The gospel stands on historical credentials. David Jackman helpfully demonstrates this in his column this month.
Objections to the Christmas story come from many quarters. Sometimes these objections make fair points. Jesus was almost certainly not born in a barn on December 25, etc. These are objections to later traditions and not to the biblical account of the birth of Jesus at all. However, we do need to respond to objections made against the reliability of what we read in the Bible.
Luke’s mistake?
A good example is the historical context of the birth of Jesus. Luke tells us that the birth happened while Augustus Caesar was emperor and during the time of a Roman census when Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2.1-3). Richard Dawkins remarks: ‘Luke screws up his dating by tactlessly mentioning events that historians are capable of independently checking. There was indeed a census … but it happened too late: in AD 6, long after Herod’s death’ (The God Delusion, p.94). Geza Vermes suggests: ‘From whichever angle one looks at it, the census referred to by Luke conflicts with historical reality’ (Nativity: History and Legend, p.86). Marcus Borg and Dominic Crossan, influential New Testament theologians, say that Luke’s account of history is wrong, but then go on to affirm the theological value of his Gospel: ‘What was Luke attempting to say when he got his facts so wrong?’ (The First Christmas, p.148). With theologians like these, who needs Richard Dawkins?
When we teach the Christmas story what should we do with these objections? The claim that Luke got it wrong has serious implications. How do we know that the rest of the account is not muddled or fabricated?
Preferred sources?
The first point to make about the history of the first century, particularly concerning the region of Galilee, is that we only have limited sources. The most obvious is the writing of the Jewish historian Josephus. He describes a census in 6 AD, in the time of Quirinius and identifies different governors in the region during the earlier time of King Herod.
The obvious question to ask is why there is a bias towards Josephus over Luke on this point. No scholar considers Josephus infallible, we know he made mistakes.
Perhaps, as John H. Rhoads has argued in detail, Josephus has confused and duplicated his own sources at this point. It is true that Josephus provides a much more detailed account of the period than Luke.
However, the detail itself presents problems. He provides two accounts of the tax revolt, one in his War of the Jews and the other in his The Antiquities of the Jews. The two accounts are not in harmony and indicate that Josephus may have got his sources confused.
Luke himself draws attention to the fact that there would be a later census by describing the one at the time of Jesus’s birth as ‘the first census’ (Luke 2.2). He makes reference to a later one in his second volume (Acts 5.37). Luke is aware of more than one census. It is sometimes pointed out that Roman records indicate that Quirinius became governor long after the death of Herod. This is true, but Craig Blomberg explains that Luke’s Greek term for governor in Luke 2.2 is a very loose word which may only indicate that he was in charge of this particular census. We know from Roman historians Tacitus and Florus that Quirinius had a military command ten years prior to his official appointment as governor. This would perfectly fit the time of the birth of Jesus.
Another alternative suggestion was offered by the great New Testament scholar, F.F. Bruce, who simply pointed out that the Greek word translated ‘first’ in Luke 2.2 could mean ‘before’ and, therefore, imply that this was a census that took place ‘before’ Quirinius was governor in Syria.
You may feel you want to join the critics at this point. After all, it is Christmas. Why worry about historical details or supposed inaccuracies. Can’t we just enjoy the story? That kind of attitude plays into the hands of our cynical society. They will make the most of the Christmas celebrations, but, come January, happily forget the Christmas message.
A real gospel
Fairy tales have their place, but no one thinks much about Santa Claus in the spring. So we should not give any more fuel to our sceptical culture. Luke was a reliable historian. Josephus may have been mistaken. Jesus was a real man born in a real time and place. And that means we preach a real gospel with a real message of peace and good will to all men.
Chris Sinkinson is pastor of Alderholt Chapel and lectures in Apologetics at Moorlands College, Christchurch.
