General Articles

Home

---

The Case for Christ’s Dec. 25th Birth

The Nativity of Christ and Death of Herod the Great, Commentary on Matthew Two

Commentary on Matthew Chapter One Star of Bethlehem or Nazareth? Chronology of Herod’s Reign - W.E. Filmer

Herod's 1  B.C. Death
Demonstrated by
Synchronized Chronology Martin’s “Star that Astonished the World” Refuted Dating the Birth of Christ and Death of Herod The Year of Christ’s Birth Corrected - W.E. Filmer The Age of John the Baptist Is Christmas Lawful, or Pagan?

 Puritanical Curmudgeons and the War Against Christmas

The Enrollment of Cyrenius

Eusebius on the Age of Christ at his Baptism and Length of his Ministry

Textual Tradition of Hippolytus' Commentary on Daniel

The Age of John & Christ

Calendrical Works

(Chronology, the Calendar & Reconstructing the Priestly Courses)

Table of Priestly Courses

Metonic Table of Leap Years 26 B.C. - A.D. 70 Jewish New Year

Jewish Calendar Babylonian Calendar Julian & Gregorian Calendar

The Calendar, the Nativity, and the Kingdom and Coming of Christ

Alexandar Philip - 1921
The Calendar: Its History, Structure and Improvement

Samuel Butcher - 1877
The Ecclesiastical Calendar
 

Historical Works

William Cave 1676
Primitive Christianity W.F. Dawson 1902
Christmas: Its Origins and Associations William Sandys 1860
Christmastide: Its History, Festivities, and Carols T.K. Herevy 1888
The Book of Christmas G. W. Edwards 1909
The Book of Christmas Harpers Magazine 1883
Christmas & Puritan Dissenters National Magazine 1893
Puritans as Christmas Haters R. Chambers 1883
The Book of Days - A Miscellany of Popular Antiquity Joseph Hayden 1851
Dictionary of Dates and Universal Reference

The Veneral Bede
Coelifrid’s Epistle to Naitan

_____________


Contact Us

Herod's 1 B.C. Death Demonstrated

by Synchronized Chronology

 

Gerard Gertoux, Phd

[Editor's note: This is a immensely learned and valuable study proving beyond contradiction that Herod died in 1 B.C.  However, we do disagree with the author's dating the birth of Christ to September 26, 2 B.C., as it is based upon certain unproved assumptions and contradicts Luke's gospel, which says Jesus had not turned 30 at his baptism in early November, A.D. 29. We also feel that the evidence favors placing Herod's death closer to Passover in March, 1 B.C., rather than Jan. 26th as proposed by the author. Even so, the author's contribution to establishing the true year of Herod's death is invaluable.  Our thanks to Gerard Gertoux for allowing us to post it here.]

The dating of Herod's death has become the center of a controversy among eminent theologians supporting a date in March / April 4 BCE[1] and historians supporting another date, January 26, 1 BCE[2], based on synchronisms dated by astronomy. This controversy is not insignificant because, as in the case of Galileo, it is between two conceptions of truth: that which is based on the interpretation of religious authorities (theologians) and that based on the interpretation a scientific authority (astronomers)[3]. If we assume, as do historians, that the chronology is the eye of history, only the scientific authority holds the truth in history. Religious authorities do not like that scientists try to interpret some biblical data. For example, although he was a great scientist, Newton was unable to publish his biblical chronology[4] under penalty of being excommunicated. I have personally been able to verify that the chronology was a sensitive issue because when I included my Master2 inside my doctoral thesis[5], the defense had been canceled twice because of the proposed date of Herod's death (though validated in my Master2)!

            Data to calculate the date of death of Herod the Great come mainly from two historical sources carrying weight: the Gospels and the writings of Flavius Josephus. According to the texts of Luke and Matthew, Herod died shortly after the birth of Jesus (Lk 1:5, 30-31; Mt 2:1-23), which can be fixed in 2 BCE (Lk 2:1-2; 3:1). According to the texts of Flavius Josephus: Herod died after a day that the Jews observe as a fast which happened just before an eclipse of the moon (...); after he had reigned for 34 years from the time when he had put Antigonus to death, and for 37 years from the time when he had been appointed king by the Romans (...); before the Passover (Jewish Antiquities XVII:166-167, 191, 213). Josephus gives even a dozen other synchronisms that enable us to date the reign of Herod (39-2) concordantly, and his death on January 1 BCE. It seems that the first who proposed to date Herod's death in March 4 BCE was Academician H. Wallon[6]. Based on the coincidence of the partial eclipse of the moon of March 13, 4 BCE with the fast of Esther dated 13 Adar (March 12), he concluded that the reign of 37 years began in 40 BCE and ended in 4 BCE, and, therefore, that the birth of Jesus was to be set for December 25, 7 BCE. This calculation is wrong for three reasons: 1) the fast of Esther in the 1^st century did not exist simply because it did not appear until the 12^th century, after the works of Maimonides. Josephus also states that on 13 Adar was the Feast of Nicanor (Jewish Antiquities XII:412); 2) according to current astronomical calculations, the eclipse of March 13, 4 BCE had a magnitude of 36% only and had to draw attention that very few people in the early morning when it happened[7]; 3) when we want to reconstruct the life of Herod, if he died on March 4 BCE, we are confronted with a cascade of inconsistencies, if not insurmountable contradictions. It is impossible to make a reconstitution respecting the synchronisms mentioned by Josephus. It is easy to verify that these eleven synchronisms (highlighted) are perfectly consistent and contradict, without exception, the date of Herod's death in March 4 BCE (column B):

 

  A: year of reign according to a death in -1;  B: year of reign according to a death in -4; C: age of Herod ; D: year after the death of Antigonus; A.J. Jewish Antiquities; B.J. Jewish War

            Several of these synchronisms are easy to check: If Herod was 25 years old in 47 BCE he had to be 70 in 2 BCE, if his 28^th year of reign coincided with the end of the 192^nd Olympiad (in June 11 BCE) his 37^th year of reign began in April 2 BCE, if Antigonus was murdered in March 36 BCE, a period of 34 years later still brings in 2 BCE. The period of 34 years corresponds to the effective reign of Herod (The Assumption of Moses §6).

            The first years of Herod's reign are described by Josephus in great chronological details, which explains the discrepancy between his legal kingship received from Roman Senate in 40 BCE and the beginning of his effective reign in 36 BCE, dated year 3 on his first minting. According to Josephus, Herod came to Rome in winter (Jewish War I:279) at the end of the year 40 BCE (Jewish Antiquities XIV:487), since he conquered Jerusalem in July 37 BCE, just 3 years after his enthronement by the Romans in December 40 BCE (Jewish War I:343; Jewish Antiquities XIV:389). The Roman Senate named him king and celebrated his first day of reign (Jewish War I:285) on January 1, 39 BCE, because the posts of governors were awarded on that date[8]. After the capture of Jerusalem in July 37 BCE, Sossius, the governor of Syria, handed over King Antigonus to Marc Antony. Herod, fearing a possible restoration of Antigonus by the Roman Senate, greased Mark Antony's palm to kill his rival (Jewish Antiquities XIV:473,487-491). Mark Antony who left Italy for Greece in the autumn of 37 BCE, then went to Antioch which he reached in winter. Antigonus was executed when Herod took power[9]. The Roman historian Cassius Dio (History XLIX:22-23) confirms the chronological[10] data of Josephus. All these synchronisms involve Herod died between April 2 BCE and March 1 BCE[11].

            Although Josephus dates Herod's victory in July 37 BCE, he fixes the beginning of his effective reign in 36 BCE, as he states that Herod ended a Hasmonean era started 126 years earlier (Jewish Antiquities XIV:490). However, as he dates the beginning of the period in -162 the reign of Herod starts therefore in -36 (= -162 + 126). This figure is confirmed by two other indications of Josephus: a) the beginning of his reign is fixed 27 years after the victory of Pompey (Jewish Antiquities XIV:487) dated July -63, that is -36 (= -63 + 27) and b) 107 years before the destruction of the Temple (Jewish Antiquities XX:250) dated August 70, that is -36 (= -107 + 70 + 1, no year 0). A chronological reconstitution of the early years of Herod's reign follows:

 

            The first coins minted by Herod after his victory over Jerusalem (in July -37) are dated year 3, wrote L Γ in Greek[12] (opposite picture). Since Jewish reigns begin on Nisan 1 (April), this coin is therefore appears in April of 36 BCE. This method of reckoning reign, from Nisan 1 after an accession, was usual for kings of Judea (Talmud Rosh Hashanah 1:1). If Herod died in 4 BCE, year 3 of his reign would be in 38 BCE, two years before his victory, that is unlikely, moreover, at that date Antigonus still ruled Judea. The other synchronisms of the reign of Herod confirm this chronology.

            Because Herod was 70 years old when he died (Jewish Antiquities XVII:148) and as he was 25 years when he was made governor of Galilee (Jewish Antiquities XIV:158), in July -47, he died in a period from April -2 to March -1. The arrival of Caesar in Syria is narrated by Caesar himself (War of Alexandria LXV-LXVI). After the murder of Pompey (September 28, 48 BCE) he went to Egypt and then arrived in Syria in July -47, according to Cicero (Ad Atticum XI:20). During this stay of just one month, according to Suetonius (Lives of the Twelve Caesar - Caesar XXXV:3), he established a close, Sextus Julius Caesar, as governor of Syria and put Herod in charge of Galilee[13].

 

            Josephus mentions the age of Herod [of 25 years] in connection with his appointment as "governor" of Galilee, which fixes his birth to -72 in June / July.

            Josephus still relates that the battle of Actium took place in the 7^th year of Herod's reign[14] (Jewish Antiquities XV:121). As the war began in March -31[15] and it ended with the victory of Caesar (and Agrippa) against Cleopatra (and Antony) on September 2, 31 BCE, this allows to set the beginning in the 7^th year which goes from April -32 to March -31. If we fix the end of the war in the 7^th year, not the beginning, the death of Herod would be located (in his 37^th year) between April -1 and March 1. Both possibilities (died on January 1 BCE or January 1 CE) clearly contradict a death dated in 4 BCE.

 

            Herod rebuilt the city of Samaria and renamed it Sebaste in honour of the emperor (Jewish Antiquities XV:297-299), because Octavian had been awarded the title of Augustus by the Roman Senate on January 16, 27 BCE. The rebuilding of Samaria was probably completed by the end of the year -27[16]. Then, during this year [beginning in January -26], the 13^th of his reign (Jewish Antiquities XV:299-307), there was a terrible famine in Judea, which lasted about 2 years and required the intervention of the prefect of Egypt Gaius Petronius [in the early -24][17]. Shortly after the construction of Sebaste appears Varro [Murena] (Jewish Antiquities XV:342-345), the procurator of Syria from -25 to -23[18]. 

            If Herod died in -4, early in his 37^th year of reign, his 14^th year would go back in -27, date incompatible with the prefecture of Gaius Petronius beginning in late -25.

            According to Josephus, the arrival of Caesar in Syria is located after the 17^th year of Herod's reign (Jewish Antiquities XV:354). He added that on this occasion Herod decided to undertake the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem which is dated in the 18^th year of his reign (Jewish Antiquities XV:380) or in the 15^th year of his reign [after the death of Antigonus] (Jewish War I:401). If we refuse the precision "after the death of Antigonus", one is forced to admit that Josephus, or a scribe, later made a mistake. Dion Cassius situated the trip of Augustus in Syria in the spring when Marcus Apuleius and Publius Silius were consuls (Roman History LIV:7:4-6), in 20 BCE. Such as Jewish year begins in April, the months of February and March belong to the end of the previous year. 

 

            Josephus specifies (Jewish Antiquities XVI:136) that the 28^th year of Herod's reign expired (sic) in the 192^nd Olympiad [from July -12 to June -11]. 

 

            This high internal consistency of all these chronological data of Josephus indirectly confirms its accuracy.

            As noted previously, Josephus gives three chronological indications[19] when Herod died: (1) after a day that the Jews observe as a fast which happened (2) just before an eclipse of the moon (3); before the Passover (Jewish Antiquities XVII:166-167, 213). The Jews were fasting four times a year[20] (Zechariah 8:19): on Tammuz 17, Ab 9, Tishri 3 and Tebeth 10. It is noteworthy that Adar 13 was not fasted at the time because it was the Feast of Nicanor[21] (Jewish Antiquities XII:412). The Mishna (Taanit 2:10, Rosh Hashanah 1:3) also stipulates that there was no fasting at Purim in the month of Adar. The fast of the 7^th month (Tishri) was commemorating the murder of Gedaliah and the one of the 10^th month (Tebeth) was commemorating the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:1, Ezekiel 24:1,2) as recalled by Josephus (Jewish Antiquities X:116). The fast of Tebeth[22] 10 (January 5 in 1 BCE) actually preceded a few days the total lunar eclipse on Tebeth 14/15[23] (9/10 January in 1 BCE)[24].

            The Jewish religious year begins on Nisan 1. This particular day coincides with the first visible lunar crescent in Jerusalem after the spring equinox. Dates of equinoxes[25] and of first lunar crescents[26] for years 4 and 1 BCE follows: 

 

            The ancient Roll of fasts (Megillat Taanit 18b)[27] sets Herod's death on Shebat 2 (Megillat Taanit 23a), or January 26 in -1[28]. The date of Alexander Jannaeus' death is set on Kislev 7, but some believe (without justification) that it could be the date of Herod's death.

            Astronomy enables us to date the events mentioned by Josephus: (1) a memorial fasting followed by (2) an eclipse of the moon and then (3) Herod's death, three events which succeeded in a short time before Passover: 

 

            The agreement is excellent in 1 BCE, but in 4 BCE inconsistencies abound. Indeed, just before Herod's death there is no Memorial fasting, worse, on Adar 13 is a feast day (Feast of Nicanor) and the traditional date of Herod's death (Shebat 2) does not work anymore since it is located before, not after it (the date of 7 Kislev is worse).

            On the death of Herod, his sons sought the endorsement of Caesar Augustus to legitimize their royalty, as did Herod himself. Josephus explains that in the past: Caesar received the boys [in 20 BCE] with the greatest consideration. He also gave Herod the right to secure in the possession of his kingdom whichever of his offspring he wished (Jewish Antiquities XV:343). Herod being dead on 2 Shebat (26 January -1), the first year of effective reign of his sons could start at Nisan 1 (March 24, -1). Herod Philip did as his father. The coins (below) minted from his first year of reign in -1 are dated year 3, wrote L Γ in Greek[29], which referred to Herod's testament made at the end of the legation of Varus in -4, year being considered as an accession year (without having been co-regency).

            This point is crucial to understand the chronology of Herodian reigns. Indeed, fictional accessions, legally back-calculated, were not uncommon at that time[30]. All of the Herods acknowledged receiving their kingdom from Augustus (Jewish Antiquities XVII:244-246). A testament establishing the kingdom of Herod's sons was written in front of Augustus at the end of the legation of Varus (Jewish Antiquities XVII:202-210). This document served as a reference after the death of Herod to confirm the kingdom of his sons[31]. For that reason, just after the death of Herod, Archelaus rushed to Rome to validate by Augustus the testament of his father who made him king (Jewish War II:1-2). Similarly, Antipas disputed succession to the throne because he was referring to the first testament of Herod, who designated him as king, in his view that testament defeating its codicil (Jewish War II:20). Therefore, that testament, not Herod's codicils, had to be used to set the beginning of their statutory royalty because only the decision of Augustus, which validated it, was considered as a last resort (Jewish War II:20-21,28). Herod's sons have been legally established kings (in Rome) before taking office (in Jerusalem). Josephus relates Antipater's dialogue with his father: And indeed what was there that could possibly provoke me against thee? Could the hope of being king do it? I was a king already (Jewish War I:625-631). If it was only about the certitude of reigning, this explanation would have accused Antipater, because he would have been able to accelerate his accession to the throne by committing parricide, while in recalling that he was King already, Herod's death did not change anything for him; this argument had already been used in the past to prove his innocence (Jewish War I:503).

            According to Flavius Josephus, Herod Archelaus reigned 10 years. The 9^th year of his reign (Jewish War II:111), at the end of which he is deposited, is dated 6 CE according Dio (Roman History LV:25:1,27:5) and the beginning of his 10^th year (Jewish Antiquities XVII:342), marked by the end of the census of Quirinius, dated 7 CE[32] (Jewish Antiquities XVIII: 26). A chronological reconstitution of the early years of reign of Archelaus follows:

 

            The careers of governors of Syria were listed[33], making it possible to establish chronological synchronisms with the reigns of Herodian kings. 

             According to Luke 2:1: Now at this time Caesar Augustus issued a decree for a census of the whole world to be taken. This census — the first — took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. Justin located this event 150 years before the time he was writing his book (Apology I:34:2; I:46:1) or at the very beginning of our common era since he wrote about 148-152. The historian Paul Orosius precisely date the census of Augustus in the year 752 of Rome (Histories against the pagans VI:22:1; VII:3:4) or in 2 BCE. According to Josephus: Quirinius, a Roman senator who had proceeded through all the magistracies to the consulship and a man who was extremely distinguished in other respect, arrived in Syria, dispatched by Caesar to be governor of the nation and to make an assessment of their property. Coponius, a man of equestrian rank, was sent along with him to rule over the Jews with full authority. Quirinius also visited Judaea, which had been annexed to Syria, in order to make an assessment of the property of the Jews and to liquidate the estate of Archelaus. Although the Jews were at first shocked to hear the registration of property, they gradually condescended (...) but a certain Judas, a Gaulanite (...) threw himself into the cause of rebellion (...) Quirinius had now liquidated the estate of Archelaus; and by this time the registrations of property that took place in the 37^th year after Caesar's defeat of Antony at Actium were complete (Jewish Antiquities XVIII:1-4,26). Such registration of property (not people) does not correspond to the one performed at the birth of Jesus, for at least two reasons. Luke knew this record associated with a revolt and mentions it apart (Acts 5:37) specifying, as Josephus, that during this (second) registration "Judas the Galilean" rebelled (Jewish Antiquities XX:102)[34]. He also noted that Jesus' birth occurred during the "first record", which implies the existence of a second (recounted in the Acts). In addition, he does not mention any revolt during the first census. The first registration ( ), as the census of Apamea, was made to know the number of citizens and it is not to be confused with the one implemented in Judea by Quirinius when he came to ensure the liquidation of property of Archelaus after his disgrace, and of which Josephus says it was followed by an "evaluation ( )" of property. This two-step operation did not have the same nature, nor the same goal, or the same geographical scope as the previous one. It was conducted according to the principles of the Roman capitation and not according to Hebrew customs, and only covered the sole Judea, not Galilee. General censuses were performed every 5 years (= 1 lustre) as can be deduced from those reported by Cassius Dio[35].

            According to the periodicity of 5 years, we see that the first census, the one mentioned by Luke, fits exactly in the list of censuses, while the second one mentioned by Josephus, and in the book of Acts, was only a local census (in Judaea): 

 

            The census of Luke is in agreement with Roman history[36]. Since the census of Quirinius in Apamea is about people and was carried out in Syria[37], while the one described by Josephus was a census of goods (to liquidate the possessions of Archelaus) carried out in Judea, they have nothing in common, either in purpose or by the area covered. The census of Apamea should be compared with the one of Luke. The registration of the knight Aemilius Secundus, visible on the Titulus Venetus (CIL III 6687, ILS 2683), describes a census of Quirinius in Syria. According to this text, knight Q. Aemilius Secundus fulfilled his service in Syria under the authority of Quirinius, legate of Caesar (governor) in Syria, who had himself received the insignia of triumph (honorary distinctions) after the campaign against the armies of Taurus "Homonadenses" in Galatia (from 5 to 4 BCE).

Q[uintus] Aemilius Secundus s[on] of Q[uintus], of the tribe Palatina, who served in the camps of the divine Aug[ustus] under P. Sulpicius Quirinius, legate of Caesar in Syria, decorated with honorary distinctions, prefect of the 1st cohort Aug[usta], prefect of the cohort II Classica. Besides, by order of Quirinius I made the census of 117 thousand citizens of Apamea. Besides, sent on mission by Quirinius, against the Itureans, I took their citadel on Mount Lebanon. And prior military service, (I was) Prefect of the workers, detached by two co[nsul]s at the "aerarium [The State Treasury]". And in the colony, quaestor, aedile twice, duumvir twice, pontiff.

Here were deposited Q[uintus] Aemilius Secundus s[on] of Q[uintus], of the tribe Pal[atina], (my) s[on] and Aemilia Chia (my) freed.

This m[onument] is excluded from the inh[eritance].

 

           

 

In his cursus honorum the knight Secundus details his career. This type document describes the distinctions obtained in a chronological order. The inventory referred in the inscription, performed under the orders of Quirinius, is not the one made in year 6 CE which was due to the removal of King Archelaus and was confined in Judea, not Syria. Second, the census of the city of Apamea in Syria (which was a registration)[38] is followed by the mission in Ituraea [a small country full of brigands]. Now the citadel of the Itureans [whose name was Chalcis] was taken before (not after) Herod's death[39], as indicated by Strabo (Geography XVI:2:18-20) and Josephus (Jewish Antiquities XV:342-364)[40].

            The Breviarium of Augustus (in 2 BCE) was used to establish a new type of census to compile statistical data[41] (digestiones) obtained, inter alia, "to show off the wealth of Rome." In his eulogy, the first version was publicly displayed in the temple of Mars Ultor on May 12, 2 BCE, the Emperor Augustus announced the breviarium totius imperii[42] that he should let at his death in 14 CE, which contained according to Tacitus: a description of the resources of the State, of the number of citizens and allies under arms, of the fleets, subject kingdoms, provinces, taxes, direct and indirect, necessary expenses and customary bounties. All these details Augustus had written with his own hand (Annals I:11,4). This inventory had no known antecedent. It is this latter aspect of Breviarium that has most struck the ancient writers: Tacitus speaks of a "picture of the public power," Cassius Dio (Roman History LVI:33:2) a "general assessment" and Suetonius (Augustus CI:6) a "state of affairs of the Empire".

            Such an inventory had to concern "all the inhabited earth" at that time. Client Kings were treated essentially as Roman governors, according to Suetonius (Augustus LX). Thus, Judea, although it was a client kingdom, could hardly oppose the will of the emperor. In fact, it was placed under the supervision of the governor of Syria (Jewish Antiquities XIX:338-342). Herod had therefore to collaborate with Quirinius as did the city of Apamea. This census was ordered by the emperor, but its execution could not be done with the help of Herod. The Jewish kingdom listed the men "in the house of their fathers" (Numbers 1:18), that explains the movement of Joseph from Nazareth to his hometown of Bethlehem (Luke 2:3-4) to be registered[43], because the Jewish administration listed men according to their patrimonial place (Leviticus 25:10).

            This new conception of census is well described by Emperor Claudius, who writes: The census had no other object than the official statement of our resources (Table Claudienne de Lyon 78-80). We read in the Souda, a famous Byzantine encyclopedia dated 10^th century: Caesar Augustus, emperor, who chose twenty citizens distinguished by their morals and integrity, sent them to all parts of the world subject to the empire, to make the identification of people and goods. The corpus of agrimensores even specifies: According to the books of the surveyor Balbus, who at the time of Augustus, brought together in folders plans and measures, identified by him, of all the provinces[44]. Ancient authors such as Isidore of Seville (Etymologiarum sive originum V:36.4) and Cassiodorus (Varia III:52,6-8) were struck by the statistical aspect of this census aimed to describe all the resources of the empire. This special registration which took place at the time of Jesus' birth, unique in all the Roman annals (an inventory of the whole world!), had been announced in the biblical text: In his place will rise a king who will send an exactor [census taker] in the most beautiful part of the world [Palestine] (Daniel 11:20, Zadoc Kahn). Jesus' birth has been associated with an important event, easy to identify and date. The testimonies of the historians of the first six centuries[45] are also unanimous in dating the birth of Jesus around 2 BCE. Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata I:21:145). place the birth of Jesus 194 years before the death of Commodus (December 31, 192 CE) and Tertullian (Against the Jews VIII:11:75) place it in the 41^st year of the reign of Augustus[46] (which began from the second triumvirate of October -43, made official a few weeks later[47] by the law lex Titia, on November 27, -43) and 28 years after the death of Cleopatra (August 29, -30)[48]. By combining these data, the birth of Jesus must be fixed in 2 BCE in a period between September 1 and October 30[49]. Jesus is born about 4 months before the death of Herod.

            The biography of Quinctilius Varus is succinct[50], but he played an important role in the life of Herod, since, in presence of the emperor (in 4 BCE), he negotiated an agreement to grant the inheritance to his sons, and it is still him who was instructed to quell the various rebellions after his death. Herod's death should be dated to 1 BCE, because the intervention of Varus, after the death of Herod, is described as a war by Josephus (Against Apion I:34), yet the only war mentioned in the Roman archives in this region and at that time (around January 1 CE) is the one conducted by Caius Caesar. 

            The various denominations for the title of "governor" (of Syria) were dependent on the period 8 BCE to 17 CE. They are in agreement with the previous chronology: 

 

            After the death of Herod, Varus, governor of Syria (as strategist, not as commandant), quelled several rebellions, including the one of Simon narrated by Tacitus (Histories V:9). Josephus prefers to speak of war because all the legions of Syria were mobilized. Indeed, in this time Syria had been three major wars: the ones of Pompey (in 63 BCE), of Varus (Against Apion I:34) and of Titus (in 66-70). This war of Varus was conducted under the auspices of Caius (Cassius Dio LV:10:18), imperial legate of Caesar in the East from 1 BCE to 4 CE. It has been granted to him in the inscription on a cenotaph. The career of Gaius Caesar, the grand-son of Augustus, was very brief. An inscription[51] in a cenotaph of Pisa (CIL XI 1421; ILS 140) provides his cursus honorum and mentions as the only honorary remarkable action: a war beyond the outer limits of the Roman people during the year of his consulate (lines 8 to 10 of the inscription below). It is therefore important to identify this war and to date it. 

 

            Velleius Paterculus, who was an eyewitness to the career of Gaius Caesar, said: Shortly after this Gaius Caesar, who had previously made a tour of other provinces, but only as a visitor, was dispatched to Syria. On his way he first paid his respects to Tiberius Nero, whom he treated with all honor as his superior. In his province he conducted himself with such versatility as to furnish much material for the panegyrist and not a little for the critic (Roman History II:100). Velleius says that the career of Caius in the East began with Syria but he does not specify what were his "actions deserving of praise". Cassius Dio (Roman History LV:10a:4) says that Caius resided in Syria in the year of his consulate (beginning on January 1, 1 CE), coinciding with the war mentioned in the inscription on the cenotaph of Pisa. Caius left Rome for the East at the expiration of the powers of Tiberius (July 1 BCE)[52] but because of his age (18 years old when he left Rome), Augustus put in charge Marcus Lollius as rector of Caius, from 1 BCE until his disgrace in 2 CE, and then Quirinius. The usual date of January 29, 1 BCE, marking the departure of Caius Caesar to the East[53], as evidenced by a fragment of the Fasti of Praeneste, could be link with the departure of Tiberius to the East[54] (enacted on January 29, 22 BCE) to retrieve the Roman standards taken by the Parthians, according to Suetonius (Life of Tiberius IX:1), not to Caius Caesar. The Roman standards were recovered about December 21 BCE, according to Cassius Dio (Roman History LIV:9).

            According to Roman historians, Caius came to the East with a proconsular imperium (previously held by Tiberius) primarily to address issues of Parthia and Armenia, and for this reason that his actions in Syria are seen by them as secondary. The only Latin author to talk about the campaign in Syria is Pliny (Natural History XII:55), which recounts a glorious campaign of Caius in "Arabia", general term for Syria (Natural History VI:141), which involved Aretas IV, Arab king of the Nabataeans (Jewish War II:68-70). This self-proclaimed king (in 9 BCE) was endorsed by Rome (in 1 CE) thanks to his support for the army of Varus after the death of Herod[55]. The role of Caius Caesar beside Varus was more honorary than decisive because Josephus (Jewish War II: 25.68) briefly presents him either as the son of Agrippa or as the friend of Varus. According to Tacitus (Annals II:30:4, IV:66:1), Quirinius and Varus were indeed intimate of Augustus and therefore of Caius.

            Conclusion: All historical synchronism of the reign of Herod (a dozen) provide, without exception, a date of the death toward the end of the year 2 BCE. In addition, the lunar eclipse mentioned (unique in all the work of Josephus) is dated January 9/10, 1 BCE, 5 days after the fast of 10 Tebeth, which is a remarkable confirmation. In 4 BCE, not only there was no fasting, but a feast (Nicanor). Finally, the census of Quirinius is well documented as it coincides with the inventory of the world in 2 BCE and the War of Varus, after Herod's death, under the auspices of Caius Caesar, is dated in 1 CE. I presented these findings to Maurice Sartre, a leading French academic expert on these issues. His letter-writing response was scathing: I was an ignorant impertinent (because I had dared to challenge his assertions by arguments), furthermore, I had absolutely to refer to his works to discover the basic elements of history.

            In his view[56]: The passage in Luke throws a trouble spot since he places the census directly related to the birth of Jesus: it is to fulfill the obligation to be identified so that Joseph and Mary would have gone to Bethlehem and Jesus would be born. This can only have occurred long after the death of Herod because John the Baptist, older than a few months, was born and was designed at the time of Herod. There was considerable information on the epilogue of Luke, without finding a solution that saves it. Let alone the date, in fact all of the information appears unbearable. Not only there never was a general census of the Empire (except for Roman citizens), but even if the census was confined to the Roman province of Syria, there is no reason why the subjects of client State of Antipas were concerned (...) how Luke could he be so wrong by combining the census — if it took place in 6 AD — with the birth of Jesus, which occurred, according to Matthew 2.1, at the end of the reign of Herod, probably in 6 or 5 BC (...) After the departure of P. Quinctilius Varus, governor since 7 BC and still in place at the time of Herod's death (he repressed the revolt in Jerusalem), he was replaced directly by L. Calpurnius Piso Pontifex, who remained in place until 1 BC. Therefore, there is no vacancy for a first term of Quirinius.

            According to this prestigious and powerful academic[57], in fact all of the information [from Luke] appears unbearable (...) how Luke could he be so wrong. Who to believe, Luke or Sartre? In any case, one of them is either an incompetent historian or, worse, a liar. When you know that there is no evidence to prove the presence of L. Calpurnius Piso Pontifex[58] in Syria[59], the answer is obvious.

 

______________________________

Adoration of the Shepherds

 

---

All rights reserved.

▲ Top of page