Jesus’ Birth Year – When Quirinius was Governor? (Series: When Was Jesus Born?)

In what year was Jesus actually born? Last time we didn’t come to a firm conclusion, but the suggestion was made that He could have been born as late as 1 BC. But we still have a big question to answer.

Luke is very helpful giving us specific information about what was happening around the time of Jesus’ birth in the Roman world. Here’s what he 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.
Luke 2:1-2

So we get a lot of information here. First, we know that Caesar Augustus was alive and well at this point in time – no problem, since he lived from 63 BC to 14 AD. That gets us in the ballpark.

Next, there was a “registration”. The Authorized Version (KJV) says that this was for tax purposes – it depends how you understand the Greek word here, it may be a technical term for a census for tax purposes. “All the world” here refers to the Roman world – the empire.

Now, “this was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria.” This is where things get interesting.

There is some interesting discussion about what kind of a census this was and how it worked, but to my mind these pose no serious problems in the end. We do know that the Romans had regular ways to administer the empire, and also that they would sometimes adjust the details for local rulers and local customs. So we don’t need to get into the details right now of the how. The question is when.

Quirinius

Quirinius was indeed governor in Syria for several years, and he did indeed head up a census at the beginning of his time as governor. The problem is that this was in 6 AD. Even if we push Jesus’ birth forward to 1 BC, we’re still 6 years off. And there is no doubt that Herod the Great was dead by several years by 6 AD.

And so some modern scholars brush Luke off immediately – he was either mistaken, or he simply re-wrote history in order to make the story fit his theology.

But there are several problems with writing Luke’s story off so quickly.

First, look at the sources. It was Josephus who gave us the dates of the census, and many have pointed out that Josephus, although an important historian, is not without error in his dating. Luke is also an important historian – one who lived even closer to the time of Christ than Josephus. You may remember Sir William Ramsay, the archaeologist who actually came to faith after trying to disprove the accuracy of Luke’s writings.

Luke is extremely careful when he writes about places, local customs, and even titles of important people. And do you notice how, in this case, Luke just “assumes” his readers know exactly what he was talking about?

And that brings us to a couple of interesting things about this phrase. Luke says that this was the “first” registration. Assuming Josephus was right, Luke seems to have been well aware of the census in 6 AD. He doesn’t just claim that this was the census – no, he’s careful to say that this was the first.

But we’re still left with the problem that, from all the evidence we have, Quirinius simply was not the governor at the time of Jesus’ birth!

Here is one solution that has been offered. There is a possibility that the Greek could be translated “This [census] was before the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria”. If that’s the case, this could have been some kind of census that took place before Quirinius was governor. In which case Luke just uses this as a general placeholder.

Although some scholars go this way, it seems to be pushing things a little too far – and maybe unnecessarily, as we shall see.

There is another word we need to look at – “governor”. The governor in the Roman Empire was the legate – except, that’s not the term Luke uses. Remember – Luke is very careful using terms for political leaders. But here he uses a more general term. Why?

Our story almost has to stop there. It seems entirely possible – even likely – that Quirinius was in charge of the registration, but was not technically governor (legate) at this time. As far as Quirinius is concerned, that opens us up to the last BC decade, in which he certainly was an important official. There are some good reasons to think he may have been chosen to oversee this census instead of the actual governor of the time.

In fact, in that case the word Luke uses would make perfect sense. Quirinius wasn’t legate during both censuses. His position changed, even though in both cases he had a position of authority. Rather than give a big explanation, Luke just uses the general term which would fit both – thus being perfectly accurate in fewer words.

But – was there even a census at this time? We know that there were various censuses in the empire, so it’s possible, but we don’t have detailed information about every census and its year.

However, some interesting facts:

• Caesar Augustus mentions three registrations that he ordered – one around 8 BC, which could have taken several years, (easily bringing us to the commonly suggested date of 6 BC for the birth of Christ).
• He also seems to refer to another kind of registration that took place in 2 BC (which easily could fit a birth of Christ in 2 or even 1 BC). This one could have been an empire-wide affair.
• Early church fathers always took this census to have been a historical event. In fact, the claim was even made that the record of Mary and Joseph still existed in the Roman archives. As people familiar with the empire and its administration, they had no problem with this account.

Conclusion

There are actually several possibilities that explain what Luke wrote, that would put the birth of Christ somewhere in the last decade BCE. But there are some interesting clues in the words that Luke uses that lead me to believe that Quirinius actually was in charge of a census – even though he wasn’t legate at the time – right around this time. There is some interesting evidence that may point to the time between 8 and 6 BC or even a little later, but there is the possibility that the census Luke refers to actually took place closer to 2 or even 1 BC in this area.

So without going into a lot more detail, we’re not going to settle the year any closer. For now it seems likely, from all the evidence, that Jesus was born between 6 and 1 BC. Like many others, I still find 2-1 BC pretty compelling.

I wonder if there’s any evidence that could give us a clue to the actual day of His birth? You guessed it, there are some interesting debates about that too – and we’ll talk about that next time.

If you want to dig deeper into the evidence I mention above, here are some places to start:

• Thinking through the reliability of Luke: Unbelievable? Is Luke’s Description of Quirinius Historically Inaccurate?
• An overview of some of the possible answers: Popular Conservative Journalist Attacks Genesis and the Birth of Christ
• Problems with interpreting Luke’s words as meaning “before” the census of Quirinius: Once More: Quirinius’s Census
• A quick overview of some historic references: Is Luke Wrong About the Time of Jesus’ Birth?