Things I should have added to the book

copyright 2008 Stephan Huller

by Rory Boid (personal correspondence)


PUT THIS FACT IN THE BOOK. Leviticus XXV:9. The shofar announcing the Jubilee Year is blown publicly everywhere on the Day of Atonement in year 49. Year 50 starts on the normal date, the first of Nisan (NOT Tishre) and runs for twelve months after that; but to some extent, the Jubilee has already started in the seventh month of year 49

PUT THIS FACT IN THE BOOK AS WELL. The day called Rosh ha-Shana in modern Rabbinic Judaism is the first day of the SEVENTH month. It is not the first day of the religious calendar, but of an old civil calendar. The religious year starts on the first of the first. See Exodus XII:2. The years of the Sanctuary are counted from this date. I would guess that counting from the seventh month by Rabbinic Jews and Dositheans is due to the absence of the sanctuary. Epiphanius got confused (more confused than his usual permanent befuddlement, I mean) and thought the Dositheans moved all the Festivals by six months.

The reader has been told what a Jubilee is, but not in a way that will convey the information needed. The reader has not been told that the Samaritan and Jewish counting will be different. (I don’t know whether you should explain that this is because of a different calculation of the period since the crossing of the Jordan). The importance of the coincidence of the timing has not been emphasised enough. It has not been explained how what appears to be only the completion of payment of debts and the expiry of leases of land could be symbolically connected with a revolt against political domination. It has not been explained what was expected in the long term from the enthronement. Well actually it is stated but not here, and even then only a reader with enough knowledge will realise what is being proven. The grievances of the Egyptians and Jews have been explained, but it has not been explained how a symbolic enthronement could have an effect even in the short term.

Don’t underestimate what is NOT known. I know I keep telling you to stop saying the New Testament is in the Bible, but you often go the other way. For instance, it has not been explained how the Torah differs in quality and authority from the rest of what is called the OT.

Aside from this, the wording is too condensed for the intended readers. A bit of repetition with rephrasing is needed at some points.

Unless there is a strict limit on the length of the book, you could add detail in a lot of places throughout the book. This applies even where the argument is easy for the average reader to follow. More detail in some places would make the book more interesting to the average reader.