[71] Cooley 2009.
[71] Cooley 2009.
SIDE BAR NOTES
[1]To get the most out of this chapter, prereading the following Scriptures may be helpful: Mt 1:18-2:18 and Lk 1:5-38, 2:1-52 for the Infancy Narrative and Jn 12:1-18, 13:1-30, 18:1-20:23 together with either Mt 26:1-27:66, Mk 14:1-15:47, or Lk 22:7-23:56 for the Passion Narrative.
[2] Mk 15:42, Lk 23:54, Jn 19:31. [3] Mt 27:45, Mk 15:33, Lk 23:44, [4] Mt 26:2, 17, Mk 14:1, 12, Lk 22:7. [5] Jn 19:14. [6] Mt 27:2, Mk 15:1, Lk 23:1, Jn 18:28. [7] Per Josephus (Antiq xviii, 4, 2) Pilate’s 10 years in Judea came to an end in an incident that occurred just prior to the death of the Roman Emperor Tiberius (who is known by many sources to have died in the spring of 37 AD). See also Bond 1998. [8] A great deal more detail on how the Hebrew calendar was set up back then is provided in chapter 3. [9] The formula used by the Church in the west for celebrating Easter, (the 1st Sunday after the full moon after the vernal equinox) was based on the Jewish formula for Passover. And it became the standard for most of Christendom by the end of the 2nd century AD, with the resolution of the Quartodeciman con-troversy (Thurston 1909).
[10] Sanhedrin 11b lists 3 criteria the Jerusalem Temple authorities used to justify it. Two were to ensure the crops would be sufficiently ripe for the harvest festivals and the third was to ensure the holiday of Sukkot is always after the autumnal equinox. And by extension this would also ensure that the holiday of Passover (6 months prior) was always after the vernal equinox.
[11] MacMullen 1997, 155. See also Martindale 1909. [12] Nothaft 2011, 503-522.
[13] Saturnalia, for one, was celebrated 2 days earlier (from December 17 to 23). And Sol Invictus was created by the Roman emperor, Aurelian, in 274 AD (Hijmans 1996), which was about a half a century after many Christians had already adopted that date for Christmas, as can be seen in Hippolytus of Rome’s Commentary on Daniel (ca. 203 AD), Sextus Julius African-us’s Chronographiai (221 AD) and Pseudo-Cyprian’s De Pascha Computus (ca. 240 AD). [14] Tally 1988.[15] The Babylonian Talmud (Berakhot 59b) speaks of a ritual per-formed on the vernal equinox (and still performed today) called Birkhat Hachama. It is a blessing of the sun on its birthday. [16] Gn 1:3-5. But the seeming equality of the day and the night is found in many Scriptures, See also Ps 74:16 and especially Ps 139:12. [17] The Babylonian Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 11a) presents two dueling opinions on the matter, one favoring spring and the other, fall. But with Christ’s great sacrifice coinciding with the Jewish Passover holiday, the scales, for Christians, tipped for the spring. [18] Pseudo-Cyprian (ca. 240 AD) De Pascha Computus. [19] See, for instance, Ps 84:11, Is 60:1, Mal 4:2 (3:20 in some texts) and Lk 1:78. [20] St. Augustine of Hippo (ca. 400 AD) Ser-mons 188 & 192. [21] In Dt 31:2, Moses announces his age in a manner suggesting it is his birth-day, and shortly thereafter, in Dt 32:46-34:6, we are told of his death, presumably, on the same day. [22] Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 12b and Megillah 13b, to cite just two of many. [23] The Talmud does not reveal whether the Jews at this time applied this tradition to other prophets. But the writings of the contem-porary Christians show that some did apply it to Christ.[24] See Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) Adversus Judaeos 8 and Hippolytus (ca. 203 AD) Commentary on Daniel. [25] Lk 3:17. [26] The Anno Domini system, invented in the 6th century by the Eastern Roman monk, Dionysius Exiguus, was centered on this belief. [27] 17th century Spanish abbess, Mary of Agreda, for one. [28] He wrote of it in De Stella Nova (1606) and De Anno Natali Christi (1614). His is not, however, the only candidate for the Star, just the first. Some of the many other possibilities can be found in Figure 1.5. [29] Pratt 1991.
[30] Maas 1910. And ironically, had those the early Church Fathers inter-preted those 3 years in Isaiah as being consec-utive, rather than concur-rent, there would have been no conflict.
[31] Two additional eclipses will be discussed further on in Part 3, of this chapter, bringing the total number of eclipses that can be shown to be associated with the life of Christ to five. [32] Espenek and Meeus 2009.
[33] Humphreys and Wad-dington 1992, 347, also Espenek 2020.
[34] Espenek and Meeus 2006.
[35] Ex 12:2, 40:2.
[36] Espenek and Meeus 2009.
[37] Mt 27:46, Mk 15: 34.
[38] Others have argued that it would have been visible for a longer time. Humphreys, for insta-nce, calculated a 50-minute duration (Humphreys and Waddington 1992, 346). But for the sake of argument the worst case scenario found in the literature (10 minutes) is chosen for this discussion. [39] Mt 26:31.
[40] Mk 9:9-10.
[41] Lk 9:33.
[42] The rituals associated with Sukkot (laid out in Lv 23:42) have led many to link that holiday to the Transfiguration. But addi-tional corroboration is pro-vided in chapters 3 and 4.
[43] An apocalyptic year is so-named for the number of days assigned to a year (360) in the Book of Revelation, where, building on the phraseology found in the Book of Daniel (Dn 9:27), it equates 1,260 days to both 42 months and 3½ years (Rv 11:2-3).
[44] Humphreys cites several examples of ancient writers associating lunar eclipses with blood, the earliest reference being to a 4th century BC eclipse by Roman historian, Quintus Curtius Rufus, in his Histories of Alexander the Great iv, 10, 2 (Humphreys and Waddington 1992, 343).
[45] Babylonian Tal-mud, Rosh Hashanah 11a.
[49] Eph 5:22-27, Rv 19:7-9. [50] Jn 19:34-35.
[46] With the reading of the great and terrible day in Mal 3:23 being a long standing tradition for Shabbat Hagadol, it is reasonable to assume that Jl 2:31 (the other main scriptural reference to that day) would have commonly also been cited. [47] This ancient understanding is maybe most easily seen in the Jewish custom that sprang from it, that of setting an extra place for the prophet Elijah at the Passover Seder meal, that he might come to usher in the messianic age, per Mal 3:23. [48] Lk 24:18.
[51] … not by water alone, but by water and blood (1 Jn 5:6-8 NAB). See also Mt 3:16, 16:24 and Jn 3:5. [52] Barrosse 1959. [53] Gn 2:21-23. And this also makes sense of why God made Eve in this fashion.
[54] Rv 12:1, NAB.
[55] Rv 12:5.
[56] Screenshot obtained using the STARRY NIGHT software program with the top banner slightly repo-sitioned for the graphic. Web address and link provided in the References section.
[57] Acts 2:14-41.
[58] ... as was prophesied in Mt 12:39.
[59] Lk 2:1.
[60] Lk 2:2.
[61] Mt 2:1, 19-20.
[62] Lk 2:1-5.
[63] Mt 2:1-13.
[64] Schürer 1891, 400-467. [65] Antiq xvii, 6, 4 speaks of a lunar eclipse (aka, blood moon) occurring just prior to Herod’s death and (in an apparent foreshadowing) on the evening following the martyrdom of a Jewish zealot. The eclipse is generally dated, by other clues in the text, to Mar. 13, 4 BC, although some are now placing it at Jan. 9, 1 BC. It is incidentally the only mention of a lunar eclipse in any of Josephus’s writings. [66] Antiq xiv, 16, 4, xv, 5, 2, xvii, 8, 1, xviii, 6, 10 and xx,10, [67] Beyer 1998. [68] Bernegger 1983, 526-531.
[69] A stone, thought to be a fragment from Quirin-ius’s sepulcher, listing his accomplishments mentions that he was the Proconsul (Governor) of Asia and a [legate] divi Augusti (imperial official) iterum (twice) in Syria. This is believed by some to be evidence of Quirinius being governor on two separate occasions. It provides, however, no means of dating his service and specifically speaks of only one term as governor. A photograph of the grave- stone is available online at the Vatican website. (See References for link).
[70] The astronomical data for this table coming largely from Hughes 1976.
[71] Schürer 1891, 400-467.
[72] Cooley 2009.
[73] Mt 2.16.
[74] Acts 5:36-37 in conjunction with Antiq xviii, 1, 6.
[75] Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) Adversus Marcion-em iv, 19, 10.
[78] Irenaeus of Lyon, (ca. 180 AD) Adversus Haer-eses, ii, 22, 1-5.
[79] 1 Cor 15:8, Eph 4:6, Col 3:11 and 1 Cor 9:22 where an imitation of Christ is displayed. [80] Irenaeus of Lyon, (ca. 180 AD) Adversus Haereses, ii, 22, 5.
[81] Jn 8:57.
[82] 2 Sm 5:4, 1 Kgs 11:42 and 2 Kgs 12:1. [83] Jgs 5:31, 8:28 and 1 Sm 4:18.
[84] Ps 95:10-11, NASB, (slightly paraphrased). But what does it mean to enter into [our Lord's] rest? This statement is brought into a brighter light in chapter 2. [85] In John’s Gospel, where we're told that the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us (Jn 1:14, KJV), the Greek is better translated as tabernacled, not dwelt. And while some have argued that this means Jesus was born in the fall, during the Feast of Taber-nacles, His 40-year life span being the same length of time that the Israelites tabernacled in the wilder-ness is another legitimate (and maybe the better) interpretation.[86] The es-teemed (and obviously enlightened), 1st century Talmudic rabbi, Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, recognized these verses as messianic in San-hedrin, 99a. [87] The 40 days and nights of the Great Flood (Gn 7:4), the 2 40-day fasts of Moses on Mt Sinai (Dt 9:18), and the 40 days the Hebrew spies spent undercover scoping out the land of Canaan (Nm 13:25) to name just a few.
[88] Lk 2:7, 23, Col 1:15-18, Rv 1:5.
[89] God's command that the 10th day of Nisan be commemorated (Ex 12:3) is observed every year on the last Sabbath before Passover as Shabbat Haga-dol, the traditional under-standing being that 10 Nisan at the time of the Exodus was a Sabbath. [90] Based on Dt 5:15, some traditions place the parting on 21 Nisan, the last day of Passover (Sotah 12b). Another tradition, that it occurred on the 8th day after the Passover (Rashi on Nm 15:38-41), inclines some to place it at dusk immediately follow-ing the last day of holiday (and at the start of 22 Nisan). But the crossing did not start immediately after. Scripture speaks of the seabed being first dried by a mighty wind and the crossing not starting until the following morning (Ex 14:21). [91] The crossing is traditionally thought to have taken 1 day. But the scriptural account (Ex 4:22) never explicitly says this and alludes rather (in Dt 5:15) that it ended on a Sabbath. This suggests a 2-day crossing commencing at dawn on 22 Nisan and ending after dusk at the start of the Sabbath of 24 Nisan (being exactly 2 weeks after the 10 Nisan Sabbath). [92] The Law prescribed that every 50th year was to be observed as a Jubilee Year (Lv 25:8-10). [93] Biblical account-ing has Moses coming down the mountain to witness their revelry 40 days after Pentecost sug-gesting a 15 Tammuz commemoration (Ex 24:18, 32:5-35). [94] Ex 32:34 in conjunction with Mishna, Ta’anit 4.6. [95] Lv 12:1-8 in conjunction with Lk 2:22. [96] Acts 1:3.
[97] Lv 23:17.
[98] Lk 2:24 in conjunction with Lv 12:2-8.
[99] Lk 2:41-50.
[100] With all the prece-dents this solution will be shown to set in the later chapters, some of these questions from Jesus's hidden years will finally be answered, too.
[101] Espenek and Meeus 2006.
[102] ibid.
[103] This foreshadowing is explored in much greater detail in chapter 7. [104] Jos 4:19.
[105] Chapters 3 and 7 cover the bulk of them.
Figure 1.6
Scriptural References
[a] Is 7:14, Zec 8:19, Rv 21:5, Lk 1:26-38
[b] Ex 12:14, 12:31-14:9
[c] Lk 2:1-5,41
[d] Ex 14:10-15:21
[e] Lk 2:6-20
[f] Lk 2:21
[g] Ex 19:1-19, Lv 23: 15-21 [h] Lv 12:2-4, Lk 2:22-38.
[i] Ex 20:5, 24:18, 32:1-36, Jer 39:2-8 [j] Lk 2: 19, Mk 2:19
[k] Nm 32:13, Ps 95:10 [l] Jn 1:14
[m] Jos 3:1-4:19
[n] Mk 11:1-11
[o] Jos 5:1-8
[p] Mk14:1-9
[q] Jos 5:10-12
[r] 1 Cor 11:23-24, Jn 12 : 31-32
[s] Mt 28:1-10, Col 1:18
[t] Acts 1:1-12
[u] Ex 19:20-20:21, Heb 9:4, Jos 5:13-6:20
[v] Acts 2:1-41
[106] Lk 2:26, 36.
[107] Lk 1:5.
[108] This system was instituted under the reign of King David, as described in 1 Chr 24:7-19.
[109] Antiq vii, 14, 7.
[110] It is reasonable to assume, however, that there would be no significant lag time between the an-nouncement and John's conception. Otherwise the amount of uncertainty this issue would add would render this test essentially useless. And that creates a theologically thorny issue, calling into question the Holy Spirit's rationale for even making mention of the test.
[111] And that would in-clude Jack Larson's popul- ar 2 BC Nativity hypthesis. See the commentary on Mt 2:1-9 at this book's web-site for a thorough debun-king of that claim at https: //www.gospelofcreation.com/bethlehemstar.
[112] It also lands on an auspicious observance on the Hebrew calendar. More on that in chapter 4.
[113] Jerusalem Talmud, Ta’anit 4.5. [114] Seder Olam, Rabbah 30. [115] Mishna, Ta’anit 4.6 being just one.
[116] Jerusalem Talmud, Ta'anit 4.5. (Translation by Guggenheimer 1999-2015).
[117] ibid.
[118] Wars vi, 2, 1.
[119] Friedlieb 1887, 312. [120] A commentary on John 1:14, which discusses some of the convoluted methods advocates for the 1 Sukkot Nativity hypo-thesis have used to torture this test into compliance with a system they invented for determining when the 8th House served can be found at this book’s website at https://www. gospelofcreation.com/john-1-14.
[121] The proper name for the 8th Hebrew month is Marcheshvan, which is commonly shortened to Cheshvan. And from that sprang the quaint, but erroneous, tradition that it the suffix mar- (meaning bitter) was added as a commentary of how sad the month was for its lack of holidays.
[122] The logical extension of Mt 12:33.
[1]
To get the most out of this chapter, prereading the following Scriptures may be helpful: Mt 1:18-2:18 and Lk 1:5-38, 2:1-52 for the Infancy Narrative and Jn 12:1-18, 13:1-30, 18:1-20:23 together with either Mt 26:1-27:66, Mk 14:1-15:47, or Lk 22:7-23:56 for the Passion Narrative.
To get the most out of this chapter, prereading the following Scriptures may be helpful: Mt 1:18-2:18 and Lk 1:5-38, 2:1-52 for the Infancy Narrative and Jn 12:1-18, 13:1-30, 18:1-20:23 together with either Mt 26:1-27:66, Mk 14:1-15:47, or Lk 22:7-23:56 for the Passion Narrative.
When was Jesus born? When did He die? These are two really basic questions, the answers to which anyone investigating the veracity of the Gospel Narratives is going to want to know first. Yet the writers of the New Testament never seemed to have gotten around to providing those answers, causing Christians (and non-Christians), from every era, to puzzle over them. There have, understandably, been a lot of opinions on both in that time, with theorists attacking the problem from many different angles. But in spite of how confident some claimants have been, none have succeeded in getting universal acceptance for their claims. And this is largely due to there being nothing in them to make them stand out from all the other compelling claims being made. So these questions persist, as many intuitively know, from all the clues given us in Scripture, that there must be definitive answers attainable for both of them. But, thus far, they’ve just been frustratingly outside our grasp.
Modern science has weighed in on the matter, too, and has provided a great deal more insight than we had before, so much so that it really should have ended, by now, any serious debate on the last question. But that first one, Jesus’s birthdate, is still quite elusive. We’ll get to the various scientific opinions on that one in Parts 2 and 3 (it being the primary focus of this chapter). And a solution to that riddle will be offered there, too. But let's first take a look at the inroads science has already given us on the date of the Crucifixion, because, as will be shown, they are related.
Part 1: On what day did Jesus die? Answer: April 3, 33 AD. Here’s why.
So with regard to the Crucifixion, the Gospel accounts tell us a lot, including the Hebrew calendar date and the day of the week it occurred. And if those accounts are reasonably factual, modern science has all it needs to convert that information into a Julian calendar date and year. Specifically, from Scripture we’re told that it happened …
on a Friday, [2]
during a darkening of the sun (a solar eclipse of some sort), [3]
on either the 1st day of the Jewish observance of Passover (as per the Synoptic Gospels), [4]
or the day before the 1st day of Passover (as suggested by John's Gospel), [5]
when Pontius Pilate was the Roman Procurator of Judea, [6] which is commonly held to have spanned 10 years, from 26 (or 27) AD to 36 (or 37) AD. [7]
We also know, from the way the Hebrew calendar was set up back then, that the 1st day of Passover always coincided with the full moon. And that full moon was generally either on, or immediately after, the vernal equinox. [8] That’s the rule the early Christians used, anyway, when they were setting up the liturgical calendar for the proper day to celebrate Easter. [9] The Talmud, however, explains that there were also occasions when the Temple officials would delay the start of the new ecclesiastical year (and with it, Passover) by one month to accommodate special considerations, like say, a late harvest. [10] But there are no records to tell us today when they may have done this, so those anomalous occasions are presumed rare and mostly ignored by theorists. It needs to be mentioned, though, because it does add an element of uncertainty to any proposed solution. And this is especially true of any that would have to rely on such special circumstances.
But that is, in fact, the very reason it can be ignored. If God truly did provide definitive answers for these questions, answers that would garner universal acceptance (as the Scriptures allude), and our objective in this chapter is to find these answers, the amount of added uncertainty such a solution would bring eliminates it from any further consideration. In other words, if extraordinary means are required to find it, extraordinary means will also be required to believe it. And with our bar being set so high, such answers are, by definition, self-disqualifying.
So that issue is easily averted. But it's not, unfortunately, the only uncertainty that needs to be dealt with. The problem also gets murky when the clues Scripture has given us on Jesus’s age and the length of His ministry are factored into the equation. And those issues will be addressed, too, further on. But, for now, due to the potential headaches they pose, they will be sidelined so that the focus can stay on what Scripture says directly of the Crucifixion. And as will be shown, the five clues just listed really are all that are needed to solve this mystery, anyway.
Within those five clues, however, there is also the appearance of a red herring, since a standard solar eclipse cannot coincide with a full moon. They only occur during new moons. But the Scriptures that say the sun was darkened from noon until 3 PM that day may still be valid if the sun’s light was blocked by some nonstandard means. A dust storm in the upper atmosphere, as some have suggested, could account for it (as could any number of other freak meteorological conditions). And there is good reason to suspect the sun was darkened, just as reported, because the Gospels are not alone in reporting it. More on that later. And later is also where modern science will step in to crack this case wide open.
To get there though, it is instructive to first examine the logic the early Christians employed to resolve these questions. And it is especially interesting to understand why they set Christmas to December 25, because in contrast to what has been commonly taught for centuries, modern scholarship is now showing that they likely did not pull it out of thin air in some 4th century Papal fiat whose intent was to appropriate (and thus obscure) the rituals of some raucous pagan celebrations. That is a theory whose earliest corroboration seems to come from a note, of unknown origin, attached to a letter written by a schismatic, 12th century, Syriac Orthodox Bishop (Dionysios bar Salibi). [11] And it did not become popularized in the west until 18th century Protestant Reformers saw in it a means to smear the Catholic Church. [12]
But there are no contemporary records from the 4th century that support it. So although it is reasonable that the Roman Church may indeed have thought it a nice side benefit to give the people a more pious reason for their winter solstice revelry at that time, there has been a lot of evidence unearthed since the Reformation that shows the early Christians were observing Christmas on December 25 decades prior to the establishment of the pagan feast it is being claimed they appropriated. [13] It seems far more logical, then, that the pagans would have come up with their celebration (Sol Invictus) on that date to obscure the already established Christian holiday. [14]
The writings of these early Christians also give us some insight as to the real reason they were led to this date, as many ancient Jewish traditions seem to have played an important role. One was the belief that God created the world during one of the two yearly equinoxes, with the vernal (spring) equinox being favored because it presaged new beginnings. [15] (It's easy to see, too, from the language of Scripture, how they may have come to this belief, since in their creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, the day and the night seem to be treated as equals). [16] But along those same lines, another cherished belief held that the long-awaited Messiah would also arrive in the spring (during the month of Nisan), [17] synchronizing His arrival with the creation of the world.
So, in combining those two traditions, we know that by the 3rd century some early Church Fathers had set the day Mary said yes to God and our Lord became flesh in her womb to March 25 (the day of the vernal equinox on the old Julian calendar). [18] And that would, of course, set Christmas (nine months later) to December 25. It would take another century to catch on but this alignment of the birth of the Savior (whom Scripture often likened to the sun) [19] to the winter solstice (which signaled the return of the sun) attracted a lot of adherents to the belief, with St. Augustine being, maybe, its most influential advocate. [20]
But that is only half of it. Using similar logic these early Christians also established a date for the Crucifixion. To get there, though, a third ancient tradition had to be invoked, one that also had a scriptural precedent. It came this time, however, not from the start of the Torah, but from the end, which finds Moses (the greatest prophet of the Old Testament) seemingly dying on his 120th birthday. [21] This is how the 2nd century Talmudic rabbis understood those verses, anyway. [22] And dying on one's birthday is a trait that has since become associated with all true prophets. [23] Today it’s called the Integral Age Rule and the early Christians applied it to Christ’s life, as well.
But they also knew from Scripture that Jesus was crucified in the spring, not the winter. So they seem to have carved out a special exception for the Son of Man, declaring that His death occurred, not on His birthday, but on the same day He came into our world, on March 25. Most notably, two late 2nd century / early 3rd century Roman apologists, Tertullian and Hippolytus, provided the first known promotion for this date when they both wrote that the Crucifixion took place on the 8th day before the calends of April (translation; March 25). [24] And whereas Tertullian did not specifically connect it to the date of the Annunciation, Hippolytus did.
So since everything seemed to fit so well together, providing also the set times needed for their annual celebrations and no one could offer a better solution, that became the last word for most of Christendom. And it stayed that way for some 1,500 years. Jesus according to Luke was about 30 when He began His ministry, [25] and the Gospel narratives suggest His ministry lasted about 3 years, so He was assumed to have been born on December 25 in either 1 AD of 1 BC, [26] and He died on March 25, 33 AD. And to seemingly set it in stone, some supposed Church mystics have even confirmed that those were the correct dates. [27] End of story. Well not quite.
Science was yet to be heard from. It had laid dormant in the west since the fall of the Classical Greek and Roman worlds. But having replanted itself into the fertile soil of Judeo-Christian culture, when conditions allowed that it might sprout up to gaze again at the night sky, a new sense of inquiry came with it. These Age of Enlightenment wunderkinds, with their newly invented telescopes and orreries, soon realized, from all the scientific inroads they were making, that they had the means to determine the exact positions of all the heavenly bodies throughout history. So they naturally turned their sights to the period everyone of that age had the most interest in, the time of Christ.
And the first of note inspired to do so was the celebrated German astronomer, Johannes Kepler, upon witnessing the spectacular supernova of 1604. It so impressed him, he felt he was looking at the same phenomenon the Christmas Magi must have seen. Being also a student of astrology (as most astronomers back then were) and noticing that the supernova was preceded by a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, he wondered if there was a connection. The theological ramifications of such a conjunction (known in his day as a Great Conjunction) were not lost on him either. So he did the research, made some calculations and found that a triple conjunction of those two planets did indeed occur in 7 BC. And he subsequently declared to the world he'd discovered the Star of Bethlehem. [28]
Not to be outdone, a few years later the most renowned scientist of that era, Sir Isaac Newton, applied his great intellect to determining the date of the Crucifixion. And in turning back the heavenly clock to the years he believed Jesus might have died, he quickly determined that a full moon would not have coincided with a vernal equinox in that time period. So March 25 was out of the question as a possible date for the Crucifixion if all the other clues from Scripture were correct. But, more importantly, he did find that in the year tradition has always favored for the Crucifixion (33 AD) the first day of Passover would have indeed landed on a Friday (on April 3rd to be exact). And his findings have since been corroborated, [29] making April 3, 33 AD one of the most commonly cited dates for the Crucifixion by those scientists that accept the scriptural accounts as a valid witness.
But it is not the only possible faith-based, scientific stance. Newton only looked at the years 31 - 36 AD. Had he looked earlier, he'd have found two other dates during Pilate’s service years in Judea where the first day of Passover might have fallen on a Friday. The others are April 11, 27 AD and April 7, 30 AD. But the direct evidence still favors the 33 AD date, and it is not merely due to that year being more traditional.
For one thing, Luke’s Gospel tells of Jesus’s cousin, John the Baptist, beginning his ministry in the 15th year of the Roman Emperor Tiberius (Luke 3:1), which translates to sometime around the year 28 AD. And we also know from Scripture that John had a ministry that preceded Jesus’s by probably, at least a year and ended sometime during Jesus’s ministry (before the Crucifixion). So if Jesus did die in 27 AD that would seem to be in direct conflict with Luke’s Gospel. And a 30 AD Crucifixion is really pushing things, too, suggesting Jesus had maybe only a 1-year ministry, at best.
In defense of the possibility, however, it has been noted that some in the very early Church did hold to Jesus having a 1-year ministry. And they seem to have arrived at this belief by taking the wording in some Old Testament Messianic prophecies maybe a little too literally. Isaiah 34:8, 61:2 and 63:4 (where the prophet respectively speaks of a year of requital, a year of favor and a year of redeeming) are typically cited. [30] But this is obviously figurative language. And taking it otherwise leads to a conflict, this time, with John's Gospel, which lists three distinct Passovers during Christ's ministry (John 2:16, 6:4 and 11:55). Undaunted, advocates of the 1-year ministry find various ways of disputing the John 6:4 Passover. But those arguments are convoluted by any objective measure.
They do a little better, though, with Tiberius’s reign, suggesting that Luke’s reference to it may have included the one to two years he was co-ruler of the Empire with Augustus before he assumed sole leadership. And in pushing the start of John’s ministry back two years, as that assertion implies, it does allow for a 3-year ministry and a 30 AD Crucifixion. The 27 AD Crucifixion, however, even with all this tweaking, still seems impossibly difficult to square with Scripture, without doing damage to it.
So this leaves us with two reasonably possible dates for the Crucifixion. The evidence uncovered, thus far, would seem to slightly favor 33 AD, due to it requiring no data manipulation to make it work. But 30 AD is plausible, too (and many do adhere to it). More data seems needed, therefore, to settle the issue. And fortunately, there is more data to sift through. It's found once again in the heavens. And as it turns out, hidden within its many secrets, is what many believe to be all that is needed to tip the scales conclusively to April 3, 33 AD, for if that truly was the date of the Crucifixion, there may have been as many as three eclipses directly pointing to and heralding that day. [31]
The first to bear witness was the lunar eclipse that took place 6 months prior on October 7, 32 AD. [32] This would have coincided with the 1st day of Sukkot (the Feast of Booths) that year. Being only penumbral, however, for people living in the Middle East, it should not have been easily recognizable. It would have been maybe subtly darker in appearance at its rising, as is common when the moon lies within the earth’s penumbral shadow. [33] And a reddish tint may have also accompanied it, as that often occurs when any full moon is at the horizon at dusk. (It's the result of Rayleigh Scattering, the same mechanism that can sometimes paint the sky red in the twilight hours
hours between sunset and dusk. And, with a moon in the earth's shadow, it can be more pronounced due to all the sunlight that is still getting to it being filtered, on its way there, through the earth’s atmosphere).
Other than looking a little odd, though, it should not have been very remarkable, and likely not even recognized as an eclipse. It is only when the sun’s light to the moon is totally blocked (by the moon being in the earth’s umbral shadow) that it has the characteristic appearance of having had a bite taken out of it. And the umbral phase of this eclipse would not have been visible in Judea. Nevertheless, this eclipse may still have played an important role on the night that Jesus died. And the reason will become apparent very soon.
Moving on, the next eclipse that may have played an important role, is the March 19, 33 AD total solar eclipse that occurred 15 days prior to the Crucifixion. [34] This was on 1 Nisan, the first day of the Hebrew month that saw the Crucifixion. And, since it commemorates the first day of the Jewish liturgical year, it is also a holiday (Rosh Chodesh Nisan). [35] The eclipse would not have been visible to anyone living in Jerusalem, so it is doubtful to have had any effect on them. But that simply suggests that it was not intended for them, that it was put there to stand rather as a marker for us, today, to tell us something extraordinary happened here.
Mk 15:42, Lk 23:54, Jn 19:31.
Mt 27:45, Mk 15:33, Lk 23:44,
Mt 26:2, 17, Mk 14:1, 12, Lk 22:7.
Jn 19:14.
Mt 27:2, Mk 15:1, Lk 23:1, Jn 18:28.
Per Josephus (Antiq xviii, 4, 2) Pilate’s 10 years in Judea came to an end in an incident that occurred just prior to the death of the Roman Emperor Tiberius (who is known by many sources to have died in the spring of 37 AD). See also Bond 1998.
A great deal more detail on how the Hebrew calendar was set up back then is provided in chapter 3.
The formula used by the Church in the west for celebrating Easter, (the 1st Sunday after the full moon after the vernal equinox) was based on the Jewish formula for Passover. And it became the standard for most of Christendom by the end of the 2nd century AD, with the resolution of the Quartodeciman controversy (Thurston 1909).
Sanhedrin 11b lists 3 criteria the Jerusalem Temple authorities used to justify it. Two were to ensure the crops would be sufficiently ripe for the harvest festivals and the third was to ensure the holiday of Sukkot is always after the autumnal equinox. And by extension this would also ensure that the holiday of Passover (6 months prior) was always after the vernal equinox.
MacMullen 1997, 155. See also Martindale 1909.
Nothaft 2011, 503-522.
Saturnalia, for one, was celebrated 2 days earlier (from December 17 to 23). And Sol Invictus was created by the Roman emperor, Aurelian, in 274 AD (Hijmans 1996), which was about a half a century after many Christians had already adopted that date for Christmas, as can be seen in Hippolytus of Rome’s Commentary on Daniel (ca. 203 AD), Sextus Julius Africanus’s Chronographiai (221 AD) and Pseudo-Cyprian’s De Pascha Computus (ca. 240 AD).
Tally 1988.
The Babylonian Talmud (Berakhot 59b) speaks of a ritual per-formed on the vernal equinox (and still performed today) called Birkhat Hachama. It is a blessing of the sun on its birthday.
Gn 1:3-5. But the seeming equality of the day and the night is found in many Scriptures, See also Ps 74:16 and especially Ps 139:12.
The Babylonian Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 11a) presents two dueling opinions on the matter, one favoring spring and the other, fall. But with Christ’s great sacrifice coinciding with the Jewish Passover holiday, the scales, for Christians, tipped for the spring.
Pseudo-Cyprian (ca. 240 AD) De Pascha Computus.
See, for instance, Ps 84:11, Is 60:1, Mal 4:2 (3:20 in some texts) and Lk 1:78.
St. Augustine of Hippo (ca. 400 AD) Sermons 188 & 192
In Dt 31:2, Moses announces his age in a manner suggesting it is his birthday, and shortly thereafter, in Dt 32:46-34:6, we are told of his death, presumably, on the same day.
Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 12b and Megillah 13b, to cite just two of many.
The Talmud does not reveal whether the Jews at this time applied this tradition to other prophets. But the writings of the cont-emporary Christians show that some did apply it to Christ.
See Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) Adversus Judaeos 8 and Hippolytus (ca. 203 AD) Commentary on Daniel.
Lk 3:17.
The Anno Domini system, invented in the 6th century by the Eastern Roman monk, Dionysius Exiguus, was centered on this belief.
17th century Spanish abbess, Mary of Agreda, for one.
He wrote of it in De Stella Nova (1606) and De Anno Natali Christi (1614). His is not, however, the only candidate for the Star, just the first. Some of the many other possibilities can be found in Figure 1.5.
Pratt 1991.
Maas 1910. And ironically, had those the early Church Fathers interpreted those 3 years in Isaiah as being consecutive, rather than concurrent, there would have been no conflict.
Two additional eclipses will be discussed further on in Part 3, of this chapter, bringing the total number of eclipses that can be shown to be associated with the life of Christ to five.
Espenek and Meeus 2009.
Humphreys and Waddington 1992, 347, also Espenek 2020.
Espenek and Meeus 2006.
Ex 12:2, 40:2.
one, it was only a partial eclipse. And for another, there does not seem, at first glance, to be any mention of a lunar eclipse at Calvary as a foreshadowing or prophecy in the Old Testament or as an eyewitness account in the New. This makes it anecdotal and, therefore, statistically uninteresting. But the biggest issue is that, with the sun not setting until 5:58 PM and the moon not rising until 6:02 PM, the residents of Jerusalem would have caught only the last 10 minutes of the umbral stage in the twilight. [38] And that seems hardly enough time for it to have made an impact on anyone.
These difficulties also make it easy for those who ascribe to a different Crucifixion year to discount this eclipse as coincidental and, therefore, irrelevant. But in neglecting to try to view things from the anguished eyes of Christ's followers that night, they are missing a lot.
So let’s reset the stage and look at this once again from a more empathetic perspective. The person they’d abandoned everything for was in the tomb. Their movement was shattered. Their very lives were in jeopardy and the Apostles would have been, understandably, terribly distraught, their heads filled with doubt. [39] With their shepherd struck down, the sheep were in desperate need of some sort of a sign from God, any sign, to tell them all was not lost. And they were likely looking everywhere (the sky especially) to find one. In hindsight they recalled Jesus warning them several times this was going to happen. But until now it hadn’t really registered. And that part about Him rising again on the third day, made no sense at all. Sure, they’d seen Him raise the man Lazarus (who was 4 days dead) from the tomb. But how could someone who was dead resurrect Himself?!
And Jesus knew they would not understand no matter what He said to prepare them. So, shortly before coming to Jerusalem He pulled three of them (James, Peter and John) aside and gave them a little preview of what was coming by taking them up a mountain and gracing them with a vision of His body transfigured in its post-resurrection glory. He also strictly forbade them from telling a soul what they’d seen until after He’d risen. And they obeyed Him not fully understanding any of it. [40]
But in looking to the sky that night for their sign it was starting to make sense. They saw the full moon rising in the twilight at the foot of the constellation Virgo (the Virgin), as it does every year around the first day of Passover. But this moon was different. It had a strange coloration to it, strange yet oddly familiar. And then they realized. It was almost identical in appearance to the moon they’d seen exactly six Hebrew months earlier on the 1st day of Sukkot. And while the others may not have noticed, for Jesus's inner circle it was unmistakable. It called them back to the night of the Transfiguration, a night when Peter had offered to build three booths to house Jesus and His two companions (Moses and Elijah). Luke’s Gospel tells us Peter didn’t know what he was saying when he said this, suggesting that it was the Holy Spirit speaking through him. [41] And now we know why. It was to tell us all today the moment this happened, as building and living in makeshift huts for eight days is the defining ritual associated with Sukkot, the Feast of Tabernacles (or Booths). [42]
So with this moon Jesus was telling them something extraordinary, He was reminding James, Peter and John that the time was coming to tell the others what they had seen, and it also encouraged them in the knowledge that something wonderful was about to happen. And as it turned out something wonderful did happen exactly 40 hours after Jesus had given up the ghost (if tradition is to be believed on the timing). That first Easter Sunday would have also been exactly 180 days (1/2 of an apocalyptic year) [43] after the date the eclipse has set for the Transfiguration.
So the similarities between those two eclipsed moons were striking. But there was also one striking dissimilarity. Their first 10-minute glimpse of the moon they were looking at now would have had the appearance of a small crimson bite having been taken out of its top right corner. It may have looked to them like a drop of blood had fallen onto the otherwise brightly lit orb. And yes, it may have lasted for only 10 minutes, but that was sufficient to tell them that the moon they were looking at had been in eclipse. It was a blood moon, as lunar eclipses were called back then and are still called today. [44] And they also now knew that this blood moon had likely been going on throughout the time of Christ’s ordeal.
The significance of there being a blood moon at Christ’s death was not lost on them either. It was part of a prophecy that was well known to every Jew living in Jerusalem at that time, because a blood moon was believed to have occurred the night of a monumental event in Judaism, the angel of death killing all the firstborn sons of Egypt at the time of the Passover. Building on that tradition the prophet Joel, writing during the time of the Davidic Kings, foretold the following …
The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood,
before the great and the terrible day of the LORD. (Jl 2:31, KJV).
Shabbat Hagadol, which took its name (the Great Sabbath) from that prophecy, was (and still is) observed every year (at God’s command) [45] on the last Sabbath before Passover to remind the people of that great and terrible day. And every devout Jew would have been well acquainted with the prophecy, too, since they likely heard it recited every year in connection to this Sabbath. [46] But being a prophecy, it was also understood to pertain to the coming of the Messiah. [47] And that is exactly how the Apostles were seeing it that night. They’d already seen the sun darkened that afternoon as their Lord was lifted high on the cross. And now they realized the moon, too, had been in perfect compliance. The prophecy clearly fulfilled; it must have given them enormous comfort. God, Himself, was telling them, through the majesty of His creation, don’t fret. Sit tight. Everything was going exactly as planned and that great and terrible day was now right around the corner. (In fact, it had already happened).
Would they have spread the good news to others in their community whose faith had also been seriously shaken? Of course, they would have. James, Peter and John were still required to hold back on their half of the story, but not for long. And when Christ did rise it allowed them to add one more embellishment to a story the entire city was already abuzz over. [48] That would be the logical chain of events for a 33 AD Crucifixion if the Gospel accounts of the Passion Week narrative are accurate. And although it may still have the appearance to some of uncorroborated speculation, it is propped up considerably by the later testimony of, at least, two of the three Apostles who had witnessed the Transfiguration.
For John (whom tradition holds was the only Apostle to have actually witnessed the Crucifixion) he seems to have interpreted the painful events of that day as representative of birth pangs symbolizing Christ’s Bride (the Church) [49] being born. It shows up first in his Gospel by his emphasis of the blood and the water flowing from Jesus’s side after He’d died on the cross. [50] These two vital fluids, he later explained, represent and comprise two of the three essential elements of the Church (her sacraments) that all who would follow Christ must be baptized into (the third element being the Spirit). [51] And with so much of John’s writings being influenced by the Book of Genesis, [52] the scene at the cross shows an obvious parallel being made to the birth of Eve, Adam’s bride. [53]
And John continues this theme into his Book of Revelation where we find him using imagery that seems suspiciously similar to what he definitely would have seen in the twilight following the Crucifixion. Therein we read …
A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed in the sun with the moon at her feet,
and on her head a crown of twelve stars. [54]
And further on in the text we learn that the woman is in labor and the male child she gives birth to is destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. [55] Many see in this image a metaphor for the birth of Christ. And that is a legitimate interpretation. But the crown being representative of the twelve tribes of Israel suggests also a deeper meaning, one where the woman is the embodiment of Judaism making her child, therefore, the embodiment of the Christian Church.
For that to be something other than mere coincidence, however, there would need to be other such markers that highlight watershed moments in the life of Christ. And as it turns out, there are (more on that in Part 3). But as pertains to this particular eclipse it is sufficient to simply allude to those other eclipses to justify its mention (its main purpose here, seemingly, to build up the suspense for what is coming).
And that brings us to the proposed day of the Crucifixion, April 3 (15 Nisan), which also saw the third and most celebrated eclipse. [36] And this one, a lunar eclipse, seems perfectly choreographed to the timing of Christ’s death and later interment. It began at 2:01 PM, which would have marked what Scripture suggests was the onset of His final hour on the cross. [37] And it continued into the evening with its umbral stage ending at around 6:12 PM and its penumbral stage not ending until 7:34 PM. Its entire duration would have spanned, therefore, 5 hours and 33 minutes, or rather 333 minutes (a seemingly very appropriate timespan to occur on 4/3/33 AD).
As elegant as that sounds, however, there are some aspects of it that detractors take exception to. For one,
Espenek and Meeus 2009.
Mt 27:46, Mk 15:34.
Others have argued that it would have been visible for a longer time. Humphreys, for instance, calculated a 50-minute duration (Humphreys and Waddington 1992, 346). But for the sake of argument the worst case scenario found in the literature (10 minutes) is chosen for this discussion.
Mt 26:31.
Mk 9:9-10.
Lk 9:33.
The rituals associated with Sukkot (laid out in Lv 23:42) have led many to link that holiday to the Transfiguration. But additional corroboration is provided in chapters 3 and 4.
An apocalyptic year is so-named for the number of days assigned to a year (360) in the Book of Revelation, where, building on the phraseology found in the Book of Daniel (Dn 9:27), it equates 1,260 days to both 42 months and 3½ years (Rv 11:2-3).
Humphreys cites several examples of ancient writers associating lunar eclipses with blood, the earliest reference being to a 4th century BC eclipse by Roman historian, Quintus Curtius Rufus, in his Histories of Alexander the Great iv, 10, 2 (Humphreys and Waddington 1992, 343).
Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 11a.
With the reading of the great and terrible day in Mal 3:23 being a long standing tradition for Shabbat Hagadol, it is reasonable to assume that Jl 2:31 (the other main scriptural reference to that day) would have commonly also been cited.
This ancient understanding is maybe most easily seen in the Jewish custom that sprang from it, that of setting an extra place for the prophet Elijah at the Passover Seder meal, that he might come to usher in the Messianic age, per Mal 3:23.
Lk 24:18.
Eph 5:22-27, Rv 19:7-9.
Jn 19:34-35.
… not by water alone, but by water and blood (1 Jn 5:6-8 NAB). See also Mt 3:16, 16:24 and Jn 3:5.
Barrosse 1959.
Gn 2:21-23. And this also makes sense of why God made Eve in this fashion.
Rv 12:1, NAB.
Rv 12:5.
As pertains to this discussion, however, the two images in this vision that seem out of place are the sun and the moon. And to get a handle on what John is saying, a similar vision (in Genesis 37:9-10) might be consulted as a foreshadowing. But the people the sun and moon represent in those verses do not apply here at all. So John's intent is hard to understand until it is recognized that the moon rising at the foot of Virgo in the twilight was a common sight every year around the first day of Passover (Figure 1.4). [56] And every devout Jew in those days would have likely been aware of that. It would have stood out as an unwavering sign, wherever they might be, that the Passover had arrived. It makes sense, then, that John might have wanted to ground his vision with a time stamp that his readers might know the exact day it came into fulfillment, the exact day the Church had been born.
Screenshot obtained using the STARRY NIGHT software program with the top banner slightly repositioned for the graphic. Web address and link provided in the References section.
(ca. 410 AD) Tractate 29.6, On St. John’s Gospel in Gibb and Innes 1873.
So this take by John suggests he was more than a little inspired by what he saw that night. But it is in Peter’s testimony where the blood moon is brought directly into the discussion. And he didn’t wait quite as long as John to tell us of it. A mere 50 days later at Pentecost, Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addressed a crowd in Jerusalem to boldly tell them all of Christ’s death, resurrection and the good news of salvation. [57] It is a long speech that brings up many Old Testament prophecies and how they’d been fulfilled in the man, Jesus. And it begins with the aforementioned verses from Joel that speak of the darkened sun and the moon turned to blood. Why? Why should that have been the first prophecy cited?
Answer: When addressing a crowd of people, a good orator knows that beginning with something topical and familiar, something they’ve all been talking about, is an excellent way of grabbing their attention. And even if Peter didn't know that, the Holy Spirit surely did. So with it being so soon after the Crucifixion and rumored Resurrection (both had to have still been the talk of the town), any odd phenomena associated with either (like say, the darkened sun) should have also been fresh in their minds. And that would certainly include a blood moon, as well, if one had truly been there to see. Blood moons were chilling omens back then (thanks largely to Joel). And they always got people’s attention. So for Peter to not merely mention Joel’s prophecy but to lead with it makes it pretty clear (to a lot of people) that he was assuring his audience that the blood moon and the darkened sun they'd seen the day of Christ's death was not just a coincidence, that Joel's prophecy had been fulfilled and they'd seen it with their own eyes. And he won over a lot of people that way. We're told that 3,000 were baptized on the spot. And it continues to win people over, making 33 AD, for them, the most likely year it occurred.
As compelling as this argument is for people of faith, however, for those that have none it's all speculative and proves nothing. [58] And even among believers there are still those who argue for a 30 AD Crucifixion, or the even earlier 27 AD possibility. And their primary reason for taking that position seems to be the preponderance of secular evidence pointing to Herod the Great (a key figure in Matthew's Nativity story) dying in 4 BC, combined with the traditional belief (derived in part from Scripture) that Jesus was crucified at the age of 33. That seems to make it very difficult for some to accept a Crucifixion year as late as 33 AD. The math just doesn’t line up.
But how solid are those criteria? Did Herod really die in 4 BC? Or could Jesus have been older when He died? Modern science has a lot to say on both questions. So let’s now focus this query on the Nativity to see what can be determined there. And spoiler alert, in so doing a date will be proposed for the Nativity that should ultimately not only end all serious debate on the true date of Christmas; it should do the same for Good Friday and Easter, as well.
Part 2: Can modern science tell us, definitively, the year Jesus was born?
Answer: It can. But there are very few, at present, who can accept it.
So in moving onto the Nativity there are seemingly as many great clues given us in Scripture to tell us the year Christ was born as have already been seen for the Crucifixion. So it might be expected that the Holy Spirit has given us all we need to solve this riddle, too. But, whether or not that is true, you are not going to see anywhere near as much consensus amongst theorists for the exact year. The problem lies in there being maybe a little too much room for different interpretations of the clues. And, as is always the case, a lot of personal prejudices seem to be getting in the way, as well, to make the big picture even more obscure. But as has been said, there really is a definitive answer. And, to reveal it, the same methodology from Part 1 will be employed. In gathering all the clues, therefore, to start, they are found, as before, to fall into two categories, those that point directly to the Nativity and those that point indirectly to it by way of back calculating from the Crucifixion. But once again we're initially going to focus solely on those clues that point us directly to the Nativity leaving those in the second category out of the discussion, just as they were in Part 1, with the promise that they really will be addressed eventually, just not yet. That said, here is what Scripture informs us was going on in the world around the time that Jesus was born …
-
Caesar Augustus was the emperor of Rome, [59]
-
Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was the Roman governor of Syria, [60]
-
Herod the Great was the King of Judea, [61]
-
a census of the entire Roman world was being conducted, [62]
-
and there was a sign of some sort in the sky so descriptive and impressive that it motivated astrologers to travel to Judea to pay homage to the king whose birth they believed was being heralded. This sign is commonly known today as the Star of Bethlehem. [63]
And when researching each of these criteria with the secular record some very firm dates are found on all five counts. So that is a good sign to start out with. On the other hand, however, many of these clues are also found to be so wide-ranging they have virtually no value in pinning things down. With regard to the first clue, for instance, we know with a great deal of confidence that the Roman general, Octavius, took the name, Augustus and became the undisputed sole ruler of Rome in 27 BC. And he reigned until his death in 14 AD. But with his reign spanning from way before to way after Jesus was likely born, it is an essentially useless bit of information for our purposes here. It shows us, on that one count, there is not going to be any argument, at least, with Scripture. But that's about it.
Moving on then to Herod (clue #2), his reign was also one of several decades, with the majority opinion placing its start sometime around the year 37 BC and its ending (with his death) in 4 BC. [64] And that date comes in a large part from Josephus, who fixed Herod’s death to a datable lunar eclipse, [65] and several other datable markers all pointing to 4 BC. [66] Nevertheless, that date has not gone uncontested. There are some who claim that Josephus’s writings have become corrupted over the centuries and show further that the earliest texts we have of Josephus are amenable to Herod dying in 1 BC. [67]
Josephus is not, however, the only ancient source that testifies for 4 BC. [68] And the argument for 1 BC is also a little suspect when you see those who advocate for it also using it to promote their belief in a 1 or 2 BC Nativity. Tainted by bias or not, the argument is, nevertheless, still sufficiently valid to concede that it is possible Herod lived 3 years longer than is traditionally thought. And that renders this clue essentially useless, too. It is only exclusionary to Nativity dates proposed that are later than 1 BC.
That takes us next then to, Quirinius, (clue #3), with hopes high of finding something a little more conclusive, only to have them immediately dashed when the ancient records are consulted. It turns out this clue has been the cause of extreme heartburn for Scripture scholars for centuries. But it’s not this time a dispute on his dates of service. Quirinius existed all right and the records are uncontested as to when he was a governor of Syria, too. The issue is that they clearly show his time as governor spanned from 6 to 12 AD, which is at least 7 years after the latest date we’ve determined Herod could have lived (and most likely 10). So there is obviously something amiss here. And it must be either Scripture, our interpretation of Scripture, or the sketchy secular record that is at fault.
Of those theorists who reject the first two possibilities and assume that the secular record is the problem, some imaginative solutions have been proposed. And the most common explanation, in its various forms, seems to be centered on Quirinius having, not one but, two terms as governor, with the record of his first term, the one that would have coincided with Christ’s birth, being lost to history. It’s a logical hypothesis. And it is very appealing to those who feel any questioning of the accuracy of Luke’s Gospel is tantamount to blasphemy. And there have been artifacts discovered that some people feel confirm the possibility. [69] But there is nothing at all that would be considered remotely conclusive. So with no concrete evidence to back it up, we are forced to admit that this particular clue is not going to have any value in providing an answer we can have confidence in, either.
And that leaves, but two, final clues connected directly to Christ’s infancy: the worldwide census and the Star of Bethlehem. So if there is an answer to this riddle it is going to have to be found through one, or preferably both, of them. And looking first to the Star, we find that with modern science’s ability to turn back the celestial clock there are understandably many who have taken this approach. And there are many also who insist that they’ve not only found the Star this way but can also divine by this method the exact day Jesus was born. So this would be exciting news but for one major problem. Those who claim this don’t agree.
As Figure 1.5 demonstrates, the heavens were rife with signs throughout the years Jesus is thought to have been born. And compelling arguments have been made for all of them. Some arguments are naturally better than others. But none really stand out as being clearly superior. And this too is understandable because ultimately it needs to be recognized that there are two fatal flaws inherent to this approach. The first (which these claimants never seem to acknowledge) is that the Holy Spirit played a crucial role in this Nativity drama, too. And He could have inspired the Magi to travel to Jerusalem through any heavenly sign, whether we can figure out what it is today, or not. So that is one major area of uncertainty.
Acts 2:14-41.
... as was prophesied in Mt 12:39.
Lk 2:1.
Lk 2:2.
Mt 2:1, 19-20.
Lk 2:1-5.
Mt 2:1-13.
Schürer 1891, 400-467.
Antiq xvii, 6, 4 speaks of a lunar eclipse (aka, blood moon) occurring just prior to Herod’s death and (in an apparent foreshadowing) on the evening following the martyrdom of a Jewish zealot. The eclipse is generally dated, by other clues in the text, to Mar. 13, 4 BC, although some are now placing it at Jan. 9, 1 BC. It is incidentally the only mention of a lunar eclipse in any of Josephus’s writings.
Antiq xiv, 16, 4, xv, 5, 2, xvii, 8, 1, xviii, 6, 10 and xx,10,
Beyer 1998.
Bernegger 1983, 526-531.
A stone, thought to be a fragment from Quirinius’s sepulcher, listing his accomplishments mentions that he was the Proconsul (Governor) of Asia and a [legate] divi Augusti (imperial official) iterum (twice) in Syria. This is believed by some to be evidence of Quirinius being governor on two separate occasions. It provides, however, no means of dating his service and specifically speaks of only one term as governor. A photograph of the gravestone is available online at the Vatican website. (See References for link).
The other big problem is that the Star is said to have directed the Magi to the very location where the Holy Family was residing and then stood still above it to tell them they’d arrived (Matthew 2:9). And there is simply no natural phenomenon that can account for such behavior (and certainly nothing that is listed in Figure 1.5.). [70] This is why the Star that led the Magi on the last leg of their journey was commonly thought, in the early days of Christendom, to be of supernatural origin, [71] an angel of light, perhaps, like the one that led the shepherds to the manger.
It's not a fool's errand, however, to become acquainted with the celestial signs at that time. It is reasonable to assume that at least one of them had something to do with setting the Magi off to Jerusalem for the first leg of their journey. And there have been some very compelling candidates proposed. So once the date for the Nativity has been determined it should be able to tell us which of these arguments is the most plausible. But not the other way around. There are simply too many possibilities.
So that leaves but one final clue, (#4), the worldwide census. And, given our track record with all the others, one might be inclined to be pessimistic. That would be a mistake, however, because it is here that we finally hit paydirt. This is the one clue, of all of them, providing a year for the Nativity that leaves virtually nothing to argue about, because it is quite literally set in stone. It comes to us from the deathbed testimony of the person who instituted the census, Caesar Augustus, who ordered in 14 AD that a statement listing all his mighty deeds be engraved onto monuments to himself throughout his empire. [72] And he brags in those monuments of only three such censuses, one that he conducted just as he was coming to power (in 28 BC and way too early to be the Nativity census), one in the last year of his reign (in 14 AD, which is, once again, completely out of the question) and one in the middle of his reign in 8 BC. And that’s a bingo, because it is a near certainty (given that it was a boast), that there were no others,
So you might think with such strong evidence in support of it, that an 8 BC Nativity would be the majority opinion on the matter. But strangely it is not. You can’t even call it a minority opinion, among scholars, anyway, as there are seemingly none who advocate for it. They acknowledge the possibility of an 8 BC Nativity, but merely as the earliest date it could be. And those who venture further to weigh in on when they feel Jesus actually was born, all seem to favor a later date. Looking at it through a wider lens, however, it is not that puzzling why. The reader may recall that there was another category of clues that hasn’t yet been considered, those that tie the Nativity to the Crucifixion. And the desire to make use of all the clues seems to be heavily influencing solutions, with the tradition that Jesus died at the age of 33 being hard to let go of.
In staying steadfast to Luke, therefore, in their interpretation of his about 30 statement, every man jack of them is forced to conclude that either Caesar Augustus was lying when he boasted of conducting only three worldwide censuses or Luke was mistaken when he called the census worldwide (that it was really just a local census). And the arguments they come up with in support of their claims are as imaginative as they were with the Quirinius clue. But also, like Quirinius, they can produce no hard evidence to back them up. Circumstantially they will note, though, that Judea under Herod’s rule was a Client Kingdom of Rome, which gave Judea certain rights and a great deal of autonomy so long as they didn’t violate the terms of the treaty. And as it pertains to this discussion, it should have prevented Rome from conducting a census there.
So although it seems very odd that one verse in Luke seems universally accepted while another seems universally rejected, that last argument about Judea being a Client Kingdom is valid and needs to be addressed. Let’s, therefore, reboot this analysis (starting with clue #2), and readdress, not just that issue but, all the issues, and this time from a perspective that no one seems to have yet taken, from the perspective that Jesus really was born in 8 BC.
As to Herod’s reign, and the current controversy there, it really doesn’t matter whether Herod died in 4 or 1 BC. An 8 BC Nativity works with either date, so Herod is not an issue.
And given that Matthew's Gospel suggests Jesus may have been as old as 2 when the Magi arrived, [73] an 8 BC Nativity can be seen to work with Kepler's argument for the Star. The more likely scenario, however, given the lack obvious celestial signs that year is that the Star was of supernatural origin from start to finish. And if it was visible only to the Magi, it would more than explain their motivation to travel. The picture it paints for us today, too, is quite sublime. Through this modern, scientifically enhanced, understanding of the Nativity, we have science (the Magi) and theology (the shepherds) finally both coming together to worship the Christ child.
Moving on to a stickier problem, Quirinius, it was well known to everyone living in Judea in the time of Christ that he was governor of Syria in 6 AD, because he conducted and oversaw a very unpopular local census there in that year. It became infamous for the riot it caused and the large number of obligatory crucifixions it likely spawned in its aftermath (Rome's standard prescription for insurrectionists). Luke even makes mention of it in his Book of Acts. [74] It has become a common belief among many scholars, then, that in Luke's Gospel, either Luke, or a later copier, mistakenly juxtaposed the name of the true governor of Syria at the time Jesus was born with that of the infamous, Quirinius. But there is another explanation that does much less damage to Scripture.
Roman records tell us that the governor of Syria in 8 BC was a fellow named Gaius Sentius Saturninus. His term spanned from 9 to 7 (or 6) BC. And remarkably, there is also an ancient text of Luke that actually names him (and not Quirinius) as the Syrian governor when Jesus was born. We don’t have the actual manuscript, but we do know of it secondhand from the late 2nd century writings of the early Christian apologist, Tertullian. And therein he just happens to cite that specific verse from his version of Luke in an unrelated argument he was making against a heretic named Marcion. [75] It seems very reasonable, therefore, likely even, that Saturninus may also be the name Luke included in his original manuscript. And the reason Luke’s Gospel no longer says that today could be because someone copying that text early on changed the name to Quirinius (thinking Luke had made a mistake) with that mistake being propagated into thousands of subsequent copies and the original version disappearing completely.
Sure, it would be nice to have at least one ancient text of Luke’s Gospel that contains that subtle difference. It would allow textual critics to put it up against the thousands of other slightly different ancient text fragments of Luke we do have to conclusively determine which came first. And should such a copy be found and then be proven to be closer to the original manuscript than any of the others, it would probably end all dissent on the year Jesus was born. But the fact that this has not yet happened does not negate the possibility. To summarize then, the mention of Saturninus by Tertullian does not prove Jesus was born in 8 BC. But it does allow for it without there being a conflict with Scripture. And it is as good a resolution to the Quirinius mystery as any of the others (maybe better).
That issue plausibly resolved, we move on to the worldwide census and the assertion that Rome would have never violated the sovereignty of one of their Client Kingdoms to conduct a census there. And this is a valid point given that censuses back then were primarily for taxation purposes. And people were already paying an enormous amount in taxes to finance Herod’s exorbitant building projects, with a part of it also already going to Rome in the form of the tribute Herod had to regularly cough up. So for Rome to come in and take a census, ostensibly to get even more money, it could have incited an insurrection or even a war. And Rome wouldn’t have wanted that to happen either. So, as has already been mentioned, as long as Herod stayed true to the treaty, it should have kept the Romans out.
But did Herod stay true to the treaty? Flavius Josephus chimes in again with another relevant story. In his, Antiquities of the Jews, he wrote of a small period of time when Herod fell out of favor with Rome for his attack on the sovereignty of a neighboring Client Kingdom, Arabia. And they immediately petitioned Rome to do something about it. To this Josephus writes …
“Cæsar, without staying to hear for what reason he did it, and how it was done, grew very angry,
and wrote to Herod sharply. The sum of his epistle was this, that whereas of old he had used him as his friend, he should now use him as his subject.” [76]
This ominous statement of condemnation from Rome makes it pretty clear that Herod’s actions had caused Judea to suffer a major loss in status. And when did this happen? Well Josephus aligns it with the time of Saturninus, putting it somewhere between 9 and 6 BC. [77] Herod soon after regained favor with Rome and maintained it until his death. But in 8 BC we see, from that incident, a window of opportunity for Scripture to have, once again, been proven 100% accurate in its details. And it is the only such window in time where it is logical that the Romans could have lawfully conducted a census in Judea during one of the proposed years Jesus might have been born. Would it have incited a riot? It certainly could have. But we already saw from the precedent of the riot that the local census of 6 AD caused, that the threat of rioting was not that big a concern of Rome. It was a relentlessly brutal regime when it needed to be and it had some very effective means of putting down rebellion.
And that gets us to the last and seemingly most formidable objection. It is Luke’s about 30 statement and the powerful tradition that Jesus was 33 when He died. Yet on closer scrutiny this one is found to have a resolution similar in nature to that for Quirinius. It is not, however, a question of what Luke actually said this time, but in what he may have actually meant in saying Jesus was about 30 when He began His ministry. That is, we know what about 30 means to us today, but what did it mean back then before the number zero was invented and people’s idea of math involved letters rather than numbers?
For an answer we turn to someone who had a firsthand familiarity with ancient Greek thought, the late 2nd century Apostolic Father, Christian apologist, saint and martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, who was adamant that Jesus was much older than 33 when He died. [78] And in support of that belief he argued it was absolutely necessary for Christ to experience every stage of life from infancy to old age that He could sanctify each stage and in all things be preeminent. This information he also claimed to have been passed down to him through his teachers from the Apostles, themselves. And theologically it does make sense, as there is more than one instance in Scripture that speaks of the necessity of Christ being all in all. [79] Christ, however, even by this discussion's estimation, seems a little young to qualify for that final stage. But that is a modern point of view. The way Irenaeus puts it, it was common knowledge in his day that old age began at 40. [80] So a 40-year-old Jesus, as this chapter asserts, would just slide in under the wire, by Irenaeus's standard, and cover that base, as well.
Irenaeus may not, however, have been in complete accord with the solution being presented here, given that he estimated Jesus to be somewhere around 50 when he died. But his main argument from Scripture, the 8th chapter of John’s Gospel, which speaks of the Pharisees complaining that Jesus, at the end of His ministry, was not yet 50 (in appearance, anyway) [81] raises a very salient question. When the Holy Spirit inspired John to include this confrontation in his Gospel was it to trick us or to give us another clue as to Jesus’s true age? Because it does not mesh well with Jesus being in His early 30s when it happened. But Jesus being at, or near, 40 works just fine.
Anyway, from Irenaeus’s perspective then, a more compatible solution to Luke’s about 30 statement might be to see it as an idiom that is maybe better translated today as Jesus being in His 30s when He began His ministry. It has the same degree of ambiguity, but it is more accommodating of John's not yet 50 statement. And an 8 BC Nativity coupled with a 3-year ministry and a 33 AD Crucifixion argues for Jesus beginning His ministry at the age of 37, which is now totally reasonable by this slightly nuanced understanding of Luke.
As to Jesus being around 40 at the time of His death, it aligns perfectly with several very appropriate Old Testament foreshadowings. It is, for instance, the same number of years 3 of His royal forebears, David, Solomon and Joash, reigned over Israel and Judah, [82] the same number of years Deborah, Gideon and Eli judged Israel, [83] and the same number of years Moses oversaw the Israelites in the wilderness. And to that last point, Psalm 95 really drives home our Lord’s frustration over the stiff-necked people He’s charged Moses to shepherd. It reads …
“Forty years I endured that generation, I said ‘they are a people whose hearts have gone astray
and they do not know my ways.' So I swore in my anger, ‘they shall not enter into my rest.’” [84]
So with Jesus being 40 when He died, those verses can now be understood as prophetic, applying to Christ’s life among us, as well. [85] And this is not a new idea. Roughly the same exegesis of that Psalm is found to date back as early as the 1st century, AD. [86] But the number 40 is also heavily represented as a measure of days in Scripture, and typically to designate a time of trial and/or tribulation. [87] So that, too, would seem to apply. And it all goes to show that when you really look into it, there are plenty of scriptural precedents for Jesus being 40 at the time of His death, and quite a bit more, in fact, than that one verse being misused to set His age at 33.
All told, then, 8 BC has to be considered a very good prospect for the year of the Nativity (and maybe the best, from a strictly scientific basis). But even with all this corroboration there seems to be no popular support for this solution, as opinions on the date and year of Christ’s birth continue to vary wildly. Even the date we now have for the Crucifixion, as solid as it is, has its critics. But with so many clues given us in Scripture, there seemingly has to be a solution to both these questions that can be universally accepted as the last word on the subject. And there is. It resides in knowing, not only the year Jesus was born but also, the exact day. That, as will be shown, is the Rosetta Stone that pulls everything together and finally gives us the definitive answers we’ve been hungering for.
Part 3: So when exactly was Jesus born? Can it ever be determined with certainty?
Answer: It can. And it is the last day many would expect.
To get there we need to start with the hypothesis that God does indeed want us to have the exact date. And for people of faith who have come to revere Scripture as essentially inerrant for all the insights it provides, this kind of goes without saying. Why else would God have inserted into Scripture so many clues that seem to have no other purpose than to help us find it? But for those whose regard for the Bible is not as high, that statement of faith is not nearly as intuitive. And that is why this is posited merely as a hypothesis. Our goal here then will be to see if we can turn that hypothesis into a statement of fact.
That said, the obvious question arises, for even if God does want us to find this date, where do we go from here? That is, we have exhausted all His clues and all it has given us is the year. And the answer to that question is, well, not quite all. There was one other scriptural clue mentioned back in Part 1 of this chapter that has not yet been considered. It involves those verses in the last chapter of Deuteronomy concerning the date of Moses’s death that inspired the early Church Fathers to apply that same formula (the Integral Age Rule) to the life of Christ. And now that we have what they didn’t (a much better idea on both the true date of the Crucifixion and the year of Jesus’s birth) let’s apply it once again and see if the results we get are better than what they found.
When they did it, though, they connected the Crucifixion to the Annunciation (and didn’t really find much in doing it). But we’ll try it instead the way the Bible did it, with Moses, connecting the day Jesus was born with the day He died. And in so doing, setting Jesus’s birthday to April 3, 8 BC, nothing really turns up there either. Oh well. So much for that idea, right? Well once again, not quite.
There is one other event in Jesus’s life that might have as much of a connection to His birth, and that is the Resurrection. That is because the similarities of the two main festivals of the Church, Christmas and Easter, have long been known. They both represent watershed moments in history associated with new beginnings (Jesus being the firstborn of the Holy Family, the firstborn of Creation and as St. Paul pointed out, the firstborn of the dead). [88] It could also be seen, not as a violation of the Integral Age Rule but a special exception to it carved out for the Son of Man (the only member of the integral age club to have conquered death).
And lo and behold in making that simple 40-hour time shift, proposing a birthday of April 5, 8 BC, suddenly a thousand lights go off. It is as if we’ve just hit the jackpot on a million-dollar Las Vegas slot machine. And this is no exaggeration. This entire book series is devoted to showcasing the many coincidences that bubble up by aligning Christmas with Easter. And even that is inadequate to contain them. There seems to be no end to the insights this discovery can provide, when you start to really dig into it. And this is to be expected of an enlightenment of such magnitude given us from God.
This solution involves more than one calendar, too. God’s calendar (the Hebrew calendar) is, of course, front and center in all of this. To fully appreciate, however, how seamlessly the Jewish holidays integrate, by this discovery, into Christ's life, a basic understanding of the Hebrew calendar, and the way it was set up during the Second Temple period, is required. So for those unfamiliar, it is a lunisolar calendar where each of its months began with the sighting of the new moon. As such, each month was either 29 or 30 days in duration, making each standard, 12-month, year approximately 354 days long and each, 13-month, leap year approximately 384 days long. This caused it to lag behind the Julian solar calendar by about 11 days every non-leap year and leap forward roughly 19 days on Jewish leap years. So it should not be surprising that the Jewish holidays that align with the Julian calendar dates in the year proposed for Jesus’s birth (8 BC) are not the same as those that correspond with the year being proposed for His Crucifixion (33 AD). There is a difference in those years of about 7 days.
Much more will be said, though, in chapter 3, of the Hebrew calendar and NASA’s 6,000-year lunar phase tables which establish the Julian calendar date associated with every one of these Jewish holiday connections. And Appendix B provides the necessary backup data (the dates of all the new moons listed in those tables pertinent to the life of Christ). The skeptical reader is accordingly encouraged to examine (and thereby verify) these calculations, that in so doing they can come to fully appreciate how well the heavens seem to have been choreographed to give glory to the life of the Son of Man and give us, at the same time, definitive answers to all our questions. The following is just a small sampling of all that's been revealed for those given eyes that can see it.
-
THE NATIVITY: NASA’s lunar phase tables show that April 5 (Jesus's birthday) would have landed, in 8 BC, on the 24th day of Nisan (the 1st month of the Hebrew calendar). He would have, therefore, been born not on the 3rd day of Passover, but on the 3rd day after the completion of the 7-day holiday of Passover. And although this is not a Jewish holiday, it probably should be, because it calculates to the same day tradition and the Torah both suggest the Israelites (who’d just been liberated from Egypt through the miracle of Passover 10 days earlier) finished crossing the miraculously parted Red Sea to escape completely from the hands of Pharaoh. This date is determined, incidentally, by three traditions (all alluded to by Scripture).a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aaa. Tradition #1: 10 Nisan at the time of the Exodus was a Sabbath. [89] a a a a a a a a a a a aab. Tradition #2: the Red Sea was parted right after the 7 days of Passover. [90] a a a a a a a aac. Tradition #3: the Red Sea crossing was completed on a Sabbath. [91] a a a a a a a a a a a a
-
THE ANNUNCIATION / INCARNATION (1): And assuming a standard, 9-month, gestation, it places the Annunciation right around the 4th of July in 9 BC. This being a familiar day on the US civil calendar, it is intriguing to also note that 300 Jubilee years after that fine day (or rather 1,500 years later) takes us to the watershed year of 1492 (the year of Columbus's famous voyage). [92] But it doesn't stop there, because July 4, 1776, the birthday of the United States, is roughly 9 months of years after Columbus arrived in the New World. Putting it more succinctly, and in stark contrast to what a lot of her critics are saying these days, these three “coincidences” heavily suggest that the USA truly is an exceptional country, her conception and birth both apparently having been prefigured by the Incarnation of the Savior of the world! And this simultaneously also tells us how we should be observing the great day Mary said yes to God (with fireworks and parades). a a a a a a a a a
-
THE ANNUNCIATION / INCARNATION (2): On the Hebrew calendar, however, the Incarnation does not correspond to such a joyous occasion. It aligns rather with the 15th day of the 4th Month (Tammuz). And that month is traditionally marked by sorrow and fasting for the Jewish people, so many calamities having occurred, therein. The most memorable, given that they are both now commemorated by a fast day (the Fast of the 4th Month), would undoubtedly be the breeches of the Jerusalem city walls in two separate wars (the first time by the Babylonians on 9 Tammuz, 586 BC, and the second time by the Romans on 17 Tammuz, 70 AD). a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a But the most grievous thing that happened in this month has to be the travesty that occurred on 15 Tammuz, as that seems to have been the spark that lit the fuses for all the later conflagrations. It is the day the newly liberated Israelites, in Moses’s absence, set aside to worship their liberator. [93] And that sounds, on the surface, like it might have actually made for a great day. God certainly deserved some praise after all He'd done for them. Unfortunately, having lived among pagans for so long, they chose to worship Him in the only way they now knew, as an idol (a golden calf) they’d fashioned for the occasion. And, in consideration of all the later tragedies that came down on them in this month, it is easily argued they cursed both the day and the month in the process. This is heavily suggested, too, in what God told Moses He was going to do about it. [94] a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a But it was prophesied that, with the coming of the Messiah, the Fast of the 4th Month would be turned to joy (Zechariah 8:19). And what better way to reverse the sorrow of that month, than by Christ coming into our world to break the curse by giving us an acceptable image for our adoration? a sacred (rather than graven) image, one that even the gates of hell cannot prevail against. (More on this in chapter 3). a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
-
THE PRESENTATION (1): Proceeding to the events in Christ’s life after He was born, we come to the Presentation. And with it occurring 40 days after the Nativity, [95] and the Ascension occurring 40 days after the Resurrection, [96] it can be seen now as a foreshadowing, fixing Christ’s presentation to His Father (as an infant) to the same day that He would later ascend to His Father in heaven. a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
-
THE PRESENTATION (2): And with the Nativity being 10 days after the 1st day of Passover, it also places the Presentation on the day of Pentecost (the Feast of Weeks), which is always celebrated 50 days after the 1st day of Passover. But the most remarkable thing about that timing is the recognition that on the very day the infant Jesus was being offered up to God at the Jerusalem Temple, the Temple priests would have also been offering up to God the first fruits of the wheat harvest in the form of loaves of bread (the main product of that harvest). [97] And all of this would have occurred after Mary had offered up her ritual sin offering. [98] So that's three offerings in total on that day, a sin offering, a bread offering, and Christ all being presented to the Father in what appears to be our first New Testament glimpse of what would later be known as the Catholic Mass. a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
-
THE DISPUTATION: Moving forward to our last encounter with Jesus prior to His ministerial years we come to the quaint story, from Luke’s Gospel, known to theologians as the Disputation. It begins with a 12-year-old Jesus becoming separated from His family on their trip home after they had kept their religious obligation to observe the 7-day Passover holiday in Jerusalem. [99] And we're told, Mary and Joseph, understandably, went into panic mode when they realized Jesus was not in their company in the caravan. Having already travelled a full day’s journey from the city they turned around immediately taking, likely, another day to get back. And then on arrival they spent a third day, frantically looking for Him, seemingly everywhere, until finally spotting Him in the Jerusalem Temple conversing with the elders there and amazing them with His knowledge and understanding of the Torah. Luke finishes the story by telling us how amazed Jesus was that Mary and Joseph had such a difficult time in finding Him. And then Luke mysteriously adds that even after Jesus explained to them that they should have looked first for Him in His Father's house they still failed to understand what He meant. a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a So what should we make of this little vignette? There are definitely some life lessons to by learned from it, some inspiration too. And it also has that riddle at the end. But even though that riddle has never been convincingly solved, for many Christians this story is as cute as it is frustrating. Of all the things the Holy Spirit might have inspired Luke to tell us of the blank slate known as Jesus's hidden years, He tells him to write about this?! It seems so mundane and trivial, especially when pitted against those things we've always wanted to know, like say ... When did Jesus perform His first miracle? How did He interact with His friends? His enemies? When did He realize who He was? Or did He always know? So many questions. [100] And then the lightbulb turns on. There's something hidden in that story. They found Jesus three days after the last day of Passover, which (we now know) would have been His 13th birthday, His Bar Mitzvah birthday, the day tradition declares that Jewish males have arrived at spiritual adulthood and can for the first time legally comment in public on the Torah! So, of course, Jesus is going to be amazed by their befuddlement. Given the occasion, where else should they have expected Him to be?! a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
-
THE ECLIPSES: Returning, as promised, to the eclipses, recall that in Part 1, three eclipses (one solar and two lunar) were shown to be associated with the Crucifixion. And it was the solar eclipse that occurred at the head of the month Jesus died as if to say this was going to be a very important month in His life. But it was also mentioned that this was not an isolated incident, that there were actually two other solar eclipses that stood at the heads of months where other watershed moments in His life occurred. And all three are arguably the most important months of His life. a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a This is certainly true of the month in which He died and then rose from tomb. And all should agree that the head of the month that saw the Incarnation should be similarly distinguished. And it is. There was a total solar eclipse on June 9, 9 BC, [101] which was the first day of Tammuz that year and 15 days prior to Mary assenting to become the mother of God. The third eclipse may seem puzzling, however, at first. But when viewed from a more Jewish mindset it makes perfect sense. It is the total solar eclipse that occurred on March 18 in the year 6 AD, [102] making it the first day of the month that saw Jesus's impromptu Bar Mitzvah. And that occasion, as was just pointed out, was not trivial. With but one exception, all that happened to Christ in His 37 years prior to the start of His ministry have been withheld from us. And it is obviously intentional. To drive home its importance, however, His coming of age is the one event in that time the Holy Spirit felt needed mentioning. a a a a
-
THE NATIVITY / TRIUMPHAL ENTRY: And in stepping back to see with greater clarity how perfectly Christ’s 40 years among us parallel the 40-year sojourn of the Israelites in the wilderness, we find its start and finish also speak volumes. It begins with Jesus being born into our wilderness on the anniversary of the Red Sea parting, which also granted the Israelites entry into theirs. [103] And it ends 40 years later on Palm Sunday (10 Nisan) with Christ's Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem (the Holy City) on the same day Scripture tells us the Jordan River was parted to allow the Israelites and the Holy Ark, to finally enter into the Holy Land. [104]
Do you need more convincing? Figure 1.6 does a deeper dive into the parallels. But the details on some of the events (like the Circumcision) require greater background, so those explanations are reserved for the later chapters. [105]
The astronomical data for this table coming largely from Hughes 1976.
Schürer 1891, 400-467.
Cooley 2009.
Acts 5:36-37 in conjunction with Antiq xviii, 1, 6.
Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) Adversus Marcionem iv, 19, 10.
ibid.
Irenaeus of Lyon, (ca. 180 AD) Adversus Haereses, ii, 22, 1-5.
1 Cor 15:8, Eph 4:6, Col 3:11 and 1 Cor 9:22 where an imitation of Christ is displayed.
Irenaeus of Lyon, (ca. 180 AD) Adversus Haereses, ii, 22, 5.
Jn 8:57.
2 Sm 5:4, 1 Kgs 11:42 and 2 Kgs 12:1.
Jgs 5:31, 8:28 and 1 Sm 4:18.
Ps 95:10-11, NASB, (slightly paraphrased). But what does it mean to enter into [our Lord's] rest? This statement is brought into a brighter light in chapter 1.
In John’s Gospel, where we're told that the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us (Jn 1:14, KJV), the Greek is better translated as tabernacled, not dwelt. And while some have argued that this means Jesus was born in the fall, during the Feast of Tabernacles, His 40-year life span being the same length of time that the Israelites tabernacled in the wilderness is another legitimate (and maybe the better) interpretation.
The esteemed (and obviously enlightened), 1st century Talmudic rabbi, Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, recognized these verses as messianic in Sanhedrin, 99a.
The 40 days and nights of the Great Flood (Gn 7:4), the 2 40-day fasts of Moses on Mt Sinai (Dt 9:18), and the 40 days the Hebrew spies spent undercover scoping out the land of Canaan (Nm 13:25) to name just a few.
Lk 2:7, 23, Col 1:15-18, Rv 1:5.
God's command that the 10th day of Nisan be commemorated (Ex 12:3) is observed every year on the last Sabbath before Passover as Shabbat Hagadol, the traditional understanding being that 10 Nisan at the time of the Exodus was a Sabbath.
Based on Dt 5:15, some traditions place the parting on 21 Nisan, the last day of Passover (Sotah 12b). Another tradition, that it occurred on the 8th day after the Passover (Rashi on Nm 15:38-41), inclines some to place it at dusk immediately following the last day of holiday (and at the start of 22 Nisan). But the crossing did not start immediately after. Scripture speaks of the seabed being first dried by a mighty wind and the crossing not starting until the following morning (Ex 14:21).
The crossing is traditionally thought to have taken 1 day. But the scriptural account (Ex 4:22) never explicitly says this and alludes rather (in Dt 5:15) that it ended on a Sabbath. This suggests a 2-day crossing commencing at dawn on 22 Nisan and ending after dusk at the start of the Sabbath of 24 Nisan (being exactly 2 weeks after the 10 Nisan Sabbath).
The Law prescribed that every 50th year was to be observed as a Jubilee Year (Lv 25:8-10).
Biblical accounting has Moses coming down the mountain to witness their revelry 40 days after Pentecost suggesting a 15 Tammuz commemoration (Ex 24:18, 32:5-35).
Ex 32:34 in conjunction with Mishna, Ta’anit 4.6.
Lv 12:1-8 in conjunction with Lk 2:22.
Acts 1:3.
Lv 23:17.
Lk 2:24 in conjunction with Lv 12:2-8.
Lk 2:41-50.
With all the precedents this solution will be shown to set in the later chapters, some of these questions from Jesus's hidden years will finally be answered, too.
Espenek and Meeus 2006.
ibid.
This foreshadowing will be explored in much greater detail in chapter 7.
Jos 4:19.
Mt 2:16.
Chapters 3 and 7 cover the bulk of them.
Chapters 3 and 7 should cover the bulk of them.
And these are all truly remarkable correlations when you take the time to really think about them. Hopefully some did. But don’t be misled. As has already been stated, this is not the end of it. There are myriad other events that can now be dated in the life and times of Christ simply by knowing the exact dates of His birth, death and Resurrection. It is a literal treasure trove that will be laid out in subsequent chapters. And to give an idea of what lies ahead, since we have been told in Scripture that Jesus’s cousin, John the Baptist was 6 months His senior, [106] we can now also date all the important events in John the Baptist’s infancy. And, as might now be expected, they too all land on stunningly applicable Jewish holidays. The details on those dates, however, are reserved primarily for chapter 4. But there is one important date from John’s life that will be touched on here, because it stands out like icing on the cake for this chapter. It involves a test the Holy Spirit seems to have inserted into His Holy Book to let us know when we have finally gotten things right.
Part 4: A Scriptural Litmus Test
It is found at the very start of Luke's Infancy Narrative, which begins with an introduction to John the Baptist’s father, Zechariah, a [Levite] priest of the Course of Abijah. [107] And the way Luke so casually mentions that last bit about Abijah, some might be inclined to think nothing more of it, shucking it off as just another piece of arcane information, often encountered in the Bible, of something that used to be relevant but no longer seems to matter. And that does happen. In this particular instance, however, in doing that you'd be missing a lot.
Looking deeper, with the aid of an Old Testament concordance, it turns out the Course of Abijah was the 8th of 24 ancestral Houses that were tasked to minister to the needs of the inner sanctum of the Jerusalem Temple (tending to the table of incense, keeping the lamps lit and other important duties). [108] The way it was set up, a priest from each House served for 1 week (starting and ending at noon on the Sabbath) in a rotation that continued until all 24 Houses had served. And then they started over with a new rotation consisting of 24 different priests, each chosen by lot, to represent their House.
As pertains to Zechariah, we also read in Luke's Gospel that it was during his service in the Temple for his House that the angel Gabriel appeared to him to announce that he was to be John’s father. And with John being (as was mentioned) 6 months older than Jesus, that intriguing bit of information has been welcomed by many as a backdoor means of finding the date Jesus was born (assuming Josephus was right when he wrote that there was no break in Temple service from the time it was first instituted). [109] All that would, seemingly, still be needed to find it, is the exact week and year any one of the ancestral Houses was serving in the Temple.
And as providence would have it, Jewish tradition does provide the crucial key details on the ancestral Houses. They're found in the Talmud, which names the last House that served in the Temple before it was razed to the ground by the Romans, in 70 AD. But even with that, the calculation is not quite as simple as was initially portrayed. Many have correctly noted there is some ambiguity built into the equations. And the following 4 questions (unanswered by Scripture) exemplify the problem.
-
Was John conceived immediately? Or was there some lag time between the announcement and his conception? Scripture (Luke 1:24) is unclear on this matter. [110]
-
Also, when the Bible says John was 6 months older than Jesus, was it exactly, or approximately, 6 months?
-
If exactly 6 months, was it by the Hebrew calendar (about 177 days), or the solar calendar (about 183 days)?
-
And assuming Jesus had a full-term gestation, how long was it? 9 months (270 days)? 40 weeks (280 days)? Or somewhere in between?
Beyond those questions, however, there is also the issue of frequency of service. With 24 weeks in each rotation, each ancestral House would have been required to serve in the Temple at least twice (and occasionally, three times) each year. So within the ten year window Jesus could have logically been born, Zechariah’s House would have likely served more than 20 times. This instrument we’ve been given, then, is not quite as sharp as it needs to be to be definitive. With each House serving for either 14 or 21 days each year it does eliminate all but about 5% of the possibilities. But that probability triples to about 15% when the listed calculation uncertainties are factored in.
Under these circumstances this test is maybe better seen as one given us by God, to tell us not so much when we've gotten things right, but when we've gotten things wrong. And, in that capacity, it has been quite effective, as not one date and year proposed for the Nativity, that was derived by independent methods, has passed it. [111] So this test presents itself as a formidable challenge to any claim, and, therefore, one that every claim needs to take and acknowledge, as well. And so, in that spirit, the challenge is accepted. Let's see how this solution fares. And to keep things honest, we'll do this with virtually no reliance on any of the inherent fudge factors others have used to try to bend the calculations in their favor.
It starts, then, with the reasonable assumption that the Holy Spirit kept the uncertainties to a minimum that His test's utility can be kept to a maximum. Applying that understanding to what we've been given, it proposes that Jesus had a standard 9 (Julian calendar) month gestation, and that John was precisely 6 months his senior (on the same calendar). This tallies to John being conceived exactly 15 (Julian calendar) months prior to the Nativity. And with Jesus being born on April 5, 8 BC, it places the angel’s announcement to John the Baptist’s father at right around the time of the Christian Feast of the Epiphany, January 5, 9 BC. (That seems like a very appropriate day to receive a message from God). [112] So that gives us one half of the equation. The other half comes from ancient tradition.
Specifically, from the Jerusalem Talmud we find that in 70 AD the last priest assigned to Temple service, before it was destroyed by the Romans, hailed from the House of Jehoiarib (the 1st of the 24 Houses) [113] at the conclusion of his service week. [114] Several reliable sources also inform us that it was destroyed on the 9th day of the 5th Hebrew calendar month (Av). [115] On the Julian calendar that would have corresponded to August 3 or 4 that year. And this sad day (traditionally, the saddest on the Hebrew calendar) is commemorated each year with a fast, Tzom Tisha B’Av (the Fast of the 5th Month).
It is also commonly thought that this is when Temple service ended. The Talmudic rabbis seem to have been of that opinion, anyway. But the exact wording of what may be the earliest allusion to this information suggests something is slightly awry. It doesn't say what you'd expect it to say, that the priest heroically held out until the bitter end. It says instead, and rather derisively, that the priest from the House of Jehoiarib merely delivered his House to the enemy. [116].
The Talmud gives us a clue also as to the reason for this sarcasm by telling us that Temple sacrifice ended three weeks prior on the 17th day of the 4th Hebrew calendar month (Tammuz) and on the same day the Roman army breeched the Jerusalem walls to enter the city. [117] (The corresponding Julian calendar date would have been July 13 or 14 that year). So why did Temple sacrifice end? Josephus, an eyewitness to the siege of Jerusalem, fills in the blanks. It was a consequence of there being no more priests in the Temple to offer it. [118] They had all apparently run off or were captured when the city walls fell. So this gives us another, equally plausible, possibility for dating the service week of the last Temple priest. And in recalling that a Temple service week ran from Sabbath to Sabbath, it places the House of Jehoiarib (the 1st ancestral House and the last to serve) in the Temple during either the week of July 7 to 14, or the week of July 28 to August 4 in 70 AD.
So, in back calculating from there to when the 8th House (John’s ancestral House) would have served in the Temple in 9 BC, we find that the first of those two service weeks (the one that ended on July 14) fits perfectly with what is being claimed. It calculates to a priest from the House of Abijah having been charged to serve in the Temple from December 30, 10 BC to January 6, 9 BC. And the date being proposed for John’s conception January 5, 9 BC lands right at the end of that service week. Figure 1.7 shows how the math breaks down, maybe a little more clearly, for any that are interested.
Lk 2:26, 36.
Lk 1:5.
This system was instituted under the reign of King David, as described in 1 Chr 24:7-19.
Antiq vii, 14, 7.
It is reasonable to assume, however, that there would be no significant lag time between the announcement and John's conception. Otherwise the amount of uncertainty this issue would add would render this test essentially useless. And that creates a theologically thorny issue, calling into question the Holy Spirit's rationale for even making mention of the test.
And that would include Jack Larson's popular 2 BC Nativity hypothesis. See the commentary on Matthew 2:1-9 at this book's website for a thorough debunking of that claim at https://www.gospelofcreation.com/bethlehemstar.
It also lands on an auspicious observance on the Hebrew calendar. More on that in chapter 4.
Jerusalem Talmud, Ta’anit 4.5.
Seder Olam, Rabbah 30.
Mishna Ta’anit 4.6 being just one.
Jerusalem Talmud, Ta'anit 4.5. (Trans-lation by Guggenheimer 1999-2015).
ibid.
Wars vi, 2, 1.
So there you have it. There is now officially one date (and only one date) proposed for the Nativity, derived entirely by independent means, that has passed Luke's Course of Abijah test. It is not, however, the only proposed date that is in accord with the test. Of those proposals that speculate only on the day and the month it is much easier to find a match in one of the 10 years Jesus might have been born. The odds improve to better than 50:50 when the crucial detail of the exact year is left to chance. It's not surprising, then, given those odds, that the December 25 Nativity claim might find compliance in 5 BC. That possibility arises when back calculating from 9 Av, 70 AD. [119] And those who insist Jesus was born on the 1st day of Sukkot are similarly rewarded. [120] Back calculating from 9 Av, 70 AD also shows a 1 Sukkot Nativity could have been possible in the fall of 8 BC. But a 1 Sukkot Nativity finds compliance, too, in 3 BC when back calculating from 17 Tammuz, 70 AD. And there may certainly be others. When the year is left open in any theory it is not difficult to find a match. And it is, in fact, a near certainty of finding one with the amount of ambiguity that can also be inserted into the calculations.
Another test from Scripture is, therefore, obviously warranted to thin the herd. And the Hebrew calendar appears to be just what the doctor ordered. Specifically, there are six other events in New Testament times that can be easily dated through Scripture once a date for Christmas has been determined. Altogether they are the conception, birth and circumcision of both Jesus and John along with Jesus's Presentation. And it is logical to assume that God would have wanted to honor each of them with a holiday connection just as we've long known He did with, Palm Sunday, Good Friday, and Pentecost. So just as those events at the culmination of Christ's earthly life brought fulfillment to the holidays they landed on, so too should the events associated with the start of His life. And that definitely is true of an April 5, 8 BC Nativity, as all 7 events associated with that date connect and do appear to fulfill red letter days on the Hebrew calendar. December 25, 5 BC, on the other hand, stands out in stark contrast. It finds zero connections. Conclusion: Jesus was not born on December 25. It was, and still is, a red herring.
The 1 Sukkot Nativity hypothesis fares a little better, though, because with Jesus and John being separated by half of a year, 6 of the 7 holiday connections made by the April 5 Nativity solution are simply swapped, with John being conceived, born, and circumcised in accord with the observances formerly associated with Jesus, and vice versa with Jesus being conceived, born and circumcised in accord with the observances formerly associated with John. So that is a pretty slick maneuver. The one event that is unique to Jesus, the Presentation, does not, however, work with that solution. Being 40 days after the Nativity, it ends up in the middle of the 8th month, Cheshvan, which has actually become famous for being the only month on the Hebrew calendar without a holiday. [121] There would also be no interplay with the Julian calendar with a 1 Sukkot Nativity. Jesus would not be rising from the tomb on His 40th birthday. Nor would there be a calendar link between the Ascension and the Presentation.
But the biggest issue is with the holidays being connected to, as they have a lot to say on this, as well. So while it may not be difficult to show how the main events in Jesus's infancy might be associated with Sukkot, we are hard pressed to explain why John the Baptist's infancy would be better suited to any of the holidays of Passover over Jesus. In other words, it is not just about landing on a specific Jewish holiday. It is about making sense of them (the same way Good Friday made sense of Passover and the Descent of the Holy Spirit made sense of Pentecost). And the 1 Sukkot Nativity proposal does not come close to fulfilling these holidays as well as the recognition that Christ rose from the tomb on His 40th birthday.
That is the real litmus test God has given us for solving this mystery, as there is simply no contest in that category between the dates being proposed here for the Nativity and the Crucifixion and any other dates that have ever been proposed. Chapter 3 will go into this in much greater detail. For here it is sufficient to note that definitive answers to both questions posed at the start of this chapter have been provided. They are also intricately interconnected to each other by two separate calendars and there really is no longer any room for debate on the matter.
The one question that may remain for some is how is it that such an elegant and definitive solution has been so missed, by so many, for so long? And the answer is that on the face of it, it is not intuitively obvious. There were too many clues that were being misinterpreted and leading people in the wrong direction, the biggest being Luke’s about 30 statement.
Certainly, it could have been discerned if someone had had the gumption to examine every date in the last decade of BC to see what turned up. But who is going to do that on their own? People, for instance, do not generally start digging up their backyards looking for treasure unless there is some inkling of a treasure being there to find. Better yet, a treasure map might get you out there and preferably one that tells you the exact location to dig. And that is exactly how this treasure was found, with a map. This New Testament treasure trove was unearthed with the aid of a map and one that was hidden right under our noses for millennia, in the Old Testament. And that map has a lot more to tell us than what has been presented here. So chapter 2, the next step in this journey, is where this map will be laid out for all to see.
Before doing that, though, there is one other important Litmus Test that needs to be considered. And since it was given us by Christ, Himself, it is the most important. A tree is judged by its fruit, He essentially warned. [122] And that advice needs to be heeded throughout this book. The tree is presented in chapter 2. And the fruit can be found in every chapter (including 2). Examine it. Make your own judgement, retaining what is good. And remember we are just getting started in this expedition to find all those dates that have so stumped the world. This is just the tip of the iceberg. The best, rest assured, is yet to come.
Friedlieb 1887, 312.
A commentary on John 1:14, which discusses some of the convoluted methods advocates for the 1 Sukkot Nativity hypothesis have used to torture this test into compliance with a system they invented for determining when the 8th House served can be found at this book’s website at https://www. gospelofcreation.com/john-1-14.
The proper name for the 8th Hebrew month is Marcheshvan, which is commonly shortened to Cheshvan. And from that sprang the quaint, but erroneous, tradition that it the suffix mar- (meaning bitter) was added as a commentary of how sad the month was for its lack of holidays.
The logical extension of Mt 12:33.
[a]
REFERENCES
Barrosse, Thomas. 1959. “The Seven Days of the New Creation in St. John's Gospel.” The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Catholic Biblical Association. 21, 4 (October): 507-516.
Bernegger, P. M. 1983. “Affirmation Of Herod's Death in 4 BC.” The Journal of Theological
Studies - New Series. Oxford University Press 34, 2 (OCTOBER): 526-531.
Beyer, David. 1998. "Josephus Reexamined: Unraveling the Twenty-Second Year of Tiberius". in
Vardaman, Jerry (ed.). Chronos, Kairos, Christos II: Chronological, Nativity, and Religious
Studies in Memory of Ray Summers. Macon, Ga. Mercer University Press. 85–96. ISBN
978-0-86554-582-3.
Bond, Helen K. 1998. Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation. Cambridge University Press.
ISBN 0-521-63114-9.
Cooley, Alison. 2009. Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Text, Translation, and Commentary. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521841528.
Espenek, Fred and Meeus, Jean. 2006. “Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses: -1999 to
+3000 (map years - 0326 to +0091).” NASA Eclipse Web Site. Avail. at
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCSE/5MCSE-Maps- 05.pdf. Last visited 9/29/23.
Espenek, Fred and Meeus, Jean. 2009. NASA Technical paper TP-2009-214172 “Five
Millennium Canon of Lunar Eclipses: -1999 to +3000 (map years -0344 to +0070).” NASA
Eclipse Web Site. Avail. at https://eclipse.gsfc .nasa. gov/5MCLE/5MCLE-Figs-05.pdf. Last
visited 9/29/23.
Espenak, Fred. 2020. “Lunar Eclipses for Beginners: Types of Lunar Eclipses.” Mr. Eclipse
Website. Avail. at https://www.mreclipse.com/Special/LEprimer.html. Last visited 10/9/23.
Friedlieb, J. H. 1887. Das Leben Jesu Christi des Erlösers, Münster, Ferdinand Schöningh. 312.
Guggenheimer, Heinrich W. 1999 - 2015. "Jerusalem Talmud - Ta'anit" English translation for
the Sefaria digital library. Avail. at https://www.sefaria.org/Jerusalem_Talmud_Taanit.4.5
Hughes, D. W. 1976. “The Star of Bethlehem” Nature 264. 513–517.
Humphreys, Colin and Waddington, W. G. 1992. “The Jewish Calendar, a Lunar Eclipse and the
Date of Christ’s Crucifixion.” Tyndale Bulletin 43.2 331-351. doi: 10.53751/001c.30487.
Avail. at https://www.researchgate.net /publication/265114769_The_Jewish_Calendar
_A_Lunar_Eclipse_and_the_Date_of_Christ%27s_Crucifixion
Maas, Anthony. 1910. "Chronology of the Life of Jesus Christ: The public life of Jesus - its
duration." The Catholic Encyclopedia. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Avail. at
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen /08377a.htm. Last visited: 10/9/23.
MacMullen, Ramsay 1997. Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Avail. at http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bfqt.7.
Martindale, C.C. 1909. "Epiphany: History" in The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert
Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05504c.htm. Last visited: 1/3/24.
Nothaft, C. P. E. 2011. "From Sukkot to Saturnalia: The Attack on Christmas in Sixteenth-
Century Chronological Scholarship," Journal of the History of Ideas. University of
Pennsylvania Press. 72, 4 (October): 503-522.
Pratt, John. 1991. “Newton’s Date for the Crucifixion.” Royal Astronomical Society Quarterly
Journal 32,
Schürer, Emil. 1891. A history of the Jewish people in the time of Jesus Christ. NY. Scribner.
Starry Night Astronomy software. Avail. at https://www.starrynight.com/starry-night-8-
professional-astronomy- telescope-control-software.html.
Talley, Thomas J. 1988. The origins of the liturgical year. New York, NY: Pueblo Publishing
Company.
Thurston, Frederick 1909. "The Easter Controversy." The Catholic Encyclopedia. 5. New York:
Robert Appleton Company. Avail. at https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm. Last
visited: 10/14/23.
Vatican Museum website. Fragment of the sepulchral inscription of Quirinius. Avail. at
https://www.museivaticani .va /content/museivaticani/en/collezioni/musei/lapidario-
cristiano/abercio/frammento-dell-iscrizione-sepolcrale-di-quirinius.html.
Whiston, William (translator) 2009. The Antiquities of the Jews, by Flavius Josephus (94 AD).
Project Gutenburg. Avail. at https://gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm.
ENDNOTES
[1] To get the most out of this chapter, prereading the following Scriptures may be helpful: Mt
1:18-2:18 and Lk 1:5-38, 2:1-52 for the Infancy Narrative and Jn 12:1-18, 13:1-30, 18:1-
20:23 together with either Mt 26:1-27:66, Mk 14:1-15:47, or Lk 22:7-23:56 for the Passion
Narrative.
[2] Mk 15:42, Lk 23:54, Jn 19:31.
[3] Mt 27:45, Mk 15:33, Lk 23:44,
[4] Mt 26:2, 17, Mk 14:1, 12, Lk 22:7.
[5] Jn 19:14.
[6] Mt 27:2, Mk 15:1, Lk 23:1, Jn 18:28.
[7] Per Josephus (Antiq xviii, 4, 2) Pilate’s 10 years in Judea came to an end in an incident that
occurred just prior to the death of the Roman Emperor Tiberius (who is known by many
sources to have died in the spring of 37 AD). See also Bond 1998.
[8] A great deal more detail on how the Hebrew calendar was set up back then is provided in
chapter 3.
[9] The formula used by the Church in the west for celebrating Easter, (the 1st Sunday after
the full moon after the vernal equinox) was based on the Jewish formula for Passover. And it
became the standard for most of Christendom by the end of the 2nd century AD, with the
resolution of the Quartodeciman controversy (Thurston 1909).
[10] Sanhedrin 11b lists 3 criteria the Jerusalem Temple authorities used to justify it. Two
were to ensure the crops would be sufficiently ripe for the harvest festivals and the third was
to ensure the holiday of Sukkot is always after the autumnal equinox. And by extension this
would also ensure that the holiday of Passover (6 months prior) was always after the vernal
equinox.
[11] MacMullen 1997, 155. See also Martindale 1909.
[12] Nothaft 2011, 503-522.
[13] Saturnalia, for one, was celebrated 2 days earlier (from December 17 to 23). And Sol
Invictus was created by the Roman emperor Aurelian in 274 AD (Hijmans 1996), which was
about a half a century after many Christians had already adopted that date for Christmas, as
can be seen in Hippolytus of Rome’s Commentary on Daniel (ca. 203 AD), Sextus Julius
Africanus’s Chronographiai (221 AD) and Pseudo-Cyprian’s De Pascha Computus (ca. 240
AD).
[14] Tally 1988.
[15] The Babylonian Talmud (Berakhot 59b) speaks of a ritual performed on the vernal
equinox (and still performed today) called Birkhat Hachama. It is a blessing of the sun on its
birthday.
[16] Gn 1:3-5. But the seeming equality of the day and the night is found in many Scriptures,
See also Ps 74:16 and especially Ps 139:12.
[17] The Babylonian Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 11a) presents two dueling opinions on the
matter, one favoring spring and the other, fall. But with Christ’s great sacrifice coinciding
with the Jewish Passover holiday, the scales, for Christians, tipped for the spring.
[18] Pseudo-Cyprian (ca. 240) De Pascha Computus.
[19] See, for instance, Ps 84:11, Is 60:1, Mal 4:2 (3:20 in some texts) and Lk 1:78.
[20] St. Augustine of Hippo (ca. late 400 AD) Sermons 188 & 192.
[21] In Dt 31:2, Moses announces his age in a manner suggesting it is his birthday, and
shortly thereafter, in Dt 32:46-34:6, we are told of his death, presumably, on the same day.
[22] Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 12b and Megillah 13b, to cite just two among others.
[23] The Talmud does not reveal whether the Jews at this time applied this tradition to
other prophets. But the writings of the contemporary Christians show that some did apply it to
Christ.
[24] See Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) Adversus Judaeos 8 and Hippolytus of Rome (ca. 203 AD)
Commentary on Daniel.
[25] Lk 3:17.
[26] The Anno Domini system, invented in the 6th century by the Eastern Roman monk,
Dionysius Exiguus,, was centered on this belief.
[27] 17th century Spanish abbess, Mary of Agreda, for one.
[28] He wrote of it in, De Stella Nova (1606) and De Anno Natali Christi (1614). His is not,
however, the only candidate for the Star, just the first. Some of the many other possibilities
can be found in Figure 1.5.
[29] Pratt 1991.
[30] Maas 1910. And ironically, had those the early Church Fathers interpreted those 3 years
in Isaiah as being consecutive, rather than concurrent, there would have been no conflict.
[31] Two additional eclipses will be discussed further on in Part 3, of this chapter, bringing
the total number of eclipses that can be shown to be associated with the life of Christ to five.
[32] Espenek and Meeus 2009.
[33] Humphreys and Waddington 1992, 347, also Espenek 2020.
[34] Espenek and Meeus 2006.
[35] Ex 12:2, 40:2.
[36] Espenek and Meeus 2009.
[37] Mt 27:46, Mk 15:34.
[38] Others have argued that it would have been visible for a longer time. Humphreys, for
instance, calculated a 50-minute duration (Humphreys and Waddington 1992, 346). But for
the sake of argument the worst-case scenario found in the literature (10 minutes) is chosen for
this discussion.
[39] Mt 26:31.
[40] Mk 9:9-10.
[41] Lk 9:33.
[42] The rituals associated with Sukkot (laid out in Lv 23:42) have led many to link that
holiday to the Transfiguration. But additional corroboration is provided in chapters 3 and 4.
[43] An apocalyptic year is so-named for the number of days assigned to a year (360) in the
Book of Revelation, where, building on the phraseology found in the Book of Daniel (Dn
9:27), it equates 1,260 days to both 42 months and 3½ years (Rv 11:2-3).
[44] Humphreys cites several examples of ancient writers associating lunar eclipses with
blood, the earliest reference being to a 4th century BC eclipse by Roman historian, Quintus
Curtius Rufus, in his Histories of Alexander the Great iv, 10, 2 (Humphreys and Waddington
1992, 343).
[45] Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 11a.
[46] With the reading of the great and terrible day in Mal 3:23 being a long standing tradition
for Shabbat Hagadol, it is reasonable to assume that Jl 2:31 (the other main scriptural
reference to that day) would have commonly also been cited.
[47] This ancient understanding is maybe most easily seen in the Jewish custom that sprang
from it, that of setting an extra place for the prophet Elijah at the Passover Seder meal, that he
might come to usher in the messianic age, per Mal 3:23.
[48] Lk 24:18.
[49] Eph 5:22-27, Rv 19:7-9.
[50] Jn 19:34-35.
[51] … not by water alone, but by water and blood (1 Jn 5:6-8 NAB). See also Mt 3:16, 16:24
and Jn 3:5.
[52] Barrosse 1959.
[53] Gn 2:21-23. And this also makes sense of why God made Eve in this fashion.
[54] Rv 12:1, NAB.
[55] Rv 12:5.
[56] Screenshot obtained using the STARRY NIGHT software program with the top banner
slightly repositioned for the graphic. Web address and link provided in the References
section.
[57] Acts 2:14-41.
[58] ... as was prophesied in Mt 12:39.
[59] Lk 2:1.
[60] Lk 2:2.
[61] Mt 2:1, 19-20.
[62] Lk 2:1-5.
[63] Mt 2:1-13.
[64] Schürer 1891, 400-467.
[65] Antiq xvii, 6, 4 speaks of a lunar eclipse (aka, blood moon) occurring just prior to
Herod’s death and (in an apparent foreshadowing) on the evening following the martyrdom of
a Jewish zealot. The eclipse is generally dated, by other clues in the text, to Mar. 13, 4 BC,
although some are now placing it at Jan. 9, 1 BC. It is incidentally the only mention of a lunar
eclipse in any of Josephus’s writings.
[66] Antiq xiv, 16, 4, xv, 5, 2, xvii, 8, 1, xviii, 6, 10 and xx,10,
[67] Beyer 1998.
[68] Bernegger 1983, 526-531.
[69] A stone, thought to be a fragment from Quirinius’s sepulcher, listing his
accomplishments mentions that he was the Proconsul (Governor) of Asia and a [legate] divi
Augusti (imperial official) iterum (twice) in Syria. This is believed by some to be evidence of
Quirinius being governor on two separate occasions. It provides, however, no means of dating
his service and specifically speaks of only one term as governor. A photograph of
the gravestone is available online at the Vatican website. (See References for link).
[70] The astronomical data for this table coming largely from Hughes 1976.
[71] St. John Chrysostom (ca. 395 AD) Homily VI on Matthew, is a good example.
[72] Cooley 2009.
[73] Mt 2:16.
[74] Acts 5:36-37 in conjunction with Antiq xviii, 1, 6.
[75] Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) Adversus Marcionem iv, 19, 10.
[76] Antiq xvi, 9, 3 (translation by Whiston 2009). See also Schürer 1891, 459-460.
[77] ibid.
[78] Irenaeus of Lyon, (ca. 180 AD) Adversus Haereses, ii, 22, 1-5.
[79] 1 Cor 15:8, Eph 4:6, Col 3:11 and 1 Cor 9:22 where an imitation of Christ is displayed.
[80] Irenaeus of Lyon, (ca. 180 AD) Adversus Haereses, ii, 22, 5.
[81] Jn 8:57.
[82] 2 Sm 5:4, 1 Kgs 11:42, 2 Kgs 12:1.
[83] Jgs 5:31, 8:28 and 1 Sm 4:18.
[84] Ps 95:10-11, NASB, (slightly paraphrased). But what does it mean to enter into [our
Lord's] rest? This statement is brought into a brighter light in chapter 1.
[85] In John’s Gospel, where we're told that the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us (Jn
1:14, KJV), the Greek is better translated as tabernacled, not dwelt. And while some have
argued that this means Jesus was born in the fall, during the Feast of Tabernacles, His 40-year
life span being the same length of time that the Israelites tabernacled in the wilderness is
another legitimate (and maybe the better) interpretation.
[86] The esteemed (and obviously enlightened), 1st century rabbi, Eliezer b. Hyrcanus,
recognized these verses as messianic in Sanhedrin, 99a.
[87] The 40 days and nights of the Great Flood (Gn 7:4), the 2 40-day fasts of Moses on Mt
Sinai (Dt 9:18), and the 40 days the Hebrew spies spent undercover scoping out the land of
Canaan (Nm 13:25) to name just a few.
[88] Lk 2:7, 23, Col 1:15-18, Rv 1:5.
[89] God's command that the 10th day of Nisan be commemorated (Ex 12:3) is observed
every year on the last Sabbath before Passover as Shabbat Hagadol, the traditional
understanding being that 10 Nisan at the time of the Exodus was a Sabbath.
[90] Based on Dt 5:15, some traditions place the parting of the Red Sea on 21 Nisan, the last
day of Passover (Sotah 12b). Another tradition, that it occurred on the 8th day after the
Passover (Rashi on Nm 15:38-41), inclines some to place it at dusk immediately following the
last day of holiday (and at the start of 22 Nisan). But the crossing did not start immediately
after. Scripture speaks of the seabed being first dried by a mighty wind and the crossing not
starting until the following morning (Ex 14:21).
[91] The crossing is traditionally thought to have taken 1 day. But the scriptural account (Ex
4:22) never explicitly says this and alludes rather (in Dt 5:15) that it ended on a Sabbath. This
suggests a 2-day crossing commencing at dawn on 22 Nisan and ending after dusk at the start
of the Sabbath of 24 Nisan (being exactly 2 weeks after the 10 Nisan Sabbath).
[92] The Law prescribed that every 50th year was to be observed as a Jubilee Year (Lv 25:8-
10).
[93] Biblical accounting has Moses coming down the mountain to witness their revelry 40
days after Pentecost suggesting a 15 Tammuz commemoration (Ex 24:18, 32:5-35).
[94] Ex 32:34 in conjunction with the Mishna, Ta’anit 4.6.
[95] Lv 12:1-8 in conjunction with Lk 2:22.
[96] Acts 1:3.
[97] Lv 23:17.
[98] Lk 2:24 in conjunction with Lv 12:2-8.
[99] Lk 2:41-50.
[100] With all the precedents this solution will be shown to set in the later chapters, some of
these questions from Jesus's hidden years will finally be answered, too.
[101] Espenek and Meeus 2006.
[102] ibid.
[103] This foreshadowing will be explored in much greater detail in chapter 7.
[104] Jos 4:19.
[105] Chapters 3 and 7 should cover the bulk of them.
[106] Lk 2:26, 36.
[107] Lk 1:5.
[108] This system was instituted under the reign of King David, as described in 1 Chr 24:7-
19.
[109] Antiq vii, 14, 7.
[110] It is reasonable to assume, however, that there would be no significant lag time between
the announcement and John's conception. Otherwise the amount of uncertainty this issue
would add would render this test essentially useless. And that creates a theologically thorny
issue, calling into question the Holy Spirit's rationale for even making mention of the test.
[111] And that would include Jack Larson's popular 2 BC Nativity hypothesis. See the
commentary on Matthew 2:1-9 at this book's website for a thorough debunking of that claim
at https://www.gospelofcreation.com/bethlehemstar.
[112] It also lands on an auspicious observance on the Hebrew calendar. More on that in
chapter 4.
[113] Jerusalem Talmud, Ta’anit 4.5.
[114] Seder Olam, Rabbah 30.
[115] Mishna Ta’anit 4.6 being just one.
[116] Jerusalem Talmud, Ta'anit 4.5. (Translation by Guggenheimer 1999-2015).
[117] ibid.
[118] Wars vi, 2, 1.
[119] Friedlieb 1887, 312.
[120] A commentary on John 1:14, which discusses some of the convoluted methods
advocates for the 1 Sukkot Nativity hypothesis have used to torture this test into compliance
with a system they invented for determining when the 8th House served can be found at this
book’s website at https://www.gospelofcreation.com/john-1-14.
[121] The proper name for the 8th Hebrew month is Marcheshvan, which is commonly
shortened to Cheshvan. And from that sprang the quaint, but erroneous, tradition that it the
suffix mar- (meaning bitter) was added as a commentary of how sad the month was for its
lack of holidays.
[122] The logical extension of Mt 12:33.
Published: October 16, 2023
Last Update: January 3, 2024