Dating the Birth of Christ

and Death of Herod the Great

 Kurt Simmons

The birth of Christ is, perhaps, the single most important event in history; it marks the time when the reign of sin and death began to be annulled and the way opened for man’s reconciliation to his Maker.  The years of our calendar are thus numbered from the Savior’s birth, as well they should.  If temporal kingdoms mark the passage of time from the ascension of earth’s illustrious monarchs, how much more ought the sons of Adam to mark time from the birth of the King of kings and Lord of lords?  Dating the birth of Christ is also important for apologetic purposes, for making a defense of faith and the verity of the gospel record and message.  In terms of eschatology, precise dating of Christ’s birth, and the beginning and length of his ministry, become important in demonstrating fulfillment of Daniel’s seventy weeks; it also bears upon the time of events depicted in Rev. 12.  For these and other reasons, in this article we want to give an account of the date and time of Christ’s birth. 

The Biblical Account

 Dating Christ’s birth from the scriptures is a relatively straight forward matter.  We know that Jesus was baptized in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, when he was not yet thirty years of age.  (Lk. 3:1)  The actual phrase used by Luke is that Jesus “began to be about thirty.”  (Lk. 3:23)  Similar usage occurs in Matthew’s gospel concerning resurrection morning, when he says it “began to dawn toward the first day of the week.”  (Matt. 28:1)  “Began to dawn” means it was not dawn as yet, but very soon would be.  Likewise, “began to be about thirty,” means that Jesus was not as yet thirty, although he would be soon.  Hence, it would appear that Jesus’ baptism occurred at the threshold of his thirtieth birthday while as yet he was still twenty nine.  So Irenaeus: “For when he came to be baptized, he had not yet completed his thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age.” [1]  Tiberius ascended the throne of the empire upon Augustus’ death in August, A.D. 14.  The fifteenth calendar year of Tiberius’ would have commenced Jan. 1^st, A.D. 29.[2]  If this is correct, Jesus would then have been born in 2 B.C. 

Table No. 1, Christ’s birth based upon his baptism in the 15^th of Tiberius 

 The chart above shows Jesus would have been born in 2 B.C. according to the time of his baptism given by Luke.  It also shows that his thirtieth birthday would have occurred sometime before the close of the year A.D. 29.  But, we can get slightly more specific. By reckoning backward from Jesus’ death, we can determine the probable month of his baptism, and from there, the range of months in which we may expect his birth.  Received tradition has it that Jesus’ ministry spanned four Passovers, in a period of about three and a half years, his death occurring at Passover A.D. 33.  The length of Jesus’ ministry is shown by Daniel’s seventy prophetic weeks, in which it is said that Messiah would “confirm the covenant with many for a week” (seven years) and in the “midst of the week” (3 ½ yrs.) would cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease.  (Dan. 9:27)   This latter clause is almost universally taken in reference to Jesus’ death upon the cross, three and a half years after his baptism.  “On the ordinary Christian interpretation, this applies to the crucifixion of our Lord, which took place, according to the received calculation, during the fourth year after his baptism by John, and the consequent opening of his ministry.” [3]  That Jesus’ ministry spanned four Passovers is also established in scripture.   

After his first Passover (John 2:13) and before his third Passover (John 6:4), Jesus said, “There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest.”  (Jno. 4:35)  Passover precedes the harvest, which occurred at the time of Pentecost, fifty days later.   (Lev. 23:5, 15)  The Lord must therefore have made this statement in January or February A.D. 31.  Following this, but before Jesus’ third Passover, was an unnamed feast (Jno. 5:1), which, if it was not Passover itself, but a later feast, nevertheless shows that another year transpired.  This is further substantiated by Lk. 6:1, which tells the story of the disciples plucking and eating ripened heads of grain.  This harvest season was too long after Jesus’ baptism of A.D. 29 to belong to the Passover of A.D. 30.  At the same time, it also preceded the Passover A.D. 32 recorded in Jno. 6:4. We know this because the disciples plucking ears of grain occurred well before the feeding of the five thousand (Lk. 9:10-17), which immediately preceded Passover of A.D. 32.  (Jno. 6:4 et seq.)  Since the harvest of Luke 6:1 belongs neither to the Passover of A.D. 30 nor A.D. 32, it must belong to that of A.D. 31.  The fourth Passover is that in which Jesus died, A.D. 33.  (Jno. 13:1; 19:28)  Most often, Passover would occur in the fourth month, though it can occur in the last half of March.  Assuming a three and a half year ministry, if Jesus died in mid April of A.D. 33, his baptism and, therefore, the beginning of his ministry, would likely have occurred about the middle of October.    

Table No. 2, the Ministry of Christ 

 Since Luke said that Jesus was not yet thirty when baptized, his birthday must have occurred sometime after October, perhaps during his temptation in the wilderness in November or December of A.D. 29.   

Determining the year of Jesus’ birth this way is comparatively simple and straightforward because Luke has tied Jesus’ age to a well known event in history; viz., the accession of Tiberius.  Other events recorded in scripture relevant to this discussion are more problematic.  Because of their obscurity, the census of Quirinius and the death of Herod, which occurred at or near the time of Jesus’ birth, are more difficult to identify in history and therefore present greater challenge.  Nevertheless, using Luke’s account as a baseline to judge the accuracy of our work, it can be shown from other sources that Jesus in fact was born in 2 B.C.   

Church Fathers 

Received tradition among the church fathers holds that Jesus was born 3/2 B.C.  It is not until recent times that this has been challenged, mostly upon the basis of the asserted date of Herod’s death (below).  The testimony of these early fathers should, therefore, be received in evidence of what the church has believed down through the centuries. 

Irenaeus (A.D. 180) – “Our Lord was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus.”  (Against Heresies, III, xxi, 3) This translates into 3/2 B.C.

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 194) – “And our Lord was born in the twenty-eighth year…in the reign of Augustus.”  (Stomata, I, xxi, 145)  The twenty-eighth year of Augustus’ defeat of Antony and Cleopatra, from which Clement here numbers his reign, was Aug. 29, 3 B.C. to Aug. 28, 2 B.C.  Hence, Clement places Jesus’ birth in 3/2 B.C. 

Tertullian (A.D. 198) – “In the forty-first year of the empire of Augustus, when he has been reigning twenty-eight years after the death of Cleopatra, the Christ is born.”  (Answer to the Jews, chpt VIII)  Tertullian places the birth of Christ at 3/2 B.C. 

Julius Africanus (A.D. 170-240) – Julius Africanus wrote a series of “chronographies,” most of which have been lost, but of which we possess extensive extracts and quotes, including Eusebius.  Africanus gives the number of from years from Adam to the first year of Cyrus as 4943 years.  He further states that Cyrus ascended the throne in the first year of the fifty-fifth Olympiad (Ol. 55, 1), which was 560/559 B.C. Thus, 4943 anno Adami = Ol. 55, 1 = 560/550 B.C. Africanus then goes on to say there were 5500 years from Adam unto the appearance (Gk. epiphanian) of Christ.  Based upon the above formula where 4943 anno Adami = Ol. 55, 1 = 556/559 B.C., this would mean 5500 anno Adami = Ol. 194, 2 = 3/2 B.C.[4] 

Hippolytus of Rome (A.D. 170-236) – Hippolytus brought his chronologies to the thirteenth year of Severus Alexander (A.D. 234), giving the number of years from Adam as 5738.  He assigns the whole number of years from Adam to Christ as 5502.  Thus, 5738 yrs. (the thirteenth of Severus) – 5502 yrs. (the birth of Christ) =  236 yrs. The difference between A.D. 234 (the thirteenth year of Severus) and 236 is two years, placing the birth of Christ in 2 B.C.[5] 

Origen (A.D. 185-253) – In a fragment of Origen’s homilies on Luke, he states that Jesus was born in the forty-first year of Augustus, that Augustus ruled in all fifty-six years, and that there remained to his rule from and after Christ’s birth fifteen years. (Frag. 82 on Luke 3:1)  This translates to 3/2 B.C. 

Eusebius (A.D. 260-340) – “It was, then, the forty-second year of the reign of Augustus, and the twenty-eighth year after the submission of Egypt and the death of Antony and Cleopatra…when our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ…was born.”  (Ecclesiastical History, I, v, 2)  The forty-second year of Augustus was 2 B.C. 

Epiphanius (A.D. 315-403) – Bishop of Salamis on the island Cyprus, Epiphanius states that Augustus reigned fifty-six years, and that Jesus was born in the forty-second year of his reign.  (Panarion, XX, ii)  He names as counsuls Octavius for the thirteenth time and Silvanus (Augusto XIII et Silvano).  (Panarion, LI, xxii, 3) This equates to 2 B.C.[6]  

Paulus Orosius  – In his Seven Books of History Against the Pagans, Orosius says that Christ was born in the seven hundred and fifty-second year from the founding of Rome (A.U.C.)[7]  752 A.U.C. = 2  B.C.    

Cassiodorus (A.D. 490-585) – Cassiodorus placed the birth of Christ in the consulship of Lentulus and M. Messala (Lentulo et Messalino), stating “When these were consuls, our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God was born in Bethlehem in the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus”  This translates into 3 B.C.[8]  

Table No. 3, Patristic Writers Concerning Christ’s Birth 

 As the above table demonstrates, there is near unanimity among early Christian writers concerning the date of the Lord’s birth, placing it at precisely the same time as we would expect based upon Luke’s statement that Jesus was not yet thirty when baptized in the fifteenth year of Tiberius.  

Methods of Dating Regnal Years 

The regnal years of kings are counted various ways among different peoples at different times.  As we enter into a discussion about the death of Herod and the birth of Christ, the following methods of numbering are relevant:  

Actual years – This system simply counts the number of years from actual accession to the throne.  A king who acceded in March would complete his first regnal year the following March and every March thereafter. 

Accession – In this system, the regnal year corresponds with the calendar year; any portion of a calendar year remaining when the new king acceded is termed his accession year, and not counted as a regnal year, but, for chronological purposes, belongs to his predecessor.  For example, where a king dies and is acceded by his successor August 1st, the period from August to the new year is counted as his “accession year.”  The first year of the new king’s reign would begin with the next full calendar year on new year’s day, and follow the calendar every year thereafter.  Assuming this new king died March 31^st of his twenty-first regnal (calendar) year, his total reign would be expressed in whole numbers as twenty-one years; the remaining portion of his final year (April 1^st – Dec. 31^st) being credited to his reign.  This system thus awards the portion of a calendar year remaining when a king dies, but takes away the portion remaining to the calendar year when he ascended the throne.  Where an historian wished to express the actual years of the king’s reign, he would say that he died in the twenty-first (calendar) year of his reign, having reined twenty years and eight months – the eight months representing the months of his accession year (August 1^st - Jan. 1^st) and the completed portion of his last regnal year (Jan. 1^st – March 31^st ). 

Non-accession – This system is the opposite of that above.  In this system, the months fulfilled in a calendar year when a king died were awarded to his successor.  For example, a king who acceded in November would be awarded the whole calendar year and to have completed his first year of rule when the new year came about, even though he had actually ruled little more than a month.  Thereafter, his regnal years are numbered by the calendar.  This system thus awards the whole calendar year coming in, but takes it away going out. 

Based upon non-biblical writings, some conclude that the Jews used the non-accession system.  The Jewish Mishna in the tractate Rosh Hashanah gives four new years:  

 In the discussion following it is further explained:  

Whether this expresses the biblical method of counting a king’s reign is an open question.  It is clear that the sacred calendar began with the first of Nisan upon the new moon at the vernal equinox (March/April).  (Ex. 12:2 et seq.)  Also, it seems that the first of Tishri, the seventh month (Sept./Oct.), was the new year for purposes of the courses of priests (I Kng. 8:2; Neh. 3:1, 7), the year of release (Deut. 15:1-6 ), sabbatical years (Lev. 25:1-7), and the Jubilee. (Lev. 25:8-10)   Hence, this much is correct.  But this is not proof that the stated method of numbering a king’s reign is correct.  The times of sacred feasts was set in law; there is no similar pronouncement recorded regarding the reign of kings.   The passage relied upon as proof that a king’s reign was counted from the first of Nisan is I Kng. 6:1, where the number of years since the children of Israel came out of Egypt and the regnal years of Solomon are both counted from Nisan.  Apparently, this is thought to prove that both were counted on the basis of official, rather than actual, years.  However, the children of Israel actually departed Egypt in the month of Nisan after the first Passover and entered Canaan in Nisan as well.  (Ex. 12:1 et seq.; Josh. 4:19; 5:11)  Hence, unless it can be positively demonstrated that Solomon did not accede the throne in Nisan, there is no basis for concluding this verse is an instance of counting official, calendar years as opposed to actual years.  Moreover, even if the first of Nisan marked the new year for purposes of enumerating the regnal year of a sitting king, this would not prove that non-accession reckoning was used, for the accession method also changes the regnal years new year’s day.   Thus, the Bible cannot guide us here or shed light on what Josephus may have done.  In the end, there is no proof Josephus used inclusive, non-accession reckoning.

Consular dates – The Romans designated years by those elected consul.  The position was held by two men who entered office January 1^st of each year.  Reference to a year by the two consuls (Augusto et Silvano) would therefore designate the twelve month period they held office.

Olympiads – The Greeks used the Olympiad system to specify years.  Each Olympiad spanned four years; each year of an Olympiad began on July 1^st and ended June 30^st of the following year, and are expressed Ol. 185, 1 (the first year of the 185^th Olympiad) Ol. 185, 2 (the second year of the 185^th Olympiad), and so forth.

Josephus did not use Consular and Olympiad dates in his history of the Jewish war, but added them when dating the same events when he published his Antiquities.  The Jewish calendar began in Nisan (Mar./April) and for certain purposes in Tishri (Sept./Oct.) The Roman calendar began on January, the Greek Olympiad in July.  In translating events of Jewish history into Roman and Greek equivalents would present a great challenge. As Josephus’ Consular and Olympiad dates are often hopelessly at odds with scripture and contradict his own chronology in places, it would appear that he applied them very imperfectly.  Unfortunately, they represent the chief basis for the early date for Herod’s death. 

4 B.C. – The Pseudo Date of Herod’s Death 

We know that Jesus was born while Herod the Great was king over Judea and that Herod died while Jesus was still a young child. (Matt. 2:1, 20; Lk. 1:5)    Therefore, the date of Herod’s death becomes important in identifying the time of Jesus’ birth.  The date usually given today for Herod’s death is 4 B.C.  As we have seen, this has not always been the case.  Arguments favoring the 4 B.C. date may be summarized as follows: 1) Statements by Josephus concerning the Olympiad and Consular dates of Herod’s accession; 2) statements by Josephus regarding the length of Herod’s rule from his appointment by Rome and death of Antigonus; 3) the supposed date of a lunar eclipse that occurred shortly before Herod’s death; and 4) the visit of the wise men. 

Olympiad & Consular Dates of Herod’s Reign – Josephus says that Herod was made king by the Roman senate at the instance of Marc Antony and Octavian Caesar “in the hundred and eighty-fourth Olympiad, the consuls being Caius Domitius Calvinus, for the second time, and Caius Asinius Pollio.”[11]  This answers to 40 B.C.  However, this is universally acknowledge to be wrong.  The hundred and eighty-fourth Olympiad ended June 30^th; it is very clear that Herod did not arrive in Rome until late fall, which, if the Consular date is correct, would be the first year of the hundred and eighty-fifth Olympiad.  Josephus next states that Herod, with the help of the Roman general, Sosius, besieged Jerusalem and took it after a five or six month siege, “when Marchus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls at Rome, on the hundred and eighty-fifth Olympiad.”[12]  The consular date of Agrippa et Gallo translates to 37 B.C. 

Length of Herod’s Reign at Death – Josephus then states that Herod died “having reigned thirty-four years, since he procured Antigonus to be slain, and obtained his kingdom; but thirty-seven since he had been made king by the Romans."[13] If the reign of Herod is numbered so that the remaining months from his appointment as king at Rome are counted as his first year (non-accession reckoning), 39-38 B.C. as his second year, and so forth, we arrive at  4 B.C. for Herod’s death.   

Table No. 4, Olympiad & Consular Years of Herod’s Reign According to Josephus