Quirinius conundrum [updated]
Posted on December 23rd, 2008
Sometimes living 10 miles from church really stinks. It would be nice to skateboard over there and check out Just’s Luke commentary, see what Fr. Brown has to say, and look at the CPH lectionary book. I think that the Luke 2 gospel for Christmas Eve gives Luke 2.2 as saying something like, “This registration took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria.” At least, I think I remember seeing that when I was proofreading the bulletin. [Update: It turns out I was wrong. I just know I saw it somewhere, though.] However, the version of ESV in my Accordance program has, “This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria,” with a footnote for reading it the way I’ve rendered it the first time, above. The NKJ has, “This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria.” The big problem is that Quirinius isn’t governor of Syria, according to Josephus, until A.D. 6. The Anchor Bible Dictionary essentially says that Luke is wrong, and there’s no way to reconcile it with history. That answer is not entirely satisfactory for me. 
Another nice thing would be to check out a Greek grammar. Maybe some seminary student can explain this to me. In the Greek, the adjective prote comes immediately after apographe; wouldn’t that mean that it’s the “first registration”? I would like to translate this passage, “This first registration happened [when] Quirinius was governing Syria.”
I’m no expert in this, but if Luke wanted to say that the registration happened before Quirinius was governor, wouldn’t he have used a different word than prote? And another thing: Could it be that prote here refers to what follows, so that it would read, “This registration happened the first [time] Quirinius was governing Syria.” That would square with what I found here. It also fits with with the Tiburtine Inscription found in 1746 (see here under “Nineteenth Century”), which mentions a Roman ruler who ruled in Syria two times.
In order to believe in Biblical inerrancy, it seems to me that Jesus has to be born nearly a year before the reign of Herod the Great ends (4 B.C., to square it with Mt. 2), but also at a time when Quirinius had some sort of rule in Syria.
So, these are my yet-unanswered questions:
- Did CPH/COW change the ESV text of Luke 2.2? [Update: No]
- If so, who authorized that, and on what grounds? [Update: Now I wish they had!]
- What is the best translation?
- Is it possible to harmonize Luke with the historical data that we have?
- Is it possible to harmonize Luke with Matthew?
I really want the last two answers to be “Yes,” but I’m not sure how to get there. It’s 10:30 at night, and I just took a bunch of drugs for this blasted cold, otherwise I’d drive over to church and try to track this down right now. It’s really bugging me, when I should be writing a sermon.
Two things to note.
This, Registration, and First are all of the same case and gender, so they fit together. You can’t really translate the prote’ as “before” because then it would be paired up with the “ruling” word.
Also, “hegemoneountos” is a participle, which then means that it is describing an action, and with that action it’s sense of time – the first registration happening “in the rule” or “while ruling”.
However, The vulgate seems to imply more that the idea of having a registration first appeared in the rule of Cy.
Neither of these ideas directly supports a multiple rule theory, but they do not speak to it. . . and as Luke writes at a time when people remember Cy, there wouldn’t need to be a discussion of his multiple stints – that’s just something that is known – like some talking about President Alexander might not distinguish between the terms he served.
Thanks, Eric.
So, since First is nominative, then it needs to be translated “This first registration,” right? And wouldn’t that imply a second? Otherwise, there’d be no reason to use “first.” And, since we definitely know about the one in A.D. 6, that would imply there could have been another one before it – say, in the time of Herod the Great. Is that the way you understand it?
So, I should be finishing my Christmas Eve sermon, but I’m looking at Just’s commentary. Curiously, he translates Lk. 2.2., “This registration happened before Quirinius governed Syria.” He explains the translation thus: “One simple grammatical solution to the problem of the census in Luke is to understand prote as adverbial and as governing this genitive participial phrase: ‘before Quirinius governed Syria.’ This is supported by the variant word order in [Aleph* manuscript] and D. Following this interpretation, this census in Luke 2 was the first, and Quirinius’ census was a later one” (pp103f). He then cites a bunch of sources, including this from Lagrange [cue ZZ Top song]: “This seems better than forcing an earlier governorship on Quirinius and more likely than the contradiction in the LUkan infancy narratives created by an identification of the census here as that of A.D. 6.”
So, the rub of this is that a census was conducted every 14 years. Quirinius’ census was significant because at the time he became legate, Judea was annexed by Syria. This registration at the birth of Jesus was 14 years before that one, putting Jesus’ birth at 8 B.C.
Sounds pretty good to me. I hope Just is right on the grammar here.
This census does not have to come 14 years before Quirinus’ census, which is also marked by the uprising led by Judas of Galilee (Acts 5:37). A census happening every 14 years may have only happened in Egypt. The census that Luke refers may be a local census conducted by Herod the Great. The decree that is referred to then is a general decree.
If you allow for a local census, you can have your cake and eat to so to speak. This can keep the date around 4-5 BC, which meshes with the Matthean account.
I have seen John 15:18 given as an example of the use of prote outlined above. Also this is common Hellenistic usage.
Steven,
I had never noticed that in John 15.18. Excellent points all around. Thanks!
Sorry the verse from John is John 1:15.
15.18 works too for “before,” but 1.15 is good.
1:15, 30 work better because they follow the same pattern of protos + linking verb + genitive. If you want I can send you an article that deals with the issues that surround Luke 2:2. I noticed that 15:18 utilizes protos in a similiar way. Of course Wallace thinks that having prote act adverbially is a bunch of bunk fwiw.
Gentlemen,
I hope you won’t mind a WELS pastor and Green Bay Packers fan (gasp! – my apologies for the overtime loss to the Bears last week!) chiming in on this one. I dealt with this very issue in my Christmas morning sermon. The first part of the sermon deals, to an extent, with two possible solutions to this issue, both of which you’ve discussed above.
For what it’s worth, here it is: http://pastorstrey.wordpress.com/2008/12/22/sermon-for-the-festival-of-the-nativity-of-our-lord/
Most of the points mentioned above were the same ones I came across in various commentaries: Lenski, the “People’s Bible” (WELS), and several traditional commentaries available on the Libronix system (Scholar’s Library). One thought that might be worth adding is that Josephus was not exactly the most accurate historian in the world — at least, that’s what the historians today say. Critics love to assume that Josephus was right and Luke (and other biblical authors) was (were) wrong in instances like this, but that is a stretch. The other arguments already raised cover the issue well enough, but the Josephus issue is another point that adds some fuel to the argument.
Sincerely,
Johnold Strey
Gloria Dei Lutheran Church
Belmont, California