The Date of the Census of Quirinius and the Chronology of The

Home , Census of Quirinius, Quirinius

The Date of the Census of Quirinius and the Chronology of the Governors of the Province of Syria Author(s): Edward Dąbrowa Source: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 178 (2011), pp. 137-142 Published by: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41616761 . Accessed: 08/01/2015 19:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 142.58.151.115 on Thu, 8 Jan 2015 19:10:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 137

The Date of the Census of Quirinius and the Chronology of the Governors of the Province of Syria1

The mentionin the Gospel of Luke (Luke 2:1-5) of the census conductedduring the reign of Augustusby Publius Sulpicius Quirinius2,during which Jesus Christ was born,meant that in Christiantradition both theseevents were inextricablylinked. Despite the chronologicalfeatures of this mention,its reliabilityis challengedby scholarsespecially because othersources put the census at an entirelydifferent time. Luke's report(as well as thoseof theother Evangelists writing about Jesus' childhood) states that this census took place duringthe life of Herod,but accordingto Josephus( AJ 17.355; 18.1-6) it was carriedout in Judaea onlyafter it joined theRoman Empire,which in turnwas theresult of Augustus'removing rule over Judaea fromArchelaus, the son of Herod. The emperorwas swayedin thisdecision by theineptitude of Archelaus and generaldissatisfaction with his rule,which the subjects expressed in numerouscomplaints sent to Rome (Josephus,BJ 2.111; AJ 17.342-344; Dio 55.27.6). Afterremoving the nativeruler, the emperorannexed Judaeato Syria,entrusting its administrationto an officerof the provincesubordinate to the governorand bearingthe titlepraefectus (Josephus, AJ 18.2).3The firstprefect of Judaea was Coponius (Josephus,AJ 17.355;18. 2).4 The administrativechanges were accompanied by a propertycensus beingconducted of the inhabitantsof theprovince of Syria and thepersonal affairs of Archelausbeing straightenedout. Emperor Augustusentrusted both tasks to thethen governor of theprovince of Syria,Quirinius (Josephus, AJ 17.355; 18.1-2).5Since Archelausvacated the throne in 6 AD, establishingthe date of thecensus may appear to be a simpleand obvioustask. However, the differences in the datingof theevent by Luke and Josephusmean thatscholars have been tryingfor almost 200 yearsnot only to explainthe reasons for these contradictions, butalso to ascertainwhether the two authorsare talkingabout the same census,or aboutdifferent ones. To date,these efforts have notproduced a satisfactoryresult.6 The difficultiesinvolved in determiningthe actual date of the Census of Quiriniuson thebasis of the chronologyof thefacts available to us resultedfairly early on in leading scholarsto look forother ways to solve theproblem. One of thesewas analysisof prosopographicaldata, that is informationon thelives and careersof the governors of the province of Syriawho heldthe post in thelast twenty years of Augustus' rule. Althoughthis method has provento be veryhelpful in manyissues, in thisparticular one itdid notbring the expectedresults, as the sources do not always containinformation on the whole careersof these officials, butonly on some of theirroles. Often there are no chronologicalfeatures to allow us to date thosefunctions whichare known.In addition,the bad stateof preservationand fragmentarynature of some sources,espe-

1 Abbreviations:AE - L'AnnéeÉpigraphique' CIL - CorpusInscriptionum Latinar um; ILS - H. Dessau,Inscriptiones LatinaeSelectae , Berlin 1892-1916; Insc. It. - InscriptionesItaliae' PIR2 - ProsopographiaImperii Romani , editio altera; RE - PaulysRealencyclopädie der classischenAltertumswissenschaft , Stuttgart 1894-1972; SEG - SupplementumEpi- graphicumGraecum . I thankProf. Werner Eck, who provided valuable comments toa preliminarydraft of this paper. I thank alsoProf. Henry I. MacAdamfor linguistic revision of this paper. 2 PIR2S 1018;Groag 1931: 822-843, no. 90; Dqbrowa1998: 27-30. 3 Thestatus of Judaea after its annexation tothe Roman state is thesource of many misunderstandings. Many scholars believethat after 6 AD itbecame a provinceadministered byprefects (some of them are mentioned by Ghiretti 1985: 751- 754),cf. Schürer 1985: 441-446; Sasse 2004: 191; Labbé 2008: 229-240. The arguments presented by e.g. M. Ghiretti(1985: 754-766),H. Cotton(1999: 76-79) and W. Eck (2007: 23-37; 2008: 219-220) do not leave any doubt, however, that after 6 AD Judaeadid not constitute anindependent provincial unit, but was incorporated inthe structure ofthe province of Syria. For the entitlementsofthe praefectus Iudaeae , seeGhiretti 1985: 758-761; Eck 2007: 39-43. 4 See PIR1С 1285;Stein 1900: 1214-1215, no. 2. 5 Pearson1999: 264-265; Kennedy 2006: 112-113,117. The conducting ofthe census by Quirinius is confirmedby an undatedinscription referring toApamea: CIL III 6687= ILS 2683;Kennedy 2006: 113-117, 122. Cf. Eck 2007: 37-38; 2008: 226. 6 Thebibliography onthe date of the Census of Quirinius is veryextensive. For a listof the most important publications anda presentationofthe main positions of scholars on this topic see Schürer1985, 1: 489-523; Boffo 1994: 182-203; Alföldy 1997:199-208; Pearson 1999: 269-282; Smith 2000: 278-293; Labbé 2008: 228-243.

This content downloaded from 142.58.151.115 on Thu, 8 Jan 2015 19:10:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 138 E. Dqbrowa daily epigraphicalones, makes forsignificant difficulties in correctlyinterpreting their contents. An excel- lentexample of theseproblems is providedby theso-called TitulusTiburtinus. This is partof an inscription foundin 1764 nearTivoli (theclassical Tibur)containing a partiallypreserved cursus honorum , that is a list of positionsheld by an anonymoussenator from the timeof Augustus.Based on the preservedsection of the inscription,we can statethat this senator belonged to thehighest echelons of theRoman politicalelite. This is shownby thefunctions he occupied and honourshe was awardedafter leading a victoriousmartial campaign.He was proconsulof Asia as well as governorof Syria,probably around the end of the 1stcentury ВС.7 In the inscriptionthe titleassociated withthe latterposition is precededby the word iterumßSince the textis incompleteit can be interpretedin variousways.9 In the contextof debatesover the date of the Census of Quirinius,the Tivoli inscriptionis oftencited as proofof the reliabilityof Luke as a source,as accordingto a significantgroup of scholarsthis document contains the cursus honorumof Quiriniusand testifiesto his two staysin Syriaas itsgovernor: the first time during Herod's lifetime,and thesecond after Augustus'annexation of Judaea.The statein whichthe documentis preserved,however, does notpermit any certaintyas to the correctnessof the identificationof this senator(a sizable groupof scholarsargues thatthis inscription refers to othergovernors of Syria)or to thereconstruction of thecourse of his career.10 In spiteof all thedifficulties attached to theattempts to interpretthe TitulusTiburtinus , Leah Di Segni recentlypresented a set of argumentswhich she believes allows the Census of Quiriniusin Syria and Judaeato be dated to a periodearlier than 6 AD. This hypothesisis accompaniedby a seriesof otherfind- ings on variousaspects of the historyof Judaeaand Syria,11of whichmost interesting for us are her sug- gestedchanges in the chronologyof the governorsof the provinceof Syria occupyingthis position in the lastyears of the 1stcentury ВС.12 Acknowledgingthat all Di Segni's conclusionsand hypothesesare correct wouldrequire a revisionof previousviews on thecharacter of Herod's relationswith Rome and theform of theadministration of theRoman provinceof Syriaat theend of thefirst century ВС. Di Segni bases all her conclusionson an interpretationof the contentof the inscriptionson an ancientartefact published by her and probablyfound on the territoryof contemporaryIsrael.13 This find,rare and of greathistoric impor- tance,was identifiedby Di Segni as partof the classical weightstandard,14 and is in the formof a bronze ring,originally surrounded by the spoutof a measuringvessel. Two inscriptionsin Greekcan be foundon it: one on its cylindricalpart, directly on thevessel (a), and theother on thering which closes its neck (b):

(a) Маркой Tmou ot>|ißA,r||ia:jioSíou xéxapTov15 (b) "Etodç ßa(aiAico<;) ïïk' jurivòçEgcvSikoo) vac. ôk' vac.16

7 CIL XIV 3613= ILS 918= Insc.It. IV, 1,130. The history of the discovery and later fate of this monument, as well as a fullbibliography ofits edition and interpretation, is given by Alföldy 1997: 199-200. 8 CIL XIV 3613= ILS 918= Insc.It. IV, 1,130: ... [leg(atus)pro pr(aetore)] /Divi Augusti iterum Syriam et Ph[oenicen optinuit] ... 9 Forthe various interpretations ofthe meaning of the word iterum in this inscription see Alföldy 1997: 200-202, 203. 10A reviewof the proposed identifications andarguments intheir favour is givenby Alföldy 1997: 201-203, 204-208; Smith2000: 279-282. 11Di Segni2005: 23: "... theirimplications range very far, touching on provincial administration, regional history, and evenon one of the thorniest questions of Christian research, namely, the date and circumstances ofJesus' birth and the trust- worthinessofhistorical statements inthe Gospel". 12Cf. Di Segni2005: 28-34. The conclusions made in this article were repeated in a papergiven in Lugano (Il censimento di Quirinio:un nuovo contributo dell'epigrafia) ina seminaron March 5, 2010as partof the conference La TerraSanta tra fontiscritte e dati archeologici. 13This object was presented tothe Israel Museum and is currentlykept there. The available information shows that it is almostcertain to come from the local area: Di Segni2005: 23. According toP.-L. Gatier (2008: 750, on no. 555) Syrian origin cannotbe entirelyruled out. 14Di Segni2005: 23-25. The function ofthis artefact is not questioned by any scholar who has expressed a view on this subject. 15Di Segni2005: 24 = AE 2005,1589a = SEG 55,1723A. 16Di Segni2005: 26-27 = AE 2005,1589b = SEG 55,1723B.

This content downloaded from 142.58.151.115 on Thu, 8 Jan 2015 19:10:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Date of theCensus of Quirinius 139

The firstbears the name of a Roman official,Marcus Titius,17as well as informationon the size of the standard,and the otherbears the year and monthof the local era, countedaccording to the yearsof rule of the unnamedking. This date showsthat the standardin questionwas establishedin the 34thyear of his rule.18The place fromwhich the artefactcomes and the year of rule allows Di Segni to assume thatthis date mayrefer to Herod,king of Judaea.19 The functionof the artefactand the textinscribed on it give rise to importantquestions of a historical nature,and the answerto these,according to Di Segni,casts an entirelynew lightnot only on the statusof Herod as a rulerdependent on Rome,but also on thequestion of thedating of theCensus of Quirinius.One of thequestions she asks concernsthe reason for the use of Roman weightstandards in theHerodian state. She claims thatthe presenceof the name of the governorof Syria on the artefactmay show thatHerod's kingdomwas to a largerdegree in economic and politicalterms dependent on Rome thanhas previously been supposed.20The originof the standardapparently proves that the inhabitantsof Judaea were com- pelled to pay taxes to Rome, and the amountof thesedues musthave been determinedon the basis of the resultsof the propertycensus conductedby the Romans on the territoryof the kingdomof Herod. This factleads Di Segni to rejectthe generallyaccepted view thatthe Roman propertycensuses did not apply to subjectsof thevassal rulers.This also allows herto draw a muchmore important conclusion: since such censuses took place, this findmakes it possible to reconcilethe sources of Luke and Josephuswith refer- ence to thecensus carriedout by Quirinius. Beforewe embarkon an evaluationof thesearguments, we shouldfirst refer to the questionof theuse of theRoman standardin Judaea.Contrary to Di Segni's view,the fact that this standard probably derived fromthe area of the Herodian state cannot be treatedas irrefutableproof of his dependenceon Rome, permittingthe Roman provincialadministration to act practicallyunhindered on the territoryof Judaea. This standardmay in facthave been used forits purpose, but without any connectionto theactivities of the Roman authorities;it may simplyhave been adaptedto the needs of the fiscaladministration of the Hero- dian state.Putting the name of a Roman officialon itconstituted a kindof guaranteeof thereliability of the measurein thecase of anytransactions among the inhabitants of Judaea, but above all in theirmaterial dues to Herod himself.Such a functionappears to be clearlysuggested by thecontent of the second inscription. We shouldrecall herethat Herod was happyto use Roman models if theyhelped to strengthenhis power and improvethe workings of his state.The size of the financialand materialresources accumulated by the kingmust have been knownto theofficials who servedhim, and theirmanagement was withoutdoubt kept underclose control.In orderto pursuean efficientfinancial policy in his own countryas well as beyondits borders,Herod had to have at his disposal an organisedfiscal system, as theeffectiveness of its actionsand of enforcingdebts owed was key to therealisation of his numerousinvestment plans and the possibilityto be generousto his Roman friendsas well as the Greek towns.Therefore, the hypothesisthat the working of thissystem might have been based on the Roman model and thatone of its methodswas the periodical operationof propertycensuses does notseem to be withoutbasis.21 In thiscontext it is hardto treatthe use 2 17According toL. Di Segnithis official is synonymouswith the governor ofSyria, M. Titius(PIR T 261;Hanslik 1937: 1559-1562,no. 18; D^browa 1998: 18-20). But this identification is not as obviousas itseems at first glance. So faras weknow, mattersrelated to taxes were the responsibility ofa procurator, notthe governor. We don't know any reason why this rule would be brokenin this specific case. 18The inscription gives, alongside the date according to the era of the ruler, the name of the month Xanthikos and the number24. L. Di Segni(2005: 27) justifiesthe presence of the name of the month by the fact that this was the month when Herodassumed power, which designated the start of the next year of his reign, while the second group of numbers is seen as a dateaccording to another era, counted from the battle of Actium. This hypothesis is difficult toaccept without reservations, though,as noother example is knownof such double dating being used in the lands of Judaea during the time of Herod, cf. Goodblatt2009: 127-154.Also opposed is P.-L.Gatier (AE 2005,p. 560,commentary on no. 1589),who suggests that the number24 refersto the day. 19Di Segni2005: 27-28. According to P.-L.Gatier (2008: 750) it is doubtfulwhether this assumption is correct. 20The merit of this view is supposedto be shownby the fact that the standard is matchedto the unit of measurement (modius)used by the Romans, while the local population mostly used Greek measures: Di Segni2005: 26. 21Cf. Pearson 1999: 265-269.

This content downloaded from 142.58.151.115 on Thu, 8 Jan 2015 19:10:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 140 E. Dqbrowa of Roman standardsof weightor measurementin Judaeaas irrefutableproof of the absolutedependence of itsruler on Rome. If thatdependence did indeed exist,then almost every major financial decision of the kingof Judaea would requireconsultation with, and theconsent of, Roman officials,which is notconfirmed by any sources. All theconclusions of a historicalnature drawn by Di Segni springfrom her interpretation of thecon- tentof the inscriptionson the standard.She places particularemphasis on the second one, claimingthat it dates thefirst, as bothwere made at thesame time.22However, a carefulanalysis of photographsand copies of theinscriptions does notprovide such certainty.23 Both thecut of theletters in thefirst inscription, which containsthe name of Marcus Titius,and the care takenover it, distinguishes it fromthe otherinscription, whichfeatures chronological details. Even if we take intoconsideration the factthat the inscription on the outersurface of the standardwas exposed to greateruse, leading to wearingof the metal surfaceand a certaindeformation of the letters,it is stilldifficult to resistthe impressionthat it was made by a different, less skilledhand. Further evidence of the limitedexperience of theengraver who preparedthe template of the inscriptionmight be the rathercareless planningof the texton the surfaceof the ring.The conclusion arises thatthe standard in theshape we knowwas based on one deliveredonly with the name of thealleged governorof Syria.The second inscriptionmay have been added later,when a standardwas being cast for use by somebodyelse, whichwould explainthe differences in theshape of theletters. Technically this may have meantcreating a templatefrom the originalof the standardwith the name of Marcus Titius,which beforethe cast of thecopy was made,had thecontents of the second inscriptionadded. Takingthis possibil- ityinto account, we mustremain very wary in drawingconclusions about the datingof the governorships of Syriaby M. Titiusand by his successor,C. SentiusSaturninus. Furtherarguments also suggestthat we shoulderr on the side of cautionin thismatter. Di Segni points outthat Josephus, writing about the activities of C. SentiusSaturninus in Syriaand his contactswith Herod, does not always describehim using a titlethat is an unambiguousconfirmation of his statusas a gover- nor (Josephus,В J 1.577;AJ 16.277,280, 344-345, 368; 17.6,24). Based on this she concludesthat, before assumingthe role of legateof Syria,for a certainperiod of his stayin theprovince he held a functionof a lowerrank. She believesthat the senator, at thetime when M. Titiuswas governorof Syria,was in chargeof one of the administrativedistricts of theprovince bordering with Judaea, and as a resultwas able to moni- 24 torthe events in Herod's kingdom She invokeshere examples of such practiceknown from the period of Augustus'successors, and possiblyinitiated even by thisemperor himself. It is importantto stresshere that this only affectedofficials from the equestrianorder.25 According to Di Segni, assigningthis function to C. SentiusSaturninus provides a satisfactoryreason forthe presencein Syria of the formerconsul before he became governorof theprovince. In fact,we do notknow any case of such practice.And forthis reason we mustdemand restraint against such speculation. It is hard to approvethis hypothesiswithout reservations, however. M. Titiusheld the consulate(cos. suff)in 31 ВС, i.e. significantlyearlier than C. SentiusSaturninus, cos. in 19 ВС. However,they held dif- ferenttypes of this function.More prestigiouswas the officeof C. SentiusSaturninus (cos. Ordinarius)', incidentally,he carried out his dutyfor much of the year independently,without a colleague, working effectivelyon behalfof ensuringpublic order.26For thisreason alone we can recognisehis being sentto Syria by Augustusas proofof greattrust and recognitionon the part of the emperor.While the system of provincialadministration created at the timeby the emperormay have containedcertain anomalies, it seems unlikelyto supposethat C. SentiusSaturninus received an inferiorposition from Augustus, entrusted to representativesof the equestrianorder or to freedmen.There is no evidenceof the existencein Syria at the time we are interestedin of extraordinarycircumstances justifying such a situation.If even Josephus,

22Di Segni2005: 23. 23Cf. Di Segni2005, 24, fig. 2 and26, fig. 3. 24Di Segni2005: 30-31. 25Cf. Isaac 1998:313-320; Eck 2007: 36-37. 26Veli. Patere. 2.92,1-5.

This content downloaded from 142.58.151.115 on Thu, 8 Jan 2015 19:10:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Date of the Census of Quirinius 141 describingsome of theevents in whichC. SentiusSaturninus participated, does notmention anything about his occupyingthe role of legateof Syria,it is certainlynot possible to see thisas an argumentconfirming thehypothesis that this did nottake place at the time.27Moreover, we possess manyother examples show- ing thatusing the official names of Roman officeswas notJosephus' strong suit. His workfeatures a great varietyof termswhich he uses to describeRoman administrativeand militarypositions.28 This also results fromhis styleof writing,as well as his use of varioussources whichhe adaptedand applied forhis aims. We knowthat, in usingthese more or less freely,he did notdisplay excessive attention for the internal cohe- sionof his own worksor care and consistencyin theterminology he used. The hypothesisabout C. Sentius Saturninusacting first as consularlegate administeringonly partof Syria,and laterthe whole province, remainscontrary to thepractice we knowto have been appliedin Roman provincialadministration in Syria at thetime of emperorAugustus' rule. It is also difficultto agree withDi Segni's assertionabout the date of C. SentiusSaturninus' governor- shipof Syria.In thenew chronologyof legatesof thisprovince which she suggestsfor the years c. 13-7 ВС, the period in whichhe filledthis positionis restrictedto arounda year and a half.This resultsfrom the assumptionthat M. Titiusremained in Syriauntil spring of 7 ВС, yetM. QuinctiliusVarus, the successor of C. SentiusSaturninus, began to performhis dutiesin the second halfof 6 ВС.29 If we take intoaccount the factthat the average length of timeimperial legates remained at thehead of theprovince during Augustus' rule was at least a few years,the case of C. SentiusSaturninus would have to be consideredexceptional. Such briefgovernment in a provincecould happenonly for two reasons.The firstwas thedeath of a legate duringhis timein officein the province.In the case of Syria at the timeof theempire, we know at least a few such cases confirmedin sources,and in generalthese deaths were caused by illnesses broughton by toughclimatic conditions.30 The second reason was a shortenedperiod of officeas the resultof the legate being dismissedfrom the positionby the emperor.Such a dismissal could be caused by abuse of the position,justified suspicions of the rulerabout the disloyaltyof the legate,and fearsabout him startingan armedrebellion, or his being entrustedwith a special missionin anotherpart of the empire.31Bearing in mindthe factthat C. SentiusSaturninus continued his senatorialcareer in the serviceof Augustus32at a latertime, a disciplinarydismissal is out of the question.In accordance withaccepted practice,33 Saturni- nus receivedthe nextappointment in his careeronly a few yearsafter his stayin Syria.This was the role of legateat the side of Tiberiusat the timeof the campaignin Germaniain around4-6 AD. For the part he playedin thishe receivedmilitary honours,34 which unambiguously confirmed his highposition in the circleof power.The chronologyof thecareer of C. SentiusSaturninus which we knowtoday does notgive anygrounds to believethat there were any particular reasons for his dismissalfrom the province before the designatedtime. In thiscase we can statethat, in spiteof the doubtsover this, all mentionsby Josephusof thissenator's stay in Syriaconcern his workas legateof theprovince. Contraryto the convictionand argumentsof Leah Di Segni, the chronologicalelements contained in theinscriptions from the standard do notoffer a significantchange in ourknowledge of thestatus of Judaea underthe rule of Herod as a vassal stateof Rome. Neitherdo theygive groundsfor questioning the correct- ness of the accepted chronologyof the Roman governorsof Syria who administeredthe provincearound

27W. Eck (2008: 221-222 and note 18) has not any doubt in this matter. 28Cf. Saddington 1995: 53-55; Di Segni2005: 29-30; Eck 2008: 218-226; Toher 2009: 65-77. 29Di Segni2005: 28-31. 30Syme 1981: 125-144 (= Syme1984: 1376-1392). Cf. Szramkiewicz 1975, 1: 363-366. 31Cf. Szramkiewicz 1975, 1: 366-376. 32 2 Formore on the subject of this senator and his career: PIR S 393;Groag 1923: 1511-1526; Dqbrowa 1998: 20-22. 33Cf. Szramkiewicz 1975, 1: 358-361. 34Veil. Patere. 2.105.1-2; 109.5; 110.2; Dio Cassius55.28.6.

This content downloaded from 142.58.151.115 on Thu, 8 Jan 2015 19:10:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 142 E . Dqbrowa theend of the 1stcentury ВС,35 or provideany new and certainreasons allowing us to settlethe debate held by historiansand theologianson the date of the Census of Quirinius.

Bibliography

Alföldy,G. (1997): Un celebreframmento epigrafico tiburtino anonimo (P. SulpiciusQuirinius?), in: I. Di Sefano Manzella(ed.), lnscriptiones Sanctae Sedis , voi.2: Le iscrizionidei Cristianiin Vaticano. Materiali e contri- butiscientifici per una mostraepigrafica , Città del Vaticano:199-208. Boffo,L. (1994):Iscrizioni greche e latineper lo studiodella Bibbia, Brescia. Cotton,H. M. (1999): Some Aspectsof theRoman Administration of Judaea/Syria-Palaestina,in: W. Eck (ed.), LokaleAutonomie und römische Ordnungsmacht inden kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen vom 1. bis 3. Jahrhundert, München:75-91. Dqbrowa,E. (1998):The Governorsof Roman Syria from Augustus to SeptimiusSeverus , Bonn. Di Segni,L. (2005): A RomanStandard in Herod'sKingdom, Israel Museum Studies in Archaeology 4: 23-48. Eck,W. (2007): Romund Judaea. Fünf Vorträge zur römischen Herrschaft in Palaestina , Tübingen. Eck,W. (2008): Die Benennungvon römischen Amtsträgern und politisch-militärisch-administrativen Funktionen bei FlaviusIosephus: Probleme der korrekten Identifizierung, ZPE 166:218-226. Gatier,P.-L. (2008): BulletinEpigraphique, REG 121:750 (on no.555). Ghiretti,M. (1985):Lo "status"della Giudea dall'età Augustea all'età Claudia, Latomus 54: 751-766. Goodblatt,D. (2009): DatingDocuments in HerodianJudaea, in D. M. Jacobson- N. Kokkinos(eds.), Herod and Augustus.Papers presented at theIJS Conference , 21st-23rd June 2005 , Leiden-Boston:127-154. Groag,E. (1923):Sentius, no. 9, RE IIA: 1511-1526. Groag,E. (1931):Sulpicius, no. 90, RE IVA: 822-843. Hanslik,R. (1937):Titius, no. 18,RE VIA: 1559-1562. Isaac, B. (1998):The Decapolisin Syria:a NeglectedInscription, in: B. Isaac, TheNear East underRoman Rule. SelectedPapers , Leiden-NewYork-Köln: 313-320. Kennedy,D. (2006): Demography,the Population of Syriaand theCensus of Q. AemiliusSecundus, Levant 38: 109-124. Labbé,G. (2008): De Varusà Quirinius... La Judéesous administration romaine directe dès la mortd'Hérode: une hypothèseexclue, Syria 85: 229-248. Pearson,В. W. R. (1999):The LucanCensuses, Revisited, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61: 262-282. Saddington,D. B. (1995):Problems in MilitaryRanks and Military Personnel in Josephus,in Y. De Bohec(ed.), La hiérarchie(Rangordnung) de l'arméeromaine sous le Haut-Empire.Actes du Congrèsde Lyon(15-18 sep- tembre1994), Paris: 53-55. Sasse,M. (2004): InnerjüdischeEreignisabläufe bis zum Bar Kochba-Aufstand, in:К. Erlemann- К. L. Noethlichs- К. Scherbereich- J.Zangenberg (eds.), Neues Testamentund Antike Kultur , Bd. 1: Prolegomena, Quellen , Geschichte, 2 Aufl.,Neukirchen-Vluyn: 188-194. Schürer,E. (1985):Storia del popolo giudaico al tempodi Gesù Cristo(175 a.C.-135 d.C.),vol. 1,Brescia. Smith,M. D. (2000): Of Jesusand Quirinius, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62: 278-293. Szramkiewicz,R. (1975):Les gouverneursde provinceà l'époqueaugustéenne. Contribution à l'histoire adminis- trativeet sociale du Principát, vol. 1,Paris. Stein,A. (1900):Coponius, no. 2, RE IV: 1214-1215. Syme,R. (1981):Governors Dying in Syria,ZPE 41: 125-144. Syme,R. (1984):Roman Papers , vol.3, Oxford. Toher,M. (2009): Herod,Augustus, and Nicolaus of Damascus, in: D. M. Jacobson- N. Kokkinos(eds.), Herod and Augustus.Papers presented at theIJS Conference , 21st-23rd June 2005 , Leiden-Boston:65-77.

Edward Dqbrowa,Krakow [email protected]

35The maintenance ofthis is supportedby P.-L. Gatier in his commentary onthe inscription from the standard (AE 2005, p. 560).

This content downloaded from 142.58.151.115 on Thu, 8 Jan 2015 19:10:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions