3-3-2-3-3-3-2

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
56 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Aristeo Fernando-3
The Jewish calendar, at present, is a lunisolar calendar.  To keep it with the seasons, it intercalates a month in the third, sixth, eighth, eleventh, fourteenth, seventeenth, nineteenth years in a 19-year Metonic cycle.  That is 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2.  Three yeas between 0 and 3, 3 and 6, 8 and 11, 11 and 14, and 14 and 17 years; and two years between 6 and 8, and 17 and 19 years.

The Jews reformed their calendars in 358 AD to a calendar what we have today.

Is it possible that they made a wrong choice, 3-3-2 instead of 3-3-3-2, when they reformed their calendars?
  
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Irv Bromberg
Irv replies:

No, their choice was correct and optimal at the time, as I have explained in detail here:

http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/hebrew/drift.htm

In particular, use your web browser to find "3 3 2 3 3 3 2" in the text.

Your phrase "To keep it with the seasons" is rather vague, and is incorrect/misguided, as I have also explained on the above cited web page.

It doesn't make sense to change the pattern to "correct" the calendar's rather fast drift relative to the astronomical northward equinox, because a similar correction would be needed again about every 3+1/2 centuries -- specifically the truncation of a 19-year cycle to only 11 years by skipping an 8-year octaeteris. Instead, as I explain on the above cited web page, simply switching to a 353-year cycle with 130 leap years per cycle will automatically perform these periodic corrections, maintaining good astronomical accuracy until the 11th millennium of the Hebrew calendar, or, if the molad is also reformed to make it like the progressive molad that I propose, then accuracy will be extended until the 14th millennium of the Hebrew calendar. (We are presently in the 6th millennium.)

Note that each 353-year cycle is identical to 9 repeats of a 19-year cycle, then in the middle a truncated 11-year subcycle (omitting an octaeteris), and then another 9 repeats of a 19-year cycle (which will automatically have a shifted leap year pattern due to the omission of the octaeteris).

-- Dr. Irv Bromberg, University of Toronto, Canada

http://www.sym454.org/hebrew/


From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [[hidden email]] on behalf of Aristeo Fernando [[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 00:02

The Jewish calendar, at present, is a lunisolar calendar.  To keep it with the seasons, it intercalates a month in the third, sixth, eighth, eleventh, fourteenth, seventeenth, nineteenth years in a 19-year Metonic cycle.  That is 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2.  Three yeas between 0 and 3, 3 and 6, 8 and 11, 11 and 14, and 14 and 17 years; and two years between 6 and 8, and 17 and 19 years.

The Jews reformed their calendars in 358 AD to a calendar what we have today.

Is it possible that they made a wrong choice, 3-3-2 instead of 3-3-3-2, when they reformed their calendars?
  
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Karl Palmen
In reply to this post by Aristeo Fernando-3

Dear Aristeo, Irv and Calendar People

 

I reply below

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Aristeo Fernando
Sent: 06 September 2016 05:03
To: [hidden email]
Subject: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

 

The Jewish calendar, at present, is a lunisolar calendar.  To keep it with the seasons, it intercalates a month in the third, sixth, eighth, eleventh, fourteenth, seventeenth, nineteenth years in a 19-year Metonic cycle.  That is 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2.  Three yeas between 0 and 3, 3 and 6, 8 and 11, 11 and 14, and 14 and 17 years; and two years between 6 and 8, and 17 and 19 years.

The Jews reformed their calendars in 358 AD to a calendar what we have today.

Is it possible that they made a wrong choice, 3-3-2 instead of 3-3-3-2, when they reformed their calendars?

 

KARL ASKS: What did Aristeo really mean?

 

I don’t think he meant 3-3-2-3-3-3-2 (current) instead of 3-3-3-2-3-3-3-2 (suggested), because that would indicate (two of) a less accurate 11-year cycle of 136 months.

May be Aristeo meant 3-3-2-3-3-3-2 (current) instead of 3-3-3-2-3-3-2 (suggested).  Then we have the current cycle but with year 9 a leap year instead of year 8.

Is this (year 9 instead of year 8 a leap year) what Aristeo means?

 

The cycles of 3-3-2-3-3-3-2 and 3-3-3-2-3-3-2 are equally (in)accurate. The issue here seems to be the alignment of month of Nisan with the Northward equinox. This issue was dealt with on this list during 2-5 April 2013 and the conclusion was that the current leap month cycle was set to make the 15th Nisan the first 15th day of a month after the Northward Equinox around 800 CE, which is somewhat later than the time the current rules were first used (about 400 CE).

 

Ariel Cohen stated “I also claim that in the 4th century the order of the leap month was 3,5,8,11,14,16,19” and I did calculations concerning that, which can be seen in the E-mails I sent to the list at that time (2-5 Apr 2013). These calculations led to the following list:

 

Here I list possible nineteen year cycles and the years they’d be accurately aligned taking account of the doubt about when the current cycle would have been accurately aligned:

3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 16, 19 -750 to 50 (may be around -250)

3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, 19 -400 to 400 (may be around 100) Ariel Cohen’s cycle

3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16, 19  -50 to 750  (may be around 450)  

3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, 19  300 to 1100 (may be around 800) current cycle

3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 17, 19  650 to 1450 (may be around 1150) Aristeo’s Cycle?

1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 17 1000 to 1800 (may be around 1500)

1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 14, 17 1350 to 2150 (may be around 1850)

1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 14, 17 1700 to 2500 (may be around 2200)

The year in italic is the year after the year with the earliest Northward Equinox date in Nisan.

 

If one changed from each of these cycles to the next one, once every 353 years, one would get the 353-year cycle that Irv has suggested.

 

 

I also notice that the cycle (3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 17, 19), which Aristeo seems to have suggested, has the latest possible leap years, given that the leap years are spaced as smoothly as possible.

This makes year Y a leap year if and only if

 

Remainder( 7*Y ) divided by 19 is less than 7

 

Whereas the current cycle has

 

Remainder( 7*Y + 1 ) divided by 19 is less than 7

 

The formula for the month that year Y begins (counted from epoch) is similarly simplified.

 

May this is the only reason that Aristeo chose this cycle and the alignment of Nisan with respect to the northward equinox was not a consideration.

 

 

Karl

 

16(01(05

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Karl Palmen
In reply to this post by Irv Bromberg

Dear Irv, Aristeo and Calendar People

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Irv Bromberg
Sent: 06 September 2016 05:59
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

 

Irv replies:

No, their choice was correct and optimal at the time, as I have explained in detail here:

http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/hebrew/drift.htm

In particular, use your web browser to find "3 3 2 3 3 3 2" in the text.

KARL REPLIES: When I do this I find a table of three cycles. These I reckon are

 

K=3, mm=232: 3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, 19 -400 to 400 (may be around 100) Ariel Cohen’s cycle

K=2, mm=233: 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16, 19  -50 to 750  (may be around 450)  

K=1, mm=234: 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, 19  300 to 1100 (may be around 800) current cycle

as shown in previous note.

 

I think Aristeo expected the cycle K=0 mm=235, but cannot be sure because he did not provide full information. This K=0 cycle begins 3 3 3 2 and is

 

K=0, mm=235: 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 17, 19  650 to 1450 (may be around 1150) Aristeo’s cycle?

 

The years I reckoned these cycles to be well aligned are based on calculations I did 2-5 April 2013 and posted to the list and to a statement by Ariel Cohen  then, that placed the 0 for the current cycle at about year 800. The range I gave for the current cycle does not exclude year 400.

 

The notation with 2s and 3s is valid only with cycles whose final leap year is 19 (i.e. K<7). For others (including the cycle best aligned today) more information must be given to obtain the correct leap years.

 

Karl

 

16(01(05



-- Dr. Irv Bromberg, University of Toronto, Canada

http://www.sym454.org/hebrew/


From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [[hidden email]] on behalf of Aristeo Fernando [[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 00:02

The Jewish calendar, at present, is a lunisolar calendar.  To keep it with the seasons, it intercalates a month in the third, sixth, eighth, eleventh, fourteenth, seventeenth, nineteenth years in a 19-year Metonic cycle.  That is 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2.  Three yeas between 0 and 3, 3 and 6, 8 and 11, 11 and 14, and 14 and 17 years; and two years between 6 and 8, and 17 and 19 years.

The Jews reformed their calendars in 358 AD to a calendar what we have today.

Is it possible that they made a wrong choice, 3-3-2 instead of 3-3-3-2, when they reformed their calendars?
  

Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Karl Palmen
In reply to this post by Irv Bromberg

Dear Irv and Calendar People

 

IRV SAID:

Note that each 353-year cycle is identical to 9 repeats of a 19-year cycle, then in the middle a truncated 11-year sub-cycle (omitting an octaeteris), and then another 9 repeats of a 19-year cycle (which will automatically have a shifted leap year pattern due to the omission of the octaeteris).

 

But it is actually simpler than that, if you drop the requirement that the cycle is symmetrical. It’s then simply 19 repeats of the 19 year cycle in which the last is truncated to 11 years with 4 leap years (octaeteris omitted). Then the 19-year cycle is not interrupted within any one 353-year cycle.

 

However Irv did refer to a symmetrical cycle (w.r.t. start of Nisan), which I dealt with in my previous note. The truncated 11-year sub-cycle need only be inserted in the middle for this case, else it can go at the end, provided the last 8 years of the 19-year cycle have exactly 3 leap years.

 

Karl

 

16(01(05

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Irv Bromberg
Sent: 06 September 2016 05:59
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

 

Irv replies:

No, their choice was correct and optimal at the time, as I have explained in detail here:

http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/hebrew/drift.htm

In particular, use your web browser to find "3 3 2 3 3 3 2" in the text.

Your phrase "To keep it with the seasons" is rather vague, and is incorrect/misguided, as I have also explained on the above cited web page.

It doesn't make sense to change the pattern to "correct" the calendar's rather fast drift relative to the astronomical northward equinox, because a similar correction would be needed again about every 3+1/2 centuries -- specifically the truncation of a 19-year cycle to only 11 years by skipping an 8-year octaeteris. Instead, as I explain on the above cited web page, simply switching to a 353-year cycle with 130 leap years per cycle will automatically perform these periodic corrections, maintaining good astronomical accuracy until the 11th millennium of the Hebrew calendar, or, if the molad is also reformed to make it like the progressive molad that I propose, then accuracy will be extended until the 14th millennium of the Hebrew calendar. (We are presently in the 6th millennium.)

Note that each 353-year cycle is identical to 9 repeats of a 19-year cycle, then in the middle a truncated 11-year subcycle (omitting an octaeteris), and then another 9 repeats of a 19-year cycle (which will automatically have a shifted leap year pattern due to the omission of the octaeteris).

-- Dr. Irv Bromberg, University of Toronto, Canada

http://www.sym454.org/hebrew/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Irv Bromberg
Karl's simplification of the 353-year cycle offsets the intended alignment of the northward equinox relative to the month of Nisan, assuming the same calendar epoch.

Leap Month is required if the remainder of ( 130 × hYear + 269 ) / 353 is less than 130.

The 269 gave what I considered to be the optimal equinox alignment, and it so happens that it causes the 11-year subcycle to get inserted in the middle of the 353-year cycle. I wasn't striving to obtain a symmetrical cycle, and in fact the cycle isn't symmetrical at the leap year level.

Search on my web page here for the discussion about the coefficient 269:
http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/hebrew/drift.htm

-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada


From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [[hidden email]] on behalf of Karl Palmen [[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 11:12
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Dear Irv and Calendar People

 

IRV SAID:

Note that each 353-year cycle is identical to 9 repeats of a 19-year cycle, then in the middle a truncated 11-year sub-cycle (omitting an octaeteris), and then another 9 repeats of a 19-year cycle (which will automatically have a shifted leap year pattern due to the omission of the octaeteris).

 

But it is actually simpler than that, if you drop the requirement that the cycle is symmetrical. It’s then simply 19 repeats of the 19 year cycle in which the last is truncated to 11 years with 4 leap years (octaeteris omitted). Then the 19-year cycle is not interrupted within any one 353-year cycle.

 

However Irv did refer to a symmetrical cycle (w.r.t. start of Nisan), which I dealt with in my previous note. The truncated 11-year sub-cycle need only be inserted in the middle for this case, else it can go at the end, provided the last 8 years of the 19-year cycle have exactly 3 leap years.

 

Karl

 

16(01(05

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Aristeo Fernando-3
In reply to this post by Karl Palmen
Dear Karl and Calendar People,

I am not suggesting a new cycle as Karl Palmen seems to suggest with his 3-6-9-11-14-17-19 sometime between 650 and 1450 AD.
I am using the current 19-year Metonic cycle of 3-3-2-3-3-3-2.

I  noticed that the "Perpetual Jewish/Civil Calendar" of Corre (http://www.uwm.edu/cgi-bin/corre/calendar) starts with Tishri and ends in Elul sometimes with or without AD2 (Adar II).  I am using what the spirit of Ama says and it is correct.
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."



From: Karl Palmen <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Dear Aristeo, Irv and Calendar People
 
I reply below
 
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Aristeo Fernando
Sent: 06 September 2016 05:03
To: [hidden email]
Subject: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2
 
The Jewish calendar, at present, is a lunisolar calendar.  To keep it with the seasons, it intercalates a month in the third, sixth, eighth, eleventh, fourteenth, seventeenth, nineteenth years in a 19-year Metonic cycle.  That is 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2.  Three yeas between 0 and 3, 3 and 6, 8 and 11, 11 and 14, and 14 and 17 years; and two years between 6 and 8, and 17 and 19 years.

The Jews reformed their calendars in 358 AD to a calendar what we have today.

Is it possible that they made a wrong choice, 3-3-2 instead of 3-3-3-2, when they reformed their calendars?
 
KARL ASKS: What did Aristeo really mean?
 
I don’t think he meant 3-3-2-3-3-3-2 (current) instead of 3-3-3-2-3-3-3-2 (suggested), because that would indicate (two of) a less accurate 11-year cycle of 136 months.
May be Aristeo meant 3-3-2-3-3-3-2 (current) instead of 3-3-3-2-3-3-2 (suggested).  Then we have the current cycle but with year 9 a leap year instead of year 8.
Is this (year 9 instead of year 8 a leap year) what Aristeo means?
 
The cycles of 3-3-2-3-3-3-2 and 3-3-3-2-3-3-2 are equally (in)accurate. The issue here seems to be the alignment of month of Nisan with the Northward equinox. This issue was dealt with on this list during 2-5 April 2013 and the conclusion was that the current leap month cycle was set to make the 15th Nisan the first 15th day of a month after the Northward Equinox around 800 CE, which is somewhat later than the time the current rules were first used (about 400 CE).
 
Ariel Cohen stated “I also claim that in the 4th century the order of the leap month was 3,5,8,11,14,16,19” and I did calculations concerning that, which can be seen in the E-mails I sent to the list at that time (2-5 Apr 2013). These calculations led to the following list:
 
Here I list possible nineteen year cycles and the years they’d be accurately aligned taking account of the doubt about when the current cycle would have been accurately aligned:
3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 16, 19 -750 to 50 (may be around -250)
3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, 19 -400 to 400 (may be around 100) Ariel Cohen’s cycle
3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16, 19  -50 to 750  (may be around 450)  
3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, 19  300 to 1100 (may be around 800) current cycle
3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 17, 19  650 to 1450 (may be around 1150) Aristeo’s Cycle?
1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 17 1000 to 1800 (may be around 1500)
1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 14, 17 1350 to 2150 (may be around 1850)
1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 14, 17 1700 to 2500 (may be around 2200)
The year in italic is the year after the year with the earliest Northward Equinox date in Nisan.
 
If one changed from each of these cycles to the next one, once every 353 years, one would get the 353-year cycle that Irv has suggested.
 
 
I also notice that the cycle (3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 17, 19), which Aristeo seems to have suggested, has the latest possible leap years, given that the leap years are spaced as smoothly as possible.
This makes year Y a leap year if and only if
 
Remainder( 7*Y ) divided by 19 is less than 7
 
Whereas the current cycle has
 
Remainder( 7*Y + 1 ) divided by 19 is less than 7
 
The formula for the month that year Y begins (counted from epoch) is similarly simplified.
 
May this is the only reason that Aristeo chose this cycle and the alignment of Nisan with respect to the northward equinox was not a consideration.
 
 
Karl
 
16(01(05
 


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Karl Palmen

Dear Aristeo and Calendar People

 

ARISTEO SAID:

Is it possible that they made a wrong choice, 3-3-2 instead of 3-3-3-2, when they reformed their calendars?

What does he really mean by this?

 

If Aristeo is really interested in the choice of leap year cycle for the Hebrew calendar, I do suggest he reads Irv’s link

http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/hebrew/drift.htm because it does deal with the choice of the 19-year leap month cycle.

One can get to the relevant part of the document by search for “3-3-2” as suggested by Irv.

 

Karl

 

16(01(06

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Aristeo Fernando
Sent: 07 September 2016 08:14
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

 

Dear Karl and Calendar People,

I am not suggesting a new cycle as Karl Palmen seems to suggest with his 3-6-9-11-14-17-19 sometime between 650 and 1450 AD.

I am using the current 19-year Metonic cycle of 3-3-2-3-3-3-2.

I  noticed that the "Perpetual Jewish/Civil Calendar" of Corre (http://www.uwm.edu/cgi-bin/corre/calendar) starts with Tishri and ends in Elul sometimes with or without AD2 (Adar II).  I am using what the spirit of Ama says and it is correct.

Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."

 


From: Karl Palmen <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

 

Dear Aristeo, Irv and Calendar People

 

I reply below

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Aristeo Fernando
Sent: 06 September 2016 05:03
To: [hidden email]
Subject: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

 

The Jewish calendar, at present, is a lunisolar calendar.  To keep it with the seasons, it intercalates a month in the third, sixth, eighth, eleventh, fourteenth, seventeenth, nineteenth years in a 19-year Metonic cycle.  That is 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2.  Three yeas between 0 and 3, 3 and 6, 8 and 11, 11 and 14, and 14 and 17 years; and two years between 6 and 8, and 17 and 19 years.

The Jews reformed their calendars in 358 AD to a calendar what we have today.

Is it possible that they made a wrong choice, 3-3-2 instead of 3-3-3-2, when they reformed their calendars?

 

KARL ASKS: What did Aristeo really mean?

 

I don’t think he meant 3-3-2-3-3-3-2 (current) instead of 3-3-3-2-3-3-3-2 (suggested), because that would indicate (two of) a less accurate 11-year cycle of 136 months.

May be Aristeo meant 3-3-2-3-3-3-2 (current) instead of 3-3-3-2-3-3-2 (suggested).  Then we have the current cycle but with year 9 a leap year instead of year 8.

Is this (year 9 instead of year 8 a leap year) what Aristeo means?

 

The cycles of 3-3-2-3-3-3-2 and 3-3-3-2-3-3-2 are equally (in)accurate. The issue here seems to be the alignment of month of Nisan with the Northward equinox. This issue was dealt with on this list during 2-5 April 2013 and the conclusion was that the current leap month cycle was set to make the 15th Nisan the first 15th day of a month after the Northward Equinox around 800 CE, which is somewhat later than the time the current rules were first used (about 400 CE).

 

Ariel Cohen stated “I also claim that in the 4th century the order of the leap month was 3,5,8,11,14,16,19” and I did calculations concerning that, which can be seen in the E-mails I sent to the list at that time (2-5 Apr 2013). These calculations led to the following list:

 

Here I list possible nineteen year cycles and the years they’d be accurately aligned taking account of the doubt about when the current cycle would have been accurately aligned:

3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 16, 19 -750 to 50 (may be around -250)

3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, 19 -400 to 400 (may be around 100) Ariel Cohen’s cycle

3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16, 19  -50 to 750  (may be around 450)  

3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, 19  300 to 1100 (may be around 800) current cycle

3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 17, 19  650 to 1450 (may be around 1150) Aristeo’s Cycle?

1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 17 1000 to 1800 (may be around 1500)

1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 14, 17 1350 to 2150 (may be around 1850)

1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 14, 17 1700 to 2500 (may be around 2200)

The year in italic is the year after the year with the earliest Northward Equinox date in Nisan.

 

If one changed from each of these cycles to the next one, once every 353 years, one would get the 353-year cycle that Irv has suggested.

 

 

I also notice that the cycle (3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 17, 19), which Aristeo seems to have suggested, has the latest possible leap years, given that the leap years are spaced as smoothly as possible.

This makes year Y a leap year if and only if

 

Remainder( 7*Y ) divided by 19 is less than 7

 

Whereas the current cycle has

 

Remainder( 7*Y + 1 ) divided by 19 is less than 7

 

The formula for the month that year Y begins (counted from epoch) is similarly simplified.

 

May this is the only reason that Aristeo chose this cycle and the alignment of Nisan with respect to the northward equinox was not a consideration.

 

 

Karl

 

16(01(05

 

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Karl Palmen
In reply to this post by Irv Bromberg

Dear Irv and Calendar People

 

Thank you Irv for this explanation.

 

I’d find useful to define the start of a 353-year cycle so that the 19-year cycle is not interrupted within each 353-year cycle, even if year 1 does not occur at the start of such a 353-year cycle.

 

Over 19 years, the remainder is incremented by 130*19 mod 353 = 352 and so is normally reduced by 1. The exception is the year whose remainder is 0, which is followed 19 years later by the year of remainder 352 and the former year only is a leap year. The only interruption of the 19-year cycle, over the course of the 353-year cycle, is this exception and the following year, where the remainder drops into range. If the 353-year cycles are scheduled so that the year of remainder 0 is one of the last 19 years, but not the last year and so the year of remainder 352 is one of the first 18 years, then this interruption of the 19-year cycle will occur between 353-year cycles and never within a 353-year cycle.

 

I then look for year Z the first year of remainder 0 (corresponds to capital Delta in “Calendrical Calculations”). Year 0 has remainder 269, so year 19 has remainder 268, etc. Therefore Z = remainder of 269*19 divided by 353, which is 169. So the 353 cycle would need to start on the 171st, 172nd  ... or 188th year of a 353-year cycle aligned with year 1.

 

I then look at the link, searching for ‘269’ and do not find a proof of Irv’s assertion that the 11-year sub-cycle occurs in the middle of a cycle aligned with year 1. The fact that the interruption of the 19-year cycle occurs between the 169th and 188th years of the 353-year cycle aligned with year 1 suggests this is the case. The 169th year is the 17th year of the 9th 19-year cycle. The 188th year cannot be the 17th year of the 10th 19-year cycle, because unlike the 169th year, it is not a leap year and so the 11-year sub-cycle must occur in the middle of the 353-year cycle after the 9th 19-year cycle. The 19-year cycle has the

1st  (46), 4th (83),  7th (120), 9th (27), 12th (64), 15th (101) & 17th (8) years as leap years, where the number in () is the remainder for the first 19-year cycle.

 

Now going back to the 353-year cycles within which the 19-year cycle is not interrupted I can produce this table of 19-year cycles. One can start each of these 353-year cycles on any one of 18 years and so I extend them by 17 years overlap to 370 years to allow for this.

 

1st, 4th, 7th, 9th, 12th 15th 17th ( 0001 – 0187 )

1st, 4th, 7th, 9th, 12th 15th 18th ( 0171 – 0540 )

1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 12th 15th 18th ( 0524 – 0893 )

2nd, 4th, 7th, 10th, 12th 15th 18th ( 0877 – 1246 )

2nd, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th 15th 18th ( 1230 – 1599 )

2nd, 5th, 7th, 10th, 13th 15th 18th ( 1583 – 1952 ) symmetrical cycle K=9

2nd, 5th, 7th, 10th, 13th 16th 18th ( 1936 – 2305 )

2nd, 5th, 8th, 10th, 13th 16th 18th ( 2289 – 2658 )

2nd, 5th, 8th, 10th, 13th 16th 19th ( 2642 – 3011 )

2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 13th 16th 19th ( 2995 – 3364 )

3rd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 13th 16th 19th ( 3348 – 3717 )

3rd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th 16th 19th ( 3701 – 4070 ) Rabbi Elazar

3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th 16th 19th ( 4054 – 4423 ) sages’ cycle ( 284 – 663 CE)

3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th 17th 19th ( 4407 – 4776 ) current cycle (647 – 1016 CE)

3rd, 6th, 9th, 11th, 14th 17th 19th ( 4760 – 5129 ) K=0

1st, 3rd, 6th, 9th, 11th, 14th 17th  ( 5113 – 5482 ) K=18

1st, 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 14th 17th  ( 5466 – 5835 ) present cycle (1706 – 2075 CE)

1st, 4th, 6th, 9th, 12th, 14th 17th  ( 5419 – 6188 ) next cycle (2059 – 2428 CE)

 

Karl

 

16(01(06

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Irv Bromberg
Sent: 06 September 2016 17:00
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

 

Karl's simplification of the 353-year cycle offsets the intended alignment of the northward equinox relative to the month of Nisan, assuming the same calendar epoch.

Leap Month is required if the remainder of ( 130 × hYear + 269 ) / 353 is less than 130.


The 269 gave what I considered to be the optimal equinox alignment, and it so happens that it causes the 11-year subcycle to get inserted in the middle of the 353-year cycle. I wasn't striving to obtain a symmetrical cycle, and in fact the cycle isn't symmetrical at the leap year level.

Search on my web page here for the discussion about the coefficient 269:
http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/hebrew/drift.htm

-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada


From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [[hidden email]] on behalf of Karl Palmen [[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 11:12
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Dear Irv and Calendar People

 

IRV SAID:

Note that each 353-year cycle is identical to 9 repeats of a 19-year cycle, then in the middle a truncated 11-year sub-cycle (omitting an octaeteris), and then another 9 repeats of a 19-year cycle (which will automatically have a shifted leap year pattern due to the omission of the octaeteris).

 

But it is actually simpler than that, if you drop the requirement that the cycle is symmetrical. It’s then simply 19 repeats of the 19 year cycle in which the last is truncated to 11 years with 4 leap years (octaeteris omitted). Then the 19-year cycle is not interrupted within any one 353-year cycle.

 

However Irv did refer to a symmetrical cycle (w.r.t. start of Nisan), which I dealt with in my previous note. The truncated 11-year sub-cycle need only be inserted in the middle for this case, else it can go at the end, provided the last 8 years of the 19-year cycle have exactly 3 leap years.

 

Karl

 

16(01(05

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Aristeo Fernando-3
In reply to this post by Karl Palmen
 Dear Karl and Calendar People,

You fully know that the Jews reformed their calendars in 358 AD.  What did they do?
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."



From: Karl Palmen <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Dear Aristeo and Calendar People
 
ARISTEO SAID:
Is it possible that they made a wrong choice, 3-3-2 instead of 3-3-3-2, when they reformed their calendars?
What does he really mean by this?
 
If Aristeo is really interested in the choice of leap year cycle for the Hebrew calendar, I do suggest he reads Irv’s link
http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/hebrew/drift.htm because it does deal with the choice of the 19-year leap month cycle.
One can get to the relevant part of the document by search for “3-3-2” as suggested by Irv.
 
Karl
 
16(01(06
 
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Aristeo Fernando
Sent: 07 September 2016 08:14
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2
 
Dear Karl and Calendar People,

I am not suggesting a new cycle as Karl Palmen seems to suggest with his 3-6-9-11-14-17-19 sometime between 650 and 1450 AD.
I am using the current 19-year Metonic cycle of 3-3-2-3-3-3-2.

I  noticed that the "Perpetual Jewish/Civil Calendar" of Corre (http://www.uwm.edu/cgi-bin/corre/calendar) starts with Tishri and ends in Elul sometimes with or without AD2 (Adar II).  I am using what the spirit of Ama says and it is correct.
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."
 

From: Karl Palmen <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2
 
Dear Aristeo, Irv and Calendar People
 
I reply below
 
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Aristeo Fernando
Sent: 06 September 2016 05:03
To: [hidden email]
Subject: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2
 
The Jewish calendar, at present, is a lunisolar calendar.  To keep it with the seasons, it intercalates a month in the third, sixth, eighth, eleventh, fourteenth, seventeenth, nineteenth years in a 19-year Metonic cycle.  That is 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2.  Three yeas between 0 and 3, 3 and 6, 8 and 11, 11 and 14, and 14 and 17 years; and two years between 6 and 8, and 17 and 19 years.

The Jews reformed their calendars in 358 AD to a calendar what we have today.

Is it possible that they made a wrong choice, 3-3-2 instead of 3-3-3-2, when they reformed their calendars?
 
KARL ASKS: What did Aristeo really mean?
 
I don’t think he meant 3-3-2-3-3-3-2 (current) instead of 3-3-3-2-3-3-3-2 (suggested), because that would indicate (two of) a less accurate 11-year cycle of 136 months.
May be Aristeo meant 3-3-2-3-3-3-2 (current) instead of 3-3-3-2-3-3-2 (suggested).  Then we have the current cycle but with year 9 a leap year instead of year 8.
Is this (year 9 instead of year 8 a leap year) what Aristeo means?
 
The cycles of 3-3-2-3-3-3-2 and 3-3-3-2-3-3-2 are equally (in)accurate. The issue here seems to be the alignment of month of Nisan with the Northward equinox. This issue was dealt with on this list during 2-5 April 2013 and the conclusion was that the current leap month cycle was set to make the 15th Nisan the first 15th day of a month after the Northward Equinox around 800 CE, which is somewhat later than the time the current rules were first used (about 400 CE).
 
Ariel Cohen stated “I also claim that in the 4th century the order of the leap month was 3,5,8,11,14,16,19” and I did calculations concerning that, which can be seen in the E-mails I sent to the list at that time (2-5 Apr 2013). These calculations led to the following list:
 
Here I list possible nineteen year cycles and the years they’d be accurately aligned taking account of the doubt about when the current cycle would have been accurately aligned:
3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 16, 19 -750 to 50 (may be around -250)
3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, 19 -400 to 400 (may be around 100) Ariel Cohen’s cycle
3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16, 19  -50 to 750  (may be around 450)  
3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, 19  300 to 1100 (may be around 800) current cycle
3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 17, 19  650 to 1450 (may be around 1150) Aristeo’s Cycle?
1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 17 1000 to 1800 (may be around 1500)
1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 14, 17 1350 to 2150 (may be around 1850)
1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 14, 17 1700 to 2500 (may be around 2200)
The year in italic is the year after the year with the earliest Northward Equinox date in Nisan.
 
If one changed from each of these cycles to the next one, once every 353 years, one would get the 353-year cycle that Irv has suggested.
 
 
I also notice that the cycle (3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 17, 19), which Aristeo seems to have suggested, has the latest possible leap years, given that the leap years are spaced as smoothly as possible.
This makes year Y a leap year if and only if
 
Remainder( 7*Y ) divided by 19 is less than 7
 
Whereas the current cycle has
 
Remainder( 7*Y + 1 ) divided by 19 is less than 7
 
The formula for the month that year Y begins (counted from epoch) is similarly simplified.
 
May this is the only reason that Aristeo chose this cycle and the alignment of Nisan with respect to the northward equinox was not a consideration.
 
 
Karl
 
16(01(05
 
 


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Amos Shapir-2
Hi Aristeo and Calendar people,

See the Wikipedia article about Hillel II to find out what exactly had happened in 358 AD.  Basically, it was just a formalization of a method for determining the calendar, which had been in use for centuries by then.

In any case, the modification of the Jewish calendar at that time (if there even was one), did *not* move Christmas to May or Passover to August (or vice versa), no matter what some spirit says.

--

Amos

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Aristeo Fernando <[hidden email]> wrote:
 Dear Karl and Calendar People,

You fully know that the Jews reformed their calendars in 358 AD.  What did they do?
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Aristeo Fernando-3
 Dear Amos and Calendar People,

Do you, Amos, believe what Wikipedia says about Hillel II?  It was not "a formalization of a method for determining the calendar".  It was more than that.  Please read what Hassall wrote (I am trying to find the article; please provide the web address if you know).

Christmas, which at present, is on 12-25, will be held on 05-23.  It will not be called Christmas but Nativity.  Jesus' crucifixion will not be in March or April but in August, and not in about 33 AD but in 1 BC.  So He was crucified and died at exactly 12 noon of 1 BC 08-17.

Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."



From: Amos Shapir <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Hi Aristeo and Calendar people,

See the Wikipedia article about Hillel II to find out what exactly had happened in 358 AD.  Basically, it was just a formalization of a method for determining the calendar, which had been in use for centuries by then.

In any case, the modification of the Jewish calendar at that time (if there even was one), did *not* move Christmas to May or Passover to August (or vice versa), no matter what some spirit says.

--

Amos

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Aristeo Fernando <[hidden email]> wrote:
 Dear Karl and Calendar People,

You fully know that the Jews reformed their calendars in 358 AD.  What did they do?
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Irv Bromberg
Aristeo:

Amos gave you facts and you responded with a myth.


From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [[hidden email]] on behalf of Aristeo Fernando [[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 20:51
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

 Dear Amos and Calendar People,

Do you, Amos, believe what Wikipedia says about Hillel II?  It was not "a formalization of a method for determining the calendar".  It was more than that.  Please read what Hassall wrote (I am trying to find the article; please provide the web address if you know).

Christmas, which at present, is on 12-25, will be held on 05-23.  It will not be called Christmas but Nativity.  Jesus' crucifixion will not be in March or April but in August, and not in about 33 AD but in 1 BC.  So He was crucified and died at exactly 12 noon of 1 BC 08-17.

Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."



From: Amos Shapir <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Hi Aristeo and Calendar people,

See the Wikipedia article about Hillel II to find out what exactly had happened in 358 AD.  Basically, it was just a formalization of a method for determining the calendar, which had been in use for centuries by then.

In any case, the modification of the Jewish calendar at that time (if there even was one), did *not* move Christmas to May or Passover to August (or vice versa), no matter what some spirit says.

--

Amos

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Aristeo Fernando <[hidden email]> wrote:
 Dear Karl and Calendar People,

You fully know that the Jews reformed their calendars in 358 AD.  What did they do?
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Aristeo Fernando-3
Dear Irv, Amos, and Calendar People,

The web address is http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea1.txt .

Do you, Irv, believe what Wikipedia says about Hillel II?

What is the upheaval that will soon engulf the whole world?  It is World War III that will start from Spratly Islands on a Wednesday in the middle of the year.  Remember that.  Then you will know who the spirit of Ama is.
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."



From: Irv Bromberg <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Aristeo:

Amos gave you facts and you responded with a myth.


From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [[hidden email]] on behalf of Aristeo Fernando [[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 20:51
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

 Dear Amos and Calendar People,

Do you, Amos, believe what Wikipedia says about Hillel II?  It was not "a formalization of a method for determining the calendar".  It was more than that.  Please read what Hassall wrote (I am trying to find the article; please provide the web address if you know).

Christmas, which at present, is on 12-25, will be held on 05-23.  It will not be called Christmas but Nativity.  Jesus' crucifixion will not be in March or April but in August, and not in about 33 AD but in 1 BC.  So He was crucified and died at exactly 12 noon of 1 BC 08-17.

Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."



From: Amos Shapir <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Hi Aristeo and Calendar people,

See the Wikipedia article about Hillel II to find out what exactly had happened in 358 AD.  Basically, it was just a formalization of a method for determining the calendar, which had been in use for centuries by then.

In any case, the modification of the Jewish calendar at that time (if there even was one), did *not* move Christmas to May or Passover to August (or vice versa), no matter what some spirit says.

--

Amos

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Aristeo Fernando <[hidden email]> wrote:
 Dear Karl and Calendar People,

You fully know that the Jews reformed their calendars in 358 AD.  What did they do?
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Amos Shapir-2
Hi Aristeo,
Sorry, tl; dr.  The document by Hassell seems to contain commentary about the entire proceedings of the Nicean Council.
Can you please at least quote the part that is relevant to the discussion of the Jewish calendar?

Thanks,

Amos.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Aristeo Fernando-3
Dear Amos and Calendar People,

Please read "On the keeping of Easter" near the end of the article.
.
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."



From: Amos Shapir <[hidden email]>
To: Aristeo Fernando <[hidden email]>
Cc: East Carolina University Calendar discus List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Hi Aristeo,
Sorry, tl; dr.  The document by Hassell seems to contain commentary about the entire proceedings of the Nicean Council.
Can you please at least quote the part that is relevant to the discussion of the Jewish calendar?

Thanks,


Amos.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Amos Shapir-2
Hi Aristeo and calendar people,

I assume Aristeo directs our attention to the passage in which Eusebius quotes a letter by the Emperor in which he explains why the calculation of Easter should not depend on "those detestable Jews", especially to the sentence:
They do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness 
and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two 
passovers in the same year.

The writer is not even a priest, and very hostile towards Jews, so might be suspect of false information;
but beside that, there is no explanation of what he means by "two passovers in the same year".
I think that this may refer to any of two customs still practiced today - either the custom of celebrating Passover
(and all other holidays) for two consecutive days outside Israel, to make sure that at least one of them falls on the correct day;
or else the custom of celebrating a "small Passover" on the 14th of Iyar by anyone who could not celebrate it on the 14th of Nissan.

In any case it does not mention August as a possible date.

Amos.

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Aristeo Fernando <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Amos and Calendar People,

Please read "On the keeping of Easter" near the end of the article.
.
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."



From: Amos Shapir <[hidden email]>
To: Aristeo Fernando <[hidden email]>
Cc: East Carolina University Calendar discus List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Hi Aristeo,
Sorry, tl; dr.  The document by Hassell seems to contain commentary about the entire proceedings of the Nicean Council.
Can you please at least quote the part that is relevant to the discussion of the Jewish calendar?

Thanks,


Amos.






--
Amos Shapir
 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Aristeo Fernando-3
Dear Amos and Calendar People,

When was the Council of Nicaea held?  In 325 AD, isn't it?  What kind of calendar were the Romans using?  Solar calendar, isn't it?  Julian calendar with 365 days per year.
.
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."



From: Amos Shapir <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Hi Aristeo and calendar people,

I assume Aristeo directs our attention to the passage in which Eusebius quotes a letter by the Emperor in which he explains why the calculation of Easter should not depend on "those detestable Jews", especially to the sentence:
They do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness 
and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two 
passovers in the same year.

The writer is not even a priest, and very hostile towards Jews, so might be suspect of false information;
but beside that, there is no explanation of what he means by "two passovers in the same year".
I think that this may refer to any of two customs still practiced today - either the custom of celebrating Passover
(and all other holidays) for two consecutive days outside Israel, to make sure that at least one of them falls on the correct day;
or else the custom of celebrating a "small Passover" on the 14th of Iyar by anyone who could not celebrate it on the 14th of Nissan.

In any case it does not mention August as a possible date.

Amos.

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Aristeo Fernando <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Amos and Calendar People,

Please read "On the keeping of Easter" near the end of the article.
.
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."



From: Amos Shapir <[hidden email]>
To: Aristeo Fernando <[hidden email]>
Cc: East Carolina University Calendar discus List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Hi Aristeo,
Sorry, tl; dr.  The document by Hassell seems to contain commentary about the entire proceedings of the Nicean Council.
Can you please at least quote the part that is relevant to the discussion of the Jewish calendar?

Thanks,


Amos.






--
Amos Shapir
 


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Aristeo Fernando-3
In reply to this post by Amos Shapir-2
 Dear Amos and Calendar People,

What kind of calendars did the Jews used?  Lunar calendar, isn't it?  When did the Jews reform their calendars?  In 358 AD, isn't it?  The Romans were the first to fix Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Pesach) in March/April, weren't they?  325 AD vs 358 AD.
.
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."



From: Amos Shapir <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Hi Aristeo and calendar people,

I assume Aristeo directs our attention to the passage in which Eusebius quotes a letter by the Emperor in which he explains why the calculation of Easter should not depend on "those detestable Jews", especially to the sentence:
They do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness 
and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two 
passovers in the same year.

The writer is not even a priest, and very hostile towards Jews, so might be suspect of false information;
but beside that, there is no explanation of what he means by "two passovers in the same year".
I think that this may refer to any of two customs still practiced today - either the custom of celebrating Passover
(and all other holidays) for two consecutive days outside Israel, to make sure that at least one of them falls on the correct day;
or else the custom of celebrating a "small Passover" on the 14th of Iyar by anyone who could not celebrate it on the 14th of Nissan.

In any case it does not mention August as a possible date.

Amos.

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Aristeo Fernando <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Amos and Calendar People,

Please read "On the keeping of Easter" near the end of the article.
.
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."



From: Amos Shapir <[hidden email]>
To: Aristeo Fernando <[hidden email]>
Cc: East Carolina University Calendar discus List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Hi Aristeo,
Sorry, tl; dr.  The document by Hassell seems to contain commentary about the entire proceedings of the Nicean Council.
Can you please at least quote the part that is relevant to the discussion of the Jewish calendar?

Thanks,


Amos.






--
Amos Shapir
 


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Aristeo Fernando-3
In reply to this post by Amos Shapir-2
Dear Amos and Calendar People,
 
When did the Jews adopt the Babylonian calendar?  When they were exiled in Babylon during the sixth century BC, isn't it?                   .                                                                                                      
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."



From: Amos Shapir <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Hi Aristeo and calendar people,

I assume Aristeo directs our attention to the passage in which Eusebius quotes a letter by the Emperor in which he explains why the calculation of Easter should not depend on "those detestable Jews", especially to the sentence:
They do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness 
and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two 
passovers in the same year.

The writer is not even a priest, and very hostile towards Jews, so might be suspect of false information;
but beside that, there is no explanation of what he means by "two passovers in the same year".
I think that this may refer to any of two customs still practiced today - either the custom of celebrating Passover
(and all other holidays) for two consecutive days outside Israel, to make sure that at least one of them falls on the correct day;
or else the custom of celebrating a "small Passover" on the 14th of Iyar by anyone who could not celebrate it on the 14th of Nissan.

In any case it does not mention August as a possible date.

Amos.

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Aristeo Fernando <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Amos and Calendar People,

Please read "On the keeping of Easter" near the end of the article.
.
Aristeo Canlas Fernando, Peace Crusader and Echo of the Holy Spirit
Motto: pro aris et focis (for the sake of, or defense of, religion and home)
http://aristean.org/ and http://peacecrusader.wordpress.com/
"The Internet is mightier than the sword."



From: Amos Shapir <[hidden email]>
To: Aristeo Fernando <[hidden email]>
Cc: East Carolina University Calendar discus List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: 3-3-2-3-3-3-2

Hi Aristeo,
Sorry, tl; dr.  The document by Hassell seems to contain commentary about the entire proceedings of the Nicean Council.
Can you please at least quote the part that is relevant to the discussion of the Jewish calendar?

Thanks,


Amos.






--
Amos Shapir
 


123
Loading...