"The resistance of the Homqnadensians must have been broken by the time the net of Roman roads was laid out in the province of Galatia in 6 B.C.; therefore, at least the major part of this war must have been over by the date... Quirinius could have been free to attend to other business in the East." (FiJ.BC 236-36)
English Canon E.C. Hudson has documented that Quirinius was highly successful in his mission against the Homqnadensians. More than 4,000 prisoners were taken, Quirinius was awarded the distinction of a triumph, and those of the colony of Pisidian Antioch elected him honorary duumvir, or chief magistrate, with a perfect, M. Servillius, designated to act for him. (HuH.PF 15;106)
Quirinius great ability contrasts vividly with the inexperience of Quinctilius Varus, official governor of Syria from 7 or 6 BC. Blaiklock, having investigated the evidence at length, shows that Varus "was a man for whom Augustus may justifiably have entertained no great regard. Augustus, above all, was an able judge of men, and it was Quinctilius Varus, who in AD 9, reprehensibly lost three legions in the Teutoburger forest in Germany, one of the most shocking disasters to Roman arms in the century. Assuming that Augustus had some misgivings over the ability of Varus to handle an explosive situation, it is easy to see a reason for special intrusion, under other direction, in the affairs of Varus' province. A reasonable reconstruction might assume that Varus came to Syria in 7 B.C., and untried man. The Census was due in Palestine in 8 or 7 B.C., and it could well be that Augustus ordered the man who had just successfully dealt with the problem of the Pisidian highlands, to undertake the delicate task. Herod I had recently lost favor of the emperor, and may have been temporizing about the taking of the census, a process which always enraged the difficult Jews. Quirinius' intervention, the requisite organization, and the preparation for the census, could easily have postponed the actual date of registration to the end of B.C., a reasonable date."
It is likely then that Quirinius held a ruling position over Syria by special commission. There is a key confirmation: Luke 2:2 allows for this leadership arrangement since the Greek term used does not specify that Quirinius was the official governor of Syria, only that he was in some was governing, ruling or leading Syria.
The dictum of Aristotle, commonly followed for all works of antiquity, is that the benefit of the doubt must be given to the author, not arrogated by three critic himself. The reason classical scholars follow this practice (and why New Testament critics ought to as well) is that the author of classical work, being much closer to the events in question, has a decided advantage in knowing details of the situation which the critic, removed from the event by centuries of time, has no way of knowing. Therefore it is one thing to claim a historical contradiction but quite another to prove it.
Since the historical documentation of ancient times in general and of Syria at this time in particular is scanty, can we trust Luke for his historical accuracy?
