What year was Jesus born?

[patrick457]

I have a problem with the placement of the phrase “in the East”. It might be referring to the relative position of the wise men rather than the star. How could they follow a star, rising from the East, with their backs turned toward it? Since they came from the East, as the scripture says, a better translation might be, “For from the East we have seen his star …”

I think you’re being too literal. Though yes, if you go with the geographical (‘East’) translation it’s better understood as “We have seen his star [while we were] in the East” rather than “We have seen his star in the eastern part of the sky.”

(The other option is to translate the word (anatolē) literally as ‘rising’, which would give you: “We have seen his star when it rose up” or “in its rising.” So the NAB, ESV, NRSV, and the NJB.)

 

[unstoppable_II]

…(The other option is to translate the word (anatolē) literally as ‘rising’, which would give you: “We have seen his star when it rose up” or “in its rising.”

The problem with that is stars rise in the east, so they would have to be in the west looking east in order to see it “when it rose up” or “in its rising.” This would place the observers somewhere between Bethlehem and the Mediterranean, a very short distance.

So the NAB, ESV, NRSV, and the NJB.) …

… (what?)

 

[patrick457]

The problem with that is stars rise in the east, so they would have to be in the west looking east in order to see it “when it rose up” or “in its rising.” This would place the observers somewhere between Bethlehem and the Mediterranean, a very short distance.

I think the problem is that we seem to often assume the Magi saw the star the whole time, and that they followed it as they were journeying westwards to Palestine. “O star of wonder, star of night … westward leading, still proceeding.” But the actual account in Matthew suggests instead that the Magi saw the star on two different occasions: once at an unspecified time when it first arose (2:2 - no mention of them following it, note) and then, as they were departing from Jerusalem and going southwards to Bethlehem (2:9-10). Only in the second apparition of the star (Jerusalem to Bethlehem) is it specifically said to guide them to their destination.

They could have seen the star rising in the eastern sky when they were still in “the East,” and that this sight prompted them to make their journey, but there’s no requirement from the text that they saw the star en route westwards to Jerusalem or that they followed it. All we know is that the Magi said that they first saw the star en tē anatolē.

 

[unstoppable_II]

I think the problem is that we seem to often assume the Magi saw the star the whole time, and that they followed it as they were journeying westwards to Palestine. “O star of wonder, star of night … westward leading, still proceeding.” But the actual account in Matthew suggests instead that the Magi saw the star on two different occasions: once at an unspecified time when it first arose (2:2 - no mention of them following it, note) and then, as they were departing from Jerusalem and going southwards to Bethlehem (2:9-10). Only in the second apparition of the star (Jerusalem to Bethlehem) is it specifically said to guide them to their destination.

They could have seen the star rising in the eastern sky when they were still in “the East,” and that this sight prompted them to make their journey, but there’s no requirement from the text that they saw the star en route westwards to Jerusalem or that they followed it. All we know is that the Magi said that they first saw the star en tē anatolē.

I suppose. At some point, we have to accept words for what they mean, otherwise they can mean anything, and ultimately nothing. Perhaps the writer didn’t dwell on the journey of the Magi because he wanted us to concentrate on the message of the Gospel.

 

[patrick457]

I suppose. At some point, we have to accept words for what they mean, otherwise they can mean anything, and ultimately nothing. Perhaps the writer didn’t dwell on the journey of the Magi because he wanted us to concentrate on the message of the Gospel.

As an aside, it is partly because the Magi were going southwards that the Church Fathers interpreted the star not as a readily-explainable astronomical phenomenon as we do now but as a miracle: say, an angel who took the form of a star to guide the Magi. (Some said meanwhile that it was actually the Holy Spirit in star form.) Of course, as you mention, from our perspective the sun, moon, stars and planets appear to rise in the east and set in the west, but the Fathers interpreted Matthew to mean that this star (or angel-as-star) violated what should have been its normal course and literally went southward to Bethlehem. In fact, the ‘star’ even supposedly came down from the sky to go before the Magi and even ‘stood’ above the head of the infant Jesus. (Origen even drew an analogy between the star’s “standing above where the child was” with the Holy Spirit’s descent and resting on Jesus at His baptism. For Origen, the star was the symbol of the divinity of Jesus; “it stood above him in such a way that it was never removed from there.”)

In fact, one Church Father who did opine that the Magi followed the star to Jerusalem (the first occasion), St. John Chrysostom expressed the opinion that the star was no mere star “but some invisible power transformed into this appearance” because “there is not any star that moves by this way, but whether it be the sun you mention, or the moon, or all the other stars, we see them going from east to west; but this was wafted from north to south; for so is Palestine situated with respect to Persia.”

 

[steve53]

The Star of the East, along with Ezekial’s Wheel, over the past few decades has been great grist for the UFO/Ancient Alien crowd- at least the ones that aren’t avowed atheists.

We can only conclude so much from the ancient sources.

But certainly for three wise and wealthy men from the East- presumably Parthia- to pack up and travel into Herod’s world along with their entourages because of the formation they saw in the sky- well, it had to be formidable and once-in-a-lifetime event.

Halley’s Comet would be all of that.

Not only would Halley’s Comet be by far the brightest object in the sky, and easily seen during the daytime, but it’s trajectory ran COUNTER to the planets.

A VERY remarkable event.

No reason to downplay it.

 

[patrick457]

The Star of the East, along with Ezekial’s Wheel, over the past few decades has been great grist for the UFO/Ancient Alien crowd- at least the ones that aren’t avowed atheists.

We can only conclude so much from the ancient sources.

But certainly for three wise and wealthy men from the East- presumably Parthia- to pack up and travel into Herod’s world along with their entourages because of the formation they saw in the sky- well, it had to be formidable and once-in-a-lifetime event.

Halley’s Comet would be all of that.

Not only would Halley’s Comet be by far the brightest object in the sky, and easily seen during the daytime, but it’s trajectory ran COUNTER to the planets.

A VERY remarkable event.

No reason to downplay it.

Sure, a comet has the advantage of ‘moving’ especially when compared to other candidates, and no star moves from north to southwest (the direction from Jerusalem to Bethlehem). But note the description of the star: one moment it “was going ahead” of the Magi (the imperfect tense in the Greek implies an ongoing movement) toward Bethlehem when all of a sudden “it came and stood” over the place where the Infant was. Comets move, sure, but they do not grind to a halt all of a sudden AFAIK, especially over a precise location, as the text seems to imply.

It also fails to take into account that the star likely disappeared before the Magi saw it again en route to Bethlehem. At least we have no indication that the star was visible when the Magi arrived at Jerusalem; on the contrary, Herod and the Jerusalemites seem to have no knowledge of the star. (Herod was “troubled” by the Magi’s words - “When Herod the king heard this” - not by the sight of any star.) In other words, the star was not continually in the sky: it appeared, then disappeared for a period of time before reappearing again. Not exactly the thing you have with comets, particularly big bright ones, as you admit.

If we go by a strict reading of the text, the star “went before them till it came to rest over the place where the child was.” (Or as some manuscripts read, “came to rest over the child.”) Going by the narrative flow, the Magi (and the reader) would have already known that the baby they were looking for was in Bethlehem. The only remaining question was where in Bethlehem the child was lying, and that’s when the star came in. It’s not so much that the star guided them to Bethlehem, but to a certain house within Bethlehem. (So no case of mistaken identity I guess, as Monty Python would imply. )

I think the Fathers had the best understanding of the passage here: this was a miracle and no ordinary star or heavenly body. So what if there are people who link these and Ezekiel’s chariot with alien spacecraft? Dead men rising again, the sea splitting in two or the angels of God appearing to people is already out of the ordinary. Why should a ‘star’ moving out of course be any less?

 

[Ron_Conte]

John 8:57 paraphrased, Jesus was accused of preaching with authority even though he wasn’t yet 50. This occurred a year before he was crucified.

Assuming a late crucifixion date of April A.D. 36, let us postulate he would have been 47-49 at the time of his death.

This would give him a birth year of 12 B.C. to 10 B.C.

Herod would still be in power. Jesus would have been 8-10 when Josephus returned from Egypt, saw that Archelaus was also bad, and moved on to Nazareth, and 39-41 when he was baptized by John.

Oh, and Halley’s Comet made a pass in 12 B.C.

Biblical chronologists, persons who have spent years researching this topic, do not agree on the year of the Birth of Jesus Christ. Suggested dates for His Birth range from 15 BC to 1 BC. Dates for the Crucifixion range from AD 19 to AD 36, although the dates of AD 30 and 33 currently have the most support.

The above quoted argument, birth in 12 BC and death in AD 36, is from Nikos Kokkinos, “Crucifixion in A.D. 36: The Keystone for Dating the Birth of Jesus”, in Chronos, Kairos, Christos I. Kokkinos cites Halley’s comet as the likely “star” seen by the Magi.

 

[steve53]

Biblical chronologists, persons who have spent years researching this topic, do not agree on the year of the Birth of Jesus Christ. Suggested dates for His Birth range from 15 BC to 1 BC. Dates for the Crucifixion range from AD 19 to AD 36, although the dates of AD 30 and 33 currently have the most support.

The above quoted argument, birth in 12 BC and death in AD 36, is from Nikos Kokkinos, “Crucifixion in A.D. 36: The Keystone for Dating the Birth of Jesus”, in Chronos, Kairos, Christos I. Kokkinos cites Halley’s comet as the likely “star” seen by the Magi.

I am sure when the periodicity of Halley’s was determined people easily put two and two together and proposed it as the Star of the East. Likewise, a careful reading of Josephus and Tacitus and the NT, at any time in history, demonstrates that A.D. 36 is the only logical year for the crucifixion of Jesus.

 

[Ignatius]

I have recently started reading the Ignatius study bible and in the notes of the gospel of Matthew it says “According to our current calendar, Jesus was born near the end of Herod’s reign, either between 6 and 4 b.c. or 3 and 2 b.c.” I was confused by this as I thought it would be zero starting from Jesus’s birth. If someone could explain it if possible that would be great. God bless

They hadn’t come up with the concept of zero when the time of Christ’s birth was proposed. Also, we really don’t have sufficient detail to determine the exact day and year of Christ’s birth.

 

[bogeydogg]

I have recently started reading the Ignatius study bible and in the notes of the gospel of Matthew it says “According to our current calendar, Jesus was born near the end of Herod’s reign, either between 6 and 4 b.c. or 3 and 2 b.c.” I was confused by this as I thought it would be zero starting from Jesus’s birth. If someone could explain it if possible that would be great. God bless

Josephus puts the death of Herod at 4BC. There are records of astronomical perturbations around 6BC as well as Jupiter rising in the house of Aries (the Ram) which COULD have been read as a zodiac event by the Magi to mean a king born
In Israel. No one is totally sure. But given Herod tells the men to kill all babes under two years based on the signs he saw, and that Josephus tells he died in 4BC it is possible it was around 6BC.

God Bless