Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-18-2007, 10:38 PM

If you think you have found a problem in Carrier's article, you can email him about it.

spin · 02-18-2007, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

But it is not enough merely to state for example "Herod was dead" , you need to deal with the evidence that shows this was not so. You need to explain it.

Astronomy and the Death of King Herod

Your approach here seems no different to that of a religious fundamentalist.

If you had cited something that was vaguely scholarly, you might have got away with a little gratuitous ad hominem, but you simply can't judge seriously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

You completely ignored the evidence to the contrary and repeat (by way of agreement).."Herod was dead"

Fiddling Herod's death, even if it were valid, would not change the fact that Quirinius's census happened after the reign of Archelaus (AJ 18.1.1) who was removed after 10 years of rule (AJ 17.13.2).

However, AJ 18.4.6 tells us that "Philip... died in the twentieth year of Tiberius's reign and after 37 years of his own rule over Trachonitis and Gaulonitis..." What this means is that Philip died in 34 CE (ie Tiberius's 20th year of rule), and officially began his rule in 4 BCE (though there was a year in which Herod's sons disputed his will, so effectively 3 BCE).

Again, BJ 1.33.8, So Herod, having survived the slaughter of his son five days, died, having reigned thirty-four years since he had caused Antigonus to be slain, and obtained his kingdom; but thirty-seven years since he had been made king by the Romans. Antigonus died in 37 BCE. Herod died in 4 BCE.

If I need to find a date indication through Herod Antipas, let me know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Actually I had been quite happy to believe Lukes gospel just got it wrong. Doesn't really matter.

Yes, I understood this. My comment was about those who actively seek to change the data because it is unacceptable.

ETA: I mean the people who feel they have to post confusing material on the matter to the hazard of those who happen on them. One must first show that they are in control of the status quo evidence before one tries to undermine it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

But I must say I am surprised when looking in more detail that Richards article has some major shortcomings and even you just take the approach seemingly of ignoring the evidence Herod did not die in 4 BC..

Sorry, I haven't read the article. But the evidence of Herod's death by March/April 4 BCE is a little difficult to get around.

spin

judge · 02-19-2007, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Sorry, I haven't read the article. But the evidence of Herod's death by March/April 4 BCE is a little difficult to get around.

spin

Yes it sure does.

The counter arguments are not nearly so direct but I dont know how to get around them either.

In short they agrue that too many events must be sqeezed into too short a time frame if the eclipse is in 4 BC just before the passover.

From the link.

Quote:

What the modern historian needs to do is to catalogue the events that occurred from the day of the lunar eclipse until Herod died, then add on the time that elapsed for his funeral and burial, and then count the period from Herod’s burial to the springtime Passover which found Archelaus (the son of Herod) reigning in Jerusalem.

....

Quote:

In no way, shape or form can all the many events associated with Herod’s death and funeral as recorded by Josephus be squeezed into that short twenty-nine day period.

Something does not fit.

Thanks you for you post too. Your evidence does appear stronger.

Dean Anderson · 02-19-2007, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

In short they argue that too many events must be squeezed into too short a time frame if the eclipse is in 4 BC just before the passover.

From the link.

....

Something does not fit.

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.

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-19-2007, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Yes it sure does.

The counter arguments are not nearly so direct but I dont know how to get around them either.

In short they agrue that too many events must be sqeezed into too short a time frame if the eclipse is in 4 BC just before the passover.

From the link.

....

Something does not fit.

Thanks you for you post too. Your evidence does appear stronger.

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

Your article depends on a lot of erroneous assumptions or tendentious speculation and then extropolates from that. It provides no evidence that Quirinius had any authority whatever in Syria before 6CE but even if he did, Syria had no authority over Judea (and certainly not Galilee), so the point is moot.

The oath of allegiance was not a census, Herod was dead in 3BCE and no evidence has been produced that Quirinius had anything to do with anything in Judea before 6CE (nor could he have).

judge · 02-19-2007, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Sorry, I haven't read the article. But the evidence of Herod's death by March/April 4 BCE is a little difficult to get around.

spin

Thanks again, and to Dean and Diogenes. It may take a while to get on top of these things (for me).

I am going to go over this The Chronology of Josephus when i get a chance which seems to try to address your points.

judge · 02-19-2007, 02:57 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 am going to look into this but apparently the exact same problems (and extra ones) come about if we go with the 5BCE eclipse.

Quote:

Could all of the above events have occurred one year earlier in 5 B.C.E.? After all, there was an eclipse of the Moon on March 23, 5 B.C.E. This springtime eclipse, however, cannot be the one associated with Herod’s death. There were still only twenty-nine days between this eclipse and the next Passover. All of the impossible situations which the March 13, 4 B.C.E. eclipse encounters are precisely the same with this eclipse. And besides, early 5 B.C.E. for the death of Herod plays havoc with all the chronological indications of Josephus and Roman records regarding the period of Herod’s death. Why even modern scholars have to add an extra year to Herod’s reign of 34 years from Antigonus’ death (reckoning only two or three days of Nisan in 4 B.C.E. as a whole year) to make any reasonable sense out of their calculations. An early 5 B.C.E. date would cause utter chaos in the records of Josephus.

From The Lunar Eclipse of Josephus

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-19-2007, 03:08 PM

The death of Herod was still 4BCE. Only the eclipse was in 5BCE.

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-19-2007, 03:27 PM

From Carrier:

Quote:

Finally, 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. But that kind of claim was commonly made for great events (in this case a notorious murder) and thus is often not genuine, as I explain in my essay on Thallus. Even if accepted, the only total eclipse in this period fell on 23 March 5 B.C., which would allow his death to fall in 4 B.C., and, in fact, all the events supposed to happen in the interim more easily fit this than the partial eclipse of 4 B.C.

judge · 02-19-2007, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

However, AJ 18.4.6 tells us that "Philip... died in the twentieth year of Tiberius's reign and after 37 years of his own rule over Trachonitis and Gaulonitis..." What this means is that Philip died in 34 CE (ie Tiberius's 20th year of rule), and officially began his rule in 4 BCE (though there was a year in which Herod's sons disputed his will, so effectively 3 BCE).

This is certainly turning out to be a complex issue. How cautious should we be with Josephus's dates?
I am reading here The Dark Decade in History that they are notoriously unrelaible, even with the date you mention here.

Quote:

The fact is, there are manuscripts of Josephus which show variations in the number of years in which important rulers lived and reigned. One of the most important of these vagaries is in regard to the death of Philip, the son of Herod. Josephus said he ruled for 37 years. 26 But note this. The earliest copies of the manuscripts of Josephus show him dying in the twenty-second year of Tiberius. Since Tiberius’ twenty-second year was C.E. 36, this shows that Philip began his reign in 1 B.C.E. (at the very time I am showing in this book that his father Herod died). With modern manuscripts of Josephus copied since the year 1700 C.E., it is common to erroneously read the “twentieth year,” not the older and proper “twenty-second.”

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

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

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

02-18-2007, 10:38 PM	#21
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	If you think you have found a problem in Carrier's article, you can email him about it.

02-19-2007, 03:08 PM	#28
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	The death of Herod was still 4BCE. Only the eclipse was in 5BCE.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.