A major reason for the placing the birth of Jesus in 6 B.C. has a lot to do with the accepted dating of King Herod’s reign over Judea from 37 B.C. to 4 B.C. Again, as pointed out, skeptics of the Bible use this date and say that it is in conflict with Luke 2 with the traditional translation of verse 2 which indicates that Jesus was born while Quirinius was governing Syria in 6 A.D. (around 12 years later.)
There have been attempts to use Josephus, the ancient historian, to attempt to reconcile a census with a pre-Herodian death. Several of the suggestions to re date the death of Herod the Great seem reasonable, however, when the research is done they turn out to be problematic.
One such suggestion was proposed by Arthur Eedle, the author of the online book “Seven Steps to Bethlehem.” In chapter seventeen he attempts to re date the first years of Herod’s kingship. He argues that historians are wrong in believing that Josephus dates the apointment of Herod as King of the Jews in 40 B.C. and insists that in that year he was mearly sponsored by Antony in that year. He then says that the thirty seven years of Herod’s reign should be counted from 37 B.C. Then from then Eedle attempts to redate the death of Antigonus to 34 B.C. (This would move Herod’s death to early 1 A.D.) He then argues that Herod couldn’t become the King of the Jews without rival until Antigonus was dead. He is correct in that one detail, but his basis for placing Antigonus’ execution in 34 B.C. instead of 37 is faulty.
He cites Josephus’ Antiquities14: 490 which says that his death marked the end of the 126 years of the Hasmonean dynasty. He says that the dynasty began in 160 B.C. so therefore ended in 34. But the truth is that the Hasmonean Dynasty lasted for about eighty years showing that Josephus was wrong.
As another rationale for allowing his re dating of Herod’s appointment as King from 40 B.C. to 37 Eedle says:
Then, on reading that his reign lasted 37 years from when he was “made king by the Romans”, we are forced to accept the understanding of this as meaning the capture of Jerusalem. Josephus did not say “made king at Rome”, and this is borne out by Ant.XV.1.1.
Despite this, Josephus in Wars of the Jews 1: 388 says that Herod himself said that he was madeKing by Antony. This mention of Mark Antony can only mean that Herod was made king in 40 B.C. and not just sponsored by Antony as Eedle thinks.
Eedle misunderstands Josephus’s time measurements. What Josephus meant was that even though Herod was made king in 40 B.C. his reign officially began in 37 B.C. three years after when he was able to have his rival executed.
–Another faulty suggestion for re dating Herod’s first years was proposed by Dr. Ernest L. Martin in his book “The Star that Astonished the World” in chapter thirteen. He attempts to use Antiquities 14: 487-488 as a basis for re dating the first years of Herod’s rule. — Here Josephus says that Herod’s destruction of Jerusalem happened twenty-seven years after General Pompey first conquered the city. That happened in 63 B.C., so therefore Martin feels justified in re dating the destruction of Jerusalem under Herod to 36 B.C. instead of 37. — He then suggests that Herod’s first ascension year therefore started in 35 B.C. and therefore Herod must have died in 1 B.C.
There are chronological problems with accepting 36 B.C. as the year of Jerusalem’s destruction and 35 B.C. as Herod’s first accession year. — In Wars of the Jews1: 370 and Antiquities15: 121 Josephus says that the war of Actium happened in the seventh year of Herod’s reign. — The Encyclopedia Britannicashows that this battle happened on September 2, 31 B.C., so that would make the first year of Herod 37 B.C. and the year of Jerusalem’s destruction. This also shows that Josephus isn’t using an accession calender system starting in 35 B.C. or he would have said that the battle of Actium happened in the fifth year of Herod’s reign and not in the seventh. Therefore, the date of 36 B.C. is an apparent transcribal error and the so-called twenty-seven years is an anachronism. It goes against all the other evidence given by Josephus.
Despite the valiant attempts to re date King Herod’s first years, these suggestions do not hold water. Herod’s appointment and his first year can only be dated as 40 B.C. and 37 B.C. There is no way around this when the necessary research is done.
This is not to say that I don’t think there shouldn’t be some revision in the accepted dating of King Herod’s reign, that is, in the last years of his kingship.
Traditionally Herod’s de factoreign is dated from 37 B.C. to 4 B.C. However, Josephus says that his reign from the time Antoginus was executed he reigned for 34 years. (Antiquities 17: 191) Taking Josephus’ dating at face value this would put his death in 3 B.C., a year later. — The apparent reason for historians reducing Herod’s apparent reign by a year is because Josephus mentions that a short time before his death there was a lunar eclipse. (Aniquities 17: 167) There was no such eclipse visible in the region in 3 B.C. However the nearest one to that date was on March 13, 4 B.C.
It must be noted that Josephus gives the impression that Herod died before passover as Archelaus was going to go to Rome to claim the throne in Judea (Antiquities 17: 213). With the March 13 date being overly close to passover possibly for chronological reasons the Footnotes in the Works of Josephus insist that this Passover was thirteen months after the eclipse mentioned, placing that Passover in 3 B.C.
If this is the case, this would mean that even though Herod died around the spring of 4 B.C. that Archeleaus would have waited until the same time the next year (in the spring of 3 B.C.) to claim his throne (Wars of the Jews2). – The major problem with that assertion is obvious. It doesn’t make sense for him to fight to claim the kingdom a year after his father’s death.
Richard Carrier, in his essay in the section entitled “Was Herod Alive in 2 B.C.? ” rightfully points out another weak point for accepting the eclipse of March 4 B.C:
We cannot trust the reported coincidence of a lunar eclipse near to Herod’s death (Jewish Antiquities 17.167). Only a partial eclipse is astronomically confirmed for March 13, 4 B.C., which makes this an unlikely candidate, and it is unclear how much time followed the event and his actual death anyway.
However, dispite this, he embraces the eclipse of March 23, 5 B.C. saying that this certain eclipse would allow for Herod’s death to fall within 4 B.C. and that “all the events supposed to happen in the interim more easily fit this than the partial eclipse of 4 B.C.” – However, there are are two problems with accepting Carrier’s prefered eclipse as the one mentioned by Josephus: Herod, on the day of the of the lunar eclipse, had an important Jew named Matthias executed for destroying the Roman eagle that was in front of the temple (Antiquities 17: 167). Josephus shows that the Jewish people were still mourning his death until some time before the next Passover (Antiquities 17: 206).
If Carrier were right in saying that the eclipse of March 5 B.C. was the one mentioned by Josephus then that would mean that the Jewish people were still in mourning over him for ten to thirteen months. This has the same problem as assuming that Archelaus claimed his throne a year after his father died. This is really unlikely because only parents who lost a child would mourn so long. Even if Josephus only meant that people were still emotional about his death (and not necessarily that they were still within the customary days of mourning) it wouldn’t have been so long. So there is no likelihood that this could have been the eclipse of March 5 B.C. And the same is true for the eclipse of 4 B.C.
The other weakness with accepting that eclipse is the disease that Herod suffered from before he died. Josephus indicates the disease right after the eclipse. The illness was described:
There was a gentle fever upon him, and an intolerable itching over all the surface of his body, and continual pains in his colon, and dropsical turnouts about his feet, and an inflammation of the abdomen, and a putrefaction of his privy member, that produced worms. Besides which he had a difficulty of breathing upon him, and could not breathe but when he sat upright, and had a convulsion of all his members. [ . . . ] Yet did he struggle with his numerous disorders. (Wars of the Jews 1: 656-657)
Dr. Jan Hirschmann , as reported by CNN News in “Expert: Kidney disease, gangrene killed Herod” attempted a diagnosis of Herod’s condition. He believes he died of “chronic kidney disease complicated by gangrene.” He said:
When I first looked at the general diseases that cause itching, it became clear that most of them couldn’t explain a majority of the features of Herod’s illness.
Hence, he came to his conclusion. CNN continued to report:
The kidney disease, gonorrhea or excessive scratching may have caused the gangrene. While it’s unclear how long Herod suffered from his kidney ailment, he likely died within days or weeks of contracting the Fournier’s gangrene, said Hirschmann. (Emphasis mine)
Although it is not possible to identify the disease Herod died of beyond a reasonable doubt perhaps we’ll know for sure some time soon now that King Herod’s tomb was found. –However, even if Hirschmann is wrong, it is hard to believe that he would have lived so long judging by his symptoms.
Some others in the medical concluded that Herod could not possibly have lived so long afterwards. A conference of four doctors called by Dr. W.H.Emslie of Glasgow said that,
Herod may have died at any time after that, even the same day, and it is unlikely that he lived more than about 14 days after. (Link)
– So based on the life expectancy Carrier’s statement that the March 5 B.C. would allow Herod to live until 4 B.C. is extremely far fetched.
Also, the eclipse of September 15, 5 B.C., despite not having as much time separating it from the next Passover, still suffers from the same disqualifications as the other two.
There are only two eclipses of the moon that do not suffer from these problematic dilemmas: They both occurred in 1 B.C. One on January 10 and the other on December 29. Either of these eclipses would fit the time period much more adequately than the other three. But now the question becomes “which one is it?”
John Pratt, in his paper “Yet Another Eclipse for Herod“ believes that the eclipse that bests fits all the requirements is the one on December 29. — In section 2.5 he argues that since this eclipse happened relatively early while the ones on January 10, 1 B.C. and March 13, 4 B.C. occurred over six hours after sunset meaning that it would be less likely for them to have been observed. I think that this suggestion has merit, and if it is accurate, then this would mean that Herod died in early 1 A.D. It would also mean that his de facto reign would have lasted thirty-seven years.
Whether we accept 1 B.C. or 1 A.D. as the year of Herod’s death we run across another problem. Josephus says that in Archelaus’ tenth year (Antiquities 17: 342, but he says in his ninth year in Wars 2: 111) he was deposed and banished to Vienna. This is knownto have happened in 6 A.D., so on the surface this would seem to disprove the placement of Herod’s death between 1 B.C. and 1 A.D. because this would seem to place the first year of Archelaus in 4 or 3 B.C. However, there are two explanations for this.
The first one is that He and his bothers, Philip and Antipas were co-regents with their father in that period. However, it doesn’t seem likely. Richard Carrier argues against this suggestion saying:
Finegan tries to suggest against this evidence that all three of these kings were made co-regents with Herod in 4 B.C. until his death in 1 B.C., a claim that is groundless and prima facie absurd. With Antipater, that would make five kings ruling simultaneously! It is inconceivable that Josephus would not mention such a remarkable action.
I have to agree with Carrier in this regard. Five kings of the Jews at one time just seems like way to much a stretch. I have no choice but to reject this absurd idea. But there is another explanation that makes more sence: Antedating (i.e., assigning to an earlier date).
John Pratt, in section 3.3of his paper, argues that Herod’s three successors perhaps reckoned their reigns from the co-regency of Antipater, their older executed brother. According to Antiquities17: 3, Antipater began to rule alongside his father being the same as a king. A careful reading of Josephus shows he began his reign while Sentius Saturninus was governing Syria, so within the last three or four years of Herod’s reign.
[Note: Traditionally, the governorship of Sentius Saturninus is placed from 9 to 6 B.C. However, since this is based on traditional assumptions and the more popular dating of Herod's reign and if my belief about Herod's death is correct then his governorship of Syria can be placed from 5 to 2 B.C. That would place the term of Quintilius Varus, his successor, which is usually dated from 6 to 4 B.C. within 2 B.C. to 1 A.D.]
Within time, Antipater was arrested for his crimes, accused, and condemned to death by both his father and Quintilius Varus, the new governor of Syria, and they held him for until the emperor gave his permission for his execution. (Antiquities 17: 83-144) Naturally, this would have meant the end of his co-regency with his father. Later, when Herod learned about his plans to try taking the kingdom he finally had him executed with no delay (Antiquities 17: 185-187). Herod himself died five days later (Wars 1: 665).
If Pratt is correct in suggesting that Archelaus and his two brothers reckoned their reigns from the start of Antipater’s then that would explain everything quite nicely. That would mean that their first three or four years would have been de jour years, just justifying why Josephus would say that Archelaus ruled for nine or ten years. And taking into account that only the two eclipses of 1 B.C. fit the requirements of the eclipse mentioned by Josephus then the others in 5 to 4 B.C., it is the best explanation.
Later, while he talks about Josephus’ Chronology, he says that it is possible that Josephus didn’t know about the antedating used by Herod’s sons. He says that this would have lead him into a dilemma of inconsistent dating if some of his sources said Herod died in 1 A.D., especially since his three sons dated their first years from before his death. The way to avoid the problem would have been to redate Herod’s reign.
I think that Josephus actually did know about antedating of Archelaus’ reign. During the time that Archelaus went to Rome to claim his kingdom, he met with competition from his older brother, Herod Antipas. And of this time, Josephus says:
Then stood up Salome’s son, Antipater, (who of all Archelaus’s antagonists was the shrewdest pleader,) and accused him in the following speech: That Archelaus did in words contend for the kingdom, but that in deeds he had long exercised royal authority. (Wars of the Jews 2: 26, emphasis mine)
Archelaus “had long exercised royal authority.” This was actually not true. But the only way that this could legitimately be said if he antedated his rule over Judea. Therefore, this is evidence that Archelaus did indeed antedate his reign, likely from the start of the reign of Antipater *different from Archelaus’ accuser* and that Josephus may have known about it.
If Josephus reduced Herod’s reign to accommodate Archelaus’s de jouryears then that would mean that Antipater became co-regent with his father between 4 and 3 B.C. Most probably 3 B.C. if one it to take Josephus’ dating more at face value.
Interestingly enough, up to a certain point, Josephus puts an end to all the dating of the events of Herod’s life as he writes about his last years. With the probability that he was mearly accommodating the antedates of his sons, this was most likely to avoid confusion for his more informed readers. — As mentioned earlier, Josephus puts Herod’s seventh year of kingship of the Jews in 31 B.C. during the battle of Actium putting his official first year in 37 B.C. He also says that three years before that he was appointed king by Rome. In Antiquities 14: 386-389 he places his Roman appointment as King in the 184th olympiad which lasted from 44 to 40 B.C. placing it in its last year.
So after making this clear and then accommodating his sons de jouryears it would have caused confusion to say that Herod died near the end of the 192nd olympiad (3 B.C. to 1 A.D.). And yet apparently, after taking into account all the chronological impossibilities of the eclipses between 5 to 4 B.C. with the account of Herod’s death as well as his life expectancy due to his disease it seems that that is exactly what happened. My conclusion is that Herod reigned for a total of thirty-six to thirty-seven de facto years and died between 1 B.C. and 1 A.D. due to the two eclipses of 1 B.C. having more consistencies to the time requirements.
