"Based upon the writings of Josephus (which appear to be mostly accurate), the anchor date of the war between Antony and Octavius Caesar, and calculations of relevant lunar events, it appears that Herod the Great died in 1 BCE (not 4 BCE) Though 4 BCE. has been favored, because it has a lunar eclipse on a fast day. But, an analysis of what Josephus said about Herod's kingships... indicates the error in the thinking." [ms]In summary, tradition would have it that Jesus was born before 4 BCE; but it is possible to reconcile the New Testament accounts with a birth date of 1 CE at the latest. No comment needed, other than that this is a view that has gained little credence.
"Objections against the validity of the virgin birth are based mostly on preconcieved notions - in the main, that the miraculous is impossible. There is no reason, other than pre-conceived bias, to reject it as historical; and to be fair, no reason other than faith to accept it as such. It simply depends on our starting point."Certainly an all-powerful God could have impregnated Mary (and certainly, the Homeric Gods were always at such things...Not by divine fiat, they weren't.). However, there would be no way to prove that this had occurred, other than accepting the literal words of the Bible. Just as is so with many historical works: their claims are "it". On the other hand, the lack of claimed corroboration from Old Testament prophesy PTET's fantasy; see above, the apparent unreliability of the Gospels in reporting "miraculous" events Proven? Not in the least. PTET just says so, end of story. and the commonality of virgin births amongst mythological god-men, Yep, ZERO is a real "common" number. None of them were "virginal," period. See our series here give good reason - without Tektonics' need for "faith" - to doubt that the virgin birth occurred. Since all those "reasons" failed, it seems we have no reasons left at all.
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." [Matthew 1:16]A traditional apologetic response is to argue that Heli was the father of Mary and not Joseph - but this is clearly contradicted by the text. It is? No, it isn't. Miller shows that this is not so. So where is PTET's response? Morover [sic], it seems that no geneology of Jesus appeared in the earliest versions of the Gospels - "Q" Nothing like a reference to a non-extant document to bolster a case! and the second century proto-Gospels of Marcion and Tacitus Marcion was a known "editor" so this means little. Gospels of Tacitus? What kind of medication is PTET taking here? The only reasonable conclusion is that the geneology of Jesus is unclear and unproven. When we get some actual arguments showing this is the conclusion, please advise.
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli." [Luke 3:23]
"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him." [Matthew 2:1-2
"In conclusion, it was the first Jupiter/Venus conjunction of August 12, 3 BC in the constellation Cancer that alerted the Magi to look for further signs. They found them - in the triple conjunction of Jupiter in Regulus in the constellation Leo. But it was the second conjunction, on June 17, 2 BC, in the evening, of Jupiter and Venus, in the constellation Leo, that started the Magi on their way west. Although the Magi probably had predicted these celestial events in advance, they wanted confirmation that their predictions would come to pass. The 'star' they followed was the planet Jupiter, the King Planet, which, having gone through its retrograde motion, appeared to stand still on precisely December 25, 2 BC in the southern sky - and from Jerusalem it would appear that Jupiter had come to rest directly over Bethlehem. It remained stationary for 6 days, and to add to the symbolic significance, it was stationary in the center, or perhaps 'womb', of the constellation Virgo."However, this hopeful conclusion is not shared by all astronomers Notice PTET's tactics here. He provides nothing that directly answers Carroll; he merely thinks a contrary yet non-replying commentary makes the grade:
"There is no indication in the text that any other person actually saw the star. The shepherds in the field did not see the star, No, because they were two years too early. Herod did not see the star, Mary and Joseph did not see the star, and there is no contemporary record of a big star. Um, hello? Isn't that what Carroll answered? Mark, Luke, and John do not record a big star. Why do they need to? Why not that Matthew was the only one who had access to the info, from his place in Antioch, nearest the Magi's homeland? Astronomers running their planetariums backwards through time are not unanimous about it, and scholars trying to date the birth of Christ with its appearance have been confounded. Possible candidates for the star simply do not match the gospel's chronology and dating. The reason for this is that Matthew never alleged a conspicuous star." What about Carroll's comments? This is not an answer at all; it is just generalizaing blather.3 BCE may be a possible date for the "Star of Bethlehem" as a planetary conjunction.
"The description of the 'star' in the Gospel of Matthew (the only mention of the star in the Gospels) is too ambiguous to make possible a definitive identification with known astronomical phenomena of that era. Ambiguous? How? Carroll's information (without making a decision on it here) provides clear contextual data, and likely reasons for the magi to have acted on it. It also fits with what Matthew tells us, even if it is not much. So why is this "ambiguous"? Astronomers have proposed conjunctions of some of the planets as a likely explanation of the 'star.' Possible conjunctions involve Jupiter and Saturn in 7 BC; Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars in 6 BC; and Jupiter and Venus in 3 BC. Other possibilities are appearances of comets in 5 BC and 4 BC, and a nova (exploding star) in 5 BC. Alternatively, there may have been a sighting of the then unknown planet Uranus, which, though faintly visible to the naked eye, was not discovered until AD 1781. If the appearance of the 'star' was a miracle or a myth, astronomical explanations are unnecessary and invalid." Obviously. But what exactly is the problem?
"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed; (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.); And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city; And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David)." [Luke 2:1-4
"Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men." [Matthew 2:16
"The slaughter of the Innocents squares perfectly with what history relates of him, and St. Matthew's positive statement is not contradicted by the mere silence of Josephus..."However, no other contemporary account mentions the "slaughter", and given Matthew's apparent unreliability (see the discussion of the Resurrection below) it is reasonable to conclude that this account is mere gloss on the life of Jesus. A begged question in context. PTET does not deal with the response here, nor with the matters here.
"Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins..." [Luke 3:1-3]The problem is that Josephus dates the death of John the Baptist specifically to 36 CE - after the supposed date of the death of Jesus. He does not. See here. No need to blame Josephus either.
"For almost 2 millennia, the Christian Church has taught that Jesus was crucified, died, and was bodily resurrected (i.e. returned to life in his original body) three days later. This has long been one of the church's foundational beliefs, along with the inerrancy of the Bible, and the virgin birth, the atonement, the future second coming of Jesus, etc. Some religious liberals believe that Jesus died by crucifixion, was buried, but was not resurrected. Muslims, who total in excess of one billion believers worldwide, believe that Jesus was neither crucified nor resurrected. The feel that such a great prophet of God would not suffer such a death. They believe that he died of natural causes." Well isn't that authoritative. Muslims 500-600 years believe this, which makes it a worthy point of view. Yet what was PTET saying there about Tacitus and Josephus not being contemporaries….?The Resurrection is central to the story of Christianity. The event is, of course, not recorded by any external contemporary sources. Even the Gospel accounts are contradictory, although they can be read as different second-hand accounts of the same basic events Right. See here. Why it needs to be in other sources is not explained.
"And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God." [Matthew 27:51-54](You may remember John Wayne uttering those final immortal words ;>)
"Contradiction is sometimes alleged in that Mark reports the crucifixion at the third hour (Mark 15:25) while John says the sixth. The basic reply is that Mark and the other synoptics are using Jewish time (sunset to sunset; third hour = 9 AM); John is using Roman time, which is like ours (sixth hour = 6 AM - note that John says about the sixth hour; he's estimating). (The former method is still used in the Middle East, and we and other Western nations use the latter.) We know from the Synoptics that the crucifixion took over 6 hours. If John's sixth hour is really the Jewish sixth hour - noon, as unfortunately, even the Living Bible says - then the crucifixion lasted past the time when the Sabbath started. John 19:31 says that the Jews didn't want the bodies left up over the Sabbath, which obviously means that the Sabbath hadn't started yet. So either John is giving us an extraordinarily short crucifixion, or he is giving us the time in Roman. Since crucifixions were usually extended affairs, the latter assumption is more valid."In summary, if by "the sixth hour" John meant Midday, then his account is not credible. (And saying "about nine o'clock" is surely not the same as saying "about twelve o'clock"... The trouble is, the Romans did not tell the time as we do today... the sixth hour to the Romans was midday. There appears to be, therefore, a glaring contradiction between John and the synoptic gospels.
"We were recently alerted to a comment by a critic (who did not write to us) that the Romans actually used the same sort of time as the Jews, that is, sunset to sunset. This is not entirely true. Many Romans did use this sort of time, but others did not. The time like ours (midnight to midnight) was known to be used in legal matters, and there is some evidence from martyrdom accounts in the area that this sort of time was used in Asia Minor, where John did his evangeslism. Pliny the Elder also notes that various professions varied in their reckoning of time. It is our contention that the evidence does point to John using the 'midnight to midnight' model."They provide no references for their assertion about the Roman's "legal" use of time, This from a guy who thinks "religioustolerance.org" is a useful source? My reference is Carson's commentary on John, which is given as a source. which would seem surprising in a culture which generally measured time with the use of sundials. (Update: I am thankful to Tektonics for pointing out that the Romans also used waterclocks. However, these were luxury items used for such things as timing senate speeches or chariot races And he still got it wrong anyway. No excuses.
| Please, please, I beg you, link to this page if you copy
from or refer to it! PEST homepage | top of page | e-mail PEST |