John Seleden’s
Dating the Birth of Christ
and Death of Herod the Great
Kurt Simmons
The birth of Christ
is, perhaps, the single most important event in history, supassed
only by the cross. The Nativity marks the time when the reign of sin
and death began to be annulled and the way opened for man’s
reconciliation to his Maker. The years of our calendar are
thus numbered from the Savior’s birth, as well they should. If
temporal kingdoms mark the passage of time from the ascension of
earth’s illustrious monarchs, how much more ought the sons of Adam
to mark time from the birth of the King of kings and Lord of lords?
Dating the birth of Christ is also important for apologetic
purposes, for making a defense of faith and the verity of the gospel
record and message. In terms of eschatology, precise dating of
Christ’s birth, and the beginning and length of his ministry, become
important in demonstrating fulfillment of Daniel’s seventy weeks; it
also bears upon the time of events depicted in Rev. 12. For
these and other reasons, in this article we want to give an account
of the date and time of Christ’s birth.
The Biblical
Account
Dating Christ’s
birth from the scriptures is a relatively straight forward matter.
We know that Jesus was baptized in the fifteenth year of Tiberius
Caesar, when he was not yet thirty years of age. (Lk. 3:1)
The actual phrase used by Luke is that Jesus “began to be about
thirty.” (Lk. 3:23) Similar usage occurs in Matthew's
gospel concerning resurrection morning, when he says it “began to
dawn toward the first day of the week.” (Matt. 28:1)
“Began to dawn” means it was not dawn as yet, but very soon would
be. Likewise, began to be about thirty,” means that Jesus was
not as yet thirty, although he would be soon. Hence, it would
appear that Jesus’ baptism occurred at the threshold of his
thirtieth birthday while as yet he was still twenty nine. So
Irenaeus: “For when he came to be baptized, he had not yet
completed his thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty
years of age.”[1]
Tiberius
ascended the throne of the empire upon Augustus’ death in August,
A.D. 14. The fifteenth calendar year of Tiberius’ would have
commenced
Table No. 1, Christ’s
birth based upon his baptism in the 15th
of Tiberius
|
Year |
Regnal Year |
Year |
Regnal Year |
|
2
B.C. Christ Born |
42d of
Augustus |
15
|
1st
of Tiberius |
|
1
B.C. 1st birthday |
43d |
16 |
2d |
|
1 A.D. |
44th |
17 |
3d |
|
2 |
45th |
18 |
4th |
|
3 |
46th |
19 |
5th |
|
4 |
47th |
20 |
6th |
|
5 |
48th |
21 |
7th |
|
6 |
49th |
22 |
8th |
|
7 |
50th |
23 |
9th |
|
8 |
51st |
24 |
10th |
|
9 |
52d |
25 |
11th |
|
10 |
53d |
26 |
12th |
|
11 |
54th |
27 |
13th |
|
12 |
55th |
28 |
14th |
|
13 |
56th |
29 A.D. 30th
birthday
|
15th
Baptism |
|
14 |
57th
Death of Augustus |
|
|
The chart above
shows Jesus would have been born in 2 B.C. according to the time of
his baptism given by Luke. It also shows that his thirtieth
birthday would have occurred sometime before the close of the year
A.D. 29. But, we can get slightly more specific. By reckoning
backward from Jesus’ death, we can determine the probable month of
his baptism, and from there, the range of months in which we may
expect his birth. Received tradition has it that Jesus’
ministry spanned four Passovers, in a period of about three and a
half years, his death occurring at Passover A.D. 33. The
length of Jesus’ ministry is shown by Daniel’s seventy prophetic
weeks, in which it is said that Messiah would “confirm the covenant
with many for a week” (seven years) and in the “midst of the week”
(3 ½ yrs.) would cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease.
(Dan. 9:27) This latter clause is almost universally
taken in reference to Jesus’ death upon the cross, three and a half
years after his baptism. “On the ordinary Christian
interpretation, this applies to the crucifixion of our Lord, which
took place, according to the received calculation, during the fourth
year after his baptism by John, and the consequent opening of his
ministry.”
[3]
That Jesus’ ministry spanned four Passovers is also established in
scripture.
After his first
Passover (John
Table No. 2, the
Ministry of Christ
|
Mid
Oct. A.D. 29 – Passover A.D. 30 (six months)
Yr. 1 –
Passover A.D. 30-31
Yr. 2 –
Passover A.D. 31-32
Yr. 3 –
Passover A.D. 32-33
Total –
3 ½ yrs. |
Since Luke said
that Jesus was not yet thirty when baptized, his birthday must have
occurred sometime after November, perhaps during his
temptation in the wilderness December of A.D. 29.
Determining the
year of Jesus’ birth this way is comparatively simple and
straightforward because Luke has tied Jesus’ age to a well known
event in history; viz., the accession of Tiberius.
Other events recorded in scripture relevant to this discussion are
more problematic. Because of their obscurity, the census of
Quirinius and the death of Herod, which occurred at or near the time
of Jesus’ birth, are more difficult to identify in history and
therefore present greater challenge. Nevertheless, using
Luke’s account as a baseline to judge the accuracy of our work, it
can be shown from other sources that Jesus in fact was born in 2
B.C.
Church Fathers
Received tradition
among the church fathers holds that Jesus was born 3/2 B.C. It
is not until recent times that this has been challenged, mostly upon
the basis of the asserted date of Herod’s death (below). The
testimony of these early fathers should, therefore, be received in
evidence of what the church has believed down through the
centuries.
Irenaeus
(A.D. 180) – “Our Lord was born about the forty-first year of the
reign of Augustus.” (Against Heresies, III, xxi, 3)
This translates into 3/2 B.C.
Clement of
Tertullian
(A.D. 198) –
“In the forty-first year of the empire of Augustus, when he has been
reigning twenty-eight years after the death of Cleopatra, the Christ
is born.” (Answer to the Jews, chpt VIII)
Tertullian places the birth of Christ at 3/2 B.C.
Julius Africanus
(A.D. 170-240) – Julius Africanus wrote a series of
“chronographies,” most of which have been lost, but of which we
possess extensive extracts and quotes, including Eusebius.
Africanus gives the number of from years from Adam to the first year
of Cyrus as 4943 years. He further states that Cyrus ascended
the throne in the first year of the fifty-fifth Olympiad (Ol. 55,
1), which was 560/559 B.C. Thus, 4943 anno Adami = Ol. 55, 1
= 560/550 B.C. Africanus then goes on to say there were 5500 years
from Adam unto the appearance (Gk. epiphanian) of Christ.
Based upon the above formula where 4943 anno Adami = Ol. 55,
1 = 556/559 B.C., this would mean 5500 anno Adami = Ol. 194,
2 = 3/2 B.C.[4]
Hippolytus of
Origen
(A.D. 185-253) – In a fragment of Origen’s homilies on Luke, he
states that Jesus was born in the forty-first year of Augustus, that
Augustus ruled in all fifty-six years, and that there remained to
his rule from and after Christ’s birth fifteen years. (Frag. 82 on
Luke 3:1) This translates to 3/2 B.C.
Eusebius
(A.D. 260-340) – “It was, then, the forty-second year of the reign
of Augustus, and the twenty-eighth year after the submission of
Egypt and the death of Antony and Cleopatra…when our Savior and Lord
Jesus Christ…was born.” (Ecclesiastical History, I, v,
2) The forty-second year of Augustus was 2 B.C.
Epiphanius
(A.D. 315-403)
– Bishop of Salamis on the island
Paulus Orosius
– In his Seven Books of History Against the Pagans, Orosius
says that Christ was born in the seven hundred and fifty-second year
from the founding of Rome (A.U.C.)
752 A.U.C. = 2 B.C. [7]
Cassiodorus
(A.D. 490-585) – Cassiodorus placed the birth of Christ in the
consulship of Lentulus and M. Messala (Lentulo et Messalino),
stating “When these were consuls, our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of
God was born in Bethlehem in the forty-first year of the reign of
Augustus” This translates into 3 B.C.[8]
Table No. 3,
Patristic Writers Concerning Christ’s Birth
|
Irenaeus |
3/2
B.C. |
|
Clement
of |
3/2
B.C. |
|
Tertullian |
3/2
B.C. |
|
Julius
Africanus |
3/2
B.C. |
|
Hippolytus of |
2 B.C. |
|
Origen |
3/2
B.C. |
|
Eusebius |
2 B.C. |
|
Epiphanius |
2 B.C. |
|
Paulus
Orosius |
2 B.C. |
|
Cassiodorus |
3 B.C. |
As the above table
demonstrates, there is near unanimity among early Christian writers
concerning the date of the Lord’s birth, placing it at precisely the
same time as we would expect based upon Luke’s statement that Jesus
was not yet thirty when baptized in the fifteenth year of Tiberius.
Methods of Dating
Regnal Years
The regnal years of
kings are counted various ways among different peoples at different
times. As we enter into a discussion about the death of Herod
and the birth of Christ, the following methods of numbering are
relevant:
Actual years
– This system simply counts the number of years from actual
accession to the throne. A king who acceded in March would
complete his first regnal year the following March and every March
thereafter.
Accession
– In this system, the regnal year corresponds with the calendar
year; any portion of a calendar year remaining when the new king
acceded is termed his accession year, and not counted as a
regnal year, but, for chronological purposes, belongs to his
predecessor. For example, where a king dies and is acceded by
his successor August 1st, the period from August to the new year is
counted as his “accession year.” The first year of the new
king’s reign would begin with the next full calendar year on new
year’s day, and follow the calendar every year thereafter.
Assuming this new king died March 31st of his
twenty-first regnal (calendar) year, his total reign would be
expressed in whole numbers as twenty-one years; the remaining
portion of his final year (April 1st – Dec. 31st)
being credited to his reign. This system thus awards the
portion of a calendar year remaining when a king dies, but takes
away the portion remaining to the calendar year when he ascended the
throne. Where an historian wished to express the actual years
of the king’s reign, he would say that he died in the twenty-first
(calendar) year of his reign, having reined twenty years and eight
months – the eight months representing the months of his accession
year (August 1st - Jan. 1st) and the completed
portion of his last regnal year (Jan. 1st – March 31st
).
Non-accession
– This system is the opposite of that above. In this system,
the months fulfilled in a calendar year when a king died were
awarded to his successor. For example, a king who acceded in
November would be awarded the whole calendar year and to have
completed his first year of rule when the new year came about, even
though he had actually ruled little more than a month.
Thereafter, his regnal years are numbered by the calendar.
This system thus awards the whole calendar year coming in, but takes
it away going out.
Based upon
non-biblical writings, some conclude that the Jews used the
non-accession system. The Jewish Mishna in the tractate
Rosh Hashanah gives four new years:
There are four new
years: On the first of Nisan is the new year for kings and
festivals. On the first of Elul is the new year for the tithe
of cattle…On the first of Tishri is the new year for release and
jubilee years, for plantation and tithe of vegetables. On the
first of Shebat is the new year for trees.[9]
In the discussion
following it is further explained:
If a king ascends
the throne upon the twenty-ninth of Adar, as soon as the first of
Nisan arrives, he is reckoned to have reigned a year. This
teaches us that Nisan is the new year for kings, and that one day in
a year is reckoned as a year. But if he ascended the throne on
the first of Nisan, he is not reckoned to have reigned a year till
the next first of Nisan comes around.[10]
Whether this
expresses the biblical method of counting a king’s reign is an open
question. It is clear that the sacred calendar began
with the first of Nisan upon the new moon at the vernal equinox
(March/April). (Ex. 12:2 et seq.) Also, it seems
that the first of Tishri, the seventh month (Sept./Oct.), was the
new year for purposes of the courses of priests (I Kng. 8:2; Neh.
3:1, 7), the year of release (Deut. 15:1-6 ), sabbatical years (Lev.
25:1-7), and the Jubilee. (Lev. 25:8-10) Hence, this much is
correct. But this is not proof that the stated method of
numbering a king’s reign is correct. The times of sacred
feasts was set in law; there is no similar pronouncement recorded
regarding the reign of kings. The passage relied upon as proof
that a king’s reign was counted from the first of Nisan is I Kng.
6:1, where the number of years since the children of Israel came out
of Egypt and the regnal years of Solomon are both counted from
Nisan. Apparently, this is thought to prove that both were
counted on the basis of official, rather than actual, years.
However, the children of
Consular dates
– The Romans designated years by those elected consul. The
position was held by two men who entered office January 1st
of each year. Reference to a year by the two consuls (Augusto
et Silvano) would therefore designate the twelve month period
they held office.
Olympiads
– The Greeks used the Olympiad system to specify years. Each
Olympiad spanned four years; each year of an Olympiad began on July
1st and ended June 30st of the following year,
and are expressed Ol. 185, 1 (the first year of the 185th
Olympiad) Ol. 185, 2 (the second year of the 185th
Olympiad), and so forth.
Josephus did not
use Consular and Olympiad dates in his history of the Jewish war,
but added them when dating the same events when he published his
Antiquities. The Jewish calendar began in Nisan
(Mar./April) and for certain purposes in Tishri (Sept./Oct.) The
Roman calendar began on January, the Greek Olympiad in July.
In translating events of Jewish history into Roman and Greek
equivalents would present a great challenge. As Josephus’ Consular
and Olympiad dates are often hopelessly at odds with scripture and
contradict his own chronology in places, it would appear that he
applied them very imperfectly. Unfortunately, they represent
the chief basis for the early date for Herod’s death.
4 B.C. – The Pseudo
Date of Herod’s Death
We know that Jesus
was born while Herod the Great was king over
Olympiad & Consular
Dates of Herod’s Reign
– Josephus says
that Herod was made king by the Roman senate at the instance of Marc
Antony and Octavian Caesar “in the hundred and eighty-fourth
Olympiad, the consuls being Caius Domitius Calvinus, for the second
time, and Caius Asinius Pollio.”[11]
This answers to 40 B.C. However, this is universally acknowledge to
be wrong. The hundred and eighty-fourth Olympiad ended June 30th;
it is very clear that Herod did not arrive in
Length of Herod’s
Reign at Death
– Josephus then states that Herod died “having reigned thirty-four
years, since he procured Antigonus to be slain, and obtained his
kingdom; but thirty-seven since he had been made king by the
Romans."[13]
If the reign of Herod is numbered so that the remaining months from
his appointment as king at Rome are counted as his first year
(non-accession reckoning), 39-38 B.C. as his second year, and so
forth, we arrive at 4 B.C. for Herod’s death.
Table No. 4,
Olympiad & Consular Years of Herod’s Reign According to Josephus
|
Year B.C |
Reign from
Appointment
by |
Reign from
Taking
|
Year B.C |
Reign from
Appointment
by |
Reign from
Taking
|
|
40 |
1 |
|
21 |
20 |
17 |
|
39 |
2 |
|
20 |
21 |
18 |
|
38 |
3 |
|
19 |
22 |
19 |
|
37 |
4 |
1 |
18 |
23 |
20 |
|
36 |
5 |
2 |
17 |
24 |
21 |
|
35 |
6 |
3 |
16 |
25 |
22 |
|
34 |
7 |
4 |
15 |
26 |
23 |
|
33 |
8 |
5 |
14 |
27 |
24 |
|
32 |
9 |
6 |
13 |
28 |
25 |
|
31 |
10 |
7 |
12 |
29 |
26 |
|
30 |
11 |
8 |
11 |
30 |
27 |
|
29 |
12 |
9 |
10 |
31 |
28 |
|
28 |
13 |
10 |
9 |
32 |
29 |
|
27 |
14 |
11 |
8 |
33 |
30 |
|
26 |
15 |
12 |
7 |
34 |
31 |
|
25 |
16 |
13 |
6 |
35 |
32 |
|
24 |
17 |
14 |
5 |
36 |
33 |
|
23 |
18 |
15 |
4 |
37 |
34 |
|
22 |
19 |
16 |
|
|
|
This is the
established way of numbering Herod’s reign among scholarship today.
However, it is plainly wrong. There is no reason to believe
Josephus numbered Herod’s reign inclusively. As we have seen,
there is no evidence he used non-accession reckoning. Hence,
the date of Herod’s death must be adjusted to 3 B.C. (40 B.C.- 37
yrs. = 3 B.C. and 37 B.C. - 34 yrs = 3 B.C.). But the question
remains, Why, if normal reckoning would suggest a date of 3 B.C. for
Herod’s death, have men sought to stretch Herod’s death to 4 B.C.?
The answer has to do with a lunar eclipse near the time of Herod’s
death.
The Eclipse at
Herod’s Death
- Although the dates provided by Josephus would normally suggest
Herod died in 3 B.C., some have sought by inclusive reckoning to put
his death in 4 B.C. This is because an eclipse reported by
Josephus shortly before Herod’s death is believed to have occurred
at that time. Following a sedition raised by one Matthias, in
which the golden eagle adorning Herod’s temple was torn down, Herod
punished Matthias and his followers by burning them alive.
Josephus then states “And that very night there was an eclipse of
the moon.”[14]
It is not known who first proposed that this eclipse occurred in 4
B.C., but this belief has been current since at least 1650, when
Archbishop Ussher published his Annals of the World, placing
Herod’s death at 4 B.C.: “He burned alive the other Matthias,
who was a partner in this sedition, along with his companions.
That night the moon was eclipsed on March 13, three hours after
This conclusion is
repeated even today. Although the Olympiad and Consular dates
of Herod’s accession given by Josephus would suggest a 3 B.C. date
for his death, because there was no eclipse visible in the horizon
that year, or even the following year, scholars argue Josephus used
inclusive reckoning, adding a nonexistent year to Herod’s reign.
This has led professors Vermes and Miller, editors of the new
version of Emil Schürer’s History of the Jewish People in the
Time of Jesus Christ (1897-1898), say “Josephus reckons one
year too many.” Martin thus comments:
All scholars
recognize this discrepancy in trying to resolve Josephus’
chronological statements. To mend the disparity, it is assumed that
Josephus has adopted a scheme of reckoning parts of one year (only
the first few days of a year) as answering in a legal sense to a
whole year. If two or three days can be accepted as representing a
whole year in Josephus’ account of the number of years for Herod’s
reign, then these few days could allow Herod’s last year to be
extended back to the first of Nisan on the Jewish calendar (March
29) in 4 B.C.E. and then a whole year can be awarded to him in a de
jure sense.[16]
In other words, by
subtracting one year from Herod’s reign based upon the assumption
that Josephus awarded an extra year based upon inclusive reckoning,
Herod’s death can be moved back in time from 3 to 4 B.C.
Arrival of the Magi
and the Slaughter of the Innocents
– Sometime before Herod’s death, the Magi arrived in
1 B.C. - The True
Date of Herod’s Death
Herod’s Capture of Jerusalem and the Death of Antigonus –
In the third year after his appointment as king by Rome, Herod laid
siege to Jerusalem in the spring,[17]
prosecuted the war through the summer,[18]
and after a five[19]
or six[20]
month’s siege, took the city twenty-seven years to the day after
Pompey had captured Jerusalem.
This destruction
befell the city of Jerusalem when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus
were consuls at Rome, on the hundred and eighty-fifth Olympiad, on
the third month, on the solemnity of the fast, as if a periodical
revolution of calamites had returned since that which befell the
Jews under Pompey; for the Jews were taken by him on the same day,
and this was after twenty-seven years’ time.[21]
Olympiads began
July 1 of the year; the “third month” of a given Olympiad would
therefore answer to September. The “fast” refers to the Day of
Atonement in the seventh month of the sacred calendar (the only fast
enjoined by the law – Lev.
He also restored
the high priesthood to Hyrcanus, and made him governor of the
nation, but forbade him to wear the diadem. This Hyrcanus
rule, besides his first nine years, twenty-four years more, when
Barzapharnes and Pacorus, the general of The Parthians, passed over
Euphrates, and fought with Hyrcanus, and took him alive, and made
Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, king; and when he had reigned
three years and three months, Sosius and Herod besieged him, and
took him, when Antony had him brought to Antioch, and had him slain
there.[23]
Josephus says
that Antigonus reigned three years and three months from appointment
as king by the Parthians until his execution by
This becomes
important in helping determine the time frame between Herod’s flight
to
Table No. 5, Regnal Years of Antigonus and
Herod till Capture of
|
Antigonus |
Regnal year |
Herod |
Regnal year |
|
July 39 B.C. |
Parthians make king |
Nov. 39 B.C. |
Made king at |
|
July 39- July 38 B.C. |
1st
year |
Nov. 39 - Nov. 38 B.C. |
1st
year |
|
July 38- July 37B.C. |
2d year |
Nov. 38 - Nov. 37 B.C. |
2d yr. |
|
July 37- Aug. 36 B.C. |
3d Year |
Nov. 37- April 36 B.C. |
Begins siege (spring 36) |
|
July 36-
Oct. 36 B.C. |
3 yrs.
3 months |
Sept. 36
B.C. |
Captures
|
The
Unreliability of Josephus’ Consular and Olympiad Dates
– The dates reflected in the table and discussion above represent
actual regnal years, based upon the capture of
Assuming Herod’s
capture of
Table No. 6, Regnal Years of Herod
(Actual)
|
Year B.C |
Year from
Appointment
by |
Year from
Death of
Antigonus |
Year B.C. |
Year from
Appointment
by |
Year from
Death of
Antigonus |
|
Nov. 39-38 |
1 |
|
Nov. 20-19 |
20 |
17 |
|
Nov. 38-37 |
2 |
|
Nov. 19-18 |
21 |
18 |
|
Nov. 37–36 |
3 |
|
Nov. 18-17 |
22 |
19 |
|
Nov. 36–35 |
4 |
1 |
Nov. 17-16 |
23 |
20 |
|
Nov. 35-34 |
5 |
2 |
Nov. 16-15 |
24 |
21 |
|
Nov. 34-33 |
6 |
3 |
Nov. 15-14 |
25 |
22 |
|
Nov. 33-32 |
7 |
4 |
Nov. 14-13 |
26 |
23 |
|
Nov. 32-31 |
8 |
5 |
Nov. 13-12 |
27 |
24 |
|
Nov. 31- 30 |
9 |
6 |
Nov. 12-11 |
28 |
25 |
|
Nov. 30-29 |
10 |
7 |
Nov. 11-10 |
29 |
26 |
|
Nov. 29-28 |
11 |
8 |
Nov. 10-9
|
30 |
27 |
|
Nov. 28-27 |
12 |
9 |
Nov. 9-8 |
31 |
28 |
|
Nov. 27-26 |
13 |
10 |
Nov. 8-7 |
32 |
29 |
|
Nov. 26-25 |
14 |
11 |
Nov. 7-6 |
33 |
30 |
|
Nov. 25-24 |
15 |
12 |
Nov. 6-5 |
34 |
31 |
|
Nov. 24-23 |
16 |
13 |
Nov. 5-4 |
35 |
32 |
|
Nov. 23-22 |
17 |
14 |
Nov. 4-3 |
36 |
33 |
|
Nov. 22-21 |
18 |
15 |
Nov. 3-2 |
37 |
34 |
|
Nov. 21–20 |
19 |
16 |
Nov. 2–Dec.
1 |
Herod dies |
Herod dies |
The same result
would be obtained if accession reckoning were used, so that the
remaining months of 39 and 36 B.C. were disregarded, and the first
full year of Herod’s reign was numbered from the following calendar
year.
Table No. 7, Regnal
years of Herod (Accession)
|
Year B.C |
Year from
Appointment
by |
Year from
Capture of
|
Year B.C. |
Year from
Appointment
by |
Year from
Capture of
|
|
Nov. 39
|
Accession |
|
19-18 |
20 |
17 |
|
38-37 |
1 |
|
18-17 |
21 |
18 |
|
37-36 |
2 |
|
17-16 |
22 |
19 |
|
36-35 |
3 |
Accession |
16-15 |
23 |
20 |
|
35-34 |
4 |
1 |
15-14 |
24 |
21 |
|
34-33 |
5 |
2 |
14-13 |
25 |
22 |
|
33-32 |
6 |
3 |
13-12 |
26 |
23 |
|
32-31 |
7 |
4 |
12-11 |
27 |
24 |
|
31-30 |
8 |
5 |
11-10 |
28 |
25 |
|
30-29 |
9 |
6 |
10-9 |
29 |
26 |
|
29-28 |
10 |
7 |
9-8 |
30 |
27 |
|
28-27 |
11 |
8 |
8-7 |
31 |
28 |
|
27-26 |
12 |
9 |
7-6 |
32 |
29 |
|
26-25 |
13 |
10 |
6-5 |
33 |
30 |
|
25-24 |
14 |
11 |
5-4 |
34 |
31 |
|
24-23 |
15 |
12 |
4-3 |
35 |
32 |
|
23-22 |
16 |
3 |
3-2 |
36 |
33 |
|
22-21 |
17 |
14 |
2-1 |
37 |
34 |
|
21-20 |
18 |
15 |
1B.C. |
Herod
dies |
Herod
dies |
|
20-19 |
19 |
16 |
|
|
|
Table No. 8,
|
B.C. |
Regnal Year |
|
|
|
|
Nov.
39-1 Tishri 38 |
Accession |
|
1 Tishri
38-37 |
1 |
|
1 Tishri
37-36 |
2 |
|
1 Tishri
36-35 |
3 |
|
1 Tishri
35-34 |
4 |
|
1 Tishri
34-33 |
5 |
|
1 Tishri
33-32 |
6 |
|
1 Tishri
32-31 |
|
Table No. 9, Lunar Eclipses near Herod’s Death
|
Year B.C. |
Eclipse |
Time till
Passover |
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
None |
|
|
5 |
3/23 |
29 days |
|
5 |
9/15 |
7 months |
|
4 |
3/13 |
29 days |
|
3 |
None |
|
|
2 |
None |
|
|
1 |
Jan. 10 |
Twelve
weeks |
|
1 |
Dec. 29 |
Fourteen
weeks |
There is no
evidence that would recommend adopting the eclipses of 5 B.C., and
these may therefore be rejected out of hand. There were
twenty-nine days from the eclipse in 4 B.C. until Passover. In
that time, the following events occurred:
- The
illness of which Herod died increased; his body putrefied and
bred worms.
- Herod
traveled beyond
- The
important men were compelled to come from across the nation to
be shut up in the Hippodrome against Herod’s death; Herod’s
orders were that they be killed in order that there be mourning
in the land when he died.
- Herod's
son, Antipater, was executed; Herod changed his will, and
himself died five days later.
- A
sumptuous funeral procession was held in which Herod’s body,
atop a golden bier, was carried over twenty miles to Herodium,
followed by the whole army and above five hundred domestics
carrying spices for his burial.
-
Archelaus continued mourning seven days, followed by a funeral
feast.
-
Archelaus granted many petitions of the people to gain the
nation’s good will and released men his father had imprisoned.
- A
sedition was raised by the people, who decried the death of
those that had been executed for pulling down the golden eagle
upon the temple.
When one
considers the time involved in the increase of Herod’s illness,
traveling to mineral baths, undergoing treatment, returning to
This argument
deserves consideration. Certainly, an eclipse at early evening
the day of the executions would more readily have impressed itself
upon the nation’s mind and consciousness more than one occurring in
the middle of the night, when it would have been witnessed by
comparatively few. On the other hand, eclipses are often
viewed as heavenly portents of divine displeasure and impending
wrath. Doubtless it was this that caused Josephus to record the
eclipse, and not because it was widely witnessed, as Pratt suggests.
Furthermore, the Dec. 29th eclipse would require the
addition of a year to Herod’s life and reign. Herod’s death
shortly after
Conclusion
The Bible, early
church fathers, Josephus’ chronology, and nature’s eclipse all
combine to confirm that Jesus was born in 2 B.C.
NOTES:
[1]
Against Heresies,
II, xxii, 5
[2] Ussher counts Tiberius’ reign from his appointment as “coregent” with Augustus, in A.D. 12. However, Finegan says “As far as is known, ancient sources do not count Tiberius's own reign from what was only his joint rule with Augustus, so this manner of reckoning may be left out of further consideration in relation to Luke 3:1.” Citing: Hoehner, Chronological Aspects, 31-32; Meier, Marginal Jew 1:384. §578 , p.337. Luke’s gospel was written to ancient people of the Roman world; we must therefore assume he used methods of dating familiar to them, otherwise there could be no purpose is recording dates. If the ancients did not number Tiberius’ reign from his association in the kingdom with Augustus, then we can be certain that Luke did not either.
[3]
J.E.H.
Thomson, Daniel – The Pulpit Commentary (Hendrickson,
[4] Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Hendrickson, 1998 ed.) §§ 284-290, pp. 154-157
[5] Ibid, § 293, pp. 158-160
[6] Ibid, § 493, p. 289
[7] Orosius, Seven Books of History Against the Pagans (trans. Roy J. Defarri; FC 50; Washington D.C. Catholic Univ. of America Press, 1964) pp. 280-281). Ibid, § 497, p. 290
[8] Finegan, § 498, p. 290
[9] Rosh Hashanah 1:1
[10] Ibid.
[11]
[12]
[13] Wars, I, xxxii, 8; Whiston ed; cf. Antiquities XVII, viii, 1.
[14]
[15]
James
Ussher, Annals of the World (Larry and
[16]
Ernest
L. Martin, The Star That Astonished the World (2d ed,
[17]
[18]
[19] War, I, xviii, 2
[20] War, V, ix, 4
[21]
[22] The Counsel of Nicea, which, decreed that Easter should be observed on the first Sunday following the full moon of the vernal equinox (without regard to the day of the week the full moon occurred), set March 22d as the earliest date for Easter. This is relatively rare; the full moon falls on March 21, less than every one hundred years (there was no occurrence in the whole 20th century). The new moon would occur fourteen days prior to this.
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26] Ant. XIV, xiv, 2, 3.
[27] Ussher indicates it was not yet winter, citing Salianus, Against Forniellus, 4014 AM, num. 26, 27; Annals, § 5422, p. 704.
[28] Whiston, Upon the Chronology of Josephus, Dissertation V, 1; emphasis added.
[29] Finegan, p. 301.
[30] Filmer, p. 293.
[31] Bao-Lin Liu and Alan D. Fiala, Canon of Lunar Eclipses 1500 B.C.-A.D. 3000 (Richmond, VA: Willmann-Bell, Inc, 1992).
[32] F. Riess, Das Geburlrjckr Christi (1880).
[33] John P. Pratt, Yet Another Eclipse for Herod, The Planetarian, Vol. 19, No. 4, Dec. 1990, pp. 8-14. The argument was first put forth by Filmer.
___________________________________
Adoration of the Shepherds
All rights reserved.