trebor Loc: Erie, PA

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

This is correct as far as I understand. Some say that the goal was to hijack another popular holiday of pagans, the winter solstice.

bob44044 Loc: Ohio

WHEN WAS JESUS BORN?

The Gospel of Matthew tells us that Jesus Christ was born in the final years of Herod the Great.

HERE'S WHEN HEROD THE GREAT ACTUALLY DIED . . .

For just over a hundred years, the question of when Herod the Great died has been dominated by a proposal by the German scholar Emil Schurer.

He suggested that Herod died in 4 B.C., and this view took off in scholarly circles, even though the arguments for this position are exceptionally weak.

But recently, this date has been challenged.

So when did Herod actually die? You have to piece together the clues of history.

Start with: The Length of Herod's Reign

Here is how the first-century Roman-Jewish scholar, historian, Titus Flavius Josephus, describes the timing of Herod's death:

So Herod, having survived the slaughter of his son [Antipater] five days, died, having reigned thirty-four years, since he had caused Antigonus to be slain, and obtained his kingdom; but thirty-seven years since he had been made king by the Romans [War of the Jews, 1:33:8 (665); cf. Antiquities of the Jews 17:8:1 (191)].

As you can see, Josephus dates Herod's death by three events:

1.Five days after the execution of his son Antipater.
2.Thirty-four years after he "obtained his kingdom" (i.e., conquered Jerusalem and had its Hasmonean king, Antigonus, killed).
3.Thirty-seven years after "he had been made king by the Romans."

The death of Antipater isn't a particularly helpful clue, but the two ways of reckoning the length of his reign are.

First, though, we need to answer one question . . .

HOW IS JOSEPHUS COUNTING YEARS?

Kings don't tend to come into office on New Year's Day, and so they often serve a partial year before the next calendar year begins (regardless of which calendar is used).

They also don't die on the last day of the year, typically, so they also serve a partial year at the end of their reigns.

This creates complications for historians, because ancient authors sometimes count these additional part-years (especially the one at the beginning of the reign) as a full year.

Or they ignore the calendar year and treat the time that a king came into office as a kind of birthday and reckon his reign in years from that point.

WHAT SCHEME WAS JOSEPHUS USING?

Advocates of the idea that Herod died in 4 B.C. argue that he was named king in 40 B.C. To square that with a 37-year reign ending in 4. B.C., they must count the part year at the beginning of his reign and the part year at the end of it as years. That's the only way the math will work out.

The problem is that this is not how Josephus would have reckoned the years.

Biblical chronology scholar Andrew E. Steinmann comments:

There is no evidence for this inclusive way of reckoning the partial years--and every other reign in this period, including those of the Jewish high priests, are reckoned non-inclusively by Josephus [From Abraham to Paul, 223].

In other words, Josephus does not count the partial first year when dating reigns in this period.

Knowing that, what would we make of Josephus's two ways of dating Herod's reign?

HEROD APPOINTED KING

As we saw in the previous post, Josephus gave an impossible date (one that did not exist) for Herod's appointment as king.

He said it was in the 184th Olympiad, which ended in midyear 40 B.C. and that it was in the consulship of Calvinus and Pollio, which began in late 40 and extended into 39.

Those can't both be right, but one of them could be.

WHICH?

The evidence points to 39 B.C., because we have another source on this: The Roman historians Appian and Dio Cassius.

Appian wrote a history of the Roman civil wars in which he discusses the appointment of Herod in the midst of other events.

By comparing this set of events to how they are dated in Dio Cassius's Roman History, it can be shown that the events in question--including the appointment of Herod--took place in 39 B.C.

Given how Josephus dates reigns in this period, he would not have counted Herod's partial first year in 39 B.C. but would have started his count with 38 B.C.

Count 37 years forward from that and you have 1 B.C.

HEROD CONQUERS JERUSALEM

As we saw in the previous post, Josephus gives contradictory dating information for Herod's conquest of Jerusalem.

Some of the dating information he provides points to 37 B.C. and some points to 36 B.C.

Josephus said Herod died 34 years after the event.

Bearing in mind that Josephus wasn't counting partial first years, that would put Herod's death either in 2 B.C. (if he conquered Jerusalem in 37) or in 1 B.C. (if he conquered the city in 36).

There are various ways to try to resolve which, but some are rather complex.

At least one, however, is quite straightforward . . .

HEROD"S LUNAR ECLIPSE

We saw in the previously that Josephus said Herod died between a lunar eclipse and Passover.

There was a total lunar eclipse before Passover in 1 B.C.

The lunar eclipse in 1 B.C. fits the situation Josephus describes.

Since 4 B.C. is outside the range indicated above, and since the 1 B.C. lunar eclipse fits the situation better, that leads us to 1 B.C. as the correct date.

FINAL ANSWER?

Putting together the pieces above, we have:

•Reason to think Herod died in 1 B.C. based on the amount of time he served after being appointed king by the Romans.
•Reason to think Herod died in either 2 or 1 B.C. based on the amount of time he served after conquering Jerusalem.
•Reason to think Herod died in 1 B.C. because of the lunar eclipse that occurred before Passover.

More specifically, Herod would have died between January 10, 1 B.C. (the date of the lunar eclipse) and April 11, 1 B.C. (the date of Passover).

Most likely, it was closer to the latter date, since Josephus records a bunch of things Herod did after the eclipse and before his death, some of which required significant travel time.

This is also one more reason that we should reject the death of Herod in 4 B.C. in favor of a 1 B.C. date . . .


So . . . WHAT YEAR WAS JESUS BORN?


2-3 B.C.?

This date would be indicated if we start with Herod's death in 1 B.C. and then, taking into account the factors named above, backed up only one year, suggesting 2 B.C.

Then, if we back up another year to allow for the fact Herod didn't die immediately, that would suggest 3 B.C.

So, sometime between 2-3 B.C. would be reasonable, based on what we read in Matthew.

Do we have other evidence suggesting this date?

We do.

Both inside and outside the Bible.

THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

Luke records, for example, that John the Baptist began his ministry in "the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar" (3:1).

Tiberius became emperor after Augustus died in August of A.D. 14. Roman historians, however, tended to skip part years and begin counting an emperor's reign with the first January 1 after they took office.

On that reckoning, the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar would correspond to what we call A.D. 29. (Remember, the 15th year is the time between the completion of the 14th year and the completion of the 15th year, the same way a child's first year is the time between his birth and his first birthday.)

Jesus' ministry starts somewhat after John's, but it doesn't appear to be very long. Perhaps only a few weeks or months.

If so, Jesus' ministry also likely started in A.D. 29.

That's important, because Luke gives us a second clue: He says Jesus was "about thirty years of age" when he began his ministry (3:23).

So, if you take A.D. 29 and back up thirty years, when does that land you?

You might think in 1 B.C., but remember that there's no Year Zero, so it would actually be 2 B.C.

Or the end of 3 B.C. if Luke was counting Tiberius's reign from when he became emperor rather than from the next January 1.

Thus: 2-3 B.C. is a reasonable estimate.

That's still only an estimate, though, because Jesus could have been a little less or a little more than thirty.

To confirm our estimate, it would be nice if we had an exact naming of the year Jesus was born, and in fact we do . . .

THE FATHER KNOWS BEST

There is a startling consensus among early Christian sources about the year of Jesus' birth.

Here is a table adapted from Jack Finegan's excellent Handbook of Biblical Chronology (p. 291) giving the dates proposed by different sources:

The Alogoi 4 B.C. or A.D. 9
Cassiodorus Senator 3 B.C.
St. Irenaeus of Lyon 3 B.C. or 2 B.C.
St. Clement of Alexandria 3 B.C. or 2 B.C.
Tertullian of Carthage 3 B.C. or 2 B.C.
Julius Africanus 3 B.C. or 2 B.C.
St. Hippolytus of Rome 3 B.C. or 2 B.C.
“Hippolytus of Thebes” 3 B.C. or 2 B.C.
Origen of Alexandria 3 B.C. or 2 B.C.
Eusebius of Caesarea 3 B.C. or 2 B.C.
Epiphanius of Salamis 3 B.C. or 2 B.C.
Orosius 2 B.C.
Dionysius Exiguus 1 B.C.
The Chronographer of the Year 354 A.D. 1
As you can see, except for a few outliers, there is strong support for Jesus being born in either 3 or 2 B.C.

And note that some of the sources in this table are quite ancient. Irenaeus of Lyon, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Julius Africanus, and Hippolytus of Rome all wrote in the late 100s or early 200s.

We thus have strong indication--from a careful reading of Matthew, from Luke, and from the Church Fathers--that Jesus was born in 3 or 2 B.C.

THE STAR OF BETHLEHEM

Interpreting events as depicted in the Bible is no easy task. Although it is well known that some events in its text can be pinned on a moment in history, it takes a lot of work to separate the fact from the fiction.

But there is one significant event in the Bible that scholars have debated for centuries: The Star of Bethlehem.

Historical records and modern-day computer simulations indicate that there was a rare series of planetary groupings, also known as conjunctions, during the years 3 B.C. and 2 B.C.

RETRACING THE CONJUNCTIONS

The show started on the morning of June 12 in 3 B.C., when Venus could be sighted very close to Saturn in the eastern sky. Then there was a spectacular pairing of Venus and Jupiter on Aug. 12 in the constellation Leo, which ancient astrologers associated with the destiny of the Jews.

Between September of 3 B.C. and June of 2 B.C., Jupiter passed by the star Regulus in Leo, reversed itself and passed it again, then turned back and passed the star a third time. This was another remarkable event, since astrologers considered Jupiter the kingly planet and regarded Regulus as the “king star.”

The crowning touch came on June 17, when Jupiter seemed to approach so close to Venus that, they would have looked like a single star.

The whole sequence of events could have been enough for at least three astrologers to go to Jerusalem and ask Herod: “Where is he that is born King of the Jews, for we have seen his star in the east and are come to worship him.”

June 17 , 2 BC date doesn't match up the with Dec. 25.

REFERENCES TO DECEMBER 25th

In fact, there's no reference to December, let alone Dec. 25, in the gospels' stories of the Nativity at all. This is not meant to denigrate Dec. 25. It's just a fact.

It's very tough for us to imagine Mary and Joseph trudging to Bethlehem in anything but the bleak of mid-winter, surrounded by snow. To us, Christmas and December are inseparable. But for the first three centuries of Christianity, Christmas wasn't in December—or on the calendar anywhere.

For the church's first three centuries, if observed at all, the celebration of Christ's birth was usually lumped in with Epiphany (January 6), one of the church's earliest established feasts.

SO, WHY DECEMBER 25th ?

Western Christians first celebrated Christmas on December 25 in 336, after Emperor Constantine had declared Christianity the empire's favored religion. Eastern churches, however, held on to January 6 as the date for Christ's birth and his baptism. Most easterners eventually adopted December 25, celebrating Christ's birth on the earlier date and his baptism on the latter, but the Armenian church celebrates his birth on January 6. Incidentally, the Western church does celebrate Epiphany on January 6.

So, it was 300 years after Jesus was born, that people observed his birth in mid-winter.

The most loudly touted theory about the origins of the 25th is that it was borrowed from pagan celebrations. The Romans had their mid-winter Saturnalia festival in late December; barbarian peoples of northern and western Europe kept holidays at similar times. To top it off, in 274AD, the Roman emperor Aurelian established a feast of the birth of Sol Invictus (the Unconquered Sun), on December 25. Early Christians deliberately chose these dates to encourage the spread of Christmas and Christianity throughout the Roman world: If Christmas looked like a pagan holiday, more pagans would be open to both the holiday and the God whose birth it celebrated.

WHAT OTHER TIME OF THE YEAR?
Biblical scholars can't rule out the possibility that the Nativity occurred during the middle of the year. In fact, the biblical reference to shepherds tending their flocks at night when they hear the news of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:8) suggests the spring during the lambing season; sheep would not be out in the fields in the dead of winter, but rather corralled in December.

SO, WHEN WAS JESUS BORN?

Probably between early April and June 17th, 2 BC.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Thank you. That is what I was looking for from the OP. I wish he had included it.

Dennis

ole sarg Loc: south florida

Let's see Isaac Newton allows for modernity and Jesus affects/effects those who want to believe in him. Notice I use the word believe. Christianity is based on faith as is Islam. Both are narrow minded and tend to restrict ones thoughts.

Seems Isaac has a greater impact in benefiting mankind than Jesus who makes for wealthy churches and preachers who are able to dupe a segment of the public that is not able to face reality.

tommyf Loc: Vero Beach, FL

Here we freaking go again.....watch as this utterly stupid, biased, self righteous garbage ONCE AGAIN spreads like unintellectual and disrespectful nonsense...................perpetrating our wonderful forum.

lfleischer1 Loc: Garrison, NY

What "historical proof"? Please cite actual, documented first person accounts, official records from the time Jesus was supposed to have lived.

lfleischer1 Loc: Garrison, NY

"I noticed that nobody writes things about Islam or slams Islam with the same fervor as they do Christianity" Um, have you heard of Hannity? Limbaugh? O'Reilly? Ingrahm? Coulter?

lfleischer1 Loc: Garrison, NY

It's obvious that many people really don't like facts. They just like their beliefs and feelings. Keep up the good work

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

What scientists believe the world is 7000 years old?

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

Don't be childish. You are asking for a level of documentation that would be difficult to meet for George Washington or William Shakespeare.

First there's the writing of Josephus. "Not good enough" the critics say. "Too much of a passing mention." They want something more specific.

OK, how about the Gospels? "Not Good Enough -- Too specific. It could to made up by someone trying to con us".

See the problem? The skeptics can (and do) dismiss ANY evidence based on either of those reasons. Which is the problem when you have a biased part being a arbiter of the evidence.

Actual historians have no doubt the Jesus Christ really existed as a man.

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

OK, I'm confused. When did Prof Tyson say ANYTHING AT ALL about Christianity ???

ardenweiss Loc: Maryland

Considering my general low opinion of the those instrumental in writing our history books from the dawn of time, I really doubt the validity of Dec 25th being the real date of his birth -- and as stated by others, who really cares what the exact date was -- believers believe in beliefs not facts.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I have no problem with Christians selecting an arbitrary date to celebrate the birth of Christ. But that shouldn't prevent anyone from honoring another person who was really born on that day for fear of offending Christians.

tlbuljac Loc: Oklahoma

Bob, I salute you sir for a remarkable and well written history lesson supported by sound evidence. Excellent job sir. It's obvious from the facts that you did an extensive amount of research and you presented it like a well versed author "In My Humble Opinion". Again thank you Bob for the education. And just a thought, please don't misinterpret this as being sarcastic as it is no way intended to be. I'm just curious if there were any "Leap Years" in this time period you listed. if so, could that also have any effect on the December 25 date we Christians recognize as Christ date of birth. I respect your response and look forward to it. You are welcome to "PM" me should you prefer to do so. Thanks again Bob.....Superior edifice on your behalf. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: