Changes

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 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.

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.

== Other Solutions ==

== Other Solutions ==