Byzantine Mosaic of Mary and Joseph at the Census
I have read on several occasions that the author of the Third Gospel was mistaken when he wrote that there was a census taken by Caesar Augustus saying, “This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.” If this is what he said he was mistaken as follows:
(1) Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in 6 CE.
(2) Herod the Great, who is mentioned in 1.5, died about a decade before Quirinius was governor of Syria.
We must ask if this is what the author was saying. The Greek text reads like this:
αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου.
Most have translated ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη as the “first census”. This would mean the author thought Quirinius conducted two or more censuses and Jesus was born around the time of the first one. This would put Jesus’ birth at contradictory times.
Others have suggested that ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη should be translated “the census before…” which makes πρώτη function as a preposition rather than as an adjective. If this is so than the author was not mistaken since he is dating the census as the one (seemingly knowable one) that was prior to Quirinius’ governing of Syria (also possibly suggesting that Quirinius must have been connected with an additional, later census).
What do you say? Do you think this is a legitimate grammatical possibility that clears the author of a historical error? Do you have any problems with this explanation?
August 23, 2010 at 9:54 am
I don’t know Greek well enough (hardly at all). I have heard and read the explanations. I think they are possible.
To be honest, though I don’t think inerrancy is the best word to describe Scripture, and I am ok with factual errors, as distinguished from truth errors, I would still feel a little uncomfortable if the name Quirinius is put in the text incorrectly. Luke was supposedly a good investigator of these things (i.e. Lk 1:1-4). But, in the end, I don’t think a wrong name is destructive to the theopneustos character of Scripture, though inerrantists seem adamant that it would be.
But there is plausible explanation of the use of Quirinius’ name, which you explain above.
August 23, 2010 at 10:01 am
Scott,
I’m in agreement with you that whether or not one adheres to inerrancy this could be concerning because of the claims Luke makes regarding his own research.
August 23, 2010 at 10:26 am
Jared Compton published the most recent review of the grammar on that verse. A link to his article can be found at my post from last November. Then, when Mark Goodacre podcast about Mr. Q, that December, I made some more comments based on Mary Smallwood’s historical analysis.
Apparently, the evangelical big guns don’t think there’s enough on the grammar to make the case you just mentioned. They’re left without much else, for the moment. I like the “before” theory just fine, myself. Maybe. But I’m always amazed at how we suspend all historical sense just to strain for grammatical perfection.
August 23, 2010 at 11:04 am
Darrell Bock argues that there are a variety of possible explanations and concludes in his Luke commentary, “The relegation of Luke 2:2 to the category of historical error is premature and erroneous.” Check out his excursus on this verse in Baker Exegetical Commentary, pp. 903-909.
While I have no need to justify Luke here (because I have no need to hold to a position of inerrancy), I don’t want to rush to judgment either. So let me ask this: What should we do if there are possible explanations? Do we discount them because we want to prove errancy? I’m not saying that’s what’s going on, I’m just trying to figure out how to deal with the problem and the solutions scholars (who do hold to inerrancy) are offering.
August 23, 2010 at 11:17 am
Bill: Thanks for the link to the article. I will make sure to read it ASAP.
Will: I guess the only way to be “objective” here (ie. neither trying to prove or disprove inerrancy or errancy or Luke’s competence for that matter) would be to say if he meant (a) the first census when Quirinius was governor, he was wrong but if (b) the one “before” he was OK.
August 23, 2010 at 11:19 am
Fair enough.
August 23, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Here’s a web page I put together several years ago discussing the grammatical and historical issues. Let me know what you think after you’ve read it!
http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/quirinius.htm
August 23, 2010 at 2:27 pm
James,
Thanks, I will take a look at it and let you know my thoughts.
August 23, 2010 at 7:26 pm
I remember that Paul Barnett treats this pretty well in his book “Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity,” but I don’t remember the details unfortunately. If you have the book, check it out.
Pingback: Flotsam and jetsam (8/24) « scientia et sapientia
Pingback: The Wrong or Right of Luke 2.2 | Near Emmaus
August 24, 2010 at 8:42 am
Bryan,
I don’t have that book though now you’ve peak my interest in what he said.
April 28, 2012 at 5:57 pm
Since ἀπογραφὴ and πρώτη agree in case. gender. and number and are in the same clause πρώτη must be modifying ἀπογραφὴ. So, αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη means This first census.
October 6, 2012 at 4:25 am
As I read your article entitled: The Quirinius Error? (Luke 2.2), I thought that you would be interested by my own research on this topic:
http://www.chronosynchro.net/wordpress/controversial-dating-of-important-events/
Gérard GERTOUX
PhD Candidate in Archaeology and History of Ancient Worlds
October 26, 2012 at 5:06 pm
The people who hold to an inerrant English translation say that ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη should read “the first census” and the some Graecophiles say that it can’t read “the census before”. A few major assumptions here…. the English version can’t be mistranslated = the Greek meant what the English says it means… the Greek-writing author/redactor couldn’t have meant something else for ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη than what we say it is = ancient authors couldn’t use words with individualistic intent. I think the “census before” argument is correct given Luke’s careful attempt at history. I also think this will never be ‘solved’ to everyone’s satisfaction!