The man who developed the way we reckon years was a 6th-century monk named Dionysius Exiguus ("Dennis the Short"). He supposed that Christ Jesus was born in 1 B.C. Likewise, several of the early church fathers (Cassiodorus Senator, Irenaeus of Lyon, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, Julius Africanus, Hippolytus of Rome, “Hippolytus of Thebes”, Origen of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Epiphanius of Salamis, Orosius) supposed that the birth of Christ Jesus was between 3-2 B.C. But can either of these dates be substantiated? In order to arrive at the most accurate time possible, all the information, both biblical and historical, needs to support the period in question. It may be helpful to know that there was no year zero. The sequence of years before Christ ends at 1 B.C. and the A.D. sequence of years begins the very next year with A.D. 1.
Before we get into our study, I must preface it with this statement: Regardless of what you choose to believe about the birth of Jesus, it is a tertiary issue and has no bearing whatsoever upon your salvation. What does have a bearing on whether you are saved or not is that you believe that Jesus is eternal God, the only begotten Son of the Father, the second Person in the Trinity, the Word of God made flesh, conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, lived a holy life without sin, was crucified, entombed, resurrected, and ascended into Heaven, from where He came.
Before we get into our study, I must preface it with this statement: Regardless of what you choose to believe about the birth of Jesus, it is a tertiary issue and has no bearing whatsoever upon your salvation. What does have a bearing on whether you are saved or not is that you believe that Jesus is eternal God, the only begotten Son of the Father, the second Person in the Trinity, the Word of God made flesh, conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, lived a holy life without sin, was crucified, entombed, resurrected, and ascended into Heaven, from where He came.
CAESAR AUGUSTUS, QUIRINIUS, & KING HEROD
"In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." Luke 2:1-2
Caesar Augustus reigned from 27 B.C. to A.D. 14. The best known censuses of Caesar Augustus occurred in 28 and 8 B.C. and 14 A.D. However, these were for Roman citizens only. Luke 2:2 and Jewish historian Josephus refer to another census, one that was "while Quirinius was governor of Syria" [or Cyrenius, KJV; Gr.: Kyrenios]. This was not that census
that taxed the Jews of the area, because it was later than the probable
birth date of Jesus, but was likely a census for pledging allegiance to
the Caesar, which Josephus dates to a year before the death of King
Herod (Antiquities 17.2.4). This census appears to have been in approximately 6 B.C. Concerning the Luke 2:2 passage, we have two lines of reasoning that we might follow:
- We know from history that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius reigned over Judea from A.D. 6 to 7, after the deposition of Archelaus, Herod's son. Since this is later than the birth of Christ, and the passage can be translated as "before Quirinius was governor of Syria," it could be that the translators made a translational error.
- Perhaps Publius Sulpicius Quirinius ruled over Syria on two separate occasions (just like a couple Canadian Prime Ministers and one American President). This first census could have been during his first term, while another one (mentioned in Acts 5:37) could have been during his second term.
King Herod (also known as Herod I or Herod the Great), distinguished from Herod the tetrarch and other Herods, reigned for 37 years from his appointment as king by the Romans (40 B.C.) and 34 years from his siege of Jerusalem (37 B.C.) (Antiquities 17.9.3, The Jewish War 2.1.3). Using inclusive reckoning, this brings us to 4 B.C.
According to Catholic Jimmy Akin, Josephus is in error with some of
his information pertaining to when Herod began his reign. Josephus says
that Herod began his reign by Roman appointment during the 184th
Olympiad (Antiquities 14.14.5), the same year that Caius Domitius
Calvinus was consul the second time and Caius Asinius Pollio was consul
the first time. Apparently, Calvinus and Pollio did not enter the consul
until after October 2, 40 B.C., which, according to Mr. Akin, would be
the 185th Olympiad.
But there are a few factors that need to be considered. First, ancient writers refer to the Olympiad as a five-year period (Greek, pentaeterikoi, Latin quinquennales).
Second, Greeks and Romans commonly counted by inclusion. The concept of
zero was foreign to them. While the victors of each Olympiad are
recorded in Eusebius' work every four years (according to our
reckoning based on the concept of zero), it is actually every five years.
44 - 43 - 42 - 41 - 40
40 - 39 - 38 - 37 - 36
When we understand this information, Josephus was not in error with his information at all.
According to Mr. Akin, Josephus is in error on two other occasions as well. When Herod laid siege to Jerusalem, Josephus states that destruction befell the city when Marcus Agrippa and
Caninius Gallus were consuls during the 185th Olympiad (Antiquities 14.16.4).
That was 37 B.C. In the same passage, it states that Herod
conquered Jerusalem exactly 27 years to the day that general Pompey had
conquered Jerusalem in 63 B.C. Akin argues that 63 - 27 is 36—not 37. But that is using our concept of zero rather than the inclusion method. If you calculate by the inclusion method, it works out exactly to 37 B.C. Again in the same passage, it states that the government of the Hasmoneans ruled over Jerusalem for 126 years, which began in 162 B.C. Akin argues that 162 - 126 is 36—not 37. But again, if you calculate by the inclusion method, it works out exactly to 37 B.C. One might also use the regnal method (ante-dating system, or non-accession year dating) and still come out accurately.
ARCHELAUS
"But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there." Matt. 2:22
Archelaus, Herod's son and successor, reigned over Judea, Samaria, and Idumea for 10 years before he was deposed by Caesar in A.D. 6 (Antiquities 17.13.2). Counting backward, he began his reign in 4 B.C.
ANTIPAS
Antipas, Herod's son and successor, reigned over Galilee and Perea until A.D. 39. Coins exist that make reference to his 43rd year of his rule, which counted backward brings us to 4 B.C. This Herod is the one who had a hand in the beheading of John the Purifier (Mark 6:14-29) and who had a supporting role in the trial of Jesus (Luke 23:7-12).
Now, King Herod's sons being his successors does not necessarily mean that he had to have died in 4 B.C. This simply means that they could have begun co-ruling with him in order to ease them into the role once he died, or that they took over for him in his old age. But it is more likely that he died at this point.
While all this evidence supporting 4 B.C. is wonderful, there still exists one little problem: Jesus was not born in 4 B.C.! How do we know this? When the wise men, or magi, encountered Herod, Herod "determined from them the exact time the star appeared" (Matt. 2:7), and according to this time he had all male children "from two years old and under" murdered (Matt. 2:16).
Thus, at the most, Jesus could have been two years old. If we back up
one to two years to account for this information, we arrive at a date of
6 or 5 B.C. If we back up another year in case Herod did not
immediately die after his encounter with the magi, we arrive at a
date of 7 or 6 B.C. This would place the start of Jesus' ministry around
A.D. 24 to 26.
THE STAR
"...the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them until it came and stood over the place where the Child was." Matt. 2:9
According to Colin J. Humphreys in "The Star of Bethlehem—a Comet in 5 BC—and the Date of the Birth of Christ," from Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society
32, 389-407 (1991), Jesus was probably born in 5 B.C., at the time the
Chinese recorded a major, new, slow-moving comet—a "sui-hsing," or star
with a sweeping tail in the Capricorn region of the sky. This is the
comet Humphreys believes was called the Star of Bethlehem.
Assuming the Star of Bethlehem was a comet, there were 3 possible years: 12, 5, and 4 B.C. By using the one relevant, fixed date in the Gospels, the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar (A.D. 28-29), at which time Jesus is described as being "about thirty" (Luke 3:23), 12 B.C. is too early for the date of His birth, since by A.D. 28 he would have been 40 years old. Herod the Great is generally assumed to have died in the spring of 4 B.C., but was alive when Jesus was born, which makes 4 B.C. unlikely (although possible). In addition, the Chinese do not describe the comet of 4 B.C. This leaves 5 B.C., the date Humphreys prefers, which has the added virtue of including the year's Passover, a most propitious time for the birth of a Messiah. The Chinese say the comet appeared between March 9 and April 6 and lasted over 70 days (Makes sense when you consider that the magi followed it from the east, which would have been a journey of several days.).
The magi "saw His star in the east" (Matt. 2:2). The appearance of this star does not necessarily correspond to Jesus' birth, but could perhaps correspond to His conception. It also does not say that the magi followed the star for two years, but that Herod murdered all male children "from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi" (Matt. 2:16). In other words, there is some approximating going on here. The only thing we know for certain is that Jesus was no longer a baby (βρέφος) in the manger (φάτνη), but was now a child (παιδίον) in a house (οἰκία).
Assuming the Star of Bethlehem was a comet, there were 3 possible years: 12, 5, and 4 B.C. By using the one relevant, fixed date in the Gospels, the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar (A.D. 28-29), at which time Jesus is described as being "about thirty" (Luke 3:23), 12 B.C. is too early for the date of His birth, since by A.D. 28 he would have been 40 years old. Herod the Great is generally assumed to have died in the spring of 4 B.C., but was alive when Jesus was born, which makes 4 B.C. unlikely (although possible). In addition, the Chinese do not describe the comet of 4 B.C. This leaves 5 B.C., the date Humphreys prefers, which has the added virtue of including the year's Passover, a most propitious time for the birth of a Messiah. The Chinese say the comet appeared between March 9 and April 6 and lasted over 70 days (Makes sense when you consider that the magi followed it from the east, which would have been a journey of several days.).
The magi "saw His star in the east" (Matt. 2:2). The appearance of this star does not necessarily correspond to Jesus' birth, but could perhaps correspond to His conception. It also does not say that the magi followed the star for two years, but that Herod murdered all male children "from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi" (Matt. 2:16). In other words, there is some approximating going on here. The only thing we know for certain is that Jesus was no longer a baby (βρέφος) in the manger (φάτνη), but was now a child (παιδίον) in a house (οἰκία).
A FAST & THE PASSOVER
Josephus brackets the death of Herod by "a fast" (Antiquities 17.6.4) and the Passover (Antiquities 17.9.3; War 2.1.3). In the former passage, it also states that on the night of the fast there had been an eclipse of the moon. Now, Josephus does not say what kind of eclipse it was (partial or full), but only that there was one. Four lunar eclipses occurred in the likely time frame: September
15, 5 B.C.; March 12–13, 4 B.C.; January 10, 1 B.C.; and December 29, 1
B.C.
Correlation of Josephus with the Talmud and Mishnah
indicate that the fast was probably Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur occurs on the 10th day of the 7th month (mid-September to mid-October) and
Passover on the 14th day of the 1st month (March or April). The first eclipse, a total eclipse that became noticeable several hours after
sundown, fits Yom Kippur too early. The 4 B.C. eclipse, a partial eclipse only visible late at night, seems too far from Yom Kippur and too close to the Passover. The 1 B.C. eclipses require that
the fast was either not Yom Kippur, or that the calendar was altered for some
reason. None of these eclipses seem to fit very well with the requirements. However, there appears to be another fast that occurs exactly one month before the Passover: The Fast of Esther. The day before Purim is a fast day
commemorating Queen Esther’s command for all Jews to fast before she
approached the king. Purim fell on March 12–13, 4 B.C.
THE MINISTRY OF JOHN THE PURIFIER
"Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas..." Luke 3:1-2
This is when John the Purifier's ministry began. The only time period that fits all of these facts is A.D. 26-29. Tiberius was named emperor in A.D. 14, but he actually started reigning two years prior to that, A.D. 12, as co-regent with Caesar Augustus. Using the earlier date, John’s ministry began circa A.D. 26–27. If Jesus was “about thirty years of age” (Luke 3:23) by A.D. 26, a birth sometime between 6 and 4 B.C. would fit the chronology perfectly. Luke was a historian whose goal was to write an accurate account "in consecutive order" (Luke 1:3), and when he gave ages he did not round up or down to the nearest 5. In Luke 8:42, he writes, "for [Jairus] had an only daughter, about twelve years old, and she was dying." She could have been between 11 and 13 years of age. So when Luke wrote that "Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age"
in Luke 3:23, Jesus could have been between 28 and 32 years of age, still “about thirty years of age.”
CONCLUSION
Based on these historical details, the most likely time of Christ’s birth in Bethlehem is 6-5 B.C.
Nevertheless, you need to be your own judge on this issue. After all, scripture tells us in Romans 14:5 to "Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind." Ultimately, the precise date does not matter. What matters is that it happened and that we must believe it to be true.
Believing that what the Bible says is true is the only thing that
really matters. If we had exact Hebrew dates for Jesus'
birth and crucifixion, we would be able to figure it out more
accurately. The fact God did not provide them for us pretty much informs
us that the dates are not important—only the truth of the information is. "We walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7).
Our faith in Jesus is not based on empirical evidence (historical,
archaeological, and scientific), although all this information does
support our faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please Him" (Hebrews 11:6).
Faith in the empirical evidence is no faith at all. True biblical faith
does not stop with mental assent to the facts. If it did, it would not
be genuine faith.