I Quirinius, Governor of the Jews...

Well, we haven't blogged in a while.  But, I do have something that I can share that takes no effort since I already have it written.  I want to put together a collection of fun Christmas facts to include in the advent book that we read every year, and this is the first one that I've done.  Here goes!

 

Matthew places the birth of Jesus during the reign of Herod the Great (no later than 3 or 4 BC), but Luke says that the taxing that Cesar decreed was first made when Cyrenius (or Quirinius, depending on the version of the Bible you're reading) was governor of Syria (no sooner than 6 AD).  So how do we account for the apparent discrepancy?

Well, things are a little fuzzy, and everybody seems to have their own take on the issue.  First, a little background.  Rome had conquered Samaria, Judea, and Galilee and all of the surrounding areas, but they weren’t made part of the republic, so instead of a governor, these areas had a king who was appointed by and paid tribute to Rome, but who could pretty much do what he wanted, within the bounds that Rome set.  According to Matthew, Herod the Great was the king at this time.  When Herod died, his kingdom was divided among three of his sons: Herod Archelaus (who got Judea, Samaria, and surrounding areas), Philip (who got areas that we’re not really concerned with), and Herod Antipas (who got Galilee and surrounding areas).  Now, Archelaus proved to be a cruel ruler, so a decade later, Rome removed him and annexed his territories.  (Meanwhile, Philip and Antipas retained their tetrarchies, and we read about Antipas later in Jesus’ life).  Archelaus’ territories now became part of Syria, and Cyrenius was made the governor of Syria around that same time.

Now, Cyrenius was commanded to take a census of the people, and Judea, which was now newly annexed, would have been of particular interest.  But clearly, Herod the Great and Cyrenius could not have been contemporary rulers, and even if they were, Cyrenius would have had nothing to do with Judea at the time of Herod. 

So if we had to choose, under whose reign would we place Christ’s birth?  That’s easy: Herod’s.  You see, Luke also mentions John’s birth and places that event during the reign of Herod.  Since John was only six months older than Jesus, Jesus must also have been born during Herod’s reign.  Furthermore, Matthew states very clearly that Joseph took Mary and Jesus into Egypt until Herod died while Luke only mentions Cyrenius passingly in one verse.

But if Jesus was born during Herod’s reign, then Cyrenius wouldn’t be taking a census, so what were Joseph and Mary doing in Bethlehem?  There must have been another census, one that took place before Cyrenius’ census.  Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that the account in Luke should have been translated “this taxing was first made before Cyrenius was governor.”  There is also some evidence to suggest that such a taxing took place.  In fact, according to Elder James E. Talmage, there were three censuses that took place around this time.  This line of reasoning actually makes a great deal of sense.  After all, if there were three censuses that close together, Luke’s audience might have been confused about when Christ’s birth took place, so Luke clarifies that it was the one that happened before Cyrenius was governor.  And since at least a decade would have passed from the first census to Cyrenius’ census, Cyrenius would have been completely justified in taking a new count. 

Of course, there are other explanations, but this one makes the most sense to me.  At any rate, it doesn’t matter because even if we don’t know the exact circumstances, I know that Jesus really was born, and He fulfilled His mission perfectly!