Yes, I’ve found the calendar reference in Allegro’s book. The Qumran sect evidently used the so-called Enoch calendar of exactly 52 weeks or 364 days in each year. That’s the only calendar he mentions apart from the standard Hebrew calendar which was strictly lunar.
Yes, thee records indicate that the Galileans were heavily supportive of the Essene movement and Jesus actually quoted from the "Great Isaiah Scroll" from the DSS. And Eusebius contains some further veiled hints.
Two points occur to me here. Galileans could have been “supportive” of the Essenes without abandoning the official calendar to adopt a radically different calendar instead. And, in any case, Jesus and the Twelve had arrived in Jerusalem as pilgrims to celebrate the Passover. Would the Temple authorities, who were Sadducees, have agreed to slaughter their lambs for them on what they themselves considered the wrong day? I don’t think so.
Let's claim distinction without a difference. The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa) is ≈95% identical to our modern Masoretic Text. When minor variants occur, they rarely alter fundamental doctrines
True, but how does one ascertain if adding or deleting entire verses is "minor", and rarely means it does happen.
Galileans used the lunisolar Hebrew calendar for religious and festival purposes, which tracked months by the moon and years by the sun. However, regional Galilean customs differed from Judean Temple practices; Galileans began their 24-hour day at sunrise rather than sunset, which occasionally shifted the observance of holy days.The Roman administration and civil sector used the Julian calendar, a 365-day solar system introduced by Julius Caesar in 46 BC. Because Galilee was under Roman provincial rule, residents interacted with this civil calendar for taxation and official government business. Furthermore, some Jewish sects in the region, such as the Essenes, utilized a strict 364-day solar calendar that kept the Sabbath and festivals on fixed days of the week
the Jerusalem Temple leaders did not slaughter the Passover lamb for the Essenes. Because the Essenes utilized a distinct, ancient solar calendar that regularly placed Passover on a different day than the official Temple calendar, they fundamentally abstained from the Temple's sacrificial system.
Thank you, @biblestudent78. Is it safe to say, then, that any Galileans coming to Jerusalem for the Passover must have been using the same calendar as the Sadducees and consequently must have brought their lambs to the Temple on the same day as everyone else?
We can never be "safe to say." Humans often do things that are unexpected. Pilgrims traveling to Jerusalem from Galilee for Passover routinely purchased their lambs upon arriving in the city rather than herding them along on the three-day journey.
Thank you, @biblestudent78. Yes, it was careless of me to write “their lambs.” I didn’t mean to imply that they had brought their lambs with them all the way from Galilee, just that the lambs were their property, even if they’d bought them from one of the many traders just five minutes before handing them over to a Levite or priest for slaughtering. If they’d paid for them, the lambs were now “theirs.”
Quote: "Once going to Jerusalem the Temple calendar rules applied. "When in Rome......"
Rewriter, there are numerous examples of both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament were there are important changes that have been made in the transmission of the text. Some are huge. Compare the books of Samuel and the books of Chronicles that attempt to describe the exact same narrative but the stories could hardly be more different. They were written by different authors at a different time for different purposes.
And in Isaiah 19:18, the name/title of a city changes. Some people try to claim that the changes are all minor, but when two different people are credited with killing Goliath, I think some are very serious.
Sorry, where are we told that other people are credited with killing Goliath? I know we read of somebody other than David killing Goliath's brother:
It depends on which translation one reads. In some translations 2 Samuel 21:19 the phrase "brother of Goliath" does not occur. Now whether that was a scribal error, on if scribes added the comment about the brother to avoid a contradiction is not certain.
I doubt it was simply added, because 1 Chronicles say:
in the context of biblical Theology, there is a liberal mind-set of interpretation. One must define what is biblical love. Saying "love your neighbor" has been taken out of context by many well intended people however, truth matters. The definition of evil from the word of God is very much defined and clear. in the Old Testament the Hebrew word "rah" means evil describes wickedness, bad , mischief. There are variations of this in the Old Testament speaking of one's actions or a lesser thing such as gossip. IN the New Testament Jesus speaks of evil done to us because of his name "ponēros" it is an adjective
