David B

Good!

I'm intrigued about what you find particularly interesting there?

Aren't you not here assuming the historicity of what you claim not to be concerned about the historicity? Or is there some allegorical meaning you are seeing? Or what?

Sounds like something out of the Wicker Man.

Why should the idea of god sacrificing himself to himself to save his own creation from his own wrath be viewed as anything other than bizarre?

David B

mountainman

Primitive GPS

angela2

I'll try to get to you after I write this blinkin sermon.

Seems to be some question about the dates of Herod the Great.

By the same method Josephus places Herod's capture of Jerusalem in 37 BC, but he also says that this occurred 27 years after the capture of the city by Pompey (which was in 63 BC). (Jewish Antiquities, XIV, 487, 488 [xvi, 4]) Josephus's reference to that latter event would make the date of Herod's taking the city of Jerusalem 36 BC -- Appianos 35BC. Now, Josephus says that Herod died 37 years from the time that he was appointed king by the Romans, and 34 years after he took Jerusalem. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 190, 191 [viii, 1]) This might indicate that the date of his death was 2 BC or perhaps 1 BC using Josephus's consular dating, whereas Appianos would place the date at 1 BC or AD 1. According to Josephus, Herod died not long after an eclipse of the moon and before a Passover. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 167 [vi, 4]; 213 [ix, 3]). There was a total eclipse of the moon January 9-10, AD 1, about three months before Passover, which would give a logical sequence of events. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

Kosh

Silly people, it was obviously a Dwarf Star. :Cheeky:

The Evil One

Re angela's citing of Herod's dates:

This is an object lesson in why you should not rely on Wikipedia.

Pompey takes Jerusalem in 63 BCE and Wiki says that 27 years later is 36 BCE. 27 years later than 63 BCE is 37 BCE once you realise that you have to subtract an extra 1 when dealing with these dates the way Josephus does. And 34 years after 37 BCE is 4 BCE.

We have a better way of dating Herod's death than counting from the start of his reign, though. We know that Herod died 9 or 10 years before the census, and we know the census was in 6CE.

John Kesler

In this post, I discussed why Matthew claims it was a star that led the magi to Jesus. One often hears that the story of Moses in Exodus 1-2 provides the basis for Matthew's nativity story. This is only partially correct, because as John Dominic Crossan points out, it isn't the story of Moses that Matthew uses, but the story of Moses as delineated in later Jewish tradition. In the article just linked, Crossan quotes from Josephus, pseudo-Philo, and Sefer ha-Zikronot, demonstrating their parallels with Matthew's narrative. Here is an excerpt discussing the plot to kill Moses/Jesus:

Boro Nut

So one year later than 63 BCE was 63 BCE, but one year before was 64 BCE. No wonder they used the reigns of kings to keep track. I expect that's why they changed the clocks to AD and omitted the year zero to correct the cock-up.

Boro Nut

angela2

oops

angela2

O.K. I need a break.

I'm not assuming here any historicity except the birth of Jesus. That he existed is mentioned in extra biblical sources. If the dates and/or names are right, I'm happy. If not, I wouldn't be stunningly surprised. There are other instances in scripture of be incorrect/conflicting names or dates.

The truth is I love historical criticism in all its permutations. Maybe that's because I loved jigsaw puzzles as a kid. To me, the bible is a whole bunch of pieces to multiple puzzles. And I can wile away many a winter's day playing that game.

Having said that, for personal devotional and liturgical purposes, I understand the bible as canon. (Please, nobody tell me the history of the formation of the canon. I know it.) There's a great article here http://www.religion-online.org/showa...asp?title=1715
about some of what I mean by this.

The bible as we have it (and, yes, I know about different canons) is what has been handed down to us. The canon is closed. For devotional and liturgical purposes, I pretty much play it as it lays although I do drop in a critical conclusion now and then. My church will hear that the Magi were not there at the manger as so many Xmas cards depict.

Pretty daring, huh? You'd think so if you had been there some time ago at bible study to see the shocked, incredulous face of a women when I explained that the ending of Mark's gospel was probably not original.

Jason Harvestdancer

My take. It's funny what has become of the story of the three Wise Men. It originally was meant as an insult.

In the first few centuries after Jesus went from minor political figure to deity, Christianity faced intense competition from a nearly identical religion known as Mithraism. Followers of Mithraism are called ... Magi. Notice how even today the three Wise Guys are sometimes called the three Magi, but that's not considered the best way to talk about them since these guys were obviously good and Christianity frowns upon magick and that is what Magi are supposed to do.

So, you have the Jesus story. He's supposed to be so good that even leading Mithraists come to see him. But Mithraists are supposed to be fools, so instead of going straight to Jesus, they go to someone who would have cause to hate Jesus - Herod. What idiot would go to Herod when looking for Jesus? Only a Mithraist could be that stupid! See the propaganda in the story?

Notice they came from the East too. To the east of Bethlehem is Persia (if you travel long enough) and Persia is the home of Zoroastrianism and Mithraism. Not only were these guys Mithraists, they were Mithraists from Persia.

They finally get to Jesus, and these followers of a completely different religion immediately bow down to baby Jesus. Even though he was still a baby, people from the chief competitor to Christianity immedately recognized that he was right and that they were wrong. The propaganda got thick there. Two slams against Mithraism - the Magi realized it was Jesus instead of Mithra (told twice in one story), and the Magi were too stupid to look for Jesus directly and asked for Herod.

Of course, after Christianity triumphed over Mithraism and Mithra was forgotten, the story needed a new meaning. For much of the Middle Ages the list of true sciences included Astrology, so these Magi became Astrologers, because after all they were following a star. Even today they are sometimes referenced as astrologers, even though astrology is no longer considered one of the sciences and is definitely not approved of by the church.

Of course, as astrology faded from the scene, these three Wize Guys needed a new interpretation, so eventually they became both Wise Men (ironically a translation of the literal meaning of Magi) and Kings (because they were obviously wealthy and were able to get an audience from Herod). It is no longer remembered why they took a wrong turn, and instead they are represented as wise, grave, holy, etc.