Midrash Rosh Hashana proves Herod the Great's death wasn't on 4 BC
The famed 1st century AD historian Titus Flavius Josephus tells us the length of time of Herod’s reign:
Antiquities of the Jews — Book XVII 8:1 When [Herod the Great] had done these things, he died, the fifth day after he had caused Antipater to be slain: having reigned since he had procured Antigonus to be slain thirty four years: but since he had been declared King by the Romans thirty seven.
In addition, Josephus also tells us that shortly before Herod had procured his rival king Antigonus to be slain, Jerusalem first suffered destruction under Herod’s command. And that according to him, this happened exactly 27 years to the day, after Pompey also destroyed Jerusalem in a strikingly similar catastrophic manner:
Antiquities of the Jews — Book XIV Chapter 16: 4. This destruction befel the city of Jerusalem when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls of Rome; on the hundred eighty and fifth olympiad; on the third month; on the solemnity of the fast. As if a periodical revolution of calamities 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. So when Sosius had dedicated a crown of gold to God, he marched away from Jerusalem; and carried Antigonus with him, in bonds to Antony. But Herod was afraid lest Antigonus should be kept in prison [only] by Antony… Out of Herod’s fear of this it was, that he, by giving Antony a great deal of money, endeavoured to persuade him to have Antigonus slain.
Now the siege of Jerusalem which occurred during Pompey the Great's campaigns in the east, happened on 63 BC. Exactly 27 years after this date should be 36 BC. And therefore, 36 BC must be the year when the siege of Jerusalem by Herod the Great took place, and also the year when he procured his rival king Antigonus to be slain. There really should be no argument about that.
However for some flimsy reason, some historians chose to date Herod’s capture of Jerusalem on 37 BC instead:
Wikipedia, Herod the Great, Biography: “After three years of conflict, Herod and the Romans finally captured Jerusalem and Herod sent Antigonus for execution to Marc Antony. Herod took the role as sole ruler of Judea and the title of basileus (or "king") for himself, ushering in the Herodian Dynasty and ending the Hasmonean Dynasty. Josephus reports this as being in the year of the consulship of Agrippa and Gallus (37 BCE), but also says that it was exactly 27 years after Jerusalem fell to Pompey, which would indicate 36 BCE… According to Josephus, Herod ruled for 37 years, 34 of them after capturing Jerusalem”.
In the opinion of those historians who chose 37 BC over 36 BC, it was more likely that Josephus made a mistake calculating the number of years between Pompey’s siege of Jerusalem and that of Herod’s, than to accept the possibility that the year assigned for the consulship of Agrippa and Gallus, namely 37 BC , could have been erroneous.
Now the following is a wikipedia article about the Varronian chronology which created the list of consuls known to have held office from the beginning of the Roman Republic and that also assigns the date that each of these consuls supposedly served:
“The compilation of the Varronian chronology was an attempt to determine an exact year-by-year timeline of Roman history up to [the author Marcus Terentius Varro’s] time. It is based on the traditional sequence of the consuls of the Roman Republic — supplemented, where necessary, by inserting "dictatorial" and "anarchic" years. It had been demonstrated to be somewhat erroneous but has become the widely accepted standard chronology, in large part because it was inscribed on the arch of Augustus in Rome. Though that arch no longer stands, a large portion of the chronology has survived under the name of Fasti Capitolini.”
Thus in my opinion, it is the Varronian chronology that has erred by assigning the wrong year, 37 BC, for the consulships of Agrippa and Gallus, rather than Josephus who calculated that Herod’s siege of Jerusalem occurred on 36 BC, or exactly 27 years after Pompey’s siege on 63 BC. But, for the sake of argument, let us grant that Herod’s capture of Jerusalem took place on 37 BC instead of 36 BC. And that according to Josephus, Herod ruled 34 years after capturing Jerusalem.
Now here’s the catch: I will now show you that if Herod died on 4 BC, as Emil Schürer wants us to believe, and if Herod started to rule Jerusalem sometime 37 BC as historians also want us to believe, then the maximum number of regnal years for Herod would have been just 33 years and not 34 years like what Josephus told us. And in order to do this, we have to count Herod’s regnal years in exactly the same manner that Josephus did. So the next question is, what method did Josephus use in counting the regnal years of a king?
To answer this important question, let us turn to the jewishvirtuallibrary.org website, considered the most comprehensive online encyclopedia of Jewish history, politics and culture with nearly 25,000 entries. Under the segment Tractate Rosh Hashana, Mishna 1 we get:
The first of Nissan is New Year to (the ascension of) Kings and for (the regular rotation of) festivals … The rabbis taught: A king who ascends the throne on the 29th of Adar must be considered to have reigned one year as soon as the first of Nissan comes, but if he ascends the throne on the first of Nissan he is not considered to have reigned one year until the first of Nissan of the following year.
From this we infer, that only Nissan is the commencement of years for kings (or the civil New Year); that even a fraction of a year is considered a year; and that if a king ascends the throne on the first of Nissan, he is not considered to have reigned one year until the next first of Nissan ...
Now here is my understanding and interpretation of the said tractate:
Antiquities of the Jews — Book XVII 8:1 When [Herod the Great] had done these things, he died, the fifth day after he had caused Antipater to be slain: having reigned since he had procured Antigonus to be slain thirty four years: but since he had been declared King by the Romans thirty seven.
In addition, Josephus also tells us that shortly before Herod had procured his rival king Antigonus to be slain, Jerusalem first suffered destruction under Herod’s command. And that according to him, this happened exactly 27 years to the day, after Pompey also destroyed Jerusalem in a strikingly similar catastrophic manner:
Antiquities of the Jews — Book XIV Chapter 16: 4. This destruction befel the city of Jerusalem when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls of Rome; on the hundred eighty and fifth olympiad; on the third month; on the solemnity of the fast. As if a periodical revolution of calamities 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. So when Sosius had dedicated a crown of gold to God, he marched away from Jerusalem; and carried Antigonus with him, in bonds to Antony. But Herod was afraid lest Antigonus should be kept in prison [only] by Antony… Out of Herod’s fear of this it was, that he, by giving Antony a great deal of money, endeavoured to persuade him to have Antigonus slain.
Now the siege of Jerusalem which occurred during Pompey the Great's campaigns in the east, happened on 63 BC. Exactly 27 years after this date should be 36 BC. And therefore, 36 BC must be the year when the siege of Jerusalem by Herod the Great took place, and also the year when he procured his rival king Antigonus to be slain. There really should be no argument about that.
However for some flimsy reason, some historians chose to date Herod’s capture of Jerusalem on 37 BC instead:
Wikipedia, Herod the Great, Biography: “After three years of conflict, Herod and the Romans finally captured Jerusalem and Herod sent Antigonus for execution to Marc Antony. Herod took the role as sole ruler of Judea and the title of basileus (or "king") for himself, ushering in the Herodian Dynasty and ending the Hasmonean Dynasty. Josephus reports this as being in the year of the consulship of Agrippa and Gallus (37 BCE), but also says that it was exactly 27 years after Jerusalem fell to Pompey, which would indicate 36 BCE… According to Josephus, Herod ruled for 37 years, 34 of them after capturing Jerusalem”.
In the opinion of those historians who chose 37 BC over 36 BC, it was more likely that Josephus made a mistake calculating the number of years between Pompey’s siege of Jerusalem and that of Herod’s, than to accept the possibility that the year assigned for the consulship of Agrippa and Gallus, namely 37 BC , could have been erroneous.
Now the following is a wikipedia article about the Varronian chronology which created the list of consuls known to have held office from the beginning of the Roman Republic and that also assigns the date that each of these consuls supposedly served:
“The compilation of the Varronian chronology was an attempt to determine an exact year-by-year timeline of Roman history up to [the author Marcus Terentius Varro’s] time. It is based on the traditional sequence of the consuls of the Roman Republic — supplemented, where necessary, by inserting "dictatorial" and "anarchic" years. It had been demonstrated to be somewhat erroneous but has become the widely accepted standard chronology, in large part because it was inscribed on the arch of Augustus in Rome. Though that arch no longer stands, a large portion of the chronology has survived under the name of Fasti Capitolini.”
Thus in my opinion, it is the Varronian chronology that has erred by assigning the wrong year, 37 BC, for the consulships of Agrippa and Gallus, rather than Josephus who calculated that Herod’s siege of Jerusalem occurred on 36 BC, or exactly 27 years after Pompey’s siege on 63 BC. But, for the sake of argument, let us grant that Herod’s capture of Jerusalem took place on 37 BC instead of 36 BC. And that according to Josephus, Herod ruled 34 years after capturing Jerusalem.
Now here’s the catch: I will now show you that if Herod died on 4 BC, as Emil Schürer wants us to believe, and if Herod started to rule Jerusalem sometime 37 BC as historians also want us to believe, then the maximum number of regnal years for Herod would have been just 33 years and not 34 years like what Josephus told us. And in order to do this, we have to count Herod’s regnal years in exactly the same manner that Josephus did. So the next question is, what method did Josephus use in counting the regnal years of a king?
To answer this important question, let us turn to the jewishvirtuallibrary.org website, considered the most comprehensive online encyclopedia of Jewish history, politics and culture with nearly 25,000 entries. Under the segment Tractate Rosh Hashana, Mishna 1 we get:
The first of Nissan is New Year to (the ascension of) Kings and for (the regular rotation of) festivals … The rabbis taught: A king who ascends the throne on the 29th of Adar must be considered to have reigned one year as soon as the first of Nissan comes, but if he ascends the throne on the first of Nissan he is not considered to have reigned one year until the first of Nissan of the following year.
From this we infer, that only Nissan is the commencement of years for kings (or the civil New Year); that even a fraction of a year is considered a year; and that if a king ascends the throne on the first of Nissan, he is not considered to have reigned one year until the next first of Nissan ...
Now here is my understanding and interpretation of the said tractate:
Rule no. 1, On the year a king ascends to the throne, if the day of his ascension on that year did not fall on the 1st of Nisan, then if he survives until the next 1st of Nisan, the king is given 1 regnal year for that fraction of a year. And this is even if that fraction of a year is just one day.
Rule no. 2, After this, a king is given additional regnal years, only on those years where he remained king for 1 complete year. That is, from Nisan 1 to Nisan 1 of the following year, and not even 1 day less.
Please note, and this is very important, that a fraction of a year can be counted as 1 regnal year only during the ascension year of the king.
And that, there is nothing mentioned in the Tractate Rosh Hashana that says a fraction of a year which the king reigned after Nisan 1 of his last regnal year should be counted as 1 regnal year as well. In other words, this last fraction of a year in the king’s reign should simply be ignored and discarded. The reason for this I believe is because, a king’s fraction of a year after Nisan 1 of his last regnal year can be, and usually is, the fraction of a year before Nisan 1 of his successor’s ascension year. And obviously, we shouldn’t count these fractions of a year as one whole regnal year twice.
So now let us then apply these rules in the case of Herod the Great. Let us assume for the sake of argument that Herod died on or shortly after Nisan 1, 4 BC. This means that his last regnal year ended on Nisan 1, 4 BC. It also means that, the fraction of a year which he reigned after Nisan 1, 4 BC and before Nisan 1, 3 BC are to be totally ignored and not counted. This fraction of a year which Herod presumably reigned after Nisan 1, 4 BC would have been less than 2 weeks at most anyway. And this is because, according to Josephus, Herod’s funeral took place before Passover or Nisan 15 on the year of Herod’s death. And the number of days between Nisan 1 and before Nisan 15 is less than 2 weeks.
According to Josephus, Herod ruled for 34 years after capturing Jerusalem. And this means the earliest possible start of his 1st regnal year would have been on Nisan 1, 38 BC, or exactly 34 years before Nisan 1, 4 BC, which is when we presumed his last regnal year ended. But because of the Rosh Hashanah tractate, the latest possible start of Herod’s 1st regnal year has to be on Adar 29, 37 BC , or just 1 day before Nisan 1, 37 BC.
Thus, we can conclude that the start of Herod’s 1st regnal year after capturing Jerusalem, should be anytime between Nisan 1, 38 BC and Adar 29, 37 BC, inclusive. And this is assuming of course that Herod died on or shortly after Nisan 1, 4 BC, and that he ruled no less than 34 years after capturing Jerusalem supposedly on 37 BC.
Now the Hebrew month of Adar is considered a winter month in the Northern hemisphere, which happens to be where Jerusalem belongs. While the Hebrew month of Nisan on the other hand is considered a spring month in Jerusalem.
This means that for Herod to have completed 34 regnal years since capturing Jerusalem supposedly on 37 BC, he should have already ascended to his throne before the start of spring on Nisan 1, 37 BC. Because as mentioned earlier, the latest possible start of Herod’s 1st regnal year has to be on Adar 29, 37 BC , or just 1 day before Nisan 1, 37 BC. Now what did Josephus tell us about which season Herod captured Jerusalem?
Antiquities of the Jews — Book XIV Chapter 15: 14 When the rigour of winter was over, Herod removed his army, and came near to Jerusalem, and pitched his camp hard by the city.
Of the Wars of the Jews — Book I, Chapter 18: 2 Indeed though they had so great an army lying round about them, they bore a siege of five months, till some of Herod’s chosen men ventured to get upon the wall, and fell into the city, as did Sosius’s centurions after them;
Josephus tells us that Herod started his siege of Jerusalem “when the rigour of winter was over”, or early spring at the earliest. And that this siege ended when Herod’s army breached Jerusalem’s wall five months later, or sometime late summer at the earliest and early autumn at the latest. So based on Josephus’ account of Herod’s siege of Jerusalem, which historians say happened on 37 BC, the capture of Jerusalem could not have taken place earlier than Nisan 1 of 37 BC, or before the start of spring.
And keeping this in mind, let us now count the regnal years of Herod based on what the Tractate Rosh Hashana tells us: Counting from Nisan 1, 4 BC until Nisan 1, 36 BC, we get 32 complete regnal years only. Now counting from Adar 29 (or a day before Nisan 1) of 36 BC until the start of the fraction of a year in which Herod ruled Jerusalem beginning from late summer of 37 BC at the earliest, we get just one additional regnal year for Herod.
Thus, we can conclude that the start of Herod’s 1st regnal year after capturing Jerusalem, should be anytime between Nisan 1, 38 BC and Adar 29, 37 BC, inclusive. And this is assuming of course that Herod died on or shortly after Nisan 1, 4 BC, and that he ruled no less than 34 years after capturing Jerusalem supposedly on 37 BC.
Now the Hebrew month of Adar is considered a winter month in the Northern hemisphere, which happens to be where Jerusalem belongs. While the Hebrew month of Nisan on the other hand is considered a spring month in Jerusalem.
This means that for Herod to have completed 34 regnal years since capturing Jerusalem supposedly on 37 BC, he should have already ascended to his throne before the start of spring on Nisan 1, 37 BC. Because as mentioned earlier, the latest possible start of Herod’s 1st regnal year has to be on Adar 29, 37 BC , or just 1 day before Nisan 1, 37 BC. Now what did Josephus tell us about which season Herod captured Jerusalem?
Antiquities of the Jews — Book XIV Chapter 15: 14 When the rigour of winter was over, Herod removed his army, and came near to Jerusalem, and pitched his camp hard by the city.
Of the Wars of the Jews — Book I, Chapter 18: 2 Indeed though they had so great an army lying round about them, they bore a siege of five months, till some of Herod’s chosen men ventured to get upon the wall, and fell into the city, as did Sosius’s centurions after them;
Josephus tells us that Herod started his siege of Jerusalem “when the rigour of winter was over”, or early spring at the earliest. And that this siege ended when Herod’s army breached Jerusalem’s wall five months later, or sometime late summer at the earliest and early autumn at the latest. So based on Josephus’ account of Herod’s siege of Jerusalem, which historians say happened on 37 BC, the capture of Jerusalem could not have taken place earlier than Nisan 1 of 37 BC, or before the start of spring.
And keeping this in mind, let us now count the regnal years of Herod based on what the Tractate Rosh Hashana tells us: Counting from Nisan 1, 4 BC until Nisan 1, 36 BC, we get 32 complete regnal years only. Now counting from Adar 29 (or a day before Nisan 1) of 36 BC until the start of the fraction of a year in which Herod ruled Jerusalem beginning from late summer of 37 BC at the earliest, we get just one additional regnal year for Herod.
Did Josephus make a mistake in his calculations again? I don’t think so. And this is why I do not support the revised date of 4 BC for the death of Herod. Other honest and well meaning scholars on this subject should not either, in my humble opinion.
But why do I support the traditional date of 1 BC for Herod’s death instead, you might ask? Will I be able to answer all the many arguments against having 1 BC as the year Herod died? Yes I can, and I will do just that in my next blog.
Comments
Post a Comment