The Roman census that appears in the second chapter of Luke (verses 1-5) is one of many criticisms of the Gospels. According to Luke, Emperor Augustus issued a census to be made throughout the Roman Empire shortly before the birth of Jesus. Although more than one problem has been brought up concerning Luke’s census, in this essay I want to focus on one, and that is the problem of Joseph returning to Bethlehem to register for the census (see here for the problem of Augustus issuing the census throughout “the entire Roman world”).
Luke mentions that everyone had to return to their hometowns to register for the census. However, it has been pointed out that this is a major problem for Luke’s reliability as a Roman census would not have required someone to travel to their ancestral home to register.[1] Scholar Raymond Brown says, “By way of lesser difficulties we have no evidence…of a census requirement that people be registered in their ancestral cities.”[2]
Brown also mentions two other problems. First, Joseph had no wealth or property in Bethlehem so there was no reason to travel to Bethlehem for that purpose. Secondly, Luke’s Census was only conducted in Judea and not in Galilee. Why would Joseph, who was living in Galilee, travel back to Judea for a census that he was not directly affected by?[3]
Another Scholar, Mark Smith, adds to these difficulties. He notes that a census requiring people to register in their ancestral homes “is considerably…problematic, for such a practice would be an administrative nightmare and is patently absurd.”[4] Smith quotes another writer concerning yet another problem:
“Luke’s device is fantastic. According to Luke’s own genealogy (3.23-38), David had lived forty-two generations before Joseph. Why should Joseph have had to register in the town of one of his ancestors forty-two generations earlier? What was Augustus – the most rational of Caesars – thinking of? The entirety of the Roman empire would have been uprooted by such a decree. Besides, how could any given man know where to go? No one could trace his genealogy for forty-two generations, but if he could, he would find that he had millions of ancestors (one million is passed at the twentieth generation). . . . Ancient census-takers wanted to connect land and landowners for tax purposes. This meant that the census-takers, not those being taxed, would travel.”[5]
These are some of the problems that have led many scholars to reject the account of Luke’s census.[6] So, is Luke incorrect? Did he make this up or was he possibly confused on the matter? Is there any evidence that the inhabitants of the Roman Empire would have had to register in their ancestral hometowns for a census? Let’s take a look.
Evidence for returning home?
The debate around Bethlehem and Luke’s Census tends to always shift towards a highly debated ancient document known as Papyrus London 904 (PL904 from here on out). PL904 records information about a Roman census conducted in Egypt. According to it, the people were required to return to their hometowns to register for the census. It says:
“The enrollment by household being at hand, it is necessary to notify all who for any cause soever are outside their nomes to return to their domestic hearths, that they may also accomplish the customary dispensation of enrollment and continue steadfastly in husbandry that belongeth to them.”
Thus, it is argued, that it would not be abnormal for another Roman census to require the same, or something similar, from citizens in other regions.[7] Scholar Brook Pearson quotes W.M. Ramsay regarding this:
“In the second century the Prefect of Egypt issued an edict, evidently as a regular custom at the approach of the census, ordering everyone to return to his own home in anticipation of the enrolment [P London 904 lines 18-38]. Similarly the magistrates of Mesembria in Thrace summoned the whole population to come into the town to be enrolled according to the law of the city and according to custom.”[8]
Brown disagrees with this interpretation and believes that PL904 only refers to temporary dwellers. This would not apply to Joseph as he was not living in Nazareth temporarily (2:39). It is also worth noting that, according to Brown, Joseph had no wealth in Bethlehem (2:7).[9] This view does make sense when we consider the problems mentioned earlier like ordering everyone in the Empire to uproot themselves for a census. Most people do not know their ancestry, and it would also put a stop to the economy of the Empire.
However, there is a possible solution to this problem and interestingly enough, Brown is one of the scholars who suggests it:
“Nevertheless, one cannot rule out the possibility that, since the Romans often adapted their administration to local circumstances, a census conducted in Judea would respect the strong attachment of Jews to tribal and ancestral relationships…Even if Luke had little historical information about how the census of Quirinius had been conducted, he lived in the Roman Empire and may have undergone census enrollment himself. It is dangerous to assume that he described a process of registration that would have been patently opposed to everything that he and his readers knew.”[10]
Considering the problems I mentioned above, it is very possible that the Egyptian census in PL 904 may have only been referring to temporary dwellers like Brown suggested. I believe that his solution may be more realistic. Considering that the Jews were concerned with ancestry it would make sense that the Romans would honor this. “[Luke] seems to have been recording a custom familiar in Judaea when he says that everyone was ordered to go to his own city…to be enrolled.”[11]
Scholar Joel Green adds to this discussion, “Little is known about the practices involved in census-taking, so it is difficult to know if the procedure outlined in 2:3 (“all went to their own towns”) reflects historical conventions in the East or accommodation to Jewish concerns with ancestral heritage or some other phenomenon.”[12]
Pearson adds, “None of the Egyptian parallels can be posited as hard and fast facts for this investigation, but they do go a long way toward establishing what was normal for other Roman territories. The procedures may have been modified in Herod’s kingdom, as indeed in all the different parts of the empire, but there is no reason to posit that anything recorded in Luke 2 concerning the census was out of the ordinary for the Roman world.”[13]
Other Thoughts
The Egyptian census shows us that the Roman government allowed at least some people to travel home for enrollment. However, as mentioned earlier, the idea that everybody in the Empire was doing this would be a nightmare to administer and is, in my opinion, very unlikely.
Other interpretations of Joseph’s return to Bethlehem have been put forth over the years from the theory that Joseph may have been required to travel because Herod wanted to keep close tabs on people[14] to the thinking that it may have been inappropriate for Jews to be registered in Nazareth because of the tensions between the Jews and Romans.[15] I am not confident of these theories but other great points have been mentioned that I believe are worth noting.
Luke 2 does not say that people had to go to the home of their ancestors simply because that is where their ancestors lived (most likely referring to a person’s paternal line), but “to their own towns to be registered.”[16] Smith says,
“From what we know of Roman administration, a census would require people to register where they lived and worked and owned property, for the objective of a Roman census was to ascertain the resources of a region so the government could provide suitable infrastructure and, of course, determine the potential for tax revenue and auxiliary troop recruitment.”[17]
The problem is that Joseph was residing in Nazareth at the time that the census was announced and Luke 2:39 says Nazareth was his “own” town. The text simply says that Joseph chose to go to Bethlehem, his ancestral home. He was not required to.[18]
Brown uses Luke 2:7 to teach that Joseph had no property or wealth in Bethlehem. This implies that he had no reason to travel back to Bethlehem. Luke 2:6-7 says, “While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.”
These verses say nothing about Joseph’s wealth or property in Bethlehem. It is inferred that since they stayed in an inn they must have had no home to stay in. However, the Greek word translated inn can also mean “upper room” or “guest room.” If multiple members of Joseph’s family were staying in the upper/guest room at the family home then there may have been no space for them. Mary and Joseph would then have to go downstairs into the lower room to stay (where Jews would sometimes bring in their animals). Green says,
“The term Luke employs here [κατάλυμα] for ‘guest room’ [or ‘upper room’]is often translated in English as ‘inn.’ However, the same term appears in 22:11 with the meaning ‘guest room,’ and the verbal form occurs in 9:12 and 19:7 with the sense of ‘find lodging’ or ‘be a guest.’ Moreover, in 10:34, where a commercial inn is clearly demanded by the text, Luke draws on different vocabulary. It is doubtful whether a commercial inn actually existed in Bethlehem, which stood on no major roads. It may be that Luke has in mind a ‘khan or caravansary where large groups of travelers found shelter under one roof,’ but this does not help our understanding of Mary’s placing the child in a manger. That ‘guest room’ is the more plausible meaning here is urged by the realization that in peasant homes in the ancient Near East the family and animals slept in one enclosed space, with the animals located on a lower level. Mary and Joseph, then, would have been the guests of family or friends, but their home would have been so overcrowded that the baby was placed in a feeding trough.”[19]
This leads to the fact that Joseph may have still owned property in Bethlehem.[20] He would then have to travel to Bethlehem to maintain his property. This would not contradict the fact that he owned a home in Nazareth as well. Egyptian censuses gave a tax reduction as high as 50% to people who resided in a metropolis. Joseph may have been eligible for something similar to this since Bethlehem was just outside of Jerusalem. If Jesus was born in Bethlehem, then he may have been eligible for the same thing.[21]
“Joseph’s reporting to Bethlehem is hardly the problem that it seem[s]… It is true that in the census of [A.D 6] the inhabitants of Galilee (then under the rule of Antipas) would not have been included. But those with links to ancestral lands in Judea may have seen those links legally forfeited if they had not chosen to include themselves in such a census. Even if a period of many years was involved, Joseph would no doubt have understood himself as only temporarily absent from Bethlehem. Detailed information on a Roman provincial census of the period is only available for Egypt. So it is hardly clear how much variation there was from province to province according to local custom. Local custom among the Jews would have highlighted the importance of ancestral connections, but even in Egypt an…edict directing people to return to their main or perhaps their original residence was associated with the census edict…It is not clear from Luke’s account that Mary’s presence was required by the census edict. But since, unlike in Egypt where women were not subject to poll tax, in Syria (and, therefore, after its annexation in A.D. 6 also in Judea) women were subject to this tax from the age of twelve…their personal appearance for the census would seem to be as necessary as that of the men.”[22]
Final Thoughts
Given the fact that we have evidence from Egypt that people were ordered to travel home for a census shows us that Joseph’s return to Bethlehem was not impossible. Besides this, we have a couple of other possible explanations for his journey. First, the Jews placed heavy emphasis on ancestry so many Jews would have wanted to be enrolled at their family home. This would be especially true considering that Joseph was a descendant of King David. Second, it is very possible that Joseph still had property in Bethlehem. This would also be important concerning his heritage giving him a major motivation to make the long journey. In conclusion, we have rational explanations showing that Joseph’s return to Bethlehem is not ahistorical.
[1] Raymond E. Brown. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1977), 413, 549. https://archive.org/details/birthofmessiahco0000brow/page/554/mode/2up. Ralph Martin Novak, Christianity and the Roman Empire: Background Texts (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001), 297.
[2] Brown, 413.
[3] Ibid., 549-550.
[4] Mark D. Smith. “Of Jesus and Quirinius.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Vol. 62, Iss. 2 (April 2000): 288.
[5] Sanders in Smith, 288.
[6] “The absurd implications of this interpretation have led many scholars to reject the historicity of Luke’s account of the census and Joseph’s response to it, including the common belief that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.” (Smith, 288)
[7] Robert A. Stein. Luke : An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 1993), 98. Lily Ross Taylor. “Quirinius and the Census of Judaea.” The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 54, No. 2 (1933): 131. Brook W.R. Pearson. “The Lucan Censuses, Revisited.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 61, no. 2, (April 1999), 276.
[8] Pearson, 275.
[9] Brown, 549.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Taylor, 131.
[12] Joel B. Green. The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 176.
[13] Pearson, 277.
[14] Ibid., 276.
[15] Ibid., 276-277 for more.
[16] Smith, 288-289.
[17] Ibid., 289.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Green, 178. Stein believes “[t]he “inn” probably refers to a public caravansary (a crude overnight lodging place for caravans), which was the one lodging place in Bethlehem” (p. 100 on ProQuest). Nolland says, “κατάλυμα is a flexible word and can denote any kind of place where one might stay, from a primitive inn (Exod 4:27; 1 Kgdms 1:18) to a guest-room of a house (cf. Luke 22:11) to a totally unspecified place where one might stay (Sir 14:25; and cf. Exod 15:13). If we are to understand that Mary and Joseph were excluded from the , then the definite article favors reference to the public inn at Bethlehem (cf. Jer 41:17), though the guest-room of the family home remains possible” (p. 105).
[20] Although maybe not a home since he had to stay in a guest room.
[21] Smith, 289-290.
[22] John Nolland. Luke 1:1-9:20, Volume 35A (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 2016), 101.
Sources:
Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1977. https://archive.org/details/birthofmessiahco0000brow/page/554/mode/2up
Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1997.
Nolland, John. Luke 1:1-9:20, Volume 35A, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 2016.
Novak, Ralph Martin. Christianity and the Roman Empire: Background Texts. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001.
Pearson, Brook W.R. “The Lucan Censuses, Revisited.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly vol. 61, no. 2 (April 1999): 262-282.
Stein, Robert A. Luke: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 1993.
Taylor, Lily Ross. “Quirinius and the Census of Judaea.” The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 54, No. 2 (1933), pp. 120-133.
What are your thoughts on this topic? Leave a comment.