The fact that no one ancient source cites an apographe (a registration, census, etc.) in the term Luke reports doesn’t mean it never occurred so. Every history scholars well know that
ab omissio (that is, from an omission of a fact in a text) no one can prove that an event cited in a different text has never occurred.
The attempt to base the reasoning on the theory of probability also is fruitless. Imagine some history scholars 2000 years from now. Without all historical documents at their disposal (similarly to us as regards happenings occurred 2000 years ago) they will try to understand, with the help of theory of probability, if Hitler, heading up a huge staff of war strategists, really invaded Russia - his political/military ally (treaty Molotov-Ribbentrop, 1939) - on 1941. Following the thread of your discourse. This single decision would create a massive drain on the Empire's economy in several forms:
- Spent resources on travel (thousands of kms)
- Lost of defensive power in West Europe
- Possibility of death to travelers (which was a sure hazard in long journeys of thousands of miles)
Did he repeat the same Napoleon’s tragical error when he decided the same to invade that country (1812) hazarding the lives of his soldiers owing to winter frost? Only with some informations at their disposable (suppose that they have only some sources citing this invasion, while the other sources omitted this information) and on the basis of the probability would the future scholars conclude that that invasion didn’t occur? You surely see that the problem is focused on the
reliability of the sources, not on the probability of the happening to occur.
Who says that the voyage lasted 3 days? Why not 15 days (at the rate of 10 kms at a day, for example), or more? We are disserting on the
Bible accuracy. If the Bible doesn’t specify the length of the trip, we are free to suppose a more long voyage, considering Mary’s advanced pregnancy and the Joseph's care for his wife.
I personally have know some women that did give birth a child when they are in the field, having digging the ground for months before their parturitions. They were working in the field until the last day of their pregnancy.
Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was hegemon (one who is in power) of Syria twice (2 BCE and 6 or 7 CE). Luke himself says that apographe was the first (protos), to infer that another apographe was occurred, at least. Two registrations are mentioned in the Christian Greek Scriptures as taking place after Judea came under subjection to Rome. The first is that reported Luke 2:1-3.
Bible critics have said that the only census taken while Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria was about 6 C.E., which event sparked a rebellion by Judas the Galilean and the Zealots. (Acts 5:37) This was really the second registration under Quirinius, for inscriptions discovered at and near Antioch revealed that some years earlier Quirinius had served as the emperor’s legate in Syria (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, by W. Ramsay, 1979, pp. 285, 291).
Since you are searching for references, I content you from now on.
The Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in Crampon’s French Bible (1939 ed., p. 360) says: The scholarly researches of Zumpt (Commentat. epigraph., II, 86-104; De Syria romana provincia, 97-98) and of Mommsen (Res gestae divi Augusti) place beyond doubt that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria.
Many scholars locate the time of Quirinius’ first governorship as somewhere between the years 4 and 1 B.C.E., probably from 3 to 2 B.C.E. Their method of arriving at these dates, however, is not solid, and the actual period of this governorship remains indefinite.
In the Chronographus Anni CCCLIIII, a list of Roman consuls, the name of Quirinius appears in 12 B.C.E. along with that of Messala. (Chronica Minora, edited by T. Mommsen, Munich, 1981, Vol. I, p. 56) Roman historian Tacitus briefly recounts Quirinius’ history, saying: [He] sprang from the municipality of Lanuviumhad no connection; but as an intrepid soldier and an active servant he won a consulate under the deified Augustus, and, a little later, by capturing the Homonadensian strongholds beyond the Cilician frontier, earned the insignia of triumph . . . , adviser to Gaius Caesar during his command in Armenia. (The Annals, III, XLVIII) His death took place in 21 C.E.
Not mentioned by Tacitus is Quirinius’ relationship to Syria. Jewish historian Josephus relates Quirinius’ assignment to Syria as governor in connection with the simultaneous assignment of Coponius as the Roman ruler of Judea. He states: Quirinius, a Roman senator who had proceeded through all the magistracies to the consulship and a man who was extremely distinguished in other respects, arrived in Syria, dispatched by Caesar to be governor of the nation and to make an assessment of their property. Coponius, a man of equestrian rank, was sent along with him to rule over the Jews with full authority. Josephus goes on to relate that Quirinius came into Judea, to which his authority was extended, and ordered a taxation there. This brought much resentment and an unsuccessful attempt at revolt, led by Judas, a Gaulanite. (Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 1, 2, 3, 4 [i, 1]) This is evidently the revolt referred to by Luke at Acts 5:37. According to Josephus’ account it took place in the thirty-seventh year after Caesar’s defeat of Antony at Actium. (Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 26 [ii, 1]) That would indicate that Quirinius was governor of Syria in 6 C.E.
Peg is right when cites the Lapis Tiburtinus (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, edited by H. Dessau, Berlin, 1887, Vol. 14, p. 397, No. 3613). It contains the statement that on going to Syria he became governor (or, legate) for ‘the second time.’ On the basis of inscriptions found in Antioch containing Quirinius’ name, many historians acknowledge that Quirinius was also governor of Syria in the B.C.E. period. She is right also when mentions the Jewish Antiquities, XVI, 277, 280 [ix, 1]; XVI, 344 [x, 8] to prove the possible duality of the hegemons we discuss.
Josephus lists Quintilius Varus as governor of Syria at the time of, and subsequent to, the death of Herod the Great. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 89 [v, 2]; XVII, 221 [ix, 3]) Tacitus also refers to Varus as being governor at the time of Herod’s death. (The Histories, V, IX) Josephus states that Varus’ predecessor was Saturninus (C. Sentius Saturninus).
Many scholars, in view of the evidence of an earlier governorship by Quirinius, suggest the years 3-2 B.C.E. for his governorship. While these dates would harmonize satisfactorily with the Biblical record, the basis on which these scholars select them is in error. That is, they list Quirinius as governor during those years because they place his rule after that of Varus and hence after the death of Herod the Great, for which they use the popular but erroneous date of 4 B.C.E. (if you want, I am able to give you the reasons for this mine date refusal when you ask me). For the same reason, that is, their use of the unproved date 4 B.C.E. for Herod’s death, they give Varus’ governorship as from 6 to 4 B.C.E.; the length of his rule, however, is conjectural, for Josephus does not specify the date of its beginning or of its end. The best evidence points to 2 B.C.E. for the birth of Jesus. Hence Quirinius’ governorship must have included this year or part thereof.
You have to remember that Luke did not write in English (luckily!). Then he didn’t write
governor but
hegemon. Now, like you well know, this Greek word can include many meanings. This Greek term came from the verb egeomai and it means a
guide, a
leader (like in Ovid and Herodotus), a
head,
dux,
governor,
prefect (like in Sophocles). Some, therefore, suggest that, at the time of what Luke refers to as the first registration, Quirinius served in Syria in the capacity of a special legate of the emperor exercising extraordinary powers. A factor that may also aid in understanding the matter is Josephus’ clear reference to a dual rulership of Syria, since in his account he speaks of two persons, Saturninus and Volumnius, serving simultaneously as governors of Syria.
An inscription found in Venice (Lapis Venetus) refers to a census conducted by Quirinius in Syria. However, it provides no means for determining whether this was in his earlier or his later governorship.Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, edited by T. Mommsen, O. Hirschfeld, and A. Domaszewski, 1902, Vol. 3, p. 1222, No. 6687.
Luke’s proved accuracy in historical matters gives sound reason for accepting as factual his reference to Quirinius as governor of Syria around the time of Jesus’ birth. Justin Martyr, a Palestinian of the second century C.E., cited the Roman records as proof of Luke’s accuracy as regards Quirinius’ governorship at the time of Jesus’ birth. (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, edited by B. Orchard, 1953, p. 943) There is no evidence that Luke’s account was ever challenged by early historians,
even by early critics such as Celsus.
Such were not merely to ascertain population figures but, rather, were mainly for purposes of taxation and conscription of men for military service. Also a Bible-critic forum member (mess. #11) admits that the paramount purpose of the Roman census was for raising taxes. King James Version (KJV) translate the Greek word with
taxing. Then, despite the possible risks, the Emperor decided that the game was worth the candle.
Like today editorialists, the evangelists reported what they found proper to cite in their condensed gospels, omitting what they not found advisable, basing themselves on the model they choose to write.
So, doesn’t exist any motive to tax Luke, and the Bible in general, with unreliability.
™ Version 4.2