In Luke 2:1-2, we read the following:
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) (Luke 2:1-2)
Christadelphian apologist, Christ Matthiesen, has a 7-part survey on the historicity of the Lukan Census which one can access here.
In defence of the historicity of this census, also consider the following comments:
Another chronological indication [of the date of Jesus’ birth] is the census which, according to St. Luke (ii, 1-2), made it necessary for Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem. This census which the Gospel records as taking place “when Cyrinus was governor of Syria” has provoked a great deal of argument. History knows this Cyrinus as Publius Suipicius Quirinius, a member of the Senate, formerly a Consul, who had served with the African armies and was in fact the Imperial Legate in Syria. He it was who, being deputed to keep an eye on Tiberius, then in more of less voluntary exile in Rhodes, got on so well with the future emperor that they became firm friends. It is this same Quirinius or Cyrinus who caused a scandal by his action against his divorced wife, Emilia Lepida, according to Tacitus. But unfortunately no pagan author mentions the decree “by which the whole world was to be taxed.” This is not surprising, for Dio Cassius, the only historian who wrote a detailed life of Augustus, is known to us for this period only by a few fragments. Tacitus did not begin his Annals until later and neither Suetonius nor Josephus has come down to us complete. The famous inscription of Augustus at Ancyra (Ankara) mentions three censuses made by the Emperor: one in 726 (28 B.C.), another in 746 (8 B.C.) and the last in 767 (14 A.D.). It is not known whether these returns were of all the inhabitants of the Roman Empire or only of Roman citizens or whether Quirinius was Governor at the time of the second census (8 B.C.). Only two things about his official career are definitely established: that he was twice Legate in Syria (an inscription in the Lateran Museum proves this) and that one of his terms o office was about 6 A.D. We do not know whether this was his first or second term because there is a break in the roll of his Imperial Legates in Syria as it has come down to us between the years 4 B.C. and 1 A.D. but 4 B.C. is not 8 B.C., the date given on the Ancyra tablet, so we must assume some other census which is not recorded, some local enumeration by Quirinius in his own provinces. This sort of thing was common enough in Roman administration which was addicted to detailed records and piled up masses of documents. The Evangelist would naturally describe this census as “the first” to distinguish it from that taken later, ten years after the death of Herod, which is mentioned in both the Acts of the Apostles and in Josephus. (Daniel-Rops, Jesus and His Times, Volume 1 [New York: Image Boos, 1958], 120-21)
But it is urged that a Roman census, even if held elsewhere, could not have been made in Palestine during the time of Herod the Great, because Palestine was not yet a Roman province. In a.d. 6, 7, when Quirinius certainly did undertake a Roman census in Judæa, such a proceeding was quite in order. Josephus shows that in taxation Herod acted independently (Ant. xv.10. 4, xvi. 2. 5, xvii.2. I, II. 2; comp. 17:8, 17:4). That Herod paid tribute to Rome is not certain; but, if so, he would pay it out of taxes raised by himself. The Romans would not assess his subjects for the tribute which he had to pay. Josephus, whose treatment of the last years of Herod is very full, does not mention any Roman census at that time. On the contrary, he implies that, even after the death of Herod, so long as Palestine was ruled by its own princes, there was no Roman taxation; and he states that the census undertaken by Quirinius a.d. 7 excited intense opposition, presumably as being an innovation (Ant. 18:1. 1, 2:1).
In meeting this objection, let us admit with Schürer and Zumpt that the case of the Clitæ(?) is not parallel. Tacitus (Ann. vi. 41. 1) does not say that the Romans held a census in the dominions of Archelaus, but that Archelaus wished to have a census after the Roman fashion. Nevertheless, the objection that Augustus would not interfere with Herod’s subjects in the matter of taxation is untenable. When Palestine was divided among Herod’s three sons, Augustus ordered that the taxes of the Samaritans should be reduced by one-fourth, because they had not taken part in the revolt against Varus (Ant. xvii. 11, 4; B. J. ii. 6. 3); and this was before Palestine became a Roman province. If he could do that, he could require information as to taxation throughout Palestine; and the obsequious Herod would not attempt to resist.. The Value of such information would be great. It would show whether the tribute paid (if tribute was paid) was adequate; and it would enable Augustus to decide how to deal with Palestine in the future. If he knew that Herod’s health was failing, he would be anxious to get the information before Herod’s death; and thus the census would take place just at the time indicated by Lk., viz. in the last months of the reign of Herod. For “Clitæ” we should read Kietai; Ramsay, Expositor, April, 1897. (Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke [5th ed; London: T&T Clark, 1896], 48-49)
Support this blog:
Paypal
