صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

ART. VIII.-1. Das Geburtsjahr Christi; | 6 of the Common Era, Judæa was reduced to a geschichtlich-chronologische Untersuchun- Roman province, and Publius Quirinus, who gen von A. W. Zumpt. Leipzig, 1869. was sent over as Governor of Syria, proceed2. Fasti Sacri, or a Key to the Chronology ed to take in hand the business of the of the New Testament. By Thomas Census. Or, as Josephus states it, 'MoreLewin, Esq., of Trinity College, Oxford, over, Quirinus came himself into Judæa, M.A., F. S. A. London, 1865. which was now added to Syria, to take an account of their substance and dispose of Archelaus's money.

ALL Biblical students have long since been aware that the Common Era, computing events from the Nativity of Christ, and fixed in the 753rd year from the foundation of Rome, is altogether untrustworthy. It was first devised by Dionysius, an abbot of the sixth century, and first brought into general use under the Carlovingian Kings. But, however well it might pass muster in an uncritical age, a very slight examination sufficed to show that it was wholly at variance with the first chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel. This a very few words will make plain. We may deduce from Josephus that Herod the Great died in the spring of the year 4 before Christ according to the Dionysian Era.* Taking then into account the Flight into Egypt, and the Massacre of the Innocents as recorded by St. Matthew, it is impossible to place the Nativity of Christ later than five years before the period that is commonly assigned.

Thus far there is no difficulty. Nor is there any other connected with chronology in the whole first Gospel. But on passing to the third, we find ourselves greatly perplexed. St. Luke tells us at his outset that his narrative begins in the days of Herod, the King of Judæa.' When, however, he comes to the taxing of the Roman empire, or at least of the province of Judæa, which brought Joseph and Mary to be taxed at Bethlehem, he makes mention of Cyrenius, more properly according to the Roman form Quirinius, or, if we desire to be most accurate of all, Quirinus. The words of St. Luke in this passage are rendered as follows in our Authorized Version: And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria.'

It is at this point that our perplexities begin. We learn from St. Matthew that, upon the death of Herod, his son Archelaus was appointed to reign in Judæa in his room. We learn from Josephus that, after ruling for not quite ten years, Archelaus was deposed and banished by the Emperor Augustus. Then, and then only, that is in the year

[ocr errors]

It would seem, then, at first sight, as though St. Luke had placed the birth of our Lord some ten or twelve years later than the date which other and equal authorities compel us to assign.

But supposing this difficulty solved-and we will presently show how many attempts have been made to solve it-there is still a subsequent text which is far from being clear. St. Luke goes on to give a precise date-the only precise date, we may observe in passing, that is given by any one of the four Evangelists. He adduces the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, Pontius Pilate being Governor of Judæa.' Now, Augustus, having died in his own month of August, a. D. 14 of the Common Era, the fifteenth year of Tiberius may be taken to point to A. D. 29. In that year, continues St. Luke, 'the word of God came unto John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness.' A period somewhat later, by a few months at least, must be ascribed to our Lord's own baptism and the commencement of his ministry. At that time, says St. Luke, 'Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age.' So it stands in our Authorized Version, but, perhaps, more accurately, as follows, in the note to Tischendorf's edition: And Jesus himself, when he began, was about thirty years of age.' Now, then, taking his Nativity for the reasons already given, not later than the year 5 before the Common Era, it would follow that at the commencement of his ministry he must have been, not as St. Luke states, about thirty '—woeì Tv тρiákоvтa-but at least thirty-four or thirty-five years of age.

[ocr errors]

These difficulties-and above all those connected with the taxing' of Quirinus— have exercised in no small degree the ingenuity of commentators. Most various have been their expedients. Some have declared the whole parenthesis about Quirinus to be an early gloss and interpolation of the text. Others, observing that Sentius Saturninus had been Governor of Syria some time before the death of Herod, desired, although *Ant. Jud.,' lib. xvii. c. 8. See the Essay by with no authority from manuscripts, to subM. Freret in the Mémoires de l'Académie des Institute his name for that of Cyrenius in St. scriptions,' vol. xxi. p. 278.

Matt., c. ii. verse 22.

[ocr errors]

Ant. Jud.,' lib. xvii. c. 15; and Bell. Jud.,' lib. ii. c. 7.

*Ant. Jud.,' lib. xviii. c. 1. We give the words from Whiston's version.

Mr.

Lake. This, it appears, no less an authority | favourably noticed in this country.
than Tertullian was willing to do.* Other
changes in the text were proposed by others.
Some, without tampering with the words,
attempted to construe pwrn in the sense of
Tрorépa; the meaning of St. Luke being, as
they alleged, to explain that the Census
which caused the journey to Bethlehem dif-
fered from and was earlier than, the Census
of Quirinus. There seems, however, no
adequate motive for such a reflection on the
part of the Evangelist, and that construction
would be moreover a force upon the Greek.
Leaving the words as they stand, there has
also been more recently an ingenious but
fanciful theory. There was only one Census,
it is said, but that interrupted in its progress.
As commanded by Augustus, and as com-
menced, we may suppose, in the year 5 be-
fore Christ according to the Common Era, it
may have proceeded so far that Joseph and
Mary, and many more, went down to their
own city to be taxed. But Augustus, in his
indulgence, having perhaps relented, the new
taxation may have been laid aside and not
resumed till twelve years afterwards, when
Judæa was reduced to a province and Quiri-
nus sent out as Governor. By this theory
the first chronological difficulty might per-
haps be explained away; but then this theory
rests only on conjecture without one shred
of evidence or corroborative testimony.

Lewin has adopted it in his able and com-
prehensive, though not always convincing,
work on the New Testament Chronology
which we have named second in the heading
of this article.* Dr. Alford, Dean of Can-
terbury, whose untimely death, even while
these pages are passing through the press, we
observe with deep concern, has on two occa-
sions given to the theory of Dr. Zumpt the
sanction of his high authority; first, in 1860,
in the article 'Cyrenius,' which he contributed
to Dr. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible,' and
again, in 1863, in the corresponding passage
of his own excellent Commentary on the
Greek Testament.

On the whole, then, this parenthesis of St. Luke about Cyrenius has remained obscure. Strauss, in his 'Life of Jesus,' points to it with exultation as to one of those points in which he desires to convict the Gospels of contradiction or inaccuracy. On the other side the ablest commentators have been willing to allow that the passage is difficuk, and has not yet received that full elucidation of which it would doubtless admit.

It is therefore with especial pleasure that we welcome this publication of Dr. Zumpt. We gather from the Dedication that the author was a favourite pupil of Dr. Twesten, the eminent Professor of Theology in the University of Berlin; and we are informed that, as a classic scholar and exponent of Roman History, he enjoys a very high reputation in Germany. This gentleman has devoted a whole volume to the point at issue, and propounded a careful and consistent theory upon it.

On neither occasion, however, has the Dean gone into the case at all fully. Zumpt,' he says, in his Commentary, by arguments too long to be reproduced here, but very striking and satisfactory'

But this Latin Dissertation of Dr. Zumpt― only known, as we imagine, to the highest class of Biblical scholars-has been recently succeeded by a book from the same hand in a living language. Here the theory in question is both more fully stated and more forcibly defended. As it stands before us in its full proportions, we cannot but acknowledge its force and power. Proceeding, as it does, by the way, not of vague conjecture, but of sound historical deduction, it seems to us to explain the entire difficulty, and to establish the accuracy of the Gospel narrative on this point beyond the reach of future cavil.

It is not, however, the date of the Nativity that is alone concerned. Dr. Zumpt, in this volume, points out that, on his first theory, combined with another which he urges, the exact date of the Passion also may be probably deduced. Under these circumstances, it has seemed to us that a fuller exposition of the case than has hitherto been afforded in this country, might perhaps be welcome to many English readers.

In this attempt we do not propose, however, to follow through every wandering the footsteps of Dr. Zumpt. So great-so very great-are his stores of learning and his powers of research, that they have sometimes led him into collateral narratives or illustrations not at all essential to his argument. We, neither possessing his vast erudition nor That theory, indeed, is not altogether new. inclined to make so unmerciful a use of it, It was first propounded by Dr. Zumpt, in a shall confine ourselves to the main proofs by Latin essay which appeared at Berlin in which his positions are defended. We hope, 1854: Commentatio de Syriâ Romanorum therefore, while giving an account of his provincia ab Cæsare Augusto ad T. Vespasi-discovery,' as Dean Alford has justly termed anum.' Since that time it has been most

* ' Advers. Marcion,' lib. iv. c. 19. VOL. CXXX.

L-18

*Fasti Sacri,' p. 132, ed. 1865.

it, to be able to present it to the public in a | since he had been Consul in the year 12 beplainer and more popular form. fore Christ.

At the very outset the word 'first' (or TрT) in the text is perhaps sufficient to afford a clue, or at least to suggest an inquiry. Might not Quirinus have held the office of Governor of Syria, not once only, but on two occasions-first, in the year 4 before the Christian Era, when Judæa, after some preparations and announcements, was taxed according to the Jewish manner, each man repairing to his own city for that purpose; and secondly, in the year 6 after the Christian Era, when Judæa, reduced to a Roman province, was taxed according to the Roman fashion, and when Quirinus was sent out for the second time to the same post? Were such the case, the words of St. Luke, in strict grammatical construction, would mean only that the Census preceding the birth of Christ was the first Census taken under Quirinus, as distinguished from the second.

Such, then, briefly stated, is the theory that Dr. Zumpt and Mr. Lewin desire to maintain. But was the fact really so? Did indeed Quirinus fill his Syrian office at an earlier date? Now, for the events of this epoch in the East we have, in general, two separate and trustworthy authorities, the one Roman, and the other Jewish, Dion Cassius and Josephus. It so happens, however, by a singular coincidence, that both of these fail us at this particular point, exactly for the same period of time. There is an interval in the history of Dion Cassius, arising from a break in the manuscript, from the year 6 before Christ till the year 4 after, according to the Common Era. Josephus relates very fully the reign of Herod the Great, and also the first events in the reign of his successor, but breaks off abruptly at the marriage of Archelaus to his brother's widow, and does not resume his narrative until the accusation brought against this prince in the tenth year of his reign, when he was summoned to Rome by Augustus, and deposed. For the fact, then, which we are seeking we have no direct historical testimony, either in proof or disproof. We can only proceed by historical inference, which, as all students of history know, is sometimes quite as convincing as

the former.

The Governor or 'Legatus' of Syria was at this time one of the most important officers of the Roman Empire-representing the person of the Emperor, not merely in the province, but in any adjacent and dependent kingdom. To fill this post, a previous Consulship was a necessary qualification; and such, we may observe in passing, was possessed by Quirinus, even at the earlier period,

We find that Caius Sentius Saturninus, a man also of Consular rank, administered Syria from the year 9 to the year 6 before Christ. In the later year, he was succeeded by Publius Quinctilius Varus, another Consularis, so well known subsequently from his terrible disaster in the German forests. Owing to the break in the established histories, as already explained, we lose sight of Varus in his Eastern course after the summer of the year 4. Our next direct evidence as to this succession of chiefs is derived from a coin which was struck at Antioch eight years later, that is, in the autumn of the year 4 after Christ, and which names Lucius Volusius Saturninus as the Roman Governor of Syria.

It does not seem probable that Varus continued in Syria much beyond the Autumn of B.C. 4, when all trace of him ceases. It was a maxim laid down under Augustus, for the better administration of the Roman Empire, that no Governor having command of an army in a province should, so far as was possible to apply one uniform rule, be left at his post for less than three years or for more than five;* by the former limitation obtaining the benefit of some experience, and by the latter guarding against ambitious hopes and schemes of independent authority. In practice, however, it will be found from the instances adduced during this reign, that the period of three years was much more frequent than the term of five, although occasionally, and after an interval, the term of office was renewed. It is thought by Dr. Zumpt and Mr. Lewin that Varus was called away from Syria soon after the term when he is last named in connection with that province, and that he was immediately succeeded by Quirinus.

We come now to the proofs. Quirinus survived till the year 21 of the Christian Era, and Tacitus, while recording his death, has rapidly sketched his career.

'Quirinus,' he says, 'was born at Lanuvium, lated to the ancient patrician family of the Sula municipal town; and he was in no wise repicii; but being a brave soldier, was for his vigorous military services rewarded with the consulship by the Divine Augustus; and soon after with triumphal honours for having stormed the strongholds of the Homonadenses in Cilicia. Next, when Caius Cæsar was sent to bear sway in Armenia, Quirinus was appointed his guardian, and at the same time paid court to Tiberius, then in exile at Rhodes.'

* Dion Cassius, lib. lii. c. 23.

+ Nihil ad veterem et patriciam Sulpiciorum

[ocr errors]

Tacitus goes on to state, in a passage which | filled the Consulship in former years. The does not so immediately concern us, that question then arises, whom Augustus, on Tiberius, on account of former friendship, sending his grandson into Syria, was likely to pleaded warmly for the honour of a public select as his guide and guardian. Dr. Zumpt funeral to Quirinus, which the Senate accord- maintains that it must have been some man ingly decreed as the Emperor desired. To already conversant with Eastern affairs, and others, adds the historian, the memory of that in all probability it was the Governor of Quirinus was far from grateful, on account this very province and the chief of the army of the dangers to which, as elsewhere ex- stationed there. He holds, then, that Quiriplained by Tacitus, his wife Lepida had nus was at this time Governor of Syria, as through his means been exposed, and also were also, in succession to him, first Lollius on account of his own avaricious and over- and then Censorinus. bearing old age.

It is to be observed that Tacitus, in the passages which we have quoted, does not give, or profess to give, all the main incidents of this statesman's career. He says nothing, for example, of the government of Syria, which Quirinus held in the year 6 after Christ, or of the memorable Census, as recorded by Josephus, which he then enforced on his province. It is very natural that the first government in the year 4 before Christ should, in express mention, be omitted also. But still the few facts which the Roman historian does allege are of the highest value for the question now before us.

We have first to consider the Caius Cæsar to whom Tacitus is here referring. This was the grandson and presumptive heir of Augustus. In the first year of the Christian Era he was despatched by the Emperor to Syria, proceeding from thence to Armenia to wage war against the Parthians. To this young prince, then, as Tacitus tells us, Quirinus was appointed guide or guardian (rector). It appears, however, that for some reason not explained, Quirinus did not long hold that office. We find Suetonius name another man of Consular rank, by name Marcus Lollius, as acting in the same capacity to Caius (comes et rector) as the war proceeded.* It proved disastrous both to chief and adviser. Caius received a wound before the town of Artagera of which he never recovered, and he expired in the year 4 of our Era. Lollius was suspected of treacherous communication with the enemy, and died, it is said, of poison administered by his own hand.

Lollius, as we learn from another historian, was succeeded by Censorinus,t-Caius Marcius Censorinus, that is, who had also

familiam Quirinus pertinuit, ortus apud municipium Lanuvium, sed impiger militiæ et acribus ministeriis consulatum sub Divo Augusto, mox expugnatis per Ciliciam Homonadensium castellis, insignia triumphi adeptus, datusque rector Caio Cesari Armeniam obtinenti, Tiberium quoque Rhodi agentem coluerat.' (Tacit. 'Annal. lib. iii. c. 48)

* Suetonius 'Tib.,' c. 12.

Velleius Paterculus, lib. ii. c. 120.

Dr. Zumpt has certainly one strong instance to allege, so far as analogy can guide us. In the year 17 after Christ, Tiberius, then Emperor, sent on a mission to the East his adopted son Germanicus, who, as regards the heirship of the Empire, stood in much the same relation to him as Caius Cæsar had done to Augustus. There was this difference, however, that while Caius was young and untried, Germanicus had experience in war. He required, therefore, not a guardian (rector), but only a helper (adjutor). Tiberius, desiring to appoint as such a man on whom he could thoroughly rely, recalled Creticus Silanus from the government of Syria, and set in his place Chæus Piso, who was directed at the same time to attend upon and assist the Prince.*

Taci

This argument does no more, we admit, than make the earlier government of Quirinus probable. But by another train of reasoning it becomes very nearly certain. tus tells us that Quirinus obtained the emblems of a triumph from his expedition against the Homonadenses in Cilicia. Some readers may feel surprise that we should here be eagerly discussing the affairs of an obscure tribe with an interminable name. Yet it is perhaps with this obscure tribe that lies the clue to the whole system of Gospel chronology. And first, When did this expedition occur? It is placed by Tacitus after the Consulship of Quirinus, and before his attendance on the grandson of Augustus. It must therefore have been some time previous to the year 1 of the Christian Era. Next, In what capacity did Quirinus obtain his triumph! It can only have been as Governor of the province to which this savage tribe was considered to belong. In the system of the provinces under the dominion of Rome, there was never any severance of civil government from military leadership. The same chief who conducted a war had at the same time the supreme administration of the province which was the scene, or had been the starting-point, of that war. It was not till the third century of our Era that a change

*Tacit. 'Annal.,' lib. ii. c. 43.

was made in this respect. So fixed was this rule, says Dr. Zumpt, that not even one single exception can be found to it up to the period which he names.

With this result to spur us, we may be willing, in company with Dr. Zumpt, to explore the scanty records of this robber tribe -for such the Homonadenses were. The sovereignty over them had been claimed by Amyntas, King of Galatia, who was slain by treachery in the year 25 before Christ, while attempting to subdue them.* At his death, Galatia became a Roman province, its first Prætor being that same Marcus Lollius who subsequently became the comes et rector of Caius Cæsar. The mountainous district of Cilicia-the rugged Cilicia, Cilicia Aspera, as the Romans termed it-had also formed part of the dominion of Amyntas, and it fell, at his decease, to Archelaus, King of Cappadocia. It is probable that the little. robber-land shared at this time the fate of Rugged Cilicia, and was afterwards with it embodied in the Empire. Certain it is that the predatory habits of this people roused at no distant date the resentment of Rome, and gave rise to the victorious expedition of Quirinus.

We have further to observe of the Homonadenses that they dwelt so near the confines of Cilicia as sometimes to be called its inhabitants, and sometimes only its neighbours. It is quite clear, however, from the express words of Tacitus, per Ciliciam, that, in the time the conquest of Quirinus was achieved, the Homonadenses were taken as within the Cilician borders. Per Ciliciam, we admit, is not exactly the same phrase as in Cilicià: it implies that these robber-fastnesses were scattered up and down the province, but it implies also as conclusively that. they were not beyond or outside of it. Now, as to Cilicia, there seems to be no doubt that all through that age, after it came under the dominion of the Empire, it was held to be a portion or dependency of the Syrian province. Of this there are several proofs, which we may state as follows:

In the year 16 after Christ, Vonones, expelled from his kingdom of Parthia, sought refuge with Creticus Silanus, Præfect or Governor of Syria. This Governor confined him in Pompeiopolis, Cilicia maritime urbem, as in a city subject to his Syrian jurisdiction.

*Strabo, 'Geogr.' lib. xii. c. 6.

Est contermina illi gens Homonadum quoram intus oppidum Homona.' (Plin. Hist. Nat.,' lib. v. c. 23, not 94 as we find it in Zumpt.) On the other hand, an expression of Strabo indicates that he reckoned them as Cilicians. (Geograph.' lib. xii. c. 6.)

In the year 19 after Christ, Cnæus Piso,* seeking to recover his province of Syria, sent to the petty chiefs (the reguli) of Cilicia, as though dependent on that province, to levy men for him.†

The Clitæ, as we learn from Tacitus, were among the tribes of Cilicia. We find that, in the year 36 after Christ, Vitellius, as Governor of Syria, sent his Legate, with four thousand legionaries, to reduce that tribe.§

Again, in the year 52 after Christ, we find another Præfect of Syria, Curtius Severus, march with his cavalry against the Clitæ.||

Thus also, in the year 72 after Christ, Antiochus, King of Commagene, being at Tarsus, a principal city of Cilicia, Cæsennius Pætus, then Governor of Syria, despatched a centurion to that city to arrest him and send him in bonds to Rome, thus treating Tarsus as a part of his own territory.

It follows, then, that when Quirinus commenced his expedition against these mountaineers, he did not outstep the bounds of his appointed jurisdiction, and was dealing with a dependency of the Syrian province.

He

The same conclusion as to his government at that time of this particular province is also arrived at by Dr. Zumpt through a different process-the process of exhaustion. inquires what province, if not Syria, Quirinus could have held in this campaign. Bithynia, Galatia, and Pontus are eliminated by him, as not being Consular provinces, or, in other words, not territories which had invariably for their Governor some chief, as was Quirinus, of Consular rank. There remain in the East only the province of Asia Proper and the province of Syria. But in Asia Proper, there were no troops; ** while in Syria four legions were stationed. From the latter province alone could have proceeded such warfare as would entitle the successful chief to triumphal honours.

It will be observed that these separate trains of argument all tend to one result. They render all but certain a former government of Quirinus in Syria-that government commencing probably in the latter months. of the year 4 before Christ, and continuing till the year 1 after Christ. Five years would then elapse before his reappointment, and during these five years it might very well be that he held the other Consular province in the East, the province of Asia Proper, as

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
« السابقةمتابعة »