Yesterday I mentioned the possibility that Luke 2.2 contains an erroneous statement about Quirinius being the governing one of Syria at the same time that Herod the Great was ruling and Jesus was born. Since about a decade separates the death of Herod and the known governorship of Quirinius this has been dubbed a historical inaccuracy. Both Bill Heroman and James McGrath provided me with articles on the subject which I read yesterday. This first article was by Jared M. Compton and it can be accessed here. The second was by James himself and it can be accessed here.
Since these two articles would provide plenty of reading for those interested in the subject all I want to do here is provide a short list of reasons for why Luke may have been wrong or may have been right in what he said in 2.2. At the end of the day I personally came away agnostic about it. There are serious issues that I think cannot be glazed over apologetically. Likewise, there are large gaps in our knowledge that I think prevent a total indictment of Luke. Here are my thoughts:
(1) I don’t think the criticisms that Caesar would have never taken a census on non-Roman citizens in a vassal kingdom are (a) to be taken lightly nor (b) solid evidence against Luke’s assumptions. For one it does seem problematic that such a census would be taken but Compton argues that it was not beyond possible. What is odd about it is that Luke assumes his reader will have no qualms with his statement. He writes as if this event is a given. So while we should be cautious about vindicating Luke because it is possible that such an event occurred we should not ignore how rare and odd it would have been. Likewise, prior to writing Luke off as mistaken we must realize that if he was so dead wrong he sure was totally oblivious to it since he writes as if his reader will know exactly what he is addressing.
(2) If Luke wrote ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη in reference to a “first census” taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria beginning in 6 CE he is wrong. I don’t think there is any way to get around it. But there is a large blank spot in our history of Quirinius around the time that Herod was ruling so we do not know for sure that Quirinius didn’t serve in some official capacity in Syria at that time. He would not have been the governor since this position was accounted for but he may have had another official title since ἡγεμονεύοντος does not necessarily refer to the governor but could very well be a reference to another civil office. If Luke knew of an office that Quirinius had held in Syria a decade earlier that gave him authority to take some sort of census that Luke may be vindicated. Either way we have an argument from silence that does favor those skeptical of Luke.
(3) While both articles note the problem with translating ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη as “the census before…” it is not altogether impossible that this is what he meant though it is unlikely. Personally, I would like to browse through Luke-Acts to see how the author uses various forms of πρῶτος. This could be a key to determining whether or not Luke would have used this word to refer to an event “before…Quirinius” was governing Syria. Again, I am agnostic about it.
In the end there are major difficulties with Luke’s statement. If you don’t think this is so I recommend reading James McGrath’s article that I linked above. Likewise, there is too much missing to seal the case which I think Jared M. Compton’s article displays. In the end I echo Bill Heroman who wrote the following last December (see full post here):
“So, did Luke just make a mistake about Quirinius? As believers, we’ll keep hoping he didn’t. However, as I keep pointing out, that only matters if we’re trying to defend scripture. Everything has a time and a place, and when we’re trying to reconstruct events, Quirinius just doesn’t matter. Every viable apologetic on Luke 2:2 still puts Jesus’ birth before Herod’s death. That makes Quirinius moot.”
If you have your own thoughts to share please feel free to leave a comment.
the archives near Emmaus 
Uses of πρῶτος in Luke-Acts
Luke 2:2; 6:42; 9:59, 61; 10:5; 11:26, 38; 12:1; 13:30; 14:18, 28, 31; 15:22; 16:5; 17:25; 19:16, 47; 20:29; 21:9;
Acts 1:1; 3:26; 7:12; 12:10; 13:46, 50; 15:14; 16:12; 17:4; 20:18; 25:2; 26:20, 23; 27:43; 28:7, 17;
Awesome, this will save me some time!
We simply don’t have enough real factual information here. But, we do have the presupposition of the Text of Luke 2:2! I am one that always sees the biblical Text as foremost “presuppositionally” the Word of God! See Van Til here.
Don’t thank me, thank Accordance Bible Software 🙂
Robert: As much as I would like to come from this angle it seems to me that if this “presupposition” is correct there is one easy way to show it to be so–test it. In this case, if Luke 2.2 promoted an historical error than I think we would need to be honest and rethink our view of Scripture. I don’t think that it does by any means, but we must be open to the possibility. I don’t expect everyone to come to the text this way, especially pastors and those whose job is to guide a local flock, but if I am going to say anything in defense of the reliability of Scripture I must be able to believe that this is so. Therefore, I am open to testing it.
Bryan: OK, thank you Accordance!
Brian,
Yes I too went and graduated seminary long ago, thank God! (lol, and taught also)
Update: Stephen Carlson shared this link with me where he suggest another alternative: http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2004/12/luke-22-and-the-census.html
It’s nice to be echoed. 🙂
Seriously, thanks for doing all this, Brian.
Bit behind on this conversation, but Carlson’s analysis looks the most persuasive of all the various options. That’s a good find!
Jonathan,
I agree, I think Carlson’s postings open up more possibilities. I am trying to think through them myself.
something like all serious scaorhls he means Bart Erhman since if you peruse through some of his posts you will notice that he clearly has never picked up a scholar besides Erhman in his life. And by serious scholar he also means people who agree with me. Courtenay has never read a single scholar who disagrees with him because he doesnt wanna submit his position to any scrutiny. Also, to repeat what I said elsewhere where Courtenay tried to pass the alma’ argument off:As for Jewish Scholars, they never claimed that ‘alma’ meant anything other than “virgin” until they wanted to deny the virgin birth of Jesus. How do I know this?1. None of the ancient languages or versions gives any evidence to show that “alma” ever meant a young married woman.2. A “n’ara” may not have been a virgin. Otherwise it would scarcely have been necessary to define her five times by the word “bethulah” (virgin). Thsu an “alma” must have been presumed to be a “virgin” since it is never defined by “bethulah.”3. Since the Septuagint version was made in the case of Genesis 280 years B. C. and in the case of Isaiah 200 years B. C., it is to be presumed that their rendering of “alma” by “parthenos” (virgin) in Genesis 24:48 and Isaiah 7:14 was in their minds a justifiable rendering. So far as we have any evidence, the citation of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23 is thus justified by the Jewish interpretation up to the time when Matthew was written.4. Since the Peshitto Syriac version of the Old Testament was probably made by Jews, their rendering of the word “alma” by “bethulah” in Isaiah 7:14 must have been considered proper even as late as the second century A. D.5. Jerome, who studied Hebrew under Jewish rabbis of his time (about 400 A. D.), still thought it possible to render “alma” by “virgo” (virgin) in Genesis 24:43 and Isaiah 7:14.6. The rendering “ulemta” of the Targum to Isaiah 7:14 cannot possibly argue in favor of the meaning “young married woman” in view of the following three facts: a) “Alma” in the O.T. never has this meaning anywhere else. b) “Ulemta” translates not merely “alma” but also “n’ara,” “yolda,” and “bethulah,” none of which means young married woman. c) “Ulemta” is used of Rebecca when she came to the well and met Eliezer; of Miriam when she was set to watch the infant Moses; of the 400 virgins of Jabesh Gilead (Judges 21:12); of Esther and the other virgins who were selected for the choice of Xerxes as wife.7. All the versions of the Greek “parthenos” (virgin) — Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Harklensian, Syriac, and Arabic — render the word in both Isaiah 7:14 and Matt. 1:23 by the best word for “virgin” which they possess.8. The evidence that Mary was a virgin does not after all depend on the meaning of the words “alma” and “parthenos” alone; for it is said, also, of Mary that “she had not known man.” This phrase is used in the Old Testament of Rebecca “a virgin that had not known man” (Gen. 24:16); of Jephthah’s daughter (Judges 11:39); and of the virgins of Jabesh Gilead (Judges 21:12).Thus we can see that Jews and their scaorhls had no problem with ‘alma’ meaning virgin (because it universally did) until the Christians started to point to Is. 7:14 and they found themselves wanting to deny the virgin birth. Again, Brucker, you are right. There arent really any scaorhls who agree with Courtenay unless they have an axe to grind. I mean Courtenay actually argues that there are only 3 wise men in Matthew, that the 14 generations at the end of the Matthew genealogy is only 13 people, that Matthews PATERNAL genealogy and Luke MATERNAL genealogy are contradictory (though if his paternal and maternal genealogies were the same that might explain his low reading comprehension and near turrets syndrome), and that because Jesus was visited by both shepherds and wise men that it logically cant be both. Thats like saying if I went to the store then my wife went to the same store one of us is lying because we both cant have gone to the store! And these are just a few examples.