Are the Gospels Historically Credible? (Creator, followers, disciples, hell)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Josephus states that in the very night Herod died there was an eclipse of the moon.
Josephus then gives an account of the events that followed Herod death; his funeral, and Archelaus rise to the throne before the Passover. Thus the events recorded by Josephus are associated with the annual Jewish fast; which only occurs in the 4th,5th,7th and 10th months.
This becomes a problem for those who believe that Herod died in 4BCE; as the eclipse of 4 BCE was in March 12/13 which is the 12th month. Thus the 4 BCE eclipse does not correlate with any of the Jewish fasts.
Another problem with the 4 BCE eclipse is that the 4BCE eclipse would not likely have been noticed.
Justin Schove in his book Chronology of Eclipses and Comets states:
"We find that the overall partial p-type [such as occurred on March 12/13, 4 B.C.] eclipses of Oppolzer were never noticed, and even the annular r-type were often missed. Most of the early records [such as Josephus] relate to eclipses THAT WERE TOTAL, either at the place of observation or within a few hundred miles of the track of totality.....Total eclipses are rare; at any one place the average is three times in a millennium..." (1984, p. x).
Schove then goes on to say:
"....[concerning partial eclipses] Such eclipses are more frequent than is usually supposed, for they occur about once every 2 1/2 years at any given location. However, the loss of light is smaller than heavy clouds would produce and partial eclipses usually passed unnoticed by the astronomically-unsophisticated chronicler....Astronomers, and those who have been forewarned, MAY notice an eclipse of magnitude 0.70 [70%] if they see it in a reflection, at sunset or through thin cloud or haze....The average person notices a thin solar crescent of a solar eclipse only when the magnitude reaches 0.99 [99%]" (ibid., p. xv).
Thus we can see those that believe the eclipse of 4BCE is the eclipse Josephus was referring to have some big problems to deal with.
But what about the eclipse of 1 BCE?
In 1 BCE on January 9/10 a total eclipse of the moon happened.
This eclipse of January 9/10 fell on Tebeth 14 which is in the 10 month; which is one of the Jewish fest months and was about 10 weeks before the Passover. Thus fits perfectly with the eclipse Josephus mentions.
Justin Schove in his book Chronology of Eclipses and Comets states:
"Total eclipses are RARE; at any one place the average is three times in a millennium" (1984, p. x). This, in itself, would have been a good reason for Josephus to mention this particular eclipse -- it would have been a momentous event in that part of the country, which everybody would have seen and commented on.
Theodor Oppolozer's Canon of Eclipses states
The eclipse of January 9/10, 1 B.C. is listed as eclipse #1,860 in (Dover, New York, 1962). That eclipse, according to John Pratt (Ph. D in Astronomy), was listed as total for 51 minutes near midnight and centered over 15 degrees east longitude -- which is perfect for having been observed in Jerusalem.
With this information in hand we can easily see that the eclipse of 4BCE is not the one Josephus mentioned and the eclipse in 1 BCE fit quite nicely with what Josephus states.
Conclusion: The only eclipse that fits the criteria of what Josephus states is the eclipse of 1 BCE. This eclipse not only was visible to the human eye it also happened during the Jewish fest days and was perfectly visible from Jerusalem. Thus Herod died in 1BCE.
I'm glad you raised the lunar eclipse as I mentioned it myself a couple of times and quoted it, in case it should come up. Some apologetics site put the argument that the annular eclipse was more notable than the partial eclipse of 4 B.C (I looked up the NASA list) and so that had be taken as the one that was associated with Herod's death. But Josephus says there was an eclipse the night he killed some nuisances and the significant fact is not whether it was partial or annular, but it was that very night. That is perfectly adequate as a portent and the annular eclipse of 1 B.C is no reason to redate Herod's death, with the additional need to backdate the rule of Antipas and Archelaus for a couple years as a 'co - rulership', I think was suggested.
No, the eclipse doesn't stand up as a reason to scrap the dating we have any more than to puzzle about Joazar's apparent re-appointment is a reason to do so. You can of course beg to differ, but (as is always the case with apologetics) what the believer chooses to believe doesn't matter - it is whether he can produce persuasive reasons for that belief. Apart from the age of Herod -as-governor contradiction (which was thought to be a scribal error - such as the son of Sepphoris for son of Sabizeus or whatever), Josephus seems broadly sound on what happened and when it happened.
So we are left with a registration that looks - according to both Josephus and Luke - like the Roman tax census, and the 6 AD dating seems to stand up to question, while the equating of that with the swearing of loyalty to Augustus does not.
Thus, in the Nativities, in addition to the pretty clear contradiction in the movements and place of habitual residence of Joseph and family, we have a dating contradiction of over 10 years, and a different milieu. Plus of course, that means that the 'registration' did not apply to Galilee anyway. The argument that registering for anything would mean travelling to an ancestral city is hardly convincing and is refuted by that Egyptian tax census form, which also debunks the need for Mary to be dragged along.
I reiterate that these two conflicting stories were concocted using two different mechanisms (Herod and the tax census) to have Jesus, though a Galilean, actually brn in Bethlehem, because it was thought that the Messiah ought to be.
To put the tin lid on Luke's credibility, if Josephus is broadly reliable after all, Luke's reference in Acts (Gamaliel's speech) to the revolt of Judas in the time of the 'registration' and the revolt of Theudas (arrested by procurator Felix) are found in Josephus, but Luke gets them in the wrong order.
Matthew's credibility is dented by his clumsy propheseering and stooge -like plot -writing, never mind his resorting to dream messages when needed or his ludicrous mobile star.
For the reasons I have given, I'd say the nativities stand up as well as I claimed - as a test care for Gospel unreliability.
I have already dissected the resurrection, filletted the sermon on the mount, debunked the death of Judas and mentioned a few other howlers, such as John's missing resurrection and 'take up your mat and walk' in Galilee in the synoptics and Jerusalem in John.
Standing up in a court of law and 'witnesses don't always agree' is sometimes heard in apologetics. Well, while accepting the burden of proof, I'd say that four witnesses coming up with such contradictory, factually dodgy and demonstrably fabricated tales would find their testimony as soundly discredited as the Gospel accounts - other than to those determined to believe, no matter what.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-09-2016 at 01:00 AM..
I'm glad you raised the lunar eclipse as I mentioned it myself a couple of times and quoted it, in case it should come up. Some apologetics site put the argument that the annular eclipse was more notable than the partial eclipse of 4 B.C (I looked up the NASA list) and so that had be taken as the one that was associated with Herod's death. But Josephus says there was an eclipse the night he killed some nuisances and the significant fact is not whether it was partial or annular, but it was that very night. That is perfectly adequate as a portent and the annular eclipse of 1 B.C is no reason to redate Herod's death, with the additional need to backdate the rule of Antipas and Archelaus for a couple years as a 'co - rulership', I think was suggested.
No, the eclipse doesn't stand up as a reason to scrap the dating we have any more than to puzzle about Joazar's apparent re-appointment is a reason to do so. You can of course beg to differ, but (as is always the case with apologetics) what the believer chooses to believe doesn't matter - it is whether he can produce persuasive reasons for that belief. Apart from the age of Herod -as-governor contradiction (which was thought to be a scribal error - such as the son of Sepphoris for son of Sabizeus or whatever), Josephus seems broadly sound on what happened and when it happened.
So we are left with a registration that looks - according to both Josephus and Luke - like the Roman tax census, and the 6 AD dating seems to stand up to question, while the equating of that with the swearing of loyalty to Augustus does not.
Thus, in the Nativities, in addition to the pretty clear contradiction in the movements and place of habitual residence of Joseph and family, we have a dating contradiction of over 10 years, and a different milieu. Plus of course, that means that the 'registration' did not apply to Galilee anyway. The argument that registering for anything would mean travelling to an ancestral city is hardly convincing and is refuted by that Egyptian tax census form, which also debunks the need for Mary to be dragged along.
I reiterate that these two conflicting stories were concocted using two different mechanisms (Herod and the tax census) to have Jesus, though a Galilean, actually brn in Bethlehem, because it was thought that the Messiah ought to be.
To put the tin lid on Luke's credibility, if Josephus is broadly reliable after all, Luke's reference in Acts (Gamaliel's speech) to the revolt of Judas in the time of the 'registration' and the revolt of Theudas (arrested by procurator Felix) are found in Josephus, but Luke gets them in the wrong order.
Matthew's credibility is dented by his clumsy propheseering and stooge -like plot -writing, never mind his resorting to dream messages when needed or his ludicrous mobile star.
For the reasons I have given, I'd say the nativities stand up as well as I claimed - as a test care for Gospel unreliability.
I have already dissected the resurrection, filletted the sermon on the mount, debunked the death of Judas and mentioned a few other howlers, such as John's missing resurrection and 'take up your mat and walk' in Galilee in the synoptics and Jerusalem in John.
Standing up in a court of law and 'witnesses don't always agree' is sometimes heard in apologetics. Well, while accepting the burden of proof, I'd say that four witnesses coming up with such contradictory, factually dodgy and demonstrably fabricated tales would find their testimony as soundly discredited as the Gospel accounts - other than to those determined to believe, no matter what.
Well I gave you expert testimony that the 4BCE eclipse would not likely even be seen with the human eye and that it does not match any of the Jewish feast months.
I then provided expert testimony stating the the eclipse in 1BCE was in full view of the human eye and was position in the perfect place to be seen in Jerusalem.
Justin Schove in his book Chronology of Eclipses and Comets states:
"We find that the overall partial p-type [such as occurred on March 12/13, 4 B.C.] eclipses of Oppolzer were never noticed, and even the annular r-type were often missed. Most of the early records [such as Josephus] relate to eclipses THAT WERE TOTAL, either at the place of observation or within a few hundred miles of the track of totality.....Total eclipses are rare; at any one place the average is three times in a millennium..." (1984, p. x).
Schove then goes on to say:
"....[concerning partial eclipses] Such eclipses are more frequent than is usually supposed, for they occur about once every 2 1/2 years at any given location. However, the loss of light is smaller than heavy clouds would produce and partial eclipses usually passed unnoticed by the astronomically-unsophisticated chronicler....Astronomers, and those who have been forewarned, MAY notice an eclipse of magnitude 0.70 [70%] if they see it in a reflection, at sunset or through thin cloud or haze....The average person notices a thin solar crescent of a solar eclipse only when the magnitude reaches 0.99 [99%]" (ibid., p. xv).
Justin Schove in his book Chronology of Eclipses and Comets states:
"Total eclipses are RARE; at any one place the average is three times in a millennium" (1984, p. x). This, in itself, would have been a good reason for Josephus to mention this particular eclipse -- it would have been a momentous event in that part of the country, which everybody would have seen and commented on.
Theodor Oppolozer's Canon of Eclipses states
The eclipse of January 9/10, 1 B.C. is listed as eclipse #1,860 in (Dover, New York, 1962). That eclipse, according to John Pratt (Ph. D in Astronomy), was listed as total for 51 minutes near midnight and centered over 15 degrees east longitude -- which is perfect for having been observed in Jerusalem.
And what do I get from you? apologetic around the expert testimony.
I also showed that Augustus silver Jubilee held a registration buy supplying this information.
Let's take a look at the type of oath that was required by Augustus. An inscription from Paphlagonia that date to 3BCE states this.
In the time of emperor Caesar Augustus, son of a god, during the twelfth consulship, in the third year, on the day before the Nones of March, in Gangris in . . . oath that was completed by the inhabitants of Paphlagonia and the . . . Romans . . . engaged in business (pragmateuomenoi) alongside them. By Zeus, Ge (Earth), Helios (Sun), all the gods and goddesses, Augustus himself, and all his children and descendents, I swear with word, deed, and thought to regard as friends any of those they may regard as friends and . . . to consider (?) . . . as enemies any they may judge to be enemies for my whole life. I will spare neither my body, nor my soul, nor my life, nor my children for their interests, but in every way will endure any danger for the things that involve them. Whatever I may notice or hear being spoken, planned, or done against them, I will report it and be an enemy to the one saying, planning or doing any such thing. I will pursue and defend against anyone they may judge to be enemies on land and sea using weapons and arms. But if I do anything contrary to this. . . oath (?). . . or anything not conforming to what I swore, I invoke curses of total and complete destruction against myself, my body, my soul, my life, my children, my entire family, and my interests till the end of all my successors and my descendents, and may . . . the bodies (?) . . . of my family and my descendents not be received by earth or sea, and (the earth) not bear fruit . . . for them (?). . . In the same way, everybody . . . in the land . . . swore in the Augustan temples in each . . . district (?). . . by the altars . . . of Augustus (?). . . Likewise, the Phazimoneitians who inhabit what is now called . . . Neapolis (?) swore together in the temple of Augustus by . . . the altar (?).
Orosius, VI.22 and VII.2. states this about the registration and oath
"[Augustus] ordered that a census be taken of each province everywhere and that all men be enrolled...This is the earliest and most famous public acknowledgmentwhich marked Caesar as the first of all men and the Romans as lords of the world, a published list of all men entered individually...This first and greatest census was taken, since in this one name of Caesar all the peoples of the great nations took oath, and at the same time, through the participation in the census, were made a part of one society"
You tried to say the Egyptian census did not say people where to go back to their homes without quoting what it actually said. So I looked it up and you were wrong. It says the same thing Luke does.
Is it perhaps the Egyptian census of 104 CE that states that any everyone was to return to their own district?
"since registration by household is imminent, it is necessary to notify all who for any reason are absent from their districts to return to their own homes that they may carry out the ordinary business of registration....
To go along with all this we also have the testimony of
Eusebus , Luke's account, Matthews account, Justin Martyr account and Tertullian's account, which backs up the evidence of the information I supplied.
And what historical information have you supplied? Nothing but Josephus and your apologetic. Where is the historical confirmation to what you believe Josephus states?
I tried to show that there might be two different accounts of a census and gave you these reasons.
I still have reservations about a AD/6 census and Joazar is one of those reasons. Another is that while Archeluas was in Rome getting crowned as it were Josephus also says he was fighting in a war and took the eldest of 4 brothers prisoner. Herod died in BCE 1 and if Archeleus reigned 9 or 10 years (Josephus states both) and was disposed in AD/6 by Cyrenius that only makes 6 or 7 years. Thus you can see why I have my doubts about the date of AD/6 census
But of course if there was indeed two different census your thesis would fall apart so you won't have any of that.
Trying to shove what Josephus says back to the registration of that Luke spoke of is just ignoring all the information I provided. If you took the time to look at there being two different census the information I have given and Josephus would not have any contradictions. The only reason that there are contradictions is because you are backdating Josephus AD/6 to Luke's 3BCE registration.
However if you try separating the two accounts there would be no contradictions, but alas your thesis would fall apart.
As I said, the significant point about the 4 BC partial eclipse is that it was seen on the night Herod died, not that is was particularly noticeable. Unless the eclipse was so low a percentage that it might be missed or virtually unobservable in Judea, it does well enough as the eclipse Josephus mentions.
I don't think I need to comment much on the reat of what you posted. having failed to debunk Josephus, make the loyalty oath the 'Registration' of Luke (and you aren't the first to simply repost the text that refutes your position and claim it supports it) and appeal to various Church apologists and even the gospels themselves, as support for the gospels, you simply dismiss all the arguments I put as apologetics.
Well, I shall have to leave others to judge.
Yes, the oft quoted Egyptian order for registering for the tax, so far from supporting the idea of going to an ancestral city and family members having to register separately, it makes it a registration in you own city where you lived and worked, (and Luke says 'own city' too, but makes that 'ancestral city', otherwise it doesn't do what he wants. And it also makes it clear that the person signing on mentioned all his family members, so they wouldn't need to go along and sign up, especially if they were pregnant and a journey wouldn't be a good idea. And finally, if the registration' is the Roman census (which it looks like) it applied only to Judea. in fact I think Josephus states that.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-09-2016 at 07:36 AM..
As I said, the significant point about the 4 BC partial eclipse is that it was seen on the night Herod died, not that is was particularly noticeable. Unless the eclipse was so low a percentage that it might be missed or virtually unobservable in Judea, it does well enough as the eclipse Josephus mentions.
I don't think I need to comment much on the reat of what you posted. having failed to debunk Josephus, make the loyalty oath the 'Registration' of Luke (and you aren't the first to simply repost the text that refutes your position and claim it supports it) and appeal to various Church apologists and even the gospels themselves, as support for the gospels, you simply dismiss all the arguments I put as apologetics.
Well, I shall have to leave others to judge.
Yes, the oft quoted Egyptian order for registering for the tax, so far from supporting the idea of going to an ancestral city and family members having to register separately, it makes it a registration in you own city where you lived and worked, (and Luke says 'own city' too, but makes that 'ancestral city', otherwise it doesn't do what he wants. And it also makes it clear that the person signing on mentioned all his family members, so they wouldn't need to go along and sign up, especially if they were pregnant and a journey wouldn't be a good idea. And finally, if the registration' is the Roman census (which it looks like) it applied only to Judea. in fact I think Josephus states that.
You have soundly debunked him old chap. We can safely add Luke and Matthew's contradictory nativity to the list of Gospel tripe. As you have mentioned so often - the census was a literary tool to get Jesus the man-god to Bethlehem to be born. The story is laughable. You really have to be a plonker to believe that the Romans uprooted their entire empire and had people travel for days to sign a tax form at the home of some dead ancestor. That it was for tax purposes makes the story even more absurd because for tax purposes it doesn't matter where you are from, what matters is where you live NOW. And what kind of jerk would Joseph have to be to make his wife who is due to pop any day make a 90 mile journey on foot to watch him sign a tax form? She did not matter...only Joseph would have to have been there. Still, if one believes that angels are real and there was once a global flood when millions of creature fitted into a small boat, I suppose one will believe anything.
I think I have made a sound case for the Roman tax census as what Luke is talking about rather than the loyalty declaration. I would also say that Josephus' hints of Archelaus back -pedalling after assuring those demanding retribution for the death of Matthias that he would grant their request to dismiss the High Priest that Herod had put in place, and the messages he sent about how the punishment was deserved and all 'petitions' should wait until he's been to Rome must suggest that he did not dismiss Joazar untl he came back - and for a different reason. The emphasis of Pneuman's apologetic has changed from wanting explanation as to why Josephus isn't wrong to his having to find an argument that he is.
Rather like the evolution debate, claims that it is in dissarray and The Bible should therefore be the credible source, it turns out that the science is sound (I include history -method there) and there are just a few questions and unexplained puzzles and the odd error, like Herod's age, Joazar's re -election and what Archelaus did in the war, daddy, which are really verging on irrelevant quibbles when Matthew and Luke are roundly debunking one another.
I just had a look at the NASA site on lunar eclipses and, if I am reading it right (it looked to me like they had a date '00' B.C) there are a couple of eclipses every year, so the point Pneuma posted about rarity is pointless, really, and there were two annular eclipses, where the earth's shadow is smaller than the moon disc so it is is a small 'total' with a ring around in 1 BC, while there was a partial in 4 BC. It looked at least like a third or near half partial which is not going to be missed. So unless it ws in daylight or below the horizon in Jidea, there is no reason why this should not be the eclipse that marked Herod's death. we can perhaps allow that the story was Improved a bit so an eclipse mee weeks away becomes 'that very night'.
In any case, there is no real case to toss a partial in the bin and insist that only a total or annular would do to mark Herod's death. Herod's death in 4 BC, after all the discussion seems firmer than ever and no need to backdate the reigns of Herod's sons as a co -regency.
And Josephus, basking in restored credibility can tell us that ten (or 11) years of Archelaus' reign means that 6 AD conforms 4B.C for Herod's death and Herod's death 4. BC confirms the 6 AD date of the tax census and (since there seems no case that stands up for a Herodian date for the census) there is an 11 year discrepancy between the two nativities to add to their other monumental contradiction.
And now Bethany demands my attention, as it should since, unlike the nativities where they fatally conflict despite the apologetics efforts, and the attempts at prophecy are gruesomely poor, Bethany, despite the glaring contradictions is, on all the evidence, true, even though the 4 writers evidently wish it wasn't; and there is a unique gem in all the Bible. A true and genuine prophecy! Don't miss next week's inciting extallment!
You have soundly debunked him old chap. We can safely add Luke and Matthew's contradictory nativity to the list of Gospel tripe. As you have mentioned so often - the census was a literary tool to get Jesus the man-god to Bethlehem to be born. The story is laughable. You really have to be a plonker to believe that the Romans uprooted their entire empire and had people travel for days to sign a tax form at the home of some dead ancestor. That it was for tax purposes makes the story even more absurd because for tax purposes it doesn't matter where you are from, what matters is where you live NOW. And what kind of jerk would Joseph have to be to make his wife who is due to pop any day make a 90 mile journey on foot to watch him sign a tax form? She did not matter...only Joseph would have to have been there. Still, if one believes that angels are real and there was once a global flood when millions of creature fitted into a small boat, I suppose one will believe anything.
What's next old horse?
nice post old lobnut, made me chuckle. Yes, it is so easy to get bogged down seriously looking up tables of eclipses or Roman inscriptions, that one forgets that the Matthew story is a charming fairy tale that makes me choke up when I see it brought beautifully to life.
Luke is more serious (aside from genuflecting babies) as he uses history (rather than fantasy) as his method, but it is demonstrably bad history. And his geography is all over the map, too.
nice post old lobnut, made me chuckle. Yes, it is so easy to get bogged down seriously looking up tables of eclipses or Roman inscriptions, that one forgets that the Matthew story is a charming fairy tale that makes me choke up when I see it brought beautifully to life.
Yes, and it was as well they scrapped the shepherds' scene even though 'is it A.D yet?' was good. I suspect that the 'Balm' was originally misheard as 'bomb', but they decided it was too anachronistic and the 'dangerous animal' doesn't work that well.
But even discussing this spoof raises questions. Capricorn is December right? And there is no reason to suppose that is the right month. But those who attack this spiritually evolved film miss the point. Like the KJV, vs. mere original - based accurate translations, what the ACtual date was is irrelevant - what the spiritually correct later date (1), translation or facts are, is what matters.
Thus while we may one day (I gotta dream....) find a missing history recording the True doings of Jesus, son of the Father, that would be dismissed as merely the Jesus of the Flesh in which (as Paul says) we no longer have any interest. As with the Jews during the release custom (as unknown to Jewish Law and tradition as the Massacre of innocents is to history (2), we are invited to choose between the merely factual Jesus Barrabas of the insurrectionist and zealot persuasion and the spiritually true Jesus of Christianity.
No wonder Mystic rolled up saying that the history didn't matter and it was the Spiritual Jesus. Bible and Christian story that was all that mattered, and no wonder I told him to do what I did.
(1) For some reason 1 B.C rather than 1 A.D and the reason they go searching for Lunar eclipses then rather than a year later, and the "Nought B.C" - believers are close to Mocking at Sacred Things
I think I have made a sound case for the Roman tax census as what Luke is talking about rather than the loyalty declaration. I would also say that Josephus' hints of Archelaus back -pedalling after assuring those demanding retribution for the death of Matthias that he would grant their request to dismiss the High Priest that Herod had put in place, and the messages he sent about how the punishment was deserved and all 'petitions' should wait until he's been to Rome must suggest that he did not dismiss Joazar untl he came back - and for a different reason. The emphasis of Pneuman's apologetic has changed from wanting explanation as to why Josephus isn't wrong to his having to find an argument that he is.
Rather like the evolution debate, claims that it is in dissarray and The Bible should therefore be the credible source, it turns out that the science is sound (I include history -method there) and there are just a few questions and unexplained puzzles and the odd error, like Herod's age, Joazar's re -election and what Archelaus did in the war, daddy, which are really verging on irrelevant quibbles when Matthew and Luke are roundly debunking one another.
I just had a look at the NASA site on lunar eclipses and, if I am reading it right (it looked to me like they had a date '00' B.C) there are a couple of eclipses every year, so the point Pneuma posted about rarity is pointless, really, and there were two annular eclipses, where the earth's shadow is smaller than the moon disc so it is is a small 'total' with a ring around in 1 BC, while there was a partial in 4 BC. It looked at least like a third or near half partial which is not going to be missed. So unless it ws in daylight or below the horizon in Jidea, there is no reason why this should not be the eclipse that marked Herod's death. we can perhaps allow that the story was Improved a bit so an eclipse mee weeks away becomes 'that very night'.
In any case, there is no real case to toss a partial in the bin and insist that only a total or annular would do to mark Herod's death. Herod's death in 4 BC, after all the discussion seems firmer than ever and no need to backdate the reigns of Herod's sons as a co -regency.
And Josephus, basking in restored credibility can tell us that ten (or 11) years of Archelaus' reign means that 6 AD conforms 4B.C for Herod's death and Herod's death 4. BC confirms the 6 AD date of the tax census and (since there seems no case that stands up for a Herodian date for the census) there is an 11 year discrepancy between the two nativities to add to their other monumental contradiction.
And now Bethany demands my attention, as it should since, unlike the nativities where they fatally conflict despite the apologetics efforts, and the attempts at prophecy are gruesomely poor, Bethany, despite the glaring contradictions is, on all the evidence, true, even though the 4 writers evidently wish it wasn't; and there is a unique gem in all the Bible. A true and genuine prophecy! Don't miss next week's inciting extallment!
Well all I can say is when you use only one tenth of historical writings and ignore all the rest of the historical writings, and ignore what the experts say about eclipses; anyone can rearrange things to suite their own thesis, Christians do it all the time with the bible and you have done the exact same thing with your own historical bible (Josephus).
Does not matter to you that the eclipse in 4BCE was a partial p type eclipse which the experts on such things say were never notice. It does not matter to you that Augustus silver Jubilee and the evidence that surrounds it show of a registration in 3BCE.
All that matters to you is your thesis, and here I thought you followed where the abundance of evidence leads, but as you must ignore all other historical writings in order for your thesis to work you have shown me that you do not care about the truth of the historical accounts of things all you care about is your own thesis.
When one sets out to prove there own thesis one simply has tunnel vision and if things do not fit what they are trying to prove they simply ignore it.
Was there a registration in 3BCE? Yes
Is the unseen eclipse of 4BCE the logical eclipse of Herod death? No
Was the easily seen from Judea in eclipse of 1BCE the logical choice for the eclipse of Herod's death? Yes
I wanted a discussion from historical evidence, but instead got a discussion on your thesis.
A truly historical discussion would use ALL available historical writing and evidence, whether or not it fit their own thesis. You have not done this, so will bow out of the discussion, carry on.
P.S. that said I still enjoyed the discussion as it set me along another historical path, that of Josephus.
But it looks to me like you are doing the familiar old ploy of making a claim that doesn't stand up -calling the loyalty oath a 'registration' when it doesn't look like one after a bit of study. You ignore my point that Luke fits better the 6 AD tax census which was certainly a 'registration' and this has all been said before. You just seem to repeating the same debunked claims in the hope they will become undebunked.
It may be the case that total (or at least annular - and the 1 BC lunars were annular, if I read the tables aright) attracted attention on their own and some significant event was looked for. But the point about the partial on 4 BC is that Herod died the same night - or so Josephus says. And Judea is smack on the centre of the 4 BC visibility path, so the diagram showed.
Given that the reigns of his sons go back to 4 BC you either have to postulate a co -regency or redate the Roman census, and Josephus' credibility has stood up to your efforts to debunk it (1). An arguable lunar eclipse is just too thin to base a demand for redating on, when you actually have nothing else.
You presented your thesis, too and it was debated at length but as we saw, it didn't actually stack up, and I don't see a coherent argument such as you get from me. I set out what I am doing and how and what the evidence is, and so far it stacks up. In fact you haven't dealt with most of it, but just hammered away at points that were details after all.
Raffs made a good point: so what if we had to shift the nativity dating by 4 years? What if there was a Luke type registration in Herod's day? The nativities still contradict and don't work in themselves.
I will try to look at the points about Archelaus' participation in putting down the revolts, but it really is a detail. Your attempts to show the dating was wrong and all over the place did not stand up. You can't blame for wanting to get on with the next bit of a 'thesis' that I have to say has been worked out in full, whereas you seem to be presenting quibbles really, and mostly ones I'd seen and sussed on other websites.
Let me give you a preview to think about because I suspect our readers have had enough of Archelaus and Joazar to last them a lifetime.
The Synoptics all record that Jesus caused a disturbance in the Temple. Effectively it was evicting the traders in sacrificial animals and the money changers (2). Why does John not mention this?
And the gospels of John, Mark and Matthew all record the anointing of Jesus at Bethany, though there are differences in the details, but Luke doesn't have an account of this? Why do think that is? And I do not want to hear 'They didn't think it was important' or 'witnesses don't always agree'. And I will credit you enough not to resort to 'There were many other things that Jesus did..."
I'll be giving my own explanation shortly, but I'd like to hear yours first.
(1) The point is sometimes made (similar to the false "Bible skeptics denied the Hittites" claim) that Josephus on Masada was doubted, but the excavations confirmed his story.
(2) they would have changed mundane coinage in Temple silver which was needed to purchase the sacrificial beasts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
nice post old lobnut, made me chuckle. Yes, it is so easy to get bogged down seriously looking up tables of eclipses or Roman inscriptions, that one forgets that the Matthew story is a charming fairy tale that makes me choke up when I see it brought beautifully to life. 