When was Jesus born?

[ozso]

Would it be accurate to say we don't know for sure b/c the Jews didn't really celebrate birthdays?

What about Bar Mitzvah?

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

What about Bar Mitzvah?

Bar Mitzvahs as we know them didn't exist until the Middle Ages. The earliest mention is in the 1400s in the Talmud.

 

[Jonaitis]

I don't follow. They went to Bethlehem, and from the accounts were staying at a house there when the Wise Men appeared. We can speculate how long they lived in Bethlehem from the ages in Herod the Great's order. They went from Bethlehem to Egypt, where there was a Jewish community, beyond the reach of Herod the Great. After Herod the Great died, they returned, but when they heard who ruled in Herod the Great's place, they went to Nazareth, which was then beyond his reach. Others should correct me on this point: I think that was during the Herodian Tetrarchy. That was established after the death of Herod the Great, and Nazareth was then in the hands of another ruler.

Why would they flee to Nazareth for refuge in Matthew if they were originally from Nazareth in Luke?

If they were living in Bethlehem for some time, where? They had no place to stay according to Luke...

 

[Tuur]

Just tossing in the following: Josephus records the moon "turned to blood" the night Herod the Great executed Matthias, and "soon after" he died. Of course, "turned to blood" means a total lunar eclipse, and that lends itself to some dates. Candidates for that lunar eclipse have to have been visible in Jerusalem and been total eclipses.

That brings us to this Lunar Eclipse page from NASA: Catalog of Lunar Eclipses: -0099 to 0000 . There's a strong candidate for October 6, 2 BC. There was a penumbral eclipse on February 19, 4 BC, but the shadow didn't cover the disc of the moon, and others visible from Jerusalem that year covered the moon less, and might not have been noticed at all. Even the February 19th eclipse might not have been noticed. The next best candidate might be January 29, 6 BC.

I'm not arguing for any particular date, here, only providing the link to the NASA page for discussion. The date of the lunar eclipse noted by Josephus only establishes the date of the execution of Matthias. Still up in the air is the year of Herod the Great's death. I will ask this: If Matthias was executed on January 28, 6 BC, isn't 4 BC a little distant to be consider happening close to Herod's death?

Important correction: I read the table wrong. I looked at -99 and interpreted it backwards, thinking it was 1 BC. No. That is 0 at the other end of the table. A total eclipse shows up on March 23, -4 in the table, which would be 5 BC (since there was no year zero). The moon would have been at totality at moonrise. There's another on September 15, 5 BC that was visible in Jerusalem, and another on January 10, 1 BC. Before that, it looks like November 28, 9 BC was the next possible candidate.

This had me going back to Josephus, then something sort of leaped out from the text: the high priest Matthias, not the one executed, was in office and removed by Herod the Great. This had me looking to see if the high priests were recorded, and one for Matthias that fits the time of the 5 BC lunar eclipse. But how accurate is the list, and is it based on the March 23, 5 BC lunar eclipse? That would make it a sort of circular reference.

Not making any arguments here, just tossing something in for discussion.

 

[Tuur]

Why would they flee to Nazareth for refuge in Matthew if they were originally from Nazareth in Luke?

If they were living in Bethlehem for some time, where? They had no place to stay according to Luke...

I still don't see the difficulty. Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem for legal requirements. They live there for a few years, until an angel warns Joseph in a dream. Joseph takes his family to Egypt while Herod the Great is still alive. After Herod the Great dies, he decides to go back, likely to Bethlehem where they had lived prior to going to Egypt. When Joseph learns that Archelaus rules the area, he heads to Nazareth, which was under the control of Antipas.

It's sort of like how I was originally from one place, and some still consider me as being from that place, but I've lived at another place for decades now, and others consider me as being from there.

 

[Jonaitis]

I still don't see the difficulty. Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem for legal requirements. They live there for a few years, until an angel warns Joseph in a dream. Joseph takes his family to Egypt while Herod the Great is still alive. After Herod the Great dies, he decides to go back, likely to Bethlehem where they had lived prior to going to Egypt. When Joseph learns that Archelaus rules the area, he heads to Nazareth, which was under the control of Antipas.

It's sort of like how I was originally from one place, and some still consider me as being from that place, but I've lived at another place for decades now, and others consider me as being from there.

The text doesn't really say that. It says in Luke 2:4 that Joseph and Mary left Galilee to register for the census in Judea, and in Luke 2:39 that they returned to Galilee after performing the requirements of the Law. It says in Matthew 2:13-15 that, being warned by an angel in a dream, Joseph took Mary from Judea and entered the land of Egypt, and in Matthew 2:22-23 it says that being afraid to return to Judea, they decided to live in Nazareth. There are several problems in this. There would be no reason to flee to Egypt if Herod's jurisdiction did not reach Galilee. Matthew assumes that Joseph never lived in Nazareth, but so decided to after his return from Egypt. However, in Luke, they happily return to Nazareth after doing everything necessary according to the Law immediately after Jesus was born. So there is also no room for Egypt in Luke. After the purification at the temple, Luke says they returned to Nazareth. It is quite tight in its narrative.

There are many historical problems other than the ones I pointed to. For example, there are no records of a "worldwide census" either during Herod's time or Quirinius'. The only census ever recorded under Quirinius was specifically for the Judean province once it was annexed to Syria in 6 CE. This conflicts with Herod's reign and jurisdiction, if it were during his reign. One would have to assume, without evidence, that Herod gave leeway for the Syrian legate to issue a census for a province that was no longer under Herod's authority. So Matthew dates Christ' birth before Archelaus reigned, but Luke dates it after, because Quirinius replaced Archelaus in 6 CE.

Edit: There is far more conflict than the ones I shown. I actually made a thread about it years ago...

 

[AFrazier]

From Wikipedia: "Thus, according to Suetonius, these ceremonies and the declaration of his "co-Princeps" took place in the year 12 AD, after Tiberius' return from Germania." Tiberius - Wikipedia

Since Tiberius' co-reign began in 12 AD, his 15th year would accordingly be 26 AD.

It is consensus among historians that Herod died 4 BC. Only a few disagree. Moreover, most scholars also agree that Jesus was crucified in 30 AD. These are scholars who know history better than we do.

From Wikipedia: "Rainer Riesner stating that "the fourteenth of Nisan (7 April) of the year A.D. 30 is, apparently in the opinion of the majority of contemporary scholars as well, far and away the most likely date of the crucifixion of Jesus." Crucifixion of Jesus - Wikipedia

By the way, I appreciate you sharing the Wikipedia link. It looks like I’ll need to go edit that article. The author is mistaken on a few points. If you reread the section you linked to, it is specific in stating that Tiberius received the authority the Senate granted him following the lustrum ceremonies. The lustrum is the census, and that occurred in 14 CE. Tiberius, as the article states, had to rush back in the midst of his duties when Augustus fell ill.

 

[Tuur]

The text doesn't really say that. It says in Luke 2:4 that Joseph and Mary left Galilee to register for the census in Judea, and in Luke 2:39 that they returned to Galilee after performing the requirements of the Law. It says in Matthew 2:13-15 that, being warned by an angel in a dream, Joseph took Mary from Judea and entered the land of Egypt, and in Matthew 2:22-23 it says that being afraid to return to Judea, they decided to live in Nazareth. There are several problems in this. There would be no reason to flee to Egypt if Herod's jurisdiction did not reach Galilee. Matthew assumes that Joseph never lived in Nazareth, but so decided to after his return from Egypt. However, in Luke, they happily return to Nazareth after doing everything necessary according to the Law immediately after Jesus was born. So there is also no room for Egypt in Luke. After the purification at the temple, Luke says they returned to Nazareth. It is quite tight in its narrative.

There are many historical problems other than the ones I pointed to. For example, there are no records of a "worldwide census" either during Herod's time or Quirinius'. The only census ever recorded under Quirinius was specifically for the Judean province once it was annexed to Syria in 6 CE. This conflicts with Herod's reign and jurisdiction, if it were during his reign. One would have to assume, without evidence, that Herod gave leeway for the Syrian legate to issue a census for a province that was no longer under Herod's authority. So Matthew dates Christ' birth before Archelaus reigned, but Luke dates it after, because Quirinius replaced Archelaus in 6 CE.

Edit: There is far more conflict than the ones I shown. I actually made a thread about it years ago...

You seem to be trying very hard not to see what's there. Both are in agreement. If you spent time away from home without officially changing residence, you could tell someone that you spent time there before moving to where you live now, or you could gloss over that period entirely and say you came from your hometown without going into detail of your time elsewhere.

You also erroneously claim there was no taxation. Augustus had taxation that began in 23 - 22 BC or in 9 - 8 BC. Quirinius was also governor of Syria in 7 BC, so he had a longer term than thought or served twice.

 

[Jonaitis]

You also erroneously claim there was no taxation. Augustus had taxation that began in 23 - 22 BC or in 9 - 8 BC. Quirinius was also governor of Syria in 7 BC, so he had a longer term than thought or served twice.

No one denies taxation, but an "empire-wide" census for taxation issued by Quirinius never occurred during his office; the only one he issued was when Judea was being annexed to Syria; this particular one was the reason the Jews were being taxed. It makes perfect sense to place Luke's account in 6 CE by all the surrounding evidence that matches it. It would be "trying too hard" to prove otherwise.

And this brings up another problem: when did Rome ever care about a person's ancestral place of origin simply for taxation? There are no records of any census that called for such an expensive and unnecessary requirement.

Luke was inspired, no doubt, but that doesn't mean his historical account has to be accurate. It paints us an illustration of the Savior's arrival: he came from a humble beginning.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

No one denies taxation, but an "empire-wide" census for taxation issued by Quirinius never occurred during his office; the only one he issued was when Judea was being annexed to Syria; this particular one was the reason the Jews were being taxed. It makes perfect sense to place Luke's account in 6 CE by all the surrounding evidence that matches it. It would be "trying too hard" to prove otherwise.

And this brings up another problem: when did Rome ever care about a person's ancestral place of origin simply for taxation? There are no records of any census that called for such an expensive and unnecessary requirement.

I'm wondering if this was more of a Jewish tribal thing. Perhaps Jewish authorities suggested it as a way to collect their own census information on where the tribes had migrated to over the years.

 

[Jonaitis]

I'm wondering if this was more of a Jewish tribal thing. Perhaps Jewish authorities suggested it as a way to collect their own census information on where the tribes had migrated to over the years.

Possibly. Josephus records that Judas of Galilee, with his band, rose up during the census, and turned many from participating by threatening to destroyed the property of any Jew who registered. This is briefly mentioned in passing by Gamaliel in Acts 5:37:

"After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered."

It makes you wonder, then, about the narrative of Luke that suggest that there were so many people that Mary and Joseph had no place to stay, because the inns were filled.

 

[AFrazier]

The text doesn't really say that. It says in Luke 2:4 that Joseph and Mary left Galilee to register for the census in Judea, and in Luke 2:39 that they returned to Galilee after performing the requirements of the Law. It says in Matthew 2:13-15 that, being warned by an angel in a dream, Joseph took Mary from Judea and entered the land of Egypt, and in Matthew 2:22-23 it says that being afraid to return to Judea, they decided to live in Nazareth. There are several problems in this. There would be no reason to flee to Egypt if Herod's jurisdiction did not reach Galilee. Matthew assumes that Joseph never lived in Nazareth, but so decided to after his return from Egypt. However, in Luke, they happily return to Nazareth after doing everything necessary according to the Law immediately after Jesus was born. So there is also no room for Egypt in Luke. After the purification at the temple, Luke says they returned to Nazareth. It is quite tight in its narrative.

There are many historical problems other than the ones I pointed to. For example, there are no records of a "worldwide census" either during Herod's time or Quirinius'. The only census ever recorded under Quirinius was specifically for the Judean province once it was annexed to Syria in 6 CE. This conflicts with Herod's reign and jurisdiction, if it were during his reign. One would have to assume, without evidence, that Herod gave leeway for the Syrian legate to issue a census for a province that was no longer under Herod's authority. So Matthew dates Christ' birth before Archelaus reigned, but Luke dates it after, because Quirinius replaced Archelaus in 6 CE.

Edit: There is far more conflict than the ones I shown. I actually made a thread about it years ago...

I’m going to take a look at the Matthew/Luke correlation, but concerning the census, I suspect that Quirinius’ census being the one mentioned, the information is likely an interpolated scholia. We do have a situation in which a census could be inferred, but it occurred during the governorship of Quintilius Varus. Herod requested his aid in assessing his personal affairs. For a king to take stock of his incomes and revenues, a census is required. It is, in fact, the primary purpose of a census; to assess potential and expected tax revenue. But this didn’t happen during Quirinius’ governorship, but Varus’. However, the census of Quirinius being as famous as it was, it wouldn’t be a far stretch to speculate that a later copyist put a footnote in the margin to identify the census, which was, in turn, later interpolated. We have plenty of examples of this sort of thing happening.

 

[GodLovesCats]

We will never know, not even based on the biblical data.

Matthew says that He was born during Herod's administration, and Luke says it was during Quirinius' administration when Judea became an annexed province of Syria.

King Herod's order was to kill every boy under the age of 2 years. Why would he say that instead of every "baby boy" if Jesus was born the same year Herod died? I assume that is why many Bible scholars think Jesus was born in 5 or 6 B.C.

Unless Jesus actually was born in early winter (which I have no Biblical reason to believe anymore), 5 B.C. would make the most sense based on when King Herod died.

 

[timothyu]

He was born at the turn of the millennium. We know this as all the rooms were booked up ahead of time.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Jesus was born December 25th in the year 0000 AD.

Hippolytus seems to have said Dec 25th in his commentary on Daniel.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It's actually pretty easy to figure it out.

And what is the problem?

It's not actually. And there's no problem. It's just that even trying to pin-point the year is nearly impossible, because correlating the two things mentioned by Matthew and Luke with the historical record gives us a margin from between 6 BC to 6 AD. Herod the Great died in 4 BC, and according to the historical records Quirinius' census took place in 6 AD. Matthew's account states our Lord was born while Herod the Great was still alive, and Herod ordered the death of infants aged 2 and under. Since Herod died in 4 BC that means the earliest date for Jesus' birth would be 6 BC.

Using only hard data (what the Bible says and the historical records) there's no way to perfectly reconcile all the data into a cohesive and consistent whole. Which is why when trying to reconcile the data many frequently rely on conjecture--such as that there must have been an earlier census. We can't corroborate that conjecture with the data, so it remains conjecture.

So Jesus was born sometime between 6 BC and 6 AD. That is the best we can say going purely by the hard facts and available data.

I'm comfortable saying that Jesus was born between 6 BC and 4 BC, relying entirely on Mathew; but that leaves open questions about the information in Luke's account concerning the census of Quirinius that is left unaccounted for.

As far as figuring out His birth-day, that becomes nearly impossible. Though I have argued, even just recently in another thread, that a winter birth in keeping with the ancient traditions of the Church are entirely plausible. But plausible doesn't mean anything more than that.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[timothyu]

Nor is any of it all that important other than a Saviour is born.

And Christmas as we've come to know it now would barely notice if Jesus never was.