THE QUIRINIUS CENSUS, 4BC OR 6AD?
ABSURDITIES SURROUNDING THE CENSUS
THE HOLY INNOCENTS THAT NEVER WERE
ABSURDITIES IN THE CHILDHOOD TALES
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
(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
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
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
·
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
* 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
* 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
easier and faster 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.
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
An inscription found in
And Luke’s claim that Joseph had to bring his pregnant wife who was ready to fall into labour any minute with him to register is ludicrous. That is bad enough but to think she had to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem when about to start her labour pains is worse. And it gets even worse again. She would have been a child of twelve when she was pregnant. She needed a team of midwives to get her through it and to help her survive a baby emerging from her undeveloped body. Where were they? Luke speaks as if she delivered the baby on her own. If pregnant women had to travel, she would certainly have been exempted.
It is only said they went to Bethlehem to enrol. It is not said they actually enrolled. Surely God would have arranged it that they got enrolled after the baby was born so that a record proving his birth in Bethlehem existed. And he would have inspired Luke to record it that they enrolled. If they had enrolled Herod could have got access to the records and there would have been no need for him to have all the babies slain to get rid of Jesus that we read about in Matthew.
Matthew speaks of Herod's plan to destroy the child. Luke does not for Luke does not think of Jesus being born in Herod's day. If they enrolled Luke and Matthew are in contradiction . If they did not enrol then it was not so important after all and they were able to get away with it. So this leaves Luke contradicting himself having them go to extreme trouble for nothing.
Only one person, the head of the
house, needed to sign. Joseph didn't need to
take Mary with him or leave his house in Nazareth. Surviving papyrus
Roman tax censuses show that the head of the house could make the return for
everybody under his roof (page 31, The
Unauthorized Version).
Luke’s assertion
that Joseph was required to register in
The Emperor who
allegedly commissioned the census would not want a migration over the whole
world with all the trouble it creates for the soldiers and for peace and for
attempts to keep crime down. And how did
Joseph know that he was descended from David?
Did he have a document? If so,
was it real? He probably did not have a
document for Jesus never used or mentioned it and had to make do with dubious
prophecies. Herod would have realised
that if the baby were the Messiah king that Joseph had to be the lawful king of
It will be objected that a
letter about a woman called Babata that was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls
proves the journey Joseph and Mary made to
If Luke had thought that Joseph was from
If Luke is to be believed, Mary and Joseph must have had plenty of money
when they determined to spend the night in the inn. How many inns did they stop at on the way
there? – obviously a lot so they must have had a lot of cash with them. They were not allowed in because it was
full. They must have expected this if
all householders descended from David were there. Why were there no camps for when they had
money with them they must have travelled with a big group to deter
robbers? Why didn’t they pay for their
keep at a private house? Why did they
have to go to a stable? Luke plainly
made up the whole yarn. So there was no
birth in the stable or angels crying, “Glory to God”, in the fields.
If Luke made up
the story then did he invent it when he said that Joseph left his home in
And how can you
be sure that the baby born in
The Case For Christ
(pages 135-6) argues from the command of Gaius Vibius Maximus, the Egyptian
Prefect, from 104 AD which instructed people to go home for the census that
Joseph could have had to take Mary from
Luke said that John the Baptist came out to preach in the fifteenth year
of the reign of Tiberias Caesar. He does
not say if Jesus who he says was about thirty was thirty then or just about
thirty some years later when John baptised him.
Luke then would plot the crucifixion in 39 AD for Jesus was born in 6AD
and preached for three years so he was about 33 when he died. On the basis that Matthew was right to date
the birth about 4BC or before and that Luke is dating Tiberias’s reign from before
it officially began for he apparently ruled for his sick father so he is dating
from when Tiberias started helping his father Augustus, Dave Hunt says that
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
The Gospel of Matthew is the only record in the world that says that King
Herod had the male babies of
Christians don’t worry about that and say that only a few babies would
have been killed for Bethlehem was a hamlet, that everybody was used to Herod
doing things like that and that nobody really cared in those barbaric times
especially about what happened in remote villages (The Case for Christ,
page 139-140).
When the prophecy from Malachi that the
Messiah would come from
The whole of Judaism had to take notice for most of them wanted the
Messiah to come fast.
The uproar would have been furious and tremendous.
According to Matthew, the magi informed King Herod that the newborn
Messiah was born in
There are lies in Matthew like all
The magi promised Herod that if they found the child they would go back
to tell him where he was so that he could go and worship him. But after they had found the child and
bestowed gifts upon him they broke their word because a dream warned them that
Herod was up to no good. This promise is
more ridiculous than them telling Herod in the first place. Only fools go and tell tyrants that a rival
has been born.
Matthew claims that Herod was furious when the magi didn’t come back. This anger was never felt for Herod could not
have really expected them to return when they had every chance of finding out
that he was a man without mercy. (And
Matthew expects us to swallow the absurdity that they had to learn what Herod’s
true colours were in a vision!) The
detail that Herod depended on them coming back is a lie for somebody as shrewd
and cynical as Herod would have arranged for them to be observed by his spies. If Herod knew about Jesus he would have known
where he was and Jesus would have been hastily dealt with and so there would
have been no massacre. It had to be
quick in case the parents would panic and the child taken to safety.
Herod would have sent guards with them, just to spy, on the pretext that
the magi were bearing expensive goods.
He did not do this for the child would have been slain on their arrival
if he had unless the truth was that Herod just laughed at their claim that the
Messiah had been born (which contradicts Matthew and means that the Massacre
never happened). Or Mary and Joseph
would have made a run for it to
If Herod waited for the magi there would have been no massacre for Herod
would have known that the baby would be hidden once the parents learned that
Herod knew. He knew the baby had to have
been gone when the Magi would not come back to tell him where he was which
indicated that they knew what a monster he was.
There was no massacre.
And would Herod and the city of Jerusalem who did not accept astrology
have worried about the magi’s claims and would Herod have used their astrology
to work out to kill only male children of two and under and by going by the
date the star allegedly appeared to the magi?
Why couldn’t the Jews see if the star was there? Matthew lied about
If Herod did not believe the magi then the massacre would not have
happened. The star would not have led
the magi to his palace. As king, Herod
must have listened to plenty of similar cranks so it would be wonder if he let
them have an audience with him at all.
And the Jews hated astrology so they would have believed that if the
stars said Christ was born then he was not the real Christ but a satanic fraud
who would come to no good. However,
Matthew says they consulted their scholars to see where Christ would be born
which was in
If Herod believed that the child was the Christ he knew that God could
warn the parents of his hatred towards it so he would have went with the
magi. Herod would have been prepared for
the family making a run for some place of refuge. There would have been no escape had he gone
and no chance of a massacre.
When Herod searched for the child it is extraordinary that he didn’t find
him for the child was still in
Mary and Joseph allegedly fled to
If the flight into
The story of the massacre is riddled with inconsistencies and
improbabilities. Matthew seems to have
made it up over not reading the prophecy he said forecasted in its context.
He said that the massacre fulfilled Jeremiah 31:15 which has nothing to
do with it at all. In the prophecy
Rachel weeps for her exiled children not dead ones. Also, would Herod kill the baby boys and
spare the fathers for the Messiah’s father or foster-father would have to be
the true king of
If Herod had been interested in doing to baby Jesus what Matthew says he
would have went after baby John the Baptist too. Luke reported that it was common knowledge in
Judea that the baby John was to be the one to pave the way for the Messiah if
he was not the Messiah himself. The
story says how happy they were to hear about John’s birth which indicates
strongly that it was believed the child would be the Messiah. Herod would have believed that if he could
not stop the coming of the Messiah he could have stalled him by getting rid of
the precursor. There was also the
possibility that John was more than just a forerunner and could actually be the
Christ himself. So when Herod did not go
after John and no secret was made about who John was supposed to be the
Massacre could not have happened.
The Assumption of Moses said
that Herod kills princes by the sword and kills them in secret and hides the
bodies and has no mercy for young or old.
This does not corroborate the massacre because the babies were not princes
and could not have been killed in secret.
The book was written just about the time of the birth of Jesus in
Matthew. A sewage pit for an ancient
villa in Ashkelon not far from
Josephus loved to chronicle the life and crimes of Herod and never
mentioned the alleged massacre of the babies.
Matthew and Luke alone record the birth and childhood of Jesus but Luke
who wrote later knew nothing of Matthew’s version.
The annunciation is the story of an angel announcing the birth of Jesus
to his mother.
Matthew’s silence on the annunciation, a tale that appears only in Luke,
proves that it never happened. Luke chose
to say an angel announced the strange conception to Mary before it happened. Matthew doesn’t mention it and has Joseph her
husband hearing about it in a dream long after he saw his wife to be was
pregnant.
Who says the dream was real? Mary
was found pregnant meaning her condition was showing so it was only then Joseph
believed her to be pregnant. She hadn’t
told him before for he had no reason to question her claim to be pregnant even
if the story of how the baby got there was the last thing he expected to
hear. There probably is a contradiction
between Luke and Matthew. Christians
never worry about probable contradictions at all. They just arrogantly assume there is no error
in the Bible.
Haley rejected the opinion of Strauss that when Mary was told in Luke
just before the conception of Jesus that she would have Jesus and in Matthew only
Joseph was told about it when Mary began to show there is a contradiction (page
406). If Mary conceived miraculously as
Haley believes, she would have told Joseph even if he would not believe for God
would convince him and take care of the future and because he had a right to
know and would know eventually.
Matthew says that the holy family lived in
Was there a
Jesus was called the Nazarene.
Nazarene meant one who was consecrated to God in a special way and could
not cut their hair.
If the gospellers made the mistake of saying Jesus’s home was a town that
never existed when he was supposedly alive that would mean they were making
things up about him. And they did make
that mistake.
Matthew says that a star led the magi or astrologers to the house where
the baby Jesus was in
One star.
Now in astrology, it would be the position of the star that counts. But there is no such thing as a system that
can tell people where a person will be born and who that person is and exactly
when he will be born and if that person is the most important person in the
world. So, the law of correspondence,
the magical law that like is connected with like, dictates that a huge star
would have to indicate such a person. A
small star would mean an important person is being born but a huge one would
imply that a more important person is being born because it is bigger.
God condemned astrology and would not make a big star appear in the right
place on the magi’s charts. Matthew
would have wanted us to realise that. So
what made them think it was a portent of a unique and divine birth? It had to have been the sudden appearance and
the size.
Though it guided them to
Matthew said that the star stopped moving over where Jesus was. A small star could not have provided such
guidance. It must have been very big.
Ignatius of Antioch thought the star was bigger and brighter than the sun
and the stars put together.
It is odd that the magi brought gifts of gold, frankincense and
myrrh. Their horoscope must have told
them that they would find a king.
Kepler found that a conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter happened in
7BC. Professor Konradin Ferrari
d’Occhieppo who was once with the Austrian State Observatory found that Jupiter
stood still in the sky in July of 7 BC and the two stars were in conjunction in
November and found that Jupiter the star of Marduk or Kakkabu was the most sacred
star in the Babylonian system of astrology both of which facts would
demonstrate that a saviour was about to be born. A clay tablet found in 1925 near the
Science and history bear witness against the star of
Luke’s tale of the finding of the child Jesus in the
Then we are told that Jesus obeyed them perfectly after that. That doesn’t seem likely after what Luke just
reported about him.
John says that the Baptist said that one is coming after him who ranks
before him because he existed before he did.
This person is Jesus. The words
were said to the Jews. They would have
taken John to be saying that Jesus was older than he was. Therefore that is what he meant. The contrast between coming after and coming
before indicates that John did mean that.
Yet the Church says he meant not that Jesus was older but that Jesus was
God and as God was before John and older in the sense that God is older for God
existed always. But the Gospel never
says that Jesus was God. And we know from
the first three gospels that John had serious doubts about Jesus. The plain sense of John’s words is that he
meant that Jesus had greater power and rank than him because he was older and
more experienced and that the two were the holiest men on earth when Jesus
could outdo him just by being older.
Suppose the Bible does not give a clue here as to what it means. The Christians put an interpretation on it
that fits their own presuppositions. But
all it can be is an interpretation and there is no evidence for it and yet this
interpretation is the real word of God to them.
They make their fantasies into the word of God. They do this a lot, an awful lot.
The trouble is that Luke contradicts himself by saying Jesus was born
after John!!
Conclusion
The Christmas story is sheer humbug.
BOOKS CONSULTED
ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE, John W Haley,
BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND CHURCH DOCTRINE, Raymond E Brown, Paulist Press,
CHRIST AND PROTEST, Harry Tennant, Christadelphian Publishing Office,
CHRISTIANITY FOR THE TOUGH-MINDED, Editor John Warwick
IN DEFENCE OF THE FAITH, Dave Hunt, Harvest House,
JESUS AND THE FOUR GOSPELS, John Drane, Lion Books, Herts, 1984
JESUS HYPOTHESES, V Messori,
NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS, GA Riplinger, Bible & Literature Foundation,
THE BIBLE UNEARTHED,
THE CASE FOR CHRIST, Lee Strobel, HarperCollins and
THE HOLY BIBLE NEW AMERICAN VERSION, Confraternity of Christian Doctrine,
THE JESUS EVENT, Martin R Tripole SJ, Alba House,
THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Kittel Gerhard and Friedrich
Gerhard, Eerdman’s Publishing Co,
THE PASSOVER PLOT, Hugh Schonfield, Element Books,
THE UNAUTHORISED VERSION. Robin Lane Fox, Penguin, Middlesex, 1992
THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION AND BODILY RESURRECTION OF JESUS, Raymond E
Brown, Paulist Press,