What evidence supports the accuracy of the statements made in Luke 2v2 about the census when Jesus was born?

Answer 1

AnswerFirstly, here is the context in which the Luke 2:2 census is mentioned: Luke 2:1-8 (King James Version)1And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

2(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David

5To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

6And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

7And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

8And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

It used to be thought that because there was no evidence supporting Luke's reference in Luke 2 v 2 to the taxing and to Cyrenius being Governor at this time, it therefore did not occur. However, as with many other Bible events, evidence has been found that such taxings occurred every 14 years, reference to the specific taxing involved and that Cyrenius was indeed twice Governor of Syria. Thus Luke's reference to this as the first taxing is particularly apt, since it is known that Cyrenius oversaw, with great trouble the second taxing around 10 years later.

The discovery of evidence (discussed below) regarding the first Governorship of Cyrenius also resolves the apparent contradiction between the date of the death of Herod and Cyrenius' (also known as Quirinius) second term of office some ten years later.

It is also quite reasonable to assert that where an author has repeatedly been proven to be factual and reliable, as Luke has, that we can take things which have yet no evidence as likely to be correct. In any case, this is certainly not so here as evidence exists.

Regarding the time of Year

According to Luke 2:8 the shepherds were out in the fields watching their flocks at night. This is apparently unlikely to take place in the winter and is thought by some to have been late September, which would make the end of December of the previous year as the time of the miracle of the incarnation. The adoption of December 25 has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual date of Jesus' birth. This is not an unusual thing even in modern times as a holiday for the birthday of the Queen Elizabeth II of England is not held on her actual birthday either.

Evidence from Common Ancient Literary Usage

It is not at all significant that the exact date is not known to us as the fact of both Jesus' birth and death and glorious resurrection are more important to the writers and their meaning, not the actual date in chronological terms, such as we are obsessed with today. Ancient writers commonly only focused on key events in a life or in the history of a nation. In any case, September would be autumn in Israel. Jesus was born sometime before the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC.

Luke the careful historian follows the usual custom of other ancient writers by using a known event to anchor the timing of another viz. Jesus birth. Both the census decreed by Augustus Caesar, and the position of Quirinius were undoubtedly known to those who were contemporary with the events.

The visit of the wise men to Jerusalem and Herod and the subsequent murder of the children were also undoubtedly known. In connection with murder, Herod even killed his own son. This led Augustus to remark in reference to Herod's Jewish aversion to pigs and this event, 'It is better to be Herod's sow than to be his son.' So, although this event does seem 'in character' for Herod, it is not useful at this point for our inquiry due to a lack of detail from elsewhere.

Evidence Regarding Herod's Death

Since Luke has provided a number of historical 'anchors', it is possible to state with certainty that Jesus was not born after 4 BC. Herod the great is known to have died around the time of a lunar eclipse which can be fixed by astronomers at 12-13 March in the year 4 BC (although some say 5 BC).

Evidence from the Account of the Wise Men

Although not corroborated elsewhere, what this account shows is that Luke puts the birth of Jesus some considerable time prior to the death of Herod. This is shown in the fact that Luke refers to Herod's reckoning, 'according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.'Thus his ordering the slaying of the children 'from two years old and under,' demonstrates the considerable time that had transpired since Jesus' birth, probably close to two years.

Evidence from a 'Hostile Witness'

Julian 'the apostate' born in 331 AD was so called since, even though he was raised as a Christian, he renounced and became an enemy of Christianity when he came to the imperial throne as Emperor in the year 361. As Emperor he had access to all the imperial records and so wrote in a defiant tone when speaking of the enrolment of Mary and Joseph at Bethlehem, as it is mentioned in Luke 2 above.

"There is absolutely no known record of evidence that Jesus was "enrolled as one of Caesar's subjects," unless it was at the time which Julian affirms. He says : "Jesus, whom you celebrate, was one of Caesar's subjects. If you dispute it, I will prove it.....for yourselves allow that he was enrolled by his father and mother at the time of Cyrenius." (Lardner, Works, 7:626-27) as quoted from Merril F Unger, The New Unger's Bible Dictionary,Moody, Chicago 1988. p. 231.

Evidence from Patristic Sources

The references to the works of Justin Martyr and Tertullian are relevant in that they appeal to the records of the Romans. Such were evidently still extant at the time, and so could have and would have been gladly used by the opponents of Christianity at the time.

Justin Martyr (born 105 AD) says: "Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registries of the taxing under Quirinius your first procurator in Judea." (First Apology, chapter 34.)

The context was Justin defending the Christians from persecution by the government. He is most unlikely to appeal to their own records if they did not exist or contradicted his account and so thus giving them a further reason for accusation against the Christians.

Tertullian (born 160 AD) in similar context of defence also appeals to the Romans own records. In referrring to the same enrolment event Tertullian says:

"There is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ." (Marcion 4.19).

With respect to Luke's reference, it must be pointed out that Luke refers to the timing of the census, not who carried it out. Although, of course, it is likely that Cyrenius was involved in the census where he had jurisdiction as a Legatus Augustii.

The Lapis Tiburtinus Inscription

This Roman inscription discovered in 1764 contains reference to an officer who was governor over Syria twice in his lifetime. The name of the person to whom the inscription applies is part of a small section which is no longer present. A number of historians and archaeologists, familiar with the other details described on the inscription consider that it can only apply to Quirinius, thus confirming that he governed Syria twice.

Others, consider that the inscription must apply to someone else, since they regard the 'Governors' of Syria to all be known. However, it is also known that the term used by Luke, the Greek word hegemon can apply to prefects, provincial governors and even Caesar himself. The New Testament usage is fairly broad, applying to all Roman rulers of high authority, including such people as Pilate, Festus, and Felix.

Thus, the inscription could apply to Quirinius who is believed to have operated as a special Legatus Augustii at the same time as Saturninus was the provincial Governor. Exactly the very same relationship applied when Vespasian was later working with Marcianus. Vespasian conducted the war in Palestine, while Mucianus, with exactly the same title and rank was governor of Syria.

At the same time, it must be conceded that, even if the inscription does not apply to Quirinius, it speaks of someone being Governor of Syria twice. Thus there is no reason this also could not have applied to Quirinius.

Finally, this also fits in with the later conduct of a more controversial census in 6 AD. If Quirinius had conducted the earlier census, he, with that experience, would more likely be entrusted with a second.

Those scholarly authorities who believe Quirinius to indeed be the person here referred to include: Mommsen, Borghesi, de Rossi, Henzen, Dessau, Ramsay and others.

AnswerIt is easy to regard everything we don't understand as an error. Luke clearly had knowledge of both censuses. They were held every fourteen years. The one under which Jesus was enrolled (due in 8 BC) was a little late due to political machinations involving Herod (the great).

In any case it is an argument from silence to regard something as non-existent simply because we ignore the evidence. Two hundred and fifty years is a long time.

It is disputable whether most modern scholars regard this as an error or not. If so, they are disregarding the proven accuracy of Luke as a historian. Secondly, they fail to explain why Luke would put something in he knew to be wrong when there were people around who could easily refute it.

Finally they fail to explain the mention by Julian the apostate of a census they say never happened. Nor the mention by Tertullian of the same event. To make shots at something is cheap. To prove it and to address the actual evidence rather than ignoring it is quite another.

AnswerPublius Sulpicius Quirinius ("Cyrenius") was believed to be governor of Syria in AD 6, although Luke's Gospel dates Christ's birth during the time of Herod the Great who is believed to have died in 4BC - ten years earlier.However, many modern historians now believe that Quirinius was also appointed governor of Cilicia ten years before his governorship of Syria. Cilicia was later annexed to Syria, although not being part of Syria at the time. Therefore in Luke's account, which was written quite a few years later, he refers to Cilicia as Syria - which, of course, it then was. This is quite acceptable - if someone visits Alaska nowadays we say they have gone to the USA - as Alaska is part of the Union. However before its inclusion, any person in Alaska would not have been classed as American.The main reference to a census taking place in Judea was the census decreed by Quirinius in 6AD by the Roman historian Josephus. However, in the Greek account, Luke also refers to HIS census at Bethlehem as Quirinius' FIRST census - implying in the Greek that a subsequent census took place of which Josephus spoke, in 6 AD, an original census being taken much earlier, which Josephus was unaware of, or dismissed as unimportant.There is very good reason to believe that Quirinius was actually twice in a position of command (the Greek expression hegemoneuo in Luke 2:2 which is often translated "governor" really just means "to be leading" or "in charge of") over the province of Syria, which included Judea as a political subdivision. The first time would have been when he was leading military action against the Homonadensians during the period between 12 and 2 B.C. His title may even have been "military governor."A Latin inscription discovered in 1764 adds weight to the idea that Quirinius was in a position of authority in Syria on two separate occasions. There was definitely a taxing during this time and therefore, quite possible, an associated census, the details of which may have been common knowledge in Luke's time, but are now lost to us.One has to realise that the author Luke was no fool; as a learned doctor he was highly intelligent and methodical. Over and over (in references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands in his books, plus dates, areas, rulers and so on) the doctor has proved himself to be a highly reliable historian, placing events both in his own Gospel and in his second book of the Acts of the Apostles, with great precision. In his Gospel he makes this systematic approach very clear in the first words of the account..." Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."One can infer from this that he was commissioned by Theophilus to do exactly what he did - to set out a systematic, thoroughly researched account of the things that happened.Sadly, there are those who, because the count is written in the Bible, automatically dismiss it as fantasy, myth or legend, or even downright fairy story. With Luke's account of the pinpointing of Christ's birth the musings of those who think they know better could not be further from the truth of the accurate account that Luke sets out. ANSWER

Whilst many have tried to calculate the date of Christ's birth, and have held Luke 2.2 to be in error, the fact remains that the only definitive documentation is that of the accounts of Matthew and Luke, as the gospels of John and Mark have no mention of his birth.

The question is, are the accounts in Luke's gospel correct? Sadly, there are few external contemporary sources that corroborate the events in Luke's gospel.

Answer 2

Historical records indicate that Augustus Caesar called for a census around 6-4 BC, which aligns with the timeframe of Jesus' birth. However, there are no extant records detailing the specific decree mentioned in Luke. Some scholars suggest that the timing of the census may have been conflated or misremembered over time.