There are other issues in Martin’s work that need scrutiny. It will start with the next issue (#5) but not continue indefinitely. However, I can get copies to interested parties if you subscribe to my email list and the newsletter. The above articles are not in the public domain, so I cannot post them. Moreover, the reconstruction of Herod’s reign proposed in this paper accounts for all of the datable evidence relating to Herod’s reign, whereas the current consensus is unable to explain some of the evidence that it dismisses as ancient errors or that it simply ignores. This paper argues that Herod most likely reigned from late 39 BCE to early 1 BCE, and that this reconstruction of his reign can account for all of the surviving historical references to the events of Herod’s reign more logically than the current consensus can. However, there have been several challenges to this consensus over the past four decades, the most notable being the objection raised by W.
The abstract of this article reads:įor about 100 years there has been a consensus among scholars that Herod the Great reigned from 37 to 4 BCE. The error comes to light only when the data in Josephus is compared with the coin dates.”Ģ) The more recent article by an expert in biblical chronology, Andrew Steinmann, “When Did Herod the Great Reign?” Novum Testamentum 51 (2009) 1-29. He dated all the Herods’ reigns from the spring new year, whereas the earlier Herods (excluding Agrippa II) dated their coins from the autumn civil new year’s day preceding accession. “It is concluded that Josephus in Jewish War was mistaken in his handling of the calendars of the Herodian period. Edwards’ research shows that the death of Herod the Great was Tishri 1, 3 BC (Martin’s Sept 11) by the civil new year’s calendar, or Nisan 1, 2 BC using the ecclesiastical calendar. Edwards’s article is a study of Herodian coinage and its implications for dating Herod’s reign, including his death. The two best sources for defending Herod’s death in 1 BC - which, again, seem utterly neglected in criticisms of Martin’s work - are:ġ) The difficult to find article by Ormond Edwards, “Herodian Chronology,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 114 (1982): 29-42. A date of 1 BC for Herod’s death is not only possible, but more accurately reflects the data now available. Critics of a 1 BC death for Herod that I have read seem oblivious to the past and recent work in defense of that date - at least I have found references to that research lacking in their criticisms.
Most of the criticisms of Martin’s work revolve around the fact that it requires a date of 1 BC for the death of Herod the Great, something that flies in the face of the (current) consensus of 4 BC for that event. This reality, along with the comprehensive explanatory power Martin’s work, as well as the date’s remarkable synchronicity with Jewish messianic symbolism and calendar, make Martin’s work persuasive to me. There are problems, but none of them are insurmountable and can be rebutted with good evidence. Martin’s thesis has, of course, been critiqued in some detail. But it’s misguided to think that we have to choose between seeing astral prophecy everywhere in Revelation to the neglect of how John uses the Old Testament, and seeing it nowhere. Beale and David deSilva have rightly pointed out Malina’s near total neglect of the Old Testament context of John’s Revelation. Unfortunately, Malina dramatically overstates his case in his book, On t he Genre and Message of the Book of Revelation. Malina argues that (basically) the entirety of the book of Revelation is astral prophecy. The major voice in that regard is Bruce Malina, a well-known New Testament scholar. Most New Testament scholars don’t consider Rev 12 as astral prophecy. In briefest terms, Martin considers Rev 12:1-7 to describe the actual celestial events of the birth of the messiah (which birth is part of the context of Rev 12:1-7). I don’t buy Martin’s views on other things, but I find his work on the birth of the messiah persuasive (and it has a long history of endorsement in planetariums).Īs noted, most academics have no inkling about Martin’s work or its basis. The quality of one’s research, however, doesn’t depend on having a PhD in biblical studies or whether one is doctrinally correct in all areas. Others reject it out of hand because of Martin’s involvement with the old Worldwide Church of God. Most academics are unaware of Martin’s research because he wasn’t a member of the biblical studies guild.
Martin’s The Star that Astonished the World (which can be read for free).
This isn’t based on any original research of my own (here’s a short YouTube video of me discussing the date). Many readers will know that I believe the actual birthdate of Jesus was Sept 11, 3 BC.