First, what was this census that the evangelist mentions as taking place throughout the whole earth? Second, how could it be executed in Judea under Augustus's orders while Herod was its king? Third, how could Quirinius, who became governor of Syria, conduct the census while Herod and his son Archelaus were no longer in power? Fourth, why does Josephus remain silent about this census?
Regarding the census at the conclusion of Herod’s reign, whether it involved counting people or also included the assessment of taxes, as typical of Roman censuses, it did not encompass the entire earth. Rather, it refers specifically to the subjects of the Roman Empire and its dependencies. Although Suetonius notes several censuses during Augustus's rule, they were confined to Roman citizens. In fact, historical evidence shows that none of these censuses aligns with the timing of Christ's birth. It is unlikely that historians overlooked such a widespread census of all subjects within the Roman Empire, including those in Judea. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that the census was limited to Judea, which does not contradict the Evangelist's statement about it taking place across the whole land, as the term 'oikoumenē' is sometimes used in a broader context to denote the Roman Empire or even specifically Judea itself, as seen in both Luke (Acts 11:28) and Josephus (Antiquities 8:13, 5). The phrase employed by the Evangelist likely indicates that all areas of Judea, even Galilee where Josephus resided, were included in this census, given that Judea's territories were later partitioned into several independent regions.
The existence of a king in Judea did not negate the Roman emperor's authority to order a census in that region. The Romans maintained the Jews in a state of complete subordination even while they allowed Herod to rule. Herod had to seek the emperor's approval for any decisions regarding his throne and, shortly before his death, paid tribute to the emperor. This is illustrated by the fact that Archelaus's territories were subjected to imperial management amid widespread unrest and that they were alleviated by the emperor from a quarter of the tax burden, which did not flow to Archelaus. Josephus notes that the subjugation of the Jewish people began with Pompey's arrival in Judea, and Herod, being friend to Antony, was also obliged to pay tribute to him. Given these conditions, it is entirely feasible that a census commanded by the Roman emperor could have been conducted in Herod's realm near the end of his reign, whether it was strictly a tax assessment or a simple counting of the Jewish population.
The phrase "this census was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria" has been subject to various interpretations. One possible interpretation suggests substituting 'prōtē' for 'proteron' (see John 1:15) which would imply the census occurred prior to the one Quirinius conducted as governor of Syria. Another view suggests it was Quirinius's first census during his governorship, indicated to distinguish it from another census he oversaw, pointed out in Acts 5:37. However, this interpretation faces several objections, particularly concerning the syntax of the phrase and the lack of supporting evidence for Quirinius executing both censuses.
To explore why Josephus does not mention this census, we must briefly reflect on the final years of Herod's rule. This era was marked by conflict with the Arabian king Hovod, who failed to return a debt owed to Herod. Furthermore, Herod faced attacks from Arabian robbers, which elicited his request for recompense. Despite the agreements made through Roman officials, including a demand for the return of both the captured subjects and the debt owed, the conditions were not met, and subsequently, Herod retaliated, leading to significant consequences for both kingdoms amidst political instability.
This context reveals how the oath cited by Josephus aligns with the census referenced by Luke, as it signifies allegiances and submission to Roman authority, effectively encapsulating both the wider aspirations of the power dynamics at play during the Messiah's birth and the intense fervor within Jerusalem as the anticipation of a new king stirred dramatic upheaval. As we trace parallel narratives, the swift spread of news regarding the births of John and Jesus, coupled with Herod's extreme reactions, illustrates the profound implications and expectations surrounding the coming of the Messiah as foretold in prophecy.
In reflecting upon the dating of Jesus’ birth, we can determine the timeframe through various means: first, by the chronological details provided by the Evangelists concerning the event itself; second, by understanding the timeline of Jesus’ baptism; and third, by examining the period of His crucifixion. Specifically, it is stated that Jesus was born during Herod’s reign, shortly before his demise, indicated by Herod’s orders to kill infants in Bethlehem, suggesting the Messiah was likely no older than two years. The timeline becomes clearer when we consider John's ministry commencing in the 15th year of Tiberius, leading us to approximate Jesus’ baptism around the age of thirty. Furthermore, using Daniel's prophecy regarding the "Seventy Weeks," we can derive the year of Jesus’ crucifixion and, consequently, the timeline surrounding His life and ministry.
Ultimately, we arrive at multiple chronological frameworks proposed by early Church fathers, with variations in the year attributed to Jesus' birth primarily due to differing methods of reckoning time. This illustrates the complexities inherent in historical chronology, yet the underlying agreement among these calculations aligns closely, reinforcing the narrative of Jesus’ birth as a pivotal moment in history.
THEOSIS