Associates for Biblical Research has the article, Once More: Quirinius’s Census, which is a reprint of Jared Compton’s article that was published in the Detroit Baptist Theological Journal (Fall 2009, p. 45-54). He is a PhD student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. In the brief article, Jesus’ birth chronologically as recorded and dated in the Gospel of Luke, is reflected on in light of the Quirinius Census and the historiographical difficulties that arise…
Luke’s brief attempt to situate Jesus’ birth chronologically continues to be problematic, not least for those of us with a high view of Scripture.2 Some critics, in fact, say that “Luke has thoroughly confused the facts,”3 others that “there is in fact no alternative but to recognize that the evangelist based his statement on uncertain historical information,”4 and still others (more recently) that “attempts to reconcile [this text] with the facts of ancient history are hopelessly contrived.”5 The catalogue could easily be extended. In what follows we will see whether these conclusions are warranted, paying particular attention to the most significant problems raised and to the various solutions proposed—most notably, to two quite popular alternative translations suggested. In the end, some problems will remain, but the postscript will not be nearly as pessimistic as these aforementioned would have us believe, though the way forward will be seen to lie most likely with archaeology and not grammar.
Hmm… have a look, and read the rest, here.
