Salem of Genesis 14 wasn't Jerusalem

A conclusion I've come to recently is that the common assumption of identifying Salem with Jerusalem is flawed.

The main basis for it is that the last part of the name Jerusalem is Salem, a detail not even obscured in transliteration. But it may simply be another example of a new city being named after an older one.  And Jerusalem was not named that till the time of David, any verses in Joshua or Judges using the name Jerusalem are simply editorial additions from later on.

The Wikipedia page uses as evidence against the Temple Mount being the Mt Moriah of Genesis 22 the assumption that the Salem reference proved Jerusalem was already a city then.  To me the evidence of that being Moriah is far stronger then Salem being Jerusalem.

Psalm 76:2 is usually considered verification of it being Jerusalem.  First of all Salem as a shortening of Jerusalem being used for that city during or after David's time doesn't necessarily prove where Salem of Abraham's time was.

However on top of that.  Psalm 76 seems to have an eschatological aspect to it, either the Millennium and/or New Heaven and New Earth.  In which case it should perhaps be read in light of Ezekiel 40-48, where The Temple is not within the city limits of Yahweh-Shammah ("The LORD is there") but many miles north of it.

"In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion."

It could be that Zion here like in Psalm 48 is New Jerusalem, and Salem is where Ezekiel's Temple is.

One theory some have proposed for the location of Ezekiel's Temple based on how far north it is of the City is in the vicinity of Shechem and Mt Gerizim.

In Genesis 12:6 that area is where Abraham built his first Altar to God, and then traveled south to Beth-El, and then further south till the Famine brought him to Egypt.

At the end of Genesis 33 Jacob comes to this same region after making peace with Esau.  There we are told in verse 18.

"And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padanaram; and pitched his tent before the city."

Shalem is rendered differently in the KJV, and the Strongs also tries to treat it as separate (Strong# 8003 rather then 8004). But in the Hebrew texts it is identical to the name of Salem in Genesis 24 and Psalm 76 (three Hebrew letters, S-L-M).  I believe it is the same city.

I feel like adding that any time we see the name Shechem used of this region or it's inhabitants (Shechemites) before or during Genesis 34 is an editorial decision from Moses much later.  I feel Shechem became the name for this city/region from the person named Shechem in Genesis 34.  I think the cities of Salem and Shechem could very well be the same.  But if not they are certainly near each other.

I think maybe Melchizedek became Priest of the Altar to God Abraham built in that region after he left it to travel south.

But there is also a city in the region known in New Testament and modern times as Salim near Nablus. John 3:23 says John was Baptizing in this region for part of his ministry at least.  (I'm convinced however he must have been in the Trans-Jordan (Perea) region when he was arrested, since Antipas only had authority on the other side of The Jordan river.)  This Salim was near Aenon which is affiliated with Mt Ebal.

Jerome stated that the Salem of Melchizedek was not Jerusalem, but a town eight Roman miles south of Scythopolis, and gives its then name as Salumias, and identifies it with the Salem where John baptized.

However there are also those who calculate Shiloh to be the site of Ezekiel's Temple.

Shiloh is close enough to the later city of Shechem that it could be defined as the same basic region.

Actually the name of Shiloh derives from the same root word meaning Peace that Salem does (Strong number 7951).

References to the city of Shiloh don't start till the time of Joshua, long after the references to Salem in historical contexts ended.

Shiloh is where the Ark was throughout the Judges period, close to 450 years.

Solomon was the youngest son of Bathsheba

Chuck Missler and others keep referring to Solomon as the oldest surviving son of Bathsheba, and Nathan as the second.

All three verses that list the sons of David and Bathsheba list Solomon as the last of the four and Nathan third.  2 Samuel 5:14, 1 Chronicles 3:5 and 1 Chronicles 14:4.

"And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, four, of Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel:"

Also I don't believe the four listed here are only the "surviving" ones, I think even the one that died at birth was given a name, and that name was Shimea.

Among the things said by Critics to attack the idea that Jesus had any claim to the Throne of David from Luke's genealogy is that the Throne could only be inherited through Solomon.  Solomon is relevant to II Samuel 7 because he is the near fulfillment, but nothing in Scripture says the Messiah must be descended from Solomon. On top of that go back to the account of the division of The Kingdom in I Kings 11.  It says Solomon's sons will never rule a United Kingdom, only Judah.  The Messiah will rule all of Israel.  Meanwhile Zachariah 12:12 makes a reference to the House of Nathan that is interesting.  And 2 Kings 23:11 has a mysterious reference to a "Chamber of Nathan-Melech" Melech meaning King.

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.

The Star of Bethlehem was not something never seen before

Chuck Missler and many others like to dismiss the idea of looking for the Star of Bethlehem in actual astronomical events, insisting it's supposed to be entirely Supernatural.

Problem is, this ignores what Matthew clearly says.

"Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him."

 The word for "seen" here means to observe.  It's not a Star that was brand new in the night sky.  It's a star (a planet clearly since it moves) that was always there and that they always thought of as "His Star".

Some will try to argue "Planetes Aster" would have been used if it was a planet.  First I believe the ancient traditions that Matthew was originally in Hebrew which had no distinct term for Planet.  The Magi also may not have been speaking in Greek as they inquired about this, but in Hebrew, the native language of the King they were seeking.  Second, a Planetes is a type of star in terms of what star meant to ancient Greeks, it being a specific kind of star doesn't make it inaccurate to simply call one a star.  The New Testament does not use Planetes when calling Jesus the morning star, which is a title of Venus.

Now some think Matthew 2:9 says that Star appeared again and hadn't been visible before that.  That is reading something into it that isn't there.

It being seen "in the east" does not tell us anything about where in the night sky the star was visible, it only refers to the Magi having been in the east when they observed it.

And it was Micah's prophecy that sent them to Bethlehem.  That Star's additional behavior just helped them determine where in Bethlehem.

Jupiter is the brightest planet and so I think it's the most likely candidate.  It also was a Planet constantly linked with Kingship.  Just as Regulus was the stationary Star linked with Kingship.

I am a supporter of viewing it as the September 11th 3 BC Jupiter-Reuglus conjunctions marking the birth of Jesus.  ([Update]I no longer am, I have changed my view on Jesus Birthrate, but still hold the same view of the Star of Bethlehem.)

Studying Jupiter's movements in 3-2 BC places the arrival of the Magi in Jerusalem on December 25th 2 BC

Jupiter being in Leo happens for about a year every twelve years.  It doesn't always have a conjunction with Regulus but it's not uncommon.  What is uncommon is Jupiter's retrograde going through where Regulus is, and even other times that does happen it's not a conjunction all three times.  A triple conjunction between Jupiter and Regulus is rare, and the first conjunction beginning on Yom Teruah is interesting.

Jupiter being in Conjunction with Venus is not super rare either, but that this rare tipple conjunction had Jupiter-Venus conjurations both before and after is interesting.  Now people placing the birth of Jesus in September of 3 BC haves gone and described that the June 17th Jupiter-Venus looks kind of like Jupiter and Venus are getting married.  Now that I've decided I do place the Birth of Jesus on December 25th 2 BC, I also place the birth of John The Baptist on June 24th, which was possibly Tammuz 17 on the Hebrew Calendar.  Mary left Elizabeth to return to Nazareth a little before that, which is when the events of Matthew 1 took place culminating in the marriage of Mary and Joseph.

The Star that Astonished the World book does make a lot of mistakes.  I don't think it Astonished the word, I don't think most pagans or astrologists saw any significance to it.  By secular standards the previous time Jupiter was in Leo around 26 BC was more impressive, Jupiter, Saturn and Regulus had a triple conjunction, on the Summer Solstice.

I think these were a special subgroup within the Magi responding to a sign Daniel had taught them to look for. I think he told them that when you see Jupiter conjunction with Regulus 3 times in less then a year (possibly also mentioning the Venus conjunctions before and after), a little after the following winter solstice (or if they were using a Lunar calendar then during the last week of Tevet) they should arrive in Jerusalem looking for the one who is "Born King of The Jews".  I also think it's possible this specific group of Magi could have had Ephraimite ancestry.

And it got what day on the Hebrew calendar December 25th of 2 BC fell on wrong.  Which is odd since it got September 11th of 3 BC right (it was Yom Teruah) counting the New Moons from there puts us in Tevet for most of December of 2 BC.  The Solar Eclipse on December 26th 2 BC makes that evening that New Moon of Shevat.

I also disagree with bringing Revelation 12 into this.  The signs in the Heavens in Revelation 12 are yet future, they follow the Last Trump.

This is the first in a series of Christmas themed posts I intend to do.

Wrath and the Seventh Trumpet

Pre-Wrathers and many others with mistaken views need to claim that the Trumpets are all God's Wrath insist that in Revelation 11 when the Elders and the Four Cherubim say "and thy wrath is come".  That the Greek should be translated "has come" or "has already come".

My argument however is it simply doesn't matter how past tense the grammar is.  Everything here is in reference only to the Seventh Trumpet and what happens immediately after it's sounded.  Nothing said here was true before the Seventh Trumpet.

"And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth."

How much of that was already happening during the earlier Trumpets? Wrath is the only one anyone would even try to argue for.

Trumpets Biblically are warnings, the Last Trumpet is the Last Warning, that's when the Parousia happens and the Day of The LORD begins.

The fact is, Wrath has already come at the Seventh Trumpet, but it would be inaccurate to say that before the Seventh Trumpet.

That the Bowls are described as "finishing" or "completing" God's Wrath is seen as evidence God's Wrath begins sooner.  Fine, it begins with the 7th Trumpet and is finished by the Bowls.

One verse proving a Pre-Trib Rapture

That is a common challenge to Pre-Tirbbers.  I'm NOT Pre-Trib, but when this challenge comes specifically from Post-Tirbbers they mean any verse proving a Rapture that enables believers to escape any of the End Time scenario.

There is a verse for that however it's often overlooked.  Luke 21:36

"Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all the things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man."

 The verses before this have terminology that I'm certain Pre-Tribbers will think backs up they're Imminence doctrine.  What they keep missing is that you shouldn't be surprised IF your paying attention.

The point for me today however is that we do have a promise to escape.  And Revelation 13:6 refers to people dwelling in heaven when The Beast is at the height of his power.

Does Revelation start over in Chapter 12?

Some people have Revelation completely non-chronological.  But among those who choose only one place to see it as Rebooting, the by far most popular place is the start of Revelation 12.

"We are back at the birth of Christ" they will say.  I no longer agree with that assumption, but even if John is seeing Signs that represent some already past events.  I believe these Signs will one day be seen in the Heavens, not just by John but by everyone.  Luke 21:25 foretells "And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars".

Matthew and Mark has Jesus refer to "The Sign of The Son of Man" being seen in the Heavens.  I have two theories on what that correlates to in Revelation. One I've said before is the Ark being seen in the Heavenly Temple in Revelation 11.  But another option is perhaps the Signs John sees in Revelation 12, the Birth of the Son of Man/Seed of The Woman.

Again, both the Chapter and Verse divisions are not in the original text. If you read Revelation from the sounding of the 7th Trumpet on till when The Dragon is cast down without letting the man made divisions effect your perception, I don't think it's possible to fail to see they're all one continuous sequence of events.  I will provide an easy way to do that at the end of this post.

Revelation 12:1 in the Greek text begins with Kai, Kai is translated in the KJV "and there" but in fact "and then" would be more accurate here, the word is translated "then" elsewhere in the KJV often.  It's also the exact same word that begins 12:3.  That word is how many verses in Revelation begin, including the last to chapter 11 and all of them in chapter 12 and most in 12.

Some defending the idea of Revelation starting over and showing us the same events from a "different angle" mention that we have Four Gospels, and that Chronicles repeats much of the history from Samuel and Kings.

Those are different books.  And when we do see different events from different angles within the same book on the subject of prophecy they're defined as distinct separate visions, usually given at different times.  Like the many visions Daniel has (or interprets for others).  And I indeed do believe we see most of what's in Revelation from different angles in other Prophetic books.

Revelation however is one continuous vision.  John was taken out of the Earth to the Heavenly Throne Room and is walked through everything that will happen step by step.  Revelation ceases to be confusing when people just accept that and interpret other Bible Prophecies chronology based on where John explicitly identifies them in Revelation.  Including that when the Son of Man comes on a cloud is in Revelation 14.

Even if some start over were the case, we're clearly caught up to the midway point and the Abomination of Desolation when The Woman flees as synchronization with Matthew 24 shows.  Her time in the wilderness is clearly the second half not the first.  It's generally the desire to justify putting the Trumpets in the second half that comes from this specific start over theory.  I've dealt elsewhere with why the Trumpets and Bowls being concurrent doesn't work.

Revelation 11:14-12:12

The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.

And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.  And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God, saying, "We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned. And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth."  And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
And then a great wonder appeared in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.  And then appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.  And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.  And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.  And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, "Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.  And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.  Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time."