Gauffered edged Bible © 2017 Simon Peter Sutherland
“Therefore, from the birth of Christ to the death of Commodus are a total of one hundred ninety-four years, one month, and thirteen days. There are those who have calculated not only the year of our Lord’s birth, but also the day. They say that it took place in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus, on the twenty-fifth day of Pachon [May 20] … Others say that He was born on the twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth day of Pharmuthi [April 19 or 20]”
Clement of Alexandria (c. 195)
Following on from my previous post concerning the birth of Jesus and my expressive doubts that the Bible even remotely claims that Jesus was born on December 25th, I continue on with this polemical theme, and in this post, consider a historic claim made by Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century AD.
For those readers who may never have heard or read anything of Clement of Alexandria, his life is worth looking into. With that in mind permit me to spend a few moments relaying some things concerning his life and work.
Clement of Alexandria was born c. 150 AD in Athens, Greece and is believed to have died in Jerusalem c. 215 or 220 AD. He was a Christian Theologian and is venerated as a ‘Church father’ and his writings provide us with important source material concerning the beliefs and claims of the ante-Nicene Church fathers.
Clement of Alexandria book © 2017 Simon Peter Sutherland
He wrote on such varied ethical topics as eating, drinking, laughter, filthy speaking, clothes, true beauty, ear rings, hair, Government, and behaviour in public baths. He also wrote concerning human arts, the necessity of understanding the Scriptures and Greek Philosophy. Clement wrote concerning the Septuagint and the comparison between the ancient Greeks with the Hebrews. Indeed, much of our understanding of early Christianity and the views of early Christians comes directly from the writings of the early ante-Nicene Church fathers.
A number of Clement’s works have fully survived. Here is a list of three of them.
- The Protrepticus
- The Paedagogus
- The Stromata
On embracing Christianity, Clement travelled extensively over Greece, Italy, and Jerusalem seeking instructions and teaching from “the most eminent teachers” of his day. He was recommended by Alexander, the Bishop of Jerusalem and Origen was one of his pupils. Church historian Eusebius also speaks well of him. Clement taught that Jesus Christ was the personal saviour of men and the living Word of God and he affirmed the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.
As part of Clement’s research and historic record of his day, the claim he made that “Others say that He (Jesus) was born on the twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth day of Pharmuthi [April 19 or 20]” may well be the earliest known reference to the actual birth date of Jesus?
It is with all this in mind that when a historic Church father of this calibre made such a historic claim that Jesus was not believed in his day to have been born on December 25th or anywhere near that date but in either April or May, I feel I must point out; it really is irrelevant whether a modern person agrees with Clement or not. He wrote what he wrote regardless!
The Gospel of Luke KJV © 2017 Simon Peter Sutherland
With this in mind it is certainly clear we need no emphasis on ‘historic revisionism’ since it may well be more historically consistent to claim Nisan as Jesus’ birth date rather than December and we can be certain that neither Matthew or Luke made any references to the birth of Jesus as taking place in winter. On the contrary, as I stated in my previous article, “it is more probable that He was born at Nisan which took place in the spring”. And it seems by all accounts that Ecclesiastical history may well affirm this too!
Nisan falls in March-April, and Clement claims Jesus’ birth date as either April 19th or 20th which is almost upon us. So, since this really is not a divisive issue, may I humbly suggest that believers and followers of Jesus Christ consider this history as we approach the coming months and the season of Nisan.
Simon Peter Sutherland 
#1 by MithrandirOlorin on November 3, 2018 - 6:40 AM
Clement said what some “others” calculated, his own belief was counting back from the Death of Commodious on December 31st 192 AD. If he was using the Roman Calendar that placed Jesus Birth in November of 3 BC, but if he used the local Egyptian Calendar then on January 6th 2 BC agreeing with common Eastern Orthodox Tradition. These “others” may well have confused the time of year of Jesus Birth with His Conception.
Hipolystus of Rom Placed Jesus birth on December 25th. Numerous Ancient Sources place when Gabriel appeared to Zechariah in TIshri. Sorry but most Pre-Nicene evidence agrees with a Winter Nativity.
#2 by simon peter sutherland on November 4, 2018 - 9:42 PM
Hello, thank you for your comment.
In any historic claim or claims I make, I provide a source or sources to substantiate them. Could you please provide a source or sources for your claims.
Thank you.
#3 by MithrandirOlorin on November 4, 2018 - 11:00 PM
What I said is based on what you yourself quoted from Clement.
#4 by simon peter sutherland on November 5, 2018 - 9:24 PM
Hello. I asked for sources. you responded: “What I said is based on what you yourself quoted from Clement.”
Yet you wrote: “Hipolystus of Rom Placed Jesus birth on December 25th.”
and “Numerous Ancient Sources place when Gabriel appeared to Zechariah in TIshri.”
and “Sorry but most Pre-Nicene evidence agrees with a Winter Nativity.”
Am I missing something?
#5 by Andrew Chapman on July 7, 2023 - 6:55 PM
Re Hippolytus, Duchesne says: ‘If we are to give credence to a text of very doubtful authenticity.. etc’ https://archive.org/details/DuchesneLChristianWorshipItsOriginAndEvolutionAStudyOfTheLatinLiturgyUpToTheTimeOfCharlemagne1919/page/n285/mode/2up?view=theater p. 258
#6 by simon peter sutherland on July 7, 2023 - 10:19 PM
Thank you
#7 by Alexander Frazier on June 17, 2024 - 5:00 AM
This may be an old post, but let me throw in my two cents. Clement doesn’t actually date Christ’s birth to November 18th. This date is a back-dated deduction made from the known date of the death of Commodus on December 31st, 192 CE, saying that it was one hundred ninety-four years, one month, and thirteen days from the birth of Christ to the death of Commodus. However, Clement also claims that Jerusalem was destroyed forty-two years and three months after the Passion. This is consistent with a Nisan crucifixion (Pharmouthi) and the destruction of the temple in the month of Ab (Epeiph in 70 CE), if counted on the Alexandrian calendar. Although Ab is the fifth month in the Jewish calendar and Nisan the first, making it four months after the crucifixion, a crucifixion in Pharmouthi, plus three months (Pachons, Payni, Epeiph), matches the interval given.
Clement then gives the interval of one hundred twenty-eight years, ten months, and three days from the destruction of Jerusalem to the death of Commodus. Since we know the temple was destroyed around July, not February, and his other interval bears out a correct deduction from the crucifixion to the destruction of the temple, Clement is very clearly placing the death of Commodus on some other date than the 31st of December. The interval given puts the death of Commodus around the 16th of Pachons (May 11th) in 198 CE.
With the intervals going forward rather than backward, if you then deduct thirteen days from the 16th of Pachons, you have the 3rd of Pachons, and one month before that comes to the 3rd of Pharmouthi, which equates to Christ’s birth around March 29th, about the 3rd of Pharmouthi.
None of this is to say that Commodus died on any day other than December 31st. It is to say that Clement’s own internal intervals and calculations don’t match the known date for the death of Commodus, and this being the case, the deduction is consistent in season to the other three dates given, being the 24th or 25th of Pharmouthi, and the 25th of Pachons. All four dates and/or reckonings are in the spring.
To the person who commented concerning Hippolytus, Hippolytus was the pupil of Clement. His is the first documented source for the December 25th date, and it is not based on tradition or testimony. It is a theosophically calculated date based on his assumption that Christ was conceived on the same date as the start of creation, which he fixes to March 25th. He then calculates a nine-month gestation to arrive at December 25th. It is derived purely from theosophical speculation, not fact. There is no evidence that anyone prior to him knew, mentioned, or celebrated December 25th for the birth. In point of fact, Clement, including his deduction, gives four dates for the birth of Christ, and that list doesn’t include December 25th.
#8 by simon peter sutherland on June 17, 2024 - 10:00 AM
Thank you for contributing.
#9 by pneumablessing on August 12, 2024 - 5:34 PM
Others posting here need to understand that you cannot compare the calendars directly. In other words, if Commodus died on Dec 31st of 192 AD, and Jesus was born 194 years, one month and 13 days before, then we should recognize that we must overlay the Jewish calendar upon that. When we do that, we will see that the one month is a Jewish month (hence no mention of length of days). This will then take us back to 3 BC (there is no year 0).
Understand that the Jews began their month in the spring and it was based on a Lunar-Solar Calendar. The months were lunar in nature. Therefore, the first month that had a new moon closest to the vernal equinox was the first month of the year.
So if you compare the year, you will see that a leap year would have to be accounted for here. Additionally, then you simply count backwards 13 days from December 31 of 192 AD which would give you around December 18th. This coincides with the 25th day of the 9th Jewish month. Why? – because that is the Feast of Lights (Feast of Dedication). Therefore, what Clement was showing is that Jesus was born during the Feast of Lights. This is really fitting since John says He was bearing Witness to the light that came into the world.
If you recall the Feast of Lights is about the miracle of the light that continued to burn for 8 days when it should not have during the dedication of the Temple. I wouldn’t doubt that Jesus was circumcised on the 8th day of that Feast. In 3 BC, this Feast would have been around December 2nd or 3rd.
#10 by simon peter sutherland on August 13, 2024 - 11:56 AM
If that is accurate we still don’t get a date of December 25. Do we?
#11 by pneumablessing on August 13, 2024 - 2:36 PM
No. The birthdate would be according to a Jewish Calendar that was in-place at that time. Since the months were lunar based, placing a date on a fixed calendar will never truly represent the day as it is then being based on a “pagan” calendar. But if we officially want to understand which day it was, it appears the Feast of Lights would represent that time which begins the 9th lunar month on the 25th day of that month.