Hypothesis: a message from the Creator in the fractional part of the inverse of the fine structure constant

Abstract

The fine structure constant usually denoted as alpha and the strong coupling constant are the only two fundamental physical constants that meet the following characteristics: they are dimensionless (meaning that their numerical values are independent from the units adopted for the physical magnitudes), their values are critical for the suitability of the universe to the development of life, their values lack arbitrariness, and they are among the 25 fundamental constants of the Standard Model of physics. As the two constants have been measured with vastly different precisions, 12 and 4 digits respectively, only the former is apt for the Creator of the universe to use its less significant digits to encode a message to intelligent creatures. In fact, physicists have long speculated on the possible meaning of the value of alpha, of whose inverse the measurements since 2008 yield a range of 137.035 999 033 .. 137.035 999 183. Noting that the fractional part is almost 36/1000, we posit and subsequently confirm that it corresponds to 1/1000 the lifetime length in years of a person who died 7 - 8.5 hours before the exact time of his 36th birthday, with Jesus of Nazareth being the obvious candidate for that person. Jesus having this exact age at the time of his death results from 4 assumptions: a) He died on Friday 7 April 30 AD, b) that day was 14 Nisan in line with John's Gospel, c) He was circumcised on 14 Nisan - whereby He must have been born on 7 Nisan -, and d) He was born on 7 BC. This set of assumptions is consistent with the exact difference of 8 days (+2.5 hours) between the new moons closest to the spring equinoxes of 7 BC and 30 AD, with the Gospel passages related to the Nativity, with the theologically expected length of Jesus' lifetime from the joint consideration of Deut 31:2 and Jn 1:17, and with the symbolic meaning of the resulting day of Incarnation according to the calendar of feasts of the Temple Scroll. Having matched the dates of birth and death using the proleptic Julian calendar, we check that they also match when using a "hard" solar calendar in which the year starts at the Jerusalem midnight closest to the vernal equinox. We call this hypothesis that the fabric of the universe has an imprint attesting that it was created in view of the Incarnation of the Logos the "Christ-proclaiming fine tuning hypothesis".

PDF at http://independent.academia.edu/JohannesAr

1.*** Introduction

The fine structure constant, also known as electromagnetic coupling constant and usually denoted as alpha, is defined as:

alpha = e^2 / (2 h c epsilon_0) = e^2 c mu_0 / (2 h)

where:

e is the elementary charge,

h is the Planck constant,

c is the speed of light in vacuum,

epsilon_0 is the vacuum permittivity or electric constant, and

mu_0 is the vacuum permeability or magnetic constant,

being the last two related by the formula: c^2 = 1 / (epsilon_0 mu_0).

This constant is dimensionless, meaning that its value is completely independent from the units adopted for the various physical magnitudes such as length, time, mass and electrical charge. The two most precise measurements since 2008 to July 2017 of the value of the fine structure constant give for its inverse the combined range [1] [2]:

alpha^(-1) = 137.035 999 033 .. 137.035 999 183

The fine structure constant has long fascinated physicists. Richard Feynman, one of the founders of quantum electrodynamics, referred to it in these terms:

"There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant ... (My physicist friends ... like to remember it as the inverse ...: about 137.03597 with about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. [Note: that was the case back in 1985 when Feynman wrote this.] It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!" [3]

This article is precisely a development of Feynman's intuition above, namely that the Creator of the universe encoded a message in the least significant digits, i.e. the fractional part, of the inverse of the fine structure constant. To start, let's review the requisites that a physical constant must fulfill to be a likely vehicle for a message from the Creator.

First, the constant in question must be both dimensionless and significant, which as we will see restricts its applicability to the electromagnetic and strong coupling constants. The reason of the requisite of dimensionlessness is obvious: the value of a dimensional constant depends on the units adopted for the various physical magnitudes such as length, time, mass, etc., and those units are completely arbitrary (with the exception of the Earth's solar year, which in a strongly anthropocentric view of the universe is not arbitrary at all). The reason of the requisite of significance is obvious as well, as otherwise we would try to find meaning in the quotients of the masses of each pair of elementary particles.

The significance of the fine structure constant is well recognized: together with the proton-to-electron mass ratio and the coupling constants for the strong force and gravitation is one of a few dimensionless physical constants whose value is critical for the suitability of the universe for the development of life. For instance, were alpha to change by only 2.5 %, stellar fusion would not produce carbon and oxygen in sufficiently large amounts for carbon-oxygen based life to be possible [4]. But there are some features of the alpha that set it apart from those other constants:

- When compared to the gravitational coupling constant, the numerical value of the fine structure constant lacks arbitrariness: whereas the gravitational coupling constant requires the arbitrary choice of a pair of objects having mass, which could be a pair of electrons, a pair of protons, or one electron and one proton, the fine structure constant is a function of the elementary charge e, which is unique.

- When compared to the proton-to-electron mass ratio, the fine structure constant is one of the 25 fundamental constants of the Standard Model of physics, while the proton-to-electron mass ratio is not [5]. (Actually, not even the mass of the proton is one of the 25 fundamental constants of the Standard Model.)

This leaves us with just two constants satisfying both requisites: the fine structure constant and the strong coupling constant, which have been measured with vastly different precisions: 12 digits the former and 4 digits the latter. Therefore, only the former is apt for encoding a message.

Focusing thus on alpha, the mentioned finding that it cannot deviate more than 2.5 % from its actual value if the universe is to be suitable for the development of life means that the integer part of the inverse of alpha must be very close to 137 for that purpose, so that trying to find a symbolic meaning in that number is completely unwarranted. In contrast, it is evident that fine tuning for life is compatible with a range of values of the fractional part, i.e. the universe would be just as suitable for the development of life if the inverse of alpha were 137 sharp, 137.036 or 137.120. Thus, IF there is a message from the Creator encoded in a dimensionless physical constant, it seems logical that it should be in the value of the fractional part of the inverse of alpha.

To note, while the constant encoding the message is dimensionless, the coded message itself can be dimensional, i.e. it can refer to a dimensional quantity such as a length of time, measured in a unit which is natural for that dimension, in this case the solar year.

Searching then for a possible meaning encoded in 0.035999xxx, which is almost 0.036 = 36/1000, we start by noting two possible clues in the Bible:

First, Psalm 90:4 states that, for God, a thousand years in his sight are like one day. Therefore we can interpret the fractional part, almost 36/1000, as representing a length of time of almost 36 years relative to 1,000 years.

Next, although we do not know yet the nature of the interval quantified by that length, we want to restrict the potential value of that class of intervals to at most 999 years, so that they cannot "spill over" to the integer part. Now, a significant class of time intervals which are always shorter than 1,000 years in the Bible are human lifetimes, the maximum value being 969 years in Gen 5:27. Therefore we can interpret the fractional part as representing a human lifetime, specifically the lifetime of someone who died a few hours before the exact time of his 36th birthday.

We will now calculate the difference between the times of day of birth and of death which correspond to the current measurements of the inverse of alpha, of which the mean value, standard deviation and consequent range are, according to [1] and [2] respectively:

alpha^(-1) = 137.035 999 084 (51) [0.37 ppb]

range = 137.035 999 033 - 137.035 999 135

alpha^(-1) = 137.035 999 150 (33) [0.25 ppb]

range = 137.035 999 117 - 137.035 999 183

The resulting combined range is:

combined range = 137.035 999 033 - 137.035 999 183

Calling diff the difference in hours between the times of day of birth and of death, we have:

alpha^(-1) = 137 + 0.001 [36 - diff / (24 * 365.25)]

1000 [alpha^(-1) - 137] = 36 - diff / (24 * 365.25)

diff = 24 * 365.25 * [36 - 1000 [alpha^(-1) - 137]]

From the low and high ends of the combined range of the inverse of alpha, we obtain the corresponding maximum and minimum values of diff:

diff.max = 24 * 365.25 * (36 - 35.999 033) = 8.477 h = 8 h 29'

diff.min = 24 * 365.25 * (36 - 35.999 183) = 7.162 h = 7 h 10'

In this interpretation, an obvious candidate for the Person referred to by the message is Jesus of Nazareth. Assuming that He died at 15:30, the above range of time difference leads to a range for his time of birth of:

time_of_birth.max = 15:30 + 8:29 = 23:59

time_of_birth.min = 15:30 + 7:10 = 22:40

which is in line with the narrative of Jesus' Nativity in the Gospels.

To note, this interpretation of the fractional part does not rely on the positional decimal numeral system, because we are just multiplying by 1,000 the fractional part and comparing the result with an age in years, or conversely dividing an age in years by 1,000 and comparing the result with the fractional part. Therefore we can perform that operation and comparison using any numeral system to represent the numbers, although clearly the decimal system makes the task much easier.

Now, does a length of 36 years for Jesus' lifetime make symbolic theological sense in itself? Indeed it does, as we will show next by comparing his case to that of Moses.

Moses' assertion towards the end of Deuteronomy “I am 120 years old today.” (Deut 31:2) is traditionally interpreted as if Moses was saying that he was turning 120 years old that very same day, which according to two subsequent passages was also the day he died:

"So Moses wrote this song the same day, and taught it to the sons of Israel." (Deut 31:22)

"The LORD spoke to Moses that very same day, saying, “Go up to this mountain of the Abarim, Mount Nebo, which is in the land of Moab opposite Jericho, and look at the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the sons of Israel for a possession. Then die on the mountain where you ascend, and be gathered to your people, as Aaron your brother died on Mount Hor and was gathered to his people,”" (32:48-50)

Since Moses is the only person in the whole Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, to have died at an age of 120 years, it is reasonable to wonder whether the length of Moses' lifetime may have a symbolic meaning, and if it does, whether the length of Jesus' lifetime may also be biblically unique on the basis of a unique symbolic meaning. The key to answer both questions is in John's Gospel:

"For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." (Jn 1:17)

Clearly a lifetime of (120 = 10 · 12) years fits perfectly with Moses being the mediator through which the Law was given to the people, since:

- the numeric symbol for the Law given through Moses is 10, from the 10 commandments, and

- the numeric symbol for the people who received that Law is 12, both in the Old Covenant from the 12 sons of Jacob and in the New Covenant from the 12 Apostles, since the core of the Law given through Moses holds, in a fulfilled way, in the New Covenant (Mt 5:17; Mk 12:28-31; Rom 13:8-10).

Turning to Jesus, both the truth and the grace that came through Him can be symbolized by the number 3, since:

- the foremost truth revealed by Jesus is the Holy Trinity, i.e. that God begets eternally a consubstantial Son with Whom He breathes eternally a consubstantial Holy Spirit, and then that the Trinity loves us so much as to grant to us the grace described next,

- the grace merited for us by Jesus' obedience to the Father to the point of death (Phil 2:8) consists foremost in making us members of the Son and temples of the Holy Spirit, and as members of the Son, adopted sons of the Father, thus making us partakers of the divine Persons (2 Pe 1:4) and inhabited by Them.

Therefore, if the lengths of both Moses' and Jesus' lifetimes have symbolic meanings that reflect the respective gifts that the people received through them according to Jn 1:17, then Jesus' lifetime should have been of (36 = 3 · 12) years, since:

- the numeric symbol for both the truth and the grace that came through Jesus is 3, from the 3 divine Persons, Who by grace make the faithful members of the Son, temples of the Holy Spirit and adopted sons of God the Father, and

- the numeric symbol for the people who receive those truth and grace is 12, from the 12 Apostles.

Importantly, as the study of New Testament chronology we will start is highly valuable in and of itself, we will make a point of keeping it completely separate from the motive that prompted us to embark upon it. Thus, we will keep the treatment of alpha-related topics strictly confined to the sections marked with *** in its numbering (such as this). All other sections in this study are completely independent from that subject.

2. Conventions and tools used in this study

Dates are expressed as dd Month yy when year is stated or as Mon dd. 

All BC and AD dates are proleptic Julian calendar dates, i.e. we assume that years 5 BC, 1 BC and 4 AD were leap. Our sources of astronomical information [11] and [13] make the same assumption.

Day 1 of months in the Hebrew Calendar are determined through these 2 steps:

1. Find the date and time of the previous new moon, NM_date & NM_time [11].

2. 

If NM_time < 12:00

   then Month.1 = since (NM_date + 1) sunset to (NM_date + 2) sunset

If NM_time > 12:00

   then Month.1 = since (NM_date + 2) sunset to (NM_date + 3) sunset

3. Constraints on the dates of events in Jesus' life

3.1. Constraint on the year of Jesus' birth based on the year of Herod's death

The estimation of the year of Jesus' birth depends on the estimation of the year of Herod's death. The information to date the latter event is provided by Flavius Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews, book 17 [6].

In 17.6.4, when narrating events leading to Herod's last times, Josephus notes an event involving the high priest Matthias ben Theophilus:

"Now it happened, that during the time of the high priesthood of this Matthias, there was another person made high priest for a single day, that very day which the Jews observed as a fast. The occasion was this: This Matthias the high priest, on the night before that day when the fast was to be celebrated, seemed, in a dream, (7) to have conversation with his wife; and because he could not officiate himself on that account, Joseph, the son of Ellemus, his kinsman, assisted him in that sacred office. But Herod deprived this Matthias of the high priesthood, and burnt the other Matthias, who had raised the sedition, with his companions, alive. And that very night there was an eclipse of the moon. (8)"

Two important notes regarding this passage.

First, the "very day which the Jews observed as a fast" was specifically Yom Kippur according to rabbinic tradition. Quoting Jewish Encyclopedia:

On the eve of a Day of Atonement—for the priest the most important time in the year—he had become ritually unclean, and consequently was unable to perform the duties of his office, which were discharged instead by his kinsman Joseph ben Ellem ("Ant." xvii. 6, § 4). This occurrence is mentioned in the Talmud (Tosef., Yoma, i. 4; Yoma 12b; Yer. Yoma 38d), although the name of Matthias ben Theophilus is omitted. [7]

Tractate Yoma in the Tosefta and the Talmuds is all about Yom Kippur services. Quoting Yoma 12b of the Babylonian Talmud:

"It happened to Joseph b. Elam of Sepphoris that after a disqualifying accident had happened to the high priest, he was appointed in the former's place" [8].

Second, the "very night" when "there was an eclipse of the moon" does not refer to "the night before that day when the fast was to be celebrated", or even to the night immediately following that, but to the night when "Herod deprived this Matthias of the high priesthood, and burnt the other Matthias, who had raised the sedition, with his companions, alive", which could have happened a few days after the day observed as a fast.

In 17.6.5, when describing Herod's final illness, Josephus notes that Herod "went beyond the river Jordan, and bathed himself in the warm baths that were at Callirrhoe," until "having no longer the least hopes of recovering".

In 17.9.3, when narrating events shortly after Herod's death, Josephus notes "the approach of that feast of unleavened bread, which the law of their fathers had appointed for the Jews at this time, which feast is called the Passover".

Even while the only fast day associated with important priestly duties was Yom Kippur, and moreover, that according to rabbinic tradition the event of a high priest becoming unable to perform his duties and being substituted by a "Joseph, the son of Ellemus" was specifically in Yom Kippur, I will list all Jewish fast days at that time, which were "the fasts of the fourth, fifth, seventh and tenth months" (Zec 8:19) plus the Fast of Esther on Purim eve, 13 Adar, instituted after the time of prophet Zechariah (Esther 9:31).

Month No. Month Name: Fast day, reason.

- 4. Tammuz: 9 Tammuz, breach of the walls of Jerusalem (2 Kings 25:3-4; Jer 39:2, 52:6–7).

- 5. Av: 7/10 Av, destruction of the First Temple (2 Kings 25:8-10; Jer 52:12-14).

- 7. Tishrei: 10 Tishrei, Atonement Day (Yom Kippur) (Lev 16:29-31 and 23:26-28).

- 10. Tevet: 10 Tevet, beginning of the siege of Jerusalem (2 Kings 25:1-2).

- 12/13. Adar/Adar II: 13 Adar/Adar II, the Fast of Esther on Purim eve.

Considering all candidate lunar eclipses, we have:

AJ 17.6.4 - Eclipse -- Moon phase - Eclipse date - AJ 17.9.3 -- Jesus'- Jesus'

lunar ----- type and - on day of -- in Hebrew ---- Passover --- birth - death

eclipse --- midtime -- eclipse ---- calendar ----- (15 Nisan) - years - year

[9] ------- [10] ----- [11] ------- [11] --------- [11]

a. 23 Mar 5 BC - T - 20:21 - Full - 15 Nisan --- 24 Mar 5 BC

b. 15 Sep 5 BC - T - 22:12 - Full - 13 Tishrei - 12 Apr 4 BC- 7-6 BC - 30 AD

c. 13 Mar 4 BC - P - 02:41 - Full - 14 Adar II - 12 Apr 4 BC

d. 10 Jan 1 BC - T - 01:09 - Full - 13 Tevet ---  9 Apr 1 BC- 4-3 BC - 33 AD

e. 29 Dec 1 BC - P - 16:32 - Full - 13 Tevet --- 30 Mar 1 AD

a. 5 BC

New Moon = Mar  8  04:45

Nisan  1 = since Mar  9 sunset to Mar 10 sunset

     +14            +14

Nisan 15 = since Mar 23 sunset to Mar 24 sunset. Eclipse at Mar 23 20:21.

Since the eclipse was at the beginning of the day of Passover, it is directly excluded. Even if the previous lunisolar year had been embolismic and the month that started on Mar 9 - Mar 10 had been Adar II, this eclipse would be excluded since an interval of 29 days is too short for all the events narrated by Josephus between the eclipse and the Passover after Herod's death.

b. 5 BC

New Moon = Sep  1  18:10

Tishrei  1 = since Sep  3 sunset to Sep  4 sunset

       +12            +12

Tishrei 13 = since Sep 15 sunset to Sep 16 sunset. Eclipse at Sep 15 22:12.

This is consistent with the "very night" when "there was an eclipse of the moon" not referring to the night immediately following the fast of 10 Tishrei but to the night when "Herod deprived this Matthias of the high priesthood, and burnt the other Matthias, who had raised the sedition, with his companions, alive", with this event happening 3 days after 10 Tishrei.

c. 4 BC (has Adar II)

New Moon = Feb 25  18:33

Adar II  1 = since Feb 27 sunset to Feb 28 sunset

       +13                             +13

Adar II 14 = since Mar 12 sunset to Mar 13 sunset. Eclipse at Mar 13 02:41.

New Moon = Mar 27  03:59

Nisan  1 = since Mar 28 sunset to Mar 29 sunset

     +14                             +14

Nisan 15 = since Apr 11 sunset to Apr 12 sunset

Just as it would have been the case with the 23 Mar 5 BC eclipse if the previous lunisolar year had been embolismic, this eclipse is excluded since an interval of 30 days is too short for all the events narrated by Josephus between the eclipse and the Passover after Herod's death. Additionally, this eclipse was partial and occurred way too late in the night to be likely to be noted and remembered.

d. 2 BC (has Adar II)

New Moon = Dec 26  15:58

Tevet  1 = since Dec 28 sunset to Dec 29 sunset

     +12                             +12

Tevet 13 = since Jan  9 sunset to Jan 10 sunset. Eclipse at Jan 10 01:09.

1 BC

New Moon = Mar 24  11:48

Nisan  1 = since Mar 25 sunset to Mar 26 sunset

     +14                             +14

Nisan 15 = since Apr  8 sunset to Apr  9 sunset

This is consistent with the "very night" when "there was an eclipse of the moon" not referring to the night immediately following the fast of 10 Tevet but to the night when "Herod deprived this Matthias of the high priesthood, and burnt the other Matthias, who had raised the sedition, with his companions, alive", with this event happening 3 days after 10 Tevet.

e. 1 BC

New Moon = Dec 14  15:11

Tevet  1 = since Dec 16 sunset to Dec 17 sunset

     +12                             +12

Tevet 13 = since Dec 28 sunset to Dec 29 sunset. Eclipse at Dec 29 16:32.

1 AD

New Moon = Mar 13  20:49

Nisan  1 = since Mar 15 sunset to Mar 16 sunset

     +14                             +14

Nisan 15 = since Mar 29 sunset to Mar 30 sunset

This eclipse is directly excluded because, first, it did not occur at night, and second but more important, it occurred below the horizon and could not be seen from Jerusalem [10]!

Conclusion: Whereas in principle both scenarios b and d are possible, from the facts that the only fast day associated with important priestly duties was Yom Kippur and that according to rabbinic tradition the event of a high priest becoming unable to perform his duties and being substituted by a "Joseph, the son of Ellemus" was specifically on Yom Kippur, evidently the most probable scenario is b, the eclipse before Herod's final illness being on 15 Sep 5 BC and the Passover after Herod's death being on 12 Apr 4 BC. This conclusion agrees with several recent comprehensive and detailed studies on the subject [16] [17] [18] [19].

Since Herod met the Magi in Jerusalem (Mt 2:1,3), the meeting had to be before he left the city some time after 15 Sep 5 BC. Assuming that the meeting occurred within the 1-year interval Sep 6 BC - Sep 5 BC, and that Herod's subsequent order to execute all babies in the area "two years old and under" reflected his own uncertainty about Jesus' date of birth "in accordance with the time (of the star's appearance) he had ascertained from the magi" (Mt 2:7,16), Jesus could have been born between 2 years before the start and 6 months before the end of that interval, i.e. between Sep 8 BC - March 5 BC.

Further constraining the date of Herod's meeting with the Magi according to theories 2 and 3 of the star of Bethlehem below, the interval for that meeting is Dec 6 BC - May 5 BC, and applying the above rule of thumb Jesus could have been born between Dec 8 BC - Nov 6 BC, i.e. in the years 7 or 6 BC.

3.2. Constraint on the year of Jesus' birth based on the census

3.2.1. Getting right at long last the reason why Luke mentions Quirinius' census

A correct interpretation of Luke 2:2 requires taking into account a key item of historical information of a most practical nature: any census of subjects (as opposed to citizens) of the Roman Empire was carried out for tax purposes, to determine the taxable base of each subject. In such a census, people to be registered were not expected to travel but to do exactly the opposite: stay in their homes and wait for the census officer, who was above all a tax assessor. Flavius Josephus, in his description of precisely the census ordered by Quirinius in 6 AD, explicitely states that the registered people had their possessions assessed (AJ 18.1.1 and 18.2.1). And it is evident that Joseph did not have properties in Bethlehem, otherwise he and Mary would not have had to seek shelter in a manger for Mary to give birth.

"1. NOW Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to he a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Beethus, and high priest; so they, being over-pesuaded by Joazar's words, gave an account of their estates, without any dispute about it. Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, (1) of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, (2) a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty;" (AJ 18.1.1) [20]

"1. WHEN Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus's money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar's victory over Antony at Actium, he deprived Joazar of the high priesthood, which dignity had been conferred on him by the multitude, and he appointed Ananus, the son of Seth, to be high priest;" (AJ 18.2.1) [20]

Therefore, the historically informed translation of Luke 2:2: "hautē apographē prōtē egeneto hēgemoneuontos tēs Syrias Kyrēniou" is "this registration took place before Quirinius was governing Syria". Note that rendering "prōtē" as "before" is consistent with the established translation of the end of Jn 1:15: "hoti prōtos mou ēn" = "because He was before me".

Thus, noting from Acts 5:37 that Luke was fully aware of the event of Quirinius' census, its nature and its consequence, namely the uprising of Judas the Galilean, the reason of his mentioning the event in Luke 2:2 becomes crystal clear: state for the record that he was not talking about that census. I.e., Luke is saying: "Given that in a Roman census of imperial subjects for taxation purposes people must remain at their homes (a fact which is well-known by everyone in my time but will have been long forgotten by the XXI century), I state for the record that the census that prompted Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem was before Quirinius ordered his infamous one."

How then could it come to pass that Luke's statement was interpreted for centuries in exactly the opposite way as he meant it? Because of complete unawareness of historical context. I imagine that anyone living in the Roman Empire at Luke's time would find the contemporary discussion of Quirinius' census hilarious to the point of ridiculousness, and think: "How can these guys not understand that a census of subjects of the Empire (as opposed to Roman citizens) is for tax purposes, and that people must wait for the census officer at their homes? How else could the census officer reckon the taxable base of each person other than by having a look at his property?"

3.2.2. What then was the relevant census that prompted Mary and Joseph to travel?

The census that prompted the travel of Joseph and Mary was ordered by Herod and obviously restricted to the territory ruled by him. It approximately coincided in time with a global census ordered by Augustus in 8 bC, but was of different nature. Whereas Augustus' 8 BC global census was restricted to Roman citizens and for statistics, not tax, purposes [21], the motive of the Census ordered by Herod in 7/6 BC was that all his subjects should swear fidelity to Caesar and the king (AJ 17.2.4) [22].

"These are those that are called the sect of the Pharisees, who were in a capacity of greatly opposing kings. A cunning sect they were, and soon elevated to a pitch of open fighting and doing mischief. Accordingly, when all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their good-will to Caesar, and to the king's government, these very men did not swear, being above six thousand;" (AJ 17.2.4) [6]

Together with the record of the oath, people were registered for an egalitarian contribution per capita in the way ordered by Ex 30:11-16, in which the possessions of each person were not taken into account.

In the context of a registration ordered by Herod, and knowing his profile, the order that all descendants of King David should register in one place was wholly plausible and logical, as it allowed Herod to know all potential claimers to the throne of Israel (and hence potential threats to his position). Furthermore, it is highly likely that the duty to travel to the city of their ancestors was in force only to King David's descendants, because of the people in general Luke says that "all went to be registered, each to his own town" (Lk 2:3), not "each to the town of his ancestors".

3.3. Start of Jesus’ public ministry

After his baptism in the Jordan, Jesus went to the desert where He spent forty days. Then

- He returned to "Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing", where "the next day" (Jn 1:29, day 2, as it implies there was a previous day) John the Baptist gave testimony of Him as the Lamb of God, the pre-existing One who was coming, the One upon whom the Holy Spirit had come down and remained (Jn 1:29-34) (on the previous day, i.e. on day 1, related to day 1 of creation when "the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters");

- "The next day" (Jn 1:35, day 3) He met his first two disciples, Andrew and John the Apostle (Jn 1:35-39), who "stayed with Him that day" (Jn 1:39);

- On day 4 He met Simon Peter (Jn 1:40-42);

- "The next day" (Jn 1:43, day 5) "He decided to go to Galilee" and met Philip and Nathanael, and

- "On the third day" (Jn 2:1, day 7 if counting inclusively, in the same way as we say that Jesus rose "on the third day") He attended the wedding in Cana, relating that day to day 7 of creation when Adam and Eve celebrated their marriage. Besides, Jesus' conversion of water into quality wine was a sign of the fulfillment of Isaiah 25:6: "On this mountain the LORD of hosts will provide for all peoples a feast of rich food and choice wines, juicy, rich food and pure, choice wines", further relating that day to day 7 of creation, the Sabbath, as a pointer to the definitive Sabbath of the feast of the Lord with all peoples.)

After "the beginning of his signs in Cana in Galilee" Jesus "and his mother, his brothers, and his disciples went down to Capernaum and stayed there only a few days. Since the Passover of the Jews was near, Jesus went up to Jerusalem." (Jn 2:11-13) Thus we can draw the tightest possible timeline of events as:

- Baptism, desert: 6 weeks (42 days)

- Bethany, travel to Galilee, wedding in Cana: 1 week

- Capernaum: 1 week

- Travel to Jerusalem, Passover: 1 week.

Once in Jerusalem, Jesus drove the merchants and money-changers out of the Temple and had a discussion with the Jews where they said "This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and you will raise it up in three days?" (Jn 2:20). Again from Flavius Josephus, the reconstruction of the Second Temple was started by Herod the Great "in the eighteenth year of his reign" (20-19 BC), which places the following constraints on the time of this event:

earliest date: 1 January 20 BC + 46 years = 1 January 27 AD

latest date: 31st December 19 BC + 46 years = 31st December 28 AD

A very detailed analysis in Doig (1990) [25] ch 13 arrives to the conclusion that the rebuilding of Herod's Temple was begun in December 20 BC - January 19 BC (the exact mid point of the interval we have considered), so that December 27 AD - January 28 AD was forty-six complete years later and therefore Jesus' first Passover in his public life must have been the Passover of 28 AD (30 March) [23.b] [24]. This in turn constrains the date of Jesus' baptism, which must have taken place no later than 9 weeks before 30 March 28 AD, i.e. no later than 28 January 28 AD.

Focusing now on the dating of the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist "in the fifteenth year of the hegemonias of Tiberius Caesar" in Lk 3:1, there are several dating methods that Luke may have followed, first choosing between factual a.k.a. dynastic and calendrical regnal years, then in both cases choosing the event marking the beginning of Tiberius' reign, and in the case of calendrical regnal years, choosing also:

- between accession year and non-accession year reckoning, and

- between the Syro-Macedonian and the Jewish calendar, and in the case of the latter, between the year beginning on Tishrei 1, as used by the Diaspora, or on Nisan 1, as used in the Second Temple.

The next table gives the results for factual regnal year reckoning.

Factual a.k.a. dynastic regnal year reckoning
Beginning of Tiberius' hegemonias	1st year of Tiberius' hegemonias	15th year of Tiberius' hegemonias
Augustus' death on 19 August 14	19 Aug 14 - 18 Aug 15	19 Aug 28 - 18 Aug 29
Granting of proconsular power co-extensive with Augustus', i.e. including Rome, on 27 June 13	27 Jun 13 - 26 Jun 14	27 Jun 27 - 26 June 28

Since Jesus' baptism must have taken place no later than 28 January 28, we see that the first choice is unsuitable whereas the second is perfectly suitable, allowing up to 7 months for John's ministry before Jesus' baptism.

The next table gives the results for calendrical non-accession year reckoning.

Calendrical non-accession year (aka inclusive) reckoning
Calendar & 1st month of year	1st year of Tiberius' hegemonias	15th year of Tiberius' hegemonias
	Since Augustus' death on 19 August 14
1. Siro-Macedonian calendar from Dios (= Marheshvan)	25 Oct 13 - 14 Oct 14	20 Oct 27 - 9 Oct 28
2. Jewish calendar from Tishrei	26 Sep 13 - 14 Sep 14	21 Sep 27 - 8 Sep 28
3. Jewish calendar from Nisan	22 Mar 14 - 10 Mar 15	17 Mar 28 - 5 Apr 29
	Since granted proconsular power co-extensive with Augustus', i.e. including Rome, on 27 June 13
4. Siro-Macedonian calendar from Dios (= Marheshvan)	6 Oct 12 - 24 Oct 13	31 Oct 26 - 19 Oct 27
5. Jewish calendar from Tishrei	7 Sep 12 - 25 Sep 13	1 Oct 26 - 20 Sep 27
6. Jewish calendar from Nisan	1 Apr 13 - 21 Mar 14	29 Mar 27 - 16 Mar 28

Since Jesus' baptism must have taken place no later than 28 January 28, we can evaluate the suitability of each choice as follows:

1. Suitable, allowing up to 3 months for John's ministry before Jesus' baptism.

2. Suitable, allowing up to 4 months for John's ministry before Jesus' baptism.

3. Unsuitable.

4. Suitable, allowing up to 15 months for John's ministry before Jesus' baptism.

5. Suitable, allowing up to 16 months for John's ministry before Jesus' baptism.

6. Suitable, allowing up to 10 months for John's ministry before Jesus' baptism.

Finally, for calendrical accession year reckoning there are only two suitable choices, both with Tiberius' reign beginning with the granting of proconsular power co-extensive with Augustus', i.e. including Rome, on 27 June 13: Syro-Macedonian calendar from Dios and Jewish calendar from Tishrei, which are equivalent to choices 1 and 2 above.

Thus, there are 8 possible dating methods that Luke could in principle have used which are compatible with Jesus' baptism having taken place no later than 28 January 28. Regarding the plausibility of each choice, Doig (1990) [25] ch 12 argues that it was likely that Luke, a Greek from Antioch, used the Syro-Macedonian calendar (in which the year began with the lunar month of Dios, equivalent to the Jewish month of Marheshvan which follows Tishrei,) as that calendar was in use through much of the Middle East, including Judea, and therefore would have been familiar to Theophilus, the Greek recipient of Luke's works and probably also a resident of Antioch, and the rulers of that area reckoned their reigns by that calendar.

 

3.4. Earliest boundary for Jesus's birth date and minimum duration of his public ministry

If we interpret Luke's assertion that Jesus at the beginning of his public life "was about thirty years of age" (Lk 3:23) as meaning 34 years (its maximum possible value), and with his baptism taking place in January 28 AD, we can calculate the earliest boundary for Jesus's birth date as follows:

January 28 AD - January 1 AD = 27 years

(34 - 27) years = 7 years

January 1 AD - 7 years = January 7 BC

This result coincides with the earliest boundary determined in section 3.1 from Herod's uncertainty.

The minimum duration of Jesus' public ministry is two years and three months (January 28 AD to April 30 AD), from the Passovers explicitely mentioned by John:

1st (Jn 2:13): Cleansing of the Temple

2nd (Jn 6:4): Multiplication of the loaves and discourse on the bread of life

3rd (Jn 11:55): Crucifixion

Additionally, John mentions "a feast of the Jews" for which "Jesus went up to Jerusalem" (Jn 5:1), without specifying whether that feast was a Passover or not. And obviously there could have been even more Passovers during Jesus public ministry that have not been recorded in the Gospels.

4. Mystical view of Jesus' crucifixion and calculation of its date

Jesus died shortly after 15:00 Jerusalem time on a Friday, which was:

- 15 Nisan, Passover, according to the Synoptic Gospels, or

- 14 Nisan, the Vesper (Parasceve) of Passover, according to John's Gospel.

Since John describes Jesus as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." (Jn 1:29), it is logical that he placed Jesus' death at exactly the same time the Passover lambs were being sacrificed in the Temple: in the afternoon (between 15:00 to 17:00) of 14 Nisan, which should have started at Thursday's sunset. As a consequence, Jesus ate the Last Supper with his disciples during 14 Nisan instead of 15 Nisan as established. A solution to this apparent problem was made possible by the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls about Qumran: while Jesus truly shed his blood on the eve of Easter at the time of the immolation of the lambs, He celebrated the Passover with his disciples in accordance with the Qumran calendar, hence at least a day earlier, and He celebrated it without a lamb, like the Qumran community which did not recognize Herod's temple and was waiting for the new temple. Instead of the lamb He gave Himself, his Body and his Blood. He Himself was the true Lamb. [26]

While the above paragraph is theologically undisputable, it still requires for its validity that 14 Nisan was a Friday. This requirement is essential, because the Christian faith is based on real historical facts, not on legends that are symbols of meta-historical truths. For the Christian faith, the "factum historicum" is not a symbolic key that can substituted, but a constitutive base.

Each Jewish lunar month starts with the new moon. While the timing of the new moon is now determined mathematically, it is well known that in the Maccabean, Herodian, and Mishnaic periods, the Hebrew calendar operated on an observational basis. The beginning of each lunar month was decided on the basis of two eye witnesses testifying to the Sanhedrin to having seen the new lunar crescent at sunset. The Jewish day starts as sunset, so that when a new moon was ascertained, that evening was the start of day 1 of the month. The Sanhedrin then would declare the rosh chodesh (first of the month) and send out messengers to tell people when the month began.

Humphreys & Waddington (1985) [23.b] and Schaefer (1990) [24] evaluated the visibility conditions for the new moons in Jerusalem in the years (26 AD .. 36 AD), the timeframe during which it is documented that Pontius Pilate was prefect of Judea, and determined that there were two years in which 14 Nisan would have been a Friday (since Jewish days start at sunset, the Julian day - midnight to midnight - of that Friday would have started at the 6th hour of 14 Nisan and ended at the 6th hour of 15 Nisan):

Date of crucifixion -- Duration of Jesus' public ministry

a. 7 April 30 AD -- two years and three months

b. 3 April 33 AD -- five years and three months

Table 1. The durations of Jesus' public ministry assume that He was baptized in January 28 AD, according to section 3.2.

This result is extremely important (infinitely more so than our original interest in alpha), because it validates with hard science the factuality of the account in John's Gospel, which is often purported to be a theological elaboration disconnected from real facts, as both durations of Jesus' public ministry are compatible with the account in the Gospels. The majority of scholars would prefer the shorter duration, (as they usually argue about whether the duration was 2.5 or 3.5 years, they would certainly choose 2.5 over 5.5), and therefore that will be our choice too.

Regarding the hour of Jesus' death, we know that it happened during the ninth hour (Mt 27:46, Mk 15:34, Lk 23:44), which runs from 15:00 to 18:00, and that after the ninth hour had started, Jesus said four of his "last seven words":

- "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" (Mt 27:46 and Mk 15:34, after which He might have recited in silence the rest of Psalm 22),

- "I thirst." (Jn 19:28, after which the soldiers soaked a sponge in wine or vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to Him to drink),

- "It is finished." (Jn 19:30), and

- "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit." (Lk 23:46).

Therefore the time of his death was between 15:00 and 16:00. Choosing option a:

Jesus died at 15:00 - 16:00 Jerusalem time on Friday 7 April 30 AD, which was 14 Nisan.

Since the earliest boundary for Jesus's birth date is January 7 BC, the upper boundary for Jesus' age at the time of his death is 36 years.

5. Mystical view of Jesus' circumcision and calculation of Jesus' birth date

Jesus' circumcision has been seen since Patristic times in Christian tradition as prefiguration of the shedding of his blood in the cross [27]. Therefore it makes sense to assume, following the view of Jesus as the Lamb of God in the previous section, that his circumcision took place at the same time of year in the Hebrew calendar as his crucifixion.

In section 3.1 we established that Jesus could have been born in the years 7 or 6 BC, and in section 3.3 we confirmed that the earliest boundary for his birth date was January 7 BC.  Assuming that He was born in 7 BC, the above assumption about his circumcision means that He was circumcised in 14 Nisan 7 BC, implying that He was born 7 days before, on 7 Nisan 7 BC.

Now we will determine the corresponding Julian dates from [11].

New Moon = Mar 30  20:16

Nisan  1 = since Apr  1 sunset to Apr  2 sunset

      +6             +6               +6

Nisan  7 = since Apr  7 sunset to Apr  8 sunset

      +7                              +7

Nisan 14 = since Apr 14 sunset to Apr 15 sunset

Since according to the episode of the shepherds in Lk 2:8-20 Jesus was born during the night, He was born in the last hours of the Julian day 7 April 7 BC.  Choosing a time range in line with both the Gospel account and our hypothesis, we have that:

Jesus was born at 22:40 - 24:00 Jerusalem time on 7 April 7 BC, which was 7 Nisan.

6.*** Assessment of the factors underlying the relationship between the solar calendar dates of Jesus' birth and crucifixion

To note, at the end of the previous section we have restated the hypothesis formulated in section 1.***, whose facticity depends on the facticity of only three factors:

1H. The hypothesis that Jesus was born in 7 BC.

2H. The hypothesis that Jesus was circumcised on the same Hebrew calendar date as He was crucified, 14 Nisan.

3D. The existence of a difference of 8 days in the solar calendar dates that correspond to 1 Nisan 7 BC and 1 Nisan 30 AD.

Therefore we will check the two hypotheses first (actually combined into one) and the third factor next. As was the case previously, the study of NT-related subjects we will make with that motive will be far more valuable than the motive itself.

7. Validation of the hypothesis that Jesus was born on 7 April 7 BC

In this section we will validate our hypothesis against the account of the Magi in Matthew ch 2, the account of John the Baptist's conception in Luke ch 1, and the account of the shepherds in Luke ch 2. We will also note some indirect support for the hypothesis in John ch 12. Then we will check the existence of support for this hypothesis in the writings of the early Church. Finally we will check whether the resulting date of Incarnation has any symbolic meaning in the Jewish liturgical calendar of that time.

7.1. Validation against the account of the Magi in Matthew ch 2

There are three plausible theories about the nature of the astronomical phenomenon that was interpreted by the Magi from the East (astronomers/astrologers from Babylon or Persia) as signalling that a King of the Jews of divine nature had been born.

Theory 1: Triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in 7 BC (occurs every 800 years), in the constellation of Pisces. Proposed by Ferrari-D'Occhieppo (1989) [28] and Parpola (2001) [29]. Dates are from [29].

1st conjunction - 27 May: rising "in the East", Jupiter first, Saturn soon after.

16 July: Jupiter reached its first stationary point.

2nd conjunction - 6 October: the two planets, 1º apart in longitude, emerged "in the East" at sunset, in opposition to the sun and shining at their brightest, with Jupiter appearing twice as bright as Sirius, the brightest star, and appearing directly above Saturn.

=> The Magi set out on their trip to Palestine (probably from Babylon).

7 November: Jupiter reached its second stationary point.

=> The Magi leave Jerusalem towards Bethlehem in the late afternoon of 7 November 7 BC. [28] has a compelling description of how the Magi would have seen Jupiter and the zodiacal light in front of them "standing over" Bethlehem.

(Jesus' family flee to Egypt shortly afterwards and stay there till after Herod's death in late March / early April 4 BC, i.e. for 2.5 years.)

3rd conjunction - 1 December.

Possible objection to this theory: if the Magi told Herod in November that they had first seen the star (Jupiter) "at its rising" in May, a 1-year range would have provided more than ample margin for the age of children to be executed in the Bethlehem area. However, for someone that was willing to execute infants in the first place, doubling the age range from 1 to 2 years and the probable ensuing body count from 10 to 20 children may not have seemed a big deal.

Theory 2: Two occultations ("eclipses") of Jupiter by the Moon in 6 BC in the constellation of Aries (the sign of the Jews). Proposed by Molnar (1999) [30].

1st occultation: 20 March. (It was preceded by a lunar occultation of Saturn on 19 March in the constellation of Pisces [31].)

2nd occultation: 17 April, when Jupiter emerged "in the East" as a morning star in Aries, with the Sun also in Aries, so the Magi's star was the planet Jupiter in its “heliacal rising”, in the morning, in the East, a fairly precise distance ahead of the sun at dawn, in Aries. (It was preceded by a lunar occulation of Saturn on 16 April in the constellation of Pisces, well within 1º of the first point of Aries [31].)

=> The Magi set out on their trip to Palestine (probably from Babylon).

In August Jupiter became stationary and then "went before" (retrograde motion) until it became stationary again ("stood over") on 19 December, back into the sign of Aries.

=> The Magi leave Jerusalem towards Bethlehem in the late afternoon of 19 December 6 BC.

(Jesus' family flee to Egypt shortly afterwards and stay there till after Herod's death in late March / early April 4 BC, i.e. for 1.5 years.)

Possible objection to this theory: if the Magi told Herod in December that they had seen the star (Jupiter) "at its rising" in April, a 1-year range would have provided more than ample margin for the age of children to be executed in the Bethlehem area. However, for someone that was willing to execute infants in the first place, doubling the age range from 1 to 2 years and the probable ensuing body count from 10 to 20 children may not have seemed a big deal.

Theory 3 = theory 1 + theory 2.

The Magi took notice of both the events in 7 BC described by theory 1 and those in 6 BC described by theory 2, travelling to Palestine and then to Bethlehem in 6 BC as described in theory 2.

Humphreys (1995) [32] proposes a slightly different version of this theory: the triple conjunction of 7 BC in the constellation of Pisces (plus a subsequent joining by Mars so that in February 6 BC the three planets, still in Pisces, were separated by only about eight degrees) alerted the Magi, and the comet that, as recorded by Chinese sources, was observed for over 70 days since March 5 BC, and that would have been first seen by the Magi rising in the East in the morning sky, prompted the Magi to set out to Palestine in March 5 BC.

In this theory the Magi would have told Herod in December 6 BC (or in April/May 5 BC in the Humphreys 1995 version) that they had first seen the star (Jupiter) "at its rising" in the first conjunction of May 7 BC, and the 2-year range for the age of infants to be killed in the Bethlehem area would have been a direct consequence of that information.

Validation of the proposed date of Jesus' birth against the three theories

As we can see, none of the significant astronomical phenomena that could have called the Magi's attention - the conjunctions in 7 BC, the occultations in 6 BC and the comet on 5 BC - coincides with our proposed date of Jesus' birth. Even the closest in time (the first conjunction of 27 May 7 BC, which would not have called the Magi's attention as greatly as the second conjunction of 6 October 7 BC) was 50 days apart from it. Is this an obstacle for our hypothesis? On the contrary! Not only it is not important for us that the date of Jesus' birth does not coincide with those phenomena, but also it is of utmost importance for us that the date of Jesus' birth is noticeably apart from them! And this is why:

The astronomical phenomena of 6 October 7 BC, 17 April 6 BC and March 5 BC were significant only as signs to draw the Magi's attention and prompt them to travel to Palestine, out of divine condescendence with the mistaken beliefs the Magi held before they found the Truth. But as none of the phenomena had any real significance in and of itself, Jesus' birth did not take place on the date of any of them. Moreover, it was necessary that Jesus was born on a day that was noticeably far from their dates, in order to make crystal clear for everyone - starting with the Magi - that astronomical phenomena were not messengers of the divine designs, much less effective causes of events.

Because "God our saviour wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:3-4), it was necessary that He made it plain to the Magi that, paraphrasing Paul's letter to the Galatians, the astronomical phenomena "was their disciplinarian (paidagogos) to lead them to Christ", where the Greek paidagogos referred to a slave who escorted a child to school but did not teach or tutor, "but now that faith had come, they were no longer under a disciplinarian." (Gal 3:24-25). And that if "at a time when they did not know God, they had become slaves to things that by nature are not gods; now that they had come to know God, or rather to be known by God," they must not "turn back again to the weak and destitute elemental powers" and "be slaves to them all over again". (Gal 4:8-9) And the most effective way to make it clear to the Magi that astronomical phenomena were just "weak and destitute elemental powers" was to let them know that Jesus had actually been born on a day noticeably far from those marked by the conjunctions, occultations, and comet.

Thus the Magi "had known the truth, and the truth had set them free" (Jn 8:32): the knowledge of the true uncreated Light who had come down from Heaven had enlightened them regarding the lack of power of the created lights in the heavens.

This all sounds very good, but Jesus was at most 2 years old when the Magi saw Him. Are we saying that He gave them a lecture in a far more miraculous display of supernatural wisdom than that before the rabbis in the temple when He was 12 years old (Lk 2:41-50)? No, since "the handmaid of the Lord" was there to lead the Magi to the truth.

Having said that, are the possible dates of arrival of the Magi at Bethlehem (7 November 7 BC, 19 December 6 BC, and April/May 5 BC) compatible with a date of Jesus' birth of 7 April 7 BC? Mt 2:11 says that the Magi "saw the child with Mary his mother" "on entering the house", not in the manger. Since Joseph probably had relatives in Bethlehem, it is possible that he, Mary and Jesus stayed at the house of one of them for an extended period of time (7 months in theory 1, 20 months in theories 2 and 3, and 24 months in the Humphreys 1995 version of theory 3). But is it reasonable?

It would certainly be reasonable and actually highly probable if Joseph's relatives believed that Jesus was the Messiah and moreover the Son of God. But they could not possibly come to believe this out of the testimony of Joseph ("Hi folks, meet my wife Mary and son Jesus. And can you believe this? He was miraculously conceived and is actually the Son of God!"), just as Joseph could not possibly have come to believe it out of the testimony of Mary ("Hi Joseph. Can you believe this? I was visited by an angel and have conceived miraculously a boy who is actually the Son of God!"). We know that the Lord solved the "Mary as seen by Joseph" situation by means of an angel talking to Joseph in a dream (Mt 1:20-21). Is there at least a hint of a similar divine intervention to solve the "Joseph as seen by his relatives" situation in the Gospel? Indeed, there is such a hint in Luke.

We know that, once in Bethlehem, Joseph had found shelter in a cave with a manger as "there was no room for them in the inn" (Lk 2:7). But why had he looked for lodging only in the inn and not in the house of one of his relatives? Because he knew that his relatives knew the dates of betrothal and marriage, and that by a simple month count they would have seen that the boy had been conceived before marriage. (And we are assuming here the best case, namely the actuality of the account in Mt 1:24 that Joseph "took his wife into his home" before Jesus's birth, as opposed to the account in Lk 2:5 that when Joseph travelled to Bethlehem Mary was still "his betrothed". We think that Luke may have said that to make the point that they had not had marital relations before Jesus' birth, a point that Mt 1:25 makes explicitely.) So Joseph could have thought that there was a chance that birth time would not come until they were back in Nazareth, and tried to avoid his relatives.

But as things went, "while they were in Bethlehem, the time came for Mary to have her child" (Lk 2:6). Since Joseph could not reasonably have expected, or even imagined, that Jesus' birth was going to be miraculous and virginal just as his conception, he did what was reasonable for him to do: went to town and looked for midwives to assist Mary with her birth work. And the most reasonable place to look for midwives was within his own family, i.e. people whom he could trust. So there was Joseph walking from Bethlehem to the cave with maybe two of his cousins or even sisters, who were thinking "Look at good old Joseph. And we thought he was so God-fearing and observant of the Torah." while Joseph was thinking "If I tell them the truth, they will not question my standing as observant but my state of mind."

Meanwhile, Jesus' miraculous and virginal birth took place in the cave. Lk 2:7 strongly hints at this when saying that "she wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger". "She" alone, without Joseph's help. So when Joseph came back with the midwives, Mary was fresh and nursing Jesus as if she had not been through the slightest birth work, which in fact was the case. While the midwives may have found that somewhat strange, it did not provide solid enough grounds on which to break out the news to them.

And shortly afterwards, the shepherds arrived "and found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger. When they saw this, they made known the message that had been told them about this child. All who heard it were amazed by what had been told them by the shepherds." (Lk 2:16-18) Who were those "all who heard it"? The expression does not fit if they were just Mary and Joseph. And they could not be the Magi because "they saw the child with Mary his mother" "on entering the house" (Mt 2:11), not in a cave with a manger. The most logical explanation is the above: female relatives of Joseph whom he had fetched to assist Mary with her birth work, and who now knew from the shepherds that the child was "a savior who is Messiah and Lord" (Lk 2:11). Therefore Joseph's relatives in Bethlehem would have been delighted to have him, Mary and Jesus stay with them for one or two years.

7.2. Validation against the account of John the Baptist's conception in Luke ch 1

If Jesus was born on 7 April 7 BC, He should have been conceived in early July 8 BC. Since Lk 1:26 states that Mary's Anunciation occurred six months after the conception of John the Baptist, the latter should have occurred in early January 8 BC.

On the other hand, we know that John the Baptist was conceived after Zechariah's days of ministry were completed (Lk 1:23-24), and that Zechariah belonged to the priestly division of Abijah (Lk 1:5). 1 Chronicles 24:1-19 describes how the Aaron descendants where divided into 24 family groups and those groups (called courses) were assigned the functions for the priestly service by lot, the first lot falling to Jehoiarib and the 8th to Abijah. We found two different views regarding the start and proceeding of the cycle for the priestly services:

a. Jones (2005) [33] on page 211 assumes that the cycle commenced on the first sabbath of the first month (Abib/Nisan) of each year, based on the changes of guard for the military sentinel established by King David according to 1 Chronicles 27:1-15, for which the cycle started in the first month. He also assumes that during the weeks of the Three Pilgrimage Festivals all 24 courses were required to serve, so that those three weeks were skipped in the sequence of courses. Therefore, with each course serving twice in the year plus the three festival weeks, the cycle lasted 51 weeks, close to a normal (non-leap) Hebrew calendar year. He performs the calculation for 5 BC, for which 1 Nisan was a Sabbath. Since 1 Nisan 9 BC was also a Sabbath (23 March 9 BC), we can easily follow his reasoning, using the full-year calendar available from http://www.abdicate.net/cal.aspx.

In this scheme, with the Jehoiarib course starting its functions on Sabbath 1 Nisan 9 BC (23 March 9 BC), the Abijah course would have been on duty for the second time 2-8 Kislev 9 BC (16-22 November 9 BC)

b. Beckwith (2001) [34] on pages 81-88 thinks that, though the priestly courses all ministered together at the three great festivals, this did not interrupt the regular sequence of the courses, since the normal duties of the week were performed by the course whose turn it was, and the other courses simply helped. He also thinks likely that the cycle, in post-exilic times, began on 1 Tishri, the day on which holocausts began to be offered at the rebuilt altar after the Exile according to Ezra 3:6. Specifically, on page 88 he concludes that the day on which the course of Jehoiarib recommenced the cycle each year was the Sabbath on or next before 1 Tishri, so as always to be on duty on 1 Tishri itself.

In this scheme, with the Jehoiarib course starting its functions on Sabbath 28 Elul 9 BC,

the Abijah course would have been on duty 18-24 Heshvan 9 BC (2-8 November 9 BC),

Both views are roughly compatible with John the Baptist being conceived in early January 8 BC, with some delay possibly being wisely and mercifully introduced by the divine pedagogy to give Zechariah an opportunity to exercise his trust in the word of the Lord, thus profiting from the lesson he had been given by the angel. Notably, this delay is fully in line with the angel's statement that his words would "be fulfilled at their proper time" (Lk 1:20), as it would not be necessary to state that explicitely if he was referring just to the time that must naturally elapse between conception and birth.

7.3. Validation against the account of the shepherds in Luke ch 2

Luke's account that at the time "there were shepherds in that region living in the fields and keeping the night watch over their flock" (Lk 2:8) constrains the date of Jesus' birth to the warm and dry spring and summer seasons, from March to September, or in terms of Jewish feasts, from shortly before Passover to Sukkot. Our hypothesis of 7 Nisan fits that.

The additional fact that "there was no room for them in the inn" (Lk 2:7) makes it very likely that Jesus was born shortly before one of the Three Pilgrimage Festivals, the three major festivals in Judaism - Pesach (Passover), Shavuot (Weeks or Pentecost), and Sukkot (Tents, Booths or Tabernacles) - when the Israelites living in ancient Israel and Judea would make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, as commanded by the Torah (Ex 23:14-17, Ex 34:18-23, and Dt 16:1-17): since Bethlehem is about 10 km (6 mi) south of Jerusalem, its inns would have been full accomodating overflow crowds of pilgrims from Jerusalem and also possibly pilgrims travelling to Jerusalem. Again, our hypothesis of 7 Nisan fits that.

Moreover, while the warm and dry weather in spring and summer makes it feasible for the shepherds to spend the night in the open, it does not necessarily make it convenient. For that to happen, one or two additional factors are needed: either it is lambing season, or it is a time of the year when there are too many sheeps to keep them in sheepfolds, or both.  And the last possibility is the exact case for the days immediately before Passover, as:

- spring is lambing season in Judea [32], and

- the number of lambs kept near Jerusalem to be taken into the city on 10 Nisan in compliance with Exodus 12:3-4 was so enormous (even taking Flavius Josephus' figure of a quarter millon lambs for a certain year with a grain of salt) that they could not possibly be kept in sheepfolds.

Thus, these contextual clues make the case for our hypothesis that Jesus was circumcised on 14 Nisan, and consequently was born on 7 Nisan, not just possible but actually highly probable. And most significantly, they suggest that Jesus, the true Lamb of God, was born just as Pascal lambs destined for the Passover sacrifice of the following year were being born in Bethlehem fields.  Those lambs would be living 1 year, a lifetime which was truncated if compared to the potential lifespan of sheeps/rams but full regarding the fulfillment of the lambs' mission, just as Jesus' lifetime of 36 years was truncated if compared to the potential lifespan of a human being but full regarding the fulfillment of his mission, and just as Enoch's lifetime of 365 years was truncated if compared to the lifetimes of the preceding and following patriarchs but full regarding the fulfillment of his life, as of no other patriarch it is said that "he walked with God, and he was no longer here, for God took him" (Gen 5:24 and Hb 11:5), in a clear prefiguration of Jesus' Ascension to heaven, in this case by his own power.

7.4. Indirect support from the account of the anointment of Jesus by Mary, Lazarus' sister, in John ch 12

Indirect support for our hypothesis about Jesus' birth date can be found in John's account of the episode of the anointment of Jesus by a woman a few days before Passover (Jn 12:1-8). This episode is also present in Mt 26:6-13 and Mk 14:3-9, and is absent in Luke. Notably, the account in John differs markedly from the account in Matthew and Mark.

1. Mattew and Mark place the event "in the house of Simon the leper" (Mt 26:6 and Mk 14:3) and do not say anything about the identity of the woman. In contrast, John places the event in the house of Lazarus and his sisters Martha and Mary, and specifies that the woman anointing Jesus was Mary.

2. Matthew and Mark seem to date the event 2 days before Passover (Mt 26:2 and Mk 14:1). That timing is implicit, however, based only on the placement of the event within the overall narrative, as the statement that Passover would be in 2 days is not part of the account of the event itself. In contrast, John dates the event 6 days before Passover and states that timing explicitly within the account of the event itself: "Six days before Passover Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. They gave a dinner for him there, and Martha served, while Lazarus was one of those reclining at table with him." (Jn 12:1-2).

3. Moreover, whereas the acclaimed entrance of Jesus in Jerusalem is several days before this event in Matthew's and Mark's narratives, John explicitely dates this event on the day before that entrance: "On the next day, when the great crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, they took palm branches and went out to meet him, and cried out: "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, the king of Israel." (Jn 12:12-13)

In order to interpret this discrepancy adequately, we must recall that the episode is absent in Luke, who, on the other hand, is the only Evangelist who accounts the event of the sinful woman anointing Jesus' feet during a dinner at the house of a Pharisee called Simon (Lk 7:36-50).

Now, it is well established that the Gospels, while describing historical events, do not intend to do it with the rigour inherent to the modern science of history. Luke is the only author who explicitely states that he endeavoured "to write it (a narrative of the events) down in an orderly sequence" (Lk 1:1-3) . However, Luke gathered most of his knowledge of the events while he was in Palestine during the 2-3 years of Paul's prison (Act 21:17 to 27:1), which was in 58-61 AD, 30 years after the events took place. Thus, while the authors of the Gospels communicate to us the sincere truth about Jesus, they group events and discourses according to a scheme suitable for their catechetic purpose. This is particularly true for the Synoptics, who present Jesus exerting his ministry in Galilee and neighbouring regious and then making a final trip to Jerusalem, while we know from John that Jesus made several trips to Jerusalem during his ministry, consistent with the religious practice of observant Jews. In this regard, we should keep in mind that, according to the currently most accepted view, the definitive version of Matthew used Mark's account of the events as its framework, and that Mark was not a direct witness but gathered his knowledge from hearing Peter, who narrated events as was fit for his preaching, always telling the sincere truth but certainly unconcerned about historical rigour.

Now we can solve this discrepancy as follows:

Regarding the place: Mark (and hence Matthew) place the anointing "in the house of Simon the leper" because they associate it with the other anointing at the house of a Pharisee called Simon that only Luke accounts for. And the possibility that the Pharisee Simon had been a leper who had been healed by Jesus would explain his inviting Jesus to dinner, because at that stage of the narrative in Luke there was already strong animosity by the Pharisees against Jesus (Lk 6:6-11). Therefore, John's placement of the final anointing in the house of Lazarus is credible.

Regarding the time: as said before, the Synoptics are much more schematic when presenting events, while John was a direct witness of them. Therefore, John's dating of the final anointing six days before Passover (and accordingly, on the day before Jesus' acclaimed entrance in Jerusalem) certainly deserves credence.

We also know from John that, already before Lazarus' resurrection, there was a very close friendship between Jesus and Lazarus' family (Jn 11:3,5). Thus, it is entirely plausible that they knew the date of Jesus' birthday. Summarizing the dates we know so far:

Passover: 15 Nisan (by definition) - Friday 7 April, after sunset

Six days before Passover: 9 Nisan (by definition) - Saturday 1 April, after sunset

Jesus' birthday: 7 Nisan (our hypothesis 2H)

Therefore it is plausible that Mary's anointment was intended as an attention for Jesus' birthday.

Notably, John's timing of the dinner at Lazarus' "six days before Passover" is consistent with his (factual) timing of Passover that year on (Friday sunset - Saturday sunset), and not with the Synoptics' timing of Passover on (Thursday sunset - Friday sunset). Because in the Synoptics' scheme, "six days before Passover" would fall on a Sabbath (Friday sunset - Saturday sunset), and it is extremely unlikely that observant Jews would hold an event of that kind on a Sabbath. In the Johannine scheme, in contrast, "six days before Passover" falls on (Saturday sunset - Sunday sunset).

Even more significantly, John's timing of the acclaimed entrance of Jesus in Jerusalem "on the next day" (Jn 12:12-13) places it on 10 Nisan (Sunday 2 April, after sunset, meaning Monday 3 April, during daytime). In Exodus 12:3-4, the LORD said to Moses: "Tell the whole community of Israel: On the tenth of this month every one of your families must procure for itself a lamb, one apiece for each household. If a family is too small for a whole lamb, it shall join the nearest household in procuring one and shall share in the lamb in proportion to the number of persons who partake of it." In compliance with this, on 10 Nisan at least tens of thousands of Passover lambs were taken to Jerusalem (assuming that Flavius Josephus' figure of a quarter millon lambs for a certain year was somewhat inflated). Therefore on 10 Nisan (Monday 3 April) Passover lambs were entering Jerusalem all day long to be sacrificed four days later on the afternoon of 14 Nisan (Friday 7 April), just as Jesus entered Jerusalem as the true Lamb of God to die in the cross at that very same time.

7.5. Validation against early Church writings

Clement of Alexandria (150-215). "Stromata" Ch. 21. We give between parentheses the corresponding Julian date as in [36].

Other's views on the date of the Nativity: "And there are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord's birth, but also the day; and they say that it took place in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus, and in the twenty-fifth day of Pachon." (20 May 2 BC) ... "And treating of His passion, with very great accuracy, some say that it took place in the sixteenth year of Tiberius, on the twenty-fifth of Phamenoth; and others the twenty-fifth of Pharmuthi and others say that on the nineteenth of Pharmuthi the Saviour suffered. Further, others say that He was born on the twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth of Pharmuthi." (Pharmuthi was the month before Pachon, so 25 Pharmuti would have been 20 April. Note the view that Jesus had died on his birthday.)

Clement's own view: "From the birth of Christ, therefore, to the death of Commodus are, in all, a hundred and ninety-four years, one month, thirteen days." (6 January 2 BC)

Regarding the year 2 BC in both other's views and Clement's own view, we need to quote [34] p. 75 "It is also clear from the same passage of Clement that, like his western contemporary Tertullian, he inferred from Lk 3:23 that Jesus was only thirty when he died, confining his ministry within a single year."

Hippolytus of Rome (170-236). "Commentary on Daniel" ch 4:23 gives a birth date of 25 December in the 42nd year of Augustus, but most scholars have consistently held that the date of 25 December was a later interpolation. The author's date may be preserved in a single - and the oldest - manuscript which curiously contradicts itself by giving two dates: both 25 December and 2 April. [35] [36]

The second date coincides with an inscription in the Paschal tables engraved on the base of a statue of Hippolytus which was probably executed during his last years and discovered in 1551 in Rome. The table on the left side lists the Julian calendar dates for 14 Nisan for each year starting from 222; and at the second year of the table, corresponding to 223 AD for which 14 Nisan was 2 April, is the note "genesis Christou". ([37] p. 327)

Pseudo-Cyprian "De Pascha Computus" (243), falsely ascribed to Cyprian, combines Biblical chronology and symbolic number configurations to give a birthdate of 28 March, also a 14 Nisan. One school of thought believes this work represents a revision and expansion of the Paschal tables of Hippolytus. Another states that both Hippolytus and pseudo-Cyprian used the same source material, dated at the latest from the second half or the second century. ([35] pp. 81-83)

From these three sources we can conclude that a date of birth of Jesus coinciding with, or very close to, that of his death was one of the main possibilities considered by Church writers at the beginning of the third century.

7.6. Symbolic meaning of the date of the Incarnation in the Jewish liturgical calendar of that time

As an additional validation of this hypothesis, we will check whether the resulting date of the Incarnation, i.e. around 7 July 8 b.C, has any symbolic meaning in the liturgical calendar of Second-Temple Judaism in the time of Jesus. For that purpose, we will start by dating Passover of 8 BC from [11]:

New Moon = Mar 12  03:35

Nisan  1 = since Mar 13 sunset to Mar 14 sunset

     +14                             +14

Nisan 15 = since Mar 27 sunset to Mar 28 Fri sunset

Setting the date of the omer offering the Karaite way, i.e. on the Sunday within the Passover week, it is Mar 30. Counting seven weeks from Mar 30 we get to Pentecost (Shavuot) on Sunday May 18. Counting seven weeks from Pentecost we get to the feast of New Wine (11Q19 19:11-13) on July 6 (easily remembered in European date format as 6 July 8 BC = 6/7/8 BC), which is exactly 275 days before 7 April 7 BC.

To support the plausibility of this symbolic meaning, we need to ascertain the plausibility of two facts:

a. That the wine in the feast indeed prefigures Jesus.

b. That it was likely that Mary knew about this symbolic meaning.

a. To check whether the wine in the feast indeed prefigures Jesus, let's quote the relevant texts.

First 11Q19 19:14-16.

"And you shall bring new wine for drink offering: four hins, from all the tribes of Israel, a third of a hin for each tribe; and they shall offer with the wine that day to the Lord twelve rams, all the heads of the clans of Israel."

While the offering of rams to the Lord is a clear prefiguration of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross, a drink offering of wine, which is in clear contrast with a pouring offering of wine, like that made by Noah in Jubilees 7:1-6, is a clear prefiguration of the Last Supper and Eucharist. More on this point below.

Then 11Q19 21:6-8.

"The priests, the Levites and all the people, from the greatest to the least, shall go to drink new wine, and they shall not eat any unripe grapes from the vines, for on this day they shall atone on the wine. And the children of Israel shall rejoice before the Lord."

That all the children of Israel drink the new wine, at the same time atoning on it and rejoicing before the Lord, is a clear prefiguration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and Communion, in which the faithful unite with Jesus' sacrifice and receive Him in the Most Holy Sacrament.

Moreover, the phrase describing the attending people in 11Q19 21:6 is exactly the same used in 2 Chron 34:30 to describe the people attending a renewal of the Covenant, which is precisely the nature of the Eucharistic Liturgy, which renews Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross (or anticipates it, in the case of the Last Supper).

On this point, [A.2] notes:

"It is interesting that this concurrence of covenant renewal texts occurs in the feast of new wine and not in the feast of new wheat which is also a Feast of Weeks, for covenant renewal is thought to have been set in the latter (cf Jubilees 6:17-18)."

b. From Jesus' response to Mary's implicit request at the wedding in Cana, it is plausible to assume that Mary at some time had become aware of the feast of New Wine, and from the fact that the Incarnation had taken place on that day, she had understood that Jesus Himself was the New Wine that God was giving to the people, and moreover, that she had talked about this subject with Jesus before He started his public ministry.

This is so because Jesus' response to her in Cana, when she said to Him, "They have no wine.": "What to Me and to you, woman? My hour has not yet come." (Jn 2:3-4), sounds just natural if we assume that the subject of Jesus as the true New Wine that God was giving to be offered and drank for the New Covenant, had been a matter of conversation between them.

We address the issue of using text from a non-scriptural book such as the Temple Scroll in Appendix A. On the other hand, the hypothesis that Jesus and Mary were acquainted with that non-scriptural book is plausible from the fact that the Apostle Jude Thaddeus was well acquainted with the non-scriptural book of 1 Enoch, as evidenced by the quote from 1 En 1:9 in Jude 1:14–15.

7.6.1. Corollary: The interval from Annunciation to Pentecost was 49 times the interval from Annunciation to Nativity

The interval from the Annunciation to Pentecost is the addition of these intervals (all in days):

Annunciation-Nativity + Nativity-Crucifixion + Crucifixion-Resurrection + Resurrection-Pentecost =

= 275 + 365.25 · 36 + 2 + 49 =

= 275 + 13149 + 2 + 49 =

= 13426 + 49 =

= 13475 =

= 275 · 49

Thus, the time elapsed from the Annunciation to the birth of the Mystical Body of Christ was 49 times the time elapsed from the Annunciation to the birth of the Physical Body of Christ.

7.7. Symbolic meaning of the day of month of Jesus' birth in both the Jewish and Julian calendars

Finally, we will note that the day of month of Jesus' birth in this hypothesis in both the Jewish and Julian calendars, namely 7 Nisan and 7 April, is in line with the view that Jesus' life on earth, up to but not including his Passion, is the diurnal part of the seventh day of Genesis ch. 1 (with his Passion, Cruficixion, death and time in Hades being the nocturnal part of the eight day, and his Resurrection being the dawn of the eight day, which will not end) [39].

Additionally, we should note the very different times within day 7 in which Jesus was born according to each calendar:

- According to the Julian calendar, in which days begin and end at midnight, Jesus was born when 7 April was about to end (i.e. between 22:40 and 24:00).

- According to the Hebrew calendar, in which days begin and end at sunset, Jesus was born 4-6 hours after the beginning of 7 Nisan (as sunset was 18:18).

This difference in the time within day 7 in which Jesus was born according to each calendar reflects the fact that Jesus' life on earth, both his hidden life and his public ministry, took place almost totally in Israel, with very little contact with Gentiles. Therefore it is logical that his birth should have taken place a few hours after the beginning of day 7 according to the calendar of Israel but towards the end of day 7 according to the calendar of the Gentiles.

8.*** Validation of the difference of 8 days in the calendar dates that correspond to 1 Nisan 7 BC and 1 Nisan 30 AD

Circumcision on 14 Nisan requires birth on 7 Nisan. Since Jesus was born at night but before midnight, the diurnal part of the midnight-to-midnight day when He was born (i.e. the day as delimited according to the solar-based calendar) corresponds to the diurnal part of the previous day as delimited according to the Hebrew calendar, 6 Nisan. Therefore the hypothesis requires that 6 Nisan 7 BC and 14 Nisan 30 AD correspond to the same Julian calendar day, 7 April. Since the Hebrew calendar is lunar-based, the hypothesis requires that the Julian date of the last new moon in March 7 BC was 8 days later (14 - 6 = 8) than the Julian day of the last new moon in March 30 AD.

From [11], those new moons were:

 7 BC: Mar 30  20:16

30 AD: Mar 22  17:47

which is exactly the 8-day difference required by the hypothesis plus just 2.5 hours.

We will show next that this result is a particular instance of a general relationship, namely that, using the average length of a lunar month, the difference between the solar calendar dates and times of day of any pair of new moons which delimit the largest interval comprised of a whole number of lunar months within any 36-year interval which includes 9 leap years is 8 days - 2.68 hours.

In the case of the Julian calendar, the 9 leap years were:

5 BC, 1 BC, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28.

Number of days in any 36-year interval with 9 leap years: 

365 · 27 + 366 · 9 = 13149 days

Number of lunar months in that 36-year interval: 

13149 / 29.530588 = 445.26712438 lunar months

0. 26712438 lunar months · 29.530588 days / lunar month = 7.88834 days =

= 8 days - 0.11166 days = 8 days - 2.68 hours

At this point we could ask ourselves whether the fact that there is an 8-day difference between the solar calendar dates of the last new moons of March 7 BC and March 30 AD is just an artefact due to the use of the proleptic Julian or Gregorian calendars, or whether it would also occur if we used a hypothetical "hard" solar calendar in which the year starts at the Jerusalem midnight closest to the vernal equinox. 

From [13]:

year - vernal equinox [GMT]

 7 BC - Mar 23 08:16:23

30 AD - Mar 23 01:26:13

Therefore in a hard-aligned solar calendar the year would have started at Julian March 23 in both cases, confirming the validity of using the Julian or Gregorian calendars.

 end

9.*** Calculation of the exact age of Jesus at the time of his death in solar years

Thus we can calculate Jesus' exact age at the time of his death in solar calendar years, with the applicable length of a solar year being 13149 / 36 = 365.25 days.

age.max = 36 - 7.1 / (24 * 365.25) = 35,999 190

age.min = 36 - 8.5 / (24 * 365.25) = 35,999 030

which corresponds exactly to the range of values of the fractional part of the inverse of alpha multiplied by 1000.

10.*** Conclusions

Christians believe that the universe was created "through" the Logos, as John wrote in the prologue of his Gospel (Jn 1:3), and "in Him" and "for Him", as Paul wrote to the Colossians (Col 1:16). Within that framework, we interpret this finding as a visible (or more exactly, measurable) imprint in the inner structure of the universe attesting that it was intended since its creation for the Incarnation of the Logos, that it was the eternal divine design that the Logos would "become flesh and make his dwelling among us" (Jn 1:14), irrespective of whether man would sin or not. Of course, in the latter case He would not have suffered and died.

Finally, we can integrate a Christian straightforward interpretation of the integer part of the inverse of the fine structure constant with the presented interpretation of the fractional part as a whole unified message telling us that:

- the Most High God (1)

- revealed to us that He eternally begets a consubstantial Son with Whom He eternally breathes a consubstantial Holy Spirit (3)

- and carried out his wonderful works and gave us his priceless gifts (7)

- through the life on Earth (lasting 035,999 150 years) of his consubstantial Son Who assumed a human nature.

References:

[1] D. Hanneke, S. Fogwell, and G. Gabrielse (2008). "New Measurement of the Electron Magnetic Moment and the Fine Structure Constant". Physical Review Letters, vol. 100, Issue 12, id. 120801. https://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1134

[2] Aoyama, T., Hayakawa, M., Kinoshita, T., & Nio, M. (2015). "Tenth-order electron anomalous magnetic moment: Contribution of diagrams without closed lepton loops." Physical Review D, vol. 91, no 3, p. 033006. https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.8284

Erratum (2017): Physical Review D, vol. 96, no 1, p. 019901

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.019901

[3] Richard P. Feynman (1985). "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter". Princeton University Press, p. 129, ISBN 0691083886

[4] Ulf-G. Meißner (2014). Anthropic considerations in nuclear physics. Science Bulletin, January 2015, Volume 60, Issue 1, pp 43–54. https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.2959

[5] John Baez (2011). "How Many Fundamental Constants Are There?". Online at:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/constants.html

[6] https://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-17.htm

[7] http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10488-matthias-ben-theophilus

[8] http://juchre.org/talmud/yoma/yoma1.htm#12b

[9] NASA. "Catalog of Lunar Eclipses: -0099 to 0000 (100 BCE to 1 BCE)". Online at:

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/LE-0099-0000.html

(On that page, 1 BC = 0000, 2 BC = -0001, etc.)

[10] NASA's Javascript Lunar Eclipse Explorer for Asia and Asia Minor, at

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/JLEX/JLEX-AS.html

[11] Fred Espenak, "Six Millennium Catalog of Phases of the Moon".

100 to 1 BC: http://astropixels.com/ephemeris/phasescat/phases-0099.html

1 to 100 AD: http://astropixels.com/ephemeris/phasescat/phases0001.html

[12] https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/

[13] https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/13009

[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar

[15] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0012_0_11996.html

[16] Ed Rickard, 2015. The Lunar Eclipse before Herod's Death.

http://www.themoorings.org/Jesus/birth/lunar_eclipse.html

[17] Charles D. Davis, 2015. Herodian chronology reconciled to a 5 B.C. September 15 lunar eclipse.

http://theos-sphragis.info/herodian_chronology_julian_sep15_eclipse.html

[18] Charles D. Davis, 2015. Reign of Herod the Great: 47 B.C. to his death in 4 B.C.

http://theos-sphragis.info/herods_regnal_years.html

[19] Aaron Adair, 2013. The Star of Bethlehem Documentary–The Death of Herod and Josephus’ Account.

https://gilgamesh42.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/the-star-of-bethlehem-documentary-the-death-of-herod-and-josephus-account-2/

[20] https://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm

[21] Res Gestae Divi Avgvsti Chapter 22 (The Deeds of Divine Augustus) translated by Thomas Bushnell, BSG. Available online at: http://classics.mit.edu/Augustus/deeds.html#71

[22] Armand Puig i Tàrrech, "Jesus: An Uncommon Journey : Studies on the Historical Jesus", Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Chapter 2 "The Birth of Jesus", Section 4 "A More Judaico Census Decreed by Herod", pp 74-84. Partially available online at:

http://books.google.com/books?id=elFp5tRSUH0C

[23.a] Humphreys, Colin J. & Waddington, W. G. (1983). "Dating the Crucifixion". Nature, Volume 306, Issue 5945, pp. 743-746 (1983).

[23.b] Humphreys, Colin J. & Waddington, W. G. (1985). "The Date of the Crucifixion". JASA 37 (March 1985): 2-10. Online at:

http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1985/JASA3-85Humphreys.html

[23.c] Humphreys, Colin J. & Waddington, W. G. (1989). "Astronomy and the Date of the Crucifixion" in "Chronos, kairos, Christos: Nativity and chronological studies presented to Jack Finegan" edited by Jerry Vardaman and Edwin M. Yamauchi. Online preview at 

https://books.google.com/books?id=UCBBY_O88uYC

[24] Schaefer, Bradley E. (1990). "Lunar Visibility and the Crucifixion". Royal Astronomical Society Quarterly Journal (1990) V.31, No. 1/Mar, p. 53-67. Online at:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/seri/QJRAS/0031/0000053.000.html

[25] Doig, Kenneth F. (1990). "New Testament Chronology". (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990). Online at http://www.nowoezone.com/NT_Chronology.htm

[26] Pope Benedict XVI, “Jesus of Nazareth. Holy Week: From the Entrance Into Jerusalem to the Resurrection”, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011, chapter 5 The Last Supper, section 1. The Dating of the Last Supper.

[27] A review by Leo Steinberg is online at http://www.circumstitions.com/leo.html

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. "The Circumcision". Online at:

http://copiosa.org/christology/crux_circum.htm

http://www.catholictradition.org/Christmas/christ-child8.htm

[28] Ferrari-D'Occhieppo, Konradin (1989). "The Star of the Magi and Babylonian Astronomy" in "Chronos, kairos, Christos: Nativity and chronological studies presented to Jack Finegan" edited by Jerry Vardaman and Edwin M. Yamauchi. Online preview at

https://books.google.com/books?id=UCBBY_O88uYC

[29] Parpola, Simo (2001). "The Magi and the Star. Babylonian Astronomy Dates Jesus' Birth". Bible Review, December 2001, p. 16-23, and p. 52-54. Online as chapter 2 (pp. 13(20) - 24(31)) of the e-book "The First Christmas. The Story of Jesus' Birth in History and Tradition" published by the Biblical Archaeology Society at:

http://www.bib-arch.org/e-books/pdf/christmas.pdf

[30] Molnar, Michael R. (1999). "The star of Bethlehem: the legacy of the Magi". Online preview at https://books.google.com/books?id=GXUTibYxdDcC

[31] M.M. Dworetsky and S.J. Fossey (1997). "Lunar Occultations of Jupiter and Saturn, and the Star of Bethlehem" Originally published in The Observatory, Vol. 118, No. 1142, pp. 22-24, 1998 February. Online at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucaqmmd/star.html

Points out that both lunar occultations of Jupiter were preceded by lunar occultations of Saturn in the constellation of Pisces one day before.

[32] Humphreys, Colin J. (1995). "The Star of Bethlehem". Science and Christian Belief , Vol 5, (October 1995): 83-101. Online at:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Astronomy-Cosmology/S&CB%2010-93Humphreys.html

[33] Jones, Floyd Nolen (2005). "The Chronology Of The Old Testament". Online preview at https://books.google.com/books?id=ZkBasQYRy4sC

[34] Beckwith, Roger T. (2001). "Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian: Biblical, Intertestamental and Patristic Studies". Online preview at 

https://books.google.com/books?id=6j-fDxGEeGIC

[35] Roll, Susan K. (1995). "Toward the origin of Christmas". Online preview at https://books.google.com/books?id=6MXPEMbpjoAC

[36] Rickard, Stanley Edgar (2007, 2013). "Birth Date of Jesus Christ". Online at:

http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/chronology/Chrmas.html

[37] Mosshammer, Alden A. (2008). "The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era". Online preview at https://books.google.com/books?id=0umDqPOf2L8C

[38] http://pleromatouchronou.blogspot.com

Appendix A. The Feast of the First Fruits of Wine or Festival of New Wine

This feast is described in (11Q19 19:11-16) and (11Q19 21:6-8) [A.1] [A.2].

11Q19, 11QT or 11QTemple designates the Temple Scroll, the largest scroll ever discovered in the Qumran caves. Like the book of Jubilees, it is in the category of rewritten Scripture, though with the strongest claim to authority, as God speaks in the first person throughout the text. It systematically combines the laws of the Temple and the sacrifices (mainly from the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers) with a new version of these laws as articulated in Deuteronomy chapters 12–23. [A.3]

In particular, the text introducing the festivals of New Wine and New Oil is an expansion of the law in Lev 23:9-21 about the first fruits of barley (on the Sunday after Passover, v. 11) and the first fruits of wheat (on the Sunday seven weeks after the previous feast, vv. 15-16).

Though the Temple Scroll was redacted definitely not later than the reign of John Hyrcanus (134-104 BC), its sources, including in particular the Festival Calendar, are most probably pre-Qumranic, originating "within the Second Temple Jewish circles that produced 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and related texts" [A.4] [A.5].

At this point we need to address the potential problem for a Christian, and specifically a Catholic, of using passages of a book which does not belong to the canon of Sacred Scripture. Whereas at first sight the present situation might seem similar to that of Jude 1:14–15 quoting from 1 Enoch 1:9 in a way that clearly considered that text authoritative, it is esentially different for two reasons. First of all, whereas the Apostle Jude Thaddeus, as an inspired writer of the New Testament, was assisted by the Holy Spirit in recognizing the quoted passage from 1 Enoch as divinely inspired and fit for inclusion in the piece of Sacred Scripture he was writing, no one living today enjoys a similar assistance for recognizing a passage from any book outside the canon of Scripture as divinely inspired. Moreover, such recognitition would be intrinsically impossible because no passage of any book outside the canon of Scripture is divinely inspired as any and all passages of Sacred Scripture are, which means fulfilling the following characteristics:

1. First, as St. Paul says: "all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;" (2 Tim 3:16).

2. In addition to being profitable, all Scripture is authoritative, "since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit" (Dei Verbum 11).

3. In addition to being profitable and authoritative, all Scripture is necessary, and the whole of Scripture is, together with oral Apostolic Tradition, sufficient, as "what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the People of God;" (Dei Verbum 8).

4. Finally, the whole of Revelation has been always available in the Church, as "God has seen to it that what He had revealed for the salvation of all nations would abide perpetually in its full integrity and be handed on to all generations." (Dei Verbum 7).

Therefore, it is intrinsically impossible that an additional divinely inspired Old Testament text might become known after the Apostles had "handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit" (Dei Verbum 7) to the Church.

Thus, since the text of the Temple Scroll did not come to light until it was acquired by Yigael Yadin during the Six-Day War of 1967 [A.3], we have absolute certitude that it is not, in all or even in part, "a sixth book of the Torah, on the same level of authority as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy", as proposed by Hartmut Stegemann in 1987 [A.6], even if in fact, as he argued in a fairly solitary position, "the composition of these five sources [of the Temple Scroll] occurred sometime during the first century of the Second Temple period, and their redaction occurred in reaction to, and not too long after, Ezra’s canonization of the Pentateuch in 458 B.C." [A.6].

Yet, all of the above is compatible with the notion that part of the contents of the Temple Scroll may become useful, though never necessary, for the faithful at some point in time. We propose that the specific point in time for the start of an instance of such usefulness was when the precise determination of the value of the fine structure constant in 2008 [1] allowed our formulation of this "Christ-proclaiming fine tuning" hypothesis in 2010. Since this hypothesis will remain in a state of conjecture until the end of times, the relevant text of the Temple Scroll will never be necessary.

Appendix A References

[A.1] Stéphane Saulnier, "Calendrical Variations in Second Temple Judaism: New Perspectives on the ‘Date of the Last Supper’ Debate", Brill, 2012. Pp. 129-132.

https://books.google.com/books?id=idAyAQAAQBAJ

[A.2] Dwight D. Swanson, "The Temple Scroll and the Bible: The Methodology of 11Qt", Brill, 1995. Pp. 48-91. https://books.google.com/books?id=R1owHWmaCS8C

[A.3] Adolfo Roitman, "Envisioning the Temple: Scrolls, Stones, and Symbols", 2003.

http://www.imj.org.il/shrine_center/Temple_article.html

[A.4] Sidnie White Crawford, "Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times", Eerdmans, 2008. Quote from p. 92. https://books.google.com/books?id=F4xgEQB8TyoC

[A.5] Stephen Pfann, "The ancient ‘library’ or ‘libraries’ of Qumran: the specter of cave 1Q", in Sidnie White Crawford and Cecilia Wassen ed., "The Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran and the Concept of a Library", Brill, 2015. Pp. 200-201:

https://books.google.com/books?id=g6y8CgAAQBAJ

"A growing number of scholars have concluded that, on the basis of doctrinal approach, at least three divergent groups are represented among the scrolls from Qumran. These are: the Yahad, the Temple Scroll group, and the Enoch/Enastr group. Experts in religious law, including Schiffman, Baumgarten and Levine, have exposed irreconcilable differences between the Temple Scroll and the other Dead Sea Scrolls."

[A.6] Stegemann, Hartmut. “Temple Scroll Revisited: Is the Temple Scroll a Sixth Book of the Torah—Lost for 2,500 Years?,” Biblical Archaeology Review 13.6 (Nov/Dec 1987): 28-35. http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=13&Issue=6&ArticleID=3 (accessed 6/25/2016)

Full text online at:

http://cojs.org/is_the_temple_scroll_a_sixth_book_of_the_torah-lost_for_2-500_years-_hartmut_stegemann-_bar_13-06-_nov-dec_1987/