It was brought up in another thread that Luke is wrong in stating that Jesus was born at the time of the census of Quirinius in Luke 2:2. Josephus is clear that this census occurred in around A.D. 6 or 7. Yet Matthew had Jesus born during the reign of Herod the Great, who dies in 4 B.C. (a decade earlier). Is either Matthew or Luke wrong?

A common idea that has been proposed is that there were two censuses (or would it be censusi?) taken by Quirinius. This interpretation has many difficulties.

But there is another, far easier, option -- the Greek may have been translated wrong in our Bibles.

The NASB reads:

Quote:

---

This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.

---

Here is a literal, wooden translation of the Greek of Luke 2:2 (note: word order in Greek is different than word order in English) --

This
census
first/former
was (aorist verb -- usually translated as "simple past")
governing (adverbial participal -- will get to in a moment)
of Syria
of/by Quirinius.

There are two difficulties in the translation of this verse. The first is the Greek word "prote", which can mean either "first" or "former". If "first", this may (though, as we shall see, only "may") imply that Quirinius had taken more than one census. If "former", this (as we shall see) could refer to a census taken BEFORE the one by Quirinius.

The second difficulty lies with the adverbial present participle "governing". As any second year Greek student will tell you, Greek participles were invented by Satan!!! They are evil ... with some 50-60 different ways to translate them. Usually what it means is that, in order to translate a participle, it is necessary to supply a phrase, rather than just a word (like "governing").

One of the most common ways to translate an adverbial participle is temporal, and is probably the best option -- given the addition of the temporal word "prote". Options would "after governing" or "while governing" or "before governing". Which do we choose? This is depending completely upon interpretation of the context. The Greek word "prote" helps us here ... "first" or "former". Thus the participle "governing" should probably be translated "before the governing".

If we put all this together, here is a possible way to translate the verse:

Quote:

---

This was the former census before the governing of Syria of Quirinius.

---

This would mean that Luke is pointing to a census taken during the reign of Herod the Great, prior to the one that all the Jews would have been aware of, the one by Quirinius, which had sparked a mini-rebellion in the province of Judea by Judas the Galilean

Is it reasonable that Herod the Great would have taken a census? Perhaps.

We do know that another client ruler, Archelaus the Younger of Cappadocia introduced a Roman-style census independent of Rome. (Herod was king of Israel, but ruling at the bequest of Caesar Augustus ... it was a common practice in the Roman Empire for new provinces to be initially governed by a locally-born ruler until it was ready to be incorporated fully into the Roman system of governance.) And there is a connection between Archelaus the Younger of Cappadocia and herod the Great. Herod married his son Alexander to Archelaus' sister Glaphyra, and Archelaus the Elder (the father) visited Judea towards the end of the the reign of Herod. Thus, Herod would certainly have heard about Archelaus taking a census in Cappadocia (modern-day eastern Turkey) and could reasonably have decided to take one of his own.

This can not be proven, of course. But clues within the text of Luke 2:2 do at least allow for a census previous to Quirinius, and historical evidence points to a connection between Herod and another client king who took a census in his own province. Thus, I believe it can be concluded that Luke 2:2 should not be so quickly discounted by those skeptical of Luke's historical accuracy.

I think Mathetes' position is perfectly reasonable. If you're interested in the opposing viewpoint, here's how historian Richard Carrier puts it.

Personally, I don't consider myself qualified to answer Carrier's assertion that "this argument is completely disallowed by the rules of Greek grammar," so I'll remain an agnostic about this one.

Of course, the whole argument seems to me to be little more than a tempest in a teapot, unless you subscribe to a particularly narrow and literal view of Biblical inerrancy; as an argument for atheism I would rank it right around the old "pi is equal to 3" canard from 1 Kings 7:23; i.e., just about worthless.

Couple points.

1. I am not advocating that "prote" be translated "before". Carrier is right ... "prin" would be more likely here. Rather, I am advocating that it be translated "former". "Before" is an adverb; "former" is an adjective. So the grammatical rules that eliminate "before" as an option (because it is an adverb) do not apply to "former" (because it is an adjective).

Regarding Archelaus, I need to withdraw this as a possibility. I was too lazy to check the ancient source. It comes from Tacitus, Annals, 6.41, in which Archelaus is forced to take a census, and the Cappadocians rebel. My secondary source completely read Tacitus wrong here.

There is another possibility to explain what was going on, advocated by Paul W. Barnett in "Apographe and Apographesthai in Luke 2:1-5", Expository Times 85 (1974): 377-80.

Here, he argues that that Joseph and Mary had traveled to Bethelehem to register for a country-wide oath that Herod required his subjects to give to Augustus (an attempt to make a relationship that had soured between himself and Augustus better).

Here's the enigmatic quote from Josephus, Antiquities, 17.2, which really only tells us about those Jews who did NOT take the oath, and not the reason behind it (the reason above is inferred, not stated).

Quote:

---

These are those that are called the sect of the Pharisees, who were in a capacity of greatly opposing kings. A cunning sect they were, and soon elevated to a pitch of open fighting and doing mischief. Accordingly, when all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their good-will to Caesar, and to the king's government, these very men did not swear, being above six thousand; and when the king imposed a fine upon them, Pheroras's wife paid their fine for them.

---

Makes sense to me.

So if I put that together with your previous post, Mathetes, the conclusion I would draw from the historical evidence is that the text of Luke 2:2 permits one to infer a census during the reign of Herod the Great, but we have no historical evidence either way -- for or against -- to suggest that any such census did take place. Is that an accurate summary?

The problem is that the census under quirinus was a big deal in Israel. For example the big city near Nazareth (i forget its name, you know the one joshua placed that salted mosaic in) revolted during the census and was leveled by Rome. Its also prominantly featured in Josephus. Luke at times seems to presuppose that his readers are familiar with Josephus.

There is no other census during this period under any ruler that I know of.

So even if you play with the greek a little to get your perfectly plausible rendition, that doesn't save Luke. It just makes him wrong about the existence of a census prior to quirinius.

The only reason that anyone supposes that Jesus was born before Quirinius is because Herod the Great is featured in Matthew's account. He doesn't appear in Luke does he? Therefore Luke's dating of Jesus birth to 7 ad or so is perfectly possible. That would mean that Luke didn't make a mistake, he was in fact right.

Matthew's birth narratives are fable-like anyways. It is perfectly legitimate in a fable, to make it during the reign of a famous jewish king. It has ample biblical precedent as well, for example the story about Solomon and the baby dispute.

So neither Matthew nor Luke have to be wrong. Luke can be right and Matthew can be fabulous.

-rethinker

Another possibility is that it is just an insignificant error in the text, originating from scribal corruption or the faulty memory of the original author or the mingling of multiple oral traditions prior to having the story committed to writing.

Rethinker,

Quote:

---

There is no other census during this period under any ruler that I know of.

So even if you play with the greek a little to get your perfectly plausible rendition, that doesn't save Luke. It just makes him wrong about the existence of a census prior to quirinius.

---

No, it would mean we would have an event that is not recorded in other sources. This is nothing new, and should not count for or against the historicity of Luke. What it DOES mean is that the skeptic's argument that Luke was wrong is put into doubt. We simply can't know, because the text could be translated two different ways.

Also, I honestly think its silly to say that Luke presupposes Josephus. Even if we give a late date (late 70s, early 80s) for Luke, when were Josephus' books finished, and would they have made it from Rome (where they would have been published, with usually just a couple hundred copies made) all the way to wherever Luke was written, and then spread widely throughout the land so that Luke's readers would have been familiar with it. Books did not get spread that quickly in the ancient world.

We've already beat around the Matthew as fable bush too many times to count! Go read my thesis!

Andrew,

Exactly. This is certainly not evidence IN FAVOR of the historicity of Luke. It is simply a statement that we cannot definitively use Luke 2:2 to support or deny the historicity of this gospel.

Paul,

You're right ... it could be. I am merely presenting another possibility, not arguing for which one should be accepted.

Mathetes,

I'm not arguing that the accounts are garbled either, just pointing out the obvious alternative. I would much prefer to find a way to explain them without admitting an error in the text.