Date of Christmas

[JRT]

When the Birth Narrative is examined objectively and in detail one is left with some real questions as to just how historically accurate it is. The earliest New Testament writer, Paul, makes scant reference to the birth of Jesus except to say that it was "according to the flesh" which I would read to mean 'perfectly natural --- nothing special'. About 15 years later the next writer, Mark, makes no mention of the birth at all and begins his narrative with the baptitsm of Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke, writing some 10 to 15 years after Mark, treat the birth in some detail but contradict each other considerably. The first suggestion of the “virgin birth” is in Matthew and that seems to be based on a misinterpretation of a passage in Isaiah. Finally John, writing about AD 95, must have been aware of the birth stories of Matthew and Luke but he, like Mark, includes no Birth Narrative.
At the moment I will focus on the question 'when did the birth of Jesus take place?' In Matt 2:1 he says "in the days of Herod the king". We know from secular sources that Herod (the Great) died in 4 BC. This would suggest that Jesus was born in the last few years of Herod's reign perhaps between 7 and 4 BC. When we turn to Luke we are immediately perplexed. In Luke 2:1-3 he says that it was during a world-wide census "when Quirinius was governor of Syria". We know that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth in Galilee. We also know that in AD 6 Galilee was attached to Syria and that Quirinius immediately called a census. Already we have a discrepancy of at least 9 years (there is no year '0').

More needs to be said about the census. There is no record of a comprehensive census of the entire (Roman) world. In those days a census was much different than those of today. In Italy periodic censuses were ordered to enroll all men of military age but this happened only in Italy. Elsewhere in the Empire a census had a quite different purpose --- it was to enroll the value of land and/or business assets for the purpose of taxation. Such a census did not require that people return to their ancient home town. Can you just imagine the massive dislocation that would entail? The Romans were a very practical people and the census was not focused on people at all. The census dealt with land and business in place for the purpose of taxation and likely involved an inspection of the property. In the colonies the Romans employed the notorious system of tax farming. This system resulted in very onerous tax burdens.

The Jews of Galilee knew this well and so when Quirinius ordered his census they rose in revolt under the leadership of Rabbi Judas of Galilee. Incidentally Judas was regarded as a messiah. His revolt met with some initial success but a Roman Army dispatched from Syria defeated them. Rabbi Judas with about 2000 of his rebels were captured and they were crucified en masse at Sephoris (just an easy walk from Nazareth). If Luke was correct in his dating then Jesus would have just been born. On the other hand if Matthew was correct Jesus would have been about ten and could possibly have witnessed some of the events surrounding the revolt.

It is hardly necessary to point out that these two Birth Narratives not only contradict each other but they also contradict the historical record.


If we are to believe the birth narrative that the shepherds were "with their flocks in the fields by night" then this enables us to place the birth within a few weeks. Shepherds corraled their sheep at night. The corrals were simply low walls of rough fieldstone. The gate was just a gap in the wall across which the shepherd would lay his bedroll. This was not done in lambing season in order to prevent newborn lambs from being trampled and injured in the crowded corral. This would put the birth in the early spring in late March or early April.

 

[tango]

I'm not sure where you're going with your first paragraph.

Luke 2:1-3 talks of when Quirinius was governing Syria but doesn't necessarily require Galilee to be a part of Syria at that point. To use a modern example we might describe events taking place in Europe towards the end of 2016 as being "shortly after Trump was elected President" but it wouldn't require Trump to have any presidential authority in Europe. Indeed Luke 2 explicitly states that the decree went out from Caesar Augustus. Noting things that were going on elsewhere may be about nothing more than describing a date in moderate detail rather than implying anything else. On that basis I think your 9-year discrepancy may not actually exist.

Your last paragraph seems to be more about the time of year than the actual year. I'm not sure how many people specifically believe that Jesus was born on the day we currently call December 25 - it seems to me more like a placeholder date, just like Queen Elizabeth II has an "official" birthday celebration that doesn't fall on the day she took her first breath.

 

[Josiah]

It is hardly necessary to point out that these two Birth Narratives not only contradict each other but they also contradict the historical record.

Nope.

If we are to believe the birth narrative that the shepherds were "with their flocks in the fields by night" then this enables us to place the birth within a few weeks. Shepherds corraled their sheep at night. The corrals were simply low walls of rough fieldstone. The gate was just a gap in the wall across which the shepherd would lay his bedroll. This was not done in lambing season ...

Correct, at least not around Jerusalem. The sheep raised there were not for wool and meat, they were highly specialized lambs raised for one purpose: The Temple and the required sacrafices there. They could not be ordinary sheep. They thus were expensive. Shepherds watched them 24/7 to protect their product from thieves. In other areas, where speciality sheep where not needed and where meat and wool was the issues, this was not so critical.... there, yup, this kind of "keeping watch" would be more necessary in the lambing season.


Besides giving us a range of perhaps 6-4 BC, there's nothing in the narratives that indicates the time or date or season of His birth. Not sure why it would matter.

But of course, the ROMANS were very, very into birthdays..... they embraced birthdays not so much to celebrate the day of one's birth but to celebrate THEM (much as in our modern western culture) so it was not always critical that the celebration be on an exact date. To honor Jesus, there would be the issue of WHEN to celebrate His birth. No one having a CLUE when the date (or season or even year) that was, arbitrary dates where chosen - these varied widely until after the official adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire when the Empire wanted a unified, consistent date. Theories abound as to why December 25 was chosen but the historical truth is, the reason was never recorded and we simply don't know. But it was. And here we are. It has ne ver been claimed this is the actual anniversary but it is the agreed upon date on which to celebrate it. Not that complicated

 

[psalms 91]

I believe He was born around the feast of Trumpets and conceived around what we call Christmas burt it doesnt matter. We honor the birth of our saviour and that is what is important

 

[tango]

We honor the birth of our saviour and that is what is important

I think this sums it up quite well. The fact that Jesus came to earth as a man is far more important than the precise date it all happened.

 

[rstrats]

psalms 91,
re: "We honor the birth of our saviour and that is what is important"

It might be interesting to note that other than the writer of Luke saying that a few sheppards dropped by at the birth of the Messiah, scripture is silent with regard to anyone else ever observing it.

 

[Lamb]

psalms 91,
re: "We honor the birth of our saviour and that is what is important"

It might be interesting to note that other than the writer of Luke saying that a few sheppards dropped by at the birth of the Messiah, scripture is silent with regard to anyone else ever observing it.

That doesn't mean that it's forbidden to celebrate the birth of our Lord.

 

[Albion]

I agree with what others have said. No one knows the actual day on which Christ was born, so any one that is chosen (December 25 included) is arbitrary. However, in the early church there was a belief that He was crucified on the anniversary of his conception, so that would recommend late December for his birth. This legend (in a religion that honors many legends) provides as good a reason for the choice the church made as any other.

 

[tango]

That doesn't mean that it's forbidden to celebrate the birth of our Lord.

Very true. It's easy (and perfectly valid) to argue that Jesus never told us to commemorate his birth. But he also never told us not to commemorate it either. If we had a clear recording of exactly what date and time it happened, all well and good. Even if we did have such a record and chose to commemorate it some other day for the sake of convenience, all well and good. But absent a commandment not to commemorate it there's no reason why we shouldn't, if we choose to do so. If people prefer not to mark it for whatever reason, that's an equally valid decision.