The reason you are trying to convince yourself the conception took place long after Zechariah's return home is because you don't want to admit that John was born at Passover. This is obvious. You want it to be some other time....perhaps much later....and this way you can continue to speak of Jewish fables and faddish theories.
There is no theory that John was the "Elijah" the folks were looking for each Passover [Matthew 17:10-13]. There is no theory about the time of Zechariah's service in the temple [Luke 1:5-8][I Chronicles 24:10]. There is no theory that Our Lord was 6 months younger than John [Luke 1:26] thereby placing His birth on a Sacred Feast Day (Sukkot) also.
As others have pointed out earlier, when Caesar Augustus ordered the census [Luke 2:1] everyone had a year (historical fact) to appear in their own town to register. A large gathering at one time would be a threat to Roman security. So.....why would Jerusalem and Bethlehem be full of "No Vacancy" signs when Joseph and Mary appeared to register? It is estimated that the population of Jerusalem grew to well over two million folks during these commanded festivals [Exodus 23:14] Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. Our Lord's people were in Jerusalem....and Bethlehem during a festival. To deny this is so....is simply to be clinging to the "anything Jewish is bad" syndrome.
When the King James people translated their Bible they were not familiar with Hebrew terminology to any great degree and this is why they translated "food Tray" in the Greek to manger in the English. The food tray was a shelf in the sukka (temporary shelter during Sukkot) where food was stocked for overnight visitors. The English had no idea what this was and came up with the quaint theory it was a manger for feeding cattle. And another myth was born and Our Saviour was now born in a stable.....instead of a sukka...on Sukkot.
Sorry, but you are going to have to do better than that. The burden is on you to prove conclusively. All I have done is point out the circumstances that don't necessarily fit the model you are espousing.
I don't have to prove a thing. Common sense and scripture does that for me. Scripture tells us the time of year would be no later than fall [Luke 2:8]. We know that the typical Christmas story is full of error and pagan tradition. Why shouldn't we look for the truth? When a person finally clears their head of all "mainstream Christian" tradition about the birth of Our Lord...... the scriptures began to really make sense.
IOW, we have to assume your theory is correct in order to understand the texts as you see them. That sounds like eisigesis to me.
[Luke 6:42]
However, that just shows that He was the antitype of all these OT types, like the feast days of Israel. It does not require us to believe He was born on the Jewish feast day.
Well.....is that why the Apostles were gathered on Shavuot [Acts 2:1]? Is that why Luke and Paul were still observing Pesach and Shavuot thirty years after the crucifixion [Acts 20:6-16]? Is that why Paul is marking time by "Yom Kippur" [Acts 27:9].....shortly before his trip to Rome?
C'mon....you know very well He was not an Antitype! Our Lord celebrated the Sabbaths and Festivals....teaching His Apostles to do the same. History records the continued celebration of Passover by Christian communities that had been taught by the Apostle John....well into the second and third centuries. Why would John continue to observe these "Jewish" things....if he had not been taught to do so?
Matthew would have had a field day with the theory if it were the case. God would not have left it to our imagination to put some puzzle together in order to get to the truth that He wanted us to know.
Matthew....as well as the others...had no idea that the Sabbaths and Feast Days would be attacked and vilified later on by the "Imperial Church of Rome" in its zeal to erase anything "Jewish" from its liturgy. The early Christian Church was considered a sect of Judaism [Acts 28:22] the same as the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes. Why do you suppose a Jewish sect would not want to continue observing God's Holy Sabbaths and festivals? This is why Matthew thought it unimportant to stress these things.
I’m not trying to convince myself of anything. I’m just trying to be as faithful as possible in interpreting the text as it is given to us without bringing the imaginations of men and giving life to Jewish fables.
I have no axe to grind.
Matthew....as well as the others...had no idea that the Sabbaths and Feast Days would be attacked and vilified later on by the "Imperial Church of Rome" in its zeal to erase anything "Jewish" from its liturgy.
Well, it is part of your theory that the old covenant feast days are still appropriative for the Christ’s body, the Church, and that therefore they have been "attacked and vilified". You are the one the needs to enforce this theory and so you go looking for the most obscure, debatable points to try and make it.
You even go so far as to say that Matthew didn’t tell us all he needed to tell us.
I happen to believe that Matthew (actually God) was not being short-sighted when he wrote what he did in the gospel that bears His name. I believe that God has providentially preserved the text for us exactly as we need it to be preserved. I don’t believe we need to invent theories of a Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew with lost/silent teachings in order to make theological points.
IOW, I don’t need to go down the tenuous route that you seem is necessary to follow in order to come to your preconceived conclusions.
Well, this is yet another interesting theory, but again it does not seem to fit with the texts upon closer examination. Not to mention that it is rather arrogant to suggest that the translators of the KJV were poor Hebrew scholars. I would venture to guess they were better equipped at the Hebrew language and customs than some of the ersatz "Hebrews" running around today.
But I digress.
In Luke 2:7 we read, "And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn". The Greek word translated manger is phatne, as in kai eteken ton uion authV ton prwtotokon kai esparganwsen auton kai aneklinen auton en th fatnh dioti ouk hn autoiV topoV en tw katalumati
Now, if we turn over to the book of Job, we find this interesting passage:
1 "Do you know the time when the wild mountain goats bear young? Or can you mark when the deer gives birth? 2 Can you number the months that they fulfill? Or do you know the time when they bear young? 3 They bow down, They bring forth their young, They deliver their offspring. 4 Their young ones are healthy, They grow strong with grain; They depart and do not return to them. 5 "Who set the wild donkey free? Who loosed the bonds of the onager, 6 Whose home I have made the wilderness, And the barren land his dwelling? 7 He scorns the tumult of the city; He does not heed the shouts of the driver. 8 The range of the mountains is his pasture, And he searches after every green thing. 9 "Will the wild ox be willing to serve you? Will he bed by your manger? 10 Can you bind the wild ox in the furrow with ropes? Or will he plow the valleys behind you? 11 Will you trust him because his strength is great? Or will you leave your labor to him? 12 Will you trust him to bring home your grain, And gather it to your threshing floor? (Job 39)Note verse 9. The Septuagint/LXX reads, boulhsetai de soi monokerwV douleusai h koimhqhnai epi fatnhV sou
The Jews who translated the OT into Greek used the same word phatne to speak in the context of the feeding trough of an ox, not a food shelf in the tabernacle. If that is an accurate translation of Job into Greek, then the English translators of the NT certainly appear correct in translating phatne as manger or feeding trough in Luke 2:7.
I also note a slight twisting of the text when you ask, "why would Jerusalem and Bethlehem be full of "No Vacancy" signs when Joseph and Mary appeared to register?"
Where does the text say anything about Jerusalem being full of "no vacancy signs"? Given the edict by Caesar it is understandable why folks comes to a small village like Bethlehem would have a hard time finding accommodations there. But not mighty Jerusalem which was used to the annual influx of visitors for the festival days. Jerusalem should have been able to easily handle the folks there by Caesar’s edict.
Also, Luke 2:21ff gives a long passage about the experience of Mary and Joseph and the child in Jerusalem, and nothing about the hotel situation.
You also wrote:
As others have pointed out earlier, when Caesar Augustus ordered the census [Luke 2:1] everyone had a year (historical fact) to appear in their own town to register.
If that were the case that they had a year, why would Joseph choose to travel to Bethlehem with a wife 8-9 months pregnant right in the middle of your alleged festival season? It makes no sense, neither it such an explanation required by the text.
To deny this is so....is simply to be clinging to the "anything Jewish is bad" syndrome.
[Luke 6:42]. Sorry, that’s a cheap shot.
From the days of Jesus and Paul the Judaizers have had a chip on their shoulder insofar as they can not admit that the Christ’s body is not an ethnic Jewish entity. We are spiritual children of Abraham and follow the spiritual law of Christ, not the ceremonial law given by Moses to ancient Israel. That law served it purpose for a time. But Christ has come and the universal Church has been relieved of those burdens (Acts 15:10,28). The Church owes a great debt to ancient Israel through which has come the law and the prophets which plainly point us to Christ. But we not longer operate under those ancient and temporary regulations (Heb. 8:13).
I don’t mean to sound harsh, but these theories only make it appear that you have a predetermined theology and you are desperate to fashion the text of the Bible into conformity with that theory.
If you need to denigrate Christian scholarship of the 16th and 17th centuries and advance the theory that there was more that Matthew needed to tell us, it is my opinion that your theory is on very shaky ground. It kinda sounds like the Jesus Seminar in reverse.