Changes

This article, '''Luke and ‘the’ Census''', discusses Luke’s mentioning of a census, and the Roman governor [[Quirinius]], in the context of the birth of [[Jesus]].  The matter is of significance because it is commonly cited as an example of an error in Holy Scripture, though this assertion is based on misinterpretations and historical misunderstandings.

This article, '''Luke and ‘the’ Census''', discusses Luke’s mentioning of a census, and the Roman governor [[Quirinius]], in the context of the birth of [[Jesus]].  The matter is of significance because it is commonly cited as an example of an error in the Holy [[Bible]], though this assertion is based on misinterpretations and historical misunderstandings.

== Common Translation ==

== Common Translation ==

The Gospel of Luke, chapter 2, records the birth of Jesus.  The common translation is given below, with the disputed sentence italicized:

The [[Gospel of Luke]], chapter 2, records the birth of Jesus.  The common translation is given below, with the disputed sentence italicized:

:In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. ''This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria.'' And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. (Luke 2:1-7, English Standard Version)

:In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. ''This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria.'' And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. (Luke 2:1-7, English Standard Version)

== Chronological Problem ==

== Chronological Problem ==

The date of the census conducted by Quirinius is established by reference to the writing of Josephus Flavius, a Romano-Jewish historian who wrote a history of the Jewish people, known as the ''Antiquities'', at the end of the first century (A.D.).  Quirinius, a Roman senator, became governor of Syria in A.D. 6, following the exile of Herod Archelaus.  Upon acquiring his post, Quirinius conducted a census for Augustus, Emperor of Rome, which stirred revolutionary opposition from nationalistic Jews and ultimately a revolt, led by Judas the Galilean.   

The date of the census conducted by Quirinius is established by reference to the writing of [[Josephus Flavius]], a Romano-Jewish historian who wrote a history of the Jewish people, known as the ''Antiquities'', at the end of the first century (A.D.).  Quirinius, a Roman senator, became governor of [[Syria]] in A.D. 6, following the exile of [[Herod Archelaus]].  Upon acquiring his post, Quirinius conducted a census for Augustus, Emperor of Rome, which stirred revolutionary opposition from nationalistic Jews and ultimately a revolt, led by [[Judas the Galilean]].   

The difficulty raised by this fact is that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, which ended in 4 B.C.,<ref>The date of Herod’s death is established from information in Josephus, and from the regnal dates of his successors.  Though generally accepted, it is not without its challengers, e.g. W. E. Filmer, ''Journal of Theological Studies'' 17 (1966), pp. 283-98; O. Edwards, ‘Herodian Chronology’, in ''Palestine Exposition Quarterly'' 114 (1982), pp. 29-42; E. L. Martin, ''The Birth of Christ Recalculated'' (Pasadena and Newcastle upon Tyne, 1978); J. Thorley, ‘When was Jesus Born’, ''Greece & Rome'' (1981).</ref> and thus he could not have been born during the census of Quirinius in A.D. 6, as Luke is often understood to be claiming.

The difficulty raised by this fact is that Jesus was born during the reign of [[Herod the Great]], which ended in 4 B.C.,<ref>The date of Herod’s death is established from information in Josephus, and from the regnal dates of his successors.  Though generally accepted, it is not without its challengers, e.g. W. E. Filmer, ''Journal of Theological Studies'' 17 (1966), pp. 283-98; O. Edwards, ‘Herodian Chronology’, in ''Palestine Exposition Quarterly'' 114 (1982), pp. 29-42; E. L. Martin, ''The Birth of Christ Recalculated'' (Pasadena and Newcastle upon Tyne, 1978); J. Thorley, ‘When was Jesus Born’, ''Greece & Rome'' (1981).</ref> and thus he could not have been born during the census of Quirinius in A.D. 6, as Luke is often understood to be claiming.

Both the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew record that Our Lord was born during the reign of Herod the Great.  Matthew is explicit in this regard, and he also gives the added detail that Herod ordered all the male children in Bethlehem two years old and younger executed, since he learned of a prophecy from the magi that a new King of the Jews had been born in the village (Matthew 2:16).  This implies a terminal date for the birth of Jesus of 6 – 4 B. C.  Luke’s chronology is in harmony with Matthew’s.  He recorded that Elizabeth, Mary’s relative, became pregnant with her child John the Baptist during the reign of Herod the Great (Luke 1:5), and then described Mary’s pregnancy with her child Jesus as occurring six months later.  Luke also stated that Jesus was “around thirty” when he began his ministry (Luke 3:23), which began after the ministry of John the Baptist.  Luke dated John the Baptist’s ministry to “the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar” (Luke 3:23), or A. D. 27.  This also would place Jesus’ birth around 4 B.C.

Both the Gospel of Luke and the [[Gospel of Matthew]] record that Our Lord was born during the reign of Herod the Great.  Matthew is explicit in this regard, and he also gives the added detail that Herod ordered all the male children in [[Bethlehem]] two years old and younger executed, since he learned of a prophecy from the magi that a new King of the Jews had been born in the village (Matthew 2:16).  This implies a terminal date for the birth of Jesus of 6 – 4 B. C.  Luke’s chronology is in harmony with Matthew’s.  He recorded that Elizabeth, Mary’s relative, became pregnant with her child John the Baptist during the reign of Herod the Great (Luke 1:5), and then described Mary’s pregnancy with her child Jesus as occurring six months later.  Luke also stated that Jesus was “around thirty” when he began his ministry (Luke 3:23), which began after the ministry of [[John the Baptist]].  Luke dated John the Baptist’s ministry to “the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar” (Luke 3:23), or A. D. 27.  This also would place Jesus’ birth around 4 B.C.

== Solution ==

== Solution ==

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 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.

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>   

== Historicity of Luke’s details ==

== Historicity of Luke’s details ==