1. For a discussion on what Luke actually says see Thorley, J., G & R 26 (1979), 81 ffGoogle Scholar. Quirinius' registration in A.D. 6 is mentioned in Acts 5:37.

2. Those wishing to bring forward the beginning of Jesus' ministry (and thereby also move the nativity earlier than 3–2 B.C.) have used all manner of arguments to explain away ‘the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar’. But Luke was writing for ‘Theophilus’ and the Greco-Roman world, and he must have meant this phrase to be understood in the normal Roman way (as e.g. in Tacitus, Ann. 4. 1.1 and elsewhere)Google Scholar. Certainly the large majority of early Christian writers took it this way, and so dated the nativity to 3–2 B.C. Presumably they did not think Herod died in 4 B.C.

3. See e.g. Marshall's, I. HowardCommentary on Luke 2:1 ff. (Exeter, 1978)Google Scholar; also Gore's, Commentary, ad loc. (London, 1928)Google Scholar.

4. See n. 17 and text.

5. This is the view of Robinson, J. A. T., Can We Trust the New Testament? (Oxford, 1977), pp. 71 ffGoogle Scholar.

6. Syme, R., ‘The Crisis of 2 B.C.’, SBAW (1974), 7 ffGoogle Scholar. Livy's history (or rather the epitome, which is all we have after Book 45) ended in 9 B.C.; Dio Cassius' history is available only in an abbreviated form for the period after 9 B.C.; from Tacitus we have for this period only the brief introduction on Augustus with which he begins the Annals; Velleius Paterculus does indeed cover the whole of Augustus' reign, but there is little detail during the time of Tiberius' stay in Rhodes (6 B.C.-A.D. 2); Suetonius and Augustus himself, of course, have left records which include this decade, but neither was particularly interested in details of chronology.

7. Martin, E. L., The Birth of Christ Recalculated (Pasadena and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1978), passimGoogle Scholar. The present article is based very largely on Martin's views.

8. It seems to me possible that Sabinus was already in Syria at the time of Herod's death (though not necessarily with the governor, Varus, in Antioch) and then acted on his own initiative, perhaps by prior arrangement with Augustus, whom he would now doubtless have consulted by messenger for further instructions. Nevertheless, this point is not crucial to the main argument.

9. Martin, , op. cit., pp. 22–49Google Scholar. Martin attributes the ‘Lapis Tiburtinus’ to Varus, with very persuasive arguments.

10. Martin, , op. cit., pp. 20—4, and 143–4 (Appendix IX).Google Scholar

11. See Syme, , loc. cit., 3Google Scholar.

12. Martin, , op. cit., pp. 131–2 (Appendix VI)Google Scholar.

13. See Martin, , op. cit., pp. 133–4Google Scholar. The details of this reference seem dubious, as Martin records them. Moses of Khorene, quoting native sources, places the event ‘in the second year of Abgar, king of Armenia (3 B.C.)’ (Martin). The king of Armenia in 3 B.C. was, according to Roman sources, Tigranes III. The name Abgar was in fact borne by certain rulers of Osrhoene.

14. See Thorley, loc. cit. I should add that the dates given in that article I would now consider incorrect.

15. Martin, , op. cit., pp. 69–73Google Scholar.

16. Ibid., pp. 54 ff. and 127 ff. (Appendix V). Of Quirinius' position Luke uses the verb γɛμονɛὑɛιν, and of Pilate and Felix he uses the same expression (3.1 γɛμονɛὑοντα, Acts 23:24. γɛμὑνι). Strabo, in a most illuminating but little-quoted passage on Augustus' provincial administration (17.3.25) makes it quite clear that γɛμών is the word used for the governor of an imperial province, while διοικητς is the procurator. Clearly Luke assumed that Quirinius was in charge of Syria at the time of the registration. In the case of Judea, of course, there was no separate financial procurator, since the ‘procurator’ was the governor. Though Strabo does not specify the title of a procuratorial governor, Luke's usage is clear enough: the γɛμὑν is the man in charge. (See also Matt. 27:2.) Strabo also says that the emperor administers the provinces differently as occasion requires, and adds that client kingdoms were under the jurisdiction of the emperor, points which are both relevant to the present discussion.

17. For a modern assessment see Hughes, D., The Star of Bethlehem Mystery (London, 1979)Google Scholar. Hughes concludes that the nativity must have taken place in this year. It is perhaps worth noting that a similar conjunction occurred in the same constellation in 66 B.C.

18. Martin, , op. cit., pp. 3–21, 112–21 (Appendices I and II), and 145–8 (Appendix XI)Google Scholar. In dealing with this question it is, of course, essential to discover the astrological meaning of the events as understood by the magi at that time. This is not always easy to do, and some attempts to solve the problem have rested on Roman or even medieval ideas.

19. It might be added that a registration is not likely to have been arranged in March, which is still the rainy season in Judea. See Martin, , op. cit., pp. 97–104.Google Scholar

20. Ibid., pp. 104–11.

21. It seems to me that there is little to object to in Matthew's narrative. Herod got through a fair amount of killing in his last month, including his son Antipater (Josephus, , A.J. 17.6 and 7)Google Scholar, and his mood at this time is quite in keeping with Matthew's story.

22. This date for the crucifixion brings its own problems, but it has increasing support quite apart from the arguments in this paper about the date of the nativity. See e.g. Hoehner, H. W., Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids, 1977), passim.Google Scholar

23. Richards, H. J. in his book The First Christmas: What Really Happened? (Glasgow, 1973)Google Scholar treats the Gospel accounts as purely theological. Their theological significance was undoubtedly uppermost in the writers' minds, and Richards's analysis provides insight into the meaning of the narratives, but it does not follow that we should abandon the attempt to sort out the historical events upon which the narratives are based.