The Census of Quirinius

[WJL]

A lot of anti-Christian biblio-skeptics often use this objection to the Bible:

“The Bible tells the story of Jesus being born when Herod was king (Matthew) and traveling to Bethlehem (Luke) for the census as if the two accounts were compatible but, they are actually ten years apart. Luke has Jesus born at the time of the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria. This census was recorded by the Romans as occurring in AD 6. Matthew has Herod the Great still alive. Both Roman and Jewish records show that Herod died in 4 BC.”

How does one answer this objection against the Bible? I’m sure there are some apologetics resources which cover this. Could anyone help me out with this?

 

[Apollos]

A lot of anti-Christian biblio-skeptics often use this objection to the Bible:*“The Bible tells the story of Jesus being born when Herod was king (Matthew) and traveling to Bethlehem (Luke) for the census as if the two accounts were compatible but, they are actually ten years apart. Luke has Jesus born at the time of the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria. This census was recorded by the Romans as occurring in AD 6. Matthew has Herod the Great still alive. Both Roman and Jewish records show that Herod died in 4 BC.”*How does one answer this objection against the Bible? I’m sure there are some apologetics resources which cover this. Could anyone help me out with this?

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a good fisking: newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm

 

[StTommyMore]

The Ignatius Study Bible has a good artcle explaining this. I don’t have it on hand at this instant, but I will repost with a summation of the argument later.

 

[Ron_Conte]

A lot of anti-Christian biblio-skeptics often use this objection to the Bible:
*“The Bible tells the story of Jesus being born when Herod was king (Matthew) and traveling to Bethlehem (Luke) for the census as if the two accounts were compatible but, they are actually ten years apart. Luke has Jesus born at the time of the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria. This census was recorded by the Romans as occurring in AD 6. Matthew has Herod the Great still alive. Both Roman and Jewish records show that Herod died in 4 BC.”*How does one answer this objection against the Bible? I’m sure there are some apologetics resources which cover this. Could anyone help me out with this?

There are a number of theories among Biblical chronologists on this question. Some scholars believe that Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, and there is an ancient inscription (on the Lapis Tiburtinus) referring to a man who was governor of Syria twice. The text of Luke 2:2 supports this theory, since it specifics ‘the first census’ implying that a second occurred. Then Acts 5:37 seems to refer to this second census.

Another theory is that Luke did not imply that Quirinius had the title of governor, but only a role of authority over Syria, for the purpose of the census. Luke also called Pilate a governor, but Pilate’s title was procurator. So Luke was referring to any role of governing, not necessarily to ‘the’ governor. Quirinius was Roman Consul years prior to the second census (the one usually dated to 6 AD). So the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem may have occurred then.

The date of Herod’s death is disputed among scholars. Some believe that he died later than 4 BC, as late as 1 BC or so; others believe that he died earlier than 4 BC.

 

[NotWorthy]

There are a number of theories among Biblical chronologists on this question. Some scholars believe that Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, and there is an ancient inscription (on the Lapis Tiburtinus) referring to a man who was governor of Syria twice. The text of Luke 2:2 supports this theory, since it specifics ‘the first census’ implying that a second occurred. Then Acts 5:37 seems to refer to this second census.

Another theory is that Luke did not imply that Quirinius had the title of governor, but only a role of authority over Syria, for the purpose of the census. Luke also called Pilate a governor, but Pilate’s title was procurator. So Luke was referring to any role of governing, not necessarily to ‘the’ governor. Quirinius was Roman Consul years prior to the second census (the one usually dated to 6 AD). So the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem may have occurred then.

The date of Herod’s death is disputed among scholars. Some believe that he died later than 4 BC, as late as 1 BC or so; others believe that he died earlier than 4 BC.

What makes these theories plausible is that Luke is considered the most accurate of the Gospel writers when it comes to world events, especially in Acts of Apostles.

 

[Big_Dummy]

THE CENSUS OF QUIRINIUS
The Historicity of Luke 2:1-5
Ronald Marchant
Feasterville, Pennsylvania
ibri.org/RRs/RR004/04census.htm

Historians set the birth of Jesus to around 6-8 BC which is not really a problem. In fact, one of the church fathers has Jesus being around 50 years old at his death.

The gospels do not give us calendar dates, so I see no problem really.