The Date of Christ's Birth

The traditional view with few dissenters is that Jesus was born shortly before the death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C. In recent years, several scholars—including W. E. Filmer, Ernest L. Martin, and Ormond Edwards—have argued that the date usually assigned to Herod's death is much too early (1). Josephus places Herod's death between a lunar eclipse and the Feast of Passover (2). The traditional death date assumes that Josephus is referring to the partial eclipse on 13 March 4 B.C., about a month before the beginning of Passover on 11 April. Filmer and his followers believe, however, that they can better accommodate the available evidence by supposing that Josephus intends the spectacular total eclipse on 9/10 January 1 B.C., about three months before the beginning of Passover on 8 April. The case for the later date rests primarily on two arguments.

  1. Josephus recounts a complex chain of events between the eclipse and the Passover that bracketed Herod's death. All these events seemingly could not have happened within the scope of a single month. Yet although these events make a tight fit in 4 B.C., they do not quite burst the seams. Douglas Johnson has demonstrated that Martin, for one, has greatly exaggerated the compression (3). Martin imagines that Herod's funeral procession took 25 days to carry his body from Jericho to Herodion, a distance of 23 miles (4). Yet, as Johnson shows, the body must have been transported to its burial place within a single day (5).

    Martin admits that apart from Herod's funeral, the remaining events could have occurred within 33 days (6). If 33, why not 30? It is impossible from our perspective to set dogmatic lower limits. For example, Martin maintains that to assemble all the Jewish leaders in Jericho required at least eight days (7). Yet we may suppose that many of these leaders arrived during the five days between Antipater's death and Herod's death (8).

  2. Placement of Herod's death in 1 B.C. allows us to accept the ancient tradition that Jesus was born in 3 or 2 B.C. The four earliest Christian writers who report the date of Jesus' birth are Irenaeus (late second century), Clement of Alexandria (about A.D. 200), Tertullian (early third century), and Africanus (early third century) (9). Africanus specifies the date in terms that can be understood as 3/2 B.C. (10). Both Irenaeus and Tertullian assign Jesus' birth to the forty-first year of Augustus. If this date presumes that the reign of Augustus began when he was elevated to consulship in August 43 B.C., the year intended is 2 B.C. Tertullian conveniently confirms this conclusion by adding that Christ's birth was 28 years after the death of Cleopatra and fifteen years before the death of Augustus. Cleopatra died in August 30 B.C., and Augustus died in August A.D. 14 (11). Konradin Ferrari d'Occhieppo has demonstrated that the date which Clement of Alexandria furnishes for the birth of Jesus is equivalent to 6 January 2 B.C. (12).

    It must be recognized, however, that ancient tradition has doubtful authority to tell us when Jesus was born. The consensus among writers of the late second and early third centuries that He was born in 2 B.C. probably rested not on historical fact but on their understanding of the Gospels. The easy but simplistic interpretation of Luke 3:1 and Luke 3:23 is that Jesus turned age thirty in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (A.D. 29). Hence, many early Christians deduced by calculation that He was born in 2 B.C.

The great difficulty for theories setting Herod's death in 1 B.C. is the unassailable evidence that all three of his successors—his sons Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip—dated their reigns from about 4 B.C. (13). Attempts to show that Antipater became coregent with his father in this year have not been convincing. Therefore, although not free of uncertainties, the year of Jesus' birth was probably 4 BC, as most scholars have believed.

The next question is, can we pinpoint the date of Jesus' birth? Various ancient sources lead us to the answer.

Clement of Alexandria says, "From the birth of Christ, therefore, to the death of Commodus [the Roman emperor who died on 31 December A.D. 192 (14)] are, in all, a hundred and ninety-four years, one month, thirteen days" (15). If we suppose that he is using the Roman calendar, we deduce that Clement set Christ's birth on 18 November 3 B.C. (16). But it is highly doubtful that this date, affirmed by no other ancient source, is the one he so confidently espouses. We arrive at a different date if we suppose that Clement, a resident of Egypt, is using the Egyptian calendar without intercalation. Measuring backward from Commodus' death an interval of 194 years (each exactly 365 days), one month (thirty days), and thirteen days brings us to 6 January 2 B.C. (17). It so happens that before the church as a whole fixed the date of the Nativity as 25 December, the generally accepted date in the Eastern church and possibly also in the Western church was 6 January (18). Apart from Clement, the earliest sources affirming this date do not precede the fourth century (19), yet Clement's testimony proves that the association of Christ's birth with 6 January was a tradition rooted centuries earlier, perhaps in the early church itself, perhaps even in historical fact. Several considerations strengthen the probability that 6 January was the actual birthday of Christ.

The tradition that Jesus was born on the twenty-fifth. Clement gives us interesting additional information. He comments, "And there are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord's birth, but also the day; and they say that it took place in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus, and in the twenty-fifth day of Pachon" (20). Since Pachon is an Egyptian month and since Clement was Egyptian, Edwards assumes that Clement is referring to the Egyptian calendar (21). If we reckon Augustus' reign from the Battle of Actium, on 2 September 31 B.C., when he put down his last rival, Antony, and if we count the accession year (as was customary in Egyptian reckoning of Roman regnal years (22)), Augustus' twenty-eighth year on the Egyptian calendar lasted from 29 August 3 B.C. to 28 August 2 B.C. (23). The twenty-fifth day of Pachon in that year was 20 May 2 B.C. (24).

Yet Clement also says that some remember Christ's birth on the twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth of Pharmuthi (25); that is, a month earlier than the twenty-fifth of Pachon. The uncertainty as to the correct month leads us to doubt that any of these dates have a factual basis. We find no evidence elsewhere, either in the Gospels or in the writings of the early church, that Jesus was born in the period from late April to late May. But notice that the Egyptians who differed on the month of Christ's birth were nevertheless agreed that the day was the twenty-fifth. This number was so firmly lodged in Christian thinking as a significant date that, according to Clement, many in Egypt placed the Crucifixion on the twenty-fifth of Phamenoth, others on the twenty-fifth of Pharmuthi (26). Yet the actual date of the Crucifixion did not correspond to the twenty-fifth of the month on any well-known calendar. It is likely that the twenty-fifth was originally associated not with Christ's death, but with His birth.

The Western church was first to anchor this date in the month of December. Occasionally one finds such claims as the following:

In fact, no tradition linking Christmas to 25 December can be traced back beyond the time of Constantine (28). The pronouncements cited in the above quotation derive from late sources of dubious reliability (29).

Several manuscripts of Hippolytus' Commentary on Daniel, a work of the early third century, state,

But many scholars believe that the reference to 25 December is a late correction of the date actually stated by the author (31). The author's date may be preserved in a single manuscript which curiously contradicts itself by giving two dates: both 25 December and 2 April (32). For two reasons, it is likely that 2 April is the original reading.

  1. A third-century work called De Pascha Computus, which, it is agreed, is based on a lost work of Hippolytus, states that Christ was born on Passover (33). It is therefore probable that Hippolytus himself was of the same opinion. Although the date of Passover Eve varies from year to year, it is never far from 2 April.
  2. In the Lateran Museum at Rome is an ancient statue of Hippolytus which was probably executed shortly after his death (34). This statue bears the dates of Passover for the years 222-333, and next to one date, 2 April of a certain year, is inscribed "genesis ['birth'] of Jesus Christ" (35). No doubt the statue was intended to honor Hippolytus as the one who calculated the dates of future Passovers. We therefore surmise that in the third century, it was believed that Hippolytus set Christ's birth on 2 April, one of the recurring dates in the Passover cycle.

We come to the conclusion that the present date of Christmas was an invention of the fourth century. No doubt two compelling arguments favored the adoption of 25 December as the official date of Christmas.

  1. This date was guaranteed wide acceptance by virtue of its fidelity to the ancient tradition that Christ was born on the twenty-fifth.
  2. Also on this date was the important Mithraic feast Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (the Birth of the Unconquered Sun) (36). Replacing the pagan feast with Christmas was likely a ploy to make Christianity, the newly official religion of the empire, more palatable to Roman legionnaires, many of whom had been devotees of Mithraism (37).

If Christ was indeed born on the twenty-fifth, perhaps it was on the twenty-fifth of a Jewish month. Many authors have pointed out that 25 December is the Latin equivalent of 25 Kislev (38). It may be significant that 25 Kislev is the beginning of Hanukkah, the eight-day celebration also known as the Feast of Dedication, or the Feast of Lights. This was the feast which, late in Jesus' career, provided the setting for His startling announcement that He is One with the Father (John 10:30). One could argue that the date of Christmas was set in the fourth century by church leaders who believed that Christ, the Light of the world, must have been born during the Feast of Lights. Yet nowhere in the writings of the fourth century do we find a theological justification for the present date of Christmas (39).

The linkage between Christmas and Hanukkah is more likely historical. That is, it is more likely that the choice of 25 December as the date of Christmas was guided by a tradition that His birth fell on 25 Kislev.

We find some support for this date in the Nativity story. The report that the shepherds spread "abroad" the news of Jesus' birth (Luke 2:17) and then "returned" rejoicing (Luke 2:20) resolves into fuller detail if we suppose that these events took place during a feast. "Abroad" means specifically that they carried the news to the many devout Jews assembled in Jerusalem. "Returned" means that after visiting Jerusalem during the closing days of the feast, they returned home to Bethlehem. We understand also why Bethlehem was so crowded at this time. Among those seeking lodging were not only some like Joseph who had come to Bethlehem for the enrollment, but also some others who were traveling in connection with the feast.

Evidence favoring 25 Kislev as the date of Christ's birth does not undermine the tradition that He was born on 6 January. On the contrary, it so happens that in 4 B.C., 6 January was the Babylonian 25 Kislev (40). Thus, to the extent that we can be sure that Jesus was born in 4 B.C., the ancient tradition affirming the date as the twenty-fifth of a month tends to authenticate the equally ancient tradition pointing to 6 January.

The proximity of Jesus' baptism to His birthday. Clement tells us that some (presumably, some among the followers of the Gnostic teacher Basilides) remember Christ's baptism on 11 Tybi (6 January), others on 15 Tybi (10 January) (41). Plentiful evidence from a later period shows that many Eastern churches celebrated the Baptism as well as the Nativity on 6 January (42). To prove that Jesus was baptized on His birthday, some patristic writers point to Luke 3:23.

Although the Gospels certainly imply that Jesus was baptized a few months before Passover, the case for putting His baptism on His birthday, 6 January, is weak for two reasons.

  1. The tradition assigning both the Nativity and the Baptism to 6 January is undermined by other traditions which set these events at different times. Among certain groups, the Baptism was placed a few days after the Nativity. As noted earlier, some Gnostics, for example, thought that 10 January was the day of the Baptism. In Jerusalem, the Baptism was celebrated twelve days after 6 January (44).
  2. The puzzling wording of Luke 3:23, more accurately rendered, "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age" (45), cannot be forced to mean that He turned "about thirty" on the very day of His baptism. The thought being expressed is that He had recently begun to be "about thirty"; in other words, that He had turned "about thirty" not long before His baptism.

The only conclusion sustained by historical and exegetical evidence is, therefore, that Jesus was baptized within a short time after His birthday. The widespread tendency in the Eastern church to join the celebrations of the Nativity and the Baptism might be viewed as additional evidence that the actual events fell so close together on the calendar that the distinction between their dates was easily lost.

A correct view of the relation between Christ's birthday and His baptism helps us to fix the time of year when He was born, for, as we have said, the Gospels place His baptism in the months preceding Passover. The traditional date of the Nativity, 6 January, gains credibility by its implication that the Baptism fell in middle or late January, a placement that fits well into Gospel chronology.

The derived date of the Incarnation. We now come to a most curious fact. The first of Nisan in 5 B.C. was 8 April (46). The interval from 21 April 5 B.C. (the day when the Passover lambs were slaughtered) until 6 January 4 B.C. was 260 days. The average period from conception to birth is 266 days. Since a birth missing the due date by no more than six days is not uncommon, it is possible that, if Jesus was born on 6 January 4 B.C., He was conceived on the previous Passover. The possibility enhances to some small degree the credibility of this birth date.

If the Incarnation indeed took place on the day of Passover, this coincidence was surely intended to reveal Jesus' identity as the Lamb of God. His identity would later be underscored again when He died on the same day. Earlier we noted Hippolytus' belief, which was no doubt the reflection of a widespread belief, that Christ was born on Passover. It now appears that possibly this belief was not far wrong. The event that may actually have occurred on Passover was the Incarnation.

Related Topics

All about the Birth of Jesus

  • Index to lessons, readings, and poems for the Christmas season

Lessons on Messianic Prophecy Fulfilled at Christ's Birth

Chronology

Footnotes
  1. W. E. Filmer, "The Chronology of the Reign of Herod the Great," Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1966): 283-298; Ernest L. Martin, The Birth of Christ Recalculated, 2d ed. (Pasadena, Calif.: Foundation for Biblical Research, 1980); Ormond Edwards, "Herodian Chronology," Palestine Exploration Quarterly (1982): 29-42.
  2. Josephus Antiquities 17.6.4, 17.8.1, 17.9.3.
  3. Douglas Johnson, "And They Went Eight Stades toward Herodeion," in Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to Jack Finegan, ed. Jerry Vardaman and Edwin M. Yamauchi (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1989), 96-99.
  4. Martin, 31.
  5. Johnson, 96-99.
  6. Martin, 33.
  7. Ibid., 30.
  8. Compare Josephus 17.6.5 with 17.7.1.
  9. Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.21.3; Clement of Alexandria Miscellanies 1.21; Tertullian An Answer to the Jews 8; Africanus Chronography 1, 16.3, 18.4.
  10. Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1964), 142-144.
  11. S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock, and M. P. Charlesworth, eds., The Augustan Empire, 44 B.C.-A.D. 70, vol. 10 of The Cambridge Ancient History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1934), 112; Finegan, 270.
  12. Konradin Ferrari d'Occhieppo, Der Stern der Weisen: Geschichte oder Legende? 2d ed. (Wien: Verlag Herold, 1977), 147.
  13. Timothy D. Barnes, "The Date of Herod's Death," Journal of Theological Studies 19 (1968): 205-206; Johnson, 94-96; Harold W. Hoehner, "The Date of the Death of Herod the Great," in Vardaman and Yamauchi, 106-109.
  14. S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock, and M. P. Charlesworth, eds., The Imperial Peace, A.D. 70-192, vol. 11, The Cambridge Ancient History (New York: Macmillan Co.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936), 383.
  15. Clement 1.21.
  16. Kirsopp Lake, "Christmas," in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1910), 605.
  17. d'Occhieppo, 147.
  18. Lake, 601.
  19. Ibid.
  20. Clement 1.21.
  21. Ormond Edwards, The Time of Christ: A Chronology of the Incarnation (Edinburgh: Floris Books, 1986), 80.
  22. Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, new revised ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), 71 n.
  23. Edwards, Time, 80.
  24. Ibid.
  25. Clement 1.21.
  26. Ibid.
  27. George K. Evans, notes on The International Book of Christmas Carols, musical arrangements by Walter Ehret, trans. George K. Evans (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963; New York: Walton Music Corp., 1963), 3. Aside from slightly credulous scholarship, this is a marvelous collection.
  28. Lake, 601.
  29. Ibid.; W. F. Dawson, Christmas: Its Origin and Associations, together with Its Historical Events and Festive Celebrations during Nineteen Centuries (London: Elliot Stock, 1902; repr., Detroit: Gale Research Co., 1968), 12.
  30. Hippolytus Commentary on Daniel 2.4. The original text is supplied by Lake, 606.
  31. Lake, 606; Johannes Quasten, The Ante-Nicene Literature after Irenaeus, vol. 2, Patrology (Westminster, Md.: Newman Press; Utrecht: Spectrum Publishers, 1953), 173. But the reference is treated as authentic by both Edwards (Time, 84) and Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977), 25.
  32. Lake, 606.
  33. Ibid.
  34. Quasten, 165.
  35. Lake, 606.
  36. Ibid., 607.
  37. Maymie R. Krythe, All About Christmas (New York: Harper & Bros., 1954), 2.
  38. Ibid.; Ralph Gower, The New Manners and Customs of Bible Times (Chicago: Moody Press, 1987), 145.
  39. Lake, 606-607.
  40. Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75 (Providence, R.I.: Brown University Press, 1956), 45.
  41. Clement 1.21.
  42. Lake, 607.
  43. Ibid., 604, 607.
  44. Ibid., 607.
  45. The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1975), 175.
  46. Parker and Dubberstein, 45.