Seminar 2 - The Birth of Jesus Christ

"In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)"

The actual date of Christ’s birth has been disputed. The main argument is that Luke made a grave error in referring to Quirinius when he said, "…this first census took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria." The argumentative historians say that Quirinius was not the governor of Syria at the time of Christ’s birth because his governorship did not begin until ten years later. Therefore, they conclude, Luke misspoke and did not know his history. Historians revel in that they have found ancient documents that record such a census in A.D. 6 (Acts 5:37) but no record of such a census in 4 B.C.

To such an argument we must respond. His full name was Publius Salpicius Quirinius. The King James Version renders his name "Cyrenius" which is a transliteration of the Latin into Greek, then to English.

Quirinius was a notable Roman soldier who rose through the ranks to political power without the aid of wealth or family heritage. Dates are vague but it seems that he ruled as proconsul about 15 B.C. Between 12 B.C. and 5 B.C. he was engaged in military actions particularly in the mountains of Pisidia.

The problem comes when Luke, himself a notable historian, states that in 6 B.C. Quirinius was governor of Syria. It is common historical knowledge that Quintilius Varus was governor of Syria in 7 - 4 BC. There are now notable scholars who believe there is evidence that Quirinius was governor of Syria during two periods of Roman history, an early date and the later date mentioned by Gamaliel in Acts 5:37.

There are two possibilities set forth by great scholars.

1. The one asserts that Luke’s language here leaves room for various interpretations. "This census was first taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." We know Quirinius was governor of Syria in AD 6-9. Roman census took a long time. They usually were spaced fourteen years apart. The census was due in 7 B.C. Varus would have just assumed his new office as an untried governor. He was a failure as a soldier having lost three legions in the Teutoburger Forest in Germany - one of the most devastating fiascoes of Roman military in that century. Herod at the same time had lost favor with Augustus. Census taking was not a pleasant time for the Jews since the priest looked on it as against the will of God. (Remember the results of David numbering the people.) It would not have been unusual for Augustus Caesar to assign this dangerous and potentially explosive job to a tried and true military officer like Quirinius. Seeing that Quirinius eventually was given the post strengthens this argument.

   We must, however, admit that there is no physical evidence of this taking place. It is all speculation based on Luke’s precision as a historian. Barring any new archeological evidence, we must wait in faith knowing that all other arguments against Luke’s accuracy have been laid to rest by later archeological finds.

2. Another explanation is proffered by the esteemed historian and writer Alfred Edersheim. He argues from the accuracy of Luke’s historical references and from the wording of Luke 2:2 that the census which was begun in the year of Christ’s birth was not effectively completed until after Herod’s death when Quirinius was governor of Syria and after Judea had become de facto a Roman province. (Edersheim p.128)

The Date of December 25

We have already covered the year of Christ’s birth in a previous lesson, so we will not repeat that here. (See lesson 1, Intertestamental Period) Traditionally Christmas is celebrated on December 25. How did we choose this date, and is it a tenable date for Christ’s birth?

The first mention of any observance of Christ’s birthday appears around 200 AD. The day of December 25 was first mentioned in 336 AD. Eastern Orthodox churches celebrate it on January 6. We may never know for certain the exact month and day of Christ’s birth because the bible does not give us that information. Edersheim believes there is no real reason to question the December date. Here is his reasoning.

"A curious piece of evidence comes to us from a Jewish source. In the addition to the Hegillath Taanith (ed. Warsh. P. 20a) the 9th Tebheth is marked as a fast day, and it is added, that the reason for this is not stated. Now, Jewish chronologists have fixed on that day as that of Christ’s birth, and it is remarkable that, between the years 500 and 816 AD the 25th of December fell no less than twelve times on the 9th of Tebheth. If the 9th of Tebheth, or 25th of December, was regarded as the birthday of Christ, we can understand the concealment about it. Comp. Zunz, Ritus d. Synag. Gottesd. P. 126." (Edersheim, p.132)

A Spring Date

In our discussion of the Star of Bethlehem we have already made references to the possibility that the Lord was born, not in the winter as Edersheim speculates, but in the Spring of the year. Evidence for this is supported by the date of the appearance of the Star as reported by Chinese astrologers, and by the evidence of Herod's death, one year after that event. Which, if you remember, took place at or around the Passover.

Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 1, 3, 4 Merrill C. Tenney, editor, Zondervan, 1975
Fausset, Andrew. R. , Bible Encyclopedia and Dictionary, Zondervan, Grand Rapids,
NIV Study Bible,
Edersheim, Alfred, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Hendrickson Pub., 1993.
Edersheim, Alfred, Sketches of Jewish Social Life, Hendrickson Pub., 1994.
The New Bible Dictionary, Douglas, J.D. editor, Eerdmans Pub. Grand Rapids, 1962