I did an interview for ABC's Good Morning America a few nights ago on the date of Christmas. It was triggered by an astronomer's claim to have nailed down the date to a day in June. The origins of this date are worth discussing, since the gospels do not give us a specific day or even the season Jesus was born. The most we can get for the biblical data is a range of years. Here is the gist of what I told ABC in an email before the interview:
Here are the issues. First, the most common date for Jesus' birth in terms of the year is 6-4 BCE. This is because it took place before Herod's death which we can date through coins and a reference to a lunar eclipse near the time of his death from Josephus (Ant 17.164-67- the context of the moon's eclipse; 17.168-99- Herod's death). We can date the eclipse ot 4 BCE. Second, the Bible gives us no specific day or time of year. Third, the celebration of Christmas dates the best we can tell from the fourth century when it startsot be discussed in the literature we have. It is tied to the replacement or alternate celebration for a pagan holiday celebrating "the winter equinox and the victory or return fo the Sun". Fourth, the date is associated with a tradition that speaks of Jesus' conception as taking place at the spring equinox. We do not know where this date for this event came from. Fifth, we get these stellar theories now and again. The last one argued for an April date. Lastly, the Eastern church has an alternate date, January 6. In sum, we do not know the day and have little data to go on. This most recent theory relies on Matthew but ignores the fact that the Magi's visit works with a two year window (note they arrive, follow the star and Herod kills all babies two years and under from the time of their visit to him after some time has passed and he realizes they are not coming back to inform him). Their visit does not take place on the night of Jesus' birth, but sometime after.
I hope these notes on the day of Christmas are helpful. The Bible does not give us this day; we celebrate it to remember what his birth is, not exactly when it happened.
Hi Darryl,
What do you think about Paul Meier's dating of the birth of Jesus? (the article is posted here: http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/maier-date...). He bases his date, Nov 18, on the citation in Clement of Alexandria, and notes that it matches a date based on a reconstruction of the priestly service calendar.
Gary
Gary:
Anything done on this is a best guess. We do not have enough information to know.
Darrell
Gary,
I agree that any attempt at figuring out the date, ought to include the "course of Abijah" information carefully noted by Luke in the prologue to his Gospel account. This narrows down the list of options considerably--none of which include Dec 25, but one of which will always include (with varying dates based on the year) the Feast of Tabernacles--a time that would make extremely good sense both in regard to the concept of taking a census in Jewish Palestine, and in regard to Jewish theology. It also would fit nicely with a couple of pieces of overlapping tradition from the Roman Catholic Church and Jewish counter-apologetic: in the first case, Sept 29, the Feast of Michael and All Saints, is of extreme antiquity but the rationale for the feast is no longer clearly known (Sept 29 would be the beginning of the Feast of Tabernacles in 5BCE, the year before Herod's death, according to one reckoning... see below); and in the second case, the curious post-Talmudic polemic about Simon Peter, purporting to explain how he saved Jews from persecution by Christians by making them think he was an Apostle of Christ though secretly he was a Jew, preserves a tradition that Peter taught Christians to observe the day of Christ's death on the day of Passover, instead of observing Passover; instead of observing Pentacost, observe the Ascension; and instead of observing Tabernacles, observe the day of Christ's birth. (While the four known forms of this very interesting polemical legend are late, there would be absolutely no point for any late polemicist to invent a story of Peter replacing Tabernacles with Christmas, since the Feast of Dedications will always be closer to Dec 25 than Tabernacles.)
Additionally, Sept 29 in a non-leap year would run exactly 40 weeks (i.e. the 'ideal' human gestation time) back to Dec 25, which would retain the importance of that day as the beginning of the Incarnation proper (at conception). But of course, depending on how the years are reckoned, Tabernacles might have been some other week.
It should be added in fairness that some scholars, reckoning from the "Course of Abijah" timing information in GosLuke, combined with Josephus' claim (along with the Mishna) that the Temple was destroyed during the first course of Abijah, plus a Roman/solar dating for the destruction of the Temple, arrive at Dec 25 (or close enough) anyway. Maier generally follows this route (in the admirable analysis you linked to), but corrects backward to mid-November based on other conjunctive evidence. Only a couple more weeks would bring that to the tail end of Sept; and Maier doesn't reckon the Feast of Tabernacles into his considerations. Sept 29 passes most of the other criteria tests mentioned by Maier as well; including putting Herod near Bethlehem at the proper time.
It's still educated guesswork, of course. {g}
JRP
JRP:
As you note this is all educated guesswork. The course of Abijah only gives us a range of possibiliites for the time frame of John the Baptist's birth depending on how quickly it marks the conception of John the Baptist and whether when we wish to place it is a part of a tradrtion that goes back to the first century and whether we actually know the orderof the families involved. All these are not givens, so the guesswork continues.
Isn't there a claim that a typo in the printing of Josephus is leading some to question the year of Jesus' birth? Could you comment on that? See http://cbs11tv.com/local/Star.Of.Bethlehem.2.594091.html
I doubt Josephus should be corrected. The issue of 4-6 BC is in part due to a calculation error by the monk who gave the West its Christ based calendar in the 6th century. He miscalculated in moving from a lunar to solar calendar as he calculated backwards in time. This error was discovered centuries later. Recalculations were done and the year 4-6 BC emerged as the likely date. We have coins along with Josephus that help us to date the end of Heord's rule.
dlb
Some have remarked that shepherds watched their flocks by night only in the springtime when the lambs were being born. That, too, could come into play in the "dating game."
Dear Dr. Blomberg:
So, what is your take on the subject?
Thanks!
I don't have a problem with a moderate celebration of Christmas, if people want to do it, though I do have a problem with its being a focus that preoccupies the church in terms of time, attention, excitement, and resources.
It always made me wonder why it is that churchgoers celebrated Jesus's birthday on the 25th. That date was the day our ancestors celebrated the sun ascending just a couple degrees up to indicate longer days and shorter nights, wasn't it?
Post new comment