Luke 02

The Census and the Birth of Jesus

2:1 Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus to register all the empire for taxes.

Augustus was the adopted son of Julius Caesar. He adopted the throne of the most powerful empire in the world. He reigned from 27 B.C. to A.D. 14. Rome was experiencing Pax Romana, which was 200 years of Roman peace. The Roman legions had conquered most of the Roman world. They controlled the silk roads and the Mediterranean Sea. They were so strong that no one could stand against them. 

2:2 This was the first registration, taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

The traditional birth of Jesus is usually given at 5 B.C. However, this figure is wrong for the following reasons. Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, from 12 B.C. to A.D. 1, and again from A.D. 6–10.  The Deeds of Augustus by Augustus placed him as consul as early as 12 B.C. This decree of Luke 2:2 was issued in 8 B.C.  This decree brought Jesus to Bethlehem.

According to Acts 5:27, Quirinius issued another decree in 6 A.D. Skeptics often use this latter date in order to confuse those who are not grounded in the Word of God. They fail to mention this additional reference in Acts 5:27. This is a very dishonest and deceptive argument that skeptics use to attack the Bible. Many Biblically ignorant atheists fall for this argument as well, because they have not taken the time to deeply study these issues. They place their faith in the word of internet atheists rather than in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God.

It only takes one Greek word to destroy the argument of the internet skeptics. The Greek word for "governor" is ἡγεμονεύοντος (hagemoneuontos), a present passive participle, meaning one who was governing as a Propraetor. Luke did not use the term ἑλληνική (elanika), which was the normal title for a Roman governor. He used the participial form of ἡγεμονεύοντος (hagemoneuontos), which was used for a Propraetor (senatorial governor), or Procurator (like Pontius Pilate), or Quaestor (imperial commissioner).

Josephus recorded that Herod moved to Jericho in 5 B.C. and died there. Since Jesus was born after this decree, and since Herod moved to Jericho in 5 B.C. and died there, then the wisemen had to meet Herod at least two years before 5 B.C.  Since Jesus was two years old when Herod ordered the death of the Bethlehem babies, then Jesus must have been born between 7-6 B.C.

2:3 Everyone went to his own town to be registered.

This was not an income tax, but a land tax. Since Joseph and Mary were from the wealthy house of King David, they still held some land in Bethlehem that was taxable by the Roman government.

2:4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family line of David.

Joseph and Mary left Nazareth and traveled to Bethlehem in order to pay the Roman land tax. This was about a seventy mile journey on donkey.

2:5 He went to be registered with Mary, who was promised in marriage to him, and who was expecting a child.

Mary was pregnant at the time of her travel.

2:6 While they were there, the time came for her to deliver her child.

This means that Joseph and Mary would need to find a hotel to stay. However, because of everyone traveling from different cities to pay the land tax, all of the hotels were full.

2:7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in strips of cloth and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

The manger was a burial cave where the sheep were kept during bad weather. The strips of cloth were cloths that were used to wrap around the corpses of those who died. Jesus was born in a burial cave wrapped with burial cloth. The symbolism is that men are born to live, but the Messiah was born to die. God did not light up the sky and appear to man in great glory. He entered into the world in the weakness of a baby. This baby could have spoken the universe out of existence.

The Shepherds’ Visit

2:8 Now there were shepherds nearby living out in the field, keeping guard over their flock at night.

Bethlehem was a shepherding community. They provided lambs for all of the offerings of the Jewish temple in nearby Jerusalem. Jerusalem would offer lambs once each morning, once each evening, once a week, once a month, once a year, with additional sacrifices on the seven feasts of Israel. This means that the Bethlehem shepherding economic community was very prosperous.

The Messiah was not first announced to kings or religious leaders. Instead, He was announced first to shepherds. Since they were professional shepherds who provided all of the many sacrifices for the Jewish temple, they would understand the purpose of the Messiah entering His creation as "the Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world".

2:9 An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were absolutely terrified.

The Shekinah Glory left Israel during the days of Ezekiel. It now returned to Israel inside of the baby Jesus. It also appeared to the shepherds in its Old Testament form of light. It appeared to the wise men as a star.

2:10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid! Listen carefully, for I proclaim to you good news that brings great joy to all the people:

An angel appeared with the Shekinah Glory presence and commanded them not to be afraid. The angel commanded them to listen very carefully to what he was about to tell them. The angel was going to bring some extremely good news to them. This good news would bring great joy to all people, including Jews and Gentiles who will eventually be born throughout all of history.

2:11 Today your Savior is born in the city of David. He is Christ the Lord.

There were many saviors in the Old Testament. For example, the judges saved Israel from many of their enemies. However, this savior was different, because He was the Messianic Savior.

Christ means that he is "the anointed King". All kings had to be anointed by God's prophets. John the Baptist was the prophet who announced Jesus. The baptism by John was similar to the anointing of kings by prophets.

Lord means "the covenant-keeping-promise-keeping" God. Jesus was the anointed King and the God who made a covenant with Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. 

2:12 This will be a sign for you: You will find a baby wrapped in strips of cloth and lying in a manger.”

The Greek word for "sign" is σημεῖον (saymeon), which typically means a miraculous sign, but not always. Sometimes, the sign can be something out of the ordinary. The unusual sign was that the baby would be found in a burial cave wrapped in burial cloth. Since these shepherds were professionals who knew the locations of all of the burial caves, they knew not to look in the city itself. These shepherds kept their sheep in these caves during bad weather, so all that they had to do was to search the burial caves.

2:13 Suddenly a vast, heavenly army appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,

An army of angels appeared to the shepherds. The Shekinah Glory, the angel, the army of angels, and the shepherds were now all together. The Greek word for "praising" is αἰνέω (aineow), meaning to give praise. There is a different Greek word for singing, which is τραγουδώ (tragoudow). Therefore, the popular Christmas song "Hark the herald angels sing" may not be Biblically correct. This verse does not record angels singing, although this praise could have involved singing.

It is interesting to note that according to Job 38:7, angels may have been singing at creation. "When the morning stars sang in chorus, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" The Hebrew word for "sang" is רָנַן (ranan), meaning to shout in unison, shout for joy, or to sing aloud in joy. The Hebrew word for "in chorus" is יָ֫חַד (yachad), meaning all together in unison. The Hebrew word for "shouted for joy" is ר֫וּעַ (rush), meaning to shout with joy, shout a battle cry, or sounding an alarm. Since there are two different words for "singing in joy" (רָנַן) and shouting in joy (ר֫וּעַ), then it does appear that angels do sing. At creation, the morning stars either shouted together in joy, sang together in joy, or most likely both.

God asked this question to Job in Hebrew parallelism. The stars of the heaven were not made until the fourth day. Therefore, they could not physically shout or sing at creation (since they did not exist). Therefore, according to other scripture references, the morning stars were the same as the “sons of God”(Genesis 6:2, Job 1:6, Job 2:1). The sons of God were angels. 

2:14 “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among people with whom he is pleased!”

The angels most likely had a conversation with the shepherds. In this conversation, the angels gave glory to God. They explained to the shepherds that this Messiah would eventually bring peace among the "people with whom He is pleased". God is pleased only with those who believe on His Son. "There is no peace for the wicked," as they will burn in the Lake of Fire forever. This was the first recording of Jewish worship of Jesus.

2:15 When the angels left them and went back to heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has taken place, that the Lord has made known to us.”

The shepherds all had a great desire to meet the baby Messiah.

2:16 So they hurried off and located Mary and Joseph, and found the baby lying in a manger.

The shepherds find Joseph and Mary not in s manger, but in a burial cave.

2:17 When they saw him, they related what they had been told about this child,

This message from the shepherds further authenticated to Joseph that this birth was a supernatural event.

2:18 and all who heard it were astonished at what the shepherds said.

The "all" were most likely Jewish Messianic believers who were living in the shepherd community of Bethlehem. This message had to be astonishing. The Messiah was born into the world and His only visitors were Bethlehem shepherds. God could have lit up the sky and entered the world in great pomp and splendor, but He humbly chose to enter the world in the weakness of a baby. This baby could have spoken the universe out of existence.

2:19 But Mary treasured up all these words, pondering in her heart what they might mean.

Mary treasured these words and told them to Luke. Luke wrote these events down for future generations to hear.

2:20 So the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen; everything was just as they had been told.

The shepherds in Bethlehem had the birth of the Messiah confirmed by the presence of the Shekinah Glory and the testimony of an army of angels. They would be sharing this story with others for the next thirty years.

2:21 At the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was named Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

The name of Jewish children was given by the father not at birth, but at circumcision. Those Jews who were circumcised were obeying the Mosaic Law. They were confirming that they were partakers in the Abrahamic Covenant, meaning that one day the Messiah would be born and He would bless all people. The name "Jesus" means  "Jehovah saves". The name of Jesus portrayed his character and his mission to earth.

Jesus’ Presentation at the Temple

2:22 Now when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, Joseph and Mary brought Jesus up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.

According to the Mosaic Law, a woman was unclean for 80 days if she had a girl and 40 days if she had a boy. Jesus was a first born son. 

2:23 (just as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male will be set apart to the Lord”), 2:24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what is specified in the law of the Lord, a pair of doves or two young pigeons.

When a male child was born, the mother was unclean for forty days. When a female child was born, then the mother was unclean for eighty days. Mary offered a pair of turtle doves for herself as a ceremonial purification sacrifice. One turtle dove was for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. No Jewish family under the Mosaic Law could offer birds for sacrifice unless they could not afford anything better. Since Joseph and Mary were offering birds, it shows that they were at the poverty level. Isaiah 11:1 predicted that the Messiah would not arrive until the mighty house of David had been reduced to a stump. This ritual demonstrated that the house of David was no longer a mighty tree, but just a cut down stump.

The second offering was for the redemption of the firstborn. The firstborn of all humans and the firstborn of all animals belonged to God.

The Prophecy of Simeon

2:25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem named Simeon who was righteous and devout, looking for the restoration of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.

Simeon was "righteous and devout," meaning that he was a member of the Jewish Messianic remnant who was looking for the Messiah to restore Israel to its glory via the Messianic Kingdom. The Holy Spirit came upon him and gave him divine information. Charismatics like to use this verse to teach that the Holy Spirit comes upon them in modern times, but Luke is recording history and not doctrine. The history of the church is found in the gospels and Acts. Doctrine for the new dispensation of the church is found in Paul's epistles. According to Jude, the gospel was given "once and for all," so there is no more divine revelation through prophets and tongue speakers.

2:26 It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.

Simeon knew that the Messiah would come in his own lifetime.

2:27 So Simeon, directed by the Spirit, came into the temple courts, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what was customary according to the law,

The Holy Spirit controlled Simeon and led him into the temple courts. The temple courts were very busy, but the Holy Spirit led him right to the parents of Jesus.

2:28 Simeon took him in his arms and blessed God, saying,

Simeon took the 40-day Jesus into his arms and blessed God.

2:29 “Now, according to your word, Sovereign Lord, permit your servant to depart in peace.

Simeon had seen the Messiah, just as promised. He called the Lord sovereign, meaning that He is in control of every single detail of history. This control extended to the whole triune scope of past, present, and future. Simeon was now ready to go to the Father in peace.

2:30 For my eyes have seen your salvation

Simeon was speaking in Hebrew. The Hebrew word for 'salvation" is Yeshua, which is the Hebrew name of Jesus. Simeon was saying that his own eyes had seen Yeshua.

2:31 that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples:

Jesus had been born as a human and prepared to die for the sins of the world.

2:32 a light, for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel.”

The Gentiles were living in the darkness of demonic paganism. Jesus was the light who would reveal the truth to the Gentiles. Luke emphasized that Jesus came to bring salvation to the Gentiles as well as the Jews. 

2:33 So the child’s father and mother were amazed at what was said about him.

Joseph and Mary were eyewitnesses to some supernatural events.

2:34 Then Simeon blessed them and said to his mother Mary, “Listen carefully: This child is destined to be the cause of the falling and rising of many in Israel and to be a sign that will be rejected.

Simeon blessed Joseph and Mary. Then, he gave two negative prophecies to Mary. First, Jesus would cause great divisions between the Jewish families. Some would choose Jesus. Most would choose Judaism. Whenever a Jewish person believes in Jesus, then he is usually given a funeral by his non-believing family.

2:35 Indeed, as a result of him the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed – and a sword will pierce your own soul as well!”

When Mary observes how the Jews will reject Jesus, then it will break her heart. Her heart will be even more broken when she observes him dying on the cross. 

The Testimony of Anna

2:36 There was also a prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old, having been married to her husband for seven years until his death.

Notice that Anna was from the tribe of Asher. She was married to her husband for seven years. Many of the cults and isms teach that the 12 tribes were lost and that their cult has replaced them. However, Anna did not think that she was lost.

2:37 She had lived as a widow since then for eighty-four years. She never left the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.

After being married for seven years, she was then widowed for 84 years, meaning that she was over 100 years old. She never left the temple. She continually worshipped, fasted, and prayed day and night for the Messiah to come.

2:38 At that moment, she came up to them and began to give thanks to God and to speak about the child to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.

Jesus was only 40 days old, but she recognized that Jesus was the Messiah.

2:39 So when Joseph and Mary had performed everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.

Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth. Nazareth was a Roman garrison. Nazareth was despised by the Jews because they believed that any Jew living in that town had sold his soul to Rome in order to become materially prosperous.

2:40 And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom, and the favor of God was upon him.

There are some cults and isms that teach that Jesus performed miracles as a child. However, there is no evidence of this recorded in Scripture. This is the only verse in the New Testament which revealed any information about the childhood development of Jesus from 4-12 years old.

Jesus grew up in a home of Bible-believing parents who were members of the Jewish believing remnant, They observed the Mosaic Law and provided strong Biblical education for their children. The typical Jewish boy living in this type of home during the time of Jesus began his study of the Scriptures at the age of five in local Jewish schools.

At the age of ten, they would study the oral laws, which were not a part of the Scriptures. These were man-made laws that Jesus condemned. When Jesus said "it is written," He was basically saying that only the written, not the oral law, is the Word of God. The oral law was basically a collection to mythological teachings or former rabbi. These rabbi taught that their oral law was even more of the Word of God than the written Law.

At the age of 12, the boys would become an apprentice and learn some type of professional labor skill in which they could make a living. For Jesus, this may have been carpentry. For Paul, it was tent making. The boys could either learn at home from their father, or move in and live with another master, who would complete their training.

Another option at age 12 was the profession of rabbi. A 12 year old would train at a rabbinic school until the age of 30. At 30, the student would become a rabbi. This may have been the reason that Jesus waited until He was 30 years old to begin His ministry. His ministry only lasted three and a half years.

According to Isaiah 50:4-9, God the Father would wake Jesus early in the morning to prepare Him to be the Messiah. God the Father prepared Him to face the suffering that He was to experience. Jesus was divine and omniscient, but His human self still had to grow and learn. This learning process was guided by God the Father. 

Jesus in the Temple

2:41 Now Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem every year for the feast of the Passover.

All of the Jews under the Mosaic Law were to attend three festivals in Jerusalem every year. These three festivals were Passover, the Feast of Weeks, and Pentecost. Joseph and Mary kept the Law, so they participated in these ceremonies annually.

2:42 When he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom.

Once a son reached his 12th birthday, he was to attend the next Passover and appear in front of the rabbi in order to prepare for his Bar-mitzvah, which would be the following year. Therefore, this was not the Bar-mitzvah of Jesus, but His preparation. 

2:43 But when the feast was over, as they were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it,

The families usually traveled together in large caravans. This caravan vacation was a joyous family reunion which would keep the families in communication. Joseph and Mary assumed that Jesus was somewhere with other family members or friends inside of the caravan. 

2:44 but (because they assumed that he was in their group of travelers) they went a day’s journey. Then they began to look for him among their relatives and acquaintances.

Joseph and Mary did not realize that Jesus was missing until a full day later.

2:45 When they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem to look for him.

Joseph and Mary had to make the trip back, wondering where Jesus was. After all, they knew He was the Messiah, although He had lived a normal boyhood up until this time. It would take another day for Joseph and Mary to return to Jerusaelm.

2:46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.

It took Joseph and Mary three days to find Jesus. When they found Him, He was still in the temple courts. What should have been one day of preparation for Jesus turned into five days of questioning for the rabbi. The Greek word for "teachers" is διδάσκαλος (didaskalos), meaning a master of the Scriptures. They were experts on the Mosaic Law.

2:47 And all who heard Jesus were astonished at his understanding and his answers.

These master rabbi were astonished at the deep insight and understanding in which Jesus possessed of the Scriptures. Usually at age 12, one would not have this much understanding of Scripture. Plus, the rabbi knew that the Nazareth public education was not very strong. Jesus was able to reach this level of maturity, because He was trained by God the Father on a daily basis.

2:48 When his parents saw him, they were overwhelmed. His mother said to him, “Child, why have you treated us like this? Look, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.”

Mary forgot temporarily the real identity of her son. Her response was that of a typical Jewish mother. Many Jewish mothers attempt to control their children by placing guilt upon them. 

2:49 But he replied, “Why were you looking for me? Didn’t you know that I must be in my Father’s house?”

Jesus reminded Mary that His real father was not Joseph. Therefore, she should have known exactly where to find Him. 

2:50 Yet his parents did not understand the remark he made to them.

At age 12, Jesus followed His foster parent's occupation of carpentry. He also followed His real father's occupation of rabbi.

2:51 Then he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them. But his mother kept all these things in her heart.

Jesus was superior to His parents, who were both sinners. Yet, it was God's will that Jesus subject Himself to inferior and sinful humans. The husband-wife relationship is similar, in which the wife is equal to the husband, but she must subject herself to her husband. Why? This is God's order. 

2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and with people.

Notice that Jesus increased in wisdom, which is intelligence. He increased in stature, which is physical growth. He increased in favor with God, which means in spiritual insight and application. He increased in His social skill with people, which is maturity.  Jesus had to grow in all four of these areas, just as humans do. 

At the incarnation of Jesus, He gave up some of His divine attributes. He did not lose them. He simply chose not to use them. He had to completely trust in God the Father to provide Him with wisdom, physical growth, spiritual insights, and social skills.

+++

Appendix

note: Conservapedia gives some good additional information to the so-called Luke 2:2 Bible contradiction:

This article, Luke and ‘the’ Census, discusses Luke’s mentioning of a census, and the Roman governor Quirinius, in the context of the birth of Jesus. The matter is of significance because it is commonly cited as an example of an error in the Holy Bible, though this assertion is based on misinterpretations and historical misunderstandings.

Contents [hide]

1 Common Translation

2 Chronological Problem

3 Solution

4 Criticism of Saint Luke

5 Objections to the Solution

6 Historicity of Luke’s details

7 Other Solutions

8 Footnotes

Common Translation 

The Gospel of Luke, chapter 2, records the birth of Jesus. The common translation is given below, with the disputed sentence italicized:

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. And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. (Luke 2:1-7, English Standard Version)

The English Standard Version gives an alternative reading of the italicized passage: “This was the registration before Quirinius was governor of Syria.”  The primary issue is of Quirinius’s governorship, and whether Jesus was born during or before the census conducted by him. However, at this point it will suffice to observe that Luke is often taken to be saying that Joseph went to Bethlehem because of the census conducted by Quirinius.

Chronological Problem 

The date of the census conducted by Quirinius is established by reference to the writing of Josephus Flavius, a Romano-Jewish historian who wrote a history of the Jewish people, known as the Antiquities, at the end of the first century (A.D.). Quirinius, a Roman senator, became governor of Syria in A.D. 6, following the exile of Herod Archelaus. Upon acquiring his post, Quirinius conducted a census for Augustus, Emperor of Rome, which stirred revolutionary opposition from nationalistic Jews and ultimately a revolt, led by Judas the Galilean.

The difficulty raised by this fact is that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, which ended in 4 B.C.,[1] and thus He could not have been born during the census of Quirinius in A.D. 6, as Luke is often understood to be claiming.

Both the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew record that Our Lord was born during the reign of Herod the Great. Matthew is explicit in this regard, and he also gives the added detail that Herod ordered all the male children in Bethlehem two years old and younger executed, since he learned of a prophecy from the magi that a new King of the Jews had been born in the village (Matthew 2:16). This implies a terminal date for the birth of Jesus of 6 – 4 B. C. Luke’s chronology is in harmony with Matthew’s. He recorded that Elizabeth, Mary’s relative, became pregnant with her child, John the Baptist, during the reign of Herod the Great (Luke 1:5), and then described Mary’s pregnancy with her child, Jesus, as occurring six months later. Luke also stated that Jesus was “around thirty” when He began His ministry (Luke 3:23), after the ministry of John the Baptist. Luke dated John the Baptist’s ministry to “the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar” (Luke 3:23), or A. D. 27. This also would place Jesus’ birth around 4 B.C.

Solution

 

The solution to the apparent chronological problem was proposed in 1938 by historian F. M. Heichelheim, in his work on the history of Roman Syria. Examining the Greek grammatical structure of Luke 2:2, he argued that the original meaning was properly rendered as: “This census was the first before (=πρώτη) that under the prefectureship of Quirinius in Syria.”[2] He observed that the Greek word “protos,” usually translated as “first,” may also mean “before” or “former” when followed by the genitive case. Thus, St. Luke was saying that the census which prompted the Holy Family to go to Bethlehem was before the census conducted by Quirinius. The more famous census of Quirinius in A.D. 6 was simply serving as a marker for the reader of Luke’s Gospel, allowing Luke to point to a census that had occurred previously. Luke intended to place the events around the birth of Jesus before Quirinius's governorship and census in A.D. 6.[3] Heichelheim rightly observed that this translation would resolve “all difficulties.” This proposal has found acceptance as a legitimate resolution to the problem from several other scholars, including Nigel Turner,[4] F. F. Bruce,[5] Brook W. R. Pearson,[6] Ben Witherington III,[7] H. W. Hoehner, [8] and many more.[9]

Criticism of Saint Luke 

Many Biblical scholars hold, instead, that Luke intended to place the governing of Quirinius and the kingship of Herod the Great as contemporaneous. Often, these scholars then go on to argue that on this matter Luke made a factual blunder. Most of these scholars have spent their careers developing a body of work that depends upon a rejection of Biblical inerrancy. The list includes ex-priests such as Geza Vermes and John Dominic Crossan,[10] liberal theologians such as R. E. Brown,[11] and, of course, the psuedo-scholars of the Jesus seminar. However, the widespread nature of this position cannot be denied, and it includes historians such as Fergus Millar,[12] Peter Richardson,[13] and even A. N. Sherwin-White, who otherwise vindicated the accuracy of Luke on all manner of points.[14] Indeed, a kind of secular orthodoxy has developed, where dissenting voices are more likely to be dismissed without consideration, aptly evidenced by the statement of J. P. Meier, who curtly characterized the “attempts to reconcile Luke 2:1 with the facts of ancient history” as “hopelessly contrived”.[15]

Many of those who contend that Luke blundered accuse their critics (i.e. those who believe Luke did not make a mistake in this regard) of poor scholarship resulting from bias stemming from their belief in inerrancy. But perhaps the most frustrating element of this dismissive attitude is the unwillingness to acknowledge the historical difficulties in assuming that Luke erred on this matter. Here the points of Mark D. Smith will be observed. Smith himself did not accept the historical accuracy of the Gospel of Matthew, and so he can be accused of no such bias. Of course, in referencing his points no intention is made to give a concession to the blatantly anti-Christian position that believers in inerrancy cannot be scholars. But dismantling the absurdity of this view is not something that can be undertaken here, and, given the arguments of Smith, it is not immediately necessary.

Smith pointed out that it would be impossible to accept that Luke would have included such a mistaken account at the beginning of his Gospel.[16] The events concerning the census of Quirinius in A.D. 6, and the ensuing Jewish rebellion of Judas the Galilean, were well-known ‘cataclysmic events’. Luke himself, as shown by historian R. P. C. Hanson, was “remarkably well informed about the geographic distribution and governmental structures and officials of Roman provinces.”[17] Information about the date of Quirinius’s census would have been readily available to Luke, and thus a chronological error of no less than a decade by the evangelist is difficult to accept. Smith wrote, “…for first-century Jews to confuse those two events would be akin to twentieth century Americans confusing World War II and the Korean War.[18] And Luke did know of the revolt of Judas the Galilean and its relationship with a census, mentioning it in Acts 5:37.

Neither can carelessness concerning this matter be accepted on the part of Luke. Luke stood to lose everything if he included such an error in the second chapter of his work. He had opened his history by stating that he had written an account based on his diligent investigation of all the facts; thus, to risk so blatant an error about so obvious a matter – a matter which would have been known to his audience – at the beginning of his work was something that Luke simply would not have done (even without considering the matter of inspiration).

This fact also stands against the claim that Luke fabricated the account. It has been alleged that Luke made up this record to make it seem as if the prophecy, that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), had been fulfilled. Against this several points should be made. First, it goes without saying that, if Luke was inspired by God, then he would have made no fabrication, since God does not lie. Second, setting this belief aside, the fact that Luke was a historian, who nowhere else can be accused of fabrication, stands against this view. Even if one points to (supposed) errors elsewhere on Luke’s part, that would still be far different from an accusation of fabrication. Third the aforementioned point that Luke could not afford to make up an account that would be known to be false to his audience (immediately after stating a case for his own creditability) shows this accusation to be ridiculous. And the fourth and final point is the simple fact that Luke, as Smith pointed out, had “no good reason” to fabricate the account. Luke did not even mention the prophecy in his account, and, whatever the case, Matthew managed to place the Holy Family in Bethlehem without mentioning the census (and Matthew did mention the prophecy).[19]

Objections to the Solution 

Counterarguments specific to the revised translation, proposed by Heichelheim, have been few. Most objectors have simply take the position, expressed by A. N. Sherwin-White, that the proposed translation was implausible and could not be accepted without another such usage elsewhere in Luke's writings.[20] But all would agree that, grammatically, the proposed translation is a possibility, and the grammatical construction proposed was common in the context of the Hellenistic Greek in which Luke wrote. B. W. R. Pearson observed this high degree of attestation, even pointing to two examples in the New Testament (John 5:36, 1 Corinthians 1:25).[21] Given the relatively limited sample of writings from Luke (his Gospel and the Book of Acts), it is overly ambitious to expect to establish a regular linguistic usage that would exclude the possibility of a grammatical construction well known to his literary context.

More general objections include the argument that no such census prior to that taken by Quirinius occurred. This criticism does not itself reject the alternate translation, but instead argues that, even accepting it, the account in Luke’s Gospel presents a historical impossibility. Of course it is certain that Herod taxed his own subjects, in part to gather sums for the required tribute payment to Rome, and that this process that required the collection of census data.[22] But the criticism is made that a Roman census, which would be different than simply one conducted by Herod, could not, and did not, occur before that conducted by Quirinius. Cited in support is the fact that the Roman census of Quirinius in A.D. 6 inspired a revolt, and it is argued that any previous one would have likewise done so, and thus would be attested in the writing of Josephus (since, after all, he paid special attention to the A.D. 6 revolt).

To begin with, the highly speculative nature of this line of argumentation should be noted. It depends on assuming certain knowledge what various people, from the Jewish peasantry to Josephus, would or would not do. And it also neglects the differences between the rule of Herod and the state of dominion a decade later. But more specific problems present themselves. One must ask, in what sense does Luke’s account present us with a “Roman” census? Once the reference to Quirinius’s governing has been properly understood as not applying to a census under the reign of Herod and during Jesus’ birth, then the only implication of the census being “Roman” is the connection with a decree from Emperor Augustus.

Without a doubt, the Roman government, and Augustus himself, exerted considerable influence over Herod. Rome had conquered Palestine in 48 B.C., enforced tribute payment, and subjected the area to repeated military campaigns. Herod, like other “client kings”, was a ruler who was dependent upon Roman support; indeed, he has been called a "model of what those dependent rulers ought to be."[23] He owed his very establishment as king to Marc Anthony and the Roman Senate. In the words of Pearson, Herod was “totally dependent on Rome for his power, influence, kingdom, and freedom…”.[24] Moreover, his client kingdom (as with all client kingdoms) was a temporary construct. As historian E. T. Salmon observed, Herod’s whole purpose was to Romanize his (and, by extension, Augustus’s) territory – once this interim process was complete, the client kingdom would become a proper Roman province (as occurred in A. D. 6).[25] Indeed, it was the visible change in status that provided the new historical context resulting in the revolt, a context not present during the reign of Herod the Great.

But as for the earlier census, once the historical context of Herod's reign is properly identified, it becomes clear that a census employing Roman administrative techniques makes sense. Herod was installed by Rome to do its bidding, which included not only tribute payment, but also enforced Romanization. Indeed, there is evidence that points to such a census under Herod in the works of Josephus.[26] A parallel example was observed by historian L. R. Taylor, who noted that Archelaos, King of the Clitae in Cilicia Tracheia, is known to have attempted a Roman-style census in service of his own taxation.[27]

Historicity of Luke’s details 

A final set of objections has nothing to do with the date of the census, or the translation of the passage in question, but instead aims to launch a flurry of speculative attacks at the details provided by Luke. Perhaps the most common is the objection that a census would not have required travel. Adding to the difficulty is a misunderstanding of Luke’s text, whereby it is believed that Saint Luke is describing a decree that required the taxed to return to their ancestral townships. This formed the backbone of the set of criticisms leveled by E. P. Sanders, who stated that it would have been the practice for the census-takers, not the taxed, to travel. Moreover, he added that such a decree would require people to keep track of millions of ancestors; tens of thousands of descendants of David would all be arriving at Bethlehem, his birthplace, at the same time; and Herod, whose dynasty was unrelated to the Davidic line, would hardly have wished to call attention to royal ancestry that had a greater claim to legitimacy.[28]

The simple fact is that Luke does not, in any place, state that the census required people to travel to the home of their ancestors. Instead, Luke says simply that “all went to their own towns”. When Luke mentions return to one’s ancestral town, he is speaking only of Joseph.[29] In other words, people were required to travel to their township, but only this. Joseph chose to journey to his ancestral town, and to be registered there, rather than to his town of residence.

Mark D. Smith gave two reasons why Joseph would have made such a choice. As historian S. L. Wallace and others observed, some censuses gave up to a 50% tax reduction if one registered in a metropolis.[30] Because Bethlehem, Joseph’s ancestral home, was close to Jerusalem, he could qualify for the reduction.[31] This incidentally answers another objection; namely, why Joseph would have brought the very pregnant Mary along - he could have been motivated to register his firstborn son so that Jesus would qualify for the reduction when he came of age.[32] Census records from Egypt record an unusual number of houses listed as having no resident, and this may be evidence for the practice of registering in a metropolis (if one could make such a claim) rather than a town of residence.[33]

The second reason given by Smith is that Joseph may have owned property in his ancestral home, Bethlehem, and thus would need to register there. This property could have been as simple as farmland or a threshing floor, and need not imply any sort of wealth on Joseph’s part.[34] Against this, it has been argued that Joseph and Mary would not have needed to stay in an “inn”, as Luke records, if they had property in Bethlehem. The obvious weakness of this argument is that the property need not have constituted a suitable dwelling place, or a structure at all.

Whatever the case, once it is observed that Luke in no way describes the sort of decree that Sanders takes him to be doing, the only remaining objection is the matter of travel itself. But it is known for a fact that censuses could require the taxed to return to their townships. This is evidenced in part by a decree of Gaius Vibius Maximus that explicitly required "all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their own homes" for a "house to house census".[35] This interpretation not only makes sense out of Luke, but it allows us to avoid the absurd proposition that Luke fabricated an account of a census containing claims that his audience, well acquainted with Roman taxation, would have known to be absurdities.[36]

Many of the other objections to Luke’s account follow this pattern, being highly speculative in nature and depending upon reading into Luke’s account things which the evangelist does not say. Only a few can be addressed here, and then only briefly. One objection is the claim that Bethlehem would have been too small to support a roadside inn. Besides the fact that this requires a detailed kind of knowledge about early first century Bethlehem beyond what can be established from the evidence, it should be observed, as I. H. Marshall pointed out, that the Greek word used by Luke for “inn” also means” guestroom,” and this reading would have Joseph attempting to stay with relatives or friends.[37] Others have objected to Luke’s statement that Augustus decreed the “whole world” to be taxed. Of course, the phrase translated as “whole world” was an expression in antiquity used to indicate the Roman Empire.[38] And Luke’s wording does not necessarily mean that the whole empire was enrolled at once.[39] Moreover, Augustus’ extension and enforcement of taxation throughout his empire is without doubt. In sum, it would be impossible to here catalog every objection imaginable objection to Luke’s account – and the critics, if anything, may not be accused of a limited imagination – but it will have to suffice simply to state that these notions are all taken far beyond the evidence allows.

Other Solutions 

Though it is not the position advocated here, it would be remiss not to point out other solutions to the matter at hand. In particular, some scholars would accept the reading of Luke that has the evangelist placing Jesus’ birth during a census conducted by Quirinius, and during the reign of Herod the Great, but would then argue that Quirinius served as governing authority twice, once when he conducted the census of A. D. 6, but once earlier when he conducted a previous census, while Herod was King.

The arguments for and against this position cannot here be detailed. Certainly, some of the greatest Christian minds of the past hundred years have dedicated themselves to exploring this possibility, and the reader would do well to consult their works. Perhaps the most famous is that of the esteemed historian Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, "Was Christ born in Bethlehem?" (1891). The argument has been thoroughly examined by all sides, and, in brief conclusion, it may simply be said that it opens up a possibility, but one that ultimately requires a rather large set of inferences, and unique historical circumstances, unattested to by direct evidence. That said, the reader need not be reminded that unique events are by no means unknown to history.

Lastly, some scholars have simply stated that the problem is at present irresolvable; in the words of H. Hendrickx: "The available evidence is insufficient to form any firm solution."[40] I. H. Marshall (reflecting the view of other scholars) has said, “No solution is free from difficulty, and the problem can hardly be solved without the discovery of fresh evidence”.[41] In many ways, the humility of this position is its greatest asset, and the historical reserve of these scholars is, frankly, a quality lacking in the critics of Saint Luke. If the reader finds certain difficulties with the aforementioned solution argued by this article, then this final position, rather than the claim of an error on Luke’s part, is the natural conclusion to hold.

Footnotes 

↑ The date of Herod’s death is established from information in Josephus, and from the regnal dates of his successors. Though generally accepted, it is not without its challengers, e.g. W. E. Filmer, Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1966), pp. 283-98; O. Edwards, ‘Herodian Chronology’, in Palestine Exposition Quarterly 114 (1982), pp. 29-42; E. L. Martin, The Birth of Christ Recalculated (Pasadena and Newcastle upon Tyne, 1978); J. Thorley, ‘When was Jesus Born’, Greece & Rome (1981).

↑ F.M. Heichelheim, ‘Roman Syria’, in An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, ed. T. Frank (Baltimore, 1938), pp. 161.

↑ F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans) p. 192

↑ Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, pp. 23-24.

↑ F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), p. 192.

↑ Brook W. R. Pearson, ‘The Lukan Census, Revisited’, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 2 (April 1999).

↑ Ben Witherington III, What Have They Done With Jesus? (Aan Francisco: Harper, 2006), p. 101.

↑ H. W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), p. 21.

↑ The list is too long to mention in totality, some other examples include L. H. Feldman in W. Brindle, "The Census and Quirinius: Luke 2:2" in JETS 27 (1984), pp. 48-49; P. W. Barnett, ‘Apographē and apographesthai in Luke 2:1-5’, Expository Times 85 (1973-1974), 337-380;; Norman L. Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask (Wheaton, Ill.: Vicor, 1992), p. 185.

↑ Geza Vermes, The Nativity, Penguin 2006, p.96; Richard G. Watts and John Dominic Crossan, Who is Jesus?: Answers to Your Questions about the Historical Jesus (Westminster John Knox Press 1999), p. 18.

↑ R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. London: G. Chapman, 1977, p. 554.

↑ Fergus Miller, ‘Reflections on the trials of Jesus’, in A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, ed. P. R. Davies and R. T. White (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), pp. 355-81.

↑ Peter Richardson, Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans, (University of South Carolina Press, 1966), p. 31.

↑ A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 166-167.

↑ John P. Meier, "A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus" (Doubleday, 1991), v. 1, p. 213.

↑ Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000).

↑ R. P. C. Hanson, The Acts in the Revised Standard Version (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), pp. 2-3; Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000), pp. 283.

↑ Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000), pp. 282-283.

↑ Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000), pp. 278-293.

↑ A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 171, n. 1.

↑ Brook W. R. Pearson, "The Lucan censuses, revisited" in Catholic Biblical Quarterly (April 1999).

↑ Michael Grant, Herod the Great (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1971) p. 171; cf. Josephus, Jewish War 1.14.14

↑ Michael Grant, Herod the Great (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1971) p. 11, cf. p. 14, 50-52, 225-226

↑ Brook W. R. Pearson, "The Lucan censuses, revisited" in Catholic Biblical Quarterly (April 1999), p. 267.

↑ E. T. Salmon, A History of the Roman World from 30 B.C. to A.D. 138 (Methuen’s History of the Greek & Roman World 6’ 6th ed.; London: Methuen, 1986), p. 104-105.

↑ F. M. Heichelheim, ‘Roman Syria’, in An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome (6 vols; ed. T. Frank; Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1933-1940), vol. 4, pp. 160-162; cf. Brook W. R. Pearson, "The Lucan censuses, revisited" in Catholic Biblical Quarterly (April 1999), p. 266, 272.

↑ Lily Ross Taylor, "Quirinius and the Census of Judaea", in American Journal of Philology 54 (1933), 120-133, p. 131; cf. Tacitus, Annales 6.41

↑ E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, Penguin, 1993, p86; see also Bart Ehrman, A Brief Introduction to the New Testament, p103.

↑ Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000), p. 289.

↑ S. L. Wallace, Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian (Princeton University Studies in Papyrology 2; Princeton University Press, 1938); cf. N. Lewis, Life in Egypt Under Roman Rule (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983), p. 170; Derrett, Further Light on the Nativity of the Nativity p. 90-94.

↑ Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000), pp. 297.

↑ Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000), pp. 297.

↑ Brook W. R. Pearson, ‘The Lukan Census, Revisited’, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 2 (April 1999), p. 276.

↑ Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000), pp. 289-90.

↑ John McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Backer, 1991), p. 155; cf. P. Lond. 904, Decree of C. Vibius Maximus; cf. Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000), p. 289.

↑ The point made by R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday), p. 549.

↑ I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), p. 101.

↑ Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, etc., A Greek-English Lexicon revised by Henry Stuart Jones, and Roderick McKenzie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940).

↑ Ben, III Witherington, New Testament History: A Narrative Account p. 65

↑ Herman Hendrickx, Study in the Synoptic Gospels: the infancy narratives (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1984). See also G. Ogg's article in the Expository Times 79 (1968), where he surveys the problem and reaches the same conclusion as Hendrickx.

↑ I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), p. 104; cf. J. Nolland, Luke (3 vols.; Word Biblical Commentary 35a-s; Dallas, TX: Word, 1989-1993), vol 1., p. 102; cf. Brook W. R. Pearson, ‘The Lukan Census, Revisited’, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 2 (April 1999), p. 264 — Pearson considered his research to have provided the fresh evidence required to attain a solution, concluding in favor of the ‘alternative translation’ hypothesis.