And now for something random. I post this now simply because I ran across an interesting bit of info while reading one Sabbath.

It is frequently taught in Messianic circles that Jesus was born during the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot). I’ve even taught it in the past. And while it may sound appealing at first (and lends further justification for eschewing the traditional date of the Nativity in greater Christianity), it really has no more biblical justification than Dec. 25.

(Incidentally, this phenomenon of celebrating the first advent of Messiah at the Feast of Tabernacles just goes to show that even Messianics desire to commemorate the birth of Messiah, albeit on a different day. Which shows that the desire to commemorate Jesus’ birth is common to both Christians and Messianics. Yet, for some reason one is more pagan than the other.)

So where does this teaching find justification? From the articles I have read, the entire method of dating Jesus’ birth stems from a reference in Luke 1:5:

“In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah”

Back in the days of the first temple, the priesthood had grown to an enormous size. Obviously, all the priests didn’t need to be at the temple each day, but they still needed to participate at some point. So, the priests where divided into 24 divisions according to families (the sons of Eleazer and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons). This is recorded in 1 Chronicles 24:1ff. The eighth in this order was Abijah, Zechariah’s division. (Not all the divisions/families returned from Babylon, so the remaining priests were reorganized into these original 24 divisions. So though Zechariah was considered Abijah, this doesn’t mean he was actually descended from that family)

So, having these 24 courses, each division was on duty in the temple for a week at a time, 2 times a year. They also served during the pilgrimage feasts of Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot.

From here, so the teaching goes, we can determine that Zechariah would have been in the temple during his course during the eighth week of the year, the last week of Iyyar, the 2nd month (or Cheshvan, the 8th month , but that doesn’t fit the desired chronology, so Iyyar is arbitrarily chosen). From here, the rest of the chronology is worked out from John’s conception, Yeshua’s conception, John’s birth and Yeshua’s birth (from the time references in Luke, John and Yeshua being born 6 months apart).

The entire teaching stands or falls on when Zechariah was in the temple. So it seems like a pretty air tight case, doesn’t it? I thought so for a while. But I’ve found one major error in this whole theory, one that cripples it entirely.

Reading on the calendar used by the Essenes of the Qumran community, I came across this interesting fact. The Essenes referred to each week by its priestly division. Thus, Zechariah’s week would have been referred to as “Abijah week.” But with 24 divisions of priests serving twice, that leaves you with 48 weeks. For the Essene calendar, that leaves you with four more weeks, for a complete 52 week solar year. Thus, each year, the first four divisions would have to serve a third time in order to finish out the year.

Granted, the Essene calendar was a 364-day solar calendar. This calendar was not used by the Sadducees or Pharisees. But, what this does show is that the calendar (whether Essene, Sadducean, or Pharisaic, does not perfectly sync with the 24 divisions of the priests). This would be especially true in years that the Sanhedrin would be required to add a leap month (Adar II). This yearly irregularity would push back the first few divisions. Leap years would add even more irregularity to this mix. Thus, from one year to another, the time that the priests served in the temple could vary up to a month from when they served the previous year. Depending on what year this occurred, Zechariah’s division could have been in the temple in literally any month of the year.

Thus, based on this calendrical irregularity, one cannot pin point Zechariah’s service in the temple during the last week of Iyyar with any certainty. To do so is arbitrary. And therefore, neither can Jesus’ birth during Sukkot be proven via this calculation.