In the mean time, Robert Gromacki's The Virgin Birth: A Biblical Study of the Deity of Jesus Christ is on pre-pub for $12 now.
I would like to see the Virgin birth of Christ by both James Orr and J Gresham Machen in Logos. Thanks. Ted. Virgin Birth of Christ by J Gresham Machen The Virgin Birth Of Christ by Orr, James
Yes and Yes [Y][Y]
And I will order Gromacki's book that Larry mentioned.
EDIT: I had already ordered that book last October!
I have a question regarding the Virgin Birth. I have Gromacki's excellent book, and it has raised questions in my mind about the traditional 4 to 6 B.C. date, which I have on my site's timeline. www.errantskeptics.org\Dating-New-Testament-Events.htm.
Luke is very exacting in providing 8 historical markers in 3:1-2 as to when Jesus was baptized, which would fix that date firmly as 29 A.D.. In 3:23 he states Jesus was about 30 when he began his ministry. Giving 3 to 3.5 years for his ministry, that would put the date for the crucifixion at 33 A.D. Using the 4 to 6 BC as his birth that would make him 37 to 39 at his death. It appears to me Josephus was wrong about the date for Herod's death. I'm certain many of you have already worked this out, and I would appreciate your views.
I have a question regarding the Virgin Birth. I have Gromacki's excellent book, and it has raised questions in my mind about the traditional 4 to 6 B.C. date, which I have on my site's timeline. www.errantskeptics.org\Dating-New-Testament-Events.htm. Luke is very exacting in providing 8 historical markers in 3:1-2 as to when Jesus was baptized, which would fix that date firmly as 29 A.D.. In 3:23 he states Jesus was about 30 when he began his ministry. Giving 3 to 3.5 years for his ministry, that would put the date for the crucifixion at 33 A.D. Using the 4 to 6 BC as his birth that would make him 37 to 39 at his death. It appears to me Josephus was wrong about the date for Herod's death. I'm certain many of you have already worked this out, and I would appreciate your views.
Josephus was not wrong regarding the date of Herod's death. Don't attempt to support the bible by attempting to change established facts. Not only would you need to change the date of Herod's death, you would need to change the time when Quirinius was the governor of Syria. We are not called to believe that certain facts are the case; we are called to trust Christ.
George, I trust the Bible and Luke far more than Josephus. I believe Luke was right, and that leaves Josephus with a problem. There are many issues wtth the dates of Quirinius governorship. That said, I am simply trying to get at the truth.
Josephus was not wrong regarding the date of Herod's death. Don't attempt to support the bible by attempting to change established facts. Not only would you need to change the date of Herod's death, you would need to change the time when Quirinius was the governor of Syria. We are not called to believe that certain facts are the case; we are called to trust Christ. George, I trust the Bible and Luke far more than Josephus. I believe Luke was right, and that leaves Josephus with a problem. There are many issues wtth the dates of Quirinius governorship. That said, I am simply trying to get at the truth.
If you choose to hide your head in the sand and say that the evidence doesn't exist, that's your privilege, but I don't think that you'll gain any brownie points with God for that.
George, Luke is known as one of the greatest of historicans, Josehus isn't. Take another look at Luke 3:1-2/ Luke gives us 8 historical markers for the baptism of Jesus. How many historiians provide that many details. I have also read Josephus from beginning to end at least two times. I trust the Bible and Luke. Additionally, we are called to trust the Son and the record God has given regarding His Son. 1 John 5:10 That's my two cents.
If you choose to hide your head in the sand and say that the evidence doesn't exist, that's your privilege, but I don't think that you'll gain any brownie points with God for that. George, Luke is known as one of the greatest of historicans, Josehus isn't. Take another look at Luke 3:1-2/ Luke gives us 8 historical markers for the baptism of Jesus. How many historiians provide that many details. I have also read Josephus from beginning to end at least two times. I trust the Bible and Luke. Additionally, we are called to trust the Son and the record God has given regarding His Son. 1 John 5:10 That's my two cents.
If your mind was already made up, why did you ask the question? Did you simply wish to create a disturbance?
Luke, if indeed it was Luke who wrote this gospel, is known as a gospel writer and a writer concerning the apostles and not as an historian. As regards particularly Acts, there are many problems. His chronology doesn't precisely agree with what Paul himself tells us. So much for being "one of the greatest historians." I rather think the object of Luke was not so much to give a history but more like that expressed in the Gospel according to John
He who saw this has testified so that you also may believe.
I don't know where I land on this particular issue, but Josephus is no less biased than Luke. Josephus has made errors that most scholars acknowledge. Quirinius is thought to have had to separate governorships and that confuses the dates.
George, forgive me if I have offended you. I am an old man wtih Parkinson's disease, and sometime I make mistakes. I have never created a disturbance in Logos forums, and I have been here here for many years.That aside, I have a doctorate in theology and more than 100 credit hours of history. I believe I am qualified to decide what is a legimate question. I have enormous respect for some of the scholars in this forum, and that is why I am humbly seeking theiir help with this problem.
I would never contend that Josephus is always correct in every respect, but he isn't the only source we have.
QUIRINIUS (PERSON) [Gk Kyrēnaios (
If your mind was already made up, why did you ask the question? Did you simply wish to create a disturbance? George, forgive me if I have offended you. I am an old man wtih Parkinson's disease, and sometime I make mistakes. I have never created a disturbance in Logos forums, and I have been here here for many years.That aside, I have a doctorate in theology and more than 100 credit hours of history. I believe I am qualified to decide what is a legimate question. I have enormous respect for some of the scholars in this forum, and that is why I am humbly seeking theiir help with this problem.
You may have Parkinson's disease which I wouldn't dispute, but, unless that is an old picture of you, I doubt that you are so very old. In any case, I'm not offended. I simply defend the truth, and you remain a brother even though I may disagree with you.
I don't need something that is near historical certainty to alleviate this supposed error, but it is quite easy to find a proposed solution if you try. For instance the ESV Study Bible says,
"Some interpreters believe that because “governor” (participle of Gk. hēgemoneuō) was a very general term for “ruler,” it may be that Quirinius was the administrator of the census, but not the governor proper. Another solution is to translate the verse, “This was the registration before Quirinius was governor of Syria” (see ESV footnote), which is grammatically possible (taking Gk. prōtos as “before” rather than “first”; the Greek construction is somewhat unusual on any reading). This would make sense because Luke would then be clarifying that this was before the well-known, troublesome census of A.D. 6 (Acts 5:37). (One additional proposal is that Quirinius was governor for two separate terms, though this lacks confirming historical evidence.) Though the year cannot be determined with complete certainty, there are several reasonable possibilities which correspond well to Luke’s carefully researched investigation (Luke 1:3–4) and to the historical and geographical accuracy evidenced throughout Luke and Acts."
Nolland in WBC also has some good insights. "Lagrange has shown that there is no decisive objection from word order or from the use of the genitive participle to translating Luke 2:2 as “This registration happened before Quirinius became governor of Syria.” (On the basis, however, of the critique by E. Power, “John 2,20 and the Date of the Crucifixion,” Bib 9 [1928] 286, it is clear that Lagrange’s appeal to Sophocles, Antigone 2.637–38, must be dropped.) As a clarifying aside, such a statement would fit well. The governorship of Quirinius was an important turning point in Judean history, marking as it did the annexation of Judea, which was made profoundly visible by the census registration with which Quirinius’ governorship began. That registration was “the registration” (cf. Acts 5:37), and it is natural that Luke should distinguish from it a preliminary registration in the time of Herod the Great. On any reading, the Greek of Luke’s sentence is awkward (cf. Fitzmyer, 400), and perhaps no more so on the reading suggested here. This seems better than forcing an earlier governorship on Quirinius and more likely than the contradiction in the Lukan infancy narratives created by an identification of the census here as that of A.D. 6."
I hadn't studied this issue in a while, so I shouldn't have said that Quirinius had two governorships. I should have said the best translation could be "before."
Your attempts to be a peacemaker are noted and appreciated, but this is a matter of truth. There are many attempts to reconcile the statements, but none really work. As for taking prōtos as “before” rather than “first”, when used as an adv it would be πρῶτον rather than πρῶτη. As regards Quirinius, note what Plummer states
2.
Defend the truth til death...but there are a few exceptions. First of all this particular matter is a matter of probability, not truth. I realize that Quirinius' governorship is not as crucial a matter as say the death and resurrection of Jesus, but I find your way or trying to harmonize this so that Luke is doing history like the Gospel of John is (in light of Luke's statements in 1:1-2 I would disagree) far worse of a leap than the one I am trying to argue for is possible (which it certainly is in my opinion).
There is an interesting article on the Internet by Dr. Chuck Missler, When was Jesus Born. Missler brings out the following:
1. Josephus recorded an eclipse, assumed to be on March 13, 4 B.C., shortly before Herod died. Missler states it was likely the eclipse on December 29, 1 B.C. Note, a considerable length of time elapsed between Jesus birth and the time when the family returned from Egyppt after Herod's death. According to the Magillath Ta'anith, an ancient Jewish scroll contemporary with Jesus, Herod died on January 14, 1 B.C.
2 2. Tertulian stated Augustus began to rule 41 years before the birth of Christ and died 15 years after the event. Augustus died on August 19, 14 A.D. placing Jesus birth at 2 B.C. TErtulian also notes that Jesus wwas born 28 years after the death of Cleopatra in 30 B.C., which is consistent with a date of 2 B.C.
3. Iraneus, born about a century after Jesus, also notes that the Lord was born in the 41st year of the reign of Augustus. Since Augustus began his reign in the autumn of 43 B.C., this also appears to substantiate the birth in 2 B.C.
Missler also deals with the birth of John the Baptist and Zacharias service in the Temple.
I am looking for other viewpoints and simply the standard answers, which I have read and debated years ago.
This should read, "I am looking for other viewpoints and NOT simply the standard answers, which I have read and debated years ago"
I find your way or trying to harmonize this so that Luke is doing history like the Gospel of John is (in light of Luke's statements in 1:1-2 I would disagree) far worse of a leap than the one I am trying to argue for is possible (which it certainly is in my opinion).
The point is that I am not trying to harmonize this nor am I suggesting that Luke "is doing history like the Gospel of John." Quite the contrary, I am stating that neither was was writing history. They were writing a gospel "that you might believe ..."
Henry Morris,, Ph.D. writing about Luke:- He is also recognized as a great historian, with his excellent accounts of the key events of the most important era in the history of the world. He also was undoubtedly a devoted Christian, a truth especially demonstrated by his unselfish service and companionship to the apostle Paul. Finally, he was probably the first Christian apologist, zealously concerned to defend and establish the absolute truth of the gospel of Christ.
William Mitchell Ramsay - "Our hypothesis is that Acts was written by a great historian, a writer who set himself to record the facts as they occurred, a strong partisan indeed, but raised above partiality by his perfect confidence that he had only to describe the facts as they occurred, in order to make the truth of Christianity and the honour of Paul apparent...It is not my object to assume or to prove that there was no prejudice in the mind of Luke, no fault on the part of Paul; but only to examine whether the facts are stated as trustworthy, and leave them to speak for themselves (as the author does). I shall argue that the book was composed by a personal friend and disciple of Paul, and if this be once established there will be no hesitation in accepting the primitive tradition that Luke was the author."W. M. Ramsay , "St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen" Fourth Ed. (London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1895) pp. 14.
John McArthur -Luke's gospel, chapter 2. We're beginning a study of Luke. I thought we would move more rapidly than we are. I knew Luke was a great historian, and that is being verified as we go...fastidious, careful with detail. And I knew that Luke was something of a theologian but the more I'm studying this gospel the more I'm impressed with the depth and breadth and height and length of his theology. And when you're going through narrative passages, you can be content with the story but not if you understand the heart of the writer...both the heart of Luke and the heart of God the Holy Spirit who inspired it. It seems as though everything Luke says on the surface has beneath it massive amounts of supportive truth and history. And that is certainly the case in the text before us today.
Mark Driscoll, Mars Hill Church - And Luke, the great historian, funded by the generous Theophilus, does all of his investigative worth and writes for us the truthful, accurate, historical biography of Jesus
I honestly don't think I would have trouble finding at least 100 quotes labeling Luke a great historian.
Henry Morris,, Ph.D. writing about Luke:- He is also recognized as a great historian, with his excellent accounts of the key events of the most important era in the history of the world. He also was undoubtedly a devoted Christian, a truth especially demonstrated by his unselfish service and companionship to the apostle Paul. Finally, he was probably the first Christian apologist, zealously concerned to defend and establish the absolute truth of the gospel of Christ. William Mitchell Ramsay - "Our hypothesis is that Acts was written by a great historian, a writer who set himself to record the facts as they occurred, a strong partisan indeed, but raised above partiality by his perfect confidence that he had only to describe the facts as they occurred, in order to make the truth of Christianity and the honour of Paul apparent...It is not my object to assume or to prove that there was no prejudice in the mind of Luke, no fault on the part of Paul; but only to examine whether the facts are stated as trustworthy, and leave them to speak for themselves (as the author does). I shall argue that the book was composed by a personal friend and disciple of Paul, and if this be once established there will be no hesitation in accepting the primitive tradition that Luke was the author."W. M. Ramsay , "St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen" Fourth Ed. (London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1895) pp. 14. John McArthur - Luke's gospel, chapter 2. We're beginning a study of Luke. I thought we would move more rapidly than we are. I knew Luke was a great historian, and that is being verified as we go...fastidious, careful with detail. And I knew that Luke was something of a theologian but the more I'm studying this gospel the more I'm impressed with the depth and breadth and height and length of his theology. And when you're going through narrative passages, you can be content with the story but not if you understand the heart of the writer...both the heart of Luke and the heart of God the Holy Spirit who inspired it. It seems as though everything Luke says on the surface has beneath it massive amounts of supportive truth and history. And that is certainly the case in the text before us today. Mark Driscoll, Mars Hill Church - And Luke, the great historian, funded by the generous Theophilus, does all of his investigative worth and writes for us the truthful, accurate, historical biography of Jesus I honestly don't think I would have trouble finding at least 100 quotes labeling Luke a great historian.
John McArthur - Luke's gospel, chapter 2. We're beginning a study of Luke. I thought we would move more rapidly than we are. I knew Luke was a great historian, and that is being verified as we go...fastidious, careful with detail. And I knew that Luke was something of a theologian but the more I'm studying this gospel the more I'm impressed with the depth and breadth and height and length of his theology. And when you're going through narrative passages, you can be content with the story but not if you understand the heart of the writer...both the heart of Luke and the heart of God the Holy Spirit who inspired it. It seems as though everything Luke says on the surface has beneath it massive amounts of supportive truth and history. And that is certainly the case in the text before us today.
You probably wouldn't have any trouble finding 100 quotes of such a nature. The question is "Am I supposed to be impressed by what someone else says or by the facts?"
George, I have over 50 commentaries for Luke so I can arrive at the truth. The authors are good men, with differing opinions. What you see as FACTS I see as no more valid than the OPINIONS in my commentaries. I posted in this forum so I could see the EDUCATED OPINIONS of some very smart individuals. We may find that many agree with you, however I would apprpeciate it if you would allow them to voice their OPINONS as to what theey see as the facts regarding this issue.
George, I have over 50 commentaries for Luke so I can arrive at the truth.
Theology or any other discipline is not a matter of taking a poll. X take position A while Y take position B therefore B must be correct since more take it than A. Quantity does not equal quality. As in textual criticism where variants must be weighed and not counted, the arguments here must be weighed as well. It is not simply Josephus whom you oppose but a number of others of the time as well. I realize that it can be a shock to discover that "It ain't necessarily so ..." as Sportin' Life sings in Porgy and Bess (he's the villain), but remember that the purpose of the writing was not to impart correct history. The purpose was to instill trust in Jesus Christ as the one sent from God whose teaching could be relied on. If the writer happens to say "This all happened when ..." and he happened to get a few facts wrong, what does that really matter? It nevertheless tells us about Jesus Christ whether that means he was born in 6 BC or 1 AD.
George, I earned my doctorate in theology 31 years ago. I know just a little about the subject. I also know that good men differ as to what are facts, and each one has to answer to the Lord for what he believes. You seem to be of the view that Scripture isn't necessarily historically true and inerrant. I am an Evangelical and hold to The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. You are entitled to your view. Please allow me to differ. A few points the statement makes are:
. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.
We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
I find your way or trying to harmonize this so that Luke is doing history like the Gospel of John is (in light of Luke's statements in 1:1-2 I would disagree) far worse of a leap than the one I am trying to argue for is possible (which it certainly is in my opinion). The point is that I am not trying to harmonize this nor am I suggesting that Luke "is doing history like the Gospel of John." Quite the contrary, I am stating that neither was was writing history. They were writing a gospel "that you might believe ..."
But you are falling into the either/or trap. Either this is some sort of gospel that is just about compelling someone to believe (in what, myth/history/combination?) or this is an orderly account of the history of Jesus. I am quite convinced that Richard Burridge has the genre of Luke nailed down. Luke is a historical gospel of the life of Christ - a gospel that is quite historical. We have so little information from the first century that I just don't think you can throw in the towel to supposedly save Luke from himself because I think that is exactly what you are doing.
Observation: looking at 2nd point of Logos Forum guidelines => http://community.logos.com/forums/t/10072.aspx - wonder about appropriate web forum(s) for continuing discussion ?
Note: searching Logos 4 library did find one resource written in 1997 that concludes "The Census of Quirinius" section with "... encourages the hope of a still better solution in the future."
Keep Smiling [:)]
George, I earned my doctorate in theology 31 years ago.
And I did my doctoral studies at Claremont Graduate though neither in systematics nor in NT but in OT form criticism. Shall we wave our credentials on the count of 3? I remember my father, who was in the accounting department at Chrysler once saying that the guys coming out of college didn't know a certain part of their anatomy from an excavation. Of course, he wasn't saying that education has no value but rather that it takes more than just education.
Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.
Yes, I thought that was where you were coming from. I used to be a member of the Christian Reformed Church like Rich though now I am an Episcopalian,because I found that I couldn't honestly support that position. That doesn't mean that I dismiss the bible. It is the source from which we derive our faith, but it is not a book of history. When you attempt to make it a book of history, you create all kinds of difficulties from which you will never escape. The bible is reliable for the purpose for which it was given (which isn't to teach history or biology).
Thanks Phil. I appreciate your bringing up the forum guideline. It was never my intention to start a debate. I t hink it's time for all good men to go to sleep.
Grace and peace,
Gary
I know just a little about the subject. I also know that good men differ as to what are facts, and each one has to answer to the Lord for what he believes. You seem to be of the view that Scripture isn't necessarily historically true and inerrant. I am an Evangelical and hold to The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. You are entitled to your view. Please allow me to differ.
Gary, I think you hit the crux of the potential for problems when posting "theological" questions in the forums. I think you and George (may I say fondly the curmudgeonly George) have responded to each other appropriately. And it has been so hard not to jump in with my favorite side - the distinction between fact and truth. [:#] However, your question was not posed in a manner that stated you wanted answers that fell within The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. You have correctly identified the crux of your differences and let it be. You have set an excellent example of handling theological difference well. I thank you. (Even if it was outside the guidelines).
Gary, I think you hit the crux of the potential for problems when posting "theological" questions in the forums. I think you and George (may I say fondly the curmudgeonly George) have responded to each other appropriately. And it has been so hard not to jump in with my favorite side - the distinction between fact and truth. However, your question was not posed in a manner that stated you wanted answers that fell within The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. You have correctly identified the crux of your differences and let it be. You have set an excellent example of handling theological difference well. I thank you. (Even if it was outside the guidelines).
M.J.,, you made a valid point regarding my not framing the issue within the Chicago Statement. I appreciate your bringing that out.
I have a friend who is a liberal UMC pastor, and another who held the St. Thomas Aquinas Chair (S.J. now deceased) at Harvard. We clearly differed in our views, and many times there were Nights of the Long Knives. However, in spite of our differences we loved each other, and kept that in mind.
Thanks Phil.
Who's Phil ?
Have called myself many names - Phil is new.
Concur with Grace and Peace, especially to those with good will.
Thanks Phil. Who's Phil ? Have called myself many names - Phil is new. Concur with Grace and Peace, especially to those with good will. Keep Smiling
Keep Smiling
Phil is Phil Gons who posted the guidelines to which you refered Gary. He simply confused you with him.
George, I knew that.
Hi Folks! I am new to the forum and this topic is one of special interest to me.
First, regarding Josephus and the date of Herod's death. I believe Herod died in January, 1 BC. According to research done by Rick Larson regarding Josephus and his work (while doing a study on the Star of Bethlehem), he states that original manuscripts of Josephus' work clearly states a date of 1 BC for Herod's work until a certain point in time when a typesetter made an error in the print copy.
"The Bible recounts that Herod learned of the Messiah's birth fromastronomers who had seen the Star of Bethlehem. He tried to kill the child, so, obviously, the Bible records that Herod was alive at Jesus'birth. Remember that this mattered to Kepler, because historians of his time apparentlyinferred from Josephus' history that Herod died in 4 BC. Necessarily,Kepler assumed Christ was born before that date, perhaps 5 BC or earlier.So, those are the years for which he scanned the skies for the Star. Evenwith the power of his newly discovered laws of planetary motion, he didn'tfind the phenomena we will examine here. He searched the skies of the wrongyears.
But modern scholarship has deepened our understanding of Josephus'manuscripts. A recent study was made of the earliest manuscripts ofJosephus' writings held by the British Library in London, and the American Library of Congress. It revealed a surprise that allows us to target ourmathematical telescopes better than could Kepler. It turns out that a copying error was a primary cause of the confusion about the date of Herod's death. A printer typesetting the manuscript of Josephus' Antiquities messed up in the year1544. Every single Josephus manuscript in these libraries dating from before 1544 supportsthe inference that Herod passed in 1 BC. Excellent scholarship confirms that date."
Also, Josephus recorded that Herod died 34 years after he took Jerusalem, which occurred on Yom Kippur in 36 BC. A January, 1 BC death would be 34 years and 4 months. A 1 BC death of Herod is not in conflict with Josephus or history.
Second, regarding Quirinius and his governorship, the dates of his official governorship are indeed AD 6-7. With Herod dying in 1 BC, what are we to do with the text in Luke? There is a logical explanation. Paul Finch, in his research, indicated that to be the case:
“Roman officials from all over theEmpire would be going to Rome for the celebrations. This means that thegovernors would leave there provinces while lesser officials remained toconduct business. This brings us toQuirinius who conducted the "enrollment." Luke says that he was governor. Yet, Quirinius was not officially a governoruntil A.D. 6. But it does seem probablethat Quirinius may have been a provisional governor in 3/2 B.C. while theactual legate was away at Rome. Indeed,Justin Martyr called Quirinius the "procurator of Syria". TheCambridge Ancient History tells us that "Each province had its equestrianprocurator who in the eyes of the provincials was almost as important as thegovernor himself".
A check of history will show that in Feb of 2 BC, Caesar Augustus was bestowed great honors, being declared Pater Patriae (Father of the Country) in his 25th year as Caesar and Rome's 750th year. He required people from all over his empire to register prior to the award ceremony, and all citizens as well as all people holding or descendants of distinguished rank had to register to signify allegiance and approval of Caesar. Being in the Davidic line, Joseph and Mary had to go to Bethlehem to register. Since this was done the summer prior to his ceremony, they traveled to Bethlehem somewhere in the July-Oct time period of 3 BC. If the governor was in Rome helping with the preparations, it would be very easy for Quirinius to be acting governor, heading up the local registration and taking care of the country with the governor away on Caesar business.
Further information from other Bible clues and historical context place the birth of Christ in September, 3 BC and starting his ministry starting his 30th year in September, AD 27.
Merry Christmas All!
Dave
First, regarding Josephus and the date of Herod's death. I believe Herod died in January, 1 BC. According to research done by Rick Larson regarding Josephus and his work (while doing a study on the Star of Bethlehem), he states that original manuscripts of Josephus' work clearly states a date of 1 BC for Herod's work until a certain point in time when a typesetter made an error in the print copy. "The Bible recounts that Herod learned of the Messiah's birth from astronomers who had seen the Star of Bethlehem. He tried to kill the child, so, obviously, the Bible records that Herod was alive at Jesus' birth. Remember that this mattered to Kepler, because historians of his time apparently inferred from Josephus' history that Herod died in 4 BC. Necessarily, Kepler assumed Christ was born before that date, perhaps 5 BC or earlier. So, those are the years for which he scanned the skies for the Star. Even with the power of his newly discovered laws of planetary motion, he didn't find the phenomena we will examine here. He searched the skies of the wrong years. But modern scholarship has deepened our understanding of Josephus' manuscripts. A recent study was made of the earliest manuscripts of Josephus' writings held by the British Library in London, and the American Library of Congress. It revealed a surprise that allows us to target our mathematical telescopes better than could Kepler. It turns out that a copying error was a primary cause of the confusion about the date of Herod's death. A printer typesetting the manuscript of Josephus' Antiquities messed up in the year 1544. Every single Josephus manuscript in these libraries dating from before 1544 supports the inference that Herod passed in 1 BC. Excellent scholarship confirms that date."
"The Bible recounts that Herod learned of the Messiah's birth from astronomers who had seen the Star of Bethlehem. He tried to kill the child, so, obviously, the Bible records that Herod was alive at Jesus' birth. Remember that this mattered to Kepler, because historians of his time apparently inferred from Josephus' history that Herod died in 4 BC. Necessarily, Kepler assumed Christ was born before that date, perhaps 5 BC or earlier. So, those are the years for which he scanned the skies for the Star. Even with the power of his newly discovered laws of planetary motion, he didn't find the phenomena we will examine here. He searched the skies of the wrong years.
But modern scholarship has deepened our understanding of Josephus' manuscripts. A recent study was made of the earliest manuscripts of Josephus' writings held by the British Library in London, and the American Library of Congress. It revealed a surprise that allows us to target our mathematical telescopes better than could Kepler. It turns out that a copying error was a primary cause of the confusion about the date of Herod's death. A printer typesetting the manuscript of Josephus' Antiquities messed up in the year 1544. Every single Josephus manuscript in these libraries dating from before 1544 supports the inference that Herod passed in 1 BC. Excellent scholarship confirms that date."
I find that contention supremely dubious. If that were indeed the case scholars would by now have corrected such. Moreover, Josephus is not alone in the fixing of the dates of Herod. What perhaps amazes me most regarding this is the zeal of some to support a more traditional dating of Christ's birth. Had he been born at the traditonal time, it would still be in conflict with other known facts such as the census under Quirinius. Moreover, it would appear that none of the gospel writers were certain regarding the age of Jesus at his death, a subject which gets combined with the date of his birth on the basis of the supposition that he was 30 when he died. This confusion is noted in the Gospel of John
John 8:57–59 (NRSV)
57Then the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.
If Jesus had appeared to be older than about 30, surely they might have mentioned 40 yrs old, but they say 50. It is a mistake to become involved in attempting to defend a particular view of history when the facts cannot be securely fixed rather than simply proclaiming the gospel.
A check of history will show that in Feb of 2 BC, Caesar Augustus was bestowed great honors, being declared Pater Patriae (Father of the Country) in his 25th year as Caesar and Rome's 750th year. He required people from all over his empire to register prior to the award ceremony, and all citizens as well as all people holding or descendants of distinguished rank had to register to signify allegiance and approval of Caesar. Being in the Davidic line, Joseph and Mary had to go to Bethlehem to register. Since this was done the summer prior to his ceremony, they traveled to Bethlehem somewhere in the July-Oct time period of 3 BC. If the governor was in Rome helping with the preparations, it would be very easy for Quirinius to be acting governor, heading up the local registration and taking care of the country with the governor away on Caesar business. Further information from other Bible clues and historical context place the birth of Christ in September, 3 BC and starting his ministry starting his 30th year in September, AD 27.
I just read some similar conclusions (about the year 1 BC as the year of Herod's death and 3 BC of Jesus being born) in the book of Ernest Martin "Star of Bethlehem". F.F. Bruce is quoted to say about the book the following: "Prof. Martin has presented a reasoned argument which deserves to be considered seriously." - Prof. F.F. Bruce, Univ. of Manchester, England.
Merry Christmas to all of you :-)
I have read Ernest Martin's work (it is available free online) and I would agree with Prof. Bruce's assessment.
One other comment in general: nailing down the specific dates of Jesus' birth and death is not an essential of the faith. We know that He came; he lived the perfect life; He died in our place; He rose and lives again. I taught a lesson two years ago (it's available on Sermon Audio for anyone interested) and I entitled it "Apologetics and The Birth of Christ". Apologetics, being a defense of the faith, in this instance is a defense of what we can learn from Scripture on the birth of Christ. For many years when having a discussion of the gospel during this time of year there would be a birth of Christ question that I could not answer because the text, in a surface reading and understanding, appeared to be in conflict with history, or at least the history I knew and could look up. So I did a more extensive study (definitely not exhaustive, but a much deeper digging than many do) and then it was like putting together the pieces of a big jigsaw puzzle; all the pieces started to come together and reveal the bigger picture.
I will try to clear up any additional questions if I can; the John 8 objection above does not really make much sense. I will see if I can find any information regarding whether the age of 50 had special relevance to the Jews. I know the age of 30 did, as that was when a man was considered mature; when one became a man. I am not sure about the age of 50.
