Year

Archelaus

Year

Antipas

Year

Philip

coins discussed in paper

6t BC

accession

6t BC

accession

6t BC

accession

other coins

5t BC

t = year beginning in Tishri (i.e., autumn)

4t BC

3t BC

Note that all three dated their first official year as

2t BC

year 4

2t BC

5t BC, implying that they were placed in office

1t BC

year 5

sometime in 6t BC

From his last coin: Antipas issued year 4 coin as

soon as possible after Herod's death, still in 2t BC;

for propaganda purposes; antedated his reign to

6t BC (first official year 5t BC)

year 12

From his last coin: Philip antedate his reign to 6t BC

(first official year 5t BC)

10t

Archelaus deposed in AD 6 (

Ant.

17.342-347

11t

year 16

[17.13.2-3]): Note that 4t will not work! 4n would

12t

work only if Archelaus was deposed in the first 3

13t

months of the year (very unlikely since he had to

14t

year 19

travel to Rome for trial before being deposed by the

15t

emperor; travel not likely across the Mediterranean

16t

before spring)

17t

18t

19t

year 24

19t

20t

21t

22t

23t

24t

25t

year 30

26t

27t

28t

year 33

28t

year 33

29t

year 34

29t

year 34

30t

31t

32t

year 37

32t

year 37

Philip died in AD 33 or AD 34; corresponds to year 37

33t

coins, especially if he died in AD 33

34t

35t

36t

37t

38t

year 43

Antipas removed from office in summer AD 39; year

43 coins issued in early AD 38t

This article was published in Bibliotheca Sacra 178 (October-December 2021); 436-54,

copy is being made available in keeping with Bibliotheca Sacra guidelines.

__________________________________________________________________________________

BIBLIOTHECA SACRA 178 (October–December 2021): 436–54

DATING THE DEATH OF HEROD

AND THE REIGNS OF HIS SONS

Andrew E. Steinmann and Rodger C. Young

ABSTRACT

In previous articles we have argued that the consensus view of the

date for Herod’s death (early 4 BC) is contradicted by a variety of

evidence and that Herod died in early 1 BC. In this article we ex-

amine the only remaining pillar upon which the consensus rests,

the dating of the reigns of his sons who succeeded him. We note

that ancient historians, notably Josephus, contain indications

that Herod’s sons received royal prerogatives before Herod’s

death. It is proposed that this happened during the year that be-

gan in Tishri 6 BC, and it was to this date that Herod’s sons

back-dated their reigns, reigns that actually began sometime in 1

BC. We also examine the numismatic evidence of the coins issued

by Herod and his sons and demonstrate that it confirms this

view, thereby removing the final pillar that supports the consen-

sus chronology for Herod’s reign.

INTRODUCTION: PROBLEMS WITH THE CONSENSUS

CHRONOLOGY FOR HEROD THE GREAT

HE STRONGEST ARGUMENT for the consensus dating of Herod

the Great’s death is that his three sons dated the beginning

of their respective jurisdictions to 4 BC or shortly before. By

taking inclusive numbering for Herod’s 37-year and 34-year reign

lengths, as well as for the years of reign of Herod’s successors, the

two sets of numbers seem to converge so as to place Herod’s death

in the restricted time frame of Nisan 1 to Nisan 14 of 4 BC. The

Nisan 1 starting date for this period follows from the consensus

chronology that places Herod’s investiture by the Romans in late

40 BC and his capture of Jerusalem in the Nisan-based year that

Andrew E. Steinmann is Distinguished Professor of Theology and Hebrew at Con-

cordia University Chicago, River Forest, Illinois; Rodger C. Young is an independent

researcher in St. Louis, Missouri.

Dating the Death of Herod and the Reigns of His Sons 437

began on Nisan 1 of 37 BC. The Nisan 14 terminus ad quem for his

death is because Josephus (Ant. 14.213/14.9.3) depicts Herod’s son

Archelaus on the throne before the beginning of Passover not long

after Herod died.

The problems with this chronology are numerous. Because

they have been treated extensively in the preceding two studies in

this series

they will be summarized only briefly here: (1) Even if

Herod died at the earliest possible point in the period from Nisan 1

to Nisan 14 of 4 BC, that does not allow enough time for the word

to get from Jericho to Jerusalem to gather the articles for the fu-

neral, the actual gathering of those articles, their subsequent

freighting to Jericho, the solemn funeral march from Jericho to the

Herodium, followed by the internment and seven days of mourning,

all followed by the initial favorable reception of Archelaus by the

people and their subsequent rejection of his policies before the

Passover began on the fourteenth of the month. (2) The Nisan-

based calendar that is essential to the consensus system is refuted

by Josephus when he says that in matters of government (διοίκησις:

“government, administration”), his people followed a Tishri-based

calendar (Ant. 1.81/1.3.3).

(3) Herod’s appointment as king is ex-

plicitly dated by Appian (V:75) as occurring after the Treaty of Mi-

senum (August 39 BC). (4) Plutarch (Antony 33) and Dio Cassius

(Historiae romanae 48:36–39) state that the Senate’s appointment

of Ventidius to drive the Parthians out of Phoenicia and Syria was

also after the Treaty of Misenum. When Herod arrived in Phoenicia

right after his investiture by the Roman Senate, Ventidius was al-

ready there (War 1.290/1.15.3, Ant. 14.394/14.15.1), so his investi-

ture could not have been earlier than August of 39 BC. (5) The con-

sensus year for Herod and Sosius’s siege and capture of Jerusalem,

Andrew E. Steinmann and Rodger C. Young, “Elapsed Times for Herod the

Great in Josephus,” Bibliotheca Sacra 177 (July–September 2020): 308–28; Stein-

mann and Young, “Consular Years and Sabbatical Years in the Life of Herod the

Great,” Bibliotheca Sacra 177 (September–December 2020): 442–61.

Although the succeeding paragraphs will show that Herod measured his reign in

Tishri years, accepting Tishri years along with the consensus dates of Herod’s inves-

titure and capture of Jerusalem would place his death at some time in the year that

started on Tishri 1 of 4 BC. This would mandate discarding Josephus’s mention of a

lunar eclipse occurring shortly before Herod’s death. Although some would be will-

ing to reject the eclipse evidence, a greater difficulty is that the reigns of Herod’s

sons cannot accommodate a starting point that late. For example, the tenth year of

Archelaus would then start in Tishri of AD 5; ten years earlier by noninclusive

numbering would start his accession year on Tishri 1 of 6 BC, or Tishri 1 of 5 BC if

inclusive counting is used. Either figure is inconsistent with a date of Herod’s death

after Tishri 1 of 4 BC that would result if the consensus chronology abandoned its

Nisan calendar for the (correct) Tishri-based calendar.

438 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / October–December 2021

37 BC, is expressly negated by Dio Cassius (Historiae 49:23), who

says that in the consular year corresponding to 37 BC, Sosius and

the Roman army “accomplished nothing worthy of note” and did

not engage in any activity in the region. (6) The Sabbatical year

that Josephus says was in effect during the siege of Jerusalem was

shown to be 36 BC, while the consensus Sabbatical-year system,

built as it was on an erroneous date for the siege (37 BC), is in con-

flict with other postexilic Sabbatical years, the dates of which can

be firmly established by inscriptional, numismatic, and archaeolog-

ical evidence. (7) The incoherency of the consensus chronology’s

measurement of times for Herod was contrasted with the coherency

and agreement with Roman historical data, evinced by Filmer’s

chronology that places the death of Herod in early 1 BC.

This was

exhibited in the tables at the end of the “Elapsed Times” article.

WORKING PRINCIPLES OF THE PRESENT ARTICLE

As a consequence of these preceding studies and the work of others

in the field who have recognized the problems with the consensus

chronology for Herod, certain principles will be taken as founda-

tional when dealing with the timing of the reigns of Herod’s sons.

The first such principle that was established earlier is that Herod

died in the period between the total lunar eclipse of January 9/10, 1

BC, and the start of Passover on Nisan 14/April 8 of that year.

Since this date is later than numismatic and other evidence pro-

vides for the years to which Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip as-

signed their accession year, some form of antedating is indicated.

The present article will present evidence for antedating beyond

this simple calculation.

In keeping with the demonstration that Herod (and Josephus

when reporting on Herod) used Tishri years in determining the

year of reign, that principle will be used for Herod’s sons. Although

some of the data for determining events in their reigns are neces-

sarily expressed in terms of the Roman calendar, the tetrarchs

themselves would have used the Judean Tishri-based calendar in

reckoning their years of reign. This is consistent with the practice

of Judean kings in the monarchic period. The work of Valerius

Coucke

and Edwin Thiele

established that Judean kings always

W. E. Filmer, “The Chronology of the Reign of Herod the Great,” Journal of The-

ological Studies ns 17 (October 1966): 283–98.

Valerius Coucke, “Chronologie biblique,” in Supplément au Dictionnaire de la

Bible, ed. Louis Pirot, vol. 1 (Paris: Libraire Letouzey et Ané, 1928), cols. 1264–

1265.

Dating the Death of Herod and the Reigns of His Sons 439

reckoned their regnal years based on a Tishri calendar. The use of

the proper (Tishri-based) calendar is especially important when

considering the numismatic data.

WHAT IS AN ACCESSION YEAR?

It has been our experience that many who write on historical mat-

ters have a lack of understanding about some fine points regarding

the means by which those in authority in the Ancient Near East

measured their years of reign. Although there were some long-term

eras such as the Roman Anno Urbis Conditae, the Greek Olympi-

ads, or the Seleucid Era, for the time and the individuals that are

the subject of the present study the most important temporal met-

ric was the year of reign or service. This was used for Israel’s high

priests, kings, ethnarchs, and tetrarchs. Thousands of records of

legal contracts and other matters over a period of many centuries

used this method. It is found repeatedly in the writings of Jose-

phus. It was personally used by Herod and his successors, as is ev-

ident from the year-dates on their coins. It is therefore essential to

recognize just how these individuals understood that reign lengths

were to be measured. The technicalities involved were well under-

stood by Herod, Josephus, and their contemporaries, including

those who made legal contracts; it is incumbent on modern histori-

ans to determine just what their understanding was.

The first observation is that the years of reign were not “factu-

al,” which is a term applied to the situation where counting for the

years of reign was determined from the exact day on which some-

one took office.

Instead, the years were incremented when a new

calendar year officially began. For Judea in the time of the Herodi-

ans this was on the first of Tishri. It has already been stated that

the Greek terminology used by Josephus in Ant. 1.81/1.3.3 makes

this explicit. It is also borne out by other contemporary historical

considerations.

The remaining problem, then, has to do with how the partial

year in which the individual took office was counted: Was it his

Edwin Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 3rd ed. (Grand

Rapids: Kregel, 1994), 51–53.

The Roman practice was somewhat different, since they recorded the date on

which emperors acceded to the throne, and many of those dates have survived in the

writings of the Roman historians. Thus, years of emperors’ reigns could be counted

from the day they assumed office without any need for the non-accession method to

avoid double counting of years. Alternately, their reigns could be counted from the

following New Year’s Day (January 1).

440 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / October–December 2021

“year one,” or was it what in modern terms might be called his

“year zero?” Both methods were used in the Ancient Near East.

The Babylonians and Assyrians usually used the “year zero” meth-

od. However, since the mathematical concept of zero had not yet

been invented, they used a phrase equivalent to “the beginning of

the reign” (Akkadian resh sharutti) to refer to the partial year of

reign before the official “year one” began on Nisan 1 in their Nisan-

based calendar. An equivalent usage is found in 2 Kings 25:27: “in

the year Evil-Merodach became king of Babylon.” Coucke and

Thiele recognized that both methods were used in the Hebrew mo-

narchic period, with the “year zero” method usually called the ac-

cession method and the “(partial) year one” method called the non-

accession method.

Since the “year one” method counts the initial partial year as a

full year, this kind of reckoning is also called inclusive counting. It

is the method that is essential to the consensus chronology of the

reign of Herod. In this method, the initial year gets counted twice,

once for the dying or replaced ruler and once for his successor,

whereas using the accession method there is no such duplication of

counting. That non-accession or inclusive numbering was not used

by Josephus should have been established when Filmer analyzed

the list of reigns of the high priests from Simon to Aristobolus as

given by Josephus, after which Filmer concluded, “If each of these

reigns had been reckoned by the non-accession-year system, the

total would have exceeded the actual period by six years, and the

fact that it does not do so proves that Josephus used the accession-

year system.”

It is unfortunate that despite Filmer’s clear logic

and the added examples from subsequent investigations, the con-

sensus chronology, with its inclusive numbering, is still the majori-

ty viewpoint of modern scholarship. That Herod personally used

the accession system is shown from his “year three” coins, as will

be discussed below.

In what follows, then, the first partial year of any of the Hero-

dians will be referred to as their “accession year,” and it is under-

stood that this is the partial year that preceded what technically

should be called their “year one” in an accession-year system. Thus

for Herod himself: He was named as king by the Roman Senate

sometime not long after Tishri 1 of 39 BC; this is his accession

year, which we write as 39t BC (accession), the “t” after the BC

year indicating that Judean regnal years, starting in Tishri, are

intended. His official “year one” was then 38t and “year 3,” the year

Filmer, “Chronology,” 292.

Dating the Death of Herod and the Reigns of His Sons 441

in which he captured Jerusalem and issued his year-three coins,

was 36t BC, that is, the year that began on Tishri 1 of 36 BC and

which saw the fall of Jerusalem to Herod and Sossius nine days

later, on the Day of Atonement.

EVIDENCE FOR ANTEDATING BY HEROD’S SONS

IN THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS

Several passages in Josephus shed light on the authority exercised

by Herod’s sons during the final years of their father’s reign. First,

Josephus reports that during Antipater’s trial Herod testified be-

fore Varus that:

I confess to you, Varus, the great folly of which I was guilty. For I

provoked those sons of mine to act against me, and cut off their just

expectations for the sake of Antipater. Indeed, what kindness did I do

them, that could equal what I have done to Antipater, to whom I have,

in a manner, yielded up my royal authority, while I am alive, and

whom I have openly named for the successor to my dominions in my

will.

In effect, Herod testified that Antipater was not only his suc-

cessor, but his co-regent. In his reply and defense to his father An-

tipater made the same claim:

Indeed, what was there that could possibly provoke me against you?

Could the hope of being king do it? I was already a king. Could I sus-

pect hatred from you? No. Was not I beloved by you? And what other

fear could I have? No, by preserving you safe, I was a terror to others.

Did I lack money? No, for who was able to expend so much as myself?

Indeed, father, had I been the most execrable of all mankind, and had

I had the soul of the most cruel wild beast, must I not have been over-

come with the benefits you had bestowed upon me? Whom, as you

yourself say, you brought; whom you preferred before so many of your

sons; whom you made a king in your own lifetime, and, by the vast

magnitude of the other advantages you bestowed on me, you made me

an object of envy.

Antipater’s frustration about not being legally named coregent

that Josephus discusses at the beginning of Antiquities 17 appears

to confirm this. Therefore, Josephus’s consistent concern in Antiq-

uities 16–17 about the position of Herod’s sons in succession to

their father lends credence to the statements about Antipater’s po-

sition as “already king” in Jewish War 1. These statements are

made during speeches reported by Josephus, and therefore are not

War 1.625/1.32.2, italics added.

War 1.631–632/1.32.3, italics added.

442 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / October–December 2021

to be taken as verbatim quotes. Josephus may have invented the

speeches of Herod and Antipater, but his source in this matter was

Nicolaus of Damascus, who was present at, and participated in,

Antipater’s trial. Although in the Greco-Roman literary tradition,

authors were expected to show their rhetorical skill in crafting

speeches for their characters, any deviation from the basic circum-

stances and facts would reflect poorly on the author. One such

basic item of information is that Herod, while still living, had in-

deed yielded some of his authority to Antipater.

Unlike the consensus chronology, where the three sons of Her-

od must start their reigns at exactly the time when their father

died, such a coincidence of starting years is not essential to the

view that they antedated the start of their reigns to a time before

their father’s death. They could be reckoning to different events

and times, as long as the times were before the death of Herod in

early 1 BC. If, however, it is conjectured that they began their

reigns when their ill-fated half-brother Antipater was granted au-

thority by Herod, then the years from which they measured their

reigns could be used to date more closely the pinnacle of Antipa-

ter’s career. That Herod assigned royal status to his sons during

this time is suggested by a passage in War 1.461/1.23.5 where, ac-

cording to Josephus, Herod declared, “I am not giving away my

kingdom to my sons, but only give them royal titles; by which they

may enjoy the easy side of government as princes, while the burden

of decision rests upon myself whether I want it or not.” The context

of this remark places it in the time when Herod was still in good

health, which was before the trials of Alexander and Aristobolus

and the later death of Herod’s brother Pheroras. Determining the

year to which Herod’s sons antedated their reigns will allow us to

date more exactly the acme of Antipater’s career and the subse-

quent events related to his downfall. The granting of royal titles to

the three sons, added to the prerogatives that Antipater was exer-

cising at this early date, would offer an incentive for Archelaus,

Philip, and Antipas to maintain that their own authority began at

that time.

WHEN DID ANTIPATER EXERCISE AUTHORITY UNDER HEROD?

Antipater’s appointment as successor to Herod is related in War

1.573/1.29.2 and Ant. 17.52/17.3.2. In both passages, Josephus re-

lates that, should Antipater predecease Herod, then Philip would

be Herod’s successor. This declaration of Herod’s will reasonably

marks the beginning of the time when Antipater reckoned that he

“was already a king,” and when the other three sons were given

Dating the Death of Herod and the Reigns of His Sons 443

royal titles. The present study shows that Herod’s three sons an-

tedated the beginning of their reigns to sometime in the Judean

year that began in Tishri of 6 BC, which is a likely candidate for

the time of these events.

It is reasonable to propose that after the death of both Antipa-

ter and Herod, Philip, motivated by the timeless principle of sibling

rivalry, assumed that when Herod named him as successor to An-

tipater, the death of Antipater merited his claiming the same

rights that Antipater claimed before he was disgraced and put to

death. It does not seem unreasonable that Archelaus and Antipas

would have followed suit, each not to be outdone by his siblings.

THE LACK OF COINS OF ANTIPATER

Although Josephus, and apparently his source Nicolaus, relate that

Antipater boasted of all the authority he initially enjoyed under his

father Herod, no coins have been found with his name. As long as

his father Herod was alive, this is one prerogative that would not

have been shared; any coins issued would bear Herod’s name as

long as he was alive, not that of his son no matter how many other

responsibilities were shared. The importance of this in explaining

why Antipas and Philip have no coins dated to their years 1, 2, and

3 will be developed after examining the dated coins from the reigns

of these two other sons of Herod.

THE REIGN OF HEROD THE GREAT: 39T BC ACCESSION

DE JURE (36T DE FACTO) TO 2T BC

The pivotal dates for Herod were his investiture as king, his cap-

ture of Jerusalem, and his death, in 39t, 36t, and 2t BC respective-

ly.

These dates, originally proposed by Filmer,

were confirmed

in detail in the two previous studies of this series.

Unlike the

consensus dates for Herod, they are consistent with the Roman

consular years for Herod’s appointment as king by the Romans and

later siege of Jerusalem as found in Appian and Dio Cassius. They

Herod’s investiture took place in 39t BC not long after Tishri 1 of 39 BC. It is of

some interest that a record has been found showing that the Roman Senate was in

session a few days after Tishri 1 of 39 BC, with both Antony and Octavius present.

See Joyce Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome (Hertford, UK: Stephen Austin and

Sons, 1992), 70, 74. Herod’s “year one” would have been reckoned from the following

Tishri.

Filmer, “Chronology,” 298.

Steinmann and Young, “Elapsed Times;” and Steinmann and Young, “Consular

Years and Sabbatical Years.”

444 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / October–December 2021

are also in agreement with the correct sequence of Sabbatical years

for the time, that of Ben Zion Wacholder.

Since the two previous

studies present multiple reasons why the death of Herod was in

early 1 BC (Judean regnal year 2t BC), that date may be consid-

ered one of the two foundations for the case that Herod’s sons an-

tedated their reigns. The other foundation is that Herod’s sons dat-

ed their reigns from a time before Herod’s death, as was mentioned

above and will be discussed further below.

THE COINS OF HEROD THE GREAT

Most coins issued by Herod were undated. The exception is a series

of coins issued under his authority that do contain a date: year

three.

These consist of four denominations of coins, each with the

inscription ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΗΡΩΔΟΥ, “of King Herod.”

Nearly every-

one considers these coins to have been issued during Herod’s first

year as king after his conquest of Jerusalem.

This has been chal-

lenged most prominently by Meshorer, who noted that a ligature

on all four coin types appears to be a Greek tau and rho superim-

posed on each other.

Meshorer proposed that this ligature pro-

claimed Herod as tetrarch, a position granted him by Antony some

time before the Roman Senate proclaimed Herod king. Thus, ac-

cording to Meshorer the “year three” inscription refers to Herod’s

third year as tetrarch, not his third year as king.

Meshorer’s proposal has met with little support, and for good

reason: not only is there no known ancient source that reckoned

Herod’s reign from his appointment as tetrarch, but it makes little

sense for Herod to proclaim himself as king on his coins and then

draw attention to the lesser rank of tetrarch. Richardson and Fish-

er discuss this ligature:

Ben Zion Wacholder, “The Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles during the Second

Temple and the Early Rabbinic Period,” Hebrew Union College Annual 44 (1973):

153–96.

“Year three” is denoted on the coins by the symbol “L” (for “year”) followed by

the third letter of the Greek alphabet Γ.

David Hendin, Guide to Biblical Coins, 5th ed. (New York: Amphora, 2010),

233–34; Yaʾakov Meshorer, A Treasury of Jewish Coins from the Persian Period to

Bar Kokhba (Nyack, NY: Amphora, 2001), 61–63; Peter Richardson and Amy Marie

Fisher, Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans, 2nd ed., Ancient Biog-

raphies (London: Routledge, 2018), 306–10. The denominations are usually assumed

to be 8, 4, 2 protot, and 1 prutah.

Jean-Philippe Fontanille and Aaron J. Kogon, The Coinage of Herod Antipas: A

Study and Die Classification of the Earliest Coins of Galilee, Ancient Judaism and

Early Christianity 102 (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 16.

Meshorer, A Treasury of Jewish Coins, 61–62.

Dating the Death of Herod and the Reigns of His Sons 445

There are at least nine different scholarly interpretations of this liga-

ture, some more fanciful than others, the likeliest explanation being

the monogram of someone involved in the minting. The monogram is

not Herod’s own, for the inscription already makes clear that the

coins are his. Rappaport suggests that this must be the monogram of

the mint master, while Ariel and Fontanille suggest it is the mono-

gram of the magistrate responsible for the issue of the coin, who had

direct supervision of the production of new coin issues; his monogram

would be a sort of quality control stamp. Ariel and Fontanille note

“unidentified monograms and abstract symbols were the rule, not the

exception. Since we know very few of the names of magistrates in the

southern Levant, we are unlikely to discover this person’s identity.”

However, Kanael has suggested that the ligature is a contraction

for trito, third year, arguing that Herod may have wanted to accen-

tuate that his first year in Jerusalem was to be regarded as his

third year as king.

In support of Kanael’s theory is the fact that

both the 2 protot and 1 prutah denominations exist without the

date and ligature. Removing the date—perhaps for issues in subse-

quent years—would not have necessitated removing the ligature if

the ligature was merely a mint mark.

However, no matter what

the meaning of the tau-rho ligature, the most likely explanation of

the inscription “year three” is that it denotes year three of Herod’s

reign as king.

Yet this raises the question of why Herod first issued coins in

year three of his reign. Moreover, since these are his only dated

coins, year three appears to be significant. The explanation for this

is that Herod was reckoning his years on the throne beginning

from his appointment by Antony and the Senate, and three years

after that investiture saw his conquest of Jerusalem.

Therefore,

Herod antedated his reign to his de jure authority (according to the

Romans) instead of using the de facto date of his reign in the year

that he conquered Jerusalem. This choice of dating was most prob-

Richardson and Fisher, Herod: King of the Jews, 310.

Baruch Kanael, “Ancient Jewish Coins and Their Historical Importance,” Bibli-

cal Archaeologist 26 (May 1963): 48. Since we hold that Herod conquered Jerusalem

in 36t BC, three years after his appointment as king in his accession year 39t BC,

his issuance of coins shortly after his conquest of Jerusalem was designed to pro-

claim him king of Judea. That year, 36t BC, would have been his de jure year three.

The reason for removing the ligature and date is not clear. However, it ought to

be noted that all of the subsequent issues by Herod as well as all of the issues by his

son Archelaus were undated. Leaving the coins undated may have been done in

deference to the majority Jewish population who were used to mostly undated coins

of the Hasmoneans (only a few Hasmonean coins were dated).

Ant. 14.465/14.15.14; War 1.343/1.17.8.

446 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / October–December 2021

ably for propaganda purposes. Fontanille and Kogon note:

A ruler may have one or more of several reasons to mint coins. Coins

could be minted to finance wars or construction projects. While coins

were not usually struck solely for propaganda, they were still used to

disseminate it. Inter alia, coins could also be used to mark a ruler’s

autonomy, symbolize his strength, mark notable travels, and com-

memorate military victories or the founding of a city.

As far as is known, the only significant year three of Herod

would have been the beginning of his reign in Jerusalem. Thus,

Herod left a precedent for his sons to follow, and they, too, might

possibly have antedated their reigns to a time before their de facto

assumption of power. Their coins bear witness to that practice.

Further, the “3” on the coin must be taken in a non-inclusive

sense if it is marking the year in which Herod captured Jerusalem.

The consensus view, which believes that Herod counted his years

in an inclusive manner, would have Herod conquering Jerusalem

in 37n BC (the “n” indicating a Nisan-based year), but his investi-

ture in 40n BC. Since the consensus view contends that Herod’s

years were counted inclusively (i.e., using non-accession reckoning)

from his investiture, Herod’s earliest dated coin would have had to

bear a “year 4” inscription. Thus, Herod’s coins provide physical

evidence that he counted the years of his reign in a non-inclusive

manner. The coins demonstrate that he reckoned his accession or

“zero” year to be 39t BC, the year of his investiture as king, his

“year one” to be 38t BC, and his “year three” to be 36t BC, in con-

trast to the consensus view that makes the partial year in which he

was invested to be his “year one” and his “year three” to be the year

before he captured Jerusalem. This is additional evidence that

when the coins of Herod’s sons have a year marker, the same non-

inclusive significance should be given preference, whereas most

numismatists assume inclusive reckoning.

THE REIGN OF HEROD ARCHELAUS: 6T BC ACCESSION

TO AD 5T (AD 6, ROMAN CALENDAR)

When Archelaus went to Rome to have his authority confirmed by

Augustus he was opposed by his enemies. Josephus reports that

they brought what appeared to be contradictory charges. One

charge was that Herod did not appoint Archelaus king until he was

demented and dying.

The other charge was that Archelaus had

Fontanille and Kogon, The Coinage of Herod Antipas, 17.

War 2.31/2.2.5; Ant. 17.238/17.9.5.

Dating the Death of Herod and the Reigns of His Sons 447

exercised royal authority for some time (War 2.26/2.2.5). These two

charges are not as contradictory as they seem. Archelaus was

named Herod’s successor about four years before Herod’s death and

may have exercised royal authority until a brief period before Her-

od’s death when he was temporarily disinherited. Then, while he

was dying and many thought he was no longer of sound mind, Her-

od once again rewrote his will to leave the kingdom to Archelaus.

Therefore, once Archelaus was confirmed as king to succeed his

father, he may well have begun to reckon his reign from the time

that he was initially named successor or from the time that he and

his half-brothers were given royal titles (War 1.461/1.23.5).

The last year of Archelaus’s reign is given in Dio Cassius

(55:27) as the consular year corresponding to AD 6, when Archela-

us was banished by Augustus to “beyond the Alps.” Josephus (Ant.

17.342/17.13.2) relates that it was in the tenth year of his reign

that Archelaus was banished to Vienna in Gaul. Unfortunately for

Josephus’s credibility, he had stated in War 2.111/2.7.2 that the

banishment was in Archelaus’s ninth year. Since Antiquities was

the later of the two works, the tenth year is more likely correct,

and will be used in determining the year that reckoned as his ac-

cession year, although the alternative expressed in War should be

kept in mind. The narration of events in Antiquities and War sug-

gests that Archelaus’s banishment came before the fall season of

AD 6, so that his last year by Judean reckoning would be AD 5t.

Assuming non-inclusive (i.e., accession) reckoning as was used by

his father Herod gives his accession (“zero”) year as 6t BC.

The

consensus view places Archelaus’s reign beginning in 4 BC imme-

diately after Herod’s death (which is held to have occurred in Nisan

of 4 BC). Thus, the consensus view would have Archelaus’s reign

dated from 4n BC to AD 6n by using inclusive (non-accession) reck-

oning. A major difficulty with these consensus dates was men-

tioned in the introduction: All of the activities associated with Her-

od’s death cannot be fit into the period Nisan 1 to 14 of 4 BC.

THE COINS OF HEROD ARCHELAUS

There are six known coins issued under Archelaus, whose coins

bear the name Herod and the title Ethnarch.

None has a date.

Thus, Archelaus’s coins are of little probative value in determining

the dates of his reign.

AD 5t – 10 – 1 (no year zero) = 6t BC. 5t BC if the “ninth year” of War is correct.

Hendin, Guide to Biblical Coins, 244–45; Meshorer, A Treasury of Jewish Coins,

78–81.

448 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / October–December 2021

THE REIGN OF HEROD ANTIPAS: 6T BC ACCESSION

TO AD 38T (AD 39, ROMAN CALENDAR)

Antipas ruled the tetrarchy of Galilee and Perea (Ant.

18.240/18.7.1). His wife Herodias was jealous of the honors given to

her brother Herod Agrippa, honors above those of her husband An-

tipas, and so she persuaded Antipas to go to Rome to seek equal

honors from Gaius Caesar (Caligula). Agrippa turned Caligula

against Antipas, so that Caligula banished him and his wife. This

would have to be year 43 of Antipas, because he has coins dating to

year 43. The banishment must have been before the fall of AD 39,

because Caligula left for Gaul in the fall of that year, not returning

until August 31, AD 40.

The encounter between Caligula and An-

tipas could not have occurred after Caligula’s return from Gaul

(i.e., after August of AD 40), because Antipas was not involved in

the trouble over Caligula’s statue for the Jerusalem temple that is

related by Josephus and Philo (Legatio ad Galium) after his ac-

count of the deposition of Antipas. Therefore, taking year 43 as An-

tipas’s last year, we date it in the Judean system to AD 38t. Re-

membering that there was no year zero, this puts his accession

year as 6t BC.

THE COINS OF HEROD ANTIPAS

For many years five series of coins were known to be issued by An-

tipas: those of years 24, 33, 34, 37, and 43.

The first and last of

these are especially important. The coins of year 43 come from the

last year of Antipas’s reign. They were minted before his trip to

Rome to see Emperor Gaius (Caligula), who two years earlier had

named Antipas’s brother-in-law Agrippa as king and successor to

Philip.

Antipas travelled to Rome in AD 39 with lavish gifts, and

he intended to flatter Gaius, hoping to also be named king.

Part

of the attempt to appeal to Gaius is shown on the year 43 coins

with the inscription ΓΑΙΩ ΚΑΙCΑΡΙ ΓΕΡΜΑΝΙΚΩ, that is, “in honor

of Gaius Caesar Germanicus.” As shown in the previous paragraph,

this is in agreement with Antipas’s accession year as 6t BC.

Antipas’s year 24 series coins are the first to bear the inscrip-

tion ΤΙΒΕΡΙΑC, “Tiberias,” in honor of the emperor. Apparently,

Suetonius, Life of Caligula 8, 49.

Hendin, Guide to Biblical Coins, 251–55; Meshorer, A Treasury of Jewish Coins,

81–85.

Ant. 18.240–242/18.7.1.

Ant. 18.246–256/18.7.2.

Dating the Death of Herod and the Reigns of His Sons 449

they were issued to mark the founding of the city of Tiberias in AD

20, and once again demonstrate that Antipas dated his reign from

6t BC. The subsequent series of years 33, 34, and 37 also bore this

inscription until it was replaced by the inscription honoring Gaius

in the year 43 series.

More recently one example of the earliest known coin of Anti-

pas has been found.

On its obverse this coin bears the inscription

ΤΕΤΡΑ[ΡΧ]ΗC Δ, “Tetrarch [year] 4” with the inscription ΗΡΩ[Δ]

(“Herod”) on the reverse.

Hendin has observed that this coin ap-

pears to be trial coinage struck at Antipas’s first capital city, Sep-

phoris.

It has also been noted that this coin is unlike the later

coins issued by Antipas, and more like the coins issued by his fa-

ther.

Thus, this coin appears to have been a limited mintage—

perhaps a trial—and to have been somewhat hastily executed in

the style of Antipas’s father. All of this points to this as a first at-

tempt in coinage to assert Antipas’s position as tetrarch at the be-

ginning of his reign. But if it was a first attempt, this implies that

he did not have authority to issue coinage in the three preceding

years because he was still subordinate to his father Herod, who

was still alive.

Considering Antipas’s obvious exploitation of the propagan-

distic value of coinage, this coin most likely ought to be understood

to have been issued during Antipas’s first de facto year as te-

trarch.

Like his father, Antipas most likely used this coin to de-

clare which year ought to be reckoned as his first. Thus, although

David Hendin, “A New Coin Type of Herod Antipas.” Israel Numismatic Journal

15 (2003–2006): 56–61; Hendin, Guide to Biblical Coins, 248–50; Fontanille and

Kogon, The Coinage of Herod Antipas, 9–11.

It has been suggested by Goldstein that the Δ on the obverse is a completion of

the name Herod, and not a year mark. Fontanille and Kogon, The Coinage of Herod

Antipas, 11. However, there are a number of reasons to discount this: (1) No known

Herodian coins exhibit the continuation of a word from a coin’s reverse to its obverse

(or from the obverse to the reverse). (2) Other contemporary Levantine coins at

times omit the symbol L or the word ΕΤΟΥ (“year”; Hendin, “A New Coin Type of

Herod Antipas,” 58). (3) It is not unusual for coins—especially small coins—to ab-

breviate names or titles. On this coin the title tetrarch is abbreviated by omitting

two interior letters (ΡΧ). (4) All other coins of Antipas are dated.

Hendin, “A New Coin Type of Herod Antipas,” 57.

Fontanille and Kogon, The Coinage of Herod Antipas, 9.

Note that Fontanille and Kogon, who accept the consensus view that Herod the

Great died in 4 BC, are at a loss to offer a good explanation for the issuance of this

coin. They can only surmise that “perhaps the mintage of this coin type could be

associated with construction at Sepphoris, which likely began around the beginning

of Antipas’s reign.” Fontanille and Kogon, The Coinage of Herod Antipas, 17.

450 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / October–December 2021

the coin would seem to indicate that Antipas had reigned four

years, it may well indicate that this was the first year he had au-

thority to issue coinage—his first actual year as tetrarch. Consider-

ing the argument just above that he reckoned his “accession” year

as 6t BC, this “year four” coin would have been issued in 2t BC,

which is compatible with our thesis that Herod died in 2t BC, but

his sons antedated their reigns to start four years before that time

and only were able to issue coinage after their father died.

THE REIGN OF PHILIP THE TETRARCH: 6T BC

ACCESSION TO AD 32T

Determining Philip’s accession year from the texts of Josephus

turns out to be problematic, largely due to textual questions in the

relevant Josephan passages. The first problem is whether Philip’s

death was in the twentieth year of Tiberius, as given in all modern

editions, or in Tiberius’s twenty-second year, as given in the many

Latin manuscripts issued before AD 1544.

Adding to the ambigui-

ty is whether Josephus was using “factual” years for the reign of

Tiberius (dating his years from the exact date he was declared em-

peror by the Senate) or by calendar years starting on January 1.

The total years of Philip’s reign is also called into question, with

many manuscripts giving 37 years, but others giving 32 and 36

years. In light of these variables, it will be more convenient to use

the numismatic data in determining the Philip’s starting and end-

ing dates. The advantage of coins is that they are a primary source

of information, unlike manuscripts that are copies of copies over

periods of centuries and are subject to intentional and unintention-

al scribal emendations.

THE COINS OF PHILIP THE TETRARCH

Philip issued coins in eight series, dated years 5, 12, 16, 19, 30, 34,

and 37. The first issue that Philip’s coins settle is the length of his

reign. His last series of coins was issued in four denominations,

each inscribed on the reverse with L ΛΖ, “year 37.” They confirm

the texts of Josephus that give 37 years for the length of Philip’s

reign.

In year 19 of his reign, Philip issued a coin inscribed on the

obverse (in the Greek dative case) ΤΙΒ ΚΑΙCΑΡΙ ΣΕΒΑΣ, “for

See the discussion of these issues in Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chro-

nology, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 301. See also Andrew Stein-

mann, “When Did Herod the Great Reign,” Novum Testamentum 51 (2009): 23–24.

Dating the Death of Herod and the Reigns of His Sons 451

Tib[erius] Caesar Augustus.” The reverse has the inscription

ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΧΟΥ, “of Philip the Tetrarch” and the symbol L

(for “year”) followed by ΙΘ, denoting year 19. It likely commemo-

rates Tiberius’s ascension to the imperial throne on September 18,

AD 14, following the death of Augustus on August 19, AD 14. The

coin was probably issued not long after news of Tiberius’s accession

reached Judea. Taking this as Judean year AD 14t would place

Philip’s first year as 6t BC.

Thus, upon hearing of Tiberius’s ac-

cession sometime in October or November of AD 14, it is likely that

Philip issued this coin late in that year or early in AD 15.

The coin of year 19 settles another issue that is problematic in

the textual data. Since Philip’s year 19 was AD 14t, his 37th and

final year, 18 years later, was AD 32t. This rules out Philip’s dying

in the 22nd year of Tiberius, as given in some manuscripts of Jose-

phus. It is compatible with Tiberius’s 20th year if Josephus reck-

oned Tiberius’s reign in a “factual” manner, i.e. reckoning Tiberi-

us’s “year one” as starting with his declaration as emperor by the

Senate on September 18, AD 14, so that his 20th year by this reck-

oning began on September 18, AD 33. This overlaps Philip’s 37th

year by Judean reckoning in the period September 18 to October 14

(last day of Elul), indicating that Philip died during those four

weeks. The calculation depends on Josephus reckoning Tiberius’s

twentieth year in a factual sense rather than starting on January

1. That Josephus used this method for Roman emperors is suggest-

ed by his giving their reign lengths in the exact terms of years,

months, and days rather than just years as he does for Judean rul-

ers.

In his year 34 Philip issued a coin inscribed on its obverse

ΤΙΒΕΡΙΟΥ ΣΕΒΑΣΤΟΣ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ, “of Tiberius Augustus Caesar.” On

its reverse is the inscription ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΣ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ ΚΤΙΣ, “of Phil-

ip the Tetrarch, founder” as well as L ΛΔ, “year 34.” This coin

commemorates Philip’s refounding of Bethsaida and renaming it

Livias in honor of Livia Drusilla, the wife of Augustus and mother

of Tiberius.

Livia died on September 28, AD 29, and this coin

AD 14t – 19 – 1 (no year zero) = 6t BC.

Josephus reckons the length of reign in this way for the following emperors:

Augustus (War 2.168/2.9.1), Tiberius (War 2.180/2.9.5), Gaius (Ant. 19.201/19.2.5),

Claudius (War 2.248/2.12.8 and Ant. 20.148/20.8.1), and Nero (War 4.491/4.9.2). The

textual problems with some of Josephus’s figures do not invalidate the principle

that he was trying to measure their time of reign in a “factual” or exact sense.

As stipulated in Augustus’s will, Livia had been adopted into the Julian family

and given the title “Augusta.” She then became known as Julia Augusta. While the

city was generally known as “Livias,” Josephus always calls this city “Julias,” since

452 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / October–December 2021

commemorates Philip’s dedication of Bethsaida to her in the follow-

ing year, which we take as AD 29t by Judean reckoning. Once

again this implies that Philip reckoned his accession or “zero” year

as 6t BC.

WHY ARE THERE NO YEAR 1, 2, OR 3 COINS FOR THE TETRARCHS?

No dated coins for Archelaus have been found. The earliest known

dated coin for Philip is for his year 5. The above study calculated

his starting year as 6t BC, which would date the issuing of his year

5 coin to 1t BC. For Antipas, the earliest coin is for year 4. Using

his starting year, 6t BC, along with non-inclusive numbering, plac-

es the issuing in 2t BC. The consequence is that Philip and Antipas

minted their first coins from 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 years after the consen-

sus date for the death of Herod.

This lack of any coins from years 1, 2, or 3 of Philip and Anti-

pas is very problematic for the consensus paradigm for Herod. In

researching the present article, we have sought the opinion of in-

ternationally known numismatists regarding two questions: (1)

How many dated coins are known from the two tetrarchs, and (2)

Why are none of them dated from their years 1, 2, or 3?

The uniform answer for question 1: The dated coins are in

many collections, public and private, around the world, and no one

knows how many there are, although the number is estimated to be

in the thousands. This answer provoked the following experiment.

We assumed that there were only 100 dated coins from Philip, and

a similar 100 dated coins from Antipas. We then assumed that the

probability of Philip commissioning a dated coin in any year of his

37-year reign was equal to that of any other year, and the same for

the 43-year reign of Antipas. We then asked, What is the probabil-

ity, given this simple starting place, that no coins from years 1, 2,

or 3 of Philip and no coins from years 1, 2, or 3 of Antipas would

exist? The result of this happening by chance came out as 1.06

times 10–7, that is, one part in ten million. This strongly indicates

that some factor is mitigating against the hypothesis we were test-

ing, namely that any year of reign was equally good as any other

year for issuing coins. Of course, the results would be much more

improbable if we used the greater numbers (probably thousands)

for extant dated coins suggested by our correspondents.

For question 2, two correspondents replied that the issuing of

coins was “sporadic.” Judging by the literature, others would seem

he calls Augustus’s wife “Julia,” never “Livia.”

AD 29t – 34 – 1 (no year zero) = 6t BC.

Dating the Death of Herod and the Reigns of His Sons 453

to agree with this statement. But “sporadic” is a term that seems

fairly close to the hypothesis that the years were equally probable,

and which our calculation showed was effectively falsified. The

above discussion of coins strongly suggested that special events

such as the accession of a new emperor were likely to bring about a

commemorative coin issue, and so it might be argued that not all

years were equally probable for issuing coins. But in the history of

the time, those events themselves could be considered as equally

probable as happening in any year of the two tetrarchs; it should

have been just as probable that some notable event occurred in

years 1, 2, or 3 as in any other year. In fact, there was one year

that, with our knowledge of the time, was very likely to have a

commemorative issue: the year in which the ruler first had the au-

thority to issue a coin with his imprimatur. This is shown by Herod

issuing his “year 3” coin in the year following his capture of Jerusa-

lem, and it is shown by the Roman governor Coponius issuing a

coin in his first year of governorship in Judea, as did two of his

successors, Marcus Ambibulus and Valerius Gratus. Therefore, the

argument that the issuing of coins by Herod’s sons was not actually

random, but was more likely to occur as commemorating some spe-

cial event, presents a further difficulty to the consensus view. In

that view, some explanation should be given why, in the consensus

system, the sons of Herod waited until three years after the death

of Herod to issue a coin commemorating the very special event of

their assumption of authority.

The most reasonable explanation that we have found for the

lack of coins issued in the first three years of their reign is that

they did not have the authority to do so. The reason they lacked

authority is that their father Herod the Great was still alive in the

year to which they backdated their reigns and would live until the

first part of the following fourth year (2t BC). After Herod’s death,

the tetrarchs would have wanted to establish their authority by

issuing coins, and that they did so is attested by the dates that

have been calculated for their earliest dated coins: 2t BC and 1t

BC. Both dates are consistent with Herod dying in early 2t BC, and

both are consistent with the presumed desire of these tetrarchs to

testify to their authority by issuing coins very soon after their ear-

liest opportunity, as apparently their father had done. This is all

consistent with the view that Herod’s sons antedated their reigns

to four years prior to the death of their father, a view that is re-

quired by the evidence. The consensus viewpoint that places the

start of reign of the tetrarchs at the death of Herod then needs to

explain why of the thousands of coins they authorized, none has a

date from their first three years.

454 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / October–December 2021

CONCLUSION

When working on the preceding articles in this series, we were

aware that investigators who hold to the consensus position would

appeal to the dates for Herod’s sons to support their position, no

matter how effectively the other pillars of their construction were

refuted. The shortcomings of the other pillars—Nisan-based regnal

years, inclusive counting of those years, Zuckermann’s sabbatical-

year calendar, and Josephus’s wrong consular years for Herod—

were discussed in the previous articles as well as in Filmer’s semi-

nal paper.

The acceptance of non-inclusive numbering and a

Tishri calendar for Herod’s sons would require that these sons dat-

ed the start of their authority to sometime even before the consen-

sus date for Herod’s death, 4 BC, so that some form of antedating

of their reigns is required. This final article has shown that all

three sons of Herod antedated the beginning of their authority to

some event or set of circumstances that took place in 6t BC. It was

suggested that a possibility for such an event was Herod’s assign-

ing royal titles to his sons at this time.

In deriving this date for the antedating, use was made of the

work of numismatists who have carefully categorized and analyzed

contemporary Judean and Roman coins. Of interest were the vari-

ous year-stamps on the coins of two of Herod’s sons that back-dated

the year to which they attributed the beginning of their authority

to the same accession year that can be calculated from the histories

of Josephus and Dio Cassius for Archelaus, whose coins have no

year-stamps. The excellent work of the numismatists has, some-

what surprisingly to us who were novices in the field, allowed the

coins to “speak out of the dust” and establish that the last pillar of

the consensus chronology can no longer stand. With all of the con-

sensus pillars disproved, New Testament scholars can confidently

build their chronologies on the proper date for Herod’s death, 1 BC,

with consequent ramifications for the birth of Christ in late 3 or

early 2 BC, as supported by virtually all early Christian authors.

The further consequence is that our Lord’s death and resurrection

are firmly established in AD 33 rather than at a time three years

earlier that was supported, in part, by appeal to the consensus

scholarship’s dates for Herod.

See not only the two previous articles in this series (see footnote 1), but also

Rodger C. Young and Andrew E. Steinmann, “Caligula’s Statue for the Jerusalem

Temple and Its Relation to the Chronology of Herod the Great,” Journal of the

Evangelical Theological Society 62 (December 2019): 759–73 and Steinmann, “When

Did Herod the Great Reign?”