Lunar Sabbath
a time tested tradition

    The Battle of Actium

    Introduction

    Josephus provides a crucial chronological anchor by dating the Battle of Actium (September 2, 31 BC) to Herod's 7th regnal year. This reference is particularly significant because:

    1. It uses unqualified "reign" language - meaning it refers to regnal years (from appointment), not de facto years (from capture), per the pattern established in Extra Chapter 1 (e01_Herod_Regal_vs_Defacto.md).

    2. It provides an independent test - The Battle of Actium is a well-established historical date (31 BC) that can verify which regnal year system Josephus is using.

    3. It exposes a contradiction - The 4 BC consensus position cannot make this reference work with their proposed dates without abandoning Josephus's explicit "reign" language.

    4. It reveals a foundational assumption - The 4 BC position's 40 BC appointment date depends on an unproven assumption that Herod completed his journey before winter closed the Mediterranean Sea, despite documented shipwreck and delays.

    Josephus's Account of the Battle of Actium

    Josephus records a major earthquake in Judea that occurred during the Battle of Actium:

    "Now at this time it was that the fight happened at Actium, between Octavius Caesar and Antony, in the seventh year of the reign of Herod…"

    — Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 15.5.2

    The earthquake caused significant destruction:

    • Approximately 10,000 casualties (Antiquities) or 30,000 (Jewish War)
    • Destroyed much of Judea's cattle
    • Demolished houses
    • Herod's army was spared (encamped in open fields)
    • Arab enemies attacked Jewish ambassadors, believing Judea was destroyed

    The Battle of Actium itself is historically fixed at September 2, 31 BC - one of the most precisely dated events in ancient history, marking the decisive naval battle between Octavian (later Augustus) and Mark Antony.

    The Foundational Assumption: Journey Timeline

    Before addressing the Battle of Actium discrepancy, it's crucial to understand the foundational assumption that underlies the 4 BC position's 40 BC appointment date.

    The 40 BC Appointment Assumption

    The traditional 40 BC appointment date depends entirely on an unproven assumption: that Herod could complete his entire journey from Alexandria to Rome before winter closed the Mediterranean Sea, despite documented obstacles.

    Documented Obstacles

    Josephus records several delays that make a 40 BC completion unlikely:

    1. Parthian Invasion Timing: Invasion escalated around Shavuot (July 1, 40 BC with full moon calendar)
    2. Overland Journey: Escape to Alexandria via Masada, Petra, Rhinocolura (4-6 weeks) → arrival mid-August 40 BC
    3. Shipwreck and Storm:

      "[Herod] sailed away in a storm, which fell upon him as he sailed, with great danger; and he was sorely shaken with the tempest, and was thereby in distress." — Antiquities 14.14.3

    4. Refitting in Rhodes: Hiring crew, sourcing timber, awaiting supplies (3+ months) → extends to late October/early November 40 BC
    5. Mare Clausum (Closed Sea): Mediterranean winter season began in November - voyages rare and perilous until March

    The Timeline Reality

    • Mid-August 40 BC: Arrival in Alexandria
    • Late October/Early November 40 BC: Refitting complete in Rhodes
    • November 40 BC: Mare clausum begins - sea closes for winter
    • March 39 BC: Safe sailing resumes

    Result: Herod likely wintered in Rhodes (as historical parallels like Paul's shipwreck in Acts 27 illustrate the risks). This pushes the journey completion to spring 39 BC, not late 40 BC.

    The 4 BC Position's Burden

    The 4 BC position requires proving that Herod:

    • Defied the documented storm and shipwreck
    • Completed refitting in less than 3 months
    • Risked winter Mediterranean sailing (against all historical precedent)
    • Completed the journey before November 40 BC

    All without a shred of direct evidence for such haste.

    This is speculation built on idealized assumptions to preserve the 4 BC death consensus, not evidence-based reconstruction.

    The Book's Position

    The book's 39 BC appointment date:

    • Accounts for all documented delays (storm, refitting, winter)
    • Fits realistic ancient travel timelines
    • Requires no special pleading or unproven assumptions
    • Uses the journey timeline as evidence, not an assumption to overcome

    This foundational assumption is critical: The 4 BC position's entire timeline rests on an unproven assumption about journey speed, while the book's position uses the documented journey timeline as supporting evidence.

    The Chronological Test

    Book's Position (38 BC Regnal Start)

    If Herod's first regnal year began in spring 38 BC (from appointment in 39 BC):

    • Year 1: Spring 38 BC to Spring 37 BC
    • Year 2: Spring 37 BC to Spring 36 BC
    • Year 3: Spring 36 BC to Spring 35 BC
    • Year 4: Spring 35 BC to Spring 34 BC
    • Year 5: Spring 34 BC to Spring 33 BC
    • Year 6: Spring 33 BC to Spring 32 BC
    • Year 7: Spring 32 BC to Spring 31 BC
    • Year 8: Spring 31 BC to Spring 30 BC

    Battle of Actium: September 2, 31 BC

    Result: The Battle of Actium (September 2, 31 BC) occurs after Spring 31 BC (the end of Year 7), placing it in Year 8 (Spring 31 BC to Spring 30 BC), not Year 7.

    Timeline calculation:

    • Year 7 ends: Spring 31 BC (approximately April/May 31 BC)
    • Battle of Actium: September 2, 31 BC
    • Discrepancy: Approximately 5 months into Year 8, not a full year

    This is an imperfect fit - the battle is about 5 months into Year 8, not Year 7 as Josephus states. However, this is still much closer than the 4 BC position, and the discrepancy may be due to:

    • Josephus using approximate/rounded language ("seventh year" as approximate)
    • Inclusive counting methods
    • The battle occurring near the boundary between Year 7 and Year 8 (only 5 months into Year 8)

    4 BC Consensus Position (40 BC Regnal Start)

    If Herod's first regnal year began in spring 40 BC (from appointment in late 40 BC):

    • Year 1: Spring 40 BC to Spring 39 BC
    • Year 2: Spring 39 BC to Spring 38 BC
    • Year 3: Spring 38 BC to Spring 37 BC
    • Year 4: Spring 37 BC to Spring 36 BC
    • Year 5: Spring 36 BC to Spring 35 BC
    • Year 6: Spring 35 BC to Spring 34 BC
    • Year 7: Spring 34 BC to Spring 33 BC
    • Year 8: Spring 33 BC to Spring 32 BC
    • Year 9: Spring 32 BC to Spring 31 BC
    • Year 10: Spring 31 BC to Spring 30 BC

    Battle of Actium: September 2, 31 BC ✗

    Result: The Battle of Actium (September 2, 31 BC) occurs in Year 10 (Spring 31 BC to Spring 30 BC), not Year 7. Year 7 ended in Spring 33 BC, over two years before the battle. This is a major discrepancy - the battle is 3 years off from Josephus's statement.

    The 4 BC Position's Dilemma

    The 4 BC consensus faces a severe contradiction:

    1. Josephus explicitly says "seventh year of the reign" - This is unqualified language, meaning it refers to regnal years (from appointment), not de facto years (from capture), per the pattern established in Extra Chapter 1 (e01_Herod_Regal_vs_Defacto.md).

    2. If they use regnal years from 40 BC:
      • Year 7: Spring 34 BC to Spring 33 BC
      • Battle of Actium: September 2, 31 BC (in Year 10)
      • Discrepancy: Battle is 3 years after Year 7 ends ✗
    3. If they switch to de facto years from 37 BC (abandoning the explicit "reign" language):
      • First de facto year: Spring 36 BC (from fall 37 BC capture, spring-to-spring reckoning)
      • Year 7: Spring 30 BC to Spring 29 BC
      • Battle of Actium: September 2, 31 BC (in Year 6)
      • Discrepancy: Battle is 1 year before Year 7 begins ✗
    4. If they use inclusive accession-year counting from 37 BC capture (treating "reign" as de facto with inclusive counting):
      • Year 1 (accession): 37 BC (fall capture)
      • Year 2: 36 BC
      • Year 3: 35 BC
      • Year 4: 34 BC
      • Year 5: 33 BC
      • Year 6: 32 BC
      • Year 7: 31 BC
      • Battle of Actium: September 2, 31 BC (in Year 7) ✓
      • However, this requires:
        • Abandoning "reign" = regnal years (contradicts explicit language)
        • Using de facto years instead (contradicts "reign" language)
        • Using inclusive accession-year counting (deviation from convention)
        • Three deviations from standard practice to make it work
    5. The only way to make it work with regnal years: They must use inclusive accession-year counting from 40 BC, but:
      • Year 1 (accession): 40 BC
      • Year 7: 34 BC
      • Battle of Actium: September 2, 31 BC (in Year 10)
      • Still doesn't work - even with inclusive counting, it's 3 years off
    6. The fundamental problem: They must abandon Josephus's explicit "reign" language and claim he meant de facto years, but this contradicts:
      • The pattern established at Herod's death (37 years = regnal, 34 years = de facto)
      • The unqualified "reign" language (which defaults to regnal per Extra Chapter 1)
      • Their own claim that "reign" universally means regnal
      • The foundational principle that unqualified "reign" = regnal years

    Why This Evidence is Significant

    1. Independent Historical Anchor

    The Battle of Actium is one of the most precisely dated events in ancient history (September 2, 31 BC). It doesn't depend on:

    • Herod's death date
    • Sons' reigns
    • Eclipses
    • Any other Herodian chronology

    It's a fixed point that can independently verify regnal year calculations.

    2. Explicit Language

    Josephus uses unqualified "reign" language: "seventh year of the reign of Herod." Per the pattern established in Extra Chapter 1, this means regnal years (from appointment), not de facto years (from capture).

    3. Contextual Fit

    The narrative context supports regnal years:

    • The earthquake occurred during a major Roman civil war
    • Herod was already recognized as "king" by Rome (from his appointment)
    • The event is tied to Roman politics (Actium), not local Judean control

    4. Relative Fit Comparison

    While neither position is perfect, the book's position is significantly closer:

    • 38 BC regnal start: Year 7 = Spring 32 BC to Spring 31 BC; Actium (Sept 2, 31 BC) is about 5 months into Year 8 - 5 month discrepancy (imperfect but very close)
    • 40 BC regnal start: Year 7 = Spring 34 BC to Spring 33 BC; Actium (Sept 2, 31 BC) is in Year 10 - 3 year discrepancy (major error)

    The book's position is over 7x closer to Josephus's statement (5 months vs. 3 years).

    Addressing Potential Objections

    Objection 1: "Josephus meant de facto years, not regnal"

    Response: This contradicts:

    • Josephus's explicit pattern (unqualified "reign" = regnal)
    • The death summary (37 years = regnal, 34 years = de facto)
    • The 4 BC position's own claim that "reign" means regnal

    If they abandon this, they must explain why Josephus uses "reign" inconsistently.

    Objection 2: "Inclusive counting changes the calculation"

    Response: Even with inclusive counting:

    • 40 BC start: Year 7 inclusive = 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34 BC (ending 33 BC)
    • Still doesn't include 31 BC

    The math doesn't work regardless of counting method.

    Objection 3: "The earthquake reference might be approximate"

    Response:

    • Josephus says "seventh year of the reign" - this could be approximate
    • The Battle of Actium is precisely dated (September 2, 31 BC)
    • The earthquake is tied to the battle, not a separate event
    • However, even if approximate, the book's position (5 months off) is much closer than the 4 BC position (3 years off)
    • If Josephus was approximating, he was approximating from the book's timeline, not the 4 BC timeline

    Objection 4: "Herod's regnal years might have started differently"

    Response:

    • This requires abandoning all the evidence for 40 BC appointment
    • It contradicts the explicit "37 years from the time the Roman Senate proclaimed him king"
    • It's special pleading to save the 4 BC position

    Objection 5: "Inclusive accession-year counting could make it work"

    Response:

    • The 4 BC position could use inclusive counting from 37 BC capture (treating "reign" as de facto):
      • Year 1 (accession): 37 BC → Year 7: 31 BC ✓
    • However, this requires three deviations from convention:
      1. Abandoning "reign" = regnal years (contradicts explicit language and Extra Chapter 1)
      2. Using de facto years instead (contradicts "reign" language)
      3. Using inclusive accession-year counting (deviation from standard spring-to-spring non-inclusive reckoning that Josephus uses for pre-Herodian monarchs)
    • The book's position requires zero deviations - it's just 5 months off (likely due to approximation or boundary issues)
    • Relative burden of proof: Three deviations vs. one small approximation - the book's position is still stronger

    The Pattern of Evidence

    The Battle of Actium evidence, combined with the journey timeline assumption, reveals a consistent pattern:

    Journey Timeline + Battle of Actium

    1. 40 BC appointment assumption (unproven, requires defying documented obstacles)
    2. Battle of Actium in 7th year (requires 3 deviations from convention to work)
    3. Both depend on unproven assumptions rather than evidence

    Book's Position

    1. 39 BC appointment (fits documented journey timeline with all delays)
    2. Battle of Actium in 8th year (5 months into Year 8, likely approximation)
    3. Both fit evidence without special pleading

    Overall Chronology Consistency

    This evidence fits perfectly with the book's overall chronology:

    1. 38 BC regnal start (from 39 BC appointment) → Year 7 includes 31 BC ✓
    2. 36 BC capture (from 27 years "to the day" from Pompey) → First de facto year 35 BC ✓
    3. 1 BC death (from 34 de facto years) → 36 BC + 34 = 1 BC ✓
    4. Battle of Actium in 7th regnal year → 38 BC + 7 = 31 BC ✓

    All pieces align without contradiction.

    The 4 BC position requires:

    • Abandoning "27 years to the day" (or reinterpreting it)
    • Switching from regnal to de facto for Actium (contradicting explicit language)
    • Special pleading for zero-year ante-dating (Philip)
    • Dismissing age calculation (70 years old)

    Conclusion

    The Battle of Actium evidence provides a crucial independent test of Herod's regnal years:

    • Book's position (38 BC regnal start): Year 7 = Spring 32 BC to Spring 31 BC; Actium (Sept 2, 31 BC) is about 5 months into Year 8 - 5 month discrepancy (imperfect but very close)
    • 4 BC position (40 BC regnal start): Year 7 = Spring 34 BC to Spring 33 BC; Actium (Sept 2, 31 BC) is in Year 10 - 3 year discrepancy (major error)

    Key Observations:

    1. Neither position is perfect - Both have discrepancies, but the book's position is over 7x closer to Josephus's statement (5 months vs. 3 years).

    2. The discrepancy in the book's position (5 months) could be due to:
      • Approximate/rounded language ("seventh year" as approximate)
      • Inclusive counting methods
      • The battle occurring near the boundary between Year 7 and Year 8 (only 5 months into Year 8)
      • Josephus using a different reckoning method for this specific reference
      • Spring-to-spring reckoning placing the battle just past the Year 7 boundary
    3. The discrepancy in the 4 BC position has two possible resolutions, both problematic:
      • Option A (regnal years): 3 years off - too large to be explained by approximation
      • Option B (inclusive de facto counting): Could work, but requires three deviations from convention:
        1. Abandoning "reign" = regnal years (contradicts explicit language)
        2. Using de facto years instead (contradicts "reign" language)
        3. Using inclusive accession-year counting (deviation from standard practice)
      • The book's position requires zero deviations - just one small approximation (5 months off)
    4. Relative strength: The book's position fits Josephus's statement much better, even if not perfectly. The 4 BC position requires dismissing or reinterpreting the evidence.

    This evidence, while not perfect, strongly favors the book's chronology (38 BC regnal start, 36 BC capture, 1 BC death) and exposes a significant flaw in the 4 BC consensus position.

    Additional Context: Herod's Relationship with Octavian

    After the Battle of Actium, Herod quickly switched allegiance from Antony to Octavian (Augustus). Josephus records that Herod met with Octavian at Rhodes shortly after Actium, where he successfully secured his position despite having supported Antony. This meeting likely occurred in 30 BC, during Herod's 8th or 9th regnal year (if counting from 38 BC), which fits the narrative timeline perfectly.

    The earthquake during Actium and Herod's subsequent diplomatic pivot to Octavian are part of the same historical sequence, all occurring within the framework of Herod's regnal years as established by his Roman appointment.