P
patrick457
Guest
I think the conclusions presented in this book (Armand Puig i Tàrrech’s Jesus: An Uncommon Journey: Studies on the Historical Jesus, pp. 92-93) sum up a rather interesting theory.
It seems probable that in the year 7/6 BCE, with Sentius Saturninus as governor of Syria, under the reign of King Herod, a census was decreed by the king that affected all his subjects. It was a census that was approve and even inspired by Augustus, who had just decreed a census of the Roman citizens throughout the Empire (reported in Lk. 2.1). Herod was to carry out this census, like the previous one (20/19 BCE), in accordance with Jewish customs (more judaico) and not after the fashion of the Roman provincial censuses (AJ 15.368). For this reason, Herod’s census, unlike Quirinius’ Roman provincial census twelve years later (6 CE), did not require a tax declaration or valuation of property and thus did not see the later application of a tributum soli [land tax]. The census affected all adults, men and women, between 12/14 and 65 years old, and had both political (an oath of loyalty to Augustus and the king) and fiscal aims (payment of the annual, individual and equal tributum capitis [poll tax]). In accordance with Jewish traditional customs, this census of Herod’s left open the possibility to be registered either in the place of one’s residence or of the ancestry of the person who had to be registered. It is not excessive then, either in terms of history or philology, to distinguish between two censuses in Lk. 2.2: “the first” (Herod’s census, in 7/6 BCE) and the census carried out “when Quirinius was governor of Syria” (6 CE).
Jesus’ parents, Joseph and Mary, lived in Nazareth of Galilee, but without cohabiting as a married couple. Joseph decided to travel to Bethlehem for Herod’s census, in accordance with the Jewish customs for censuses (Lk. 2.3). Joseph decided against Nazareth and chose Bethlehem from where his family had emigrated (Lk. 2.4). This choice is understandable in the case of a man such as he, a pious Jew belonging to the lineage of David, the great king of Israel. However, the real reason for his decision can be seen in the anomalous social situation in which he and Mary found themselves - both the subject of gossip in Nazareth. Mary, who was still betrothed to Joseph (without ever having lived under the same roof together), was pregnant (Lk. 2.5). Joseph, however, did not divorce Mary and maintained the marriage agreement (Mt. 1.19, 24). Nonetheless, the strong social pressures and malicious doubts over the identity of the child’s father were decisive in leading to Joseph and Mary’s leaving Nazareth, with the intention being for Mary to have the child in Bethlehem - a more favourable setting. …]
I think what people most often forget is that there is a possibility (though to be fair, we have no concrete historical evidence for or against this) that Jesus was seen by people around Him as a bastard son or mamzer.
It seems probable that in the year 7/6 BCE, with Sentius Saturninus as governor of Syria, under the reign of King Herod, a census was decreed by the king that affected all his subjects. It was a census that was approve and even inspired by Augustus, who had just decreed a census of the Roman citizens throughout the Empire (reported in Lk. 2.1). Herod was to carry out this census, like the previous one (20/19 BCE), in accordance with Jewish customs (more judaico) and not after the fashion of the Roman provincial censuses (AJ 15.368). For this reason, Herod’s census, unlike Quirinius’ Roman provincial census twelve years later (6 CE), did not require a tax declaration or valuation of property and thus did not see the later application of a tributum soli [land tax]. The census affected all adults, men and women, between 12/14 and 65 years old, and had both political (an oath of loyalty to Augustus and the king) and fiscal aims (payment of the annual, individual and equal tributum capitis [poll tax]). In accordance with Jewish traditional customs, this census of Herod’s left open the possibility to be registered either in the place of one’s residence or of the ancestry of the person who had to be registered. It is not excessive then, either in terms of history or philology, to distinguish between two censuses in Lk. 2.2: “the first” (Herod’s census, in 7/6 BCE) and the census carried out “when Quirinius was governor of Syria” (6 CE).
Jesus’ parents, Joseph and Mary, lived in Nazareth of Galilee, but without cohabiting as a married couple. Joseph decided to travel to Bethlehem for Herod’s census, in accordance with the Jewish customs for censuses (Lk. 2.3). Joseph decided against Nazareth and chose Bethlehem from where his family had emigrated (Lk. 2.4). This choice is understandable in the case of a man such as he, a pious Jew belonging to the lineage of David, the great king of Israel. However, the real reason for his decision can be seen in the anomalous social situation in which he and Mary found themselves - both the subject of gossip in Nazareth. Mary, who was still betrothed to Joseph (without ever having lived under the same roof together), was pregnant (Lk. 2.5). Joseph, however, did not divorce Mary and maintained the marriage agreement (Mt. 1.19, 24). Nonetheless, the strong social pressures and malicious doubts over the identity of the child’s father were decisive in leading to Joseph and Mary’s leaving Nazareth, with the intention being for Mary to have the child in Bethlehem - a more favourable setting. …]
I think what people most often forget is that there is a possibility (though to be fair, we have no concrete historical evidence for or against this) that Jesus was seen by people around Him as a bastard son or mamzer.