In 6 CE, the Roman province of Judaea underwent a census, known as the Census of Quirinius, which was carried out by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (c. BCE 51–21 CE), the governor of Roman Syria. The purpose of the census was for taxation, and historians are aware of a 6 CE date because the authoritative Jewish historian Josephus Flavius (c. 37/38–100 CE) dated it 37 years after the Battle of Actium (31 BCE).

This accepted date for the census has produced tension for details pertaining to the time of Jesus of Nazareth’s (c. 6–4 BCE–30–33 CE) birth recorded by the author of the Gospel of Luke. I will examine several common Christian apologetic responses attempting to offset this difficulty, why these fail, and conclude that Luke’s author’s reference to the census of Quirinius was likely made for theological reasons, not historical ones.

The Historical Problem

Two gospel accounts, Matthew and Luke, provide clues pertaining to the date for the birth of Jesus.

Matthew‘s author places Jesus’ birth in the time of Herod the Great (c. 72–c. 4 BCE), as does Luke (1:5–31). Yet Luke* also correlates the birth of Jesus with the census of Quirinius (2:1–5), which we know happened in 6 CE.

Luke‘s author here makes a chronological error. On the one hand, he says that Jesus was born sometime before the death of Herod (1:5), therefore before 4 BCE, yet, on the other, indicates Jesus must have been born after 6 CE, since this is the date of the census of Quirinius. Both details cannot be correct.

There are further reasons for suspicion. In particular, the story is strange based on what historians know about ancient Rome: traveling from one’s home to the home of one’s ancient ancestors was not a requirement of a Roman census. Therefore, Joseph, the father of Jesus, or anyone else, would not have had to travel from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea because he was descended from David, who lived centuries before him. Historian Tom Holland rightly remarks that “the idea that the Romans would care about the line of descent from someone who lived centuries and centuries before is insane” (quoted by Perriman 2022).

Apologetic Defenses and Counter Responses

Christian apologetic defenses attempt to exculpate the discrepancy of Luke‘s details regarding the timing of the birth of Jesus. I will survey a few.

A speculative defense argues, without evidence, that an earlier census took place than the one Quirinius conducted in 6 CE. Accordingly, Quirinius must have served two terms as governor of Syria and took two censuses in Judea, and Luke’s author must be referencing the earlier one (Nollet 2012). However, whether Quirinius served two terms is a matter of debate, and there is no evidence of a first census, rendering this defense speculative.

Some apologists prefer to translate the Greek “prōtē” used by Luke’s author to mean “prior to” or “before,” rather than “first,” therefore solving the apparent error (Pearson 1999). Luke 2:2 should then properly read: “This census took place before the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria” (emphasis added).

If this translation is correct, then Luke‘s writer must be referring to an unknown census that occurred before the famous one of Quirinius in 6 CE. As stated earlier, no credible historical evidence for this “before” census is available, and the apologist must offer, in addition, a strained interpretation of prōtē to stress the possibility that such a census occurred. However, the overwhelming, primary meaning for this Greek word is “first” or “foremost” (Beekes 2010, 1245), not “before.” The apologetic translation appears to be a non-standard usage seemingly motivated by personal interests and hermeneutic commitments rather than linguistic probability or historical evidence.

Another defense contends that the historian Josephus was incorrect about the 6 CE date of Quirinius’ census (Rhoads 2011). Although no credible historian imposes inerrantist presuppositions upon the writings of Josephus and will allow room for error and embellishment, most critical historians consider Josephus accurate regarding the major details (Harris 1985; Whiston and Maier 1999, 7–8). There is no reason to doubt him on this matter.

Additional records in Josephus also make sense if he is accurate about a 6 CE date for the census. For example, he describes (see Jewish War 2.433 and Jewish Antiquities 18.1-10, 18.23) a major revolt by rebels led by Judas the Galilean, who objected on theological grounds regarding paying taxation using coins bearing the image of an emperor. This reads more naturally if the revolt occurred suddenly in response to a recent taxation imposed upon Judaea rather than a much later revolt in response to a census that occurred a whole decade earlier. Furthermore, Luke’s author, who also composed the Book of Acts, connects the census with the revolt of Judas the Galilean that happened in 6 CE (see 5:37), thereby concurring with the date provided by Josephus.

Some apologists attempt to identify a parallel with Egypt, citing a papyrus dated around 104 CE, suggesting evidence that in the Roman Empire people sometimes had to return to their family home to be registered (see the papyrus translation: P. Lond. 3 904 S. 124 Kol. 1). However, this interpretation is incorrect. The Egyptian source instructs members of a household living outside their administrative district (i.e., those who are away from home) to return to it, not people who are at home to leave it. These people are also temporarily absent and not living permanently elsewhere. This does not furnish additional, non-biblical evidence that a person would leave his normal home in order to be registered in his ancestral city (Perriman 2022), as Luke’s account records.

To add one more point of suspicion, requiring people to return to ancestral homes for taxation purposes makes no economic sense. The purpose of Roman taxation was to tax a subject’s property in their present household, namely, what they owned where they were presently living. These subjects would not have owned any assets or resources in their ancestral “homes,” so Rome would have had no reason to send them back there in the first place in order to tax them based on their non-existent assets.

Why Did Luke Record an Earlier Census?

In conclusion, why did Luke’s author record there being an earlier census in which Joseph was mandated to return to his ancestral home?

From a theological perspective, Luke’s author perhaps intended to apply a prophecy he saw in Micah 5:2 of the Old Testament to Jesus himself, whom the author believed to be the promised Messiah sent by God and whom God raised from the dead. According to this prophecy, a ruler of Israel, with eternal origins, would emerge from Bethlehem-Ephrathah, a small town in Judah, also known as the “City of David.” Bethlehem was the birthplace and hometown of King David (flourished c. 1000 BCE), an important Old Testament figure and a king of ancient Israel and Judah. In his Gospel account, Luke’s author has Jesus be born in Bethlehem by narrating a story in which Joseph and the pregnant Mary, soon to give birth to Jesus, needed to return there. The prophecy would be fulfilled in Jesus’ birth in that location.

References and Footnotes

*Full excerpt from Luke: “In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to register. So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child” (2:1-5, NIV).

Beekes, Robert S. P. 2010. “πρῶτος.” In Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden, Boston: Brill.

Harris, Stephen L. 1985. Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto, California, United States: Mayfield.

Nollet, James A. 2012. “Astronomical and Historical Evidence for Dating the Nativity in 2 BC.” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 64(4):2011–2019.

Pearson, Brook W. R. 1999. “The Lucan Censuses, Revisited.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61(2):262–282.

Perriman, Andrew. 2022. “Was it Roman custom for people to return to their home town for a census?” postost. Available.

P. Lond. 3 904 S. 124 Kol. 1. Papyri.info. Available.

Rhoads, John H. 2011. “Josephus Misdated the Census of Quirinius.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 54(1):65–87.

Whiston, William., and Maier, Paul L. 1999. The New Complete Works of Josephus. Grand Rapids, Michigan, United States: Kregel Publications.