== Objections to the Solution ==
Counterarguments specific to the revised translation, proposed by Heichelheim, have been few. Most objectors have simply take taken the position, expressed by A. N. Sherwin-White, that the proposed translation was implausible and could not be accepted without another such usage elsewhere in Luke's writings.<ref>A. N. Sherwin-White, ''Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 171, n. 1.</ref> But all would agree that, grammatically, the proposed translation is a possibility, and the grammatical construction proposed was common in the context of the Hellenistic Greek in which Luke wrote. B. W. R. Pearson observed this high degree of attestation, even pointing to two examples in the New Testament (John 5:36, 1 Corinthians 1:25).<ref>Brook W. R. Pearson, "The Lucan censuses, revisited" in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'' (April 1999).</ref> Given the relatively limited sample of writings from Luke (his Gospel and the Book of Acts), it is overly ambitious to expect to establish a regular linguistic usage that would exclude the possibility of a grammatical construction well known to his literary context.
More general objections include the argument that no such census prior to that taken by Quirinius occurred. This criticism does not itself reject the alternate translation, but instead argues that, even accepting it, the account in Luke’s Gospel presents a historical impossibility. Of course it is certain that Herod taxed his own subjects, in part to gather sums for the required tribute payment to Rome, and that this process that required the collection of census data.<ref>Michael Grant, ''Herod the Great'' (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1971) p. 171; cf. Josephus, ''Jewish War'' 1.14.14</ref> But the criticism is made that a ''Roman'' census, which would be different than simply one conducted by Herod, could not, and did not, occur before that conducted by Quirinius. Cited in support is the fact that the Roman census of Quirinius in A.D. 6 inspired a revolt, and it is argued that any previous one would have likewise done so, and thus would be attested in the writing of Josephus (since, after all, he paid special attention to the A.D. 6 revolt).
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>
== Historicity of Luke’s details ==