Date of the birth of Jesus

Aside from the historiographical approach of anchoring the possible year to certain independently well-documented events mentioned in Matthew and Luke, other techniques used by believers to identify the year of the birth of Jesus have included working backward from the estimation of the start of the ministry of Jesus[8] and assuming that the accounts of astrological portents in the gospels can be associated with certain astronomical alignments or other phenomena.

[12] The nativity accounts in the New Testament gospels of Matthew and Luke do not mention a date or time of year for the birth of Jesus.

[13] In addition, if the phrase "about 30" in Luke 3:23 is interpreted to mean 32 years old, this could fit a date of birth just within the reign of Herod, who died in 4 BC according to most scholars.

In the British Library, there is not a single manuscript prior to AD 1544 that has the traditionally accepted 20th year of Tiberius for the death of Philip.

His system was to replace the Diocletian era that had been used in older Easter tables, as he did not wish to continue the memory of a tyrant who persecuted Christians.

[57] It has been speculated by Georges Declercq that Dionysius' desire to replace Diocletian years with a calendar based on the incarnation of Jesus was intended to prevent people from believing the imminent end of the world.

Baring-Gould (page 71) points out that the Wagenseil version of the Toledot Yeshu incorrectly names the Queen as Helene and describes her as the widow of Alexander Jannaeus who died in 76 BC.

[77][78][79][80] Various factors contributed to the choice of 25 December as Jesus's birthday, although theology professor Susan Roll wrote in 1995: "No liturgical historian ... goes so far as to deny that it has any sort of relation with the sun, the winter solstice and the popularity of solar worship in the later Roman Empire".

[82] The following century, from AD 274, the Roman festival Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (birthday of Sol Invictus, the 'Invincible Sun') was held on 25 December.

[93] Based on this winter solstice link, the "History of Religions hypothesis" or "Substitution theory"[96] proposes the Church chose 25 December as the birthday of Jesus (dies Natalis Christi)[97] to appropriate the Roman festival of the birthday of the Invincible Sun (dies Natalis Solis Invicti), held on the same date.

[101][102] Gary Forsythe, Professor of Ancient History, says: "This celebration would have formed a welcome addition to the seven-day period of the Saturnalia (December 17–23), Rome's most joyous holiday season since Republican times, characterized by parties, banquets, and exchanges of gifts".

[103] At the time when Christmas emerged, some Christian writers likened Jesus to the Sun and referred to him as the 'Sun of Righteousness' (Sol Justitiae) prophesied by Malachi.

[105][106] Early in the fifth century, Maximus of Turin said in a Christmas sermon:People frequently call this day of the Lord's birth 'the new sun' ... even the Jews and pagans agree to the name.

[107]In a mid fifth century Christmas sermon, Pope Leo I admonishes Christians who bow their heads to the Sun as they enter Old St. Peter's Basilica.

Susan Roll writes that "this testimony to the deep-rootedness and continued popularity of the civil sun-cult" has been put forward as evidence of the Substitution theory.

The scribe wrote: It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same 25 December the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity.

Accordingly, when the doctors of the Church perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnised on that day.

[109]In the 17th century, Isaac Newton, who was coincidentally born on 25 December, suggested the date of Christmas was chosen to correspond with the winter solstice.

[110] In 1743, German scholar Paul Ernst Jablonski argued the date was chosen to correspond with the Natalis Solis Invicti.

[112] Steven Hijmans of the University of Alberta says that in recent years "a fair number of scholars" have abandoned the idea that the date was chosen to appropriate the pagan festival.

[79] According to C. Philipp E. Nothaft, a professor at Trinity College Dublin, though the history of religions hypothesis "is nowadays used as the default explanation for the choice of 25 December as Christ's birthday, few advocates of this theory seem to be aware of how paltry the available evidence actually is.

[119] In AD 221, Sextus Julius Africanus suggested 25 March, the traditional spring equinox, as the day of creation and of Jesus's conception; the Christian Church came to celebrate as the Feast of the Annunciation.

[124] Some early Christians marked Jesus's crucifixion on a date they deemed equivalent to the 14th of Nisan, the day before Passover in the Hebrew calendar.

Some early Christian writers equated the 14th of Nisan with the equinox on 25 March, and made the date of his conception or birth the same as that of his death.

[127] Adam C. English, professor of religion at Campbell University, has argued for the veracity of 25 December as Jesus's date of birth.

[128] English suggests that John was conceived on Yom Kippur, and dates this to the autumn equinox the year before Jesus's birth.

[131] Critics of the theory, such as Bernard Botte, believe that the calculations are merely attempts by early Christians to retroactively justify the winter solstice date.

[132] Hieronymus Engberding, a supporter of the theory, also conceded that the calculations were most likely devised after the fact, to justify a date already established and to highlight "God's interlocking plan".

[133] Susan Roll questions whether "ordinary Christians in the third and fourth centuries [were] much interested in calculations with symbolic numbers in fantasy-combinations".

In the hadith compilation Tuhaf al-Uqul, the sixth imam, Jafar As Sadiq says the following when approached about the birth of Jesus during Christmas: "They have lied.