During the Common Era (CE) there has been an innumerable quantity of attempts to disclose the true history of the Nativity and to establish the precise date of Jesus’ birth. So I have proposed to name this mystery “the problem of our era” (POE).

As it is well known, the circumstances which accompanied the birth and the first years of Jesus' life are described in two canonical Gospels: according to saint Matthew and saint Luke. However one revealed many contradictions on the one hand between these evangelical narrations and on the other hand with the data of reliable historical sources. Therefore, if these narrations are founded on the real events, it is necessary first to find the moment of the history, whose events have been used as a basis for the evangelical narrations, and then to explain the reasons for deteriorations of reality in the narrations.

It is easy to find in the Internet a large number of works with the hypotheses considering the year of the Nativity and the circumstances which accompanied it as well as the critical analysis of those hypotheses (see for example, site [1]). The object of this publication is in the presentation of my hypothesis and especially of those elements, which I have not found in other works.

In the majority of the works it was assumed on the basis of gospel of Luke, that "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" Lk 3.1 [2], i.e. in 28 - 29 CE "Jesus himself was about thirty years old " Lk 3.23. However, such an approach did not make it possible to establish verifiable connections between the evangelical and historical events. Probably "Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry” Lk 3.23, but I have reasons to suppose, that he began his ministry many years before his baptism.

Due to the mentioned interpretation of the quotations from Luke Lk 3.1,23 one rejected a priori the year 12 BCE, when Halley's comet passed close to the Earth, as the year of the Nativity. Nevertheless at the end of the last century in a series of publications [3] - [10] various arguments were presented in favour of such a possibility.

The first impulse for work on the hypothesis I received on May 8, 1983 when I was reading the Gospel according to saint John, namely that Jesus was not “ yet fifty years old” Jn 8.57 and that possibly “it has taken forty six years to build... the temple of ... his body” Jn2.19-21. These indications encouraged me to enlarge the temporal borders of a possible year of the Nativity. Later I found further support in the following text: “How can the Christ come from Galilee? Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived? ” Jn 7.41-42. This text stimulated me to search in Galilee the possible place of the Nativity, which later in Gospels according to Matthew and Luke could be replaced with Bethlehem of Judaea.

The first results of my studies were published in 1986 [3, 4]. The same year the French review “La Recherche” published a summary [5] of the paper [3]. The present text is based on the unpublished manuscript [11], which during the last decade of the last century I sent to various addresses. The letters, reprints and books which I received in answer helped me to give to the hypothesis its current form. Below the hypothesis is presented with some refinements, new elements and discussion of possibilities to verify it. The scientific importance of “POE” is considered in conclusion.

The events which we are going to examine within the framework of the hypothesis are of terrestrial nature, however the astronomical aspects play there a role of guides, essential for the development of the hypothesis. So it is logical to begin the dating of the Nativity, just as in the New Testament, by the presentation of Halley's comet of the year 12 BCE whose observation in the sky coincided, as I suppose, with the birth of Jesus Christ.

Let us quote and comment on two descriptions of Halley's comet of 12 BCE: first the description which one finds in the Chinese dynastic history "Ch' en-han-shu. Treatise on the Five Elements " and which is compared with modern calculations[12] and then the description which one finds at Dio Cassius, Greek historian of the third century [13].

Here is a translation of a part of the Chinese text concerning our problem: "On August 26 a star (po) emerged at Tung-Ching [Lunar Mansion 22]; it was treading on Wu-Chu-Hou [Θ Gemini]. It appeared to the North of Hoshu [α Canis Minor, α Gemini] and passed through Hsien-Yuan [Leo] and T'ai-wei [a large area in Coma Berenices, Leo & Virgo]. Later it travelled at more than 6 degrees (tu) daily. In the morning it appeared at the East direction, on the evening of the 13th day (September 7) it was seen at the West direction..." [12].

The text is accompanied with the following comment: "In the above text, it is unfortunate that so few precise dates are given. More dates of conjunction with asterisms would have rendered the record of great value. One of the more interesting observations is the date of first visibility in the West sky (September 7). Unfavorable weather could have delayed this sighting by one or more days, but a useful limit on the date of perihelion passage is still provided. In order for Halley's comet to have been visible in the West on the evening of September 7 (roughly at 15 h ET), perihelion must have been at least three days earlier than the calculated date of Yeomans and Kiang [14] -i.e. on or before October 8.6. This would fit in better with the result of Brady [15]- but the difference is not significant. The other dated observations (on August 26 and October 20) are not helpful since the motion of the comet was then very slow" [12].

For our hypothesis it is important to know the comet's position at the end of August and the beginning of September, when it could be observed at its rising and when it was moving towards the constellation Leo, in other words we need a calculation which would be in a good agreement with the Chinese observations for this period with an indication of the margins of possible errors. Such a calculation is still to be made. In the article by Yeomans and al. [16] there are selected ephemeris positions for August, September and October of 12 BCE referred to the equinox of 1950. After their transformations to the equinox of 12 BCE using the program "ari.exe" of N. L. Alexandrovitch [17] we obtain the following values: for August 22 the right ascension α=4h9' and the declination δ=22°, for September 1 α=4h50' and δ=30°35', for September 6 α=6h25' and δ =43°26', for September 11 α=12h6' and δ=37°6'. The co-ordinates of the Sun for September 6 were α = 10h 50' and δ=7°31'. (To determine the co-ordinates of the Sun and other objects in the sky I use the StarCalc program of A. E. Zavalishine [18]).

Now let us pass to Dio Cassius. In relation with the death of Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa the son-in-law of Augustus occurred in March 12 BCE [13, LIV, 28.3] among other wonders Dio Cassius indicates this one: "The star called the comet hung for several days over the city [Rome] and was finally dissolved into flashes resembling torches" [13, LIV, 29.8].

This comet of 12 BCE, which hung over Rome for several days, is identified with Halley's comet [19, p.143; 20, p.97-98]. The fact that it appeared six months after the death of Agrippa is not an obstacle because, on the one hand "...For a Greek or Roman (as well for other mediterranean civilizations) it would be assumed that any great event would be preceded by, accompanied by or followed by heavenly signs..." [20, p.82], and on the other hand "...Dio does not say that the comet appeared before the death of Agrippa; he says merely that it was one of the portents observed about that time... The comet connected by the Romans with Caesar's death, the sidus Iuiium, also did not appear until several months after the Ides of March 44 B.C." [21, p.123].

I suppose two circumstances could have contributed to connect these two events separated by six months: firstly, one could observe the comet above Rome on September 2, anniversary of the naval battle of Actium, won by the admiral Agrippa [13, L], secondly, it may be that one anticipated already the congiarium (see ch.2) that "Auguste présenta comme un legs de celui qui était devenu son gendre et son associée à la puissance tribunicienne…" [22, p.143].

Let us analyze now the text of Matthew Mt 2.2, 9-10. Firstly, the magi came from the east (in the Greek text "apo anatolon" [23, p.19]) and said "we saw his star when it rose" (in the Greek text "en te anatolé" which may be also translated as "in the first rays of dawn" [19, p.202] or as"au levant" [23, p.24]) [24]. And indeed, the comet was observed in China in the eastern part of the morning sky during several days at the end of August and at the beginning of September [12].

Secondly, the magi saw the star above Bethlehem Mt 2.9 whose latitude is approximately 32°. And indeed according to calculations [14] the declination of comet increased from 22° on August 22 to almost 50° on September 8. But if it was observed above Rome at 42°, why not above Bethlehem at 32°?

Thirdly, the magi said: "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews?" Mt 2.2. According to calculations [14] at the beginning of September one could observe the comet moving towards Leo and pointed at its brilliant star Regulus (the small king), or Melech (the king) [25, p.119]. At the same time Pline wrote: "People think it matters in what direction a comet darts, what star's strength it borrows…" [26, II, XXIII, 92]. It should be remarked that the constellation Leo was regarded as the zodiac sign of Juda and its tribe [27] (see also Genesis 49.9 and Revelation 5.5) and in general "entre tous les signes, le plus qualifié pour être un horoscope royal était évidemment le Lion, et comme roi des animaux et comme domicile du Soleil, roi de la création" [28, p.438].

Fourthly, the star was seen by the magi at its rising Mt 2.2, it was not observed at the time of their meeting with Herod, but it was again seen by the magi above Bethlehem Mt 2.9 [29]. One can suppose that these are the events of a few hours. As an example, let us consider September 3 of 12 BCE as a possible date of the Adoration. The magi could have seen the comet at dawn between 2 and 5 a.m. The sun rose at 5h10 [18], and the comet became invisible because of the increased luminosity of the sky. Between 6 and 7 a.m. the magi met Herod. When the magi had arrived at Bethlehem between 8 and 9 a.m. they saw again the comet in the zenith. It would be interesting to verify these assumptions (and observations), by calculating the variation of the relative (and, probably, absolute) luminosity of the comet for the corresponding times and places.

After this comparative analysis, on the one hand, one notes that Halley's comet of 12 BCE is in conformity with evangelic description, and on the other hand, one has an approximate date of the meeting of Herod with the magi. Now one can turn to the timetable of Herod for the autumn of 12 BCE. And it is there that great uncertainties emerge.

"Anno sequenti Herodes rediens a Roma cum videret qui illusus esset a magis...". It is a fragment of the apocryphal Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (Manuscrit D, Paris, BNP Nr. 1652 [30], see also [19, p.63]). A few aspects of this text draw the attention.

Firstly, according to this fragment it is only after his voyage to Rome Herod learned that he had been played by the magi. However, one always interpreted the canonical text Mt 2.16 in the sense that cruelties of Herod had followed immediately after his meeting with the magi [23, p.33]. But in the Manuscript D one intercalates between these two events the voyage of Herod to Rome! A detail, as we will see, realistic, but surprising and even absurd from the point of view of the traditional interpretation of the canonical text.

Secondly, the last voyage of Herod to Rome was in 12 BCE [31, 32], i.e. eight years before his death [31, 32]. However, in antiquity one believed that the year of the Nativity was close to the year of Herod’s death [19, 23]. And nowadays it is affirmed that "Matthew's Gospel dates the Nativity firmly to the last years of the life of Herod the Great" [31, p.568]. But in the Manuscript D the Nativity precedes Herod’s departure for Rome!

Finally, if as it is suggested by the Manuscript D, Herod left Palestine after its meeting with the magi, which took place according to our hypothesis at the end August or at the very beginning of September, it was back surely "anno sequenti", that is after the 1 Tischri, the day of the Jewish Year which should have begun on September 18 with the new moon [18]. It should be noted that at that time the Mediterranean was navigable from March until mid-November [34].

This analysis shows that the Manuscript D is a surprising document which is still waiting to be carefully studied and dated. It would be even more interesting to find this fragment in Greek, because the realistic sentence of the Manuscript D could open the verse Mt 2.16.

But how to determine by historical sources the precise date of Herod’s voyage in order to check the hypothesis? It seems it is not easy. In relation to this voyage Flavius Josephus, Jewish historian of the first century, writes: "Herod made a present of three hundred talents to Caesar, who was providing spectacles and doles for the people of Rome" [35, XVI, 128]. E. Mary Smallwood notes: "In 12 Herod paid his second and last visit to Rome as king... The congiarium given in the second half of 12 dates Herod's visit" [31, p.90].

Though this congiarium is well attested by the sources [13, LIV, 29.4; 36, p.37] uncertainty in its dating reaches a few months [21, p.131; 37, pp.25, 58]. In agreement with the hypothesis this congiarium could have been given not earlier than at the end of September. But the precise date of the congiarium remains unknown.

Is there another possibility to determine the date of this voyage? Yes, perhaps. Flavius Josephus writes: Herod "not only acted as president of the four-yearly meeting [Olympic Games-A.R.] held when he happened to be on his way to Rome, but endowed them for all time with an income big enough to ensure that his presidency should never be forgotten" [38, I, Ch.21, 426-427; 39, p.627]. F.K. Ginzel notes: "Nissen faßte seine Resultate in die Regel zusammen daß die ungeraden Olympiaden mit dem Vollmond des August, die geraden mit dem des September begonnen haben... So vereinigt sich alles, die Zeit der olympischen Spiele wesentlich späten anzusetsen, als um die Zeit nach der Sommersonnenwende" [40, S.355-356]. According to Britannica Olympic Games were held "every four years between August 6 and September 19" [41]. In 12 BCE were celebrated the 192nd (even!) Olympic Games. The moon was full on September 3 [18]. At that time one spent 6 days to come from Syracuse in Sicily to Alexandria in Egypt [34]. I suppose that Herod should have spent about same time to come from Palestine to Olympia in Greece.

In fact the dating of Herod’s visit to Olympia is even more uncertain than that of his last visit to Rome. Formerly one hesitated between 12 and 8 BCE. And here what E. M. Smallwood nowadays writes: "The choice lies between the Olympic years 16 and 12 B.C. The earlier seems more probable. The first of Herod's two visits to Rome as king can reasonably be dated to that summer, whereas his second fall in the latter part of 12 after the Games, and in any case was made in circumstances which will have left him neither time nor inclination to break his journey. The evidence for a third visit is slender" [31, p.81, n.66] (cf. [42, S.206, N.55]). But which were the circumstances which could have prevented the visit of Herod to Olympia in 12 BCE? Herod believed that his two sons Alexander and Aristobule had sought to poison him and he was in a hurry to show them in front of Augustus in Aquileia [35, XVI, 92; 38, I, 445-447, 452].

In any case if it were proven that Herod had left Palestine for Rome before the end August his meeting with the magi would become impossible. If not, one could ask why "Anno sequenti Herodes rediens a Roma cum videret quia illusus esset a magis..." and to seek the answer in the following chapter.

I suppose the historical background for the legend of the Massacre of the Innocents can be found in Chapter 9 of Book XVI of "Jewish Antiquities" by Flavius Josephus [35]. It is useful to read the entire chapter to enter the matter. I will limit myself to quotations with comments.

The analysis of Josephus’ text [35, XVI, Ch.9, 271-276] makes it possible to understand why after his return from Rome, Herod did not forget his fleeting meeting with the magi but, on the contrary, he "realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi" Mt 2.16.

Josephus writes: "But when he [Herod - A.R] was sailing to Rome, it was at that time when he went to accuse his son Alexander, and to commit Antipater to Caesar's protection, the Trachonites spread a report as if he were dead, and revolted from his dominion, and betook themselves again to their accustomed way of robbing their neighbors".

Let us recall that Trachonitis was an area in Coele-Syria [35, p.258] near to Galilee. (cf. the map in NTBJ [2]|). The content of the preceding chapter leads us to a conjecture that the accounts of the magi were at the origin of these rumours. People of Trachonitis quickly deduced from the good news: "long live the new-born king" a conclusion for their taste : "the old king has died" and revolted.

Josephus continues:

"…at which time the king's commanders subdued them during his absence; but about forty of the principal robbers, being terrified by those that had been taken, left the country, and retired into Arabia, Sylleus entertaining them, after he had missed of marrying Salome, and gave them a place of strength, in which they dwelt. So they overran not only Judea, but all Celesyria also, and carried off the prey, while Sylleus afforded them places of protection and quietness during their wicked practices. But when Herod came back from Rome, he perceived that his dominions had greatly suffered by them; and since he could not reach the robbers themselves, because of the secure retreat they had in that country, and which the Arabian government afforded them, and yet being very uneasy at the injuries they had done him, he went all over Trachonitis, and slew their relations; whereupon these robbers were more angry than before, it being a law among them to be avenged on the murderers of their relations by all possible means; so they continued to tear and rend every thing under Herod's dominion with impunity".

According to calculations [12], [16] the declination of Halley's comet of 12 BCE was close to 32°, corresponding to the latitude of Bethlehem, during a few days at the end of August and the beginning of September. That means, in particular, that even if the Magi had observed the comet at its rising in Babylon, they could not have arrived in time to Judaea to see the comet above Bethlehem (cf. [19], [33]). Consequently, the interval going from a few weeks until several years between the first observation of the Nativity star by the Magi and their Adoration, supposed in other hypotheses, is inadmissible in our hypothesis.

Moreover, the course of the events within the framework of the hypothesis seems so fast that one is literally forced to study another extreme case, in particular that one where the observation of the comet at its rising by the magi, their meeting with Herod in his residence and the adoration in Bethlehem proceeded over a few hours. This assumption is simplest and natural, it is in agreement with the text Mt 2.1-11 and it is easiest to check in situ. However, I do not know any publication where such an assumption was studied or simply advanced.

So one could check by a meticulous reconstitution on the place the following course of the events. In the night from September 2 to 3 (let us not forget the possible margin of error of a few days) the magi watched for rising of Crib in the constellation of Cancer. G. and J. Jobes write: "Praesepe, a cluster in Cancer... The historical and other interest in this cluster of small stars has been great... In Christian lore it has been referred to as the Manger in which Christ was born, or the Crib..." [27, p.356].

Thus the magi were watching for rising of Crib (or Praesaepia [25], [27]) to better forecast the weather and suddenly above the Crib they saw a hairy star pointed in the direction of Regulus. One knows already how Mt 2.2 and why in this manner (see ch.2) they interpreted their observation. It was between 2 and 5 a.m.

Possibly at 6 a.m. they reported with enthusiasm their observation in the streets of a city from where they were quickly brought to Herod’s residence. At this occasion Herod did not have to convene "a special assembly" [23, p.25] of "all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law" Mt 2.4 (cf. also [19, p.4]). "An assembly" was already convened because this morning the king was leaving to Rome (see ch.3). Herod "asked them where the Christ was to be born. “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied… Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.” After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them [Note: the text does not say, that the star was observed by the magi or the star led them to Bethlehem, as it has been often alleged during our era - A.R.] until it stopped over the place where the child was. [In other words, the star was in the zenith for some time - A.R.] When they saw the star [It is only at this moment that the magi saw the star again - A. R.], they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route" Mt 2.4-12.

Some comments are necessary. Firstly, Herod received the magi probably between 6 and 7 a.m. At this time the comet was not already visible because of the increased luminosity of the morning sky. For this reason the magi could not show to Herod the comet in the sky. Secondly, the magi saw again the comet [29] in Bethlehem "over the place where the child was" Mt 2.9 between 8 and 9 a.m. But it is known, that the conditions of observations of the stars are the best when they pass over the zenith (cf. [19, p.7]). Thirdly, the assumption that Arabia was the country of origin of the magi [23, p.20] is supported by the indication that they had come "from the East" Mt 2.1 [23, p.20], by their gifts [2, p.19, n.b], [19, p.38], [23, p.20, 31] and finally by the effect which they produced in Trachonitis (see ch. 4).

Now let us try to determine the place of the Adoration of the Magi. But initially let us accumulate the questions. Firstly, "... the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them... " Mt 2.9. D. W. Hughes underlines: "Matthew 2.9 contains one of the stumbling blocks of all astronomical ' star of Bethlehem' theories. It is said that the star ' went before' the wise men " [19, p.6]. How is this possible to explain it within the framework of the hypothesis, taking into account, that the comet moved in the sky to the west and that Bethlehem of Judaea is to the south from Jerusalem? Secondly, how can one explain it within the framework of the hypothesis, that in the Gospel of Matthew Herod "gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity " Mt 2.16 in Judaea whereas Josephus and Macrobius report about the carnage in Syria? One cannot answer these two questions without having found an answer to the third one. Thirdly, which was the port of the departure of Herod for Rome?

One can still find an answer to the last question in the works of Flavius Josephus (see [35, XV, 331-341, XVI, 136-141], [38, I, 408-415] and notes). But the following quotation from the book of M. Grant describes the situation well and makes it possible to have an answer:

"Yet the maritime trade of Judaea, at the time of his [Herod's] accession, was irritatingly insignificant…The main reason or one of the main reasons, for its insignificance was the total absence of good ports …There was not one reliable harbour along the whole fifty miles of Judaea's rocky, sandy strip of coast. Consequently, the country was in the humiliating position of having to depend, as far as ships of any size were concerned, upon the harbour-city of Ptolemais Ace (Acre, Akko), which lay outside the borders of Judaea altogether.

[Herod] started to build on it [the harbour-city Caesarea in Samaria] in 22 B.C. and finished the work twelve years later" [46, p.167] (see also [47, p. 149-150]).

Thus the solemn opening of the harbour-city Caesarea took place in 10 [48, p.370] or 9 BCE [32] during the 28th year of Herod’s reign [35, XVI, 136]. Consequently in autumn of 12 BCE Herod possibly used the port Ptolemais (Acre) which is about thirty kilometers from Sepphoris (Sefurje) the principal city of Galilee at the time. I think this supposition makes it possible to understand many things putting them to their original places.

It is logical to suppose that the last night before the departure for Rome Herod passed at his residence in Sepphoris. It is there he received the magi the morning of September 3. Since 55 BCE Sepphoris was the seat of one of five sanhedrims [35, Book XIV, Ch.5, 91], [38, Book I, Ch.8.5, 170]. Some families of the priests lived in Sepphoris at Herod’s time [49, p.4]. These priests with teachers of the law were at Herod’s residence in Sepphoris in the morning of September 3 waiting for his departure for Rome. They informed him "where the Messiah was to be born".

And here is the answer to the questions formulated higher: at about 10 km to the south-west from Sepphoris (cf. "the star went before them") was and is Bethlehem of Zebulun (Zabulon), mentioned in the book of Joshua 19.15. And somebody (or Herod himself) had the idea to transform the whole business into a joke by sending the magi to Bethlehem which was so close to Sepphoris. Scholars astonish "that the old king did not send his spies, who had been torturers, on the heels of the Magi"? [23, p.27, n.4] (see also [19, p.5-6]). The answer is obvious: Herod took serious neither the magi nor their report. Bluntly speaking he did not believe them! Herod made fun of the magi, showing them the way from the hill top, where Sepphoris is settled, towards Bethlehem of Zabulon. But "when the following year Herod was back of Rome" he understood, who had caused the disorders in his kingdom, and “he was furious” Mt 2.16.

In order to subject the hypothesis to another test it would be fascinating to descend a beautiful morning by the path (does it still exist?) which led from Herod’s residence in Sepphoris towards Bethlehem of Zabulon. And at the end of the path, to put to the test another old legend, which claims that one of the magi “saw the star reflected in the water at the bottom of the well” (for the details to see [19, p.6-7]). The checking of this legend would make it possible to determine not only the moment but even the place of the Adoration [50]. If Jesus had just been born the day before at the evening (see [4] and ch. 8 "Nativity"), it is probable that after the night of Nativity Mary slept and it was Joseph who received the magi.

During the centuries the legend of the Massacre of the Innocents inspired artists whereas historians noticed, rightly, that Josephus could not have overlooked this cruelty of Herod if it had been really made in the heart of Judaea a few kilometers from Jerusalem. However the massacre had taken place well though at the other end of the kingdom and Josephus did not fail to mention Herod’s reprisals without going into the details.

One can suppose that the history of the massacre of the children circulated in the north of Herod’s kingdom, namely in Galilee and Nabataea. From here this history arrived to Rome in 9 BCE. In the Internet (see also [19, p.37])) one mentions that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the north of Syria, where this history had preserved in the oral tradition.

Now let us try to clear up another enigma of the Nativity story: when and especially where John the Baptist had been born. It is clear, that within the framework of the hypothesis one could determine John’s birth date from that of Jesus taking into account that Mary conceived Jesus five months after Elisabeth had conceived John Lk 1.26. But it proves to be possible to find the month of John’s birth and (consequently the month of Jesus’ birth) by another way and to check once more the hypothesis.

D. W. Hughes writes: "Simmons finds the month of the birth of Christ by relating the lives of Christ and John the Baptist (personal communication). Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, was a priest of the course of Abia (Luke 1.8) and would have served in the temple during the 6th week after Passover, the week before Pentecost. As all the priests also served during Pentecost, Zacharias would have left Jerusalem for his home town around Sivan 12th (15 June). Elizabeth, his wife, conceived soon after his return (Luke 1. 24) so John the Baptist would have been born about 280 days later, around 27 March. Luke (1, 36) records that Christ was 6 months younger than John the Baptist so this puts the birth of Christ in late September" [33, p.566] (see also [19, p.78]).

Then if one specifies, that Elisabeth was rather "in her sixth month" Lk 1.36 (cf also Lk 1.26) and if one supposes that the descent of Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem could hasten the time of childbirth, one obtains the beginning of September as a possible time of Jesus’ birth. Consequently, Matthew and Luke indicate (implicitly) the same month of Jesus’ birth! Thus it is possible that John the Baptist was born in March of 12 BCE. But where?

Luke writes: "At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth" Lk 1.39-40. But where precisely did Mary hurry soon after Jesus’ Conception, i.e. according to the hypothesis in December of 13 BCE? In the search for this "city of Juda" one named various localities belonging to the tribe of Juda, such as "Iaththa at two hours to the south from Hebron" [51, p.41] or Hebron. Nowadays this city "is identified preferably with Ain Karim at 6 km to the west from Jerusalem" [2, p.162, n.d].

However it is not excluded that this mysterious "town of Juda" was closer to Nazareth so that actually Marie did not have to traverse more than 150 km in December by the rainy and cold weather [51, ch.V] to come from Nazareth to Elizabeth. According to S. Klein [49] within a score of kilometers to the North-East from Nazareth there was the locality Kefar Uzza (cf. [49, S. 51-52] and [49, Karte von Galilaea]) where priests of Abia's course lived. Is it possible that Zechariah and his wife also lived in Kefar Uzza? To admit such a possibility it would initially be necessary to answer two questions. The first linguistic one is relatively easy: could one in the oral tradition replace Kefar by the city and Uzza by Juda? The second question seems much more difficult to me: can one prove that families of Jewish priests lived in different localities of Galilee at the time of the Second Temple?

The second question is considered in [49], but uncertainty remains and I can conclude this chapter only by the following quotation: "The very fact that after the First Revolt of 66-73 A.D. Jews from the south so easily integrated into and so readily acclimatized into northern Palestine suggests a far greater continuity between the religious communities of these areas" [52, p.693].