Luke or Matthew?

Is there a contradiction in the dating of Jesus's birth?

The following controversy comes up every so often regarding the dating of Jesus's birth in the gospel accounts. Luke 2:1-2 says, "In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria." Matthew 2:1-2 says, "Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” So, according to the Bible, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, while Quirinius was governing Syria.

The apparent contradiction is that Quirinius led a very-well documented census to collect tax for Augustus Caesar while he was governor (Legate) of Syria in 5-6 AD, which is well after the death of Herod the Great (usually dated to 4 BC) and therefore obviously too late to coincide with the birth of Jesus.

So who is wrong, Luke or Matthew?

I wanted to know, so I researched it for myself. Here is what I found, written for a friend who asked this exact question a few years after I looked into it:

Who is wrong? Neither! And I think a reasonable scenario that addresses all the evidence can be deduced from both the Bible and secular history. Please allow me to dig a little deeper into the words of Luke 2:2, specifically "first", "registration", and "governor".

1. FIRST: This clearly indicates that Luke was aware of more than one registration when he was writing. Caesar Augustus, in his own journals, recorded one such registration in 8 BC. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, Augustus was designated "Father of his Country" in 2 BC, a title of which he was especially fond because of the implication that he was the householder over all of Rome. Orosius, a contemporary of Augustin of Hippo and one of the most important authors on ancient non-Roman culture before the Renaissance, identified the registration of Luke with a loyalty oath to Caesar Augustus imposed on the entire empire at the time he received this title. Josephus, the most important chronicler of ancient Jewish history around the time of Christ, may have obliquely referenced this event, in reporting that 6000 members of the Pharisees refused to take this oath.

Luke and all his readers were aware of the more famous, well-documented census under Quirinius in 5-6 AD. Luke even references it in Acts 5:37. It makes sense that the only reason Luke would have to specify that this was the "first" registration under Quirinius would be to make sure it did not get confused with the subsequent one. So, the registration near the time of Jesus' birth was before the 5 or 6 AD registration for Augustus' tax.

2. REGISTRATION: It is unfortunate that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible translated the passage in Luke with Caesar Augustus decreeing that all the empire should be taxed. As I mentioned in another post, our understanding of ancient languages has greatly improved, and the number of ancient manuscripts found has significantly increased, since 1610 (the KJV was produced in 1610, but widely published in 1611; hence the date on most KJV Bibles of 1611). The Greek text contains no reference to a tax. This is doubly unfortunate because the registration, or census, in 5 or 6 AD was for taxing. Other registrations were held for aligning troop numbers, for assigning officials, and in preparation for taxing. Once the KJV translated that one Greek word as "taxed", it forever conflated the registration at the birth of Jesus with the taxation in 5-6 AD.

3. GOVERNOR: Luke was an exceptional historian. He accurately recorded many things that could only be attributed to first-hand familiarity. For instance, he gave great precision in titles for officials in various positions and regions. He correctly identified Archelaus, Phillip, and Lysanius as tetrarchs, Chusa as steward (Gr epitropos), Sergius Paulus as proconsul, Lysias as Tribune (Gr chiliarch) over multiple centurions, Publius as the first man (Gr protos) of Malta, a minor official in Ephesus as a clerk (Gr grammateus), and Agrippa II as king. It is interesting, then, that Luke describes Quirinius as governing (a verb, Gr hegemoneuo), and not by a title, especially since by 6 AD he was the Legate of Syria - the highest ranking military official (leader of at least a full legion) and unquestioned representative of Roman authority in the province. Secular history lists Quirinius as serving as Consul in 12 BC (highest ranking elected official in Rome), Legate of Galatia from 12 BC to 2 BC, duumvir (one of two co-rulers) of Pisidian Antioch from about 5 BC to 2 BC (dates uncertain), and Legate of Syria by 5 AD or earlier. As a personal friend of Augustus Caesar, accomplished military victor in the Homodadenses campaign, and respected public figure (until late-life scandal), he would have been tapped to help out in any regional emergency should such a need arise. It is highly likely exactly such an emergency arose during the tenure of Publius Quinctilius Varus, the man recorded as Legate of Syria around Christ's birth. Varus was Legate of Syria from 7 BC to 4 BC (precisely the window when most historians agree Jesus was likely born). Varus was an unremarkable, poor leader whose short tenure in Syria was marked by riots and great unrest. He was recalled to Rome by 3 or 4 BC, and afterwards sent to lead the Legions in Germany (a disastrous campaign, most famous for Varus losing three full legions and committing suicide rather than return to Rome). Since Quirinius was already a recognized duumvir and experienced Legate, he would have been the logical choice to step in as needed in Syria.

I could find no clear record of who served with or immediately before or after Varus in Syria, but I did find record of a grave marker in Italy commemorating a man "twice Legate of Syria under Augustus". The top of the headstone was broken, so it had no name. Thus, I can't categorically prove that Quirinius is buried in that grave and that he served as at least co-Legate in Syria at two different times. However, I can't imagine there having been more than 10 Legates total in Syria during the entire 40 years of Augustus' reign. The circumstantial evidence is strong that this particular twice-Legate was Quirinius.

BOTTOM LINE: Most likely, Quirinius served as an official in Syria prior to his formal position as Legate of Syria starting around 5 AD. If Quirinius did have a prior leadership position over the region of Syria, it would have been immediately before Varus' time as Legate of Syria, or as a duumvir (co-ruler) during his tenure. That would put Quirinius in leadership in Syria sometime in the window from 8 BC to 2 BC, in keeping with Herod's reign, one (maybe two) prior registrations, and the most likely window for Jesus' birth.

There are some other possibilities. Some translators say the phrase "first registration when Quirinius was governor" could be translated "before the registration when Quirinius was governor". This is a possibility, and it would certainly remove any conflict in the passages. After looking into it, however, I think the scenario I described is more likely.

Like I said, I'm no expert. I do find it amazing that, even after 2000+ years, there is evidence still surviving. That evidence, etched in stone and recorded on parchment, can help answer these types of questions. The important take-away for me is that there are answers, even when I don't know them.