Proclaim - Scholarly Article

Jesus was most likely born around 6–4 BC.
A common estimate is late 5 BC.
Our calendar is slightly off.

Dating Jesus’ birth is approximate, not exact. The key anchor is Luke 3. It places Jesus’ ministry around AD 28–29. Luke says Jesus was “about thirty.” That suggests a birth around 6–4 BC.

Another important factor is Herod the Great. He died in 4 BC. Since Jesus was born during Herod’s reign, his birth must be before 4 BC. This narrows the range to about 6–4 BC. Many scholars land around 5 BC.

Luke’s wording allows some flexibility. “About thirty” is not precise. So late 5 BC is a reasonable estimate. Even a winter birth is possible, though not certain.

Conclusion: We can’t pinpoint the exact date, but the historical window is fairly tight.

While it is hard to be precise in dating Jesus’ birth, it was probably late in 5 BC.

As theologians Andreas J. Köstenberger and Alexander Stewart point out:

Luke precisely dates the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry to the “fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,” which would have been AD 28/29. Later in the chapter, Luke states that Jesus began his public ministry when he was “about thirty years of age,” most likely in the fall of AD 29. The key word in Luke’s statement is “about,” which indicates his use of approximate or round numbers. . . . Presumably, if Jesus had been over thirty-five years old at the start of his ministry, Luke would have rounded up . . . There was no year 0 between 1 BC and AD 1, so Luke’s estimate of Jesus’s age could not easily push his birth back farther than 6 or 7 BC at the most. On the other hand, Luke’s comment allows us to date Jesus’s birth late in 5 BC, making even a November or December birth possible.[617]

Readers may wonder how Jesus managed to have been born in 5 BC, “Before Christ”?! The calendar system of dividing history into BC (“Before Christ”) and AD (“Anno Domini,” that is, “The year of our Lord”) was invented in what we now call the sixth century AD by a monk and astronomer called Dionysius Exiguus. Working with limited documentation, Dionysius unfortunately got his calculation wrong by a few years.

Because the Gospels don’t mention a palm tree.
That detail comes from later, non-canonical traditions.
The episode follows the earlier biblical accounts.

The New Testament gives the earliest accounts of Jesus’ birth. These are found in Matthew and Luke. Neither mentions a palm tree. They place the birth in Bethlehem, not a desert setting. The palm tree story comes from the Qur’an (Surah 19). However, that version appears to draw from later traditions. Specifically from apocryphal Christian texts. Two key sources are:

• The Protoevangelium of James (2nd century)
• The Infancy Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (later tradition)

These texts are not part of the New Testament canon. They include additional details not found in earlier sources. For example:

• Birth in a cave
• Miraculous provisions like a palm tree and water

Interestingly, in Pseudo-Matthew, the palm tree appears later. It happens during the flight to Egypt, not at the birth. So the Qur’anic version seems to combine traditions.

From a historical perspective: Matthew and Luke are earlier sources (1st century). The others appear later and expand the story. That’s why the episode follows the Gospel version.

The Qur’anic depiction of Jesus’ birth under a palm tree draws upon apocryphal Christian traditions that post-date the first century testimony conveyed by the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

According to the Qur’an, Mary gave birth to Jesus under “a palm tree” in an unspecified “distant place.” (Sura 19:22-26.) However, this account of Jesus’ birth seems to be pulled together from the apocryphal second century Protoevangelium of James and a tradition reflected in the seventh/eight century Infancy Gospel of Matthew (also known as The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew), a tradition that traces back to a third century story about Mary’s death.[618] All of these traditions post-date the first century testimony of the canonical Gospels according to Matthew and Luke.

From the Protoevangelium of James, the Qur’an takes the idea that Mary gave birth to Jesus in a “cave” that was not in Bethlehem but rather somewhere in the “desert,” along with the idea that she gave birth without anyone to help her. From the Infancy Gospel of Matthew the Qur’an takes the idea of Mary eating from a date-palm tree and drinking from a miraculous spring of water, though in Pseudo-Matthew this is an event that happens as Mary, Joseph and Jesus were travelling to Egypt to escape from the murderous intent of King Herod. Stephen J. Shoemaker traces the influence of both traditions on the fifth-century Kathisma church,[619] a pilgrimage site between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and which was originally

an important Nativity shrine . . . which owed its significance to the account of the Nativity related by the second-century Protevanglium of James, a Christian apocryphon whose traditions have strongly influenced the Qur ¯an. Once the basilica of the Nativity in the city of Bethlehem had emerged as the dominant Nativity shrine, with the authoritative support of the canonical gospels, new significance had to be found for the church of the Kathisma that would supplant its dissonant . . . Nativity traditions. It would seem that this was the reason behind the later attempt to identify the Kathisma with the tradition of Mary and the palm tree from the legend of the Holy Family’s flight into Egypt. The Kathisma’s Nativity traditions did not evaporate, however, and they continued to attach themselves to this shrine even after this effort to redefine its significance. Thus we have in the Kathisma church a likely source for the Qur ¯anic tradition of Jesus’ Nativity: not only is it the only place in the Christian tradition where the two legends that were the Qur ¯an’s sources meet, but the importance of Jerusalem in earliest Islamic history provides a likely context for their adoption by the Muslim invaders. . . . We know that this Christian shrine was converted into a mosque rather soon after the Arabs took control of Jerusalem, sometime before the early eighth century, indicating that the Kathisma was important to the early Muslims. Moreover, the impact of the Kathisma church on the formation of Islamic culture is dramatically seen in the Kathisma’s connection with the Dome of the Rock; not only does the Kathisma appear to have served as the Dome of the Rock’s architectural model, but the unusual mosaics found in both shrines attest to the strong links between them. In view of the Kathisma’s significance for early Islam, we should not be surprised at all to find that its traditions have influenced the Qur ¯an.[620]

As Nicolai Sinai comments:

the Qur’anic retelling of the Nativity of Jesus in Q 19: 16–33 draws upon a combination of narrative traditions that was linked to a Christian pilgrimage sanctuary located between Jerusalem and Jericho, the church of the ‘Kathisma’, or seat, of the ‘God-Bearer’ Mary. The early Muslim conquerors seem to have attached sufficient significance to this church in order to eventually turn it into a mosque and to use it as an architectural blueprint for the Dome of the Rock. Historical probability thus suggests that surah 19’s account of the Nativity stands in some relationship to the Palestinian Kathisma sanctuary. The most straightforward model for how this could be the case, given the demonstrable importance of the Kathisma church to the Arab conquerors, would be to assume that the passage in question, or perhaps the entire surah to which it belongs, originated in post-conquest Palestine. Yet a less direct link remains possible: nothing precludes that traditions associated with the Kathisma sanctuary could have radiated further afield already prior to the Arab conquest of Palestine and that they could have penetrated the Qur’anic milieu (wherever we choose to locate the latter) via several stages of oral dissemination.[621]

Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Likely in a private home, not a public inn.
He was placed in a manger, probably in a cave or lower animal area.

The Gospels clearly locate Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. That part is not disputed. The question is the setting.

Traditional nativity scenes show a stable. But the text suggests something slightly different.

Luke uses the word kataluma. This usually means “guest room,” not “inn.” So the most likely scenario is this: Joseph and Mary stayed with family or relatives. But the guest room was already full. In 1st-century homes, animals were often kept inside. Either in a lower section or an adjoining space. These spaces were sometimes caves. Especially in areas like Bethlehem. That explains the manger. It’s a feeding trough for animals.

Early Christian sources (2nd–4th century) consistently point to a cave in Bethlehem.

This tradition is very early and widely known.

So, combining all evidence:

• Bethlehem is certain
• A private home is likely
• A cave or animal space fits both text and archaeology

Conclusion: Not a wooden stable behind an inn, but a crowded home with an attached animal area.

Jesus was probably born in a home in Bethlehem where the guest room was already full, and he was laid in the manger of a natural or man-made cave adjoining the house that was used for sheltering animals.

Michael Hesemann reports that “The cave below the Church of the Nativity has been venerated since the earliest years, which suggests that it is authentically the site of Christ’s birth. It is mentioned as early as the second century in the Protoevangelium.”[622] Writing around 220 AD, Origen of Alexandria recounted that

In Bethlehem the grotto was shown where, according to the Gospels, Jesus was born, as well as the manger in which, wrapped in swaddling clothes, he was laid. What was shown to me is familiar to everyone in the area. The heathens themselves tell everyone who is willing to listen that in the said grotto there a certain Jesus was born whom the Christians revered.[623]

Then again, writing around 315 AD, the early Church historian Eusebius confirms that “Up till the present day the local population [of Bethlehem] bears witness to the ancestral tradition and proceeds to show visitors the grotto in which the Virgin gave birth to the Child.”[624]

Bethlehem was probably too small to have an inn, and the traditional “nativity play” portrayal of Joseph and Mary staying in the stables of an inn on account of the inn being full stems from a mistranslation of the Greek word for the “guest room,” i.e., the kataluma: “a room, mostly on the second floor, which a host places at the disposal of his guests.”[625] As theologian Joel B. Green explains:

The term Luke employs here [κατάλυμα] for “guest room” [or “upper room”] is often translated in English as “inn.” However, the same term appears in 22:11 with the meaning “guest room,” and the verbal form occurs in 9:12 and 19:7 with the sense of “find lodging” or “be a guest.” Moreover, in 10:34, where a commercial inn is clearly demanded by the text, Luke draws on different vocabulary. It is doubtful whether a commercial inn actually existed in Bethlehem, which stood on no major roads. It may be that Luke has in mind a “khan or caravansary where large groups of travelers found shelter under one roof,” but this does not help our understanding of Mary’s placing the child in a manger. That “guest room” is the more plausible meaning here is urged by the realization that in peasant homes in the ancient Near East the family and animals slept in one enclosed space, with the animals located on a lower level. Mary and Joseph, then, would have been the guests of family or friends, but their home would have been so overcrowded that the baby was placed in a feeding trough.[626]

The evidence suggests that Jesus was born in a home where the guest room was already occupied, leading to the baby Jesus being placed in the manger of the home’s integrated animal enclosure, which was likely in a natural or man-made cave. Fr. Dwight Longenecker points out that:

Bethlehem is one of the areas where cave houses were. . . most common. . . . Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’ birth was most likely a community of homes carved out of the soft limestone of the area–with stone or timber built additions on the front or on top.[627]

According to Mike McGarry: “The people of Bethlehem were known to keep their flocks in an adjoining cave to their homes. There is archaeological evidence for animals being housed in caves.”[628]

As Michael Hesemann explains,

The cave below the Church of the Nativity has been venerated since the earliest years, which suggests that it is authentically the site of Christ’s birth. It is mentioned as early as the second century in the Protoevangelium. Around A.D. 135, Justin Martyr, who was from Neapolis (now Nablus) in Samaria and thus very familiar with local tradition, wrote in his Dialogue with Trypho: “But, when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village.” . . . . Around 220, Origen reports: “In Bethlehem the grotto was shown where, according to the Gospels, Jesus was born, as well as the manger in which, wrapped in swaddling clothes, he was laid. What was shown to me is familiar to everyone in the area. [They] tell everyone who is willing to listen that in the said grotto there a certain Jesus was born whom the Christians revered.” Around 315, that is, ten years prior to the visit of Saint Helena, the Church historian Eusebius confirms: “Up till the present day the local population [of Bethlehem] bears witness to the ancestral tradition and proceeds to show visitors the grotto in which the Virgin gave birth to the Child.”[629]

Hesemann points out the irony that it is thanks to

the pagan Roman Emperor Hadrian, of all people, that this site was preserved . . . After he had quelled the uprising of the Jewish rebel Simon Bar Kochba in 135, as a preventive measure he took action against all messianic movements in Judaism. Not only did he drive the Jews out of Jerusalem and the vicinity, he also had the most important Jewish and Jewish-Christian sanctuaries paganized, i.e., converted into heathen places of worship. This happened in Jerusalem on the Temple Mount, with the Pool of Bethesda, and the rock of Golgotha and, furthermore, on the Samaritan Mount Garizim and in Bethlehem. Here he commissioned a cultic grove to be designed over the Grotto of Jesus’ Nativity, in honor of the Syrian Tammuz (Greek: Adonis). Tammuz was a shepherd god who annually in winter, when life dies, descended into the underworld, only to reemerge from it in spring, bringing new life.[630]

Yes, Herod the Great is firmly historical.
He is well documented in multiple independent sources.
Archaeology also confirms his reign.

Herod the Great is one of the best-attested figures in the New Testament period.

First, literary sources. The Jewish historian Josephus writes extensively about him. Roman sources also mention him.

Second, archaeology. Coins bearing his name and title have been found. Inscriptions confirm he was called “King of the Jews,” matching the Gospels.

His massive building projects still exist today. For example:

• Caesarea Maritima
• Masada
• Expansion of the Jerusalem Temple

These are not minor remains. They show a powerful, historically real ruler.

Third, character. Josephus describes him as paranoid and brutal. He executed family members and political rivals. This matches the Gospel portrayal of Herod.

The “slaughter of the innocents” is debated. It is not mentioned by Josephus. But given Bethlehem’s small size, the number of victims would have been small. And Herod’s known behavior makes it plausible.

Herod is unquestionably historical.

King Herod the Great was a real historical figure who features in the archaeological record and extra-biblical historical literature of the first century.

As described by Encyclopaedia Britannica:

Herod (born 73 BCE—died March/April, 4 BCE, Jericho, Judaea) was the Roman-appointed king of Judaea (37–4 BCE), who built many fortresses, aqueducts, theaters, and other public buildings and generally raised the prosperity of his land but who was the center of political and family intrigues in his later years.[631]

Below left is a bronze coin from Herod the Great’s reign. On the obverse side is a tripod and ceremonial bowl with the inscription “of Herod king”.

Fig. Coin of Herod the Great.[632]

Archaeologists have also discovered an amphora or storage vessel, probably used for transporting wine, dated to c. 19 BC, bearing a Latin inscription that reads, “Herod the Great King of the Jews [or Judea].” This was the first such inscription that mentions the full title of King Herod used in Luke 1:5.[633]

What about Herod’s “slaughter of the innocents” at Bethlehem, reported in Matthew 2:16–18? Theologians Alex Köstenberger and A. Stewart conjecture:

Perhaps Herod suspected that if the magoi had allied with this rival king, then the villagers may have also allied with him and would have lied to protect him. Herod, or his representatives , may have distrusted their claim that the family and child had disappeared in the middle of the night. So Herod took the path of “better safe than sorry.” This tyrannical response completely accords with what we know about Herod’s cruel and paranoid character near the end of his life.[634]

According to Michael Hesemann:

the results of archaeological excavations in Bethlehem lead to the conclusion that only three hundred to one thousand people were living in the city of David during the time of Jesus. If Herod had indeed killed all “boys who were two years old or under” [a phrase that, in the Greek, may not specify those who had completed two years and down, but those entering the second year and down[635]], the number of his victims might perhaps have been ten to twenty, or thirty at the very most. That is terrible, but it would have gone unnoticed in the bloody frenzy that marked the last years of the paranoid tyrant.[636]

Ordering the murder of 10-30 babies certainly wasn’t out of character for Herod. As Jewish New testament scholar Geza Vermes writes: “Is this story consistent with what we know about Herod’s character and volatile temperament? Without any doubt it is.”[637] According to the first century Jewish historian Josephus: “Herod inflicted such outrages upon (the Jews) as not even a beast could have done if it possessed the power to rule over men.” (Antiquities of the Jews 17:310). Josephus tells that Herod murdered his favorite wife’s father, drowned her brother, and killed her! He executed one of his most trusted friends (his barber) and 300 military leaders. He slew three of his sons (suspecting them of treason).

And as Andreas J. Köstenberger and Alexander Stewart observe:

Herod’s character, at least near the end of his life, is illustrated by one of the last stories Josephus recounts of his reign. When Herod knew that he was near death, he summoned notable Jews from the entire nation to the hippodrome and instructed his sister, Salome, and her husband, Alexas, to have soldiers slaughter everyone in the hippodrome upon his death. He did this because he knew that the majority of Jews would rejoice at his death (because of his heavy taxation and tyranny), and he wanted to ensure that genuine mourning gripped the entire nation at his funeral. Fortunately for the Jews at the time, Salome and Alexas did not carry out Herod’s instructions.[638]

Köstenberger and Stewart also report that there is a possible extrabiblical reference to Herod’s massacre a Bethlehem that doesn’t depend on Matthew’s account:

Macrobius, an early fifth-century (likely pagan) philosopher, recorded a quip attributed to Caesar Augustus: “When he heard that Herod king of the Jews had ordered boys in Syria under the age of two years to be put to death and that the king’s son was among those killed, he said: ‘I’d rather be Herod’s pig than Herod’s son.’” Many assume that this comment relies on Matthew’s Gospel because it postdates it by several centuries, but Macrobius, a Neoplatonist, displays no explicit knowledge of Christianity in his writings. The author obviously mixes up historical events as he locates the massacre in Syria (the Romans would have viewed Judea as part of the larger province of Syria) and includes Herod’s own son in the slaughter (Herod killed his son around the same time period). But these very errors may indicate that Macrobius derived his information from the same Roman sources from which he drew all his other information about Caesar. What is more, he could not have discovered the information about Herod’s son, the main point of his comment, from Matthew’s Gospel. Thus, this reference may well indicate knowledge of Herod’s slaughter of the Bethlehem infants rooted in the non-Christian Roman world.[639]