(avg. read time: 12–24 mins.)
Zechariah the priest serves in the temple as part of the priestly order of Abijah (Luke 1:5, 8–9)
At this time, there were 24 priestly divisions that served in the temple on a weekly basis. The divisions are referenced and explained in 1 Chr 24:1–19. Each order served at least two separate weeks in the course of a year. The order of Abijah/Abias, to which Zechariah belonged, served 8th and 32nd in the rotation. But given the different reckonings of when the new year began, it is not immediately clear when these weeks were. Furthermore, 24 divisions repeated twice over does not get us to a full count of weeks, even by a lunar calendar of 50 weeks and some change, much less the leap year with the intercalated 13th month.
Some early Christians especially emphasized this point in order to link Jesus’s birth to December 25. They did not seek to calculate when Zechariah could have served; rather, they made correlations of symbolic significance and found a mutually reinforcing set of beliefs, whereby John the Baptist was conceived on the autumnal equinox and born on the summer solstice, while Jesus was conceived on the spring equinox and born on the winter solstice (according to the Julian reckoning, of course). As I noted in my previous Christmas essay, it was a popular belief that Zechariah was serving during the Day of Atonement/Yom Kippur and that he had his angelic encounter in the Holy of Holies, which would imply that he was the high priest (Prot. Jas. 8.3; Ephrem the Syrian, Comm. Diatessaron 1.29; Comm. Exod. 12.2–3; Ambrose, Exp. Luc. 1.22; [anon.] On the Solstices and Equinoxes; John Chrysostom, Hom. Nat. 4–5). This cannot be maintained, since Zechariah was not the high priest and so the date of his service on Tishri 10—and the correlation of John’s conception soon after to the Julian autumnal equinox of September 24—cannot be maintained simply on that basis.
Others have sought a more calculable approach to the questions and discrepancies.1 Most recently, Kurt Simmons has done extensive calculations to track the rotation of priestly divisions from 23 BCE to 70 CE. His work proceeds on a few assumptions. 1) The fourth-century rabbinic calendar, following a type of nineteen-year cycle like I explained in my Easter essay, is a mostly reliable reflection of the dates of the Judean calendar in the time of Jesus. 2) In leap years, when a second month of Adar was added, the priests who served in the first Adar would serve an extra week, meaning that the order that followed in the first week of Nisan would be the same, regardless of the leap year. 3) According to b. Ta‘an. 29a.12, the first order of Jehoiarib was on duty during the first temple’s destruction on the 9th of Av. He reads the end of this portion—“This happened also at the destruction of the second Temple”—to include the claim that Jehoiarib was also on duty on the 9th of Av in 70 CE. 4) The courses of the priestly divisions follow continuously to create a 24-year cycle before a division will serve on the exact same dates. The start of each cycle involves the order of Jehoiarib serving during the first week of Tishri. He also finds two points of confirmation for his cycle in the following. 5) That the uncorrected rabbinic calendar is only one day off from confirming Jesus’s death on Friday, Nisan 15, 33 CE one of the popular options for dating Jesus’s death, and that this demonstrates the general reliability of this calendar as a baseline. 6) He also assumes other chronological points, such as Jesus having a ministry of 3½ years, having his baptism on November 8/Heshvan 15, 29 CE, and that Jesus must have been just short of 30 years old at this time.2 I have not counted his assumption that we are looking for the second annual ministration here, but without further information and considerations, either assumption is equally probable at this juncture, and so I will not address it further.
In any case, with these assumptions in place, he calculates that Zechariah had his angelic encounter during the second annual ministration for the order of Abijah in the week of Elul 28–Tishri 5, 3 BCE (equivalent to September 8–14). If John was conceived during the second week after this ministration, that date would fall in the week of Tishri 13–19 (= September 22–28). Given the later reference to John being six months older than Jesus, and adding another nine months for Jesus’s gestation, Jesus would have been born on the week of December 21–27, 2 BCE.3
For all the meticulous calculation work, these assumptions are faulty. I will address 1) below, as this raises a larger issue. As for 2), it is true that we have no idea how the priestly orders handled leap years, but we also have no precedent for thinking that they handled it in this fashion. In fact, as I will outline below, what little information we do have seems to tell against this assumption. His interpretation of rabbinic literature in 3) is questionable. The statement he directly relies on does not specifically say that the order of Jehoiarib was serving during this time, nor is it even in proximity to the reference to Jehoiarib, as one can see from the very text printed on his online document. There is another text where there is a smaller gap between the reference to the order of Jehoiarib and the claim that “this happened again with the Second Temple” in S. ‘Olam Rab. 30, but the syntax is once again unclear as to what is included in what happened, whether it includes the reference to Jehoiarib’s order, the destruction on a Sabbath, the occurrence after a Sabbatical year, and/or the fact that it happened on the 9th of Av.4 Given that the context is more concerned with the day, and how days of reward and guilt have seen good and bad things multiple times over, it seems less likely that the implication is that Jehoiarib’s order was serving both times, but again, the syntax is unclear. In fact, the most explicit statements in rabbinic literature deny that the order of Jehoiarib was on duty during this time at the destruction of the second temple (b. Arak. 12b.9–11; 13a.1, which cites the same text in b. Arak. 11b.17 and 12a.2 as b. Ta‘an. did).5 This rabbinic text denies this because of an assumption we see here and elsewhere (including in b. Ta‘an.), based on Ezra 2:36–39, that only 4 of the priestly orders returned from Babylon, and Jehoiarib was not among them (b. Ta‘an. 27a.12–27b.2).6 These 4 orders then subdivided to re-create the 24 divisions, even taking on the old names. With the clearest rabbinic work contradicting 3), 4) can hardly stand either, since there is no independent confirmation of the priestly cycle resetting every 24 years. 5) is beyond the scope of my analysis here, but precisely because the dating is controversial, this argument can at best serve to demonstrate the coherence of Simmons’s chronological scheme, not the probability of its correspondence with historical reality. As for 6), while the possible length of Jesus’s ministry will not be reviewed here, the precise date of John’s baptism of Jesus is also questionable, but beyond my scope, strictly speaking, as nothing in the Gospel texts inform us of the date. However, the reference to Jesus being about 30 is something I will examine below.
It is at this point that I must register a problem that I have with works like Simmons’s, as well as Mahieu’s. For all the fastidious work that has gone into them, especially with the latter’s extensive revisions of Herodian chronology, the use of the Jewish calendar at this time to establish precise dates is simply untenable. Too often, such calculations require retrojecting what is now standardized Jewish calendrical work or, in the case of those who apply Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein’s Babylonian Chronology, assuming that a precise calendar in another land could be applied to the calendar used in Judea.7 To demonstrate my point, I have drawn the next two paragraphs from my Easter essay.
Jews had local variations and different ways of determining the proper time of the Passover, apart from the standardized rabbinic model and the nineteen-year cycle utilized today.8 Aristobulus of Alexandria was thought to have observed the “rule of the equinox,” in which Passover always fell after the vernal equinox, and this rule would be influential even in later Christian texts, as we will see below.9 Later Jews in Alexandria had their own independent means of designating a date for Passover through astronomy, of which Alexandria was a bastion.10 Antiochene Jews (or likely Antiochene) had their own timetable mentioned in a document drafted by Eastern bishops in the event of the contentious Council of Sardica (343). The bishops had drafted a list of thirty dates for the Paschal full moon from 328–357, but it also produced an accompanying list of dates for the Jewish Passover from 328–343 (as, apparently, they did not wish to attempt to predict the dates when Jews would observe it in the future), wherein the dates range from March 2 to March 30.11 Thus, they seem to have observed a “rule of March,” in which Passover was always observed in the Julian March.12 Josephus writes of a letter announcing the death of Tiberius (March 16, 37 CE) coming during a feast, which likely would have arrived in Judea in late April (Ant. 18.122–124).
The rabbis themselves lacked a precise calendar until sometime in the fourth century. As noted above, the lunar calendar needed an intercalated thirteenth month every so often to be aligned with the solar calendar, but the rabbis initially decided on whether or not to intercalate by paying attention to three signs, any one of which could be used as a reason to intercalate a month: the premature state of crops, the undeveloped state of fruit, and the lateness of the equinox (t. Sanh. 2.2–3). What qualifies as the “lateness of the equinox”? It must be sixteen days or more later in the month (2.7). The Tosefta further indicates that the month could not properly be intercalated if the pigeons or lambs born in spring were unseasonably late, but that rabbis could still use this reasoning as a basis for their decision (2.4). Intercalations had to be done with a full, proper month and could not be done a year in advance (2.8). In fact, decisions were typically made in Adar, the month before Nisan (2.13), although it was technically allowed any time after Rosh Hashanah and before Nisan, and thus at any point in the last six months of the year (2.7; b. Roš Haš. 7a; b. Sanh. 12a). The Tosefta also expounded on a certain set of instructions in 2.12 by saying that the month could be intercalated due to difficulties of travel (e.g., roads and bridges being damaged), ovens being unfit for roasting the Passover offering, or Diaspora Jews on the road who need more time to get to Jerusalem (but not in the case that they have not left their houses; b. Sanh. 11a). In both sources, the presumption was that decisions on intercalations came from Judea (t. Sanh. 2.13; b. Sanh. 11b).13
Given that these are rabbinic writings and not first-century ones, why should we think that any of these applied in first-century Judea? One, amidst all the citations of second-century rabbis, we have reference to a letter (t. Sanh. 2.6) by one Rabbi Gamaliel containing the general signs that rabbis operated by, including that the pigeons (alternatively translated as “turtledoves” here and in the biblical texts) were still tender, the lambs were too thin, and the crops were not yet mature. This could be a reference to Gamaliel I (the teacher of Saul of Tarsus) or Gamaliel II. Both were first-century rabbis, but the former may have been intended, as the text references him and the elders sitting on the steps of the Temple Mount. Of course, it is possible that the tradition mixed up which Gamaliel it was, but this letter would still be from the first century in any case. By contrast, the attention to the equinox was first emphasized by one Rabbi Shimeon ben Gamaliel. This was more likely Shimeon ben Gamaliel II, since he was known for his Greek learning and his observation of the skies, while the first Shimeon was a revolutionary in the time of the First Jewish War with Rome. Two, the reference to the pigeons/turtledoves as relevant for the dating of the Passover is unlikely to have been invented after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. While lambs would still be slaughtered for Passover thereafter, pigeons/turtledoves would no longer be used for purification offerings after the temple was destroyed. Therefore, we have some significant indications that at least some of these directives for when to add the intercalated month go back to before the destruction of the second temple.
For these reasons, the best we can manage are rough estimates of equivalents between Jewish and Julian (or other) calendars. Parker and Dubberstein’s work is still valuable for giving us a rough idea, but not for the sake of precision. With these qualifications in mind, what then can we say about the chronological information provided by this reference to the order of Abijah being on duty?
As noted above, we know independently from Luke that the 24 divisions continued in the Second Temple era (Josephus, Life 2; Ant. 7.366; m. B. Qam. 9.12). Rabbinic tradition states that the order of Bilgah was prohibited from officiating, presumably sometime in the early years of the Hasmonean era (m. Sukk. 5.8; t. Sukk. 4.13; b. Sukk. 56b.5–8), but this did not affect the fundamental 24 divisions, as Jeshebeab simply officiated twice over in place of Bilgah. As far as can be told, all the orders served during the festivals of Passover/Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, and Tabernacles (see 2 Chr 5:3, 11; m. Sukk. 5.6–8), but this did not affect the sequence (thus, leap years were unlikely to interrupt the sequence in the way Simmons describes).14
What the sources are less clear on is when the cycle began. According to m. Roš Haš. 1.1, four days could be considered the start of a new year: Nisan 1 (for kings and festivals), Elul 1 (for the tithe of beasts/cattle), Tishri 1 (for years, Sabbatical years, Jubilees, planting, and tithes of vegetables), and Shevat 1 (for trees). Of these options, Tishri 1 is most likely the beginning of any priestly cycle, because it was on the first day of the seventh month that priests re-commenced their duties at the rebuilt altar after returning from Babylon (Ezra 3:1–6), because it was in this month that Ezra led the nation in rededication to the covenant (Neh 7:73–10:39, in which the division of the priests is implied in 10:34), and because it was the same month as when Solomon dedicated the First Temple (1 Kgs 8:2; 2 Chr 5:3; 7:10). There may be confirmation of such in the fragmentary Qumran calendrical documents designated as 4Q320–330.
The community at Qumran that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls operated by a different calendar than the Jerusalem establishment and the later rabbis. As Beckwith explains:
As their year consisted of exactly 52 weeks, the dates in the month always fell, from year to year, on the same day of the week, Nisan 1 and Tishri 1 always being Wednesdays. The documents we are concerned with are almanacs for six years, designed to show that in six Qumran years the 24-week sequence of the priestly courses would be completed exactly thirteen times, for 6 x 52 weeks = 312 weeks, and 13 x 24 weeks = 312 weeks.15
Even so, in these documents we see that they use the same number, names, and order of the priestly divisions. The account begins with Gamul (the 22nd order) in the first week of Nisan, which would imply for this first year, Jehoiarib’s order served the 4th week of Nisan and the 1st week of Tishri. Note that the text does not explicitly say so, as there are numerous gaps (the preserved text moves from Gamul to Jedaiah [the 2nd order] to Hakkoz [the 7th]), but based on the dates assigned to them, we know that they follow the same order (e.g., the 12th order of Jakim is 4 weeks after Abijah). This peculiar calendar does not allow us to make direct conversions to Julian reckonings, as it is still 1¼ days shorter each year than the Julian calendar, but its value lies in being a good approximation of what a Jewish calendar, after correction with intercalation, might look like with 6 years of priestly rotations.16
As we chart the following data, it is important to remember that the cycle begins on Tishri 1, but the calendar begins according to the festal New Year (Nisan 1). With that factor mind, according to these calendrical documents, Abijah served:
During the 2nd Passover of the 2nd year (i.e., Iyyar 9–16)
During the Passover of the 3rd year (i.e., Nisan 11–18)
During the new year of the 3rd year (i.e., Elul 28–Tishri 4)17
With some more extrapolation, the complete 6-year cycle for Abijah would look like this:
Year 1: Sivan 7–14 and Heshvan 23–30
Year 2: Iyyar 9–16 and Tishri 25–Heshvan 2
Year 3: Nisan 11–18, Elul 28–Tishri 4, and Adar 14–21
Year 4: Av 30–Elul 7 and Shevat 16–23
Year 5: Av 2–9 and Teveth 18–25
Year 6: Tammuz 4–11 and Kislev 21–28
At least part of all twelve months are covered at some point in this cycle. It would be nice if we could narrow the possibilities more, as Beckwith suggests with his one-year cycle used by the Pharisees and Sadducees, but as his work is based on misreading rabbinic texts, as with Simmons, I am afraid it will not be helpful in this case.18 But if this 6-year cycle approximates what could happen in a similar span of time in the Judean calendar, we can make the following conversions to the Judean system, assuming that in Year 1 Nisan 1 would also be on a Wednesday (and, more importantly, that Jehoiarib’s time would overlap with Tishri 1).19
List 1: Intercalations Every Three Years in a 6-Year Cycle
Year 1: Iyyar 24–Sivan 1 and Heshvan 15–2220
Year 2: Iyyar 6–13 and Tishri 26–Heshvan 4
Year 3: Nisan 17–24, Tishri 8–15, and Adar 29–II Adar 6
Year 4: Av 19–26 and Shevat 10–17
Year 5: Av 1–8 and Teveth 22–29
Year 6: Tammuz 13–20 and Teveth 4–11
[Year 7: Iyyar 24–Sivan 1 and Heshvan 15–22]
If we were to assume a scenario in which a six-year cycle involved an intercalation after 3 years and then after 2 years, the details would change in Year 6, but the outcome of the cycle itself would be maintained:
List 2: Intercalations Alternating in a 6-Year Cycle
Year 1: Iyyar 24–Sivan 1 and Heshvan 15–2221
Year 2: Iyyar 6–13 and Tishri 26–Heshvan 4
Year 3: Nisan 17–24, Tishri 8–15, and Adar 29–II Adar 6
Year 4: Av 19–26 and Shevat 10–17
Year 5: Av 1–8 and Teveth 22–29
Year 6: Sivan 12–19 and Kislev 3–10
[Year 7: Iyyar 24–Sivan 1 and Heshvan 15–22]
Of course, this would be complicated by more frequent intercalations, but most frequently, a 6-year period would constitute a complete priestly cycle. In the case of a long-term alternating intercalation after 2 years and then 3 years, the order of Abijah’s schedule would look like this:22
List 3: Intercalations Alternating Consistently Long-Term
Year 1: Iyyar 24–Sivan 1 and Heshvan 15–22
Year 2: Iyyar 6–13, Tishri 26–Heshvan 4, and II Adar 17–24
Year 3: Elul 7–14 and Shevat 27–Adar 5
Year 4: Av 18–25 and Shevat 9–16
Year 5: Tammuz 30–Av 7 and Teveth 21–28
Year 6: Sivan 11–18 and Kislev 3–10
Year 7: Iyyar 23–30 and Heshvan 14–21
Year 8: Nisan 4–11, Elul 25–Tishri 2, and Adar 16–23
Year 9: Elul 7–14 and Shevat 27–Adar 5
Year 10: Av 18–25 and Shevat 9–16
Year 11: Sivan 29–Tammuz 7 and Kislev 20–27
Year 12: Sivan 11–18 and Kislev 2–9
Year 13: Nisan 22–29 and Tishri 13–20
Year 14: Nisan 4–11, Elul 25–Tishri 2, and Adar 16–23
Year 15: Elul 7–14 and Shevat 27–Adar 5
Year 16: Tammuz 18–25 and Teveth 9–16
Year 17: Sivan 29–Tammuz 7 and Kislev 20–27
Year 18: Iyyar 11–18 and Heshvan 2–9
Year 19: Nisan 22–29 and Tishri 13–20
Year 20: Nisan 4–11, Elul 25–Tishri 2, and Adar 16–23
Year 21: Av 6–13 and Teveth 27–Shevat 4
Year 22: Tammuz 18–25 and Teveth 9–16
Year 23: Iyyar 29–Sivan 6 and Heshvan 20–27
Year 24: Nisan 10–17, Tishri 1–8, and Adar 22–29
Year 25: Elul 23–30 and Adar 14–21
Year 26: Av 4–11 and Teveth 25–Shevat 2
Year 27: Tammuz 16–23 and Teveth 7–14
Year 28: Iyyar 27–Sivan 4 and Heshvan 18–25
It is unlikely that an intercalated year every 2 years was used with this much frequency over a 28-year period, since 11 intercalations in this many years would guarantee at least one would fall on a Sabbatical year, which was discouraged, as was intercalating the year after a Sabbatical year (t. Sanh. 2.9; b. Sanh. 12a.10). Of course, the rabbis nevertheless say that the year may be intercalated on the basis of necessities outlined above, and in such circumstances, it is more likely that the post-Sabbatical year was intercalated rather than the Sabbatical year.23 But in general terms, making too many intercalations would create its own problems in attempting to align the calendar to the seasons. But we still see here the cycle repeat after 5 years (between Years 23 and 28), 6 years (between Years 1 and 7), and 16 years (between Years 7 and 23). The 5-year cycle represents a cycle in which there are 2 intercalary years, each 2 years apart. The 16-year cycle represents a cycle in which the first year of the cycle falls on an intercalary year and the intercalary years then follow on a consistently alternating basis, surely an outlier occurrence in any case. The 6-year cycle represents a cycle that features 2 intercalary years at either alternating 2- and 3-year intervals or simple 3-year intervals (as established in the earlier list). Of all these scenarios, the 6-year cycle covers the most typical use of intercalations in the Judean calendar. We thus have enough reason to use a 6-year cycle as a baseline, although we need to keep in mind that the Judean calendar would not be this regular over a long period of time, nor is the three-year intercalation period any sort of fixed rule like the leap year is today. Additionally, adjustments would necessarily need to be made when the possibility arose of a Sabbatical year being intercalated following the typical 3-year interval.
As our earlier 6-year cycles were based on the assumption of Nisan 1 being on a Wednesday, let us now look at how this cycle would look with some assumptions of Nisan 1 being on a Sunday or Saturday/Sabbath, while bearing in mind that Jehoiarib needs to serve on the Sabbath before or on Tishri 1 in Year 1. First, with Nisan 1 on a Sunday (where the first Sabbath is Nisan 7):
List 1.1: 3-Year Intercalations with Nisan 1 of Year 1 on a Sunday
Year 1: Iyyar 27–Sivan 4 and Heshvan 18–25
Year 2: Iyyar 9–16 and Tishri 29–Heshvan 7
Year 3: Nisan 20–27, Tishri 11–18, and II Adar 2–9
Year 4: Av 22–29 and Shevat 13–20
Year 5: Av 4–11 and Teveth 25–Shevat 2
Year 6: Tammuz 16–23 and Teveth 7–14
Second, with Nisan 1 on a Saturday/Sabbath:
List 1.2: 3-Year Intercalations with Nisan 1 of Year 1 on a Saturday
Year 1: Iyyar 28–Sivan 5 and Heshvan 19–26
Year 2: Iyyar 10–17 and Heshvan 1–8
Year 3: Nisan 21–28, Tishri 12–19, and II Adar 3–10
Year 4: Av 23–Elul 1 and Shevat 14–21
Year 5: Av 5–12 and Teveth 26–Shevat 3
Year 6: Tammuz 17–24 and Teveth 8–15
From these calculations, we can make some general observations about when the order of Abijah tends to serve. First, at the beginning of a cycle in the Judean calendar, Abijah serves between the end of Iyyar and the beginning of Sivan in the first ministration, and serves the second ministration in the second half of Heshvan. Second, in a variety of scenarios, apart from the Qumran calendar that operates by its own (more consistent) set of rules, the first ministration most frequently and reliably occurs in Iyyar (along with some overlap with the beginning of Sivan, especially in the first year of the cycle) or Av, while the second ministration most frequently and reliably occurs in Heshvan (sometimes with overlap with the end of Tishri) and Teveth (sometimes with overlap with the beginning of Shevat). Third, interestingly enough, even with this much smaller cycle than Simmons’s, we see that there were circumstances that can lead to the order of Abijah serving on Tishri 10, the Day of Atonement. It can happen in the third year of a cycle, assuming that the first and second years are not intercalary years, and if Nisan 1 that year begins on a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday. Such a situation would not be regular, but it would also certainly not be unheard of.
Once again, we cannot be precise on the Judean calendar in this era. It will be helpful to utilize Parker and Dubberstein’s work, when we have decent information on a year to work with, while accounting for a margin of error up to 30 days earlier by the Julian calendar, since this is the amount by which the Judeans would correct their calendar in an intercalary year.
Summary
I have attempted, surely unsuccessfully, to keep this section from being too abstruse in order to explain the errors I see in others’ processes and the logic of my own. But in terms of information we can apply for our own attempts to discern the dates of Jesus’s birth, here is what we can use once we have a year to work with and account for a margin of error. Zechariah’s priestly order of Abijah most likely served in a 6-year cycle, mostly in the vicinities of the second, fifth, eighth, and tenth months of the Judean calendar, although the imprecisions of the Judean calendar mean that we cannot rule out a priori any particular date range when converting to the Julian calendar. When we get to our conclusion, it will also be helpful to convert our cycle from beginning on Nisan (for the sake of converting from the Qumran calendar) to beginning on Tishri, giving us the following list:
List 4: Intercalations Every Three Years in a 6-Year Cycle, Beginning in Tishri
Year 1: Heshvan 15–22 and Iyyar 6–13
Year 2: Tishri 26–Heshvan 4 and Nisan 17–24
Year 3: Tishri 8–15, Adar 29–II Adar 6, and Av 19–26
Year 4: Shevat 10–17 and Av 1–8
Year 5: Teveth 22–29 and Tammuz 13–20
Year 6: Teveth 4–11 and Iyyar 24–Sivan 1
[Year 7: Heshvan 15–22 and Iyyar 6–13]
Elizabeth’s pregnancy begins after Zechariah’s encounter with the angel and she is said to be six months pregnant when Mary becomes pregnant with Jesus (Luke 1:36)
There is not much to add here, as this datum is significant, but not controversial. It indicates that, whatever we might determine for the time of Zechariah’s angelophany and the time of John’s conception, we would add six months to arrive at the general time of Jesus’s conception and then nine months for Jesus’s birth. In other words, this reference indicates that the angelophany was roughly 15 months before Jesus’s birth. Of course, we cannot ignore what we noted from Beckwith in the introduction, as there may be some gap of several weeks or even a few months between the angelophany and John’s conception. But even so, we can say that the 15-month span is a minimum for the events covered.
For a review of prominent theories, see Roger T. Beckwith, Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian: Biblical, Intertestamental and Patristic Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 79–81.
For his more general chronological work, where he presents his arguments for some of these points, see Kurt M. Simmons, “The Origins of Christmas and the Date of Christ’s Birth,” JETS 58 (2015): 299–324.
Cf. ibid., 322–24.
At least, according to rabbinic tradition. According to 2 Kgs 25:8–9, the destruction of the First Temple was on Av 7.
Beckwith (Calendar and Chronology, 83–84) makes the same mistake in reading as Simmons in this regard.
Ibid., 81–82.
Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, Brown University Studies 19 (Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 1956). Or, in Mahieu’s case, the Tyrian calendar (Herod the Great, 29–34). Simmons acknowledges this problem in his online document, but he proceeds nonetheless while making some corrections, without a clear justification for using the later rabbinic calendar than that it is widely employed.
Sacha Stern, Calendar and Community: A History of the Jewish Calendar Second Century BCE—Tenth Century CE (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 2–21, 28–46, 50–62, 75–79, 85–97, 132–54, 155–210.
Ibid., 50–53.
Ibid., 78–79, 119.
Mosshammer, Easter Computus, 185.
Stern, Calendar, 75–78. On textual problems with this list, see ibid., 126–29.
For more on rabbinic reckoning, see Beckwith, Calendar and Chronology, 282–89.
I am here summarizing ibid., 82–83.
Ibid., 89.
The Judean calendar needed an intercalated 13th month ever 3 years or, less often, every 2 years. The average lunar year would be 354 days. In a six-year period, with a 30-day month intercalated every three years, the total days would be: 354 x 6 + (30 x 2) = 2,184 days. The Qumran calendar had 364 days for every year: 364 x 6 = 2,184 days.
The assignment of the Jewish calendar dates is based on two factors. 1) The regulation was that the orders would change during the day of the Sabbath, so there will necessarily be overlap of days at the beginning and end. 2) All months in the Qumran calendar have at least 30 days, with a 31st day added in the 3rd, 6th, 9th, and 12th months. For more detail, see ibid., 89–92.
Ibid., 84–88.
This follows a lunar calendar in which the months alternate between 29 (odd months) and 30 days (even months) and assumes an intercalation every 3 years. One adds 161 days to the end of one ministration to get to the beginning of the next (23 weeks for 23 other divisions). Intercalated years are in bold.
In such a year, the order of Jehoiarib would serve on the Sabbath following Nisan 1 and resume on the Sabbath just before Tishri 1.
In such a year, the order of Jehoiarib would serve on the Sabbath following Nisan 1 and resume on the Sabbath just before Tishri 1.
I have italicized the years in which the order of Jehoiarib would be serving on the Sabbath before or on Tishri 1.
This is one point that illustrates flaws in Parker and Dubberstein’s work. In the period from Tishri 40 BCE–Tishri 70 CE, there were 16 Sabbatical years (the first in 37/36 BCE, as noted above, and the last in 69/70 BCE). In Parker and Dubberstein’s calculations covering this period, they intercalate 5 Sabbatical years in Tishri 37–Tishri 36 BCE, Tishri 23–Tishri 22 BCE, Tishri 13–Tishri 14 CE, Tishri 27–Tishri 28 CE, and Tishri 62–Tishri 63 CE (Babylonian Chronology, 44–47).