Freethought & Rationalism Archive

judge · 02-19-2007, 11:35 PM

In addition to my previous post there I am told there is more evidence from Josephus.

Apparently Herod captured Jerusaem in the sabbatical year ending in late summer of 36 BCE (Antiquities,XVII.190;War I.665.).

Since Antigonus was killed at a later time Herods 34 year reign must end 2-1 BCE.

judge · 02-19-2007, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Herod's death is dated from after the total lunar eclipse of 5BCE, not the partial one in 4BCE.

I have come across two dates on which are mentioned there being eclipses in 5BCE those being March 23rd and Sept 15. However in the light of Deans post I am not sure about these dates.
Dean gives a date of April 18.

But none of these dates seem to work if give credence to their being an actual eclipse.

March 23 is on or very near to the passover.
April 18 is way too long prior to the passover of 4BCE, and
Sept 15 is too long before the passover of 4BCE also.

That is why the alleged jan 10 eclipse of 1 BCE fits so well. It appears to give the appropriate ammount of time for all the said events to transpire.

squiz · 02-20-2007, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

The linked site is very dodgy when it talks about eclipses.

Firstly, they list their 1 BCE eclipse as being central at "1:00AM". That is just a joke. No eclipse can be visible at 1:00AM (except possibly within the Arctic Circle) since that time is the middle of the night and the sun well below the horizon!

That in itself should be enough to show that their data is fundamentally flawed.

However, if we go further and look at the official NASA dates/times for eclipses (here Warning: very large PDF file) we see that their other dates are inaccurate too.

From 6 BCE to 6 CE, we had the following eclipses visible from Palestine:

6 BCE, April 29th, Annular Eclipse
6 BCE, October 23rd, Total Eclipse*
5 BCE, April 18th, Annular Eclipse
2 BCE, February 15th, Total Eclipse*
4 CE, April 08, Annular Eclipse
6 CE, September 11, Annular Eclipse

In the two cases that I have marked with an asterisk, Palestine was right on the edge of the area from which the eclipse could be seen (and, if it matters, Rome was outside this area) so people there would not have seen the totality of the eclipse, only a "bite" taken out of the sun by the shadow of the moon.

Interestingly, neither the 4 BCE date nor the 1 BCE date is supported by the astronomical evidence.

Thanks for that link from NASA. I think you made an error though. For NASA, the year 0 seems to mean 1BC. That means, when they quote -0006 Oct 23, they mean 7 BC Oct 23. You can see the details more clearly here:
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclips...0099-0000.html
and here:
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclips...0/-6-10-23.gif

But I was under the impression, that Josephus mentions a Lunar Eclipse (I have yet to check the direct reference yet, but everyone seems to quote it as so). If so, you should go to this link:
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclips...0099-0000.html

This gives dates for total lunar eclipses of:
5BC 23 Mar 18:20 UTC
5BC 15 Sep 20:10 UTC
4BC 13 Mar 00:40 UTC (Partial)
4BC 05 Sep 11:06 UTC (Partial)
1BC 09 Jan 23:08 UTC
1BC 05 Jul 08:37 UTC

This is consistent with the dates and times given in the article. Lunar eclipses are generally visible at night too.

This doesn't mean I have an opinion on the contents of the article yet, I just wanted to correct this error.

Steven Avery · 02-20-2007, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

Thanks for that link from NASA. I think you made an error though. For NASA, the year 0 seems to mean 1BC.

Hmm... does NASA actually make the famous '0 year error' ? On websites that are up today giving calcuations for the public ? I have not been following the thread, and I realize that the error is made here and there (eg. Adam Clarke on the 2300 days prophecy, Millerites who first calculated 1843) .. but .. NASA ???

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Dean Anderson · 02-20-2007, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Hmm... does NASA actually make the famous '0 year error' ? On websites that are up today giving calcuations for the public ? I have not been following the thread, and I realize that the error is made here and there (eg. Adam Clarke on the 2300 days prophecy, Millerites who first calculated 1843) .. but .. NASA ???

No.

They are quite clear, in that they use a single signed scale rather than two unsigned scales...

I.e.

-0009 = 10 BCE
-0008 = 9 BCE
-0007 = 8 BCE
-0006 = 7 BCE
-0005 = 6 BCE
-0004 = 5 BCE
-0003 = 4 BCE
-0002 = 3 BCE
-0001 = 2 BCE
+0000 = 1 BCE
+0001 = 1 CE
+0002 = 2 CE
+0003 = 3 CE
+0004 = 4 CE
+0005 = 5 CE
+0006 = 6 CE
+0007 = 7 CE
+0008 = 8 CE
+0009 = 9 CE
+0010 = 10 CE

In other words, they haven't made a mistake, they simply use a different naming convention - one that makes the mathematics simple - rather than one that necessarily fits with what historians use.

It occurs to me that without finding extra information, I cannot confirm whether their dates retrospectively use the Gregorian calender for all dates or whether they use the Julian calender for dates older than the mid 16th century...

Dean Anderson · 02-20-2007, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

Thanks for that link from NASA. I think you made an error though. For NASA, the year 0 seems to mean 1BC. That means, when they quote -0006 Oct 23, they mean 7 BC Oct 23.

You're right. My dates should all be pushed back one year.

Thanks for the correction.

spin · 02-20-2007, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Apparently earlier mss read 22 years?
It seems difficult to find much firm ground anywhere with this issue.

A footnote of my edition of Josephus says that a Latin version reads triginta duos (32) instead of 37 for the years of Philip's rule.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

In addition as the article notes Josephus makes many mistakes WRT the dates things happened throughout his work.

It won't affect the fact that both the start of Herod's reign plus the length of the reign agrees with the start of Philip's reign, ie they support each other som they are less likely to be wrong.

A further note on Quirinius: he became consul in 12 BCE. This means that he was a patrician and came up through the upper-class ranks and would never have held roles that fit the title of procurator in the time of Augustus, roles that were for inferior born people. His appointments after he reached consul would usually have to be of an equivalent rank, such as when he was proconsul of Crete and Cyrenaica.

All the fudges that want to relocate the census that he carried out try to reduce his rank and in so doing they invalidate themselves.

spin

Jack the Bodiless · 02-20-2007, 07:01 AM

It wouldn't much help the inerrantist case even if Josephus had been a little hazy about his dates.

Reign of Herod: Birth of Matthew's Jesus.
Death of Herod.
Reign of Archelaus.
Death of Archelaus: Judea becomes a Roman province.
Governorship of Quirinius: Birth of Luke's Jesus.

The basic sequence of events seems pretty clear, even without the dates.

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-20-2007, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

April 18 is way too long prior to the passover of 4BCE, and
Sept 15 is too long before the passover of 4BCE also.[

"Too long" for what? According to who?

Quote:

That is why the alleged jan 10 eclipse of 1 BCE fits so well. It appears to give the appropriate ammount of time for all the said events to transpire.

1 BCE is impossible. For one thing, Jewish records say that Herod's death happened before the eclipse of 1 BCE, but more than that....well, here. I'll jut quote from Carrier again:

Quote:

Herod simply could not have been alive in 2 B.C. (see Note 3.8). Josephus' principal source for the reign of Herod in Jewish Antiquities books 14-17 (and presumably for the parallel material in the earlier Jewish War) is the Histories of Nicolaus of Damascus, a close friend of Herod, who in turn relied on first-hand knowledge and Herod's own Memoires.[17.1] In fact, we know Josephus consulted Herod's Memoires directly, and "others" (tois allois) who wrote about Herod's reign (Jewish Antiquities 15.174). Thus, to propose that he erred in dating the king's death by a full two years (actually three, as Finegan places his death in 1 B.C.) is incredible. Josephus says in Jewish Antiquities 17.191 and Jewish War 1.665 that Herod died thirty-seven years after he was proclaimed king by Rome (40 B.C., a date confirmed by Appian, BC 5.75; and Josephus agrees, with a very precise date: Jewish Antiquities 14.389, so there is no room to move here), and thirty four years after he assumed the crown (37 B.C., as Josephus himself says: Jewish Antiquities 14.487), and since Josephus accurately proceeds through the years of his reign, including several that have independent corroboration (such as "the seventeenth year" of Herod's reign, securely placed by Josephus in 20 B.C., see 17.4), it is absurd to suggest he made any mistake greater than a single year.....So, the fact of the matter is, Josephus reckoned Herod's reign as beginning in 40 B.C. with a coronation in 37 B.C. There is no way around this, and thus when he dates Herod's death, he can only mean 4 B.C., since he relates it to both events precisely (and one is confirmed by another extant historian). That Josephus is wrong about something so central to his histories and for which he had such good, eyewitness sources is simply not credible. Finegan knows all scholars agree with this.[17.2] In fact, Finegan knows that all external and circumstantial evidence is against him. For example, it is a fact that all three regnal dates of Herod's successors match a coronation date of 4 B.C. (§ 516). This includes Archelaus, whose dates are also corroborated by Cassius Dio (55.27.6), and Josephus does not have Archelaus declared king until Herod dies (Jewish War 1.670), but has Archelaus deposed in 6 A.D. after 10 years rule (see above), which also puts Herod's death in 4 B.C. And then there is Antipas, whose dates are confirmed in extant coinage, according to Finegan himself. 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. Indeed, the political atmosphere of heated tensions and indecision about who would inherit makes such a massive coregency profoundly unthinkable for Herod--his coregency with Antipater (the only one Josephus mentions) was already such a disaster that Herod had him executed a week before he himself died, and the other three were only assigned their territories by Herod's will and confirmed by Augustus after Herod's death. Josephus is absolutely clear on this. And it is the only logical way things could have happened.

There is just too much corroborating evidence for 4 BCE and the regnal coins for Herod's sons put the issue beyond any credible doubt.

judge · 02-20-2007, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

1 BCE is impossible. For one thing, Jewish records say that Herod's death happened before the eclipse of 1 BCE, but more than that....well, here. I'll jut quote from Carrier again:

What exactly do they say?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Thus, to propose that he erred in dating the king's death by a full two years (actually three, as Finegan places his death in 1 B.C.) is incredible. Josephus says in Jewish Antiquities 17.191 and Jewish War 1.665 that Herod died thirty-seven years after he was proclaimed king by Rome (40 B.C., a date confirmed by Appian, BC 5.75; and Josephus agrees, with a very precise date: Jewish Antiquities 14.389, so there is no room to move here), and thirty four years after he assumed the crown (37 B.C., as Josephus himself says: Jewish Antiquities 14.487), and since Josephus accurately proceeds through the years of his reign, including several that have independent corroboration (such as "the seventeenth year" of Herod's reign, securely placed by Josephus in 20 B.C., see 17.4), it is absurd to suggest he made any mistake greater than a single year

Surely anyone sceptical must find Richard's words here just a bit too strong.

The german Scholar Stauffer wrote.

Quote:

“The past fifty years of research on the work of Josephus have taught us to be severely critical of his method and presentation. Josephus had an ax to grind. His historical journalism was intended as a self-defense and self-aggrandizement. He wrote to glorify his people and to eulogize the Roman Emperor. He was an ardent sympathizer with the pro-Roman collaborationists among the Jews and an opponent of all the anti-Roman and anti-Herodian partisans of the Palestinian resistance movement. Crucial parts of Josephus’ historical works, moreover, were casually patched together from older sources of uneven value: consequently they were replete with gaps and contradictions, are muddled and misleading. This is particularly true of his remarks on Augustus, Herod, Quirinius, and the census. Of course, Josephus remains an invaluable source: but he is not to be read uncritically.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

There is just too much corroborating evidence for 4 BCE and the regnal coins for Herod's sons put the issue beyond any credible doubt.

Maybe. I will have to have abetter look at this evidence.

what do you make of the point I raised above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Apparently Herod captured Jerusaem in the sabbatical year ending in late summer of 36 BCE (Antiquities,XVII.190;War I.665.).

Since Antigonus was killed at a later time Herods 34 year reign must end 2-1 BCE.

I am not convinced one can be as dogmatic as Richard carrier is. The evidence seems contradictory.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-19-2007, 11:35 PM	#31
judge Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Bli Bli Posts: 3,135	In addition to my previous post there I am told there is more evidence from Josephus. Apparently Herod captured Jerusaem in the sabbatical year ending in late summer of 36 BCE (Antiquities,XVII.190;War I.665.). Since Antigonus was killed at a later time Herods 34 year reign must end 2-1 BCE.

02-20-2007, 07:01 AM	#38
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	It wouldn't much help the inerrantist case even if Josephus had been a little hazy about his dates. Reign of Herod: Birth of Matthew's Jesus. Death of Herod. Reign of Archelaus. Death of Archelaus: Judea becomes a Roman province. Governorship of Quirinius: Birth of Luke's Jesus. The basic sequence of events seems pretty clear, even without the dates.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.