Skip to content

Prophecy, calendar, and the anchors of biblical history

Most of the Bible's internal chronology is relative: king X reigned so many years, was followed by king Y, and so on. To turn that into an absolute calendar date, you need at least one point where a biblical event is independently fixed by something outside the Bible: a synchronism with a datable foreign king, a dateable inscription, or an astronomically fixed event. Call that an anchor. From an anchor, the Bible's own regnal and genealogical data lets you pivot forward and backward to date the events around it. One caveat holds throughout. The further you get from an anchor, the more the dating depends on how the intervening numbers are reconciled rather than simply added up.

This study collects the strongest available anchors and gives the external evidence that fixes each one. Then it works the flagship case. Daniel's seventy weeks, calculated forward from a dated Persian decree, land on the exact week of the Triumphal Entry.

Interpreting Bible prophecy

Two conventions matter for everything that follows:

  1. Bible prophecy uses a 360-day year. The Flood lasted "five months" (Genesis 7:11; Genesis 8:3-4), and that same span is elsewhere counted as 150 days, five 30-day months. Revelation counts that same period three different ways and gets the same number every time: 42 months (Revelation 11:2), "time, and times, and half a time," i.e. 3.5 years (Revelation 12:14), and 1,260 days (Revelation 11:3; Revelation 12:6). The three only agree if a prophetic year is a fixed 360 days (12 x 30), not the 365.25-day solar year.
  2. Watch for a day standing in for a year. Daniel's seventy weeks (Daniel 9:24-27) are weeks of years, not days. God states the same day-for-a-year principle explicitly to Ezekiel (Ezekiel 4:6), and the word itself, שָׁבֻעִים (shavu'im, H7620, "sevens"), is used the same way for a seven-year period elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 29:27-28, Jacob's seven years of service to Laban).

On calendars

Two calendars bear on dating biblical events:

  • The Zadok/Essene calendar: a 364-day solar calendar (12 x 30 days plus 4 Tekufah days), already covered in depth in The Zadok Calendar. This is the calendar behind this site's own zadok_year dating.
  • The standard rabbinic (lunisolar) calendar: the one most Jewish and Christian sources mean by "the Hebrew calendar" today. Per Hebrew4Christians' calendar overview: it runs on two year-starts at once: a religious year beginning in Nisan (spring, tied to the Exodus) and a civil year beginning in Tishri (fall). Its months follow the ~29.5-day lunar cycle. A new month (Rosh Chodesh, "head of the month") is marked at each new moon; see that site's own Rosh Chodesh and Rosh Chodashim pages for more on the new-moon reckoning and the Nisan-1 "biblical new year" question. To resync the 354-day lunar year with the 365-day solar year, a leap month (Adar II) is inserted seven times in every 19-year cycle.

Which is older, and which did the prophets actually use?

It is often claimed that the 364-day calendar better fits prophetic arithmetic, and that Israel, or the prophets themselves, kept it before a lunar calendar displaced it. Against the texts and the dates involved, the claim holds up poorly. It splits into two questions.

The rabbinic calendar's fixed calculation method is late. Hillel II fixed it by decree in AD 358-359. It replaced a much older system, in which the Sanhedrin declared each new month by witnessed observation of the crescent moon, and inserted leap months as needed rather than by a standing formula. That part of the popular claim is correct.

But the lunar month-counting it formalizes is old. The Bible's own text already shows Israel counting months by the moon, from the earliest prophets on:

  • The Torah's own word for "month," חֹדֶשׁ (chodesh, H2320), is built from the root for "new", so the vocabulary itself is lunar. The Torah commands trumpets and offerings "at the beginnings of your months" (Numbers 10:10; 28:11-15).
  • Pre-exilic prophets treat New Moon and Sabbath as a paired, ordinary observance. Merchants grumble that they cannot trade "until the new moon be over... and the Sabbath" (Amos 8:5 (ESV), 8th century BC). Isaiah groups "New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations" as Judah's normal, if hollow, religious calendar (Isaiah 1:13-14 (ESV), 8th century BC). Hosea puts "her feasts, her new moons, her Sabbaths" under judgment as the whole festal calendar (Hosea 2:11, 8th century BC). Elisha's own household, a century earlier, assumes visiting a prophet is something you do on "new moon or Sabbath" (2 Kings 4:23, 9th century BC). The line is a throwaway, and it only works if new-moon observance was ordinary, lived practice.
  • The Babylonian month names still used today (Nisan, Sivan, Elul, Kislev, Tevet, Adar) appear directly in Scripture (Esther, Nehemiah, Ezra, Zechariah, Haggai), and Jewish tradition itself credits the returning exiles with bringing them back from Babylon.

The 364-day calendar's own earliest textual attestation runs the other way. It first appears in 1 Enoch's Astronomical Book, whose Aramaic fragments at Qumran are generally dated to the 3rd century BC. The Book of Jubilees develops it further in the mid-2nd century BC. Both come centuries after Isaiah, Amos, Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and after the last Old Testament prophets too (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, c. 520-400 BC). By the manuscript evidence, the 364-day calendar is the newer of the two systems. Its own advocates don't argue otherwise: Jubilees frames the 364-day scheme as a restoration of what Israel should have kept, cast as a polemic against the lunar calendar as a later corruption. That is an argument from theology about what ought to have been practiced. It cites no earlier manuscript and no independently attested earlier practice.

What does hold up is narrower: Genesis's Flood chronology counts 150 days as "five months" (Genesis 7:11; 8:3-4), an ancient, schematic 30-day-month convention, and that same 360-day scheme resurfaces consistently whenever Scripture does symbolic prophetic time-arithmetic (Daniel, Revelation, both below). It supports treating a stylized 360-day prophetic year as an authentic, ancient counting convention for that specific job. It does not, by itself, support the much larger claim that Israel's actual day-to-day civil and liturgical calendar ran on a literal 364-day non-lunar system. The new-moon texts above describe the opposite.

Which calendar this study uses, and why

This study runs two tools for two jobs:

  1. Dating historical events (the anchors below, and the pivots from them) uses ordinary solar Julian/Gregorian BC-AD years, tied to the external synchronisms that fix each anchor. No 360-day or 364-day scheme is involved in that part.
  2. Decoding a prophecy's own internal time-arithmetic (Daniel's seventy weeks, below) uses the 360-day schematic prophetic year, a separate scheme from both the 364-day Zadok/Tekufah civil calendar and the lunar civil calendar. Three reasons. It is the convention Genesis 7-8 itself uses. Revelation cross-checks it three separate ways and gets the same figure every time (see "Interpreting Bible prophecy" above). And it sidesteps the unresolved lunar-vs-solar civil calendar question, because it is a claim about how this kind of prophecy counts, and leaves open what calendar Israel lived by. That is a narrower and better-evidenced claim than "the prophets used a 364-day civil calendar."

The anchors

Anchor 1 — The Battle of Qarqar, 853 BC (Ahab)

  • Verse: 1 Kings 16:29 gives Ahab's reign, but the Bible never mentions Qarqar. The synchronism comes entirely from outside.
  • Evidence: the Kurkh Monolith, an inscription of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III (now in the British Museum), records his sixth-year campaign against a coalition at Qarqar on the Orontes that included "Ahab the Israelite" contributing chariots and troops.
  • Why it's an anchor: Shalmaneser's regnal years are fixed by the Assyrian Eponym Canon, a year-by-year list of Assyrian officials that is itself anchored to a real astronomical event: a solar eclipse recorded in the eponymy of Bur-Sagale, identified as the total eclipse of 15 June 763 BC. That single dateable eclipse fixes the whole canon back to 911 BC, and every Assyrian inscription synchronized to it (including this one) inherits an absolute date.
  • Pivot: from Ahab's fixed accession, 1-2 Kings' regnal lengths and the cross-synchronisms between Israel's and Judah's kings let you work both forward (to the fall of Samaria, 722 BC, itself corroborated by Sargon II's own annals) and backward (toward Solomon and the temple). The standard modern reconstruction, which reconciles co-regencies and the fact that Israel and Judah didn't always count a king's first partial year the same way, is Edwin Thiele's The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, which lands Solomon's 4th year (temple foundation) around 966 BC. That's roughly 46 years earlier than Ussher's 1012 BC for the same event. Ussher had no Assyrian record to check his arithmetic against, and he allowed for only a few co-regencies, so his kings of Judah run 424 years from the temple to the exile where Thiele's run 380. Thiele's figure is the one tied to Qarqar's absolute date. Why Not 4004 BC? works through the difference.

Anchor 2 — Sennacherib's invasion of Judah, 701 BC (Hezekiah)

  • Verse: 2 Kings 18:13-19:37; paralleled in Isaiah 36-37 and 2 Chronicles 32.
  • Evidence: Sennacherib's Prism (the Taylor Prism, British Museum), Sennacherib's own annals of the campaign, boasting: "As for Hezekiah, I shut him up like a caged bird in his royal city of Jerusalem." The Lachish reliefs, also in the British Museum, depict the siege of Lachish itself, the specific city named in 2 Kings 18:14.
  • Why it's an anchor: Sennacherib's regnal years synchronize into the same Assyrian absolute chronology as Qarqar.
  • The silence: the prism boasts of trapping Hezekiah, but never claims to have taken Jerusalem itself. That silence is consistent with the biblical account, in which the siege was broken by disaster in the Assyrian camp (2 Kings 19:35-36). An Assyrian king had every incentive to claim the capture of Jerusalem if it had happened.

Anchor 3 — Jerusalem's fall and Jehoiachin's first deportation, 597 BC

  • Verse: 2 Kings 24:10-17.
  • Evidence: the Babylonian Chronicle known as ABC 5 or the "Jerusalem Chronicle" (British Museum, BM 21946) records, in the Babylonian court's own terse style, that in Nebuchadnezzar's seventh year he besieged "the city of Judah" and "seized the city and captured the king" on the 2nd of the month Addaru (Adar), a date that converts to roughly 16 March 597 BC.
  • Why it's an anchor: Neo-Babylonian court chronicles were kept to a standard of near day-by-day precision and cross-check against Ptolemy's later astronomical Canon, giving this period very high absolute precision.
  • A wrinkle. The Chronicle's "seventh year" and 2 Kings 24:12's "eighth year" of Nebuchadnezzar look like a contradiction. They are not. Babylon used accession-year reckoning: a king's first partial year on the throne is his "accession year," and his first full year is year 1. The biblical text here runs on the alternate non-accession-year convention, where the partial first year already counts as year 1. That pushes every later regnal year up by one. Thiele's reconstruction uses the same mechanism systematically to reconcile Israel's and Judah's regnal counts with each other above.

Anchor 4 — Jehoiachin's release, 561 BC

  • Verse: 2 Kings 25:27-30 (paralleled in Jeremiah 52:31-34): in the year Evil-Merodach (Amel-Marduk) became king of Babylon, he released Jehoiachin and gave him a regular allowance for the rest of his life.
  • Evidence: Jehoiachin's Ration Tablets (the Weidner tablets), administrative records excavated from Babylon by Robert Koldewey (1899-1917) and translated by Ernst Weidner in the 1930s. One reads: "10 (sila of oil) to ... Ia-'-kin, king of Ia[...]" — "Ya'u-kinu, king of the land of Yahudu" — alongside rations for his five sons.
  • Why it's an anchor: it is an administrative record naming the same individual by name and royal title, receiving the kind of ongoing royal provision 2 Kings 25:27-30 describes.

Anchor 5 — Cyrus's decree, 539/538 BC

  • Verse: Ezra 1:1-4; 2 Chronicles 36:22-23.
  • Evidence: the Cyrus Cylinder (British Museum) records Cyrus's general policy, after taking Babylon, of returning exiled peoples "to their settlements" and restoring their sanctuaries. This is the same policy Ezra reports Cyrus applying specifically to the Judean exiles and the temple vessels. The Nabonidus Chronicle (British Museum, BM 35382) independently dates the fall of Babylon to 539 BC and confirms that Belshazzar, once dismissed by critics as a fictional king because he appears nowhere in the standard Babylonian king-lists, ruled Babylon as co-regent while his father Nabonidus was away in Tayma.
  • Why it's an anchor: ties Daniel 5's setting, and the empire transition it depicts, to the same precisely-dated Neo-Babylonian chronology as anchors 3-4.

Anchor 6 — Artaxerxes I's decree to Nehemiah, 445/444 BC

  • Verse: Nehemiah 2:1-8: the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, month of Nisan, the king grants Nehemiah leave and authority to rebuild Jerusalem.
  • Evidence: the Elephantine papyri, legal and administrative documents from a Jewish military colony in Egypt, include letters dual-dated in the Egyptian and Jewish calendars across Artaxerxes I's reign, fixing his regnal years independently of the Bible. The same archive shows that Sanballat (Nehemiah 2:10's antagonist) was already an old man by 408 BC with his adult sons running his affairs. That is consistent with his being active a generation earlier under Nehemiah, and rules out a later Artaxerxes.
  • Why it's an anchor: the papyri let "the twentieth year of Artaxerxes" convert to a Gregorian year. That year is 445 BC counted from Nisan, and 444 BC on the Tishri count that Nehemiah 1:1 (Chislev) and 2:1 (Nisan), both in the same twentieth year, imply. This site follows 444 BC with Hoehner (below and in Chronology Anchors, entry 20).

The flagship calculation: Daniel's seventy weeks to the Triumphal Entry

Daniel 9:24-27 comes as Gabriel's direct answer to a specific question: Daniel has just been reading Jeremiah's prophecy of a 70-year exile (Jeremiah 25:11-12; 29:10) and praying over it (Daniel 9:2-19) when the angel arrives with a longer answer. "Seventy sevens" (שָׁבֻעִים שִׁבְעִים) are decreed for Daniel's people and city. Verse 25 gives the starting gun: "from the going out of the word (דָּבָר, dabar) to restore and build Jerusalem" to "an anointed one, a prince" (מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד, mashiach nagid) is 7 weeks plus 62 weeks, 69 weeks in total.

Which decree?

Scripture records four candidate Persian decrees touching Jerusalem, and identifying the right one is the crux of the calculation:

Decree Date What it authorized
Cyrus 538 BC Rebuild the temple (Ezra 1:1-4)
Darius I 519/518 BC Confirms/renews Cyrus's temple decree (Ezra 6:1-12)
Artaxerxes I to Ezra 458 BC Funds temple worship and appoints judges/teachers (Ezra 7:11-26)
Artaxerxes I to Nehemiah 445/444 BC Rebuild the city itself — walls and streets (Nehemiah 2:1-8)

Daniel 9:25 specifies rebuilding the city ("street" and "moat," or "plaza" and "wall," depending on translation). That language matches Nehemiah's commission. The three earlier decrees are all about the temple. That's why both classic treatments of this calculation start from Anchor 6, 445 BC, rather than Cyrus's earlier and more famous decree.

The arithmetic

Sir Robert Anderson worked this out in The Coming Prince (1894): 69 weeks of 7 years of 360 days each is 483 prophetic years, or exactly 173,880 days. He started from 1 Nisan in Artaxerxes' twentieth year, which he placed on 14 March 445 BC, and counted 173,880 days forward. That is 476 solar years plus 24 days, the correction for what a solar-year count alone would miss. He landed on 10 Nisan, which he calculated as 6 April AD 32, a Sunday, and the day he identified as the Triumphal Entry itself.

Harold Hoehner later reworked the calculation in Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ and came out a year later: starting 1 Nisan 444 BC (5 March, Julian) and landing on 10 Nisan, 30 March AD 33. His reason for the shift was internal consistency. An AD 32 crucifixion, on Anderson's own numbers, falls on the wrong day of the week for a Friday Passover. So Hoehner corrected the terminus to a year where the crucifixion actually lands on a Friday.

Both results are contested in their details. Critics of Hoehner's date have argued that the actual new moon puts 1 Nisan 444 BC a month later than he used, which would push his terminus later too. His own work also contains an acknowledged computational error, over whether Friday, 7 April AD 30 is astronomically possible as a crucifixion date. The precise day is disputed among people doing careful, technical work on the same data.

The day counts don't quite close, either. Counted directly as proleptic Julian day numbers, 14 March 445 BC to 6 April AD 32 is 173,882 days, two more than the 173,880 the prophecy requires. The ordinary decomposition reproduces that figure exactly: 476 x 365 = 173,740, plus the 119 leap days the Julian four-year rule puts inside that span, plus the 23 days from 14 March to 6 April. The Coming Prince is not among the sources available here, so where Anderson's own working absorbs the two-day difference is unchecked. Hoehner's interval, 5 March 444 BC to 30 March AD 33, runs 173,884 days, four long. Neither gap is large enough to move the result out of Passion Week. The arithmetic is tighter in the retelling than in the sources: the slack is two to four days.

What isn't in serious dispute is the shape of the result. A decree dated by independent Persian- era records, run through a straightforward 483-year prophetic count, lands in the week Jesus rode into Jerusalem, nearly two thousand years later. The specific day, "10 Nisan," tied to the Passover lamb's selection four days before slaughter (Exodus 12:3), is an inference from typology. Matthew never states that date outright, so it is an assumption layered onto the calculation.

The payoff

Luke 19:41-44 (ESV), set at this same Triumphal Entry, records Jesus weeping over Jerusalem: "would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace!... because you did not know the time of your visitation." On Daniel's own math, "the time" was calculable decades in advance, from a decree already sitting in the Persian court's own dated records. The rebuke lands with more weight once you see the arithmetic behind it.

"Three days and three nights"

Hoehner's correction lands the crucifixion on a Friday, and a Friday afternoon death with a Sunday dawn resurrection gives two nights, against the three in Jesus's own "three days and three nights" at Matthew 12:40. That is the strongest objection against the date this section reaches. Three Days and Three Nights works it through separately. The phrase occurs once. The New Testament describes the interval "on the third day" eight times. And Mark calls the crucifixion day the προσάββατον (prosabbaton, G4315), the day before the Sabbath.

Celestial corroboration: eclipses and the biblical record

Eclipses are attractive as chronological evidence for the same reason the Bur-Sagale eclipse anchors Anchor 1: they're computable backward with certainty, independent of any biblical text. That makes them a cross-check where the Bible names one. It also tempts a reader to find one where the text doesn't clearly name one. Both kinds of case show up below.

Was there an eclipse behind Amos's "sun go down at noon"? (proposed, not certain)

Amos 8:9 (ESV) reads, "I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight." It is sometimes tied to the Bur-Sagale eclipse of 763 BC, the same one behind Anchor 1. Amos prophesied under Jeroboam II of Israel, whose reign overlaps that date. The fit is suggestive, not established: Amos doesn't name an eclipse, and the verse's poetic register (paired with mourning, sackcloth, and famine two verses later) reads at least as naturally as a stock prophetic image of judgment as it does a report of an observed event. Scholarship is divided over whether Amos had this specific eclipse in mind, an earlier one, or no specific eclipse at all. It is a live possibility.

Joshua's long day at Gibeon, reinterpreted as an eclipse (contested)

Colin Humphreys and Graeme Waddington, the same pair behind the crucifixion-eclipse work below, proposed in a 2017 peer-reviewed paper (Astronomy & Geophysics) that Joshua 10:12-14 describes an annular solar eclipse at Gibeon on 30 October 1207 BC, not a literal halting of the sun and moon's motion. Their argument rests partly on the Hebrew verb dom ("stand still, stop") sharing a root with an Akkadian term used in Babylonian astronomical texts for an eclipse. It is a serious astronomical claim. It sits awkwardly against the passage's own plain description of the effect. The sun "did not hurry to set for about a whole day." That is a lengthened day, remembered as uniquely long: "there has been no day like it before or since" (v. 14). An eclipse, annular or otherwise, darkens the sky for a few minutes; it doesn't lengthen the day. Reading the text as an eclipse account requires reading past that stated effect. The theory doesn't obviously fit the very verse it's built from.

The crucifixion darkness could not have been a solar eclipse

The darkness at the crucifixion (Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44-45) is popularly called an eclipse. That is astronomically impossible: a solar eclipse requires the moon to sit between the earth and sun, which only happens at new moon, and the crucifixion took place at Passover, which by definition falls at full moon (14 Nisan, the middle of the lunar month). Whatever caused three hours of midday darkness that Friday, the moon could not have been the cause. The Gospels themselves don't call it an eclipse. They narrate it as a supernatural sign accompanying Jesus's death, alongside the temple veil tearing and an earthquake (Matthew 27:51). The critical Greek text of Luke 23:45 (NA28) does use a verb (eklipontos) related to our word "eclipse," which fed the popular confusion; the later Byzantine text behind the KJV reads "the sun was darkened" instead. The astronomy rules it out regardless of that wording.

A separate, real event that same evening: the lunar eclipse of 3 April AD 33

An independently computable eclipse is connected to this week, on the evening of the crucifixion. Colin Humphreys and Graeme Waddington calculated every lunar eclipse visible from Jerusalem at Passover across every candidate crucifixion year, AD 26-36 (Nature, 1983). They found exactly one: Friday, 3 April AD 33.

A partial lunar eclipse was already in progress as the moon rose over the Mount of Olives around 6:20pm, hours after the daytime darkness of the crucifixion, at the moment 14 Nisan was ending and 15 Nisan, the Sabbath, was beginning.

They connected this to Peter's Pentecost sermon, which quotes Joel 2:31 (ESV) ("the sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood") as Acts 2:20 (ESV). Their proposal is that Peter's audience had this very eclipse, seven weeks earlier, in living memory.

That claim has been directly challenged. Bradley Schaefer replied in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society (1990). He recalculated how much of the moon's disc would actually have been shadowed as it cleared the horizon and became visible to the naked eye.

The answer was small. By his estimate, at most a partial dimming of a fraction of the disc, with the eclipsed portion largely gone by the time the moon was high enough to see clearly against the twilight sky. His comparison: trying to spot an eight-watt red bulb next to a searchlight.

So a "blood moon" vivid enough to be remarked on seven weeks later overstates what was visible.

The eclipse is a hard astronomical fact. It bears on the crucifixion year only through Acts 2:20: if Peter was pointing at that eclipse, it favours AD 33. That link is the contested part. Schaefer's critique leaves the eclipse standing and the vivid "blood moon" doubtful, and Peter is quoting Joel about what will happen before the day of the Lord.

So this site does not count the eclipse as evidence for the year. Chronology Anchors settles AD 33 on Luke 3:1, with Sejanus and Daniel 9 in support, and leaves the eclipse out of the case.

The Star of Bethlehem (noted, not pursued here)

The star of Matthew 2:1-12, the other astronomical event people ask about, is a different kind of phenomenon (a planetary conjunction or occultation) and sits on much weaker scholarly ground than anything above. Michael Molnar argued for a double occultation of Jupiter by the moon in Aries in 6 BC. The more popular candidate is the Jupiter-Regulus-Venus conjunctions of 3-2 BC. Both have real astronomical substance, and neither commands anything like consensus. The 3-2 BC dating also sits awkwardly against Herod's death in 4 BC, the majority date, though a minority argues for 1 BC.

Pivoting backward from the anchors

The earliest firm anchor above (Qarqar, 853 BC) doesn't reach back to the Exodus or Creation. Those have to be extrapolated, and the further back the extrapolation runs the weaker it gets.

  • Solomon's temple foundation (his 4th year) is dated in the text itself as 480 years after the Exodus (1 Kings 6:1). Using Thiele's Qarqar-anchored figure of ~966 BC for that year gives an Exodus around 1446 BC, the "early date" view. This is not itself an anchor: no independent record fixes the Exodus to a specific year, only this one internal cross-reference plus a chain of regnal counts back to something that is anchored. (The Merneptah Stele, c. 1208 BC, is the earliest extra-biblical mention of "Israel" as a people in Canaan. It is a terminus ante quem: a floor under the conquest, with no date for the Exodus itself. A sizeable body of scholarship instead favors a "late date" Exodus in the 1200s BC tied to a different identification of the Pharaoh of the oppression. This site works to the early date (see the next point), and names the disagreement because anchor evidence does not resolve it.)
  • The Flood and Creation have no anchor at all. Every date proposed for them (Ussher's 4004 BC and 2349 BC, and this site's 3959 BC and 2303 BC, among them) comes purely from summing genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11, and different manuscript traditions (the Masoretic Text vs. the Septuagint) give meaningfully different totals for those same genealogies. This site works to one line, the Masoretic numbers on the 1446 BC Exodus above, and Chronology Anchors records why; the other traditions' totals are set out in Genealogy and Times for comparison.
  • Associates for Biblical Research, on the Kurkh Monolith, Sennacherib's Prism, and the Assyrian Eponym Canon: biblearchaeology.org
  • Livius.org, "ABC 5 (Jerusalem Chronicle)"
  • Ernst Weidner (trans.), the Jehoiachin Ration Tablets — see the summary at Bible Archaeology Report
  • The Cyrus Cylinder and Nabonidus Chronicle — British Museum
  • Sir Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince (1894) — the classic 173,880-day calculation
  • Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Zondervan, 1977) — the standard evangelical refinement of Anderson's arithmetic, and its own critics' technical objections
  • Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings — the standard modern reconciliation of the divided monarchy's regnal data against the Assyrian anchors
  • Hebrew4Christians: The Hebrew Calendar
  • The Zadok Calendar and The Day is Near — this site's other chronology studies
  • Sacha Stern, Calendar and Community: A History of the Jewish Calendar, 2nd Century BCE - 10th Century CE — on Hillel II's AD 358-359 fixed calendar and the earlier observation-based system it replaced
  • James C. VanderKam, Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time — on 1 Enoch's Astronomical Book (c. 3rd century BC) and Jubilees' (mid-2nd century BC) development of the 364-day calendar, and Jubilees' own framing of it as a restoration against a lunar "corruption"
  • Colin J. Humphreys and W. G. Waddington, "Dating the Crucifixion," Nature 306 (1983) — the 3 April AD 33 lunar eclipse calculation
  • Bradley E. Schaefer, "Lunar Visibility and the Crucifixion," Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 31 (1990) — the peer-reviewed rebuttal on how little of that eclipse would actually have been visible
  • Colin J. Humphreys and W. G. Waddington, "Solar eclipse of 1207 BC helps to date pharaohs," Astronomy & Geophysics 58 (2017) — the Joshua 10 / Gibeon eclipse reinterpretation
  • Michael R. Molnar, The Star of Bethlehem: The Legacy of the Magi (Rutgers University Press, 1999) — the Jupiter-occultation theory, one of several competing Star of Bethlehem proposals