A handbook of Freethought

by Unknown

When was Jesus Born?

As to the time when Jesus was born, we have no positive information. Matthew says he was born in Herod’s time, and that Herod caused all the little children to be killed on account of him. Luke says Jesus was born in the time of Cyrenius, when Augustus Cæsar gave orders that all the people should be taxed. Now, Cyrenius succeeded Archelaus, who reigned ten years after the death of Herod. Here is a contradiction that cannot be explained away. The exact day of Herod’s death can be almost arrived at, as shown by Josephus, who says that on the night preceding the death of Herod there was an eclipse of the moon. In calculating back to the time of this eclipse, it is found to have occurred on the fourth of March, four years before Christ; another perplexing discrepancy. Matthew says he was born in the days of Herod, and John says it was in the days of Cyrenius, fourteen years afterward. Again, Mark and Luke say Jesus began to be thirty years of age in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, the very day of whose accession is known; and by counting back, we find that Jesus must have been born four years before the Christian era, which disagrees entirely with the statement of Matthew.

Professor John Fiske remarks that while the Jesus of the dogma is the best known, the Jesus of history is the least known of all the eminent names in history. “Persons who had given much attention to the subject affirmed that there were not less than one hundred and thirty-two different opinions as to the year in which the Messiah appeared.” (“Conflict Between Religion and Science,” p. 184.)

Dr. Adam Clarke, on observations of [Luke 2 : 8], in his Commentary says: “The nativity of Jesus in December should be given up. The Egyptians placed it in January; Wagenseil in February; Bochart in March. Some mentioned by Clemens Alexandrine in April; others in May. Epiphanius speaks of some who placed it in June, and others supposed it to have been in July. Wagenseil, who was not sure of February, fixed it as probably in August; Lightfoot on the fifteenth of September. But the Latin church [Catholic], supreme in power and infallible in judgment, placed it on the twenty-fifth of December, the very day on which the ancient Romans celebrated the feast of their goddess, Bruma. Pope Julius I. (in the fourth century) made the first alteration, and it appears to have been done for this reason.” The Christians often aim to make an argument that the chronology of the Christian era is established by the confirmation that is given by the years being numbered from the supposed birth of Jesus, but it is no proof at all. The idea of counting the years from the advent of Jesus was not thought of for several centuries after the time when the vague legends said he was supposed to have lived. The plan of numbering the years from that apocryphal event was first invented by a monk, Dionysius Exiguus, about 530 after Christ. It was introduced into Italy not long afterward, and was propagated by Bede, who died in 735. It was ordered to be used by the bishops in the Council of Chalcedon in 816, but it was not generally employed for several centuries afterward. It was not legalized until the year 1000. Charles III. of Germany was the first sovereign who added “In the year of our Lord” to his reign, in 879. (See Haydn’s Dictionary of Dates, and Encyclopedia of Chronology.)

Now, in recapitulation, let us see how much, by the common sense method of interpreting the gospels, we have been forced to reject as incredible.

First, we have seen that Joseph’s dream concerning the immaculate conception was, after all, only a dream, and that wonderful dreams are not uncommon; Samson’s mother having had one which is so identical with Joseph’s, that we are persuaded that the dream of the latter is but a copy of the dream of the former; that almost all men of distinction in ancient times were reported to have had wonderful prodigies attending their conception and birth,—and that there is no evidence in the gospels of the resurrection of Jesus. Paul saw him in a vision, that is, in his mind’s eye, but does not claim to have seen him in the flesh. And of the ascension, it is a self-evident fiction.

The miracles are not only incredible from their being incompatible with and contrary to human experience, but the manner in which they are related proves that they never were performed. (See “Miracles.”) And concerning the moral teachings of Jesus we find great imperfection. He did not come to save all men, but only the lost sheep of the house of Israel; he taught that the end of the world was nigh at hand, when a great physical revolution should usher in the kingdom of heaven, but it did not come. We find also that Jesus did not respect the rights of property; that he despised this world; that he condemned the rich because they were rich, and made great promises to the poor because they were poor; that he professed to pardon sin, and on one occasion pardoned a person’s sins for washing his feet; that he exhibited an imperfect sense of justice in a great many instances; and, lastly, we find that there is no history of him excepting the gospels, and in these there is no unquestionable record of the time when or the place where he was born. We are forced to conclude that if ever there was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth, we have no trustworthy sources of positive knowledge concerning him.