Download The Problem of Quirinius census

The Problem of Quirinius census
Matt. 2:1 places the birth of Jesus in the reign of Herod the Great who, according
to Josephus, died in 4 BC.
The latest possible date for the birth of Jesus was before the death of Herod
the Great on November 27, 4 BCE
Luke 2:2 places the trip of Joseph and Mary during the governorship of
Quirinius, giving the census as the occasion for Jesus' birth in Bethlehem.
Josephus (Antiquities 15.1.1) tells us of Quirinius being made ruler of
Syria and coming to take a census of the Jews after the dismissal of
Archelaus as ruler of Judea in AD 6.
The earliest historical account we have of Quirinius
comes from an inscription found in Pisidian Antioch
known as Res Gestae - 'The Deeds of Augustus Caesar
by Augustus'. The inscription places him as council in 12
B.C. This position was attained by only two prominent
Romans every year and they governed as the Roman
heads of state. The inscription reads as follows:
"A great crowd of people came together from all over Italy
to my election, more then had ever gathered before in
Rome, when Publius Sulpicius (Quirinius) and Gaius
Valgius were consuls." (Res Gestae 10)
Quirinius was by no means a small figure in Roman
politics or in his association with Augustus, Tiberius and
Caius Caesar. So respected was Quirinius to the
Caesar's that upon his death in 22 A.D. Tiberius honored
him before the entire Senate. The following is his tribute
as recorded by the Roman historian Tacitus:
1
Around this time, he (Tiberius Caesar) requested that
the Senate pay tribute to the death of Sulpicius
Quirinus with a public funeral. . . . A tireless soldier,
who had by his faithful services become consul
during the reign of Augustus, and later was honored
for his victory concerning his assault on the
fortresses of the Homonadenses in Cilicia (The
province of Cilcia is located just northwest of neighboring
Syria.)
Inscription from base of statue at Pisidian Antioch:
C. CARISTA(NIO) C.F. SER. FRONT(ONI) CAESIANO IULI(O)
PRAEF(ECTO) FAB(RUM) PONT(IFICI) SACERDOTI
PRAEFECTO P. SULPICI QUIRINI DUUMV(IRI) PRAERECTA M.
SERVILI HUIC PRIMO OMNIUM PUBLICE D(ECURIONUM)
D(ECRETO) STATUA POSITA EST.
Source: Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 235.
4. Papyrus Edict of C. Vibius Maximus, AD 104: (transliterated Greek)
G(AIOS YI)BIO(S MAXIMOS EPA)RC(OS) AIGYPT(OY LEGEI)
THS KAT' OI(KIAN APOGRAFHS E)NESTW(SHS) ANAGKAION
(ESTIN PASIN TOI)S KATH' H(NTINA) DHPOTE AIT(IAN
EKSTASI TWN HEAUTWN) NOMON PROSA(GGELLE)STHAI
EPA(NEL)THEIN EIS TA HEAU(TWN E)FESTIA HIN(A) KAI THN
SUNHTHH (OI)KONOMIAN TH(S APO)GRAFES PLHRWSWSIN
KAI TH PROS(HKOU)SH AUTOIS GEWRGIAI
PROSKARTERHSO(SIN).
Source: Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 271. Text
restored by Ulrich Wilcken.
2
Another approach has been to accept that this is the ‘first’ census that occurred while
Quirinius was legate, but that Quirinius had been legate (or in some other way ‘in charge
of Syria’) prior to his appointment in connection with the famous census in 6 C.E. In
connection with this suggestion, it is common to mention a fragmentary inscription
known as the ‘Lapis Tiburtinus’. It reads:
…(R)EGUM QUA REDACTA IN POT
SENATU(S)
…
AUGUSTI POPULIQUE ROMANI
SUPPLICATIONES BINAS OB RES PROSP …
… IPSI ORNAMENTA TRIUMPH
…
…
…
PRO CONSUL ASIAM PROVINCIAM OP
DIVI AUGUSTI (I)TERUM SYRIAM ET PH….
Source: Corpus Inscriptorum Latinum 14:3613. See Schurer, History of the Jewish
People I;1, p. 354.
The gist of it is that it refers to someone who was ‘legate a second time in Syria’.
Scholars and historians trying to solve the dilemma of Luke 2:2 found this helpful to their
quest to resolve the problem. However, it does not in fact state clearly that the person in
question was ‘legate of Syria a second time’, but only that the person was ‘legate a
second time, in Syria’, which could easily mean that the person was previously legate,
but not of Syria. Be that as it may, the only two periods prior to 6 C.E. when we do not
know who was legate of Syria, and thus Quirinius could theoretically have served in this
position, are prior to 10 B.C.E. and between 4-1 B.C.E. A second (or I should say first)
stint by Quirinius as legate of Syria during either of these periods could potentially make
Luke internally consistent on this point, and it would agree with Matthews account.
The Decree by Augustus
Caesar Augustus ruled from 44 BCE to 14 CE. An edict of Caesar Augustus
decreeing a census for purposes of taxation for all the inhabited earth, or
essentially the Roman Empire, is recorded by Dio Cassius.4 By 5 CE the military
expenditures for the widespread Roman legions exceeded income, and
"Augustus lacked funds for all these troops." (Dio Cassius, Roman History LV
24:9) No tax plan was accepted at that time. In 6 CE Augustus established a
"military treasury. . . . Now Augustus made a contribution himself toward the fund
and promised to do so annually, and he also accepted voluntary contributions
from kings and certain communities; but he took nothing from private citizens, . . .
but this proved very slight in comparison with the amount being spent." ( Roman
3
History LV 25:3-4) To overcome this deficit, Augustus "established the tax of 5%,
on the inheritances and bequests which should be left by people at their death to
any except very near relatives or very poor persons, representing that he had
found this tax set down in Caesar's memoranda. It was, in fact, a method which
had been introduced once before, but had been abolished later, and was now
revived. In this way, then, he increased the revenues." (Roman History LV 25:56) In 6 CE Caesar Augustus issued a worldwide decree that for a second time
there would be a 5% inheritance tax on estates, something beyond the normal
taxation. Such a taxation would require a census to register transferable assets,
such as land, and to record genealogies to establish "very near relatives." As the
benefactor, this taxation would have had the full support of the Roman military.
Josephus noted the effects on non-citizens of this decree in Judea in 6 CE: "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' money; but the Jews,
although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did
they leave off any further opposition to it." (Ant. XVIII 1:1) However, to the north,
"a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to
revolt; and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the
Romans, and would, after God, submit to mortal men as their lords." (Wars II 8:1)
And, later he wrote of "Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius
came to take an account of the estates of the Jews." (Ant. XX 5:2) Caesar's 5%
tax was to be on the estates, as noted by Josephus. The census attached to this
taxation was also noted by Luke: "Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the
census, and drew away some people after him, he too perished, and all those
4
who followed him were scattered." (Acts 5:37) The peoples of Judea and Galilee
were already being taxed, and yet they protested this taxation. What was
different this time?
When Pompey conquered Jerusalem in 63 BCE, Judea came under Roman
tribute. (Ant. XIV 4:4; Wars I 7:6) Although Herod later collected his own heavy
taxes, some portion would have gone to Rome. It has been contended that
Rome had no ability for direct taxation in Herod's territory,5 but, Augustus could
interfere in local taxation. When Samaria remained loyal to Caesar after the
death of Herod the Great, he "eased of one quarter of its taxes, out of regard to
their not having revolted." (Wars II 6:3; also Ant. XVII 11:4)
There had been ongoing taxation throughout the Roman provinces. Augustus'
worldwide decree in 6 CE established an additional tax to support his troops. As
noted by Dio, this was the second attempt at such a taxation, as it "had been
introduced once before, but had been abolished later, and was now revived."
Justin Martyr, who was born in about 105 CE, wrote to defend the Christians
against persecution, and appealed, "Now there is a village in the land of the Jews,
thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Christ was born, as you can ascertain
also from the registries of the taxing under Quirinius your first procurator in
Judea." (First Apology, 34) Here is an appeal to the public registries, which have,
unfortunately, been lost.
Luke went on to say that, "all were proceeding to register for the census,
everyone to his own city." (Luke 2:3) It has seemed a problem that the Jewish
method of returning to one's own tribal headquarters to be "numbered" was used
for a census under Herod.14 The Romans usually took a census in one's home
town.15 However, in a census for inheritance taxation it would be expected that
this would be conducted where the tribal records were kept, no matter who
conducted the census. Joseph was a descendent of David of the tribe of Judah.
David's ancestral home was in Bethlehem, and in that town the land records and
genealogies required for such a census would have been located. Or, simply,
Joseph was born in Bethlehem but then lived in Nazareth. Joseph and Mary went
to Bethlehem to register for this census, and there Jesus was born.
5
Did people actually have to return to the town of their birth for a Roman census?
Yes – we found evidence in archeology:
Another census was uncovered from 48 A.D. which also
records a return of the people to their native land for the
census. It reads as follows:
"I Thermoutharion along with Apollonius, my
guardian, pledge an oath to Tiberius Claudius Caesar
that the preceding document gives an accurate account
of those returning, who live in my household, and that
there is no one else living with me, neither a foreigner,
nor an Alexandrian, nor a freedman, nor a Roman citizen,
nor an Egyptian. If I am telling the truth, may it be well
with me, but if falsely, the reverse. In the ninth year of the
reign of Tiberius Claudius Augustus Germanicus
Emperor."
It is interesting to note that these two census
accounts required a person to return to their homeland to
be registered.
6