The Census under Quirinius
Luke 2:1–2 says that Caesar Augustus took an empire-wide census when
Quirinius was governor of Syria and Palestine. This statement poses three
historical problems. First, there is no evidence for an empire-wide census
taken during the reign of Caesar Augustus. Second, Quirinius was sent by
Augustus to be governor of Syria and Judea in AD 6 not 6 BC, the time of Jesus’
birth (see our discussion below). And Quirinius did take a notable census in AD
6–7, according to Josephus (Antiquities
of the Jews 18.1.1–2). Thus it has been suggested that Luke confused
Quirinius with P. Quintilius Varus who was legate of Syria during 6–3 BC.
Third, a Roman census would not have required Jews to travel to their ancestral
home for registration. Moreover, would Rome have undertaken a census in a
client state that already had its own ruler (Herod)?
Five responses counter the preceding doubts about Luke’s reliability
in the matter. (1) If there was a census that affected Judea during the reign
of Herod the Great, it would probably proceed along the lines of a Jewish
census, not a Roman one. In that case it is plausible that Jews would return to
their ancestral homes and that both adults go (especially if Mary was also of
Davidic descent). (2) Elsewhere Luke demonstrates knowledge of the later census
by Quirinius which prompted the revolt of Judas the Galilean in AD 6–7 (Acts
5:37). It is not likely that he would have confused this census, which he knew
to be a later one, with one during the reign of Herod. (3) It is not certain
that Luke in 2:1 means that Augustus took one enormous census of the whole
empire. The language is general and could simply mean that the various parts of
the empire were subject to various censuses during the time of Augustus. The
Greek says that Caesar decreed that “all of the Roman world be enrolled.” Both
the present tense of apographō (“I
enroll”) and the use of pas (“all”)
suggest that Luke intended to say that Caesar Augustus decreed that the
enrollment, which had been previously been going on in some parts of the
empire, should now be extended to all parts, including client states like
Judea. Indeed, the Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White agrees, “A census or
taxation-assessment of the whole provincial empire … was certainly accomplished
for the first time in history under Augustus.” (4) There is some evidence of a
census of Judea under Saturninus between 9–6 BC (cf. Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.19). We also know that
Quirinius undertook more than one census during his governorship. (5) While
Luke 2:2 could be translated as referring to the first census, prōte could also mean former. In other words, on this reading
Luke would be saying that the census under Quirinius at the time of Jesus’
birth was a former or prior one than the decree Luke mentions in Acts 5:37, the
one in AD 6–7. Ben Witherington summarizes the impact of these five
counter-responses:
Thus it is more probable that Luke is referring to a census under
Quirinius that took place prior to the famous one in AD 6–7. If so, we have no
clear record outside Luke of such an action by Quirinius, though it is not
impossible that it took place. Herod’s power was on the wane at the time of
Jesus’ birth, and a census in preparation for the change of power could well
have been forced on Herod since he had fallen into some disfavor with Augustus
near the end of his life. We know also that Quirinius had been made consul in
12 BC and a person of his rank serving in the East frequently had far-reaching
authority and duties. It is thus not improbable that, acting as Caesar’s agent,
he had Herod take a census. It is also possible he was governor more than once
in Syria, though the possibility also remains that Luke may be identifying him
by his later and, to his audience, more familiar office. It is less likely that
Luke means that Quirinius started a census in 6 BC and finished it in AD 6–7,
for he says that this was the first census the governor took (distinguishing it
from some later one). The upshot of all of this is that Luke’s reference to the
census does not suggest a different date for Jesus’ birth than does the
Matthean evidence. (C. Marvin Pate, 40 Questions About the
Historical Jesus [40 Questions Series; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel
Academic, 2015], 130-32)
Here is from ibid.,
132 n. 4:
Witherington, “Birth of Jesus,”
68. I deal with the Quirinius census in my commentary on Luke. There I draw
upon the findings of William Ramsay who, though writing a century ago, makes a
plausible connection with the Lukan statement:
The reference in Luke 2:1 to the first worldwide enrollment for taxes
when Quirinius was governor of Syria has raised the eyebrows of historians
because, while the birth of Jesus took place during the reign of Herod the
Great (who died in 4 B.C.; see Matt. 1–2 and Luke 1:5), Quirinius was governor
of Syria A.D. 6–9. Thus it was assumed that Luke had misinterpreted the
chronology of the two. However, William Ramsay offered a very plausible
explanation: Quirinius may well have been the military leader in Syria from ca.
9 to 4 B.C., in conjunction with the civil governor, Saturninus. Indeed, Ramsay
pointed to the famous inscription, titulus
tiburtinus, which contains the significant line, “as pro-praetorial legate
of Divus Augustus, he received again the province of Syria and Phoenicia.” This
remark suggests that someone was Caesar Augustus’s legate (governor) in Syria
twice. Although the name of the person is lost from the manuscript, Ramsay
suggested that, in light of Luke 2:1, Quirinius well fits the description. His
first activity in Syria took place, along with the census, from 9 to 4 B.C.,
while his second contact with the area, this time as chief magistrate,
stretched from A.D. 6 to 9 (William Ramsay, The
Bearing of Recent Discoveries on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament
[London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915], 238–300; taken from my Luke, Moody Gospel Commentary [Chicago:
Moody, 1995], 24–25).
