Why don't the Four Gospels record the exact date of Jesus' birth?

[DrBubbaLove]

What source did you give? I must have missed it because it looks like just copy and paste and no source. Basically anything that sheds negative light on the RCC is "biased" or not true right..

I forgot about the saturnanlia connection too..

Was Jesus born on December 25? Is December 25 Jesus' birthday?

The date eventually became the officially recognized date for Christmas in part because it coincided with the pagan festivals celebrating Saturnalia and the winter solstice. The church thereby offered people a Christian alternative to the pagan festivities and eventually reinterpreted many of their symbols and actions in ways acceptable to Christian faith and practice.

December 25 has become more and more acceptable as the birth date of Jesus. However, some argue that the birth occurred in some other season, such as in the fall. Followers of this theory claim that the Judean winters were too cold for shepherds to be watching their flocks by night. History proves otherwise, however, and we have historical evidence that unblemished lambs for the Temple sacrifice were in fact kept in the fields near Bethlehem during the winter months. With that said, it is impossible to prove whether or not Jesus was born on December 25. And, ultimately, it does not matter.

I made comments which questioned your sources.
I did not give a "source" for my reference. I gave a Pope's name and a time period as one origin(source as in tradition) for the very early establishment of that date for His birth. Even wiki references that info, you can find it there and other places if you google. Wiki mentions not every historian agrees, but since when do all historians agree on anything. Which goes to my prior point that you will find no historians prior to the Protestant reformation making such accusations about Christmas (similar to Easter objections). And you should wonder why that is so. I don't.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

I made comments which questioned your sources.
I did not give a "source" for my reference. I gave a Pope's name and a time period as one origin(source as in tradition) for the very early establishment of that date for His birth. Even wiki references that info, you can find it there and other places if you google. Wiki mentions not every historian agrees, but since when do all historians agree on anything. Which goes to my prior point that you will find no historians prior to the Protestant reformation making such accusations about Christmas (similar to Easter objections). And you should wonder why that is so. I don't.

Naming people is not providing sources. So you are saying all the Catholic church historians all agreed, until the reformation.....go figure.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Naming people is not providing sources. So you are saying all the Catholic church historians all agreed, until the reformation.....go figure.

No believe I said more than that and will repeat it.
You find no one arguing about the origins of the Christmas celebration until after the Protestant reformation and you find no alternative dates suggested by anyone before then either. Thats roughly a millennium and a half with no one objecting. So it is also no surprise that all your "sources" will either be Protestant or atheist.

And btw during that same period the Church held to the 25 December it also preserved records for all of us - including those of people disagreeing with its teachings - it is how we know about the various heresies for instance.

Noticed too that there was no rebuttal on the fatal clause in the whole premise - that the alleged pagan birthday supposedly being promoted/adopted by the Church was centered on an astrological event that occurs prior to 25 December. Not that good anti-Catholic story needs to worry about facts - whats a few days off matter.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

No believe I said more than that and will repeat it.
You find no one arguing about the origins of the Christmas celebration until after the Protestant reformation and you find no alternative dates suggested by anyone before then either. Thats roughly a millennium and a half with no one objecting. So it is also no surprise that all your "sources" will either be Protestant or atheist.

And btw during that same period the Church held to the 25 December it also preserved records for all of us - including those of people disagreeing with its teachings - it is how we know about the various heresies for instance.

Noticed too that there was no rebuttal on the fatal clause in the whole premise - that the alleged pagan birthday supposedly being promoted/adopted by the Church was centered on an astrological event that occurs prior to 25 December. Not that good anti-Catholic story needs to worry about facts - whats a few days off matter.

I already provided actual sources (including specific dates) that shows that the original date of Jesus birth was widely disputed in the early church...maybe you did not read what I wrote.

So when people say anything that does not line up with the RCC they are labeled "anti-Catholic". I wonder if you knew that Tammuz is actually mentioned in the bible?

 

[com7fy8]

2. He was not born in winter because the shepherds were taking care of their sheep on the plain outdoors.

One woman in New England said Jesus could not have been born during the winter, because it would have been too cold. But possibly she was not aware of how places in Israel can be warmer in winter, than how things are here in the United States, in New England.

And I think Chesterton gives us something helpful >

But sheep are famous for their thick wool coats. I checked with the weather site, and it says the average December temperature in Bethlehem is 44 F, about the same as Lake City, Florida.

And possibly the snow weather, where these sheep are, is not as cold as what ones might get during their winters elsewhere. So, we can't interpret what has to be true in Israel, based on what is true elsewhere, I would say, in any case.

Also, even if it was cold, there, if the shepherds were poor or socially unaccepted, possibly they would not be received in facilities for sheltering sheep. It was during the time of the registration, when people from outside Bethlehem were apparently crowding the hotels; so may be it was too crowded for sheep and shepherds who may have come with their sheep in order to register in Bethlehem. A poor shepherd might have needed to bring his sheep with him from another area, if he was born in Bethlehem.

What do you mean "actual year"? Are you asking if the writers used the modern year count BC-AD? Surely not. I'm not understanding what you're asking.

Possibly their way of measuring time was not in years, most of all, but in terms of who lived on the earth at a certain time. It was a more personal way of keeping time . . . when a certain person was on earth . . . a member of the family, or a ruler. And they kept those genealogies, so order of time was in relation to which person in the genealogy was alive at a certain time.

But a sun worshiping culture might measure by the position of the sun, which we now use for measuring days and years. The Jews were not oriented, maybe, so much to the sun's activity, as to when members of families were alive . . . possibly.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I already provided actual sources (including specific dates) that shows that the original date of Jesus birth was widely disputed in the early church...maybe you did not read what I wrote.

So when people say anything that does not line up with the RCC they are labeled "anti-Catholic". I wonder if you knew that Tammuz is actually mentioned in the bible?

I see nothing of the sort. The articles are modern Protestants making claims (same as atheist's claims BTW) about what a few early Christians writers wrote or more precisely did not write (IOW certain writers did not mention Christmas therefore did not care about it->therefore did know when the Birth was) and the article writer then made assumptions about those early Christians and pagan festivals followed by an attempt at connecting it to the Church to Rome in the 4th century. They carefully avoid any valid early Christian quotes that would invalidate their claim. There are no links or quotes of a "widely disputed" dates in the early Church. We can run through mistakes listed of people made based on calendar assumptions that were/are known errors. Those errors BTW refute the argument that early Christians way before the 4th century did not care about or were ignorant of his birthday. Obviously they cared about the date and were trying even though some of them got the date wrong because of a simple calendar error. Evidence of people making error and claiming there were arguments are not the same things. We can find actual arguments for example about when they would end the Easter celebrations - which sort of trashes any notion that the Church did not preserve records of people in descent.

As to the pagan connection from Roman influence the following link has excerpt from a book which is a pretty good defense of the traditional Christian date against that pagan claim because the date is clearly established among Christians in Rome BEFORE Christianity is legalized.
http://taylormarshall.com/2012/12/yes-christ-was-really-born-on-december.html

As to anti-RCC rhetoric; how could we view this lovely remark

"Tammuz was the meshing of paganism the RCC did, fact."

be taken as pro-Catholic?

BTW I noticed that Marshall references him but avoided giving the text of the quote to Saint Telesphorus in the second century. So after looking further at what I had read to quote that Saint from I see why Marshall did not use it as I did. The translations from the quoted fragment manuscript from that Saint have the date added later in parentheses, and those parentheses were not in the article I had grabbed that quote from. My bad.
None the less Marshall refers to Telesphorus because even without the date added the unaltered quote goes to show that very, very early in the Church they were celebrating His Birth. He also uses the same quote I gave from Saint Hippolytus to show that very early in the 3rd century, long before the claim of pagan Rome influence would be possible, they were celebrating 25 December.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

I see nothing of the sort. The articles are modern Protestants making claims (same as atheist's claims BTW) about what a few early Christians writers wrote or more precisely did not write (IOW certain writers did not mention Christmas therefore did not care about it->therefore did know when the Birth was) and the article writer then made assumptions about those early Christians and pagan festivals followed by an attempt at connecting it to the Church to Rome in the 4th century. There are no links or quotes of a "widely disputed" date in the early Church. We can run through mistakes listed of people made based on calendar assumptions that were/are known errors. Those errors BTW refute the argument that early Christians way before the 4th century did not care about or were ignorant of his birthday. Obviously they cared about the date and were trying even though some of them got the date wrong because of a simple calendar error. Evidence of people making error and claiming there were arguments are not the same things. We can find actual arguments for example about when they would end the Easter celebrations - which sort of trashes any notion that the Church did not preserve records of people in descent.

As to the pagan connection from Roman influence the following link has excerpt from a book which is a pretty good defense of the traditional Christian date against that pagan claim because the date is clearly established among Christians in Rome BEFORE Christianity is legalized.
http://taylormarshall.com/2012/12/yes-christ-was-really-born-on-december.html

As to anti-RCC rhetoric; how could we view this lovely remark be taken as pro-Catholic?

BTW I noticed that Marshall references him but avoided giving the text of the quote to Saint Telesphorus in the second century. So after looking further at what I had read to quote that Saint from I see why Marshall did not use it as I did. The translations from the quoted fragment manuscript from that Saint have the date added later in parentheses, and those parentheses were not in the article I had grabbed that quote from. My bad.
None the less Marshall refers to Telesphorus because even without the date added the unaltered quote goes to show that very, very early in the Church they were celebrating His Birth. He also uses the same quote I gave from Saint Hippolytus to show that very early in the 3rd century, long before the claim of pagan Rome influence would be possible, they were celebrating 25 December.

[/QUOTE]

So you tell me that none of my sources are valid because they are protestant (or non Catholic) yet you use a Catholic resource to prove Catholic dogma.....irony

 

[DrBubbaLove]

So you tell me that none of my sources are valid because they are protestant (or non Catholic) yet you use a Catholic resource to prove Catholic dogma.....irony

No, I pointed out that the people making such claims a few Protestants and atheist and no one prior probably the 17-18th century made such claims. I pointed out that like everyone else, they reference sources the Church has preserved for us but they conveniently skip over any equally available references that do not fit their narrative. Many of the references they do use are examples of omission from which they infer something which fits their narrative - and that inference demonstrably wrong from the references they skip.

How can one honestly claim a Roman pagan influence in the 4th century to suggest that as being the basis for the Church supposedly "creating" a 25 December date without addressing why that date is mentioned by Christians much earlier?

 

[2Timothy2:15]

No, I pointed out that the people making such claims a few Protestants and atheist and no one prior probably the 17-18th century made such claims. I pointed out that like everyone else, they reference sources the Church has preserved for us but they conveniently skip over any equally available references that do not fit their narrative. Many of the references they do use are examples of omission from which they infer something which fits their narrative - and that inference demonstrably wrong from the references they skip.

How can one honestly claim a Roman pagan influence in the 4th century to suggest that as being the basis for the Church supposedly "creating" a 25 December date without addressing why that date is mentioned by Christians much earlier?

Your either being intellectually dishonest or biased yourself. You are lumping in Protestants in with Atheist conveniently. You say no source outside the RCC is valid, that is biased.

There is a ton of information to the pagan ties of the date we currently observe...just do some research and do not blindly dismiss something because it is not fed from the Vatican. Also it is well understood that the early church never agreed on the date and this goes back to Clementine which I believe the Catholic Church traces it's "apostolic succession" to.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Your either being intellectually dishonest or biased yourself. You are lumping in Protestants in with Atheist conveniently. You say no source outside the RCC is valid, that is biased.

There is a ton of information to the pagan ties of the date we currently observe...just do some research and do not blindly dismiss something because it is not fed from the Vatican. Also it is well understood that the early church never agreed on the date and this goes back to Clementine which I believe the Catholic Church traces it's "apostolic succession" to.

Simply pointing out that atheist make the same claims against Christmas is not "convenient". It is the truth. I should re-emphasize this is a very very small group of Protestants making these claims. Protestants opposed to your rhetoric have made the same rebuttal Dr Marshall does.

Within that very small group of Protestants am very certain a lot of things are "well understood" amongst themselves. That no other group of Christians, Protestant or Catholic agree is also "well understood".
Notice you have yet to address or give a source that addresses why they would skip over any reference to a record of a prominent Christians leader mentioning the date prior to the "conveniently" selected post "Christian" Rome date.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Simply pointing out that atheist make the same claims against Christmas is not "convenient". It is the truth. I should re-emphasize this is a very very small group of Protestants making these claims. Protestants opposed to your rhetoric have made the same rebuttal Dr Marshall does.

Within that very small group of Protestants am very certain a lot of things are "well understood" amongst themselves. That no other group of Christians, Protestant or Catholic agree is also "well understood".
Notice you have yet to address or give a source that addresses why they would skip over any reference to a record of a prominent Christians leader mentioning the date prior to the "conveniently" selected post "Christian" Rome date.

What are you asking for? Kind of hard to give something I never commented about...

I did give links already though.

Your argument that atheist and protestants hold the same view is ludicrous.

 

[Deborah~]

Why don't the Four Gospels record the exact date of Jesus' birth?
As we know,
1. Jesus was born in 4~6 BC, not 1st AD.
2. He was not born in winter because the shepherds were taking care of their sheep on the plain outdoors. (Luke 2: 8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.)

Did the authors know exactly Jesus' birth date?
Why not they asked his mother Mary?

The ancients tended to not use calendar dates in their histories simply because there were so many calendars in use. So they tended to speak of the 12th or 42nd year of some well-known king's reign or some other event that was common knowledge which then people would determine the date of based on their own particular calendar. This was especially true of letters or histories that were intended for audiences beyond the local people.
On your second point, there is such a vast amount of historical evidence to consider about the actual date of Jesus' birth, and many great historians have spent years studying it all, and the overwhelming consensus has been that the December 25 date, which is recorded in documents that were written within one generation of the time of Jesus, is supported by all the actual evidence. Most of the arguments against that date are based on faulty and often incomplete evidence. Such as the comment about the shepherds. It's simply not true that flocks of sheep were brought into enclosed pens at night. Most flocks of sheep were migratory, which means that because of the summer dry season when there was no rain and no water and grass available, flocks of sheep were herded into the northern regions at Passover in constant movement in search of water and grass and then in November, when the rains began and water and grass were once more available, they were driven back south again. So this idea that they remained in the same area and could be corralled every night isn't accurate. In fact, it was because of this migratory lifestyle that there was actually a Rabbinic ban on socializing with shepherds, they were considered unclean because their lifestyle required them to be on the move and they could not attend the Temple and take part in the religious life of the nation. And that in spite of hte fact that King David had once been a shepherd! Oh, the punctilious nature of the Pharisees!
But setting that aside, there is another consideration. You have to understand that the Temple cultus in Jerusalem was big business during the time of Jesus. Literally tens of thousands of animals were sacrificed annually. Josephus even records that as many as a quarter million lambs were slain on the day of Passover alone. Even if that is hyperbole, certainly the number of animals needed to satisfy the sacrificial needs was enormous. In fact, the #1 import commodity of 1st century Israel was animals for sacrifice. But there was a Rabbinic ban against keeping large flocks and herds of animals near a city or town because of the stench, and if you've ever been near a large stockyard you can appreciate the reason. In the Talmudic writings it is stated that the "Temple flock," that is not the ordinary flocks of sheep but the flock intended for sacrifice, were kept in the fields at Bethlehem, only 5 miles south of the city. Now these flocks were not ordinary flocks, and there would be some number of them in the shepherds fields at Bethlehem all the year round as there were sacrifices and offerings all the year round, and especially at festival times there would be even more animals. So all the arguments against shepherds being out in the fields keeping watch over flocks of sheep on a mild December night are simply not historically accurate, and do not take into account all the available information ... and there is lot more of it.
In Christ,
Deborah

 

[Deborah~]

A good point. I'm not sure we openly know anything concerning the timing of the birth of Jesus. Speculative conjecture isn't really knowledge.

Ooh, actually there is a wealth of evidence available to us that gives us many details about the time in which Jesus was born and helps us to date many events that are not specifically dated in Scripture.
In Christ,
Deborah

 

[Deborah~]

I think it does....
The Bible tells us the month in which John the Baptist was born. It also tells us that Jesus was born about six months later, which would have been in the fall.
Research begins with this verse....

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

Luke 1:8 And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course, ...

Luke 1:23 And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house.
Luke 1:24 And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, ...

This would have been second week in the month of Sivan.
This page gives the scriptures.
What day was Jesus born?

EDIT: Abia = Abijah on the chart.

You have two problems with this calculation. First, there are 24 courses serving in rotation. The first year that takes up 48 weeks. But the Jewish year is 50 weeks and 4 days long. Who served the extra two weeks and 4 days? And what about when an entire month was added to adjust the lunar calendar to the solar year? Who served that extra 4 weeks?
I'm afraid the priestly service simply did not work that way. It would have the first 48 weeks, but then the 1st course would have been up for rotation the 49th week, then the 2nd the 50th week, and the 3rd course would serve the last 4 days of that year and the first 3 days of the next year. Then the 4th course would actually serve the first full week of the next year. And then the whole things would change again at the end of that year.
The second problem is that even though all 24 courses were on duty during the festivals and all took part in the festival sacrifices and offerings, that did not mean the regular daily and weekly sacrifices and offerings were skipped. They were still offered up and the course whose regular weekly turn it was offered them. So the chart skips those weeks incorrectly.
Now since we don't know what year the priestly courses began serving in the Temple we can't calculate from that date. But we do know from both Talmudic writings and from Josephus that at the destruction of the Temple on the 9/10 Ab, the 1st course was on duty. If the calculations on the chart were correct, it should have been the 4th course. So that is an historical date that proves the 1st course/1st week every year was not correct, for the reasons I cited.
But, if we take that date when we do know when a particular course was serving, and we calculate backwards to the year before Jesus' birth, the course to which Zacharias belonged was on duty October 2 to October 10. Now bring forward all the calculations and the birth of Jesus would be late December.
In Christ,
Deborah

 

[John Hyperspace]

Ooh, actually there is a wealth of evidence available to us that gives us many details about the time in which Jesus was born and helps us to date many events that are not specifically dated in Scripture.
In Christ,
Deborah

I'm willing to consider the details to which you may refer; but from my past studies I recall virtually everything to be speculative conjecture which may or may not be correct. Things like the timing of John's conception aren't specifically given - it can be speculated that John was conceived immediately after the course of his father but scripture doesn't seem to verify that speculation. Verses about, shepherds being in fields doesn't tell us anything of substance. What have you got?

 

[Deborah~]

I'm willing to consider the details to which you may refer; but from my past studies I recall virtually everything to be speculative conjecture which may or may not be correct. Things like the timing of John's conception aren't specifically given - it can be speculated that John was conceived immediately after the course of his father but scripture doesn't seem to verify that speculation. Verses about, shepherds being in fields doesn't tell us anything of substance. What have you got?

I understand. But if you are expecting a document or stone dating to the time of Jesus' birth with an inscribed date of birth, I'm afraid that is probably not going to happen. Or if you are looking for some piece of information that will "prove" Jesus was born on a certain date, I'm afraid you are going to be disappointed. That's not what historical research is about. What we can do, is look at all the available data, weigh all that evidence, and from it determine, with a fair and open mind, is it possible that Jesus was born on December 25, or is it, as our critics say, impossible?
I realize that to many, there are other things that are more important than what date was Jesus born, and I respect that, we each have our own work God has called us to. But for some of us, that issue becomes critical when it is used to question our beliefs and practices.
My personal encounter with this issue began when a Jehovah's Witness, whom I had invited into my home as we studied the Bible together, told me that I (and consequently generations of my Christian family) was committing idolatry by celebrating Christmas! As a young Christian I was devastated, and that really started a struggle in me, and has led me on a very long path of study into the issue, not because I wanted to prove anything one way or the other, but because I wanted to know the truth, as much as humanly possible, so I could have confidence that I was practicing my faith according to the truth.
And so here I am. I've been studying all this for over 30 years now, and what I have learned goes so far beyond the simple question of what date Jesus was born. Through all my studies I have seen the hand of God at work in time and in history, and that has done more to build my faith than all the sermons and all the books and all the lessons in all the world.
So, all these old dusty little details of a world into which God became incarnate and lived and walked and taught and died and rose again may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it's my bread and drink.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it. lol
Blessings,
In Christ,
Deborah

 

[PanDeVida]

Why don't the Four Gospels record the exact date of Jesus' birth?
As we know,
1. Jesus was born in 4~6 BC, not 1st AD.
2. He was not born in winter because the shepherds were taking care of their sheep on the plain outdoors. (Luke 2: 8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.)

Did the authors know exactly Jesus' birth date?
Why not they asked his mother Mary?

Regarding your title: "Why don't the Four Gospels record the exact date of Jesus' birth"?

Obviously Jesus does care about birthdates, however Jesus Christ, left His Church in charge to give Him His Birthdate and that is December 25th Christmas Day.

If you think about it, Christ birthday is every day that one accepts Him into their Hearts, and everyday one keeps him in their hearts. Amen

As for shepherds, they guide, feed and water their sheep in the outdoors, wether in dead of winter or in the heat of summer. It is a hard life to be a shepherd. It was piercing cold when the Son of God was born.

 

[pshun2404]

Because Jewish people believed celebrating a person was a form of idolatry.

 

[pshun2404]

The Tabernacle was the place of "God" being "with us" and Tabernacles is the feast of God with us (God's original plan of a place where He would come and dwell). Christ, being God, the brightness of His glory (the Shekinah in the flesh), came and "dwelt" (skeenoo...ptched tent) among us, and is called the Tabernacle of God not made with hands. His transformation into His glorious form on the Mount took place during Tabernacles. There is a reason for this. He was 33 1/2 when crucified on Passover so counting forward or backward 6 months brings us to Tabernacles. In His coming Kingdom there is one feast we all will join in on...Tabernacles. Think on these things....

 

[Dave-W]

Because Jewish people believed celebrating a person was a form of idolatry.

Not really. They celebrated the anniversary of their deaths for generations. They are still marked for usually 3 generations.

Birthdays were just not culturally important.