Luke has been
charged by the critics with containing significant
historical inaccuracies in the nativity narrative of
chapter 2.
The Worldwide
Census
Luke 2:1-3
refers to a worldwide census under Caesar Augustus when
Quirinius was governor of Syria. However, according to the
annals of ancient history, no such census took place. In
fact, Quirinius did not become governor in Syria until
A.D. 6. It was commonly held by critics that Luke erred in
his assertion about a registration under Caesar Augustus,
and that the census actually took place in A.D. 6 or 7
(which is mentioned by Luke in Gamaliel’s speech recorded
in Acts 5:37).
A Possible
Retranslation
F. F. Bruce
offers another possibility. The Greek of Luke 2:2 can be
translated: "This enrollment (census) was before that made
when Quirinius was governor of Syria." In this case, the
Greek word translated "first" (protos) is
translated as a comparative, "before." Because of the
construction of the sentence, this is not an unlikely
reading. In this case there is no problem, since that
census of A.D. 6 is well known to historians.
Recent
Archaeological Support
The lack of any
extrabiblical support led some to claim this an error.
However, with recent scholarship, it is now widely
admitted that there was in fact an earlier registration,
as Luke records.
William Ramsay
discovered several inscriptions that indicated that
Quirinius was governor of Syria on two occasions, the
first time several years prior to A.D. 6. According to the
very papers that recorded the censuses, (see Ramsay,
Was Christ Born in Bethlehem?) there was in
fact a census between 10 and 5 B.C. Periodic registrations
took place every fourteen years. Because of this regular
pattern of census taking, any such action was regarded as
the general policy of Augustus, even though a local census
may have been instigated by a local governor. Therefore,
Luke recognizes the census as stemming from the decree of
Augustus.
Since the
people of a subjugated land were compelled to take an oath
of allegiance to the Emperor, it was not unusual for the
Emperor to require an imperial census as an expression of
this allegiance and a means of enlisting men for military
service, or, as was probably true in this case, in
preparation to levy taxes. Because of the strained
relations between Herod and Augustus in the later years of
Herod’s reign, as the Jewish historian Josephus reports,
it is understandable that Augustus would begin to treat
Herod’s domain as a subject land, and consequently would
impose such a census in order to maintain control of Herod
and the people.
Third, a census
was a massive project which probably took several years to
complete. Such a census for the purpose of taxation begun
in Gaul between 109 B.C. took 40 years to complete. Likely
the decree to begin the census, in 8 or 7 B.C., may not
have begun in Palestine until sometime later. Problems of
organization and preparation may have delayed the actual
census until 5 B.C. or even later.
Fourth, it was
not an unusual requirement that people return to the place
of their origin, or to the place where they owned
property. A decree of C. Vibius Maximus in A.D. 104
required all those absent from their home towns to return
for a census. Jews were quite used to travel, making
annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem.
There is simply
no reason to suspect Luke’s statement regarding the
census. Luke’s account fits the regular pattern of census
taking, and its date would not be unreasonable. This may
have been simply a local census taken as a result of the
general policy of Augustus. Luke simply provides a
reliable historical record of an event not otherwise
recorded. Luke has proven himself an amazingly reliable
historian (see Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and
Roman Citizen). There is no reason to doubt him
here.
Quirinius’
Terms as Governor
Given Luke’s
statement that the census decreed by Augustus was the
first one taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria, the
fact that Quirinius became governor of Syria long after
the death of Herod, in about 6 A.D., sounds like an error
in the Gospel.
As noted, there
is an alternate way to translate this verse which resolves
the problem. Further, there is now evidence that Quirinius
was governor of Syria on an earlier occasion that would
fit with the time of Christ’s birth.
Quintilius
Varus was governor of Syria from about 7 to about 4 B.C.
Varus was not a trustworthy leader, a fact demonstrated in
A.D. 9 when he lost three legions of soldiers in the
Teutoburger forest in Germany. Quirinius, on the other
hand, was a noted military leader who squelched the
rebellion of the Homonadensians in Asia Minor. When it
came time to begin the census, in about 8 or 7 B.C.,
Augustus entrusted Quirinius with the delicate problem in
the volatile area of Palestine, effectively superseding
Varus by appointing Quirinius to a place of special
authority in this matter.
Quirinius was
probably governor of Syria on two separate occasions, once
while prosecuting the military action against the
Homonadensians between 12 and 2 B.C., and later, beginning
about A.D. 6. A Latin inscription discovered in 1764 has
been interpreted to the effect that Quirinius was governor
of Syria on two occasions.
Gary Habermas
summarizes the situation well:
(1) A
taxation-census was a fairly common procedure in the
Roman Empire and it did occur in Judea, in particular.
(2) Persons were required to return to their home city
in order to fulfill the requirements of the process. (3)
These procedures were apparently employed during the
reign of Augustus (37 B.C.-14 A.D.), placing it well
within the general time frame of Jesus’ birth. (4) The
date of the specific taxation recounted by Luke could
very possibly have been 6-5 B.C., which would also be of
service in attempting to find a more exact date for
Jesus’ birth. [Verdict of History, 153]
Conclusion
There are three
reasons to believe Luke is accurate in his account of
Jesus’ birth. First, there is the general rule of
"innocent until proven guilty." A document from antiquity
in proper custody that purports to be giving an accurate
account (cf. Luke 1:1-4) should be accepted as authentic
until it is proven not to be. This is known as the
ancient document rule. This rule is used in law courts
to establish authenticity of old documents.
Second, there
are, as noted, plausible explanations that harmonize the
record with historical evidence.
Third, Luke has
proven himself to be a reliable historian even in the
details. William Ramsay spent twenty years of research in
the area Luke wrote about. His conclusion was that in
references to thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and
nine islands Luke made no mistakes! That is a record to be
envied by historians of any era.
Sources
G. L. Archer;
Jr., An Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties
F. F. Bruce,
The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
N. L. Geisler
and T. Howe, When Critics Ask
G. Habermas,
The Verdict of History
W. Ramsey,
St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen
_______, Was
Christ Born in Bethlehem?