.
Cyrenius (Publius Sulpicius Quirinius)
Recent historical investigation has proved that Quirinius was governor of Cilicia, which was annexed to Syria at the time of our Lord's birth. Cilicia, which he ruled, being a province of Syria. He is called the governor, which he was de jure, of Syria. Some ten years afterwards he was appointed governor of Syria for the second time. During his tenure of office, at the time of our Lord's birth (Luke 2:2), a "taxing" (Revised Version, "enrolment;" i.e., a registration) of the people was "first made;" i.e., was made for the first time under his government.
Alleged Biblical Problem
How can the Bible be correct (in The Gospel According to Luke, chapter 2, verse 2) when claiming that the great census decreed by Rome's Caesar Augustus about the time of Jesus' birth circa 4-5 B.C. occurred "when Quirinius was governor" if Quirinius (or Cyrenius) didn't even become governor until the year 6 A.D.?! Isn't this a clear case of the Bible being in error on matters of history?
Sensible Solution
No so fast. Critics used this text for many years to make their case for a Bible that is unreliable. But no more. Today, there are a number of reasons for giving Luke the benefit of the doubt. Over and over (in references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands) the doctor has proven himself to be a reliable historian, as demonstrated by famed scholar and archaeologist, Sir William Ramsey.
See ChristianAnswers' Web Bible Encyclopedia: What is a census?
To date, the only census documented outside the Bible near this time under Quirinius is the one referred to by the historian Josephus (Antiquities XVIII, 26 [ii.1], which he says took place in 6 A.D.
But notice that Luke 2:2 says that the census taken around the time Joseph and Mary went down to Bethlehem was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. This implies that there was a later census--most likely the one referred to by Josephus--which Dr. Luke would have also certainly known about.
There is good reason to believe that Quirinius was actually twice in a position of command (the Greek expression hegemoneuo in Luke 2:2 which is often translated "governor" really just means "to be leading" or "in charge of") over the province of Syria, which included Judea as a political subdivision. The first time would have been when he was leading military action against the Homonadensians during the period between 12 and 2 B.C. His title may even have been "military governor."
A Latin inscription discovered in 1764 adds weight to the idea that Quirinius was in a position of authority in Syria on two separate occasions. There was definitely a taxing during this time and therefore, quite possible, an associated census, the details of which may have been common knowledge in Luke's time, but are now lost to us.
Scholars have advanced a number of other altogether viable explanations which would allow Luke's record (and therefore the Bible) to continue to be regarded as 100% trustworthy.
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/cyrenius.html
*******************************************************
The ten year gap.
There was a census between 8BC and 4BC and the next census was in 6AD. The first census was called by Herod who was Rome’s puppet and was for Judea only while the second census was called by Caesar Augustus and required that the entire Roman world should be registered.
Consequently there were two census ten years apart and either Matthew or Luke had Jesus born in the wrong census, at least that is the way it looks to me.
All I can say is that over the years people have said to me, firstly that the Bible has been edited, secondly people copied someone else’s work, and thirdly the writers collaborated. Plainly this is not the case and obviously the accounts of Christ’s birth are from the pens of independently different people with all the Bibles 40 contributors providing us with their own personal testimony and witness account. It makes powerful reading.
The only other thing I can say is that Quirinius was no minor figure. At various times he was “Consul,” he was advisor to Caesar’s young son Caius, he was a Roman senator, he was governor of Syria, he was in Rome, he was in government, he knew the mind of Caesar, he had Caesar’s confidence, he was an administrator and he was a powerful figure.
At that time the Roman Empire ruled most of the world but by the High Middle Ages, after the end of the Viking Age and the Norman Conquest, the kingdom of England came to rule almost all of the area previously ruled by the Rome. (ref.)
Our English Kings were not just the King of England they held and governed other territories as well just like Quirinius who at the time of Herod’s census would have been governor and administrator of most of the known world including Judea. When the census in Matthew's account was being held Quirinius was answerable to Caesar himself.
Gnaeus Sentius Saturninus and Publius Quinctilius Varus were the governors on the ground in Syria but at the time of the census in Matthew's Gospel Quirinius will have been governor overall under Caesar. Luke could be right and there may not be a contradiction.
