Despite the serious historical problems raised regarding under the
Repulic, among other reasons, to assess property for taxation. Augustus revived
the practice in Rome, where it had fallen into disuse. He was also the first to
introduce the census to the provinces, which he did progressively and piecemeal,
as he did with a census in Egypt in 10/9 B.C., which was to be repeated at
fourteen-year intervals. Thus the census in Judea as described in Luke 2:1-3
fits with Augustus’s known practice, even though there is no evidence of a
precise decree (dogma) issued by the emperor calling for a universal
registration.
Second, Luke also refers (in Acts 5:370 to Quirinius’s registration in A.D.
6: “Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census.” By these words
Luke recognizes the significance of the notorious census undertaken by Quirinius
that provoked Judas’ uprising. Yet Luke 2:2 introduces the word prōtē, “first,”
which suggests that Quirinius’s registration was not the only census in Judea.
Luke wants us to understand that there was another census or census, whether
before or after Quirinius’s census.
It should be noted that, although the word prōtē means “first,”
in certain contexts it carries the comparative nuance “former.” Luke himself
provides an example of this in the opening words of his second volume, the book
of Acts: “in the first [protos = “former”] book, O Theophilus, I have
dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1). (Contrast Josephus’s
opening words to book two of Against Apon: “in the first [proterou]
volume of this work”)
In Luke 2:2 prōtē might qualify either the noun (“this first registration
occurred”) or the verb (“this registration occurred first”). If Luke
intended the former, that this census was the first of others that would follow
in Judea, it would mean that he located the nativity of Jesus at the time of
the infamous census by Quirinius in A.D. 6, a significant error. If, however, prōtē
qualified the verb, it would carry the comparative inference, “former,” and
point to ta less well-known census in Judea conducted by Quirinius or someone
else “prior to” (see John 1:15, 30; 15:18, where protos means “before” =
“prior to”) the census of A.D. 6 that stirred up a local rebellion.
Can we envisage such a Roman census earlier, during Herod’s reign (37-4
B.C.)? There is no other evidence (beyond Lk 2:2; cf. Lk 1:5) of such a census.
Herod was, after all, a client king, levying his own taxes. Surely a client
king instituting a Roman census is unimaginable. In point of fact, however, a
client ruler introducing a Roman-style census independently of Rome is known.
Archelaus the Younger of Cappadocia did this in A.D. 36. (Tacitus, Annals
6.4.1. The Romans opposed this independent action) Significantly, there has
been extensive connections between Archelaus’s father, also named Archelaus,
and Herod. Herod arranged an interdynastic marriage between his son Alexander
and Archelaus the Elder’s daughter Glaphyra. (Josephus, Ant. 16.11)
Archelaus the Elder also visited Judea in the latter years of Herod. (Ibid.,
16.261-69) If Herod had conducted a census, Archelaus the Elder, and therefore
his son, would have known of it. Archlaus’s known use of a census in a client
kingdom, which had close ties with Herod, leaves open the possibility that
Herod conducted a Roman-style census for his own tax-gathering purposes.
Luke proves to be well informed about Herod at other points where we can
evaluate his accuracy. As noted above he locates the birth of John the Baptist “in
the days of Herod, king of Judea” (Lk 1:5). Despite the complexity of the
division of Herod’s kingdom at his death, Luke understands exactly how this
worked at the time John the Baptist began to prophesy in c. 28 (Lk 3:1-2). Moreover,
throughout his writings Luke refers to “Herod the tetrarch,” ruler of Galilee
(Lk 3:19; 9:7; Acts 13:1). Since Luke knows about Herod “king of Judaea” and
the intricacies of his supposed mistake in locating the nativity in A.D. 6/7,
especially since he knows well the significance of Judas’s uprising at that
time. Having located Jesus’s birth in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, in
one place (Lk 1), would he also locate it at the time of the controversial census
(Lk 2) a decade later?
There are grounds for seeking another explanation for the apparent discrepancy
in Luke 2:1-3, in particular that an otherwise unknown census occurred in the
latter days of Herod, providing an occasion for Joseph and Mary to journey to
Bethlehem. (Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity: A
History of New Testament Times [Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 1999], 98-99)
It is noted that Herod’s relation with Augustus were seriously strained
in his latter years. Evidence of Herod’s desperate attempts to regain Augustus’s
confidence can be seen at several points. For example, in 7 B.C. Herod imposed
on all Jews an oath of loyalty to Augustus and himself, despite strong opposition
from the Pharisees (Josephus, Ant. 17.42). Such oath taking may have
depended upon a registration of his subjects in their ancestral cities. For the
suggestion that Joseph and Mary travelled to Bethlem to be registered for this
oath taking, see Paul W. Barnett, “Apographē and the Apographesthai
in Luke 2:1-2,” ExpTim 85 (1974): 377-89. (Ibid., 107 n. 30)
