Transcription
If you study the scholarship on the gospels, one of the chief examples used to argue they are unreliable is Luke. Says that Jesus was born when someone named Quirinius was conducting a census. However, he implies that this also took place during the days of King Herod, and Matthew is more explicit and says Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive.
The problem is, the Jewish historian Josephus says that Quirinius did not conduct a census in Judea until about 6 A.D. But Herod died around 4 B.C. or possibly as late as 2 B.C. So, Luke is assumed to be an error. Either he named the wrong census place, Jesus's birth at a much later date than what Matthew records, or thinks Quirinius was conducting a census at the wrong time. But this is predicated on the idea that Josephus accurately dates the census of Quirinius to 6 A.D. What if there is enough evidence to suggest that Josephus is actually the one who made the error, and Luke has been right this whole time?
A few years ago, someone sent me a paper by a scholar named John Rhodes, titled "Josephus Misstated the Census of Quirinius." I'll admit it, first I dismissed it and didn't read it, assuming it was a wildly speculative theory. But over the years, several other people, including some non-Christians, recommended I give the paper a fair reading. So, once I finished the paper, I thought about it and came to the conclusion that his case is quite plausible. But this is not to say it's provable. We can only say it's a plausible theory that does utilize some interesting evidence.
The basic idea is, Josephus is the one in error when reporting the date of this census, and there is actually a decent amount of evidence it should actually be dated to when Luke says it happened, which was before the death of Herod the Great. So, I'll present Rhodes' case as best as I can and explain why it is plausible that Luke is correct and Josephus misstated the census.
The first thing we need to point out is scholars agree that Josephus is not infallible. He most likely misstates events and makes mistakes along the way. For example, he misstates the construction of the Samaritan temple. He places the Tobiah saga in the first century B.C. after the marriage of Cleopatra to Ptolemy V, when the consensus of scholars today is that this saga took place in the 3rd century B.C. He says Herod the Great was 15 when he was given the territory of Galilee, but Josephus is most likely off by about 10 years.
Numerous scholars have also called Josephus a patchwork author. He places events wildly out of chronology and jumps around from various time periods. For example, in Antiquities Book 18, he is covering the affairs of Pilate, but right in the middle, he jumps back to an event that happened in Rome around 19 B.C. before jumping back to the time of Pilate. John Barclay says of Antiquities Book 2, "The whole is not well structured and gives the appearance of a patchwork of diverse materials." Daniel Schwartz says, "Books 18 to 20 seem to be more of a patchwork." So, it is hard to date events in Josephus's works at times, as they often can be out of place.
This is not to imply the extreme idea that Josephus is wholly unreliable. Generally, Josephus is given the benefit of the doubt and often reports accurate historical sequences and events. But sometimes, due to internal or external evidence, we have good reasons to question him on some things, like chronology.
Daniel Schwartz has also reported an odd feature that routinely shows up in Josephus's writings. He seems at times to mistakenly duplicate the same event that was reported in different sources he is working with and then places them at different times. For example, Schwartz points out that in Antiquities Book 18, Josephus reports Agrippa I went on an embassy to Judea in 38 A.D., but then he duplicates this event and reports it again in Book 19 as if it is about when Agrippa came to rule Judea.
In Book 18, Josephus says Vitellius came to Judea at one point on his way to war, and this is when he heard that Tiberius died. But this trip seems to have been duplicated from an event a year earlier when he went to Judea to dismiss Pilate, and while Pilate was on his way back to Rome, this is when Emperor Tiberius died. The force of this second example can be seen in the implausibility of the chronology. If both trips to Judea by Vitellius happened, then in 36 A.D., when Pilate was sent back to Rome to stand trial, Josephus reports that he made haste to get back to Rome, but Tiberius died before Pilate arrived. However, one year later, Vitellius is in Judea on a second trip, and this is allegedly when he had received word that Tiberius had died. It is unlikely Pilate would take a year to get back to Rome, as well as the idea that Vitellius would only find out about Tiberius's death a year later.
So, Schwartz argues the simplest explanation is Josephus reported this same event as if it happened at two different times, and this is because he read about the affairs of Vitellius in two different sources he was relying on to construct his historical sequence. A fact that scholars tend to point out is when Josephus was writing his histories, he was drawing from different sources. Schwartz notes, "when he changes from one source to another based on dissimilarity and other factors."
So, with all this in mind, John Rhodes argues that Josephus, in relying on different sources, might have accidentally placed the census of Quirinius at a later date by duplicating an event that really happened during the reign of Herod the Great.
Rhodes begins by listing the accounts in question. The first account comes from the last years of Herod the Great. It is a narrative of a Judas, son of the Sephorian, who gathers a group of young disciples around himself and a teacher named Matthias, teaching zeal for the law of Moses and the expectation of lasting reward in the face of death. Judas and his followers raid Herod's temple to tear down an eagle from its gate and are captured. Herod the Great orders those directly involved to be burned alive. Herod also deposes the previous high priest and promotes Joseph, apparently in response to this insurrectionist activity.
A second event allegedly happened during the days of Herod Archelaus, just after Herod the Great passed away. A catalog of disturbances plaguing Judea, reported while Archelaus is in Rome seeking confirmation of his father's will, mentions that Judas the Galilean, son of Hezekiah, active around Sephoris, Galilee, raises an insurrection to raid Herod's armory. Josephus reports that Archelaus deposes Joseph, both before and after his trip to Rome, and for different reasons.
Then the third event is where the census is mentioned. A teacher named Judas the Galilean, who gathered a group of disciples around himself and another teacher named Satiken, who focused on zeal for the law of Moses and willingness to die in the expectation of lasting reward, raised a revolt against the taxation tied to the census of Quirinius. Josephus reports that the priest Joseph persuaded the people to go along with the census, and Quirinius deposes Joseph before the census is complete. Josephus reported no reappointment for Joseph.
Now, all of these accounts mention someone named Judas. The last two accounts are linked more so by the name Judas the Galilean, and most scholars believe it is the same person who committed both acts about nine years apart. But it seems odd the same high priest was deposed in relation to both events. James Vanderkam also highlights an issue with the third account. It is more difficult to understand why Quirinius would have deposed the high priest who had just proved so helpful in making this census palatable to Judeans. So, the sequence of the third account doesn't really make sense with regards to this feature.
However, the first account and the third are linked by similarities in religious activity. Both are opposed by the same high priest, and both of these accounts also mention a partner, but they are soon to be separate events since the name of each partner is different. Also, the first and second account would allegedly have happened at most about a year apart, one right before Herod died and another just after he passed, but both have connections to Sephoris. Both Judases are nicknamed, and both have connections with a famous father. If there is enough evidence, it might be possible to link these three accounts together as all referring to the same event that actually took place under Herod the Great, instead of as three separate instances.
Now, Rhodes, following Schwartz, notes the first account is most likely pieced together from different sources, as Josephus uses one of his standard phrases to differentiate between the raid on the temple to tear down the Roman eagle and from the rest of the story. He also probably drew from a lost source called the High Priest Succession List, since the appointment of Joseph doesn't appear in this section in Jewish Wars but was included when Josephus later wrote Antiquities and was able to rely on more sources.
With the second account, there is evidence this was also pieced together from different sources. This can be seen in the contradictory sequences of what led up to this event. In Antiquities Book 17, in Jewish Wars Book 2, it is reported that after Herod the Great had died, his son Archelaus went to Caesarea, where he met someone named Sabinus. Sabinus, a Roman procurator in Syria, was heading the other way to Judea to take charge of Herod's property. Varus arrived from Antioch to tell Sabinus to hold off for now. Archelaus then sailed to Rome, while Varus returned to Antioch. But Sabinus decided to go to Judea anyway and seized Herod's estate, after which the uprising of Judas the Galilean allegedly occurred. All well and good, but given Josephus's patchwork nature, he tells of this sequence differently in a later section.
Later in Book 17, we read, "After Herod's funeral, Varus was instead in Judea after Archelaus had sailed to Rome, putting down rebellions. He then went back to Antioch, leaving one legion behind in Judea. Then allegedly Sabinus arrived or stayed behind and began seizing Herod's estate with the legion that was left in Judea. Sabinus was experiencing some trouble because of this act, and so he wrote to Varus asking for aid. Varus went to Judea, and the various rebellions were quelled." This is also likely when the Athrongus rebellion was put down.
Now, it would be nice if we could just harmonize these two accounts, but it is unlikely, given that based on Josephus's own chronology, all of this would need to happen in about 50 days. For that to work, Varus would need to leave Judea, go to Antioch, then go to Caesarea to meet Archelaus, tell Sabinus to not seize Herod's estate, then return to Antioch, but then probably go to Judea with more than one legion to quell rebellions, then leave Judea before Sabinus arrived from Caesarea to seize Herod's estate. Sabinus will then need to fall under siege and write to Varus for aid. All of this is unlikely to have played out in 50 days, especially with regards to travel and mobilizing Roman legions. Moreover, in the earlier account, Josephus says Sabinus immediately went to Judea, but in order to work with the second account, this would entail waiting for Varus to return to Antioch, mobilize legions, go to Judea, quell a rebellion, and then return to Antioch. Then, on top of that, the section in Jewish Wars says Sabinus arrived in Judea, but Antiquities says he remained behind in Judea, implying he was with Varus in Judea to quell rebellions instead of being in Caesarea.
Now, beyond the fact that this is all very confusing and probably a contradiction on Josephus's part, it strongly implies Josephus was working from different sources on the chronology of the aftermath of Herod's death. Second, it can provide more context for the events of Judas the Galilean, which comes from the second event of the original three we opened with. What we can propose is the second account of Varus quelling rebellions in Judea happened earlier, not before Herod Archelaus sailed to Rome, and then Varus went back to Antioch, and all three men in Caesarea. Then Sabinus went to Judea to claim Herod's estate. So, rebellions were likely breaking out before and after Herod died. This is also supported by the chronological problems we just went over, but also the fact that Josephus reports a number of revolts in Judea around this time, and the sequence of when each took place is unclear. It seems likely that Varus had been responding to multiple disturbances, some of which occurred prior to Herod's death and immediately thereafter.
Josephus mentions that just after Herod had died, an uprising occurred, the revolt led by Athronges. When Varus returned to Judea to help Sabinus, this is likely when this revolt would have been put down. However, before the Athronges episode, Josephus reports another uprising, this time with someone named Simon. We could suggest this one most likely happened immediately after Herod had passed away and just before these accounts we hear of the Judas the Galilean account. And as a reminder, Josephus most likely was working with different sources and messing with chronology more often than we realize. Many things are just out of place, like with the examples we just noted.
So, Rhodes says, while it is not possible to date the activity of Judas, son of Hezekiah, based on this catalog of disturbances alone, being sensitive to Josephus's use of sources, we must be open to the possibility that this insurgency by Judas also occurred before the death of Herod the Great. This is also supported by the fact that at the funeral of Herod, Varus allegedly foresaw and rested on the way. His reasoning could have stemmed from the fact that some unrest among the Jews was already going on, and that implied more was likely to come.
So, let's review. With regards to our second account in question, it falls in a sequence of a list of revolts that happen around the time of Herod's death, and while his son was on his way to Rome to obtain his kingship over Judea, the chronology is messy and unclear. Some things seem out of place, like when Sabinus arrived, and when Varus was putting down rebellions, and when he met Archelaus in Caesarea. The account of Judas the Galilean could have actually happened before Herod had died. Nevertheless, it seems to have happened around the time of Herod's death, which was about 4 B.C.
Now, let's look at the third account of the Judases, which was supposed to happen in 6 A.D., about 10 years later. The reason why it is dated to 6 A.D. is because in Jewish Wars, Josephus says the revolt occurred under the administration of Coponius as the first prefect of Judea at the time of Archelaus's exile. But we need to note, in Jewish Wars, he also doesn't mention Quirinius. And then in Antiquities, this event is reported differently. Josephus does not mention this dating indicator of this event happening under the administration of Coponius and instead focuses more on Quirinius. Here, he reports more details, like how the high priest Jozar helped Quirinius in getting the Jews to go along with the census. Only much later does Josephus mention the prefecture of Coponius, reminding the readers that he arrived with Quirinius.
So, as it stands, the passage about the revolt in Antiquities does not necessarily attribute this to the affairs of Coponius's later administration. In fact, the administration in Antiquities is not mentioned until much later. Now, this might not seem like much, but Antiquities was most likely written after Jewish Wars, and scholars know Josephus at times did try to correct mistakes from Jewish Wars. Sometimes he was successful, and sometimes he just contributed to more confusion.
Now, according to Schwartz, this way of reporting events suggests that Josephus no longer considered the taxation revolt as occurring within the reign of Coponius, but rather as other activity from around the same time. What a delay occurs between the appointment and the installation in the office of the new ruler. So, we have reason to suspect that although Josephus originally thought the events occurred under the administration of Coponius, he changed his mind.
So, like with the second account of Judas the Galilean, there are some chronology issues at play.
So, now having established the dating of the last two of these accounts is questionable, and in Josephus, by working with different sources, likely created duplicate stories of the same event, we can make the case that all of these accounts are about the same event, which happened before Herod's death. First, as we have noted, the main figure of each account is named Judas. In the first account, he is called son of Sephorius in Jewish Wars, but by a different name in Antiquities. Another problem arises because this is a known textual variant in the manuscripts, with more support for the name Sephorius in some variants, say "the Sephorian." However, in Galilee, there was a city called Sephoris. Given that this happened with other identifiers, like calling someone a Nazarene if they were from Nazareth, it is plausible the account meant Judas the son of the Sephorian, meaning he was from that city in Galilee.
In the second account, he is called Judas the Galilean, son of Hezekiah. Hezekiah was a Galilean bandit that Herod had previously killed. On top of that, Josephus identifies Judas's home base as Sephoris.
With the third account, there are strong religious similarities to the account of the first Judas. In both accounts, Judas and another teacher gathered a crowd, taught the immortality of the soul and confidence in the face of death. So, the partner might be the same, with the latter just being a nickname.
Now, if all three are different events, with the first being a different Judas, and the second and third being the same Judas who acted about nine years apart, there are some odd features. To start, you have two insurgents active within weeks or months of each other around the time of Herod's death, both named Judas, both with connections to Sephoris, both nicknamed, and both connected to a famous father. Allegedly, one was executed by Herod the Great, the other would wait nine to ten years after raiding Herod's armory and then adopt the same spiritual teachings of the first Judas, only to have his revolt against the taxation and census be opposed by the very same high priest who had opposed the first Judas, even though this high priest was supposedly deposed twice during those 10 years. Or a more likely explanation is all of these accounts are about the same Judas from different sources that Josephus was relying on, and he accidentally repeated the same event three times.
Now let's look at the issue of the removal of the high priest listed in different places. Joseph is mentioned in all accounts. Rhodes says it may be worth noting that these three items are semantically parallel, though the Greek vocabulary is not identical, suggesting that they may stem from different translators using a Hebrew high priest succession list. Similar diversity in Greek vocabulary also occurs in other apparent uses of this list for the activity of Gratuss and Vitellius.
Now, as noted before, if Joseph opposed the Judas figure in the first and third account and helped Quirinius in 6 A.D. as recorded in the third account, it makes no sense for Quirinius to depose him. However, it does better fit with the context if the account took place around the death of Herod the Great. See, after Herod had died, the mourners of Judas and the teacher Matthias demanded the high priest appointed by Herod the Great be deposed. In order to help ease tensions with the chaos surrounding the death of Herod the Great, removing an unpopular high priest would make sense in this context and probably would have been a strategic move for Quirinius or Archelaus. So, Joseph's removal also fits better if we move it back 10 years, shortening his reign as a high priest.
Now, if the census of Quirinius really did take place 10 years earlier, why is he not mentioned at all at this earlier time? Well, he might be, just by another name: Sabinus. Remember earlier that we mentioned a procurator from Syria was in Judea named Sabinus, overseeing the affairs of Herod? Well, when we dig a little deeper, Sabinus and Quirinius might be the same person, just known by different names in different sources. Josephus describes their offices in similar ways. They both seem to be of consular rank, which would make them both of equal rank with Varus. This would explain why Sabinus ignored the request of Varus to not go to Judea and seize the property of Herod the Great, because he was of consular rank and didn't have to take orders from Varus. And of Quirinius, we are told he is of consular rank. Third, both seem to be concerned with the tax value of Judea. Fourth, the activity of both seems to be the same at times. Sabinus was on his way to secure Herod's effects after Herod had died. Quirinius was sent to Judea to assess Herod Archelaus's property after Archelaus was exiled.
Rhodes suggests with regards to Quirinius, Josephus may have been confused on the source and aligned Quirinius with the assessment of Herod Archelaus's property when in reality it was the assessment of Herod the Great's property ten years earlier. The confusion would not be far-fetched. Both Archelaus and Antipas referred to themselves as Herod. All of Archelaus's coins are inscribed with Herod. Josephus at one point does accidentally write "King Herod" when he most likely meant Archelaus. So, the confusion is understandable. Finally, Sabinus might not be a proper name but a nickname to mean "the Sabine," like how Judas was called "the Galilean" or Jesus was called "a Nazarene." Cognomens were often derived from ethnic or tribal indicators, and indeed Sabinus was also a Roman cognomen. The Quirinius cognomen likely stems etymologically from the Sabine god Quirinius. Moreover, Quirinius was born in Lavinium, a small town outside of Rome, which would have had a population of ethnic Sabines.
Now, at this point, we can deal with a potential objection. Let's go back to the third account. It's true that this account does mention that Coponius, who became prefect in 6 A.D., and that he was there with Quirinius while Quirinius was conducting the census for taxation purposes. So, the census issue seems to date to the later time when Coponius was there to be the prefect. However, if Quirinius was given the position of governor in or around 6 A.D., then the census seemed to have happened before that appointment. Says Josephus refers to him as a procurator, not as a governor, when he was in Judea to conduct the census, which might imply it happened before 6 A.D. Second, Antiquities doesn't necessarily refer to Coponius as prefect yet when this census was conducted, but that he was sent to have dominion over the Jews, not specifically the province of Judea. The realm of ethnic Jews extended beyond Judea and into Antipas and Philip's territories. So, it might be referring to some earlier tasks in relation to conducting census affairs over the Jewish people at large. This theory is also supported by the fact that other men of equestrian rank travel with Quirinius to help conduct a census in other parts of Syria. The account of Coponius arriving with Quirinius might reflect duties with respect to the Jews comparable to the duties exercised by Quintus Aemilius in parts of Syria at the same time. And so, the census trip is not necessarily the same as when Coponius later arrived in Judea to serve as prefect. So, the reference to Coponius having dominion over the Jews might just be in relation to assessing the Jewish people at large for census purposes, like what Aemilius was conducting in Syria.
Now, you might think we have no reason to posit this, and it's simpler to just assume Coponius didn't go to Judea until he was given the position as prefect. Why posit two trips when it isn't necessary? Well, we actually have to, because we have evidence Coponius was already in Judea as early as 5 B.C., over 11 years before he later returned as prefect. Josephus does report the presence of Coponius in Jerusalem at the time of Antipater's trial around 5 B.C. So, since we do have evidence of Coponius being in Judea while Herod the Great was still alive, that supports the notion the trip for the census that allegedly happened in 6 A.D. may have happened earlier, while Herod the Great was still alive, and that Sabinus and Quirinius were really the same man and a traveling companion of Coponius on the first trip while Herod was still alive.
Finally, as we noted, Josephus's chronology can be a bit messy. He says Herod the Great was 15 when he was given the territory of Galilee, but he's most likely off by about 10 years. Similarly, he may have been off by 10 years with regards to the census of Quirinius. We also see that he changed numbers to suit his reconstruction needs, like with regards to Archelaus's reign. Josephus has already betrayed his willingness to change numbers for the purpose of matching the chronology of justice event. When reporting Archelaus's symbolic dream, he reports that Archelaus saw nine ears of corn representing nine years of rule in Jewish Wars, but 10 years of corn representing 10 years of rule in Antiquities. So, in one of these accounts, he changed the number of years of corn and the number of years of rule from how they appeared in his source in order to match his reconstruction of events. So, indeed, it is quite possible that Josephus similarly changed the date for the census to match his reasonably reconstructed chronology of events.
Now, to bring this all together, we can offer a sequence of the events with regards to our reconstruction. We know that Caesar Augustus was paranoid about keeping accurate records. So, since Herod the Great was getting old, Augustus decided to assess Herod's kingdom before he died. This may have been a wise decision, given that after Herod died, there were several uprisings that needed to be dealt with, and the added chaos of a census would only have contributed to that. So, conducting a census before Herod died and before the Jewish tensions rose even more would have been a smart decision. Quirinius, also known as the Sabine, was sent with a few men of equestrian rank, like Coponius, to conduct the census throughout the region, including parts of Syria. This explains why Coponius was present at the trial of Antipater in 5 B.C., because of the census. Judas the Galilean, son of Hezekiah, from Sephoris, led a revolt. All three accounts refer to the same event. The third account gives us the reason for the revolt, and the first and second accounts report their actions. They raided the armory for supplies and then attempted to remove the Roman eagle from the temple. Joseph opposed Judas and encouraged the Jews to go along with the census. Herod responded by burning Judas and his partner alive. The revolt ended, and Joseph was appointed the high priest for his aid. After this, Quirinius went back to Rome, and Varus returned to Antioch. In a year or so, Herod died. Varus may have had to return to deal with more uprisings and then went back to Antioch, and this could be the point when he left behind one legion. Quirinius, or Sabinus, knowing of the revolt that took place when Herod was alive, likely feared more could soon follow. So, he set out quickly to return to Judea to seize Herod's estate before it fell into rebel hands. Given that he oversaw the earlier census, he would have the experience in the region and also be the best candidate to handle the affairs. He met Varus and Archelaus in Caesarea and ignored Varus's request to not go so quickly to Judea. When he arrived, he took control of the legion and deposed Joseph to try and appease the Jews and reduce tensions. Soon after, he fell under siege and wrote to Varus for aid. Varus and Quirinius, or Sabinus, put down their rebellions and restored order. Later, Quirinius may have been given the governorship of Syria, and Coponius returned to be prefect of Judea after Archelaus was deposed.
Now, I understand this can be a little complex, which is why I encourage you to watch this video again or to read Rhodes' paper for additional context. To preempt the possible objection, some might try to argue if all three accounts speak of the same Judas, why can't we say it happened at one of the later dates, like 6 A.D., or just after Herod died, and it refers to Herod Archelaus executing Judas? The problem is, by 6 A.D., Archelaus was out of power, so he could not have. And after his father died, he was in Rome, so he could not have been responsible for the execution of Judas at this time either. The best explanation is to move the later two events back to the time when Herod the Great was alive and in Jerusalem, so he could order the execution.
Someone might try to argue that this reconstruction is unnecessary and too complex, but remember, as we went over in the first part of this video, there are numerous issues with Josephus's current chronology, like when Joseph was deposed, or if Varus was in Judea when Archelaus left or met him in Caesarea, or if Sabinus remained in Judea or arrived after Varus left. So, reconstruction is necessary regardless of what path we take. Given that Josephus is a patchwork author and had chronological issues, this seems like a reasonable way to make things work. Plus, there is additional support for this in the works of Josephus, because the will of Herod the Great, as Josephus records, implies there was a census conducted before his death. Brock Pearson quotes F.M. Heichelheim and reminds us, "The will of Herod the Great, which must have been drafted a few years before the birth of Christ, took a very close survey of all the resources of the kingdom, and this could not have been possible without a recent census of the actual domain of the king." Part of Herod's report concerned the annual revenue of the country. After the revolts which occurred upon Herod's death, Caesar used these records of taxation to remit a quarter of the Samaritans' taxes, as the Samaritans had not taken part in the unrest. It seems implausible, therefore, to assume that Judea had been without the practice of census-taking prior to the establishment of direct Roman rule. Furthermore, the theory of placing Quirinius's census back to around between 7 and 5 B.C., and that all of these accounts of the revolt of Judas refer to the same event that happened under Herod, has support and external evidence.
A text we call the Gospel of Luke. Luke reports the census of Quirinius happened around the time Jesus was born, which was before Herod the Great died. And he also doesn't refer to Quirinius as a governor but as a *hegemon*, which is a general term that can also refer to a procurator. So, he might just be referring to his census conducted by Quirinius before he became a governor. Furthermore, we can make a probabilistic argument to support Luke's dating. Some historians have pointed out that Luke is incredibly reliable on many other things he reports. For example, the scholar Colin Hemmer has identified 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of the Book of Acts that have been confirmed by historical and archaeological data. Luke accurately reports the proper names of ports, local industries, borders, slang terminology, specific landmarks, local variations and languages, and the proper titles for regional officials. He also seems to accurately follow the chaotic changes of the governorship from Herod the Great all the way up to Festus, including the time when the kingship was given back to Agrippa and then back to a system of procurators, and then Agrippa II is brought in. So, his chronology seems to be much more reliable, whereas Josephus seems to suffer from many constant chronological issues and accidentally duplicates events. So, one could provide support for the early dating of the census by noting how accurate Luke is elsewhere, and therefore he might also be accurately dating the census here as well.
Now, even if this reconstruction sounds too speculative, at least this data should call into question the chronology of Josephus and indicate we cannot assume it can be trusted without question. And on top of that, given these problems, we cannot use the dating of events in Josephus to call into question the dating of events in Luke. In other words, the least we can say from all of these issues is that Josephus cannot be assumed to be entirely accurate, and Luke, therefore, is not when it comes to the census.
In conclusion, John Rhodes has this to say: "Admittedly, some readers might still find the standard reading more plausible. These readers may acknowledge that Josephus was susceptible to mistaking numbers or changing dates, but insisted he did not err with the date of the census. They may acknowledge that Josephus was susceptible to the ambiguity between Archelaus and King Herod, but insists that he was not guilty when reporting the mission of Quirinius. These readers may additionally find it more plausible that two insurgents against Herod were active within weeks of each other around the same time of Herod's death, both named Judas, both with connections to Sephoris, and both nicknamed in connection with a famous father. They may also prefer that while one was executed by Herod the Great for raiding Herod's temple, the other would wait 10 years after raiding Herod's armory to adopt the same manner and substance of the teaching of the first, only to have his revolt against the taxation census be opposed by the very same high priest who opposed the earlier Judas, even though this high priest was reportedly deposed twice during those 10 years. Indeed, remaining faithful to the story as told by Josephus, they insist that the similarity between Sabinus and Quirinius in both title and activity must just be as coincidental as the similarity in the accounts of Judas and Joseph. But that the mention of Coponius at Antipater's trial is some unexplained spurious insertion into the text. Admittedly, these readers may with stomp foot insist that all these features of the standard account are more plausible than the reconstruction offered here. To these readers, this study has sought to respond, really."
So, given this data, the constant cries that Luke made a horrendous blunder might be unwarranted. He may have been right all this time. In fact, his dating of the census might be his greatest triumph, demonstrating his commitment to accurate and reliable history.