TheCensus of Quirinius was acensus of theRoman province ofJudaea taken in 6 CE, upon its formation, by the governor ofRoman Syria,Publius Sulpicius Quirinius. The census triggered a revolt ofJewish extremists (calledZealots) led byJudas of Galilee.
TheGospel of Luke uses the 6 CE census to datethe birth ofJesus but also cites the time ofHerod the Great (who died between 5 BCE and 1 CE), while theGospel of Matthew only references Herod the Great. Most critical scholars agree that Luke is in error, while some religious scholars have attempted to defend the gospel, sometimes invoking unproven claims.[1]
Herod I (Herod the Great,c. 72 – c. 4 BCE), was a Romanclient king whose territory includedJudea. Upon his death, his kingdom wasdivided into four, each section ruled by a family member. In 6 CE, EmperorAugustus deposedHerod Archelaus, who had ruled the largest section (for a decade according to first-century Roman-Jewish historianJosephus),[2] and converted his territory into theRoman province of Judaea.
In order to install anad valorem property tax in the new province,Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, thelegate (governor) of the province ofRoman Syria starting in 6 CE,[3] was assigned to carry out a census in Judaea. This would record the names of the owners of taxable property, along with its value, for which they would be taxed.[4][5] Josephus states that Quirinius was sent to conduct the census and collect Archelaus's property 37 years after theBattle of Actium (31 BCE).[2] The later historianCassius Dio also recorded 6 CE as the start of Archelaus's exile.[2]
The census triggered a revolt of Jewish extremists (calledZealots) led byJudas of Galilee.[6] (Galilee itself was a separate territory under the rule ofHerod Antipas.) Judas seems to have found the census objectionable because it ran counter to a biblical injunction (the traditional Jewish reading ofExodus 30:12) and because it would lead to taxes paid inheathen coins bearing an image of the emperor.[7]
TheGospel of Matthew placesJesus' birth in the time of Herod I.[8] This is affirmed by theGospel of Luke (1:5–31), but it subsequently correlates the birth with the census (2:1–5):[a]
In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered.Joseph also went from the town ofNazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city ofDavid calledBethlehem, because he was descended from [David]. He went to be registered withMary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child.
Most criticalbiblical scholars agree that the Gospel of Luke is erroneous.[1] Its author seems to have invoked the census as Joseph and Mary's motivation for departing "their own city"[10] of Nazareth, Galilee, for Bethlehem.[11] Additionally, the author may have wished to contrast Joseph and Mary's obedience to the Roman edict with the rebelliousness of the Zealots, and also to finda prophetic fulfilment ofPsalm 87:6: "In the census of the peoples, [princes] will be born there."[11][b][c] (Luke and Matthew also give different accounts of the family's departure from Bethlehem.)[14][d] Catholic priest and biblical scholarJoseph Fitzmyer states:[17]
It is clear that the census is a purely literary device used by him to associate Mary and Joseph, residents of Nazareth, with Bethlehem, the town of David, because he knows of a tradition, also attested in Matthew 2, that Jesus was also born in Bethlehem. He is also aware of a tradition about the birth of Jesus in the days of Herod, as is Matthew; Luke's form of the tradition, unlike Matthew's, tied the birth in a vague way to a time of political disturbance associated with a census.
Scholars point out that there was no single census of the entire Roman Empire under Augustus and the Romans did not directly tax client kingdoms; further, no Roman census required that people travel from their own homes to those of their ancestors. A census of Judaea would not have affected Joseph and his family, who lived in Galilee under a different ruler; the revolt of Judas of Galilee suggests that Rome's direct taxation of Judaea was new at the time.[18] Catholic priest and biblical scholarRaymond E. Brown postulates that Judas's place of origin may have led the author of Luke to think that Galilee was subject to the census.[19][e] Brown also points out that in theActs of the Apostles,Luke the Evangelist (the traditional author ofboth books) dates Judas's census-incited revolt as following the rebellion ofTheudas, which took place four decades later.[19][f][g]
The 2nd-century Christian apologistJustin Martyr claimed, without evidence, that the record of the census was still available and that it showed that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.[22][23] Another Christian apologist,Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 220), suggested that Jesus' family was recorded in a census of Judaea conducted bySentius Saturninus,[24][25] the governor of Syria from 9–7 BCE.[26]
In his 4th-centuryEcclesiastical History,Eusebius dates the census in 3/2 BCE, after Herod's death, but seeming to agree withLuke 3:1 and3:23 that Jesus was "about thirty" in the 15th year of EmperorTiberius's reign.[2]
Some modern scholars have attempted to defend Luke's account,[27][28][29][30] which according to biblical scholarGéza Vermes contradicts historical fact, assuming Luke refers to the Census of Quirinius.[31] Some conservative scholars have generally posited that an earlier census took place, invoking unproven claims. Historian Ralph Martin Novak explains that both Quirinius's career and the names and dates of the governors are well documented and there is no time before 6 CE when Quirinius could have served an earlier term as governor of Syria.[3] Novak points out that such views spring frombiblical inerrancy, the belief that the Bible is without error.[32] Vermes describes attempts to defend the historicity of the biblical birth narratives as "exegetical acrobatics".[31] TheUSCCB states that the various attempts to resolve the difficulties have proved unsuccessful, suggesting that Luke may simply be combining Jesus' birth in Bethlehem with the census for theological reasons, perhaps vaguely remembering that one was conducted by Quirinius.[33]
Several unsubstantiated versions of the two-census hypothesis have been advanced by some conservative scholars.Paul Barnett, bishop and historian, theorizes that a census unrelated to taxation took place before Quirinius's tenure.[27] In a 1984 article for theJournal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS), Wayne Brindle argues that the gospel's translation is ambiguous and thus refers to an earlier census held during Herod the Great's reign, as a result of the turbulent circumstances towards the end of his life; Brindle further argues that Quirinus held administrative power in the Syria region around that time, as part of a dual governorship withGaius Sentius Saturninus, the former holding military and the latter political power.[34] In aPerspectives on Science and Christian Faith article, James A. Nollet asserts that Quirinius served two terms as governor of Syria and took two censuses in Judea, the earlier one being a universal census by Augustus allegedly taken in 2 BCE.[35]Dominican scholar Anthony Giambrone calls for "a more generous interpretation" of Luke to counterAugustan propaganda which purportedly could have been used to obscure a universal census of Roman regions conducted separately over a number of years.[36]
In a 2011 JETS article, John H. Rhoads argues that Josephus's accounts of religious revolts by Judas of Galilee, one shortly after Herod's death and another in 6 CE, were both accidental duplications of an earlier revolt by "Judas son of theSepphorean", whose execution Herod ordered. In the earliest account, the high priest is deposed and replaced by a Joazar, who is deposed once or twice in each of the other two stories.[2]
Additionally, some writers state that in ancient literature, strict chronology is secondary to narrative coherence, and thus events could be excusably reordered.[37][38] HistorianDavid Armitage claimsLuke 3 as an example because it gives an overview ofJohn the Baptist's ministry up to his imprisonment before discussing hisbaptism of Jesus. Armitage argues that Luke refers to the Census of Quirinius as a similar anachronistic digression,flashing years forward from the nativity before returning to it,[39][h] with the confusion ostensibly stemming from the author's "overly generous estimation of the historical literacy of his readers".[39]
More recently, theSoutheastern Baptist Theological Seminary (SEBTS) defended the gospel by asserting that the Greek word usually translated asfirst (πρώτη, prote) should be translated asbefore, with Luke thus mentioning the census only as a chronological point of reference,[40] despite explicating the family's registration. (Incidentally, Augustus held a census in 8 BCE—two years before Jesus' birth according to the SEBTS.)[40][41]
Footnotes
The child grew and was strengthened in spirit, and he was in the wilderness until the day of his public appearance to Israel. As it happens, it was during that time that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus to register all the Roman world (this was the first registration, when Quirinius was governor of Syria), and everyone went – each into their own town – to be registered. Joseph also went up: out of Galilee, away from the town of Nazareth, into Judea, to David's town (which is called Bethlehem) because he was from the house and family of David; he went to be registered with Mary (she who was his betrothed when she was pregnant).
Now, it transpired that the days were completed for her to give birth when they were in that place, and she gave birth to her firstborn son ...
Citations