Mariamne Magdalene

Mariamne is an unusual Greek form of the Hebrew name Miriam that Josephus uses a lot but never the New Testament (I don't currently know if it's ever in the LXX, Greek Apocrypha or Philo).  

It is most commonly associated in the study of Greco-Roman history with certain women of the Hasmonean and Herodian Dynasties, but Josephus does also use it of Miriam the Sister of Moses showing it is a form of the same name we today commonly know simply as Maria, Marie or Mary. 

The most famous Mariamne is the second wife of Herod who was also a Granddaughter of both sons of Alexander Janneus and Salome Alexandra, commonly designated Mariamne I.

Mariamne III is the designation commonly given to the youngest child of Aristobulus the first born son of Mariamne I.  Two of her siblings are unambiguously mentioned in the New Testament, Herodias who was married to Antipas when John The Baptist lost his head, and Herod Agrippa I in Acts 12.

We don't know anything for certain about Mariamne III's life besides that she existed and was named Mariamne.  If she was indeed the youngest child of Aristobolus then she was probably born between 10 and 7 BC, for timeline context 11 or 12 BC is the date I currently favor for the Nativity of Jesus.  This Mariamne could be the same Mariamne who Archelus was briefly married to in 6 AD but spurned for Glaphyra, but that's uncertain.  Either way she disappears from history after that.

Mary Magdalene is first introduced chronologically speaking in Luke 8

And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him, and certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, and Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.

Joanna's connection to the court of Herod Antipas has made some reading this passage speculate all three might have come from there.  At least two of Mariamne III's siblings were living in the court of Herod Antipas in the late 20s and early 30s AD, the same two mentioned above.

So I have developed a hunch that Mary Magdalene of The Bible and Mariamne III of Josephus are the same woman, just at different points in her life.

Christmas in Spring theories

My time on this blog spent defending the position that Jesus was born in December or January has usually been focused on the Fall Feast days as the popular alternative (all three Seventh Month Holy Days have been proposed).

However there are some arguing for Spring being when Jesus was born.  Arguing that His birth should be either the same day He was Crucified (14th Day of the First Month) or the same day He Rose (The Sunday that falls during Unleavened Break).  Then a third option could be to just have Him born on the First day of the First Month, the New Year.

There are Rabbinic Traditions that say the major Patriarchs and Prophets were all born the same day they died.  Another Rabbinic tradition possibly relevant is a tradition that says during the wandering it took nine months to build the Tabernacle, and Exodus 40 says the first day of the first month is the day the Tabernacle was completed.  There is also Julius Africanus saying the Incarnation was on March 25th with dispute on if that means Birth or Conception.

One Biblical argument that can be brought up is the instruction that the Passover Lamb should be a year old (same with the Lamb Sacrificed on firstfruits in Leviticus 23:12), that can be interpreted as meaning as close as possible to exactly a year, meaning the Passover Lamb's Birthday should in theory be Passover of the prior year.  This has also been used as evidence for Jesus ministry being exactly a year, which is a view I basically support but don't like to make that particular argument for it.

What reasons are there to favor one Spring theory over the others?  If Jesus was born on the 14th then that makes his Circumcision the Seventh day of Unleavened Bread, the only major day of the Spring Feasts that doesn't have an obvious corespondent in the Passion Narrative, though I like to theorize that is when the Doubting Thomas story happened, and maybe the Resurrection of Old Testament Saints refereed to in Matthew 27:51-53.

A major reason for favoring Resurrection Day would be that makes the Ascension the anniversary of when Jesus was presented in The Temple as the 40th day, the one lynchpin day of the Passion-Pentecost narrative that doesn't have an obvious antecedent in Leviticus 23 and Exodus 12.  There is also how Resurrection is often refereed to as like a Birth, from Isaiah 26's "the Earth shall give Birth to her Dead" to the arguments for being "Born Again" actually being about the Resurrection, further Capstoned by my connecting the Resurrection and Rapture of the Church to the Birth and Resurrection of the Man-Child in Revelation 12.  In that model His Circumcision is on the Eight day of the Omer.

The Resurrection version is the most attractive.  But also the easiest to discredit.

The thing about people making the Pilgrimage Festival requirements an argument agaisnt some Nativity models is that they often forget that only Joseph would actually have been required to be in Jerusalem, because only he was an adult male.  So events where only Mary and the Baby Jesus are directly refereed to as being present somewhere other then Jerusalem could happen on a pilgrimage feast day.  but Luke 2:16 clearly places Joseph in Bethlehem on the day Jesus was born.

Firstfurits is a day that is almsot certain to fall on one of the seven days of Unleavened Bread, the 15th through 21st of Abib.

Passover itself, the 14th, is mentioned in Deuteronomy 16, but it is still strictly speaking not one of the days every adult male is required to be in Jerusalem.  People who live far from Jerusalem generally chose to travel to the area by this point.  But Bethlehem is close enough that Joseph being there on the 14th was probably going to work out fine.

Actually a fourth spring option popped into my head when thinking of this.  The 10th day of the first month being the day the Lamb is selected.  We typically view the Triumphal entry as being that day even though it isn't directly stated to be, so it's like that was Jesus' final Birthday party.  That would make His Circumcision the 17th day of the month, the day on which I prefer to place the Resurrection because it fits being the 3rd day of Unleavened Bread and it's relevance to Esther.  Then his presentation in The Temple could equate to Lag BaOmer potentially.

So I'm open to this model, more so then I am the Fall Feasts, since there is arguably Spring imagery in mind in Simeon's Prophecy.  But I'm currently still leaning towards a Kislev or Tevet model.

What about the rest of the Nativity chronology?

John the Baptist was born six months prior so in this model probably on or near a Fall Feast day.  Which would then place the time frame of the events that open Luke's Narrative around Hanukkah.  Again, one of the things that annoys me about those who are so vehemently anti-Christmas is that about that time of year is when part of the Nativity narrative happened almsot no mater what.  But it's interesting how this model allows you to literally begin the Christmas narrative at Christmas.

The Conception of Jesus is then placed in the month of Tammuz, in June or July.  On the one hand I find it a little weird for Jesus Conception to be a less significant time of year Biblically then John's.  But I like to emphasize Jesus as the Sun of Righteousness so being Conceived near the Summer Solstice fits that.  Maybe it also fits that Mary and Elizabeth were given reason to rejoice when Pagan Women were weeping for Tammuz and Adonis.

Because I've looked at the Young's Literal Translation of Matthew 2:1 I no longer think the Magi had to arrive in Jerusalem the exact same day Jesus was born.  But I still reject saying it had to be two years later.  Maybe you could make when they presented their gifts to Jesus the role Pentecost plays in the nativity narrative?

Update December 25th 2023: I'm adding to this post even though I've retired this Blog because I felt I needed to add something.

My new theory about the Passion Week, would place Resurrection Day the day after the Seven Day Pilgrimage is over on the 22nd of Aviv.  Meanwhile John 20:26 potentially places the Doubting Thomas incident on the anniversary of The Circumcision one week later which can make Thematic sense because of of that story's focus on the Wounds of Jesus.  

And so if we place the visit of the Magi not two years later but still after the Presentation in The Temple on Ascension Day, perhaps Pentecost makes sense?

Yom Kippur, The Day of Atonement

I want to talk about a few things relevant to what is often considered the Holiest Day of the Year on the Hebrew Calendar, the Tenth Day of the Seventh Month, commonly called Tishri currently but Biblically was Ethanim.

I've touched on my objections to making it a Fast Day before.  But I've come to an even more vital realization.  It outright violates The Torah to Fast on Yom Kippur because Yom Kippur revolves around Sacrifices, chiefly the special Sin Offering of Leviticus 16 but also Numbers 29 requires a bunch of other normal Sacrifices.

For every Sacrifice but the Whole Burnt offering, and especially Sin Offerings, eating the meat of the sacrificed animal was part of the ritual, in fact in The Torah eating animals and sacrificing them were inseparable acts.  Part of the point of the Eucharist/Lord's Supper in Christianity is to make it so that the Sacrifice of Jesus is also one we are eating, whether you take the Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant position on the literality of that is irrelevant to the basic point.

So refusing to eat on Yom Kippur actually violates The Torah.

I've also talked about how Yom Kippur relates to the Jubilee in Leviticus 25 before, but I want to remind people as it could have thematic relevance to where I'll go after this.  The Jubilee Shofar is sounded on Yom Kippur.  But the Jubilee Year doesn't begin then as many wrongly assume, the Jubilee Trumpet is sounded during the 49th year as an announcement that the Jubilee is coming, the Jubilee Year still begins with Aviv and then lasts 12 months like any other.  It is called the Fiftieth Year but it's really the First year of the next Jubilee cycle.

I've spent most of the history of this Blog arguing against Jesus being born on a Fall Holy Day and for him being born around December 25th.  And I'm still leaning that way, but there is one argument for a Yom Kippur Nativity I have recently considered.

Attempts to determine when the course of Abijah served frequently turn to extra Biblical sources, both when arguing for a December Nativity or a Tishrei one.  But I've been considering abandoning all of those assumptions and just going off what we would conclude from 1st Chronicles 24.

First of all the idea that each course served twice a year also seems to be extra Biblical, there is no hint of that in 1st Chronicles 24.  It seems to me pretty logical to assume that 24 courses serving over a 12 month year would simply be two courses a month, 15 days each if we're going by 30 day months.

1st Chronicles 24 verse 10 says Abijah was the Eight course.  So if I ignored extra Biblical sources and when I might personally want to wind up placing the Nativity, this information would make me conclude the course of Abijah was the second half of the Fourth Month.

That would then place when he laid with Elizabeth to conceive John in the Fifth Month.  If the Fifth Month is the first month of Elizabeth's Pregnancy then her sixth month when the Annunciation happened according to Luke 1 would be the Tenth Month which tends to equate to late December and early January.  And if the Tenth Month is the first month of Mary's Pregnancy then her ninth month was the Sixth Month.  But remember the Pregnancy cycle is actually 280 days, or 9 months and 10 days on a 30 day month calendar.  So that makes the Nativity as Yom Kippur awfully attractive (and John's Birth on the 10th of Nisan).

Yom Kippur was not a pilgrimage feast so Joseph being in Bethlehem on that day as Luke 2 records isn't a problem, Bethlehem was close enough that 5 days was more then enough time for him to get to Jerusalem for Tabernacles.  This would place Jesus Circumcision during Tabernacles but Luke has no explicit reference to Joseph being there for that.

The Circumcision being on the 17th can be quite interesting.  Same day of the Month I place the Resurrection, The New Testament compares Baptism to both Circumcision and Resurrection.

However the evidence seems to show in Second Temple times each course was a week and so they didn't always consistently happen at the same time of year.  Proponents of every model have found a convincing way to make the timing for Abijah's course work for them.

September 24th 2019 Update:  However if the 24 Courses served twice a year then the latter part of the 2nd and 8th months would be Abijah's courses.  And if we interpret how to synchronize Elizabeth and Mary's pregnancies slight differently to make Elizabeth's 5th Month Mary's first, then Mary's first Month is the first month of the year if Elizabeth's first month was the 9th. In which case Jesus could have been born on either Hanukkah or the Fast of the Tenth Month.

Maybe the Torah's Calendar was never a Lunar or Lunisolar Calendar?

First some terminology clarification.  The traditional Rabbinic Hebrew Calendar we're used to calling a Lunar Calendar is strictly speaking a Lunisolar Calendar, the phases of the Moon come first but synchronization is done with a Solar year so the seasons don't drift out of place.  The same is true of the popular variants I've discussed already like the Samaritan Calendar, the Kariate reckoning and the proposed Lunar Sabbath model.  A strictly Lunar Calendar would be something like the Islamic Calendar which makes no attempt to reconcile and so Ramadan has fallen all over the Gregorian Calendar.

But I've lately been questioning the traditional assumption that the Torah's Calendar is Lunar at all.

Let's start with the fact that the Torah has completely different words for Month and Moon, that is not what I'd expect from an ancient strictly Lunar month based culture.  Month is Chodesh/Hodesh (Strongs Number 2320) while Moon is Jerah/Yerach (3394).  There are a few places where the latter word is used of a passage of time, but that's because even without a lunar calendar the concept of a month is still tied poetically to the Moon somewhat as it's phases come at least close.

Japan for example had a Lunar Calendar until 1873, and that's why their language uses the same word for both Month and Moon, Tsuki.  That's why in the English version of episode 6 of my favorite Anime, Noir, it sounds weird when Mireille says "so many Months and Years have passed", in a language where all the word "month" means is a fraction of a year my mind goes "why even include months in that expression?".  But I'm pretty sure in the Japanese she's saying "so many Tsuki and Hi", Hi being an alternate word for both Sun and Year and sometimes Day.  So a more poetic yet equally literal translation would be "so many Moons and Suns have passed" which sounds more right even if technically equally as redundant.

The phrase "Rosh Chodesh" gets translated "New Moon" sometimes because of our traditional assumptions, but Rosh means the beginning or head of something not quite "New".  Colossians 2:16 is the one New Testament reference to the Jewish concept of the "Rosh Chodesh", and it again uses a Greek word for Month, not Selene the word for the Moon.

Because we think of it as the Crescent New Moon so much talk about Rosh Chodesh is spent on saying we don't know for certain exactly when it is till it happens.  With Dispensationalists saying it typologically fits the Pre-Trib Rapture and "no man knowth the day or the hour" verses.  But there is one clear Biblical reference to people knowing for certain the next day is a Rosh Chodesh, 1 Samuel 20:5.

The Torah never talks about the Full Moon, even in regards to the Holy Days that should happen about then on a Lunar or Lunisolar calendar.  Two verses elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible are often translated as referring to the Full Moon, but those are highly disputable as I've discussed before.  For Psalm 81 I don't know how to translate it but my hunch is it's about the Jubilee Yom Kippur sounded Shofar.  The word for "feast" used here is sometimes used of Sacrificial animals like Exodus 23:18, Psalm 118:27 and Isaiah 29:1, so that could be the Yom Kippur Sin Offering in this verse.  The root of the word thought to refer to the Full Moon appears in Leviticus 16:13 where it's translated "cover".

And then there is all the evidence that The Bible clearly thinks of a Month as being 30 days not 29 and a half.  It's there when you do the math of the Flood chronology of Genesis 7 and 8 with 5 months being exactly 150 days beginning on the 17th of the second month and ending on the 17th of the seventh month.  And it's also in Revelation with 42 Months, 1,260 days and three and a half years being treated as synonymous time periods.  

However there is one thing often taken as evidence for a 365 day year in the Torah, and that is how that number happens to be the number of years Enoch lived. But that could be a coincidence.

Genesis 1:14-19 discuses the Sun (greater light), Moon (lesser light) and stars being made for signs and for seasons and for days and for years.  But you'll notice in verse 16 the Sun is made and talked about first, it has priority.  And months are seemingly missing from the discussion.

It is well known that the Hebrew Calendar was influenced by the Babylonian Calendar during the Captivity, the names we're now used to calling the months come from Babylon for one thing.  Well the thing is Babylon had a Lunisolar Calendar, so even that aspect of it could be Babylonian in origin.

Lunar Calendars were more popular with the ancient Pagans then you might expect given the modern popular narrative that ancient Paganism always started with Sun worship.  In fact the most prominent not at all Lunar Calendar used by Pagans in classical antiquity was the Civil Egyptian calendar, but even they originally had a Lunar one which they kept using for ceremonial purposes.  Actually even in Greece the Attic Lunar Calender's main purpose was for how they observed Pagan festivals.

Now as much as we love to see all things Egyptian as bad, it wasn't the Egyptians much of the Torah is telling the Israelites not to be like, it was the Canaanites, (When Jerusalem is derogatorily called "Sodom and Egypt" it's about them being inhospitable to strangers not any particular customs.).  One of the Canaanite tribes was the Amorites, Babylon first became a major player in Mesopotamia under it's Amorite dynasty, so that Babylonian calendar could be Canaanite in origin.

There is one indisputable difference between the Torah Calendar and the Civil Egyptian Calendar, and that is when to start it.  Exodus 12 proclaims Aviv (the time of the Barley Harvest, early Spring) to be the first month while the Egyptian Calendar starts near the Autumnal Equinox.

It is a common traditional conjecture that before Exodus 12 the first season was Fall rather then Spring, and that in Exodus 12 YHWH is swapping the First and Seventh months.  I'd been thinking of making a post on how we can't entirely prove that using Scripture alone and so shouldn't build so many theories on it.  But since they were in Egypt for several generations it's very possible the Egyptian Calendar was their starting point and what month to make the first month was the only change YHWH is making in Exodus 12.  Though different agricultural and climate circumstances in Canaan probably brought further differences, the Egyptian Calendar was organized around 3 seasons rather then 4 because of how much they were ruled by the flooding of the Nile.

In a hypothetical Torah based Solar Calendar the Intercalary month of five or six days (if that was the method used for synchronization) would go between Adar and Nisan rather then in September.  (BTW, those 5 days were when the Egyptians observed the birthdays of Osiris and Horus, not anywhere near Christmas.  And the Egyptian new year was September 11th on our calendar coincidentally enough.)  Or maybe you would try to put them before the Seventh Month to keep Yom Teruah close to the Fall Equinox.  

Genesis 1:14 is possibly using Signs in place of Months, I have over the years gone back and forth on the Mazzaroth/Gospel in the Stars theory.  Maybe fellow Mazzaroth proponents like Rob Skiba should consider that the Star Signs can be an alternative to the Moon for how to determine the months of the year.  Josephus did refer to Nisan as being when the Sun is in Aries, in the first century the Sun entered Aries around the Spring Equinox, and that month is indeed when the Barley Harvest happens.  The Romans had a Seven Day Barley Festival similar to Unleavened Bread that was the 12-18th of April, but due to the awkwardness of Caesar's revisions that may be off from when in the Sun's journey it was supposed to be.

It is popular to theorize that Revelation 12:1 is describing some astronomical alignment involving the Moon. If it is it could be an exception and not proof the months are usually defined by the Moon.  But I'm skeptical of that altogether, I think it's probably a purely supernatural vision and not something predictable using Stelarrium.

Now I do believe the Passover through Pentecost of Christ's Passion, Resurrection and sending of the Holy Spirit was likely based on what the Jews of the time were doing regardless of if it was still accurate.  But it may be it happened to be a year when they did line up, or at least close enough that First Fruits was the right Sunday.  Since I favor 30 AD and a Thursday Crucifixion on the 14th of Nisan followed by a Sunday Resurrection on the 17th of Nisan, I have long placed the Passion on the 6th of April 30 AD and The Resurrection of the 9th.

But maybe not all the Jews were already using the Babylonian Calendar in Christ's time?  Maybe it was originally mainly the Pharisees, who became the only sect to survive the 70 AD war?  It was the Sadducees who actually controlled the Priesthood and The Temple, and according to Josephus they were a Torah only sect.

The Qumran Community who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls also rejected the Lunar Calendar, the Temple Scroll is our main source on their Calendar but it's discussed in other scrolls too.  I don't think that Calendar is right either, like the Lunar Sabbath model it wants to synchronize the monthly and yearly cycle to the weekly cycle by giving every 3rd month an extra day creating a 364 day year.  As I've talked about before the language in Leviticus 23 about Firs Fruits and Pentecost is clearly assuming they won't always line up.  They make the first day of the year a Wednesday because that was the day the Sun and Moon were created.  But at least they correctly placed First Fruits and Pentecost on Sundays.  Weeks are not even remotely mentioned in the Genesis 1 account of the fourth day, so they aren't connected to the sun, moon or stars.

The Book of Jubilees was popular with them because it too rejected the Lunar Calendar (Chapter 6 verses 32-37).  Something I bet Rob Skiba didn't notice when using the book for his agendas (This Calendar also seems to be endorsed by Enoch 72-82).  But indeed Jubilees has the same problem as the Temple Scroll system.  In fact it's criticism of the lunar system is a little hypocritical since it doesn't line up perfectly with the seasons either, being one day short of a solar year will inevitably create the same issue even if it'd take longer.

The Hebrew Roots movement has a lot of irrational fear of Sun Worship wrapped up into it.  Obviously actually worshiping the actual Sun or Moon or any other inanimate object is a Sin.  But Malachi does call Jesus the Sun(Shamash) of Righteousness, there is no equivalent title making the Moon a symbol of Jesus.  So I have no problem believing Jesus Rose from The Grave at Sunrise on a Sunday Morning, or that he was born on or soon after the Winter Solstice.  I'd rather base my calendar on the astronomical object that is explicitly a symbol of Jesus then one that is not and was frequently the basis for Pagan ceremonial calendars.

You might ask "are you gonna also question if Biblical days begin and end with Sunset?"  Well I did consider it, but I concluded that they do.  Genesis 1 lists them as Evenings and Mornings, and later Torah verses after Exodus 13 do the same, like Exodus 16 which is also the proper origin of the Sabbath.  Also Exodus 27:21 and Leviticus 24:3.  Instead I'm just going to point out that even that is also determined by the the Sun, when the Sun sets.  [Update: on this paragraph I've had a change of mind since.]

But I'm not just disagreeing with the current Hebrew Roots movement here.  This may shock you to learn but the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and other mainstream Christian Churches do use the Moon to calculate "Easter".  It's just that explaining why it doesn't always line up with Rabbinic Passover is complicated.  In most Languages "Easter" is just called Pascha.  If Catholic "Easter" was just a Christianized Spring Solstice festival as many allege it would consistently happen in the 20s of March.

Also remember that as a Six-Day Young Earth Creationist I do believe originally the Solar and Lunar cycles were in sync and there was no need to choose between them.  I think that was the case at least until the Flood but maybe also till the time of Joshua or even Hezekiah.

I'm not ready to propose a specific calendar model just yet.  I merely want to open up this line of discussion.

Or maybe I am.  But take everything below with a grain of salt, it's all stuff I could easily abandon.  What I've talked about above is the point of this post.

In Fact ignore everything below, I've revamped it all here.

https://midseventiethweekrapture.blogspot.com/2021/09/biblical-calendar-proposal.html

[Update 2023: I have an even newer idea to add.

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2022/04/passion-week-chronology-completely.html]

Shepherds In Winter

The only real Biblical argument against a winter birth for Jesus is a claim that Shepherds would not have had their flocks outdoors in winter.  These people are forgetting that Israel does not have the climate of Northern Europe or America.

Genesis 31:38-40: "This twenty years have I been with thee; thy ewes and thy she goats have not cast their young, and the rams of thy flock have I not eaten.  That which was torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bare the loss of it; of my hand didst thou require it, whether stolen by day, or stolen by night.  That which was torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bare the loss of it; of my hand didst thou require it, whether stolen by day, or stolen by night. Thus I was; in the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night; and my sleep departed from mine eyes. "

Jacob was at this time much further north then Bethlehem, yet he was engaged in Shepherding during the winter.  So using the no shepherds in winter argument calls Scripture a liar. 

James Kelso, an archaeologist who spent a number of years living in Palestine and who has done extensive research there says this:

The best season for the shepherds of Bethlehem is the winter when heavy rains bring up a luscious crop of new grass. After the rains the once-barren, brown desert earth is suddenly a field of brilliant green. One year when excavating at New Testament Jericho, I lived in Jerusalem and drove through this area twice every day. At one single point along the road, I could see at times as many as five shepherds with their flocks on one hillside. One shepherd stayed with his flock at the same point for three weeks, so lush was the grass. But as soon as the rains stopped in the spring, the land quickly took on its normal desert look once again.
Since there seem to have been a number of shepherds who came to see the Christ child, December or January would be the most likely months (James Kelso, An Archaeologist Looks At The Gospels, p. 23-24).

 Also there is Canon H.B Tristram

“A little knoll of olive trees surrounding a group of ruins marks the traditional site of the angels’ appearance to the shepherds, Migdol Eder, ‘the tower of the flock’. But the place where the first ‘Gloria in excelsis’ was sung was probably further east, where the bare hills of the wilderness begin, and a large tract is claimed by the Bethlehemites as a common pasturage. Here the sheep would be too far off to be led into the town at night; and exposed to the attacks of wild beasts from the eastern ravines, where the wolf and the jackal still prowl, and where of old the yet more formidable lion and bear had their covert, they needed the shepherds’ watchful care during the winter and spring months, when alone pasturage is to be found on these bleak uplands“. Picturesque Palestine Vol 1 page 124

 Also note this excerpt from Messianic Jewish Scholar Alfred Edersheim:

“That the Messiah was born in Bethlehem was a settled conviction. Equally so, was the belief that He was to be revealed from Migdal Eder , the tower of the flock.
This Migdal Eder, was not the watch tower for ordinary flocks which pastured on the barren sheep ground beyond Bethlehem, but lay close to town, on the road to Jerusalem. A passage in the Mishnah leads to the conclusion that the flocks which pastured there were destined for Temple Sacrifices, and accordingly that the Shepherds who watched over them were, no ordinary Shepherds. The latter were under the ban of Rabbinism on the account of their necessary isolation from religious ordinances, and their manner of life, which rendered strict legal observances unlikely, if not absolutely impossible.
The same Mishnic also leads us to infer, that these flocks lay out all year round , since they are spoken of as in the fields thirty days before Passover- that is, in the month of February, when in Palestine the average rainfall is nearly greatest. Thus Jewish traditions in some dim manner apprehended the first revelation of the Messiah from Migdal Eder, where Shepherds watched the Temple flocks all year round. Of the deep symbolic significance of such a coincidence, it is needless to speak -The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah By Alfred Edersheim

I've also seen it claimed by some that Israel is "impassable" during winter, and Mary and Joseph couldn't have traveled south at this time.  But John 10:21-22 tells us Jesus traveled to Jerusalem to keep the feast of the Dedication/Hannukah.  Indeed I take from this passage that Hanukkah while not one of the required pilgrimage days became an unofficial additional one, since it was intimately about Jerusalem and The Temple.

But also as shown in my Magi and the Census post, I think it's a wrong assumption that they traveled to Bethlehem just before Mary gave birth, I think they had been there for months already.

25-22 BC Nativity Date

[Update 2023: I'm mostly abandoning this theory for now.]

Stephen implied Moses was born near the Winter Solstice

Acts 7:20-21

In which time Moses was born, and was exceeding fair, and nourished up in his father's house three months: And when he was cast out, Pharaoh's daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son.

Which agrees with Exodus 2:2 (and Hebrews 11, this period of time being three months is said three times in Scripture).  Three months separated the Birth of Moses from him being taken in by Pharaoh's Daughter.

But Stephen goes on to evenly divide the rest of Moses life into three periods of 40 years.  40 years in the house of Pharaoh king of Mizraim, 40 years in the house of Jethro, and then the 40 years of the Wilderness Wandering.

The Forty years of the Wilderness Wandering began in Nisan, the Nisan of the First Passover, and ended in a Nisan, the Passover recorded early in the Book of Joshua.  It seems reasonable then to infer all three 40 year periods begin and end in Nisan.

Just looking at the account of Pharaoh's Daughter finding Moses in Exodus 2, there are good circumstantial reasons to suspect this is happening near the Spring Equinox.

So if Moses was born three months before events that happened near the Spring Equinox, then he was born near the Winter Solstice, in December or January.

Likewise, three months means he was taken in by Pharaoh's Daughter at about the anniversary of his Conception. 

12 BC Date for the Nativity

I’ve been slightly off in the past when I mention saying that a Romans census took about 5 years.  I just went by the usual known Census dates and assumed they dated the start of that 5 year period, allowing the 8 BC Census to end in 4 or 3 BC.

In actuality the Monumentum Ancyranum inscription states that Augustus completed a Lustrum in 8 BC, the year Censorinus and Asinius were Consuls.  That would make the first year of that Lustrum 12 BC.  Some translations word this more vaguely, but I think the version identifying 8 BC as when it was completed may be correct.

Now I’ve made a big deal before about my post deconstructing the assumption that Luke mentions Quirinus, however it's interesting that 12 BC was the year Quirinus was Consul.  Again Luke 2 doesn’t use a word for Governor, but for governing.  The Legate of Syria at this time was Marcus Titius, but he was brand new in the office, it’s not difficult at all to imagine one of the Consuls was overseeing the East.  Especially since 12 BC was also the year Quirinus started his campaign against the Homonadenses.  He wasn't actively serving as Consul anymore by the year's end, but he was still one of the Consuls the year was named after. 

Or if Jesus was born at the end of 13 BC or beginning of 12 BC, it could be Mary and Joseph had to be in Bethlehem before the Lustrum started. 

Of course given the common interpretation of Luke 2:1-2 saying the Census began during the governing of Quirinus, and the Roman custom of naming years after the Consuls at it's start.  It could be this Lustrum was gonna be identified with Quirinus regardless of when during it Jesus was born.

Some before have argued for a 12 BC Birthdate for Jesus.  They get a lot of stuff wrong (including the common anti December 25th memes), starting with wanting to see Halley's Comet as the Star of Bethlehem.  Since I place the Star of Bethlehem a little under 2 years before Jesus was born, not at his birth, my model here would use the Star of Bethlehem candidate(s) usually favored by 15 or 14 BC theorists, when there were more Jupiter-Regulus conjunctions, and some interesting movements with Venus.  And that when Hanukkah would have happened in December of 12 BC, Venus was visible in Israel as an Evening Star according to Stellarium.  

But the previous year's Hanukkah had Venus visible as a Morning Star.  That year the 25th of Kislev would have began probably at sunset of December 23rd.  And then perhaps the magi arrived in Jerusalem when Jesus was born around Sunrise of December 24th, and arrived at Mary and Joseph's house exactly 24 hours later.  That model would put the beginning of Nisan of 13 BC around the 6th of 7th of April.

There could be more time between the family going to Egypt and Herod’s death then people usually assume.  The word for “young child” used at the time they return from Egypt, can simply mean not fully an adult yet, Mark 5:40-42 uses it of a 12 year old.

Now that goes against some of what I’ve argued before.  I do still believe the Magi arrived in Jerusalem when Jesus was born.  But it might be Herod didn’t give up on waiting for the Magi to return till after the 40 days.  Maybe he wasn’t in Jerusalem when Simeon and Anna gave their prophecies.  He was often not in Jerusalem, he may have been there for when the Magi arrived only because he was there to celebrate Hannukah.

Some think Simeon the Just of Luke 2 was probably a Priest and maybe even the High Priest.  That this date puts the nativity during the administration of Simon Beothus is pretty interesting then.   One of the more overlooked things Josephus said about the house of Simon Beothus is that they descended from Onais IV.

In my post on the Lunar Eclipse preceding the Death of Herod, where I explain why reluctantly I may have to agree with the 4 BC Eclipse, I also broke down Luke 2 and showed that it was only John preaching against Antipas and Herodias dated to the 15th year of Tiberius, Jesus Baptism when he was almost 30 could have been earlier.

If Jesus was conceived during the Passover season of 13 BC, and then born in late December 13 BC or early January 12 BC.  Then Nissan of 37 AD would be the 49th anniversary of Jesus conception, a Jubilee.  And that’s when I believe the 70 Weeks of Daniel 9 ended.

I believe Simeon the second Bishop of Jerusalem was the same person as Simon the half brother of Jesus (in-spite of the early Catholics wanting to call him a son of Clopas).  I believe all of his half siblings were younger, since I believe Mary was their mother and Jesus was obviously her first born.  Simeon’s death is dated to 117 AD, and he was apparently 120 years old when he died, according to Eusebius (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxxii.html).  That would place the birth of Simon in 5 or 4 BC.  Assuming they were named in the order they were born, James and Joses were also older than Simon.  So that is potential evidence against my past desire to place Jesus's Birth right before Herod died.

However that date for Simeon’s death may be too late.  Since it’s also said to be while Tiberius Claudius Atticus Herodes was Governor of Judea, which was from 99-102.  However the chronology of post Josephus governors of Judea isn't established as firmly.  The scenario presented makes most sense as being in the context of the Kitos War.

This is an idea I’m considering, but not one I’m willing to consider my main theory yet.

Update March 21 2018: John The Baptist

What's interesting to me about the proposed December 23rd/24th 13 BC Birthdate is that from the calculations I did with the Lunar phases and such for the prior two years.  John The Baptist could have been born on July 7th 13 BC. On the Hebrew Calendar that's the 4th of Tammuz.

Update September 2022: I've been returning to basically this Nativity Model, but I'm now favoring December of 12 or January of 11 BC over the prior year as I had originally, with the Annunciation near the Spring Equinox of 12 BC.

When I say I think Jesus was born on December 25th

I don't necessarily mean that exactly.  But I think the basic time-frame is right.  Late December or early January.  On the Hebrew Calendar in either Kislev or Tevet.

I have a bit of a hunch it may have been the 25th day of the Month on the Hebrew Calendar, and then that got translated to December 25th by Gentile Christians.   In other words I think it highly possible Jesus was born on the First day of Hanukkah and Circumcised on the Eight Day of Hanukkah.

My past estimate that a Passover/First Fruits conception would place his Birth near the end of Tevet was based on a misunderstanding of how the Gestation cycle is counted.

Following Zola Levitt's observations about the Gestation cycle and the Leviticus 23 Feast days.  If the first month of Mary's cycle directly lined up with the month of Nisan.  Then 270 days takes us to about when Hanukkah happens.

Ya know often on the first day of Hanukkah the Moon is under the Feet of Virgo.

I still haven't made up my mind what year yet.  That's something I'll be getting into more in the future.

More about Isaiah 7 and 8.

I did a post already proving that Virginity is implied in the meaning of Almah. I want to deal now with other aspects of how people will try to discredit this as a Prophecy applicable to the time frame of 5-1 BC.

I do cautiously believe in the doctrine of duel fulfillments.  So no I'm not going to deny that this is in some way applicable to Isaiah's own time in the reign of King Ahaz, when the Northern Kingdom and Aram Damascus were allied against Judah.

I'll even concede that maybe the Prophetess who becomes Pregnant in Isaiah 8 is a lesser near fulfillment of the Almah mentioned in Isaiah 7:14.

One thing I've seen is that some people think this Prophetess is Isaiah's wife.  It's difficult to know for sure, but I've generally more leaned towards the idea that this child in question is Hezekiah and the Prophetess is Abijah also called Abi his mother, and so the Zechariah who is Abi's father is the same as Zechariah son of Jeberechiah mentioned in Isaiah 8:2.

I think the basis for interpreting her as Isaiah's wife is taking the language of 8:3 as literally saying Isaiah fathered the child.  But I don't think that is the intent here.  It could be Isaiah's personal role in this first fulfillment is played in The Nativity narrative by Simeon and/or Anna in Luke 2.

My hunch is this Prophetess Office was directly inherited from that held by both Deborah and Miriam the Sister of Moses.  Thus backing up aspects of what I argued in the Almah post about the significance of Miriam being called an Almah.  And at the time of the Birth of Christ this Prophetess Office was held by Anna of Luke's Gospel.

Maybe at some point it became standard for this Prophetess to be among the wives of The King.  Like the ceremonial marriage between King and Priestess many pagan cultures had.  The Marriage between Jehoram's daughter Jehosheba and the Priest Jehoiada may have been a similar arrangement, a marriage alliance between the Royal family and the Priesthood.

Isaiah 8:14 is terminology drawn on by Paul (Romans 9:32-33, 11:9 and 1 Corinthians 1:23) as well as 1 Peter 2:8-10.  So quoting this promised Son as being Jesus was not unique to Matthew.

The key objection many might have to applying this prophecy all the way into Isaiah 8 to the time of Jesus birth is what's said in Isaiah 8:4.

For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, "My father", and "my mother", the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.

I have argued that King Herod died during the 40 days between Jesus Birth and Presentation in The Temple.  After he died rebellions broke out in the lands Herod ruled, which did extend to include parts of Old Testament Aram.  And these were put down by Varus when he was governor of Roman Syria.  I don't think it's that hard to typologically say Rome is in the role of Assyria here.  Especially the Roman Province of Syria which was basically what the Seleucid Empire had declined to.  And the Greek name Syria is directly derived from Assyria.

Josephus talks in-depth about these campaigns.  One battle is clearly placed in the general area of Samaria.

But even if more time separated Jesus Birth from Herod's Death.  It can sometimes take a year or two before a child is able to speak.  Or that verse could refer to more then just being first able to speak.  It could make sense for a Christians to see that point in Jesus development as the Passover that Luke 2 records after it's nativity narrative.

However the argument that Isaiah 7:14 needs to be understood in the immediate context of chapters 7-8 can also be countered by pointing out that they exist in the context of the chapters around them with no clear separation, not ending till chapter 12.  Meaning this promised Child is perfectly valid to identify with the Child foretold in Chapter 9 and the Branch of Chapter 11.  The overarching theme is foretelling Israel to be carried away into captivity but also that they will one day be regathered by a Messiah.

And in Genesis God made promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that weren't fulfilled in their lifetimes.  So no there isn't a guarantee this promise made to Ahaz had to be in his, especially since he himself said he didn't need such a sign.

Venus could be the Star of Bethlehem

One of the earliest Christmas related posts on this blog was an argument for Jupiter being the Star of Bethlehem.  It was made back when I still favored the September 11th 3 BC birth-date that I now reject, as I now believe Jesus was born near December 25th, (but I've been rethinking my exact chronology).  Even after that change I stuck by the basic Star of Bethlehem theory since it still fit, it brought the Magi to Jerusalem on December 25th 2 BC.

I remain strongly convinced that the terminology of "We have seen (Observed) His Star" implies a Star that was always there and always considered His.  And that logically as one that moves around it would be a planet.

But I have since considered that given my belief in using Scripture to interpret Scripture.  To note that when The Bible associates Jesus with a star, it associates Him with the Morning Stat/Light Bringer.  Something I talked about in my post on why it's incorrect to associate The Morning Star with Satan in Isaiah 14.

The New Testament refers to Jesus as the Morning Star (Revelation 22:16) and the Day Star (2 Peter 1:19).  The Day Star reference used a poetic name for Venus "Phosphorus" which refers to the same thing Heosphorus does, and has the same meaning Lucifer has in Latin.  Phos=Lux=Light and Phorus=Ferus=Bearer/Bringer.

The Morning Star is a title of Venus, the closest Planet to Earth.  Also 1 John 4:7-16 twice says that God is Love.

I still don't know exactly what movements of Venus Matthew refers to.  Many existing theories revolving around Jupiter also involve interesting movements of Venus.  If I come to a solid theory I'll make a follow up post.

People who believe in the Gospel in The Stars/Mazzaroth theory, believe naturally that (at least some of) the Pagan associations of the stars and constellations are corruptions of their original meanings.  But they desire to see some logic in how that happened.  Which combined with patriarchal biases of mainstream Christianity makes them uncomfortable with the idea of the main star to represent Jesus being the one that most commonly becomes Feminine.

The Planet Venus was not universally Feminine.  The Canaanites also had a male deity for that Planet, Ashtar, who I mentioned in the other post.  Even in the Greco-Roman tradition there is a paradox, where it is associated with Venus/Aphrodite, but yet the star itself is viewed as a male offspring of the Dawn Goddess, also a subject of that post.  Interestingly Quetzacoatl was also associated with the Planet Venus, (maybe that's the basis for the Anime Dragon-Maid making him a woman).  Another male mythological personification of Venus is the Egyptian Sopdu, often associated with Horus (though this star name referring to Venus may be spurious).  In Japanese mythology there is Amatsu-Mikaboshi, which seems inconsistent on if it refers to Venus or the Pole-Star, Ame-No is also associated with the Pole-Star.  The Journey to The West also features Taibai Jinxing (The Gold Star of Venus).  And then there is the Norse Aurvandil who helped inspire Tolkien's Earendil.

But I also want to talk about the fact that while Jesus did incarnate as a Male, He is ultimately God/Yahuah and so ultimately gender-less.  In fact the Tetragramaton itself is arguably a Grammatically feminine name since it ends with a Heh, as are Elah and Eloah.

When Haggai calls Jesus the Desire of the Nations, the word for Desire there appears in it's Feminine form.  Most places where you see "Salvation" in the KJV, the Hebrew word is Yeshua, but in it's Feminine form, Yeshuah.  Chuck Missler argues Jesus is the Wisdom of the book of Proverbs, all three Hebrew words for Wisdom used there are grammatically feminine, and even the English Translation shows that feminine pronouns were used.

But most interestingly is that I on another blog argued for a reversal of the usual Typological Interpretation of The Song of Solomon, and argued that Shulamith is the type of Christ and The Beloved as Israel/The Church.  Chapter 2 calls Shulamith both a Rose and a Lily, both those plants have also been used to represent Aphrodite/Venus, as have Pomegranates. 

I have also argued that the Biblical significance of The Lily could be where the Six Pointed Star of David came from.  And I've argued that Bethlehem is The City of David, so it fits for the Star of David to be the Star of Bethlehem.

The Church of the Holy Sepulcher site was a Temple to Venus built by Hadrian. Many doubt that is the actual site of Golgotha, but there is evidence Christians venerated it before the time of Constantine.

Update March 2018:  Stuff I confirmed using Stelarium.

I believe Jesus rose from the Dead at Sunrise on Sunday Morning.   The day I believe that happened, April 9th 30 AD, was a day that Venus was visible in Israel in the morning as a Morning Star.

And my current 12 BC Nativity model has Venus visible in Israel as an Evening Star through when Hanukkah probably happened in December of 12 BC.

Update October 2018: Venus was also visible as an Evening Star during the early part of Hanukkah, and again for awhile after Hanukkah, in December of 26 BC.  And was specifically in the leg of Ophiuchus that is stepping on Antares the head of Scorpio.  A pretty ideal circumstance for the birth of the Seed of The Woman.

Misconceptions about the Magi and the Census

Matthew 2:1 clearly says.

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem

And yet today the notion is constantly being promoted that the Magi arrived 2 years later, or at least over a year.

The first argument for this presented is saying that Jesus was called a "child" not a "baby".  However the same Greek word translated "child" in Matthew 2:8, Luke uses in the same form in 2:17 to refer to the newborn Jesus on the day He was born.  And the form of the word used in Matthew 2:9 is used in Luke 2:21 of Jesus at his Circumcision.  So that whole argument is based on ignorance of the Greek.

That Herod ordered everyone under two years old to be killed was probably him grossly rounding up.  Matthew 2:16 clarifies Herod determined this from when they saw the Star.  And at the time Herod asked when they saw it they both may have thought the birth happened when they saw the star, but they were Human. 

God's inspired Word in Matthew 2:1 clearly and unambiguously synchronizes the Birth of Jesus to when the Magi arrived in Jerusalem, not when the Star was first seen.  God used the Star to bring them to where He wanted them when He wanted them.  And I think even if the Magi told Herod the King was probably born now not then, Herod would not have wanted to take a chance on it.

Matthew 2:8 says Herod told them to "search diligently" so he may have given them plenty of time before realizing he'd been snubbed. So I don't think the two year time frame in question cleanly begins or ends with the Birth of Jesus.

"You're placing the Presentation in The Temple between the Magi's Visit and Herod ordering the massacre" You may object. Herod wasn't always in Jerusalem, in fact most years he usually wasn't.  He may have been there when Jesus was born simply to be there for Hanukkah or whatever Holiday you think correlated to The Nativity.  So it's easily possible he wasn't there 40 days later when the Presentation happened.

Or maybe the language of Matthew 2:1 can allow the Magi to show up a little later after the 40 days, but certainly not two years.  

But there is one last argument against The Magi arriving in Jerusalem when Jesus was born, and I saved that for last because I want to use it to transition into something else.

That argument is that in Matthew 2 Jesus and His parents are living in a House not an Inn/Stable.  In the past I'd argued simply that a few days could be enough time for them to find better living quarters, as not everyone in Bethlehem when they first arrived was gonna stay there, some the Census may have been making travel even further.  But my views on that changed which I want to explain below.

The problem is much of how we picture the Birth of Jess is indeed not Biblical.  There is no Biblical account of them seeking room in an Inn and finding none.  Nor does it anywhere say He was born in a stable or a cave, that tradition comes from Christianized Rome wanting to make a cave for worshiping Adonis into a Church, thus we get the current Church of the Nativity.

The one occurrence of the word "inn" in the KJV of Luke 2:7 is mistranslated.  The Greek word is Katalumati.  The other two times it is used it is translated in the KJV "guestchamber".  It means a guest room of sorts usually located on the upper floor of a house.  It is used of the Upper Room of the Last Supper in Mark 14:14 and Luke 22:11, one of those is the same author as this verse.  In Luke 10:34-36 Luke uses a completely different Greek word for a commercial Inn, Pandoceion.

And this statement that there was no room in the Katalumati comes after Jesus is born not before, it's about where to place Him after being born.

Luke 2 also doesn't even say Jesus was born as soon as they arrived in Bethlehem.  Verses 1-5 tell us the Census brought them to Bethlehem, and then verse 6 says while they were there the time for Mary to give Birth came.   They could have been in Bethlehem for weeks or even months.  Which also addresses the common criticism of making Mary travel this far at a full 9 months.  I now think that she may well have been only 4 or 5 months pregnant when they traveled to Bethlehem.

Here is a decade old article I found arguing much of what I've argued here, though some aspects of it I may disagree with. 
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/11/08/The-Manger-and-the-Inn.aspx

[Better Link]

https://biblearchaeology.org/research/chronological-categories/new-testament-era/2803-the-manger-and-the-inn

Some theories about the nativity bring up a question of "how did the Shepherds know where in Bethlehem to look" something brought up for both the Migdal Eder theories and supporting the traditional site saying it was a famous rock formation that looked like a Manger.  However I don't think finding them was difficult because I think only one baby was born in that city that day and it was probably the talk of the town.

So there is in fact nothing in Luke's account to definitively contradict a theory that Jesus was born in a house that Joseph (or his family) owned.  Yet I myself was still clouded by these misconceptions when I made all my previous Christmas relevant posts.  

It's possible there was no room in the guest chamber because others of the House of David were also staying there at this time.

Which is why I want to move on to the Census now.

When refuting the common assertion that a Roman census would never require such traveling on message boards I would copy/paste the following which I no longer remember where exactly I got it from.

First of all, lets look at a few early census accounts taken from history and see how they matchup with the Bible:

The following is a record of a census taken in the year 104 A.D. which contains similar wording to that found in the Gospel:

"From the Prefect of Egypt, Gaius Vibius Maximus. Being that the time has come for the house to house census, it is mandatory that
all men who are living outside of their districts return to their own homelands, that the census may be carried out."

Another census was uncovered from 48 A.D.which also records a return of the people to their native land for the census. It reads as follows:

"I Thermoutharion along with Apollonius, my guardian, pledge an oath to Tiberius Claudius Caesar that the preceding document gives an accurate account of those returning, who live in my household, and that there is no one else living with me, neither a foreigner, nor an Alexandrian, nor a freedman, nor a Roman citizen, nor an Egyptian. If I am telling the truth, may it be well with me, but if falsely, the reverse. In the ninth year of the reign of Tiberius Claudius Augustus Germanicus Emperor."

It is interesting to note that these two census accounts required a person to return to their homeland to be registered. The same is true of the Gospel account.

The response I got (that at the time I wasn't ready to respond to) was that the point of these was to bring land owners to where they owned their land, not the hometown of a distant ancestor from a thousand years ago.  (Another objection is that these were Egyptian customs, but it's logical to speculate that similar ones were done in neighboring provinces).

That notion seems inconsistent with the Nativity narrative only because of the extra-Biblical assumptions I just addressed.

The reason these Census instructions were needed is because clearly many people were living somewhere other then where they actually owned their property.

Remember, the word translated "Carpenter" in reference to Joseph could also very likely imply he was actually an Architect.  He may have been in Galilee because of a construction project, perhaps one of Herod's many.  And of course those insisting Nazareth is too young a city to be the Biblical one suggest it was at most brand new when Jesus was born.  Maybe Joseph was helping build Nazareth?  Or Sepphoris which wasn't too far away?

This Census, (whichever one it was, I'll try to tackle that in the future), then required him to return home sooner then originally planned.

And if my argument that Bethlehem is "Zion, which is the City of David" is true. Then that adds a lot to the above observations.  As we now see that David's family never stopped being linked to Bethlehem after they became Royalty.

Now I've seen someone argue that Nazareth not Bethlehem must be their hometown in Luke because of Luke 2:39.  Well Luke 2:3 says they are to return to their "own city", so if Luke 2:39 is calling Nazareth their "own City" in contrast to Bethlehem then you're not even dealing with an inconsistency with other sources but accusing Luke 2 of being inconsistent with itself.  Since no one accuses Luke of being garbled together from different authors like they do some other books, that option isn't really viable.  Luke 2:39 is simply about Nazareth becoming their new hometown after deciding to move there permanently, with Matthew 2 providing the reasons why this change in residence happened.  It may be that the English simply words this misleadingly.

Now this doesn't change that events of Matthew 1 take place while Mary and Joseph were in Nazareth even though Matthew doesn't mention Nazareth in that chapter.  But Matthew doesn't mention Bethlehem in that chapter either, Bethlehem is first mentioned in Matthew 2 when Jesus was born, and six to nine months separated the events of chapters 1 and 2.  In fact the way Bethlehem is specified in Matthew 2:1 could be taken as implying that's not where they were previously.

And it's still possible that Mary was indigenous to Nazareth.  Maybe Joseph met and courted her while in Nazareth on business.  Or maybe this arranged marriage is what first brought him there.  But the fact that Luke gives us the impression that the events of Matthew 1 didn't happen till three months into Mary's pregnancy makes the most sense if we presume Joseph was living in Bethlehem when the Annunciation and Visitation happened, and came to Nazareth for the wedding a few months later.

I don't think Jesus was born on a Leviticus 23 Holy Day

I've already done one post where I explained why historically I find it highly implausible, I don't think Rome would have forced everyone to be at a specific location so close to any of the Pilgrimage Festivals.

Still, there are some people in the Torah Observant and Hebrew Roots communities who seem darn near like the Holy Days are Idols to them.  Insisting "They are Yahweh's Appointed Times, of course Yeshua could only be born then", ignoring any history based arguments besides the common anti December 25th Memes that I've firmly refuted.

Remember how people used to mock the title of Star Wars Episode VII?  "The Force doesn't Sleep".  Well it seems like some Christians think Yahuah sleeps over 300 days a year, and wakes up only on those Leviticus appointed times.

In Exodus 16 in the very next month after Yahuah initiated the calendar, He does something significant on a day not mentioned in Leviticus 23.  And later the Book of Esther ordains Purim.

Other Anti-Christmas people start with how The Bible never calls for celebrating Birthdays at all, and every reference to Birthdays seem to be about Pagans celebrating them.  So maybe that's a good argument against Jesus being born on an Appointed Time?

But of course since these people are usually Pro-Lifers, I could point out that perhaps they should consider the Conception date more important, the time of the Annunciation and Visitation.  And the traditional date for Jesus Birth places that around Passover, it is inherently linked to Early Christians believing (before Constantine) that Jesus Conception should logically happen around the same time as His Death and Resurrection.  It's the Conceptions of Jesus and John, being Six months apart, that start the New Testament narrative chronologically, not their births.

It was first Zola Levitt who discovered a compelling correlation between the Gestation process and the Leviticus 23 Holy Days.  And Rob Skiba, one of the most adamant anti-Christmas people out there right now, endorses that idea, including a video about it on his Virtual House Church website, on the page for Week 15, Bo.
http://www.virtualhousechurch.com/biblestudies/exodus-week-15

That begins with placing the sequence of biological events we commonly call "Conception" on the Spring Feasts in Nissan.  That the Early Church Fathers, having no knowledge of any of these modern Scientific facts, for totally separate reasons concluded that Jesus was conceived at that time, I find an awfully compelling coincidence.

What's interesting then is to try, though it's not easy, to follow the chronology of Exodus after the first Passover, and see what if anything there can be estimated to happen about Nine Months later.

In Exodus 18 and 19 the giving of what we commonly call The Ten Commandments is placed in the Third Month, now known as Sivan, and generally conjectured to be Pentecost.

In Exodus 24:18 to chapter 32, after the initial Covenant had been given and ratified, Moses goes up into the Mount for 40 days and 40 nights.  It's difficult to be certain when this was.  But it's common to theorize it as basically Elul and the first 10 days of Tishri.  It was near the end of this Period the Golden Calf was made, and there is potential typological significance to it being in early Tishri or late Elul, when the Abomination of Desolation will likely happen.

Stuff happens after that, and then in Exodus 34:27-28 Moses goes up again for another 40 days because now the Tablets have to be replaced.

Exodus 40:2&17 tell us that the Tabernacle was first set up on the first day of the first month of the second year, that is almost a full year since the first Passover.

Between the end of the second 40 day period, and the start of the second year, it was mostly the creating of The Tabernacle and everything needed for it that they were doing.  And it does seem the first priority was building The Ark of The Covenant.  Could it make sense to place the construction of the Ark as being on the Birth and/or Circumcision day of Christ?  Or maybe it'd be fitting if the Menorah was originally made during what would become Hanukkah?

Is it possible the second 40 day period may have correlated to the 40 days and nights that it rained in Genesis 7?  Which is commonly viewed as beginning on the 17th of Heshvan and ending during the 8 days that would become Hanukkah? 

That's another thing.  In the Torah observant branch of the Anti-Christmas movement, it commonly goes hand in hand with arguing for Hanukkah.  Other Anti-Christmas people also hate Hanukkah (though Hanukkah receives hate from pro-Christmas people as well).  Well I've been a Hanukkah defender on this Blog.  And the fact is I've also seen it argued that Hanukkah is a reason for placing Jesus birth at that time of year.  Him being the Light of The World and so forth.

And to a great extent reasons for placing Jesus birth at Tabernacles can be transferred to Hanukkah, but without the Pilgrimage problems.  I firmly believe the real origin of Hanukkah is Haggai 2, where it is essentially ordained as a Second Tabernacles.  And the First and Second Maccabees accounts of their Hanukkah also back that up.

The first Thanksgiving was actually in September.  And many have argued it originates from celebrating Tabernacles.  Perhaps that Holiday getting moved from the month named the Seventh Month to the month named the Ninth Month has something to do with how Hanukkah relates to Tabernacles?

Of course my initial main argument was for Jesus being born in Tevet.  But I'm less certain on my exact chronology now since I've possibly changed my view on the Lunar Eclipse preceding the Death of Herod. 

So I'm still working out the details.  But I now believe Jesus was born at the earliest in late November and at the latest in early February.

And as I was still writing this, it occurred to me, what if there is some relevance to the start of Leviticus 24?  What Yahuah talked about right after finishing the Leviticus 23 Appointed Times?  Since our modern chapter divisions weren't in the original text.  And that just so happens to be about The Menorah, and then talk of frankincense.  Almost as if The Holy Spirit wanted to tell me something before I finished this.

And then Leviticus 25 to the end is mainly about the Sabbatical Cycle and The Jubilee, showing He wasn't done with The Calendar when 23 ended.

In my attempts to do searches for others who might have thought the same thing.  I am seeing a common argument that it was nine months spent building The Tabernacle.  So far no sign of anyone using this as evidence for the Birth-date of Jesus, but it would be attractive to those who place his Birth in Nissan.  This estimate fudges the dates, they could not have begun building the Tabernacle till after Moses came down from the first period of 40 days.  The soonest that could have ended was maybe in Tammuz, but as I said it was probably much later Moses even went up there.

The completion of the Tabernacle's construction is recorded in Exodus 39.  Then early in 40 the instruction to set it up on the First Day of the new year is given.  Then later in that chapter that is recorded.  So perhaps it can be assumed the Tabernacle was done significantly before it was set up?  Not unlike Solomon's Temple.

Perhaps the first 40 day period, which ended with the Golden Calf incident, was really most of Tammuz and early Av, making a link between that period of Sin and the dates the associated with The Temples' destruction much later.  And the second 40 days were Elul and the beginning of Tishrei.  And the Tabernacle was completed in Kislev or Tevet?

The Lunar Eclipse preceding the Death of Herod The Great

I have in the past long favored the January 1 BC Eclipse.  But I have recently come to feel the mainstream view of it being the March 4 BC Eclipse is more supportable then we thought.

This may change my view on the year Jesus was born but it won't significantly for when in the year.

Herod died when Passover was the next High Holy Day no matter what, and I still feel strongly convinced that comparing Matthew and Luke's accounts must place Herod's death before Jesus was presented in The Temple on the 40th Day.  Unless some really shocking chronological argument can be made.  Because I feel it doesn't make sense for the presentation to happen in Jerusalem before the Magi arrive.  So Jesus was most likely born in a winter month.

Taken from this exchange.

There are three principal reasons why the 4 B.C. date has prevailed over 1 B.C. These reasons were articulated by Emil Schürer in A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, also published in the 19th century. First, Josephus informs us that Herod died shortly before a Passover (Antiquities 17.9.3, The Jewish War 2.1.3), making a lunar eclipse in March (the time of the 4 B.C. eclipse) much more likely than one in December.

Second, Josephus writes that Herod reigned for 37 years from the time of his appointment in 40 B.C. and 34 years from his conquest of Jerusalem in 37 B.C. (Antiquities 17.8.1, War1.33.8). Using so-called inclusive counting, this, too, places Herod’s death in 4 B.C.

Third, we know that the reign over Samaria and Judea of Herod’s son and successor Archelaus began in 4 B.C., based on the fact that he was deposed by Caesar in A.U.C. (Anno Urbis Conditae [in the year the city was founded]) 759, or A.D. 6, in the tenth year of his reign (Dio Cassius, Roman History 55.27.6; Josephus, Antiquities 17.13.2). Counting backward his reign began in 4 B.C. In addition, from Herod the Great’s son and successor Herod Antipas, who ruled over Galilee until 39 B.C., who ordered the execution of John the Baptist (Mark 6:14–29) and who had a supporting role in Jesus’ trial (Luke 23:7–12), we have coins that make reference to the 43rd year of his rule, placing its beginning in 4 B.C. at the latest (see Morten Hørning Jensen, “Antipas—The Herod Jesus Knew,” BAR, September/October 2012).

Thus, Schürer concluded that “Herod died at Jericho in B.C. 4, unwept by those of his own house, and hated by all the people.”

Jeroen H.C. Tempelman
New York, New York

While I know you can play games on how to reckon what Josephus said of the length of Herod's reign.  The argument we've made that the reigns of Antipas and Archelus must have included Co-Regencies simply doesn't work.  The death of Antipater is synchronized to the Death of Herod, Herod died 5 days later.  So you can't move Herod's death to a later year but keep Antipater's in 4 BC as I've seen some but not all 1 BC arguments do.  It was after Antipater died that Herod changed his will to the arrangement that wound up happening.

The reference connecting the Eclipse to a Fast has been used by 1 BC and September 5 BC advocates to support making it Yom Kippur.  This connects to a desire to see any unspecified Fast as Yom Kippur even though that day isn't stickily a Fast day though it's popular to Fast on it, and is not even the main fast day of it's own month. (that would be Yom Gedlaiah, the third of Tishri).

Here is the thing I've noticed that even most arguing for the March 4 BC Eclipse overlook.  What Josephus says is that the Eclipse of the Moon happened the night the Fast day ended, no gap.

First in case you didn't know, Jewish days begin and end at Sunset.

Second the Biblical New Moon/Rosh Codesh is the first visible crescent, not the day the Moon is invisible.  So Full Moons (the only day a Lunar Eclipse can happen) are the 14th day of each Hebrew Month, not the 15th as the Blood Moon theorists claimed.

In other words, this Fast must have been the Thirteenth day of it's Hebrew Month. So that doesn't fit Yom Kippur which is the 10th, or any of the 4 major Fast days linked to the fall of Jerusalem which are the 9th, 17th, 3rd and 10th days of their months.

The only Jewish Fast day we know of that was being kept at that time that would have been the 13th day of the Month, was the Fast of Esther, which is the 13th of Adar, the day before Purim.  Meaning this Full Moon was Purim, meaning of the 4 lunar eclipses considered likely, only March 4 BC fits.

Now I should mention that since I and others have seen "Blood Moons" on Full Moons that neither Stelarium or other Astronomers recognize as such (like in August of 2015).  I'm not confident the Eclipse Josephus mentioned can be identified by any modern means at all.  But either way it must be a 14th day of a Month and of known Fasts only Adar has one on the 13th.

Now the argument still remains that one month between the Eclipse and Passover doesn't quite seem enough for everything Josephus says happened.  It could be there was a Second Adar (Modern Rabbinic Judaism observes Purim in 2nd Adar but the Biblical reckoning favored by Kariates which may have still been the one used at this time clearly defines it as in the 12th Month which second Adar wouldn't be).  Or maybe all these events caused Passover to be pushed back to Second Passover.  Or maybe Joesphus who sometimes was less chronological then you'd expect wasn't putting as much in that time-frame as we think.

Some have calculated 20 or 21 days from the Death of Herod till Passover.  Which could put the Death of Herod on the 25th of Adar, same day traditionally viewed as the Death of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 52:31).

Is it possible Jesus was presented in The Temple on the first of Nisan?  Same day the Tabernacle was first set up according to Exodus 40?  Or that his birth was Shevet 24, the day Zechariah was given the Prophecy recorded in Chapter 1 verses 7-16?  Would not quite match the traditional date but be closer to it then others.

The main reason why many Christians regardless of what day of the year they favor feel the need to push Herod's death later is assumptions that I feel are mistaken about what we're told in Luke 3.

 Another factor is a desire to affiliate the Census of Luke 2 with a 3 or 2 BC Oath of Obedience to Augustus, which I've argued for myself in the past.  But I now just focus on that the main Imperial Censusus Augustus ordered he allowed 5 years to be carried out in the various regions, so you can go with the 8 BC Census and still have it carried out in Judea, Syria and Cyrene anywhere between then and 3 BC.

The first error of how we commonly view Luke 3 is saying it placed the Baptism of Jesus when he began to be about 30 in the 15th Year of Tiberius.  But it doesn't, the reference to the 15th Year of Tiberius at the start of the Chapter is totally unconnected to the Baptism account.  Paul in Acts 13 says John "Completed his course" before he Baptized Jesus. I'm not sure what that means exactly. but I think it's good evidence against assuming the Baptism was the same year John began his ministry or any other key event of Luke 3.  But doesn't rule it out entirely either.

BTW, I've become convinced of an argument that what Luke meant by the Greek phrase translated "Began to be about 30" was that Jesus was "almost" 30.

Luke 3 is clearly not being purely strictly Chronological since verse 20 has John put in Prison then verse 21 describes his Baptism of Jesus.

Luke 3:1-2 tells us that the "Word of God" came unto John in the wilderness in the 15th Year of Tiberius.  Then we get a basic account of who John was and what he was doing.  Then it talks about him preaching against Antipas and Heordias and getting imprisoned for it.

It could be the 15th Year of Tiberius is when he preached against Herod Antipas marriage to Heordias, (perhaps because that was the year he married her) and was imprisoned for it.  And that this doesn't tell us when John began his ministry at all.  And so both that and Jesus Baptism could have preceded the 15th year of Tiberius.

My argument above would have Jesus turn 30 before Passover in early 27 AD.

I'm not entirely willing to throw out the chronology of Jesus Birth I argued for before.  But I feel I must acknowledge that the 4 BC Death of Herod is fitting pretty well with my latest research.

I absolutely still believe Jesus ministry was less then a year.  And still heavily favor 30 AD as the Crucifixion. date.  What I'm now willing to consider is that there was more time then you'd expect between the Baptism and the beginning of His proper Ministry.

Luke 4 tells us his time in the Wilderness and Temptation was soon after his Baptism.  Then He returned to Galilee and had a local ministry of sorts for an unspecified amount of time (Luke 4:14-15).  Then Luke 4:16 begins the account of His proper main Ministry.

Returning to the Eclipse in question.  The argument for the Fast being Yom Kippur is the emphasis on the High Priest having duties that day.  As the Jewish Encyclopedia says.  While Yom Kippur is the busiest day of the year for the High Priest, it's not the only day he has responsibilities.  At any-rate if Josephus was exaggerating when he made it sound like the Eclipse was the very next day, which is what you'd have to argue for it to be Yom Kippur, then the statement mostly becomes chronologically useless.  If it was Yom Kippur then it still must have been the next full moon which makes only the September 15 5 BC fit in which case the next Passover is still the same Passover.

Christmas relevant posts of this Blog

I figured for December I'd make and post here some Christmas related posts' Tiny URL Links (For why making TinyURLS for this Blog is important)

Jesus was born around December 25th
http://tinyurl.com/December25th

http://preview.tinyurl.com/December25th

Pagan Winter Solstice Holidays linked to Christmas
http://tinyurl.com/PaganChristmas

http://preview.tinyurl.com/PaganChristmas

September 11th 3 BC Birth-date theory debunked
http://tinyurl.com/zeycvqv

http://preview.tinyurl.com/zeycvqv

Response to Rob Skiba made back when I still didn't support December 25th
http://tinyurl.com/RobSkiba

http://preview.tinyurl.com/RobSkiba

Jupiter is the Star of Bethlehem
http://tinyurl.com/JupiterBethlehem

http://preview.tinyurl.com/JupiterBethlehem

Cyrenius does not mean Quirinius
http://tinyurl.com/NotQuirinius

http://preview.tinyurl.com/NotQuirinius

The Census of Luke (first made back when I still assumed Cyrenius was Quirinius
http://tinyurl.com/LukeCensus

http://preview.tinyurl.com/LukeCensus

Almah does mean Virgin
http://tinyurl.com/AlmahVirgin

http://preview.tinyurl.com/AlmahVirgin

Heli of Luke's Genealogy is the father of Mary not Joseph
http://tinyurl.com/MaryBathHeli

http://preview.tinyurl.com/MaryBathHeli

Hanukkah is a Biblical Holy Day
http://tinyurl.com/HanukkahIsBiblical

http://preview.tinyurl.com/HanukkahIsBiblical

The Desire of Women
http://tinyurl.com/DesireOfWomen

http://preview.tinyurl.com/DesireOfWomen

Possible Hasmonenan ancestry of The Virgin Mary
http://tinyurl.com/HasmoneanMary

http://preview.tinyurl.com/HasmoneanMary

A Hanukkah and Christmas relevant post from my SolaScripturaChristianLiberty BlogSpot blog
http://tinyurl.com/h8hyd58

http://preview.tinyurl.com/h8hyd58