Talk:Luke 2

No decade between "Quirinius' census" and the lunar eclipse
In fact, "Quirinius" census and the lunar eclipse were not a decade apart. The problem is two-fold. An assumption about which eclipse is referenced and an assumption about the meaning of the Greek words which are often translated, "the first census taken while Quirinius was governor." It is perfectly within the rules of Greek grammar to translate the passage as "the census taken before Quirinius was governor." This is important for several reasons. For starters, the later census usually claimed to have been that referred to ("while Quirinius was governor") was a census for purposes of tax. There is, however, no evidence that Jews would have been required to return to patriarchal "home" cities (e.g., Joseph returning to Bethlehem) for a tax. However, if the passage is translated as "before Quirinius was governor" it would clearly refer to the census which was taken in 2-1 BCE as a part of Augustus' jubilee celebration in which all citizens and territories of Rome were required to pledge allegience to Augustus. It is known that this census did require, at least for the Jews, return to their patrilineal cities. Secondly, in all due reverence to Kepler, he absolutely correctly identified a lunar eclipse that occurred in 4 BCE which would have been visible in the Middle East, but he didn't have modern computers to solve all lunar eclipse conditions. A very quick look at, for instance, the NASA lunar eclipse website (http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/lunar.html) shows that in fact there were several total eclipses and many partial eclipses over the period of interest:

Local Circumstances at Greatest Eclipse: -0099 to   0000

U.T.            Greatest    Saros          Pen. Umb. S.D. S.D. GST    Moon  Moon Date   Eclipse Type #    Gamma   Mag. Mag. Par Tot  (0 UT)   RA    Dec h    h      °

... -0004 Mar 23 18:20   T+  61  -0.022  2.847  1.818 111m  51m  11.9  12.06  -0.4 -0004 Sep 15 20:10   T+  66  -0.081  2.732  1.717 109m  50m  23.5  23.44  -3.8 -0003 Mar 13 00:40   P   71  -0.797  1.454  0.367  70m   -   11.2  11.38   3.2 -0003 Sep 05 11:06   P   76   0.622  1.720  0.743  84m   -   22.8  22.77  -7.2 -0002 Jan 31 07:43   N   43   1.434  0.296 -0.812   -    -    8.5   8.85  19.2 -0002 Mar 02 01:06   N   81  -1.529  0.123 -0.986   -    -   10.5  10.68   7.0 -0002 Jul 27 18:44   N   48  -1.264  0.552 -0.445   -    -   20.2  20.27 -21.3 -0002 Aug 26 03:32   N   86   1.326  0.432 -0.551   -    -   22.1  22.09 -10.4 -0001 Jan 20 11:52   P   53   0.683  1.649  0.590  82m   -    7.8   8.07  21.3 -0001 Jul 17 05:12   P   58  -0.554  1.882  0.832  95m   -   19.5  19.52 -22.6

0000 Jan 09 23:08   Tm  63  -0.042  2.799  1.792 107m  50m   7.1   7.28  22.5 0000 Jul 05 08:37   T-  68   0.209  2.535  1.445 115m  47m  18.7  18.74 -23.1 0000 Dec 29 14:31   P   73  -0.708  1.568  0.579  76m   -    6.4   6.50  22.8

[Editors note: Modern Astronomers label what is commonly referred to as 1 BCE as the year zero for obvious computational simplification. This also has ramifications for a tangentially related question about when the 21st century/2nd millenium began.]

So, as we can see, there were in fact two total lunar eclipses (as well as a penumbral eclipse) during the year in which Christians nominally claim Jesus was born, one of which was clearly visible in the Middle East. One can even show that the time at which the lunar eclipse became visible in the Middle East makes the 1 BCE eclipse far more likely to have been observed by masses of people than the total lunar eclispe which occurred in 4 BCE. And this is not a trivial point. The Jews have a calendar that, much like modern Muslims, depends upon actual observations of the lunar phases to set festival and worship dates. Lunar eclipses happen at the time of the full moon and many Jews would have been looking for the rising of the moon on this day. And, again, there was a Roman census (in fact, "enrollment" is a better translation of the Greek) which occurred at precisely the correct period.

To be balanced, it is certainly possible to interpret these events and translations as the main page states. But it is also equally consistent (and, I think I've argued, possibly better supported by circumstances) to interpret tham as set out above.

The "standard" interpretation, as set out on the main page, was established decades ago before modern computers and before archeological and textual evidence was widely known regarding the census of Augustus. Also in support of this timeline is a better candidate for the "Star of Bethlehem:" a rarely close conjunction of Jupiter and Venus (which has not since reoccurred) in Leo and near the star Regulus which resulted in them displaying very nearly their greatest potential magnitude, and therefore the brightest object in the sky aside from the sun and moon and occasionally bright comets. And, therefore, one much more likely to be remembered than the earlier conjuction of Jupiter and Saturn often cited. The Venus/Jupiter conjunction also has the astrological meaning of the union of God (Jupiter) and a virgin (Venus) in Leo (which the Old Testament itself associates with Jews, and specifically Judah) and, because of its proximity to Regulus, a king. This supports the interpretation of the Magi (astrologers) as stated in Matthew who following the "star" come to Jerusalem (the capital of Judea and the Davidic line and center of Jewish worship) seeking one born King of the Jews. The Jupiter/Saturn conjunction simply doesn't support the same astrological interpretation and therefore makes it an unlikely candidate for motivating the Magi as recorded.

129.6.129.59 15:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)MJD 10:15 EST 31 October 2006


 * That's all interesting. Feel free to add it to the article as long as you can provide cites for it and are not reasoning it out yourself. Roy Brumback 23:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Roy, I'll try to get to it as soon as I can. I'm afraid it may not be this month, however. Thanks.

Verse 2 in Nativity Plays
Is there any evidence that verse 2 is generally omitted from the text used at nativity plays? - BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Verse 22
I have removed the reference to ordination in relation to the quote from Maimonides. John Thorne, are you aware of any reason for this section to refer to ordination? - BobKilcoyne (talk) 07:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for removing "ordination", as it is confusing. The word was supposed to mean "following the ordinance [of Torah]" not in the sense of special office of priesthood. JohnThorne (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, BobKilcoyne (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)