There are many characteristics of the gospels that indicate their accuracy; additionally, there are a small number of well-known so-called inaccuracies. Positive assessments of the nuts and bolts of the gospel records have been written by conservative scholars. Since the gospels are a social history of a charismatic teacher and his followers, any inaccuracies would be limited to the “public” side of Jesus’ ministry—names, dates, places and the cultural environment. Thus, for example, we are able to verify Luke’s political facts—the emperor Augustus, Herod the Great, Quirinius and Pilate, or Annas, Caiaphas and Ananias. Furthermore, we are able to verify Luke’s reliability as a historian by examining his follow-up book, Acts.
Inaccuracies in historical texts are expected by the historico-critical method; there is no presumption that the gospel texts are divinely inspired in such a method and so historians will point out errors where there is other evidence that points to different facts of the matter. For example, the reference to a tax census of Quirinius sometime in 6-4 B.C.E. has been dubbed an error because he is known to have become the legate of Syria in 6 C.E. and initiated a census in that year (Josephus, Ant. 18.1.1; cf. Tacitus, Annals 3.48).[1]
There are two preliminary points to make about this “error”: first, it is representative of the type of error that could be identified in the gospel records, i.e. errors to do with the more public facts of names, dates and places—the possible errors in this regard are very few indeed; secondly, where there is a conflict between two different sources (Josephus and Luke), critical scholars will favour the non-Biblical evidence and conservative scholars will favour the biblical evidence.
It is accepted by conservative scholars[2] that Quirinius was a legate of Syria in 6-7 C.E. and that there was a census then, which caused unrest in Judea (a province of Syria), and which is referred to by Luke in Acts 5:37 “After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered” (NASB). Luke’s use of the expression “the census” and his reference to Judas the Galilean establishes that he is referring to the census of 6-7 C.E. against which Judas led a rebellion.
The census at the time of Jesus’ birth is mentioned in this way:
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. Luke 2:1-3 (KJV revised)
In this narrative aside[3] 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 makes a mistake with his placement of a 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 initiated 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 thereafter Quintilius Varus between 6-4 B.C.E.[4]). 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 could 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 kill 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 returned 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.[5] 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,[6] conservative scholarship has provided plausible harmonisations of the data.
[1] This view is defended in the standard academic bible dictionary—D. S. Potter, “Quirinius” ABD, 5:588-589.
[2] A representative treatment is that of W. Brindle, “The Census and Quirinius: Luke 2:2” JETS 27/1 (1984): 43-52.
[3] For a discussion of this narrative aside see S. M. Sheeley, Narrative Asides in Luke-Acts (JSNTSup 72; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 102-103.
[4] It is known from Josephus (Ant. 10, 9-10) that Quintilius Varus was legate until at least 4 B.C.E. and the death of Herod but not thereafter—when it is next known that Gaius Julius Caesar was the governor in 1 C.E.
[5] Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4.19, dates the census to the governorship of Sentius Saturninius.
[6] A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), 162-171 (162) observes that the presence of Quirinius’ name has caused the most controversy in Luke’s Roman History.
The Solution