Was Jesus born during Herod or Quirinius' reign?

Was Jesus born during Herod or Quirinius' reign?
Redemption Theology

TL;DR:

The apparent contradiction between Matthew placing Jesus' birth during Herod's reign and Luke referencing the census of Quirinius is best resolved by one of three options: another Quirinius or earlier role during Herod's time, a later scribal error substituting Quirinius for Quintilius, or Luke 2:2 meaning "before Quirinius" rather than "during Quirinius’ reign." The discrepancy reflects either a gap in our historical knowledge or an error in later copies. Either way, both accounts agree on the real point: Jesus entered history at the right time in a trustworthy, unified story.

from the old testament

  • The Old Testament does not address during which reign Jesus was born.

from the new testament

  • The question of whether Jesus was born during Herod or Quirinius' reign is largely a historical, not biblical, argument. However, the question arises from apparent discrepancies between Matthew's and Luke’s accounts of Jesus’ birth. Matthew said, “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king …” (Matthew 2:1), in contrast to Luke, who said, “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).
  • Normally, this would not be an issue because two positions are mentioned (king and governor), so the two rulers could be in power simultaneously. However, from the historical record we have, Herod died in 4 BC, whereas Quirinius was governor in 6–7 AD.
  • Herod is the more prominent figure in the accounts, so they place Jesus’ birth around 6 BC. However, that calls the veracity of Luke’s account into question. There are three primary options.
  • First, it’s possible that someone else named Quirinius reigned while Herod was alive. Relatedly, the word translated as “governor” in Luke 2:2 could be used more generically as “administrator,” referring to an earlier governmental role Quirinius may have held. In neither case are there historical records to support these ideas, making them possible yet speculative.
  • Second, while the original documents were correct, it’s possible that a later scribe miswrote “Quirinius” instead of “Quintilius.” Quintilius is recorded as the governor of Syria in 6 BC. If this is true, either the scribe misread the document from which he was copying, or he slipped and replaced one governor’s name with another without realizing it.
  • Third, the word translated as “first” in Luke 2:2 is “protos” and can be translated as “before” (e.g., John 1:15; 15:18). If there’s not a scribal error, then Luke would have meant that the census he was describing was “before the registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria,” to delineate it from a more well-known registration.
  • In the end, all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) and was written by men as the Holy Spirit guided them exactly what to say (2 Peter 1:21). Therefore, we can trust that the original manuscripts were entirely accurate. The answer, then, is that we misunderstand them because we don’t have a complete historical record or have received them with a scribal error pointing to Quirinius instead of Quintilius.

implications for today

While not dismissing the very real question as to how to reconcile the Matthew and Luke passages, we must never allow such questions to sow seeds of doubt. When we refer to Scripture being inerrant and infallible, we mean the original manuscripts. We don’t have those, but we have over 5,000 fragments of copies and have reproduced the New Testament with near-perfect accuracy. The remaining textual difficulties are minor and do not affect doctrine. The Bible’s teaching on God as holy Creator, man as sinner, and Jesus as Savior is perfectly reliable.

In addition to potential textual issues, our historical knowledge of the first century BC and AD is not comprehensive. There are many gaps, and it’s improper to act as if it’s infallible and able to judge a problem passage.

In the end, then, while questions about the timing of Jesus’ birth are not unimportant, we must be careful that they don’t sidetrack the central reason Jesus came. God sent Him because all humanity is sinful (Romans 3:10–18) and unable to save itself from His wrath (Ephesians 2:1–3). The Son of God, fully divine (John 1:1), added on a human nature (Philippians 2:6–7) to become like us, except without sin (Hebrews 4:15). He then died to bear the wrath we deserved so that all who repent and trust in Him will be saved (Romans 10:9–10).

If you have not yet been saved, know that this gospel far outstrips questions about when, exactly, Jesus was born. We encourage you to focus first on your eternity!

If you are already saved, then know that Scripture, being God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), has stood up to two thousand years of scrutiny. It will continue to do so until Jesus returns because it was given to us by the God who never lies (Titus 1:2).

understand

  • The apparent contradiction between Matthew placing Jesus' birth during Herod's reign and Luke referencing Quirinius' census is a historical rather than theological problem.
  • Three options legitimately resolve the tension between then: 1) another Quirinius or earlier role during Herod's time, 2) a later scribal substitution of Quirinius for Quintilius, or 3) Luke 2:2 should be translated as "before Quirinius' reign" rather than implying "during  Quirinius' reign."
  • The discrepancy between Matthew and Luke reflects either a gap in our historical knowledge or an error introduced in later copying.

reflect

  • How do you respond when you encounter a difficult passage in Scripture that you cannot immediately explain?
  • How do you balance seeking answers for difficult passages with a focus on the central truths of Scripture?
  • How does knowing that our extra-biblical historical knowledge is incomplete affect the way you respond when critics point to supposed contradictions in Scripture based on historical records?

engage

  • What does it look like to engage difficult questions about the Bible with humility, wisdom, and confidence rather than fear?
  • How can we equip others to engage with apparent contradictions in Scripture?
  • What can the debate over Herod and Quirinius teach us about keeping the gospel central while engaging honestly with challenging questions about the Bible?