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.