The Virgin Birth Of Christ

Gary Butner said:

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.

Gary Butner said:

George Somsel said:

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.

Gary Butner said:

George Somsel said:

 

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.

George Somsel said:

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.

Gary Butner said:

George Somsel said:

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.

Jeremy said:

"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."

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.

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.

Jeremy said:

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 ..."

Gary Butner said:

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.

 

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?"

Gary Butner said:

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 Somsel said:

Jeremy said:

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.

Gary Butner said:

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. 

Gary Butner said:

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).

George Somsel said:

Phil is Phil Gons who posted the guidelines to which you refered Gary.  He simply confused you with him.

George, I knew that.

Dave Goodgame said:

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."

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.

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. 

Dave