Alex Moon

While talking with a coworker the other day, we got to discussing various religions and whatnot. He mentioned that there were records of a Roman census at the time of Jesus' alledged birth. I haven't been able to find any reference to evidence for this. Does anyone know if he's correct or not?

Peter Kirby

He might be right if you count the census made under Quirinius in 6 CE as reported by Josephus.

You may wish to read this whole page by Richard Carrier:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#census" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#census</a>

This is not much of an argument really, but it is a claim that really needs correction since it is so frequently stated, betraying the ignorance of those who state it. Kirk R. MacGregor says in Is the New Testament Historically Accurate? that "archaeological discoveries show that the Romans had a regular enrollment of taxpayers and also held censuses every 14 years. This procedure was supposedly begun under Augustus and the first took place in either 23-22 B.C. or in 9-8 B.C. The latter would be the one to which Luke refers," essentially paraphrasing Elder. John McRay has made a similar claim, stating that "the sequence of known dates for the censuses clearly demonstrates that one was taken in the empire every fourteen years."[12.1] These two men and many other apologists use this claim as part of their argument that a census of Judaea could theoretically have been taken in 8 B.C., fourteen years prior to the census in 6 A.D., perhaps in the very governorship of Saturninus as Tertullian claimed, or in the supposed "earlier" governorship of Quirinius.

Of course, everything covered above already makes this irrelevant with respect to Judaea, and thus of no help in reconciling Luke with Matthew, so there really is no need to debunk it. But it is such a glaring error that it must be corrected. First, all these claims take for granted the reality of an "empire-wide registration" (based on what Luke appears to say, cf. box above), but there never was such a thing until the massive enrollment made by Vespasian and Titus in 74 A.D.[12.15] Thus, since censuses were scattered and never uniform, no "cycle" could ever have been a uniform reality. We know of only two provinces which, owing to their peaceful nature and unusually well-organized infrastructure, were regularly assessed: Sicily and Egypt. Second, the constitutional census cycle for counting Roman citizens was actually five years, and this was actually maintained in Sicily in rare conjunction with a regular census of non-citizens in that province. This was only due to the fact that it had been placed under a special tax system by the kings that ruled the island before the Roman conquest, which the Romans simply continued.[12.2] But regular civil war and the unwieldly size of the empire in the 1st century B.C. resulted in this cycle being disrupted elsewhere. Even after the civil wars were ended, Augustus was only able to complete three of the general censuses in his long reign, which were only of Roman citizens, not provincial inhabitants. These were taken in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D.[12.3] This flatly refutes any possibility of a fourteen year cycle for these censuses. One comes twenty years after another, then twenty two years after that.

As far as provincial censuses go, we have our second best information from Gaul. Censuses under Augustus were performed there in 27 B.C., 12 B.C., and 14 A.D. (this last was completed only two years later due to local unrest). None of these fits a fourteen-year cycle. Other provinces also fit no pattern. For instance, we also know that a census was taken in Cyrenaica (North Africa) in 6 B.C.[12.4] Our best information comes from Egypt, since from that province alone we actually have countless papyrus census returns. Egyptian administration was unique, for like that of Sicily, it was simply the system employed by its previous ruler (Queen Cleopatra), which the Romans found convenient to continue. In Egypt alone there was a fourteen-year cycle, and this was the direct consequence of a particular capitation tax unique to Egypt in which everyone paid an annual tax after reaching the age of fourteen. This tax may have existed in Syria, but alongside a different capitation tax on women that began at age 12 (Ulpian, via Digest 50.15.3), which would have entailed a 12-year census cycle, or less, if any--but we are unsure when these taxes began, whether they ever applied to Judaea, or whether Syria was as well-organized as Egypt in the first place. No matter how you look at it, a fourteen-year cycle would not apply to any census in which Quirinius was involved. That a census in year 6 matches the Egyptian cycle could well be a coincidence, or the result of a special reorganization of all the Eastern administrations in that year, but it does not entail that the cycle was observed in Syria or Judaea either before or after that year.[12.5] It could have been, or any other cycle, or no consistent cycle at all.

best,
Peter Kirby

Michael Ledo

What a loaded question. It all depends on when Jesus was born. There is evidence in buried in Luke. Jesus would have been born at the time of the first census when the Jews rebelled. This was about 7AD. As you can tell, Christians have trouble with this date for Jesus' birth. Luke appears to be written by an historian- he knows nothing of the Herod nonsense in Matthew. Matthew writes his tale to fulfill prophecy, and does not care for facts. Herod had to be King when Jesus was born, because the messiah would come while during Herod's reign, something about the first foreign king over Judea or something. Since Herod died during the year of the great comet- 4BC, that would make it impossible for the 2 stories to both be correct. (Krishna was born during a census thing too.) Rome did have many a census before this time, however Judea was never included. Its first census was marked with riots. This is alluded to in the Bible also. Here is what I wrote in Bible Bloopers speculating Josephus as the author of Luke, I touch upon the topic:

“Luke is a historian of the first rank...” –Josh McDowell, quoting and agreeing with Sir William Ramsay


Luke, we are told, was a doctor, not a historian. If one was to read Luke-Acts with an open mind, one would see where the author of these books believed himself to be an historian of authority. Is it possible that the historian Josephus, to whom Luke is so often compared to in style, is actually the author of the third Gospel? I had previously discarded this theory, now I am not too sure.
 
Josephus’ actual name was Joseph ben Matthias, son of Matthias, a Jewish priest. Joseph was a fast learner and studied under Banus, possibly an Essene. At 19 Josephus joined the Pharisees. Josephus lead a force of Galileans against Vespasian in 67 A.D. and was defeated. Josephus, as a captive, made a prophecy that Vespasian would become Emperor. When that prophecy came true, Joseph was released and changed his name to Flavius Josephus. (Does this smell of the Joeseph/Daniel story?) He gathered up books and documents from Jerusalem and lived in Rome. Here he wrote histories of the Jewish people for Roman citizens. Josephus was born circa 37 A.D. and died sometime after 100 A.D., of which there is no account.
 
Josephus rarely mentions Jesus Christ in his narratives. And when he does, these are often disputed. It would seem likely that an historian raised in Galilee, during the heyday of Christianity, would have a word or two, or even a gospel or book of acts to his credit. If Josephus had been a follower of Paul, and a believer in Christianity, he certainly could not write about Jesus under his own name. First, the Jews would not accept a book by Josephus, for they considered him a bit of a traitor. Secondly, with the persecution of Christianity, it would not be wise to expose oneself as a Christian when one was a client of the Flavian family.
 
Josephus believed that Rome could not be defeated, and that a peaceful coexistence was the only possible route. There are several themes and stories unique to Luke that would exemplify Josephus’ ideology. It is possible, if not probable, that Josephus knew Paul around 64 A.D. and traveled with him under the alias of Luke the doctor. This is unsupported conjecture on my part. However, it would explain a lot.
 
Luke writes as a historian. This is seen throughout the entire text of Luke and Acts. In Luke 1:3 he tells us he has “a perfect understanding of all things from the very first.” A boastful claim made by a historian. Who else but a historian would dare write (3:1) “Now in the Fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar [29 A.D.], Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Phillip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarach of Abilene.” This places a definite time in history. Historians give themselves away with trivial facts such as 8:3, “And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod’s steward, and Susanna...” We got not only the name of Herod’s steward, but his wife’s too! Luke/Acts is riddled with this kind of historical trivia nonsense. Who else besides a historian with some inside knowledge would know or even care about these fact? When was the last time these facts played a major role in a Sunday sermon? They were certainly important to someone.
 
In the introduction of Luke we read that it is addressed to “most excellent Theophilus” so that he “might know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.” This form is similar to Josephus’ opening of “Against Apion”: “I suppose that, by my books of the Antiquities of the Jews, most excellent Epaphroditus, I have made it evident to those who peruse them...”
 
In both cases the author flatters the specifically named reader and contends to write with convincing authority. The rest of chapter one of Luke lacks the historian style exhibited in the rest of the text. Many scholars contend this was a later insertion for various textual and theological reasons, although no hard evidence to my knowledge exists to support this claim.
 
Luke seems very certain that the birth of Christ was during the first taxation of Judea, when Cyrenius was governor of Syria (6-7 A.D.). This was a very notable period of Jewish history. It is later referred to in Acts, and Josephus writes extensively about it. There was a tax revolt lead by Judas of Galilee (Acts 5:37). If Jesus was indeed born during this turmoil, it would have been memorable to those still alive in Galilee (Josephus’ birthplace). Why then would Matthew manufacture a story about Jesus being born circa 4 B.C. under Herod the Great? A fair question.
 
Matthew was writing for a Jewish or mixed Jewish community. As such, all the prophecies concerning the Jewish Messiah must be fulfilled in order for the people to buy off on the idea Jesus was the Messiah. Eusebius (the old guy Josh McDowell believes) informs us Genesis 49:10 was considered a prophecy of the coming of the Messiah. He would come during the reign of the first foreigner to be King of a Jewish nation. The people considered Herod the Great this foreigner, ergo any messiah had to be born during this time. Matthew made it so. Luke stuck to what he knew. It is possible that once this error was discovered, the first chapter of Luke was inserted to make the announcement of the birth during the reign of Herod (Luke 1:5) thus maintaining some loose continuity with the prophecy. Please note Luke never claims Jesus was ever called Emmanuel either (Matt. 1:23).
 
In chapter 3 Luke gives us the long genealogy of Jesus (which Paul instructs us to ignore (1Ti 1:4, Titus 3:9). This genealogy is without a doubt a fabrication, just as was Matthew’s. Arguably Josephus could have had the temple records of births and genealogies, if they were not destroyed or buried. Matthew chose a genealogy already known in part to the Jews from the Old Testament. Luke did not have to do this, since he was writing for a non-Jewish audience. He could “play around” with the genealogy. This I believe he did.
 
Since there were no copyrights, authorship of texts included a code to determine the true author. This was done as a game among the Greeks called “names and numbers” or “Isopsepha” (Plutarch’s “Moralia” VIII, Table Talk, V 673). They used Pythagoras’ systems of assigning numbers for letters and hence numbers for name. If we start with Jesus as the first generation and number backwards, i.e., Joseph=2, Heli=3 etc., we find that if we total the number of the four Josephs in the genealogy we come up with “63.” If we total Flavius (30) and Joseph (33) we come up with “63.” Josephus’ father was named Matthias. Joseph’s grandfather was named Matthat. This name, or a form of it, appears frequently in Luke’s genealogy. The sum of the first four appearances total “60,” the number of Calpurnius Piso. (This is for the conspiracy buffs: This points to Piso as being the author of the Book of Matthew, as well as the father of Luke=Josephus. The fifth placement of Mattatha is in the 41st position, the number of Calpurnius. See chapter on Arius Calpurnius Piso.)

What the heck does all this number mumbo-jumbo mean? There is no certainty that my number theory is correct. There are different ways to assign numbers, plus we can not be certain Luke 3 is the original text, some texts vary. There is, however, a conspicuously high amount of Josephs and Matthias derivations lying around that appear to form a pattern. I believe this holds the secret of the true authorship of Luke, whether it being Josephus or someone else entirely.
 
Unique to Luke is the child prodigy story in chapter 2. “The child grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom and the grace of God was upon him… And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem… they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers…and Jesus increased in wisdom and stature.” (As if God wasn’t wise enough.)
 
It seems young Jesus was similar in this respect to young Josephus in his autobiography:
 “My father…had a higher commendation on account of his righteousness and was in great reputation in Jerusalem…I made mighty proficiency in the improvements of my learning, and appeared to have both a great memory and understanding. Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had for learning; on which account the high priests and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law…”
 
In both narratives the action takes place in Jerusalem, with the intelligentsia, and a young man fielding questions as a pro.
 Josephus commanded soldiers and gave them advice. Likewise Luke uniquely gives advice to soldiers in 3:14: “Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” This was spoken by John the Baptist.
 In Josephus’ autobiography we have similar advice:
 “to fight with nobody, nor to spoil the country, but to pitch their tents in the plain, and be content with their sustenance they had brought with them…”
 Wages (opsonion) in this context means, “rations for a soldier.” These phrases are indeed similar and contain an identical philosophical view, which is a must if we are to believe Josephus wrote Luke.

 Luke uniquely mentions Pilate’s massacre of the Galileans in 13:1-2. Josephus likewise reports on the event and links it in time to the crucifixion similar to Luke. It seems that Pilate was constructing an aqueduct from temple funds. The crowd gathered and started shouting against Rome. In a previous confrontation over temple images, the crowd won out. Pilate wasn’t going to lose another one. His men mingled in the crowd, disguised, with their weapons hidden. On Pilate’s word, they proceeded to slaughter the crowd and anybody else standing around. Jesus’ response to the murderous bloodshed was, “except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” Shortly thereafter Pilate nailed him to the cross; apparently Jesus was not repentant enough. Both Josephus and Luke place this event near the time of the passion, but neither author links the two events.
 
If Jesus had been involved with the Galilean riot, a pro-Roman and pro-Christian author would never admit to it, although he might mention the event itself. The Galilean trouble-makers were blamed for the massacre as much as Pilate. After Jesus was taken into custody, Peter was afraid his own people would betray him because he too was a Galilean. I believe the two events to be related—exactly how, I am uncertain. Jesus could have been the leader of the angry mob (you remember how he gets into a snit over temple money); or simply a scapegoat offered to Pilate by the Saducees.
 
Acts 5:36ff mentions two historical facts out of sequence, concerning two uprisings. These two are also mentioned by Josephus. The first is the Theudas incident which took place while Fadus was procurator of Judea in 45 or 46 A.D. Acts then proclaims “After this man [Theudas] rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing [6-7 A.D.], and drew away much people after him...” I contend the “After this” should be translated “The same as this man.” I believe what the author of Acts was doing was comparing the deeds of the two men, and not placing them in time.
 
This verse caught my eye because Josephus mentions the same two events in the same order (“Antiquities” XX V-1,2). In the first chapter he mentions Theudas. He then follows in chapter two with the sons of Judas of Galilee. What this shows is that Josephus and the author of Acts both had the same “mind-set” of relating these two incidents. It is Theudas that Paul is mistaken for in Acts 21:38.
 
Luke opens up his ministry to be all inclusive, i.e., to include Paul as an Apostle. In Luke 9:49-50, John comes up to Jesus and complains that someone is already performing miracles in the name of Christ, but opts not to hang out with Jesus (you know God) and his chosen group of saints. (Does this seem likely to anyone?) Jesus said don’t forbid anyone casting out devils in his name “for he that is not against us is for us.” Unfortunately paid political announcements did not have to be labeled in this era, or else there would have been a “Paid for by Friends of Paul the Apostle Committee” attached to this bit. Luke/Acts has several more such lines, but this one is the most blatant. This verse exemplifies Josephus’ philosophy of religion when he states “Everyone ought to worship God according to his own inclinations…” Josephus was specifically referring to the law of circumcision, a sore spot with Paul.
 
The theme of atonement also runs through Luke. The Jews should forgive their enemies and get along with Rome too. We saw this previously in 13:1-5, where Jesus brushes off the Roman slaughter. The Jews also hated the Samaritans. They had defiled the Temple and were banished from it. There was also a major incident that took place when the Galileans passed through Samaria on their way to Jerusalem. The Galileans were ambushed and murdered along the road. The leader of the Galileans went to Samaria to demand justice. Instead he was bought off. The Jews got mad over this and plundered the Samaria villages led by Eleazar the robber (Lazarus in Galilean Aramaic). The Samarians retaliated, killed a bunch of Jews and took prisoners. Their case was pleaded to the governor of Syria (who crucified a few), then to Claudius Caesar (circa 52 A.D.) who ruled in favor of the Jews and then ordered the death of a few more Samaritans (“Antiquities” XX VI).
 
It is in Luke alone (chapter 10) where we find the parable of the good Samaritan. The Samaritan was placed in a position above that of a priest or a Levite contrary to Jewish sentiment.
 Another hint of forgiveness to the enemies of the Jews is the raising of the widow’s son at Nain (chapter 7). Nain was the fortress of an outlaw band of slaves and robbers that pillaged the countryside and attacked the Temple. Led by Simon, son of Giora they eventually took over Jerusalem (69 A.D.) but the battle had weakened and divided the Jews so much, it made Rome’s takeover that much easier (“Wars of the Jews” IV-IX ).
 
Luke portrays Rome, Nain, and Samaria not as enemies, but with a human face.
 Shortly before Josephus’ capture and conversion by the Romans he writes, “I was now about the thirtieth year of my age.” Apparently he assigns some importance to this age as does Luke when he writes (3:23), “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age…” But why would Luke write such a thing? If Jesus were born in 6 A.D. during the taxing, and started his career in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (29 A.D.), he could at the most be 23 years old. Yet Luke (a great historian if you believe Josh McDowell) claims he was about 30? (30 is the number for Flavius, also see Gen. 41:46 = Joseph).
 
After Jesus appoints the 12 and sends them out (chapter 9) he then appoints something called the 70 and sends them out too. Chapter 10 of Luke is the only mention of this in the New Testament. In Josephus’ autobiography we find 12 messengers sent to Ecbatana from Caesarea. These are then followed by the seventy. The seventy (in Luke) are instructed to travel in Essene fashion by not taking anything with them on the road, relying on the good will of strangers. Josephus coincidentally writes on this practice of the Essenes: “…they carry nothing with them when they travel into remote parts…” (“Wars” II VIII 4).
 
Could Josephus had been a “closet Christian?” Consider the names of his three sons. There was Simonides, a longer form of Simon, a.k.a. Peter. Justus was a pseudonym for James the Just. His oldest son Hyrcanus, named after John Hyrcanus. These were Jesus’s three closest apostles.
 
It is clear from reading Luke/Acts and Josephus we can make some definite conclusions. Their ideology, philosophy, and style are extremely similar. It is difficult to believe that Luke wrote independently of Josephus. If we assume Luke was not Josephus, but used Josephus as a source, then we have some dating problems. The writing of Luke/Acts is placed by scholars at circa 80-90 A.D. Some of Josephus’ works might predate this time span, by clearly his autobiography did not. It is dated after 100 A.D. because it states that King Agrippa II is already dead. This then brings us to different conclusions:
 1) Luke/Acts was written after 100 A.D.
 2) Josephus, an accomplished historian and a Jew mimicked Luke in his autobiography playing the role of Christ himself, because Luke used his works previously.
 3) Luke is Josephus.
 4) Any combination of the above.
 
Now if Luke was a close companion of Paul, what exactly do you think he meant when he wrote about the rapture (17:34), “…two men in one bed…”?

Toto

Michael Ledo:

The simple solution is that Luke/Acts was written after 100 CE. The historians who date it to 80-90 are not basing that on evidence that ties the text to those particular years AFAIK. They date it to 80-90 because they date Mark to 70, and they know Luke used Mark as source material, (and some of them would like to date Luke as early as possible). There is no particular evidence that I have seen that forces Luke-Acts to be dated before about 150 CE, when it was mentioned in other sources.

Check out this essay:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html" target="_blank">Luke and Josephus</a>

Vorkosigan

Hi Michael:

here are some comments I made about the gospels before, showing some indicators of why things in them may not be regarded as history. Most of them apply to Luke. Luke may well have referred to "in the time of Tiberius etc, etc, but read carefully and note how no date is ever given for any action of Jesus, including his all-important death. What year was Jesus killed? Luke does not say.

• the re-arrangement of events and people – John's moving the temple scourging, for example
• indifference to geographical and political realities – Mark's geographical boners, Matthew's depiction of a Jewish crowd shouting "His blood be on us forever!", the constant depiction of Roman centurions faithful to the Jewish god
• depiction of history in religious/supernatural frameworks – John's Seven Signs
• few or no critical views of subject
• no details of personal characteristics, habits and attitudes – did Jesus like art? Spicy food? Was he afraid of spiders? Ancient historians frequently gave detailed descriptions of character, because it was a widespread belief that it would give clues as to why events occurred the way they did
• not merely the mentioning of, but the constant presence of the supernatural that permeates the work
• the use of passages and stories from earlier works to construct the NT – reliance on the OT prophecies and stray verses. Subtract these and what is left?
• few or no historical asides/digressions to explain to the reader what is going on, or who was such-and-such in history.
• no stated commitment to history such as Tacitus, Thucidydes or Polybius made
• the existence of multiple redactions – were Tacitus and Polybius redacted?
• the description of Jesus' life using themes from legends and myths – miraculous birth, redemptive death
• little or no explanation by historical/naturalistic/supernatural causation; causation is often supernatural – "and this was done that they prophecy might be fulfilled" Compare with explanatory remarks in Tacitus: "His men were lukewarm in their allegiance, for many came from Dalmatia and Pannonia, and these provinces were now in Vespasian's hands" or describing Vespasian's success in Judea: "Good luck, a distinguished record and excellent subordinates enabled him to within a space of two summers…."
• overt declaration of propaganda motives in writing
• A sense that events have complex causes -- for example, Tacitus' examination of Civilis' motives for sparing Cologne from being sacked.
• discussions of disgreements between or with sources -- see, for example, Tacitus' remarks on what other writers have said about whether the two armies at the Battle of Cremona should surrender, or his remarks on causation at the end of Book Two.
• a commitment to dating events and putting them in their proper order.
• knowledge of appropriate laws, habits, customs and procedures. Is Jesus' trial really a possible and legal trial? Compare to Tacitus' detailed knowledge of how political procedures operated.

Certainly the non-presence of any one or few of these is not very indicative, but the gospels satisfy none of the requirements of history or historical writing. They use events and stock characters, re-arrange them to suit theological purposes, cast them in supernatural and prophetic frameworks....

FunkyRes

The problem with a Post 70 AD authorship of Acts is that there is absolutely no mention of the temple destruction, Acts ends before 70 A.D.

The destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (and what happened to Paul) would have been very important events in the history of the early church, yet Acts ends without mentioning them at all.

This makes it very difficult to date Acts after 70 A.D., and we know that Luke was written before Acts (the same author is clear, and the book of Luke is described as "my former book" at the beginning of Acts)

wildernesse

How common in histories of this age is it to refer to the date? Were things dated like we do today? Or was it acceptable to be so general in a history at this time? I had thought that basically histories were "dated" by major events that everyone would know, rather than by July 30, 103 during this time. But I'm no classical/biblical scholar.

--tiba

Toto

That there is no mention of the destruction of the Temple does not force you to date Luke-Acts after 70 CE, especially since Luke appears to have known Mark, who does mention it. It is more likely that it was not mentioned because Luke was not writing for a Jewish audience so much as a gentile audience. Possibly Luke was writing so long after the destruction of the Temple that it was no longer an "issue" that would have to be mentioned.

Toto

Things were generally dated as so many years after the start of the reign of the current emperor, or the emperor at the time of the history.

wildernesse

Vorkosigan:
Toto:
So why is having no specific (day/month/year) date of this biblical event a good reason for doubting this event? In 2000 years, will researchers concur that my personal journal is not worth trusting because I'm not using their method of recording time?

--tiba