In the story of the Nativity, Joseph and Mary have to travel to Bethlehem to be registered during a Roman census. This census is vitally important to the story, since it is the entire reason that Jesus ends up being born in Bethlehem rather than in his family’s home in Nazareth.
There is considerable controversy surrounding this event. Some scholars argue that this census never happened. Others argue that the Bible writer misplaced a later census that actually happened long after Jesus was born. What does the evidence really show?
When was Jesus born?
To be able to assess whether there was a Roman census at the time of Jesus’ birth, we obviously first need to establish when Jesus was born. According to the detailed account in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus’ relative John started preaching in Tiberius’ fifteenth year. That year covered the period between August 28 and August 29 AD.
John, who was the son of a priest, likely began preaching at 30 years of age. That is when priests normally began their service. Jesus was six months younger than John, and Luke directly tells us that Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his preaching work.
For these and other reasons, it is evident that Jesus was 30 years old in 29 AD. When we remember that there is no Year 0, this would mean that he was born in 2 BC.
While this contradicts the popular date of 4 BC for Herod the Great’s death, many scholars agree that Herod actually died in the year 1 BC.
Controversies surrounding the Roman census and Jesus’ birth
According to the Gospel of Luke, there was a Roman census at the time of Jesus birth. What Luke says is this:
“Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus for all the inhabited earth to be registered. (This first registration took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria.)” – Luke 2:1, 2
As we can see from this brief description, this Roman census at the time of Jesus’ birth supposedly occurred when Quirinius was governor of Syria. This is a problem, because according to non-Biblical sources, Quirinius only became the governor of Syria in 6 AD, and it was in that year that he ordered a census to be taken.
This does not match the year of 2 BC for Jesus’ birth. Is there any possible explanation for this apparent inconsistency? Was Luke wrong in his claim about the Roman census at the time of Jesus’ birth?
Two different censuses
When we look at Luke’s words carefully, we note that he definitely refers to the Roman census at the time of Jesus’ birth as the “first registration.” This shows that he knew of another one. Indeed, in the Book of Acts, written later by the same author, he refers to the census of Quirinius in 6 AD.
This shows that Luke was well aware of the census of 6 AD undertaken by Quirinius. His words make it clear that he was not talking about that one in the context of Jesus’ birth. Furthermore, that census only affected those in the Roman province of Syria. Luke, on the other hand, refers to the census at the time of Jesus’ birth as being a registration of “all the inhabited earth.”
Hence, this was a general registration of the entire Roman Empire. It was not a census of just one province. Therefore the information provided by Luke shows that he was not talking about the census of Quirinius 6 AD.
Roman censuses every five years
Nevertheless, we are still left with the question of whether or not there was a Roman census at the time of Jesus’ birth. As we have just seen, Luke was talking about a general registration of the entire Roman Empire. These occurred every five years. They were accompanied by a sacrifice to cleanse the Roman people, known as a lustrum.
From the Res Gestae, we know that Augustus himself presided over this ceremony in the years 28 BC, 23 BC, 8 BC, and 14 AD. This does not mean that these were the only censuses that the Romans performed in that era. Rather, it simply means that those were the only years in which Augustus himself performed the lustrum ceremony.
Notably, this sequence of years corresponds well to the census occurring at five-year intervals, as we would expect. The exception is 14 AD, which is one year further forward than it should be. Evidently, one of the three censuses between 8 BC and 14 AD was delayed by a year.
The Roman census of 2 BC
From Dio Cassius, we find a record of a census on the people of Italy in 4 AD. This was supposed to be a general census, but Augustus decided to exclude the poor and those outside Italy due to the political situation at that time, out of fear of instigating rebellion in the people.
Hence, this demonstrates that it must have been this very census or the one before it that was delayed by a year. Dio Cassius gives no indication that the census in 4 AD was a delayed one. Therefore, the most logical conclusion is that the census of 3 BC was delayed to 2 BC.
Some scholars have attempted to link this census to another part of the Res Gestae. In that source, Augustus mentions that he was officially declared the Father of the Country in the year 2 BC. According to some scholars, this would have been a natural moment to perform a census of the Roman Empire.
Whether these two events were linked or not, we can see that there is good evidence that a universal Roman census did indeed occur in the year of Jesus’ birth, 2 BC.
See all the latest news from Greece and the world at Greekreporter.com. Contact our newsroom to report an update or send your story, photos and videos. Follow GR on Google News and subscribe here to our daily email!
