The Birth of Christ
There are three clues given to us in the Scriptures as to the date of Jesus’ birth. They are (1) Jesus’ relation to the life of Herod. (2) The reference by Luke to Austustus’ world wide census. And (3) the occurrence of The Star. It is my opinion that the only date that has any chance of matching all the dates, is the date in 7 BC.
The clues for the date are as follows.
I. Jesus had to have been born before the death of Herod.
Herod died in 4 BC, and is recorded as such in Roman and Jewish history. The approximate day of his death is also set astronomically for us. Josephus gives the reign of Herod to have been 37 years from his appointment by Rome, which was in 40 BC (Ant. XVII, vi, 4) and 34 years from the death of his rival, Antigonus, which was in 37 BC (Ant. XVII, viii, 1).
Those who argue for a later for both the birth of Christ or the crucifixion, argue that Josephus’ dating should be taken from the time when he actually took control, which would be 37 BC. Therefore his reign should be considered to be till 1 BC or 1 AD. Josephus was writing for Romans, and was in Rome when he wrote. It is inconceivable, and also would have been quite dangerous to his health, for him to argue that the Roman decree of Herod’s leadership was not relevant, and Herod wasn’t the King of Syria till he had defeated Antigonus and made himself King.
The approximate date for the death of Herod is set by two lunar events . There was a lunar eclipse on or one day after a fast, on March 13th, and he died before the Passover of the same year, which would have been April 4, 4 BC. The following is the description by Josephus of the first event .
"But as for Herod, he dealt more mildly with others [of the assembly] but he deprived Matthias of the high priesthood, as in part an occasion of this action, and made Joazar, who was Matthias's wife's brother, high priest in his stead. Now it happened, that during the time of the high priesthood of this Matthias, there was another person made high priest for a single day, that very day which the Jews observed as a fast. The occasion was this: This Matthias the high priest, on the night before that day when the fast was to be celebrated, seemed, in a dream, (7) to have conversation with his wife; and because he could not officiate himself on that account, Joseph, the son of Ellemus, his kinsman, assisted him in that sacred office. But Herod deprived this Matthias of the high priesthood, and burnt the other Matthias, who had raised the sedition, with his companions, alive. And that very night there was an eclipse of the moon. (8)" — Antiquities XVII:7:4
Josephus records this in Antiquities XVII, ix, 3. As stated, this eclipse in 4 BC was in March 13th, 4 BC. This date is consistent with all the facts, as this would be one day following the Esther Fast, or Purim; and as it was in the 12th month, it was a month prior to Passover.
There was another eclipse in 1 BC which is frequently suggested to be the eclipse mentioned by Josephus. It occurs January 19th, and is not on a fast day. There can really be no excuse for choosing this date, except to justify the 33 AD date for the crucifixion. None of it really makes any sense. The discounting of the above quote is done on a very legalistic reading of the above Josephus paragraph to suggest that only the murder of "the other Matthias" occurred on the eclipse, not the fast day. But the joining of the depriving of Matthias of the high priesthood for a single day with the conjunction "and", to the murder of the other Matthias indicates that both occurred on the same day. Josephus then again uses the conjunction "And" to join both events to the eclipse. To interpret an historians words any other way, is certainly a stretch. Those who wish to move the death of Herod forward to 1 BC, fail to realize that the rest of Roman History has to move with it. Therefore, this doesn’t bringing Tiberius’ reign in harmony with the Scriptural account, because that date must be moved forward three years as well, from 2 9 AD (the accepted date) to 32 AD.
* * * * *
II. Jesus was born during or immediately before the time of the taxing when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. (Luke 2:2)
Cyrenius became Legate of Syria between 3 and 6 AD (using the traditional dating). His taxing in 6-7 AD, is recorded by Josephus, and it generated much rebellion and resentment by the Jews. This taxing is agreed on all sides to have been much too late for the birth of Christ. And, it is the source of many critics of the Bible who argue that this census discredits the Gospel accounts.
Luke says the taxing was ordered by Caesar Augustus and was for all the world (Luke 2:1) There were different kinds of taxes required by Rome. There were the annual taxing, which was done based on a much broader census, which was taken every 14 years. The taxing between 6-7 AD which Josephus records is obviously the registration, or census required by Rome. Augustus records in his own annals that he had also required this in 8 BC. This would be 14 years previous. Probably the order was given in 8 BC and 6 AD, and carried out in 7 BC and 7 AD. The word "taxing" or "apagrapho" (GK) literally means "to enroll." This would refer to the required enrollment or registration of all the peoples of the empire, for the purposes of military induction, and to form the basis upon which taxes would be required in future years. Augustus’ wrote in this in his annals:
". . . during my sixth term as consul (28 B.C.), I along with my comrade Marcus Agrippa, commanded a census be taken of the people. I directed a lustrum, the first in forty-one years, in which 4,063,000 Roman citizens were counted. And once again, with imperial authority, I single handedly authorized a lustrum when the consuls of Rome were Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius (8 B.C.), during which time 4,233,000 Roman citizens were counted." (Res Gestae 8 - The Deeds of Augustus by Augustus)
Many historians argue that there is no proof of this world wide census as recorded by Luke. What they mean can be different things. They can mean that there is no proof that it extended to lands in the world beyond Roman control, and was therefore not for "all the world" which seems reasonable, but is not required by the text. They can mean that there is no proof of an instantaneous and simultaneous census, as such was not possible in those days, which also seems reasonable, but again not required by the text. They can even mean that this census commanded by Augustus in 8 BC did not include Palestine, where there is no proof one way or the other in archeology or history. But what it can’t mean, is that there is no proof that Augustus called for a census in 8 BC, to cover all the lands that he controlled. That is simply beyond dispute.
At this time, there is no archeological or historical proof that Israel was or was not included in such a taxing. One can only infer their position, which generally is based on their goal in writing. If they are writing to prove the biblical account true, they will argue that the land of Israel was taxed. If they are writing to prove the biblical account false, they will infer that certain things related to such a taxing were impossible.
For ourselves, we already know that the Bible is the wholly inspired word of God, and therefore know that Jesus was born in the days of the taxing. For us, it only requires that we determine which taxing is meant.
But this is the way those arguments usually go. Some argue that Palestine was under the control of Herod and therefore would not have been included in such a census. This may or may not be true. Those taking an opposite position will argue that certainly Herod and Augustus were not seeing things eye to eye at this point in their lives. But Herod could have personally taken the census, under the direction of Augustus. Or, Augustus could have had his military legate in the region, which was Cyrenius, take the census for him independent from Herod, or even with Herod.
A further objection to this 7 BC census being the taxing of Luke 2, is that Cyrenius was not governor, in the strictest sense, during this time. This is true. But it is also true that Cyrenius was a very powerful man. He was politically powerful, having been made counsel in 12 BC by Augustus, as recorded in "The Deeds of Augustus." Only two men per year received this appointment. In an existing historical account celebrating his death, Tiberius mentioned Cyrenius as having obtained the victory over a people called the Homonadensian. The Homonadensian were a warlike people who lived on the northwest border of Syria.
Around 25 BC, the Homonadensians killed the King of Galatia, Amyntas. Augustus was the kings heir, and as such, he was obligated to avenge the death of Amyntas. Augustus then built Antioch in Galatia, as a fortress against further Homonadensian invasions. Following the death of Drusus Germanicus in 9 BC, Cyrenius was appointed chief magistrate of Antioch. He appointed another to govern for him, while he warred against the Homonadesians, till they were defeated in 4-3 BC.
So of things we know for sure, there was a census ordered in 8 BC, and that Cyrenius was a very powerful soldier and politician in the area of Syria at that time. He was not the governor at that time, but certainly could have been in position to be a ruler over Syria for this particular purpose, especially considering the distrust that Augustus had developed for Herod.
Does the fact that he was not the governor discount Luke’s account? Actually, the Greek word for Governor, "legatus" is never used in the Bible. The word most commonly used is "hegemon" which means "ruler." But the word used by Luke is "hegemoneuo" which means "to act as ruler" giving a basis for Cyrenius not being actually the governor, but acting as the governor for a specific purpose, that being, I suggest, the census in a potentially hostile situation.
* * * * *
3. The Star
