The tables provided in this appendix list all the new moons from New Testament times pertaining to the years discussed in this book. The first days (or Rashey Chadashim) of the Hebrew months that were initiated by those new moons are also listed to assist the reader in calculating the dates of the Jewish holidays for those years on their own. And the months that contain those holidays are highlighted. The dates and times listed for the new moons are taken from a catalogue generated by NASA. [2] and adjusted for Jerusalem’s time zone. [3] However, owing to the idiosyncrasies of both the Hebrew and Julian calendars, as they were used and understood back then, there are a few things, for clarity, that need to be pointed out.

​​

Since days on the Hebrew calendar begin and end at dusk, the listed Julian calendar dates that define each Hebrew Rosh Chodesh consist of two consecutive but truncated days. The first Julian calendar date listed covers only the initial evening hours of the Hebrew date, from dusk to midnight. So the second Julian calendar date, covering the latter half of the night and the entirety of the following daylight hours, is the Julian date primarily associated with the Rosh Chodesh.

​​​

But given the necessity of human witnesses for determining when the new moon began before a Rosh Chodesh could be declared, not all would have been declared on the same day that the new moons would have first occurred. And this is further complicated by the apparent existence of more than one legitimate way for determining the new moon, depending upon which Jewish sect was in power. The Mishnah explains how the Pharisees did it. But it also makes mention (without going into detail) of an alternate method employed by the Boethusians. [4]

​​​

When the Pharisees were in charge, the Rosh Chodesh was declared after two witnesses of good character reported to the Jerusalem Temple priests their sighting of the first sliver of the new moon at dusk. Today's science has, however, shown that the first sliver of the new moon is virtually invisible in the night sky on its first day, [5] thus the Rosh Chodesh declarations by that method were most likely delayed a day from where the astronomical record would put them. And this is one way of explaining why (according to John's Gospel) the Temple was observing the rituals of 14 Nisan on the day that Jesus died rather than those of 15 Nisan in accord with the astronomical record.   

​​​​

As to the Boethusians, what little we know of them is written by their rival sect, the Pharisees, in the Mishnah, the Midrash and the Talmud. And they were nor fans, to put it mildly, so their testimony cannot be thought unbiased or, for that matter, trustworthy. Given that several Boethusians were elevated to the High Priesthood in New Testament times, they must have had some legitimacy, however. [6] And with the High Priesthood being the Seat of Moses it can be assumed that whenever they were in power their liturgical systems would have been in place, as well, which would include, of course, their method of determining the days and months of the calendar.

​​​

But again, there is no known ancient text to tell us what that method was. that doesn't mean, however, that we can't discern some important things about it. And the biggest thing, from this book's perspective, anyway, is that it appears to have gotten the people closer liturgically to the astronomical record than the method used by the Pharisees. This is partially verified by the the Mishnah, which reports that when the Pharisees were in power, the Boethusians employed witnesses to give false testimony to the Temple priests in order to get them to start their months in line with the Boethusian calendar. And since the Temple priests knew that a month was always either 29 or 30 days long, that trick would only work on the 29th day where the new moon was not truly visible until the 30th. 

​​​

In other words, the ancient texts seem to be telling us that the Boethusians had a more accurate way of determining the first day of the new moon than did the Pharisees. But we now also have all the data points calculated by the 2/3rds Rule pointing to a calendar of a similar makeup as the one seemingly employed by the Boethusians. The data, in fact, overwhelmingly sides with the astronomical record. And that is, therefore, the contention of this book, that it is this calendar (and not the Temple's) that Jesus's family and His Apostles went by in determining the important dates in their lives. That accounts for the synoptic Gospel's insistence that they were observing the 1st day of Passover the day that Jesus was crucified. [7] And it accounts for all the other data as well.

​​

This is not to say, however, that they were heretics or rebels in doing this. The Boethusians were of the priestly class and sound, therefore, as though they had a legitimate right to be considered religious authorities in New Testament times. They also seem to have had a method of determining the new moons that did not rely on the Temple, a system that could be employed independently in the regions outside of Jerusalem with everyone arriving at the same result. It is understandable then that people hailing from the outlying areas (like Jesus and His followers) would have a preference for it. And that seems especially true, given the difficulties the Pharisees were having getting their Rosh Chodesh declarations out to those areas back then. [8]  

​​

This book assumes, therefore, that in recognition of the communication difficulties, the Pharisees, even when they were in power, did not object to the use of this alternate calendar in the outlying regions. And that would be in accord with what we know of the Holy Family and their proclivity to always obey the rules laid down by the religious authorities. [9] To summarize then, Jesus and His disciples, being from Nazareth and Galilee, followed a calendar closer to the astronomical record than did the Pharisees. And it is believed to have been the calendar employed by a rival Jewish sect known as the Boethusians.

​​

The data shows also that it was not perfectly aligned with the astronomical calendar. That is, whatever markers in the sky they used to determine the date of the moon it was still subject observational error. And the data suggests that the cutoff timing for declaring the Rosh Chodesh via the Boethusian system was 2:30 PM. That is, if the timing of the new moon in the astronomical record was later than 2:30 PM, the Rosh Chodesh in this book is assumed would not have been declared until the following day. And that is how it appears in the Tables at the end of this chapter. 

​​​

There is one exception, though, to this system, and it is with the month of Tishri. That is the one month of the year that the religious authorities felt everyone needed to be on the same page with in regard to celebrating its holidays. So they standardized the prior month (the month of Elul) so that it was always 29 days in duration regardless of whether the new moon was seen in the sky on the 29th day. [10] And this standardization was observed as well by those who adhered to the alternate calendar. But since their Elul began one day prior to that of the Pharisees, for the Boethusians, their calendar was changed such that Elul was always 30 days in duration.

​​

And that is how it is shown in the tables for the years 62 BC, 9 BC, 5 AD, 28 AD, 30 AD , 32 AD and 64 AD. It does not, however, have any effect on the dating of the observances in the month of Tishri in the year 31 AD, since in that year the month of Elul was already calculated to have been 30 days in duration by the astronomical calendar. 

​​​

​​​Another aspect of the ancient Hebrew calendar requiring explanation is the method used in designating leap years. These declarations were made every two or three years to bring the year back in sync with the seasons and ensure Passover was always observed on, or after, the vernal equinox. Therefore, after the Rosh Chodesh for the month following Adar was determined, if it came too early in the season to satisfy the Passover requirements, it is assumed that this would have been the motivation for declaring a second month of Adar (designated Adar II). And this is also the rationale used in these tables for designating leap years.​

​​​

The Talmud reports that leap years might also be declared (in years of flooding or drought) to ensure that an adequate yield will be available for the year's various harvest festivals. [11] Such situations are, however, virtually impossible to reconstruct from our vantage point some 2,000 years after the fact. So these leap years are assumed to have played no role in the dates discerned in this book. And given that every Julian calendar date discerned already has a Hebrew calendar connection without the need of arbitrarily changing the month to make it so, the point is moot, anyway. 

​​​​

As to the Julian calendar, even though it was introduced in 46 BC, mistakes were made in designating leap years for the first thirty-six years of its existence. They were being declared every 3 years rather than every 4, so too many were observed. And once that error was recognized it took another fourteen years of skipping leap years (until 4 AD) to bring the calendar back in sync with the seasons. So the Julian dates listed in this table designated BC are as they would have been if the leap years had been calculated correctly from the beginning (the justification for this being that our interest is in the year as it truly was and not in the way it was perceived at the time). [12]

​​​

That said, the linked PDF below lists the day of the week, the date and time calculated by NASA for every new moon (and subsequentially every Rosh Chodesh) as seen in Jerusalem for every year of relevance to this book. All told, 26 calendars are displayed, 24 of which covering years pertinent to the New Testament that span from St. Joseph's conception in 63 BC to the Angers, France apparition of 431 AD, which gave us the date of Mary's birth. And to that list two additional calendars are provided that pertain exclusively to Jewish history.​

​​​​​