The Gospel of Luke states that Jesus was born in Bethlehem during a time when a census was being conducted while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:1-7). However, some have questioned whether Luke’s account aligns with the historical record regarding when Quirinius governed and when the census took place.
Here is a summary of the key details in Luke’s account:
- Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea during the time when Herod was king (Luke 1:5, 2:4-7)
- Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world (Luke 2:1)
- This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2)
- Joseph went to Bethlehem because he was of the house and lineage of David (Luke 2:3-4)
Based on Luke’s account, Jesus would have been born sometime prior to Herod’s death in 4 BC. The mention of Quirinius as governor of Syria and a census occurring under his authority during this same time period has raised questions about the historical accuracy of Luke’s claims. Here are some of the issues that have been pointed out:
When did Quirinius govern Syria?
Historical sources indicate that Quirinius was governor of Syria and conducted a census there in AD 6-7. However, this was after Herod’s death. Some skeptics claim that Luke was mistaken on the dating of Quirinius’ governorship.
In response, there are a few possibilities that could align Luke’s account with the historical record:
- Quirinius may have served an earlier term as governor prior to the one beginning in AD 6. Some scholars believe there is inscriptional evidence for an earlier governorship.
- “Governor” may refer to a broader role Quirinius had over the region prior to his official governorship. He was in charge of military operations in the eastern empire around 8-7 BC.
- Luke may not be claiming Quirinius was literally the governor but that the census occurred “before” his famous governorship.
While debated, there are reasonable explanations for why Luke may associate Quirinius with an earlier census around the time of Jesus’ birth prior to Herod’s death in 4 BC.
Was there an empire-wide census under Augustus?
Luke indicates the census decreed by Augustus was for the entire Roman empire. However, there is no clear evidence outside the Bible for such an empire-wide census under Augustus.
Some argue Luke was mistaken and that the census was more local in scope. However, here are some factors that may support Luke’s claim:
- The Romans conducted censuses around the empire for taxation and military service. Local censuses were common.
- An empire-wide census fits Augustus’ administrative style. He installed census officials around the provinces.
- An oath in AD 14 mentions an earlier census of the empire under Augustus.
- Luke need not mean the census covered every inch of the empire but rather the inhabited parts under direct Roman control.
While an empire-wide census is not proven, neither is it impossible or implausible during the reign of Augustus around the time Luke sets Jesus’ birth.
Does a census match requiring Joseph to go to Bethlehem?
Luke states that Joseph went to Bethlehem due to being from the house and lineage of David. Some claim that the Romans would not have required people to return to ancestral homes.
However, a strong case can be made for Luke’s accuracy here:
- Roman censuses often did require people to return to their homelands. This is seen in Egypt during this period.
- Jewish society was genealogy focused and ancestral lands were important for taxation and religious purposes.
- The Romans may have leveraged Jewish custom to require returns to ancestral lands.
- As a legal descendant of David, Bethlehem was Joseph’s rightful home to register.
Therefore, Luke’s account of Joseph traveling to Bethlehem aligns with what is known both about Roman census practices and Joseph’s ancestry and rights of land ownership.
Does archaeology confirm Luke’s account?
Some archaeologists have argued that there is no first century evidence for settlement in Bethlehem, thus casting doubt on Luke’s account. However, this claim is strongly disputed:
- Recent archaeological digs have uncovered extensive first century Jewish artifacts and homes in and around Bethlehem.
- Coins were found bearing the portraits of the Herods who built cities in the area.
- Evidence indicates Bethlehem was occupied by Jews who returned after the Babylonian exile.
- The idea that Bethlehem was uninhabited lacks solid archaeological support.
Rather than contradict Luke’s account, archaeology seems to affirm there was indeed a functioning Jewish settlement at Bethlehem in Judea during the time period Luke describes.
What about the Massacre of the Innocents?
Matthew’s gospel describes Herod ordering the execution of all male infants in Bethlehem after hearing from the Magi of a new “King of the Jews” being born there (Matthew 2:16-18). Some skeptics claim there is no evidence this massacre took place and Matthew invented it.
There are a few factors to consider here:
- Historians note that Herod was a cruel ruler who often resorted to extreme violence to maintain power.
- The massacre may have been limited to the immediate area of Bethlehem and involved at most a few dozen boys.
- Bethlehem was small, so the massacre would likely have gone unnoticed by contemporary historians focused on larger events.
- The story illustrates the politically charged atmosphere surrounding Jesus’ birth rather than making a precise historical claim.
While unlikely to be mentioned by other sources, Matthew’s account of Herod’s massacre remains plausible given what is known about Herod’s violence and cruelty.
Conclusion
While some objections have been raised, Luke’s account of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem during the time of Quirinius’ governance broadly aligns with the historical record. The timing of Quirinius’ career, the practice of Roman censuses, Joseph’s ancestral lineage, and archaeology in Bethlehem present no insoluble contradictions with Luke’s report. While some details remain uncertain, there is no definitive evidence proving Luke’s key claims about Jesus’ birth to be inaccurate or impossible.
Rather, Luke’s account of Jesus being born in Bethlehem remains plausible and consistent with much of what history and archaeology suggest about the region at the time. While minor details may be open to debate, Luke’s report of the events surrounding Jesus’ birth represents responsible historiography from a first century author earnestly seeking to describe real people and events from his contemporary world.
