The current year is 2016 because the world follows a Western calendar, which calculates its years beginning with the birth of Jesus, who most people believe was born in Bethlehem in Judea 2,016 years ago. Nowhere, however, does the New Testament specify when Jesus was born, and the currently accepted year is unlikely to be correct.  Indeed, only two of the canonical gospels --Matthew and Luke-- even mention Jesus' birth. Furthermore, being driven primarily by theological considerations rather than by a concern with historical accuracy, the two infancy narratives not only contradict one another in almost every detail; they also run counter to logic and are completely unsupported by the historical evidence.

Dionysius calculated Jesus' birth date as December 25, 753 AUC (Ab Urbe Condita, "from the founding of the city"). One speculation is that Dionysius based his date on Luke's gospel, which states, "Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work" (Luke 3:23) and that this occurred "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius" (Luke 3:1). Tiberius' reign began around 767 AUC, which became 14 A.D. in Dionysius' calendar. Counting backwards, 754 AUC became 1 A.D., the year Jesus was born (see Mason 2000). Another proposal is that Dionysius based his calculations on a tradition that the Roman emperor Augustus reigned for 43 years, followed by the emperor Tiberius. ‪If Jesus was 30 years old in the 15^th year of Tiberius' reign, then he lived 15 years under Augustus, placing Jesus' birth during Augustus' 28^th year as emperor. ‪Since Augustus became emperor in 727 AUC, Dionysius placed Jesus' birth in 754 AUC. Both methods of calculation, if used, would have led Dionysius to 754 AUC as the year Jesus was born.

A fundamental contradiction exists, however, between Diocletian's date for the birth of Jesus and that presented by Matthew and Luke. Both Matthew (2:1) and Luke (1:5) place Jesus' birth in "the days of Herod",³ who died in 750 AUC, four years prior to the year designated by Dionysius (see Barnes 1968, discussed below). The birth stories of Matthew and Luke contain yet another contradiction regarding the date of Jesus' birth. If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, whose actions are central to Matthew's infancy narrative, he would have to have been born by at least 4 BCE, and likely earlier. This date stands in direct contradiction to the date implied by Luke's nativity story in which Jesus was born during the census of Judea, as that census took place in 6/7 CE.⁴

In order to understand this discrepancy, it is necessary to recognize that both Matthew and Luke present theologically driven infancy narratives rather than historical accounts of Jesus' birth.⁵ Consequently, any serious evaluation of the two infancy narratives (or, for that matter, of any biblical writings) must examine how the telling of a specific story enhances the larger theological message of the respective author.⁶ For example, Matthew locates his infancy narrative in a Palestinian Jewish context, whereas Luke situates his narrative in the larger Gentile/Roman world. Matthew's placing of Jesus' birth during the reign of Herod, a Jewish king; his mention of the Jewish scribes and priests; his account of the Slaughter of the Innocents and of the escape to Egypt, as well as his repeated insertion of Old Testament prophecies to account for those events, places Jesus' birth squarely within a Palestinian Jewish context. Luke, on the other hand, situates Jesus' birth during the reign of a Roman emperor and a census conducted by a Roman governor under the instructions of that emperor. Furthermore, instead of magi visiting "he who has been born king of the Jews" (Matt 2: 2), Luke has Jesus visited by shepherds who come to praise "Christ the Lord," with no reference whatever to Jesus' Jewishness. Also, while Herod is mentioned in passing to locate the time of John the Baptist's birth (Luke 1:5),⁷ he is not mentioned even once in relation to Jesus' birth. Thus, the significant historical figures directing actions surrounding Jesus' birth in Matthew are Jewish and Palestinian, whereas in Luke they are Gentile and Roman. In the former, they are parochial; in the latter they are universal.

Raymond Brown underscores the significance of Luke's placing the birth of Jesus in a Roman context. According to Brown, we see a backward shift of the Christological moment (i.e., the moment when God reveals who Jesus is) in the New Testament from Jesus' resurrection in Paul (Romans 1:4; see also Acts 13:32-33) to his baptism in both Mark (1:11) and Matthew (3:17), to his birth in Luke. Significantly, according to Brown (1977:414-415),

The Fourth Gospel, pushed the Christological moment back even further. In John, Jesus was always divine. The very first verse of the John's gospel states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1) In other words, in John, Jesus and God are, and have always been, one. Thus, it is in John, and in no other gospel, that when asked how he could possibly know Abraham, Jesus replies, "Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8: 57-58). Jesus became human in John's gospel through an undefined process: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). There is, therefore, no birth story in John because, being God, Jesus clearly pre-existed Joseph and Mary.

Of the four canonical gospels, only Matthew and Luke contain stories related to the birth of Jesus. Nowhere else in the entire New Testament is there even a single mention of Jesus' birth, or of the miraculous events that purportedly surrounded his birth. Both Mark and John begin their gospels with Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist and contain no birth stories.⁹ In addition, not once in their entire gospels do either Mark or John make a single reference to anything related to Jesus' birth. Mark never mentions Joseph, Jesus' father, and John does not once mention Mary, his mother. Even when the validity of Jesus' mission is challenged in John (7:40-43) because he is from Galilee, not Bethlehem --which would have been a perfect opportunity to mention Jesus' miraculous birth in Bethlehem-- John has Jesus and his followers say nothing about it, suggesting that the author may not have been aware of such a belief.

When they heard these words, some of the people said, 'This is really the prophet.' Others said, 'This is the Christ.' But some said, 'Is the Christ to come from Galilee? Has not the scripture said that the Christ is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?' So there was a division among the people over him. (John 7:40-43)

According to Mathew's gospel (and implied by Luke's gospel), Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. Herod became King of Judea by overthrowing Antigonus in 37 BCE and ending the Hasmonean Dynasty, which had ruled Judea since the Maccabbean revolt against the Seleucid Empire in 166 BCE. Herod was a vassal of Rome¹³ and served at its pleasure as long as he maintained peace in the territories under his control, paid tribute to Rome, and supported Rome and its allies in their wars. As mentioned previously, the consensus among scholars is that Herod died in 4 BCE. Barnes (1968) presents the multiple, independent evidence for this date.

1.    Herod's successors (his three sons) all reckoned the beginning of their reigns as 5/4 BCE.

2.    Calculating backwards from the end of each son's reign, likewise, confirms that all three of Herod's sons began their reigns in 5/4 BCE.

6.    Herod was just under 70 when he died. Josephus (Antiquities 14: 158) indicates that he was 25 in 47 BCE.¹⁸

As previously indicated, Matthew places Jesus' birth squarely during the reign of Herod the Great. Indeed, the central dramatic event driving Matthew's infancy narrative is Jesus' escape from Herod's slaughter of all the male children under two years of age in the town of Bethlehem (Matt 2:16). This story, however, cannot be given even a hint of credibility. Such an unprecedented slaughter of innocent children would have left its mark for years on the local population, as well as on those who documented the events of the day. Yet, despite the unparalleled brutality represented by the heinous murder of so many innocent children, not a single other source, Christian or non-Christian, makes any mention of this event. There is no mention of it in any Roman documents from that time period, or in any Jewish sources, such as the Talmud and the Mishna, both of which contain running commentaries on local events. It is also not mentioned by Josephus, the principle Jewish historian of that time period, who wrote in extensive detail about events in the region, and who would have relished the opportunity to add to the catalogue of wrongdoings by Herod. There is also no mention of a slaughter by Philo, a prominent Jewish philosopher, who also wrote at that time. Josephus' silence on this event, given both his detailed discussion of so many other events that took place at this time and his particular antipathy towards Herod, is especially devastating to the credibility of Matthew's account. Indeed, as Mason (2000) notes,

In a similar vein, Brown (1977: 31) asks,

Narrow escape stories were not confined to Mesopotamian tradition; indeed, they were quite common throughout the ancient world. Suetonius wrote that prior to Caesar Augustus' birth a foreshadowing appeared indicating that a future ruler of Rome had been born. This was perceived as a direct threat by Roman senators, who forbade any boys to be born that year. Augustus, however, narrowly escaped being killed.

France (1979: 98-99) illustrates the ubiquity of such stories.

If we want to find the origin of Matthew's tale of Herod's mass murder of children, we need to look not to the first-century history of Judea, but to the stories of the Old Testament, which Matthew borrowed and applied to Jesus incessantly, as well as to the legends of such births that circulated throughout the ancient world.¹⁹ Matthew's story of an evil King Herod killing the male children of Bethlehem in order to protect his reign in Judea is simply the reapplication of the Old Testament story of an evil Pharaoh slaughtering all the male children of the Israelites in order to protect his rule in Egypt (Exodus 2:1-10).²⁰ The structure of the two stories is remarkably similar (see Brown 1977: 113). Furthermore, the Slaughter of Innocents story and the subsequent flight to and return from Egypt --"Out of Egypt have I called my son." (Matt 2:15)-- was but one of many stories in which Jesus' life parallels that of Moses. Others include Jesus presenting the 8 Beatitudes in his Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:1-11), just as Moses brought his 10 commandments down from Mount Sinai (Exodus 20:1-17); Jesus fasting for 40 days and 40 nights in the desert (Matt 4:1-2) just as Moses did not eat or drink for 40 days and 40 nights while on the mountain (Exodus 34:28); and Jesus choosing 12 disciples (Matt:1-4) just as Moses chose 12 leaders of the 12 tribes (Numbers 13:2-3). Significantly, Matthew 2:20 even paraphrases Exodus 4:19 almost exactly when God commands Joseph to return from Egypt to Israel.²¹

The magi, star and slaughter of the innocents stories are simply props in Matthew's theologically driven infancy narrative. They cannot be accepted as historical.

The Census of Quirinius

(Byzantine mosaic, ca. 1315)

To add to the confusion presented by the two infancy narratives, Matthew's story of Jesus' birth during the reign of Herod stands in direct contradiction to Luke's claim that Jesus was born during the census called by Caesar Augustus and administrated by Quirinius, Governor of Syria. According to Luke,

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David,²² which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. (Luke 2:1-7)

Luke's account of the census at the time of Jesus' birth contains several fundamental problems. To begin with, apart from Luke, there is not a single reference anywhere in the historical record to a census encompassing the entire Roman Empire (i.e., "all the world") during the reign of Augustus, or, for that matter, of any other Roman emperor. Indeed, as Gier (1987:145) states, "The Romans kept extremely detailed records of such events. Not only is Luke's census not in these records, it goes against all that we know of Roman economic history."

Censuses were undertaken by Rome primarily for the purpose of collecting taxes. The two most common taxes collected by Rome were a poll tax (tributum capitis) and a tax on agricultural produce (tributum soli) (Schurer 1891:401).²³ Given the distinct legal statuses of the various provinces and client kingdoms that made up the empire, a universal census would have been both useless and irrelevant. Rome only conducted a census of those territories that were under its direct rule. Territories, such as Judea, which were under the rule of a client king, paid a fixed annual tribute to Rome and provided soldiers to support Roman military ventures under local military command. Both of these provisions were part of the treaty arrangements that existed between the Roman Empire and its vassal states. Rome would, therefore, have had no reason to census these regions and, indeed, such an action would have been considered a serious treaty violation. There were three censuses of Roman citizens during Augustus' reign: in 28 and 8 BCE and in 13-14 CE (Brown 1977:549), but not one Roman census of the territory of a client state.

Herod maintained a formidable army and police force and undertook extensive building projects, including building the port city of Caesarea and reconstructing of the Great Temple in Jerusalem. These expenses, combined with the costs of administering his kingdom and the payment of tribute to Rome, required the collection of considerable taxes (see Zeitlin 1967: 96-98; Horsley 1995: 137-144; 216-221). In addition to continuing to collect the taxes introduced by the Hasmonean rulers he had overthrown, Herod instituted new taxes, including a poll tax that everyone (male and female) had to pay. There was also a tributary tax and a tax on the land (one-third of the seed and one-half of the harvest). He also collected a tax on houses and real estate, as well as a purchase tax paid by both the buyer and seller in a transaction. Caravans passing through Judea had to pay an import and export tax at its borders. Herod also established an office for collecting revenue at the newly constructed port of Caesarea, and collected rents from colonists he settled on land within his kingdom. It is estimated that Herod's subjects paid close to 40% of their income to him in taxes in one form or another. In order to calculate what revenues to collect, Herod conducted periodic censuses, which were vehemently disliked by the populace. There was, therefore, no need for Rome to conduct a census; Rome simply collected tribute from Herod, who was responsible for his own finances. According to Zeitlin (ibid.: 99),

The second issue is the date of the census. The very fact that Quirinius conducted the census demonstrates that it could not have been undertaken while Herod was king of Judea, because Quirinius was not the Governor of Syria when Herod was still alive. Herod died in 4 BCE, but Quirinius did not become Governor of Syria until 6 CE, a full 10 years later. From 10/9 BCE to 7/6 BCE the governor of Syria was Sentius Saturninus, and from 7/6 BCE to 4 BCE it was Quinctilius Varus (Schurer 1891: 405-406).

As long as Herod was in power and fulfilled his treaty obligations, there was no need for Rome to conduct a census. However, following the death of Herod, Rome divided his kingdom among his three sons. Archelaus was given Judea and Samaria; Antipas was given Galilee and Perea; and Phillip was made tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis, the most northeastern portion of his father's kingdom. From Rome's perspective, the latter two sons maintained effective administrations. Archelaus, on the other hand, did not. Continuous mismanagement and political instability led Rome to remove Archelaus and administer his territories directly. Rome did this in 6 CE. In the process of establishing direct administration over the two territories formerly ruled by Archelaus. Augustus commanded Quirinius, the Governor of Syria, to undertake a census of Judea and Samaria, which were placed under his command. It makes sense that Rome's census would have been conducted in 6-7 CE, as this marked both the beginning of direct Roman Rule and Quirinius' tenure as legate of Syria. Quirinius would have needed to conduct a census upon assuming office in order to assess the economic resources of the region under his control so as to determine what revenues he could collect as taxes to remit to Rome and to fund his new administration.

Given that both the death of Herod and the census of 6/7 CE provoked violent uprisings, which were described in detail by Josephus, an earlier Roman census, had it occurred, would also have produced a violent response. Yet, not a single mention exists of such an uprising by Josephus or anyone else. Schurer (1891:418-419) notes the significance of this lack of evidence.

Finally, there is the issue of Joseph taking his family from Galilee to Bethlehem in order to be counted in the census. There are several problems with this claim. First, as already indicated, the census included only Judea and Samaria, the territories formerly ruled by Archelaus. No one from Galilee would have been included in this census, as the census was conducted in order to determine the tax base for the two new Roman provinces only. Living in the territory ruled by Herod Antipas, which is where he would have paid his taxes, Joseph would have had no reason to leave his place of residence and travel to the new Roman province of Judea to be counted in a census that had nothing to do with him. In a Roman census, landed property had to be registered for taxation within the locality in which it was situated. The person to be taxed had to register in the place where he lived, or in the chief town of his taxation district. Luke's report that Joseph traveled to Bethlehem because he was of the house of David implies that the taxation lists were made according to tribes, genealogies and families, which was never Roman policy (Schurer 1891:411; Gier 1987:146-147).

Conducting a census based on genealogical descent would not only have been completely irrelevant for the purposes of collecting taxes, it would have constituted a bureaucratic and security nightmare. It is doubtful, first of all, whether a registration based on tribes and genealogies was even possible, given that many individuals were not necessarily able to establish which ancestral family they belonged to or where their ancestors lived. Furthermore, David, Joseph's purported ancestor,²⁶ lived in Bethlehem nearly a thousand years earlier. This would have had absolutely no importance to the Romans.

Given that tens of thousands of Jews were at this time living throughout the Roman Empire, it would have been absurd for Rome to require that they all return to Palestine, carrying everything they owned, in order to have their property assessed (Gier 1987:147). Tens of thousands of people would have had to travel as much as 3,000 miles from such distant lands as Roman Gaul (France today) and North Africa to reach Palestine in order to be counted in Luke's census. This would have created an unimaginable flood of people into the region searching for food and lodging. This, in turn, would have created a demand for food and lodging far beyond the availability of local resources, producing skyrocketing food prices and a prohibitive increase in the cost of lodging. This situation would likely have led to violent protests by the local population, and even to open rebellion, which could easily have overwhelmed local governments in Palestine.

Such massive migrations would also have imposed serious hardships on individual families and caused significant problems for the communities the migrants left. A journey of 2,000 mile or more in those days would have required people to be away from their homes for nearly 6 months. Most of these people would not have been able to afford such an expense, or to forego their source of livelihood for so long, to say nothing about protecting the homes and belongings that they would have had to leave behind. Also, many of the economic and social functions the migrants performed in their local economies would have been interrupted, inflicting damage on those communities. Furthermore, if, as Luke suggests, pregnant women were also required to participate in the count, then the number of women giving birth in the midst of such an arduous journey would clearly have yielded a sharp increase in maternal and infant mortality over what would have occurred under the normal circumstances of childbirth. This too would have engendered hostility towards Rome.

Indescribable chaos would have prevailed if everyone throughout the Roman Empire were required to return to the homes of their ancestors in order to be censused. Which ancestors' residence would they choose; those that lived 100 years ago? 200 years ago? 500 years ago? 1000 years ago? It would be absurd, for example, to require the many thousands of descendants of David, who purportedly lived some ten centuries earlier, to return to David's birthplace.²⁷ If such a census had been conducted, millions of people would have been undertaking a migration of unimaginable scope. Just feeding and housing all of these people, to say nothing about maintaining law and order, would have been a nightmare beyond the capability of any political authority. As Guignebert (1935:101; quoted in Gier 1987:147) noted many years ago,

For such obvious reasons, no example exists of Rome (or of any other government) having people return to their ancestral homeland for purposes of being counted. No government in the history of the world would, or ever has, conducted such an illogical census as the one described by Luke. Collecting taxes depends on where individuals currently reside, not where their families originated. Requiring individuals to return to their ancestral home defeats the whole purpose of a census, which is to enumerate people living in a specific territory or political entity for the purposes of collecting taxes in that territory. Roman records indicate that property taxes were collected on site by traveling assessors (Gier 1987:145), making taxpayer travel completely unnecessary and counterproductive. There would also have been no reason to require that Joseph leave Nazareth (in Galilee) where he and his family lived (Luke 2:39) and travel to Bethlehem (in Judea) to be counted, since he neither earned money in Bethlehem nor owned property there that could be taxed. Indeed, in Luke's narrative Joseph and his family had no place to stay when they arrived in Bethlehem,²⁸ a clear indication that he owned no property there. This is why Mary was forced to give birth to Jesus in a stable.

It is also highly problematic that Luke implies that Mary was obliged to travel with Joseph for the census. This would not have been the case in a Roman census. For although women were liable to a poll tax, there is no evidence that they were required to appear personally. Based on other Roman censuses, whatever information was needed was simply supplied to local authorities by the head of the family (Schurer 1891: 412).

Furthermore, if Christians accept December 25^th as Jesus' birth date,²⁹ then that means that all of these people --including pregnant women-- would have been undertaking this unnecessary travel in the dead of winter! (see photos below).³⁰ Given that the very existence of a census generated violent resistance, forcing families to travel over long distances in the middle of winter would have made the resistance even greater than it already was. Throughout their history, Jews had rebelled for far smaller reasons. Had the Romans tried to implement such an absurd census in the middle of winter, they would have had a serious military rebellion to contend with, rather than simply the scattered resistance they did have to face. It would have required far more than the two Roman Legions (ca. 12,000 soldiers) that Varus brought into Judea to quell the rebellion following the death of Herod.

A census of the type claimed by Luke would also have created a serious security issue for Rome. Given the intense and violent resistance that a Roman census and the collection of Roman taxes generated among the Jewish populace, Rome would never have included the additional requirement that individuals travel for purposes of the census. It would have made no sense to have so many people traveling the roads in a territory in which Rome was experiencing open rebellion.³¹ In addition to seriously aggravating the hostility and violent resistance to the census, forced travel would have provided excellent cover for the various revolutionary groups opposed to the census and to Roman rule (see Brandon 1967; Horsley 1979; Horsley and Hanson 1995) to organize and carry out their resistance. The chaos and hostility that would have accompanied the census would also have been an excellent opportunity for Rome's enemies (e.g., the Parthians) to attack it. Such a census would, therefore, have created a security nightmare for Roman authorities.

Every aspect of the nativity story as described by Luke is, thus, just as illogical and without historical foundation as that presented by Matthew. Both are complete fictions. Luke followed a different chronology from Matthew (2:1), but asserted a comparable historical absurdity. For Luke, the census was a major historical event that could provide the illusion of historical accuracy (verisimilitude), just as Herod's known paranoia provided an advantageous foundation for Matthew's nativity story. Luke knew that early in the first century CE a census took place in Judea under Quirinius, and he used it to account for why Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem when Jesus was born. However, he places the census some ten to twelve years too early. That Luke clearly had in mind the census of Quirinius, and was aware only of that one census, is confirmed by Acts 5:37 quoted above, where he refers to it simply as "the census," implying that there was no other census. Significantly, he expresses no link between the census he refers to in Acts and and the one he associates with the birth of Jesus.

Luke's writings contain enough internal inconsistencies regarding events surrounding the birth of Jesus that his birth narrative cannot be considered historically credible. As just noted, Luke mentions the census of Quirinius in Acts (5:37), but does not link it at all to the birth of Jesus. In fact, in Acts 5:37, Luke incorrectly places the insurrection of Judas the Galilean (caused by the census of Quirinius in 6-7 A.D.) after the insurrection of Theudas (Acts 5:36). However, Theudas' insurrection occurred in 44-46 CE, some 40 years after the census (Josephus, Antiquities 20.5.1; see also Schurer 1891: 426-427; Zeitlin 1967: 201-202, 208-209, 304; Horsley and Hanson 1965:164-165). By placing the census and the revolt under Judas of Galilee after the messianic revolt of Theudas, Luke not only gets his facts wrong; he clearly implies that "the census," as he referred to it, occurred long after Jesus' death and, therefore, could not possibly have been associated with Jesus' birth. Thus, Luke's elaborate discussion of the census in his infancy narrative flatly contradicts his reference to the same census in Acts (Brown 1977:553).

For before these days Theu′das arose, giving himself out to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was slain and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered. (Acts 5: 36-37)

Furthermore, the chronological information presented by Luke in Chapter 2 directly contradicts the information given by him in Chapters 1 & 3.

In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari′ah, of the division of Abi′jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years. (Luke 1: 5-7)

And behold, your [Mary's] kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. (Luke 1: 36)

Luke (1:5) states that the annunciation of John the Baptist occurred "in the days of Herod, king of Judea." Luke (1:36) then states that Mary's pregnancy began about six months after Elizabeth's pregnancy had begun, meaning that Jesus would have been born some 15-16 months after the annunciation of John the Baptist's birth. This would place Jesus' birth no later than 3 BCE (Brown 1977: 547). Similarly, Luke (3:23) indicates that Jesus was 30 years old in the 15^th year of Tiberius' reign (27-28 CE). This would also place Jesus' birth in the 3-2 BCE time period. However, this was 10 years before Quirinius became governor of Syria and conducted the census described by Luke in Chapter 2, and some 40 years before the same census referred to by Luke in Acts (5:37). Luke clearly cannot be trusted to place events in their correct historical time period.

Inasmuch as Luke shows himself to be both inaccurate and contradictory regarding the events surrounding this census, Brown (1977: 423) suggests, ^"the use of the census to explain the presence of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem is a Lucan device based on a confused memory (emphasis added)." Haenchen (1966: 260) maintains instead, "The fact that Luke can present the same event so completely differently shows the astonishing liberty this author takes." Several examples support Haenchen's conclusion over that of Brown: that Luke manipulated his facts to conform to his beliefs, rather than that he simply made some honest mistakes. For example, in the closing verses of the Third Gospel (Luke, Chapter 24), Luke clearly implies that Jesus ascended into heaven on the very day of his resurrection, whereas in the opening verses of Acts (1:3) he states explicitly that the ascension occurred 40 days later.

In the first book, O Theoph′ilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:1-3)³²

Luke's lack of reliability as a historian is also illustrated by the three reports of Paul's conversion that he presents in different chapters in Acts (Chapters 9, 22 & 26) where the same event is described differently in each case. In other words, Luke adjusted his facts to fit the context in which he was placing them and, likely, the audience he was addressing. In addition, the message of the story becomes more elaborate as it is retold. In Acts (9:5-6), the heavenly voice says, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do," In Acts (22:8) the voice simply says, "I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting," though Jesus identifies himself as "Jesus of Nazareth." However, in Acts (26:15-18), the heavenly voice says considerably more.

I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and bear witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from the people and from the Gentiles --to whom I send you to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.

The author is not so much a historian in our sense of the word as he is a fascinating narrator. He writes not for a learned public, which would keep track of all his references and critically compare them, but rather for a more or less nonliterary congregation which he wants to captivate and edify. For this purpose he uses a peculiar technique: he joins short, compact, picturesque scenes together like the stones of a mosaic.

Luke's writings were directed not only to local Christian congregations, but, as indicated by the opening verses of both Luke's Gospel and Acts, to Graeco-Romans who may or may not have been part of the Christian community. Luke's writings, therefore, incorporate Hellenistic ideas and concepts far removed from the Jewish Palestinian context in which Jesus and his apostles lived and preached. For example, the climax in the apostle's dispute with the High Council given in Acts 4:19 and 5:29 echo the words of Socrates borrowed from Plato's Apology (29 D): "I shall, then, obey God rather than you" (Haenchen 1966: 262). Also reflecting Luke's Greek orientation is the fact that of all the sermons given by Paul to Gentiles, the only one mentioned in Acts (other than a few sentences spoken in Lystra (Acts 14:15-17), is given in Athens, the center of Greek culture, which was peripheral to Paul's mission (Dibelius 1956:154-155). Athens provides the appropriate setting for a sermon in which Paul applies Greek ideas (ibid.). In commenting on the veracity of Acts' description of Paul's speech in Athens, Dibelius (ibid.: 155) concludes:

All questions as to whether Paul really made such a speech, and whether he made it in Athens, must be waived if we are to understand Luke. He is not concerned with portraying an event that happened once in history, and which had no particular success; he is concerned with a typical exposition, which is in that sense historical, and perhaps more real in his own day than in the apostle's day. He follows the great tradition of historical writing in antiquity in that he freely fixes the occasion of the speech and fashions its content himself.

Luke also tried to minimize differences among Christians in Acts in order to show a united development of Christianity against hostile outside forces. He conceived missionary development as beginning in Jerusalem among Jews only, then spreading to Samaria (Samaritans were no longer Jews but not yet Gentiles), and finally "to the end of the earth," presumably to Rome. Luke wanted to present this as a continuing smooth process, all part of God's design. However, in doing this, he again contradicts himself. In Acts (9:31) he states that the Churches in Judaea, Galilee, and Samaria were enjoying peace again, whereas in (11:19) he says that "those who were scattered because of the persecution of Stephen were still fugitives, wandering as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch" (Haenchen 1966:263). Similarly, the conflict between Paul and the Jerusalem Church, including his break with Peter (Galatians 2:11-21), is discussed explicitly by Paul, but largely ignored in Acts  (cf. Ch. 15).

Luke labors to present the growth of Christianity as a unified, divinely guided journey rather than as a result of an itinerant mission based on fortuitous human choices. Dibelius (1956: 129-130, 148-149), for example, shows how Luke presented an edited version of Paul's travels to Macedonia and Greece in order to make Paul's travels fit that image. The result is that Luke's descriptions of events frequently do not agree with those presented by Paul himself. In describing Paul's travels to Macedonia and Greece, Luke (Acts 16: 6-10) abbreviates Paul's journey considerably and presents Paul's itinerary, not as a product of decisions made by Paul, but as a journey thrice directed by divine intervention: once by an appearance of the "Holy Spirit"; once by the "Spirit of Jesus" and once by a nocturnal vision of a man from Macedonia. None of these visions, however, are mentioned by Paul. In addition, Luke provides few details about Paul's movement and activities during this trip. "We read no names of stations or of persons. The type of information which, in other parts of the book, Luke has taken from the itinerary, is missing here." (Dibelius 1956:129)³³

And they went through the region of Phry′gia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. And when they had come opposite My′sia, they attempted to go into Bithyn′ia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them; so, passing by My′sia, they went down to Tro′as. And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedo′nia was standing beseeching him and saying, 'Come over to Macedo′nia and help us.' And when he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedo′nia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them. (Acts 16: 6-10)

Dibelius (1956:148, note 25) claims that "the text of Acts had much more drastic revision than that of any other book of the New Testament." Acts was not accepted into the canon of Christian writings until much later than Luke's gospel, not until around 180 CE. Dibelius argues that this allowed more time for it to undergo modification before it came under canonical control.

[Acts] . . . was exposed to the typically varied fate of a literary text. Proof for all this is precisely the fact of redaction, which is known to us from the witnesses of the Western text.  Thus the fact must be taken into consideration that during this early period . . . changes . . . were made in the text of Acts, and that no traces of the authentic text at certain points are preserved in any single manuscript. (Dibelius 1956: 89-90)³⁴

There is also the issue of the so-called "We Passages" (see Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16) in which the author of Acts presents first-person plural (i.e., he and Paul together) travel narratives in order to present himself as a travel companion to Paul and as an eyewitness to some of the events that took place. Several scholars have questioned the authenticity of those passages (cf. Brown 1977: 236; Ehrman 2013:265-282). All of the passages demonstrate a rather abrupt beginning and end and are immediately preceded and followed by third-person descriptions of events that contain no involvement of the author, suggesting that they were inserted into a pre-existing text. The use of the first-person narrative was a common technique employed in ancient writings, including numerous early Christian documents (see Ehrman 2013: 270-274), in order to enhance the authority of an author's statements.

It may be confidently stated, then, that Luke was not a reliable historian and that his descriptions of historical events cannot be trusted. Doughty (1997), in an extensive comparison of Paul's letters and Luke's description of the same events in Acts (cf., Acts 9:19-29 vs. Galatians 1:16-17), describes Luke's writing as "Apologetic Historicizing." Given, therefore, the repeated contradictions in Luke's writings, combined with all of the improbabilities associated with Luke's census, there is no reason to give his story of the census and its role in having Jesus born in Bethlehem any credibility.

*     *     *     *     *

In summation, then, it may be explicitly stated that both Matthew's and Luke's nativity stories were theologically derived, rather than historically based. Just as there is not a single reference in either Christian or non-Christian sources to Herod's slaughter of innocent children, other than that by Matthew, so also is there no mention of a Roman census that would have involved Jesus' family, other than that by Luke. In other words, not a single piece of credible historical evidence exists that connects Jesus' birth to either of these purported events. In addition, both "events," as they are described in the two gospels, contain elements that are clearly illogical. Both "events" merely served as props upon which Matthew and Luke constructed their respective nativity stories. They were used to provide the stories with verisimilitude by investing them with an air of historicity. The census story was introduced by Luke as a literary device to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, while the slaughter of innocents story was created by Matthew as a vehicle to link Jesus' life to that of Moses. Each author chose their respective settings for Jesus' birth in order to create a dramatic context that would enhance their particular theology. For Matthew, Jesus' escape from Herod's "Slaughter of the Innocents" was a replay of Moses' escape from the Pharaoh's killing of the first born in Exodus (1:16-22) and of the Israelites escape from Yahweh's slaughter of Egyptian children (see Exodus 11-12) in the Hebrew Bible. Luke, on the other hand, was not as concerned with explicitly linking Jesus to Moses, as was Matthew; he was more concerned with placing Jesus' birth in the context of the Gentile Roman world for which he wrote.  So, Luke situated Jesus' birth during the Roman census of Judea. However, Luke made extensive use of Old Testament birth narratives, in particular those describing the births of Isaac, Samuel and Samson, in creating his birth story.³⁵ The Old Testament, therefore, served as an important source for both Matthew and Luke.

The two infancy narratives depended not only on canonical readings of Old Testament stories, but also upon popular versions of the same stories.  Winter (1958: 263) summarizes the situation quite well.

[W]e should not overlook the fact that the O.T. circulated not only in literary form among the learned, but also in midrashic form for the edification of the unlearned, and that in its oral tradition it was often embellished and enlarged by popular motifs. The stories of the birth of Isaac, of Moses, of Samson, of Samuel, and other O.T. heroes were passed on from mouth to mouth and thus came to be assimilated to each other in current narratives. Traits from one story were combined with traits from another. Circumstantial details were added. From time to time these stories were committed to writing, and all the amplifications that had accumulated around the canonical accounts were included in popular new versions. The recently discovered Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran, the Book of Jubilees, the Liber Antiquitatum by PseudoPhilo, and later Midrashim bear witness to a development of this kind. It is the way in which popular narratives come to grow together. The same phenomenon can be observed in our own time, with regard to New Testament stories. There are children's books retelling the Story of Jesus, features from Mark and John and Luke and Matthew being all woven together into one fabric of many colours. Similarly the stories from the Old Testament about the birth of prominent men were legendarily enlarged so as to produce folklore for the edification of a Jewish public in ancient Israel. These legends provided most of the subject matter for the description of Jesus' birth both in Matthew and Luke. Whilst in Matthew chiefly legends about the birth of Moses served as the prototype, or model, for describing the birth of the New Moses, in Luke it is a popular narration of Samson's birth which was utilized firstly in a description of the birth of John the Baptist and later after being adapted by a Judeo-Christian redactor came into the hands of the Third Evangelist. He finally employed it without any significant changes on his part, in the first two chapters of his gospel.

Thus, neither Matthew's nor Luke's birth story can be accepted as a historically reliable description of Jesus' birth or, by extension, a plausible basis for dating that birth. In the end, no credible evidence exists that can be used to determine which year Jesus was actually born. His birth year, therefore, remains a mystery.

Adair, Aaron.  (2012). The Star of Christ in the Light of Astronomy. Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 47(1): 7-29.

Aus, Roger.  (1987). The Magi at the Birth of Cyrus, and the Magi at the Birth of Jesus in Matthew 2: 1-12. Religion, Literature, and Society in Ancient Israel, Formative Christianity and Judaism 2: 99-114.

Barnes, T. D. (1968). The Date of Herod's Death. Journal of Theological Studies 19: 104-109.

Zeitlin, S. (1967). The Rise and Fall of the Judaean State, Volume 2: 37 B.C.E. - 66 C.E. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America.