Introduction
The 19th century theologian Emil Schürer outlined five challenges[1] to the historicity of the Lukan census which still stand as representative[2] of the ongoing controversy surrounding Luke 2:1-5.
- There is currently no historical evidence of an empire-wide census by Augustus.
- Joseph would not have been obligated to travel to Bethlehem for a Roman census.
- Judaea, as a vassal kingdom, would not have been subject to a Roman census
- Josephus doesn’t mention any census before 6 CE.
- Quirinius was not governor of Syria during the time of Jesus’ birth or Herod’s reign.
This article will briefly examine scholarly treatment of these challenges.[3]
The Five Challenges
1. An Empire-wide Census?
Schürer interprets Luke 2:1 as describing a single, empire-wide Roman census ordered by Augustus around 6 BCE. There is currently no historical evidence of any such imperial edict.
Critical scholarship agrees, however, that Augustus did conduct numerous and varied census activities throughout the empire and its provinces.[4] Because of this, scholars on both sides of the discussion suggest Luke was not referring to a general, imperial census as Schürer posits, but to a currently unidentified registration activity[5] that affected Judaea in some way.
Luke’s words may intend no more than to express simply the fact that the census in Palestine took place as part of a coordinated empire-wide policy of Augustus.[6]
Luke’s description (2:1) that such an edict is empire-wide may simply reflect the ongoing census process of this period.[7]
The biblical scholar R. E. Brown, a noted critic of the Lukan Census, accepts this position.
Did Augustus ever issue an edict that the whole world, i.e., the Roman Empire, be enrolled in a census? Certainly not in the sense in which a modern reader might interpret the Lucan statement! In the reign of Augustus there was no single census covering the Empire; and granted the different legal statuses of provinces and client kingdoms, a sweeping universal edict seems most unlikely. But Luke may not have meant a single census. […] what Luke may be telling us in an oversimplified statement is that the census conducted (in Judea) by Quirinius as governor of Syria was in obedience to Augustus’ policy of getting accurate population statistics for the whole Empire.[8]
2. Did Joseph have to go to Bethlehem?
Schürer here argues that Roman censuses did not require travel for registration purposes, pointing out that Rome would have considered such activities ‘troublesome’ and ‘inconvenient’, as well as outside the normal structure of a Roman census.[9]
There is evidence, however, that Rome did adapt its governance to local customs of vassal states, to include allowing the continuation of former regime administrative practices.[10] These adaptive practices extended to census activities, as we have come to know from papyri discovered (c. 1905) documenting an Egyptian provincial census conducted in 104 CE. that required travel to familial homes.[11] Scholars cite this as favorable for Luke, removing the logistical impracticability posed by Schürer.[12]
Ever since the discovery of papyri recording house-to-house censuses at fourteen-year intervals in Egypt…we can be sure that a hard core of historical fact lies behind the passage from Luke, even if we cannot reconcile the time of the census with the traditional date of Jesus’ birth.[13]
2a. Did Mary have to go to Bethlehem?
Schürer contends that Roman censuses would not have required Mary to travel with Joseph, suggesting that women were not required to personally register,[14] though he does concede that in some parts of the empire women were liable for the poll-tax.[15] However, recent discoveries[16] of registration documents from an early second century CE Arabian provincial census detail a woman traveling to her administrative district to personally register her property.[17] While some details differ between the Arabian registration and Luke 2:5, this new evidence provides a historical context for Mary’s travel.[18]
3. A Roman Census in Judea?
Schürer notes that a Roman census with the purpose of imposing a Roman tax would not have occurred in Judaea. For Schürer, the sovereignty extended to client kings precluded direct Roman intervention over administrative matters. [19] [20] However, a number of scholars question Schürer, pointing out that evidence from Josephus strongly suggests Augustus exercised considerable control over Judaea, displaying a personal interest in Herod’s affairs and interceding when he was displeased, or concerned, about Herod’s actions.[21] For Rome, client kingdoms were clearly meant to temporarily serve as such. Primarily occupying Rome’s borders in order to buffer against frontier lawlessness, once sufficiently ‘Romanized’ these client kingdoms were to be annexed into the Empire.[22]
While scholars are still undecided over Schürer’s third challenge, conservative scholarship finds it difficult to dismiss that Rome exercised a much more restricted governance of its client kingdoms than Schürer allows.
4. Josephus doesn’t mention a Roman Census before 6 CE
Schürer, in his fourth challenge, rightly observes that Josephus does not mention a Roman census during Herod’s reign. Moreover, Schürer points out that Josephus referred to the Quirinian census of 6-7 CE as a “new and previously unheard of” event in Judea.[23]
Some scholars suggest that Herod did conduct censuses, but according to Jewish models[24]—not Roman—to avoid upsetting Jewish religious and traditional sensibilities.[25] The elaborate taxation system under Herod is often referenced as support here.[26] [27] Also of interest is the annual per capita (i.e. poll) tax imposed during Archelaus’ reign,[28] which strongly indicates census activities under a Herodian ruler in pre-provincial Judea. It is currently unknown whether Archelaus’ poll-tax was a continuation from his father’s reign. The New Testament scholar, Armand Puig i Tàrrech, believes this to be the case, further arguing this poll-tax may have had its origin as far back as the Ptolemies.[29]
One last point of interest is the frequency of such Herodian censuses, if they did occur. Opinions range from six, seven, or fourteen years,[30] with some commentators pointing to Josephus’ references of Herodian tax amnesties and required oaths as possible census dates.[31] While Josephus does not refer to these events as censuses, it is possible that the two oaths, at a minimum, were in some way linked to census activities because of the need for personal inscriptions from the populace.[32]
4a. What did Josephus mean by “new and previously unheard of”?
The second part of Schürer’s fourth challenge argues that Josephus, in calling the Quirinian census “new and previously unheard of”, was referring specifically to the assessment of a Roman tax in Judaea.[33] This makes the Lukan census—which Schürer insists was a Roman one—suspect, since it would render the Quirinian census only 12 years later neither “new” nor “previously unheard of”.[34] As noted already, Schürer’s insistence on the registration in Luke 2:1 being of Roman design and administration is unnecessary.
Some scholars alternatively suggest that Josephus was not referring simply to the imposition of a Roman tax, but specifically to the introduction of the tributum soli (property tax)[35] and/or the establishing of direct Roman rule as what was new and previously unheard of.[36] [37] These would have stood in stark contrast to Herod’s policy of opaque Roman rule under the guise of Jewish tradition.[38] [39]
Without more detail from Josephus, scholars admit they can only speculate on what exactly he meant. Also to be considered when dealing with Josephus, according to scholars, is the underlying motivation for his historical perspective.[40]
5. Quirinius was not the Governor of Syria during Herod the Great’s Reign
Schürer’s fifth challenge is the most difficult within the current discussion.
A census held under Quirinius could not have occurred in the time of Herod, for Quirinius was never governor of Syria during the lifetime of Herod.[41]
History knows of a single legateship of Quirinius over the province of Syria, and that in c. 6 CE. His arrival in Syria coincided with the census of Judaea mentioned by Josephus.[42] It is precisely this dating that presents the problem, since 6 CE is too late for the nativity.[43]
Over the centuries, many attempts have been made to reconcile Luke’s perceived discrepancy.[44] Conservative biblical scholarship of the last 150 years has focused on a select few of the more robust explanations that do not sacrifice Luke’s accuracy. The two most often discussed are
- Two Legateships of Quirinius over Syria
- An alternate reading of Luke 2:2, “this was the first registration…”
5a Quirinius governed Syria twice?
This position argues that Quirinius held some type of governorship[45] over Syria on two separate occasions; the accepted date of 6/7 CE as well as an earlier date (either c. 3-2 or c. 9-5 BCE).[46] [47] W. M. Ramsey et.al, forcefully argue this position, appealing to historical records, the Lapis Tiburtinus inscription[48] and supposition, in an effort to place Quirinius in Syria prior to 6 CE.[49]
The reasons for the date of 3-2 BCE centres on scholarship’s current uncertainty as to who held the Syrian legateship at this time.[50]
| 23-13 BCE | M. Agrippa |
| c. 10 BCE | M. Titius |
| 9-6 BCE | S. Sentius Saturnius |
| 6-4 BCE, or later | Quintilius Varus |
| 3-1 BCE | ? |
| 1 BCE to c. 4 CE | Gaius Caesar |
| 4-5 CE | L. Volusius Saturnius |
| 6-7 CE, or later | P. Sulpicius Quirinius |
As one can imagine, this has prompted much debate over Quirinius as a possibility, which would seemingly solve the dilemma presented by Schürer.[51] However, Schürer, who is familiar with the suggestion, dismisses this dating as deficient,[52] observing that these dates conflict with the accepted dates of Herod’s death (5/4 BCE).[53] [54] Ramsey rejects the late dating for the same reason.[55] For Ramsey, earlier dates (c. 9-5 BCE) are more appropriate.[56] Additionally, Ramsey finds that an early dating coincides nicely with the known census decree by Augustus in 8 BCE.[57] [58]
While a popular view early on, current scholarship considers the possibility of Quirinius holding two legateships in Syria historically untenable.[59] While some discussion continues, the overall consensus has shelved it until better evidence can be presented.
5b The Census ‘Before’ Quirinius
Setting aside the assumption that Quirinius served twice as legate of Syria (thus assigning him the single legateship in 6 C.E.) allows us to explore another possible solution to Schürer’s fifth challenge. Briefly, that there is a possible alternate reading of Luke 2:2, from this:
This was the first registration, taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria.
To this:
This was the first registration, before the one when Quirinius was governor of Syria.
Or variants thereof.
This alternate translation, supported by a number of scholars,[60] places the Lukan Census prior to the infamous census of 6-7 CE, with which Luke is also familiar (Acts 5:37). Certainly this is not a new argument; Schürer comments on it, going so far as to express its plausibility:
That this translation in case of need might be justifiable may be admitted (John 1:15, 30).[61]
But then goes on to say:
It is indeed absolutely inconceivable for what purpose Luke should have made the idle remark, that this taxing took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria. Why would he not rather name the governor under whom it did take place?[62]
Setting aside Schürer’s incredulity, scholarship remains cautious, keenly aware that this position has grammatical challenges.[63]
The form of the sentence is in any case odd, since it is hard to see why prw/toj was introduced without any object of comparison, and it may be that prw/toj should be understood as a comparative with the meaning ‘before’. Luke does write loose sentences on occasion, and this may well be an example of such. No solution is free from difficulty, and the problem can hardly be solved without the discovery of fresh evidence.[64]
[W]e would do better to take a plausible grammatical solution which accords with the evidence rather than to ignore the evidence on the basis of shaky grammar.[65]
Despite the general acceptance of Luke’s abilities as a historian,[66] Luke 2:2 in particular continues to pose problems for the student of the Bible. Critical scholarship is divided on the solution and will undoubtedly remain so until new evidence is discovered.[67]
Conclusion
As the Biblical scholar I. H. Marshall observes regarding the possible solutions scholars have posed to Schürer’s challenges,
These considerations show that the character of the census described by Luke is far from impossible, and hence many recent writers are prepared to admit that Luke’s description of a census reflects historical reality. The major difficulty that remains is the date.[68]
This article is in agreement. As Marshall, et.al, have suggested, extending Luke the benefit of the doubt is not unwarranted. It seems unlikely that he would have jeopardized his own credibility with descriptions of events unknown to his immediate readers. Commentators on both sides of this discussion agree.
By almost any reckoning, the Gospel [of Luke] would have been composed while some would have had at least some second-hand knowledge of events surrounding the birth of Jesus. Such a glaring factual error as is suggested for the [census] passage would have been bound to arouse questions. The Lukan narrative does not provide an overt theological explanation for its particular telling of the events, since the account seems to purport to be a historical account, placing specific events within the context of other events involving actual people in the ancient world, such as Augustus and Quirinius.[69]
Even if Luke had little historical information about how the census of Quirinius had been conducted, he lived in the Roman Empire and may have undergone census enrollment himself. It is dangerous to assume that he described a process of registration that would have been patently opposed to everything that he and his readers knew.[70]
Finally, even if Luke were making this up, he would sooner make something up that sounded plausible: in other words, such procedures were probably followed in at least one census within the author’s memory, and we have no way to disprove the use of such a practice in previous provincial assessments.[71]
[1] E. Schürer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, First Division (2 vols; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1890; repr. Hendrickson, 1994), 2:105-43.
[2] The majority of commentators on the Lukan census since Schürer follow his listed challenges, often in the same order, even when Schürer is not named.
[3] While this article is intended to provide a broad look at the Lukan Census discussion, I hope, God willing, to treat key points featured here to further analysis in future articles.
[4] Scholarship is unanimous here. Schürer concurs: “The conclusion which we reach is simply this, that in the time of Augustus valuation censuses had been made in many provinces. […] Augustus regarded it as his special task to restore matters to an orderly condition.” History, 2:120.
[5] The Biblical scholar I. H. Marshall states that Luke is using avpogra,fomai which refers to an enrolment—most likely for taxing purposes, but not an actual taxing activity—I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Exeter: Paternoster, 1978), 98. Schürer agrees: “The verb avpogra,fein means first of all only ‘to register,’ and is therefore more general than the definite avpotiman, ‘to value.’”, History, 2:112. [Ed JWA]: Luke 2:2’s word avpografh. is used also in Acts 5:37 re ‘Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing/census/registration’: evn tai/j th/j avpografh/j].
[6] J. Nolland, Luke 1:1–9:20 35A (WBC; Dallas: Word Incorporated, 2002), 99. [Emphasis in all quotes in this article is my own.]
[7] D. Bock, Luke Volume 1: 1:1–9:50 (BECNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1994), 903.
[8] R. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (New Updated Edition; New York; London: Yale University Press, 1993), 548-9.
[9] Schürer, History, 2:120.
[10] Non-Judean examples include pre-provincial Dura and Nabataea; see H. M. Cotton, W. E. H. Cockle, and F. G. B. Millar “The Papyrology of the Roman near East: A Survey” JRS 85 (1995): 214–35.
[11] “Gaius Vibius Maximus, the Prefect of Egypt, declares: The census by household having begun, it is essential that all those who are away from their nomes {A nome was an Egyptian administrative district -author} be summoned to return to their own hearths so that they may perform the customary business of registration and apply themselves to the cultivation which concerns them…” K. Hansen, “Census Edict for Egypt”, cited http://www.kchanson.com/ancdocs/greek/census.html
[12] Even Luke’s critics agree: “We do know that censuses could have such requirements for travel, not only from papyri but also from common sense: it is a well-known fact that even Roman citizens had to enroll in one of several tribes to be counted, and getting provincials to organize according to locally-established tribal associations would be practical…”, R. Carrier, “The Date of the Nativity in Luke” cited http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html [3rd July 2012, no pagination]; “[O]ne cannot rule out the possibility that, since the Romans often adapted their administration to local circumstances, a census conducted in Judea would respect the strong attachment of Jews to tribal and ancestral relationships”, Brown, Messiah, 549.
[13] H. M. Cotton, “The Roman census in the papyri from the Judaean Desert and the Egyptian katV oivki,an avpografh” in Semitic Papyrology in Context (ed. L. A. Schiffman; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2003), 105-122 (105).
[14] Schürer, History, 2:121.
[15] Specifically mentioned is provincial Syria. Schürer cites the Roman jurist Ulpian here, Schürer, History, 2:111, fn. 13. Scholarship is divided on the interpretation of Ulpian, specifically on whether or not women were required to personally register, though the requirement of their registration is undisputed. Schürer suggests the male head of the family registered the women, though he admits basing this claim on ‘assumptions’ of earlier scholars (2:121 and fn. 51 respectively). Others are not so convinced, suggesting women personally appeared to register—A. Tàrrech, Jesus: An Uncommon Journey: Studies on the Historical Jesus (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 77; cf. Nolland, Luke, 100; Marshall, Luke, 102.
[16] ‘Cave of Letters’ discovery of 1960-61.
[17] Cotton, “The Roman census in the papyri from the Judaean Desert and the Egyptian katV oivki,an avpografh.”, 112-3.
[18] Even though Luke does not go into detail, commentators do habitually ascribe legal obligations to Mary’s travel. Not considered here, though worth mentioning, is that alternative explanations exist. For example, it may be as simple as Mary wishing to be with Joseph, perhaps specifically during the time of her delivery. R. H. Stein, Luke (NAC 24; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1992), 105.
[19] Schürer, History, 2:122.
[20] The Roman historian Dio Cassius wrote that “Augustus administered the subject territory {the province of Syria -author} according to the customs of the Romans, but permitted the allied nations to be governed in their own traditional manner…” Roman History (6 vols; trans., E. Cary; Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914-27), vol. 6, Book 54, 9, 1.
[21] Schürer himself provides a good synopsis of this view, which has changed little in the last century, History, 2:122-7.
[22] B. W. R. Pearson, “The Lucan Censuses, Revisited” CBQ 61 (1999): 262-282 (267, fn. 15; cf. E. Salmon, A History of the Roman World from 30 B.C. to A.D. 138 (London. Routledge, 1944; repr. 2004), 104-5.
[23] Schürer, History, 2:127.
[24] See Tàrrech (Jesus: An Uncommon Journey, 83-8) for more on ‘Jewish models’. Tàrrech argues that evidence of censuses in Judaean history (e.g. Exod 30:12-15; Num 1, 26; Ezra 2; Nehemiah 7) emphasizes how the Jews considered the land of Israel theirs by decree of God, apportioned to them by divine command. This, according to Tàrrech, explains the Jews’ grievance over the Quirinian census (Ant. 18:2, 9); Schürer disagrees (History 2: 130)—for Tàrrech’s response, see Jesus: An Uncommon Journey, 88, fn. 54.
[25] Bock suggests, “[A] previous census patterned after Jewish models most likely produced no reaction and may not have been worthy of Josephus’s attention.” Luke, 905; Tàrrech: “Herod’s census and taxation system was not an exact copy of the Roman census system nor did Herod need to fit his into this system. The Jewish sovereign had freedom to plan and act when dealing with his subjects…” Jesus: An Uncommon Journey, 74. Schürer agrees that Herod did in most cases attempt to respect Jewish sensibilities, though he rejects Herodian censuses (History, 2:42).
[26] Pearson, “The Lucan Censuses, Revisited” 269 and Tàrrech, Jesus: An Uncommon Journey, 75. A good example is Josephus’ reference to Herod’s finance minister, Ptolemy, whose ability is seen in the up-to-date records he provided during Augustus’ execution of Herod’s estate. (Ant. 17.229) Schürer and Brown maintain that existence of such records does not have to mean censuses occurred. Pearson disagrees: “It seems implausible, therefore, to assume that Judaea had been without the practice of census taking prior to the establishment of direct Roman rule.” (“The Lucan Censuses, Revisited” 266)
[27] Tàrrech, Jesus: An Uncommon Journey, 77, fn. 26. Cf. Pearson, who provides examples from Egyptian papyri of these scribes’ duties concerning censuses, “The Lucan Censuses, Revisited”, 271. Carrier rejects Pearson’s position but provides little support in his counter claim, “The Date of the Nativity in Luke”, sect. 3.
[28] Josephus, Ant. 17.308.
[29] Tàrrech, Jesus: An Uncommon Journey, 77. Cf. Josephus, Ant. 12.142.
[30] Tàrrech, Jesus: An Uncommon Journey, 78.
[31] These dates are 20/19 BCE, 14 BCE, and 8/7 BCE. The first two dates coincide with tax amnesties granted by Herod, while the first and last with required oaths to be taken by the Jews in 20 BCE (an oath of fidelity to Herod) and 8 BCE (an oath of allegiance to Herod and Augustus). Of interest is that of these three censuses, only the 8 BCE decree was solely by Augustus. The 28 and 14 BCE censuses were jointly decreed by Augustus, Agrippa and Tiberius, respectively—Tàrrech, Jesus: An Uncommon Journey, 80, fn. 33. How that relates to Luke 2:1 is uncertain: ‘Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus to register all the empire for taxes’. See also Tàrrech, Jesus: An Uncommon Journey, 78-82, who gives a detailed account—drawing on other scholars—of circumstances surrounding each of the proposed censuses by Herod.
[32] Tàrrech, Jesus: An Uncommon Journey, 82.
[33] “The offensive thing, therefore, was not the taxing of property, or the form in which it was carried out, but the Roman taxation as such.” History, 2:131. For a short critique of Schürer on this point, see Tàrrech (Jesus: An Uncommon Journey, 88, fn. 54).
[34] History, 2:130. Schürer suggests a census—which goes hand-in-hand with a poll-tax—would have occasioned “a rebellion” as with the Quirinian census.
[35] Tàrrech suggests the key difference between Herod’s and Roman censuses was the Roman imposition of the property tax: “[T]he key aspect to a fiscal policy that would not upset the Jewish sensibility would be the equal application of a tributum capitis, instead of the tributum soli. This is the essential difference between a Jewish census (such as Herod’s) and a provincial Roman census (such as Quirinius’). […] Whilst the former is based on the registration of individuals and is designed for the collection of the per capita tax, the latter is based on the valuation of property and introduces an element, the taxable value of land, that goes against the sensibility of the Jewish religion.” (Studies, 87)
[36] Bock combines the two: “Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.1 §§3–4 speaks of taxation as the problem, but only as an indication of Israel’s absence of liberty”, Luke, 905, fn. 14.
[37] Bock suggests the revolt in 6/7 CE drew Josephus’ attention because it openly displayed direct Roman sovereignty over the former kingdom: “Such a negative reaction to the A.D. 6 census should not be surprising if Roman authority was emphasized and the Roman model of census-taking was followed” (Luke, 906).
[38] Tàrrech, Jesus: An Uncommon Journey, 87. Cf. Schürer (History, 1:437-8) for examples of Herod’s policy in this regard.
[39] In other words, it is not that Roman censuses and taxation did not occur prior to Quirinius, but rather that Herod shrewdly incorporated such activities into his administration.
[40] Not considered here is the historical reliability of Josephus, though much has been written on this topic. Witherington, citing other scholars, suggests, as a result of Josephus’ known historical inaccuracies, that he be cited critically and with close scrutiny; at least to the measure of scrutiny given to Luke. Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 237.
[41] Schürer, History, 2:133.
[42] See also Cotton (“The Roman census in the papyri from the Judaean Desert and the Egyptian katV oivki,an avpografh”, 106-7) for the Secundus inscription validating the Qurinian census in 6 CE.
[43] Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born during Herod the Great’s reign, which ended with Herod’s death in 5/4 BCE.
[44] This is seen as early as Justin Martyr (Apol. 1:34; 46; Dial. 78) and Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 19).
[45] W. M. Ramsey points to Luke’s usage of the word h`gemoneu,ontoj for both legati and procurators in an effort to argue a more nuanced definition within Luke-Acts, which would relieve restrictions on Quirinius being a Legate; he could have governed in some other role, perhaps in a military capacity. W. M. Ramsey, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? A Study on the Credibility of St. Luke (2nd ed.; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1898), 245.
[46] S. Porter, “The Reasons for the Lucan Census” in Paul, Luke And The Graeco-Roman World, The Reasons for the Lukan Census (ed. A. Christopherson et al; London: Continuum, 2003), 165-188 (168).
[47] For an earlier treatment of this position in CeJBI, see A. Perry, “Quirinius” CeJBI 4:4 (2010): 26-9.
[48] This inscription partially highlights the career of an unknown Roman official who served as a Roman legate twice, at least once over Syria, as well as proconsul of Asia, during Augustus’ reign. Unfortunately, the manuscript is missing the name of this Roman officer, which leaves commentators looking to other sources for clues to his identity. See Ramsey (Bethlehem, 273) for a treatment of the inscription, which he refers to as “The Inscription of Quirinius”. Biblical scholarship is generally unsupportive of Ramsey’s claims.
[49] Ramsey, Bethlehem, 227-48.
[50] Brown, Messiah, 550. Fitzmyer, Schürer, et.al, agree with this timeline.
[51] Schürer, History, 2:133.
[52] Schürer, History, 1:352.
[53] Schürer, History, 2:138.
[54] While beyond the scope of this article, there is some discussion over the dating of Herod’s death. Some suggest a later date, perhaps even to 1 CE, based on descriptions from Josephus. Problematic, among other issues, is how to address the time of Varus’ legateship in Syria, as both Josephus and Tacitus (Histories, 5:9) place Herod’s death during Varus’ service there. For further reading, see A. Steinmann, “When did Herod the Great Reign?” Novum Testamentum 51 (2009): 1-29 (29).
[55] Ramsey, Bethlehem, 109-10.
[56] Ramsey, Bethlehem, 227-48.
[57] Ramsey, Bethlehem, 149-73.
[58] [Ed AP]: It is the early date of 6-5 BCE favoured in the article, A. Perry, “Quirinius” CeJBI 4:4 (2010): 26-9.
[59] [Ed AP]: This is a nice illustration of the question: What is scholarship (as a body of people) at any one point in time? Within the academy, there are distinctions between such bodies as ‘Catholic’, ‘Protestant’ and ‘Jewish’ scholarship; Second Temple experts would be considered a body of scholars in their own right, as would ‘Evangelical Scholarship’, ‘Critical Scholarship and ‘Conservative Scholarship’; for this Lucan problem, specialists in the secular history Roman history of the times would also be a body of scholarship, as would be linguists; we should also distinguish between ‘generalist’ and ‘specialist’ in these groups.
[60] N. T. Wright, F. F. Bruce, N. Turner, C. Evans, B. Witherington, P. Barnett, I. H. Marshall, et.al.
[61] Schürer, History, 2:135.
[62] Schürer, History, 2:135.
[63] Bock calls it “cumbersome at best” (Luke, 909); H. W. Hoehner considers it cumbersome as well in his Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), 21. D. Wallace is unconvinced of its validity in his “The Problem of Luke 2:2: This was the first census taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria” [Cited July 2012. Online: http://bible.org/article/problem-luke-22-ithis-was-first-census-taken-when-quirinius-was-governor-syria]. For a historical overview of this argument, see Hoehner.
[64] Marshall, Luke, 104.
[65] Pearson, “The Lucan Censuses, Revisited”, 282.
[66] See J. Burke for a detailed review of the current consensus of Luke’s historiographical abilities (J. Burke, “The Historicity of Acts” CeJBI 5:3 (2011): 14-20.
[67] [Ed AP]: Critical scholarship may continue to remain divided and part of the reason for this is that it is part of the business of critical scholarship to seek new solutions to what are perceived to be long-standing problems; but this does not mean that the solution is not already in play amongst the arguments that have already been presented.
[68] Marshall, Luke, 102.
[69] Porter, “The Reasons for the Lucan Census”, 170.
[70] Brown, Birth, 549.
[71] See Carrier, “The Date of the Nativity in Luke”.
The Library of St. Catherine’s Monastery digitises ancient texts