Changes

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

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

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

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.<ref> Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'', vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000), p. 289.</ref>  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.<ref>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.</ref> because Bethlehem, Joseph’s ancestral home, was close to Jerusalem, he could qualify for the reduction.<ref>Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'', vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000), pp. 297.</ref>  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.<ref>Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'', vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000), pp. 297.</ref>  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 rather than a town of residence, if one could make such a claim.<ref> Brook W. R. Pearson, ‘The Lukan Census, Revisited’, in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'', vol. 1, no. 2 (April 1999), p. 276.</ref>   

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.<ref>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.</ref> Because Bethlehem, Joseph’s ancestral home, was close to Jerusalem, he could qualify for the reduction.<ref>Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'', vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000), pp. 297.</ref>  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.<ref>Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'', vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000), pp. 297.</ref>  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.<ref> Brook W. R. Pearson, ‘The Lukan Census, Revisited’, in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'', vol. 1, no. 2 (April 1999), p. 276.</ref>   

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

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.<ref>Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'', vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000), pp. 289-90.</ref>  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".<ref>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.</ref>  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.<ref>The point made by R. E. Brown, ''The Birth of the Messiah'' (New York: Doubleday), p. 549.</ref>   

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".<ref>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.</ref>  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.<ref>The point made by R. E. Brown, ''The Birth of the Messiah'' (New York: Doubleday), p. 549.</ref>   

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.  The can only be addressed briefly here.  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 that we simply do not have, 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.<ref>I. H. Marshall, ''The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), p. 101.</ref>  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,<ref>Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, etc., ''A Greek-English Lexicon'' revised by Henry Stuart Jones, and Roderick McKenzie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940).</ref>  Luke’s wording does not necessarily mean that the whole empire was enrolled at once,<ref>Ben, III Witherington, ''New Testament History: A Narrative Account'' p. 65</ref> and Augustus’ extension and enforcement of taxation throughout his empire is without doubt.  It would be impossible to here catalogue 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.  

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 that we simply do not have, 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.<ref>I. H. Marshall, ''The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), p. 101.</ref>  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.<ref>Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, etc., ''A Greek-English Lexicon'' revised by Henry Stuart Jones, and Roderick McKenzie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940).</ref>  And Luke’s wording does not necessarily mean that the whole empire was enrolled at once.<ref>Ben, III Witherington, ''New Testament History: A Narrative Account'' p. 65</ref> Moreover, Augustus’ extension and enforcement of taxation throughout his empire is without doubt.  In sum, it would be impossible to here catalogue 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 ==

== Other Solutions ==