Unveiling the Paradox: Decoding the Census of Quirinus and the contradictions within the Jesus Birth Narratives
Exploring the Census of Quirinius - A Perplexing Contradiction Plaguing Christian Fundamentalists and Apologetics. Is Harmonization possible? In this I argue Harmonization is impossible.
The birth narratives of Jesus as depicted in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke present us with interesting differences in this momentous event. While both accounts share common elements, such as the involvement of Mary and Joseph, angelic visitations, they offer distinct details when it comes to the specific timeframe. Matthew connects the birth to the reign of King Herod, while Luke places it within the context of the census conducted by Quirinius.
Luke’s account:
Luke 2:1–3 reads:
[1] In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered.
[2] This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.
[3] All went to their own towns to be registered.
In Luke 2:1-3, we find the historical backdrop of Jesus' birth. Emperor Augustus issued a decree for a registration of all people. This registration, the first of its kind, occurred while Quirinius was governor of Syria. As a result, individuals had to go to their own towns for the registration process. This sets the stage for Mary and Joseph's journey to Bethlehem, fulfilling the registration requirement.
Matthew’s account:
Matthew 2:1 reads:
[1] ] Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem
In Matthew 2:1, Matthew writes that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea during the reign of King Herod (Herod the Great c. 72 BCE – c. 4 BCE).
Preface:
In this post, we will delve into two significant issues of the two birth narratives of Jesus: the timing of his birth & The problem of Luke’s census. Please notethat these narratives contain numerous contradictions beyond these two. However, for the sake of brevity, we will focus solely on this aspect.
The Contradiction:
The two issues can be summed up as:
1. The census described by Luke has no historical record or plausible reason supporting its even possible.
2. There is no historical record indicating that Quirinius held the position of governor of Syria during the time of Herod the Great.
The census described by Luke has no historical record or plausible reason supporting its even possible.
Censuses held during that era were primarily intended for taxation purposes, while historical accounts do mention the occurrence of censuses throughout the Roman Empire during that period, there is no substantiated evidence to support the notion that individuals were required to undertake journeys to their ancestral hometowns specifically for the purpose of being counted.
I argue that Rome required their subjects to return to their homes for censuses and enrollment.
How do we know this?
I propose this is supported by a greek papyrus discovered in 1905 which describes a roman census edict from 104 A.D:
Gaius Vibius Maximus, the Prefect of Egypt, declares:
The census by household having begun, it is essential that all those who are away from their nomes be summoned to return to their own hearths so that they may perform the customary business of registration and apply themselves to the cultivation which concerns them. Knowing, however, that some of the people from the countryside are required by our city, I desire all those who think they have a satisfactory reason for remaining here to register themselves before . . . Festus, the Calvalry Commander, whom I have appointed for this purpose, from whom those who have shown their presence to be necessary shall receive signed permits in accordance with this edict up to the 30th of the present month E . . .1
- Census decree issued in A.D. 104 in the village of Bacchus, Egypt. courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum Library
To summarize, it was crucial for individuals to be present in their hometowns when the government conducted the census and collected taxes. Being out during this time would hinder people from fulfilling their responsiblities, this edict clearly shows people under the rule of Rome had to be in their homes so they could be accounted for.
To conclude, any form of registration would have required Joseph and Mary to go return back to the home they currently reside in, ruling out the possibility of the census described in Luke.
So why did Luke write that Joseph and Mary return to their ancestral homes? 2
Simply put Luke employed this census as a literary device to bring Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem temporarily, thus enabling Jesus to be born in Bethlehem allowing him to still be born in Bethlehem, while also allowing Jesus to be “Jesus of Nazareth”.
There is no historical record indicating that Quirinius held the position of governor of Syria during the time of Herod the Great.
The second issue is that there is no record showcasing that Quirinius held the position of governor of Syria, during the reign of Herod the Great, and I will argue this is impossible for Quirinius to be governor at the same time during Herod the Great’s rule.
While a census was conducted by Quirinius of Syria and Judea for tax reasons, this was AFTER exile of Herod Archelaus (23 BC – c. AD 18), who took rule AFTER King Herod’s death (d. 4 BC), and Josepheus mentioned that this happened in 6-7 AD 3, Another thing to know is that the reason why Herod Archelaus was exiled was because the after the ascension of Herod Archelaus, Herod became sick, and Judas of Galilee incited a revolt, causing Quirinius to intervene4, Judas of Galilee was mentioned by the writer of Luke, describing him as the leader of the revolt5.
With all of this in mind, Luke’s chronology is still out of order not only by date, but also the order of events, thus ruling out any possible harmonization between Matthew and Luke.
Responses:
When confronted with this issue, many apologists and fundamentalists propose various solutions in an attempt to reconcile the contradictions. In the following analysis, I will critically evaluate and dismantle two of these proposed explanations.
Sentius Saturninus
Some fundamentalists have proposed that the name “Quirnius” is actaully referring to Sentius Saturninus to amend these contradictions. This idea is based on the statement by Tertullian where he says the following:
There is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ. 6
The proposal suggests that an early scribe mistakenly inferred that Luke was referring to the widely known census conducted by Quirinius in 6-7 AD. As a result, they altered the original name Saturninus to Quirinius. This hypothesis lacks substantial support since Saturninus held power during 9-6 BC, which contradicts Tertullian's dating of Jesus' birth in 3 BC, specifically in the forty-first year of Augustus.
Another thing to mention is simply, there is no scriptural basis for this hypothesis.
Quirnius is not a governer?
Another common notion is that Luke did not mean Quirinius is a “governer” rather he held some sort of special responsibility that involved, among other duties, the conduct of a census.
For this, I will not be writing, rather I will allow Wayne Brindle to refute this notion in his excellent paper (which helped me a lot!). Brindle writes the following:
Another view holds that Luke 2:2 does not state that Quirinius was "governor" of Syria at the time of the census but only that he had a position of special responsibility that involved, among other duties, the conduct of a census.7 It is alleged that Luke uses the word translated "governor" in 2:2 to refer also to a guide, auxiliary, prefect, procurator, or provincial legate (Luke 20:20; 23:4: Acts 7:10; 14:12; 15:22). This view proposes a special commission from Augustus—but if so, why is he called the ruler "of Syria"? Ogg contends that the phrase is "so definite and unambiguous that by it only the regular governor of the province of Syria can be meant."8
Concluding Remarks:
First and foremost, I would like to thank the viewer for bearing with me as this is my first time writing at all. Second, I would like to apologize for only refuting two explainations in this post, I will later write another post about this topic and go much more indepth, ʾIn shāʾ Allāh.
Lastly, if anyone has questions or objections to this post, write it in the comments, or send me an email!
اللهم اهدِنا جميعًا وبارك الله في المسلمين.
Allahumma ihdinā jamīʿan wa bārik Allāh fī al-muslimīn.
May Allāh guide us all and May Allāh bless the muslimīn.
Hunt, A. S. and C. C. Edgar. Select Papyri. Vol. 2: Non-Literary Papyri; Public Documents. Loeb Classical Library, 282. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1934.
Luke 2:4
Josephus, Antiquities 17.13.5 (17:354); 18.1.1 (18:1–2).
Raymond Brown, An Adult Christ at Christmas: Essays on the Three Biblical Christmas Stories, Matthew 2 and Luke 2 by Raymond E. Brown (Liturgical Press, 1978), page 17.
Acts 5:37
Tertullian Adv. Marc. 4.19.
Hayles, "Census" (March 1974) 29.
Ogg, "Question" 232.
Contact me let's discuss