Luke's Census

Earlier we discussed that Quirinius' census was Luke's explanation for the dilemma. And this explanation of Luke has more problems than it solves.

Roman Census and Background of Judea

The concept of the census in Rome dates back to the era of the Roman kings, specifically to the 6th century BCE under Servius Tullius, as noted by Livy. Initially, the census functioned as a registry for Roman citizens, assessing their property to determine voting rights, taxation obligations, and military service. This practice continued into the Roman Republic, where it was overseen first by consuls and later by censors.

Under Augustus, the census evolved into a systematic tool for provincial administration, primarily to assess population and property for taxation purposes. Augustus’ introduction of provincial censuses marked a significant shift in governance, as earlier practices were confined to Roman citizens. However, these censuses were not uniformly implemented throughout the empire. For example, in Egypt, a census was conducted every 14 years, and extensive papyrological evidence survives due to the region’s dry climate. In contrast, records from other provinces are sparse, making it difficult to assume uniform practices.

Client kingdoms, which were semi-autonomous territories under native rulers, were not initially subject to Roman census practices. These rulers managed internal administration, taxation, and military affairs while maintaining allegiance to Rome. Judea, for instance, was a client kingdom under Herod the Great, who began his rule in 37 BCE. After Herod’s death in 4 BCE, his son Archelaus succeeded him as ethnarch. However, due to his misrule, Rome annexed Judea in 6 CE, placing it under the direct control of the Syrian province. It is important to note that Galilee, ruled by Herod Antipas, remained independent until 39 CE.

Luke's Census

The census mentioned in Luke 2 reads like this

> 1 In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 All went to their own towns to be registered. 4 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. 5 He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child.

This narrative is challenged by a variety of historical problems. Here we mention some of them.

No Record of Empire-Wide Census

The first and the least problematic story in Luke 1 is when he tells us that Augustus ordered all the world to be registered. But there is no evidence of Augustus ordering empire-wide census. Of course by "all world" Luke meant to refer to the entire roman empire. Luke seems to repeatedly use this kind of wording elsewhere. " The famine in the days of Claudius did not literally affect the entire world (Acts 11:28). Nor had Paul and Silas stirred up trouble in all the world (Acts 17:6; cf. 24:5). Not even Artemis, the goddess of the Ephesians, was worshiped by the entire world (Acts 19:27). There is also a grammatical defense. It is possible that the present tense of the infinitive “to be registered” (ἀπογράφεσθαι) may gather up a number of individual actions. The iterative use of the present tense (or perhaps the customary use) describes events that happen repeatedly over a period of time. "

Traveling to Bethlehem wasn't required

The second objection to the story is that Joseph wouldn't be obliged to go to Bethlehem to be registered. And Marry wasn't required to accompany him. The second point about marry easily defensible. The text doesn't say marry was required to go with Joseph. And its plausible to think of them agreeing to go together. 

But the first point about Joseph is stronger and needs series consideration. The idea that Joseph had to go to Bethlehem, because everyone had to go back to their ancestral town and Joseph was off the house of david, is historically implausible narrative. Here are the reasons.

- Roman custom doesn't require a person to go to their ancestral town for census. Census was done mainly for taxation purposes and in the town the person resides.

- Requiring people to travel to their ancestral home would cause logistical nightmare. 

- Its possible that some jews didn't even know their ancestors.

No Roman Census when Judea was Client Kingdom

At the time of Jesus birth, Judea was client kingdom of Rome. As we discussed earlier, client kingdoms are semi-autonomous territories. So they do taxation and census on their own without being ordered by the empire. But Luke's account tells us that the census was ordered by Augustus, which is anachronistic to the contemporary world. Rome wouldn't intervene in the workings of its client kingdoms as long as they pay their taxation. “even if [Herod] did pay tribute to Rome, a Roman census and a Roman system of taxation could not have been introduced in his kingdom.” [1]

Quirinius Was Not Governor of Syria during Herod’s Lifetime

This argument is the most series of all. Its the idea that when Herod was alive ruling Judea, there was no way Quirinius could have been legate of Syria. Scholars date Quirinius' governorship between 6 - 12 CE. Luke tells us that Jesus was born when Joseph went for the census ... and when Quirinius was governor of Syria. But Jesus was born on the time of Herod, who died around 4 BCE. So there is no way for Quirinius to be governor of Syria at the time of Jesus. There are some explanations that have been given to defend the narrative. But they are implausible and they don't really be much of a help.

Why Did Luke Tell the Story the Way He Did?

(A direct quotation from Clayton Croy's book [2])

A more speculative matter deserves brief consideration before I move to another topic: What was Luke’s aim in telling the story the way he did? I think that Luke had in his possession two traditions: the Bethlehem birth of Jesus and the residence of Jesus’ family in Nazareth, both before and after his birth. Jesus’ residence in Nazareth and the Galilean location of most of his adult ministry were universally known and so were essential to any story of his life. But Luke could not sweep aside the tradition of the Bethlehem birth. It was – as far as Luke knew – a historical fact, and he was unwilling to ignore it. But how could both of these traditions be true? What was the mechanism by which Mary and Joseph were brought to Judea just prior to Jesus’ birth? Luke had a memory of a census some 80 years prior to his writing, although his memory was chronologically inexact. Perhaps, Luke may have thought, the census could have been conducted according to Jewish tribes in a way that required Joseph to journey to his ancestral home. Luke’s knowledge of both the chronology and the practice of Roman censuses was faulty, but he did not create a census under Quirinius ex nihilo. His error was to antedate a historical census by about a decade. One might speak of it as a “literary device,” but I am not inclined to attribute a deliberate falsehood to Luke. I think he appropriated the only mechanism he could imagine by which Joseph and Mary would have to make the trip to Bethlehem. He erred in doing so, but it was not necessarily a knowing error.

References

[1] Emil Schürer, History of the Jewish People

[2] Clayton Croy, Escaping Shame: Mary’s Dilemma and the Birthplace of Jesus, p73