Responses to “Jesus’ Birth Just Before Passover”

Quite a few responses have already come in regarding the latest article about the timing of Jesus’ birth. Naturally, I am pleased with the positive responses, but the critical ones are ultimately the most valuable to me. After all, those are the ones I can learn from. Positive feedback usually tells me only what I already knew anyway.

Several experts in Greek – including some who do not share my strict interpretation – have pointed out that the most precise translation of Luke 2:42 is not:

“And He became twelve years old when they went up according to the custom of the feast”

– as I initially wrote – but:

“And when He became twelve years old, they went up according to the custom of the feast.”

Fair is fair: it is a subtle but real difference. Jesus’ birthday is no longer the subject of the sentence. Even with my shaky Greek, I could have known this. One advantage of the internet is that articles can be revised immediately. I therefore incorporated the criticism at once into an updated version.

But… even after the first “storm,” my claim still stands firm – namely, that Joseph, Mary, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem when Jesus turned twelve. That is simply what Luke 2:42 says in black and white! Of course, those who do not wish to take this so literally are free not to. But I am surprised that so many apparently miss the difference between was and became. If I say, “When I was sixteen, I got a moped,” that leaves considerably more room than if I say, “When I turned sixteen, I got a moped.” The first statement allows a year’s leeway, whereas the second, strictly speaking, can refer to only one day – namely, my birthday. Since I do not believe Scripture expresses itself imprecisely, I maintain that Jesus TURNED twelve – and was therefore celebrating His birthday – a few days before Passover.

See the footnote to “Jesus’ Birth Just Before Passover.”

Incidentally, I want to emphasize that this subject is obviously not a fundamental issue, much less a reason to quarrel. I offer my strict reading of Luke 2:42 for what it is worth, and I hope I have made clear how much typological richness is bound up with it.

No less—but no more, either.

Share: