Sunday, November 09, 2014

Jonathan Cahn's Case Against Jesus' Birth On December 25

Steve Hays recently wrote a post about Jonathan Cahn's argument against a December 25 date for the birth of Jesus. You can read an article about Cahn's view here. And here's what I wrote in an email on the subject:

There are a lot of problems with the article. And I agree with Steve that Christmas doesn't need to be on the date of Jesus' birth.

Here's a post I wrote on the origins of the December 25 date:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-origins-of-december-25-date-for.html

The earliest sources who support that date are geographically diverse, theologically diverse, and diverse in other ways. They don't claim to have derived the date from paganism. Some don't comment on the subject in our extant sources, and others tell us that they think Jesus was born on December 25 for various reasons. The notion that the date was derived from paganism or was meant to compete with paganism (in any relevant sense) is a later view.

A good source for information on the background to the December 25 date is Tom Schmidt's blog:

http://chronicon.net/blog/category/christmas/

He recently published the first full English translation of Hippolytus' commentary on Daniel (one of the places where Hippolytus comments on the date of Jesus' birth). Here's an article he wrote on Hippolytus and December 25:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120824071532/http://www.chronicon.net/chroniconfiles/Hippolytus%20and%20December%2025th.pdf

Schmidt argues that Hippolytus placed Jesus' birth on December 25. The April 2 date in Hippolytus is a reference to Jesus' conception, not his birth. Therefore, Cahn's suggestion of later editing of Hippolytus, which failed to eliminate a reference to a birth in the spring, is dubious.

But, again, even without Hippolytus, the earliest sources we have for the December 25 date don't claim to have derived the date from paganism or in an attempt to compete with paganism. And see Schmidt's blog linked above regarding whether December 25 had the sort of pagan significance it's often claimed to have had.

Shepherds could have been out in winter. There's reference to it in ancient Jewish literature:

http://books.google.com/books?id=1ngd8XtswdEC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=mishnah,+shekalim+7:4&source=bl&ots=0Bsjt4nmuN&sig=nTdqCS_qak3Vjy3e4a7daeIMbX8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Su5fVIf5A4ugyASlg4KgDg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=mishnah%2C%20shekalim%207%3A4&f=false

And the tendencies of winter weather in general wouldn't tell us what the weather was like during the winter closest to when Jesus was born. Temperature averages are significant and should be taken into account, but they're just averages. A winter weather average could easily be outweighed by other factors.

Cahn's also wrong about the Romans not requiring a census in winter. There would have been a longer period of time, not just one season, for people to register in a census. See note 7 in Stephen Carlson's article at:

http://www.hypotyposeis.org/papers/Carlson%202010%20NTS.pdf

The whole article by Carlson is worth reading. As he argues, Joseph and Mary probably got married upon their arrival in Bethlehem in Luke 2. That's why verse 5 refers to their being engaged, followed by their living together in verse 7. Winter wouldn't be the best time to register for a census, but if Joseph wanted to get married then, for whatever reasons, he could easily choose to register for the census while he was in the city for the marriage. Luke's focus is on the census, but some of the comments he makes along the way and the larger Jewish context in which Joseph and Mary lived suggest that they also got married while in Bethlehem.

It doesn't follow that Jesus was born in winter or on December 25 in particular. But Cahn's case against December 25 is problematic.

I should add that some of Schmidt's Christmas material has been removed from his blog. It would be good to access an archive of his blog to get some of his older material. My understanding, based on a discussion with him several months ago, is that at least some of the material was removed from his blog because he's published it elsewhere or is considering doing so.

2 comments:

  1. I've heard skeptics claim that it's implausible that a Roman census would require absolutely everyone to travel back to their ancestral homes. AFAIK, Ehrman continues to argue this. Does Luke actually say that the census required everyone to travel back to their ancestral home? Could it be that it wasn't required but that Joseph and Mary did it anyway for financial reasons (or some other reason)? Maybe in order to keep from being hit with a higher tax rate in the future? It would make some sense if they were already poor and couldn't afford being taxed more than they had to. Luke 2:3 says, "And all went to be registered, each to his own town." I don't see why the word "went" would necessitate everyone left for their ancestral homes. Couldn't it have been everyone "went" to be registered whether (near or far) from where they currently resided, depending on their choice of which town they chose to consider their "own town." The text says everyone "went," but it doesn't seem to say they all went to their ancestral home town.

    Here's an analogy. Two residents of Illinois could choose to support their favorite home football team by watching their first game of the season. One drives to downtown Chicago to support the Bears. The other drives to Wisconsin to support the Green Bay Packers. While the second person could support the Bears because he lives in the Chicagoland area, he nevertheless identifies more with his childhood football team in Green Bay.

    To Jason or anyone, is the scenario I've proposed plausible?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ANNOYED PINOY,

      I've written on that subject in the past, and I'll be posting on it again during the upcoming Christmas season. The census most likely wasn't ancestral. The ancestral comments in Luke 2:4 probably apply only to Joseph, not to census participants in general. I've explained some of the reasons why in previous posts, and I'll have more to say in a post next month.

      The alleged ancestral requirement of the census has been brought up by critics of the infancy narratives many times. For some, it's among their most prominent objections. But it's spurious.

      Delete