In this narrative aside Luke refers to a
first census, or a “former” or “earlier” census than the one made in 6-7 C.E.
This is an important qualification as it coheres with Acts 5:37 which refers to
the later and more famous census. Since there is no record of any more census
enrolments happening after 6-7 C.E. in relation to Quirinius, we can deduce
that the census of Luke 2:2 is not that of 6-7 C.E. but an earlier one. Because
Josephus does not record two such census enrolments, critical scholars work
with just one and infer that Luke made a mistake with his placement of the
first census at the end of the reign of Herod the Great.
However, an incidental detail of
Luke’s account makes it unlikely that he is making a simple mistake (after all,
his chronology in Luke 3:1 is flawless). Mary and Joseph travel to Bethlehem of
Judea to enrol for tax purposes. Just before the birth of Jesus, Herod was
ruler of Judea and Galilee, and a census instituted in his region could have
been one that required travel to Judea for those born in the south. After Herod’s
death, the kingdom of Judea was divided and Galilee came under the jurisdiction
of Antipas. In the census of 6-7 C.E. there is no particular reason why those
residents in the north would have been required to travel south for enrolment.
This makes the census of Luke 2:2 more likely to have been a different and
earlier one than that of 6-7 C.E.
Although no extant record other
than Luke’s requires the suggestion, some scholars have therefore proposed that
Quirinius could have been a special military legate anytime between 6-4 B.C.E.
in addition to the domestic governor of Syria at the time (who was Sentius
Saturninius until 6 B.C.E. and therefore Quintilius Varus between 6-4 B.C.E.).
It is known that Quirinius was conducting a long campaign from the north of
Syria (and maybe Galatia) against the Homonadensus at this time and had been
since about 10 B.C.E. He would have assumed a temporary legateship in Syria
during any interim period between the two documented governors.
Upon hearing of Jesus from the Wise
Men, Herod sought to ill the children in Bethlehem up to two years of age, but
Mary and Joseph had been warned to flee this danger. They fled to Egypt and
only return when Herod had died which is dated to 4 B.C.E. The inference
therefore is that Jesus was born most likely in the years 6-5 B.C.E. and that
the census Luke mentions took place in one of these years. A temporary interim
military governorship on the part of Quirinius (possibly during a handover
period between Sentius Saturninius and Quintilius Varus in 6 B.C.E.) is not implausible.
Herod’s relationship with Augustus had broken down by the end of his reign and a
direction from the military legate of Syria to conduct a census would have been
heeded.
Our discussion of Luke’s
chronology is an example of the kind of discussion that conservative and
critical scholars have about the reliability of the gospel records. It is a
choice to allow Luke’s evidence to stand in a reconstruction of Roman History,
but it is because Luke shows himself to be reliable on other names and dates
that it is best to do so in this case and conjecture a second interim
legateship on the part of Quirinius. In the relatively few cases where the
historical veracity of the gospels can be challenged with apparently contrary
external evidence, conservative scholarship has provided plausible
harmonisations of the data. (Andrew Perry, “Quirinius,” Christadelphian Ejournal
of Biblical Interpretation [October 2010]: 188-89)
