WAS THE LUKE GOSPEL WRONG ABOUT THE CENSUS?
Only two of the four gospels tell us anything about the infancy of Jesus Christ.
The Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke claim to speak about the birth of
Jesus. They have given rise to the Christmas story.
The idea is that Joseph took his wife Mary from their home to Bethlehem to
register in a census. Apparently they had to leave their home and go there for
it was the rule that you had to register in your ancestor's town! That absurdity
means the one we are going to worry about - the census year! - is nothing in
comparison. Only Luke tells us that! That only increases the likelihood of it
being made up.
Other details coming from Matthew say, there was no room for them in the inn and
they had to settle in a stable and there Mary gave birth to her firstborn son
and laid him in a manger while shepherds and angels attended. Kings from the
east came with gold, frankincense and myrrh to honour the Christ child. King
Herod in a failed attempt to kill the baby Jesus had all the male babies in
Bethlehem slain.
There are a lot of problems with the tales. Also, Christianity has
manipulatively made people delight in the stories about God becoming a helpless
vulnerable baby all for us. That idea is the spiritual attraction. And the faith
knows fine well that if Jesus is God then he was only acting helpless and wasn’t
really helpless at all! He was running the universe.
What if the story makes blunders and is absurd? It matters because Christianity
claims the Bible was ultimately authored by God. If there are historical errors
in it then that is not true.
THE QUIRINIUS CENSUS, 4BC OR 6AD?
Herod died in 4 BC and Matthew claims that Jesus was born before that. Luke
however says that Jesus was born at the time of a census held by Quirinius when
Quirinius was governor of Syria. We know from Josephus that this took place in
6AD leaving a contradiction of about a decade.
(Josephus spoke of the census in his Jewish Antiquities as occurring in 6AD. By
the way, the fact that the primitive Christians did not alter this though they
did tamper with his writings proves that they had no gospels.)
It is agreed that Quirinius was governor no earlier than 6AD and that there is a
lot of evidence to support that (The Problem of Competing Claims, Richard
Carrier). Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Vol 1, says that Quirinius was
governor of Syria in 7BC according to an inscription from Antioch (page 71). The
truth is the inscription doesn’t say that at all (Biblical Errancy, January
1987). It only says he was elected a duumvir in Galatia. The falsehoods of the
Christians have to be discovered to be believed.
Christians cannot logically admit a contradiction and have tried to reconcile
the conflict.
* One solution is to say that the text of Luke is mistranslated. It is possible
that what Luke wrote ought to be translated, “The census was held before that of
Quirinius”. It is possible but not likely. This is based on fixing the Greek
text so it must be rejected (The Unauthorized Version, page 30; Jesus and the
Four Gospels, page 26). The objection casts doubt on the gospel for if it were
the word of God he would look after every word in it – besides Luke was trying
to put a year on Jesus’ birth otherwise what would he have written about this
alleged governor for? The literal interpretation is that the first census took
place when Quirinius was governor (New Testament Contradictions www).
* Another solution is to say that the census began in a small way in 4BC or so
and got thorough and was completed in 6 AD. So, Josephus is on about the proper
census or the census when it was up and running and Luke is not but just means
its feeble start.
I don’t believe that Josephus would go to the trouble of dating a census to 6AD
knowing that it had been rolling in a small way in the years previous to it. A
census as slow as that is not much of a help, actually none at all, especially
when the death rate was high. There were plenty of people to go from door to
door. Luke made the reference to the census simply because he wanted to tell us
when Jesus was born and said he meant the first enrolment. Both these tell us
the census he meant was squeezed inside one year.
Joseph would not have trailed a pregnant Mary to Bethlehem for an embryonic
census. They would wait.
Books will often tell you that Luke plots the birth of the Baptist (who was born
a few months before Christ) in the days of Herod and that since Jesus was born
soon after, Luke places the time of the census in Herod’s time.
But Luke says that the vision about John’s future birth happened in Herod’s day
and after an indeterminate time John was conceived (Luke 1:24). The vision could
have happened in 4BC and the baby born in 6AD meaning that Jesus was born in
6AD. Notice that Luke does not say that Mary was pregnant at the time John’s
mother, Elizabeth was pregnant with him. Elizabeth had previously called her the
mother of the Lord and praised the fruit of her womb but she was filled with the
Holy Spirit and sometimes prophecies are given in the present tense. She is not
saying that Mary was pregnant. Mary was not a mother yet either – even if she
was with child. And even if Elizabeth was saying it Luke does not say she was
right. Luke says John grew and became strong and that in those days the census
happened. John must have been a big boy when Mary was ready to deliver. So all
this suggests a possible date of 6 or 7 AD. Luke might have believed the census
was started and finished in 6AD. Luke knew that the messianic adulation baby
Jesus got in the Temple would not have been bestowed had this been in Herod’s
time so he must side with Josephus against Matthew.
* Another solution is that Josephus is wrong for Luke would agree with Matthew
that Jesus was born in 4BC and would date the census to then so we are wrong to
assume it must have been 6AD when the census took place. But Josephus consulted
the Roman records and Luke did not for he never mentioned any sources apart from
alleged eyewitnesses. And you can’t expect us to assume that Luke did. So even
if he did we should prefer Josephus. So Josephus, being the real historian,
comes first. The Luke gospel might be younger than Josephus. The oldest account
comes first. Luke probably is younger. We don’t even know if Luke agreed with
Matthew. When you compare the two gospels we see that they would not have been
friends for long.
The census that was Luke’s reason for Mary and Joseph going to Bethlehem where
Jesus was born came out of Josephus (page 288, The Passover Plot). Luke even
goes as far as to mention Quirinius who belonged to another country altogether
though he had authority over Judaea (page 28, The Unauthorized Version) just to
show he had read Josephus. Why use Quirinius as a way of dating? Why not say ten
years after the death of Herod or x years after the coronation of the high
priest or the emperor instead? He knew people would remember their reigns better
and historians always prefer to date things by rulers in or of their own land
and by the highest and best-known ruler. Luke agreed with Josephus when he used
him. Ignore people who say that Luke can fit with Matthew saying that Jesus came
into this world in 4BC and that Josephus is wrong for putting Luke’s census in
6AD.
* Some are so embarrassed at the thought that Luke made Jesus ten years younger
than Matthew did that they attempt to soften the contradiction to be able to say
that Luke did think Jesus was born when Matthew says but erred for the governor
of Syria was not Quirinius but Saturninus. There is no evidence that Saturninus
took a census or that Luke made a mistake. He could have looked up the history
books so it is improbable and he fancies himself as a competent historian so he
would have been cautious.
* Some say that Luke meant that the census was still happening when Quirinius
was governor though it had started before in 4BC. “Communication was not great
in those times and the Jews resisted the census so perhaps Quirinius’ census had
started long before 6AD in BC.” But Luke mentions Quirinius in an attempt to
show when Jesus was born. He uses the same method to tell us when Jesus began
his ministry and he likes to be precise about Jesus. He even said that the angel
Gabriel came to Mary in the sixth month.
Joseph and Mary would have registered before that if the enrolment was that slow
and would not have waited until she was ready to give birth.
There were not that many people in those days so a census would have been easy
and fast then. Luke wrote first that the first census happened when Quirinius
was governor. Then he says that everybody went to register. The order should be
taken to be chronological because it is most likely that it is even if it cannot
be proved. The gospel claims to be the work of a historian and that means it is
chronological except where it is hinted or stated otherwise even if the author
was an amateur. When Christians see a problem in the Bible they like to tell
you that it is not chronological to “solve” it. So Luke did say that nothing
happened until after Quirinius took office in 6AD.
Luke has a Jesus who ministered in his twenties though he forgets himself and
has Jesus starting to minister around thirty. This would mean a Jesus who was
born in 6 AD and who started ministering in 36AD just when there would have been
no Pilate to crucify him! And Matthew has one in his thirties who is at least
ten years older than Lukes. John has the Jews tell Jesus he could not have seen
Abraham for he is not yet fifty. They probably would not have said that unless
Jesus was in his forties.
ABSURDITIES SURROUNDING THE CENSUS
There is no evidence that Luke was right to say that Augustus Caesar demanded
the census and that it should be of the whole world, which he said was the
reason Mary ended up giving birth in a stable at Bethlehem. The records would
have been made for Augustus and we would expect evidence for their existence in
Rome. The evidence does not exist so Luke was a liar.
An inscription found in Venice in 1674 says that 117,000 citizens were found in
Apamea by order of Quirinius 1. The inscriptions called the Lapis Venetus. Those
who believe in it must believe that Jesus was born after 6AD for this man ruled
starting in this year. Christian believers say the census was probably started
by Augustus or by Saturninus and finished by Quirinius. This claim prevents the
census conflicting with Matthew’s information that Jesus was born in from 4 to 7
BC. But the claim contradicts the inscription. And the idea of a Syrian ordering
Venice to do a head count is laughable. Is the inscription real?
The problem of Luke saying the census happened under Quirinius who reigned from
6AD and making it fit with Matthew who says Jesus was born before Herod died in
4BC is reportedly solved by saying that a coin shows that Quirinius reigned from
11 BC and then reigned again the time Luke says. Or that there were two
Quiriniuses. wor
First, where are the coins that date from his reign in 6 AD? He did not have
coins. A coin supposedly showing there was another Quirinius who was governor in
12 BC has been shown to be dubiously interpreted. It is people seeing patterns
in a worn coin that are not there. And the coin has micrographic writing and is
hard to make out (page 136).
It would seem that Quirinius did not have himself on coins. Moreover, if there
had been two of them Josephus would have made that clear and so would Luke. Both
were writing for people who were not from that region. Quirinius did not become
governor until after Herod died so Luke does plot Jesus’ birth in 6AD at least
ten years after Matthew said he was born.
39 AD CRUCIFIXION?
Luke said that John the Baptist came out to preach in the fifteenth year of the
reign of Tiberias Caesar. He says Jesus was about thirty when John baptised him.
But though it is assumed Jesus was thirty in that year there is no reason to.
John could have preached in that year and not baptised Jesus for some years
later.
If Jesus was 33 when he died, then a birth in 6 AD means he was 30 in 36AD and
33 in 39 AD.
If so then Luke plots Jesus' crucifixion in 39 AD.
On the basis that Matthew was right to date the birth about 4BC or before what
then? Some say that Luke is dating Tiberias’s reign from before it officially
began. This assumes he ruled for his sick father, Is Luke really likely to date
from when Tiberias started taking care of affairs for his father Augustus?
Augustus was still ruler!
If these things are the case, then as Dave Hunt says, Jesus must have started
his ministry when he was about thirty in 24 –25 AD. This is nonsense for
Tiberias’ reign could not be counted from then but from when he was crowned
emperor. Nobody counts time like that. How could Luke expect his readers to know
what year he meant if he counted an unusual way? So Luke meant that Jesus came
after John who came in the fifteenth year which was 27 to 29 AD which completely
contradicts the date of the birth of Jesus, 4BC at the latest, given by Matthew.
It also supports the thesis that Luke dated Jesus’ birth about 6 AD. When there
is no evidence that Luke and Matthew were complementary it is wrong to assume
that they are.
The fact of the matter is, the infancy stories of Matthew and Luke are
contradictory. One or both of them is false. One of these gospels is lying about
being an account of the life of Jesus because if they could not get his age
right there is a serious problem. A biographer who wrote things about Diana
Princess of Wales and thought she was 30 when she died would obviously be a
fake.
Conclusion
The New Testament errs gravely about when Jesus was allegedly born. The
implications are huge.
BOOKS CONSULTED
ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE, John W Haley, Whitaker House, Pennsylvania,
undated
BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND CHURCH DOCTRINE, Raymond E Brown, Paulist Press, New York,
1985
CHRIST AND PROTEST, Harry Tennant, Christadelphian Publishing Office,
Birmingham, undated
CHRISTIANITY FOR THE TOUGH-MINDED, Editor John Warwick Montgomery, Bethany
Fellowship, Minnesota, 1973
IN DEFENCE OF THE FAITH, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene, Oregon, 1996
JESUS AND THE FOUR GOSPELS, John Drane, Lion Books, Herts, 1984
JESUS HYPOTHESES, V Messori, St Paul Publications, Slough, 1977
NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS, GA Riplinger, Bible & Literature Foundation, Tennessee,
1993
THE BIBLE UNEARTHED, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, Touchstone
Books, New York, 2002
THE CASE FOR CHRIST, Lee Strobel, HarperCollins and Zondervan, Michigan, 1998
THE HOLY BIBLE NEW AMERICAN VERSION, Confraternity of Christian Doctrine,
Washington DC, 1970
THE JESUS EVENT, Martin R Tripole SJ, Alba House, New York, 1980
THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Kittel Gerhard and Friedrich
Gerhard, Eerdman’s Publishing Co, Grand Rapids, MI, 1976
THE PASSOVER PLOT, Hugh Schonfield, Element Books, Dorset, 1996
THE UNAUTHORISED VERSION. Robin Lane Fox, Penguin, Middlesex, 1992
THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION AND BODILY RESURRECTION OF JESUS, Raymond E Brown,
Paulist Press, New York, 1973