Luke records that Caesar ordered a worldwide census, during the governorship of Quirinius, in Syria (Luke 2:1-2). Critics have spotted some chronological problems. Luke may have been wrong. Is the problem solvable with sound reason and historical digging?

Let’s not appeal to special pleading but instead to fair-minded research.

However, I’m not confident that I can convince hostile readers of the Gospels generally, and this passage specifically, but there may be some honest seekers and semi-friendly (or friendly) readers who want to know.

The translation is mine. If you would like to see other translations, please go to biblegateway.com.

I borrow heavily from respectful scholars because I learn manny things from them, and because they are charitable towards the Bible. I place friendly scholars on the same or higher level than hostile critics. Hostile critics cannot claim objectivity compared to friendly scholars.

Let’s begin.

The Worldwide Census (Luke 2:1-5)

1 Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ἐξῆλθεν δόγμα παρὰ Καίσαρος Αὐγούστου ἀπογράφεσθαι πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην. 2 αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου. 3 καὶ ἐπορεύοντο πάντες ἀπογράφεσθαι, ἕκαστος εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ πόλιν. 4 Ἀνέβη δὲ καὶ Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἐκ πόλεως Ναζαρὲθ εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν εἰς πόλιν Δαυὶδ ἥτις καλεῖται Βηθλέεμ, διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς Δαυίδ, 5 ἀπογράψασθαι σὺν Μαριὰμ τῇ ἐμνηστευμένῃ αὐτῷ, οὔσῃ ἐγκύῳ. .

1 It happened in those days that a decree from Caesar Augustus was issued to register the whole world. 2 This registration was the first while Quirinius was governing Syria. 3 Everyone came to be registered, each to his ancestral hometown. 4 Joseph went up from Galilee from the town of Nazareth to Judea, the town of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was from the dynasty and lineage of David, 5 to be registered with Mary, who was betrothed to him. And she was pregnant. .

Commentary on the Background

Caesar Augustus was born Gaius Octavius (Octavian) (ruled 31 BC to AD 14). He changed his name to Gaius Julius Caesar after Caesar’s death. He was known as Octavian, until he was granted the title Augustus in 27 B.C.

Another general historical aspect.

Bethlehem is David’s birthplace (1 Sam. 17:12; 20:6; Ruth 1:2; 2 Sam. 7:8-16). It is about five miles (eight km) south of Jerusalem, the birthplace of King David. Mic. 5:2 says that the future king of Israel would come from Bethlehem: “But you Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come from me one who will be ruler of Israel, whose origins are from old, from ancient times” (Mic. 5:2, NIV).

Some scholars say that because there is a Bethlehem of Galilee, it is more likely that Jesus was born there. However, the text clearly says the Bethlehem where Jesus was born was in Judea (Matt. 2:1). Here v. 4 says that Joseph and Mary traveled down to Judea and to his family town of Bethlehem because Joseph was of the lineage of David. I follow the biblical text.

The Theology behind the Passage

Let’s review a theological point.

Bock on 2:1: “Luke portrays Augustus as the unknowing agent of God, whose decree leads to the fulfillment of the promised rise of a special ruler from Bethlehem (Mic. 5:1-2). In the period of the emperor known for his reign of peace, God raises up the child of peace. For many interpreters, Luke is not only placing Jesus’ birth in the context of world history, but he also is making a play on the theme of the peaceful emperor […] The real emperor of peace is Jesus, not Octavian. But in the absence of Lucan comment about Augustus, the point, if present, is subtle” (p. 203).

Green: “The explicit naming of Caesar Augustus in 2:1 is also of interest, for this refers to Octavian, recognized in antiquity as ‘the savior who has brought peace to the world.’ That in this very context Jesus is presented as Savior Lord, the one through whom peace comes to the world (2:11, 14), can hardly be accidental” (p. 58).

Also, Luke is simply recording a significant political event, not marking time by a calendar or a clock on the wall. A tax revolt had happened in Galilee earlier, and Jesus will be known as a Galilean. The census issued by proud, formidable Caesar will contrast God’s eternal reign, now embodied in his Son. He will reverse the order, eventually, but not by violence, but by obedience to God’s Son (Garland, pp. 118-19).

The Main Issue and Solutions

Now for Luke’s report about historical data and the census and when Quirinius was governor.

Does the governorship of Quirinius pose any insurmountable historical problems for Luke’s account? Does this period of the registration for tax purposes pose any insurmountable historical problem? In other words, was Luke wrong or creating a literary fiction about a census under Governor Quirinius?

Here are some solutions to the census dispute.

(1) Three censuses took place at this time, and smaller ones in Syria, Gaul and Spain, and others were likely required, one for Israel, which went unrecorded. Luke’s description of a census for the whole world merely reflects the ongoing census-taking.

(2a) Census could be done following local customs. Joseph needs to go to his ancestral hometown because the Romans were eager to keep the peace and allowed local customs to prevail. Genealogies and lineages were important to the Jews, and the Romans would allow the registration to proceed along those lines.

(2b) Is Luke mistaken in saying Mary went with Joseph, though the census may not have required this? Mary went along because Joseph did not want to miss the birth, and betrothal was much more covenantal than our simple engagement.

(3) Herod’s power and authority were great at this time, so that he minted coins bearing his image, but this would not impede the emperor’s from registering his citizens. Would Herod allow a census on his turf? He could not prevent it. Why antagonize Rome? Hence these large and small censuses were possible.

(4) It is true that Josephus mentions a revolt against a census and taxation in AD 6, which is too late for the chronology here, but not every census ignited a revolt, so it is possible that the one Joseph registered for went off without incident.

(5a) Quirinius was governor twice: one from 11/10 BC to 8/7 BC, as well as in the later period, when he took the census in AD6. But this is speculative.

5b) Quirinius was a legate between Varus and Gaius Caesar in 4 BC to 1 AD, but the problem is that the census during this gap is too late for Herod’s death.

(5c) A census was taken under Varus in the gap 4 BC to 1 AD, and it was said to be Quirinius’ census because their administration overlapped, since census take time to complete.

(5d) Quirinius was merely an administrator and not officially a governor until later, but it takes time to compete a census, and during this time Quirinius became governor.

(5e). To analyze technical Greek terms the census lasted for a decade. However, closer look at the terms reveals that this solution is not likely.

(5f) The Greek adjective prōtē (pronounced proh-tay) should be translated as “earlier” and not ‘first.”

(5g) The problem is overcome by translating “first” as “before” which Garland accepts (see below). This overlaps with 5f.

Bock says 5c, 5d, 5e are the best solutions. Then he adds that the adjective prōtē really does mean “first,” and Luke knew of other censuses under governor Quirinius. Therefore Luke does not mean the census in A.D. 6. “In light of this and the various possibilities, it is clear that the relegation of Luke 2:2 to the category of historical error is premature and erroneous” (p. 909)

Bock pp. 903-09.

Marshall:

Behind such acts there will have been an edict from the emperor, used by the governor to justify his action to the people (Sherwin-White, 168f.), or the governor’s edict may have been popularly regarded as stemming from the emperor himself (H. Braunert, 201f.). In any case, Luke’s statement can be regarded as a sufficiently accurate description of the emperor’s intention that the whole empire should pay taxes. Schürer, History, I, 411, admits that in the time of Augustus censuses were held in many provinces, and Sherwin-White, 168, affirms more strongly that ‘a census or taxation-assessment of the whole provincial empire (excluding client kingdoms) was certainly accomplished for the first time in history under Augustus’. (comment on v. 1)

Garland argues that the word “first” in Greek should really be translated here in this context as “before,” and cites John 1:15, 30 as his other examples: “first” followed the genitive absolutes, as we have here in v. 2. “This translation fits historically” because “Quirinius was not the first that the Jews had undergone. Herod, whose charge as a client king of Rome was to Romanize his territory, had a ‘well-organized system of taxation and […] he needed to, and did, exercise social control over his people.’ This census would have been one of many conducted by Herod according to the Roman example” (Garland, comment on 2:2, and citing in part Brook W. R. Pearson).

Garland further says the commanded tax does not refer to one tax, but was simply part of a coordinated, empire-wide policy of Augustus to exert control (ibid.).

Biblical Theology Study Bible offers this solution:

Other sources have a dated census under Quirinius to AD 6 (Josephus, Antiquities 18:26; cf. Acts 5:37), when he began his term as governor of Syria. This census could not be the one noted by Luke since Herod the Great died in 4 BC It is possible that Quirinius served an earlier term that began before Jesus’ birth (often dated at 6 or 5 BC. [the Greek adjective prōtos / prōtē …] It is possible to translate this as “before” […] which would mean that this census could have taken place before AD 6. Furthermore, inscriptions on ancient coins suggest that there may have been another Quirinius who was governor during the time of Jesus’ birth. The presence of two Roman officials of the same name may then explain the historical difficulties here (comment on 2:2)

The Cultural Background Study Bible says:

Quirinius. Syria’s governor during the famous, contentious census of AD 6, but our incomplete historical records do not name Syria’s governor during the time of Jesus’ birth. Some suggest that Luke confused the two censuses or periods; others, that he deliberately conflated the census here with the later, better-known one [Acts 5:37]. Others suggest that Quirinius was already an official at this time (we lack evidence at this point to say that he was not), in which case Luke may mean, “the first census under under Quirinius.” Still other prefer the translation “before Quirinius was governor.” In any case, the region that the Romans came to call Palestine belonged to the Roman province of Syria and historians dated events in connection with the officials, so it was appropriate to name Syria’s governor whether or not he administered the census directly (comment on 2:2)

Bottom line: Luke is not in error because he writes that this is the first census under Governor Quirinius, which implies that he has knowledge that we do not have. Quirinius may have been governor at this time because there is no evidence that he was not, so let’s not build a big case of an error on silence. Luke is not erroneously referring to the census in AD 6 that really happened after Herod died in about 6 BC. Luke already knew of the census in AD 6 in Acts 5:37, so it is not likely that he would conflate the two censuses. As an historian, he was more careful and accurate than that.

The Historical Reliability of the Book of Acts

So one or more of the explanations spelled out in this post are a better fit to explain the historical puzzle.

Second (shorter) Bottom line: there is no error or literary fiction here. Just insufficient data or a contextual, better translation is needed or coins saying two men of the same name, Quirinius.

Application and Recommendations

Consider this hypothetical scenario. If throughout the entire Bible there were a few historical data points that did not hit the bullseye, but were still on the target, it would be foolish to throw out the entire Bible, as some uptight pastors and teachers demand. “If the Bible were to be wrong in one historical detail, then we cannot trust it about God and theology and our faith and practice!” That’s an overreaction.

The Bible is not brittle, and nor should your faith be. We could still learn wonderful truths from the Bible about God and his redemptive plan of salvation in Christ. from Genesis to the Revelation, and how we can live our lives in him. The American church of the more restrictive variety needs to relax a lot more.

Recommendations

My view of Scripture: It’s very high, but I don’t believe in “total inerrancy” or “hyper-inerrancy” (my term):

‘Total’ Inerrancy and Infallibility or Just Infallibility?

Begin a series on the reliability of the Gospels. Start with the Conclusion which has quick summaries and links back to the other parts:

15. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Conclusion

The Gospels have a massive number of agreements in their storylines:

14. Similarities among John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels

Celebrate them and don’t get distracted by the differences.

See this part in the series that puts differences in perspective (a difference ≠ a  contradiction):

13. Are There Contradictions in the Gospels?

SOURCES

For the bibliography, please click on this post and scroll down to the very bottom

Luke 2