(avg. read time: 7–14 mins.)
Jesus is born while Augustus is Caesar and while he has decreed a census (Luke 2:1)
Of course, almost all the early Christian writers cited earlier dated Jesus’s birth relative to Augustus and to a specific year of his reign. We will address why that is later on, but it is notable that Luke, the first Christian historian, sets this precedent. Of course, Augustus had quite a long reign as Caesar from at least 27 BCE to 14 CE (though again, the ancients had different ways of reckoning his reign, as noted previously). The only note related to Augustus that potentially allows for some more precision is the reference to a census he called for.
We know of at least three general censuses in Augustus’s time, according to his Res Gestae 8, in which he dates these to his sixth consulship with Marcus Agrippa (28 BCE), the consulship of Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius (8 BCE), and his consular imperium with his son Tiberius as his colleague (14 CE). These censuses are described as enrollments of Roman citizens, and thus they do not fit the description of Luke’s narrative. Rather, as Paul L. Maier describes:
Luke rather intends here a provincial census of noncitizens for purposes of taxation, and many records of such provincial registrations under Augustus have survived, including Gaul, Sicily, Cilicia, Cyrene, and Egypt. Among these were client kingdoms such as that of Herod the Great; for example, Archelaus (unrelated to Herod), client king of Cappadocia, instructed a subject tribe ‘to render in Roman fashion an account of their revenue and submit to tribute.’ [Tacitus, Ann. 6.41; cf. 2.42] … There is also an epigraphic mention of a census by Quirinius at Apamea in Syria (an autonomous ‘client’ city-state).1
To this, Hoehner adds “the powerful Nabatean kings in Petra, who had the right to mint coins were, it seems, obliged to have the Roman financial officers in their domain.”2 In addition to these client states, we can add references to census activities of Gaul (Tacitus, Ann. 1.31, 33; Cassius Dio, Rom. Hist. 53.22), Italy (Cassius Dio, Rom. Hist. 54.35.1), and Egypt (which underwent a census in 11/10 BCE, 4/3 BCE, 4/5 CE, 5/6 CE, 11/12 CE, and 12/13 CE).3 We also know that there were multiple occasions of emperors taking stock of national resources, tax revenue, and manpower (Tacitus, Ann. 1.11; Cassius Dio, Rom. Hist. 53.30.2). Clearly, our information on Roman censuses, especially in the early Imperial era, is incomplete, but we still see evidence of substantial interest to do frequent censuses, and not simply on a once-a-decade basis, as today, or even on the traditional Roman five-year basis (as the Roman lustrum offering would mark). Censuses could be done at any time for any purpose related to taxation or auditing of resources, manpower, and property. Furthermore, because of changing policies, the need for updates, and logistical challenges (especially if multiple territories needed to be coordinated), censuses could potentially take years to conduct.
If client kingdoms were not exempt from paying taxes to Rome, they were also not exempt from providing census information to Rome. Caesar provided grants of power (Josephus, Ant. 15.76, 198, 343; 16.85, 92–93) and even military support (Ant. 15.71; Tacitus, Ann. 6.41) for these client kings, and taxes—and the census information that explained them—were the signs of that allegiance and dependence (i.e., simply a more official form of protection money). As long as the Romans were invested in the concerns of taxation, they were also invested in concerns of census activities.
We have no direct statement that Herod’s client kingdom participated in a census for Rome, but there are several indirect indications. Most of these indications revolve around taxes, as censuses were critical for taxation accounts. 1) On multiple occasions Herod remitted taxes, whether a quarter (Josephus, Ant. 16.64) or a third (Ant. 15.365). He was unlikely to be taking these from the taxes owed to Rome, so he still needed to be able to account for how much tax went to Rome—based on the population of his kingdom—and how much he could keep for his own purposes. 2) Bernice, Herod’s daughter-in-law and the wife of Aristobulus, claimed that Aristobulus and Alexander wished, once one of them took the throne, to make the sons of Herod’s other wives to be κωμογραμματεῖς (“village scribes”; Ant. 16.203; J.W. 1.473). A key function of such a position was to record information about property and taxation, as indicated in the Oxyrhynchus papyri (P.Oxy. 79, 240, 251, 252, 254, 255, 288, and 488, among many others).4 3) In the last years of Herod’s reign, Josephus mentions Herod’s kingdom taking an oath of allegiance to Augustus, which the Pharisees refused to do (Ant. 17.41–42). Such oaths of allegiance were not simply symbolically significant actions; they would be accompanied with accounts of the number pledging allegiance and, thus, of how much money they could pay to show their allegiance. 4) When Archelaus took over Judea (along with Samaria and Idumea), when it was still a client kingdom of Rome, he handed over to Augustus the accounts of Herod’s money and the annual incomes of the kingdom (Ant. 17.228–229; cf. J.W. 2.24–25). 5) Augustus also cut the tribute of Samaria to Archelaus by a quarter, since they did not join in the rebellions surrounding the Pentecost War (Ant. 17.319; cf. J.W. 2.96). The context of Josephus’s references to this event also gives account of how much the realms of Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip paid to them (Ant. 17.318–320; cf. J.W. 2.95–98). And remember, this was while Samaria was still part of a client kingdom.
Likewise, Brooks W. R. Pearson argues that the rebellion that occurred when Judea became a province of Rome under the auspices of Syria (Ant. 18.3–10), marked by the census officiated by Quirinius (Ant. 18.1–2, 26), was not simply because of taxation. Given these other references to taxes under Herod, and Rome’s involvement with those taxes, it was not the act of taxation itself that led to rebellion. Rather, the rebellion was instigated by the new status implied by this particular census:
It must be remembered that until that moment the Jewish people had enjoyed what seemed like an independent status under Herod and, to a lesser degree, under his sons. After Herod’s death, however, some would have preferred to have the same kind of provincial status that resulted in Judaea once Archelaus was deposed. It is precisely this question of independence that is at the heart of Josephus’ / writings. What Josephus reports … was the first example of direct Roman rule over the Jewish people, without the mediation of a king or ethnarch, and, unsurprisingly, it was not a happy occurrence.5
We thus have sufficient reason to suppose that censuses were conducted in the Herodian kingdom, that these operations were coordinated with Rome, and that they could be done at Rome’s behest.
But from this text, is there any possible way to pinpoint what census effort this episode from Luke could have been part of (before we get to the next verse, that is)? A few have suggested that the designation of Augustus as pater patriae in February 2 BCE could be an indication of such a census. Augustus’s description claims that the whole Roman people gave him this title (Res Gestae 35), and the supposition is that this public designation would have involved a census combined with an oath of allegiance, as mentioned above.6 This theory would seem to find support from Orosius, who dates this census and associated events, such as Augustus’s third closing of the gates of Janus, to 2 BCE, and likewise claims that the nations of the whole world at this time took an oath in the name of Caesar (Hist. 6.22.1–8; 7.2.16).
While it is not out of the realm of possibility that a census was conducted in 2 BCE, this reasoning for one is unconvincing. Orosius is not the best source to rely on, especially as he claims that Jesus’s name was on the census list and he was thus a Roman citizen (Hist. 6.22.8). This assumption seems to be derived from Orosius’s own historical context (375–420 CE) after the Edict of Caracalla (212 CE), which declared that all free men in the Roman Empire had full Roman citizenship. In Jesus’s day, people of a client kingdom (citizens or not) would at best receive limited Roman citizenship (except for kings or perhaps people who rendered special service), but most such people would never attain even that status in the eyes of Rome. Similarly, despite the demand of taxes from client kingdoms, people of these states would not be considered part of the populus Romanus. And this is to say nothing of the supposition that this designation required a census, which is by no means clear.
Perhaps more probable is the possibility that Augustus called for a series of local censuses somewhere in the period of 7–2 BCE, when he was demobilizing and settling his armies. In Res Gestae 16, Augustus says that in 30 BCE he paid 600,000,000 sesterces for estates in Italy and in 14 BCE he paid 260,000,000 sesterces for estates in the provinces for these soldiers. Finally, in the demobilization period of 7–2 BCE, he paid 400,000,000 sesterces to the soldiers themselves. That is a total of 1,260,000,000 sesterces paid for this policy, and that is not even accounting for the other regular expenses of Caesar during this time. A sesterce was one quarter of a denarius. 6,000 denarii were equivalent to 1 silver talent. This sum would thus equal 52,500 talents, over 58 times what Josephus gives as the total annual tribute of Herod’s kingdom (900 talents, only a percentage of which went to Rome), and over five times more than the extreme figure Jesus used in his illustration of the impossible debt for the servant to pay to his master in Matt 18:21–35. Also, as a denarius was the daily wages of an average day-laborer, and assuming 300 days of work a year, this sum would equal the payment for 1,050,000 man-years of labor. If we restrict the scope simply to the 400,000,000 sesterces paid to the soldiers themselves, that is equivalent to 16,666⅔ talents, which is still over 18 times what Josephus gives as the total annual tribute of Herod’s kingdom, and 66.67% more than in Jesus’s parable. It is also equivalent to 333,333⅓ man-years of labor.
Augustus also notes (Res Gestae 15) the payments he made in his time as part of the Second Triumvirate and early in his time as imperator to the plebeians (in 40 BCE, 29 BCE, and 24 BCE), which combined amount to at least 275,000,000 sesterces paid to at least 250,000 people. Likewise, in 29 BCE he paid 120,000,000 sesterces to his soldiers in the colonies as spoils of war. He claims that in 18 BCE he began compensating people in arrears for taxes from his patrimony (Res Gestae 18). In 11 BCE he also paid at least 100,000,000 sesterces to at least 250,000 plebs. In 5 BCE he paid 19,200,000 denarii (76,800,000 sesterces) to 320,000 plebs. In 2 BCE he would again pay 12,000,000 denarii (48,000,000 sesterces) to 200,000 plebs (Res Gestae 15). In 6 CE he contributed 170,000,000 sesterces from his own patrimony to the military treasury (Res Gestae 17).
In 28 BCE he rebuilt 82 temples in Rome and in 27 BCE he had the Via Flamina constructed (Res Gestae 20). In 2 BCE he established the annual games of Mars (Res Gestae 22). In 2 BCE he gave the Romans a naval spectacle, which he claimed involved 300,000 men (besides rowers) on 30 beaked ships and a large number of smaller vessels (Res Gestae 23; for more on these celebrations, see Cassius Dio, Rom. Hist. 55.10.6–8). He also notes that he imported animals from Africa for 26 different hunts in the circus, forum, or amphitheater, which involved 3,500 beasts being slain (Res Gestae 22).
I have not provided a comprehensive list of what Augustus mentions in his Res Gestae, but the following remains an accurate summary. While the noted expenses are spread throughout Augustus’s reign, they mainly cluster around the beginning of his time as Caesar, about 18–14 BCE, around the time of several wars and much political intrigue, and finally in the period of 7–2 BCE. Given the timeframe we are dealing with, 7–2 BCE is obviously of interest. As Augustus was demobilizing and settling his troops and this time of undisturbed homeostasis set in—rather than “peace” per se—Augustus saw a need to keep everyone calm and satisfied. Thus, he needed to spend a lot of money. He spent 524,800,000 sesterces on contributions to others and we are not told what he spent on the games, on the naval spectacle, or on all that was needed to make these events happen. He may also have sought to recoup some of the expenses already noted, as well as ones he incurred during this period. And who knows what other expenses Augustus had to meet to keep things quiet in these years and to keep the public satisfied?
For such massive expenditures, Augustus would likely be motivated to audit his empire and his client kingdoms. In fact, since the 8 BCE census was of Roman citizens, he may have sought supplemental censuses that included non-citizens, as he might have wished rather to have them pay for such costs that would be of most benefit to citizens. With this set of circumstances, combined with Mahieu’s proposal earlier of Herod wishing to honor Augustus in his closing years (including with the institution of a pater patriae era), we can see multiple reasons and multiple motivations for multiple people to do a census (or series of censuses) that included Herod’s kingdom of Judea. There is possible confirmation for this in the fact that Egypt underwent a census in 4/3 BCE, and it was not a client kingdom.
And to be clear, Luke is simplifying the process of census taking in his description, but he is not claiming that this was a general census that Augustus commanded. In Mahieu’s words, “Augustus was well aware of the revenues he received from each region. Combining the disparate regional censuses, carried out at distinct times, yielded a complete survey. Thus Augustus’s entire domain was registered, even though this did not occur all at once. Luke 2:1 apparently denotes a regional census in Palestine, one which formed part of Augustus’s policy of auditing revenues throughout the entire Roman Empire.”7 In the same way, Brown, who is otherwise skeptical of Luke’s historical accuracy in this account, observes, “The long peace under Augustus made empire-wide policies possible, and Augustus was interested in censuses for various purposes. During his reign there were three enumerations of Roman citizens for statistical purposes (28 and 8 B.C.; A.D. 13–14). Taxation and military service were the main goals for census of non-citizens in the provinces; and we know of censuses held at different times in Gaul and in Egypt.”8 Censuses were frequent enough that Luke knew this was not how censuses typically worked, nor would his audience (particularly Theophilus) have understood him in this fashion, given their experience with censuses.
However, we cannot necessarily determine from this census what time of year Jesus’s birth could have taken place. Beckwith describes well the ambiguity surrounding the details of Luke’s reference to Joseph and Mary’s travel from Nazareth:
The fact that Mary and Joseph travelled to Bethlehem at the very time when the birth of her child was imminent suggests that the date for the census was fixed by the authorities within narrow limits. It is unlikely that they would have fixed this date in the wet season, when travelling was difficult, or in the months of harvest, when people were particularly busy, for fear of defeating the object of making the census as complete as possible. The latter part of the dry season therefore seems the most likely, namely, from August to October. At the same time, no certainty can be attached to this conclusion, since the climate of Palestine is not particularly severe, and we all know that government officials frequently fail to take what appears to the onlooker to be the commonsense course, and that, where taxes are concerned, they are apt to be impatient.9
A further ambiguity, due to the lack of explicit temporal indicators after Mary and Joseph arrive in Bethlehem, is how long after the trip Mary might have given birth.
Summary
The reference to the census is not precise enough to indicate to us what time of year Jesus was born. Nor is it even precise enough to indicate to us what year Jesus was born. But the theory I propounded about Augustus’s possible motivation for the census certainly fits with the timeframe almost all scholars give for the year of Jesus’s birth. Given logistical difficulties, the distance of this client kingdom from Rome, and the likelihood that Augustus decided to enact a broad census policy after it became clearer how expensive his efforts to keep his soldiers and the public happy, it is likely that we are looking for a census effort in Judea in the latter part of this period. Therefore, we are most likely looking for a birth of Jesus somewhere in 4–2 BCE, in the latter half of Augustus’s efforts in demobilizing and settling his troops.
Paul L. Maier, “The Date of the Nativity and the Chronology of Jesus’ Life,” in Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to Jack Finegan, ed. Jerry Vardaman and Edwin M. Yamauchi (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989), 114.
Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), 16.
Brooks W. R. Pearson, “The Lucan Censuses, Revisited,” CBQ 61 (1999): 273–74.
Ibid., 271.
Ibid., 269–70.
Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible, rev. ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 305–6; Ernest L. Martin, “The Nativity and Herod’s Death,” in Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to Jack Finegan, ed. Jerry Vardaman and Edwin M. Yamauchi (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989), 89.
Mahieu, Herod the Great, 460.
Brown, Birth, 549 (emphases original).
Beckwith, Calendar and Chronology, 77. On the question of why this instruction to travel might be part of the process in Herod’s kingdom, see Pearson, “Censuses,” 274–77.