the contradictions between Luke and Matthew on Jesus birth?

Question

According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death. Does any body else find this odd ?

now don't get me wrong i am christian but i also relize that the bible has been retranslated over and over by man so how can it be perfect ?

Answer 1

When Luke says this was the "first" census that took place under Quirinius, the Greek word "prote," usually translated "first," according to some Greek scholars can also be translated "prior." If that is Luke’s meaning, then, he would be referring to a census taken prior to the one taken when Quirinius was governor in 6 A.D. It is possible that a prior census was taken, or was even taken by Quirinius himself.

Historians know that Quirinius had a government assignment in Syria between 12 B.C. to 2 B.C. He was responsible for reducing the number of rebellious mountaineers in the highlands of Pisidia. As such, he was a highly placed military figure in the Near East and highly trusted by Emperor Caesar Augustus. Augustus, knowing of the turmoil in Herod the Great’s territory, may well have put his trusted friend Quirinius in charge of a census enrollment in the region of Syria just before the end of Herod’s life.

The time period from 7 to 6 B.C. also coincides with the transition period between the rule of the two legates of Syria: Saturninus from 9 to 6 B.C. and Varus from 7 to 4 B.C. The transition of power between these two men took place between 7 to 6 B.C., and Augustus again may have appointed his friend Quirinius to step in and conduct a census taxation when he could not trust anyone else.

For those who say a Roman census could not have been carried out in Herod’s kingdom while Herod was alive, I have to say that this is simply not true. Records have now been found that show the emperor did take censuses in vassal kingdoms like Herod’s. In fact, when Herod died, his domain was divided among his three sons, and Augustus ordered that taxes be reduced in the territory of one of his sons. It proves the Roman emperor was not afraid to intervene in one of his vassal kingdoms.

Further, it is now known that in 8-7 B.C., Herod came into disfavor with Augustus and was thereafter treated as a subject rather than a friend. It resulted in Herod’s autonomy being taken away from him.

Third, historians have also discovered that the people of Herod’s domain took an oath of allegiance not just to Herod, but to both Augustus and Herod, which proves there was a greater involvement of Augustus in Herod’s realm.

Finally, Luke’s account points to a census taken before Herod the Great’s death and the division of his kingdom. Why? It would have been highly implausible to think that after Herod’s kingdom had been divided between his three sons in 4 B.C. that people in Nazareth under Herod Antipas would have traveled to Bethlehem, the territory belonging to Archelaus for purposes of taxation. It makes more sense that such traveling would have been done when all the territories were under Herod’s rule himself and Augustus called for an overall census.

Answer 2

The date of Herod's death is debatable but there is considerable evidence pointing to 1 B.C.E. The registration which took place under Quirinius in 6 or 7 was actually the second one. Inscriptions discovered around Antioch reveal that he served as the emperor's legate earlier. He was governor twice. His first governorship was probably between 3 and 2 B.C.E. So Luke got it right when he says this first registration took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria . Thus we read at Luke 2:2 in the New American Standard Bible: "This was the FIRST census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria."

Jesus was evidently born in the fall of 2 B.C.E.

Hannah J Paul

Answer 3

Not in the least. Think of the audience of each testifier. Matthew's was the Jews, while Luke's was the Gentiles.

Matthew knew that Jesus was the Christ, and being a Jew he also knew what was of vital importance to the Jews when looking for the Messiah. He knew that proof of His lineage was very important, therefore he started his testimony off with Christ's lineage. He also knew that multiples of 7 were of great importance to Jews, so he fixed the lineage so that it reflected that Christ's birth was in deed a multiple of 7. (see Matt 1) He even left out a few in the lineage so it would work out right. If Matthew was willing to do this, is it any surprise that he would also time Christ's birth to coincide with a great Jewish massacre? Not really. Because Matthew understood that it was the fact that Christ was born that was important, not the year in which he was born.

Luke's focus however, was to the Gentiles, because he himself was a Gentile.
Also remember that it's not like people kept journals, and since the Bible had not yet been compiled, there was no Bible to write birthdays and such in to keep track of exactly what year a person was born in. So it's off by 10 or so years, big deal. The year of His birth isn't the important thing, His life, teachings, example and Atonement are.

EDIT: It's not 100% accurate. But it has a LOT of truth to it, so we take what we can get.

Answer 4

Sure. But what do you expect from a 20 centuries old document crafted from sources of the 1st century - without computers, and most people can't write or afford a form of a book. Of course they're different! If they were the same they'd be a forgery, or copied from one another. The fact that we have 2 different sources with substantial agreement in parts of the genealogy is actually quite remarkable. We can't judge the gospels like we do a 21st century cut and paste document. The "contradiction" you mentioned (if indeed you are referring to the genealogies) is actually a good indication that these documents are from the period they purport to be. The author's (Matthew and Luke) certainly want to get across the message via the genealogy that Jesus is genuinely Jewish, and a legitimate heir to the Messianic throne.

Answer 5

That can't be, the bible is the word of God a perfect being. Maybe Jesus was born during the time of Herod and then miraculously went back into a fetus and was re-born. Or the whole of the bible is false and people have been brainwashed into believing this children's story.
The whole bible is odd and in fact people following books that were written at the earliest 2000 years ago is extremely sad and strange.

Answer 6

It's because no one really knows. Remember, all the books of the New Testament were written years after the death of Christ. The earliest one known was written about AD 65 and he died around 26 - 30 AD depending upon who and what you believe and how old you believe he was when he died. He was apparently born around 4 BC so that would mean if he was 30 when he was crucified, that he died in 26 AD. Truth of the matter is - no one really knows since no one kept records that were all that accurate in those days. And remember, every one who copied down the Biblical books, tended to embellish it their own way, correcting what they didn't like so the actual Bible as written doesn't resemble anything like what we have today.

Answer 7

There is a discrepancy of a few years concerning the Gregorian calendar that we use today; Christ wasn't really born at the beginning of "year 0", but about 4 years prior.
However, when secular historical records conflict with the Bible, I'll just believe the Bible and chalk it up to incorrect recording of dates.

Answer 8

Herod didnt die until well after Jesus' ministry, remember it was his daughter who wanted John the Baptists head. Also, the Magi didnt come the day Jesus was born, it was a couple years later.

Answer 9

No I don't. Considering how many hands the original transcripts have gone through and then compile that with how many translations the poor Bible has been through, it's a wonder we have it in as good a shape that it's in. You can blame the inconsistencies on man, OK?

Answer 10

Peace!
The contradictions have nothing to do with my salvation so I do not worry about them. Maybe Matthew and Luke had different sources.