The arguement over the date of Jesus birth

-



QUESTION: Luke says that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinus, which took place in 6 CE, whereas Matthew says Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod, who died ten years earlier, in 4 BCE.


The statement identifies one of the most discussed historical difficulties in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' birth. Luke and Matthew appear to place Jesus' birth in different historical periods. The question is whether these accounts can be reconciled historically, or whether they preserve different traditions about Jesus' birth.

1. What does Matthew say?

Matthew 2:1 states:

“Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king…” (KJV)

Matthew describes the visit of the Magi, Herod's attempt to kill the child Jesus, and the family's flight to Egypt (Matthew 2:1–18).

The traditional historical date for Herod the Great's death is 4 BCE. This date is based principally on evidence from the Jewish historian Josephus, who describes events surrounding Herod's death and the succession of his son Archelaus.

If Matthew's chronology is correct, Jesus must have been born before Herod died, probably sometime around 6–4 BCE, although the precise year remains uncertain.

2. What does Luke say?

Luke 2:1–2 introduces Jesus' birth by referring to a census:

“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)” (Luke 2:1–2, KJV)

The name Cyrenius in the King James Version is the Roman official Publius Sulpicius Quirinius.

Quirinius is securely associated with the Roman census of Judaea in 6 CE, following the removal of Archelaus and the incorporation of Judaea under direct Roman administration.

This creates the difficulty:

  • Matthew places Jesus' birth before Herod's death in 4 BCE.

  • Luke appears to associate Jesus' birth with a census conducted in 6 CE.

The dates are approximately ten years apart. Jesus cannot have been born during both events if Luke is referring to the well-documented census of 6 CE in its usual historical sense.

3. How do scholars attempt to resolve the problem?

There are several explanations, but none has achieved universal acceptance.

Explanation 1: Quirinius conducted an earlier census

Some Christian scholars propose that Quirinius held an earlier administrative or military position in Syria and was involved in a census before Herod's death.

If an earlier census could be established, Luke's account might be reconciled with Matthew's chronology.

The difficulty is that there is no conclusive historical evidence that Quirinius conducted an earlier census in Judaea while Herod was still alive. The proposal remains possible in theory but unproven.

Explanation 2: Luke refers to an earlier registration

Luke 2:2 contains a Greek expression that has been translated in different ways. Some interpreters argue that the verse could refer to a registration conducted before Quirinius governed Syria, rather than one conducted when he governed it.

This interpretation would help reconcile the accounts if the Greek wording supported it.

However, the usual translation is that the registration occurred when Quirinius governed Syria. The alternative interpretation is disputed and is not generally accepted as a definitive solution.

Explanation 3: Luke has confused two historical events

Some scholars conclude that Luke associated Jesus' birth with the better-known census of 6 CE, although Jesus was born earlier.

The census was historically significant because it followed the removal of Herod's son Archelaus and provoked opposition to Roman rule. Luke himself mentions this later census in Acts 5:37.

On this interpretation, Luke's account contains a chronological error. The University of Iowa's biblical archaeology resource explains why many historians regard this as the most straightforward reading of the available evidence.

Explanation 4: The Gospel writers had different purposes

Matthew and Luke were not writing modern biographies with identical chronological structures.

  • Matthew emphasises Jesus as the Messiah who fulfils Israel's Scriptures. His birth narrative highlights Bethlehem, the Magi, Herod and the family's flight to Egypt.

  • Luke places Jesus' birth within the wider setting of the Roman Empire, emphasising Augustus's decree, the census, the shepherds and God's salvation for all people.

Their theological purposes do not, by themselves, resolve the chronological discrepancy. Nevertheless, they help explain why the writers present the birth narratives differently.

4. What does this mean for the reliability of the Gospels?

It is important to distinguish three questions.

First, is the historical discrepancy real?

Yes. If Matthew's reference to Herod the Great and Luke's reference to Quirinius's well-documented census are understood in their conventional historical senses, the dates do not agree. The census occurred around ten years after Herod's death.

Second, does this prove that the entire Gospel account is unreliable?

A chronological difficulty in one passage does not automatically invalidate every other historical claim made by the same author. Each claim must be assessed on its own evidence.


Third, must a Christian abandon belief in the inspiration of Scripture?

Not necessarily. Christians approach this question differently. Some seek a historical reconciliation; others acknowledge a possible chronological error while maintaining that Scripture communicates its theological message faithfully. The conclusion depends partly on one's understanding of biblical inspiration and historical accuracy.

5. What can we reasonably conclude about Jesus' birth?

The most widely accepted historical reconstruction places Jesus' birth sometime around 6–4 BCE, before Herod the Great's death. The precise year cannot be established with certainty. The conventional AD/BC calendar was calculated centuries later and does not place Jesus' birth in the year 1 as originally intended.

The census of Quirinius in 6 CE is a separate, historically attested event. Connecting that particular census directly with Jesus' birth creates the chronological problem.

The discrepancy should be acknowledged honestly rather than explained away too quickly. The proposed reconciliations are worth examining, but the surviving historical evidence does not establish that Luke's census and Matthew's Herodian chronology can be fully harmonised. That is the central issue for anyone studying the historical reliability of the infancy narratives

Popular posts from this blog

Speaking in tongues for today - Charles Stanley

-
Image
There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. … But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all. … And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. … Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way - 1 Corinthians 12:4, 7, 28, 30—31 The Lord Jesus Christ had come and gone. The church—newly birthed—was in a transition time. The new covenant was seen as a threat to the Jewish leaders; therefore, there was persecution for those who had chosen to follow Christ. The new religion, in its infant stages, had no Bible, few leaders, and absolutely no support from the government. Astounding that it survived, isn’t it?  How in the world did it survive with so little going for it? Power. Not just a force, but mighty, visible power. Th...
Read more

What is the glory (kabod) of God?

-
Image
2 CORINTHIANS 4:17 "This light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison." Scripture places a high value on God 's glory, and it is not hard to figure out why. Since the inherent glory of the Lord is something that He will not share with others (Isa. 42:8), we know that His glory is something that He prizes highly; indeed, He prizes it more highly than anything else. We should, therefore, set the glory of God as the goal and overarching emphasis of our lives. Whatever we lose for the sake of making the Lord's glory known will be worth it when we see the dazzling light and beauty of; the divine glory (28:5; Rev. 21:23). Glory has to do with light and beauty, but those aspects do not sum up what the Bible means when it speaks of the glory of God. Interestingly, the Hebrew word kabod , which is translated into English as "glory," has the root meaning of "weight" or "heaviness....
Read more

The Holy Spirit causes us to cry out: Abba, Father

-
Image
Pentecostés. Óleo sobre lienzo, 275 × 127 cm. Madrid, Museo del Prado. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) To bring out the same truth in another way, Paul says God sent Jesus (as a Man) to live under the Law in order “to redeem those under law, that we [Jews and Gentiles ] might receive the full rights [adoption] of sons” ( Galatians 4:5).  By “full rights” or “adoption” he means entering into the privileges and responsibilities of sonship. He uses it also of the sonship of Israel (Romans 9:4). Galatians 4:1, 2 indicate that the son and heir of a wealthy family in Paul’s day would be treated as a slave until he became of age.  Then he would receive the adoption, that is, all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that belonged to an adult member of that family. Adoption was also used in the modern sense, so that Gentiles who were not sons of Abraham became true heirs, true sons of God , by faith.  Jesus died, not just to save us from the fires of hell, bu...
Read more