Announcement
Collapse
World History 201 Guidelines
Welcome to World History 201.
Find out if Caesar crossed the Rubicon or threw a dollar across it.
This is the forum where world history, in general, can be discussed. Since the WH201, like the other fora in the World History department, is not limited to participation along lines of theology, all may post here.
Please keep the Campus Decorum in mind when posting here--while 'belief' restrictions are not in place, common decency is.
The Tweb rules are in force . . . we're watching you.
Forum Rules: Here
Find out if Caesar crossed the Rubicon or threw a dollar across it.
This is the forum where world history, in general, can be discussed. Since the WH201, like the other fora in the World History department, is not limited to participation along lines of theology, all may post here.
Please keep the Campus Decorum in mind when posting here--while 'belief' restrictions are not in place, common decency is.
The Tweb rules are in force . . . we're watching you.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
The death of Herod 4BC, 1BC or 1AD?
Collapse
X
-
The death of Herod 4BC, 1BC or 1AD?
. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJVTags: None
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostThe death of Heard is an important question regarding the date of the birth of Christ.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
-
Yes, it is important in establishing the date. And I’ll admit from the start that, while the later dates look very attractive to me in making the whole chronology work out, I am not at all convinced that such is the case. It’s just an interesting possibility, so don’t be surprised if my arguments are less than solid or I change my mind halfway through the discussion.
But I suppose I should make the argument, but I don’t have time to look up the details today.
You can google most of the arguments pro and con, but a few of the key points in my mind:
1. The lack of any known census or registration in 5 or 6 BC.
2. The difficulty in squeezing the known final events of Herod’s life into the month between the 4 BC lunar eclipse and the Passover.
3. The fact that Archelaus seemed to be in a great hurry to make the journey to Rome and be confirmed right after Herod’s death and funeral, to avoid having the other aspirants to the throne get there first and lay their claims, so waiting from a Fall death until after the Spring Passover to make the trip seems less than ideal (winter weather on the seas might be a factor, but I don’t know that he would have had to wait as long as the Passover).
4. One of his successors, Philip, minted a coin in 1AD that said Year 5, I believe. But would he have waited four years to start minting coins? Coins were propaganda, and the tetrarchs all wanted to quickly establish their positions, both from Rome’s perspective and in the eyes of the people. Herod himself had tried the trick of backdating his coins when he minted coins that said Year 3 in 38BC, while he was still trying to take the throne away from his predecessor. The people weren’t buying it then, so Herod never dated another coin. But Herod was hated enough that perhaps it was welcome for the next guy. Herod killed 2 princes who were possibly viewed as the last Hasmoneans, some say in 7BC, but maybe that was in 4 BC. The Jews had been hoping that one of them would be the next king, so perhaps Philip thought it better to present himself as the Hasmonean’s successor than Herod’s successor. Or maybe he received some minor office that year which he used as an excuse to describe himself as a co-ruler (even if Herod wouldn’t have seen it that way). And once one of Herod’s successors claimed his reign began in 4 BC, the others followed suit, rather than allowing one to claim seniority that he might later use as an excuse to take over the whole kingdom of Herod.
5. Later, Josephus may have assumed Herod died in 4 BC because he knew how long his successors claimed for their own reigns. I wonder if he had some official document that said that Herod had reigned 37 years that he had trouble reconciling. He did the math and concluded that Herod reigned 37 years from 40 BC (when Herod first got permission from Rome to take the throne if he could) to 4 BC, though it really was intended to have been calculated from 37 BC (when he actually gained the throne) to 1 BC. So Josephus makes the odd statement that Herod reigned 37 years, or maybe 34 years (from 37 to 4, the way he thought it really should have been counted).
6. The early church fathers, when they made any reference to the year of Jesus’ birth, seemed to point to a 2-3 BC date (I don’t have the time to look up the quotes, but I think that’s what I’ve read).
A lot of maybe’s and assumptions, but to me it at least seems plausible, and could resolve some problems with earlier dates. But I won't mind at all if you say the reasoning is weak. I'd agree. But it's worth considering.
Comment
-
Some comments:
Originally posted by Just Passing Through View Post1. The lack of any known census or registration in 5 or 6 BC.
There was a group of Jews priding itself on its adherence to ancestral custom and claiming to observe the laws of which the Deity approves, and by these men, called Pharisees, the women (of the court) were ruled. These men were able to help the king greatly because of their foresight, and yet they were obviously intent on combating and injuring him. At least when the whole Jewish people affirmed by an oath that it would be loyal to Caesar and to the king’s government, these men, over six thousand in number, refused to take the oath, and when the king punished them with a fine, Pheroras’ wife paid the fine for them.
Originally posted by Just Passing Through View Post2. The difficulty in squeezing the known final events of Herod’s life into the month between the 4 BC lunar eclipse and the Passover.
Originally posted by Just Passing Through View Post4. One of his successors, Philip, minted a coin in 1AD that said Year 5, I believe.
Originally posted by Just Passing Through View Post6. The early church fathers, when they made any reference to the year of Jesus’ birth, seemed to point to a 2-3 BC date (I don’t have the time to look up the quotes, but I think that’s what I’ve read).Last edited by Faber; 03-21-2018, 02:09 PM.When I Survey....
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI "Heard" that!. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostThe android spell check changed Herod to Heard. I didn't catch it.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
You may have missed my comment that the book you cite for the Neapolis oath dates the oath that is quoted in the book to 3 BC, the third year of Augustus’ twelfth consulate. But I see that that was specifically for another oath, at Gangra, and it merely mentions the Neapolis oath in passing.
https://books.google.com/books?id=zB...20oath&f=false
Do you have another source to date the Neapolis oath to the first year? I would assume it would have been the same year.
As for the coin, I falsely thought I remembered that it was dated both Year 5 according to Philip’s reign and dated on the reverse according to Augustus’ reign, which would have nailed down the date. I see that it is dated only once, year 5, and assumed to be 1AD.
Here’s a source that lists all the relevant coins: http://www.academia.edu/4000855/_We_...pas_and_Philip.
Archelaus’ coins are all undated.
Antipas’ coins start with year 4 (and are thus generally dated to 1BC/1AD)
Philip’s coins start with year 5.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Just Passing Through View PostAs for the coin, I falsely thought I remembered that it was dated both Year 5 according to Philip’s reign and dated on the reverse according to Augustus’ reign, which would have nailed down the date. I see that it is dated only once, year 5, and assumed to be 1AD.When I Survey....
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment