(22 votes, average: 4.86 out of 5)
Loading...We are barreling down on Christmas! For the blog this year, that means: seasonal Posts! I thought it would be a good idea to talk about what we know about the birth of Jesus, and don’t know, based on the Gospels and our knowledge of the history of the period. It’s amazing what we don’t know. In fact, we know almost nothing, apart from the fact that Jesus was born to a poor Jewish couple who were probably named Joseph and Mary around, what?, 4 or 5 BCE?
I’ll try to explain what we do know and probably don’t know in various posts. As it turns out, that was the topic of the first Christmas post on the blog, done almost exactly eight years ago. Here it is slightly edited! So, from 2012:
***********************
Right now I have the Christmas on my mind — as makes sense this time of year. But I have some other reasons. First, I have agreed to write a brief (2000-word) article for Newsweek this week, to be published in a couple of weeks, about the birth of Jesus, and this has made me think about the other Gospels (from outside the New Testament) that tell alternative accounts of Jesus’ birth and young life. [Interjection from 2020: I may post the article over the next couple of days]
Second, just as I was about ready to start writing the article I learned that the Pope [Remember: this is the pope as of 2012! A theologian/scholar] has published a book on the birth of Jesus, where he, among other things, dispels many of the myths that people subscribe to about the Christmas story.
I have just gotten my copy today and will read it, hopefully, tonight. But it is clear at first glance that among other things the Pope wants to affirm many of the things that scholars have long known about the popular beliefs about Christmas.
First, We don’t know what year Jesus was born. (It will be interesting to see if the Pope suggests a particular year.) None of the Gospels says. According to Luke (and only Luke) Jesus was “about thirty years old” when he began his ministry. According to John (and only John) the ministry lasted between two and a half and three and a half years. And according to all the Gospels he died during the governorship of Pontius Pilate. We know from other sources that Pilate was governor between 26-36 CE. So if (a BIG if: it’s not clear that either Luke or John really had biographically reliable data available to them on these matters) Jesus was 33, then he had to be born somewhere between 7 BCE and 3 CE. But if the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are right that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod then he would have had to be born by at least 4 BCE, since that is when Herod died. And so most historians indicate that Jesus was born in 4 BCE or so, which of course creates a nice irony, since it means that Jesus was born 4 years Before Christ. (!)
The rest of this post is for blog members. Not a blog member? Hey, give yourself an early Christmas present! C’mon, go for it! It’s the gift that never stops giving. At least as long as I’m a reasonably sentient human being….
I remember the Newsweek article quite well and it is worth posting.
Wow! I didn’t remember it at all till I looked it up. I’ve got a memory like a steel…sieve.
Just a little factoid. The man who was actually Governor of Syria when Jesus was born (Publius Quinctilius Varus and NOT Quirinius, as in Luke) went on to suffer the most catastrophic defeat in military history in terms of a disciplined, regular army being wiped out by undisciplined tribesmen (it was Custer’s Last Stand on a far, far bigger scale). Some historians have argued that Varus’s defeat, in AD 9, was a major turning point in History and, had he won, the Roman Empire would have expanded into eastern Europe and might still be around today, in which case I would have been writing this comment in Latin :).
There’s a lovely legend about tabby cats – according to this story there was a cat at the nativity, helping to keep baby Jesus warm. And Mary blessed the cat by laying three fingers on the cat’s forehead, and since then tabby cats all have three stripes there. Which they do! So that’s how we know the legend is true.
(There’s a similar legend about a cat saving the Prophet Muhammed from a poisonous snake and the Prophet blessing the cat).
A review of the Christmas holiday provides a case study in the power of culture.
It seems to me that a philosophy surrounding the penning of the events recorded in the Gospels is to keep the information vague – unverifiable. Matthew and Luke are at odds with each other regarding the birth narrative, and all four gospels are at odds with each other regarding nearly every other significant story of Jesus and his ministry/death/resurrection. I wonder what the earliest Christians thought about these discrepancies? Did they have access to read or to have read to them all four gospels? Did they have access to other gospels that have perhaps been lost to time that might have told even other remarkable stories? Did some write them off as nonsense, and/or were there apologetics who twisted their brains from the beginning in order to make every word true?
Yesterday’s webinar made the question making region of my brain start working overtime!
Good! The answers to your questions are: 1. It varied; 2. Yes. 3. Sometimes. 4. Often!
There is also the issue of how much integrity it took to leave in the conflicting accounts and to leave the gospels as “according to” rather than “authored by.” It would have been much more authoritative to have one gospel authored by one well-recognized name, maybe even Jesus himself. But they chose to have four differing versions with anonymous authors because that was the best they could do. That’s a level ethical conduct that’s usually found only in the most professional areas of modern society (science, medicine, law, etc.)
This is a little off subject (can’t find response to question I asked in another post): Will you please summarize why you believe the birth of Jesus, in history, never happened before and hasent happened since. Thanks!
I’m not sure what you’re asking . The birth of *all* of us happens only only once, never before or since.
There was a famous comet hunter, Australian guy I think, who really knew his stars. He would scan the heavens every night with a small telescope, looking for stars that weren’t there before.
He claimed this – sprinkle salt onto black velvet covering a table. He would inspect the salt pattern, then ask you to move one single crystal – he would reexamine that table and point out the shifted crystal. That’s like comet hunting in huge ‘star fields.’
I wonder if this is how some people, who spend all night with nothing to do, would be able to spot stellar changes others can’t see.
Shifting ‘stars’ could appear to ‘stop’ if they are heading towards you, as could happen when comets come into the inner solar system. Planets (aka ‘wandering stars’) appear to stop and then ‘change direction’ all the time.
Well, if you were here right now I’d take you out on my deck and point to a star and ask you which house it was currently over.
I think it was a tragedy that the Infancy Gospel of Boney M was not included in the official NT canon.
Is it possible to trace Jesus’ birth being in the winter (in Palestine) using Luke’s gospel?
I had a New Testament instructor claim it’s possible through tracing Zechariah’s meeting an angel in the Temple, Elizabeth’s becoming pregnant, Mary’s stay with Elizabeth (number of months), then Mary’s meeting with an angel (then nine months of pregnancy) etc. It might all hinge on Zechariah’s meeting the angel on Yom Kippur; sorry, I don’t have the exact details in place.
Is there anything to this? Thanks
No, I don’t think so. There aren’t dates connected with any of these things. I suppose he’s thinking that if Zechariah was in the holy of holies it must have been Yom Kippur? Interesting.
Didn’t Dionysius just take his dating from Luke 3:1 “In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar… ” when Jesus was about 30 years old?
So either Matthew and Luke were wrong in saying he was born under Herod or the modern dating of the death of Herod is wrong. (But the calendar is correct).
sorry, I don’t understand your reasoning.
The fifteenth year of tiberius caesar would be 29CE, when john started preaching. Jesus began his ministry a few months or a year later when he was thirty years old. So a birth year of -1 or 1 would be correct.
Then if herod died in 4BC matthew/luke got the king at Jesus’s birth wrong – unless the modern dating of herod’s death itself is wrong.
But either way starting the calendar 14 years before tiberius became caesar is correct (if the intention is to start the calendar in the year of Jesus’s birth!)
Saturnalia was usually earlier in December. December 25 was rather the birthday of the Unconquered Sun (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti), as noted in the Calendar of 354.
So what is the scholarly consensus concerning why there are the birth stories in Matthew and Luke? Neither Mark nor John seemed concerned about Jesus’ birth. Why is that?
They want to stress that Jesus’ birth was an act of God in fulfillment of Scripture. Mark and John probably weren’t concerned about that part of it.
Isn’t just about every aspect of Jesus’ life an act of god? What do you think of the idea that like demigod hero Heracles who was the the son of the god Zeus and human mother Alcmene Jesus’ greatness comes from the union between God and a human woman? The idea is that Jesus was modeled loosely on the countless demigods in Greek mythology.
That’s certainly part of Luke’s view.
When was it decided that the celebration of Jesus’ birth was to replace the Roman festival of Saturnalia?
I thought I was saying we don’t now if that’s how it happened. But the celebratio of Xmas around that time first started inthe fourth century under Constantine.
Looks as if all the evangelists agree that Jesus was brought up in Nazareth, and modern scholars therefore assume this also very likely was his place of birth.
How sure can we be that Nazareth is not a late legend? For a long time there has been debates on the derivation of the place name from “Nazōraios”/”Nazarēnos”, or reversely. I have always thought that those terms are relatively straightforward adjectival forms of the town name, but now I have encountered people claiming that this is grammatically difficult, concluding that the town name is an invention on the adjectival forms, originally carrying a different meaning?
It’s very difficult to know why someone would place Jesus’ birth there if he wasn’t really from there. It was an unknown place (never mentioned in the OT; or Josephus). And yes it is hard to know why the place was called that; but it did exist and has been excavated and is where it seems tobe located in the Gospels. So it appears really to be where Jesus was frm.
I agree on the conclusion, but the question was a linguistic one. Can “Nazōraios”/”Nazarēnos” be a valid transliteration of an Aramaic adjectival form?
I’m not sure. Adjectival form of what word? ARe you referering to Matthew’s comment that “he will be called a Nazarene”? Or about the name of the city of Nazareth? Those two words are not etymologically related, even though in English they look like they ought to be….
Actually the town name. The question is if the given gospel variants may be considered valid transliterations of an Aramaic adjective denoting «from Nazareth» .
The Gospel variants on what? Are you referring to the passage in Matthew where it says “He shall be called a Nazarene”? As I indicated, no, that word is not etymologically related to Nazareth. Or if nto that — what are you referring to? You’ll need to give me a verse reference before I can speak about textual variants.
Since both Luke and Matthew’s birth narratives seem to be pretty much completely made up, why do historians put any credence in the part about Jesus being born in the reign of king Harod when estimating when he was born? That information would seem to be just as suspect as the other parts of the story.
I too would like to hear the answer to this. How do we know where to stop once we commit to elements of a story being bogus?
There seems to be less reason to make up the time of his birth — it happened when Herod was king — than the other elements of the story: he really was born where he was supposed to be born; he really was born of a virgin; he really was announced by angels; etc….
So what mistake did Dionysius make that made Jesus born BC? Did he assume that Jesus was younger than 33 when he was crucified? Or did he drop a couple of years between himself and the death of Christ? Or what happened?
I”m not sure actually. What I’ve *heard* is that he misdated Herod’s death.
Seems that according to the various dates Jesus could have been in his early 40s during his ministry, which could be why his opponents in the Gospel of John said he was not yet 50. And it’s interesting how I, and most people I think, never notice the internal and inter-gospel inconsistencies in the birth stories, until I made an effort to read the stories objectively.
I think some people have reasoned that, if shepherds were out watching their flocks by night when Jesus was born, then that might give a clue as to the time of year it was. I think they say late Spring or September but I don’t know enough about Judaean shepherds’ working practices to comment further.
Hi, Professor Ehrman! Thank you for the post! It was surprising to know that many scholars believe Jesus was born 4 years Before Christ！ My AP world history teacher, who is also a faithful Buddhist, used to suggest “the year when Jesus was born” to help us remember. I texted him immediately after I read this post, and he was so surprised lol.
I wonder why people replaced the celebration for Saturnalia? Were they obliged to do so because what celebrated during Saturnalia was conflicting with Christian beliefs?
How funny. I’ve actually changed my mind since I wrote that article: I’m no longer completely sure that Christmas was meant to replace Saturnalia (since Saturnalia ended prior to December 25), though it is one theory. If it’s true, it woudl be because Christians wanted their celebration to occur on a date that people were already using as a celebration.
Prof Ehrman,
When I started this journey, I encountered lots and lots and lots of stuffs on this subject. Would like to take this opportunity to confirm or otherwise their authenticity?
Q1. As you stated, 25th December was to replace the Annual Roman Saturnalia – Was this an absolute replacement of all pagan elements/ roots/ aactivities surrounding the occassion or it was an act Syncretism.
Q2. If the latter is true, how true is the arguement that it needed to be so to appeal to the Roman populace who were predominantly pagans and were more likely to subscribe to a faith that appealed in some ways to their former faiths? If not, could you tell of the motive for replacing the Saturnalia with Christmas?
I’m somewhat changed my mind. I’m not sure that this is the major reason for Dec. 25; but if it is, it would be to provide pagans who celebrated this great festival to have something else to celebrate instead. The traditional ways of celebrating Saturnalia are quite different from the Christmas celebrations.
Prof Ehrman,
Q1. Please, when did the Church offcially adopt 25th December as the traditional birthdate of Jesus (Christmas)?
Q2. Which of the Church Councils (whether ecumenical or otherwise) saw to this adoption?
I’m not sure that there was ever an official decision, e.g., at a church council. (Lots of things were decided simply by concensus; for example, there wsa no real “official” decision about the canon of Scripture at a major church council)
Was the replacement of the festival for the celebration of Jesus’s birth an official edict by the Roman government? If so, who authorized it?
No, not that we know of.
In what historical sources in particular should we expect to find mention of that alleged worldwide census? Im assuming Tacitus and Suetonius.
Also Josephus, for example. Inscriptions. It would be too much to hope it would be in Augustus’s own Res Gestae. But his reign is fairly well documented otherwise.
1. Did Christmas originate separately from Saturnilia, and replace it due to the growing Christian population?
2. Are the Christmas traditions (Christmas trees, ornaments and gifts) originally from pagans who *converted* to Christianity…therefore making these Christian traditions? I heard Christmas trees originated in Pentecostal German communities.
1. It’s debated why it’s Dec. 25; it is true, thought, that the earliest Christains celebrated Easter but not Christmas; 2. Again, lots of debates. Some have argued that what we think of as Christmas in some ways originated with Dickens! But in anitiquity, when “pagans” were converting, these were not traditions.
Dear Dr Ehrman,
Is it true that Christians believed that Jesus was born on December 25th because there was a traditional Jewish belief that great men were concieved and died on the same day?
That is to say exactly 9 months after March 25th when Christians had calculated Jesus to have died according to the Gospel of John?
Thanks
It appears that this reaoning was worked out later, since the date of his death was not itself set in stone.
Dear Dr Ehrman,
Other Christians in Egypt and Asia minor calculated the Jesus’ death on April 6th and, consequently, his birth on January 6th (it’s still celebrated on this day by the Armenian Orthodox Church).
Isn’t it significant that these 2 dates come exactly 9 months after the two dominant dates that Christians calculated as Jesus’ crucifixion.
Isn’t it hard evidence that Christians celebrated Christmas on December 25th for that reason?
Isn’t the “Calculation theory” the smoking gun?
Thanks
It would be hard evidence that *some* of the earliest Christians did if these Eastern dates could also be shown to have been set very early.