Historical Timeline of Jesus’ Birth in Luke and the Quirinius Dilemma

Johnathan MS Pearce an atheist in his dialogue with Dave Armstrong gives ways hew believes would reconcile Luke in his comments on the proposed discrepancy between Luke 2:1-2 and Matthew 2:1-4 and the census of Quirinius and Herod. He states, “The Christian is left with several options: either question the date that Herod died, or that the census took place, or claim that Quirinius knocked around twice in the area, or had two censuses.” (Reply to Atheist JMS Pearce: Herod’s Death & Alleged “Contradictions)

Introduction

In Luke 2:2, we read, “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria”. These words have caused many to assume that the Christian claim to the inerrancy of scripture cannot be true. For here it fails the test. They claim that the census of Quirinius would have occurred in A.D. 6 after he became governor of Syria, which is years out of range for the most accepted dates for the birth of Jesus. When trying to pinpoint the date of Jesus’ birth, we have both more precise dates and dates that are vague. This leaves us with ranges and probabilities rather than a precise date that everyone can agree on. But what we must prove is not a precise date but given the information we have could Luke’s writing about Quirinius have been accurate. In this writing, we will look at some of the possible solutions to show that Luke most likely documented history accurately and fits within what we know from Josephus’ writing. In this writing, I will not argue for a specific date or solution to this question but will show possible ways that would allow Luke to be consistent with the data that we have at this point as he is throughout his writing.

Dating Jesus’s Birth

Scholars use textual evidence within the Gospels and historical references outside the Bible to estimate the date of the birth of Jesus. It is noted that in Matthew, Herod on finding out about the birth of the King of the Jews, ascertained when the star appeared and killed all the boys in Bethlehem two years or younger. Since Herod would have been conservative in trying to destroy his rival, Jesus would have been born no more than two years before this event. Luke, in his Gospel, claims that John the Baptist began his ministry in “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar” (Luke 3:1-2). We don’t know how long John ministered before Jesus was baptized. And we do not know the exact age of Jesus when he started his ministry, but we know that he was “about thirty years of age”. So, subtracting the “about 30 years” from the 15^th year of Tiberius Caesar helps to narrow down the time frame of the birth of Jesus. Another textual evidence, though more controversial is Luke 2:1-2 which discusses a census that was taken and Quirinius being in Syria. So, it is indicators like these that help us to get a range of when events could have occurred, but getting the exact dating of Jesus’ birth is not as easy.

For example, with “the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar”, when is a reign judged to begin? If a reign starts part way through a year, what year do you count as the first year? Or what about if there is a period of co-regency? For Jesus’ age when starting his ministry, what does “about 30” mean? How long after John started his ministry did Jesus’s ministry begin? How long before Herod’s death did the Magi come to Jerusalem? Based on the data through the range of years, people estimate for Jesus’s birth is 8 B.C. – 1 A.D, with the most likely candidates being 6-4 B.C, 3-1 B.C.

Dates Historically Proposed

Historically the most popular date options for Jesus’ birth have been 6-4 B.C., 3/2 B.C, and 1 B.C. Below is a chart adapted from Jack Finegan’s Handbook of Biblical Chronology from the article What year was Jesus born? The answer may surprise you by Jimmy Akin. The dates of 3/2 B.C. fit with what many of the early church fathers believed was the date of Jesus’ birth. The date 1 B.C. was made popular through Dionysius Exiguus’ calculations and his popularizing of the B.C./A.D. calendar system.

In the 1800s a German scholar Emil Schürer looked at the fact that Herod died in between a lunar eclipse and the Passover. He found that there had been a lunar eclipse in 4 B.C. that was visible from Jerusalem and so proposed 4 B.C. as the date of Herod’s death. Since Mathew has Jesus being born before Herod’s death and the fact that Matthew says he killed the boys in Bethlehem two years and younger Jesus’ birth was estimated to be around 6-4 B.C. His work on this and his dating has been popular thought in modern times.

15^th year of Tiberius’ reign

We will first look at Luke’s dating of the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry which he ties in with the 15^th year of Tiberius’ reign and how it ties into the timing for Jesus’ birth. In Luke 3:1-2 we read,

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness. (Luke 3:1-2, ESV)

Augustus the Caesar prior to Tiberius died on August 19^th, A.D. 14, however, Tiberius co-ruled with Augustus as an equal starting in A.D. 12. So, depending on which of these points Luke saw as the starting point of Tiberius’s reign we are looking at a range of somewhere near A.D. 26 or A.D. 29 for the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist. If we assume that Jesus’ ministry started immediately after the start of John’s ministry when he was about “about 30 years” and with that assumption subtract 30 years from those dates, we are left with an approximate date of 6-4 B.C. and 3/2 B.C. for Jesus’ birth, respectively. Because of the room for Jesus’ age and not knowing how long in between the dates John and Jesus started their ministries, there is room for a range of dates allowing 1 B.C as a valid date for Jesus’ birth based on this information. We will see that these dates also work with the proposed dates for Herod’s death as well. Interestingly, Pilot who is also mentioned came into Judea and Samaria in A.D. 25. He along with the other historical figures listed by Luke also fit within the range of the most likely dates for the birth of Jesus, as well as the start of his ministry.

We can rule out, A.D. 6 timing for Jesus’ birth as some have suggested in order to have it reconcile with Luke’s statement about Quirinius. This would make Jesus 23 years old is not near 30 years and is also younger than 25 years old, the age necessary for someone to start their service as priest (see here). We get the same issue if we attempt to get a later date for Jesus’ birth by assuming the Herod of Luke 1:5 is Archelaus instead of Herod the Great.

So, at this point, we still left with likely ranges of 6-4 B.C and 3/2 B.C with some wiggle room. Next, we will look at Herod’s Death.

Herod’s Death

Because both Mathew and Luke have Herod still alive at the time of the birth of Jesus (Matthew 2:1, Luke 1:5) knowing when he died would give us a date by which Jesus had to have been born. Matthew gives us the account of the Magi visiting Herod in order to find the King of the Jews. Since as we noted earlier Herod would have been conservative in trying to destroy his rival, we can assume that Jesus was born no more than 2 years before the visit from the Magi. Although Mathew does not say how long before the death of Herod the account of the Magi occurred, if we estimate around 30 years before Tiberius’ fifteenth year reign, we get within the range of around two years before Herod’s death. Josephus said that during the time of Herod’s death there was a lunar eclipse (Antiquities 17.6.4) and that Herod died sometime in between this eclipse and the next Passover. If we know which eclipse Josephus is talking about then this would help to provide an anchor date that we could use to help understand the timing of other events. There were only 4 lunar eclipses visible in Jerusalem during this time frame. They are listed in the table below with their attributes.

The eclipse that is most popularly assumed to be associated with Herod’s death in modern times is the 4 B.C. eclipse. The 4 B.C. eclipse on March 12-13^th was not complete, its maximum shadow only being 36%, and occurred late at night near the feast of Purim and was 29 days before the Passover. The March 4 B.C. eclipse has been questioned because Josephus gives us an account of several things that occurred after the eclipse and 29 days does not seem to be enough time to accomplish all that Josephus stated happened between the eclipse and Passover. Andrew Stienmann states that it “would have taken a minimum of 41 days” to accomplish these tasks (From Abraham to Paul, 231). These events are listed below.

1. Herod’s illness declined, with sores putrefied and breeding worms
2. Herod was taken to get treatments in warm baths about 10 miles away. After these treatments were unsuccessful, he returned home.
3. He ordered important men from the area to come to him, they arrived some coming from 70-80 miles away.
4. Five days before Herod’s death he executes his son Antipater.
5. After his death, his body was taken about 23 miles away to be buried.
6. A 7-day period of mourning occurred, followed by a feast
7. Another public morning also occurred to commemorate those who were killed by Herod on the night preceding the eclipse

The other three eclipses have more time for these events to have occurred. Given this and its maximum shadow being 36%, the March 4 B.C. date is not the most likely candidate. The eclipse on September 15^th, 5 B.C. was a total eclipse occurring near Yom Kippur, seven months before the Passover. This eclipse would render a death date for Herod of around 4 B.C. There were also two eclipses in 1 B.C. The January 10^th eclipse occurred near midnight and was a total eclipse. It occurred 89 days before the Passover.  Later that year, on December 29^th, there was an eclipse at moonrise with a maximum shadow of 53% and was most visible at around 6 p.m. This eclipse occurred around 101 days before the next Passover. Both of these eclipses would be viable candidates for the eclipse described before Herod’s Death.

Basically, with this information, the most likely points of both Herod’s Death and Jesus’s birth again fit within the 6-4 B.C., 3/2 B.C., and 1 B.C range.

Could the eclipse assumption be wrong?

                Here is a link to an interesting paper by Duncan Cameron that discusses the possibility that the eclipse may not be a proper event to use to help establish an anchor date: Target Fixation and the Eclipse of Josephus: towards a redating of Herod’s death | Duncan Cameron – Academia.edu

Conclusion

I am still reading on this subject, not sure where I stand on specifically which lunar eclipse occurred before Herod’s death. There are other criteria I want to look at more. However, all these eclipses fall within the range of the accepted possibilities of Jesus’s birth. We will continue to see that these dates fit within other expected criteria as well.

Articles to read:

• Herod’s Death, Jesus’ Birth and a Lunar Eclipse – Biblical Archaeology Society
• Reply to Atheist JMS Pearce: Herod’s Death & Alleged “Contradictions” | Dave Armstrong (patheos.com)
• The 100-year old *mistake* about the Birth of Jesus| National Catholic Register (ncregister.com)
• Jesus’ birth and when Herod the Great *really* died – Jimmy Akin
• Does Luke Contradict Himself on When Jesus Was Born? | Catholic Answers
• Ormond Edwards, “Herodian Chronology,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly  114 (1982): 29-42
• Andrew Steinmann, “When Did Herod the Great Reign?” Novum Testamentum 51 (2009) 1-29
• Microsoft Word download – ElapsedTimes with section 9 corrected (rcyoung.org)
• King Herod’s Death Year – 4 BC or 1 BC? | The Odds
• On the Time of Herod’s death (expreso.co.cr)
• The Beginning of the Christian Era Revisited: New Findings (semanticscholar.org)
• Yet Another Eclipse for Herod (johnpratt.com)
• Target Fixation and the Eclipse of Josephus: towards a redating of Herod’s death | Duncan Cameron – Academia.edu

Side note: Objection that there are no records of a massacre of infants by Herod. I deal with that in this post: Massacre of the innocents.

So, what about Quirinius?

Now, we come to the controversial passage of Luke 2:1-2.

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

This passage regarding the timing of the birth of Jesus states, “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria” (ESV). Objections have been raised by scholars that make them and others question the accuracy of these two verses. The objections are as follows,

• No known empire-wide census occurred under Augustus
• No census would have required Joseph to be in Bethlehem
• Mary would have not been required to be part of the census
• No census occurred under King Herod in Palestine
• Josephus only mentions Quirinius’ census in A.D. 6
• There are no known records of Quirinius as Legate over Syria during the time of Jesus’ birth

The most important of these objections is the timing of Quirinius and his involvement in a census occurring in Palestine during this time. There are no records of Quirinius as legate over Syria during the times given for Jesus’ birth. The only records we have that show Quirinius serving as legate over Syria is starting A.D. 6, after the banishment of the ethnarch Herod Archelaus. Josephus also records a census occurring in A.D. 6. Quirinius starting as Legate over Syria and this census is seen to be in direct contradiction to the fact that Herod the Great is said to be alive during the birth of Jesus. And as we have seen, Herod the Great died well before A.D. 6.

Matthew 2:1 states,

“Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem”.

And not only does Matthew states that Herod was alive during Jesus’ birth, but Luke also supports Matthew’s claim in Luke 1:5 when he says, “In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah”. And so, it appears that not only does Luke 2:1-2 seem to be in direct contradiction with Matthew’s account of Jesus’ birth, but that this statement also contradicts Luke’s own statement only shortly before. But would Luke make such an error only one chapter apart?

Luke seems to be aware of the intricacies of the politics during the time between Herod’s death and Quirinius’s governorship over Syria in A.D. 6 (Luke 3:1-2). He is also aware of the census Josephus describes along with the rebellion that had occurred with Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:37). Luke would have known that Herod’s rule over Judea and Quirinius A.D. 6 rule over Judea could not have occurred simultaneously. So why would Luke who is so careful in his writings miss such an obvious error and even contradict himself? Or would he? It would be a bold statement to say that Luke who proves himself diligent would be so egregiously careless. That being the case, we ourselves should not be careless by rejecting it only after taking a cursory reading of this passage, but instead should carefully and diligently investigate how Luke meticulously words his description of the events. He carefully uses words such as “protos” and “hegemoneuo” along with grammar style to express these events. The wording Luke uses in this passage is unusual, but as we look closer, we will discover possible solutions to this dilemma and proposed contradiction.

protos

Luke uses the Greek word “protos”, which is translated above as “first”, to qualify his statement about the census. He also uses a curious grammatical structure that presents interesting possible implications into what Luke is referring to. Because the phrasing and grammar Luke uses in constructing his sentence in Luke 2:2 is unusual and odd. He uses the genitive structure and odd grammar. If Luke was merely speaking of the census that occurred under Quirinius in A.D. there are simpler ways to say this. Why use a more difficult structure when a simpler sentence would suffice? Because of this, Scholars have suggested that this passage could be translated differently. The main alternative proponents are understanding “protos” to mean either “before” or “became prominent”. Each of these possibilities including as we will see translating it as “first” demonstrates that Luke was distinguishing this census from the A.D. 6 census.

So, in summary, the Greek allows for three possible translations for the qualifying word “protos”,

• this is the “first” of more than one census taken while Quirinius was serving in a government role while in Syria
• this is a census conducted “before” the census of Quirinius in A.D. 6.
• The census began earlier but became prominent later and was completed when Quirinius was governor of Syria

Each of these readings has evidence that supports these possible interpretations. Those who believe Luke is wrong would have to show in what sense Luke is using the word, “protos” and how Luke’s use of the genitive structure and odd grammar fits within this interpretive structure, and why Luke has chosen a more cumbersome way of saying this, when there are simpler options in the Greek.

“before”

NT Wright in his book, Who is Jesus? (pp 98-99) argues that in the specific use here “protos” can rightly be translated as “before”

In the Greek of the time, as the standard major Greek lexicons point out, the word protos came sometimes to be used to mean ‘before’, when followed (as this is) by the genitive case. A good example is in John 1.15, where John the Baptist says of Jesus “he was before me”, with the Greek being again protos followed by the genitive of “me”.[18] I suggest, therefore, that actually the most natural reading of the verse is: “This census took place before the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria.”…

My guess is that Luke knew a tradition in which Jesus was born during some sort of census, and that Luke knew as well as we do that it couldn’t have been the one conducted under Quirinius, because by then Jesus was about ten years old. That is why he wrote that the census was the one before that conducted by Quirinius.

This is also discussed in an article by James Keifer in The Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke (rowan.edu),

Turning to the word PROTOS, translated “first,” we note that it means “earliest,” but is also sometimes used to mean “earlier, prior, previous.” John the Baptist says (John 1:15,30), “he was first of me”, meaning, “he was earlier than I.” Greek regularly uses “of” (the genitive case) rather than “than” to express comparison. So that Luke’s words can be translated: “This enrollment occurred earlier than Quirinius governing Syria,” meaning, “This was the census just before the big one (the one that everyone knows about, because it started a rebellion) under Quirinius.” There are in fact three plausible ways of parsing the phrase: (1) We can read it as “the first census, Quirinius being governor of Syria.” This treats “Quirinius governing Syria” as a genitive absolute, similar to the Latin ablative absolute or the English nominative absolute as in “Jones took notes, the regular secretary being absent,” or the more frequent, “The picnic will be on Tuesday, weather permitting”. This is the construction assumed by most English translators. (2) We can read it as “the census earlier than Quirinius governing Syria.” This treats “Quirinius governing Syria” as a genitive of comparison. (3) We can read it as “the census earlier (than the census) of Quirinius governing Syria.” This assumes that Luke omits the second occurrence of the word “census”, as if I were to say, “My dog is smarter than his,” expecting people to understand that I meant, “My dog is smarter than his dog.” Such omissions of repeated words are standard in many languages. In John 5:36, we have, “The testimony I have is greater than (the testimony) of John.” In 1 Corinthians 1:25, we have “The foolishness of God is wiser than (the wisdom) of men, and the weakness of God is stronger than (the power) of men.” If this is the construction Luke intended, then “Quirinius” is an ordinary genitive of possession, modifying “census” understood. On either the second or the third interpretation, all difficulties vanish. George Ogg, who thinks that Luke is wrong about Quirinius, objects that there are no undisputed passages in which PROTOS followed by a participial phrase in the genitive case clearly means “before.” I think this is unreasonable. He does not deny that PROTOS often means “before,” or that participial phrases can occur in the genitive of comparison. I think his objection is little like questioning the authenticity of the Gettysburg Address on the grounds that Lincoln nowhere else uses “fourscore” to mean “eighty.” Even granted that he is right, this would eliminate the second construction listed above, but leave the third (which he does not consider) as a perfectly good possibility.

If this is true, then Luke can be read as having said that this census occurred before Quirinius was governor in Syria and the conflict is solved. Wallace argues against this in his article, The Problem of Luke 2:2 “This was the first census taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria” | Bible.org, but he doesn’t say that it is an impossible interpretation. I am not an expert on Greek, so cannot comment.

Articles to read:

• CADRE Comments (christiancadre.blogspot.com)
• The Lucan Censuses, Revisited on JSTOR

“prominent”

The other possibility argued for is that the grammar implies that the census became prominent while Quirinius was governor in Syria. Below is a quote from two articles. The first is, Did Luke get his nativity history wrong? by Ian Paul:

Intriguingly, this ties in well with a quite separate argument about Luke’s language here. Marshall notes that ‘the form of the sentence is in any case odd’ (p 104); why say something was ‘first’ when there is nothing to compare it with? Stephen Carlson has looked even more closely, and also noted that the verb egeneto also seems strange; why suggest the census ‘became’ something, rather than that it simply ‘was’? Carlson suggests that prote, rather than ‘first’ numerically, should be read as ‘of most importance’—much as we might say ‘so-and-so is Arsenal’s Number One player.’ This would then give the translation as:

This registration became most prominent when Quirinius was governing Syria.

or

This [decree to get registered] became the/a most important registration when Quirinius was governing Syria.

In the end, the mystery of the conflict between Luke and Josephus remains unsolved and (as Marshall puts it) ‘can hardly be solved without the discovery of fresh evidence.’ But these arguments at least offer a plausible explanation—and when considering questions of history, proof is rarely possible, but plausibility is an important measure. It certainly offers no grounds to write off Luke’s account, think it unhistorical or a fabrication, or see it as in conflict with Matthew. (Paul, Ian; Did Luke get his nativity history wrong?)

Here is the other quote from The Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke (rowan.edu):

Instead of supposing that Luke, or at least our present version of Luke, is wrong, we may question whether Luke has been correctly understood. The Greek reads: “This enrollment first occurred of Quirinius governing Syria.” Two words here require careful examination: (1) EGENETO, meaning “occurred” or “came to pass,” and (2) PROTOS, meaning “first” or “earliest.”

Luke uses EGENETO again in Acts 11:28, where a prophet predicts a famine, which Luke explains “occurred” (later) under the emperor Claudius. Thus, it is suggested, Luke may have meant that the census was commanded by Augustus and begun in about 7 BC, but completed under Quirinius, and hence known to historians as the census of Quirinius, or the census of 6 AD, or the like. The objection to this is that if Luke had meant “completed,” he should have said so. A strong objection, but not, I think, a fatal one. Luke may have been thinking in terms of a command by Augustus: “I want a list given me of all the property in the empire and who owns it.” A dozen years later, Quirinius says: “Here is the list, all checked out.” If one is thinking of the result (the whole empire organized on a rational, businesslike, efficient, bureaucratic basis), and not of the process of organization, the expression “occurred” is perfectly natural. Suppose that a speaker says, “Sports fans have long been waiting to see whether Hank Aaron would hit as many home runs as Babe Ruth, and this finally occurred on September 12, 1977.” No one takes this to mean that Aaron hit more than seven hundred home runs on the day mentioned, or that in place of “this finally occurred” the speaker ought to have said, “this feat was finally completed,” or something of the sort. I maintain that a perfectly possible interpretation of Luke’s statement is: “In those days, Caesar Augustus expressed a wish that the domains of King Herod might be completely surveyed and added to the tax rolls. In the days when Quirinius was governor of Syria, his wish was fulfilled.” Alternatively, we may suppose that Luke is using the word APOGRAPHE to refer, not to the preliminary surveying, registration, and assessment of real estate, but to the collecting of the taxes. In this case, we translate he statement somewhat as follows: “In those days, Augustus commanded that real estate everywhere should be taxed, and that the preliminary surveying and registration should begin at once. The tax was actually collected (in Palestine) in AD 6 when Quirinius was governor of Syria.” This interpretation has Luke using the same term for the registration and for the taxation, but this is not surprising in anyone not a tax lawyer. Given this interpretation, Luke’s use of “occurred” rather than “completed” for the events of AD 6 is above even the most nit-picking criticism.

If “became prominent” is the proper understanding of this verse, once again there is no contradiction.

Articles to read:

• Luke 2:2 and the Census (hypotyposeis.org)
• Parsing Luke 2:2 (hypotyposeis.org)
• Putting Luke 2:2 in context (hypotyposeis.org)

Conclusion to alternate Greek interpretations

Again, since I am not an expert on koine Greek and this is well beyond what I have learned so far, I cannot comment, but only present the data. But what I understand from what I have read, Luke’s use of grammar in this passage is quite unique with few examples of similar syntax in known koine Greek literature, and so the debate on the exact meaning of this phrase may have to continue or be on hold till we find more koine Greek literature that uses the same structure which will allow us to better support a specific interpretation. So, until we know for sure let’s move forward and look at what if “first” is the correct translation.

“first”

If we take “protos” to mean “first, then the phrase “This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria” assumes that there was at least one other census while Quirinius officiated over Syria. Josephus writes about the census in A.D. 6 under Quirinius, and this is what is used to show that Luke is in error. It is assumed that this is the only census or at least the first under Quirinius and since it is well past the time of Jesus’ birth, it in no way can be reconciled with the claim that Herod was still alive at the time of Jesus’ birth. However, Luke is not claiming that he is referring to the census in A.D. 6, which we have seen he was aware of. He is claiming that he is referring to the “first” census when Quirinius officiated in Syria. He could have used this term to clarify and distinguish it from the well-known census of A.D. 6. So rather than being evidence for the A.D. 6 census it is actually possibly evidence against it.

hegemoneouo

You might say, well we know that Quirinius was Legate over Syria starting A.D. 6 so that verifies that this must be the census. Not so fast. Luke doesn’t say the Quirinius was Legate over Syria. Luke is very careful in his terminology. The term he uses is “hegemoneouo”. The term “hegemoneouo” can be used to refer to more than one type of officiating office. So not only are we asking, was there a previous census, but also did Quirinius serve in any officiating compacity in Syria before A.D. 6? And since Quirinius was a high-ranking official, basically all that we need to show is that he could have been in Syria at this time. Thought we don’t have a definitive record of all his dealings with this area, this is an area he frequented and so it is reasonable to assume that this could have been the case. Again, Luke could be using the term, “hegemoneouo” to distinguish this role from when Quirinius was Legate in A.D. 6. Providing evidence that the census occurred at an earlier date.

So, in other words, the burden of proof is not to show that the census of A.D. 6 while Quirinius was Legate coincides with Jesus’ birth, any such effort is only sidetracking the issue, but rather for this to be a contradiction it must be shown that no other census occurred before A.D. 6 while Quirinius was in the area. And this is only if “first” is the correct translation for “protos”.

What Luke does not say about the census

Many of us have heard the passage in Luke 2 read many times. It is a popular passage during the telling of the Christmas story. As we hear this passage many of us have pictures in our minds of what the journey was about and what it was like for Mary and Joseph. As these issues are discussed it is important to not bring our assumptions into this passage. There are things that Luke does not say, and we should not assume.

• We should not assume that this census was for taxation purposes. The word Luke uses for “registration” could refer simply to a counting or a call for an oath of loyalty to Ceasar. And we will see that such a thing did take place during this time in Judea while Herod the Great was king.
• We should not assume that Mary was going with Joseph because she too was a part of the census. Luke does not state that. He only states that she went with him. We also see that they remained in Bethlehem for some time. If they were using this opportunity to make a move, it would make sense to take Mary.
• We should not assume that “each to his own town”, refers to everyone in the empire returning to the home of their ancestry. The passage doesn’t say that this was the case for all the empire, only that Joseph in this case went to Bethlehem because he was of the house and lineage of David, which could be based on lineage or family property in Bethlehem.
• We cannot assume that the census happened everywhere in the empire at the same time. It may have been decreed by Augustine at a time for the whole empire, but history shows that censuses could take years to complete. Transportation and communication did not occur as fast as they do, today. Also, we know that Augustine had a general policy of census taking, which this alone would fit in with what Luke wrote.
• Assume that Mary was at the final stages of her pregnancy. We don’t know how long Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem before she gave birth. They could have left any time after three months into her pregnancy.

Was there a census before A.D. 6?

Since Augustus had an overall policy of registration and understanding the accounting of the Roman Empire, creating a culture where this was conducted throughout the empire, it would not be unusual for Luke to be referring any registration that occurred with Augustus and his policies. Augustus in his work Res Gestae describes how he initiated the taking of empire-wide censuses in the years 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14. Also, another census was taken throughout the empire culminating in Augustus being declared the “Father of the Country” on February 5^th, 2 B.C. Because censuses took years to complete and were conducted differently in different areas, the 8 B.C. census and the census declaring allegiance to Augustus fit well within a birth date of Jesus being around 6/5 B.C or 3/2 B.C. Would these censuses have affected Judea? Possibly. For a short time around 9 B.C. Herod lost favor with Augustus and Augustus for a short time took away Herod’s title as “friend of Caesar”. Herod also during this time had struggles within his family and assigning the heirs to his throne, something that required the consent and approval of Rome. So, even though he was a client kingdom and not necessarily required to participate, it is possible he did so to win favor with Augustus. Also, we know that at times censuses were imposed on client-states by Rome.

Dr. Jack Finegan, professor of New Testament history and archaeology and director of the Palestine Institute of Archaeology at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, CA, writes:

The question has been raised whether the Romans would have instituted census and taxation procedures in Palestine while Herod the Great was ruling as king of the Jews. That they would not have hesitated to do so is suggested by comparison with Apamea on the Orontes in Syria. The autonomy of this city-state is shown by the fact that it minted its own coins, yet Quirinius himself had a census taken there. A gravestone found in Venice carries the inscription of a Roman officer named Q. Aemilius Secundus. He states that by order of P. Sulpicius Quirinius, whom he calls legatus Caesaris Syriae, he himself conducted a census of Apamea, a city-state of 117,000 citizens. As for Herod, Josephus reports that in the time when Saturninus and Volumnius were the presidents of Syria, Caesar Augustus demoted him from ‘friend’ (φ?λος= amicus) to ‘subject.’ Saturninus was listed above as governor of Syria in 9-6 BC, and Volumnius was evidently associated with him. By comparison with Apamea and specially from the time of Herod’s demotion by Augustus, Palestine would scarcely be exempt from any census and taxation procedures the Romans wished to institute. (Finegan, J. 1964. Handbook of Biblical Chronology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, p. 237). (A Brief Comment on the Census in Luke 2 – Associates for Biblical Research (biblearchaeology.org))

Not only do we know that there were empire-wide censuses in general, but we also know that a census initiated by Augustus and requiring an oath of allegiance to Caesar and Herod was conducted in Judea about this time in the last years of Herod’s life for Josephus discusses it in Antiquities XVII.41-45:

There was moreover a certain sect of Jews who valued themselves highly for their exact knowledge of the law; and talking much of their contact with God, were greatly in favor with the women of Herod’s court. They are called Pharisees. They are men who had it in their power to control kings; extremely subtle, and ready to attempt anything against those whom they did not like. When therefore the whole Jewish nation took and oath to be faithful to Caesar, and to the interests of the king Herod, these men, to the number above six thousand, refused to swear.

This event could have occurred during either of these two census times, depending on when Herod’s death is dated. So, in fact, we do know that there were censuses conducted during the most likely time frames for Jesus’ birth and we know for at least one of them the region ruled by Herod participated.

Empire-wide census

Luke states, “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.” It must be noted that if Luke is claiming that this was an empire-wide census, none of these empire-wide censuses that we mentioned above were anywhere near the timeframe of A.D. 6. In fact the A.D. 6 census was a regional census following a transition in power, after the banishment of Herod Archelaus. It was sort of a settlement of Herod’s estate after his banishment and as it was being transferred to the Romans under Quirinius. Again, it was not an empire-wide census, which is contradictory to what Luke states. Because Luke is describing a world-wide census, this rules out the census in A.D. 6. Added to this, the A.D. 6 census also did not concern the province of Galilee, which was not under Herod Archelaus’s domain. Galilee is where both Joseph and Mary originally lived at the time of the census described by Luke. You would have to show why they would be required to take part in a census that was occurring in a region they did not live in. We have to remember Luke is a very careful historian and here we have not just one mistake but many. With the information Luke provides there is very little correlation with the census in A.D. 6. The reliance on this passage with the A.D. 6 census requires a lot of assumptions that are just unlikely given what Luke has said. It is much more likely that in Luke 2:2, Luke being aware of the A.D. 6 census is giving us ways to distinguish the census at Jesus’ birth from the more famous one in A.D. 6.

Therefore, saying that Luke is referring to the census in A.D. 6 doesn’t fit the description Luke gives nor would we expect it to if Luke understood the history of this time. So, to those saying it is contradictory to the A.D. 6 census, the answer is “Yes, it is. Didn’t you already understand that from reading the description Luke gave, for this is exactly the point Luke is trying to make?”

Traveling to one’s city of ancestry

It is also argued that no census required traveling to one’s city of ancestry and no census that required a woman to participate. But is this true? Were there occasions where this occurred. In fact, there are accounts of both people being required to go to their home city and women giving an account in a census. Below is a quote from the article, A Brief Comment on the Census in Luke 2:

Early in the twentieth century, a papyrus was discovered which contained an edict by G. Vibius Maximus, the Roman governor of Egypt, stating:

Since the enrollment by households is approaching, it is necessary to command all who for any reason are out of their own district to return to their own home, in order to perform the usual business of the taxation… (Cobern, C.M. 1929. The New Archeological Discoveries and their Bearing upon the New Testament. New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls, p. 47; Unger, M.F. 1962. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, p. 64).

The same papyrus also confirms Luke’s assertion that a man had to bring his family with him when he traveled to his place of ancestry in order to be properly counted by the Roman authorities (Lk. 2:5). The document reads:

I register Pakebkis, the son born to me and my wife, Taas-­ies and Taopis in the 10th year of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator [Emperor], and request that the name of my aforesaid son Pakeb[k]is be entered on the list’ (Boyd, R.T. 1991. World’s Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids, MI: World Publishing, p. 415).

This sheds light on why Joseph had to bring his highly pregnant wife along with him when he went to Bethle­hem. Such discoveries caused the late George A. Barton, Ph.D., Professor of Biblical Literature and Semitic Languages at Bryn Mawr and former Director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem, to comment:

Luke’s statement, that Joseph went up from Nazareth to Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to enroll himself with Mary (Luke 2:4, 5), turns out to be in exact accord with the governmental regulations as we now know them from the papyri. (Barton, G.A. 1917. Archaeology and the Bible. Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union, p. 435).”( A Brief Comment on the Census in Luke 2 – Associates for Biblical Research (biblearchaeology.org))

Even though this is an example of a wife coming alongside her husband for a census, these things are not necessary for Luke never says that Mary participated in the census. And based on the account it appears that Joseph and Mary already had the intention before leaving Nazareth of staying in Bethlehem after the census if anything at least for the sacrifices after the birth and to fulfill everything required by the Law of Moses. Perhaps Joseph’s family was in Bethlehem making it a good place for the wedding since Luke says they were still betrothed. There is good evidence is that the original plan was to stay in the area of Bethlehem, for after their flight to Egypt, on their return it appears that they originally were coming back to Bethlehem to live only to change their plans after being warned in a dream.

But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, “Rise, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child’s life are dead.” And he rose and took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there, and being warned in a dream he withdrew to the district of Galilee. And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene. (Matthew 2:19-23)

So, it would not have been unusual for Mary to have accompanied Joseph, her betrothed on his journey to Bethlehem as they start their new life in a new place. Joseph may have also taken her with him because they were only betrothed, and her pregnancy would have been a scandal, he may have not felt safe leaving her behind with the possibility of her being punished as an adulterer. And this too may have been a motive to move to Bethlehem and leave Nazareth where the scandal was known. Since he was marrying a wife, we can assume that Joseph would have been able to have a home though probably not one of much means. Though we can’t know with 100% certainty why they stayed in Bethlehem, it is more likely than not that Mary would have come with Joseph on the trip.

Evidence shows that at times people did go back to the place of the ancestry for a census in local regions. Also, because the idea of a census would be odious to many Jews, Herod, having some autonomy as a city-state king, would have wanted to conduct the census in a way that made it more palatable for the Jew. Since historically and traditionally the Jews were numbered by their tribes and family, rather than the place of residence, Herod may have conducted the census with this format. This extra requirement could have only been a requirement in the Herod-ruled areas since the wording of Luke does not require it elsewhere. Another possibility is that Joseph’s family-owned property in Bethlehem and Luke is only giving us insight into why his family-owned property in Bethlehem and using this opportunity to add that Joseph was of the line of David adding this tidbit to our knowledge of the background of Jesus and the fulfillment of prophecy.

Conclusion on the census

In the end, based on the evidence it is unlikely that the A.D. 6 census is the census Luke is referring to. This leaves us with the censuses of 8 B.C. and 3/2 B.C. which both fit within the range we have been looking at for Jesus’ birth.

Articles:

• Non Issues in the Lukan Birth Narrative — Augustus’s Decree (Part 1) (christiancadre.blogspot.com)
• CADRE Comments (christiancadre.blogspot.com)
• Non Issues in the Lukan Birth Narrative — Registration in Bethlehem (christiancadre.blogspot.com)
• Is the Census in Luke’s Infancy Narrative Historical or Literary? (missiodeicatholic.org)
• An Unusual Roman Census Decree By Caesar Augustus | The Odds
• Did Augustus Tax the World? | Smoodock’s Blog (wordpress.com)
• Worldwide Census | Smoodock’s Blog (wordpress.com)
• The Enrollment of Jesus’ Birth – Jimmy Akin
• King Herod’s Enrollment (biblehub.com)
• Was Apamea subject to the Census as a free-city? (christian-thinktank.com)
• The Nativity Census: What Does Luke Actually Say? on JSTOR

Could Quirinius have officiated in Syria before A.D. 6?

The fact that there was a census around the time of the birth of Jesus fits with the information we have both from Josephus and Luke, but we are still left with understanding Luke’s statement that the census was conducted while Quirinius was governing in Syria. Could Quirinius have had an officiating role in Syria at the time of Jesus’ birth? Below is a list of the Legates of Syria and the time frame they served in.

Based on this, there is missing information between the years 4 B.C when Varus’ term ends, and 1 A.D when Gaius took over as Legate. However, we are also told that Varus was around after Herod’s death and if Herod’s death was in 1 B.C. or 1 A.D. does that change what this chart would look like? If Herod’s death is considered an anchor date, what other things would be changed? Even if this were not so, we are still left with the earlier dates for Jesus’ birth.

So, what do we know about Quirinius during this time frame? From 12 B.C. to 1 B.C. Quirinius directed a campaign against the Homanades in the mountains of Galatia and Cilicia. He was possibly Legate of Galatia between 5-3 B.C. And around A.D. 1 he was appointed to tutor Augustus’ grandson Gaius Caesar while Gaius was Legate of Syria. In the dates most probable for Jesus’ birth his exact whereabouts are uncertain. Is it possible that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was Legate during part of or all of 4/3 B.C. to 1 A.D.? Perhaps and we must consider this a possibility, but having Quirinius serving as a legate of Syria is also not necessary to still make Luke’s statement about Quirinius accurate.

As noted earlier, the term for governor in Luke 2:2 is “hegemoneuo”. “Hegemoneuo” does not refer to a specific position within the Roman government but is a general term that can be used to refer to different positions within Roman leadership. Both Luke, Josephus, and even Caesar use this term this way (see: Quirinius, Governor of Syria When Jesus Was Born? | The Odds). Luke also does not directly say that Quirinius oversaw the census, just that it happened while he was in Syria. So, it is not necessary to prove that Quirinius was the Legate of Syria at this time, it only needs to be shown that he was in Syria in an official governing role. Also, we know that it is possible that more than one person could be “hegemoneuo” in Syria at one time. Josephus describes in one incident two governors of Syria, “Caesar had ordered the court to be assembled…The presidents set first, as Caesar’s letters had appointed, who were Saturninus, and Pedanius, and their lieutenants that were with them, with whom was the procurator Volumnius.” Tacitus states “Each province had its equestrian procurator who in the eyes of the provincials was almost as important as the governor himself.” (Tacitus, Aric., 15). So Quirinius could have had a role as a “hegemoneuo” even during the known periods where someone else was Legate of Syria. Luke who is careful with his terms may have used “hegemoneuo” instead of legate purposefully to distinguish between Quirinius’ two terms, the first term being one of an official position but not a legate and not referring to Quirinius time as Legate in A.D. 6.

The circumstances allow for Quirinius to have been serving in an official position in Syria at this time. Because the staging of the war with the Homandes could have been staged from more than one location, it is possible that one of those locations was Syria, where Quirinius could have been conducting other official business as well. The war was one of attrition, and so did not necessarily require local governance. We know it is probable from 5-3 B.C. that the Quirinius’ location was Galatia, for it is believed that in addition to his role in the war, Quirinius served as Legate of Galatia during this time. But since he was not legate before 5 B. C. and did not continue as Legate of Galatia after 3 B.C., we are still within the range for the possible dates for Jesus’ birth. Military facilities were only located in imperial provinces. It would not be unusual for a high-ranking officer to be stationed in these facilities. Syria hosted a sixth of the Roman Army and was an imperial province and the defense center for the eastern front of the Roman Empire. It also hosted a large army (the 3^rd largest). Syria would have been a good location for headquarters in a war in Asia Minor. We also know that Quirinius won the war with the Homandes through attrition, allowing him to have had time to help with other matters, such as overseeing a census. After all, he was both Legate of Galatia and conducted the war at the same time. We also know that Augustine would assign special assignments to people who were not legates, so that the legate would not gain to much power. So, it is possible that Quirinius played a part in the census conducted in Judea during Jesus’ birth at any point during this time. Having already had experience directing a census in a client-state and having had to deal with rebels unsatisfied with Rome, he may have been asked to help with a census in Judea during this time. His experience in this matter is also why he was probably entrusted to conduct the census in A.D. 6 as well. After the war, we know that he was assigned as tutor to Gaius during his Legate term in Syria. So, we are missing the exact whereabouts of Quirinius during the dates most likely associated with the birth of Jesus, and therefore cannot assume that Luke was wrong. Even, if we take out the possible time Quirinius served as Legate over Galatia, though he could have still helped with the census during this time, we can see that he could have served in an officiating role in Syria during the time of Jesus’ birth.

Articles to read:

• Quirinius, Governor of Syria When Jesus Was Born? | The Odds
• Augustus – More than Just the Nativity Story | The Odds
• Quirinius: An Archaeological Biography – Bible Archaeology Report
• A Brief Comment on the Census in Luke 2 – Associates for Biblical Research (biblearchaeology.org)
• Dating the two Censuses of Quirinius | Gerard GERTOUX – Academia.edu
• W.M. Ramsay: Was Christ Born in Bethlehem? – Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org)
• REFUTING Bible Contradiction #1: Jesus’ Birth Narratives, Herod and Quirinius – YouTube
• Quirinius – Encyclopedia of The Bible – Bible Gateway

Was Josephus wrong?

Due to Josephus occasionally conflating events he tells about in his histories, and there being three separate stories at three different times about a rebellion by Judas each with similar details that eerily match up, the question arises of whether or not these descriptions of a rebellion by Judas are based on one event. If this is the case, what does this mean for the timing of the census? Rhodes describes this,

During the last twenty-five years, Daniel Schwartz and others have developed some fruitful insights into the historiography of Josephus which have highlighted the susceptibility of Josephus to mistaken duplications and to reporting contemporaneous events from different sources as if they happened at different times.

In reviewing Andrew Steinmann’s book From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology, Rodger Young states,

The material on the Quirinius census should change forever the way this topic is dealt with by scholars. The problem is well known: Luke presumably made a mistake when he stated that Quirinius (Cyrenius) was governor of Judea when a census was taken that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. However, it is “known” from Josephus that Quirinius did not come to Judea until A.D. 6. The approach of FATP is once again to start by examining the text. Luke does not strictly say that Quirinius was governor; the verb used means that he had governmental authority, not necessarily that he was the official governor of the province. After establishing the proper understanding of the text, Roman records are cited that are consistent with an empire-wide census taking place in 3 B.C. More significantly, Josephus gives contradictory information regarding Quirinius. He dates the coming of Quirinius to Judea just after the exile of Archelaus (A.D. 6) in Antiquities 18.1,2 (18.1.1) and 18.26 (18.2.1), but these passages also say that one of the acts after his coming was to depose the high priest Joazar from office. Joazar was installed by Herod the Great a few weeks before his (Herod’s) death in response to the golden eagle crisis, because Joazar cooperated with authorities in the matter of a census, and with Herod regarding his handling of the golden eagle incident. This made Joazar extremely unpopular with the people, and after the death of Herod they demanded that Joazar be removed from the high priesthood. This was done within a few months of Herod’s death, which means that Joazar, Quirinius, and the census are all associated together in the time shortly before the death of Herod and the time immediately thereafter, contradicting the A.D. 6 date for the coming of Quirinius to Judea. The internal contradictions of Josephus in these matters were pointed out years ago by Zahn, Lodder and other scholars, but new insights that help in unraveling the contradictory accounts of Josephus have been given by Dr. Steinmann’s colleague John Rhoads. FATP devotes 11 pages to sorting out the correct order of events and explaining why Josephus made the mistakes that he did in dating Quirinius and the census. These pages may require several readings to understand all the issues, but once this is done it is clear that the preponderance of evidence favors the enrollment associated with Quirinius to have been in 3 B.C., and perhaps continuing into early 2 B.C.” (Book Review: From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology: Part 2 – Associates for Biblical Research (biblearchaeology.org))

Are Sabinus and Quirinius the same person?

Rhodes also argues that Sabinus and Quirinius are the same person and that “Sabinus is a cognomen. The name Quirinius comes from the Sabine god of war. And Quirinius is from an area with a population of Sabines. There are also striking similarities between the two. They both were procurators and most likely both had consular rank. Both were concerned about the evaluation of the tax value of Judea, and both were sent by Augustus to secure and assess the value of Herod’s/Archelaus’ estate. If this is true it would provide evidence that Quirinius was in Judea and Syria regions at this time.

Census timing

Analyzing these passages of Josephus shows the possibility that the census done by Quirinius happened before Herod’s death and not in A.D. 6. Rhodes did a study ignoring the Luke account and only analyzing the data from Josephus to see what the likelihood of these accounts being the same event and if they are what is the most likely time frame they would fall into and it would fall within the 4 B.C. – 1 B.C. dates for Jesus’ birth.

Articles to read:

• JETS_54-1_65-87_Rhoads.pdf (etsjets.org)
• Did Luke Misdate the Census of Quirinius? – YouTube
• The Census of Quirinius – Biblical Error #1 – YouTube

What if the anchor date of 4 B.C. is wrong?

Though not a part of Rhode’s article, it is interesting to note that there is a gap in what we know about the Legates of Syria between 4 B.C. and A.D. 1, if we use the 4 B.C. date for the death of Herod. Since Varus was Legate of Syria during and after Herod’s death, for he put down a rebellion in Judea when Herod Archelaus failed to control it. Varus then crucified 2,000 people and destroyed the cities of Sepphoris and Emmaus. Soon after this Varus returns to Rome. If Herod’s death was around 1 B.C., which would mean that Varus’ governance ended in 1 B.C, or perhaps was his governance split with Quirinius ruling for a short time. This might explain the gap. Since we know Quirinius was in Syria in 1 B.C., this would put Quirinius in Syria around the 3/2 B.C. dates of Jesus’ birth. Basically, what if the anchor date of 4 B.C. is wrong how does this affect the dates and timing of these events? This is something to be explored, though not crucial to show that Luke is correct. It is just an interesting perspective on whether Jesus’ birth was 6-4 B.C. or more likely 3/2 B.C.

If you combine what Rhodes believed about Quirinius being around to perform a census around the time of Herod’s death and a 1 B.C./1 A.D. timing of Herod’s death this is what it would look like

It must be noted that because the 8 B.C. could have taken years to accomplish, it is possible that the 8 B.C. census, the 3/2 B.C. census, and the possible earlier Quirinius census all occurred at one time in Judea.

Accuracy of Luke

If Luke and Josephus were to being compared with each other for their accuracy in putting things together, Luke would be the one I would side with as being more accurate. Luke shows a significant firsthand understanding or firsthand reporting of people, places, and events he writes about. He would have interviewed actual eyewitnesses to the events and not just one eyewitness but multiple. He was well traveled. And he appears to have had access to people both in Herod’s and Caesar’s household (Luke 8:3, Philippians 4:22). Luke’s writing also had a more critical eye on it, both within the Christian community, but also with Theophilus (although this could be a pseudonym for the church), both of which could check his account for accuracy. His writings were read by people who were familiar with the events, times, and stories and would have been able to expose any errors. Luke’s account has been accused of being false because due to lack archeological or written evidence supporting what he wrote multiple times only later for that evidence to show up proving the veracity of his account. Textually our account of Luke is based on early transcripts that are close to the source (A.D. 175-225), whereas the earliest quote comes from Eusebius is in the 4^th century and the earliest manuscript of Josephus is ~1000 years after the original. Josephus is known to have a pattern of errors and is known to show Roman partiality. If Luke is in error in this passage, it would be a blaring error that based on Luke’s writing and reputation is unlikely for him to have made.

Even if you trust Josephus’ account more, based on Luke’s record and his reliability as a historian it would not be fair to treat him without the respect he deserves as an exemplary historian. As we have seen there are reasons to believe his account of Quirinius is accurate and that being said those saying he is not accurate here are left with the burden of proof. What makes a scholar pit one writing over the other? Specifically, Josephus over Luke. If Luke were not a Christian writing, would it be used to question Josephus based on these facts? Are we being fair? Certainly, the easy way out is just to say Luke is wrong but is this a fair evaluation? Should we not evaluate the possibility that he was correct? Yes, it is reasonable and fair to do so.

It is not intellectually congruent to use this passage and state that it is strong proof that the Bible is not inerrant. It simply isn’t. And those who state this make no serious inquiry into the grammar and vocabulary Luke used and pass over it as if it doesn’t matter. Nor do they take a serious look at what we do know about the history during this time. At the most one can only say as a scholar that there is no direct and specific evidence of Quirinius being an official in Syria at this time and there is no evidence that he was not an official in Syria at this time, although there are clues that this might be possible. But to use this verse as evidence against the Bible is faulty at best.

Videos to watch:

• The Gospels Were Written Early, Not After AD 70 – YouTube
• Undesigned Coincidences in the Passion and Resurrection Narratives – YouTube

Summary

The objections raised are not sufficient enough to invalidate the accuracy of Luke in his description of the nativity and therefore are not the strong proof against inerrancy that some scholars claim.

• No known empire-wide census under Augustus

Josephus describes a census where an oath of loyalty was required for Caesar and Herod in Judea during this time frame. Augustine had a general policy of census taking throughout the empire and any census including this one would have been considered a part of that policy.

• No census that would have required Joseph to be in Bethlehem

It is possible that Joseph was from Bethlehem and that his family-owned property in the area. There are records of this kind of thing happening. There would have also been some autonomy for local leaders to conduct the census in a way fitting to that region. The census in this region could have adapted the requirements to be more fitting to the Jewish culture, requiring them to be counted by families and tribes as was historically the case in Israel.

• Mary would have not been required to be part of the census

Luke does not claim Mary was required to be part of the census, only that she went with Joseph to Bethlehem, which would have been reasonable considering the situation.

• No census under King Herod in Palestine

As stated above Josephus describes a census under Herod in this time frame.

• Josephus only mentions Quirinius’ census in A.D. 6

He does in fact mention another census under Herod, but the census under Quirinius was significant historically and would have stood apart from the others. Also the absence of evidence doesn’t prove that it did not happen.

• No known records of Quirinius as Legate over Syria during the time of Jesus’ birth

Luke does not say Quirinius was Legate over Syria at this time only that he had an official position while in Syria. Based on what we know it is not improbable that Quirinius was in Syria during this time. It is an argument from silence. Luke could have very well been accurate in his description of where Quirinius was at this time.

So again, based on what we know, the objections do not provide strong proof that Luke was in error and therefore do not provide strong proof against the inerrancy of Luke’s account of Jesus’ birth. Those who purport this to be strong evidence of such are not arguing from as strong of a place as they often claim.

Conclusion

We must be careful in making absolute statements about Luke 2:2 and the Quirinius dilemma. We shouldn’t be quick to stand on any one solution without strong evidence.  Daniel Wallace has observed, “Evangelicals often have a tendency to find implausible solutions to difficulties in the Bible and to be satisfied that they have once again vindicated the Word of God. On the other hand, critical scholars tend to find errors in the Bible where none exist.” It is the tendency of both sides to believe that they have best, definitive or well-thought-out proof for their position. In this case, there is no definitive proof only possibilities, some that are more probable than others, but still only possibilities. In Rodger Young’s review of Steinmann’s work, he states,

“The scientific method as used by genuine scientists, however, is not the presupposition-based method of De Wette, Wellhausen, Noth, Hughes, and others who pursue current modifications of the discredited Documentary Hypothesis. True science starts with observation. This means assessing the data, and not rejecting any particular datum in the field of interest unless there is some compelling reason, based on the other data, to do so. The next step is to attempt to systematize the data by formulating a hypothesis. This was the procedure of all the early chronologers: Rabbi Yose, Africanus, Eusebius, Ussher, and the various writers of conservative Bible histories who attempted to give timelines for the events of the Bible. There are several prerequisites in pursuing this approach if it is to be credible. The researcher should be familiar with the languages in which the Scripture was written and with the modes of expression of those languages. He or she must also study the customs of the nations with whom the Hebrews had contact. It is essential to understand how these cultures counted the time, whether days, months, years, or reign lengths; formulating presuppositions in these matters that contradict the essential data (the method of the Documentary Hypothesis) is not acceptable.” (Book Review: From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology, by Andrew E. Steinmann)

It is important to have an openness to the data here. Perhaps evidence will be found that will help to put some of these theories to rest and perhaps give support and proof to a specific theory. But for now, we have what we have. People will differ on which theories they think is more probable, but before we claim that Luke was absolutely wrong from an argument of silence, we might pause, think as a scientist, and be careful not to make claims we cannot definitively support.