Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
post
page
book
courses
lesson
resource
ministry
Filter by Categories
Homeschool
Ministry List
Resource
Theology
Shopping cart$0.00
My soul clings to you,

Your right hand upholds me.

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, the words, “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”, has caused many to assume that the Christian claim to the inerrancy of scripture fails the test for they say the census of Quirinius occurred in A.D. 6 which is years out of range for the most accepted dates for the birth of Jesus. And this is an issue that has been discussed for some time where the assumptions you bring to the issue significantly impact how the data fits together. This issue is not concerning scopes of times where general dating is all you need to solve the issue; we are instead looking at narrow periods of time where precise dating is needed to fully understand the issue. We need to know where, what, when, and who specifically. However, precise dating is not what we have and so the discussion continues. 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.

What Inerrancy is not

It is important to understand that the concept of inerrancy is not that every statement of the scripture must heed to every aspect of truth and accuracy. For example, the Bible is not a science book, when writing on subjects God does not impart modern science into the brain of the writer. Nor did God take away their culture and perspectives while they wrote. Nor did the person go into a trance while writing. No, they wrote as anyone of us would write with all their baggage and culture. They wrote about the world as they saw it. And so, where we do see God speaking, he condescends and speaks personably with the people and culture of the time, using the current understanding and culture of the day to present his story and his work to us. So far example when Leviticus 11:13-19 and Deuteronomy 14:11-18 include bats listed with birds, we cannot put a modern western scientific perspective and say that this proves the doctrine of inerrancy is not true. That would be ludicrous. Though it is a reasonable and understandable question for someone only aware of modern western thought, it is not the question of someone who was around when these passages were written, nor of a scholar who understands that the scripture is written in a different culture with a different system of categorizing. The same goes for history, what history we have in the Bible will be written in the style, custom, and manner of the current times it was written in. We cannot expect it to be written in the guidelines of today’s culture. We must not impose our modern western culture onto it. For example, in the culture the theme an author was presenting can sometimes be more important than clarifying specific sequences of events, this does not make the writing inaccurate, but instead relevant to the time and culture it was written in. When the women come out and sing, “Saul has struck down his thousands, and David his ten thousands.”, we are not expected to take these numbers literally, nor would anyone of that time say that these women were being false or untrue. So as with science, we must look at the historic telling of a story from the perspective of the culture and the author. In the Gospels, the stories are often interwoven to make a theological point, even the structure emphasizing those points. We see a definite style and a way of telling a story.  Understanding the culture in which a passage is written is an important aspect of hermeneutics.

However, this is also not a free for all to get us out of any difficult passage. Where we expect the scripture to be accurate within the culture it was written in, we ought to hold it to that standard. So, for example, Luke 2:1-2 was written in a style and manner to which we would expect some aspect of accuracy within the culture that it was written, and the author makes this clear by his own statements, and so we ought to expect a diligent account of history and we should not shy away from holding it to that standard. And therefore, it is important to look at Luke’s claim and to see if it fits with an accurate accounting of history.

Video to watch:

Dating Jesus’s Birth

Scholars use textual evidence within the Gospels 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, Jesus would have been born no more than two years before this event. In Luke, he claims that John 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 15th 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 should have occurred, but getting the exact dating is not as easy. For example, where is a reign judged to begin if it starts part way through a year, or what about a period of co-regency? 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 7-5 B.C, 3-1 B.C.

Dates Historically Proposed

Historically the most popular date options for Jesus’ birth have been 6/5 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 6/5 B.C. His work on this and his dating has been popular thought in modern times.

15th 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 15th 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 19th, 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 6/5 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 started 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. Luke’s dating here makes it unlikely for a A.D. 6 timing for Jesus’ birth as some have suggested, 23 years old is not near 30 years. This is a seven year difference. When Luke describes Jairus’s daughter he says, “about 12”, so Luke doesn’t seem to be rounding. We get the same issue if we assume the Herod in Luke 1:5 is Archelaus.

Herod’s Death

Now, we will look at the possible dates for 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 gives us a date by which Jesus had to have been born. Although Mathew does not say how long before the death of Herod the account of the Magi occurred, but since if we estimate around 30 years before Tiberius’ fifteenth reign, we get within the range of around two years before Herod’s death, and due to Herod killing boys two years or younger it is assumed that Jesus’ birth occurred within a range near to 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 12-13th was not complete and occurred late at night near the feast of Purim and was 29 days before the Passover. The 4 B.C. eclipse has been questioned because 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 eclipses have more time for these things to have occurred. There was one on September 15th, 5 B.C. was a total eclipse occurring near Yom Kippur and seven months from the Passover. This eclipse would render the same death date of around 4 B.C. as the 4 B.C. eclipse. And there were two other eclipses in 1 B.C., January 10th and December 29th. The January 10th eclipse occurred near midnight and was total, 89 days before the Passover.  Later, on December 29th, the eclipse at moonrise was at 53%, but was not total and was most visible at around 6 p.m. and occurred around 101 days before the next Passover.

Basically, with this information, the most likely points of both Herod’s Death and Jesus’s birth again fit within the 6/5 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:

Side note: Objection that there are no records of a massacre of infants by Herod

An objection to the historical accuracy of Matthew’s account of Jesus’s birth is that there are no historical records outside the Bible of Herod killing infant sons in the city of Bethlehem. However, though this is a valid question, this is not proof that the account in Matthew did not happen.

Bethlehem as prophesied in Micah 5:2 was a small village with a small population at the time of Jesus’ birth. The population is estimated to have been around 300-1500, the number of boys under two years in a population this size would not be that many, some estimates being around 7-50, and this in a time where young children died at young ages more often than they do now. If Herod wanted to hide this by threatening families to silence it may have not been widely known. Josephus also was writing with a Greco-Roman culture in mind where infanticide was a form of birth control, he may have thought that it would have seemed insignificant to his audience and therefore did not include it. (Paul L. Maier, 1998:179) We also know that Josephus did not write an exhaustive list of Herod’s atrocities and this one would not be surprising for him to have left out, since it probably would not have mattered much to his audience.

We however know that this event is well within Herod’s personality. Herod violently reacting to a rumor over the threat to his throne was a pattern. We also know that in the last four years of his life when this event is claimed to have occurred, he was at his worst. It is an event that fits well with his character at the time. In the article The Slaughter of the Innocents: Historical Fact or Legendary Fiction? it states:

In 1988 I was attending a lecture at the Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies by Dr. Isaiah Gafni, a leading authority on the Second Temple period at the Hebrew University. His topic was the life of Herod the Great. Sitting next to me was Dr. Bruce Narramore, a Christian psychologist from Biola University.

Dr. Gafni recounted a seminar that was held at Hebrew University a few years before. Attending it were historians and archaeologists of the Second Temple period as well as psychiatrists and psychologists. They laid out (figuratively speaking) Herod the Great on the psychiatric couch and preceded to psychoanalyze him. The historians explained a recurring pattern in the life of Herod. He would hear a rumor that somebody was going to bump him off and take over his throne, but Herod would kill that person first. He would then go into depression. After awhile he would come out of his depression and would build, build, build. He would hear another rumor and would kill that person, then go into another depression. After awhile he would come out of this depression and would build, build, build. This cycle repeated itself a number of times in which numerous people were killed, including one of his ten wives as well as three of his sons! The shrinks diagnosed Herod the Great as a paranoid schizophrenic.

After the lecture I turned to Dr. Narramore and asked his analysis of Herod: “Well, do you think he was a paranoid schizophrenic?” Bruce laughed and said, “No, he was a jerk!” [That is a direct quote!]. Recently a historical / psychological analysis was done on Herod the Great and he was diagnosed with Paranoid Personality Disorder (Kasher and Witztum 2007:431).

The time before Herod’s death was full of uncertainty about who would inherit his kingdom and uncertainty about his status within the Roman empire. It was also a time of unrest with “messiahs” rising up and unrest and rebellion. So, for a man who did not want the eye of the empire on him and already was paranoid about being usurped, the news the Magi brought him that the king of the Jews had been born would have been disturbing. Not only would it have been disturbing to him, but also to Jerusalem which had already experienced his reactions to rumors of another king rising not in his line. Herod around this time killed Pharisees who had prophesied that Herod’s line would decline and the line of Pheroras would rise after Pheroras’ wife paid a fine placed on the Pharisees. So, we have a time when anticipation for the Messiah was high, there was instability in Herod’s own house, there was tension for Herod to please Rome, and Jerusalem had already seen how Herod had responded to potential threats to his kingdom. So, it is no wonder that Matthew used the word “troubled” to describe the mood when this news was brought to Herod. Herod would not only want to kill these infants who he saw as a potential threat to his throne but seeing that the rumor extended outside his court would also want to squash any rumors of a possible king of the Jews.  We know historically that fear can be a powerful motivation in keeping people silent. Even without any interference, there would be fear to talk about another king, not in Herod’s line. Squashing the rumor would not be out of the realm of possibility.

The story would however have been known to Jesus and his family. Both Jesus and his family walked intimately with those who would become the church and would have been asked to tell their story. Thus, this becoming common knowledge in the church would be expected. And through the church, this event became common knowledge to the world. Since this story came early in church history, those that were still alive would have been able to discredit it if it were not true. And even after this, those who had known the family of Jesus and had heard the stories firsthand would have been able to discredit the story. Yet you see no early writing questioning this account. But then I would suppose this would be an argument from silence, which cannot be used to discredit this story.

It might be argued that Matthew made up the story to fit it into prophecy. But why would he need to do that? His gospel alludes to many prophesies already, and there are other prophesies he did not include that he could have used. Matthew’s account is not an exhaustive study of how Jesus fulfilled all the prophesies. Why add a made-up story when it would not be necessary? And if you are going to make up a story, why add in the Magi? Magi would have been controversial. They weren’t just “wise men” for the word magi refer to people who practice magic or astrology, something contrary to the Jewish culture. If the Jewish scribes were able to ascertain the place of the messiah’s birth, why have a heathen magi come and determine the timing of the birth? Many of the day were already anticipating that the messiah was near. Why not use a wise Jew, after all, Jesus said that the scribes and Pharisees ought to have understood the signs of the time? Why not use Simeon and Anna who were aware of the coming birth of Jesus, and even proclaimed it to others? Why not have Herod hear these rumors after Anna and Simeon told others and then . . .?

The silence found in history is not proof that it didn’t happen, it is a question to be addressed, but not proof. Anyone purporting it to be such is claiming to know more than reason can allow. Claiming it as proof creates its own questions that have to be ignored in order to hold on to that stance as absolute fact. The argument of silence has been used many times before only later to find evidence to validate the Biblical account. I am not saying that the argument of silence cannot ever be used, but it must be used carefully. It is within reason and probable for the story to come out and to have been told in history the way it did through the gospel of Matthew.

Video to watch:

So, what about Quirinius?

Now, we come to the controversial passage of Luke 2:1-2. 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).  These words have made many question the authenticity and inerrancy of scripture. 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 under Augustus
  • No census that would have required Joseph to be in Bethlehem
  • Mary would have not been required to be part of the census
  • No census under King Herod in Palestine
  • Josephus only mentions Quirinius’ census in A.D. 6
  • 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. The current understanding is that there are no records of Quirinius as Legate over Syria during the time of Jesus’ birth. Josephus’s recording of a census occurring in A.D. 6 and Quirinius starting as Legate over Syria at this time is seen to be in direct contradiction to the fact that Herod is said to be alive during the birth of Jesus in Matthew since we know Herod 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 not only does Luke 2:1-2 seem to be in direct contradiction with Matthew’s account of Jesus’ birth, but this statement also contradicts Luke’s own statement only shortly before.

Luke seems to be aware of the intricacies of the politics in the area 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 in his description. He carefully uses words such as “protos” and “hegemoneuo” along with grammar style to express his thoughts. The wording Luke uses in this passage is unusual, but as we look closer can we explore possible solutions to this dilemma and proposed contradiction.

protos

Luke uses the Greek word “protos” to qualify his statement and he 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, 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 translating it as “first” demonstrates that Luke was distinguishing this census from the A.D. 6 census.

So based on this, the Greek allows for three possibilities,

  • 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. Proponents who believe Luke is wrong would have to show why it makes sense for Luke to include this word, “protos” and to use the genitive structure and odd grammar Luke uses here when these aspects are unnecessary if Luke is only simply saying that it is a census conducted under Quirinius. Why use a more difficult structure when a simpler sentence would suffice? I am not a koine Greek expert, so I will only provide a summary of these perspectives here.

“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 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, he doesn’t say that it is impossible but close. I am not an expert on Greek, so cannot comment.

Articles to read:

“prominent”

The other possibility argued for is that the grammar implies that the census became prominent while Quirinius was governor in Syria. Quote from an article, 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?)

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.

Articles to read:

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.

“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 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. He is claiming that he is referring to the “first” census when Quirinius officiated in Syria. So, in other words, the burden of proof is not to show that the census of A.D. 6 coincides with Jesus’ birth, any such effort is only sidetracking the issue, the burden of proof is whether or not there was another census before the A.D. 6 one, which is what Luke seems to imply. Luke is also not claiming that he is referring to a time when Quirinius served as Legate over Syria. 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 Syria before A.D. 6 in any officiating office? 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.

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 of Luke. 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 be used for simply a counting or a call for an oath of loyalty. And we will see that such a thing did take place during this time in Judea while Herod 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 should not assume that “each to his own town”, refers to everyone 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. 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?

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 associate 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 5th, 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 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.

It must be noted that if Luke is claiming that this was an empire-wide census, none of these empire-wide censuses were anywhere near the timeframe of A.D. 6. The A.D. 6 census was a regional census following a transition in power, not empire-wide. So, if Luke is describing an empire-wide census then he is unlikely referring to the one in A.D. 6. The A.D. 6 census also did not concern the province of Galilee, where both Joseph and Mary lived at the time. Even if Luke is only talking about a census of the land of Palestine, the A.D. 6 census only covered Syria, not all of Palestine, and not Galilee. Why would residents of Galilee participate in a census set only for Judea? We also know that Luke was aware of the A.D. 6 census, hence another reason it is unlikely that Luke is referring to the A.D. 6 census. 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

  • it was empire-wide or at least the land governed by Herod the Great and thought of as the Palestine territory which included Galilee
  • it was the first of more than one census while Quirinius was an official in Syria.

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?”

                It is also argued that no census required traveling to one’s city of ancestry and no census that required a woman to participate, so why did Mary come along with Joseph? Luke did not say that they were required to go to the city of their ancestry, only to their home city. It would make sense for an agriculture region to go to the city near them to register. 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, Taas­ies 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. But the evidence is that they planned to stay in the area of Bethlehem for a while even after the birth, for after their flight to Egypt, on their return it appears that they originally were coming back to Bethlehem 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. 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.

Also, because the idea of a census would be odious to many Jews, Herod 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 there 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.

If this was during the census of A.D. 6, would Joseph feel safe traveling with a pregnant wife or changing his place of residence, especially close to Jerusalem, during a time of revolt and instability? Maybe, Maybe not, but Luke seems to possibly be aware of two censuses one uneventful and one with a revolt.

In the end, because of Josephus writing of a census, we can conclude that there was a census taken in Judea around this time as described by both Josephus and Luke and that this census could have also occurred during either the 6/5 B.C. or the 3/2 B.C. and possibly the 1 B.C dates proposed for Jesus’ birth.

Articles:

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 been governing 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?

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 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 it is also not necessary to still make Luke’s statement about Quirinius accurate.

The koine Greek 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.

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. We know it is probable from 5-3 B.C. that the 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 did not continue as Legate of Galatia after 3 B.C., did that location change as well, so before and after we are not sure where Quirinius was, we just know he was in the area. One of the possible locations would be Syria. Military facilities were only located in imperial provinces. 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 (the 3rd largest) and probably more comfortable city, Antioch. Syria would have been a good location for headquarters in a war in Asia Minor. We also know that Quirinius one the war through attrition and may have had time to help with other matters. After all, he was both Legate of Galatia and conducted the war at the same time. So it is possible that Quirinius played a part in the census conducted in Judea. 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. 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. If we take out the possible time Quirinius served as Legate over Galatia, we can see that he could have been in Syria during the time of Jesus’ birth.

Articles to read:

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. So are these stories about the same event and 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.

Articles to read:

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.

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 be valued for their accuracy in putting things together, Luke would be the one I would side with on an issue. Luke shows a significant firsthand understanding of people, places, and events. 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 to the Christian community, but also to 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. The accuracy of Luke’s account has been accused of being false because of no archeological or written evidence multiple times only later for 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 in the 4th 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 is unlikely for him to make.

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. It is also interesting that the claims that have been made about Luke have been arguments from silence, with no discoveries or facts showing Luke to be in error. What makes a scholar pit one writing over the other? 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? 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:

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. Luke does not say that people in the empire were required to go to their ancestral homes, just to their home city. Herod though could have adapted the requirements to be more fitting to the Jewish culture, requiring them to be counted by families 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.

  • 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 a solution without 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.

Series NavigationAre Bats Birds? Deuteronomy 14:11 >>

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Trending now

person on cliff
Hidden God in an evil world – Series Outline
throne in an ornate interior of a church
The day before the throne
Lion and Stars firstborn of creation
The Firstborn and Beginning of God’s Creation, version 2
lion glory of God
The Gospel is for the believer

Discover more from My Beloved is Mine

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading