Hippolytus and the Original Date of Christmas

***Update-see my new post on Clement of Alexandria and Christmas December 25th****

Around this time last year I put up a blog post pointing out that Hippolytus of Rome names December 25 as the birthday of Jesus in his Commentary on Daniel (written probably between 202-211 A.D.)

The passage reads as follows:

For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, a Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, but from Adam, five thousand and five hundred years.  He suffered in the thirty-third year, March 25th, Friday, the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, while Rufus and Roubellion were Consuls. ~Commentary on Daniel 4.23.3

According to this passage Jesus was born on December 25 (the winter solstice according to the Julian calendar)  3 or 4 BC (depending on how we count for the incorrect implementation of the Julian calendar) and that Jesus died on the Passover of March 25 (which was the vernal equinox in the Julian calendar) of 29 A.D.  (see my article for details on this)

However the manuscript tradition for this passage is contradictory and most scholars believe that the date of December 25 was added by a later scribe and that Hippolytus did not record it himself.

When I finished translating Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel I decided to look into this matter fully because there were some details that I needed to sort out.  I published the resulting article as an appendix to my translation which I have now placed online. It’s rather long and complex and deals with mathematical calculations and the nuances of the Greek language, so here is a quick summary.  Please see the article for all of the details and for complete explanations.

There are six Greek manuscripts and a medieval Slavonic translation which contain the passage at hand:

A=10th Century
B=15th/16th Century
G1=13th Century
G2=14th Century
J=11th Century
P=13th Century
S=Old Slavonic translation 11th Century (4 manuscripts exist)

All of these contain the date of December 25 except for manuscript J, which contains no date. However Manuscript A mysteriously contains two dates, December 25 and another fragmentary date in either late March or early April. In essence manuscript A does not make any sense. (my article has the original Greek of the manuscripts for comparative purposes) Also, George Syncellus (9th century) claims that Hippolytus believed Jesus was born on December 25 but George of Arabia (8th century) quotes the passage according to manuscript J which omits any date for Jesus’ birth.

Furthermore Hippolytus talks about Jesus’ birth and death in two other works, his Canon (a table of 112 rotating dates for the Passover which I reproduce in my article) and his Chronicon.  The Canon claims that the “Genesis” (γένεσις) of Jesus was on the Passover of April 2 2BC and that Jesus died on the Passover, March 25 29 A.D (the date of death agrees with the Commentary)

The Chronicon does not give a specific date for his birth or death but the years that it gives match with 2 BC and 29 A.D. for the birth and death of Jesus respectively. Both of these works also claim that Jesus was born 5502 years from the creation of the world, whereas the Commentary on Daniel claims that he was born 5500 years from the creation of the world.

These two works (seem to) contradict the Commentary on Daniel in two ways; they move Jesus’ date of birth two years forward, but keep the same date of his death, so that he loses two years in age (Jesus died at 30 years as opposed to 32) and is born two years later (5502 verses 5500 years from the creation of the world). Secondly, if we interpret the term “Genesis” as referring to birth than  Jesus is also born on a different calendar day (April 2 versus December 25), however if we interpret it as referring to conception then this would agree with the Commentary on Daniel because April 2 is roughly 9 months before December 25 (thus it would match a regular gestation period)

Scholars have taken the above evidence and decided to solve this problem in three ways. One is to accept the date given by manuscript J and George of Arabia. The problem with this is that it does not explain the contradiction between the age of Jesus and the age of the world given in the Commentary on Daniel and those same dates as  given in his other two works (Manuscript J does not have the date of December 25 but it does say that Jesus was in his 33rd year when he died, in other words he was 32 years old when he died.)

The second method is to reconstruct the fragmentary date in Manuscript A to agree with what Hippolytus says of Jesus’ birth in his Canon and in his Chronicon. This theory claims that the term “Genesis” refers to “birth.” This is an ingenious solution, but it requires that the age of Jesus given in every manuscript and by George of Arabia be altered by two years (technically Manuscript B has a lacuna here). It also does not take into account testimony in Hippolytus’ Chronicon and does not account for the linguistic evidence for the meaning of the term “Genesis.” I will discuss both these points below.

The third method has never been fully developed until now, but some groundwork was introduced by G. Salmon in (1892) and it was supported by Bonwetsch (1895). First let’s start with the term “Genesis.” I did an exhaustive search of this term in the works attributed to Hippolytus using the Thesaurus Lingua Graecae database, I also searched for contemporary usages of this term. “Genesis” is a difficult term to define and it can mean either birth or conception, however conception seems to be the favored definition. See my article for a full discussion and references.

Here is a reference from Against All Heresies, a work written by Hippolytus or a member of his community.

“They draw [a horoscope] from the genesis of the people who are being examined from unquestionably the depositing of the seed and conception or from birth.” ~Against All Heresies 4.3.5

As you can see there are two possible meanings for the term “genesis” but the author appears to favor conception because he adds the particle “unquestionably.” The great physician Galen, Methodius, and the famous Christian Clement of Alexandria all use “genesis” to describe conception as well.  Here is one of two quotes I found from Clement

It is not therefore frequent intercourse by the parents, but the reception of it [the seed] in the womb which corresponds with genesis. ~Clement of Alexandria Stromata 3.12.83.2

Furthermore “genesis” is used in the Gospel of Matthew 1:18 where it appears to refer to Jesus’ conception  (I realize that all major translations translate this term as birth, my point is simply to show that conception can fit within this context and perhaps that it is indeed the better translation):

The genesis of Jesus Christ happened in this way. After his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child by the Holy Spirit. ~Matthew 1:18

Given the above evidence it seems that the Canon does in fact support a date around December 25 for the birth of Jesus. And in the least it certainly does not contradict this possibility.

Secondly when I was looking at my translation of the Chronicon I realized that it contains an important clue that has gone unrecognized. It does not claim that Jesus was born 5502 years from the creation of the world, but rather that he was born 5502 years and 9 months from the creation of the world.

…from Adam until the transmigration into Babylon under Jeconiah, 57 generations, 4,842 years, 9 months. And after the transmigration into Babylon until the generation of Christ, there was 14 generations, 660 years, and from the generation of Christ until the Passion there was 30 years and from the Passion up until this year which is year 13 of the Emperor Alexander, there is 206 years. Therefore all the years from Adam up until year 13 of the Emperor Alexander make 5,738 years. ~Chronicon §686-688

This means that Jesus was born 9 months from the anniversary of the creation of the world and was therefore likely, in the mind of Hippolytus, conceived on the very anniversary day of the creation of the world.

If we compare the calculations given in the Chronicon and in the Canon it is clear that Hippolytus believed the world was created on March 25 the vernal equinox (see my article for full details) nine months after this date is of course December 25 the winter solstice, meaning that the Chronicon claims that Jesus was born on December 25 and therefore agrees exactly with the Commentary on Daniel!

One final contradiction remains. Though both the Canon and the Chronicon seem to agree with the Commentary on Daniel in claiming that Jesus was born on December 25, there is a two year difference between them and the Commentary concerning the year in which Jesus was born. This two year difference, as first pointed out by G. Salmon, is explained by looking at the method in which Hippolytus calculated the dates of various Passovers in his Canon.

Now the Canon is a table of 112 dates and is meant to show all Passovers past and future (calculating the dates of Passovers is very complex and Hippolytus failed in his attempt). To use the table, the reader finds the place in the table that corresponds with the year of interest and date of the Passover and the day of the week is given in that place. (see my article for a full description and the table of Passovers, it will help to visualize what is going on here)

When we look at the Canon, we see that it claims that Jesus was conceived on the Passover of 2 BC, which corresponds to April 2. However, if we increase Jesus’ age by two years but keep the same date of his death, as is done in the Commentary on Daniel, we see that, amazingly, the Canon indicates that Jesus would have been conceived on March 25 4 BC. This agrees exactly with the implication in the  Commentary on Daniel because if Jesus was born on December 25 4BC it implies that he was conceived on March 25 4BC, exactly 9 months earlier.

This demonstrates either a profound coincidence or  that Hippolytus was using the same mathematical calculations in both works and shows exactly why he chose the date of April 2 when he altered the age of Jesus by two years.  Because Hippolytus believed that Jesus was conceived on the Passover, he simply changed the date of Jesus’ conception along with the changed date of the Passover (the Passover is on a different date every year). However he did not change the date of Jesus’ birth because in the Chronicon, which was written 20-30 years after the Commentary on Daniel and 13 years after the Canon, he claims that Jesus was born nine months after March 25 (as shown above).

It is important to point out that even if we disregard all of the evidence in favor of the December 25 date in the Commentary on Daniel, it still stands that in the Chronicon Hippolytus indicates that Jesus was in fact born on December 25 because he claims that Jesus was born nine months from the anniversary of the creation of the world.  Because the Chronicon indicates that the world was created on March 25, the vernal equinox, nine months from this date is of course December 25.

From this we can safely say that, sometime between 202 and 211 AD, Hippolytus marked December 25th as the birthday of Jesus.  This clearly had nothing to do with Pagan festivals, but was derived from the idea that Jesus was conceived on the Passover.
This date was chosen because it aligned precisely with the idea that the earth was created on the Vernal Equinox and that Jesus was conceived and killed on that very same day, March 25th which also coincided with the Passover.  Later Hippolytus changed his mind and made the date of Jesus’ conception April 2, so that it no longer fell on the vernal equinox, but still fell on the Passover of that year.

None of this, however, seems to be based off of any historical tradition about Jesus, but instead is based off of incorrect retrograded calculations concerning the dates of previous Passovers.   (I could perhaps be persuaded that there was historical tradition about  how Jesus was conceived on the Passover because this seems to be a fairly universal theme amongst the fathers of the church, however because Hippolytus, a fan of apostolic tradition himself, always appeals to mathematical reasons for this date and not tradition, I doubt that this is true)

Soon I will post my second appendix, which briefly talks him about how I believe that Clement of Alexandria, (c193-215 AD), the only person with a claim of setting the date of Jesus’ birth before Hippolytus, is probably dependent upon Hippolytus and how he himself also  may support the date of December 25 for Jesus’ birth.