The Two Most Likely Dates of Christ's Resurrection

At the time of this writing, the Easter season has just begun, commemorating the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ. The date of Easter changes every year (though it is always on a Sunday) because of its link to Passover, which is itself based on the first full Moon after the spring equinox. But if I had a time machine that could take me to the exact date when Christ resurrected, which date would I need to select? I personally think there are two plausible dates, and I think evidence is more convincing for one over the other. I'm intentionally writing this blog post now not only because Easter is here, but also because I'm writing in between the two days of the year which I think are plausible: April 5 and April 9. More specifically, I think the Resurrection happened on either April 9, 30 or April 5, 33.

The Case for Either Date

There is a book I have called Witness to Mystery: Investigations into Christ's Relics. The authors are two Polish journalists who researched much about what scientists and other experts in various fields have found out about many different relics associated with Christ. There is a particular chapter in there about the Shroud of Turin with much to say about the date of Christ's crucifixion. To start, historians place the governorship of Pontius Pilate from 26 to 36. The year would have to be one from that range. The day of the week of Christ's crucifixion has always been considered to be Friday. As for when the first night of Passover began that week, there is some debate over whether it was Thursday night or Friday night. My opinion is that Passover began on a Friday night based on scriptural evidence. For one thing, the chief priests made sure to arrest Jesus before the Passover began (Matthew 26:5 and Mark 14:2). This wouldn't have made sense if Passover began on Thursday night. Likewise, Christ told His disciples he desired to eat the Passover before He suffered, which makes it sound like He otherwise would have waited until Friday night (Luke 22:15). Also, if the Passover began on Thursday night, the chief priests would have already begun eating their Passover meal and would not keep their distance from Pilate on Friday morning so that they could eat the Passover on Friday night and avoid ritual defilement (John 18:28). Scripture also mentions that the Passover was a "solemn" or major one, since its first night also began the Sabbath, which began on a Friday night and lasted through Saturday (John 19:31).

If Christ was crucified on a Friday, and Passover began that night, then we can take a look at the times when Passover began on a Friday night between 26 and 36. The authors of the book did that, and found two dates: April 7, 30, and April 3, 33. Since Christians have always held Sunday to be the day of the week when Christ resurrected, then we can add two days from that and have the Resurrection be on April 9, 30 or April 5, 33.

The Case for April 9, 30

Tradition has it that Christ began His ministry when He was 30 and died when He was 33. Therefore, the credibility of either date I mentioned basically comes down to looking at the possible birth year of Christ. If you follow the many historians who figure that Herod the "Great" died in 4 BC and who therefore place the birth of Christ sometime in that year, then it's very possible that Jesus would have been 33 in 30 (remember, there is no year 0). But there is a detail that St. Peter references from the prophet Joel about Jesus that seems to give credence to the other date for the Resurrection: April 5, 33.

The Case for April 5, 33

Before I get into what St. Peter quoted from the prophet Joel, there's the debate around the birth year of Christ again. While some historians consider 4 BC to be the year of Christ's birth, some others believe it was 2 BC, saying that Herod died in early 1 BC. So again, this is two or three years after the other date. If Christ was born in 2 BC, then He could have still been 33 when He died if His birthday was later than April.

As for the quotation, when St. Peter made his first public sermon on Pentecost, he referenced the prophet Joel, who said "the Sun shall be turned to darkness and the Moon into blood" as signs preceding the Day of the Lord, the New Covenant, accomplished by the Resurrection (Joel 2:31 and Acts 2:20). At least one Gospel mentions darkness happening when Christ died, an "eclipse" of the Sun (but not by the Moon, since Passover is always during a full Moon) (Luke 23:44-45). Maybe that darkness was a very dark cloud. On the other hand, a lunar eclipse that turns "the Moon into blood" could happen during Passover. One lunar eclipse happened on April 3, 33, but not on April 7, 30. The eclipse was partially visible from Jerusalem, so no wonder St. Peter chose to reference that passage from Joel if the crowd remembered how dark it was and how the Moon looked red in the hours after Christ's death.

Conclusion

The Passion, Death, and Resurrection are some of the most detailed events from the life of Christ. By assembling many clues, despite having no specific year mentioned in the Gospels, we can reasonably say that the Resurrection happened on April 5, 33 or maybe April 9, 30. I personally accept the date of April 5, 33 because of the lunar eclipse St. Peter seemed to reference. Therefore, this year, the day of the year we have Easter (April 5) very well could match the original day of the year on which Christ rose from the dead!

The Alligator, the Bison, and the Jaguar: Three Animals That Used to Coexist and Possibly Fight in Texas

Prehistoric and current environments are full of powerful animals, and especially the most powerful get people's attention. One of my favorite categories when I used to be on Dinosaur Home was Who vs Who, where one could speculate on which of two extinct animals would be able to kill the other in a fight. However, there is a different pair (and, in fact, a trio) of animals that are still around today whose ranges used to all overlap in what is now Texas less than 200 years ago. Alligators, powerful reptiles of the swamps and rivers, still inhabit a large portion of eastern and southern Texas. Bison, giant mammals that only packs of wolves (and humans) can take down now, used to live not only in the Texas panhandle but almost the entire state. Jaguars, the largest feline predators of the Americas, used to live north and east of the Mexican border whereas now they are not in any part of Texas. Putting all these ranges together, it appears that these three animals all had overlapping ranges in parts of central and southern Texas, possibly including San Antonio. Given that San Antonio's history stretches back over 300 years, I wouldn't doubt that the American Indian and Spanish residents could have seen all three animals during their lifetimes under Spanish rule. It would be interesting to see if any Spanish records provide evidence of these animals in Texas, and especially if they fought each other. But rather than doing that, I'm simply going to compare the three animals and give guesses as to what would happen for the two-way fights involving those three (alligator versus bison, bison versus jaguar, jaguar versus alligator).

American alligators in Texas

Anyone familiar with alligators or Texas will know that the American alligator is the apex predator of the lower elevations of Texas, particularly the swamps, rivers, and lakes. The edge of their range currently extends nearly along the Interstate 35 corridor. What some don't know, however, is that long ago - between the Ice Ages, that is - there was a time when the climate was warmer and wetter than today, so that their range extended as far west as Lubbock. Only around 50 years ago, alligators were endangered, but today they are thriving and expanding their range in every direction, including south where alligator sightings in Matamoros, Mexico might soon be commonplace. Alligators prey on animals as large as adult white-tailed deer, though it's easier for them to prey on smaller animals.

Bison in Texas

Bison have been through a rough ride, but they are still tough animals. Their historic range is well documented, and while they are mostly associated with the Great Plains, they lived in quite a wide portion of North America in pre-Columbian times, including all of Texas except for low areas near the coast. Their range started to shrink northwestward as bison hunting got easier due to advances in guns and larger populations of humans. There's an impressive map detailing the shrinking range of the American bison by William T. Hornaday that seems to suggest that the range of the bison and that of the alligator no longer overlapped by 1850. Bison have often been too large and powerful for one predator to take down. Today, the only natural predators of adult bison are packs of wolves and humans armed with guns or other weapons. But was it different before the late 19th century?

Jaguars in Texas

Jaguars are the only felids of the genus Panthera in the Americas. This genus also includes leopards, lions, snow leopards, and tigers, all of which are nearly or definitely apex predators where they live. Even their names tend to be associated with lethal power and strength, and this is true of the jaguar too (ever heard of the Aztec jaguar warriors?) Their position at or near the top of the food chain enables them to prey upon almost any animal, but like with alligators, they usually go for smaller prey. Speaking of crocodilians, jaguars live alongside them in many parts of their range, and jaguars regularly prey on small species of crocodilians. The jaguar's range now is from northern Mexico to southern Brazil, but that range used to extend throughout the southwest United States in historic times and even throughout most of the entire country in prehistoric times. But the question is, would a jaguar be able to kill one of the largest crocodilians in North America (the American alligator) and the largest mammal in North America (the American bison)?

American alligator versus American bison

For understanding who would win in a fight between any of the three animals I'm talking about, it's easy enough to consider what the weight range is for each animal and what the weight range is for a predator's largest prey. Taking a look at the American alligator, we know that the large ones can prey upon mammals as large as cattle and white-tailed deer. Cattle appear to be the larger of the two, for deer can be around 100 kg while beef cattle, such as Angus, are on average around 700 kg. Bison, on the other hand, can get over 1,000 kg. Therefore, I kind of doubt that even large alligators would have killed adult bison. Therefore, here's how I imagine a potential fight would have gone down:

At a riverbank in Texas, a bison comes to the water to drink. As it laps the water with its tongue, a large alligator detects potential prey from below the water. Not knowing the size of the bison, the alligator lunges out, spooking the bison. The alligator misses the head but manages to grab a back leg as the bison turns away. Feeling the bite, the bison turns to confront the alligator. The alligator's tail would normally be dangerous, but the bison is too large to be knocked down. Instead, the bison tramples the alligator's rear, damaging the bones. The alligator decides to relent and limps back into the water.

American bison versus jaguar

The jaguar may be the apex predator of Central and South America, but the bison is the largest mammal of North America. Jaguars can take down almost any animal within its range, but the jaguar's prey also has its limits. Studies of the jaguar's diet have shown that its prey are rarely larger than 130 kg. If you remember from what I said about bison, however, those can be over 1,000 kg. I think the bison again has the upper hand here. Here's the scenario:

Out on the plains, a mother bison is out with her calf. A jaguar observes from a distance. This jaguar thinks he may be able to take the calf and drag it away. The jaguar decides to attack from behind. He grabs the calf and starts to drag it away, but the jaguar underestimates the agility of the mother bison, who charges the jaguar. The bison manages to hook her horn into the jaguar's side. Now it is the jaguar who is the defender. The jaguar scratches at the bison's head and tries to bite, but the bison tramples the jaguar. The jaguar might not survive his injuries, and the calf might not survive either, but the mother bison survives with some scars.

Jaguar versus American alligator

Here we see one apex predator versus another. Jaguars already encounter various crocodilian species, but alligators are larger than the caimans that are jaguars' prey. On the other hand, alligators prey on the occasional bobcat or even cougar, but jaguars are larger than both. Nevertheless, the largest alligators are well outside the jaguar's preferred prey size, while large alligators can take down cattle, which are larger than jaguars. I think this could be an even fight, but I'd guess that alligators would have killed jaguars more than jaguars killed alligators. After all, the most similarly sized relatives of American alligators in the jaguar's range today, black caimans, are sometimes large enough to kill an adult jaguar. Here's my scenario:

A jaguar starts crossing the Rio Grande near today's Brownsville. As the jaguar crosses, it alerts a large male alligator, who starts swimming up to the jaguar and grabs it along the torso. Immediately the alligator starts death rolling as the jaguar tries fighting back with its claws and teeth, though the jaguar can't see well in the muddy water. This alligator is no stranger to rough fights, (and some alligators today can get parts of their jaws bitten off and still survive). The alligator keeps its strong grip and keeps rolling until the jaguar dies.

Conclusion

If Texas wasn't already interesting, one of the interesting facts about the state is that it has some of North America's largest mammals and reptiles and used to have North America's largest felid. All three - the bison, alligator, and jaguar - used to coexist in that state and in that state only well into the 19th century. The most powerful of those three animals, however, was still the bison, which to this day is able to defeat any land predator one on one except maybe grizzly bears.

Fasting for Lent, Part 4: Traditions Kept, Traditions Lost

After tracing what fasting and abstinence has looked like through the history of Christianity, I think we can agree that fasting and abstinence used to be a lot stricter than it is today for most Christian denominations. The earliest Lents involved a fast often called the Black Fast, where no food or drink was consumed until sundown and no animal products were consumed whatsoever, for all the days of Lent. This raises some interesting questions. Which Christians today still fast the same way the earliest Christians did? Which Christians have done away with fasting and abstinence entirely? Who, if anyone, is "doing it right"?

In answer to the first question, there appear to be a few communities that typically observe the Black Fast during Lent today: The Copts and Saint Thomas Christians. These are most common in Egypt (where the Coptic Orthodox and Coptic Catholic churches are based) and India (where many Christians trace their religious heritage to the missionary work of St. Thomas the Apostle). These are a mixture of Oriental Orthodox churches, which split from the rest of Christianity after the Council of Chalcedon in 451, and Eastern Catholic churches which are basically composed of former Orthodox Christians who have reconciled with the Roman Catholic Church. All these still refrain from eating and drinking until late afternoon or evening, when they eat one vegan meal, and they do this for a large portion of Lent if not all 40 days.

Meanwhile, Lent itself is not observed by some other Christians, such as Baptists, "non-denominational Christians", and others that don't have ritual and ecclesial structure. While these Christians consider the Bible to be the highest authority on what Christian life should look like, and the Bible recommends fasting in many places, few seem to take the initiative to fast or abstain from meat very often if they do at all. Other Protestant denominations, such as Lutheranism, will observe Lent but not oblige anyone to fast or abstain, instead making it a personal choice. All this makes it so that here in the United States (where a mixture of Protestant denominations and non-religious people are the majority), Catholics stand out for abstaining from meat on Fridays and having a cross-shaped ash mark on their foreheads when Lent begins.

The overall point of Lent is to prepare for Easter by considering the Passion and denying ourselves pleasures we would enjoy otherwise, so that by doing so we might have more time and resources for prayer and almsgiving. That way, we are more ready to celebrate Easter, arguably the most important Christian holiday of the year. Therefore, while I'm not going to say one Christian denomination currently has the best form of Lenten fasting or abstinence, I would say there are some standards to keep in mind. Let's start with fasting. Assuming you're a Christian who observes Lent, do you ever have a day or more when you skip a meal or two on purpose, or at least eat less-than-filling meals or less expensive food? The time you take for eating a meal can be used for prayer or Bible reading, and the money you might spend on expensive food or large portions can be used for donations to charities or people you meet in person who could use some help. If you don't observe Lent, at least fast on Good Friday, remembering how Jesus ate nothing (as far as we know) between the Agony in the Garden and the Crucifixion. As for abstinence, considering how meat was regarded as a feast food in the ancient Mediterranean world, do you ever have a day or more when you decide to have less-than-delicious food on purpose? You might not necessarily have to skip meat unless your denomination requires it, but at least have Lent be a time when you never eat your favorite foods. Again, if you don't observe Lent, at least skip enjoying delicious foods or drinks on Good Friday, remembering how Jesus was only offered bitter gall and vinegar or cheap wine.

After all these considerations, and the long history behind Lent and its associated customs, I think it's clear that all Christians are called to do some kind of self-denial before Easter. Whether that looks like a rigorous Black Fast as the early Christians did, or just feeling less than satisfied when eating meals both in portions and tastes, it's a very good idea to fast and abstain for some length of time before Easter, and if the minimum requirements in your denomination feel too easy, I would encourage you to go beyond those. God will appreciate it, the poor will appreciate it, and you yourself will appreciate it because you'll be more ready for Easter (and all the nice things that go with Easter that you gave up before).

Fasting for Lent, Part 3: Changes to Catholic Lent in the Second Millennium

In the last post, I talked about how Lent began to be observed in Christianity from the time of the Apostles to the end of the first millennium. In that millennium, Lenten fasting and abstinence changed but little. So did Christianity itself, relatively speaking. There was no split between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism yet, and neither did any Protestant denominations break off and diversify from Catholicism, though the Oriental Orthodox churches broke off. However, most Christian denominations today find their origins in the second millennium whether they claim to be the ones that kept the original faith passed down from Christ or not. Where I'm going with this is that since it's a gargantuan task to track how fasting and abstinence has changed in all Christian denominations, I will just focus on Catholicism.

By the second millennium, fish was on the menu during Lent for the West at least, according to Alban Butler's book, The Moveable Feasts, Fasts, and Other Annual Observances of the Catholic Church. But what counted as fish? Apparently, Catholics of the late Middle Ages counted more than just those animals with scales and fins that live in the water. Even Eastern Christians have acknowledged shellfish as permissible to eat during Lent despite forbidding true fish with bones. Therefore, by "fish" Catholics really meant "seafood". So, what counted as seafood? With no evolutionary biology to guide them, philosophers of the time looked more at the behavior or habitat of the animal rather than its physical characteristics. Therefore, anything that mostly or completely lives in the water could count as fish. Waterfowl such as ducks, however, did not, since poultry such as ducks and geese were served at feasts just like a ham, and abstaining from festive foods was the whole point of Lenten abstinence. That being said, even some mammals were counted as fish, and I'm not talking about whales. Instead, I'm talking about beavers. Apparently, even though beavers are clearly mammals and have fur, European philosophers considered beavers fish-like enough because they have furless, "scaly" tails and spend a lot of time in water. By the 12th century, beaver tail was on the menu during Lent in Wales and probably other areas in Western Europe as well. This precedent would make for some unusual inclusions of other animals as "fish" later on.

Fasting rules were loosened during the Middle Ages as well. Formerly, no food or drink was allowed until sunset, when just one full vegan meal was eaten. Later, the one meal was turned back to 3 p.m., and in the 14th century, the meal could be eaten as early as noon. Then, in the 15th century, a "collation" could be had in addition to the meal. A collation is basically a snack and drink, and it could be consumed in the evening. Presumably, adding the collation meant also that you could drink something whenever needed as well. If a collation was added for keeping strength up, I would imagine that clerics would have noticed how dehydrated people were getting and would have allowed more drinking (or at least that's what I'm guessing - I never found anything about when drinks were allowed at any time of day).

When the Western European countries began expanding overseas to become colonial empires, this led to new modifications of Lenten abstinence. Pope Alexander VI allowed Spain and its colonies to eat dairy products during Lent, for a reason unknown to me. When French people colonized Quebec, they were soon dependent on beavers not only for trade but apparently for food as well. Beaver tail must have still been a grey area for them, because in the 17th century they needed their bishop to make sure it was okay for people in Quebec to eat beaver tail during Lent (and it was). Another furred mammal found itself classified as a fish on the other side of the Americas: capybara. This may have been a special dispensation for the indigenous population that hunted capybara a lot in Venezuela, or just another excuse based on the fact that capybaras are semi-aquatic. Likewise, there's a rumor that Catholics of the Detroit area have been permitted to eat muskrat, another semi-aquatic rodent, during Lent since the early 19th century. Other areas eat (or used to eat) cold-blooded reptiles in Lent as fish, such as alligators in Louisiana today or turtles at a restaurant in Melrose, MN until less than a decade ago.

The next global change to Lenten abstinence, however, came in 1741 when Pope Benedict XIV allowed meat and dairy products to be eaten on some of the days of Lent, rather than abstaining from those for all 40 days. By the end of that decade, the 1740s, fasting and abstinence rules were few enough that some Catholics could be ridiculed for having sumptuous meals that they still called fasting. For example, we have Peter Kalm's description from 1749 of the "fasting" that Catholics in Quebec were doing:

Friday and Saturday, the 'lean' days, they eat no meat according to the Roman Catholic rites; but they well know how to guard against hunger. On those days they boil all sorts of vegetables like peas, beans and cabbage, and fruit, fish, eggs, and milk are prepared in various ways. They cut cucumbers into slices and eat them with cream, which is a very good dish. Sometimes they put whole cucumbers on the table and everybody that likes them takes one, peels and slices it, and dips the slices into salt, eating them like radishes.... In brief, they live here just as well on Fridays and Saturdays, and I whom am not a particular lover of meats would willingly have had all the days so-called lean days.... 

Beaver meat is eaten not only by Indians but ... especially by the French, on their fasting days; for his Holiness the Pope has, like many of the old zoologists, classified the beaver among the fishes, since he spends most of his time in water .... In connection with the eating of beaver the fasting of Catholics appeared to me a bit strange: Those who first inaugurated the fast days did it undoubtedly with good and holy intentions to keep the people from eating too much meat, which is injurious to health, fattens the body too much, and makes it inadaptable for many things. But ... if they could afford it they lived everywhere sumptuously and fed their body just as on the other days of the week; for they then had more courses prepared of eggs, of all kinds of fish, prepared with oils and fats; all kinds of milk dishes, and many especially sweet-tasting fruits with a quantity of wine. So that for the most part wherever you ate on a fast day the table was better provided with varieties of food than on any other days, and still they called it fasting. (Peter Kalm, Peter Kalm's Travels in North America: The English Version of 1770)

Keep in mind, there was still only one meal every day allowed at this point, though a collation could be eaten too. However, in the 19th century, a second collation was introduced which could be taken in the morning. This gave rise to the clarification that the two collations are supposed to add up to less than a full meal. Even so, this meant you could eat three times a day and still call it fasting if two of your meals were snacks. Dairy products and eggs were still prohibited during Lent in some dioceses as late as 1913, but now it's only the Eastern Catholic churches that have that restriction, just like the Orthodox churches. In 1917, an edition of the Code of Canon Law was published which clarified for the whole Catholic Church that the one meal and two collations could be had at any time of day, and those under 21 are excused from fasting.

After the Second Vatican Council in the early '60s, even more changes happened. In 1966, 40 days of fasting and abstinence were reduced to just 2 days of fasting (Ash Wednesday and Good Friday) and 8 days of abstinence (Ash Wednesday and all Fridays of Lent). In 1983, two minor changes were made: one for the whole Catholic Church and one for just the Catholic Church in the United States. The first, a part of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, declared that solemnities such as the Feast of St. Joseph (March 19) and the Feast of the Annunciation (March 25) override Lenten fasting and abstinence on those days (except if March 25 is during Holy Week, in which case the Feast of the Annunciation is moved). St. Patrick's Day is also considered a solemnity for Irish Catholics and many Irish Americans. In the United States, the United States Council of Catholic Bishops defined age limits for fasting and abstinence: 18 to 59 for fasting and 14+ for abstinence. They also said that Fridays outside of Lent, traditionally days of abstinence too, could involve other acts of penance rather than abstinence. Unfortunately, most American Catholics forgot the part about another form of penance and thought that the USCCB simply dropped the requirement of abstaining from meat on Fridays outside of Lent, full stop. You can read more about what the USCCB actually said here. Also, the USCCB warns against making Friday abstinence too tame, saying that "indulging in the lavish buffet at your favorite seafood place sort of misses the point." I wonder what Peter Kalm would have thought of Lenten fasting and abstinence in the United States today.

In short, the second millennium started with 40 days of eating just one meal in the evening with no meat, eggs, or dairy (but maybe fish and certainly shellfish were okay). The second millennium ended with just two days of "fasting" meaning one full meal and two partial meals, and no "meat" on those two days and Fridays (but eggs, dairy products, and anything aquatic or semi-aquatic except waterfowl are okay). Lent became quite tame by comparison in the Roman Catholic Church, though not as much in any of the Eastern Catholic churches in full communion with the pope.

Fasting for Lent, Part 2: Lent in the First Millennium

In the first post of this series, I took a look at the fasting Jesus did in the desert, which is said to be the precedent for the 40-day fast we call Lent. I argued that Jesus was only able to fast from all food and drink for 40 days because He is the Son of God. For the first Christians, who didn't have that supernatural ability, a 40-day fast must have looked a little different. How did Lent come about, and what did it look like for Christians in the first millennium?

Lent may have originated as a time of preparation for catechumens (those preparing to be baptized). Even today, in the Catholic Church, Lent is especially important for catechumens, and adults who convert to Catholicism are almost always baptized on the night before Easter, the Easter Vigil. There are a few early Church documents such as the Didache that mention this. Since spiritual preparation is good before not just baptism but major feasts, it's easy for me to see how a period of spiritual preparation for catechumens would have been extended to the whole Church. By the 4th century, Lent was unofficially observed through the whole Church (later confirmed at the Council of Nicaea), and rules about what the fasting or abstinence looked like appeared in writings by many of the Church Fathers going into the 5th century as well. What were those rules?

In general, the rules for Lenten fasting and abstinence were a lot stricter than most Christians will observe today and are collectively called the Black Fast. No food or drink was consumed until after sunset. After grace, Christians could eat a meal that was completely vegan. Bread and vegetables or "herbs" were explicitly allowed, but no animal products whatsoever were allowed, and neither was any alcohol - just water as far as drinks went. Unlike today in the Catholic Church, fish was not allowed either. As for invertebrate seafood such as shrimp, that's less clear. In Eastern Christianity today, any meat, dairy products, or eggs from vertebrates are not allowed, but meat from invertebrates is allowed. I'm not sure if that's directly traceable to the earliest Lents, or if it's a change that was introduced at some point. After all, Eastern Christianity does permit fish on the Feast of the Annunciation and Palm Sunday, whereas it seems that literally all 40 days were to be fish-less in the first millennium. By the way, since eggs were also prohibited during Lent across Christendom in the first millennium, that's why we have Easter eggs, because eggs were back on the menu when Easter arrived.

This kind of Lenten fasting was the norm across all of Christendom for pretty much that whole time, but it changed slightly by the end of that millennium. The New Advent article on the Black Fast mentions that beginning in the tenth century, the one meal Christians could eat could be eaten as early as 3pm rather than sunset. Other than that, it seems the Black Fast stayed the same.

Fasting for Lent, Part 1: How Did Jesus Fast for 40 Days?

This first full week of Lent begins with the Gospel reading of Jesus' fast in the desert and his immediate battle with Satan's temptations afterward. After all, we get the length of Lent from the 40-day period of Jesus' fast in the desert. Assuming that Jesus fasted for literally 40 days, during which "he ate nothing" (Luke 4:2), has anyone seriously considered how Jesus was able to go 40 days without eating anything when most humans will die within two weeks without food or water? This is the question I try to answer in this post.

"Eating" words from God

Possibly the quickest answer to the question is found in Jesus' reply to Satan when he tried to get Jesus to turn stones into bread. Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 8:3: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Jesus gave a similar but slightly different response to His disciples who implored Him to eat: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work" (John 4:34). Synthesizing these two verses, Jesus appears to be saying that obeying instructions from God is just as nourishing as physical food.

Jesus isn't the only example of someone being able to endure a lack of an essential need by using some kind of spiritual aid. For example, I remember reading how St. Francis of Assisi would go without warm clothes in winter, claiming that his love for God kept him warm. Also, I remember reading how St. Benedict endured a long fast for Lent (maybe not as intense as that of Jesus) and refused the treats his friend Romanus brought to Benedict's cave of Subiaco for Easter, saying that the simple Easter joy and visit of that friend were enough. However, is any good Christian able to endure 40 days of no food at all simply from hearing the words and doing the will of God, or does that require a special kind of person - a divine person?

Proof that Jesus is the Son of God, but not as proof for Satan

After Jesus completed 40 days of fasting, Satan tried tempting Him. Two of three temptations start with "If you are the Son of God..." Both involve some kind of miracle for Satan's or the world's entertainment: turning stones into bread or jumping off the highest part of a temple without injury. However, I wonder if Jesus already proved He is the Son of God by enduring 40 days without food, not for Satan's or anyone else's entertainment but simply because He could. The longest recorded time that anyone has gone without any food or drink is 18 days. The longest recorded time that anyone has gone without solid food is much longer at 382 days. All of that information is taken from Guiness World Records. Assuming that Jesus didn't carry any kind of drink with Him, or that nobody gave Him any while He was in the desert, 40 days without food or drink would be truly miraculous. Why, then, did Satan ask for more miracles and not get Jesus to do them? I think it was for selfish reasons, just as Jesus' opponents and Herod Antipas asked for miracles knowing that Jesus already performed some. As far as I can think of, every miracle Jesus performed was for the good of the person involved, whether that was healing or casting out demons. In His first miracle, it was to prevent the embarrassment of running out of wine at a wedding feast. Jesus never performed miracles just to entertain or impress someone. If His 40-day fast was in fact a miracle, I might place it in the category of manifesting His divinity, like in the Transfiguration. But what if Jesus' fast was not a complete absence of food and drink?

A Partial Fast?

Perhaps Jesus' 40-day fast was not a complete absence of food and drink, but instead a very reduced intake of those each day. After all, the world record for fasting from food but not drink is 382 days. If the Gospel of Luke's account is literally true in saying Jesus ate nothing for those 40 days, that might not mean He drank nothing. Perhaps He had a supply of water with Him, or maybe wine. He also could have had a few disciples by that time who could have brought Him something to drink. There were also a few towns on the outskirts of the Judean Desert where Jesus is believed to have fasted, including the eastern suburbs of Jerusalem itself and also Jericho. Unless His disciples were good at navigating the desert or were with Him the whole time, however, I'm not sure that these ideas are really the best ones.

Conclusion

The Gospels don't say how Jesus was able to fast for 40 days, or what His fasting entailed. However, if He was alone that whole time (and that seems most plausible), He might not have been getting food or drink that much. Bringing food and drink with Him could have been a considerable burden for a solo retreat into a desert for 40 days. The first temptation thrown to Jesus after the fast, after all, is about turning stones into bread rather than using up leftover food and drink or going into the nearest town to buy some. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that Jesus was eating and drinking nothing at all, unless He was living on whatever desert wildlife and plants were around. This would mean that Jesus miraculously fasted for over twice as long as anyone in the Guiness Book of World Records has, because Jesus is the Son of God and lives not on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.

With Jesus' 40-day fast in mind as the template for the length of Lent today, how did early Christians fast for Lent without depriving themselves of all food and drink? That's the topic I will research about for the next part.

Is the Syrian Civil War Finally About to End?

The current military situation in Syria, taken from Wikipedia's current map.

This blog post may seem late to some. Over a year ago now, in late November and early December 2024, a sudden offensive coming from Islamist groups in the northwest and later from every enemy of Assad's government controlling land in Syria helped to topple the regime quickly after a mostly quiet five-year period. The Assad regime was toppled, Assad himself fled to Russia, and a new president has taken control who has already met with many world leaders as such. So why am I only talking about a potential end to the war now? Here's a long overview of the Syrian Civil War's metamorphosis for context.

The Many Phases and Factions of the Syrian Civil War

The Syrian Civil War has gone through a wild metamorphosis since its beginning. It began as part of the wider Arab Spring, with rebels who hated Assad's authoritarian rule deciding to rise up and occupy scattered pockets of land across the country. For the first year or so (I'm using this video for reference) that's exactly how it was, a straightforward two-sided conflict between the Assad government and rebels. The Kurds introduced themselves as a third side on the northern border in March 2012, occupying areas where Kurds were the dominant ethnic group. No surprise there, given the Kurds' decades-long independence movement in the region. But then, on the border with Iraq, the Islamic State emerged as a fourth side, rearing its ugly head until by late 2014 it controlled perhaps over half the country! Even al-Qaeda (or at least al-Qaeda-like Islamist groups such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham) emerged as a fifth faction in the northwest part of the country among rebel-controlled areas there. By that point, the Syrian Civil War was no longer the government versus rebels but instead an elimination game for the future of Syria, or in the Kurds' case a part of Syria. By late 2015, the Kurds (or SDF, Syrian Democratic Forces) united many of their small pockets in the north as they took land from ISIS and proved to be one of ISIS' most formidable opponents. 

2016 saw foreign countries occupy parts of Syria, too. In March, American and other allied forces captured and held Al-Tanf on the Iraqi border, holding that and some of the surrounding area while helping the Syrian rebels (more specifically, the New Syrian Army). Then, in March, Turkish forces crossed the border and took much of what ISIS had on that border, which was understandable, but the Turks later attacked the SDF too. Then what did the war become? It was the government versus rebels versus Kurds versus ISIS versus al-Qaeda versus foreign troops.

Government forces and the SDF started making a lot of progress in the fight against ISIS in 2017 and 2018. By this point, the Americans counted SDF as an ally, to the chagrin of Turkey who considered the SDF the same as the Kurdish terrorist group PKK in Turkey (but I think the Turks are wrong). Therefore, the Turks launched another incursion into Syria in March 2018, specifically against the Kurds in Afrin, northwest Syria. Despite the distraction and defeat by Turkey, the SDF held their ground against ISIS in the east and by this point the SDF controlled most of Syria east of the Euphrates. In March 2019, the SDF dealt the final blow to ISIS, territorially speaking, in the Battle of Baghuz Fawqani.

After ISIS lost all its territory, the front lines changed only a handful of times. Turkey launched another invasion into SDF territory in October 2019 and took a strip of land along the border. After that, apart from occasional nibbles by Assad's government at rebel-held and al-Qaeda-held territory in the northwest, the situation was rather stable. Assad's government held most of the country west of the Euphrates, and the SDF east of the Euphrates, with American-backed rebels holding out around al-Tanf and a mix of other groups including al-Qaeda affiliates holding out in and around Idlib. Lots of airstrikes happened there, but few ground offensives. Meanwhile, Turkey held a few pieces of land along the northern border. Therefore, from October 2019 to November 2024, the war was almost a frozen conflict, and the rebels controlled less territory than the government or the SDF.

The Fall of the Assad Regime to Today

All of the sudden, in late November and early December 2024, both the northwestern and southeastern rebel groups joined in a lightning offensive. On December 8, the Assad regime was suddenly no more. This may have been the achievement the rebel groups of 2011 were long waiting for, but it only marked a new phase of the war. The rebel groups of 2024 were still from different ideologies, while Turkey still occupied pieces in the north part of the country, Kurds controlled northeastern Syria, and American troops still had a base at al-Tanf. Israel decided to expand the frontline at the Golan Heights from 1967 by a few miles as soon as the Assad regime was toppled, and Turkey decided to take even more land in the north from the SDF. In February last year, the Druze minority in southern Syria rebelled against the new government and now has a piece of Syria to themselves for now.

There are some new developments which might indicate that peace is finally near. Negotiations between the SDF and the new government (which happened from a union of the al-Qaeda affiliate Tahrir al-Sham and American-backed rebels, a strange fact) have been happening since late 2024. In March last year, the SDF agreed to integrate into the new Syrian government, but still held that large area of northeastern Syria. The new Syrian Army, it seems, decided to hasten that integration by force, making another lightning offensive directed at the SDF rather than Assad's regime. The SDF still has parts of northeastern Syria now after that offensive a month ago, but not much of the Euphrates valley anymore. The SDF also renewed its promise to integrate into the new government when the ceasefire from a month ago was announced. Last month, the Turks also agreed to give their occupied territories to the new Syrian government. Finally, something happened recently which made me write this post. Over a week ago, American troops withdrew from al-Tanf, giving that part of Syria to the new government as well.

There are now two or three factions for the new Syrian government to deal with, violently or peacefully. As I mentioned, the SDF has agreed to integrate into the new Syrian government, and we'll see how long that takes. The two factions that still have parts of Syria and have no intention of withdrawal are the Supreme Legal Committee in Suwayda (i.e. the local Druze government in southern Syria) and the Israeli occupation of part of southwestern Syria. Israel has been an ally of the Druze since they rebelled last July, and given that the new president of Syria is the former leader of an al-Qaeda affiliated group (very much opposed to Israel) we will see if that aspect of the conflict flares up again, or if it just becomes a frozen conflict and the occupation by Israel becomes a permanent one added to the Golan Heights.