Below is the summary by Claude.ai of the scholarly article by Mark D. Smith (see PDF in his directory in Dropbox), challenging the traditional dating of Jesus’s birth to 4-6 BCE during Herod the Great’s reign, arguing instead that Jesus was born in 6 CE during Quirinius’s census. In my words, he is giving priority to the writer of Luke, accurately citing the census by Quirinius for which there are records when it occurred.
Main Arguments
Against the Traditional View:
- The traditional dating relies on harmonizing Matthew’s mention of Herod the Great with Luke’s reference to Quirinius’s census
- Two common attempts to resolve this conflict both fail:
- Two terms for Quirinius: There’s no historical room for Quirinius to have served as Syrian legate before 6 CE, as that period was occupied by Saturninus (10/9-7/6 BCE) and Varus (7/6-4 BCE)
- Luke made an error: This assumes Luke included easily falsifiable information that would undermine his credibility as a careful historian
Smith’s Alternative:
- Luke 1:5’s “Herod, King of Judaea” refers to Herod Archelaus (ethnarch 4 BCE-6 CE), not Herod the Great
- Archelaus was popularly called both “Herod” and “king” despite his official title of ethnarch
- Jesus was born in 6 CE during Quirinius’s actual census after Archelaus was deposed
- The census didn’t require ancestral registration (as commonly misinterpreted); Joseph voluntarily went to Bethlehem, likely to register property or claim tax benefits
Regarding Matthew:
- Matthew’s infancy narrative serves a theological/literary purpose—creating a Moses typology
- Matthew needed a baby-killing tyrant for this parallel, making Herod the Great essential to his story regardless of historical accuracy
- Matthew likely adapted chronology to fit his theological scheme, not to record history
The article concludes that Luke’s account is historically reliable while Matthew’s is primarily theological, placing Jesus’s birth about a decade later than traditionally accepted.
