Pollybird writes:

"The Gospel of Luke says that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius in 6AD. But the Gospel of Matthew says the birth was during the time of Herod the Great who died 10 years earlier in 4BC."

This is correct with regards to how the issue is normally presented.  He also informs us accurately of a scholarly consensus that Jesus was born during Herod’s reign (as per Matthew), thereby directing most of the historical analysis towards Luke’s account.

Indeed, did Luke make a mistake with the census of Quirinius?  Below are three of the best resolutions to the issue, after which I hope to address some of Pollybird’s specific remarks.  (The following is drawn heavily from Glen Miller's essay found here.)

Resolution 1
Linguistic studies indicates that the relevant passage in Luke (informing us of the census) should be translated ‘BEFORE the census of Quirinius’ instead of the ‘FIRST census of Quirinius’.  In one stroke, this would solve our problems as Luke’s census could then refer to ANY one taken before Herod’s death.

One possibility is the census on Palestine carried out under the governorship of Quintillus Varus, who was governor of Syria between 6-4 BC.  It was actually due a few years earlier, but it isn’t unlikely that Herod dragged his feet on this one, as he had recently lost favour with the Emperor Augustus and therefore didn’t want any more local trouble as a result of the census - which always enraged the Jews).

Alternatively, the census could’ve been one of many under Sentius Saturninus who was governor of Syria between 9-6 BC.  According to church father Tertullian, imperial records show that census’ were conducted during this time.

But why would Luke mention all of this as appearing before the census of Quirinius in AD 6?  Probably it was because that tax-related census - the AD 6 one - hit the Jews in a particularly hard way (as recounted by Jewish historian, Josephus) making it similar to us moderns talking about ‘a recession before 1929’ or ‘a market crash before Black September’.  It would have given Luke’s readers a rough touch-point in time for which to place the birth of Jesus.

So our first resolution option (and one of the best) is that Luke was talking about a census before the one under Quirinius in AD 6.

Resolution 2
The popular translations of the Lukan verse in question could, however, be the correct one.  But we still wouldn’t need to posit a ‘discrepancy’ in his account.  The term Luke uses for Quirinius ‘governorship’ is the very general term, hegemon, which in extra-Biblical Greek was applied to prefects, provincial governors, and even Caesar himself.  In the Bible it was used as a broad term for procurators and to general ‘rulers’.  This term would’ve applied to Quirinius at MANY times in his political career and, as a general term, Syria would have had several individuals that could be properly so addressed at the same time.

And during Varus’ appointment as the Syrian governor, Quirinius was doing military expeditions in the Eastern provinces of the Roman empire and some evidence indicates that he could’ve been placed in charge of the Palestine census implemented during that period (see above).  Also, church father Tertullian wrote that Jesus was born during the governorship of Saturninus (9-6 BC) and that imperial records showed that census’ were conducted during his tenure.

In this reading, Quirinius was really the procurator of the province (whose governor could’ve been either Varus or Saturninus), which exonerates Luke’s account and his employement of hegemon to describe Quirinius.

Therefore, Luke’s census could refer to the first one conducted by Quirinius as a procurator of Syria some time before his actual governorship in AD 6.

Resolution 3 (closely linked to the second)
Finally, there is also the third option alluded to by Pollybird, but requring some correction: Quirinius could very well have been an additional governor of Syria at an earlier occasion before the second appointment in AD 6.  This is suggested from the discovery of a Latin inscription found in 1764 (near Quintillus Varus’ villa in Tivoli), which states that the subject of the inscription had twice been the ‘imperial legate’ i.e. the governor, of Syria.  Although I personally think it more likely that the inscription refers to Varus himself, some notable scholars have proposed that Quirinius better fit the bill.  It is not impossible that Quirinius was appointed an additional legate of Syria (sometime between 10-7 BC) for the purpose of conducting the Homanadensian War, while civil administration was left to Saturninus.

So, in this view, we would understand Luke to be referring to an earlier governorship of Quirinius before his second appointment in AD 6.  As this first tenure would’ve involved leadership of the Roman campaign against the Homanadensian tribe, this would push it right inside the time-frame of Herod’s reign.
 

With above taken in, I’d like to address a few of Pollybird’s specific paragraphs:

“Some researchers have tried to move Quirinius' census closer to Herod's reign, while others have tried to move Herod's death closer to the census.”

I hope it’s obvious that this phrase doesn’t do much justice to the latest research.  Quirinius’ census of 6 AD stays firmly in place and Herod’s death is not an issue (4 BC it may very well be).  Instead the evidence, as summarized above, allows us to be confident in placing Luke’s census between 10 BC to 5 BC - smack within Matthew’s timeframe.  This is about as good as historical ancient-date confirmations can get and suggests that it is perhaps our limited study and imagination (and possibly a strange pessimism regarding the Gospel writers’ capabilities?) which require more work.

“The discrepancies (in the Gospels) are not surprising, when one considers the fact that (the Gospels) were written in an age of oral history and myth, without the standards of science, history or journalism that we know of today.”

On the contrary, the only thing I find surprising here is Pollybird’s omission of some of the historical work on this issue already performed.  Maybe he should be reminded that the very historical standards he refers to urge us to give ancient writers the ‘benefit of the doubt’ when difficulties arise and not be too hasty in crying (or implying) Wolf without first meticulously scanning the historical horizon.  Assuming that Pollybird knew of the detailed investigation done regarding Luke’s passage, it’s strange he doesn’t mention that such discrepancies have either been resolved or that this problem need not undermine our confidence in Luke’s capabilities as a historian.  However, if what I’ve written is new to Pollybird, then I trust it can only inspire him to be more careful and objective in his generalisations about ancient historical documents (especially the New Testament which - by today’s standards - are second to none on the historical reliability index).

“That two people, neither of whom were eyewitnesses, have different recollections of a story that was told to them verbally, should not surprise us in the least; this same thing happens today only too often.”

This by itself would be a perfectly valid statement, as long as we don’t smuggle in a priori notions of inaccuracy into these ‘different recollections’ of ancient stories (or at least not without doing some hard research).  Varying accounts - yes.  Mistaken reporting?  Not necessarily, and certainly not in this case.

The rest of Pollybird’s article represents, in my opinion, a worthwhile and concise account of how Christmas as a festival developed throughout the centuries.  Which makes it all the more puzzling why at the end he seems to have missed the point entirely, as evidenced by his final comments:

“So when someone talks about putting Christ back into Christmas, you can ask the person what part Christ played in Christmas to begin with. Christmas is a pagan substitute for the blessing of God. When the facts about Christmas are revealed, it becomes easy to see that Jesus Christ is not and has never been a part of Christmas.”

(I've written more on 'Why celebrate Christmas?' over here in case anyone's interested...)

I think Pollybird’s statement would be more accurately applied to attempts at putting Christ back into Dec 25 the date, which can be a world of difference from the reinstatement of Christ into Christmas the celebration (which just happens to fall on Dec 25).  Without Jesus Christ, the church wouldn’t exist, much less a church-initiated festival remembering his birth (would anyone actually dispute this line of reasoning?).   And surely it is more meaningful, whenever we celebrate a festival, to bear in mind the original reason for the celebration regardless of WHEN we actually hold it.

Also, that there were pagan festivals originally held on the selected date is, to be quite blunt, irrelevant.  To radically revise one of Pollybird’s phrases - “Christmas is a pagan substitute for the blessing of God” - I’d declare that Christmas was instead the invasion upon and redefinition of pagan festivals BY the power and love of God.  This is evident from the fact that hardly anybody remembers Sol Invictus or the Mithraic celebrations.  But almost everybody knows Christmas (though, sadly, they’ve probably forgotten the reason for the season).

Finally, I submit my essential agreement with Pollybird that Christmas is predicated on the spirit of giving.  However, I would insist that to fully appreciate the season, we would do well to see the heart of the Giver and His Most Perfect and Loving Gift.  We may not know exactly when Jesus Christ was born, but we do know that his birth (indeed his life and death as well) is historically documented.  And this is what Christians celebrate and long for the rest of the world to understand - that the cries of this baby boy born in Bethlehem named Jesus is our hope and redemption in a world in need of rescue.

Jesus Christ may have played absolutely no part in Dec 25, but He certainly plays the most important part of Christmas.  His birth is the source and focal point of our joy during this time.  It’s the very same joy which inspired the early Christians to ‘take over’ the pagan festival of Dec 25.  This joy can embrace our hearts too this Christmas.