Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

The passage in Luke 2:1-2 has long been a subject of scrutiny and debate, particularly the reference to Quirinius being the governor of Syria at the time of Jesus’ birth. Critics of the Bible have raised concerns that this reference might constitute an error, as historical records seem to suggest that Quirinius did not hold this position until years after Jesus’ birth. However, a closer examination of historical evidence and the context of Luke’s writings reveals that the accusation of error may be unfounded. This article seeks to explore whether Luke’s mention of Quirinius as governor of Syria during Jesus’ birth contradicts historical facts or if there is a plausible explanation that aligns with the available evidence.

What Does Luke 2:1-2 Say About Quirinius?

Luke 2:1-2 reads:

“In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria” (Luke 2:1-2, NIV).

Here, Luke is introducing the birth of Jesus by providing a historical marker: the census ordered by Caesar Augustus. The census, according to Luke, was conducted during the tenure of Quirinius as governor of Syria. This statement has raised questions because, according to most historical sources, Quirinius is known to have been appointed governor of Syria in 6 C.E., which would place the census and the birth of Jesus after this date. This discrepancy has led some to question whether Luke made a historical mistake in his reference to Quirinius.

Historical Background of Quirinius

To understand the potential issue with Luke’s statement, it is important to first consider the historical context. Quirinius, whose full name was Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, was indeed a Roman official known for his military achievements and administrative roles. According to the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6 C.E., after the death of Herod the Great. During this period, Quirinius oversaw a census of Judea, which was the event Josephus described as leading to a revolt led by Judas the Galilean (Jewish Antiquities, 18.1-4). This census, which occurred in 6 C.E., is confirmed in several sources, including Roman records and inscriptions.

However, the issue arises when we try to reconcile this known governorship with Luke’s statement that Quirinius was the governor at the time of Jesus’ birth, which, based on the best estimates of historical chronology, occurred around 2 B.C.E. This gap of several years raises the question: Was Luke mistaken in his account?

How Can Luke’s Account Be Reconciled with Historical Records?

There are several ways to reconcile Luke’s statement with historical facts. One of the most widely accepted explanations is that Quirinius may have served as governor of Syria on two separate occasions, with a possible earlier tenure that was not fully documented in the historical records until more recent discoveries.

Quirinius’ Earlier Governorship

Inscriptions discovered in the 18th and 19th centuries provide evidence that Quirinius may have served as governor of Syria before the census of 6 C.E. One significant inscription found in Rome, known as the Lapis Tiburtinus, refers to Quirinius as having served as governor (or legate) of Syria on two occasions. This supports the theory that Quirinius’ first governorship occurred prior to the well-known 6 C.E. census.

Moreover, Josephus, in his writings, refers to multiple governing figures in Syria during the time around Jesus’ birth. While Josephus lists Saturninus and Varus as the primary governors of Syria in the period immediately preceding 6 C.E., there is no explicit record ruling out the possibility of Quirinius serving as a special legate or acting governor during a period of transition or dual rulership.

The Concept of a Special Appointment

Some scholars suggest that the title “governor” used by Luke might not refer to Quirinius holding the standard office of governor in the usual sense, but rather to him serving as a special legate with extraordinary powers under Caesar Augustus. This would explain how Quirinius could have been in Syria overseeing a census at a time when another official, such as Saturninus, was the official governor. Luke’s use of the term “hegemon” (Greek: ἡγεμών) for Quirinius, which can mean “leader” or “chief officer,” may imply that he was a special appointee with temporary responsibilities over the region.

This is further supported by the Roman practice of appointing legates to govern provinces on behalf of the emperor. Quirinius may have served in this capacity as a temporary overseer, especially since Judea and its people were in a particularly turbulent period, following the death of Herod the Great and the instability in the region.

The Dual Governorship and the Involvement of Other Officials

Josephus’ account of two governors serving Syria simultaneously (for instance, Saturninus and Volumnius) provides further evidence that Quirinius may have served as governor of Syria during a period of dual rulership. Such a scenario would have allowed Quirinius to have some authority over Judea in the years before the 6 C.E. census. This aligns with Luke’s reference to Quirinius’ role in overseeing the registration at the time of Jesus’ birth, without contradicting the established chronology of Quirinius’ later governorship.

Luke’s Reliability and Historical Accuracy

Luke’s writings have long been regarded by scholars as historically reliable, particularly in regard to the details he provides about the political and social landscape of the time. The accuracy of Luke’s historical framework is evident throughout his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. The precise mention of historical figures such as Caesar Augustus and the local governors, as well as specific political and social events, suggests that Luke was highly attentive to the historical context of his narrative.

Luke’s Gospel has consistently stood up to scrutiny in matters of historical detail. For instance, Luke’s reference to the census ordered by Caesar Augustus in Luke 2:1-2 aligns with what is known of Augustus’ reign, including the requirement for a Roman census for taxation purposes. This is corroborated by other historical sources, including Roman records and the writings of Josephus. Therefore, Luke’s mention of Quirinius, when understood in light of the historical context, does not suggest error but rather reflects the complexity of Roman governance during a transitional period.

Conclusion: No Error in Luke’s Reference to Quirinius

In conclusion, while there are challenges in aligning the specific dates of Quirinius’ governorship with the timing of Jesus’ birth, the evidence strongly supports the idea that Luke’s reference to Quirinius as governor of Syria is not an error. Several factors, including the possibility of an earlier governorship, the role of Quirinius as a special legate, and the existence of dual rulership in Syria, provide plausible explanations for this apparent discrepancy.

The historical and archaeological evidence suggests that Luke’s Gospel is historically accurate, and his reference to Quirinius aligns with known Roman practices and events of the time. Furthermore, Luke’s careful attention to historical details throughout his writings underscores the credibility of his account. Therefore, the claim that Luke was in error when referring to Quirinius should be rejected, as the available evidence supports his accuracy in this matter.

You May Also Enjoy

The Death of Christ: A Necessary Event for Redemption?

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).