The relevant Gospel accounts begin by noting the betrothal of Mary and Joseph and the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18-20; Luke 1:26-43). All of this occurred late in the life of Herod the Great (reigned ca. 40-4 BC), a prolific builder and the paranoid client king of Judea who died in March of 4 BC (Josephus, Antiquities; Matthew 2:1; Luke 1:5). During the pregnancy of Mary, a decree for a census of the entire Roman Empire was issued by Caesar Augustus, and since the Herodian Kingdom was a client state of Rome and administrators of Syria Province were responsible for official Roman matters there, the census was directed by a military commander named Quirinius (Luke 2:1-2). The Emperor Augustus (reigned 27 BC-14 AD) ordered the undertaking of his second known census of the Roman Empire in ca. 8 BC, which appears to be the census associated with the birth of Jesus (Augustus, Res Gestae Divi Augusti). Meanwhile, Quirinius was a legatus commanding legions in Cilicia and Syria to the north, apparently as one of two rulers in Syria Province at the time, and following Roman protocol the military authority conducted the census (Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem; Tacitus, Annals; Josephus, Antiquities). According to a stone inscription dedicated to a Roman military officer named Quintus Aemilius Secundus, found in what was formerly the Roman province of Syria, Quirinus was the legate in command of the Syria Province when a census was issued during the reign of Augustus (Epitaph of Secundus). Back in the client kingdom of Judea, including the region of Galilee, Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem to register for the census because that was the family hometown of Joseph (Luke 2:3-5). According to papyri of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, in the Roman Empire it was typical practice to send people back to their homes for a census, much like official voter registration residency. Yet, by the time Joseph and Mary arrived in Bethlehem, there was no place for them in the guestroom (kataluma) of the family, perhaps because other relatives were occupying the available space. So, they were relegated to a cave where the animals were kept at night, and Jesus was born and placed in a manger (Luke 2:6-7; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho; Origen, Contra Celsum; Anonymous, Protoevangelium of James). The manger would have been stone, which was and still is the typical type of manger used in the area of Bethlehem today. Stone is abundant and found almost everywhere, while wood that can be used in construction is relatively scarce. As might be expected of a significant event, people remembered the cave in which Jesus was born for generations. After his conversion, Constantine ordered a church to be erected over the site in about 327 AD. Prior to this, many people were aware of the significant event that occurred there, and Emperor Hadrian (reigned 117-138 AD) even attempted to remove or defile the memory of the birth of Jesus by constructing a shrine to Adonis over the cave (Eusebius, Life of Constantine; Jerome, Letter to Paulinus; Sulpicius Severus, Sacred History; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History). Astonishingly, details such as Jesus being born in a village of Judaea (i.e. Bethlehem), the virgin birth, and his earthly father Joseph being a carpenter were all acknowledged and recounted in the 2nd century AD by a Roman named Celsus, an outspoken pagan critic of Christianity (Celsus, The True Word in Origen, Contra Celsus). Clearly, the ancient accounts, including those outside of the Gospels, state that Jesus was born in either Bethlehem specifically or in a village of Judaea (cf. John 7:42). Yet, a few modern scholars have claimed that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem of Judaea. These hypotheses are merely unwarranted speculation completely contrary to all of the evidence. Clearly, rather than the accounts in Matthew and Luke being historically inaccurate or the only sources relating to the birth of Jesus, the birth itself and various details are both illuminated and corroborated by archaeological discoveries and various writings from antiquity.
Traditionally the birth of Jesus Christ is celebrated on December 25th, although objections have asserted that this date is an inaccurate result of religious syncretism (combining beliefs and practices) or speculation. The most common criticisms of December 25th being a plausible date for the birth of Jesus include allegations that the day was originally a pagan festival day, eventually chosen as a replacement sometime after Christianity was legalized in the Roman Empire, or that the weather during December in Bethlehem does not agree with details in the birth narrative of the Gospel of Luke. Are these allegations about the replacement of a pagan holiday or the birth narrative contradicting the weather of Bethlehem in December actually accurate? The Roman festival of Saturnalia, honoring the god Saturn, is often cited as the inspiration behind the “official” Church sanctioned holiday date for Christmas, but Saturnalia was celebrated from December 17-23, not on December 25, and therefore it was not a replacement festival or holy day. What about the supposed disparity between a December birth and details related to weather in the birth narrative? According to the Gospel of Luke, when Jesus was born there were shepherds watching over their sheep during night in the area outside of the village of Bethlehem (Luke 2:8). Claims have been made that if Jesus were born in December, shepherds would not be out in the fields watching over their sheep at night because it would be too cold, and thus Jesus must have been born during a warmer month. However, this claim has two major problems. First, according to weather data, Bethlehem in December is not cold enough to prohibit shepherding or staying with the flock at night. The average high in December is 57 F (14 C), the average low is 45 F (7 C), and there is typically about one snow day in the month. Ancient pastoralists in other regions routinely carried out their duties in much colder temperatures, such as the Eurasian steppe, Mongolia, the Himalayan region, and many other areas. Although changes in modern times have been drastic, nearly eliminating the ancient ways of the nomadic pastoralist, one can even today witness shepherding in the Levant during the month of December. These current shepherds, however, usually have some type of permanent structure that they live in part or even all of the year, rather than setting up temporary structures as they moved their herds around the region. Second, staying with the flock at night by sleeping at the gate of the sheepfold was a common practice of shepherds in pre-industrialized society, and survives today in some areas. The birth narrative in the Gospel of Luke mentioning the shepherds is perfectly consistent with what would have been taking place during antiquity around Bethlehem in December. But does December 25th have any basis in ancient history as the birth of Jesus, or is it pure conjecture? While certain church traditions currently celebrate Christmas in early January—the exact date depending on the year—this is actually December 25th in the older Julian calendar. Additionally, a small minority of Christians celebrate Christmas on January 6th, yet this date actually originates from the celebration of Epiphany beginning in the late 4th century AD—a celebration associated with the Incarnation which seems to have included the birth, visit of the magi, childhood of Jesus, and baptism by John.
According to data within the Gospel narratives, synced with dates of festivals from the Law of Moses, an argument can be made for the birth of Jesus in late December. In the Gospel of Luke, it appears that Zacharias was carrying out his priestly duties in connection with the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), which takes place on the 10th day in the month of Tishri (September-October), when he was told that his wife Elisabeth was going to have a child (Luke 1:8-13; Leviticus 23:27). Just after the period of his priestly service in connection with the holy day, Elisabeth became pregnant during the second half of the month of September (Luke 1:23-24). Six months later, in approximately late March of the following year, Mary became pregnant (Luke 1:24-43). After a nine month pregnancy, Jesus would have been born around late December. For those who may object to the idea that Zacharias was participating in duties related to the Day of Atonement or one of the other festival or holy days in the month of Tishri, evidence from early Christian writings suggests that Jesus was born on the 25th of December. Some of these accounts specifically place the conception of Jesus in late March, as the Gospel of Luke appears to indicate. The Church Father Irenaeus, writing in the late 2nd century AD, placed the conception of Jesus on March 25th and the birth of Jesus nine months later on December 25th (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses). The historian Sextus Julius Africanus of the late 2nd century and early 3rd century AD, recorded that March 25th was the day of the conception of Jesus Christ, which extrapolates to an approximate December 25th birth (Sextus Julius Africanus, Chronographiai). A commentary from the early 3rd century AD may also attest to the idea that Jesus was born on December 25th (Hippolytus of Rome, Commentary on Daniel). Another Church Father writing about the same time, ca. 200 AD, recounts that some calculated the birth of Jesus to be the 25th of the Egyptian month of Pachon (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata). Although it has been suggested that this would equate to May 20th in our current calendar, the ancient Egyptian calendar was originally a wandering calendar prior to the reform of the Coptic calendar, meaning the ancient months would not consistently correlate to any of our current calendar dates. Further, Clement only mentions that he had sources claiming this date and not that it was the accepted date. Finally, in the 4th century AD, a chronological work states December 25th as the day that Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem, and another sermon on December 25th commemorated the day as the birth of Christ (Valentinus, The Chronography of 354; Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration). Interestingly, these accounts are not concerned with the celebration of Christmas, but merely with recording the date of the conception and birth of Jesus Christ. Therefore, evidence is strong at least for a very early tradition that Jesus was born on the 25th of December. These writings also demonstrate that the date was established prior to Emperor Constantine becoming a Christian and legalizing Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. Thus, the December 25th date had nothing to do with religious syncretism or attempting to replace pagan holidays with Christian holidays after the legalization of Christianity. In fact, there is not one suggestion in any of the early writings that the date for Christmas was chosen to supplant a pagan celebration, and this idea only appeared in the 12th century and finally became popularized in the comparative religion frenzy of the 19th century. On the contrary, early Christians were not only societal outcasts but also sought to clearly separate their beliefs and practices from those of the imperial cult or other pagan systems.
Therefore, evidence from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, early Christian writings, and Roman sources suggests that the birth of Jesus probably occurred on or around December 25th in 8 BC or 7 BC. Further, archaeological and historical analysis of the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke demonstrate that these Gospel accounts are reliable even in minute details such as the names and positions of officials, political situations of the specific era, and the procedures of the Empire. Though this is an age of skepticism, it is also an age of immense archaeological and historical resources. A thorough examination of the evidence demonstrates that the birth of Jesus narratives in the Gospels are entirely correct, and the “first Christmas” was a real event documented by accurate, ancient records.