PSCF12-12p211-219Nollet.vp

Astronomical and

Historical Evidence for

Dating the Nativity in 2 BC

James A. Nollet

It is commonly accepted that Jesus Christ was born either before 4 BC (working

from references in Matthew, Flavius Josephus) or after AD 6 (working from informa-

tion in Luke). However, Flavius Josephus’s dates are unreliable and sometimes argue

against themselves. Astronomically, the eclipse of March 13, 4 BC, is highly unlikely

to have been the eclipse which Josephus states heralded the death of King Herod,

who, therefore, did not die in 4 BC; neither did Herod die in 3 BC or 2 BC, since

there were no lunar eclipses visible in Judea in those years. However, 1 BC had two

eclipses; either of these, more likely the latter, was the eclipse which just preceded

Herod’s death. Herod, therefore, died either in 1 BC or AD 1, and Jesus, therefore,

was born either from 3 BC to 1 BC, or from 2 BC to AD 1. The Quirinius census of

Luke’s gospel was not the Quirinius census of AD 6, but rather the Pater Patriae

census in 2 BC. Jesus was probably born then in 2 BC. This date is consistent with

the records of Matthew, Luke, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius.

hen I attended Catholic

parochial schools, the nuns

taught us that Jesus was

born “in the Year 0.”

Today, it is gener-

ally taught that Jesus was born during

or before 4 BC. But there is no actual

record of this date. This supposition rests

solely on Flavius Josephus’s passing

remark that a lunar eclipse occurred

shortly before King Herod died, and we

know there was an eclipse visible in Jeru

salem on March 13, 4 BC. Since we know

from the Gospel of Matthew that Jesus

was up to two years old or younger

when Herod died, this means Jesus

could have been born as early as 6 BC.

This date, however, seems to clash with

the Nativity account in Luke, which says

that the Nativity occurred during a cen

sus conducted by the Roman Governor

of Syria Quirinius, who we know con

ducted a census of Judea in AD 6. This

article proposes that the likeliest date of

the Nativity was not 4 BC, but instead

about 1 BC. This is also the year when

Herod actually died, and it reconciles the

apparent discrepancy of dates in the

Nativity accounts of Matthew and Luke.

There are actually many estimates for

theyearofthebirthofJesus.Someof

the earliest include the placement of the

birthofJesusinthe44thyearofthereign

of Emperor Augustus, about 3–2 BC by

Irenaeus in AD 180.

In AD 194, Clement

of Alexandria estimated that Jesus was

born 194 years before the death of the

emperor Commodus who died on the

last day of AD 192; therefore Jesus was

born around 2 BC.

Early in the fourth

century, Eusebius wrote that Jesus was

born in the 42nd year of the reign of

Augustus, and in the 28th year after the

death of Cleopatra.

Leaving aside the

issue of inclusive or exclusive counting,

that places the birth of Jesus at around

2 BC. The Gospel of Luke states that

Volume 64, Number 4, December 2012 211

Article

James A. Nollet

James A. Nollet currently lives in Poland, after a primary career as a bench

chemist with the US Food & Drug Administration, and a secondary profession

as a trombonist.

there was a “universal census” of the entire Roman

world shortly before Jesus was born, when P. Sulpi

cius Quirinius was governor of Syria. Quirinius

was governor twice, in 3 BC and in AD 6.

However,

we generally and popularly suppose that Luke was

referring to the latter term, because that was the

year in which a local census for taxation purposes

occurred; this would mean that Luke exaggerated

when he spoke about a census of the whole (Roman)

world.

According to Josephus, Augustus sent Quirinius

to be governor of Syria at the same time that he sent

Coponius to be the first procurator of Judea,

stating

also that this census occurred in the 37th year “after

Caesar’s victory over Antony at Actium” (31 BC)

which, counting inclusively, brings us to AD 6.

However, we will see that Josephus was wrong on

many of his dates. Therefore, as a working hypothe

sis, I regard it as possible that Josephus got his fact

wrong about Coponius, confusing Quirinius’s first

term as governor with his second term. If so, most

of the discrepancy between the dates of the Nativity

which exists between Luke and Matthew vanishes,

thereby placing Luke’s census and subsequent

Nativity, not in AD 6, but in 2 BC, and as we will

see, the other apparent discrepancies between Luke

and Matthew vanish as well.

John P. Pratt summarizes the dominant argument

very well and succinctly for Jesus’s birth from 6 BC

to 4 BC, and I will begin by simply quoting from

him.

Josephus says that Varus was Governor of Syria at

Herod’s death and Varus is indeed indicated as

such in 4 BC by coins.

The problem, pointed out

by Martin,

is that the coins also show Varus was

Governor in 6 and 5 BC, whereas Josephus indi

cates that Saturninus was Governor for the two

years preceding Herod’s death.

Martin’s solution

is that an inscription found near Varus’ villa,

which describes a man who was twice Governor

of Syria, probably refers to Varus. If so, his second

term could well have been about 1 BC, when there

is no record of anyone else as Governor.

…

The principal source for the life of Herod is the

works of (Flavius) Josephus, a Jewish historian

who wrote near the end of the first century. His

methods are not always clear and he is sometimes

inconsistent so care must be exercised to cross-check

his chronology with other sources. Events that are also

dated in Roman history are usually the strongest

evidence to correlate his history with our calendar.

Josephus states that Herod captured Jerusalem and

began to reign in what we would call 37 BC, and

lived for 34 years thereafter, implying his death

was in 4–3 BC. Other evidence both from Josephus

and coins indicates that his successors began to

reign in 4–3 BC. Moreover, Josephus also men

tions a lunar eclipse shortly before Herod’s death.

For centuries the evidence from astronomy has

appeared decisive; a lunar eclipse occurred on

March 13, 4 BC, whereas there was no such eclipse

visible in Palestine in 3 BC. Thus, the eclipse has

played a crucial role in the traditional conclusion

that Herod died in the spring of 4 BC.

(Emphasis

added)

In short, the primary, and perhaps sole basis for the

belief that Jesus was born from 6 BC to 4 BC depends

on Josephus’s account of the death of Herod and

the eclipse he reported.

Some scholars have noted that the 4 BC eclipse is

unsuitable, because it happened only one month

before that year’s Passover. Therefore, during that

month, the following had to occur: (a) Herod became

sick and died of a horrible wasting disease, but not

before (b) being taken to warm baths and treated;

ing made him co-regent (causing a bemused Caesar

Augustus to observe that it was better to be Herod’s

pig than his son, since Jews do not kill or eat pigs);

(d) dying and being buried after a magnificent

funeral which needed days to prepare; (e) this was

followed by a seven-day mourning period and (f) fol

lowed by yet another mourning period for those

whom Herod had executed before the eclipse. These

scholars believe that one month is not nearly enough

time to account for all these events, so they have

browsed around for other eclipses which give a more

generous and realistic span of time for these events

to unfold.

For this reason, Timothy D. Barnes preferred the

eclipse of September 15, 5 BC;

sixmonthsisenough

time for all the above events to occur. However,

Ernest L. Martin disagreed, arguing that this would

mean that Herod Archelaus would have waited six

months, until after the following Passover, before

going to Rome and asking Caesar Augustus to con

firm him as the next king.

And furthermore, if

212 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith

Article

Astronomical and Historical Evidence for Dating the Nativity in 2 BC

Herod died some time in 5 BC, then that could

mean that Jesus conceivably was born in 7 BC,

which is simply too early; Quirinius was not yet

governor of Syria.

Josephus dated the length of Herod’s kingship

in two different ways. (1) Josephus says Herod re-

ceived his kingship from two of the three triumvirs,

Marcus Antonius (Antony) and Gaius Octavius

(the future Caesar Augustus) in the year Gnaeus

Domitius Calvinus (for the second time) and Gaius

Asinius Pollio were consuls, which was 40 BC;

from this date he counts 37 years to Herod’s death.

(2) Josephus says Herod captured Jerusalem and

killed his chief rival in the year when Marcus

Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls (37 BC),

and thereafter ruled for 34 years. However, in this

case, and since Jewish regnal years commenced on

1Nisan,

that would mean that Herod’s first year

began around the time of the vernal equinox in the

spring of 36 BC, and if Herod died in the 34th year

of his reign thereafter, he would have died in 3 BC

oreven2BC.Andinfact,ifHeroddiedshortly

before Passover, then according to Josephus’s

34-year countdown from the time of the taking of

Jerusalem, Herod had to have died early in 2 BC.

Even if we count from 1 Nisan in the year 37 BC as

the first year of Herod’s rule, then Herod had to

have died early in the year 3 BC. So already, we have

good reason to discount using the eclipse of 4 BC

as the herald of Herod’s death.

Furthermore, Josephus says that Herod captured

Jerusalem on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement,

also the anniversary of the Roman Proconsul Gnaeus

Pompeius Magnus’s (Pompey) capture of Jerusalem

27 years earlier.

Since Pompey did that in 63 BC,

it would mean that Herod actually captured Jerusa

lem, not in October 37 BC, but in October 36 BC. And

if this is the case, we can move the earliest possible

date for the death of Herod to 1 BC, or maybe 2 BC.

TherewasnoeclipseofthemoonvisibleinJudea

either in 3 BC or in 2 BC, so it therefore seems that

Herod could not have died in these years either.

With regard to the coins issued by Herod’s sons

indicating that they began their reigns in 4 BC, Pratt

argues thusly. Before Herod executed his son Herod

Antipater, he allowed Antipater to become co-regent

with him. This happened around 4 BC. After Herod

himself died, his surviving three sons, who became

tetrarchs, all antedated their own reigns back to the

time when Antipater was co-regent, in order to keep

an unbroken chain between themselves and the

deceased Antipater, thereby giving their own reigns

more legitimacy.

Since we are already highly skeptical as to whether

Herod really died in 4 BC, let us look more closely at

that eclipse of 4 BC, which for centuries has been

regarded as the herald of Herod’s death. Can we find

evidence which will further strengthen or weaken

the supposition that Herod died in 4 BC? The eclipse

commenced at 12:07 a.m. Jerusalem Local Time in

Jerusalem on the night of March 12–13, 4 BC.

any lunar eclipse, a “penumbral” period commences

and concludes the eclipse, and this portion of an

eclipse is either invisible or barely visible. The um-

bral portion of this eclipse commenced almost

exactly ninety minutes later, at 1:38 a.m. on the

morning of March 13. The eclipse reached its maxi-

mum totality about an hour later, at 2:42 a.m., but

was only 36% total at the time of maximum totality. The

eclipse then receded for another two and a half hours

or so, concluding at around 5 a.m.

This is a puny eclipse. Having seen several dozen

in my life, I know from experience that at this level

of totality, the moon is still bright; it simply has a

smudge in its corner. There is no reddening of the

moon, characteristic of deep eclipses, at this minor

level of totality. It is a fact that in all of his writings,

the eclipse which preceded Herod’s death is the only

eclipse Josephus ever mentioned. But what a meek

little eclipse it was—if, indeed, this is the correct

eclipse. Furthermore, as Pratt notes in his paper, few,

if any, souls in the ancient Jerusalem of 4 BC would

even have been awake to behold this eclipse. Given

that this eclipse was insignificant, and moreover

seen by next-to-nobody, it is highly unlikely that any

memory of this eclipse would have survived for over

75 years by word-of-mouth, to be eventually noted

by Josephus as shortly preceding the death of Herod.

Given all of the problems associated with the

March 13, 4 BC, eclipse, W. E. Filmer proposed the

eclipse of January 10, 1 BC, as the eclipse associated

by Josephus with the death of Herod.

Since this

eclipse occurred a full three months before Passover,

it solves all the chronological difficulties presented by

Volume 64, Number 4, December 2012 213

James A. Nollet

the eclipse of March 13, 4 BC, giving ample time

foralltheeventsthatoccurredbetweenthetimeof

the eclipse and Herod’s death, and its aftermath.

Furthermore, unlike the barely noticeable eclipse of

March 13, 4 BC, this eclipse was more visible, and

would have been worth remembering and reporting

decades later to Josephus—if, however, anybody had

actually seen the eclipse. This eclipse, too, suffers

from the same problem that plagued the eclipse of

March 13, 4 BC: it happened when almost everyone

would be asleep.

Here is the ephemeris for the January 10, 1 BC eclipse:

First penumbral contact: 10:31 p.m.

(January 9, 1 BC)

First umbral contact: 11:28 p.m.

Total eclipse: 12:25 a.m. (January 10)

Maximum totality: 1:15 a.m.

End of totality: 2:05 a.m.

Last umbral contact: 3:03 a.m.

Last penumbral contact;

eclipse over: 4:00 a.m.

This eclipse would have begun to be visible between

11:00–11:30 p.m. That is two to three hours better than

the 1:38 a.m. or so of the eclipse of March 13, 4 BC.

But that benefit is likely cancelled by the fact that the

January 10 eclipse occurred at a time of the year

when the sun went down (5:05 p.m.) a full fifty min

utes earlier than it did on March 13, 4 BC (5:54 p.m.).

This eclipse of January 10, 1 BC, became palpably

visible about 6.5 hours after sundown, whereas the

March 13, 4 BC, eclipse became palpably visible about

7.5 hours after sundown. In a time and place where

people generally retired at darkness, there is little real

difference between the timing of these eclipses; both

would have been seen by few people. This is particu

larly true in January, when the nights even in Judea

are markedly colder than they are in March.

There was another eclipse on September 15, 5 BC,

which Barnes, at least, believed was the eclipse which

Josephus said preceded the death of Herod:

First penumbral contact: 7:46 p.m.

(September 15, 5 BC)

First umbral contact: 8:44 p.m.

Total eclipse: 9:44 p.m.

Maximum totality: 10:34 p.m.

End of totality: 11:23 p.m.

Last umbral contact: 12:22 a.m. (September 16)

Last penumbral contact;

eclipse over: 1:22 a.m.

This eclipse began to become palpably visible a couple

of hours or so after sundown. But few people other

than Barnes have ever believed that this was the

eclipse Josephus spoke about. It would date the

death of Herod too early for other accounts.

Finally, we arrive at the eclipse of December 29,

1 BC, which Pratt argues was the eclipse which pre

ceded the death of Herod.

Here is the ephemeris of that eclipse:

First penumbral contact: 2:20 p.m. (December 29,

1BC;duringtheday,be-

fore moonrise, when the

moon was still below the

horizon, and invisible.)

First umbral contact: 3:28 p.m. (moon still in-

visible)

Maximum % of totality: 4:44 p.m. (moon still in-

visible; moon is under a

57% partial eclipse)

Time of complete

moonrise:

5:02 p.m. (moon is visible

and 53% eclipsed)

Last umbral contact: 5:59 p.m.

Last penumbral contact;

eclipse over: 7:07 p.m.

While it was not a total eclipse, it is actually a highly

eye-catching event to see an expectant full moon

rise misshapen and eclipsed. Pratt reasons that the

dramatic nature of seeing a full moon rise under

eclipse is dramatic and startling; it seldom happens,

and people therefore tend to remember it. Due to the

striking nature of this eclipse, and due to the fact

that it occurred at a time when many people must

have witnessed it, it would be a memorable occasion,

and from then on, used to date other events. Pratt

very reasonably believes the partial eclipse of Decem

ber 29, 1 BC, was the eclipse that Josephus says

preceded and heralded the death of Herod. As does

the eclipse of January of that year, this eclipse, too,

occurs three months before Passover, allowing

enough time for the various events to happen which

had to occur between the Josephus eclipse and the

214 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith

Article

Astronomical and Historical Evidence for Dating the Nativity in 2 BC

following Passover. If so, then Herod died early in

AD 1, and Jesus therefore was born in 1 BC or 2 BC.

There are some problems left to resolve: Who was

governor of Syria at the time of the census of the

Nativity? And how well does this harmonize with

Matthew’s account of the infant Jesus being born

before Herod died? And what about Josephus

statements that the sons of Herod (other than the

executed Antipater) came into their tetrarchies in

4–3 BC, implying, as this does, that Herod died in

4 BC after all?

See Tables 146 and 147 below, found in Jack

Finegan’s Handbook of Biblical Chronology,bothof

which give listings of the governors of Syria from

9BC–AD7.

Gaius Caesar died in Syria in AD 4,

so even if Table 147 does not mention his replace

ment, it is reasonable to suppose that L. Volusius

Saturninus replaced him until AD 6.

Josephus said that Varus was governor of Syria

when Herod died. Looking at the tables, we see

general agreement that Varus began being governor

in 6 BC and this continued into 4 BC. But then,

in Table 147, there is a notation that Varus was also

governor in 1 BC. Since this does not appear in

Table 146, what does its appearance in Table 147

mean? Why is it in Table 146 but not in the other

table, and can we trust it? The usually accepted list of

governors is from the Schürer-derived Table 146.

Thus we are left with Varus as governor (who

Josephus said was governor when Herod died and

therefore after Jesus was born) if Jesus was born

in 4 BC, or with Quirinius as governor if Jesus was

born in 3 BC or 2 BC.

ButwhataboutVarus?Astonewithaninscrip

tion was found near his old manor in 1784, referring

to a certain unnamed man who was twice governor

of Syria.

Knowing that Varus was governor of

Syria at least once, whom else could this refer to but

Varus?Butifso,when?IfQuiriniuswasgovernor

when Augustus called for the census and when

Herod was still alive—but if Varus was governor

Volume 64, Number 4, December 2012 215

James A. Nollet

Year Name of Governor, Table 146 Name of Governor, Table 147

9 BC M. Titius M. Titius

8 BC C. Sentius Saturninus Titius

7 BC C. Sentius Saturninus Titius, then P. Q. Varus

6 BC Saturninus, then P. Q. Varus P. Quinctilius Varus

5 BC Varus Varus

4 BC Varus Varus, then C. S. Saturninus

3 BC P. Sulpicius Quirinius C. Sentius Saturninus

2 BC Quirinius C. Sentius Saturninus, then Varus

1 BC Gaius Caesar Varus

AD 1 Gaius Caesar Varus, then Gaius Caesar

AD 2 Gaius Caesar Gaius Caesar

AD 3 Gaius Caesar Gaius Caesar

AD 4 G. Caesar, then L. V. Saturninus Gaius Caesar

AD 5 L. Volusius Saturninus

AD 6 Quirinius

AD 7 Quirinius

Tables 146 and 147 of Jack Finegan’s Handbook of Biblical Chronology listing the governors of Syria from 9 BC to AD 7.

when Herod died—that means Varus could not have

followed Quirinius as governor after Quirinius

stepped down after AD 7, because Herod was long

dead even before AD 6. And furthermore, after AD 7,

Varus was involved with the legions in Germany,

whereheandthreelegionsweredestroyedinAD9.

Luke and Josephus could agree if both Quirinius

and Varus were each governor for two periods. That

scenario fits with the evidence of the Lapis Tiburtinus.

According to Schürer, Varus was governor in 4 BC

and was succeeded the following year by Quirinius

(see Table 146), who therefore was governor of Syria

for both of the censi which Augustus called for the

Holy Land, one in 2 BC to affirm him as Pater Patriae,

and the other in AD 6 after Rome deposed Herod

Archelaus and annexed and governed Judea

directly.

This means that the order of Roman governors

was Varus (4 BC) / Quirinius (3 BC and 2 BC) /

Varus again—but wait a minute here; we also know

that Gaius Caesar became governor in 1 BC, so how

could Varus possibly have been governor a second

time—the Lapis Tiburtinus notwithstanding? The an-

swer may lie with considering who Gaius Caesar

was. Gaius Caesar was Emperor Augustus’s beloved

and oldest living grandson. He was currently the

heir apparent, expected to become emperor after

Augustus died. He was royalty.Josephussaysthat

Gaius Caesar was in Rome after Herod died; this

would seem to make perfect sense, since Caesar was

one of the two consuls for the year AD 1, although

certain Roman sources say Caesar was made gover

nor of Syria in 1 BC.

This objection is really no

objection at all, because there is no reason why he

could not have been both.

Robert Graves notes that while Caesar was on

his way to his station in Syria, he stopped on Chios,

met his step-uncle Tiberius, and agreed to take a let

ter back to Rome for Tiberius

—this would mean

that he returned to Rome immediately and did not

actually arrive at his duty-station. Dio Cassius notes

that the Parthians came to terms with the Romans

in AD 1,

thus making the governorship of Syria

an easy, peaceful one, thereby allowing Caesar to

slip back home to Rome for a visit, and to resume

his other duties as consul. Absentee governors were

tolerated if they were important enough. A few

decades previously, Pompey had been an absentee

governor of Spain for several years, and he was

allowed to rule his province from Rome, sending

out viceroys to govern in his absence.

Knowing that Gaius Caesar was a consul of Rome

as well as governor of Syria in AD 1 (which meant

he had official duties in Rome also) and knowing

thathedidreturntoRomeatleastonce,itiseasyto

place him in Rome after Herod died. So this then

begs the question: when Gaius Caesar was not

minding the shop in Syria, who was? At this point,

Publius Quinctilius Varus comes into the picture

twice as governor of Syria: the first of those times

was after 4 BC, according to the Lapis Tiburtinus,

and the second time was as acting governor of Syria

when Herod died, to believe Josephus. He must have

substituted for the sometimes absent Gaius Caesar

(who, in addition, was hardly twenty years old;

Augustus would not have objected to having an

experienced governor while his stripling grandson

gallivanted back and forth). It all fits together.

Finally, we have the small matter of dealing with

Josephus’s seeming to state that the surviving sons

of Herod assumed their tetrarchies in 4 BC after

he died. Pratt has already discussed the reasonable

possibility of antedating their regnal years.

But there is an even stronger argument against

Josephus’s assertion—the witness against Josephus,

again, being Josephus himself, or rather the variant

versions of Josephus. In Antiquities, Josephus states

that Herod Philip died in the twentieth year of the

reign of the emperor Tiberius, after having served as

tetrarch for 37 years.

Since Tiberius came to power

in AD 14; this places Philip died in AD 33 or AD 34,

which places the commencement of his tetrarchy in

4 BC or 3 BC. However, Finegan writes as follows:

Already in the nineteenth century Florian Riess

reported that the Franciscan monk Molkenbuhr

claimed to have seen a 1517 Parisian copy of

Josephus and an 1841 Venetian copy, in each of

which the text read “the twenty-second year of

Tiberius.” The antiquity of this reading has now

been abundantly confirmed. In 1995 David W.

Breyer reported to the Society for Biblical Litera

ture his personal examination in the British Muse

um of forty-six editions of Josephus’ Antiquities

published before 1700, among which twenty-seven

texts, all but three published before 1544, read

“twenty-second year of Tiberius,” while not

216 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith

Article

Astronomical and Historical Evidence for Dating the Nativity in 2 BC

a single edition published prior to 1544 read “twen

tieth year of Tiberius.”

Likewise, in the Library

of Congress, five more editions read the “twenty-

second year,” while none prior to 1544 records the

“twentieth year.” It was also found that the oldest

versions of the text give various length of reign for

Philip of 32 and 36 years. But if we allow for a full

thirty-seven year reign, then “the twenty-second

year of Tiberius” (AD 35/36) points to 1 BC … as

the year of the death of Herod.

Summary of the Argument

The date of Jesus’s birth has long been thought to

have been at sometime from 6 BC to 4 BC, based

solely on Flavius Josephus, who reported that a lunar

eclipse shortly preceded King Herod’s death, and we

do know a lunar eclipse occurred on March 13, 4 BC.

However,

1. Josephus himself contradicts his own dates

repeatedly, leaving us uncertain about all of his

dates.

2. Different versions of Josephus exist which add to

the uncertainty, in that they give different years

for the death of one of Herod’s sons, which there-

forecastsintoquestionwhethertheybegantheir

tetrarchies in 4 BC or in 3 BC. Furthermore, there

is reason to suppose that they intentionally ante-

dated when their tetrarchies commenced, for

political credibility.

3. Publius Quinctilius Varus appears to have been

twice the governor of Syria, one of those times

after 4 BC. Josephus says he was governor when

Heroddied.Sincehecouldnothavebeengover

nor in 3 BC or in 2 BC, this leaves him perhaps as

a sometimes viceroy, filling in for the sometimes

absent Governor Gaius Caesar starting in 1 BC,

the date therefore of Herod’s death.

4. There were two Roman censi in the final decade of

the BC era. One was in 8 BC. This was not the cen

sus mentioned in the Gospel of Luke, because

according to Luke, Quirinius was not the gover

nor of Syria in that year, and because this census

counted only Roman citizens; the Holy Family,

like almost all residents of Judea, were not Roman

citizens and so would not have been affected

by this census. However, the census/registration

which occurred in 2 BC as a consequence of the

Senate and Roman people naming Caesar Augus

tus the Pater Patriae, the “Father of the Country,”

would have affected the residents of the Holy

Land, since all were required to affirm Augustus

in his title. In any event, since Herod did not die

shortlyafter8BC,andsincehediddieafteracen

sus,thereforehecouldnothavediedin4BC,

when there was no census.

5. Most of the ancient sources reported that Jesus

was born between 3 BC and AD 1.

6. Josephus said that Herod captured Jerusalem and

executed his rival for the Jewish throne on the

Day of Atonement, the exact anniversary of the

capture of Jerusalem by Pompey 27 years earlier,

that is, in 63 BC; this means that even if Herod

reigned for only 34 years thereafter (and not

37 years), he therefore must have died in 2 BC

or 1 BC.

7. The lunar eclipse of March 13, 4 BC, may be dis-

regarded as the herald of Herod’s death because

it was nothing more than a minor partial eclipse,

which furthermore appeared at a very late hour

when next-to-nobody would have seen it. It was

not a sufficiently memorable occasion for public

recollection.

8. Since there were no lunar eclipses in 3 BC or 2 BC,

but there were two in 1 BC, one of these eclipses

has to be the eclipse which Josephus says heralded

the death of Herod. The first eclipse occurred

on January 10, 1 BC, and was a full-blown total

eclipse of the moon. While this eclipse is suitable

because of its grandeur and because it gives three

months between its occurrence and Passover, this

eclipse is unlikely to be the eclipse of Josephus

because it occurred at a later hour. It also was

at a time of the year when people went to bed

even earlier than at other times of the year, and

moreover it was cold at night in Jerusalem, which

would tend to reduce even more the number of

viewers.

9. This leaves us with the partial eclipse of Decem

ber 29, 1 BC, twelve lunar months later. In terms

of allowing enough time for certain significant

events to occur (again, three months before Pass

over), this eclipse is ideally suited to be Jose

phus’s eclipse in that the full moon that rose

that night was already under half-umbral eclipse

Volume 64, Number 4, December 2012 217

James A. Nollet

when it was first seen at sunset, thereby assuring

that many people would have noticed it, many

more than the eclipse of January 10.

10.This remembered eclipse is the most likely one

that Josephus had in mind as heralding the death

of Herod. Granted that aside from the issue of

how many people saw it, the other 1 BC eclipse

might fit the descriptions too.

11.Finally, the major gap in the Gospels separating

Luke’s account from Matthew’s account has been

resolved and eliminated. We have long supposed

that Luke’s gospel requires Jesus to have been

born after AD 6, whereas Matthew’s gospel

requires Jesus to have been born between 6 BC

and 4 BC. However, thanks to understanding

Josephus’s errors and understanding more about

the Pater Patriae registration of the entire Roman

Empire in 2 BC, this allows us to bridge the 10–12-

year gap between Matthew and Luke by moving

Luke’s timeline back eight years from the typical

dating and moving forward Matthew’s timeline

by 4–6 years from the most common description,

actually causing them to meet and indeed

overlap.

Conclusions

•

King Herod died, not in 4 BC as commonly

believed, but either early in 1 BC before Passover,

or early in AD 1, again before Passover.

•

If Herod died in 1 BC, Jesus was born between

3BCand1BC.

•

If Herod died in AD 1, Jesus was born between

2 BC and AD 1.

•

The Pater Patriae registration of all inhabitants of

the Roman Empire initiated in 2 BC (and not the

popularly believed census of Palestine taken in

AD 6) is the census which Luke reported as having

occurred when Quirinius was governor of Syria;

he was governor in 2 BC and again in AD 6.

It should also be noted that Luke did not say that

Quirinius was governor when Herod died; only

that he was governor at the time the Pater Patriae

registration was ordered (and Herod presumably

was still alive). Furthermore, when Luke reported

that the census was of the entire (Roman) world,

we now see that he did not exaggerate, if we regard

the Pater Patriae census of 2 BC and not Quirinius’s

local census of AD 6 as the census he was talking

about. The streams of evidence resolve: Jesus was

probably born sometime in 2 BC.

Notes

There is no such a thing, of course, as the “Year 0.” There

is 1 BC (Before Christ) which is immediately followed by

AD 1 (Anno Domini, Latin for “the year of the Lord”).

Irenaeus, Against All Heresies in The Ante-Nicene Fathers:

Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to AD 325,

10 vols. (1885–1887; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,

1994), 3.21.03.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers

3, 151, note 1.

Eusebius, The History of the Church, trans. G. A Williamson

(New York: Dorset Book edition, 1965), Book 1, 5.5.

Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson Publishers, 1998), 302, Table 146, who cites

Emil Schürer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus

Christ, 5 vols. (New York: Scribner’s, 1896); G. Vermes and F.

Millar, 3 volumes in 4, rev. ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,

1973–1987), vol. 1.1, 350–7; Realencyclopäie der classischen

Altertumswissenschaft (Real Encyclopedia of Classical Ancient

Knowledge), Zweite Reihe (2nd Row), 4.2, col. 1629.

Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Book 18, paragraphs 1–2

in Loeb Classical Library, No. 433, trans. L. H. Feldman,

(Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 12.

Josephus, Antiquities 18.4.

Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus

Christ, 1.257.

Ernest L. Martin, The Star That Astonished the World, 2nd ed.

(Portland, OR: Associates for Scriptural Knowledge, 1991),

174–9, 232–4. He writes about the Lapis Tiburtinus, the stone

found near what was Publius Quinctilius Varus’s estate

outside Rome.

Josephus, Antiquities 17.2.1; 17.5.2.

Josephus, Antiquities 14.16.4 (year specified by the two

consuls); 17.6.4; 17.8.1; 17.8.2; 18.2.1; 18.4.6. A pair of men

always served a one-calendar-year term as consuls of Rome,

and careful records were kept of who was consul in what

year. Matching an event with the time of the consulships of

X and Y is therefore a very solid way of dating that event.

John P. Pratt, “Yet Another Eclipse for Herod,” The

Planetarian 19, no. 4 (Dec. 1990): 8–14 (emphasis added).

The paper is also available from Dr. Pratt’s own website

www.johnpratt.com.

Timothy D. Barnes, “The Date of Herod’s Death,” The

Journal of Theological Studies 19 (1968): 204–9.

Ernest L. Martin, The Birth of Christ Recalculated (Pasadena,

CA: Foundation for Biblical Research Publications, 1980).

Josephus, Antiquities 14.389; 14.487; 17.191.

Babylonian Talmud Tractate Rosh Hashanah, 10b.

Josephus, Antiquities 14.389; 14.487; 17.191.

Pratt, “Yet Another Eclipse for Herod,” 3.3 in the online

version, http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/herod

/herod.html.

For astronomical information, I have used a program

throughout this book called Skylights, written and

218 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith

Article

Astronomical and Historical Evidence for Dating the Nativity in 2 BC

copyrighted in 1994 by G. Vecchi, and sold by Zephyr

Services of Pittsburgh, PA. Jerusalem Local Time, when the

position of the sun is at its zenith, is defined as 12 o’clock

High Noon. All stated times are relative to this reference.

W. E. Filmer, “The Chronology of the Reign of Herod the

Great,” The Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1966): 283–98.

Barnes, “The Date of Herod’s Death,” The Journal of

Theological Studies, 204–9.

Pratt, “Yet Another Eclipse for Herod,” 2.5.

Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 302, 304.

Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus

Christ, 1.257.

Martin, The Star That Astonished the World, 174–9, 232–4.

Josephus, Antiquities17.9.5; Dio Cassius from E. Cary, Dio’s

Roman History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1980),

40.9–10.4; Barnes, “The Date of Herod’s Death,” 208.

Robert Graves, I Claudius: From the Autobiography of Tiberius

Claudius, Born 10 BC, Murdered and Deified AD 54 (New York:

Vintage Books, 1989), 81.

Dio Cassius 40.10.4.

Josephus, Antiquities 18.106.

Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 301.

Filmer, “The Chronology of the Reign of Herod the Great,”

298; Barnes, “The Date of Herod’s Death,” 205; Riess, Das

Geburtsjahr Christi (The Year of Jesus’ Birth) (Freiburg: Herder,

1880); David W. Beyer, “Josephus Re-examined: Unraveling

the Twenty-Second Year of Tiberius,” in Chronos, Kairos,

Christos II, ed. E. Jerry Vardaman (Macon, GA: Mercer

University Press, 1998).

Beyer, “Josephus Re-examined,” 4.

Volume 64, Number 4, December 2012 219

James A. Nollet

American Scientific Affiliation Belmont University

68th Annual Meeting 1900 Belmont Blvd

July 19–22, 2012 Nashville, TN 37212

“You made them rulers over the

works of your hands; you put

everything under their feet.”

–Psalm 8:6, NIV

Details at:

www.asa3.org

Submission deadline:

February 15, 2013

ASA: A Network of Christians in the Sciences

ASA Members: Submit comments and questions on this article

at www.asa3.org à FORUMS à PSCF DISCUSSION.

Call for Abstracts

In God’s Image: Celebrating Creativity

in Science and Invention