Luke’s Alleged Historical Blunder Revisited (Part 2)

External Documentary Evidence

Critics seem unaware (or dismissive) of external documentary evidence corroborating the account in Luke 2:1-5. The Greek papyrus document held in the British Museum, catalogued as P. London 904, is one of “several such edicts,” according to historian/papyrologist Ulrich Wilcken, although it is the only such edict in the collection specifically involving a Roman census. The text reads: “Gaius Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt, says: ‘The enrolment by household being at hand, it is necessary to notify all who for any cause whatsoever are outside their nomes [territories] to return to their domestic hearths [homes], that they also may accomplish the customary dispensation of enrolment and continue steadfastly in the husbandry [care of the household] that belongs to them.’”¹

G. Vibius Maximus was prefect of the Roman province of Egypt in AD 104. Since the 4th century BC, both Egypt and Judea had been under the control of Hellenistic authorities and later the Romans, sharing much in common culturally, linguistically, and politically. According to papyri evidence, the Romans were conducting registrations in Egypt as far back as 11/10 BC and possibly even further to 19 BC. The University of Michigan papyri collection includes P. Mich. 4406a, a census declaration from the village of Theadelphia dated Jan.-Feb. 3 BC, near the end of Augustus’ 27th year. By AD 33/34 the Romans were administering censuses every fourteen years, although the earlier registrations appear to have been seven years apart.² These periodic enrolments were for numbering the population according to households but not strictly tax related. In the late 2nd century AD Clement of Alexandria was aware of this periodic enrolment system of the Romans (Strom. 1.21.147). 

That Joseph and Mary were living in Galilee rather than Judea at the time of Luke’s reported census is not a problem. E. P. Sanders, accusing Luke of territorial ignorance as well as conflating the periods of Herod’s reign and the AD 6 Roman census, conjectures: “Luke’s Mary and Joseph, who lived in Galilee, would not have been affected by Quirinius’ census, which covered only people who lived in the two Roman provinces, Judaea and Syria.”³ However, not only was Joseph a native of Judea and potentially owned property there (Matt. 2:11; Luke 2:3-4), the Roman provincial Judea was divided into five administrative districts, which included Sepphoris, only about 3½ miles (6 kms) northwest of Nazareth (see Josephus, Ant. 14.5.4).

What We Know Despite the Scant Historical Evidence 

Around the time of Christ’s birth, there was a transition in the Syrian governorship between the outgoing Sentius Saturninus (9-7/6 BC) and the incoming, somewhat inept,⁴ Publius Quinctilius Varus (7/6-4 BC). Varus would have been responsible for Syria’s internal affairs, while Qirinius was available to provide leadership for its military and foreign affairs.⁵ If there was in fact a census during this transition, as Luke reports, Quirinius would be a logical choice for Augustus to put in charge. And because of his competent handling of it, he would later be entrusted with the next one, which Luke also reports (Acts 5:37). 

The fragmentary Latin inscription Lapis Tiburtinus acknowledges a distinguished Roman officer who served as imperial legate of Syria “for the second time.” If Quirinius is the subject of this mutilated inscription (as some propose),⁶ Luke the historian is exonerated. And if Publius Quinctilius Varus is the subject of the inscription (suggested by others)⁷ and Quirinius assisted him as advisor or even procurator (see Justin Martyr, Apology 1.34), again, Luke’s account readily corresponds to the historical facts.  

An imperial census in a client kingdom is not unparalleled. Tacitus reports that during the reign of Tiberius “the Clitae, a tribe subject to the Cappadocian Archelaus … were compelled in Roman fashion to render an account of their revenue and submit to tribute” (Annals 6.41). The Latin inscription Lapis Venetus documents a census on the independent city-state of Apamea in Syria, conducted by a Roman officer named Q. Aemilius Secundus on the order of P. Supicius Quirinius.⁸

Any alleged historical discrepancies in Luke’s description can readily be resolved “by simply and naturally assuming that this was a registration instituted indeed by the Roman emperor, but executed in accordance with the local usages.”⁹ While serving as “an emblem of imperial rule,” any census would of necessity have been “organized at the provincial level and marked by local variation.”¹⁰ Rather than purportedly tax-related, this would more practically have served as “an enrollment of the inhabitants, which may have been set on foot for statistical purposes, in order to obtain a complete account of the population, perhaps as a basis for a levy of troops from this as a subject territory.”¹¹

After the death of Caesar Augustus, Res Gestae Divi Augusti (“The Deeds of the Divine Augustus”) were inscribed on two bronze plaques outside his mausoleum, listing thirty-five of his greatest achievements as “he subjected the whole wide earth to the rule of the Roman people.”¹² While the original inscription has not survived, numerous copies were made and engraved on temples and monuments throughout the empire. Eighth on the list is a record of three empire-wide censuses that he authorized in 28 BC, 8 BC, and AD 14. Luke’s account of Christ’s birth fits the census of 8 BC, considering the probability that the bureaucracy of the census would have taken years to reach Palestine. In fact, each census is described by Augustus as a “lustrum,” referring to a five-year period. 

Concluding Remarks

If Luke’s critics were consistent, all that is known about ancient history from a single source would have to be rejected. For example, Rome’s Gaul campaign of 56 BC is documented only in Julius Caesar’s Gallic War – “the only contemporary narrative of a major Roman imperialist war, and that by its principal agent.”¹³ Neither Plutarch (Life of Caesar) nor Suetonius (The Twelve Caesars), each of whom quotes Julius Caesar, makes any reference to this important campaign. Are we, then, to denounce the historical integrity of Julius Caesar, or Plutarch, or Suetonius? Does the silence of other historical records mean it did not and could not have happened?

With the large amount of historical data Luke includes in his two-volume work, “he affords his critical readers so many opportunities for testing his accuracy.”¹⁴ A young Scottish archaeologist named William Mitchell Ramsay (1851-1939) was convinced by German theologian F. C. Baur and the Tübingen School that Luke-Acts “was essentially a second-century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first-century conditions …”¹⁵ But after years of critical investigation, Ramsay was forced to conclude, “Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.”¹⁶

The “historical blunder” allegation against Luke’s record, perpetuated by antibiblicists and liberal scholars, is not as conclusive as we are expected to believe. As deficiency of external evidence hardly confirms the assumption of factual error, Luke’s historical integrity remains unscathed.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Cited in G. A. Deissmann’s Light from the Ancient East, 2nd ed. (NY/London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910): 268-69; this is a slightly modified version of the English translation by Lionel R. M. Strachan of the German translation of Ulrich Wilcken. Similar edicts, including BGU 159, 372, Geneva Papyrus 16, P. Fay. 24, are cited in F. G. Kenyon and H. I. Bell, eds., Greek Papyri in the British Museum (London: H. Frowde, et al., 1907): 3:124-25. See also A. S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar, Select Papyri, Vol. 2: Non-Literary Papyri; Public Documents, LCL 282 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1934). 

     ² Roger S. Bagnall, “The Beginnings of the Roman Census in Egypt,” in Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 32 (1991): 255-65; W. G. Claytor and R. S. Bagnall, “The Beginnings of the Roman Provincial Census” 641-44.

     ³ E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus 87.

     ⁴ In AD 9 Varus was responsible for the devastating loss of three legions in Germanica, so any misgivings Augustus may have had about him were justified.

     ⁵ W. M. Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? 244; cf. J. K. Hardin, Galatians and the Imperial Cult 56. On Quirinius’ military advisory expertise, see Tacitus, Annals 3.48.

     ⁶ William M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the NT, 4th ed. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1920): 279. It is possible that the expression “for the second time” refers to the second appointment of office but not necessarily to the same province (see A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the NT [Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1963]: 164).

     ⁷ Ernest L. Martin, “Quntilius Varus and the Lapis Tiburtinus,” Appendix 1 of The Star of Bethlehem, 2nd ed. (Portland, OR: Associates for Scriptural Knowledge, 1991).

     ⁸ Cf. Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1964): 237; rev. ed. (1998): 302-306.

     ⁹ John M’Clintock and James Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1969): 2:185-86. 

     ¹⁰ W. G. Claytor and R. S. Bagnall, “The Beginnings of the Roman Provincial Census” 637. 

     ¹¹ M’Clintock and Strong 2:186; cf. Alfred Plummer, The Gospel According to S. Luke ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1910): 49-52.

     ¹² A nearly complete copy of Res Gestae Divi Augusti has been preserved on a temple dedicated to Augustus in Ankara, Turkey. To read the entire list in English translation, see “The Deeds of the Divine Augustus,” trans. Thomas Bushnell, <Link>.

     ¹³ A. N. Sherwin-White, “Caesar as an Imperialist,” Greece and Rome 4:1 (March 1957): 36.

     ¹⁴ F. F. Bruce, The NT Documents 81, 82.

     ¹⁵ W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, 15th ed. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1925): 8.

     ¹⁶ W. M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery 80. Professor Otto Piper notes, “Wherever modern scholarship has been able to check up on the accuracy of Luke’s work the judgment has been unanimous: he is one of the finest and ablest historians in the ancient world” (“The Purpose of Luke,” The Union Seminary Review 57:1 [Nov. 1945]: 15-25).

Related Posts: Luke's Alleged Historical Blunder (Part 1)

Related articles:

Image credit: https://www.ucg.org/beyond-today/beyond-today-magazine/will-we-ever-achieve-peace

Luke’s Alleged Historical Blunder Revisited (Part 1)

The Problem Stated 

Luke 2:1-5 is often cited as an alleged historical blunder that serves to discredit the historicity of Luke’s record as a whole if not the entire NT. The passage mentions the decree of Caesar Augustus that all the world (i.e., the civilized realm of the Roman Empire)¹ was to be registered, which was the “first” census while Quirinius was “administering” Syria.² The statement seems to imply that Luke was aware of a second census involving Quirinius, which is later referenced in Acts 5:37 and recounted by Josephus (Ant. 18.1.1; 2.1). The problem is, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius did not officially become legate of Syria until AD 6, over a decade after the events recorded here, and Luke is the only historian who mentions the first of these two enrolments. Moreover, that individuals had to return to their respective ancestral homelands to register is considered unhistorical by a number of modern critics.

Liberal Scholarship’s Assessment

James Veitch opines: “… if Jesus was born in 4 BC there was no census. A census was held in 6 AD, but this did not involve people returning to their ancestral areas — such an upheaval would have produced a bureaucratic mess and put enormous pressure on the resources, not to mention the patience, of Rome’s administrative officials. People were registered where they were taxed. The Lukan story is an imaginative way of getting the family to Bethlehem, a superior theological address to Nazareth, but hardly history.”³

Bart Ehrman, who believes the biblical record contains “serious historical problems,” scoffs at the “nigh on impossible” notion in Luke 2:1-5 of everyone having to return to his ancestral home for a census. Ehrman reasons: “In Luke, Joseph is said to return to Bethlehem because his ancestor David came from there, but David lived a thousand years before Joseph. Can it be possible that everyone in the empire was to return to the place their (sic) ancestors lived a thousand years earlier?”⁴

E. P. Sanders characterizes the account as “a relatively slight historical error,” while Raymond Brown charges Luke with reporting “inaccurately,” resulting in “formidable historical difficulties.” With greater cynicism, Lloyd Geering’s judgment is that “the stories of Jesus’ birth … are almost wholly mythical in character, i.e. they do not describe historical events,” and F. C. Baur claims that Luke’s writings “can only be looked upon as intentional deviations from historical truth …”⁵

A Closer Look at the “Facts”

Upon closer examination, the case against the veracity of Luke’s reporting is built on two fundamental components: (a) scarcity of historical information, and (b) unsubstantiated presuppositions. Ronald Marchant has correctly observed: “Our knowledge of ancient history, although continually expanding, is nonetheless partial and, in places, almost nil. In general, historians are aware of the limited knowledge they have of any given event in history and of the possibility that some events are recorded in only a single remaining source. Thus if we are adamant in demanding multiple-source confirmation of any given fact, we will suffer by having fewer facts in our fund of admissible knowledge.”⁶ 

Included among the unfounded allegations against Luke’s historical integrity are the following:

·      In Luke 2:2, against the actual wording of the Greek text, Quirinius is presumptively identified by translators and commentators as the “governor” of Syria. Note, for example, ASV, CSB, ESV, ISV, NASB, NET, NIV, N/KJV, N/RSV, et al., and Raymond Brown’s comment, “Luke speaks of an edict … when Quirinius was governor of Syria.”⁷

·      Many simply take for granted that Luke has confused the time period of Quirinius’ Syrian governorship and census; as Paul Walaskay remarks, “Scholars have long been troubled by Luke’s historical blunder with respect to the census.”⁸ 

·      Critics merely assume the reported census was for the purpose of taxation. The 1599 Geneva Bible and the 2000 Jubilee Bible curiously refer to this registration as a “taxing,” and the Modern English Version reads “taxation.” E. P. Sanders surmises, “it is not reasonable to think that there was ever a decree that required people to travel in order to be registered for tax purposes.”⁹

·      It is further alleged that the Romans only took censuses in their established provinces, while Judea was not officially a Roman province at the time Luke chronologizes Christ’s birth.

·      Yet another issue is the imposition of modern standards of historiography on a 1st-century Greco-Roman author. 

Without these underlying assumptions, however, the trumped-up case against Luke’s historicity cannot stand. When compared to what the biblical text actually says, no historical error or contradiction can be substantiated.

A Closer Look at Luke’s Record 

Luke does not employ the noun for “legate” or provincial “governor” (ἡγεμών) in the text (as he does elsewhere, Luke 20:20; 21:12; Acts 23:24-33; 24:1, 10; 26:30), and the misconstruing of his wording leads to the charge of a chronological mistake. Luke’s own observations betray knowledge of “the census” of AD 6 (Acts 5:37) and an earlier one (Luke 2:1-2) that is disputed because of the absence of explicit external corroboration. If one were not predisposed to dismissing outright any historical data in the NT, one would have to concede that a census in Palestine at the time Luke affirms is not improbable, and some official connection of Quirinius with Syria at this time is not impossible.¹⁰

Instead of describing Quirinius as “governor,” Luke actually uses the participial form of the verbal ἡγεμονεύω, which essentially means “to exercise an administrative position,” involving leading, commanding, ruling, ordering (BDAG 433). Luke acknowledges Quirinius’ administrative leadership but does not specify any official position he held at the time. It is not without significance that Luke was quite knowledgeable of the titles worn by governing officials throughout the empire, and his employment of these in various cities and provinces is always historically accurate: στρατηγοί (“magistrates”) in Philippi (Acts 16:20-38), πολιτάρχαι (“politarchs”) in Thessalonica (Acts 17:6), ἀσιαρχοί (“asiarchs”) in Ephesus (Acts 19:31), ἀνθύπατος (“proconsul”) in Cyprus and Achaia (Acts 13:7; 18:12), and ἡγεμών (“legate”) in Judea (Luke 20:20; Acts 23:24). The verbal ἡγεμονεύω in Luke 2:1 carries the sense of going ahead or leading the way, particularly “to lead [in war], to rule, command … to have or take the command.”¹¹ Quirinius was a highly placed military figure in the Near East in the closing years of Herod the Great’s reign and was active in the vicinity of Syria at the time Luke reports (cf. Tacitus, Annals 3.48).¹²

The employment of the present tense infinitive ἀπογράφεσθαι (“to register”) in Luke 2:1 indicates that Augustus’ decree was not merely for the undertaking of a single census but to order enrolments in the Roman Empire on a regular basis,¹³  which counters the charge “that there was no single census of the whole Roman Empire under Augustus”¹⁴  (notwithstanding Augustus’ own claims!). Unfortunately, as far as “a more detailed examination of the mechanics of this system, we find a dearth of evidence. At the very least, it is clear from literary and documentary sources that Augustus played a central role in the extension of the census throughout the empire …”¹⁵ While the Judea census of AD 6 was in fact for taxation purposes, this is not the stated reason in Luke 2:1-2.

Luke further states: “And Joseph also ascended from Galilee out of the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the town of David, which is called Bethlehem, seeing that [διὰ] he was of the house and family of David” (Luke 2:4). The preposition διά has various shades of meaning in the Greek NT, and when employed with an accusative can merely denote “attendant circumstance.”¹⁶ That Bethlehem was Joseph’s “own city” is the stated reason for Joseph going there (v. 3), i.e., he was actually from Bethlehem, although he currently resided in Nazareth (2:39). A secondary purpose, viz. “he was of the house and family of David,” serves as a theological statement (cp. 1:27, 32) rather than a commentary on Roman law.

For Palestinian Jews, the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC and Judea’s annexation by Rome in AD 6 were two enormously significant episodes. Stephen Young suggests: “In a time not as accustomed to exact documentation as our own, both events would serve as approximate dating for the events described in Luke.”¹⁷ Even so, Luke’s record may not be as ambiguous or imprecise as this explanation implies. To be continued ...

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Cf. Acts 11:28; 17:6-7; 19:27; 24:5. In the very words of Augustus himself, he “subjected the whole wide earth to the rule of the Roman people …” (English translation of Res Gestae Divi Augusti). W. Graham Claytor and Roger S. Bagnall cite Luke’s reference as “important evidence for the provincial impression of the census as universal and stemming from the direct command of the emperor” (“The Beginnings of the Roman Provincial Census: A New Declaration from 3 BCE,” in Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 [2015]: 637-38). 

     ² Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation. The Greek adjectival πρῶτος, translated “first” in most English versions, is also used in the sense of “prior” or “before” (cf. John 1:30; 15:18). The Orthodox Jewish Bible reads, “This mifkad (census) was before that taken while Quirinius was governor in Syria.” If this is Luke’s intended meaning, there is no problem (see F. F. Bruce, NT History [NY: Doubleday, 1969]: 32 n. 1; The NT Documents [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981]: 88; N. T. Wright, Who Was Jesus? [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014]: 89). However, Greek grammar has to be stretched to support this rendering, so most interpreters and translators understand “first” as the correct meaning here. 

     ³ James Veitch, The Birth of Jesus: History or Myth? (Wellington, NZ: St Andrew’s, 1997): 14.

     ⁴ Bart D. Ehrman, The NT: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 4th ed. (NY/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008): 127.

     ⁵ E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin, 1993): 87; Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the NT, ABRL (NY/London: Doubleday, 1997): 233; An Adult Christ at Christmas: Essays on Three Biblical Christmas Stories  (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1978): 17; Lloyd Geering, Jesus Reconsidered (Wellington, NZ: St Andrew’s, 1984): 9; F. C. Baur, Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ (London: Williams and Norgate, 1876): 1:108. 

     ⁶ Ronald Marchant, The Census of Quirinius: The Historicity of Luke 2:1-5, IBRI Research Report No. 4 (1980): IBRI, 2012. 

     ⁷ R. E. Brown, An Adult Christ at Christmas 17.

     ⁸ Paul W. Walaskay, And So We Came to Rome: The Political Perspective of St Luke (London/NY: Cambridge, 1983): 26. 

     ⁹ E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus 86.

     ¹⁰ “Consideration of this can begin with the assumption that Luke was a competent historian, careful of his facts, and not prone to unverified statements. His work generally supports such a reputation…. To assume such a census, while complete proof is lacking, requires no distortion of known historical facts” (Encyclopedia of the Bible, s.v. “Quirinius,” Bible Gateway  <Web>).

     ¹¹ H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, s.v. ἡγεμονεύω <Web>; Abridged (Oxford: Clarendon, 1944): 301. The verbal form “governing” appears in the Berean Literal Bible, Christian Standard Bible, and Mounce Reverse-Interlinear NT; “governed” in the Common English Bible. The Worldwide English NT employs the noun “ruler,” and the Wycliffe Bible, “justice.” In 12 BC Augustus named Quirinius “consul,” the highest public office next to the emperor himself. From 12 BC to 1 BC Quirinius was stationed near Syria in the provinces of Galatia and Cilicia. The record is uncertain from 4 to 2 BC, but the commander of the East and legate of Syria from 2/1 BC to AD 4 was Gaius Caesar, with Quirinius as his chief advisor.

     ¹² This includes military service in Cilicia to the west and an advisory role in Armenia to the northeast. See E. S. Gruen, “The Expansion of the Empire under Augustus,” in The Cambridge Ancient History (Cambridge: University Press, 2008 <Web>): 10:153-54; also Justin K. Hardin, Galatians and the Imperial Cult WUNT 2:237 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008): 56.

     ¹³ William M. Ramsay, Was Jesus born at Bethlehem? A Study on the Credibility of St Luke, 2nd ed. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1898): 123-24. According to W. G. Claytor and R. S. Bagnall, “The standard translation of ἀπογράφεσθαι as a passive should be reconsidered in light of the middle ἀπογράψασθαι in Lk 2:5 and the consistent use of the middle voice in the papyri” (“The Beginnings of the Roman Provincial Census” 638 n. 3).

     ¹⁴ R. E. Brown, An Adult Christ at Christmas 17 n. 26. B. D. Ehrman says, “We also have no record of a worldwide census under Augustus, or under any emperor at any time” (The NT: A Historical Introduction 127).

     ¹⁵ W. G. Claytor and R. S. Bagnall, “The Beginnings of the Roman Provincial Census” 638.

     ¹⁶ BDAG 223-26; M. J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek NT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012): 77-82.

     ¹⁷ Stephen Young, “Birth of Jesus,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 2nd ed., eds. J. B. Green, J. K. Brown, N. Perrin (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2013): 80.

Related Posts: Luke's Alleged Historical Blunder (Part 2), The Missing 1000

Related articles: Dave Miller, Luke, Quirinius, and the Census, Caleb Colley, Luke's Census

Image credit: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/st-luke-10-things-to-know-and-share

Historical Background of the New Testament (Part 6): Roman Domination

As an aid to reconfiguring our interpretive perception, following is a chronological listing of recognized authority figures around whom the New Testament was constructed.

Roman Emperors in New Testament Times

Emperor	Full Name	Reign	NT Reference
Augustus	Gaius Octavian[us] Thurinus	Jan. 27 BC–Aug. AD 14	Luke 2:1
Tiberius	Tiberius Claudius Nero	Sept. 14–March 37	Mark 12:16; Luke 3:1
Caligula	Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus	March 37–Jan. 41
Claudius	Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus	Jan. 41–Oct. 54	Acts11:28;17:7; 18:2
Nero	Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus	Oct. 54–June 68	Acts 25:8ff; Phil. 4:22
Galba	Servius Sulpicius Galba Caesar Augustus	June 68–Jan. 69
Otho	Marcus Salvius Otho Caesar Augustus	Jan.–April 69
Vitellius	Aulus Vitellius Germanicus Augustus	April–Dec. 69
Vespasian	Titus Flavius Vespasianus	July 69–June 79	(Luke 21:20)
Titus	Titus Flavius Caesar Vespasianus Augustus	June 79–Sept. 81
Domitian	Titus Flavius Caesar Domitianus Augustus	Sept. 81–Sept. 96	(Rev. 13:4)

New Testament History Concurrent with Roman Emperors

Emperor	New Testament History
Augustus	Matt. 1:18–2:23; Luke 1:5–2:52
Tiberius	Matt. 3:1–28:20; Mark 1:4–16:20; Luke 3:1–24:53; John 1:6–21:25; Acts 1:1–9:31
Caligula	Acts 9:32–11:18
Claudius	Acts 11:19–19:9; James, 1-2 Thessalonians, Galatians
Nero	Acts 19:10–28:31; 1-2 Corinthians, Romans, Paul’s Prison Epistles and Pastorals,  1-2 Peter, Jude(?)
Galba	Hebrews?
Otho	Hebrews?
Vitellius	Hebrews?
Vespasian	Prophecy fulfilled: Matt. 24:1-2; Mark 13:1-2; Luke 21:5-6, 20
Titus
Domitian	John’s Epistles and Revelation

Other Administrative Officials in the New Testament

The highest civil magistrates in a Roman colony were the stratēgoí, as stationed at Philippi (Acts 16:19-20a, 22, 35, 38). In Thessalonica the city rulers were “politarchs” [politárchas] (Acts 17:6, 8), while in Ephesus they were “asiarchs” [asiarchōn] (Acts 19:31). The city “clerk” or “secretary” [grammateús] was an influential figure (Acts 19:35), and the Ephesians had their own courts and lawful assemblies (Acts 19:38-39).¹

Provinces regarded as peaceful and loyal to Rome were overseen by a proconsul. Provinces whose commitment was weak or questionable, typically on the frontiers, were governed by a legate or military prefect or procurator. At times client kings were permitted administrative power.

Ruler	Title	Territory	Reign	NT Reference
Herod the Great	King	Judea	37-4 BC	Matt. 2:1
Archelaus	Ethnarch	Judea	4 BC-AD 6	Matt. 2:22
Herod Antipas	Tetrarch	Galilee-Perea	4 BC-AD 39	Mark 6:14; Luke 13:32
Philip II	Tetrarch	Northern territories	4 BC-AD 34	Mark 6:17
Pontius Pilate	Prefect	Judea	AD 26-36	Luke 3:1; 13:1; 21:1
Herod Agrippa I	King	Judea	AD 41-44	Acts 12:1-23
Sergius Paulus2	Proconsul	Cyprus	AD 44	Acts 13:7-12
Herod Agrippa II	King	North + Galilee-Perea	AD 50-93	Acts 25:13–26:32
Gallio	Proconsul	Achaia	AD 51-52	Acts 18:12
Antonius Felix	Procurator	Judea	AD 52-58	Acts 23:26–24:27
Porcius Festus	Procurator	Judea	AD 58-62	Acts 24:27; 25:1

 --Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Luke curiously references the plural “proconsuls” (Acts 19:38), even though there was typically only one proconsul per city. But in the historical context Junius Silanus had been assassinated by Helius and Celer, emissaries of Nero’s mother Agrippina. Nero became emperor in the year 54, while Paul was in Ephesus, and Helius and Celer were both in charge of the emperor’s affairs in Asia, thus “proconsuls.”

    ² Herod Agrippa I died in March 44, and the Acts narrative places Sergius Paulus as the Cyprus proconsul around this general timeframe (12:20–13:7). Two Greek inscriptions discovered in northern Cyprus and a Latin inscription discovered in Rome confirm the administrative distinction of Sergius Paulus during the reign of Claudius. The Latin text places him back in Rome in the year 47 (see J. A. Fitzmyer, Acts of the Apostles 501-502; P. Schaff and D. S. Schaff, History of the Christian Church 1:733-34; B. Witherington III, Acts of the Apostles 399-400).

Related Posts: Historical Background NT Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

Image credit: