Changes

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.   

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.   

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.

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.