Original Post:
Many of you didn’t get the last post and couldn’t reconcile an obvious contradiction in the nativity accounts of Matthew and Luke. Some danced around it. Some dismissed it offhand. Yet none actually addressed it with any semblance of a cogent response.
So, I will isolate the most glaring contradiction in its own post.
The account in Matthew places the birth of Jesus (Yeshua) during the reign of king Herod the Great (Mat 2:1 cp. v. 22) (7-6 BCE).
The account in Luke places the birth of Jesus during the rule of legate Quirinius (Luk 2:2) (6 CE).
Background:
In the 2nd cen BCE, Judaea was under the control of the Seleucid Empire and Antiochus IV. The Jews, under the leadership of the Maccabees, rebelled against the Greeks. Simon Thassi, brother of Judas Maccabee, setup the independent Jewish state, called the Hasmonean dynasty, with recognition from Rome.
In 63 BCE, Rome invaded Judaea and after a few battles, the king Aristobulus II surrendered. Judaea became a client state of Rome, still under Hasmonean rule, under Hyrcanus II (brother of Aristobulus II).
In 40 BCE, the Parthians invaded Syria and installed Antigonus (son of Aristobulus II) as king of Judaea.
In 37 BCE, Rome reconquered Judaea with the help of the Idumean Herod the Great. Rome installed Herod as king of Judaea. Judaea was once again a client state of Rome under the Herodian dynasty.
In 4 BCE, Herod the Great died. His kingdom was divided in three between his sons: Herod Archelaus, Herod Antipas and Philip the Tetrarch.
In 6 CE, due to the extreme authoritarian rulership of Herod Archelaus and appeal from Judaea, Rome deposed Herod Archelaus and incorporated the region as a Roman province. This is the first time Judaea came under direct rule by Rome.
Quirinius was installed as the legate of Syria and given authority over Judaea. His first act was the census, as mentioned in Luk 2:2. This census led to the revolt of Judas the Galilean (mentioned in Act 5:37) and the founding of the Zealots. Simon (Mat 10:4) was a member of the Zealots, as was Barabbas and the two “robbers” crucified with Jesus.
Herod Antipas ruled as Tetrarch of Galilee until 39 CE. Philip ruled Batanaea until 34 CE. Philip was married to Herodias. After Philip died, Herod Antipas divorced his current wife (the daughter of Aretas) and married Herodias in 35 CE. This is the marriage that John the Baptist condemned and was subsequently arrested and beheaded.
This places the baptism around 34-35 CE and the crucifixion around 36 CE. This aligns with the birth of Jesus in 6 CE, during the time of the census, as Jesus was almost 30 when he was baptized.
If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, then he would be around 40 when he was crucified. Trying to place an earlier date on the crucifixion would misalign with the dates given in Josephus and other Roman historical records. John could not be arrested for condemning the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias before the actual marriage.
Conclusion:
There is a glaring contradiction between the two accounts that cannot be reconciled. Attempts to place Quirinius earlier is a fruitless endeavor. Judaea was under the control of Herod the Great. Judaea did not become an official Roman province until 6 CE and Quirinius didn’t became legate until 6 CE.
As such, most Christian scholars I’ve read say that Luke was mistaken. I disagree. The account in Luke lines up with history. It is the account in Matthew that’s in error. With the preponderance of evidence against the whole nativity account in Matthew, it is my position that it should be disregarded as an interpolation. Matthew originally began at the baptism, like Mark.
Counterargument:Here's another issue:
[1] And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
[2] (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
[3] And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
[4] And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
[5] To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
There is NO record Caesar Augustus made a decree to tax all the world. It wasn't from Quirinius originally. It says it was from Augustus. So to focus on Quirinius is in error here.
So, the fact that verse 2 is in parenthesis is telling. It is not meant to be part of the main passage context.
It can be interpreted as:
Caesar Augustus made the decree to tax and everyone went to their city
BUT
No actual taxation actually came about until Cyrenius came, somewhere somewhen the taxation administration of Augustus failed. And it only materialized when Cyrenius was appointed much later on.
Hence SHOULD. NOT WOULD. Should is potentiality.
Hence, it is reasonable that why the taxation decree by Augustus was NOT recorded, is because it failed. It achieved making everyone go home, but not actually succeeding in registering or taxing or whatever.
The wording also seems to imply that the census would take years to do. Even in today's modern society, the census takes months to do. Our 2020 census took a year starting from 2019. And we see hints that Joseph and Mary were staying Bethlehem for years.
Once you have worked in any sort of administration or bureaucracy or logistics, this is commonplace.
