NT scholars Bart Ehrman and Mike Licona had a debate last month over the historical reliability of the Gospels posted on Licona's youtube channel here. Even in the position of pro-authenticity Licona is handicapped with western biases and compromises built into the scholarship he relies on to defend the NT. I wanted to highlight one of the glaring flaws in Ehrman's argument which Licona didn't really address which I thought was most important and I posted about on Licona's channel. I later made a 3.5 min video showing how youtube (Google) is running algorithms (and likely machine learning/AI) in favor of Bart Ehrman on Licona's channel rigging the comments section (I've even had my own post disappear from one of my own videos before among other things so this is no surprise to me.) Here are a few posts:
@39:38 Ehrman: "..king Herod died in the year 4 BCE"
This is a perfect example of why I personally don't take the word of a scholar at face value, however expert or well meaning, neither pro or con, neither a consensus without fact checking as much as possible with a close eye on original text and languages, or as close as possible and an open mind.
To state the obvious: the bible nor Josephus says Herod died in 4 BCE. This date is inferred from Josephus saying that Herod died soon after a lunar eclipse before the spring Passover like the one in 4 BCE.
What many don't realize is that there was another eclipse in 1 BCE -- a total lunar eclipse unlike the traditional partial one -- and it allows enough time for all the events surrounding Herod's funeral to fit perfectly unlike the problematic 4 BCE date. I've verified this with professional astronomy software myself.
The popular view of Herod's death in 4 BCE does not account for all the facts we have from the historical record. However, some of the latest published scholarship shows that when other pieces of evidence typically overlooked is carefully considered it rather points to Herod having died in 1 BCE.
Steinmann, Andrew E. "When Did Herod the Great Reign?"
Novum Testamentum, Volume 51, Number 1, 2009
PDF FREE ONLINE
This new time frame fits the events like a glove from an historical, astronomical, and biblical point of view, unlike the traditional time frame. It fixes problems like a good solution to a problem is supposed to. The old time frame creates unnecessary problems critics capitalize on (a frequent 'pattern' I have come across for 15 years studying the scriptures).
With the new date of Herod's death, scholars like the late Ernest L. Martin were able to find the (wandering) star of Bethlehem and it fits the descriptions of Matthew to a tee, not to mention other surrounding details provided by Luke, and more astronomical signs mentioned in Revelation 12.1-2 while also providing deeper Christian/Jewish fulfillment to the festivals of Rosh Hashanah and Hanukkah and even rabbinic expectations (see the last link below).
The new date of Herod's death (1 BCE) is like a new key that opens an old chest nobody could open before with an old key, and now new amazing treasures are revealed but many people still insist the old key is the best one and are keeping the treasure chest locked and the treasures hidden from the world. This is very sad.
Astronomy and the Death of King Herod
askelm.com/star/star010.htm
The Lunar Eclipse of Josephus
askelm.com/star/star011.htm
The Real Star of Bethlehem
askelm.com/star/star004.htm
***
Tertullian mentioned Roman records of censuses during the time of Christ's birth when Saturninus was governor of Syria. Does this conflict with Luke's record? No. Josephus mentioned that there were governors (plural) in Syria during the rule of Saturninus, naming at least 2. It would seem from his background that Quirinius was a special type of governor at this time, or as Justin Martyr referred to him, a procurator, a special delegate for census taking.
More info: askelm.com/star/star014.htm
***
Ehrman resorts to an unfounded conspiracy theory to speculate that Luke and others (presumably Luke was not isolated and able to hide his gospel from the original apostles and disciples) lied about the birth of Jesus for religious reasons. This too relies on a popular presumption and creates unnecessary problems. Luke doesn't actually state that "everyone" had to go to their ancestor's city from a 1000 years previous:
Luke2.3 "And all went to be registered, each to HIS OWN TOWN."
Cf Syriac, כלנשׁ "all men"
Luke is speaking of MEN going to THEIR OWN town in this verse, but then he makes a distinction with those who were of the House of David, royal lineage, and includes Mary (which supports the idea that Matthew's genealogy is of Mary as even Matthew's text indicates in the Syriac text and also hinted at in the Greek text). This was not the normal procedure for a census/enrollment, so why assume it was an ordinary census/enrollment?
Luke2.4 "Joseph also went up from Galilee.. to the city of David.. called Bethlehem BECAUSE he was of the house and lineage of David"
These curious details show this was no ordinary census and was concerned with royal lineage and is distinct from the previous general statement in verse 3.
What could Jewish royal descendants possibly have to do with this?
There's a lot of background to this but in a nutshell, it was at this time that not only the Jews but also the Roman elite knew of the messianic expectations of a Jewish ruler to rise in the East and conquer the world. This is why the Roman puppet Herod had to kill off candidates to the throne when the magi came looking for the messiah and why Herod and the people in Jerusalem were 'troubled' when they heard of the news from the magi (Mat 2.3).
Herod was apparently following a precedent Suetonius mentions from the Roman Senate that said the world ruler had to come from Rome (ie, Caesar) when a group of magi made a false start coming to the Roman Senate some 60 years previously as Suetonius tells us (De Vita Caesarum: Divus Augustus).
The Jews had a history of mutiny by this time and Rome was sensitive to the political conditions and messianic expectations in the region (having the city-sized Fort Antonia adjacent to the Jewish temple itself, where some believe the western wall is from rather than the temple which was utterly destroyed as Josephus witnessed and Jesus foretold). This concern was even leveraged by the enemies of Christ to manipulate Pontius Pilate into doing their bidding (John 19.12). Josephus tells us this expectation is what led to the Jewish revolts against Rome and eventually to the destruction and desolation of the temple and the city. (2The 2.3 takes on a new meaning perhaps: Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy (מרודותא rebellion, apostasy; ἀποστασί revolt, rebellion, abandonment) comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction.. Note: the Caesar held the office of pontifex maximus, now held by the Roman bishop)
In light of this political situation and the new time frame mentioned above moving Herod's death to 1 BCE, we now have a new solution to Luke’s census/enrollment on the table: Josephus spoke of an oath of allegiance (like a covenant) about a year to 15 months prior to the death of Herod in all the empire. The late Dr. Martin gives us information that makes the most sense of the the most data in this area of research rather than resorting to speculative conspiracy theories with little to no supporting data:
..the year 2 B.C.E. was one of the most important and glorious in the career of Augustus. It was the Silver Jubilee of his supreme rule over the Empire and the year in which the Senate awarded him the country’s highest decoration the “Pater Patriae” (Father of the Country). There was no year like it for majestic celebrations in Rome, and since the significance of the festivities involved the entirety of the Empire, there can be little doubt that similar anniversary ceremonies were ordained by Augustus and the Senate for all the provinces.
It should be remembered that back in 27 B.C.E. Augustus was given complete and absolute allegiance by the Senate and people of Rome. Would there not have been a renewal of their loyalty to Augustus in the Jubilee year? If so, we could well have a reference to an Empire-wide registration of loyalty to the emperor. Josephus mentioned that Augustus demanded an oath of allegiance about twelve or fifteen months before the death of Herod. This event would fit nicely with a decree going out from Augustus in 3 B.C.E. that all were to give an oath of allegiance to him at some designated time during the year. Obviously, the recording of oaths (where people ascribed their names) was a type of registration. That is what Luke said the census was. It was an enrollment of people.
Full chapter: askelm.com/star/star014.htm
@39:38 Ehrman: "..king Herod died in the year 4 BCE"
This is a perfect example of why I personally don't take the word of a scholar at face value, however expert or well meaning, neither pro or con, neither a consensus without fact checking as much as possible with a close eye on original text and languages, or as close as possible and an open mind.
To state the obvious: the bible nor Josephus says Herod died in 4 BCE. This date is inferred from Josephus saying that Herod died soon after a lunar eclipse before the spring Passover like the one in 4 BCE.
What many don't realize is that there was another eclipse in 1 BCE -- a total lunar eclipse unlike the traditional partial one -- and it allows enough time for all the events surrounding Herod's funeral to fit perfectly unlike the problematic 4 BCE date. I've verified this with professional astronomy software myself.
The popular view of Herod's death in 4 BCE does not account for all the facts we have from the historical record. However, some of the latest published scholarship shows that when other pieces of evidence typically overlooked is carefully considered it rather points to Herod having died in 1 BCE.
Steinmann, Andrew E. "When Did Herod the Great Reign?"
Novum Testamentum, Volume 51, Number 1, 2009
PDF FREE ONLINE
This new time frame fits the events like a glove from an historical, astronomical, and biblical point of view, unlike the traditional time frame. It fixes problems like a good solution to a problem is supposed to. The old time frame creates unnecessary problems critics capitalize on (a frequent 'pattern' I have come across for 15 years studying the scriptures).
With the new date of Herod's death, scholars like the late Ernest L. Martin were able to find the (wandering) star of Bethlehem and it fits the descriptions of Matthew to a tee, not to mention other surrounding details provided by Luke, and more astronomical signs mentioned in Revelation 12.1-2 while also providing deeper Christian/Jewish fulfillment to the festivals of Rosh Hashanah and Hanukkah and even rabbinic expectations (see the last link below).
The new date of Herod's death (1 BCE) is like a new key that opens an old chest nobody could open before with an old key, and now new amazing treasures are revealed but many people still insist the old key is the best one and are keeping the treasure chest locked and the treasures hidden from the world. This is very sad.
Astronomy and the Death of King Herod
askelm.com/star/star010.htm
The Lunar Eclipse of Josephus
askelm.com/star/star011.htm
The Real Star of Bethlehem
askelm.com/star/star004.htm
***
Tertullian mentioned Roman records of censuses during the time of Christ's birth when Saturninus was governor of Syria. Does this conflict with Luke's record? No. Josephus mentioned that there were governors (plural) in Syria during the rule of Saturninus, naming at least 2. It would seem from his background that Quirinius was a special type of governor at this time, or as Justin Martyr referred to him, a procurator, a special delegate for census taking.
More info: askelm.com/star/star014.htm
***
Ehrman resorts to an unfounded conspiracy theory to speculate that Luke and others (presumably Luke was not isolated and able to hide his gospel from the original apostles and disciples) lied about the birth of Jesus for religious reasons. This too relies on a popular presumption and creates unnecessary problems. Luke doesn't actually state that "everyone" had to go to their ancestor's city from a 1000 years previous:
Luke2.3 "And all went to be registered, each to HIS OWN TOWN."
Cf Syriac, כלנשׁ "all men"
Luke is speaking of MEN going to THEIR OWN town in this verse, but then he makes a distinction with those who were of the House of David, royal lineage, and includes Mary (which supports the idea that Matthew's genealogy is of Mary as even Matthew's text indicates in the Syriac text and also hinted at in the Greek text). This was not the normal procedure for a census/enrollment, so why assume it was an ordinary census/enrollment?
Luke2.4 "Joseph also went up from Galilee.. to the city of David.. called Bethlehem BECAUSE he was of the house and lineage of David"
These curious details show this was no ordinary census and was concerned with royal lineage and is distinct from the previous general statement in verse 3.
What could Jewish royal descendants possibly have to do with this?
There's a lot of background to this but in a nutshell, it was at this time that not only the Jews but also the Roman elite knew of the messianic expectations of a Jewish ruler to rise in the East and conquer the world. This is why the Roman puppet Herod had to kill off candidates to the throne when the magi came looking for the messiah and why Herod and the people in Jerusalem were 'troubled' when they heard of the news from the magi (Mat 2.3).
Herod was apparently following a precedent Suetonius mentions from the Roman Senate that said the world ruler had to come from Rome (ie, Caesar) when a group of magi made a false start coming to the Roman Senate some 60 years previously as Suetonius tells us (De Vita Caesarum: Divus Augustus).
The Jews had a history of mutiny by this time and Rome was sensitive to the political conditions and messianic expectations in the region (having the city-sized Fort Antonia adjacent to the Jewish temple itself, where some believe the western wall is from rather than the temple which was utterly destroyed as Josephus witnessed and Jesus foretold). This concern was even leveraged by the enemies of Christ to manipulate Pontius Pilate into doing their bidding (John 19.12). Josephus tells us this expectation is what led to the Jewish revolts against Rome and eventually to the destruction and desolation of the temple and the city. (2The 2.3 takes on a new meaning perhaps: Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy (מרודותא rebellion, apostasy; ἀποστασί revolt, rebellion, abandonment) comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction.. Note: the Caesar held the office of pontifex maximus, now held by the Roman bishop)
In light of this political situation and the new time frame mentioned above moving Herod's death to 1 BCE, we now have a new solution to Luke’s census/enrollment on the table: Josephus spoke of an oath of allegiance (like a covenant) about a year to 15 months prior to the death of Herod in all the empire. The late Dr. Martin gives us information that makes the most sense of the the most data in this area of research rather than resorting to speculative conspiracy theories with little to no supporting data:
..the year 2 B.C.E. was one of the most important and glorious in the career of Augustus. It was the Silver Jubilee of his supreme rule over the Empire and the year in which the Senate awarded him the country’s highest decoration the “Pater Patriae” (Father of the Country). There was no year like it for majestic celebrations in Rome, and since the significance of the festivities involved the entirety of the Empire, there can be little doubt that similar anniversary ceremonies were ordained by Augustus and the Senate for all the provinces.
It should be remembered that back in 27 B.C.E. Augustus was given complete and absolute allegiance by the Senate and people of Rome. Would there not have been a renewal of their loyalty to Augustus in the Jubilee year? If so, we could well have a reference to an Empire-wide registration of loyalty to the emperor. Josephus mentioned that Augustus demanded an oath of allegiance about twelve or fifteen months before the death of Herod. This event would fit nicely with a decree going out from Augustus in 3 B.C.E. that all were to give an oath of allegiance to him at some designated time during the year. Obviously, the recording of oaths (where people ascribed their names) was a type of registration. That is what Luke said the census was. It was an enrollment of people.
Full chapter: askelm.com/star/star014.htm
"All that openeth the matrix is mine" -Exodus 34.19a