John P. Meier on the Year of Herod's Death, 4 BC

Published scholarly research makes the case overwhelmingly, imho, but Google searches online can still give some the impression that perhaps History's jury may be somewhat undecided about this question. Quite to the contrary, 4 B.C. as the date of Herod's death should be considered as firm as nearly any other from antiquity. I last blogged about this in 2009 (The Eclipse of Purim, 4 BC and Give up on 1 BC), but of course more information from professional scholars should be online to address this effectively.

It is therefore for the sake of online posterity that I hereby take the liberty of quoting in full the following two paragraphs from John P. Meier's famous Historical Jesus series, A Marginal Jew. Incidentally, these two paragraphs amount to a single footnote from Chapter 11, A Chronology of Jesus' Life (footnote #18):

The attempts by a few historians to prove that Herod the Great died in some other year have not met with general acceptance. For example, W. E. Filmer ("The Chronology of the Reign of Herod the Great," JTS 17 [1966] 283-98) uses contorted arguments in an attempt to establish that Herod died instead in 1 B.C. As Timothy D. Barnes points out very well ("The Date of Herod's Death", JTS 19 [1968] 204-9), Filmer's thesis collides with two major pieces of evidence: (1) Herod's successors all reckoned their reigns as beginning in 5-4 B.C. (2) The synchronisms with events datable in the wider context of the history of the Roman Empire - synchronisms made possible by Josephus' narrative of the circumstances attending Herod's death - make 1 B.C. almost impossible to sustain. Barnes goes on to suggest that perhaps December of 5 B.C. may be a better candidate for the date of Herod's death than March/April of 4 B.C. As is the case with other alternatives, this innovation has not met with general approval.  

The question of Herod's death is taken up once more in a number of essays in the Chronos, Kairos, Christos volume edited by Verdaman and Yamauchi. Ernest L. Martin ("The Nativity and Herod's Death," 85-92) revives the theory that Herod died in 1 B.C., with Jesus' birth placed in 3 or 2 B.C. This does not receive support from the other contributors to the volume who address the same issue. Douglas Johnson (" 'And They Went Eight Stades Towards Herodeion,' " 93-99) defends the traditional date of 4 B.C. for Herod's death, pointing out that Martin has mistranslated a key text concerning Herod's funeral in Ant. 17.8.3 §199. Harold W. Hoehner ("The Date of the Death of Herod the Great," 101-11) likewise champions 4 B.C. Paul L. Maier ("The Date of the Nativity and the Chronology of Jesus' Life," 113-30) adds still another voice in favor of 4 B.C., though his further thoughts on the exact year of Jesus' birth betray an uncritical use of the Infancy Narratives. (Indeed, most of the authors never face the critical questions addressed in Brown's Birth of the Messiah.) All in all, the scattered attempts to undermine 4 B.C. as the year of Herod's death must be pronounced a failure.

Meier lays out enough there to provide vigorous research opportunities, for those still desiring to contest this, what ought to be a dead issue, no pun intended.

Incidentally, my second contribution on this (Give up on 1 BC) goes into detail about some of the scholars listed in Meier's review here and a bit about how the counterarguments worked.

My earlier contribution (The Eclipse of Purim, 4 BC) actually stemmed from an original observation that the eclipse of 4 BC is the only one which satisfies certain details attached to it by Josephus' narrative. In fact, some graduate student (reading this now) should feel free to steal and publish all by themselves. Alternatively, I'll happily co-author, but only if you insist.

All in all, until the quality of research material generally available online begins to equal the quality of research material available to those with professionally credentialed access, here is one more attempt to set the record straight.

Herod died in 4 BC. Get your chronology straight!

Was Jesus born around May of 7 BC?

Probably, but not because of Springtime, or a "Star". The Month of May is an afterthought, but justifies posting this now. (!) The more pertinent issue by far is that Jesus was probably born in 7 BC. Why? Two significant issues give us actual, limited and calculable data sets, resulting in two particular data sets which, when compared, eliminate all but a twelve month window of time in which Jesus must have been born.

That's all valid, of course, if the data is good. With that said, please enjoy what here follows:

The first data set is based on the dates of Jesus' most likely twelfth years. 

On the most common suggestions for Jesus' birth year - 7 BC, 6 BC, or 5/4 BC - Jesus will have turned 12 years of age by the Passovers of AD 7 or AD 8 or AD 9, respectively. Interestingly, each of those latter dates fall shortly *after* Augustus Caesar exiled Archelaus from Judea. This is most likely significant.

Once Archelaus was exiled, Joseph in Nazareth could stop being afraid to take Jesus into Judea (Matt.2:22). And with that  well deserved fear firmly out of the way, Joseph was free to take Jesus to Passover, as Luke tells us he did for the first time, precisely when Jesus was 12 (Luke 2:42).

Since Archelaus was exiled in the summer of AD 6, the most likely first Passover for Jesus should be March/April of AD 7. Thus, Jesus' birth most likely belongs somewhere in the 12 months between Passovers from 7 BC to 6 BC. As we're about to see, this corresponds well with the more likely conclusions of data set number two.

The issues of set one are summed up simply enough. The second set requires a more thorough discussion.

The second data set is based on estimating the logistics of Rome's odd inaugural registration in Palestine.

Granting the likely conclusion that Augustus' brief and yet famous displeasure with Herod (9 to 8 BC) is still the most likely cause of the most basic fact - that [as Luke testifies] Augustus ordered a census in Judea while Herod was still King - there are a limited number of things which must transpire directly after that order before Joseph can actually register in Bethlehem. So, what did the census entail, and how long did it take?

We'll address specifics in just a moment, but the main point is quite simple. If Governor Saturninus received Augustus' order for that census as early as January of 8 BC, can the resulting activities have been still going on for a number of years? Was Bethlehem really not registered until 7 BC? 6 BC? 5 BC? Early 4 BC?

We can estimate basic parameters. For one thing, the Governor Saturninus (not Quirinius) had to receive orders form Ceasar (probably winter of 9/8) and make plans. But the particular strategy (the Governor's preference?) of recalling men to their hometowns - though perhaps thorough for an inaugural effort - must have created significant challenges for both planning and execution phases, in turn.

The typical Roman census (before 27 BC) happened only in Italy. By this time, the style seems to have been very simple, something like: 'We're coming. When we get there, you'll register.' In stark contrast, Saturninus created (or was handed?) what was likely a scheduling nightmare! Now, Saturninus *could* have sent five or ten soldiers to every city and village, at once, stationed there for six months while the whole country was told to go home and register asap! That's conceivable. However, because of manpower and management issues, it seems more likely that direct registrations would have been scheduled at staggered intervals. Certain men had to go home at set times, and other men had to remain home, in charge of things, while their new blood was away and while their village was hosting it's homecomers.

On any arrangement, it seems unlikely that much efficiency would have been possible. Nevertheless, could even the worst managed fruit-basket turnover have lasted much longer than 2 years? Is 3 years even possible? By 13 AD, in Italy, with everyone knowing the program, Tiberius could dispatch a re-registration of the entire peninsula within less than a year. Did Saturninus really need 3? Did he even need 2?

As for Joseph & Mary, two details are important. First, we must note that Rome's census only seems to have been their excuse for a permanent relocation, where Joseph's kinfolk could offer Mary a welcome respite from her scandal in Nazareth. Second, we must remember that Luke does not say whether Mary gave birth before or after Rome finished registering Bethlehem. It's very possible they moved early, gave birth and then registered, and it's equally possible the young couple moved, registered while pregnant, and then gave birth sometime later. Either way, the "child" and the "room" (and Matthew's entire infancy narrative, actually) testify that Bethlehem had become the new settled home town for Joseph & Mary, at the time of the birth.


A few more key points:  Saturninus' term as Syria's Governor was over by July, 6 BC. It seems likely that *either* Saturninus would have found ways to wrap things up quickly by the end, rather than tell Augustus he'd not completed his work, *or* that Saturninus simply would not yet have been recalled if he'd not yet been finished. Perhaps. At any rate, the next Governor of Syria, P. Quinctillius Varus, was commissioned in January of 6 BC, and replaced Saturninus by the middle of sailing season. It's conceivable that Varus could have been tasked with completing a mess made by Saturninus, but more likely that Saturninus would have fudged things well enough to pronounce it all finished by 6 AD.

The one point in Saturninus' favor, in terms of speed & efficiency: Saturninus only had to count people, and not register their property, (setting up cause for the protests of AD 6, when this aspect was introduced).


So, when was Bethlehem registeed? We cannot specifically say. But, when was Rome's census completed? On the balance of all above considerations, it was almost certainly sometime in 7 or 6 BC.

The two data sets produce the same most likely range for the year in which Jesus was born. Of greater critical importance is the observation that each set of probable dates eliminates the extremes of its complementary data set. In other words, set one seems to allow dates that set two disallows, and set two seems to allow dates that set one disallows. Put together, only the shared data becomes viable.

Jesus must have been born somewhere between the Passovers of 7 BC and 6 BC.

But now, can we be more specific? Is there really a reason to prefer a birth date around May of 7 BC?

There are three good reasons to lean heavily this way:

First, although the registration of Bethlehem cannot be specifically dated, common sense must recognize that it's geographic location make it unlikely to have been the last location Rome registered. That means, on the balance of general statistical likelihood, the registration of Bethlehem itself was probably somewhere in the middle of Saturninus' whole operation. Again, we cannot hereby declare that it actually fell "in the middle". That's not hardly the point. What we can say - in general - is that there's an 80 percent chance (or better) that it did NOT happen in the last 20 percent of the census' duration, and a 70 percent chance it did NOT happen in the last 30 percent of that time, and (etc...). On the absolute sum of all such general percentages, the overall weight of these facts can be though of as a general gravitational force, pulling our estimation of when Bethlehem *might* have been registered) somewhat closer to the midpoint of Saturninus' operations - the which gravitationally attractive midpoint, being between January 8 BC and June of 6 BC, happens to fall around March of 7 BC, or perhaps slightly thereafter.

This does not mean we should find the registration of Bethlehem very close to March, 7 BC. This means, on the balance, that we are more likely to find Bethlehem's census to be probably nearer to March, 7 BC than to June, 6 BC. Especially note that this becomes all the more true, and even stretches toward earlier midpoint dates, if we consider the odds that Saturninus did NOT conclude his census at the absolute latest possible moment. As a practical consideration, however, this point pushes against the equally uncertain question of how long Saturninus' must have planned and revised various fruit-basket-turnover schemes before actually putting registration officials' boots on the ground.

Again, Bethlehem was more likely finished with sooner than later. But remember, Mary just as likely (if not more likely) gave birth *after* that registration than before it.

Second: Jesus' birth month cannot be specifically dated based on whichever "Star" the Magi may have followed into Judea. On the other hand, Herod's cautious targeting of Bethlehem two year olds seems less mathematically extreme if the star & Magi arrived significant months after Jesus' birth. The Magi's visit to a "child" also makes some span of time seem more likely. Now, having granted our twelve month window for Jesus' birth (again, occurring between Passovers of 7 and 6 BC) we may consider which "Star" candidates allow what kind of spacing prior to their own occurrence and the most likely candidates - all of them - require that Jesus' birth be more likely earlier into our window than later, and this is especially true if we select the famous triple conjunction of 7 BC, visible repeatedly in May, October and December. A Magi trip beginning before or after December of 7 BC would fit well with the story, but would also more likely push Jesus' birth month as far back as April or May.

The final consideration should properly bear no historical weight whatsoever, but it's an interesting footnote worth mentioning only because it would agree with the leanings of these last two minor considerations. It's a dubious typological point that may be judged as inspirational or as nonsense, but it corresponds well so it deserves to be included, last and least. It is this. If Jesus was born in either April or May of the year 7 BC, and if Jesus was crucified and resurrected in the year 33 AD, and because there was no year zero, then Jesus would have turned 39 in April or May of the year 33 AD. Of course, "turned 39" is to say, in the ancient mindset, "began his 40th year". The significance here is that this 40th year would have begun just prior to Jesus' ascension. In other words, IF the Lord Almighty God had any peculiar divine reason to prefer that Jesus' earthly adventure should not end until his physical form (albeit newly resurrected) had reached the fullness of that number of years... IF that were God's desire, then a birth date in April or May would have provided just such a time, between Incarnation and Ascension.

Personally, April seems as likely to me as does May, but early May would provide the latest birth date for the Father to say, "39 years and one day. That's enough. Come home now, my Son."

Again, this final point may be judged as trivial or inspirational, depending solely upon how conclusive all the other arguments seem to be.

Did the Rulers of Jews "lord-it-over" their people?

Why was Jesus so specific when he said, "The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you..."?

That's not a throwaway word, "Gentiles". According to all three Synoptic writers, Jesus was very specific. It's something about the gosh-darn Goy Rulers the disciples were suppose to avoid mimicing, here. But what is that something, and why did Jesus call it specifically Gentile?

Which Jewish rulers did Jesus have in mind, to exclude from his point, when he phrased things this way?

Surely it could not have been the Jerusalem leaders. The Sanhedrin and Temple authorities seem to have done a fine job of ruling over their subjects. Herod the Great? Surely not. Jewish he may have been, technically, but Herod learned from the Romans directly for 40 years (and indirectly from his other superiors before he became an authority himself). Was it Herod Antipas, near the Sea of Galilee? Or Philip the Tetrarch, up near Mount Hermon? Nope. Philip was nicer than Antipas, but each was still appointed by Rome to exercise personal and virtually unfettered dominion over all persons in their respective districts.

Which Jewish rulers in Jesus' day ruled so differently than Gentile rulers?

We have to consider the Synagogue.

Now, as far as we know, there was no standardized synagogue practice before 70 AD. Other than study of Torah, and presumably some amount of community prayer, there wasn't even a standardized liturgy for early first century synagogues, let alone the same organizational flowchart for all communities everywhere. Nevertheless, because there were multiple commonalities among Jewish synagogue culture, there also must have been some commonality among synagogue leadership in the various towns across Palestine.

Also, the Gospels imply Jesus took time to visit most if not all of the synagogues within Galilee, and many more elsewhere. Perhaps some synagogues would have fit more suitably into Jesus' mental exception than others, but the general pattern we're positing would have been common enough for him to get a strong impression about, regardless of which synagogues he'd visited, and regardless of what Nazareth's had been like.

With that in mind, what was this Jewish pattern? What traits did Synagogue leadership share, generally?

I'll suggest four.

First, regardless of whether they appointed officials or had ten people down by the river, one characteristic that must fit the majority of early first century synagogues, surely, had to be genuine community. That is, most synagogues were small. They were in small towns, or they were frequented by smaller groups. Beyond size, the word synagogue itself actually means community (via gathering). That's easy to contrast against Gentile government at the time, which was vast, impersonal, and universally dominant. In the Jewish synagogue, a prominent figure would be someone you knew well, not someone who sailed in to give orders, take money and leave early. In the most formal of synagogues, even, a "ruling official" would still be someone whose entire life had been long ingrained among all of your neighbors.

Second, because of that genuine community, another trait shared by persons of prominence, in any particular synagogue, had to be organic appointment. That is, most synagogues - communities, remember, who might not have quite yet afforded an entire set of scrolls, let alone a permanently dedicated facility to hold meetings within *ahem* - most synagogues were established at least one or two previous generations before Jesus' day, and (despite our historical uncertainty about the synagogue institution, universally) many or most had very easily been congregating for a century or more, if not much more.

The point is that virtually any synagogue "ruler" anywhere would have grown up within that community as a child and young person before becoming old enough and respected enough to be somehow (?) appointed, elected or defaulted upon as an official, an elder, a leader or a "synagogue ruler". Now wait, am I saying a small town can't wind up appointing a bad leader (perhaps for lack of much option)? Certainly, that can happen quite easily, and often did I might bet. Nevertheless, organic appointment probably held forth in more places than not, because a typical synagogue would have a plurality of elders at various stages of life, and their well-known reputations would allow them to recognize the congregation's natural predilection - being displayed over time through communal experience - for the newest members of [what I'd ideally like to call] the oversight committee, or the synagogue council, or so forth, however many members it had.

Third and finally, with so much lifelong communal interaction between the local body and it's own organically selected supervisory members, there would naturally be some level of social accountability, also. For example, if Jairus' sick daughter had caused him to seek out a sorcerer for healing, the community would have heard of this and their reaction would have affected his position, and perhaps also his tenure. Whether the procedures that followed had been previously established or whether the inevitable would simply take its due course, any ruler of any early first century synagogue was bound to be socially accountable to his fellow Jews on a daily, weekly and annual basis.

Let's call these the first three distinct aspects of (if you will) "Jewish eldership". They are: genuine community, organic eldership, & social accountability. But, again, there is at least one more characteristic to mention.

While these first three factors alone might have appeared to some degree in some tribal locations as well, such people groups were also quite commonly ruled by some sort of "might makes right" tribal leader(s) who would typically fight to establish a hereditary chain of succession in ruling the tribe, and for selfish as much as (or moreso than) for societal benefits. So, with this in mind, let's observe in contrast to this a fourth characteristic of Jewish leaders - they were also presumably chosen because of their dedication to learning, exhibiting and sometimes also teaching the spirit and strictures of God's Law.

Yes, there seems no way to deny that dedication to Torah must have been a key way in which Jewish synagogue rulers / leaders / elders (or at least, the best of all those whom Jesus had ever met) were somehow outstanding in the Lord's mind, as compared with specifically Gentile rulers. It should go without defending that dedication to Torah should quite naturally exclude the type of monarchical brutality that might help one lord it over, say, a barbarian tribe. And as far as other means of coercion, well, yes, teachers of God's Law have been known to manipulate people. (Obviously, we are not shocked to recall this!) But once again, nevertheless, we must affirm that even a fraudulent dedication to Torah meant that God's Law was being presented, which provided constant potential, at least, for God's spirit to actually have direct influence over hearts and minds of a synagogue community, including also its leadership.

One more point remains. We must briefly consider hierarchy.

Did the Jewish synagogue rulers exhibit hierarchy? It may be difficult to say. In some sense, perhaps it's a semantic dodge to attempt a "no" answer, seeing as how it's ingrained in humanity that any appointed official is generally considered "above" the larger body which the official ostensibly serves. On the other hand, to speak of hierarchy in a functional sense, we don't have a great deal of data to suggest whether the synagogue leaders (elders, rulers, etc) ever did much actual "overing" of anyone "under" them, at all.

There's a vast difference between directing and supervising. This brief survey did enough to consider Jewish community leaders as ontologically different from gentile civic leaders, and there are indeed several significant contrasts. A fully functional analysis may or may not lie beyond the scope of the data assembled by experts (and, honestly, there really isn't much data to go on at all), but such a functional analysis is absolutely beyond the scope of this humble blog post. I will leave that to others.

What has now been concluded? Let me try to sum up.

The title of this blog post asked a simple question: did the rulers of Jews "lord-it-over" their people? We didn't answer that question definitively, at least not in any functional terms. That question would require yet further research and consideration. However, we did answer an important, related and preliminary question:

Did Jesus have specific reasons in mind for excluding some types of Jewish leadership when he warned the disciples very specifically to avoid imitating Gentile leadership?

Because synagogue leaders can be characterized by four traits that gentile leaders were never characterized by, all together - and those being genuine community, organic appointment, social accountability, and dedication to Torah - yes indeed. It would appear Jesus had very good reasons for excluding Jewish leadership from those particular comments.

*Not that all Jewish synagogue leaders were leading as servants like he urged the disciples to do. No, of course Jesus' other experiences testify that he did not actually think all synagogue rulers were quite so laudable, in practice. But again, how many did or didn't live up to the potential inherent in a Torah-based community... well, as I said in my comments on "functional terms", that's a topic for a whole other post!

Tacitus the Pretty-Good Historian

QOTD, by Ronald Syme:

Historians in all ages become liable through their profession to certain maladies or constraints. They cannot help making persons and events more logical than reality; they are often paralysed by tradition or convention; and they sometimes fall a prey to morbid passions for a character or an idea. Tacitus in his account of Tiberius betrays each and all of these three infirmities. From a fourth, the most insidious and pernicious, he is wholly exempt. 

Historians know the verdict in advance, they run forward with alacrity to salute the victors and chant hymns to success. A chorus of hierophants or apologists acclaimed the Roman Caesars - but not uncontradicted, and not earning good fame. The Roman senator despised them. On his guard against specious or shabby concessions, he refused to condone violence because, having succeeded, it became respectable; and, if nothing short of authoritarian government ensured peace and stability, he accepted it without rejoicing or any subservience. 

Syme, Tacitus, Vol.1,Ch.33

In other words - more or less - Tacitus sometimes (1) oversimplified event chains & causality, (2) got bogged down narrating political stuff, and (3) revealed clearly his own feelings about tyranny... and yet he did NOT propagandize, he did NOT seek to excuse embarrassing things, and he did NOT force his own written account into celebrating pet views (either his own or his subjects')!

That is, for Tacitus, early Imperial Rome simply was what it was. "Rome at the outset [had been] a city state under the government of kings" which soon enough adopted "liberty and the consulate" as permanent institutions, and yet "Dictatorships were always a temporary expedient". Temporary, that is, until Octavian's fellow Triumvirs flamed out, at which point "the sole remedy for his distracted country was government by one man." (Annals 1.1, 9.5)

It seems that being transparent about his own bias actually made Tacitus more free to be fair about things he disliked.

That's a pretty good formula for writing pretty good history.

May there be many more such historians to come...

Augustan Registrations outside Italy

Is there a comprehensive list of these, anywhere? I sure can't find one online. Google keeps giving me bad apologetics sites and a Wikipedia page on Quirinius (sigh).

This reminds me again of a key reason why apologetics can be counterproductive, because their content appears to focus on elucidating the past, but it becomes clear that they only care about "defending the Bible".

Most readers aren't looking for dogmatic justifications so much as a rationally plausible scenario.

Therefore, if your true goal is defending God's Word, you might do best to admit ignorance on this one.

But if you're interested in the historical census of Luke's Gospel, we've discovered Quirinius is Irrelevant. 

Whether anyone knows it or not...