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

[GeoffHudson]

The birth story of Jesus in Luke 2 was of course a fabrication as was the character Jesus.  The real story began in Luke 1 where one could be forgiven for thinking that the story to come had nothing to do with any Jesus at all. 

Zechariah was a prophet who belonged to the priestly company of prophets (the Essenes), not the editor’s division of Abijah (Luke 1:5).  Both Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth maintained high standards of purity for Zechariah to officiate in the sanctuary burning incense before the Lord - they observed all the Lord’s commandments blamelessly. (Luke 1.6).  Elizabeth had no children, not because she was barren according to the editor’s dramatic notion, but because she had not had intercourse – a standard Essene practise of purity. She was pure and also a prophetess like her husband. (Luke 1.7).

The editor’s ‘angel’ that ‘appeared’ (explicit) to Zechariah in the sanctuary (Luke 1:11) was the Spirit of the Lord in the smoke of the incense.  Thus the ‘account’ of Luke 1.1 was of the Spirit (not the editor's ‘of the things’), just as it appeared to us (not the editor's 'handed down to us) who from the first were prophets of the Lord (not the editor’s 'eyewitnesses and servants of the word').

[Brianroy]

In Textual Transmission, the bibliographical test of Luke, we have among the best chain of custody from the ancient world down to our day; rivaled only by other Bible texts.  Every other book of the ancient world contrary to Scripture, you can toss is the trash heap on this issue. 

In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament. The books of the New Testament were written in the latter part of the first century; the earliest extant manuscripts (trifling scraps excepted) are of the fourth century - say, from 250 to 300 years later. This may sound a considerable interval, but it is nothing to that which parts most of the great classical authors from their earliest manuscripts.

We believe that we have in all essentials an accurate text of the seven extant plays of Sophocles; yet the earliest substantial manuscript upon which it based was written more than 1400 years after the poet's death. Aeschylus, Aristophanes, and Thucydides are in the same state; while with Euripides the interval is increased to 1600 years. For Plato it may be put at 1300 years; for Demosthenes as low as 1200."

Sir Frederick G. Kenyon, "Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament," 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1912), p. 5.


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


In the Criticism of the Internal Text, we find that "one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies." John Warwick Montgomery.

Archaeology is but one of several historical means of EXTERNAL confirmation of the factual statements made by the Scriptures.  Some years later, J.W. Montgomery reiterated:

"The New Testament documents must be regarded as reliable sources of information...the documentary attestation for these records is so strong that a denial of their reliability carries with it total skepticism toward the history and literature of the classical world."

John Warwick Montgomery, "History and Christianity" (San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life Publishers 1983) p. 43

For those who wish to examine the topic fair mindedly, John Ankerberg Ministries --       Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, John Ankerberg Show - Christian      Apologetics, Jesus, Bible & Christ
    <link href="jasstyle1.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
    --   has many good resources, such as interviewing Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, on these issues. 

free video examples, can be viewed, e.g., at:

 Ankerberg Theological Research Institute - Evidence for the Historicity
of Jesus Programs


In regard to the Rylands fragment of John's Gospel, since one of our participants likes F.G. Kenyon:

"This is at any rate objective evidence, not resting on theological prepossessions, and since it is accepted by all those who have had most experience in dating the gospel itself must on all grounds of probability be put back into the first century, in order to allow time for the work to get into circulation; and a date toward the end of that century is wat Christian tradition has always assigned to it.

With regard to the other books of the New Testament there is not much to say. No one doubts that the synoptic gospels belong to a period perceptibly earlier than the fourth gospel, so that the traditional dates round about the fall of Jerusalem remain approximately the latest possible, and the dating of Luke carries with it that of Acts.

For the Pauline epistles the only new evidence is that they were circulating as a collection by the end of the second century, and that this collection included Hebrews, but apparently not the pastoral epistles...

The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established. "

Sir Frederic Kenyon, "The Bible and Archaeology" (New York: Harper, 1940) p. 288

William Ramsay, in regard to Luke as an historian writes:
 
"Our hypothesis is that Acts was written by a great historian, a writer who set himself to record the facts as they occurred, a strong partisan indeed, but raised above partiality by his perfect confidence that he had only to describe the facts as they occurred, in order to make the truth of Christianity and the honour of Paul apparent...It is not my object to assume or to prove that there was no prejudice in the mind of Luke, no fault on the part of Paul; but only to examine whether the facts are stated as trustworthy, and leave them to speak for themselves (as the author does). I shall argue that the book was composed by a personal friend and disciple of Paul, and if this be once established there will be no hesitation in accepting the primitive tradition that Luke was the author."

W. M. Ramsay , "St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen" Fourth Ed. (London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1895) pp. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In regard to Jesus' prophecy in the Gospel of Matthew, and Josephus' post 70 testimony that Jerusalem was utterly destroyed with virtually no stones of any non-Antonio Fortress building, etc. standing...

"The city of Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa was brutally destroyed and devastated after the capture of Jerusalem by Titus in A.D. 70, and its ruins still further overturned by the Hadrianic building operations of the second century A.D. Our excavations have shown that with the exception of a few of the public buildings, quite literally scarcely one stone stands on another."

Kathleen Kenyon, "Digging Up Jerusalem" (London: Ernest Benn, 1974) pp. 236-37.

====================================================
And what is good for the NT witness, is equally good for the Old Testament:

"A substantial proof for the accuracy of the Old Testament text has come from archaeology. Numerous discoveries have confirmed the historical accuracy of the biblical documents, even down to the obsolete names of foreign kings on occasion.

Reference should be made at this point to Robert Dick Wilson's classic work, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, or the more recent work of William F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, in support of this view.

One interesting example may be cited from even more recent findings than these. Until recently the reference to "So, king of Egypt" (II Kings 17:4) has often been used to illustrate the total ignorance of the writer of the book. No such king of Egypt was known to history.

Now it is known, from the Egyptian spelling of the city of Sais--the capital of an Egyptian province in the western-delta of that time (c. 725 B.C.)-- that the text should read "To So [Sais], to the King of Egypt." Tefnakhte was the king of this Egyptian province at the time, and Hoshea, king of Israel, was appealing to him for help to withstand the Assyrians.

Rather than a manifestation of complete ignorance of the facts of its day, the biblical record thus reflects a great knowledge by the writer of his day, as well as precision in textual transmission."

Norman L. Geisler, William Nix "A General Introduction to the Bible" 5th Edition (Chicago: Moody Press 1983) p. 253
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I was sitting, reading my notes on a defense blasting the sceptics through the Qumranian texts in Caves 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 11...and what the Community did in their comparison of manuscript texts, having multiple translations and even cross-over comparisons...I had to wonder, are these guys even interested in the truth of any matter? 

The answer, while rereading the responses they gave, was clearly "no."  I actually think and believe that they are content with their views without providing counter-evidences to support their view.  All they have to offer -- from what I can see -- is potently subjective unbelief,  and little else.

I hope others who are in search of the Truth, will be open to its balance application of treating pros-and-cons equally --  rather than lead-weighting cons and discounting any pro as but a speck of dust for the other side;  and then claiming to be "serious" about being fair to themselves and/or others in promoting a view based on such a bias.

That's my view, and perhaps something to consider.  Peace.   
 

[Michael]

The birth story of Jesus in Luke 2 was of course a fabrication as was the character Jesus.  The real story began in Luke 1 where one could be forgiven for thinking that the story to come had nothing to do with any Jesus at all. 

Zechariah was a prophet who belonged to the priestly company of prophets (the Essenes), not the editor’s division of Abijah (Luke 1:5).  Both Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth maintained high standards of purity for Zechariah to officiate in the sanctuary burning incense before the Lord - they observed all the Lord’s commandments blamelessly. (Luke 1.6).  Elizabeth had no children, not because she was barren according to the editor’s dramatic notion, but because she had not had intercourse – a standard Essene practise of purity. She was pure and also a prophetess like her husband. (Luke 1.7).

The editor’s ‘angel’ that ‘appeared’ (explicit) to Zechariah in the sanctuary (Luke 1:11) was the Spirit of the Lord in the smoke of the incense.  Thus the ‘account’ of Luke 1.1 was of the Spirit (not the editor's ‘of the things’), just as it appeared to us (not the editor's 'handed down to us) who from the first were prophets of the Lord (not the editor’s 'eyewitnesses and servants of the word').

I had the same belief about Jesus, but dismissing him as entirely fictional, instead of in part, creates problems. James was known as the flesh and blood brother of Christ. Now if Jesus was fictional, then James and his writings must be fabrications. If they are fabrications, then Paul's reference to James must also be fabrication as was Paul. We know have three fictional characters, two of which seemd to have wrote stuff and are not connected to myth as was Jesus. For me the logical conclusion was that Jesus was a real man of which myths were created to make him look like a messiah.

[GeoffHudson]

I had the same belief about Jesus, but dismissing him as entirely fictional, instead of in part, creates problems. James was known as the flesh and blood brother of Christ. Now if Jesus was fictional, then James and his writings must be fabrications. If they are fabrications, then Paul's reference to James must also be fabrication as was Paul. We know have three fictional characters, two of which seemd to have wrote stuff and are not connected to myth as was Jesus. For me the logical conclusion was that Jesus was a real man of which myths were created to make him look like a messiah.

James was real and a prophet with his brother Simon.  Both were sons of Judas the son of the same Zechariah we read about in Luke 1 (e.g. Judas the son of Ezekias as garbled by Josephus's Flavian editors in an anachronistic interpolation, Ant.17.10.5).  In another garbled anachronistic interpolation, the Flavian editors removed the brothers James and Simon the sons of Judas from the history by having them executed for no apparent reason, apart from eliminating them from the history. (Ant.20.5.2) .  They were in fact the successors to Judas as leaders of the prophetic 'Christian' movement of the Spirit started by the prophet Judas, who of course the Flavian editors made into the villain wherever they could.  Paul was the product of the 'Pauline' editors as a substitute for James, along with Jesus a substitute for Judas.  Jesus just had to have that name to go with the editor's message of the cross.  It was James who wrote the original versions of Luke and Acts, the latter being autobiography, probably written for Ephaphroditus, Nero's Greek secretary.

[Brianroy]

Since two participants wish to espouse their unsupported mythology charges, and ignorantly rave about Jesus being a myth...I would like to reply with a free tract from the well respected Ankerberg Theological Research Institute.


The Christian Faith - Why It's True
By  Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon         (c) Dr. Ankerberg


The Christian Faith - Why It's True

The kind of existence that Christianity offers a seeker is one of deep and abundant satisfaction, regardless of the pain and disappointment one may experience in life. Jesus claimed that He would give us what we really need in life: true meaning and purpose flow, and when we die everlasting life in a glorious heavenly existence far beyond our current comprehension.

Noted Oxford and Cambridge scholar C. S. Lewis correctly understood one of the most heartfelt yearnings of mankind when he wrote, "There have been times when I think we do not desire heaven but more often I find myself wondering whether, in our heart of hearts, we have ever desired anything else."1

 Jesus declared, "I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full" (John 10:10). He said, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies" (John 11:25). He also said, "I am the truth" (John 14:6). "Everyone on the side of truth listens to me" (John 18:37).

Christianity is unique in both the evidence upon which it rests and the doctrines it teaches. Just as Jesus Christ is unique, so is the religion based upon Him. There is sufficient evidence from virtually every department of human experience and study to objectively demonstrate that Christianity is true. Regardless of the many truth claims in other religions, it is the faith of the non-Christian that is internally and externally lacking. While it may be "politically incorrect" in some minds to say such a thing, the only issue is: "Is it true"? Again, Christian faith is an objective, rational faith. Whatever their merits, non-Christian faiths are typically irrational, subjective and without sufficient grounding as to historical claims, and they lack credible claims to be divine revelation. Despite the widespread misperception that Christianity involves a blind "leap of faith," that description does fit non-Christian religions generally.

Scholars Are Convinced

Christianity is not just intellectually credible, whether considered philosophically, historically, scientifically, ethically or culturally, but from an evidential perspective it is superior to other worldviews, secular or religious. If Christianity were obviously false, as cults and most skeptics charge, how could esteemed scholars and intellectuals logically make their declarations of faith?

 While testimonies per se mean little, if they are undergirded by the weight of scholarly evidence they can hardly be dismissed out of hand. Mortimer Adler is one of the world’s leading philosophers. He is chairman of the board of editors for The Encyclopedia Britannica. He is also the architect of The Great Books of the Western World series and its amazing Syntopicon, and he is director of the prestigious Institute for Philosophical Research in Chicago and author of Truth in Religion, Ten Philosophical Mistakes, How to Think About God, How to Read a Book, plus over 20 other challenging books. He simply asserts, "I believe Christianity is the only logical, consistent faith in the world."2


How could a philosopher of Adler’s caliber make such a statement? Because he knows it can’t rationally be made of any other religion.

Philosopher, historian, theologian and trial attorney John Warwick Montgomery, who holds nine graduate degrees in various fields, argues, "The evidence for the truth of Christianity overwhelmingly outweighs competing religious claims and secular world views."3

 His 50-plus books and 100-plus scholarly articles indicate exposure to a wide variety of non-Christian religious and secular philosophies. How could an individual of such intellectual stature use a descriptive phrase as "overwhelmingly outweighs" if it were obviously false?

The individual widely considered to be the greatest Protestant philosopher of God in the world, Alvin Plantinga, recalls, "For nearly my entire life I have been convinced of the truth of Christianity."4

On what basis can one of the world’s greatest philosophers make such a declaration if the evidence for Christianity is unconvincing, as cultists and critics charge?

Dr. Drew Trotter is executive director of the Center for Christian Studies at Charlottesville, Virginia. He holds a doctorate from Cambridge University. He argues that "logic and the evidence both point to the reality of absolute truth, and that truth is revealed in Christ"5

If we are looking for evident truths, then perhaps we should consider the words of noted economist and sociologist, George R. Gilder, author of Wealth and Poverty, who asserts, "Christianity is true and its truth will be discovered anywhere you look very far."6

Dr. Alister McGrath is Principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University. He studied at Oxford and Cambridge universities and is research lecturer in theology at Oxford. He is considered one of the most influential Christian writers in the world, and his numerous books include an acclaimed text on apologetics, Bridge Building, as well as Intellectuals Don’t Need God and Other Myths. He declares that the superior nature of the evidence for Christianity is akin to that found in doing good scientific research:

When I was undertaking my doctoral research in molecular biology at Oxford University, I was frequently confronted with a number of theories offering to explain a given observation. In the end, I had to make a judgment concerning which of them possessed the greatest internal consistency, the greatest degree of correspondence to the data of empirical observation, and the greatest degree of predictive ability. Unless I was to abandon any possibility of advance in understanding, I was obliged to make such a judgment.... I would claim the right to speak of the "superiority" of Christianity in this explicative sense.7


The noted Christian scholar, Dr. Carl F. H. Henry, wrote a 3000-page, 6-volume work titled God, Revelation and Authority. After his exhaustive analysis, Henry declared, "Truth is Christianity’s most enduring asset...."8

In his definitive Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Baker Book House, 1999, p. 785), leading Christian scholar Dr. Norman L. Geisler, author of When Cultists Ask, When Critics Ask and When Skeptics Ask, writes, "The only system of truth is the Christian system." Such accolades could be multiplied repeatedly. Indeed, as Dr. Geisler comments, "In the face of overwhelming apologetic evidence, unbelief becomes perverse...."9

There is also Christianity’s founder, Jesus Christ, who is utterly original and totally unique when compared to every other religious leader who has ever lived. In the words of an article in Time magazine, His life was, simply, "the most influential life that was ever lived."10

In addition, the Christian Bible itself is clearly the most influential book in human history. If Jesus Christ and the Christian Scriptures continue to exert unparalleled influence in the world, shouldn’t they be considered worthy of truly impartial investigation? If objective evidence points to Christianity alone being fully true, then it seems that only personal bias can explain people’s unwillingness to consider seriously the claims of Jesus Christ on their life.

A further reason that those of other religious persuasions, secularists too, should be receptive to Christianity is because we live in an increasingly poisonous age experientially. In our pluralistic and pagan culture, almost anyone is a viable target for conversion to any of a wide variety of false beliefs and their consequences—from various cults and New Age occultism to solipsism and nihilism. Philosophies of despair and potent occult experiences can convert even those who think they are the least vulnerable. "There is a great deal of research that shows that all people, but especially highly intelligent people, are easily taken in by all kinds of illusions, hallucinations, self-deceptions, and out-right bamboozles—all the more so when they have a high investment in the illusion being true."11

In other words, even in this life the personal welfare of the non-Christian may be at risk.

When one examines the arguments and attacks made against Christianity for 2,000 years, by some of the greatest minds ever, guess what one finds? Not one is valid. Not one, individually or collectively, disproves Christianity. Even with the most difficult problems, such as the problem of evil, Christianity has the best answer of any religion or philosophy, the best solution to the problem.

If the leading minds of the world have been unable to disprove Christianity, this may explain why many of the other leading minds in the world have accepted it As James Sire correctly points out in Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All?, an argument for belief, religious or other, must be secured on the best evidence, validly argued and able to refute the strongest objections that can be mustered against it.12 The Christian faith fits these criteria.

Obviously, if the God of the universe has revealed Himself and is the only true God, and if Christ is the only true way of salvation, then we would expect convincing evidence to substantiate this. Not just some evidence, or inferior evidence—so that a person has a dozen equally valid options in the choice of their religion—but superior evidence. Dr. John Warwick Montgomery asks:

What if a revelational truth-claim did not turn on questions of theology and religious philosophy—on any kind of esoteric, fideistic method available only to those who are already "true believers"—but on the very reasoning employed in the law to determine questions of fact?... Eastern faiths and Islam, to take familiar examples, ask the uncommitted seeker to discover their truth experientially: the faith-experience will be self-validating.... Christianity, on the other hand, declares that the truth of its absolute claims rests squarely on certain historical facts, open to ordinary investigation.... The advantage of a jurisprudential approach lies in the difficulty of jettisoning it: legal standards of evidence developed as essential means of resolving the most intractable disputes in society ... Thus one cannot very well throw out legal reasoning merely because its application to Christianity results in a verdict for the Christian faith.13


So, let’s assume that a God of truth is dedicated to truth and that He desires that people find Him. Indeed, "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us" (Acts 17:26-27). What is the most logical place to begin our search for divine revelation? Wouldn’t it be the one religion that God has made stand out from all the rest? Logically, the best and only practical way to see if one religion is absolutely true is to start with the largest, most unique, influential and evidentiary religion in the world. "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead" (Acts 17:30-31). It seems more reasonable to determine whether or not this religion is true than to seek another approach such as examining, one by one, all religions from A to Z, or picking one randomly by personal preference, or by accepting a religion as a result of subjective experience.

The problem is that, not being grounded in objective, historical evidence, all non-Christian religions are experientially based. As such, they prove nothing because of their inherent subjectivism. Thus, having even profound religious experiences, alone, cannot prove one’s religion is true. And, obviously, to attempt to examine all religions (whether the sequence is random, preferential or alphabetical) would be a daunting, confusing and in the end an impossible task.

If there is only one God, and if only one religion is fully true, then one should not expect to discover sustainable evidence in any other religion. And indeed, no other religion, anywhere, large or small, has sustainable evidence in its favor. If no credible evidence exists for any other religion, and if only Christianity has compelling evidence on its behalf; why should time be spent examining religions that have no basis to substantiate their claims, especially when there may be significant negative consequences for trusting in them, not only in this life but the next life as well?

It is much easier, and more logical, to start by examining the probabilities of truth on the highest end of the scale. We examined some of these in our book Ready with an Answer (Harvest House, 1997). In "The Value of an Evidential Approach," William J. Cairney (Ph.D., Cornell) discusses some of the possibilities that constitute genuine evidence for the fact God has inspired the Bible and the Christianity based on it:

History Written in Advance. We can all write history in retrospect, but an almighty, omnipotent, Creator would not be bound by our notions of space and time, and would thus be able to write history before it occurs. Suppose that we encountered a sourcebook that contained page after page of history written in advance with such accuracy and in such detail that good guessing would be completely ruled out.

Prescience. Suppose that in this same sourcebook, we were able to find accurate statements written ages ago demonstrating scientific knowledge and concepts far before mankind had developed the technological base necessary for discovering that knowledge or those concepts....

Historical Evidence. Suppose that in this same sourcebook, we were to find historical assertions that time after time were verified as true as historical scholarship continued....

Archeological Evidence. Suppose that in this same sourcebook, statements that are difficult to verify are made about people and places, but as archeology "unearths" more knowledge of the past, time after time the sourcebook is seen to be true in its assertions.

Philosophical and Logical Coherence. Suppose that this same sourcebook, even though written piecemeal over thousands of years, contains well-developed common themes and is internally consistent.

And suppose all of these evidences hang together without internal contradiction or literary stress within the same anthology. Collectively, we could not take these evidences lightly.14

Indeed, and this is why, overall, the evidence strongly asserts that Christianity is true, whether or not anyone agrees. The evidence for Christianity remains powerful whether it is internal (the documents), philosophical, moral, historical, scientific, archeological or when compared with the evidence found in other religions. For example, "The competence of the New Testament documents would be established in any court of law," and, "Modern archeological research has confirmed again and again the reliability of New Testament geography, chronology, and general history."15

(This is especially true in the biased, liberal biblical studies cited by the cults to reject biblical faith, where we find the paradox of those being closest to the truth often snubbing their noses at it. As the noted classical scholar Professor E. M. Blaiklock points out, "Recent archeology has destroyed much nonsense and will destroy more. And I use the word nonsense deliberately, for theories and speculations find currency in biblical scholarship that would not be tolerated for a moment in any other branch of literary or historical criticism."16)

In conclusion, no one can successfully argue that Christianity and its origins have not been thoroughly investigated—as if some unrecognized aspect of it might yet prove its downfall. As the fifth edition of Man’s Religions by John B. Noss points out, "The first Christian century has had more books written about it than any other comparable period of history. The chief sources bearing on its history are the gospels and epistles of the New Testament, and these—again we must make a comparative statement—have been more thoroughly searched by inquiring minds than any other books ever written."17

 In essence, only Christianity meets the burden of proof necessary to say, "This religion alone is fully true." When the critics claim otherwise, they are mistaken.
 

Recommended Reading

John Ankerberg, John Weldon, Ready with an Answer

_________, Knowing the Truth about Salvation

C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Francis Schaeffer, He Is There and He Is Not Silent

Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics



Notes

1 C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: Macmillan, 1962), p. 145.

2 As cited in an interview in Christianity Today, November 19,1990, p. 54.

3 John W. Montgomery (ed.), Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God Question (Dallas: Word, 1991), p. 9.

4 Alvin Plantinga, "A Christian Life Partly Lived," in Kelly James-Clark (ed.), Philosophers Who Believe (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), p. 69, emphasis added.

5 As interviewed in the Chattanooga Free Press, July 25, 1995, p. A-11.

6 L. Neff, "Christianity Today Talks to George Gilder," Christianity Today, March 6, 1987, p. 55, cited in David A. Noebel, Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of Our Day and the Search for Truth (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1994), p. 15.

7 Alister E. McGrath, "Response to John Hick" in Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips (eds.), More Than One Way? Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995), p. 68.

8 Ajith Fernando, The Supremacy of Christ (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1995), p. 109.

9 Norman L. Geisler, "Joannine Apologetics" in Roy B. Zuck (gen. ed.), Vital Apologetic Issues: Examining Reasons and Revelation in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1995), p. 57.

10 Richard N. Ostling, "Who Was Jesus?" Time, August 15, 1988, p. 57.

11 Maureen O’Hara, "Science, Pseudo-Science, and Myth Mongering," Robert Basil (ed.), Not Necessarily the New Age: Critical Essays (New York: Prometheus, 1988), p. 148.

12 James Sire, Why Should Anyone Believe Anything at All? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), p. 10.

13 John Warwick Montgomery, "The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity," in John Warwick Montgomery (ed.), Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God Question (Dallas: Probe Books, 1991), pp. 319-20.

14 William J. Cairney, "The Value of an Evidential Approach," in Montgomery (ed.), Evidence for Faith, p. 21.

15 Montgomery, "The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity," in Montgomery (ed.), Evidence for Faith, pp. 322, 326.

16 E. M. Blaiklock, Christianity Today, Sept. 28, 1975, p. 13.

17 John B. Noss, Man’s Religions, 5th ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1974), p. 417.

[GeoffHudson]

Where's the peace gone then Brian, if that's your name.  I think few will be interested in wading through your long posts, especially a tract from a so-called institute that probably does very nice thankyou selling its published materials. 

Geoff

[Brianroy]

Geoff,
    You ask, "where's the peace"?   If a man comes into a house or place and offers "peace", but there be those that rather gnash the teeth and wail, then let that "peace" return unto you.

You and Michael clearly have no interest in offering counter foundations, historical or literary counter proofs, counter reasonings for the ludicrous and anti-historical positions you take.  But that is your constitutional right and privilege. 

I am willing to offer literary texts, and my own work product, except where noted like this last tract...and from the literary point of view...bibliographical and internal forms of evidence confirmed by external evidences, of which archaeology is but one of these external forms (quotations by other ancient historical sources is also an external evidence to be considered).

Unlike others, Brian Roy is part of my real name.  My redating Revelation is copyrighted by me and in the Library of Congress in manuscript format.  I haven't put it into a book form because I want to vet the thesis with scholarship or have it written better by such.  But in the last 18 years, the more I search, the more I find history supporting this approach over every other theory on the NT historicity out there. 

Instead of an intelligent and well thought out counter proposal, like here, someone like you comes along and wishes to promote an Alice in Wonderland "caterpillar" view of antiquity based on their feelings, or some colored beads by Jesus Seminarians with a distorted hatred and agenda against the very name of "Jesus" perhaps?  You say that Luke is a fabrication, when the best historians and even archaeologists on the subject say differently. You say the myth, when one who wrote the rules of evidence for American Law Schools, the great Harvard scholar Simon Greenleaf, when applying the rules of evidence to the Gospel accounts...even the Resurrection accounts...ruled decisively in their favor and determined it to be historical and sound. 

Do you offer any counter theories that attack Simon Greenleaf's conclusions, point by point? No.   Do you attack W. Ramsay or the many  archaeologists who discover all these artifacts out of the ground confirming the people and places and things accounted for in the Gospel and Acts?  No. 

[Brianroy]

Phillip Schaff, in his History of the Church, has an excellent synopsis on the period around Jesus’ Birth and the time of the Lukan census…

HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*


Do you take Scahff apart, or offer counter proposals?  No.  And what is the gist for historians dating Herod to a death of March 23, 4 B.C. any way?

A nedd to redate Herod's death?

In  the calculations of Kepler regarding the Bethlehem "star", Kepler calculated a  conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in 747 Anno Urbis (5 B.C.).    

Centuries later, these calculation were moved from June, August, and December  of 5 B.C. to May 20, October 27, and November 12 by Professor Ideler in 1826. 
(Again: HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*)

If we accept these calculations of Ideler, we would have to speculate that Jesus would have to have been born on or about October 27, 5 B.C.      In the interim, the magi have followed the star phenomenon in Pieces’ constellation over the course of about 12 day’s journey from Assyria/Babylonia.  This brings us to about November 8. 

According to this calculation, after a couple days of inquiring, the Magi would have spoken to Herod on or about November 10 or 11. 

Then, leaving Herod’s fortress east of Bethlehem, they would have spent the sundown of the 12th a small journey east of Bethlehem, and approached the point of the star’s cross or sword tip, to locate this Messiah on November 12, 5 B.C.   

The massacre of infants would then have occurred on or about November 13, 5 B.C.; and the testament of the engraving of the Church of the Nativity of  having been 20,000, refers then not to how many infants were killed, but that of the House of David, the census enumerated 20,000 at Bethlehem at the time of Herod’s massacre.  We can figure all but several hundred were NOT residents. 

In examining Josephus, we see that the calculations of Herod’s death is based on the occurrence of Josephus’ mentioning a lunar eclipse.   The next eclipse happening after the slaughter of infants would be on March 23 of 4 B.C., some 4 months later.  But unlike the Magi star, this lunar eclipse had a special significance, because Jews were running on a lunar calendar and very conscientious as to “lunar eclipses”, because their lives cycled around the moon (as it were).

 The Temple Institute: Introduction to the Holy Temple Calendar

The Temple Institute: Rosh HaShana in the Holy Temple: Rabban Gamliel's Upper Chamber



This is significant, because the activity of an EXPECTED lunar eclipse, especially one that was regular, has NO significance in its happening to a well taught Hebrew like Josephus.  Hence, the mention by Josephus in 17.6.4. 

Eclipse Predictions
Lunar Eclipses from -0099 to 0000
Jerusalem, ISRAEL
Latitude:    31° 46' 00" N
Longitude:    35° 14' 00" E
Altitude:    808.9m

according to Nasa's program, shows an eclipse in March of 4 B.C., but it is NOT the eclipse we would be looking for.  I believe that Josephus meant that it was something more of a miraculous sign of Judgment, and perhaps blood red in its occurrence...or some like unpredictable sign that occurred while the moon was full, not in a state of eclipse.   


In Josephus’ day, lunar eclipses were quite common happenings, and predictable.

Javascript Lunar Eclipse Explorer for ASIA  



Solar eclipses in Herod’s day were also often and regular

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEcat5/SE-0099-0000.html

In Jesus ministry, there were at least two lunar eclipses:

Javascript Lunar Eclipse Explorer for ASIA  


But no solar eclipses during any Passover:
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/JSEX/JSEX-AS.html

[Brianroy]

So something special happened in the astronomical way regarding Jesus and Herod.  Herod went out with a possible unpredicted full moon eclipse that was not aligned for such an occasion...and Jesus left with a dual eclipse condition of solar black-out during a full moon that looked as if blood between noon and 3 pm in Jerusalem on March 23, 30 A.D., Wednesday afternoon at the ending of Passover. 
In 1752, America went from Wednesday, September 2, 1752 to a Thursday, September 14, 1752.  This was a change of 11 days.  The change by the Vatican changed the reckoning of time around the world.  Eventually, even the Jewish and Christian calendars may have been  influenced  for the worse.
Calendars and their History
Gregorian Calendar -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Astronomy
The Gregorian Calendar

GregorianCalendar (Java 2 Platform SE 5.0)

History & info - the year we use, definitions (Gregorian)

If that is the case, then it may be that the differences between Kepler and Ideler’s calculations of differing months, may reflect and entire 30 cycle of alteration, and an 11 day plus where there should have been a 19 day subtraction of days to the calendar.  If that is the case, especially if calendars weren’t accurately tracked for some 600 years during the Middle Ages, then we could be in for a huge controversy for its adjustment yet again.
The Bible talks of the Anti-Christ seeking to change times and seasons.
“And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:” (Daniel 2:21)
 A 30 day adjustment would do just that. 
 In the year 46 BC, the Greek Sosigenes  convinced Julius Caesar to reform the Roman calendar to a more manageable form. At this time, Julius also changed the number of days in the months to achieve a 365 day year. In order to "catch up" with the seasons, Julius Caesar also added 90 days to the year 46 BC between November and February (Vardi 1991, p. 238).
The Julian calendar consisted of cycles of three 365-day years followed by a 366-day leap year. Around 9 BC, it was found that the priests in charge of computing the calendar had been adding leap years every three years instead of the four decreed by Caesar (Vardi 1991, p. 239). As a result of this error, no more leap years were added until 8 AD. Leap years were therefore 45 BC, 42 BC, 39 BC, 36 BC, 33 BC, 30 BC, 27 BC, 24 BC, 21 BC, 18 BC, 15 BC, 12 BC, 9 BC, 8 AD, 12 AD, and every fourth year thereafter (Tøndering). The UNIX command cal incorrectly lists 4 AD as a leap year (Vardi 1991).
Vardi, I. "The Julian Calendar." §3.5.1 in Computational Recreations in Mathematica. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 44 and 238-240, 1991.
From:   http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/JulianCalendar.html

[Brianroy]

The Temple Institute: A Day in the Life of the Holy Temple: Divisions of Family Groups
24 weeks +24 weeks+24 weeks
The courses of the priests were in 24 week cycles, and Zacharias represented his family. 
Zacharias duty in Luke Chapter 1 was :  The Temple Institute: A Day in the Life of the Holy Temple: Entering the Hall Alone


How long, say the skeptics, was Jesus in Bethlehem for the census?  Less than 2 weeks. 

In Luke 1, we have the testimony of Zacharias  meeting Gabriel while Zacharias served his course for his clan.  Because there were so few left for his particular group of the family on his day, he served at an age somewhere between 70 and 110 by Septuagint example in the Greek word probebekotes.

We know that after his course, Elizabeth his wife got pregnant and hid herself 5 months or about 21-22 weeks before having to come out because Zacharias had to serve his course again.    Elisabeth’s paternal lineage was to Aaron, but her maternal lineage was of the House of David.   Her mother’s father was of the Davidic line, and related to Mary, probably being the daughter of  Mary’s grand uncle  (her grandfather’s brother) or great grand uncle (Mary’s great grandfather’s brother). 
So let’s say that the pregnancy happens in the second week, 22 weeks from Zacharias serving the next course as a mute.  At which time Elisabeth is 5 months pregnant.  4 weeks more, and Gabriel visits Mary and she becomes pregnant, at Elizabeth’s 26 weeks and Zacharias’ 28th week from his epiphany.
About another 12 weeks later, John is born.  Zacharias has come to 40 weeks.  One more week to the circumcision and naming of John, and Zacharias’ tongue is loosed and he can talk again on the 41st week.  At this time, Mary returns home to her father and mother, etc. 
Mary is about 13 weeks along.  At her 37th week Zacharias is back serving in the Temple.  If she bears Jesus at week 36, she has enough time to circumcise Jesus in her 37th week simultaneous to Zacharias being at Temple.  Jesus being in swaddling clothes, having just been circumcised, the magi pay homage and leave…and later that night, so do Joseph, Mary, and Jesus.
After Herod slaughters those babes at Bethlehem, and in all its “oriois” (boundaries) age 2 and under; not satisfied with his accomplishment, he seeks out John the Baptist, the miracle baby of Elisabeth.
If Zacharias (father of John the Baptist)  is slain about November 14 of 5 B.C., his last course would have been in May, about the same time of the month, and not far from Shavuot/Pentecost.  Mary’s conception would then be about the first week of February, and Zacharias’ visit from Gabriel would then be calculated at having been on or about the first week of August of 6 B.C., unless it was a leap year. 
  Those young and zealous Pharisees in the Levitical priesthood, primarily those between 25 and 26, through political intrigue with Herod to make names for themselves or whatever motivation, slew Zacharias between the Temple and the altar (Matthew 23:35 of 55 A.D.; Peter of Alexandria,  Egypt: The Canonical Epistle, .13 in ca. 306 A.D.)
Mat 23

31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

Some have contended the sin of slaying another Zacharias was meant, citing:
2Ch 24:20  And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, and he stood before the people and said to them, So says God, Why do you transgress the commandments of Jehovah, and do not prosper? Because you have forsaken Jehovah, He has forsaken you.
2Ch 24:21  And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones by the command of the king, in the court of the house of Jehovah.

However, any such sin would have been by others than the faction of the Pharisees, which did not come into existence until the return from Babylon.  Many hundreds of years later.  Jesus was accusing living members who had killed only 33 ½ years before, and brought that sin before the face of these older Pharisaic leaders who knew exactly what Jesus was accusing them of…the ones who molded disciples to be twice the child of hell they were (hence from the previous generation and in their 50s. 

[Brianroy]

A 30 A.D. Calendar confirmation for adjustment?

The hebrews promote Rabi Zadok as fasting 40 years to prevent the Temple's destruction.  They speak of the Sanhedrin judging from a house of stone in 30 A.D.,  40 years before the Temple destruction, confirming the Gospel accounts of location of Jesus' trial. They also indicate that Yeshu(a) died 40 years before the Temple was destroyed. 

Passover is a FULL MOON event, and yet:

In 52 A.D., Thallus tried to blow off Jesus’ crucifixion event of noon-day to 3 pm darkness on an unclouded day as a full moon solar eclipse.
In the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, the most likely solar eclipse already happened 4 months before in November of 29 A.D.: 

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEatlas/SEatlas1/SEatlas0021.GIF

But according to the Gospel accounts, and the failure of hostile Jewish sources to refute the event, the sun appeared to black out while the moon turned to blood from  Jerusalem to Rome itself during a full moon when sun was at its meridian, and the moon was above the horizon in fullness. 

But when more closely examining the calendar calculations of both Gentile and Jewish calendars to address date certainty, we find that there is NO CERTAINTY: 

 NASA - Eclipse Predictions and Earth's Rotation

NASA - Uncertainty in Delta T

NASA - Historical Values of Delta T

http://astro.nmsu.edu/~lhuber/leaphist.html    (notice section 1.3’s conditional application)

Javascript Lunar Eclipse Explorer for ASIA  

Although some rabbinics will say that the Jewish calendar is not likely off by more than a day:

Ask the Rabbi, JewishAnswers.org &raquo; The Approximate Calendar

and  infers that there is a recognition(among rabbinic Jews)...I believe the ancient Jewish Calendar calculations to be off by exactly 4 years +/-  1 day when overlapping upon the Julian calendars.

   In 30 A.D., for example, March 23 would be the correct Passover date as Lactantius, On the Manner in which the Persecutors Died, .1 indicated...as the 10th of the Kalends of April or March 23.  It would simply take the Hebrew calendar of 34 A.D. to overlap the Julian of 30 A.D. to make the neccesary corrections of that which most calendar experts admit is that unknown margin of error when calculating back. 

So what does all this show us?
We are told of miraculous events in Josephus, of miracles, and the miracle of a lunar eclipse at Herod's death.

We are told of the miracle of a solar blackout, something of an unpredictable nature.  An alternate theory could be  such as possible with a moon sized ice comet in direct line with the path of the earth and the sun creating a cloud of vapors blacking out the sun at the time of Jesus' crucifixion.  But that would still mean that it is indeterminate.

But based on the preliminary findings...it appears that the Jewish calendar is exactly 4 years in variance whe they reach an unknown point in antiquity.  Because the calendars of today have been adjusted again and again, the conversion to what we know to be our reckoning and theirs will aid us better when the Hebrew Calendar is aligned with the historical witness of those like Lactanius, On the Manner in which the persecutors died, .1, etc.  Then, more pieces of history will fall into place, as we dismiss the flawed March 23, 4 B.C. thesis of Herod's death, and drop it back into November of 5 B.C., etc. 

You want to dismiss as myth, but have no research or historical analysis, and no theory to refute?  Then it's time to dismiss your opinions as unfounded, and for others to begin to take mine the more seriously.

Later.

[Brianroy]

The last paragraph of my 9:44 portion pst should have been colorized as a quote of  Eric W. Weisstein. The link accompanying it shows it as his obvious work product.

Perhaps at a later time, when opportunity is given that we have more time to modify or re-edit our posts upon posting, we can correct such errors without need for additional "proper crediting posts" such as this one. 
 
© 1996-2007 for  my last paragraph of 944 am 01/07/08 post.  Unlike other writing, I hope we will forgive each other punctuation and spelling errors, etc.  more easily.   

And it is my sincere wish that those who oppose what I present, and claim to have a more informed or more intelligent view, PRESENT a foundation for their counter view.  Thosewho don't know either way, are invited to say so, and comment on what information helps them and/or what doesn't.  Or even to ask follow up questions, and explore some points of interest.

Thanks to all for your patience.  Brianroy   

[GeoffHudson]

After Herod slaughters those babes at Bethlehem, and in all its “oriois” (boundaries) age 2 and under; not satisfied with his accomplishment, he seeks out John the Baptist, the miracle baby of Elisabeth.

John the Baptist was fictitious too - another miracle baby named by an 'angel',  Brian.  And yet another substitute for Judas.  Note that 'John' was quickly eliminated from the story by the editors to make way for the equally fictitious Jesus.  John was simply an editorial device.

And the 'babes' or the innocents were not the babes of Bethlehem, but the prophets, their wives and children, of Ein Gedi hunted down by the priests, in the anachronistic interpolated garbled account of War 4.7.2.

If Zacharias (father of John the Baptist)  is slain about November 14 of 5 B.C., his last course would have been in May, about the same time of the month, and not far from Shavuot/Pentecost.  ....  Those young and zealous Pharisees in the Levitical priesthood, primarily those between 25 and 26, through political intrigue with Herod to make names for themselves or whatever motivation, slew Zacharias between the Temple and the altar (Matthew 23:35 of 55 A.D.; Peter of Alexandria,  Egypt: The Canonical Epistle, .13 in ca. 306 A.D.)

Yes Zacharias was slain.  The story is garbled in Luke 1, but one gets closer to reality in the anachronistic interpolated and garbled account of War 4.5.4.  Of course it was the high priests who executed the prophet Zacharias, not any fictitous, non-existent Pharisees, or any 'zealots and Idumeans'. 

Why not just provide links to your stuff Brian?

[GeoffHudson]

Unlike others, Brian Roy is part of my real name.  My redating Revelation is copyrighted by me and in the Library of Congress in manuscript format.  I haven't put it into a book form because I want to vet the thesis with scholarship or have it written better by such. 

Brian I don't believe you. Now I would like some real evidence.  What is the copyright reference so that we can prove that Brian Roy is part of your real name?  My name is Geoff Hudson - see my race position 146 in the Huncote Hash cross country http://www.huncoteharriersac.co.uk/ 

[Brianroy]

Geoff writes:

Why not just provide links to your stuff...?


It would be helpful to have "links" to show a foundation to his speculation. Equal standards. 

Who says Paul the apostle is fictious and that his writings are?  Paul accepted that there was an Exodus from Egypt, and upon his conversion ran, like Elijah to Mount Sinai in Arabia.  Paul accepted that there was a Jesus Christ, and firstly persecuted those who were his witnesses to their deaths, before being convinced otherwise.  Paul testifies he was given multiple whippings and rod beatings for testifying as to the historical person of Jesus.  When addressing Paul and Church history, hundreds of Rabbinic Scholars have vehemently denounced Paul and Jesus as historic figures and are thoroughly convinced of their historicity.  But why should I document source material time and again ALONE?


Geoff writes: 

Why not just provide links to your stuff ...

James was real and a prophet with his brother Simon.  Both were sons of Judas the son of the same Zechariah we read about in Luke 1 (e.g. Judas the son of Ezekias as garbled by Josephus's Flavian editors in an anachronistic interpolation, Ant.17.10.5).  In another garbled anachronistic interpolation, the Flavian editors removed the brothers James and Simon the sons of Judas from the history by having them executed for no apparent reason, apart from eliminating them from the history. (Ant.20.5.2) .  They were in fact the successors to Judas as leaders of the prophetic 'Christian' movement of the Spirit started by the prophet Judas, who of course the Flavian editors made into the villain wherever they could.  Paul was the product of the 'Pauline' editors as a substitute for James, along with Jesus a substitute for Judas.  Jesus just had to have that name to go with the editor's message of the cross.  It was James who wrote the original versions of Luke and Acts, the latter being autobiography, probably written for Ephaphroditus, Nero's Greek secretary.


Geoff goes on about "Flavian editors", "Pauline editors", etc...but where are his "links" and support?   What scholars and quotations support his view?  What examples are given?  What are the names of these editors, or the examples through Early Historical Quotations showing the "editorialing", or is it all subjective? 

Geoff writes:
the 'babes' or the innocents were not the babes of Bethlehem, but the prophets, their wives and children, of Ein Gedi hunted down by the priests, in the anachronistic interpolated garbled account of War 4.7.2.   as his very best response.

So when was the year of Josephus' Wars of the Jews 4.7.2. taking place in?  Masada in the 70s A.D.     

That's IN THE 70's A.D., long after our datable Greek style fragments to before Masada -- of Mark -- found at Qumran, and long after (as historical testimony tells us) the genealogy Gospels were already written and published abroad.

So now we have Sanhedrin conspiracists in people as vehement as Simon Ben-Shetah getting together with the Christians (whom he would rather stone or rod to death on the spot) for the next 150 years re-inventing the Gospels and Josephus together?   You'd think they'd at least have ADDED alot more stuff and data to be MORE convincing. 

So where are the links to those scholars who promote this "Flavian editorialing" conspiracy?   Where is the proof of the "Gospel fabrications"?  I provided many quotations of men with extremely credible scholarship degrees in various fields CONFIRMING NT historicity, but the issue now is...providing links.

So somehow the terrorists of Masada in 4.7.2. of the Jewish Wars are now "prophets".  Where do we find that?  It certainly isn't in the Greek texts of Josephus.   The "massacre of Engaddi"  is the last terrorist act of the Sicarii zealots before being shut up in Masada, and committed over the couse of Unleavened Bread on passover, at a time when Jerusalem was shut up from being celebrated at.     

PACE -
The Judean War

To then cite this as "Flavian or such editorializing" is to be of a very serious misreading and mispresentation of the texts Geoff claims as  justifying his  view.  Having a link for his jogging has nothing to do with our topics.

I am sorry I have given so much time to someone who has nothing to present except a testimony of a view based on  his lack of research, lack of evidence, and and his unwillingness or inability to read the texts.

I hope he willparticipate with us in other areas that he might have "links" or at least a sound basis for his conclusions.   

Peace.