Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T04:18:38.034Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A NEGLECTED SOURCE ON THE DATE OF HEROD THE GREAT'S DEATH

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2020

Tomás Fernández
Tomás Fernández*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Buenos Aires – Conicet
*
tomas.fernandez@conicet.gov.ar
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Florilegium Coislinianum (nine/tenth century), a largely unpublished Byzantine spiritual anthology, provides a fuller perspective on an intriguing exegetical work attributed to Athanasius of Alexandria, the Fragmenta in Matthaeum (CPG 2141.7). The authenticity of the work has been contested. However, while it is certain that it was not written in toto by Athanasius, the possibility remains that it contains traces of now-lost texts of the Alexandrian theologian.

Information

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 70 , Issue 2 , December 2020 , pp. 916 - 918
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

The Florilegium Coislinianum (nine/tenth century), a largely unpublished Byzantine spiritual anthology,Footnote 1 provides a fuller perspective on an intriguing exegetical work attributed to Athanasius of Alexandria, the Fragmenta in Matthaeum (CPG 2141.7). The authenticity of the work has been contested. However, while it is certain that it was not written in toto by Athanasius,Footnote 2 the possibility remains that it contains traces of now-lost texts of the Alexandrian theologian.

In one of the Fragmenta, a definite statement about the date of Herod's death is provided. Since it seems to have gone unnoticed, I reproduce the pertinent part here. The fragment is the only one in chapter 11 of Book Eta of the Florilegium Coislinianum.Footnote 3 The title of the chapter is Περὶ τῶν θʹ ἀνιάτων παθῶν τῆς τοῦ ἩρώδουFootnote 4 τελευτῆς, ‘About the nine incurable diseases of Herod’, but its content is much ampler; it could have been called Πῶς ἐτελεύτα ὁ Ἡρώδης. According to the fragment, Herod died on 25 December, when Augustus had been emperor for forty-five years, during Silvanus’ consulship:

εἶχε δὲ τότε ΑὔγουστοςFootnote 5 ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ ἔτος πέμπτον καὶ τεσσαρακοστόν, ὑπατεύοντος Σιλουανοῦ, πρὸ ὀκτὼ Καλανδῶν Ἰαννουαρίων.Footnote 6

The problem lies in ἔτος πέμπτον καὶ τεσσαρακοστόν. Augustus was not emperor for forty-five years. A corruption in the numeral μεʹ is probable, most likely from κεʹ (= πέμπτον καὶ εἰκοστόν).Footnote 7 If this is correct, then Augustus would have been emperor for twenty-five years when Herod died, in 2 b.c.e. Marcus Plautius Silvanus was consul in that year;Footnote 8 πρὸ ὀκτὼ Καλανδῶν Ἰαννουαρίων (ante diem VIII Kalendas Ianuarias) leads us to 25 December.

The fragment proposes a precise date for the death of Herod. It is unlikely that a forger would aptly combine so many particulars: the name of the consul, the number of years Augustus had been emperor, the date of 25 December. This does not prove that the fragment dates back to Athanasius, even less that the information is accurate. However, it does suggest that the fragment must be dated well before the ninth or the tenth century, when the Florilegium Coislinianum was composed.

Herod's death ‘is usually dated to 4 b.c.e., although several scholars argue for a later date’.Footnote 9 Among these scholars, A.E. Steinmann occupies a prominent position.Footnote 10 As I have indicated, the evidence of the fragment needs not be taken at face value. Yet, it deserves to be carefully weighed against other testimonies. May this textual emendation be a modest contribution towards the clarification of this elusive matter.

Footnotes

The author wishes to thank Conicet (Argentina) for the generous funding of his research on this topic, the anonymous reviewer of CQ for numerous invaluable insights, Professor Steinmann for acute comments about Herod's chronology, and Professors van Henten and Noret for reading a final draft of the article and providing a number of precious suggestions.

References

1 Vos, I. De, Gielen, E., Macé, C. and Van Deun, P., ‘L'art de compiler à Byzance: la lettre Γ du Florilège Coislin’, Byzantion 78 (2008), 159–223Google Scholar and Fernández, T., Florilegium Coislinianum A (Turnhout, 2018)Google Scholar, both with abundant bibliography.

2 Fernández, T., ‘Dos fragmentos inéditos atribuidos a Atanasio de Alejandría’, Erytheia 32 (2011), 79–93Google Scholar; id., ‘La sección sobre Herodes de los Fragmenta in Matthaeum (CPG 2141.7) atribuidos a Atanasio de Alejandría’, Stylos 22 (2013), 55–72; cf. Ceulemans, R., Levrie, E. De Ridder, K. and Deun, P. Van, ‘Sur le mensonge, l’âme de l'homme et les faux prophètes: la lettre Ψ du Florilège Coislin’, Byzantion 83 (2013), 49–82Google Scholar, at 62–4.

3 Edition, with introduction, in Ceulemans, R., De Vos, I., Gielen, E. and Deun, P. Van, ‘La continuation de l'exploration du Florilegium Coislinianum: la lettre Èta’, Byzantion 81 (2011), 74–126Google Scholar; 95–123 for the Greek text.

4 Here, as elsewhere, following the editorial practice of Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca, iota subscript is not written when it belongs to the root of a word (hence, not Ἡρῴδου); it is added, however, in word-endings.

5 The archetype of the Florilegium Coislinianum read Αὔγουστον; following Montfaucon (first editor of the fragment; see now PG 26, cols. 1252.10–1253.14), I have corrected it into the nominative.

6 Ceulemans et al. (n. 3), fr. 10, lines 53–6 (at 108). Two manuscripts (E and G) had the expected spelling Ἰανουαρίων.

7 Even though the confusion between uncial Μ and K is possible, it is more likely between minuscule μ and κ (Maas, P., Textkritik [Leipzig, 1960 4], 22Google Scholar). If this is the case, the corruption must have originated in the ninth century or later. At any rate, it was certainly present in the archetype of the Florilegium Coislinianum.

8 He was in office only until 1 July 2 b.c.e.; cf. Hofmann, M., ‘Plautius’ (sections 35–48), in Ziegler, K. (ed.), Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart, 1951)Google Scholar, cols. 24–42, at col. 30. Apparently the date of his consulship has not been used to date Herod's death in any ancient source.

9 Henten, J.W. van, ‘Herod the Great in Josephus’, in Chapman, H. Howell and Rodgers, Z. (edd.), A Companion to Josephus (Chichester, 2016), 235–46Google Scholar, at 236. For instance, Mahieu proposes 9 March 1 c.e.; cf. Mahieu, B., Between Rome and Jerusalem: Herod the Great and his Sons in their Struggle for Recognition (Leuven, 2012), 292–6Google Scholar. For the traditional dating, see e.g. Schallt, A., König Herodes (Berlin, 1969), 637–47Google Scholar.

10 ‘When did Herod the Great reign?’, Novum Testamentum 51 (2009), 1–29, especially 12–19. Steinmann questions the ‘Schürer consensum’, according to which Herod was named king in 40 b.c.e., began his reign in Jerusalem in 37 b.c.e. and died in 4 b.c.e. (Steinmann [this note], 1–2); the work alluded to is Schürer, E., Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 4 vols. (Leipzig, 1901–114Google Scholar; English translation: The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ [Edinburgh, 1973–87]). Steinmann argues that Herod reigned from 39 b.c.e., captured Jerusalem in 36 b.c.e. and died in 1 b.c.e. Only the date of his death will concern us here. A crucial piece of evidence is Luke 3:23, where Jesus is said to have been around thirty years old at the time of his baptism. Had Herod died in 4 b.c.e., he would have been ‘between thirty-one and thirty-three years old’ for his baptism (Steinmann [this note], 18). If Herod died in 1 b.c.e., Jesus would be ‘between thirty and thirty-two years of age at his baptism’, which seems more likely. Professor Steinmann has communicated to me per litteras that he does not oppose dating Herod's death to late 2 b.c.e.