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:
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.
It does say in Luke that after they did all that was required by the law, they returned to Nazareth. This was their hometown and where their family was. They went to Bethlehem because of the census and remained there until they completed Jesus' presentation at the Temple - which would have been His redemption as a first born son. 40 days for a boy. Until a child is one month old, they are not fully counted yet - they are kind of in a no man's land. I suppose because of infant mortality. At 40 days a child is past the one month period and He would have been "officially" named and his redemption price given to the priest. The Magi came to Bethlehem. Luke does not include the events Matthew speaks of, the flight to Egypt, the visit of the Magi, or a prolonged stay in Bethlehem. It would reasonable to think that Joseph had extended family ties in Bethlehem which would explain why they were in a house. They most certainly would have not remained in a stable.
I will admit that many scholars view the Gospels of Matthew and Luke as complementary rather than strictly chronological, each emphasizing different theological themes. The reconciliation of these timelines is often addressed by suggesting that Luke summarizes events, possibly omitting the Egypt episode, or that the familiesβ movements involved multiple returns. I am always open to differences of interpretation and am willing to concede to your point. I have not drilled down as far on this topic as obviously you have, in great detail I might add. So I may stand corrected here. I am always in learning mode. Thank you.
As far as the reference in Timothy. A child's formal education in the Torah begins at age 3. That is more than likely the age Paul was referring to - meaning Timothy's mother was being a good parent in starting his education young.
As far as a birth year. I am also open. I don't think a 6-7 BC year date can be fixed in stone either. It could be around 5 BC. As I have stated, I am less fixated on on a date of when it happened versus the fact that it did happen and He was born. That truly is the important part. Archeological and historic dating of the period is not easy and there is disagreement the further one goes back in time. Reconciling events on a rigid timeline based upon historical material is a major endeavor. So I personally hold it loosely.
In my comment that you are replying to I stated, "my understanding." My understanding of something can change in the face of additional information. I was not stating it as fact, but my understanding of what I know. Which is always increasing. So again, thank you for clarifying something where I may have some holes in my understanding. Again Merry Christmas.
Thank you for your consideration of the texts as they stand (instead of as they suffer when removed of literality by others). Just note that Luke doesn't say they remained in Bethlehem 40 days, he says they were there on the 8th day and the 40th day, allowing a natural gap (where their return to Nazareth later does not allow a natural gap).
Yes, Paul indicates that the word for "babe" includes toddlers, so there is no reason for people to distinguish it from the other word for toddler translated "child".
The 5 BC birth theory still suffers from many lines of evidence putting Herod's death in 4 BC (I say fall, others say spring) and the tightness of Luke's narrative. Also in the stated view it relies on a reading of Josephus speaking about priest-for-a-day Joseph that leaves out context and mishnaic parallel.
TLDR: I appreciate your openness and consideration as that's all I ask for. I had to come to grips with the heavy conflict on the subject as well and to find my own answers when people were dogmatic. My views are subject to improvement too, and in 5 years here I've had new data every year on this very question. Sometimes my bluster sounds adversarial, for which I apologize. Have a merry Christmas and a blessed St. Stephen's Day.
You are most welcome and thank you.
Just a note about what is implied in Luke. Given that Mary had just given birth and their was an infant, their relocation to some other area knowing of the Torah obligations that had to be fulfilled, it was unlikely they would leave the area. Since returning to Jerusalem would have been very difficult. So staying in Bethlehem nearby with extended family would make sense.
The season of His birth would have also been a consideration that would have to be factored in if there was a required pilgrimage feast within a month or so. Going to Nazareth and then returning right away for a required feast would have been calculated into any decision of whether to leave or not, especially if they had lodging available in the area. People with larger homes always took in pilgrims for the festivals. It is quite a journey on foot between Nazareth and Jerusalem. Traveling with small children took even longer. Since Jews did not go through Samaria, they would often take the route that went East to the river valley and went south from there till they reached the hill country east of Jerusalem. Then it was uphill from there. It has always amazed me at the stamina of older individuals making such a journey on foot for that distance covering that terrain. A much heartier people for sure.
I will get to the rest of what you had sent me when I have time. I have to have a break long enough to concentrate on trying to connect all those pieces - as you no doubt already know. Not for the short attention casual reader. Thanks again and enjoy the rest of the holiday season.
(You would think being of Irish decent I would be more aware of St Stephan's Day. I guess my family has been here too long. Lol. My roots in this country go back to the Revolutionary War period and prior. One of my ancestors was even on the boat with Washington crossing the Delaware. Had another ancestor that was a drummer for Washington's army. He kept getting his drums shot. The army paid for the first 3 drums. After that, my ancestor had to pay for the rest of them on his own - about 4 more. He was just a teenager. Pretty ballsy.)