Head Covering and inconsistency

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 could be called the Headship Symbolism Passage. Herein (and nowhere else) the Apostle Paul informs the Corinthians (and, by extension, every Christian) of the need to symbolize, in an outwardly visible way, the Headship Principle. There are many different interpretations of the specifics in this passage, but they broadly fall into three basic approaches, here listed with the usual application of each interpretation immediately following:

1) Cultural: Paul expected the Corinthian women to wear something on their heads for cultural reasons specific to that time and place. Therefore women should enhance their femininity by adorning themselves in ways appropriate to the culture in which they live.

2) Figurative: Paul explained that to properly depict the created headship order, women should have long hair, and men should have short hair. Therefore men should keep the hair on their heads cut short, and women should keep the hair on their heads at its full natural length.

3) Literal: Paul is teaching here a basic New Testament principle that women should have a covering on their heads, and that men should not, whenever prophesying or praying. Therefore Christian women should customarily wear their hair under a distinctive covering of a sort which Christian men never wear.

Now, all three approaches have their problems, but the main problem in approaches #1 and #3 is internal inconsistency. Let's look at these two individually.

Approach #1, to begin with, focuses on the women, even though men and women are equally the topic of discussion. What is a man to not wear in order to comply with his culture and proclaim his masculinity? Well, a hat, if he is preaching, praying, or pledging in virtually any culture that isn't Jewish or Muslim. But where does that leave the woman--must she put on a hat, just to be fair? Then we're right back to Approach #3. It's very difficult to remain Cultural and still apply the interpretation equally to both sexes.

Approach #3 suffers from the same inconsistency, in that the standard is applied unequally to women. Men can fit right in with their culture, as above, by removing their hats to preach, pray, or pledge. Women, on the other hand, have to wear their coverings all the time. In fact, the men even have a hard time complying with the requirement to always pray bareheaded; it just isn't practical sometimes. Nor, for that matter, is it practical for the women to always get the official covering on their heads before launching into prayer at any time of the day or night. These are not rare problems, but common ones.

Now looking again at both approaches, we see that they are not internally consistent. Approach #1 works great for women, but it has to appropriate some of the literalness of Approach #3 in order to apply at all to men. In the same way, Approach #3 has to appropriate from Approach #1 the requirement to comply with the expectations of the culture. An internally consistent application of Approach #3 would require of the men only that they never wear their wives' prayer coverings, which is really no requirement at all.

Approach #2 may have other problems, but internal inconsistency is not one of them. Every man is able to have short hair all the time, and every woman is able to have uncut hair all the time (with some obvious rare exceptions that Paul scarcely need mention in depicting the general principle). This does take work, with both sexes under the equal responsibility to maintain their respective coiffures.

And indeed it is men who by nature tend to loose the hair on their heads, not women; thus the requirement is even by nature equally enforceable to both sexes. Just consider the typical reactions of a man and woman, respectively, who loses all his or her hair. The man more often than not just takes it in stride as a natural by-product of his masculinity; the woman, on the other hand, goes to great lengths to hide her shame. It's natural, folks. God made it that way.

This view, far more than the other two, is rooted in a created difference between the sexes. Do not all drawings of Adam & Eve correctly depict them with short and long hair respectively? And from the earliest age of cognition, boys and girls can proclaim the created order with their respective hair lengths whether awake or asleep, dressed or undressed; and they need not await attaining the age of accountability, much less adulthood.

More on the Eighth Day

The Eighth Day, it turns out, comprises an entire division of theological study. Apparently it was appropriated by Christians very early on as a designation of their favoured day of worship. This is what the Epistle of Barnabas has to say:

Chapter 15
8 Finally He saith to them; Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot away with. Ye see what is His meaning ; it is not your present Sabbaths that are acceptable [unto Me], but the Sabbath which I have made, in the which, when I have set all things at rest, I will make the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another world.
9 Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which also Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascended into the heavens.

It is noteworthy, in regards to the previous post, that there is no extant copy of the Septuagint bearing a Psalm dedicated to The Eighth Day. Instead all we are left with are a couple of Psalms (6 and 12) in which the musical notation al-hasheminith is translated as `uper ths ogdonhs. The original Hebrew probably referred to eight strings or perhaps eight notes; this was lost in the translation of "upon the eighth" and apparently was later interpreted as having something to do with the eighth day.

Barnabus wrote in the 2nd century; thus it is very clear that long before Constantines' decree, Christians considered the weekly Lord's Day (to which was eventually tied the annual Pascha, completing the break from the Lunar Sabbath) to have superceded all the feasts of Judaism, right down to the New Moon and Sabbath.

Witness Tertullian, writing Against Marcion at the dawn of the 3rd century:

When, again, he [Paul] mentioned “certain false brethren as having crept in unawares,” who wished to remove the Galatians into another gospel, he himself shows that that adulteration of the gospel was not meant to transfer them to the faith of another god and christ, but rather to perpetuate the teaching of the law; because he blames them for maintaining circumcision, and observing times, and days, and months, and years, according to those Jewish ceremonies which they ought to have known were now abrogated, according to the new dispensation purposed by the Creator Himself, who of old foretold this very thing by His prophets. Thus He says by Isaiah: Old things have passed away. “Behold, I will do a new thing.” And in another passage: “I will make a new covenant, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt.” In like manner by Jeremiah: Make to yourselves a new covenant, “circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart.” It is this circumcision, therefore, and this renewal, which the apostle insisted on, when he forbade those ancient ceremonies concerning which their very founder announced that they were one day to cease; thus by Hosea: “I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast-days, her new moons, and her Sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.” So likewise by Isaiah: “The new moons, and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; your holy days, and fasts, and feast-days, my soul hateth.” Now, if even the Creator had so long before discarded all these things, and the apostle was now proclaiming them to be worthy of renunciation, the very agreement of the apostle’s meaning with the decrees of the Creator proves that none other God was preached by the apostle than He whose purposes he now wished to have recognised, branding as false both apostles and brethren, for the express reason that they were pushing back the gospel of Christ the Creator from the new condition which the Creator had foretold, to the old one which He had discarded.

And, bringing us up to date, here is the Offical Roman Catholic take on the subject, from their Catechism:

2174 Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week." Because it is the "first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath, it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica)--Sunday: We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day (after the Jewish sabbath, but also the first day) when God, separating matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead.

Ussher's Chronology explained and defended

Any work setting out to be a defence of Ussher's Chronology will inevitably be greeted with scorn. For some reason, any mention of Ussher tends to bring out the wild-eyed fanatic in his opponents. Yet Ussher's name continues to be dragged into a wide variety of scientific discussions, and almost always in a way that sets at defiance the actual facts of history. Thus in defending and explaining Ussher, I am defending and explaining the facts of history--nothing more.

During his lifetime, Usshur was outstanding as a theologian, textual critic, linguist, and historian. But he is known today as a historian--and only for one of his works, though he actually wrote three compendious histories in all. The one for which he became so infamous was his final one, a universal history written in retirement during the final years of his life; it wasn't actually released in his native language until after his death.

To start out with, I'll allow a hostile witness to explain the facts concerning how Annals was compiled:

"James Ussher (1581-1656) was the Anglican archbishop of Armagh Ireland, and "Primate of All Ireland", meaning the head of the Anglican church in Ireland. He was one of the most respected scholars and theologians of his time, and traveled widely in search of original documents, or at least the oldest versions of them he could find. The many books and documents he collected through his life were to form the nucleus of the great library at Trinity College in Armagh.
"Ussher is primarily known today for his chronological work, in particular for the precise date he fixed for the Creation of the world. This date is so often misquoted, usually to get a cheap chuckle from the reader or a lecture audience, that I think it is worth not only putting Ussher's work in its proper historical perspective, but also to make his words on the matter available for people to read for themselves.
"Contrary to popular misconception, Ussher did not simply count up years by following who begat whom in the Book of Genesis. Rather, he undertook a careful, critical synthesis of historical documents including Biblical, Middle Eastern and Mediterranean sources, knowledge of the calendrical systems of antiquity, Roman history, and any ancient documentary sources he could get acquire and verify (then as now the lucrative traffic in antiquities lead to numerous counterfeits in circulation). His scholarship was impeccable, and the end of that scholarship was not so much to fix the date of Creation (although that was the one result we remember), but rather to compile as complete and historically correct a chronology of human history as the documentary evidence would allow. It is well to remember that in the 17th century this was a topic of great scholarly interest, as it is now. Ussher was instrumental in putting this endeavor on a sound scholarly basis, as well as for exposing numerous counterfeit documents. "

Now, as one who has actually read the entire section of Annals which corresponds to the Old Testament, I grant that not all will find his scholarship impeccable. It does seem to come out just a little bit too neat and tidy that his date for Creation was exactly 4000 years prior to the birth of the Messiah. Neat, I say, because he had to make several assumptions to make it come out this exactly, and he always assumed in the direction of so doing. Tidy, I say, because it follows a long line of chronologers who likewise came out with dates that dovetailed nicely with their own theological presuppositions. So what may not have been all so impeccable about his scholarship was his failure to make full disclosure of his theologically-based propensity to schematize. In so failing to do, alas, he was no worse than any other chronologer that comes to mind, even though his final results differed from most of theirs.

Now when I say that Ussher made assumptions, I mean the sort that could have thrown off his chronology by a year or two here, and a decade or two there. At only one juncture is there so much leeway as a century or two, and that is the date of the Exodus, and that is just as much a textual problem as it is a historical one. Regardless of what scheme one follows, the evidence simply does not allow for the leeway of multiple millennia favored by those who scornfully reject Ussher's scholarship.

Without further ado, here is a list (from Batten, quoting Young, quoting Hales) of multiple chronologies compiled and interpreted by multiple scholars. Note that Ussher was both preceded and followed by ecclesiastical chronologers whose dates mostly differ from his by less than the 215-year slippage allowed by the variant texts of Exodus 12:41, to say nothing of the two-millenia discrepancy between the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Greek recensions of Genesis.

The Original Historian is given first, often followed by some identifying information such as (date). Any name which follows it is that of the scholar that compiled a chronology based on information in the History. If only one name is given, such as Ussher, a modern historian himself compiled a chronology. Lastly the derived BCE year of Creation is given. Note that Ussher's date is virtually the only one for which any two historians could find agreement, in keeping with the level of scholarship he championed. Some of the dates in the margin of the Scofield Reference Bible don't even line up exactly with Ussher's, following instead those of Bishop Lloyd.


Alfonso X (Spain, 1200s) Muller 6984
Alfonso X (Spain, 1200s) Strauchius 6484
India Gentil 6204
India Arab records 6174
Babylonia Bailly, John Silvain (French astronomer, 1736–1793) 6158
China Bailly 6157
Diogenes Laertius (Greece 3rd Cent.) Playfair 6138
Egypt Bailly 6081
Septuagint (LXX) Albufaragi 5586
Josephus (1st Century Jew) Playfair 5555
Septuagint Scaliger, Joseph (Fr. classical scholar, 1540–1609) 5508
Persia Bailly 5507
Chronicle of Axum, Abyssinian Bruce (1700s) 5500
Jews per Julius Africanus Bruce 5500
Josephus Jackson 5481
Jackson 5426
Hales 5411
Josephus Hales 5402
India Megasthenes Greek historian (c. 340–282 bc) 5369
Talmudists Petrus Alliacens 5344
Septuagint, Vatican 5270
Bede (673–735) Strauchius 5199
Josephus Univ. Hist. 4698
Samaritan computation Scaliger 4427
Samaritan text Univ. Hist. 4305
Hebrew (Masoretic) text 4161
Playfair and Walker 4008
Ussher, Spanheim, Calmet, Blair, etc. 4004
Kepler (Astronomer, 1571–1630) Playfair 3993
Petavius (France, 1583–1652) 3984
Melanchthon (Reformer, 1500s) Playfair 3964
Luther (Reformer, 1500s) 3961
Lightfoot 3960
Cornelius a Lapide Univ. Hist. 3951
Scaliger, Isaacson 3950
Strauchius 3949
Vulgar Jewish computation Strauchius 3760
Rabbi Lipman (1579–1654) Univ. Hist. 3616

Now, astronomer Richard Pogge, the author I first cited as a hostile witness, is unable to account for this. "Why," he asks, "do they all get a date of around 4000BC? One possible explanation is that this date is within a millennium of the invention of writing, and thus within a millennium of the earliest historical records. "
This explanation stands in opposition to the oft-repeated objection of Clarence Darrow--that numerous human civilizations go back past the 4000 BCE date--which isn't mentioned by our hostile witness. No matter, Darrow himself was as hostile as they come, and he made it a central piece of his defense of Scopes:
* * *
Darrow confronts Bryan with a series of questions suggesting that Ussher’s and Bryan’s date for Creation could not be reconciled with archaeological knowledge. “Don’t you know that the ancient civilizations of China are 6,000 or 7,000 years old, at the very least?” Darrow asks. “No, but they would not run back beyond the creation, according to the Bible, 6,000 years,” Bryan insists. “Have you any idea how old the Egyptian civilization is?” Darrow asks. “No,” the exasperated witness replies. Darrow continues, asking questions he knows Bryan could not answer. How old is Buddhism? Zorosterism? “How many people were on this earth 3,000 years ago?” Bryan fumbles his answers. Darrow scolds: “Did you ever try to find out?” Bryan begs, “When you display my ignorance, could you give the fact so I would not be ignorant any longer? Can you tell me how many people there were when Christ was born?” Darrow replies, meanly, “You know, some of us might get the facts and still be ignorant.”
Asked once again, whether he “ever tried to find out” an answer to one of Darrow’s many questions about the ancient world, Bryan tries a different tact: humor. “You are the first person I ever heard of who has been interested in it.” Darrow snaps back, “Where have you lived all your life?” “Not near you,” replies Bryan, to laughter and applause. “Nor near anybody of learning?” Darrow rejoins. Bryan, having had enough, replies: “Oh, don’t assume you know it all.”
Turning from the ages of civilization to the ages of the earth, Darrow asks Bryan if he could tell him “how old the earth is.” Bryan, somewhat surprisingly, replies, “No sir, I couldn’t.” He adds that he “could possibly come as near as the scientists do” to guessing the date, but declines the attempt. Then he offers, helpfully, that a scientist at Oberlin College figured that “man has appeared since the last ice age.” Darrow asks Bryan, “When was the last ice age?” Bryan does not know, but guesses: “It was more than 6,000 years ago.” This remark prompts Darrow to return to Ussher’s date for Creation, 4004 B.C. But Bryan now distances himself from Ussher’s chronology. He insists that “the Bible itself” doesn’t say Creation occurred in 4004 B.C.—rather, “that is Bishop Ussher’s calculation.”
Then Bryan makes a concession that delights the defense and would trouble many of his fundamentalist supporters. Darrow asks, “Do you think the earth was made in six days?” “Not six days of twenty-four hours,” answers Bryan. When fellow prosecutor Thomas Stewart rises and demands that the judge stop this examination “in the name of all that is legal,” defense lawyer Arthur Garfield Hays argues that Bryan’s concession on the length of creation was vital to the defense: “Mr. Bryan has already stated that the world is not merely 6,000 years old and that is very helpful to us.”
* * *

James Ussher's library consisted of over 10,000 volumes, all published before the first printing press ever found its way to what later became the great centers of publishing: New York, Philadelphia, Chicago. Imagine a library of that size and vintage in anyone's possession today! He pored through them all, seeking to compile every known ancient history into one coherent whole, tying together dates from the various dynasties of many ancient civilizations to the one document that gives a coherent history of all ancient time, from the marriage of the very first human couple right down to the days of the great ancient historians. It was truly a spectacular accomplishment, and one that has never been bettered. Ussher's dates have remained in continuous use ever since, and his book is even now back in print, while those of many who preceded or followed him have long been lost in oblivion.

Yes, much data has emerged since the 1650's that would aid in compiling a replacement for Ussher's--the Mayan Long Count to give one example in particular. But at the same time, some of the ancient works Ussher cited have since been lost forever--the Irish history Cin Droma Snechta in particular, which would be of special value to secularists because it was officially compiled prior to the Christianization of Ireland. Or would it? Before it was lost forever, it was found to give a Creation Date that corresponds to 5208 BCE.

So, let those who deride Ussher do the research he did, interpret even more historical dates than he had access to, and make sense of them all better than he could. Then, and only then, do they deserve a hearing.

Should anyone quibble with Ussher on any particular date, claiming him to be off by a few years, that is nothing new or newsworthy. Just look at the above list--even it is far from exhaustive--and you will see that many authors have gone out of print over the centuries having put their hand to just that. Join them if you will.

UPDATE MAY 2011:
Considering that Ussher had been dead over 250 years when I wrote this over 4 years ago, it's amazing that this post continues to draw way more hits than a lot of my more recent posts. So I should probably add here that Joseph Scaliger, referred to above, was a generation older than Ussher and preceded him in a lot of the research that culminated in Annals of the World. It was Scaliger, for instance, who discovered the Julian Period which was central to Ussher's chronology. Chronology was a huge interest at that time because of the changeover from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, the first major calendar change in 1600 years. Scaliger also preceded Ussher's text-critical studies, being the father of modern textual criticism.  But for whatever reasons, it has been Ussher, not Scaliger, who has received the brunt of modern scorn for his scholarship. Sic semper ignoramus.

The Lunar Week explained and defended

Understanding the Lunar Week is essential to constructing an accurate ancient chronology of the Semitic nations. To my knowledge, this has not yet been done, as proponents of the Lunar Week have primarily been Sabbatarians seeking the support of ancient history for their theology. Witness Troy Miller, here demonstrating that he has done the extensive research necessary to support the Lunar Sabbath in antiquity. Among the sources he references is Rutgers Sociology Professor Eviatar Zerubavel's The Seven Day Circle (1985), which dismisses the historical portions of the Old Testament as Post-Exilic Mythology.

Simply put, the Lunar Week Theory, and the Sabbatarian Lunisolar Calandar that it produces, contradicts the conventional idea that the week is an artificial construct of human thinking with no correlation to astronomical observation. Instead it focuses on a variable week anchored to the four phases of the moon, consisting of four sets of six work days, followed by a day of rest, intercalated with one or two New Moon Days before the cycle begins again. Each month begins at the moment the moon passes directly behind the earth from the perspective of the sun, and is proclaimed by the disappearance of the waning crescent moon. The first counted day of the month is always the first day of the week, and is calculated by the appearance of the waxing crescent moon alternately one or two days later (due to the fact that a month is actually 29½ days long).

Here is how the Sabbatarian Lunisolar Calandar would play out over the course of the 21 years that it would take for it to finally synchronise with the Solar Year:

Year 1
Month 1: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 2: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 3: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 4: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 5: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 6: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 7: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 8: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 9: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 10: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 11: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 12: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Total: 354 days (48 weeks) v. 365

Year 2
Month 1: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 2: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 3: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 4: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 5: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 6: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 7: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 8: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 9: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 10: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 11: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 12: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Total: 354 days (48 weeks) v. 365 Running Total: 708 days v. 730

Year 3
Month 1: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 2: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 3: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 4: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 5: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 6: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 7: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 8: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 9: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 10: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 11: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 12: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 13: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Total: 383 days (52 weeks) v. 365 Running Total: 1091 v. 1095

Year 4:
Month 1: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 2: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 3: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 4: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 5: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 6: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 7: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 8: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 9: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 10: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 11: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 12: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Total: 354 days (48 weeks) v. 366 Running Total: 1445 vs. 1461

Year 5:
Month 1: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 2: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 3: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 4: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 5: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 6: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 7: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 8: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 9: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 10: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 11: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 12: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Total: 354 days (48 weeks) v. 365 Running Total: 1799 v. 1826

Year 6
Month 1: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 2: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 3: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 4: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 5: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 6: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 7: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 8: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 9: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 10: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 11: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 12: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 13: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Total: 384 days (52 weeks) v. 365 Running Total: 2183 v. 2191

Year 7
Month 1: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 2: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 3: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 4: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 5: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 6: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 7: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 8: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 9: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 10: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 11: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 12: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Total: 354 days (48 weeks) v. 365 Running Total: 2537 v. 2556

Year 8
Month 1: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 2: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 3: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 4: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 5: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 6: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 7: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 8: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 9: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 10: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 11: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 12: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Total: 354 days (48 weeks) v. 366 Running Total: 2891 v. 2922

Year 9
Month 1: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 2: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 3: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 4: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 5: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 6: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 7: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 8: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 9: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 10: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 11: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 12: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 13: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Total: 383 days (52 weeks) v. 365 Running Total: 3274 v. 3287

Year 10
Month 1: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 2: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 3: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 4: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 5: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 6: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 7: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 8: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 9: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 10: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 11: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 12: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Total: 354 days (48 weeks) v. 365 Running Total: 3628 v. 3652

Year 11
Month 1: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 2: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 3: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 4: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 5: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 6: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 7: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 8: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 9: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 10: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 11: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 12: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Total: 354 days (48 weeks) v. 365 Running Total: 3982 v. 4017

Year 12
Month 1: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 2: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 3: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 4: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 5: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 6: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 7: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 8: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 9: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 10: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 11: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 12: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 13: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Total: 384 days (52 weeks) v. 366 Running Total: 4366 v. 4383

Year 13
Month 1: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 2: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 3: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 4: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 5: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 6: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 7: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 8: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 9: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 10: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 11: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 12: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Total: 354 days (48 weeks) v. 365 Running Total: 4720 v. 4748

Year 14
Month 1: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 2: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 3: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 4: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 5: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 6: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 7: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 8: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 9: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 10: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 11: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 12: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 13: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Total: 383 days (52 weeks) v. 365 Running Total: 5103 v. 5113

Year 15
Month 1: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 2: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 3: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 4: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 5: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 6: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 7: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 8: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 9: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 10: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 11: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 12: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Total: 354 days (48 weeks) v. 365 Running Total: 5457 v. 5478

Year 16
Month 13: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 1: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 2: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 3: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 4: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 5: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 6: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 7: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 8: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 9: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 10: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 11: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 12: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 13: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Total: 384 days v. 366 (52 weeks) Running Total: 5841 v. 5844

Year 17
Month 1: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 2: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 3: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 4: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 5: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 6: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 7: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 8: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 9: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 10: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 11: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 12: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Total: 354 Days v. 365 Running Total: 6195 v. 6209

Year 18
Month 1: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 2: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 3: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 4: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 5: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 6: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 7: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 8: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 9: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 10: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 11: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 12: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Total: 354 days (48 weeks) v. 365 Running Total: 6549 v. 6574

Year 19
Month 1: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 2: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 3: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 4: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 5: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 6: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 7: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 8: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 9: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 10: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 11: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 12: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 13: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Total: 383 days (52 weeks) v. 365 Running Total: 6932 v. 6939

Year 20
Month 1: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 2: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 3: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 4: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 5: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 6: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 7: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 8: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 9: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 10: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 11: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 12: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Total: 354 days (48 weeks) v. 366 Running Total: 7286 v. 7305

Year 21
Month 1: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 2: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 3: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 4: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 5: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 6: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 7: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 8: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 9: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 10: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 11: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Month 12: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 1 New Moon: 29
Month 13: 24 week days, 4 Sabbaths, 2 New Moon: 30
Total: 384 days v. 365 (52 weeks) Running Total: 7670 both ways

[Note: This was an early attempt to make things match. Actually, every 3 years the Lunisolar Calendar drops one day behind due to the new moon actually coming 44 minutes later each month (the lunation period is 29.5305977 days). So the two calendars probably don't synchronise until the 29th year.]

[So these averages will all have to be recalculated]
Annual average over 21 years (At 105 years it is one day ahead of Solar):
365.238095 days (a little short, but it gains due to skipping leap years 3 centuries out of 4)
49.5238 "weeks" (due to the "weeks" being on average, 7.3845 days long)
12.381 months (due to the months being only 4 "weeks" long)
297.142857 work days (not counting Festivals)
18.5714857 New Moon days

As you can see, one frustrating thing about this system is the arithmetic: there are not a set number of days, weeks or months in a year. The only constant is that there are always four weeks in a month. And that is, after all, something to be defended; the "Second Friday of the month," for example, would always fall on the 14th. Monthly, bimonthly, and weekly pay schedules would all coincide, with 6 work days every week and 24 every month. Twenty-four days of work would always pay for a month's rent. Holidays would not cycle through the week, but would always fall on the same day, usually the Sabbath.

What sort of wages did 300 denarii represent? Those of an average year, at one a day, rounded out to the nearest week.

How does this fit with the Old Testament Festival schedule? Let's find out:

Preparation for Passover: Month 1, Day 10 (Second Day). (Ex. 12:3)
Passover: Month 1, Day 14-15 (Sixth Day p.m.). A sort of half-holiday, like "Good Friday." Food preparation is absolutely not compatible with Sabbath activity. Eating it at sunset is.
Matzo: Month 1, Days 15-21 (Sabbath to Sixth Day); Last day is a holiday (Ex. 12:16).
First Fruits: Month 1, Days 15-16 (just as Sabbath ends to First day, see Lev. 25:11)
First Sabbath: Month 1, Day 22 (first Sabbath after Matzo, see Luke 6:1)
Feast of Weeks: This is so complicated I'll save it for another post (or perhaps edit later)!
Feast of Trumpets: Month 7, Day 1 (New Moon)
Day of Atonement: Month 7, Day 10 (Second Day, Eve to Eve) A holiday (Lev. 23:28-32).
Feast of Booths: Month 7, Days 15-22 (Sabbath to Sabbath, as stated in Lev. 25:39)
Purim: Month 12, Day 14-15 (Sabbath Eve & Sabbath) Observed either day (Esther 9:17-18)

Note that with few exceptions, the feasts coincide with a Sabbath or a New Moon--days when no ordinary work would be done anyway. In two of them (Passover & Atonement), the 10th of the month appears to be significant in that it contained activities inappropriate for the weekly Sabbath (fasting, for example--see Judith 8:6); in fact, the 10th day of the month always falls on the second day of the week.

In conclusion, considering the evidence, the Lunar Week seems an adequate template by which to interpret many chronological passages of the Bible. Much more work remains to be done in seeing how this template may change our interpretation of such things as Passion Week in particular. Anyone ever heard of the Wednesday Crucifixion Theory?

UPDATE AUGUST 2014:
Lately I've been reading The Book of Jubilees and found that this Midrash, written in the late 2nd century BC, polemicises in favour of a 13-quarter solar calendar (which, as Julius Caesar discovered, didn't work by the 1st century BC):


2.4. Solar Calendar
The proper method of marking the passage of time is the “movements” of the sun (solar calendar) (6:23-31); in fact this was one the purposes for which the sun was created (2:9). This means that the year is to be 364 days long, consisting of four quarters of 13 weeks (13 x 7 = 91 days; 4 x 91 = 364 days) (see 6:32-38). This calendar includes four “days of remembrance” after the solstices and the equinoxes (6:23-29). This solar calendar is equally divisible by seven into fifty-two weeks, which means that the Sabbaths and the festival days will always fall on the same day of the month for every year. These four units of thirteen weeks are each also divided into three non-lunar months of thirty days each (360 days); to these twelve months are added the "days of remembrance" before the the first, fourth, seventh and tenth months (360 + 4 = 364 days) (6:23-29). Since God created the sun on the fourth day, the year must always begin on a Wednesday (Gen 1:14-19). The festivals always fall on the same day of the week and same day of the month each year, which is never on the Sabbath. (As already indicated, there is a probable reference to 1 En. 72-82 in Jub. 4:17.) The larger units of marking the passing of time are the “week” (period of seven years) and the jubilee (7 x 7 = 49 years). The fiftieth year is the biblical year of jubilee. Throughout the Book of Jubilees, the author attempts to date all significant events by this method dating by weeks (seven year periods) and jubilees (forty-nine year periods). What is rejected is the lunar calendar consisting of 354 days, with six months having twenty-eight days and six months having twenty-nine days.

 

The Eighth Day

One of the earliest extant works of early Christianity is the letter of Ignatius to the Magnesians, first composed around the turn of the second century. In one edition of this epistle--the long one, which has wider textual support--Ignatius quotes from the Septuagintal Psalms in reference to a solemnizing of "The Eighth Day." The quote goes as follows:

56 Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for "he that does not work, let him not eat."57 For say the [holy] oracles, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread."58 But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them.59 And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, "To the end, for the eighth day. . ."

"The Eighth Day" thus seems to be a primitive Christian reference to what the pagans of the time called The Day of the Sun and is now referred to throughout Christendom as either a translation of the same, or of hmera kuriou, "The Lord's Day." Where outside of Christendom it is not called "Heaven Day" (as it is in China), and in the few sects that eschew naming days altogether, it is still referred to by its original designation as "The First Day."

Why would Christians not start over with one, but carry over one more day in the week by calling the first day "the eighth?"

It's pretty clear to me that this was a reference to the original such day, when Christians first gathered together in the name of the risen Lord--although they didn't realize at the time that is what they were doing. Observe the significance of "the eighth day" in Scripture:


Leviticus 12:3
And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

Leviticus 23:36
Seven days ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD: on the eighth day shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD: it is a solemn assembly; and ye shall do no servile work therein.

Numbers 29:35
On the eighth day ye shall have a solemn assembly: ye shall do no servile work therein:

Nehemiah 8:18
Also day by day, from the first day unto the last day, he read in the book of the law of God. And they kept the feast seven days; and on the eighth day was a solemn assembly, according unto the manner.

Ezekiel 43:27
And when these days are expired, it shall be, that upon the eighth day, and so forward, the priests shall make your burnt offerings upon the altar, and your peace offerings; and I will accept you, saith the Lord GOD.


Luke 9:28
And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.

John 20:26
And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

So we note that The Eighth Day always denotes some sort of meeting: Firstly, a small family or community meeting to celebrate the birth, circumcision, and naming of a son. This was given through Abraham. Then, a solemn assembly of the entire people of Israel to conclude the Passover week. This was given through Moses. Finally, a gathering together of believers to enjoy the presence of the Lord. This was initiated by Jesus himself when he joined the disciples for a meeting on the eighth day after his resurrection. And it is evident that from that original meeting to now, Christ's disciples have again met to gather every eight days, on the eighth day, to share his peace.

Note: Nowadays we would say "every seven days on the first day" but the meaning is the same. Middle Eastern time orientation of that period counted any part of the initial day as the first, the next day as the second, and the following as the third; for a total of three days, even if only 24 hours and 1 minute are involved. We do not now consider "the day after tomorrow" to be the "third" day, but the "second." Thus our present difficulty in grasping how Jesus could have risen on the "third" day less than two days, according to our reckoning, after he died.

Another implication of this way of thinking is that a boy should be circumcised a week, not a week and a day, after birth. The Sunday following a previous Sunday is "the eighth day."

1. Sunday
2. Monday
3. Tuesday
4. Wednesday
5. Thursday
6. Friday
7. Saturday
8. Sunday

Life Imitates Art: The assasination of JFK Jr.

When I heard of two hijacked airplanes being flown into commercial buildings in New York City, and another into the Pentagon, my first thought was that events foreshadowed in Tom Clancy's novel Debt of Honor were actually coming to pass. Imagine my surprise when the U.S. National Security Advisor assured the press that there had been no way whatsoever for the US intelligence apparatus to foresee an airline jet being flown into a building! As it turns out, this was a bald lie, as the subsequently released Memo of August 6 showed.

In an interesting turn of events, Clancy emerged in the aftermath as a defender of Islamic polity, but neither for this, nor for allegedly inciting the murderous airline attack on the Pentagon through his fictitious depiction, were Clancy or his ex-wife subject to a heavy-handed investigation by the BATFX [UPDATE Dec. 2014: but he did die under suspicious circumstances in 2013].

In Act of Treason, writer Vince Flynn depicts a scenario in which the vice-presidential candidate arranges for an attack on the campaign motorcade, resulting in the deaths of several Secret Service agents, along with the future First Lady, an event which propels his running-mate into the presidency on a sympathy vote.

Now, why is it that so many readers will find this plot line perfectly believable, but be unwilling to entertain the possibility that presidential candidate George W. Bush was instrumental in the 2000 assassination of JFK Jr. ?

That's apparently part of the scenario depicted in a new book announced today: Pilot Error or Political Terror? by an anonymous Texan aviation expert.

Oh, by the way--it's not fiction.

Update Cinco de Mayo, Twenty Ten: The book was apparently never published, but the story is far from dead; it's just been hard to keep an active link on this post. Click on the title for the latest one.

Women have long hair and wear dresses

--At least according to the new walk signals on the streets of Madrid, Spain.

This, despite the fact that the ethnic group most likely to put their women in dresses (Muslims) do not present a clearly distinct profile between their men and women; other than that a man is more likely to wear pants rather than a robe, and a woman is more likely to wear a dress over her pants than pants without a dress; also, that a man is much more likely to appear without his head wrapped up than a woman would, and a woman so appearing is still more than likely to have long hair.

Sound confusing? It is, but no one is confused by a profile of a figure wearing a dress to the knees: It's the universal symbol for a female.

Even in cultures where the women normally wear pants.

UPDATE APRIL 2016: This is finally changing. I received a report of a unisex bathroom in South Africa that depicted two profiles side by side: one with narrower shoulders and wide hips, the other with wider shoulders and narrower hips. There was no discernible difference in hair or dress.