Oh Christ!!

[Forum Monk]

According to many, Jesus was born in 4bce, but I believe 6bce is more plausible because:

• 1. He was born during the reign of Herod the Great who died in 4bce
  2. Herod ordered the death of children up to two years old based on the so-called sign of the star.
  3. The family fled and did not return until the death of Herod

It is commonly believed he was crucified at age 33, so about 27ce. However the mystery is regarding the so-called governorship of Quirinius. It doesn't quite fit what is historically known at this time.

[Forum Monk]

Well, if the scriptures don't count, it must be the Jesus Plot. You must have read that book.

Well, in my opinion, in order to discuss the historocity of Jesus, we have no choice but to rely on the gospels as they are the only written accounts of his life, excluding some lesser known books. It then becomes necessary to weigh the historical accuracy of the gospel accounts against the orthodox history of the period.

[Minimalist]

Precisely. One of the gospels must be flat out wrong on the date.

PS - Josephus, who delighted in retelling every calumny against Herod, makes no mention of the slaughter of the innocents.

That seems to be a pretty obvious ripoff of the Moses story but, then again, Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience.

[Minimalist]

Well, if the scriptures don't count, it must be the Jesus Plot. You must have read that book.

They weren't written as "history."

I regard them as a marketing ploy.

[Minimalist]

Well, if the scriptures don't count, it must be the Jesus Plot. You must have read that book.

Well, in my opinion, in order to discuss the historocity of Jesus, we have no choice but to rely on the gospels as they are the only written accounts of his life, excluding some lesser known books. It then becomes necessary to weigh the historical accuracy of the gospel accounts against the orthodox history of the period.

I concur.

[Digit]

Under Pilate the Jewish authorities could not pass a death sentence, so I believe. Jesus, as I understand it, was passed onto the Romans after facing trial by the Jews, therefore there was no need for Pilate to be in Jerusalem at that time. Is there any reference that he was?

[Forum Monk]

Precisely. One of the gospels must be flat out wrong on the date.

Apparently with regard to Quirinius and the census there is a problem.

PS - Josephus, who delighted in retelling every calumny against Herod, makes no mention of the slaughter of the innocents.

That seems to be a pretty obvious ripoff of the Moses story but, then again, Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience.

Forget the horrific images from classical art. We are talking about the males under the age of two in the tiny hamlet of Bethlehem. Certainly not one of Herod's more notable atrocities.

[Minimalist]

You'd have to read Josephus to understand the depth of his hatred for Herod. I don't know if it is worth the effort.

[marduk]

Forget the horrific images from classical art. We are talking about the males under the age of two in the tiny hamlet of Bethlehem. Certainly not one of Herod's more notable atrocities.

having looked I am unable to find any of Herods atrocities
he did do a lot to ingratiate himself into the Jewish community so murdering their saviour seems a little out of character

more biblical nonsense that never actually happened
bit like the claim that the family of Jesus then fled to Egypt
this wasn't modern times when Immigration was commonplace
Jesus's family seem to go where they please whenever they feel like
and all on the wages of a poor carpenter
its bollox isn't it

[Minimalist]

Under Pilate the Jewish authorities could not pass a death sentence, so I believe. Jesus, as I understand it, was passed onto the Romans after facing trial by the Jews, therefore there was no need for Pilate to be in Jerusalem at that time. Is there any reference that he was?

Caesarea was on the coast, north-east of Jerusalem, at least 60 miles away. Even with good Roman roads it would have been a 4-day round trip on foot. That time frame does not fit into the story.

[Digit]

I see no problem with that Min, nobody's going to bother filling in the details of the story with, 'meantime the disciples were busy playing cricket whilst they waited for pilate. Mary was busy cooking etc,' all writers leave out the mundane if it's not relevant to the story line.

[Minimalist]

Forget the horrific images from classical art. We are talking about the males under the age of two in the tiny hamlet of Bethlehem. Certainly not one of Herod's more notable atrocities.

having looked I am unable to find any of Herods atrocities
he did do a lot to ingratiate himself into the Jewish community so murdering their saviour seems a little out of character

more biblical nonsense that never actually happened
bit like the claim that the family of Jesus then fled to Egypt
this wasn't modern times when Immigration was commonplace
Jesus's family seem to go where they please whenever they feel like
and all on the wages of a poor carpenter
its bollox isn't it

Herod is one of those people of whom all we have written was written by his enemies. He only became king because Mark Antony selected him and the installation of a king by a foreign power did not go over any better then than it is going in Iraq. On the plus side, he was a superb builder, a visionary leader who converted his country into a major mercantile force by building the port of Caesarea, and a shrewd politician who managed to survive various Roman generals during their civil wars
and always come out with his crown on his head and build his
country into a fairly prosperous place while still maintaining a
modicum of independence from Rome. All in all, not a bad record
for a half Arab who was despised by his own people.


Your point about the so-called flight is correct. Another of the "Matthew-only" tales meant to convince Jews that phophecy was being fulfilled, but it would have meant nothing to the Greco-Roman audiences of the other gospels.

[Forum Monk]

Herod is one of those people of whom all we have written was written by his enemies. He only became king because Mark Antony selected him and the installation of a king by a foreign power did not go over any better then than it is going in Iraq. On the plus side, he was a superb builder, a visionary leader who converted his country

Not at all unlike Mussolini prior to the war or Hitler until the time of his death. The only negative press was coming from their enemies. But both launched major building campaigns and were shrewd politicians.

Your point about the so-called flight is correct. Another of the "Matthew-only" tales meant to convince Jews that phophecy was being fulfilled, but it would have meant nothing to the Greco-Roman audiences of the other gospels.

I'll see if I can find anything in support of Matthew's account.

[Forum Monk]

he did do a lot to ingratiate himself into the Jewish community so murdering their saviour seems a little out of character

True enough. But murdering a potential king who would depose him and his descendants? It was dirty politics not religion.

Jesus's family seem to go where they please whenever they feel like
and all on the wages of a poor carpenter
its bollox isn't it

There's this odd urban legend that as carpenters, they made crosses for the romans. Perhaps the work was plentiful considering the many rebellions and crimes occuring.

[Minimalist]

Not at all unlike Mussolini prior to the war or Hitler until the time of his death.

I was thinking more like Xerxes.