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 — with the caveat that the further you get from an anchor, the more that dating depends on how the intervening numbers are reconciled, not just added up.

This study collects the strongest available anchors, states plainly why each one counts as an anchor rather than a guess, and then works the flagship case where that method pays off most dramatically: Daniel's seventy weeks, calculated forward from a dated Persian decree to 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 the 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) — which only reconciles 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 — the same day-for-a-year principle God states explicitly to Ezekiel (Ezekiel 4:6), and the word itself, שָׁבֻעִים (shavu'im, "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 are worth knowing when 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) — with months measured by 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's tempting to assume the rabbinic lunisolar calendar is the late one — it's often claimed the 364-day calendar better fits prophetic arithmetic and was the one Israel, or the prophets themselves, originally used before a lunar calendar displaced it. That claim doesn't hold up well against either the texts or the dates involved, though it needs to be split into two separate questions to see why.

The rabbinic calendar's fixed calculation method really is late — Hillel II fixed it by decree in AD 358-359, replacing a much older system where 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 not late at all — it's what the Bible's own text already shows Israel doing, from the earliest prophets on:

  • The Torah's own word for "month," חֹדֶשׁ (chodesh), is built from the root for "new" — the vocabulary itself is lunar — and 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 grumbling that they can't trade "until the new moon be over... and the Sabbath" (Amos 8:5 (ESV), 8th century BC); "New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations" grouped as Judah's normal (if hollow) religious calendar (Isaiah 1:13-14 (ESV), 8th century BC); "her feasts, her new moons, her Sabbaths" as the whole festal calendar under judgment (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) — a throwaway line that only works if new-moon observance was ordinary, lived practice, not a once-off cultic curiosity.
  • 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 (Aramaic fragments at Qumran, generally dated to the 3rd century BC) and is developed further by the Book of Jubilees (mid-2nd century BC) — both centuries after Isaiah, Amos, Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and after the last Old Testament prophets (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, c. 520-400 BC). By the actual manuscript evidence, the 364-day calendar is the newer of the two systems, not the older one. Its own advocates don't really 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's a real theological position, but it's an argument from theology about what ought to have been practiced, not a claim resting on earlier manuscripts or 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). That's real and old. 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

Given that, this study runs two different tools for two different jobs, and keeps them separate:

  1. Dating actual historical events (the anchors above, 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 at all.
  2. Decoding a prophecy's own internal time-arithmetic (Daniel's seventy weeks, next) uses the 360-day schematic prophetic year — not the fuller 364-day Zadok/Tekufah civil-calendar claim, and not the lunar civil calendar either. The reasons: it's 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 entirely, since it's a claim about how this kind of prophecy counts, not a claim about what calendar Israel lived by day to day. That's a deliberately narrower, better -evidenced claim than "the prophets used a 364-day civil calendar," and this study isn't making the larger one.

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 that does this correctly — reconciling 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 external anchor to check his arithmetic against and simply summed the Kings/Chronicles numbers without correcting for co-regencies; Thiele's figure is the one tied to Qarqar's absolute date.

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.
  • Worth noting: the prism boasts of trapping Hezekiah, but — tellingly — never claims to have taken Jerusalem itself. That silence is consistent with, not just adjacent to, the biblical claim that the siege was broken by disaster in the Assyrian camp rather than a Judean surrender (2 Kings 19:35-36) — an Assyrian king had every incentive to claim the capture of Jerusalem if it had actually 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 worth resolving, not hiding: the Chronicle's "seventh year" and 2 Kings 24:12's "eighth year" of Nebuchadnezzar look like a contradiction at first glance. They're 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), and this is one of the places where the biblical text's counting runs on the alternate non-accession-year convention (the partial first year already counts as year 1), pushing every later regnal year up by one. This isn't special pleading for this one date — it's the same mechanism Thiele's reconstruction uses 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: this isn't a general synchronism, it's an administrative record naming the same individual by name and royal title, receiving exactly the kind of ongoing royal provision 2 Kings 25:27-30 describes — about as direct a verse-to-artifact match as biblical archaeology offers.

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 — 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 — significantly — confirms that Belshazzar, once dismissed by critics as a fictional king because he appears nowhere in the standard Babylonian king-lists, really did rule Babylon as co-regent while his father Nabonidus was away in Tayma. Daniel 5's Belshazzar is real.
  • 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 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 — consistent with his being active a generation earlier under Nehemiah, and ruling out a later Artaxerxes.
  • Why it's an anchor: without this, "the twentieth year of Artaxerxes" is just a number; the papyri are what let it convert to 445 BC specifically.

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

Daniel 9:24-27 (ESV) 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 whole 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 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) — language that matches Nehemiah's commission, not the three earlier decrees, which 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. Starting from 1 Nisan in Artaxerxes' twentieth year — which Anderson placed on 14 March 445 BC — and counting 173,880 days forward (476 solar years plus 24 days, correcting for the days a solar-year count alone would miss), he landed on 10 Nisan, which he calculated as 6 April AD 32 — days before the Triumphal Entry.

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.

Neither result is uncontested in its details. Critics of Hoehner's date have argued the actual new moon puts 1 Nisan 444 BC a month later than he used, which would push his terminus later too; Hoehner's own work also contains an acknowledged computational error regarding 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 — that's worth saying plainly rather than picking whichever number sounds most impressive.

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 within days of Passion Week nearly two thousand years later — not in some other century, not off by a generation, but inside the same week Jesus rode into Jerusalem. The specific day ("10 Nisan," tied to the Passover lamb's selection four days before slaughter, Exodus 12:3) is itself an inference from typology, not a date Matthew states outright — worth flagging as an assumption layered onto the calculation, not a separate fact it independently proves.

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." That's not a vague lament — 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.

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 genuine cross-check where the Bible names one — but it also means the temptation to find one where the text doesn't clearly name one needs to be resisted just as carefully. 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) — "I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight" — is sometimes tied to the Bur-Sagale eclipse of 763 BC, the same one anchoring Anchor 1, since 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 — worth citing as a live possibility, not a fixed point.

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's a serious astronomical claim, not a fringe one — but 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," 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, not just adding detail to it — worth knowing the theory exists, but it doesn't obviously fit the very verse it's built from.

The crucifixion darkness was not — 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, but this is astronomically impossible, and worth stating plainly rather than letting it stand uncorrected: 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). Some later manuscripts of Luke 23:45 do use a Greek verb (eklipontos) related to our word "eclipse," which fed the popular confusion — but the astronomy rules it out regardless of that wording.

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

A genuine, independently computable eclipse is connected to this week — just not the daytime darkness, and not a solar one. Colin Humphreys and Graeme Waddington calculated every lunar eclipse visible from Jerusalem at Passover across every candidate crucifixion year, AD 26-36 (Nature, 1983), and found exactly one: Friday, 3 April AD 33, when 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 itself, at the moment 14 Nisan was ending and 15 Nisan (the Sabbath) 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), proposing Peter's audience had this very eclipse, seven weeks earlier, in living memory.

That claim has been directly challenged. Bradley Schaefer's peer-reviewed reply (Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1990) recalculated how much of the moon's disc would actually have been perceptibly shadowed as it cleared the horizon and became visible to the naked eye, and found 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. A "blood moon" vivid enough to be remarked on seven weeks later, on his numbers, overstates what was actually visible.

What's worth taking from this, carefully: Waddington's search found AD 33 as the only year in an eleven-year window with a Passover lunar eclipse visible from Jerusalem at all — that's a hard astronomical fact, true regardless of how vivid it looked, and it's a third, independent line converging on AD 33 alongside Hoehner's weekday-based dating in the calculation above. But "an eclipse occurred that week" and "the crowd at Pentecost was talking about a vivid blood moon" are two different claims with two different levels of support, and Schaefer's critique means only the first one is solid. Treat the convergence as suggestive, not as independent proof stacked on top of the Daniel calculation.

The Star of Bethlehem (noted, not pursued here)

The other astronomical event people ask about — the star of Matthew 2:1-12 — is a different kind of phenomenon (a planetary conjunction or occultation, not an eclipse) and sits on much weaker scholarly ground than anything above. Michael Molnar's case for a double occultation of Jupiter by the moon in Aries in 6 BC, and the more popular Jupiter-Regulus-Venus conjunctions of 3-2 BC, both have real astronomical substance, but neither commands anything like consensus, and the 3-2 BC dating sits awkwardly against Herod's death in 4 BC (see Anchor discussion of the Nativity date above). Flagged here as a known research area, not developed further in this study.

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 it's worth being honest about how much weaker that gets the further back you go.

  • 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 — a genuine terminus ante quem, but a floor under the conquest, not a 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 study isn't taking a side, just naming that the disagreement exists and isn't resolved by anchor evidence.)
  • The Flood and Creation have no anchor at all — every date proposed for them (Ussher's 4004 BC and 2349 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. The Day is Near's own timeline implies yet a third creation epoch (roughly 3925 BC) from a different set of assumptions again — that gap between pages on this site is a real, unreconciled discrepancy, not a rounding error, and is flagged here rather than papered over with a single confident number.

Israel and the Church

The identity of Israel and the Church is a related but separate theological question from anything above — see Israel and the Church for that discussion.

  • 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, with the open discrepancy between them noted above
  • 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