Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, was born in Bethlehem, Judea, according to the generally accepted chronology in the year of Rome 750, that is, 4 BC. This apparent discrepancy in date is due to an error that was made when the Christian calendar originated with Dionysius in 556 AD. He fixed upon the year of Rome 754 as that in which Christ was born. Later information proved beyond a doubt that this date should have been 750, which gives the birth of Christ four years before the beginning of the Christian era according to the calendar of Dionysius. The mother of Jesus was Mary, who was probably a descendant of David. Her husband, Joseph, was also a descendant of the same family. The birth of the holy child occurred in a manger at a public inn in Bethlehem, where Joseph had gone to be registered in accordance with the Jewish law relating to taxation. The miraculous conditions connected with his birth to the Virgin Mary prove to the satisfaction of most followers of Christianity that Jesus was of divine origin. His parents remained at Bethlehem for some time. The infant Savior was circumcised on the eighth day, and at the end of the fortieth day he was presented in the Temple, and his mother, according to the Jewish law, made the customary offers for her purification. Soon after this he was visited by wise men, or Magi, from the East, who claimed to have been guided to the spot where he was by the miraculous appearance of a star. Inquiries of these men as to where the child who was to be king of the Jews was born, led Herod (at that time Roman ruler of Judea) to cause all the male children in Bethlehem under three years of age to be put to death. Joseph, however, was warned by an angel, and he fled with Mary and Jesus into Egypt, where he remained an uncertain length of time, until after Herod's death, when the holy family returned and took up their residence at Nazareth. Here Jesus lived and grew to maturity, and because of this he is frequently called the Nazarene...(More)

Anonymity in John 19 We have mention of Christ, Mary, Mary wife of Clopas, Mary Magdalene, Pontius Pilate, Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea in John 19. All of these people were, to a lesser or greater degree, supporters and / or followers of Christ. The name-dropping of these supporters is quite rampant in this chapter, but as for those opposed to Christ, we have only the vague titles of "the Jews" and "the chief priests." Caesar is mentioned briefly, but only in an invocation by the chief Jewish priests. Why all this anonymity? I'm not sure of the reason, but I would like to point out that the anonymity is an indicator of political motivations. If the author of John was Gentile and anti-Semitic, it would have been more effective for him/her to name specific Jews to polarize his audience, in addition to the already negative portrayal of the Jews and chief priests.

The fact that he/she does not do this suggests one of two things: 1) he/she did not know the names of those priests and officials involved or 2) he / she was less actively anti-Semitic than he / she could have been, which is an encouraging thought. After Jesus' arrest, He appeared in front of multiple Jewish leaders, who eventually passed him off to the Romans because according to Jewish law, they had "no right to execute anyone" (18:31). Pushing the decision on the Romans, the Jews were using the Romans as a means to execute Jesus, while avoiding the penalty of their own law. Even Pilate, a Roman leader, had trouble punishing an innocent man. He looked toward the people and encouraged them to free Jesus on the basis that he found "no basis for a charge against him" (18:38). This same language was used again in 19:4, when Pilate again clears his conscience by publicly announcing that he finds "no basis for a charge against" Jesus. As Pilate hears that Jesus is the Son of God, he is "afraid" (19:8), and tries to set him free (v. 12). Yet he shows his true alliance to the government as the Jews bring the Roman law into focus by basically calling Pilate disloyal. The fact of the matter remains, Caesar himself had warned Pilate twice that another rebellion and bloodletting in the Jewish community would result in his punishment (Smith). Pilate therefore had a very interesting decision to make. Does he execute a man that some consider to be a prophet? This in itself may cause a rebellion. Or does he defy the Jewish law and set him free? Caiphus and the Jewish community at large would surely be outraged. Either way, Pilate felt deep concern regarding this decision. This is probably the main reason he wished to debate with the chief priests on the nature of Jesus' punishment. Even at this point, Pilate is still uncomfortable with punishing an innocent man, especially the Son of God (see 19:35), and the text concludes Pilate's fight to free Jesus by saying that he "Finally handed Him over," thus showing that it wasn't a willing choice, but one made through time and pressure.(More)