Miss-dating Herod's Death
The reader should read Tiberius' 15th Year first, and the Messiah's birth second. These articles will show that Messiah was born in 2 BC, and that consequently Herod the Great died shortly afterward in 1 BC. This current essay will dismantle the standard view of Herod's death (4 BC) and establish a wholly new chronology around his death in 1 BC compatible with the 2 BC birth of Messiah. Everything is laid out in the chronological charts. This essay will help process the information in the charts, which is extensive.
The putative traditional 4 BC theory only dates back to the 19th century. It seems to explain some things in Josephus, but the reality is that it turns the chronology of the period into chaos. Before the 4 BC theory came along, the early church history favored 1 BC, as may be shown from statements by the church fathers.
The road to the 4 BC death of Herod begins with the assumption that his 37 years of reign begin counting when he was anointed to be king by the Romans in 40 BC. Besides the 37 years, Josephus gives a figure of 34 years. It is assumed by this theory that the 37 years counts from his appointment in Rome, and the 34 years from his taking of Jerusalem.
The standard view finds confirmation in counting Herod Philip's years backwards to 4 BC, Herod Antipas's years backwards to 4 BC, and Archelaus' years back to 4 BC. Finally, the standard view claims confirmation by finding Josephus' eclipse in March of 4 BC.
The first assumption is that the 37 years dates from Herod's appointment in Rome (Ant. 17.191; War 1.665). Josephus states that "[Herod] ends, having reigned after which he had Antigonus killed, 34 years, after which he was appointed by Rome, 37 years." The key word here is βασιλεύσας, having reigned. We need to ask whether Josephus means reigning on paper or reigning in fact. In those times only reigning in fact counted, and this is what he means. Men seeking a kingdom would go to Rome, and get appointed king of some client kingdom, and then would have to first conquer it before reigning over it. In at least a dozen different cases, Rome handed an important person the title of king, and then told them to go raise an army, with monetary and military backing from Rome, and to use it to start or finish a civil war. Until the other side was defeated, there was no reign.
The same verb βασιλεύσας is used to explain both reigns. If one reign starts on paper and finishes in fact, and the other reign does not start until a milestone in the civil war is reached, the execution of Antigonus, then the double standard is evident. Reigning in at least one case exludes the time he was only appointed king. Since one verb controls both parts of the sentence, it in at least one case excludes the time from appointment to an execution. May it not in both cases exclude the reign on paper? Even more disturbingly, Josephus dates the shorter reign from the execution of Antigonus, which was some time after Herod took Jerusalem. Why does this "having reigned" exclude the time from the conquest of the city to the execution?
The matter is resolved by considering that from a Jewish point of view, what Herod received in Rome was no more than an anointing to be king. King David was anointed to be king a long time before he reigned as king, having reigned 40 years over Judea. Properly speaking, even if one has to fight a civil war, one does not reign until the subjects of the kingdom bend the knee. Even if they do not literally bend the knee, it is when they start paying taxes. So the appointing to be king is the same as an anointing to be king. David's reign is not calculated from his anointing, and Herod's reign is not calculated from is appointing.