My poor neighbor. He got off work at 6:30 last night and started driving out of the mall. Before long, he had flashing lights behind him. The town cop who came to his window said that he hadn't made a complete stop at the Stop sign - in the parking lot. So, after working a full shift on New Year's Eve, and heading home to a family gathering, he gets stopped for not coming to a complete stop in a parking lot.

I had seen people pulled over there before, and I was surprised that cops would bother with a Stop sign in an area that gets very little traffic. Even on a busy day, you hardly see any cars in that area. After seeing people getting stopped there, I have been extra careful when driving in that mall. Yes, I know that traffic signs in parking lots and malls must be obeyed, but this was all about revenue, not about safety. The cop even told my neighbor that he "hides over there" to catch people.

And you wonder why some people hate police. "To Protect and to $erve."

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.