Jesus Was Born On: 11th September 3 BC

[AFrazier]

I beg to differ with you. It has been a well researched and studied subject by a team of astronomers and scientists in the early to mid 90's who discovered what the Star of Bethlehem was as well as the birth of Jesus. Review the following:

The Birth of Jesus and the Day of Trumpets

The historical evidence I have presented in this book shows that Jesus was born in the year 3 B.C.E. It appears most probable that a late summer birth in 3 B.C.E. has the best credentials. I need not rehearse my reasons for this, but they are very strong. Indeed, the evidence from the priestly courses alone suggests that a September nativity is the most likely. This gives a pretty close approximation that most scholars would probably accept as reasonable. But now, we come to the nitty-gritty! To propose an early evening birth on September 11, 3 B.C.E. appears almost impossible to believe. To get that close to his time of birth might at first seem to be fanciful.

The fact is, however, I can state without a shadow of a doubt, that the celestial scene described by the apostle John in Revelation 12:1-5, if viewed astronomically, would center precisely on a New Moon date within mid-September, and that in 3 B.C.E. that exact celestial phenomenon would have occurred in the early evening of September 11th. I can also state with assurance that sundown on September 11, 3 B.C.E. was also the beginning of the Jewish New Year (Rosh ha-Shanah ― The Day of Trumpets).

Even if the apostle John were only giving the symbolic time for Jesus' nativity, and not the actual, we are provided with a great deal of insight on how early Christians interpreted significant periods of time on the holy calendar of Israel. If Jesus were actually born onRosh ha-Shanah (the Day of Trumpets) in 3 B.C.E., a most impressive astronomical panorama of events burst forth on the scene that would have awed and astonished most Jewish people who lived at the time. Truly, this is not an exaggeration.

The Importance of the Day of Trumpets

Look at the celestial events that occurred around that Rosh ha-Shanah date of September 11th in 3 B.C.E. Exactly one month before (on August 12) the world would have witnessed the close conjunction of Jupiter (reckoned astrologically as the Father) and Venus (the Mother) when they were only .07 degrees from one another when they appeared as morning stars on the eastern horizon. This was a very close union. But then, nineteen days later (August 31), Venus came to within .36 degrees of Mercury in a very similar astronomical display.

Then, on September 11th, the New Moon occurred which represented the Jewish New Year. This happened when Jupiter (the King planet) was then approaching Regulus (the King star). And, on September 14, Jupiter and Regulus came to their first of three conjunctions in this extraordinary year. Then, over an eight month period, Jupiter made its "crowning effect" over the King star Regulus. There could hardly have been a better astronomical testimony to the birth of the new messianic king from the Jewish point of view. Why? Because every one of these celestial occurrences I have mentioned happened with the Sun or planets being positioned within the constellation of Leo the Lion (the constellation of Judah - from whence the Messiah was destined to emerge) or in Virgo the Virgin. The apostle John may have seen importance in these extraordinary occurrences when he symbolically showed that Jesus was born at the New Moon of Tishri, the Day of Trumpets (Revelation 12:1-3).

What we now need to do is to rehearse some of the typical and figurative features of the biblical accounts associated with this particular day. They may well reveal why John and early Christians looked on Jesus as the Christ and the king of the universe. The Day of Trumpets was a special day that symbolically showed this rule.

Jesus Was Born on the Day of Trumpets

If one can realize that the New Testament shows Jesus born on the Day of Trumpets (the first day of Tishri ― the start of the Jewish civil year) an impressive amount of symbolic features emerge on the biblical and prophetic scenes. Before the period of the Exodus in the time of Moses, this was the day that began the biblical year. It also looks like this was the day when people were advanced one year of life ― no matter at what month of the year they were actually born.

Notice that the patriarch Noah became 600 years of age "in the first month [Tishri], the first day of the month [later to be called the Day of Trumpets]" (Genesis 8:13). That was the very day when "Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry" (v. 13). This was not only Noah's official birthday, it became a new birth after the Flood for the earth as well.

There is more. Even the first day of creation mentioned in Genesis 1:1-5 could be reckoned as being this very day. The early Jews discussed whether the actual creation took place in spring or in autumn. But since the autumn commenced all biblical years before the Exodus (Exodus 12:2), and since all the fruit was then on the trees ready for Adam and Eve to eat (Genesis 1:29; 2:9, 16-17), it suggests that the month of Tishri was the creation month, beginning near the autumn. If so, then the first day of creation mentioned in Genesis was also the first of Tishri (at least, Moses no doubt intended to give that impression). This means that not only was this the birthday of the new earth in Noah's day and what was later to become the Day of Trumpets on the Mosaic calendar, but it was also the day which ushered in the original creation of the heavens and the earth.

As shown before, among the Jews this day was called Rosh ha-Shanah (the Feast of the New Year). The majority belief of Jewish elders (which still dominates the services of the synagogues) was that the Day of Trumpets was the memorial day that commemorated the beginning of the world. Authorized opinion prevailed that the first of Tishri was the first day of Genesis 1:1-5. It "came to be regarded as the birthday of the world." 1 It was even more than an anniversary of the physical creation. The Jewish historian Theodor H. Gaster states,

"Judaism regards New Year's Day not merely as an anniversary of creation ― but more importantly ― as a renewal of it. This is when the world is reborn." 2

Gaster's insight is so germane to the interpretation of the significance of biblical festivals that I will be referring to his research several times in my following references.

When Was the "Last Trump"?

The matter does not stop there. Each of the Jewish months was officially introduced by the blowing of trumpets (Numbers 10:10). Since the festival year in which all the Mosaic festivals were found was seven months long, the last month (Tishri) was the last month for a festival trumpet. This is one of the reasons that the day was called "the Day of Trumpets." The last trump in the seven months' series was always sounded on this New Moon day. This made it the final trumpets' day (Leviticus 23:24; Numbers 29:1).

This was the exact day that many of the ancient kings and rulers of Judah reckoned as their inauguration day of rule. This procedure was followed consistently in the time of Solomon, Jeremiah, and Ezra 3 The Day of Trumpets was also acknowledged as the time for counting the years of their kingly rule. Indeed, it was customary that the final ceremony in the coronation of kings was the blowing of trumpets.

For Solomon,

"Blow ye the trumpet, and say, 'God save king Solomon'" (1 Kings 1:34).

For Jehu, "And [they] blew with trumpets, saying, 'Jehu is king'" (2 Kings 9:13).

At the enthronement of Jehoash, "The people of the land rejoiced, and blew with trumpets" (2 Kings 11:11).

There could well be a reflection of this symbolic feature in the New Testament. The Day of Trumpets was the time for the start of the seventh month (since the time of Moses), and the time for the "last trump" to introduce festival months. Note that in the Book of Revelation, we have the record of a heavenly angel who will blow the seventh and last trumpet blast. And recall what happens at the exact time this "last trump" is sounded.

"And the seventh angel sounded [blew the last trump]; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, 'The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ; and he shall reign forever and ever [for the ages of the ages].' Revelation 11:15

In New Testament parlance this shows the time of the coronation of Jesus, and it happens at the seventh (or last) trump in the Book of Revelation ― the Day of Trumpets.

Further Significance of the Day of Trumpets

The early Jews also recognized that the Day of Trumpets was a memorial day for considering those who had died. It was not a simple type of "Memorial Day" that we moderns are accustomed to. Gaster said it was a symbolic time when "the dead return to rejoin their descendants at the beginning of the year." 4 Such a day was a time when Israel would rally to the call of God for the inauguration of God's kingdom on earth. Gaster also states this was the time that became "a symbol of the Last Trump." 5 Since the apostle Paul was Jewish, it is possible that his reference to the "Last Trump" and the resurrection from the dead was also connected with the same biblical theme. The "Last Trump" of the early Jews was when the dead were remembered. To Paul the "Last Trump" was the time for Jesus' second advent and the resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians 15:52; 1 Thessalonians 4:16).

Truly, the Day of Trumpets theme is that of kingship. There may even be a reference to this in the elevation of the patriarch Joseph to kingship on this New Moon day which began the month of Tishri. Notice that he had been in a dungeon for "two full years" (Genesis 41:1). It was not simply a two year period which Moses was intending, but the passage oftwo full years. The implication is that the story of Joseph's rise to kingship happened on a New Year's Day. This is manifest in Psalm 81, a New Year's psalm commemorating Joseph's royal enthronement (Genesis 41:40). As with Jesus, in Revelation 11:15, the kingdoms of the world became Joseph's on the day intended for coronations ― the day that later became the Day of Trumpets. Of course, Pharaoh retained top leadership, but as the New Testament shows, God the Father still maintains supreme rule over Jesus even when Jesus is prophesied to rule the kingdoms of this world.

The Crowning of Kings

As we have shown from the Bible, the blowing of trumpets was the sign that kings could then begin to rule (1 Kings 1:34; 2 Kings 9:13; 11:11). Jewish authorities long acknowledged this royal import to the Day of Trumpets. Gaster states, "The Sovereignty of God is a dominant theme of the occasion [and] it is one of the cardinal features of New Year's Day." 6 The main issue that prevailed in the significance of the day was the triumph of God as a king over all the forces of evil. The symbolic motif of the Day of Trumpets, as Gaster shows, was God

"continually fighting His way to the Kingdom, continually asserting His dominion, and continually enthroning Himself as sovereign of creation. At New Year when the world was annually reborn that sovereignty was evinced anew." 7

The theological thrust of the early Jews within their synagogue services for the Day of Trumpets was the fact that God rules over all and that he is the King of kings. On Trumpets it was common to quote Zechariah 14:16. "The king, the Lord of hosts." Indeed, some scholars have suggested that psalms which begin "Yahweh is become king [or 'The Lord reigns']" (Psalm 93 and 97) were originally designed for recitation at the New Year festival." 8 Recent study shows this to be true. It is postulated by many scholars that in Israel, Yahweh was crowned annually at the "New Year feast of Yahweh." The scholar Mowinckel has argued that the "enthronement psalms" (Psalms 47, 93, 96-99) in which Yahweh reigns were a part of the liturgy of the ancient synagogues. 9 There is no doubt that this is true. This was also the very day when Jesus was born.

Jesus as the King of Kings

The central theme of the Day of Trumpets is clearly that of enthronement of the great King of kings. This was the general understanding of the day in early Judaism and it is certainly that of the New Testament. In Revelation 11:15, recall that the seventh angel sounds his "last trump" and the kingdoms of this world become those of Jesus. This happens at a time when a woman is seen in heaven with twelve stars around her head and the Sun mid-bodied to her, with the Moon under her feet. This is clearly a New Moon scene for the Day of Trumpets.

And note: Professor Thorley who reviewed the first edition of my work has shown that there are exactly twelve stars surrounding the head of Virgo as we see them from earth. And indeed there are. If one will look at Norton's Star Atlas, twelve visible stars will be seen around Virgo's head. They are (according to astronomical terminology): (1) Pi, (2)Nu, (3) Beta (near the ecliptic), (4) Sigma, (5) Chi, (6) Iota - these six stars form the southern hemisphere around the head of Virgo. Then there are (7) Theta, (8) Star 60, (9)Delta, (10) Star 93, (11) Beta (the 2nd magnitude star) and (12) Omicron - these last six form the northern hemisphere around the head of Virgo. All these stars are visible and could have been witnessed by observers on earth.

Thus, the description of the apostle John describes a perfectly normal heavenly scene that could be recognized by all people. Here was Virgo with twelve stars around her head, while the Sun was in uterine position and the Moon under her feet. And again, the only time this could have occurred in 3 B.C.E. was on the Day of Trumpets. This is when the "king of kings" was born.

Another explanation of the Twelve Stars around the head of Virgo is that it represents the headship position (the "head" of Virgo is situated in the last ten degrees of Leo) for the beginning of the story found within the Twelve Constellations as reckoned in the biblical Zodiac. In the biblical Zodiac, the tribe of Judah (the Lion, or Leo) was situated around the Tabernacle directly east of its entrance. This meant that half of the tribe of Judah was south and the other half north of the east/west line from the Holy of Holies through the court of Israel and then eastward through the camp of Israel (in this case, Judah) to encounter the altar outside the camp where the Red Heifer was burnt to ashes. This means, unlike some Gentile reckonings which started their zodiacal story with the zero line between Cancer and Leo (that is, at the very commencement of Leo), the biblical Zodiac that Drs. Bullinger and Seiss were talking about began with the 15th degree of Leo (of Judah). This signifies that the first constellation to be met with in this celestial story would have been the "head" of Virgo the Virgin which occupied the last ten degrees of Leo. So, John began his story at this point.

By: Ernest L. Martin, PhD.

For the complete article: http://askelm.com/star/star008.htm


Quasar92

You can differ with me all you want. I read Martin's book. Along with a dozen others. While I have respect for the work of the late Dr. Martin, his hypothesis is junk. I can tear it apart without breaking a sweat.

 

[Quasar92]

You can differ with me all you want. I read Martin's book. Along with a dozen others. While I have respect for the work of the late Dr. Martin, his hypothesis is junk. I can tear it apart without breaking a sweat.

The Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles among others throughout the U.S. did not think the late Ernest L. Martin's work was "junk," as you put it. They use his findings for their Christmas display, and have remarked that they believe it to be the most authentic of any other yet found. There are some things he believes, that I disagree with, but it is not these studies, He also held a PhD degree which is an accomplishment everyone does not achieve.


Quasar92

 

[AFrazier]

The Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles among others throughout the U.S. did not think the late Ernest L. Martin's work was "junk," as you put it. They use his findings for their Christmas display, and have remarked that they believe it to be the most authentic of any other yet found. There are some things he believes, that I disagree with, but it is not these studies, He also held a PhD degree which is an accomplishment everyone does not achieve.


Quasar92

Brother, to get a PhD, all you have to do is attend a few extra years and publish something original. I have two books in process (one that's actually about print-ready) that would qualify me for a PhD if I were inclined to spend the extra years and dollars. And I should also say that if Martin got his PhD for this hypothesis (though I'm not sure he did), it was hardly original. W. E. Filmer published the same hypothesis in the 60s.

The Griffith Observatory is a facility of astronomy, not history. Martin's hypothesis is dependent upon Herod's death in 1 BCE, and that is not reasonably possible. There are any number of things in Martin's book that are unsubstantiated. And honestly, having read his work and many others like it, his is a shabby presentation by comparison. W. E. Filmer did a better and more convincing job of making the argument, and his presentation was just an article.

I'm glad for you that you found Martin's book. I'm glad that it got you excited because you think you now know something that has been hidden knowledge from the rest of us. But I assure you, Martin's hypothesis is not all it's cracked up to be.

 

[Quasar92]

Brother, to get a PhD, all you have to do is attend a few extra years and publish something original. I have two books in process (one that's actually about print-ready) that would qualify me for a PhD if I were inclined to spend the extra years and dollars. And I should also say that if Martin got his PhD for this hypothesis (though I'm not sure he did), it was hardly original. W. E. Filmer published the same hypothesis in the 60s.

The Griffith Observatory is a facility of astronomy, not history. Martin's hypothesis is dependent upon Herod's death in 1 BCE, and that is not reasonably possible. There are any number of things in Martin's book that are unsubstantiated. And honestly, having read his work and many others like it, his is a shabby presentation by comparison. W. E. Filmer did a better and more convincing job of making the argument, and his presentation was just an article.

I'm glad for you that you found Martin's book. I'm glad that it got you excited because you think you now know something that has been hidden knowledge from the rest of us. But I assure you, Martin's hypothesis is not all it's cracked up to be.

The information compiled in ELm's book, "The Star That Astonished The World," came from the research and study of a teamk of astronomers an scientists over a period of 3/5 years, in the early to mid 90's. My views are based upon the work they did as did the observatories throughout the country. As such, I readily admit to belief in their views over those of speculators.


Quasar92

 

[Quasar92]

Brother, to get a PhD, all you have to do is attend a few extra years and publish something original. I have two books in process (one that's actually about print-ready) that would qualify me for a PhD if I were inclined to spend the extra years and dollars. And I should also say that if Martin got his PhD for this hypothesis (though I'm not sure he did), it was hardly original. W. E. Filmer published the same hypothesis in the 60s.

The Griffith Observatory is a facility of astronomy, not history. Martin's hypothesis is dependent upon Herod's death in 1 BCE, and that is not reasonably possible. There are any number of things in Martin's book that are unsubstantiated. And honestly, having read his work and many others like it, his is a shabby presentation by comparison. W. E. Filmer did a better and more convincing job of making the argument, and his presentation was just an article.

I'm glad for you that you found Martin's book. I'm glad that it got you excited because you think you now know something that has been hidden knowledge from the rest of us. But I assure you, Martin's hypothesis is not all it's cracked up to be.

Astronomy and the Death of King Herod

In the face of the historical evidence against it, the majority of theologians have up to now placed the birth of Jesus before the spring of 4 B.C.E. They have insisted on this early date because of a reference in Josephus that King Herod died not long after an eclipse of the Moon and before a springtime Passover of the Jews. This eclipse has become an important chronological benchmark in reckoning the year of Herod’s death.

Eclipses are powerful astronomical indicators to show the precise times when events happened in history. Even those that happened 2000 years ago can be calculated to within a few minutes of their occurrence, and if one can pick the proper lunar eclipse that Josephus referred to, then further historical inquiry is considered unnecessary because “astronomy” has settled the chronological issue.

Those theologians who adopted this astronomical principle for solving chronological questions are absolutely correct. There is no arguing with eclipses. They are solid and unchallenged witnesses to support the truth of early historical records — if the correct eclipse is considered. But when astronomers in the last century told theologians that an eclipse of the Moon occurred during the evening of March 13, 4 B.C.E. (and could be seen in Palestine), this eclipse is the one that theologians accepted as the one referred to by Josephus. They particularly preferred this eclipse because Josephus also said Herod died before a springtime Passover. Since March 13, 4 B.C.E. was just one month before the Passover, they felt justified in placing all historical events associated with Herod’s death and his funeral within that twenty-nine day period. The truth is, however, it is completely illogical to squeeze the events mentioned by Josephus into that short period of time. By selecting the wrong eclipse, modern scholars have been forced to tighten considerably the historical events into an abnormally compressed space of only twenty-nine days.

Eclipse records are very important, but they must be interpreted correctly regarding the chronological period in which they occur. Over a ten-year period, several lunar eclipses are capable of being observed in most areas of the world. Two or three can even occur in one year. This relative frequency of lunar eclipses can be a problem in identifying the ones mentioned by the ancient historians if the early historians gave no details about the time of night, the day of the week, the calendar date on which they happened, or whether the eclipses were full or partial. With the eclipse of Josephus, none of these factors is evident. Josephus gave the single clue that a springtime Passover was celebrated not long after the eclipse. This would appear a reasonable hint that the eclipse happened sometime in the early or late winter.

It is the mention of this Passover that prompted most theologians up to now to select the eclipse of March 13, 4 B.C.E. as the one that seems to meet the historical circumstances. But this is not possible. A close examination of the records provided by Josephus unearth formidable problems in accepting this eclipse. Using common sense, plus the application of a general understanding of the Jewish social and religious customs in the 1st century, will allow anyone to select the proper eclipse. In no way can it be the one of March 13, 4 B.C.E. Let us look at the lunar eclipses observable in Palestine during the general time for the nativity of Jesus. From 7 to early 1 B.C.E. there were four lunar eclipses. It is one of these four eclipses to which Josephus has reference regarding the time of the death of Herod. Let us look at them carefully. The following table shows when they happened. For reference, see Solar and Lunar Eclipses of the Ancient Near East, by M. Kudlek and E. Mickler (1971). Solar Eclipses Visible in Palestine

7 B.C. No eclipses
6 B.C. No eclipses
5 B.C. March 23. Total eclipse. Central at 8:30 pm (elapsed time between eclipse and Passover: twenty-nine days).
5 B.C. September 15. Total eclipse. Central at 10:30 pm (elapsed time between eclipse and Passover: seven months).
4 B.C. March 13. Partial eclipse. Central at 2:20 am (elapsed time between eclipse and Passover: twenty-nine days
3 B.C. No eclipses
2 B.C. No eclipses
1 B.C. January 10. Total eclipse. Central at 1:00 am (elapsed time between eclipse and Passover: twelve and a half weeks ).
Which was the eclipse that was associated with Herod’s death? Most theologians have picked the one that occurred on March 13, 4 B.C.E., but they are clearly three years too early. They have thrown to the wind the testimonies of the majority of the early fathers of the Christian Church who placed the birth of Jesus from 3 to 1 B.C.E. If those early fathers would have been consulted and given a reasonable amount of credibility (which they deserve), then Herod’s death would have been sought for somewhere around 1 B.C.E., not three years earlier as is commonly done today.

We have new historical documentation quite independent of the early Christian fathers or Josephus showing that Herod died in early 1 B.C.E. Later chapters of this book will demonstrate what those historical documents and what new archaeological discoveries indicate to prove the documents. This evidence, along with that given by Josephus, will provide a great deal of evidence to show the eclipse mentioned by Josephus was that of January 10, 1 B.C.E. This gives us a veritable key to open the door of understanding for this obscure period of time. When this is realized the “dark decade” in Roman history from 6 B.C.E. to 4 C.E. will also take on a great deal of illumination. Confusing historical events, which have been and appear contradictory to historians of the early part of the Roman Empire, will become harmonious and consistent.

So much depends on selecting the proper eclipse mentioned by Josephus. Let us look at the evidence from Josephus, which is the eyewitness account of Nicolas of Damascus whom Josephus quotes. His records prove that the eclipse of March 13, 4 B.C.E. (almost universally accepted) cannot be the correct one.


Quasar92

 

[AFrazier]

The information compiled in ELm's book, "The Star That Astonished The World," came from the research and study of a teamk of astronomers an scientists over a period of 3/5 years, in the early to mid 90's. My views are based upon the work they did as did the observatories throughout the country. As such, I readily admit to belief in their views over those of speculators.


Quasar92

With respect, I've been researching this topic for almost twenty years. I'm not a "speculator." His grossly inadequate research and unrealistic conclusions have produced an incompetent work.

 

[Quasar92]

With respect, I've been researching this topic for almost twenty years. I'm not a "speculator." His grossly inadequate research and unrealistic conclusions have produced an incompetent work.

As a WWII vet in my 94th year, I have been specifically studying prophecy and theology over the past 35 years. In addition to earning my qualifications to teach the Bible through two Bible Colleges.


Quasar92

 

[AFrazier]

As a WWII vet in my 94th year, I have been specifically studying prophecy and theology over the past 35 years. In addition to earning my qualifications to teach the Bible through two Bible Colleges.


Quasar92

Well ... if you spent any of that time researching this topic, then you would know that I'm right.

 

[Quasar92]

Well ... if you spent any of that time researching this topic, then you would know that I'm right.

With the above response, this discussion has terminated.


Quasar02

 

[AFrazier]

With the above response, this discussion has terminated.


Quasar02

I'd run from it if I were wrong, too. Not to worry. The truth is out there. All you have to do is properly research it. Unlike Martin.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The team of astronomers and scientists who spent several years researchingfor what the star of Bethlehem was in the early to mid 90's, they indicated the woman in the great wonder in the sky, of Rev,12:1-2, has a twelve star crown, in the book, called "The Star That Astonished The World," by Ernest L. Martin, PhD, who was a former astronomer himself.


Quasar92

I don't understand how that relates to the extra stars in the post you replied to? If you are saying they researched it for years, so they must be right, years of research can't change the fact there are more than the twelve stars they claim. Evidently, they're slipping that one by those who believe this amounts to anything.

You do understand how the whole thing collapses if there are more then 12 stars there, otherwise I could remove stars here and there and make the skies say anything I wanted it to, exactly as they did..

 

[Kenny'sID]

With the above response, this discussion has terminated.

After reading a few more of your posts I'm more clear now on why you thought your last reply to me related. It seems I may have been in the ball park, and you feel if someone claims much study in an area, that is reason to not disagree them, or that we should just believe them and if one does disagree the conversation is over? Correct? If so, surely you know what will be derived from such action?

Anyway, I'll see how it goes with my last reply to you before I conclude too much from what has happened.

 

[kepha31]

Nobody knows the exact date Jesus was born.

Zechariah was acting as high priest when the birth of St. John the baptizer was announced to him in the Holy of Holies in the Temple. That would have been on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement which falls in late September. St. John was conceived shortly thereafter during Sukkot, the Festival of Booths.

At the Annunciation, the BVMary was told that Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant. That would have been in late March. (BTW the feast of the Annunciation is celebrated on March 25th in the Roman calender.)

Nine months later Jesus was born sometime in late December.

Now there is an interesting coincidence with all this. St. John would have been born near the Summer Solstice (the longest day of the year) everyday after that would get shorter until the Winter Solstice six months later, which is the shortest day of the year. Every day after that would get longer. In the First Century the Winter Solstice fell on December 25th.

It would be fitting that Jesus would have been born on the shortest day of the year because he is the "Light of the World":

Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. (John 8:12)

Everyday after his birth there was more light.

Also St. John the Baptizer said of himself:

He must increase, but I must decrease.” (John 3:30)

Which is exactly what happened to the daylight after their respective births. (This was the point St. Augustine made in his championing the celebration of Jesus' birth on the Winter Solstice).

So despite the objections of some pundits, December 25th is a very reasonable date to celebrate Jesus' birth and not a concession to paganism.

The Winter Solstice was NOT a Roman Civil holiday until 273 AD. The Emperor Aurelian made December 25th a civil holiday because the Christians were already using it to celebrate the Birth of Jesus and he was trying to detract from the Christian celebration!

None of the Sun Cults used December 25th before then. It appears that the Winter Solstice (Christmas) was originally a CHRISTIAN feast that the pagans tried to paganize, not the other way around.

 

[Hethatreadethit]

On the 11th September 3 BC (Day 1 Month 7 - Tishri) God used the constellation Virgo to give us a sign in the heavens:
View attachment 189859
That evening, from Bethlehem, as the constellation of Virgo became visible just above the horizon towards the west, it appeared as if sun set had ‘cloaked’ Virgo’s body. The crescent moon was positioned right under her feet, whereas the day before, and after, the moon was not under her feet. Also, above Virgo’s head are nine stars that form the constellation of Leo, which represents the Lion of the tribe of Judah who is Jesus. That night however Mercury, Venus and Jupiter were also in Leo, making a total of twelve stars above Virgo’s head. Planets were considered as stars in ancient days, and the word planet literally means wondering star. The book of Revelation describes a great sign in the Heavens, with the sun, moon, and stars, and describes that the child being born was Jesus:

Revelation 12:1-2
1 And a great sign was seen in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, 2 and upon her head a crown of twelve stars, and she being with child screamed, travailing in birth, and agonised to be delivered.

Revelation 12:5
She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron sceptre.” And her child was snatched up to God, and to his throne.

The prophet Isaiah also made a prophetic allusion to this sign over 700 years before.

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the LORD Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive, and give birth to a son, and will call him Emmanuel.

The best time to have witnessed this momentary display was between 5:53 p.m. and 6:35 p.m. that evening, and Jesus was born at about 6:12 p.m. It’s possible to be confident that this was the time of Jesus’ birth because it was also at this precise time that the brightest star in Virgo, called Spica, which represents an ear of corn being held in Virgo’s left hand, appeared to ‘touch’ the horizon, or ‘alight to the earth.’ The name of this star in Hebrew is Tsemech which means ‘branch,’ and is the subject of prophecy by Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zechariah. Spica is actually Latin for ‘ear of corn’ or ‘a kernel of wheat’, and Jesus Himself alluded to this sign:

John 12:23-24
23 And Jesus responded to them, “The hour is come that the Son of Man should be magnified. 24 Truly, truly I say to you, unless a kernel of wheat alights to the earth and dies, it remains a single seed. But if it dies, it bears fruit.”

There are twenty different Hebrew words for the word branch, but only one of them, Tsemech, is used exclusively in the Old Testament four times and each time it is in reference to the coming Messiah:

Isaiah 4:2
In that day the Branch of God will be beautiful, and resplendent, and the fruit of the land will be the pride, and splendour of the survivors in Israel.

Jeremiah 23:5
Behold, the days are coming,” says the LORD. “When I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely, and do what is just and right in the land.

Zechariah 3:8
Hear O High Priest and your associates seated before you, who are men symbolic of things to come: I am going to bring My Servant, the Branch.”

Zechariah 6:12-13
12 And speak to him saying, this is what of Hosts says: ‘Here is the Man whose name is the Branch, and He will branch out from His place and build the Temple of God, 13 He will be clothed with majesty, and will sit, and rule on His throne. And He will be a Priest on His throne. And there will be prosperity between the two.’

In studying these prophesies, several things can be learned about the identity of the Branch. He is a King, a Servant, a Man, and a Priest. His name is God, He is our Righteousness and is Jesus Himself. These themes about the Messiah were divinely developed in the Gospels. He is resented as the King in Matthew, a Servant in Mark, a Man in Luke, a Priest in John, and as Himself in John’s Revelation. This Branch prophecy is also eluded to else where:

Matthew 2:23
and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.

The name Nazareth means ‘Branch-town,’ as the root word for Nazareth is Netzer which means branch or shoot. A Nazarene from Nazareth is like saying an Israeli from Israel. A Netzer is actually a particular kind of branch that grows from a stump of a plant that’s been cut down and has spouted up some distance from the stump, this is what happened with Jesus:

Isaiah 11:1
A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.

The stump of Jesse relates to what happened to the Davinic line of descendants. David had taken Israel to the height of its greatest achievements, which his son Solomon maintained until his death but then the kingdom divided due to civil war and continued to decline till the southern kingdom of Judah was taken into captivity in Babylon. This was the stump. The Davinic descendants continued on into virtual obscurity until Jesus was born and this is the Shoot, the Netzer that ‘came up’ in Nazareth far from the original stump in Bethlehem where David had been born.

Was He not born at tax time being around the autumn Feasts of Trumpets /Tabernacles?

 

[AFrazier]

Nobody knows the exact date Jesus was born.

Zechariah was acting as high priest when the birth of St. John the baptizer was announced to him in the Holy of Holies in the Temple. That would have been on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement which falls in late September. St. John was conceived shortly thereafter during Sukkot, the Festival of Booths.

At the Annunciation, the BVMary was told that Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant. That would have been in late March. (BTW the feast of the Annunciation is celebrated on March 25th in the Roman calender.)

Nine months later Jesus was born sometime in late December.

Now there is an interesting coincidence with all this. St. John would have been born near the Summer Solstice (the longest day of the year) everyday after that would get shorter until the Winter Solstice six months later, which is the shortest day of the year. Every day after that would get longer. In the First Century the Winter Solstice fell on December 25th.

It would be fitting that Jesus would have been born on the shortest day of the year because he is the "Light of the World":

Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. (John 8:12)

Everyday after his birth there was more light.

Also St. John the Baptizer said of himself:

He must increase, but I must decrease.” (John 3:30)

Which is exactly what happened to the daylight after their respective births. (This was the point St. Augustine made in his championing the celebration of Jesus' birth on the Winter Solstice).

So despite the objections of some pundits, December 25th is a very reasonable date to celebrate Jesus' birth and not a concession to paganism.

The Winter Solstice was NOT a Roman Civil holiday until 273 AD. The Emperor Aurelian made December 25th a civil holiday because the Christians were already using it to celebrate the Birth of Jesus and he was trying to detract from the Christian celebration!

None of the Sun Cults used December 25th before then. It appears that the Winter Solstice (Christmas) was originally a CHRISTIAN feast that the pagans tried to paganize, not the other way around.

According to the scriptures, Elisabeth conceived in Nisan. The sixth month was the sixth month with her who was called barren. I think you should apply a bit more research and objectivity to your position.

 

[kepha31]

According to the scriptures, Elisabeth conceived in Nisan. The sixth month was the sixth month with her who was called barren. I think you should apply a bit more research and objectivity to your position.

I said Zechariah was acting as high priest when the birth of St. John the baptizer was announced to him in the Holy of Holies in the Temple. I said nothing about Elizabeth, who most likely conceived shortly thereafter.

Luke introduces the familiar figures of Zechariah and Elizabeth, who will become the parents of John the Baptist, and informs us that Zechariah is a priest belonging to "the division of Abijah."

At the time, the Jewish priesthood was organized as twenty four divisions or "courses," each of which went to serve at the temple twice a year for one week at a time.

The division of Abijah was the eighth of the twenty four courses.
Note that "eighth" does not begin counting from Passover, which is not the first of the Jewish calendar year. Rosh Hashana is the Jewish New Year.

Through a series of complex calculations and arguments that are too detailed to go into here, it is possible to estimate when the course of Abijah was on duty at the temple.

If you want to go into those arguments in all their geeky, chronological goodness, get a copy of Jack Finnegan’s outstanding Handbook of Biblical Chronology (see sections 467-473).

The upshot, though, is that Zechariah likely saw the vision when he was on duty with the rest of the course of Abijah between November 10 and 17 in 4 B.C.

That would put the birth of Jesus in the winter of 3/2 B.C., in keeping with the traditional date.
Zechariah’s mysterious vision in the Temple: 10 things to know and share

 

[AFrazier]

I said Zechariah was acting as high priest when the birth of St. John the baptizer was announced to him in the Holy of Holies in the Temple. I said nothing about Elizabeth, who most likely conceived shortly thereafter.

Luke introduces the familiar figures of Zechariah and Elizabeth, who will become the parents of John the Baptist, and informs us that Zechariah is a priest belonging to "the division of Abijah."

At the time, the Jewish priesthood was organized as twenty four divisions or "courses," each of which went to serve at the temple twice a year for one week at a time.

The division of Abijah was the eighth of the twenty four courses.
Note that "eighth" does not begin counting from Passover, which is not the first of the Jewish calendar year. Rosh Hashana is the Jewish New Year.

Through a series of complex calculations and arguments that are too detailed to go into here, it is possible to estimate when the course of Abijah was on duty at the temple.

If you want to go into those arguments in all their geeky, chronological goodness, get a copy of Jack Finnegan’s outstanding Handbook of Biblical Chronology (see sections 467-473).

The upshot, though, is that Zechariah likely saw the vision when he was on duty with the rest of the course of Abijah between November 10 and 17 in 4 B.C.

That would put the birth of Jesus in the winter of 3/2 B.C., in keeping with the traditional date.
Zechariah’s mysterious vision in the Temple: 10 things to know and share

I have Jack Finnegan's book right here on the shelf. I read it, studied it, and followed his sources for credibility. I also have books by Ernest Martin, David Hughes, Michael Molnar, Ormond Edwards, Paul Maier, Harold Hoehner, and a number of other authors. Jack Finnegan is not as reliable as you think. I found a number of places where he didn't even check his sources. He just cited the source cited by someone else, and that someone else cited incorrect source material. For example, he cited the Han Shu concerning the star, claiming that the Han Shu designated two years for new stars appearing; 4 and 5 BCE if I recall correctly. Unfortunately for his inadequate research, I have the Han Shu. It only mentions a 星孛 xīng-bó in the constellation of Ho Ku on April 24th, 4 BCE (Pan Ku, History of the Former Han Dynasty, trans. H. H. Dubs, 33). The 5 BCE reference is actually per John Williams, from the Encyclopedia of Ma Twan Lin. The truest discrepancy is between the Han Shu and the Samguk Sagi, where the months do not match. The Han Shu puts it in the third month. The Samguk Sagi puts it in the second month. But 2 and 3 in Chinese are so close that a poor pen stroke or faded ink can account for the difference.

So I wouldn't put too much faith in Finnegan's work. I wasn't impressed. His scholarship is shabby at best.

Now, I know what you said, and I was responding to it. The scriptures do not say that 1) Zecharias was the High Priest, or that 2) it was the Day of Atonement. Both of these points are the invention of someone's imagination. Zecharias was a "certain priest" (Lk. 1:5) whose duty in his course was to "burn incense" (Lk. 1:9). Per Josephus (Joseph AJ 20.164, n. d), the High Priests during that era, on either side of the acceptable years in which John was conceived, were Jesus, son of Fabus, Simon, son of Boethus, Matthias, son of Theophilus, Joazar, son of Boethus, and Eleazar, son of Boethus. Zecharias is not one of the High Priests during the Herodian dynasty. Therefore, Zecharias was not the High Priest, and so even if it were the Day of Atonement, Zecharias wouldn't have been in the Holy of Holies.

The priestly courses didn't reset every year. They were continuous. A number of authors have made the baseless claim that the count started at Nisan 1, or some other similar date. This is entirely unsubstantiated. It is, again, an invention of someone's imagination. Fragments in the Dead Sea Scrolls show a constant rotation, which results in different courses being on duty during different festivals from one year to the next. The best and closest piece of evidence available to pinpoint the priestly cycle is in the Talmud, which mentions the priestly course on duty when the temple was burned. Since Josephus gives us exact dates for the burning of the temple, we have an exact date for when one of the courses was on duty. From there you can count them back, one week at a time, until you get to the period in which John was conceived. The course of Abijah fell around the second week of January, or the month of Tebeth, with Nisan only two months away. That is an appropriate amount of time for him to get home, and for Elisabeth to conceive.

Per Luke 1:26-27, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to Mary in the sixth month. In Luke 1:36, Mary is told by the angel that Elisabeth was in her sixth month of pregnancy, who had formerly been called barren. Thus, Elisabeth conceived in the first month, which is Nisan, and Mary conceived in the month of Elul, which is the sixth month. As it happens, given the OP of this thread, the sun is in Virgo with the moon at her feet on the 11th of September, 3 BCE, which is the first day of Tishri. But in the previous year, when the conceptions of John and Jesus both took place, the sun was in Virgo, with the moon at her feet, on the 25th of August, which is the second day of Elul in that year. And I am of the opinion that if the sign in Revelation 12:1-2 is a horoscope of sorts, then it marks the conception rather than the birth. But that aspect I'm still looking into. It just as readily correlates to other passages in the prophets, as well as Joseph's vision.

Given a standard forty-week gestation period, that puts the birth of John the Baptist in the vicinity of January, with leeway into February because of missing details like the exact date of Elisabeth's conception. In turn, Jesus was born in the vicinity of June, with leeway into July, allowing for a late delivery, etc. But given what we know about the oath-taking to Caesar in 3 BCE, and the epigraphs we have that give us an approximate date of that event, June is more likely.

And the added bonus of these prospective dates is that John's birthday is right before the start of the ecclesiastical year, and John was the return of Elijah, whom the Jews expected to come at Passover. Furthermore, if Jesus is born in June, then he would have been "about thirty years of age" in the summer, which would have spared him and John both the hypothermia they would have gotten from the frigid water temperatures of the Jordan in the fall or winter.

So let me say again, you need to do some more research. It wasn't intended as an insult. I'm encouraged that someone on one of these forums has had the presence of mind to actually pick up a book and try to learn something, as opposed to all the web scholars who think they know everything about everything. But you have a very long way to go. There is a lot of material, and unfortunately, you can't count on most of what you read. Particularly if it was written within the last fifty years. Scholarship isn't what it used to be back in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Facts and credible scholarship actually mattered back then. Today, not so much so.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Nobody knows the exact date Jesus was born.

Zechariah was acting as high priest when the birth of St. John the baptizer was announced to him in the Holy of Holies in the Temple. That would have been on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement which falls in late September. St. John was conceived shortly thereafter during Sukkot, the Festival of Booths.

At the Annunciation, the BVMary was told that Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant. That would have been in late March. (BTW the feast of the Annunciation is celebrated on March 25th in the Roman calender.)

Nine months later Jesus was born sometime in late December.

Now there is an interesting coincidence with all this. St. John would have been born near the Summer Solstice (the longest day of the year) everyday after that would get shorter until the Winter Solstice six months later, which is the shortest day of the year. Every day after that would get longer. In the First Century the Winter Solstice fell on December 25th.

It would be fitting that Jesus would have been born on the shortest day of the year because he is the "Light of the World":

Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. (John 8:12)

Everyday after his birth there was more light.

Also St. John the Baptizer said of himself:

He must increase, but I must decrease.” (John 3:30)

Which is exactly what happened to the daylight after their respective births. (This was the point St. Augustine made in his championing the celebration of Jesus' birth on the Winter Solstice).

So despite the objections of some pundits, December 25th is a very reasonable date to celebrate Jesus' birth and not a concession to paganism.

The Winter Solstice was NOT a Roman Civil holiday until 273 AD. The Emperor Aurelian made December 25th a civil holiday because the Christians were already using it to celebrate the Birth of Jesus and he was trying to detract from the Christian celebration!

None of the Sun Cults used December 25th before then. It appears that the Winter Solstice (Christmas) was originally a CHRISTIAN feast that the pagans tried to paganize, not the other way around.

You have made a calendrical error. The Julian calendar was instituted by Julius Caesar in the 1st century BC. It added an intercalary leap day every four years. This was however an overestimate, leading to drift of one day every hundred years or so.
As a consequence, the Solstice fell on 21/22 December in the 1st century BC, but on 22/23 in the 1st century AD, 23/24 in the 2nd century and on the 24/25th in the third century.
Aurelian then instituted the day of Sol Invictus on the winter solstice, which fell on the 25th in his times, but in the time of Jesus it likely fell on the 22nd of December. The 25th was not winter solstice in the 1st century AD.

This whole calendrical drifting was fixed by Pope Gregory when he dropped a leap day every hundred years to bring us more in line with the seasons, creating our own Gregorian calender. This is still not completely in lockstep, so occasionally Greenwich timekeepers add intercalary seconds to even it out.

 

[Country Codger]

Dr. Michael S. Heiser, a Biblical language and ancient Mid-East language and customs achademic agrees with the Sept. 11 in 3 BC date. Here is a link to his article:
September 11: Happy Birthday to Jesus | Dr. Michael Heiser
Inside this article is a link to a short YouTube video about the astronomy and constillations involved.

Another person who reached a very close and similar conclusion is astronomer Barry Setterfield:
Christmas Star technical notes

Shalom,
Dr. Michael Heiser is a very knowledgeable man but he forgot to "correct" the calendar by 10 days which was done many years later, so that puts Yeshua (Jesus) being born on September 21st of 3 BC. The date of Herod's death is not as set in stone as many would hope to believe. It appears that Josephus did not count the half years of Herod's reign in his computations so that would put Herod's death around 2 B.C. So, Yeshua was born September 21, 3 BC while Herod the Great was still alive. Hope this helps.
Shalom,
CC

 

[Hethatreadethit]

Probably a close date, for it was tax time which would have put it at harvest time and close to the Feast of Tabernacles