SIDE BAR NOTES
[a] The Scriptures that suggest this are Ex ??? (which tradition has long held took place on a Sabbath) and Dt ??? which suggests that the Sea was closed back up on a Sabbath. So without that corroboration it is difficult to buck the tradition that the crossing took place in one day, on either 21 or 22 Nisan. [b] Espenek ??
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.
​​
To give an example of how well it's performed the following is a test that made itself known after this third edition was finished. It pertains to the date of the Exodus. In chapter 1 it was proposed that the crossing of the Red Sea took place over 3 days with the final day (24 Nisan) being a Sabbath. This was an important requirement since it provided a Scriptural justification for setting the crossing to have occurred over 3 days. [a] And that in turn gave us an Old Testament event to assign to Christ's birth. But this conjecture was made without checking to see if 24 Nisan truly was a Sabbath in the year being proposed for the Exodus (1453 BC).
​​
Given all that had already been uncovered, the author simply knew without checking that it had to be so. But with the book now being basically finished and with nothing left but to take account of the anomolies it seemed prudent to revisit this position to see if it held water. So in checking with NASA's 6,000 year lunar phase calendar it is soon discovered that the 1st day of Nisan would have occurred on April ??. [b] And after doing some additional calculations this day is found to have been a Thursday. That means that 10 Nisan would have, indeed, been a Sabbath in 1453 BC (just as Jewish tradition has long held) with the same being true of 24 Nisan.
​
And once again the 2/3rds Rule is vindicated. 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 the theory. This would not be the case with the 2/3rds Rule, however. It has its share of anomalies, too. But none are nowhere near the category of 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 Spy 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 1: The 2/3rds Rule and Natural History (Creation Levels I & II)
​​
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, are in that category.
​​
The dating of the Big Bang
​
This one is not so much an anomaly as it is a simple disagreement. And it stems from the fact that there are currently two different, but highly regarded, scientific opinions as to the age of our universe. One estimate places it at 15 billion years (±5%), and the other at 13.7 billion years (±1%). The only difficulty is that the 2/3rds Rule sides with the upper range of the older, less publicized, of the two, the estimate some might call, the minority opinion. And even though the astronomer who first calculated the older age, Alan Sandage, is one of the most renowned of the modern era, science 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. Science has long acknowledged that the physical laws and constants, established at the inception of our universe, seem to have been fine-tuned specifically 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. [1] In spite of that advantage, however, given the enormous complexity of even the most rudimentary living organisms, the odds against life arising, simply by accident, are still astronomically high. [2]
​​
But science paid little attention to these improbabilities until after the Big Bang theory was introduced. Its Scripture affirming conjecture 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. A great deal of resistance to the new theory understandably ensued.
​​
After it was pretty much proven, however, about the only thing allowing scientists to sleep soundly at night was another new theory that came out to seemingly counteract the theistic implications of the first. It was the Big Crunch theory, which proposes 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 suggests there have been an 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 never stops playing. But each time it opens up it plays a different tune. It is understandable then that atheists might like it. With an infinite 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 a statistical certainty that many should 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, [3] 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! [4] But that has, apparently, not stopped scientists from hoping against hope that somehow the theory can be resurrected.
​​
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 2/3rds Rule predicts that our sun began to shine 5.3 Bya, making it the only date predicted in natural history that is seriously at odds with the current majority scientific opinion, which places it at 4.6 Bya. In defense of the prediction, it needs to be recognized that the scientific estimate is not based on any conclusive empirical evidence. It is based rather on the age found of certain mineral inclusions found in meteorites and it is supported by an extrapolation of a hypothetical mathematical model of our sun. But the radiometric dating of those meteorites really tell us only the minimum age of the solar system. And history has shown that dates based primarily on extrapolations can be notoriously off when conclusive empirical evidence iss surfaced to challenge them.
​​
The main problem with extrapolating from models is they are dependent on all the factors that affect the measurement being correctly identified and quantified. And they also assume that conditions are the same throughout the life of the model. Models almost never take into account unusual circumstances that might speed it up or slow it down. Such unforeseen occurrences are, by definition, unpredictable and are, therefore, next to impossible to incorporate into a model.
​​
Beyond that though, this particular model is also based one theory (of many) on how our solar system formed, meaning that it has not yet been adequately proven. So what the majority scientific opinion is actually saying is, our sun is 4.6 billion years old, if (and only if) everything that suggests that has been correctly accounted for and the theory on which it is based is correct. But if the foundational theory is not correct or there is anything that was not accounted for in the model (and there usually is), the sun could be older than currently estimated.
​​
So as it stands today, all we really have here is a difference of opinion between two competing mathematical models. And both can be said to have roughly the same amount of corroborating evidence to support them. 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 so much an anomaly as it is a clarification. The conjecture of this book is that the first living cells were created by God somewhere in our universe around 5.26 billion years ago. But science does not actually have any room to argue this point. All that can be said with certainty is that the earliest strong evidence of life on this planet dates to around 3.5 billion years ago. And many believe there is evidence taking it back as far as 3.8 Ga. But that does not solve the question of when and where life first evolved.
​
There is evidence, too, 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 the supposed origin of life. 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 makes the designation Phanerozoic somewhat outdated unless its start is also pushed back to where those first visible life forms originated.
​
An interesting sidebar to this is that if science ever does give the Phanerozoic a more appropriate starting date (like say 585 Ma) all four of the geological subdivisions that define our time (the Phanerozoic Eon, the Cenozoic Era, the Quaternary Period, and the Holocene Epoch) would start 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. [5] 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. [bb]
​​
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.
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, [6] while science is adamant that it would have happened in the middle of the Cretaceous Period (which, by this study, would place it 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. [cc] |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. Bible purists will probably not like this solution, but it is not unprecedented.
​
It was seen in chapter 1 regarding the claim in Luke 2:2 that Quirinius was the Syrian governor when Jesus was born (even though it is now known his time in Syria didn’t start until 6 AD). [7] And the resolution to that one comes from a reference made in 200 AD by the Christian apologist, Tertullian, to his (now lost) version of Luke which records the more likely name, Saturninus.
​
So 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.[8] But drawing on added insights provided by the 2/3rds Rule, a resolution was proposed in chapter 1 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 “sound” 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,[9] 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[10]
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 Mya ± 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 Mya.[11] 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.
The anomalies found in Level II of Creation
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. But even with those few that are slightly off (like the 2/3rds Rule’s suggestion that the Neanderthals arrived on the world stage around 267,000 years ago, as opposed to the scientific estimate of 250,000 years ago), they are still within the range of precision science gives for their estimates.
The only real anomalies to be found under this heading are reserved for the next installment of this Series, where this Level will be reviewed in finer detail. And it is admitted that there are some controversies. 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 book in this Series, any anomalies found in this time period will be discussed there. 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),[12] 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 missing connection to the Special Sabbath, Shabbat Shekalim
Shabbat Shekalim, a Sabbath associated with tithing, is the only commemoration from Figures 6.1 & 6.2 still unaccounted for. And it is tempting to try and tie things up by arbitrarily assigning it to some New Testament event also associated with tithing like, say, “the cleansing of the Temple.” But this would be an unprecedented solution since all the other commemorations are tied in somehow to the 2/3rds Rule algorithm.[13]
Falling, as it does on the Hebrew calendar, very near the time of Purim provides a possible clue. But there is no direct mention of that holiday in the Gospels and the connection already made between Purim and an ordeal the Holy Family likely experienced prior to Jesus's birth, does not provide any further obvious connections to this Special Sabbath, either.
So rather than belabor the point, it is placed, instead, into the cold case file, with the hope that a reader will one day solve the riddle. And this may be the very reason an answer has not yet been found.
The timing of St. Joseph’s birth on Rosh Hashanah
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.
The only issue is that his birth 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 instance being John, the Baptist’s Bar Mitzvah which was discussed in chapter 4). 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.[14] So why, if this truly was his birthday, should it have occurred on the second day?
Looking closer, a resolution may lie in the reason Rosh Hashanah became a two-day celebration. It was the natural result of it being assigned to the first day of the month. Back then, in the scripturally based ways the Jewish people had of determining months, there was no certainty when a new month would be declared. It was all dependent on whether the first sliver of the new moon would be spotted in the twilight hours that marked the beginning of their days. And if it was spotted, that day would be called Rosh Chodesh, or the first day of the new month, with signal fires being set to alert the neighboring communities.
Unfortunately, towards the end of the late Second Temple period, signal fires became unreliable because troublemakers in neighboring countries were purposely lighting them on the wrong days just to mess things up. So messengers had to be sent out to confirm that a new month had been declared. But that could take several days making it impossible for every community to celebrate Rosh Chodesh holidays on the same day.
Rosh Hashanah was, therefore, standardized into a two-day festival, with its first day commencing at dusk following the 29th day of the 6th month, Elul. And in this way, even if the new moon was not sighted that evening, they knew (given that the lunar cycle varies between 29 and 30 days) that it would be sighted by the second night and the entire feast of Rosh Hashanah could be observed everywhere at the same time.[15]
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
ENDNOTES
​
[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
​
REFERENCES
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.
Cowen, R. 2000. History of life. Boston: Blackwell Science.
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.
​
​
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.
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.
[1] Ross 2008.