The Adopted Son of Joseph Son of David

Another objection to the Genealogy of Jesus as presented in Matthew and Luke is that Jesus couldn't become an Heir to the Throne of David by Adoption.  Now I still stand by my past arguments for Luke's genealogy actually being Mary's, and even without that nothing anywhere says Mary wasn't a descendant of David.  But considering the value I place on Adoption both morally and theologically, it's about time I said "so what".  Because after all there must be a reason we're given Joseph's genealogy in at least Matthew.

But first, before I even get into that argument. I should address what may sometimes be an internal debate among Christians.  Does Jesus qualify as even an adopted son of Joseph?

Because in the story at the end of Luke 2 when Mary finds Jesus she refers to Joseph as His father, but some people like to say what Jesus goes on to say about doing His Father's business as correcting her.  That has it's origin as an over reaction to how some seek to use what Mary said here against The Virgin Birth.

I feel many American Conservative Christians have dug their heels in on that because of their obsession with the modern nuclear family.  They feel an Adopted or Step father is only needed if the physical sire is a deadbeat or just plain dead, because you can't have "two daddies" that would be horrible.  This is also why so many commentaries refuse to acknowledge that Jacob is referring to Leah as Joseph's mother in Genesis 37.

Luke 4:22 and John 1:45 clearly show that Jesus was legally regarded as a Son of Joseph.

In the past I'd focused more on Luke's Genealogy because even though I've always valued Adoption I felt that Jesus had to be a Blood descendant of everyone Prophecy required Him to descend from so that by His shed Blood gentiles can become Abraham's Seed and mortals can become Sons of God.  And I still think He was, but I've come to realize that Jesus is himself an adopted Son for a reason.

Now when this comes up as a Jewish objection to Jesus, it's not because Jews oppose Adoption or anything, The Torah clearly says anyone Circumcised who follows The Torah is to be considered an Israelite.  It's a claim that Royal Inheritance specifically has to be biological.

II Samuel 7:12 does specifically say Seed.  But it'd be hypocritical to use that against Jesus since these objectors to Jesus often reject dual fulfillment elsewhere.  The immediate context of that verse was clearly the Seed of David who took the throne right after David died.  What's interesting is verse 14 talks about this Son of David being an adopted Son of God.  So the New Testament brings it full circle, The Son of God becomes an adopted Son of David.  And that is why David calls The Messiah his Lord in Psalm 110.

The last verse of Jeremiah 33 seems to say that Israel won't be ruled by the Seed of David anymore when they return from Captivity.  The Root in Isaiah 11 is of Jesse rather then David.  Some Psalms speak of David's Seed, but there is room for interpretation there too.

I stumbled recently unto an online book by a Jew who argues that The Messiah will not be a Son of David but David himself Resurrected, arguing that the Branch is an idiom for a Resurrected Body and looking specifically at Ezekiel 34&37.  As a Christian I obviously disagree with that overall premise, but I do agree that Ezekiel is describing David himself Resurrected as the future Nasi, not using the name David as a code for Jesus as some Christians prefer to look at it.  

I think David himself would take offense at excluding adopted sons from Royal Inheritance, since he was a Son but not by Blood of Saul.  In 1 Samuel 24:9-11 David calls Saul "father" and in 1 Samuel 24:16 and 26:17-21-25 Saul calls David his Son.

Now David's Kingship ultimately came from God choosing his line over Saul's.  But likewise the Son of God incarnate doesn't need descent from any specific mortal to be the rightful ruler of The World.  David became a Son of Saul regardless.

Now you may respond that David was the Son in Law of Saul because he married Michal.  To which I first would say, "like how Christian apologists argue Luke's genealogy sometimes means Son in Law when it says Son".  This is also a good time to bring up The Bride of Christ, who is also the Daughter of Zion The City of David.

But another reason David was a Son of Saul was 1 Samuel 18:1-4 where David's Blood Covenant with Johnathon made him Johnathon's joint heir.

What Moses says of Joseph in Deuteronomy 33 is one of the foundations of the Messiah Ben Joseph doctrine that's become popular in Rabbinic Judaism.  It's the basis for saying it's the Son of Joseph not David who will be killed and then Resurrected.  Something I brought up in my Human Sacrifice in The Torah post, which in turn referenced back to my Nazareth post where I suggested that Mary could have been of the Tribe of Manasseh.  For the sacrificial offering alluded to in that blessing it's being a Maternal Firstborn that mattered, the first to Open the Womb.

But the Messiah Ben-Joseph doctrine also needs it to be a Son of Joseph who's pierced in Zechariah 12:10, even though the context of that verse is all about the House of David.  Chapter 12 begins with a new "The Word of YHWH came unto me saying" so no it's not a continuation of the previous three chapters where Joseph and Ephraim came up a lot.  These three chapters seem to be strictly about the Southern Kingdom.  So the only way the one Pierced can be a Son of Joseph, is if he's a Son of Joseph adopted into the House of David.

The Curse on Jeconiah?

My addressing the Genealogies of Jesus on this Blog has generally mostly focused on dealing with Luke's Genealogy for various reasons.  But I've come to realize that it's about time I paid more attention to Matthew's as well.

This particular topic however can be viewed as a transitional one, since the names of Sheatiel and Zerubabel being in Luke 3 means the Curse on Jeconiah issue has been used against both (though both names being common during the Persian period means there's no proof they're meant to be the same individuals).

I'm not going to use the usual Chuck Missler tactic of talking about how God worked around it.

In Jeremiah 22:28-30 Yahuah puts a Curse on Jeconiah, calling him Coniah.

Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?  O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of Yahuah.  Thus saith Yahuah, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

And this gets used to say clearly Jesus (and his half siblings) are not eligible to inherit The Throne of David.

Now it makes some sense to me for Atheists to use this as a criticism of The Biblical record as a whole.  But as I'm about to show using this as a Jewish objection to Jesus doesn't really think things through.

Jeremiah is the only Biblical Author to mention this Curse.  And he's the Prophet who explains that Yahuah reverses His Blessings and Curses based on obedience in places like Chapter 18.  Ezekiel, the other major Prophet of that time, not only doesn't seem to view Jeconiah as Cursed but seems to never regard Zedekiah as a rightful King at all since he dates events of Zedekiah's reign as if Jeconiah was still King.

Earlier in Jeremiah 22 setting the stage for this Curse Yahuah says in verse 24.

As I live, saith Yahuah, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;

Compare this to Haggai 2:23 where Yahuah says of Coniah's grandson Zerubabel.

In that day, saith Yahuah of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith Yahuah, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith Yahuah of hosts.

So that's clearly a reversal, exactly what Jeconiah lost according to Jeremiah 22 Zerubabel has back according to Haggai.  And other Prophets of this time like Zechariah speak similarly of Zerubabel.

And indeed the line of Exilarchs acknowledged by Rabbinic Judaism as the heirs of David in Exile all descended from Zerubabel.

People making this objection often also claim it has to be strictly Pater-Lineal descent, so that leaves out the lines coming through Hillel The Elder who was a Benjamite, his Davidic descent was though his Mother, and through a son of David even further removed from Solomon then Nathan was.

So without the house of Zerubabel, we have no known descent from the Royal Line.

Bethany and The Mount of Olives

The Gospel texts use the phrase "nigh to Jerusalem" (or "the city") to describe both the location of the Crucifixion (John 19:20) and Bethany.  The Hebrew terminology that likely equates to implies approaching the East Gate.  And we're also told Bethany is by or on the Mount of Olives in Mark 11:1 and Luke 11:29, and Matthew 21:1.   Zechariah 14:4 is an important verse to remember here.  Also Luke 19:37.

My initial post on the Mount of Olives Crucifixion model has become kind of incoherent as I added updates to it because of my abandoning the theory and then coming back to it.  I now just made a post on another blog that mentions why I'm abandoning the Crucifixion at the site of Solomon's Temple view.  So I decided to make a new post on it.  But I won't really be retreading too much, and want to also talk about other subjects related to Bethany.

What's interesting about how this connection of Hebrews 12:11-13 to Numbers 19 is how it specifically makes the Red Heifer a type of Christ.  Most references to "without the camp" in the Torah are just as where the bodies of sacrificed animals were burned, only the Red Heifer was actually killed "without the camp".  And it's now been archeologically confirmed that the Mount of Olives is where the Red Heifer was killed during the Second Temple period.

What's interesting is The Red Heifer is female, so it's another example I can add of The Hebrew Bible using a female as a type of Christ.

The seven days for purification of Numbers 19:18-19 and 31:19 could correlate here to the seven days of Unleavened Bread, on the third of which I believe was The Resurrection, the 17th of Nisan.  I'm unsure what Resurrection narrative event to place on the 7th day of Unleavened Bread, a possible option is the Doubting Thomas story with a different interpretation of when John 20 was counting 8 days from.  Or maybe that day is when the other dead were resurrected fulfilling Matthew 27:50-53.

But speaking of the timeline, Bethany is relevant to an issue of it.  When did Mary of Bethany anoint Jesus?

As much as on other issues I view John's Gospel as the least chronological, in this case John 12 clearly tells us how many days this was from the Passover and the Triumphal Entry, placing it on the 9th of Nisan in my chronology, and probably a Sabbath, the last Sabbath before the Crucifixion.  Matthew 26 and Mark 14 flash back to this event right before Judas goes to see the Priests because it's largely the reason for his betrayal, Luke 22 does not record this event.

Some might try to argue this is a separate similar event, and I do believe Luke 7's anointing incident was a very different event.  But I'm pretty sure this argument with Judas happened only once.  Some might object citing how the woman is unnamed in Matthew and Mark's accounts, but Matthew and Mark don't mention Martha or Mary of Bethany by name at all.  Luke never records this event but introduces us to sisters named Martha and Mary in Luke 10.

But on the subject of identifying different women.  I don't think Mary Magdalene can be identified with Mary of Bethany for two main reasons.  One, Magdalene is defined as part of the Galilean ministry in both of Luke's references to her while the Bethany sisters stayed in Bethany.  Second, Mary of Bethany wouldn't have come to anoint Jesus body on Sunday morning since she knew that was taken care of, Jesus defined this anointing as for His burial.

Lazarus whom Jesus resurrected was a brother of Martha and Mary of Bethany.

I don't think he's Simon the Leper because I don't think he had any major diseases right after being risen.  If Simon the Leper was a relative he was probably their father or an uncle or maybe grandfather. 

I'm interested in the theory that Lazarus was the same as the Beloved Disciple, but I have reason to suspect that Disciple was named John whether or not he's the same as the John of the 12.  Maybe Lazarus would have taken on a new name after being made effectively an adopted son of Mary. Or it could be Lazarus is a nick name based on how it's used in a parable in Luke 16. 

But let's return to the Torah.  "Without the Camp" isn't just the location of where the Red Heifer was killed and dead animals were burned, and sometimes sinners were stoned (maybe Stephen was martyred here too).  Exodus 33:7 also placed a Tabernacle of Meeting here, something many people are uncomfortable with is that there were two Tabernacles.  When I theorized that there were two Ark of the Covenants I suggest this other Tabernacle was where the other Ark of Deuteronomy was kept.  This other Tabernacle was primarily where YHWH met with Moses.

So maybe Jesus lodging in Bethany in the house of Martha and Mary also fulfilled that typology. 

And I could revive an observation from my abandoned theory about the Crucifixion being where Solomon's Temple was.  That the Hebrew word that almost always refers exclusively to The Ark, is used of Joseph's Coffin in the last verse of Genesis. So maybe Jesus Tomb equates to where the second Ark would be in relation to the Second Temple.

I wonder now if the traditional location of the Valley of Hinnom/Gehenna could be wrong and it was on or at the foot of the Mount of Olives?  We know the Mount of Olives is where Solomon set up his Idols to Chemosh and Moloch/Milcom, so it makes sense that would be where later Kings were sacrificing to Moloch in 2 Kings 23:10, 2 Chronicles 28:3 and 33:6 as well as Jeremiah 7:31-32 and 32:35.  Jeremiah 19:2-6 says that the valley of Hinnom is by the entry of the East Gate.

So that being where the bodies of sacrificed Animals were burned adds new meaning to it becoming an idiom of Hell.  And Tophet, a name linked to Hinnom in many of the above passages, is used interestingly in Isaiah 30:30-33.

The notion that Gehenna could be identified with the very site of the Crucifixion, has an interesting Universalist symbolism to it.

I think New Testament Nazareth might actually be Sepphoris.

[Update June 30 2021: I'm Abandoning this theory.  I was quite confused about the Geography of Sepphoris, and now I've noticed that Jewish Tradition equates it with Kitron of Judges 1 which is a problem.]

[Update Setemper 2021: I have this new Theory instead.]

Did Jesus and the New Testament authors think the End Times would happen in their lifetime

The claim that Jesus taught that is important to both Preterists and Bible Skeptics.  But, I've never seen a preterist try to debate a Bible skeptic, to try and convince a non believer that Jesus clear Prophecy of every eye seeing Him was fulfilled in 70 AD.

The strongest argument is when Jesus said "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." in Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27.

The argument that this was fulfilled by the Transfiguration I could accept being written off as a silly cop out if The Transfiguration directly followed this in only one of the accounts.  Often the different Gospels will at face value seem to contradict each other's chronologies, and I believe there are answers for all of those issues.  But the point here is, all 3 times this was said the Transfiguration immediately follows.  Even if I thought the Gospels were fiction, as a writer myself I'd see the clear connection there.

Now the Olivite discourse saying "This Generation shall not pass" has been discussed in depth by many.  The context clearly says the generation seeing the signs he just described.  Others have gone in detail of why the Greek grammar allows no room for the preterist view.  I'm not sure exactly which previous online discussion of it I want to link to here yet.  But what I'll say below puts the greater testimony of The New Testament in favor of the futurist view.

In Acts 1:6-7 Jesus deliberately discourages the Disciples from thinking he would return in the near future.

In 2 Peter 3, the Apostle Simon Peter speaks of the Last Days in a sense that clearly implies days different from the then present.  He foretells the world rejecting a literal interpretation of Genesis when Christianity hadn't even become the mainstream religion of The World yet.

Paul in Second Thessalonians 2 assures his readers certain things must happen first, and gives no indication they should expect it to happen anytime soon, quite the contrary he's telling them not to worry about it.

I also like pointing out here that there are Prophecies in the New Testament that did come true.  All three Synoptics but especially Luke foretell what happened in 70 AD.  And I've argued that the Bar-Kochba revolt is in Mark.  Skeptics of course insist on late dating those Gospels, but I firmly believe all 3 Synoptics predate 70 AD.  But even among skeptical scholars only the most extreme try to place Mark later then 90 AD.

In the Kingdom Parables in Matthew 13, the implication of at least 1 parable, the Mustard Seed, is that Christianity will become the world's largest religion someday.  And there is no way with even the youngest possible dates for the Gospels they were written at a time when that seemed remotely plausible.

And as I just alluded to, 2 Peter 3 foretells the theory of Uniformitarianism and Christians rejecting the idea of a literal Second Coming because they've rejected a literal understanding of The Creation and The Flood.  Even if you are an Atheist who thinks those Peter is criticizing are correct, there is no denying that Peter could not have expected that in either the first or second century.

So The New Testament has proven itself to be Prophetic.

Oldest Synagogues, They go back to the Hasmonean era

"The earliest archeological remains of a synagogue building on the island of Delos in the Aegean indicate a late second-century or possibly mid-first century BC date of construction, while earlier inscriptions and papyri have been discovered in Egypt, commencing with the third century BC."- Levine, Lee. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-10628-9.

"A number of very early synagogues date from the 1st-century AD. A synagogue dating from between 75 and 50 BC has been uncovered at a Hasmonean-era winter palace near Jericho."-http://www.archaeology.org/9807/newsbriefs/israel.html, 
Israel's Oldest Synagogue. http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/modul...y/story_id/8390/edition_id/159/format/html/displaystory.html

"More than a dozen Second Temple era synagogues have been identified by archaeologists."-http://www.pohick.org/sts/index.html 2010-09-08. Retrieved 2012-08-29.

"The oldest Samaritan synagogue, the Delos Synagogue dates from between 150 and 128 BC, or earlier and is located on the island of Delos."-http://www.pohick.org/sts/delos.html Retrieved 2012-08-29.

"The Jericho Synagogue, the oldest, securely dated, mainstream Jewish synagogue in the world was built between 70 and 50 BC at a royal winter palace near Jericho."-http://www.pohick.org/sts/jericho.html 1998-03-29. Retrieved 2012-08-29.

"The oldest synagogue fragments are stone synagogue dedication inscriptions stones found in middle and lower Egypt and dating from the 3rd century BC"-http://www.pohick.org/sts/egypt.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migdal_Synagogue
This one was discovered in 2009, also once a city skeptics insisted didn't exist till the 2nd century, like Nazareth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadi_Qelt_Synagogue

The Wadi Qelt Synagogue located in Wadi Qelt a mile southwest of Jericho, is the oldest synagogue found to date. It dates from between 70 and 50 BC, and was built as part of the Hasmonean royal winter palaces complex in the desert oasis of Jericho.

Where Simon was from
http://www.pohick.org/sts/cyrenaica.html 


http://www.pohick.org/sts/jerusalem.html

the pre-70 dating of the inscription has been firmly established through both paleography and an analysis of the find's archaeological context. Not only do the inscription's letter-forms closely match those of other inscriptions dated to the Second Temple period, but all of the pottery and artifacts discovered with the dedication also date to this era.

http://www.pohick.org/sts/capernaum.html

Most recent excavations have revealed two synagogues, a white limestone synagogue dating from the fourth to fifth centuries CE, and a black basalt synagogue dating from the first half of the first century CE. Only foundation walls, gray marble column fragments and a cobblestone floor remain from the earlier structure, which measured 24.5 by 18.7 meters on the exterior and possessed walls over a meter thick.

View of the IV-V century Limestone synagogue, looking north. This structure was built on top of an earlier synagogue that was founded in the first century CE and constructed out of basalt. Only the foundation walls and cobblestone floor remain from this earlier building (see below). (Column drums made out of gray marble have also been discovered in a lower stratum of fill material.) It is thus the basalt synagogue which is referred to in the four Gospels.

Upon taking office in Caesarea, Florus began a practice of favoring the local Greek population of the city over the Jewish population. The local Greek population noticed Florus' policies and took advantage of the circumstances to denigrate the local Jewish population. One notable instance of provocation occurred while the Jews were worshiping at their local synagogue and a Hellenist sacrificed several birds on top of an earthenware container at the entrance of the synagogue, an act that rendered the building ritually unclean. In response to this action, the Jews sent a group of men to petition Florus for redress. Despite accepting a payment of eight talents to hear the case, Florus refused to listen to the complaints and instead had the petitioners imprisoned.
Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 2, Chapter 14, Section 5

Not Synagogue related, but evidence for Nazareth.
Nazareth Archeology

Isaiah 40:22 "the circle of the earth", Round Earth or Flat

This verse is often brought up discussing whether The Bible implies a Flat Earth or Round Earth model.

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"

 Here is the thing, I'll agree that the way some Christians cite this verse as completely proving a Round Earth and ignoring the possibility of a Flat Circle is wrong.

But the Bible critics are equally absolutist, insisting the verse can only mean a Flat Circle, and would have used "Sphere" if what we now know the actual shape of the Earth to be was what this Author (who I view as Isaiah, but to skeptics it's "Second Isaiah") intended to describe.

That of course ignores that we are dealing with a translation of an ancient language that didn't have as technically precise a vocabulary as modern English.

The word "Sphere" is never used by KJV translators for any Hebrew word. The argument can be made that a Sphere is basically a type of circle.

I've seen people argue Isaiah would have used the word translated elsewhere as ball.  Ball is not a synonym for Sphere, all balls are spheres but not all spheres are balls.  I would not describe the shape of The Earth or the Moon or any other astronomical body as being a ball.  You could say they are shaped like a ball but you could not actually describe them as balls.  The earlier Isaiah reference to a ball says it is tossed, that tells me it means something you can toss like a ball you play games with.

You can carve into a Sphere shaped object by the way.  And you could carve something else into a Sphere shaped object.

The word translated "circle" in this verse is used in total only 3 times. Isaiah 40 is the only case where it is translated "circle". Job 22:14

"Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven."

 And Proverbs 8:27

"When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:"

 Looking at these usages of the word, I've actually considered a 3rd option, maybe it doesn't mean either a flat circle or a sphere, maybe it's not describing the Earth's shape at all? Maybe it's referring to the Earth's Orbit (Circuit) around the Sun.

The grand point to me is, it doesn't mater what the Human Author thought he was describing. The Holy Spirit made sure it was not worded in a way that was incompatible with Scientific Fact.

Isaiah 14 has nothing to do with the Morning Star

Because in Greek mythology the Morning Star was the son of the Dawn goddess Eos (Aurora to the Romans) the Greek Septuagint translators of Isaiah 14:12 chose to render the personage identified as a "son of the Dawn" as Heosphorus, the Morning Star.  Which became Lucifer in Latin versions like the Vulgate.

Repeatedly people will tell you that scholars believe Isaiah 14:12 and up references a Canaanite myth about the god of the Morning Star named Helel who was the son of Shachar god of the Dawn rebelling against El Elown.  (Elown is the Hebrew title translated "Most High" or "The Highest".)

What they won't tell you is they have no actual text or inscription describing that myth with those names.  It's all conjectured from their assumption that Isaiah 14 must be drawing on some kind of Canaanite myth.

Shahar is the Hebrew word for Dawn (morning in the KJV but that's unfortunate because it's not the standard word for morning, Dawn is more accurate) used in Isaiah 14:12.  That word is also the name of a pagan Caananite (assumed to be male) god associated with the Dawn, his brother Shalim being Dusk.  Shachar and Shalim were among the sons of El Elown.

There are NO texts outside Isaiah 14 that identify Shachar as having a son named Helel.

Attar (also rendered Ashtar, Ishtar, Astar, and Athtar) was a god affiliated with Venus the Morning star.  But he is not associated with the name Helel nor is he ever refereed to as a son of Shachar. He was a male counterpart to Ashteroth/Astarte, who's name is similar and was also affiliated with Venus.  We don't know for certain his position in the mythological genealogy but I'd suspect he was like a brother maybe even twin of Ashtroth, or her son.  Astarte was a sister/wife of Hadad and daughter of El.  Hadad would probably be the father of any children of hers.

So the morning star and the Dawn in Caananite mythology were siblings or maybe uncle/nephew but not father and son.

There is a Canaanite myth about Attar rebelling against Baal Hadad but NOT against El, Hadad himself was the rebel against El.

Isaiah 14:12 is the only verse to use the word Helel.  But Helel is just the noun form of the verb Halal (Strongs number 1984).  Which has a variety of meanings, shine, boast, celebrate, glory, praise, rage, mad, all words the KJV has rendered it as.  The context of mentioning dawn implies shine works best, the YLT translates it Shining One.

A more accurate Greek rendering could be Phoibos/Phoebus which means bright or shining one which was an epithet of Apollo given to him after he became affiliated with the Sun (he originally was not).  Or Phainon, a Greek name for the planet Saturn which Cicero says in On The Nature of the Gods meant "Shining". 

However that Boasting is very much what this personage goes on to describe him doing suggests that "boastful one" would fit best.  Interestingly Bromius, a name for Dionysus, means "noisy", "roaring", or "boisterous", from βρέμειν, to roar.

Helel may also be Yalal (Strong number 3213) with a definite article.  Making it a title not a name.  It means Howl or Howling, so as a title would mean Howling One or Howler. English Translations of the Peshita version of Isaiah 14:12 don't even interpret Helel as a noun but as a verb saying things like "Wail at Dawn" or "Howl in the morning".  (Interestingly I've seen the name of the Shinto deity Susanoo interpreted as meaning Howler.)

The New Testament refers to Jesus as the Morning Star (Revelation 22:16) and the Day Star (2 Peter 1:19).  The Day Star reference used a poetic name for Venus "Phosphorus" which cosmologically refers to the same star Heosphorus does, and has the same meaning Lucifer has in Latin.  Phos=Lux=Light and Phorus=Ferus=Bearer/Bringer.

I've seen it described as though the Septuagint uses "Heosphorus" for the entire phrase "Helel ben Shahar".  So the Heosphorus being a son of Eos in Greek mythology is probably the origin of this mistake, since other mythologies don't make the Dawn a parent of any stars.  Interestingly the etymology of Heosphorus perhaps makes a better translation of the "Ben Shahar" part, meaning "Dawn-Bearer" or Born of Dawn.

I've been thinking however, what if Dawn isn't even an accurate translation of Shahar here?  It definitely means Dawn in many places, but a Hebrew word spelled the same also means "Black" or "Dark".  When Shulamith is described as being "black" like the tents of Kedar (Song of Solomon 1:5), Shachor is the word translated black.  Perhaps this similarity makes a certain kind of sense, "the Night is darkest just before the Dawn".  Maybe Satan is actually being called the "son of the Darkness".

So calling Satan the Morning Star fits his agenda quite well.  The Latin Vulgate indeed uses Lucifer in both Isaiah 14 and the NT Morning Star references.  Because of this there are some Latin Catholic hymns that call Jesus Lucifer which ignorant Protestants have had paranoid reactions to.

And maybe even identifying Satan as an offspring of the Dawn is dangerous.  Because one could easily argue if they wanted to that the Woman of Revelation 12 is being described with Dawn Goddess imagery.  Eos is frequently depicted in Greek art and poetry as wearing Saffron robes, Saffron is a shade of the color yellow that is commonly identified as being the Sun's shade of yellow.  And since the Sun rises as the Moon is setting one could also say the Moon is under her feet. 

Gnostics and certain other enemies of Christianity could make use of such arguments.

Heli of Luke's genealogy is the father of Mary

I hold that common view, but I don't argue it in the more common way that view is presented.  It's not about Heli being Joseph's father in law.  At least it's not only that.

In the Greek of Luke 3:23, first of all the order of words are different.  Secondly the entire genealogy in Greek only says "son of" once, and that's before the "as was supposed" which is put in parentheses.

In the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article with one exception: the name of Joseph. Someone reading the original would understand by the missing definite article from Joseph's name that he was not really part of the genealogy.  I actually believe the parentheses in English should be expanded to include his name.

So I would render it.

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Heli,

Thomas Aquinus also said that Luke says Jesus was the Son of Eli (Heli is a Hellenization of Eli) though he didn't explain why.  Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, p. IIIa, q.31, a.3, Reply to Objection 2.

In both Greek and Hebrew the word for Son can mean Grandson or any descendant.

Tribal identity in Israel was usually determined strictly pater-lineally.  But in the case of bastards where the father was unknown, or a proselyte marrying an Israelite woman and fathering children by her, the pater-lineal tribal identity of the mother would determine the tribal identity of that offspring.

Also while inheritance can usually go only through sons, a man with no sons but daughters can pass inheritance through his daughters if she marries within the tribe.  Due to the law of the Daughters of Zelophehad, discussed in Numbers 26:33, 27, 36, Joshua 17 and 1 Chronicles 7.  Joseph being of the House of David would qualify as the same tribe.

Another example of a bad argument to use on this issue is the Talmudic reference sometimes cited as saying Heli was the father of Mary (Chag. 77,4).  This reference only seems to say this when a Christian is quoting it, so independent verification is wanting, and it has been cited by adversaries of this view as saying something different.  The Talmud is complicated to study, so maybe there is something there, but we're better off just avoiding it for now.

We should not build doctrine on Apocrypha, but the Infancy Gospel of James is interesting.  At first glance it would seem to contradict this view by clearly naming the father of Mary as Joachim.... But....

Joachim is a variant form of the name Jehoiakim.  There is only one Jehoiakim in The Bible, he was a King of Judah of the House of David.  The Infancy Gospel doesn't specify Joachim's ancestry, but other traditions related to his wife Anna/Hannah say she was of the House of David.  Tie that to him having a Davidic name and it seems he's Davidic.  [Update: I was rereading it recently and noticed the infancy Gospel does call Mary a Virgin of the daughters of David.]

King Jehoiakim was also known by the name Eliakim.  Those names not only look similar in how they end, but they have effectively the same meaning, just using a different name of God to communicate the meaning.  "He whom God has kept".  So it's probable any Jehoiakim could have also been called Eliakim, especially if a later one was named after the King.

Eli could very easily serve as a shortening of Eliakim.  And as I already said Heli was a Hellenization of Eli.

Yet the Infancy Gospel wouldn't have done it this way if it was seeking out to say the Biblical Heli is Mary's father.  While plenty in the Infancy Gospel is clearly false, being the prototype of Catholic Marian doctrines.  It may have been influenced by some real history that was passed on.

Cyrenius does not mean Quirinius

First in the actual Greek text of Luke 2:2 the word translated Cyrenius is the last word and Syria the second to last word.  And the word for "governor" is not a noun and should be more literally translated "governing".  In fact the most accurate rendering of the verse should be something like.

"This counting was first made during the governing of Surias Kureniou"

The last two words I chose not to transliterate and represent them as they are spelled in the Greek.

The only reason why Bible Skeptics insist this MUST be the AD 6 Census in-spite of all the ways it's nothing like that Census (Empire wide not local, and while Herod was still King) is the name of Kureniou.

But it's not even grammatically written as the name of a person.  Now if you look at the Strongs entry for Cyrenius it will claim that the name ends with the specific form of the letter Sigma that in Koine Greek any personal name of a male individual should, and that also ends many descriptive titles.  But in the actual Textus Receptus Greek text it does not.  (And the Sinaiticus is the same.)  And Quirinus does end with an "s" in the original form in it's original language, so there is no excuse for there not to be a Sigma at the end.

You may ask "But we know from the Greek texts of Josephus that that is how Quirinus name was translated into Greek"?

But in fact the rendering in Josephus isn't identical, for one thing in Josephus it does end with Sigma. In Josephus it's spelled Kurinios, which, like I would expect, uses more then one Iota.  Also there is no "e".  It is a much more plausible Greek rendering of Quirinus.

I'm not sure how early on this confusion started.  Maybe simply because Luke refereed to the AD 6 Census in Acts 5:37 people made the wrong assumption it must be the same Census.  Or maybe the translation of Luke into Latin played a key role in the confusion, when Translations of The Bible into modern languages finally began to happen after the reformation, they were greatly influenced by the Vulgate directly or indirectly, even the KJV.

But Tertullian in his against Heresies book IV chapter XIX simply states Saturninus was governor of Syria at the time without any acknowledgment that supposedly Luke identifies someone else as Syria's Governor.  That tells me that neither he or his readers had heard of the idea that Luke tells us who the governor was.  (Note, identifying Saturninus would fit it being the 8 BC Census).  And none of the 3 Lustrums of Augustus would have extended into the 19-21 AD Governorship of Gnaeus Sentius Saturninus, so the claim that Tertulian was referring to younger siblings of Jesus being born then doesn't work.  It was the earlier Saturninus who's administration of Syria coincided with a documented Roman Census.

To be exact, Tertullian said that Roman records proved the fact that censuses (he used the plural) were conducted in Judea when Saturninus was governor.  Also in his Apology to the Jews Tertullian clearly dates the Nativity to 3-2 BC saying it was 27 years from the deaths of Antony and Cleopatra.  Though that is hard to reconcile with the Saturninus reference.

Since I'm contending that Kureniou doesn't mean Quirinus, what does it mean?

Below is how Cyrene and Cyrenian (of Cyrene) is rendered in various Greek NT verses.  Because these will be using 2 different Greek letters for o, lower case o is Omicron and capitalized O is Omega.

Matthew 27:32, Kurenaion
Mark 15:21, Kurenaion
Luke 23:26,  Kurenaion
Acts 2:10, Kurenen
Acts 6:9,  KurenaiOn
Acts 11:20, Kurenaioi
Acts 13:1, Kurenaios

It's rendered differently almost each time, in total 5 different ways, and Luke used all 5.  So that Kureniou is identical to none of them means little.  Interestingly the last one is almost identical to how the Strongs incorrectly claimed Cyrenius was rendered (Kurenios) with the only difference being the added Alpha.

The differences are all a matter of vowels and what the closing suffix should be.  All of them begin with Kuren just like Kureniou does.

Ending with iou is the same as how Luke renders Jesus of Nazareth in Luke 24:19 (Iesous tou Nazoraiou).

So perhaps Luke 2:2 wasn't referencing the Governor of a province at all but two provinces.  Or I could point out that the word for Syria here does end with that specific form of the letter Sigma that signifies a personal name or possibly title of a male individual.  No where else does Luke in his Gospel or Acts render Syria as ending with a Sigma if it's referring to the region rather then a person.  But he does use that form of Sigma when referring to Naaman of Syria in Luke 4.

I could also note that when Luke identifies Pilate as Governor of Judea in Luke 3:1 he lists the name of the Governor before the name of the province.

If it's hypothetically possible for one Roman name to be transliterated into Greek in a way that resembles Cyrene, then one could just as easily be rendered in a way that resembles Syria.  Servius could become Surias as easily as Quirinus could become Kureniou, since Greek has no letter v.

Sulla could become similar to Surias in transliteration also considering how l and r are sometimes confused.  A Sulla we don't know much about was Consul in 5 BC, many former Consuls were made governors soon after their Consulship.  However the r and l confusion is not likely to happen from Latin into Greek.

Or it could be a Roman who was named after Syria because he or his ancestor had a military Victory there, like we see with names like Africanus, Britanicus and Germanicus.  But those names usually end with us or cus.

Or maybe the verse should just be translated as saying "when a Syrian was Governing Cyrene"?  Or perhaps that a Cyrenian was governing Syria.  Plausible translations are "during the Governing of Syria and Cyrene" or "during the Governing of Syria by Cyrene" or "during the Governing of Cyrene by Syria".  But I feel from everything I've observed above the best translation is "during the Governing of the Syrian of Cyrene".

We don't have a complete list of all the Governors of Cyrene, in fact we know very few.  Though ironically Quirinius was briefly Governor of Cyrene and Crete before he became Consul in 12 BC.    My point is however we sadly don't know who Governed Cyrene from 8-2 BC.  It's possible Quirinius time as Governor of Cyrene could have extended back to the 20s BC, he was born in 51 BC but we don't know much about his career before 12 BC other then that he's been a Governor of Cyrene.

Why refer to the Governor of Cyrene rather then the closer Syria?  Maybe the Governor of Cyrene was in charge of carrying it out for the entire Eastern Empire?  Or Judea specifically being so close to Egypt.  Because Egypt wasn't a military province, military activity within or from Egypt was carried out by the Cyrenean Legions.

An Atheist who is unlike me willing to consider the text hasn't been perfectly preserved should consider that a name is missing, that it's saying someone of Cyrene was Governing Syria.  Heck what Tertulian said you could use as evidence Saturninus was named in the texts he had.

Upon my further research I've noticed the Roman Legion called the Legio III Cyrenacia was based for some reason in Bosra Syria;  Again I note the terminology of Luke properly translated is not necessarily identifying a person as Governor at all.

The last known exploit of this Legion before the time frame of The Nativity (from the timeline of the Legion Wikipedia has anyway), was being involved in a conflict between Rome and Nubia in Egypt in 23 BC.  The next time they show up is 7-11 BC when the Nikopolis fortress is established.

I'm thinking it's possible this Legion carried out the Census in Judea.

Varus governed the province of Africa before being Governor of Syria at the time of Herod's death.  Not quite the same province but close.  Since it borders Cyrene and we don't know Cyrene's governors perhaps he was entrusted with both.  Saturninus had also governed Africa before governing Syria.  Saturninus career immediately after his time as governor of Syria ended isn't documented, we know he was in Germania at some point but how soon is disagreed on.  What if Saturninus was governing Cyrene while Varus governed Syria?

I've had a hunch enter my head that maybe Luke's intent was to identify a year that Augustus was Consul and verse 2 is meant to identify the other Consul, though I can't think of a solid reason to make that argument.

The only years in the vicinity where Augustus was Consul were 5 BC, where the other Consul was Sulla who I mentioned above for an admittedly flawed reason.  And 2 BC where the other Consul was Silvanus.

The point of this post isn't to prove what the verse does say.  Just point out that there is reasonable doubt it ever meant to mention Quirinius so smugly assuming it must be mentioning him when so much else about this Census obviously doesn't match that time frame just so you can keep saying "Luke placed Jesus birth in 6 AD" isn't really valid.

Or maybe the "Hegmony" being refereed to in Luke 2:2 is that of the ruler named in verse 1.

Update April 2019: Latin Vulgate.

Given how often modern Translations claiming to be directly translating the Greek are still influenced by the Latin translation, I was prepared to consider the Latin Vulgate perhaps the origin of this mistake.. But to my surprise the Latin doesn't mention Quirinius here, Jerome or whoever actually wrote the Vulgate did not recognize this as a Greek transliteration of a Latin name, it spells the name Cyrino.

haec descriptio prima facta est praeside Syriae Cyrino

According to Google Translate, everything preceding the two names at the end is, "This was the first President of the".  But given what I know about the grammar of the Greek I think "President" should be "governing".  That is distinct from how the Vulgate does make references to Cyrene, but the main distinction there is using an E where that spelling has an I, something that isn't a difference in the Greek.  So the Vulgate translation is mistaken, but I find it fascinating that the educated Latin speakers who made it didn't see it as clearly a form of a specific Latin name.  This may possibly be similar to the version of the verse Tertullian would have read.

Historia Augusta, Hadrian refrences Christians, In a letter

I'm not even gonna go into the fact that the Historia Augusta's historical reliability is questionable.

The following passage is about a letter written by the Emperor Hadrian which certain Atheistic scholars use to make a certain point, please read it in context.

For the Egyptians, as you know well enough, are puffed up, madmen, boastful, doers of injury, and, in fact, liars and without restraint, always craving something new, en [sic] in their popular songs, writers of verse, makers of epigrams, astrologers, soothsayers, quacksalvers. Among them, indeed, are Christians and Samaritans and those who are always ill-pleased by the present, though enjoying unbounded liberty. But, lest any Egyptian be angry with me, thinking that what I have set forth in writing is solely my own, I will cite one of Hadrian's letters, taken from the works of his freedman Phlegon, which fully reveals the character of the Egyptians.

       From Hadrian Augustus to Servianus the consul, greeting. The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ.

Again, make sure you've read this without any preconceived notions before I go on.
.
.
.
.


Now, here is how this is used by many modern Skeptics.

"Followers of Serapis were called Christians as demonstrated in a letter from Emperor Hadrian to Servianus, 134. (Quoted by Giles, ii p86)".

The implied message being that before Christianity even existed the word "Christian" was a term for worshipers of Serapis in Alexandria, and how that becomes a term for followers of a Jewish Messiah varies but you get the point, it's another one of those Christ Myth theories.

Now, how many people reading the above citation without any bias or preconceived notions got that from the letter itself?????

If even one person did I'd be genuinely shocked.

Hadrian is clearly criticizing the way in Alexandria various distinct Religious traditions become mixed up together. Serapians act like Christians and Christians act like Serapians. And Christians are clearly placed with the Jews and Samaritans as people whose religious laws are supposed to be against the kinds of occult activities they were engaging it.

Does it contradict what the Bible implies about our History that Christians in Alexandria were doing this? No, The Bible warms about bad doctrines already popping up before it was even finished. And the problem of Christians engaging in Pagan rites they shouldn't be is addressed in Jesus message to the Churches of Thyatira and Pergamos.  Pergamos interestingly also had a Temple to Serapis as I noted here.

I'm sure there was a remnant of good Christians in Alexandria not doing this that Hadrian wasn't aware of, but that's besides the point, it shouldn't surprise Christians at all that this went on.

The alleged silence of Theophilus of Antioch

Atheists sometimes say that "Theophilus of Antioch wrote a

History of the Wold from Adam to Marcus Aurelius and failed to mention Jesus" and they do this as evidence of Jesus not being historical.

All this is manipulative, his history isn't "Detailed" as sometimes described at all, it's not even a historical work, it makes up part of Volume 3 of Apologia ad Autolycum. You can read it online here.

He uses this chronology to prove that Moses and the other Hebrew prophets preceded the philosophers. The leading chronological epochs correspond to the Old Testament prophets. It's OT figures he's primarily concerned with. Only reason it can be said to go to Marcus Aurelius is because of the dating information he uses in chapters 27&28

CHAP. XXVII.--ROMAN CHRONOLOGY TO THE DEATH OF M. AURELIUS.

    When Cyrus, then, had reigned twenty-nine years, and had been slain by Tomyris in the country of the Massagetae, this being in the 62d Olympiad, then the Romans began to increase in power, God strengthening them, Rome having been rounded by Romulus, the reputed child of Mars and Ilia, in the 7th Olympiad, on the 21st day of April, the year being then reckoned as consisting of ten months. Cyrus, then, having died, as we have already said, in the 62d Olympiad, this date falls 220 A.V.C., in which year also Tarquinius, surnamed Superbus, reigned over the Romans, who was the first who banished Romans and corrupted the youth, and made eunuchs of the citizens, and, moreover, first defiled virgins, and then gave them in

marriage. On this account he was fitly called Superbus in the Roman language, and that is translated "the Proud." For he first decreed that those who saluted him should have their salute acknowledged by some one else. He reigned twenty-five years. After him yearly consuls were introduced, tribunes also and ediles for 453 years, whose names we consider it long and superfluous to recount. For if any one is anxious to learn them, he will ascertain them from the tables which Chryserus the nomenclator compiled: he was a freedman of Aurelius Verus, who composed a very lucid record of all things, both names and dates, from the rounding of Rome to the death of his own patron, the Emperor Verus. The annual magistrates ruled the Romans, as we say, for 453 years. Afterwards those who are called emperors began in this order: first, Caius Julius, who reigned 3 years 4 months 6 days; then Augustus, 56 years 4 months 1 day; Tiberius, 22 years; then another Caius, 3 years 8 months 7 days; Claudius, 23 years 8 months 24 days; Nero, 13 years 6 months 58 days; Galba, 2 years 7 months 6 days; Otho, 3 months 5 days; Vitellius, 6 months 52 days; Vespasian, 9 years 11 months 55 days; Titus, 2 years 22 days; Domitian, 15 years 5 months 6 days; Nerva, 1 year 4 months 10 days; Trajan, 19 years 6 months 16 days; Adrian, 20 years 10 months 28 days; Antoninus, 22 years 7 months 6 days; Verus, 19 years 10 days. The time therefore of the Caesars to the death of the Emperor Verus is 237 years 5 days. From the death of Cyrus, therefore, and the reign of Tarquinius Superbus, to the death of the Emperor Verus, the whole time amounts to 744 years.     CHAP. XXVIII.--LEADING CHRONOLOGICAL EPOCHS.     And from the foundation of the world the whole time is thus traced, so far as its main epochs are concerned. From the creation of the world to the deluge were 2242 years. And from the deluge to the time when Abraham our forefather begat a son, 1036 years. And from Isaac, Abraham's son, to the time when the people dwelt with Moses in the desert, 660 years. And from the death of Moses and the rule of Joshua the son of Nun, to the death of the patriarch David, 498 years. And from the death of David and the reign of Solomon to the sojourning of the people in the land of Babylon, 518 years 6 months 10 days. And from the government of Cyrus to the death of the Emperor Aurelius Verus, 744 years. All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years, and the odd months and days.

 (He disagrees with most sources on the Reign of Galba interestingly.)

So they describe it as though it's a comprehensive History like Jospehus, but it's really only a brief discussion designed to tie OT history to then contemporary historical dates.

Yet the simple fact that he didn't stop and give any little footnotes for the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius saying "This is when Jesus lived", is taken as proof he was unfamiliar with a Historical Jesus.  Kind of ridiculous don't ya think?

Now elsewhere in this same work, in Volume II Chapter 22 he says.

CHAP. XXII.--WHY GOD IS SAID TO HAVE WALKED.

    You will say, then, to me: "You said that God ought not to be contained in a place, and how do you now say that He walked in Paradise?" Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.

 He quotes John's Gospel, so he clearly wasn't ignorant of the historical person of Jesus.

More Wikipedia BS attacking The Bible

Though from the point of view of an increasing majority of archaeologists, there were always two distinct cultures in Canaan, a strong and prosperous northern kingdom and a weaker and poorer southern one,  in the Biblical account the Israelite tribes were initially united in a single kingdom, and only later fractured into the northern and southern kingdoms; this fracture is blamed by the Bible on the jealousy of Ephraim over the growing power of Judah.

This is a massive over simplification of the Biblical Narrative.  It ignores the Judges period where the various Northern Tribes and Judah are all very distinct.  As well as the division between north and south during the first 7 years of David’s reign.  The Judges period also tended to have the dominant leaders be northern, coming from Ephraim or Manasseh.

The Census of Luke 2

Is a problem to chronology only if you forget Luke was written in Greek not Latin.  Syria in classical Greek writings often refers to more then just the Roman province given that name, same as Asia, Africa and Libya did.  It often included modern Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and parts of Modern Turkey like Commenge and Cilicia specifically.

The word translated Governor here (Hegemoneuo Strongs#2230) is first NOT whatever his actual Roman title was, but a Greek word, and 2nd it’s not even a Noun hence not even a title, it’s a Verb which means “to rule, command”.  A more accurate translation could conceivably be “Was Governing in Syria”.  The word is used in Luke and Acts for Pilate (Who was Prefect, never a title Quirinus held) and other latter Roman Procurators.

Josephus mentioned that actually there were “governors” (plural) in Syria during the rule of Saturninus.  (Josephus, Antiquities XVI.280, 285, 357, 361.)  While during the governorships of Titius and Quintilius Varus, Josephus spoke of a “governor” (singular), (Josephus, Antiquities XVII.89.) but during the administration of Saturninus why does he mention the plural “governors”?

From about 5-3 BC or 12-1 BC Quirinus was leading a military campaign in Galatia and Cilicia against the Homonadenses, we’re not certain what title he held while doing this, but either way he would have qualified as a “Governing in Syria” at this time.  Quirinus was rector or adviser to Gaius Caesar when holding Armenia (Tacitus, Ann. 3:48).  The nearness of Syria to Armenia was probably a reason for choosing Qurinus, Syria’s governor, to be the young prince’s adviser.

Based on what Josephus says of the History surrounding Herod’s death, the Legate of Syria at the time I date the Nativity was Saturninus (Agreeing with Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, ch.8.) And Varus at the time The Magi came to Jerusalem.  Quirinius’ war against the Homonadenses, for which Tacitus singled him out for praise, has been called a “special command.” ( Hugh Last, quoted by Rice Holmes in “Architect of the Roman Empire,” II.89, note 1.)  This status is also reflected in an inscription which mentions Quirinius “as holding an honorary municipal office at Antioch-by-Pisidia.” (Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 165.) And it was certainly a special command for Quirinius when he became rector of the young Gaius Caesar when Gaius acquired residential authority at Antioch over the eastern provinces in A.D. 1. (Tacitus, Annals, III.48.)  Gaius was probably not strictly called the governor of Syria at the time (C.E. 1 to 4) and it may well be that Quirinius was responsible for running the everyday affairs of government.

Tacitus said that Quirinius was one having “considerable talents for business.” This could account for his selection as being “guardian” of Gaius who was the heir to the Empire.  Quirinius already had experience in Syria by administering the censuses Tertullian talked about in 3/2 B.C. which took place during the time when Saturninus was governor. All these references indicate special commands for Quirinius throughout his entire governmental career. There are other historical records about Quirinius which show his special assignments.

Luke mentions Herod at this time just like Matthew does, if Luke had the 6 AD Census in mind he’d have also mentioned Coponius who was appointed at that same time and was far more relevant to Judea directly. 

Census is another example of a term often used more loosely by some then others, none of the normal Roman Censuses happen in 3 or 2 BC when I date the Nativity, but isn’t the context Luke implies itself Abnormal?  Luke implies an Empire wide event, the 6 AD Census was Local only.

2 BC marked the 750th Anniversary of Rome’s founding according to Roman Tradition, as well as the 25th Anniversary of Octavian being proclaimed Augustus.  On February 5, 2BC, the Senate and the people of Rome awarded him the highest of all decorations: Pater Patriae (Father of the Country).  In preparation for this the previous year an “Oath of Obedience” to Augustus was carried out.  Such an Oath could have by some fit the basic definition of a Census.

Josephus mentioned that an oath of allegiance was demanded by Augustus about twelve or fifteen months before the death of Herod [Antiquities, XVII, 41-45 “There was moreover a certain sect of Jews who valued themselves highly for their exact knowledge of the law; and talking much of their contact with God, were greatly in favor with the women {of Herod’s court}. They are called Pharisees. They are men who had it in their power to control kings; extremely subtle, and ready to attempt anything against those whom they did not like. When therefore the whole Jewish nation took an OATH to be faithful to Caesar, and [to] the interests of the king, these men, to the number of above six thousand, refused to swear. The king laid a fine upon them. Pheroras’ wife {Herod’s sister-in-law} paid the money for them. They, in requital for her kindness {for they were supposed, by their great intimacy with God, to have attained to the gift of prophecy}, prophesied that God having decreed to put an end to the government of Herod and his race, the kingdom would be transferred to her and Pheroras and their children. Salome {Herod’s sister}, who was aware of all that was being said, came and told the king of them. She also told him that many of the court {of Herod} were corrupted by them. Then the king put to death the most guilty of the Pharisees, and Bagoas the eunuch, and one Carus, the most beautiful young man about the court, and the great instrument in the king’s unlawful pleasures. He {Herod} likewise slew everyone in his own family, who adhered to those things which were said by the Pharisee. But Bagoas had been elevated by them and was told that he should someday be called father and benefactor of the {new} king, who was to be appointed according to their prediction, for this king would have all things in his power, and that he {the king} would give him {Bogoas} the capacity of marriage, and of having children of his own”].

Herod's Death is often miss-dated, I’m not go into that in detail here, but he died in January of 1 BC, not in 4 BC.  4 B.C. is the year his killed his Eldest son and his remaining Sons where appointed their various Tetrachies, causing the confusion since their reigns are dated from then.

15 months before gives us October of 3 BC, since people would have been given advance warning, it’s easy to see this putting Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem on September 11th 3 BC, the 1st of Tishri that year and thus the day I believe Jesus was born.  And on that day Jupiter was in Conjunction in Regulus the brightest Star of the Constellation Leo The Lion, a very rare Astronomical event, that Astrologers would easily have interpreted as making the Birth of a King, since both that Planet and that Constellation are affiliated with Kingship, and in Hebrew terms The Lion is Judah.

*A breviarium of the empire was ordered by Augustus (Tacitus, Annals 1:11), giving a return of its population and resources.
*An inscription with such an oath of obedience has been found in Paphlagonia, and is clearly dated to 3BC [Lewis & Reinhold, Roman Civilization, vol. II, pps. 34 and 35, Harper Torchbooks Edition has these words, “taken by the inhabitants of Paphlagonia and the Roman businessmen dwelling among them”, and importantly, the whole of the population were required to swear it: “The same oath was sworn by all the people in the land at the altars of Augustus in the temples of Augustus in the various districts”].
*Augustus received his most prestigious title, the Pater Patriae, on February 5, 2BC, and wrote of it in his Res Gestae: “While I was administering my thirteenth consulship the senate and the equestrian order and the entire Roman people gave me the title Father of my Country” [VI, 35].
*Official censuses involving taxation took place every 20 years (in 28BC and 8BC), but the next official census was in 14AD, which was 21 years after 8BC and not 20 as one would expect. Could it be that 2BC was dropped out of the yearly taxation in celebration of Augustus’ Silver Jubilee?
*The year 2BC, however, was reckoned so glorious a new beginning for Augustus and Rome that the imperial taxation and evaluation ceased during that year if people would give their oath of allegiance to Augustus as their Pater Patriae and universal lord. This could well be the case and explain the 1-year discrepancy (by the way, every five years there was a registration which updated individual Roman citizenship, and these archives were kept in their own native cities or other important “Roman centers” throughout the Empire [see Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, pps. 147ff]).
*  Orosius, in the fifth century, also said that Roman records of his time revealed that a census was indeed held when Augustus was made "the first of men"--an apt description of his award "Father of the Country"--at a time when all the great nations gave an oath of obedience to Augustus (6:22, 7:2). Orosius dated the census to 3 BC.
 *The Armenian historian, Moses of Khorene, said that the native sources he had available showed that in the second year of Abgar, king of Osroene (3BC), the census brought Roman agents “to Armenia, bringing the image of Augustus Caesar, which they set up in every temple” [History of the Armenians, trans. R.W. Thomson, Book II, 26].

A theory about the Death of James The Just, The brother of Jesus

According to a passage found in existing manuscripts of Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews, (xx.9) "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" met his death after the death of the procurator Porcius Festus, yet before Lucceius Albinus took office (Antiquities 20,9) — which has been dated to 62 A.D.. The High Priest Hanan ben Hanan (Anani Ananus in Latin) took advantage of this lack of imperial oversight to assemble a Sanhedrin (although the correct translation of the Greek synhedion kriton is "a council of judges"), who condemned James "on the charge of breaking the law," then had him executed by stoning. Josephus reports that Hanan's act was widely viewed as little more than judicial murder and offended a number of "those who were considered the most fair-minded people in the City, and strict in their observance of the Law," who went as far as meeting Albinus as he entered the province to petition him about the matter. In response, King Agrippa II replaced Ananus with Jesus son of Damneus.

But early Christian tradition (recounted in Hegesippus as related by Eusebius) says James was thrown off the Temple in 66-70 AD.  Simeon becoming the second Bishop of Jerusalem is consistently dated to that time. Later post Constantine Christian historians tried awkwardly to reconcile these accounts.

Also, some skeptics of the Historicity of Jesus insist that "who was called Christ" is a latter addition not in Jospehus's original.  But the majority of legitimate scholars reject that.

However, a poster on IMDB who's username is austenw (who doesn't view The Bible to be inerrant) has an interesting theory that it's the name of James that was added latter.

 it's a matter of Greek grammar; the sentence reads:

    "Ananus ...brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was named Christ - James his name - and some others;"

In this quotation, blue = nominative (subject); red = accusative (object), green = genitive (possessive), purple = dative (a difficult one to define, but can be a bit like possessive).

Crucially, the words "his name, James" in the nominative, does not fit into the architecture of the sentence; it could be removed without altering the grammar whatsoever, between the two accusatives "the brother" and "some others".

More importantly, however, the "traditional" theory - that the name James is original and the reference to Jesus is the interpolation - simply can't be correct, because were this to be so, then "James" would have had to have originally been in the accusative, or else he wouldn't have been knit into the architecture of the sentence at all, and the "[was] his name" would have been entirely redundant. This means that the supposed interpolator would have had to go to the trouble of changing a perfectly acceptable accusative case for "James" to the nominative case, and adding "his name", and for no reason whatsoever. Why bother to do this, when he could simply have added the clause "the brother (accusative).. etc", after the name?

However, if "James [was] his name" was originally a marginal note - written in the nominative, playing no grammatical part within the sentence - all makes sense. A later scribe included the marginal note, verbatim, in the only place he could - after the words "the brother of Jesus called Christ" - since nowhere else would have done.

 So basically that would mean it was possibly another Brother of Jesus (not named by Josephus) who was stoned in 62 A.D.  But someone leaving a marginal note later assumed it was the most famous of them.

Two of Jesus half brothers are known to have served as Bishop of Jerusalem. first James from the beginning of the Church until whenever he died. Then Simon from around 69 (Traditions agree he became Bishop just before the Destruction of the Second Temple) till 107 A.D.

We don't know much about Joses or Jude however.  Jude we know had later descendants, two grandchildren who were alive during the reign of Domitian, and Judah Kyriakos who was the last Jewish Bishop of Jerusalem. Though the start of his period as bishop of Jerusalem is not known, Judah is said to have lived beyond the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-136), up to about the eleventh year of Antoninus Pius (148 A.D.) though Marcus was appointed bishop of Aelia Capitolina in 135 by the Metropolitan of Caesarea.

Matthew 27:56 refers to some of the Women at the Cross when Jesus was crucified.  "Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children."  Mark 15:40-161 refers to the same first two women, but the third is simply a woman named Salome, (the only time that name is used in the New Testament).  Luke doesn't name the women at all.  John's Gospel in chapter 19 alone informs us clearly that Mary the Mother of Jesus was there.

Joses is a shortened form of Joseph.  The only other Joseph refereed to as Joses in The Gospels is the half-brother of Jesus (and an ancestor of Jesus in Luke's genealogy).  At face value John's Gospel is the only one that obviously tells us the Mother of Jesus was among those women.  John also seems to tell us she had a Sister.  I think it's possible that Sister, Salome from Mark's account, and the Mother of Zebedee's children are all the same individual.

I think in Matthew and Mark, the Mary mother of James and Joses is the same as the Mother of Jesus, but why is she not refereed to as such?  Maybe because of the events of Matthew 12-13 and Mark 6 the narrative voice ceases to refer to Jesus biological relatives as such after he effectively temporarily disowns them.

Why name only two of her four other Sons?  Who knows, but in Mark later references to clearly the same Woman refer to only one.  James and Joses are the two oldest in the list of Jesus brothers.

As far as the more popular view of making the mother of James and Joses the same as Mary the Wife of Cleophas/Clopas.  Cleophas/Clopas I feel is likely the disciple (probably one of the 70 but not one of the 12) Cleopas from Luke 14, the Road to Emmaus.  He's probably the same generation as the 12.

That view conflicts with making this person the same as the Alpheaus who is the father of the James and Jude among the 12.  Cleopas being a parent of any among the 12 is unlikely.  The tradition making Clopas the brother of Joseph has it's origin among those early fathers seeking to deny the siblings of Jesus were of Mary.

Certain authors devising alternative history theories have sought to say that Joseph of Arimathea was an uncle of Jesus, and one that he was the same person as James the half-brother of Jesus.  Logically it would make more sense if you want to make him a half-brother of Jesus to go with Joses.

Joseph of Arimathea is introduced in essentially the same narrative that deals with the Women at the Cross.  I think it would make sense to use the full name when referring to him and the shortened form when referring to someone else as a relative of him.  The last verse of Mark 15 refers to Mary only as the mother of Joses while finishing the narrative of Joseph of Airmathea arranging the burial of Jesus.

There is also the fact that this responsibility Joseph of Arimathea takes, burying the body, is one that in Jewish Custom belonged to the nearest living relatives.

The only problem with that theory is that the traditional assumption is none of Jesus brothers became Believers till after the Resurrection.  We know none were when John 7 occurs, half a year before the Crucifixion.  That fact refutes any theory reliant on making any of the 12 Disciples the same as any of the people refereed to as his siblings (a strategy used by some both for and against them being children of Mary).

But a lot can change in 6-7 months.

He could have moved from Nazareth to Arimathea (I agree with the theory that NT Arimathea is one of the OT Ramah or Ramaths, or perhaps Ramoth which was in Issachar in 1 Chronicles 6:73 and thus near the traditional site of Nazareth), sometime after their father died. But it's also possible Arimathea was an epithet not meant to identify a city, there is a lot of speculation involved here.

If Joses was Joseph of Airmathea then he was in the Sanhedrin.  Antiquities 20.9 does not explicitly say this half brother of Jesus was a Sanhedrin member, but the over all theme of Josephus in depicting these murders leading up to 70 AD is about people that were prominent but against doing a violent revolution against Rome.

Catholics like to argue the references to these four brothers and unnamed sisters are using the words loosely, referring to cousins or close friends or something.  The Greek words for brother and sister are sometimes used in similar senses, I've seen interesting theories about Lazarus, Martha and Mary of Bethany, but context tells us the difference.

Mark 6 is about contrasting a strict literal definition to one that widens it.  As I said above Jesus effectively disowns His biological family who didn't yet believe in Him, and said His true family are those who believe in Him.

And if the New Testament writers felt this word for brother could apply to a cousin, as is popularly suggested.  Why not use it of John The Baptist, who is more undisputedly then anyone else in The Gospel narrative a cousin of Jesus?  Maybe they'd say he's not a first cousin, he'd be second at the closest.

Another attempt to reconcile this with the perpetual virginity heresy is to say they are sons Joseph had by a different wife.  Because these same people are uncomfortable with acknowledging polygamy still went on in Judaism at this time, they insist a wife who died before he married Mary.  But if Jesus isn't the First-Born Son legally to both parents then He isn't the rightful Heir to David.  Yes a younger son superseding the actual First-Born is a common theme in Scripture, but if Jesus were an example of that the Gospel writers, especially Matthew, would have stressed it.  Those supercedings happen to help show how God doesn't really care about the formalities of The Law.  But Jesus himself had to be a perfect fulfillment of The Law.

The wording in Mark 6 of "the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."  Starts with Mary and doesn't even mention Joseph (who is generally theorized to have died by then).  That tells me these siblings are siblings via being also sons and daughters of that same Mary.

Some will use that James the Brother of Jesus is called an Apostle by Paul in Galatians to prove he's one of the 12.  I already showed why these individuals can't be counted among the 12.  Apostle applied to any eye witness of the Resurrection.  Which is why Paul used it of himself calling himself the last Apostle.  And in Roman 16 identifies as among the Apostles a couple not even mentioned anywhere else in Scripture.

Matthew 1:25 says of Joseph.  "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son." This verse isn't just saying he didn't know her before, it also clearly tells us he did know her after.

Almah means Virgin

Almah is the word translated Virgin in the KJV of Isaiah 7:14.  Bible Skeptics like to assert this is a mis-translation (that had it's origin in the Septuagint).  That it really means "young woman", and that if Isaiah meant Virgin he'd have used Bethulah.

If Isaiah meant only a "young woman" and nothing more, he could have just used the word Na'arah.  At any-rate the typical non Christian view of this prophecy is it's referring to Isaiah or The King's Wife, in which case it should have used a word for Wife.

Almah is the more rarely used word.  That itself suggests it has the more specific meaning.

There is no place where Almah is used that you can prove the woman refereed to is not a Virgin.  With Bethulah it's questionable a couple times it's used.  Like Isaiah 47 using it of symbolic Babylon, in Isaiah 23 as well where Tyre is the Bethulah daughter of Zidon.  But those are poetic rather then literal contexts (they refer to cities and/or their populations, not individuals), so more or less irrelevant to how to generally define the word.

Some will use certain outside The Bible uses of words similar to Bethulah in other Semitic languages like Akkadian or Aramaic to prove it's lack of virginity.  Words in similar languages are similar but still different, and besides those examples they use come from bizarre Pagan myths where words are often used in ways that contradict their proper meaning, or at least bend it.  Regardless there is in fact no proof that Anath was ever viewed as Baal's wife, that's just something people like to infer. Nor to her having children, the reference to her "bearing" a helfer is just referring to her carrying it.

Both are used of Rebekkah in Genesis 24, seemingly as synonyms.  Na'arah is also used of her.

Those who take the apologetic approach of saying it's Bethluah that doesn't always mean virgin (or skeptics trying to argue neither means it, and virginity can only be clearly expressed in the negative), will say that immediately after Rebecca is called a Bethulah it then says she "has not known a man" as proof that Bethulah alone doesn't communicate virginity.  When she's later called an Almah no such explanation is needed.

There are actually many reasons why I feel Genesis 24 is a perfect examples of how The Holy Spirit is often redundant for the sake of emphasis (go over it and be amazed at how much exposition and dialogue is repeated).  Plus, I know many times in English people have said something like "A virgin who has never known a man".

Given the theory I shall develop by the end of this study.  I do think it's possible that many not yet married young women still living in their father's house were assumed to be a Bethulah whether they were one or not, or even sometimes called that out of respect even if they really weren't.  But Almah means something much more specific, and no woman who has had intercourse would ever be mistakenly called an Almah.

I feel like it's logical to conclude that if there is a difference between the two words, that all Almahs are Bethulahs but not necessarily all Bethulah's are Almahs.  But even if the opposite were the case it would still mean most likely that neither have had sex with any man.  They are most certainly not mutually exclusive words.

It is true that neither word has strictly the modern notion of virginity in mind.  But also both definitely presume a lack of sexual experience with men.

It could be used against it meaning Virgin that Almah is not used in Deuteronomy 22, which is perceived as one of the definitive Bible passage on the subject of Virginity.  I will be doing a study on that on my other blog in the future where I'll argue it's not a good idea to define virginity off that chapter.

The fact that the word for virginity comes from Bethulah does suggest that it's the word you use of a virgin if that's the only characteristic you want to communicate.  Being an Almah I think is about more then that but also definitely includes that.

I don't want to retread too much of what other apologetic material on this subject has gone over.  Like "how could just any young woman conceiving be a sign?"

But I will again recommend against using the Septuagint.  There is evidence it was changed by Christians, and at any rate the skeptical argument is frequently that the Septuagint is the origin of the error.  I for one don't believe Matthew was using the Septuagint, he originally wrote in Hebrew.

If you continue to insist the word Almah has no implied lack of sex with men, read Proverbs 30:18-19.

"There be three things which are too wonderful for me, yea, four which I know not: The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid."

In all of these poetic idioms the latter is something the former cannot penetrate.  In fact I've seen people use this passage to build an argument that the word implies as lack of sexual desire for men (A full six on the Kinsey scale Lesbian, a virgin in the sense of virgin as code for Lesbian, or maybe an asexual woman).  My one problem with that is it could lend itself to support the Catholic perpetual virginity argument.  Point is, this verse strongly supports that the word implies lack of sexual intimacy with men.

There is also Elem, a word that is the grammatically masculine form of Almah.  It is used even more rarely, only twice ("young man" in 1 Samuel 20:22 and "stripling" in 1 Samuel 17 56, KJV renderings).  In one it's describing David just after he killed Goliath.  No way to know if these men were truly male virgins, but they do seem to have both been unmarried at the time in question.

People have tried to use Almah's connection to this word to say it means a masculine or androgynous woman in some way.  But this word is rarely used and not even similar to the standard Hebrew words for masculinity.  A Feminine form of Zakar would be the better method to communicate that.  Elem is grammatically masculine and used to describes male individuals, but masculine is not what it means.

The verb root from which both words are derived in Alam, Strongs number 5956.  It means to veil from sight or to hide or conceal.  Symbolically a woman wearing a veil often represents her virginity.  The word is often translated by the KJV as words like secret, hide, hidden, hidest, hideth.  All could speak to the notion that a woman's virginity is something to be kept.  That a virgin has not "known a man".

Maybe the sense of being hidden also fits connecting it to a non hetero-normative sexual orientation?  Maybe Elems and Almahs were both "in the closet" so to speak?

I want to point out a detail I feel is frequently overlooked but very interesting.  Exodus 2 is the Nativity of Moses, a story many Christians see as foreshadowing the Nativity narrative of Matthew.  Or to the skeptics point of view, that Matthew drew inspiration from.

Exodus 2:7-8

Then said his sister to Pharaoh's daughter, "Shall I go and call to thee a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for thee?"  And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Go". And the maid went and called the child's mother.

The word translated "maid" here is Almah in the Hebrew.  And to help you avoid confusion, this is the only time Exodus 2 uses Almah, the words earlier translated maidens and maid are Na'arah and Amah a word for a maidservant/handmaiden.

We know elsewhere in scripture that the name of the sister of Moses and Aaron was Miriam.  So we have here the same controversial word used in Isaiah 7:14 applied to a young girl who's certainly a virgin that shares the same name as the mother of Jesus.

The three out of seven uses of the word that remain, are the only three times it's plural.

Song of Solomon 6:8 is the one verse people might try to use against it meaning virgin, since Almahs are depicted among Solomon's harem.  They are distinct from the queens (malkah) and concubines, while in Kings and Chronicles all 1000 women of Solomon's harem were either princesses (sarah) or concubines.

It's likely that these are either women he's betrothed to but hasn't consummated with yet, as Mary was when she conceived.  And/Or since his Harem was so large, women he's legally married but hasn't gotten around to consummating yet.  Clearly many of Solomon's marriages were purely political in nature and perhaps never meant to be truly consummated at all.  And since he is only known to have had three children (Rehoboam and two daughters in 1 Kings 4) as opposed to both David before and Rehoboam after who we are told fathered a lot.  It could make sense that the majority of his "wives" were actually virgins.

Again, that option could be used by Catholics to support a perpetual virginity argument, but I can refute that on the end of Matthew 1 and the references to Jesus half-siblings alone.  And it does look like Mary and Joseph were formally married before she gave birth showing that Almah could still apply to a married woman for whom the consummation is for some reason being delayed.

Song of Solomon 1:3 seems to demonstrate how uniquely attractive The Beloved is by saying that even the Almahs liked him.  This could be a hyperbolic compliment from the Bride that may not even be literally true.  We are dealing with a poetic book here.

This could fit what I said before about how some have speculated the word could be affiliated with Lesbianism.   There is only one disclaimer I'd give to considering that possibility.

Even if some or many or most Almahs were homosexual, bisexual, polysexual, pansexual, or asexual women, the usage of Almah in key places like Proverbs still tells me that a woman ceases to be an Almah once she's had penetrative potentially reproductive intercourse.  A Woman's sexual orientation however would not change simply because of that.

One more usage of the word remains.  Psalm 68:25.  "The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; among them were the damsels playing with timbrels."

Psalm 68 is a psalm that is often viewed as looking back on the time just after the Exodus and the beginning of the 40 years in the wilderness.  Exodus 15:20-21 also refers to Timbrels.

And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.  And Miriam answered them, "Sing ye to the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea."

So, we have come back to Miriam, the Sister of Moses.

Josephus says Miriam married Hur, but a Targum says she was the mother of Hur, trying to make her the same person as Ephrath.  Those are later traditions that are rather contrived, going off Scripture alone, Miriam seems to have never married.

Exodus says "all the women" joined in the dancing and the timbrel playing.  Certainly not all the women were Virgins.  But Psalm 68 is being poetic not strictly literal, Miriam is leading this, so it's describing them all in terms that apply to Miriam.

There is also a Hebrew name derived from Almah.  Alamoth, used in 1 Chronicles 15:20 and Psalm 46:1.  Putting a Teth at the end of a word makes it a feminine plural.

In both those verses the KJV translates it as a name, but it seems like maybe that's not how it's actually being used, both are in contexts talking about musicians.  There is certainly nothing to contradict it being affiliated with virginity.

Jeremiah 31:4 refers to a Bethulah dancing with Tabrets (same word translated Timbrels), perhaps showing the two can be synonyms sometimes.  Nahum 2:7 refers to Amahs (Maid servants) using them.

Judges 11:34 also affiliated Timbrel playing with the daughter of Jephthah, who we know was a virgin even though a word for virgin was never applied to her.  Just the word for virginity.

A note about the daughter of Jephthah, Judges 11:37-28 uses Strong number 7464, Reah, the KJV translates it companions and fellows.  The word in Hebrew is specifically feminine, it refers to female friends or companions.

Ancient Israel certainly did not have a status of ceremonial virgins comparable to the Roman Vestal Virgins or Catholic Nuns.  Nor to the Greek ceremonial virgins affiliated with Artemis or Athena.  But I am getting the impression, from the places where Almah is used in plural and affiliated with musicians.  That maybe there was a special Virgin status or community in ancient Israel.

There are some references to women who ministered at the entrance to the Tabernacle like Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22.

A Bethulah is any woman who is a virgin because she hasn't yet married or known a man.  An Almah was someone who's virginity was more apart of her identity.  All Almahs were Bethulahs, but not all Bethulahs were Almahs.  And sometimes the text may not even use Almah if it's referring to an Almah, like possibly with the daughter of Jephthah.

But I don't think an Almah vow was required to be, or even usually expected to be for life.  (Just as the Nazarite vow could be for life but didn't need to be).  Jephthah's daughter however likely became an exception to that because of his rash vow.  I agree with the apologists who argue that she was not sacrificed but merely forfeited her potential to produce an heir for Jephthah.  When someone has no sons only daughters his inheritance could pass through a daughter thanks the law created for The Daughters of Zelophehad, discussed in Numbers 26:33, 27, 36, Joshua 17 and 1 Chronicles 7.

Some apocryphal legends like the Protoevangelion of James do allude to Mary holding something like a Temple Virgin status.  That particular work however supports the heretical Perpetual Virginity view.

The only way an Almah could be maybe sometimes not a Bethulah is if in addition to a presumption of virginity Bethulah inferred a young woman still living in her father's house, which seems plausible. While an Almah isn't necessarily but still could be.

The assumption that the meaning of Almah implies youth I find not workable from the break down I already did of it's etymology and usage.  Plus that it is effectively still used of Miriam the sister of Moses when she was over 80.

Many other Christians defending that it means Virgin have argued Almah implies still living in her father's house.  However in addition to being connected to Miriam at a time when her father was certainly long dead.  Song of Solomon applies it to women that are to some extent already in Solomon's Harem.

We feel the need to do this because we keep assuming Mary was still under her father's roof at the Annunciation.  But nothing in Matthew or Luke mentioned her father in the narrative (I do firmly believe however that he is the Heli of Luke 3's genealogy).  While such a thing happening at all was rare, she could have been living on her own.  Maybe her father and mother died already, maybe she was older then we usually assume.  Maybe Almah in part refers to women who even if they eventually did marry wanted to be independent of that obligation.

You may ask "If Almah refers to a special vow or calling, wasn't Miriam awfully young in Exodus 2 to already have such a status?"  Once again, we need to stop always picturing The Ten Commandments when we read Exodus.  We have no idea how old Miriam was.  Moses was newly born and Aaron was 3 years older then Moses.  Miriam seems to be the oldest, and plenty of times a family may wind up having a decade or more between children.  I think it's plausible she could have chosen to become or identify as an Almah at as young as 12.  She is usually estimated to have died 11 months before Moses did at 120, so if she were 12 years older then him, she lived to 131, impressive, but only a year older then Jehoiada.

But also it's the narrative voice calling her an Almah in Exodus 2, so it could have been doing so retroactively.

Is it possible the Almah status appealed to many women who sexually and/or romantically preferred the company of other women to men?  As well as asexual women?  I think that's highly probable, the ancient world didn't define sexual orientation how we do today.  And contrary to popular opinion, The Bible does not condemn homosexuality.

If this theory about what an Almah refers to is true.  It's perhaps notable that there is no proof the word is ever used of any gentile.  The closest we get to a possible example of that is Song of Solomon inferring Almahs were in Solomon's Harem. And that is only because 1 Kings 11 makes it seem like he only married foreign wives.  But 1 Kings 11 is focusing on what it needs to to make it's point.