The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Tired of wandering the lawless wilds of the AC&A forum? Have a friendly chat in our cozy, velvet-covered civility lounge. Alcohol not permitted, only the Kenny G button works on the jukebox. All undesirable types will be quietly escorted out the back door.

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby CL Moderator » Mon Jan 18, 2016 5:59 pm

CL denizens - please stay on-topic. The moderators will contact members involved in this dispute via PM very shortly. In the mean time, general questions and comments about rules may be civilly discussed on the Suggestions thread, and specific questions should be addressed to the moderators via PM.
User avatar
CL Moderator
recruit
recruit
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2015 4:55 pm

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby Rian » Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:18 pm

Re: questions, I don't really have any questions off the top of my head because I've studied this subject and am very impressed with the provenance of the NT. The number of manuscripts and the astonishingly high accuracy rate is really amazing. I've always enjoyed languages and mathematics/engineering, and this topic is very interesting to me.

Come to think of it, what I don't know a lot about is how the canon was chosen. Have you studied that much? I'd like to hear something on that, maybe after the truth value discussion.
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6204
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby Og3 » Wed Jan 20, 2016 6:42 pm

Rian wrote:Re: questions, I don't really have any questions off the top of my head because I've studied this subject and am very impressed with the provenance of the NT. The number of manuscripts and the astonishingly high accuracy rate is really amazing. I've always enjoyed languages and mathematics/engineering, and this topic is very interesting to me.

Come to think of it, what I don't know a lot about is how the canon was chosen. Have you studied that much? I'd like to hear something on that, maybe after the truth value discussion.

I have some information on that... and you'll probably find the criteria surprising.

More to follow.
Og3
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:46 am
Location: California, USA
Affiliation: Baptist (SBC)

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby Og3 » Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:48 pm

So... Internal consistency...

********* SPOILER: NOT FOR THE SQUEAMISH: *****************************

One of the points sometimes raised against internal consistency is that there are sometimes different details given by different gospels. Someone here in another thread raised the question of who was present at the resurrection, for example.

Two things must be considered in answering such a point: First, is the difference a matter of viewpoint? John and Matthew were Eyewitnesses and disciples; Mark and Luke record what disciples told them. Even so, different witnesses see different things. Not long ago there was a popular question about the color of a dress that had been worn to a public event: Because it was very close to the thresholds for what the different rods and cones of the eye report to the brain, each viewer saw it as a different color depending on the light and the person's eye -- black and blue, gold and white, gold and blue, black and white... It was a matter of controversy in the news for weeks. Different eyes see slightly different things.

Second, we must ask if the accounts are, in fact, contradictory. Many Bible writers assumed that readers knew the basic story that they were telling, and thus left our details that were not germane. You will note that no one ever recorded the color of Jesus eyes, the size of his sandals, or even if he wore sandals. Today, we would see those as necessary points of background and setting; then they were extraneous details. Thus we may have two versions of an event which are best understood when read as one account.

As an example, consider the two stories of Judas Iscariot.
[Mat 27:3-10 NIV] 3 When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 4 "I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood." "What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility." 5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. 6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10 and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me."

[Act 1:16-19 NIV] 16 and said, "Brothers and sisters, the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was one of our number and shared in our ministry." 18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)


One note here from the outset: It was not "Jeremy" [Jeremiah] the prophet whom Matthew is citing, but Zechariah, and unless Jeremy is a cognate of Zechariah, Matthew made a mistake. Up front, Matthew made a mistake. But let's look at the two stories. They appear to be radically different. One is explaining how Judas' apostleship came to be vacant; the other is explaining how even Jesus' betrayal by a friend fulfilled prophecy.

Looking at the second passage, from Acts, we see that he "fell headlong, his body burst open, and all his intestines spilled out." Now, is it common, when a person "falls headlong" that they burst open? No, not for living people. However, if "he went away and hanged himself," and hung there until the rope rotted, then it makes perfect sense that his body (being putrefied) might burst open. "Field of blood," indeed.

All of the other details mesh; the purchase of the field as a burial place for strangers, the thirty pieces of silver, and so forth. Judas "bought a field" but not by his own agency; rather through the agency of the priests. Thus the money is "Cast to the potter in the House of the Lord."

********************************** Okay, the squeamish can read this part. *************************************

So if make an argument: "The Bible contradicts itself; here is the story of Judas" we find that it does not, in fact, neither set of facts can be complete without the other.

In terms of internal consistency, if we read to understand and not to mock, we find that the Bible is internally consistent.
Og3
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:46 am
Location: California, USA
Affiliation: Baptist (SBC)

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby tirtlegrrl » Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm

If the rope holding his rotted corpse broke, would the body fall headlong, or feet first? Or would it become parallel to the ground before impact?
"I think it was, 'Blessed are the cheesemakers.'" -Monty Python's Life of Brian
User avatar
tirtlegrrl
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1816
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:23 am
Location: Oxford, UK (US citizen)
Affiliation: Whatever is both true AND good

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby Og3 » Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:43 pm

tirtlegrrl wrote:If the rope holding his rotted corpse broke, would the body fall headlong, or feet first? Or would it become parallel to the ground before impact?

The scenario that I envision is that his feet would hit the ground, causing his head to then project forward, throwing him onto the ground headfirst. Compaction and then impact strike me as a fitting scenario for "bursting open."

The word "Headlong" is PreneS, Strong's word G4248, which he defines as follows:
πρηνής prēnḗs, pray-nace'; from G4253; leaning (falling) forward ("prone"), i.e. head foremost:—headlong.
Which would seem to be consistent with the scenario I have outlined.

The later word Lakao, translated "Burst asunder" is usually meant as "to crack open," and the word translated "intestines" should probably be "bowels" or "innards," i.e. organs in general.

Many other versions, including the RSV and Young's Literal Translation have "Bowels," the HCSB reads: "[Act 1:18 HCSB] 18 Now this man acquired a field with his unrighteous wages. He fell headfirst and burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out."

(Strongs and translations from Blueletter.org).
Og3
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:46 am
Location: California, USA
Affiliation: Baptist (SBC)

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby Og3 » Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:50 pm

The question arises, then, how well can we say that the Internal consistency is proven or demonstrated?

I would tend to say that it meets the standard of a preponderance of evidence. Not all of the writers agree perfectly. Matthew cites Jeremiah where he means to say Zechariah. Different disciples give slightly different accounts, based on their POV. But I think that we can say that, barring contrary evidence or a clear and convincing demonstration otherwise, a preponderance of evidence in the concurrences of the accounts leads one to reasonably assert the Bible to be internally consistent.

And this leads us to a very large can of worms, the External Consistency. Is it reasonable to assert that the Bible is externally consistent?

Well, very simply, the largest issues with internal consistency comes from the Gospel of Luke. Luke makes a series of assertions regarding the timing of certain events. He states that, when Jesus was born,

1. Caesar Augustus was the emperor in Rome.
2. That Quirinius (alt. Cyrenius) was governor of Syria
3. That Herod the Great was the nominal King over Israel.

He later states that in the 15th year of Tiberius, when Jesus was "about thirty years of age," Jesus was baptized and began his ministry. We are then left to reconcile these external touch-points with other historians. We hit a speed bump almost immediately: The one historian who wrote the most about this region and this time other than Luke was ... Flavius Josephus: Our old buddy, whose dozen mss. from Latin translations in the 4th century can't hold a match to the New Testament provenance. So right away we have a problem; we're using a less reliable source to validate a more reliable source.

Were the Judge and the Vicar really having tea in the Rose garden with the Duchess when the murder took place? I know, let's ask the Bookie and the Barman! That is the circumstance in which we find ourselves when trying to validate the NT from Josephus. But it's the best we have...

If Josephus and Luke had wanted to be kind to future historians, they would have written everything with a cross-reference to Anno Urbi, or the "Year of the City (Rome)." We know that rome was founded in 731 BC, thus pinning things to the timeline would be easy. But... not so much.

There are two more or less direct references to Jesus Christ in Josephus' works, and we will deal with those later. But Josephus also gives us a timeline for several other events. For example, we read in Josephus that Herod the Great died after a long reign, and correlating it to other dates, we tend to place that death at 4 BC. We also know that Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6 AD, after Herod Archaelaus was deposed. So according to Luke, Christ must have been born after 6 AD and before 4 BC, and overlap of negative ten years.

This could be a problem.

As an aside, there were some unusual astronomical events in that period, which might be consistent with the "Star of Bethlehem:"

in 3 BC, 2 BC, and finally in 1 BC, there were a series of perfect conjunctions of Jupiter and Venus. Conjunctions of Jupiter and Venus happen from time to time, but a Perfect conjunction is very rare, on the order of "Almost unprecedented." I used a freeware called Stellarium to verify that these occurred on August 12, 3 BC*; June 17 of 2 BC; and finally August 22nd, 1 BC. During the period of September 14th of 3 BC through May 9th, 2 BC, Jupiter encircled the star Regulus. Finally, on the fifth and sixth of November, 1 AD, there was a quadruple conjunction of Jupiter, Venus, Mars, and Mercury.

If one were to attempt to pick a date for the birth of Christ based solely upon these astronomical events and the story of the Magi, one might hypothesize that the three passes of Jupiter past Regulus -- the King planet encircling the King Star -- made the Magi seek a King of Kings; perhaps heralding his conception. That the King Planet conjoined with the Planet of the Jews indicated a King of the Jews. This would set the birth of Christ at the third and final conjunction of Jupiter and Venus, on August 22nd, 1 BC.

The star(s) which sent them to Bethlehem could have been the quadruple conjunction (!!!!) of November 1 through 6, 1 AD.

But can we reconcile this with Herod and Quirinius?

Indeed, we can. Remember, we said that Josephus became fixed as a written source by printing onto paper in the year 1544. But if we examine the older mss. of Josephus, we find that an error was made in the last mss. copies, which then became the printed copies. Going to the older copies, we discover that Herod the Great died not in 4 BC, but in 1 AD, AFTER the birth of Christ. To correlate with this: Josephus states that there was a lunar eclipse in the month Herod died. Lunar eclipses (the moon passing through the earth's shadow) occur a couple of times each year, but they are not always visible. The Lunar eclipse in 4 BC which is sometimes matched with Josephus' statement about Herod was only a 37% eclipse as seen from Israel, and likely would have gone unnoticed to the common person.

The first eclipse in 1 AD, however, was a full eclipse, and was fully visible across Israel. It would make much more sense for this to be the beacon that Josephus intended to have mark Herod's death. So in regards to Herod, Luke seems to have been right.

But this still leaves Cyrenius to be reconciled with Jesus, right?
_____________________________
* the Gregorian calendar is used here and throughout, for simplicity.
Og3
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:46 am
Location: California, USA
Affiliation: Baptist (SBC)

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby searchengineguy » Thu Feb 04, 2016 3:25 am

Og3 wrote:The question arises, then, how well can we say that the Internal consistency is proven or demonstrated?

I would tend to say that it meets the standard of a preponderance of evidence. Not all of the writers agree perfectly. Matthew cites Jeremiah where he means to say Zechariah. Different disciples give slightly different accounts, based on their POV. But I think that we can say that, barring contrary evidence or a clear and convincing demonstration otherwise, a preponderance of evidence in the concurrences of the accounts leads one to reasonably assert the Bible to be internally consistent.

And this leads us to a very large can of worms, the External Consistency. Is it reasonable to assert that the Bible is externally consistent?

Well, very simply, the largest issues with internal consistency comes from the Gospel of Luke. Luke makes a series of assertions regarding the timing of certain events. He states that, when Jesus was born,

1. Caesar Augustus was the emperor in Rome.
2. That Quirinius (alt. Cyrenius) was governor of Syria
3. That Herod the Great was the nominal King over Israel.

He later states that in the 15th year of Tiberius, when Jesus was "about thirty years of age," Jesus was baptized and began his ministry. We are then left to reconcile these external touch-points with other historians. We hit a speed bump almost immediately: The one historian who wrote the most about this region and this time other than Luke was ... Flavius Josephus: Our old buddy, whose dozen mss. from Latin translations in the 4th century can't hold a match to the New Testament provenance. So right away we have a problem; we're using a less reliable source to validate a more reliable source.

Were the Judge and the Vicar really having tea in the Rose garden with the Duchess when the murder took place? I know, let's ask the Bookie and the Barman! That is the circumstance in which we find ourselves when trying to validate the NT from Josephus. But it's the best we have...

If Josephus and Luke had wanted to be kind to future historians, they would have written everything with a cross-reference to Anno Urbi, or the "Year of the City (Rome)." We know that rome was founded in 731 BC, thus pinning things to the timeline would be easy. But... not so much.

There are two more or less direct references to Jesus Christ in Josephus' works, and we will deal with those later. But Josephus also gives us a timeline for several other events. For example, we read in Josephus that Herod the Great died after a long reign, and correlating it to other dates, we tend to place that death at 4 BC. We also know that Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6 AD, after Herod Archaelaus was deposed. So according to Luke, Christ must have been born after 6 AD and before 4 BC, and overlap of negative ten years.

This could be a problem.

As an aside, there were some unusual astronomical events in that period, which might be consistent with the "Star of Bethlehem:"

in 3 BC, 2 BC, and finally in 1 BC, there were a series of perfect conjunctions of Jupiter and Venus. Conjunctions of Jupiter and Venus happen from time to time, but a Perfect conjunction is very rare, on the order of "Almost unprecedented." I used a freeware called Stellarium to verify that these occurred on August 12, 3 BC*; June 17 of 2 BC; and finally August 22nd, 1 BC. During the period of September 14th of 3 BC through May 9th, 2 BC, Jupiter encircled the star Regulus. Finally, on the fifth and sixth of November, 1 AD, there was a quadruple conjunction of Jupiter, Venus, Mars, and Mercury.

If one were to attempt to pick a date for the birth of Christ based solely upon these astronomical events and the story of the Magi, one might hypothesize that the three passes of Jupiter past Regulus -- the King planet encircling the King Star -- made the Magi seek a King of Kings; perhaps heralding his conception. That the King Planet conjoined with the Planet of the Jews indicated a King of the Jews. This would set the birth of Christ at the third and final conjunction of Jupiter and Venus, on August 22nd, 1 BC.

The star(s) which sent them to Bethlehem could have been the quadruple conjunction (!!!!) of November 1 through 6, 1 AD.

But can we reconcile this with Herod and Quirinius?

Indeed, we can. Remember, we said that Josephus became fixed as a written source by printing onto paper in the year 1544. But if we examine the older mss. of Josephus, we find that an error was made in the last mss. copies, which then became the printed copies. Going to the older copies, we discover that Herod the Great died not in 4 BC, but in 1 AD, AFTER the birth of Christ. To correlate with this: Josephus states that there was a lunar eclipse in the month Herod died. Lunar eclipses (the moon passing through the earth's shadow) occur a couple of times each year, but they are not always visible. The Lunar eclipse in 4 BC which is sometimes matched with Josephus' statement about Herod was only a 37% eclipse as seen from Israel, and likely would have gone unnoticed to the common person.

The first eclipse in 1 AD, however, was a full eclipse, and was fully visible across Israel. It would make much more sense for this to be the beacon that Josephus intended to have mark Herod's death. So in regards to Herod, Luke seems to have been right.

But this still leaves Cyrenius to be reconciled with Jesus, right?
_____________________________
* the Gregorian calendar is used here and throughout, for simplicity.

I think you are going out on a limb there OG. Most scholarly opinion is that Herod died around April 4 BCE.
See:
Barnes, Timothy David. "The Date of Herod's Death," Journal of Theological Studies ns 19 (1968), 204–219
a b Bernegger, P. M. "Affirmation of Herod's Death in 4 B.C.", Journal of Theological Studies ns 34 (1983), 526–531.

I hope you aren't gonna come out with the 2 census' theory? :) Caution: I can feel an ambush coming on...
Frisbeetarianism: is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck.
- George Carlin.
User avatar
searchengineguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3583
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 2:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia
Affiliation: Strict Atheist

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby Og3 » Thu Feb 04, 2016 11:52 pm

searchengineguy wrote:
Og3 wrote:The question arises, then, how well can we say that the Internal consistency is proven or demonstrated?

I would tend to say that it meets the standard of a preponderance of evidence. Not all of the writers agree perfectly. Matthew cites Jeremiah where he means to say Zechariah. Different disciples give slightly different accounts, based on their POV. But I think that we can say that, barring contrary evidence or a clear and convincing demonstration otherwise, a preponderance of evidence in the concurrences of the accounts leads one to reasonably assert the Bible to be internally consistent.

And this leads us to a very large can of worms, the External Consistency. Is it reasonable to assert that the Bible is externally consistent?

Well, very simply, the largest issues with internal consistency comes from the Gospel of Luke. Luke makes a series of assertions regarding the timing of certain events. He states that, when Jesus was born,

1. Caesar Augustus was the emperor in Rome.
2. That Quirinius (alt. Cyrenius) was governor of Syria
3. That Herod the Great was the nominal King over Israel.

He later states that in the 15th year of Tiberius, when Jesus was "about thirty years of age," Jesus was baptized and began his ministry. We are then left to reconcile these external touch-points with other historians. We hit a speed bump almost immediately: The one historian who wrote the most about this region and this time other than Luke was ... Flavius Josephus: Our old buddy, whose dozen mss. from Latin translations in the 4th century can't hold a match to the New Testament provenance. So right away we have a problem; we're using a less reliable source to validate a more reliable source.

Were the Judge and the Vicar really having tea in the Rose garden with the Duchess when the murder took place? I know, let's ask the Bookie and the Barman! That is the circumstance in which we find ourselves when trying to validate the NT from Josephus. But it's the best we have...

If Josephus and Luke had wanted to be kind to future historians, they would have written everything with a cross-reference to Anno Urbi, or the "Year of the City (Rome)." We know that rome was founded in 731 BC, thus pinning things to the timeline would be easy. But... not so much.

There are two more or less direct references to Jesus Christ in Josephus' works, and we will deal with those later. But Josephus also gives us a timeline for several other events. For example, we read in Josephus that Herod the Great died after a long reign, and correlating it to other dates, we tend to place that death at 4 BC. We also know that Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6 AD, after Herod Archaelaus was deposed. So according to Luke, Christ must have been born after 6 AD and before 4 BC, and overlap of negative ten years.

This could be a problem.

As an aside, there were some unusual astronomical events in that period, which might be consistent with the "Star of Bethlehem:"

in 3 BC, 2 BC, and finally in 1 BC, there were a series of perfect conjunctions of Jupiter and Venus. Conjunctions of Jupiter and Venus happen from time to time, but a Perfect conjunction is very rare, on the order of "Almost unprecedented." I used a freeware called Stellarium to verify that these occurred on August 12, 3 BC*; June 17 of 2 BC; and finally August 22nd, 1 BC. During the period of September 14th of 3 BC through May 9th, 2 BC, Jupiter encircled the star Regulus. Finally, on the fifth and sixth of November, 1 AD, there was a quadruple conjunction of Jupiter, Venus, Mars, and Mercury.

If one were to attempt to pick a date for the birth of Christ based solely upon these astronomical events and the story of the Magi, one might hypothesize that the three passes of Jupiter past Regulus -- the King planet encircling the King Star -- made the Magi seek a King of Kings; perhaps heralding his conception. That the King Planet conjoined with the Planet of the Jews indicated a King of the Jews. This would set the birth of Christ at the third and final conjunction of Jupiter and Venus, on August 22nd, 1 BC.

The star(s) which sent them to Bethlehem could have been the quadruple conjunction (!!!!) of November 1 through 6, 1 AD.

But can we reconcile this with Herod and Quirinius?

Indeed, we can. Remember, we said that Josephus became fixed as a written source by printing onto paper in the year 1544. But if we examine the older mss. of Josephus, we find that an error was made in the last mss. copies, which then became the printed copies. Going to the older copies, we discover that Herod the Great died not in 4 BC, but in 1 AD, AFTER the birth of Christ. To correlate with this: Josephus states that there was a lunar eclipse in the month Herod died. Lunar eclipses (the moon passing through the earth's shadow) occur a couple of times each year, but they are not always visible. The Lunar eclipse in 4 BC which is sometimes matched with Josephus' statement about Herod was only a 37% eclipse as seen from Israel, and likely would have gone unnoticed to the common person.

The first eclipse in 1 AD, however, was a full eclipse, and was fully visible across Israel. It would make much more sense for this to be the beacon that Josephus intended to have mark Herod's death. So in regards to Herod, Luke seems to have been right.

But this still leaves Cyrenius to be reconciled with Jesus, right?
_____________________________
* the Gregorian calendar is used here and throughout, for simplicity.

I think you are going out on a limb there OG. Most scholarly opinion is that Herod died around April 4 BCE.
See:
Barnes, Timothy David. "The Date of Herod's Death," Journal of Theological Studies ns 19 (1968), 204–219
a b Bernegger, P. M. "Affirmation of Herod's Death in 4 B.C.", Journal of Theological Studies ns 34 (1983), 526–531.

I hope you aren't gonna come out with the 2 census' theory? :) Caution: I can feel an ambush coming on...

"Most scholarly opinion" relies upon editions and copies of Josephus that were after the 1544 transcription error.

Go to the oldest copies, and you'll find that they tell you Herod died later, likely in 1 AD. Besides, the second lunar eclipse of 4 BC would likely not be noticeable from Jerusalem; the one in early 1 AD would have been glaringly obvious.

But... what about Quirinius?
Og3
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:46 am
Location: California, USA
Affiliation: Baptist (SBC)

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby searchengineguy » Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:59 am

Og3 wrote:Go to the oldest copies, and you'll find that they tell you Herod died later, likely in 1 AD. Besides, the second lunar eclipse of 4 BC would likely not be noticeable from Jerusalem; the one in early 1 AD would have been glaringly obvious.

But... what about Quirinius?


Sorry OG, It looks like you are incorrect yet again.

This why most scholars say it was 4 BCE:

1. Josephus noted that Herod was first appointed king in 40 BCE and then reigned for 36 years - so he died in 4 BCE.
2. Josephus records that after Herod became king, he conquered Jerusalem in 37 B.C. & reigned for 33 years - so he died in 4 BCE.
3. Josephus records that Herod died between a lunar eclipse and Passover. So In 4 BCE, there was a partial lunar eclipse exactly 29 days before Passover.
and the biggy...Drum roll please
drum-roll-please-2.jpg
drum-roll-please-2.jpg (10.18 KiB) Viewed 544 times


4. Herod’s sons took office in 4 BCE after his death.
See;
Grant, Michael. Herod the Great. New York: American Heritage Press, 1971.
Green, Robert. Herod the Great. New York: Franklin Watts, 1996.
Perowne, Stewart. The Life and Times of Herod the Great. New York: Abingdon Press, 1959.
Roller, Duane W. The Building Program of Herod the Great. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.
Sandmel, Samuel. Herod: Profile of a Tyrant. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, 1967.

Yes, then what about Quirinius? I hope you are going to the 3 year lag or the 2nd census... but don't let me steal your thunder. Remember this ain't my first rodeo :)
Frisbeetarianism: is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck.
- George Carlin.
User avatar
searchengineguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3583
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 2:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia
Affiliation: Strict Atheist

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby Og3 » Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:00 am

I am coming back to this, SEG.

In the meantime -- you still seem to be going with the received string of Josephus, and not with the older MSS. Oldest MSS. say that Herod reigned 40 years, and 36 in Jerusalem, if I have them right. I cited sources in the Josephus / Tacitus thread.

There are a couple of lunar eclipses each year, and the 4 BC would probably not be visible from Jerusalem (Occluded, about a 37% eclipse) but the 1 AD lunar eclipse would have been blatantly obvious at Jerusalem.

More as time permits.
Og3
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:46 am
Location: California, USA
Affiliation: Baptist (SBC)

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby searchengineguy » Tue Feb 09, 2016 6:28 am

Og3 wrote:I am coming back to this, SEG.

In the meantime -- you still seem to be going with the received string of Josephus, and not with the older MSS. Oldest MSS. say that Herod reigned 40 years, and 36 in Jerusalem, if I have them right. I cited sources in the Josephus / Tacitus thread.

There are a couple of lunar eclipses each year, and the 4 BC would probably not be visible from Jerusalem (Occluded, about a 37% eclipse) but the 1 AD lunar eclipse would have been blatantly obvious at Jerusalem.

More as time permits.

No worries. Have you heard of the Jesus Seminar? It consists of a bunch of scholars and historians that were a lot more learned than yourself and moi.
According to the Jesus Seminar Beliefs listed in Wiki:

Jesus of Nazareth was born during the reign of Herod the Great.
His mother's name was Mary, and he had a human father whose name may not have been Joseph.
Jesus was born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem.
Jesus was an itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts.
Jesus practiced faith healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic.
He did not walk on water, feed the multitude with loaves and fishes, change water into wine or raise Lazarus from the dead.
Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified by the Romans.
He was executed as a public nuisance, not for claiming to be the Son of God.
The empty tomb is a fiction – Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead.
Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter and Mary Magdalene
Frisbeetarianism: is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck.
- George Carlin.
User avatar
searchengineguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3583
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 2:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia
Affiliation: Strict Atheist

Re: The Bible: An Introduction with Q & A.

Postby searchengineguy » Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:31 am

Og3 wrote:There are a couple of lunar eclipses each year, and the 4 BC would probably not be visible from Jerusalem (Occluded, about a 37% eclipse) but the 1 AD lunar eclipse would have been blatantly obvious at Jerusalem.

More as time permits.

Here is another reason why that doesn't hold much water Og. There is a Jewish fast scroll called the "Fast of Esther". It's a fast day that Queen Esther commanded for all Jews to fast before she approached the king.The day before Purim was on March 12–13, 4 BCE. So guess what? This means that there was an eclipse and a fast on March 12–13, 4 BCE, one month before Passover. This dovetails Josephus’s statement about Herod’s death by a fast and Passover.

The mention together of a fast and an eclipse evokes Purim, which always occurred at the full moon one month before Passover according to Richard Carrier.

He stated; "Josephus' strong suggestion, therefore, is that this eclipse occurred at the time of that festival - which puts Herod's death solidly in 4 BCE.

There is no way to rescue the Gospels of Matthew and Luke from contradicting each other on this one point of historical fact. The contradiction is plain and irrefutable, and stands as proof of the fallibility of the Bible, as well as the falsehood of at least one of the two New Testament accounts of the birth of Jesus."

But even if your dubious assertion is correct of Herod dying at 1BCE, That means Luke's version is still lying. This contradiction can't be resolved and smells strongly of being one of the biggest biblical fictional accounts.
Frisbeetarianism: is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck.
- George Carlin.
User avatar
searchengineguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3583
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 2:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia
Affiliation: Strict Atheist

Previous

Return to The Civility Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron