What Luke Actually Wrote

A caller to the radio program about a month ago asked about answering a historical challenge to Luke 2 that Bart Ehrman has raised.  I have to confess, I wasn't aware of this apparent problem, and researching it has actually been quite fascinating.  Ehrman mentions it in this week's Newsweek magazine.  Part of the key to the answer is what the Greek text of Luke 2 actually says, as opposed to what we've come to think it says.  Greg has observed that answering many of the problems about the Bible that callers raise on the radio program can be resolved simply by reading the text.  That's part of the answer here, plus a little historical context.

The gist of the problem is that Luke claims that the first tax when Quirinius was governor of Syria was at the time of Jesus' birth – around 4-2 B.C.  The Jewish historian Josephus, however, records that the first tax under Quirinius' administration was in 6 A.D., after Jesus' birth.  There's no reconciling these reports, unless we actually look back at what Luke wrote and at some historical data.

First let me make the point Greg made to the caller.  Luke himself is a historical account that we should take just as seriously as Josephus.  The posture that the Bible is the questionable source behind other historical sources is just plain prejudice before examining the accounts.  The Gospels, just like Josephus, claim to be ancient historical records, and they should be taken as such until proven to be untrustworthy.  So far, they have not been dismissed based on the facts, only by assumption.  Josephus' accuracy can be questioned in light of Luke's account just as much as the other way around.

As it turns out, the two historical sources are easily reconciled.  And a quick note on answering apparent contradictions in the Bible: Reason requires we show a possible resolution, not that we have proof that it's the actual resolution.  If there's a way to understand the text in harmony with other historical data, then we've answered the challenge.  That's true for any historical document, not just the Bible.

Go and read Luke 2 in the ESV or NASB – no tax is mentioned, only a registration or census. I would have recited Luke 2 from memory "that all the world should be taxed."  That's in the KJV, but it's not what Luke actually wrote.  Luke doesn't mention the purpose for the registration.  We know from historical records that there were other reasons the rulers ordered registrations of their citizens, and that Augustus ordered citizens to register on more than one occasion.  Tertullian reports that there were censuses conducted in Palestine during the time period Jesus was born. So we have historical support that registrations were conducted at that time.

It could be that the registration was for the purpose of renewing loyalty to Caesar on the 25th anniversary of the Roman Senate giving Augustus complete allegiance. As descendants of a royal family, both Mary and Joseph would have been required to go to the seat of their royal ancestor.  Both had royal blood, so both had to be registered in Bethlehem. 

In fact, Josephus reports an oath of loyalty took place at the time of King Herod.  It fits perfectly with what Luke actually wrote.

The other apparent problem with Luke's account is the description of Quirinius as governor of Syria, but other historical records show that others were governor during the time of Jesus' birth.  And Josephus  mentions that Quirinius was governor in 6 A.D., not at the time of Jesus' birth.  However, Justin Martyr recorded that Quirinius was procurator in Judea during the time of Saturninus, who was governor of Syria.  Justin Martyr adds that this was during the time of Jesus' birth and that Quirinius was there for the purpose of conducting a census.  Gleason Archer explains that Quirinius was a special assistant to Augustus who often sent him on his behalf to conduct specific tasks.  To the provincial citizens, procurators had authority just as the governors had. From a functional standpoint, there wasn't any real difference between the offices. But from what I've read (I don't know Greek), what Luke wrote means ruling or administrating; it doesn't have to mean govern or governor, though it can. (The Greek can also be translated before Quirinius was governor of Syria, which would reconcile the timing and position, as well.)

So an appeal to what Luke actually wrote and some historical records reconcile this apparent problem.  Luke said that he set out to write a careful historical account of what took place.  And there's very good reason to think that is what he accomplished.

Comments

[RonH]

Reason requires we show a possible resolution, not that we have proof that it's the actual resolution. If there's a way to understand the text in harmony with other historical data, then we've answered the challenge. That's true for any historical document, not just the Bible.

There's a difference between showing a possible resolution and adopting it. You can show a resolution for any reason or no reason. To adopt it you need a reason(s) - unless you are satisfied with the standard: If it's logically possible, no matter how unlikely, I believe it.

[scblhrm]

" in harmony with other historical data " is the qualifier there.... which this text has quite easily.... Other texts from various secular writers, geology, stones and bones and all that.... I think the Bible is, has been, so overly scrutinized that it now has more data in its support than most of that age. I mean, like, instead of the cow jumped over the moon.....

[Louis Kuhelj]

RonH

Why would you not think that the weight of evidence being in favor of historical accuracy is a reason to adopt it?

[RonH]

"in harmony with other historical data" isn't enough if all it means is 'logically consistent with other historical data'.

THE qualifier is probability. So, "in harmony with other historical data" would have to mean, at a minimum, "most likely given other historical data".

I say "at a minimum" because while a probability of 51% is 'most probable' and 51% enough to act if you must, still 51% doesn't exactly inspire confidence and 51% is not what you want when you intend to involve others.

[Nick Hill]

There are a bunch of spelling mistakes and some grammatical mistakes in your article. You might want to correct that.

[Jones]

True Ron, if the Bible is indeed fiction or blatantly inconsistent, this historical text would have been irrelevant a long time ago. The opposite is true, we have reason to trust the Biblical historical accounts over any other historical text, if we use the general rules of interpretation and authenticity that the Bible's critics use.

[RonH]

Louis,

I sent my last before seeing yours.

I'm not exactly sure what your question means.

For example: "historical accuracy" of what?

RonH

[David S.]

Spellcheck and proofread, please! Still enjoyed the article though.

[j]

Luke himself is a historical account that we should take just as seriously as Josephus.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Josephus wasn't really a trustworthy source of historical fact...In other words, there have been proven falsehoods in Josephus' writings that have been determined to be due to his inflating and twisting of the facts of the time to suit his particular angle.

I may be wrong, it's been a very, very long time since I even studied or thought about this, but it seems to ring a bell...

The implication being that if Josephus wrote about something that is also referenced in the Bible, we have to verify from a third source that Josephus was correct. So, it may not be always work out to support the Bible "just because Josephus said so".

In other words (and I think the article brings this out), Luke has been demonstrated to be a much more reliable and trustworthy historical document than has Josephus.

[Son of Adam]

RonH:

"still 51% doesn't exactly inspire confidence and 51% is not what you want when you intend to involve others."

Leaving aside qualitative assertions ("not what you want") for the moment, given a dichotomous choice (true or not true), what reason would you give for instead selecting the 49% option?

"Instilling confidence" is indeed an important matter, but deviates from the thesis of this thread.

Given the need to select the most veracious claim from among 2 options, one would logically select that which is most probable.

Talking about how that decision makes us feel -- that is a different matter. And here I hadn't tagged you as the "touchy-feely" type, RonH. ;)

[Stéphane Kapitaniuk]

Thanks for the article. But I would encourage a spell-check.

[Stéphane Kapitaniuk]

Would it be possible to have the source for the following affirmation you make:

In fact, Josephus reports an oath of loyalty took place at the time of King Herod. It fits perfectly with what Luke actually wrote.

Thanks ahead!

[Amy]

Stephane, I think this is what you're looking for:

“There was moreover a certain sect of Jews who valued themselves highly for their exact knowledge of the law; and talking much of their contact with God, were greatly in favor with the women of Herod’s court. They are called Pharisees. They are men who had it in their power to control kings; extremely subtle, and ready to attempt any thing against those whom they did not like. When therefore the whole Jewish nation took an OATH to be faithful to Caesar, and [to] the interests of the king, these men, to the number of above six thousand, refused to swear. The king having laid a fine upon them, Pheroras’ wife [Herod’s sister-in-law] paid the money for them. They, in requital for her kindness (for they were supposed, by their great intimacy with God, to have attained to the gift of prophecy), prophesied that God having decreed to put an end to the government of Herod and his race, the kingdom would be transferred to her and Pheroras and their children." Josephus, Antiquities XVII.41–45

I don't have Josephus in front of me right now, so I had to find that in a search. Hopefully it's an accurate transcription.

[RonH]

Son of Adam,

With 51%, I'd bet a dollar again and again as long as you'd let me.

Or, if a choice between two alternatives is forced, I'd take 51%.

But I wouldn't willingly take a 49% chance of losing my (our) life savings or getting killed even once.

In decision making, costs and benefits matter as much as the odds because they are equally important in determining payoffs.

If you don't like me talking about wanting confidence, then you may substitute considering expected payoff. It is all the same to me.

RonH

You cannot consider finding a logically possible resolution of a Bible contradiction a success.

If there are numerous cases in the Bible where the best you can do is say It's logically possible this is not a contradiction?, then what are the odds that the Bible is inerrant?

[Louis Kuhelj]

RonH

"I sent my last before seeing yours.

I'm not exactly sure what your question means.

For example: "historical accuracy" of what?"

You responded, that's enough. My point was that if you have a harmony among different historians and they record the harmonious accounts for posterity, why would one not count that harmonious convergence between different sources of historical accounts that do not mirror, but do corroborate each other, which adds weight to that corroborated evidence being historically sound, as not being a good enough reason to seriously consider adopting it?

I'm a bit flummoxed by your evaluation of 51% in favor in your later post. Considering the standing of the evidence in the writing of Luke as compared to other writings of antiquity, I would think that it should be a lot higher number than that.

[RonH]

Hi Louis,

I didn't mean to assign 51% to anything in particular - certainly nothing in Luke. None of what I said was particularly about the Luke aspect of the OP.

RonH

[Caleb G]

I am wrestling with how to think about the birth narratives in Luke and Matthew. I appreciate you trying to tackle this issue. Unfortunately this blog post does not answer Ehrman's arguments.

For example, the only registration recorded in Judea under Quirinius was in 6 CE. It could be there was one earlier, but then Quirinius was not governor of Syria. More on that in a bit.
Is there any evidence that a registration took place for loyalty to Caesar in Judea? Not that I am aware of. Furthermore, is it likely that God-fearing Jews would register when such a registration meant swearing loyalty to Caesar? Maybe the Sadducees would, but I question whether the average pious Jew would.
I would like to know the Tertullian reference to a census in Judea during Jesus' birth. Tertullian was writing from the late 2nd century, so even if he did indicate that, I would want to know where he is getting his information.

Ehrman mentions that there is no evidence of an empire-wide Roman census. If there was such a census, why would we have no evidence of it considering how extensive our records are for that historical time period? Luke specifically says the census was empire wide ("the whole world").
Furthermore, Ehrman argues that the evidence indicates that a Roman census occurred where one lived, not where one's ancestors lived. Is there any evidence that censuses were ever conducted in the way portrayed in Luke? As Ehrman says, the logistics are a nightmare. Also, how would you even know where your ancestors lived a 1000 years before?

I find it fascinating that Melinda admits to not knowing Greek and then comments on what the Greek word can mean. Egeneto in Luke 2:2 is consistently translated as "when" or "while". Thus, the author of Luke is identifying the time of the census, "when/while Quirinius was governor of Syria." "before" doesn't really fit with the context. The word used for governor is a participle which means "governing" or "ruling." Either way it indicates that Quirinius was ruling in an official capacity (aka Governor) and not merely as an assistant to Augustus. If the author of Luke did not think Quirinius was governor during the time of this census, then why does the text not say this? A straightforward and close reading of the text argues that Quirinius was governor during the census. And we have not even gotten into the issue of correlating the birth narrative in Matthew where Jesus is born during the reign of Herod the Great (who died in 4 BCE).

I'm not saying these problems don't have solutions, but it does appear that the solutions offered fly in the face of the plain reading of the text itself. One can always offer a possible solution to these problems, but such elaborate historical and exegetical gymnastics sends a strong signal of straw-grasping.

[Son of Adam]

You cannot consider finding a logically possible resolution of a Bible contradiction a success.

Given the proposed resolution, would you continue using the mis-appropriated term 'contradiction'?

Such discontinuation, my friend, I would call a success.

If you opt to continue using the term, can you kindly define what you mean by it?

[Patrick]

Caleb G. wrote "Luke specifically says the census was empire wide ("the whole world")."

I would think that Luke was taking a big chance to make that statement if it was not true. If it was not true he would have easily been proved wrong at that time. So for him to make a statement that can easily be disproved adds weight to its veracity. Would not early detractors have brought this up as soon as Luke came out if it were not fact?

[Jason Engwer]

There are good reasons to think Luke's account of the census is correct. For example, we have good evidence for the reliability of scripture in general and for Luke's general reliability as a historian. Both general considerations have positive implications for Luke's passage on the census. Furthermore, the earliest Christian and non-Christian sources who commented on Luke's account seem to have considered it historically reliable. Though the early critics of Christianity disputed other elements of the infancy narratives, such as the virgin birth and the Slaughter of the Innocents, the census account doesn't seem to have been disputed significantly enough to leave any trace of the dispute in the historical record. Keep in mind that the alleged contradictions of the census account found in sources like Josephus are of an indirect nature. It's not as though sources like Josephus and Tacitus were commenting directly on Luke. Rather, modern critics think that some passages in those extra-Biblical sources indirectly conflict with Luke's comments. But when we turn to the early sources who were directly commenting on Luke, they all treat his account as an accurate one.

Given the brevity and ambiguity of some of Luke's comments, modern critics are often expecting too much from Luke or reading things into the text that aren't there. I'll give a couple of examples.

If Augustus implemented a series of censuses that occurred in phases over many years, with an overarching intention of registering people across the empire, then Luke's description is an accurate summation of what the emperor was trying to accomplish. Luke may have had something else in mind, such as one order from the emperor that resulted in one registration across the empire at one point in time, but the language is ambiguous enough to reasonably allow for other scenarios as well.

And nothing is said about a requirement that people go to their place of ancestry. The comment about ancestry is made with regard to Joseph in particular, not every census participant. When all participants are mentioned in Luke 2:3, what's cited is a requirement that each participant go to "his own city". Most likely, the reason why ancestry is mentioned with regard to Joseph is to explain why he in particular registered where he did. Whatever significance Joseph's ancestral ties to Bethlehem had for him (he owned property there, he wanted to be associated with that city more than Nazareth, etc.), the comment about ancestry in Luke 2:4 seems to be about Joseph in particular, not census participants in general.

The issues I've discussed above, as well as many others, have been addressed in more depth in other places. I've written a series of articles about the earliest responses to Luke's account, in both Christian and non-Christian sources. You can find a summary article I wrote, with links to other articles, by searching for the title "Is Luke's Census Historical?" at Triablogue. The article is dated August 19, 2010. My articles cites other resources on the subject. Some New Testament scholars, such as Darrell Bock and Stanley Porter, have written some helpful material on the subject. There's a lot of good material online as well. Go to the CADRE Comments blog and search under "census", for example. (See, especially, Chris Price's material there. He posts under the screen name Layman.) Run a search for "census" at the Hypotyposeis blog (Stephen Carlson's blog). For example, Carlson has some articles there arguing that Luke 2:2 should be translated "this became a very important registration when Quirinius was governing Syria". If Carlson's suggested translation is correct, it seems to resolve multiple disputes about Luke's passage. It would explain why Quirinius is mentioned, even though his undisputed census didn't occur until several years after Jesus' birth. It would also support the conclusion that Luke 2:1 is referring to a multi-stage census, not a census that occurred at one point in time across the empire. Anybody who's interested can read more about subjects like these by going to my blog, Chris Price's blog, or Stephen Carlson's. And you can find other good resources on the web. I'm just giving a few examples.

[Jason Engwer]

Caleb G,

You said that you're "wrestling with how to think about the birth narratives in Luke and Matthew". Since you're interested in Christmas issues in general, not just Luke's census, you may want to consult our archive of Christmas articles at Triablogue. We cover a large variety of topics there and recommend a lot of other resources. We've posted more material since then as well. For example, I've written a lot about the Bethlehem birthplace in recent weeks. Search for my December 5 post titled "Evidence For The Bethlehem Birthplace". (The reason why I'm describing so many of these posts without linking to them is that I don't know how many links I can include in my posts at this blog without forcing the posts into moderation. I'm trying to avoid delaying the publication of my posts by including too many links. From what I remember, I've been able to post links here in the past, but sometimes the posts don't get published or get delayed if there's a particular number of links in them.)

[Jason Engwer]

Caleb G has asked about Tertullian's discussion of the census and what sources he relied on. Here's an article that cites some of Tertullian's comments along with the comments of other ancient sources. There are several references in ancient Christian literature to a government record of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem and his involvement in a census.

But even when ancient Christian authors don't cite a source, such as a census record, their testimony in support of the census still has some significance. Critics of the census account often cite Josephus and other ancient sources against Luke, even when those sources don't tell us where they got their information or are vague about where they got it.

Caleb objects to Tertullian's testimony on the basis of his lateness. Yes, Tertullian's lateness is a significant problem. But critics of Luke cite sources who were writing several decades after the time of Jesus' birth. It's not as though men like Josephus, Tacitus, and Dio Cassius were eyewitnesses of the events surrounding Jesus' birth or even contemporaries. Both sides of this census dispute are citing sources who were significantly removed from the events in question.

[WisdomLover]

The events of Matthew's narrative take place during the reign of Herod...who died in 4 B.C.

These events do not describe the birth of Jesus, but the events leading to his flight to Egypt (when he was about one or two). That means Jesus birth occurred no later than 5-6 B.C.

What's more, assuming Jesus' family didn't go to Egypt and then just turn around and come back. That must have taken at least a year or two (or more). Jesus birth gets pushed back to at least 6-8 B.C. Though it is worth noting it could be even earlier.

There are Roman census figures for 8 B.C. An empire wide census must have been taken sometime before that. If any census caused Joseph and Mary to return to Bethlehem, it seems most likely that it was that one. Certainly not the census of Quirinius.

Just to gild the lily, there was an astrologically significant triple alignment of Jupiter and Saturn that occurred in 7 B.C. If this was the Bethlehem Star, it would get the wise men into Judea by 6 B.C. (and Jesus out shortly thereafter).

In any case, I think a very good guess for the time of the first Christmas is sometime in the Spring of 8 B.C. At least at a time that the sheep would be out of the stable and abiding in the fields with the shepherds.

The census of Quirinius took place in AD 6. And it was infamous. It happened as Quirinius' first official act, and resulted in a Jewish insurrection. Everyone knew THAT census. Thankfully, it was the only census that Quirinius took. And no one was probably more thankful than Quirinius.

Now John's ministry, according to Luke started about 23 years after that. And Jesus' ministry wasn't far behind. This is because Luke says that John was baptizing in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius...AD 29.

So if Jesus was born at about the time of the census of Quirinius, Luke would be claiming, in effect, that Jesus was in his early twenties when He was turning the world over.

In contrast, Matthew places Him in His late thirties, possibly even His early forties (depending on how long he was in Egypt).

According to the NASB, Luke said that the census he is talking about was the first census while Quirinius was governor of Syria.

OK. When was the second?

Wait...there was no second.

To repeat, the infamous census of Quirinius, his first official act, was the only one that occurred while he was governor.

And one more point. The infamous census of Quirinius was a provincial census. It was not a census of the entire Roman empire.

So here is what Luke is mistakenly claiming given that he is referring to the infamous census of Quirinius:

1. Jesus was implausibly young during His ministry.

2. Jesus age differed from the age that the earlier gospel of Matthew implies by at least a decade and a half.

3. Quirinius conducted more than one census. The one that preceded Jesus' birth is the first of these.

4. The census of Quirinius was empire wide.

Notice that every one of these mistakes would have been obvious to anyone at the time.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that, rather than cherishing the idea that Luke was mistakenly referring to the census of Quirinius (which leads you into all sorts of other, rather noticeable mistakes Luke could have been charged with by his contemporaries), it's time to start thinking that maybe we are getting something wrong in the passage.

I'm now going to rip off Iver Larson, a mid-level scholar who is working on this very issue. He hasn't officially published anything yet, but he has his working notes online.

It turns out that there are clear manuscript renditions of Luke 2:2 that differ from the less clear renditions favored by the Nestlé-Aland edition of the Greek NT that most translators use.

The difference amounts to a matter of emphasis, but emphasis might be all you need to sort out the tangle. Well, that and noting the fact that, while "protos" can mean "first", it can also mean "ahead of in status, position or time". That is, the word translated as "first" could mean "before". (Larsen also details some niceties involving the case of NT Greek that preference his interpretation of "protos").

The bottom line of Larsen's argument is that Luke was probably saying something like "THIS census (not THAT infamous census of Qurinius) was BEFORE Quirinius was governor of Syria".

[Pasi Turunen]

If one chooses to be pedant one might even say that Luke 2:1 only refers to act of giving the decree about census to which Joseph and Mary react in Luke 2:3 starting their journey towards Bethlehem in preparation to the actual carrying out of the census that took place later during the time of Quirinius as clarified in Luke 2:2. So 2:2 is kind of clarifying insertion in the narrative. See how Luke treats the story about the famine relief to Judea in time of Claudius in Acts 11:27-30. First comes the prophetic word about famine, then Luke inserts explanatory note, sort of leap out of the storyline to the "future" (from the point of narrative storyline) to show what famine the prophetic utterance pertained to, then Luke returns to the chronology of the storyline to describe how church prepared itself as a reaction to the prophetic word in order to provide relief in the famine that was to come few years later and which Luke knows was the famine in the time of Claudius.

My point being that Luke does not necessarily claim that Jesus was born while Quirinius was overseeing census as a governor of Syria. Luke only tels what prompted Joseph and Mary to start their journey to Bethlehem. It was the issuing of the decree by Augustus of which we have historical record in Luke. That decree was completed much later in the time of Quirinius as Luke clarifies "in parenthesses" in 2:2 just like in Acts 11:28 he identifyes the famine spoken by prophets in the church. Interestingly in both cases we are dealing annissuing of a word about something that touched the "whole world" with a specific mention to Roman emperor.

[WisdomLover]

The census that Augustus decreed for the whole (Roman) world was not the census of Quirinius. The census of Quirinius was limited to the province of Syria (which included Judea), and it took place in A.D. 6.

The census of Augustus took place in 8 B.C., and that is obviously the one that Luke is referring to, because that's the one that...

a) ...was decreed by Augustus, and
b) ...went out to the whole (Roman) world.

(See how that works?)

Even in Roman times, it did not take 14 years to complete a census. So apart from the issue of who decreed the census and how broad its scope was, there is really no possibility of the census of 8 B.C. and the census of Quirinius being the same census.

There's a translation problem that makes it look like Luke is referring to the census of Quirinius. In its simplest terms, where we translate the word "protos" as "first" we should use "before" instead. The census of Augustus took place before Quirinius was Governor of Syria.

The reason Luke is keen on mentioning Quirinius at all is to distinguish the census he is talking about from the census of Quirinius (which was infamous).

Here is an analogy.

Nowadays, if I talk about an attack on the WTC, everyone will think instinctively of the 9/11 attack. Now, if I want to talk about the 1993 bombings by the Blind Sheikh, I might say that "This attack on the WTC took place before W. was President." Now you know that I am not talking about the 9/11 attacks, but about an earlier attack...you might even be old enough, as I am, to remember the attack by the Blind Sheikh and say "Oh yeah..."

What the translators have done to Luke 2:2 is make it read like this sentence: "This attack on the WTC was the first that occurred while W. was President.".