Read Luke 2:1-7, Accuracy of Luke’s Christmas Story

In our last post we listed several things about Luke’s Christmas story that have had easy confirmation in history and archaeology (existence of Herod, Quirinius, etc.).  But there are a couple of statements by Luke that are called into question by many.  One is the date of the census; the other is the governorship of Quirinius.  For some, the dates for these things do not fit the date range allowable for the birth of Christ. 

Let me say why we are wanting to speak to these issues.  It is not because I am an expert in these matters.  My knowledge comes from others who are expert and for that reason I am going to let you know my sources upfront so you can search them yourself.  They can all be found for free on CCEL (Christ Classics Ethereal Library).

·        Albert Barnes in Barnes New Testament Notes, his commentary on Luke 2:2.

·        W. M. Ramsey, Was Christ born in Bethlehem, Ch. 11, Quirinius the Governor of Syria.

·        The Schaff Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, article on Quirinius.

In addition, I have been enjoying a relatively new publication, the Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology by Randall Price.  It gets me started on topics I can then search out elsewhere.  This post will be brief.  Search these other tools if you wish to pursue it further.

But now, back to why we are speaking to these issues.  The reason is that this gives us an opportunity to see how archaeology and historical sources cannot be the final word on the truth of the Bible.  Time for more digging in the dirt or digging in the Scripture so often shows the Bible’s record to be true. 

Ø The census.  History confirms registering of people was reinstated by Augustus, and he was the first emperor to extend them to the provinces which would include Judea.  Egyptian Papyri have confirmed these happened every fourteen years.  Papyri concerning the 104AD census noted that people were required to return to their hometown.  Another papyri on the 48AD census detailed what information was required (age, physical appearance, etc.).  History confirms that the 6AD census involved a revolt of the Jews, an event mentioned in Acts 5:37.  But the census prior to 6AD would have been around 8BC, and that is too early for the time of Jesus’ birth.  Further evidence has revealed that there was a special registration in Judea that would have been around 3-4BC.  This additional registration came about because of the failures of Herod’s successor Archelaus (Matt. 2:22), which brought about a new relationship with Augustus, requiring a separate registration and oath to Caesar.  Problem solved.  Luke’s reference to this being the first one under Quirinius may, in fact, be very accurate.

Ø Quirinius, governor of Syria.  There are etchings found that indicate that Quirinius was in fact governor of Syria.  No question about that.  But history indicates he was governor of Syria either too early (12-10BC) or too late (3-6AD) for the time of Jesus’ birth (c.4BC).  But there is an interesting situation.  During the time between Quirinius’ two sessions as governor he also served, in effect, as a co-ruler of Syria, having charge of the military and other responsibilities.  He may have carried out his responsibilities while not being in Syria.  This was not a totally unique situation; it was known to have happened at other times in the Empire.  He was governor in 6AD for that census; he may have been co-ruler at the time of the earlier census, and thus what Luke calls “the first census” under Quirinius.  Furthermore, Luke, who is writing some years after Jesus’ had risen from the dead and ascended into heaven, happens to use the “participle” in 2:2: Quirinius was governing Syria.  This gives his action a sense of something that was “ongoing” and not necessarily an action at one specific time.  That would fit the overall governing of Quirinius carried out in different modes, if you will. 

Luke is known, both in his Gospel and in Acts, to write with great precision when it comes to the historical context of which he writes.  Don’t be surprised at this.  While this is Luke’s emphasis, it is true all over Scripture.  God protected His prophets and the Apostles so that everything they wrote was accurate.  We hope you are encouraged that the Bible is true, not because history or archaeology say so, but because it is the Word of God.  God, who cannot lie, did not lie in His Word.  What we have seen here is that Luke was not only not mistaken; his words were actually painstakingly accurate.