Do we know that date of the birth of Jesus?

[Quid est Veritas?]

There were a number of Mithraic cults. If I recall correctly the cult of Sol Invictus was popular among the Roman military and involved a "Baptism of blood".

Mithraism was not a dogmatic religion. Every Mithraeum likely had its own subtle variations, sort of like modern Hinduism.

That being said, the 'Baptism of Blood' under the slit throat of the Bull was an aspect of Mithraism, not the worship of Sol Invictus. You are again equating the two.

Mithras was a mixed chthonic and solar deity and had an element of Neoplatonism with ascent through heavenly spheres. It had some form of earth-heaven association as can be seen in Mithras born from a rock or the motif of the banquet with the Sun.
Mithraism was also a mystery religion with iniatites, very much the opposite of a public cult.

Sol Invictus was a public cult of the Empire. It was a Summus Dei or 'highest god' cult (like Jupiter Optimus Maximus) and was very much solar. It developed out of an earlier Roman cult of Sol and was brought into prominence by Aurelian.

While it is possible that concomittent adherents of both these cults linked them in their mind and also possible that the soldier-Emperor Aurelian was also a Mithras devotee (although unprovable), there is no reason nor evidence to call the cult of Sol Invictus 'Mithraic'. It was a simple development of a known Roman cult in line with the later Roman attempts to craft higher gods, like elevating Jupiter Optimus Maximus, adopting Dolichenus or Sarapis, or various Orphic or Neoplatonic or Gnostic movements popular in the Roman world.

 

[AvgJoe]

I very much doubt the truth of that claim. A Roman census, except in Italia, was not about enumerating people but about property and business assets for the purpose of taxation. There might have been a birth record kept in the Temple archives but they were destroyed in AD 70. In short, there is no documentation that December 25 was the birth date.

I found that on a website, but of course, they didn't provide any references. Also, I saw it in this article~~~> But Jesus wasn’t born Dec. 25 – was He? , where it says,

St. John Chrysostom (347-407 A.D.), whose status in eastern Orthodoxy is comparable to that of Augustine in western Roman Catholicism, argued strongly for a Dec. 25 birthdate because of the course of Zacharias’ priestly service. But he also based his conclusion on the findings of Pope Julius. Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem (348-386 A.D.) had asked Pope Julius to ascertain the date of Christ’s birth “from the census documents brought by Titus to Rome” after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Julius then determined the date of Christ’s birth to be Dec. 25.

Julius, Cyril and Chrysostom were not alone in their reliance upon the census documents. Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.), in a detailed statement of the Christian faith addressed to Emperor Marcus Aurelius, stated that Jesus was born in Bethlehem “as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing.” (Apology, I, 34). Likewise, Tertullian (160-250 A.D.) wrote of “the census of Augustus – that most faithful witness of the Lord’s nativity, kept in the archives of Rome” Contra Marcion, Book 4, 7).
​

I also found a most interesting, in-depth discussion on Jesus' birthday, here~~~> http://biblicalblueprints.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/December25JewishStyle.pdf , starting on page 22.

 

[PanDeVida]

I'm looking into the tradition of christmas and was wondering if we actually know the date of his birth and have evidence for it.

Lopez,

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 12/4/2012:
Some Church Fathers speculated that the actual birth of Christ was in the spring, possibly in March. The date of 25 December was settled upon liturgically since it is the day upon which the length of day starts to exceed the length of night. As the Gospel of Saint John describes, was the Light coming into the darkness of the world. While some pagans also celebrate this date for the same purpose, Christianity has prevailed as the principal celebration for this date, at least until modern times--sad to say--at which time the pagans seem to have made inroads in world at large.

Lopez, Pagans may celebrate Dec. 25TH upon which the length of day starts to exceed the length of night. However, it IS a GOOD and Holy thought of the Catholic Fathers to Celebrate our Lords Birth on this same exact day Dec. 25th to defeat Paganism, and in my mind Christmas has defeated paganism, because Christmas is Recognized world wide as Christ Birth. Amen

Where there is darkness celebrated, bring in the LIGHT of Christmas, to defeat the darkness/paganism. Amen

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm looking into the tradition of christmas and was wondering if we actually know the date of his birth and have evidence for it.

The short answer is we don't have a clue.

The reason why the Church celebrates His birth on December 25th goes back to the early centuries of Christianity. Early Christians were interested in trying to figure out when Christ was born, and there were several different thoughts and opinions at the time:

1. Some Christians, such as Origen of Alexandria, considered it inappropriate to celebrate Christ's birth at all, with the opinion that "only pagans celebrate birthdays".

2. Most Christians at the time were convinced that Christ had been crucified on a March 25th, and so they reasoned that a perfect person had a perfect life, and thus if He had been crucified on March 25th then He was either born or conceived on March 25th. And, so yes some Christians did celebrate His birth on March 25th, others however believed He was conceived on that date, and thus added nine months, and thus celebrated His birth on December 25th.

3. Many other Christians believed that the celebration of His birth should be part of the already existing Feast of Epiphany (also called Theophany), which is on January 6th. Even today the ancient Armenian Church continues to celebrate Christ's birth on January 6th, not December 25th.

Sometime in the 5th century the timing of Christmas was standardized, and December 25th was chosen as the official date to celebrate Christ's Nativity, it was at that time the most popular date anyway.

There is some debate as to how influential the Pagan Dies Natalis was on choosing December 25th for Christmas, because in the 3rd century, the same time as Christians were trying to figure out when Jesus was born and when to celebrate it, the Romans created a new religion dedicated to the worship of Sol Invictus (the Unconquered Sun) whose birth feast (Dies Natalis) was celebrated on December 25th, coinciding with the old winter solstice. Some have suggested Christmas is merely a rip off of the Dies Natalis, but I haven't found any reason to believe this especially since Christians were still working out when to celebrate Christmas even into the 5th century. But it is possible, that as Christianity and Paganism continued to butt heads, and as the 4th century saw the rise of Christianity as the favorable religion in the Roman Empire and Paganism lost its favor, that having the celebration of Christ's birth on December 25th made it less difficult for pagans who converted to Christianity who no longer worshiping the sun now began worshiping the Son.

The reality is that the historical record doesn't seem to be particularly clear, and there tends to be a lot of guesswork; but it is safe to say that Christmas exists as an independent Christian religious observance apart from Pagan observances, but that it's possible that the popularity of the Pagan observance helped push the Church toward a more universal acceptance of December 25th as a way to supplant and replace Pagan observances with Christian ones--but that's merely conjecture. Christmas, however, remains a thoroughly and distinctively Christian holiday and season.

And it's worth emphasizing that even if Jesus was born in the summer, or in the spring, Christmas isn't really about celebrating Jesus' "birth day", but celebrating that He was born, period.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I'm looking into the tradition of christmas and was wondering if we actually know the date of his birth and have evidence for it.

You are asking the wrong question. The right question is, do we care? Or should we?

In my opinion, other than a vague acknowledgement of his birth being somewhere between 4 BC and 0 AD, no.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I very much doubt the truth of that claim. A Roman census, except in Italia, was not about enumerating people but about property and business assets for the purpose of taxation. There might have been a birth record kept in the Temple archives but they were destroyed in AD 70. In short, there is no documentation that December 25 was the birth date.

I expect the Roman authorities would have been smart enough to confiscate the Temple archives before razing it. Rome tended to be competent in terms of record-keeping.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I expect the Roman authorities would have been smart enough to confiscate the Temple archives before razing it. Rome tended to be competent in terms of record-keeping.

I expect he is referring to the Temple in Jerusalem which was accidentally razed during the First Revolt. When Titus stormed the Antonia Fortress adjacent to the Temple during the siege of Jerusalem it accidentally burned down. The Antonia Fortress secured the high ground of Temple Mount and had to be taken to secure the rebellious city, so clearly there was no time to remove records etc. Titus had intended and tried to save the temple as the Romans had been planning to transform it into a temple of Roma to punish the Jews for the uprising.

That being said, Caesarea Maritima was the Capital of Roman Judaea, not Jerusalem. It was also Herod's primary residence, his de facto, even if not de jure, capital. It is thus far more likely that any records would have been kept there, rather than Jerusalem.

 

[Deborah~]

I'm looking into the tradition of christmas and was wondering if we actually know the date of his birth and have evidence for it.

Actually, the dating of Jesus' birth has been of keen interest to Christians from the very beginning of the church, and yes, from a purely historical/archaeological perspective the evidence, and there is a wealth of it to be considered, is overwhelmingly in support of the December 25 date.
In Christ,
Deborah

 

[JackRT]

Actually, the dating of Jesus' birth has been of keen interest to Christians from the very beginning of the church, and yes, from a purely historical/archaeological perspective the evidence, and there is a wealth of it to be considered, is overwhelmingly in support of the December 25 date.
In Christ,
Deborah

See my post in this thread --- #13

 

[Deborah~]

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 corralled 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.

There are a number of historical problems with that argument but I think the most interesting related to the shepherds is this: Rabbinic rules about Levitical purity outlawed the keeping of flocks or herds near to a city or town (Mishnah Baba K. 7.7), due to the stench which one doesn't have to imagine if you've ever been near a stockyard (likewise other trades were banned from the Holy City such as tanners and potters for the same reason). And taking into consideration that literally tens of thousands of animals were needed in Jerusalem annually to fulfill the sacrificial needs of the Temple cultus (Josephus records that as many as a quarter million lambs would be sacrificed at Passover alone) one can well imagine the large-scale operation this sacrificial system would entail. Indeed, during the 1st century, animals for sacrifice was the primary import commodity for Israel. But with the Rabbinic ban against keeping large flocks or herds near a city or town, especially near the Holy City, the place where these animals were kept to be inspected and held until they were driven up to the city for sacrifice was Bethlehem, 5 miles south of Jerusalem. These flocks were called the Temple flock, and there would be some number of them in the shepherds fields at Bethlehem year round as there were sacrifices and offerings in the Temple every day year-round, which would require shepherds to keep watch over these flocks day and night year round.
But even more interesting, Bethlehem being the birthplace of King David, a royal palace had once stood just outside the village, but by the time of Jesus it had long since fallen to ruin and the only thing that remained was a single watch tower that was being used by the shepherds to keep watch over the fields and pastures where the Temple flocks and herds were kept. Micah (4:8) had long ago prophesied that the coming of the Messianic Kingdom would be announced from this watchtower, the "watchtower of the flock," and so it was that on that long-ago December night, when the shepherds were keeping watch over the flock destined for sacrifice in Jerusalem, it was they who first announced the glad tidings, that this day in Bethlehem, the Savior was born.
There is of course a tremendous amount of other historical evidence on just this issue, not to mention all the other issues related to dating the birth of Jesus, but on the point of the shepherds who first announced Christ's birth, I think these are the most interesting.
But I would add one other fact. Shepherds led a migratory lifestyle. Flocks were driven north out of the Judean hill country at Passover for the dry season when the water holes and grasses dried up and returned again in November when the rains returned and there was once more water and pasturage (Talmud, Midbariyoth). Because of this migratory nature of their trade they were unable to attend the Temple and be a part of the religious life of the community and were therefore under the same Rabbinic ban that banned socializing and trade with other "despised trades" such as tanners, potters, and tax collectors. But we see on the night of Jesus' birth the shepherds were able to freely go about the countryside talking with everyone about the things they had witnessed. The reason is that these shepherds were not under the ban. They were in fact a part of the Temple ministry and did not lead the migratory life of regular shepherds but were stationed year round in Bethlehem and tended to sacred duties, keeping watch over lambs destined for sacrifice in Jerusalem, and to them was given the blessing of announcing the birth of The Lamb who in 33 1/2 short years would lay down his life as a sacrifice in Jerusalem.
Hope this may help to shed a little light on the night of Jesus' birth.
In Christ,
Deborah

 

[Deborah~]

I've heard that March is a better candidate as possible month of Christ's birthday. Reading the gospels, by calculating Zacharia's term in the temple as priest and also when the sheep had babies, they think that it's March. I don't know. Maybe it's all a fallacy.

In March 20-21 there is the spring equinox, the daylight becomes longer, so all those astronomically-inclined beliefs are happy with March as birthmonth of Christ also, as it goes along with their mythology and meaning. New life and all. Goddes Ishtar (Easter?) was also related to same nature rebirth stuff.

I would say it is a simple mistake. Calculating Zacharias' term in the temple is not quite as straightforward as the critics of the December dating assume. There were 24 courses serving in weekly rotation. Over the course of a year (by the Jewish calendar) all 24 courses would serve 2 weeks for a total of 48 weeks. But the Jewish year is 50 weeks and 4 days long. Who served the other 2 weeks and 4 days? Add to that the periodic intercalation to the calendar of an extra whole month. Who served that period?
So you see there is a problem if you try to calculate the service of Zacharias based on a 1st course/1st week, 2nd course/2nd week basis. That only worked the first year. But at the end of the first year the 1st course would serve the 49th week, the 2nd course would serve the 50th week, and the 3rd course would serve the 4 days of that year and the first 3 days of the new year, meaning the 4th course would then serve the first full week of the new year. And the next year it all changed again.
Now there is no historical evidence as to when the temple services began and therefore any way to calculate the service of the courses from that. However, we do have two historical records that give us a date when a particular course was on duty: Taanith, on Feasting and Fast-Days at 29a and also Josephus at Wars 6. 4, 1, 5 which both state that at the time of the temple’s destruction on the 9-10th Ab, the 1st course of Jehoiarib was serving in the temple. Now if you use the commonly mistaken calculation of 1st course/1st week scenario, it should have been the 4th course on duty, but it wasn’t, which proves the 1st course/1st week calculations are wrong. Now, if you take what we know to be a fixed historical date about what course of priests served when, that the 1st course was on duty on 9-10th Ab in the year 823 A.U.C, and calculate backwards to the year 749 A.U.C. (the year before Jesus’ birth) the course of Abia would have been on duty from the 2nd to the 9th of October. Now bring forward all the calculations and you will find that it places the birth of Jesus in the end of December.
So there is much more to the issue of the service of the priestly courses than is generally taken into consideration, and the actual historical evidence, again, points to a late December date.
In Christ,
Deborah

 

[Deborah~]

As the calendar changed, that "old" Dec 25 now falls to 7 January at least in 2017

The reason some eastern churches celebrate Christmas on January 7 and the rest of the Christian world celebrates it on December 25 is that we use different calendars. Most of the churches use the Gregorian calendar while some of the eastern churches still use the old Julian calendar. On the Julian calendar, December 25 falls on January 7 on the Gregorian calendar. So all the churches celebrate the Feast of the Nativity on December 25, that date just occurs on different days depending on what calendar you use.
In Christ,
Deborah

 

[Deborah~]

I believe it was Christmas day, and I believe modern scholarship is purposely steering the church away from celebrating the birth of Christ.

(Haters gonna hate).

There are many critics outside the church and, unfortunately, many sincere but misinformed Christians within the church that are teaching things that undermine the foundation of Christian belief and practice, and it seems Christmas and Easter, the two pillars of Christian worship celebrations of the two most important events in the life and ministry of Jesus, are under especially heavy attack. But stay tuned, it's not over yet.
In Christ,
Deborah

 

[Deborah~]

Matthew says it was during Herod the Great's reign, so before 4 BC. Luke says it was during Quirinius's census so 6 AD.
The jury is still very much out on what year Jesus was born, I am afraid.

Actually, there's a bit more to it than that. Quirinius also served as military Commander-In-Chief in Syria from 12 B.C. to A.D. 16, and Luke makes a point of stating this census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was the "first" census under Quirinius, not the second one in A.D. 6. This would have been the "world-wide" census ordered by Augustus Ceasar in 8 B.C. of the whole Roman Empire but was not actually conducted in Palestine until late 5 B.C. Mosaic Law required that any census of the people had to conducted "by tribes" requiring that everyone return to their ancestral seat. This would require a total disruption of the economy and would be a financial hit for Herod so it would have been conducted at the time of year that would have the least impact on the agriculture-based economy. The first attempt was made in late 6 B.C. but, according to Josephus, there was a revolt by several thousand Pharisees who refused to take the oath to Rome that was required delaying the census even longer. It was finally conducted in early winter of 5 B.C., when there was no agricultural activity, the weather was still mild, and the heaviest winter rains had not yet begun.
In Christ,
Deborah

 

[Deborah~]

Some believe He was born on Sukkot. I am not sure, He never asked His disciples to celebrate His birth, just honor His death on Passover. Some people on the internet have some pretty good arguments if you google Yeshua was born on Sukkot you can check out some them.

The problem with Jesus having been born at the time of Tabernacles is that it was one of the 3 major festivals when all male Jews were required to appear in Jerusalem. It is implausible that a census would be held during a major pilgrimage festival. Plus, even if a census was conducted at such an inopportune time, there would have been plenty of room for Joseph and Mary to find shelter as all the men from Bethlehem would be in Jerusalem, even if Joseph were to disobey the law and come within 5 miles of Jerusalem and yet not go up to the city for the festival as the law required.
In Christ,
Deborah

 

[Deborah~]

Pagans may celebrate Dec. 25TH upon which the length of day starts to exceed the length of night. However, it IS a GOOD and Holy thought of the Catholic Fathers to Celebrate our Lords Birth on this same exact day Dec. 25th to defeat Paganism, and in my mind Christmas has defeated paganism, because Christmas is Recognized world wide as Christ Birth. Amen

Where there is darkness celebrated, bring in the LIGHT of Christmas, to defeat the darkness/paganism. Amen

But the winter solstice doesn't occur on December 25. It occurs on December 22/23. And in ancient times the winter solstice was celebrated from December 17 through December 22. If Christians were going to adopt a pagan winter solstice holiday to celebrate Jesus' birth, it wouldn't be three days after the winter solstice.
Not to mention the early references to that date as the celebration of the Feast, which I see others have already commented on.
In Christ,
Deborah

 

[Deborah~]

I expect the Roman authorities would have been smart enough to confiscate the Temple archives before razing it. Rome tended to be competent in terms of record-keeping.

Actually, the Zealots set fire to the archives and burnt the records at the outbreak of the war (Josephus, Wars, Book II:427) in order to destroy the money lenders bonds and prevent recovery of debt. After the siege of the city, the Romans also set fire to the archives and burned whatever remained (Josephus, Wars, Book VI:433).
However, the census was ordered by Augustus, not by Herod, and the records from the census would have been taken to Rome and stored with the other census data from the rest of the Roman Empire.
In Christ,
Deborah

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Actually, there's a bit more to it than that. Quirinius also served as military Commander-In-Chief in Syria from 12 B.C. to A.D. 16, and Luke makes a point of stating this census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was the "first" census under Quirinius, not the second one in A.D. 6. This would have been the "world-wide" census ordered by Augustus Ceasar in 8 B.C. of the whole Roman Empire but was not actually conducted in Palestine until late 5 B.C. Mosaic Law required that any census of the people had to conducted "by tribes" requiring that everyone return to their ancestral seat. This would require a total disruption of the economy and would be a financial hit for Herod so it would have been conducted at the time of year that would have the least impact on the agriculture-based economy. The first attempt was made in late 6 B.C. but, according to Josephus, there was a revolt by several thousand Pharisees who refused to take the oath to Rome that was required delaying the census even longer. It was finally conducted in early winter of 5 B.C., when there was no agricultural activity, the weather was still mild, and the heaviest winter rains had not yet begun.
In Christ,
Deborah

You have made a number of errors here.
Quirinius was not in command in Syria, but involved in a prolonged campaign in Galatia. Judaea fell out of his purview.
Similarly Augustus is not recorded as proclaiming a single universal census, nor would 1st century readers have understood Luke in this manner. The Lustra that Augustus did commission was of Roman Citizens, not the population in general. Likewise there is no record of an earlier census than the 6 AD one of Quirinius, which would have been seen as the important one as it started the Judaean Indiction, or Roman tax years.

I have a extensive thread on this topic if you would discuss it further:

The Census at the birth of Christ

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Actually, the Zealots set fire to the archives and burnt the records at the outbreak of the war (Josephus, Wars, Book II:427) in order to destroy the money lenders bonds and prevent recovery of debt. After the siege of the city, the Romans also set fire to the archives and burned whatever remained (Josephus, Wars, Book VI:433).
However, the census was ordered by Augustus, not by Herod, and the records from the census would have been taken to Rome and stored with the other census data from the rest of the Roman Empire.
In Christ,
Deborah

This is your first reference from Josephus:

"There were also such omens observed as were understood to be forerunners of evils, by such as loved peace, but were by those that kindled the war interpreted so as to suit their own inclinations; and the very state of the city, even before the Romans came against it, was that of a place doomed to destruction. However, Ananus’s concern was this, to lay aside, for a while, the preparations for the war, and to persuade the seditious to consult their own interest, and to restrain the madness of those that had the name of zealots; but their violence was too hard for him, and what end he came to we shall relate hereafter.

2. But as for the Acrabbene toparchy, Simon, the son of Gioras got a great number of those that were fond of innovations together, and betook himself to ravage the country; nor did he only harass the rich men’s houses, but tormented their bodies, and appeared openly and beforehand to affect tyranny in his government. And when an army was sent against him by Ananus, and the other rulers, he and his band retired to the robbers that were at Masada, and staid there, and plundered the country of Idumea with them, till both Ananus and his other adversaries were slain, and until the rulers of that country were so afflicted with the multitude of those that were slain, and with the continual ravage of what they had, that they raised an army, and put garrisons into the villages, to secure them from those insults; and in this state were the affairs of Judea at that time."

Your second reference, in fact the whole book VI of the Jewish War, records the storming of the Temple and its accidental burning down by the Roman Legions. Titus tried to burn the main gate during the siege, but the whole building caught alight and was burnt down against his wishes. It certainly does not record any Roman burning of records after the siege.

From whence is this information derived? It is certainly not in Josephus.

 

[Deborah~]

Book II, Chapter 16, Part 7 (426-427):
(426) "The king's troops, now outmatched in numbers and courage, were forced to evacuate the Upper City. Their adversaries rushed in and set fire to the house of Ananias the High Priest and to the palaces of Agrippa and Bernice. (427) They then carried their combustibles to the public archives, eager to destroy the money-lenders' bonds so as to prevent the recovery of debts ... the keepers of the record office fled and the building was set on fire."

Book VI, Chapter 6, Part 3, (353-354):
(353) "Then [Titus] gave his men leave to burn and sack the city. (354) They did nothing that day, but on the next day they set fire to the achives, the Akra, the council chamber, and the area called Ophlas."

My apologies for only using the Greek numbering.