The Magi and Tiridates

[farpinho]

Can somebody please help me refute with factual data this hypothesis or rather claim found on Wikipedia regarding that the Magi story in Mt. was actually adapted from the visit of the King Tiridates I of Armenia to Nero in 66AD ?

Sources:

"A model for the homage of the Magi might have been provided, it has been suggested, by the journey to Rome of King Tiridates I of Armenia, with his magi, to pay homage to the Emperor Nero, which took place in 66 AD, a few years before the date assigned to the composition of the Gospel of Matthew."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Magi

"The visit of Tiridates, an event that greatly impressed contemporaries, apparently was adapted by Christians to become the story of the adoration of the Christ Child by the Three Magi. The Christian legend changed Rome into Bethlehem, the birthplace of the Ruler of the coming Kingdom of God, and replaced Tiridates with that contemporary king who was already connected with Christianity through the Acts of St. Thomas: Gondophares, otherwise known as Kaspar."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiridates_I_of_Armenia

[aicirt]

Isn't it possible that these magi might not have been the same magi who visited Christ?

One theory is that the Magi came from Babylon and were the descendants of Jews who did not return to Israel after they were freed. I believe the prophet Daniel stayed in Babylon. This is why these Magi or Wise Men were so interested in the star indicating that the King of Israel was born. They knew the Jewish prophecies.

A camel is a pretty fast animal capable of doing 70 to 125 miles per hr. So if they left Bagdad they could have covered the 800 miles to Bethlehem in about eight days with some time to see the sights.

Have you seen THE STAR OF BETHELHEM by Steven McEveety? It is on YouTube.
FASCINATING!!! They've brought up the ancient skies and you can see the Star.

After you see that, look at REVEALING THE LAMB about the skies at the time of our Lord's death.

[farpinho]

That's interesting, but he forgot something. I don't think you have to take the narrations in Matthew literally.

If you cross-reference Luke's with Matthew's narration on Jesus' birth, you'll conclude that the Magi didn't come to Bethlehem the exact time Jesus was born, because according to Luke, Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day of his birth (which means Joseph and Mary couldn't have escaped to Egypt as soon as he was born!)

We also know from Luke "...And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. Thos census first took place while Quirinus was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David..."

What do we know about this decree from historical sources outside the Bible? Fom Flavius Josephus "The whole Jewish nation took an oath to be faithful to Caesar and to the interests of the king [Herod]... above 6000 pharisees refused to swear." Based on Josephus' writings, this oath was sworn in the year 3 B.C. This was the census for the taking of the oath to which Luke refers.

Moreover, from Matthew we do know that the King Herod ordered to get killed all the children in Bethlehem who were up to 2 years old (if Christ was just a newborn, why would Herod order the slaughter of kids up to 2 years old?).

So, if we join all the pieces together, we probably get this scenario: Jesus was born sometime around 3 B.C., the Magi arrived Bethlehem about 1-2 B.C. when Jesus was about 2 years old, and then Joseph and Mary escaped to Egypt and stayed there for a couple of months until Herod died in about 1 B.C.

From Luke we know Jesus started his ministry when He was about 30 years old (which means he wasn't necessarily exactly 30 years old!) and from John He preached for 3 years! If all information is correct, Jesus, contrary to common belief, died when he was 35-36 years old! What do you guys think?

[Joe Kelley]

Note Matthew 2:11

11* and going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him.

They visited Jesus in a house; not in the stable. So it must have been sometime later.

Also note Matthew 2:7

7 Then Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star appeared;

I expect Herod assumed that to be the time of Jesus' birth. My guess is that it was about a year earlier, and Herod, being the cautious type, killed all those born within a year either way. [That is just my guess. It has no foundation otherwise.]

[farpinho]

Originally Posted by Joe Kelley

Note Matthew 2:11 They visited Jesus in a house; not in the stable. So it must have been sometime later.

Good point, there is one more information that adds authenticity to this hypothesis, as is says that the Magi saw Jesus WITH MARY, implying Joseph was not with them

Originally Posted by Joe Kelley

Also note Matthew 2:7 I expect Herod assumed that to be the time of Jesus' birth. My guess is that it was about a year earlier, and Herod, being the cautious type, killed all those born within a year either way. [That is just my guess. It has no foundation otherwise.]

So that would mean the Magi waited 2 years to visit Jesus? Hmm... that would invalidate the hypothesis shown in the video "THE STAR OF BETHELHEM by Steven McEveety" the user aircirt previously posted, since by then Herod would already have been dead... and then the Bethlehem Star must have been some other phenomenon (not necessarily a natural one, but a supernatural one...)

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by farpinho

That's interesting, but he forgot something. I don't think you have to take the narrations in Matthew literally.

If you cross-reference Luke's with Matthew's narration on Jesus' birth, you'll conclude that the Magi didn't come to Bethlehem the exact time Jesus was born, because according to Luke, Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day of his birth (which means Joseph and Mary couldn't have escaped to Egypt as soon as he was born!)

We also know from Luke "...And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. Thos census first took place while Quirinus was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David..."

What do we know about this decree from historical sources outside the Bible? Fom Flavius Josephus "The whole Jewish nation took an oath to be faithful to Caesar and to the interests of the king [Herod]... above 6000 pharisees refused to swear." Based on Josephus' writings, this oath was sworn in the year 3 B.C. This was the census for the taking of the oath to which Luke refers.

Moreover, from Matthew we do know that the King Herod ordered to get killed all the children in Bethlehem who were up to 2 years old (if Christ was just a newborn, why would Herod order the slaughter of kids up to 2 years old?).

So, if we join all the pieces together, we probably get this scenario: Jesus was born sometime around 3 B.C., the Magi arrived Bethlehem about 1-2 B.C. when Jesus was about 2 years old, and then Joseph and Mary escaped to Egypt and stayed there for a couple of months until Herod died in about 1 B.C.

From Luke we know Jesus started his ministry when He was about 30 years old (which means he wasn't necessarily exactly 30 years old!) and from John He preached for 3 years! If all information is correct, Jesus, contrary to common belief, died when he was 35-36 years old! What do you guys think?

Actually John only explicitly speaks of a more or less two-year period: the gospel record three Passovers in total (Jesus' ministry begins and ends in one) as well as a few other feasts between each. We get the idea that Jesus was out in public for three (more specifically, three-and-a-half) years from an interpretation of Daniel's prophecy of the Seventy Weeks favored by a few early Christians (if you've ever hung around people who speculate about the End Times you'll probably be familiar with this).

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by Joe Kelley

Note Matthew 2:11 They visited Jesus in a house; not in the stable. So it must have been sometime later.

I will just say this: in this time period it was more common for people to keep their livestock inside the house along with the family (in one arrangement, a houses' living quarters would be 'upstairs' while the animals are sheltered on ground level). The mean reason why people really think of a stable is because of Luke's mention of a feeding-trough or "manger."

[farpinho]

Originally Posted by patrick457

I will just say this: in this time period it was more common for people to keep their livestock inside the house along with the family (in one arrangement, a houses' living quarters would be 'upstairs' while the animals are sheltered on ground level). The mean reason why people really think of a stable is because of Luke's mention of a feeding-trough or "manger."

I agree with you, this is a manger during Jesus' time which Luke spoke of.

http://www.princetonol.com/groups/iad/links/manger.jpg

http://www.christiananswers.net/chri...christmas.html

[farpinho]

Originally Posted by patrick457

Actually John only explicitly speaks of a more or less two-year period: the gospel record three Passovers in total (Jesus' ministry begins and ends in one) as well as a few other feasts between each. We get the idea that Jesus was out in public for three (more specifically, three-and-a-half) years from an interpretation of Daniel's prophecy of the Seventy Weeks favored by a few early Christians (if you've ever hung around people who speculate about the End Times you'll probably be familiar with this).

Actually, there's also a non-canonical gospel, which didn't survive over time, called "Gospel of the Hebrews", which existence we only know through the quotes of the early Church Fathers like St. Irenaeus and Jerome (which some people believe it to be Matthew's original authentical work). Although the Gospel doesn't deny anything that had been said in the canonical gospels, according to that Gospel, the duration of Jesus' ministry was of about only one year...

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by farpinho

Actually, there's also a non-canonical gospel, which didn't survive over time, called "Gospel of the Hebrews", which existence we only know through the quotes of the early Church Fathers like St. Irenaeus and Jerome (which some people believe it to be Matthew's original authentical work). Although the Gospel doesn't deny anything that had been said in the canonical gospels, according to that Gospel, the duration of Jesus' ministry was of about only one year...

This is the thing. There is a tradition since Papias in the early 2nd century that Matthew wrote down the 'oracles' (logia or "words") of Jesus "in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated [or interpreted] them as he was able." Quite a number of the Church Fathers assumed that this 'Hebrew' Logia is the original gospel of Matthew, of which the canonical version in Greek is a translation. It is usually in the context of this 'Hebrew' work that Matthew is spoken of as being the first among the evangelists to write a gospel (cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1; Origen, Commentary on Matthew, as cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25.3-6; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.24-6-7; St. Ephraem, Commentary on the Diatessaron; St. Jerome, Prologue of the Four Gospels & Letter to Pope Damasus; Pseudo-Athanasius, Synopsis of Sacred Scripture). Many of them are silent as to exactly when our Greek gospel of Matthew surfaced and exactly who is supposed to have translated it, although Pseudo-Athanasius thinks that it was the work of James the Just, 'brother of the Lord' and head of the Church in Jerusalem.

Now some of the Fathers even believed that this original 'Hebrew' Matthew was preserved to their own day and thus quoted from text(s) they believed to be the genuine article, dubbing it (among many other names) "the gospel of the Hebrews." The problem is, many quoted portions do not agree with each other - which leads many to opine today that they were actually quoting different gospels which mostly share the same characteristics: they were used by different Jewish Christian groups and/or are versions of Matthew's gospel.

Now there is indeed an idea that the synoptics seem to describe only a single year of ministry. For one, they speak of only a single Passover (the one where Jesus dies). Also, we could notice that in Mark 2:23-28 grain is eaten raw, which suggests early summer, while in 6:39 it is spring since the grass is green, and in 11:1 Jesus goes to Jerusalem for Passover, presumably during the same spring as chapter 6. Hence there are people who believe that Jesus' ministry actually lasted only for more or less a year: between one early summer or late spring and the next spring. They even argue that this shorter time period is compatible with Josephus' references to some other contemporaneous prophetic/messianic figures, such as John the Baptist, the Samaritan, the Egyptian, and Theudas, and yet another anonymous prophet, who also had apparently short careers before the authorities crushed their movement (though Athronges' rebellion in 4 BC seem to have lasted for two years), as well as with Jesus' itinerant lifestyle and His disciples' lack of formal occupations (having abandoned them), which they think would not work as well in the long run.

The problem with this theory, however, is that it fails to consider that Matthew, Mark, and Luke at times arrange their (highly episodic) material differently from each other. Hence, to use, say, the time indicators in Mark one would have to assume that the events happened in the exact order as Mark placed them, which would place one into a dilemma when you compare his gospel with say, Matthew or Luke, both of whom place some pericopes in a different order than Mark. So, even these supposed 'clues' are not exactly helpful in determining how long Jesus was out in public.

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by farpinho

I agree with you, this is a manger during Jesus' time which Luke spoke of.

http://www.princetonol.com/groups/iad/links/manger.jpg

http://www.christiananswers.net/chri...christmas.html

This was a little (crudely-done) model I made a while ago showing a house arranged in the way I described earlier. The family would sleep on the upper level (the one with a jar and a pot in it), while the animals and the feeding troughs are down below. And since we're at it, I might also add that Luke may not be talking about an inn in the narrative of Jesus' birth. (Warning: shameless plug)

[abucs]

First of all i think both Matthew's Gospel and Luke's was written before A.D. 66.

Secondly, reading the account of Tiridates of Armenia (again from Wikipedia) it seems he visited Nero with 3000 horsemen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiridates_I_of_Armenia

I think we all know where the idea to link these two accounts comes from and it is not reasoned scholarship. These attempts to dispel the Gospels have been going on for well over a hundred years now. They reflect badly on the people who make them and they just look plain silly.

[farpinho]

Originally Posted by patrick457

There is a tradition since Papias in the early 2nd century that Matthew wrote down the 'oracles' (logia or "words") of Jesus "in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated [or interpreted] them as he was able.

I believe there must have been an original Oracles Gospel originally written by the disciples (Matthew being a strong candidate since due to his profession, we know he was one of the few who were actually able to read and write), which had been used as source for Luke and Mark (either that or both of them actually got their Parables and Miracles by interviewing some of the original disciples?). Also, there is not really any strong evidence that the canonical gospels couldn't have been written before 45 A.D., is there? I'm not really sure what criteria they use to date these Gospels but it seems to me that dating the Gospels after 60 A.D. is more of a "liberal scholarship" conclusion..

Many of them are silent as to exactly when our Greek gospel of Matthew surfaced and exactly who is supposed to have translated it, although Pseudo-Athanasius thinks that it was the work of James the Just, 'brother of the Lord' and head of the Church in Jerusalem.

That would explain why Jesus' birth is mentioned in so much detail in this Gospel(including details we can't find in any other text), and it would also harmonize with Joseph's genealogy...

Now there is indeed an idea that the synoptics seem to describe only a single year of ministry. For one, they speak of only a single Passover (the one where Jesus dies). Also, we could notice that in Mark 2:23-28 grain is eaten raw, which suggests early summer, while in 6:39 it is spring since the grass is green, and in 11:1 Jesus goes to Jerusalem for Passover, presumably during the same spring as chapter 6. Hence there are people who believe that Jesus' ministry actually lasted only for more or less a year: between one early summer or late spring and the next spring. They even argue that this shorter time period is compatible with Josephus' references to some other contemporaneous prophetic/messianic figures, such as John the Baptist, the Samaritan, the Egyptian, and Theudas, and yet another anonymous prophet, who also had apparently short careers before the authorities crushed their movement (though Athronges' rebellion in 4 BC seem to have lasted for two years), as well as with Jesus' itinerant lifestyle and His disciples' lack of formal occupations (having abandoned them), which they think would not work as well in the long run.

The problem with this theory, however, is that it fails to consider that Matthew, Mark, and Luke at times arrange their (highly episodic) material differently from each other. Hence, to use, say, the time indicators in Mark one would have to assume that the events happened in the exact order as Mark placed them, which would place one into a dilemma when you compare his gospel with say, Matthew or Luke, both of whom place some pericopes in a different order than Mark. So, even these supposed 'clues' are not exactly helpful in determining how long Jesus was out in public.

Another problem with this theory is that it would make the synoptics contradict directly John's Gospel...

[farpinho]

Originally Posted by abucs

First of all i think both Matthew's Gospel and Luke's was written before A.D. 66.

Secondly, reading the account of Tiridates of Armenia (again from Wikipedia) it seems he visited Nero with 3000 horsemen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiridates_I_of_Armenia

I think we all know where the idea to link these two accounts comes from and it is not reasoned scholarship. These attempts to dispel the Gospels have been going on for well over a hundred years now. They reflect badly on the people who make them and they just look plain silly.

Is it me or Wikipedia is biased against all Abrahamic Religions?
There seems to be an intensive agenda to attack and discredit Judaism, Christianity and Islam in every single Wikipedia article you won't seem such bias towards any other religion, including Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, Buddhism, etc...

[Mintaka]

Actually, there is a bias against historical Mithraism.

Roger Pearse (a UK computer guy who's been on the Internet a long time, has spent a lot of time scanning old books and putting up public domain information on the Web with his own effort, and who is very interested in Greece, Rome, and patristics) went to a lot of trouble to improve the Mithras and Mitra articles with exact quotations from primary sources and plenty of new archeological data.

A couple of teenagers became Wikipedia head editors, decided to rewrite Roger's version to their own biases, and then spent a long time reverting anything that anybody else put into the article.

So yeah, Wikipedia's not interested in illuminating what ancient Persians and ancient Romans actually believed. Only a fictionalized version is permitted.