SIDE BAR NOTES
[1] The Cosmic Back-ground Energy (discovered by Bell Labs in 1964) is the residual noise that still permeates the universe to give witness of the initial enormity of the Big Bang.
[2] Ross 2008.
[3] Hoyle and Wickram-asinghe 1978.
[4] … any older and it is believed the estimated matter of the universe would be too dispersed to stop the expansion. [5] For a simple web explanation refer to the Wikipedia entry on Dark Energy. [6] But this does not mean that the atheist argument is dead. because, there can never be an ironclad proof of the existence of a Creator. That would negate the need for faith. It is saying, however, that the more the empirical evidence in favor of God mounts, the more contrived the atheist's argument is becoming.
[7] Weisberger 2020. And this meteorite, which struck Australia in 1969 is also remarkable for the optically active amino acids it contains. These compounds are produced on earth, too, but generally only by living organisms. [8] Baker 2024.
[9] It also shows that, had they only looked, the 2/3rds Rule might have easily been discovered by geologists decades ago![10] And the only major subdivision seemingly mis-sing on this chart is our Phylum (Chordata), which would lie on the chart between our Kingdom (Animalia) and our Class (Mammalia).
[11] Gn 1:12.
[12] Their fossils are dated at 1.05 Ga (Gibson, et.al. 2018).
[13] Christian apologists have puzzled over this seeming incongruity as far back as Origen's Homilies on Genesis 1, 5 (3rd century AD). And Tal-mudic rabbis have commented on it, too.​
[14] Gn 1:14-19.
[15] Although somewhat outdated, the term, K-T extinction is still in common use and comes from the German initials for the geological Periods that frame the event. They are the Cretaceous (Kreide) and the Tertiary (Tertiär). The Tertiary Period, however, has since been divided into two smaller Periods (the Paleogene and the Neogene) and the term, Tertiary, is no longer in common use. [16] For references to both esti-mates see Cowen 2000 and Renne, et.al. 2013.
[17] This is determined by tallying the timespans given for the biblical Patriarchs in Gn 5:1-22 and Gn 11:10-26. And by those verses, the Hebrew text computes the span from Adam to the birth of Abraham to be 1,948 years, while the Greek Septuagint has it is 3,414 years.
[18] To name just 3 it included 2 separate fulfill-ments of Daniel's 70 weeks of years prophecy, together with its strongest corrob-oration the way it perfectly aligned his wedding day to the lives of the Jesus and Mary. It did this by occurring precisely two-thirds of the way into his life and coinciding with Mary's wedding being precisely two-thirds of the way into her pregnancy.
[19] Mt 17:24-27.
[20] Referenced in Mt 17:1-9, the Transfiguration has been dated by this study to have occurred on Oct. 7, 32 AD. [21] Referenced in Mt 17:14-2, this study has determined that Jesus gave His disciples the power to expel demons on Jan. 31, 33 AD.
[22] Jn 6:1-15.
[23] Jn 6:16-21.
[24] Jn 6:22-71
[25] Jn 6:68, NABRE.
[26] Jn 6:70, NIV.
[27] Jn 12:4-6.
[28] Dt 25:17-19.
[29] Mk 14:1 sets Judas's betrayal to Spy Wednesday which would have been 13 Nisan in 33 AD. And Est 3:12 sets Haman's treachery to the same day.[30] It is debated whether Haman's death described in Est 7:9-10 was by impalement or hanging. And Judas's death described in Mt 27:5 and Acts 1:18 displays the same amount of ambiguity..
[31] The 4th Creation milli-Second began on Feb. 1 and ended on Mar. 14.
[32] That would include Shabbat Shirah, Shekalim, Zakhor, Parah, HaChodesh and HaGadol.
[33] Lv 23:24.
[34] As per the Jerusalem Talmud, Eruvin 3:9.
Most would hopefully admit that, in the final analysis, the mathematical key promoted in this book has done a rather stellar job of dating significant events in the Creation saga, as understood by the Judeo-Christian tradition. Promising the moon, when thoroughly examined it’s thrown in the sun and the stars for good measure. And, in short, it’s performed way above expectations, passing every test put to it and then some.
​​​​
But all these passed tests aside, this does not mean that there haven't been any anomalous findings. In every scientific theory, there are going to be some outliers; data points that don't quite fit with the bigger picture. And sometimes, if big enough, these anomalies can also be fatal to the theory. This would not be the case with the 2/3rds Rule, however. It has its share of anomalies, too. But none are anywhere near what might be considered a fatal flaw.
​​​​​​
For instance, if the 2/3rds Rule had failed to provide the dates for any of the major events in Christ’s life (such as those of His conception, birth and baptism) that would be a fatal flaw. Similarly, if the dates it arrived at in New Testament times coincided with no more commemorations on the Hebrew calendar beyond what would be expected by chance, that too would be sufficient grounds to reject the theory. But, as has been shown, the 2/3rds Rule met both of those requirements and all the other criteria needed to prove itself legitimate.
​​​​
The anomalies found are rather minor issues by comparison. And they are inherent to most every accepted scientific theory. They don’t disprove it. They merely suggest that more work may be needed to fully comprehend it. Or perhaps they’re telling us that all the data is not yet in.
​​​
Three have already been discussed in earlier chapters. They are …
​​​​
The placement of Palm Sunday one-third of the way into the first period of Level VI rather than two-thirds of the way into it (as it is for the second Light in all the other Levels).
​​​​
The missing Jewish holiday connection to Christmas.
​​​​
The missing Jewish holiday connection to Holy Wednesday.
​​​​
And reasonable explanations have been given for all three. But there are other anomalies that are not as easily explained. Again, this doesn’t mean they cannot be explained. It is merely an indication that a totally satisfactory explanation has not yet been found.
​​​​​
For the purpose of listing them, since the anomalies have different characteristics depending on their time period, this appendix is divided into three sections: the first will discuss the anomalies found in the 2/3rds Rule’s take on natural history (defined by Creation Levels I and II); the second will address the anomalies found in the 2/3rds Rule’s take on Salvation History from Adam to the onset of the New Testament (defined by Creation Level III and the first half of Creation Level IV); and the third will discuss the anomalies found in the 2/3rds Rule’s take on the life and times of Christ (defined by the last half of Creation Level IV together with Creation Levels V, VI and VII). That said, and in the interest of full disclosure, the following is an honest attempt to list and discuss all the anomalies that have been uncovered.
​​​​​
Section 1a: The 2/3rds Rule and Natural History (Creation Level I)
​​​​
There is nothing in our scientific understanding of prehistory that can be dated with 100% accuracy. Every empirically determined date that science gives us from this time has a range of error associated with it. Some of these estimates are more precise than others and, in general, the closer you get to the present the greater the precision. But there is always some amount of uncertainty associated with these estimates. With that in mind, it must be acknowledged that most of the dates generated by the 2/3rds Rule in prehistory are within the range that scientists would consider reasonable. Even at that, however, there are, nevertheless, some predictions that are so far removed from where modern science would place them that they deserve to be called anomalous. And the following, taken from Creation Levels I and II, fall into that category.
​​​​​​
The dating of the Big Bang
​​​​​​​
Some may think this one is an anomoly given that the 2/3rds Rule's estimate for this date, at 15.8 billion years, is so far removed from what is commonly seen in the literature. And that is why it is listed. But on closer inspection it is found that there really is no issue, because there are actually two, equally esteemed, scientific opinions as to the age our universe. So yes, the more popular of the two places the Big Bang at 13.7 billion years (±1%), which is considerably younger than the 2/3rds Rule's estimate. But the upper limit of the other estimate, which places it at 15 billion years (±5%), is a spot on match. The only difficulty then is not with science but with the bias of those who report on the science. And even though the astronomer who first calculated the older age, Alan Sandage, is one of the most renowned of the modern era, the scientific community still seems to prefer the other estimate.
​​​​​​​​​​​​
As a possible explanation, the younger estimate’s greater compatibility with an atheistic view of the cosmos may have something to do with its popularity. And because of that some may see in its popularity the last vestiges of a war cosmologists have been waging against God (and steadily losing) over the past 2 millennia. Its beginnings can be traced, perhaps, to the position of the Classical Greek philosopher, Aristotle, who held, with no evidence to support it, that the lights in the heavens were perfect and eternal. And, for the atheist, this view presents a compelling argument (provided you don't look too closely), for what need is there of a Creator in a universe that has no beginning?
​​​​​​​
But there is a counter to that argument. And, oddly enough, Aristotle provided that, too, for he did not imagine an infinite regress for the movement of the heavenly spheres. He insisted, rather, and also without evidence, that there had to have been something that set everything in the heavens into motion. This he called the unmoved Prime Mover, or the uncaused First Cause, with later Christian theologians (particularly those of the Scholastic era) ascribing that primeval force to God. And that is how things stood, for a while anyway. Western Civilization had two diametrically opposed, faith-based, origin stories to choose from. And to be honest, the atheist's position, being the least cumbersome of the two, was also, therefore, the most logical. But empirical science was yet to look in on the matter. And when it did it would have a lot to say.
​​​
The investigation started in earnest with the invention of the telescope at the dawn of the Age of Enlightenment. And the first thing these intrepid scientists discovered when they looked to the heavens is that the universe was a geat deal larger than anyone had imagined. But more than that, as they continued to study it was becoming painfully apparent that everything in the observable universe was in the state of decay. And this did not bode well for the atheists, since their pet theory required some sort of mechanism to continually replenish the energy being lost in our universe due to entropy. And such devices are deemed impossible by the newly discovered laws of thermodynamics.
​​
So that presented the atheistic view with its first major difficulty. And before it could be resolved, a Belgian, Jesuit astronomer, Fr. Georges Lamaitre, made things doubly worse by noting, from his studies of red shifting starlight, that everything in our universe (every star and nebula and galaxy) appeared to be expanding outward from a single point in space. And, thus, it had a beginning!
​​​
His revolutionary findings were published in the early 1930s. And even though the evidence in support of it was overwhelming, many in the scientific community understandably did not take kindly to it. They fought it vehemently for decades, calling it, derisively, the Big Bang Theory. But the scientific community eventually ceded to Lamaitre when in 1964 a major prediction of his theory, the Cosmic Background Radiation, was discovered. [1]
​​​
This by itself was a major blow to the atheistic worldview. But it was also becoming more and more obvious, from the study of Lamaitre's model, that the laws and constants in our onetime universe are ridiculously fine-tuned to allow for the presence of life. Change any of them only slightly and there is no possibility of any type of life existing or evolving. [2] And, if that was not enough, the modern realization that even with that advantage, given the enormous complexity of even the most rudimentary living organisms, the odds against life arising, simply by accident, are still astronomically high. [3]
​​​​​​​​​​
So in very short order (a mere 400 years of scientific exploration) the case for a Creator had become overwhelming. Its Scripture affirming conjectures that our universe had a beginning presented scientists (with their heavy reliance on atheistic explanations) a major dilemma. Without eternity to work with, life's presence in our universe becomes very difficult to explain, forcing even the most skeptical to concede to the unwelcome possibility of a guiding hand.
​​​​​​​​​
And about the only thing allowing many scientists to sleep soundly at night was another new theory that came out to seemingly counteract the theistic implications of the Big Bang. It was the Big Crunch theory, which proposed that at some point our expanding universe will stop in its expansion due to its own gravity and collapse back in on itself. And the reason for its popularity is that it posits a seemingly infinite number of universes prior to ours, all originating from a quantum singularity and then falling back into a new quantum singularity.
​​​​​​​
In other words, it likens our universe to an accordian that just keeps on playing. But each time it opens up it plays a different tune. It is understandable, then, that atheists might like it. Even though it may not be eternal, with a very large number of universes to work with, one, as absurdly favorable to the advent of life as ours, is once again not only plausible, it is statistically probable that many might arise and we’re just the fortunate souls who happen to reside in one of them.
​​​​​​​
And since a Big Crunch cannot theoretically happen in a universe older than 14 billion years, [4] it is also understandable why science would prefer the younger age. But simply wanting something to be true, doesn’t make it so. And the theory was disproven anyway, with the recent discovery that the universe is not only not slowing down in its expansion (as was thought), it is accelerating! [5] But that has, apparently, not stopped scientists from hoping against hope that somehow the theory can be resurrected. [6]
​​​​​​​
As to Alan Sandage, he died in 2011 never faltering in his support for his own estimate and claiming that one day he’d be proven right. Being vindicated by the Bible was probably not what he had in mind. But given that he was one of the rare scientists out there that was also unashamedly Christian, it is good to see the 2/3rds Rule coming down in his favor.
​​​​​​​
The dating of the origin of our solar system
​​​​​​​
The current majority scientific opinion places the origin of our solar system at somewhere around 4.6 billion years ago. Whereas the 2/3rds Rule predicts that the sun began to shine on our primordial earth some 5.26 billion years ago, making it the only event predicted by the 2/3rds Rule in natural history that is seriously at odds with popuar science.
​​
In defense of the Rule, it needs to be recognized that the scientific estimate is not based on any conclusive empirical evidence. It is based, rather, on the radiometric dating of certain mineral inclusions (grains) found in meteorites, And that data has been subsequently incorporated into a hypothetical mathematical model of our solar system that projects the earth, the sun and the planets all came together at roughly the same time.
​​​​
But those inclusions really tell us only the minimum age of the solar system. And although there are many found in the 4.6 billion year old age range, some meteorites have been found by radiometric dating to be considerably older. Dust particles found in the Murchison meteorite, for instance, have been dated to be somewhere between 5 and 9 billion years old. [7] So it seems a little presumptive to conclude that the 4.6 billion year old grains were created at the same time as our solar system. Could they not have been produced by some other cosmic event that occurred 4.6 billion years ago? Science is currently of the opinion, for instance, that a mars sized planet struck the earth around that time. And this, in turn, is what gave us our moon. [8] Seems like maybe that collision could have kicked up a bit of dust, as well, in our orbital path.
​​​
The data, by this theory, tells only the age of the moon, however. And it leaves open the questions we are most interested in, namely the age of the earth and the solar system. So it is understandable that competing theories on what these dust particles represent might not be popular. Modern science has been trying to figure out how old we are for as long as there have been modern scientists, with the first attempt of the modern era belonging to Isaac Newton, who calculated from the mathematical model that the earth was 50,000 years old. And each progressive guess has gotten older and older, such that by the end of the 19th century scientists were finally fairly confident that our planet was around 100 million years old. But then came the discovery of radiometric dating which changed everything,
​​​
So now we have science's latest opinion on the matter. And it has been in roughly the same ballpark since the 1950s, which may be why it is treated with so much reverence. But at its heart it is not really much different from the prior attempts. Like all the others it is an extrapolation based upon an assumption that may or may not be accurate. ​​​So as it stands today, all we really have here is a difference of opinion between two competing mathematical models. Time and further investigation will tell which is the superior model for predicting this date.
​​​​​
The dating of the origin of the first living cells
​​​​​
This one is not really anomalous. It is a simple clarification. The position of this book is that the first living cells were created by God somewhere in our universe around 5.26 billion years ago. And, to date, there is no evidence provided by science that can dispute it. About all science can tell us, with any degree of certainty, is what might be the latest date life first appears. And the evidence for that is found entirely on earth. Accordingly, the earliest strong evidence for life on this planet dates to around 3.5 billion years ago. And some believe the date can be pushed back as far as 3.8 Ga. But that does not solve the questions of when or where the first viable living cell was brought into existence.
​​​​
Looking at it from another persepctive, there is evidence that terrestrial life is deriving energy via photosynthesis as early as 3.4 Ga. But given how complicated that process is, it seems unreasonable that it would come about so quickly after an origin of life dated at 3.8 Ga. This would have been a big step in evolution, as big perhaps as the one that saw the advent of eukaryotic organisms. Pushing life's humble beginnings back some 2 billion years to say, 5.26 Ga and removing that event to an extraterrestrial location (like say, a comet, as some have proposed) resolves both difficulties. And science would have no argument with either speculation.
​​​​​
The suggestion that macroscopic animal life originated 585 Mya
​​​
This one is not so much an anomaly as it is a call for an update of the current geological division naming convention. Fifty years ago classrooms taught that all visible animal life originated in a kind of explosion (or proliferation) at the start of a geological subdivision called the Cambrian Period around 540 Ma. And all of Earth’s history prior, being devoid of macroscopic fossils (and, therefore, geologically boring), was lumped together under the heading Precambrian Era, and largely ignored.
​​​
Recognizing that 4 Billion years is too long a time to just gloss over, modern geology has upgraded the Precambrian to supereon status, and subdivided it into three Eons, designated the Hadean, Archaean, and Proterozoic. In so doing our Eon, designated the Phanerozoic (which literally means visible life) became the fourth, and it encompasses everything occurring after the Cambrian explosion.
​​
This was a definite improvement, but there still remains something of a misnomer in that, geologists have also recently discovered fossils of unusual, but visible, life forms dating into the Proterozoic Eon and as far back as 580 (and possibly 610) Ma. And this is very much in keeping with the date proposed by the 2/3rds Rule for the advent of multicellular animal life. But it also makes the designation Phanerozoic somewhat outdated unless its start is also pushed back to where those first visible life forms originated.
​
And if science ever does give the Phanerozoic a more appropriate starting date (like say 585 Ma) something very insteresting emerges. It would result in all four of the geological subdivisions that define our time (the Phanerozoic Eon, the Cenozoic Era, the Quaternary Period, and the Holocene Epoch) starting at milestones predicted by the 2/3rds Rule. And when you add to that the onsets of both earth history (at 5.26 Ga) and cosmological history (at 15.8 Ga), it totals six subdivisions, altogether. Figure A1 shows this graphically. [9] And as a bonus it also shows how incredibly well the biological record conforms to the Rule, as nearly all of the taxonomic subdivisions biologists have invented to describe the progression of life from the first living cell to us are accounted for. [10]​​​
​​
The conflict on the origin of fruit bearing trees
For those believers who accept that the Days of Creation are much longer than 24 hours in length, this is really the only major discrepancy found between the Bible’s account and the scientific record. And this discrepancy exists with any theory of Creation siding with mainstream scientific dating. The issue comes from the Bible’s assertion that fruit bearing trees were created on the 3rd Day, [11] while scientific evidence insists that it would have happened in the middle of the Cretaceous Period. And that would place it, by the 2/3rds Rule's ordering, on the 5th Day.
​​​
There is, of course, no problem here for the Young Earth Creationists. But they convolute so much of science to make it bend to their interpretation of Scripture (and the Old Earth interpretation resolves so many more biblical issues with science) it is hard to accept this as a possible solution. Alternatively, there is also no likelihood that science will ever budge on this issue, either.
​​​
Modern science does tell us that visible vegetative life first arose in the form of red algae in the middle of Day 3. In fact, this ancestor of all modern plants (which includes, of course, fruit trees) arrives right around two-thirds of the way into that Day. [12] So there is an indication that God is acknowledging this milestone in evolution, too. But it is a long way to go from there to the first fruit trees. So in accepting that Scripture cannot be broken, perhaps this is a situation where we just do not yet have the correct authentic version of the Book of Genesis. Or perhaps we are misinterpretting the words given us in Scripture as fruit trees when, in fact, they are referring to something there were no words for when they were originally written. Red algae does bear a slight resemblance to fruit trees when viewed under a microscope.
​​​
But there are any number of ways of resolving this issue and they will not be listed here. Bible purists may not like any of the resolutions, but no one is impugning the Bible here. This anomaly is simply being put into the category of one of those instances where we may not yet understand what the Bible is really saying and hoping that it will be resolved sometime in the future, through an archeological dig perhaps.
​​​​​
The conflict between the Bible and science on the events of 4th Day
​​​​
This conflict involving the Bible’s claim that the lights in the sky were created on the 4th Day of Creation is an old one. [13] But drawing on added insights provided by the 2/3rds Rule, a resolution was proposed in chapter 2 suggesting the author of Genesis was writing from the perspective of life, which would not have had the faculties (eyes, brains, etc.) to perceive the light of heavenly bodies until the 4th Day. And residing in the ocean during a global Ice Age, it would also not have been in the position to do so until that too had ended.
​​
From a slightly different perspective, it is reminiscent of that old philosophical question, “If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?” The answer depends on your definition of the word “sound.” If you define it as a wave vibrating through an atom-rich medium, then yes, it makes a sound. But if you believe “sound” is something more, and that you cannot truly call that phenomenon “sound” until there is someone, or something, capable of perceiving it, then your answer is no.
​
And you can say the same of light. Scientifically defined, light is simply a radiation of photons. But until it is perceptible to the senses, many would argue you cannot call it light. It doesn’t get that promotion until you can see it. So when the Bible says God created the lights in the sky on the 4th Day, [14] it does not necessarily follow that He also made the sources of those lights on that Day (and indeed, science insists that He didn’t). A better interpretation of those Scriptures, then, might be in terms of God creating the senses on Day 4, that we could finally see the photons being radiated by those bodies, and perceive it as light.
​​
The dating of the K-T extinction [15]
​​
Science can determine the date that the dinosaurs were wiped out by radiometrically dating the thin layer of Iridium that was laid down on the earth’s surface at the time of the impact event that caused it. And there is a lot of this Iridium around today to test. So by this method, modern science has pinpointed the date of the K-T extinction to such precision that the range of accuracy is less than 0.1%. That is, it’s estimated to have happened 65 Ma ± 50,000 years … or rather it was.
​​​
In 2013, a new method of dating the event was introduced. And it claims the impact actually occurred 1 million years earlier at 66.043 Ma ± 11,000 year. [16] But this is not a situation where a new method is introduced to increase the precision of an earlier estimate. The ranges of accuracy of the two divergent theories do not overlap, making them conflicting opinions. So just as it is with the estimate for the Big Bang, even though popular science seems to have adopted the latest estimate, the 2/3rds Rule sides with the earlier one and predicts that science will one day come back to it.
​​
Section 1b: The 2/3rds Rule and Natural History (Creation Level II)
​​
Within the framework of this book’s analysis, there really are no anomalies associated with the 2/3rds Rule’s treatment of Creation Level II. All the primary stages in man’s evolution, from the first primates to Adam and Eve, are covered, and in most cases, the dates the 2/3rds Rule provides are in remarkably good accord with the scientific estimates. There are admittedly some cases where the dating is slightly off. But the primatology is a science that is in no way settled. And it is in those areas of the study containing the most uncertainty where these discrepancies lie. So there is nothing really to report on the dating of an anomalous nature.
​​
The only real anomalies to be found under this heading do not pertain to the dates and are, therefore, reserved for the next installment of this Series, where this Level will be reviewed in finer detail. And it is admitted that therein some controversies will be unearthed. But even after those are accounted for, it will still be evident that the only halfway significant issues between the 2/3rds Rule and natural history are the few that have already been discussed from Creation Level I, where scientific dating is not nearly as accurate as it is in Level II.
​​
Section 2: The 2/3rds Rule and Salvation History (Levels III & IVa)
​​
Since the review of these Levels has also been reserved for the second installment in this Series, any anomalies found in this time period will be discussed there, as well. Some are, however, keenly aware that the timespans of the biblical Patriarchs given in Genesis are seemingly irreconcilable with the conjectures of modern science. In the Bible, for instance, the length of time from Adam to Abraham, appears to be somewhere between 2,000 and 3,500 years (depending on the version of Genesis consulted), [17] while the 2/3rds Rule and science both insist it’s about 87,000 years. It is appropriate, therefore, to comment on this one discrepancy here.
​​
Suffice it to say, that this issue will definitely be addressed in the next installment. And although it seems on the surface to be an impossible puzzle to crack, the 2/3rds Rule provides a rather elegant resolution that does no serious damage to science or Scripture. The trick lies in knowing the exact dates for Adam and Abraham (which is something we never had before), because once those dates are known, all the tumblers on the lock that was obscuring our vision fall into place to reveal an inspired new way of viewing things.
​​
Section 3: The 2/3rds Rule and NT Times (Levels IVb, V, VI & VII)
​​
The 2/3rds Rule's connections to Shabbat Shekalim and Shabbat Zakhor
​​​​​​
Of the 41 commemorations of the Hebrew calendar that have been found to be tied to significant events from messianic times, 39 are hard to dispute. They come to us either directly from Scripture, or are solidly corroborated by a combination of logic and math. Appendix C provides the details. The 2 exceptions are the Special Sabbaths, Shabbat Shekalim and Shabbat Zakhor, whose connections could easily be relegated to coincidence.
​​​
St. Paul's conversion, for instance, was intentionally set to Shabbat Shekalim and has only one mathematical corroboration. That happens when you also intentionally set St. Paul's death to Shmini Atzeret in 64 AD, beand notice that two-thirds of the way between the two dates is Shabbat Hazon in 54 AD. So even though that is a very appropriate observance to land on for St, Paul at that time in his life, the odds against it being an accident are still not very high. There is just too much manipulation to call it a solid connection.
​​​
But Shabbat Zakhor has an even weaker connection. Its only link requires acceptance of the Oral Tradition that Mary and Joseph stood trial before the Sanhedrin just prior to Christ's birth. And even though that Tradition is somewhat substantiated in Ta'anit Esther being mathematically tied to the Nativity, Sabbath Zakhor's relationship to it all is still only implied. So, as with Shabbat Shekalim, Shabbat Zakhor seems to be left hanging in the wind, looking for something a little more substantial to nail it down.
​​
And there may well be some additional connections that can do that. No one is saying that there can't be others out there waiting to be found. We'll be looking at two possibilities, momentarily. But first it is helpful to reevaluate the bigger picture in this study, to see it as God has aparently given it to us, as a mosaic where all the tiles have been scattered throughout the Bible. In other words, the Holy Spirit has given us a massive puzzle in His Bible (as many, throughout history, have instinctively recognized). And to get us more involved in His handiwork, He's made it our job to put the tiles back into their proper places, with the first tiles pertaining to Jesus and John the Baptist. And they were, in fact, rather easy to find once the 2/3rds Rule had been discovered. But that brought the big picture to maybe only 60% completion. And many tiles were still in need of being inserted.
​​​
So Mary's tiles came next. And they, too, were easily found. They came into view by applying to her life the precedents set by Jesus and John. And that brought the picture into even sharper clarity. But at about 85% completion now there were still a few observances left and one individual noticeably missing from the big picture. It was Jesus's stepfather, St. Joseph. So even though we knew nothing initially of his life, we did have a very noticeable hole in the mosaic looking to be filled. So we filled it. And sure enough, in so doing there were plenty of mathematical corroborations popping up to tell us we'd gotten it right. [18]
​​
But the mosaic was still not complete. We now found ourselves in the annoying situation where we've finished putting all the pieces seemingly given us into a jigsaw puzzle and seeing that one piece is still missing. Shabbat Shekalim had not yet found its home. Fortunately, however, there were also two other important New Testament figures, whose lives after they began their ministries seemed suitable for inclusion into the mosaic. So the ministerial lives of Sts. Peter and Paul were brought into the discussion. And the 3 dates found for St. Peter (his being renamed, the Rock, his martyrdom and his being called to Rome on the anniversary of Jesus being called to Jerusalem) all appear to fairly solid.
​​
For St. Paul not so much. The 3 dates found for him, though admittedly speculative, do, nevertheless, bring the mosaic to completion. And that has to be worth something. But for those who need to see more there is a story from the Gospel of Matthew that seems tailormade for Shabbat Shekalim. That Sabbath being a call to pay the Temple tax, the story tells of Jesus being asked for the tax and His complying with the request by producing the coins from the mouth of a random fish. [19] So although there is no indication from Scripture of the year this happened, let alone the exact date, Shabbat Shekalim does appear to be referenced here. And it also appear in Matthew's Gospel after the Transfiguration [20] and after the Apostles have received from Christ the power to expel demons [21] So, if that chronolgy can be trusted, it assigns the Miracle of the Temple tax to the last Shabbat Shekalim in Christ's ministry, making it February 14, 33 AD.
​​​
With no secondary corroboration from math or sacred tradition, the odds of this miracle actually happening on Shabbat Shekalim is the same as it was with St. Paul's conversion. But with two candidates now to choose from, the likelihood on one of them being correct is considerably higher.
​
Moving on then to Shabbat Zakhor, this one also has a potential connection to Christ's ministerial years. And, if valid, it will actually provide us with dates for 3 monumental events in His ministry, all of which comprising the 6th chapter of John's Gospel. It begins with John's account of a miracle, where Jesus famously fed a crowd of 5,000 on 2 fish and 5 barley loaves. [22] But John continues, telling us that after that miracle, and sometime during the subsequent night, Jesus performed another. He was seen walking toward the Apostles on water as they were crossing the Sea of Galilee by boat. [23] And then, on the following day in Capernaum, Jesus, we're told, gave His famous discourse on the Bread of Life. [24] But it isn't until we get to the very end of the discourse that a hint is provided suggesting perhaps the day on which it occurred.
​​​
In that discourse, itself, Jesus told His followers, in no uncertain terms, that they were going to have to, literally, eat of His Flesh and drink of His Blood if they wanted any part in God's Kingdom. It was the key to life itself. And many walked away from Jesus that day as a result. It was just too hard a saying to accept. But He didn't call them back, as you'd expect, if He didn't really mean it literally. Instead He turned to His 12 Apostles and asked if they now wanted to walk away as well. To this Simon Peter, speaking on behalf of the twelve, said, "Master, to whom shall we go? You [alone] have the words of eternal life." [25] And Jesus then praised them for their blind faith, but caps it with a riddle. He adds, "Yet one of you is a devil." [26]
​​​​​
So, in an effort to explain why Jesus said this at this particular time, many theologians have speculated that this Discourse is what turned Judas's heart away from Christ, that Judas was among those who could not handle what Jesus was saying. And when looking solely at what has been written in this chapter, it does seem to make sense. But it is also in conflict with what John later tells us specifically in his Gospel as to Judas's true motivation. He attributes his ultimate falling to greed, that Judas was a thief who was stealing from the common purse. [27] It seems a bit odd then, that John's intent in including this statement by Jesus would be to contradict himself.
​​
An alternative position, and one that is much more compatible with Scripture, is that the Holy Spirit inspired John to record this bit of information to tell us the date that it happened. Shabbat Zakhor, afterall, is a sabbath created to comply with a command from God found in the book of Deuteronomy. [28] Therein God told the Israelites to always be on guard for the treachery of the Amelikites. And the placement of this Sabbath just prior to Purim comes from the tradition that Haman, the archvillain in the story of Purim, is believed to have been an Amelikite.
​​
Haman, however, has a New Testament counterpart. In chapter 5 it was noted that Judas betrayed Jesus and made his deal with the Sanhedrin on 13 Nisan, which was the same day Haman hatched his plot with the King of Persia to kill all the Jews in the empire. [29] It is seemingly no coincidence, then, that both equally fiendish plots would fail or that Haman and Judas would both die soon after in a similar fashion. [30]
​​​
It makes sense, therefore, that Jesus might feel the need to obey God's command and thus give the Apostles a heads up about Judas. And this being the first time in His ministry that He makes mention of it, Shabbat Zakhor would be the most appropriate time to spring it on them. As to the exact year, John's Gospel places it in late winter in the start of 32 AD. But the events associated with it are suggestive of a later date. The multiplication of the loaves, for instance, was an extremely public miracle and uncharacteristic of Jesus throughout much of His ministry whom the Gospels tell us was always trying to maintain a low profile. With Judas being selected an Apostle a mere 5 months earlier, it would also be strange if Jesus was already calling him a devil.
​​
So the events seem to point to 33 AD. But so does the math. Shabbat Zakhor would have landed on February 28 in that year, making it also exactly two-thirds of the way into the 4th milli-Second of Creation Level V. [31] Shabbat Shekalim (on February 14) is also exactly half way between that Sabbath and Shabbat Shirah (on January 31) which saw the Apostles being sent out on their first missions. So both of these Special Sabbaths can be said to have mathematical corroborations in 33 AD. And it is also worth noting that by bringing these two into this final monumental year in Christ's ministry, all 6 of the Special Sabbaths leading to Passover are present and accounted for. [32]
This is all still speculative, of course. And we have no assurance if the true connections to Shabbat Shekalim and Shabbat Zakhor have even yet been found. At this point all that can be known with certainty is that the mosaic is real and our confidence level is high in all but two of the observances that make up the mosaic. Perhaps someday the confidence level for these last two pieces in the puzzle can be as high as it is in the others. But we do at least have reasonable candidates to plug the holes until that happens.
​​​​
St. Joseph’s birth occurring on the second day of Rosh Hashanah rather than the first
​
In chapter 6, St. Joseph’s birth year was determined by assigning it to the only year in the 1st century BC that would have made him the patriarch of the Holy Family at a reasonable age while at the same time linking his birth to Rosh Hashanah and his circumcision to Shabbat Shuvah. And by this method it was calculated that he would have been 53 at the time of Jesus’s birth and exactly 80 years old when he died. And there were many ways that these dates were subsequently verified.
​
But there was still one issue and it concerns the date of his birth. It would have been on the second day of Rosh Hashanah, making it one of only two such instances where a 2/3rds Rule generated date connected to a multi-day Jewish holiday on a day other than the first. The other was John the Baptist’s Bar Mitzvah. But in John's case his Bar Mitzvah landed on a Chol HaMoed Sabbath within the festival of Sukkot, so there really was no issue with that one. St. Joseph's birthday is another matter. And even though Rosh Hashanah appears to have evolved into a two-day holiday by the time of St. Joseph’s birth, it was originally set up in the Bible to constitute one simple day. [33] So why, if this truly was his birthday, should it have occurred on the second day?
​
And this is especially troubling given that the second day of the holiday seems to have been a manmade tradition. But was it really entirely manmade? Rosh HaShanah became a two-day celebration as a natural result of God assigning it to the first day of the month. This did not pose a problem when the holiday was originally established under Moses. For the Israelites residing in the wilderness it was easy to keep. But after they entered the Promised Land and started to spread out a problem began to develop. And it became pronounced after the Diaspora with so many living in foreign lands. With each new month being determined in Jerusalem by the observation of the new moon, the Jewish people living elsewhere had no certainty when any new month would be declared. The reason being, there is a nearly equal chance for any given month being 29 or 30 days long (given the idiosyncrisies of the lunar orbit).
​
A solution was needed, therefore, to ensure that all the Jewish communities everywhere were celebrating the holiday on the same day. And trying to communicate the information through messengers or the setting of signal fires was not deemed effective and for several reasons. A foolproof solution was needed, one that satisfied all the religious requirements, as well. So that is what they devised. The preceding month (Elul) was set to 29 days, regardless of when the new moon would appear. And the holiday of Rosh HaShanah was extended to 2 days. In this way, even if the new moon wasn't sighted on the 1st day of the holiday, they knew that it would be on the 2nd day and the command by God to celebrate with the new moon would be fulfilled. [34]
​​
So it is not really an issue that St. Joseph’s birth might fall on the second day of Rosh HaShanah, since both days carry the same importance and tradition lumps them together anyway as Yoma Arichta (one long day). Besides, God would have certainly known that the requirements of the holiday would necessitate it becoming a two-day feast. It is also only by St. Joseph being born on the second day that his circumcision would have coincided with both Shabbat Shuvah and Erev Yom Kippur. And that double hit should be more than enough to cancel out any issues we might have had with his being born on the second day.
And finally, it should also be noted that, of the four multi-day Jewish holidays, in two cases, Sukkot and Passover, it has always been something of a mystery why God would have so designated them.[16] This is especially true of Passover, since the event it commemorates took only one day. The 2/3rds Rule has already shown, however, in chapters 4, 6 and 7 that it is the New Testament events they foreshadow that necessitated Sukkot, Chanukah and Passover be observed as multiple day celebrations. And that same logic would appear to also apply for Rosh Hashanah.
An issue with John the Baptist’s birth on 1 Sukkot
The first day of Tishri in 9 BC, according to the standards established by the 2/3rds Rule as described in Appendix B should have begun at dusk on September 15 and ended at dusk on the following day. And that would set the 1st day of Sukkot that year to September 29/30, if determined in accord with the astronomical record. But the book places John's birthday at October 1 and it is pretty adamant that that should have been the 1st day of Sukkot in 9 BC.
This is not a large issue since it is a mere 1-day difference in a system that has an accuracy range built into it of 1-day. But it is nevertheless a little problematic that God would not (or could not) make this connection as spot on as all the rest. Without going into too much detail there are several ways of reconciling the issue. And all have their strengths and their weaknesses. But the one that has been opted for here is simply that when dealing with unrelated systems all determined by mathematical laws it is not easy to get them to sync up in every instance, (even for God). And He is the one who set up a system for determining the months at the time of Christ that had a 1-day accuracy range. Why should He therefore be forbidden to make use of it?
​
The position then of this book is that on the evening the first sliver of the full moon should have first been visible, God caused the sky to be overcast so that none could see it. And given that the Temple priests knew back then that the timing between new moons was either 29 or 30 days it would not have caused anyone to question when the month of Elul turned out to be 30 days long as opposed to the 29 days it would have been had the sky not been overcast.
​
7 Tishrei (c. 1313 BCE) – Taanit tzaddikim (Orach Chaim 5580:2) commemorating God's decree that the Dor Hamidbar died in the wilderness because of the sin of the Eigel HaZahav / Golden Calf (according to some, (Kol Bo and others), the event took place one day earlier, on 6 Tishrei) On the seventh of Tishri, a decree was decreed against our ancestors that died by sword, hunger and plague because of the incident of the golden calf. (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 580:2)
8 Tishrei (c. 946 BCE) – 14-day dedication of Solomon's Temple begins
The question of whether John, the Baptist had a Presentation
Being a Levite, John, the Baptist's parents would not have been required to redeem him from His debt to God thirty days after he was born (any more than Jesus's parents were). But there is no mention in the Bible of John being dedicated to God (like Jesus was) later on in his infancy. Scripture required only that he be inducted into priestly service when he turned 25. In consideration of the fact, however, that in his role as the forerunner, John's life and death have both been shown to parallel that of Christ, it is logical to wonder whether, like Jesus, he also had a presentation.[17]
This is purely speculative, of course, but it does seem appropriate. And if there was such a ceremony, like Jesus, we can assume it would have also happened coincidentally with his mother's ritual sin offering forty days after his birth. That would place John's on the 25th day of the 8th month, Cheshvan, in 9 BC. And it may seem strange that this book would be advocating for an event that is only weakly alluded to in Scripture and associated with the only month on the Hebrew calendar that has no holiday, fast or Special Sabbath. But in looking closer it is found to have potential for both clearing up a mystery and fulfilling an ancient prophecy.
As to the mystery, the first Book of Kings tells us that the construction of the First Temple (Solomon's Temple) was completed in the month of Cheshvan.[18] But King Solomon decided for some odd reason to postpone its dedication for 11 long months so that it could be concelebrated with the holiday of Sukkot.[19] And this is even odder considering Sukkot was a forgotten holiday at that time, not having been observed since the time of Joshua.[20] What could have inspired King Solomon do this?
The Bible doesn't say, but the 2/3rds Rule has the answer. With John, the Baptist, being born on 1 Sukkot, postponing to that day strongly suggests that John be identified as the embodiment of First Temple. And his proposed presentation ceremony during the same month that Temple should have been dedicated makes the connection even stronger.
But this, as usual, is only the half of it. The ancients also taught that when the Messiah arrives He will make it up to Cheshvan for the snub by finally giving it a holiday. And that holiday, according to the post Second Temple rabbis was to be the dedication of the Third and final Temple.[21]
Now all Christians know (or rather should know) that there will be no Third Temple (at least, not one of stone and mortar). Everything in the Old Testament is a foreshadowing of a much greater Christian reality. That was seen in chapter 6 where St. Joseph was confirmed to be, in fulfillment of prophecy, the New Testament embodiment of the Second Temple, with Mary, the Ark, becoming its centerpiece eighteen years later and Jesus, of course, being both the contents of the Ark and the sacrifice for that Temple.
And here again we see, in this presentation (assuming it did happen) another prophecy being fulfilled. We see God finally giving Cheshvan its holiday by John, the Baptist being dedicated in that month. The only difference being, he was christened to be the embodiment of the First Temple, not the Third, as was thought.
The Third and final Temple would come along a little later, and also in fulfillment of prophecy. It is the Church (obviously), with the Ark also finding its ultimate realization as the human heart,[22] purified by the Sacraments of Baptism and Reconciliation and, thus, readied to become the dwelling place of God in Holy Communion.
Another possible connection to the 2/3rds Rule for John the Baptist
2/3rds of the way from John’s conception on January 4 9 BC to his death on the evening of October 1, 32 AD takes you to Saturday, March 4, 19 AD which is Shabbat Zakhor. But what does that mean, if anything?
The timing of the start of John, the Baptist’s ministry
A table showing the times of day of every event predicted by the 2/3rds Rule during the life and times of Christ (Figure A.1) is provided on the adjacent page. But it needs to be understood from the onset that all the times listed in that table are approximate. In order to have exact times you need to know at least two with pinpoint accuracy. But our only source for those times, the Scriptures, don't provide anything to that degree of certitude, because even where they do give us the time, there is no indication of how exact it is.
The synoptic Gospels, for instance, tell us Jesus died at 3 PM.[23] But was it exactly 3:00 PM? Or was it, say, 3:10 PM? There doesn't seem to be any way of knowing. Fortunately, however, in doing the math a difference of 1-hour as to the time of Jesus's death does not really change the times of the other dates in any significant way. So lacking any better information it's been set at exactly 3:00 PM.
The other date that was used to set the timing for all the other dates is that of the Annunciation. And for this event, Scripture actually does suggest an exact time. It is midnight. But the uncertainty in this case comes from its source text, because it's not found in the Gospels. The tradition for this timing seems to originate from a passage in the Old Testament Book of Wisdom. [24]
For while all things were in quiet silence, and the night was in the midst of her course, thy almighty word leaped down from heaven from thy royal throne, as a fierce
Read in full context, these verses are clearly talking about the slaying of the firstborn of Egypt during the night of the Passover. But many of the early Church Fathers also saw in this a prophetic foretelling of the Incarnation. And whether or not they were correct in that belief, this being the only time the ancient traditions have given us for the Annunciation, this, and the timing of Jesus's death, are the two times that were used to generate all the other times in the table.
But just as it is with the timing of the Crucifixion, changing the time of day of the Annunciation does not significantly affect the other times, either. If you are of the opinion that it happened in mid-morning, for instance, that would only change the time of day of St. Joseph's speculative deathbed blessing from 2 PM to about 5 PM. And the time predicted for the start of John, the Baptist's ministry would only be altered by 1-hour. After that the changes are in mere minutes and by the time you get to Creation Level VI (Holy Week) there are only seconds of difference.
So although the times of day shown are approximate, they still leave no real leeway for human manipulation without dramatically running afoul from the tradition that gave us the timing of Jesus's death. That one specific time is the key to setting the times (approximate as they are) for all the other dates predicted by the 2/3rds Rule during Jesus's life.
In recognition of this fact, the results seen are somewhat amazing because, for the most part, the timing appears to be spot on with what might be expected from the way these events are reported in Scripture. They also remarkably occur during the normal waking hours for people living in that era. And had this not been the case, it could be viewed as a serious flaw.
But as appropriate as most of these times may appear to the events they relate to, there are three noticeable exceptions. And the first to be addressed is the time of day predicted for the start of John, the Baptist’s ministry. It is 10:40 PM and roughly four hours into the first day of Sukkot in 28 AD. And although the day fits well, the timing seems a bit odd. It is not in conflict with Scripture, which does not give an exact time, nor even the specific event that triggered it (other than that it was a call from God). But it is still not what might have been expected.
Maybe, however, what we’re seeing here with John is a suggestion that when he received his call it was something internal that deeply affected him, something that happened at night, directing him to begin his ministry. And maybe it was just as it is for everyone, the moment he recognized and accepted God’s call could have happened at any time, and not necessarily associated with any obvious outward sign.
But in John's case, his being such a pivotal figure in Salvation History, there is still likely something more to it. And it is reminiscent of the way Scripture tells us the prophet Samuel was called.[1] So perhaps, just as it was with Samuel (and also apparently, Mary), what the 2/3rds Rule is telling us here is that his public ministry also began at night and at the instigation of a heavenly visitor. This is all purely speculative, of course. But it does seem appropriate.
The timing of the start of Jesus’s ministry.
The second event, predicted by the 2/3rds Rule whose timing comes into question is that of the start of Jesus’s ministry, which by 2/3rds Rule accounting occurred at 9:55 PM on September 27, 30 AD. So not only is the time of day odd, in contrast to what may have been implied in chapter 4, since new days begin at dusk, it is also not even a precise match with the holiday of Yom Kippur. It is actually about four hours into the following day!
It’s close enough to Yom Kippur, however, to infer that He was baptized on that holiday (and, in keeping with the Gospels, during the daylight hours). But His baptism is the event that is traditionally associated with the onset of His ministry. So there is a real mystery as to the timing, which is why this discussion has been reserved for this Appendix).
But maybe what we’re being told this time is something we already intuitively knew, that in Jesus’s baptism there was much more to it than the simple ten-minute ritual we experience. We know, for instance, that being sinless, He had no personal need of being baptized, that He submitted to it for our benefit, not His.[2] And, in chapter 4 it was further discerned, that His baptism was necessary that He could fulfill His role as our Yom Kippur scapegoat, by taking our sins from the waters of Baptism onto His shoulders and returning them to Satan (their author and rightful owner).
But we can also be certain there’s a lot more going on in this sin transfer on a supernatural level than we’ve been told.[3] Nevertheless, Jesus’s baptism would still not logically be finished until He’d successfully completed that mission. And since Scripture also confirms He did go immediately into the desert after His baptism to meet with (and be tempted by) the devil,[4] the Rule seems to be telling us here that it was not until He had that confrontation that His ministry officially commenced.
So the timing does not appear to be as off, as was originally suggested. It seems rather to just be the 2/3rds Rule’s way of giving us the details on Jesus’s baptism that Scripture had merely implied, and at the same time, telling us why it was so important that it happened. But, as is often the case with the 2/3rds Rule, in doing this we see it also doing double duty in resolving another issue regarding Christ’s ministry, an issue that’s been confusing theologians for centuries.
So for all who’ve ever wondered why Jesus (our perfect role model) would put Himself into a situation where He was subjected to temptation, when we are specifically told by God not to do that,[5] herein lies the answer. It wasn’t something He wanted to do. In recognizing that His ministry actually started the day after He was baptized, we can now see it was just an unwanted consequence of His giving us the Sacrament of Baptism. It required that He meet with Satan. And whenever you do that, regardless of the reason, something bad is also going to happen.
Now in Christ’s case there really was no temptation, since God cannot be tempted.[6] So Satan’s bad actions here were inconsequential. But we mere humans are highly susceptible, and God also desires that all be saved.[7] It should, therefore, never be thought (as some have wrongly interpreted these Scriptures), that God would encourage our exposing our souls to spiritual peril or, worse yet, that He would ever intentionally lead us into temptation (another misinterpretation). The devil does that, not God, and the Church has always taught this.[8] And this resolution provides further support, as the moral lesson of the story is now best described in terms of what theologians like to call the double effect principle.
For those unfamiliar, simply stated, there are often two effects resulting from our actions, one good and one bad. But even though something bad may come of it, the action is still considered licit so long as A) the action itself is not sinful; B) the bad effect is an unwanted, but unavoidable, consequence of the action; and C) the intended good outweighs the unintended bad. And since, by this resolution, Christ’s actions can now be said to comply with all three criteria, His status as our perfect role model remains unsullied.
The timing of Caiaphas’s condemnation
As to the third date whose timing seems odd, it is March 14, 33 AD. Occurring just prior to Level VI and Holy Week, it is associated with the end of a forty-day period where it's been discerned Jesus was fasting for the city of Jerusalem. It has also prompted further speculation that this is the date of Caiaphas's negative response to Christ's supplication. The timing being 5:01 on the morning of Shabbat Hachodesh makes this idea unlikely, however. And it also makes no sense that God would want to highlight such a horrible betrayal by one of His faith leaders.
So given the 2/3rds Rule's emphasis here, on daybreak and the normal waking hour of people living back then, the only event we can reasonably connect to that timing is the conclusion of Jesus's fast. And that, in itself, may be the reason for this connection since it seems to be telling us something very important about conducting a fast.
If you or I were to attempt a forty-day fast, for instance, odds are we'd remember the exact minute it started. And if we succeeded, long before it was over, we'd likely be planning what we would be eating the very moment forty days had transpired. Not so with Christ. In His case the forty days were over mid-morning of the previous day. But in continuing it until daybreak the following morning He is showing us that He is the master of the fast and not the other way around. And that is an important point. For any fast to have value our focus needs to stay on the intention of the fast and not on what we are giving up.
As to Caiaphas, he still plays a part in this. But his infamous statement of condemnation is maybe better connected to the day following Jesus's fast. It would not be the first betrayal occurring on the Ides of March.
The seeming lack of strong connections to Shabbat Shekalim and Shabbat Zakhor
Figure A2
The missing Jewish holiday connection to 13 Nisan (Black Wednesday)
This anomaly has been addressed in this book a couple of times already. But there's a bigger mystery involved that necessitates taking another look. So in returning to the original discussion, it is recalled that this is the day the Church commemorates as Black, or Spy, Wednesday, because, from this day forward, Judas's heart became aligned with Satan's. And it's been suggested that the reason for the missing holiday is the lack of anything in Judas's actions to celebrate (which is true). But that doesn't explain why God wouldn't have established a fast, or solemnity, to foreshadow this day.
It's even stranger given how well the 2/3ds Rule has done with all the other dates. But in the only other lapse we've seen (Christmas) a very compelling explanation was uncovered. So it's logical to assume that something similar might turn up here. And in revisiting Scripture this becomes even more apparent from the recognition that there are actually two noteworthy events associated with this day.[9] But the other event is not sad. It is glorious.
It is ironically also the very thing that provoked Judas's change of heart. It all centers around a penitent woman who rushed into a home where Jesus was visiting, broke open a jar of nard and poured it over His head, anointing Him in the process. And to this, Judas feigned indignance over what he claimed was a waste of expensive perfume. His true concern, however (according to Scripture), is that he wanted to get his own hands on the money it might have sold for. But Jesus admonished him and applauded the woman for the gesture.
Let her alone. [He scolded] Why do you criticize her? She has done me a kindness. … by perfuming my body she has anticipated its preparation for burial. I assure you, wherever the good news is proclaimed throughout world, what she has done will be told in her memory.[10]
But note that, at the end of His admonishment, Jesus also included a prophecy. And even though it does not yet appear to have been fulfilled, He is making it very clear that something important happened here, something so extraordinary that it deserves worldwide acclaim. And by its emphasis of this date, the 2/3rds Rule is making the same point, telling us we need to be digging deeper one final time.
So in search of an answer, and noting that, in chapter 5, Judas's actions were connected in time to those of the archvillain, Haman,[11] it is reasonable to assume this anointing might be similarly connected to an Old Testament foreshadowing. And that does appear to be the case.
In the Book of Joshua we're told that right after the Israelites were led across the Jordan River into the Promised Land, God ordered (through Joshua) that all the men be circumcised a second time.[12] This was to properly prepare them for residence in their new home and to remove from them the "reproach of [their former home] Egypt." And although we don’t know the exact day this happened, Scripture does tell us it was sometime between the 10th and the 15th day of Nisan.[13] So the timing is close enough to suggest a match.
But the physical requirements of circumcisions raise some obvious questions, to which the narrative further explains that for the forty years the Israelites tarried in the wilderness awaiting their entry into the Promised Land, the ritual was not performed. And those who'd been circumcised in Egypt were all dead by this time.[14] So for those remaining, a real circumcision was possible. But the Bible's insistence on calling it a second circumcision, strongly suggests that on a spiritual level there is something else going on, something making it similar to, yet different from, a standard circumcision.
Crossing the Jordan into the Promised Land is also a well-known euphemism for leaving this life and entering into the next. So in consideration of the way the 2/3ds Rule has shown how other Sacraments were brought into our world (Baptism especially), what we are seeing here in this second circumcision is, most likely, another prefigurement for the establishment of a Sacrament. But this time it wouldn't be Baptism. That Sacrament is associated with the first circumcision. The clues here suggest, rather, that this new Sacrament is associated, not with our births. but with our deaths. And it would be a Sacrament that removes from us the reproach of this world (our sins and other temporal attachments) and prepares us for the Kingdom of Heaven.
Now Jesus, being without sin, had, of course, no need of having any worldly reproach removed. So just as we've already discerned from His actions at His baptism, by initiating this Sacrament it is being suggested here that He was sanctifying its anointing oils, taking from them the reproach of our world and placing it onto His sinless shoulders, that He could carry that too back to Satan with His death.
So yes, there is a great deal to celebrate, here. By her inspired actions that day, this unnamed, but holy, woman appears to have provided the Church her final Sacrament, the Sacrament that prepares us for the afterlife, just as Baptism prepares us for this life. It is the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.[15]
And in consideration of what has been revealed here, this, its former name (from the Latin; In Extremis), which literally means, The Anointing of those at the point of dying, seems very appropriate and much more applicable than the Church's current preference (the Anointing of the Sick). But therein lies a slight disagreement on the proper administration of the Sacrament, as its new name reflects the Church's current stance that it be restricted to only those who are in danger of dying from an illness or physical impairment. This attitude seems to stem from the only two Scriptures that mention administering the Sacrament, since in both cases the recipients are the sick.[16] And in consideration of all the healings that have been reported by those who've received this Sacrament, it is understandable the Church might be swayed in that direction.
The 2/3rds Rule would argue, however, that the Sacrament's benefit to the soul is of equal, if not greater, importance. And the many graces that (the Catechism confirms) are dispensed by the Sacrament testify for that position as well.[17] So there really isn't any disagreement with Church teaching on the nature or benefits of the Sacrament. It is merely a question of who should receive it. And the 2/3rds Rule is lobbying hard here to open it up to anyone of faith in danger of dying, whether through sickness or any other threat (like say, Jesus's situation, a state ordered execution).
But this still doesn't give us a reason for the missing commemoration. So maybe it simply has something to do with the stark contrast seen between the events of the day. Perhaps when there's something both horrible and wonderful happening at the same time, God has a choice. He can foreshadow it with a commemoration, as He did with Good Friday. Or He can leave it alone and let us decide what to do with it.
For 2,000 years we've been focusing on the horrible side of the day. But Judas's actions had no more consequence on Divine Providence than Caiaphas's actions had. And the 2/3rds Rule is adamant on that point.[18] Evil has no power over God and cannot, in any way, make Him change His plans. So neither the sins of Judas, nor Caiaphas, nor Adam, nor Eve (nor even we their children) could have had anything to do with Christ coming here, or with His ultimate departure. Both had been on the docket since time began and would have transpired with or without our help. The only real and lasting ill effect of Judas's betrayal, therefore, was on Judas, himself. And in the end, as Scripture affirms, all we really did through our failings is make things a whole lot more painful for Jesus than they had to be.[19]
But even without that recognition it is still high time we switched the focus of this day from that poor, wretched soul, Judas, and fulfill at the same time Christ's prophecy, by giving this great woman the honor she is long overdue. That seems to be at the heart of what we are being told here.
And we can maybe also see in this solution, how every anomaly uncovered will likely one day be resolved. They’ve been given us that we will all be inspired to dig a little deeper and, in the process, hopefully obtain a better understanding of (and greater appreciation for) the mind of God.
The Dubious Odds
This one is not really an anomaly. But since the final probability calculations are reserved for the 2nd book in this Series some may think it is, so it is appropriate to say something about it here. At a minimum, a method for determining the odds needs to be explained to allow anyone so inclined to do the calculations on their own. And for everyone else, providing some means of showing that the odds being touted are legitimate, is also in order.
To lay the groundwork for this discussion, then, it is noted, first, that there are 38 events in New Testament times claimed to be datable via the 2/3rds Rule. They are listed in Figure A.2.
But 2 of these, Tzom B'Tammuz and Passover (highlighted in blue in the table) need to also be excluded (for the same reason the Crucifixion and the Annunciation are exempt). And that leaves 43 commemorations available for statistical analysis. [1]
As to the specific holidays that found connections, 3 (The Fast of Esther, Purim and Shabbat Zakhor) are admittedly shaky. But the reader may feel that others are shaky too, so let's double that number and say in the final tally that the 2/3rds Rule confidently connected 28 events to commemorations on 36 attempts.
Putting it all together, then, and presenting it as a simple lotto problem, from 36 picks, 28 found connections to at least one of 43 holidays in a field of 365 (the number of dates available in any given year).[2] And from those 4 variables the nonselective probability of such an occurrence can by calculated from the formula …[3]
H!/(H-C)! x (D-P)!/D! x (D-H)!/(D-H-(P-C))! x P!/C!(P-C)!
Where: C = 28, D =365, H = 43 and P = 36.
That equates to about 1 chance in 2x1023. (And for those unfamiliar with the use of exponents, 2x1023 is mathematical shorthand for a 2 followed by 23 zeroes). But this result, as ridiculously low as it is, is still too high, because it does not take into account the selectivity seen in these holiday connections. (How could there have been a better holiday to connect to Jesus's baptism, for instance, than Yom Kippur? Or Tu B'Av for Mary's assumption?) This too needs to be factored in. And when it is, the 4th expression (P!/C!(P-C)!) is eliminated, and the odds decrease to 1 chance in 6x1030.
Now it is admitted there are some holidays that might have worked well with events other than those they are linked to. So the selectivity just described is not perfect. For our purposes, however, all this tells us is that the odds by this method are somewhere between the two extremes. That is, it is saying there is one chance in somewhere between two hundred sextillion and six nonillion that all this could have been accidental. And any way you slice it those are pretty tough odds. And that is still not considering what happens when all the multi-holiday hits are factored in. The numbers are truly staggering.
But they alone are still probably inadequate to convince everyone. Some, for instance, are now likely very upset because they were led to believe there would be no math. And others (like myself) just need to see things for themselves before they will believe anything. Some sort of practical demonstration is, therefore, warranted. And the two tables just presented, Figures A.2 and A.3, can be utilized for that purpose.
It is a simple matter of making photocopies of both, cutting out all the nonhighlighted holidays and events and putting them into separate bowls (the 1st bowl for the 36 unhighlighted events listed in Figure A.2 and the 2nd bowl for the 43 unhighlighted commemorations listed in Figure A.3). But 322 blank pieces of paper cut to the exact same size as the holidays will also need to be mixed into the 2nd bowl. The blanks are for all the dates on a 365-day calendar that are not Jewish holidays, fasts, special sabbaths or Rosh Chodesh observances.
To get an even better understanding of what the 2/3rds Rule has done a 3rd bowl could be added. This one would contain 36 slips of paper each with a different time of day written on them (noting that there are 36 40-minute intervals in a 24-hour day).
And once you have prepared the 3 bowls, draw one slip from each (without looking, or cheating, of course), record what you find, mix the time slip back to the 3rd bowl and continue the drawing until the 1st bowl is empty.[4] The average number of commemorations that you will draw is 4 in any single trial. If you are extremely lucky, you may find as many as 8 or 9. But even at that you will be hard pressed to see any relevance between the holiday and the event it is supposedly connecting to. The same goes for the time of day which will likely only make sense to the event it is being associated with about half of the time. And no matter what you find, it will pale when compared to all that has been uncovered by the 2/3rds Rule.
But if you are still skeptical, you don't have to take my word for it. Try this yourself and keep on trying it, until the scales fall from your eyes and you can finally see the light that has been trying to reach you throughout this entire book.
In conclusion It must be acknowledged that there really is no such thing as an empirical proof. Everything in modern science is theoretical and it has within it no inherent means by which to ascertain an absolute truth about anything. So to call this book an empirical proof of the existence of God is technically incorrect. And I apologize for the deception, because, like any scientific theory calling itself proven, though it may be extremely unlikely for it not to be true, it can never be considered rock-solid.
But that is a good thing. It means that faith is still required. And that is the way God apparently wants it. We can know with absolute certainty that God exists. Credo ut intelligam gives us that. But even though the odds may be a zillion to one in His favor we still cannot say it is proven. When it comes to proving God's existence, that one atom of doubt might as well be Mount Everest, for it keeps us as separated from true faith just as efficiently.
So as a former atheist, I can relate to anyone who is still struggling with this theory. It took me years to find faith, even after I'd started studying the 2/3rds Rule and the odds that supported it were going off into the stratosphere. I became for a time just an atheist who could prove the existence of God. And this did not give me pleasure. In fact, it sickened me, I wanted nothing more to do with it. So I ran away from it. And it wasn't until after my conversion, several years later, that I was able to return.
It was, once again, cognitive dissonance at the core of my distress. And the reason for it, I've since learned, is this. Supernatural faith comes to us from God through the heart, not the brain. It seems to have been set up that way that we would all have an equal shot at salvation. So to any unbelievers out there who've gotten this far and recognize the logic, but are as sickened by the conclusions as I was, do not despair.
It does not have to take years of painful soul searching (as it did with me) to be relieved of your misery. In the end you will find, if you are honest with yourself, that your difficulties all stem from a lack of faith. And that is a matter that is easily remedied simply by lowering your pride, humbling yourself before God, telling Him you’re sorry and asking for His help.[5]
If you can do all that, with sincerity, you will begin to see. You have my word on it, but more than that, we have God's word on it.[6] And if this book has led one person to knock on that door it is worth every ounce of effort and every prayer I've said in putting it together. So that is ultimately what this book is about. It cannot give you faith, but if I did my job right it may give some sound reason to seek it. And hopefully some will.
​
REFERENCES
Baker, Henry 2024. “New study confirms the moon is older than we realized — and reveals why we previously got it wrong” LiveScience Available at https://www.livescience.com/space/the-moon/new-study-confirms-the-moon-is-older-than-we-realized-and-reveals-why-we-previously-got-it-wrong
Cowen, R. 2000. History of life. Boston: Blackwell Science.
Espenak, Fred. December 21, 2014. "Six Millennium Catalog of the Phases of the Moon."
Astropixels.com. Accessed September 17, 2017. http://astropixels.com/ephemeris/phasescat
/phasescat.html.
Gibson, Timothy M., et.al. 2018. “Precise age of Bangiomorpha pubescens dates the origin of eukaryote photosynthesis.” Geology 46(2): 135-138. Available online at https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/46/2/135/524864/Precise-age-of-Bangiomorpha-pubescens-dates-the?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Hammer, J. 2006. The Jewish book of days: a companion for all seasons. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
Hoyle, F. and N. C. Wickramasinghe. 1978. Lifecloud: The origin of life in the universe. NY: Harper and Row Publishing Co.
Renne, P. R., A. L. Deino, F. J. Hilgen, K. F. Kuiper, D. F. Mark, W. S. Mitchell, L. E. Morgan, R. Mundil, and J. Smit. 2013."Time Scales of Critical Events Around the Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary." Science 339, no. 6120 (2013): 684-87. doi:10.1126/science.1230492.
Richman, C. 2013. "The dedication of the Third Temple." The Jerusalem Post (Oct. 2013). https://www.jpost.com/opinion/op-ed-contributors/the-dedication-of-the-third-temple-328030.
Ross, H. 2008. Why the Universe is the way it is. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
​Weisberger, Mindy, 2020. “7 Billion-Year-Old Stardust Is Oldest Material Found on Earth” LiveScience Available at https://www.livescience.com/oldest-material-on-earth.html
​​
ENDNOTES
​​
[1] The Cosmic Back-ground Energy (discovered by Bell Labs in 1964) is the residual noise
that still permeates the universe to give witness of the initial enormity of the Big Bang.
[2] Ross 2008.
[3] Hoyle and Wickramasinghe 1978.
[4] … any older and it is believed the estimated matter of the universe would be too dispersed
to stop the expansion.
[5] For a simple web explanation refer to the Wikipedia entry on Dark Energy.
[6] But this does not mean that the atheist argument is dead. because, there can never be an
ironclad proof of the existence of a Creator. That would negate the need for faith. It is saying,
however, that the more the empirical evidence in favor of God mounts, the more contrived the
atheist's argument is becoming.
[7] Weisberger 2020. And this meteorite, which struck Australia in 1969 is also remarkable
for the optically active amino acids it contains. These compounds are produced on earth, too,
but generally only by living organisms.
[8] Baker 2024.
[9] It also shows that, had they only looked, the 2/3rds Rule might have easily been
discovered by geologists decades ago!
[10] And the only major subdivision seemingly missing on this chart is our Phylum
(Chordata), which would lie on the chart between our Kingdom (Animalia) and our Class
(Mammalia).
[11] Gn 1:12.
[12] Their fossils are dated at 1.05 Ga (Gibson, et.al. 2018).
[13] Christian apologists have puzzled over this seeming incongruity as far back as Origen's
Homilies on Genesis 1, 5 (3rd century AD). And Talmudic rabbis have commented on it, too.
[14] Gn 1:14-19.
[15] Although somewhat outdated, the term, K-T extinction is still in common use and comes
from the German initials for the geological Periods that frame the event. They are the
Cretaceous (Kreide) and the Tertiary (Tertiär). The Tertiary Period, however, has since been
divided into two smaller Periods (the Paleogene and the Neogene) and the term, Tertiary, is no
longer in common use.
[16] For references to both estimates see Cowen 2000 and Renne, et.al. 2013.
[17] This is determined by tallying the timespans given for the biblical Patriarchs in Gn 5:1-
22 and Gn 11:10-26. And by those verses, the Hebrew text computes the span from Adam to
the birth of Abraham to be 1,948 years, while the Greek Septuagint has it is 3,414 years.
[18] To name just 3 it included 2 separate fulfillments of Daniel's 70 weeks of years
prophecy, together with its strongest corroboration the way it perfectly aligned his wedding
day to the lives of the Jesus and Mary. It did this by occurring precisely two-thirds of the way
into his life and coinciding with Mary's wedding being precisely two-thirds of the way into
her pregnancy.
[19] Mt 17:24-27.
[20] Referenced in Mt 17:1-9, the Transfiguration has been dated by this study to have
occurred on Oct. 7, 32 AD.
[21] Referenced in Mt 17:14-2, this study has determined that Jesus gave His disciples the
power to expel demons on Jan. 31, 33 AD.
[22] Jn 6:1-15.
[23] Jn 6:16-21.
[24] Jn 6:22-71.
[25] Jn 6:68, NABRE.
[26] Jn 6:70, NIV.
[27] Jn 12:4-6.
[28] Dt 25:17-19.
[29] Mk 14:1 sets Judas's betrayal to Spy Wednesday which would have been 13 Nisan in 33
AD. And Est 3:12 sets Haman's treachery to the same day.
[30] It is debated whether Haman's death described in Est 7:9-10 was by impalement or
hanging. And Judas's death described in Mt 27:5 and Acts 1:18 displays the same amount of
ambiguity.
[31] The 4th Creation milli-Second began on Feb. 1 and ended on Mar. 14.
[32] That would include Shabbat Shirah, Shekalim, Zakhor, Parah, HaChodesh and
HaGadol.
​
​
[1] Ross 2008.
[2] Hoyle and Wickramasinghe 1978.
[3] … any older and it is believed the estimated matter of the universe would be too dispersed to stop the expansion.
[4] For a simple web explanation refer to the Wikipedia entry on Dark Energy.
[5] It also shows that, had they only looked, the 2/3rds Rule might have easily been discovered by geologists decades ago!
[6] Gn 1:12.
[7] Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (governor of Syria: 6 - 12 AD) per any modern encyclopedia.
[8] Christian apologists have puzzled over this seeming incongruity as far back as Origen's Homilies on Genesis 1, 5 (3rd century AD). And Talmudic rabbis have commented on it, too.
[9] Gn 1:14-19.
[10] The term, K-T extinction, comes from the German initials for the geological Periods that frame the event. They are the Cretaceous (Kreide) and the Tertiary (Tertiär). The Tertiary Period, however, has since been divided into two smaller Periods (the Paleogene and the Neogene) and the term, Tertiary, is no longer in common use.
[11] For references to both estimates see Cowen 2000 and Renne, et.al. 2013.
[12] This is determined by tallying the timespans given for the biblical Patriarchs in Gn 5:1-22 and Gn 11:10-26. And by those verses, the Hebrew text computes the span from Adam to the birth of Abraham to be 1948 years, while the Septuagint's claims it is 3,414 years.
[13] And in the case of the money changers, they would not have likely been allowed to work on the Sabbath, anyway.
[14] Lv 23:24.
[15] Jerusalem Talmud, Eruvin 3:9.
[16] Ex 13:6 and Lv 23:35-36.
[17] Given that at least one other Levite, Samuel, also had a presentation, there is a precedent.
[18] 1 Kgs 6:38.
[19] 1 kgs 8:2.
[20] Neh 8:17.
[21] Richman 2013.
[22] Ez 36:26-27.
[23] Mt 27:45, Mk 15:33 & Lk 23:44.
[24] Wis 18:14-15, DR.
​
[1] 1 Sm 3:1-21.
[2] Mt 3:13-15.
[3] Scripture (Lv 16:8-10, 20-22) seems to have simply dumbed it down for us here, so that we won’t strain our brains on things way beyond our comprehension.
[4] Mt 4:1.
[5] Mt 26:41 and Ep 6:11, among many others.
[6] Jas 1:13.
[7] 1 Tm 2:4.
[8] CCC 2846.
[9] Mk 14:3-11.
[10] Mk 14:7-9, NAB.
[11] The connection is to Haman's attempt to manipulate the King of Persia into killing all the Jews in the world some 500 years earlier on 13 Nisan (Est 3:12-13).
[12] Jos 5:2-13.
[13] … determined from the timing of events preceding (Jos 4:19) and following (Jos 5:10).
[14] … with the exception of at least two, Joshua and his aide-de-camp, Caleb, whom we can assume would have both had a more spiritual form of the rite.
[15] And with this connection the initiation of 6 of the 7 Sacraments have been singled out by the 2/3rds Rule (the one exception, Holy Matrimony, having been initiated long ago in Eden, Gn 2:24, and is prophesied to attain perfection after the Second Coming in the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, Rv 19:6-9).
[16] Mk 6:13 and Jas 5:14-15. And its administration prior to its initiation, is likened to John baptizing before Baptism was initiated. They were both valid in anticipation of initiation.
[17] For all the associated graces, see CCC 1532 (on the Anointing of the Sick).
[18] This is a repudiation of the medieval Felix Culpa (Oh Happy Fault) belief (still popular today) that it was our fall from grace that forced Christ to come here. And in its thorough rejection of it, the 2/3rds Rule agrees, instead, with the 14th century counterargument offered by the Bl Franciscan friar, John Duns Scotus.
[19] This is in accord with Gn 3:16 (and in response once again to the Felix Culpa belief), there is nothing in that to be "happy" about!
​
[1] Shabbat Chol HaMoed Pesach does not need to be included, by the way, because it already has a connection to Holy Saturday, which is one day outside the scope of the 2/3rds Rule.
[2] Averaged over several years, the Hebrew calendar is a 365-day calendar.
[3] A similar formula is used for calculating lotto odds. The main difference is in the number of variables. Lotto calculations only require 3. But the validity of this formula can be verified by any statistician and it is also explained in the 2nd book of this Series, so no further explanation is deemed necessary to be provided here.
[4] The website www.gospelofcreation.com provides an easier (and paperless) way to do this via an interactive spreadsheet that does all the work with the push of a button.
[5] … with the precedent being set in Lk 15:11-32.
[6] Mt 7:7-11.
​
Published: September 1, 2025
Last Update: September 1, 2025
​
[12] This is determined by tallying the timespans given for the biblical Patriarchs in Gn 5:1-22 and Gn 11:10-26. And by those verses, the Hebrew text computes the span from Adam to the birth of Abraham to be 1948 years, while the Septuagint's claims it is 3,414 years.
For the purposes of statistical analysis, however, two of those events (highlighted in the table in blue) must be excluded. One, the Crucifixion (and all the other events associated with that day starting with the Last Supper), is excluded because the 2/3rds Rule algorithm was intentionally anchored to that day. And the other, the date and time of the Annunciation, is also excluded because its timing was used to calculate the dates and times for all the other events. That reduces the number of events available for consideration to 36 (of which 34 are being claimed to have connections to commemorations on the Hebrew calendar).
But we also need to determine how many commemorations might have been available to connect to. Figures 6.1 and 6.2 listed the 17 independent commemorations and 10 Special Sabbaths observed at the time of Christ. But when all was said and done, there were 7 additional commemorations called out by the 2/3rds Rule. They are Erev Yom Kippur, Shabbat Chol HaMoed Sukkot, Queen Esther's wedding day, Queen Esther's fast, Paschal Lamb Procurement Day, Rosh Chodesh Iyar and the 1st day of Selichot. So they, too, must be added.
And as a consequence, Erev Pesach must logically also be included in any statistical analysis, as do all the other yearly Rosh Chodesh celebrations. And because St. Joseph's birthday landed on the 2nd day of Rosh Hashanah both days of that holiday need to be considered. This totals 45 commemorations, and they are shown in Figure A.3.
[33] Lv 23:24.
[16] Ex 13:6 and Lv 23:35-36.
[17] Given that at least one other Levite, Samuel, also had a presentation, there is a precedent.
[18] 1 Kgs 6:38.
[19] 1 kgs 8:2.
[20] Neh 8:17.
[21] Richman 2013.
[22] Ez 36:26-27.
[23] Mt 27:45, Mk 15:33 & Lk 23:44.
[24] Wis 18:14-15, DR.