FINALLY! The correct answer has been posted...

[DCHindley]

While it seems superfluous to do so now that the evil man has been banned, the question of Roman tax policy should be addressed. Yes it is long, but I think it settles the matter. The Roman taxation census only pertained to roman administered provinces, but not to client kingdoms.

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)

Have Fun!

DCH

[Stephan Huller]

Very interesting stuff, David. FWIW I have always thought that the 'tax' in question was the religious half shekhel redemption. Interestingly Celsus never mentions taxation as a 'problem with Christianity.' I think the editor of the Catholic gospels misrepresented the original argument.

[Bernard Muller]

I read your posts, and they were concerning Roman citizens. Which is a valid topic, but not really of interest in the setting of the gospel of Luke.

Ulan I think you missed that post:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=594&start=30#p11885

Cordially, Bernard

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Wikipedia isn't a source.

You can follow the links on the wiki pages, but the major source is Josephus:

I don't follow links, and I don't use Wiki.

You either have legitimate sources or you don't

I gave you the citations from Josephus. If you "don't use links, then it is absurdly disingenuous to ask for them.

I gave you the facts and I gave you the sources. The truth is that you just don't know what the hell you're talking about. Your affected arrogance does not cover that up.

[Ulan]

Ulan I think you missed that post:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=594&start=30#p11885

Thanks. Yes, that makes sense as explanation, where the author of "Luke" got the idea.

[DCHindley]

Very interesting stuff, David. FWIW I have always thought that the 'tax' in question was the religious half shekhel redemption. Interestingly Celsus never mentions taxation as a 'problem with Christianity.' I think the editor of the Catholic gospels misrepresented the original argument.

You mean you think that the revolt of 6 CE was over the temple tax? I assume you mean that Judean folks were afraid that the Romans might try to collect it directly? It was only after the revolt that the temple tax was made payable to the Temple of Peace in Rome. Now I think that this became the issue that Christians used to disassociate themselves from Judaism by refusing to pay it. However, with the temple gone by this time, what were Jews to do?

I agree with Fabian Udoh and think the Romans didn't attempt to mess with the temple apparatus, including the tithes and the "temple tax." However, the Roman model for "temple states" (treating temples with extensive land holdings like a Greek polis), was to let them administer themselves in their accustomed manner, BUT, make that administration answerable to the Roman administrative governor. The governor appointed the high priest who ran the apparatus, and only interfered on rare occasion.

Herod, as the Roman client king, was the Roman administrative governor. He chose the HP, but as far as I know he never attempted to interfere with the day to day functioning of the temple state. In fact, in the background, he even managed to establish, around 19 BCE, a mint to coin "Tyrian" shekels for use to pay the temple tax and other religious dues, even though he himself never minted silver coins in his name, only copper, bronze or brass.

After his death, the local Prefect was the administrative "manager." Look at Pilate and the use of Korban money to help pay for the new aquaduct he had built. As the governor, and thus technically outranking even the HP, he made a decision to make the temple state pay its fair share of the aquaduct costs (I don't think for a moment that he made the temple fund pay for all of it).

What I think happened in 6 CE was that folks were afraid that the governor might abolish the temple state completely (or at least take away the bulk of its land, which had been done in parts of Asia Minor) and make the folks who were farming family plots (that technically belonged to the temple state) lease directly from the emperor. That didn't seem to go over well ...

DCH