When was Christ born?

In holiday season many Christians have been merrily, joyously, and some perhaps even seriously, solemnly, and reverently, celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. However, one wonders how many gave any significant thought to the issue of when was Christ born. If they had they would quickly have discovered that despite all thy mythology and legend that surrounds this holiday season, we really do not know when Christ was born. We know neither the year, nor the month, nor the day. For that matter we don’t know the time of day either. God in his wisdom has chosen not to reveal to us anything concerning the exact date of this momentous event so long foretold by the prophets and awaited by the faithful. That should teach us something about the wisdom of even having such a holiday season when God in his wisdom has denied us the information that is absolutely necessary as a foundation for it. The purpose of this article is not to develop that thought, but to establish what the Scriptures do teach about the timing of Christ’s birth, about the date of the incarnation.

Let us begin by examining the sacred record of Christ’s birth as recorded in the Scriptures. While the Scriptures give us no definitive dates, there are a number of clues that point as to the time of year that Christ must have been born. Luke’s account of the nativity of our Lord is the most detailed and almost all these clues are found in his gospel. We will develop a number of these clues and see where they lead us…

It can be determined by finding out when Zachariah was doing his priestly duties in the temple. It was the "course of Abia" Luke 1:5-8. Now Elizabeth got preggers then and 6 months later, Mary got pregnant. 9 months later Jesus was born. Through a long and intricate study, we find when the course of Abia, or "Abija" in some translations, was,( in the OT), and add 15 months you get Tabernacles.

Alfred Edersheim accepts the traditional date based on the following historical evidence:

At the outset it must be admitted, that absolute certainty is impossible as to the exact date of Christ’s Nativity - the precise year even, and still more the month and the day. But in regard to the year, we possess such data as to invest it with such probability, as almost to amount to certainty. ...
6. Lastly, we reach the same goal if we follow the historically somewhat uncertain guidance of the date of the Birth of the Baptist, as furnished in this notice (St. Luke i. 5) of his annunication to his father, that Zacharias officiated in the Temple as on of ‘the course of Abia’ (see here vol. i. p. 135). In Taan. 29 a we have the notice, with which that of Josephus agrees (War vi. 4. 1. 5), that at the time of the destruction of the Temple ‘the course of Jehoiarib,’ which was the first of the priestly courses, was on duty. That was on the 9-10 Ab of the year 823 A.U.C., or the 5th August of the year 70 of our era. If this calculation be correct (of which, however, we cannot feel quite sure), then counting ‘the courses’ of priests backwards, the course of Abia would, in the year 748 A.U.C. (the year before the birth of Christ) have been on duty from the 2nd to the 9th of October. This also would place the birth of Christ in the end of December of the following year (749), taking the expression ‘sixth month’ in St. Luke i. 26, 36, in the sense of the running month (from the 5th to the 6th month, comp. St. Luke i. 24). But we repeat that absolute reliance cannot be placed on such calculations, at least so far as regards month and day. (Comp. here generally Wieseler, Synopse, and his Beiträge.) (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Appendix VII.)

With all respect to Edersheim, that doesn't work. Per 1Ch 24:7, Jehoiarib was the first priestly course. That means it would have been taking its turn at the beginning of the religious calendar (Nisan 1-7) and at the beginning of the civil (Tishri 1-7), not midway through. Not that I have reason to doubt Josephus and the Talmud--but it is evident that the priestly orders had become disrupted during the siege, probably due to attrition.

It also doesn't get around the issue of the fact that the sheep and their shepherds weren't still out in the field come December due to it being Israel's rainy season, and being pretty darn cold up in the mountains. To quote Adam Clark:

It was a custom among the Jews to send out their sheep to the deserts [wilderness], about the passover [sic], and bring them home at the commencement of the first rain: during the time they were out, the shepherds watched them night and day. As the passover [sic] occurred in the spring, and the first rain began early in the month of Marchesvan, which answers to part of our October and November, we find that the sheep were kept out in the open country during the whole of the summer. And as these shepherds had not yet brought home their flocks, it is a presumptive argument that October had not yet commenced, and that, consequently, our Lord was not born on the 25th of December, when no flocks were out in the fields; nor could He have been born later than September, as the flocks were still in the fields by night. On this very ground the nativity in December should be given up. The feeding of the flocks by night in the fields is a chronological fact, which casts considerable light on this disputed point. (Clarke's Commentary, vol. V, p. 370)

Shalom.

Well, as I understand it the explanation given is that the disruption goes all the way back to the return from Babylon. For your scheme to work the timing would have had to remain intact going all the way back to the time of Chronicles. The Jewish record of the 1st century suggests that was not the case.

But Edersheim has 5 other points to support his conclusion. And he is certainly not alone. A number of authors after careful researched have concluded that while we cannot know for sure, the traditional date is quite possible.

consequently, our Lord was not born on the 25th of December, when no flocks were out in the fields; nor could He have been born later than September, as the flocks were still in the fields by night.

Actually, there is good historical evidence to suggest that flocks would have been present as specified in the gospel account in the December period. Again, quoting Edersheim:

But as we pass from the sacred gloom of the cave out into the night, its sky all aglow with starry brightness, its loneliness is peopled, and its silence made vocal from heaven. There is nothing now to conceal, but much to reveal, though the manner of it would seem strangely incongruous to Jewish thinking. And yet Jewish tradition may here prove both illustrative and helpful. That the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem,⁹⁴⁹ was a settled conviction. Equally so was the belief, that He was to be revealed from Migdal Eder, ‘the tower of the flock.’⁹⁵⁰ This Migdal Eder was not the watchtower for the ordinary flocks which pastured on the barren sheepground beyond Bethlehem, but lay close to the town, on the road to Jerusalem. A passage in the Mishnah⁹⁵¹ leads to the conclusion, that the flocks, which pastured there, were destined for Temple-sacrifices,⁹⁵² and, accordingly, that the shepherds, who watched over them, were not ordinary shepherds. The latter were under the ban of Rabbinism,⁹⁵³ on account of their necessary isolation from religious ordinances, and their manner of life, which rendered strict legal observance unlikely, if not absolutely impossible. The same Mishnic passage also leads us to infer, that these flocks lay out all the year round, since they are spoken of as in the fields thirty days before the Passover - that is, in the month of February, when in Palestine the average rainfall is nearly greatest.⁹⁵⁴ A somewhat different explanation is given in Jer. Bezah 63 b. Thus, Jewish tradition in some dim manner apprehended the first revelation of the Messiah from that Migdal Eder, where shepherds watched the Temple-flocks all the year round. Of the deep symbolic significance of such a coincidence, it is needless to speak. ( Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Chapter VI)
949 In the curious story of His birth, related in the Jer. Talmud (Ber. ii. 3), He is said to have been born in ‘the royal castle of Bethlehem;’ while in the parallel narrative in the Midr. on Lament. i. 16, ed. W. p. 64 b) the somewhat mysterious expression is used {hebrew}. But we must keep in view the Rabbinic statement that, even if a castle falls down, it is still called a castle (Yalkut, vol. ii. p. 60 b).
950 Targum Pseudo-Jon. On Gen. xxxv. 21.
951 Shek. vii. 4.
952 In fact the Mishnah (Baba K. vii. 7) expressly forbids the keeping of flocks throughout the land of Israel, except in the wilderness - and the only flocks otherwise kept, would be those for the Temple-services (Baba K. 80 a).
953 This disposes of an inapt quotation (from Delitzsch) by Dr. Geikie. No one could imagine, that the Talmudic passages in question could apply to such shepherds as these.
954 The mean of 22 seasons in Jerusalem amounted to 4.718 inches in December, 5.479 in January, and 5.207 in February (see a very interesting paper by Dr. Chaplin in Quart. Stat. of Pal. Explor. Fund, January, 1883). For 1876-77 we have these startling figures: mean for December, .490; for January, 1.595; for February, 8.750 - and, similarly, in other years. And so we read: ‘Good the year in which Tebheth (December) is without rain’ (Taan. 6 b). Those who have copied Lightfoot’s quotations about the flocks not lying out during the winter months ought, at least, to have known that the reference in the Talmudic passages is expressly to the flocks which pastured in ‘the wilderness’ ({hebrew}). But even so, the statement, as so many others of the kind, is not accurate. For, in the Talmud two opinions are expressed. According to one, the ‘Midbariyoth,’ or ‘animals of the wilderness,’ are those which go to the open at the Passovertime, and return at the first rains (about November); while, on the other hand, Rabbi maintains, and, as it seems, more authoritatively, that the wilderness-flocks remain in the open alike in the hottest days and in the rainy season - i.e. all the year round (Bezah 40 a). Comp. also Tosephta Bezah iv. 6.

It was a Bible study I did on the Jewish Feasts a few years ago. The teacher was a Messianic Jew that spoke of the Feast days having "themes". One theme was taught during the Feast of Tabernacles was the priests erected a post in the courtyard of the Temple, wrapped in in cloth dipped in oil, and lit. They would declare to the pilgrims "The Light of the World", as they passed it. It was placed in the courtyard so everyone could see and not just priests. This was just another example why a Jew was supposed to recognize their Messiah when He came. It was also another example of Jesus fulfilling EVERY jot and tittle of Jewish Law and tradition.

A very good DVD study is called "The Feasts of the Lord" by Mark Biltz.

http://elshaddaiministries.us/storefront/dvd.html

This DVD set may cover this topic, I can't remember, but would have to re watch it to find out. If it is covered on the DVD, Biltz would give the Bible verse involved. Generally speaking, if there is a NT verse, he can tie it to an OT verse being fulfilled by Christ. If Jesus was referred to as "The Light of the World", it would be mentioned in the OT somewhere.

Chronicles was most likely written or overseen by Ezra, which means that the correct priestly order was known after the return from Babylon. There's no reason not to believe that the courses were done in their proper order.

I'd have to look up the Talmudic reference, but to be blunt about it, Edersheim is ignoring basic geography: There may well have been flocks out and about in December--in the lowlands where it was warmer, if still rainy--but not that high up in the mountains, where runoff and the possibility of snow and ice (which are frequent in winter in Jerusalem) would risk unnecessary damage to flocks left wandering about.

Sorry, it still doesn't add up. Nice try, though.

And now, I really must get back to work.

Shalom.

....."Ultimately we will never really know exactly when our Lord was born. And that does not matter because we really do not need to know."......

Not true. The purpose of the Jewish Feasts Days were for encounters with God. Just as Passover had 2 encounters with God, so too we saw God in action on Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, and Pentecost. Given that track record, wouldn't it make sense to have an encounter with God on Trumpets, Yom Kippur, and Tabernacles? When the disciples asked Jesus about when The end times prophesies would happen, He told them they were not in darkness, but were children of light and could know these things. The day Christ was actually born isn't that important now that He has come, but if you were a wise man in Persia, you would have been watching for the signs and would have known your Savior was come if you had known the times of the seasons.

If you read the parables on the foolish virgins, the talents, unwise servants, etc, they all point to "servants"( that's a Christian) that has forgotten, or wasn't looking for his Master to return. You CAN know these days for His return and He admonishes you to be "watching" for Him. It is absolutely true that Dec 25th means nothing to God, but Tabernacles absolutely matters to God, as does Trumpets, and Yom Kippur.

Jesus appeared to us as a Jew, He practiced as an observant Jew, and the Jewish people were chosen to reveal the oracles of God to the world. Jesus came to save the Jew first, and then the Gentile. It would be totally consistent for the Jewish Law and customs to reveal EVERYTHING about Christ. To celebrate on a pagan day is just another example of the spirit of Antichrist already here. To call Sunday the Sabbath is another example. The first thing Jesus will do on His return to Earth will be to re establish the Sabbath.

I'm not a radical. I observe the birth of Jesus on Christmas on Dec. 25th, but I also observe the worship of my Savior every day. Jesus told His Church not to worry about people judging you not observing Feast Days and other traditions. He also relieved us of the burden of forbidden foods. But knowing the significance of the Feast Days should be a TOP priority of all Christian teachings. Just as we understand He most likely was born on Tabernacles, we need to understand the Rapture will most likely happen on some future Rosh Hashana( Trumpets, ergo the trump theme), the return of Christ on Yom Kippur( Judgment Day), and the 1000 year Reign of Christ should begin on some future Feast of Tabernacles.

For most Christians, we might be wrong on most of these days, but look at the cost of being wrong if you don't know that Trumpets will bring the Rapture. Not knowing Jesus was born on Tabernacles is just a slight inconvenience, but being left behind because you didn't think the Feast Days mattered will put us in the category of the foolish virgins or the foolish servants that got drunk and beat the others. Just picture the virgins that were told to go where they "buy and sell" and return to find their Bridegroom gone. They were still "virgins", (Christians), but apparently were the "lukewarm" "double minded" Christians who thought their Master delayed His return.

Celebrating Christmas in Dec doesn't doom you to hell, but shouldn't our teachers teach the Truth?

There's no reason not to believe that the courses were done in their proper order.

Except for the historical references to the rabbis and Josephus.

I'd have to look up the Talmudic reference, but to be blunt about it, Edersheim is ignoring basic geography: … Sorry, it still doesn't add up. Nice try, though.

As I understand it Edersheim is essentially conveying the historical reality of that time wrt the flocks used to the sacrifices. While I don't necessarily accept the December timeframe in any authoritative way, I do find the typological suggestion of the shepherds coming to attend the true Lamb of God fascinating.

But recall Edersheim’s response in the footnote to this alleged issue:

954 The mean of 22 seasons in Jerusalem amounted to 4.718 inches in December, 5.479 in January, and 5.207 in February (see a very interesting paper by Dr. Chaplin in Quart. Stat. of Pal. Explor. Fund, January, 1883). For 1876-77 we have these startling figures: mean for December, .490; for January, 1.595; for February, 8.750 - and, similarly, in other years. And so we read: ‘Good the year in which Tebheth (December) is without rain’ (Taan. 6 b). Those who have copied Lightfoot’s quotations about the flocks not lying out during the winter months ought, at least, to have known that the reference in the Talmudic passages is expressly to the flocks which pastured in ‘the wilderness’ ({hebrew}). But even so, the statement, as so many others of the kind, is not accurate. For, in the Talmud two opinions are expressed. According to one, the ‘Midbariyoth,’ or ‘animals of the wilderness,’ are those which go to the open at the Passovertime, and return at the first rains (about November); while, on the other hand, Rabbi maintains, and, as it seems, more authoritatively, that the wilderness-flocks remain in the open alike in the hottest days and in the rainy season - i.e. all the year round (Bezah 40 a). Comp. also Tosephta Bezah iv. 6.

No one knows whether Jesus was born on Tabernacles and that does not seem to matter at all. If it did I have no doubt God would have clearly and unequivocally published the exact date in His Word.

And not knowing the feast days will not cause anyone to be "left behind" unless they do not already know the Savoir to whom the feast days simply pointed.

"And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." (Luke 24:27)

I do not have to build a tent in my back yard to know the true tabernacle of God come down from heaven, or blow a ram’s horn once a year to know he will return "at the last trumpet". These are not hidden things.

They were still "virgins", (Christians),

Actually they were not. For the parable concludes, " Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, 'Lord, Lord, open to us!' But he answered and said, 'Assuredly, I say to you, I do not know you.' Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming." Jesus knows all His own by name. The kingdom is full of both wheat and tares, and the foolish virgins were not His own. (We also need to be careful about assuming a word means something without carefully examining the context.)

Except for the historical references to the rabbis and Josephus.

Which refer to a time when Jerusalem had been under siege since Passover, many had died because of famine and plague, and the services had been disrupted for lack of animals to sacrifice. There's another Talmudic reference which tells us that Aviyah served just before Shavuot (Pentecost), as I recall. I'll have to look it up when I get home.

But recall Edersheim’s response in the footnote to this alleged issue

Which presents two differing rabbinic opinions. We could favor one over the other, or figure out if there is a way to reconcile them. (Such as supposing that there were two traditions based on there being practices in different parts of Judea, depending on the local geography.) Either way, since there is nothing conclusive, and nothing with deals with the geographic realities in Bethlehem, you are left with only an opinion that doesn't quite fit with the facts, as other commentators have recognized.

Shalom.

...."We also need to be careful about assuming a word means something without carefully examining the context"...

I was taught this very way in my early walk. I know believe differently. There are many that claim Christ who don't have a clue. They are not going in the Rapture. That doesn't meant they aren't saved. Don't mistake Salvation with Raptured. They are separate. There will be many left behind that will have to choose to refuse the "mark" or not. We are in the age of Grace right now. After the Rapture, we may very well have to chose To give out lives to be saved. Remember, Jesus said "If you deny me before men, I will deny you before the Father." During Tribulation, if you refuse the mark, you will be killed. You will have to declare your allegiance to The Beast to live.

Like you, I was taught the foolish virgins weren't Christians. If they weren't Christians they wouldn't be virgins or in the other parables, servants. What Jesus was telling you was that warming a pew isn't going to cut it. There are many "Christians" that have claimed Christ but have no evidence. I am not the judge to decide salvation for someone, but God is most capable of deciding who is doing His work and who isn't. God doesn't force Himself on people. Just as in this conversation, you are free to believe what you want, and so am I. Who will God chose for "His Bride", the one doing His bidding and longing for His return, or the one that claims Christ, but slumbers and gets drunk thinking they have it made and are going with Him anyway when He comes. I'm not preaching works, just the motivativation of your heart. I used to have a notion that God was a communist and gave equal rewards to everyone. I no longer feel that way. You can be "saved" and still be judged with the smell of smoke on your garments. That doesn't mean you are doomed to hell. You are still saved, but your reward is different that others.

I believe the Rapture could happen tomorrow and many churches wouldn't even realize anything had happened. Even the pastor may be so "luke warm" and "double minded", he may be left behind. Notice I said "he". Many of the lady pastors are the ones preaching God loves sodomites and baby murder. The same people have dedicated their lives to God and believe they are good stead with God. They will even deny the Rapture because they are still here. When the Antichrist comes to place his mark, what will they do? Choose, but choose wisely. You can still get to heaven, but you must literally give your life or freedom to get there.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.