fixed. This is confirmed especially by the following two passages from the Mishna: (1) Arachin iii. 7: “If one should have any apprehension in regard to the New Year feast, lest the month Elul should be fixed at 30 days, he may,” etc.[1592] (2) Arachin ii. 2: “In one year there are, at least, four months of thirty days, and of these there have not hitherto been more than eight.” From the former passage it appears that it was by no means established à priori whether a month should have 29 or 30 days; and the latter passage shows how uncertain this empirical method left the calendar. Even in the time of the Mishna, the second Christian century, it was still a possible contingency that a year might come in which only four months had each 30 days, and again another in which there might be eight such months. Thus the length of the lunar year might vary from 352 days to 356 days, while in actual fact it can only oscillate between 354 and 355 daye.[1593]
[1589] Book of Enoch, 78:15-16, in Dillmann’s translation: “And for three months he makes 30 days his period, and for three months he makes his period 29 days, in which he performs his waning in the first period and in the first door in 167 days. And in the period of his waxing he appeare for three months every thirty days, and for three months every nine and twenty days.”
[1590] Galen, Opp. ed. Kühn, t. xvii. p. 23: τοὺς δύο μῆνας ἡμερῶν γινομένους θʹ καὶ νʹ τέμνουσιν εἰς ἄνισα μέρη, τὸν μὲν ἕτερον αὐτῶν λʹ ἡμερῶν ἐργαζόμενοι, τὸν δʼ ἕτερον θʹ καὶ κʹ. See the passage given at length in Greek and English in Caspari, Chronological and Geographical Introduction to the Life of Jesus Christ, p. 9.
[1591] Compare, generally, Rosh hashana i. 3 ff., ii. throughout, iii. 1, iv. 4. See, further, especially Zuckermann, Materialien zur Entwickelung der altjüdischen Zeitrechnung im Talmud (1882), pp. 1-39.—According to Sanhedrin i. 2 (compare Rosh hashana ii. 9, iii. 1), for the declaring of the new moon and of the intercalary year a court of three men was sufficient, but it is not said that as a rule it was determined by such a tribunal.
[1592] a That the later rule, according to which Elul must always have 29 days, did not then exist, is also seen from Shebiith x. 2.
[1593] In the context of the passage quoted (Arachin ii. 2), with reference to matters of the most diverse description, are laid down what might be the minimum and maximum limits. The variation spoken of in the length of the year has therefore actually been observed and, even in the age of the Mishna, was regarded as a possible occurrence.—To the authorities of the Babylonian Talmud, indeed, the statement did appear so remarkable that attempts were made to explain it away. See bab. Arachin 8b-9a; Zuckermann, Materialien, p. 64 f.
2. The system of intercalation was not fixed even in the second century after Christ. Julius Africanus indeed says that the Jews as well as the Greeks intercalated three months in every eight years;[1594] and we have no reason for doubting this statement in regard to the time of Julius Africanus, in the first half of the third Christian century, although it is uncertain so far as the Greeks are concerned, for the majority of them had long adopted the more exact cycle of nineteen years. Also for the time of Jesus Christ this statement may be regarded as generally valid, since the thrice repeated intercalation in the course of eight years would naturally result from a purely empirical procedure. But the knowledge of this eight years’ cycle is certainly even in the astronomical pieces in the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees (which may be approximately regarded as witnesses for the period of Christ) extremely inexact, and it is not there made use of for the constructing of a regular intercalary system. In the astronomical pieces of the Book of Enoch the erroneous idea is taken up that the moon in the eight years is only about eighteen days behind the sun, for the lunar year is set down at 354 days and the solar year at 364 (Book of Enoch, c. 74:17; see generally cc. 72-82). The very same inexact conceptions are found also in the Book of Jubilees, c. 6 (Ewald’s Jahrbücher der bibl. Wissensch. ii. 246). A calendar, built up upon such premises as these, would certainly very soon land in serious error. It was fortunate therefore that in actual practice it was disregarded, and the intercalation carried out without reference to any preconceived theory on the basis of an empirical observation made on each separate occasion. That this was still the case in the times of the Mishna is proved from the two following passages:—(1) Megillah i. 4: “If one has read the Megillah (the Book of Esther for the celebration of the feast of Purim) in the first Adar, and the year is then declared to be an intercalary year, he must read it again in the second or intercalary Adar.” (2) Edujoth vii. 7: “R. Joshua and K Papias testified that the year might be declared an intercalary year at any time during the month Adar, for previously this could be done only to the feast of Purim. These same testified that one might conditionally declare the year an intercalary year. When on one occasion Rabban Gamaliel was on a journey in order to obtain a concession from the governor of Syria, and remained long away, the year was pronounced an intercalary year under the reservation that the decision would stand only if Rabban Gamaliel were satisfied. And when he arrived he was satisfied, and so it was an intercalary year.” Both passages are so clear that they need no further commentary. Yet quite at the close of the year, in the month Adar, even after the feast of Purim had been celebrated, the decision might be arrived at whether or not a month was to be intercalated. There is absolutely no tracc of any previous calculation.[1595]
[1594] Jul. Africanus in Eusebius, Demonstratio evangelica, viii. p. 390=Syncell. ed. Dindorf, i. 611=Routh, Reliquiae sacrae, ii. 302: Ἕλληνες καὶ Ἰουδαῖοι τρεῖς μῆνας ἐμβολίμους ἔτεσιν ὀκτὼ μαρεμβάλλουσιν (Latin also in Jerome, Comment. in Daniel 9:24 sqq., Opp. ed. Vallarsi, v. 683 sq.).
[1595] a All that is said in Tosephta Sanhedrin ii., bab. Sanhedrin 11a-12a, and elsewhere regarding the grounds for intercalation, and regarding the procedure carried on in connection therewith, goes to confirm what is stated above. It may therefore be accepted as certain that the decision as to whether there should be intercalation or not, was made on each separate occasion in the course of the year according to the principles stated. For the more important details, see below at note 9a.
The rule, according to which it was determined whether to intercalate or not, was very simple. It required that care should be taken that the Passover festival, to be celebrated at the full moon in Nisan (14th Nisan), should in any case fall after the vernal equinox (μετὰ ἰσημερίαν ἐαρινήν), when the aun stood in the sign Aries. This explanation is characterized by Anatolius in the fragment of decided importance in relation to the history of the Jewish calendar given in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. vii. 32. 16-19, as the view in which all Jewish authorities are agreed, pre-eminently as that of Aristobulus, the celebrated Jewish philosopher of the time of Ptolemy Philouietor (not Philadelphus, as Anatolius erroneously says). With this also agree the statements of Philo and Josephus.[1596] If one therefore toward the close of the year noticed that the Passover would fall before the vernal equinox, the intercalation of a month before Nisan would have to be resorted to.[1597] The intercalated month was called, like the last month of the year, Adar. They were distinguished respectively as אֲדָר חָרִאשׁוֹן and אֲדָר הַשֵּנִי (first and second Adar).
[1596] Philo, De Septenario, § 19 (Mangey, ii 293); Quaestiones et solut. in Exodum, i. § 1 (Richter, vii. 262 sq.). Compare also Vita Mosis, iii. 29 (Mangey, ii. 169), de decalogo, § 30 (Mangey, ii. 206); Josephus, Antiq. iii. 10. 5: ἐν κριῷ τοῦ ἡλίου καθεστῶτος.
[1597] a For yet other reasons for intercalation see especially Tosephta Sanhedrin c. ii., bab Sanhedrin 11a-12a; with reference to these: Zuckermann, Materialen zur Entwickelung der altjüdischen Zeitrechnung im Talmud (1882), pp. 39-45.—The most remarkable passage is the following: “For three reasons a year may be pronounced an intercalary year: Because of the ripeness of the grain [if this has not occurred at the proper season], and on account of the fruit trees [if these have not ripened at the right season], and on account of the course of the sun [if the sun at the Passover has not yet come into the sign Aries]. Only if two of these reasons combine may one conclude for intercalation, but not for one of these alone.”—“Intercalation is not dependent on the age of the he-goats or lambs or pigeons. Yet this is to be regarded as a supplementary ground [i.e. if only one of the above three chief reasons is forthcoming, all these minor reasons may be read in order to eke it out].” … “Thus once Rabban Gamaliel caused it to be written to the communities in Babylon and Media: Since the pigeons are still too feeble and the lambs still too young, and the time of harvest has not yet come, I and my colleagues have found it necessary to add thirty days to the year.”—We cannot be wrong, then, if for the time of Christ we consider the reason that proved decisive to be that drawn from the course of the sun.
And yet, primitive as this calendar was, it had this great advantage, that serious and persistent inaccuracies, such as in the course of the year inevitably crept into a calendar calculated upon an incorrect basis, were avoided.—The very complicated later Jewish calendar, calculated upon the nineteen years’ cycle, is said to have been introduced by the patriarch Hillel in the fourth century after Christ. Although this is not witnessed to with absolute certainty, it is not improbable (Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 569 ff.).[1598]
[1598] b On the basis of some coins of the Arsacidae, in which the years 287, 317, and 390 of the Seleucid. aera are referred to as intercalary year, Theodor Reinach has proved in a convincing manner that in the kingdom of the Arsacidae, that is, in Babylon, even in the first century before Christ and in the first century after Christ, the Greek calendar, calculated according to the nineteen years’ cycle, was in use. But since Julius Africanus in the passage above referred to speaks of the eight years’ cycle as that used “by Gentiles and Jews,” it would seem that that cycle, even in the third Christian century, prevailed in Palestine and Syria (so far as the solar year had not yet been adopted). From this, too, is confirmed what otherwise is probable, that the later Jewish calendar was constructed, not by the Palestinian, but by the Babylonian Jews. See Theodor Reinach, “Le calendrier des Grecs de Babylonie et les origines du calendrier juif” (Revue des études juives, t. xviii. 1889, pp. 90-94). As Rabbis who had specially interested themselves in matters connected with the calendar, the Babylonians Mar Samuel in Nehardea and Rabbi Adda bar Ahaba in Sura are specially named, both in the third century after Christ. The latter had an exact acquaintance with the nineteen years’ cycle in the improved form given it by Hipparchus in the second century before Christ (Ideler, i. 574 f.). The Palestinian Hillel must therefore have received the incentive to his work from the Babylonians.
With reference to the various beginnings of years in spring or in harvest, see vol. i. of the present work, p. 37.
The literature on the Jewish calendar, especially in its later form, is very extensive. A systematic exposition was given as early as the twelfth century by Maimonides in the passage treating of “the celebration of the New Moon” in his great work Jad Ha-chasaka or Mishne Thora (compare: Maimonides’ Kiddusch Hachodesch, translated and explained by Ed. Mahler, Wien 1889). Various monographs are collected by Ugolini in his Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrarum, t. xvii. (Nic. Mülleri Annus Judaeorum luna-solaris et Turc-Arabum mere lunaris; Seldeni Diss. de anno civili Judaeorum; Maimonidis, De sanctificatione novilunii, cum versione Latina de Veilii. Christ. Langnansen, De mense veterum Hebraeorum lunari).—Of more recent date, especially: Ideler, Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie, Bd. i pp. 477-583; Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, pp. 401-436; Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien und der evangelischen Geschichte (1869), pp. 290-321; Seyffarth, Chronologia sacra (1846), pp. 26-80 (believes that the Jewish year down to A.D. 200 was a solar year!); De Wette, Lehrbuch der hebräisch-jüdischen Archäologie, 4 Aufl. 1864, § 178-179; Gumpach, Ueber den altjüdischen Kalender zunāchst in seiner Beziehung zur neutestamentlichen Geschichte, Brüssel 1848; Saalschütz, Das mosaische Recht, Bd. i. 1853, pp. 396-406; Lewisohn, Geschickte und das System des jüdischen Kalenderwesens, Leipzig, 1856 (=Schriften herausgeg. vom Institute zur Förderung der israelit. Literatur, erstes Jahr, 1855-1856); Caspari, Chronological and Geographical Introduction to the Life of Jesus Christ, pp. 2-19; Schwarz, Der jüdische Kalender historisch und astronomisch untersucht, 1872; Dillmann, “Ueber das Kalenderwesen der Israeliten vor dem babylonischen Exil” (Monatsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1881, pp. 914-935); Zuckermann, Materialien zur Entwickelung der altjüdischen Zeitrechnung im Talmud, 1882 (gathers together the Talmudic deliverances on matters connected with the calendar); Hamburger, Real-Encydopädie für Bibel und Talmud, Abth. ii. 1883, pp. 608-628, art. “Kalender;” Mémain, La connaissance des temps évangéliyues, Paris 1886, pp. 39-43, 377-445, 481 ff.; Isidore Loeb, Tables du calendrier juif depuis l’ère chrétienne jusqu’ au XXX siècle, avec la concordance des dates juives et des dates chrétiennes et une méthode nouvelle pour calculer ces tables, Paris 1886; Mahler, Chronologische Vergleichungs-Tabellen, nebst einer Anleitung zu den Grundzügen der Chronologie, 2 Heft: Die Ziet- und Festrechnung der Juden, Wien 1889; also the articles “Jahr” and “Monate” in the dictionaries of Winer, Schenkel, and Riehm, and in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. vi 495-498, article “Jar” by Leyrer.
Since the Jewish year has sometimes twelve, sometimes thirteen months, it is evident that its months can only be made approximately to correspond to those of the Julian calendar.—The Macedonian names of the months came to be used in Syria from the beginning of the Seleucid domination (Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 397). They originally also indicated lunar months. But from the time of Julius Caesar’s reform of the calendar they were employed in Syria and Phoenicia to indicate the twelve months of the solar year, which is, speaking generally, identical with the Julian; therefore its several months do not exactly correspond with those of the Julian, since their beginnings are otherwise determined, and indeed were different in different large cities (Ideler, i. 433). It was not till a later period that the Julian months came to be named in Syria by Maccdonian names (Ideler, i. 429 ff.).—Besides the Macedonian names, the old native Syrian names (which were for the most part identical with the Jewish) were also used; and it may safely be assumed that their use was in strict conformity with that of the Macedonian names. Thus, e.g., the Syrian date on the inscriptions at Palmyra exactly corresponds to the Macedonian (24 Tebeth=24 Audynäus, 21 Adar=21 Dystros; see De Vogüé, Inscriptions, n. 123a, iii. 124=Le Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions grecques et latines, t. iii. 2, n. 2571b, 2627). The same is true of the later Syrian calendar, where the Syrian as well as the Macedonian names indicate simply the months of the Julian calendar.[1599]
[1599] That this was already the case on the inscriptions at Palmyra cannot be proved. The doubts which Nöldeke expresses in this connection (Zeitschrift der DMG. xxxix. 1885, p. 339) are very well founded.
Under these circumstances it may be asked what Josephus means when he makes use of the Macedonian names of the months, as he frequently does in his History of the Jewish War. Ordinarily he uses them as perfectly parallel to the Jewish, precisely in the same way as is done in the inscriptions at Palmyra (Nisan=Xanthicus, Ijjar=Artemisius, Ab=Lous, Tizri=Hyperberetaeus, Marcheehwan=Dios, etc.; the proofs for this are given above at p. 364 f,; for the Palmyrene inscriptions see the collection in Le Bas and Waddington, n. 2571b). But does he mean precisely the Jewish months when he uses the Macedonian names? In many cases undoubtedly he does so. (1) The Jewish Passover was observed on the 14th Xanthicus (Antiq. iii. 10. 5; Wars of the Jews, v. 3. 1). (2) In the time of Antiochns Epiphanes the temple was desecrated and reconsecrated on 25th Apellaios (Antiq. xii. 5. 4, 7. 6; comp. 1Ma_1:59; 1Ma_4:52. (3) During the siege of Titus the daily morning and evening sacrifice was stopped on 17th Panemos (Wars of the Jews, vi. 2. 1); according to Mishna, Taanith iv. 6, however, this happened on 17th Thammuz. (4) The destruction of the temple of Nebuchadnezzar took place on the 10th Loos (Wars of the Jews, vi 4. 5); according to Jeremiah 52:12, on the 10th Ab. On the ground of these facts ancient and modern investigators have assumed that Josephus invariably intends when using the Macedonian names of the month to make the dates correspond with the Jewish months.[1600] But against this view, after the example of Scaliger, Baronius, and Usher, O. A. Hoffmann has recently advanced objections.[1601] He specially urges the point that Josephus was scarcely in a position (and if he had been, would not certainly have taken the trouble) to reckon the dates which had been transmitted to him according to another calendar, in accordance with the Jewish calendar. He just followed the calendar which his authorities followed. But in regard to the numerous dates in the Wars of the Jews, Hoffmann (p. 16) believes that Josephus must have used, as sources, the official State Papers which he found in the Roman camp. Hence it may be assumed that in these the dates were given in accordance with the Julian calendar, the months of which were simply indicated by Josephus under Macedonian names. The grounds for this opinion are undoubtedly correct. A writer like Josephus would not take the trouble to change the reckoning, but would simply give the dates as he found them. One should not therefore assume right off that in his works all the dates would be according to the same calendar, Many are given undoubtedly according to the Jewish calendar, others according to the Roman.[1602] But whether the dates in the Wars of the Jews are for the most part derived from the official Roman State Papers, seems to me more than doubtful. It is not correct to say, as Hoffmann does (p. 15), that Josephus almost exclusively gives precise dates for the enterprise of the Romans, but not for the internal events of Jewish history. A thorough examination of the facts communicated in our exposition (§ 20) plainly shows that among the details circumstantially related are many that refer purely to the internal affairs of the Jews, whereas on the other hand the exact statements about the doings of the Bomans, especially of that period, become more numerous when Josephus was first a prisoner and subsequently on his parole in the Roman camp. He had therefore personal knowledge of these things. Indeed, in his vindication of the credibility of his exposition he refers simply to his own memoranda of these occurrences which he had made for himself and not to Roman official documents (Treatise against Apion, i. 9: τὰ κατὰ τὸ στρατόπεδον τὸ Ῥωμαίων ὁρῶν ἐπιμελῶς ἀνέγραφον). Evidently, therefore, he did not use these official papers. But that he had made his memoranda according to the Jewish calendar is probable, partly from the internal probability of the matter, partly from the circumstance that particular dates are given undoubtedly according to the Jewish calendar; so Wars of the Jews, vi. 2. 1 (see above, p. 242), and Wars of the Jews, vi. 4.1-5 (see above, p. 243 f.). The oft recurring formula, Πανέμου νουμηνίᾳ (Wars of the Jews, iii. 7. 36, v. 13. 7, vi. 1. 3), cannot indeed be used as a proof that the months of Josephus actually began with the new moon. For in later usage νουμηνίᾳ signifies generally the first day of the month, even when, according to the calendar employed, the months did not begin with the new moon, as e.g. in the Roman. Compare Dio Cassius, lx. 5: τῇ τοῦ Αὐγούστου νουμηνίᾳ; Plutarch, Galba, 22: ἡ νουμηνία τοῦ πρώρτου μηνός, ἣν καλάνδας Ἰανουαρίας καλοῦσι; Steph. Thesaurus, s.v.
[1600]a So Noris, Annus et epochae Syromacedonum, i. 3rd ed. Lips. p. 44 sqq.; Ideler, Handbuch der Ohronologie, i. 400-402; Anger, De temparum in Actis apostolorum ratione, p. 10sq.; Wieseler, Chronologie Synopse, p. 448; Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. 357 sq.; Champagne, Rome et la Judée, (2nd ed. 1865), ii. 348 sqq.
[1601] Otto Adalb, Hoffmann, De imperatoris Titi temporibus racts dsfinisendis (Marburg 1883), pp. 4-17.
[1602] In accordance with the Roman calendar Josephus apparently gives, e.g., the periods of the reigns of the Emperors Galba, Otho, Vitellius. The dates which come into consideration (according to the careful statement of Knaake in Zeitschrift für luth. Theol. 1871, pp. 230-235) are the following: Nero, † 9 June 68; Galba, † 15 January 69; Otho, † 16 April 69; Vitellius, † 20 December 69. But according to Josephus, Galba. reigned 7 months and 7 days (Wars of the Jews, iv. 9. 2); Otho, 3 months and 2 days (Wars of the Jews, iv. 9. 9); Vitellius, 8 months and 5 days (Wars of the Jews, iv. 11. 4). If we count in the day of the accession and the day of death, this agrees exactly with the above dates of the Julian calendar, which therefore Josephus here follows. So also Knaake, Zeitschrift für luth. Theol. 1871, p. 244, unsuccessfully contested by Wieseler, Zeitschrift für luth. Theol. 1872, p. 55 ff.—Josephus seems to give the day of Vitellius’ death according to the calendar of Tyre. While according to the Julian calendar it fell upon 20 December, Josephue sets it down upon 3 Apellaios (Wars of the Jews, iv. 11. 4). But this in the Tyrian calendar corresponds to the 20 December in the Julian. Josephus may therefore be supposed here to follow some Phoenician authority. Compare Noris, Annus et epochae Syromacedonum, i. 3, p. 60 sq. ed. Lips.; Ideler, Handbush der Chronologie, i. 436; Knaake, Zeitschrift, p. 244; O. A, Hoffmann, De imperatoris Titi, p. 6.