Archaeologica.org

Minimalist wrote:Arch was so driven to distraction that he resorted to inventing a second man named 'Quirinius.'

Digit wrote: Actually the Disciples wouldn't have dated anything to BC or AD, they would have dated things to reference points that their readers would have understood.

Digit wrote:Actually the Disciples wouldn't have dated anything to BC or AD, they would have dated things to reference points that their readers would have understood.

Perhaps, I should mail Arch for some references?

Nah..you've seen all his already.

before Quirinius became governor of Syria

Some have tried to argue that the Greek of Luke actually might mean a census "before" the reign of Quirinius rather than the "first" census in his reign. As to this, even Sherwin-White remarks that he has "no space to bother with the more fantastic theories...such as that of W. Heichelheim's (and others') suggestion (Roman Syria, 161) that prôtê in Luke iii.2 means proteron, [which] could only be accepted if supported by a parallel in Luke himself."[10.1] He would no doubt have elaborated if he thought it worthwhile to refute such a "fantastic" conjecture. For in fact this argument is completely disallowed by the rules of Greek grammar. First of all, the basic meaning is clear and unambiguous, so there is no reason even to look for another meaning. The passage says hautê apographê prôtê egeneto hêgemoneuontos tês Syrias Kyrêniou, or with interlinear translation, hautê(this) apographê(census) prôtê[the] (first) egeneto(happened to be) hêgemoneuontos[while] (governing) tês Syrias(Syria) Kyrêniou[was] (Quirinius). The correct word order, in English, is "this happened to be the first census while Quirinius was governing Syria." This is very straightforward, and all translations render it in such a manner.

Minimalist wrote:So, how could Quirinius take a census before he got there to take the census?

For that matter, of what interest would an alleged Galilean carpenter from the alleged city of Nazareth (which does not appear to have existed in the early 1st century AD., anyway) have in a "census" which was taking place in Judaea?

Minimalist wrote:P.S.

Good luck with the "world wide taxation decree."

Minimalist wrote:Edit in reply to your edit: From the earlier source.

Some have tried to argue that the Greek of Luke actually might mean a census "before" the reign of Quirinius rather than the "first" census in his reign. As to this, even Sherwin-White remarks that he has "no space to bother with the more fantastic theories...such as that of W. Heichelheim's (and others') suggestion (Roman Syria, 161) that prôtê in Luke iii.2 means proteron, [which] could only be accepted if supported by a parallel in Luke himself."[10.1] He would no doubt have elaborated if he thought it worthwhile to refute such a "fantastic" conjecture. For in fact this argument is completely disallowed by the rules of Greek grammar. First of all, the basic meaning is clear and unambiguous, so there is no reason even to look for another meaning. The passage says hautê apographê prôtê egeneto hêgemoneuontos tês Syrias Kyrêniou, or with interlinear translation, hautê(this) apographê(census) prôtê[the] (first) egeneto(happened to be) hêgemoneuontos[while] (governing) tês Syrias(Syria) Kyrêniou[was] (Quirinius). The correct word order, in English, is "this happened to be the first census while Quirinius was governing Syria." This is very straightforward, and all translations render it in such a manner.

Luke 2:2 αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου.
Translations usually end up rendering this verse as:

This was the first registration, taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria. (NET)
Apart from all the historical quandries involved (e.g. Quirinius did his census around AD 6, not around 6 BC when Jesus was born), this verse is also exegetically challenging.

The difficulties in Luke 2:2 have led to a number of proposals, but many are worse than the text they are trying to interpret. In particular, I disagree with the attempt to read πρώτη as a comparative ("before" or "earlier") followed by a genitive of comparison to get something like "before Quirinius was governing Syria" because Κυρηνίου has to be the subject of a genitive absolute ἡγεμονεύοντος.

Nevertheless, the standard interpretion still leaves me cold with a number of problems, the chief among them is why would Luke specify that it was πρώτη ("first"). If Luke merely wanted to tell when the registration happened, presumably under Quirinius (c. AD 6), there is little need to use πρώτη. What does that word do for the text? Of course, the census under Quirinius was hugely important. Josephus had recognized it as as a major factor ultimately leading to the Jewish War in the 60s. In fact, this census is so important that Luke could merely refer to it in Acts 5:37 as "the census" τῆς ἀπογραφῆς.

Another problem for me is the rather weak rendering of ἐγένετο as "was." It seems that ἦν would do a better job. Also, it is difficult to figure out what belongs in the subject and what belongs in the predicate.

I would suggest that Eph. 6:2

"τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα" ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη ἐν ἐπαγγελίᾳ
is a very helpful syntactic and semantic analogy for Luke 2:2. In particular, we have a pronoun + noun + πρώτη + adv., a very similar sentence structure to Luke 2:2, withthe chief difference is the location and root of the verb, ἐστὶν vs ἐγένετο.

Eph. 6:2 is usually translated as:

"Honor your father and mother," which is the first commandment with a promise." (NRSV)
But Danker in the 4th edition of the New Testament Greek lexicon disagrees with rendering πρώτη as "first" here because it "loses sight of the fact that Ex 20:4-6=Dt 5:8-10 has an implied promise of the same kind as the one one in Ex 20:12=Dt5:16." Danker concludes that πρώτη "here is best taken in the same sense as in Mk 12:29 above."

Mark 12:28 has ποία ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη πάντων; which means "Which commandment is greatest of all?" and definitely not "which commandment is chronologically first of all?" Thus, Eph. 6:2 should mean something like "which is the greatest commandment with a promise."

Danker identifies two major senses for this adjective: (1) being first in sequence, time, number, or space, and (2) being first in prominence or importance. Many examples of the second sense can be found in Luke's writings, e.g. Luke 15:22 "[my] best robe"; Luke 13:30 (first vs. last); Acts 17:4 "quite a few prominent women" (NET); Acts 13:50 "the prominent men in the city"; Luke 19:47 "the prominent leaders of the people" etc.

This second sense gives full force to the γίνομαι as "become" (experience a change in nature) and Luke loves using adj. + γίνομαι (e.g. Luke 23:31, Acts 1:19, 9:42, 12:23, 16:27, 19:17, and 26:19 [exx. from BDAG]). Thus, πρώτη ἐγένετο would mean "became most prominent." Using the sense of "most prominent" in Luke 2:2 αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου, we get either, depending on whether ἀπογραφὴ goes into the subject or the predicate:

This registration became most prominent when Quirinius was governing Syria.
or

This [decree to get registered] became the/a most important registration when Quirinius was governing Syria.
How I would understand Luke 2:2 in its context?

I think that it is a parenthetical digression to the effect that, though Joseph's travel to Bethlehem was occasioned by Augustus's decree (i.e. the registration of 8 BC), the most important registration from Augustus's policies was the one that took place when Quirinius was governor (and that led to the revolts in Galilee). Thus Luke is distinguishing the registration that Joseph obeyed from that most prominent one in AD 6, not confusing it.

The reason this parenthetical would have been important is the view that Josephus published in his books on the Jewish War in 75 or so and in his Jewish Antiquities around 93, identifying the AD 6 census as a major cause of the Jewish War sixty years later.

Forum Monk wrote:

Minimalist wrote:So, how could Quirinius take a census before he got there to take the census?

He didn't. This particular census you refer to was a critical one which may have ultimately led to a revolt in 60ce.

One thing is certain, it was either a census, a taxation or both, since the words seem to be used interchangeably. Would there not have been regular intervals when taxes were due?

No. Herod the Great ruled an independent kingdom. Any tribute he paid to Rome was by tribute and set by treaty...or at least some negotiation. The Romans would not have given a rat's ass how he raised the money. Upon his death, his sons' status as independent kings was maintained. It was not until 6 AD that Judaea and Sarmaria petitioned to become a Roman prefecture. At that time, in the words of Josephus....

For that matter, of what interest would an alleged Galilean carpenter from the alleged city of Nazareth (which does not appear to have existed in the early 1st century AD., anyway) have in a "census" which was taking place in Judaea?