Original edition published 2016
The Augustus (AVGVSTVS) Connection
In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. (Luke 2:1, NRSV).
This line about events relating to the Lucan account of the birth of Jesus refers to the “princeps” of Rome, Gaius Julius Caesar Octavian. He was born 23 September 63 BC (BCE) as Gaius Octavianus, otherwise known as Octavian (and, from January, 27 BC, as Augustus). Jesus’ birth, on any reckoning, came long after the Senate had granted the honour (Augustus) to Octavian.
 |
| Temple of Augustus and Rome in then Galatia Province - has his Res Gestae inscribed. Used as church 5th Century; mosque 10th Century (Ankara) |
I noticed that many of our translators use the title “Emperor” to represent the Greek word we know best as “Kaiser” or “Tsar”, which Greek word is a transliteration of the Latin, “Caesar”. Augustus himself deliberately took Caesar as his name, honouring the will of his late uncle and adoptive father, Julius Caesar, but did not use Caesar as equivalent to “Rex” (perish the thought in their Roman "Republic"!). This ruthless, clever and powerful man wanted to be called Caesar; later he was addressed as “Caesar Augustus”. (Thereafter the title Caesar was used consistently for the man at the head of the Roman "Republic" and the word could acquire the meaning of "Emperor".)
Augustus held power from 43 BC (first Consul period) to 14 AD. Of course the Romans did not (could not) mark dates as BC/AD! They counted the years from the accepted date of the foundation of Rome (753 BC). In that counting system Augustus was born in the year 690 A.U.C.
Here is a little more cautious translation of Luke’s careful words:
In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed,[b] who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. (Luke 2:1-7, ESV)
Augustus held power from 43 BC (first Consul period) to 14 AD. Of course the Romans did not (could not) mark dates as BC/AD! They counted the years from the accepted date of the foundation of Rome (753 BC). In that counting system Augustus was born in the year 690 A.U.C.
Here is a little more cautious translation of Luke’s careful words:
In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed,[b] who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. (Luke 2:1-7, ESV)
That journey of Joseph, south into Judea, with heavily pregnant Mary of Nazareth, was required by Roman authority. It must have been hard, especially if both were on foot and/or especially if the weather was hot and dry. It was all according to plan. (I wonder if they traversed Samaria, the shortest route?)
Luke, actually, used “Caesar Augustus” for the name/title of the (effectively) Roman Emperor. There are those who find a problem (or problems) with Luke. For example, that registration (enrolment/census) when (or before) Quirinius was governor of Syria is not found in Roman records (Hohener & Brown, 2013, p134). Is this really fatal to confidence in the record? (Some published authors even assert there was no Luke anyway, and the whole document is “justification after the event”!)
Interestingly, the British Library holds a very ancient, partially damaged, "Papyrus Census Order" issued in Egypt by a Prefect of Rome (Gaius Vibius Maximus), dated 104 AD (CE). In Greek, it orders all in his area of authority to return home for a census (BL Papyrus 904). Taxation is important still.
Luke's introduction links us to political, military and economic aspects at the time of Jesus' birth. In Italy, Rome's citizens lived free of direct taxation, or external threat. The lower class ("Plebs") were used to receiving, like the soldiers, "donations" from their Caesar. Rome's dominions were overseen or directly ruled on behalf of Rome's first citizen or citizens. (They did have cause to fear their multitude of enslaved workers.)
Like others before and after him, Augustus was a strategic thinker - unless he held clearly superior force he postponed confrontation and made "peace" - until he could emerge winner. He retained the previous, and venerated, form and machinery of the Senate and people of Rome. He did cost-counted towering redevelopment in the city, paid for by the subjugated. Under his sway, Rome expanded the (his) dominions and posted (his) standing professional legions in garrisons to discourage disobedience. The Romans who did Augustus' will were assured of their daily bread, and much more besides.
The yet unborn Jesus was affected through the Roman taxation plan in the name of Augustus. And so it was the Nazareth family had their child in Bethlehem. Later the events in the life the family were affected by Augustus' client King Herod. The baby was soon named Jesus. Who knew about him? I am confident neither Quirinius, nor Octavian the Augustus knew. Some unimportant rural workers and their friends knew. Some individual believers in Jerusalem knew. Some short-term visitors from the East knew. Herod the King knew (but his days were numbered). Mary and Joseph knew! They did not know they were soon to become refugees for a time. Eventually Jesus met his Nazareth community - that is another story.
Luke had reason to include the historical note, despite officialdom’s typical grandiose claim (“all the world”). The first readers would have known of the census and of Roman practice. (There may be a clue here as to Luke’s intended audience?) Why today would anyone demand that Roman records include that specific census event? It would be nice if it were so, but not highly likely. Perhaps some may not appreciate what is involved in the administration of a vast government edifice. A while ago, from time to time, I had to mail out hundreds of envelopes (blue) bearing the legend “O.H.M.S”. For sure, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth knew nothing of it!
Consider Augustus himself. His life to age 30 is available in considerable detail from early Roman records. His later life is less able to be known; for example, what did he do between 16 BC and 13 BC in Gaul and Germany? Such records as exist of later years are viewed with some suspicion (Everitt, 2006, xi). There are impressive records and some even date to the period not long after his life. However, consider this list of informative writings:
- Autobiography to 25 BC (written in Spain by Augustus)
- Correspondence of Augustus to Cicero
- Memoirs of Agrippa
- History of the times of Augustus by Polio
- Commentaries by Messala on the civil wars after Julius Caesar’s assassination
- Livy’s history of Rome (30 books, covering 44 BC to 9 BC)
- Life of Augustus by Nicolaus of Damascus
- Rome’s civil wars in the 1st century BC by Appian (ends in 35 BC)
Augustus wrote his "Res Gestae Divi Augusti" ("the deeds of the divine Augustus"*) for posterity - most of it remains inscribed on the temple at Ankara. An impressive item of PR. (Curios that the powerful want to have the future think well of them.)
As I see it, despite his obvious eminence, the contemporary documentary evidence for Augustus is relatively thin and in places non-existent. Nonetheless, I would be very, very surprised if any published author denies the existence of Augustus as “Emperor”, nor does anyone argue that the Roman Empire is a myth of wishful thinking! The Roman constructions which remain (by hard labour of unfortunate slaves, or of the military men, who may also have been compelled) would give substance to the story. The artefacts may include (complimentary) inscriptions and statuary. The powerful of Rome did not invent PR and spin, though they were curiously keen to use them.
There are impressive, ancient, life-like, sculptures of Augustus - for example, the British Museum holds a collection. Some (at least) offer an official image of the man made during his life. Artists would have been wise to flatter Augustus Caesar. I dare say they are reliable representations of him.. Perhaps they show something of his likeness. Surviving examples have been found across the dominions of Rome, including 250 statues and other images (Beard. M, SPQR, 2015).
https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1812-0615-1
Unlike of Augustus, no known contemporary attempt was made to write the early life of Jesus - why should there have been? He was of truly humble origins from a minor fragment of the dominions of Rome. He had neither troops nor wealth, and could never have been classed as even the lowest citizen of Rome. The vast wealth of dateable fragments and documents covering the ministry of Jesus and his earliest followers stand in contrast to his origins and status. (It is no easy matter to do justice to the available primary documentary information in reconstructing the “original” account. Despite the advanced stage of current knowledge and the published Greek text, probably the meticulous task will never be ended.)
There are no sculptures of Jesus comparable to those of Augustus (etc). Do you think that is significant? Yes, I see crucifixes a-plenty, which have the artists' imagined figure representing the sentimental understanding of Christ crucified. (Do you think these works offer any evidence or insight?)
Julius Caesar had used his authority in 46 BC to bring in the more scientific Julian calendar; a calendar which was a legacy for 16 centuries. With Augustus’ approval (or instigation?), in 7 BC the calendar month of August received its new name honouring him, just as July (Iulius) had been renamed in 44 BC for the so recently killed Julius Caesar. I suppose those month names penetrated the wilds of Rome’s dominions, including Judaea and Galilee.
When they handed it to him, he asked, “Whose picture and title are stamped on it?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. (Mark 12:16, NLT)
When Jesus held up that coin, whose image was there for all to see? Was it that of the late Julius Caesar, or of the late Augustus, or of the very much alive Tiberius? All of the dynasty used “Caesar”, and it became a handy ongoing designation. As to which one on the coin - an open question.
“Augustus” seems to have been initiated for Octavian as a title/name, but the idea of “revered one” was developed into the “Emperor Cult”. (We see a Greek equivalent word used in Acts 25:21, 25 to refer to Claudius, ie, the "Revered One", namely, Caesar.) No doubt people commonly encountered the doctrine of the "deified Caesar(s)".
When they handed it to him, he asked, “Whose picture and title are stamped on it?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. (Mark 12:16, NLT)
When Jesus held up that coin, whose image was there for all to see? Was it that of the late Julius Caesar, or of the late Augustus, or of the very much alive Tiberius? All of the dynasty used “Caesar”, and it became a handy ongoing designation. As to which one on the coin - an open question.
“Augustus” seems to have been initiated for Octavian as a title/name, but the idea of “revered one” was developed into the “Emperor Cult”. (We see a Greek equivalent word used in Acts 25:21, 25 to refer to Claudius, ie, the "Revered One", namely, Caesar.) No doubt people commonly encountered the doctrine of the "deified Caesar(s)".
I also note that, though in 27 BC Octavian accepted the cognomen “Augustus”, he continued to decline being called “dominus” (“[My] Lord”, or "master"). As we shall see, the situation regarding Jesus was strikingly different. Where am I heading? To know Jesus is Lord is quite a different thing, really. He is Lord in a way not dreamt of by Augustus, nor by those who did honour to the power of Rome. (More to come on this, not so simple topic.)
if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved. The scripture says, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. For, “every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved” (Romans 10:9-13, RSV).
In summary:
- 23/9/63 BC, just before sunrise, Augustus born (as Gaius Octavianus)
- Sometime between 6 BC, and spring, 4 BC - Jesus born (Hoehner & Brown)
- 19/8/14 AD Augustus died (succession planning was complete)
- ? Nissan 14 or 15, 33 AD or 30 AD - Jesus executed (discussed in Hoehner & Brown)
- Jesus risen!
One of the two remains current! One declares your welcome. One changes lives. One is revered. One is by nature worthy of reverence. To one, every knee shall bow, when he comes.
Though he (Jesus) was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form, he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross. Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor and gave him the name above all other names, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:6-11 NLT)
References
Alston, Richard. Rome's Revolution: Death of the Republic and Birth of the Empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015)
Everitt, Anthony. Augustus: The life of Rome’s first emperor (New York: Random House, 2006)
Hoehner, H.W. and Brown, J.K. Chronology in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels 2 Ed. (Downers Grove, Il.: IVP Academic, 2013)
Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Scripture quotations marked (NLT) are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright ©1996, 2004, 2007, 2013 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.
Scripture quotations marked (NRSV) are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Scripture quotations marked (RSV) are from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, and 1971 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ
Image: courtesy HolyLandPhotos.org
Bible text courtesy Bible Gateway
Bible text courtesy Blue Letter Bible
* Res Gestae Divi Augusti https://www.livius.org/sources/content/augustus-res-gestae/
AL
31/08/24
01/09/24
05/09/24
17/09/24
19/09/24
29/9/24
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are not moderated. Allen Hampton