THE
CENSUS OF QUIRINIUS
183. Only Luke, the Evangelist who takes some heed
of world history, connects the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem with a census
ordered by the Roman authorities in Palestine. This census was the occasion for
the journey of Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem and Jesus’ birth in that town.
Luke’s text follows:
“Now it happened in those days, that
there went forth a decree from Caesar Augustus that a census of the whole world
should be taken. This first census took place while Quirinius was governor of
[lit., was governing over] Syria. And all were going each to his own town to
register. And so Joseph also went from Galilee, out of the town of Nazareth
into Judea to the town of David, which is called Bethlehem-because he was of
the house and family—to register together with Mary, his espoused wife, who was
with child. And it came to pass while they were there, that the days for her to
be delivered were fulfilled, and she gave birth . . .” (2:1-7)
Three principal objections have been
raised to this account: one concerns the census itself, one questions its
possibility from that political standpoint, and the third concerns the manner
in which it was accomplished.
As for the reality of the census
itself, some object that while we have evidence of a census completed in Judea
by Quirinius (Cyrinius), it took place in A.D. 6 or 7 when Jesus was more than
eleven years old, and no historical document attests that Quirinus took an
earlier census about the time of Jesus’ birth, that is, before Herod’s death
and in the latter’s territory.
As for the juridical considerations
against the possibility of such a census, there is the objection that while
Herod lived his territories were considered those of a king “friendly and
allied to Rome” (§ 11) and that Rome, therefore, would have had no right to
take a census there. This was not the case on the occasion of the census of
A.D. 6-7, because by that time Archelaus, Herod’s son, had been deposed by
Augustus and his territories had come under the direct rule of Rome.
The third objection is that, according
to Luke, the census was taken in the manner of the Jews, everyone being obliged
to go to his place of origin to be registered (§ 240). This contention is that
it is impossible that the Roman authorities, who ordered the census, should
have followed what was for them an unusual procedure instead of the customary
Roman method, which—for the collection of the tributum capitis and the tributum
soli—was to register the individual according to where he lived and where
he owned property.
How much foundation is there to these
objections? Let us briefly examine this old question in the light of historical
documentation alone, especially the first and principal objection that there
was no census before the death of Herod.
184. Luke is the only one who explicitly mentions a
census to be taken by order of Augustus in “the whole world,” or, practically
speaking, the Roman Empire; that is true. But if other documents do not explicitly
record what Luke reports, that does not make Luke wrong. The argument from
silence, as everyone knows, is the weakest and most unreliable argument there
is in the field of history. Among the innumerable examples we might mention, it
is sufficient to note one involved in our problem, and that is the census taken
by Quirinius in Judea in A.D. 607. This later census is reported only by Flavius
Josephus, and though it betrays some logical and chronological incongruities its
reality is ordinarily not called into question.
Besides, this silence, which is supposed
to prove so much, is not, after all, complete, for there are many other indications
which lead us to believe that there existed some plan for a general census.
Augustus, excellent organizer and administrator that he was, had made out a
real memorandum for his own private use, which was almost a complete picture of
the manpower and financial strength of the empire. At his death, according to
Tacitus, there was found a Breviarium imperii, written entirely in his
own hand, in which were “entered all the public revenues, the number of [Roman]
citizens and of allies under arms, the condition of the fleet, of the allied
kingdoms, the provinces, the imposts, tributes, needs, and grants” (Allan.,
I, 11). Now, where would Augustus have gotten all this information without
various census, calculations, investigations, and similar measures?
And in reality we do have evidence of
such measures. Augustus himself, in the famous monumentum Ancyranum (in
Ankara), asserts that he had had a census of cives romani taken three
times, in 28 B.C., in 8 B.C., and in A.D., 14. We know from other sources that
the census was taken in Gual in 28 B.C. and it is very probable that it was
also taken in Spain about the same time. In addition, recently discovered
papyri indicate that there was a regular census in Egypt every fourteen years,
and the earliest for which we have almost certain testimony is that of A.D.
5-6; after that those of A.D. 19-20, 33-34, 47-48, and on down to the end of
the third century and all attested. All this shows that Augustus’ plans included
a general census although it was not carried out simultaneously in all parts of
the empire, and also that he had been accomplishing it gradually for some time
when Jesus was born.
185. Roman historians also speak of the senator P.
Sulpicius Quirinius. He was born in Lanuvium, near Tusculum, and his intelligence
had carried him up to high offices in the empire. He had governed Crete and
Cyrene, and “his military energy and his zeal in various missions had merited
the consulship for him under the divine Augustus; then for stripping the
Homonadenses in Cilicia of their fortress he received the tokens of a triumph,
and was made adviser to Caius Caesar when the latter ruled Armenia” (Tacitus, Annal.,
III, 48). His consulship is to be ascribed to the year 12 B.C., and it was from
1 B.C. to A.D. 3 that he attended the young Caius Caesar, Augustus’ nephew. But
the consulship also opened the way to the office of legatus in an imperial
province (§ 20); and in fact, we find Quirinius governing Syria as its legate
during A.D. 6-7, when after Arachelaus had been deposed, he came to Judea to
take up the afore-mentioned census with the procurator Coponius (§§ 24, 43(
This particular term as legate in
Syria, however, has no connection with the birth of Jesus, since it did not
begin before A.D. 6 when Jesus was about eleven years old. After all, Luke
himself shows that he is well acquainted with the census of A.D. 6-7 and its
bloody consequences (cf. Acts 5:370, and therefore he certainly is not
confusing it with the census at the time of Jesus’ birth. Was there, then,
another census before the years A.D. 6-7? And was this previous census carried
out by Quirinius?
Some scholars, both Catholic and
Protestant, have answered these questions with a particular translation of the
passage in Luke 2:2: Ααὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς
Συρίας Κυρηνίου. Previously (§ 183) we translated this: “The first census took
place while Quirinius was governing in Syria,” which is the usual way. But the scholars
in question translate it: “This census took place before [that taken] while
Quirinus was [governing over] Syria.” This does solve the question: the census
taken at the time of Jesus’ birth is different from and prior to that taken by
Quirinius in A.D. 6-7, although we are not told how much earlier it was
accomplished. This translation of the Greek adjective πρωτη to mean “anterior” “preceding,” is certainly
possible and there are examples of its in the Gospels themselves (cf. John 1:15,
30; 15:18) as well as in the papyri and elsewhere. We cannot deny, however,
that it is unusual and it in reality prompted by the desire to avoid the
historical-chronological difficulty in the passage. If, on the other hand, we
accept the natural and usual translation instead and face the difficulty
squarely, can we find any other way to solve it?
To have Quirinius taking the census at
the time of Jesus’ birth, we must find that he was already legate in Syria at
the time or at least that he was in charge of some important mission there and consequently
invested with special authority. There is some very significant evidence in
this regard.
186. A comparison of a fragmentary inscription
found in Tivoli in 1764 (now in the Lateran Museum) with an inscription of
Aemilius Secundus found in Venice in 1880 provides sufficient basis for the
conclusion that Quirinius had previously been legate to Syria at some
undetermined time which was certainly a few years before the Christian era. If he
was consul in 12 B.C., we must set this first term as legate after that year;
but how long after?
An inscription found in 1912 in
Antioch of Pisidia tells us that Quirinius was an honorary duumvir of that particular
Roman colony, and this would lead us to believe that he was governing Syria
when the inscription was made; but we cannot fix the date of the latter in any
definite year. On the other hand, we must also consider three persons whom
Flavius Josephus mentions as legates to Syria between 9 and 1 B.C., though he
does not tell us exactly how long they remained in office. They are M. Titius,
mentioned for a year falling between 10 and 8 B.C.; Sentius Saturninus, from 8
to 6 B.C.; Quintilius Varus, from 6 to 5 B.C. In the year 1 B.C., the legate to
Syria was Caius Caesar, the nephew of August. For the remaining years in this
last decade before the Christian era (3-2 B.C.) we have no explicit information,
just as we have none for the length of M. Titius’ term in office. Hence
Quirinius may have been legate to Syria for the first time in one or the other
of these two intervals, either in 3-2 B.C., or immediately before or
immediately after the legateship of M. Titus, that is, after 12 B.C., in which
he was consul, but before 8 B.C., when the legate to Syria was Saturninus.
If we suppose that Quirinus was legate
from 3 to 2 B.C., then the question of the census is still unsolved, because
Jesus was born before 4 B.C. There remain, therefore, the years between 12 and
8 B.C. which we must consider as a possibility.
But we have other information regarding
the same Quirinius, which possibly offers a different solution to the whole
problem. The campaign against the Homonadenses, mentioned only incidentally by
Tacitus, ins treated more fully by Strabo (XII, 6 ,5), who tells us that
Quirinius undertook the campaign to avenge the death of King Aminta, who had
been killed by the Homonadenses, brigands of Cilicia. Since Cilicia was under
the province of Syria, we again come to the conclusion that when he conducted
this campaign Quirinius was either legate to Syria or had special authority there
because of it. But when did the campaign taken place? We have no definite
answer to this question either. There is a considerable degree of probability,
if not certainty, that it took place between 10 and 6 B.C.
Another bit of evidence, negative but
important, is incidentally furnished by Tertullian. This worthy jurist, who was
in an excellent position to have firsthand knowledge of the Roman census
scrolls, refers us with assurance to the census taken under Augustus in Judea
by Sentius Saturninus as that accomplished at the time of the birth of Jesus: “But
it is also the fact that there was at that time in Judea under Augustus a
census taken up by Sentius Saturninus, from whose records they could have ascertained
his nationality” (Adv. Marcion., IV, 19). The mention here of Saturninus
instead of Quirinus is entirely unexpected and in itself shows that Tertullian
is not quoting from Luke but has obtained his formation from imperial documents,
perhaps the official records. The importance of this data, negative though it
is, extremely great because, as we have already noted, Saturninus was legate to
Syria shortly before or shortly after Quirinius.
187. Having examined all the available evidence,
we find two solutions possible.
We may suppose that Quirinius was
legate to Syria for the first time between 10 and 8 B.C. toward the end of this
term he announced the census and, precisely because it was the “first,” it
encountered difficulties in Judea which protracted it so long that it was
completed by his successor Sentius Saturninus. Among the Jews, who had been
forcibly impressed by it, this census passed into history under the name of
Quirinus, who began it, and Luke adopted the Jewish designation. Among the
Romans the same census was recorded under the name of Saturninus, who finished
it, and Tertullian followed the Roman designation. It may even be that in the
beginning Saturninus was Quirinus’ assistant in getting the census under way.
Later, in fact, in the census of A.D. 6-7, the procurator Coponius was also Quirinius;
assistant (§ 24), and the commemorative inscription of Aemilius Secundus (§
186) reads that he took the census of the city of Apamea by order of the Same
Quirinius (certainly during his first term as legate). Then Saturninus
succeeded Quirinius as legate and finished the census alone.
We might arrive at a similar but less
probable conclusion by reversing the sequence, that is, by assigning Saturninus’
legateship to 8-6 B.C. and that of Quirinius to 3-2 B.C. In that case, we would
consider that Jesus was registered actually in the census of Saturninus but
that the whole census was attributed to Quirinius who finished it.
The alternative solution is based on
the fact that in the same Roman province along with the imperial legate there
was sometimes other high officials with special duties and that both the legate
and these officials were indiscriminately called “governors,” ηγεμονες. Syria itself
furnishes the certain proof of this custom. Flavius Josephus more than once mentions
our Sentius Saturninus and at the same time a certain (procurator) Volumnius,
and he calls them both “governors” (ηγεμονες of Caesar (Antiquities of the Jews, XVI, 277)
or of Syria (ibid., 344), or “prefects,” επιστατουντες, of Syria (ibid.
280). About 63, Nero named Cizius or Cincius (perhaps Cestius) legate to Syria,
but left the former legate Corbulo in the same province as military commander
with extraordinary powers, because he was an expert strategist with actual
field experience against the Parthians (Tacitus, Annal., XV, 25, cf. 1
ff.). Similarly, during the last war against Jerusalem, the legate to Syria was
Mucianus, but Nero gave the military command to Vespasian. An African milestone
of A.D. 75 names two legati Augusti, specifying that one of them was in
charge of the census and the other was the military commander.
Since it is certain that there would be two or more “governors” ηγεμονες in a province at the
same time, we must note that Luke says the census was taken while Quirinius was
“governing,” ηγεμονευοντος, in Syria; yet he does not say that Quirinius was directly responsible
for it as the Vulgate seems to imply (descriptio . . . facta est a praeside
Syriae Cyrino), nor does he specify the nature of Qurinius’ “governing,”
that is, whether he was the civil-military governor, or a military governor only.
It would be therefore, that at the time of Jesus’ birth the regular legate to
Syria was Saturninus, while Quirinius was the military commander directing the
war against the Homonandenses. The powers granted to Quirinius for the prosecution
of the campaign permitted him to take the census in the province in which he
was fighting and the regions subject to it. If tis is the case, then Tertullian
attributed the census to Saturninus, the ordinary legate; Luke attributed it to
Quirinius either because he actually ordered it by virtue of his military
powers, or because he was so well known for his second census, which marked the
definitive subjugation of Judea.
188. These two solutions have their respective degrees of probability, but
they are neither clear nor definitive. The point on which they remain
annoyingly vague, because we lack sufficient documents, is precisely the chronological
one, which is the most important so far as Jesus’ birth is concerned.
We are certain of Quirinius’ campaign against the Homonadenses, just as
we may consider it almost certain that he was legate to Syria for the first
time before the beginning of the Christian era. But in what years exactly did
these events occur? As we have seen, there are various but only approximate
answers to this question, and they do not give us any solid working basis for
establishing the dates of Jesus’ birth and life.
Two other objections have been raised to Luke’s account (§ 183), but
they are far less important. Could a representative of Rome take a census in
the territories of Herod, a “friendly and allied king”? Whatever the purely
legal aspects of the question, in actually practice it was entirely possibly
and extremely natural, given the absolute subjection which bound Herod to
Augustus. Considering Herod’s servile attitude toward the emperor, especially
in the last few years of his life (§ 11), it is not even to be thought of that
he would offer any opposition the day the omnipotent lord of the Palatine should
decide for reasons of general policy to take the census in the territories of
his most humble servant.
The fact that Jewish instead of Roman procedure was followed in taking
the census does not constitute a difficulty so much as it confirms the
historical accuracy of Luke’s account. The Romans, it is true, had their own
way of taking the census, but they were also experienced politicians, and so
they knew very well how to avoid unnecessary difficulties and how not to offend
needlessly the sensibilities of the peoples they subjected. Rome was fully
aware that registering a foreign people, especially for the “first” time, was a
dangerous undertaking, for it represented the official test of the subjection
of that people. To quote one example alone, the census in Gaul, begin in 28
B.C. by order of Augustus, provoked such serious revolts that it had to be
suspended for the time being, and it was undertaken twice later, first by Drusus
and then by Germanicus. Rome, therefore, probably foresaw the certain deep
resentment and discontent that would result from a census of the Jews, who were
tenaciously attached to their own traditions for religious and patriotic
reasons. In those circumstances, it would have been senseless to increase the difficulties
by following the Roman procedure. Rome did not insist upon empty formalities; it
made little difference whether the census was taken in the Roman way or the
Jewish way procedure for this “first” census especially. After all, we do not
know whether or not in the second census, taken by Quirinius in A.D. 6-7, the Roman
method was followed; it may be that it was, but it is equally possible that the
Jewish procedure was used instead. In addition, it is evident from the papyri
that in Egypt the Romans ordered the citizens who happened to be outside their
own districts to return to them for the census, which is another point in favor
of Luke’s account. (Giuseppe
Ricciotti, The Life of Christ [trans. Alba I. Zizzamia; Milwaukee: The
Bruce Publishing Company, 1947], 167-73)