Amaleq13

If you were trying to introduce a comment relevant to the actual discussion, that is the negative you meant.

So, do you have a way to prove it or don't you?

Larsguy47

I wasn't using it as a "trump card" but as a historical reference. If you want to compare the references be my guest. But Josephus, by giving you two different rulerships for Herod, 3 years apart, plus that eclipse sets up the redating to Shebat 2, 1 AD without the Bible. So I don't mind footnoting the gospel historical comparison detail here.

In the meantime, the eclipse must occur shortly after an annual Jewish FAST, a time when Herod was already on his death bed, somewhat revived in energy by this recent outrage with the rabbis. The four annual Jewish fasts are in the 4th, 5th, 7th and 10th months. The closest fast to Herod's death on Shebat 2 (11th month) would be the one in the 10th month, which was on the 10th day. Lunar eclipses occur on the 14th of the month during the full moon. Thus the eclipse occuring just before Herod's death can only occur in the tenth month, which would be about 18 days before his death.

So you go ahead and find an eclipse in December in 4 BCE and let me know how that turns out.

LG47

Larsguy47

Thanks for that information. But two rulershiops are accorded to Herod that are three years apart. When historical revisionism takes place, this is a "red flag" for a coverup, potentially. Thus if there were any suggestion of revisionism, which there is since the December eclipse doesn't match the chronology, then along the way the presumption is that the shorter reign is just a cover for the true history.

In other words, if say Flavius commissioned Josephus to write a "universal history" with Josephus giving the Jewish historical references and Flavius was talked into extending his reign a few years so he'd go down into history a little more gloriously. The way that is done is usually by stealing a year here and there from the previous reigns of certain kings. Let's say they decided to take about 3 years from Herod the Great. Easily done. But what about anything that is dated into his 37th year? How do you explain that? One way is to invent an earlier rulership, or take advantage of an earlier appointment and claim that's where any 37th year reference would relate to, even though the primary historical references to year 37 would be to the primary and official kingship.

Now that is just a REFERENTIAL PRESUMPTION whenever you have a double-rulership wish a suspected historical contradiction. In that case, we simply look at what the dating would be like if the longer rule was made the official rule, that is 37 years of rulership beginning in 37 BCE. In that case, you have the death of Herod on Shebat 2, 1 AD.

Now we know the eclispe doesn't work for either a death in 4 BC or 3 BC since there are no eclipses in December/January that could have occurred just after the Tebet 10th Fast, 22 days before the death of Herod. But when we check an eclipse for Tebet 14 in 1 BC (18 days before Herod's alleged actual date of death) then it checks out. There was a lunar eclipse at that time.

At this point, Josephus then becomes a counter-historian, one who like Herodotus, is giving one popular "politically correct" history but using subtle references to point and hint at when the true chronology took place.

Now you can't absolutely PROVE this, like so many other things, but this dating is more specific than just some other adjustment that had no relevant reference.

After this, it can be compared to other chronology from the period, which at some point would include the gospel dating of Jesus' age in the time leading up to Herod's death, which makes him between 1 and 2 years old, which is consistent with the context of the age of the babies Herod tried to kill.

So, as you said, with the information that he had that previous appointment, it would seem that Josephus took advantage of that to shave three years off the rule of Herod and likely give them to Flavius. There are some other mismatches as early as the rule of Herod Agrippa. (i.e. Acts records the death of Herod Agrippa at a time dated 14 years after the conversion of Paul, which if dated c. 34 CE would place that event in c. 48 CE. The current historical reference for his rule is from 37-44 CE. About a 3-4 year discrepancy, the same 3-year discrepancy (too early vs too late) that you get for Herod, etc.) Again, it is not that the Bible is to automatically be considered absolutely correct but certainly of equal historical value as any pagan records, certainly. ANY discrepancy you find in histories, you know both sources can't be correct.

Anyway, the eclipse only works for a Shebat 2, 1 AD death. Forget about any other date if the eclipse is considered relevant.

LG47

spamandham

Josephus also refers to flying chariots around Jerusalem as if they were real. He is useful, but caution is advised in using what he wrote to extrapolate anything.

The association of an eclipse with an event, in writings of those days, does not necessitate that there actually was an eclipse associated with that event. Eclipses were freely used with poetic license to demonstrate the importance of an event. Josephus was a historian by ancient standards. He was a tabloid journalist by modern standards.

spin

Either you didn't read what I said, or there is something wrong in the circuitry there, Larsguy47. This seems to be the usual thank and ignore sequence. That usually means that you haven't even processed the information, but will proceed into your usual screed of nonchalant revisionism.


spin

Steven Avery

Most assuredly. Remember, the section of the book we are discussing is fully online, so I read it carefully before posting the issues above.

(I cannot speak for others about this so I took out their names.)

Which should have been reasonably obvious since I raise concerns about the Sander's view that you would have difficulty finding anywhere online (likely impossible) or offline, such as Sander's flights of numerical fancy based on an implied claim of the non-existence of a 1st-century genealogical/lineage system.

Why that major implied assertion (both of historical events and against the accuracy of the NT account) and the accompanying fantastic numerical claim is bypassed to quibble in depth about the Sanders exact wording pertaining to his c. 4 BCE comment is the real mystery here.

However not so much a mystery once you get used to IIDB diversions and distractions.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

The post below was normal spin-junque (which is why I simply put his words together to show the lack of substance) and I have learned not to feed shallow responses.

However one straightforward question was simply ignored and I am quite curious and will repeat the question.

What is the different Greek word that would have been used for Joseph and Mary going to dwell in Nazareth after their years of travels if they had been a "citizen".

Per the spin claim that the word in the Bible indicates that they had never dwelled there. For the spin argument to have any relevance at all there must have been an alternative word that would have been used if Joseph and Mary had lived in Nazareth with their family earlier ("citizens"). So please share the superior alternative word.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spamandham

...a better question would be "why does no birth narrative show up in Mark". Even if you do not discount the entire gospels as fiction, you have to at least question the veracity of the birth stories in Matthew an Luke. They seem to be astrotheological in nature, intertwined with a rather forced interpretation of Isaiah.

Larsguy47

I completely agree, but that is not what is in practice here. That misapplied eclipse is a key historical reference for dating Herod's death even in a different year that Josephus dates it. That is, if Herod had a 34-year rule beginning in 37 and he dies on Shebet 2, then his death would occur in 3 BC. 34 from 37 is 3. The stay eclipse occurring in the spring of 4 BCE, not the month indicated by Josephus, just totally wrong all around, has people dating his death in 4 BCE in total contradiction of even the revised dating Josephus gives for Herod's death in 3 BC. So it's a big mess. So while what you say is true about Josephus, it doesn't matter if this eclipse is being used to help establish the official false chronology. If everybody ignored the eclipse then so be it; but they don't. They are using that eclipse but little else of the details from Josephus. Thus it is significant.

Noting you give you reference here for that 'freely used" "poetic license", but fair enough. The MAJOR ECLIPSES used for dating do not fall in that category. But in addition to the "poetic" use of eclipses, they were also used for retrodating back to the original chronology when there was revisionism. I believe this eclipse was included for that very reason, to point to another date and the true date for Herod's death in contrast with his direct statements. I believe that the double-dating for his rulership so specific was also a hint to where to look for this eclipse. Now, applying some of my own medicine, here are the KEY ECLIPSE used to date the timeline that would not fall into the "freely used with poetic license to demonstrate the importance of the event." The following must be excluded from that nonspecified assertion:

1. The Thales eclipse, claimed by Herodotus. This is the most famous eclipse in ancient history. It was believed to be an eclipse that happened to occur at the time of a battle between Lydia and Media and occurring in that region caused them such mutual awe they decided to strike a peace agreement. That is a REAL eclipse event believed to have occurred in 585BCE and used for dating that event.

2. The eclipse at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, used to date that event to 431BCE, is believed to be a real eclipse that frightened some of Pericles' men as they were about to leave port from Athens. It was not believed to be associated with or caused by the events going on at the time. Historically, it appears incidental to this event.

3. The famous eclipse occurring just about 18 days before the death of Herod, likewise is considered an incidental eclipse, not caused by this event. That is, this is the usual eclipse occurring during the time of the full moon when it should have, it is not represented as a supernatural event.

4. The Assyrian Eponym eclipse, nose used strategically to date the entire Assyrian Period. Again, just an eclipse reference thought to be just that, an eclipse, and not some miraculous event.

So out of the key eclipses used upon which the current timeline rests, none of them are "poetic license" eclipses.

MIRACULOUS ASTRAL PHENOMENON:
MIRACULOUS events associated specifically with or because of events going on in connection with the Jews or Jesus, though occur mostly in the Bible. It got dark for 3 hours at the time of Jesus' impalement. Considered a miraculous event, potentially a solar eclipse but considered miraculous.

Of course, when the sun stood still for a day to provide light for fighting. But that's not considered an eclipse either.

Generally there are references in Revelation and elsewhere where the "moon turns to blood" (a total lunar eclipse) or becomes dark and the sun is darkened and the "stars fall out of the sky" used poetically. But again, understood symbolically and not necessarily in connection with any specific eclipse event.

So I'm not particularly aware of any "poetic license" eclipses used that are ignored chronologically, though there may be some. But the major eclipses used for dating are considered just that and understood in the literal context of things.

Of course, it is quite fair to claim that the eclipse mentioned by Josephus was invented to dramatize the death of these rabbis. But that can be checked against the facts, depending upon when you date the death of Herod. Thus of either critical or incidental note, when his death is dated to 1 AD an eclipse visible in Jerusalem does occur 18 days before his death.


LG47

Larsguy47

CORRECTING SPIN:

Originally Posted by spin
"You simply avoided reading the text without importing Luke. Please reread the text of Matt. You'll find Joseph takes "possession" Mary as his wife. She gives birth. The birth is in Bethlehem. No traveling. The magi went to the "house" where she gave birth. When they come back from Egypt they couldn't return to Judea because of Archelaus, so they went to live in Galilee.... Yup, that's from L&S. Just have a look. And if you have problems with it, take it up with them. I merely cited the common understanding..."

Please note that when the Magi came Jesus was in a house and he was already over a year old. Herod killed babies 2 years and younger. Mary gave birth in an animal shed and used a manger for Jesus' bed.

I know it is common to show the three magi/kings coming and finding Jesus still in the manger, but that's just inaccurate tradition.

LG47