In this context, the observance of different calendars by different Jews
would have been far less of an issue than modern scholars have tended to
assume. Although it is likely that in pre-70CEJudaea, and certainly within the
Temple itself, a single lunar calendar—controlled in Jerusalem by the High
Priest—was consistently observed, no one could have expected the same
calendar to be observed by Jews in more distant communities. Because of
the empirical nature of the lunar calendar, based on new moon sightings and
onad hocdecisions about whether to intercalate the year, Diaspora Jewish
communities were bound to observe Passover sometimes a few days or even a
whole month apart (as is attested, for example, in the Jewish communities of
late antique Alexandria, Antioch, and even Zoar in southern Palestine: Stern
2001: 72–9, 87–98, 146–53). It would not have mattered much, therefore, if in
the somewhat secluded village of Qumran the festivals were observed on
different dates; this should not have been a particular cause of social division
or schism. In today’sWestern world, dominated as it is by the Gregorian
calendar, we tend to regard the use of a single calendar as essential for society
and social cohesion; but clearly calendar diversity did not disturb the cohe-
siveness of ancient societies and religions in the same way. To them, calendar
diversity was normal and largely a matter of indifference.
The 364-day calendar, and the complex literature describing it, should
therefore be regarded as just one of many peculiarities of Qumran literature
and perhaps (if the calendar was used in practice) of the Qumran community.
But contrary to what has been widely assumed, the calendar does not appear in
Qumran sources as a polemical issue, nor does it appear to have played a
particular role in forging the Qumran community’s sectarian identity.
Calendar sectarianism in Second Temple JudaismIn Jewish sources from outside Qumran, we are similarly hard pressed tofind
any evidence of calendar-based sectarianism.
The book of Jubilees (second centuryBCE), as mentioned above, is the only
text where the 364-day calendar is polemically contrasted to the lunar calendar
(Jub. 6: 31–8). This passage commands the observance the 364-day calendar
with repeated warnings that any deviation from it would lead to the disruption
of the years, new moons, and seasons (6: 33–4) and to the celebration of
festivals on the wrong days (6: 37–8). The narrator predicts that after Moses’
death (6: 38; cf. 1: 14) the Israelites will forsake the 364-day calendar and
documents of Babatha’s archive from early-2nd-c.CEJudaea and Arabia, see Stern (2001) 38–42.
The ability to choose from a variety of calendars for dating documents or inscriptions may have
given scope to the Palestinian individual for the personal expression of religious, social, and
political allegiances; but calendar polemics and sectarianism are certainly out of context here.
Sectarianism andHeresy 375