I was unable to locate a thread whose title referred to the column about the Star of Bethlehem being a “conjunction,” or whatever. So I’ll take it up in a separate thread.
Near as I have been able to determine, the accepted belief is that Jesus was born in 6 B. C., or thereabouts, extrapolating from the chronology given in the Gospels along with the commentary by translator William Whiston, in Antiquities of the Jews, compiled by first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. For various reasons Whiston concludes that Jesus would have to have been born in 4 B. C., or 6 B. C., given the “two years” reckoning used by Herod the Great in ordering the slaughter of boys, one of whom might be the “usurper” of his throne. 
There are, however, a number of inconsistencies in Josephus’ works; it’s not something I can automatically blame on Whiston. By another line of reckoning from Josephus’ works one could come to the year 1 B.C., or even A.D. 1. In fact, for various reasons, which I will post here if asked, it is likely that He was born in fact in early October of 2 B.C.–notwithstanding Josephus, Whiston, or the scene in Back to the Future in which Lloyd’s time machine is set, for example, to “12-25-00.”
Are you referring to the mailbag item What’s up with the star of Bethlehem? (10-Mar-2000)
So why would Jesus be born in 2 B.C.? Are these reasons related to astronomy?
Since this is a Mailbag item, not one of Cecil’s columns, I am moving this to the forum COMMENTS ON MAILBAG QUESTIONS.
Actually, at that time, if anyone had been keeping a record of what “year” it was, He would have been born in the 751st year since the founding of Rome. Astronomy is not relevant here.
I apologize for forgetting to bring my documentation for this. I will have it in a few days and post it here. Mea culpa. :o
The star of Bethlehem was not an actual star.
It was a person, or an angel. King Herod would have found Jesus himself if there was a star. If you read carefully in Matthew, you will notice several things: (1) The wisemen first saw the star in the east. They were travelling west. (2) Notice that after they talked with Herod that the star which they had seen in the east went before them till it stood over where the child lay.
Jeff, I believe he covered that one in his article.
I think that could be classed under the “miracle” section.
I would like to take this opportunity to register my vote for “allegory” - particularly given the completely aposite nature of the two birth accounts in the gospels.
But anyway - saying they “saw his star in the east” when they were “from the east” could just mean:
“we saw his star from our astrologer’s observatory located in the east”
in any case, the NIV also translates that portion as:
“when it arose”.
NIV and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east [1] and have come to worship him.”
RSV “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and have come to worship him.”
KJV Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
DBY Where is the king of the Jews that has been born? for we have seen his star in the east, and have come to do him homage.
YLT saying, `Where is he who was born king of the Jews? for we saw his star in the east, and we came to bow to him.’
1.2 Or star when it rose
I allus thought “star in the east” meant Woody Allen – a star who stays in NY rather than going west to Hollywood.
That’s the point. A natural star would not “lead” anyone westward to Jerusalem or south from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. This would fall in the category of “miracle”–but not a positive miracle, inasmuch as the “magi” or astrologers tipped Herod off and this caused an ethnic cleansing, after a fashion. I would maintain that the “Star of Bethlehem” was a devil’s vision which lead to the slaughter of innocent children. In any case, it did not allude to a planetary conjunction or any stellar phenomenon. And as for “allegory,” I refer you to Luke 3:23-38. 
Hey doug, I’m assuming you’re replying to me.
True the star’s behaviour was a little unusual (in Matt 2:9), but again, that verse refers to star they HAD seen in the east.
While the star may have wandered about happily in Matthew’s parable, I didn’t think the “seen in the east” bit should have been used as an argument.
Hm. Maybe the Bethlehem was due east from Jerusalem? <checks a map> Nope.
Oh well.
Oh, and as for the Lukean genealogy you refered me to, I assume you’re pointing out the differences (numerous) between that one and Matthew’s?
I used that as a question on a quiz that was an assignment in a New Testament class once.
It is obvious that the differences between Luke’s genealogy and Matthew’s were intentional–both were members of the early Christian congregation. Inasmuch as Matthew’s gospel devotes considerable attention to Joseph while Luke mostly deals with Mary’s part in the matter, it is reasonable to conclude that Matthew traced Jesus’ genealogy through his foster father Joseph, while Luke traced it through his natural mother Mary. (Note Luke’s use of “as the opinion was” or whatever other phrase your translation uses in Luke 3:23. And as is well known, genealogy lists often omitted women’s names.)
As further refutation of the notion that Jesus was born at any time before 2 B.C., I quote the following:
"Perhaps the date of Herod the Great’s death provides the best illustration of the uncertainty involved in dating by lunar eclipses. Josephus’ writings (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, chap. VI, par. 4, and chap. VIII, par. 1, to chap. IX, par. 3) show Herod’s death occurring shortly after a lunar eclipse and not long before the start of the Passover season. Many authorities date Herod’s death as in 4 B. C. and cite as proof the lunar eclipse of the night of March 12/13 in that year. Due to this reckoning, many modern chronologers place the birth of Jesus as early as 5 B. C. However, W. E. Fisher, writing in The Journal of Theological Studies (October 1966, Vol. XVII, Part 2, pp. 283, 284) shows the weakness of this reckoning, pointing out that eclipses also took place on both January 9 and December 29 of the year 1 B. C. and that either of these could fit the requirements of an eclipse not long before the Passover. He gives further evidence to show that the eclipse of January 9, 1 B. C. (a total eclipse, as compared to only four digits for that of 4 B. C.), would fit the circumstances considerably better than the one popularly accepted. Summing up the matter, he says: ‘Thus, so far as the evidencde of lunhar eclipses goes, Herod may have died in either of the years 4 B. C. or 1 B. C., or even in A. D. 1.’ Either of the latter two dates would harmonize with the date of Jesus’ birth in the year 2 B. C. …
I forgot to give the citation. This quote was from Aid to Bible Understanding, 1972.
Be aware that the note in Luke 2:23 “(as was supposed)” was not in the original text. It was a later addition to correct for the fact that the original author (referred to as Luke) had treated Joseph as Jesus’s actual father, rather than conforming to the miracle story that Joseph had no biological role in Jesus’ birth. Thus the comment “as was supposed” was added in brackets (standard editorial format). A subsequent translation swapped the brackets to parentheses - reason unclear, but perhaps either to set off that that editor did not insert the comment, or else as a correction to imply that the comment was there all along.
Of course you’ll have to take my word for it, as I have no cite. I vaguely recall reading it somewhere - you know, standard reason to believe anything. 
Although I think the comment came somewhere in a discussion of a Muslim discussing the corruption of the biblical text and how the koran has never been “corrected”.
You have no cite, Irishman; and, inasmuch as the phrase seems to appear in all the oldest manuscripts of Luke’s Gospel (this is something I’ll have to check on), I don’t see that there is any evidence for it. In any casae, it is clear the differences between the genealogies of Matthew and Luke were intentional.
dougie:
Um… False logic. Luke’s account was intentionally written to say what it said, and Matthew’s was intentionally written to say what it said, but that certainly does not mean that either one intentionally contradicted the other. If either Evangelist had been trying to elaborate on or to clarify the other’s account, the elaborator/clarifier would have actually said something clarifying.
IF both were honestly trying to represent the truth of Jesus’s lineage, and they have contradictory accounts (aside: I started to say “apparently contradictory” as the apologists say, but no, they ARE contradictory as written) there are two possibilities that I see:
- They wrote the genealogies independently of each other, neither knowing of the other’s work in that area.
- The later writer knew of the other’s writing in this regard and considered it not worth mentioning, implying that he expected the other gospel to fade away as a false “pseudo-gospel.”
Personally, I think Matthew just made his up.
I was born with the Moon in Pisces!!
Leave me alone!!
SOB!!
To foolsguinea:
In the immortal words of Moe: Every time you think you weaken the nation!
The point of the separate genealogies was to establish that Jesus had a legal right to the kingship of Israel through his foster father Joseph and a natural right through his natural mother Mary. I therefore shoot your assertion down.
Incidentally: another poster in this thread hinted that the phrase “as was supposed,” or the substance thereof, was an interpolation. Not so. It appears in all versions, including the Vulgate and the Syriac; and the Greek Bible texts such as the Received Text and Westcott and Hort’s text, specifically the edition published by Macmillan in 1948.
I regret that so far no one has had anything further to say about the issue of the time of the death of Herod the Great, insofar as I have commented on it here.
Tell me something, dougie_monty, if one Genealogy is a kingly one through the father (with the use of 14s and fixed periods between major figures), and the other was of a natural right (presumably you are referring to its going back to Adam), but through the mother, then why do both genealogies specifically mention Joseph? If one was Mary’s, shouldn’t it have mentioned her?
Was Joseph and Mary’s relationship incestous?
Also, who was Joseph’s father?
The genealogies have nothing in common. Whatever their purpose was, they were not written by people who were aware of each other’s works. (like the birth narratives).
To Kyberneticist: It is well known that most ancient genealogies did not include women’s names. So, too, with Mary. (Rememeber that, as I pointed out before, the phrase “as was supposed” is definitely NOT an interpolation.
There are some names omitted from Matthew’s genealogy, as a reading of the books of Kings, Chronicles–and perhaps Ezra and Nehemiah–will show. Matthew left out, for example, three kingly descendants of David who were the direct descendants of an unholy alliance with Ahab and his ilk. (Note that the evil Jezebel was actually Queen Mother of Israel at one point; and King Jehoram of Judah had a brother-in-law–also named Jehoram–who was king of the (10-nation) kingdom of Israel.)
So when both genealogies say so-and-so (heli, jacob) was the father of joseph, one of them really means, was the father of mary?
You’re right - ancient genealogies (hebrew at least), were paternal. It’s modern apologetics which tacks on one unmentioned female descendant.
As for the names missing in Matthew, what I meant by 14 was the far more intesting pattern in the names that were left in. A little contrived, but points to the genealogy as being more of a symbol.
Kyberneticist, there’s no question in my mind that there was symbolism involved, in the Gospels as elsewhere in the Bible. But that does not mean that the events did not necessarily occur. And keep in mind: The genealogies existed in Chronicles, Ezra, etc., in the Old Testament, so it isn’t as if Matthew or Luke were presenting new information–up to the end of the period Ezra was writing about, about 450 B. C. Indeed, anyone familiar with the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, would know about the kin of Jehoram of Judah, whom Matthew left out of his record in the first chapter. After all, Matthew is illustrating Jesus’ legal right to the kingship of Israel, and the unholy alliance with the house of Ahab would not be germane to that.