Literatuur

• Ehud Netzer , The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder, , [2008], ,
• Geza Vermes , The True Herod, , [2014], ,
• - - , Algemeen, , R.H. van Gent, Dating the Death of Herod and the Census of Quirinius; 2005
• - - , Algemeen, , Herod the Great
• Blog , PaleaJudaica (Jim Davila), December 30, 2006, STAND UP FOR HEROD!
• Blog , Hypotyposeis, February 26, 2009,

  Redating the Reign of Herod the Great?

  The latest issue of Novum Testamentum has an interesting article on redating the reign of Herod the Great: Andrew E. Steinmann, “When Did Herod the Great Reign?” NovT 51 (2009): 1-29. In this article, Steinmann argues that the “Schürer consensus” that Herod reigned from 40 to 4 BCE is wrong and that Herod actually reigned form late 39 to early 1 BCE.

  The best part about the essay is the reminder that precise dates for Herod’s reign is not directly attested in the surviving evidence but must rather be deduced from various and often conflicting clues mostly found in Josephus but also in the New Testament and numismatic evidence. As for the end of Herod’s reign, Joseph tells us that he died between a lunar eclipse and Passover, which means that the two best candidates for his death are in 4 BCE and 1 BCE. The “Schürer consensus” prefers the former, while Steinmann argues for the latter.

  Herodian chronology is not my specialty, so I must leave the most technical critique of the article to those who are. Nevertheless, I was ultimately not persuaded by the article based on what I have read. In particular, it does not seem likely that three of Herod’s (Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip) would all reckon their reigns from 4 BCE unless that was the year that Herod’s reigned ended. Steinmann’s attempts to overcome these difficulties by separate arguments (supposing coregencies for Antipas and Archelaus and textual corruption in the case of Philip) strike me as lacking the economy of explanation of the “Schürer consensus.” Ultimately, history is about probabilities and too many things have to coincide just right for Steinmann’s case to carry conviction.

  Also problematic for me is Steinmann's appeal to Luke 3:26 stating that Jesus was “about thirty” (ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα). He compares this to the age of Jairus’s daughter at Luke 8:42 (p. 19):

  However, Luke 8:42 is very similar to Luke 3:26. It states that a synagogue ruler had a daughter who was “about twelve years old” (ὡς ἐτῶν δώδεκα). Now it would appear in choosing to report her as “about twelve,” Luke is attempting to be as accurate as possible. He means something like “closer to twelve than to eleven or thirteen,” since he could have chosen a more general description if he only meant to indicate that she was in early adolescence. But, in choosing to give us an age, he is implying that she was close to twelve, but not exactly twelve, or he is implying that he had had a good--but not exact--idea of what her age was (within a year or so).

  Nowhere in Steinmann’s discussion, however, is the source of Luke’s information as to her age: Mark 5:42 “for she was twelve years old” (ἦν γὰρ ἐτῶν δώδεκα). Indeed, what Luke does with numbers in his source is not treated in Steinmann’s article at all. For example, Mark 9:2 has “after six days” (μετὰ ἡμέρας ἓξ), but Luke changes this to “about eight days after these words” (μετὰ τοὺς λόγους τούτους ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι ὀκτὼ). For Luke, “six” is “about eight,” or 33% longer than his source’s number. (Note that 33% longer than 30 is 40!) This evidence paints a very different picture of Luke’s attitude to numerical precision than that advocated for him by Steinmann.

• J.P. van de Giessen , Blog Aantekeningen bij de Bijbel, December 29, 2010,

  Herodes de Verschrikkelijke

---

Mede mogelijk dankzij