Because there is no reason to doubt that Jesus
was born while Herod the Great is still alive, unanswered is the question of
why Luke wrote as he did. Three possibilities are worth considering. The first
is that he had wrong historical data. Two major revolts occurred around the
time of the birth of Jesus. The first was at the end of Herod’s life and the
second at the time of the annexation of Judea, when the census would have taken
place. Luke, who was writing perhaps 75 years later, yet aware of these two
periods of upheaval, simply confused the time of the census.
Second, Luke surely conceived and presented
Luke-Acts as a work of Christian history. He approached writing his account
from a historical viewpoint, and history from a Gospel viewpoint. Luke is
careful to situate Jesus in human history, showing his relationship to the
Roman world and its provinces as well as providing the grounds for the journey
of Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem.
The clearest indications we have of his
historical intent might be seen in the two prefatory statements that Luke begins
both his account of the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. Their form
corresponds to the primary and secondary prefaces long employed by Hellenistic
historians. This enabled his readers to see how the Gospel could be at home in
a Hellenistic culture. It also showed how Hellenistic culture could thrive in a
world infused y the Gospel. Those who heard Luke’s account also would be able
to situate their history as part of a broader history, all of which was
determined by God to bring about our salvation by means of “the events that
have been fulfilled among us” (Luke 1:1). (Eugene LaVerdiere, The Firstborn of God: The Birth of Mary's
Son, Jesus: Luke 2:1-21 [Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications, 2007], 22-23)