September 11th: Happy Birthday Jesus?

[seer]

Awesome! Yeah, I really like that book, and I'm kicking myself that I can't find it. It's so helpful.

Well he has a book by book study on line: https://www.thenarrowpath.com/verse_by_verse.php

BTW my son created and maintains his site...

[Adrift]

Well he has a book by book study on line: https://www.thenarrowpath.com/verse_by_verse.php

BTW my son created and maintains his site...

Oh wow! That's fantastic. Tell your son I said thanks!

[seer]

Oh wow! That's fantastic. Tell your son I said thanks!

I will, thanks!!!!

[One Bad Pig]

The sun isn't the star of Bethlehem, if that's what you're getting at. Heiser believes that the star of Bethelehem was "Jupiter in its retrograde motion." Again from the transcript of the podcast,

Back again to the subject matter, let's talk about Jupiter. Again, we have a Jupiter/Regulus conjunction in Leo. Jupiter is important because it is... You can read a lot of astronomers here, but the best explanation for the "star" of Matthew 2 (whose perceived movement was tracked by the Magi) is related to Jupiter. Jupiter is well-known for what astronomers call "retrograde motion," the appearance of movement back and forth in the night sky. Jupiter's first conjunction with Regulus began on September 14, 3 B.C. (the year that we're talking about here) and it continued through September 11, 3 B.C. Then on December 1 of 3 B.C., Jupiter stopped its normal course through the fixed stars and began its annual retrogression (or backward motion). In doing so, it once again headed toward the star Regulus. Then on February 17 of 2 B.C., the two were reunited. So it's moving around a lot between 3 B.C. and 2 B.C.

Astronomers have known this for a long time. The perception of Jupiter's movement for just about everybody who kind of tracks on this thing is the best explanation for the star in Matthew 2. You have all this going on just before the Messiah is actually born and then on into the time when the Magi are going to start their journey. It takes quite a while to get to Bethlehem, so during that whole interval of time, Jupiter is doing stuff. This just becomes the best candidate for what the Magi saw in reference to Matthew 2. The timing is right, the Magi embark on their journey a year or so after Jesus was actually born, and this is what they're looking at. I have another footnote here about the terminology in Matthew 2:11:

In Matthew 2:11, where the child Jesus is referred to with the Greek term paidion, as opposed to brephos in Luke 1:41. While the former can be used of an infant or toddler, the latter is only used of newborn infants or children in utero. [MH: see reference in the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.] Martin (Ch. 5) points out that the account in the New Testament said the Magi saw the star rising above the eastern horizon

Again, you can look that up if you have Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. So Martin has done some homework here. He's not just making it up. But he's aligning the language quite coherently with the behavior of Jupiter. That brings us to the point where we've talked about the sign of Revelation 12, the signs that John gives us. If you're looking at the sky then, you have these other things going on, and I've narrowed our discussion to the Jupiter/Regulus conjunction in Leo. (Again, Martin has more if you want it.) That gives us a birth of Jesus on September 11, 3 B.C. However, that date was also the Day of Trumpets and it has a connection to Noah's Flood.

(note he also addresses OBP's comment here as well)

(an argument from silence isn't especially persuasive)

I'll note that the argument advanced here is hardly supportive of September 11 (or any particular day) as the date of Christ's birth; he's arguing from his conclusion. It's also rather hard to follow who's saying what in that indented paragraph; it looks like MH is speaking throughout, but only explicitly identified as speaking in the bold sections?

[Adrift]

(an argument from silence isn't especially persuasive)

Which argument are you referring to? If you're referring to the Magi knowing Micah 5:2, I think the only "argument" Heiser is making is a deductive one, a sort of flippant one at that since he apparently leans heavier against them NOT knowing it. It's not integral to the rest of the thesis, and this isn't a commentary or published work on the subject, but simply an aside on a Podcast.

What we know is that the The Magi appear to know something about the birth of the king of the Jews. Likely they know Isaiah 7:14 at least, but even if not, that still doesn't effect the thesis much.

As an aside, Dr. Heiser is pretty decent with contemporary scholarly sources. I don't know where he's getting the statement about "depending on how you read it, they could have known about Micah 5:2 [paraphrased]," but I'm almost certain it's something he picked up from a source like Malina, or Keener, or some other New Testament social-commentarian. If I had to guess, the logic probably goes something like this, the Magi are traveling in a caravan too large not to be noticed, and it makes sense to head towards Jerusalem and visit Herod on their way to Bethlehem. Matthew is painting Herod and the chief priests and experts of the law (who Jesus will engage with in the following generation) as the enemy. It becomes a challenge/riposte sort of thing between the Gentile Magi and the Jewish priests, who recognize the prophetic significance of Micah 5:2 yet apparently do not follow the Magi to find the king.

Or not. Like I said, it's not that important to the overall thesis.

I'll note that the argument advanced here is hardly supportive of September 11 (or any particular day) as the date of Christ's birth; he's arguing from his conclusion.

I'm not sure I follow. Why do you think someone would randomly pick Sept. 11th 3 BC as the day Jesus was born unless they thought that the evidence led to that date?

It's also rather hard to follow who's saying what in that indented paragraph; it looks like MH is speaking throughout, but only explicitly identified as speaking in the bold sections?

Yeah, I can see how it's a little confusing. It really helps to listen to the podcast, which this is a transcript of. In this particular citation he's quoting a blog post he wrote (which I believe has since disappeared) that he has now archived in a link to the Naked Bible Newsletter. In the audio, he's reading his own material on the subject, and interjecting at points. This podcast was created before he published his book Reversing Hermon where he goes into the subject in print. I don't have Reversing Hermon, so I'm relying on some of his online material. Sorry for the confusion.

[One Bad Pig]

Which argument are you referring to? If you're referring to the Magi knowing Micah 5:2, I think the only "argument" Heiser is making is a deductive one, a sort of flippant one at that since he apparently leans heavier against them NOT knowing it. It's not integral to the rest of the thesis, and this isn't a commentary or published work on the subject, but simply an aside on a Podcast.

What we know is that the The Magi appear to know something about the birth of the king of the Jews. Likely they know Isaiah 7:14 at least, but even if not, that still doesn't effect the thesis much.

Sure.

As an aside, Dr. Heiser is pretty decent with contemporary scholarly sources. I don't know where he's getting the statement about "depending on how you read it, they could have known about Micah 5:2 [paraphrased]," but I'm almost certain it's something he picked up from a source like Malina, or Keener, or some other New Testament social-commentarian. If I had to guess, the logic probably goes something like this, the Magi are traveling in a caravan too large not to be noticed, and it makes sense to head towards Jerusalem and visit Herod on their way to Bethlehem. Matthew is painting Herod and the chief priests and experts of the law (who Jesus will engage with in the following generation) as the enemy. It becomes a challenge/riposte sort of thing between the Gentile Magi and the Jewish priests, who recognize the prophetic significance of Micah 5:2 yet apparently do not follow the Magi to find the king.

Or not. Like I said, it's not that important to the overall thesis.

Cool. I appreciate arguments from social science.

I'm not sure I follow. Why do you think someone would randomly pick Sept. 11th 3 BC as the day Jesus was born unless they thought that the evidence led to that date?

It's not random, as that's a date linked with Jupiter's conjuntction with Regulus. I just think that the link between that date and Jesus' birth is rather tenuous.

Yeah, I can see how it's a little confusing. It really helps to listen to the podcast, which this is a transcript of. In this particular citation he's quoting a blog post he wrote (which I believe has since disappeared) that he has now archived in a link to the Naked Bible Newsletter. In the audio, he's reading his own material on the subject, and interjecting at points. This podcast was created before he published his book Reversing Hermon where he goes into the subject in print. I don't have Reversing Hermon, so I'm relying on some of his online material. Sorry for the confusion.

Thanks.

[Adrift]

It's not random, as that's a date linked with Jupiter's conjuntction with Regulus.

But as Heiser points out, that isn't the only date that Jupiter comes into conjunction with Regulus within the window that we'd expect Jesus to be born,

"Jupiter's first conjunction with Regulus began on September 14, 3 B.C. (the year that we're talking about here) and it continued through September 11, 3 B.C. Then on December 1 of 3 B.C., Jupiter stopped its normal course through the fixed stars and began its annual retrogression (or backward motion). In doing so, it once again headed toward the star Regulus. Then on February 17 of 2 B.C., the two were reunited. So it's moving around a lot between 3 B.C. and 2 B.C."

I just think that the link between that date and Jesus' birth is rather tenuous.

Fair enough. If you haven't already, consider checking out the podcast. I know it's long, but I feel like I didn't do a very good job of explaining things here, and it might clear up any misunderstandings that I might have inadvertently caused.

[Faber]

There is a lot of speculation in this theory, but one hard fact: Herod the Great was still alive when the Magi arrived, but Herod died around 5-4 BC. That alone should blow this theory to pieces.

[Adrift]

There is a lot of speculation in this theory, but one hard fact: Herod the Great was still alive when the Magi arrived, but Herod died around 5-4 BC. That alone should blow this theory to pieces.

This is the critique I was waiting for, because this is the one that Heiser directly addresses in the podcast. Heiser points to scholarship that posits a 1 B.C. date for the death of Herod rather than the widely accepted 4 B.C. date,

Palestine Exploration QuarterlyNovum Testamentum

I've found a number of other scholarly resources that suggest a 1 B.C. date of death besides these as well. I don't think the articles referenced above are easily found online, but if you'd like a pdf copy of them, let me know and I'll send it in a PM.

[Faber]

Antiquities of the Jews, (Niese 14:158; Whiston xiv.9.2); War of the Jews, Book 1 (Niese 1:201-3; Whiston i.10.4).) Hyrcanus was given rule over Judea and Idumaea as Ethnarch.

* 40 BC: Parthians invaded Judea, overthrew High Priest and King Hyrcanus II and established Antigonus as high priest and king. (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 14, (Niese 14:330-51; Whiston xiv.13.3-6); War, Book 1 (Niese 1:268-9; Whiston i.13.9).)

* 40 BC: Herod was granted authority by Octavian and Marc Antony to rule over Judea as King of the Jews, presently occupied by the Parthians. (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 14, (Niese 14:386-9; Whiston xiv.14.5); War, Book 1 (Niese 1:285; Whiston i.14.4).)

* Summer, 37 BC, Herod captured Jerusalem and assumed position as king of Judea. Antigonus was slain. (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 14, (Niese 14:490; Whiston xiv.16.4); War, Book 1 (Niese 1:357; Whiston i.18.3).) It was during a Sabbatical year. (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 15 (Niese 15:7; Whiston xv.1.2).)

The ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus narrows down the date in which Herod invaded Jerusalem, defeated Antigonus and took over the throne over Judea:

This calamity befell the city of Jerusalem during the consulship at Rome of Marcus Agrippa and Cainius Gallus, in the hundred and eighty-fifth Olympiad, in the third month, on the day of the Fast.... (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 14 (Niese 14:487; Whiston xiv.16.4). Ralph Marcus, Ph.D., trans. Josephus, with an English Translation In Nine Volumes, Vol. VII (Jewish Antiquities, Books XII-XIV). (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1943; 1957) 701.)

War, Book 1 (Niese 1:370; Whiston i.19.3), trans. by H. St. John Thackeray, M.A. Josephus, with an English Translation In Nine Volumes, Vol. II (The Jewish War, Books I-III) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956) 173,175.)

War of the Jews and in Antiquities of the Jews, dating the death of Herod both from the time he was authorized by Marc Antony and Octavian to rule as king of Judea, and from the time he actually conquered Antigonus and took over the throne:

Herod survived the execution of his son but five days. He expired after a reign of thirty-four years, reckoning from the date when, after putting Antigonus to death, he assumed control of the state. (Ibid., 317. (Niese 1:665; Whiston i.33.8).)

Having done this he died, on the fifth day after having his son Antipater killed. He had reigned for thirty-four years from the time when he had put Antigonus to death, and for thirty-seven years from the time when he had been appointed king by the Romans (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17, (Niese 17:190; Whiston xvii.8.1). Ralph Marcus, Ph.D., trans., Josephus, with an English Translation In Nine Volumes, Vol. VIII (Jewish Antiquities, Books XV-XVII) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963, 1969) 459.)

Antiquities

Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:342-4; Whiston xvii.13.2), Marcus, op. cit. 531.)

[Adrift]

Yes, I know that that the common dating is 4 B.C. As I pointed out previously, some scholars suggest a 1 B.C dating instead. Would you like me to send those to you via PM?

[Teallaura]

<raises hand> Me, too?

[Faber]

The one argument of the 1 BC supporters that I agree with is this: Too many things happened, and more than one month was needed, for the events between Herod's death and the following Passover.

Here is a chronology of the events leading up to the death of Herod the Great and the massacre that took place in the temple court during the following Passover by Archelaus, Herods's son:

* Prominent Rabbis Judas ben Saripheus and Matthias ben Margalothus, and their students mistakenly hear that Herod had died. They tear down golden eagle which Herod had set up in the temple. (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:155; Whiston xvii.6.3); War, Book 1 (Niese 1:647-53; Whiston i.33.1-3).)

* Another Matthias, the high priest, is replaced by Herod with Joseph son of Ellemus in order to perform the sacred priestly duties.1 (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:164-5; Whiston xvii.6.4).)

* Herod orders the death of Rabbis Judas and Matthias and their students. Rabbi Matthias ben Margalothus is put to death by burning. (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:167; Whiston xvii.6.4); War, Book 1 (Niese 1:655; Whiston i.33.5).)

* A lunar eclipse took place that night after the execution of Rabbi Matthias ben Margalothus. (Josephus, AntiquitiesAntiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:171-2; Whiston xvii.6.5); War, Book 1 (Niese 1:656-8; Whiston i.33.5).)

* Herod returns to his palace at Jericho; he orders all important men in all villages to come to Jerusalem, then has them imprisoned. He changes his will, stipulating that they are all to be put to death when he dies, so that there would be no celebrations on the day of his death. (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:174; Whiston xvii.6.5); WarAntiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:183-7; Whiston xvii.7.1); War, Book 1 (Niese 1:662-3; Whiston i.33.7).)

* Herod changes his will again, eliminating Antipater from the will and dividing his kingdom to Antipas, Philip and Archelaus, and a smaller portion to his sister Salome. (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:188-9; Whiston xvii.8.1); War, Book 1 (Niese 1:664; Whiston i.33.7).)

* Herod dies five days after the death of Antipater. He had reigned 34 years since death of Antigonus, 37 years since he was proclaimed king by the Romans. (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:190-1; Whiston xvii.8.1); War, Book 1 (Niese 1:665; Whiston i.33.8).)

* Archelaus plans an elaborate funeral. The funeral procession travels from Jericho to the burial place at Herodium, twenty five miles distant, traveling only one mile per day. This would take twenty five days. (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:196-9; Whiston xvii.8.3).)

* Archelaus sets aside another seven days of mourning. (Josephus, AntiquitiesAntiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:202; Whiston xvii.8.2); War, Book 2 (Niese 2:1-3; Whiston ii.1.1).)

* Archelaus ordered the massacre of 3,000 worshipers inside the temple at Passover. (14 Nisan; around Wednesday April 11, 4 BC) (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:218; Whiston xvii.9.3); War, Book 2 (Niese 2:10-13; Whiston ii.1.3).)

Note the fourth point listed above, which connects the date of the execution of Rabbi Matthias ben Margalothus with a lunar eclipse. To complicate things, there was another incident with another Matthias at about the same time, the latter being the high priest. Josephus goes on to explain:

[Adrift]

Thanks for the breakdown Faber. They're good points, and, believe it or not, are actually addressed in the peer reviewed papers that I can PM to you. You're correct in assuming that part of the argument is that "Too many things happened, and more than one month was needed, for the events between Herod's death and the following Passover,

[Faber]

I'm definitely a BC/AD person. (Although I think that Dionysius Exiguus messed up on the year.) I think of the BCE/CE notation as a slap in the face of the Christian faith.

If you are interested in starting another thread on the subject, feel free to. (Maybe have these last few posts transferred to it.) Then send me the documents. They sound rather lengthy. Bring up some of the arguments so that everybody else can understand what we're talking about.