Luke 2 Footnotes

2:1 We have no evidence that Augustus ever issued a decree resulting in an empire-wide registration (census), though several censuses were conducted during his reign having this effect. Luke may have been merely summarizing the intention of these registrations or referring to a decree that expressed such an intention. Evidence exists that the Romans sometimes took registrations of client kingdoms, as Palestine was at this time, and may even point to the existence of tax rolls in Samaria prior to Herod’s death. Herod had fallen out of favor with Augustus toward the end of his life, and Augustus may have pressured Herod to conduct the registration in view of his advanced age and the possibility of Roman acquisition of at least some of Herod’s territory upon his death.

2:2 The Jewish historian Josephus wrote that Quirinius became governor of Syria and instituted a registration in Judea in AD 6, too late for a supposed birth of Jesus under Herod the Great (Mt 2:1; Lk 1:5), who probably died in 4 BC. Luke clearly knew of this registration (Ac 5:37), so that calling the registration of chap. 2 the “first” (in apparent opposition to the later census) strongly suggests he did not have his facts mixed up here. The verse is to be read as either: (1) dissociating Quirinius from the registration (i.e., this was a former registration, taken before the famous one under Quirinius); or (2) positing two registrations administered by Quirinius (i.e., this is the registration taken by Quirinius the first time he was governor [or some other administrator] of Syria). Our knowledge of the relevant historical facts is too incomplete to determine a more definitive solution.

2:3 The Romans did not normally require people to return to their ancestral homes to be registered, so this detail may support a registration under Jewish methods while Herod was still king. Similarly, if Luke were referring to the registration of Quirinius in AD 6, it is unlikely Joseph was required to leave Galilee, ruled by Herod’s son Antipas, to register in Judea, administered by a Roman prefect under the authority of the province of Syria. This detail makes much more sense if Galilee and Judea were at the time under one administration, such as during the reign of Herod the Great.

2:7 Some argue that Bethlehem would not have had an inn since it was not on any major road, and that this story is therefore fictitious. But attempting to claim the nonexistence of an inn in Bethlehem is mere conjecture, and besides, the Greek term translated “guest room” (kataluma) simply means “lodging” and can refer to a guest room in a private home. Animal stalls, with their mangers, were normally located inside the one-room residence of peasant families. Animals were sometimes kept in caves, and an early Christian tradition places the birth of Jesus in a cave.

2:39 It is difficult to reconcile the birth narratives in Luke and Matthew, each of which seems to know nothing of the events of the other. They agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and later moved to Nazareth with his parents. In order to integrate the two accounts, the record in Matthew of the flight to Egypt must be placed between Lk 2:38-39. The visit of the wise men may also have occurred here. If it occurred before Jesus’s temple dedication, Herod took at least a month from his encounter with the wise men to realize he had been tricked, which is not unreasonable. Both birth narratives highlight themes important to their respective authors. Matthew highlighted both Joseph’s role as a righteous, adoptive father through whom Jesus obtained Davidic lineage, and the recognition of Jesus as the true King of the Jews in opposition to Herod. Luke highlighted both the role of marginalized characters, women and shepherds, in the joyful recognition of the messianic Savior, and the significance of Jesus for Gentiles as well as Jews.