|
|
|
|
When is
Jesus' birthday? |
|
|
An opening disclaimer on the first question: If God wanted Jesus' birthday plainly known He would've inspired one of Scripture's authors to provide specific and detailed record of it. Also, if God wanted it as a mandated church festival, He would've declared it so. Scriptures does neither. This doesn't mean that we can't deduce its probable timing from provided details, nor does it forbid believers from setting a time to remember or celebrate Christ's birth. With this understanding, we begin our examination of the evidence. Consider Luke 1:26...
It appears from a casual reading of this text that God gave a specific month when Mary became pregnant. A Jewish reader would take it to be the sixth month on the Jewish calendar, Elul (start at Nisan on the chart below and count counterclockwise), which loosely matches our August-September, and then count off nine months. This would have Jesus born in Sivan, loosely May-June, perhaps at the feast of Shavuot. Sounds too simple, right? And you're correct. Context shows Luke's wording in verse 26 isn't an outright dating reference, rather it's a relative one. Luke 1:24 provides preliminary context for this date even as Luke 1:36 does afterward. This "sixth month" references Elizabeth's sixth month of pregnancy and not month six on the calendar.
Using Elizabeth's sixth month of pregnancy we're provided reference for Jesus' conception. Jesus was going to be a half-year younger than his cousin John. To get John's rough date of conception we need to first look sixth month's earlier: the time of Zechariah's service at Jerusalem's temple. The Bible enables us to pinpoint when this priest was serving. Priests had regular service time each year and less than most think. All priests served at the three primary festivals where God demanded the presence of every male at Jerusalem, specifically Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles (Deuteronomy 16:16). Beyond this they had only two extra weeks of annual service. The rest of the year, the priest lived and worked in his own hometown, priests other than the high priest being truly bi-vocational, some shop owners or local scribes, even laborers. During the major festivals, every priest served as there was great need but the high priest specifically officiated. God fixed the added two weeks, with dating determined by lot early in the Old Testament Levitical priesthood. The were twenty-four divisions of priests each having their two set weeklong service periods. Even after whole divisions of the priesthood didn't return from the exile, Israel reallocated and subdivided the returning divisions, renaming them to the original names and service periods. Zechariah's division was that of Abijah...
First century historian Josephus confirms the 24 divisions remained in use into the first century AD: "He [David] divided them also into courses... and this partition has remained to this day (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 7.14.7)." Their two allotted service weeks weren't back to back. Each division served their one week before a new rotation had each division again serving a one-week period. Combining festival weeks and these two twenty-four division rotations, it provided service for the entire year. Specifically, it provided for 357 days or 51 weeks, easily covering the Jewish lunar calendar year (which variably could be 353-355 days). In summary, over a yearly period, each group of priests had temple service twice on their scheduled rotation plus three major festivals. This meant each priest served about five weeks yearly, spending the balance of their time in their hometown in their regular profession or growing their own crops. Most priests were bi-vocational in this God-planned temple arrangement. During their allotted service weeks, the priestly divisions began and ended on the Sabbath (2 Chronicles 23:8, 1 Chronicles 9:25). The religious New Year, the beginning of the calendar and the start of the priestly division rotation, was Nisan (Esther 3:7; formerly called Abib, see Exodus 23:15; 34:18; Deuteronomy 16:1). The divisions beginning the year: Month 1 (Nisan - Abib; March/April) Week 1 - Jehoiarib (#1, 1 Chronicles 24:7) Week 2 - Jedaiah (#2, 1 Chronicles 24:7) Week 3 - ALL (Passover & Feast of Unleavened; Nisan 14-21) Week 4 - Harim (#3, 1 Chronicles 24:8) Month 2 (Ziv - Lyyar; April/May) Week 1 - Seorim (#4, 1 Chronicles 24:8) Week 2 - Malchijah (#5, 1 Chronicles 24:9) Week 3 - Mijamin (#6, 1 Chronicles 24:9) Week 4 - Hakkoz (#7, 1 Chronicles 24:10) Month 3 (Sivan; May/June) Week 1 - ALL (Pentecost; Sivan 6) Week 2 - Abijah (#8, 1 Chronicles 24:10) Week 3 - Jeshuah (#9, 1 Chronicles 24:11) Week 4 - Shecaniah (#10, 1 Chronicles 24:11) This priestly division rotation has Zacharias' temple service beginning on the second Sabbath of the third month (Sivan; May-June). Zacharias finished his service on the third Sabbath of Sivan (the third month) and returned home, likely conceiving his son John shortly after (Luke 1:24). Forty weeks later, John the Baptist's birth would have been on or around the Passover (Nisan 14/15). A Passover birthday for John would be fitting as John ended all the prophets under the Law (Matthew 11:7-14). While the Passover is a testimony to Grace it's first witness of God's Law and its penalty. John's Passover birth would reflect God's planning of the perfect timing of all events and people surround Jesus' first coming. The Jews, even in Jesus' day, looked for the return of Elijah at the Passover (Malachi 4:5). Of course, they believed that Elijah would come in the fashion they imaged, with honor and easy recognition. To the present, it remains tradition to set a place and cup of wine for Elijah at the Passover Seder. Yet, here in history, God sent John the Baptist in the spirit of Elijah (a type of Elijah) arriving as a baby on the Passover (Matthew 17:10-13; Luke 1:13-17). Only years later would the people see, by his words and actions, that Elijah had come. God's miraculous conception of Jesus in Mary happened six months after the start of Elizabeth's pregnancy (Luke 1:24-27; 36). Again, this wasn't the sixth month on the Jewish calendar, but six months after John's conception in late Sivan. This places Jesus' conception in late Kislev (December). Late Kislev loosely or precisely aligns with the Jewish festival of Hanukkah beginning on Kislev 25 (or Chanukah, the Feast of Dedication or the Festival of Lights). It's fitting for the one called "the Light of World (John 8:12; 9:5; 12:46; Luke 2:32; Acts 26:23; Matthew 4:14-16)" to enter the world, formed in His mother's womb during the Festival of Lights. With Jesus' conception six month after John's, Jesus' birthday would also be six months after John's (Nisan 14/15). This places Jesus' birthday in the middle of Tishri. Not coincidentally a festival begins on the 15th day of this 7th month: Tishri 15th is the start of the Festival of Tabernacles (or Sukkot). Sukkot is a multiday festival which occurs in our late September to mid-October. It's one of the three major festivals with mandated attendance of all Israel's men in Jerusalem. The festival is 7 days, beginning with a special Sabbath (with no work done) and followed by, on the eighth day, another special Sabbath (with no work done) - see Leviticus 23:39. That eighth day Sabbath is when Israel completed their yearlong cycle of Torah readings, then restarting in Genesis (Bereshit). In Israel, they call this eighth day "Shemini Atzeret," or "the eighth of assembly," but there's another associated name: "Simchat Torah," or "Rejoicing with the Torah." This day commemorates the Law's fulfillment. If Jesus' birth was the start of the Festival of Tabernacles, remember his circumcision was on the eighth day after his birth (Luke 2:21; Leviticus 12:3). Here, Jesus takes on flesh (tabernacled among men) on the festival's start day (John 1:14; Isaiah 7:14). Then His circumcision under the Law happens on the eighth day, Simchat Torah, the day of the Law's fulfillment (Leviticus 23:36, 39). Jesus came to fulfill the Torah (Law) and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17-18)! This timing wouldn't be coincidental. Remember the Apostles often quoted from the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. In John 1:14 the text says, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." "Skenoo" is the New Testament Koine Greek word for "dwelt," coming from the Greek word "skenos." Skenos is the word the Septuagint uses for the Hebrew "mishkan" or tabernacle. (Consider also "skene" for tent or tabernacle in Hebrews 9:2). In the Old Testament, the Septuagint calls the Feast of Tabernacles "Heorote Skenon (see Leviticus 23:34 for example)." In this gospel passage on Jesus' birth, we can consider John's tie to the Feast of Tabernacles as circumstantial evidence for Jesus' birth date during this festival.
|
|
|
Alternatively, Zacharias also served later in the year, during the 32nd week in the annual cycle. Based on another's study (Josef Heinrich Friedlieb), who used known temple service dates in 70 AD, it shows the Abijah division's second service was during the second week of the Tishri. This is the week that includes Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, on Tishri 10 (loosely falling somewhere between mid-September and early October on our calendar). So, using Zechariah's service here, John's conception would've been around the end of September. Adding a normal pregnancy term and John the Baptist's birth would've been around the end of June. The Roman Catholic Church's traditional celebration of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist is June 24 (known in French Canada as Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day). The earliest reference to the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist comes from present-day France: The Council of Agde (or Agatha) in 506 AD lists it as one of the region's principal festivals. We have no evidence of how they selected this date. They may have based it on the late second-century Protoevangelium of Saint James (or Gospel of James, or Infancy Gospel of James). This apocryphal gospel or pseudepigrapha, claims authorship by James the Just, the brother of Jesus. It mostly invents circumstances of Jesus' birth and the birth and life of Jesus' mother Mary. While the church never recognized this work as Scriptures, it unquestionably influenced much later church tradition. The Protoevangelium places John the Baptist's conception in late September but does so based on a factual error. It makes Zacharias the High Priest rather than only one of the chief priests during a service rotation. Here he performs high priestly duties on the Day of Atonement. So, again, with a 40-week standard pregnancy, this non-scriptural work sets up the end-of-June date later used for the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist day. Jesus' conception beginning six months later than John's would places Jesus' birth in early Tebeth or late December. December 25th would be a reasonable dating. (This would also be the foundation for the January 6/7 date used by the Orthodox based on the old Julian calendar). Here, Jesus' birth doesn't align with any major festival though His conception likely would have been in the Passover week. Many claim the Catholic church declared December 25th on the Julian calendar Jesus' birthday for a less-than-biblical reason...
For the record, false attributions of an even earlier celebration on December 25th often appear in modern documents. Many persistently credit a false quote to Theophilus of Antioch:
This widely shared quote is spurious. It appears in the Latin work, Magdeburg Centuries (i.3, 118), compiled by Lutheran Scholars in 1559-1574. This work claims to provide a history of the church in its first 1300 years, but there's no manuscript evidence showing this reference has any earlier historical basis. While it's possible, even probable, churches were celebrating Jesus birth in the first centuries, we have nothing concrete on this subject that dates early. The Roman Catholic's much edited Book of Popes (Liber Pontificalis), has an entry implying existing commemoration of Jesus' nativity in the time of Pope Telesphorus (reigned 126-137). Yet, it appears the church first formed this document in the 8th century. If such a celebration existed in the early second century as alleged, note the document doesn't say when the celebration occurred, and we know dating varied widely in the first centuries of the church. It's unlikely the church randomly selected December 25th as Jesus birthday, as often accused, solely to replace an existing pagan celebration. The earlier church quickly developed their most important holiday, Easter (first directly noted by Melito of Sardis in his message "On the Passover," mid-2nd century AD, as a time-honored commemoration). This commemorated Jesus' death and resurrection, based on their understanding of when it first took place during the Jewish Passover. Though they didn't precisely uphold its timing, they were at least close, and they believed they were preserving an ancient understanding. The church would've wanted to do the same for Jesus' birth. It's possible the church was aware of the two possible timings of Jesus' birth based on Scriptural timing of Zechariah's service. They might have then selected the instance that happened to align with an existing pagan festival. But, there's sparse evidence for this speculation. Those supporting this theory often name two pagan celebrations needing a church substitution. Statements that blur the two and misrepresent the dating are common:
First. During the winter season, the Romans honored Saturn, the god of agriculture, the same pagan god whose name became part of our seventh weekday, Saturday. Saturnalia, or Saturn's festival, began around December 17 and ended around December 23rd. Celebrants exchanged gifts, mostly gag gifts or small figurines; authorities allowed gambling, and masters might provide table service for their slaves. For those wanting to associate Christmas with this festival, note that it finished before December 25th. Second. In the fourth century Roman world, a popular pagan holiday was Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, the birthday of the unconquered sun. Some claim this was the Roman celebration of the winter solstice, yet there's no evidence that pagan Rome's early cult of the Sun celebrated the seasonal solstices as many expect. Unquestionably, the cult of Sol Invictus existed from the early days of Rome and continued as an institution throughout empire - the Roman Empire's sun god was the patron god of soldiers. A calendar of Filocalus (also known as the Philocalian Calendar), from 354 AD, records both Christmas "natus Christus in Betleem Iudeae" (Part 12) and Natalis Solis Invicti (Part 6) as occurring on December 25. Interestingly, there's little evidence of any Natalis Solis Invicti celebration before the fourth century, while there is reference to Jesus' believed December birthday much earlier by Hippolytus of Rome (around 204 AD):
Hippolytus, a resident of pagan Rome, makes no reference of an existing pagan celebration matching this date. An unbiased researcher should agree the data supports the possibility that Rome created a new holiday to challenge an already celebrated date by this fast-growing new religion, Christianity. The later Roman emperor Aurelian, who ruled 270-275 AD, helped to restore the eastern provinces that Rome had previously lost. He made many changes to the cult of Sol Invictus. These changes altered and added to earlier practices, now promoting this sun god to be the Empire's principal deity. Calling the changes reforms is an understatement as many consider Aurelian the founder of the cult of Sol Invictus. Aurelian added to his existing title, Dominus et Deus (Master and God), the title, Restitutor Orbis (Restorer of the World). As a common citizen in the military then raised to Emperor, he seemingly credited his success to the minor military patron-god, Sol Invictus. This attribution gave reason for his devotion to this deity and elevation of its cult. Additionally, Aurelian needed the loyal support of the military legions to reunify the empire. In principle he believed "one faith, one empire" so he sought to unify all his people under one primary external deity (Sol Invictus), though he continued to represent himself as a god: Deus et dominus natus (God and born ruler). A Roman historian living a generation later, Lactantius, claimed Aurelian likely would have outlawed all other gods if he had lived longer. His religious policies directly conflicted with Christianity and history records Aurelian's planned organized persecution of this growing religion. His concern was that more people were following Christianity than the old gods. It appears that Aurelian's elevation of Sol Invictus to the main divinity of Rome and its related religious reforms included a new practice of celebrating the birthday of this deity on December 25th: Dies Natalis Solis Invicti. Aurelian had every reason to start a holiday in opposition to the then already recognized birthdate of Jesus, the Son of God, on December 25th. It appears this first took place in 274 AD at a dedication of a temple to the sun god. Romans were knowledgeably aware of when the winter solstice took place yearly, December 21/22, the shortest day of the year. If they were celebrating Dies Natalis Solis Invicti as the winter solstice, as many casually claim, they would've set the date earlier. Instead this emperor intentionally selected a later date, a date that challenged Christianity. Again, this was Aurelian's new celebration, a man calling himself Pontifex Solis or Pontiff of the Sun (as seen on his coinage). Speculation in the reverse, with the church selecting December 25th to replace the festival of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, appears from the 12th century onward, especially gaining popularity in the 18th and 19th centuries. This claim now appears as though undisputed fact in most articles on Christmas' origins.
As noted, there's little evidence for this speculation but it especially remains popular among those wanting to discredit church motives and look for pagan roots in church practices. Further, no early church writers even hint at the church engineering their calendar for such purposes. Rather, they appeal to diligent search for original dates or longstanding tradition. Remember, the Christians of this early period, before Christianity's official toleration by the Roman Empire, were in an open struggle against paganism and largely shunned any pagan associations. Ambrose (lived 339-397 AD) linked the winter solstice and Jesus' birth with Christ the true sun outshining the former pagan gods. Yet, he viewed this overlap as a providential coincidence or sign from God rather than a planned substitution by the church. The Roman Church's practice of adapting pagan holidays only slowly arose in the late fourth century. This practice became formal under Pope Gregory the Great, who (in 601 AD) called for the church to celebrate British pagan festivals as feasts of Christian martyrs. In the second to third centuries when first references Jesus' December 25 birth date appear, we don't find Christians adapting and Christianizing pagan festivals. The evidence makes it unlikely the church simply invented the date to match a pagan solar festival. Around 400 AD, Augustine of Hippo (lived 354-430 AD) mentions a local schismatic group, the Donatists, as keeping a December 25th Christmas festival. This group began during Diocletian's persecution in 312 AD and held firm to all their traditions as practiced at that moment of time. This seemingly shows December 25th was established tradition before 312 AD in North Africa. That a calculated date for Jesus' birthday arose in north African in the second or third centuries isn't surprising as this was a key center of Christian learning in this period. Without changing the considered date of December 25th, there's an alternative calculation or consideration the early church may have used in selecting this date. Tertullian of Carthage (lived 160-220 AD), in North Africa, converted the Jewish Nisan 14, the day of Jesus' crucifixion, to March 25, based on his assumptions of the year Jesus died. His peer, Hippolytus of Rome (lived 170-235 AD), agreed. March 25 is, obviously, nine months before December 25th, so March 25th became the Feast of the Annunciation. While celebrated earlier, in at least the fourth and fifth centuries, the first definitive written mention of this feast appears in 656 at the Council of Toledo. Why might the church have selected March 25th as Jesus' conception date? Solely because it was the same day they thought Jesus died. Christians considered the conception date significant because that would be the exact time Jesus became incarnate, the Son of God taking on flesh, in His mother's womb. (Sextus Julius Africanus, who lived 160-240 AD, wrote on this, also believing Jesus' birth was exactly nine months later, on December 25th). Jewish thought had long-developed tradition the birth and death of key Biblical figures, including Moses, was the same calendar day. They took excessively literal that when the Bible said someone lived 120 years, that meant exactly 120 years to the day. The Jewish Babylonian Talmud records a dispute between two early second century rabbis. While they disagreed on the date, they both held that key events all happened at the same date. For example, Rabbi Eliezer: "In Nisan the world was created; in Nisan the Patriarchs were born; on Passover Isaac was born &ldots; and in Nisan they [these ancestors] will be redeemed in time to come." Having Jesus' conception on the same date as his crucifixion follows similar understanding. A fourth-century, North Africa, document, entitled "On Solstices and Equinoxes, the Conception and Birth of Jesus and John the Baptist," shows the March 25th passion and conception idea had become widespread: "Therefore our Lord was conceived on the eighth of the kalends of April in the month of March [March 25], which is the day of the passion of the Lord and of His conception. For on that day He was conceived, on the same he suffered." If this was the means by which they determined Jesus' conception, it still arrives at December 25th for Jesus birth. Augustine of Hippo, writing around 400-417 AD, recognized this understanding in his work, On the Trinity: "For he [Jesus] is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also he suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which he was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which he was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before him nor since. But he was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th." This same conception-death link appears in the Eastern church also. Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis (Cyprus) converted the Jewish Nisan 14 to the first month of spring (Artemisios) on their local Greek calendar - using April 6th on our modern western Calendar for Jesus' conception and death: "The lamb was shut up in the spotless womb of the holy virgin, he who took away and takes away in perpetual sacrifice the sins of the world." That placed Christmas nine months later of January 6th. The eastern church (Asia Minor and Egypt) used this date for some time before adjusting it to December 25th in harmony with the western church. The Armenian church continues to use this date to the present. Interestingly, the switch from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar has some celebrating on January 18th. This trying to account for the loss of 12 days in the calendar change (also being the reason others celebrate on January 6, which adjusts December 25th by 12 days too). While I disagree with their method, I find evidence best supports that this was their line of thinking, rather than the approach in possibility 3, for the church finally agreeing on December 25th.
|
|
|
There's other early tradition about a possible date for Jesus' birth. Clement of Alexandria (lived 150-215 AD) mentions in his work Stromota an existing tradition (about 194 AD), Pachon 25, or May 20th on our modern calendar. He also gives the year, which works out to 2 BC, but this can't be correct as Herod was already dead. Clement also wrote of others who placed Jesus' birthdate on various dates in March and April. A calculation drawn from one of his chronologies even seems to place Jesus' birth on November 18 in 3 BC. But, again, by 3 BC Herod was already dead. All Clement's possibilities only show the early church had no unified understanding of Jesus' birthday. This confusion likely led to bible scholars of Clements time and shortly after trying to more accurately calculate a date. This should have led them to base a date off timing of Zacharias' temple service. Even after some proposed December 25th, speculation still circulated. Epiphanius of Salamis (writing circa 377 AD) also records some earlier tradition (dating to around 180 AD). It places Jesus' birth on May 21 or June 20, but far too late at 9 AD, based on the rulers mentioned. His own calculation took him to January 6, 2 BC. Again, 2 BC is too late as Herod is dead. Twelfth century manuscript margin notes on writings of the Syrian Orthodox writer Jacob (also called Dionysius) bar-Salibi make a familiar accusation. These notes claim the church shifted Christmas in ancient times from January 6 to December 25 to make it fall on the same date as the pagan Sol Invictus celebration. While scholars of the last few centuries have embraced this line of thought, they rarely mentioned this perhaps earliest mention doesn't substantially move Christmas' date. For those searching the early fathers for birthday evidence, consider Origen of Alexandria (lived about 165-253 AD). In his writings he mocked Roman celebration of birth anniversaries, considering them a pagan practice. This makes it doubtful that anyone was formally celebrating Jesus' birthdate in his lifetime (despite speculation about the day and date). Commonly published claims that Pope Julius I (ruled 337-352 AD) ordered Christmas' celebration on December 25th have no credible evidence. Contradictory claims of dubious value about this appear many centuries later, long after December 25th had become the universal date. It's easy to dismiss possibility 1 and all those encompassed in 4 and higher. Either possibility 2 or 3 could be true. Yet, most supporting evidence for the third possibility's December 25th comes from extra-biblical, yet early, tradition (even more so with possibility 3b). It took the church until the 5th century for uniform adoption of December 25th. They then quickly enforce their adopted date as if it was the only date held from the beginning. Regardless of this late adopted uniformity, the second dating possibility aligns better with God's fulfilling the Old Testament festivals in Jesus. This is something we see clearly in other events of Jesus' life such as His crucifixion. I accept possibility 2 for all the reasons given so far plus extra supporting circumstantial evidence... A. While Caesar called for the taxation (or census) at Jesus' birth, he relied on Herod's advice and ability to enforce any order. If Herod had say in the event's timing, the last time frame he would've selected would be around Hanukah, the festival near December 25th. This festival celebrated the Hasmoneans (the Maccabees) and Herod feared and hated them. In personally seizing power from the Hasmoneans, he both married into the line and then slaughtered many prominent members, finally including his wife Mariamme. All Israel celebrated the Maccabean founders of the Hasmonean dynasty for overthrowing foreign (Seleucid) rule. Why would Herod pick a time frame ripe with their memory to demand a taxation census for the foreign power he represented? Alternatively, the time frame around the Feast of Tabernacles wouldn't have similar connotation. B. With Caesar relying on Herod's regional advice, as well as other middle eastern governors, there's no way Caesar would have selected a late December date for a taxation census needing travel. The winter months featured notoriously poor travel conditions in much of the near east. Alternatively, a late September or early October date, following the heat of summer, would feature relatively ideal travel conditions. C. Israeli shepherds occasionally might be out with their sheep during winter (late December), this was rare versus the earlier time frame of late September or early October. The cold winds and rains, and even possible snow, made December a poor time to be outside - especially at night - around Bethlehem. D. Of the three mandated (pilgrimage) festivals, the Feast of Tabernacles is the one associated with Joy! As both a remembrance of God's deliverance through the Exodus (Leviticus 23:42-43) and of God's provision in the harvest (Exodus 34:22), it's similar to what we westerners call Thanksgiving. In the Jewish festival prayers, it's described as the "Season of our Rejoicing!" The Bible directly commands rejoicing at Sukkot (the Feast of Tabernacles) and this repeated stress on joy only occurs with this festival...
What better time for Jesus' birth than at a mandated time of great joy? Consider the message of great joy the angels brought that day...
Here, a couple verses later, in the angel's greeting there's also a possible link to something that happens at Sukkot.
The angel multitude's words echo the Hallel (Psalms 113-118) that's normally recited at Sukkot (and all the pilgrimage festivals). Consider "Glory to God in the highest" as you read this verse early in the Hallel...
The Jews also call Sukkot "the Festival of the Nations." Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 8.4.1 or 8:100) even refers to this feast as the holiest and greatest ("most eminent"). Why? Old Testament prophesy has Sukkot being the only festival one day celebrated by "all the nations (Zechariah 14:16-19)." This was partially true while the temple was standing (see point E), but future fulfillment awaits. The New Testament makes clear the Old Testament is a shadow of events to come (Hebrews 10:1) and all this Old Testament ritual found fulfillment in Jesus (Matthew 5:17). Now consider the reality behind the idea that all peoples will one day celebrate the Feast of Booths (Tabernacles). This isn't to say that everyone will celebrate Christmas, perhaps on the "right" date, as some Messianic groups claim. All believers celebrate the incarnation and God with us, God taking on flesh to be with us (Matthew 1:23). Even as rain and water from a spring or fountain was living water to a Jew, Jesus embodies living water (Jeremiah 17:13; John 14:10-14; Revelation 7:17). We aren't concerned about some temporary dwelling - our temporary tent, this sin tainted body (2 Corinthians 5:1-2). We celebrate Scripture's fulfillment in Jesus, who was tabernacled with us (Colossians 2:9). In Jesus, God's dwelling place will be with man forever (Revelation 21:3). E. The Feast of Tabernacles was "preeminently the Feast for foreign pilgrims, coming from the farthest distance, whose Temple-contributions were then received and counted. Despite the strange costumes of Media, Arabia, Persia, or India, and even further; or the Western speech and bearing of the pilgrims from Italy, Spain, the modern Crimea, and the banks of the Danube, if not from yet more strange and barbarous lands..." (Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, chapter 6) As alluded to in point B, Jewish historian Edersheim notes the period before this was prime travel time in contrast to the poor winter months conditions before Passover. Everyone expected faraway foreigners in Judea during this Sukkot season. Someone from a far eastern country such as Persia or Babylonia could appear in Jerusalem relatively unnoticed during this time. Such travelers wouldn't have raised any special attention from the Romans soldiers (or Roman auxiliaries under Herod's command), or Jewish regional officials, when arriving or traveling through Herod's territory. The eastern magi, or wisemen, could arrive in Jerusalem with little notice or questions until they show up at Herod's court asking for a new king! Alternatively, if they showed up midwinter, they would've been the talk of the whole region. And many (including Roman authorities) would've inquired of their abnormal travel and demanded reason for it long before they arrived in Jerusalem. The greatest argument against Jesus' birth being at Sukkot is also circumstantial. Sukkot rules had all men assemble in Jerusalem. How could Joseph stay with Mary in Bethlehem without Joseph violating the Law? How could Jesus' birth include breaking the Law which Jesus came to fulfill? This isn't a major problem as supposed. The command in the Law (see Deuteronomy 31:10-13) only demanded full assembly every seven years for reading the Law, which would be on the first day. Otherwise, in all other years, the law required males to present themselves with an offering sometime during that week (Deuteronomy 16:13-17). Note that Jesus, himself, went late to the Feast of Tabernacles in John chapter 7. What we don't know: (1) the specific timing of the census and (2) how long was the census period (was it a week or a month?). The census period may have been immediately following the festival. This festival would've been an ideal time for authorities to remind all Israel of their registration duty. And, if Joseph knew the census was immediately following Sukkot, he may have decided to get Mary to Bethlehem before the festival. He had to travel south for this festival anyway (with Bethlehem only slightly further than Jerusalem) rather than risk traveling with a newborn afterward (or having to leave Mary and the child alone in Nazareth). Joseph could've easily planned on the daytrip back to Jerusalem once he had Mary safely in Bethlehem. Speculation could abound here, but there's no solid reason definitively preventing Jesus' birth at this festival. F. It's worth considering a last piece of indirect evidence in support of a Sukkot birth of Jesus. Investigators consider supporting evidence from one's enemy as compelling. Following Christianization of the Roman Empire, Jews commonly faced increasing persecutions and anti-Semitism. By the early middle ages, European Jews had long since developed stories trying to offset Christianity's roots in Judaism. Like any good manipulation of the truth, they drew on true details and names to keep the setting believable. As always, the best lies contain much truth. "Aggadta DeShim'on Kefa" or "Haggadah About Simeon Kepha" is one of these Jewish works. There are various forms of this Jewish anti-Christian legend. The earliest still available seemingly is an 8th century creation. The legend internally pretends it's from before the temple's destruction but this is unlikely. Most scholars believe it contains portions of early anti-Christian legends that arose in the post temple period, some details best fitting the second and third centuries. Unintentionally, in secondary details, these Jewish authors included specifics on early church practices. In the story, there's a person (Simon Peter) pretending to be an apostle. This impostor has the Nazarenes (Christians) turn each major feast of the Jews into a Christian celebration or commemoration.
This story only makes sense to period readers if Christians at an earlier time kept these festivals in this manner. Notice it has Jesus' death at the Passover (Chag HaMatzot), celebrated by Easter, plus Pentecost (Shavuot) which follows. Finally, it has Jesus' birth at the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) and Jesus' circumcision eight days later. Historical documents confirm that second century Christians observed Jesus' death on Nisan 14 (Passover). They also celebrated His ascension forty days after His resurrection. This makes the Feast of Tabernacles and related eighth day association a probable reality. It remembers an earlier time when Jewish believers directly associated events in Jesus' life with Jewish festivals. The church of later centuries worked hard to disassociate themselves from Judaism. If nothing else, the evidence from this hostile document shows that believers in at least one area of the early church held to Jesus' birth at Sukkot. The end During your time on earth, whenever you celebrate the day or even if you don't (Colossians 2:16): Merry Christmas or Happy Birthday Jesus! All God's saints, from all nations, will one day celebrate Jesus' incarnation as we're gathered round His throne. The Lamb who was slain came to take away the sins of the world! (Revelation 5:12; John 1:29)
|
|
|
(c) 2018/19 by
Brent MacDonald, Version 1b
|
|
