The Trouble With Timelines

[Guest JragonFli]

I have not done all of the research on this one, and if anyone has, please provide a reputable link to it.

 

The gospels do not agree about the details preceding the birth of Jesus. Depending on which of the gospels you read, Jesus was either born in Bethlehem, and either immediately traveled to Egypt (Matthew) or immediately returned to Nazareth. .

 

 

 

Matthew 2:19 States that King Herod died after the slaughter of all male infants in Bethleham. Is the massacare recorded by contemporary historians? Herod died in 4 bc (doesn't bc mean before christ, so therefore he couldn't have died before christ was born?) I would think that this one contradiction is large enough to disrupt the entire religion.

* 8 BC — Herod accused his sons by Mariamne I of high treason. Herod reconciled with Augustus, which also gave him the permission to proceed legally against his sons.

 

* 7 BC — The court hearing took place in Berytos (Beirut) before a Roman court. Mariamne I's sons were found guilty and executed. The succession changed so that Antipater was the exclusive successor to the throne. In second place the succession incorporated (Herod) Philip, his son by Mariamne II.The book of Luke never mentions a slaughter.

 

The only historian who commented on the "incident" was Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius who lived from (395–423). Someone who lived so far after the event is not a reputable source, not first hand information.

 

 

Ok, so my question is this....do the inconsistencies mean anything?

[LordofGondor]

The BC/AD designation wasn't in use until centuries after the events described in the Gospels. Nobody really knows exactly when Jesus was born and some scholars place his birth before the year 0.

 

Not to say that the silence of historians regarding this event isn't telling.

[Heimdall]

Those inconsistencies mean everything…combined with other inconsistencies, they show the very lie of Christianity. Josephus loved to point finger at Herod’s various “sinsâ€, yet he never laid the slaughter of innocents at his feet. In fact he makes no reference at all to such a thing taking place. In closer examination, it would seem that Matthew (or some later scribe,) writing more than a century after the supposed occurrence, incorporated the Mithran or Krishnan myth of fleeing from a hostile king, just as he also incorporated the adoration of the Magi from the original Mithran content. Magi were the priests of Zoroastrianism, from which the religion of Mithra came (just as Christianity comes from Judaism). As for Nazareth, both Matthew and Luke are inconsistent with history, archaeology has shown that from the Neolithic period (a burial and cultic site) to a single farmstead in the late first century CE there existed nothing at Nazareth other than the tombs of the town of Yafa located less than a mile south. Yafa was a large enough town that during the 1st Jewish war the Romans killed 15,000 and carried away 2130 women and children into captivity/slavery. In the 2nd century CE a small group of priestly families fleeing the aftermath of the Hadrianic wars of earlier in that century settled in the area that would become Nazareth, probably extending and re-using some of the necropolis tombs. Such groups would only settle where there were no gentile inhabitants, which would rule out nearby Sepphoris (about 3 miles away). This hamlet lasted until the 4th century when it was surpplanted by Christians around what is now called Mary’s Well.

Nor do the gospels agree on just when Jesus was born. Matthew has it during the reign of Herod the Great (died 4 BCE), hence the story of the slaughter of the innocents, and Luke puts it during the census of 6 CE when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. That is at least a 10 year difference. Even then neither dates would jibe with recorded history. Matthew would have Jesus starting his ministry before John the Baptist and dying before John started his ministry and probably before Pilate had arrived in Judea. Luke would have Jesus starting his ministry after John died and after Pilate left Judea to return to Rome. Luke would also have the citizens of an independent country travelling to another country to pay taxes that they didn’t owe. All in all it can be shown that the Gospels are not inerrant and that the story they tell has to be taken with a grain of salt (more like a ton of salt). I leave you with this thought, if the gospels are errant, then they are no better than they myths of the Greeks and are not evidence of anything. - Heimdall

[Guest kcdad]

Those inconsistencies mean everything…combined with other inconsistencies, they show the very lie of Christianity.

...

I leave you with this thought, if the gospels are errant, then they are no better than they myths of the Greeks and are not evidence of anything. - Heimdall

 

Just a couple of thoughts...

 

1) Errors in timelines or misappropriation of historical events does not prove a religion a "very lie". It proves them to be human.

None of this texts were meant to be scholarly works... they are arguments or sermons meant to consolidate oral teachings in the churches.

 

2) I would say if the Gospel accounts are errant (which they are) then they are no better (or worse) than any other writings that came from that time and culture.

Josephus' writings are very suspect from a historical perspective as to their accuracy.

[Badger]

I would say if the Gospel accounts are errant (which they are) then they are no better (or worse) than any other writings that came from that time and culture. Josephus' writings are very suspect from a historical perspective as to their accuracy.

Indeed. Moreover, inaccuracy does not make text myth. Now, if Heimdall is right, then what we call "history" is actually Greeks' myths.

[Deva]

I would say if the Gospel accounts are errant (which they are) then they are no better (or worse) than any other writings that came from that time and culture. Josephus' writings are very suspect from a historical perspective as to their accuracy.

Indeed. Moreover, inaccuracy does not make text myth. Now, if Heimdall is right, then what we call "history" is actually Greeks' myths.

 

No, he was saying if you are calling the Bible "history", then you might just as well call the Greek myths "history."

 

Inaccuracy makes a text inaccurate. Is the Bible inaccurate or not?

[Badger]

The gospels do not agree about the details preceding the birth of Jesus. Depending on which of the gospels you read, Jesus was either born in Bethlehem, and either immediately traveled to Egypt (Matthew) or immediately returned to Nazareth.

Each Gospel tells its story somewhat differently. Mark and John doesn't say anything about Jesus' birth; Matthew and Luke says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matt 2:1; Luke 2:4-7). While Matthew is the only one who mentions the flight into Egypt, they all agree that Jesus was from Nazareth (Matt 2:23; Mark 1:9; Luke 2:39; John 1:45). Luke either knows nothing of an intervening trip to Egypt or he simply omits mention it.

 

Matthew 2:19 States that King Herod died after the slaughter of all male infants in Bethleham. Is the massacare recorded by contemporary historians?

No, we have no other records of the slaughtering of the innocents; not even in other Gospels. All we may admit is that the story is historically plausible, but that's all. "As we have already seen, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Herod was paranoid about potential rivals to his throne, and especially so toward the end of his life." (Ben Witherington III, New Testament History, p. 72) Witherington also points out that Bethlehem was a very small town, "meaning that we should not envision the slaughtering of dozens of children; indeed, one dozen may be the most that would have been involved. (op. cit., p. 72) That Josephus doesn't mention the incident is not nessecerily an argument against its historicity. "His silence," writes Witherington, "may reflect his ignorance of the matter, which would have been a small-scale action at most." (op. cit., p. 72) This is possible, of course, but I think more interesting is the fact that Luke doesn't mention the incident.

 

Herod died in 4 bc (doesn't bc mean before christ, so therefore he couldn't have died before christ was born?) I would think that this one contradiction is large enough to disrupt the entire religion.

"The trouble in regard to the date of the birth of Jesus really began in A.D. 525, when Pope John I asked a mont named Dionysius to prepare a standardized calendar for the Western church, reckoned from the date of Jesus' birth. Relying on the Julian calendar and the traditional date of the founding of the city of Rome, Dionysius set A.D. 1 as correspoding to 754 A.U.C (anno urbis conditae, i.e., from the founding of the city of Rome), with Jesus' birth date being set as December 25, 753 A.U.C. Unfortunately, Dionysius was certainly wrong about the year (he was off by at least several years) and may well have been wrong about the day also." (Ben Witherington III, New Testament History, p. 62)

[Neon Genesis]

One must wonder why only two of the gospels mention the virgin birth. Why doesn't Mark's gospel mention it when Mark's gospel was the earliest written canon gospel? Surely such an important and miraculous event would have been recorded in the all important first gospel? Bill Maher made a good point in Religulous. Can you imagine any news reporter recording an event like this and leaving out something as incredible as the virgin birth? It'd be like saying "Oh, we can just leave out the virgin birth. That miraculous event wasn't important to proving our claims."

[Badger]

No, he was saying if you are calling the Bible "history", then you might just as well call the Greek myths "history."

Maybe I was wrong. But the point is that even history writing is sometimes inaccurate; does that make it as (un)valuable as ancient myths and evidence of nothing? Nor it's right to say that if we take the Gospels as history, then we might as well do the same with myths. Wheter a text is meant to be taken as myth or history is question of genre. Well, anyway, there is no substance in Heimdall's claim.

 

Inaccuracy makes a text inaccurate. Is the Bible inaccurate or not?

I have no problem to admit that there may be inaccuracies in the Bible.

[Badger]

As for Nazareth, both Matthew and Luke are inconsistent with history, archaeology has shown that from the Neolithic period (a burial and cultic site) to a single farmstead in the late first century CE there existed nothing at Nazareth other than the tombs of the town of Yafa located less than a mile south.

It seems that first-century Nazaret was a small peasant village (Crossan & Reed, 2002, p. 18), with about 400 inhabitants (Reed, 2002, p. 83). "The general picture drawn from the archaeological data is of a village devoted almost exclusively to agriculture, though some artisans would have populated the village as well." (Witherington, 2006, p. 112-113) "Since Nazareth (Gk Nazaret) is not mentioned in the OT, in the Apocrypha or in rabbinic literature, some during the last century disputed its existence in NT times. In addition to an inscription mentioning it as a settlement for priests in the third to fourth century, exacations of recent years have removed every doubt (GBL II.1031-37) -- Remains dating from NT times consist especially of cisterns and silos hewn from rock, along with tombs." (Green, McKnight, & Marshall, 1992, p. 36)

 

Nor do the gospels agree on just when Jesus was born. Matthew has it during the reign of Herod the Great (died 4 BCE), hence the story of the slaughter of the innocents, and Luke puts it during the census of 6 CE when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. That is at least a 10 year difference. Even then neither dates would jibe with recorded history. Matthew would have Jesus starting his ministry before John the Baptist and dying before John started his ministry and probably before Pilate had arrived in Judea. Luke would have Jesus starting his ministry after John died and after Pilate left Judea to return to Rome. Luke would also have the citizens of an independent country travelling to another country to pay taxes that they didn’t owe.

Luke's account of the census is problematic. Nevertheless, both Matthew and Luke suggest that Jesus was born in or before 4 B.C. "Luke tells us that John the Baptist began his ministry during the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign. Augustus died in the summer of A. D. 14, and Tiberius assumed the throne later that year. This places the inception of John's ministry A.D. 29, or if inclusive reckoning of regnal years is involved (partial years counted as whole years), possibly as early as A. D. 27. Since both Mark 1:14 and Luke 3 suggest that Jesus' ministry began after John's (though how long after is not known), Jesus' ministry could not habe begun before A.D. 27, if not later. Luke then tells us that Jesus was about thirty when he began his ministry. The Greek word hôsei, translated "about," indicates an approximation that would allow a few years on either side of thirty. The talmud (b. Sanh. 106) says that Jesus began his ministry at the age of thirty-three to thirty-four. If this is close to correct, then Jesus by this reckoning would have been born about 4 B.C. Luke tells us that John the Baptist was born during the reing of Herod the Great as well (cf. Luke 1)." (Witherington, 2006, p. 63) According to Matthew 2:1-8, Jesus was born during the reing of Herod the Great (died 4 B.C).

 

Bibliography:

 

Crossan, J. D. & Reed, J. L. Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts. HarperOne (2002).

Green, J. B., McKnight, S., Marshall, I. H. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. InterVarsity Press (1992).

Reed. J. L. Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-Examination of the Evidence. Trinity Press (2002).

Witherington III, B. New Testament History: A Narrative Account. Baker Academic (2003).

[Heimdall]

"The general picture drawn from the archaeological data is of a village devoted almost exclusively to agriculture, though some artisans would have populated the village as well

a size of 400 individuals would preclude a synogogue, something Nazareth supposedly had...actually archaeological evidence is that there was only a small farmstead in that area...the much larger town of Yafa (less than a mile away)would have precluded anything larger in the area. History and archaeology actually begin to coincide with the discovery of a fragment of dark gray marble at a synagogue in Caesarea Maritima in August 1962. Dating from the late 3rd or early 4th century the stone bears the first mention of Nazareth in a non-Christian text. It names Nazareth as one of the places in Galilee where the priestly families of Judea migrated after the disastrous Hadrianic war of 135 AD. It is further strange that Josephus, who spent a season in Yafa, never once mentioned Nazareth, in fact the Roman lines during the siege of Yafa (as Josephus describes them) would have intersected Nazarteh, had it existed. Surely Josephus would have made that observation...LOL

 

Errors in timelines or misappropriation of historical events does not prove a religion a "very lie". It proves them to be human.

Major errors in the simplest things, such as the period of an individuals birth, in a manuscript that is hailed as the inerrant word of god does indeed call to task the veracity of a religion. It may seem to be a simple 10-11 year disagreement between two reporters but upon close examination you will see that if Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, he would have to be born prior to 4 BCE and most likely around 6 BCE (if you accept the “slaughter of the innocents” story). This would create the problem of Jesus starting his ministry between 24-26 CE, which would mean that he would be dead before John the Baptist started his ministry (13th year of Tiberias) in 29 CE and most likely would have been dead before Pontius Pilate arrived in Judea…which would make anything that Matthew said to be suspect…you know the old “once a liar, always a liar” thing…one of the reasons many historians question many of Herodotus’ reports. Now, If you accept Luke’s report of the birth occurring during the “census” conducted while Cyrenius was Governor of Syria, you run into many other problems. Jesus would not start his ministry until sometime between 36 and 39 CE and thus would not be baptized by John the Baptist who died in 35 CE, nor could he have been condemned by Pilate, who was sent back to Rome in late 35/early 36 CE. These two “gentlemen” would have been more accurate if they had been writing during the actual period that they supposedly wrote in. Witnesses would have known when Herod died, when Cyrenius was governor and when Pilate served…someone writing fiction nearly a century later would not have really known unless they had access to governmental records or a reliable historian…LOL…all these things add up to one whale of a tale…better known as a malicious lie to make people believe in a false religion.

 

Indeed. Moreover, inaccuracy does not make text myth. Now, if Heimdall is right, then what we call "history" is actually Greeks' myths

Yes, what Chrisitans call history is the same as Greek mythology…recorded history requires multiple sources, something that is not available when addressing the very existence of Jesus of Nazareth, much less the veracity of the Christian religion. We also have to take into consideration the various other “brands of Christianity and their even more different stories of Jesus (in many cases the name Jesus is not used, only Christ is used). Many of these sects, such as the Gnostics, are much older than what is now accepted as Christianity (called proto orthodox by some scholars) and tell a story not very similar to the so-called gospels…when the religion can’t get it’s story straight, it can’t be anything more than mythology…LOL – Heimdall

[Heimdall]

Figured this little matter should be addressed seperately:

 

Several things here…most scholars agree that Tiberius reign does not date before the death of Augustus, but even if it did, it would have only started in 13 CE when he was granted co-extensive proconsular powers with Augustus. This would have placed the 15th year at 28 CE..Still too late for John to have baptized Jesus before he (Jesus) was executed…As for Luke agreeing with Matthew…not true, Cyrenius was governor of Asia only once, Dignitas would have precluded a consular ranked individual from subjugating himself to an equal in rank…we have too many examples of this problem in Roman history, in fact Marius had to clean up one such example after two separate Roman armies were butchered by Germanic tribes because one general of Consular rank would not subjugate himself to another of equal rank, even though the second was a serving Consul. So it remains that Luke put Jesus birth at the time of Cyrenius only stint as governor of Syria (6 – 9 CE)…tired and much disproven apologetic attempt at reconciling the unreconcilable. - Heimdall

[Badger]

a size of 400 individuals would preclude a synogogue, something Nazareth supposedly had.

According to Luke 4:16 there was a synagogue (building) in Nazareth, but, as Crossan & Reed points out, archaeology doesn't support this. "In places like Nazareth there were no doubt synagogues in the sense of village gatherings and assemblies. But the only evidence for a synagogue-as-building at Nazareth postdates Jesus by some two centuries. The synagogue building that Jesus might have visited canno be discussed with any archaeological credibility, since there is no evidence whatsoever for any public architectural structure in the hamlet from Jesus' time or before." (Crossan & Reed, Excavating, p. 26)

 

It is further strange that Josephus, who spent a season in Yafa, never once mentioned Nazareth, in fact the Roman lines during the siege of Yafa (as Josephus describes them) would have intersected Nazarteh, had it existed. Surely Josephus would have made that observation.

I don't find it so suprising that Nazareth isn't mentioned untill later sources; why would it be? "Those who had learned to read and write in antiquity were the rulers, the wealthy, or their scribes, so that the histories, biographies, and narratives surviving from the past were mostly penned or dictated by powerful men. These very few atop the social pyramid cared little about the vast majority of people and what went on in small towns, rural villages, or countryside hamlets like Nazareth, unless they cause troubles or threathened stability and income." (Crossan & Reed, Excavating, p. 19) Moreover, that the Gospels mentions Nazareth as Jesus' hometown is interesting. Certainly, as Witheringont writes, it "is not a name one would pick out of the air to be the hometown of a messianic figure." (Witheringont, New, p. 111) Hence, it is not reasonable to think the early Christians invented the whole story about Nazareth as the hometown of Jesus (criterion of embarrassment).

 

Yes, what Chrisitans call history is the same as Greek mythology…recorded history requires multiple sources, something that is not available when addressing the very existence of Jesus of Nazareth, much less the veracity of the Christian religion.

You have some problematic statements here.

 

First, the genre of the canonical Gospels can't be "myth." Myths are something that belongs to primordial time, and there was sharp distinction between the primordial time and the present world in ancient literature long before Jesus' time. Moreoever, and this make it even more unlikely, no such genre as myth existed; myths were written in poetic genres. It is better to understand these Gospels as biography of some sort. "In very general terms, the Gospels can be likened to other examples of Creco-Roman popular biography, but they also form a distinctive group within that broad body of ancient writings." (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, s.v. "Gospel (Genre).") Luke, as an exception, is probable to be considered as a kind of ancient historiography.

 

Second, as far as I know, we do have multiple sources for existence of Jesus of Nazareth from both Christians and non-Christians.

[Heimdall]

Certainly, as Witheringont (sic) writes, it “is not a name one would pick out of the air to be the hometown of a messianic figure.” (witheringont, New, p.111) Hence, it is not reasonable to think the early Christians invented the whole story about Nazareth as the hometown

Why not, he had to be born somewhere to make the story believable…LOL…the earliest Christians such as Paul knew nothing of Nazareth, nor of a virgin birth, or Mary or Joseph…but that isn’t really important…Especially since the expression “Jesus of Nazareth” seems to be a very bad translation of the original Greek “Jesous o Nazoraios”, which means Jesus the Nazarene, coming from the Hebrew root word NZR, which means “Truth”, as shown in the 2nd century Gospel of Phillip, which offers this explanation:

“The apostles that came before us called him Jesus Nazarene the Christ. Where in “Nazara” is the “Truth” and Therefore “Nazarene” is “the One of the Truth”…” We do know that Nazarene is originally the name of an early Jewish-Christian sect – an off shoot of the Essenes. They had no particular relation to a city of Nazareth. The root of their name may have been 'Truth' or it may have been the Hebrew noun 'netser' ('netzor'), meaning 'branch' or 'flower.' The plural of 'Netzor' becomes 'Netzoreem.' There is no mention of the Nazarenes in any of Paul's writings. The Nazorim emerged towards the end of the 1st century, after a curse had been placed on heretics in Jewish daily prayer.

'Three times a day they say: May God curse the Nazarenes'.

– Epiphanius (Panarion 29.9.2).

It was the later Gospel of Matthew which started the deceit that the title 'Jesus the Nazorene' should in some manner relate to Nazareth, by quoting 'prophecy':

"And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."

– Matthew 2.23.

With this, Matthew closes his fable of Jesus's early years. Yet Matthew is misquoting – he would surely know that nowhere in Jewish prophetic literature is there any reference to a Nazarene. What is 'foretold' (or at least mentioned several times) in Old Testament scripture is the appearance of a Nazarite. For example:

 

"For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines."

– Judges 13.5.

Matthew slyly substitutes one word for another. By replacing Nazarite ('he who vows to grow long hair and serve god') with a term which appears to imply 'resident of' he is able to fabricate a hometown link for his fictitious hero.

So how did the village get its name?

It seems that, along with the Nozerim, a related Jewish/Christian faction, the Evyonim – ‘the Poor’ (later to be called Ebionites) – emerged about the same time. According to Epiphanius (Bishop of Salamis , Cyprus, circa 370 AD) they arose from within the Nazarenes. They differed doctrinally from the original group in rejecting Paul and were 'Jews who pay honour to Christ as a just man...' They too, it seems, had their own prototype version of Matthew – ‘The Gospel to the Hebrews’. A name these sectaries chose for themselves was 'Keepers of the Covenant', in Hebrew Nozrei haBrit, whence Nosrim or Nazarene!

In other words, when it came to the crunch, the original Nazarenes split into two: those who tried to re-position themselves within the general tenets of Judaism ('Evyonim'-Nosrim); and those who rejected Judaism ('Christian'-Nosrim)

Now, we know that a group of 'priestly' families resettled an area in the Nazareth valley after their defeat in the Bar Kochbar War of 135 AD (see above). It seems highly probable that they were Evyonim-Nosrim and named their village 'Nazareth' or the village of 'The Poor' either because of self-pity or because doctrinally they made a virtue out of their poverty.

"Blessed are the Poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven."

– Matthew 5,3.

The writer of Matthew (re-writer of the proto-Matthew stories) heard of 'priestly' families moving to a place in Galilee which they had called 'Nazareth' – and decided to use the name of the new town for the hometown of his hero.

First, the genre of the canonical Gospels can't be "myth." Myths are something that belongs to primordial time,

Actually that is not true at all…according to Merriam dictionary a myth is:

 

a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone ; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism — Orde Coombs> b: an unfounded or false notion

 

and according to Roget the synomyns are:

 

fable, legend

 

and the related words are:

 

allegory, parable; fabrication, fantasy (also phantasy), fiction, figment, invention; narrative, saga, story, tale, yarn

 

As you can see there is nothing there about primordial times – in fact we in America have had several myths grow up with our Nation….things like the Constitution is based on the Bible and American is a Christian Nation…LOL…we have also had myths grow up about our various heros and villians and in very short times…within a year of his death, Billy the Kid was said to still be alive and visiting many of the Hispanic ladies that he so favored and Elvis Presley was said to be a clerk in a 7-11 somewhere or had been kidnapped by a UFO…LOL…all myths, legends , fantasies, fictions, tales, or yarns…all MYTHS!

 

Second, as far as I know, we do have multiple sources for existence of Jesus of Nazareth from both Christians and non-Christians.

 

We have no sources for the non-Chrisitians that are not the author parroting what the Christians of his time (at least a century after the fact) had told him. Apologists often try to trot out such folk as Josephus, totallying ignoring that all but a small group of fundamentalist Christian scholars agree that the Testimonium Flavianium is a later insertion by a Christian scribe (probably Eusebius in the 4th century) and Tacitus, although it has recently been shown that the oldest extant copy of his works shows that the mention of Chrisitans is actually a later addition to the manuscript, that the original word was Chrestusions< which had been scrapped off and the word Christian added in it’s place. This ties in with Suetonius mention of an agitatior named Chrestus who was causing trouble in Rome during Nero’s time. You have to remember that Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the Elder were all friends and collegues. So unless you can trot out someone other than the tired old Pliny (who was asking about Christians and not Jesus), Suetonius (who was speaking of an agitator with a common Greek name) or Tacitus (see above) or such ilk as Lucius who was merely repeating what Christians of the 2nd century was telling him…then we have to say that we only have Christian sources and of them only Paul (who knows nothing of the basic gospel story) wrote in the 1st century the others were early to mid 2nd century inventions. - Heimdall

[mwc]

Luke's account of the census is problematic. Nevertheless, both Matthew and Luke suggest that Jesus was born in or before 4 B.C.

Except that G.Luke doesn't. In v1:36 Elizabeth is 6 months pregnant with John. Shortly thereafter Mary goes to visit and John leaps in her womb. Just prior to all this Mary is visited by the angel and told she will conceive. She should be 3 months along at this point. She stays for about three months then goes. John is born (5/6 CE). Shortly afterward the census is ordered (6 CE). This would give a 3 month delay between the birth of John and the 6 CE census. This is a 10 year gap between G.Matthew and G.Luke. Add 30 years and you're up to 36 CE. If John dies in 29 he was 23/24 with jesus being roughly the same age. Far too early to even hedge the age with an "approximately" 30 especially if we are to include the Talmud since that puts us 10 years out. John would have had to had been 10 years older than jesus but that would only mean that John was born under King Herod and it means Mary was pregnant for 10 years.

 

mwc

[Badger]

Several things here…most scholars agree that Tiberius reign does not date before the death of Augustus, but even if it did, it would have only started in 13 CE when he was granted co-extensive proconsular powers with Augustus. This would have placed the 15th year at 28 CE..Still too late for John to have baptized Jesus before he (Jesus) was executed.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica Online, Tiberius was the "second Roman emperor (AD 14–37), adopted son of Augustus, whose imperial institutions and imperial boundaries he sought to preserve." It also mentions that Augustus died in AD 14. The problem, however, is that there are different ways of calculating the years of Tiberius' reing and it could be fixed in any year between 26 and 29. (Meier, 1991, p. 374). We then know that Jesus began his ministry being thirty, give or take a few years, and died somewhere between 28 and 33. (Meier, 1991, p. 375) Both Matthew 2:1 and Luke 1:5 suggests that Jesus' birth came before Herod's death (BC 4).

 

So it remains that Luke put Jesus birth at the time of Cyrenius only stint as governor of Syria (6 – 9 CE)…tired and much disproven apologetic attempt at reconciling the unreconcilable.

As I said, the census here is problematic. But we have seen that Luke seems to know that Jesus was born before 6 AD.

 

Meier, J.P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Anchor Bible (1991).

[Ouroboros]

First, the genre of the canonical Gospels can't be "myth." Myths are something that belongs to primordial time, and there was sharp distinction between the primordial time and the present world in ancient literature long before Jesus' time.

Really? Where did you get that "fact" from? Christipedia?

[mwc]

Both Matthew 2:1 and Luke 1:5 suggests that Jesus' birth came before Herod's death (BC 4).

...

As I said, the census here is problematic. But we have seen that Luke seems to know that Jesus was born before 6 AD.

Those verses do suggest such a thing. But my post shows that either only John was born during Herod (causing a problematic 10 year pregnancy for Mary) or John and jesus were born within months of one another at the time of the 6 CE census (using G.Luke as the source). This would put G.Matthew and G.Luke at odds as well as place the start of jesus' ministry anywhere from 6 to 10 years to early (if John died in his early 20's in 29 CE and we use the Talmud to place the start of the ministry at 33/34 years). Backdating Tiberius only makes things worse.

 

mwc

[Badger]

First, the genre of the canonical Gospels can't be "myth." Myths are something that belongs to primordial time, and there was sharp distinction between the primordial time and the present world in ancient literature long before Jesus' time.

Where did you get that "fact" from? Christipedia?

"First, a myth is a story. Second, this story is concerned with the sacred in Emile Durkheim's sense of the word, that is, with persons or things surrounded with reverence and respect in the society where the story is told. Third, the events described in this sacred story are set initially in a previous age that is qualitatively different from the present age." (Carrol, 1996, p. 827-828). "In current study of religion the usage of “myth” tends to be restricted to the following sense: a narrative of origins, a study of the beginning of all things, a story of primordial time. If that is taken to be the primary meaning it obviously will have little or no relevance to the study of Jesus and the Gospels." (Dunn, 1991, p. 566) "Myths relate the events, conditions, and deeds of gods or superhuman beings that are outside ordinary human life and yet basic to it. These events are set in a time altogether different from historical time, often at the beginning of creation or at an early stage of prehistory." (Encyclopædia Britannica Online).

 

Carrol, M. P. (1996). Myth. In D. Levinson & M. Ember (Eds.), Encyclopedia of cultural anthropology. Henry Holt.

Dunn, J. D. G. (1991). Myth. In J. B. Green, S. McKnight, I. H. Marshall (Eds.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. InterVarsity Press.

Myth. (2009). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved March 03, 2009, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/400920/myth

[Ouroboros]

First, the genre of the canonical Gospels can't be "myth." Myths are something that belongs to primordial time, and there was sharp distinction between the primordial time and the present world in ancient literature long before Jesus' time.

Where did you get that "fact" from? Christipedia?

"First, a myth is a story. Second, this story is concerned with the sacred in Emile Durkheim's sense of the word, that is, with persons or things surrounded with reverence and respect in the society where the story is told. Third, the events described in this sacred story are set initially in a previous age that is qualitatively different from the present age." (Carrol, 1996, p. 827-828).

We're talking about the Gospels right? And I can see in this definition that the Gospels still fit. The Gospel stories were written 40-70 years after, and were written to describe and explain their past. It was to explain the beginning of their religion and faith. It was a qualitative different age when Jesus supposedly walked the Earth in Jerusalem before the fall 70 CE, compared to the Christians (Jews and non-Jews alike) after 70 CE.

 

"In current study of religion the usage of “myth” tends to be restricted to the following sense: a narrative of origins, a study of the beginning of all things, a story of primordial time. If that is taken to be the primary meaning it obviously will have little or no relevance to the study of Jesus and the Gospels." (Dunn, 1991, p. 566)

This one (as I said) is your Christipedia version. If Christians can reject non-Christian scholars then I can reject Christian sources. So this one doesn't count.

 

"Myths relate the events, conditions, and deeds of gods or superhuman beings that are outside ordinary human life and yet basic to it. These events are set in a time altogether different from historical time, often at the beginning of creation or at an early stage of prehistory." (Encyclopædia Britannica Online).

 

Continue to read the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Myths relate the events, conditions, and deeds of gods or superhuman beings that are outside ordinary human life and yet basic to it. These events are set in a time altogether different from historical time, often at the beginning of creation or at an early stage of prehistory. A culture’s myths are usually closely related to its religious beliefs and rituals. The modern study of myth arose with early 19th-century Romanticism. Wilhelm Mannhardt, James George Frazer, and others later employed a more comparative approach. Sigmund Freud viewed myth as an expression of repressed ideas, a view later expanded by Carl Gustav Jung in his theory of the “collective unconscious” and the mythical archetypes that arise out of it. Bronisław Malinowski emphasized how myth fulfills common social functions, providing a model or “charter” for human behaviour. Claude Lévi-Strauss discerned underlying structures in the formal relations and patterns of myths throughout the world. Mircea Eliade and Rudolf Otto held that myth is to be understood solely as a religious phenomenon. Features of myth are shared by other kinds of literature. Origin tales explain the source or causes of various aspects of nature or human society and life. Fairy tales deal with extraordinary beings and events but lack the authority of myth. Sagas and epics claim authority and truth but reflect specific historical settings.

It means a lot more than just what you said. In the definition of EB, the Jesus story definitely fits as a mythological story to explain certain aspects of nature and society, for instance, the Christian faith is explained as a mythological and supernatural event itself, in the Gospels. You previous definition from Dunn, is a restrictive definition, while EB has a wide definition.

 

So, sorry, the Gospel story is clearly a myth. They fit the description perfectly.

[Abiyoyo]

Tacitus, although it has recently been shown that the oldest extant copy of his works shows that the mention of Chrisitans is actually a later addition to the manuscript, that the original word was Chrestusions< which had been scrapped off and the word Christian added in it’s place. This ties in with Suetonius mention of an agitatior named Chrestus who was causing trouble in Rome during Nero’s time. You have to remember that Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the Elder were all friends and collegues. :

 

Do you have a source of reference for this documentation that the Annals were 'altered'? And I tell ya, even if that was the case, come on Christian, Chrestusions? Wow, that's a huge difference. Christus, Chrestus? Been wowed again. Heimdall, I'm just a little dismayed by that, and if you could, I would love to see the reference to that, or study. I will always stand corrected if I am wrong.

[Heimdall]

The problem, however, is that there are different ways of calculating the years of Tiberius' reing and it could be fixed in any year between 26 and 29. (Meier, 1991, p. 374)

In this case Meier (as much as I respect the man’s knowledge) is either attempting to present a case for explaining away the problems between Matthew and Luke and recorded history, or he is simply mistaken. We know that Tiberius was granted the powers of tribune and proconsul in 4 CE…However, he was not given equal imperium to Augustus (a necessity for assuming the powers of a "co-princeps" ) until 13 CE, when it was awarded at the time of his second Triumph. A verification of this is the coins of the period. Although there were coins of Augustus with Lucius and Augustus with Gaius dating from their acceptance as his heirs and their elevation to Consul. Coins did not begin to advertise Tiberius as successor until after 12 CE, evidence of Augustus’ reluctance at making him next in line to rule the principate. It is only after 12 CE that we start to see coins that include both Augustus and Tiberius, the definitive indication that Tiberius was co-equal to the Emperor. So at the very earliest, we can date Tiberius reign as beginning 13 CE, but since it was not declared a co-regency, it is traditionally dated by scholars to have started in 14 CE at the death of Augustus. When addressing the veracity of a story, one must use multiple sources...where the written history could be concieved as murky, a check of the coinage of the period will add verification/non-verification to the written record...in this case it shows that the co-princeps did not begin until 13 CE. One of my professors when I was taking my Masters in history pointed out that without multiple sources nothing could be shown to be the probable story.

 

Third, the events described in this sacred story are set initially in a previous age that is qualitatively different from the present age." (Carrol, 1996, p. 827-828).

I refuse to debate something as stupid as what a myth is….the term is used differently by different scholars and in different academic fields. In the broadest sense of the word a myth is a traditional story. However most scholars define the word more restrictively. To folklorists, a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and mankind came to be in their present form and some classicists argue that the category of myth should include non-sacred stories that do not explain the origins of the world. A good example (Buxton 18) is the classicist Richard Buxton who defined a myth simply as asocially powerful traditional story. All scholars agree that the distinction between fables, legends, folktales, anecdotes or fiction and myths is not always clear and time is not necessarily a factor, especially since traditions can be formed within one or two generations.

 

Do you have a source of reference for this documentation that the Annals were 'altered'?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9463515/The-Ques...n-e-llumination

Heimdall

[Abiyoyo]

Do you have a source of reference for this documentation that the Annals were 'altered'?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9463515/The-Ques...n-e-llumination

Heimdall

 

This seemed to be an independent studied, and emphasized trying to prove inaccuracy in the manuscript, just concerning the one word, out of all the other words that could have been studied. This man is not very easy to find, along with his work. Anyway, Everybody agreed that it didn't change the meaning of the word, just added familiarity to it.

[Heimdall]

Hmmm, wonder who "everyone" is? Considering that Suetonius refers to a certain Chrestus as a rabble rouser in Rome at the same time as Tacitus' reference to Chrestusions in the manuscript that was doctored at a later date, I would say that you have multiple sources there...LOL...seems that this method he has used is an established methodology that has seen much use and much success in revealing such diverse hidden things such as the writings of Greek mathematics, self-portraits of Leonardo Di Vinci, etc...I will counter with "everyone I have read agree with his findings:...LOL - Heimdall

[Abiyoyo]

Hmmm, wonder who "everyone" is?

Heimdall,

I meant everyone involved with the study you linked earlier. I couldn't copy and paste it, but it's toward the end.