Estimation via the Nativity accounts
A Harley Golden Gospel copy of Luke, c. 800
The nativity accounts in the New Testament gospels of Matthew and Luke do not mention a date or time of year for the birth of Jesus and Karl Rahner states that the gospels do not in general provide enough details of dates to satisfy the demands of modern historians.[51] But both Luke and Matthew associate Jesus' birth with the time of King Herod.[51] Most scholars generally assume a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC.[85]
However, the Gospel of Luke also dates the birth ten years after Herod's death, during the census of Quirinius in 6AD described by the historian Josephus.[51] Most critical scholars believe that Luke was simply mistaken in this matter,[86] although conservative biblical scholars have attempted to reconcile the two accounts,[87][88] ranging from a grammatical approach to the translation of the Greek word prote used in Luke to be read as "registration before Quirinius was governor of Syria" to archeological arguments and references to Tertullian suggesting a "two step census" was performed.[65][89][90][91] Geza Vermes dismissed such approaches as 'exegetical acrobatics'.[92]
Despite the celebration of Christmas in December, neither Luke nor Matthew mentions a season for when Jesus was born. However, scholarly arguments regarding the realism of shepherds grazing their flock during the winter have taken place, both challenging a winter birth for Jesus as well as defending it by relying on the mildness of winters in ancient Israel and rabbinic rules regarding sheep near Bethlehem before February