Changes

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 on this matter.  Mark D. Smith makes a number of points regarding this matter and 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 it should be understood that there is no 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.

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.   

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.  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 scholars 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.

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.<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 ==

Though it is not the position advocated here, we 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.   

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.   

We cannot here detail the arguments for and against this position.  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, we may simply say 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.

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."<ref>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.</ref> 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”.<ref>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 &mdash; Pearson considered his research to have provided the fresh evidence required to attain a solution, concluding in favor of the ‘alternative translation’ hypothesis.</ref>  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.

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."<ref>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.</ref> 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”.<ref>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 &mdash; Pearson considered his research to have provided the fresh evidence required to attain a solution, concluding in favor of the ‘alternative translation’ hypothesis.</ref>  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.