Changes

== Chronological Problem ==

== 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 (in A.D. 6).  Upon acquiring his post, Quirinius conducted a census for Augustus, Emperor of Rome, which stirred revolutionary opposition from nationalistic Jews, and a revolt was led by Judas the Galilean.   

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.,<ref>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).</ref> 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.

The difficulty raised by this fact is that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, which ended in 4 B.C.,<ref>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).</ref> 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 of her child Jesus as occurring six months later.  Luke also stated that Jesus was “around thirty” when he began his ministry (Luke 3:23), which began 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.

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), which began 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 ==

== Solution ==

== Criticism of Saint Luke ==

== 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,<ref>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.</ref> liberal theologians such as R. E. Brown,<ref> R. E. Brown, ''The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke''. London: G. Chapman, 1977, p. 554.</ref> 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,<ref>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.</ref> Peter Richardson,<ref>Peter Richardson, ''Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans'', (University of South Carolina Press, 1966), p. 31.</ref> and even A. N. Sherwin-White, who otherwise vindicated the accuracy of Luke on all manner of points.<ref>A. N. Sherwin-White, ''Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 166-167.</ref>  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”.<ref>John P. Meier, "A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus" (Doubleday, 1991), v. 1, p. 213.</ref>

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,<ref>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.</ref> liberal theologians such as R. E. Brown,<ref> R. E. Brown, ''The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke''. London: G. Chapman, 1977, p. 554.</ref> 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,<ref>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.</ref> Peter Richardson,<ref>Peter Richardson, ''Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans'', (University of South Carolina Press, 1966), p. 31.</ref> and even A. N. Sherwin-White, who otherwise vindicated the accuracy of Luke on all manner of points.<ref>A. N. Sherwin-White, ''Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 166-167.</ref>  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”.<ref>John P. Meier, "A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus" (Doubleday, 1991), v. 1, p. 213.</ref>

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 in this regard.  Here we will observe the points of Mark D. Smith.  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 we in no way make 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.

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 we will observe the points of Mark D. Smith.  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 we in no way make 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.<ref>Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'', vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000).</ref>  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.”<ref>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.</ref>  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 Koran War.<ref>Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'', vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000), pp. 282-283.</ref>  And Luke did know of the revolt of Judas the Galilean and its relationship with a census, mentioning it in Acts 5:37.   

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.<ref>Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'', vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000).</ref>  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.”<ref>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.</ref>  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 Koran War.<ref>Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'', vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000), pp. 282-283.</ref>  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).

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 no where else can be accused of fabrication, stands against this view.  Even if one points to (supposed) errors elsewhere on Luke’s part, that’s far different than 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).<ref>Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'', vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000), pp. 278-293.</ref>

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 no where 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).<ref>Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'', vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000), pp. 278-293.</ref>

== Objections to the Solution ==

== 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.<ref>A. N. Sherwin-White, ''Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 171, n. 1.</ref> 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).<ref>Brook W. R. Pearson, "The Lucan censuses, revisited" in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'' (April 1999).</ref>  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.

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.<ref>A. N. Sherwin-White, ''Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 171, n. 1.</ref> 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).<ref>Brook W. R. Pearson, "The Lucan censuses, revisited" in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'' (April 1999).</ref>  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.<ref>Michael Grant, ''Herod the Great'' (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1971) p. 171; cf. Josephus, ''Jewish War'' 1.14.14</ref> 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).

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.<ref>Michael Grant, ''Herod the Great'' (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1971) p. 171; cf. Josephus, ''Jewish War'' 1.14.14</ref> 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.   

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.  Herod, like other “client kings”, was a ruler who was dependant upon Roman support; indeed, he has been called a "model of what those dependent rulers ought to be."<ref>Michael Grant, ''Herod the Great'' (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1971) p. 11, cf. p. 14, 50-52, 225-226</ref>  He owed his very establishment as king to Marc Anthony and the Roman Senate.  In the words of Pearson, Herod was “totally dependant on Rome for his power, influence, kingdom, and freedom…”.<ref> Brook W. R. Pearson, "The Lucan censuses, revisited" in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'' (April 1999), p. 267.</ref>  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).<ref>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.</ref>   

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 dependant upon Roman support; indeed, he has been called a "model of what those dependent rulers ought to be."<ref>Michael Grant, ''Herod the Great'' (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1971) p. 11, cf. p. 14, 50-52, 225-226</ref>  He owed his very establishment as king to Marc Anthony and the Roman Senate.  In the words of Pearson, Herod was “totally dependant on Rome for his power, influence, kingdom, and freedom…”.<ref> Brook W. R. Pearson, "The Lucan censuses, revisited" in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'' (April 1999), p. 267.</ref>  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).<ref>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.</ref>  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.

Rome had conquered Palestine in 48 B.C., enforced tribute payment, and subjected the area to repeated military campaigns.  Herod was installed by Rome to do its bidding, which included not only tribute payment, but also enforced Romanization.  It is in this context that a census, employing Roman administrative techniques, makes sense.  Indeed, there is evidence that points to such a census under Herod in the works of Josephus.<ref>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.</ref>  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.<ref>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</ref>   

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.<ref>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.</ref>  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.<ref>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</ref>   

== Historicity of Luke’s details ==

== Historicity of Luke’s details ==