Changes

== Solution ==

== 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.”<ref>F.M. Heichelheim, ‘Roman Syria’, in ''An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome'', ed. T. Frank (Baltimore, 1938), pp. 161.</ref>  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.<ref>F. F. Bruce, ''Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans) p. 192</ref>  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,<ref>Nigel Turner, ''Grammatical Insights into the New Testament'', pp. 23-24.</ref> F. F. Bruce,<ref>F. F. Bruce, ''Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), p. 192.</ref> Brook W. R. Pearson,<ref>Brook W. R. Pearson, ‘The Lukan Census, Revisited’, in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'', vol. 1, no. 2 (April 1999).</ref> Ben Witherington III,<ref>Ben Witherington III, ''What Have They Done With Jesus?'' (Aan Francisco: Harper, 2006), p. 101.</ref> H. W. Hoehner, <ref>H. W. Hoehner, ''Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ'' (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), p. 21.</ref> and many more.<ref>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.</ref>   

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.”<ref>F.M. Heichelheim, ‘Roman Syria’, in ''An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome'', ed. T. Frank (Baltimore, 1938), pp. 161.</ref>  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.<ref>F. F. Bruce, ''Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans) p. 192</ref>  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,<ref>Nigel Turner, ''Grammatical Insights into the New Testament'', pp. 23-24.</ref> F. F. Bruce,<ref>F. F. Bruce, ''Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), p. 192.</ref> Brook W. R. Pearson,<ref>Brook W. R. Pearson, ‘The Lukan Census, Revisited’, in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'', vol. 1, no. 2 (April 1999).</ref> Ben Witherington III,<ref>Ben Witherington III, ''What Have They Done With Jesus?'' (Aan Francisco: Harper, 2006), p. 101.</ref> H. W. Hoehner,<ref>H. W. Hoehner, ''Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ'' (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), p. 21.</ref> and many more.<ref>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.</ref>   

== 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 pseudo-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 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.

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.

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.  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.

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."<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.

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>   

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>   

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 (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>   

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.