Some musings on the first christmas

by Travis James Campbell

Luke’s Gospel describes the birth of Jesus in the following way:

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)1

There are several points we may glean from this text: First, it is interesting to note that the child is not named here. This is probably because Luke, in keeping with Jewish tradition, in which parents did not name their children until eight days after the birth (cf. Luke 2.21; 1.57-66; Gen 17.1-14), refrains from giving the name at this time; although, to be sure, the name “Jesus” is revealed to Mary at the annunciation (Luke 1.31).

Second, Jesus is wrapped in swaddling cloths and laid in a manger. “Swaddling cloths” are actually narrow bands or strips of cloth wrapped around the child in order to restrict his movements—not to harm, but to comfort. Wrapping a newborn baby in swaddling cloths was a common practice in the ancient world, and remained so until the 17th century; although the practice of “swaddling” serves the purpose of comforting newborns even to our own day. A manger is a trough from which animals eat. The strong implication here is that Jesus was born in some sort of stable, where the animals were kept. We are told that he is laid in the manger because there was no room for him “in the inn.”

For centuries, Christians have interpreted “inn” as a reference to what we today call an “inn” or “motel” or “hotel.” And they have speculated that Mary and Joseph entered into Bethlehem while Mary is going through labor pains; and, upon trying to get lodgings at a local inn, were finally given accommodations at someone’s stable or barn or, perhaps, a nearby cave where animals were kept. Most Christians today even have “manger scenes,” which portray the child’s birthplace as a standalone stable, where the shepherds and wise men came to worship Jesus. Every year, children’s plays portray wicked inn keepers who refuse to allow Mary, Joseph, and the unborn child access to their lodgings, thereby forcing the holy family to seek shelter elsewhere. The famous Puritan pastor-theologian, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), went so far as to preach that Herod’s massacre of the innocents, recorded in the Gospel of Matthew (2.16-18), was God’s judgment upon the people of Bethlehem for refusing to accommodate Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.2 Beyond the morally questionable theological speculation on Edwards’ part, whereby an entire region suffers due to the moral failure of one individual (who surely did not know the significance of the family he was turning away), this common Christian understanding of Jesus’ birth is incorrect for multiple reasons—the least of which is that the wise men did not show up until days, weeks, months, or possibly years later (cf. Matt 2.1-2). The fact of the matter is that Jesus was probably not born in a cave, or even a standalone stable. He was born in a home.

In the ancient world, homes consisted of an “inn” or “living quarters,” where people occupied most of their time, and the stable, in which the animals were kept. Luke tells us that Jesus is laid in a manger because there was no place for him ἐν τῶ καταλύματι or en tō katalumati, which should be rendered “in the living quarters (or guest room).” There are four good reasons to accept this translation of the text: (1) commercial inns were rare in the ancient world, and when one does find them they are usually in big cities like Jerusalem, or along major roads, not in small towns like Bethlehem. (2) It is strongly implied in the text that Joseph and Mary had been in Bethlehem for some time before Jesus is born, which indicates that they would have had plenty of time to secure reasonable accommodations. In any case, the picture of Mary going into labor as she enters Bethlehem is sheer speculation. (3) Luke uses the term κατάλυμα/kataluma only once elsewhere, and there it clearly means “guest room” (Luke 22.11; cf. Mark 14.14). In fact, “guest room” is the most common understanding of the term in the ancient Greek literature.3 (4) When Luke speaks of a commercial inn, mentioned in the “Parable of the Good Samaritan,” he does not use the term kataluma, but πανδοχεῖον/pandocheion.4

Thus, we have no good reason to think that Mary and Joseph were rebuffed by an innkeeper, and we have multiple good reasons to think that, due to the census, the guestroom of the family or friends’ home Mary and Joseph were staying in was full. And so they were lodging in the animals’ quarters of the home when Jesus was born.

Third, Jesus was born in the city of Bethlehem, which is actually a little town located about five to six miles southwest of Jerusalem. It is called the “city of David,” since that is the place where the famous king of Israel was born and raised (cf. 1 Sam 16.1-14). Joseph is said to be of the “house of David.” In day-to-day discourse, Joseph no doubt referred to himself (and was referred to) as “Joseph of Nazareth” or “Joseph bar Jacob” (Matt 1.15); however, when it came to the issue of registration, Joseph would not have considered Nazareth his place of origin (even if he had been born there). Rather, he would have considered himself as originally from the place of his family’s origin. “According to the Jewish mode of registration, the people would have been enrolled according to tribes (twjm), families or clans (twxpvm), and the house of their fathers (twba tyk).”5 And so, we are told that he journeyed from Nazareth to Bethlehem because he was a descendent of the king (cf. Luke 1.27). Some skeptics find all of this incredible, for between 1000 BC (i.e., the time of David) and 4 BC (i.e., when Jesus was born) untold thousands of Davidic descendents would be living in Judea at the time. If Luke is correct, we would have to envision thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands, of people journeying to the little village of Bethlehem for an extended period of time—a population growth that the town would have been unable to accommodate. However, while this is precisely the scenario some versions of the conventional understanding of the Christmas story envision, such is not necessary. For not every descendent of David was male,6 and death and disease mitigated the number of male descendents of David in the first century.

Also, the registration probably took place over the course of months instead of days. So, while we have little doubt that Bethlehem, which probably had a “normal” population of about 300 people, experienced a significant population growth during the time of this census, there is no reason to think it ever exceeded over 3000 people during the three (or so) months the census was being taken.

As far as Luke is concerned, we have no idea of knowing where Joseph was born and raised. All we know is that he was living in Nazareth at the time of the census, and so journeyed to the place of his familial origins to be counted. Mary journeyed with Joseph, for by this time she became legally married to him (sans any sexual relationship); also, the scandal that would no doubt ensue if the baby had been brought to term in Nazareth motivated Joseph to bring Mary along with him.7

It is curious that Mary is said to be “betrothed” to Joseph in Luke 2.5. “Betrothal” in the ancient Jewish world is less than a marriage and more than an engagement. This means that the man and woman were as committed to one another as any married couple, and yet they did not engage in sexual activity. The relationship between Mary and Joseph was difficult to capture in one word. As they say on Facebook, it was complicated. If Mary and Joseph had undergone the marriage ceremony by this time, it would be wrong for a Jew to say they were really married until their relationship was consummated sexually—for only then are they one (cf. 1 Cor 6.16; 7.36-37). If they had not undergone the marriage ceremony by this time, it would have been potentially scandalous, for it would have been improper for Joseph to take a woman who is not his legal wife on a long journey with him. In fact, Matthew indicates that Mary was Joseph’s wife before Jesus’ birth, and yet he is quick to say that they did not have sex until after Jesus was born (Matt 1.24). Given the complexity of the situation, it is best to say, as per Matthew, that Mary and Joseph were legally married before Jesus’ birth, but as per Luke, they were not actually married until after Jesus was born. Hence, the comments of Bock: “The reference to Mary as betrothed (ἐμνηστευμένῃ, emnēsteumenē) may have a motive. It does not suggest that Mary is not yet married to Joseph, since this trip in a betrothal situation would be unlikely.... Rather, it means that the marriage is not yet consummated and thus implies a virgin birth....”8 For these reasons, the New King James Version is likely correct to render the Greek phrase referring to Mary as Joseph’s betrothed wife, who was with child.

Fourth, Jesus is said to be born during the days of Caesar Augustus. Octavian Caesar (63 BC-AD 14), the famous adopted nephew of Julius Caesar (ca. 100-44 BC), was crowned emperor in 27 BC, at which time he was given the title “Augustus” (“The Revered One”). This marks the end of an era and the beginning of a new one; for while Rome was founded as a monarchy, according to tradition, in 753 BC, it became a republic in 509 BC when the nobles of the city overthrew King Lucius Tarquinius Superbus. Senātus Populusque Rōmānus (SPQR—i.e., “The Senate and the People of Rome”) notwithstanding, the crowning of Augustus marks the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Empire. Given the fact that Octavian was reigning when Christ was born, we can actually ballpark Jesus’ birth anywhere between 27 BC and AD 14.

Matthew narrows things for us a bit when he explicitly states that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod I (ca. 74-4 BC), who was crowned “King of the Jews” by Mark Antony, the famous rival of Octavian, in 37 BC. While he is often called “Herod the Great,” this may be an egregiously bad historical anachronism. As Richardson reports, “there is no historical evidence that our Herod was ever referred to, or that he wished anyone to refer to him, by that title.”9

Of course, Matthew may be complicating matters for us rather than clearing them up, since Luke tells us that a census associated with Governor Qurinius of Syria took place when Jesus was born. In fact, this census is the very reason why Mary and Joseph are in Bethlehem at the time of the birth. Now, the only census associated with the Syrian governor that we know of occurred in AD 6. So, according to Matthew, Jesus could not have been born after 4 BC; but according to Luke, Jesus could not have been born before AD 6. And so there appears to be a contradiction between Matthew and Luke as to when Jesus was born.

For many New Testament (NT) scholars, the contradiction between Matthew and Luke is not merely apparent. It is real. Indeed, I personally know, and know of, conservative NT scholars who have the highest view of Scripture one can have, yet short of affirming the full inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, but because of this one difficulty. Beyond the apparent contradiction between Matthew and Luke concerning the timing of Jesus’ birth, there are formidable problems confronting the historicity of the Lukan birth narrative itself; and all of them concern Luke’s claim that a census, associated with the governorship of Quirinius, took place when Jesus was born. Darrell Bock helpfully summarizes the problems before us:

1. Nothing is known of a general, empire-wide census in the time of Augustus.

2. No Roman census would require Joseph to go to Bethlehem.

3. There would be no census in Palestine in the time of Herod the Great.

4. Josephus knows of no census before the Quirinius census of A.D. 6. In fact, the Quirinian census is described as an innovation that caused a revolt (Antiquities 13.13.2§§342-44; 17.13.5§355; 18.1.1§§1-10).

5. Quirinius could not have been governor of a census at the time of Jesus’ birth, since the governor’s records of this period are well known and Quirinius is not mentioned (Tacitus, Annals 3.48; Josephus, Antiquities 17.13.5§355).10

As Raymond Brown states: “There is no serious reason to believe that there was a Roman census of Palestine under Quirinius during the reign of Herod the Great.”11 Hence,

Richardson insists that, while attempts have been made to fit the census of AD 6 into the circumstances surrounding Herod’s death, “all have floundered.”12

Response. As a general response to these objections, we need to remember that Luke himself creates his own problem; for he earlier states that John the Baptist was born during the days of King Herod I (Luke 1.5). Attempts to identify this Herod as Herod Archelaus, son of Herod I, are a nonstarter, since Archelaus was never king, but merely had the title “Ethnarch.”13 Jesus was conceived a mere six months after John,14 so we know on Luke’s account alone that Jesus could not have been born much later than Herod’s death. Matthew only serves to clarify that Jesus’ birth occurred before Herod’s death rather than any time after it. Now, this is an important point, for if there is a contradiction here, it is to be found in Luke’s Gospel alone. And, if there is no contradiction within Luke’s Gospel on this score, then there is no contradiction between Matthew and Luke for precisely the same reason. So, does Luke contradict himself here? Does he say that Jesus was and was not born during the days of King Herod? There are three broad reasons to suggest that Luke did not contradict himself. First, we must be sure to know all of the details about a situation before we ascribe a contradiction to any author. The old dictum that the benefit of the doubt belongs to the writer rather than his critics has long held true, and can be illustrated by the subject that currently occupies us.

Second, we actually know that, though we are dealing with good ancient records on the governorship of Syria, there are enough gaps in those records that should force the critic to be a little more careful while assessing the Lukan account. Read any standard work in classical history, and you will find the following list of Syrian governors:

7/6—4 BC Publius Quinctilius Varus

4 BC—1 BC Unknown

1 BC—AD 4 Gaius Julius Caesar Vipsanianus

AD 4—5 L. Volusius Saturinus

AD 6—12 P . Sulpicius Quirinius

AD 12-17 Q. Caecilius Creticus Silanus15

Notice, then, that there is an extremely significant gap in our knowledge as to who served as governor between 4 and 1 BC. We simply do not know. It therefore remains possible, even if unlikely, that Luke knew something we do not—i.e., Quirinius served as governor on two occasions, the first during the days of Jesus’ birth ca. 4 BC-AD 1, and the second in AD 6-12.

Third, ever since the skeptical scholar William Ramsay (1851-1939) was forced by the archeological evidence to conclude that the third evangelist was a first-rate historian, NT scholars have been impressed with the extreme care Luke took in writing his Gospel and the book of Acts. Indeed, multiple Lukan assertions, even down to the minutest details, have been discovered since Ramsay’s day, and so his assessment still stands. As evidence for this claim, I highly recommend Colin Hemer’s work The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History,16 which has now become a classic defense of the historical accuracy of Luke’s writings. A later, even more impressive work is Craig Keener’s massive four-volume commentary on Acts.17 My point is this: Since we know that Luke was extremely careful while recording numerous, minute, and even insignificant facts, we can all the more trust him when he records events that, for him, are highly significant. As we have already established, there are significant gaps in our knowledge, and so we may not know what Luke plausibly knew. Thus, credibility belongs to him until proven otherwise.

With all of this in mind, we will answer the above objections in reverse order.

Response to Objection #5: Was Quirinius governor of Syria at the time of Christ’s birth? As we have indicated, this is a possibility; and several good scholars have accepted this solution to the problem. However, while possible, this solution to the problem remains improbable.18 Indeed, we have already seen that there are gaps in the records; therefore, any dogmatic claims insisting upon error on Luke’s part are based upon an argument from silence. And yet, any suggestion that Luke must have known that Quirinius served two, nonconsecutive, terms as governor is equally based upon silence. Also, we have no examples of any Roman governor serving in the same region on two different occasions; hence, this solution lacks verisimilitude, rendering it implausible if not extremely improbable.

One plausible suggestion is that Luke is not saying that Quirinius was actually governor of Syria, but merely that he was an administrator in Syria at the time of Jesus’ birth. That is to say, Jesus was born, not while Quirinius was governor, but merely while he served in some administrative capacity in Syria. The plausibility of this option is suggested by the following facts: (1) the participle ἡγεμονεύοντος/hegemoneuontos, most often translated “governor” or “governing” (as in, “while Qurinius was governing Syria”), could very well be translated as “administrator” or “administering.” Such a translation is well within the semantic range of the term.19 Also (2) Qurinius did serve in an advisory role in Gaius’ administration in the years just after Christ’s birth, starting at the end of 1 BC or the beginning of AD 1; and this was after he had served as consul, as the governor of Crete and Cyrene, and after he had distinguished himself on the battlefield. It is not implausible to think that his close association with Gaius stemmed from years of administrative work, which would place him in some kind of a administrative role in Syria during the time of Christ’s birth. Finally, (3) one scholar has argued, with some plausibility, that Josephus misdated the famous census of Judea, placing it during the governorship of Quirinius in AD 6, when he should have placed it during the reign of Herod I. Thus, “administrator” is a rendering that best fits the historical context.20 Given these three facts (or, at least, possibilities), we could translate Luke 2.2 as follows: “This was the first registration, while Quirinius was administering in Syria.” If this translation is correct, then Luke may be saying that the census, which led to the famous revolt of Judas the Galilean, occurred during the reign of Herod I, and was conducted by Quirinius who was serving in an administrative capacity in Syria at that time.

And yet, the text most naturally reads “governing Syria” or “governor of Syria.” Also, it seems unlikely that Quirinius would have received an administrative position in Syria while the Homanadensian War, which was taking place in Galatia, occupied so much of his attention. Quirinius will not wholly resolve the rebellion of the Homanadenses until ca. 1 BC, about the time he takes up his advisory role for Gaius.21

I think the best solution is also the simplest, which involves a change in translation rather than a reconstruction of history. The Greek text of Luke 2.2 reads, αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς συρίας κυρηνίου/autē apographē prōtē egeneto hegemoneuontos tēs surias kurēniou, which I translate as follows: “This census was before Quirinius governed Syria” (italics added). In other words, Luke is not saying that Jesus was born during the days of Quirinius’ census; rather, he is saying that Jesus was born during a census decreed by Augustus, which occurred before the better-known census given by Quirinius about a decade later in AD 6. Few grammarians will dispute the possibility of this translation. The only question is whether or not it is more probable than the standard rendering.

The debate is over the word πρώτη/prōtē (from πρῶτος/prōtos), usually rendered “first”). Hence, the standard translation of Luke 2.2: “This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria” (NASB). If this translation is correct, then Luke is telling us that there was a “first census,” taken while Quirinius was the governor of Syria.

The translation we have adopted is more plausible than the standard translation(s) for the following reasons: First, πρῶτος can be rendered as “first, earlier than, or before,” and, thus, our rendition fits the semantic range of the term.22 Second, we have clear examples elsewhere in the NT where πρῶτος should be translated “before” rather than “first.” For example, consider John 1.30: “This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me [ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν]” (italics added; cf. John 1.15)). On the Johanine text, Pearson notes, “As in John 1:15, 30, we have πρῶτος, then a linking verb, then a genitive. We have the same thing here in Luke 2:2.”23 He also cites other, similar, uses of πρῶτος from Aristotle and Athenaeus.24 We may add to Pearson’s argument John 15.18: “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before [πρῶτον] it hated you.” Also, Luke himself may have used πρῶτος in the sense of “before” elsewhere. In Acts 1.1 Luke writes: “I wrote an account before [πρῶτον], Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach....” Hence, our translation of πρώτη as “before” in Luke 2.2 is not an ad hoc solution to the problem, but is a viable option for the Greek grammarian to consider.

Another reason our translation is more plausible than the standard one is that it fits the historical context quite well. This is true, even if we grant, with Rhoades, that Josephus made a mistake in his chronology and dated the census ten years later than he should have.

Why would Luke mention Quirinius in 2.2 if the Syrian governor had nothing to do with the events surrounding Jesus’ birth? The answer is found as we note the significance of Quirinius’ procuratorship over Syria. According to Josephus, Caesar Augustus commissioned the new governor of Syria, Quirinius, to implement a census just after deposing Ethnarch Herod Archelaus, son of King Herod I.25 The reason for Governor Qurinius’ involvement in such an affair, being as he was the Syrian legate, is that Judea was added to the province of Syria right after Archelaus was removed from power. Quirinius seems to have been given the task of helping Coponius, the newly appointed procurator of Judea, who may have been directly appointed to his office by the Syrian legate, in securing his legally mandated power. A procurator over Judea meant direct Roman rule. Judea was now extremely limited in her affairs, losing even the ability to punish criminals any way she saw fit.26 This, alone, makes the Quirinian governorship over Syria an extremely important event in Jewish history—one that most Jews would have understood to be extremely significant. Quirinius became Governor of Syria in AD 6.27

The vast majority of scholars agree that the census occurred at the beginning of Quirinius’ term as governor in AD 6, and for good reason.28 The census and concomitant taxation served the purpose of assessing the estate of the now deposed Archelaus. However, while most Jews complied with the registration, Julius the Galilean rebelled; and his rebellion spawned a new Jewish sect called the Zealots—rebellious Jews dedicated to the overthrow of Rome. As far as Josephus is concerned, these events planted the seeds for the later Jewish War with Rome, which culminated in the utter destruction of Jerusalem and her temple in AD 70.29 In short, year 6—the year of Archelaus’ deposition, origin of direct Roman rule, Quirinius’ census, the birth of the Zealots, and the seeds of rebellion—was a very important year for the Jews. Indeed, Luke himself, while quoting Gamaliel (Paul’s mentor), spoke of “Judas the Galilean” who “rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him” (Acts 5.37).30 Notice that he refers to “the days of the census.” He is able to do this because it is an event everyone knew. In Luke 2.2, we are told (on our translation) that the census that took place during the days surrounding Jesus’ birth occurred before Quirinius served as governor of Syria. By citing the Quirinian governorship, and noting that the census he is discussing took place before that time, Luke is anchoring Jesus’ birth at a certain time in history, and relating it to an extremely significant event familiar to his readers.

To draw an analogy, everyone knows that a group of terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in New York on 9/11 in the year 2001. Many forget that there was actually a former, less damaging, attack on the World Trade Center on 2/26 in 1993. Luke’s statement that the census he’s talking about in 2.2 took place during the days of Jesus’ birth, before Quirinius was governor of Syria, is likened to a history professor who refers his students to a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, before 9/11. In both instances, the readers or hearers of the proposition understand the timing and significance of the events being discussed.31

Greek grammarian Daniel Wallace has argued that our unconventional translation is “almost impossible (because when a demonstrative functions attributively to a noun, the noun is almost always articular)....”32 And yet, Wallace himself is admitting here that there are exceptions, and that on occasion a modifier can accompany an anarthrous noun. As Marshall, who is at least sympathetic to our translation, notes, “The form of the sentence [in Luke 2.2] is in any case odd, since it is hard to see why πρῶτος was introduced without any object of comparison, and it may be that πρῶτος 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.”33 Fitzmyer is strangely dismissive of our rendering, calling it “a last-ditch solution to save the historicity involved.”34 Strange, since he says this after concurring with scholars like Marshall, explicitly noting that Luke 2.2 “is awkward Greek,”35 which implies, as Marshall has argued, that Luke’s penchant to write loose sentences on occasion may very well suggest a departure from strict grammatical rules while composing 2.2. Or, as Nolland argues, “Luke’s sentence is awkward ..., and perhaps no more so on the reading suggested here. This seems better than forcing an earlier governorship on Quirinius and more likely than the contradiction in the Lukan infancy narratives created by an identification of the census here as that of A.D. 6.”36 Hence, the dismissals of Wallace and Fitzmyer as ad hoc and “almost impossible” are unjustified.

We do not believe we have proven our case absolutely. One can reasonably disagree with our solution to the problem before us. Marshall is definitely correct when he says, “No solution is free from difficulty, and the problem can hardly be solved without the discovery of fresh evidence.”37 And yet, until that new evidence is discovered, we consider our plausible translation as the simplest, and therefore the most probable, solution to this objection to the historical accuracy of Luke 2.1-2. For what it is worth, I am encouraged that quite a few formidable NT scholars either accept our translation (or something like it) or are at least sympathetic to it—including Pearson, Nolland, and Marshall, as well as Stanley Porter,38 Ben Witherington,39 Craig Blomberg,40 Andreas Köstenberger and Alexander Stewart,41 and N. T. Wright.42

Hence, our answer to “Objection #5” is quite simple: No, Quirinius was not governing Syria that the time of Christ’s birth. However, since Luke 2.2 need not be suggesting as much, no one can accuse him of an historical error.

Response to Objection #4: Does Josephus know of a census before the Quirinian census of AD 6? The short answer to this is that Josephus evinces no explicit knowledge of such a registration before the commonly known census of AD 6. In and of itself, this does not mitigate the historicity of the Lukan narrative, for it is surely possible for one historian to know something another does not. Ignorance in the mind of one historian cannot be used as a disproof of an assertion given by another. To suggest otherwise is to engage in an argument from silence.

Having said this, a census happening during the reign of Herod is plausibly implicit in the Josephus’ works. There one finds passing references to Judean “village scribes” (κώμογραμματείς)—a term closely associated with “census taking” in the ancient literature.43 Also, Pearson, quoting Heichelheim, argues that “there were poll and land taxes which were directly owed to the king ... [and] the will of Herod the Great, which must have been drafted a few years before the birth of Christ, took a very close survey of all the resources of the kingdom, and this could not have been possible without a recent census of the actual domain of the king.”44 Thus, “it seems implausible ... to assume that Judaea had been without the practice of census taking prior to the establishment of direct Roman rule.”45

Response to Objection #3: Would there have been a census in Palestine in the time of Herod I? What we have noted already suggests a positive answer. In the years preceding Christ’s birth, Herod’s rule had become quite unstable, due to his own health issues and inter-familial squabbles. A shift in power was imminent. It makes all the sense in the world for Herod to adopt Octavian’s own tax system, which included a census, to bring his own affairs in order before his passing.

Some have objected that, since Judea was a client kingdom during Herod’s reign, and not an actual providence of Rome, the emperor would not have imposed such an invasive procedure as a census upon the Jewish people. However, this is far from obvious. Everyone knew that, despite his relative autonomy, Augustus was in charge. And Tacitus does give us explicit evidence of Rome imposing a Roman-style census upon a client kingdom.46 The emperor knew of the internal conflicts and ill health of the Herodian family. He had every motive to give such an order to his client-king; and Herod had every incentive to comply with it, especially if he, of his own volition, wanted to do so in accordance with Jewish custom.

Response to Objection #2: Would Joseph be required to journey to his hometown if, in fact, a census was imposed upon Herod’s territories? Such is not beyond the realm of possibility, as every scholar now knows that a papyrus manuscript (PLondon 904, lines 18-38) records an instance where an Egyptian prefect, in the early second century, ordered everyone to return to his hometown for a general enrollment. While no one should believe that the census discussed in Luke was implemented in the exact same way as the Egyptian census, executed over a century later, we nevertheless know that the requirement to move to be counted did happen. Pearson elaborates on this evidence:

In addition to the obvious applicability of this material to the Lucan census, it is also possible that Herod’s concern to keep close tabs on people explains why Joseph was ... forced to travel several days with his pregnant wife so that they could be registered in his hometown. Furthermore, the dual Roman purposes for the census (taxation and social control), which Herod likely would have adopted, might have had something to do with why Nazareth (or Sepphoris, the nearest civic center?) could have been an inappropriate place for Jews to be registered.47

To those who insist that, even if Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem, such would have been unnecessary for Mary, we remind the reader that such is irrelevant. For even if she was not required to go, she nevertheless had a strong incentive to travel with her new husband.

Some skeptics have balked at the Lukan account, insisting that, even if Herod did order a census under the authority of Caesar, Joseph would not have had to travel to Judea. For Joseph was a Galilean, while the census concerned only Judea. But this objection actually backfires on the skeptic, for it only confirms that the census described in Luke cannot be the census of AD 6. By AD 6, Galilee was ruled by Herod Antipas, while Judea, having been governed by Archelaus for ten years, was under the auspices of a Roman governor. The census of Luke 2 had to have occurred at least ten or more years earlier, while Herod I ruled both Judea and Galilee.

Response to Objection #1: Do we have a record of an empire-wide census during the reign of Augustus? Actually we do. In The Deeds of the Divine Augustus, most of which was written/dictated by Octavian himself before his death in AD 14, we have explicit mention of an empire-wide census. In fact, Augustus notes three censuses he ordered—i.e., in 28 BC, in 8 BC, and in AD 14 (cf. Deeds 8). The second census was conducted a mere four years before Herod died, and is probably the census Luke is referring to in 2.2.

Of course, this reference is well-known by those who lodge the objection; and they commonly retort that the census in Deeds was not empire-wide, but merely concerned Roman citizens in particular. However, we have already noted that there is good evidence that Herod counted the people in his territories at this time as well. To add one more piece of evidence to this, Augustus ordered all of Herod’s subjects to swear an oath of loyalty to both him and his client-king, showing that he had become quite interested in Judean affairs by this time. This decree was given some time between 8-7 BC.48 It would be strange if this oath was not accompanied by an enrollment of the citizens of Herod’s domains as a show of fealty to the emperor. As we have already noted, Herod’s demise is imminent; and so it would only be natural for Augustus to conduct an enrollment in order to assess his domains there, as well as for Herod to do so as a way of getting his house in order.

Despite efficient roads, news traveled slowly in the Roman world, even as it did at all times before the modern era; and, when we note just how slow bureaucracies can move, even in our day, we should expect that they were slower still in ancient Rome. Also, Galileans, living not only in the outskirts of Roman territory, but even of Herod’s domains, would have surely been one of the last groups of citizens to be counted. There is good reason to think that censuses were taken between August and October in the Roman world.49 Thus, Octavian’s decree for a census was given to the people of Rome around August of 8 BC, and we can expect that it took several weeks, or even months, for the news of this decree to reach the provinces and client-kingdoms included in the enrollment. This would give us a lag time of two or two and a half years. It is reasonable to think that Herod began to comply with Caesar’s census in late 8 BC or early 7 BC, with Galileans being among the last of his subjects to be counted. This would place the ordering of the Galileans to journey to their place of origin somewhere around May or June of 5 BC; with the census being conducted in August through October of 5 BC.

Pearson summarizes the evidence for a census that occurred before the more famous registration of AD 6, as well as translating πρῶτος in Luke 2.2 as “before” or “earlier than,” rather than “first” in the following: (1) Herod “must have kept accurate records of census and taxation,” (2) “he most likely used the census in ways very similar to those of his Roman overlords, both to collect taxes and to exercise strict social control over an unruly people,” (3) “many indirect statements in Josephus square with what we know of the census process in other Roman territories,” (4) “one of the offices of the census process is mentioned by Josephus in such a way as to assume that the process was a part of everyday life,” and (5) “each and every aspect of the census as it is described in Luke has close parallels in other parts of the Roman Empire.” Hence, the “meaning suggested for this verse—‘this registration was earlier than (or before) Quirinius governed Syria’—works in terms of context, rather than in terms of a predetermined prejudice to find contradictions in the narrative.”50

However, if all of this is true, why is it that the census, conducted in Herod’s domains, in 5 BC did not result in a rebellion, while the one conducted by Quirinius in AD 6 did? Precisely because the former census was conducted according to Jewish custom, while the latter was not. Also, during the former enrollment, Judea was still a client- kingdom, and thus boasted some autonomy, while during the latter Judea lost all power and fell under direct Roman rule.

A final argument in favor of our translation of Luke 2.2, as well as our reconstruction of the events surrounding the first Christmas, is that they fit quite nicely with the already standard date now commonly given for Christ’s birth. As many know, Dionysius Exiguus (6th cent. AD), writing after the fall of Rome (i.e., AD 476), was commissioned by the Pope to reconstruct a new chronology, centered around the birth of Christ. “BC” stands for “Before Christ” and “AD” stands for Anno Domini (“in the year of our Lord”). Before this time, at least in the Roman Empire, all events were dated “AUC” (i.e., Anno Urbis Conditae or “from the foundation of the city (of Rome)”). At the time, the commencement of the Christian Era was believed to have started on January 1, 754 AUC; and so Dionysius, who did not have access to the writings of Josephus, dated Jesus’ birth on December 25th, 1 BC; and since there is no year 0, January 1, AD 1 (i.e., “in the year of our Lord, 1”) became the new date for the start of the Christian Era. Unfortunately, it was later discovered that Herod the Great died in 750 AUC, which places his death in March of 4 BC (according to the new calendar); and since Matthew tells us that Jesus was born before Herod’s death, he could not have been born in 754 AUC (or 1 BC) as was previously thought. The remaining question, then, is how long before Herod died was Jesus born? Dates ranging from 20 BC (in which case Jesus was born roughly fifteen to sixteen years before Herod’s demise) to 4 BC have been given. However, our argument for the census taking place between August and October of 5 BC would place Jesus’ birth in that year.51

When we put everything together, we find ourselves embracing a rather coherent and historically plausible chronology for the events surrounding Jesus’ birth, which can be outlined as follows:

 October 2-9, 6 BC: Zacharias receives a vision from an angel, telling him that his barren wife will give birth to a son, whose name shall be John. Soon after, his wife Elizabeth conceives.52 Luke 1.5-25

 March 25, 5 BC: Six months later Mary of Nazareth receives a similar vision as Zacharias, indicating that she, despite her virginity, shall conceive and bear a Son, who is to be the Messiah of Israel. She is also told of Elizabeth’s condition. The traditional view, of Jesus’ conception occurring on this date, is quite reasonable. Luke 1.26-38

 March 29, 5 BC: Mary arrives in Judea to visit with Elizabeth, to see the angelic sign herself. Upon meeting Elizabeth, Mary utters/sings her famous “Magnificat.” We are explicitly told that Mary remains with Elizabeth for three months, presumably to witness the birth of John. Luke 1.39-56

 July, 5 BC: John is born. Luke 1.57-80

 Late June, 5 BC: Mary journeys back to Nazareth, and tells Joseph, her betrothed, about her pregnancy. Joseph has a hard time hearing the news; and he has an even more difficult time believing the explanation. He thinks of putting her away. However, he receives a vision in a dream, confirming Mary’s story, and so he decides to marry her. A formal marriage ceremony is performed in relative haste. Matthew 1.18-25

 August, 5 BC: News of the census had already been received by the people of Galilee. Joseph journeys to Bethlehem, taking along with him his wife and unborn (legal) Son.

 August-October, 5 BC: At one point during these months, Joseph goes before the registrar in Bethlehem either as a lone representative of his family or with Mary, and is counted. The question is whether he will stay in Bethlehem until the child comes to term or if he will journey back home. There are three good reasons that may have convinced him to stay in Bethlehem even after being registered: (1) Mary is at least five months pregnant by this time, and traveling back to Nazareth would be hard on her; (2) everyone back home knew when they were married, so for Mary to give birth a mere six months after the marriage would be scandalous—by way of contrast, few in Bethlehem, if any, know of the particulars surrounding Jesus’ conception and the ensuing marriage; (3) by this time Joseph, a carpenter, may have found work, which indicates responsibilities preventing a quick exit from the city of David. But why, if Mary was pregnant, would she have to live in the animal’s quarters of the home for so many months? Two answers come to mind: First, the living quarters of the home were no doubt occupied for months on end, plausibly for the third reason Joseph stayed as long as he did probably applied to others living in “the inn” as well. Second, we need to remember that those living in the first century were probably not as sensitive to a woman’s condition during pregnancy as moderns are.53

 December 25, 5 BC: Jesus is born. There are several lines of evidence for Jesus being born in the winter. First, contrary to what many believe, sheep could have been in the fields during winter, especially if it was a mild. And so it is quite reasonable to believe that the shepherds paid their visit to the new born baby in the winter time. Second, we know that sheep were brought in from the wilderness during the winter months; and since the shepherds who received the vision were in the fields around Bethlehem the night Jesus was born (rather than in the wilderness), we have circumstantial evidence that Christ was born during the winter. Finally, while tradition is not infallible, it can be reliable, and we see no reason to reject it unless there is good reason to do so. And so, in light of the foregoing evidence, along with the ancient traditions concerning Jesus’ birth, we accept the commonly understood birthday of Jesus. Hence, we believe Jesus was born on December 25, 5 BC.54

Endnotes

1 Unless noted otherwise, all scriptural quotations are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).

2 Jonathan Edwards, The “Blank Bible”—Part 2 (vol. 24 (Part 2) of The Works of Jonathan Edwards; ed. Stephen J. Stein; New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2006), 827.

3 A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Christian Literature (3rd edition; ed. Walter Bauer, Frederick William Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich; Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), 521—henceforth, BDAG.

4 For more on this issue, see Ben Witherington, “Birth of Jesus,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (ed. Joel B. Green & Scott McKnight; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 69‐70.

5 Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (5 vols. in 1; Iowa Falls, IA: World Bible Publications, 1971), 1:183. Cf. Numbers 26-27.

6 For purposes of taxation and census taking, families traced their origins through the fathers, though in cases where only daughters survived, exceptions were made (cf. Num 26-27).

7 A close reading of Luke 1.1-2.7 suggests that Marry was three months pregnant when Joseph was told of her condition; and so the marriage quickly followed. If they had stayed in Nazareth, Mary would no doubt have been the subject of much gossip and the object of even more ridicule as she gave birth to Jesus six months after the marriage. Joseph doubtless saw the census as a sign of good providence, for now he had a good excuse to move to Bethlehem without many, if any, becoming suspicious.

8 Darrell L. Bock, Luke (2 vols.; Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; ed. Moisés Silva; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994/1995), 205-206—henceforth, Luke (vol. #).

9 Peter Richardson, Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1999), 12. As Richardson goes on to note: “It is one of the curious ironies that Agrippa I, Herod’s grandson, styled himself ‘the great king’ on some of his coins, though he has not come down in history as Agrippa the Great, while Herod, who did not seek this title, has come to be called Herod the Great. Pompey, by comparison, deliberately wished to be known as Pompey the Great, imitating Alexander the Great, whom he may have resembled. The adjective great is used once in Josephus (Ant. 17.28) with reference to Agrippa I, where it may mean ‘the elder’ as compared with Agrippa II. That Josephus can refer to Agrippa I in this way, whatever he may mean by it, argues strongly against first-century use of the title ‘Herod the Great’ of our Herod. It probably crept into usage first as a reference to Agrippa and only later was transferred to his more important grandfather” (p. 12—italics in original).

10 Bock, Luke (vol. 1), 903. Cf. John Nolland, Luke (vols. 35A-B of the Word Biblical Commentary; ed. Bruce M. Metzger, P. Martin, et al.: Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 99—henceforth, Luke (vol. #).

11 Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (2nd edition; The Anchor Bible Reference Library; ed. David Noel Freedman; New York et al.: Doubleday, 1993), 554.

12 Richardson, Herod, 301.

13 Ibid, 24.

14 When did Mary conceive? The text is not clear, for while Gabriel says that the Holy Spirit will come upon her (Luke 1.35), we are given no narrative describing this event. And we are not explicitly told how long after the annunciation Mary will actually be overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and conceive. Thus, it is possible that months or even years passed before Mary conceived the child. That said, we find this possibility highly unlikely, and this for three reasons. First, the parallels between the annunciation to Zacharias and Mary indicate that, since Elizabeth’s conception of John occurred soon after Gabriel’s announcement, so also does Mary’s conception of Jesus (cf. Nolland, Luke (vol. 1), 20- 21). Second, upon hearing about Elizabeth, Mary gives her consent (“may it be done to me according to your word” (Luke 1.38))—proof, incidentally, that this event can in no way be construed as a “divine rape.” This strongly implies her immediate desire that the word of the Lord be fulfilled in her, giving us every reason to think that the pregnancy occurred soon after Mary’s word of faith. Third, upon meeting Mary, Elizabeth gives a blessing to “the fruit of” her womb (Luke 1.42), which makes little sense if Jesus is not yet conceived. To be sure, these lines of evidence are not airtight; and yet they do place a relatively heavy burden of proof upon those who think Jesus was conceived months or years after Elizabeth conceived John.

15 Cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (vols. 28-28A of The Anchor Bible; ed. William Foxwell Albright & David Noel Freedman; New York, et al.: Doubleday, 1970/85), 407—henceforth, Luke (vol. #).

16 Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (ed. Conrad H. Gempf; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990).

17 Craig S. Keener, Acts—An Exegetical Commentary (4 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012-2015)—henceforth, Acts (vol. #).

18 For discussion, see A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), 162-167.

19 BDAG, 433.

20 John H. Rhoades, “Josephus Misdated the Census of Quirinius,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 54.1

(March 2011): 65-87.

21 Cf. Tacitus, Annals of Rome 3.48.

22 BDAG, 892-893.

23 Brook W. R. Pearson, “The Lucan Censuses, Revisited,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61.2 (April, 1999): 281. 24 Ibid, 280-1. Cf. Aristotle, Physics 8.8.263a; Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 14.630c.

25 Cf. Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.1§1-2.1§26.

26 Cf. Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.1§2; Wars of the Jews 2.8.1§117.

27 “The discovery of coins issued by Quirinius as governor of Syria, bearing the date ‘the 36th year of Caesar [Augustus]’ (5/6 AD counted from the Battle of Actium) confirmed his position there” (Ralph Martin Novak, Christianity and the Roman Empire: Background Texts (Bloomsbury, 2001); cited in “Quirinius,” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius (accessed 12-23-2021))—henceforth, “Quirinius.” With all of this in mind, the terminus a quo of Quirinius’ governorship marked a significant shift in Judean politics; and so, even if Rhoades is correct, and the so-called Quirinian census actually took place ten years earlier, it would make sense for Luke to tip his readers off to the fact that the census occurred before there was ever direct Roman rule—which began when Judea became a province of Syria, during the time when Quirinius was governor.

28 “The census that he [Quirinius] conducted in Syria has been confirmed by an inscription purchased in Beirut in 1674 and brought to Venice, commemorating a Roman officer who had served under him, stating among other achievements: ‘By order of the same Quirinius I took a census of the city of Apamea’” (“Quirinius”). Rhoades’ otherwise excellent article does not take into account this evidence, which is devastating to his thesis.

29 Cf. Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.1-6; Wars 2.8.1-14; 14.1-17.1.10.

30 Of course, Acts 5.37 introduces us to another problem; for just before mentioning Judas the Galilean, Luke quotes Gamaliel as follows: “For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing” (Acts 5.36). For many, if not most, NT scholars, the most plausible extrabiblical parallel to this event is found in Josephus, who writes the following: “Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This is what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus’s government.” Cf. Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20.5.1§§97-99, in The Works of Josephus (1736 repr.; trans. William Whiston; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1987). According to many scholars, Luke has made an error; for Theudas rose up during the days of Fadus, which would place his demise ca. AD 44. But Luke is writing about a speech Gamaliel gave no later than ca. AD 34, some ten years before Theudas. In fact, Luke has committed a triple error: (1) it is highly unlikely that Gamaliel would have uttered anything like this, for if he would have, why not bring it up at Jesus’ trial rather than waiting for so many months or years later to do so? (2) He not only falsely places these words on Gamaliel’s lips, he then compounds the problem by getting the order wrong, suggesting the Theudas preceded Judas, when in fact the opposite is the case. (3) Luke then compounds all of this by suggesting that Theudas arose before the birth of Christianity—which he most certainly did not. A sober analysis of the issue forces me to state that one is not being ridiculous in attributing error to Luke here.

And yet, one is not being ridiculous in believing that Luke, who has so often been confirmed as a historian, can be vindicated here as well. I see two solutions as good, plausible, answers to this problem. First it is plausible to think that Luke, influenced as he is by Greco-Roman historians, followed their method of recording the speeches given during the times they are discussing. The most famous example is Thucydides (ca. 460-ca. 400 BC), the Greek historian who gave us most of what we know about the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides frankly states that he did his best to give the words of men he is quoting and, where that was not possible, he placed words on their lips that he thinks they were likely to say (History of the Peloponnesian War 1.22). With this background, it is quite possible that modern scholars often place an unfair standard for accuracy upon ancient historians who were often not in a position to record in minute detail the speeches they are trying to preserve for posterity. With this in mind, it is plausible to think that Luke may be correctly noting that Gamaliel gave a speech to the Jewish leadership, exhorting them to show tolerance towards the followers of Jesus; for God has a way of crushing false movements in his own time and in his own way. That which is not built on God’s truth cannot stand; that which is built on God’s truth cannot fail. Luke then illustrates Gamaliel’s point with historical examples his readers would have been familiar with—Theudas, who rose up in AD 44, and Judas, who rose up in AD 6. Gamaliel would have been familiar with the latter, but not the former. But that fact is irrelevant for Luke’s purpose; for him, Theudas and Judas serve as rhetorical devices—to wit, these are movements God caused to fail, thereby proving Gamaliel’s main point, which Luke does accurately capture. One conservative scholar who is at least open to this suggestion is Keener, Acts (vol. 2), 1233-1237.

A second, plausible, suggestion is to say that Luke correctly places these words on the lips of Gamaliel, who is referencing in chronological order to two rebellious movements that arose long before the famous rabbi gave his speech. Luke could have received this information from any number of sources—e.g., Paul himself, or perhaps members of the Sanhedrin, like Joseph of Arimathea, who converted to the new faith. Gamaliel may not have defended Jesus at his trial for any number of reasons—e.g., he was not there; or, a year’s worth of seeing the new faith in action inspired a change of heart.

The rebellion of Judas the Galilean is discussed by both Luke and Josephus, and so there is no problem on that score. The man named Theudas discussed in Acts, as Luke states, preceded the rebellion of Judas, and so may not be the same Theudas discussed in Josephus’ Antiquities. Indeed, the accounts of Theudas, discussed in Luke and Josephus, have a few parallels—e.g., they share the same name; they had a following; they are both killed—but they also have numerous differences—e.g., Luke says that his Theudas preceded Judas, while Josephus explicitly states that his Theudas succeeded Judas; Luke implies that his Theudas led a political rebellion, paralleled as he is with Judas the Galilean, while Josephus explicitly states that his Theudas was a religious leader (i.e., “a magician”); Luke explicitly states that his Theudas had four hundred followers, while Josephus explicitly states that his Theudas won over “a great part of the people” (which would seem to entail a lot more individuals than four hundred (cf. Acts 2.41,47)); Luke explicitly states that all of the followers of his Theudas were either killed or dispersed, thereby implicitly ruling out anyone being captured, while Josephus explicitly states that many of the followers of his Theudas were either killed or captured, implying that some were dispersed. And yet, while not wholly unreasonable, this line of argumentation does not establish the probability of the second solution, for there are plausible ways one can harmonize the two accounts (cf. Keener, Acts (vol. 2), 1232-1233). A better point to be made in favor of this second solution is that, as Josephus himself notes, after Herod I died there were ten thousand rebellions or disorders in Judea (Antiquities 17.10.4§269- 270). It would have been virtually impossible for him to name the leaders of every one of these movements, and yet it would seem strange to think one of them could not have been named Theudas.

Some have suggested that a second Theudas is implausible due to the infrequency of the name (Keener, Acts (vol. 2), 1232). However, as Hemer notes, this fact can be misleading (Book of Acts, 162n5). He writes, “‘Theudas’ seems to serve as the hypocoristic of many such forms [or names] as ‘Theodotus’, ‘Theodorus’, ‘Theodotion’ etc., all Greek theophoric names popular among Jews” (Hemer, Book of Acts, 162n5). He offers multiple examples of this phenomenon, which increases the probability that “Theudas” was more frequently used than the evidence initially suggests.

Hemer’s words serve as a sufficient conclusion to this issue: “None of this justifies the glib assumption of a second Theudas. Yet the possibility is not so unlikely as it can be made to seem. Nor is it unknown for a revolutionary to trade on his identity of the name with a previous popular hero, or indeed to adapt a cognate name to the same evocative familiar form. We must not press what may yet read like special pleading to save Luke’s credit—though possibly it is rather Josephus’ credit at stake here” (Book of Acts, 163n5). Indeed, “The fact that Luke’s background information can so often be corroborated may suggest that it is wiser to leave this particular matter open rather than to condemn Luke of a blunder” (Book of Acts, 163).

31 I am grateful to Paul Owen for helping me develop this analogy.

32 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 304-305.

33 I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (The New International Greek Testament Commentary; ed. I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 104—henceforth, Luke.

34 Fitzmyer, Luke (vol. 1), 401.

35 Ibid, 400. For a full critique of Fitzmyer, see Pearson, “Lucan Censuses,” 280. 36 Nolland, Luke (vol. 1), 102.

37 Luke, 104.

38 Stanley Porter, “The reasons for the Lukan census,” in Paul, Luke, and the Greco-Roman World: Essays in Honor of Alexander J. M. Wedderburn (New York/London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 165-188.

39 Ben Witherington III, New Testament History: A Narrative Account (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 65-66.

40 Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016), 60- 61—henceforth, HRNT.

41 Andreas J. Köstenberger and Alexander E. Stewart, The First Days of Jesus: A Story of the Incarnation (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015), 137-139.

42 N. T. Wright, Who was Jesus? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 115.

43 Josephus, Antiquities 16.7.3§203; Wars of the Jews 1.24.3§479; for discussion, see Pearson, “Lucan Censuses,” 271. 44 Pearson, “Lucan Censuses,” 266.

45 Ibid.

46 Tacitus, Annals of Rome, 6.41; for discussion, see Pearson, “Lucan Censuses,” 272.

47 Pearson, “Lucan Censuses,” 276.

48 William Mitchell Ramsay, Was Christ Born in Bethlehem? A Study of the Credibility of St. Luke (London: Holder & Stoughton, 1898), 178.

49 Ibid, 193.

50 “Lucan Censuses,” 282.

51 Cf. Hoehner, Chronology, 11-25.

52 For a discussion of this date, alone with the duties Zacharias would have performed in the temple, see Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1:135; 5:704-705.

53 Cf. Bock, Luke (vol. 1), 905.

54 Cf. Hoehner, Chronology, 25-27.