Is Luke's claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem at the time of the census during Quirinius'S governorship historically accurate?

TL;DR:

Some scholars try to discredit the Bible by saying that Luke’s claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem at the time of the census during Quirinius’s governorship is historically inaccurate. However, just because the full historical background is not understood does not negate the historical accuracy of the Gospel of Luke.

what does the bible say?

Certain scholars believe the Gospel of Luke is inaccurate based on his detail that Quirinius and Herod were in power at the same time and his mention of a census, which is difficult to identify in other historical records. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius is known from history as the governor of Syria beginning in AD 6, long after Herod's death in 4 BC. Is it true that Luke made a historical mistake in his writing? While this is the position taken by some scholars, other options need to be considered.

from the old testament

Luke’s claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem at the time of the census during Qurinius’ governorship occurs in the New Testament.

from the new testament

Luke 2:1–3 reads: “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. And all went to be registered, each to his own town.”
Luke's word "first" in the phrase "the first registration" (Luke 2:2) can be translated as "before." In that case, Luke refers to a census before Quirinius was the governor of Syria. However, many Greek scholars see this as unlikely due to grammatical reasons.
Another, more probable option is that Quirinius was ruler of Syria on two separate occasions. This first census may have taken place during his first time as governor. Further, the Greek word translated "governor" is a general word that could apply to another governing role held by Quirinius during the time Herod was alive (c. 6—4 BC). There is a stone fragment, known as the Tivoli inscription, discovered in 1764 near Rome that bears this out, mentioning a Roman official who ruled Syria and Phoenicia twice under Augustus. Many scholars believe Quirinius is the official in the inscription. If so, the narrative in Luke 2 is set in Quirinius's first term as governor, while Herod the Great was still alive.

implications for today

For the person who acknowledges the accuracy and inspiration of Scripture, Luke's mention of Quinirius presents no problem. It is important to acknowledge the uncertainty involved, yet it is just as important not to jump to the conclusion that the Bible is inaccurate simply because the full historical background of the matter is unknown.

While we cannot be dogmatic about things that are unknown, we can hold on to what we do know. The Bible has consistently proven to be a reliable historical document, with numerous details verified by archaeology and historical research. Its internal consistency and the fulfillment of prophecies provide strong evidence for its divine inspiration. By focusing on the broader narrative and core teachings of Scripture, we can appreciate its spiritual and theological depth, even when specific historical details remain unclear. This balanced approach allows us to maintain faith in the Bible's reliability while remaining open to new insights and discoveries that can enhance our understanding.

understand

Although Quirinius is known as governing after Herod, there are several plausible answers to why Luke claimed that Jesus was born in Bethlehem at the time of Quirinius’s census:
"First census" can be interpreted as "before," implying an earlier census.
Quirinius may have governed Syria twice, supported by the Tivoli inscription.
The term "governor" could refer to a different role Quirinius held during Herod's reign.

reflect

In what ways can you balance faith and scholarly inquiry when encountering challenging passages in Scripture?
How do you respond to apparent discrepancies in the Bible, and how does this impact your overall faith and understanding of God's Word?
How should we approach discussions with skeptics who challenge the historical accuracy of the Bible based on specific details like Luke's mention of Quirinius's census?

engage

While skeptics claim that Luke 2:2 is "proof" of a biblical inaccuracy, the extra-biblical historical evidence is inconclusive on this matter. The Bible itself provides historical information beyond what is available in other sources of written history.
Luke's purpose for writing his gospel was to provide "an orderly account" of the events surrounding Jesus's life, and he did so by "carefully investigat[ing] everything from the beginning" (Luke 1:3 NIV). Archaeology has proved Luke to be a first-rate historian. Sir William M. Ramsey, a noted archaeologist, studied Luke's New Testament writings and proclaimed them to be "unsurpassed in trustworthiness" (Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 1915). The idea that Luke, a meticulous writer whose facts are substantiated by modern archaeology, could have made such an egregious mistake in the timing of Quirinius's rule is implausible.
What are some examples of how new archaeological discoveries have shed light on previously misunderstood or unclear biblical passages?