Posts
For my write-up today of The Cambridge History of Judaism, Volume Three: The Early Roman Period, I will blog about some items from Emilio Gabba's "The social, economic, and political history of Palestine 63 BCE-CE 70".
I'll start with something that Gabba says on pages 132-133:
"The deposition of Archelaus and the reduction of Judaea to a Roman province in CE 6 were the occasion of rebellious disturbances which seem to have been particularly serious. P. Sulpicius Quirinius, the governor of Syria, was sent into Judaea to liquidate the possessions of Archelaus and to organize a census of the inhabitants of the new province, and of their property. This was a normal procedure for the Roman administration, and a necessary precondition for the imposition of the capitation tax. The census ordered by the Romans aroused great emotion in the former ethnarchy, which could only partially be contained. There were outbreaks of revolt. The specifically religious motive, which seems to have been predominant and short-lived, of the illegality of the census, was closely associated with a second motive of a more political nature. The census and the consequent capitation tax were seen as proofs of the loss of independence and enslavement to the foreigner."
This information about the census in 6 C.E. is believed by many scholars to contradict what Luke 2:1-5 says about the census. Here is the passage in the KJV:
"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. 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:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child."
In this post, I will present my understanding of the contradictions that scholars have identified, and I'm open to correction on these points. I will not, however, rewrite my post if I am found to be in error, but I will refer my readers to any comments that correct me.
The problem is essentially that the census under Quirinius (or Cyrenius) took place in 6 C.E., which is when the Romans assumed direct control of Judea, which consisted of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. Before that, Judea (meaning those three areas) was a client-state of Rome: it was ruled by a king, and it paid tribute to the Romans. Archelaus was the client-king of Judea who was removed by the Romans in 6 C.E., for Jews were discontent with his rule, which was quite brutal. The Romans were concerned about this internal conflict under Archelaus, and so they decided to remove him and take control of Judea themselves. Quirinius became legate of Syria and was ordered to conduct a census of Judea for the purpose of taxation. This was controversial because the Judeans resented the Romans taking control of Judea and directly collecting taxes from them.
This direct control by the Romans applied to Judea, but not to Galilee, which was still ruled by a client-king, Herod Antipas. Again, client-states paid tribute to Rome. The argument of many scholars is that the Romans neither directly ruled client-states, nor collected taxes from the people of them (though the client-king would presumably collect taxes to pay the tribute to the Romans). The Romans simply collected tribute from the client-states, while somebody else ruled them.
To go a little further back in time, Herod the Great ruled as the client-king over Judea, Galilee, and other areas until his death in 4 B.C.E. According to Matthew 2, Herod was the one who ruled when Jesus was born. After his death, the Romans put Archelaus over Judea, Herod Antipas over Galilee, and Philip over some other areas. In 6 C.E., the Romans took over Judea and ruled it directly.
The contradiction between these elements of history and the Bible is that the census under Quirinius took place in 6 C.E., which was after the time of Herod the Great, when Matthew 2 says that Jesus was born. And, in 6 C.E., why would Joseph need to go from Galilee to be part of a census that the Romans were imposing on Judea? Rome did not impose direct taxation on the inhabitants of Galilee, for that was a client-state, which merely paid tribute.
But some scholars have brought into the discussion other considerations. A conservative Christian friend of mine a while back showed me an article that offered an alternative take on the census, but I forgot who the author was. Gabba appears to refer to that author. In a footnote on page 133, Gabba states: "According to Heichelheim, 'Roman Syria', pp. 161-2 there already had been earlier censuses in the time of Herod." The reference is F.M. Heichelheim, "Roman Syria," in An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, ed. T. Frank (Baltimore, 1938).
I'll stop here. Some of what I wrote may be old news to many of you, but I wrote this post so I could consolidate the information for myself. Also, I now have the Heichelheim reference, which I can check out when I feel like doing so.
