Can you give me some names of historians who are not Christian that believe Jesus existed?

[Maximus1]

The text is inspired. The scholarship identifies what that means.

 

[rossum]

You are misinformed about the validity of the Nativity Gospels. Mary , having been the Mother of God, the Mother of Jesus, would have given her own eyewitness account to others to scribe, to write down. We cannot say it is hearsay, if the Mother herself gives her account for another who then writes it down.

Show me Mary’s account please; I do not see it in the New Testament. What we have are two different second-hand accounts from Matthew and Luke. Those accounts are both incomplete: Luke omits the Three Kings while Matthew omits the shepherds. Both are obviously incomplete versions of whatever Mary or Joseph said.

That is why they are to be treated as hearsay, not eyewitness. We can be sure that they are individually incomplete, so we have no guarantee that together they form a complete account. That is apart from the dating problems with Herod and Quirinius.

Please do not attempt to discredit the eyewitness and retelling of the Birth of Jesus by His own Mother to men she knew very well, and shared her grief and agony over His passion.

I cannot discredit a text which you cannot show me. We have two incomplete retellings of parts of what Mary said. Criticism of Matthew or Luke is not criticism of Mary.

Which is a huge mistake when attempting to look at text and oral tradition from 2000 years ago, which can be asserted for any text and any religion.

So all modern translations of the Bible are mistaken? Better let the Vatican know so they can de-authorize all modern Bible translations. Unfortunately we have to work with what we know, and that includes modern languages.

You are correct that the problem applies to all translations of ancient texts. For instance, translator are not always aware of idioms that the ancient writers used. Translating “red herring” as “pink fish” does not convey the meaning the original writer intended.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

The death of Herod is associated with a lunar eclipse, dated to 4 BCE by astronomers.

Yes there was an eclipse in 4BC but it was after midnight when people are mostly asleep and it was only a partial eclipse. In 1BC there was not one, but two eclipses, and they took place while people were awake.

Keep in mind also that Herod shared his reign as king before he died. His first son Antipater was officially coregent (according to Josephus), then deposed before Herod put him to death. So we know he had shared the authority before (one of many ingredients confusing regnal years).

I do agree that Archelaus ruled since 4BC, but I believe Herod was still alive for another couple of years along side him. Even Josephus says Archelaus “had long exercised royal authority” (War II.26) when he assumed power. There was also the problem of Archelaus being designated heir then having it revoked and reinstated. All of this served to confuse regnal years.

Also, there was a Roman census. There was no need for a Roman census until the Romans took over direct rule from Herod’s successors in 6 CE.

Yes, I agree there was. And Justin Martyr ~100AD says to a person he is debating that the census records still exist with the Holy Family listed on them. But it was not the one in 6/8 AD, and it wasn’t for the purposes of taxes/rights. It was for an oath of good will toward Caesar when Augustus was bestowed the title “Pater Patrie” by the Senate in 2BC. Josephus says 60000 Pharisees refused to take the oath. Orosio from the 400’s links the Holy Family’s enrollment with that oath and it was presented to Caesar as a gift, as part of the celebrations.

How does the authorised Catholic English translation of the New Testament treat protos in this case?

There are examples of both in the bible. Admittedly, “First” is much more common than “Before” as translation for protos. However, bible translators are not tasked with trying to solve dilemmas such as the one we are discussing. They are translators, not historians.

The 1975 English updating of Schürer stuck with his original dates, so I suspect that your points are a minority view among scholars.

You are correct, it is still a minority view, but there is good reason to believe that what the writers of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries onward all said.