Menu

Devotional and Bible

Index for Series: When Was Jesus Born?

1

Thanks for joining me over the past few weeks as I explored the question – When was Jesus born?. I hope it’s been a help to you!

When was Jesus born?If you’d like to read all the posts from beginning to end, here’s the list, with a summary of each:

You can certainly do your own study on the topic. Of course, I would encourage you to start with the Bible.

A lot of information online is copied misinformation written as fact. However, if you do a little hard work to find original sources, you can dig up some interesting facts.

Sources I’ve used include The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict, Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian, The Chronology of the Old Testament, The Deeds of the Divine Augustus, The Mishnah, and the works of various Early Church Fathers.

Online articles that may be useful include Unbelievable? Is Luke’s Description of Quirinius Historically Inaccurate?, Popular Conservative Journalist Attacks Genesis and the Birth of Christ, Once More: Quirinius’s Census, Is Luke Wrong About the Time of Jesus’ Birth?

Who cares when Jesus was born? (Series: When Was Jesus Born?)

0

Over the past few weeks I’ve been writing about the date of Jesus’ birth. And so someone might ask – who cares? What difference does it make? Is all this really important?

There are actually a number of reasons why I think it’s worth our time to stop and think about the issue.

Christmas clockFirst, knowing some of the facts helps us to answer those who doubt the story altogether. Did the authors of the Gospels simply string together sort-of historical information to invent a story? Are there obvious contradictions that completely disprove the story?

We haven’t discussed all the common questions about the “Christmas stories” of the Bible, but we have seen that they seem to be grounded in history. Though we may not yet have all the pieces of the puzzle, there is nothing in the Gospel accounts that has no possible resolution. In the case of Quirinius, there are actually some good reasons to think that Luke was being very careful with his history.

Second, I hope that this study has shown us that it’s certainly not proven – and I would argue, unlikely – that Christmas is simply a copy of a pagan holiday. There is evidence that December 25th and especially January 5th/6th were dates related to the birth of Christ very early on – maybe even from the first days of the Church. The fact that they may not have been “celebrated” in the earliest days adds even more credence to the belief that Christians were not attempting to copy a pagan holiday.

It’s very easy to imagine similarities between celebrations and assume that there is an organic connection. There was a pagan holiday where people gave gifts – *gasp* – that’s what we do at Christmas! Do we really think that pagans have a monopoly on gift giving? God was the first gift giver. Pagans used to eat vegetables too, and sing their children to sleep. Should we now avoid leafy greens and lullabies?

Pagans sometimes decorated trees – *gasp* – so do we! Never mind that the tradition of the Christmas tree is strongly related to the early days of the Reformation. Never mind that most Christians see it as a symbol of life and light in Jesus Christ.

As far as the date of Christmas goes, in spite of the popular articles and TV shows you’ll see, the early connection between Christmas and pagan holidays is highly suspect, and at most completely unproven.

Do I want you to celebrate pagan gods in your house this winter? No, please don’t. Do I have a problem if you celebrate the true Christmas story that Matthew and Luke celebrate in their Gospels? Go for it. It will give you another excuse to nail the wonderful story and theology of the Incarnation to the lights and colours that we see and the rich food that we smell and taste and the music that we hear this time of year – and you can be reminded of the wonderful Gift that God gave us.

And just maybe if someone tells you, “Well, we know for sure that Jesus wasn’t really born on December 25th…” you can smile and say, “Are you sure about that?”

Finally, I think it’s worth it to think through the date of Jesus’ birth because it reminds us that this was a real event in history. Jesus came at the time of certain rulers, certain kingdoms, and certain customs. An angel appeared to a priest at the temple at a certain time. Joseph’s family fled from a certain king. Wise men from the East came at a certain time.

All this happened at the perfect time. It happened when God planned it to happen. And it could not have been otherwise. God told the prophets when it was going to happen. And it happened.

It’s one week until the 24th. I don’t care when you remember, but you should remember that one day – whenever that day was – Jesus was born, and angels and shepherds rejoiced. And if we are His, we are free.

But when the fullness of time had come,
God sent forth his Son,
born of woman,
born under the law,
to redeem those who were under the law,
so that we might receive adoption as sons.
And because you are sons,
God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,
crying, “Abba! Father!”
So you are no longer a slave, but a son,
and if a son, then an heir through God.
Galatians 4:4-7

The Day of Jesus’ Birth part 2 (Series: When Was Jesus Born?)

0

We’ve been talking about the actual day of Jesus’ birth – a very tricky question. In the last post, I pointed out that there probably were sheep and shepherds out in the fields all year round, so no specific help there. We also talked about what I think are some very serious problems with the theory that the Christians adopted a pagan holiday to use as their celebration of the Nativity.

When was Jesus born?It seems likely that Christians were interested in the date of Christ’s birth from the earliest days. And as we know today, two dates in particular gained the most popularity – the 25th of December, and the 6th of January.

But why these particular dates, both in early winter? If it’s unlikely that the Christians were trying to copy a pagan holiday (in fact,the Christians may have adopted these dates long before they thought of “celebrating” them in any major way), then why choose these dates?

Things get a little bit complicated here, because of the various systems of dating used in the early centuries of Christianity. For example, we talked about Clement of Alexandria last time, who in 200 AD reported that there was a tradition that Jesus was born around the 5th or 6th of January.

Well, you’ll sometimes see that he gave a November date. It depends on whether he was using an old Egyptian solar year or not. If he used a newer dating system, it would be November. The older system is January. His dating of the crucifixion seems to use the older system, hence the preference for the January date. (And, incidentally, he places Jesus’ birth in 2BC.)

We know that January 6th is an ancient date. Another writer, even before 200 AD, seems to give the January date (Hippolytus in his commentary on Daniel 4:23).

In the west, Tertullian also seemed to be aware of an early winter date.

In spite of other suggestions, this may actually be the earliest date (late December/early January) that the early church held to. If this date was known in the west and the east less than 100 years after the death of John, probably even earlier, there must be some reason why.

In his book Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian, Roger Beckwith points out the significance of this tradition. After questioning the connection of December 25th to a pagan festival, he points out that the problems with the 6th of January are even greater. It’s not really connected to winter solstice, or any major pagan festival. Such an early tradition pre-dates any evidence connecting the date Roman celebrations.

So again – if it’s not winter solstice or because of a pagan festival, why celebrate Christmas in early winter?

In the late fourth century, Christian preacher Chrysostom calculates a late December date using the date of Zechariah’s service in the temple. His calculations have several problems which we won’t get into here – but he does end up with a late December date for the birth of Christ.

Many early calculations have their problems. For example, the belief that Jesus was baptized when he was exactly 30 (and so His baptism was celebrated in early winter by some), in spite of the fact that Luke says He was “about 30″ (Luke 3:23). Or the belief that Jesus died the same day He was conceived – thus counting 9 months forward from a spring conception to a winter birth.

Today a lot of study has been done on the “courses of the priests” – that is, the time of year in which the priests would be in the temple, according to the group they belonged to.

We know that Zechariah belonged to the division of Abijah (Luke 1:5). So if we knew when the Abijah group was on duty, could we guess the date of John’s conception and birth, and therefore Jesus’ birth?

I’m afraid “guess” is an understatement. We get into so many variables, it’s really of no help at all.

However, is it possible some of the earliest believers had this information? Or even information passed down from Mary, and the early apostles? Would this explain why December/January was so widely followed so early?

As with the year of His birth, we simply don’t have enough information to be dogmatic. And we could go on and on with evidence and counter evidence.

But in the end, I don’t think we should be so quick to deny the December/January dates for the Nativity. After all, if the earliest believers used these dates, isn’t it possible that they knew something that we don’t?

The Day of Jesus’ Birth (Series: When Was Jesus Born?)

1

“Everybody knows” that whenever Jesus was born, it most certainly was NOT on the 25th of December. I’ve heard it again and again – but maybe we shouldn’t be quite so confident.

So what are some of the common objections to the December date?

First, because it does get quite chilly in Israel at this time of year, the shepherds and their flocks wouldn’t be out in the open fields at night, as Luke says they were when Jesus was born (Luke 2:8). Also, would a Roman census really take place when it was such a bad time for everyone to travel?

Poor cold sheep
So why celebrate on the 25th of December? One theory is that the Romans had a festival that day, celebrating sun worship – sol invictus, the unconquered sun. This was related to an older celebration known as Saturnalia. Could it be that the Christians were simply adapting the pagan festivals to their needs – giving the old rituals Christian themes?

This is a pretty common belief, but there are actually some curious problems with it.

For one thing, although we know nothing about a celebration of Christmas in the first centuries of Christianity, it does seem that the date of Jesus’ birth was discussed quite early. By 200 AD, Clement of Alexandria was already pointing out that various groups recognized a specific day for the birth of Christ. Almost 200 years later, Chrysostom said that it was still a matter of great debate.

So the date of Christ’s birth was being discussed in the second century – and if that early, it’s likely that it was a matter of discussion right from the start. After all, Luke and Matthew in particular make quite a big deal of the event in their Gospels.

So here’s the problem. The sun festival was made official by emperor Aurelian in the year 274 – long after traditions and perhaps even celebrations related to Christ’s birth were already common.

(And as a side-note, the poor emperor who gets blamed for everything, Constantine, was 2 years old in 274, and not even around in 200.)

Ok, but before that there was Saturnalia, a longer feast (mostly taking place before the 25th). But think about this. Saturnalia was a pagan feast, full of immoral behaviour. Now we’re back in the first decades of Christianity, when Christians are being killed for their beliefs. Many refuse to give up the Scriptures – refuse to sacrifice to the gods – and so they decide to adopt a pagan festival, full of immorality, and make it their own. Really? And they take on the feasting of the pagans? Wouldn’t they be more likely to call a fast?

Now this is not to in any way deny that Christian traditions were influenced by other religions over the years. But something does seem a little fishy here, that the early Christians would grab hold of a pagan festival so readily so early on.

The Christian interest in a winter date for Christ’s birth is so early that some scholars have made a startling suggestion – that the Romans chose the 25th because they were copying the Christians! Think about it – Christianity was a rapidly growing religion, about to completely eclipse the worship of the Roman gods. One way to counter the trend might be to make the 25th, a date (possibly) when Christians celebrated Jesus’ birth, an official holiday to tempt Christians to join the pagans!

Now, we have to admit that there were several dates that were vying for attention here. December the 25th was not the only one. But that brings us to another curious fact.

There was not one, but two dates that became most associated with the Nativity. One was the 25th of December, and the other was the 6th of January. Both are still celebrated today, actually. And both dates are pretty close together, wouldn’t you say? And both in the time of year when the skeptics say Jesus simply couldn’t have been born.

Did no one in the Middle East notice the whole sheep in the fields thing?

Remember Clement of Alexandria? He actually argued for a date that would correspond to what is now … drum roll please … January 5th or 6th.

Next time we’ll get into some more interesting evidence about the day of Jesus’ birth, but let’s just deal with the sheep.

Would the shepherds really keep the sheep out of the fields in December? Well, this wasn’t exactly a Winnipeg winter – the lows could get down to 6°C, but they aren’t likely to get below freezing. Cool? Sure. But not so cold that woolly sheep would perish in the extreme temperatures. As for the shepherds, some warm clothes and a nice fire and you’re good to go.

As a matter of fact, the early rains of October and November would mean that fresh grass would be in the fields – just a perfect snack for sheep.

As further confirmation, a section of the Mishnah (the first part of the Jewish Talmud) explains that certain special sheep would graze in the fields around Jerusalem (and Bethlehem) all year round. Why? Because they needed to be handy for sacrifice.

So yes, sheep reserved for sacrifice probably would have been grazing out in the fields near Bethlehem at the end of December. These were special shepherds, and special sheep.

So the sheep argument seems to be a no-go. In fact, it seems rather appropriate that the birth of the Lamb of God would be announced to shepherds who were taking care of sheep for sacrifice.

But is there other evidence that would point us to a December date – or January date – or another date altogether? We’ll take a look next time.

Jesus’ Birth Year – When Quirinius was Governor? (Series: When Was Jesus Born?)

0

In what year was Jesus actually born? Last time we didn’t come to a firm conclusion, but the suggestion was made that He could have been born as late as 1 BC. But we still have a big question to answer.

When was Jesus born?Luke is very helpful giving us specific information about what was happening around the time of Jesus’ birth in the Roman world. Here’s what he says:

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria.
Luke 2:1-2

So we get a lot of information here. First, we know that Caesar Augustus was alive and well at this point in time – no problem, since he lived from 63 BC to 14 AD. That gets us in the ballpark.

Next, there was a “registration”. The Authorized Version (KJV) says that this was for tax purposes – it depends how you understand the Greek word here, it may be a technical term for a census for tax purposes. “All the world” here refers to the Roman world – the empire.

Now, “this was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria.” This is where things get interesting.

There is some interesting discussion about what kind of a census this was and how it worked, but to my mind these pose no serious problems in the end. We do know that the Romans had regular ways to administer the empire, and also that they would sometimes adjust the details for local rulers and local customs. So we don’t need to get into the details right now of the how. The question is when.

Quirinius

Quirinius was indeed governor in Syria for several years, and he did indeed head up a census at the beginning of his time as governor. The problem is that this was in 6 AD. Even if we push Jesus’ birth forward to 1 BC, we’re still 6 years off. And there is no doubt that Herod the Great was dead by several years by 6 AD.

And so some modern scholars brush Luke off immediately – he was either mistaken, or he simply re-wrote history in order to make the story fit his theology.

But there are several problems with writing Luke’s story off so quickly.

First, look at the sources. It was Josephus who gave us the dates of the census, and many have pointed out that Josephus, although an important historian, is not without error in his dating. Luke is also an important historian – one who lived even closer to the time of Christ than Josephus. You may remember Sir William Ramsay, the archaeologist who actually came to faith after trying to disprove the accuracy of Luke’s writings.

Luke is extremely careful when he writes about places, local customs, and even titles of important people. And do you notice how, in this case, Luke just “assumes” his readers know exactly what he was talking about?

And that brings us to a couple of interesting things about this phrase. Luke says that this was the “first” registration. Assuming Josephus was right, Luke seems to have been well aware of the census in 6 AD. He doesn’t just claim that this was the census – no, he’s careful to say that this was the first.

But we’re still left with the problem that, from all the evidence we have, Quirinius simply was not the governor at the time of Jesus’ birth!

Here is one solution that has been offered. There is a possibility that the Greek could be translated “This [census] was before the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria”. If that’s the case, this could have been some kind of census that took place before Quirinius was governor. In which case Luke just uses this as a general placeholder.

Although some scholars go this way, it seems to be pushing things a little too far – and maybe unnecessarily, as we shall see.

There is another word we need to look at – “governor”. The governor in the Roman Empire was the legate – except, that’s not the term Luke uses. Remember – Luke is very careful using terms for political leaders. But here he uses a more general term. Why?

Our story almost has to stop there. It seems entirely possible – even likely – that Quirinius was in charge of the registration, but was not technically governor (legate) at this time. As far as Quirinius is concerned, that opens us up to the last BC decade, in which he certainly was an important official. There are some good reasons to think he may have been chosen to oversee this census instead of the actual governor of the time.

In fact, in that case the word Luke uses would make perfect sense. Quirinius wasn’t legate during both censuses. His position changed, even though in both cases he had a position of authority. Rather than give a big explanation, Luke just uses the general term which would fit both – thus being perfectly accurate in fewer words.

But – was there even a census at this time? We know that there were various censuses in the empire, so it’s possible, but we don’t have detailed information about every census and its year.

However, some interesting facts:

  • Caesar Augustus mentions three registrations that he ordered – one around 8 BC, which could have taken several years, (easily bringing us to the commonly suggested date of 6 BC for the birth of Christ).
  • He also seems to refer to another kind of registration that took place in 2 BC (which easily could fit a birth of Christ in 2 or even 1 BC). This one could have been an empire-wide affair.
  • Early church fathers always took this census to have been a historical event. In fact, the claim was even made that the record of Mary and Joseph still existed in the Roman archives. As people familiar with the empire and its administration, they had no problem with this account.

Conclusion

There are actually several possibilities that explain what Luke wrote, that would put the birth of Christ somewhere in the last decade BCE. But there are some interesting clues in the words that Luke uses that lead me to believe that Quirinius actually was in charge of a census – even though he wasn’t legate at the time – right around this time. There is some interesting evidence that may point to the time between 8 and 6 BC or even a little later, but there is the possibility that the census Luke refers to actually took place closer to 2 or even 1 BC in this area.

So without going into a lot more detail, we’re not going to settle the year any closer. For now it seems likely, from all the evidence, that Jesus was born between 6 and 1 BC. Like many others, I still find 2-1 BC pretty compelling.

I wonder if there’s any evidence that could give us a clue to the actual day of His birth? You guessed it, there are some interesting debates about that too – and we’ll talk about that next time.

If you want to dig deeper into the evidence I mention above, here are some places to start:

Jesus’ Birth Year – Herod and the Wise Men (Series: When Was Jesus Born?)

0

Let’s make sure one thing is clear right away. Jesus was not born in year 0. We can say this with confidence, because there was no “year 0”. Between the 25th of December 1BC and the 25th of December 1AD there is only one year, not two. So just forget the whole 0 thing.

Of course, in those days no one used any of these years – there were various systems for numbering years, but this one was invented by Dionysius Exiguus several hundred years after Christ. So he gets the “blame” for miscalculating, as we shall see.

So when was Jesus born? 1 BC? 1 AD? Well, a quick search online will tell you the common answer – between 4 and 6 BC. How in the world did we get there?

It’s fairly simple (even if it may be wrong, but more on that later).

We know that Jesus was born in the days of King Herod (Matthew 2:1). Based on evidence from the Jewish historian Josephus, modern historians tend to date Herod’s death at 4 BC.

Now remember, when the magi came to find Jesus, King Herod got a little jealous and decided to kill all the baby boys in the area –

Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men.
Matthew 2:16

See that? “According to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men.” So – Jesus was born 2 years earlier, right? And so if Jesus was born 2 years before Herod died, that brings us to 6 BC. Done deal.

Wise Men - StarExcept – not quite. There are some problems with this theory, and some counter-evidence, which leads some scholars today to believe that Herod actually died in 1 BC – and that Jesus Himself was born in 1 BC.

Let’s look at one example. Josephus tells us that there was a lunar eclipse, Herod died, and then there was the Passover. Yes, there was a lunar eclipse in 4 BC – but only a partial one. Plus, it was only 29 days before Passover – and Josephus seems to suggest quite a list of things that Herod did in that time – apparently too many to fit in such a short period.

Any other eclipses? Yes, there are – most notably in – you guessed it – in 1 BC. But this one was earlier – with more time before the Passover – and it was a full eclipse, easily visible from Jerusalem.

The arguments and counter-arguments go on and on – trust me. But without going into too many, one question you might ask is – what about the wise men? Didn’t they arrive 2 years after Jesus was born? If so, even if Herod died in 1 BC, we still have to go back to 3 BC, don’t we?

All this is based on the words “according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men”. What does that mean, exactly?

First, if Herod was so furious, and he knew that the baby had been born about 2 years earlier, why risk an error by only killing babies up to two years of age? What if Jesus was actually 2 years and a week old?

Ok, maybe Jesus was a year and a half old. And doesn’t the Bible indicate that Jesus was now a “child” living in a “house” (Matthew 2:11)?

First of all, I doubt that Mary and Joseph would have spent a second night in the same place, among the animals. This could have been as early as the next day, as far as the house is concerned. (Actually, the Bible doesn’t say that Jesus was born in a stable or a cave – it’s entirely possible that they were already in a “house”, in an area reserved for animals – not unusual, even today, in some parts of the world).

What about the fact that Jesus was a “child” and not a “baby”? Actually, child is just a general term – it can refer to an older child, or a baby. The same word is used in Luke 1:59 of John when he was 8 days old!

The wise men could easily have arrived a month or two after Jesus was born, leaving time for travel. A furious and jealous Herod could easily have killed every baby 2 years old and younger just to be thorough – just in case the wise men hadn’t noticed the star right away, or had been delayed in understanding its meaning. We just don’t have enough information to assume a two year gap.

In fact, does it make sense that the remarkable story of the shepherds, and the testimonies in the temple, had not reached Herod within two years? Or even his religious advisors? And why would Joseph and Mary remain in Bethlehem as visitors for months and months?

It seems very possible that the wise men immediately responded to the miraculous star, and that they hurried to Jerusalem within a few weeks of Jesus’ birth. During this time, Jesus’ family went to the temple and back (not a long distance). Shortly after returning, they met the wise men, and because of the angel’s warning Jesus’ family then fled to Egypt, but didn’t need to stay long, because Herod died shortly afterwards. With no reason to return to Bethlehem, the family returned home to Nazareth.

We’ll talk a little more about the year of Jesus’ birth in the next post in this series. In reality, we could take a year of blog posts just on this to investigate all of the various aspects. The point of this post is just to introduce the issue – and point out that it’s entirely possible that Dionysius Exiguus wasn’t as far off as some people think.

«‹ 25 26 27 28›»
Back To Top
All content at CottrillCompass.com is © J. Cottrill 2002-2024. If you quote any material, please be courteous and provide a link.