Christ's BirthYear

by badboy 18 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Fredhall

  Double Edge,

  Are you talking about stage research?
• 

  expatbrit

  Moxy:

  if anyone needs me to be die for the sins of mankind and be raised up a couple days later, lemme know. thatd be kinda cool. i could afford to miss a weekend to redeem the entire world.

  Well, you have to give credit where credit's due. It was a long weekend, after all!

  Expatbrit
• 

  Double Edge

  FRED:

  Double Edge,

  Are you talking about stage research?

  No, I'm talking about REAL research, compared to OPINIONATED research that's printed on little newsprint paper that looks like a pennysaver ad magazine.
• 

  Alleymom

  Reply to "aChristian" --

  Until just a few years ago, the date of 4 BC is the one that was most widely accepted for Herod’s death. Alternate dates had been proposed, most notably by W.E. Filmer in 1966 (he argued for a date of 1 BC), but the consensus was that Filmer had been refuted in a journal article by T.D. Barnes in 1968. (One author said that Barnes “decisively reaffirmed” the 4 BC date).
  
  However, in 1995 new information on the date of Herod the Great's death was presented by David Beyer.

  Beyer settled a long-standing argument about the integrity of the text of Josephus, Antiquities 18.106, by doing things the old-fashioned way: he actually visited the British Museum and the Library of Congress and examined all of the extant Josephus manuscripts. He found that an error had indeed been introduced into the text after the invention of the printing press.

  When the first PRINTED edition of Josephus' Antiquities in Greek was published in Basel in 1544, the printer apparently accidentally introduced some errors. Which is not surprising, when you consider the difficulty of printing and proof-reading a Greek manuscript.
  
  The reason Beyer undertook his investigation of the original reading of the Josephus text is that the previous articles by Filmer and Barnes had focused on the length and dates of reigns of Herod’s three successor sons: Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip as crucial to determining the date of Herod’s death. Five days before he died, Herod had his son Antipater killed (after receiving permission to do so from Caesar Augustus), at which time he changed his will and split things up among Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip. There are references in Josephus to their lengths of reigns, which –apparently-- confirmed the 4 BC date of Herod’s death.

  But back in 1966, Filmer had suggested in an article in JTS that there was an error in the text of Josephus in Antiquities 18.106. Modern critical texts have Josephus saying that Herod Philip died in the twentieth year of Tiberius, after a reign of 37 years. Filmer thought that a figure had been dropped out, and the number should really read twenty-second year of Tiberius. He pointed to claims that an 18th century monk had supposedly seen old copies of Josephus which read 22nd year of Tiberius.

  Barnes replied that this reading was "ill-attested", and there matters rested for fifteen years, from 1968 until 1995, at which time David Beyer presented proof positive to the SBL that the modern edition of Josephus’ text was indeed in error.

  David Beyer’s article "Josephus Reexamined: Unraveling the Twenty-Second Year of Tiberius" details the results of his examination of 46 early editions of Josephus at the British Museum as well as his examination of the holdings at the Library of Congress.

  He found that an error was indeed introduced into Josephus at the time of the first Greek printing in Basel in 1544. All previous manuscripts read 22, but the Basel printed edition read 20. This error was copied when the Latin edition was printed in 1548, and after that, virtually all editions read "20" rather than "22".

  The original "22nd year" reading yields a date of 36 AD for Philip’s death; if he reigned 37 years, that gives a date of 1 BC for Herod’s death.

  BUT … Beyer (and others) think it unlikely that Philip actually reigned all 37 years, in spite of the numismatic evidence.

  At this point in the article Beyer records an additional printing error. The early manuscripts read "32" instead of "37" for the length of Philip’s reign.
  
  There follows a section on the question of "de jure" versus "de facto" reigns, and Beyer returns to this issue later when he discusses numismatic evidence which supports the practice of antedating.

  He has a brief discussion of the possible lunar eclipses of March 4 BC and 9/10 January 1 BC, pointing out that the March 4 BC eclipse was only a partial eclipse of minor magnitude, whereas the Jan 1 BC eclipse was total. Beyer asks, "Why would Josephus single out a minor, almost unnoticeable lunar eclipse and make it the focal point of his account?"

  After presenting the data from his examination of the early manuscripts, Beyer then reexamines the testimony of the early church fathers. He makes the point that his suggested revised date of Herod’s death is in harmony with the testimony of the following church fathers:

  Source I. Tertullian
  Sources 2 and 3. Irenaeus and Origen
  Source 4. Clement of Alexandria
  Sources 5 and 6. Julius Africanus and Hippolytus of Rome
  Source 7. Eusebius
  Source 8. Epiphanius
  Source 9. Appolinarius of Laodicea
  Source 10. Orosius

  In Finegan’s 1998 revision of Handbook of Biblical Chronology, he accepts Beyer’s date, marking a major change in his chronology for the nativity of Christ.

  Finegan provides a summary of Beyer’s research in the 1998 edition, but if you want to read the entire article, it is:

  Beyer, David W. "Josephus Rexamined: Unraveling the Twenty-Second Year of Tiberius," pp. 85-96. Chronos, Kairos, Christos II: Chronological, Nativity, and Religious Studies in Memory of Ray Summers. ed. E. Jerry Vardaman. Mercer University Press: 1998. ISBN 0-86554-582-0

  I don't know if Beyer's article is available on the internet, but I have a paper copy which I have scanned and saved as a Word file (except the charts got messed up). I could email it to you if you are interested.

  Beyer's conclusions seem to be sound, based as they are on his examinations of the actual manuscripts. For someone of the stature of Finegan to have accepted it and revised his chronology accordingly is extremely significant. It will probably take awhile for this to become common knowledge (encyclopedias, for instance), but I believe it will definitely become the accepted date in academia.

  Regards,
  Marjorie Alley

  [edited for a typo]
• 

  aChristian

  Marjorie,

  You wrote: I don't know if Beyer's article is available on the internet, but I have a paper copy which I have scanned and saved as a Word file (except the charts got messed up). I could email it to you if you are interested.

  I would be interested in reading it. Thank you. I have a copy of Jack Finegan's "Handbook Of Biblical Chronology" published in 1964. I knew of his 1998 revision, which you say discusses Beyer's article, but was unaware that it contained any significant changes from his original work.

  The fact of the matter is, I don't really believe that determining the correct date of Herod's death is necessary in order for us to ascertain the time of Christ's birth. The primary reason I discussed the time of Herod's death was that Badboy who started this thread said in his opening post that Herod died in 6 BC, which of course would make a 5 BC birth date for Jesus an impossibility since Herod died after Christ's birth. If you read my first post in this thread you saw that I date Christ's birth to 5 BC by understanding AD 29 to be "the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar" at which time John the baptist's ministry culminated with his baptism of Jesus, and by understanding that John's ministry began 3 and 1/2 years earlier at age thirty, and by understanding that John was six months older than Jesus.

  The Bible tells us that Herod died after Christ's birth. It seems to imply that his death occurred shortly after he ordered the killing of male children two years old and under. However, it does not actually tell us how long afterwards Herod lived. It may very well have been five years.

  Have you read Finegan's revised work? In it does he continue to maintain that "A date for the birth of Jesus sometime in the winter of 5/4 B.C. best satisfies all the available evidence," as he did in his first edition? (page 248)

  Mike
• 

  Alleymom

  Mike --

  Have you read Finegan's revised work? In it does he continue to maintain that "A date for the birth of Jesus sometime in the winter of 5/4 B.C. best satisfies all the available evidence," as he did in his first edition? (page 248)

  
  Yes, I have a copy of it, and no, he no longer holds to his 1964 edition's date of 5/4 BC. If you re-read my post, I said:

  For someone of the stature of Finegan to have accepted it and revised his chronology is extremely significant.

  I guess that wasn't too clear ... I meant that Finegan accepts Beyer's new date for the death of Herod and Finegan has revised his chronology for the birth of Christ accordingly. If you are interested in chronology, you should probably go ahead and invest in a copy of the revised edition. I also recommend Chronos, Kairos, Christos volumes I and II (vol. II is uneven but it contains the Beyer article).

  I don't really believe that determining the correct date of Herod's death is necessary in order for us to ascertain the time of Christ's birth.

  Yes and no ... if Herod's death is moved up to 1 BC, that allows for a 2/3 BC birthdate of Christ, since he was born before Herod died. OTOH, it continues to allow for birthdates considerably further back ... I know there are a few scholars who steadfastly maintain a much earlier birthdate for Christ, and I find their reasons interesting though not compelling <s>.

  My daughter and I will be gone all day today, but I'll try to email you the Beyer article later tonight or tomorrow, if you are interested.

  Regards,
  Marjorie
  (edited because I messed up the quotes)
• 

  Yerusalyim

  I personally buy the 6 BC date for several reasons. There is an alignment of the planets in 6 BC that works out quite well for the Star of Bethlehem (which not everyone would have noticed, only star gazers).

  Apostate man, you are quite correct in stating that Jesus was not necessarily born in a stable, at least in the sense most people think. The word used for "Inn" as in no room in the Inn, is also the same word used for "Upper Room" as in where the last supper was held.

  As far as Christ dying on a cross, the JW's would have to provide evidence that Christ's implement of death was NOT a "T" formed cross as this was the most common type of execution by crucifixion by the Romans.
• 

  aChristian

  Marjorie,

  You wrote: If you are interested in chronology, you should probably go ahead and invest in a copy of the revised edition [of Finegan's work].

  I am now ordering a copy.

  You wrote: I know there are a few scholars who steadfastly maintain a much earlier birthdate for Christ, and I find their reasons interesting though not compelling.

  You have not commented on my reason for doing so. I would be interested in hearing your opinion of it.

  You wrote: My daughter and I will be gone all day today, but I'll try to email you the Beyer article later tonight or tomorrow, if you are interested.

  Thank you. I am.

  Mike
• 

  Alleymom

  Hi, Mike --

  I just emailed you the Beyer article, so let me know if it comes through ok.

  You wrote: I know there are a few scholars who steadfastly maintain a much earlier birthdate for Christ, and I find their reasons interesting though not compelling.

  You have not commented on my reason for doing so. I would be interested in hearing your opinion of it.

  I wasn't thinking of the date you mentioned (5 BC) but rather of the 12 BC date which is definitely not mainstream.

  I really enjoy reading the various proposed chronologies: I like seeing how different scholars try to fit the jigsaw pieces together. You probably know about Nikos Kokkinos's Nativity conferences? Various scholars present papers which are later published. The two volumes of Chronos, Kairos, Christos were very interesting, with articles by well-known scholars such as Yamauchi, Martin, Maier, Hoehner, Kokkinos, Humphreys & Waddington, Kokkinos, etc.

  In fact, speaking of Hoehner, his book Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ is another one I have enjoyed, although it is a bit dated.

  Beyer's findings about the errors introduced into the printed editions of Josephus in 1544 will now have to be factored in as one more piece of the puzzle.

  Marjorie