Over the years, many scholars have criticised the Gospel of Luke for supposedly being historically inaccurate in its account of Jesus’ birth. One of the big issues is the fact that he refers to Jesus as being born when Quirinius was the governor of Syria. Scholars widely agree that Jesus was born in the last few years BCE, but Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until 6 CE. Is this apparent discrepancy irreconcilable?
The Gospel of Luke’s claim about Quirinius and Jesus’ birth
According to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus was born in Bethlehem. His parents, Joseph and Mary, had travelled there to be registered for a Roman census. The Gospel of Luke specifically states that this census occurred when Quirinius was governor of Syria.
Quirinius appears in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus. Both of them were writing towards the end of the first century and the beginning of the second, about 100 years after the events in question.
According to these non-Biblical sources, Quirinius became the governor of Syria in 6 CE. Scholars generally agree that Jesus, on the other hand, was born somewhere between 6 and 2 BCE. This is quite a few years before Quirinius’ governorship of Syria.
For this reason, many scholars believe that the Gospel of Luke does not tell us the truth about Jesus’ birth. However, not all scholars take this view. What is the alternative?
Evidence for an earlier consulship
Some scholars argue that there is evidence for Quirinius having served an earlier governorship over Syria. The primary evidence comes from an inscription known either as the Lapis Tiburtinus or the Tutulis Tiburtinus. The surviving part of this fragmentary inscription does not include the name of the person it honours, unfortunately.
However, it contains just enough details that we can ascertain with reasonable confidence who it is describing. The person in question had subdued a tribe which had been brought under the authority of Rome in the time of Augustus. The individual had been honoured with a triumph. He then became proconsul in Asia. After this, the inscription says that he became governor of Syria.
These details match the career of Quirinius. Between about 12 and 6 BCE, he subdued the Homonadenses, a tribe near Syria. He brought them under the authority of Rome, as the inscription says.
The historian Tacitus refers to Quirinius being honoured with a triumph, fitting the inscription. Furthermore, Quirinius became the proconsul of Asia in about 3-1 BCE. And finally, as we have seen, he became the governor of Syria in 6 CE.
Notably, when the inscription says that he became the governor of Syria, it actually says that this was for the “second time”. This shows that Quirinius, if the inscription really is his, must have already been governor of Syria prior to that as well.
Objections to this identification
Complicating matters is the fact that not all scholars agree with this identification. Some argue that this inscription is actually in honour of a figure named Lucius Calpurnius Piso. They argue that he likewise matches the details on the inscription.
However, while it is true that Piso did put down a rebellion in Thrace, there is no record of him subduing a tribe outside the Roman Empire and bringing it under Rome’s authority.
Furthermore, the inscription appears to end after the last surviving line on the inscription, indicating that the governorship of Syria was this man’s final position. This matches Quirinius, but not Piso. The latter ended his career as the Prefect of Rome. Tacitus (Annals, 6.10) makes it clear that this was Piso’s main claim to fame, so it is unthinkable that it would not be mentioned on the inscription.
There is also no reference from any other source to Piso ever being the governor of Syria, let alone twice. In the case of Quirinius, at least one Syrian governorship is well established.
Could Quirinius really have been governor at the time of Jesus’ birth?
From the aforementioned evidence, it is clear that the Lapis Tiburtinus inscription is about Quirinius, not Piso. However, this does not, by itself, solve the mystery of Quirnius and the Nativity.
The Gospel of Luke claims that Quirinius was governor of Syria at the time of Jesus’ birth. The Gospel of Matthew places Jesus’ birth in the reign of Herod. Most sources place Herod’s death in 4 BCE, during which time Varus was governor of Syria, according to Josephus. There is supposedly a gap in the records until 1 BCE. On that basis, some scholars have suggested that Quirinius’ first governorship of Syria occurred in those missing years.
This would not solve the issue of Quirinius being governor at the time of Jesus’ birth, as the Gospel of Luke claims. In reality, the true explanation appears to be that Syria enjoyed a dual governorship in this period.
In describing the period shortly before Herod’s death, Josephus explicitly refers to Saturninus and Volumnius as both being the presidents, or governors, of Syria simultaneously. Hence, there is no valid objection to placing Quirinius’ governorship of Syria at the same time as Saturninus or Varus.
In summary, that is good evidence for concluding that Quirinius really was governor of Syria at the time of Jesus’ birth, as the Gospel of Luke claims.
See all the latest news from Greece and the world at Greekreporter.com. Contact our newsroom to report an update or send your story, photos and videos. Follow GR on Google News and subscribe here to our daily email!
