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.
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 Cap-stoned 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 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 place the Doubting Thomas incident on the anniversary of The Circumcision 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?
No comments:
Post a Comment