September 11th: Happy Birthday Jesus?

[Sparko]

A couple points: The magi going to Bethlehem is not an indication that they were familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures; they got that information from Herod's advisers (Mat. 2:1-6). Also, if the date were so important that John encoded it into Revelation, why is there no evidence the early church knew of this date?

And why encode it in the first place? Why not just say it plainly? It's not like it would be a secret at that time anyway.

[Adrift]

Thanks. I have seen this same imagery used for various other purposes. I believe Tim LaHaye (Left Behind) used pretty much the exact thing to interpret this as explaining the end times and the dragon as the devil seeking out God's remnant at Petra (the desert).

And recently David Meade used it to claim that the apocalypse and rapture were upon us on Sept 23, 2017. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...k-off-saturday

So I am pretty leery of such things.

I totally understand using caution. For the record, on top of HATING Bible Code stuff, Heiser points out that this has absolutely NOTHING to do with future prophecy. This is what he wrote on Sep 11, 2016:

are not mentioned

https://drmsh.com/september-11-happy-birthday-to-jesus/

[Adrift]

A couple points: The magi going to Bethlehem is not an indication that they were familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures; they got that information from Herod's advisers (Mat. 2:1-6).

I think his point was that foreign astrologers knew to go to Judea (and Jerusalem near Bethlehem) to find the "king of the Jews" to begin with, even if they needed help getting to Bethlehem specifically. From the podcast transcript,

The constellation of the virgin giving birth to the Messiah would, of course, have been viewed as quite coherent by the Magi, especially if they knew about Isaiah 7:14. They're from Babylon, Persia, and there's lots and lots and lots of Jews there, starting with the exile. Daniel himself was part of this wider tradition of "wise men." To me, it's unthinkable that the Magi would not have been exposed somewhere to Jewish learning, and specifically, the focal point of Jewish learning is the Scriptures. So this is not very difficult to imagine, that if the Magi knew of Isaiah 7:14 and linked it to the Davidic dynasty, this idea of a virgin, Virgo (and we're going to see a few signs in a moment here that telegraph to the Magi very clearly that a divine king was being born, and part of the signage was associated with Virgo being clothed with the sun between the head and the knees here)... They would look at that and go, "Boy, there's that thing in the Old Testament that read 'this virgin shall conceive' and maybe we ought to go look at that. Oh yeah, boy, it was a sign for Ahaz in the Davidic dynasty and boy, oh boy, oh boy." In other words, this isn't hard to do the math for the Magi if they had known the verse, and I think there's more than a reasonable expectation that they did know the text.

But even if they were ignorant of Isaiah 7:14, the astro-theological linkage would still make sense to them, since the sign we know as Virgo had strong associations with other ancient "mother goddesses" (figures that would produce divine kings). So even if they were totally ignorant of Isaiah 7, what they would have been looking at would still have been a neon sign for divine/royal birth. We're going to pick up a few of the other signs that would make that clear in a moment. But the fact that they go to Bethlehem tells you that they were familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures.

Also, if the date were so important that John encoded it into Revelation, why is there no evidence the early church knew of this date?

That's a good question. I don't know. Looking through Martin's The Star that Astonished the World, he suggests that they knew enough to know that Jesus's birth happened some time after 4 BC (the majority asserting between 3 to 2 BC), which he finds significant because that's when a lot of these astrological signs lined up, but he only cites another book on this, and doesn't list early church fathers who held this view (though he does mention Tertullian for the date of the census). I'll see if I can contact Dr. Heiser on this subject, and if he can add anything to it.

[Adrift]

And why encode it in the first place? Why not just say it plainly? It's not like it would be a secret at that time anyway.

I don't know, but I imagine the reply would be something like "John wasn't attempting to encode anything." The date of the birth of Jesus in the early church was not nearly as significant as the date of his death and resurrection, and so perhaps the picture he paints is merely the one that the Magi themselves would have seen on their way to visit the newborn king. Maybe the exact date wasn't as significant to him as all of the portents that the constellations represent. But that's just a guess. I don't know the answer.

[Adrift]

For a visual, I thought these might be helpful.

sept.11.jpg

star-of-bethlehem.jpg

[One Bad Pig]

I think his point was that foreign astrologers knew to go to Judea (and Jerusalem near Bethlehem) to find the "king of the Jews" to begin with, even if they needed help getting to Bethlehem specifically. From the podcast transcript,

The constellation of the virgin giving birth to the Messiah would, of course, have been viewed as quite coherent by the Magi, especially if they knew about Isaiah 7:14. They're from Babylon, Persia, and there's lots and lots and lots of Jews there, starting with the exile. Daniel himself was part of this wider tradition of "wise men." To me, it's unthinkable that the Magi would not have been exposed somewhere to Jewish learning, and specifically, the focal point of Jewish learning is the Scriptures. So this is not very difficult to imagine, that if the Magi knew of Isaiah 7:14 and linked it to the Davidic dynasty, this idea of a virgin, Virgo (and we're going to see a few signs in a moment here that telegraph to the Magi very clearly that a divine king was being born, and part of the signage was associated with Virgo being clothed with the sun between the head and the knees here)... They would look at that and go, "Boy, there's that thing in the Old Testament that read 'this virgin shall conceive' and maybe we ought to go look at that. Oh yeah, boy, it was a sign for Ahaz in the Davidic dynasty and boy, oh boy, oh boy." In other words, this isn't hard to do the math for the Magi if they had known the verse, and I think there's more than a reasonable expectation that they did know the text.

But even if they were ignorant of Isaiah 7:14, the astro-theological linkage would still make sense to them, since the sign we know as Virgo had strong associations with other ancient "mother goddesses" (figures that would produce divine kings). So even if they were totally ignorant of Isaiah 7, what they would have been looking at would still have been a neon sign for divine/royal birth. We're going to pick up a few of the other signs that would make that clear in a moment. But the fact that they go to Bethlehem tells you that they were familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures.

Perhaps, but it doesn't take a whole lot of knowledge about the Jews to know that their capital was Jerusalem - and I wouldn't put too much weight on where the magi came from; "the East" is not exactly specific, and that's all we're told.

[Sparko]

I don't know, but I imagine the reply would be something like "John wasn't attempting to encode anything." The date of the birth of Jesus in the early church was not nearly as significant as the date of his death and resurrection, and so perhaps the picture he paints is merely the one that the Magi themselves would have seen on their way to visit the newborn king. Maybe the exact date wasn't as significant to him as all of the portents that the constellations represent. But that's just a guess. I don't know the answer.

If revelation is about what is coming, why was John describing Jesus' birth? And what about the rest of Rev 12? It seems to be talking about the woman and events to come.

[Sparko]

For a visual, I thought these might be helpful.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]39687[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]39688[/ATTACH]

Probably a dumb question but:

If that was the star of Bethlehem, how would it work if you can't see the sun at night?

[Adrift]

Perhaps, but it doesn't take a whole lot of knowledge about the Jews to know that their capital was Jerusalem

If they were looking for the king of the Jews on a specific date, it would seem they would need to know something from scripture. And as Heiser points out, even if they weren't familiar with scripture (which seems unlikely since they knew they were looking for a Jewish king), there was still other astro-theological significance to the constellations.

and I wouldn't put too much weight on where the magi came from; "the East" is not exactly specific, and that's all we're told.

I think Heiser is simply repeating the general scholarly view that Persia or Babylonia are the likely origins of the Magi.

Source: A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew by Craig S. Keener, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1999

Against some unlikely alternative proposals,⁷³ most scholars recognize that these Magi belonged to a priestly caste of Eastern astrologers.⁷⁴ In most accounts Magi hail from Persia or Babylon (e.g., Cic. De Leg. 2.10.26; Philo Spec. 3.100; Prob. 74; Dio Chrys. Or. 36; Lucian Runaways 8; Diog. Laert. 8.1.3; Char. Chaer. 5.9.4; Philost. V.A. 1.24).⁷⁵

The Chaldeans or Persians were known for divination (Apul. Metam. 2.12; Arrian Alex. 7.18.2, 4) and astrology (Diod. Sic. 1.81.6; 2.31.8; Juv. Sat. 6.553-64; Aul. Gel. 1.9.6; 14.1; Philo Dreams 1.53; Sib. Or. 3.227; Pesiq. R. 14:8) and the Greeks and Romans regularly associated Chaldean Magi with magical powers (Char. Chaer. 5.9.4), prediction of the future (Marc. Aur. Med. 3.3.1; Arrian Alex. 7.16.5), dream interpretation (Herod. Hist. 1.107, 127; 7.12-19; cf. Jos. Ant. 10.195-203; Cic. Divin. 1.46), or specifically regarded wisdom (Diog. Laert. 8.1.3; 9.11.61; Dio Chrys. Or. 36.38-48; Lucian Runaways 8; cf. Cic. De Leg. 2.10.26; Philo Prob. 74; Spec. 3.100; Philost. V.A. 1.24).⁷⁶ Roman officials are known to have received Magi with honor (Albright and Mann 1971: 14; Schweizer 1975:37), and Herod was typically generous to pagan cities (see Josephus 1982: 90-93).



73. McNamara 1968; Charbel 1983; Custance 1975: 19-20; Davis and Allison 1988: 228. Schnackenburg 1985: 23 is uncommitted. Biblical tradition called Arabia "East," but this is hardly a frequent location for Magi.

74. 74. F.F. Bruce 1951: 184; Hagner 1993:27; cf. Argyle 1963: 30; Liddell and Scott 1968: 1071; Montefiore 1968: 2.9.

75. On the Magi of Persia, see further Olmstead 1959: 28-29, 196, 251, 372, 449, 477-78, 496, 517.

76. Magi were not, however, positive in all cases; cf., e.g., Herod. Hist. 3.79-80. Jews may have also viewed their association with dreams as a divine accommodation to pagan inability to hear more clearly (cf. Gnuse 1990b).

© Copyright Original Source

[Adrift]

If revelation is about what is coming, why was John describing Jesus' birth? And what about the rest of Rev 12? It seems to be talking about the woman and events to come.

I don't think it's an accurate assessment to say that the book of Revelation only paints a picture of things to come. Revelation merely means that these were the things revealed to John, and there are plenty of things in the book of Revelation that we know were happening and had happened. They don't only concern future prophecy.

What part of Revelation 12 do you think is specifically about events to come? I have a commentary around here some place called Revelation: Four Views: A Parallel Commentary by Steve Gregg, and as I recall, depending on whether you're a preterist, a futurist, a historicist, or a fourth view that he calls the "spiritual" view, then that will determine how you read Revelation, but all of them accept, in some sense at least, that this concerns the birth of Jesus.

[Sparko]

I don't think it's an accurate assessment to say that the book of Revelation only paints a picture of things to come. Revelation merely means that these were the things revealed to John, and there are plenty of things in the book of Revelation that we know were happening and had happened. They don't only concern future prophecy.

What part of Revelation 12 do you think is specifically about events to come? I have a commentary around here some place called Revelation: Four Views: A Parallel Commentary by Steve Gregg, and as I recall, depending on whether you're a preterist, a futurist, a historicist, or a fourth view that he calls the "spiritual" view, then that will determine how you read Revelation, but all of them accept, in some sense at least, that this concerns the birth of Jesus.

[seer]

I don't think it's an accurate assessment to say that the book of Revelation only paints a picture of things to come. Revelation merely means that these were the things revealed to John, and there are plenty of things in the book of Revelation that we know were happening and had happened. They don't only concern future prophecy.

What part of Revelation 12 do you think is specifically about events to come? I have a commentary around here some place called Revelation: Four Views: A Parallel Commentary by Steve Gregg, and as I recall, depending on whether you're a preterist, a futurist, a historicist, or a fourth view that he calls the "spiritual" view, then that will determine how you read Revelation, but all of them accept, in some sense at least, that this concerns the birth of Jesus.

Cool, Steve Gregg is a friend of mine, even had dinner at my home a while back.

[Adrift]

Probably a dumb question but:

If that was the star of Bethlehem, how would it work if you can't see the sun at night?

The sun isn't the star of Bethlehem, if that's what you're getting at. Heiser believes that the star of Bethelehem was "Jupiter in its retrograde motion." Again from the transcript of the podcast,

Back again to the subject matter, let's talk about Jupiter. Again, we have a Jupiter/Regulus conjunction in Leo. Jupiter is important because it is... You can read a lot of astronomers here, but the best explanation for the "star" of Matthew 2 (whose perceived movement was tracked by the Magi) is related to Jupiter. Jupiter is well-known for what astronomers call "retrograde motion," the appearance of movement back and forth in the night sky. Jupiter's first conjunction with Regulus began on September 14, 3 B.C. (the year that we're talking about here) and it continued through September 11, 3 B.C. Then on December 1 of 3 B.C., Jupiter stopped its normal course through the fixed stars and began its annual retrogression (or backward motion). In doing so, it once again headed toward the star Regulus. Then on February 17 of 2 B.C., the two were reunited. So it's moving around a lot between 3 B.C. and 2 B.C.

Astronomers have known this for a long time. The perception of Jupiter's movement for just about everybody who kind of tracks on this thing is the best explanation for the star in Matthew 2. You have all this going on just before the Messiah is actually born and then on into the time when the Magi are going to start their journey. It takes quite a while to get to Bethlehem, so during that whole interval of time, Jupiter is doing stuff. This just becomes the best candidate for what the Magi saw in reference to Matthew 2. The timing is right, the Magi embark on their journey a year or so after Jesus was actually born, and this is what they're looking at. I have another footnote here about the terminology in Matthew 2:11:

In Matthew 2:11, where the child Jesus is referred to with the Greek term paidion, as opposed to brephos in Luke 1:41. While the former can be used of an infant or toddler, the latter is only used of newborn infants or children in utero. [MH: see reference in the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.] Martin (Ch. 5) points out that the account in the New Testament said the Magi saw the star rising above the eastern horizon

Again, you can look that up if you have Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. So Martin has done some homework here. He's not just making it up. But he's aligning the language quite coherently with the behavior of Jupiter. That brings us to the point where we've talked about the sign of Revelation 12, the signs that John gives us. If you're looking at the sky then, you have these other things going on, and I've narrowed our discussion to the Jupiter/Regulus conjunction in Leo. (Again, Martin has more if you want it.) That gives us a birth of Jesus on September 11, 3 B.C. However, that date was also the Day of Trumpets and it has a connection to Noah's Flood.

(note he also addresses OBP's comment here as well)

[Adrift]

I really wish I could find that book. But yes, I believe that's one view. Grant Osborne and Robert Mounce in their commentaries on Revelation suggest that this all borrows heavily from OT motifs, especially of Israel fleeing the chariots of Pharaoh in the Exodus. They both agree that the previous bit was definitely about the birth of Jesus, and having lost the war in heaven, Satan now turns to the mother, the mother symbolizing Israel or perhaps the ideal church from a heavenly perspective, and the rest of her offspring symbolizing the earthly church. Mounce suggests that the flood could be "the war of A.D. 66-73 that threatened to cut off the escape of the church from Jerusalem, or, less likely, to a literal flood such as the one that prevented the Jews of Gadara from escaping across the Jordan from the Romans in March, A.D. 68." He also suggests that the whole scenario "could refer to the attempt on the part of the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem to stamp out the early church (Acts 8:1-3). Or it could refer to the river of lies that will threaten even the elect (2 Thess 2:9-11)." A number of scholars also appear to see the persecution of the woman and her other offspring as future events, or moving from John's present period into the future, but they seem to mostly draw a line between the periods before and after the song in verse 10-12.

At any rate, most still seem to see a birth narrative of Jesus in the preceding verses.

[Adrift]

Cool, Steve Gregg is a friend of mine, even had dinner at my home a while back.

Awesome! Yeah, I really like that book, and I'm kicking myself that I can't find it. It's so helpful.