Dick Harfield's over statement on Mary and Joseph

 

This is Dick Harfield's answer to the question: Why did Mary and Joseph have to go to Bethlehem for the census?

Luke’s Gospel said that Joseph had to go to Bethlehem for the census of Quirinius “because he was of the house and lineage of David”. There would have been no reason for Mary to go there, as women were not counted in censuses.

The reason for Joseph going to Bethlehem is unclear, since the census was applied only to establish to expected taxes from the newly acquired Roman province of Judea; as a resident of Galilee, Joseph would not have been assessed for taxes in what was effectively a foreign country. Uta Ranke-Heinemann says, in Putting Away Childish Things:

There would have been no such journey unless Joseph had owned property in Bethlehem. If he had no real estate, as an inhabitant of Galilee under the tetrarch Herod Antipas, he would not have been affected by the order of the Syrian governor Quirinius.

Joseph owned no property in Bethlehem. In that case he would have been a well-to-do man and could have seen to it that the child was born at the house of a tenant farmer or manager instead of in a manger.

If Mary's offering of pigeons is not just another fantasy of the Gospel writer, then it is clear proof of how poor the couple was. In any case, we can not have Joseph, on the one hand, owning property in Bethlehem to justify his trip there and, on the other hand, Mary offering the sacrifice prescribed for the poor.

THIS IS A RESPONSE TO DICK HARFIELD'S ANSWER

1. Valid Points in the Opinion

The opinion correctly identifies several historical contradictions between Roman practices and Luke's narrative:

• Jurisdictional Boundaries: The census of Quirinius historically occurred in 6–7 AD after Rome deposed Archelaus (Herod the Great's son) and turned Judea into a direct Roman province. Because Galilee remained an independent client tetrarchy ruled by Herod Antipas, a resident of Nazareth (Galilee) would legally have no reason to travel to Bethlehem (Judea) to register for a Judean tax assessment. 
• The Ancestral Home Paradox: Ranke-Heinemann accurately notes that Roman censuses required subjects to register where they currently lived or owned income-generating property. Requiring an entire population to travel to the cities of ancestors who lived a thousand years prior (like King David) would cause economic and administrative chaos. 
• The Poverty Contrast: The argument concerning Mary’s offering is textually accurate. In Luke 2:24, the couple offers a sacrifice of "a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons." According to Leviticus 12:8, this specific concession was strictly reserved for families too poor to afford a lamb. Ranke-Heinemann's point holds logic: Joseph could not concurrently be a wealthy landholder in Bethlehem and legally qualify for the poverty exemption at the temple. 

---

2. Overstatements or Disputed Points

While the logical framework of the opinion is strong, a few specific assertions are debated by historians:

• "Women were not counted in censuses": This is historically incorrect. Roman provincial censuses frequently required women, children, and even enslaved individuals to be registered. Property, poll taxes (tributum capitis), and family numbers were tracked together. If Luke's scenario were true, Mary could have been required to register, though she would not have needed to travel if she didn't own separate land. 
• The Dichotomy of Property vs. Manger: Ranke-Heinemann implies that if Joseph owned property, he would have had a tenant farmer with an available room. However, some historical apologists suggest that a person could own a small piece of ancestral land (such as a shared family plot) without being wealthy enough to secure premium lodging during a crowded provincial influx.

---

3. Alternative Scholarly Counter-Arguments

Defenders of Luke's historical accuracy (often referred to as harmonisation or apologetics) look for alternative explanations to address these contradictions:

• The Meaning of "First": Some scholars argue that Luke 2:2 should be translated as "This census took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria". This theory suggests Luke was referencing an earlier, undocumented census under Herod the Great, which might have accommodated Jewish tribal customs (returning to ancestral lands) to appease local sensitivities. 
• Literary Device vs. Strict History: Mainstream critical scholars (such as Raymond E. Brown in The Birth of the Messiah) conclude that Luke used the census primarily as a theological and literary framework. In this view, Luke needed a narrative mechanism to move a family known to be from Nazareth to Bethlehem so the birth could fulfil the messianic prophecy of Micah 5:2. 

Summary Verdict

The provided opinion is historically and logically robust regarding Roman law, provincial boundaries, and the socioeconomic status of Jesus' family. Apart from a minor error regarding how women were counted, the critique successfully highlights the core reasons why the majority of secular historians view the journey to Bethlehem as a theological narrative device rather than a literal administrative event.