The census of Quirinius and the unidentified Governor of Syria from 3 BC to 1 AD
In my previous videos titled “Faulty Olympiad calendar caused 1 year error in redating Herod's death from 1 BC to 4 BC” and “Co-regency between Augustus and Tiberius caused 2 years error in redating Herod's death from 1 BC to 4 BC”, I came to the following conclusions:
1. The start of the first Olympiad dated 776 BC, was one year too early, and should have been 775 BC instead. And since the Varronian Chronology used the Olympiad calendar as its calendar epoch, this chronology became a victim of this one year error as well.
The Varronian Chronology was the common reference used by historians to specify the years Roman Consuls served and was also the recognized basis for dating most events in Roman History.
2. Because of confusion over the co-regency between Augustus and Tiberius that happened two years before Augustus died, historians wrongly started Tiberius’ solo reign on the start of this co-regency rather than on Augustus’ death.
The result was Tiberius’ solo reign as well as Augustus’ death were mistakenly dated 2 years earlier. This 2 years error was corrected or cancelled starting from the historical date 5 AD and earlier when the lack of 2 pairs of successive Roman Consuls two years after the historical date 5 AD caused historians to omit these years entirely in the official list of Roman consuls recognized by them.
Thus, all in all, the errors in dating events in Roman history that used the Varronian Chronology’s list of Roman Consuls as calendar epoch, can now be summarized as follows: All events that are dated 5 AD and earlier are one year too early, while events dated 6 AD onwards are 3 years too early. By 6 AD onwards I meant: until a 2 year correction was made either by having 2 years without Consuls, or having 2 years with fictional Consuls to fill the gap created by dating the terms of the Roman consuls 2 years too early.
In my previous video titled “Co-regency between Augustus and Tiberius caused 2 years error in redating Herod's death from 1 BC to 4 BC”, I identified 40 AD as the first year when a 1 year correction was made by assigning Laecanius Bassus and Terentius Culleo as fictional consuls for this year, which is why their identities are virtually unknown and unverifiable for lack of information about them.
I also identified 49 AD as the second year when a 1 year correction was made by assigning Pompeius Longus Gallus, Mammius Pollio, and Allius Maximus as fictional consuls for this year, which is why their identities are once again virtually unknown and unverifiable for lack of information about them.
Now about Augustus Cesar, an important event during his reign happened, which according to historians occurred on February 5, 2 BC. This was when he was awarded by the Roman Senate, the Equestrian Order, and the entire Roman people the title Pater Patriae, or "father of the country".
The Res Gestae Divi Augusti, or the funerary inscription of Augustus, gives us more details about this important milestone in Augustus’ life :
Part VI verse 35 While I was administering my thirteenth consulship the senate and the equestrian order and the entire Roman people gave me the title of Father of my Country, and decreed that this title should be inscribed upon the vestibule of my house and in the senate-house and in the Forum Augustum beneath the quadriga erected in my honour by decree of the senate.
Note that 25 years earlier, and specifically dated by historians on January 16, 27 BC, the Roman Senate gave Octavian the new titles of Augustus and Princeps. Thus I believe, the awarding of the title Pater Patriae, or "father of the country", was a silver anniversary celebration of Octavian’s titles as Augustus and Princeps.
But how can Octavian, who was otherwise known as Augustus Caesar, claim that the entire Roman people gave him the title of Pater Patriae according to the Res Gestae Divi Augusti? The only way, in my opinion, was for him to conduct a census asking the entire Roman people to make a sworn oath of their good will to his office as Caesar and also to grant him the said title of Pater Patriae.
Now the entire Roman people (emphasis on the word entire), may have included all the people and all the vassal countries under the then Roman empire, which included Israel.
Thus, conducting this census would have taken a considerable amount of time, probably a little more than a couple of years, in my opinion. Now before you forget, please remember what I said earlier that all events in Roman history that are dated 5 AD and earlier are one year too early.
Thus the awarding of the title Pater Patriae to Augustus, which supposedly happened on February 5, 2 BC, actually happened on February 5, 1 BC instead. And this means that the census that gave credence and substance to the title awarded to Augustus, must have started a considerable amount of time before February 5, 1 BC.
Is there any proof that a Roman Census actually took place during this period?
Antiquities of the Jews — Book XVII, Chapter 2: 4 These are those that are called the sect of the Pharisees: who were in a capacity of greatly opposing Kings. A cunning sect they were; and soon elevated to a pitch of open fighting, and doing mischief.
Accordingly when all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their good will to Cæsar, and to the King’s government; these very men did not swear: being above six thousand.... So the King slew such of the Pharisees as were principally accused;
If you continue reading until Book XVII, Chapter 3 of Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, you can see that Herod’s slaying of the Pharisees who refused to swear their goodwill to Caesar, took place before his brother Pheroras died. And this is why Josephus titled chapter 3 as “Concerning the enmity between Herod and Pheroras: how Herod sent Antipater to Cesar: and of the death of Pheroras.”
Now historians traditionally date Pheroras’ death on 5 BC. However, if we now apply a 1 year correction on this historical date, due to a faulty Olympiad Calendar that is 1 year too early, we get Pheroras’ death actually occurring on 4 BC instead. And thus, this census which required swearing of good will to Caesar and which the Pharisees that time rejected must have started no later than 4 BC.
The result was Tiberius’ solo reign as well as Augustus’ death were mistakenly dated 2 years earlier. This 2 years error was corrected or cancelled starting from the historical date 5 AD and earlier when the lack of 2 pairs of successive Roman Consuls two years after the historical date 5 AD caused historians to omit these years entirely in the official list of Roman consuls recognized by them.
Thus, all in all, the errors in dating events in Roman history that used the Varronian Chronology’s list of Roman Consuls as calendar epoch, can now be summarized as follows: All events that are dated 5 AD and earlier are one year too early, while events dated 6 AD onwards are 3 years too early. By 6 AD onwards I meant: until a 2 year correction was made either by having 2 years without Consuls, or having 2 years with fictional Consuls to fill the gap created by dating the terms of the Roman consuls 2 years too early.
In my previous video titled “Co-regency between Augustus and Tiberius caused 2 years error in redating Herod's death from 1 BC to 4 BC”, I identified 40 AD as the first year when a 1 year correction was made by assigning Laecanius Bassus and Terentius Culleo as fictional consuls for this year, which is why their identities are virtually unknown and unverifiable for lack of information about them.
I also identified 49 AD as the second year when a 1 year correction was made by assigning Pompeius Longus Gallus, Mammius Pollio, and Allius Maximus as fictional consuls for this year, which is why their identities are once again virtually unknown and unverifiable for lack of information about them.
Now about Augustus Cesar, an important event during his reign happened, which according to historians occurred on February 5, 2 BC. This was when he was awarded by the Roman Senate, the Equestrian Order, and the entire Roman people the title Pater Patriae, or "father of the country".
The Res Gestae Divi Augusti, or the funerary inscription of Augustus, gives us more details about this important milestone in Augustus’ life :
Part VI verse 35 While I was administering my thirteenth consulship the senate and the equestrian order and the entire Roman people gave me the title of Father of my Country, and decreed that this title should be inscribed upon the vestibule of my house and in the senate-house and in the Forum Augustum beneath the quadriga erected in my honour by decree of the senate.
Note that 25 years earlier, and specifically dated by historians on January 16, 27 BC, the Roman Senate gave Octavian the new titles of Augustus and Princeps. Thus I believe, the awarding of the title Pater Patriae, or "father of the country", was a silver anniversary celebration of Octavian’s titles as Augustus and Princeps.
But how can Octavian, who was otherwise known as Augustus Caesar, claim that the entire Roman people gave him the title of Pater Patriae according to the Res Gestae Divi Augusti? The only way, in my opinion, was for him to conduct a census asking the entire Roman people to make a sworn oath of their good will to his office as Caesar and also to grant him the said title of Pater Patriae.
Now the entire Roman people (emphasis on the word entire), may have included all the people and all the vassal countries under the then Roman empire, which included Israel.
Thus, conducting this census would have taken a considerable amount of time, probably a little more than a couple of years, in my opinion. Now before you forget, please remember what I said earlier that all events in Roman history that are dated 5 AD and earlier are one year too early.
Thus the awarding of the title Pater Patriae to Augustus, which supposedly happened on February 5, 2 BC, actually happened on February 5, 1 BC instead. And this means that the census that gave credence and substance to the title awarded to Augustus, must have started a considerable amount of time before February 5, 1 BC.
Is there any proof that a Roman Census actually took place during this period?
Antiquities of the Jews — Book XVII, Chapter 2: 4 These are those that are called the sect of the Pharisees: who were in a capacity of greatly opposing Kings. A cunning sect they were; and soon elevated to a pitch of open fighting, and doing mischief.
Accordingly when all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their good will to Cæsar, and to the King’s government; these very men did not swear: being above six thousand.... So the King slew such of the Pharisees as were principally accused;
If you continue reading until Book XVII, Chapter 3 of Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, you can see that Herod’s slaying of the Pharisees who refused to swear their goodwill to Caesar, took place before his brother Pheroras died. And this is why Josephus titled chapter 3 as “Concerning the enmity between Herod and Pheroras: how Herod sent Antipater to Cesar: and of the death of Pheroras.”
Now historians traditionally date Pheroras’ death on 5 BC. However, if we now apply a 1 year correction on this historical date, due to a faulty Olympiad Calendar that is 1 year too early, we get Pheroras’ death actually occurring on 4 BC instead. And thus, this census which required swearing of good will to Caesar and which the Pharisees that time rejected must have started no later than 4 BC.
Please note that this census had nothing to do with taxation like what most people believe. This census was purely about getting from all the people under the then Roman empire, their assurances of good will to Augustus Caesar, and to his government. And that they should all do so under oath. And by securing this oath from all the people, Augustus can truly claim that the people of the entire Roman world, and not just the Senate and the Equestrian Order, gave him the title of Pater Patriae. Incidentally, there is actual archaeological proof that a Roman census was in fact ongoing as early as 3 BC:
The Beginnings of the Roman Provincial Census: A New Declaration from 3 BCE by W. Graham Claytor and Roger S. Bagnall, Page 642:
Claytor’s research in the University of Michigan papyrus collection has brought to light a dozen more papyri belonging to the archive, including the document published below. Although faint and effaced in many places, the type of document and its date are beyond doubt: it is a census declaration submitted by Harthotes at the end of Augustus’ 27th year (3 BCE) to five registration officials of his home village Theadelphia.
Augustus’ 27th year refers to the 27th anniversary of his victory at the battle of Actium which is historically dated September 2, 31 BC, but in my opinion, should be dated September 2, 30 BC instead because of a 1 year error.
Thus, Augustus’ 27th year ran between September 2, 4 BC until September 2, 3 BC. Since Harthotes submitted his census declaration at the end of Augustus’ 27th year, it was quite likely that the census actually began as early as the start of Augustus’ 27th year sometime September 2, 4 BC. And this will harmonize with Josephus’ account of Herod slaying the Pharisees who refused to take their oath of goodwill to Caesar during this census, and the death of his brother Pheroras both happening on the corrected date 4 BC.
Now why was this census started as early as 3 BC, when the title of Pater Patriae was going to be awarded to Augustus on February 5, 1 BC still? The Romans had plenty more to prepare for to celebrate Octavian’s 25th anniversary as Augustus than just conducting a worldwide census, and they may have anticipated also the resistance that religious zealots would make when they are forced to pledge their loyalty to Caesar. Thus, a couple of years or more allotted for the census, was deemed necessary.
Now since according to the gospels, Christ was born during a Roman census, this means that Christ must have been born before February 5, 1 BC when the awarding of the title Pater Patriae to Augustus actually took place, and when the census already ended.
In addition, according to Luke, this census was when Quirinius was governor of Syria:
Luke 2: 1-7 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place with Quirinius as governor of Syria.)
And everyone went to their own town to register. So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.
While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.
Not let us take a look at the list of Roman governors of Syria to find out who was in office at the time of Christ’ birth, which I believe to be on 1 BC. Looking at the list, one can find that the governor of Syria listed on 1 BC to 4 AD was Gaius Julius Caesar Vipsanianus. However, based on my conclusions which I enumerated earlier, the 1 BC to 4 AD term of office was actually 1 year too early, so that Vipsanianus’ term of office should actually be from 1 AD to 5 AD instead.
Looking back at the list of Roman governors of Syria, one can see an anonymous governor whose term of office was from 4 BC until 1 BC. Again, this means that this unidentified governor’s term actually ran from 3 BC until 1 AD. And this is because, as mentioned earlier, all events in Rome’s history that are dated 5 AD and earlier, are 1 year too early. Now 3 BC if you still recall, was when Harthotes submitted his census declaration to five registration officials of his home village Theadelphia, and February 5, 1 BC, the day the title Pater Patriae was given to Augustus, was when this census ended.
Thus, the governor of Syria during this particular census was the unidentifiable or anonymous governor in the list of Roman governors of Syria whose term of office was from 3 BC until 1 AD. Could this unidentifiable governor of Syria during whose term Christ was born, actually be Quirinius, like what Luke said? Was Luke correct all along and Emil Schürer who revised the traditional date of 1 BC to 4 BC for Herod’s death, wrong all this time?
In conclusion, there is no justification for historians to say that Luke was wrong when he said Quirinius was the governor of Syria during Christ’s birth, since after all, they don’t even know for certain the identity of the mysterious governor of Syria whose term of office started on 3 BC and ended on 1 AD, and during which time I believe Christ was born.
Now what do historians say about Quirinius’ life and activities between 3 BC and 1 AD?
Wikipedia, Quirinius, Life: From 12 – 1 BC, he led a campaign against the Homonadenses, a tribe based in the mountainous region of Galatia and Cilicia, around 5 – 3 BC, probably as legate of Galatia.
He won the campaign by reducing their strongholds and starving out the defenders. For this victory, he was awarded a triumph and elected duumvir by the colony of Antioch of Pisidia.
By 1 AD, Quirinius was appointed tutor to Augustus' grandson Gaius Caesar, until the latter died from wounds suffered on campaign.
Now let us break down Quirinius’ life during the period between 12 BC until 1 AD:
From 12 to 1 BC, Quirinius led a military campaign against the Homonadenses, a tribe based in the mountainous region of Galatia and Cilicia, both of which are located in Turkey.
During 12 to 1 BC, and specifically between 5 to 3 BC, Quirinius served as legate (or the military officer in command of a legion) of Galatia. He won the campaign during this period as legate, by reducing their strongholds and starving out the defenders.
From 3 BC to 1 AD, and for Quirinius’ victory as legate of Galatia between 5 to 3 BC, he was awarded a triumph and elected duumvir (or one of only 2 magistrates) by the colony of Antioch of Pisidia, in Turkey. Note also that from 3 BC to 1 BC, Quirinius was still leading and probably finishing up a military campaign in Cilicia, Turkey, which started on 12 BC.
Now the period of Quirinius’ life between 3 BC to 1 AD was also when the anonymous governor of Syria was serving his 3 year term of office. If Quirinius was indeed this anonymous governor of Syria, according to Luke’s gospel, then that means Quirinius was at the same time, multitasking as duumvir by the colony of Antioch of Pisidia, in Turkey, and was also leading a military campaign in Cilicia, Turkey until 1 BC.
And this busy schedule of Quirinius between 3 BC to 1 AD, was probably the reason why he became an anonymous governor of Syria during this period, since he presumably spent most of his time in Turkey instead of Syria.
Now by 1 AD, Quirinius was appointed tutor to Augustus' grandson Gaius Caesar, until the latter died from wounds suffered on campaign. Interestingly, 1 AD was also when the term of office of the anonymous governor of Syria ended.
Now one might ask, were all events in Roman history dated by historians either 1 year too early or 3 years too early? Not really. Some events in Roman history were dated using as point of reference other events in world history that were dated using other calendar epochs.
A good example of this was the year 63 BC correctly assigned to Pompey’s Siege of Jerusalem which used Pompey’s successful conclusion of the Third Mithridatic War as the point of reference. This war (dated 73–63 BC) was fought between Mithridates VI of Pontus and the Roman Republic.
Mithridates VI was a prince of Persian and Greek ancestry. He claimed descent from Cyrus the Great, the family of Darius the Great, the Regent Antipater, the generals of Alexander the Great as well as the later kings Antigonus I Monophthalmus and Seleucus I Nicator.
As such, the events in the life of Mithridates VI were all dated using the Persian chronology as the main point of reference. And this chronology was independent of the Roman chronology and the errors inherent in it.
And since the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey was linked to Mithridates VI’s timeline, the dating of Pompey’s siege was actually based more on Persian chronology rather than the Roman chronology, even though this event was an important part of Roman history as well.
Now to conclude, having established Herod’s death happening on the year 1 BC, the next question that needs to be answered is, when was the exact date Christ was born? I will be answering this in my next video titled “When was Christ born and when was he baptised? The Year, Month, and Day. Revealed at last!”
The Beginnings of the Roman Provincial Census: A New Declaration from 3 BCE by W. Graham Claytor and Roger S. Bagnall, Page 642:
Claytor’s research in the University of Michigan papyrus collection has brought to light a dozen more papyri belonging to the archive, including the document published below. Although faint and effaced in many places, the type of document and its date are beyond doubt: it is a census declaration submitted by Harthotes at the end of Augustus’ 27th year (3 BCE) to five registration officials of his home village Theadelphia.
Augustus’ 27th year refers to the 27th anniversary of his victory at the battle of Actium which is historically dated September 2, 31 BC, but in my opinion, should be dated September 2, 30 BC instead because of a 1 year error.
Thus, Augustus’ 27th year ran between September 2, 4 BC until September 2, 3 BC. Since Harthotes submitted his census declaration at the end of Augustus’ 27th year, it was quite likely that the census actually began as early as the start of Augustus’ 27th year sometime September 2, 4 BC. And this will harmonize with Josephus’ account of Herod slaying the Pharisees who refused to take their oath of goodwill to Caesar during this census, and the death of his brother Pheroras both happening on the corrected date 4 BC.
Now why was this census started as early as 3 BC, when the title of Pater Patriae was going to be awarded to Augustus on February 5, 1 BC still? The Romans had plenty more to prepare for to celebrate Octavian’s 25th anniversary as Augustus than just conducting a worldwide census, and they may have anticipated also the resistance that religious zealots would make when they are forced to pledge their loyalty to Caesar. Thus, a couple of years or more allotted for the census, was deemed necessary.
Now since according to the gospels, Christ was born during a Roman census, this means that Christ must have been born before February 5, 1 BC when the awarding of the title Pater Patriae to Augustus actually took place, and when the census already ended.
In addition, according to Luke, this census was when Quirinius was governor of Syria:
Luke 2: 1-7 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place with Quirinius as governor of Syria.)
And everyone went to their own town to register. So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.
While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.
Not let us take a look at the list of Roman governors of Syria to find out who was in office at the time of Christ’ birth, which I believe to be on 1 BC. Looking at the list, one can find that the governor of Syria listed on 1 BC to 4 AD was Gaius Julius Caesar Vipsanianus. However, based on my conclusions which I enumerated earlier, the 1 BC to 4 AD term of office was actually 1 year too early, so that Vipsanianus’ term of office should actually be from 1 AD to 5 AD instead.
Looking back at the list of Roman governors of Syria, one can see an anonymous governor whose term of office was from 4 BC until 1 BC. Again, this means that this unidentified governor’s term actually ran from 3 BC until 1 AD. And this is because, as mentioned earlier, all events in Rome’s history that are dated 5 AD and earlier, are 1 year too early. Now 3 BC if you still recall, was when Harthotes submitted his census declaration to five registration officials of his home village Theadelphia, and February 5, 1 BC, the day the title Pater Patriae was given to Augustus, was when this census ended.
Thus, the governor of Syria during this particular census was the unidentifiable or anonymous governor in the list of Roman governors of Syria whose term of office was from 3 BC until 1 AD. Could this unidentifiable governor of Syria during whose term Christ was born, actually be Quirinius, like what Luke said? Was Luke correct all along and Emil Schürer who revised the traditional date of 1 BC to 4 BC for Herod’s death, wrong all this time?
In conclusion, there is no justification for historians to say that Luke was wrong when he said Quirinius was the governor of Syria during Christ’s birth, since after all, they don’t even know for certain the identity of the mysterious governor of Syria whose term of office started on 3 BC and ended on 1 AD, and during which time I believe Christ was born.
Now what do historians say about Quirinius’ life and activities between 3 BC and 1 AD?
Wikipedia, Quirinius, Life: From 12 – 1 BC, he led a campaign against the Homonadenses, a tribe based in the mountainous region of Galatia and Cilicia, around 5 – 3 BC, probably as legate of Galatia.
He won the campaign by reducing their strongholds and starving out the defenders. For this victory, he was awarded a triumph and elected duumvir by the colony of Antioch of Pisidia.
By 1 AD, Quirinius was appointed tutor to Augustus' grandson Gaius Caesar, until the latter died from wounds suffered on campaign.
Now let us break down Quirinius’ life during the period between 12 BC until 1 AD:
From 12 to 1 BC, Quirinius led a military campaign against the Homonadenses, a tribe based in the mountainous region of Galatia and Cilicia, both of which are located in Turkey.
During 12 to 1 BC, and specifically between 5 to 3 BC, Quirinius served as legate (or the military officer in command of a legion) of Galatia. He won the campaign during this period as legate, by reducing their strongholds and starving out the defenders.
From 3 BC to 1 AD, and for Quirinius’ victory as legate of Galatia between 5 to 3 BC, he was awarded a triumph and elected duumvir (or one of only 2 magistrates) by the colony of Antioch of Pisidia, in Turkey. Note also that from 3 BC to 1 BC, Quirinius was still leading and probably finishing up a military campaign in Cilicia, Turkey, which started on 12 BC.
Now the period of Quirinius’ life between 3 BC to 1 AD was also when the anonymous governor of Syria was serving his 3 year term of office. If Quirinius was indeed this anonymous governor of Syria, according to Luke’s gospel, then that means Quirinius was at the same time, multitasking as duumvir by the colony of Antioch of Pisidia, in Turkey, and was also leading a military campaign in Cilicia, Turkey until 1 BC.
And this busy schedule of Quirinius between 3 BC to 1 AD, was probably the reason why he became an anonymous governor of Syria during this period, since he presumably spent most of his time in Turkey instead of Syria.
Now by 1 AD, Quirinius was appointed tutor to Augustus' grandson Gaius Caesar, until the latter died from wounds suffered on campaign. Interestingly, 1 AD was also when the term of office of the anonymous governor of Syria ended.
Now one might ask, were all events in Roman history dated by historians either 1 year too early or 3 years too early? Not really. Some events in Roman history were dated using as point of reference other events in world history that were dated using other calendar epochs.
A good example of this was the year 63 BC correctly assigned to Pompey’s Siege of Jerusalem which used Pompey’s successful conclusion of the Third Mithridatic War as the point of reference. This war (dated 73–63 BC) was fought between Mithridates VI of Pontus and the Roman Republic.
Mithridates VI was a prince of Persian and Greek ancestry. He claimed descent from Cyrus the Great, the family of Darius the Great, the Regent Antipater, the generals of Alexander the Great as well as the later kings Antigonus I Monophthalmus and Seleucus I Nicator.
As such, the events in the life of Mithridates VI were all dated using the Persian chronology as the main point of reference. And this chronology was independent of the Roman chronology and the errors inherent in it.
And since the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey was linked to Mithridates VI’s timeline, the dating of Pompey’s siege was actually based more on Persian chronology rather than the Roman chronology, even though this event was an important part of Roman history as well.
Now to conclude, having established Herod’s death happening on the year 1 BC, the next question that needs to be answered is, when was the exact date Christ was born? I will be answering this in my next video titled “When was Christ born and when was he baptised? The Year, Month, and Day. Revealed at last!”
Comments
Post a Comment