Event Consensus (Schürer) formula OK?
(§1) 6 Hasmonean rulers from Simon through Aristobolus;
total of reigns agrees with 79 years between Simon
becoming high priest in 142n and Pompey capturing
Jerusalem in 63n
If Inclusive counting is assumed,
one year must be subtracted for
each of the 6 rulers, giving 73
years
No
(§2) 45 years from Herod’s appointment as στρατηγὸς in
late 47 or early 46 BC, age 25 until his death at age about 70
47n + 25 – 70 = 2n No
(§3) Herod began siege of Jerusalem in third year (τρίτον
ἔτος) after appointment by Romans
40n – 2 (act) = 38n (not possible
since siege began after Nisan 1, 37
BC)
No
(§4) In Herod’s 18th year from appointment as king by
Romans, Augustus Caesar comes into Syria (20 BC). Work
starts on Temple
40n – 17 (act) = 23n No
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(§12) Hyrcanus II, appointed high priest by Pompey in 63 BC,
ruled 24 years, followed by Antigonus, 3 years 3 months.
Total is 27 years 3 months, agreeing with 27 years from
Pompey’s capture of Jerusalem to Herod’s.
Inclusive reckoning would mean
23 actual yrs and 2 actual yrs, 3
mo: total 25 yrs 3 mo,
contradicting 27 exact yrs
No
(§13) 28 high priests & 107 years from Antigonus to fall of
Jerusalem in AD 70
40n (BC) + AD 70n – 1 (no year 0) =
109 years
No
ELAPSED TIMES FOR HEROD THE GREAT
IN JOSEPHUS
Andrew E. Steinmann and Rodger C. Young
The following article was published in the July-September 2020 issue of Bibliotheca
Sacra, volume 177. This copy is being made available in keeping with Bibliotheca
Sacra guidelines for a user’s site. Copyright 2020 by Dallas Theological Seminary;
https://www.dts.edu/media-publications/bibliotheca-sacra/
E
lapsed
T
imes
for
H
erod
the
G
reat
in
J
osephus
Andrew
E.
Steinmann
and
Rodger
C.
Young
A
bstract
Determining
the
chronology
of
Herod
the
Great,
as
given
in
Jose
phus,
involves
many
factors:
consular
years,
Sabbatical
years,
Nisan
or
Tishri
years
regarding
Herod
’
s
reign,
inclusive
or
non-
inclusive
counting
for
elapsed
time,
and
the
year
from
which
Her
od
’
s
sons
considered
their
reigns
to
have
begun.
The
present
arti
cle
focuses
on
just
two
of
these
issues
—
elapsed
time
and
Nisan
versus
Tishri
years
—
as
dealt
with
in
the
two
most
frequently
cit
ed
positions
formulated
for
the
death
of
Herod,
those
of
Schürer
and
Filmer.
Tables
at
the
end
demonstrate
which
of
the
two
views
best
agrees
with
the
many
designations
of
elapsed
time
in
Jose
phus.
O
VER
THE
MANY
YEARS
IN
WHICH
THE
CHRONOLOGY
of
Herod
the
Great
has
been
discussed,
the
two
positions
that
have
found
the
most
advocates
are
first,
those
associated
with
the
name
of
Emil
Schürer,
1
*
holding
for
a
4
BC
date
for
the
death
of
Herod,
and
second,
those
associated
with
the
thesis
of
W.
E.
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.
1
Emil
Schiirer,
A
History
of
the
Jewish
People
in
the
Time
of
Jesus
Christ,
5
vols.,
trans.
John
Macpherson
(1890;
reprint,
Peabody,
MA:
Hendrickson,
2009).
Among
the
many
who
accept
Schurer
’
s
date
of
4
BC
for
the
death
of
Herod
are
Don
Blosser,
“
The
Sabbath
Year
Cycle
in
Josephus,
”
Hebrew
Union
College
Annual
52
(1981):
124-39;
Paul
L.
Maier,
“
The
Date
of
the
Nativity
and
the
Chronology
of
Jesus
’
Life,
”
in
Chronos,
Kairos,
Christos:
Nativity
and
Chronological
Studies
Presented
to
Jack
Finegan,
ed.
Jerry
Vardaman
and
Edwin
M.
Yamauchi
(Winona
Lake:
Eisenbrauns,
1989),
113-19;
Douglas
Johnson,
“
And
They
Went
Eight
Stades
toward
Herodeion,
”
in
Chronos,
Kairos,
Christos,
93-99;
Raymond
Jachowski,
“
The
Death
of
Herod
the
Great
and
the
Latin
Josephus:
Re-examining
the
Twenty-second
Year
of
Tiberius,
”
Journal
of
Greco-Roman
Christianity
and
Judaism
11
(2015):
9
—
18.
Filmer,
2
who
put
the
death
of
Herod
in
early
1
BC.
Although
vari
ous
other
positions
have
been
advocated,
such
as
those
that
put
the
death
of
Herod
in
5
BC,
3
* * *
these
will
not
be
dealt
with
in
the
present
article,
since
the
majority
of
scholarship
in
the
past
hundred
years
has
aligned
with
the
basic
outlines
of
either
the
Schürer
chronology
or
that
of
Filmer.
Recognizing
that
other
scholars
have
contributed
significantly
to
both
sides
of
this
debate,
rather
than
speaking
of
the
“
Schürer
consensus
”
and
the
“
Filmer
hypothesis,
”
these
two
positions
are
referred
to
as
the
“
consensus
view
”
and
the
“
minority
view
”
in
what
follows,
since
there
is
no
dispute
over
the
fact
that,
at
the
present
time,
the
majority
of
scholars
take
the
first
or
“
con
sensus
”
view.
W
orking
A
ssumptions
of
the
T
wo
P
rimary
A
pproaches
to
the
C
hronology
of
H
erod
The
two
positions
have
fundamentally
different
assumptions
that
they
use
to
explain
the
information
found
in
Josephus
that
bears
on
the
chronology
of
Herod
’
s
life.
For
the
consensus
view,
these
as
sumptions
are
the
following:
•
Unless
Josephus
states
otherwise
(for
instance,
in
referring
to
years
of
the
Olympiad,
or
to
Roman
consular
years),
the
cal
endar
year
is
assumed
to
begin
in
Nisan
(March/April).
Since
in
what
follows
it
will
be
important
to
distinguish
a
Nisan-
based
year
from
one
that
starts
in
January
(our
system
and
that
of
the
Romans),
any
such
year
will
be
written
as
the
BC
year
in
which
Nisan
occurred,
followed
by
an
“
n
”
to
indicate
that
the
year
being
considered
is
not
a
Julian
year,
but
a
Jew-
2
W.
E.
Filmer,
“
Chronology
of
the
Reign
of
Herod
the
Great,
”
Journal
of
Theolog
ical
Studies
17
(1966):
291-93.
Those
who
accept
Filmer
’
s
1
BC
for
the
death
of
Her
od
include
Ormond
Edwards,
“
Herodian
Chronology,
”
Palestine
Exploration
Quar
terly
114
(1982):
29-42;
Paul
Keresztes,
Imperial
Rome
and
the
Christians:
From
Herod
the
Great
to
About
200
A.D.
(Lanham,
MD:
University
Press
of
America,
1989):
1-43;
Ernest
L.
Martin,
The
Birth
of
Christ
Recalculated,
2nd
ed.
(Pasadena,
CA:
Foundation
for
Biblical
Research,
1980);
Ernest
L.
Martin,
“
The
Nativity
and
Herod
’
s
Death,
”
in
Chronos,
Kairos,
Christos,
85
—
92;
Jack
Finegan,
Handbook
of
Biblical
Chronology,
rev.
ed.
(Peabody,
MA:
Hendrickson,
1998),
284-91,
§486-500
and
table
139;
Andrew
E.
Steinmann,
“
When
Did
Herod
the
Great
Reign?
”
,
Novum
Testamentum
51
(2009):
1-29.
3
Among
those
who
place
Herod
’
s
death
in
5
BC
are
Timothy
Barnes,
“
The
Date
of
Herod
’
s
Death,
”
Journal
of
Theological
Studies
19
(1968):
204-9
(although
Barnes
says
4
BC
would
also
be
acceptable);
Daniel
R.
Schwartz,
Studies
in
the
Jewish
Background
of
Christianity
(Tübingen:
Mohr/Siebeck,
1992),
157-62;
Elias
Bicker-
man,
From
Ezra
to
the
Last
of
the
Maccabees:
Foundations
of
Postbiblical
Judaism
(New
York:
Schocken),
185.
ish
year
that
started
in
Nisan.
4
The
importance
of
this
more
exact
notation
will
appear
in
what
follows.
The
consensus
view
places
Herod
’
s
capture
of
Jerusalem
in
37n.
•
Josephus,
in
measuring
elapsed
time,
uniformly
used
inclu
sive
numbering,
also
called
nonaccession
reckoning.
If
Jose
phus
says
that
Herod
reigned
thirty-seven
years
after
his
in
vestiture
by
the
Romans,
this
means
that
only
thirty-six
actu
al
years
had
passed,
since
Herod
’
s
first
partial
year
is
to
be
reckoned
as
a
full
year
in
the
count.
In
order
to
clarify
how
this
works
in
formulae
showing
elapsed
time,
the
“
actual
”
elapsed
time
will
be
used
with
“
(actual)
”
following
so
that
the
formula
is
unambiguous.
Thus
when
Josephus
says
that
Her
od
died
thirty-four
years
after
he
had
Antigonus
slain,
5
his
date
of
death
is
to
be
calculated
as
37n
—
33
(actual)
=
4n,
that
is,
at
some
time
in
the
year
beginning
on
Nisan
1
of
4
BC.
6
•
The
Sabbatical-year
calendar
in
effect
at
this
time
is
taken
as
that
of
Benedict
Zuckermann,
in
which
a
Sabbatical
year
be
gan
in
the
fall
of
38
BC,
consistent
with
the
statement
in
An
tiquities
14.475/14.16.2
that
a
Sabbatical
year
was
in
effect
while
Herod
and
Sossius
were
besieging
Jerusalem.
7
* *
Since
Sabbatical
years
began
in
Tishri
(the
fall),
this
conjectured
Sabbatical
year
may
be
written
as
38t;
its
latter
six
months
overlapped
the
first
six
months
of
37n,
during
which
the
siege
took
place,
according
to
the
consensus
view.
4
The
convention
of
expressing
dates
advocated
here,
which
may
be
called
the
“
Nisan/Tishri
”
notation,
is
similar
to
that
introduced
by
Valerius
Coucke
in
the
1920s:
V.
Coucke,
“
Chronologie
biblique,
”
in
Supplément
au
Dictionnaire
de
la
Bible,
vol.
1,
ed.
Louis
Pirot
(Paris:
Libraire
Letouzey
et
Ané,
1928):
cols.
1245-1279.
In
stead
of
placing
the
‘
n
’
and
‘
t
’
immediately
after
the
BC
year,
he
placed
the
letters
before,
followed
by
a
period
and
a
space.
5
Ant.
17.192/17.8.1;
War
1.655/1.33.8.
6
That
the
notation
introduced
here
is
not
just
a
matter
of
pedantry
should
be
apparent
when
compared
to
the
usual
way
of
expressing
these
dates,
whereby
Her
od
’
s
death
is
calculated
as
thirty-three
years
after
37
BC,
and
hence
at
some
time
in
4
BC.
Assuming
that
Josephus
was
thinking
in
terms
of
regnal
years,
and
therefore
the
number
of
years
was
important,
this
means
that
Herod
’
s
death
in
the
consensus
calculation
was
not
just
at
any
time
from
January
1
of
4
BC
and
the
start
of
Passo
ver
on
Nisan
14
of
that
year,
but
must
be
confined
to
a
thirteen-day
interval
be
tween
Nisan
1
and
Nisan
14.
The
importance
of
this
distinction
will
be
brought
out
in
Section
§11.
7
Benedict
Zuckermann,
A
Treatise
on
the
Sabbatical
Cycle
and
the
Jubilee:
A
Contribution
to
the
Archaeology
and
Chronology
of
the
Time
Anterior
and
Subse
quent
to
the
Captivity
Accompanied
by
a
Table
of
Sabbatical
Years,
trans.
A.
Lôwy
(London:
Chronological
Institute,
1866).
•
The
consular
years
given
by
Josephus
for
Herod
’
s
investiture
by
the
Romans,
and,
three
years
later,
his
capture
of
Jerusa
lem,
are
accepted
as
correct.
These
correspond
to
the
Julian
years
(starting
January
1)
of
40
BC
and
37
BC,
respectively.
•
Herod
’
s
successors
dated
their
reigns
in
a
de
facto
sense;
those
reigns
started
in
4
BC,
placing
Herod
’
s
death
in
that
year.
The
minority
view
(Filmer
and
others)
uses
the
following
working
assumptions:
•
Unless
Josephus
states
otherwise
(for
instance,
in
referring
to
years
of
the
Olympiad,
or
to
Roman
consular
years),
the
cal
endar
year
is
assumed
to
begin
in
Tishri
(Sept/Oct).
Herod
’
s
siege
of
Jerusalem
began
in
the
spring
of
36
BC,
which
was
in
the
Tishri-based
year
37t.
It
ended
on
the
Day
of
Atonement
(
“
the
fast
”
)
exactly
twenty-seven
years
(
“
on
the
same
day
”
)
af
ter
its
capture
by
Pompey
in
63
BC,
8
i.e.,
on
Tishri
10,
36
BC.
This
was
nine
days
after
the
beginning
of
the
calendar
year
36t.
His
investiture
by
the
Roman
Senate
was
in
39t.
9
•
Josephus,
in
measuring
elapsed
time,
uniformly
used
nonin-
clusive
numbering,
also
called
accession
reckoning.
Thus,
when
Josephus
says
that
Herod
reigned
thirty-four
years
after
the
capture
of
Jerusalem,
this
means
thirty-four
actual
years,
and
his
date
of
death
is
to
be
calculated
as
36t-34
=
2t,
which
agrees
with
his
dying
shortly
after
the
full
lunar
eclipse
of
January
9/10,
1
BC.
•
The
Sabbatical-year
calendar
in
effect
at
the
time
of
Herod
’
s
siege
of
Jerusalem
is
taken
as
that
of
Ben
Zion
Wacholder,
in
which
a
Sabbatical
year
began
in
the
fall
of
37
BC,
consistent
with
the
statement
in
Antiquities
14.475/
14.16.2
that
a
Sab
batical
year
was
in
effect
during
the
siege
of
Jerusalem
in
the
summer
of
36
BC.
10
*
8
Ant.
14.487/14.6.4.
9
In
order
for
Herod
’
s
investiture
by
the
Romans
to
be
in
39t,
it
would
have
to
be
on
or
after
Tishri
1
of
that
year,
i.e.,
after
September
20.
An
inscription
from
Aphro
disias
in
Asia
Minor
records
a
decree
from
Antony,
Octavius,
and
the
Senate
dated
October
2,
39
BC
(Joyce
Reynolds,
Aphrodisias
and
Rome
[Hertford:
Stephen
Austin
and
Sons,
1992],
70,
74-75).
All
the
principal
actors
involved
in
giving
Herod
the
kingship
were
therefore
in
place
in
early
39t.
10
Ben
Zion
Wacholder,
“
Calendar
of
Sabbatical
Cycles
during
the
Second
Temple
and
the
Early
Rabbinic
Period,
”
Hebrew
Union
College
Annual
44
(1973):
153-96.
•
The
consular
years
given
by
Josephus
for
Herod
’
s
investiture
by
the
Romans
and,
three
years
later,
his
capture
of
Jerusa
lem
are
incorrect,
and
accepting
them
as
correct
has
led
to
conflict
with
many
other
statements
in
Josephus
for
those
who
follow
the
consensus
view.
In
the
same
sentence
in
which
Jo
sephus
gives
the
consular
year
for
Herod
’
s
investiture
by
the
Romans,
he
gives
the
wrong
Olympiad
year,
11
a
fact
acknowl
edged
by
Schürer.
12
If
Josephus
(or,
more
probably,
his
source)
had
the
wrong
Olympiad
year,
this
would
also
make
his
con
sular
year
open
for
questioning.
In
addition,
Appian
’
s
Civil
Wars
(5.8.75)
implies
that
Herod
’
s
investiture
was
in
the
con
sular
year
corresponding
to
39
BC.
13
•
Two
of
Herod
’
s
successors,
Archelaus
and
Antipas,
antedated
their
reigns
to
4
BC
(i.e.,
4t)
because
that
was
when
they
were
given
governing
authority
by
Herod;
14
*
their
de
facto
reigns
be
gan
in
1
BC.
The
case
of
Philip
is
problematic,
because
various
early
texts
of
Josephus
place
his
starting
year
as
1
BC,
not
4
BC.
It
is
evident
that
Josephus
had
a
continuing
interest
in
dating
events
according
to
elapsed
time,
as
is
shown
in
the
passages
listed
below,
which
are
related
to
the
life
of
Herod
and
are
taken
from
his
Antiquities
and
War.
Josephus
writes
of
the
passage
of
years
as
measured
from
the
Hasmonean
period,
from
well-established
events
in
Roman
history,
or
from
events
in
Herod
’
s
life.
In
the
fol
lowing
discussion,
a
comparison
will
be
made
of
the
dates
for
these
elapsed
times
when
measured
with
the
assumptions
of
the
consen
sus
view
(elapsed
times
are
by
inclusive
reckoning)
or
with
those
of
the
minority
view
(noninclusive
reckoning).
These
findings
about
elapsed
times
in
Josephus
need
to
be
viewed
in
light
of
the
larger
discussion
of
issues
related
to
the
chronology
of
the
intertestamental
period,
such
as
the
Sabbatical-
year
calendar,
the
question
of
whether
Herod
’
s
successors
antedat
ed
their
reigns,
and
the
validity
of
Josephus
’
s
consular
dates
for
11
Ant.
14.487/14.16.4.
Josephus
places
Herod
’
s
appointment
during
the
one
hun
dred
and
eighty-fourth
Olympiad,
which
ended
on
June
30,
40
BC.
He
also
states
that
Calvinus
and
Pollio
were
consuls
when
Herod
was
appointed.
12
Schürer,
History
1.393,
n.
3.
13
Filmer,
“
Reign
of
Herod,
”
285;
Steinmann,
“
When
Did
Herod
the
Great
Reign?
”
7.
14
War
1.625/1.32.2,
1.631-632/1.32.3.
See
also
the
fuller
discussion
in
Steinmann,
“
When
Did
Herod
the
Great
Reign?
”
20-25.
Herod
’
s
appointment
as
king
by
the
Romans
and
his
capture
(with
Sossius)
of
Jerusalem.
These
correlated
questions
are
not
the
sub
ject
of
the
present
study,
but
it
is
hoped
that
future
discussions
that
deal
with
these
topics
will
take
into
account
the
conclusion
reached
here
that,
whatever
other
positions
are
advocated
related
to
the
chronology
of
Herod
the
Great,
due
consideration
must
be
given
to
the
evidence
that
Josephus,
in
his
presentation
of
that
chronology,
uniformly
used
noninclusive
reckoning,
as
opposed
to
the
inclusive
reckoning
employed
to
support
the
consensus
view.
T
ishri
Y
ears
More
needs
to
be
said
about
one
of
the
assumptions
held
by
the
minority
position,
namely
that
Josephus
always
reckoned
Herod
’
s
regnal
years
as
starting
in
Tishri,
not
in
Nisan
as
in
the
consensus
view.
Support
for
the
consensus
position
is
almost
always
derived
from
the
statements
in
the
Mishnah
and
Talmud
15
that
Nisan
1
was
the
New
Year
for
kings
and
festivals.
16
There
is
no
restriction
in
these
statements
to
the
post-Exilic
period,
and,
since
much
if
not
most
of
the
discussion
in
the
Mishnah
and
Talmud
relates
to
inter
pretation
of
biblical
passages,
they
were
clearly
intended
to
include
kingship
during
the
time
of
the
First
Temple.
In
that
regard,
the
Mishna
and
Talmud
are
plainly
wrong.
Coucke
and
Thiele
have
shown,
from
relevant
biblical
texts,
that
the
southern
kingdom
of
Judah
used
regnal
years
starting
in
Tishri.
17
* *
Instead
of
relying
on
the
later
traditions
of
the
Mishnah
and
the
Talmud,
at
least
some
consideration
should
have
been
given
to
the
possibility
that
Herod
and
Josephus
would
have
been
acquainted
with
the
reckoning
of
the
kings
of
Judah
and
would
have
used
their
calendar
in
deter
mining
when
a
king
’
s
year
started.
15
m.
Ros
Has.
1;
b.
Ros
Has.
la.
16
“
It
used
to
be
assumed
that
Herod
and
his
successors
counted
their
regnal
years
according
to
a
spring
era,
from
1
Nisan,
but
—
as
successive
editions
of
Schiirer
’
s
handbook
show
somewhat
amusingly
—
this
was
never
more
than
an
assumption
based
on
rabbinic
law.
But
the
relevance
of
that
law
to
Herod
is
more
than
doubt
ful.
”
Schwartz,
Studies,
174.
17
Coucke,
“
Chronologie
Biblique,
”
cols.
1264-1265;
Edwin
Thiele,
The
Mysterious
Numbers
of
the
Hebrew
Kings,
3rded.
(Grand
Rapids:
Zondervan/Kregel,
1983),
51-
53.
The
most
obvious
use
of
Tishri
years
in
ancient
Judah
is
found
at
2
Kings
22:3
—
23:23.
Josiah
began
repairing
the
temple
in
his
eighteenth
year.
Finances
were
raised
and
workmen
were
gathered
from
throughout
the
land
for
the
project.
Nisan
came
and
the
Passover
was
celebrated.
However,
even
after
Passover,
it
was
still
Josiah
’
s
eighteenth
year,
meaning
that
the
new
year
did
not
begin
in
Nisan.
Thus,
Josiah
’
s
eighteenth
year
began
instead
on
the
first
day
of
Tishri.
Josephus
deals
with
this
question
in
a
passage
that
is
often
cited
in
support
of
a
Nisan-based
year.
However,
closer
examina
tion
will
show
that
the
passage
says
just
the
opposite:
Josephus
meant
for
us
to
understand
that
he
used
Tishri-based
years
for
kings.
Near
the
beginning
of
Antiquities,
as
if
to
inform
us
of
what
kind
of
calendar
will
be
used
in
what
follows,
Josephus
mentions
the
two
calendar
systems
used
by
his
people,
the
one
starting
the
year
in
Nisan
and
the
other
in
Tishri
(Ant.
1.81/1.3.3).
After
relat
ing
that
Moses
instituted
Nisan
as
the
first
month
for
festivals
and
“
everything
related
to
divine
worship,
”
he
continues:
£7ri
pévioi
ye
7rpâo£iç
Kai
drvàç
Kai
if|v
aÀÀr|v
ôioÎKrpiv
tôv
ftpahov
KÔagov
Si£(pu)ia^£
“
concerning,
however,
buying
(7tpàa£iç)
and
selling
(cbvàç)
and
the
other
financial
administration
[or
tax
administra
tion]
(SioÎKrjoiv)
he
[Moses]
preserved
the
earlier
arrange
ment.
”
The
lexicons
give
the
meaning
of
SioiKrpig
as
“
administration,
man
agement,
”
18
or
“
control,
government,
administration,
treasury
de
partment.
”
19
There
is
no
meaning
of
“
ordinary
affairs
”
as
rendered
by
Whiston
and
later
Thackeray.
By
using
the
word
ôioîkï
|
oiç
,
Jose
phus
clearly
meant
that
the
affairs
of
government
(administration)
were
according
to
a
Tishri-based
calendar,
and
it
is
unfortunate
that
Thackeray
apparently
followed
Whiston
in
rendering
this
Greek
word
in
English.
20
* *
Josephus
was
stating
that
all
activities
other
than
those
related
to
divinely
mandated
religious
observanc
es
would
be
reckoned
by
a
fall
calendar
that
started
with
the
first
day
of
Tishri.
I
ndividual
P
assages
S
howing
J
osephus
’
s
T
reatment
of
E
lapsed
Y
ears
Passages
below
are
introduced
with
a
section
marker
of
the
form
“
§1
”
so
that,
in
later
discussions,
only
the
section
marker
need
be
18
Walter
Bauer
et
al.,
Greek-English
Lexicon
of
the
New
Testament
and
Other
Early
Christian
Literature,
2nd
ed.
(Chicago:
University
of
Chicago,
1979).
19
H.
G.
Liddell
et
al.,
A
Greek-English
Lexicon,
9th
ed.
(Oxford:
Clarendon
Press,
1996).
20
Schwartz,
Studies,
174,
realized
what
Josephus
intended:
“
Josephus,
at
any
rate,
states
in
Ant.
1.80-81
that
1
Tishri
remained
the
New
Year
for
all
purposes
apart
from
religious
ones.
”
given
instead
of
repeating
the
references
to
the
associated
passages
in
Antiquities,
War,
and
elsewhere.
This
will
be
particularly
useful
in
the
tables
at
the
end.
Those
tables
are
meant
to
provide
a
con
venient
summary
derived
from
the
more
thorough
discussion
in
the
relevant
sections
and
to
give
prominence
to
the
different
results
produced
by
adopting
the
consensus
assumption
of
inclusive
dating
throughout
Josephus
(first
table)
versus
the
minority
assumption
of
noninclusive
counting
(second
table).
(§1)
HASMONEAN
DYNASTY
OF
6
PRIESTS
LASTED
79
YEARS;
TOTAL
OF
INDIVIDUAL
REIGNS
AGREES
21
The
Hasmonean
dynasty
is
reckoned
from
Simon
becoming
high
priest
in
170
S.E.
22
(142n)
to
its
end
when
Pompey
captured
Jeru
salem
in
63
BC,
a
span
of
seventy-nine
years.
Years
given
in
Jose
phus
are:
Simon,
eight
years;
Hyrcanus
I,
thirty-one
years;
Aris-
tobolus,
one
year;
Alexander
Janneus,
twenty-seven
years;
Alexan
dra
’
s
governorship,
nine
years;
Aristobolus,
three-and-a-half
years,
for
a
total
of
seventy-nine-and-a-half
years.
If
these
numbers
were
by
inclusive
reckoning,
one
year
would
need
to
be
subtracted
from
each
figure
to
represent
the
actual
length
of
reign,
giving
seventy-
three-and-a-half
(actual)
years.
In
light
of
this
evidence
that
Jose
phus
used
noninclusive
reckoning,
the
consensus
view
necessarily
must
say
that
this
case
is
an
exception
to
the
general
rule.
There
is
no
contradiction
and
no
special
pleading
of
this
sort
needed
by
the
minority
view,
which
holds
that
Josephus
always
used
noninclu
sive
reckoning,
except
when
an
ordinal
number
is
used.
(§2)
ABOUT
45
YEARS
FROM
HEROD
’
S
APPOINTMENT
AS
OTpaTRydc;
BY
THE
ROMANS
UNTIL
HIS
DEATH
23
“
Herod
was
appointed,
by
Sextus
Caesar,
governor
of
Coele-
Syria.
.
.
.
All
this
happened
in
B.C.
47,
or
in
the
beginning
of
B.C.
46.
”
24
At
that
time
he
was
twenty-five
years
of
age.
25
He
was
about
seventy
when
he
died,
26
allowing
the
following
calculations
for
the
year
of
his
death:
21
This
argument
is
presented
in
Filmer,
“
Reign
of
Herod,
”
292.
22
S.E.
=
Seleucid
Era.
23
Ant.
17.148/17.6.1;
War
1.231/1.10.8.
24
Schurer,
History,
1.384.
25
Although
most
texts
of
Ant.
14.158/14.9.2
read
“
fifteen
years
of
age,
”
it
is
gener
ally
thought
that
the
fifteen
is
a
copying
error
for
twenty-five.
26
Ant.
17.148/17.6.1.
Consensus:
47n
+
25
-
~70
=
~2n.
Does
not
fit
4n
consensus
year
for
Herod
’
s
death.
Minority:
47t
+
25
-
~70
=
~2t.
Agrees
with
Herod
dying
in
early
1
BC
(§3)
IN
HEROD
’
S
3RD
YEAR
SINCE
HE
WAS
MADE
KING
BY
ROMANS,
WHEN
WINTER
WAS
OVER,
HEROD
AND
SOSSIUS
BEGAN
THE
SIEGE
OF
JERUSA
LEM
27
The
use
of
the
ordinal
here,
“
the
third
year,
”
necessarily
implies
inclusive
numbering
in
either
system
of
reckoning.
The
Greek
and
English
languages
use
ordinals
in
the
same
way
when
inclusive
reckoning
is
intended.
Inclusive
numbering
then
implies
38n
in
the
consensus
view,
and
37t
in
the
minority
view.
28
Josephus
says
that
the
siege
lasted
for
five
months
29
and
the
city
was
captured
“
in
the
solemnity
of
the
Fast;
”
30
that
is,
on
the
Day
of
Atonement.
Since
the
Day
of
Atonement
was
in
Tishri,
the
siege,
according
to
the
da
ta
from
Josephus,
began
in
Iyyar
of
the
same
year
that
the
consen
sus
view
holds
was
the
year
of
the
siege,
37n
(Iyyar
is
the
month
after
Nisan).
But
this
contradicts
the
38n
for
Herod
’
s
third
year
of
the
consensus
view;
the
consensus
view
is
self-contradictory.
There
is
no
problem
with
the
minority
view
that
starts
Herod
’
s
third
year
in
Tishri
of
37t
and
accepts
the
start
of
the
siege
in
Iyyar
of
36
BC.
Consensus:
40n
-
2
(actual)
=
38n.
Does
not
work;
see
discus
sion.
Minority:
39t
-
2
(actual)
-
37t.
Agrees
with
Josephus:
siege
started
in
Iyyar,
36
BC.
(§4)
AFTER
HEROD
“
HAD
COMPLETED
THE
17TH
YEAR
OF
HIS
REIGN,
”
AU
GUSTUS
CAESAR
CAME
TO
SYRIA
31
Dio
Cassius
(Roman
History
54.7.4-6)
says
that
Augustus
spent
the
winter
in
Samos,
“
and
in
the
spring
of
the
year
when
Marcus
Apuleius
and
Publius
Silius
were
consuls,
he
went
on
into
Asia,
27
Ant.
14.465/14.15.14;
War
1.343/1.17.8.
28
Thackeray
’
s
translation
in
the
Loeb
series
is
inaccurate:
“
it
being
now
just
three
years
since
he
had
been
proclaimed
king
in
Rome.
”
The
Greek
is
LuvfjyeTO
5
’
auTW
Tpirov
cioq
8^
°u
potoi^eug
ev
‘
Pcbgr|
cote
S
e
S
eikto
.
“
Tpiiov
eto
<;
”
is
ordinal:
“
third
year.
”
29
War
1.160/1.18.2.
39
Ant.
14.287/14.6.4.
The
Greek
word
is
vr|axsia<;,
the
same
word
used
in
Acts
27:9
to
refer
to
the
Day
of
Atonement.
There
is
no
reason
to
accept
any
of
the
various
alternatives
that
have
been
offered
in
interpreting
what
Josephus
meant.
31
Ant.
15.354/15.10.3.
and
settled
everything
there
and
in
Bithynia.
”
The
consular
year
was
20
BC.
Herod
had
completed
his
seventeenth
year
of
reign,
so
Caesar
came
in
his
year
18.
In
order
for
this
to
agree
with
the
con
sensus
dates
for
Herod,
the
consensus
view
measures
Herod
’
s
eighteenth
year
from
his
capture
of
Jerusalem
in
37n,
giving
37n
-
17
(actual)
=
20n.
However,
the
next
section
will
show
that
the
eighteenth
year
should
be
measured,
not
from
the
year
in
which
Herod
and
Sossius
captured
Jerusalem,
but
from
Herod
’
s
investi
ture
by
the
Romans
three
years
earlier.
In
the
minority
view,
there
is
no
conflict
with
the
requirement
that
the
time
is
to
be
measured
from
Herod
’
s
investiture
by
the
Romans
in
39t.
Consensus:
40n
-
17
(actual)
=
23n.
Does
not
fit
coming
of
Au
gustus
in
20
BC.
Minority:
39t
-
18
=
21t.
Fits
Augustus
coming
before
Tishri
1,
20
BC.
(§5)
HEROD
BEGAN
WORK
ON
THE
TEMPLE
IN
HIS
15TH
YEAR,
ALSO
CALLED
HIS
18TH
YEAR
32
After
relating
the
coming
of
Augustus
to
Syria
in
Antiquities,
Jose
phus
says
that,
still
in
the
eighteenth
year
of
his
reign,
Herod
be
gan
work
on
the
temple.
In
the
corresponding
passage
in
War,
Her
od
starts
construction
of
the
temple
in
year
15
of
his
reign.
As
pointed
out
by
Filmer,
33
there
is
no
conflict
when
we
understand
that
the
three-year
difference
is
the
number
of
years
between
Her
od
’
s
appointment
as
de
jure
king
by
the
Romans,
versus
when
he
became
king
de
facto
in
the
conquest
of
Jerusalem.
Consequently,
unless
we
are
to
charge
Josephus
with
an
error
when
there
is
a
logical
and
natural
explanation
for
his
using
two
different
figures,
it
must
be
held
that
the
consensus
view
that
measures
the
eight
eenth
year
of
Herod
in
this
passage
from
the
capture
of
Jerusalem
is
in
error
and
Josephus,
in
War,
does
not
contradict
what
he
says
about
the
same
event
in
Antiquities.
For
the
“
15
year
”
figure,
then,
Consensus:
37n
-
14
(actual)
=
23n
for
start
of
temple
con
struction
(does
not
work).
Minority:
36t
—
15
-
2
It.
Agrees
with
start
of
construction
be
fore
Tishri,
20
BC.
32
Ant.
15.380/15.11.1
(18th
year);
War
1.401/1.21.1
(15th
year).
33
“
Reign
of
Herod,
”
296.
See
also
Andrew
E.
Steinmann,
From
Abraham
to
Paul:
A
Biblical
Chronology
(St.
Louis:
Concordia,
2011),
229.
(§6)
JERUSALEM
FELL
TO
HEROD
TWENTY-SEVEN
YEARS,
TO
THE
DAY,
AFTER
IT
FELL
TO
POMPEY
IN
63
BC
34
Inclusive
numbering,
using
the
principle
that
a
part
of
a
year
counts
as
a
whole
year,
cannot
be
used
here;
there
was
no
extra
part
of
a
year.
Consensus:
63n
-
27
=
36n.
Conflicts
with
consensus
date
of
37n.
Minority:
63t
-
27=
36t.
Agrees
with
capture
of
Jerusalem
in
36t.
(§7)
HASMONEAN
GOVERNMENT
CAME
TO
AN
END
“
AFTER
(g£T(X)
126
YEARS
”
35
1
Macc
6:58,
59
(Lysias
speaking,
at
end
of
the
siege
of
Beth-Zur,
in
150
S.E.
=
162n):
“
now
therefore
let
us
be
friends
with
these
men,
and
make
peace
with
them,
and
with
all
their
nation;
and
covenant
with
them,
that
they
shall
live
after
their
laws,
as
they
did
before:
for
they
are
therefore
displeased
and
have
done
all
these
things,
because
we
abolished
their
laws.
”
This
marks
the
reasonable
be
ginning
of
the
Hasmonean
government,
although
strife
continued
for
a
few
years.
The
use
of
peid
(after)
requires
noninclusive
count
ing,
36
so
that
a
full
126
years
had
elapsed
from
this
date
until
the
Hasmonean
government
ceased
when
Antigonus
was
deposed.
Consensus:
162n
-
126
=
36n.
Does
not
agree
with
consensus
date
of
37n.
Minority:
162n
-
126
=
36n.
Agrees
(1
Macc
6
uses
Seleucid
Nisan-based
years).
(§8)
ARISTOBOLUS
WAS
HIGH
PRIEST
FOR
“
ONE
YEAR
ONLY
’
37
Aristobolus
was
installed
on
the
same
day
that
Herod
and
Sossius
captured
Jerusalem,
usually
taken
as
the
Day
of
Atonement.
He
34
Ant.
14.487/14.16.4.
Josephus
recognizes
something
fatalistic
about
the
coinci
dence
that
Jerusalem
fell
the
second
time
“
twenty-seven
years
to
the
day
after
the
first
tieme.
”
Josephus
’
s
use
of
“
after
”
(pcid)
also
indicates
that
the
twenty-seven
years
are
to
be
measured
in
a
noninclusive
sense;
a
full
twenty-seven
years
had
passed.
35
Ant.
14.190/14.16.4.
33
There
is
no
evidence
that
the
temporal
use
of
(
jetó
means
anything
other
than
“
after
”
or
“
following.
”
See
Bauer
et
al.,
Greek-English
Lexicon]
Liddell
et
al.,
Greek-
English
Lexicon]
Lust,
et
al.,
A
Greek-English
Lexicon
of
the
Septuagint
(Stuttgart:
Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft,
2003).
37
Ant.
15.56/15.3.3.
was
murdered
after
the
Feast
of
Tabernacles
in
the
following
year.
Only
one
“
new
year
”
occurred
during
his
high
priesthood,
by
either
Nisan
or
Tishri
reckoning.
Consensus:
by
inclusive
reckoning,
he
should
be
given
two
years;
does
not
work.
Minority:
the
assumed
accession
(noninclusive)
reckoning
agrees
with
Josephus.
(§9)
BATTLE
OF
ACTIUM
(SEPT.
2,
31
BC)
OCCURRED
IN
THE
7TH
YEAR
OF
HEROD
38
Although
the
Antiquities
and
War
passages
use
the
ordinal,
“
sev
enth
year
”
of
Herod
for
when
the
Battle
of
Actium
took
place,
in
accession
reckoning
this
does
not
imply
inclusive
numbering.
In
the
accession-year
system,
a
king
’
s
“
first
year
”
was
the
year
after
his
“
zero
”
or
accession
year,
and
his
seventh
year
would
be
a
full
seven
years
after
the
accession
year.
This
is
amply
demonstrated
for
the
regnal
years
of
the
divided
monarchy
and
also
in
Babyloni
an
and
Assyrian
official
records.
39
Tishri
1
in
31
BC
was
on
Sep
tember
21,
so
that
the
Battle
of
Actium
took
place
toward
the
end
of
Herod
’
s
seventh
Tishri-based
year,
32t
BC.
A
curiosity
of
this
particular
statistic
is
that
the
consensus
view
also
seems
to
work,
although
to
do
so
it
must
take
Herod
’
s
starting
year
as
the
year
in
which
he
conquered
Jerusalem,
rather
than
the
year
in
which
he
was
appointed
as
king
by
the
Romans
that
is
the
more
common
starting
place
in
Josephus.
The
compound
errors
of
the
consensus
view
(wrong
starting
year,
wrong
use
of
a
Nisan
calendar,
and
wrong
use
of
inclusive
numbering)
cancel
each
other
out
to
give
the
correct
time
for
the
battle.
The
fact
that
the
consensus
formula
seems
to
work
cannot
be
used
to
disprove
the
minority
view,
however,
because
the
minority
view
also
gives
the
correct
date
for
the
Battle
of
Actium,
and
it
starts
from
a
more
probable
starting
date.
Consensus:
37n
-
6
(actual)
=
3
In.
This
is
acceptable;
Battle
of
38
Ant.
15.121/15.5.2;
War
1.370/1.19.3.
39
In
Section
§3,
the
construction
5'
comp
ipiiov
crog
on
paoiXeug
cv
'Pcbpp
arcESeSEiKTO,
can
be
translated
as
“
It
was
his
third
year
from
when
he
was
proclaimed
king
in
Rome.
”
This
is
not
counting
accession
or
nonaccession,
but
factual,
i.e.,
counting
from
(&Q
when
Herod
was
actually
proclaimed
king
(paoiXcog
.
.
.
oatcSeSciKTo).
The
difference
in
terminology
is
critical;
Josephus
’
s
reference
there
is
not
to
the
third
year
of
Herod
’
s
reign
(paoiXcia),
but
the
third
year
from
the
time
he
was
proclaimed
king
(paoiXcug).
Actium
Sept.
21,
31
BC.
Minority:
39t
-1
-
32t.
Agrees;
Battle
of
Actium
Sept.
21,
31
BC.
(§10)
HASMONEANS
RULED
125
YEARS
40
This
was
a
statement
of
Herod
on
his
deathbed,
according
to
Jose
phus.
See
reference
§6,
where
the
more
exact
figure
is
given
as
126
years.
If
these
were
the
actual
words
of
Herod
(not
very
likely),
then
we
do
not
expect
a
dying
man
to
be
overly
concerned
with
an
exact
chronology.
If
the
words
are
the
invention
of
Josephus,
he
can
be
given
credit
for
a
realistic
portrayal
of
a
man
in
distress
for
whom
a
meticulous
chronology
would
seem
artificial.
In
any
event,
the
125
years
does
not
fit
either
approach
exactly,
and
the
126
years
is
what
should
be
taken
seriously.
Nisan
Seleucid
years
should
be
assumed,
consistent
with
usage
in
1
Maccabees.
Consensus:
162n
-
124
(actual)
=
38n.
Does
not
agree
with
consensus
37n
for
the
death
of
Antigonus.
Minority:
162n
-
125
=
37n.
Does
not
agree
with
minority
36n/37t
for
the
death
of
Antigonus.
(§11)
HEROD
REIGNED
34
YEARS
AFTER
ANTIGONUS
WAS
SLAIN,
BUT
37
YEARS
AFTER
HE
WAS
DECLARED
KING
BY
THE
ROMANS
41
Although
the
consensus
view
calculates
4n
for
the
death
of
Herod
in
both
cases,
there
is
a
problem
with
this
date
that
is
usually
glossed
over
by
those
who
support
the
consensus.
42
*
Assuming
that
Josephus
was
accurate
in
his
designation
(and
his
repeated
use
of
elapsed
times
throughout
the
reign
of
Herod
indicates
he
intended
to
be),
then
Herod
had
to
die
in
the
short
time
between
Nisan
1,
4
BC,
and
the
Passover
that
began
thirteen
days
later
(Nisan
14).
During
those
thirteen
days,
the
following
events
took
place:
•
Word
was
sent
from
Jericho
to
Jerusalem
to
gather
the
vast
40
Ant.
17.162/17.6.3.
41
Ant.
17.192/17.8.1;
War
1.655/1.33.8.
42
In
the
extensive
charts
that
Schürer
uses
to
display
the
chronology
of
Herod,
dates
are
given
in
terms
of
AUC
and
BC
years,
thus
obscuring
the
difficulty
of
the
narrow
timeframe
for
Herod
’
s
death.
In
a
long
footnote
beginning
on
History
page
1.464
and
continuing
to
page
465,
he
devotes
one
sentence
to
the
problem.
After
citing
the
Mishnah
and
the
Talmud
that
say
that
New
Year
for
kings
was
on
1
Ni
san,
he
writes,
“
If
this
be
so,
the
thirty-fourth
year
of
Herod
would
begin
on
the
1st
Nisan
of
the
year
B.C.
4,
and
Herod
must
in
that
case
have
died
between
1st
and
14th
Nisan,
since
his
death
occurred
before
the
Passover.
”
amount
of
wealth
and
funeral
trappings
that
would
be
part
of
the
funeral
procession
and
burial.
The
accumulation
of
this
wealth,
for
which
“
Archelaus
omitted
nothing
of
magnificence
therein,
”
43
must
have
taken
a
day
at
least,
probably
more.
Af
ter
the
material
had
been
accumulated,
it
was
sent
to
Jericho
to
use
in
preparing
the
body
for
burial.
Even
if
the
magnifi
cence
of
the
event
was
exaggerated,
a
state
funeral
of
this
type
would
have
required
considerable
effort
in
preparation.
The
minimum
time
for
these
events
would
be
three
days.
•
After
the
body
was
prepared
for
burial
and
the
cortège
orga
nized,
the
body
was
taken
to
Herodium,
where
it
was
buried.
“
[T]he
time
needed
for
the
procession
and
for
the
final
cere
mony
in
Herodium
would
be
no
less
than
three
days.
”
44
•
A
seven-day
period
of
mourning
followed.
45
•
After
the
period
of
mourning,
Archelaus
gave
a
feast
for
the
multitude.
After
the
feast,
he
went
to
the
temple
and
gave
an
oration
to
the
people
that
was
well
received.
46
This
could
all
have
happened
on
the
same
day,
one
day
after
the
mourning
period.
•
However,
the
mood
of
the
crowd
soon
changed,
at
the
instiga
tion
of
agitators.
It
was
demanded
that
those
responsible
for
the
death
of
those
who
had
pulled
down
the
golden
eagle
in
front
of
the
temple
be
punished,
47
and
that
Joazar,
who
had
been
appointed
high
priest
by
Herod
because
of
his
support
of
Herod
in
this
incident,
be
removed
from
office.
Archelaus
ac
ceded
to
this
latter
request.
All
of
this
must
have
taken
at
least
one
day
after
the
initial
time
of
acceptance
by
the
crowd.
•
Archelaus
sent
his
general
to
address
the
crowd;
he
was
driven
away
with
stones
“
as
also
those
who
went
in
after
him
to
call
for
self-control.
Archelaus
kept
sending
in
many
men,
and
43
War
1.671/1.33.9.
The
events
following
Herod
’
s
death,
including
his
funeral,
are
also
found
in
Ant.
17.156-191/17.6.3-17.8.1.
44
Alla
Kushnir-Stein,
“
Another
Look
at
Josephus
’
Evidence
for
the
Date
of
Herod
’
s
Death,
”
Scripta
Classica
Israelica
14
(1995):
76.
Kushnir-Stein
explains
the
neces
sary
logistics
to
support
this
statement.
Her
summary:
the
date
of
the
Schürer
con
sensus
for
Herod
’
s
death
“
leaves
less
than
two
weeks
for
all
the
events
described
by
Josephus
between
the
king
’
s
death
and
Passover,
which
is
plainly
impossible
”
(75).
45
War
2.1/2.1.1
(cf.
Num
19:11).
46
War
2.2-4/2.
1.1-2.
47
Ant.
17.149-167/17.6.2-4.
they
[the
rebels]
answered
everything
with
rage.
”
48
Allowing
one
day
for
these
various
embassies
would
seem
to
be
a
mini
mum.
•
The
Passover
began.
49
The
sum
of
the
various
events
just
described
as
taking
place
between
the
death
of
Herod
and
before
the
start
of
Passover
that
year
is
3
+
3
+
7
+
1
+
1
+
1
=
16,
assuming
the
extreme
minimum
time
for
each
event.
An
excess
of
days
for
any
one
of
these
events
would
make
the
sum
greater.
But
even
assuming
that
Herod
oblig
ingly
helped
the
consensus
view
by
dying
at
the
earliest
possible
time
in
this
period,
on
Nisan
1,
the
subsequent
events
would
have
gone
beyond
the
start
of
Passover.
The
consensus
view,
with
its
insistence
on
Nisan-based
years
and
the
death
of
Herod
in
4n,
is
therefore
not
credible
unless
Josephus
is
entirely
discredited
with
regard
to
the
circumstances
of
Herod
’
s
death.
That
position,
how
ever,
is
highly
unlikely;
all
the
events
he
describes
are
consistent
with
the
magnificence
that
would
be
expected
for
the
funeral
and
the
likelihood
of
the
following
turmoil.
There
is
no
problem,
howev
er,
with
the
minority
chronology
that
places
the
death
of
Herod
at
some
time
shortly
after
the
full
lunar
eclipse
of
January
9/10,
1
BC,
well
before
the
start
of
Passover
on
April
8
of
that
year.
Consensus:
37n
-
33
(actual)
=
4n.
Does
not
work;
events
above
cannot
fit
into
13
days.
40n
-
36
(actual)
-
4n.
Does
not
work;
events
above
cannot
fit
into
13
days.
Minority:
36t
-
34
=
2t.
Consistent
with
Herod
’
s
death
in
early
1BC.
39t
-
37
=
2t.
Consistent
with
Herod
’
s
death
in
early
1
BC.
(§12)
HIGH
PRIESTLY
REIGNS
OF
HYRCANUS
II
AND
ANTIGONUS
TOTALED
27
YEARS
50
Hyrcanus
II,
appointed
by
Pompey,
reigned
twenty-four
years.
He
was
followed
by
Antigonus,
appointed
by
the
Parthians,
who
reigned
three
years
and
three
months,
after
which
he
was
defeated
48
War
2.9/2.1.3.
The
translation
is
from
Steve
Mason,
ed.,
Flavius
Josephus:
Translation
and
Commentary,
16
vols.
(Leiden:
Brill,
1999).
The
translator
for
War
2
is
Mason.
49
Ant.
2.10/2.1.3.
50
Ant.
20.245/20.10.1.
by
the
armies
of
Sossius
and
Herod.
51
The
total
of
twenty-seven
years
and
three
months
agrees
with
the
total
of
twenty-seven
years
given
by
Josephus
for
the
time
between
the
capture
of
Jerusalem
by
Pompey
and
its
capture
by
Herod
52
(the
extra
months
must
be
absorbed
into
the
reign
of
Hyrcanus,
whose
years
are
not
broken
down
into
years
and
months).
By
inclusive
reckoning
of
the
consen
sus
assumptions,
the
total
time
should
be
twenty-three
actual
years
for
Hyrcanus
II,
and
two
actual
years
three
months
for
An-
tigonus,
a
total
of
twenty-five
years
plus
three
months,
contradict
ing
the
twenty-seven
years
elapsed
time
given
by
Josephus.
That
the
twenty-seven
years
could
be
by
inclusive
numbering
(actual
twenty-six
years)
is
ruled
out
by
the
exactness
of
the
figure,
that
is,
twenty-seven
years
to
the
day.
Consensus:
23
(actual)
years
+
2
(actual)
years
and
3
months
=
25
years
and
3
months.
Does
not
work.
Minority:
24
years
+
3
years
and
3
months
=
27
yrs.
Possible
if
extra
months
are
in
Hyrcanus
’
s
reign.
(§13)
TWENTY-EIGHT
HIGH
PRIESTS,
OVER
107
YEARS,
FROM
THE
“
TIMES
OF
HEROD
”
TO
THE
DESTRUCTION
OF
THE
TEMPLE
53
The
twenty-eight
high
priests,
as
listed
in
VanderKam
54
and
as
extracted
from
the
writings
of
Josephus,
must
include
Antigonus,
otherwise
there
would
be
only
twenty-seven.
When
Josephus
wrote
that
during
“
the
times
of
Herod
”
there
were
twenty-eight
high
priests,
he
therefore
started
those
times
with
Herod
’
s
investiture
by
the
Romans,
not
with
Herod
’
s
capture
of
Jerusalem
and
depos
ing
of
Antigonus.
The
consensus
view,
in
contradiction
to
Jose
phus
’
s
use
of
the
phrase,
nevertheless
starts
“
the
times
of
Herod
”
with
his
capture
of
Jerusalem
in
37n,
giving
37n
+
AD
70n
—
1
(no
year
zero)
=
106
actual
years
—
contradicted,
however,
by
its
reck
oning
only
twenty-seven
high
priests,
not
twenty-eight.
51
Ant.
20.244-245/20.10.4.
52
Ant.
14.488/14.16.4.
53
Ant.
20.250/20.10.5.
54
James
VanderKam,
From
Joshua
to
Caiaphas:
High
Priests
after
the
Exile
(Minneapolis:
Fortress,
2004),
385-487.
The
difficulty
that
the
twenty-eight
high
priests
and
107
years
presents
for
the
consensus
theory
was
first
presented
by
An
drew
Steinmann,
“
When
Did
Herod
the
Great
Reign?
”
25-26.
To
our
knowledge,
it
has
never
been
answered
by
proponents
of
the
consensus
view.
One
web-based
at
tempt
claimed
that,
since
Antigonus
was
a
king,
he
was
not
a
priest.
This
is
contra
dicted
by
coins
minted
by
Antigonus,
in
which
he
called
himself
both
high
priest
and
king.
In
Ant.
20.246/20.10.4,
Josephus
says,
“
The
latter
[i.e.,
Antig-
onus]
ruled
for
three
years
and
three
months,
following
which
he
was
captured
after
a
siege
by
Sossius
and
Herod.
When
he
had
been
taken
to
Antioch,
he
was
slain
by
Antony.
”
55
It
is
not
clear
here
what
happened
after
three
years
and
three
months:
the
start
of
the
siege?
Capture
of
Antigonus?
His
being
slain
by
Antony?
The
most
reasonable
interpretation
would
seem
to
be
his
capture.
If
we
assume
this
was
on
the
Day
of
Atonement
in
37
BC
(consensus
year),
then
going
back
3
years
and
3
months
puts
the
start
of
his
reign
in
June
or
July
of
40
BC,
i.e.
in
40n,
and
the
time
for
the
twenty-eight
high
priests
would
be
40n
BC
+
AD
70n
-
1
(no
year
zero)
=
109
years.
This
does
not
work,
even
with
inclusive
reckon
ing.
In
the
minority
view,
if
Antigonus
was
captured
on
the
Day
of
Atonement
in
36
BC,
three
years
and
three
months
earlier
would
be
June
or
July
of
39
BC,
which
was
in
40t
according
to
the
Tishri-
based
calendar.
This
formula
also
does
not
work
for
the
minority
view:
40t
BC
+
AD
69t
-
1
(no
year
zero)
=
108
years,
not
107.
Was
Josephus
being
inexact
here,
since
neither
system
comes
out
to
exactly
107
years?
Perhaps
so,
but
there
is
another
explana
tion.
In
the
two
places
where
Josephus
gives
timespans
related
to
the
reign
of
Antigonus,
56
he
measures
thirty-four
years
for
Herod
“
since
he
had
procured
Antigonus
to
be
slain.
”
If
the
107
years
in
the
ambiguous
passage
(Ant.
20.246/20.10.4)
refers
to
the
same
event,
then
the
consensus
formula
still
does
not
work,
but
the
mi
nority
formula,
in
which
it
is
assumed
that
Antigonus
was
sent
to
Antony
and
then
put
to
death
at
least
three
months
after
his
cap
ture
in
Tishri
of
36
BC,
dates
Antigonus
’
s
death
to
36t.
57
This
gives
his
accession
year
as
39t,
and
the
formula
works
out
exactly:
39t
BC
+
AD
69t
-
1
(no
year
zero)
=
107
years.
With
this
approach,
it
is
not
necessary
to
charge
Josephus
with
inexactness
and
contradict
55
Ant.
20.246/20.10.4.
56
Ant.
17.191/17.8.1;
War
1.665/1.33.8.
57
The
Greek
is:
Tpia
6
’
£
tt
|
Kai
Tpeig
ptfjvoic;
ap^avia
toutov
Zoaaiog
te
Kai
'Hp(b5r|q
£^£7LoXiopKr|aav
A
viewing
6
’
(
xve
TX
ev
£i<;
if|v
Avu6%£iav
avaxOcvia
(Ant.
20:246/
20.10.4).
This
suggests,
in
line
with
the
interpretation
just
given,
that
Josephus
is
terminat
ing
the
three
years
and
three
months
with
Antigonus
’
s
death
at
Antony
’
s
hand:
“
When
this
one
had
reigned
three
years
and
three
months,
Sossius
and
Herod
cap
tured
him
by
means
of
a
siege,
[though]
Antony
killed
him,
[after]
having
brought
him
to
Antioch.
”
Thus,
the
formula
would
put
the
start
of
his
reign
in
Tishri
39
and
the
end
of
his
reign
in
Nov/Dec
36,
and
the
calculation
would
be:
39t
BC
+
AD
69t
-
1
(no
zero
year)
=
107
years.
Note
that
Josephus
does
not
move
on
to
Herod
’
s
acts
as
king
until
after
he
treats
Antigonus
’
s
death.
So,
at
least
for
Josephus,
Herod
’
s
reign
does
not
begin
until
Antigonus
’
s
execution.
This
would
be
in
keeping
with
Jose
phus
’
s
pro-Hasmonean
ideology.
ing
his
other
dates
relative
to
Antigonus
and
Herod;
inexactness
was
not
his
problem,
though
ambiguity
was.
Consensus:
Wrong,
because
only
twenty-seven
high
priests
are
included
in
the
consensus
interpretation.
Minority:
39t
+
69t
-
1
(no
year
zero)
=
107
to
fall
of
Jerusalem
(a
possible
interpretation).
T
ables
of
E
lapsed
T
imes
The
following
tables
provide
a
summary
of
the
results
of
the
pre
ceding
discussion
and
a
way
to
allow
easy
comparison
of
the
conse
quences
of
the
assumption
made
regarding
Josephus
’
s
method
of
reckoning
elapsed
time:
by
inclusive
or
by
noninclusive
numbering.
In
the
tables,
the
presence
of
a
“
Yes
”
in
the
rightmost
column
does
not
necessarily
imply
that
the
opposing
alternative
is
wrong;
the
item
might
fit
both
hypotheses
because
of
their
underlying
as
sumptions.
It
will
be
seen,
however,
that
in
all
cases
except
§9,
only
one
alternative
agrees
with
the
data
as
given
in
Josephus.
Table
1
.
Formulae
for
Elapsed
Times
in
the
Consensus
Approach:
Inclusive
Reckoning.
Event
Consensus
formula
OK?
(§1)
6
Hasmonean
rulers
from
Si
mon
through
Aristobolus;
total
of
reigns
agrees
with
79
years
between
Simon
becoming
high
priest
in
142n
and
Pompey
capturing
Jerusalem
in
63n.
If
inclusive
counting
is
assumed,
one
year
must
be
subtracted
for
each
of
the
6
rulers,
giving
73
years.
No
(§2)
45
years
from
Herod
’
s
ap
pointment
as
oipairiYog
in
late
47
or
early
46
BC,
age
25
until
his
death
at
age
about
70.
47n
+
25
-
70
=
2n
No
(§3)
Herod
began
siege
of
Jerusalem
in
third
year
(ipiiov
srog)
after
ap
pointment
by
Romans.
40n
-
2
(actual)
=
38n
(not
possible,
since
siege
began
after
Nisan
1,
37
BC).
No
(§4)
In
Herod
’
s
18th
year
from
ap
pointment
as
king
by
Romans,
Au
gustus
Caesar
comes
into
Syria
(20
BC).
Work
starts
on
temple.
40n
-
17
(actual)
=
23n
No
(§5)
Work
begins
on
temple
in
Her
od
’
s
15th
year,
also
called
his
18th
year
(see
§4).
37n
-
14
(actual)
=
23n
40n
-
17
(actual)
=
23n
No
(§6)
Jerusalem
fell
to
Herod
27
years,
to
the
day,
after
it
fell
to
Pompey
in
63
BC.
Noninclusive
counting.
63n
-
27
=
36n
(conflicts
with
37n,
consensus
date)
No
(§7)
Hasmonean
government
ended
“
after
(perd)
126
yrs.
”
peia
requires
noninclusive
reckoning.
162n
-
126
=
36n
No
(§8)
Aristobolus
was
HP
for
“
one
year
only.
”
2
years
by
inclusive
reckoning
No
(§9)
Battle
of
Actium
was
in
Herod
’
s
7th
year.
37n
-
6
(actual)
=
31n
Yes
(§10)
Herod
on
his
deathbed:
Hasmoneans
ruled
125
years,
to
deposing
of
Antigonus.
162n
-
124
(actual)
=
38n
No
(§11)
Herod
reigned
34
years
after
Antigonus
was
slain,
but
37
years
after
declared
king
by
Romans.
37n
-
33
(actual)
=
4n
40n
-
36
(actual)
=
4n
No
58
(§12)
Hyrcanus
II,
appointed
high
priest
by
Pompey
in
63
BC,
ruled
24
years,
followed
by
Antigonus,
3
years
3
months.
Total
is
27
years
3
months,
agreeing
with
27
years
from
Pompey
’
s
capture
of
Jerusalem
to
Herod
’
s.
Inclusive
reckoning
would
mean
23
actual
yrs
and
2
actual
yrs
3
mo:
total
25
yrs
3
mo,
contradicting
27
exact
yrs.
No
(§13)
28
high
priests
and
107
years
from
Antigonus
to
fall
of
Jerusalem
in
AD
70.
40n
(BC)
+
AD
70n
-
1
(no
year
0)
=
109
years
No
Table
2.
Formulae
for
Elapsed
Times
in
the
Minority
Approach:
Noninclusive
Reckoning.
Event
Minority
Formula
OK?
(§
1)
6
Hasmonean
rulers
from
Si
mon
through
Aristobolus;
total
of
reigns
agrees
with
79
years
between
Simon
becoming
high
priest
in
142n
and
Pompey
capturing
Jerusalem
in
63n.
Noninclusive
counting
shows
the
numbers
agree.
Yes
(§2)
45
years
from
Herod
’
s
ap
pointment
as
aTpairiydg
in
late
47
or
early
46
BC,
age
25,
until
his
death
at
age
about
70.
47t
+
25
-
70
=
2t
Yes
58
See
the
discussion
related
to
§11,
showing
that
the
events
related
to
Herod
’
s
death
cannot
fit
into
the
thirteen
days
starting
with
Nisan
1,
4
BC.
(§3)
Herod
began
siege
of
Jerusalem
in
third
year
(ipiiov
eiog)
after
ap
pointment
by
Romans.
39t
-
2
(actual)
=
37t
Yes
(§4)
In
Herod
’
s
18th
year
from
ap
pointment
as
king
by
Romans,
Au
gustus
Caesar
comes
into
Syria
(20
BC).
Work
starts
on
temple.
39t-18
=
21t
Yes
(§5)
Work
begins
on
temple
in
Her
od
’
s
15th
year,
also
called
his
18th
year
(see
§4).
36t-15
=
21t
39t
-
18
=
21t
Yes
(§6)
Jerusalem
fell
to
Herod
27
years,
to
the
day,
after
it
fell
to
Pompey
in
63
BC.
Noninclusive
counting.
63t-27
=
36t
Yes
(§7)
Hasmonean
government
ended
“
after
(geid)
126
yrs.
”
gera
requires
noninclusive
reckoning.
162n
-
126
=36n.
(Hasmoneans
used
Seleucid
Nisan
reckon
ing)
Yes
(§8)
Aristobolus
was
HP
for
“
one
year
only.
”
1
year,
noninclusive
reckoning
Yes
(§9)
Battle
of
Actium
was
in
Herod
’
s
7th
year
(ordinal
number).
39t
-
7
=
32t
Yes
(§10)
Herod
on
his
deathbed:
Hasmoneans
ruled
125
years,
to
deposing
of
Antigonus.
162n
-
125
=
37n
(Hasmoneans
used
Seleucid
Nisan
reckon-
ing)
No
(§11)
Herod
reigned
34
years
after
Antigonus
was
slain,
but
37
years
after
declared
king
by
Romans.
36t
-
34
=
2t
39t
-
37
=
2t
Yes
(§12)
Hyrcanus
II,
appointed
high
priest
by
Pompey
in
63
BC,
ruled
24
years,
followed
by
Antigonus,
3
years
3
months.
Total
is
27
years
3
months,
agreeing
with
27
years
from
Pompey
’
s
capture
of
Jerusalem
to
Herod
’
s.
Noninclusive
number
ing
works
correctly
here
and
elsewhere
in
Josephus
Yes
(§13)
28
high
priests
and
107
years
from
Antigonus
to
fall
of
Jerusalem
in
AD
70
(see
discussion).
39t
+
AD
69t
-
1
(no
year
0)
=
107
years
(Yes)
C
onclusion
The
present
article
has
examined
the
consequences
of
two
sets
of
assumptions
as
applied
to
the
many
places
in
Josephus
where
he
expresses
dates
for
Herod
in
terms
of
elapsed
years.
The
discussion
focused
on
the
question
of
whether
Josephus
was
using
inclusive
or
noninclusive
counting,
and
whether
he
started
the
years
for
Herod
in
Nisan
(the
spring)
or
in
Tishri
(the
fall).
There
was
no
attempt,
except
in
occasional
incidental
ways,
to
examine
the
other
relevant
issues
for
the
chronology
of
Herod:
consular
years,
Sabbatical
years,
numismatic
evidence,
and
the
year
in
which
Herod
’
s
sons
considered
their
reigns
to
begin.
The
authors
are
aware
of
these
other
issues,
and
subsequent
studies
will
show
that
they
are
in
harmony
with
the
present
conclusions.
59
Only
the
two
most
promi
nent
positions
regarding
the
chronology
of
Herod,
those
often
asso
ciated
with
the
names
of
Emil
Schürer
and
W.
E.
Filmer,
were
sub
jected
to
the
present
analysis.
For
the
analysis
as
applied
to
these
positions,
results
are
summarized
in
two
tables.
In
those
tables,
the
consensus
view
(Schürer),
with
its
working
assumptions
about
inclusive
reckoning
and
Nisan
years,
is
shown
to
be
inadequate
in
calculating
all
elapsed
time
references
in
Josephus
except
§9,
whereas
the
working
assumptions
of
the
minority
(Filmer)
view
calculate
everything
correctly,
including
§9.
Both
systems
are
in
disagreement
with
the
125-year
approximation
of
§10,
but
the
Filmer
chronology
is
in
agreement
with
the
more
precise
figure
of
126
years
given
in
§7,
whereas
the
consensus
chronology
fails
that
test.
To
summarize:
The
harmony
of
the
chronology
advocated
here
is
shown
in
Table
2,
as
contrasted
with
the
incoherency
of
the
chronology
based
on
the
consensus
hypotheses
as
shown
in
Table
1.
The
success
of
the
chronology
based
on
the
minority
hypotheses
substantiates
the
date
of
1
BC
for
the
death
of
Herod.
This,
in
turn,
is
in
harmony
with
the
date
of
late
3
or
early
2
BC
for
the
birth
of
our
Lord
and
also
with
the
statement
in
Luke
3:1,
23
that
Jesus
was
“
about
thirty
years
old
”
when
he
was
baptized
in
the
summer
of
Tiberius
’
s
fifteenth
year
as
emperor
(i.e.,
AD
29).
60
This
date
for
Jesus
’
s
birth
was
accepted
by
virtually
all
the
Church
fathers,
with
consequent
ramifications
for
the
entire
chronology
of
the
New
Tes
tament.
59
Andrew
E.
Steinmann
and
Rodger
C.
Young,
“
Consular
Years
and
Sabbatical
Years
in
the
Life
of
Herod
the
Great,
”
Bibliotheca
Sacra,
forthcoming;
and
“
Evi
dences
That
Herod
the
Great
’
s
Sons
Antedated
Their
Reigns
to
a
Time
before
Her
od
’
s
Death,
”
Bibliotheca
Sacra,
forthcoming.
6°
If
Jesus
was
born
in
late
3
BC,
he
would
have
turned
30
years
old
in
late
AD
28
and
would
have
been
about
30%
years
old
at
his
baptism.
If
he
was
born
in
early
2
BC,
he
would
have
turned
30
years
old
in
early
AD
29
and
would
have
been
about
30%
years
old
at
his
baptism.