When was Jesus born? - Contradiction between gospels

[velkyn]

ah, that makes vastly more sense.  Howevever, if lunar eclipses are so easy to be predicted, then why does he go into such detail on hard it would have been to see?  A magnitude 0.37would have been actually fairly easy to see, being 1 being total.

I do find it curious that your sources claims this

It also allows the historical statements of the New Testament concerning the nativity of Jesus to take on a new credibility.

when the claims of the nativity of Jesus aren't born out by much of anything. No massacre of the innocents, no "star",  no evidence of people dragging their entire families across Palestine, no need for a manger "bed", Joseph and Mary getting a windfall in gold, frankinsense and myrrh, no "flight to egypt", etc.  We have acrobatics over an eclipse, claims of someone serving twice based on a carving with no name,

[theFLEW]

Lunar eclipses are indeed easy to predicte now, with sophisticated astronomical data and and littel thing called the laws of planetary motion (see Kepler and Newton), but during Herod's timeperiod, the calibur of prediction was limited if nil (the Chinese were actually probably the best ancient astronamers).  Yes, a lunar eclipse with a magnitude of 0.37 would still be viewable, but as formerly pointed out, "Astronamers John Mosley of the Griffith Observatory and Craig Chester of the Monterey Institutes for Research in Astronamy indicate it would have been difficult to observe this eclipse, even under ideal circumstances..."  Again, the major case stands that as Josephus could have indeed meant the 4 B.C. eclipse, it is more likely the case that he would have referred to an eclipse that "...dramatically dominated the evening sky, visible to everyone throughout the Middle East" as his reference point, that is, the eclipse from 1 B.C.  See also: http://www.askelm.com/star/star011.htm

Moving on, your statement "We have acrobatics over an eclipse, claims of someone serving twice based on a carving with no name..." gives an immensly poor show of the data I have presented, and in fact underminds it.  As I stated previously, "Ultimately, my goal here is to submit evidence from Luke’s side of the issue, and subsequently show that there is varied scholarship on the subject, otherwise the thread itself would run the risk of being decidedly one-sided on the issue."  That was the post of the data presented in relation to the thread; valid information applicable to the topic at hand.  I take it you now wish me to comment on "No massacre of the innocents, no "star",  no evidence of people dragging their entire families across Palestine, no need for a manger "bed", Joseph and Mary getting a windfall in gold, frankinsense and myrrh, no "flight to egypt", etc."  You need to start a new thread; the information I am presenting doesn't cover these topics.

[theFLEW]

Jed,

I will first attest that I am not an expert in the field in which I am posting, and I am relying heavily on sources of men who are considered experts in their field.  Being thus, I can only attest to the information I have gathered by reading their books and/or articles on the subject at hand.  I’m not sure where you personally stand as far as expertise, but I will assume your credentials and sources impeccable for the sake of the discussion.  Ultimately, my goal here is to submit evidence from Luke’s side of the issue, and subsequently show that there is varied scholarship on the subject, otherwise the thread itself would run the risk of being decidedly one-sided on the issue.  At any rate, I would respond to your posting. 

Looking at your initial comments on Quirinius and his procurator title, you bring up the valid point that as Martyr identifies Quirinius as procurator, he also refers to the taxation, which Martin makes argument didn’t actually occur during his identified oath of loyalty.  So who’s right?  Based on the fact that Martyr is probably using Luke for the premise of his statement (unless some registries existed in his time that we simply don’t have access to today), both scholars could technically be correct if we understand Luke’s approach to the registration (3/2 BC) and subsequent taxation (AD 6) as associated events.  This opinion can be reviewed here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=DTErAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA631&lpg=PA631&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false

Luke mentions the second census in Acts 5:37, and correctly places it as correlating with the revolt led by Judas of Galilee (Josephus mentions this in Book 18, chapter 1 of Antiquities).  However, though Luke had an obvious working knowledge of the latter event, we see no distinction in the writings between that and the former.  Therefore, it could be understood that in as much as the registration was, by first regard, a call to an oath of loyalty, so too could the subsequent, and even greater, purpose be taxation of  subjects, which came to fruition in (AD 6).

We see further example of this connection between oath-taking and census in Orosius:

“[Augustus] ordered that a census be taken of each province everywhere and that all men be enrolled. ... This is the earliest and most famous public acknowledgment which marked Caesar as the first of all men and the Romans as lords of the world, a published list of all men entered individually.... This first and greatest census was taken, since in this one name of Caesar all the peoples of the great nations took oath, and at the same time, through the participation in the census, were made apart of one society.” (Orosius, VI.22 and VII.2.)

This “enrollment”, or as Luke puts it, “registration” is placed in conjunction with the “oath of loyalty” taken 3/2 BC. 

So why would Luke mention Quirinius?  Possibly because he was charged with administering and overseeing the registration of allegiance in that region of the world.  Why is this information important?  For the explicit reason that, according to Martin “most Roman census declarations required an oath of allegiance to the emperor.”  Therefore, to a Roman citizen reading Luke’s gospel (Luke wrote his gospel for a Roman audience), to simply say that Caesar Augustus issued a degree that all the world be registered might be a vague statement, but pinpointing Quirinius as administrator would point them to the exact registration Luke was referring to, namely, the “oath of loyalty.”  This is simply how I understand the issue, you are welcome to disagree.

Moving on to Herod’s death, I recognize that based on the Beyer article, I could have phrased my response better, again being that the evidence Beyer has amassed concerning Herod’s death in relation to his son Philip.  I have never seen the information you mentioned from Codex Ambrosianae or the Codex Vaticanus Graecus (can you send me a link with your source?), but if you are correct, then it would seem that either Beyer is wrong, or that there is an issue with the manuscripts not agreeing, the latter case putting a bleak light on the trustworthy nature of the manuscripts.

However, even if Beyer is wrong, there is still strong evidence for Herod’s death occurring in 1 BC.  See Andrew Steinmann on the issue:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/not/2009/00000051/00000001/art00001

(click to view the PDF)

Furthermore, Martin makes further arguments concerning the problems with dating Herod’s death at 4 BC, with the best, in my opinion, being the problem of the eclipse mentioned by Josephus occurring in 4 BC.  I find his argumentation well reasoned and highly plausible. (http://www.askelm.com/star/star012.htm)

Furthermore, Beyer also gives reasoning for the claims that the eclipse Josephus refers to was probably not the 4 BC eclipse.  He states that the eclipse in 4 BC was a comparatively weak eclipse of very weak magnitude, and without modern optics, not to be considered a memorable event.  Though Josephus may have used this eclipse as his reference, it would seem that the higher likelihood would be the 1 BC eclipse, which was a total eclipse, apparently lasting over 200 minutes (this is rare and something to take note of).

Ultimately, I find both Martin and Beyer’s hypothesis on the eclipse well reasoned and sound.

Lastly, to comment on the fact that some of the sources I have procured not agreeing, I think it’s appropriate to point out that, with your specific example, Ramsey did not have proper access to the breadth of new archeological records and advanced astronomical data we now possess.  This is just a simple fact of archeology and advancement in technology.  It shouldn’t surprise you in as much as it does not surprise me.  The point is this:  what new information and evidence has been presented should always be taken into account, but the old should not be neglected simply because it’s old, but simply corrected and/or built upon to obtain a better working knowledge of the truth of the situation.  Ultimately, as we review the matter, the best possible option would be to invent a time machine to got back in time to get hard facts (if this ever happens, I will get us two of the first tickets, and we’ll go back to January of 1 BC to see what really transpired), but being that this is not possible, I am content to say that we must take what we are given, and use what reasoning and rationale we possess to arrive at well-reasoned positions on the matter.  That is how I view the situation.

The link I provided was not correct,

http://www.askelm.com/star/star012.htm

should be

http://www.askelm.com/star/star011.htm

Thanks.

[Omen]

As I stated previously, "Ultimately, my goal here is to submit evidence from Luke’s side of the issue, and subsequently show that there is varied scholarship on the subject"

You can find people on the fringe of any subject, their existence is not justification of their position alone.

[velkyn]

Lunar eclipses are indeed easy to predicte now, with sophisticated astronomical data and and littel thing called the laws of planetary motion (see Kepler and Newton), but during Herod's timeperiod, the calibur of prediction was limited if nil (the Chinese were actually probably the best ancient astronamers).

which is not what your source has claimed.  And which is also simply not true http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy)

  Yes, a lunar eclipse with a magnitude of 0.37 would still be viewable, but as formerly pointed out, "Astronamers John Mosley of the Griffith Observatory and Craig Chester of the Monterey Institutes for Research in Astronamy indicate it would have been difficult to observe this eclipse, even under ideal circumstances..."

I don’t give a damn what these guys said.  It simply isn’t true.  And you don’t seem to think it’s true either. Is it viewable or not?  From this, the moon would have been almost 40% in the shadow of the earth?  Do you think a 40% coverage is noticeable or not? And please don’t run back to your source, think for yourself for once.  They have made a claim that is ridiculous. Do you believe them only because they support your claims?

Again, the major case stands that as Josephus could have indeed meant the 4 B.C. eclipse, it is more likely the case that he would have referred to an eclipse that "...dramatically dominated the evening sky, visible to everyone throughout the Middle East" as his reference point, that is, the eclipse from 1 B.C.  See also: http://www.askelm.com/star/star011.htm

But since the assumptions and claims of your source are wrong, there is little reason to think that Josephus meant the 4 BC eclipse.  There is no reason to assume that it needs to be a “dramatic” eclipse.  [qutoe]Moving on, your statement "We have acrobatics over an eclipse, claims of someone serving twice based on a carving with no name..." gives an immensly poor show of the data I have presented, and in fact underminds it.  As I stated previously, "Ultimately, my goal here is to submit evidence from Luke’s side of the issue, and subsequently show that there is varied scholarship on the subject, otherwise the thread itself would run the risk of being decidedly one-sided on the issue." [/quote] And you’ve failed since you only have poor assumptions and baseless claims. 

That was the post of the data presented in relation to the thread; valid information applicable to the topic at hand.  I take it you now wish me to comment on "No massacre of the innocents, no "star",  no evidence of people dragging their entire families across Palestine, no need for a manger "bed", Joseph and Mary getting a windfall in gold, frankinsense and myrrh, no "flight to egypt", etc."  You need to start a new thread; the information I am presenting doesn't cover these topics.

As we have seen, there is no valid information applicable, only assumptions. These are those acrobatics I see. I would like you to address why you think there has to be an entire industry on explaining your supposedly divinely inspired book and why those people trying to explain it get different different explanations.  Why isn’t it clear?  And yes, seeing that the Op was about JC’s place of birth, and seeing that we have no evidence of this, I would like you to address the other baseless claims of the other supposed events in the bible, especially those surrounding the supposed “birth”.  And I want *your* comments, not huge amounts of cut and pastes or entire book.  I know the information you are presenting doesn’t cover these topics.  We just have problem after problem, and more confusion on where your supposed savior was born, when and what happened. 

[theFLEW]

I had never heard of the saros, or that method of predicting eclipses, and thus it would seem that the ancient Babylonians did have a rather good method in place.  I wasn't aware that there was a good system in place before the laws of planetary motion were discovered.  As previously stated, I am not well verses in this subject, and just as much as I apprieciate being better informed, thanks for thie link.

Now, I am not hinging this arguement, nor the overall arguement, on the predictive capabilities of certain scholars of astronamy from that timeperiod.  The point I am making, hopefully in conjunction with the book, was that to an author writing to a major audience, it seems more likely Josephus is referring to the total lunar eclipse of 1 B.C.  Furthermore, the magnitude of the eclipse, though valid point, is by no means a linchpin arguement, and to treat it as such is a strawman (not saying your doing this, just making the point clear).  As you will see from the link I provided: http://www.askelm.com/star/star011.htm , there are more pressing issues with the date.  I'm not attempting to patronize you, but just to be clear, you state in your most recent post "there is little reason to think that Josephus meant the 4 BC eclipse".  Now, I agree with this, and being that we are seeming to be on opposite sides of the issue, I am assuming this is not what you meant to say.

If you so strongly desire my reply to the subsequent questions, know that I can only answer within my own capabilities.  I am not an astronamer, nor am I a biblical scholar. (I wish I were both) Therefore, before I answer the questions, I would like to do two things.  First, I am not assured that this topic is ready to move on to different facets surrounding the birth of Christ.  Again, if you would like to pursue this, we would need permission from the active posters in this thread, being that neither of us own this thread.  Second, I would leave it up to the other, hopefully more versed, posters to be the first to answer your questions, being that hopefully you will find good answers to your questions from those with a better working knowledge of topic.

[velkyn]

I had never heard of the saros, or that method of predicting eclipses, and thus it would seem that the ancient Babylonians did have a rather good method in place.  I wasn't aware that there was a good system in place before the laws of planetary motion were discovered.  As previously stated, I am not well verses in this subject, and just as much as I apprieciate being better informed, thanks for thie link.

  Flew, I know you aren’t very versed in many subjects. However, this is little excuse for blindly accepting the assumptions of others just because they support your desires.  You keep trying to make claims and if you just did a little research rather than accepting some “authority” you’d actually know things like this.

Now, I am not hinging this arguement, nor the overall arguement, on the predictive capabilities of certain scholars of astronamy from that timeperiod.

That is such nonsense.  You make the claim that the assumptions made by your sources are valid and then when shown that they aren’t, you back away from it and now claim that you aren’t “hinging” the argument on it.  IF you aren’t, why bring it up?

The point I am making, hopefully in conjunction with the book, was that to an author writing to a major audience, it seems more likely Josephus is referring to the total lunar eclipse of 1 B.C.

Major audience?

  Furthermore, the magnitude of the eclipse, though valid point, is by no means a linchpin arguement, and to treat it as such is a strawman (not saying your doing this, just making the point clear).

I don’t think you know what a strawman argument is.  Your source is wrong in saying that it would be “it would have been difficult to observe this eclipse, even under ideal circumstances...".  That certainly seems to be quite a “linchpin” since they are *wrong* and they base their decision about the eclipses on this, as well as other mistaken claims. 

As you will see from the link I provided: http://www.askelm.com/star/star011.htm , there are more pressing issues with the date.  I'm not attempting to patronize you, but just to be clear, you state in your most recent post "there is little reason to think that Josephus meant the 4 BC eclipse".  Now, I agree with this, and being that we are seeming to be on opposite sides of the issue, I am assuming this is not what you meant to say.

You are correct.  I don’t see anything to support the 1 BC eclipse as being anything better or more appropriate than the 4 BC one. 

If you so strongly desire my reply to the subsequent questions, know that I can only answer within my own capabilities.  I am not an astronamer, nor am I a biblical scholar. (I wish I were both) Therefore, before I answer the questions, I would like to do two things.  First, I am not assured that this topic is ready to move on to different facets surrounding the birth of Christ.  Again, if you would like to pursue this, we would need permission from the active posters in this thread, being that neither of us own this thread.  Second, I would leave it up to the other, hopefully more versed, posters to be the first to answer your questions, being that hopefully you will find good answers to your questions from those with a better working knowledge of topic.

You claim not to be an expert and only replying within your own capabilities.  You blindly accept the faulty assertions of others.  And this is supposedly based on your religion that will supposedly save your “soul”.  I am not impressed with someone who relies so much on willful ignorance to support their faith. You can be much more educated with some simple effort.  I have not seen any from you other than repeating things others have said with no thought to how valid they are in light of facts.   
Since you are so “concerned”, I’ll open up another thread all about the other baseless claims of the events surrounding of the supposed nativity.   Here it is: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19717.new.html#new 

[jedweber]

I hate to point to the same source again, but the Richard Carrier article specifically addresses the eclipse claims.  He cites his sources in his refutations, so there's no need to simply take his word for it. Here's another link to it:

http://www.harrington-sites.com/Carrier.htm

But it really is laborious to go through all the claims of these various apologists to find where they make speculative leaps, cherry-pick references, contradict well-established historical data, etc. Let's look at the bigger picture here: We have a wealth of converging data from various sources, some direct, some indirect, some circumstantial, which all point to things like Herod dying by 4 B.C., Quirinius being governor of Syria in 6 AD, and a local census for tax purposes being carried out in Judea at that time. 

The apologist, however, wants to place Luke's events around 4 (or 3 or 2) B.C., because their purpose is to make Luke agree with Matthew, (and they CAN'T place Matthew's events in 6 A.D.), So they say, well, maybe Herod lived until 1 B.C., AND Quirinius had an earlier term in Judea, AND a census was carried out in 3 BC for a loyalty oath, etc.

The problem is that there is NO EVIDENCE in the record for ANY of these events. So apologists go digging through the sources to mine tiny bits of information that could be consistent with their ad hoc theories, like somebody in the 2nd century calling Quirinius a "procurator," or Josephus' alleged confusion over ONE date for ONE of Herod's successors. The ancient sources are far from perfect - one can always find discrepancies, apparent errors, points of confusion, stray bits of information that don't agree with others, etc.  But these don't outweigh the much greater and more consistent body of evidence that support the mainstream historical accounts, and they don't begin to establish that the events imagined by apologists actually took place.

It's not possible to definitively disprove every speculative theory that apologists can come up with. But shouldn't the burden be on them to prove them? Flew, I would ask you: Can you find any reputable historians or even mainstream bible scholars WHO ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE APOLOGISTS who support these claims? If the apologists have compelling evidence, why aren't these claims accepted by historians?

[Mr. Blackwell]

If the apologists have compelling evidence, why aren't these claims accepted by historians?

Easy, historians have a secular agenda. They are all part of a global conspiracy to over throw the free thinking conservative christian point of view and replace it with a godless socialist paradigm...or something like that 

[Truth OT]

Does anyone mind chopping this up for me?

http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.org/books/secrets/Chapter9.cfm

[velkyn]

tot, I'd suggest making a new thread, this one is old.  and that site is such pure crap, it'll give us lots to discuss 

[jedweber]

Does anyone mind chopping this up for me?

http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.org/books/secrets/Chapter9.cfm

Their proposed timeline hinges entirely on this claim:

Finally on February 5, 2 B.C., the Roman Senate awarded Augustus the title of Pater Patriae, "Father of the Country." Augustus Caesar himself wrote about this in his book, Res Getae, paragraph 35, which is quoted on page 19 of the book, Roman Civilization, by Lewis and Reinhold. The Emperor Augustus wrote,

"When I held my thirteenth consulship, the senate, the equestrian order, and the entire Roman people gave me the title of "Father of the Country."

            When the Roman Senate passed this bill, they issued a decree throughout the entire Roman Empire that everyone under the authority of Rome should register their approval of this bill and swear an oath of allegiance to Augustus. This is the enrollment, or registration, mentioned in Luke 2:1, which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, where Jesus was born.

Far as I can tell, there is absolutely NO historical evidence that conferring an honorific title on Augustus required any kind of census or mass "registration" in 2 B.C., let alone that Luke was referring to such an event. It seems to be pure speculation, created by apologists grasping for any type of event they can fit into a nativity timeline. 

[Brakeman]

Maybe there is an alternate explanation, I think since Mary, Jesus' mother was a virgin and thus still had a hymen, maybe it took jesus a few years to get out? Maybe he was 4 years old before it broke?
Maybe Mary was part Kangaroo and jesus kept slipping in there for security... that'd be bad for poor Joseph though! 

[Mr. Blackwell]

Come on guys, stop playing around. You know He was born in a manger in a little town called Bethlehem on December 25th just a little under 2,012 years ago. All this hubub is just serving Satan's plan. Knock it off.

[Ice Monkey]

But the same Luke also tells us (in Luke 3:1-23) that John started baptising in 29AD, “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,” when Jesus was “about thirty” – which means that Jesus was born in about 1BC.

The 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar was in the year 27CE...and the phrase "began to be about thirty" is ???? [Hosei], which means "reaching the point of but not yet". Yahshua was in the middle of his 29th year when he was baptised. Counting backwards 29 years this puts his birth year in 3 BCE (remembering that there is no zero year...the birth year IS the 1st year, biblically).

But when we turn to John 8:57 we discover that “The Jews said unto him (Jesus), Thou art not yet fifty years old.” It’s a fairly vague statement, but surely they’ve got to be talking about someone over forty (and probably closer to forty-five), in which case Jesus could have been born as early as 15BC.

You must remember that there weren't any modern grooming tools back then. A fella would let his beard grow. I starting growing facial hair at 16...and if one lets it grow - uncut - for 13 years, one would have a pretty long beard. Men look older than they really are when they have facial hair. So can you at least entertain the possiblilty that these Pharisees (who did not initially know Yahshua) could only - at best - assume that this man was younger than fifty?

Actually, you've touched upon another contradictory view within the NT.  Was Jesus baptised?  Why or why not?   

[changeling]

Of course Jesus was baptized by John.
But since Jesus never sinned Christians had to come up with
a long convoluted reason for his baptism.

[Ice Monkey]

Of course Jesus was baptized by John.
But since Jesus never sinned Christians had to come up with
a long convoluted reason for his baptism.

Actually, all 4 gospel writers do have very different takes on his baptism.
Mark says that it isn't until the baptism that Jesus becomes God's son.  God's declaration is to Jesus.  Matthew disagrees.  God announces his son to the onlookers, but not Jesus, as Jesus wouldn't need to be told who he is.  Luke isn't much happier with Mark's take, and actually uses God's baptism delaration in his ressurection myth.  In John, Jesus, being Jesus, doesn't need to be baptised, and instead of a baptism, the scene is turned into a speech of The Baptist.

Four Gospels.  Four different stories.

[freakygin]

Four Gospels.  Four different stories.

I did tried to argue about this with my christian friends.
And the answer i got is this


"No, it's the same story.
Let me put it this way.
Try to gather 4 people, and tell them to write everything you said and done for a day.
Let's start by something simple.
What you have for breakfast, lunch, dinner.
What bus did you take to work. etc
And then, at the end of the day, compare it to each other.
You'll se that none of them will write the same thing.
But the key point will still the same."

[Graybeard]

The difficulty is that 4 people seeing one event are not "inspired by God" - apparently those who wrote the Gospels were.

[Korelan]

Seems this port is a bit old, but I'd like to help clarify these things for you guys!
First, I am an atheist, but I have studied much of the history of the bible, Quran, Hudith, Sunnah, and a various other books from religions.
Now, to the point:
When you claim the bible contradicts itself here, you are doing what I personally call surface-level research.  You left no room for doubt after your original findings, to further investigate, and that can become a problem.  The truth is, the passage of Matthew is not linked to your Wikipedia article Harod.  This man, whom died in 4bc had I believe 3 sons, two of whom continued to use the name Harod as a sort of dynasty to their father.  By using your wiki link I found the correct Harod listed under, "successors" here:  http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Archelaus

I hope I did not spoil anybody's fun with this, but I felt it necessary to provide correct information.  I doubt you will find many people who know this fact, and I hope you use the information!

[screwtape]

The truth is, the passage of Matthew is not linked to your Wikipedia article Harod. 

How do you know that's the one they're talking about?  Pretty much everyone, xians included, think the bible is talking about harod the great.  Convince me it is Archelaus.

[neopagan]

Ok, admittedly new here but as a recovering theist (of 36 years) I can honestly say I either NEVER heard of any of these contradictions in a sermon - or if I had questions, I just skipped over them.  Over the last 6 months or so as I've dug into issues like these, I get a sick feeling thinking how little I engaged my brain about biblegod...  Literally, I was a skeptic about everything except my religion... it's like a magic drug you are raised on and never bother to question.  It's sad really!

[Nick]

I look at it like wearing blinders and not realizing it until you take them off.  If you ever try to put them back on it just drives you nuts.

[neopagan]

I guess you could say I was "healed" - the scales fell off and that genie ain't going back in the bottle. 

The challenge is not to laugh out loud when I hear the nonsense.  It's tough, since my closeted status means I still drag myself to church with the family... whenever I cannot get out of it.  I seem to be sick a lot more on Sundays

[Nick]

Watch out with that.  They will put you on a prayer call list.

[neopagan]

Good point, Nick

Other than a goofy grin, any suggestions from the folks here when someone tells you "they'll pray for you"?  Thanks hardly cuts it...

I have a hard enough time coming up with prayers with the kids at night now... mainly stuff like "I hope kid #1 has a restful sleep, her body recovers and energizes during this rest and she has a good day tomorrow."  How non-commital to a deity is that!

[screwtape]

Literally, I was a skeptic about everything except my religion... it's like a magic drug you are raised on and never bother to question. 

years after I realized I was an atheist, I dug deeper into why I didn't believe.  That rigorous skepticism and inwardly focused critical thought made me realize that I wasn't all that rational about other things in my life either.  You will probably find you have a lot of old beliefs that are not related to religion but are bullshit nevertheless.  It's not just about gods, but magical thinking in every aspect of your life.

[Korelan]

The truth is, the passage of Matthew is not linked to your Wikipedia article Harod. 

How do you know that's the one they're talking about?  Pretty much everyone, xians included, think the bible is talking about harod the great.  Convince me it is Archelaus.

By using geography, this is actually easier than you may suspect.  Here is a basic map of Nazareth's location:  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Nazareth_Israel_Map.png
There are other maps if you need them for reference, but you can see Nazareth is in this general location.  Now examine the territory Archelaus controlled here:  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Palestine_after_Herod.png/525px-Palestine_after_Herod.png

You can see similarity in the two. And although I do not have time right now to find the verse, but in the bible verse, Mary flees the location of "Harod the King," for a better land because he was going to persecute jesus.  Let me know if that is enough information for you, I apologize for the Wikipedia sources, but I'm not terrific with website sources, as I'm an old man now.

[Korelan]

http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%202:13-2:23&version=NIV
Here are the verses I refered to earlier.