JETS 54.1 (March 2011) 65–87

JOSEPHUS MISDATED THE CENSUS OF QUIRINIUS

john h. rhoads*

An enduring challenge for those reconstructing historical dates for the

life of Jesus has been the date for the census of Quirinius because the Gos-

pel-writer Luke and the rst-century Jewish historian Josephus dier on its

date. Luke, when read consistently with Matthew, dates the birth of Jesus

to both the reign of Herod the Great (Luke 1:5, cf. Matthew 2:19–22) and a

census under Quirinius (Luke 2:1–2). Josephus, on the other hand, reports

that Quirinius conducted his census long after Herod’s death, at the exile of

Herod’s son Herod Archelaus. So, either Luke or Josephus—at least as usually

construed—must be wrong.

For more than a century, the consensus has grown in favor of the account

of the census given by Josephus. In 1988, Daniel Schwartz of Jerusalem’s

Hebrew University declared, “[I]t seems fair to say that the scholarly consen-

sus today, shared even by many conservative Christian scholars, is that Luke

is wrong.” 1 For, as Luke Timothy Johnson asserts, “on the basis of exhaustive

research, Luke’s dates seem to be out of kilter: Quirinius and the census under

him do not match the other dates.” 2 When faced with such conicting accounts,

reconstructing history consists in establishing the most plausible, rather than

the absolutely certain, account of what really happened. The scholars who

share this consensus nd the Josephus account more plausible than the ac-

count provided by Luke.

Before oering a challenge to this consensus, signicant evidence in its

support must be admitted. First of all, while Luke’s gospel refers to this census

with only one sentence, Josephus relates a detailed narrative of the events

surrounding the census: Quirinius was sent into the region on the twofold

mission to take the census and to secure the property of Archelaus at the time

of his exile. Second, Josephus asserts an explicit date for this census—in the

37th year from Caesar’s defeat of Antony at Actium in 31 bc, that is, in ad 6

(Ant. XVIII, 26–28). Finally, Luke’s one sentence suggesting that Quirinius

was the governor of Syria at the time of the Jesus’ birth adds a further com-

plication since Josephus reports that Varus was governor of Syria from the

last years of Herod the Great until after Herod’s death and that Saturninus

* John Rhoads is assistant professor of theology at Concordia University, Chicago, 7400 Augusta

St., River Forest, IL 60305.

1 Daniel R. Schwartz, “On Quirinius, John the Baptist, the Benedictus, Melchizedek, Qumran

and Ephesus,” RevQ 13 (1988) 635.

2 Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (Sacra Pagina 3; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical,

1991) 49.

journal of the evangelical theological society66

was Syria’s governor before Varus. 3 Consequently, without an a priori as-

sumption of Luke’s accuracy, this evidence lends greater plausibility to the

account of Josephus.

Moreover, the plausibility of the account from Josephus nds further

support in the circumstantial evidence in support of ad 6 for the census.

This date matches the consular year that Cassius Dio reports for the exile

of Archelaus (Roman History 55.22, 6). Moreover, assuming this date of ad 6

for his exile, the start of Archelaus’s reign as ethnarch seems to match the

start of the tetrarchies of his two brothers—apparently with the death of

his father—in 4 bc: Josephus reports that Archelaus ruled 10 years before

his exile (Ant. 17.342 or 9 years according to J.W. 2.111) that Antipas, whose

latest extant coins were minted in his 43rd year, ruled until the second year

of Gaius or ad 38/39 (Ant. 18.238), and that Philip died after ruling 37 years

apparently in ad 33/34, the 20th year of Tiberius (Ant. 18.106). In fact, the

only competing explicit date for this census still extant from antiquity is the

one provided by Eusebius, who, writing his Church History in about ad 320—

more than two centuries after Josephus—asserts that this census occurred

in Augustus’s 42nd year and the 28th year from Actium, or 3/2 bc (Church

History 1.5). This date, which conveniently has Jesus at 30 years old in the

15th year of Tiberias—as suggested by Luke (Luke 3:1, 23)—still postdates

the reconstructed date of 4 bc for Herod’s death. 4 So, even if Eusebius were

right, Luke would still, apparently, be wrong in placing the census during the

time of Herod the Great. So, in addition to its more substantial treatment of

the census and its date, with its seemingly snugger t with other historical

data, the consensus has maintained its claim for greater plausibility than the

account provided by Luke.

This study will challenge the consensus. However, unlike most recent

attempts to vindicate Luke by seeking to reconcile Luke’s account with the

standard construal of Josephus, this study will directly challenge the plausi-

bility of the consensus itself. 5 Specically, this study will argue on the basis

of source criticism that the most plausible history underlying Josephus’s nar-

rative and the sources on which he relies do not actually t the sequence of

events as construed by the consensus. Without reference to Luke or other

Christian sources, this study will advance source-critical arguments similar

to those made a century ago by Theodor Zahn, W. Lodder, Friedrich Spitta,

3 According to Luke 2:2, Quirinius was exercising hegemony over Syria. Luke uses the participle,

ἡγεμονεύοντος, which was translated into the English of the King James Bible and later versions as

“was governor,” however, this specicity in identifying the oce held by Quirinius is not required

by the Greek participle used by Luke.

4 Recently, arguments have been made in defense of a 1 bc date for Herod’s death. For one recent

argument with references to the further discussion, see Andrew Steinmann. “When Did Herod the

Great Reign?” in NovT 51 (2009) 1–29.

5 For a helpful catalogue of approaches to this problem which focus on Luke’s text see Stanley

Porter, “The Reasons for the Lukan Census,” in Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in

Honour of Alexander J. M. Wedderburn (ed. A. J. M. Wedderburn and Alf Christophersen; London/

New York: Sheeld Academic Press, 2002) 165–88.

josephus misdated the census of quirinius 67

and W. Weber, even though this study was largely completed unwitting of

their previous work. 6

This study, like those conducted by the earlier scholars, will argue that the

account which Josephus tells of the census conducted by Quirinius, and the

corresponding revolt by Judas the Galilean, is actually a mistaken duplication,

broadly speaking, of events which occurred much earlier. In fact, this study

goes beyond those of Zahn, Spitta, and Weber by arguing that the census

began before Herod the Great’s death. In other words, this study will oer

a new reconstruction of the history based on the sources on which Josephus

relied, a reconstruction which will be both more plausible than the standard

construal of Josephus and also vindicate Luke.

i. source criticism of josephus

During the last twenty-ve years, Daniel Schwartz and others have devel-

oped some fruitful insights into the historiography of Josephus which have

highlighted the susceptibility of Josephus to mistaken duplications and to

reporting contemporaneous events from dierent sources as if they happened

at dierent times. For example, Schwartz has argued that the embassy of

Agrippa I to Judea in ad 38 under Claudius, reported at Ant. 18.238–39, was

mistakenly duplicated, based on a dierent source, at Ant. 19.292–99 as if it

were Agrippa’s arrival a few years later as the ruler of Judea. 7 Again, he ar-

gues that the trip of Vitellius to Jerusalem in order to dismiss Pontius Pilate

reported at Ant. 18.90–95 was mistakenly duplicated in Ant. 18.122–26 as a

trip occurring in the following year. 8 This second example displays the fruit-

fulness of this source-critical approach since the standard reading resulted in

the historically unsatisfying conclusion that either Pilate’s reportedly rushed

return to Rome still took a year or that the message of Tiberius’s death took

at least seven weeks to reach Vitellius, the governor of Syria. As Schwartz

argues, a mistaken duplication is a simpler, more cogent, and more plausible

explanation of the underlying sources than either conclusion based on the

standard reading. Since this study similarly seeks to answer a question of

actual chronology, it follows Schwartz’s approach which has produced admi-

rable results.

6 I commend this earlier work to the reader, especially that of Lodder whose work this study has

largely armed. This study will, especially in its nal section, highlight evidence and conclusions

also used and reached by these authors. I will cite them directly when their studies provide spe-

cically helpful additional discussion. T. Zahn, “Die Syrische Statthalterschaft und die Schätzung

des Quirinius,” NKZ 4 (1893); W. Lodder, Die Schätzung des Quirinius bei Flavius Josephus. Eine

Untersuchung: Hat Sich Flavius Josephus in der Datierung der Bekannten Schätzung (Luk. 2,2)

Geirrt? (Leipzig: Dörling & Franke, 1930); F. Spitta, “Die Chronologische Notizen und die Hymnen

in Lc 1 U. 2,” ZNW 7 (1906); W. Weber, “Der Census des Quirinius nach Josephus,” ZNW 10 (1909).

7 D. R. Schwartz, Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1990) 11–14; cf.

idem, “Pontius Pilate’s Appointment to Oce and the Chronology of Josephus’ Antiquities, Books

18–20,” in Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity: Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen

zum Neuen Testament, 60 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992) 197–98.

8 D. R. Schwartz, “Pontius Pilate’s Suspension” 202–17.

journal of the evangelical theological society68

The historiography of Josephus. This study builds on the following insights

into the historiographic method of Josephus reconstructed by Schwartz and

others. 9 First, Josephus organized his history along the skeleton provided by

Judean rulers, giving the ruler’s central events rst supplemented by other

events that occurred during that reign, and, if a delay occurs between the

ruler’s appointment and his taking oce, Josephus presented “other” material

before that ruler’s central events. In other words, Josephus apparently pre-

sorted the events recorded in his sources by Judean ruler before he began to

rely on them in writing his history. Furthermore, since Josephus supplements

his history with long background narratives based on their usefulness to

his narrative focus rather than their chronological beginning or ending,

chronological overlaps are at times evident. Finally, through comparison with

known sources, it has been shown that, in Antiquities, Josephus often marked

a change of source with a phrase such as “at this time” or “and this was the

reason.” This reconstructed methodology has sought to vindicate Josephus

since one standard history has criticized that the last few books of Antiquities

“seem to have been written in weariness” and that “the sources are often

employed not only negligently, but also—at least, where it is possible to check

them—with great freedom and arbitrariness.” 10 Schwartz has argued, to the

contrary, that his reconstructed methodology explains chronologically the

placement of all but two pericopes within the period of the Roman governors

from ad 4 to ad 66. 11 So while these insights into the methodology of Josephus

may disclose mistaken duplications, they also serve to vindicate Josephus from

the charge of arbitrariness and negligence.

Sources used by Josephus. In addition to these insights into the meth-

odology of Josephus, Schwartz’s work has also provided identities for some

of his likely sources for this time-period. In writing his rst account, Jewish

War, Josephus relied not only on Nicolaus of Damascus but also had a source

sympathetic to Antipas as well as a history likely coming from Philo. 12 Then,

in Antiquities, he supplemented the narrative he based on these sources with,

at least, another narrative source sympathetic to Agrippa I. 13 Josephus also

inserted references from a high priest succession list into his Antiquities

narrative at points which he judged most tting, especially if precise dating

was unknown. 14 Naturally, other yet unidentied sources are also possible. So,

in addition to a reconstructed methodology of how Josephus worked, this study

9 Daniel R. Schwartz, “Kata Touton Ton Kairon: Josephus’ Source on Agrippa II.,” JQR 72/4

(1982); H. G. M. Williamson, “Historical Value of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities 11:297–301,” JTS

28 (1977).

10 Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 b.c.–a.d. 135):

A New English Version (rev. and ed. Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T & T

Clark, 1973) 1.58. Hereafter, SVM.

11 Schwartz, “Pontius Pilate’s Appointment” 194. Schwartz argued in “Kata Touton Ton Kairon”

that one of these two pericopes reected a confusion Josephus was having with his sources. The

other unexplained pericope is the famous statement about the rebel Theudas.

12 Schwartz, Agrippa I.

13 Ibid.

14 Schwartz, “Pontius Pilate’s Suspension” 213.

josephus misdated the census of quirinius 69

will assume that Josephus was using these main sources whose characteristics

Schwartz has identied.

ii. judas and joazar: candidacy for source criticism

With this method and these sources in mind, it becomes possible to bet-

ter investigate the history of events underlying the narrative reported by

Josephus. For it must be remembered that Josephus relied on limited sources

which he used in order to suit the purpose of the history he wanted to tell.

Since neither he nor most of his sources were infallible, deism is not, and

should not be, the historian’s rst and only move. Moreover, despite the fact

that this time period—between the death of Herod the Great and the rebellion

of ad 66 to 73—reects the times memorable to grandparents, parents, and

others known to Josephus, this time period, chapters 18–20 of Antiquities,

has posed a signicant challenge to historical reconstruction. As mentioned

above, the standard account suggested Josephus used his sources for this

period negligently and with arbitrariness. Consequently, this investigation

follows Schwartz and others in seeking to redeem Josephus from this charge

of arbitrariness, albeit at the expense of adopting methodological deism.

This study was prompted by the similarity of three descriptions of an

insurgent or insurgents named Judas active during the relevant time period,

each associated with ostensibly conicting accounts of the high priest Joazar:

First account (Ant. 17.148–67): A narrative of a Judas son of the Sepphorean 15

who gathers a group of young disciples around himself and a teacher named

Matthias teaching zeal for the law of Moses and the expectation of lasting re-

ward in the face of death. Judas and his followers raid Herod’s Temple to tear

down an eagle from its gate and are captured. Herod the Great orders those

directly involved to be burned alive. Herod also deposes the previous high priest

and promotes Joazar apparently in response to this insurrectionist activity.

Second account (Ant. 17.269–85): A catalogue of disturbances plaguing Judea—

reported while Archelaus is in Rome seeking conrmation of his father’s will—

mentions that Judas the Galilean, son of Hezekiah, active around Sepphoris,

Galilee raised an insurrection to raid Herod’s armory. Josephus reports that

Archelaus deposes Joazar both before and after his trip to Rome, and for dif-

ferent reasons.

Third account (J.W. 2.117–18; Ant. 18.4–23): A teacher named Judas the Gali-

lean—who gathered a group of disciples around himself and another teacher

named Sadducand who focused on zeal for the law of Moses and willingness to

die in the expectation of lasting reward—raised a revolt against the taxation

tied to the census of Quirinius. Josephus reports that the high priest Joazar

persuaded the people to go along with the census, and Quirinius deposes Joazar

before the census is complete. Josephus reported no reappointment for Joazar.

The last two accounts are linked by referring to Judas as Galilean, and the

rst and third accounts are linked by the similarity in the religious activity

15 We will have reason for considering this patronymic in more detail below.

journal of the evangelical theological society70

attributed to Judas, in partnership with another teacher. 16 As will be later

developed, the rst and second accounts are also related by reference to Sep-

phoris and the father of Judas. If the three accounts reect the activity of the

same Judas, and if each account is accurate, the activity must have occurred

before the death of Herod the Great, given that in the rst account Herod

orders the execution of Judas.

This possibility of mistaken duplication in these accounts also prompted

the studies mentioned earlier. Zahn, followed by Spitta and Weber, argued

that the second two accounts reect the activity of the same Judas shortly

after the death of Herod the Great. Lodder went farther and, as this study

will do, argues that all three accounts reect the activity of the same Judas.

The arguments of Zahn were dismissed by Schürer on two accounts: one,

that “the stories of the two rebellions of Judas are so dierent” that “the

theory of a mistaken duplication is unjustiable” and two that “Josephus is

so well informed on the history of the High Priests” that Zahn’s “theory of

mistaken duplication is unjustiable.” 17 The rst response concerning Judas

seems o-point since this study, like those which came before it, will argue

that these rebellions are the activity of the same man, not the same activity.

The second response, concerning the high priesthood also seems to fail. Seth

Schwartz of Hebrew University, Jerusalem has labeled the attempts of both

E. Mary Smallwood and Ernst Bammel to reconstruct the rationale for reap-

pointments and dismissals “fantastic elaborations of Josephus’ paltry and

self-contradictory narrative about Joazar.” 18 James VanderKam responded to

Smallwood’s reconstruction by averring, “It is more dicult to understand why

Quirinius would have deposed the high priest who had just proved so helpful

in making the census palatable to Judeans.” 19 Despite the dismissive attitude

of its critics, these accounts still warrant source-critical attention.

Therefore, this study will examine the relevant texts of Antiquities of the

Jews in light of the recent insights into Josephan methodology to determine

whether source-criticism might support this suspicion of mistaken duplica-

tion. This study will rst assume that the evident parallelism between the

accounts of Jewish War and Antiquities, even with parallel shifts in sources,

was not coincidental but the result of Josephus intentional reworking his

earlier narrative in light of the original sources. Second, this study will seek

to identify where Josephus shifts his reliance to a dierent source and, as

much as possible, the identity of these sources. It will then argue on the basis

of these results why Josephus located each account where he did within his

narrative and why understanding all the accounts as reecting activity dur-

16 For the taxation revolt, Josephus labels Judas as a Galilean in J.W. 2.118 but a Gaulonite in

Ant. 18.4. The Galilean label, however, receives some conrmation from Luke in Acts 5:37.

17 SVM 1.425.

18 Seth Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics (New York: Brill, 1990) 60, n. 7; cf. E. Mary

Smallwood, “High Priests and Politics in Roman Palestine,” JTS 13 (1962) 20–21; Ernst Bammel,

“Joasar,” ZDPV 90 (1974).

19 James C. VanderKam. From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis:

Fortress, 2004) 419.

josephus misdated the census of quirinius 71

ing the last days of Herod the Great becomes the more plausible explanation

of these accounts.

First account: last days of Herod. As we will see, source criticism of the

rst account, Ant. 17.148–67, will disclose two important facts necessary for

historical reconstruction. First, the account of the raid on Herod’s temple to

tear the eagle down from its gate stems from a separate source than the source

which reports Herod’s death and his preparation for death. Second, the report

of the promotion of Joazar to the high priesthood stems from the high priest

succession list and not one of the main narrative sources. Consequently, we

will not need to conclude that Joazar was promoted to the high priesthood after

the eagle-raid insurrection, at the time when Judas was executed.

First, the raid on Herod’s temple to tear down the eagle from its gate

stems from a dierent source than the main narrative. Josephus marks o

this account, Ant. 17.148–67, from the foreground narrative through his use

of the discourse marker, διὰ τοιαύτην αἰτίαν, “on account of such a reason.” 20

Moreover, Josephus establishes an inclusio in both J.W. and Ant., by resuming

at Ant. 17.168 and J.W. 1.656 his discussion of Herod’s worsening malaise. So,

in the foreground narrative, Josephus had been relying on one source which

reported the last days of Herod the Great, his worsening illness, his pursuit of

a cure, and Antipater’s attempt to bribe his way out of jail, etc. From another

source, Josephus then introduced this rst Judas account as a background

narrative to characterize one cause of Herod’s distress. Consequently, the

exact chronological placement of the narrative is uncertain beyond the fact

that Herod executed the insurgents and that Josephus believed this execution

occurred shortly before Herod’s death. Josephus provided the rst account

of Judas as background information on the last days of Herod the Great for

which he was otherwise relying on a separate source.

Moreover, in support of this conclusion, we can hazard a reasoned inference

on the sources which Josephus was using. The foreground narrative provides a

somewhat negative and unsympathetic portrait of Herod during his last days.

It not only reports his worsening health but also reports his plan to have, at the

time of his death, the leaders of major families massacred in the Hippodrome

in order to provoke national mourning. It further favorably features Herod’s

sister Salome—who later in Rome would side with Antipas against Archelaus,

Herod’s choice of successor—and highlights, when reporting Herod’s will, that

Herod was in sounder mind when he had left the kingdom to Antipas. So, we

presume that this foreground narrative relies on the Antipas source identi-

ed by Schwartz. The background narrative about the Judas insurrection, on

the other hand, is sympathetic to Herod. Although it reports the activity of

Judas and his colleague Matthias as rabbis zealous for the Law of Moses, it

also highlights Herod’s speech in which he portrays his own building of the

temple as worship—in contrast to the rebels’ sacrilege in tearing the eagle

from its gate. Moreover, this background narrative shows Herod having mercy

20 H. G. M. Williamson, “The Historical Value of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities XI. 297–301,”

JTS 28 (1977) 49–66.

journal of the evangelical theological society72

on the crowds, only punishing those who were directly involved in the revolt.

Since this point of view, sympathetic to Herod, matches our expectation for

Herod’s friend Nicolaus of Damascus, we conclude that it originates from

this other known source. The shift in sources initially identied on the basis

of the discourse marker is armed by each suspected source having its own

coherent point of view.

Second, in addition to these two main narrative sources, Josephus also

introduces within the background narrative, at Ant. 17.164b–66, information

regarding the promotion of Joazar to high priest. Josephus marks this new

material o from the Nicolaus of Damascus source through an inclusio dened

by a reference to Herod’s removal of Matthias, not the insurgent, from the

high priesthood in both Ant. 17.164 and 17.167. Furthermore, some of this

material which has no counterpart in Jewish War suggests that it stems from

his use of a high priest succession list. 21 Since this reference to Herod’s pro-

motion of Joazar comes from a dierent source than Nicolaus of Damascus,

it is possible that the promotion of Joazar was tied to a dierent insurrection

than the one that resulted in the death of Judas. As was his custom, Josephus

introduced the information from the high priest succession list in the point of

his narrative in which it seemed to best t. The promotion of Joazar to high

priest need not have resulted from the eagle-raid insurrection which resulted

in the death of the rst Judas.

Still, consideration of the account of Herod’s funeral demonstrates that

Josephus was not acting arbitrarily either in his introduction of this promo-

tion of Joazar or in his introduction of the Judas narrative from Nicolaus of

Damascus into his report of Herod’s last days. Indeed, Josephus reports that

one of the causes of unrest and disturbance at the time of Herod’s funeral was

the fact that mourners of Judas and Matthias took Herod’s death as vindica-

tion for the cause of their Rabbis (Ant. 17.206, 213). In fact, these mourners

of Judas and Matthias demanded that Archelaus remove the high priest from

oce whom Herod had installed, a demand to which Archelaus apparently

agreed (Ant. 17.207–208). So, since the followers of Judas and Matthias were

still mourning them during Herod’s funeral and since they were demanding

the removal of the high priest, Josephus had reason to connect the promotion

of Joazar to the eagle-raid insurrection which occurred shortly before Herod’s

death, even though the sources need not have made the connection between

Joazar’s promotion and this particular insurrection.

Before continuing to the second account of an insurrectionist Judas, it will

be helpful to identify, as much as possible, the sources which Josephus was

using in this account of the funeral. As the funeral account begins, Josephus

seems to be relying on Nicolaus of Damascus for the foreground, or main,

story line, Ant. 17.200–205, 213–23. This shift to relying on Nicolaus rather

than the Antipas source for the foreground narrative corresponds to the start

of J.W. Book 2. Josephus then introduces an account of the Passover distur-

bances, Ant. 17.206–12, from an unknown source, marked by the phrase, Ἐν

21 Josephus seems to have further supplemented this account by a story for why another high

priest substituted for Matthias for one day, marked o at Ant. 166 with “αἰτία δ’ ἐστὶν ἥδε.”

josephus misdated the census of quirinius 73

τούτῳ, “at this time.” Although the resumption, at Ant. 17.213, of reliance

on the Nicolaus source is unmarked, the events reported in Ant. 17.213–18

clearly reect the same activity, from a slightly dierent perspective, as the

Passover disturbances just described by the unknown source. Further vindica-

tion for identifying Nicolaus as the source for the foreground material will be

presented in the next section.

Second account: A catalogue of disturbances. Turning to the second

account of an insurrectionist Judas, we will see that source criticism of Ant.

17.269–85 discloses reasons for considering this rebel to be the same Judas

active before the death of Herod. 22 First of all, we will see that this account

once again serves as part of a background narrative stemming from a dierent

source than the one on which Josephus had been relying. For example, its

temporal sweep goes, at least with respect to the future, beyond the scope

of its placement within the foreground narrative. Secondly, we will see that

comparison of the activity of Governor Varus of Syria in this background

narrative with his activity which Josephus reports elsewhere suggests that

Judea was facing disturbances before Herod’s death. Consequently, the

possibility will arise that—even though this account seems to recount activity

after the death of Herod the Great—the Judas the Galilean attack on Herod’s

armory may have actually occurred prior to the Herod’s death.

Again, Josephus introduces the catalogue of disturbances, which includes

the account of Judas the Galilean’s raid on the armory, as a background nar-

rative from a new source. He uses both a discourse marker, ἐντούτῳ, “at this

time,” and an inclusio formed through repetition of the claim that Judea was

lled with insurrections in order to set it apart, Ant. 17.269–85 and J.W.

2.55–65. In the foreground narrative, Ant. 17.250–68 resuming in 17.286–98,

Josephus reported that while Archelaus was in Rome, Caesar received a letter

from Varus, reporting on a revolt of the Jews, apparently provoked by Sabi-

nus, Caesar’s procurator for Syrian aairs who had been seeking to secure

Herod’s property by force. Josephus then reports from a separate source this

account of four dierent insurgencies, including the one by Judas, which were

reportedly representative of the ten thousand occurring in Judea “at that

time.” Consequently, the historical chronology of the reference to Judas in

the catalogue of disturbances must be considered open since it does not come

from the same source reporting the events in Judea after Herod’s death and

after the departure of Archelaus to Rome.

Indeed, it immediately becomes clear that this catalogue of disturbances

cannot be interpreted as simply recounting various revolts occurring in Judea

while Archelaus was in Rome since it reports the end of the nal disturbance

as occurring after Archelaus had been installed as ethnarch upon his return.

In other words, this catalogue of disturbances is clearly a case of Josephus

22 While it goes beyond the scope of this paper to argue for a particular source, we have reason

to suspect that the source for this catalogue of disturbances is the same as the unidentied source

for the Passover disturbances. Lodder, Schätzung des Quirinius 11, observed that the phrase, ἐπὶ

μέγα, occurs almost exclusively in Antiquities in books 15b to 19. In book 17, Josephus uses this

phrase ten times, three times in the Passover pericope and ve times the catalogue of disturbances.

journal of the evangelical theological society74

linking a long background narrative to a narrative focus point rather than its

chronological beginning or ending. So, since the end of the catalogue postdates

its placement within the narrative in which Archelaus was still in Rome, the

question arises whether the start of the catalogue also predates its placement

in the narrative referring to disturbances possibly even before the death of

Herod.

However, addressing this question requires consideration of the two main

narrative accounts of the disturbances in Judea after Herod’s funeral as well

as the activity of Syria’s governor, Varus, and Caesar’s procurator of Syrian

aairs, Sabinus. Josephus rst reports the travel of Varus and Sabinus in Ant.

17.219–23 paralleled in J.W. 2.14–19. In the wake of the previously mentioned

Passover disturbances after Herod’s funeral, Josephus reports that Archelaus

went to Caesarea where he encountered Sabinus hastening the other way

to Judea to take charge of Herod’s property in Caesar’s name. Then Varus

arrived to persuade Sabinus to hold o. Afterwards, Archelaus sailed from

Caesarea toward Rome while Varus returned to Antioch. However, Sabinus

reportedly then went to Judea anyway, seized Herod’s palace and sought con-

trol over all of Herod’s eects.

In the second account of post-funeral activity and political travel, Josephus

reports, Ant. 17.250–55 and J.W. 2.39–42, that Varus, who was already in

Judea after Archelaus sailed, punished the authors of a great disturbance and

restrained sedition before returning to Antioch, leaving one legion behind in

Jerusalem. Then Sabinus, after Varus returned to Antioch, either stayed be-

hind (ὑπομείνας, Ant. 17.252) or arrived (ἐπελθὼν, J.W. 2.41) and began seizing

Herod’s property, taking command of the legion left by Varus. As Pentecost

approached, that is, less than 50 days after Herod’s funeral at the time of the

Passover, Sabinus was under siege in Jerusalem and writing to Varus who

was again back in Antioch, for help.

These two accounts of political travel defy straightforward historical

reconstruction. If the two accounts of Varus travelling from Judea to Antioch,

Ant. 17.222 and 17.251, refer to the same trip, how can it be that in the rst

account Varus apparently returns to Antioch after being with Archelaus in

Caesarea before Archelaus set sail for Rome while in the second account Varus

returns to Antioch after being in Judea ghting o a disturbance after Arche-

laus sails? Yet, if the two accounts refer to two trips, then dierent problems

arise. First of all, fty days seems to be insucient time to account for all

the activity: Varus would have been in Caesarea with Archelaus shortly after

Passover, persuaded Sabinus to stop his rush to Judea, traveled from Caesarea

to Antioch after Archelaus sailed, then went back to Judea with at least a

legion in order to suppress a major disturbance and then returned again to

Antioch, before Sabinus arrives in Judea in order to seize Herod’s property,

to get into his own battles, and to nally nd himself under siege writing to

Varus back in Antioch for help at the time of Pentecost. Moreover, according

to this reconstruction Sabinus would have “immediately,” διὰ τάχους, gone to

Jerusalem to secure Herod’s property after Varus left the rst time, J.W. 2.18,

but still waited until after Varus had traveled back and forth from Antioch

with his army, suppressed several disturbances, and left again before actually

josephus misdated the census of quirinius 75

“arriving” or “remaining” to cause problems. Naturally, whether one assumes

that Varus made either one trip or two trips, the shift from reporting that

Sabinus “arrived,” as in J.W., to reporting that he “remained,” as in Ant., is

a problem.

As we consider sources, we see that the rst account likely stems from

Nicolaus of Damascus. This report is written from the standpoint of Caesarea,

and we know Nicholas was with Archelaus at that time and throughout his trip

to Rome. Furthermore, this source-attribution arms the previous attribu-

tion of the foreground narrative of this section to Nicolaus since a connection

exists between Archelaus’s humble refusal to take the honor of king until

Caesar’s approval in that earlier narrative, Ant. 17.202, and the response of

the citadel-keepers to Sabinus that they kept the property for Caesar in this

one, Ant. 17.223. In further support of Nicolaus as the source for the rst ac-

count, we note that at Ant. 17.224 Josephus uses the expression, “At the same

time,” κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν καιρὸν, to mark his shift to a new source which was

likely his Antipas source since Josephus then reports on the trip of Antipas

to Rome and provides details of Antipas’s inner circle. So, we attribute this

rst account, then, to Nicolaus.

On the other hand, the second account of the travels of Varus and Sabi-

nus likely stemmed from the Antipas source. While the earlier account was

written from the point of view of Caesarea, this account was written from

the standpoint of Judea and the events there. In addition, this latter account

begins with reference to the κύρωσις, or settlement, of aairs, a Greek word

which Josephus otherwise uses only three times, two of them in the foreground

narrative of Herod’s last days, a narrative which we have already attributed

to the Antipas source. 23 So, we attribute this account to the Antipas source.

With these two sources in mind, we conclude that the most likely resolu-

tion to the apparent conicts between them stands in favor of construing

the two accounts as each reporting, from its own perspective, the one trip

of Varus to Antioch and Sabinus to Jerusalem. One of the challenges noted

above for this suggestion was the fact that the second account refers to Varus

handling tumult in Judea after Archelaus sailed, Ant. 251, and before return-

ing to Antioch. However, since this latter account has been credited to the

Antipas source—which has an identied penchant for seafaring terms—and

here reects the point of view of Jerusalem, it likely referred not to the actual

“sailing” departure of Archelaus from Caesarea by boat but simply his depar-

ture from Jerusalem, presumably eventually on to Rome by boat. 24 On this

reconstruction, the Jewish War report of Sabinus “arriving” in Jerusalem after

Varus’s departure—apparently to from Caesarea where Varus had tried to re-

strain him—rather than “remaining,” as in Antiquities, was likely the original

and matches the earlier account from the Nicolaus source. Perhaps Josephus

“corrected” his source to “remaining” because he failed to appreciate that his

two sources were reporting the same travel.

23 According to the Perseus search tool, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu.

24 According to Schwartz, the Antipas source “likes to mention seafaring,” for example, verbs

of sailing. Schwartz, Agrippa I 178.

journal of the evangelical theological society76

With this reconstruction in mind, Varus, then, had at least one legion in

Judea handling disturbances already at the time of Archelaus’ departure from

Jerusalem, just slightly more than a week after Herod’s death. In other words,

Varus likely had his legions in Judea already at the time of the funeral. This

conclusion further suggests the likelihood that disturbances occurring already

before the death of Herod may have been one reason why the unrest at the

funeral was “foreseen by Varus” and that “it was manifest that the nation

would not be at rest” (J.W. 2.40). Moreover, since Varus met with Archelaus

in Caesarea before the latter’s departure for Rome, he must have at least

established enough semblance of peace shortly after Herod’s death that he felt

he could aord to return to Syria but not enough to keep him from leaving one

legion behind. In other words, Varus was not handling one revolt after another

while in Judea immediately after Herod’s death before returning to Antioch.

Instead, it seems likely that Varus had been responding to some uprisings

which occurred prior to Herod’s death and immediately thereafter.

This harmonization of the travel accounts of Sabinus and Varus will now

helpfully inform our consideration of the catalogue of disturbances, including

its mention of the Judas active in Galilee. As we noted above, the last insurrec-

tion listed—the revolt led by Athrongas who was called a king—overlapped the

ethnarchy of Archelaus and so is readily dated to a time after Herod’s death

and into the rst part of his son’s reign. Moreover, the catalogue, in describ-

ing the prolonged battle between Athrongas’s forces against both Romans and

the king’s men, credits Gratus, one of Herod’s generals with subduing one of

Athrongas’s brothers. When Varus returned to Jerusalem in response to the

request of Sabinus under siege, Gratus was one of the generals he dispatched

to pursue insurrectionists. The Athrongas revolt dates readily to the time not

only after Herod’s death but after Archelaus left Judea for Rome.

Before its reference to Athrongas, the catalogue of disturbances discussed

Simon who also claimed to be king and burned the royal palace at Jericho

before being killed by Gratus. Since Herod reportedly used his Jericho palace

during his last weeks, we can reasonably conclude that Simon’s revolt also

occurred shortly after the death of Herod. This conclusion is supported by

Tacitus who in Histories 5.9 reported that Simon claimed the crown at the

death of Herod and was punished by Varus. This report would also correspond

with the role Gratus played under the command of Varus. So, since the period

being described during this early stage of the conict ts the time period

between the death of Herod and the start of the ethnarchy of Archelaus, we

have reason to believe that these last two disturbances are, in part, reected

in the earlier account of the activity of Varus in returning to Judea while

Archelaus was in Rome. Alternatively, perhaps Varus handled the revolt of

Simon before he left Judea the rst time and engaged the forces of Athrongas

and his brothers when he returned.

With this possible chronology of the last two disturbances of the catalogue

in mind, we will skip back to its start and look for clues to the chronology

of the rst two revolts from the catalogue. In the rst disturbance, veteran

soldiers of Herod’s army revolt, and Herod’s cousin Archiabus unsuccessfully

brought an army against them. Here, we see that Josephus’s source describes

josephus misdated the census of quirinius 77

this revolt only in relation to Herod the Great. So, having been freed from the

assumption that these events must be tied to the post-Herod period, we might

reasonably infer that this activity took place during the last days of Herod

the Great. Josephus then reports the activity of Judas the son of Hezekiah in

Galilee between this event, which may have occurred before Herod’s death,

and the events which clearly occurred at and right after Herod’s death. So,

while it is not possible to date the activity of Judas son of Hezekiah based

on this catalogue of disturbances alone, being sensitive to Josephus’s use of

sources, we must be open to the possibility that this insurgency by Judas also

occurred before the death of Herod the Great.

Third account: Revolt at the time of the census of Quirinius. Finally,

source criticism of Josephus’s account of the taxation revolt also discloses

a signicant reason for suspecting how Josephus may have chronologically

misplaced this activity by ten years. In this section, we will focus on the

dierences apparent between Jewish War and Antiquities in order to suggest

that although Josephus may have originally tied this event to ad 6 in keeping

with Coponius as the rst post-Archelaus Roman prefect, he later backed o

this connection without abandoning the date. We will argue that he should

have backed o this connection even further. In the following section, we will

consider other implications of this conclusion.

A signicant dierence immediately appears between how Josephus reports

this story in J.W. 2.117–18 and how he reports it in Ant. 18.1–10. Although

the latter account focuses on Quirinius, Josephus makes no mention of either

Quirinius or why he came to Judea in Jewish War but instead simply reports

that the revolt occurred under the administration of Coponius as the rst

prefect of Judea at the time of Archelaus’s exile. In Antiquities, Josephus

reports signicantly more detail concerning the taxation revolt, including the

role played by the high priest Joazar in persuading the people to participate

with Quirinius in the census. Only much later—even after a brief mention of

the res gestae of Philip and Antipas—does Josephus at Ant. 18.29 mention the

prefecture of Coponius, reminding the readers that he arrived with Quirinius.

From these details, we can provisionally surmise how Josephus might have

originally organized his narrative, without yet considering either his explicit

date for the census or his rationale for the arrival of Quirinius—neither of

which is mentioned in Jewish War. Although Josephus makes no mention of

Quirinius at all in his Jewish War report of the taxation revolt, its content

is fully explanatory by the assumption that it relies on the same underlying

source as the parallel account from Antiquities. Postulating that Josephus—

who knew Coponius as the rst prefect of Judea after Archelaus’s exile—had a

source, reected in Ant. 18.2, which said that “Coponius, a man of equestrian

rank was sent together with [Caesar’s man Quirinius] to have dominion over

the Jews, with complete authority,” then Josephus might reasonably have

reported in J.W. 2.117 that Coponius was sent “as a procurator [epitropos],

having the authority of death put into his hands by Caesar.” In other words,

the account from Jewish War suggests that Josephus assumed his source was

talking about the arrival of Coponius as prefect in ad 6, although the text

journal of the evangelical theological society78

as it stands in Antiquities does not attribute this purpose to Coponius. The

explicit date provided for the census stems from an apparently new source

used for Antiquities.

Now, based on the reconstructed methodology, we infer that Josephus,

in preparation for writing Jewish War, had already led the taxation revolt

narrative as an event in the prefecture of Coponius. The source, as reected

in Antiquities, does report that Coponius arrived with authority over the Jews.

So, in J.W. 2.117–18, Josephus links the arrival of Coponius to the start of

his reign as the rst post-Herodian Roman prefect and mentions the revolt of

Judas as occurring at that time. However, in writing Ant. 18.1–10, Josephus

does not make this same connection between Coponius and Judas but men-

tions the administration of Coponius only much later, in Ant. 18.29. According

to Schwartz, this way of reporting events suggests that Josephus no longer

considered the taxation revolt as occurring within the reign of Coponius but

rather as “other” activity from about the same time—when a delay occurs

between the appointment and the installation into oce of the new ruler.

So, we have reason to suspect that although Josephus originally thought the

events occurred under the administration of Coponius, he changed his mind.

In writing Antiquities, Josephus had an additional source on the basis of which

he reported that “after already selling Archelaus’s possessions and while the

taxations were reaching an end,” Quirinius deposed Joazar as high priest (Ant.

18.26). Perhaps Josephus felt the need to correct his assumption that Coponi

us immediately took oce since, as prefect of Judea, Coponius likely would

have had this authority to depose and appoint high priests as exercised by

his successor Gratus (Ant. 18.34–35). Consequently, it appears that Josephus

originally led the account of the taxation revolt under the administration of

Coponius when writing Jewish War, but, for whatever reason, changed his

mind when writing Antiquities.

The question then arises whether the explicit date for the census and the

rationale which Josephus provides for the arrival of Quirinius in some way

stem from the original assumption rather than as stand-alone facts. This

question will be considered as we make the source-critical case for mistaken

duplication.

iii. the source-critical case

We will now argue that, in fact, this third account—like Josephus’s nar-

rative for the start of the reign of Agrippa I according to Daniel Schwartz—

reects a misplaced arrival. First, we will argue that the three accounts of

an insurrectionist named Judas actually portray the same man active in the

last years of Herod the Great. Next, we will look again at the varying ac-

counts of the High Priest Joazar against this historical backdrop and in light

of Josephus’s use of his sources. Then, we will discuss Quirinius and how he

ts within Josephus’s narrative of the last days of Herod the Great. Finally,

we will argue for the plausibility of this conclusion through an examination

of Josephus’s account of the census itself to show how the event may have

been misplaced by ten years.

josephus misdated the census of quirinius 79

Judas the Galilean. As mentioned briey above, the iconoclastic Judas of

the rst account was identied, in part, by reference to his father. 25 According

to Niese’s critical text of J.W. 1.648, Josephus identies the eagle-raid

Judas as the son of Sepphoraeos, Ἰούδας υἱὸς Σεπφεραίου, but in the parallel

passage of Ant. 17.149, as the son of Saripheus, Ἰούδας ὁ Σαριφαίου. However,

according to the critical apparatus, textual evidence exists for the Σεπφεραίου

reading in some manuscripts of Antiquities, but no manuscript evidence for

Jewish War exists in support of the Saripheus reading—the only variants

reect alternative spellings of Sepphorean with most manuscripts reporting

Σεπφωραίου. Comparing the name, Sepphoreaean, with the name Nazarene or

Ναζωραῖος which Luke 18:37, for example, uses for a man from the Galilean

town of Nazareth, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Judas of the rst

account was properly identied as the son of the Sepphorean. This Judas was

the son of a famous person who was identied in connection with the Galilean

capital, Sepphoris. 26 Furthermore, Lodder has argued that a shift from a

geographic name, Sepphorean, to the more common family name, Saripheus,

is understandable since late Jewish literature makes reference both to the

house of Seripha and to the sons of Seripha. 27 Regardless, the weight of the

textual evidence supports the conclusion that the Judas responsible for the

iconoclastic assault on Herod’s temple and its oending eagle was known as

Judas the son of the Sepphorean.

This highlighted patronymic gives reason to identify the iconoclastic eagle-

raid Judas from the rst account with the armory-raid Judas of the second

account. For, the Judas of the second account is similarly identied by a

patronymic: Judas the son of Ezekiah, Antiquities, or Hezekiah, Jewish War.

This Hezekiah was killed by Herod the Great as a Galilean bandit about four

decades earlier. Moreover, in the second account, Josephus’s source identies

Judas’s location as Sepphoris. Consequently, it is not unreasonable to suspect

that the Galilean bandit Hezekiah may have been known as the Sepphorean.

So, although these inferences are certainly not demonstrative proof, they do

warrant the suspicion that these two insurrectionists named Judas, each iden-

tied by reference to their Galilean fathers, Hezekiah and the Sepphorean,

are the same man.

Now, the consensus, as represented by Schürer, has already been that the

Galilean Judas of the second account is identied with the Galilean Judas

from the third account who was responsible for the taxation revolt. 28 This

view maintains that the two accounts report events that occurred ten years

apart. However, we now have reason to look more closely at the comparison

between the iconoclastic Judas of the rst account with the taxation-hating

Judas of the third, a comparison which we briey noted as prompting this

source-critical study. This comparison discloses that the teaching of Judas

25 This connection was also noticed by Lodder, who provides a more complete discussion.

26 Cf. Lodder, Schätzung Des Quirinius, especially 41–44.

27 “In der spat-jüdischen Literatur ist wohl von einem Beth-Seripha und von Bene-Seripha die

Rede” (ibid. 41).

28 SVM 1.381: “Judas of Gamala in the Golan, called the Galilean (he is no doubt identical with

Judas son of Hezekiah mentioned on p. 332), made it his mission. . ..”

journal of the evangelical theological society80

son of the Sepphorean of the rst account, as it is presented in Jewish War,

strongly resembles that of the Judas of the third account from Antiquities—

both translations by Whiston, with supplement from Josephus’s account of

Pharisee doctrine:

There were two men of learning in the city [Jerusalem] who were thought the

most skillful in the laws of their country, and were on that account held in very

great esteem all over the nation; they were, the one Judas, the son of Sepphoris,

and the other Matthias, the son of Margalus. There was a great concourse of the

young men to these men when they expounded the laws, and there got together

every day a kind of an army of such as were growing up to be men. . . . Now the

king had put up a golden eagle over the great gate of the temple, which these

learned men exhorted them to cut down; and told them, that if there should any

danger arise, it was a glorious thing to die for the laws of their country; because

the soul was immortal, and that an eternal enjoyment of happiness did await

such as died on that account; while the mean-spirited, and those that were not

wise enough to show a right love of their souls, preferred a death by a disease,

before that which is the result of a virtuous behavior. [J.W. 1.648–49a, 650b]

But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author.

These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions—[perhaps, “that

souls have an immortal rigor in them, and that under the earth there will be

rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously

in this life”]—but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that

God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds

of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor

can any such fear make them call any man lord. [Ant. 18.23, with a bracketed

quote from Ant. 18.14 on Pharisees]

Both the Judas of the rst account and the Judas of the third gathered a

crowd of young men around themselves and one other key teacher with a

focus on the teaching of God’s law and on condence in the face of death. In

other words, if these accounts refer to the same Judas, the Saddok from the

third account likely refers to Matthias, son of Margalus from the rst. The

similarity in teaching combined with the cooperation of another rabbi gives us

reason to suspect that these two accounts of a Rabbi Judas reect the activity

of the same man. Therefore, we now have independent reasons for identifying

the Judas of each account with each of the others.

Joazar the high priest. Now with these reasons in mind for seeing one

Judas behind all three accounts, we turn to consider the various accounts

of Joazar. Besides the narrative account which suggested that Archelaus

yielded to the deposal demands of the crowd at Passover, Josephus gives three

somewhat formal reports on Joazar. Of the promotion of Joazar, Josephus

writes that Herod, “after ending the high priest Matthias’ service as priest for

having become a reason for part of these things [apparently the eagle-raid],

he installed Joazar as high priest, his wife’s brother” (Ant. 17.164b). 29 Then

when reporting the ascendency of Archelaus as ethnarch, Josephus writes

29 It should be noted that Josephus explicitly distinguishes this high priest Matthias from the

colleague of Judas.

josephus misdated the census of quirinius 81

that, “after removing the high-priesthood from Joazar, labeling him as having

risen-up with the partisans, he installed Eleazar, his brother” (Ant. 17.339b).

Then, when reporting the census, Josephus writes that Quirinius “removed the

dignity of the honor from Joazar against whom the multitude had rebelled and

installed Ananias son of Seth as high priest” (Ant. 18.26b). It may be worth

noting that these three items are semantically parallel, though the Greek

vocabulary is not identical, suggesting that they may stem from dierent

translators using a Hebrew high priest succession list. 30 Similar diversity in

Greek vocabulary also occurs in other apparent uses of this list for the activity

of Gratus and Vitellius (Ant. 18.34–35, 95, 123). So, apart from the narrative

account of Archelaus’s dismissal of Joazar, the three other references suggest

Josephus was using a high priest succession list.

Now, although Josephus relied on Nicolaus of Damascus for his account

of the eagle-raid, he apparently relied on this high-priest succession list for

his account of Joazar’s promotion. Consequently the relationship of Joazar

to three accounts of Judas still remains a bit ambiguous. We have observed

that Josephus—since he had both Nicholas describing the followers of Judas

and Matthias as grieving at Passover and the unidentied source reporting

that those mourners demanded the deposal of the high priest promoted by

Herod—reasonably identied the sedition of which the high priest Matthias

apparently had a part with the eagle-raid. However, Josephus has perhaps

articially provided the historical referent for the “these things” in the high

priest succession list on the promotion of Joazar. By comparison, in citing the

succession list for the deposal of Joazar, he provides no referent for the sedi-

tion of which Joazar apparently played a part.

Indeed, let us consider the implications for historical reconstruction in see-

ing the Judas and Joazar activity as all occurring in the last days of Herod the

Great. First of all, we might surmise that the raiding of the armory recorded

in the second account was actually the reason for Joazar’s promotion rather

than the rst account’s assault on the temple. Then, Joazar who becomes high

priest under Herod the Great explicitly in connection with this insurrection-

ist activity of Judas would be in a perfect place to persuade the people to

When Judas and Matthias/Saddoc nally raid the temple, are captured, and

executed, Joazar stands as an obvious collaborator with Herod. When Herod

dies, the disciples of Judas demand Joazar’s deposal. Having had reason to

see the three accounts of Judas as reecting the activity of one person, we

also have a plausible reconstruction of the activity of the same high priest

active in opposition to him.

Moreover, the reported deposal by Quirinius also seems to make greater

sense in the earlier historical context. When Judas’s mourners take the death

of Herod the Great as vindication of their rabbi’s message, they demand

30 Ant. 17.164b: Ματθίαν δὲ τὸν ἀρχιερέα παύσας ἱερᾶσθαι ὡς αἴτιον τοῦ μέρους τούτων γεγονότα

καθίστα Ἰωάζαρον ἀρχιερέα, ἀδελφὸν γυναικὸς τῆς αὐτοῦ; Ant. 17.339b: Ἰωάζαρον τὸν Βοηθοῦ

ἀφελόμενος τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνη νἐπικαλῶν αὐτῷ συστάντι τοῖς στασιώταις Ἐλεάζαρον τὸν ἐκείνου

ἐπικαθίσταται ἀδελφόν; Ant. 18.26b: Ἰωάζαρον τὸν ἀρχιερέα καταστασιασθέντα ὑπὸ τῆς πληθύος

ἀφελόμενος τὸ ἀξίωμα τῆς τιμῆς Ἄνανον.

journal of the evangelical theological society82

Joazar’s removal, and according to Ant. 17.207–8, Archelaus yields to this

demand. However, this scene also ts Josephus’s account of the deposal by

Quirinius in Ant. 18.26. Quirinius also removed the high priesthood from

Joazar because of a popular uprising against him. The removal of Joazar from

the high priesthood by Quirinius before the taxation is even complete, which

makes no sense in ad 6, now makes perfect sense during the popular uprising

in the aftermath of Herod’s death, regardless of whether it was Quirinius or

Archelaus who receives ultimate credit for the deposal.

Quirinius/Sabinus. Furthermore, in the person of Sabinus we nd more

than just wishful thinking to suspect that Quirinius was already present

in Judea during the last days of Herod the Great. First of all, Josephus

describes the oces of Sabinus and Quirinius in comparable ways. He calls

Sabinus a steward/procurator of Syria, ὁ τῆς Συρίας ἐπίτροπος at J.W. 2.16 or

Caesar’s steward/procurator of aairs in Syria, Καίσαρος ἐπίτροπος τῶν ἐν

Συρίᾳ πραγμάτων at Ant. 17.221. Similarly, Josephus reports that Quirinius

was sent by Caesar into Syria as the legatus juridicus of the nation, the

δικαιοδότης τοῦ ἔθνους, at Ant. 18.1. Of particular note in this regard is the

fact that the legatus juridicus was not the title for the governor but rather

the title of a magistrate sent in a complimentary capacity to the provincial

governors, the legati pro praetore. Josephus never refers to Quirinius as the

governor of Syria, and, as suggested above, Luke’s reference to Quirinius

holding dominion with respect to Syria, ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας, need not

either. In other words, Josephus describes both Sabinus and Quirinius as

holding an oce with respect to the whole province of Syria and in the direct

chain of command of Caesar Augustus.

Second, we have reason to suspect that Sabinus, like Quirinius, was of

consular rank. According to the narrative mentioned earlier, Sabinus brazenly

acted contrary to the wishes of Varus, the then governor of Syria, by going to

Judea. He then took command of the Roman legion which Varus had left in

Judea. So, we infer, not unreasonably, that Sabinus was of comparable rank

with Varus. Quirinius, Josephus tells us, was of a consular rank, of equal rank

with Varus. Not only are the oces of Sabinus and Quirinius characterized as

comparable, they are described as apparently sharing the same rank.

Third, we have evidence that Sabinus, like Quirinius, was particularly con-

cerned with the tax-value of Judea. 31 The letters sent to Caesar by Varus and

Sabinus included a detailed accounting of the annual incomes expected from

each of Herod’s territories. Moreover, after reporting the income for each terri-

tory, Josephus reports that Caesar decreed that Samaria be given a twenty-ve

percent reduction in the tribute paid to Archelaus (Ant. 17.319). The income

for the Judean territories was apparently based on a taxation tribute under

the direct control of Caesar Augustus. It stands to reason, if not required

by reason, that these income gures, apparently reported by Sabinus, were

based on an Augustan ordered taxation-census. In addition to being a legatus

31 Brook W. R. Pearson has responded to any lingering concern over whether this kind of census

and taxation of Judea could have occurred during the reign of Herod the Great; see “The Lukan

Censuses, Revisited” CBQ 61 (1999) 262–82.

josephus misdated the census of quirinius 83

juridicus, Josephus reports that Quirinius was also a censor of the property of

Syria, τιμητὴς τῶν οὐσιῶν (Ant. 18.1). In this regard, an inscription has been

found referring to the oce of a procurator ad census accipiendos suggest-

ing another connection between Sabinus’s title of epitropos/procurator and

Quirinius’s title of timetes/censor. 32

Fourth, we have a strong correlation between the activity of Sabinus with

respect to the estate of Herod the Great and the assignment given to Quirin-

ius with respect to his Herod, reportedly Archelaus. Josephus reports that

Archelaus encounters Sabinus in Caesarea as Sabinus was rushing to Judea

in order to “secure Herod’s eects” (ἐπὶ φυλακῇ τῶν Ἡρώδου χρημάτων, Ant.

17.221, cf. J.W. 2.16). Sabinus then goes to Jerusalem to take control of the

disposition of Herod’s property. Similarly, in Ant. 18.2, Josephus reports as

additional information—after reporting the arrival of Quirinius and Coponius

as censors—that “Quirinius himself came into Judea . . . to take account of

their substance and to dispose of Archelus’s property, καὶ ἀπο δωσόμενος τὰ

᾽Aρχελάου χρήματα.” Here, presuming that “Herod” or “King Herod” underlies

Josephus’s reporting of Archelaus, we see that this description of the activity

of Quirinius matches perfectly the narrative of Sabinus. So, although Jose-

phus asserts at the end of book 17 that the valuation of Syria and the dispo-

sition of Archelaus’s property was a twofold mission from Caesar, this claim

likely arises as a Josephan summary of his source for whom the securing of

Herod’s aects was added to his role as juridicus and censor. Consequently,

this summary also ts the mission of Sabinus if the estate of Herod the Great,

not of Herod Archelaus, was in mind.

Now, the suggestion that Josephus changed the name to Archelaus, even

though his source referred to Herod, does not require mere presumption.

Archelaus, like his brother Antipas, self-identied as Herod. All of Arche-

laus’s coins are inscribed with Herod. So, quite possibly, Josephus relied on a

source for his account of the census that did not refer to Archelaus by name

but rather to “Herod,” and perhaps even to “King Herod.” In fact, in at least

one place in Antiquities, Josephus does write “King Herod” where he had, in

the parallel passage of Jewish War, written “Archelaus” (cf. Ant. 17.294; J.W.

2.74). At the very least, Josephus was conscious of possible ambiguity in this

name. 33 At the most, this comparison suggests that in writing Jewish War

Josephus changed a “King Herod” reference from his sources to “Archelaus”

in his own account in order to match his historical reconstruction. Recalling

the possibility that Josephus had originally placed the census account under

Coponius because he thought it corresponded with the arrival of Coponius as

prefect, Josephus would have been acting quite reasonably in resolving the

ambiguity in favor of Archelaus. Perhaps “clarifying” his source document

would have seemed obvious.

Now, this suggestion of identity between Sabinus and Quirinius is not

new. Weber famously argued for this identity by suggesting a misreading of

32 For this inscription and a brief description of the legati ad census accipiendos, see SVM

1.410–11, n. 48.

33 This evidence stands regardless of whether one considers Herod the Great or Archelaus the

preferred referent.

journal of the evangelical theological society84

an underlying Aramaic source. 34 While we consider this conclusion unlikely

considering that both the Antipas source and Nicolaus of Damascus refer to

Sabinus, another solution may be possible. Perhaps, in these sources “Sabi-

nus” was not a family name but an ethnic indicator, that is, “the Sabine.” As

Judas was called the Galilean and Hezekiah, the Sephorean, so Quirinius may

have been called Sabinus, the Sabine. While this study has not postulated or

argued for a particular source for the Quirinius narrative, it arguably stems

from a source with a Roman audience. It seems to have a Roman point of view.

Therefore it is unlikely to be either of the earlier sources tied to the court of

Herod the Great. Since Josephus made faithful use of his sources, he could be

excused for not recognizing this identity between Quirinius and Sabinus. Per-

haps, among the Semites of Herod’s court, Quirinius was known as Sabinus.

Indeed, further circumstantial evidence supports this conclusion. It must

be noted that Quirinius was the legate’s Roman cognomen. Identied by Taci-

tus as Publius Quirinius in Annals 3.22–23 and as Sulpicius Quirinius in

Annals 3.48, inscriptions record his name as Publius Sulipicius Quirinius. 35

Cognomens were often derived from ethnic or tribal indicators, and, indeed,

Sabinus was also a Roman cognomen. The Quirinius cognomen likely stems

etymologically from the Sabine god, Quirinus. Moreover, Quirinius was born

in Lavinium, a small town outside of Rome which would have had a popula-

tion of ethnic Sabines. Now, whether or not this suggestion is persuasive for

how Sabinus may have become his nickname among the Semites, we should

consider the previous accumulation of evidence in support of the identity:

Sabinus is Quirinius.

The census account itself. Furthermore, if we consider the Antiquities

text independently of its placement within the Josephan narrative and the

Josephan transitions, we see several additional data which t the reign

of Herod the Great better than the context of ad 6. First of all, we notice

that this text seems to subordinate Coponius to Quirinius whom Josephus

explicitly labels as a δικαιοδότης, or legatus juridicus for Syria, again, not as

governor, legatus pro praetore. Independent of Josephus’s assertion in War

that Coponius was sent as prefect, we would be hard pressed to conclude

that a man of equestrian rank who was sent as a traveling companion with a

man of consular rank was not in the latter’s chain of command. 36 However,

the prefect more likely would have been subject to the governor of Syria,

the legatus pro pratore not to the legatus juridicus. So, we have reason to

suspect that Coponius had been sent for some other duty in connection with

the mission of Quirinius and not yet as prefect.

Second, Josephus refers to Coponius with a puzzling reference to him hav-

ing “dominion over the Jews.” 37 If “Jews” is taken as an ethnic reference, it

would seem to overstate the ad 6 situation since inhabitants of the tetrarchies

34 Weber, “Census des Quirinius” 313–14.

35 Iscriptiones Latinae Selectae #2683, #9502, #9503.

36 Again, it should be noted that source-criticism has suggested that this mission for Coponius

was not in the source on which Josephus relied.

37 For a similar argument, see Lodder, Schätzung des Quirinius 26–28.

josephus misdated the census of quirinius 85

of Philip and Antipas were also Jews. However, if it is taken as a territorial

reference, it understates the ad 6 situation since Archelaus controlled Itumea

and Samaria as well as Judea so that Coponius would have dominion over

more than just Judeans. This generic use of “Jews” or “Judeans” ts the his-

torical context of Herod the Great better than that of Archelaus.

Finally, we know that Quirinius had men of equestrian rank who trav-

eled with him to administer parts of his census of Syria. We have the Lapis

Venetus which testies to the work of Quintus Aemilius in helping to conduct

this census in Syrian Apamena. This funeral stone also identies Quirinius

as an Augustan Legate of Syria but, again, not specically as the legatus pro

pratore, or governor. 38 In other words, apart from its placement in the narra-

tives of Josephus, the account of Coponius arriving with Quirinius seems to

reect duties with respect to the Jews comparable to the duties exercised by

Quintus Aemilius in parts of Syria. Consequently, we have reason to believe

that the occasion of this mission was not that of ad 6.

More strikingly, Josephus also provided evidence that Coponius was in

Judea earlier than the exile of Archelaus. As Lodder also noted in this regard,

Josephus actually reports the presence of Coponius in Jerusalem at the time

of Antipater’s trial before Varus, in c. 5 bc (Ant. 17.134). As a companion of

Quirinius, Coponius’s presence at the time of Antipater’s trial would be ex-

plained if Quirinius and Sabinus were the same man but would be inexplicable

if Qurinius was not sent for another ten years. Although text-critical issues

still surround this reference to Coponius at Antipater’s trial, the associated

vocabulary is Josephan and the three best manuscripts contain it. Certainly, it

deserves the consideration which text critics typically oer the “more dicult

reading.” Only prejudice, prejudgment of historical probability, would keep one

from reading Coponius as present in Judea in 5 bc. For all these reasons, we

must at least suspect a misplaced duplication in the reporting that Coponius

only arrived ten years later.

However, if the census account has been misplaced, we must also specu-

late on how the census came to be dated explicitly to ad 6, the 37th year

from Actium, if it indeed happened earlier. Perhaps, when writing Antiquities,

Josephus found that his source on the census reported the 27th year of Actium

which he misread as the 37th. Or, perhaps his source reported the 37th year of

Herod (from his Roman appointment), and Josephus changed it to Actium for

the same reason. Before dismissing this possibility of misreading a source as

too unlikely, one should note that Josephus also asserted explicitly that Herod

was only 15 years old when he was given charge of Galilee, an assertion that

many scholars assume was a misreading of 25. 39 So, perhaps the explicit date

stemmed from a simple misreading of his source.

However, I think it much more likely that Josephus simply changed

the date to t his reconstruction. If, as our source criticism has suggested,

38 I oer this as a simple observation, but compare the claim of Lodder: “Der Ozielle Stat-

thalter einer Provinz wird in Inschriften moistens ‘leg(atus) Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore)’ genannt.

Hier steht nur ‘le.’ ” Lodder, Schätzung des Quirinius 66.

39 Ant. 14.9.2; SVM 1.275, n. 29; cf. Lodder, Schätzung des Quirinius.

journal of the evangelical theological society86

Josephus did not have the census date when constructing his narrative for

Jewish War, he would have had a perfectly reasonable accounting of events

already in hand which reected the latter date based primarily on the arrival

of Coponius—presumably as the rst prefect. In keeping with his historio-

graphic method, he had led his Quirinius and Judas source under Coponius

and reasonably assumed that the reference to King Herod was a reference to

Archelaus. Then, when he took up the source for the explicit date of the census

he simply changed whatever date he found in his source in order to match his

reconstructed date, ad 6, the year of Archelaus’s exile.

Now, lest one think this possibility too remote, Josephus already betrayed

his willingness to change numbers for the purpose of matching the chronology

of just this event. When reporting Archelaus’s symbolic dream, he reported

that Archelaus saw 9 ears of corn representing 9 years of rule in J.W. 2.112–13

but 10 ears of corn representing 10 years of rule in Ant. 17.345–47. So, in

one of these accounts, he changed the number of ears of corn and the number

of years of rule from how they appeared in his source in order to match his

reconstruction of events. So, indeed, it is quite possible that Josephus simi-

larly changed the date for the census to match his reasonably reconstructed

chronology of events. 40

iv. summary

We can now summarize the Josephan evidence for locating the census of

Quirinius during the reign of Herod the Great. First of all, name, provenance,

being identiable by reference to his father, and the context and content of

both his teaching and his activity all combine to support the conclusion that

the three accounts of an insurrectionist named Judas actually all reect the

same gure active during the last days of Herod the Great. Second, although

the high priesthood data is still dicult, having Joazar active in bringing

about cooperation in the taxation also ts the time of Herod the Great better

than assuming a variety of unrecorded appointments in order to account for

the multiple deposals. Herod exalted Joazar to the high priesthood in opposi-

tion to the supporters of Judas, and his deposal by either Sabinus/Quirinius or

Archelaus after the disturbances associated with Herod’s death makes sense

while an ad 6 deposal by Quirinius does not. Third, by identifying Quirinius

and Sabinus, we not only have the man responsible for the census located in

Judea during the last days of Herod the Great and an explanation for the

earlier reference to Coponius at Antipater’s trial but also a very plausible

rationale for the extraordinary behavior of Sabinus. Certainly, these three

sets of data taken individually may not be ultimately persuasive, but one

40 It may be of further interest that if only the date on the census had been changed, Josephus

reports that Quirinius had nished accounting for the estates of his Herod while the taxation was

reaching its end. In other words, even if Herod died in 4 bc in keeping with the consensus recon-

struction, we still have reason to consider Eusebius’s date of 3/2 bc for the census possible. Quirinius

arrived earlier, possibly 5 bc, to begin the census which, because of the tumult surrounding Herod’s

death, was not completed until 3/2 bc.

josephus misdated the census of quirinius 87

must consider their combined weight for adding greater plausibility to the

account of Luke.

Admittedly, some readers may still nd the standard reading more plau-

sible. These readers may acknowledge that Josephus was susceptible to mis-

taking numbers or changing dates but insist that he did not err with the date

of the census. They may acknowledge that Josephus was susceptible to the

ambiguity between “Archelaus” and “King Herod” but insist that he was not

guilty when reporting the mission of Quirinius. These readers may addition-

ally nd it more plausible that two insurgents against Herod were active

within weeks of each other around the time of Herod’s death, both named

Judas, both with connections to Sepphoris, and both nicknamed in connection

with a famous father. They may also prefer that while one was executed by

Herod the Great for raiding Herod’s temple, the other one would wait ten years

after raiding Herod’s armory to adopt the same manner and substance of the

teaching of the rst, only to have his revolt against the taxation-census be

opposed by the very same high priest who had opposed the earlier Judas even

though this high priest was reportedly deposed twice during those ten years.

Indeed, remaining faithful to the story as told by Josephus, they insist that

the similarity between Sabinus and Quirinius in both title and activity must

be just as coincidental as the similarity in the accounts of Judas and Joazar

but that the mention of Coponius at Antipater’s trial is some unexplained

spurious insertion into the text. Admittedly, these readers may with stomped

foot insist that all these features of the standard account are more plausible

than this reconstruction oered here.

To these readers, this study has sought to respond, “Really?” Admittedly,

this study has built a circumstantial argument that Josephus misplaced the

census of Quirinius. However, historiography is about making the case for

the most plausible reconstruction. In each case, this study has provided a

rationale for why Josephus reasonably located each account of Judas where

he did. Moreover, it has accounted for the narrative references to Joazar and

for his participation in events. It has attributed to Josephus only those errors

to which he has been shown demonstrably susceptible. It has argued that this

reconstruction of the underlying history is more plausible than the standard

reading. A source-critical solution that accounts for anomalies rather than

ignoring them in favor of a deistic reading of a fallible source is correct:

Josephus misdated the census of Quirinius.