51.  Concluding that Jesus’ active ministry fell within the years A.D. 26 to 30, is it possible to determine the date of his birth?  Four hints are furnished by the gospels:  he was born before the death of Herod (Matt. ii. 1; Luke i. 5); he was about thirty years of age at his baptism (Luke iii. 23); he was born during a census conducted in Judea in accordance with the decree of Augustus at a time when Quirinius was in authority in Syria (Luke ii. 1, 2); after his birth wise men from the East were led to visit him by observing “his star” (Matt. ii. 1, 2).  From these facts it follows that the birth of Jesus cannot be placed later than B.C. 4, since Herod died about the first of April in that year (Jos.  Ant. xvii. 6. 4; 8. 1, 4).  The awkwardness of having to find a date Before Christ for the birth of Jesus is due to the miscalculation of the monk, Dionysius the Little, who in the sixth century introduced our modern reckoning from “the year of our Lord.”

52.  But is it impossible to determine the time of Jesus’ birth more exactly?  Luke (ii. 1, 2) offers what seems to be more definite information, but his reference to the decree of Augustus and the enrolment under Quirinius are among the most seriously challenged statements in the gospels.  It has been said (1) that history knows of no edict of Augustus ordering a general enrolment of “the world;” (2) that a Roman census could not have been taken in Palestine before the death of Herod; (3) that if such an enrolment had been taken it would have been unnecessary for Joseph and Mary to journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem; (4) that the census taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria is definitely assigned by Josephus to the year after the deposition of Archelaus, A.D. 6 (Ant. xviii. 1. 1; see also Acts v. 37); (5) that if Luke’s reference to this census as the “first” be appealed to, it must be replied that Quirinius was not governor of Syria at any time during the lifetime of Herod.  This array of difficulties is impressive, and has persuaded many conservative students to concede that in his reference to the census Luke has fallen into error.  Some recent discoveries in Egypt, however, have furnished new information concerning the imperial administration of that province.  Inferring that a policy adopted in Egypt may have prevailed also in Syria, Professor Ramsay has recently put forth a strong argument for Luke’s accuracy in respect of this census (Was Christ born at Bethlehem, 95-248).  That argument may be condensed as follows:  We have evidence of a system of Roman enrolments in Egypt taken every fourteen years, and already traced back to the time of Augustus, the earliest document so far recovered belonging, apparently, to the census of A.D. 20.  It is at least possible that this system of Egyptian enrolments may have been part of an imperial policy, of which all other trace is lost excepting the statement of Luke.  It is significant that the date of the census referred to by Josephus (A.D. 6) fits exactly the fourteen-year cycle which obtained in Egypt.  If the census of A.D. 6 was preceded by an earlier one its date would be B.C. 8; that is, it would be actually taken in B.C. 7, in order to secure the full acts for B.C. 8.