Census

Census. See Taxing.

Miphqad, "numbering combined with lustration" or "purification." By the law (Exo 30:12-13) half a shekel was to be paid by every man above 20 years as a ransom for his soul, that there should be no plague whenever a numbering of the people took place. The number at the census in the third or fourth month after the Exodus was 603,550 above 20 years (Exo 38:26); in Exo 12:37 the round number 600,000. There were besides 22,000 male Levites of a month old and upwards (Num 3:39). Adding the wives and children we should have about 2,000,000. Of the 70 that went down to Egypt, after deducting Jacob, his 12 sons, Dinah, Zerah (Asher’s daughter), Levi’s three sons, the four grandsons of Judah and Benjamin, and those grandsons of Jacob who died without posterity, there remain at least 41 grandsons of Jacob who founded families, besides the Levites.

Reckoning 40 years as a generation, there would be ten generations passed in the 400th year of the sojourn in Egypt. Compare 1Ch 7:20-27, where ten or eleven generations elapse between Ephraim and Joshua. Assuming three sons and three daughters to each married couple of the first six generations, and two sons and two daughters in the last four, there would be 478,224 sons about the 400th year of the sojourn, besides 125,326 of the ninth generation, still living; in all 603,550 men coming out of Egypt upward of 20 years old. Besides, the Israelites were under a special dispensation of fruitfulness from God, and preservation from plague and from serious diminution even by Pharaoh’s repressive measures. In Num 3:43 all the firstborn males for whom the Levites were accepted as a substitute are stated to be 22,273, which, if it were the suni of the firstborn sons in the entire nation, would require there to be 40 males begotten of each father in each family to make up 608,550 men of 20 years and upward, or a population of more than 1,000,000 males.

But Exo 13:2; Exo 13:11-12 shows that the law does not apply retrospectively, but only to the sanctification to God of all the firstborn of men and cattle that should be born from that time forward. It appears from Num 3:13; Num 8:17, God had actually sanctified already all the firstborn to Himself by having protected His people from the destroyer on the paschal night (Exo 12:22-23; Exo 4:22), and had adopted the whole nation in instituting the Passover. The presentation of their firstborn to the Lord thenceforth was to be the practical manifestation of their sonship. The number of Levites (Num 3:39; Num 3:51), Num 3:22; Num 3:000, does not agree with the numbers assigned to the three families 7,500 + 8,600 + 6,200 = 22,300. But the total is correct; for it is written, the number of the firstborn, 22,273, exceeded that of the Levites by 273.

Probably there is a copyist’s error in the number of one of the Levitical families, perhaps in Num 3:28 read 8,300 for 8,600. For the surplus 278 each was to pay five shekels, 1,365 in all. The earlier numbering for collecting atonement money from every male of 20 or upward (Exo 30:11-16; Exo 38:25-26) gave the same number, 603,550, as that nine months later (Num 1:1-3-46; Exo 40:17), in the second month of the second year, four weeks after the rearing of the tabernacle. The reason is, because the former census for gathering the atonement head money was taken as the basis for mustering all fit for war nine months later. This latter mustering merely consisted in registering those already numbered in the public records according to their families and fathers’ houses; probably according to Jethro’s suggestion of classification for administering justice, namely, in thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens (Exo 18:25).

Each tribe was placed under a special leader; head of the tribe, as is usual among the Arabs to this day. The supernumerary units would be used to balance the changes that had taken place in the actual condition of the families and fathers’ houses between the earlier provisional numbering and the subsequent preparation of the master rolls, so that the few changes that had taken place during the nine months’ interval among those fit for war was made no account of, but the number was left the same. A new census was taken 38 years afterwards in the plains of Moab (Numbers 26) for the division of Canaan among the tribes according to their families (Num 33:54). The number then was 601,730, of 20 years and upward, of whom Joshua and Caleb alone were in the former census, the whole generation having died in the wilderness. The tribe of Simeon especially suffered a diminution of its numbers; probably owing to the plague which followed Zimri’s sin with Cozbi the Midianite woman (Num 25:9-15; Num 26:51; Num 26:63-65; compare Num 11:21).

The history does not detail the events of the intervening 38 years, but only of the beginning and the close of the 40 years. The total of Israel, including the 23,000 Levite males from a month old upwards, would be thus about 2,000,000 (Num 26:62). The objection of rationalists that the peninsula of Sinai could not have sustained such a number is answered by the consideration (1) that Israel was sustained by a miracle, (2) the peninsula yielded much more anciently than at present. The destruction of the trees diminishes the rainfall; in the monumental period of ancient Egypt it is evident that the land was more cultivated; and the water in the wadies and the rain might, by artificial means, be made available to increase the fertility. The inscriptions of Sinai, Serbal, and the wady Mokatteb, and other valleys prove that formerly a numerous population lived there.

The next numbering was that by David, contrary to Joab’s advice (2Sa 24:1-9; 1Ch 21:1; 1Ch 21:5; 1Ch 27:24). "Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number Israel." Pride is peculiarly of Satan (Isa 14:12), and proud presumption actuated David. It was not so much the act which was faultworthy (for indeed the taking of the census was recognized in the pentateuch: Exo 30:12) as the motive, trust in the arm of flesh instead of in Jehovah (Jer 17:5). Psalm 30 (see its authoritative heading, which ought to be read "A Psalm of David at the dedication of the house," namely, of God) commemorates "the dedication," or consecration, of the site whereon subsequently Solomon’s temple was built. When David, after the plague sent for numbering the people, sacrificed upon an altar of burnt offering on the threshing floor of Araunah on mount Moriah, Jehovah by fire from heaven consecrated the place as "the house of God," even before the actual building of the temple (compare 1Ch 22:1-2 with Gen 28:17-19).

Pride through prosperity, and a sudden, severe, but temporary, reverse appear in the psalm as in the history. The deliverance was the answer to David’s prayer, Jehovah at the same time interceding; for while we pray below our Intercessor is pleading above (compare Psa 30:8-10 with 1Ch 21:15-18). Apparently David had neglected to have the half shekel apiece payment made to God in recognition of His sovereignty (Exo 30:12-13); in which respect the people shared the guilt and therefore the punishment. Probably he sought popularity by omitting it. The number in 1Ch 21:5 is 1,100,000 of Israel and 470,000 of Judah. But in 2Sa 24:9 of Israel 800,000, of Judah 500,000. The census was not completed, through the reluctance of Joab to proceed, and through David’s revoking the order before it was finished.

The number was never put "in the account of the chronicles of King David" (1Ch 27:24). Levi was omitted, as it was for men fit for war that the census was taken. Benjamin, which came last in order on the return home to Jerusalem, had not been numbered when the census was interrupted (1Ch 21:6). The 30,000 difference in the number of Judah, as given in Chronicles and according to Samuel, was perhaps due to Benjamin being given in Samuel but not in Chronicles. or, possibly, Chronicles omits the 30,000 army of observation stationed on the Philistine frontier (2Sa 6:1). The 300,000 more in Israel according to Chronicles probably included the standing army in 24, courses of 24,000 each, i.e. 288,000 in all (1 Chronicles 27), besides 12 captains with 1,000 each as the king’s own guard, in all 300,000, not counted in 2 Samuel 24.

These were in actual service; the larger numbers in the census are those capable of service. At best, oral tradition was the basis of the numbers here, seeing that it was not recorded in the chronicles of David. The whole population would thus amount to about 5,000,000; a number not too large for the well attested fertility of the land then to sustain. Even profane writers noticed Palestine’s fertility, of which its present neglected state affords no test. God had promised a populous race. In A.D. 66, just before the Roman siege of Jerusalem, a census taken by the priests at the Passover gave the approximate number 2,700,000, independently of foreigners and those ceremonially defiled. 1,100,000 perished in the siege; 97,000 were taken captives. These facts give us a glimpse of the populousness of the Holy Land. Solomon completed David’s census by causing the resident foreigners to be numbered and employed on his great works, namely, 153,600 (2Ch 2:17-18; compare Jos 9:27).

Jehoshaphat’s army was one of the largest, 1,160,000 (2Ch 17:14-18); this probably included subject foreigners. The object of the census on the return from Babylon was to settle against the year of Jubilee the inheritances of the Holy Land (Lev 25:10), which had been disarranged by the captivity, and to ascertain the family genealogies and ensure purity of Jewish blood. This accounts for differences appearing between the total and the details (Ezr 2:59; Ezr 2:64) of the 42,360 who returned with Zerubbabel, 12,542 belonging to other tribes than Judah and Benjamin (Ezr 10:2; Ezr 10:8; Ezr 10:18; Ezr 10:44; Nehemiah 7:1-67). (See CAPTIVITY.) The second caravan (458 B.C.) numbered 1496, exclusive of women and children (Ezr 8:1-14). The genealogies (1 Chronicles 1-9) were compiled for a similar object.

The Septuagint and Josephus confirm in the main the correctness of the Scripture numbers. A "taxing" under Cyrenius, governor of Syria, is recorded Luk 2:1; a disturbance caused by one Judas of Galilee "in the days of the taxing" is referred to in Act 5:37. God’s providence overruled Augustus’ order for the provincial enrollment of all persons and estates under Roman sway, to effect His foretold purpose that Bethlehem should be the scene of Jesus’ nativity (Mic 5:2) Mic 5:4 B.C.; His parents going up there to be registered for the taxation, a plain proof that the foretold time for Shiloh’s appearing was come, for "the scepter was departed from Judah" to Rome (Gen 49:10). Quirinus did not, according to history, become president of Syria until 9 or 10 years afterward, A.D. 6. But Justin Martyr thrice (Apol., 1:34,46; Trypho, 78) asserts Quirinus was president when Luke says he was.

Zumpt moreover has recently brought to light the interesting fact that, owing to Cilicia when separated from Cyprus being joined to Syria Quirinus as governor of Cilicia was also governor of Syria; his subsequent special connection with Syria caused his earlier and briefer one to be thus specified. The word "first" too is to be noticed: "this taxing," ordered by Augustus just before Jesus’ birth, was interrupted by the Jews’ bitter opposition, and "was first carried into effect" when Cyrenius was governor of Syria; grammatically the Greek expresses, "this taxing took place as a first one while Cyrenius was governor of Syria" (Ellicott). The omission, however, of the Greek article in one oldest manuscript (Vatican) would thus modify the translation, "this first taxation was carried into effect when Cyrenius," etc.

a term that does not occur in the A. V. (although it is found in the original text of the N.T. in the Greek form κῆνσος, "tribute," Mat 17:25, etc.), while the act denoted by it is several times referred to both in the Hebrews and Gr. Scriptures (מַפְקָד, or פְּקֻדִּה, "numbering" combined with lustration, from פָּקִד, to survey in order to purge, Gesenius, Thes. p. 1120; Sept. ἀριθμός; N.T. ἀπογραφή); Vulg. dinumeratio, descriptio). SEE POPULATION.

I. Jewish. — Moses laid down the law (Exo 30:12-13) that whenever the people were numbered an offering of half a shekel should be made by every man above twenty years of age, by way of atonement or propitiation. A previous law had also ordered that the first-born of man and of beast should be set apart, as well as the first-fruits of agricultural produce; the first to be redeemed, and the rest, with one exception, offered to God (Exo 13:12-13; Exo 22:29). The idea of lustration in connection with numbering predominated also in the Roman census (Smith, Dict. of Class. Antiq. s.v. Lustrum), and among Mohammedan nations at the present day a prejudice exists against numbering their possessions, especially the fruits of the field (Hay, Western Barbary, p. 15; Crichton, Arabia, 2:180; see also Lane, Mod. Egypt. 2:72, 73). The instances of numbering recorded in the O.T. are as follows:

1. Under the express direction of God (Exo 38:26), in the third or fourth month after the Exodus, during the encampment at Sinai, chiefly for the purpose of raising money for the Tabernacle. The numbers then taken amounted to 603,550 men, which may be presumed to express with greater precision the round numbers of 600,000 who are said to have left Egypt at first (Exo 12:37).

2. Again, in the second month of the second year after the Exodus (Num 1:2-3). This census was taken for a double purpose:

(a.) To ascertain the number of fighting men from the age of 20 to 50 (Joseph. Ant. 3:12, 4). The total number on this occasion, exclusive of the Levites, amounted at this time also to 603,550 (Num 2:32); Josephus says 603,650: each tribe was numbered, and placed under a special leader, the head of the tribe.

(b.) To ascertain the amount of the redemption-offering due on account of all the first-born, both of persons and cattle. Accordingly, the numbers were taken of all the first-born male persons of the whole nation above one month old, including all of the tribe of Levi of the same age. The Levites, whose numbers amounted to 22,000, were taken in lieu of the first-born males of the rest of Israel, whose numbers were 22,273, and for the surplus of 273 a money payment of 1365 shekels, or 5 shekels each, was made to Aaron and his sons (Num 3:39; Num 3:51).

If the numbers in our present copies, from which those given by Josephus do not materially differ, be correct, it seems likely that these two numberings were in fact one, but applied to different purposes. We can hardly otherwise account for the identity of numbers even within the few months of interval (Calmet on Numbers 1; Kitto, Pictorial Bible, ib.). It may be remarked that the system of appointing head men in each tribe as leaders, as well as the care taken in preserving the pedigrees of the families, corresponds with the practice of the Arab tribes at the present day (Crichton, Arabia, 2:185,186; Niebuhr, Descr. de l’Arabie, p. 14; Buckingham, Arab Tribes, p. 88; Jahn, Hist. bk. 2:8, 11; Malcolm, Sketches of Persia, 14:157, 159).

3. Another numbering took place 38 years afterwards, previous to the entrance into Canaan, when the total number, excepting the Levites, amounted to 601,730 males, showing a decrease of 1870. All the tribes presented an increase, except Reuben, which had decreased 2770; Simeon, 37,100; Gad, 5150; Ephraim and Naphtali. 8000 each. The tribe of Levi had increased 727 ( Numbers 26). The great diminution which took place in the tribe of Simeon may probably be assigned to the plague consequent on the misconduct of Zimri (Calmet on Num 25:9). On the other hand, the chief instances of increase are found in Manasseh of 20,500; Benjamin, 10,200; Asher, 11,900; and Issachar, 9900. None were numbered at this census who had been above 20 years of age at the previous one in the second year, excepting Caleb and Joshua (Num 26:63-65).

4. The next formal numbering of the whole people was in the reign of David, who in a moment of presumption, contrary to the advice of Joab, gave orders to number the people without requiring the statutable offering of a half-shekel. The men of Israel above 20 years of age were 800,000, and of Judah 500,000; total, 1,300,000. The book of Chronicles gives the numbers of Israel 1,100,000, and of Judah 470,000; total, 1,570,000; but informs us that Levi and Benjamin were not numbered (1Ch 21:6; 1Ch 27:24). Josephus gives the numbers of Israel and Judah respectively 900,000 and 400,000 (2Sa 24:1; 2Sa 24:9; and Calmet, in loc.; 1Ch 21:1; 1Ch 21:5; 1Ch 27:24; Joseph. Ant. 7:13, 1).

5. The census of David was completed by Solomon, by causing the foreigners and remnants of the conquered nations resident within Palestine to be numbered. Their number amounted to 153,600, and they were employed in forced labor on his great architectural works (Jos 9:27; 1Ki 5:15; 1Ki 9:20-21; 1Ch 22:2; 2Ch 2:17-18).

Between this time and the Captivity, mention is made of the numbers of armies under successive kings of Israel and Judah, from which may be gathered with more or less probability, and with due consideration of the circumstances of the times as influencing the numbers of the levies, estimates of the population at the various times mentioned.

6. Rehoboam collected from Judah and Benjamin 180,000 men to fight against Jeroboam (1Ki 12:21).

7. Abijah, with 400,000 men, made war on Jeroboam with 800,000, of whom 500,000 were slain (2Ch 13:3; 2Ch 13:17).

8. Asa had an army of 300,000 men from Judah, and 280,000 (Josephus says 250,000) from Benjamin, with which he defeated Zerah the Ethiopian, with an army of 1,000,000 (2Ch 14:8-9; Josephus, Ant. 8:12, 1).

9. Jehoshaphat, besides men in garrisons, had under arms 1,160,000 men, including perhaps subject foreigners (2Ch 17:14-19; Jahn, Hist. 5:37).

10. Amaziah had from Judah and Benjamin 300,000, besides 100,000 mercenaries from Israel (2Ch 25:5-6).

11. Uzziah could bring into the field 307,500 men (307,000, Josephus), well armed, under 2600 officers (2Ch 26:11-15; Joseph. Ant. 9:10, 3).

Besides these more general statements, we have other and partial notices of numbers indicating population. Thus, a. Gideon from 4 tribes collected 32,000 men (Jdg 6:35; Jdg 7:3). b. Jephthah put to death 42,000 Ephraimites (Jdg 12:6). The numbers of Ephraim 300 years before were 32,500 (Num 26:37). c. Of Benjamin 25,000 were slain at the battle of Gibeah, by which slaughter, and that of the inhabitants of its cities, the tribe was reduced to 600 men. Its numbers in the wilderness were 45,600 (Num 26:41; Jdg 20:35; Jdg 20:46). d. The number of those who joined David after Saul’s death, besides the tribe of Issachar, was 340,922 (1Ch 12:23-38). e. At the time when Jehoshaphat could muster 1,160,000 men, Ahab in Israel could only bring 7000 against the Syrians (1Ki 20:15). f. The numbers carried captive to Babylon, B.C. 598-82, from Judah are said (2Ki 24:14; 2Ki 24:16) to have been from 8000 to 10,000, by Jeremiah 4600 (Jer 52:30).

12. The number of those who returned with Zerubbabel in the first caravan is reckoned at 42,360 (Ezr 2:64), but of these perhaps 12,542 belonged to other tribes than Judah and Benjamin. It is thus that the difference between the total (Ezra 5:64) and the several details is to be accounted for. The purpose of this census, which does not materially differ from the statement in Nehemiah (Nehemiah 7), was to settle with reference to the year of Jubilee the inheritances in the Holy Land, which had been disturbed by the Captivity, and also to ascertain the family genealogies, and ensure, as far as possible, the purity of the Jewish race (Ezr 2:59; Ezr 10:2; Ezr 10:8; Ezr 10:18; Ezr 10:44; Lev 25:10).

In the second caravan the number was 1496. Women and children are in neither case included (Ezr 8:1-14).

It was probably for kindred objects that the pedigrees and enumerations which occupy the first 9 chapters of the 1st book of Chronicles were either composed before the Captivity, or compiled afterwards from existing records by Ezra and others (1Ch 4:28; 1Ch 4:32; 1Ch 4:39; 1Ch 5:9; 1Ch 6:57; 1Ch 6:81; 1Ch 7:28; 1Ch 9:2). In the course of these we meet with notices of the numbers of the tribes, but at what periods is uncertain. Thus Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh are set down at 44,760 (1Ch 5:18), Issachar at 87,000 (1Ch 7:5), Benjamin 59,434 (1Ch 7:7; 1Ch 7:9; 1Ch 7:11), Asher 26,000 (1Ch 7:40). Besides, there are to be reckoned priests, Levites, and residents at Jerusalem from the tribes of Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh (1Ch 9:3).

Throughout all these accounts two points are clear.

1. That great pains were taken to ascertain and register the numbers of the Jewish people at various times for the reasons mentioned above.

2. That the numbers given in some cases can with difficulty be reconciled with other numbers of no very distant date, as well as with the presumed capacity of the country for supporting population.

Thus the entire male population above 20 years of age, excepting Levi and Benjamin, at David’s census, is given as 1,300,000, or 1,570,000 (2Sa 24:1; 1 Chronicles 21), strangers 153,600; total, 1.453,600, or 1,723,000. These numbers (the excepted tribes being borne in mind) represent a population of not less than 4 times this amount, or at least 5,814,000, of whom not less than 2,000,000 belonged to Judah alone (2Sa 24:9). About 100 years after, Jehoshaphat was able to gather from Judah and Benjamin (including subject foreigners) an army of 1,160,000, besides garrisons, representing a population of 4,640,000. Fifty years later, Amaziah could only raise 300,000 from the same 2 tribes, and 27 years after this, Uzziah had 307,500 men and 2600 officers. Whether the number of the foreigners subject to Jehoshaphat constitutes the difference at these periods must remain uncertain.

To compare these estimates with the probable capacity of the country, the whole area of Palestine, including the trans-Jordanic tribes, so far as it is possible to ascertain their limits, may be set down as not exceeding 11000 square miles; Judah and Benjamin at 3135, and Galilee at 930 square miles. The population, making allowance for the excepted tribes, would thus be not less than 530 to the square mile. This considerably exceeds the ratio in most European countries, and even of many of the counties of England. But while, on the one hand, great doubt rests on the genuineness of numerical expressions in O.T., it must be considered, on the other, that the readings on which our version is founded give, with trifling variations, the same results as those presented by the Sept. and by Josephus (Jahn, 5:36; Glasse, Philippians Sacr. de caussis corruptionis, 1, § 23; vol. 2, p. 189). SEE NUMBER.

In the list of cities occupied by the tribe of Judah, including Simeon, are found 123 "with their villages," and by Benjamin 26. Of one city, Ai, situate in Benjamin, which like many, if not all the others, was walled, we know that the population, probably exclusive of children, was 12,000, while of Gibeon it is said that it was larger than Ai (Jos 8:25; Jos 8:29; Jos 10:2; Jos 15:21-62; Jos 18:21; Jos 18:28; Jos 19:1-9). If these "cities" may be taken as samples of the rest, it is clear that Southern Palestine, at least, was very populous before the entrance of the people of Israel.

But Josephus, in his accounts (1.) of the population of Galilee in his own time, and (2.) of the numbers congregated at Jerusalem at the time of the Passover, shows a large population inhabiting Palestine. He says there were many cities in Galilee; besides villages, of which the least, whether cities or villages is not quite certain, had not less than 15,000 inhabitants (War, 3:3, 2 and 4; comp. Tacit. Hist. 5:8). After the defeat of Cestius, A.D. 66, before the formal outbreak of the war, a census taken at Jerusalem by the priests, of the numbers assembled there for the Passover, founded on the number of lambs sacrificed, compared with the probable number of persons partaking, gave 2,700,000 persons, besides foreigners and those who were excluded by ceremonial defilement (see Tacit. Hist. 5:12). In the siege itself 1,100,000 perished, and during the war 97,000 were made captives. Besides these many deserted to the Romans, and were dismissed by them (War, 6:8, 9, 3). These numbers, on any supposition of foreign influx (ὁμόφυλον ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐπιχώριον) imply a large native population; and 63 years later, in the insurrection of Barchochebas, Dion Cassius says that 50 fortified towns and 980 villages were destroyed, and 580,000 persons were slain in war, besides a countless multitude who perished by famine, fire, and disease, so that Palestine became almost depopulated (Dion Cass. 69:14).

Lastly, there are abundant traces throughout the whole of Palestine of a much higher rate of fertility in former as compared with present times — a fertility remarked by profane writers, and of which the present neglected state of cultivation affords no test. This, combined with the positive divine promises of populousness, increases the probability of at least approximate correctness in the foregoing estimates of population (Tacit. Hist. 5:6; Amm. Marc. 14:8; Josephus, War. 3:3; Jerome on Ezekiel 20, and Rabbinical authorities in Reland, 100. 26; Shaw, Travels, 2, pt. 2, 100. 1, p. 336, 340, and 275; Hasselquist, Travels, p. 120, 127, 130; Stanley, Palest. p. 120, 374; Kitto, Phys. Geogr. p. 33; Raumer, Palästina, p. 8, 80, 83, App. 9. Comp. Gen 13:16; Gen 22:17; Num 23:10; 1Ki 4:20; Act 12:20). See Meiner, De Hebraeorum censibus (Langens. 1764-66); Zeibich, De censibus Hebraeorum (Gera, 1764-6). SEE PALESTINE.

II. Roman. — This, under the Republic, consisted, so far as the present purpose is concerned, of an enrolment of persons and property by tribes and households. Every paterfamilias was required to appear before the censors, and give his own name and his father’s; if married, that of his wife, and the number and ages of his children; after this, an account and valuation of his property, on which a tax was then imposed. By the lists thus obtained every man’s position in the state was regulated. After these duties had been performed, a lustrum, or solemn purification of the people, followed, but not always immediately (Smith, Dict. of Class. Antiq. s.v. Census. See Dionys. 4:15, 22; Cicero, de Legg. 3:3; Clinton, Fast. Hell. 3, p. 457, 100:10). The census was taken, more or less regularly, in the provinces, under the republic, by provincial censors, and the tribute regulated at their discretion (Cicero, Verr. 2, lib. 2:53, 56), but no complete census was made before the time of Augustus, who carried out three general inspections of this kind, viz. (1.) B.C. 28; (2.) B.C. 8; (3.) A.D. 14; and a partial one, A.D. 4. The reason of the partial extent of this last was that he feared disturbances out of Italy, and also that he might not appear as an exactor. Of the returns made, Augustus himself kept an accurate account (breviarium), like a private man of his property (Dion Cass. 54:35; 55:13; Suetonius, Aug. 27, 101; Tacitus, Ann. 1:11; Tab. Ancyr. ap. Ernesti, Tacit. 2:188). A special assessment of Gaul, under commissioners sent for the purpose, is mentioned in the time of Tiberius (Tacit. Ann. 1:31; 2:6; Livy, Ep. 134, 136). In the New Test, two enrolments of this kind, executed under the Roman government, are mentioned by Luke (άπογραφή, "taxing"). SEE TAX.

1. In Act 5:37, a census is referred to as at the time a well-known event, during which a certain Judas of Galilee raised an insurrection. This import of the term there employed is sustained by Josephus (Ant. 18:1, 1; 2,1), who says that it was an assessment of property (ἀποτίμησις τῶν οὐσιῶν or χρημάτων), which the proconsul Quirinus (Κυρήνιος, Cyrenius) carried out on behalf of the emperor Augustus after the banishment of king Archelaus (A.D. 6), in which Samaria, Judaea, and Idumaea were joined with the province of Syria under direct Roman rule. The Latin name for such a valuation, which was occasionally instituted in all the provinces of the Roman empire, is the well-known one census; by it new lists (ἀπογραφαί, tabulae censoriae, Polyb. 2:23, 9) were made out, of persons, property, and business, and upon this basis the tax was imposed. SEE ASSESSMENT. The matter was naturally odious generally to the subjects, especially to the Jews, SEE PUBLICAN, not only on account of their religious prejudices, SEE ZELOTES, but also the violent and extortionate manner in which Oriental taxation is always enforced. SEE TRIBUTE. The word ἀπογραφή, is used almost invariably by Greek writers of the Roman period for census, although an enrolment for taxation is more properly called ἀποτίμησις, a sense, however, not inapplicable (even in the Attic dialect) to ἀπογραφή and ἀπογράφεσθαι (see Wachsmuth, liellen. Alterth. 2:71, 238, 280). SEE JUDAS (THE GALILAEAN).

2. In Luk 2:1, there is mentioned an enrolment or ἀπογραφή as having taken place in the year of Christ’s birth, by order of Augustus, and, as the words seem to express, under the superintendence of Quirinus or Cyrenius, president of Syria, extending over the entire land (πᾶσα οἰκουμένη). This seems, according to the date indicated, to have been different from the census above mentioned, as is indeed implied in the language "this the first tax-list was made while Quirinus was governor" (αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφή π ρ ώ τ η ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύουτος Κυρηνίον). But this passage contains great historical difficulty as well as importance (see Huschke, Ueber den zur Zeit der Geburt Christi gehaltenen Census, Breslau, 1840; Wieseler, Synopse, p. 82 sq.; Kirmss, in the Jenaer Lit.- Zeitung, 1842, No. 100 sq.). ’The principal discrepancies alleged with regard to the tax itself have been adduced by Strauss (Leben Jesu, 1, § 28) and De Wette .(Comment. zu Luc. in loc.): 1. Palestine was not yet directly Roman, or immediately liable to such a census (comp. Joseph. Ant. 17:13, 5; 18:1, 1; Appian, Civ. 5:75); an ἀπογραφή at this time, therefore, as being neither available for the purposes of the emperor, nor adapted to the relations of the Jewish vassal-kings towards him, would have been the more likely to have created a popular or governmental disturbance than the later one above referred to. 2. At all events, no historical mention of so unusual a proceeding occurs either in Josephus or the Roman writers of the period.

3. Yet some notice of this event is the more to be expected, inasmuch as the ἀπογραφή in question covered the whole empire; the restriction of its terms ("the whole earth" or land) to Palestine being altogether arbitrary.

4. In a Roman "’census" the subjects were assessed at their actual residences; a journey to the family seat could only be requisite on the supposition of a Jewish genealogical registry. 5. As wives were in no case required to repair to the assessors, Mary must have undertaken unnecessarily a journey to Bethlehem, and a stay there was harassing in her condition. Some of these objections were canvassed by Paulus (in his Comment. in loc.); Tholuck (Glaubwürdigk. d. evang. Gesch. p. 188 sq.), Huschke (ut sup.), and others have pretty effectually answered them all. They may mostly be obviated by simply and naturally assuming that this was a registration instituted indeed by the Roman emperor, but executed in accordance with the local usages (see Strong’s Harmony of the Gospels, notes to § 8). SEE CYRENIUS.

In the first place, an ἀπογραφή was properly only an enrolment of the inhabitants, which may have been set on foot for statistical purposes, in order to obtain a complete account of the population, perhaps as a basis for a levy of troops from this as a subject territory. The emperor Augustus caused such a roll or abstract to be made out ("breviarium totius imperil," Suetonius, Octav. 101), which included an account of the provincial allies ("quantum sociorum in armis," Tacitus, Annal. 1:11), and from this Palestine could not well have been excepted. The ordering of such a register was not inconsistent with the political relations of Herod (as thought by Hoven, Otia liter. 2:27 sq.), since he was himself but a dependent monarch; and as the word in question has usually the sense of a list with a view to assessment, the probability of such a taxation in this instance can certainly not be denied. Similar examples are by no means wanting in modern times among dependent countries. Moreover, Herod was so subject to the rule of Augustus that he did not even assume to judge two of his own sons, but referred the trial to the emperor (Josephus, Ant. 16:4, 1; con p. 17:5, 8); and he, in fact, submitted to an oath of allegiance to the emperor, which the Jews were required to take (Ant. 17:2, 4). The latter circumstance may indeed be naturally attributed to the vassalage of a nation, but the former was a voluntary act on the part of Herod, who nevertheless, without such ceremony, executed other members of his family (comp. however, Josephus, Ant. 16:11, 1). At all events, it abundantly appears from Josephus that Augustus, in moments of passion, was capable of resolving to proceed to extremities with Herod (Ant. 16:9, 3); and that, after Herod’s death, he hesitated about transferring the land to the sons of the latter (Ant. 16:11).

There are monographs in Latin on the census of Quirinus by Ammon (Erlang. 1810), Birch (Hafn. 1790), Bornitius (Vitel. 1650), Breithaupt (Helmst. 1737), Deyling (Observv. 2:326 sq.), Hasse (Regiom. 1706), Heumann (Gotting. 1732), Janus (Viteb. 1715; also in Ikenii Thes. 2:424 Eq.), Obrecht (Argentor. 1675), Perizonius (Diss. de Praetorio, s. f.), Pihlmann (Aboe, 1735), Richard (Viteb. 1704; also in Ikenii Thes. 2:434 Eq.), Volborth (Gotting. 175), Wedel (Jen. 1703), Wernsdorf (Viteb. 1693, 1720); in Greek, by Friberg (Abone, 1730); in German, by Kist (Utr. 1791), Pitschmann (Dub. vex. Hist. 1:1-25), Stockmann (Gron. 1756). SEE NATIVITY.

It was a part of the Mosaic law that when the people were numbered, every one, from twenty years old and upwards should give unto the Lord a half shekel as a ransom for his soul, that there might be no plague among them. Exo 30:11-16; Exo 38:25-26. The numbering was an opportunity when flesh might exalt itself as to their numbers collectively, as well as each individual being noticed. But there was to be the recognition that it could only be on the ground of redemption that they could be taken into account by Jehovah. They must be reminded that they belonged to God, Deu 7:6, and must pay a ransom each one for himself.

A census of Israel was taken several times. It comprised the males from twenty years old and upwards, able to go to war.

1. At Sinai in the second month of the second year when they declared their pedigree after their families; there were 603,550, Exo 38:26; Num 1:1-46 (stated in round numbers as 600,000 in Exo 12:37). The Levites from a month old were 22,000. These were taken for the tabernacle service as a redemption for the first-born of Israel whom God claimed; but of the latter there were 273 more than of the Levites, therefore the 273 were redeemed at 5 shekels each. Num 3:39-51.

2. On the plains of Moab, 38 years after, when the number was 601,730, the numbering at that time being needed for the division of the land. The Levites numbered 23,000. Num 26:51; Num 26:62.

3. By David, when there was no need for it, he being moved to it by Satan (being permitted by God, 2Sa 24:1), and which called down the judgement of God on his pride. In 2Sa 24:9 the number is 1,300,000; but in 1Ch 21:5 it is 1,570,000. We read that Joab did not finish the numbering of the people "because there fell wrath for it against Israel," 1Ch 27:24: so that the number in Samuel may be of those actually counted, and that in Chronicles may include an estimate of the districts not canvassed. It is added "neither was the number put in the account of the chronicles of king David." If the above numbers be multiplied by 3.3 the result will give approximately the number of the population.

4. By Solomon, of the strangers that were in the land: they amounted to 153,600. 2Ch 2:17-18.

5. Of those who returned from captivity: there were 42,360. Ezr 2:64. In Ezr 8:1-20, <1754> males are also recorded.

In the N.T. the ’taxing’ under Cyrenius is generally held to be a census: the word is ἀπογραφή, an enrolment or register. Florus the Roman historian says, that a census comprised "every one’s estate, dignity, age, employment, and office;" this occasion may therefore have been only a preliminary to taxing. The Jews were apparently allowed to conduct the census in their own way as to lineage. It has been proved that Cyrenius (Quirinius) was twice governor of Syria, which removes all difficulty as to the date of the census in Luk 2:1-5. The same Greek word is translated ’taxing’ in Act 5:37, when Judas headed an insurrection.

CENSUS.—This English word does not occur in the NT, the Greek term ἀπογραφή being rendered taxing in Authorized Version and enrolment in Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 both in Luk 2:2 and in Act 5:37. In the former case, with which we are mainly concerned, ‘enrolment’ is certainly the better word; for the purpose of the enumeration was apparently not fiscal. That mentioned by Gamaliel, however, was a valuation as well as an enumeration, and it was called ‘the taxing’ with some reason. It was also better known than the other; par excellence it was ‘the census’ because a great tumult arose under Judas of Galilee in connexion with it, which made the occasion famous. That which took place at the time stated by St. Luke was so little known by the period when his Gospel was written, that he thinks it needful to insert a note about its date, lest it should be mistaken for the other. ‘This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.’ This note, however, has been itself a matter of great perplexity, because the date thus indicated does not apparently tally with the ascertained facts of secular history. For the discussion of this intricate question see articles Birth of Christ, Dates, and Quirinius,

The nature of the census of Luk 2:1-3 is a topic of some interest, on which light has been shed by Ramsay in Was Christ born at Bethlehem? (1898). It seems to have been an enrolment by households, such as Kenyon (Classical Review, March 1893), Wilcken, and Viereck have shown was the practice in Egypt. Augustus had a great belief in the proper and systematic enumeration of his subjects, and the reckoning of them by households was a method which was carefully followed every fourteen years in Egypt. Many of the actual census papers have been found in that land in recent times, the earliest as yet discovered referring to the year 20 a.d. (Ramsay, op. cit., Preface, p. x note). This was quite different from the fiscal statistics compiled annually under the direction of the provincial governors of the Roman Empire, papers dealing with which have also been found. The household enrolments took place in cycles of fourteen years, and were dated according to the emperor in whose reign they were carried out. No mention was made in them of the value of property and stock, as in the annual returns, and the only financial purpose they served was to determine who were liable for the poll-tax exacted from all subjects between the ages of fourteen and sixty. This poll-tax was the tribute (κῆνσος) referred to by the Pharisees in the question to Christ as to the lawfulness of payment (Mat 22:17; see art. Tribute) It would seem that in Syria women as well as men were required to pay this tax (Ramsay, op. cit. 147 note); and if that was the case also in Palestine, this fact may possibly explain why, on the first occasion when the enrolment that was the basis of the poll-tax was made, Mary accompanied Joseph to Bethlehem despite her critical condition.

The discovery of the household-enrolment papers in Egypt throws light on the statement of Luk 2:1 ‘there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled.’ ‘All the world’ (πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην) was formerly supposed by some scholars, such as Kitto (Cycl. of Bib. Lit., art. ‘Cyrenius’), to mean merely the whole land of Palestine, so as to escape the difficulty that secular history, so far as then known, was silent as to any general census. The meaning of the phrase cannot be so restricted. It means certainly the whole of the Roman Empire, which in the days of Augustus meant for all practical purposes ‘the inhabited earth.’ Not only was Rome itself included, with all the provinces, whether in Italy or elsewhere, but also those lands which, though having kings of their own, were really under the Roman suzerainty. Such was that portion of Syria under the dominion of Herod the Great.

The silence of history as to such an enumeration as was now to be made is no proof that it did not take place; for of other enumerations to which casual allusion is made by historians, Augustus himself in his record of his achievements makes no mention, except in so far as Roman citizens were concerned. The counting of alien subjects was probably not deemed of sufficient importance to be chronicled. Moreover, the household enrolments which have been traced back in Egypt by extant papers to a.d. 20 suggest at least that there may have been earlier ones in a.d. 6 and b.c. 8, which brings us back to the approximate period to which St. Luke refers. It may here be observed that the Evangelist does not actually say (Luk 2:1), and very likely does not mean, that the intention of Augustus was that one single enumeration should be made of the whole Roman world. The tense of ἁπογράφεσθαι rather signifies that a census of this nature on the household-enrolment principle was to be the practice, this being the first occasion of its being ordered; which precisely tallies with the following verse when rightly rendered, ‘This was the first enrolment made at the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria.’ A fuller discussion of this latter statement is reserved for the article Quirinius.

The enrolment with which we are particularly concerned, then, would be appointed for b.c. 8; but in the case of Herod’s kingdom it was not achieved till about a couple of years later, apparently for reasons which Ramsay has indicated, but which need not here be reproduced. They refer to the strained relations which then existed between Augustus and Herod. When it was made, the usual Roman method of enrolment at the residence of those enumerated was not followed, but one more in consonance with Jewish ideas. The people had often before been numbered by their tribes, and Herod probably judged that, especially on this first occasion of such an enrolment, the use and wont would be more acceptable to his subjects than a method new to them, and would be less likely to arouse resentment or even tumult. The Roman practice was to interfere as little as possible with the usages of the nations which had been subjugated; and therefore we may reckon that the particular method of taking the census would be left to the decision of the ruler of the district. Accordingly it was arranged that the tribal method should be followed, and that in subordination thereto the enrolment should be by persons registering themselves at the place from which the head of the family had sprung. Hence we read that ‘all went to enrol themselves, every one to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, to the city of David, because he was of the house and family of David, to enrol himself with Mary who was betrothed to him’ (Luk 2:3-5). If, as Mat 1:25 leads us to believe, Mary was actually recognized at this period as Joseph’s wife, she would be enumerated as one of his household, whatever her own lineage was; but if St. Luke’s expression ‘betrothed’ is to be pressed, would indicate not merely that the marriage was not publicly known or officially recognized, but that she herself must also have been of the family of David, and as such was enrolled in her own right. It may also be observed that the great gathering of those who claimed to be of ‘the stock of Jesse’ would help to explain how, when Joseph and Mary arrived, ‘there was no room for them in the inn’ (Luk 2:7).

Literature.—Lives of Christ and Commentaries on St. Luke; articles in Bible Dictionaries, as Smith, Kitto, and Hastings; Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? (1898); Zumpt, Das Geburtsjahr Christi (1869); Zahn, art. in Neue kirchl. Ztsch. (1893); Schürer, HJ^{P [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.]} i. ii. 105.

Arthur Pollok Sym.

By: Executive Committee of the Editorial Board., Joseph Jacobs

A numbering of the people. Several cases are given in the Bible. The first mentioned is that in Num. i. (from which the book receives its name), when the males—i.e., men capable of bearing arms—numbered 603,550 at the Exodus. Modern critics, foremost among them Bishop Colenso ("The Pentateuch and Joshua," pt. I. ch. v.), have pointed out the difficulties attached to such a number arising in four generations from the twelve sons of Israel, not to mention the commissariat required for at least four times that number. The numbering was again gone through six months later, according to the account of Num. xxvi.-xxvii., with exactly the same result. On these occasions, the numbering was done indirectly, half a shekel being given to the sanctuary by each person of the proper age, and then the half-shekels, and not the persons, were counted. This expedient, according to the critics, was resorted to by the writer of Numbers owing to the superstition which had arisen against a census through the experience in David's reign. After David had organized his kingdom he found it necessary, for military purposes, to know exactly how many men, of an age suitable for bearing arms, he could depend upon; and he determined to take a census (II Sam. xxiv.). Notwithstanding the remonstrances of Joab, David persisted in carrying out the numbering of the people. It appears to have been a laborious operation, as it took no less than nine months and twenty days to complete it. Unfortunately, the numbers given in the Biblical text arediscrepant; the Book of Samuel giving 800,000 for Israel and 500,000 for Judah, whereas I Chron. xxi. raises the former to 1,100,000 and reduces the latter to 470,000. As these numbers included only the fighting men, they would imply a population of probably 5,000,000 for Israel and 2,000,000 for Judah. The Assyrian practise of counting captives shows that such a census was not uncommon at the time. The figures recorded are, however, regarded by Biblical critics as doubtful for various reasons, apart from the uncertainty of the text, which Budde would emend to 100,000 for Israel and 70,000 for Judah ("S. B. O. T." ad loc.). A pestilence appears to have occurred shortly after the census, and confirmed the people in the superstition, common among primitive nations, against being numbered. In the Biblical text David's action in ordering a census is regarded as sinful.

Census of Quirinius.

It is possible that this objection to being numbered had something to do with the uprising, led by Judas the Galilean, against the census undertaken by Quirinius (Cyrenius) in the years 6-7 (Luke ii. 2; Acts v. 37). This census, or rather the taxation which was the outcome of it, is mentioned by Josephus ("Ant." xviii. 1, § 1); and Luke connects with it the date of the birth of Jesus. But it has been conclusively proved by Schürer ("Gesch." i. 508-543) that such a census could not have been undertaken by a Roman official while Herod was still reigning. No details are known with regard to this census of Quirinius.

In modern civilized states, since the periodical taking of a census has been regarded as a necessary part of public policy, the number of Jews has been determined either by estimate or by actual count—in Hungary, for instance, since 1720; in Prussia, since 1816; and in Poland, since 1825. Custom varies in different countries with regard to the inclusion of the numbers of adherents to the several creeds in the census returns. At one time France included them, but no longer does so. Almost all the British colonies do so, as does Ireland; but England, Scotland, and the United States do not. In consequence, an exact enumeration of the Jewish population of the world is impossible.

Bibliography:

Commentaries on II Sam. xxiv.;

Schürer, as above.

CENSUS.—See Quirinius.

An official enumeration of the people of a country to obtain statistics concerning their ages, occupations, education, and the like. In ancient Rome the census was taken with a view to taxation. In canon law, census means a tax or tribute imposed on a benefice, usually by a bishop and payable to himself. In diocesan and parochial usage it is the enumeration of the faithful, and certain data about their spiritual needs and conditions. A census or enrollment of the people is mentioned several times in the Old Testament and notably in the New Testament (Luke 2), the enrollment of "the whole world" which occasioned the journey of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem wherc Christ was born.

A canonical term variously defined by different writers. Zitelli (Appar. Jur. Eccl.) calls it a real obligation or annual tribute imposed on a pious institute by the bishop and payable to himself or others. Aicher (par. 79) says that it is an offering to be made by a benefice in sign of subjection, or for some exemption or other right conceded to it. Laurentius (III, p. 70) defines it as the obligation of an annual payment in money or kind perpetually imposed upon a benefice. Ferraris (s.v.) considers census as a right of receiving an annual payment from something which is fruitful and on which it is founded. He insists that the census is not the thing itself or the property which affords the tribute, but the right of drawing the annual tribute from it. Other authorities, however, as Von Scherer, seem to consider census to be the property itself or its equivalent in money, viewed as giving to some one a right to draw revenue from it.Census canonically considered must be distinguished from pensio. The latter is the right which a superior concedes to a person of receiving a portion of the revenues of a benefice in the possession of a third party. Later canonists sometimes use the words census and pensio as practically synonymous. A census is called ancient of it is imposed on its benefice at its very foundation and has been approved by the bishop. It is called new if it is placed upon a benefice already erected. According to a canon of the third Council of the Lateran (1179) no one but the pope can impose on a benefice a new census, or increase an ancient one. A census is said to be reservative when a person transfers the property to another, keeping only the right to an annual revenue for himself. It is named consignative when he sells or consigns to another the right to an annual pension from something of which he himself retains the dominion. Such consignative census is reducible to a species of buying and selling, and is treated as such in the decrees of Martin V and Callistus III embodied in the Corpus Juris Canonici.The imposing of a census upon a benefice is considered as equivalent to dismemberment or division, inasmuch as it diminishes the revenues. If the census be perpetual it is looked on as a species of alienation of church property and as such falls under the ecclesiastical laws governing such alienation. Generally the census is imposed by the patron of a new benefice retaining the right to a part of its revenues, or by a bishop requiring that a portion of the income of a church which he incorporates with a monastery be paid to himself, or the census may take the form of a tribute paid to a mother church by one of its daughter establishments which has become independent. The "Liber Censuum Roman&aelig; Ecclesi&aelig;," edited by Fabre and Duschesne (Paris, 1889 sqq.), not only throws light on the subject at issue, but also affords an explanation of many historical events of the Middle Ages.----------------------------------- Laurentius, Institutione Jur. Eccl. (Freiburg, 1903); Ferraris, Bibliotheca (Rome, 1886); Aichner, Compendium Jur. Eccl. (Brixen, 1895). WILLIAM H.W. FANNING Transcribed by M. Donahue The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IIICopyright &#169; 1908 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright &#169; 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

sen´sus. See DAVID; QUIRINIUS.