[71] Cooley 2009.
[71] Cooley 2009.
SIDE BAR NOTES
[1]To get the most out of this chapter, prereading the following Scriptures may be helpful: Mt 1:18-2:18 and Lk 1:5-38, 2:1-52 for the Infancy Narrative and Jn 12:1-18, 13:1-30, 18:1-20:23 together with either Mt 26:1-27:66, Mk 14:1-15:47, or Lk 22:7-23:56 for the Passion Narrative.
[2] Mk 15:42, Lk 23:54, Jn 19:31. [3] Mt 27:45, Mk 15:33, Lk 23:44, [4] Mt 26:2, 17, Mk 14:1, 12, Lk 22:7. [5] Jn 19:14. [6] Mt 27:2, Mk 15:1, Lk 23:1, Jn 18:28. [7] Per Josephus (Antiq xviii, 4, 2) Pilate’s 10 years in Judea came to an end in an incident that occurred just prior to the death of the Roman Emperor Tiberius (who is known by many sources to have died in the spring of 37 AD). See also Bond 1998. [8] A great deal more detail on how the Hebrew calendar was set up back then is provided in chapter 3. [9] The formula used by the Church in the west for celebrating Easter, (the 1st Sunday after the full moon after the vernal equinox) was based on the Jewish formula for Passover. And it became the standard for most of Christendom by the end of the 2nd century AD, with the resolution of the Quartodeciman con-troversy: Thurston 1909.
[10] Sanhedrin 11b lists 3 criteria the Jerusalem Temple authorities used to justify it. Two were to ensure the crops would be sufficiently ripe for the harvest festivals and the third was to ensure the holiday of Sukkot is always after the autumnal equinox. And by extension this would also ensure that the holiday of Passover (6 months prior) was always after the vernal equi-nox. [11] MacMullen 1997, 155. [12] Nothaft 2011, 503-522.
[13] Saturnalia, for one, was celebrated 2 days earlier (from December 17 to 23). And Sol Invictus was created by the Roman emperor, Aurelian, in 274 AD (Hijmans 1996), which was about a half a century after many Christians had already adopted that date for Christmas, as can be seen in Hippolytus’s Com-mentary on Daniel (ca. 203 AD), Sextus Julius African-us’s Chronographiai (221 AD) and Pseudo-Cyprian’s De Pascha Computus (240 AD). [14] Tally 1988. [15] Gn 1:3-5. But the seeming equality of the day and the night is found in many Scriptures, See also Ps 74:16 and especially Ps 139:12. [16] The Baby-lonian Talmud (Berakhot 59b) speaks of a ritual performed on the vernal equinox (and still per-formed today) called Birkhat Hachama. It is a blessing of the sun on its birthday. [17] The Baby-lonian Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 11a) presents two dueling opinions on the matter, one favoring spring and the other, fall. But with Christ’s great sacrifice coinciding with the Jewish Passover holi-day, the scales, for Christians, tipped for the spring. [18] Pseudo-Cyp-rian (ca. 240 AD) De Pascha Computus. [19] See, for instance, Ps 84:11, Is 60:1, Mal 4:2 (3:20 in some texts) and Lk 1:78. [20] St. Augustine of Hippo (ca. 400 AD) Sermon 188 & 192. [21] In Dt 31:2, Moses announces his age in a manner suggesting it is his birth-day, and shortly thereafter, in Dt 32:46-34:6, we are told of his death, presum-ably, on the same day. [22] Babylonian Tal-mud, Sotah 12b and Megillah 13b, to cite just two among several others. [23] The Talmud does not reveal whether the Jews at this time applied this tradition to other Old Testament prophets. But the writings of the contemporary Christians show that they certainly did. [24] See Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) Adversus Judaeos 8 and Hippolytus (ca. 203 AD) Commentary on Daniel. [25] Lk 3:17. [26] The Anno Domini system, invented in the 6th century AD by the Eastern Roman monk, Dionysius Exiguus, was centered on this belief. [27] 17th century Spanish abbess, Mary of Agreda, for one. [28] He wrote of it in De Stella Nova (1606) and De Anno Natali Christi (1614). His is not, however, the only candidate for the Star, just the first. Some of the many other possibilities can be found in Figure 1.5. [29] Pratt 1991. [30] Maas 1910.
[31] Two additional eclip ses will be discussed further on in Part 3, of this chapter, bringing the total number of eclipses that can be shown to be associated with the life of Christ to five. [32] Espenek and Meeus 2009. [33] Humph-reys and Waddington 1992, 347, also Espenek 2020.
[34] Espenek and Meeus 2006. [35] Ex 12:2, 40:2.
[36] Espenek and Meeus 2009.
[37] Mt 27:46, Mk 15: 34.
[38] Others have argued that it would have been visible for a longer time. Humphreys, for insta-nce, calculated a 50-minute duration (Hum-phreys and Waddington 1992, 346). But for the sake of argument the worst case scenario found in the literature (10 minutes) is chosen for this discussion. [39] Mt 26:31.
[40] Mk 9:9-10.
[41] Lk 9:33.
[42] The rituals associated with Sukkot are laid out in Lv 23:42. And additional corroboration for the Transfiguration occurring on 1 Sukkot is provided in chapters 3 and 4.
[43] An apocalyptic year is so-named for the number of days assigned to a year (360) in the Book of Revelation, where, building on the phraseology found in the Book of Daniel (Dn 9:27), it equates 1,260 days to both 42 months and 3½ years (Rv 11:2-3). [44] Humphreys cites several examples of ancient writers associating lunar eclipses with blood, the earliest reference being to a 4th century BC eclipse by Roman historian, Quintus Curtius Rufus, in his Histories of Alexander the Great 4, 10, 2 (Humphreys and Waddington 1992, 343).
[45] Babylonian Tal-mud, Rosh Hashanah 11a. [46] This ancient under-standing is maybe most easily seen in the Jewish custom that sprang from it, that of setting an extra place for the prophet Elijah at the Passover Seder meal, that he might come to usher in the Messianic age, per Mal 3:23.
[47] Lk 24:18.
[48] Eph 5:22-27, Rv 19:7-9. [49] Jn 19:34-35.
[50] … not by water alone, but by water and blood (1 Jn 5:6-8 NAB). See also Mt 3:16, 16:24 and Jn 3:5. [51] Barrosse 1959. [52] Gn 2:21-23. And this also makes sense of why God made Eve in this fashion.
[53] Rv 12:1, NAB.
[54] Rv 12:1.
[55] Screenshot obtained using the STARRY NIGHT software program with the top banner slightly repo-sitioned for the graphic. Web address and link provided in the References section.
[56] Acts 2:14-41.
[57] ... as was prophesied in Mt 12:39.
[58] Lk 2:1.
[59] Lk 2:2.
[60] Mt 2:1, 19-20.
[61] Lk 2:1-5.
[62] Mt 2:1-13.
[63] Schürer 1891, 400-467. [64] Antiq xvii, 6, 4 speaks of a lunar eclipse (aka, blood moon) occurring just prior to Herod’s death and (in an apparent foreshadowing) on the evening following the martyrdom of a Jewish zealot. The eclipse is generally dated, by other clues in the text, to Mar. 13, 4 BC, although some are now placing it at Jan. 9, 1 BC. It is incidentally the only mention of a lunar eclipse in any of Josephus’s writings. [65] Antiq xiv, 16, 4, xv, 5, 2, xvii, 8, 1, xviii, 6, 10 and xx,10, [66] Beyer 1998. [67] Bernegger 1983, 526-531.
[68] A stone, thought to be a fragment from Quirin-ius’s sepulcher, listing his accomplishments mentions that he was the Proconsul (Governor) of Asia and a [legate] divi Augusti (imperial official) iterum (twice) in Syria. This is believed by some to be evidence of Quirinius being governor on two sep-arate occasions. It pro-vides, however, no means of dating his service and specifically speaks of only one term as governor. A photograph of the grave stone is available online at the Vatican website. (See References for link).
[69] The astronomical data for this table coming largely from Hughes 1976.
[70] Schürer 1891, 400-467.
[71] Cooley 2009.
[72] Acts 5:36-37 in conjunction with Antiq xviii, 1, 6.
[73] Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) Adversus Marcion-em iv, 19, 10.
[74] Antiq xvi, 9, 3 (translation by Whiston 2009). See also Schürer 1891, 459-460.
[75] ibid.
[76] Irenaeus of Lyon, (ca. 180 AD) Adversus Heres-ies, ii, 22, 1-5.
[77] 1 Cor 15:8, Eph 4:6, Col 3:11 and 1 Cor 9:22 where an imitation of Christ is displayed. [78] Irenaeus of Lyon, (ca. 180 AD) Adversus Heresies, ii, 22, 5.
[79] Jn 8:57.
[80] 2 Sm 5:4, 1 Kgs 11:42, 2 Kgs 12:1. [81] 1 Sm 4:18.
[82] Ps 95:10-11, NAB, (slightly paraphrased).
[83] The esteemed, 1st century rabbi, Eliezer b. Hycanus, recognizes these verses as applying to the future Messiah in Sanhed-rin, 99a. [84] The 40 days and nights of the Great Flood (Gn 7:4), the 2 40-day fasts of Moses on Mt Sinai (Dt 9:18), and the 40 days the Hebrew spies spent undercover scoping out the land of Canaan (Nm 13:25) to name just a few.
[85] Lk 2:7, 23, Col 1:15-18, Rv 1:5.
[86] In John’s Gospel, where we're told that the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us (Jn 1:14, KJV), the Greek is better translated as tabernacled, not dwelt. And while some have argued that this means Jesus was born in the fall, during the Feast of Tabernacles, His 40-year life span being the same length of time that the Israelites tabernacled in the wilderness is another legiti-mate (and maybe the better) interpretation.
[87] God's command that the 10 Nisan be commem-orated (Ex 12:3) is ob-served every year on the last Sabbath before Pass-over as Shabbat Hagadol, the traditional under-standing being that 10 Nisan at the time of the Exodus was a Sabbath. [88] Based on Dt 5:15, some traditions place the parting on 21 Nisan, the last day of Passover (Sotah 12b). Another tradition, that it occurred on the 8th day after the Passover (Rashi on Nm 15:38-41), inclines some to place it at dusk immediately follow-ing the last day of holiday (and at the start of 22 Nisan). But the crossing did not start immediately after. Scripture speaks of the sea bed being first dried by a mighty wind and the crossing not starting until the following morning (Ex 14:21). [89] The crossing is traditionally thought to have taken 1 day. But the scriptural account (Ex 4:22) never explictly says this and alludes rather (in Dt 5:15) that it ended on a Sabbath. This suggests a 2-day crossing commencing at dawn on 22 Nisan, and ending after dusk at the start of the Sabbath of 24 Nisan (being exactly 2-weeks after the 10 Nisan Sabbath). [90] The Law prescribed that every 50th year was to be observed as a Jubilee Year (Lv 25:8-10). [91] This is also a very strong counterpunch to those modern detractors who are fond of insisting the US is not an exceptional country. [92] Ex 32:5. [93] Ex 32:34 in conjunction with Mishna, Ta’anit 4.6. [94] Lv 12:1-8 in conjunction with Lk 2:22. [95] Acts 1:3. [96] Lv 23:17. [97] Lk 2:24 in conjunction with Lv 12:2-8. [98] Jos 4:19.
1 Sm 4:18.
[99] Lk 2:41-50.
[100] Espenek and Meeus 2006.
[101] ibid.
[102] Lk 1:5.
[103] This system was instituted under the reign of King David, as described in 1 Chr 24:7-19.
[104] Antiq vii, 14, 7.
[105] A commentary on the convoluted methods advo-cates for the Feast of Tabernacles/Nativity hypo-thesis have used to force it into compliance with this test can be found at this book’s website www.gospel ofcreation.com/john-1-14. [106] Friedlieb 1887, 312.
[107] Lk 2:26, 36.
[108] Jerusalem Talmud, Ta’anit 4.5. [109] Seder Olam Rabbah 30. [110] Mishna Ta’anit 4.6 being just one.
[111] ibid.
[112] Wars vi, 2, 1.
[113] The logical extension of Mt 12:33.
[1]
To get the most out of this chapter, prereading the following Scriptures may be helpful: Mt 1:18-2:18 and Lk 1:5-38, 2:1-52 for the Infancy Narrative and Jn 12:1-18, 13:1-30, 18:1-20:23 together with either Mt 26:1-27:66, Mk 14:1-15:47, or Lk 22:7-23:56 for the Passion Narrative.
When was Jesus born? And when did He die? These are two really basic questions, the answers to which any investigative journalist is going to want to know first when researching a story. Yet the writers of the New Testament never seemed to have gotten around to providing those answers, causing Christians, from every era, to puzzle over them. There have, understandably, been a myriad of opinions on both in that time, with approaches coming from many different angles. But in spite of how confident some claimants have been, none have succeeded in getting universal acceptance for their claims. And this is largely due to there being nothing in them to make them stand out from all the other spectacular claims being made. So these questions persist, as many intuitively know, from all the clues given us in Scripture, that there must be definitive answers attainable for both of them. But, thus far, they’ve just been frustratingly outside our grasp.
Modern science has weighed in on the matter, too, and has provided a great deal more insight than we had before, so much so that they have pretty much put an end to serious debate on the last question. But the first one, Jesus’s birthdate, is still quite elusive. We’ll get to the various scientific opinions on that one in Parts 2 and 3. And we’ll offer a solution to the riddle, too. But first let’s take a look at the inroads science has already given us on the date of the Crucifixion.
Part 1: On what day did Jesus die? Answer: April 3, 33 AD. Here’s why.
So with regard to the Crucifixion, the Gospel accounts contain many clues as to the precise date it happened on the Hebrew calendar. And if those accounts are reasonably factual, modern science has all it needs to discern from them both the Julian calendar date and the year. Specifically, from Scripture we’re told that it happened …
on a Friday, [2]
during a darkening of the sun (a solar eclipse of some sort), [3]
on either the 1st day of the Jewish observance of Passover, [4]
or on Erev Pesach (the day before the 1st day of Passover), [5]
when Pontius Pilate was the Roman Procurator of Judea [6] (which is commonly held, to have spanned 10 years from 26/27 to 36/37 AD). [7]
We also know, from the way the Hebrew calendar was set up back then, that the 1st day of Passover always coincided with the full moon. And that full moon was generally either on or immediately after the vernal equinox. [8] That’s the rule the early Christians used, anyway, when they were setting up the liturgical calendar for the proper day to celebrate Easter. [9] The Talmud, however, explains that there were also occasions when the Temple officials would delay the start of the new ecclesiastical year (and with it Passover) by one month to accommodate special considerations, like say, a late harvest. [10] But there are no records to tell us today when they may have done this, so those anomalous occasions are presumed rare and mostly ignored by theorists. It needs to be mentioned, though, because it does add an element of uncertainty to any proposed solution. And this is especially true of any that would have to rely on such special circumstances. But that is, in fact, the very reason it can be ignored. If God truly did provide definitive answers for these questions, answers that would garner universal acceptance (as the Scriptures allude) and our objective in this chapter is to find these answers, the amount of added uncertainty such a solution would bring eliminates it from any further consideration. In other words, if extraordinary means are required to find it, extraordinary means will also be required to believe it. And such answers are not worth anyone's time to look for.
So that issue is easily sidelined. But it is not, unfortunately, the only point of uncertainty that needs to be dealt with. The problem also gets a little murky when the clues Scripture has given us on the dates for the Nativity and the start of Jesus’s ministry are added into the equation. And we'll address those issues, too. But we are going to ignore them, for now, and focus first on what Scripture says directly of the Crucifixion. And as will soon be shown, the five clues just listed are really all that are necessary to solve this mystery.
Within those five clues, however, there is also the appearance of a red herring, since a standard solar eclipse cannot coincide with a full moon. They only occur during new moons. But the Scriptures that say the sun was darkened from noon until 3 PM that day may still be valid if the sun’s light was blocked by some nonstandard means. A dust storm in the upper atmosphere, as some have suggested, could account for it (as could any number of other freak meteorological conditions). And there is good reason to suspect the sun was darkened, just as reported, because it is also supported by Old Testament prophecy. More on that later. And later is also where modern science will come in to crack this case wide open.
To get there though, it is instructive to first examine the logic the early Christians employed to resolve all these questions. And it is especially interesting to understand why they set Christmas to December 25, because in contrast to what has been commonly taught for centuries, modern scholarship is now showing that they likely did not pull it out of thin air in some 4th century AD Papal fiat whose intent was to appropriate (and thus obscure) the rituals of some raucous pagan celebrations. The roots for that theory appear to go back no further than to a note, of unknown origin, attached to a letter written by a schismatic, 12th century, Syriac Orthodox Bishop. [11] And the idea did not become popularized until 17th century Protestant Reformers saw in it a means to smear the Catholic Church. [12]
But there are no contemporary records from the 4th century AD that support it. So although it is reasonable that the Roman Church may indeed have thought it a nice side benefit to give the people a more pious reason for their winter solstice revelry at that time, there has been a lot of evidence unearthed since the Reformation that shows the early Christians were observing Christmas on December 25 decades prior to the establishment of the pagan feast it is being claimed they appropriated. [13] It seems far more logical, then, that the pagans would have come up with their celebration (Sol Invictus) on that date to obscure the already established Christian holiday. [14]
Their writings also give us some insight as to the real reason these early Christians were led to this date, as many ancient Jewish traditions seem to have played an important role. One was the suggestion from the language of Scripture that on the first Day of Creation when God created the day and the night, they were of equal status, meaning the same length. [15] And this they reasoned must have occurred during one of the two yearly equinoxes, with the vernal (spring) equinox being favored because it presaged new beginnings. [16] Another cherished belief was that the long-awaited Messiah would arrive in the spring, during the month of Nisan, [17] aligning His arrival with the anniversary of the creation of the world.
So, in combining those two traditions, we know that by the 3rd century AD some early Church Fathers had set the day Mary said yes to God and our Lord became flesh in her womb to March 25th (the day of the vernal equinox on the old Julian calendar). [18] And that would, of course, set Christmas (nine months later) to December 25. It would take another century to catch on but this alignment of the birth of the Savior (whom Scripture identified with the sun) [19] with the winter solstice (which signaled the return of the sun) attracted a lot of adherents to the belief, with St. Augustine being, maybe, its most influential advocate. [20]
But that is only half of it. Using similar logic these early Christians also established a date for the Crucifixion. To get there, though, a third ancient tradition had to be invoked, one that had a scriptural precedent. It came from the last pages of the book of Deuteronomy, which finds Moses (the greatest prophet of the Old Testament) seemingly dying on his 120th birthday. [21] This is how the Talmudic rabbis understood in, anyway, by at least 200 AD. [22] And it is a characteristic that has since become associated with all true prophets. [23] Today it’s called the Integral Age Rule and the early Christians applied it to Christ’s life, as well.
But they also knew from Scripture that Jesus was crucified in the spring, not the winter. So they seem to have carved out a special exception for the Son of Man, declaring that His death occurred not on His birthday but on the same day He came into our world, on March 25. Most notably, two late 2nd century / early 3rd century AD Roman apologists, Tertullian and Hippolytus, provided the first known promotion for this date when they both wrote that the Crucifixion took place on the 8th day before the calends of April (translation; March 25th). [24] And whereas Tertullian did not specifically connect it to the date of the Annunciation, Hippolytus did.
So since everything seemed to fit so well together, providing also the set times needed for their annual celebrations and no one could offer a better solution, that became the last word for most of Christendom. And it stayed that way for some 1,500 years. Jesus according to Luke was about 30 when He began His ministry, [25] and the Gospel narratives suggest His ministry lasted about 3 years, so He was assumed to have been born on December 25 in either 1 AD of 1 BC, [26] and He died on March 25, 33 AD. And to seemingly set it in stone, some supposed Church mystics have even confirmed that those were the correct dates. [27] End of story. Well not quite.
Science was yet to be heard from. It had laid dormant in the west since the fall of the Classical Greek and Roman worlds. But having replanted itself into the fertile ground of Judeo-Christian theology, when conditions allowed that it might sprout up to gaze again at the night sky, a new sense of inquiry came with it. These Age of Enlightenment scientists, with their newly invented telescopes and orreries, soon realized, from all the scientific inroads they were making, that they had the means to determine the exact positions of all the heavenly bodies throughout history. So they naturally turned their sights to the period everyone of that age had the most interest in, the time of Christ.
And the first to weigh in, after witnessing the spectacular supernova of 1604, was the celebrated German astronomer, Johannes Kepler. It so impressed him, he felt he was looking at the same phenomenon the Christmas Magi must have seen. Being also a student of astrology (as most astronomers back then were), and noticing that the supernova was preceded by a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, he wondered if there was a connection between the two. The theological ramifications of such a conjunction (known in his day as a Great Conjunction) were not lost on him either. So he back calculated to find that a triple conjunction of those two planets did indeed occur in 7 BC. And he subsequently declared to the world he'd discovered the Star of Bethlehem. [28]
Not to be outdone, the most renowned scientist of that era, Sir Isaac Newton, focused his attention a few years later on determining the date of the Crucifixion. And in turning back the heavenly clock to the ten years Pilate was believed to have served in Judea he quickly determined, no doubt, that a full moon would not have coincided with a vernal equinox in that time period. So March 25 was out of the question as a possible date for the Crucifixion if all the other clues from Scripture were correct. But more importantly he also found that in the year tradition has always favored for the Crucifixion (33 AD) the first day of Passover would have indeed landed on a Friday (on April 3rd to be exact). And his findings have been corroborated by modern astronomers. [29] That also seems to be the most commonly cited date for the Crucifixion by those scientists that accept the scriptural accounts as a valid witness.
But it is not only possible faith-based scientific stance. There are actually two other dates during Pilate’s service years where the first day of Passover would have fallen on a Friday. The others are April 11, 27 AD and April 7, 30 AD. The majority opinion, however, still sides with the 33 AD date, and it is not merely due to that year being more traditional.
For one thing, Luke’s Gospel tells us that Jesus’s cousin, John the Baptist, began his ministry in the 15th year of the Roman Emperor Tiberius (Lk 3:1), which translates to sometime around the year 28 AD. And we also know from Scripture that John had a ministry that preceded Jesus’s by at least a year and ended sometime during Jesus’s ministry (before the Crucifixion). So if Jesus did die in 27 AD that would seem to be in direct conflict with Luke’s Gospel. And a 30 AD Crucifixion is really pushing things, too, suggesting Jesus had maybe only a 1-year ministry, at best.
To rectify the situation many have pointed out that some in the very early Church did hold to a 1-year ministry. And they seem to have arrived at this belief by taking the wording in some Old Testament prophecies concerning the coming Messiah maybe a little too literally. See, for instance, Isaiah 34:8, 61:2 and 63:4 where the prophet speaks of a year of requital, a year of favor and a year of redeeming, respectively. [30] This is obviously figurative language, however, and it is in direct contradiction to the three distinct Passovers mentioned in John’s Gospel (verses 2:16, 6:4 and 11:55). To get around that, though, modern proponents dispute the Passover mentioned in John 6:4 by various means (all of them convoluted to some degree).
But they do seem to do better with Tiberius’s reign, suggesting that Luke’s reference to it may have included the one to two years he was co-ruler of the Empire with Augustus before he assumed sole leadership. And in pushing the start of John’s ministry back two years, as that assertion implies, it does allow for a 30 AD Crucifixion. The 27 AD Crucifixion, however, even with all of this tweaking, still seems impossibly difficult to square with Scripture, without doing damage to it.
So this leaves us with two reasonably possible dates for the Crucifixion. The evidence uncovered, thus far, would seem to slightly favor the 33 AD date, due to it requiring no manipulation of the data to make it work. But a 30 AD date is plausible, too (and many do adhere to it). More data seems needed, therefore, to settle the issue. And fortunately, there is more data to sift through. It's found once again in the heavens. And as it turns out, hidden within its many secrets, is what many believe to be all that is needed to tip the scales conclusively to April 3, 33 AD, for if that truly was the date of the Crucifixion, there may have been as many as three eclipses directly pointing to and heralding that day. [31]
In 1847, the year of Semmelweis’s discovery, Louis Pasteur had just submitted his doctoral theses in chemistry and physics to the École Normale Supérieure
in Paris and Joseph Lister had just entered medical school.
Isaacson 2007
But our established spiritual leaders have a long history of being noncommittal in such matters. Lk 20:1-8 shows it to be a tradition whose roots go back thousands of years.
Semmelweis Society International 2009.
per Heb 5:12-14.
St. Thomas's views on faith and reason are summarized
in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical, Aeterni Patris 1879.
The first of note is the lunar eclipse that took place 6 months prior on October 7, 32 AD. [32] This would have coincided with the 1st day of Sukkot (the Feast of Booths) that year. And being penumbral for people living in the middle-east, it would have been subtlely darker in appearance at its rising, as is common when the moon lies within the earth’s penumbral shadow. [33] And a reddish tint may have also accompanied it, as that often occurs when the moon is at the horizon. It is a consequence of the sunlight that illuminates the moon having to pass first through the earth’s atmosphere. And it is the same effect that can sometimes paint the western sky red in the twilight hours between sunset and dusk.
Mk 15:42, Lk 23:54, Jn 19:31.
Semmelweis Society International 2009.
Mt 27:45, Mk 15:33, Lk 23:44,
Mt 26:2, 17, Mk 14:1, 12, Lk 22:7.
Jn 19:14.
Mt 27:2, Mk 15:1, Lk 23:1, Jn 18:28.
Per Josephus (Antiq xviii, 4, 2) Pilate’s 10 years in Judea came to an end in an incident that occurred just prior to the death of the Roman Emperor Tiberius (who is known by many sources to have died in the spring of 37 AD). See also Bond 1998.
Greater detail on how the Hebrew calendar was set up back then is provided in chapter 3.
The formula the western Christian Church used for celebrating Easter, being the 1st Sunday after the full moon after the vernal equinox, was based on the Jewish formula for Passover. And it became the standard for most of Christendom by the end of the 2nd century AD, with the resolution of the Quartodeciman controversy (Thurston 1909).
Sanhedrin 11b lists 3 criteria the Jerusalem Temple authorities used to justify it. Two were to ensure the crops would be sufficiently ripe for the harvest festivals and the third was to ensure the holiday of Sukkot is always after the autumnal equinox. And by extension this would also ensure that the holiday of Passover (6 months prior) was always after the vernal equinox.
MacMullen 1997, 155.
Nothaft 2011, 503-522.
Tally 1988.
Pseudo-Cyprian (ca. 240 AD) De Pascha Computus.
See, for instance, Ps 84:11, Is 60:1, Mal 4:2 (3:20 in some texts) and Lk 1:78.
St. Augustine of Hippo (ca. 400 AD) Sermons 188 & 192
Saturnalia, for one, was celebrated 2 days earlier (from December 17 to 23). And Sol Invictus was created by the Roman emperor, Aurelian, in 274 AD (Hijmans 1996), which was about a half a century after many Christians had already adopted that date for Christmas, as can be seen in Hippolytus of Rome’s Commentary on Daniel (ca. 203 AD), Sextus Julius Africanus’s Chronographiai (221 AD) and Pseudo-Cyprian’s De Pascha Computus (240 AD).
Gn 1:3-5. But the seeming equality of the day and the night is found in many Scriptures, See also Ps 74:16 and especially Ps 139:12.
The Babylonian Talmud (Berakhot 59b) speaks of a ritual performed on the vernal equinox (and still performed today) called Birkhat Hachama. It is a blessing of the sun on its birthday.
The Babylonian Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 11a) presents two dueling opinions on the matter, one favoring spring and the other, fall. But with Christ’s great sacrifice coinciding with the Jewish Passover holiday, the scales, for Christians, tipped for the spring.
Lk 3:17.
Pratt 1991.
Maas 1910.
In Dt 31:2, Moses announces his age in a manner suggesting it is his birthday, and shortly thereafter, in Dt 32:46-34:6, we are told of his death, presumably, on the same day.
Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 12b and Megillah 13b, to cite just two among several others.
The Talmud does not reveal whether the Jews at this time applied this tradition to other Old Testament prophets. But the writings of the contemporary Christians show that they certainly did.
See Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) Adversus Judaeos 8 and Hippolytus of Rome (ca. 203 AD) Commentary on Daniel.
The Anno Domini system, invented in the 6th century AD by the Eastern Roman monk, Dionysius Exiguus, was centered on this belief.
17th century Spanish abbess, Mary of Agreda, for one.
He wrote of it in De Stella Nova (1606) and De Anno Natali Christi (1614). His is not, however, the only candidate for the Star, just the first. Some of the many other possibilities can be found in Figure 1.5.
Espenek and Meeus 2009.
Two additional eclipses will be discussed further on in Part 3, of this chapter, bringing the total number of eclipses that can be shown to be associated with the life of Christ to five.
Humphreys and Waddington 1992, 347, also Espenek 2020.
Humphreys cites several examples of ancient writers associating lunar eclipses with blood, the earliest reference being to a 4th century BC eclipse by Roman historian, Quintus Curtius Rufus, in his Histories of Alexander the Great (4,10,2). Humphreys and Waddington 1992, 343.
Other than that, though, it should not have been very remarkable, and likely not even recognized as an eclipse. It is only when the sun’s light to the moon is totally blocked (by the moon being in the earth’s umbral shadow) that it has the characteristic appearance of having had a bite taken out of it. And the umbral phase of this eclipse would not have been visible in Judea. Nevertheless, this eclipse may still have played an important role on the night that Jesus died. And we’ll get to that shortly.
Moving on, the next eclipse that may have played an important role, is the March 19, 33 AD total solar eclipse that occurred 15 days prior to the Crucifixion. [34] This was on 1 Nisan, the first day of the Hebrew month that saw the Crucifixion. And since it commemorates the first day of the Jewish liturgical year it is also a holiday (Rosh Chodesh Nisan). [35] The eclipse would not have been visible to anyone living in Jerusalem, so it is doubtful to have had any effect on them. But that simply suggests that it was not intended for them, that it was put there to stand rather as a marker for us, today, to tell us something extraordinary happened here.
For that to be something other than mere coincidence, however, there would need to be other such markers that highlight watershed moments in the life of Christ. And as it turns out, there are (more on that in Part 3). But as pertains to this particular eclipse it is sufficient to simply allude to those other eclipses to justify its mention (its main purpose here, seemingly, to build up the suspense for what is coming).
And that brings us to the proposed day of the Crucifixion, April 3 (15 Nisan), which also saw the third and most celebrated eclipse. [36] And this one, a lunar eclipse, seems perfectly choreographed to the timing of Christ’s death and later interment. It began at 2:01 PM, which would have marked what Scripture suggests was the onset of His final hour on the cross. [37] And it continued into the evening with its umbral stage ending at around 6:12 PM and its penumbral stage not ending until 7:34 PM. Its entire duration would have spanned, therefore, 5 hours and 33 minutes, or rather 333 minutes (a seemingly very appropriate timespan to occur on 4/3/33 AD).
As eloquent as that sounds, however, there are some aspects of it that detractors take exception to. For one, it was only a partial eclipse. And
Espenek and Meeus 2006.
Ex 12:2, 40:2.
Espenek and Meeus 2009.
Mt 27:46, Mk 15:34.
(1274) Summa Theologica. Ia, q2, a3.
See, for instance, St. Irenaeus (180 AD) Against Heresies. I, 14-15 in Roberts, Donaldson and Coxe 1978, Vol. I.
Wis 11:20, NRSV.
for another, there does not seem, at first glance, to be any mention of a lunar eclipse at Calvary as a foreshadowing or prophecy in the Old Testament or as an eyewitness account in the New. This makes it anecdotal and, therefore, statistically insignificant. But the biggest issue is that, with the sun not setting until 5:58 PM and the moon not rising until 6:02 PM, the residents of Jerusalem would have caught only the last 10 minutes of the umbral stage in the twilight. [38] And that seems hardly enough time for it to have made an impact on anyone.
These difficulties also make it easy for those who ascribe to a different Crucifixion year to discount this eclipse as coincidental and, therefore, irrelevant. But in neglecting to try to view things from the anguished eyes of Christ's followers that night, they are missing a lot.
So let’s reset the stage and look at this once again from a more empathetic perspective. The person they’d abandoned everything for was in the tomb. Their movement was shattered. Their very lives were in jeopardy and, if the Scriptures can be trusted, the Apostles were terribly distraught, their heads filled with doubt. [39] With their shepherd struck down, the sheep were in desperate need of some sort of a sign from God, any sign, to tell them all was not lost. And they were likely looking everywhere (the sky especially) to find one. And even though, Jesus had told them several times this was going to happen, until now it hadn’t really registered. And that part about Him rising again on the third day, made no sense at all. Sure, they’d seen Him raise the man Lazarus (who was 4 days dead) from the tomb. But how could someone who was dead resurrect Himself?!
And Jesus knew they would not understand no matter what He said to prepare them. So, shortly before coming to Jerusalem He pulled three of them (James, Peter and John) aside and gave them a little preview of what was coming by taking them up a mountain and gracing them with a vision of His body transfigured in its post-resurrection glory. He also strictly forbade them from telling a soul what they’d seen until after He’d risen. And they obeyed Him not fully understanding any of it. [40]
But in looking to the sky that night for their sign it was starting to make sense. They saw the full moon rising in the twilight at the foot of the constellation Virgo (as it does every year around the first day of Passover). But this moon was different. It had a strange coloration to it, strange yet oddly familiar. And then they realized. It was almost identical in appearance to the moon they’d seen exactly six Hebrew months earlier on the 1st day of Sukkot. And while the others may not have noticed, for Jesus's inner circle it was unmistakable. It called them back to the night of the Transfiguration, a night when Peter had offered to build three booths to house Jesus and His two companions (Moses and Elijah). Luke’s Gospel tells us he didn’t know what he was saying when he said this, suggesting that it was the Holy Spirit speaking through him. [41] And now we know why. It was to tell us all today the moment this happened, as building and living in makeshift huts for eight days is the defining ritual associated with Sukkot, the Feast of Tabernacles (or Booths). [42]
So with this moon Jesus was telling them something extraordinary, He was reminding James, Peter and John that the time was coming to tell the others what they had seen, and it also encouraged them in the knowledge that something wonderful was about to happen. And as it turned out something wonderful did happen exactly 40 hours after Jesus had given up the ghost (if tradition is to be believed on the timing). That first Easter Sunday would have also been exactly 180 days (1/2 of an apocalyptic year) [43] after the date the eclipse has set for the Transfiguration.
So the similarities between those two ecliptic moons were striking. But there was also one striking dissimilarity. Their first 10-minute glimpse of that moon would have had the appearance of a small crimson bite having been taken out of it at a top corner. It may have looked to them like a drop of blood had fallen onto the otherwise brightly lit orb. And yes, it may have lasted for only 10 minutes, but that was sufficient to tell them that the moon they were looking at had been in eclipse. It was a blood moon, as lunar eclipses were called back then and are still called that today. [44] And they also now knew that this blood moon had likely been going on throughout the time of Christ’s ordeal.
The significance of there being a blood moon at Christ’s death was not lost on them either. It was part of a prophecy that was well known to every Jew living in Jerusalem at that time, because a blood moon was believed to have occurred the night of a monumental event in Judaism, the angel of death killing all the firstborn male sons of Egypt at the time of the Passover. Building on that belief the prophet Joel, writing during the time of the Davidic Kings, foretold the following …
The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood,
before the great and the terrible day of the LORD. (Jl 2:31, KJV).
Shabbat Hagadol, which took its name (the Great Sabbath) from that prophecy, was (and still is) observed every year (at God’s command) [45] on the last Sabbath before Passover to remind the people of that great and terrible day. And every devout Jew was well acquainted with the prophecy, too, since they heard it recited every year on this day. But it was also understood to be a prophecy pertaining to the coming of the Messiah. [46] And that is exactly how the Apostles were seeing it that night. They’d already seen the sun darkened that afternoon as their Lord was lifted high on the cross. And now they realized the moon, too, had been in perfect compliance. The prophecy clearly fulfilled, it must have given them enormous comfort. God, Himself, was telling them, through the majesty of His creation, don’t fret. Sit tight. Everything was going exactly as planned and that great and terrible day was now right around the corner.
Would they have spread the good news to others in their community whose faith had also been seriously shaken? Of course they would have. James, Peter and John were still required to hold back on their half of the story, but not for long. And when Christ did rise it allowed them to add one more embellishment to a story the entire city was already abuzz over. [47] That would be the logical chain of events for a 33 AD Crucifixion if the Gospel accounts of the Passion Week narrative are accurate. And although it may still have the appearance to some of uncorroborated speculation, it is propped up considerably by the later testimony of at least two of the three Apostles who had witnessed the Transfiguration.
For John (whom tradition holds was the only Apostle to have actually witnessed the Crucifixion) he seems to have interpreted the painful events of that day as representative of birth pangs symbolizing Christ’s Bride (the Church) [48] being born. It shows up first in his Gospel by his emphasis of the blood and the water flowing from Jesus’s side after He’d died on the cross. [49] These two vital fluids, he later explained, represent and comprise two of the three essential elements of the Church (her sacraments) that all who would follow Christ must be baptized into (the third element being the Spirit). [50] And with so much of John’s writings being influenced by the book of Genesis, [51] the scene at the cross shows an obvious parallel being made to the birth of Eve, Adam’s bride. [52]
And John continues this theme into his Book of Revelation where we find him using imagery that seems suspiciously similar to what he definitely would have seen in the twilight following the Crucifixion. Therein we read …
A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed in the sun with the moon at her feet,
and on her head a crown of twelve stars. [53]
And further on in the text we learn that the woman is in labor and the male child she gives birth to is destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. [54] Many see in this image a metaphor for the birth of Christ. And that is a legitimate interpretation. But the crown being representative of the twelve tribes of Israel suggests also a deeper meaning, one where the woman is the embodiment of Judaism and her child, therefore, the embodiment of the Christian Church.
Mt 26:31.
Mk 9:9-10.
Others have argued that it would have been visible for a longer time. Humphreys, for instance, calculated a 50-minute duration (Humphreys and Waddington 1992, 346). But for the sake of argument the worst-case scenario found in the literature (10 minutes) is chosen for this discussion.
Lk 9:33.
Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 11a.
Lk 24:18.
Eph 5:22-27, Rv 19:7-9.
Jn 19:34-35.
Barrosse 1959.
The rituals associated with Sukkot are laid out in Lv 23:42. And additional corroboration for the Transfiguration occurring on 1 Sukkot is provided in chapters 3 and 4.
An apocalyptic year is so-named for the number of days assigned to a year (360) in the Book of Revelation, where, building on the phraseology found in the Book of Daniel (Dn 9:27), it equates 1,260 days to both 42 months and 3½ years (Rv 11:2-3).
Humphreys cites several examples of ancient writers associating lunar eclipses with blood, the earliest reference being to a 4th century BC eclipse by Roman historian, Quintus Curtius Rufus, in his Histories of Alexander the Great 4, 10, 2 (Humphreys and Waddington 1992, 343).
This ancient understanding is maybe most easily seen in the Jewish custom that sprang from it, that of setting an extra place for the prophet Elijah at the Passover Seder meal, that he might come to usher in the Messianic age, per Mal 3:23.
… not by water alone, but by water and blood (1 Jn 5:6-8 NAB). See also Mt 3:16, 16:24 and Jn 3:5.
Rv 12:1, NAB.
Rv 12:5.
Gn 2:21-23. And this also makes sense of why God made Eve in this fashion.
(426 AD) On Christian Doctrine. II, 16 in Schaff 1995.
(395 AD) Free Choice of the Will. II, 16, 163-4 in Benjamin and Hackstaff 1964.
Citation referencing St. Augustine’s De Libero Arbitrio by Blackwell 2013.
As pertains to this discussion, however, the two images in this vision that seem out of place are the sun and the moon. So to get a handle on what John might be saying here, a dream mentioned in Genesis 37:9-10 is often consulted. But the people the sun and moon represent in those verses would not apply here at all. So John's intent is hard to understand until it is recognized that the moon rising at the foot of Virgo in the twilight was a common sight every year around the first day of Passover (Figure 1.4). [55] And every devout Jew in those days would have likely been aware of that. It would have stood out as an unwavering sign, wherever they might be, that the Passover had arrived. It makes sense, then, that John might have wanted to ground his vision with a time stamp that his readers might know the exact day it came into fulfillment and the Church had been born.
So that would appear to be John’s take on what he saw that night. But it is in Peter’s testimony where the blood moon is brought directly into the discussion. And he didn’t wait quite as long as John to give it. A mere 50 days later at Pentecost, Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addressed a crowd in Jerusalem to boldly tell them all of Christ’s death, resurrection and the good news of salvation.
Van Fleteren and Schnaubelt 2004, 64.
Moskowitz 2010.
1 Cor 1:18, NRSV.
(ca. 410 AD) Tractate 29.6, On St. John’s Gospel in Gibb and Innes 1873.
salvation. [56] It is a long speech that brings up many Old Testament prophecies and how they’d been fulfilled in the man, Jesus. And it begins with the aforementioned verses from Joel that speak of the darkened sun and the moon turned to blood. Why? Why should that have been the first prophecy cited?
Answer: When addressing an audience, a good orator knows that beginning with something topical, something familiar, something they’ve all been talking about, is an excellent way of grabbing their attention. And with it being so soon after the Crucifixion and rumored Resurrection, both had to have still been the talk of the town. Any odd phenomena associated with either (like say, the darkened sun), should have also been fresh in their minds. And that would certainly include a blood moon, as well, if one had truly been there to see. Blood moons were chilling omens back then (thanks largely to Joel). And they always got people’s attention. So for Peter to not merely mention Joel’s prophecy but to lead with it makes it pretty clear (to a lot of people, anyway) that he was assuring his audience that the blood moon and the darkened sun they'd seen the day of Christ's death was not just a coincidence, that Joel's prophecy had been fulfilled and they'd seen it with their own eyes. And he won over a lot of people that way. We're told that 3,000 were baptized on the spot. And it continues to win people over, making 33 AD, for them, the most likely year it occurred.
As compelling as this argument is for people of faith, however, for those that have none it proves nothing. [57] And even among believers there are still those who argue for a 30 AD Crucifixion, or the even earlier 27 AD possibility. And their primary reason for taking that position seems to be the preponderance of secular evidence pointing to Herod the Great (a key figure in Matthew's Nativity story) dying in 4 BC, combined with the traditional belief (derived in part from Scripture) that Jesus was crucified at the age of 33. That seems to make it very difficult for some to accept a Crucifixion year as late as 33 AD. The math just doesn’t line up.
But how solid are those criteria? Did Herod really die in 4 BC? Or could Jesus have been older when He died? Modern science has a lot to say on both questions. So let’s now focus this query on the Nativity to see what can be determined there. And spoiler alert, in so doing a date will be proposed for the Nativity that should ultimately not only end all serious debate on the true date of Christmas, it should do the same for Good Friday and Easter, as well.
Part 2: Can modern science tell us, definitively, the year Jesus was born?
Answer: It can. But there are very few, at present, who can accept it.
So in moving onto the Nativity there are seemingly as many great clues given us in Scripture to tell us the year Christ was born as have already been seen for the Crucifixion. So it might be expected that the Holy Spirit has given us all we need to solve this riddle, too. But whether or not that is true you are not going to see anywhere near as much consensus amongst theorists for the exact year. The problem lies in there being maybe a little too much room for different interpretations of the clues. And, as is always the case, a lot of personal prejudices seem to be getting in the way, as well, to make the big picture even more obscure. But as has been said, there really is a definitive answer. And to reveal it the same methodolgy from Part 1 will be employed. In gathering all the clues, therefore, to start, they are found, as before, to fall into two categories, those that point directly to the Nativity and those that point indirectly to it by way of back calculating from the Crucifixion. But once again we're initially going to focus solely on those clues that point us directly to the Nativity leaving those in the second category out of the discussion, just as they were in Part 1, with the promise that they really will be addressed eventually, just not yet. That said, here is what Scripture informs us was going on in the world around the time that Jesus was born …
-
Caesar Augustus was the emperor of Rome, [58]
-
Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was the Roman governor of Syria, [59]
-
Herod the Great was the King of Judea, [60]
-
a census of the entire Roman world was being conducted, [61]
-
and there was a sign of some sort in the sky so descriptive and impressive that it motivated astrologers to travel to Judea to pay homage to the king whose birth they believed was being heralded. This sign is commonly known today as the Star of Bethlehem. [62]
And when researching each of these criteria with the secular record some very firm dates are found in all five counts. So that is a good sign, too. On the other hand, though, many of these clues are found to be so wide ranging they have virtually no value in narrowing things down. With regard to the first clue, for instance, we know with a great deal of confidence that the Roman general, Octavius, took the name, Augustus and became the undisputed sole ruler of Rome in 27 BC. And he reigned until his death in 14 AD. But with his reign spanning from way before to way after Jesus was likely born, it is an essentially useless bit of information for our purposes here. It shows us, on that one count, there is not going to be any argument, at least, with Scripture. But that's about it.
Moving on then to Herod (clue #2), his reign was also one of several decades, with the majority opinion placing its start sometime around the year 37 BC and its ending (with his death) in 4 BC. [63] And that date comes in a large part from Josephus, who fixed Herod’s death to a datable lunar eclipse, [64] and several other datable markers all pointing to 4 BC. [65] Nevertheless, that date has not gone uncontested. There are some who claim that Josephus’s writings have become corrupted over the centuries and show further that in the earliest texts we have of Josephus, one of the main markers points rather to 1 BC. [66]
Josephus is not, however, the only ancient source that testifies for 4 BC. [67] And the argument for 1 BC is also a little suspect when you see those advocates also using it to promote their belief in a 1 or 2 BC Nativity. Tainted by bias or not, the argument is, nevertheless, still sufficiently convincing to concede that it is possible Herod lived 3 years longer than is traditionally thought. And that renders this clue essentially useless, too. It is only exclusionary to Nativity dates proposed that are later than 1 BC.
That takes us next then to, Quirinius, (clue #3), with hopes high of finding something a little more conclusive, only to have them immediately dashed when the ancient records are consulted. It turns out this clue has been the cause of extreme heartburn for Scripture scholars for centuries. But it’s not this time a dispute on his dates of service. Quirinius existed all right and the records are uncontested as to when he was a governor of Syria, too. The issue is that they clearly show his time as governor spanned from 6 to 12 AD, which is at least 7 years after the latest date we’ve determined Herod could have lived (and most likely 10). So there is obviously something amiss here. And it must be either Scripture, our interpretation of Scripture, or the sketchy secular record that is at fault.
Of those theorists who reject the first two possibilities and assume that the secular record is the problem, some imaginative solutions have been proposed. And the most common explanation, in its various forms, seems to be centered on Quirinius having, not one but, two terms as governor, with the record of his first term, the one that would have coincided with Christ’s birth, being lost to history. It’s a logical hypothesis. And it is very appealing to those who feel any questioning of the accuracy of Luke’s Gospel as being tantamount to blasphemy. And there have been artifacts discovered that some people feel confirm the possibility. [68] But there is nothing at all that would be considered remotely conclusive. So with no concrete evidence to back it up, we are forced to admit that this particular clue is not going to have any value in providing an answer we can have confidence in, either.
And that leaves, but two, final clues connected directly to Christ’s infancy: the worldwide census and the Star of Bethlehem. So if there is an answer to this riddle it is going to have to be found through one, or preferably both, of them. And looking first to the Star, we find that with modern science’s ability to turn back the celestial clock there are understandably many who have taken this approach. And there are many also who insist that they’ve not only found the Star this way but can also divine by this method the exact day Jesus was born. So this would be exciting news but for one major problem. Those who claim this don’t agree.
As Figure 1.5, demonstrates, modern science has determined that the heavens have abounded with signs throughout the years it is reasonably likely Jesus might have been born. And compelling arguments have been made for all of them. Some arguments are naturally better than others. But none really stand out as being clearly superior. And this too is understandable because ultimately it needs to be recognized that there are two fatal flaws inherent to this approach. The first (which these claimants never seem to acknowledge) is that the Holy Spirit played a crucial role in this Nativity drama, too. And He could have inspired the Magi to travel to Jerusalem through any heavenly sign, whether we can figure out what it is today, or not. So that is one major area of uncertainty.
The other big problem is that the Star is said to have directed the Magi to the very location where the Holy Family was residing and then stood still above it to tell them they’d arrived (Matthew 2:9). And there is simply no natural phenomenon that can account for such behavior (and certainly nothing that is listed in Figure 1.5.). [69] This is why the Star that led the Magi on the last leg of their journey was commonly thought, in the early days of Christendom, to be of supernatural origin, [70] an angel of light, perhaps, like the one that led the shepherds to the manger.
Acts 2:14-41.
Lk 2:1.
Lk 2:2.
Lk 2:1-5.
Mt 2:1, 19-20.
Mt 2:1-13.
Screenshot obtained through the STARRY NIGHT program with top banner slightly repositioned for the graphic. https://www.starrynight.com/starry-night-8-professional-astronomy-telescope-control-software.html.
... as was prophesied in Mt 12:39.
Schürer 1891, 400-467.
Antiq xiv, 16, 4, xv, 5, 2, xvii, 8, 1, xviii, 6, 10 and xx,10,
Beyer 1998.
Bernegger 1983, 526-531.
Antiq xvii, 6, 4 speaks of a lunar eclipse (aka, blood moon) occurring just prior to Herod’s death and (in an apparent foreshadowing) on the evening following the martyrdom of a Jewish zealot. The eclipse is generally dated, by other clues in the text, to Mar. 13, 4 BC, although some are now placing it at Jan. 9, 1 BC. It is incidentally the only mention of a lunar eclipse in any of Josephus’s writings.
A stone, thought to be a fragment from Quirinius’s sepulcher, listing his accomplishments mentions that he was the Proconsul (Governor) of Asia and a [legate] divi Augusti (imperial official) iterum (twice) in Syria. This is believed by some to be evidence of Quirinius being governor on two separate occasions. It provides, however, no means of dating his service and specifically speaks of only one term as governor. A photograph of the grave stone is available online at the Vatican website. (See References for link).
The astronomical data for this table coming largely from Hughes 1976.
Schürer 1891, 400-467.
It is not foolishness, however, in any degree, to become acquainted with the celestial signs at that time. It is reasonable to assume that at least one of them had something to do with setting the Magi off to Jerusalem for the first leg of their journey. And there have been some very compelling candidates proposed. So once the date for the Nativity has been determined it should be able to tell us which of these arguments is the most plausible. But not the other way around. There are simply too many possibilities.
So that leaves but one final clue, (#4), the worldwide census. And given our track record with all the others one might be inclined to be pessimistic. That would be a mistake, however, because it is here that we finally hit paydirt. This is the one clue, of all of them, providing a year for the Nativity that leaves virtually nothing to argue about, because it is quite literally set in stone. It comes to us from the deathbed testimony of the person who instituted the census, Caesar Augustus, who ordered in 14 AD that a statement listing all his mighty deeds be engraved onto monuments to himself throughout his empire. [71] And he brags in those monuments of only three such censuses, one that he conducted just as he was coming to power (in 28 BC and way too early to be the Nativity census), one in the last year of his reign (in 14 AD, which is, once again, completely out of the question) and one in the middle of his reign in 8 BC. And that’s a bingo, because it is a near certainty (given that it was a boast), that there were no others,
So you might think with such strong evidence in support of it, that an 8 BC Nativity would be the majority opinion on the matter. But strangely it is not. You can’t even call it a minority opinion, among scholars, anyway, as there are seemingly none who advocate for it. They acknowledge the possibility of an 8 BC Nativity, but merely as the earliest date it could be. And those who venture further to weigh in on when they feel Jesus actually was born, all seem to favor a later date. Looking at it through a wider lens, however, it is not that puzzling why. The reader may recall that there was another category of clues that hasn’t yet been considered, those that tie the Nativity to the Crucifixion. And the desire to make use of all the clues seems to be heavily influencing solutions, with the tradition that Jesus died at the age of 33 being hard to let go of.
In staying steadfast to Luke, therefore, in their interpretation of his about thirty statement, every man jack of them is forced to conclude that either Caesar Augustus was lying when he boasted of conducting only three worldwide censuses or Luke was mistaken when he called the census worldwide (that it was really just a local census). And the arguments they come up with in support of their claims are as imaginative as they were with the Quirinius clue. But also like Quirinius, they can produce no hard evidence to back them up. Circumstantially they will note, though, that Judea under Herod’s rule was a Client Kingdom of Rome, which gave Judea certain rights and a great deal of autonomy so long as they didn’t violate the terms of the treaty. And as it pertains to this discussion, it should have prevented Rome from conducting a census there.
So although it seems very odd that one verse in Luke seems universally accepted while another seems universally rejected, that last argument about Judea being a Client Kingdom is valid and needs to be addressed. Let’s, therefore, reboot this analysis (starting with clue #2), and readdress, not just that issue but, all the issues, and this time from a perspective that no one seems to have yet taken, from the perspective that Jesus really was born in 8 BC.
As to Herod’s reign, and the current controversy there, it really doesn’t matter whether Herod died in 4 or 1 BC. An 8 BC Nativity works with either date, so Herod is not an issue.
And the 8 BC Nativity seems to work quite well with the argument (first made by Kepler) that the Magi were motivated to Bethlehem by the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation Pisces. So we have a candidate for the Star as well.
Moving on to a stickier problem, Quirinius, it was well known to everyone living in Judea in the time of Christ that he was governor of Syria in 6 AD, because he conducted and oversaw a very unpopular local census there in that year. It became infamous for the riot it caused and the large number of the insurgents that the Romans crucified to quell the riot. Luke even makes mention of it in his Book of Acts. [72] It has become a common belief among many scholars, then, that in Luke's Gospel, either Luke, or a later copier, mistakenly juxtaposed the name of the true governor of Syria at the time Jesus was born with that of the infamous, Quirinius. But there is another explanation that does much less damage to Scripture.
Roman records tell us that the Syrian governor of Syria in 8 BC was a fellow named Gaius Sentius Saturninus. His term spanned from 9 to 7 (or 6) BC. And remarkably, there is also an ancient text of Luke that actually names him as the governor of Syria at that time. We don’t have the actual manuscript, but we do know of it secondhand from the late 2nd century AD writings of the early Christian apologist, Tertullian. And therein he just casually cites that specific verse from his version of Luke in one of his arguments. But the governor of Syria, he names is Saturninus, not Quirinius. [73] It seems reasonable, likely even, therefore that that may also be the name Luke cited in his original manuscript. And the reason Luke’s Gospel no longer says that today could be because someone copying that text early on changed the name to Quirinius (thinking Luke had made a mistake) with that mistake being propagated into thousands of subsequent copies and the original version disappearing completely.
Sure, it would be nice to have at least one ancient text of Luke’s Gospel that contains that subtle difference. It would allow textual critics to put it up against the thousands of other slightly different ancient text fragments of Luke we do have to conclusively determine which came first. And should such a copy be found and then be proven to be closer to the original manuscript than any of the others, it would likely end all discussion as to the year Jesus was born. But the fact that this has not yet happened does not negate the possibility. To summarize then, the mention of Saturninus by Tertullian does not prove Jesus was born in 8 BC. But it does allow for it without there being a conflict with Scripture. And it is as good a resolution to the Quirinius mystery as any of the others (maybe better).
That issue plausibly resolved, we move on to the worldwide census and the assertion that Rome would have never violated the sovereignty of one of their Client Kingdoms to conduct a census there. And this is a valid point given that censuses back then were solely for taxation purposes. And people were already paying an enormous amount in taxes to finance Herod’s exorbitant building projects, with a part of it also already going to Rome in the form of the tribute Herod had to pay annually. So for Rome to come in and take a census, ostensibly to get even more money, could have incited an insurrection or even a war. And Rome wouldn’t have wanted that to happen either. So, as has already been mentioned, as long as Herod stayed true to the treaty, it should have kept the Romans out.
But did Herod stay true to the treaty? Flavius Josephus weighs in again with another relevant story. In his, Antiquities of the Jews, he wrote that there was a small period of time when Herod fell out of favor with Rome for his attack on the sovereignty of a neighboring Client Kingdom, Arabia. And they immediately petitioned Rome to do something about it. To this Josephus writes …
“Cæsar, without staying to hear for what reason he did it, and how it was done, grew very angry,
and wrote to Herod sharply. The sum of his epistle was this, that whereas of old he had used him as his friend,
he should now use him as his subject.” [74]
This ominous statement of condemnation from Rome makes it pretty clear that Herod’s actions had cost Judea a major loss in status. And when did this happened? Well Josephus aligns it with the time of Saturninus putting it somewhere between 9 and 6 BC. [75] Herod soon after regained favor with Rome and maintained it until his death. But in 8 BC we see, from that incident, a window of opportunity for Scripture to have once again been 100% accurate in its details. And it is the only such window in time where it is logical that the Romans might have lawfully conducted a census in Judea during one of the proposed years Jesus might have been born. Would it have incited a riot? It certainly could have. But we already saw from the precedent of the riot that the local census of 6 AD caused, that the threat of rioting was not that big a concern of Rome. It was a relentlessly brutal regime when it needed to be and it had some very effective means of putting down rebellion.
And that gets us to the last and seemingly most formidible objection. It is Luke’s about 30 statement and the powerful tradition that Jesus was 33 when He died. Yet on closer scrutiny this one is found to have a resolution similar in nature to that for Quirinius. It is not, however, a question of what Luke actually said this time, but in what he may have actually meant in saying Jesus was about 30 when He began His ministry. That is, we know what about 30 means to us today, but what did it mean back then before the number zero was invented and people’s idea of math involved letters rather than numbers?
For an answer we turn to someone who had a firsthand familiarity with ancient Greek thought, the late 2nd century Apostolic Father, Christian apologist, saint and martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, who was adamant that Jesus was much older than 33 when He died. [76] And in support of that belief he argued it was absolutely necessary for Christ to experience every stage of life from infancy to old age that He could sanctify each stage and in all things be preeminent. This information he also claimed to have been passed down to him through his teachers from the Apostles, themselves. And theologically it does make sense, as there is more than one instance in Scripture that speaks of the necessity of Christ being all in all. [77] Christ, however, even by this discussion's estimation, seems a little young to qualify for that final stage. But that is a modern point of view. The way Irenaeus puts it, it was common knowledge in his day that old age began at 40. [78] So a 40-year-old Jesus, as this chapter asserts, would just skate in under the wire, by Irenaeus's standard, and cover that base, as well.
Irenaeus may not, however, have been in complete accord with the solution being presented here, given that he estimated Jesus to be somewhere around 50 when he died. But his main argument from Scripture, the 8th chapter of John’s Gospel, which speaks of the Pharisees complaining that Jesus at the end of His ministry was not yet 50 (in appearance, anyway) [79] is a point well taken. John's inspiration for including this confrontation in his Gospel is difficult to fathom if it wasn't for giving us a clue as to Jesus’s true age. But it is only exclusionary toward Jesus being in His early 30s at the time. For Jesus being in His 40s (or around 40) it works just fine.
Anyway, from Irenaeus’s perspective then, a better solution to Luke’s about 30 statement might be to see it as an idiom that is maybe better translated today as Jesus being in His 30s when He began His ministry. It has the same degree of ambiguity, but it is more accommodating of an earlier Nativity. And an 8 BC Nativity coupled with a 3-year ministry and a 33 AD Crucifixion argues for Jesus beginning His ministry at the age of 37, which is now totally reasonable by this slightly nuanced understanding of Luke.
As to Jesus being around 40 at the time of His death, it aligns perfectly with several very appropriate Old Testament foreshadowings. It connects His life numerically with the reign of three of His royal forebears, David, Solomon and Joash. [80] It matches the length of time Eli judged Israel. [81] And it is the same number of years Moses oversaw the Israelites in the wilderness. Expanding on that theme, the Psalms really drive home our Lord’s frustration over the stiff-necked people He’s charged Moses to shepherd. It reads …
“Forty years I endured that generation, I said ‘they are a people whose hearts have gone astray
and they do not know my ways.' So I swore in my anger, ‘they shall not enter into my rest.’” [82]
So with Jesus being 40 when He died, that Scripture can now be understood as prophetic, applying to Christ’s life among us, as well. And this is not a new idea. References to this understanding can be found in writings as early as the Babylonian Talmud. [83] But the number 40 as a time period is also heavily represented in Scripture in terms of days and generally as a time of trial and/or tribulation. [84] So that, too, would seem to apply here. And it all goes to show that when you really look into it, there are plenty of scriptural precedents for Jesus being 40 at the time of His death, and quite a bit more, in fact, than that one verse being misused to set His age at 33.
All told, then, 8 BC has to be considered a very good prospect for the year of the Nativity (and maybe the best, from a strictly scientific basis). But even with all this corroboration there seems to be no popular support for this solution, as opinions on the date and year of Christ’s birth continue to vary wildly. Even the date we now have for the Crucifixion, as solid as it is, has its detractors. But with so many clues given us in Scripture there seemingly has to be a solution to all three questions that can be universally accepted as the last word on the subject. And there is. It resides in knowing not only the year that Jesus was born but also the exact day. That, as will be shown, is the Rosetta Stone that pulls everything together and finally gives us the definitive answers we’ve been hungering for.
Part 3: So when exactly was Jesus born? Can it ever be determined with certainty?
Answer: It can. And it is the last day many would expect.
To get there we need to start with the hypothesis that God does indeed want us to have the exact date. And for people of faith who have come to revere Scripture as essentially inerrant for all the insights it provides, this kind of goes without saying. Why else would God have inserted into Scripture so many clues that seem to have no other purpose than to help us find it? But for those whose regard for the Bible is not as high, that statement of faith is not nearly as intuitive. And that is why this is posited merely as a hypothesis. Our goal here then will be to see if we can turn that hypothesis into a statement of fact.
That said, the obvious question arises, for even if God does want us to find this date, where do we go from here? That is, we have exhausted all His clues and all it has given us is the year. And the answer to that question is, well, not quite all. There was one other scriptural clue mentioned back in Part 1 of this chapter that has not yet been considered. It involves those verses in the last chapter of Deuteronomy concerning the date of Moses’s death that inspired the early Church Fathers to apply that same formula (the Integral Age Rule) to the life of Christ. And now that we have what they didn’t have (a much better idea on both the true date of the Crucifixion and the year of Jesus’s birth) let’s apply it once again and see if the results we get are better than what they found.
When they did it, though, they connected the Crucifixion to the Annunciation (and didn’t really find much in doing it). But we’ll try it instead the way the Bible did it with Moses, connecting the day Jesus was born with the day He died. And in so doing, setting Jesus’s birthday to April 3, 8 BC, nothing really turns up there either. Oh well. So much for that idea, right? Well once again, not quite.
There is one other event in Jesus’s life that might have as much of a connection to His birth and that is the Resurrection. That is because the similarities of the two main festivals of the Church, Christmas and Easter, have long been known. They both represent watershed moments in history associated with new beginnings (Jesus being the firstborn of the Holy Family, the firstborn of Creation and as St. Paul pointed out, the firstborn of the dead). [85] It could also be seen, not as a violation of the Integral Age Rule but a special exception to it carved out for the Son of Man (the only member of the integral age club to have conquered death).
And lo and behold in making that simple 40-hour time shift, proposing a birthday of April 5, 8 BC, suddenly a thousand lights go off. It is as if we’ve just hit the jackpot on a million-dollar Las Vegas slot machine. And this is no exaggeration. This entire book is devoted to showcasing the many coincidences that bubble up by aligning Christmas with Easter. And it is not exhaustive, either. Nor is this book series. There seems to be no end to insights this discovery can provide, when you start to dig into it. And this is to be expected of an enlightenment of such magnitude given us from God. But before getting into the details, the two timelines presented in Figure 1.6 give just a small taste of how extraordinarily well the 40 years Christ dwelt among us in our wilderness parallel the 40 years the Israelites dwelt in theirs. [86] And this solution involves more than one calendar, too. God’s calendar (the Hebrew calendar) is, of course, front and center in all of this.
Cooley 2009.
ibid.
Jn 8:57.
1 Sm 4:18.
Acts 5:36-37 in conjunction with Antiq xviii, 1, 6.
Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) Adversus Marcionem iv, 19, 10.
Antiq xvi, 9, 3 (translation by Whiston 2009). See also Schürer 1891, 459-460
Irenaeus of Lyon, (ca. 180 AD) Adversus Heresies, ii, 22, 1-5.
1 Cor 15:8, Eph 4:6, Col 3:11 and 1 Cor 9:22 where an imitation of Christ is displayed.
Irenaeus of Lyon, (ca. 180 AD) Adversus Heresies, ii, 22, 5.
2 Sm 5:4, 1 Kgs 11:42, 2 Kgs 12:1.
Ps 95:10-11, NAB, slightly paraphrased.
The esteemed, 1st century rabbi, Eliezer b. Hycanus, recognizes these verses as applying to the future Messiah in Sanhedrin, 99a.
The 40 days and nights of the Great Flood (Gn 7:4), the 2 40-day fasts of Moses on Mt Sinai (Dt 9:18), and the 40 days the Hebrew spies spent undercover scoping out the land of Canaan (Nm 13:25) to name just a few.
In John’s Gospel, where we're told that the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us (Jn 1:14, KJV), the Greek is better translated as tabernacled, not dwelt. And while some have argued that this means Jesus was born in the fall, during the Feast of Tabernacles, His 40-year life span being the same length of time that the Israelites tabernacled in the wilderness is another legitimate (and maybe the better) interpretation.
Lk 2:7, 23, Col 1:15-18, Rv 1:5.
To fully appreciate, however, the many roles shown in this graphic that the Jewish holidays play, a basic understanding of the Hebrew calendar is required. So for those unfamiliar, it is a 354-day lunisolar calendar that shifts about 11 days every non-leap year from the Julian and Gregorian solar calendars (and twice that number of days in the opposite direction on Jewish leap years). So it should not be surprising that the Jewish holidays that align with the Julian calendar dates in the year proposed for Jesus’s birth (8 BC) are not the same as those that correspond with the year being proposed for His Crucifixion (33 AD). There is a difference of about 7 days.
More will be said in chapter 3 of the Hebrew calendar and NASA’s 6,000-year lunar phase tables which were used to find these holiday connections. But for here it is reserved to merely marvel at how well the heavens seem to have been choreographed to give glory to the life of the Son of Man and give us at the same time definitive answers to all our questions.
And acknowledging that the graphic in spots is a little bit lacking on the details, the following summary provides some additional clarity.
1.
.
2.
3.
.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
THE NATIVITY: NASA’s lunar phase tables for 8 BC show that Jesus would not have been born on the 3rd day of Passover, but on the 3rd day after the 7-day holiday of Passover, making it the 24th day of Nisan (the 1st month of the Hebrew calendar). And although this is not a Jewish holiday, it probably should be, because it calculates to the same day tradition and the Torah both suggest the Israelites (who’d just been liberated from Egypt through the miracle of Passover 10 days earlier) finished crossing the miraculously parted Red Sea to escape completely from the hands of Pharaoh. This date is determined, incidentally, by three traditions (all alluded to by Scripture)
a. Tradition #1: 10 Nisan at the time of the Exodus was a Sabbath. [87]
b. Tradition #2: the Red Sea was parted when the 7 days of Passover was completed. [88]
c. Tradition #3: the Red Sea crossing was completed on a Sabbath. [89]
THE ANNUNCIATION / INCARNATION (1): And assuming a standard 9-month gestation period it places the Annunciation right around the 4th of July in 9 BC. This being a familiar day on the US civil calendar, it is intriguing to also note that 300 Jubilee years after that fine day (or rather 1,500 years later) we arrive at the watershed year of 1492, the year Columbus sailed the ocean blue. [90] But it doesn't stop there, because July 4, 1776, the birthday of the United States, is roughly 9 months of years after Columbus arrived in the New World. Putting it more succinctly, and in stark contrast to what a lot of her detractors are saying these days, these three “coincidences” heavily suggest that the USA truly is an exceptional country, her conception and birth both apparently having been prefigured by the Incarnation of the Savior of the world! [91] And this simultaneously also tells us how we should be observing the great day Mary said yes to God (with fireworks and parades).
THE ANNUNCIATION / INCARNATION (2): On the Hebrew calendar, however, the Incarnation does not correspond to such a joyous occasion. It aligns rather with the 15th day of the 4th Month (Tammuz). And that month is traditionally marked by sorrow and fasting for the Jewish people, as many calamities have occurred therein. The most memorable, given that they are now commemorated by a fast day (the Fast of the 4th Month), would undoubtedly be the breeches of the Jerusalem city walls in two separate wars, the first time by the Babylonians on 9 Tammuz, 586 BC, and the second time by the Romans on 17 Tammuz, 70 AD.
But the most grievous thing that happened in this month has to be the travesty that occurred on 15 Tammuz, as that seems to have been the spark that lit the fuses for all the later calamities. It is the day the newly liberated Israelites, in Moses’s absence, set aside to worship God. [92] And that sounds on the surface like it might have actually been a great day. God certainly deserved some praise after all He'd done for them. Unfortunately, having lived among pagans for 200 years they chose to worship Him in the only way they now knew, as an idol (a golden calf) they’d fashioned for the occasion. And in consideration of all the later tragedies that came down on them in this month it is easily argued they cursed both the day and the month in the process (especially when reading what God said He was going to do about it). [93]
But it was prophesied that with the coming of the Messiah the Fast of the 4th Month would be turned to joy (Zechariah 8:19). And what better way to reverse the sorrow of that month, then by Christ coming into our world to break the curse by supplanting the calf and giving us all a much better cause for adoration. (More on this in chapter 3).
THE PRESENTATION (1): Moving on to the events in Christ’s life after He was born (with the Presentation occurring 40 days after the Nativity, [94] and the Ascension occurring 40 days after the Resurrection [95]), it can be seen now as a foreshadowing, fixing Christ’s presentation to His Father (as an infant) to the same day that He would later ascend to His Father in heaven.
THE PRESENTATION (2): And with the Nativity being 10 days after the 1st day of Passover, it also places the Presentation on the same day as Pentecost (the Feast of Weeks), which is always celebrated 50 days after the 1st day of Passover. But the most remarkable thing about that timing is the recognition that on the very day the infant Jesus was being offered up to God at the Jerusalem Temple, the Temple priests would have also been offering up to God the first fruits of the wheat harvest in the form of loaves of bread (the main product of that harvest). [96] And all this would have occurred after Mary had offered up her ritual sin offering. [97] So that's three offerings in total on that day, a sin offering, a bread offering and Christ all being preseted to the Father in what appears to be our first New Testament glimpse of what would later be known as the Catholic Mass.
THE NATIVITY / TRIUMPHAL ENTRY: And to add greater clarity to the central theme of Figure I.6, by this solution Christ’s 40 years among us seems to perfectly parallel the 40-year sojourn of the Israelites in the wilderness. It begins with His being born into our wilderness on the anniversary of the Red Sea parting, which also granted the Israelites entry into theirs. And it ends 40 years later on Palm Sunday (10 Nisan) with His Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem (the Holy City), the same day Scripture tells us the Jordan River was parted to allow the Israelites and the Holy Ark, to finally enter into the Holy Land. [98]
THE DISPUTATION: And there are other correlations shown on the timeline (like, for instance, Jesus’s Circumcision) that will be discussed in later chapters. But there is also one impactful and datable event from Christ’s childhood that is not on the timeline. It is the story, from Luke’s Gospel, of a 12-year-old Jesus becoming separated from His family after having just observed the 7-day Passover holiday in Jerusalem. [99] And as the story goes, Mary and Joseph did not realize Jesus was not with them in their caravan home until they had travelled a full day’s journey from the city. Once they did realize it though, they turned around immediately taking, likely, another day to get back. And on arrival they spent a 3rd day, we’re told, frantically looking for Him throughout the city, until they finally spotted Him in the Jerusalem Temple conversing with the elders there and amazing them with His knowledge and understanding of the Torah.
But 3 days after the last day of Passover, takes on a whole new meaning with that day being now known to be Jesus’s Hebrew calendar birthday, and a very auspicious birthday at that. That is because it would have been His 13th birthday, His Bar Mitzvah birthday, the day tradition declares that Jewish males have arrived at spiritual adulthood and can for the first time legally comment in public on the Torah. So it is no wonder Jesus was so astonished at how difficult a time they had in finding Him. Given the occasion where else should they have expected Him to be?!
THE ECLIPSES: And in closing this summary we come to a subject that has nothing directly to do with Figure 1.6. But it does have relevance to the events on the graphic and it had to be inserted somewhere. So in ignoring the incongruity, recall that in Part 1, three eclipses (two lunar and one solar) were shown to be associated with the Crucifixion. And it was the solar eclipse that occurred at the head of the month Jesus died as if to say this was going to be a very important month in His life. But it was also mentioned that this was not an isolated incident, that there were actually two other solar eclipses that stood at the heads of months where other watershed moments in His life occurred. And all three are arguably the most important months of His life.
This is certainly true of the month in which He died and then rose from tomb. And all should agree that the head of the month that saw the Incarnation should be similarly distinguished. And it is. There was a total solar eclipse on June 9, 9 BC, [100] which was the first day of Tammuz that year and 15 days prior to Mary assenting to become the mother of God. The third eclipse may seem a little puzzling, however, at first. But from Jesus’s perspective it makes perfect sense when you think about it. It is the total solar eclipse that occurred on March 18 in the year 6 AD. [101] And this would have been the 1st day of Nisan that year, the month where Jesus turned 13 and by Jewish law had attained the age of spiritual adulthood.
God's command that the 10th day of Nisan be commemorated (Ex 12:3) is observed every year on the last Sabbath before Passover as Shabbat Hagadol, the traditional understanding being that 10 Nisan at the time of the Exodus was a Sabbath.
The crossing is traditionally thought to have taken 1 day. But the scriptural account (Ex 4:22) never explictly says this and alludes rather (in Dt 5:15) that it ended on a Sabbath. This suggests a 2-day crossing commencing at dawn on 22 Nisan, and ending after dusk at the start of the Sabbath of 24 Nisan (being exactly 2-weeks after the 10 Nisan Sabbath).
The Law prescribed that every 50th year was to be observed as a Jubilee Year (Lv 25:8-10).
This is also a very strong counterpunch to those modern detractors who are fond of insisting the US is not an exceptional country.
Based on Dt 5:15, some traditions place the parting of the Red Sea on 21 Nisan, the last day of Passover (Sotah 12b). Another tradition, that it occurred on the 8th day after the Passover (Rashi on Nm 15:38-41), inclines some to place it at dusk immediately following the last day of holiday (and at the start of 22 Nisan). But the crossing did not start immediately after. Scripture speaks of the sea bed being first dried by a mighty wind and the crossing not starting until the following morning (Ex 14:21).
Ex 32:34 in conjunction with Mishna, Ta’anit 4.6.
Lv 12:1-8 in conjunction with Lk 2:22.
Lk 2:24 in conjunction with Lv 12:2-8.
Espenek and Meeus 2006.
Espenek and Meeus 2006.
Ex 32:5
Acts 1:3.
Lv 23:17.
Jos 4:19.
Lk 2:41-50.
And these are all truly remarkable correlations when you take the time to really think about them. Hopefully some did. But don’t be misled. As has already been stated, this is not the end of it. There is a myriad of other events that can now be dated in the life and times of Christ simply by knowing the exact dates of His birth, death and Resurrection. It is a literal treasure trove that will be laid out in the later chapters. And to give an idea, since we have been told in Scripture that Jesus’s cousin, John the Baptist is 6 months His senior, we can now also date all the important events in John the Baptist’s infancy. And as might be expected by now they also all land on stunningly applicable Jewish holidays. The details on those dates, however, are reserved primarily for chapter 4.
Part 4: A Scriptural Litmus Test
But there is one important date from John’s life that will be touched on here, because it stands out like icing on the cake for this chapter. It involves a test the Holy Spirit seems to have inserted into the Scriptures to let us know when we have finally gotten things right. It is found in the first chapter of Luke’s Gospel, which tells us John the Baptist’s father, Zechariah, was a Levite priest of the ancestral House of Abijah. [102] And that House (according to 1st Book of Chronicles) was the 8th of 24 that were tasked to minister to the needs of the inner sanctum of the Jerusalem Temple (tending to the table of incense and other such needs). [103] The way it was set up, a priest from each House served for 1 week (starting and ending at noon on the Sabbath) in a rotation that continued until all 24 Houses had served. And then they started over with a new rotation of priests, each chosen by lot, to represent their House.
As pertains to the test, we also read in Luke that it was during Zechariah’s service in the Temple for his House that the angel Gabriel appeared to him to announce that he was to be John’s father. And that intriguing bit of information has been welcomed by many as a backdoor means of finding the date Jesus was born, as all that would be required beyond that is A) the exact week and year that any one of the ancestral Houses was serving in the Temple, and B) a rough idea of the year of the Nativity. From that starting point all the vital statistics for both John and Jesus can be theoretically calculated (assuming Josephus was right when he wrote that there was no break in Temple service from the time it was first instituted). [104]
And as providence would have it, Jewish tradition does provide that vital piece of missing data. It’s found in the Talmud, which names the last House that served in the Temple before it was razed to the ground by the Romans, in 70 AD. To be clear, though, since there were 24 weeks in each rotation, each ancestral House is going to be required to serve in the Temple at least twice (and on rare occasions, three times) each year. So within the ten year window we've determined Jesus could have logically been born, Zechariah’s House would have served roughly 20 times. This instrument we’ve been given, therefore, is going to be insufficient for finding the date of the Nativity on its own. In eliminating all but about 4% of the possibilities, however, it does provide a means of corroborating any date arrived at by other means.
So understandably there have been many who’ve attempted to use this test to support their own pet theories. And some have even claimed success, although the solutions most have come up with are extremely convoluted. But that brings up an important point. If this test is truly from God, it is going to have to be powerful. That is, a proposed date cannot require the use fudge factors or unsubstantiated assumptions to force this test into compliance. Such manipulation renders this tool essentially useless, as any date can be corroborated through torture. [105]
Of them all, then, there is but one, thus far, that has passed the test and done it cleanly. It is December 25th of all dates. The math suggests that, in the year 5 BC, a late December Nativity could have been a possibility. [106] But due to the various problems already noted for the means by which that date was initially obtained, there are understandably a lot who object to that solution, as well. For its detractors, this compliance is deemed merely coincidental.
So this scriptural test has gotten a bad reputation over the centuries, many relegating it to the category of red herring. And this is especially true of those whose pet theories have failed it. The test is, nevertheless, one that needs to be taken, if only to determine whether they are right in their implication that the Holy Spirit is some kind of a trickster, inserting tantalizing clues into the pages of His book only to pull the rug out from under anyone stupid enough to take the bait. So let’s take another stab at it with this newest estimate for the date of Christ’s birth to see if God’s image among the agnostics can be shored up, just a little.
And to start, with John the Baptist being 6 months older than Jesus, [107] and Jesus being born on April 5, 8 BC, as is being claimed, a standard human gestation period places the angel’s announcement to John the Baptist’s father (15 months earlier) at right around the time of the Christian Feast of the Epiphany, January 5, 9 BC. (That seems like a very appropriate day to receive a message from God). So that gives us one half of the equation. The other half comes from ancient tradition.
Specifically, from the Jerusalem Talmud we find that in 70 AD the last priest assigned to service the inner sanctum of the Temple, before it was destroyed by the Romans, was from the House of Jehoiarib (the 1st of the 24 Houses [108] at the conclusion of his service week. [109] Several reliable sources also inform us that it was destroyed on the 9th day of the 5th Hebrew calendar month (Av). [110] On the Julian calendar that would have corresponded to August 3 or 4 that year. And this sad day (traditionally, the saddest on the Hebrew calendar) is commemorated each year with a fast, Tzom Tisha B’Av (the Fast of the 5th Month).
It is also commonly thought that this is when Temple service ended. The Talmudic rabbis seem to have been of that opinion, anyway. And this is also the date that was used to confirm the December 25 Nativity position. But the exact wording of what may be the earliest allusion to this information suggests something is slightly awry. It says rather derisively that the priest from the House of Jehoiarib handed his House over to the enemy. And that is not what you would expect to hear of a priest who heroically held out until the bitter end.
The Mishna gives us another clue as to the source for this sarcasm by telling us that Temple sacrifice ended three weeks prior on the 17th day of the 4th Hebrew calendar month (Tammuz) and on the same day the Roman army breeched the Jerusalem walls to enter the city. [111] (The corresponding Julian calendar date would have been July 13 or 14 that year). So why did Temple sacrifice end? Josephus, an eyewitness to the siege of Jerusalem, fills in the blanks. It was a consequence of there being no more priests in the Temple to offer it. [112] They had all apparently run off or were captured when the city walls fell. So this gives us two, equally plausible, possibilities for dating the service week of the last Temple priest. And in recalling that a Temple service week ran from Sabbath to Sabbath, it places the House of Jehoiarib (the 1st ancestral House and the last to serve) in the Temple during either the week of July 7 to 14, or the week of July 28 to August 4 in 70 AD.
And back calculating from there to when the 8th House (John the Baptist’s ancestral House) would have served in the Temple in 9 BC we find that one of those two service weeks (the one that ended on July 14) fits perfectly with what is being claimed. The 8th House (John’s House) would have been charged to serve in the Temple from December 30, 10 BC to January 6, 9 BC by that understanding of events. And the date being proposed for John’s conception January 5, 9 BC lands right at the end of that service week. Figure 1.7 shows how the math breaks down, maybe a little more clearly, for any that are interested.
This system was instituted under the reign of King David, as described in 1 Chr 24:7-19.
Ex 32:5.
Ex 32:5.
Lk 1:5.
Antiq vii, 14, 7.
Friedlieb 1887, 312.
Lk 2:26, 36.
ibid.
Wars vi, 2, 1.
Jerusalem Talmud, Ta’anit 4.5.
Seder Olam Rabbah 30.
Mishna Ta’anit 4.6 being just one.
A commentary on the convoluted methods advocates for the Feast of Tabernacles /Nativity hypothesis have used to force it into compliance with this test can be found at this book’s website www.gospelofcreation.com/john-1-14.
So there you have it. There are officially now two dates for the Nativity that can be said to have legitimately passed Scripture’s Temple service week test without having to resort to convoluted theories that cannot be substantiated by ancient records to make them work. They are December 25, 5 BC and April 5, 8 BC. But that does not make them equally plausible. There is a still a big difference between the two in several areas and the biggest being their relationships with the Hebrew calendar. Specifically, there are 6 other events that can be easily dated through Scripture once you have determined a date for Christmas. Altogether they are the conception, birth and circumcision of John the Baptist and the conception, birth, circumcision and Presentation of Jesus. And all 7 Julian calendar dates associated with (and including) December 25, 5 BC connect to zero red letter days on the Hebrew calendar. Whereas 5 dates of the 7 derived from April 5, 8 BC connect to Hebrew calendar observances, and the other 2 (Christmas and the Incarnation) connect to uncelebrated but monumental events in Jewish history, altogether: a perfect score.
And that is the real litmus test God has given us for solving this mystery, as there is simply no contest in that category between the dates being proposed here for the Nativity and the Crucifixion and any other dates that have ever been proposed. Chapter 3 will go into this in much greater detail. For here it is sufficient to note that definitive answers to both questions posed at the start of this chapter have been provided. They are also intricately interconnected to each other by two separate calendars and there is no longer any room for debate on the matter.
The one question that may remain for some is how is it that such an eloquent and definitive solution has been so missed, by so many, for so long? And the answer is that on the face of it, it is not intuitively obvious. There were too many clues that were being misinterpreted and leading people in the wrong direction, the biggest being Luke’s about 30 statement.
Certainly, it could have been discerned if someone had had the gumption to examine every date in the last decade of BC to see what turned up. But who is going to do that on their own? People, for instance, do not generally start digging up their backyards looking for treasure unless there is some inkling of a treasure being there to find. Better yet, a treasure map might get you out there and preferably one that tells you the exact location to dig. And that is exactly how this treasure was found, with a map. This New Testament treasure trove was unearthed with the aid of a map and one that was hidden right under our noses for millenia, in the Old Testament. And that map has a lot more to tell us than what has been presented here. So chapter 2, the next step in this journey, is where this map will be laid out for all to see.
Before doing that, though, there is one other important Litmus Test that needs to be considered. And since it was given us by Christ, Himself, it is the most important. A tree is judged by its fruit, He essentially warned. [113] And that advice needs to be heeded throughout this book. The tree is presented in chapter 2. And the fruit can be found in every chapter (including 2). Examine it. Make your own judgement, retaining what is good. And remember we are just getting started in this expedition to find all those dates that have so stumped the world. This is just the tip of the iceberg. The best, rest assured, is yet to come.
Jerusalem Talmud, Ta’anit 4.5.
Jerusalem Talmud, Ta’anit 4.5.
Jerusalem Talmud, Ta’anit 4.5.
Jerusalem Talmud, Ta’anit 4.5.
Jerusalem Talmud, Ta’anit 4.5.
Jerusalem Talmud, Ta’anit 4.5.
The logical extension of Mt 12:33.
REFERENCES
Barrosse, Thomas. 1959. “The Seven Days of the New Creation in St. John's Gospel.” The Catholic Biblical
Quarterly. Catholic Biblical Association. 21, 4 (October): 507-516.
Bernegger, P. M. 1983. “Affirmation Of Herod's Death in 4 BC.” The Journal of Theological Studies - New Series.
Oxford University Press 34, 2 (OCTOBER): 526-531.
Beyer, David. 1998. "Josephus Reexamined: Unraveling the Twenty-Second Year of Tiberius". in Vardaman, Jerry
(ed.). Chronos, Kairos, Christos II: Chronological, Nativity, and Religious Studies in Memory of Ray Summers.
Macon, Ga. Mercer University Press. 85–96. ISBN 978-0-86554-582-3.
Bond, Helen K. 1998. Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-
63114-9.
Cooley, Alison. 2009. Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Text, Translation, and Commentary. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 9780521841528.
Espenek, Fred and Meeus, Jean. 2006. “Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses: -1999 to +3000 (map years -
0326 to +0091).” NASA Eclipse Web Site. Avail. at https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCSE/5MCSE-Maps-05.pdf.
Last visited 9/29/23.
Espenek, Fred and Meeus, Jean. 2009. NASA Technical paper TP-2009-214172 “Five Millennium Canon of Lunar
Eclipses: -1999 to +3000 (map years -0344 to +0070).” NASA Eclipse Web Site. Avail. at
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLE/5MCLE-Figs-05.pdf. Last visited 9/29/23.
Espenak, Fred. 2020. “Lunar Eclipses for Beginners: Types of Lunar Eclipses.” Mr. Eclipse Website. Avail. at
https://www.mreclipse.com/Special/LEprimer.html. Last visited 10/9/23.
Friedlieb, J. H. 1887. Das Leben Jesu Christi des Erlösers, Münster, Ferdinand Schöningh. 312.
Hughes, D. W. 1976. “The Star of Bethlehem” Nature 264. 513–517.
Humphreys, Colin and Waddington, W. G. 1992. “The Jewish Calendar, a Lunar Eclipse and the Date of Christ’s
Crucifixion.” Tyndale Bulletin 43.2 331-351. doi: 10.53751/001c.30487. Avail. at https://www.researchgate.net
/publication/265114769 _The_Jewish_Calendar_A_Lunar_Eclipse_and_the_Date_of_Christ%27s_Crucifixion
Maas, Anthony. 1910. "Chronology of the Life of Jesus Christ: The public life of Jesus - its duration." The Catholic
Encyclopedia. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Avail. at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen
/08377a.htm. Last visited: 10/9/23.
MacMullen, Ramsay 1997. Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press. Avail. at http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bfqt.7.
Nothaft, C. P. E. 2011. "From Sukkot to Saturnalia: The Attack on Christmas in Sixteenth-Century Chronological
Scholarship," Journal of the History of Ideas. University of Pennsylvania Press. 72, 4 (October): 503-522.
Pratt, John. 1991. “Newton’s Date for the Crucifixion.” Royal Astronomical Society Quarterly Journal 32,
Schürer, Emil. 1891. A history of the Jewish people in the time of Jesus Christ. NY. Scribner.
Talley, Thomas J. 1988. The origins of the liturgical year. New York, NY: Pueblo
Publishing Company.
Thurston, Frederick 1909. "The Easter Controversy." The Catholic Encyclopedia. 5. New York: Robert Appleton
Company. Avail. at https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm. Last visited: 10/14/23.
Vatican Museum website. Fragment of the sepulchral inscription of Quirinius. Available at
https://www.museivaticani.va /content/museivaticani/en/collezioni/musei/lapidario-
cristiano/abercio/frammento-dell-iscrizione-sepolcrale-di-quirinius.html.
Whiston, William (translator) 2009. The Antiquities of the Jews, by Flavius Josephus (94 AD). Project Gutenburg.
Avail. at https://gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm.
ENDNOTES
[1] To get the most out of this chapter, prereading the following Scriptures may be helpful: Mt 1:18-2:18 and Lk 1:5-38, 2:1-52 for the Infancy Narrative and Jn 12:1-18, 13:1-30, 18:1-20:23 together with either Mt 26:1-27:66, Mk 14:1-15:47, or Lk 22:7-23:56 for the Passion Narrative.
[2] Mk 15:42, Lk 23:54, Jn 19:31.
[3] Mt 27:45, Mk 15:33, Lk 23:44,
[4] Mt 26:2, 17, Mk 14:1, 12, Lk 22:7.
[5] Jn 19:14.
[6] Mt 27:2, Mk 15:1, Lk 23:1, Jn 18:28.
[7] Per Josephus (Antiq xviii, 4, 2) Pilate’s 10 years in Judea came to an end in an incident that occurred just prior to the death of the Roman Emperor Tiberius (who is known by many sources to have died in the spring of 37 AD). See also Bond 1998.
[8] Greater detail on how the Hebrew calendar was set up back then is provided in chapter 3.
[9] The formula the western Christian Church used for celebrating Easter, being the 1st Sunday after the full moon after the vernal equinox, was based on the Jewish formula for Passover. And it became the standard for most of Christendom by the end of the 2nd century AD, with the resolution of the Quartodeciman controversy (Thurston 1909).
[10] Sanhedrin 11b lists 3 criteria the Jerusalem Temple authorities used to justify it. Two were to ensure the crops would be sufficiently ripe for the harvest festivals and the third was to ensure the holiday of Sukkot is always after the autumnal equinox. And by extension this would also ensure that the holiday of Passover (6 months prior) was always after the vernal equinox.
[11] MacMullen 1997, 155.
[12] Nothaft 2011, 503-522.
[13] Saturnalia, for one, was celebrated 2 days earlier (from December 17 to 23). And Sol Invictus was created by the Roman emperor Aurelian in 274 AD (Hijmans 1996), which was about a half a century after many Christians had already adopted that date for Christmas, as can be seen in Hippolytus of Rome’s Commentary on Daniel (ca. 203 AD), Sextus Julius Africanus’s Chronographiai (221 AD) and Pseudo-Cyprian’s De Pascha Computus (240 AD).
[14] Tally 1988.
[15] Gn 1:3-5. But the seeming equality of the day and the night is found in many Scriptures, See also Ps 74:16 and especially Ps 139:12.
[16] The Babylonian Talmud (Berakhot 59b) speaks of a ritual performed on the vernal equinox (and still performed today) called Birkhat Hachama. It is a blessing of the sun on its birthday.
[17] The Babylonian Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 11a) presents two dueling opinions on the matter, one favoring spring and the other, fall. But with Christ’s great sacrifice coinciding with the Jewish Passover holiday, the scales, for Christians, tipped for the spring.
[18] Pseudo-Cyprian (ca. 240) De Pascha Computus.
[19] See, for instance, Ps 84:11, Is 60:1, Mal 4:2 (3:20 in some texts) and Lk 1:78.
[20] St. Augustine of Hippo (ca. late 400 AD) Sermons 188 & 192.
[21] In Dt 31:2, Moses announces his age in a manner suggesting it is his birthday, and shortly thereafter, in Dt 32:46-34:6, we are told of his death, presumably, on the same day.
[22] Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 12b and Megillah 13b, to cite just two among others.
[23] The Talmud does not reveal whether the Jews at this time applied this tradition to other Old Testament prophets. But the writings of the contemporary Christians show that they certainly did.
[24] See Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) Adversus Judaeos 8 and Hippolytus of Rome (ca. 203 AD) Commentary on Daniel.
[25] Lk 3:17.
[26] The Anno Domini system, invented in the 6th century AD by the Eastern Roman monk, Dionysius Exiguus, was centered on this belief.
[27] 17th century Spanish abbess, Mary of Agreda, for one.
[28] He wrote of it in, De Stella Nova (1606) and De Anno Natali Christi (1614). His is not, however, the only candidate for the Star, just the first. Some of the many other possibilities can be found in Figure 1.5.
[29] Pratt 1991.
[30] Maas 1910.
[31] Two additional eclipses will be discussed further on in Part 3, of this chapter, bringing the total number of eclipses that can be shown to be associated with the life of Christ to five.
[32] Espenek and Meeus 2009.
[33] Humphreys and Waddington 1992, 347, also Espenek 2020.
[34] Espenek and Meeus 2006.
[35] Ex 12:2, 40:2.
[36] Espenek and Meeus 2009.
[37] Mt 27:46, Mk 15:34.
[38] Others have argued that it would have been visible for a longer time. Humphreys, for instance, calculated a 50-minute duration (Humphreys and Waddington 1992, 346). But for the sake of argument the worst-case scenario found in the literature (10 minutes) is chosen for this discussion.
[39] Mt 26:31.
[40] Mk 9:9-10.
[41] Lk 9:33.
[42] The rituals associated with Sukkot are laid out in Lv 23:42, with additional corroboration for the Transfiguration occurring on 1 Sukkot provided in chapters 3 and 4.
[43] An apocalyptic year is so-named for the number of days assigned to a year (360) in the Book of Revelation, where, building on the phraseology found in the Book of Daniel (Dn 9:27), it equates 1,260 days to both 42 months and 3½ years (Rv 11:2-3).
[44] Humphreys cites several examples of ancient writers associating lunar eclipses with blood, the earliest reference being to a 4th century BC eclipse by Roman historian, Quintus Curtius Rufus, in his Histories of Alexander the Great 4, 10, 2 (Humphreys and Waddington 1992, 343).
[45] Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 11a.
[46] This ancient understanding is maybe most easily seen in the Jewish custom that sprang from it, that of setting an extra place for the prophet Elijah at the Passover Seder meal, that he might come to usher in the Messianic age, per Mal 3:23.
[47] Lk 24:18.
[48] Eph 5:22-27, Rv 19:7-9.
[49] Jn 19:34-35.
[50] … not by water alone, but by water and blood (1 Jn 5:6-8 NAB). See also Mt 3:16, 16:24 and Jn 3:5.
[51] Barrosse 1959.
[52] Gn 2:21-23. And this also makes sense of why God made Eve in this fashion.
[53] Rv 12:1, NAB.
[54] Rv 12:5.
[55] Screenshot obtained through the STARRY NIGHT program with top banner slightly repositioned for the graphic. https://www.starrynight.com/starry-night-8-professional-astronomy-telescope-control-software.html.
[56] Acts 2:14-41.
[57] ... as was prophesied in Mt 12:39.
[58] Lk 2:1.
[59] Lk 2:2.
[60] Mt 2:1, 19-20.
[61] Lk 2:1-5.
[62] Mt 2:1-13.
[63] Schürer 1891, 400-467.
[64] Antiq xvii, 6, 4 speaks of a lunar eclipse (aka, blood moon) occurring just prior to Herod’s death and (in an apparent foreshadowing) on the evening following the martyrdom of a Jewish zealot. The eclipse is generally dated, by other clues in the text, to Mar. 13, 4 BC, although some are now placing it at Jan. 9, 1 BC. It is incidentally the only mention of a lunar eclipse in any of Josephus’s writings.
[65] Antiq xiv, 16, 4, xv, 5, 2, xvii, 8, 1, xviii, 6, 10 and xx,10,
[66] Beyer 1998.
[67] Bernegger 1983, 526-531.
[68] A stone, thought to be a fragment from Quirinius’s sepulcher, listing his accomplishments mentions that he was the Proconsul (Governor) of Asia and a [legate] divi Augusti (imperial official) iterum (twice) in Syria. This is believed by some to be evidence of Quirinius being governor on two separate occasions. It provides, however, no means of dating his service and specifically speaks of only one term as governor. A photograph of the grave stone is available online at the Vatican website. (See References for link).
[69] The astronomical data for this table coming largely from Hughes 1976
[70] St. John Chrysostom (ca. 395 AD) Homily VI on Matthew, is a good example.
[71] Cooley 2009.
[72] Acts 5:36-37 in conjunction with Antiq xviii, 1, 6.
[73] Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) Adversus Marcionem iv, 19, 10.
[74] Antiq xvi, 9, 3 (translation by Whiston 2009). See also Schürer 1891, 459-460.
[75] ibid.
[76] Irenaeus of Lyon, (ca. 180 AD) Adversus Heresies, ii, 22, 1-5.
[77] 1 Cor 15:8, Eph 4:6, Col 3:11 and 1 Cor 9:22 where an imitation of Christ is displayed.
[78] Irenaeus of Lyon, (ca. 180 AD) Adversus Heresies, ii, 22, 5.
[79] Jn 8:57.
[80] 2 Sm 5:4, 1 Kgs 11:42, 2 Kgs 12:1.
[81] 1 Sm 4:18.
[82] Ps 95:10-11, NAB, slightly paraphrased.
[83] The esteemed, 1st century rabbi, Eliezer b. Hycanus, recognized these verses as applying to the future Messiah in Sanhedrin, 99a.
[84] The 40 days and nights of the Great Flood (Gn 7:4), the 2 40-day fasts of Moses on Mt Sinai (Dt 9:18), and the 40 days the Hebrew spies spent undercover scoping out the land of Canaan (Nm 13:25) to name just a few.
[85] Lk 2:7, 23, Col 1:15-18, Rv 1:5.
[86] In John’s Gospel, where we're told that the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us (Jn 1:14, KJV), the Greek is better translated as tabernacled, not dwelt. And while some have argued that this means Jesus was born in the fall, during the Feast of Tabernacles, His 40-year life span being the same length of time that the Israelites tabernacled in the wilderness is another legitimate (and maybe the better) interpretation.
[87] God's command that the 10th day of Nisan be commemorated (Ex 12:3) is observed every year on the last Sabbath before Passover as Shabbat Hagadol, the traditional understanding being that 10 Nisan at the time of the Exodus was a Sabbath.
[88] Based on Dt 5:15, some traditions place the parting of the Red Sea on 21 Nisan, the last day of Passover (Sotah 12b). Another tradition, that it occurred on the 8th day after the Passover (Rashi on Nm 15:38-41), inclines some to place it at dusk immediately following the last day of holiday (and at the start of 22 Nisan). But the crossing did not start immediately after. Scripture speaks of the sea bed being first dried by a mighty wind and the crossing not starting until the following morning (Ex 14:21).
[89] The crossing is traditionally thought to have taken 1 day. But the scriptural account (Ex 4:22) never explictly says this and alludes rather (in Dt 5:15) that it ended on a Sabbath. This suggests a 2-day crossing commencing at dawn on 22 Nisan, and ending after dusk at the start of the Sabbath of 24 Nisan (being exactly 2-weeks after the 10 Nisan Sabbath).
[90] The Law prescribed that every 50th year was to be observed as a Jubilee Year (Lv 25:8-10).
[91] This is also a very strong counterpunch to those modern detractors who are fond of insisting the US is not an exceptional country.
[92] Ex 32:5.
[93] Ex 32:34 in conjunction with the Mishna, Ta’anit 4.6.
[94] Lv 12:1-8 in conjunction with Lk 2:22.
[95] Acts 1:3.
[96] Lv 23:17.
[97] Lk 2:24 in conjunction with Lv 12:2-8.
[98] Jos 4:19.
[99] Lk 2:41-50.
[100] Espenek and Meeus 2006.
[101] ibid.
[102] Lk 1:5.
[103] This system was instituted under the reign of King David, as described in 1 Chr 24:7-19.
[104] Antiq vii, 14, 7.
[105] A commentary on the convoluted methods advocates for the Feast of Tabernacles/Nativity hypothesis have used to force it into compliance with this test can be found at this book’s website www.gospelofcreation.com/john-1-14.
[106] Friedlieb 1887, 312.
[107] Lk 2:26, 36.
[108] Jerusalem Talmud, Ta’anit 4.5.
[109] Seder Olam Rabbah 30.
[110] Mishna Ta’anit 4.6 being just one.
[111] ibid.
[112] Wars vi, 2, 1.
[113] The logical extension of Mt 12:33.
Published: October 16, 2023
Last Updated: October 18, 2023