The Census of Quirinius

[solicitr]

For those wanting a quick background on the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius


A notion: what if the "Herod" of the Nativity narrative was not Herod the Great at all, but his son Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee 6-39 CE? After all, the "Herod" of the Passion is definitely he.

Suppose for a moment that the Census in Luke really was that of 6 CE, which according to Josephus was prompted precisely because Antipas' brother Herod Archelaus had just been fired as Tetrarch of Judea and his territory appended to Syria Province. After all, no Roman magistrate would have held imperium in Galilee so long as Antipas ruled, to conduct a census or do anything else.

Much attention has been focused at the oddity in Luke, where Joseph supposedly went to Bethlehem because that was where his ancestors had come from. Or, as Luke puts it, "for he was of the House of David." This just wasn't a Roman practice; it looks bizarre on the face of it. And no Nazarene, as a Galilean, would have been subject to anything the Romans were doing down in Judea anyway. But what if Joseph was "of the House of David," in fact a native of Bethlehem and citizen of Judea, who happened to be resident in Nazareth? If he wasn't Antipas' subject, then he was a (brand-new) Roman subject, and subject to Quirinius' census. Or it would seem to follow.

The Romans after all paid attention to citizenship in matters of jurisdiction. During the Passion Pilate handed Jesus over to Antipas, based on his Galilean citizenship. Didn't work, and Pilate still had subject-matter jurisdiction over acts committed in Jerusalem, but the recognition of legal status was nonetheless there.

[Lalaith]

It's an interesting thought. What do you think the implications would be?

[solicitr]

Well, the most substantial consequence would be moving the Nativity up to 6 CE from its traditional date of 4-2 BCE. This in turn would move the ministry and Passion hard up against the terminus a quem of 36 CE, the year in which Pilate was fired and recalled in disgrace, under Caligula rather than Tiberius. (Interesting if there were a connection between them, no?)

EDIT: No, Tiberius was still Emperor in 36. Very interestingly, Caiaphas was fired as High Priest in 36 as well. Hmmm.

A secondary effect would be a contradiction of Matthew which says the family returned from Egypt when Herod died, thus unmistakably Herod I. But then the whole massacre of the innocents/flight into Egypt business in Matthew is not IMHO to be taken as any more than folk-legend anyway.