Historicity

And it came to pass in those days

that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus

that all the world should be registered.

This census first took place

while Quirinius was governing Syria.

Luke 2:1-2, NKJV

I've had several conversations recently that call into question the reliability of the Bible as an historical document. In doing research for these two verses, I have discovered that they are a heated topic of debate among Biblical scholars. I have also noted that everyone argues their point with an agenda in mind--that agenda having to do with the status of Scripture. Either the Bible is a flawed human product filled with contradiction, or it is the Divinely inspired Word of God--authoritative, infallible, inerrant, perfectly written and perfectly preserved. Those with the former agenda search the text for discrepancies, errors, impossibilities, incongruities and the like which will supposedly support their position that the Bible cannot be trusted. Those with the latter agenda rise to the defense of Holy Writ and search for ways to refute the accusations of mistakes in the Bible because, after all, the historicity and truthfulness of the Bible depends upon their ability to counter every criticism and answer every question.

I definitely fall into the latter camp, though I won't fall into the trap of thinking that the Bible's reliability relies completely on me. I am not an expert in anything. So I will just state simply what I've read from lots of really smart people, some of them experts, about this little conundrum in Luke 2:1-2.

Luke has already stated, in 1:5, that the birth of Christ happened during the reign of King Herod in Judea. Traditionally, his reign has been dated as 37 BC - 4 BC. His death in 4 BC was tied to a reading of the Jewish historian Josephus who said that Herod died shortly after a lunar eclipse at the time of Passover. For some reason, a German theologian and presumed expert in 1896 decided that it must have been the eclipse in the spring of 4 BC. However, modern scholarship in the area of astronomy has revealed that the 4 BC eclipse was merely a partial lunar eclipse, while there were three other total lunar eclipses--two in 5 BC, and one in 1 BC. For this and other reasons, Herod's death (which could not have taken place as early as 5 BC) should really be dated to 1 BC.

Caesar Augustus was the Emperor of Rome from 44 BC to 14 AD.

Now for the real puzzle. Quirinius was a well known historical figure in the Roman Empire who served as legate of the province of Syria from 6-12 AD, which included Judea after Herod Archelaus was deposed in 6 AD. Quirinius oversaw a census in 6-7 AD that resulted in a revolt led by Judas the Galilean and the formation of the Zealot political movement in Judea. With these facts in hand, those who look for mistakes in the Scriptures cry "AHA! See: The gospels can't possibly be correct, because Quirinius and the census didn't take place while Herod was alive." And they think that this somehow destroys the Bible's credibility.

While the rule of Quirinius, the census, and the Jewish revolt in 6 AD are undisputed facts, I'd like to point out that there is only one (at least according to one expert I read) reference in any surviving records to that event. So what else does history say? There is a good body of evidence that reveals Quirinius public, political career extended over three decades in the region that included Judea. He actually held positions of power over those lands governed from Syria as early as 3 BC if not before. And Luke doesn't actually assign Quirinius the title of "governor" so much as he simply indicates Quirinius did some governing in relation to the census.

And it just so happens that Augustus called for an Oath of Allegiance to be taken by his subjects, which was administered in the region of Syria and Palestine in "about" 3 BC. There is some scholarship that has suggested that this registration of citizens was also intended to identify any potential political rivals in any province of the empire to any governing authority. In Judea, the Hasmonean-Herodian dynasties had usurped both the priesthood from the rightful priests and the throne from any royal or noble Davidic lines. Joseph, of the royal house of David and a native of Bethlehem, and his wife Mary, a descendant of both the royal and priestly families, would certainly have fallen into the category of potential rivals, and therefore it would have been important for them to register and take such an oath of allegiance.

As I said before: I am not an expert on any of this. But those discrepancies some people are so fond of pointing out are not quite as clear cut or definitive as some people would have us believe. When you look at the whole, big picture, the details point more and more to a birthdate for Jesus Christ in the year 3 BC. Which I'm pretty sure is exactly what happened.