Was Luke Wrong About the Census? A Case for Josephus’ Error According to John Rhodes

If you study the scholarship on the Gospels, one of the chief examples used to argue they are unreliable is that Luke says Jesus was born when someone named Quirinius was conducting a census. However, he implies that this also took place during the days of King Herod, and Matthew is more explicit and says Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive. The problem is the Jewish historian Josephus says that Quirinius did not conduct a census in Judea until about 6 A.D., but Herod died around 4 B.C., or possibly as late as 2 B.C. So Luke is assumed to be in error either he named the wrong census, placed Jesus’ birth at a much later date than what Matthew records, or thinks Quirinius was conducting a census at the wrong time.

But this is predicated on the idea that Josephus accurately dates the census of Quirinius to 6 A.D. What if there is enough evidence to suggest that Josephus is actually the one who made the error and Luke has been right this whole time?

Backstory

A few years ago, someone sent me a paper by a scholar named John Rhodes titled Josephus Misstated the Census of Quirinius. I’ll admit at first I dismissed it and didn’t read it, assuming it was a wildly speculative theory. But over the years several other people, including some non-Christians, recommended I give the paper a fair reading. Once I finished the paper, I thought about it and came to the conclusion that his case is quite plausible. But this is not to say it’s provable we can only say it’s a plausible theory that utilizes some interesting evidence.

The basic idea is Josephus is the one in error when reporting the date of this census, and there is actually a decent amount of evidence it should actually be dated to when Luke says it happened which was before the death of Herod the Great. 

So I’ll present Rhodes’ case as best as I can and explain why it is plausible that Luke is correct and Josephus misstated the census.

Josephus Patchwork

The first thing we need to point out is scholars agree that Josephus is not infallible. He most likely misstates events and makes mistakes along the way. For example, he misstates the construction of the Samaritan temple. He places the Tobiah saga in the first century B.C. after the marriage of Cleopatra to Ptolemy V, when the consensus of scholars today is that this saga took place in the 3rd century B.C. He says Herod the Great was 15 when he was given the territory of Galilee, but Josephus is most likely off by about 10 years.

• “Josephus misdates the construction of the Samaritan temple” (The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, p. 43).
• “He places the Tobiad saga in the 1st century BCE” (Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History, pp. 141-145).
• “Josephus says Herod the Great was 15 when he was given the territory of Galilee, but he was most likely off by ten years” (The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol. 1, p. 275).

Numerous scholars have also called Josephus a patchwork author. He places events wildly out of chronology and jumps around from various time periods. 

• “. . . Josephus’ sloppiness-which constitute the unifying principle of what is otherwise an inept historiosophical patchwork.” – Seth Schwartz. Josephus and Judean Politics, p. 197.

For example, in Antiquities Book 18, he is covering the affairs of Pilate but right in the middle he jumps back to an event that happened in Rome around 19 A.D. before jumping back to the time of Pilate.

• “Affairs of Pilate beginning in 27 AD” (Antiquities 18.55-64).
• “Incident with the Temple of Isis in 19 AD” (Antiquities 18.65-80).
• “Affairs of Pilate beginning in 27 AD” (Antiquities 18.85-89).

John Barclay says of Antiquities Book 2

• “The whole [of book 2] is not well structured, and gives the appearance of a patchwork of diverse materials.” – John M. G. Barclay. Flavius Josephus, p. 361.

Daniel Schwartz says

• “Books 18-20 seem to be more of a patchwork.” – Daniel Schwartz. A Companion to Josephus, p. 40.

This is not to imply the extreme idea that Josephus is wholly unreliable. Generally, Josephus is given the benefit of the doubt and often reports accurate historical sequences and events, but sometimes, due to internal or external evidence, we have good reasons to question him on some things like chronology.

• “. . . wherever [Josephus] can be tested, he can be seen to have been a pretty fair historian.” – E. P. Sanders. Judaism: Practice and Belief, p. 8.
• “[Josephus] was sometimes misinformed, the reader will find Josephus an invaluable resource not to be neglected.” – Everett Ferguson. Background of Early Christianity, p. 457.

Daniel Schwartz “Studies in the Jewish background of Christianity” has also reported an odd feature that routinely shows up in Josephus’ writings: he seems to at times mistakenly duplicate the same event that was reported in different sources he was working with and then places them at different times. For example, Schwartz points out that in Antiquities Book 18, Josephus reports Agrippa I went on an embassy to Judea in 38 A.D., but then he duplicates this event and reports it again in Book 19 as if it is about when Agrippa came to rule Judea.

• “Agrippa I went on an embassy to Judea in 38 AD” (Antiquities 18.238–239).
• “Duplicated event referring to when Agrippa I came to rule Judea” (Antiquities 19.292–299).

Source citation (from footer):
Schwartz, Daniel R. Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1990, pp. 11-14.
– “Pontius Pilate’s Suspension from Office.” Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity, J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1992, pp. 202-217.

In Book 18, Josephus says Vitellius came to Judea at one point on his way to war, and this is when he heard that Tiberius died. But this trip seems to have been duplicated from an event a year earlier, when he went to Judea to dismiss Pilate, and while Pilate was on his way back to Rome, this is when Emperor Tiberius died.

• “This trip seems to have been duplicated from an event a year earlier when he went to Judea to dismiss Pilate (36 AD). Tiberius died before Pilate made it to Rome” (Antiquities 18.90-95).
• “Vitellius came to Judea at one point on his way to war (37 AD) and this is when he heard that Tiberius died” (Antiquities 18.122-126).

Source citation (from footer):
Schwartz, Daniel R. Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1990, pp. 11-14.
– “Pontius Pilate’s Suspension from Office.” Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity, J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1992, pp. 202-217.

The force of this second example can be seen in the implausibility of the chronology. If both trips to Judea by Vitellius happened, then in 36 A.D. when Pilate was sent back to Rome to stand trial, Josephus reports that he made haste to get back to Rome, but Tiberius died before Pilate arrived. However, one year later, Vitellius is in Judea on a second trip, and this is allegedly when he had received word that Tiberius had died. It is unlikely Pilate would take a year to get back to Rome, as well as the idea that Vitellius would only find out about Tiberius’ death a year later. 

So Schwartz argues the simplest explanation is Josephus reported the same event as if it happened at two different times, and this is because he read about the affairs of Vitellius in two different sources he was relying on to construct his historical sequence.

“Josephus simply brought the two accounts of Vitellius’ visit separately.” – Daniel Schwartz. Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity, p. 211.

A fact that scholars tend to point out is when Josephus was writing his histories, he was drawing from different sources. 

• “Pontius Pilate’s Suspension from Office.” Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity, by Daniel R. Schwartz, J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1992, pp. 202-217.
• Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135): A New English Version. Rev. and ed. Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar, vol. 1, T & T Clark, 1973, p. 58.

Schwartz notes when he changes from one source to another based on dissimilarity and other factors. 

“While it is true that B and D are quite dissimilar, this is not at all true regarding the opening sentence of B (§ 90). We have already noted that § 90 agrees a few times with A and C against B, and that its formulation shows it to be Josephus’ own summary of the following [sic] extract from his priestly source.” – Daniel Schwartz. Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity, p. 211.

Duplicated History? Examining Josephus’ Census Narratives and the Judas Episodes

So with all this in mind, John Rhodes argues that Josephus, in relying on different sources, might have accidentally placed the census of Quirinius at a later date by duplicating an event that really happened during the reign of Herod the Great.

Rhodes begins by listing the accounts in question. The first account comes from the last years of Herod the Great. It is a narrative of a Judas son of the Sephorian, who gathers a group of young disciples around himself and a teacher named Matthias, teaching zeal for the Law of Moses and the expectation of lasting reward in the face of death. Judas and his followers raid Herod’s temple to tear down an eagle from its gate and are captured. Herod the Great orders those directly involved to be burned alive. Herod also deposes the previous high priest and promotes Jose, apparently in response to this insurrectionist activity.

A second event allegedly happened during the days of Herod Archelaus just after Herod the Great passed away. A catalog of disturbances plaguing Judea, reported while Archelaus is in Rome seeking confirmation of his father’s will, mentions that Judas the Galilean, son of Hezekiah, active around Sepphoris in Galilee, raises an insurrection to raid Herod’s armory. Josephus reports that Archelaus deposes Jose both before and after his trip to Rome and for different reasons.

Then the third event is where the census is mentioned: a teacher named Judas the Galilean who gathered a group of disciples around himself and another teacher named Saphteus (or Satirkin), who focused on zeal for the Law of Moses and willingness to die in the expectation of lasting reward, raised a revolt against the taxation tied to the census of Quirinius. Josephus reports that the priest Jose persuaded the people to go along with the census, and Quirinius deposes Jose before the census is complete. Josephus reported no reappointment for Jose.

All of these accounts mention someone named Judas. The last two accounts are linked more so by the name Judas the Galilean, and most scholars believe it is the same person who committed both acts about nine years apart. But it seems odd that the same high priest was deposed in relation to both events. James VanderKam also highlights an issue with the third account: 

“It is more difficult to understand why Quirinius would have deposed the high priest who had just proved so helpful in making the census palatable to Judeans.” – James C. VanderKam. From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile, p. 419.

So the sequence of the third account doesn’t really make sense with regards to this feature.

However, the first account and the third are linked by similarities in religious activity. Both are opposed by the same high priest, and both of these accounts also mention a partner. But they are assumed to be separate events since the name of each partner is different. Also, the first and second account would allegedly have happened at most about a year apart one right before Herod died and another just after he passed. But both have connections to Sepphoris, both Judases are nicknamed, and both have connections with a famous father.

If there is enough evidence, it might be possible to link these three accounts together as all referring to the same event that actually took place under Herod the Great instead of as three separate instances.

Rhodes, following Schwartz, notes the first account is most likely pieced together from different sources, as Josephus uses one of his standard phrases to differentiate between the raid on the temple to tear down the Roman eagle and the rest of the story. He also probably drew on a lost source called the High Priest Succession List, since the appointment of Jose doesn’t appear in this section in Jewish War but was included when Josephus later wrote Antiquities and was able to rely on more sources.

Odd Sequence Leading up to the 2nd Account 

With the second account, there is evidence this was also pieced together from different sources. This can be seen in the contradictory sequences of what led up to this event.

Watch at at 10:23 to 11 for this part

In Antiquities Book 17. 219-223. In Jewish War Book 2. 14-19, it is reported that after Herod the Great had died, his son Archelaus went to Caesarea, where he met someone named Sabinus. Sabinus, a Roman procurator in Syria, was heading the other way to Judea to take charge of Herod’s property. Varus arrived from Antioch to tell Sabinus to hold off for now. Archelaus then sailed to Rome while Varus returned to Antioch. But Sabinus decided to go to Judea anyway and seized Herod’s estate, after which the uprising of Judas the Galilean allegedly occurred.

All well and good but given Josephus’ patchwork nature, he tells of this sequence differently in a later section. Later in Book 17. 250-255 (Jewish War Book 2. 39-42), we read that after Herod’s funeral, Varus was instead in Judea after Archelaus had sailed to Rome, putting down rebellions. He then went back to Antioch, leaving one legion behind in Judea. Then, allegedly, Sabinus arrived or stayed behind and began seizing Herod’s estate with the legion that was left in Judea. Sabinus was experiencing some trouble because of this act and so he wrote to Varus asking for aid. Varus went to Judea, and the various rebellions were quelled. This is also likely when the Athronges rebellion was put down.

Now, it would be nice if we could just harmonize these two accounts, but it is unlikely given that, based on Josephus’ own chronology, all of this would need to happen in about 50 days. For that to work, Varus would need to leave Judea, go to Antioch, then go to Caesarea to meet Archelaus, tell Sabinus not to seize Herod’s estate, then return to Antioch, but then probably go to Judea with more than one legion to quell rebellions, then leave Judea before Sabinus arrived from Caesarea to seize Herod’s estate. Sabinus would then need to fall under siege and write to Varus for aid.

All of this is unlikely to have played out in 50 days, especially with regard to travel and mobilizing Roman legions. Moreover, in the earlier account, Josephus says Sabinus immediately went to Judea (Jewish War Book 2. 18), but in order to work with the second account, this would entail waiting for Varus to return to Antioch, mobilize legions, go to Judea, quell a rebellion, and then return to Antioch. Then, on top of that, the section in Jewish War says Sabinus arrived in Judea, but Antiquities says he remained behind in Judea, implying he was with Varus in Judea to quell rebellions instead of being in Caesarea.

Now beyond the fact that this is all very confusing and probably a contradiction on Josephus’ part, it strongly implies Josephus was working from different sources on the chronology of the aftermath of Herod’s death. Second, it can provide more context for the events of Judas the Galilean, which comes from the second event of the original three we opened with. What we can propose is the second account of Varus quelling rebellions in Judea happened earlier not before Herod Archelaus sailed to Rome and then Varus went back to Antioch and all three men were in Caesarea. Then Sabinus went to Judea to claim Herod’s estate.

So rebellions were likely breaking out before and after Herod died. This is also supported by the chronological problems we just went over, but also the fact that Josephus reports a number of revolts in Judea around this time and the sequence of when each took place is unclear.

– “Soldiers’ Rebellion” (Antiquities 17.269–270)

– “Judas the Galilean Revolt” (Antiquities 17.271–272)

– “Simon’s Revolt” (Antiquities 17.273–277)

– “Athronges’ Revolt” (Antiquities 17.278–284)

– “King of Robbers” (Antiquities 17.285)

It seems likely that Varus had been responding to multiple disturbances, some of which occurred prior to Herod’s death and immediately thereafter. Josephus mentions that just after Herod had died, an uprising occurred the revolt led by Athronges. When Varus returned to Judea to help Sabinus, this is likely when this revolt would have been put down.

However, before the Athronges episode, Josephus reports another uprising—this time with someone named Simon. We could suggest this one most likely happened immediately after Herod had passed away. And just before these accounts, we hear of the Judas the Galilean account.

As a reminder, Josephus most likely was working with different sources and messing with chronology more often than we realize. 

– “Judas the Galilean Revolt” (Antiquities 17.271–272)

Both probably occurred after Herod died:

– “Simon’s Revolt” (Antiquities 17.273–277)

– “Athronges’ Revolt” (Antiquities 17.278–284)

Many things are just out of place like with the examples we just noted. 

• “Josephus misdates the construction of the Samaritan temple.” – The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, p. 43.
• “He places the Tobiad saga in the 1st century BC. Most scholars say this took place in the 3rd century BC.” – Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History, pp. 141–145.
• “Josephus says Herod the Great was 15 when he was given the territory of Galilee, but he was most likely off by ten years.” – The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol. 1, p. 275.

So Rhodes says “while it is not possible to date the activity of Judas son of Hezekiah based on this catalog of disturbances alone, being sensitive to Josephus’ use of sources, we must be open to the possibility that this insurgency by Judas also occurred before the death of Herod the Great.”

This is also supported by the fact that at the funeral of Herod, Varus allegedly foresaw unrest on the way. His reasoning could have stemmed from the fact that some unrest among the Jews was already going on and that implied more was likely to come.

• At Herod the Great’s funeral, Varus allegedly foresaw unrest on the way (JW 2.40).
• His reasoning could have stemmed from the fact that some unrest among the Jews was already going on.

So let’s review: with regard to our second account in question, it falls in a sequence of a list of revolts that happened around the time of Herod’s death and while his son was on his way to Rome to obtain his kingship over Judea. The chronology is messy and unclear. Some things seem out of place like when Sabinus arrived, and when Varus was putting down rebellions, and when he met Archelaus in Caesarea. The account of Judas the Galilean could have actually happened before Herod had died. Nevertheless, it seems to have happened around the time of Herod’s death, which was about 4 B.C.

3rd Account of the Juddas

Now let’s look at the third account of the Judases, which was supposed to happen in 6 A.D. about 10 years later. The reason why it is dated to 6 A.D. is because in Jewish War, Josephus says the revolt occurred under the administration of Coponius as the first prefect of Judea at the time of Archelaus’ exile. But we need to note that in Jewish War, he also doesn’t mention Quirinius. And then in Antiquities, this event is reported differently. Josephus does not mention this dating indicator of the event happening under the administration of Coponius and instead focuses more on Quirinius. Here, he reports more details like how the high priest Joazar helped Quirinius in getting the Jews to go along with the census (Antiquities 18. 1-10). Only much later does Josephus mention the prefecture of Coponius, reminding the readers that he arrived with Quirinius (Antiquities 18. 29).

So as it stands, the passage about the revolt in Antiquities does not necessarily attribute this to the affairs of Coponius’s later administration. In fact, the administration in Antiquities is not mentioned until much later. 

• “In Antiquities (18.1–10) Josephus does not attribute this to the affairs of Coponius’s later administration necessarily (more on this later).”
• “In Jewish Wars (2.117–118) Josephus does attribute this to the affairs of Coponius’s later administration necessarily.”

Now, this might not seem like much, but Antiquities was most likely written after Jewish War, and scholars know Josephus at times did try to correct mistakes from Jewish War. Sometimes he was successful, and sometimes he just contributed to more confusion.

“According to Daniel Schwartz, this way of reporting events suggests that Josephus no longer considered the taxation revolt as occurring within the reign of Coponius, but rather as other activity from around the same time. When a delay occurs between the appointment and the installation in the office of the new ruler, we have reason to suspect that although Josephus originally thought the events occurred under the administration of Coponius, he changed his mind.” – John Rhoads

So like with the second account of Judas the Galilean, there are some chronology issues at play.

So now, having established the dating of the last two of these accounts is questionable, and that Josephus by working with different sources likely created duplicate stories of the same event, we can make the case that all of these accounts are about the same event, which happened before Herod’s death.

First, as we have noted, the main figure of each account is named Judas. In the first account, he is called the son of Sepphoris in Jewish War, but by a different name in Antiquities. Another problem arises because this is a known textual variant in the manuscripts, with more support for the name Sepphoris. Some variants say “the Sepphorian.” However, in Galilee, there was a city called Sepphoris. Given that this happened with other identifiers like calling someone a Nazarene if they were from Nazareth it is plausible the account meant “Judas, the son of the Sepphorian,” meaning he was from that city in Galilee.

In the second account, he is called Judas the Galilean, son of Hezekiah. Hezekiah was a Galilean bandit that Herod had previously killed. On top of that, Josephus identifies Judas’s home base as Sepphoris. With the third account, there are strong religious similarities to the account of the first Judas. In both accounts, Judas and another teacher gathered a crowd, taught the immortality of the soul, and confidence in the face of death. So the partner might be the same, with the latter just being a nickname.

Now, if all three are different events with the first being a different Judas and the second and third being the same Judas who acted about nine years apart there are some odd features.

To start You have two insurgents active within weeks or months of each other around the time of Herod’s death, both named Judas, both with connections to Sepphoris, both nicknamed, and both connected to a famous father. Allegedly, one was executed by Herod the Great, and the other would wait nine to ten years after raiding Herod’s armory and then adopt the same spiritual teachings of the first Judas, only to have his revolt against the taxation and census be opposed by the very same high priest who had opposed the first Judas even though this high priest was supposedly deposed twice during those ten years.

Or a more likely explanation is all of these accounts are about the same Judas from different sources that Josephus was relying on, and he accidentally repeated the same event three times.

Now let’s look at the issue of the removal of the high priest listed in different places. Jose is mentioned in all accounts.

“It may be worth noting that these three items are semantically parallel, though the Greek vocabulary is not identical, suggesting that they may stem from different translators using a Hebrew high priest succession list. Similar diversity in Greek vocabulary also occurs in other apparent uses of this list for the activity of Gratus and Vitellius (Ant. 18.34–35, 95, 123).”
– John Rhoads

*Rhoads is referring to context for the 2nd Judas account (Ant. 17.339b) and the third (Ant. 18.26b).

Now as noted before, if Jose opposed the Judas figure in the first and third account and helped Quirinius in 6 A.D., as recorded in the third account, it makes no sense for Quirinius to depose him. However, it does better fit with the context if the account took place around the death of Herod the Great. After Herod had died, the mourners of Judas and the teacher Matthias demanded the high priest appointed by Herod the Great be deposed in order to help ease tensions with the chaos surrounding the death of Herod. Removing an unpopular high priest would make sense in this context and probably would have been a strategic move for Quirinius or Archelaus. So Jose’s removal also fits better if we move it back ten years, shortening his reign as high priest.

Now, if the census of Quirinius really did take place 10 years earlier, why is he not mentioned at all at this earlier time? Well, he might be just by another name: Sabinus. Remember earlier that we mentioned a procurator from Syria was in Judea named Sabinus overseeing the affairs of Herod? Well, when we dig a little deeper, Sabinus and Quirinius might be the same person, just known by different names in different sources Josephus was relying on.

First, Josephus describes their offices in similar ways. They both seem to be of consular rank, which would make them both of equal rank with Varus. This would explain why Sabinus ignored the request of Varus to not go to Judea and seize the property of Herod the Great fbecause he was of consular rank and didn’t have to take orders from Varus. And of Quirinius, we are told he is of consular rank.

Third, both seem to be concerned with the tax value of Judea. Fourth, the activity of both seems to be the same at times: Sabinus was on his way to secure Herod’s effects after Herod had died; Quirinius was sent to Judea to assess Herod Archelaus’ property after Archelaus was exiled. Rhodes suggests, with regards to Quirinius, Josephus may have been confused on the source and aligned Quirinius with the assessment of Herod Archelaus’ property, when in reality it was the assessment of Herod the Great’s property ten years earlier.

The confusion would not be far-fetched. Both Archelaus and Antipas referred to themselves as Herod. All of Archelaus’ coins are inscribed with “Herod.” Josephus at one point does accidentally write “King Herod” when he most likely meant Archelaus. So the confusion is understandable.

Finally, Sabinus might not be a proper name, but a nickname to mean “the Sabine” like how Judas was called “the Galilean” or Jesus was called “a Nazarene.” 

“Cognomens were often derived from ethnic or tribal indicators, and indeed, Sabinus was also a Roman cognomen. The Quirinius cognomen likely stems etymologically from the Sabine god Quirinus. Moreover, Quirinius was born in Lavinium, a small town outside of Rome which would have had a population of ethnic Sabines.” – John Rhoads

Potential Objections

Now, at this point we can deal with a potential objection. Let’s go back to the third account. It’s true that this account does mention that Coponius became prefect in 6 A.D. and that he was there with Quirinius while Quirinius was conducting the census for taxation purposes. So the census issue seems to date to the later time when Coponius was there to be the prefect.

However, if Quirinius was given the position of governor in or around 6 A.D., then the census seemed to have happened before that appointment. Josephus refers to him as a procurator, not as a governor, when he was in Judea to conduct the census which might imply it happened before 6 A.D.

Second, Antiquities doesn’t necessarily refer to Coponius as prefect yet when this census was conducted, but that he was sent “to have dominion over the Jews,” not specifically the province of Judea. 

The realm of ethnic Jews extended beyond Judea and into Antipas and Philip’s territories. So it might be referring to some earlier tasks in relation to conducting census affairs over the Jewish people at large. 

This theory is also supported by the fact that other men of equestrian rank traveled with Quirinius to help conduct a census in other parts of Syria.

The account of Coponius arriving with Quirinius might reflect duties with respect to the Jews, comparable to the duties exercised by Quintus Aemilius in parts of Syria at the same time. And so the census trip is not necessarily the same as when Coponius later arrived in Judea to serve as prefect. So the reference to Coponius having dominion over the Jews might just be in relation to assessing the Jewish people at large for census purposes like what Aemilius was conducting in Syria.

Now, you might think we have no reason to posit this and it’s simpler to just assume Coponius didn’t go to Judea until he was given the position as prefect. Why posit two trips when it isn’t necessary?

Well, we actually have to because we have evidence Coponius was already in Judea as early as 5 B.C., over 11 years before he later returned as prefect (Ante. 17. 134). Josephus does report the presence of Coponius in Jerusalem at the time of Antipater’s trial around 5 B.C. So since we do have evidence of Coponius being in Judea while Herod the Great was still alive, that supports the notion that the trip for the census that allegedly happened in 6 A.D. may have happened earlier while Herod the Great was still alive and that Sabinus and Quirinius were really the same man, and a traveling companion of Coponius on the first trip while Herod was still alive.

Finally, as we noted, Josephus’ chronology can be a bit messy. He says Herod the Great was 15 when he was given the territory of Galilee, but he’s most likely off by about 10 years. Similarly, he may have been off by 10 years (The History of The Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Vol. 1:275) with regards to the census of Quirinius. We also see that he changed numbers to suit his reconstruction needs like with regards to Archelaus’s reign. 

“Josephus already betrayed his willingness to change numbers for the purpose of matching the chronology of just this event. When reporting Archelaus’s symbolic dream, he reported that Archelaus saw 9 ears of corn representing 9 years of rule in J.W. 2.112-13 but 10 ears of corn representing 10 years of rule in Ant. 17.345-47. So, in one of these accounts, he changed the number of ears of corn and the number of years of rule from how they appeared in his source in order to match his reconstruction of events. So, indeed, it is quite possible that Josephus similarly changed the date for the census to match his reasonably reconstructed chronology of events.” – John Rhoads

Now to bring this all together, we can offer a sequence of the events with regards to our reconstruction.

We know that Caesar Augustus was paranoid about keeping accurate records. So, since Herod the Great was getting old, Augustus decided to assess Herod’s kingdom before he died. (R. S. Bagnall and B. W. Frier. The Demography of Roman Egypt. Cambridge Studies in Population, Economy, and Society in Past Time 23; Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994, p. 5; Pearson, Brook W. R. “The Lucan Censuses, Revisited.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 61, no. 2, Apr. 1999, p. 274.) This may have been a wise decision, given that after Herod died, there were several uprisings that needed to be dealt with and the added chaos of a census would only have contributed to that. So conducting a census before Herod died and before the Jewish tensions rose even more would have been a smart decision.

Quirinius also known as “the Sabine” was sent with a few men of equestrian rank like Coponius to conduct the census throughout the region, including parts of Syria. This explains why Coponius was present at the trial of Antipater in 5 B.C. because of the census.

Judas the Galilean, son of Hezekiah, from Sepphoris, led a revolt. All three accounts refer to the same event. The third account gives us the reason for the revolt, and the first and second account report their actions. They raided the armory for supplies and then attempted to remove the Roman eagle from the temple. Jose opposed Judas and encouraged the Jews to go along with the census. Herod responded by burning Judas and his partner alive. The revolt ended, and Jose was appointed the high priest for his aid (4 BC).

After this, Quirinius went back to Rome, and Varus returned to Antioch. In a year or so, Herod died. Varus may have had to return to deal with more uprisings and then went back to Antioch. This could be the point when he left behind one legion. Quirinius or Sabinus knowing of the revolt that took place when Herod was alive, likely feared more could soon follow. So he set out quickly to return to Judea to seize Herod’s estate before it fell into rebel hands. Given that he oversaw the earlier census, he would have the experience in the region and also be the best candidate to handle the affairs. He met Varus and Archelaus in Caesarea and ignored Varus’ request to not go so quickly to Judea. When he arrived, he took control of the legion and deposed Jose to try and appease the Jews and reduce tensions. Soon after, he fell under siege and wrote to Varus for aid. Varus and Quirinius or Sabinus put down the rebellions and restored order (3 BC).

Later, Quirinius may have been given the governorship of Syria, and Coponius returned to be prefect of Judea after Archelaus was deposed (6 BC).

Possible Objection 1

Now, I understand this can be a little complex, which is why I encourage you to watch this video again or to read Rhodes’ paper for additional context.

To preempt the possible objection, some might try to argue: if all three accounts speak of the same Judas, why can’t we say it happened at one of the later dates, like 6 A.D., or just after Herod died, and it refers to Herod Archelaus executing Judas? The problem is, by 6 A.D., Archelaus was out of power so he could not have. And after his father died, he was in Rome so he could not have been responsible for the execution of Judas at this time either.

The best explanation is to move the later two events back to the time when Herod the Great was alive and in Jerusalem so he could order the execution.

Possible Objection 2

Someone might try to argue that this reconstruction is unnecessary and too complex. But remember, as we went over in the first part of this video, there are numerous issues with Josephus’ current chronology like when Jose was deposed, or if Varus was in Judea when Archelaus left, or met him in Caesarea, or if Sabinus remained in Judea or arrived after Varus left. So reconstruction is necessary regardless of what path we take. Given that Josephus is a patchwork author and had chronological issues, this seems like a reasonable way to make things work.

Plus, there is additional support for this in the works of Josephus, because the will of Herod the Great, as Josephus records, implies there was a census conducted before his death. Brock Pearson quotes F.M. Heichelheim and reminds us: 

“…the ‘will of Herod the Great, which must have been drafted a few years before the birth of Christ, took a very close survey of all the resources of the kingdom, and this could not have been possible without a recent census of the actual domain of the king.’ Part of Herod’s report concerned the annual revenue of the country; after the revolts which occurred upon Herod’s death (Josephus A.J. 17.9.5 §229), Caesar used these records of taxation to remit a quarter of the Samaritans’ taxes, as the Samaritans had not taken part in the unrest (A.J. 17.11.4 §319). It seems implausible, therefore, to assume that Judaea had been without the practice of census taking prior to the establishment of direct Roman rule.” –See: Pearson, Brook W. R. “The Lucan Censuses, Revisited.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 61, no. 2, Apr. 1999, p. 266.

Furthermore, the theory of placing Quirinius’s census back to around between 7 and 5 B.C. and that all of these accounts of the revolt of Judas refer to the same event that happened under Herod has support and external evidence: a text we call the Gospel of Luke.

Luke reports the census of Quirinius happened around the time Jesus was born, which was before Herod the Great died. And he also doesn’t refer to Quirinius as a governor, but as a hegemon, which is a general term that can also refer to a procurator. So he might just be referring to his census conducted by Quirinius before he became a governor.

Furthermore, we can make a probabilistic argument to support Luke’s dating. Some historians have pointed out that Luke is incredibly reliable on many other things he reports. For example, the scholar Colin Hemer has identified 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of the Book of Acts that have been confirmed by historical and archaeological data. Luke accurately reports the proper names of ports, local industries, borders, slang terminology, specific landmarks, local variations in languages, and the proper titles for regional officials. He also seems to accurately follow the chaotic changes of the governorship from Herod the Great all the way up to Festus including the time when the kingship was given back to Agrippa, and then back to a system of procurators, and then Agrippa II is brought in. So his chronology seems to be much more reliable, whereas Josephus seems to suffer from many constant chronological issues and accidentally duplicates events.

Antiquities Book XVIII

– This trip seems to have been duplicated from an event a year earlier when he went to Judea to dismiss Pilate (36 AD). Tiberius died before Pilate made it to Rome (Ant. 18.90–95).

– Vitellius came to Judea at one point on his way to war, (37 AD) and this is when he heard that Tiberius died (Ant. 18.122–126).

See: D. R. Schwartz, Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1990) pp. 11–14; “Pontius Pilate’s Suspension from Office.” Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity, by Daniel R. Schwartz, J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1992, pp. 202–217.

So one could provide support for the early dating of the census by noting how accurate Luke is elsewhere and therefore, he might also be accurately dating the census here as well.

We Can’t Assume Luke is Wrong and Josephus is Right

Now even if this reconstruction sounds too speculative, at least this data should call into question the chronology of Josephus and indicate we cannot assume it can be trusted without question. And on top of that, given these problems, we cannot use the dating of events in Josephus to call into question the dating of events in Luke.

In other words, the least we can say from all of these issues is that Josephus cannot be assumed to be entirely accurate and Luke, therefore, is not necessarily wrong when it comes to the census.

In conclusion, John Rhodes has this to say:

“Admittedly, some readers might still find the standard reading more plausible. These readers may acknowledge that Josephus was susceptible to mistaking numbers or changing dates, but insist he did not err with the date of the census. They may acknowledge that Josephus was susceptible to the ambiguity between Archelaus and King Herod, but insist that he was not guilty when reporting the mission of Quirinius. These readers may additionally find it more plausible that two insurgents against Herod were active within weeks of each other around the same time of Herod’s death, both named Judas, both with connections to Sepphoris, and both nicknamed in connection with a famous father. They may also prefer that while one was executed by Herod the Great for raiding Herod’s temple, the other would wait ten years after raiding Herod’s armory to adopt the same manner and substance of the teaching of the first, only to have his revolt against the taxation census be opposed by the very same high priest who opposed the earlier Judas even though this high priest was reportedly deposed twice during those ten years. Indeed, remaining faithful to the story as told by Josephus, they insist that the similarity between Sabinus and Quirinius in both title and activity must just be as coincidental as the similarity in the accounts of Judas and Jose, but that the mention of Coponius at Antipater’s trial is some unexplained spurious insertion into the text. Admittedly, these readers may, with stomped foot, insist that all these features of the standard account are more plausible than the reconstruction offered here. To these readers, this study has sought to respond, ‘Really?.’” – John Rhodes

Given this data, the constant cries that Luke made a horrendous blunder might be unwarranted. He may have been right all this time. In fact, his dating of the census might be his greatest triumph demonstrating his commitment to accurate and reliable history.

Sources:

Rhoads’ paper: https://repository.globethics.net/bitstream/handle/20.500.12424/161295/JETS_54-1_65-87_Rhoads.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&fbclid=IwAR2x8HLrAdIPztuijmuevOkxyP2aGRpOMW2Sqhj8HsGfAd35sUIdmSJwMm4 

The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus – Reinhard Pummer

Flavius Josephus Interpretation and

 History – Jack Pastor, Pnina Stern, Menachem Mor

The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ,

 vol 1 – Emil Schürer

Joseph and Judean Politics – https://www.jstor.org/stable/3260820

Supposed biblical error: the census of Luke

Luke 2:1-5

Luke chapter 2 begins with: In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary his betrothed, who was with child.

Skeptics will usually assert four problems:

1. In a Roman census, Joseph would not have to travel to Bethlehem but could register at his current residency, and Mary would not have to register at all.
   
2. No Roman census would have been conducted while Herod the Great ruled until 4 BC.
   
3. There was never a single census conducted of the entire Roman Empire it was done in sections.
   
4. Finally, Quirinius was not governor until 6 AD. Jesus was born while Herod the Great reigned, which lasted until 4 BC; thus, it could not be the census of Quirinius conducted from 6 to 7 AD.

Let’s answer these in reverse, starting with the last one. We did a separate video on Quirinius, where we pointed out there was a lot of evidence in the works of Josephus that Josephus may have been the one who misstated this census, and it actually should be dated back to the time when Herod the Great was alive. Luke also refers to him as a hegemon, which is used to refer to a wide range of Roman official positions and not necessarily a governor so see this other video for more.

Next, the third issue can be resolved by looking at what Luke actually says. Harold Hoehner notes 

“. . . Luke uses the present tense indicating that Augustus ordered censuses to be taken regularly rather than only one time. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that there was an order of a general census in the time of Augustus.” – Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Zondervan, 1977, p. 15.

Sir William Ramsay said 

“The decree of Augustus which Luke mentions is commonly interpreted as ordering that a single census should be held of the whole Roman world. This is not a correct interpretation of Luke’s words. He uses the present tense, and he means that Augustus ordered enrollments to be regularly taken, according to the strict and proper usage of the present tense.” – Ramsay, William M. Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? Primedia eLaunch, 2012, p. 123.

So Luke doesn’t necessarily imply there was a single census for the whole empire at once.

The next supposed issue assumes Augustus would not have conducted a census in vassal kingdoms like that of Herod the Great. But there aren’t any good reasons to support this assumption. Herod was essentially a puppet king, and Rome could do what they wanted.

Hendricks, Obery M. The Politics of Jesus: Rediscovering the True Revolutionary Nature of the Teachings of Jesus and How They Have Been Corrupted. Three Leaves Press, 2006, p. 56.

Sabine Hübner highlights a passage from Tacitus where a census was conducted in a client kingdom, and because of it, Rome had to deal with a revolt. She says 

“This suggests that a similar census on the Roman model could well have taken place in the kingdom of Herod the Great, officially directed by Herod but with military and administrative support from the Roman governor in neighboring Syria. As a vassal king, Herod was dependent on the favor of Augustus and legitimized by his support.” – Huebner, Sabine R. Papyri and the Social World of the New Testament. Cambridge University Press, 2019, p. 44.

So this suggests Rome could and did at times conduct censuses in client kingdoms, and there was no reason to assume they could not have done something similar within the kingdom of Judea.

“At this same time the Clitae, a tribe subject to the Cappadocian Archelaus, retreated to the heights of Mount Taurus, because they were compelled in Roman fashion to render an account of their revenue and submit to tribute. There they defended themselves by means of the nature of the country against the king’s unwarlike troops, till Marcus Trebellius, whom Vitellius, the governor of Syria, sent as his lieutenant with four thousand legionaries and some picked auxiliaries, surrounded with his lines two hills occupied by the barbarians, the lesser of which was named Cadra, the other Davara. Those who dared to sally out, he reduced to surrender by the sword, the rest by drought.”

— Tacitus, Annals 6.41

After all, there was no Roman law that prevented an emperor from conducting a census in a client kingdom.

We can also find evidence that Augustus was paranoid about keeping accurate records of the inhabitants of his empire. Roger Bagnall and Bruce Frier note that throughout the reign of Augustus, there were six censuses conducted in Egypt. So Luke’s suggestion that another one was conducted in Judea fits right in and would align with Augustus’s desire to perform multiple censuses so he could have accurate records.

After all, Augustus remarks in his autobiography of ordering censuses to be conducted several times.

“As consul for the fifth time, by order of the people and the Senate I increased the number of the patricians. Three times I revised the roll of the Senate. In my sixth consulship, with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague, I made a census of the people. I performed the lustrum after an interval of forty-one years. In this lustration 4,063,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll. A second time, in the consulship of Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius, I again performed the lustrum alone, with the consular imperium. In this lustrum 4,233,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll. A third time, with the consular imperium, and with my son Tiberius Caesar as my colleague, I performed the lustrum in the consulship of Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Apuleius. In this lustrum 4,937,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll.”

— Augustus, Res Gestae, 8

Hübner also notes those living in Herod the Great’s kingdom had to swear an oath of loyalty to Herod and Augustus, suggesting Rome had much more involvement in the kingdom of Judea. 

“The oath of loyalty to Augustus which Herod’s subjects were required to swear in 6 or 5 BCE also indicates an understanding of the nature of Roman rule that was increasingly unfettered by borders and which interfered with the normal autonomy of a client king in interior affairs.” – Huebner, Sabine R. Papyri and the Social World of the New Testament. Cambridge University Press, 2019, p. 45.

Furthermore, Brook Pearson notes we have evidence of standard Roman practices in Judea during the days of Herod, suggesting much more Roman involvement. 

“We cannot think that in the process of romanizing his kingdom, he would incorporate Roman architectural, military, religious, and recreational techniques, models, and practices, but would reject their incredibly efficient administrative systems—or that he would be allowed to do so by his overlords.” – Pearson, Brook W. R. “The Lucan Censuses, Revisited.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 61, no. 2, Apr. 1999, pp. 271–272.

Josephus also reports the use of village scribes in Judea under Herod, which was a position responsible for collecting the information regarding property for taxation during a census. The position is mentioned in 200 different papyri. The fact that this occupation is mentioned as existing in Judea under Herod makes more sense if they were conducting censuses and mimicking the Roman versions.

– Josephus also reports the use of “village scribes” in Judea under Herod (Josephus, Antiquities 16.7.3).

– This is a position responsible for collecting the information regarding property for taxation during a census (See: POxy, 79, 240, 251, 252, 254, 255, 288, & 488).

– This occupation existing in Judea under Herod correlates with the idea they were conducting censuses and mimicking the Roman versions.

Josephus. Jewish Antiquities. Book 16, chapter 7, section 3.
(Note: Translation and edition may vary—include translator/publisher if needed.)

Pearson, Brook W. R. “The Lucan Censuses, Revisited.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 61, no. 2, Apr. 1999, pp. 271–272.

P.Oxy. = The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Various volumes; specific papyri cited include 79, 240, 251, 252, 254, 255, 288, and 488.

So there seems to be sufficient evidence Rome was involved more within Judea than we realize and did conduct censuses in client kingdoms. And as noted in our other video, we do have evidence within Josephus the census of Quirinius can be dated to before the death of Herod the Great.

What about the first issue? Is it incorrect for Luke to record that Jews had to travel to their place of origin for a census? Well first off, we need to note there are no sources that contradict Luke on this issue. So to say he is wrong because it is not confirmed elsewhere is to argue from silence. He is our only source on how censuses were conducted under Herod the Great. Herod could have felt this was necessary for the Jews to do to obtain an accurate assessment of families and what their net value was. Jews were tied to their families and still considered to be under their fathers—more so than in other cultures. [1]

1- Kaplan, Yehiel S. “Child Custody in Jewish Law: From Authority of the Father to the Best Interest of the Child.” Journal of Law and Religion, vol. 24, no. 1, 2008, pp. 89–122. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0748081400001946.

R. W. L. Moberly writes: 

“. . . a man’s children are seen as extensions of his own value and significance and are not considered as uniquely important human beings in their own right.” – Hess, Richard S., Gordon J. Wenham, and P. E. Satterthwaite, editors. He Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes from Genesis 12–50. 2nd ed., Wipf and Stock, 2008, p. 156.

So the inference is a family unit could have needed to be together for registration, including all your sons and their wives, as your family was essential to your identity in ancient Judea and that is what you were mainly tied to as a Jew. 

Kaplan, Yehiel. “The Changing Profile of the Parent-Child Relationship in Jewish Law.” The Jewish Law Annual, vol. 18, 2010, pp. 21–80. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855249-2.

However, once again, there are no sources to contradict Luke on how a census was conducted in Herod’s kingdom. So Luke should not be considered guilty until proven innocent.

It should also be noted that Rome did not do everything the same way in each region that they ruled over. Local rulers and officials were given considerable leeway to conduct affairs as they saw fit. 

“Generally speaking, Roman law allowed the local law of each province to be exercised without much interference.” — Overstreet, R. Larry. “Roman Law and the Trial of Christ.” Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. 135, no. 540, Oct.–Dec. 1978, p. 325.

“. . . local administration, the administration of justice as between the natives of the provinces, and many other tasks were in general simply left to the political organs of the subject people.” – Kunkel, Wolfgang. An Introduction to Roman Legal and Constitutional History. Translated by J. M. Kelly, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 1973, p. 40.

And still, we can find a parallel in the neighboring territory of Egypt. A papyrus that dates to 104 A.D. states

That the prefect of Egypt ordered Egyptians to return to their place of origin so the census could be carried out. 

“The enrolment by household being at hand, it is necessary to notify all who for any cause soever are outside their homes to return to their domestic hearths, that they may also accomplish the customary dispensation of enrolment and continue steadfastly in husbandry that belongeth to them.” – Deissmann, Adolf. Light from the Ancient East (Classic Reprint). Forgotten Books, 2016, pp. 270–272.

So Herod could have had a similar law within his kingdom when a census was needed to be conducted.

Pearson says: 

“. . . there is no reason to posit that anything recorded in Luke 2 concerning the census was out of the ordinary for the Roman world.” – Pearson, Brook W. R. “The Lucan Censuses, Revisited.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 61, no. 2, Apr. 1999, p. 277.

William Ramsay also notes 

“We in modern time make the census for one fixed and universal moment, catching our migratory population at the given instant, as if by an instantaneous photograph. The Romans tried to cope in another way with the difficulty of numbering people who might be far from home, viz., by bringing them at some time during the enrolment–year to their proper and original home; and they permitted them to come for enrolment at any time during the year.” – Ramsay, W. M. “Luke’s Narrative of the Birth of Christ.” The Expository Times, vol. 4, 1912, p. 483.

So there was nothing out of the ordinary by Luke recording that Joseph and Mary needed to travel to Bethlehem for the census, which is probably where Joseph’s father resided.

Conclusion: Once we study the cultural and historical context and treat Luke as innocent until proven guilty, there is nothing erroneous in the text. As long as we apply the principle of charity, this supposed error can be resolved.

Flavius Josephus – John M. G. Barclay

A Companion to Josephus – Daniel Schwartz

Judaism: Practice and Belief – E. P. Sanders

Background of Early Christianity – Everett Ferguson

Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity – Daniel Schwartz

From Joshua to Caiaphas – James VanderKam

The Demography of Roman Egypt – R. S. Bagnall and B. W. Frier

The Lucan Censuses, Revisited – Brook Pearson

Response to Dan McClellan about The Census in Luke 2

https://youtu.be/RbPVb9aBNvA?si=heFD-GGU65tkQmeM