Was Jesus born in the fall or in the spring?

by Bonnie_Clyde 8 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Bonnie_Clyde

  We all know it wasn't December. The WT has always said the first part of October. The reasoning I remember is that they calculate that Jesus' ministry was 3-1/2 years long; and since Jesus died in the spring of 33 CE, he must have been baptized in the fall of 29 CE. Since he turned 30 years old when he was baptized, he must have been born in the fall.

  On TV the other day, I heard a commentator say that Jesus was born in the spring, but he offered no proof, other than that the shepherds were in the field at night. Clyde commented that would make sense because the spring is when the sheep would have their young lambs

  Two questions: 1) How did the WT calculate the 3-1/2 years? Did it have anything to do with Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks of years? - 2) Does the Bible say Jesus was exactly 30 years old when he was baptized?

  And, really...it doesn't make any difference.
• 

  truthlover

  There is an interesting commentary of the origins of Xmas, along with info on the birth date of Jesus at http://tellingthetruth.50webs.com/4-4.html After watching this independent commentary that is about 20 min long, you may well question why any Christian wants to celebrate Xmas -- Bottom line is who do you want to please............
• 

  BluesBrother

  My trusty "Aid Book" talks about the evidences being, apart from Daniels prophecy, the number of Passovers recorded in the Gospels. There were four, they say..His birth is said in this book to have been Sept - Oct , 2 BCE
• 

  hamilcarr

  According to a research team down under, Jesus was born in the summer 2BC. This conclusion is backed up by astronomical data involving the mysterious Bethlehem Star.

  http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24764536-5014262,00.html

  But, doesn't the WT teach that Christ was a toddler when visited by the Magi ...
• 

  Brother Apostate

  According to a research team down under, Jesus was born in the summer 2BC. This conclusion is backed up by astronomical data involving the mysterious Bethlehem Star.

  http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24764536-5014262,00.html

  But, doesn't the WT teach that Christ was a toddler when visited by the Magi ...

  Actually, the Scriptures teach this:

  "When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he flew into a rage and ordered the execution of all the male children in Bethlehem and all its neighboring regions who were two years old and younger, according to the time that he had determined from the wise men." - Matthew 2:16

  Christ was not an infant when the Magi came to visit (they knew it was time when they journeyed), he was nearer two years, a toddler.

  Again, the Scriptures do not teach that the star of Bethlehem occured when Christ was born, rather when the Magi visited Him, around age two:

  "After listening to the king, they set out, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it came and stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were ecstatic with joy. After they went into the house and saw the child with his mother Mary, they fell down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasure sacks and offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they left for their own country by a different road." - Matthew 2:9-12

  Also note that toddler Jesus was in the house, not the manger, as commonly depicted.

  Now in regards to the article you posted, yes, the astronomer has apparently found the celestial phenomenon that caused "the star of Bethlehem".

  In regards to the OP, does the Bible indicate when He was born? The biblical accounts point to the Autumn of the year as the time of Jesus' birth, based on the conception and birth of John the Baptist, to whit:

  Since Elizabeth (John's mother) was in her sixth month of pregnancy when Jesus was conceived (Luke 1:24-36), we can determine the approximate time of year Jesus was born if we know when John was born. John's father, Zacharias, was a priest serving in the Jerusalem temple during the course of Abijah (Luke 1:5). Historical calculations indicate this course of service corresponded to June in that year. It was during this time of temple service that Zacharias learned that he and his wife, Elizabeth, would have a child (Luke 1:8-13). After he completed his service and traveled home, Elizabeth conceived (verses 23-24). Assuming John's conception took place near the end of June, adding nine months brings us to the end of March as the most likely time for John's birth. Adding another six months (the difference in ages between John and Jesus) brings us to the end of September as the likely time of Jesus' birth.

  Interestingly, the article you linked to has this date for the appearance of "the star of Bethlehem": June 17, 2BC.

  Further corrobation of this time is obtained from Luke's account:

  "Now in those days an order was published by Caesar Augustus that the whole world should be registered. This was the first registration taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. So all the people went to their hometowns to be registered. Joseph, too, went up from the city of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was a descendant of the household and family of David. He went there to be registered with Mary, who had been promised to him in marriage and was pregnant.While they were there, the time came for her to have her baby, and she gave birth to her first child, a son. She wrapped him in strips of cloth and laid him in a feeding trough, because there was no place for them in the guest quarters. In that region there were shepherds living in the fields, watching their flock during the night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. Then the angel said to them, “Stop being afraid! Listen! I am bringing you good news of great joy for all the people. Today your Savior, the Lord Messiah, was born in the city of David. And this will be a sign for you: You will find a baby wrapped in strips of cloth and lying in a feeding trough.”

  Suddenly a multitude of the Heavenly Army appeared with the angel, praising God by saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and peace on earth to people who enjoy his favor! Then the angels had left them and gone back to heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let's go to Bethlehem and see what has taken place that the Lord has told us about.” So they went quickly and found Mary and Joseph with the baby, who was lying in the feeding trough. When they saw this, they repeated what they had been told about this child. All who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds told them. However, Mary continued to treasure all these things in her heart and to ponder them. Then the shepherds returned to their flock, glorifying and praising God for everything they had heard and seen, just as it had been told to them." - Luke 2:1-20

  Note that infant Jesus was wrapped in strips of cloth, in a feeding trough in a manger, with sheperds tending their flocks, while a Census taking place required Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem, because everyone was to register for the census.

  December (January, February slightly warmer daytime temps) is the coldest month in Jerusalem and Bethlehem, with average 44 degree F daytime and below freezing on many nights. It is a rainy and cold, with occasional snow, and the roads would not have been good for crowds of folks traveling to register. No way would any of the above events have occurred then. For a primarily agrarian society such as then existed and was required to register in the census, a post-harvest time such as late September/early October would have been the likeliest time.

  That would further confirm the Bible account.

  BA- Jesus Christ born late September, possibly early October. What year? It depends on what sources you believe. On that there are many possible answers. But if the astronomer in the linked-to article is correct, it would place the year around -3BC.
• 

  Leolaia

  As I recall, the "seventy weeks" apocalyptic survey in Daniel 9 is the main, if not the sole basis, of the Society's fixing of 2 BC as the date of Jesus' birth. The interpretation that yields this date however has little to do with the Hebrew author was probably talking about, as it incorrectly lumps together the 49 and the 434 years, the two anointed figures (separated by 434 years) are conflated together into a single person, the cutting-off of the anointed one is incorrectly placed at the midway point of the seventieth week, and it construes the cuting off of this anointed one as effecting the ceasing of daily sacrifice, when in fact this is attributed to another figure ("the coming ruler") who with his army causes war and installs the abomination of desolation (9:26-27). This is not a "messiah" figure at all but the "little horn" of ch. 7, 8 who is identical with the wicked "king" (= Antiochus IV Epiphanes) in ch. 11 who does exactly what is related in the seventy weeks passage (compare 9:26-27 with 7:20, 25, 8:9-13, 23-26, 11:22, 31-35, and cf. 1 Maccabees 1:44-62). Throughout the Hebrew apocalypse of Daniel, the figure who causes sacrifice to cease is characterized as an evil man opposing God. To say that the Jesus is the one that causes sacrifice to cease in ch. 9 is kind of like saying that Jesus is the antichrist.

  The real problem with 2 BC is that it is too late for the infancy narrative of Matthew (as Herod the Great was dead by then) and it was probably too early for the infancy narrative of Luke if the census is indeed the one taken while Quirinius was "governor of Syria" in AD 6. Speculative posited identifications of the "star of Bethelem" offer no chronological help. The biggest obstacle imho to reading Luke as implying a different census than the one in AD 6 is the laconic reference to "the census" in Acts 5:37. Since Luke-Acts originally formed a single work, a reader of Acts would naturally find the logical antecedent of this census in Luke 2:1-3 which otherwise is the only census mentioned by the author. This passage in Acts states that the revolt of "Judas the Galilean" occurred "in the days of the census". In fact, Josephus mentions this revolt by Judas the Galilean and he says that it occurred as a reaction to the census of Quirinius after the replacement of Herod Archelaus with Coponius (Antiquities 18.1-6). That was the census of AD 6. So both Josephus and Luke-Acts associate Quirinius and Judas the Galilean with a census and if the author of Luke-Acts meant two different censuses, it is remarkable that he did not distinguish the two (especially since this "later" census would have also been a census under Quirinius) and that this failure to do so just so happened to produce the same associations between Quirinius, the census, and Judas the Galilean found in Josephus. And if we grant the weight of the evidence that suggests that the author of Luke-Acts was dependent on Josephus, then he would have definitely meant the census of AD 6.

  Other than that, there is the fact that the census in Luke 2:1-3 is presented as resulting from a decree by Augustus Caesar, indicating that Judea was then subject to direct Roman taxation. According to Josephus, it was the end of Herodian family rule (during which Judea was a client kingdom, not a Roman province) that brought this circumstance about, and he presents the census of AD 6 as the first systematic official Roman census of its kind -- representing a new assertion of Roman power in the province. This also accounts for the description of the census as the "first census" in Luke. The revolt of Judas the Galilean reacted to this change of affairs, which he viewed as nothing other than "an introduction to slavery" (Antiquities 18.1-6, Bellum Judaicum 2.433). If Luke presented the census as a local administrative affair, internal to the kingdom, that would be one thing, but making the census an imperial effort suggests that Judea at the time was subject to systematic imperial taxation, and that fits the famous census of AD 6 better than some unknown census earlier when Judea was still a kingdom under Herod the Great.

  This would mean that the annunciations in ch.1 of Luke are placed during the reign of the ethnarch Herod Archelaus and not Herod the Great (whereas in Matthew, "King Herod" is succeeded by Archelaus in 2:22), if the author was not mistaken on the time when the census occurred. Luke 1:5 does not actually specify which "King Herod" it was. We know for sure it wasn't Herod Antipas, who is distinguished by the title "tetrarch" in 3:1, who had been tetrarch of Galilee since 4 BC. And "King Herod" is conspicuously absent in ch. 2. Perhaps you may have noticed that no local governor or ruler is mentioned, rather only a foreign ruler, Quirinius -- who was the governor or legatus of Syria. Why was the census mentioned with respect to a foreign ruler? The AD 6 census gives a straightforward answer -- there was no longer any "King Herod", as he had just been deposed, and Quirinius was in Judea where -- according to Josephus -- he administered a census as part of his duties as legatus. So one possible way to read the text is to regard the "King Herod" of Luke 1:5 as King Herod Archelaus, and John the Baptist was born towards the end of his reign (ch. 1). Then he was deposed, and Quirinius went to Judea as part of the "reconstruction", and administers the census in ch. 2, and Jesus was then born shortly afterwards (ch. 2).

  Then many years later (in AD 28-29), Tiberius Caesar was emperor, Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and Philip was the tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis (3:1). That is the time when John the Baptist began his ministry (at age 24 or so). John then continued his ministry for an unspecified length of time (which could include years) and then he was locked up in prison by Herod Antipas (v. 19-20). Only then is Jesus introduced, who was baptized by John, but obviously before he was locked in prison (v. 21). It is after this that the age of Jesus is mentioned as "thirty years old when he began his ministry" (v. 23). It is customary to synchronize this with the data in 3:1, but this is an unwarranted assumption. The length of John's ministry is unspecified, other than the fact that if Jesus was born in AD 6, an age of "about 30" for the start of his own ministry would make John the Baptist's movement last a good number of years before his death. It is striking that the author has a very precise date for the beginning of John's ministry but an imprecise dating for Jesus' ministry (hósei etón triakonta), which suggests that he was a little unsure of exactly the age of Jesus was when he began preaching. So if John began preaching in AD 28-29, and continued building his movement for several years, then Jesus could have started his ministry in AD 34 or 35 or 36 (but not too close to the end of Pontius Pilate's governorship in early AD 37), and still would have been "about 30" (i.e. 28 or 29 years old). This is not the standard dating of Jesus, but it accords strikingly well with the indication in Josephus that John was executed shortly before the insurrection of AD 35-36 (Antiquities 18.113-119) -- a dating that would otherwise be a problem for conventional chronology. So if John died in AD 34 or 35, then the crucifixion could conceivably be placed in March/April 35 or 36, at least in the scheme of Luke. Of course, Luke could simply have been confused and thought that the census of Quirinius happened while King Herod the Great was still alive (and thus the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus occurred some years before the years given above). Immediately before the reference to Judas the Galilean and the census was the reference to the insurrection of Theudas "not so long ago" (Acts 5:36), but according to Josephus (Antiquities 20.97-98) this in fact happened later than the presumed time Theudas was referenced in the narrative in Acts.

  So it is a big messy problem with many different but imperfect attempts at explanation and harmonization, so we hardly know the year -- and indications of season are somewhat ambiguous as well. Daniel is no easy way out of this conundrum.
• 

  Word

  1. Jesus was born six months after John the Baptist

  2. Jesus was born during governor Quirinius first census in Bethlehem

  3. Jesus was born before Herod the Great died (end of March or early April in 4 BC)
• 

  snowbird

  I read somewhere that His birth would have been around October 2.

  That's the birthdate of my oldest child.

  Not that it matters, of course.

  Sylvia
• 

  Mincan

  The only confirmed sources for his existance are three Roman sources that only refer to Christus... or Christ the title, none about the birth. Josephus' account has long been proved false. He didn't make it into the historical record, sorry mate.