Luke 2:2's census and Codex Siniaticus 1's word order, etc.

[Brianroy]

In examining the census of Luke 2:2, there first must be an understanding of Roman history that leads up to the census: because, without this knowledge, the fatal flaw is committed.


In his submission, Luke 2:2: Making Sense of the Date of Jesus' Birth ; John M. Rist  of Cambridge  proposes that the actual name given of the B.C. Quirinius’ through Tertullian, was actually ‘Quintilius’ placing him in either 7 or 6 B.C. while confirming Matthew and Luke’s accounts.  (The Journal of Theological Studies 2005 56(2):489-491 -  Oxford University).


And it may or may not be that Quirinius to Cyrenius was a designation of the senatorial office, and hence officer, of the province of Cyrene.  If that is the case, the simple name of Cyrenius is the designation of where “Quirinius” was in his career…he was NOT yet the ruler of the province of Syria (ruling out of Antioch), holding  the second most affluent position in the Roman Empire. 

Luke 2:2 tells us that the registration first occurred while Cyrenius exercised governing oversight in Syria.

As we look at to the ancient manuscripts, was there something that scholars have missed in this debate?

The First Greek version of the Codex siniaticus has a differing word order than what we are now accustomed to in our modern Greek translations.

http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/themes/asianafricanman/codex.html

Haute  apographo  egeneto  prote hegemoneuontos tas surias kureniou.
-- Earliest Codex Siniaticus

"This registration BEGAN TO COME INTO EXISTENCE  first  (that is,) before  the governing of Syria by Kureniou."  (translation mine) 

The 5th century Codex Bezae (D) moved the words of Luke 2:2 after this literal word for word translation, so as to read “This coming into existence registration first governing (the) Syria Kureniou.”   

In this, perhaps, there was a reorder that left a confusion and debate among scoffers to textual criticism.

Therefore, in dealing with Luke 2:2, we need to also go back to oldest texts when possible.  I cannot translate Armenian or Ethiopic, but I suspect such manuscripts may perhaps bear me out. 




Roman Census regularity non-existent prior to 6 A.D.

There was no 14 year regularity to the Census of the Romans until firstly in 6 A.D.

AD. 6, 20, 34, 48, 62, 76, 90, 104, 118, 132, 146, 160, 174, 188, 202, 216, 230, 244, 258, 272, 286, 300, 314, 328.


What does that tell us?  Prior to 6 A.D., there had to be an order, an infra-structure, a bureaucracy put in place...and this would have taken time, and a state of irregularity to work out the plan for an Empire wide census.

What would this involve?  Logically, it would first involve a census on a smaller scale using, at a maximum, regions of multiple senatorial jurisdictions. 

And what is the history?  Precisely that.

The first census made by the Romans post-civil war (44 - 31 B.C.) era, after many decades was made to reduce that  post-civil war Roman Senate in circa 27 B.C. from 1000 to 600 senators and knights, to which Gaul reacted by going into riot and revolts.

In fact, the first preliminary census of 27 B.C. evolved  into an on-going process which Augustus almost immediately instituted as a means of -- in turn --evolving the Roman Government in successive orders, especially between 23 and 15 B.C. 

 In these years, you basically had an extension of the First Census of Augustus working and reworking in stages.  Augustus was reforming and re-administrating the system of Government toward greater efficiency from top to bottom.   It would have gradually had the kinks worked out over a number of years. 

 Then followed the polling of Spain and the province of Galatia in 23 B.C. during which time  a massive plague that devastated central Italy in 23 B.C. , delaying the Italian census.   (It is debated by some in the medical profession as to whether or not this plague was syphillis).  As a result of this plague, Augustus developed a skin condition prohibiting him from being in sunlight, which affected him the rest of his reign.

 After which 23 B.C. devastating plague,  we find  Augustus  reordering the  Empire in 21 B.C. (a year after allowing Crete to have its own Senator, in 22 B.C.).   

In 21 B.C., 6 years after the first preliminary census, Augustus began reordering the Empire from the inside out  from Samos in the Aegean, while in recuperation from a combination of not being able to be in the sun, and allergies. This skin condition may have been a reaction or by-product of recovery to a massive plague that devastated central Italy in 23 B.C. (the next came great Italian plagues came in 65 A.D., then 79 A.D.).

This Samos retreat of 21 B.C. was followed by the first widespread and definitive  Roman Census: in Italy, Greece, Egypt, and the Turkish provinces in or about 20 B.C.; and through this census,  adjustments were made to poll and land tax rates, based on Census figures.  The poll and land taxes being the two greatest or primary sources of revenue to the Roman government.

A few years later, in 17-16 B.C., Augustus chose to reorder the remaining Western half of the Empire from Tarroco, Spain. 

All that yet remained was the Eastern provinces.  This Augustus did in 5 B.C., at a time when Sentius Saturninus (Tertullian Against Marcion, 4.19; ) and Herod I the Great were present. 

Until 6 A.D., there were NO 14 year Census cycles by the Romans!


==================================================

We have the post 314 A.D. assessment of Eusebius which depends largely on no errors passed on to him from the past: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vi.v.html

Yet, as with the equivocating of Pontia and Patmos island, what happens in one generation is sometimes mixed with another, until a third party creates a legend (such as John being sent to Patmos, ignore that word 'Pontia" by Domitian - theory).


Literary example influencing Eusebius' assessment:

The Egyptian citizen, Clement of Alexandria, in Stromata 1.21  says that the census originated in the time of Augustus...he follows the same lacunae text which read the 28th year of Augustus (missing an "x" for a value of "10") --  OR --  he goes from the same staring point as Suetonius, 2.17 in which Augustus reigns apart from Mark Anthony as Caesar in 34 B.C.    We find this same agreed to argument also being made by the Carthaginian and Roman lawyer, Tertullian, in Answer to the Jews, 8.8, makes the mistake of equating a co-rule between Augustus and Cleopatra over Egypt for 13 years...when Cleopatra de facto ruled with Anthony, father of some of her children, and co-confederate against Augustus. 

So somewhere, an organized Christian defense was made betwen Alexandrian and Roman Christians, and a singular point of error was made that snowballed down to this day as to the year / date of the birth of Christ...even though the essentials and other corrective evidences were left intact.

Eusebius also looks to Josephus:

In Josephus' Antiq. 18.1.1, we have the mention of the first 14 year census, only 10 years after the last one endured by the Jews. 

Quirinius, a Roman senator [from Cyrenia] who had passed through all the other magistracies until he became consul, and one who in other respects was very distinguished, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, having been sent by Caesar to be governor of that nation and to make an assessment of their property.

[This portion, when analyzed, could also be read as :

Quirinius did not come to be Syria's president, but its chief bureaucrat organizer and tax assessor, retaining the rank of senator of Cyrene.
  Afterwards, and at this later time, he came to Syria to be its de facto governor...etc.]

*** Coponius, a man of the equestrian order, was sent with him to have supreme authority over the Jews.

Quirinius came himself to Judea, which had now been added to the province of Syria, to make an assessment of their property and to dispose of Archelaus's estate. 

Although the Jews at first took the report of a taxation angrily, they gradually left  off any further opposition to it by the persuasion of  the high priest Joazar son of Boethus. Persuaded by Joazar's words, they gave an account of their estates without any dissent.
    But there was one man,  Judas, a Gaulanite from a city named Gamala, who, taking with him Saddok, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to revolt. They both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty... "

***In this second census, it is Coponius who administrates the census, while Quirinius' focus is unhindered, to divide the Judean and Samarian estate of a dead Archelaus.  In other words...having already performed a first census, Cyrenius has already trained a successor, Coponius, to administrate under him.   

What's also wrong with Josephus 6 A.D account?

Saturninus is not present as President of Syria (a requirement given us by Tertullian above).

 Herod I is not present to rule over Israel (a requirement of Matthew chapter 2, written among hostile Jewish witnesses), including the provinces of Galilee (which gives us the reason for Joseph's staying in Egypt,  possibly Alexandria,  refusing to return to Nazareth).   

Both Luke and Matthew were written when living witnesses were still around to testify.  A cousin, Simon, son of Cleopas, would live to the ancient age of 120 to be asked if one wanted to prior to 98 A.D. 

Since Luke was written in 50, and Matthew felt the need to give more politically related details in 55 A.D., we still hear only silence from any protest from rabbinics and their oral histories, etc., as to any lack of witnesses, time to interview them, libraries or record houses to investigate, and so on -- of all the accusations and testimonies the Gospels contain.

For the critics of those who believe in the NT...Luke 2:2 is one less topic they have an excuse to complain about.  That is, once they've done their homework AND have compared it to many of the whoppers of history some of their "illustrious heroes" would have us to believe:  sometimes hanging only on  a fragment and  partial words. 

Hope it has help a few think more deeply on the topic.  Peace. 

[Brianroy]

In regards to

Literary example influencing Eusebius' assessment:

The Egyptian citizen, Clement of Alexandria, in Stromata 1.21  says that the census originated in the time of Augustus...he follows the same lacunae text which read the 28th year of Augustus (missing an "x" for a value of "10") --  OR --  he goes from the same staring point as Suetonius, 2.17 in which Augustus reigns apart from Mark Anthony as Caesar in 34 B.C.    We find this same agreed to argument also being made by the Carthaginian and Roman lawyer, Tertullian, in Answer to the Jews, 8.8, makes the mistake of equating a co-rule between Augustus and Cleopatra over Egypt for 13 years...when Cleopatra de facto ruled with Anthony, father of some of her children, and co-confederate against Augustus. 

So somewhere, an organized Christian defense was made betwen Alexandrian and Roman Christians, and a singular point of error was made that snowballed down to this day as to the year / date of the birth of Christ...even though the essentials and other corrective evidences were left intact.



The statement of Rome’s prominence was not of authority, but as according to Irenaeus’ own view, of its potential to keep doctrine, history, and ritual correctness, because of its witness to the quod ab omnibus.

Rome, as the Imperial city, has Christians who visit from all parts of the Empire, and “carry into it” the witness, tradition, and the testimony of Jesus and his Apostles; and not least of all, apologetics of other Christians.

          “For it is a matter of pragmatic business that every Church    should come from all directions, in every way, to gather in
        this principal city, that the truth might be preserved as it
        was entrusted them.”   
                        (my alternate translation of the following)
   
       “For it is a matter of necessity
                    that every Church should agree with       
           this Church, on account of its potent location
            [Latin, potiorem   principalitatem],
       (that is, those who are on every side faithful),
        in which the Church ever,
             has preserved that tradition which is
        from the apostles.”   
  (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.1.)


       Which is preceded by this, by Irenaeus,

   “It is within the power of all, therefore, within every Church,
    who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the
       tradition of the Apostles manifested throughout the whole world…”
      (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.1.)

How?  By coming to Rome, where representatives from Churches throughout the whole Roman world do come into the Imperial city, bringing their traditions and teachings with them.  Hence, Orthodoxy received … not dictated!

This being the case, there needs to be a whole new and fresh rethinking on Early Christianity.  One that accepts the fact that there was an organized state to it, and that there were multiple Sanhedrins of 70 plus 1 among the Christians.  In the 1st century A.D., we see John the Apostle being a sacrificial high priest over his Sanhedrin of 70,  himself living in Ephesus, for example. (cf. Eusebius, H.O.C., 5.24, for example...John the apostle bearing the Petalon, etc.).

Since we can date Polycarp's installation by John as bishop of Smyrna to 70 or 71, through Polycarp's words that he served for 86 years (as bishop of Smyrna by inference)...we should go on the presumption of a likely  next phase of development in Christianity in these years of 70-71 A.D. onward.

Once this was achieved, I believe that the last two letters of 2,3 John were added because they predated the Temple's Destruction by perhaps months. 

As Melito, a Sardisian co-Sanhedrin member of the Ephesian Sanhedrin of the Christians during the reign of Marcus Aurelius said in his work..."it is not a good excuse that a man errs with the many."  (Melito, .1)
 
I concur.  Simply because it is a fad of the day to disbelieve a census of Luke in 5 B.C., or whatever the issue is...when such a disbelief is put aside by reason and literary gleanings of history...it becomes greater error to hold to hold stubbornly to error because of peer fear. 

It is my hope, that we will all benefit from a less fearful and more friendly sharing of our differing opinions and the texts we use to support these opinions or beliefs...and to go from there.  Peace.

[Brianroy]

Luke 2:3-5a
And were traveling (together) ALL to register and be written down

each into the city themselves  (1881 W-H)
each into his own city (1550 S)

went up (together)

And then (at that time) Joseph from Galilee out of the town of Nazareth,
into the Judea, into the city of David which is called Bethlehem  through the being of him out of the house and father David.


==================================================


Kai  eporeuonto     -  (literally) and  traveling, went

( …poreuomai in the middle voice – traveling; but found in the imperfect tense, “went”…but the idea conveyed is a simultaneous traveling) – hence translate “were traveling”       In verse 42, translates as “were traveling together”.     I contend, so likewise in this verse.

 pantes   - ALL

apographestha –to register and be written down

  hekastos eis ten heautou polin   
              (Westcott-Hort)  each into the city themselves

hekastos eis ten   idian poliv 
               (1550 Stephanus )  each into his own city

 aveBe  - went up      (Again, in the context of this verse, points to "having gone up in unison", "having gone up as a whole." Cf. down to verse 42, and its context, when all went together to Jerusalem)

De kai ioseph -   then   and  Joseph

apo tas Galilaias   - from the Galilean 

 ek poleos Nazareth  -  out of (the) town Nazareth

eis tan Ioudaian   - into the Judean

eis poliv Dabid   - into (the) city of David

hetis kaleitai  Bethleem  - which is called Bethlehem

dia to einai  autov ek  oikou kai  patrias DaBid  -

through the being of him out of (the) house and father,  David.

==================================================

When Luke says the entire clan went up at the same time, the evidence is that Luke was never contradicted until less than 200 years ago in Germany by atheists and scoffers.   

The places Luke mentioned were scoffed at, but archaeology confirmed Luke as being an historian of the first rank, as  W.M. Ramsay wrote in a book in 1915 that found Luke's geography in Acts to be true in every aspect,  in his book on  St. Paul the traveler.  Places and people's names were buried and scoffed at, and then found to confirm Luke, and not once has Luke been disproven in archaeology based on evidence dug out of the ground.   

There are those who disbelieve the existence of Bethlehem?  Fine. But it's not for lack of evidence...its for, in my opinion, a lack of faith for their own personal reasons...not the evidence itself.

Peace.

[GeoffHudson]

In examining the census of Luke 2:2, there first must be an understanding of Roman history that leads up to the census: because, without this knowledge, the fatal flaw is committed.


In Josephus' Antiq. 18.1.1, we have the mention of the first 14 year census, only 10 years after the last one endured by the Jews. 

Quirinius, a Roman senator [from Cyrenia] who had passed through all the other magistracies until he became consul, and one who in other respects was very distinguished, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, having been sent by Caesar to be governor of that nation and to make an assessment of their property.

[This portion, when analyzed, could also be read as :

Quirinius did not come to be Syria's president, but its chief bureaucrat organizer and tax assessor, retaining the rank of senator of Cyrene.
  Afterwards, and at this later time, he came to Syria to be its de facto governor...etc.]

*** Coponius, a man of the equestrian order, was sent with him to have supreme authority over the Jews.

Quirinius came himself to Judea, which had now been added to the province of Syria, to make an assessment of their property and to dispose of Archelaus's estate. 

Although the Jews at first took the report of a taxation angrily, they gradually left  off any further opposition to it by the persuasion of  the high priest Joazar son of Boethus. Persuaded by Joazar's words, they gave an account of their estates without any dissent.
    But there was one man,  Judas, a Gaulanite from a city named Gamala, who, taking with him Saddok, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to revolt. They both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty... "

***In this second census, it is Coponius who administrates the census, while Quirinius' focus is unhindered, to divide the Judean and Samarian estate of a dead Archelaus.  In other words...having already performed a first census, Cyrenius has already trained a successor, Coponius, to administrate under him.   

What's also wrong with Josephus 6 A.D account?

Saturninus is not present as President of Syria (a requirement given us by Tertullian above).

 Herod I is not present to rule over Israel (a requirement of Matthew chapter 2, written among hostile Jewish witnesses), including the provinces of Galilee (which gives us the reason for Joseph's staying in Egypt,  possibly Alexandria,  refusing to return to Nazareth).   

Both Luke and Matthew were written when living witnesses were still around to testify.  A cousin, Simon, son of Cleopas, would live to the ancient age of 120 to be asked if one wanted to prior to 98 A.D. 

Since Luke was written in 50, and Matthew felt the need to give more politically related details in 55 A.D., we still hear only silence from any protest from rabbinics and their oral histories, etc., as to any lack of witnesses, time to interview them, libraries or record houses to investigate, and so on -- of all the accusations and testimonies the Gospels contain.

For the critics of those who believe in the NT...Luke 2:2 is one less topic they have an excuse to complain about.  That is, once they've done their homework AND have compared it to many of the whoppers of history some of their "illustrious heroes" would have us to believe:  sometimes hanging only on  a fragment and  partial words. 

Hope it has help a few think more deeply on the topic.  Peace. 

So what else was wrong with Josephus?  In Ant 18.1.1, there was a dramatic change in the way the Jews were to be governed.  They were no longer to have a king.  But what was to replace the monarchy?  A clue comes in the words:

"They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them than upon their joining with one another in SUCH COUNCILS as might be successful and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same; so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height."

This of course is the typical obfuscational language of a Flavian editor.  What the 'Jews' were objecting to was not the fabricated taxation of the Flavian historian editor, but the establishment of an Oligarchy, or rule by a few, a COUNCIL, with a Roman, Coponius at its head. 

Reference to Judas the Galilean is a retrospective fictitious interpolation of a real Judas who appears later in the history.  The character objecting to the Council was, I suggest,  was not "Judas a Gaulonite", but Ananias a High Priest.  Ananias was not "of a city" but of a family  "whose name was" Hanan (not "Gamala"). Further I suggest that Ananias was messianic as per the Scrolls, and it was he (along with a second High Priest Caiaphus (not Sadduc) who was zealous to draw the Jews to revolt.  They both thought that it was the COUNCIL (not the fictitious "taxation") that "was no better than an introduction to slavery".   It was they who "exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them", not the editor's "happiness" but righteousness, and that, not "by what they possessed", but by the law they possessed, "which was that of the" Prophet Moses.

Thus setting "about great exploits" was editor's obfusaction for obeying the law.  And it wasn't "men received what they said with pleasure", but priests who receive what they said.   And it was these High Priests who were ultimately the cause of military intervention by Roman forces.  The Flavian editors shifted the blame onto Judas who was, I believe a 'peaceful' prophet.

[Brianroy]

Geoff,

when you wrote: What the 'Jews' were objecting to was not the fabricated taxation of the Flavian historian editor, but the establishment of an Oligarchy, or rule by a few, a COUNCIL, with a Roman, Coponius at its head.  you almost got it.   

Josephus told us of the Pharisaic faction which sought control and rule through its own dictates.  And strangely enough, Josephus wrote these things as an insider appointed governor of Galilee by "the community of Jerusalem"...or should we say "Sanhedrin Gadol" and others.  And the primary ones who would have anointed Josephus are the Pharisees. 

Josephus' objection to the Pharisees, was that they acted as if a higher Sanhedrin within the Great Sanhedrin (the 70).

 "These have so great a power over the multitude, that when they say ANYTHING against the king or against the High Priest, they are presently believed."  (Antiquities 13.10.5).

Even of Oral Torah, Josephus blasts the Pharisees, saying:
"...the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession of their fathers which are not written in the Law of Moses..." and then goes on to commend Hyrcanus who sought to put an end to the Oral Torah burdens the Pharisees placed upon the people.  (Antiquities, 13.10.6-.7).  That is, only Temple Oral Torah for the priests was valid, and the Pharisees used another law to ensnare and rule over a willing poorer class Israel. 

They gloried in their rule as kings through Queen Alexandra (Wars 1.5.2), and had come to expect this kind of rule in a permanent way in the future.

This went so far, that when a king comes before the Sanhedrin, especially when looked over by a strong Pharisaic faction, that king had better come in sackcloth and ashes (Antiquites, 14.9.4).  Herod's reaction to their demands caused him to slaughter an entire Sanhedrin, save Samaes. 

In turn, when the Pharisees were gradually restored, they aligned themselves to mercenaries and took a more vicious tone.  It was often difficult to tell the difference between a Pharisee and a zealot in philosophy.  The Pharisee struck through pay-offs and manipulations of law, while the Zealot, beginning with Judas, struck with dagger and club. 

The popular  language used among the Pharisees to justify their new rules or quirky rulings, was  that a new “bat qol”, a new “heavenly voice”, can trump HASHEM’s written Torah (Tosefta: Sotah 13.2; Babylonian Talmud: Sotah 48b, Yoma 9a, Sanhedrin 11a).  It was as if Rabbi so and so was wiser than HASHEM, and even the heavens conceded to the foudroyancy of Rabbi so-and-so. 


The Great Sanhedrin believed they, and they alone, to be the de facto rulers of Israel, and even kings must bow and be accountable to them. 

When Jerusalem was destroyed, we see this same arrogance still prevailing upon the minds of the Pharisees in circa 80 A.D.!

We see this attitude with pronouncements of Simon ben Shetah, while ruling over the Great Sanhedrin in or about 80 A.D.,  when Simon declared the Sanhedrin as being more dignified and powerful than any king of Israel; so that, should a Sanhedrin demand that the king of Israel appear and defend himself before them in their court, he must do so (Sanhedrin 19a)!

And if HASHEM HIMSELF should come down from Heaven to be king among them, they say in their Oral Law, even HASHEM should be viewed with the evil eye as if He (G-D) were a robber!

  In spite it being  written, that “HASHEM is King (over Israel) to the ages of the ages” (Psalm 10:16, et al).

And we see Tosefta’s Horayot 2:8-10 readjusted the order of the right of rule so that a Sanhedrin could justify their legal right to reign over future kings, and any future messiah, should one be proclaimed as such and having an office of rulership. 

There was no fictitious "Judas" as you claim, because this witness of Josephus is clear.

Even the current Sanhedrin recognizes Josephus as accurate in his histories, but prefer we keep to the Brill translation or the classic Greek.  In other words, even Josephus hostile witness against the Old Sanhedrin stands by the verbal proclamation of the New as accurate.
 
And that First Century Galilean  Judas cult, which became a terrorist faction of Hebrews against Hebrews, profaning Temple and all rituals to HASHEM...did so,  because they believed themselves above the Law...as did the Pharisees in that period from Alexandra to well past the Temple's destruction.

  We see "robber" used in the NT on 3 special points of interest regarding these zealots / sicarii.  By Jesus,  to describe those excluded from Heaven, such as John 10.   We see robber used in regard to Barabbas to describe his affiliation with a faction in Jerusaelm killing during a Festival, as Josephus later describes in later times.  And we see Judas Iscariot as also owing allegiance to these who were Temple Commanders in the Temple.  That is, it was a Zealot faction who were given rule over the Temple Police, and answerable to the War priest on up, to whom Judas answered to and was allied (cf. the Greek of Luke 22:4 and    John 18:3)

Those wanting to see more on the Judas the zealot faction from 6 A.D. Sepphoris (not to be confused with Judas Iscariot),who were later called the Sicarii (or "terrorists", or "gladiator trained mercenaries") may also want to check Josephus (cf. Antiquities, 20.8 -.3, .5-6, .8, .10).         One who causes a faction to kill, rape and murder fellow Jews more than the Romans, is in no way a peaceful prophet.  He is an Amalekite and Korah among them...and the heroes of Masada, as Josephus tells us, were those murderers who hid under the pretentiousness of an honorable faith found in True Judaism.   These not only slew themselves and their families, but with help, they slew their own nation and generation wholesale for nothing more than "causeless hatred".                                   


Thank you, Geoff,  for your input and view on the matter. Peace.

[Michael]

Let us assume for the moment Luke is historical as to the dating of the birth of Jesus. Luke writes far more like a historian than any of the other Gospels which would make him more credible, for what it is worth.

That would make the birth of Jesus circa 6-7AD during the time of the great tax revolt.  The problem with this scenerio was that the messiah HAD to have been born during the time of Herod according to an obscure prophecy about the messiah coming during the reign of the first foreign ruler which was considered Herod.

Luke knew the prophecy and loosly connected Jesus to Herod by having his birth being predicted during the rule of Herod. Matthew, on the other hand, constructed a great cosmic myth about the birth of Jesus (same cosmic myth as the birth of Abraham in the book of Jasher). This story included Herod who played the same role as Nimrod and would have been associated with the constellation of Orion. (Star of the East was Sirius).

Mark and John opted out of the whole controversy by ignoring the story altogether. If Jesus had really been born of a virgin under such unusual circumstances, there would not have been a single story about his life which did not include the tale. It would be like writing about Ben Franklin and never mentioning Philadelphia.

[Brianroy]

Michael,
Point 1:      Herod I the Great, and Saturninus of Antioch, were not around in their offices in 6-7 A.D.  They were in their offices 6-7 B.C.

Point 2:  As I have shown in my redating the NT while destroying the "Quelle" Myth, the literary history left us, even by Mark, testifies that the genealogy gospels (plural) were written first.       

Myths v. history?
You speak of "cosmic myths", as you do in another response regarding the Exodus, and you judge G-D... because no one who gets angry has a right to be G-D, not even G-D...or words to such effect.

 Perhaps the greatest concern I have in your reasoning, is your earnest desire to see all Christian and Jewish history as "cosmic myth-making" to justify whichever philosophy or book you wish to sell, rather than arriving at the most likely truth of a matter.  For you, Abraham and Moses and the Exodus are myths.  To you, Matthew's publication well over 10 years prior to the Jewish war in the midst of hostile witnesses and never contradicted...in fact, very widely quoted by patristic apologists against hostiles...is somehow a myth.  Never mind that in all its first centuries, never once has Matthew been refuted as not being a "logos" (a true word and reason) handed down through apostolic succession.

Dating Mark via a look at Qumran 7's Greek:

In Cave 7 of Qumran, we have manuscript portions which appear in various Greek New Testament works, and written in both Zierstil and Herculanean Greek script.

 Zierstil dates from about ca. 100 B.C. to 60 A.D.

 Herculanean dates to ca. 50 - 72 A.D.

Qumran Cave 7's storage activity appears limited to the last 20 years before the Temple's destruction, perhaps even to within 10, because of this Greek (and NO Hebrew or Aramaic) presence and the styles aforementioned.

According to Jose O'Callaghan, we have 7Q4 with the same wording as I Timothy 3:16; 4:1,3.

We have in 7Q5 an Egyptian form of Zierstil  (that being to 60 A.D.)  quoting words similar to Mark 6:52-53.

In 7Q9, what appears to be Romans 5:11-12.

In other words, not only do we have John 1:18 in script datable to Trajan's reign (also as an Egyptian Greek manuscript portion), but we also have a datable Greek fragment that may be from a Gospel of Mark while Mark was yet alive.

(Re: Biblica 7:1, "New Testament Papyrii in Qumran Cave 7?" by Jose O'Callaghan, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1972 re: pp.91-104.)

The presence of these scripts suggest, as I briefly give in my analysis, that upon Peter's death, Mark (in 57 A.D.) likely visited the major Christian Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch, and Jerusalem,  over a period of months before coming to Alexandria of Egypt and settling there.  Mark died in Nero's 8th year of rulership. 

Christians of the Levitical Courses still would have served in the Temple.  And even though Qumran is twice as far as the place where the Escapegoat was killed (at about 12-13 miles), through the wild hills...it still is thought to have served as a resting place for those who would dispose of the Temple ashes, etc. at the Dead Sea region further on, designated in Ezekiel.  If that is the case, then any denomination could have served in Qumran, as long as they observed the priestly rules of the Community and obeyed its President.  As priests who served every week of the year over the 2-3 weeks a year by Levites in their courses, the Qumranians would have taken the same air of arrogance those who ran the Temple took of them.   

The presence of such documents shows that Christians served among or regularly visited the Qumran Community in whatever capacity; and that the witness of books like Matthew, by inference, were not scorned as myth...because if it were, Mark, I Timothy, and Romans also would not have been acceptable forms of Christian writings among them.  All association would be unholy.  We find the reverse true.


The Jerusalem Proximity

Further, Qumran being the same relative distance from Jerusalem, there would have been at least 10 years of inquiry with living witnesses to testify or verify or dispute Matthew's accounts.  And remember, there is a great likelihood, owing to the early dates of the Gospels, that the leaders of Qumran themselves would have seen, met, and/or heard Jesus in person to testify.

 Matthew published his Gospel IN JERUSALEM, IN THE PRESENCE OF HOSTILE LIVING WITNESSES and adversaries. 

Bethlehem lay but 12 miles from Jerusalem, about 5 hours walking distance (give or take) in a society used to walking up to 90 miles in 3 days several times a year.  So Qumranians would not have thought it harsh to walk but 45 miles in quest of the truth, perhaps using the time to explore biology and rocks along the way.

  And even 130 years later, in Clement of Alexandria's day, a successor to Mark's Churches at Alexandria, this Clement testified that even those Jews hostile to Jesus at Bethlehem, even these acknowledged his birth history there as true.  And at that time, tradition had pointed out a partial cave (or rock overhang)  at the edge of the field where Jesus was born, in Bethlehem. 

Matthew's accusation of Herod as an evil schemer and murderer pales to Josephus' own histories concerning the man, who ruled a secret Police even the Gestapo would have envied. 

As a satellite interpreter, Mark simply accurately recorded, but not in order, that which Peter testified to in Rome, in public addresses.  John, having received the Gospel of Mark by Mark and the Gospel of Paul (we later called Hebrews) from Mark's own hand, prayed over the matter of writing an addendum to Peter's last preachings (quelched on June 29, 57 A.D.).

I believe I John was originally the introductory letter which accompanied the Gospel of John, which in later times was separated.  But many times in its opening, it seeks to assure the testimony of the accounts passed on...that Jesus was up alongside and with G-D in his pre-incarnate state, that Jesus was G-D from G-D, and even his most ardent Jewish critics failed to denounce his legitimacy or claim of being born a virgin.  As a relative in  Caiaphas own sphere of relations himself, and a Kohen, John the Apostle gives the historical inside scoop of the Jewish confrontation from the point of a priest.

  And it is in those perspectives we should take Mark and John.

[Michael]

Brian,

That is correct Herod was dead by 6-7 AD. That is why Luke has an earlier prophecy to connect the birth of Jesus to Herod. The prophecy was made years earlier.

The cosmic myth aspect of the Jewish and Christian religion was only part of their religion. It was used for prophecy. There are historical chapters and philosophy included also. It was not ALL cosmic myth and I do not want to give you that impression.

However, the cosmic myth accounts for many aspects of the Bible. History was rewritten to fit the cosmic myth in many cases which accounts for the many problems one has when the Bible is compared to archaeology. I don't make apologies or excuses for archaeological finds, I accept them because they work perfectly with the cosmic myth idea.

This is a recent letter I sent to BAR, I doubt if they will print it.but it does explain how the cosmic myth was used:

I must disagree with the basic tenets of James Kugel’s interpretation of the Bible as well as Friedman’s gleefully support of Kugel’s errors. I am convinced the early authors knew more about the Bible than any modern day critic. Not only did they “add to and subtract” from the Biblical text, they did so for a specific reason which Friedman and Kugel have failed to grasp.

The scholarly twosome quickly dismisses their a priori without discussion. Paraphrased they are:

1) The Bible was cryptic
2) Lessons were directed to their own day.
3) It had no errors.
4) It was divine.

In order to understand why they believed, what seems to be irrational one has to first know exactly what the “cryptic” aspect of the Bible is. Since neither Friedman nor Kugel have been able to discover the cryptic aspect, they must assume it does not exist and therefore the other three a priori are also incorrect.

Friedman’s own work, The Hidden Book in the Bible, is an attempt to break from the outdated document hypothesis in order to discover the original text, which is the clue for the “cryptic” nature of the Bible. He has at least been able to identify the beginning and end points of the text, but does not realize what he has in his procession.

Friedman admits he is unsure of his own editing, and indeed it leaves much to be desired. A reading of Tigay’s work on Gilgamesh shows us exactly how this text came about: As a living document added to over time. Tigay also discusses specific techniques used to add text to Gilgamesh.  This writing style appears in the Bible. It is just a simple matter of using these techniques in reverse in order to de-construct the Bible to obtain the base line text. It is so simple to do, a layman such as myself was capable of doing it using Friedman’s cleaner translation.

This original text holds the “cryptic” secret. It is a cosmic myth that was used to tell about the past and predict the future. It is clearly based on Akkadian Early Bronze III stories and has the Great Famine and Akkadian rulers as its historical background. The stars also align to this era. However, there are many changes to it to indicate the text was altered over time. It was later intended to look like an Iron Age document, as the text was used in that era to make predictions of that time period.

As a cosmic myth, this would address all the a priori dismissed by Friedman. The cosmic myth is the cryptic nature of the text. The lessons would apply to all ages as it was meant to be astrological. This is readily seen in the midrashim, on the mosaic floors of early synagogues, and in the birth narrative and crucifixion of Christ.

It contained no mistakes or contradictions because writings which exist side by side for each other were intended for different eras. It may appear like a contradiction, but it is not to the reader who realizes the nature of the “cryptic” text.

And since the story reflected what was in the heavens, it was from God.

I have worked out the details of the ancient myth and have come up with a plausible proto-text. This is a fascinating text because it reflects some of the ancient notions the Jews had about the Bible, such as Adam having two wives. This is why David and Solomon will never be found as Iron Age monarchs. Historically Solomon is easy to identify once we eliminate the Iron Age requirement and make his name cryptic.

Until Kugel and Friedman understand the “cryptic” nature of the text they will never understand the Bible as well as the ancients they chide.

[GeoffHudson]

Geoff,


Josephus told us of the Pharisaic faction which sought control and rule through its own dictates. 

In the writings attributed to Josephus, the Pharisees are a figment of the Flavian editor's imagination, as were the Sadducees, and quite possibly the Essenes as Essenes that is.  References to Pharisees were all obfuscatory interpolations of the Flavian editors.  Pharisees are not mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, nor in the contemporary writings of Philo.  Jacob Neusner sees the 'Pharisees' as keeping such a low profile, that they might as well be considered as non-existent pre 70 CE.  In the NT, the so-called 'Pharisees' are in reality, the priests in opposition to the prophet.

Geoff Hudson (real name)

[GeoffHudson]

Let us assume for the moment Luke is historical as to the dating of the birth of Jesus. Luke writes far more like a historian than any of the other Gospels which would make him more credible, for what it is worth.

Michael,

In those days writing more like a historian, meant you were a better liar than those who didn't write so.

Geoff

[Brianroy]

In those days writing more like a historian, meant you were a better liar than those who didn't write so.

Geoff



Geoff,

If all ancient history is fiction, as you suggest: 

When do you claim any accuracy begins? 

What proofs are needed to verify its authenticity to say that it is true and not made up?

Start from the standards you demand of the most current history you accept (1600 A.D., perhaps?) and work your way back. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the writings attributed to Josephus, the Pharisees are a figment of the Flavian editor's imagination, as were the Sadducees, and quite possibly the Essenes as Essenes that is.  References to Pharisees were all obfuscatory interpolations of the Flavian editors.
{...and the Bible is mistaken because I have found} Adam having two wives....   Geoff Hudson

And what do we make of the manuscript evidence of the NT and the various early Church Fathers writing of these sects?  What do we make of the Talmudic confirmations of what Josephus wrote of this continuing Pharisaic sect, and their Oral traditions? 

Like Geoff, you will have to lay out a groundwork of what constitutes acceptable historical evidence...and then apply it equally to the Bible, as you would wish to tip the balance in the view you have taken to denounce it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff and Michael,
You may wish to start with the same standards as Simon Greenleaf's rules of evidence, and go from there.  Lay out your proofs as to what you base your convictions on.  And let us go from there.

I think it will be very revealing to all our readers how very little sound or reasonable support your "fable" accusations have.  Fire it up.   

[Brianroy]

Correction:  Adam having two wives....
was a statement made by Michael.

But still, let them (Geoff and Michael)  lay out what constitutes evidence of the past, and separates it from fiction.

 I'm sure even archaelogist enthusiasts are eager and  prepared to refute any poor answers.   

[GeoffHudson]

[{...and the Bible is mistaken because I have found} Adam having two wives....   Geoff Hudson

And where did I write this?

And what do we make of the manuscript evidence of the NT and the various early Church Fathers writing of these sects?  What do we make of the Talmudic confirmations of what Josephus wrote of this continuing Pharisaic sect, and their Oral traditions? 

1. When analysed logically in a Jewish context, there is sufficient internal evidence in the NT documents to tell a suspecting person where the editors are lying.  The same is true of the writings attributed to Josephus.  What we have, in many instances is so obviously a garbled version of what Josephus originally wrote, or are fanciful additions, as in the fabricated story of the taking of Masada at the end of War - a climax to the Roman propaganda imposed on Josephus' original writings.

2. In relation to 'sectarian' issues, I would rather rely on documents that have been in the ground for 2000 years than those to which humans have had access or created, post the period of concern, such as the Talmud.  We can safely assume that the Flavian historians had a considerable influence on both 'Christian' and 'Jewish' writings - they even made Josephus a Flavian which he never was.  And no evidence of Pharisees or Sadducees in the Scrolls, or in Philo, is good enough for me.

3. There are statements by modern historians to the effect that the Flavian historians were liars - and laughably, some of them proceed to cite the writings attributed to Josephus as though truth because, for one thing, they have no other source to rely on.

Geoff

 

[Brianroy]

1.  Who were the editors of the NT?   What examples of lying do you specifically wish to address?   

Example: Pontius Pilate is fictional, and never existed. 

Rebuttal example: 1961 saw the discovery by an Italian archaeologist, Antonio Frovo, of  the stone slab of Caesarea Maritima, which was properly excavated, and when  uncovered -- bore among its inscriptions: "Tiberium...Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea" over the course of 4 Latin lines, etc.

2.  Documents that have been in the ground 2000 years are the only credible documents you will accept?  Fine.   Name the specific ones you wish to cite, and what they have in refutation to Josephus and the writers of Talmud, whom you accuse as all being  liars.   

For the benefit of our readers...here is some of the Talmudic referencing by a 17th Century Christian Apologist, and the Soncino Talmud.

From:
A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica
John Lightfoot  (1602-1675)

Exercitations upon the Gospel of St. Matthew
Chapter 3


7. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

[And seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees.] To attempt a history of the Pharisees and Sadducees, after so many very learned men, who have treated of their original, manners, and institutions, would be next to madness: we will briefly touch at a few things, and those, perhaps, less obvious.

1. That the Pharisees do not derive their name (as some would have it) from the word which signifies to expound is sufficiently evinced by this, that there were women-Pharisees as well as men. "R. Joshua saith, A religious man foolish, a wicked man crafty, a woman-Pharisee, and the dashing of the Pharisees [against the stones], destroy the world."

Babylonian Talmud: Sotah 22


...I have therefore cited these passages, not only that it may be shown that there were women-Pharisees, and so that the name is not take from interpreting or expounding, but that it may be observed also what kind of women, for the most part, embrace Pharisaism; namely, widows and maids, under the veil of sanctity and devotion, hiding and practising all manner of wickedness. And so much we gain of the history of the Pharisees, while we are tracing the etymology of the word.

II. That the Pharisees therefore were so called from the word signifying separation, is more commonly asserted, and more truly; and the thing itself, as well as the word, speaks it. So that by a word more known to us, you might rightly call the Pharisees, Separatists; but in what sense, has need of more narrow inquiry. The differences of the Jewish people are to be disposed here into diverse ranks: and, first, we will begin with the women.

See the Babylonian Talmud in Avodah Zarah in the Gloss. That distinction also is worthy of consideration, of The greater and the less religious.

Yet the word seems sometimes to be appropriated to the Pharisees, as being men ...

{Mishna 12, Soncino edition...Pharisees a genuine sect}

Babylonian Talmud: Tohoroth 4
========================================

{Sadducees, fathers and a genuine sect of Judaism}

Babylonian Talmud: Niddah 33

... above all others, put on a splendidly cloaked religion, which appears enough from the history of the Gospel. So, perhaps, is that to be understood,

The religious Galileans purify: that is, as the Gloss explains it, "They cleanse their wine and their oil for a drink-offering, if perhaps the Temple may be built in their days." Which, nevertheless, the Aruch citing, thus explains them, The religious eat their common food in cleanness. By which very thing the Gloss defines Pharisees; To the Pharisees; that is, to them that eat their common food in cleanness.

Behold, how the word religious, and Pharisees, are convertible terms; and how this was the proper notion whereby a Pharisee was defined, "That he ate his common food in cleanness": that is, that he washed his hands when he ate.

III. We must not think that Pharisaism arose altogether and at once, but it was long a-conceiving, and of not fixed form when it was brought forth. The same may, in a manner, be said of this, which is of the traditions: both these and that were the issue of many years. The traditionarians do refer the first conception of the Traditions to the times of Ezra. But how many centuries of years passed before the birth of this whole monster was full ripe? In like manner, the first seeds of Pharisaism were cast long before its birth; and being now brought forth, was a long time growing, before it came to maturity; if so be any can define what its maturity was.

We observe presently, that the foundations of Sadduceeism were laid in the days of Ezra, before there were any Sadducees: in his days also, I suspect, the foundations of Pharisaism were laid long before there were any Pharisees. For, since the Pharisees were marked with that title because they separated themselves from other men, as more profane; and since, in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, it was the great care, and that a holy care too, to separate the seed of Israel from the heathen inhabitants of the land, to wit, the Samaritans, the Ashdodites, the Moabites, &c., not much after; some men, arrogating too much for themselves, took occasion hence of separating themselves from the men of the Israelitic seed, as too profane, and very unfit (alas!) for their communion. Which very thing we experience in our present Separatists. For when the Scripture commands Christians that they communicate not "with unbelievers, with those who are without," &c., that is, with heathens; some do hence make a pretence of withdrawing themselves from the assemblies of Christians: by what right, by what foundation, let themselves look to it.

We shall not trace the time wherein the name of Pharisee first arose; this is done by learneder men: and therefore let it be enough to have observed that only. After once this pretence of religion was received, "that it was a pious matter to separate a man's self from the common people," superstition increased every day, which served for a stay and patronage to this sect and separation. For when they had espoused a religion so supercilious, that they commonly said, "Stand off, I am holier than thou" (which was also foretold by the prophet with an execration, Isaiah 65:5), and that they place the highest sanctimony in this, to withdraw themselves from the common people, as profane; it was certainly necessary to circumscribe, and to put themselves under a more austere rule and discipline, that they might retain the name and fame of religious person in other things besides that separation, that argued so much pride and arrogancy. Hence the troubles about tithings and washings arose, and increased age after age: hence sprang the frequent fasting and prayers, the cares of the phylacteries, fringes, and other matters without number: so that (a thing fatal to Separatists) this sect, at last, was crumbled into sects, and a Pharisee was, in a manner, the same to a Pharisee, that the people of the earth was to a Pharisee.

Both Talmuds reckon seven sects of Pharisees, and so does the Aruch: which it will not be irksome to describe with their pencil, that the reader may see to what a degree of madness this sect was come, as well as to what a degree of hypocrisy. The Pharisees are seven:

1. A Shechemite Pharisee. This [Pharisee] does as Shechem Where the Gloss is, "Who is circumcised, but not for the honour of God." He carrieth his precepts upon his shoulders: that is, as the Aruch explains it, "wood to make a booth [in the feast of Tabernacles], or something of that nature."

2. A Pharisee struck or dashing. Who dasheth his feet. The Gloss is, "He who walketh in humility, the heel of one foot touching the great toe of the other: nor did he lift up his feet from the earth, so that his toes were dashed against the stones." The Aruch writes, "Who withdrew himself a great way off, that he might not press upon men in the ways, and dashed his feet against the stones." Strike me (or surround me), and yet I will perform the command.

3. A Pharisee that lets out his blood. "He strikes out his blood against the walls." The Gloss is; "He shows himself such a one as if his eyes were hoodwinked, that he might not look upon a woman; and hereupon dashed his head against the walls, and let out his blood." The Aruch writes, "He so pressed up himself against the walls, that he might not touch those that passed by, that by the dashing he fetched blood of himself."--"He performed one precept, and one duty, and struck out blood at each."

4. A Pharisee of the mortar. The Aruch thus describes him; "He went in a loose coat, resembling a mortar with the mouth turned downwards. So he, with his loose garment, was straiter above and broader below." In the Jerusalem Talmud he is called "who saith, I withdraw whatsoever is mine and fulfil the command."

5. "The Pharisee which saith, Let me know what my duty is, and I will do it." "I have done my duty, that the command may be performed according to it." The Aruch thus; "As though he should say, There is no man can show me wherein I have transgressed."

6. A Pharisee of fear: such was Job.

7. A Pharisee of love: Among all these, none is worthy to be loved but the Pharisee of love: as Abraham....

 

The original of the Sadducees, learned men as well Jews as Christians, do, for the most part, refer to one Zadoc, a scholar of Antigonus Socheus; which Antigonus took the chief seat in the Sanhedrim after the death of Simeon the Just. Of him thus speaks the tract Avoth: "Antigonus of Socho received traditions of Simeon the Just. He said, Be not as servants, who wait upon their master for the sake of the reward; but be ye like servants who wait upon their master not for the sake of the reward: but let the fear of the Lord rule you."

"This wise man (saith Rambam upon the place) had two scholars, Zadoc and Baithus; who, when they heard this from their master, said among themselves, when they were gone away. Our master in his exposition teacheth us that there is neither reward nor punishment, nor any expectation at all [for the future]: for they understood not what he meant: therefore, they mutually strengthened one another, and departed from the rule, and forsook the law: and some company adhered to both. The wise men, therefore, called them Sadducees and Baithusees."

And a little after; "But in these countries, namely in Egypt, they call them Karaites, but Sadducees and Baithusees are their names among the wise men."    Cf.  Avoth of R. Nathan....   

So we have a Talmudic chain of custody, including Mishnaic referencing dating to 195 A.D.   We have early Church Father quotes dating earlier than that.  We have 24,000 plus New Testament manuscripts in several languages of the period, including,  lectionary readings and patristic quotations and fragments that bridge the gap down to within a generation of the apostles themselves, testifying the veracity/reliability and chain of custody of the NT. 

We have Paul testifying that he personally was a Pharisee in Acts and Philippians 3:5, outside the 4 Gospels. 

 But as with Bultmann, and his cynicism that such NT works as the Gospel of John was fiction by gnostics in the late 2nd century...contentions will yet be undone.  We have since found fragments of that same gospel dating to a Greek form used as the end of Trajan's reign ended...and some say years before that 117 A.D. deadline or transition.  Within 20 years of the Apostle John himself. 

And what 2000 year old documents have we?  We have a few stone or coin inscriptions revealing fragments.  We have Dead Sea Scrolls, sometimes whole, sometimes partial, and fragments which are often found to have translators injecting phrases into fragments, or forming words out of a letter and a half letter at times.  Much of what has come down is simply ritual, others are clearly favorite fictions;  while some is clearly the preservation of Scripture. 

 And what does this prove?  That the literary history left us by the Patristics is an accurate portrayal of Roman and Greek antiquity.  Illiad was known to be myths, and the number of men who bought their deification was also a known thing at the time.  Sometimes even the sculptors or models used to create the fabricated deities were known. And with this same knowledge, we can refute the false from the reporting of events that really did occur.

So where is the manuscript evidence from Geoff disproving the NT facts or figures he claims false and the discovery dates, or chain of custody thereto? We're still waiting.             ,       

[Michael]

Let us assume for the moment Luke is historical as to the dating of the birth of Jesus. Luke writes far more like a historian than any of the other Gospels which would make him more credible, for what it is worth.

Michael,

In those days writing more like a historian, meant you were a better liar than those who didn't write so.

Geoff

Perhaps, but that is what I meant. Luke writes in a near identical fashion as does Josephus. He tells you the "date" of the event by linking it to a known historical date such as the "X" year of the reign of "Y". Also Luke includes insignificant details such as the names of wives etc.

If someone was creating a myth, as was Matthew, they would not write in the fashion of Luke. Matthew creates a story of Jesus' birth which corresponds to the constellations (what one would see before sunrise at the winter solstice, i.e. birth of a sun god.)

The Passion of Jesus is fictional, I would conclude for the same reason. It is the story of the constellations one would see just before sunrise around the Vernal Equinox in 33 CE Jerusalem.

Now having stated that, it is not outside the realm that there was a "historical" character named Jesus on whom the myth was added. Fictionalized tales of virgin births and miracles were attributed to historical characters. Jesus would be no different.

Historically if Jesus existed, he would have been born around 6-7 AD and died when he was about 23, most likely assassinated by one of Pilate's men during a little uprising recorded in both Luke and Josephus.

Brianroy What constitues evidence is a good question. I can tell you what is NOT eveidence.

1) Miracles are impossible. Any text which contains a miracle is mistakenly false for one reason or another.

2) Anomolies. I hate anomolies. Any theory which creates anomolies has problems with it.

The early chucrh fathers were the editors of the NT. They added and deleted material at will. No codex that existed before 400 AD is identical to our current text.

Evidence of NT editing to make the story fit the theology:

The Church was very adamant about the Homoousian belief. In addition to mass murders, riots, and persecutions, the church had to alter scripture. Matthew 3:17 was edited. After Jesus’ baptism God proclaimed, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” He then said (omitted from the Bible), “This day have I begotten thee.” This was a powerful argument for the Arians against the pre-existing Jesus theology.

How do we know this other line existed? Epiphanius claims that was the rendition used by the Ebionites. Justin Martyr specifically quotes Matthew 3:17 (“Dialogue with Trypho” CIII) and uses the extra line. In about the year 400, St. Augustine, in a letter to Faustus, mentions the line as being quoted by the Manichaeans for proof of the dual nature of God. St. Augustine does not deny the allegation (something he could easily do) so we must logically conclude the line was in the text.

The same editing was done to Luke. The older version is still in existence in the “western” text Codex D. It includes the phrase “This day have I begotten thee.” The line was lifted from Psalms 2:7b, “Thou art my son; this day I have begotten thee.”