Census of Roman citizens under Augustus

[Bernard Muller]

Census of Roman citizens under Augustus
What do we know about the procedure of that kind of census through ancient writings? Almost nothing, as far as I looked. But I may be wrong. Not to be confused with general census for taxation purpose.
I have a feeling that Luke's very dubious census contains some elements duplicating the census of Roman citizens in area where they were few of them, and mostly located in Roman colony/city, such as Philippi, Macedonia.
Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

The three general censuses attributed to Augustus appear to be, essentially, head counts for propaganda purposes.

"60 million Roman inhabitants can't be wrong!" That kind of thing.

Other points:

(1) The dates given to these three empire-wide head counts do not match up to the birth of Jesus. [Apologetic harmonization: they rolled out over several years. No, don't think so.]

(2) There does appear to have been, most likely, a census in Egypt in 6 AD, for whatever that matters. This region had an unusual characteristic of receiving extensive papyrus documentation for the census, originally occurring every 7 years and then changed to every 14 years. This was more efficient than the extensive census-taking under the previous Ptolemaic regime.

(3) Egypt exempted girls and women with respect to previous tradition, but that doesn't appear to have been the case everywhere. The reason for the 14-year stagger of the census in Egypt is that boys under 14 were also exempt. The census made sure they started paying when they reached that age.

(4) There are also papyri telling people to report to the "nome" (administrative region of Egypt) where they own property (have their home) for taxation. But this must have occurred elsewhere too, or people would evade taxation simply by refusing to be at home. Taxation in Egypt was annual, even though the census was staggered.

(5) Tax was collected in cash or kind (crops), although some taxes were cash only (like the tax imposed on Jews after 70 AD). Before Augustus, taxes were collected inconsistently by regional governors, who themselves were the only party responsible for payment to Rome. After Augustus, consistent yearly taxation of all the provinces (with some classes of people and cities exempt), directed to Rome, increased imperial revenue.

(6) In areas where papyrus was not easily available for comprehensive records, census taking as such may not have happened. What may have happened in these provinces is that the local taxman came around yearly to every home and collected based on the evidence regarding who belonged to the residence. Direct evidence is sparse outside Egypt, but we know, for example, that southern Gaul was being taxed during the reign of Augustus.

(7) In no case did people return to their ancestral origins, of course.

Source:
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/pr ... m_4_1_1372

[Bernard Muller]

Thanks, Peter, but that's not what I was asking.
Augustus called for three censuses in order to count Roman citizens (numbering about 4 millions at the time) in 28 B.C.E., 8 B.C.E., and C.E. 14.
I wondered if any on this forum would know about evidence on how they were conducted.
This is not for an apologetic purpose. I think Luke's census is all bunk.

However, in the East, where Roman colonies/citie were isolated, I think the Romans could not have some "census office" everywhere.
Instead, they would be only in these Roman enclaves (and possibly also large cities).
But what about those Roman citizens, who were descendants of those living in Roman colonies, but settled away from them?
Where would they register?
I think they would have to go to the colony/city where one of their ancestor had been given land and residence. And for Philippi, that ancestor was a military man, just like David.
See the possible connection? If the author was a Roman citizen living in a Roman colony, then maybe he/she could get away with "the census" under Augustus (forcing Joseph to go to the city of David, his alleged ancestor), because his audience would know about them (and was unfamiliar about what would be going on in Israel).
Cordially, Bernard

[DCHindley]

Thanks, Peter, but that's not what I was asking. Augustus called for three censuses in order to count Roman citizens (numbering about 4 millions at the time) in 28 B.C.E., 8 B.C.E., and C.E. 14. I wondered if any on this forum would know about evidence on how they were conducted.

Some years ago I summarized the scattered references to Roman direct tax policies in the Revised English edition of Emil Schürer’s The Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Miller and Matthew Black, volume 1, 1973).

THE ROMAN CENSUS:

A) Roman Citizens:

“The original Roman census as it developed during the time of the Republic concerned only Roman Citizens. It was an inventory of Roman citizens and their possessions taken for two purposes:

(1) the regulation of military service, and

(2) the collection of direct taxes. The [citizen] to be assessed had to report to the censor and declare his possessions; but it was the custom for the head of the family to make the declaration for himself and the whole family.” (p. 401)

“Under the Empire, and even in the later years of the Republic, the census of Roman citizens had completely lost its original significance since they (i.e., the whole of Italy and colonies with [the legal designation of] *Ius Italicum*) no longer paid direct taxes or were liable to regular or universal conscription. If therefore Augustus, Claudius and Vespasian [who carried out the last full census of Roman citizens in AD 73/74] still took censuses of Roman citizens, it was only for the purpose of statistics or because of the religious ceremonies connected with them, but not for the levying of taxes.” (p. 401)

B) The Provinces:

“The provincial census was fundamentally different [from a census of Roman citizens], the control of taxation being its main function. There was great diversity, too, even in this respect in the early days of the Empire. In general, however, the same principals were applied which in later juristic documents ([compiled in] Digest. L, 15: De censibus) are presumed to prevail everywhere.” (p. 401).

C) How was it conducted?

“As far as the provincial census is concerned, i.e., the preparation of lists for the purpose of taxation, this was conducted in the same manner as the census of Roman citizens.” (p. 403)

D) What taxes were involved?

“From these it is evident that there were two kinds of direct taxes for the provinces: [and from here on I am paraphrasing pp. 401-403, but keep the original wording whenever I can]”

(1) a tax on agricultural produce, *tributum soli*. [This] was paid partly in kind, partly in money. [e.g., Egypt and parts of Africa supplied through this tax enough grain to feed all Italy].

(2) a poll-tax, *tributum capitis*. The second included various kinds of personal taxes:

(a) a property tax which varied according to a person’s capital valuation.
For example, in Appian’s time non-Roman citizens resident in Syria and Cilicia paid a tax of 1% of the amount of valuation. There does appear to be a question as to whether the valuation tax was further split between landed property and moveable possessions.

(b) a poll-tax proper at a flat rate per all capita [“heads”]. Women and slaves were also subject to this tax. Only children and old people were exempt. In Egypt a poll-tax was levied that was not identical for all the inhabitants but varied for each category of the population. This was accomplished by segregating the country into communities with a privileged class of “metropolites” subject to a lower rate. In Syria, men aged 14-65 and women aged 12-65, were subject to poll-taxes. In Egypt, the obligation lasted from the age of 14 to 60 or 61.

“In both [the above] cases [of poll-taxes] the expressions *edere* [i.e., to put forth, or give out, (documents or data)], *deferre censum* [i.e., to report, or bring certain things, to the place where the census was conducted in his area], [and] *profitari* [i.e., to make a public statement, or make a (tax) return of property] were used, from which it is evident that the taxpayer himself had to submit the necessary data, which were then checked by the officials. This declaration had to be made in the chief town of each taxation district; indeed, landed estates were required to be registered for taxation in the communities in which they are situated.” (p. 403).

E) Frequency:

“No regular census was taken in Republican times of the nations subject to Rome. They were conducted here and there, but were not closely connected either with each other, or with the census of Roman citizens.” (p. 401)

“[in later periods i]t is not known for sure how often the censuses were renewed. A clear idea of this can only be gained in the case of Egypt, because of the abundant material which the papyrus finds in that country have brought to light. In Roman times there were two kinds of periodic registration (*apographai*), for which the inhabitants themselves were obliged to supply the information.

(1) Every fourteen years each house-owner was required to deliver to the authorities a list of those residing in his house during the past year [see D2b above]. These registers, called *kat’ oikian apographai*, served mainly in the assessment of poll-tax. [in a footnote (#17), he says “It is possible, but not certain that these regular population counts [in Egypt] were introduced under Augustus. The earliest actually attested is that of A.D. 33/4, (or possibly A.D. 19/20...), and there is evidence for every census of the fourteen-year cycle from then until A.D. 258. It has been argued, however, that the cycle actually began in 10/9 B.C. - see esp. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt on P. Oxy. 254---and even as early as 24/23 B.C., see [S. L.] Wallace, [Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian (1938)] pp. 97-98, and Tcherikover in Journ. Juristic Pap. 4 (1950), p 18; for a skeptical view of the theory that the [Egyptian] cycle began under Augustus see Hombert, Preaux, [Recherches sur le recensement dans l’Egypte romaine (1952)], pp. 47-55.”] Presumably the reason for the fourteen-year period was that liability to pay the poll-tax began at the age of 14. It was therefor not necessary to supplement the lists with birth notices within the period. On the other hand, deaths appear to have been regularly registered with the authorities. The lists supplied evidence for the *epikrisis*, or examination to determine status, and the consequent liability for poll tax. [He doesn’t specifically say so in this place, but based on what is stated in D2a above, it appears that at this same time that landed property was also declared. See the final paragraph, and my comment, of section E2 below.]

(2) Each year, every property-owner had to give a written record, applying to the current year, of his movable possessions such as cattle, ships and slaves. These declarations for tax purposes are also called *apographai*. The tax was then determined on the basis of the details supplied, these latter having been checked by the authorities.” Footnote #20 adds “Wilcken supposed, in his Ostraka I, pp. 456-469, that the annual property declarations included landed property as well, and not only movable possessions. The general inclusion of landed property only took place when there was a need for it, and was specially ordered in each case. Moreover, the official registers of landed property were kept up to date because of the notices served on each change of ownership [i.e., under normal circumstances, ownership of landed property can be tracked through each 14 year cycle through deeds filed with authorities.]”. (pp. 403-404)

[Bernard Muller]

Thanks DCHindley,

Augustus, Claudius and Vespasian [who carried out the last full census of Roman citizens in AD 73/74] still took censuses of Roman citizens, it was only for the purpose of statistics or because of the religious ceremonies connected with them, but not for the levying of taxes.

So, if a Roman citizen was living in a villa (among non-Roman citizens) 80 miles from Philippi the Roman colony, the city of his ancestors, including the one who first settled here with free land as a reward for military service, where would he register for that kind of census?
I am afraid there is no evidenced answer for that, but a logical one would be for him being required to go to Philippi to be accounted for.
Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

I have found no evidence anywhere at any time in the Roman empire, apart from Luke's story, that anyone was required to go a "city of his ancestors." I do know that the possible sources for such a thing have been plumbed extensively for such statements by apologists and/or exegetes, but the closest they can ever cite is evidence that people could be required to go back to where they lived and/or owned property.

The most likely conclusion is that the bit about returning to a city of the ancestors is a bit of dreaming by the author to get baby Jesus to the town of Bethlehem, and that idea could have been dreamed about anywhere.

[GakuseiDon]

I have found no evidence anywhere at any time in the Roman empire, apart from Luke's story, that anyone was required to go a "city of his ancestors." I do know that the possible sources for such a thing have been plumbed extensively for such statements by apologists and/or exegetes, but the closest they can ever cite is evidence that people could be required to go back to where they lived and/or owned property.

The most likely conclusion is that the bit about returning to a city of the ancestors is a bit of dreaming by the author to get baby Jesus to the town of Bethlehem, and that idea could have been dreamed about anywhere.

But I don't think Luke is claiming that people had to go back to the city of his ancestors, if I am reading Luke correctly, at least according to the English KJV:

Luke.2
[1] And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
[2] (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
[3] And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
[4] And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

If Joseph is from Bethlehem, then he would return to "his own city". That Luke mentions that Joseph was of the lineage of David could be there to support Jesus being called the seed of David, rather than to support that Joseph had to return because Joseph was a descendent of David.

That then does make sense of that passage. Augustus calls for a census of "the world" at some point. The census is carried out under Quirius at some time later. Joseph goes back to Bethlehem because Joseph is from Bethlehem, being a descendent of David. (All made up of course, to show Jesus as a descendent of David. A father from Bethlehem is more likely to be a descendent of David than a father from Nazareth, presumably)

[Bernard Muller]

I have found no evidence anywhere at any time in the Roman empire, apart from Luke's story, that anyone was required to go a "city of his ancestors." I do know that the possible sources for such a thing have been plumbed extensively for such statements by apologists and/or exegetes, but the closest they can ever cite is evidence that people could be required to go back to where they lived and/or owned property.

The most likely conclusion is that the bit about returning to a city of the ancestors is a bit of dreaming by the author to get baby Jesus to the town of Bethlehem, and that idea could have been dreamed about anywhere.

Yes Peter, but I am just trying to explain "Luke" daring to write/to dream up about his/her stupid/absurd census, involving Galileans going to Bethlehem for registration.
But let's go back to my example:

if a Roman citizen was living in a villa (among non-Roman citizens) 80 miles from Philippi the Roman colony, the city of his ancestors, including the one who first settled here with free land as a reward for military service, where would he register for that kind of census?

The censuses in question:
Augustus, Claudius and Vespasian [who carried out the last full census of Roman citizens in AD 73/74] still took censuses of Roman citizens, it was only for the purpose of statistics ..., but not for the levying of taxes.

Where would that Roman citizen go to register? There was no reason to have a census bureau near by, in case there was a Roman citizen in the area.

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

I have found no evidence anywhere at any time in the Roman empire, apart from Luke's story, that anyone was required to go a "city of his ancestors." I do know that the possible sources for such a thing have been plumbed extensively for such statements by apologists and/or exegetes, but the closest they can ever cite is evidence that people could be required to go back to where they lived and/or owned property.

The most likely conclusion is that the bit about returning to a city of the ancestors is a bit of dreaming by the author to get baby Jesus to the town of Bethlehem, and that idea could have been dreamed about anywhere.

But I don't think Luke is claiming that people had to go back to the city of his ancestors, if I am reading Luke correctly, at least according to the English KJV:

Luke.2
[1] And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
[2] (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
[3] And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
[4] And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

If Joseph is from Bethlehem, then he would return to "his own city". That Luke mentions that Joseph was of the lineage of David could be there to support Jesus being called the seed of David, rather than to support that Joseph had to return because Joseph was a descendent of David.

That then does make sense of that passage. Augustus calls for a census of "the world" at some point. The census is carried out under Quirius at some time later. Joseph goes back to Bethlehem because Joseph is from Bethlehem, being a descendent of David. (All made up of course, to show Jesus as a descendent of David. A father from Bethlehem is more likely to be a descendent of David than a father from Nazareth, presumably)

Luke 1:26-27. In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary.

Luke 2:1-6. In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 And all went to be registered, each to his own town. 4 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, 5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. 6 And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth.

Luke 2:39. And when they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.

I don't have time for this.

[GakuseiDon]

Luke 1:26-27. In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary.

Luke 2:1-6. In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 And all went to be registered, each to his own town. 4 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, 5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. 6 And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth.

Luke 2:39. And when they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.

I don't have time for this.

My point is more a question, I suppose. "And all went to be registered, each to his own town". This to me makes it sound like Joseph himself is from Bethlehem. That is, the implication to me is that Joseph is not from (say) Nazareth, and then went to Bethlehem because he was a descendent of David. The implication is that Joseph himself is from Bethlehem. If you take out "because he was of the house and lineage of David", then I think that it would in fact be the logical reading. Adding it back in seems to me to be supporting that Joseph was from Bethlehem.

Anyway, just my 2 cents. I'd be interested to understand why people have taken the passage to mean that everyone had to go back to the place of their ancestors.