Dating the birth of Christ

[Paul_Culloty]

It's fairly well-known nowadays that Christmas was assigned December 25th to Christianise the solstice festival, but when would the event have most likely occurred, even just analysing the Gospel accounts? The recent theory that the Star of Bethlehem was a planetary conjunction fits with the knowledge that the Magi were Persian astronomers, but much uncertainty still surrounds the detail of the Roman census.

[Lucius]

Paul_Culloty

It's not merely "fairly well-known" that Christmas was assigned December 25th to Christianise the solstice festival. It's positively one of those things that "everybody knows," if you know what I mean.

Jesus' mother and friends would have known on what date He was born.

The Eastern Orthodox Christians celebrate it on January 7th. So, maybe that's the answer.

[Pedro]

Paul_Culloty

It's not merely "fairly well-known" that Christmas was assigned December 25th to Christianise the solstice festival. It's positively one of those things that "everybody knows," if you know what I mean.

Jesus' mother and friends would have known on what date He was born.

The Eastern Orthodox Christians celebrate it on January 7th. So, maybe that's the answer.

St. Matthew (2:1) tells us that Jesus was born "in the days of King Herod".
Josephus (Ant., XVII, viii, 1) informs us that Herod died after ruling thirty four years de facto, thirty seven years de jure.
Now Herod was made rightful king of Judea A.U.C. 714, while he began his actual rule after taking Jerusalem A.U.C. 717.
As the Jews reckoned their years from Nisan to Nisan, and counted fractional parts as an entire year, the above data will place the death of Herod in A.U.C. 749, 750, 751.
Again, Josephus tells us from that an eclipse of the moon occurred not long before Herod's death; such an eclipse occurred from 12 to 13 March, A.U.C. 750, so that Herod must have died before the Passover of that year which fell on 12 April (Josephus, "Ant"., iv, 4; viii, 4). As Herod killed the children up to two years old, in order to destroy the new born King of the Jews, we are led to believe that Jesus may have been born A.U.C. 747, 748, 749. The enrollment under Cyrinus mentioned by St. Luke in connection with the nativity of Jesus Christ, and the remarkable astronomical conjunction of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn in Pisces, in the spring of A.U.C. 748, will not lead us to any more definite result. That is what the Catholic encyclopedia says. If anyone had an interest in the exact date I imagine they would. So I guess the question will always be open unless archeologist dig up a petrified Christmas card. In many Latin cultures the seventh of January (called Three Kings Day) is the day for exchanging presents. In my Costa Rica we celebrate on Christmas eve… Noche Buena. That is when family and friends get together and eat and drink and bathe in the joy of being together. On Christmas day the women folk go to church and the men nurse hangovers. This year I'm trying to get the holiday moved to January. I still got shopping to do.:)

[Lucius]

I still got shopping to do.:)

Oh yeah. That is coming up soon, isn't it.

[Comet]

Early Christian historians have narrowed the years to between 7 and 4 BCE. As Pedro mentions, the Gospel of Matthew places the birth of Jesus during the reign of King Herod. Herod is said to have died in 4 BCE. If we take Matthew as a reliable source, combined with archeological evidence, its a good bet that Jesus' birth is close to that mark.

[JustAHobby]

We may never know the exact time of the birth of Christ. For those of faith in Jesus we know the death and resurrection are more important. We do know it was during the reign of King Herod. The season remains heavily debated. I believe that the birth was probably closer to Sept-Oct during the High Holy Days on the Jewish calendar. More specifically during the Feast of Tabernacles that may explain the manger which would actually be a sukkah (temporary tent) during this feast. As far as when the 3 wise men brought gifts, the 6th or 7th of January may have been the arrival as they could not have made it from Babylon to Israel overnight. I understand that an astronmical event occurred during that time frame as well. Again this one of many views.

[Rosicrucian]

From what I've read, Christ was born either in late Dec. or early-to-mid Jan. Either way he was a Capricorn.

[etak4444]

Jesus died in the spring at Passover time. His ministry was 3 and a half years long during which Jesus celebrated four Passovers. Since Jesus was 33 and a half years old when he died then his date of birth must have been 6 months earlier in Autumn. Have I made any sense?

[MarkA]

Nice cut and paste pedro,

Here is the full article;-

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08377a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08377a.htm)

very interesting.


I did read somewhere that Jesus was born in October 4BC...

NO idea if that is true.


Mark

[cinamin]

There's a couple things I found in some commentaries that supports a probable September birth.
First, Luke 2:8: And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. A common practice of shepherds was keeping their flocks in the field from April to October, but in the cold and rainy winter months they took their flocks back home and sheltered them.

Another one, a little more complicated to follow, is the birth of John the Baptist, born six months before Jesus, where a clue is given in Luke 1:35-36: The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month.
Here's the quote that explains how they calculate Jesus' birth from that information:
If we can determine when John was born, then six months later we will come to the approximate date of Christ's birth. Can we find evidence indicating the time of John's birth?
The Bible mentions that Elizabeth conceived shortly after her husband, the priest Zacharias, had finished serving his course at the temple, called "the division of Abijah" (Luke 1:5, 8). This was six months before Mary became pregnant with Jesus. Back in King David's day, the priestly course had been separated into 24 turns, or divisions (1 Chronicles 24:7-19). These began in the first month (1 Chronicles 27:2), March or April of our modern calendar, and, according to Talmudic and Qumran sources, rotated every week until they reached the end of the sixth month, when the cycle was repeated (beginning in September-October) until the end of the year.
During the festival season, all the priests would come to the temple to serve. Luke shows us that Zacharias's service was not during a feast season, since it was the division of Abijah that was in charge of the temple, and Zacharias was chosen to present the incense offering.
The division of Abijah was the eighth division, or shift, which normally would take place close to three months after the start of the cycle in March-April. This would place Elizabeth's conception around June or, if it was Zacharias's second yearly turn, around December.
The Bible does not specify which of the two shifts it was. Regardless, nine months after one of the two dates John the Baptist was born. This would place his birth in March or September. Six months later, Jesus' birth would have been around September or the following March. Whichever way it occurred, according to the time of the division of Abijah, a December birth for Christ is out of the question.

[DesertPilot]

It's hopeless. Pedople have been arguing this for 1600 years and no one has a clue. The winter solstice date was a 4th century Roman invention, to make Jesus's birthday coincide with Mithra's, when Constantine was trying to reconcile Christianity and Mithrasism -- a wise move on his part, since the Army was Mithraist, the civilian population was Christian, and you didn't get to go on being Emperor if you alienated one or the other. Before that time, many references say things like, "early Christians celebrated their messiah's birth around Epiphany" [italics mine], which really doesn't narrow it down much.

As far as the year goes:
1) Matthew says Jesus was born when Herod was king. Herod kicked the bucket in 6 BCE ("Awk!" Thud. "This is an ex-Herod.")
2) Luke says it was when Ausgustus held a census and Qurinius was governor. The census of Augustus occurreds in 4 CE.
3) There was no year zero, so you have to subtract 1 when you do the arithmetic.
4) 6+4-1 = 9. So if Matthew and Luke are both to be believed then either Jesus was born at least 9 years before he was born or he was at least 9 years old when he was born. Both of which would be pretty cool.

This suggests to many historians that the whole chronology is bogus and was made up generations later by whoever wrote the Gospels. Which shouldn't really bother a believer, because it's the message that matters, not the man. or his birthday. But there are other interpretations...

[vid]

I wrote a rather detailed article about this topic some time ago (unfortunately, in Slovak). I will try to make it short here:

- Mark and John say nothing
- Matthew says at times of Herod the Great, eg. before 4 BCE.
- Luke says after census of Quirnius, eg. after 6 CE. He also says Jesus started his carreer when he was "about 30", after being baptized at 29 CE (this date can be fixed quite well based on description). That gives birth date around 1 CE, possible later.
- Matthew, Mark and Luke say he was crucified after John the Baptist was killed. John was killed not long before 36 CE according to Josephus. If we accept claims Jesus started his ministry around 30, and it lasted only few years before his crucifixion, this sets date little bit too late for being born at time of Herod.

That's it. But anyway, my opinion is that both birth narratives are only later stories about Jesus, based on Markan priority. No special birth is mentioned in earliest synoptic gospel of Mark, and two later gospels which are redactions of Mark add two completely different birth narratives.

Situation is also same for early christians. They have completely no idea when was Jesus born. There is evidence for at least 6 various dates used by various groups of Christians. Many Christians didn't celebrate his birth, and some even considered doing so sinful. One of earliest christian authors whose work survived, Irenaeus (writing at the end of 2nd century) claimed that Jesus died around age of 50, rendering all dates invalid. Both traditional dates 25th december and 6th january are derived from belief that Jesus was concieved and died on the same day of year. Both are defended on the basis of astrology and numerology. All computations done by ancient christians on this topic derive from dating of Passover, but Passover date for specific year was based on Jewish version of Babylon calendar, which has huge margin of error for backtracking specific day. Often it is not even sure which calendar author used for his computations.

As for Mithra being born on same day, lot of BS is circulating about this topic. Fact is, that earliest solid source for Jesus birth on 25th december is also the earliest source for Mithra birth on 25th december. It is roman Calendar from 354CE. Both of them, and their birth dates, were strongly associated with sun worship. Anything else said on the subject is made up. We don't know what brought Mithraist and Christian god-birth dates together. It could have been Constatine's clever move, popular unification movement, Christianity copying Mithraism, Mithraism copying Christianity, or just similar conditions that produced similar beliefs. We simply don't know. Note that there are some pre-354 texts that would date jesus birth to 25th december, but all of them are suspicious and have been tampered with.

I can supply facts I base my claims on on demand, if someone is doubtful. This is just quick rehash of my older article.

[DesertPilot]

That's a great summary, vid. Do you happen to recall the details of Constantine's edict that moved XMas to 25-Dec? Is it in your older article? I have some references about his original edict of tolerance, but I've never been able to track down references to his other edicts because... well... they don't seem to have a 'Constantine' section in our local bookstore. An annoying oversight on their part...

[Pedro]

As you say it is hopeless.
But here is a very scholarly article from the Catholic encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm

If Vid didn't confuse you this ought to finish you off.

[vid]

That's a great summary, vid. Do you happen to recall the details of Constantine's edict that moved XMas to 25-Dec? Is it in your older article? I have some references about his original edict of tolerance, but I've never been able to track down references to his other edicts because... well... they don't seem to have a 'Constantine' section in our local bookstore. An annoying oversight on their part...
I strongly doubt there ever was such edict.

It is likely (not sure though) that 25th december was celebrated before Constantine in some parts of empire (based on sun-worship themes). Even during 4th century, it had no special position. In eastern parts, 6th january was the major date. The controversy about birth date continued on for centuries after Constantine. But the point is: it was not important at the time of Constantine at what date Jesus was born. Christmas was minor feast (like Feast of circumcision of Christ for example). Contemporary arguments between christian groups don't focus on this point, and church writers feel okay about various groups using various dates. I don't see reason for Constantine to create such edict - it would IMO cause more uproar than unification.

Of course I may be wrong. I mostly focused on pre-Constantine evidence in my article. Do you have some reliable secondary source that claims there was such edict?

But here is a very scholarly article from the Catholic encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm
If Vid didn't confuse you this ought to finish you off.

This article covers more timeframe than my article does and so it also omits some quite important details.

For example, there are dubious parts about Clement of Alexandria dates, mentioned at the beginning of article. Clement uses Egyptian calendar, to which it is not that easy to assign dates from modern calendar. Egyptian calendar didn't compensate for leap years. Clement only cites some earlier authors here, and we don't know whether they did. In fact, one of major dates mentioned by Clement, if we don't compensate for leap years and count back, curiously corresponds to 6th january. Quite many dates he mentions as used by various christians curiously correspond to 25th day in month of egyptian calendar. And numerology was always big in Jesus birth date arguments. All this arguing from Clement is very shaky.

Face it: We don't have any evidence for any christian knowing anything about Jesus birth date. All the dates offered by Christians (from 3rd century on) are based on sun-worship, numerology, etc. Only clue in Bible is Zecheriah priestly services, but that leaves error margin in dozens of days. Jesus himself most likely wouldn't know at what date he born. Even if he knew date of his birth in Jewish calendar, it wouldn't be possible to trace it back to particular day with confidence, after some 30 years, because of the *$#!*ed-up way Jewish calendar worked.

[DesertPilot]

I strongly doubt there ever was such edict....

...Of course I may be wrong. I mostly focused on pre-Constantine evidence in my article. Do you have some reliable secondary source that claims there was such edict?


Not at the moment. I was hoping you might know of some. All I can find offhand are the usual unattributed statements to the effect that, "Well, the early Christians celebrated Christmas around Ephiphany, Constantine moved the date to 25-Dec to coincide with the winter solstice and the celebration of Mithra's birthday, therefore Mithra's birthday must always have been celebrated on 25-Dec, etc..." This situation is not helped by the fact that Mithraism was a mystery religion, and left no good textual evidence behind. It also doesn't explain how one gets from the solstice (20-Dec or 21-Dec, depending on how you count it) to Christmas (25-Dec, the last time I checked).

I'm away from my library right now, in a small fishing village on the coast of New England that has no substantial historical resources (and no Mithraists either, as far as I can tell, though you never can be too sure about these things :) ). I'll take another look through some of my books on the history of the Byzantine Empire and early Christianity after I get home to see what I can find, but that won't be for a week or two, and I imagine this thread may have dwindled away by then.

[vid]

Yeah, there are many claims circulating to that effect, but I have yet to see evidence. You might want to look at Roger Pearse guy - he is one of major refuters of such claims.

As for 25th dec... AFAIK the date of solstice moved in last 2000 years. Also, there was some tradition for 25th march death of christ => many people believed he had to be also concieved on same date => +9 (roman) months is usual pregnancy time. There is same situation with 6th january birth and 6th april death/crucifiction/ascension (pick one), where former seems to be based on latter. But we know nothing for sure.

[etak4444]

Face it: We don't have any evidence for any christian knowing anything about Jesus birth date.

Jesus was 33 and a half when he died in Nisan ( March/April). Six months on brings us to Tishri (September/October). No specific date is given so do you suppose that is because the Jews of that time did not celebrate birthdays?
“A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one’s birth.”—Eccl. 7:1, Authorized Version (Meaning a good name with God at the end of one's life.) Just a thought.:)

[vid]

Jesus was 33 and a half when he died in Nisan ( March/April).
Where did you get that "and half" part?

Btw, Irenaeus wouldn't agree with 33. Also probably wouldn't Luke, even though he is not explicit enough.

[etak4444]

Luke says Jesus was about 30 when he commenced his work as you know. His ministry went for 3 and a half years. The calculation is based on the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel, four Passover festivals mentioned in John and some deductive reasoning which includes the great Sabbath that fell in the year 33 CE. I don't want to rave on but I have found it very interesting to have been able to check these points out in detail.

[vid]

Luke says Jesus was about 30 when he commenced his work as you know
Are you sure "about 30" is good enough for you to calculate someone's birth to month precision? Also, do you think that author of Gospel of Luke had any clue at all about any dating of events, when he put together Herod the Great (4BCE) and census of Quirnius (6CE)?

The calculation is based on the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel, four Passover festivals mentioned in John and some deductive reasoning which includes the great Sabbath that fell in the year 33 CE.
Why 33 CE? Luke says Jesus was baptized in 28/29 CE, but how do you know he started his ministry right after that? Also, if it was so, that would make Luke's dating even more messed up, because Jesus would have to be born around 1BCE (and at the same time before 4BCE based on Herod, and around 6CE based on census).

Also, if you say Jesus died on 33 CE when he was 33 and half years old (eg. he was born on 1BCE) does that mean you consider Matthew's stories about Herod the Great, and Luke's stories about census untrue?

I don't want to rave on but I have found it very interesting to have been able to check these points out in detail.
Then, please explain your entire calculation in detail.

[etak4444]

:) Mine is an alternative view (obviously) that some may wish to do further research into.
If not, that’s OK. It seems to me that between scholars, historians and the like there is an amount of uncertainty as to the actual dates pertaining to the death of Herod and the governorship of Quirinius the chronology of which is based largely on Josephus’ history , the conclusions from which are by no means definite as far as I can see. The alternative chronology is that Herod died about 2-1 BCE. To me, that doesn’t mean the bible information in Luke is in error.

In the case of Quirinius being governor in 6 CE, there appears to be another source of evidence which implies that Quirinius was governor for “the second time” and that due to
inscriptions found in Antioch containing Q’s name, there is some acknowledgement by historians that he was governor in Syria in the BCE period.

As for the author of the Gospel of Luke, the author states at the beginning that he traced all things from the start with accuracy and has written it in logical order. If we are to believe information regarding the Muritorian Fragment, then Luke is accepted as the author. Apparently he was also accepted as the author by Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria.
Internal evidence points to the Luke who accompanied the Apostle Paul – he referring to him as the beloved physician. Luke speaks of the illnesses of the people in a way unlike the other Gospel writers – he elaborates and describes conditions in the way only a doctor would. We could conclude that he was an educated man and well acquainted with study and research and fully able to trace all things with accuracy and do so logically.
Luke names no less than seven public officials serving at the time so that historians should be able to actually pinpoint the time of the beginning of John’s (the baptiser) ministry and that of Jesus and from there reach the other dates with the help of the 70 weeks prophecy and the information in the Gospel of John.

[vid]

If not, that’s OK. It seems to me that between scholars, historians and the like there is an amount of uncertainty as to the actual dates pertaining to the death of Herod and the governorship of Quirinius the chronology of which is based largely on Josephus’ history , the conclusions from which are by no means definite as far as I can see.
Nothing is definite in history. But without a positive evidence, you cannot argue for something just because it is "possible", especially if there is some positive evidence for other view. There are infinite such "possible" explanations. Herod's death is AFAIK safely dated to 4 BCE according to several markers, while 1 BCE is only a conjecture based on picking other lunar eclipse than the one on 4 BCE (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great#Death). Let me know what other evidence do you have against 4 BCE, or for 1 BCE specifically.

In the case of Quirinius being governor in 6 CE, there appears to be another source of evidence which implies that Quirinius was governor for “the second time”, and that due to inscriptions found in Antioch containing Q’s name, there is some acknowledgement by historians that he was governor in Syria in the BCE period.
I quess you mean this (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Antioch) inscription. What does it say about being governer of Syria? It only says Q was duumvir of Pisidian Antioch, remote city far away from Syria. That is more evidence AGAINST than for what you claim. Any other evidence? Btw, who are those historians?

As for the author of the Gospel of Luke, the author states at the beginning that he traced all things from the start with accuracy and has written it in logical order.
No, he doesn't say that. What he says is that he writes "orderly account" of Christ story, like many who were eye-witnesses already did before him (presumably to correct their mistakes). It says the author was writing at the time when there were multiple versions of Jesus narrative circulating. That fits poorly to traditional view that gospel was written second by eyewitness. But it fits perfectly to the Markan priority, a hypothesis currently held by majority of scholars, that Mark wrote first, and Luke was redaction of Mark, possibly Matthew, and Q. It is now also universally accepted that same writer authored Acts of apostles as continuation of gospel story, and this is where work would get its author attributed (Luke was follower of Paul according to Colossians).

If we are to believe information regarding the Muritorian Fragment, then Luke is accepted as the author. Apparently he was also accepted as the author by Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria.
Irenaeus was writing about 180. Muratorian Fragment can be dated anywhere from 170 to ~400[1] . No one disputes that the text we are talking about was believed to be written by apostle Luke, follower of Jesus and companion of Paul by that time. But that's some 70-100 years after the work was written. What did people believe about Book of Mormons after 100 years of its circulation? We know of many gospels everyone now considers "apocrypha", that were accepted as genuine and were attributed authorship of Jesus follower in much less time.

That leaves us with Clement. Can you please cite the Clement's text which you are referring to?

Also, if you believe that this text was really authored by follower of Jesus and Paul, what is your explanation for synoptic problem? Was Mark (and Matthew) copying Luke?



[1]Text itself claims early date, but since we know Christians loved to falsificate old writings (see correspondence of Jesus with Abgar, or correspondence of Paul with Seneca, etc.), we need to take it with grain of salt.

[Fire_Fingers]

From what I've read, Christ was born either in late Dec. or early-to-mid Jan. Either way he was a Capricorn.

*gasp* I'm a Capricorn too!!!

I feel so special. :) :)

[sturm]

It's fairly well-known nowadays that Christmas was assigned December 25th to Christianise the solstice festival, but when would the event have most likely occurred, even just analysing the Gospel accounts? The recent theory that the Star of Bethlehem was a planetary conjunction fits with the knowledge that the Magi were Persian astronomers, but much uncertainty still surrounds the detail of the Roman census.
Very good thread and a fantastic topic for a discussion, thank you Paul.

There isn't reference in the Bible that Jesus Christ was born on 25 December, this is just a date, picked by the church. Orthodox christians for example chosen 7 January.
It is written in the Bible by Luke that shepherds were outdoors with their flocks when it occured, so many have suggested that this event must have happened in the summer or autumn day. That is why there are different suggestions about the day, for example Clement of Alexandria claims that Jesus was born on May 20, there are specualtions about 19th or 20th April.

[vid]

There isn't reference in the Bible that Jesus Christ was born on 25 December, this is just a date, picked by the church. Orthodox christians for example chosen 7 January.
And both these days are most likely based on belief that Jesus was conceived and died on the same day in year. 25th december is also likely mixed with sun worship, and earliest arguments for it involve huge dose of numerology.

It is written in the Bible by Luke that shepherds were outdoors with their flocks when it occured, so many have suggested that this event must have happened in the summer or autumn day.
There are some who claim they could also be out during winter, so this isn't as conclusive as it may appear.

Clement of Alexandria claims that Jesus was born on May 20, there are specualtions about 19th or 20th April
No, he doesn't. Here is what Clement wrote: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.i.xxi.html

[sturm]

And both these days are most likely based on belief that Jesus was conceived and died on the same day in year. 25th december is also likely mixed with sun worship, and earliest arguments for it involve huge dose of numerology.
No, this theory was actually disproved. Can't find the video, sorry.
I know what your speaking about, the sun being in the center of a cross lined stars. It was proved that during the winter the sun has a different angle.

There are some who claim they could also be out during winter, so this isn't as conclusive as it may appear.
We are speaking about the lands in todays Israel, winter isn't like here, so yes of course it may be during the winter, but we cannot be so sure.

[vid]

No, this theory was actually disproved. Can't find the video, sorry.
Which theory exactly? Conception/Death on same date, sun worship, or numerelogy?

I know what your speaking about, the sun being in the center of a cross lined stars.
No, nothing about cross symbol or whatever. Only time I heard such hypothesis was Zeitgeist or some similar nonsense. I meant De Pascha Computus, the earliest document (middle of 3rd century) that mentions 28th march conception of christ. This text connects christ very strongly to sun, and uses load of weird numerology. Nothing to disprove. Details in Kirsopp Lake, Christmas; in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, Volume 3 (http://www.archive.org/details/encyclopaediaofr03hastuoft) (warning, 100 MB). Unfortunatelly I wasn't able to find full english translation of this document online.

[JimR-OCDS]

Being that Christmas, December 25th was the date established by the Catholic Church to observe and celebrate the birth of Christ, why not
go find out how THEY came up with it?

http://newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm

BTW, its quite complex and a good cure for amnesia.

Jim

[vid]

Being that Christmas, December 25th was the date established by the Catholic Church to observe and celebrate the birth of Christ
Was it? How can you be so sure?

http://newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm
That article has number of problems. It is good as a starting point thanks to the number of sources it references, and also quite surprisingly honest (for a presumably catholic author), but you still shouldn't accept anything written there without (much) more research. Probably due to size constraints it makes some very unsafe assumptions. The Kirsopp Lake's article is IMO much superior to this one.

[JimR-OCDS]

Was it? How can you be so sure?


Because the date December 25th, was established by the Pope, when only one Christian Church existed, i.e. before the great schism and reformation.



That article has number of problems. It is good as a starting point thanks to the number of sources it references, and also quite surprisingly honest (for a presumably catholic author), but you still shouldn't accept anything written there without (much) more research. Probably due to size constraints it makes many very unsafe assumptions. The Kirsopp Lake's article is much superior to this one.


Its from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Like I said, the Church established December 25th as the date to observe the birth of Christ. Being such, I think the Church scholars have a good idea how it came about, and hence, its probably more accurate than any other source.


Jim

[vid]

Because the date December 25th, was established by the Pope, when only one Christian Church existed, i.e. before the great schism and reformation.
Which pope, and what exactly do you mean by "established"? Was there a papal decree establishing it? If yes, please reference particular decree.

Like I said, the Church established December 25th as the date to observe the birth of Christ. Being such, I think the Church scholars have a good idea how it came about, and hence, its probably more accurate than any other source.
Like I said, I doubt that Church established December 25th - but it depends on what exactly we mean by "establish". 25th dec was almost (not 100%) certainly used before catholic church even came to being (in its centralized form as we know it now, eg. not multiple city-churches). Church might have later helped to spread this date, but I would have to see evidence for that first. And even the article you cite demonstrates that Church scholar have just as little clue about date of christmas traditions, as all christians whose writings survived ever had.

[JimR-OCDS]

Which pope, and what exactly do you mean by "established"? Was there a papal decree establishing it? If yes, please reference particular decree.


Like I said, I doubt that Church established December 25th - but it depends on what exactly we mean by "establish". 25th dec was almost (not 100%) certainly used before catholic church even came to being (in its centralized form as we know it now, eg. not multiple city-churches). Church might have later helped to spread this date, but I would have to see evidence for that first. And even the article you cite demonstrates that Church scholar have just as little clue about date of christmas traditions, as all christians whose writings survived ever had.


You have to read the link I provided to see how December 25th, came about as the date in which the Church celebrated the Birth of Christ. The history goes back to the 4th Century.

The conclusion is stated in the article;




The calendar

The fixing of this date fixed those too of Circumcision (http://www.historum.com/cathen/03779a.htm) and Presentation (http://www.historum.com/cathen/03245b.htm); of Expectation (http://www.historum.com/cathen/05712a.htm) and, perhaps, Annunciation B.V.M. (http://www.historum.com/cathen/01542a.htm); and of Nativity and Conception of the Baptist (http://www.historum.com/cathen/08486b.htm) (cf. Thurston in Amer. Eccl. Rev., December, 1898). Till the tenth century Christmas counted, in papal (http://www.historum.com/cathen/12260a.htm) reckoning, as the beginning of the ecclesiastical (http://www.historum.com/cathen/03744a.htm) year, as it still does in Bulls (http://www.historum.com/cathen/03052b.htm); Boniface VIII (http://www.historum.com/cathen/02662a.htm) (1294-1303) restored temporarily this usage, to which Germany (http://www.historum.com/cathen/06484b.htm) held longest.

The Liturgical Calender of the Catholic Church, begins the fist day of Advent.

Jim

[vid]

You have to read the link I provided to see how December 25th, came about as the date in which the Church celebrated the Birth of Christ. The history goes back to the 4th Century.
I did read it (and found couple of errors in it), and the history goes even before 4th century, eg. even before catholic church (albeit indirectly, through 25th march). That's what I've been trying to say.

Also, you claimed "the date December 25th was established by the Pope"... So I ask you again: which Pope, and by what document (bull / decree / ...). I don't see answer to my question either in your quote, or anywhere else in article.

[JimR-OCDS]

vid;



I did read it (and found couple of errors in it), and the history goes even before 4th century, eg. even before catholic church (albeit indirectly, through 25th march). That's what I've been trying to say.


Before the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church was the Church established by Jesus Christ. We not only have Scripture, but the writings of the early Church fathers, such as Ignatius and Polycarp. "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. Matthew 16:18


Also, you claimed "the date December 25th was established by the Pope"... So I ask you again: which Pope, and by what document (bull / decree / ...). I don't see answer to my question either in your quote, or anywhere else in article.


From the article which you claimed you read.


Pope Julius I (http://www.historum.com/cathen/08561a.htm) (337-352), quoted by John of Nikiû (http://www.historum.com/cathen/08475a.htm) (c. 900) to convert Armenia (http://www.historum.com/cathen/01736b.htm) to 25 December (see P.L., VIII, 964 sqq.). Cyril declares that his clergy (http://www.historum.com/cathen/04049b.htm) cannot, on the single feast of Birth and Baptism, make a double procession to Bethlehem and Jordan. (This later practice is here an anachronism.) He asks Julius to assign the true (http://www.historum.com/cathen/15073a.htm) date of the nativity "from census documents brought by Titus to Rome (http://www.historum.com/cathen/13164a.htm)"; Julius assigns 25 December.


Jim

[vid]

Before the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church was the Church established by Jesus Christ. We not only have Scripture, but the writings of the early Church fathers, such as Ignatius and Polycarp. "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. Matthew 16:18
If "ekklesia" means the catholic church, then catholic church must have existed even before Jesus. Even OT says that if your husband dies, and his brother refuses to impregnate his wife (like Onan), she has to go to "catholic church", and then bang him with a shoe (Deutoronomy 25). Acts 9:31 and Revelation 2-3 speak about multiple "catholic churches". Ekklesia simply doesn't refer to catholic church, it refers to local congregation, assembly. Indeed, it would have been physically impossible for one single church to exist before 4th century, before grabbing on Roman imperial power system. Every town had its own church, with its own developing doctrines, and there was no single "catholic" church before 4th century - there wasn't even a way to keep one. Since 1930s Walter Bauer's "Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity" it is quite clear Catholic Church tradition starting from Jesus is Eusebian construct.

Pope Julius I (337-352), quoted by John of Nikiû (c. 900) to convert Armenia to 25 December (see P.L., VIII, 964 sqq.). Cyril declares that his clergy cannot, on the single feast of Birth and Baptism, make a double procession to Bethlehem and Jordan. (This later practice is here an anachronism.) He asks Julius to assign the true date of the nativity "from census documents brought by Titus to Rome"; Julius assigns 25 December.
Okay, missed that one. However, this correspondence is widely considered a forgery (see this (http://www.archive.org/stream/homileticandcate00meyeuoft/homileticandcate00meyeuoft_djvu.txt) and look for "The testimony of John of Nice"). Author of article you quote knew why he used those quote marks when mentioning those fictious census documents brought to Rome.

And still, 25th december christ birth was not established as Jesus' birth date for great many christians for many years (somewhere even centuries) after Julius, and Julius didn't come up with this date either (same birth date is logically resulting from century older document De Pascha Computus, for example), at best he picked one of traditions. Face it: 3rd century christians didn't have a slightest clue when Jesus was born, 4th century christians didn't know why some (minority) of 3rd century christians picked 25th december, and author of article you quote has minimal info even about those 4th century christians.

So, I keep my criticism of that article. I disagree with you that chrisitan historians have some special relevant information that other historians don't, and should be considered as a special authority. Surely this article has none, and in fact it makes couple of errors and unsafe assumptions.

[Rasta]

Before the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church was the Church established by Jesus Christ.

I don't think this is accurate. There are many practises of the Catholic Church that were never condoned by Jesus. Jesus never said to pray to Mary. Jesus never said to create statues of Saints and pray to them. So where do these come from?

[JimR-OCDS]

I don't think this is accurate. There are many practises of the Catholic Church that were never condoned by Jesus. Jesus never said to pray to Mary. Jesus never said to create statues of Saints and pray to them. So where do these come from?

Jesus said, pray for one another. The definition of the word "pray," is to beckon, to ask. When Catholics pray to Mary, we are asking her, who is the mother of God the Son, to pray for us.

Catholicism is completely in accord with Scripture.

Its just your misunderstanding of Scripture that makes it seem different.


Jim

[vid]

Catholicism is completely in accord with Scripture.
...if you reinterpret scripture in a way to make it in accord with catholicism. By "scripture" I mean catholic mis/translations (OT: of mis/translations) of texts that catholics defined as scripture during 4th to 16th century.

[JimR-OCDS]

...if you reinterpret scripture in a way to make it in accord with catholicism. By "scripture" I mean catholic mis/translations (OT: of mis/translations) of texts that catholics defined as scripture during 4th to 16th century.


The Canon of the Bible, was established by the Catholic Church, @257AD. The interpretation must coincide with the traditions that were handed down from the Apostles. It was what has been used through today.

You're assertions that they are mistranslations, is merely your opinion.

However, I believe you will find that it is your misunderstanding of Catholic teaching that is flawed, not Catholic interpretation of Scripture.

Jim

[vid]

The Canon of the Bible, was established by the Catholic Church, @257AD. The interpretation must coincide with the traditions that were handed down from the Apostles. It was what has been used through today.
Interesting... What document was that? Or is this a typo for 367?

Also, what caused the confusion at eastern Synod of Laodicea in 363 which omited Revelation? What caused Synod of Trullo to confirm Synod of Laodicea, and include letters of Clement of Rome and "eight books, which is not appropriate to make public before all, because of the mysteries contained in them" into scripture? And why did Council of Florence in 1451 need to define this canon if it was already so clearly defined?

You're assertions that they are mistranslations, is merely your opinion.
In many cases (eg. "virgin" in Isaiah) it is not just opinion, but widely accepted fact.

The interpretation must coincide with the traditions that were handed down from the Apostles.
Then why almost all early christians had different traditions, more or less different gospels, even different theology everywhere from the time we have first evidence?

[Rasta]

Jesus said, pray for one another. The definition of the word "pray," is to beckon, to ask. When Catholics pray to Mary, we are asking her, who is the mother of God the Son, to pray for us.

Catholicism is completely in accord with Scripture.

Its just your misunderstanding of Scripture that makes it seem different.


Jim

Oh, you are catholic. Never mind then. Of course, it MUST be MY misunderstanding of scripture, since the Catholic church can do no wrong in your mind. I really see no purpose of "debating" a topic if one side is not open to investigation.

[JimR-OCDS]

vid


Interesting... What document was that? Or is this a typo for 367?


Actually I should've said, the OT Canon was accepted around 257.

The New and Old Testament were accepted the Council of Carthage and
Rome.


COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE (III) 397
The Canon of the Sacred Scripture *
92 Can. 36 (or otherwise 47). [It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Machabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three * of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John. Thus [it has been decided] that the Church beyond the sea may be consulted regarding the confirmation of that canon; also that it be permitted to read the sufferings of the martyrs, when their anniversary days are celebrated.

The Canon of Sacred Scripture * (Council of Rome, 382)
84 Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Joshua Nave one book, judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book.
Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.
Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealot, the Apostle one epistle, see n. 162 ff.*



Also, what caused the confusion at eastern Synod of Laodicea in 363 which omited Revelation? What caused Synod of Trullo to confirm Synod of Laodicea, and include letters of Clement of Rome and "eight books, which is not appropriate to make public before all, because of the mysteries contained in them" into scripture? And why did Council of Florence in 1451 need to define this canon if it was already so clearly defined?


Synods which debated the inclusion of Revelation did not change its inclusion.

In many cases (eg. "virgin" in Isaiah) it is not just opinion, but widely accepted fact.

I presume that you're referring to where Isaiah uses "maiden" rather than "virgin?"

The Dead Sea Scrolls show that "Virgin" was used as well as maiden.

However, the accepted Canon of the OT, was from the Septuagint version of the OT, which was for Greek Speaking Jews. In the Septuagint, "Virgin," is used and is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls version of the Septuagint.



Then why almost all early christians had different traditions, more or less different gospels, even different theology everywhere from the time we have first evidence?


Not all Christians had different traditions, but some did. However, the only accepted traditions, are those handed down by the Apostles themselves.

Readings from the Didache and early writings of the Church fathers like Ignatius, Polycarp, and others, provide the basis for these traditions.

Jim

[JimR-OCDS]

Oh, you are catholic. Never mind then. Of course, it MUST be MY misunderstanding of scripture, since the Catholic church can do no wrong in your mind. I really see no purpose of "debating" a topic if one side is not open to investigation.


When it comes to Sacred Tradition, the Church is infallible.

Its through investigation, that I returned to the Catholic Church, some 34 years ago.

Thanks for your input as to how you feel about the Catholic Church.

I'll keep it in mind in future discussions. :rolleyes:

Jim

[tjadams]

When it comes to Sacred Tradition, the Church is infallible.

Its through investigation, that I returned to the Catholic Church, some 34 years ago.Jim


Its exactly through investigation that I left the Catholic Church six years ago after being baptized, an Altar Boy and teaching in a Catholic school for five years.

[Rasta]

When it comes to Sacred Tradition, the Church is infallible.

Wow, you even capitalized sacred tradition. The words that some men say must be really important to you. I don't think any human is infallible, but thanks for making your opinion clear.

Its through investigation, that I returned to the Catholic Church, some 34 years ago.

Thanks for your input as to how you feel about the Catholic Church.

No problem. Intellectual honesty is a trait that I hold in very high esteem.