Was Jesus Born on December 25th?
Firstly, I intend for this to be an historical exercise, not a religious
one. Secondly, this subject is vastly debated, with a very wide array
of methods and sources, far too many to examine here in any depth. This
is, as far as I know, an original hypothesis on my part. I have found no
one else pursuing this line of reasoning.
It seems that absolutely no one believes that Jesus was actually born on December 25th. I will attempt to make the
case that it is possible, if not likely that in fact, He was. I admit
ahead of time, that my case is circumstantial, but based on some
historical facts, followed by logical supposition (or so, I believe).
I will attempt to summarize the current theories on the day of Christ's birth.
1. He was born in the Spring or Summer. Biblically based. (I use the Douay-Rheims version)
This is based primarily on the description in the Bible, of the
shepherds tending their flocks (Luke 2:8). It is assumed that the
shepherds are grazing their flocks and therefore this must be in the
Spring or Summer, since there would be no grass in December. Further,
they would not be 'standing watch' on their flocks except outside of
their farms. There is also a convoluted interpretation of The
Apocalypse, that claims to prove(with some astronomical additives), that
proves Jesus was born in September.
2. He was born any other time but December. Astronomically based.
The dates concluded based on astronomical observations are all over the
place. Most seem to center on June, but January, September and a
plethora of other dates are given for various comets, planet/star/moon
conjunctions occurring and explaining the Star of Bethlehem. The closest
day to traditional Christmas observation is January 6th, which is
interesting, since that would quite possibly confirm a December 25th
birth. Outside of my hypothesis, that can wait for another time.
I have read much on both of these theories and frankly, I find them
both wanting. Accepting the Bible at face value, Luke 2:8 would seem to
be almost a slam dunk. Yet, it isn't. It says nothing of the shepherds
actually grazing their flocks, this is assumed. Herds or flocks of any
livestock were and are valuable. Rustling occurred then and now. Even in
the environs of the farm or ranch, why would you not have the hired
hands keeping a close eye on your livelihood? If it was winter, this
may be especially the case, when livestock would be that much more
vulnerable, despite being in a barn. Further, I would submit that this
is Israel, near Bethlehem(Luke 2:8 And there were in the same country
shepherds watching, and keeping the night watches over their flock). I
have been to Israel, specifically in January and can attest that crops
grow there during winter at least in parts. While it does get bitterly
cold in other parts, Bethlehem lies in a valley. I submit it as being
possible that the shepherds could have been grazing the flocks, even in
December. Either way, Luke's mention of the shepherds is incomplete to
ascertain the time of year for Christ's birth.
The astronomical
models and analysis is absolutely all over the place. What is supposed
to be a science, seems on this question, to be nothing more than random
guesses. Every month of the year is mentioned along with every possible
combination of celestial event that would explain the Star of Bethlehem
and thus the month or even exact day of Jesus' birth.
Further,
further no one is in agreement as to what year Christ was born, so for
the purposes of this hypothesis, the Bible is taken at face value and we
shall examine a bit of it in historical context. The amount of
information at hand is large and incomplete. The Romans and their
proxies conducted census' at odd times of the year, never requiring a
man to return to his hometown. In addition, taxes were also collected at
various times of the year and in different manners. This all comes
directly from the Roman recorders themselves, irrefutable in and of
themselves. But the record truly is incomplete and what we do have to
go on, paints in very wide strokes, indeed. The two salient facts of
Luke's account, that is an empire wide census and that every man return
to his ancestral home, can not be proved. At the moment, neither can
they be disproved.
Now, my purpose is not to disprove either of
those theories, only to show that there is enough doubt to provide a
path to a third theory.
Luke 2:[1] And it came to pass, that in
those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole
world should be enrolled. [2] This enrolling was first made by Cyrinus,
the governor of Syria. [3] And all went to be enrolled, every one into
his own city. [4] And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city
of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem:
because he was of the house and family of David, [5] To be enrolled
with Mary his espoused wife, who was with child.
This is were my research begins.
First, the question.....did Caesar Augustus ever issue such a decree?
Augustus himself mentions several census' one of which corresponds to a
possible year of Jesus' birth (8BC), but none indicate a true
empire-wide decree as described by Luke. What is well known is that he
did completely change the manner in which taxes were collected. What is
maddening here, is that for the life of me, I can not find out WHEN he
did this. The when could entirely negate my hypothesis or add
considerable weight to it.
What Augustus inherited was a
tradition of 'tax farming', whereby individual citizens(or perhaps not
citizens?), bid for the right to collect taxes. The winning bidder then
paid the winning sum and set about collecting the taxes from the people,
adding his commission. Obviously, this was a seriously flawed system,
fraught with potential abuse and highly unpopular. Caesar swept this
aside and instituted a much more modern system, where governors
collected taxes, through a system of civil servants, with fixed rates
for certain financial transaction (inheritance, sales, etc.). I believe
it is logical to ask, if the entire tax code was changed, would you not
need an empire-wide census? We know, full well that the historical
record is incomplete, could all records of this event be lost or still
hidden? Many, many Roman records of tax collection and various census
taking are available to us in fragmentary form, but this event, well
recorded otherwise, remains elusive. I submit that with such a radical
shake-up of the tax system, an empire wide census, requiring one to
return to an ancestral home is quite feasible.
So, at this
point, we have a thorough cleansing/reordering of the tax system, a
complete census is in order. Caesar has spoken. When do you do that?
I posit, that if you are Cyrinus (Quirinius, in other spellings), you
would mold your disruptive (disruptive, because of the need to go back
to ones ancestral home) census around the harvests. Today, some 3-5% of
the population makes their living off of agriculture. Before the
industrial revolution, that percentage was closer to it's diametric
opposite, 90% of the people or more, made their living directly or
indirectly from agriculture. As example, Joseph as a carpenter in a
small town, would have made his bread and butter making and repairing
farm equipment(and possibly fishing and boating equipment, which would
fall into the same category). Blacksmiths, tanners the same. Millers go
without saying. Nearly everyone was tied to the production of food and
foodstuffs. So, let's take a look at the harvest schedule of Israel....
Notice that there is quite the wide variety of crops and that the first
harvests are in April and end in mid November with the olive harvest.
The chart that I snagged from some site, seems to be one of the more
reliable, there was another chart which had an earlier start and a
harvest schedule that went well into December, thus supporting my
hypothesis better, but it seemed to be hacked together by an amateur. If
we subtract the 60-70 days for barley to mature from April 15th
(ironic, no?), we arrive at about the first week of February, for the
planting of barley and winter wheat. At the other end of the spectrum,
we have the olive harvest wrapping up in mid November, for the sake of
argument, November 15th exactly. I believe that we should add two weeks
on each end of this equation for preparation and wrap-up. This would be
unpacking, planning and tilling on the one end and on the other packing,
processing and storing on the other......amongst other aspects and
duties of farming. Two weeks is quite conservative in my opinion.
Nevertheless, that gives us from December 1st to about January 21st with
most of the population having not much to do. The sowing and the
reaping are done.
It should be noted that the olive harvest
generated, by far the most money in ancient Israel. It was as close as
they had to a cash crop and it was highly lucrative.
So, if you
were Cyrinus, when would you uproot and distress the population in
order to conduct a census and collect taxes? Realizing that if you do it
at anytime during the harvest schedule, you will interfere with the
harvest and therefore the amount of taxes collected. Your boss the
Emperor, may not be too happy with you if you cost him a denarii or two.
The only logical answer would be after the olive harvest, but before
the winter planting. Otherwise you are interfering with the flow of
food, which is, in a very real way, money and you are needlessly
agitating the populous.
In conclusion, hardly complete, but submitted as food for thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment