Census of Quirinius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Census of Quirinius refers to the enrolment (apographai) of the Roman Provinces of Syria and of Iudaea (which included Samaria, Judea and Idumea), for the purpose of taxation taken during the reign of the Roman Emperor Augustus while Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was governing the area. The Gospel of Luke correlates the birth of Jesus with such a census; however, possible conflicts between the account of the Gospel of Luke and the account of Josephus, as well as its relationship with the Gospel of Matthew, have given rise to academic debate. Central issues concerning this debate include the historicity of the gospels, Biblical inerrancy, and, more generally, the Chronology of Jesus. The classic formulation of the problem is that Luke locates Jesus' birth during a census which occurred under the reign of Herod the Great and the governing of Quirinius, whilst Josephus places Quirinius's governing and a census he conducted about a decade after Herod's death. From this, scholars have forwarded various proposals (including reworking the classic formulation) to explain the matter.

Contents 1 Sources 1.1 Josephus 1.2 Luke 1.3 Others 2 Problems and solutions 2.1 Luke in error 2.2 Reconciling the sources 2.2.1 Quirinius governing twice 2.2.2 Alternative Translation of Luke 2.2.3 Census under Herod 2.3 Jesus born in A.D. 6 3 Historicity of Luke's details 4 Footnotes 5 See also 6 External links

[edit] Sources

[edit] Josephus

There are two sources that mention a census under Quirinius: the Jewish Antiquities of the Jewish historian Josephus, and the Gospel of Luke. Other sources which have been referred to in this discussion are the Gospel of Matthew and Acts of the Apostles from the New Testament, and also the Annals of Tacitus, and epigraphy.

Josephus recorded that after the exile of Herod Archelaus (successor to Herod the Great in Iudaea), Quirinius, a Roman senator, became governor of Syria, while an equestrian assistant named Coponius was assigned as the first governor of the newly-created Iudaea Province. These governors were assigned to conduct a tax census for the Emperor in Syria and Iudaea.^[1] The census in Iudaea drew considerable opposition, and led Judas of Galilee to stir up revolutionary opposition. 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.^[2] Thus, for Josephus, this census was a major turning point in Jewish history (although his analysis of the history of Zealotry has been challenged by some modern scholars). This census mentioned by Josephus can be dated by his statements that Archelaus was exiled ten years after his reign began,^[3] and that Quirinius conducted a census after this, in the thirty-seventh year since the Battle of Actium — hence, A.D. 6 / 7.^[4]

[edit] Luke

The Gospel of Luke also mentioned a census in relation to the governing of Quirinius in his infancy narrative (concerning the birth 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)

Luke is generally understood as recording Mary's pregnancy as occuring six months after her relative Elizabeth became pregnant with John the Baptist (Luke 1:36),^[5] whose own pregnancy had occurred "in the days of Herod, King of Judea" (Luke 1:5). Luke also stated that Jesus was "about thirty" when he began his ministry (Luke 3:23), which he located after John the Baptist began his preaching in "the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar" (Luke 3:1) (i.e. c. A.D. 27). These statements, taken together, have resulted in the view that Luke dated the census of Jesus' birth as during the reign of Herod the Great, a chronology which corresponds with the account of the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 2:1). Historians have generally placed the end of Herod's rule and his death in 4 B.C,^[6] though the date has been challenged.^[7]

Luke is also considered the author of the Acts of the Apostles, wherein a census is mentioned in the context of Judas the Galilean's revolutionary stirrings: "After him (Theudas) Judas the Galilean rose up at the time of the census and got people to follow him...." (Acts 5:37).

[edit] Others

Matthew, besides placing the birth of Jesus under the reign of Herod the Great, also recorded that Herod had all the male children in Bethlehem two years old and younger executed (Matthew 2:16, see Slaughter of the Innocents), based on a prophecy relayed to him by the magi that a new King of the Jews had been born in the town. The order's instruction of "two and under", along with the inference that it took Herod time to realize that the magi were not about to deliver the child to him, implies a date of 6-4 B.C. as the latest possible dating. The Gospel of Matthew makes no reference to the census.

Tacitus, in his Annals, gives an obituary for Quirinius (Annals 3.48), but the passage is silent on the essentials of these events in question.

A final source may be the funerary inscription of Aemilius Secundus, a soldier who served under Quirinius.^[8] While recounting the events of Aemilius's carrer, this inscription mentions a census "of 117 thousand citizens" in Apamea. The inscription is undated, and which census it refers to is uncertain. William Mitchell Ramsay argued for a date of around 6 to 4 B.C., consistent with his theory about the two governorships of Quirinius (see below).^[9] More recently, Fergus Millar has identified the census referenced by the inscription with the Quirinius census of A.D. 6.^[10]

[edit] Problems and solutions

The Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew both place Jesus' birth under the reign of Herod the Great. Luke also described the birth as occurring during the "first census", during the "governing" (ἡγεμονεύοντος; root: ἡγεμονεύω) of Quirinius, and implied that it took place during the reign of "King Herod". However, Josephus stated that Quirinius was sent to govern Syria, and instructed to carry out a census of Judea, in AD 6, long after the death of Herod the Great (4 B.C.).

Many scholars contend that the sources present contradictory material and explain the disparity as an error on Luke's part, holding that he misidentified the date of Quirinius's census with the reign of Herod the Great. Others, however, have attempted to reconcile the accounts. One proposed reconciliation accepts that Luke placed a census taken by Quirinius during the reign of Herod the Great, but argues that Quirinius may have been the Roman authority in the region twice, with an earlier tenure during Herod's kingship. Another proposed reconciliation offers a different translation of Luke, whereby he is not understood as presenting Quirinius as Herod's contemporary; thus, according to this view Luke recorded a census under the reign of Herod the Great concerning Jesus' birth as "before" the census of Quirinius. A final proposal contends that Luke should not be read as placing Jesus' birth under Herod's reign, but as occuring later during the census of A.D. 6. Lastly, some scholars have simply stated that the problem is at present irresolvable; in the words of H. Hendrickx: "The available evidence is insufficient to form any firm solution."^[11]

[edit] Luke in error

Many scholars contend that the 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] 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”.^[13] 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.”^[14] J. P. Meier considered "attempts to reconcile Luke 2:1 with the facts of ancient history... hopelessly contrived",^[15] to which R. E. Brown concured.^[16] 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".^[17] 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."^[18]

Some 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."^[19] 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".^[20]

[edit] Reconciling the sources

[edit] 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)^[21] in the area at an earlier date, and that he conducted two censuses—one in 4 B.C., referenced by Luke; and the other around A.D. 6, referenced by Josephus.

Governors according to Josephus

Date	Governor
23 - 13 B.C.	Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa
c. 10 B.C.	M. Titus
9 - 6 B.C.	S. Sentius Saturninus
6 - 4 B.C. or later	Publius Quinctilius Varus
4 B.C. - 1 B.C.	Unknown
1 B.C. - A.D. 4	Gaius Julius Caesar
A.D. 4 - 5	Lucius Volusius Saturninus
A.D. 6 - after 7	Publius Sulpicius Quirinius

For Quirinius to have been governing twice, both during his undisputed governorship in A.D. 6 and during a previous governing, then his earlier tenure would have to be either before M. Titus (before 10 B.C.), or between Varus and Gaius (4 - 1 B.C.), both possibilities being reconcilable with Luke’s information.^[22] According to Josephus, Varus led a force against a revolt in Judea after Herod's death. If this statement is accepted, then an earlier governing of Quirinius after S. Saturninus would not be during the reign of Herod — hence this reconstruction would entail Eizabeth’s conception (under Herod and Varus) followed by the birth of Jesus, presumably approximately 15 months later (under the hypothetical governing of Quirinius). It should be noted that the above list of governors is derived from Josephus, and some scholars have disputed his information; thus, T. Corbishley dated the legateship of M. Titus before 12 B.C., placing a previous governing of Quirinius after Titus and before S. Saturninus.^[23]

Theodore Mommsen was the first to argue that a damaged inscription, known as the Lapis Tiburtinus,^[24] might provide evidence of an earlier governorship of Quirinius, which Mommsen placed after that of Varus, around 3 B.C.^[25] This position was attacked by Groag in 1931, who argued that the stone, which does not name Quirinius, refers to someone who held legateships that were not necessarily both in Syria (as Mommsen had argued), but that a second legatship could have been in another province.^[26] 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."^[27] Syme thought L. Calpurnius Piso was the more likely candidate for the inscription, while Groag argued that it referenced M. Plautius Silvanus.^[28]

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.^[29] 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.^[30] 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.^[31] 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."^[32]

[edit] Alternative Translation of Luke

In 1938, F.M. Heichelheim proposed an alternate translation of Luke 2:2, suggesting that it might be rendered: This census was the first before the census taken when Quirinius was governor.^[33] This translation relies on the fact that the Greek word protos, usually translated first, also means "before" or "former" when it is followed by the genitive case. Under this translation, Luke is not placing Jesus' birth during a governorship of Quirinius; rather, he is referring to a census that occurred before Quirinius's undisputed governorship in A.D. 6 (and thus before the census associated with Quirinius which sparked the uprising of Judas the Galilean), and likewise during the reign of King Herod.^[34] This position has been followed by several other scholars.^[35] If accepted, this translation 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. 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.^[36] A. N. Sherwin-White has also considered the alternative translation implausible, and argued that it could not be accepted without a parallel usage elsewhere in Luke's writings.^[37] 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)."^[38]

[edit] 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, after Judaea was annexed to the province of Syria.

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.^[39] Orosius mentioned another census in 3 B.C.^[40] There is also evidence that censuses were taken at regular intervals during his reign, at least in the provinces of Egypt and Sicily, important because of their wealthy estates and supply of grain.^[41] In the provinces, the main goals of a census of non-citizens were taxation and military service.^[42]

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.,^[43] and Herod, who had been established as king by Marc Anthony and the Roman Senate,^[44] 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."^[45] Herod was likewise required to pay tribute to Rome,^[46] and he raised the money for this tribute through taxation of his subjects.^[47]

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.^[48] B. W. R. Pearson speculated that Herod very possibly employed Roman administrative techniques in taxing his own people and that Luke is referring to this.^[49] Archelaos, King of the Clitae in Cilicia Tracheia, is known to have attempted a Roman-style census in service of his own taxation; L.R. Taylor supposes that Herod may have acted similarly.^[50]

In his description of the census of A.D. 6, Josephus stated that the taxation associated with this census prompted a revolt. Schürer argued that an earlier enrolment would have evoked the same response, and that this would have been noted by Josephus.^[51] 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.^[52] E. Stauffer observed that the collection of census data could involve different stages administered occur over some years, at times in cycles.^[53] He distinguished between registration of taxable property and persons (which could entail appearance at a registry office) and the actual tax assessment.^[54] In making this distinction, he followed the work of S. L. Wallace, who showed such a practice to have occurred in Egypt,^[55] and Mommsen, who observed that a census in Gaul begun by Augustus took some 40 years to complete.^[56] 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.^[57] 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.^[58]

[edit] 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 1:36 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.^[59] 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.^[60] 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. 27 — hence from this it appears Luke is placing Jesus' birth around 3 B. C. (in accord with Matthew).^[61]

[edit] 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.^[62] No simultaneous census of the entire Empire in Augustus' time is attested to outside of Luke,^[63] though Luke's account does not necessarily mean that the whole empire was enrolled at once.^[64] 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.^[65] 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.^[66]

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".^[67] 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.^[68]

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.”^[69] 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.” ^[70] K. F. Doig observed that some forms of taxation and enrolment were conducted where the tribal records were kept,^[71] and there is evidence that the Roman Empire did retain certain local tax enrolment customs for non-citizens at times, for example in Egypt.^[72] Furthermore, some taxes had to be paid in the principal towns of taxation districts,^[73] and it is known that some censuses did require subjects to return to their administrative districts.^[74]

[edit] Footnotes

[edit] See also

• Luke 2

[edit] External links

• Josephus' Antiquities 18

Skeptics:

• The Date of the Nativity in Luke
• Putting Luke 2:2 in context
• On Herod and Quirinius

Apologists:

• When did the Luke 2 census occur?
• The seekers' guide to the Bible: The Census
• The Census of Quirinius: The Historicity of Luke 2:1-5