SEVEN STEPS TO
Step Three
QUIRINIUS
This is a short, but very important
section. The taxation under Quirinius has been a bone of contention over the
years, and many have thought it impossible of resolution, but I will show that,
based on the firm foundations already established in previous chapters, there
is a way through the tangle to a very satisfactory conclusion.
CHAPTER 13
THE GOVERNORSHIPS OF QUIRINIUS
Luke 2:1-5 (from the Greek) "And it came to pass in those days there
went out from Cæsar Augustus a decree that all the habitable world [i.e., all
the Roman world] should be registered (or enrolled). This first registration
took place when Quirinius was Governor of
Luke writes, in his simple
unembroidered fashion, with accuracy and attention to detail. He doesn’t
satisfy us with over-much information, and at times that makes us a little
vexed, but no doubt the Lord gave him a mandate as to what he should and should
not record, so we have enough for our task
What can
we make of this reference to the enrolment? What do the critics say? They have
almost universal misgiving about Luke’s "research." They say that he must
have got his facts wrong, because there was a census in A.D. 6, for which
there is concrete evidence, but the previous census must have been fourteen
years prior to this, being the interval between successive registrations in
those days. This takes us back to B.C. 9, which is far too early for the birth
of Christ. Hence there can be no satisfactory resolution of this problem; no
way to determine exactly when Christ was born. I have noticed that more recent
writers have often just quoted those who have gone before, and so the problem
has proliferated with the passage of time.
Back in
1898 the great archaeologist and scholar Sir William Ramsay wrote a book
entitled, "Was Christ born at
One of the foremost chronologists of today is Jack Finegan. In his much prized
work, "Handbook of Biblical Chronology", (1964) page 235, he
sets out to investigate the succession of Governors of Syria from extant
records, and gives us the following assessment in Table 111, as follows:-
GOVERNORS OF
|
10 – 9 B.C. |
Marcus Titius |
|
9 – 6 B.C. |
Sentius Saturninus |
|
6 – 4 B.C. |
Quinctilius Varus |
|
3 – 2 B.C. |
|
|
1 B.C.-4 A.D. |
Gaius Caesar |
|
4 – 5 A.D. |
Volusius Saturninus |
|
6 – 7 A.D. |
Sulpicius Quirinius |
I have
left a space for 3 - 2 B.C., because Finegan put a question mark there. (He
also inserted a name.) No records have been found for this
time-slot. But before commenting further about the missing item, let’s
have a look at the rest of the list. Quirinius appears in 6 - 7 A.D. as
expected. But his name doesn’t appear during the period normally assigned
for the birth of Christ, namely B.C. 7 - 4. This seems to rule out those early
years unless Quirinius was acting under the senior governorship of one
of the named Governors. This seems hardly likely as it flies in the face of
Luke’s wording.
The
strange thing is that Finegan never actually left a space next to B.C. 3-2, but
inserted the name SULPICIUS QUIRINIUS. He saw that it was possible for
Quirinius to have served an earlier term in
But
B.C.2 is the exact time we need to fit into the chronology already established!
Whereas others have tried to fit their dates into an impossible scheme, we find
that by leaving the texts as they are, things fit together like hand in glove.
The
Greek historian and lexicographer Suidas (of
Justin
Martyr (A.D. 105 - 165), a native of
Clement of
ote
prwton ekeleusan amografaV genesqai Strom.i.21.147
auth
apografh prwth egeneto hgemoneuontoV thV SuriaV Kurhniou
An
additional piece of evidence comes from an unexpected source, that of the Roman
Emperor "Julian the Apostate." (born A.D. 331) who was brought up as
a Christian, but reneged on his faith at the time he became Emperor.
Subsequently he wrote attacking the faith of Christians. The extract that
interests us is as follows, "Jesus, whom you celebrate, was one of
Cæsar’s subjects. If you dispute it, I will prove it by and by; but it may as
well be done now, for you yourselves know that he was enrolled with his father
and mother in the time of Cyrenius." (Taken from Nathaniel
Lardner’s Works, VII, pages 626-627). The Emperor Julian would never have
written in this vein if he were unable to substantiate his claim from Public
Records. Although the records were all destroyed, but we must be thankful for
such passing references as this.
These
quotations are more than adequate for our purpose. They show that Luke’s
statement about Cyrenius (Quirinius) was absolutely correct, and that we can
build upon it with certainty. It remains therefore to find as much information
as we can about the Roman methods of Taxation, so as to fill in the gaps. One of
the best sources is that of W.T.Arnold, "The Roman System of
Provincial Administration." (1914, pages 102 - 106) From him we
learn that the census was preceded by a survey, and that a survey of the whole
Empire was ordered by Augustus Cæsar, and carried out under his command. After
the survey was completed it was possible to take a census to ascertain both the
population (Poll Tax), and the paying power (Land Tax) of the
Empire. It seems that this process first began in Judæa in B.C. 9. In fact an
ancient inscription unearthed at
Records
show how
The
other tax was called TRIBUTUM SOLI, and was levied on land and property.
This was the tax that caused such an uprising under Judas the Galilean in A.D.
6, mentioned by both Luke and Josephus. (This bears out Suidas’ words about
"men" [Tributum Capitis] and "property" [Tributum Soli].)
With
regard to the timing of the taxation we have ample evidence, mainly from
Egyptian sources, that a 14 year interval was allowed between successive
registrations for taxation. One Egyptian papyrus is dated, and by
cross-reference it turns out to be A.D. 20. (Other Egyptian records indicate
census dates at 34, 48, 62, and every 14 years up to A.D.230.) 14 years before
A.D.20 was A.D. 6, a date confirmed by the tax riots already mentioned. 14
years prior to this was B.C. 9, in which other writers have spoken about the
taxation being under Sentius Saturninus. All this information fits together
without a quarrel, but it seems to by-pass B.C. 3-2 completely, so what can be
learned? Another time-line is now appropriate -
THE 14-YEAR INTERVAL BETWEEN TAXATIONS
|--10--|--9--|--8--|--7--|--6--|--5--|--4--|--3--|--2--|--1--|--1--|--2--|--3--|--4--|--5--|--6--|--7--|
|-------------seven years--------------|--------------seven years-------------|
property
poll
property
tax tax
tax
The date
of the Nativity exactly bisects the two Property Tax years, and suggests that
the Poll Tax was levied between them, in B.C. 2. Can we find any evidence for
this? The quotation from Luke at the beginning of this chapter spells out the
conditions. Joseph and Mary were involved, but the Land and Property Tax
was the concern of the Landowner alone. The Tax Assessor would have met with
Joseph at
The TRIBUTUM
CAPITIS was the subject of a temptation by the Pharisees. They asked Jesus,
(Matthew
The
Denarius was a silver coin, in value about the daily wage of a labouring man or
a Roman soldier. The head of Tiberius would be on the coin, and the
superscription would be in Latin, probably TIB.C.FIL.DE.SEB. being the
abbreviated form of "Tiberius Cæsar, son of the deified Augustus."
This tax
must not be confused with another tax levied by the Jews for the upkeep of the
Returning to the subject of the Poll Tax, we have some further evidence. Dr
Adolph Deissman in his book, "Light from the Ancient East", (pages
268 - 269) has the following information. A papyrus which now resides in the
British Museum, being a rescript of the Roman Prefect in Egypt, one Gaius
Vibius Maximus (A.D. 103 - 104) reads, "The enrolment by households
being at hand, it is necessary to notify all who for any cause soever are
outside their homes to return to their domestic hearths, that they may accomplish
the customary dispensation of enrolment, and continue steadfastly in the
husbandry that belongs to them."
Compare this with Luke 2:3-5. "And
all went to be enrolled, every one to his own city. And Joseph also went up
from
A
further point arises here. In Acts we read about the uprising at the time of
the census in A.D.6, but no such disturbance occurred during the enrolment at Christ's
birth. One may reasonably conclude that enrolment for Poll Tax collection would
not attract violence, seeing that a mere denarius was involved, but the Land
Tax was a far greater burden on the population, and could very well have
attracted a revolt, as it did seven years later. I appreciate that this is but
a theory, but I believe it to be a reasonable deduction from the evidence
available.
The
following extracts from Sir William Ramsay's book are well worth recording
–
“It was the habit of the Romans in the
East to adapt their arrangements to the custom of the country. They did not
force the natives to adopt the Roman system of arranging the year and the
months, but rather modified their practice to suit the native year, using an
Asian year in the Province Asia, an Egyptian year in the Province Egypt, and so
on.” (page 133)
Hence the civil year in
The
second quote is as follows. “There was found near Tibur (Tivoli in Italy) in
A.D.1764 a fragment of marble with part of an inscription, which is now
preserved in the Lateran Museum of Christian Antiquities, as one of the
important monuments bearing on the history of Christianity. The inscription
records the career and honours of a Roman official who lived in the reign of
Augustus, and survived that emperor. He conquered a nation; he was rewarded
with two Supplicationes and the Ornamenta Triumphalia, i.e. the
gorgeous dress of a triumphing general, with ivory sceptre and chariot, etc.;
he governed
The
portion of marble from
GEM · QVA · REDACTA · INPOI
AVGUSTI · POPVLIQVE · ROMANI · SENATV
SVPPLICATIONES · BINAS ·
IPSI · ORNAMENTA · TRIVMPI
PRO · CONSVL · ASIAM · PROVINCIAM · OP
DIVI · AVGUSTI · ITERVM · SYRIAM · ET · PH
The
important word in this inscription is BINAS, [from Latin BINI] meaning
"twice". SYRIAM ET PH[OENICEN] means
However,
Ramsay, at the end of his fascinating book, was puzzled by the evidence
afforded by ancient records. Having openly declared that there were good
grounds for believing that Quirinius was twice the Governor of Syria, he
found that Quirinius's first Governorship could never have been in B.C.9
when expected. Indeed, he maintained that it would have to have fallen in
B.C.2, which didn't fit his theory concerning Christ's birth, which he felt
would have been in B.C.6.
Likewise, I find it difficult to understand why C.H.Turner, in his article on
New Testament Chronology in Hasting’s Bible Dictionary should first of all
agree that Quirinius’s name must be the missing one on this inscription,
but go on to say, "St. Luke’s evidence, then, adds nothing
trustworthy for the chronology of the Nativity beyond its synchronism with a
census. - - - St Luke is in error in the name of Quirinius."
Do we
need any further proof? Some say there is no evidence for the enrolment under
Quirinius, but there is! It is in Luke’s Gospel, and is plain for all to
read. And we have seen from the presentation in this chapter that his
Legateship had to be between B.C. 4 and B.C.1, in exactly the time-slot needed
to fit our growing number of firm chronological markers. This then is the third
step towards