census of Quirinius

The Census of Quirinius refers to the enrollment of the Roman Provinces of Syria and Iudaea for the purpose of taxation taken during the reign of the Roman Emperor Augustus when Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria. An account of the census was given by the historian Josephus, who associated it with the beginning of the Zealot movement. The Gospel of Luke associates the birth of Jesus with this census, but appears to date it a decade earlier. Most scholars regard this as an error,^[1] but some have suggested ways of reconciling the two.

The Virgin and St. Joseph register for the census before Governor Quirinius. Byzantine mosaic c. 1315.

The Census

The Jewish historian Josephus recorded that in 6 or 7 A.D., after the exile of Herod Archelaus (successor to Herod the Great in Iudaea), Quirinius (in Greek, Cyrenius), a Roman senator, became governor (Legatus) of Syria, while an equestrian assistant named Coponius was assigned as the first governor (Prefect) of the newly-created Iudaea Province. These governors were assigned to conduct a tax census for the Emperor in Syria and Iudaea.^[2]

Now Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to be a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money;

The census in Iudaea led to an uprising under Judas of Galilee. Probably the imposition of taxation associated with it was the main cause, although religious objections to numbering the people of Israel may well have played a part; the biblical account of the census carried out by King David implies that it was a sinful act. ^[3] Josephus did not imply that they had much immediate success, but he regarded their actions as the beginning of a Zealot movement that encouraged armed resistance to the Roman empire, culminating eventually in the First Jewish-Roman War.^[4]

The census in Syria was mentioned in the funerary inscription of Aemilius Secundus, a soldier who served under Quirinius.^[5] It mentions a census "of 117 thousand citizens" in Apamea. ^[6]

Augustus had an interest in the collection of census data on his empire. He is known to have taken a census of Roman citizens at least three times, in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14.^[7] There is also evidence that censuses were taken at regular intervals during his reign in the provinces of Egypt and Sicily, important because of their wealthy estates and supply of grain.^[8] In the provinces, the main goals of a census of non-citizens were taxation and military service.^[9] The earliest such provincial census was taken in Gaul in 27 BC; during the reign of Augustus, the imposition of the census provoked disturbances and resistance.^[10]

The census in the New Testament

The Gospel of Luke also mentions Quirinius in the infancy narrative of Jesus:

In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for her to deliver her child. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in bands of cloth, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. (Luke 2:1-7—NRSV)

This passage has long been considered problematic by Biblical scholars, since it appears to place the birth of Jesus around the time of the census in 6 A.D, whereas another reference in the Gospel of Luke has been taken as implying that Mary's pregnancy occurred "in the days of Herod, King of Judea" (Luke 1:5), implying a birth before, or shortly after, the death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C.^[11] Yet another reference describes Jesus as "about thirty" (Luke 3:23), some time after John the Baptist began his preaching in "the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar" (Luke 3:1) (i.e. A.D. 28 or 29), which would date the birth around 2 BC or later.

The Gospel of Matthew, although it makes no mention of the census and implies that the family of Jesus already lived in Bethlehem, places the birth of Jesus in the reign of Herod the Great, stating that Herod had all the male children in Bethlehem two years old and younger executed (Matthew 2:16, see Slaughter of the Innocents), implying a date no later than 6-4 BC. The author of the Gospel of Luke is also considered to have written the Acts of the Apostles, in which the census of Quirinius is mentioned: "After him (Theudas) Judas the Galilean rose up at the time of the census and got people to follow him" (Acts 5:37). See also The Theudas problem.

Most modern scholars explain the disparity as an error on the part of the author of the Gospel, concluding that he created a literary fiction in order to place the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, unaware of the chronological difficulty. Many also suggest that the Gospel of Matthew account is invented.

Others, especially in the past when Biblical inerrancy was more or less taken for granted by scholars, have attempted to reconcile the accounts. Those who considered the problem included John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Isaac Casaubon, and Nathaniel Lardner. Among the theories that have been proposed are that Luke was referring to an earlier census taken by Quirinius, or someone else of the same or similar name, or by a different governor, during the reign of Herod the Great; that the census was begun years earlier but only completed by Quirinius; that the census was carried out during the reign of Herod and that Quirinius was responsible for the consequent levying of taxes ten years later; that the author refers not to a census carried out by Quirinius, but before Quirinius; or that the Luke account is correct, and it is the Matthew account which is in error.

Luke in error

The majority view among scholars is that Luke misidentified the date of Quirinius's census with the reign of Herod the Great. James Dunn remarked: “It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Luke was mistaken”.^[12] Geza Vermes comments, "from whatever angle one looks at it, the census referred to by Luke conflicts with historical reality".^[13] W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders remarked: “on many points, especially about Jesus’ early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know, and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could”.^[14] In A Companion to the New Testament, Anthony Harvey agreed: "we should perhaps be prepared to admit that (in an epoch when such things were much more difficult to get right than they are now) he fell into error about some of the details.”^[15] J. P. Meier considered "attempts to reconcile Luke 2:1 with the facts of ancient history... hopelessly contrived",^[16] to which R. E. Brown concurred.^[17] Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White, though he vindicated much of Luke's account, concluded that "[t]he attempt to defend Luke" by postulating a census of Quirinius before A.D. 6 "was misconceived", and that Luke, in bringing together John's nativity under Herod and Jesus' under Quirinius, "accepted [an] incompatible synchronism".^[18] Fergus Millar said, "Only Matthew and Luke take the story back to the birth of Jesus, and do so in wholly different and incompatible ways. . . Both birth narratives are constructs, one historically plausible [i.e. Matthew], the other wholly impossible [i.e. Luke], and both are designed to reach back to the infancy of Jesus, and to assert his connection to the house of David... and his birth in Bethlehem."^[19]

Many have suggested that Luke's motive may have been to provide an account that would fit the expectation that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem: "The journey for census and tax registration is sacred fiction, a creation of Luke’s imagination in order to get Jesus’ parents to Bethlehem for his birth."^[20] In a biography of Herod, Peter Richardson suggested: "Luke backdated the census of Quirinius and then used it as the reason for Joseph and Mary's trip to Bethlehem".^[21]

M. D. Smith criticised this view, arguing that it is unlikely that Luke would have mistaken the date of the census and the related ‘cataclysmic events’ that would have been widely known to his audience: “…for first-century Jews to confuse those two events would be akin to twentieth century Americans confusing World War II and the Korean War.^[22]

Alternative Translation of Luke

Beginning with Johann Georg Herwart (or Herwaert) in 1612^[23], and then P. E. Huschke in 1840,^[24] a number of authors have suggested alternative translations of Luke 2:2 based on a reinterpretation of the word prote (πρώτη), which is usually translated "first" but can also mean "before" or "former" when followed by the genitive case. Thus F.M. Heichelheim argued that the "original meaning" of Luke 2:2 was properly rendered as "This census was the first before that under the prefectureship of Quirinius in Syria", stating that this alternate translation would resolve "all difficulties".^[25] Under this interpretation, Luke intends to place the events around the birth of Jesus before Quirinius's governorship and census in A.D. 6.^[26] This position has been followed by several other scholars.^[27] This would resolve the difficulty of locating Quirinius amongst the governors of Herod's day, though of course it does not address the plausibility of a census under Herod.

Heichelheim's proposed translation was rejected by Horst Braunert, who interpreted Acts 5:37 as speaking of "the census", arguing that this phrasing would by implication exclude the possibility of Luke 2:2 mentioning a different census.^[28] B. W. R. Pearson stated that "the article simply cannot be made to carry that kind of weight", arguing that, in the given context, it is the mention of Judas the Galilean, not the article, that delimits the census.^[29] Braunert also noted that ancient sources, namely the Suda and John Chrysostom, while paraphrasing the passage of Luke in question, speak unambiguously of "the first census." In other words, the standard translation of Luke 2:2 reflects an ancient understanding of the text. However, Heichelheim had cited a reference in Tertullian, stating that it "proved" the original meaning of Luke according to his translation.^[30] A. N. Sherwin-White also considered the alternative translation implausible, and argued that it could not be accepted without a parallel usage elsewhere in Luke's writings.^[31] However, B. W. R. Pearson observed the difficulty in establishing a "regular" usage of any particular writer given so small a sample, and argued that, in the greater context of the Hellenistic Greek in which Luke wrote, such usage "is well attested, and we do not even have to go outside the New Testament itself to find it (cp. John 5:36 and 1Corinthians 1:25)."^[32] Daniel B. Wallace argues against the interpretations, stating that "such a view is almost impossible".^[33] Joseph Fitzmyer agreed: "the use of the [participle] and the word-order are fatal to such interpretations. Moreover, it is obviously a last-ditch solution to save the historicity involved." ^[34] None of the seven most popular English translations of the New Testament accepts the alternative interpretation: all translate protos as "first". ^[35]

Quirinius governing twice

To reconcile Luke and Josephus, some have speculated that Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, or at least "governing" (hêgemoneuontos, a term that, besides describing a governor, could refer to other promagistri or quaestores)^[36] in the area at an earlier date, and that he conducted two censuses—one during the reign of Herod the Great, referenced by Luke; and the other around A.D. 6, referenced by Josephus.

An earlier period of rule by Quirinius would have had to be either before M. Titius (before 10 B.C.), or between Varus and Gaius (4 - 1 B.C.), both possibilities being reconcilable with Luke’s information, but unlikely.^[39] Thomas Corbishley in 1934 dated the legateship of M. Titius before 12 B.C., placing a previous governing of Quirinius after Titius and before S. Saturninus; however this has not found support^[40] and would in any case conflict with Luke's description of Jesus as 'about thirty' in around 28 AD. Had Quirinius governed in the period directly after Varus, however, Jesus could not have been born during the reign of Herod the Great as described in the Gospel of Matthew, since Josephus reports that Varus led a force against a revolt in Judea after Herod's death.

Theodor Mommsen was the first to argue that a damaged inscription, known as the Lapis Tiburtinus,^[41] might provide evidence of an earlier governorship of Quirinius, which Mommsen placed after that of Varus, around 3 B.C.^[42] Yet the inscription does not mention Quirinius, and in 1931 Groag attacked this interpretation. He argued that the stone merely refers to someone who held a legateship for the second time in the province of Syria, but does not specify that the earlier legateship was also in Syria.^[43] Ronald Syme, following Groag's reasoning, argued that "whether or not the man [referenced by the Tiburtine inscription] was Quirinius—and it could still perhaps be maintained that he was—there is no reason for believing that he was twice governor of Syria."^[44] Syme thought L. Calpurnius Piso was the more likely candidate for the inscription, while Groag argued that it referenced M. Plautius Silvanus.^[45]

The hypothesis that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria, supported by the evidence of Luke and the Tiburtine inscription, was the standard scholarly position until Syme advanced his arguments in 1934. It was thought that Quirinius conducted the Homonadensian war from Syria, and that this war took place between 3 and 2 B.C.^[46] Yet Syme argued that the Homonadensian campaign may be better dated to 6 B.C., and that Quirinius conducted it as governor of Galatia, rather than as governor of Syria.^[47] Today, most scholars follow Syme and hold that Quirinius was governor in Galatia from before 6 B.C. until just before A.D. 2, and that this precludes the possibility that he was governor in Syria during this period.^[48] They hold this position, in part, for reasons of historical precedent. As J.G.C. Anderson observed, "A second tenure of Syria or indeed any other consular province under one and the same emperor by a senator who was not a member of the imperial house [i.e., Quirinius] is unparalleled."^[49]

Census under Herod

The above proposed reconciliations require that a census occurred under Roman impetus during Herod’s rule, before the one recorded as occurring in A.D. 6, when Iudaea province was formed by Augustus by combining Judea proper, Samaria and Idumea.^[50]

Under Herod, Palestine was a client kingdom (and Herod was a client king). Palestine had been subject to many Roman military campaigns and tribute payment, beginning with Pompey in 48 B.C.,^[51] and Herod, who had been established as king by Marc Anthony and the Roman Senate,^[52] was (like other client kings) often beholden to Anthony and Augustus, and has been called a "model of what those dependent rulers ought to be."^[53] Herod was likewise required to pay tribute to Rome,^[54] and he raised the money for this tribute through taxation of his subjects.^[55]

Client kingdoms paid tribute to Rome, and often taxed their own subjects for the paying of this tribute, but their residents were not directly taxed by the empire; thus a census and taxation during Herods rule, if ordered and administered by an imperial official, would be unprecedented. Ramsay stated that it would not be credible to accept that a Roman styled census conducted by Roman officials occurred in Herod's kingdom, but he observed that: "Luke does not speak of any such application," in that he does not claim the census was conducted by a Roman official.^[56]

B. W. R. Pearson concurred with Ramsay, stating that Luke only implied a Roman styled census, employing Roman administrative techniques, and not one conducted by Roman officials. He went onto to argue that evidence points to such a census under Herod, citing the work of historian F. M. Heichelheim.^[57] He stated that, “Herod was emphatically not an independent king. He was totally dependant on Rome for his power, influence, kingdom, and freedom…”.^[58] Citing historian E. T. Salmon, he observed that client kingdoms ‘possessed no more than interim status”, and that Herod’s job was to Romanize his (and, by extension, Augustus’s) territory;^[59] hence, he argued that such a census is understandable and wholly plausible within this context.^[60] As a parallel example he cited an event already observed by L.R. Taylor: Archelaos, King of the Clitae in Cilicia Tracheia, is known to have attempted a Roman-style census in service of his own taxation — Taylor also supposed that Herod could have acted similarly to Archelaos.^[61] Like the census in Iudea, the attempted census by Archelaos was forcefully resisted by his people.^[62] Schürer argued that an earlier enrollment in Iudea would have evoked the same response, and that this would have been noted by Josephus.^[63] Josephus does mention an oath of allegiance to the emperor taken c. 7 B.C. under Herod’s direction, and P. W. Barnett argued that an enrollment could have been taken as part of this process.^[64] E. Stauffer observed that the collection of census data could involve different stages administered occur over some years, at times in cycles.^[65] He distinguished between registration of taxable property and persons (which could entail appearance at a registry office) and the actual tax assessment.^[66] In making this distinction, he followed the work of S. L. Wallace, who showed such a practice to have occurred in Egypt,^[67] and Mommsen, who observed that a census in Gaul begun by Augustus took some 40 years to complete.^[68] Stauffer thus argued that such a structuring of a census, conducted in Palestine, could account for the enrollment mentioned by Luke only, and the later revolt following the delayed enforcement of taxation mentioned by Josephus and Luke.^[69] M. Grant suggested that organized periodical censuses, as per the fourteen-year cycle in Egypt, and the five year cycle in Rome, may have been implemented by Herod in his kingdom on a six year cycle.^[70]

Jesus born in A.D. 6

Some authors propose that Luke intended to date Jesus' birth to A.D. 6. According to this interpretation, Luke 2:2 and Josephus refer to the same census, which occurred during the first governorship of Quirinius, in A.D. 6. This interpretation brings Luke into conflict with Matthew, wherein it is clear that Jesus was born some time before the death of Herod the Great (see above). J. Duncan M. Derrett argued that the Herod referred to in Luke 1:5 may well be Herod Archelaus, and not Herod the Great; he characterized the debate surrounding Luke and the census as having suffered from a "pre-critical" tendency to harmonize the Gospels, and held that Luke has his own internal chronology, differing from Matthew's.^[71] Mark Smith has recently advanced a similar argument, contending that Matthew placed the death of Jesus too early and that Luke is a more reliable source in this regard.^[72] However, one difficulty with this solution is Luke's statement that Jesus was "about thirty years of age" when his ministry began (Luke 3:23). Luke places the baptism of Jesus (and hence his ministry) after John the Baptist began his preaching, which Luke dates to "the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar" (Luke 3:1), i.e. c. A.D. 28. From this it appears Luke is placing Jesus' birth around 2 B.C. (in accord with Matthew).^[73]

Historicity of Luke's details

Some sources questioned the historicity of other parts of Luke's account. He describes a decree of Augustus requiring registration of the whole οἰκουμένη. This word literally means the "inhabited [world]", but was frequently used to indicate the Roman Empire.^[74] No simultaneous census of the entire Empire in Augustus' time is attested to outside of Luke,^[75] though Luke's account does not necessarily mean that the whole empire was enrolled at once.^[76] J. Thorley argued that Luke's wording only means that Augustus decreed that the registration practices that had been employed in Italy for centuries and in the provinces for some time should be extended throughout the Roman world, including client kingdoms.^[77] Sherwin-White, who did not support the speculation that Quirinius conducted a census before A.D. 6, suggested that Luke intended to refer only to a policy of universal registration promulgated by Augustus, and that this was first implemented in Judaea under Quirinius.^[78]

Luke's statement that Joseph and Mary had to travel to Bethlehem 'because he was descended from the house and family of David' has often been called into question; James Dunn wrote: "the idea of a census requiring individuals to move to the native town of long dead ancestors is hard to credit".^[79] E. P. Sanders considered it unreasonable to think that there was ever a decree that required people to travel in order to be registered for tax purposes, and supplied a number of arguments in support: it would require people to keep track of millions of ancestors; tens of thousands of descendants of David would all be arriving at Bethlehem, his birthplace, at the same time; and Herod, whose dynasty was unrelated to the Davidic line, would hardly have wished to call attention to royal ancestry that had a greater claim to legitimacy. He adds that it would have been the practice for the census-takers, not the taxed, to travel, and that Joseph, resident in Galilee, would not have been covered by a census in Judea.^[80]

However, R. E. Brown cautioned against such interpretation, stating, “One cannot rule out the possibility that, since Romans often adapted their administration to local circumstances, a census conducted in Judea would respect the strong attachment of Jewish tribal and ancestral relationships.”^[81] He also noted that Luke himself would have known of Roman census practices by personal experience, and that “it is dangerous to assume that he described a process of registration that would have been potentially opposed to everything he and his readers knew.” ^[82] M. D. Smith was critical of E. P. Sander’s view, stating simply, “nowhere does Luke say that the census of Quirinius required people to travel to the home of their ancestors”, but only that “all went to their own towns” — observing that Luke's reference to traveling to one's ancestral home was specific to Joseph.^[83] He gave two possible reasons why Joseph would choose to make this journey: (1) if he owned property in his ancestral home (i.e. Bethelhem), and hence he would need to register there,^[84] and (2) that some censuses, e.g. in Egypt, gave up to a 50% reduction in taxes if one was registered in a metropolis;^[85] thus, because Bethlehem (Joseph’s ancestral home) was close to Jerusalem, he could qualify for the reduction.^[86] It has been observed that, in census records from Egypt, an unusual number of houses were listed as having no resident, cited as possible support of the practice of registering in a metropolis rather than a town of residence.^[87]

On other points, K. F. Doig observed that some forms of taxation and enrollment were conducted where the tribal records were kept,^[88] and there is evidence that the Roman Empire did retain certain local tax enrolment customs for non-citizens at times, for example in Egypt.^[89]

Footnotes

See also

• Luke 2

External links

• Josephus' Antiquities 18

Skeptic

• The Date of the Nativity in Luke

Apologetic

• Catholic Encyclopedia: Gospel of St. Luke: THE CENSUS OF QUIRINIUS

Donate to Wikimedia