Bible Students have long believed that Jesus was born in 2 BC (SS, Vol. 2, pp. 54-62). But most modern historians have dated his birth at from 4-7 BC. The reason for this is that Jesus was born before Herod died (Matt. 2:1), and it has been thought that Herod died in the spring of 4 BC, following an eclipse of the moon early in that year. Early Christian writers, however, testify against such an early date:

“Virtually all Christian historians and chronologers who lived from the second to the sixth centuries (and even later) put the birth of Christ after the eclipse of 4 BC. Iranaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Orosius, and Cassiodorus Senator said Christ’s birth was in a year we now recognize as 3 BC. (Footnote – In Pyramidology, Volume 2, pp. 309-312, Bro. Adam Rutherford states that Iranaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian support the 2 BC date. His references from their writings make this sound reasonable. We have not independently checked the first-hand sources however.) The early Christian chronologis Julius Africanus said it was in the year from 3 to 2 BC. This same year was accepted by Hippolytus of Rome. Origen, the Chronicon Cypianicum. Eusebius of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Hippolytus of Thebes, Photius Patriarch of Constantinople, the Greek historian Zonaras, and Bar Hebreaus, who quoted Syrian, Armenian, and Greek sources. Ephiphanius and the early Syrian chronological work called the Chronicon Edessenum indicate it was 2 BC. Almost all the early Christian fathers of whom we have record said Christ’s birth was in either 3 or 2 BC.? (Footnote – Ernest L. Martin. “The Celestial Pageantry Dating Christ’s Birth.” Christianity Today, pg. 17, December 3, 1976.)

The Scriptures support the later date. Jesus began his ministry as he turned 30, being baptized by John. (Luke 3:23) Since John had begun his ministry in the 15th year (Footnote – To reconcile this with the 4-7 BC dates, some assume this 15th year is reckoned from some co-regency with Augustus prior to Augustus’ death. So far as we know, this is an arbitrary assertion without historical support.) of Tiberius Ceasar (Luke 3:1), 29 AD, Jesus turned 30 years of age no earlier

than 29 AD. So Jesus could not have been born any earlier than 2 BC. (Footnote – For those wishing to calculate this, remember there is no year numbered “0” – the year preceding AD 1 is BC

1. This means any arithmetic between AD and BC dates must be adjusted by 1 to secure the correct result.)

This suggests that there has been an inaccurate deduction by many historians about the date of Herod’s death. What is their reasoning? Where is the flaw? In an article by William Filmer, published in the October, 1966 issue of Journal of Theological Studies, “The Chronology of the Reign of Herod the Great,” the evidence is reviewed in detail. Filmer concludes that Herod died early in 1 BC. We here summarize his findings.

Most of the primary information on Herod’s reign is from Josephus, and Jewish historian of the first century AD. He states that Herod died shortly after a lunar eclipse, but before passover.

Eclipses which could be the one referred to occurred on 15 September 5 BC, 12/13 March 4 BC, 9 January 1 BC, and 29 December 1 AD. To determine which of these four was meant, we look at other evidence.

Josephus indicates that Herod was appointed king of Judea by the Romans, Mark Antony specifically, three years before Herod actually conquered Jerusalem, deposing the previous king, Antigonus. He states that Herod reigned 37 years from his appointment, but 34 years from the death of Antigonus. (Footnote – Ant. XVII viii 1, Wars 1 xxxiii 8. Bro. Adam Rutherford in Volume 2 of his work Pyramidology forwards the thought that the 37 years dates from Herod’s victory at Jerusalem, and the 34 years from the death of Antigonus 3 years after that. While at first inclined to the argument, and examination of the balance of Josephus’ data to us obviates that possibility.) Therefore, if we could date any year of either span positively, we could compute the date of Herod’s death. Josephus does give data which enable dates to be assigned. The problem is that some of the data yields one date, and the balance of the data another.

On the one hand he states of Herod’s appointment, “Thus did this man receive the kingdom, having obtained it on the hundred and eighty-fourth olympiad, when Caius Domitius Calvinus was consul the second time, and Caius Asinius Pollio.” (Ant. XIV xiv 5) “This makes it 40 BC, but in this he is contradicted by Appian, who mentions Herod’s appointment in a context that can be dated from Dio’s Roman History to 39 BC.?”(Filmer, JTS pg. 285; Appian, Civil Wars, v. 75, chap. viii) And Josephus said of Herod’s victory at Jerusalem that he took it with help from General Sosius, “when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls at Rome, on the hundred eighty and fifth olympiad . . . ,” which gives 37 BC, but continues ” . . . on the third month, on the solemnity of the fast, as if a periodical revolution of calmities 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.” (Ant. XIV xvi 4) But Pompey conquered Jerusalem in 63 BC, giving 36 BC for Herod’s victory. Filmer also quotes Dio’s writings to show that Sosius was inactive in 37 BC, for “the Romans accomplished nothing worthy of note in Syria . . . Sosius . . . spent the time devising means, not for achieving some success and incurring [Antony’s] enmity, but for pleasing him without engaging in any activity.” (Dio, xlix, 23, 1-2)

Filmer supports the later dates (39/36 BC) with six more arguments: (1) a difference between Roman and Jewish new year dates may have led Josephus to err one year on relating Jewish records

with Roman consular years; (2) “Apart from this, several other consular dates given by Josephus are impossible to reconcile with one another.” (Pg. 287); (3) the 27 year span between Jerusalem’s fall to Pompey and to Herod is confirmed by Josephus’ mention of Hycanus (installed by Pompey) and his successor Antigonus (removed by Herod) holding the office of high priest for 24 years, and 3 years 3 months, respectively. (Footnote – Filmer later shows by a listing of 6 priestly rulers that Josephus uses an accession-year reckoning, meaning that a straight total of individual periods of office does result in a correct number of overall years.) (5) the history of Antony’s activities for six years from the Battle of Philippi (at the end of 42 BC) are much more consistent with the 39/36 BC dates; (6) Josephus refers to a shortage of food at the time of Jerusalem’s fall to Herod, caused by a sabbath year. Concluding that a previous sabbath was recorded in 135/134 BC, one would also have fallen in 37/36 BC. So at the close of 36 BC there would indeed have been a shortage of food due caused by a sabbath year.

WHERE ARE WE?

 What this evidence tells us is that Herod’s appointment to be king was in 39 BC, and his actual assumption of kingly power by conquering Jerusalem was in 36 BC, 37 and 34 years respectively bring us to 2 BC. So neither the eclipse of 5 BC nor that of 4 BC can be the one Josephus referred to as just preceding Herod’s death. The next possible eclipse would be that of 9 January BC 1. But isn’t that too late? Should’t Herod have died in 2 BC? No. We can adjust our dates by one year, if we assume (as the previous footnote suggested) that Josephus considers the first fractional year of reign as the “accenssion” year, and the next as year “one” (which was a common method of reckoning). Filmer also shows that both Herod’s appointment and victory at Jerusalem occurred after Tishri 1 of whatever year. Therefore, year “one” of Herod would be either Nisan 35 BC to Nisan 34 BC, or Tishri 35 BC to Tishri 34 BC, and Herod’s 34th (and last) year of kingship would end at either Nisan (spring) or Tishri (fall) BC 1 (depending on what month the regnal years began).

THE OTHER OPTION

 Those who use the 40/37 BC dates can place Herod’s death in 4 BC only by assuming “(1) That Josephus always reckons reigns or periods of time inclusively, that is by the non-accession-year rule. (2) That Herod’s regnal years began on 1 Nisan. (3) That Herod died after 1 Nisan in BC 4, and that Josephus reckoned the odd day or two of the new year as a full regnal year. The first assumption converts the fraction of a year into a whole, while the last two make a couple days count as a year.” (Filmer, JTS, pp. 293-294) The first assumption is contrary to Josephus’ usual reckoning, and the second is not provable. The third is impossible! If Herod died after 1 Nisan BC 4, there would be only 14 days left to Passover, which must accommodate a funeral procession which William Whiston (the translator) puts at “no less than twenty-five days,” and the quelling of a Jewish riot. (Ant., XVII viii-ix) (Footnote – This argument is nearly fatal in any case for the BC 4 date, as between the eclipse (March 12/13) and Passover (April 11) are only 4 weeks, which is still not adequate time.) The third assumption is therefore disproved, and the date must fall.

THE MEGILLAT TA’ANIT

 The Megillat Ta’anit, compiled shortly before AD 70, was a list of days, associated with notable events, on which the Jews were not to fast. The reason for the holiday is given in every case but two, 7 Kislev and 2 Shebat. According to Jewish tradition these were the dates of the deaths of two hated kings, Herod and Jannai. But which died on 7 Kislev, and which on 2 Shebat? 7 Kislev fell earlier in the year than all the eclipses of 1 and 4 BC; 2 Shebat was before that of 4 BC, but 15 days after both eclipses of BC 1. So, if there is validity to the tradition, Herod must have died on 2 Shebat, and it could not have been in 4 BC.

HEROD’S AGE

 Josephus said Herod died at about 70 years of age. (Ant. XVII vi 1; Wars 1 xxxiii 1) As most understand Josephus to mean that Herod was 25 when his father Antipater made him governor of Galilee (Footnote – “The Greek text reads fifteen, but this must be an error, for otherwise Herod could never have reached the age of seventy.” (Filmer, footnote, pg. 293) Whiston’s translation gives “25”.) in 47 BC, Herod would have been 70 in 2 or 1 BC.

CONCLUSIONS

 The eclipse marking the approximate time of Herod’s death was evidently that of 9 January BC 1, putting Jesus birth before the end of 2 BC. Scriptural evidence indicates Jesus was born no earlier than 2 BC. Therefore Jesus was born in 2 BC, and his ministry began in 29 AD. That this was the same year in which John began his ministry, and that John was 5-6 months older than Jesus (Luke 1:35-38), are consistent with the usual reasoning on Daniel 9:27 indicating that Jesus’ birth was in the fall of the year

Download PDF