"Unto You is Born this Day"
The Biblical Case for the Dec. 25th Birth of Christ
(Editor's note: This article represents research leading to
publication of our piece "The Origins of Christmas and Date of
Christ's Birth" with JETS (the Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society). Although they cover much of the same
ground, this article contains important material not presented
in JETS, including discussion of the 1) difference between the
Metonic and Jewish cycles of intercalating leap years vis-a-vis
Jesus' 30th birthday following his baptism, 2) the meaning of
Luke's phrase "began to be about thirty," and 3) the length of
Jesus' ministry vis-a-vis the Gospels. This and other
information not provided in our JETS piece, but necessary to its
conclusions, continue therefore to be presented here.)
Kurt Simmons Esq.
- Updated March 2018 -
We often hear it said that
Jesus was not “really” born December 25th;
that this date is a mere fiction, surreptitiously
appropriated by church authorities in an attempt to
Christianize the pagan solstice, or festival
sol
invictus. However, such charges
are relatively recent. For most of church
history, December 25th
was received as the actual date of Christ’s birth,
handed down from earliest times. Questions regarding
the authenticity of the Christmas date were first raised during the Reformation by
Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians who attempted to
outlaw its celebration in |
However, the evidence from scripture and sacred history
supporting the December 25th birth of Christ is
actually very substantial. In fact, as we shall see, not just
the season but the
very month,
week, and day
of Dec. 25th all freely emerge from the record by
relatively straightforward chronological reconstruction from the
gospels and other available sources. Although the state of the
evidence does not allow us to identify Dec. 25th as the birthday
of Christ apart from the witness of history and tradition, we do
find that the date is fully consistent with the information we
possess. The evidence from scripture and sacred history may be
summarized as follows:
1)
The Presentment of the Christ-child and Chronology of
Herod’s Final Illness
2)
The Baptism, Wilderness Temptation, and First Disciples
of Christ
3)
The Priestly Courses and Nativity of John the Baptist
The Presentment of the Christ-child and Chronology of Herod’s
Final Illness
1.
The magi arrived after the presentment of the Christ-child
Our primary sources for events surrounding Christ’s birth are
the Gospels. The law imposed a forty-day period of ritual
impurity upon women following birth of a male-child and required
a sacrifice in token of their purification at the period’s end
(Lev 12:2–6). Moreover, firstborn sons were to be redeemed in
token of God’s deliverance when he slew the firstborn in Egypt
(Exod 13:3, 13; Num 3:46, 47). These time factors figure into
the chronology of Christ’s birth: Luke tells us that, following
Mary’s forty-day period of ritual impurity, the holy family went
to Jerusalem where the required sacrifices were made for Mary
and her firstborn son, after which the family returned home to Nazareth (Luke
2:39).
Turning to Matthew’s Gospel, we find that after Jesus was born
magi came to Jerusalem from the east, asking “Where is he who is
born king of the Jews?” (Matt 2:1, 2). Word of this reached
Herod, who called together the chief priests and scribes to
ascertain where Christ should be born. Herod then called the
magi and inquired when the star they had seen in the east first
appeared. Herod then sent them to Bethlehem, asking the magi to
bring him word when they had found the Christ-child so he could
worship him also (Matt 2:4–8). Matthew reports that when the
magi departed, the star they had seen in the east went before
them till it came and stood over where the child was (Matt 2:9).
Popular assumption has it that the magi found the holy family at
Bethlehem. However, Bethlehem is less than ten miles from
Jerusalem. Since the magi hardly required the star to find
Bethlehem and Herod had directed them there in any event, the
better view is that the star was interposed by heaven to lead
the magi to where the Christ-child had relocated;
viz. Nazareth, about
seventy miles north, where Luke tells us the holy family
returned following the customary sacrifices at the temple. This
may be alluded to by Matthew when he says that the magi entered
"the house;" not "the inn" as we would expect if they were still
in Bethlehem, but "the house" viz.
the family home (Matt
2:11).
That the magi found the holy family in Nazareth is confirmed by
the flight to Egypt. Matthew informs us that after presenting
their gifts, the magi were warned in a dream not to return to
Herod, and that they therefore departed home another way (Matt
2:11, 12). Joseph, also being warned in a dream that Herod would
seek the child to destroy it, rose by night and fled to Egypt
where the holy family remained until Herod’s death (Matt
2:12–15). However, when Joseph heard that Archelaus reigned in
Judea in place of his father Herod, he “was afraid to go there,”
and being warned in a dream, “turned aside” into Galilee,
avoiding Judea entirely (Matt 2:22). Taking the accounts of
Matthew and Luke together, there are only two times when the
presentment of the Christ-child could have occurred: either
before the flight to Egypt or following the family’s return from
exile. Since Matthew makes clear that Joseph by-passed Judea
upon return from Egypt, the presentment of the Christ-child
could not have occurred then. Therefore, it could only have
occurred before the
flight to Egypt, which means that the magi almost certainly
found the holy family in Nazareth forty-odd days following the
child’s birth and that the flight to Egypt originated from
there, not Bethlehem as so often assumed. So Methodius (A.D.
260-312):
"Therefore the prophet brought the virgin from Nazareth, in order
that she might give birth at Bethlehem to her salvation-bringing
child, and brought her back again to Nazareth, in order to make
manifest to the world the hope of life. Hence it was that the
ark of God removed from the inn at Bethlehem, for there He paid
to the law that debt of the forty days, due not to justice but
to grace…The holy mother goes up to the temple to exhibit to the
law a new and strange wonder, even that child long expected."
"Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna" in Ante-Nicene Fathers,
eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Christian Literature
Publishing, 1885), 6:385
Epiphanius (A.D. 315-403) is in accord:
"He was born in Bethlehem, circumcised in the cavern, presented
in Jerusalem, embraced by Simeon, openly confessed by Anna the
prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, and taken away to Nazareth."
Epiphanius, “De Incarnatione” in Panarion 1.4
2.
The magi arrived before Herod departed from Jerusalem for the
mineral springs at Callirrhoe
By the time the magi arrived, Herod would have been in the final
weeks and months of his life. Antipater, Herod’s son by Doris,
had been tried for treason before Quintilius Varus, who
succeeded Saturninus as president of Syria. It was under the
presidency of Saturninus that the registration, which brought
Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem had occurred.[1]
But with the new year, came the new administration of Varus.
Condemned, Antipater was held in the palace prison at Jericho,
and Herod sent letters and ambassadors to Augustus Caesar to
accuse Antipater and learn Caesar’s pleasure concerning his son.[2]
However, while waiting for word from Caesar, Herod fell gravely
ill. This was now the seventieth year of his life, and he
despaired of recovery. Herod therefore amended his will,
temporarily settling the kingdom upon his youngest son, Herod
Antipater. Facing death and knowing that he was hated by the
Jews, Josephus reports that Herod “grew fierce, and indulged the
bitterest anger upon all occasions,”[3]
and more especially because of a sedition that now broke out.
Herod had placed a large Roman eagle above the gate of the
temple, which the Jews considered an affront to their religion.
Taking the opportunity of Herod’s impending death, several
prominent rabbis moved the young men to cut the eagle down. When
rumor came that Herod was dead, the young men assaulted the
temple and eagle in broad daylight. However, soldiers came upon
them suddenly, capturing many of them. Herod then had the young
men and rabbis sent to Jericho, where the leaders were burned
alive. Josephus reports that the night of the rabbis’ execution
there was an eclipse of the moon.[4]
This lunar eclipse is important for dating Herod’s death. For
many years it was thought to be the partial lunar eclipse of
March 13, 4 B.C. But this has now been thoroughly refuted, and
leading scholarship agrees that this was the full lunar eclipse
of January 10, 1 B.C.[5]
Herod’s final illness now grew worse; he thus travelled beyond
the Jordon River to bathe in mineral springs at Callirrhoe as a
curative for his disease. However, when this failed to improve
his health, Herod returned to Jericho, dying shortly thereafter,
never to return to Jerusalem again.[6]
Matthew tells us that Herod was still at Jerusalem when the magi
arrived (Matt. 2:1). Therefore, the magi had to arrive
before Herod left
Jerusalem and travelled to the mineral springs beyond the
Jordan, probably sometime after the rabbis’ execution January
10th, toward the middle of February, 1 B.C.[7]
2.
The Slaughter of the Innocents and the Execution of Antipater
|
|
Matthew says that when Herod realized the magi were not
going to return, he ordered the slaughter of all male
children two years old and under in Bethlehem and the
neighboring towns (Matt. 2:16-18). Although Mark and
Luke do not mention the Slaughter of the Innocents, John
alludes to it in the Apocalypse (Rev. 12:1-4), and thus
becomes a witness to the verity of the Matthew’s record.
The witness of Matthew and John is also corroborated by
a pagan writer named Macrobius. Macrobius wrote an
encyclopedic account of Roman culture entitled the
Saturnalia,
in which he records the legends and lore of the holidays
marking the Roman calendar. In book two, Macrobius
records some of the witty sayings of Augustus Caesar,
and there reports:
|
"On hearing that the son of Herod, king of the Jews, had been
slain when Herod ordered that all boys in Syria under the age of
two be killed, Augustus said, 'It’s better to be Herod’s pig
than his son.'"[8]
The authenticity of Macrobius’ report is not disputed. However,
it is sometimes read to include Antipater among those who
perished in the Slaughter of the Innocents, which obviously
would be incorrect. However, Macrobius may merely have intended
to indicate that Antipater was executed at the same time
the Slaughter of the Innocents was being carried out, not that
he died with or among them. We need not enter into a discussion
which is correct, for by either reading the death of Antipater
and Slaughter of the Innocents were contemporaneous events.
Thus, the timing of Antipater’s death allows us to establish the
time of the Slaughter of the Innocents. Herod outlived the death
of Antipater by only five days, dying shortly before Passover
(April 8), 1 B.C. Hence, the Slaughter of Bethlehem’s innocents,
like the death of Antipater, would have been one of Herod’s last
acts, the magi arriving a few weeks before this.
We know the magi arrived after the presentment of the
Christ-child at the temple forty days following Jesus’ birth,
but before Herod left Jerusalem and travelled to the
mineral springs at Callirrhoe. Therefore, assuming there
was no extended period between the return to Nazareth and the
arrival of the magi, and the arrival the magi and Herod’s
departure from Jerusalem, we should be able to reckon backward
from Passover following Herod’s death to his departure from
Jerusalem, and from there to find the approximate time of the
nativity. Here are the events recorded by Josephus following the
eclipse of January 10th until Herod’s death just before
Passover, 1 B.C., and the approximate time for their
accomplishment as given by Andrew Steinmann (Novum
Testamentum,
Volume 51, Number 1, 2009 , pp. 1-29):[9]
Table 2, Chronology of Herod's Final Illness and Death
Event |
Days Elapsed |
Total Minimum Days Elapsed |
Herod’s physicians tried many remedies |
1 day minimum (more likely 2-3 weeks) |
1 (more likely 14-21) |
Travel from Jericho to Callirrhoe (about 50 miles) |
3 days minimum |
4 |
Treatment at Callirrhoe |
1day minimum (more likely 1 week or more) |
5 (more likely 11 or more) |
Return to Jericho |
5 day minimum |
8 |
The Jewish elders throughout Herod’s realm are summoned |
6 days minimum |
14 |
Herod receives permission to execute Antipater and has
him executed |
1 day minimum |
15 |
Herod’s death five days later |
5 days |
20 |
Funeral arrangments and funeral |
5 days minimum |
25 |
Seven days of mourning |
7 days |
32 |
Feast in Herod’s honor |
1 day |
33 |
Archelaus’ inintal governance |
7 days |
40 |
The Passover |
1 day |
41 (more likely 62) |
Steinmann mistakenly has Herod depart from Jericho for
Callirrhoe, when in fact it is clear that Herod was at Jerusalem
when the rabbis’ were executed.
Josephus expressly states that Herod "sent the rabbis to
Jericho" (Ant. 17.6.3), showing that he was not there, but was
still at Jerusalem. The assumption Herod was at Jericho is based
upon a misreading of Josephus where he says that, when the
treatment at Callirrhoe failed, Herod
returned to Jericho.
But this merely refers to Herod’s passing through Jericho on the
way to Callirrhoe and does not indicate Herod originally set out
from there. A
second mistake Steinmann makes is that he places Passover in 1
B.C. on April 11th, making ninety-one days between
the eclipse of the evening January 9/10 and Passover that year,
when in fact Passover was on April 8th in 1 B.C.,
making only eighty-eight days between the stated events.
According to Finegan:
"If the death of Herod was in 1 B.C...the relevant eclipse of
the moon was a total eclipse on the night of Jan 9/10, and the
full paschal moon of Nisan 14 was on Apr 8, twelve and a half
weeks later."[10]
April 11th
was the date of Passover in 4 B.C., which Steinmann was arguing
against; he thus appears to have carried it over to 1 B.C. from
there.
Otherwise accepting Steinmann’s numbers as good approximations,
let us say that forty-one days was the minimum period from the
point where Herod’s illness worsened until Passover, but
sixty-two days is more likely.
Using this latter figure, then, we find that sixty-two days from
Passover, April 8th, brings us to February 5th.
This would be the point at which Herod's final illness
putatively worsened
before departing Jerusalem for Callirrhoe. If we then reckon
backward three days (the period needed for the holy family to
travel from Jerusalem to Nazareth) we arrive at February 2nd,
the traditional date of the Presentation of Christ at the
temple. If we reckon backward forty-days more (the period of
ritual impurity before the Presentation of Christ at the temple)
we arrive exactly at December 25th.
It must be acknowledged that Steinmann's estimate of sixty-two
days is fortunate: it brings us exactly to Dec. 25th with no
gaps between the events associated with the birth of Christ and
death of Herod. However, had Steinmann proposed another number,
although the result would not have worked out as conveniently,
it would hardly be fatal. Nothing requires that the events
associated with the nativity be immediately adjacent to one
another. In fact, nothing could be more natural and expected
than for brief intervals to come between them. By allowing a
short time between the holy family's return home, the arrival of
the magi, and the worsening of Herod's final illness, the
nativity will still fall on or near Dec. 25th even if we use the
minimum number of days Steinmann proposed.
We are certain Steinmann did not intend this result or even
realize the date of Christ’s birth was spread before him this
way. By mistakenly placing Herod at Jericho when the rabbis were
executed, Steinmann isolated Herod's final illness from the
Nativity and the arrival of the magi, destroying the continuity
of events. Moreover, Steinmann was concerned solely with the
chronology of Herod’s reign, and therefore probably never considered the
relationship between the final illness and death of Herod and
the date of Jesus’ birth. But there it is all the same. The
traditional date of Christ’s nativity is fully authenticated
quite unintentionally by this noted scholar.
3.
Estimates of Other Scholars
Steinmann is not the only writer to estimate the time needed to
complete the events described by Josephus between the eclipse
and Passover following Herod’s death. Barns, defending the view
that Herod died in 4 B.C., thought the twenty-nine days between
the eclipse of March 14, 4 B.C., until Passover, April 11th,
that year was too short, and thus opted for the eclipse of
September 15, 5 B.C. However, this creates far too much space
(seven months) and, other than Bernegger, no one has followed
him. Maier, on the other hand, rejecting Barns’ suggestion, felt
that the twenty-nine days was adequate.
Martin, who argues for the 1 B.C. death of Herod, originally
gave fifty-four days as necessary for the events, excluding the
possibility of the eclipse March 14, 4 B.C. Martin later,
expanded this to a minimum of ten weeks, though he preferred
nearer to twelve. Martin based the longer periods upon the
report of Josephus that Herod’s funeral procession marched eight
furlongs (one Roman mile) to Herodium. Martin, following
Whiston, interprets this as signifying that Herod’s procession
began at Jericho and proceeded the whole distance to Herodium
where Herod was interred (200 furlongs or 25 miles) in
eight-furlong intervals, which would have required twenty-five
days. However, this pace seems impossibly slow to have been
maintained, especially in view of the fact that the whole army
accompanied the bier, together with five hundred attendants
bearing spices for embalming, plus the principal men of the
country and the royal family. Steinmann believes the account of
Herod’s funeral preparations is an exaggeration by Nicolas of
Damascus, Herod’s friend and personal historian, whom Josephus
consulted for his histories, and would allow no more than three
days for the funeral preparations. If we consider that it would
not take more than an hour to march, even slowly, one mile; that
would mean the entourage would have sat idle for twenty-three
hours every day for twenty-five days, which is more than reason
can bear. The actual language of Josephus is “So they went eight
furlongs to Herodium; for there, by his own command, he was to
be buried.”[11]
The better view therefore probably is that the entourage
assembled eight furlongs from Herodium, where it then proceeded
ceremoniously on foot to the final resting place of Herod. We
will therefore assign seventy days to Martin, rather than the
full twelve-weeks he prefers.
Finegan agrees that twenty-nine days is too short for the events
described but does not state the minimum he felt would be
necessary. However, as he seems to suggest that the better part
of the eighty-eight days were required, we will assign
sixty-five days to Finegan. Excluding Barns who is virtually
alone in placing the eclipse September 15, 5 B.C., we get the
following results:[12]
Table 3. Estimated Days from Eclipse till Passover
Maier |
29 days |
Martin |
70 days |
Steinmann |
62 days |
Finegan |
65 days |
Total |
226 days |
Average |
55.5 days |
The average of fifty-five days suggests Steinmann’s estimate of
sixty-two days is quite sound. The shortest (twenty-nine days)
compresses the final illness of Herod into an implausibly narrow
space but does not otherwise affect the chronology of events.
The magi would still arrive after the holy family returned to
Nazareth but before Herod quit Jerusalem. The longest (seventy
days) would bring us to January 29th, the point at
which Herod’s final illness ostensibly grew worse. If we allow a
week during which his physicians treated him before quitting
Jerusalem for Callirrhoe, this would bring us to February 4th,
two days after the presentment of the Christ-child at the temple
and the Holy Family’s return home, again leaving our general
chronology intact. Thus, whether we adopt Steinmann’s or one of
the others, the December 25th birth of Christ is
amply capable of demonstration.
4.
No Gaps in the Chronology
The basic assumption underlying our chronology is that the
events described were closely connected, so that by laying them
end to end we can measure the span they bridge, reckoning
backward from Passover, 1 B.C., to discover the time of Christ’s
birth. There are two periods involved. The period from Herod’s
quitting Jerusalem until his death and burial just before
Passover 1 B.C. has been provided by Steinmann, whose results we
have adopted. Similarly, Luke has told us the time involved
between Christ’s birth and the return of the holy family to
Nazareth. The only question is whether they closely connected as
we have assumed, or were there gaps between them undermining our
chronology?
That there was no appreciable period between the arrival of the
magi and Herod’s quitting Jerusalem seems clear enough. Matthew
indicates that Herod settled upon the Slaughter of the Innocents
as soon as he
realized the magi were not going to return. Hence, the time
between the arrival of the magi and Herod’s departure from
Jerusalem and subsequent decision to slay Bethlehem’s babes
cannot have been very great; just long enough to make apparent
that the magi had returned home another way, perhaps a month or
so at the most. This is the more apparent given that Herod had
fallen into his final illness and was intent upon the succession
of his throne, making the decision to order the Slaughter of the
Innocents a thing to be settled upon without delay. The witness
of Macrobius joining the Slaughter of the Innocents to the
execution of Antipater is consistent with this conclusion. By
providing a reference for the time of the massacre, we can
estimate when the magi arrived, and find that it fits precisely
within the window suggested, shortly before Herod’s departure
from Jerusalem some forty to sixty days before his death, and
that there is no gap in the sequence of events. Hence, the
assumption of relative continuity in this case is quite sound.
That there was no significant gap between the return of the holy
family to Nazareth and the arrival of the magi is slightly more
problematic. The Slaughter of the Innocents stands in fixed
relation to the magi’s arrival, so that the time between the two
cannot have been very long. Further, knowing the magi arrived
before Herod quit Jerusalem and that the Slaughter of the
Innocents occurred at the time of Antipater’s execution provides
reference points from which we can estimate their distance from
one another and determine if there was a gap in the sequence.
However, there is no fixed relation between the return to
Nazareth and the magi’s arrival. How can we know many months did
not elapse between them?
First, the natural reading of Matthew’s account places the magi
at Jerusalem near the time of Christ’s birth. In fact, the force
of Matthew narrative is such that many assume the magi arrived
the very night of the nativity. This being the case, the
introduction of any significant gap in between the nativity and
the arrival of the magi would do violence to the natural force
of the narrative. It is true that Luke provides facts, which
Matthew omits. But far from warranting the assumption additional
chronological gaps exist (an assumption there is no evidence to
support), the better view is that Luke filled the only gap that
existed. Matthew may have skipped from Christ’s birth to the
arrival of the Magi, omitting Christ’s Presentment at the temple
and the Holy Family’s return to Nazareth, because this would
have been understood by his readers. It is generally believed
that Matthew composed his gospel for the Jews, who would have
been thoroughly familiar with the forty-day period of impurity
following the birth of a male-child and the sacrifices required
at their end. Thus, Matthew may have omitted reference to these
as things so well-known as to be in no need of mention. The magi
arriving so soon after Jesus’ birth (as Matthew clearly implies)
and the specific mention of the family house (Matt. 2:11),
Matthew’s original readers may have readily inferred that the
period of purification was past and the family recently returned
home. But as the matter may have stood in doubt with some, and
especially for the benefit of the Gentiles who would have had
little knowledge of the law, Luke spells this information out,
providing the details Matthew omitted.
Second, the chronology of Jesus’ baptism and first disciples,
which is discussed in the next section, confirms that Jesus’
thirtieth birthday occurred sometime in late fall to early
winter 29 A.D., placing his Nativity in same time frame in 2
B.C. From there, we may measure the distance to the death of
Herod shortly before Passover 1 B.C. and find that the events do
not admit of a gap, and that no more than about three and a half
months can have elapsed between them.
Table No. 4, Chronology of Christ’s Birth and Death of
Herod the Great
Birth of Christ – Presentment at temple – Return to
Nazareth .…………………..43 days
Arrival of Magi – Herod travels to Callirrhoe – Death –
Passover………………..62 days
Total……….…………105 days
Passover (April 8) 1 B.C
>
105 days
>
Dec.25th, 2 B.C. |
The continuity achieved by placing the Presentment of the
Christ-child at the temple forty days after his birth, followed
by the holy family’s return to Nazareth and the arrival of the
magi, coupled with the chronology of Herod’s final illness and
death just before Passover April 8, 1 B.C., allows us to place
the Nativity in the final quarter of December, 2 B.C. This
result is corroborated by the baptism, wilderness temptation,
and first disciples of Christ.
Luke’s Chronology and the Baptism of Christ
“Began to be about Thirty”
The only explicit reference to Christ's age and hint to his date
of birth is in the Gospel of Luke. Following Jesus’ baptism,
Luke tells us “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years
of age” (Lk. 3:23). This phrase is problematic. Does Luke mean
Jesus had just recently turned thirty, or that he shortly would
turn thirty? Much depends upon our answer, so let us take a
moment to decide. There are about 136 instances where the
scriptures provide someone’s age (a word search produces 127
returns for “years old”, and 9 for “years of age”). Surveying
these, we find that the overwhelming majority of cases simply
state the subject’s age, typically in the past tense, though
sometimes in the historic present. Another group of cases adds a
descriptive phrase to the subject’s age: “And when he was full
forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren”
(Acts 7:23). “For the man was above forty years old, on whom
this miracle of healing was shewed” (Acts 4:22). These cases are
particularly insightful when compared with Luke.
-
“He was full forty years old”
-
“The man was above forty years old”
-
Jesus “began to be” thirty years old.
This comparison makes it rather clear that “began to be” is the
equivalent of “almost.” The like phrase occurs in Matthew where
he says Mary Magdalene came to the sepulcher “in the end of the
Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the
week” (Matt. 28:1). “Began to dawn” shows that the sun was not
yet risen even though it had begun to grow light. In Nehemiah,
we read “when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark
before the Sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut”
(Neh. 13:19). “Began to be dark” shows that it was not dark yet,
even though the evening shadows had begun to grow long. In the
same way, in saying Jesus “began to be” thirty, Luke indicates
Jesus was approaching his thirtieth birthday, but had not yet
attained thirty years of age.
This is further confirmed by the word “about” (“Jesus himself
began to be about thirty”). The word “about” in Lk. 3:23
is from the Greek “hosei” and is defined by Strong’s
(#5616) as “as if: - about, as (it had been, it were), like
(as)”. Hence, hosei describes something that is not,
as if it were. In fact, the root of this word
(“hos” #5613) occurs
in Rom. 4:17 in almost exactly these terms “God who
quickeneth the dead and calleth those things which be not as
though they were.” If “about” (“hosei”) is used
to call that “which is not as though it were,” then it follows
that Jesus was not 30 years old when baptized. And
since a man is thirty years old the whole period between his
thirtieth and thirty-first birthdays, it remains only to
determine whether Jesus was more or less than thirty; viz.,
whether he was twenty-nine or thirty-one years old.
Here there can be no doubt. Luke’s use of “began to be
about thirty” excludes the possibility the Lord was thirty-one,
for one who is thirty-one has past his thirtieth year and is not
about to begin it as Luke describes.
15th of Tiberius, Christ’s Baptism, and Dec. 31st
A.D. 29
Luke says that Jesus was baptized in the 15th year of Tiberius
(Lk. 3:1). Roman emperors dated their reigns from Jan. 1-Dec. 31st
following their accession (the "accession-year" system).
Augustus Caesar, who preceded Tiberius and was the reigning
emperor when Jesus was born, died August 19, A.D. 14. Thus, the
1st regnal year of Tiberius would have been the calendar year
A.D. 15. Counting forward from here, the 15th year of Tiberius
would have been Jan. 1-Dec. 31st, A.D. 29.
The A.D. 29 baptism of Christ is corroborated by Daniel's
seventy prophetic weeks where he states that the Messiah would
appear 483 years ("seven weeks and three score and two weeks")
from the commandment to restore and rebuild the gates and walls
of Jerusalem (Dan. 9:25). Dating from the commandment of
Artaxerxes given to Nehemiah in 454 B.C. (Neh. 1:1; 2:1), this
would bring us to A.D. 29 (454 - 483 = 29 A.D.). Christ’s
baptism is the point at which Jesus was publicly declared to be
the Messiah and his ministry is dated. Thus, the testimony of
Luke and Daniel agrees.
When Luke states Jesus was 29 going on 30 the 15th of Tiberius
that is the same as to say he was 29 going on 30 in A.D. 29. And
since undoubtedly Luke's intention is to indicate Jesus turned
30 that very year, Dec. 31st becomes a boundary or terminus on
one end, and Jesus' baptism a boundary or terminus on the other,
with his birthday falling somewhere in between. Thus, if we can
identify when Jesus was baptized, we can identify the weeks and
months remaining to the year in which Jesus' birthday would have
occurred, and where Dec. 25th stands in relation thereto. The
simplest way to identify when Jesus was baptized is to first
determine the length of his ministry and then reckon backward
from its end to its beginning, from Calvary to Jesus’ baptism in
the Jordan by John.
The Duration of Christ’s Ministry
Scripture teaches that Jesus had a three-and-a-half-year
ministry. This is seen in Daniel’s seventy prophetic weeks, in
which it is said that Messiah would “confirm the covenant with
many for a week” (seven years) and in the “midst of the week”
(three and a half years) would be "cut off," causing the
sacrifice and oblation to cease (Dan. 9:27; cf. Isa.
53:8). This is almost universally taken in reference to Jesus’
death upon the cross, three and a half years after his baptism.
"On the ordinary Christian interpretation, this applies to the
crucifixion of our Lord, which took place, according to the
received calculation, during the fourth year after his baptism
by John, and the consequent opening of his ministry."[13]
The 3 ½ yr. ministry of Christ is confirmed by the gospels,
particularly the gospel of John, whose record of events and
succession of annual feasts allows us to determine the duration
of Jesus’ ministry:
-
Jn. 2:13, 23 – John records a Passover shortly after the
beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. Passover was typically
in April, though it could occur as early as March.
-
Jn. 4:35 – Jesus commented that there were “yet four months,
and then cometh harvest.” Harvest occurred about 50 days
following Passover and was marked by the feast of Pentecost.
Since there were four months remaining until harvest, this
would place Jesus’ comments in January or February. Thus,
between the first Passover (Jn. 2:13) and the time recorded
here, almost one year has transpired.
-
Jn. 5:1 – John mentions another, unnamed feast.
Many believe this was Passover (the second); others
that it is Pentecost or Atonement, but the
evidence is unclear. In Jn. 6:4, another Passover is
recorded, which was preceded by Jesus’ feeding the five
thousand (Jn. 6:5-14). Luke records the feeding of the five
thousand in Lk. 9:10-17. Before this, Luke records an
occasion where the disciples plucked ears of grain while
passing through a field, placing this near harvest (Lk.
6:1). However, this harvest was too early to be associated
with the Passover preceded by the feeding of the five
thousand, but too late to be associated with the Passover in
Jn. 2:13. Thus, without identifying the feast in Jn. 5:1, we
are able to determine that another year has passed.
-
Jn. 6:4 – A third Passover is mentioned. Jesus’ ministry has
thus covered the space of about two and a half years (three
Passovers, plus the partial year prior to his first
Passover).
-
Jn. 7:2 – John records the Feast of Tabernacles, which
occurs in the fall.
-
Jn. 10:22 – John mentions Jesus’ presence at the Feast of
Dedication commemorating the re-dedication of the altar by
Judas Maccabaeus following its desecration by Antiochus
Epiphanes (I Macc. 4:59). He specifically mentions that it
was winter.
-
Jn. 11:55 – The fourth, and final Passover.
Thus, Jesus’ ministry spanned four Passovers, plus the period
from his baptism to the first Passover, for a total of three and
a half years.[14]
Passover occurs the 14th day of Nisan at the
full moon (Ex. 12:2-6, 18). Jesus died on the Preparation
(Friday) before the Sabbath, the day following Passover, or
Nisan 15, A.D. 33 (Mat. 27:62; Lk. 23:54). He rose the third
day, the morning of the first day of the week (Matt. 28:1; Mk.
16:1; Lk. 24:1). Reckoning backward three and a half years from
Nisan 15, A.D. 33, will thus bring us to the time of Christ’s
baptism. There are some issues with the Jewish calendar that we
must take into account to identify the specific date (so far as
this may be known), but without more, we can already place
Jesus’ baptism in autumn A.D. 29 (four Passovers brings us to
the spring of A.D. 30; the period between the first Passover and
Christ’s baptism brings us to the preceding autumn). Knowing,
therefore, that Christ’s birthday occurred sometime between fall
and the close of the year A.D. 29, the traditional, early winter
birth becomes a distinct possibility.
Can we get more specific? Indeed, we can. We can narrow the
window to within 53 days. But to do this we must discuss the
niceties of the Jewish calendar.
Table No. 5, Ministry of Christ
Baptism A.D. 29 – Passover A.D. 30
Yr. 1 – Passover A.D. 30-31
Yr. 2 – Passover A.D. 31-32
Yr. 3 – Passover A.D. 32-33
Total – 3 ½ yrs
|
The Jewish Calendar and Ministry of Christ
If we were dealing with only the Julian or Gregorian calendar,
identifying the specific date of Christ’s baptism would be
relatively straightforward. We could simply reckon backward from
Jesus’ crucifixion 3 ½ years to the desired date. This is
possible because our calendar has a fixed number of weeks and
months, which stand in fixed relation to our world and its
astronomical phenomena. The summer and winter solstices and the
vernal and autumnal equinoxes occur at precisely the same point
in our calendar each year (June 21/Dec. 21 and March 21/Sept.
21, respectively). However, the Julian and Gregorian calendars
are relatively new in terms of their universal use and
acceptance. The Julian calendar dates from 45 B.C., the
Gregorian from A.D. 1582. (The Gregorian calendar reformed small
errors in the Julian calendar by adjusting the method of
intercalating leap years to keep it in closer synchronization
with the solar year.) The Julian calendar, which was the civil
calendar of the Romans, existed side by side with local
calendars and methods of dating used by the various nations of
the Roman Empire. The chief difference between the Julian and
other calendars used by ancient peoples is its complete break
with the lunar month, establishing a fixed relation between
civil dates and the annual course of the sun.
In ancient times, most of the world used a moveable calendar,
whose months tracked the cycles of the moon. The Jews used a
lunar calendar. Months were determined by the new moon and hence
lunar, but the beginning of the year was adjusted periodically
to the vernal equinox and hence solar. The first month in the
Jewish calendar was Nisan (or Abib), when Passover was
celebrated. Passover occurs at evening, the 14th day of Nisan,
at the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox.
Most readers will have noticed that Passover and Easter occur at
different times from year to year. The reason for this is that
they are based upon lunar cycles, which occur at their own
seasons without regard to the solar year. The vernal equinox may
occur 365 1/4 days apart from year to year, but the full moon
occurs in 29 1/2 day cycles independent of the course of the
sun. Depending upon where the moon is in its cycle when the
vernal equinox occurs determines the period remaining until
Passover and Easter. Because the phases of the moon are not
synchronized with the astrological points of the year, all dates
in the Jewish (lunar) calendar shift against the backdrop of the
Gregorian (solar) calendar this way, so that from one year to
another the correlation between their dates is never the same.
The lunar year does not synchronize with the solar year because
the lunar year is 11 days shorter than the solar year. The lunar
year is approximately 354 1/3 days; the solar year is 365 1/4.
This difference keeps the two systems forever out of sync and is
why a luni-solar calendar historically created so many
challenges for civilization (and why the Romans finally
abandoned it). Because it is 11 days shorter than the solar calendar, in the
period of three years, the lunar year leaps ahead of the solar
year about 33 days. Hence, it was necessary to periodically
bring the two systems back into synchronization, or feasts
nominally set to occur in spring will soon occur in the dark of
winter. To accomplish this, the Jews and other ancient peoples
alternated the length of their months between 29 and 30 days (6
x 29 + 6 x 30 = 354), and added a 13th month at
regular intervals in a 19-year cycle. This intercalation was originally determined by
observation of astronomical and other phenomena, but eventually
was reduced to mathematical formula.
|
|
The Babylonians are credited as the first to discover a
19-year cycle and a fairly complete record of Babylonian
intercalations exists from as early as 629 B.C. However,
the cycle settled into its classic form beginning about
432 B.C. by the discovery of the Greek mathematician,
Meton of Athens. Meton found that the time covered in 19
solar years was equal to 235 lunations, and that by
adding seven months in 19 years the lunar and solar
years could thus be reconciled. Leap years are tabulated on the
Metonic table, and occupy the years 3, 6, 8,
11, 14, 17, and 19 in the cycle. It is known that the
Jews also used a nineteen year cycle. However, whereas
under the Metonic cycle the month intercalated was
always 30 days, with the Jews the extra month might be
either 29 or 30 days as to them seemed best. Moreover,
the Jewish cycle is so arranged that its first year
answers to the ninth year in the Metonic cycle, with the
result that one leap year out of seven in a 19-year
cycle does not match. The eighth year (a leap year) in
the Jewish cycle falls on the sixteenth year (a regular
year) in the Metonic (see illustration).
Since leap years were intercalated about once every
three years, this means that in the course of Jesus’
three-and-half-year ministry at least one leap year of
thirteen months would have occurred. In fact, due to the
differences we have been discussing, by the Metonic
cycle there were two intercalary months, one in A.D. 30,
and one in A.D. 32, but by the Jewish cycle there was
only one, in A.D. 32.[15]
|
All this to say that the difference in length between lunar and
solar years and the intercalation of an extra month in A.D. 32
prevents us from identifying the date of Christ’s baptism by
simply reckoning backward from Christ’s crucifixion in Julian or
Gregorian years. The succession of feasts by which we track the
length of Jesus' ministry in the Gospels are based upon a lunar
calendar and must be reckoned accordingly. Jesus was crucified
on Good Friday, following Passover, on the 15th day of the
Jewish month Nisan, A.D. 33.
3 ½ years backward from this date will bring us to
Heshvan 15, A.D. 29. Heshvan 15th in the Jewish calendar that year translates
into Nov. 8th in the Gregorian calendar, but Nov. 6th in the
Julian calendar used in Jesus' day. However, as Epiphanius uses
Nov. 8th as the date of Jesus' baptism and as there were reforms
to the Hebrew calendar in the fourth century by Hillel II which
affect its accuracy vis-a-vis ancient dates, we will adopt
Epiphanius' date of Nov. 8th. This then becomes the date of
Jesus' baptism, Nov.
8th.[16]
Table No. 6
42 Lunar Months Comprising 3 1/2 years between
Christ's
Baptism and Crucifixion
|
A Nov. 8th baptism leaves only 53 days, or less than 15%
of the
calendar year remaining in which Jesus' birthday would have
occurred. This proves that the Dec. 25th birth of Christ was
fully and historically possible. 85% of the year was spent, 15%
of the year remained, and both Jesus' birthday and Dec. 25th
fell within the same narrow space. But we are not through yet
and can get closer still.
Table No. 7
Days Remaining to the Calendar Year A.D. 29
Fall Baptism --------------- 53-Day Window
------------------Dec. 31st 30th Birthday Occurred within 53-day Window following Baptism
|
Jesus’ Forty-Day Fast and Wilderness Temptation
Jesus was 29 years old when baptized Heshvan 15 (Nov. 8), A.D.
29. He then undertook a forty-day fast (Lk. 4:2), after which he
was tempted of the devil. Following his temptation, Luke informs
us that Jesus began active, public preaching (Lk. 4:14). The
implication here is that Jesus’ fast and temptation were taken
in preparation for his public ministry and timed to end on or
about his 30th birthday, for Jewish men were required to be 30
years old before beginning active public teaching. Forty days
from Jesus’ Nov. 8th baptism, will bring us to Dec.
18th. We are not told how long Jesus’ temptation
following his fast lasted, but we are told that he hungered and
was tempted to turn stones into bread, then was taken to a high
mountain where he was tempted with the kingdoms of the world,
then to Jerusalem where he was tempted to cast himself down from
a pinnacle of the temple (Lk. 4:3-13).
It seems improbable that these were supernatural events or
transportations, which happened in an instant of time. The
better view is that they transpired over a period of several
days, and that Jesus was in fact wrestling against the lusts of
his flesh as we all do. The flesh is the source of all human lust and temptation,
and scripture affirms that Jesus was in all points tempted like
as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15; cf. Gal. 6:18-22;
Jm.1:14-16). Jesus' fast following his baptism ended Dec. 18th.
If we therefore allow seven days in which these temptations were
accomplished, that will bring us to Dec. 25th.
There are 365 days in the year. The chances are 365-to-one
that Jesus' birthday should fall anywhere near Dec. 25th. Yet,
we find to the contrary that simple chronology places Jesus'
birthday in the part of the year occupied by the one day
historically associated with his birth, and this in the course
of events whose narrative makes specific reference to his
impending birthday. Surely, this is too great a coincidence to
assign to chance. If Luke had not mentioned Jesus’ birthday,
perhaps the coincidence could be dismissed. But Luke did
mention Jesus’ impending birthday, and this makes the conclusion
almost impossible to resist: Jesus’ fast and temptation were
taken in preparation for his public ministry and calculated to
end on or about his 30th birthday, which simple
arithmetic places on or about Dec.25th.
The Baptism and First Disciples of Christ
Other evidence showing Jesus' 30th birthday occurred in the
closing days of A.D. 29 consists in Jesus making his first
disciples. It was a law and custom with the Jews that Jewish men
must attain 30 years of age before beginning active, public
teaching. In fact, this is why Luke tells us Jesus was on the
threshold of the 30th birthday when baptized;
viz., he was about to
turn 30 and so begin his public ministry. Since Jesus would not
have made disciples before he was 30, by determining when he did
begin making disciples and teaching, we can determine when his
30th birthday would have occurred.
The synoptic Gospels (Mathew, Mark, and Luke) tell us that,
following his baptism, Jesus underwent a period of fasting and
temptation in preparation for his ministry. John tells us that,
following this, Jesus returned to John the Baptist at Bethabara
where he proceeded to make his first disciples. John enumerates
seven consecutive days, ending with the wedding at Cana.
|
|
Nov. 8th, A.D. 29 |
|
|
40 days |
|
|
----- |
|
|
----- |
|
|
4 days |
|
|
3 days/Jan 6 |
At the wedding in Cana, Jesus manifested his glory to his
disciples by turning the water into wine. This first miracle is
commemorated by the Feast of Epiphany. "Epiphany" means a
"manifestation." Many are unsure what the Feast of Epiphany
commemorates. Some suppose it commemorates Jesus' baptism, or
his Nativity, or even the arrival of the magi.
But Epiphanius tells us that it celebrates the miracle of
Cana, and this fits the chronology where the others do not. The
Feast of Epiphany has been kept Jan. 6th from at least as early
as the 3rd century A.D. If we count backward seven days from
Jan. 6th, that will bring us to Dec. 31st. This then becomes the
day Jesus returned to John at Bethabara - Dec. 31st, the same
boundary or terminus as before and with the same result. For if
Jesus was making disciples the first three or four days of
January, then his birthday almost certainly occurred sometime
after his baptism,
but before his return
to John Dec. 31st. Irenaeus makes this point very clear when he
notes that Jesus would not have made actual disciples before he
turned 30:
"For how could he have had disciples, if He did not teach? And
how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a
Master? For when He
came to be baptized, He had not yet completed thirty years of
age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed
it: 'Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years
old,' when He came to be baptized)."[17]
Disciples require a master, but a master must be 30 years old.
Andrew and Nathaniel called Jesus Rabbi, indicating he was
recognized as being of age to be a master or teacher (Jn. 1:38,
49; cf. 3:2,
Nicodemus). Therefore, although at his baptism Jesus was still
only 29 years old, when he returned to Bethabara about 53 days
later (Dec. 31st), he had turned 30, and thus began actively to
teach and to make disciples. Since his birthday occurred within
the narrow period between his baptism and return to John at
Bethabara, and since within that same narrow window the
traditional date of Jesus' birth occurred, we have every reason
to accept the received date as authentic.[18]
AD 70, the Course of Jehoiarib, and Nativity of John the Baptist
Other evidence that may be offered in proof of Christ’s
December 25th birth consists in the priestly
courses. David divided the priests into 24 courses,
which served at appointed times in the temple (I Chrn.
24:7-18). The two courses that concern us here are
Jehoiarib, the first, and Abijah, the eighth. Luke
informs us that Zechariah, the father of John the
Baptist, was a member of the course of Abijah, and was
burning incense in execution of his priestly office when
Gabriel appeared and announced that his wife would
conceive a son. Based on statements in Luke, John was
about six months older than our Lord (Lk. 1:36, 56). If
it can once be determined when Zechariah was serving,
and therefore when John was conceived, it is thus
possible to identify the approximate time of Christ’s
birth 15 months later. |
|
|
To identify when Zechariah may have been serving requires that
we first recreate the priestly courses; to do this we require a
point of reference from which to begin.
Happily, history has not left us without a witness. The
Jerusalem Talmud records a saying of Rabbi Yose ben Halafta,
which dates to about A.D. 150, or 80 years of the event, stating
that the course of Jehoiarib was serving when the temple was
destroyed in A.D. 70 by the Romans:
"Whence do we know that the second
Temple was also
destroyed on the 9th of Ab? We have learned in a Boraitha: 'A
happy event is credited to the day on which another happy event
happened, while a calamity is ascribed to the day when another
calamity occurred;' and it was said that when the first Temple
was destroyed it was on the eve preceding the 9th of Ab, which
was also the night at the close of the Sabbath and also the
close of the Sabbatical year. The watch at the time was that of
Jehoiarib, and the Levites were chanting in their proper places,
at that moment reciting the passage [Psalms, xciv. 23]: 'And he
will bring back upon them their own injustice, and in their own
wickedness will he destroy them"; and they did not have time to
end the passage, which concludes, 'yea, he will destroy
them--the Lord our God," before the enemy entered and took
possession of the Temple. This happened also at the destruction
of the second Temple."[19]
That Jehoiarib is reputed to have been serving the 9th
of Ab (August 4) when the temple was destroyed tells us the
courses were not static and did not serve the same weeks and
months year after year. For Jehoiarib being first could not have
served in Ab unless the rotation of courses somehow advanced in
their ranks.[20]
However, while this tells us that the courses did advance, it
does not tell us how they advanced. Two basic models have
emerged. The "continuous succession" model supposes that each
course followed its immediate predecessor through the 24
courses, at which point the first course began again, and so on
ad infinitum. This
model has been shown to conflict with basic facts in the gospel
narratives, and therefore is not used here.[21]
The approach adopted here is that the priestly rotations
were framed within a 24-year cycle, originally set in motion by
Solomon and renewed by Ezra, which commenced the Sabbath on or
next before Tishri 1 (I Kings 8:2; Ezra 7:1).[22]
Each course served one week twice annually, plus such additional
weeks necessary to fill out the year, coming in the evening of
the Sabbath (Friday) and going out the evening of the Sabbath
(Friday) following. Assuming each course advanced annually to
the next station, the cycle of priestly ministration would be
completed in 24 years, at which point it would begin anew.[23]
Rabbinic tradition placing Jehoiarib on service when the temple
was destroyed allows us to identify the station in the
twenty-four year cycle. From there we can find when the cycle began. Then, by
reckoning backward in twenty-four year increments to the course
preceding the conception of John the Baptist in 3 B.C., we can
putatively identify the week and month Zechariah was serving.
The number of steps from the first station of Jehoiarib’s second
ministration (for the first does not reach so far) to the week
of Ab 9 is twenty-one stations. Thus, A.D. 70 was the
twenty-first year in the twenty-four year cycle. To return to
the beginning of the cycle we subtract twenty years from A.D.
70, which brings us to A.D. 50. Subtracting twenty-four more
years brings us to A.D. 26; this course would therefore have
consisted of the years A.D. 26-49. Twenty-four more years brings
us to A.D. 2; this course would have consisted of the years A.D.
2-25. 24 years more bring us to 23 B.C. (there was no year
zero). This course
would have consisted of the years 23 B.C. to 1 A.D. Counting
forward from 23 B.C. to 3 B.C. when John was conceived shows
that the course of Abijah would have been serving at its
twenty-first station when Gabriel appeared to Zechariah (23 B.C.
to 3 B.C. = 21).
|
|
Assuming
Zechariah’s course was in its second
ministration, this would mean he was on duty the week of
Elul 27-Tishri 4 (Sept. 5-11). We do not know how long after Zechariah’s
ministration his wife conceived.
Human fertility cycles run about 28 days, during
which a woman is fertile only about 7.
If we allow that Elizabeth conceived the second
week after Zechariah returned home, this would place
conception in the week of Tishri 12-18 (Sept. 19-25).
Normal human gestation is 38 weeks. A 38-week gestation would place John's birth the
week of Tammuz 20-26 (June 20-26), 2 B.C. Based on
statements in Luke, John was six months older than our
Lord (Lk. 1:36, 56). Six months is 26 weeks.
Twenty-six weeks from John’s birth brings us to
Tebet 26-Shebat 3, which answers to the week of December
21-27. |
Thus, assuming the model suggested herein is correct, rabbinic
tradition regarding the priestly courses and destruction of
Jerusalem corroborates the received date of Christ's birth. (To consult tables of priestly courses,
click here.)
Conclusion
The evidence for the December 25th birth of Christ is as
conclusive as the nature of the case will allow: The chronology
of Christ’s Presentment at the temple and Herod’s last illness,
Luke’s and John’s chronology of Jesus baptism and first
disciples, the testimony of Jewish tradition and Josephus
regarding the destruction of the temple and the priestly courses
all combine to affirm that the traditional date for the Savior’s
birth is scripturally based and scripturally sound. May God
bless you and your family at Christmas as you pause to remember
the day when the Christ-child was born in Bethlehem.
[1]
Tertullian,
Against Marcion, IV, xix; Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol.
3, p. 378; cf. Justin Martyr,
Apology, 1,
xxxiv, xlvi;
Dialogue with Trypho, 78. See generally, Jack
Finegan, Handbook
of Biblical Chronology, Revised ed. (Hendrickson,
1998), pp. 302-306; F.W. Farrar,
The Gospel
According to St. Luke, (Cambridge, 1882), pp.
62-64.
[2][2]
Josephus,
Antiquities, XVII, v.
[3]
Josephus,
Antiquities, XVII, vi, 1.
[4]
Josephus,
Antiquities, XVII, v-vi, 4.
[5]
W. E. Filmer, The
Chronology of the Reign of Herod the Great, JTS 17
(1966), pp. 283-298; Earnest L. Martin,
The Birth of
Christ Recalculated (Pasadena: Foundation for
Biblical Research, 1978); idem
The Nativity and
Herod’s Death, CKC 85-92; idem,
The Star that
Astonished the World (2nd ed.; Portland:
ASK Publications, 1996); Jack Finegan,
Handbook of
Biblical Chronology (Revised ed.;
Hendrickson, 1998); Andrew E. Steinmann,
When Did Herod
the Great Reign?, Novum Testamentum 51 (2009), pp.
1-29.
[6]
Josephus,
Antiquities, XVII, vi, 5.
[7]
Steinmann is mistaken here in that he has Herod already
at Jericho when the rabbis are executed and leaves from
there for the mineral springs at Callirrhoe; but
Josephus is clear that Herod
sent the
rabbis to Jericho for execution, showing Herod himself
was not there. ("And when the king had ordered them
to be bound, he sent them to Jericho, and called
together the principal men among the Jews" (Ant.
17.6.3). The better view therefore is that magi found
Herod at Jerusalem shortly after the rabbis’ execution;
Herod then left for Callirrhoe soon thereafter.
Steinmann, When
Did Herod the Great Reign?, p. 13. For a copy of
Steimann’s piece, go to
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/not/2009/00000051/00000001/art00001
[8]
Macrobius,
Saturnalia, II, 11; Loeb ed.
[9]
Steinmann, When
Did Herod the Great Reign?, pp. 15, 16.
[10]
Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (1998
ed., Hendrickson), p. 299 § 514.
[11]
Josephus, Antiquities, 17.8.3.
[12]
Timothy D. Barns,
The Date of Herod’s Death, JTS 19 (1968): 204-209;
Ernest L. Martin,
The Birth of Christ Recalculated (Pasadena,
Foundation for Biblical Research, 1978): chapter 13;
The Nativity and
Herod’s Death, CKC 85-92);
The Star That
Astonished the World (2d ed.; Portland, ASK
Publications, 1996); P. M. Bernegger,
Affirmation of
Herod’s Death, JTS 34 (1983): 526-531; Paul L.
Maier, The Date
of the Nativity and the Chronology of Jesus’ Life,
CKC 113-130; Jack Finegan,
Handbook of
Biblical Chronology, (1998 ed., Hendrickson) p. 300
§ 515
[13]
J. E. H. Thomson, Daniel – The Pulpit Commentary
(Hendrickson, Peabody, MA), p. 275.
[14]
This conclusion is joined by Eusebius who, based upon
Josephus, confirms that Christ's ministry was confined
within the space of four years, bounded by the high
priesthoods of Ananus and Caiaphas. Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History, Bk. I, chpt. x.
[15]
“There is much to make it look as if, in general, the
Babylonian system came to prevail relatively early, but
with some variations in Jewish practice from the
Babyonian…Therefore, in spite of the fact that the
Jewish system used only added Adars, the result was the
same as in the Babylonian system and seven months were
intercalated in nineteen years.”
Finegan, pp. 35-39, §§ 71-80.
Of course, the 19-year cycles merely accomplish
mathematically what can otherwise be determined by
observation; the regular accumulation of extra days due
to the difference in the lunar and solar year mean that
approximately every third year an extra month would have
been added in any event.
Thus, provided the same starting point is used,
the placement of leap years will be the same whether
mathematical tables are used or not.
[16]
For the years A.D. 30 and 32 the equation works like
this: 747 + 30 = 777 ÷ 19 = 40 with remainder of 17.
747 + 32 = 779 ÷ 19 = 41 with no remainder.
Because the divisor is nineteen, a remainder of
“zero” equals the nineteenth year of the cycle.
Thus, A.D. 30 and 32 were both leaps year.
See the article The Babylonian Calendar
after R.A. Parker & W.H. Dubberstein, Babylonian
Chronology at
http://www.friesian.com/calendar.htm.
Another formula, that used by modern Jews, is to
multiply the Jewish year × 235, subtract 234, and divide
by 19. If the remainder is larger than 12, it is s leap
year, if less, it is a regular year.
For the year A.D. 32 the formula is 3792 × 235 =
891120 – 234 = 890886 ÷ 19 = 46888.73684.
46888 × 19 = 890872. 890886 – 890872 = R14.
Thus, by Jewish reckoning, A.D. 32 is also
reckoned a leap year, however, by this same method A.D.
30 is not.
[17]
Irenaeus, Contra Haeresies, II, 4, 5; Anti-Nicene
Fathers, Vol. I, p. 391.
[18]
This chronology is confirmed by Epiphanius, Bishop of
Salamis on the island of Cyprus. Epiphanius originally
supposed Epiphany celebrated both the Nativity and
miracle at Cana, but later changed his mind and agreed
that Dec. 25th was the correct date of the
Nativity, placing the baptism of Christ on Nov. 8th,
and assigning Jan. 6 to the miracle at the wedding in
Cana: “Epiphanius boldly removed the date of the
Baptism to the 8th of November. ‘January 6’
(= Tobi 11), he writes, ‘is the day of Christ’s Birth,
that is, of the Epiphanies.’
He uses the plural, because he adds on January 6
the commemoration of the water miracle of Cana. Although
in 375 he thus protested that January 6 was the day ‘of
the Birth after the Flesh,’ he became before the end of
the century a convert, according to John of Nice, to the
new opinion that December 25 was the real day of this
Birth.” Encyclopedia Britannica,
Feast of Epiphany,
11th ed (1911).
[19]
Seder ‘Olam Rabbah (30.86-97). Rabbi Yose ben Halafta is
confirmed in part by Josephus, who says that the first
and second temples were destroyed upon the same day 556
years apart. Wars VI, iv, 1, 5.
[20]
That the courses were not static but advanced is
confirmed by the saying of Rabbi Abbahu (AD 300) in
Jerusalem Talmud y. Sukka 5.7-8.
Finegan, 133, §242
[21]
According to this model, the courses may be extrapolated
backward in continuous succession from the 9th
of Ab, A.D. 70, to the relevant year to determine where
any particular course would have been serving. To do
this, we multiply 365.25 days by the number of years
covered, divide this by seven to obtain the number of
weeks, and then divide this number by 24 to obtain the
number of courses fulfilled in the period. In the
present case, there were 72 years between the fall of
Jerusalem Ab 9, A.D. 70 and Ab 9, 3 B.C., the year John
would have been conceived. This equals 156 complete
cycles of priestly courses, plus 13 additional weeks
(365.25 x 72 = 26,298 ÷ 7 = 3,756.857 ÷ 24 = 156.53.
0.53 x 24 = 12.72). Ab 9 in 3 B.C. equates with July 21
in the Julian calendar. However, the extra 13 weeks
places us roughly in the middle of a priestly cycle.
Jehoiarib, the first course, would have served 11 weeks
earlier (= week of May 5) at the beginning of the 157th
cycle, and 13 weeks later (= week of Oct. 20) at the
beginning of the 156th cycle, reckoned
backward from Ab 9, A.D. 70. Abijah is the eighth
course, which would place it on duty eight weeks after
these dates, or roughly June 30th and Dec. 15th,
respectively. The birth of Christ 15 months from these
last dates would thus occur in late September 2 B.C. or
mid-March, 1 B.C. This first date is too early, for we
have already seen from Luke that Jesus was not yet 30 in
November, A.D. 29, when baptized by John, which would
not be the case if he was born in September 2 B.C. The
latter date is too late, since he would then only be 28
at his baptism, not 29 as affirmed by Luke. Thus, the
continuous succession model conflicts with Luke's Gospel
and therefore cannot be correct. See also Seldon,
Theanthropos,
pp. 72-74.
[22]
Tishri (lat September-October) is the Jewish New Year
for accession of kings, rotation of priests, and all
things except the cycle of feasts, which took their
start with Passover in the spring. Other sources
(rabbinic, Qumran) show that the priestly courses took
Tishri 1 as their regular beginning point, which would
have no meaning under the continuous succession model.
For the rotations once set in motion, Tishri 1
could have no further significance to their progression.
It is only under a system where the courses were static
or advanced as herein proposed that recurring reference
to Tishri 1 can have any meaning.
Finegan, p. 134, §§243, 246.
[23]
Since there are 24 courses, if they served twice
annually, this will fill up 48 weeks, leaving just less
than 3 weeks remaining in the normal lunar year, but 8
weeks in a leap year.
The approach taken in our tables of priestly
courses is that the extra weeks in normal years were
filled by the courses next in order (Jehoiarib, Jedaiah,
and Harim), after which the cycle advanced anew, so that
in effect, the first three courses served three times
annually.
However, for all anybody knows, these extra weeks may
have been filled by lot.
The assumption with leap years is that the
courses whose lot it was to be on duty in Adar each
served an extra week during the intercalated month of
Adar II to allow for the unbroken progression of the
courses.
That a course served extra weeks does not mean that the
same men served, however, only that their course
provided the extra men necessary to fill out the weeks.
______________________________
All rights reserved.