How does everything fit together... the Birth of Jesus, and what follows !

[Pilgrimer]

@Pilgrimer, it seems to me that you have made a number of assumption in coming to the conclusions that you did in coming to your understanding of the story of the birth of Christ.

If one takes the Gospel story found in Matthew Luke and Mark and arranges it in chorological order of when the respective events took place, then the arranged respective Biblical passages would look something like this: -

I have found the following breakdown of the early life of Christ, helps in putting the story in an understandable order for me to read. Perhaps this is of some use to others: -


Introduction to the story of Christ: -Matthew 1:1-17, Mark 1:1, Luke 1:1-4, John 1:1-5
Gabriel’s prophetic declaration of John the Baptist’s birth to Zechariah in the temple: - Luke 1:5-25
Mary hears the news from the angel Gabriel that she is to conceive a child: - Luke 1:26-38
Mary visits Elisabeth: - Luke 1:39-56
Joseph is told of the reason for Mary’s pregnancy: - Matt 1:18-25a
Joseph takes Mary with him to Bethlehem.: - Luke 2:1-5
Jesus is born: - Luke 2:6-7

Jesus is named: - Matt 1:25b
Angles tell shepherds out in the field of the birth of Christ: - Luke 2:8-14
The shepherds go to Bethlehem to see Jesus: - Luke 2:15-20
Jesus is circumcised: - Luke 2:21*
The wise men visit Jesus: - Matt 2:1-12

Joseph is warned in a dream to go to Egypt: -Matt 2:13-15
Herod has infants under two years of age killed in Bethlehem: -Matt 2:16-18
After Herod dies, Joseph returned to Galilee and dwells in Nazareth: -Matt 2:19-23

Jesus taken to Jerusalem and presented to the Lord: - Luke 2:22-24
Simeon takes Jesus in his arms and prophecies: - Luke 2:25-34
Anna comes to the temple and speak about the redemption of Jerusalem: - Luke 2:36-38
They then return to Nazareth: - Luke 2:39

The story of Christ’s early life occurred over a period of 45 days from the time that Christ was born of Mary until they returned to Nazareth after presenting Christ to God in the Temple in accordance with the Law.

The favour of God was upon Jesus: - Luke 2:40

* Please note that we are not told when Jesus was circumcised in accordance with the law. Jesus may have been circumcised while they were still in Bethlehem, but it is more likely that Jesus was circumcised after the visit of the wise men as they were journeying down to Egypt.

My understanding is that the journey time for travelling from Jerusalem down to Egypt was around five days and that the journey time from Egypt up to Nazareth would have been around three days longer, i.e. around eight days.

I hope that this helps you in sorting out the timeline for the early life of Christ.

Shalom

Shalom aleikem, mah smcha?

For the most part I agree with your chronology, but I believe there may be a couple of issues. The first is, you say the accounts of the nativity take place over a 45-day period, which means all these things were accomplished by February 8. However, Herod did not die until after the lunar eclipse, which we know occurred on March 13, the night after Herod had the highly respected teachers Simon and Matthias and their students burned alive for having pulled down the golden eagle Herod had placed over one of the Temple gates (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17, Chapter 6, 149-167). These historical events place Herod’s death sometime around the end of March, after the lunar eclipse of March 13 (allowing time for the events leading up to Herod’s death recorded by Josephus in Antiquities Book 17, Chapter 6:168 – 8:192) but before the Passover on Arpil 10 of that year (again, allowing time for the events that followed Herod’s death recorded by Josephus, Antiquities Book 17, Chapter 8:193-9:213).

The December 25 date for the birth of Jesus is unassailable as is Herod’s death occurring after the lunar eclipse of March 13. The lunar eclipse itself occurred some 77 days after Jesus’ birth, and then after Herod’s death the time it would take Joseph and Mary to return to Israel would have requried close to or just over two weeks (travel was difficult and according to those who have studied the logistics of the ancient world, a person on foot could travel approximately 20 miles per day, more for young, healthy males and less for the elderly and children. The distance from Jerusalem to Alexandria, Egypt, is 312 miles where the largest community of Jews lived anywhere outside Israel and where Joseph and Mary could easily be “lost” among the tens of thousands. At 20 miles per day that would be just over two weeks, possibly longer since Jesus was only two months old and even in the ancient world, traveling with an infant is difficult. That would add a bare minimum of 14 days plus the 77 to the eclipse and then another 10 to 12 days after the eclipse until Herod’s death racks up over a hundred days since the birth of Jesus. So I don’t think a 45-day window is possible.

Also, we do in fact know when Jesus was circumcised and received his name, the Scripture says: “And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcision of the child, his name was called Jesus.” (Luke 2:21) It was at the circumcision that a male child received his name, as witnessed by the account of the circumcision of John: “And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child: and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father. And his mother answered and said, “Not so, but he shall be called john.’ (Luke 1:59)

The circumcision of a male child on the eighth day of life was commanded in the Law: “And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.” (Leviticus 12:3)

It was also written in the Law that when a woman gave birth to a male child, she was “unclean” for seven days, and would continue in her purifying flow for another 33 days, making a total of 40 days. Once those days were accomplished she must present herself and her son at the “door of the tabernacle” and for her cleansing she was to offer a turtledove or young pigeon for a sin-offering and, if she could afford it, a lamb for a burnt-offering, a second turtledove or young pigeon if she could not afford the lamb. If her firstborn son had been her first child, then as with all firstborn males they belonged to God (in commemoration of their being spared when God passed through Egypt and slew all the firstborn sons of man and beast. Thereafter, all firstborn males, of man and beast, belonged to God and were “holy.” (Exodus 13:11-16) Originally, the firstborn sons were to be the “priests” of the families but after the sin of the golden calf, they lost their status and God appointed the Levites to the priesthood. But the firstborn sons still belonged to God and must be presented to him at the temple and the father must “redeem” him (purchase him back from God).

All of this was spelled out in the Law and since Luke records that: “And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcision of the child, his name was called Jesus” and also “And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to the Lord; (According to what is written) …” Luke 2:21-23 So according to Luke, Joseph and Mary did everything “according to the Law,” and the Law stipulated the day on which circumcision, purification, and redemption was to be observed. There is no reason to assume that Joseph and Mary fulfilled their duties at a time other than what was written in the Law.

Plus, you have the difficulty that when the Holy Family returned from Egypt, and Joseph heard that Archelaus was ruling in Judaea, he was afraid and was warned by God in a dream to not go into Judaea, so they would have had to take the coast road to get to Galilee. But by your reckoning, Joseph would have turned around and brought Mary and Jesus back from Nazareth to Jerusalem where Archelaus still ruled and which Joseph had been warned by God to avoid. Which hardly seems plausible.

So if you move the last portion of your chronology, Mary’s purification and Jesus’ redemption, up to the 41st day after birth as required by the Law, that would work out to February 3 being the 41st day of life and the day on which the Law required the mother’s sacrifice for atonement, shortly before the visit of the Magi which precipitated the flight to Egypt before Herod's death in March.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Understood. Not everyone is equally interested in New Testament History and Archaeology. But I'm not so sure the explanation you are holding to is so much the traditional explanation as it is the popular explanation. The historical explanation is a December 25, 5 B.C. birth and the death of Herod in late March 4 B.C., which means all of these events occurred within a three month period.

I just find that even the smallest little detail about the life and times of Jesus absolutely captivates my heart, and has for over 40 years.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

As do I , but I have learned that things that cannot be proven with a reasonable surety in the historic details, I do not worry about them. some hold one thing, some hold another.

Jesus birth was not celebrated until near the end of the fourth century when Dec. 25th was the compromise date to placate the nominal Christians who held to the Saturnalia and Bacchus festivals and the Christians.

But I hold to a fall birth of Jesus. and somewhere c. 4 B.C. according to our modern colander

 

[Jay Ross]

@Pilgrimer,

No disrespect, but you are making claims from the silence of the Gospel accounts.

Let me ask a question. If I were to travel to the USA from the east coast of Australia, across the Pacific, do I have to travel to Washington DC before I can say that I am in the USA? Anywhere after I have cross the west coast of the USA, I am in the USA. I do not have to go to Washington DC, to know that I am in the USA.

Somehow, my sense is that if I am travelling from the country of Israel, down to Egypt, I have entered Egypt, once I have crossed the demarcation line/border between Israel and Egypt. To be in the Land of Egypt, I do not have to travel to Alexandria as you have suggested to arrive in Egypt.

Also, the requirement for women who have had a son, is that they cannot go to the temple to be cleansed until after 40 days have passed. There is no stated requirement how long they can wait until they go to the temple to be ritually cleansed and to present their first born son to the Lord.

The Gospel accounts tell us that on their return from Egypt, Joseph, Mary and Jesus go to Nazareth to live and that they then go down to Jerusalem to the Temple, for Mary to be Cleansed, and to present Jesus to the Lord as their first born, before returning once more to Nazareth, which implies that they were already living in Nazareth when they made this journey.

Now we are also not told in the Gospel account, how long after the wise men had visited Jesus in Bethlehem, that Herod ordered all children under the age of two, in Bethlehem, were to be killed, but we do know that six days after the children in Bethlehem were killed, that Herod died. The gospel account is silent on how old Jesus was when Joseph took Mary and Jesus down to Egypt.

We are also not told the month in the Gospel accounts as to when Jesus was born, except that the Shepherds were out in the fields with their sheep.

We can make many assumptions, as you have also done as to how the storyline of the early life of Jesus unfolded. My statement that it took 45 days from the time of Jesus' birth until He was presented to God in the Temple, is, at best, a guess on my part, and is probably the minimum length of time that transpired for the unfolding of the story. We often exaggerate a tad when telling the facts as we see them.

Shalom

 

[Pilgrimer]

@Pilgrimer,

No disrespect, but you are making claims from the silence of the Gospel accounts.

Well of course we are “making claims” to try to fill in the gaps where the Gospels are silent. That’s what historical reconstruction means, establishing a chronology based on, first and foremost, what the Scriptures actually say, and secondarily, on verifiable historical evidence based on all available sources, ergo other writings and records and archaeological relics and discoveries or other hard evidence, such as astronomical and meteorological conditions from or nearest to the period in question. The point is, as diligent and sincere students, it is incumbent upon us to seek out and consider all the available evidence. Too often students do not have all the evidence (and in some cases no actual evidence at all) and yet they draw conclusions based on, at best incomplete, and at worst faulty information. That’s where historians, good historians, can help, but ONLY if they CITY VERIFIABLE SOURCES. I’m going to address that particular issue in the conversation that Ronald Nolette and I are having.

As to your comments about where in Egypt the Holy Family may have traveled, I am posting a separate note after this one on that point since it is quite lengthy.

On the point you made that a woman could bring her sacrifices at any time after her purification, that’s not quite accurate. If she was “unable” to go to Jerusalem at the prescribed time (many lived too far away and were only able to visit annually so would collect the money for their various sacrifices and offering- the "corban" -during the year until they were able to make the journey at which time they would make the required offerings). But that wasn’t the case for Mary and Joseph, they were only five miles from the city, a two-hour walk.

Plus, the Scripture does not say, “after they returned from Egypt they went to the Jerusalem,” nor does it say, “they returned again from Nazareth and went to Jerusalem,” nor does it say “and after the death of Herod they went to Jerusalem.” What it is says is, “when the days of her purification were accomplished,” they brought Jesus to Jerusalem. That tells us “when” they went to the temple, “when” the 40 days had passed “they went.”

And yes, the Scripture says they went to Egypt (before Herod died) and returned from Egypt (after Herod died) but were warned to not go to Judaea so they returned to Nazareth. What the Scripture does not say is that they left Nazareth and against the warning of God went down to Jerusalem in Judaea any way.

It’s not that Luke placed the visit of the Magi, the Holy Family fleeing, the slaughter of the innocents, the death of Herod, and the return of the Holy Family, at a different time than does Matthew, it’s that Luke doesn’t mention these things at all. Luke wrote his Gospel after Matthew had penned his and Luke basically filled in the gaps, he didn’t repeat what Matthew had already written nor did he cover any of the events Matthew had already reported (with the exception that they both report the conception of Jesus), and Luke finished his account with the purification and presentation “when” the 40 days “were fulfilled,” which again, would mean February 3, before the visit of the Magi (best calculation is the “new star” date reported by Humbolt in the records of the Chinese on February 23) and the lunar eclipse of March 13 and the following death of Herod at the end of March.

You said: “Now we are also not told in the Gospel account, how long after the wise men had visited Jesus in Bethlehem, that Herod ordered all children under the age of two, in Bethlehem, were to be killed.”

But I think the Gospel actually does give us some indication of that. It says after the Magi’s visit, God warned them in a dream not to return to Herod. Herod was in Jerusalem, only five miles away and they could have been there in an hour or a little more. Having seen the child they had come to pay homage to and having given him their gifts (which we know occurred at night) they probably would have either sought shelter at the inn or simply camped in the open fields around Bethlehem for the rest of the night and headed home the next morning. But it would be difficult to fathom that after being warned by God in a dream to not return to Herod that they would have hung around in Herod’s territory for a few days, they probably broke camp and left within the hour.

And the Gospel also gives us the sense that this was a matter of some urgency because that same night an angel appeared in a dream to Joseph and warned him to flee. And again, Joseph didn’t wait around, he immediately rose up and he and Mary packed up and left, during the night. I think it’s pretty clear that there was some sense of urgency after the Magi’s visit. We know they visited Jesus at night because they followed a star to his house. And based on Herod having been alerted about the birth and his desire to kill the baby, it is probable that all these things occurred the same night the Magi had visited, that they were warned in a dream to not return to Herod and they most likely packed up and left by the east/west road that led from Bethlehem across the “wilderness,” down to the Jordan Valley and then toward home, (because the Scripture says they left by another way, and that’s the only other road). And Joseph too had a visit in a dream and packed up Mary and left during the night. Herod’s soldiers could easily be there in an hour, so it appears all this happened very quickly, the same night. This is the only explanation for Joseph and Mary fleeing in the middle of the night. Had the massacre occurred some days later, why the urgency to leave in the middle of the night?

You said: “ …we do know that six days after the children in Bethlehem were killed, that Herod died.”

What do you base that on? Because that’s just not possible. Six days before his death, Herod was in Jericho. Josephus gives us a day-by-day account of the last few weeks of Herod’s life. It was on about March 9/10 that the golden eagle incident occurred. And on about March 10/11 Herod held the council of the elders to determine the fate of those who had taken part in the incident and at that point his disease had progressed to the point that he had to be carried to the stadium in a litter, he literally could no longer sit up. He deposed the High Priest Matthias and replaced him with Joazar and sent word to Jericho to have those who had raised the sedition burned alive. On March 12 his orders were carried out and that night (technically the early morning of March 13 at 3:00 a.m.) was the lunar eclipse (the only one ever mentioned by Josephus). That next day Herod despaired of his life and on the advice of his doctors left Jerusalem and went to Calirrhoe on the other side of the Jordan River to try to find a cure in the baths there. When he was placed in a vat of warm oil he fainted, and they thought (again) that he had died. But he revived and the next day he left Calirrhoe and went to his palace in Jericho. This would have been around March 15 or 16 based on the distances and travel conditions (they would descend from Jerusalem down into the Jordan Valley, and Callihor and Jericho were both down in the valley. There Herod summoned all the elders to convene in Jericho and after they had all arrived, on about March 19/20, he had them shut up in the Hippodrome with instructions to his sister Salome and her husband to have them all assassinated (“shot through with arrows”) as soon as he died, so that every family in Israel would be in mourning after his death. Evil man. While he was giving these instructions to his sister, the letter arrived from Caesar allowing him to banish or execute Antipater, whichever he thought best. Suddenly the news made Herod feel better and he asked for an apple. While peeling the apple he apparently thought about suicide, but when he turned the knife toward his heart a family member grabbed his arm and began frantically calling for help. And yet again the servants thought all the yelling meant Herod had died and they began to wail and mourn. Antipater heard all the lamentations from his prison near the palace and tried to bribe the guard to let him go, but the guard instead went and reported it to Herod. And Herod ordered that his son and heir Antipater be immediately executed and buried in an unmarked grave. And then, Josephus says, five days after killing his son, Herod died, horribly and grotesquely but one must say deservedly.

So with all this, it is not historically possible that Herod died six days after the Magi visited him in Jerusalem, because six days before he died he was on his deathbed in Jericho, which was about two weeks after he left Jerusalem.

As for exaggeration, most reputable historians will be conservative on their dates and estimates.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Pilgrimer]

As to your comments about where in Egypt the Holy Family may have traveled, of course it is not known with certainty. But it is doubtful that they would have just stepped across the border into Egypt and stopped in the middle of what was “the wilderness” of Sinai, the barren “wasteland,” without food or water and no kind of settlement or human habitation, but it is only reasonable to assume they would have at the bare minimum traveled to at least the first village if not a town or city where they could find shelter and provisions. And for Jews, that would would mean a village or town or city where there was a Jewish presense with a synagogue and they could purchase kosher foods. That’s why the Diaspora Jews tended to live in communities, “separate” even in the midst of gentiles.

The first community Mary and Joseph would have come to after crossing into Egypt would have been the border-fortress of Pelusium on the western frontier of “the wilderness,” the upper Sinai Peninsula. But it is unlikely that they would have stopped there as that would be the first place they would be sought if Herod had dispatched spies to seek them out, plus there was a heavy military presence there to guard the route into Egypt. It is more likely that they traveled on to Alexandria. And I do say “likely,” not definite. But there were only three communites of Jews in Egypt, and Alexandria was the location of the largest community of Jews anywhere in the Diaspora. When the city was founded, the Jews were given two of the five districts and they maintained a degree of autonomy unmatched anywhere else, even the community at Rome. The Jewish community at Alexandria was a very important center of Judaism, the “beautiful gate,” the Nicanor gate that stood at the entrance to the Court of Israel and was made of cedar overlaid with polished brass, was gifted by a wealthy Alexandrian Jew, and it was in Alexandria that the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek, and this was the site of the first Christian Church in Egypt founded by the Apostle Mark, author of the second Gospel, within a decade of the time of Jesus. But aside from the close connections betwee the Jews of Israel and their brethren in Alexandria, the primary advantage of going to Alexandria for the Holy Family would be their ability to settle down there in anynomity, had Herod sent messages to border towns inquiring or sent spies to try to track them down.

Just because all the historical evidence suggests Alexandria would be the most likely place they would have sought refuge, that does not guarantee it was. So let’s go with your idea, that they would have stopped at the first place of human habitation after crossing the wilderness, which would be Pelusium. That’s still, by land, 300 miles from Bethlehem. And at 20 miles per day, it would still take them 15 days to reach the border-town of Pelusium.
In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Pilgrimer]

As do I , but I have learned that things that cannot be proven with a reasonable surety in the historic details, I do not worry about them. some hold one thing, some hold another.

Jesus birth was not celebrated until near the end of the fourth century when Dec. 25th was the compromise date to placate the nominal Christians who held to the Saturnalia and Bacchus festivals and the Christians.

But I hold to a fall birth of Jesus. and somewhere c. 4 B.C. according to our modern colander

Ah, but that's just it, perhaps there are more things that can be proven with a reasonable amount of certainty than you realize, and even some things that can be proven with a very high degree of certainty. For example, this notion that the birth of Jesus was not celebrated until the 4th century and then December 25 was an adoption of a pagan holiday, well that is simply not true. Let me ask you something: wherever you saw or heard or read that claim, did they cite a 4th century document or letter or record or archaeological relic that provides any evidence to support that claim? I know the answer is no, because there isn't any, because it's not true.

What we can in fact "document" is that as far back as within 100 years of the time of Jesus, in one of the earliest Christian writings, in a work by Theophilus, the head of the church in Caesarea (115-181), he wrote the following: "We ought to celebrate the birth-day of our Lord on what day soever the 25th of December shall happen." (Magdeburgenses, Cent. 2. c. 6. Hospinian, de origine Festorum Christianorum). This was in response to a controversy where some wanted to celebrate the "feast of the nativity" (as it was originally called) on the day of the week Jesus was born (a Wednesday), while others, including Theophilus, argued for celebrating on the date of his birth, December 25. That controversy is what led him to mention the date in his writing and why we have this record.

Another early source is Hippolytus (170–236) who wrote in his Commentary on Daniel 4:23: "The first coming of our Lord, that in the flesh, in which he was born at Bethlehem, took place eight days before the calends of January, a Wednesday, in the forty-second year of the reign of Augustus, 5500 years from Adam." Eight days before the calends (the first day) of January is December 25.

"Out of the mouths of two witnesses a thing is established." Now this was in the early and again mid-second century, long before the claim that Christians "adopted a pagan holiday" in the fourth century. And it proves that Christian were in fact celebrating the birth of Jesus and they were celebrating it on December 25.

I know the source of the claim about a 4th century adoption, as do most serious historians. It is from a little booklet published in the 1800's written by a rabidly anti-Catholic preacher in Scotland who set out to "prove" his theory that "Mystery Babylon" of the Revelation was the Roman Catholic Church. The man was neither an historian nor was he educated in the Mesopotamian religions that he claimed were the source of all the "pagan roots" he invented. Now let me say, I am not Catholic, I am Evangelical Protestant, so I am not attempting to defend the Catholic Church, Lord knows I think they have enough doctrinal issues as it is. But I will defend a whole generation of Christians who are being unjustly slandered and accused of adopting pagan practices for nefarious reasons, when in fact, that generation had just come out of the worst persecution of Christians in history and many of those same godly men and women bore in their bodies the proof of their faithfulness to Christ. And it is a shame that Christian students today would so readily throw them under the bus to get on the "anti-Christmas" band wagon. I also know from the past two decades of seeing these theories gain traction that a lot of this is being promulgated by Jehovah's Witnesses, who I first began to encounter these things from 30 years ago and who have a very anti-Christian agenda.

I know full well just how popular the man's theories have become, it's all over the internet, and I see otherwise diligent and sincere students just eating this stuff up as if it was Gospel truth. It's not. It's the figment of the fevered imagination of a man who was obsessed with a truly virulent hatred of the Roman Catholic Church and just absolutely made things up. And now some well-meaning Christians have gotten hold of these myths and fables and seem to be somewhat gleefully spreading them far and wide. And of course the secular world is listening and have picked on this nonsense and is further pushing it, anything that will undermine the Christian faith and practice.

So please, in the blessed name of Jesus Christ, go back, start over again, demand some proof or evidence for these claims. On what evidence did someone convince you that Christians were not celebrating the birth of Jesus until the 4th century? What proof did they provide that Christians in the 4th century adopted pagan holidays? I would be more than happy to provide you a mountain of actual evidence, and then you can draw your conclusions. In fact, I would be happy to show you proof that not only were Christians in the 4th century NOT adopting pagan customs to win converts, but were so successful in winning people to Christ by their love and charity and holy lives that it was in fact the Pagans who began to adopt Christian customs to try to win the people back to the pagan gods.

But it’s up to you, if you are interested let me know and I’ll take the time to write it up.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Jay Ross]

Well of course we are “making claims” to try to fill in the gaps where the Gospels are silent. That’s what historical reconstruction means, establishing a chronology based on, first and foremost, what the Scriptures actually say, and secondarily, on verifiable historical evidence based on all available sources, ergo other writings and records and archaeological relics and discoveries or other hard evidence, such as astronomical and meteorological conditions from or nearest to the period in question. The point is, as diligent and sincere students, it is incumbent upon us to seek out and consider all the available evidence. Too often students do not have all the evidence (and in some cases no actual evidence at all) and yet they draw conclusions based on, at best incomplete, and at worst faulty information. That’s where historians, good historians, can help, but ONLY if they CITE VERIFIABLE SOURCES. I’m going to address that particular issue in the conversation that Ronald Nolette and I are having.

Pilgrimer, Please note that I have not tried to determine the day or year in which Christ was born. Also, I have noted that the order of the scriptures I have suggested, may be flexible in that we are not told where the circumcision of Christ took place, i.e. in Bethlehem or on the road while travelling down to Egypt. Nor are we told in the Gospel accounts of the early life of Christ how they are woven together so as to create a factual chronological timeline for Christ's early life.

My suggested order of the Gospel accounts to construct a chronological order of the timeline of the early life of Christ is based on the information that the Gospel's contain and is my best attempt to order the storyline so that it forms a reasonable storyline of how the events took place.

Where and when the circumcision of Christs takes place can be ignored, other than it take place eight days after his birth and how it fits into the rest of the story does not change the storyline of the other events.

What the story of Christ's early life does do is confirm that the Daniel 8 and 9 prophecy that the Little Horn Beast does rise up against Christ from when He was born through the influence that the Little Horn exercised over Herod at that time. We also have other Gospel accounts, later in the Life of Christ, where the Little Horn also rose up against Christ.

Whether or not we have been able to nail down all of the facts surrounding the early life of Christ, becomes insignificant in the overall storyline and Purpose for Christ's life on the earth.

Shalom

 

[Pilgrimer]

Pilgrimer, Please note that I have not tried to determine the day or year in which Christ was born. Also, I have noted that the order of the scriptures I have suggested, may be flexible in that we are not told where the circumcision of Christ took place, i.e. in Bethlehem or on the road while travelling down to Egypt. Nor are we told in the Gospel accounts of the early life of Christ how they are woven together so as to create a factual chronological timeline for Christ's early life.

My suggested order of the Gospel accounts to construct a chronological order of the timeline of the early life of Christ is based on the information that the Gospel's contain and is my best attempt to order the storyline so that it forms a reasonable storyline of how the events took place.

Where and when the circumcision of Christs takes place can be ignored, other than it take place eight days after his birth and how it fits into the rest of the story does not change the storyline of the other events.

What the story of Christ's early life does do is confirm that the Daniel 8 and 9 prophecy that the Little Horn Beast does rise up against Christ from when He was born through the influence that the Little Horn exercised over Herod at that time. We also have other Gospel accounts, later in the Life of Christ, where the Little Horn also rose up against Christ.

Whether or not we have been able to nail down all of the facts surrounding the early life of Christ, becomes insignificant in the overall storyline and Purpose for Christ's life on the earth.

Shalom

Shalom aleikem,
I understand and appreciate that you and I are talking about something completely different than what I am discussing with Ronald Nolette. But it was the claims about Christmas and Easter being “adoptions of paganism” that I encountered 35 years ago that led me to study New Testament History and Archaeology. I frankly did not care “when” these events in the life of Christ occurred, but to be honest, as a young Christian the accusations I was hearing of “idolatry” for observing “pagan” holidays stung, and I did not want to take part if it were true. So I began my own study and learned that the charges are in fact not true, that these two celebrations of the life of Christ observed by all of Christendom are in fact Scripturally and historically based with mountains of evidence to support them. So I am perhaps a bit over-zealous in my defense of inarguably the two most important events in the life of Christ, Christmas (his birth), and Easter (his death and resurrection).

And I’m not so sure that I can agree that “nailing down the facts” surrounding his life are necessarily “insignificant.” I’m sure you would agree that the Bible is not a book of myths and legends that convey some moral message. The Bible is an actual record of the hand of God at work in this world, in time and in history, among real, living people and in real places, and the Biblical record can be tested and proven against other records of history, textual and archaeological and otherwise. And it is these very historical facts of the life of Jesus, his birth and life and teachings and death and resurrection, that proves the Gospels are not myths and legends and fables, but the Gospels are an historical account of a real person who lived at a particular time in history, among real people who were eyewitnesses of the things they record. The Bible is the history of the world … and through this record of the way God’s hand shaped and guided history is revealed the purpose for which everything and everyone exists … Jesus. So for the Judeo-Christian faith, history matters.

And so: I agree that the Scripture does not specifically say that Jesus was circumcised “in Bethlehem,” but Matthew records this: “And [Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son (the birth) and called his name Jesus (fathers gave sons their names at their circumcision on the eighth day). Now Jesus having been born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the King, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.” Matthew 1:25-2:1

This brief mention includes both the birth and the naming of Jesus before the visit of the Magi. Matthew does not mention the redemption or the purification. He simply moves from the birth and naming of Jesus to the visit of the Magi and then the Holy Family fleeing to Egypt. But the fact that he does mention the birth and immediately after mentions the naming of Jesus which we know was done at a child’s circumcision and then afterward recounts the visit of the Magi would mean that at the very least the circumcision occurred while they were in Bethlehem, and since Luke recounts the circumcision and the presentation/purification together, that presents a difficulty with trying to separate them by any period of time or by any of the other events recorded.

So back again to what the Scripture actually says, it does tell us when these things occurred: “When the eight days were accomplished” they circumcised Jesus, and “when the 40 days were accomplished” they went to Jerusalem. That is when the circumcision and the presentation took place, when the proper days according to the Law were fulfilled, not some unspecified time after those days were fulfilled.

I find the study of the Star of Bethlehem intriguing, but then I find all these details to be so. Lol I don’t believe the star that Matthew records as having literally led the Magi from Jerusalem south to Bethlehem and to the very house where the Holy Family were living by that time was some supernatural apparition. I believe it was an actual star, and I can easily understand how it could have not only led the Magi to Bethlehem, but could have even led them to the very house where the Holy Family were dwelling based on the position of the star and the topography of the area. And the fact that there was a supernova on February 23, 4 B.C. that is recorded in the 3rd volume of General Catalogue of Variable Stars in the compilation of data on ancient and medieval supernova and nova, in a table notes that a nova on February 23, 4 B.C. was recorded in China, Korea and in Palestine, that certainly fits within the timeframe of the birth on December 25 and the eclipse of March 13 (after which Herod left Jerusalem and never returned but died in Jericho approximately two weeks later). So the visit of the Magi would have to fall within this timeframe. The Chinese term it a “scintillating star” as opposed to a “guest star” which generally means it was very bright indicating a supernova. This supernova is now known as PSR 1913+16, the Hulse-Taylor Pulsar (the first discovery of a binary pulsar for which they received the Nobel Peace Prize). The position would have been low in the southern sky and for those leaving Jerusalem by the southern gate which led to Bethlehem by the Jaffa gate and turning south, the star would appear “before them,” (low in the southern sky ahead of them a few degrees west of Sirius) as they traveled the road leading south from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. (Ref: Morehouse, A. J. (1978). "The Christmas Star as a Supernova in Aquila". Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. 72: 65. Bibcode:1978JRASC..72...65M.)
For those interested in such things, this is one of the oldest photographs of the ancient road from Jerusalem to Bethlehem via the Jaffa Gate (the road leading off to the right and into the distance). This is the road Mary and Joseph would have traveled as well as the Magi.

A number of historians have concluded that this was most likely “the Bethlehem star” reported by Matthew, and the triple conjunction two years before was what had alerted the Magi of the impending birth of Jesus (the oracle of Balaam was popularly interpreted by the Rabbis to mean that two years before the Messiah the sign would appear) that brought the Magi, two years later, to Jerusalem seeking him who would have recently been born (December 5 B.C. two years after the third conjunction in December 7 B.C.). And also why Herod had all the babes killed up to two years old, the date when the Magi reported having seen the first sign, not the date when Jesus would have been born.

All in all, it’s fascinating to me. And of course, there is so very much more that impacts these dates.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Pilgrimer]

An old photo of Bethlehem taken on Christmas Day c. 1898. The shepherd in the foreground is looking south toward Bethlehem on the ridge in the background. The valley between is the "Shepherd's Field," the pastures where in New Testament times Temple Shepherds kept watch over the flocks and herds, thousands of animals per year, that were destined for sacrifice in Jerusalem, 5 miles to the north.

 

[Pilgrimer]

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Ah, but that's just it, perhaps there are more things that can be proven with a reasonable amount of certainty than you realize, and even some things that can be proven with a very high degree of certainty. For example, this notion that the birth of Jesus was not celebrated until the 4th century and then December 25 was an adoption of a pagan holiday, well that is simply not true. Let me ask you something: wherever you saw or heard or read that claim, did they cite a 4th century document or letter or record or archaeological relic that provides any evidence to support that claim? I know the answer is no, because there isn't any, because it's not true.

What we can in fact "document" is that as far back as within 100 years of the time of Jesus, in one of the earliest Christian writings, in a work by Theophilus, the head of the church in Caesarea (115-181), he wrote the following: "We ought to celebrate the birth-day of our Lord on what day soever the 25th of December shall happen." (Magdeburgenses, Cent. 2. c. 6. Hospinian, de origine Festorum Christianorum). This was in response to a controversy where some wanted to celebrate the "feast of the nativity" (as it was originally called) on the day of the week Jesus was born (a Wednesday), while others, including Theophilus, argued for celebrating on the date of his birth, December 25. That controversy is what led him to mention the date in his writing and why we have this record.

Another early source is Hippolytus (170–236) who wrote in his Commentary on Daniel 4:23: "The first coming of our Lord, that in the flesh, in which he was born at Bethlehem, took place eight days before the calends of January, a Wednesday, in the forty-second year of the reign of Augustus, 5500 years from Adam." Eight days before the calends (the first day) of January is December 25.

"Out of the mouths of two witnesses a thing is established." Now this was in the early and again mid-second century, long before the claim that Christians "adopted a pagan holiday" in the fourth century. And it proves that Christian were in fact celebrating the birth of Jesus and they were celebrating it on December 25.

I know the source of the claim about a 4th century adoption, as do most serious historians. It is from a little booklet published in the 1800's written by a rabidly anti-Catholic preacher in Scotland who set out to "prove" his theory that "Mystery Babylon" of the Revelation was the Roman Catholic Church. The man was neither an historian nor was he educated in the Mesopotamian religions that he claimed were the source of all the "pagan roots" he invented. Now let me say, I am not Catholic, I am Evangelical Protestant, so I am not attempting to defend the Catholic Church, Lord knows I think they have enough doctrinal issues as it is. But I will defend a whole generation of Christians who are being unjustly slandered and accused of adopting pagan practices for nefarious reasons, when in fact, that generation had just come out of the worst persecution of Christians in history and many of those same godly men and women bore in their bodies the proof of their faithfulness to Christ. And it is a shame that Christian students today would so readily throw them under the bus to get on the "anti-Christmas" band wagon. I also know from the past two decades of seeing these theories gain traction that a lot of this is being promulgated by Jehovah's Witnesses, who I first began to encounter these things from 30 years ago and who have a very anti-Christian agenda.

I know full well just how popular the man's theories have become, it's all over the internet, and I see otherwise diligent and sincere students just eating this stuff up as if it was Gospel truth. It's not. It's the figment of the fevered imagination of a man who was obsessed with a truly virulent hatred of the Roman Catholic Church and just absolutely made things up. And now some well-meaning Christians have gotten hold of these myths and fables and seem to be somewhat gleefully spreading them far and wide. And of course the secular world is listening and have picked on this nonsense and is further pushing it, anything that will undermine the Christian faith and practice.

So please, in the blessed name of Jesus Christ, go back, start over again, demand some proof or evidence for these claims. On what evidence did someone convince you that Christians were not celebrating the birth of Jesus until the 4th century? What proof did they provide that Christians in the 4th century adopted pagan holidays? I would be more than happy to provide you a mountain of actual evidence, and then you can draw your conclusions. In fact, I would be happy to show you proof that not only were Christians in the 4th century NOT adopting pagan customs to win converts, but were so successful in winning people to Christ by their love and charity and holy lives that it was in fact the Pagans who began to adopt Christian customs to try to win the people back to the pagan gods.

But it’s up to you, if you are interested let me know and I’ll take the time to write it up.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

If and when the early church started celebrating "Christmas" is not the issue. It wasn't until the end of the fourth century that it became a named festival for the church.

The church for the most part was underground in the empire through the first 3 centuries. It suffered wave after wave of legal persecution and murder

And no I did not get Dec. 25th From Hislops book.

I willltry to look upi your references, but these are simply letters encouraging and not a decree to celebrate. There is a difference.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

This is not about any “decree,” and even the Filocalus calendar was not an official calendar of the church, it was composed for a wealthy private citizen, nor was it in any way a decree. But this is about when Christians began to celebrate Jesus’ birth and what date they celebrated it on. And it is just not true that Christians didn’t begin to celebrate Jesus’ birthday until the 4th century and that December 25 was an adoption of the pagan solstice.

Well I also know and will tryt o find the references that duirng th e2 centuries of intense persecution throughout the empire- Christians celebrated things in accord with pagan feasts so they could come out of hiding and celebrate openly. they would signifyt ey were followers by either a cluster of grapes or fish sign in th epublic.

If you wish to believe Jesus was bortn 12/25 feel free. But scholars I know and who have written on the subject all point ot a fall birth of Jesus c. 4-6 B.C. of our current calendar.

I think you are making a tempest in a teapot. I don't even talk about stuff like this to the lost. This is stuff that is reserved for teaching in church history class.

Besides, we were never commanded to celebrate His birth, though we are free to do so , but we are commanded to remember His death and resurrection everytime we partake of communionk and every passover!

 

[Jay Ross]

And so: I agree that the Scripture does not specifically say that Jesus was circumcised “in Bethlehem,” but Matthew records this: “And [Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son (the birth) and called his name Jesus (fathers gave sons their names at their circumcision on the eighth day). Now Jesus having been born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the King, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.” Matthew 1:25-2:1

This brief mention includes both the birth and the naming of Jesus before the visit of the Magi. Matthew does not mention the redemption or the purification. He simply moves from the birth and naming of Jesus to the visit of the Magi and then the Holy Family fleeing to Egypt. But the fact that he does mention the birth and immediately after mentions the naming of Jesus which we know was done at a child’s circumcision and then afterward recounts the visit of the Magi would mean that at the very least the circumcision occurred while they were in Bethlehem, and since Luke recounts the circumcision and the presentation/purification together, that presents a difficulty with trying to separate them by any period of time or by any of the other events recorded.

People when they are recounting a story do not separate the story on the the basis of chronology, but rather, they separate the story they are telling with respect to the main characters involved in that particular part of the story being told.

Your above reasoning is that the Gospel accounts of the respective authors are all linear, however I would suggest that the order that I had suggested previously, had separated the Matthew 1:25b portion to a later timeframe.

However, because of our discussion, you have caused me to correct my order of the chronological event and move this portion of the scriptures, i.e. Matthew 1:25b, to be with the account of Jesus' circumcision as told in Luke 2:21. I thank you for highlighting the need for this correction.

Now when and where the event of Jesus' circumcision and naming took place is, in my mind, not nailed down firmly as you are suggesting based on the story telling of Matthew.

Now I have gone back and corrected my original document to reflect this change as a result of not pair the two fragment verses together in my original document as I should have when I was compiling my document.

I am sure that you too have overlooked certain details of the early life of Christ that create discord in your understanding.

Shalom

 

[Pilgrimer]

Your above reasoning is that the Gospel accounts of the respective authors are all linear ...

The Gospels are not simply storytelling. They are the historical record of the birth of Jesus "in those days," so yes, they are chronological and recount events as they occurred. In fact, Luke states in the opening of his Gospel that his purpose was "to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses." So yes, the Gospels are chronological accounts of the life of Jesus, from the beginning.

I am sure that you too have overlooked certain details of the early life of Christ that create discord in your understanding.

Certainly it's possible there is some information that I am not yet aware of that might affect my understanding of the chronological order of the Gospels. But there is so much evidence already available, and two millennia of devout and learned historians and scholars who have studied and looked into all these things "most surely believed among us," that it would have to be pretty concrete evidence to justify a reordering. But archaeology is a relatively new science as Biblical studies goes so it is always possible that some relic will be unearthed that will turn Christian scholarship on it's head, but unless and until then, based on all the evidence as it exists, and there is far more than just what has been discussed in our brief conversations, what we do know suffices to give a reasonable and satisfactory timeline and answers to all the objections raised by our critics, fellow believers and unbelievers alike.

And the only reason the chronology has really come into such dispute in recent years is the proliferation of the anti-Christmas and anti-Easter critics. But, the thing is, everything works for good to those that love God, and it is these very criticisms that lead a new generation of the best students to dig deep into history and discover and share the treasures that build up our faith in the Gospel accounts of the life of Christ. I once read wise words about Bible study that I have never forgotten because they are so very true: "Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow; if one would find pearls, he must dive below."

May God richly bless you in all your studies ...
In Christ,
Pilgrimer