maryhelena

When did Herod the Great die? 4 b.c. or 1 b.c.? And does it matter?

Part One.

The 4 b.c. date for the death of Herod the Great is the consensus date, ie the usual date accepted by historians. Josephus states regarding Herod the Great:

Thus, using 40 b.c. as the year in which Herod was made King, while in Rome, and 37 b.c. when Herod ended the rule of Antigonus at the siege of Jerusalem, the 4 b.c. date for the death of Herod the Great is derived.

Additionally, and as a sort of back up to this 4 b.c. date, the Josephan timeline for Philip the Tetrarch is used:
The 20th year of Tiberius runs to 34 c.e. - therefore, Philip’s 37 years go back to 4 b.c. and the consensus date for the death of Herod the Great.

However, these Josephan statements notwithstanding, the 4 b.c. date for the death of Herod the Great has problems, particularly in regard to the Jewish/Roman war that followed his death:

From Chronos, kairos, Christos. here

Additional to the questions regarding the Roman/Jewish war following the death of Herod the Great, questions can also be raised over Ant.18.ch.4 - the death of Philip the Tetrarch in the 20th year of Tiberius after ruling for 37 years. The objections to this are:

1) Early printed copies of Josephus state the 22nd year of Tiberius and a 32 year rule.
The argument by David W Beyer: Josephus Re-examined: Unravelling the Twenty-Second year of Tiberius, in Chronos, karios, Christos 2, is here.here

2) Slavonic Josephus states that Philip died prior to the death of John the Baptist.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/gno/gjb/gjb-3.htm
So, using the consensus date of 34 c.e. for the death of Philip, JtB dies in 35 c.e. and the gospel JC in 36 c.e. A chronology that although it has been proposed for a crucifixion in 36 c.e., is not the consensus position, ie the 30/33 c.e. dating for the crucifixion.

3) The war between Antipas and Aretas, usually dated to 36 c.e. indicates that Philip was still alive in 36 c.e. Consequently, calling into question the date for the death of JtB and the death of the gospel JC.

Quote:

Ant.18.ch.5. “ So they raised armies on both sides, and prepared for war, and sent their generals to fight instead of themselves; and when they had joined battle, all Herod's army was destroyed by the treachery of some fugitives, who, though they were of the tetrarchy of Philip, joined with Aretas's army.

Dating the death of Herod the Great to 1 b.c. takes care of all of the above, i.e. Philip the Tetrarch ruled 37 years from 1 b.c. until at least 37 c.e. The coins of Philip the Tetrarch confirm 37 years of rule. (this does, of course, have consequences for the gospel JC storyline.......)

Regarding Ant.17.ch.8 and the years Josephus allocated to Herod the Great. One way to consider this Josephan passage is to propose that Herod the Great instituted some type of co-regency during the last 3 years of his life:

Thus, the co-regency proposal has less to do with Rome than what Herod the Great was actually doing. Once Herod the Great died the battle for inheritance began....

Philip makes no move to head for Rome in order to stake his claim re his inheritance from Herod the Great. Content to let the two way fight between Archelaus and Antipas work it’s way out....

Eventually, after Rome sorting out the succession, Archelaus became Ethnarch and Antipas a Tetrarch. Since Antipas was demoted and replaced by Archelaus as Herod’s successor, it is probable that Archelaus would backdate his rule to 4 b.c. ie he adds the years of the co-regency of Antipater to his own rule.(he did after all inherit half the kingdom)

Antipas, having been demoted prior to the death of his father and replaced by Archelaus, would have no reason to backdate his rule to 4 b.c. Hence, his dating would be from the death of Herod the 1 b.c. - taking his rule to at least 43 c.e., according to his coins. If there is a de facto dating involved, from when Rome actually confirmed the appointment of Herod’s heirs - then the rule of Antipas might well be counted from within a dual dating system.

And Philip the Tetrarch? His de jure rule would run from 1 b.c. and his de facto rule from whenever Rome finalised Herod’s Will. And with the Jewish/Roman war in the immediate time period following Herod’s death - the de facto rule by all three of Herod’s heirs would be some time after 1 b.c.

Does it matter when Herod the Great died? Yes, if it’s a clearer picture of Herodian history we seek: Herodian history has a great impact upon the gospel JC storyline....

==================================================

footnote: 1. This post does not suggest that Herod the Great had three sons being coregents at the same time...The time lapse between when Antipater was charged in court and to when Rome gave approval for his execution would allow for Antipas to have held this position for a short while. The Will change just prior to Herod’s death possibly gives Archelaus a few days in that position...Moving the date for the death of Herod the Great to 1 b.c. allows for a 3 year period of co regency in which, towards the end, his three sons played musical chairs......

footnote: 2. . I’ve read Richard Carrier’s comments on the above article by Beyer in ‘Chronos, kairos, Christos 2’. Carrier’s article is about attempts made by historicists to reconcile gMatthew with gLuke ie, that JC was about 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius. Mythicists should not be about holding on to the 4 b.c. date for the death of Herod the Great, when there is evidence against it, in order to counter an argument from the JC historicists. It’s history we should be after. - and anyway, gLuke’s census in the time of Quirinius still stands as a bulwark against such attempts to harmonize the contradictory birth narratives of gMatthew and gLuke. And thus also a literal, historical, reading of the JC gospel storyline. http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...quirinius.html

maryhelena

Part Two

The immediate consequence of the 1 b.c. date for the death of Herod the Great is that the rule of Philip the Tetrarch runs to at least 37 c.e. - there being coins to support his 37 years of rule. Early printed editions of Josephus have different numbers for Philip’s rule than our present copies. The early dating gives the 22nd year of Tiberius and ruling for 32 years. Using the data from the early printed copies of Josephus, in the 22nd year of Tiberius, 36/37 c.e., Philip had ruled 32 years - making the start of his de facto rule to be 4 c.e. De jure in 1 b.c. and de facto in 4 c.e.

If Herod the Great died in 1 b.c. and Philip has no reason, no Josephan indication, to backdate his own de jure rule to 4 b.c. - then dating Philip’s rule from 1 b.c. and from his de facto rule in 4 ce, presents an interesting possibility: 37 years from 4 ce is 41 ce . In other words, what is happening here is that the years of Philip the Tetrarch, running from 4 c.e., run right into the years that Josephus has ascribed to Agrippa I. At this point one can revert back to the 4 b.c. year for the death of Herod the Great and Philip’s rule starting from that date (but, as noted above, there are problems re the eclipse and the war following a supposed death in 4 b.c.) Or one can begin to think along the lines that Philip, at some stage in his rule, becoming honoured, by Rome, by becoming a king, King Agrippa I. Name changes are not a disqualifying mark re identifying Philip as Agrippa I.

At what date did Philip become King Agrippa I? There is a coin from Philip’s rule, a 34th year coin, that mentions that in his 34th year Philip became a *Founder*. On another coin of his 34th year is depicted the head of Livia (mother of Tiberius). Livia was honoured with the name of Julia in the Will of Augustus. Livia/Julia died in 29 c.e. This 34th year coin, dated from the 4 b.c. death of Herod the Great, has been associated with the renaming of Bethsaida to Bethsaida Julius after the death of Livia/Julia in 29 c.e. However, once the death of Herod the Great is moved to 1 b.c. the connection of this 34th year coin with the death of Livia/Julia in 29 c.e. is no longer valid. Philip’s 34th year rule, counting from 4 c.e. would more likely correspond to the last year of Tiberius in 37 ce. If Philip was made into King Agrippa after the death of Tiberius in 37 c.e. then, interestingly, that year, after the death of Tiberius, would be a more appropriate year in which to rename Bethsaida to Bethsaida Julius, ie in honor of the mother of Tiberius, Livia/Julia. (Tiberius himself denying his mother Livia/Julia any honors after her death in 29 c.e.)

The coins of Philip the Tetrarch and Bethsaida:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...dB6cY6fkBJFkMQ

If at that time, 37/38 c.e. Philip himself was appointed King, Agrippa, by the new emperor Gaius/ Caligula, then the naming of Philip as *Founder* on his 34th year coin, from 4.c.e., would be appropriate, in that he would have founded the Agrippa dynasty in that year. Dating Philip/Agrippa from 37/38 c.e., his 7 years of rule run to 44/45 c.e.

The 6th year coins of Agrippa I are interesting - the year would be 44 c.e. His 40th year of rule from 4 c.e. The canopy and 3 ears of corn symbolizing the Feast of Tabernacles and the abundance of his 40 years of peaceful rule. (seemingly these 6th year coins were minted not just in one year but in a number of years - thus the possibility that they were commemorative coins of his 40 year rule.)

Josephus has a lot to say about Agrippa I. A biography of bizarre elements. Bizarre elements that would make any rational person question the mentality of the Roman ruler that would make such a man a king - a man of questionable character that a later Roman emperor raised to the highest honor - King of Judea. Consequently, the Josephan storyline needs to be separated from the historical figure of Agrippa I . A historical figure who, as Philip the Tetrarch, had a long and commendable history of being a peaceful ruler of Trachonitis - and who never did rule Judea. Josephus, wearing his prophetic historian’s hat, has simply let messianic wishful thinking get the better of him...

Josephus on Agrippa I. The Joseph analogy in the prison in Rome and the suit of silver clothes that shone so bright (like a star?) and the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls.

The Josephan Agrippa I messianic storyline is just that - a literary construct designed to fulfil messianic prophetic expectations. Yet - with a twist. Such a character as Josephus has outlined not only falls short character wise - even Antipas is outraged that such a figure would be made king - but this Josephan Agrippa I is carrying the hated Herodian bloodline - making such a figure a non-starter in the messianic stakes...

The interest of Josephus in Agrippa I (his bizarre biography aside as a literal biography) the interest of the gospel story in Bethsaida and Casearea Philippi, places connected with Philip the Tetrarch; indicate that this historical figure, Philip the Tetrarch who became Agrippa I, played some significant role, whether knowingly or unknowingly, in the developing history of early Christian origins and ideas.

Perhaps what can be said re Philip/Agrippa, and in particular the interest of Josephus in messianic ideas regarding this figure, is that this historical figure is more likely as not to have only been an adopted son of Herod the Great. (Philip the Tetrarch never did use the Herodian name of *Herod* on his coins.)The messianic interest would suggest that Philip/Agrippa carries the Hasmonean bloodline untainted by Herodian blood. Which would suggest that Rome would never have made Philip/Agrippa to be King of Judea - Josephan wishful thinking and prophetic interpretations of history notwithstanding....

===========================================
footnote: 1. Apart from Josephus, Ant.19ch.8) is there any Roman source stating that Agrippa I ruled Judea? Cassius Dio mentions Agrippa being given the rank of “consul”.

CASSIUS DIO :ROMAN HISTORY:Book LX

(Claudius) “He enlarged the domain of Agrippa of Palestine, who, happening to be in Rome, had helped him to become emperor, and bestowed on him the rank of consul; 3 and to his brother Herod he gave the rank of praetor and a principality. And he permitted them to enter the senate and to express their thanks to him in Greek”.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...s_Dio/60*.html

footnote: 2. Josephus is not the first to proclaim Philip the Tetrarch as the uncle of Agrippa I. Philo does so in Flaccus. What this does indicate is that the historical figure of Philip the Tetrarch has been subject to obfuscation by both Josephus and Philo. Embellishing the life stories of historical figures is not without precedent - but perhaps what is is the opposite - denying them their full identifying, historical, characteristics:. Obscuring such in the service of safeguarding messianic ideals, and the safety of such an individual, during a period of Roman occupation. The story in Philo of the mocking of the madman named Carabbas, adorned with diadem and dressed like a king, during the visit of Agrippa I to Alexandria - demonstrates pretty well the hopelessness of any Jewish messianic ideas ever reaching fruition during Roman occupation. Acceptance of this reality, does of course, open up the way forward for other interpretations of messianic ideals.....spiritual or philosophical interpretations.....

footnote: 3. The banishment of Antipas after the war with Aretas in 36/37 c.e. The coins of Antipas, dated from 1 b.c. contradict this banishment story from Josephus. What Josephus has done here is get rid of Antipas from Galilee - why, well, his messianic embellishment re Agrippa I needed for Agrippa I to rule Judea, Galilee and all of the territory of Herod the Great. Hence, Antipas must go...

footnote: 4. Back to Ant.17.ch.8

Another way to interpret these words of Josephus - reverse the order.

37 years from the 37 b.c. killing of the Hasmonean Antigonus is 1 b.c. and the death of Herod the Great.
34 years from 40 b.c., when Herod became king in Rome, is 7/6 b.c. - the time when Herod the Great murdered his two sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, sons of the Hasmonean Mariamne I.

Josephus, not only a first century prophetic historian - but one that is carrying Hasmonean blood...

(as always - comments welcome.....)

Minimalist

Quinctillius Varus became governor of Syria in 6 BC and the customary term was three years. That time line puts him in position to suppress the revolts which broke out in 4 BC when Herod the Great died.

The only reason why xtians care is that they are trying to save their precious gospels from the obvious contradiction between Matthew and Luke but 1 BC does not help them in that regard anyway.

maryhelena

Jospehus has set, with a literal, straightforward reading of Ant.17.ch.8, the death of Herod the Great to 4.b.c. Logically, if this is what he wants to be seen to be the case, he will have used Varus as the Roman representative of Syria at that time.

However, if the war/rebellion at the time of Herod the Great is as big as Josephus makes it out to be - the 2000 crucified - then it becomes interesting that there is no Roman record of such an upheaval in 4 b.c. in Palestine. And also, as noted above in one of the quotes, the Roman army was having a bit of a quite time during the 7 b.c. to 2 b.c. years.

Consequently, Josephus notwithstanding, 4 b.c. seems to be a very doubtful year for any Jewish uprising in Judea. That there most likely would have been some unrest, some up-rising, following the death of Herod the Great is very much to be expected. Backdating this from 1 b.c. to 4 b.c. is not history but historical interpretation - or more accurately, historical re-interpretation. Keep in mind that Josephus is not simply an historian - Josephus is also a prophetic historian.

Sure, the historicists are after trying to reconcile gMatthew with gLuke (minus the census) with re-dating the death of Herod the Great to 1 b.c. - but that is not my interest (I'm an ahistoricist/mythicist) I'm after getting the history sorted out - and only then can one move forward...

maryhelena

The JC historicists are keen to move the death of Herod the Great to 1 b.c. The reason being that they can then accommodate Luke 3.23 - that JC was about 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius, 29/30 c.e. While this is indeed so - it still falls short of resolving the gMatthew and gLuke contradiction regarding Luke 2.2 - the census of Quirinius. It is only by ditching the assumed historicity of JC that these ‘contradiction’s can be resolved. If we are not dealing with a flesh and blood gospel JC, then we are not dealing, in gMatthew and gLuke’s nativity stories, with a literal birth. The alternative ‘birth’ story is a story of new beginnings - and as such, new beginnings are not restricted to one date but can have as many new beginnings, new births, as situations demand. So, here is an attempt to deal with the gMatthew and gLuke ‘birth’ stories....

Gospel storyline of JC	History of Philip The Tetrarch and Antigonus
‘Birth’ of JC prior to death of Herod the Great. Matthew 2.1	1.b.c. death of Herod the Great. 1.b.c. de juro rule, new beginning for Philip the Tertrarch
Gospel JC, about 30 years old, in the 15th year of Tiberius. Luke 3:1,23	29/30 ce. Philip’s 30th year of rule in the 15th year of Tiberius
Luke 2.2 the ‘birth’ of JC at the census of Quirinius in 6.c.e. at the end of the rule of Archelaus. JC would then be 30 years old in 36/37 c.e.	36/37 c.e. Philip’s 37th year from 1 b.c. and the year of his new beginning as Agrippa I
JC crucifixion story.	37 ce. Philip ‘dies’ as Tetrarch
JC resurrection story	Slavonic Josephus. "And when he had thus spoken, Philip died before evening and his dominion was given to Agrippa”.
Mark 16:12. "Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country."	Philip becomes Agrippa I
gJohn and the three year ministry	-
33. ce JC crucified: cut off in the middle of the week - of 7 years - from 29/30 to 36/37 ce.	Antigonus crucified and beheaded in 37 b.c. which is 70 years back from 33 ce.

maryhelena

Richard Carrier makes an interesting observation regarding Josephus and the date for Philip’s death. By the look of things Josephus is rather confused on some historical events. However, Carrier still goes with the 4 b.c. dating for the death of Herod the Great.

A prophetic historian deals with historical interpretations as much as historical realities ie. a mix of the historical and the assumed meaning or interpretation of such. In the case of Josephus it seem to be a case of having a prophetic time template, ie a time schedule in which he wants to place his historical interpretations. And if historical realities happen to fit where he wants them to do, then so much for the good. If not, then a more free-wheeling approach is what a prophetic historian can resort to...

I’ve posted these quotes previously. So, they are here just for ease of access.

my bolding

Doug Shaver

It might have an impact if we were obliged to treat the JC story as if it were history. However, we have ample evidence, having nothing to do with Herod, that it's fiction. In that case, I don't see the timing of Herod's death being all that relevant to anything.

maryhelena

Problem with that position is simply - we do have the gospels. And until such time as mythicists are able to provide a rational explanation for the existence of the gospel JC storyline they are simply blowing in the wind....

Doug Shaver

OK, we have the gospels. Exactly why is that a problem?
And a rational explanation would be . . . what? One that convinces you?

maryhelena

The gospels are not a problem - it's how some mthicists are denying the gospels any relevance that is the problem - talk of the gospels as fiction fails to provide any insight as to their relevance to those who wrote them...
A rational explanation would be one that Christians could find some relevance in for the origin of their 2000 year history. Sorry, but notions that it's all fiction or myth will not suffice...