Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian.bible-study Path: igor.rutgers.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!decwrl!pagesat.net!internet.spss.com!bible From: pfinch@su19p.ess.harris.com (Paul Finch) Subject: Re: Luke 2:2, and Josephus Message-ID: Sender: bible@spss.com (Bible Study) Reply-To: pfinch@su19p.ess.harris.com Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. References: Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 23:56:16 GMT Approved: adams@spss.com Lines: 256 Michael R Swihart writes: > >Was there a second census under Quirinius that we know of? > The entire issue of the census has been perplexing because this period of time was what some scholars call the "dark decade" i.e., 6 B.C. to A.D. 4 (Timothy Barnes, Journal of Roman Studies, LXIV [1974], 22). This is because Josephus, Velleius Paterculus, Cassius Dio and other primary sources for this period are wanting. Indeed, there are two folia missing from Cassius Dio's manuscript for this very period. Coupled with this is the confusion concerning the transition of power of King Herod and his successors. Although Josephus attempts to give good chronological bencemarks for the beginning of Herod's reign, such as the Battle of Actium, Olympiads, Roman Consuls, he stopped cross-referencing with known benchmarks in the latter part of Herod's reign until the tenth year of Archelaus in A.D. 6. Although Herod's death is placed in 4 B.C. by many scholars based mostly upon data from Josephus, this date has been recently challenged (W.E. Filmer, "The Chronology of Herod the Great," JTS 17 [1966] 283-98; E.L. Martin, "The Nativity and Herod's Death," Chronos, Kairos, Christos, Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to Jack Finegan, ed. J. Vardaman and E. Yamauchi, Eisenbrauns:1989, 85-92). From the time of Judas Maccabee until King Herod the Jews were governed by the priestly family of the Hasmoneans. This dynasty seemingly ended when Herod came to power who was half Edomite and half Arab. To solidify his power in the eyes of the Jews He married one of the surviving descendents of the Hasmoneans, Mariame. Through this marriage he had two sons---Alexander and Aristobulus. It was apparent that these two sons would someday carry on the Hasmonean rule. Yet, Herod had an older son by a Doris, a commoner, Antipater, who saw these two as a threat to his own rule. So Antipater concocted many false accusations against these two Hasmonean sons and finally Herod had them executed. When this happened everything hit the fan so to speak. It was at this time that Augustus revoked Herod's award as being "Caesar's Friend" and demoted him to being of subject class. Although this was due to mainly intrigues with the Arabs and Augustus reconciled himself to Herod afterward, Herod was never restored to "Caesar's Friend." We should note that in the beginning of Herod's reign Herod was able to conduct his affairs without Roman interference. He (and the Sanhedrin) executed Hyrcanus without permission from Rome. He put to death Mariamme and the sons of Baba without consulting Caesar. And even Herod's son Alexander admitted that Herod had power to execute him and his brother if he desired. But once Herod was demoted by Caesar Herod no longer had power to execute in regard to capital crimes of high ranking individuals. When Herod wanted Alexander and Aristobulus executed he had to have Caesar's representatives in the province of Syria hear the case and the trial was held in Beirut rather than at Jerusalem. And it was these Roman officials who made the final decision. When later Herod wanted Antipater tried for high treason the Roman governor Varus came to try the case. At the death of Alexander and Aristobulus, Antipater became "co-ruler with his father and in no way different from a king" (Josephus, Ant. XVII.2). This was in 4 B.C. Yet Antipater schemed to kill his father. When Herod heard about it he recalled Antipater from Rome to try him. He was convicted of high treason and Herod sent a request to Caesar to have him executed. Herod at this time changed his will and completely expunged Antipater's name from memory. It is assumed by many that shortly after this Herod died and was succeeded by Archelaus. But when Archelaus assumed power he was reckoned by Josephus as one who "had long exercised royal authority" (War II.26). Obviously, Archelaus reckoned his rule from 4 B.C. while Herod was still alive. And Herod remained alive another three years. The point to note that obviously in 4 B.C. Herod's power in the eyes of Rome was greatly diminished and a total lack of stability in Judaea at this time is evident. The very fact that Augustus conducted a registration shortly thereafter shows that Caesar may have become concerned over the political stability of this region. Some scholars believe that no such registration could have occured during Herod's rule for this would have been a direct interference with Herod's affairs. But rather than this being an objection, this, in fact, is a clear indication that an oath of allegiance was necessary at this time. Such an oath of allegiance was also administered to the people of Judaea at the accession of Caligula to emperorship which also was prompted by a change in government (Josephus, Ant. XVIII,124). Professor Burkhill, writing in the revised Schurer, p. 376, states that "the oath of allegiance to the emperor which the people were obliged to take, presumably on every change of government, was mandatory already in the days of Herod." We should also note that Luke said that this particular enrollement involved the entire Roman world. This places this special enrollment on a different level than those done in local regions for tax purposes. What was going on at this time in the Roman world which would have demanded such an enrollment? In 27 B.C. Octavian received the title Augustus. On the twenty fifth anniversary from this time Augustus Caesar recieved the award Pater Patriae on Feb. 5, 2 B.C. Caesar himself wrote that "while I was administering my thirteenth consurlship the senate and the equestrian order and the ENTIRE ROMAN PEOPLE gave me the title Father of my country" (Res Gestae, VI.35). And there is evidence found in the Paphlagonia inscription dated to 3 B.C. that an oath of obedience was taken by the inhabitants and that "the same oath was sworn also by ALL THE PEOPLE in the land at the altars of Augustus in the temples of Augustus in the various districts" (Lewis and Reinhold, Roman Civilizaton, vol. II.34,35). In 27 B.C. the Senate and the Roman people gave their complete and absolute allegiance to Caesar and that was done by swearing an oath of allegiance and registering that fact. At Caesar's silver jubilee the people of Rome again renewed their oath of allegiance. Thus when Caesar received his title as Father of the Country in February 2 B.C. the oath and registration had already been conducted and completed the year before. Joseph mentions this oath and this quote needs to cited at length: "There was moreover a certain sect of Jews who valued themselves highly for their exact knowledge of the law; and talking much of their contact with God, were greatly in favor with the women of Herod's court. They are called Pharisees. They are men who had it in their power to control kings; extremely subtle, and ready to attempt anything against those whom they did not like. When therefore the whole Jewish nation took an OATH to be faithful to Caesar, and [to] the interests of the king, these men, to the number of above six thousand, refused to swear. The king having laid a fine upon them, Pheroras' wife {Herod's sister-in-law] paid the money for them. They, in requital for her kindness ( for they were supposed, by their great inimacy with God, to have attained to the gift of prophecy), prophesied that God having decreed to put an end to the government of Herod and his race, the kingdom would be transferred to her and Pheroras and their children. Salome [Herod's sister], who was aware of all that was being said, came and told the king of them. She also told him that many of the court [of Herod] were corrupted by them. Then the king put to death the most guilty of the Pharisees, and Bagoas the eunuch, and one Carus, the most beautiful young man about the court, and the great instrument in the king's unlawful pleasures. He [Herod] likewise slew every one in his own family, who adhered to those things which were said by the Pharisees. But Bagoas had been elevated by them and was told that he should some day be called father and benefactor of the [new] king, who was to be appointed according to their predicton, for this king would have all things in his power, and that he [the king] would give him [Bagoas] the capacity of marriage, and of having children of his own" (Ant. XVII.41-45). How did Josephus know that there were over six thousands Pharisees who refused to take this oath unless there was some tally made and by their names was no signature. Orosius, living in the fifth century stated from sources that he had available that "[Augustus] ordered that a census be taken of each province everywhere and that all men be enrolled . . . This is the earliest and most famous public acknowledgement which marked Caesar as the first of all men and the Romans as lords of the world, a published list of all men entered individually . . . This first and greatest census was taken, since in this one name of Caesar all the peoples of the great nations TOOK OATH, and at the same time, throught the participation in the census, were made apart of one society" (bk VI.22, VII.2). To be a citizen of Rome was a prized possession and people wanted some kind of credentials to vouch for the title (cf. Acts 22:25-28). These were recorded in the archives of their native cities (A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 1963, 147). The registrations were checked and adjusted as to present circumstances every five years. And we have clear evidence that Augustus had official censuses in 28 and 8 B.C. (Res Gestae II.8). The next five year period brings us to 3 B.C. And these registrations required provincials to be "registered at his native city" (Sherwin-White, 148). 3 B.C. was not only a regular census year, but also coincided with the Oath of Allegiance to Augustus. 2 B.C. was the glorious Silver Jubilee of "Augustus" and it was also the 750th anniversary of the founding of Rome. Roman officials from all over the Empire would be going to Rome for the celebrations. This means that the governors would leave there provinces while lesser officials remained to conduct business. This brings us to Quirinius who conducted the "enrollment." Luke says that he was governor. Yet, Quirinius was not officially a governor until A.D. 6. But it does seem probable that Quirinius may have been a provisional governor in 3/2 B.C. while the actual legate was away at Rome. Indeed, Justin Martyr called Quirinius the "procurator of Syria" (Apology I.34). The Cambridge Ancient History tells us that "Each province had its equestrian procurator who in the eyes of the provincials was almost as important as the governor himself" (vol. X, 216). Quirinius in the records seems to have been a "man-Friday" by all accounts. Tacitus said that his command in the war of the Homonadenses was a "special command." An inscription mentions him "as holding an honorary municipal office at Antioch-by-Pisidia" (Sherwin-White, 165). He also became guardian of Gaius Caesar, the heir to the Empire when Gaius acquired residential authority at Antioch over the eastern provinces in A.D. 1 (Tacitus, Annals III.48). Tacitus also said that Quirinius was one who had "considerable talents for business" (ibid.). In A.D. 2 he married Aemelia Lepida, a descendant of Sulla and Pompey. This no doubt gave him much more political standing and in A.D. 6 he became legate of Syria upon the death of Archelaus, at which time Judaea was annexed. This change in government gave reason for Quirinius's second census of Judaea mentioned in Acts 5:37. This is why Luke distinguished the registration at the time of Jesus' birth as being the "first" one, while he was [provisional] governor of Syria which Justin Martyr said was actually while he was procurator. But who was the actual governor at this time? The early Christian apologist Tertullian living in the late second century, who was by profession a lawyer and well acquainted with Roman governmental affairs, said that the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was conducted when Sentius Saturninus was governor of Syria (Answer to the Jews, ch. 8). What's more, he said it occurred in the 41st year of Augustus answering to 3/2 B.C. Indeed, the early Christian sources were nearly united in stating that Jesus was born in 3/2 B.C. The list includes Clement of Alexandria, Origin, Africanus, Hippolytus of Rome, Hippolytus of Thebes, and Cassiodorus Senator (Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, p. 229). This is strong testimony indeed because these sources were able to consult the vast libraries at their disposals which modern historians no longer have access. But the next best thing to having access to these vital records is to accept the testimony of those who did! Modern scholarship has disgraced itself in an utter unprofessional way by ignoring this testimony in favor of our present fragmentary knowledge for this period. This entirely absurd! Modern scholarship has in its ego condemned itself to its own ignorance without giving this testimony a fair appraisal. But such evidence banishes the utter nonsense that parades around today in an ever increasing disunity. Josephus tells us that Quintilius Varus had taken over the governorship when Antipater the heir to King Herod had returned from Rome to Jerusalem and that he succeeded "Saturninus as governor of Syria" (Ant. XVII.89). But coins have been have been found which show that Varus was legate of Syria in the 25th, 26th, and 27th years of the Actian Era (6 to 4 B.C.). This is where historians trip up and conclude that they have proof that Herod must have died in 4 B.C. because Varus is shown to have been active in 4 B.C. But the answer is dangling right before their eyes and they can not see it. An inscription known as the Lapis Tiburtinus speaks of a governor of Syria during the time of Augustus who had been governor twice. Many have tried to identify this inscription with Quirinius in order to show that he held office before his 6 A.D. tenure. But professor Syme has shown that Quirinius is impossible ("The Titulus Tiburtinus" in Vestia Akten, Munich:1972). L.R. Taylor suggests that Titius is the subject of this inscription, but Syme has shown that Titius would have been much too old to receive the "ornamento trimphalia" given only after 12 B.C. Yet the inscription was found only a stones through from Varus' villa in Tibur. The reason some scholars object to Varus is that the inscription refers to Augustus as divine which was bestowed on him at his death in A.D. 14. whereas Varus died in A.D. 9. But because Varus was defeated in Germany, he was never commerated while Augustus lived. Yet, when Tiberius came to power who was Varus' brother-in-law, Tiberius went to the battlefield to bring back the the fallen Varus' remains and his memory was restored as a defender of the Empire. Therefore, this objection is weak in the extreme. With this missing piece of evidence the succesion of Syrian Governors can now be restored as follows: Titius 13-7 B.C. Q. Varus 7-4 B.C. S. Saturninus 4-2 B.C. Q. Varus 2 B.C.-A.D. 1 G. Caesar A.D. 1-4. We should also note that the War of Varus for which there is not the slightest evidence that it occurred in 4 B.C. happened as a result of the uprising at Passover soon after Herod died in which 3000 worshippers lost their lives. In the summer and Autumn of 1 B.C. a full scale war broke out, causing Armenia also to rebel, as well as uprisings in Arabia. It took 3 legions to quell this uprising. Scholars have had to down play this uprising because Augustus would have received an imperial acclamation. He received one in 8 B.C. (14th) and the next one in A.D. 1 (15th). The war which gave Augustus "acclamation XV" must have occured the previous year in 1 B.C. The chronology of Josephus concerning Herod's reign has been squeezed to make it fit the eclipse of 4 B.C. But this eclipse was only partial and partial eclipses rarely make headlines in ancient sources. The Eclipse of Jan. 10, 1 B.C. not only was total, but allows for more time for the events between Herod's death and Passover recorded by Josephus. Indeed, many a scholar has seen this one fact as an insolvable problem. Professor Filmer and Ormond Edwards have shown that Josephus did not reckon inclusively and that the capture of Jerusalem was not in 37 B.C. but in fact in 36 B.C. This means that Herod's 34 year reign from that time comes to the year 2/1 B.C. Herod died probably in February, 1 B.C. It was only a month before this that the Magi visited the now 15 month old child Jesus. The actual birth of Jesus was in early fall of 3 B.C. during the when Saturninus was legate of Syria as Tertullian says, Quirinius was procurator as Justin Martyr says, who carried out the Empire wide "enrollment" for the Syria and Judaea. There are many other pieces to the puzzle that fit better with this chronology but that gets into other areas beyond the scope of this question. Paul R. Finch pfinch@su19p.ess.harris.com