REVEALED: The True Birthday Of Jesus!
(wltreport.com)
πβπβππππΈπ ππΈβπ½πΈβπΌ
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (191)
sorted by:
I've done the examination and I find no problems with Sat 6 Oct 4 BC at 3 a.m. (Sabbath 15 Tishri 3758). Would be interested in any problems you can share.
Dating from that time period in large part must rely on historical records from the period to give an approximate timeline of when events occurred. As far as the 4BCE date for the Master's birth, one of the most glaring discrepancies revolves around the date of Herod the Great's death which is mentioned in the Gospels. Most scholarship, both secular and theological, is in agreement that Herod the Great died in March or April of 4BCE. His son, Herod Archelaus took over rulership after his father's death by order of Augustus in 4BCE - but not as king. Archelaus was given authority under a tetrarchy. He was just as cruel as his father and Rome did not want a repeat of Herod the Great's reign. There is some debate involving a later date of 1BCE for the death of Herod the Great, but that opinion does not line up with other Roman records and is more of an outlier.
Therefore, given that Herod died some time in early 4BCE, the date of Sept of that same year for the birth of the Master has some problems. But as I already stated, it is difficult to develop a chronology of the time period partially because the calendar has gone through some changes over the centuries, making it difficult to pinpoint with any degree of certainty as to the exact date of events during the Second Temple period. Astronomical dating also runs into that same calendar dating problem. Accuracy linked to astronomical dating is problematic and must be taken with a grain of salt.
Definitely.
IMHO never use BCE or CE.
Before Common Era / Common Era
BC / AD
Before Christ / Anno Domini βIn the Year of our Lordβ
[They] are always trying to blot out His Name.
Understood. I am just used to the language used in scholarship. The same thing as using metric instead of American standard measurements. My brain doesn't want to refigure the calculations. But I get your point.
Old habits are like Bruce Willis.
Yep I would have been cool with putting both in Latin or booth in English but the attempt to erase Christ altogether is garbage
Not actually most scholarship. Herod put down a rebellion at the time of a lunar eclipse in March of 4 BC, and Archelaus put down a rebellion at a Passover, and scholars are divided over whether to put these 1 or 13 months apart. But if you simply read all that Josephus crams in between these two events, I think you will agree with his primary translator, William Whiston, who explains in an appendix dissertation that the noted Passover could not have been in 4 BC but was in 3 BC, and thus there is no reason to hasten Herod's death in spring. I haven't seen anyone with the 1-month claim successfully accommodate all of Josephus's events into that timeframe. Further, it is believed that one of the two unnamed fasts in the Roll of Fasts refers to Herod's death, but these do not occur in spring. It is more probable that Herod died in fall of 4 BC and the fast refers to Archelaus's formal weeklong honorary funeral of Herod, which happened later after some preparation. Just read the appropriate portion of Josephus in detail, or the Whiston dissertation on the subject.
Note that Archelaus showily declined the name of king, then put down the Passover rebellion, then sailed to Rome before Pentecost (when Varus was in Jerusalem) where he was named ethnarch (not tetrarch). That title was more likely given in 3 BC than 4 BC. However, as with everyone, the reign begins from the death of the father in 4 BC, and counted 10 years inclusive until Archelaus's famously being deposed in 6 AD.
Add: Note that the primary 1-month compression scheme is Emil Schurer 1898, which is, as I noted, unreasonably tight compared to the text of Josephus. Schurer also cannot accept that Herod's 37 years were counted inclusively from Tishri of 40 BC (after which he was made king) to Tishri of 4 BC (after which he died), because Schurer thought he died in Mar-Apr of 4 BC. Therefore Schurer put forward a bogus alternate reckoning of the 37 years that didn't reflect the Hebrew counting methods of the time (as documented separately by Edwin Thiele and Rick Lanser).
You are right that the 1 BC eclipse is not the correct one, though it was championed by Florian Reiss and others in a minority group and still has proponents today.
Upvote for using BC/AD. Iβm so sick of this BCE BS!
I will have to examine this further. Correction: Archelaus was ethnarchic. The tetrarchy was with his brothers. Thank you.
FYI: There are several minor Jewish fasts that occur throughout the year. Some are mentioned in Zechariah that were observed during the Second Temple period. The only exception is the fast of Tammuz which marked the Roman siege. All the others noted by the prophet are linked to the Babylonian siege and destruction. The fast of Gedaliah is in the fall, the tenth of Tevet is in the winter, the Fast of Ester is in the spring, and the ninth of Av is in the summer. There is also a traditional fast taken by some Jews prior to Passover - the fast of the firstborn. This particular fast may factor in to the dating.
Here is some work that contends the spring 4BCE dating of Herod's death with the receipts. I will leave it for your examination. IMO, it reconciles many points of contention. Not sure if you are familiar with this or not. There is too much to write about in a reply. But I thank you for your perspective and your reasons for them. You obviously have looked into this topic in great depth - and that is to be acknowledged. So I believe this is right up your ally given your propensity to sink your teeth into a topic.
Merry Christmas.
The Reign of Herod the Great
Thanks Mac! Will do. Merry Christmas (and happy Hanukkah).
Here is one of the pieces of my puzzle. For more, search the Christianity forum for the word "Chronology".
Actually I guess I should copy notes here so I have them bookmarked.
Passover rebellion: The author, Charles D. Davis, has done lots of work, but fixates on a couple points that he thinks are telling. First, he follows Schurer on putting the Passover rebellion against Archelaus in 4 BC instead of 3 BC, even though he rejects Schurer's compression of events into one month; he expands that passage backwards instead of forwards as if a 3 BC rebellion isn't even being considered. So his reason for holding to a 4 BC rebellion is from a source that he and I both discount; he recognizes the exchange of letters to Rome totally excludes Schurer on this point (though Schurer got other points right).
Eclipse: He uses this to follow what he acknowledges to be a minority (against Steinmann) in interpreting the eclipse passage in Josephus. Now for me it's always been obvious that Josephus is describing the end of the priesthood of Matthias and the beginning of Joazar; that this compels him to backtrack "during" that priesthood to mention another priest for a day, Joseph, during "the fast" that obviously means Atonement; and that he then returns to the removal of Matthias, at which time the eclipse happened. But this minority apparently interpreted "But Herod deprived" as "Herod then deprived" as if it isn't a return to the main narrative, and "that very night" (after the removal) as "that same night" (as if referring to the other night mentioned offhand), and created a narrative in which the fast is tied to the eclipse. This allows him to move the removal somewhat earlier than the eclipse of 13 Mar 4 BC, which allows him to pad the months needed to match Josephus's narrative rather than Schurer's construction. The statement "during the winter months of 5/4 B.C. there were no lunar eclipses" seems incorrect since he counted Adar as winter during which the 13 Mar eclipse occurred.
Joseph's priesthood: Happened "that very day which the Jews observed as a fast", which obviously refers to The Fast, Atonement, because it's the annual fast that everyone observes (cf. Acts 27:9 putting The Fast in fall). But by tying this fast to the day before or after the eclipse, he thinks he can force the eclipse to be Nisan 14 (thus 23 Mar 5 BC), which is a minor fast. Whiston reports that this event also appears in Mishna and Talmud, and is tied to the stricture of preventing the high priest from sleep for Day of Atonement only. The idea that Matthias had some high officiation to do as to a fast doesn't apply to Nisan 14, when the temple would be filled with Passover lambs (some eating during the day, and those who fasted on that day breaking the fast that evening); it applies to Atonement, when he has very specific complex duties that only the high priest can perform. So the whole idea that we must use the fast as tying it to the eclipse, which then wrests the eclipse away from the flow of the narrative about Matthias's priesthood ending, fails to match the evidence (which is why Steinmann and the majority reject it).
Herod at Jericho: He also assumes that the site of this removal, Jericho, must be Herod's winter palace, namely that he is only there in winter. Interestingly, he believes that Herod's later return to Jericho from Callirrhoe happened in Adar II, but the 13 Mar eclipse was in Adar also, so nothing prevents it from being the one that occurred the very night Herod deposed Matthias. (Perhaps he might object that Herod would not have returned to Jericho later in the year, but that is an unstated proposition and it's unclear to me why this hypothetical would be impossible.)
Varus succeeding Saturninus: He emphasizes that this happened in the year 7-6 BC based on coin evidence, and Josephus's first mention of Varus is with Antipater's presumptive appearance before Herod, which he puts in late 5 BC. He regards this as a discrepancy, but it would be simple to hold that Varus had previously succeeded Saturninus but his appearance before Herod is the first time he is mentioned. It seems this is answered by his possible reading "Varus (who was Saturninus' successor) was in Jerusalem".
Sounds like by ignoring Whiston's chronology with the eclipse in 4 BC and the Passover rebellion in 3 BC (though interest in it has been revived by Hoehner, Lanser, etc.), he's making additional special pleadings by reference to Jericho being a "winter" residence and the "fast" of Joseph being useful for dating the eclipse rather than a reference to Atonement as it is in the Mishna.
How long after Christ's death did Herod die? That would give a much clearer idea of which year Christ was born.
Herod the Great died in 4BCE after the Master's birth, many years before the Master's crucifixion and ascension. It can be confusing because there were many Herods. It is the family sir name in a sense - the Herodians. It is not a first name like it is in the West. Many cultures give the family name first and then the personal name - like Herod Antipas or Herod Philip.
The family fled to Egypt by order of an angel because Herod the Great was in pursuit and wanted to kill the child. The family remained in Egypt until another angel told the family it was safe to return. My understanding is that the family had left Bethlehem, the place of the Master's birth, and moved back to Nazareth where they lived in a house according to the text. They had many family members there. Many of them were descendants of David that lived in the area. Herod was so paranoid about legitimate rivals to his rule that he basically went after all descendants of the House of David. That is why these families settled near the Galilee away from Herod's grasp. The only reason the holy family traveled to Bethlehem was due to the census. They did not remain there and returned to their hometown. Bethlehem was the ancient home of the House of David. Staying there would have been dangerous for anyone of the Davidic line.
A careful reading of the Gospel text in Greek says that when they received the order to flee, Jesus was no longer an infant, but a "child." So this fact also gives credence to an earlier date for the Master's birth - somewhere around 7-6 BCE. But, I have no doubt there are other opinions out there as to the date. This is my position based upon my own research and the research of others more familiar with the Greek and historical records from the time including early Church traditions from the period. The important thing to remember is that it occurred, regardless of when it happened. Merry Christmas.
See? The text is: "He sent them to Bethlehem .... And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt." It doesn't say "long after the wise men were departed and Joseph's family went to Nazareth for awhile", where Herod could not have found them. It doesn't say the wise men went to Nazareth. The reason the angel told them to leave was that they were in Bethlehem and that was where Herod would search. Kinda silly to flee Nazareth for Egypt when there was no threat in Nazareth, right?
Much has been made of the word "house" Matt. 2:11 as if it contradicts something else in the text, but it doesn't. The reason for emphasizing the word "house" was to perpetuate the idea that Jesus was nearly two when the wise men arrived, but that is contradictory to the text where Luke 2 implies they left Jerusalem for Nazareth right after Jesus's 40th day.
Much has been made of the word "child" Matt. 2:8 as if it contradicts something else in the text, but it doesn't. In fact all the babies from 0 to 2 years old were called "children" Matt. 2:16 with the same word. The other word, which is translated "babe", is used in 2 Tim. 3:15 of Timothy when he first knew the Scriptures. Again this is to age Jesus beyond the 40th day.
The dates of 7-6 are also based on astrological signs such as conjunctions of planets. Reading the plain text of Matthew and Luke, and supplementing with the plain text of Josephus, gives a much tighter chronology. The wise men found Jesus in Bethlehem in the same brief stayover in which he was born, not in some separate stayover that had no reason, nor for some 2-year stayover. I honestly don't see anyone trying to reconcile and reinterpret these plain passages so as to successfully explain away the tight facts.