Transcription
Supposed biblical error: the census of Luke.
Luke chapter 2 begins with, "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.
Skeptics will usually assert four problems:
1. In a Roman census, Joseph would not have to travel to Bethlehem but could register at his current residency, and Mary would not have to register at all.
2. No Roman census would have been conducted while Herod the Great ruled until 4 BC.
3. There was never a single census conducted of the entire Roman Empire; it was done in sections.
4. And finally, Quirinius was not governor until 6 AD. Jesus was born while Herod the Great reigned, which lasted until 4 BC. Thus, it could not be the census of Quirinius conducted from 6 to 7 AD.
Let's answer these in reverse, starting with the last one. We did a separate video on Quirinius, where we pointed out there was a lot of evidence in the works of Josephus that Josephus may have been the one who misstated this census, and it actually should be dated back to the time when Herod the Great was alive. Luke also refers to him as a hegemon, which is used to refer to a wide range of Roman official positions and not necessarily a governor. So, see this other video for more.
Next, the third issue can be resolved by looking at what Luke actually says. Harold Hohner notes Luke uses the present tense, indicating that Augustus ordered censuses to be taken regularly rather than only one time. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that there was an order of a general census in the time of Augustus. Sir William Ramsay said, "The decree of Augustus which Luke mentions is commonly interpreted as ordering that a single census should be held of the whole Roman world. This is not a correct interpretation of Luke's words; he uses the present tense. Any means that Augustus ordered enrollments to be regularly taken according to the strict and proper usage of the present tense." So, Luke doesn't necessarily imply there was a single census for the whole empire at once.
The next supposed issue assumes Augustus would not have conducted a census in vassal kingdoms like that of Herod the Great, but there aren't any good reasons to support this assumption. Herod was essentially a puppet king, and Rome could do what they wanted. Sabine Hubner highlights a passage from Tacitus where a census was conducted in a client kingdom, and because of it, Rome had to deal with a revolt. She says, "This suggests that a similar census on the Roman model could well have taken place in the kingdom of Herod the Great, officially directed by Herod, but with military and administrative support from the Roman governor in neighboring Syria." As a vassal king, Herod was dependent on the favor of Augustus and legitimized by his support. So, this suggests Rome could and did at times conduct censuses in client kingdoms, and there was no reason to assume they could not have done something similar within the kingdom of Judea. After all, there was no Roman law that prevented an emperor from conducting a census in a client kingdom.
We can also find evidence that Augustus was paranoid about keeping accurate records of the inhabitants of his empire. Roger Bagnol and Bruce Fryer note that throughout the reign of Augustus, there were six censuses conducted in Egypt. So, Luke's suggestion that another one was conducted in Judea fits right in and would align with Augustus's desire to perform multiple sentences so he could have accurate records. After all, Augustus remarks in his autobiography of ordering censuses to be conducted several times. Hubner also notes those living in Herod the Great's kingdom had to swear an oath of loyalty to Herod and Augustus, suggesting Rome had much more involvement in the kingdom of Judea. "The oath of loyalty to Augustus, which Herod's subjects were required to swear in 6 or 5 BCE, also indicates an understanding of the nature of Roman rule that was increasingly unfettered by borders and which interfered with the normal autonomy of a client king in interior affairs." Furthermore, Brooke Pearson notes, "We have evidence of standard Roman practices in Judea during the days of Herod, suggesting much more Roman involvement. We cannot think that in the process of Romanizing his kingdom, he would incorporate Roman architectural, military, religious, and recreational techniques, models, and practices, but would reject the incredibly efficient administrative systems, or that he would be allowed to do so by his overlords." Josephus also reports the use of village scribes in Judea under Herod, which was a position responsible for collecting the information regarding property for taxation during a census. The position is mentioned in 200 different papyri. The fact that this occupation is mentioned as existing in Judea under Herod makes more sense if they were conducting censuses and mimicking the Roman versions. So, there seems to be sufficient evidence Rome was involved more within Judea than we realize and did conduct censuses in client kingdoms. And as noted in our other video, we do have evidence within Josephus the census of Quirinius can be dated to before the death of Herod the Great.
What about the first issue? Is it incorrect for Luke to record that Jews had to travel to their place of origin for a census? Well, first off, we need to note there are no sources that contradict Luke on this issue. So, to say he is wrong because it is not confirmed elsewhere is to argue from silence. He is our only source on how censuses were conducted under Herod the Great. Herod could have felt this was necessary for the Jews to do to obtain an accurate assessment of families and what their net value was. Jews were tied to their families and still considered to be under their fathers, more so than in other cultures. R.W.L. Mobily writes, "A man's children are seen as extensions of his own value and significance and are not considered as uniquely important human beings in their own right." So, the inference is a family unit could have needed to be together for registration, including all your sons and their wives, as your family was essential to your identity in ancient Judea, and that is what you were mainly tied to as a Jew. However, once again, there are no sources to contradict Luke on how a census was conducted in Herod's kingdom, so Luke should not be considered guilty until proven innocent.
It should also be noted that Rome did not do everything the same way in each region that they rolled over. Local rulers and officials were given considerable leeway to conduct affairs as they saw fit. And still, we can find a parallel in the neighboring territory of Egypt. A papyrus that dates to 104 AD states that the prefect of Egypt ordered Egyptians to return to their place of origin so the census could be carried out. So, Herod could have had a similar law within his kingdom when a census was needed to be conducted. Pearson says, "There is no reason to posit that anything recorded in Luke 2 concerning the census was out of the ordinary for the Roman world." William Ramsay also notes the differences between modern expectations and ancient beliefs: "We in modern time make the census for one fixed and universal moment, catching our migratory population at a given instant, as if by an instantaneous photograph. The Romans tried to cope in another way with the difficulty of numbering people who might be far from home by bringing them at some time during the enrollment year to their proper and original home, and they permitted them to come for enrollment at any time during the year." So, there was nothing out of the ordinary by Luke recording that Joseph and Mary needed to travel to Bethlehem for the census, which is probably where Joseph's father resided.
So, once we study the cultural and historical context and treat Luke as innocent until proven guilty, there is nothing erroneous in the text as long as we apply the principle of charity. This supposed error can be resolved.