Let me see how succinct I can be:
Matthew says Joseph was afraid to take Jesus into Judea because of Archelaus. Luke says Joseph left Jesus in Galilee every year at Passover time, until he was 12. I say these two things have got to be related! Archelaus left Judea forever in the middle of 6 AD. Therefore, Joseph took Jesus to Passover in March, 7 AD. Jesus might have turned 13 the day they got back from that trip, but he was "12" while they stayed at the festival.
This is a new place to start all chronological work on the Lord's life... If true, then Jesus was born somewhere between April of 7 BC and April of 6 BC. The year 7 BC is also when Saturninus governed Syria (and held a census, according to Tertullian). The year 7 BC also fits Kepler's theory on the star of Bethlehem. AND, if 7 BC is Jesus' first calendar year on the planet as a human being, then 33 AD was his 40th! Finally, if Jesus was born in May of 7 BC, then it's possible the ascension took place very near his 39th birthday, which of course would be the very first day of his 40th year. (Not to put too much weight on numerology, of course!) ;)
I get emotional thinking that God needed to "prove" his Son's humanity for 40 years, but the Father brought him home at the start of that 40th year. Enough was enough. One day of that year counted as much as the whole year. ("Part of an omer is all of an omer.")
In May of 33 AD, after 39 years and at least one more day, the Father simply couldn't stand to be that apart from his son any longer.
Now, that's deeply touching to me. But numerology isn't why I believe this is true. I believe it because of the Math. If Matthew 2:22 explains Luke 2:41-42, then that puts Luke 2:41-51 in 7 AD, which puts Jesus' birth sometime less than 12 months prior to March of 6 BC. So Jesus was born as early as April of May of 7 BC. And then, yeah, his 40th year started as early as April or May of 33 AD.
I still can't believe nobody else ever said this before... but I'm saying it now.
I believe this gives us a new beginning for chronological work on the Lord's life, and perhaps the entire New Testament.
Ask me a question! :)
kat and dennis - I've erased your comments here simply because they were too incredibly long. I'm hoping to get some conversation below this post someday. However, if you'll both post your own theories on your own blogs, I'll be happy to come converse there about them. Or send my your e-mail, dennis. And kat, keep watching yours. Thanks for your understanding.
I agree with your date of 7 BC. At that time the Babylonian astronomers (Magi) would have interpreted the "stars and planets" according to their teaching. I am a devote christian I am not an astrologer. However, they were and in 7 BC there was an alignment of planets that would have told them that a king was born to the Jews. In 7 BC Jupiter and Saturn were aligned in Pisces three consecutive times. These Astrologers believed that Saturn meant "shield of Palestine" Jupiter meant "King or Ruler" and Pisces to them was "the constellation of Palestine". So naturally they would have read this as there was a king born in Palestine that was to be a shield for the Jewish people. Thats what drove them to go to Jerusalem. They followed the stars. This fits with the other things happening in 7 BC.
Jamaican_George, I've deleted your comment because it was the same as a whole post you made at your new blog. My readers can follow the link I just made if they want to see what you typed.
Thanks for saying hi, and enjoy the world of blogging.
The date for Jesus birth in the Urantia book is also 7 BC (printed in 1955). You can read online at urantia.org.
What about Oct. 2, 7 BC, the day of atonement? Seems highly likely.
On what grounds, Mitch? Symbolism? If so, then why not suggest Pentecost, because Jesus was the "first fruits" of a new Creation? Or why not Tabernacles, because He came to build God a new House on the Earth?
It all reflects Him, but none of that is a reason to locate his birthday, so far as I know.
oyu are 100% correct the birth in passover 7bc. However the star was never over Bethlehem it was over Nazareth
I'm sure you know that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke both disagree with you, Pete.
You know, for whatever that's worth!
Well Done Bill! I just want you to know that Dr Barbara Theiring, a Sydney Uni expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls, has independently dated Jesus' birth at March 1st, 7BC. See
her 1992 book: 'Jesus The Man,' pages 58 & 283. A 7BC date is also astronomically very likely, and there are many more scholars who would support that date. I'm a semi-retired scientist, and Maths/ Physics tutor, Brisbane, Australia
writing a book quoting "7BC" in
related topics: (Dr) John Coles,
December 26th, 2010
A number of scholars mention 7 BC here and there. But why Theiring (who throws out most of the Gospels and writes her own ridiculously revisionistic biography of Jesus) would care about anything to do with the "Bethlehem Star" is beyond me.
At any rate, I'm glad you stopped by. Thanks again for the compliment.
7 BC was a unique year when the two planets, Jupiter and Saturn, were "triple conjuncting" in the sign of Pisces.
I am no bible scholar but I heard a television commentary in which the host was giving his reasons for Jesus having been born in 4 or 5 BC, maybe earlier. That made me think that 7 BC would make sense because Jesus would have spent 40 years in the wilderness of this world and then ascended to the "promised land", His kingdom in heaven. Unlike the first exodus this one was walked out in the perfect will of the Father. I looked up "Jesus born in 7 BC" to see if anyone else had thought about this and found your post with a more scholarly approach to the subject. Thank you.
According to the Catholic stigmatist Catherine Emmerich, who died around 1820, Jesus was born on November 25th, 7 BC! I know some readers might find this hard to believe, but Catherine Emmerich had an in-depth knowledge of the life and times of Christ, speaking Aramaic, Latin and Greek during her visions (even though she was uneducated). Furthermore, she used ancient Aramaic words and expressions which scholars of her time were unfamiliar with, but which were later proved to be accurate and authentic 1st century Aramaic.
Post a Comment