Part 4: Did the Roman Census Really Happen?

Saint Luke’s Gospel fairly can be said to present a plausible account of a Roman census as the reason why Mary and Joseph journeyed to Bethlehem, and why Jesus was born there.

Part 4: Did the Roman Census Really Happen?

By Robert Stackpole, STD

In this weekly web series, Dr. Robert Stackpole, emeritus director of the John Paul II Institute of Divine Mercy, leads us step-by-step through the life of the Founder of Christianity, from Bethlehem to Galilee to Jerusalem. Along the way, we pause to consider in-depth the historical debate over the gospel stories of the virginal conception and nativity of Jesus, his message of the Kingdom, his embrace of persecution and death on the Cross, and his glorious bodily resurrection from the dead. Finally, we plunge into the great mystery of the Incarnation, and show how it actually shines through the whole gospel story from beginning to end.

Read the series from the beginning.

A good case can be made for the historical plausibility of St. Luke’s account of the Roman census, recorded in chapter two of his Gospel, although on this point historians have come to no clear consensus. James Charlesworth, in The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide, again voices the position of the skeptics:

The historian is suspicious of the accuracy of Luke’s use of a Roman census to date and locate Jesus’ birth. Such a census is not supported by the known habits of officials during the Roman Empire. It is impractical that all who were to be taxed would know precisely where they were born and were able to return there for taxation. Luke may have confused a census under Quirinius in 6 c.e. with Jesus’ earlier birth. [1]

But every sentence that Charlesworth wrote here is contentious.

Ancient documentation
First of all, St. Luke does not specify that all the Jews had to return to the place of their birth; it may be that they had to go to the ancestral city of their particular tribe or clan.

Second, in a much-neglected work mentioned earlier, Jesus and His Story, Ethelbert Stauffer provided an in-depth defense of the main outlines of the Lukan account precisely on the grounds of ancient documentation of Roman methods of census-taking and taxation. Stauffer makes a distinction between an apographe (an “enrolment,” the registration of taxable property or persons entailing an appearance at the registry office — the word actually used by St. Luke) and an apotimesis (a tax assessment requiring payment). The enrolment that required Mary and Joseph to journey to Bethlehem was likely of the former kind, and that could be why there is no mention in Luke of the armed rebellion that accompanied the apotimesis under Quirinius in 6 AD when the taxes actually had to be paid (and this could also explain why the ancient Jewish historian Josephus does not even bother to record the earlier, more peaceful apographe).

Moreover, some scholars argue that Luke 2:2 legitimately can be translated as “This census took place before Quirinius was governing Syria,” which certainly makes sense if St. Luke meant to distinguish the earlier apographe from the famous apotimesis under Quirinius that led to such trouble a dozen years later.

One difficulty with Stauffer’s theory, however, is that there does not always seem to be such a clear distinction in meaning between these two ancient Greek words, even in the New Testament.

Two Quiriniuses?
Another theory states that there were actually two different men named Quirinius who had leadership roles in Palestine or its environs in that era, one after the other (Quirinius was a relatively common name in the Roman Empire). Archaeologist Jerry Vardaman has found a coin with the name of Quirinius on it in micrographic letters. This Quirinius was apparently proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC until just after the death of Herod. Since historians have already established that there was a Quirinius in charge of levying taxes on Judea in 6 AD that led to riots by the Jews, these could be two different people.

On this reckoning, Luke’s words about an enrollment taking place “when Quirinius was governor of Syria” would be exactly right, as he was referring to the first Quirinius.

There is yet a third theory, which one can find spelled out in The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament (2010 edition, p. 109). Some scholars believe that Herod actually died in 1 BC, not 4 BC. Some of the early Christian writers date the birth of Jesus between 3 and 2 BC. Moreover, there is also considerable evidence that in 3-2 BC everyone in the Roman Empire was required to swear allegiance to Caesar Augustus as “Father” of the Empire. Thus, the registration described in Luke 2:1 may have involved an enrollment for swearing this oath, and not a census and assessment taken for the sake of taxation. The Ignatius Study Bible concludes:

This would mean that Jesus was born between 3 and 2 BC, the enrollment of Joseph and Mary was a registration of their loyalty to the Roman Caesar, and the documentation of the oath was organized and implemented in Judea by Quirinius several years before he was made the official governor of Syria. This reconstruction not only eases the chronological tensions in Lk 2:1-2, it helps confirm Luke’s reliability as an historian as well as the early Church’s reliability as a channel of historical traditions.

Taxation and enrollment
There are difficulties with this scenario as well, however: (1) in the light of the inscription on Vardaman’s coin, and depending on the actual date of Herod’s death, there might have been two men named Quirinius who were in governing roles over the Syria-Judea area.

More importantly, (2) the Ignatius Study Bible explanation does not mention how one Quirinius (or two) pulled off a general taxation of the people of Judea in 6 AD without having had a general enrollment and assessment for taxation first (an assessment which was often done by the Romans many years in advance of the actual collection of taxes, because it was such a huge and cumbersome procedure, as Stauffer’s research shows).

At least the other scenarios allow that the census mentioned in St. Luke’s gospel provides evidence that there was indeed an original enrollment and assessment for taxation purposes in Judea, the precursor to the social unrest of the collection of those taxes around 6 AD.

Other arguments for and against the theories offered here certainly can be advanced. The point is that Charlesworth should have given some indication that there is much more than one side to the census debate. Moreover, on any of the three scenarios discussed above, St. Luke’s Gospel fairly can be said to present a plausible account of a Roman census as the reason why Mary and Joseph journeyed to Bethlehem, and why Jesus was born there.

Good grounds for believing
What does the historical evidence from articles 1-4 of this series so far tell us?

It tells us that if Matthew and Luke were more or less accurate on the major aspects of the Nativity story (the star, the wise men, the slaughter of the innocents, the location of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem, the Roman census, the shepherds, and the manger), then they are not telling myths or concocting legends here; rather, they are trying to inform their readers about events that they believed — and had good grounds for believing — really happened.

Next: Part 5: The Historical Basis for the Story of the Virginal Conception of Jesus.
Previous article.

Note
[1] Charlesworth, The Historical Jesus, p. 65.
{shopmercy-ad}