Aside from Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria (wrote 193-215 AD) is the other writer with a claim to being the earliest person to date the birth of Jesus.  In his work entitled “Stromata” he writes:

From the birth of Christ, therefore, to the death of Commodus are, in all, 194 years, 1 month, 13 days. And there are those who have determined not only the year of our Savior’s genesis, but even the day, which they say took place in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus on the 25th of Pachon… And treating of his passion, with very great accuracy, some say that it took place in the sixteenth year of Tiberius, on the 25th of Phamenoth, but others the 25th of Pharmuthi and others say that on the 19th of Pharmuthi the Savior suffered. Indeed, others say that he came to be on the 24th or 25th of Pharmuthi.” ~Stromata 1.21.145-146 [my translation]

Here is a summary of the dates Clement gives for Jesus, conception, birth, and death:

Conception=24th or 25th of Pharmuthi;   25th of Pachon
Birth=194 years, 1 month, 13 days from the death of Commodus
Death=25th of Phamenoth; 19th or 25th of Pharmuthi

Clement’s dates for Jesus’ life are difficult to determine because he may have used a mobile Egyptian calendar  and because he gives different dates for Commodus’ reign in other places in this work .  However, one can safely conclude that Clement seems to be using the same method of calculating Jesus’ conception, birth, and death as Hippolytus.

Clearly Clement believed that Jesus died on the Passover which, like Hippolytus, he places on either the 25th of Phamenoth, the Vernal Equinox in the Egyptian Calendar, or the 19th or 25th of Pharmuthi.

He further believes that Jesus was conceived on the 25th of Pachon or the 24th or 25th of Pharmuthi, of which the latter two dates correspond closely to two of the three dates of the Passover he gives for Jesus’ death, just like Hippolytus.  (Clement clearly believed that the term “genesis” referred to conception because he says so specifically in the same work “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)

Lastly, like Hippolytus, he believes Jesus was born sometime in late fall or early winter, given Commodus’ date of death. [Dio Cassius (73.22.4-5) says that Commodus died on December 31st 193 AD. Using this date Clement would have believed Jesus was born in mid November. However if he was using the Egyptian mobile calendar he could have been referring to as late as early January. This calendar only had 365 days and no leap years so it lost roughly one day ever 4 years. See Mosshammer (2008) p.18.]

Now because Clement believed Jesus was conceived on the 24th or 25th of a month it seems likely he would place his birth on the 24th or the 25th of a month, which could very well correspond to December 25th.

In summary Clement seems to quote sources which used the same method as Hippolytus himself to calculate Jesus’ conception, birth, and death .  Clement, like Hippolytus, dates Jesus’ death to the Passover and possibly also the Vernal Equinox, he seems to date his conception to the Passover, and he dates his birth to late fall or early winter.  He also gives 4 different dates that are on the 25th of a month, coinciding with Hippolytus’ belief that Jesus was conceived, born, and died all on the 25th of a month.  Given that Clement is quoting from several sources it is quite possible that one of his sources actually includes Hippolytus himself.

In a few weeks I hope to post some new testimonies that I’ve discovered concerning Papias.  I have never seen them published before, they are nothing earth shattering but interesting nonetheless.

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.

I am posting it here for free.  I would rather have the translation available for everyone than risk having it sit unused and unknown in a few dozen libraries.  I am sure Hippolytus would agree.  For those interested you can make a donation or purchase a printed copy.  Printed copies are available at Amazon.com and at Createspace.com (where I get a significantly higher royalty than on Amazon).  The free PDF is formatted to fit the 5.5×8.5 inch book, which is why its text does not fill the whole pdf page.

I spent the past several months researching two appendixes for the translation.  As some of you are aware, Hippolytus, according to some manuscripts of the Commentary on Daniel, says that Jesus was born on December 25th.  The accuracy of this statement is disputed by scholars, some of whom think that Hippolytus originally did not give this date.  In the first appendix I exhaustively (I hope)  investigate all of the evidence (internal evidence, manuscript evidence, and ancient testimonies) regarding this disputed passage.  The second appendix is a short investigation into Clement of Alexandria’s claims about Jesus’ birth.  These two appendixes are available with the printed edition.  I will post the appendixes online for free at a later time.

Below I have posted the introduction:

We the faithful stand fast unto death.
~Hippolytus Commentary on Daniel 2.19.4

Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel is the oldest surviving Christian commentary on Scripture.  It was composed by Hippolytus of Rome most likely between 202 and 211 AD, a time of great persecution.  This is the first complete English translation.

Hippolytus seems to have undertaken this commentary to comfort his fellow Christians, who, like Daniel and his three companions, suffered for their faith.  For Hippolytus, suffering was not something to fear, but something to be gladly embraced.  In his commentary he beseeches Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, “Tell me, you three boys, remember me, I entreat you, that I also may obtain the same lot of martyrdom with you.”  His request was fulfilled; Hippolytus suffered martyrdom in 235 AD after being exiled to Sardinia.

Hippolytus also tries to provide assurance about what is expected in the end times when Christ returns.  While interpreting the visions in the book of Daniel, he makes some prophetic predictions of his own; for example, when interpreting the dream of Nebuchadnezzar he says that after the empire of the Romans, “democracies are shown.”
Additionally Hippolytus gives information on Peter’s and Paul’s deaths, Paul’s encounter with a lion, a short conversation between Judas and Jesus, the birthday of Christ (which he claims is December 25th), and he also provides insight into early Christian eschatology and allegory as well as canonical issues involving apocryphal parts of the book of Daniel.  Of course there are many other pertinent issues present in Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel which cannot be discussed here, but these are now easily investigated in English.

To translate this text I read through the Greek text of Marcel Richard’s GCS series Kommentar zu Daniel four times and made a rigid and literal translation.  Afterwards I went through and softened up the translation to better accord with English grammar and style.  The text will still strike many as quite rigid, but this could not easily be avoided unless I reworked the whole volume. Words that are in italics are not present in the Greek but are usually implied and are added for clarity.

Scripture quotations are cited in the footnotes as accurately as possible, however Hippolytus does sometimes mix several verses together and the verse numberings of the Greek translation of the Old Testament can be slightly different from the Hebrew, so there are occasional differences between the citations and our English Bibles.  Hippolytus also includes Susannah, the Song of the Three Children, and Bel and the Dragon as part of the canonical text of the book of Daniel.  These are cited as separate works in the footnotes.  Gaps in the Greek text are shown with an ellipsis and a footnote that simply says, “Lacuna.”

The Greek text is quoted in the footnotes when I thought the text was particularly interesting. Some passages are ambiguous and I attempted to preserve this in the translation; at times I cite the Greek text when the translation was also difficult.  Hippolytus cites some verses frequently, but occasionally with differences in the Greek wording, which I attempted to preserve in the translation.  Underlined subtitles are not part of the original text but are placed as a guide for the reader.

At the end of the translation I have included an extensive appendix about the authenticity of Hippolytus’ claim that Jesus was born on December 25th and one smaller appendix about Clement of Alexandria’s dating of Jesus’ birth.

As an amateur, working alone with few resources and limited time, I have done my best, but there is no doubt that I have made mistakes.  I believe, however, that most of my errors are likely editorial mistakes of English spelling, grammar, and formatting and citation errors; I have given all my effort to ensure that the translation itself is faithful.
This translation will eventually be freely available on my website www.chronicon.net and I have kept the copyright.  If you have enjoyed this translation please consider making a donation at my website to help me publish more translations.

I want to thank Roger Pearse and Professor Kathrin Bracht for their encouragement and helpfulness and I also thank my friend Arlo and my father, both of whom made many editorial corrections.  I also am deeply and forever thankful for my patient wife and my little daughter for her cheery and glad smiles.

This work is dedicated to my loving Grandfather and Grandmother Coffman, whose love for scholarship, history, God, and His Church I have inherited.
I love you both.

Thomas Coffman Schmidt

For neither is a mere place able to be a called the Church,
nor a house which is built with stone and clay, nor a man
himself able to call himself the Church. For a house is
destroyed and a man dies. And so, what is the Church?
The community of Saints participating in truth.
~Hippolytus Commentary on Daniel 1.18.5-6

Unfortunately, my translation of Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel will be delayed again for a while as it is receiving a thorough editorial scrubbing!  Thanks for your patience.

Julius Africanus und die christliche Weltchronik: Julius Africanus und die christliche Weltchronistik. Edited by Martin Wallraff. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2006. Especially the article by Osvalda Andrei, “Dalle Chronographiai di Giulio Africano di Giulo Africano alla Synagoge di ‘Ippolito’: Un debattio sulla scrittura cristiana del tempo,” 113-45

According to Yancy this article claims that there is some interdependence between Hippolytus’ and Julius Africanus’ Chronicles and also Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel. I’ll have to ILL this thing and see how well I can get through the Italian.

Thanks Yancy!

My translation of Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel should be posted in the next 4 weeks (I promise!).

Here is my introduction to the text:

Hippolytus wrote his Chronicon in the year 235AD as he himself tells us.  His goal seems to have been threefold: to make a chronology from the beginning of the world up until his present day, to create a genealogical record of mankind, and to create a geographical record of mankind’s locations on the earth.  For his task Hippolytus seems to have made use of the Old Testament, to research the chronology and genealogies, and a nautical dictionary, to research the distances between locations in and around the Mediterranean Sea.

Though Hippolytus published his Chronicon several years after Julius Africanus published his own Chronicon, Hippolytus does not, as far as I can tell, reference his contemporary’s work nor does he seem to write in response to it.  Despite not gaining the level of prestige as Africanus, Hippolytus’ Chronicon seems to have been fairly successful.  Many historians made use of it, such as the author of the Chronography of 354, Epiphanius of Salamis, the author of the Chronicon Paschal, and George Syncellus.

For this translation the GCS (Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller) series number 46 was used.  From lines 1 to 613 the Greek of two manuscripts H1 and H2 were used.  From lines 614-720 the Latin translation from the Liber Generationis 1 of the Chronography of 354 was primarily used.  Whenever this was nonsensical, I attempted to compare it with a German translation of the Armenian or the Liber Generationis 2. From lines 721-741 a Greek fragment was used, and from lines 742-778 the Latin from the Liber Generationis 1 was used again.

The footnotes are not exhaustive, they are meant only to point out difficult readings, suggest possible translations of people groups and locations not found in William Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, and occasionally provide references to other ancient authors.  The maps by Heinrich Kiepert can be used to find many of the people groups and locations mentioned in this work.  These maps are in the public domain can be found on many websites.

The form we have the Chronicon in today contains errors and the reader is cautioned against using Hippolytus’ dates, names, and locations without further research. Additionally, this is my first attempt at translating a work from Greek and Latin into English, and no doubt many of the errors are due to my own inattentiveness and not the editors of the GCS or Hippolytus.

This translation needs one more revision using the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) database to truly ensure a proper translation, but I do not have the time for such a task at the moment.

I would like to thank Nick Nicholas and Yancy Smith for their help and advice, Roger Pearse for his inspiration, which led me to take up this task, and my brother Mike, for recording my dictation.  Lastly, and most of all, I thank my very pregnant wife, who spent countless hours typing up a work that, by any standard, is not a pleasant read!

T.C. Schmidt

-Update-

I am already noticing errors in my text, so I am noting them and then will incorporate corrections into my next edition.  Nick Nicholas also made several good suggestions which I forgot to include and will put these into the next edition as well.  If any of you notice errors please email them to me.  My address can be found here

I am also working on getting Hippolytus’ Chronicon online as well, but I need to check it over one more time.

Next the toes of the feet, so that  in each place democracies may be shown, which are about to be, which are divided into the ten toes of the image, in which the iron will have been been mixed with clay.

Εἶτα δάκτυλοι ποδῶν, ἵνα δειχθῶσιν αἱ κατὰ τόπον δημοκρατίαι αἱ μέλλουσαι γίγνεσθαι, διαιρούμεναι εἰς τοὺς δέκα δακτύλους τῆς εἰκόνος, ἐν οἷς ἔσται ὁ σίδηρος ἀναμεμιγμένος τῷ ὀστράκῳ.

Does anyone know of another church father who talks about future democracies replacing the Roman Empire?  How should we interpret Hippolytus’ seemingly prescient prediction (though it took 300 or so years to be fulfilled after the fall of the Eastern Empire). For that matter does anyone have a better translation that they would like to contribute?

-UPDATE-

Hippolytus says much the same thing in his work On the Antichrist:

As these things, then, are in the future, and as the ten toes of the image are equivalent to (so many) democracies and the ten horns of the fourth beast are distributed over ten kingdoms, let us look at the subject a little more closely, and consider these matters as in the clear light of a personal survey.

τούτων οὖν ἐσομένων καὶ τῶν δέκα δακτύλων τῆς εἰκόνος εἰς δημοκρατίας χωρησάντων, καὶ τῶν δέκα κεράτων τοῦ θηρίου εἰς δέκα βασιλεῖς μερισθέντων, ἴδωμεν σαφέστερον τὰ προκείμενα, καὶ κατανοήσωμεν αὐτὰ ὀφθαλμοφανῶς. -On the Antichrist 27

And so how can we not consider the ancient things which were prophesied by Daniel in Babylon and are now still being fulfilled in the world? For the image which was portrayed according to that time, encompassed the type of the kingdom of all the world. In which time the Babylonians then reigned, as being the golden head of the image. Then after them the Persians ruled for two hundred forty-five years as they are shown to be silver. After them the Greeks ruled, beginning from Alexander of Macedon, for three hundred years, as they are bronze. After them the Romans, who are the iron legs of the image, being strong as iron.

And so the chiefs of the Jews now want to mutilate these things of the book of [Daniel? Susannah?], believing that these things did not happen in Babylon, because they were shamed by the Elders at that time,  failing to recognize the administration of the Spirit.

Next week I’ll start posting excerpts of Hippolytus’ interpretation of Daniel’s apocalyptic dreams.