Hoehner's Chronological Aspects

I wrote this post two years ago, in late July 2009.  I should probably rewrite it, but I'll let it stand as is, with this necessary explanation.  At the time, biblioblogger Nick Norelli had challenged me with the big meme of that summer, which was to post about five Biblical Studies books that one wanted to like, or should have agreed with, but couldn't quite get fully behind.  I blogged separate posts on my chosen books, One, Two, Three and Four, in that same month.  This post was to be my fifth, but for reasons that will soon become obvious, I couldn't bring myself to post it at that time.  Now, perhaps it's been long enough.  We shall see.

Two years late, unaltered and for the first time... here it is:

---------------------------------------------------

It has scarcely been six months since we lost Dr. Harold Hoehner. Longtime blog readers know how much I value his work and how upset I was at his unexpected passing, even (especially) considering I never met the man. I kick myself even harder for that now, because after confessing to one of his students recently the main reason I never contacted him (I realized my main purpose was wanting to argue with him about what I considered to be flaws in his Chronological Aspects), I was told "Actually, he would have really enjoyed that." Yes, I had gathered as much from the many tributes I read after his death. So I will always regret never meeting him, unless perhaps it was somehow for the best.

As I said, it has not been long since his passing, but when I was recently challenged to write about "Biblical Studies" books I cheered for but felt some reservations about, I decided it could actually be the best time to go ahead and blog my critique of Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, by the great Dr. Hoehner. Hopefully, furthering that important conversation will be taken as another way of also furthering his memory. So here goes everything...

Chronological Aspects remains one of my most cherished academic books, because of its uniqueness and because of the same thorough scholarship poured into Hoehner's Herod Antipas. The footnotes alone are tremendous. I could quote the entire preface right here, cheering loudly. His treatment of the major points and their issues is comprehensive and arguably definitive. I have long since worn out the glue in the spine. (Making this the one book of my "5" that I actually did read every word of, and that several times over.) But... yes, I have a few problems with this book, and they are not minor.

Hoehner's arguments are arranged chronologically, on dating the birth, baptism, duration of ministry, and crucifixion of Jesus - in that order - but my gripe is not with the presentation. A proper argument should proceed by skipping forward and backward through time as necessary.  Since Hoehner didn't do this, it was not always clear how each chapter depended on points previously (or yet to be) made. Dates for the (1) commencement, (2) duration and (3) consummation of Jesus' ministry are supported by seemingly independent arguments, when in fact, solid conclusions on any two of these points should automatically render the third set of arguments unnecessary. Instead, Hoehner admits (p.37) to his views on all three of these points early on and then argues each separately, as if none are dependent on each other. Of course the strongest arguments are those for dating the crucifixion year, which therefore ought to predominate the overall work, and yet it comes last.

This automatically makes his earlier arguments suspect. The chapter on duration, for example, consists mainly of objections to Johnston Cheney's 4 year view followed by arguments supporting the 3 year view. The fact that 30 and 33 AD have been presupposed as the boundaries of that duration is only mentioned in the chapter summary, and never acknowledged during the arguments. However, IMHO, a carefull reading of Hoehner's presentation shows that the 3 and 4 year arguments come off as equally inconclusive and I'm sorry to say his assertion that only one had "suppositions" was simply unfair.

Unfortunately, the biggest problem is that for all Hoehner's laudable and high view of the "grammatical-historical interpretation of the New Testament", an overall reading of the book suggests his primary mental orientation was not to reconstruct chronology but to defend the integrity of scripture on chronological points. That is also laudable, but the particular apologetic efforts Hoehner used to reconcile John 2:20 and Luke 3:1-3 & 3:23 with other historical data are the real reason - combined with 33 AD - why he HAD to argue for a three year ministry.

A holistic view of his arguments shows which ones really depend on certain others. The defense of scripture was more important than building a historically based chronology, leaving a work that I believe - for all its great qualities - was less than perfectly faithful to either. Academically, it would have been more accurate to say this much: Luke 3:1-3 cannot mean 26 AD, so 30 AD is out. Therefore, 33 AD is in. The 3 or 4 year views each have their challenges, and we could easily date Christ's baptism to 28 or 29 AD. For all our investigations, we may or may not know the best way to "break the tie".

In the end, nothing in Hoehner's book, other than his [somewhat contrived] interpretaion on John 2:20 (as compared with Josephus) gives an entirely unflexible resistance to 28 AD and the 4 year view. The argument for John 2:20 therefore becomes the central governing point, de facto, of the book's major argument, which is hardly fair.

The fact that we have no idea how long the prep work lasted (after Herod announced the Temple project in 20 BC) means we don't know what year construction actually began. Our ignorance of that prep time means John 2:20 is inconclusive - unless we wish to guess whether prep work began in 18 or 17 BC - for settling this one year difference in question.

Therefore, the de facto "tie breaker" of all Hoehner's arguments is actually irrelevant. Therefore, Cheney and the implications of his view deserve much greater attention. We desperately need a new tiebreaker. (Personally, I think it may be the death of Sejanus - which must fall either just before or after the death of John the Baptist - because the 4 year view (the 'after' view) better explains the timing of Jesus' final movements into Judea.)

Despite my strong critique, finding these flaws only increases the value of Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, imho. The book remains a wonderfully comprehensive treatment of the key points, and Hoehner was certainly able to process more scholarship on the topic than I'll ever be able to review in my entire life. I'm a layman, like Cheney. I deal with the major points. So this book is a major influence in my life as much for its flaws as for its strengths. If I didn't care so greatly for it's subject matter, for which Hoehner obviously felt a great deal of passion as well, I would never spend so much of my life trying to improve on what it attempted to accomplish... nor could I ever have hoped to, probably.

As Samuel Johnson said in the preface to his first English Dictionary, "I have only failed at that which no human powers have hitherto completed." In that regard, Hoehner is even more a giant, in my estimation. What other book like his has ever gone to print? None so comprehensive, as far as I can tell, and certainly none since Chronological Aspects. To call it required reading in the field should be putting it lightly. I say again, I will always treasure my old, worn out copy.

I heard a rumor last May from someone who corresponded with him that Harold Hoehner had mentioned a desire to revise his book, if not also (?) his chronology. On the hopeful prospect of this, I began trying to make my arguments stronger and more worthy of his valuable time. Time, alas, we did not have.

If anyone reading this, today or in the future, was working with him on such a project, or had been hoping to, I would very much love to argue with you about it. In my experience, arguing is the sport of friends. Since I hear Dr. Hoehner liked arguing as well, and if you were his friends, I would look especially forward to meeting you. Perhaps soon... or at least soon enough, hopefully.

Thank you, Lord, for Harold Hoehner and his Giant work. From his shoulders, give us eyes to see farther. Amen.

Augustus and Apollo and the Jews

In late 4 BC, 50 Judean Jews brought along 8,000 Roman Jews to witness Augustus' hearing of their complaints before Herod's will could be settled. I presume it was at least partly to accommodate this large crowd that the Emperor moved the location of the hearing. For one day, the Temple of Apollo became a large courtroom. Two questions are: (1) Where did the crowd stand (my guess: in the courtyard, with the Emperor presiding from the steps; I don't suspect the interior was large enough for so many) and more importantly (2) Why choose a Temple for the gathering? More specifically, why that particular Temple?

Maybe the occasion simply required more formality than a different venue, but Caesar may also have wanted to emphasize Rome's religious hegemony, which Herod himself had always been too happy to acknowledge. Still, why Apollo's Temple, of all places? Was it simply the site's proximity to the Trans-Tiber district where most Roman Jews lived? Or was Augustus subtly delivering a message? If so, what was that message? I have no idea.

A new book just out from Cambridge by Ovid Scholar John F. Miller is entitled Apollo, Augustus, and the Poets. From the publisher's description:

Apollo’s importance in the religion of the Roman state was markedly heightened by the emperor Augustus, who claimed a special affiliation with the god. Contemporary poets variously responded to this appropriation of Phoebus Apollo, both participating in the construction of an imperial symbolism and resisting that ideological project. This book offers a synoptic study of ‘Augustan’ Apollo in Augustan poetry...

• The only comprehensive treatment of the reflections by Augustan poets on Apollo as an imperial icon • Discusses the presentation of Apollo and Augustus by all five major Augustan poets as well as minor poets • Carefully situates the literature about Augustan Apollo within the broader culture, as known from numismatic, epigraphical, artistic, and archaeological evidence

The book's index does cite Josephus on the 4 BC hearing but and I won't get to read it real soon, but my main question would be what might Augustus have expected the Jews of Rome and/or Palestine to understand about "the Augustan Apollo"? Unfortunately, this is way down there on my list of research topics these days. Maybe someone else will go read Miller and ask these kinds of questions. I hope so.

Give up on 1 BC

I continue to be shocked at how much peer reviewed ink continues to be spilled by really intelligent scholars who try to claim Herod the Great died in 1 BC. One of the most impressive arguments, to be fair, is that Josephus' report that Philip the Tetrarch died in the 20th year of Tiberius (Antiquities 18.106) is given as "the twenty-second year of Tiberius" in the earliest manuscripts. If Philip died in 35/36 instead of 33/34, it could indeed imply a later death for his father, King Herod.

This point was the lynch pin of W.E. Filmer's argument and David Beyer's presentation of evidence at SBL in 1995 seems to be what persuaded Finegan. However, Beyer's knowledge of contextual Roman events is severely lacking. (For example, he cites Syme that there was no war from 7 BC until 2 BC, but Syme himself dated the Homanadensian War to 4/3 BC.) The bottom line is this: if "twenty-second" is indeed what Josephus originally wrote, it doesn't mean his number is accurate. It would only mean that he contradicts himself... more than once.

First, Beyer did not mention Gaius. At the midsummer hearing in Rome, in the year Herod died, Josephus explicitly places young Gaius Caesar (grandson of Augustus) prominently in attendance. (Antiquities 17.229) But if the teenage Caesar was truly present, this meeting to read Herod's will could not have taken place in 1 BC. Dio Cassius, Suetonius and Velleius combine to assure us that Gaius received the Tribunican power in 1 BC and departed for Syria shortly after his mother Julia was exiled (2/1 BC). Gaius took a leisurely tour around the Agean, finding his way to Samos by late summer of 1 BC, where he saw Tiberius 'the exile'. (Cf. Swan's commentary on Dio 55.10ff.)

If Beyer is right, Gaius' itnerary does not fit, unless Josephus is wrong. So, pick your error.

Second, Beyer did not mention Julias. Josephus also declares that Philip renamed Bethsaida in honor of Julia, Augustus' daughter. (Antiquities 18.28) But if Philip had not become Tetrarch until 1 BC, he would absolutely have known better. As just mentioned, Julia was disgraced in 2 BC, which explains why the designation didn't last very long. It's a wonder Josephus even mentions it, but it only makes sense in 3 or 2 BC.

Again, if "twenty-second year of Tiberius" is true, then Josephus' report about Julias must absolutely be false. Error pickers are now weighing two against one.

There are other examples but these successfully illustrate the point. Josephus may indeed have said that Philip died in Tiberius' twenty-second year. If so, he simply must have been wrong - either about that or about a host of other facts. Since Josephus is elsewhere known to be a bit off in his counting of reigns - an unfortunate trend, we must sadly admit - we have solid precedent for doubting the earlier manuscripts. Even if they are authentic, that number cannot be accurate.

Josephus has to be wrong in at least one of these places. The orthodox solution is also the most economical. Herod died in 4 BC. The occasional and Quixotic attempts to dispute this (as recently as this year, in Novum Testamentum!) really need to be put out of our misery.

The Eclipse of Purim, 4 BC

I have never seen in print, aside from Josephus' own statement, that the famous eclipse of 4 BC happened on a festival night. There are other issues, of course, but this point deserves more consideration in the (amazingly, still active) debate about which eclipse (in which year) marked the death of Herod the Great.

those present said... that the perpetrators should not be exempted from punishment. Herod therefore dealt rather mildly with these others but removed the high priest Matthias from his priestly office as being partly to blame for what had happened, and in his stead appointed his wife's brother Joazar as high priest. Now it happened during this Matthias' term as high priest that another high priest was appointed for a single day - that which the Jews observe as a fast - for the following reason. While serving as priest during the night preceeding the day on which the fast occurred, Matthias seemed in a dream to have intercourse with a woman, and since he was unable to serve as priest because of that experience, a relative of his, Joseph, the son of Ellemus, served as priest in his place. Herod then deposed Matthias from the high priesthood. As for the other Matthias, who had stirred up the sedition, he burnt him alive along with some of his companions. And on that same night there was an eclipse of the moon. (Antiquities 17.164ff, emphasis mine)

The Loeb footnote is almost certainly justified to identify this as the Fast of Esther, which evidently began at sundown on March 12th, several hours before the eclipse that took place after midnight on March 13th. Josephus' language leaves little room for doubt about this. Although it is not unlike Josephus to include random information in an aside, or to render flashbacks with unspecific chronology, his asides are never completely random and their details are usually significant to the surrounding narrative. In this particular passage, the details strongly suggest a very tight correlation of events.

Here is what must have happened. Around dawn on the morning of March 12th, the chief men of Jerusalem were gathering to depart for the meeting Herod had called at Jericho. With good horses, they could easily arrive by noon. But the word must have already spread that the high priest had recused himself. The scandal itself would not have been so outrageous, but only the King could legally appoint new high priests. So when Matthias chose his own replacement, even a temporary one, the chief men were obligated to report it to Herod.

But Matthias must have had both friends and enemies in the Jerusalem embassy. His political opponents would take any opportunity to replace him as high priest, while his friends would be bound by their own safety not to withhold the facts from King Herod. As it turned out, the friends and enemies of Matthias may have compromised. Josephus does not tell us that Herod knew about Matthias' offense, but the high priest has suddenly and somehow, implausibly, come to be "partly to blame" for what happened with the golden eagle some days or weeks before.

So far as we know, Matthias had nothing to do with the two rabbis and their overzealous students. He was not arrested, bound or executed with the others whom Josephus specifically names as responsible for the assault on the eagle. If Josephus' story about the rabbis is accurate, then Matthias was innocent, and therefore someone at the Jericho assembly must have come up with their own reasons to name Matthias "as partly to blame" (ws aition tou merous).

This scenario makes Josephus' flashback/aside perfectly relevant to the content and chronology of the burning. The mention together of a fast and an eclipse naturally evokes Purim, which always occurred at the full moon one month before Passover. Josephus' strong suggestion, therefore, is that this eclipse occurred at the time of that festival - which puts Herod's death solidly in 4 BC.

two corrections and notes

First, in my last post I said Caesar sailed for Gaul in 16 AD. Of course it's possible to sail from Italy to France, but Caesar probably went over the Alps. I must have been thinking of the Gauls in Galatia because Caesar went to Asia in 19 AD. Oops.

Second, near the end of that same post I inadvertently left off 30 AD as a possible date for John 2:20. By strict chronological reckoning, 46 years back from Passover of 30 AD would seem to put the Temple construction beginning in early 17 BC. That date is just beyond the realm of possibility, but late 18 BC is acceptable, and the Jews could have been rounding down from 46 years and a few months.

Both points have been fixed in the previous post.

By the way, that second correction is not for my sake, but in fairness to those who take 33 AD for the crucifixion and posit a three year long ministry for Jesus. Personally, I date John 2:20 to the Passover of 29 AD because I find a four year ministry more suitable to the evidence overall. Again, the point of my post is that John 2:20 itself is somewhat imprecise, even based on Josephus.

As it so happens, the previous (erroneous) efforts to date John 2:20 more precisely have been one long standing reason (evidently) why leading apologists felt constrained to defend the three year view against the four year view. I believe I have demonstrated why that was not necessary, and naturally I hope these efforts will encourage many to give the four year ministry more careful consideration.

However, I just as fervently want to be clear that anyone who wishes to stick with their established views can still adopt my explanation on this one detail. As detailed in the previous post, the evidence on Herod's Temple construction allows dates as early as 27 AD for the citation of John 2:20.

A Common Error - Dating Herod's Temple

In John 2:20, Jerusalem's elders cite 46 years for the building of Herod's Temple. That number is not in dispute here, but in calculating its significance to history and chronology, scholars often claim Josephus tells us precisely when Herod began to build. The common statement is something to the effect that "Josephus tells us the rebuilding began in Herod's eighteenth year, 20/19 BC." All such statements are inaccurate, because Josephus nowhere tells us any such thing.

Everyone catches the revision of "fifteenth" to "eighteenth" from Josephus' Jewish War (1.401) to his Antiquities (15.380). No one seems to catch the significance of the other revisions. In War, Josephus literally said Herod restored (epeskeuasen) the Temple that year. Obviously no one thought that was true, but in correcting himself, Josephus also takes pains to convey a more nuanced process. Now he says Herod "undertook (epebaleto) an extraordinary work, (namely) the reconstructing (kataskeuasasthai) of the temple of God".

Note that Wikgren's Loeb translation made an infinitive into a gerund. Interestingly, Whiston did not: "undertook a very great work, that is, to build". If we isolate this sentence, Whiston seems awkward and Wikgren's decision is justifiable, but in the larger context, Whiston underscores a key point, and Wikgren, although inadvertently, has misled us.

The other critical detail here is that "undertook" does not exactly mean "began". The verb (imperfect passive form of epiballw, taking the accusitive case) more literally means Herod had it thrown upon him, which suggests something like Liddel & Scott's alternate glosses for "undertook", which are, "took (or put) it upon himself". Essentially, the desire has taken firm root, but there is no implication that the intended action has necessarily been embarked upon, as of yet.

In the War, Josephus told us one year in which Herod built. In the Antiquities, Josephus corrects this with exacting qualification. He now tells us only what year Herod devoted himself to the building project. Every detail of the narrative following bears this out. Herod's offer to begin the project was met with skepticism by Jews who feared he might tear down and not build up again. So the King promised "he would not pull down the temple before having ready all the materials" (15.390) and Josephus concludes that Herod indeed, "began the construction [note the same root in kataskeuhs] only after all these preparations had diligently been made by him."

The materials included "a thousand wagons to carry the stones" and the preparations included the training of "a thousand priests" as masons and builders. There is no telling how long it took to train a thousand priests into skillful laborers. There is no telling how many trips the thousand stone wagons took, before enough stone was piled up at the site to begin tearing down... which tearing itself may not even have been considered as the beginning of "reconstruction".

The only thing we can date to 20/19 BC, according to Joesphus, is the speech in which Herod promised to build. The actual building must have begun quite some time later. One or two or even three years is not an unthinkable amount of time for the immense amount of preparations that had to take place before reconstruction could begin. The tearing down would probably have been very quick, so the rebuilding could have begun in 19, 18, or perhaps early 17 BC.

Josephus later says the Temple sanctuary was completed in "a year and six months" (15.421) but this by itself does not contradict anything else. We still do not know how much time passed after the speech before work on that new sanctuary was actually begun. However, we also know that shortly after this eighteen month period Herod visited Caesar in Rome (16.6). Since Caesar went north into Gaul in 16 BC, Herod can only have sailed to Italy in 18, 17 or early 16. The latest possible date for sanctuary construction to begin would therefore be winter of 18/17 BC. The earliest, we should think, not before 19. Most feasibly, it could have been anywhere in the 24 month window of 19 to 18 BC.

The point of all this - for New Testament chronologists - is that these references from Josephus are not enough, by themselves, to inform us precisely about what year the Jerusalemites were speaking in when they told Jesus, "This Temple was under construction (oikodomhthe) for forty-six years". Without inventing a time span for the prep-work, that "46 years" could have ended in 27, 28, 29 or even early 30 AD (counting strictly or inclusively).

Therefore, John 2:20 does provide us with a tight range of dates, but not one so restrictive that it should have daunted apologetic concerns in the past. Naturally, these considerations renders moot a vast chunk of everything that has been written by apologists about John 2:20 and Josephus' Antiquities 15, before now.

---------------------------------------

*Post title partly in homage and congratulations to Jona Lendering for his forthcoming publication (in Dutch) about Common Errors in scholarship.

A related "common error", the notion that Herod's Temple was continuously under construction for eight decades, will have to wait for some future post. And until someone publishes Jona's new book in English, go check out his blog posts. I recommend starting with this one about Pontius Pilate.

Dating Paul's "Conversion"

IF the Arabian (Nabatean) King Aretas ever occupied Damascus, it would have been before 37 AD. It could not have been after. Ogg missed this. Jewett missed this. Bowersock pointed it out in 1983 and few have acknowledged it since. The historical context is vital to Pauline chronology AND to the chronology of the earliest church in Jerusalem.

Here's the very-skinny. In 20 BC, the Kingdom of Zenodorus was granted to Herod the Great even though it had been promised to Nabatea. The Nabateans made trouble in Trachonitis until Aretas betrothed his daughter to Antipas (c.1 BC/1 AD) and Philip managed to forge good relations with the Nabateans in his Tetrarchy. But Antipas broke the treaty when he married Herodias (28/29 AD) and Philip's death (33/34 AD) filled the old Kingdom of Zenodorus with an absolute power vacuum.

Tiberius (undoubtedly with, through or by proxy of Macro, the new Praetorian Prefect after Sejanus) officially annexed Philip's Tetrarchy into Provincia Syria. But Syria had been suffering from a power vacuum of its own. The Proconsul Lamia was an absentee Governor for ten years until Pomponius Flaccus [not to be confused with the Egyptian Prefect hated by Philo] arrived in 32. But Flaccus died in office in 33 and Tiberius (and/or Macro) sent L. Vitellius in 35, more than a whole year after Philip and Flaccus had both died.

Presumably, Vitellius was to establish the new status of Philip's Tetrarchy, but Vitellius had his hands full immediately with conflict on all sides. Dealing with the Parthian invasion of Armenia occupied Vitellius' first two summers while the Governor also sent one of his four Legions to help Cappadocia against a mountain tribe of Cilicians. Meanwhile, Herod Antipas had taken the liberty of sending his own small army to occupy the strategic fortress-city of Gamala in the Golan Heights. But while Antipas was at the Euphrates making peace with the Parthian King Artabanus, the Nabatean army took Gamala and crushed Herod's army.

By early 37, Vitellius was marching south, but purposely dawdled, resenting Antipas for taking credit about the Euphrates treaty in a letter to the Emperor. Tiberius (and/or Macro) had ordered Vitellius to avenge Antipas, but Vitellius lingered in Jerusalem after Passover until news arrived of Tiberius' death. At that, the Governor took his Legions back north. Gamala had already been reclaimed (officially for Syria) and Aretas had long since retreated. And just by coincidence, almost simultaneously, in Rome, the new Emperor Caligula (and his chief advisor, Macro) were appointing Antipas' nephew, Herod Agrippa, as the new King of the old Kingdom/Tetrarchy.

According to our records, Aretas did not attack or press through Trachonitis under Agrippa. It is extremely doubtful that Aretas could have managed possessions from the other side of Agrippa. And Aretas was somewhere in his 60's already, at least. He had been king since 9/8 BC. Two years after Caligula made Agrippa King of Trachonitis and the Golan, Aretas died, in 39 AD.

That's the whole skinny. Now here's the point.

It had long been assumed, by a very poor reading of 2nd Corinthians 11:32, that Aretas must have been granted Damascus by Rome, and the next argument went that since Tiberius sent Vitellius after Aretas, it must have been the nutsy Caligula. These arguments required skepticism of Josephus on Gamala as the point of battle, since the Golan was not an official "boundary" between Antipas and Aretas. But Josephus said Gamala, so the territorial issues must go back to the old grudge over Zenodorus. Only Bowersock (Roman Arabia, 1983) makes complete sense out of Tacitus, Josephus and Paul on this issue.

My own tiny contribution to this conversation is that Macro alone should be enough to debunk the old argument that Caligula suddenly did an about face from Tiberian policy. For all practical purposes, Macro was running the Empire in all twelve months of 37 AD, besides which Caligula never showed any interest in foriegn policy, except for the Temple worship fiasco in 39/40. Caligula merely gave his 'uncle Herod' a Kingdom as a reward for his friendship in recent years. Herod's Kingship, of course, is another issue the old arguments failed to deal with. If Caligula had wanted to give Damascus to anyone, it should have been Agrippa.

The Conclusion: Paul's "three years" in Arabia must end before winter of 36/37 and therefore his conversion must be dated to 33/34.

The Challenge: If we also take 33 as the year of Christ's Passion and Pentecost, what does that do to our view of the earliest church in Jerusalem? Tentatively clinging to 30 AD, which has become increasingly difficult to defend in recent decades except by appeal to tradition, seems to be motivated in some cases by a bias towards keeping Acts 1-8 in a long stretch of years. I think it was less than four months, but that's a story for some other time...

Biblical Studies - 1

Since Nick Norelli tagged me for the latest meme I'm going to confess. I don't really read "Biblical Studies" books. I've skimmed a few. I've read lots more first chapters, last chapters, tables of contexts and indices. But I've not read any WHOLE books. I've purchased at least three dozen in the past fifteen months, but I've rarely strapped myself in and taken the ride of attempting to follow the author's entire thought. What can I say? I'm not really a student. I'm a hunter. But I do try to learn.

Therefore, since Nick knows (as do most of you, I'm sure) that I am genuinely trying to understand, appreciate and interact more effectively with the world of professional Biblical scholarship - it's only fair if I blog a few posts about Biblical Studies books to the extent that I've been able to dig in so far. Understand, I'm excluding anything on Roman History, first century Judean History, Josephus, or "N.T. Background" because 95% of what I've personally read on those topics wasn't written by scholars in New Testament or Biblical Studies departments.

This may take a few posts to get through. Sorry, Nick, it's not quite the meme, but I think you'll be interested to see what comes out here. This is going to reveal a lot of my own weak areas, as if they weren't clear enough already. Should be fun. ;-)

So stay tuned...

Quarry Time on Herod's Temple

Apparently the Israel Antiquities Authority has uncovered another Herodian quarry. (h/t RC, natch) Here's the beautiful and surprising part of the quote from Dr. Ofer Sion: "...before Herod built the Temple he prepared the infrastructure for it: the quarrying of the Temple's stones lasted eight whole years. The Temple itself was built in a relatively short time of two years."

I'm thrilled to see somebody counting out years of prep work, but is he citing actual research or are these unpublished conclusions? For his statement to be accurate he must mean quarrying for the whole complex was done in eight years and the sanctuary building went up during two of those early years. Otherwise, if he means the sanctuary stones took eight years to quarry, how did they quarry and build all the rest in time for the Battle of Pentecost in 4 BC, at which time Josephus describes how the collonades and courtyard structures collapsed in a fire set by Varus' Legion.

At any rate, it's great to see a public piece that goes into construction time without the common generalism, "Herod's Temple took about 80 years to complete." I also hope Sion is also right that "Herod began quarrying closest to the Temple and worked away from it". Now I'll wait eagerly to see how far away they find quarrying for the pavement - that being what most likely accounts for the fact there was any work yet to be done under Agrippa II.

If anybody knows what research Sion was citing, please let me know.

Click Herod's Temple in the index below for my old posts on this topic.

UPDATE: Apparently he's just extrapolating from Josephus' Antiquities 15:420 that the porticos and outer courts were built in 8 years. That doesn't mean the corresponding quarrying hadn't been going on for 9 or 10 years or more, but I guess I'm quibbling now. (h/t David Meadows again!)

Sabbatical Year Taxes in Roman Judea

Julius Caesar exempted Judea from tribute in sabbatical years but it's unclear whether or not Herod the Great continued under this policy. After Herod's death, his son Archelaus seemed to ignore the sabbatical altogether and we can only imagine what revenue he might have collected from any Jewish landowners who remained observant in 2 BC and AD 6.

When Rome took direct control they introduced a poll tax (tributum capitis) but did they continue the land tax (tributum soli)? Mary Smallwood presumes they did and also presumes Caesar's exemption was abolished at this point, but for all we know it was abolished earlier. Peter Richardson cites Josephus as strong evidence that Herod the Great was less than completely respectful of the tradition in 30 and 23 BC. So I ask, since the King evidently collected some tax in those years, wouldn't he also have shared with the Emperor?

We can only guess what the King did in 16 and 9 BC, but even if Caesar's policy was still good after Herod's death, the subjects of Archelaus didn't need the extra ammunition to get him removed. Since this is still a push, I question only the double presumption by Smallwood. If the land tax continued after 6 AD, how could the exemption be removed only then without any mention of complaint or compensation? The zealous rhetoric of Judas was far more anti-Rome than anti-tax. The 'galilean' also didn't need the extra ammunition.

To speculate for just a moment, it is possible the poll tax could have been a clever compromise if the land tax and exemption were abolished together. Quirinius' property assessment would then merely have told him the proper amount to assess 'per capita'. If it could be proven in fact, this would give the debate referenced in Mark 12 an additional depth - with one side arguing the poll tax was acceptable because non-agriculturally based, and the other side viewing all seven years of poll tax unlawfull as a deliberate runaround on the whole sabbatical tradition.

This conjecture would fit perfectly if we had some reason to think Judea bucked precedent and gained exemption from the land tax altogether. It could fit the pattern of privleges issued by Rome, but without specific evidence it remains merely one of two presumptions. However, if we take the other one, Smallwood's, we should probably conclude sabbatical related outrage died down slowly through the reigns of Herod and Archelaus. And thus in turn, Smallwood's second presumption, that Caesar's exemption was still in place up to 6 AD, seems likely to be true only in an official sense. Practically speaking, it must have been virtually forgotten, made moot by decades of neglect.

Personally, the more I think about the poll tax as a compromise, the more I wonder why the trap question in Mark 12 is supposed to matter without sabbatical implications. (Even if they were merely fishing for zealot sentiments, were the Pharisees really so concerned about the image on the coin? Isn't that what they had the money changers for?) However, I don't normally find creative inference very convincing without additional support and I could be missing something here. Therefore, I'll be just as happy (for now) to stand with the conventional view that Judea probably continued to pay land taxes after 6 AD, including sabbatical years.

In conclusion, I have to say neither view affects our assessment of daily life anyway, as far as I can tell. Only wealthy landowners were directly affected by the land tax, however long it lasted, and the question may depend on how many of those were also devout enough to remain strictly observant. Since we're going to presume that those who let their land lie fallow were still going to be taxed on it, it seems simple enough to further presume they simply stored up extra money during the first six years to use for a tax payment while they lived off their stored grain and produce. This should only seem unnatural to anyone who ever said religious devotion comes at no cost. (!)

Birth Years of NT Era Figures

If you put these into a spreadsheet with 79 columns, it's an instant reference for how old they each were in any given year. That's what I did. Anyway, these are major historical figures who were active or born from 9 BC to 70 AD. The printed chart is much cooler, but too big to post as an image. Enjoy, my fellow history geeks. :-)

NAME & BIRTH YEAR:
Herod, -73; Salome I, -65; Strabo, -64; Augustus, 9/28/-63; Livia, -58 or -57*; H.Antipater, -45; Varus, ~43 (?); Tiberius, 11/16/-42; Julia 1, -39; Drusus I, -38; Antonia, -36; H.Alexander, -36; H.Aristobulus, -35; Aretas, King From -9; H.Archelaus, -23; H.Philip I, -22; H.Antipas, -21; Gaius I, -20; H.Philip II, -20; Julia 2, -19; Lucius, -17; Germanicus, 5/24/-16 or -15*; Agrippina I, -14; Drusus II, -13; H.Agrippa, -13; Livilla I, -13; Posthumous, -12; Claudius, 8/1/-10; JOHN, 11/-8; JESUS, 5*/-7; Galba, 12/24/-3; Nero-Julius, 6?; Drusus-Julius, 7; Vespasian, 11/17/9; Gaius II (=Caligula), 8/31/12; Salome III, 14 (?); Agrippina II, 11/6/15; L. Vitellius, 15; Julia Drusilla, 16; Julia Livilla, 18; V.Mesalina, 19; Gemellus, 19; Pliny the Elder, 23; Agrippa II, 27; Berenice, 28; Otho, 4/25/32; Mariamme (d.Agrippa), 34; Nero, 12/15/37; Josephus, 37 or 38*; Drusilla (d.Agrippa), 38; Titus Ves., 12/30/41; Domitian, 10/24/51; Tacitus, 56; Pliny the Younger, 61

KEY:
*questionable dates
(?) estimated dates
Kings, Emperors, Tetrarchs
BOLD - according to me!

Luke 2:1-5 as Historical Evidence (4)

In this series, I have claimed that faith-based historical reconstruction should prioritize the aspects of Luke's claim. We may believe his confusing synopsis is true, but it is too discordant at face value to trust in detail without first arriving at some proper perspective. In other words, historical study of this passage should pause at his central claim - there was a census - and seek out a classical context for that much, alone. Details might, hopefully, become clear by the end of that process. We trust.

This sums up the series so far. (See preface & parts 1, 2 & 3.) Now let's make it practical.

It just so happens that I raised a separate question recently, about Herod and Augustus. I asked, since Josephus and Dio together reveal that the King was officially in disfavor with the Emperor for as much as one whole year, did Augustus actually punish Herod? If not, I said, Caesar's promise to treat Herod "like a subject" boils down to an empty threat, which would be very un-Caesar-like. But if so, what evidence do we have for any means by which Augustus might have punished his temporary-former friend?

One possibility, all historians should consider, is the census. Since I am trying to show that Luke's central claim is worth considering apart from its trappings, I suggest that even secular history should consider isolating this element of Luke's testimony for its own ends. So, back to the problem of this phantom punishment.

Chronology of German campaigning and one Damascene's travel plans have cast aspersions on Augustus' character. That is, according to me. Classical scholarship needs to respond. At least, so now say I. At any rate, the only historical evidence I am aware of to suggest Caesar may have punished Herod is the census Luke mentions.

Let me put it another way. If Luke 2:1-5 is accurate about anything, it is that the census happened. There is no better candidate for the cause of such a census than the punishment of Herod by Augustus. If the rest of N.T. chronology can be reconciled (and it can) and if Luke's central claim is reliable (which I certainly also believe) then this suggestion must be considered the most worthy option for beginning any reconstruction of the historical census.

Again, this is merely the beginning of reconstruction. I am suggesting Luke's evidence belongs as a part of a larger search for the history between Augustus and Herod. I will pick up again with the Josephus study linked to above... sometime soon.

Finally, please note that at this point we still cannot yet bring in the less clear details of Luke 2:1-5. Thankfully, we do not need to. We may pick up perspective on them as we go through more of the classical sources, but those points will actually remain an almost entirely separate issue.

Defending Luke's veracity is one thing. Reconstructing the historical event sequence is another.

Fini. (For now)

Josephus on 9/8/7 BC (4)

I posted recently that it was probably in November of 9 BC when Augustus "became still more angry and wrote to Herod in a harsh tone... that whereas formerly he had treated him as a friend, he would now treat him as a subject." (Josephus' Antiquities 16.290) What I would like to know more precisely is how many months passed before "Caesar's attitude underwent such a change that he condemned Syllaeus to death and became reconciled with Herod..." (Josephus' Antiquities 16.352)

Twelve pages of greek (Loeb edition) stand between those two lines of text. This alone tells us nothing about time, but the limits of travel and Dio Cassius' account of the Emperor's campaign in Germany - together - suggest the second event most likely occurred no sooner than August of 8 BC. (See previous posts.) That gives us at least a nine month long demotion. Skip the small print below if you don't want the details. ;)

Scholarship on this event sequence typically neglects to work out chronology in this much detail. Peter Richardson makes Augustus linger in Rome until Nicolas arrives but is vague about the timing of that visit and does not discuss the German campaign itself. Based on Peter Swan's analysis of Dio, Richardson's assumption is highly unlikely, more so because Josephus tells us that Olympus went to see Augustus as soon as he heard about Nicolas’ success. Since Olympus sailed to Italy from Palestine, he could hardly have arrived before June. But Augustus was hailed imperator by the German Legions in June at the latest. Therefore, it seems almost certain that Nicolas must not have been able to meet with Caesar until after the Emperor’s return – some time between August and October. Adding seven weeks for imperial couriers to reach Herod with news about each change in status, King Herod probably got the good news between mid-October and December of 8 BC, having previously received the demotion somewhere around the turn of January that year.

Regrettably, I have not yet found this much attention to detail, on this matter, in scholarly books about Herod. At least Richardson acknowledged the German campaign and considered the issue of time. Stewart Perowne skipped backwards and forwards during the late period of Herod’s life with scant chronological detail at all. Emil Schurer did not even bring Nicolas all the way into Italy! Surveys of the period tend to cover the whole affair in a sentence or two, and it is notable that Fergus Millar chose this moment at which to point out, "Problems of time and distance, often very important to the role of the near east within the empire, do not play any visible part." (emphasis mine) In fact, Millar himself had just skipped over one whole year of action in less than a paragraph. (To be fair, his survey was not aimed at events in strict sequence. Sadly, among scholars, too few are.)

In their defense, we can easily point out these world class scholars were simply following Josephus himself in neglecting to tease out much detailed chronology around Herod’s demotion. Still, solid historiography requires logistical outworking, at least for double checking. On this issue, we owe these past scholars our efforts to make some improvement. Thanks mainly to Swan, this post is now my contribution. Hopefully, they would all approve.

It seems Herod the Great remained in disfavor for the first nine to eleven months of the year 8 BC. This is a significant amount of time and offers a new perspective for reconsidering other pertinent facts. For instance, now see my next point:

The extended duration of Herod’s demotion makes it less likely to have been insignificant, punishment wise. It is fine to say Herod lost certain perks of imperial friendship, but that is now likely less than the least we should assume. Eleven months is a long time to believe Caesar made no active efforts to “treat” Herod as a “subject”, as he promised to actively do. Three months of winter could perhaps allow an as yet unfulfilled threat to remain unfulfilled. That's conceivable. But nine months with a summer makes that threat, retroactively, implicitly empty. That does not at all fit what we know of Augustus.

This gives us a new problem. Why does Josephus list no punishments? For that matter, what would they have been? I already admitted my own suspicion, back in post #2. But to back up, the most basic question at this moment is: did Augustus take any particular actions to treat Herod as a subject, or not?

This question deserves more attention. Time is but one of the issues.

Stay tuned...

Josephus on 9/8/7 BC (3.5)

This post is a bridge between the first and last halves of this series.

Post #1: Traditional scholarship on the date of Alexander & Aristobulus' execution (by their father, Herod the Great) has been rightly held up as accurate but perhaps without stringent examination. A face value reading of Josephus' Antiquities shows events during the Governorship of Saturninus (mid-9 to mid-6 BC) are difficult to date with precision. Working on this issue may also help us determine how long Herod the great remained a "subject" of Augustus Caesar, after the accusation of Syllaeus the Nabatean (which occured about November of 9 BC).

Post #2: A review of events in Dio Cassius shows Augustus moving back and forth between Rome and Germany in 9 and 8 BC. The logistics of communication between Caesar and Herod (including the weight of Caesar's decision and the travel itinerary for Nicolaus of Damascus) must be weighed against various factors, including the possible lengths and end points of the Emperor's 8 BC campaign. On balance, Nicolaus probably missed Augustus in the spring and had to wait until Autumn. Herod's other envoy, Olympus, absolutely waited in Rome for Caesar's return because Olympus sailed. (Whereas Nicolaus may have gone over land.)

Post #3: A generous attempt to put the execution of Alexander and Aristobulus at the end of 8 BC is shown to stretch the limits of plausibility to a very high degree. It would also require Nicolas to sail back to Palestine during October-November. Without other evidence to demand further consideration of this scenario, it must be abandoned. The only alternative is to show that Nicolaus and Olympus both stayed in Rome over the winter of 8/7 BC. Therefore, Herod does not execute Alexander and Aristobulus until shortly after Nicolaus sails home from Italy in 7 BC.

Point One: The traditional date holds up - with a strengthened position, if I have examined these things fairly enough. This was worth investigating thoroughly and great exercise for me, besides.

Point Two: My ulterior motive in all this is to more closely consider what I believe are solid grounds for the plausible reconstruction of an actual Roman Census in Judea under Governor Saturninus in 7 BC.

Preview of Future Posts in this Series: If Nicolas did in fact miss Caesar in the spring of 8 BC, as seems likely, then Augustus remained cold to Herod for nearly one full year - and Herod remained a "subject" of Caesar (and thus essentially of Rome as well) for the same span of time, plus a seven week courrier delay. Herod's demotion in status is usually not addressed as such an extended situation, partly because Josephus scholars don't necessarily include Dio Cassius' accounts of the same time period among their published considerations. It leads to an important consideration, namely - Which is more difficult? To imagine Augustus making an empty threat with no consequences that lingered for almost one full year? Or to speculate on what significance the demotion to "subject" had in practical matters, and to what extent it was able to take effect during the (almost entire) year 8 BC?

Preview of my Conclusion: Herod's punishment in late 9 BC is often treated as both brief and trivial. It was almost certainly not brief. Examination of other evidence will strongly suggest it was also very far from being trivial.

Related Topics also to be Covered: (1) The confusing details of Luke's testimony about this census and the extent to which those details may or may not be used as a source for Roman history. (2) Reconstruction for the sake of argument - assuming Saturninus did receive that order. (3) Examining the date and provenance of the oath of loyalty to Caesar and Herod. (4) Josephus' use of the term "subject" and similar usage in Strabo and elsewhere. (5) Others - TBA.

Josephus on 9/8/7 BC (3)

It is commonly attested by scholars that Herod the Great executed his sons, Alexander & Aristobulus, in the year 7 BC. I do believe this date is solid, but how do we know?. In post #1 of this series, I agreed with Daniel Schwartz who said it gets repeated blindly too often. At face value, I admitted, it could have been late 8 BC. But in post #2, I began a closer look at the travel logistics involved. As it turns out, the old estimate seems to hold up extremely well.

What follows is an awful lot of work, but it may produce unexpected benefits. Read on, and we'll see...

Herod's man Olympus sails to Rome in 8 BC, but Augustus left to make war in Germany some time before June. Olympus also went the long way, stopping at Cilicia en route, so there's no way Olympus catches the Emperor in time. (Let alone, whether Nicolas could have done so first - on which, see post #2.) So Olympus has to wait until after the campaign - July stretches the imagination, but for argument's sake, let's pretend Caesar quit half way through the season. There's a lot else that still has to happen, before Herod can kill A&A.

After Nicolas AND Olympus get their hearings with Caesar, the Emperor sends a letter to Herod with advice about A&A. (~48 days) Then, Herod has to call a council of important men, including the Governor of Syria. Assuming everyone confirms the first suggested date, and comes right away, the fastest possible gathering is about two weeks out. (The absolute minimum time now is ~60 days, total.) The council meets at Berytus, after which Herod himself went to Tyre. (another two days) And now we come to the critical point. At Tyre, Nicolas arrives by ship from Rome, a bare minimum of 62 days after Olympus met Caesar, but probably much more.

Can this reunion at Tyre happen in 8 BC? It's conceivable, but not likely. For Nicolas to arrive at Tyre before November, Augustus would have to be back in Rome before September. That would be odd for a campaigning season, especially since we have no particular reasons for suspecting Augustus quit Germany early this year. Far from it - the campaign has to be reconstructed from several ancient sources (H/t Peter Swan). It doesn't sound like it was extremely quick.

Velleius [who, granted, always exaggerates in praise of Tiberius] says Tiberius traversed and subdued "every part of Germany". Suetonius & Dio Cassius tell us Augustus & Tiberius [together] relocated 40,000 Suebi & Sugambri tribespeople, settling them on the Gaulish side of the Rhine. Tacitus says it was "policy, more than force" that won the settlements with these tribes, but whatever Tiberius did won him a Triumph, which was not celebrated until the following Spring. No time for an Autumn parade suggests Tiberius stayed almost until winter, but evidently the Emperor himself stayed at least long enough to direct the settlements of the Sugambri into Gaul. Finally, Dio adds that Augustus, back in Rome, accepted the permanent commemoration of his birthday, September 28th, but preferred that the month of Sextilis be re-named as "August" because he had won so many battles in that month.

All these clues put together suggest the Emperor was still in Germany during at least part of August, becoming victorious at yet another campaign in that month. It also sounds like Caesar must have been in Rome early enough to accept the plans for celebrating his birthday, and if Tiberius himself stayed longer in Northern Europe that could explain why the Triumph was postponed until after winter. Leaving Germany after early August would put Augustus back in Rome by mid-September - but not before September.

The probable timeline for Augustus makes impossible even the fastest conceivable timeline for Nicolas-to-Tyre. And faster than plausible timelines for Augustus still require the fastest conceivable timeline for Nicolas-to-Tyre, and/or a very late arrival date, stretching the bounds of sailing season beyond practical reasonability. "The Fast" when Luke sailed to Rome [59 AD] fell on October 6th. For Nicolas to beat that date, Augustus would have to leave Germany around late June!

If there were any other reason to believe the execution of Alexander & Aristobulus happened in 8 BC, we might be bound to stretch plausibility on these considerations - but there is not, so we are not. The sequence of events in Josephus falls into the calendar more neatly the more we include events from other sources. As often happens, travel-time and sailing season offer the most restrictive data, which is therefore the most helpful.

Nicolas of Damascus must have waited in Rome during the winter of 8/7 BC. There are too many variables for things to happen any faster. It seems Herod, for whatever reasons of his own, drug his feet a bit in getting the council together. Maybe, in Rome, Olympus hadn't gotten to see Augustus right away after his return. And surely Augustus, as would have been extremely characteristic for the Emperor, deliberated a while before writing his letter of advice on such a weighty matter. Whenever Herod finally did call the council, it's likely the Governor, Sentius Saturninus, didn't have a free moment in his immediate schedule, or perhaps not for a while. On top of all this, maybe Herod just couldn't make a final decision, emotionally, without his chief advisor's personal input - and scheduled the council for a time near his arrival. At the very least, the King of the Jews did decide to coordinate with Nicolas one more time, sending word to him at some point that Tyre would be their meeting site. Any or all of these additional factors add significant amounts of extra time to our considerations. In sum, based on all of this evidence, there's simply no way Nicolas could plausibly sail back from Rome in 8 BC.

Therefore, Nicolas arrived at Tyre in the spring of 7 BC. Some weeks after his arrival [May/June?], Herod gave the order to execute his sons, Alexander & Aristobulus. Not only is the old estimate solid, but those scholars should be totally vindicated for whom this date has been "accepted as canonical".

On a personal note, I'm grateful for the footnote of Daniel Schwartz. This has been fantastic exercise. And it's not over yet...

Josephus on 9/8/7 BC (2)

Herod the Great sent two emissaries to Rome in 8 BC. Determining what month they each saw the Emperor tells us not only which year Herod killed his sons, it also tells us how long the King remained a “subject” of Augustus instead of a friend.

Peter Swan says the funeral of Drusus in 9 BC was held in November or December. After my recent review of those events, I take early November. Since Augustus learns about Herod during the funeral week (or thereabouts) he might send his letter to Herod by mid-November, and the King can read its bad news as early as January 1st (ish). But then, even if Herod sent Nicolas of Damascus to Rome immediately, the ambassador couldn’t possibly arrive (overland including Asia Minor in Jan/Feb) any sooner than April 1st. The problem is that Augustus most likely left for Germany that April, and possibly as early as March. Further calculations make any overlap of these itineraries extremely unlikely. (If you trust me, skip the small print!)

In his commentary on Dio Cassius’ Year Book for 8 BC, Swan points out that Augustus left early enough to win an acclimation from his Legions “in the first half of the year”. (An inscription puts it in 9/8 BC.) That acclimation probably didn’t happen just because Caesar showed up, but Dio’s chronology and geography of German campaigns is sketchy to say the least, so it’s practically impossible to calculate the progress of the campaign itself. Still, the travel alone took at least a month, so we’d have to figure Augustus left Rome before mid-May at the absolute latest – and almost certainly sooner.

But how much sooner? Of course March was the traditional time for the start of campaigning, and Caesar could have left as soon as the Alps were passable so the German Legions could begin their campaign in March with him present. Then again, Augustus was 54, this particular campaign wasn’t necessarily the most urgent one he ever planned, and the Emperor might have simply preferred to leave in April. We just can’t say for sure.

In all, there’s a chance Nicolas saw Augustus in April. On the other hand, it’s more likely he did not. The odds may be even that Caesar left before or after April 1st, but there are plenty of factors which might have made Nicolas arrive late. It would have been characteristic of Augustus to sit on the news for a short time before writing the letter, and perhaps especially this year considering the funeral. Given the extra assumption (which I make unapologetically) that the demotion of Herod included ordering a census of Israel, the Emperor is even more likely to have weighed that decision for some days or weeks. The later Herod gets Augustus’ letter, the later Nicolas can depart – assuming Nicolas goes over land at all.

Also, once Herod sends Nicolas, many things can happen to delay the advisor’s trip. The mountains and snows of Turkey, crossing the Bosporous and the Adriatic in winter, built up fatigue, and the possibility that Nicolas himself was advancing in age – all these are possible factors which could easily cause the ambassador to reach Rome after April 1st. And none of this is to mention the other possibility that Herod allowed Nicolas to wait until sailing season. In that case, the ambassador absolutely misses the Emperor.

As a quick aside, when Herod sent Olympus to Rome the King was concerned that Nicolas might not have had a chance to see Augustus yet. But Olympus was sailing. That could mean that Nicolas sailed slightly earlier – but it could also mean merely that Herod knew how long it could sometimes take to get an audience with the Emperor. Either case is a point in the favor of time, not expedience.

There is more. Besides arriving before Caesar’s departure, Nicolas had to gain an audience, almost certainly by first securing an appointment. And Josephus’ narrative strongly implies Nicolas had some down time in Rome before seeing the Emperor. The Nabateans who turned against Syllaeus heard Nicolas was in town, found him and gave him not only ammunition for winning his case, but also the very excuse Nicolas needed before Augustus would even admit him. This meeting probably happened between setting and keeping an appointment with Caesar, but there’s a slight chance it means no appointment was granted until the stated purpose became agreeable.

At any rate, there was some downtime, so the window of opportunity had to be more than a few days. Nicolas can’t just catch Augustus on the way out of town! And we haven’t even begun to consider whether the Emperor even took new appointments in the weeks before a departure. (Not that I can think how to even begin researching that particular question!) The more factors we consider, the smaller the springtime window begins to look. And remember, the odds are greater that the Legions would acclaim Augustus after some length of time had gone into the campaign, not in the very first weeks of one.

Therefore, it seems far more likely that Nicolas did not see Augustus until after summer in 8 BC. Either way, we know Olympus definitely did not, because no matter how early his boat left Caesarea, it couldn’t possibly have arrived in Rome before June (especially not with a stop at Cilicia to go visit King Archelaus of Cappadocia).

Those are the basic conclusions. The ramifications for dating related events will come next...

Josephus on 9/8/7 BC (1)

In 7 BC, Herod the Great executed two of his sons for treason – Alexander and Aristobulus. At least, it happened in 7 BC according to major scholars on the subject as far back as 1885. [For the record, I agree, but there's more going on here. Keep reading.] Some of them admit the date is an approximation, which is technically correct. Daniel R. Schwartz went further, stating with more precise vagueness that it could have been 8 or 7 BC, and pointing out, “the dates von Gutschmid offered as approximations have all too often been accepted as canonical.” (Agrippa I, p.39.n.4; p.206,n.15) Fair enough. So let's do better.

The passages in Josephus are not his most helpful, for chronological precision. A good starting point is the accession of Aretas IV, King of Nabatea, which happened in the winter of 9/8 BC according to various sources, including [if memory serves] coinage. That puts the visits of Herod’s ambassadors, Nicolas and Olympus, squarely in 8 BC, but more precision is needed. Estimating their separate travel itineraries leaves a range of possibilities, and it is admittedly (if barely) possible that the double execution might conceivably occur as early as October of 8 BC.

Schwartz, then, has good grounds for his rigorous skepticism (at least in this case). On the other hand, none of our evidence requires an expedient timetable and so 7 BC remains - statistically alone - far more likely than 8. But statistics isn't argument. As far as I can tell, one early justification for the consensus position was originally that Saturninus disappears from Josephus’ narrative shortly after the double execution [and Saturninus leaves mid-6] so Herod's sons were more likely to die in 7 than 8. This doesn’t seem like a very strong case, and I’d like to see better.

But of course, I'm not merely trying to be thorough. The question at hand depends on the travel itineraries of two embassies from Herod to Rome, which also determine whether Augustus reinstated Herod's friendship in early 8 or late 8, and give us a better picture of just how long Herod the Great was officially a "subject" of the Emperor.

To be honest, I'd never looked at the logistics of 8 BC quite this closely until I found Schwartz's footnote. So hooray for footnotes!

More later…

Dio & Josephus on Drusus & Herod

I really hope some Classical Scholar picks this up. Forgive me, the rest of you! ;)

Josephus says Syllaeus the Nabatean accused Herod before Caesar in late 9 BC. Cassius Dio says Augustus was barely in the city at all during that time, except for his stepson's funeral, briefly. As far as I can tell, no historian has yet published considerations about the potential impact of Drusus Nero's death on the Emperor's decision - which he evidently must have made during the funeral week - to turn Herod the Great from "a friend" into "a subject". My September 2006 draft-reconstruction of 9 BC still has it's flaws, so I've done a bit of closer scrutiny on it this week. Part One deals with Syllaeus, Part Two deals with Drusus, and Part Three ties them together, concluding with thoughts on the important question at hand.

Seriously now, I'll leave it to some seasoned professional to tighten my arguments and strengthen my conclusion, if such can be done. Until then, these rough sketches of someone else's future (possibly groundbreaking) scholarship really need to be here, online. (Click the links or scroll down through today's previous posts.)

Happy New Year, Y'all. :)

Did Drusus' Death Hurt Herod in 9 BC? (3)

In the last post, I tentatively concluded that Drusus’ funeral in 9 BC fell between mid-August and November. Prior to that, I showed that Syllaeus’ arrival by sea must have fallen between late August and mid-October. Unfortunately, these overlapping ranges don’t tell us the actual event dates. However, other details from Josephus and Cassius Dio can help us build a reasonable sequence of these events.

Dio tells us Augustus did not officially end his campaign when he entered the city with the funeral procession. And later, Dio strongly implies that Augustus went back outside the city after the funeral, to remain in mourning until January. [For the reason, see post #2.] But Josephus strictly says that Augustus was at his palace at least once, to meet with Syllaeus and the envoys of Herod, regarding the invasion of Nabatea. According to Josephus, Caesar was aware of Syllaeus and allowed him at court.

Obviously, if Augustus was in Rome with Syllaeus, then so was Drusus’ coffin. It may have been some days before the funeral, or the Emperor might have stayed a few days after before leaving Rome again, but Syllaeus definitely saw an Augustus who was officially in mourning.

Evidently, then, Syllaeus arrived in Rome at least a couple of days before Drusus’ funeral. But Josephus also tells us that Syllaeus had time, while in Rome, to receive messengers from Nabatea telling him details of what happened in the invasion. This makes it more likely still that Syllaeus arrived some weeks before Drusus’ funeral. Without more specific data, we can still conclude that both events happened during the autumn, and Drusus’ funeral came last, closer to winter than to summer.

At least one more detail from Josephus deserves attention now. Syllaeus “changed into black dress” to express his own mourning over the Nabatean losses. Although Josephus did not tell us about the death of Drusus, we can now see there was probably an ulterior motive in this wearing of black. Syllaeus’ tears and his clothes both displayed an emotional sympathy for what Augustus was going through personally. This is the first aspect in which we might say the death of Drusus gave an advantage to Syllaeus in his accusations against Herod. There is one more.

In Syllaeus’ day at court, the friends of Herod were already there. (Having left somewhat later, this is yet additional confirmation that some time had passed since Syllaeus’ arrival.) After listening to the Nabatean’s long, emotional report, Augustus was so upset he only allowed those envoys one word – yes or no, was it true that Herod took an army into North Arabia? Of course, they said yes. But this last question may be important to ask:

If Drusus had not been dead, if Caesar had not just lost his best General (and the joint-heir with his grandsons), if Syllaeus had not been able to connect in personal commiseration with the Emperor, if it had been a normal season and Augustus was having a great year instead of a terrible one… would things have gone differently? Would Augustus have been more patient, if the bad report hadn’t come within days of a devastatingly tragic state funeral? Would the Emperor have inquired more if he had time? Or if he hadn’t been officially in mourning? Or, if Syllaeus hadn’t used the angle he did, would Augustus even have entertained an audience that was merely for a personal grievance, while the whole city and Caesar himself were in mourning?

Is it possible that one reason the Emperor limited his inquiries was out of respect to Drusus and to the moment? And if we consider that such lack of care for thoroughness was uncharacteristic of Augustus Caesar, how much more could this anomaly be explained by the Emperor’s emotions over Drusus, and by the formality of the occasion for official mourning? Or financially, if Augustus was already weighing his diminishing chances of securing Germany without Drusus, is it possible the Emperor suddenly changed his opinion about letting the 64 year old Herod continue to remain unsettled on the future rule of Israel, among his many sons? In other words, was the loss of Drusus a reason for Caesar to move up his timetable for annexing Judea? It’s possible.

The answer to all of these questions might possibly be yes. To say the least, the death of Drusus had a profound effect on Augustus’ life and his plans for the imperial succession. Dio Cassius essentially tells us the Emperor stayed outside the city all winter, in official mourning. That makes it all the more remarkable that Syllaeus and Herod’s envoys were even able to see Augustus at the palace, for the brief days or weeks that Caesar was actually in Rome.

The timeline says this might have happened in September, October or November, but it happened this way. Finally, then, to answer the question: Did the death of Drusus hurt Herod’s temporary and immediate fortunes as Augustus responded to Syllaeus in mourning? Of course we can only guess how much this turn of events helped cause Augustus to make Herod his "subject". But it's not a big leap to say that Drusus' death did hurt Herod's cause. At least, from all we can see, it sure didn’t help!

Did Drusus' Death Hurt Herod in 9 BC? (2)

The fatal injury incurred by Claudius Drusus Nero happened after the General had already been campaigning for some time – midsummer will be a good first estimate to start working from. Whenever it was, precisely, Augustus was in North Italy “on campaign” and Tiberius was at Rome celebrating his Pannonian victory. Within the thirty days after Drusus’ injury, the news and Tiberius each had to travel a thousand miles, so the older Nero brother was able to see his wounded sibling before he died. These thirty days make our first estimate of the death date something close to August 1st, perhaps.

The funeral procession began in Germany, crossing the same thousand (or so) miles up the Rhine riverbank and over the Alps. Soldiers and townsmen carried the coffin while Tiberius led the way on foot. Since thirty miles a day is a generous estimate, the procession needed over a month to get Drusus’ body to Rome. This puts the starting point for this estimate in early to mid September. Funeral activities themselves are somewhat more difficult to measure in time. The body laid in state in the Forum, two orations were given, and the burial itself – perhaps a week, total? So if Drusus fell off his horse July 1st, he’d be buried by late September or thereabouts.

However, none of that is the point. The real question is – where was Augustus during all this time and when did he know for certain that Drusus was dead? If we can trust Tacitus (for now, despite the fact he seems to get the season wrong) Augustus waited in North Italy for the funeral cortege. None of the other evidence contradicts this, and it lines up well with Dio’s repeated comment that Augustus – apart from the funeral – avoided spending time inside Rome until January 1st. [The formal return from a campaign required celebratory rites that Augustus refused to perform under the circumstances.]

Again, if Drusus was injured midway through campaigning season, it looks like the Emperor remained away from Rome until about mid-September. Dio’s general account of the German campaign makes it impossible to calculate the date of Drusus’ injury with anything close to precision, but conquering “with difficulty” the lands of the Chatti, Suebi and Cherusci peoples, plus pillaging everything up to the Elbe River – that must have taken more than a couple of months, at least. Trusting the army absolutely didn’t start before March – we might guess the injury couldn’t happen before June 1st, suggesting a funeral no earlier than mid-August. Searching for the other extreme, we might take Suetonius’ statement that Drusus died at summer camp to put the death no later than mid-September, with a funeral as late as early November.

A final consideration may be the seemingly dismissable words of Tacitus, “In the bitterest of the winter”. Granting the sensationalism of the passage, and even that its import is of the popular grievance in 19 AD, not necessarily to be given as fact about 9 BC… Even so, we might still consider the word “winter”. That is, the summer camp may have been left up late since its commander had not yet returned. If Drusus’ body left Vetera (or Mogontiacum) as late as October 1st, it would be close to November when the cortege met Augustus at Ticinum – a reasonably practical sense for the start of “winter”, especially since Tacitus elsewhere says an early winter once fell in late September (14 AD).

At any rate, if Tacitus’ words fit the popular memory some 27 years later, this might at least suggest a funeral closer to the later end of our range than the earlier – a conclusion that also gives Drusus’ summer campaign more time to do all that Dio claims it accomplished. Finally, Dio himself says the funeral cortege passed the army’s winter quarters along its route. (Suetonius is the one who mentions Drusus’ summer camp.) Altogether, this range gives us a funeral sometime in Autumn, with a much better chance of it being closer to winter than summer.

In the third and final post of this series, I’ll compare the range of dates for Drusus’ funeral with those for Syllaeus’ arrival. A couple more details from Dio and Josephus may help us fix the funeral date a bit more precisely in order to help consider the question, “Did the death of Drusus affect Caesar’s response to Herod’s invasion of Nabatea?”