And this, incidentally, really is the only straightforward method the 2/3rds Rule has given us to discern this date. So if it leads us nowhere, looking further into convoluted methods is not going to cut it from the understanding that God wants us to have this information. All the clues have led us to August 18, 53 AD. So, for better or worse, that is what we have. And it is no exaggeration, either, to say that there is a lot riding on this calculation. Like all the other dates discerned by the 2/3rds Rule (to be from God) the math needs to lead us to something spectacular, something meaningful that will also conclusively demonstrate we have found the right date. And if it doesn't, critics could use this failure to systematically tear down everything else predicted by the Rule.

​

Fortunately, however, there is a great deal of extrabiblical material out there that can help us evaluate this prediction; for, as the timeline states, the event most logically assigned to the date we’ve just calculated is not Mary’s death. It is the Assumption, the belief of many Christians that at the end of her blessed life, Mary was assumed bodily into heaven. [28] And, of that event, Oral Tradition has an abundance to say.

​​​

The first thing one might notice when reviewing it, too, is that August 18 is only three days removed from the date the Roman and Orthodox Catholics, the Lutherans, and some Anglican denominations have traditionally set aside to celebrate Mary’s Assumption. They all seem to be in agreement that it should be observed on, or around, the 15th. Many also teach that Mary laid in a state of dormition for three days (like Christ) prior to her being raised up. There is no consensus as to whether she was dead or simply asleep during those three days, but these three added days provide us, nevertheless, with more than enough initial corroboration to be impressed with this calculation.

​​​

Before digging into it further, however, it is necessary to address the objections of those who are prone to reject the idea of Mary being bodily assumed because it is not explicitly stated in the Bible. And to those in that camp it is admitted that the Scriptures seem a little lacking in providing what would be universally accepted as a proof text. But there are allusions. And one of the most powerful is a verse found in the Psalms, which all Christians seem to agree, prophesies of Christ’s ascension into heaven. It begins, “Arise, O LORD, into thy rest.” But to that it adds, “thou, and the ark of thy strength.” [29] So to what, or whom, could that be referring?

​​​

Well, the original Ark had within it the staff of Aaron, the tablets of the Ten Commandments and the manna from heaven, [30] which are all symbolic of Christ, namely His high priesthood, His identification as the Word of God and His Body (the true bread from heaven). So if this verse is referencing Christ, would that not make this ark the woman whose womb carried Him for 9 months? Did she not also nourish and protect Him and give Him strength throughout the vulnerable years of His childhood? And was she not by His side, encouraging Him throughout His adult life all the way to the Cross where Simeon prophesied she'd experience, in her heart, every pain He suffered even unto His death? [31] Are we to assume that she severed her spiritual connection to Him after He rose? Or is it not far more likely that she, the ark of [His] strength, would be eventually taken up by Him, just as the Psalmist is predicting?  

​​​

As if to drive this point home, St. John's Apocalypse speaks also of the Ark. And it, too, is seen in heaven. [32] But the original Ark of the Covenant was known in John's day to be somewhere on earth (having been secreted away to an unknown location to prevent its capture during the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem). [33] So, once again, to what or to whom could this heavenly Ark be referring? John's first readers would have grasped immediately what he was saying. And, in consideration of what's been discerned of Mary in this book already, we should know it, too. But, for any still struggling, the verses that follow give it away.

​​​

They tell of a woman (after having just given birth to a male child destined to rule all the nations) being given eagle's wings to spirit her away to a safe haven. [34] Figurative language is obviously being employed here. But it draws, nevertheless, a clear parallel between Mary (the Ark of the New Covenant) and the hiding of the original Ark, with Mary's Assumption, seemingly, being implied.

​​​

So there is a lot in the Written Traditions to recommend it. But the ancient Oral Traditions say it, as well (and much more plainly). [35] These are the traditions, given us by the Apostles, outside the Bible, that Scripture tells us we are to also hold fast to. [36] Mary's Assumption is, therefore, a biblically compatible and logical belief, that is also backed up heavily by Oral Tradition. Still, with no really hard scriptural corroboration beyond the allusions just mentioned, until now it has been a belief maintained primarily by faith.

​​​

This is all about to change, however, for the oldest documents we have today that speak of the Assumption also tell us that it happened, not on the 15th of August, but on the 15th day of the midsummer Hebrew month of Av. [37] The Church simply changed it to August 15 when the Hebrew calendar went into disuse. What’s more, in 53 AD, August 18 was 15 Av! [38] So, we’ve stumbled upon some extraordinary additional corroboration for the calculation. Our formula has somehow given us the exact date the ancients have told us Mary was taken up into heaven by God! But the Hebrew calendar, as usual, has even more to say, for, as it turns out, 15 Av is, of course, a Jewish holiday. Not only that, in 53 AD it also coincided with a Special Sabbath. And both observances are incredibly well fashioned to complement Church teaching.

​​​​

The holiday is Hag HaAhava, or as it is more commonly known, Tu B’Av. And the scriptural basis for it comes from the last three chapters of the Book of Judges which tell of an incident that would have been tragic but for the intervention of two hundred young maidens. [39]

​​​​

As the story goes, in the last days of the Judges and just prior to the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel, some of the men of the Hebrew tribe of Benjamin had become degenerate. And their behavior prompted first a ban by the other 11 tribes on intermarrying with the Benjaminites. But from there it erupted into a full-scale war, which the Benjaminites eventually lost. And their tribe, which had numbered in the tens of thousands, was reduced to a mere six hundred people. But to make matters even worse, the survivors were all male, which threatened their continued existence. So after the war concluded they beseeched the other tribes to help.

​​​​

Not wanting to see any of the 12 tribes driven to extinction, the other tribes put aside their differences and found four hundred marriageable women for their kinsmen in one of the cities destroyed in the war. And for the two hundred Benjaminite males who remained unattached, the elders of the Israelites had another idea. Since they had vowed before the war never to give any of their daughters to the Benjaminites in marriage, they instructed them to go to the city of Shiloh on a certain feast day the people there had established for the Lord.

​​​​

It was a festive holiday, whose chief custom involved all the young maids of Shiloh going down into the vineyards to sing and dance in praise of God. But this time when they did it, the Benjaminites (who could not be legally given any of them in marriage) were instructed to lie and wait, hidden in the trees, with each man simply taking for himself a wife from the women he saw, while the elders just looked the other way.

​​​​

Two hundred were taken up that day and the tribe of Benjamin was preserved. But what these men did should not be equated with kidnapping (or worse). These women were taken as brides, with all the dignity afforded in marriage, and in a fashion that was not all that dissimilar from what would have likely transpired had there been no marriage ban. [40] And they, soon after, became wives and mothers, replenishing the tribe and assuring its continued existence.

​​​​

The holiday, itself, took on added meaning because of this event. It became a celebration of love and marriage observed throughout Israel. As to the actual day that this occurred, it comes from tradition this time (the Talmud, specifically) which informs us that Hag HaAhava (15 Av) is one of two holidays on the calendar, so joyous, it is customary for the young maidens of each village to sing and dance in the vineyards. The primary reason given is that it commemorates the marriage ban against the Benjaminites being lifted, [41] which is essentially what happened when the Benjamanites obtained their brides. The link to 15 Av is, therefore, clearly made.

​​​​

And today Hag HaAhava remains a joyful day on the Hebrew calendar, just as it had been in ancient times. From a non-Jewish perspective, it is a kind of cross between Mother’s Day and St. Valentine’s Day, with a lot of singing and dancing thrown in. It has also become, for obvious reasons, a very popular day for a wedding.

​​​​

And from our perspective here, there is a lot to sing and dance about, as well. The 2/3rds Rule has just confirmed what prior was known primarily only through faith. [42] We can now, however, easily see that just as it was in the days of the Judges when the young virgins of Shiloh were taken up by the Benjaminites to save their tribe by becoming the mothers for their children, [43] so on 15 Av in 53 AD, the Blessed Virgin was taken up bodily, by God, to fulfill her destiny as the Spiritual Mother of the Church. And with that simple holiday connection, not one but two Church traditions are supported; her assumption into heaven and the special relationship she continues to have with those she left behind. [44]

​​​​

But as has been the custom, God is not through telling us of the significance of this event, for the Special Sabbath associated with this date, Shabbat Nahamu (the Sabbath of Comfort) [45] was established after the 6th century BC conquest of Jerusalem by the Babylonians to give comfort to the Jewish people grieving over the loss of the Temple and the Ark of the Covenant. [46] Since Mary has been identified from ancient times as the Ark of the New Covenant, with this connection we now have a third Church tradition being corroborated.

​​​​

Coming as it does on the Sabbath after a 3-week mourning period, Shabbat Nahamu has also become a day for singing and dancing and making merry. [47] And it needs to be recognized that with both observances (the holiday and the Special Sabbath) being so upbeat they are not what would be expected if Mary had simply died on this day. No, we’re definitely being told that something wonderful happened here. And it is a cause for celebration and hope for all of us. Mary, the firstfruits of humanity, [48] was snatched from the grave this day, [49] just as it has been promised to all who believe and keep the Commandments. [50]

​​​​

So there has been a great deal uncovered already in support of this dating. But it can't be considered complete before getting her son's take on all of this, for as might have been expected, He has something to add, as well. It begins with tradition, which has long held that Jesus began His ministry by embarking on a 40-day fast. And in chapter 5, the 2/3rds Rule concurred, siding with the 3 Synoptic Gospels from which this tradition arose. But in contrast to the timing they proposed it sided instead with John's Gospel, which heavily suggested that this fast commenced just prior to Jesus being baptized by John, not after.

​​​​

So with Jesus being baptized on Yom Kippur, this likened His fast to the 40-day fast Moses embarked on just prior to giving the Israelites the Ten Commandments on the very first Yom Kippur. That also fixed the starting date of Jesus's 40-day fast to the same starting date traditionally assigned to Moses's fast. It would have begun on the 1st day of the 6th month, making it Rosh Chodesh Elul. But here's the kicker. In 30 AD when all this happened, Rosh Chodesh Elul landed on August 18th. In other words, on the very day Mary was assumed into heaven to begin her ministry as the Spiritual Mother to the Church, Jesus can be said to have begun His ministry, being set in place as the cornerstone of that Church. [51]

​​​​​​

The date proposed for Mary’s Assumption (August 18, 53 AD), having been corroborated now in a myriad of ways, from both Oral and Written Tradition, we find our foundational premise to be considerably less shaky than it was when we started. And that gives us a firm platform to build on for discerning the next big date in Mary's life, which would be, of course, her conception, or as Roman Catholics refer to it, her Immaculate Conception. This is in reference to a miraculous exception God appears to have granted our Spiritual Mother in regard to the sin of Adam and Eve. 

​​​

This Original Sin (as theologians call it) that our first parents committed and passed on to us, their progeny, brought death into the world, and unnaturally twisted our desires toward evil rather than good. [52] It is a desire so strong, in fact, that it's said to have made it impossible for us humans (on our own) not to sin. [53] The one person, however, that the Church teaches, this generational curse was not passed onto is Mary. By a singular act of grace, her soul (and that of her son, by proxy, of course), is said to have been preserved from it and all of its dire consequences.

​​​

So for Mary, God made it possible for her not to sin, just as He'd done for Adam and Eve. And, for freewill to have played a part, that required also that they had the freedom to sin, if they so chose. Our first parents, as we all know, chose poorly. But Mary, by this belief, can be said to have passed that test, having never yielded to temptation and eaten of the proverbial "forbidden fruit." [54] It is a logical conclusion when all the evidence is put forward. And the Bible is compatible, as well. But once again, only through allusions. In contrast, however, to what it gave us for the Assumption, the case it makes here is considerably stronger.

​​​

The Ark of the Covenant, for instance, which foreshadowed Mary, was made from the purest gold. [55] And if this were not the case, if Mary, that is, had been a sinner, it places Christ, as a child, in a potentially very awkward position with regard to the 4th Commandment. [56] Not to mention how illogical it is that Christ would put Himself into a situation of being so vulnerable to the whims of evil. Even the best of parents cannot raise a child without doing some kind of emotional damage. So would Christ have really entrusted His own upbringing to two people whom Satan had his clutches in? It is unconscionable. Yes, the Son of Man had come here to be offered over to sinners. That was always part of the plan. [57] But Scripture asserts Christ was to endure this indignity only once, [58] and as an adult, not as a child! [59]

​​

And there are other such scriptural allusions, but maybe the most telling is the angel's greeting to Mary at the Annunciation. Luke's Gospel records it as a single word, Kecharitomene, which is commonly translated, "[Hail] full of grace". [60] But that does not really convey the depth of the Greek tense being used to describe what the angel, Gabriel, is saying. It puzzled even Mary when she heard it. [61] It was the equivalent of hearing, for the first time, the name she bore in heaven.

​​​

The root word, charitoo, used here in its past tense, literally means, endowed, at some former time, with grace. But in Koine Greek when you want to emphasize that a task is done to absolute completion you double the first syllable. We see that tense used at the Cross in Christ's declaration, "Tetelestai!" [62] But the common English translation on that one, "It is finished!" does not do it justice, either. The doubling of the first syllable, "Te", tells us, rather, that whatever it is Jesus is referring to, it isn't just finished. It is permanently, and irrevocably, finished! The doubling of the first syllable in Kecharitomene similarly asserts that Mary wasn't just a recipient at one time of God's grace. She's been irrevocably endowed with that grace. And that is a state theologians say is impossible for us sinners to attain until reaching heaven, where we can no longer fall from grace. [63] Mary, however, according to St. Gabriel, was already there.

​​​

So Mary's sinless nature is easily grasped through Scripture, which explains how it became a belief passed on from the earliest times. But those early Christians took it a step further, attaching to Mary the title, New Eve. [64] And in so doing they recognized her as being at the same level of sinlessness as Jesus, whom Scripture calls the last Adam. [65] In other words, just as Jesus overcame the sin of Adam and thus cancelled out its shame for all men, so, they were saying, did Mary for all women. 

​​​

Both sexes, after all, needed healing from mankind's fall in the Garden. And both needed a perfect role model to emulate, as well. But Jesus, whom all Christians acknowledge to be the world's perfect role model, also has a slight limitation. He knew, firsthand, what it was to be poor, [66] to be homeless, [67] to be (by the world's standards) homely, [68] to be a member of a lower class and a subjugated race. [69] And He knew what it was to be wrongly accused, tortured and put to death for a crime He didn't commit. He knew all that and overcame it without ever succumbing to the temptation to sin. But He also did it, as a man.

​​​

And it may be abhorrent to say, or even think, this these days, but women are different from men. They are equal, but not the same. And, believe it or not, they also have trials and prejudices to deal with that Jesus never experienced. So how can God have expected women to fully relate to Jesus knowing that He never knew, firsthand, a woman's struggle, a woman's pain? [70] It hints at a gender bias built into salvation (and gives standing to some legalist issues, as well). [71] But God is no misogynist. And His desire is for all to be saved. [72] So to level the playing field, He gave us Mary, that men would have no advantage and women would have a perfect role model, too.

​​​

The Fathers were right, therefore, in their adulation of Mary. She is the New Eve. just as they claimed. Both logic and justice demanded it. But they weren't alone in this belief. Not surprisingly, the Bible says it, too, [73] and in John's Gospel, most auspiciously. It is intricately woven into John's description of the Miracle at Cana, wherein, on the 6th day after His Baptism, John tells us Jesus did something He, at first, did not want to do. But after being talked into it by Mary (whom Jesus called "woman" to make the point even clearer) He performed a great miracle, [74] and one that stands in sharp contrast to the grave sin "the woman" (Eve) talked Adam into committing in Eden on the 6th Day of Creation. [75] 

​​​

So there is a lot of evidence already, from both Written and Oral Tradition, in support of the doctrine. Nevertheless, and in spite of it, many remain unconvinced. And it is a wedge that has separated Roman Catholics from almost every other denomination since the Immaculate Conception was officially professed as dogmatic by the Catholics in 1854. [76] Given what was just seen with the Assumption, however, there is a hint that God might want to heal this division, too. We can hope, anyway, that He will. And we have all that's needed to find the date of her conception, as well. It is now a simple matter of back calculating from the date she was born. And for that we turn, once again, to the Integral Age Rule.

​​​

With the life of Moses (and now Jesus and John the Baptist) being so supportive of the ancient belief that all true prophets live an integral number of years, it strongly suggests that Mary would have also been assumed into heaven on, or around, her birthday. She did, after all, prophesy. [77] And we've been working under the assumption that God wants us to know this information. This would, therefore, be the most logical (and maybe only) way for Him to tell us from the scant information we have. And it would place her conception sometime in late fall.

​​​

That makes things very simple, because of all the Jewish holidays, there is but one associated with that time. It is Chanukah. And there is a Special Sabbath connected to it, too. It is observed on the first Saturday that occurs during that eight-day festival. And both observances, the holiday and the Special Sabbath, are also extraordinarily well suited for the occasion. But before getting into that we need to determine the exact day and year on the Julian calendar this may have happened. So in allowing that her conception is associated with Chanukah, this Special Sabbath gives us a very clever means of finding it.

​​​

Accepting again that God wants us to know the date (and the year) and recognizing that all the other important dates we’ve already uncovered of Mary have coincided with both holidays and Special Sabbaths, it is reasonable to want to see what turns up, in the way of corroboration, when the Immaculate Conception is set to the first day of Chanukah in a year when that day was also a Sabbath. Narrowing it down even further, we also know from Scripture and tradition that Mary was fairly young when she gave birth to Jesus. [78] So we need only look at a window of about twenty years in the 1st century BC to find the date. And on doing this, only two dates emerge for her conception that fit all the criteria. They are November 24, 32 BC and December 6, 25 BC.

​​​

As regards the first, it has Mary giving birth to Jesus when she was 22 (which sounds about right to our modern ears). And it has her being born about one week premature (which is not all that problematic). The other date, however, has Mary being born about three weeks premature and worse than that, it suggests she gave birth to Jesus when she was only 15 years old!

​​​

Nevertheless, many biblical scholars would likely argue for the younger age simply because it is much more in keeping with the earliest traditions of the Church. And although the extrabiblical sources from which we get this added information cannot be considered entirely trustworthy, they do, in the very least, reflect the beliefs and cultural norms of the times. And these sources assert that Mary was somewhere between 12 and 15 at the time of the Annunciation. [79] In other words, she was the approximate age most Judean women became wives and mothers back then.

​​​

Additional corroboration for the younger age is found in the date, which is only two days shy of the date the Church currently ascribes to the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (December 8). This suggests that, like the Assumption, the Church's intuition for this date had some basis in reality. And this does appear to be the case. But that discussion will be shelved until we get to the review of Mary’s birthday. It is there, too, that the 2/3rds Rule will provide the additional corroboration we're looking for and weigh in on which of the two birthdates is correct, as well.

​​​

But we cannot go on to that subject before finishing up on this one. Specifically, the holiday and Special Sabbath that gave us the two dates are still in need of review. And their origin story has an enormous amount to tell us of Mary’s introduction to our world. It begins with the Hellenist Greeks who’d ruled over Judea since the late 4th century BC when Alexander the Great marched his conquering armies through the Middle East, wresting it from the Persians. And this was initially welcomed by the indigenous populations, with the many boons of Classical Greek culture luring their citizenry to spread out into all the conquered lands.

​​​

But, by the early 2nd century BC, the Hellenist yoke had become intolerable in Judea. The Greek magistrates there banned the Jewish religion, making its practice punishable by death. Worse than that, they also appropriated the Jerusalem Temple, converting it into a center for idolatry, which, understandably, inspired a revolt. Led by the Maccabees, a zealous band of Jewish nationalists, the Greeks were eventually ousted. And, for a short time (until the conquests of the Romans), an autonomous Jewish Kingdom was reestablished in Judea, with the first order of business, after the Temple's reclamation (in 164 BC), being its purification and rededication.

​​​

This is what the holiday and Special Sabbath commemorate, the restoration of the Temple. [80] And what better commemorations could there be to attach to the Immaculate Conception, which speaks of how the Word purified and rededicated the human temple in a singular act of grace for the woman who would one day be His blessed mother? The parallel here is obvious and quite stunning.

​​​

And there is even more to this when we consider the 8 days that make up this holiday and its alternate name, the Festival of Lights. Today, most are aware that on each day of the holiday it is customary, in Jewish households, to light a candle on an eight-candle lampstand called a menorah. But the reason behind this candle lighting may not be so well-known. It is to commemorate a miracle that happened at the time of the original rededication.

​​​

According to legend, after their Greek overlords were expelled, and the Temple they’d defiled had been purged of its abominations, the Maccabean Jews were anxious to put it back into service. And one of the rituals in the rededication ceremony was to light a lamp in the Temple's inner sanctum as a symbol of God being ever-present among them. A problem arose, however, when, after lighting the lamp, it was discovered there was only enough sanctified oil to last one day. And the purification ritual for preparing more oil took 7 days. But the day they'd chosen for the dedication (25 Kislev) held for them a special significance. [81] So, rather than postpone, they decided to just hold their breaths and hope for the best. And miraculously the lamp stayed lit the entire 8 days until the new oil was ready. The people saw this as an obvious sign that God truly was with them. And that's how Chanukah became an 8-day celebration. [82]

​​​

As pertains to Mary (and everyone else for that matter), the first 8 days after conception are the most perilous. This is how long it takes the fertilized egg to make the journey through the Fallopian tube from its starting point in the ovary to its connection point in the womb. And there are a lot of things that can go wrong along the way.

​​​

In Mary’s case, however, there may have been more perils to consider. Now we do not know the means by which Original Sin is inherited. The Catholics see it as a deprivation of certain graces God had given our first parents, which they subsequently lost and could, therefore, no longer pass onto their children. [83] Others see it as a curse handed down from mother to child. But perhaps there is a little of both involved. With regard to the graces, Mary would have been infused with them all from the start. But this suggests that she was susceptible to losing them, in some mysterious way, throughout those 8 days. It further suggests that Mary, having been preordained to be the Mother of God, was receiving divine protection during this time to preserve her from her mother’s taint until she’d reached the safety (and sterility) of her womb.

​​​

The Special Sabbath seems to symbolically reference these 8 momentous days leading to the womb, too, in its haftarah reading from Zechariah. It speaks, among many other things, of a golden lampstand consisting of 7 lamps and a golden bowl positioned above them. [84] Again, we do not know the mechanisms involved, but it would appear from all this that preserving someone from Original Sin is a miracle that takes, not one, but 8 days. It also suggests that maybe we, too, should be celebrating the Feast of the Immaculate Conception as an 8-day holiday. It certainly warrants more attention than we currently give it. And the Jewish custom of commemorating each day of Chanukah by lighting a candle on an 8-candle menorah seems ripe for appropriation.

​​​

We still haven’t determined which of the two Julian calendar dates to apply to her conception. But there is a high expectation that at least one will show a holiday linked to her proposed August 18th birthday. And, if it is only one, that should settle the issue. In consulting NASA's lunar phase catalog, therefore, for the older date first, it is found that if Mary was 22 when giving birth to Jesus, her own birth in 31 BC would have fallen on 27 Av. And that is not a holiday, a Special Sabbath, or any other noteworthy date from the Old Testament.

​​​

So that is one possibility seemingly eliminated. But in setting Mary’s birthday to the other candidate, August 18, 24 BC, the Hebrew calendar date it lands on is 15 Elul. And there is no known holiday associated with that date, either. So much for that idea, right? Well, not quite. We’ve found in the course of this investigation that it is often necessary to look a little deeper. And with the 15th of every Hebrew month, back then, coinciding with a full moon, making it a very auspicious day for a holiday, there is a hint that there may be more to find here, too. So, in following that lead it is also quickly realized that there is, in fact, a Jewish holiday associated with the month of Elul. It is currently observed on the first day of that month. But, as it is with a few other Jewish holidays, that may not have always been the case.

​​​

The observance is Rosh Hashanah La’Behemot (the New Year for sacrificial animals). And it was established to be the day all the newborn clean animals in one's possession were to be judged for their suitability as Temple offerings for the upcoming New Year, the High Holy Days of Tishri, in particular. Its timing apparently also comes from the propensity of sacrificial animals back then (sheep and goats, etc.) to breed (or be bred) such that they gave birth in late summer.

​​​

The earliest mention of the observance is found in the Talmud, whose traditions did not even start to be recorded until after the Temple was destroyed and animal sacrifice had ceased. So the holiday by that time had lost much, if not all, its meaning and may not have even been observed anymore. This being true, the date for the holiday may have also been lost. The Talmud, itself, reflects that uncertainty by stating a minority opinion that it be observed a month later, on 1 Tishri. [85] And this disagreement is understandable given the huge variance Hebrew months have with the seasons from year to year. To account for all the births, 1 Elul may have come too early in some years.

​​​

But the 1st day of the month of Tishri is also the standard New Year (Rosh HaShanah), making it the first of the High Holy days associated with that month. And since Rosh HaShanah also involves animal sacrifice, [86] there would appear to be a conflict with that date and a command by God, to Moses, regarding newborn sacrificial animals. He was told …

​​​

… seven days it shall remain with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to me. [87]

​​​

So, given the range of uncertainty (30 days) found in the Talmud regarding the true date for the holiday, the feeling by some that 1 Elul was too early, and the conflict with Scripture for the later date they proposed, it seems plausible, perhaps even likely, that at the time of Christ it was observed sometime later in the month of Elul. And the 15th would be a perfect compromise between the two positions. The 15th, being such an auspicious day for designating holidays, may have played a role in it, too.

​​​

The 15th would give the animal a two-week stay of execution, rather than one prescribed by Scripture. But since the first day of every month was determined by observation of the night sky back then, there would have been an uncertainty of one day as to when it might occur. So it would make sense (given the proclivity of Jewish thought at that time to err on the side of caution) that they might push the observance back an extra week just to be safe.

​​​

It also makes sense from what we now know of Mary’s life, assuming she truly was born in 24 BC. This would make her 14 at the time of the Annunciation. And from there we can say that at her birth she, too, was given a two-week grace period (two weeks of years, that is) [88] before being asked to put her life on the line by consenting to bear a child out of wedlock. [89] With the harsh penalties in place back then for the appearance of sexual infidelity, this would not have been an easy decision for her (especially, given her age). [90] There would have been no hiding it, too. And the eyebrows that must certainly have been raised will play a part. This will be discussed shortly. But, we are first in need of corroboration that Rosh Hashanah La’Behemot may have really been observed on 15 Elul in the Second Temple period. And as it turns out there is some. But it comes from a very unexpected source.

​​​

There is one date, in the life of Christ, the 2/3rds Rule directly predicts in its progression from the Big Bang to Calvary that has not yet been examined. It occurred when Jesus would have been 26, during His hidden years, on September 3, 19 AD. And it, too, landed on 15 Elul in that year. So in picking up on what we’ve already discerned from Mary’s birth, we can conclude that, from this date on, Jesus has also been given a two weeks (of years) grace period before being required to put His life on the line (the span from 19 to 33 AD, the year of Jesus's trial and execution, being, of course, 14 years). What need have we then of outside corroboration? The conjectures of the 2/3rds Rule corroborate themselves!

​​​

And, as was alluded to earlier, there is even more corroboration for this date when we consult Catholic tradition. It comes to us this time from the French town of Angers, sometime around the year 430 AD, wherein a local man reported to his bishop he’d been graced by a vision of angels singing and dancing and carrying on in heaven. And when he asked them the reason, they said it was the day of Mary’s birth. The date of this supposed vision was September 8. And it soon became popular as the feast day of her birth throughout Christendom. Rome eventually also adopted it, which is how December 8 became the presumptive day of her Immaculate Conception. [91]

​​​

Recognizing, however, that September 8 also coincided with 15 Elul (the date being proposed here as Mary’s true birthday) in the year 431 AD, [92] it suggests that, if this latter-day private revelation is authentic, that is the year it happened. So had the Church but connected it to the Hebrew calendar, rather than the Julian, they would have gotten this one right, too.

​​​

But that's not all. Yet another nuance to this birthdate may be seen in God's use of it to seemingly resolve the ages-old mystery of whether Mary ever actually died. And this resolution starts with the math. Since there is a one-day range of error in the determination of dates on the Hebrew calendar, August 18 is technically correct as a possible date for Mary's birth. But a more precise assessment shows 15 Elul to be a much closer match to August 19 in 24 BC. And that strongly suggests the very intriguing possibility that Mary was assumed into heaven one-day prior to her real birthday (the presumptive day she should have died) to preserve her from the pain of death (an experience Scripture tells us only sinners are required to endure). [93]

​​​

And in support of this conjecture we are given two powerful corroborations, one from the Old Testament and the other from private revelation. As to the foreshadowing, Mary being taken up to assume her role as the Spiritual Mother of the Church at the age of 75 (rather than 76) enlightens us to a very appropriate parallel between her and Abraham, whom Scripture says was called by God to be the Spiritual Father of the Hebrew nation when he was 75. [94]

​​​

That, by itself, is a very strong argument. But if it is still not enough to confirm this conjecture, Our Lady of Fatima (from more modern times) seems to have offered some support for it, as well. In 1917, starting in May, Mary is said to have appeared to three young visionaries, in Fatima Portugal, over 6 consecutive months. And 5 of those 6 apparitions occurred on the 13th day of the month. But in the one exception, in August, she came to them on the 19th day. [95] 

​​​

The delay was prompted by a local magistrate who was appalled by how much notoriety these visions were getting. So he jailed the children on August 13th in an attempt to stop all the superstitious nonsense (as he saw it) and save the town from further embarrassment. It didn't work. He caused a public outcry, instead. And in failing also to scare the children into admitting their involvement in a fraud, they were released the next day. So a logical question arises.

​​​

If Mary was apparently going to appear to the children that month, no matter what, why did she wait so long after the 13th to do it? Why the 19th? What was wrong with say, the 14th, or the 15th, etc.? Given what we now know, it gives pause to wonder whether there may have been an ulterior motive for her delaying to that particular day. Could she, perhaps, have been using the occasion to confirm what she knew the 2/3rds Rule would one day be revealing of her birth? 

​​​​

It is certainly possible, but it is also just one of two intriguing places where the prophecies of Fatima and the 2/3rds Rule cross paths. The other is discussed in chapter 8. In this chapter, however, there are still many more dates to find and one more to discern of Mary. It is the day the holiday of her birth predicts she would have been required to go head-to-head with Satan due to the courage she showed at the Annunciation. And while the Bible tells us nothing of what this may have entailed, those ancient Oral Traditions, which purport to have additional information on her life, have a lot to say about it.

​​​​​

The Protevangelion, (an apocryphal gospel said to have been written by Jesus's stepbrother, James), reports, for instance, that when Mary was very obvious with child, she and St. Joseph, were called before the Sanhedrin to explain. [96] And this seems somewhat understandable when viewed from our modern understanding of betrothals and weddings. But the ancients would have seen this situation quite a bit differently.

​

In those days a wedding consisted of two ceremonies. In the first, the betrothal ceremony (the kiddushin) the bridegroom presented his bride with a marriage contract of some sort. And the ancient sources are fairly clear that from that point on they were essentially man and wife in all aspects (including conjugal). There was but one exception, their living arrangements. Since people generally lived with their parents until marriage back then, a betrothal period was needed to allow the bridegroom time to prepare a dwelling for the couple. And by custom, the betrothal might last as long as a year (whether it needed to or not), with its conclusion occurring in the wedding ceremony (the nisu’in). [97] As it may be recalled from chapter 4, that final stage took place under a chupah, which was representative of the dwelling the bridegroom had prepared.

​​

So that is what we are seeing with Mary and Joseph in the Gospel narratives, a betrothal that may have lasted as much as a year. [98] And it would not have been the least bit scandalous had Mary been pregnant during that time if this was a standard betrothal. The Protevangelion tells us, however, it was not standard. Mary, it says, was a consecrated virgin who had been offered up to God by her parents to be raised in the Temple since her infancy. But once she had turned 12 and could no longer reside at the Temple due to the ritual impurity of her cycle, the priests found for her a widower to be her guardian by marrying her and taking her into his home. [99]

​​

So, yes, they both had a lot to answer for, if this ancient source is factual. And for Mary the consequences were particularly dire if St. Joseph was found innocent. It would have implied she was guilty of adultery. And we know from Scripture what that would have brought her. The penalty was death by stoning. [100]

​​​​​​​

But the Holy Couple both insisted on their innocence, forcing the Sanhedrin to employ a scriptural test to discern the truth. They were both required to drink something known as the water of the ordeal of the Lord. [101] And they also understood that this potion was designed to make them gravely sick and perhaps even die if they were lying. Some also believe it could have induced, in Mary, a miscarriage. Miraculously, however, it had no effect. [102] So they were released with the understanding that if God had not judged against them, neither should they.

​​​​

Now we don’t know the date that this occurred and since it comes to us from an extrabiblical source, we, in fact, don’t even know if it did occur. But from what we do know from Scripture, of Jewish customs back then and Satan’s uncontrollable hatred of the Holy Family, it is very reasonable to assume that something of this nature did happen. And in searching for a holiday just prior to Christ’s true birthday that would fit the situation, one prominently stands out. It is the late winter holiday of Purim.

​​​​

Its origins are described in the Book of Esther, and it commemorates the culmination of a story that might have ended in a terrible tragedy had it not been for the courage of a Jewish heroine named Esther. [103] The story revolves around four central characters:

​​​​

• Esther (of course),

• Mordecai (a devout Jewish man in the king's service who was also Esther's foster-father and guardian, a responsibility he'd taken on after her parents died),

• Ahasuerus (the king of Persia who took Esther into his harem and eventually married her, making her his queen to replace the prior queen whom he'd deposed) and

• Haman (the villain of the story, the king's viceroy).

​​​​

And the story begins with Haman being promoted to high office and the king ordering that all should kneel and bow down to him in his presence. Mordecai, being devoutly Jewish, refused to do this, however. His reverence was reserved for God alone. And this so enraged Haman that he sought to punish, not merely Mordecai, but all of his kinsmen, as well. So he misled King Ahasuerus into thinking the Jews were a disruptive force in the kingdom and convinced him to issue a decree calling for their complete annihilation. Thousands of assassins would be hired to carry out this genocide. And the day they chose for it was the 14th day of the 12th month, Adar. They arrived at this date by lot, hence the name Purim, which translates: the Festival of Lots.

​​​​

And this is where Queen Esther gets involved. Unknown to the king, she too was a Jew. So after the decree was issued she felt compelled to do something about it. And given her unique position of influence in the kingdom she also knew she was probably the best person to do it. But there was a hitch. She hadn't seen the king in a month and to gain an audience with him she needed first an invitation. It was the law, and to ignore it was punishable by death if the king did not approve of the reason. The king was known also to be a stickler for protocol. So Esther knew that her status as queen carried very little weight (as Ahasuerus's former queen can attest). [104]

​​​​

There was seemingly, however, no other way, so Esther brazenly entered the king's court to invite him to a banquet. And to her great relief, he accepted. So she'd gotten past that hurdle. And she made good use of it at the banquet (and at the one that followed) where she revealed her heritage and cunningly exposed Haman's treachery at the same time. This resulted in Haman's execution and the king issuing a second decree to effectively nullify the first one by giving the Jews the right to fight back (and the means to do it) against anyone who dared to try to kill them on that day.

​​​​​

It seems kind of silly that they did it this way. But a Persian decree, once issued, could not, by law, be rescinded, not even by a king. And this particular king, as was noted, was a slave to the law. So a second decree was issued. The battle won. The Jews prevailed, with the day of the great confrontation, 14 Adar, being observed ever after to celebrate a genocide that never happened. And it was all thanks to a Jewish Queen who put her life on the line before a legalist court to save the entire Jewish nation. [105] Do we need look any further than Mary’s heroic actions here to find a New Testament parallel? [106]

​​​​​

But there are two other observances associated with Purim. They are Ta'anit Esther and Shabbat Zakhor. Ta'anit Esther immediately precedes it, on 13 Adar. And in 8 BC, Shabbat Zakhor (a Special Sabbath observed on the last Sabbath before Purim) lined up just prior to Ta'anit Esther, on the 12th. So with all three occurring consecutively at this time (spanning from February 23rd to the 25th) there is a strong indication that they might all also pertain, in some way, to this trial, provided, of course, that there was a trial. Assuming there was (in order to evaluate this thoroughly) when looking into what these two observances observe it is not difficult to see how they might relate.

​​​​

As to the first, Shabbat Zakhor (the Sabbath of Remembrance), it is a cautionary Sabbath, founded on a commandment by God to the Israelites, [107] to always be wary of the treachery of the Amalekites. They were an irredeemably evil people, descended from Esau (Jacob's brutish and envious twin brother) that were the plague of the Israelites in the Bible from the time of the Exodus until the time of the Davidic Kings. [108] But the war they waged against the Israelites was prophesied to continue through the ages. [109] And this is one prophecy that has certainly been fulfilled, as the spirit of these Jew-hating Amalekites seems to have been a constant throughout history, as disgustingly prevalent in the world today, as it was in the days of Moses.

​​​​

This Sabbath's placement as the last Sabbath prior to Purim and its association with that holiday is due to the traditional belief that Haman, was descended from the Amalekites. Whether he was by blood or not, his actions certainly testify to his being one in spirit. And with Judas Iscariot conspiring with the Sanhedrin against Christ on 13 Nisan (the same day Haman conspired with the king against the Jews), he can be said to be the prototypical Christian equivalent of an Amalekite.

​

But if this trial in 8 BC really did take place, it is logical that Satan might employ the same tactic here. His plan would be put into motion by a Judas-like figure, somebody close to the Holy Family, someone they trusted. And the 2/3rds Rule is suggesting that this person betrayed that trust on Shabbat Zakhor by reporting them to the religious authorities, forcing the trial, and giving Mary and Joseph just one day to prepare for it.

​​​

And that brings us to February 24 (13 Adar) in 8 BC, otherwise known as Ta'anit Esther (aka the Fast of Esther). It commemorates the 3-day fast Queen Esther and Mordecai, engaged in prior to her requesting an audience with the king. [110] It is traditionally understood to have taken place immediately after the decree was issued, over the 3-day span of 14, 15 and 16 Nisan. But with 2 of those 3 days occurring during Passover, when it is normally forbidden to fast, the observance was shortened to one day and moved to 13 Adar to avoid the conflict and at the same time better connect it to Purim. [111]

​​​​

As it pertains to Mary and Joseph, with their lives in jeopardy in the upcoming trial, it kind of goes without saying that they'd be spending the entire day prior in fasting and prayer (as would any devout Christian or Jew in a similar situation). But there is a little more to this than what first meets the eye, because the timespan from Ta'anit Esther to the Nativity turns out to be exactly 40 days. And hidden within that seemingly innocuous nothing of a detail is the key to discerning everything worth knowing in this story.

​​​​

That's because, until now all that's been said of this trial has been speculative. It doesn't matter that it's extremely reasonable something like this would have happened, or that the 3 observances of Purim seem extraordinarily well suited and well placed on the calendar to define it. At issue is that there has been nothing found in the Bible, or elsewhere, that really ties this down and connects it to Purim, nothing, that is, until you look at and consider these 40 days. 

​​​​

To see it though, it needs to be recalled, from chapter 4, that Jesus was shown to have embarked on (not one, but) two 40-day fasts during His ministry. And it was pointed out at the time that it tied Him with Moses, whom the Bible reports also fasted twice for 40 days. But in Jesus we have something greater than Moses. [112] So it should not be surprising to find that in 8 BC there is grounding for a third fast. And in that recognition, we suddenly also have the grounding for the corroboration we'd been looking for.

​​​​

To put it more plainly, we've seen the Word connect a fast day to the start of a 40-day fast twice in His ministry. His first fast began on the date of Moses's fast, on 1 Elul. And His second began with His 4th Beatitude stage on Rosh HaShanah La'Ilanot. That established the precedent. So by His placement of the Fast of Esther on the calendar 40 days prior to the Nativity, He is using the same method a third time to tell us of one more. [113] And it would be Christ's very first fast, one that He would have inspired Mary to undertake (not verbally, or telepathically, but) simply by virtue of His Holy presence within her. And now that Mary and Joseph could clearly see (like Esther and Mordecai) how much hatred the world had for them, we can imagine that it began as a vow, an oath of abstinence taken until their baby had safely arrived. And Christ, Himself, who was also, passively, involved in the fast, would dictate how long it would last. [114]

​​​

To finish the discussion, then, on this particular time in the life of the Holy Family, it is admitted that the events being claimed to have happened during Purim (having been taken largely from noncanonical sources), are untrustworthy and speculative. But the timing of the Fast is not. So in accepting that the Fast did occur, as the math and the precedents seem to be insisting, we are left with trying to explain what may have happened on Ta'anit Esther in 8 BC to set it off. And the events described in those ancient texts being so closely aligned with the events of Purim, it is hard to imagine a better fit for all the data.

​​​

There is no mention of a Judas, or a betrayal, in those ancient sources so the events claimed for Shabbat Zakhor, though logical, still remain speculative. But all in all, that’s 6 dates, in total, that the 2/3rds Rule has given us in this chapter on the life of our Blessed Mother that we didn’t have before. And in that math, 5 of those 6 dates can be said to tie directly back to the dates we've found for Christ. In the process of finding these dates, it has also cleared up several controversies while at the same time corroborating everything Catholics have ever dogmatically said of her. This should more than satisfy any critic thinking Mary had been slighted. And the impressive results are tabulated, with everything else we've discerned, thus far, of Mary, in Figure 6.5.