| |||||||||||
| In
the genealogy in Matthew 1, notice one name, Jechonias (Jeconiah), in verse 11. If Joseph
had been Jesus' father according to the flesh, He could never have occupied the throne,
for God's word barred the way. There had been a curse on this royal line since the days of
Jeconiah. In Jeremiah 22:30 we read, Thus says the Lord: write this man down as childless,
a man who shall not prosper in his days: for none of his descendants shall prosper,
sitting on the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. Joseph was in the line of
this curse. Hence, if Jesus had been Joseph's son, He could not have sat on David's
throne. But we find another genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3. This is Mary's line, back to David, through Nathan, not Jeconiah (Luke 3:31). There was no curse on this line. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David: And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of His kingdom there will be no end (Luke 1:30-33). In Matthew 1:1-17 we have the royal genealogy of the son of David, through Joseph. In Luke 3:23-38 it is His strictly personal genealogy, through Mary. In Matthew it is His legal line of descent through Joseph; in Luke it is His lineal descent through Mary. In Matthew His genealogy is traced forward from Abraham; in Luke it followed backward to Adam, Each is significant! Matthew is showing Jesus' relation to the Jew, hence he goes back no further than to Abraham, father of the Jewish nation. But in Luke is His connection with the human race; hence His genealogy is traced back to Adam, the father of the human family. In Luke, Jesus' line is traced back to Adam, and is, no doubt, His mother's line. Notice in Luke 3:23, it does not say Jesus was the son of Joseph. What are the words? As was supposed. In Matthew 1:16, where Joseph's genealogy is given, we find that Joseph was the son of Jacob. In Luke it say he was the son of Heli. He could not be the son of two men by natural generation. But notice this carefully - the record does not state that Heli begot Joseph, so it is supposed that Joseph was the son by law (or son-in-law) of Heli. Heli is believed to have been the father of Mary. The Davadic genealogy goes through Nathan, not Solomon. This too is important. The Messiah must be David's son and heir (2 Sam. 7:12,13; Romans 1:3; Acts 2:30,31) and his seed according to the flesh. He must be a literal flesh and blood descendant. Hence Mary must be a member of David's house as well as Joseph (Luke 1:32).1 |
The skeptic responds: The passage from Luke 3: 23-31 does not use the term begotten. Allowing your argument that this phrasing is used to indicate that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, I find it interesting that this entire passage does not use the term begotten all the way back to David and beyond.
Following your line of reasoning, these men were all son-in-laws and not sons to the previous generation. Considering that the Israelites did not trace lines of descent through matriarchal lines but through patriarchal lines this seems to be a very tenuous linkage at best.
The Genealogy Jigsaw Puzzle
By Guy Cramer
The original Greek in Luke 3:24 reads: being, as was supposed, son of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat,... notice it does not say son of Heli... sure they could be son-in-laws and not sons but you must take note that it does not say son of Heli...
But if we look at the original Greek of Matthew 1:2 we read that Abraham fathered Isaac, Isaac fathered Jacob... so here we have a definite patriarchal line.
Matthew was written for the Jews so we have the patriarchal line listed in Matthew 1. Luke was written to the Greeks, a highly feminized culture in the first century so a matriarchal line is possible. Can we confirm that Matthew was written for the Jews? Often Matthew leaves Jewish phrases and customs unexplained, assuming that his readers are familiar with them. And where Luke would say "kingdom of God," Matthew uses the phrase "kingdom of heaven," out of respect for Jews, who never wrote out the word God.
Matthew 1:18-25 even states that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. So the genealogy he gives prior to this is only a legal line of decent.
Sons from Luke 3
Do we have proof that any of the Men listed in the Luke 3:23-38 are not son-in-laws?
First the genealogy in Matthew 1:1-17 shows in the original Greek that each man is the father of the next. The genealogy in Luke just says that the man "of" the next one all the way to Adam of God. But both genealogies lists the same 12 men from David to Abraham. Therefore, those passages in Luke 3:32-43 are showing the actual fathers and cannot be understood as son-in-laws.
Our question now shifts to the prior men in Luke 3:23-31 were they all son-in-laws?
As mentioned before, the split in genealogies happens with David's sons. Matthew lists the line of Solomon, Luke lists the line of Nathan.
In 2 Samuel 5:13-14 we read "...Also more sons and daughters were born to David. Now these are the names of those who were born to him in Jerusalem: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon,...
So we know that Nathan was David's son.
If we turn to Zechariah 12:12-14 we read in this Old Testament book a prophecy who will mourn for the Messiah when He is pierced:
"And the land shall mourn, every family by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of Shimei by itself, and their wives by themselves.
It turns out that the pierced Messiah is not the only prophecy in these passages.
If we go back to the genealogy in Luke 3:26, 3:29, 3:31 we find all four of these same names in the proper order. This doesn't mean that the names are one immediately after the other, but If we look at the first two names in Zechariah David and Nathan we do find these are one after the other in Luke 3. The next name in Zechariah 12 is Levi. If we begin at David and then Nathan we have to skip 9 names until we run into Levi. If we skip ahead 17 more names from Levi we find Semei. The Hebrew name in Zechariah 12 is Shimei. This same Hebrew name in the Greek New Testament would be translated as Semei.
I asked James D. Price a Professor of Hebrew, if this was correct. His response: "The Greek language has no "sh" sound, and no letter for "sh". So both the Greek Septuagint and the Greek NT transliterate Hebrew "sh" with "s"." I also asked him, "Can the Hebrew name Shimei be understood as Semei?" His responded, "If you are talking about a Greek translation, yes."
So considering that the Israelites did not trace lines of descent through matriarchal lines but through patriarchal lines, if we look at Zechariah 12:12-14 we find that the author who is an Israelite traces this line through a patriarchal system from David to Shimei.
This only leaves us with 14 generations from Joseph to Semei (not 41 from Joseph to David) in which could have had been son-in-laws in the Luke 3 genealogy. There is no other data in the Bible on these remaining 14 generations to express a dogmatic view on the issue but the information from the prophecy of Zechariah seems to suggest that we should expect only one in the genealogy who is a son-in-law - Joseph.
Zechariah picked four names in correct order from the blood line of the Messiah 500 year before Jesus was born. Zechariah knew from other prophecies the Messiah was to come from the line of David. In 1 Chronicles 3:1-9 we find that David had at least 15 sons. So Zechariah correctly picked Nathan as the line in which the Messiah would come. He also correctly picked the names Levi and Shimei (Semei) to be part of that line in his prophecy. What are the odds?
The skeptic has his answer.
© Copyright 1997, Trinity Consulting, All Rights Reserved.
References:
1. Mears, Henrietta C.,"What The Bible Is All About",G/L Publications 1953,1954,1960,1966, p.356-357, 396
By Phil Luna
Mary should be disqualified to transfer the rights of her lineage to her son Jesus,
except for a little known exception to the rule.
In Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 we are presented with two genealogies of Jesus Christ.
On the surface these different listings would appear to be a contradiction in the
scriptures. The genealogy found in Matthew's gospel is the lineage of Jesus' earthly
father Joseph, while the genealogy found in Luke's gospel is the lineage of Jesus' mother
Mary. However, many of the people that teach on the genealogies fail to
realize or address a major problem associated with the genealogical listing found in
Luke's gospel, the lineage of Mary. Once you have established that the line is indeed
Mary's you must deal with a second difficulty. The rights of the line are not passed
through the mother, only the father. Even though Mary, through her lineage, was of the
Davidic bloodline, she should be excluded from being able to pass those rights of the
bloodline because of being a female (Deut 21:16). So it is not enough to prove that Mary
was an unblemished descendant of David, she had to be a male to transfer the rights.
Therefore she would be disqualified to transfer the rights to her son Jesus, except for a
little known exception to the rule.
In Numbers 26 we are introduced to Zelophehad. Zelophehad, we are told, had no sons, only
daughters. In Numbers 27, following the death of Zelophehad, the daughters of Zelophehad
came before Moses and argued their plight. Because their father had died with no sons, all
of their rights of inheritance were to be lost and they felt this was unfair. So Moses
prayed to God and God gave Moses an exception to the rule. The Lord told Moses that the
inheritance CAN flow through a female, IF they fulfill two requirements. There must be no
male offspring in the family (Num 27:8) and if the female offspring should marry, they
must marry within their own tribe (Num 36:6).
Now we come back to Mary. On the surface she should be unable to transfer the rights to
her Son. But when you research you find that Mary had NO brothers, AND Mary did indeed
marry within her own tribe to Joseph.
What an awesome God we serve that set in order the requirements to allow the virgin birth
to take place 1,400 years in advance! Did Mary have any brothers?
By Guy Cramer
After reading the detailed information above, I asked Phil if he knew of any information
on Mary's brothers. He cited numerous non-canonical works such as The Catholic
Encyclopedia, the apocryphal book called, the Protoevangelium of James... tradition states
that Mary had no brothers.
Curious, I went through the four gospels looking for any reference to collaborate Phil's
references.
In John 19:25-27 we read:
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His Mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife
of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
When Jesus therefore saw His Mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing by, He said
to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!"
Then He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that
disciple took her to his home.
We see from this passage that Mary had a sister.
Jesus is not saying to His mother "Look at me on the cross" with the statement
"Woman, behold your son!" Jesus is telling his mother that John (the only
disciple at the cross) is going to care for her. Jesus also tells John that he must care
for Mary.
We must acknowledge that Joseph (Jesus Father) has probably died since we see no
references to Joseph after Jesus was 12 years old in Luke 2:41-52.
To understand why Jesus is telling John to care for Mary we must understand the Jewish
culture at that time. When an woman with children was widowed she would move back with her
father or brother. If her father had also died and there were no brothers then one of her
sons might care for her.
In this case, Jesus was the eldest son of Mary and was possibly supporting her at this
time. He passes the responsibility to John one of His disciples and not a son of Mary.
From the comments of Jesus we can extrapolate that Jesus was caring for Mary, which means
that Mary had no brothers (at least none that were alive at this time). Taken with the
extra-biblical literature that Mary had no brothers we can assume that she passed the
first prerequisite that God had given as law (Num 27:8).
Now we see the reason for two different genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Not only do
we see Joseph's line in Matthew 1 but also Mary's line in Luke 3. Both these genealogies
show that both Mary and Joseph come from the same tribe of Judah fulfilling the second
requirement by Law (Num 36:6). So the reason for God placing two genealogies is to show
that Jesus being of Virgin birth came from Mary's line which was not cursed as was
Joseph's. Also to show that both Mary and Joseph come from the same line which was a legal
necessity if Jesus was to claim Mary's line and not Joseph's cursed line.
We find that on the surface the Bible can be a simple enough to understand but the
complexity we are discovering in which it was written is astonishing.
Phil Luna is an ordained Assemblies of God minister. He teaches a weekly Bible study verse
by verse through the Bible. His favorite area of study is the Hebraic roots of
Christianity.
© Copyright 1998, Phil Luna & Trinity Consulting, All Rights Reserved.
Was Jacob
(Matthew 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23) the father of Joseph and husband of Mary?
(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
The answer to this is simple but requires some explanation. Most scholars today agree that
Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary, making Jacob the father
of Joseph and Heli the father of Mary.
This is shown by the two narration's of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story
only from Joseph's perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly from Mary's point of
view.
A logical question to ask is why Joseph is mentioned in both genealogies? The answer is
again simple. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in mentioning only males. Therefore, in
this case, Mary is designated by her husband's name.
This reasoning is clearly supported by two lines of evidence. In the first, every name in
the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, with the one exception of Joseph, is preceded by the
definite article (e.g. 'the' Heli, 'the' Matthat). Although not obvious in English
translations, this would strike anyone reading the Greek, who would realize that it was
tracing the line of Joseph's wife, even though his name was used.
The second line of evidence is the Jerusalem Talmud, a Jewish source. This recognizes the
genealogy to be that of Mary, referring to her as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).
(Fruchtenbaum 1993:10-13)
Did Jesus descend
from Solomon (Matthew 1:6) or from Nathan (Luke 3:31), both of whom are sons of David?
(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
This is directly linked to the above. Having shown that Matthew gives Joseph's genealogy
and Luke gives that of Mary, it is clear that Joseph was descended from David through
Solomon and Mary through Nathan.
Jesus would (Luke
1:32) or would not (Matthew 1:11; 1 Chronicles 3:16 & Jeremiah 36:30) inherit David's
throne?
(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
This answer follows on directly from that to #26. Having shown that Matthew's genealogy is
that of Joseph, it is obvious from Jeremiah 36:30 that none of Joseph's physical
descendants were qualified to sit on David's throne as he himself was descended from
Jeconiah. However, as Matthew makes clear, Jesus was not a physical descendant of Joseph.
After having listed Joseph's genealogy with the problem of his descendance from Jeconiah,
Matthew narrates the story of the virgin birth. Thus he proves how Jesus avoids the
Jeconiah problem and remains able to sit on David's throne. Luke, on the other hand, shows
that Jesus' true physical descendance was from David apart from Jeconiah, thus fully
qualifying him to inherit the throne of his father David. The announcement of the angel in
Luke 1:32 completes the picture: 'the Lord God will give him the throne of his father
David'. This divine appointment, together with his physical descendance, make him the only
rightful heir to David's throne.
(Fruchtenbaum 1993:12)
3. Why do only Matthew and Luke know of the virgin birth?
Of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth. Had something as miraculous as the virgin birth actually occurred, one would expect that Mark and John would have at least mentioned it in their efforts to convince the world that Jesus was who they were claiming him to be.
The apostle Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to Jesus' birth, he says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3) and was "born of a woman," not a virgin (Galatians 4:4).
The problem seems to be that you think everybody who wrote
in the NT should mention every event over and over again. Considering your statement
"one would expect"; seems to me to be an opinion. The four gospel's were
not written at exactly the same time. Please keep in mind that all four were written
by different authors. I'm sure one of the gospel writers probably read one of the
other gospels prior to writing his own. Is this a possibility? Could it be
that the gospel writers were trying not to be redundant? Exclusion does not mean an
event did not happen. Considering that 2 of the 4 gospels do mention the virgin birth.
If all four gospels contained exactly the same events, the same wording, no
discrepancies (on the surface); then why have four different gospels? If they were
all exactly the same we would need only one. There seems to be among atheist a
consensus that if every writer does not mention every event that the event in question
must be false. If the atheist applied the same regulations to any secular historical
event, we would have to dismiss 95 percent of all historical recordings as untrue and or
unreliable.
4. Why did Matthew include four women in Joseph's genealogy?
Matthew mentions four women in the Joseph's genealogy.
a. Tamar - disguised herself as a harlot to seduce Judah, her father-in-law (Genesis 38:12-19).
b. Rahab - was a harlot who lived in the city of Jericho in Canaan (Joshua 2:1).
c. Ruth - at her mother-in-law Naomi's request, she came secretly to where Boaz was sleeping and spent the night with him. Later Ruth and Boaz were married (Ruth 3:1-14).
d. Bathsheba - became pregnant by King David while she was still married to Uriah (2 Samuel 11:2-5).
To have women mentioned in a genealogy is very unusual. That all four of the women mentioned are guilty of some sort of sexual impropriety cannot be a coincidence. Why would Matthew mention these, and only these, women? The only reason that makes any sense is that Joseph, rather than the Holy Spirit, impregnated Mary prior to their getting married, and that this was known by others who argued that because of this Jesus could not be the Messiah. By mentioning these women in the genealogy Matthew is in effect saying, "The Messiah, who must be a descendant of King David, will have at least four "loose women" in his genealogy, so what difference does one more make?"
B. THE ANGEL'S MESSAGE
In Matthew, the angel appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him that Mary's child will save his people from their sins. In Luke, the angel tells Mary that her son will be great, he will be called the Son of the Most High and will rule on David's throne forever. A short time later Mary tells Elizabeth that all generations will consider her (Mary) blessed because of the child that will be born to her.
If this were true, Mary and Joseph should have had the highest regard for their son. Instead, we read in Mark 3:20-21 that Jesus' family tried to take custody of him because they thought he had lost his mind. And later, in Mark 6:4-6 Jesus complained that he received no honor among his own relatives and his own household.
There is not a problem
here. If a supernatural event happened to you, what members of your family would
believe you? Especially considering you had no physical proof. I doubt too
many would/could believe you. However this is speculation that the "entire
family" felt this way. You are grouping the entire family in this statement.
Obviously someone in his family believed Jesus. what about Mary?
Joseph is not mentioned after the trip by Jesus at twelve. This is basically a non
event. I suppose that if the Gospel writers would have written every single detail
then possibly we would know the day and hour, shoe sizes etc...
According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.
Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later. However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor ..." In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death.
***Note: This question was answered
using another question's answer. The reason is obvious as you continue reading. The
question portion is in Bold***
Quirinius, the governor of Syria whom Luke's Gospel mentions, is known from a careful history of affairs in Judea which was compiled by Josephus, an educated Jew, writing in Greek at Rome between c. 75 and c. 80. Josephus had his own prejudices and areas of interest, but he worked with a framework of hard facts which were freely available for checking and which he had collected responsibly. According to Josephus, Quirinius was governor of Syria with authority over Judea in AD 6, when the province was brought under direct Roman control. The year was a critical moment in Jewish history, as important to its province as the 1972 to Northern Ireland, the start of direct rule. On such a fact, at such a moment, Josephus and his sources cannot be brushed aside. There is however, an awkward problem. Luke's Gospel links Jesus' birth with Quirinius
I may have a problem with the word 'with' but keep going....
and with King Herod, but in AD 6 Herod had long disappeared. He had died soon after an eclipse of the moon which is dated by astronomers to 12-13 March 4 BC, although a minority of scholars have argued for 5 BC instead.
So far, so good....
The Gospel, therefore, assumes that Quirinius and King Herod were contemporaries, when they were separated by ten years or more.
I assume you mean contemporaries in office--they were certainly contemporaries in life...Quirinius, at the time of King Herod's death was doing military expeditions in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire (Tacitus , Annals 3:48; Florus, Roman History 2:31), with some evidence indicating that he either was a co-ruler with the governor of Syria (the somewhat inept Quintilius Varus) or at least placed in charge of the 14-year census in Palestine. Varus was famous for the later fiasco at the Teutoburger forest in Germany (9 ad) and at his appointment as Gov.. of Syria in 7 BC was largely 'untested'. The census was due in 8-7 BC, and Augustus could easily have ordered his trusted Quirinius (fresh from subduing the Pisidian highlanders) to assist in this volatile project. Herod I had recently lost favor of the emperor and was probably dragging his feet on taking the census--a process with always enraged the difficult Jews! This would have pushed the timeframe into the 5 BC mark, which fits the general data.
There is no doubt about the Herod in question. When the great King Herod died, his kingdom was split between his sons, two of whom did add Herod to their names. Herod Antipas locally in Galilee as a tetrarch until 39, but Luke 1:5 connects the Annunciation with Herod `king of Judea':
This is correct...the Annunciation occurred around the census point, under King Herod--the reference in 1.5 is correct...so why did you use the word 'but'? Did you think the annunciation was under Antipas? King Herod (I) was 'king of Judea' but was also 'king of Galilee'..the terms would not have been understood as restrictive (king of 'only') BEFORE the kingdom divided...
When he refers to Herod Antipas at 3:1, he correctly calls him tetrarch, not king. Herod Archelaus ruled Judea until AD 6, but only as an ethnarch: like Matthew 2:22, Luke might have misdescribed him as king, but, like Matthew, he would have called him Archelaus or Herod Archelaus.
You have confused something here. Both Luke 1.5 and 2.2 BOTH refer to King Herod the Great...3.1 refers to Antipas...no problem so far
At 1:5 the Herod must be the great King Herod, just as Matthew's Gospel describes. In Matthew the Nativity coincides with the great Herod, Massacre of the Innocents, whose death is a reason for the return from the Flight into Egypt.
Correct.
Luke's Gospel, therefore, assumes that King Herod and the governor Quirinius were contemporaries, but they were separated by over ten years or more. The incoherent dating is only the start of the problem.
I think I already explained this above.
Also, it is worth noting that we have a MS that describes a soldier who was 'legate of Syria' TWICE during this timeframe.
There are two main interpretations of this MS: one is that it refers to Q. Varus (placing Quirinius as a procurator during the birth of Christ), and the other that it refers to Quirinius himself.
The first option is defended by Ernest Martin in CKC:90:
" A Latin inscription found in 1764 about one-half mile south of the ancient villa of Quintilius Varus (at Tivoli, 20 miles east of Rome) states that the subject of the inscription had twice been governor of Syria. This can only refer to Quintilius Varus, who was Syrian governor at two different times. Numismatic evidence shows he ruled Syria from 6 to 4 B.C., and other historical evidence indicates that Varus was again governor from 2 B.C. to A.D. I. Between his two governorships was Sentius Saturninus, whose tenure lasted from 4 to 2 B.C. Significantly, Tertullian (third century) said the imperial records showed that censuses were conducted in Judea during the time of Sentius Saturninus. (Against Marcion 4:7). Tertullian also placed the birth of Jesus in 3 or 2 B.C. This is precisely when Saturninus would have been governor according to my new interpretation. That the Gospel of Luke says Quirinius was governor of Syria when the census was taken is resolved by Justin Martyr's statement (second century) that Quirinius was only a procurator (not governor) of the province (Apology 1:34). In other words, he was simply an assistant to Saturninus, who was the actual governor as Tertullian stated."
The second option is favored by William Ramsey (NBD, s.v. "Quirinius"):
"The possibility that Quirinius may have been governor of Syria on an earlier occasion (*Chronology of the NT) has found confirmation in the eyes of a number of scholars (especially W. M. Ramsay) from the testimony of the Lapis Tiburtinus (CIL, 14. 3613). This inscription, recording the career of a distinguished Roman officer, is unfortunately mutilated, so that the officer’s name is missing, but from the details that survive he could very well be Quirinius. It contains a statement that when he became imperial legate of Syria he entered upon that office ‘for the second time’ (Lat. iterum). The question is: did he become imperial legate of Syria for the second time, or did he simply receive an imperial legateship for the second time, having governed another province in that capacity on the earlier occasion?...The wording is ambiguous. Ramsay held that he was appointed an additional legate of Syria between 10 and 7 bc, for the purpose of conducting the Homanadensian war, while the civil administration of the province was in the hands of other governors, including Sentius Saturninus (8-6 bc), under whom, according to Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4. 19), the census of Lk. 2:1ff. was held.
Under either of these scenarios, SOMEONE served twice, and under either of these scenarios, Quirinius could EASILY have been responsible for the census.
And curiously enough, even if that were NOT the case somehow, the linguistic data of the last few decades indicates that Luke 2.1 should be translated 'BEFORE the census of Quirinius' instead of the customary 'FIRST census of Quirinius'--see Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, T&T Clark: 1966, pp. 23,24 and Syntax, p. 32. This would 'solve the problem' without even requiring two terms of office for Q.
And, while we are talking about Greek here...the term Luke uses for Quirinius' 'governorship' is the VERY general term hegemon, which in extra-biblical Greek was applied to prefects, provincial governors, and even Caesar himself. In the NT it is similarly used as a 'wide' term, applying to procurators--Pilate, festus, felix--and to general 'rulers' (Mt 2.6). [The New Intl. Dict. of New Test. Theology (ed. Brown) gives as the range of meaning: "leader, commander, chief" (vol 1.270)...this term would have applied to Quirinius at MANY times in his political career, and as a general term, Syria would have had several individuals that could be properly so addressed at the same time. Remember, Justin Martyr called him 'procurator' in Apology 1:34, which is also covered by this term.] My point is...nothing is really out of order here...
Luke's Nativity story hinges on its `decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.' `Caesar Augustus' was the Roman Emperor, but if the Nativity took place in the reign of the King Herod the Great, the Jews were still Herod's subjects, members of a client kingdom, not a province under direct Roman rule.
You are somewhat mistaken here. It is true that Judea did not technically become a Roman province until 6 AD, but the facts prior to that indicate much tighter authority and control than your statement might lead one to believe. Rome did a military conquest before Herod the Great was even born. Pompey attacked Jerusalem and even invaded the Temple. was made a tributary (read: PAID TRIBUTE$) to Rome until Caesar defeated Pompey in Egypt around 48 BC. Herod the Great's dad had aided Caesar in that endeavor and so won the favor of Julius Caesar (and with it a procuratorship of, plus Roman citizenship and exemption from taxes.) Then in 47 BC, the daddy Herod appointed the son Herod to be governor of Galilee...still completely under Roman rule. He still had to be appointed tetrarch by Antony-- still a thrall, eh?!. He was also proclaimed 'king' by the Roman leaders (Octavius and Antony) in 40 bc--but he had to re-conquer the land from the Parthians, which he did in 37bc. As a 'client kingdom', they were still under the authority of Rome (all of the rulers, for example, were appointed--including ALL the Herods--and ratified by Rome.)
Actually, when I keep reading your paragraph, it sounds like you are calling Luke mistaken in referring to Rome as 'driving the issue' of the census. He is INDEED making that point, but HE is correct in that...The client-kings WERE still subject to Roman enrollment decrees. [see Blaiklock, The Century of the New Testament,(1962) and The Archeology of the New Testament (1970)]
The status of client-kings in the Roman Empire left them responsibility for their subjects' taxation.
Not decision-making authority--they couldn't say 'no', but local execution of the enrollment process-"yes".
Relations between the Emperor Augustus and King Herod had often been stormy and had even led to threats of Roman interference which Herod and his envoys had to avert. However, their conflicts never caused the removal of Herod's royal status, although this was the only way in which his kingdom could have been taxed on the Roman model in accordance with orders from the Roman Emperor. It is not just that Herod the Great never coincided with Quirinius the governor: he never coincided with a Roman taxing of."
The relationship between Augustus and King Herod had its ups and downs, indeed, but the argument that his Roman-granted title of king meant that his nation was exempt from taxes/tribute/census is just flat wrong. As I hinted at up above, it had become a tribute-paying tributary since its conquest by Pompey LONG BEFORE King Herod gets his title! (more below on this).
Augustus never issued a decree to tax the whole world.
Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible, p. 29.
"It is even doubtful if the Emperor Augustus ever issued a decree to Rome's provinces that `all the world should be taxed.' Certainly, Romans did take censuses in individual provinces which were ruled directly by their governors. They were not, however, co-ordinated by an order from Augustus to all the world, at least so far as our evidence goes.
Read: argument from silence! (see below the points from Historian's Fallacies)
As that evidence extends through histories, local inscriptions and the papyrus returns of tax-payers in Egypt, it is immensely unlikely that a new edict of such consequence has escaped our knowledge.
Who are you trying to kid? You and I are looking at the same sources, no doubt, and there are HUGE, HUGE, HUGE gaps in the records! 'immensely unlikely'?!
In AD 6 we do know that Augustus was enacting a new tax on inheritance to help pay for his armies;
BTW, the taxation to support his army, is the main reason it is believed that Quirinius assisted in the taxing of 8-5 BC...his extended military maneuvers on the Pisidian highlands (dating from around 12 BC) would have required additional financing...
however, the tax affected only Roman citizens, not Jews of Nazareth, and there was no need for a worldwide census to register their names.
Remember, the census in AD 6 is NOT the one of Luke 2.2 (of 8-6 BC.)...but the census of AD 6 DID hit the Jews pretty heavily...at least 600 talents as a nation acc. to Josephus (Antiq. 17.320; Jewish War 2.97--cited in Jeremias' Jerusalem in the Times of Jesus: An investigation into the economic and social conditions during the New Testament period,Fortress: 1969). As a national tax, it DID effect the Jewish folk--loads like this are ALWAYS 'distributed to the people'(!) in addition to the already oppressive tax structure of the Herods...
And Luke does NOT place the 'worldwide census' at the time of the AD 6 tax...but rather puts it some time BEFORE the Syrian-based one in 7-5 BC...
But more accurately, Luke was probably not referring to a taxation census at all--simply a "registration". Registrations were normally associated with (1) taxation (above discussion); (2) military service (Jews were exempt) and (3) special government "ballots". We have conclusive evidence that an empire-wide (in decree, not necessarily execution, of course) registration occurred in the time frame described by Luke! Martin [CKC:89-90] summarizes the literary, archeological, and iconographic evidence for this:
" A sixth reason for placing the nativity of Jesus in 3 or 2 B.C. is the coincidence of this date with the New Testament account that Jesus was born at the time when a Roman census was being conducted: "There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the IRoman] world should be registered" (Luke 2:1). Historians have not been able to find any empire-wide census or registration in the years 7-5 B.C., but there is a reference to such a registration of all the Roman people not long before 5 February 2 B.C. written by Caesar Augustus himself: "While I was administering my thirteenth consulship [2 B.C.] the senate and the equestrian order and the entire Roman people gave me the title Father of my Country" (Res Gestae 35, italics added). This award was given to Augustus on 5 February 2 B.C., therefore the registration of citizen approval must have taken place in 3 B.C. Orosius, in the fifth century, also said that Roman records of his time revealed that a census was indeed held when Augustus was made "the first of men"--an apt description of his award "Father of the Country"--at a time when all the great nations gave an oath of obedience to Augustus (6:22, 7:2). Orosius dated the census to 3 B.C. And besides that, Josephus substantiates that an oath of obedience to Augustus was required in Judea not long before the death of Herod (Antiquities I7:4I-45). This agrees nicely in a chronological sense with what Luke records. But more than that, an inscription found in Paphlagonia (eastern Turkey), also dated to 3 B.C., mentions an "oath sworn by all the people in the land at the altars of Augustus in the temples of Augustus in the various districts." And dovetailing precisely with this inscription, the early (fifth century) Armenian historian, Moses of Khoren, said the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was conducted by Roman agents in Armenia where they set up "the image of Augustus Caesar in every temple.''. The similarity of this language is strikingly akin to the wording on the Paphlagonian inscription describing the oath taken in 3 B.C. These indications can allow us to reasonably conclude that the oath (of Josephus, the Paphlagonian inscription, and Orosius) and the census (mentioned by Luke, Orosius, and Moses of Khoren) were one and the same. All of these things happened in 3 B.C."
What this means is that we have very, very clear evidence of an empire-wide registration in the time frame required! (How much more data do you need?!)
In Judea under Quirinius, we know from Josephus's histories of something more appropriate, not a worldwide decree but a local census in AD 6 to assess Judea when the province passed from rule by Herod's family to direct rule by Rome. Although this census was local, it caused a notorious outcry, not least because some of the Jews argued that the innovation was contrary to scripture and the will of God. According to the third Gospel, the census which took Joseph to Bethlehem was `the first while Quirinius was governor of Syria.'
I have already pointed out that 'first while' is probably a mistranslation of the text -- 'before' is more in line with koine idiom (see the reference of N. Turner, above)
Quirinius's census was indeed the first, but it belonged in AD 6 when King Herod, the story's other marker, was long since dead."
A couple of concluding points:
•That Augustus MIGHT HAVE issued a world-wide census decree (a record of which is only preserved in Luke's gospel) is ALTOGETHER reasonable and plausible. The data about Augustus' 'propensity' to count and tax is well known. For example, he documents, in his own records, how he counted the Roman nation some three times (Res Gestae Divi Augusti , 8--from Roman Civilization--SourceBook II: the Empire, eds. Lewis and Reinhold, p 12)., and increasingly levied detailed taxes throughout his reign--with the attendant increase in bribery and vice (see Gibbons' Rise and Fall). As vain as he was, it would not be surprising at all for this to have occurred.
•It was also customary for the Roman empire to take a census when there was a change of local government (e.g. when Archelaus was deposed in AD 6, one of Quirinius' first tasks was to liquidate his estate and hold a census to determine the tribute load.) The implication of this pattern for our discussion is that when Varus became governor of Syria in 7 BC, one of his first acts would have been to take a census (the one which would have produced the trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem for Joseph/Mary.)
•We KNOW Augustus instituted a 14-year census-cycle for EGYPT in 10/9 BC...(SourceBook II, above, p. 388)...Not only does this give us more confirmation that Augustus was a "countin' sorta guy'" but it may reflect a local execution of a 'worldwide decree' of Augustus.
•To assert that Augustus did not make such a decree is an affirmative historical statement. And, "the burden of proof, for any historical assertion, always rests upon its author" (Hacket, Historians' Fallacies, Harper: 1970, p 63.).
•And to argue that Luke was wrong because there was NO worldwide decree (because we don't have a record of the specific decree) is to make a common mistake in historical method--arguing from 'slim' silence (some silence-arguments can be made to work, though). Hacket again:
"evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is a contradiction in terms--it is no evidence at all. The nonexistence of an object [read: "worldwide decree"-gmm] is established not by nonexistent evidence [read: "we can't find the decree so far"-gmm] but by affirmative evidence of the fact that it did not, or could not exist [e.g. a document that says it did not happen--gmm]" (above, p62)
•And, in spite of the above methodological and background problems, we DO HAVE CONCRETE EVIDENCE of an empire-wide Augustian registration--literary, archeological, iconographic.
•To summarize this section on the 'the missing census of 7/5 BC': I HAVE affirmative evidence and good arguments for such a census--
•Luke, a very, very, very reliable historian SAYS SO! •Augustus was this 'type of person' with repeated, known actions along this line.
•These kinds of events occurred at major changes in ruling personnel--a situation that obtained in Palestine at the time Luke indicates.
•Parallel events occurred in other Roman-controlled areas, in roughly the same time (i.e. Egypt 10/9 BC). •There is not a scrap of contrary data.
•Quirinius' participation is such an event (along with Varus) is not only possible, but highly likely.
•We have positive evidence of an empire-wide decree of Augustus within a year or two of the required date.
Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Matthew quotes Micah 5:2 to show that this was in fulfillment of prophecy. Actually, Matthew misquotes Micah (compare Micah 5:2 to Matthew 2:6). Although this misquote is rather insignificant, Matthew's poor understanding of Hebrew will have great significance later in his gospel.
Luke has Mary and Joseph traveling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea (Matthew 2:21-23).
In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where they were born (which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing thousands of people to travel).
Micah 5:2 But as for you Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be
among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for me to be ruler in Israel.
His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity.
Matthew 2:6 And you Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the leaders of Judah; For out of you shall come a ruler, who will shepherd my people of Israel.
Where is the poor Hebrew shown? Yes it is worded different. This does not even suggest that Matthew has a poor understanding of the Hebrew language. This quote (Matthew 2:6) says the same thing as Micah 5:2. Another example of Biblical misunderstanding.
Luke 2:4 does not contradict Matthew 2:21-23. One passage records a single event; the other passage quotes a single event (the same event) and a historical fact. If a passage does not include ALL events; does not mean that it is to be dismissed.
For those who read Jerry McCoy's column (March 27) in which he referred to scholars as doubting that Roman officials would have had everyone returning to their homes for a census at the time of Jesus' birth, and also questioning that Quirinius was governor of Syria at that time, please be aware of the following contrary information: Conservative Bible scholars report discovering a letter to a Roman officer that explains that it was necessary that a census be taken, in part so that landowners could renew their claims to land that they tilled, and additionally, conservative Bible scholars point out that the probable date of Jesus' birth (6 B.C.) was in the cycle of census. (From the Peoria Journal.)
| Roman Census Document | |
|---|---|
| GREEK
TEXT (from Hunt & Edgar 1934:108) (This is readable as Greek if "Symbol" font is installed) |
TRANSLATION |
GaioV OuibioV MaximoV eparcoV Aiguptou legei thV kat oikian apografhV enestwshV anagkaion estin pasin toiV kaq hntina dhpote aitian apodhmousin apo twn nomwn prosaggellesqai epanelqein eiV ta eautwn efestia ina kai thn sunhqh oikonomian thV apografhV plhrwswsin kai th proshkoush autoiV gewrgiai proskarterhswsin eidwV mentoi oti eniwn twn apo thV cwraV h poliV hmwn ecei creian boulomai pantaV touV eulogon dokountaV ecein tou enqade epimenin aitian apografesqai para Boul . . . Fhstw eparcwi eilhV on epi toutw etaxa ou kai taV upografaV oi apodeixanteV anagkaian autwn thn parousian lhmyontai kata touto to paraggelma entoV thV triakadoV tou enestwtoV mhnoV E . . . A few words have been reconstructed by the editors. |
The "Prefect
of Egypt" (Latin: Prefectus) was the Roman governor over all Egypt. |
Another Roman Document
| Luke:21-3 NIV | 3In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. ( this was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria). And everyone went to his own town to register. |
The Roman Census
A Public Notice A.D. 104
Gaius Vibius, Chief prefect of Egypt. In view of the approaching census, it is necessary for all those residing for any cause away from their own districts, to prepare to return at once to their own areas of administration, in order that they may meet the family obligation of the enrollment and that the tilled lands may remain in legal possession. Knowing that your district has need of food supplies, I desire...document becomes unreadable
Example of a Census Document
A.D. 48 The Fourth Census Required by Rome
To Dorian chief magistrate and to Didymus town clerk, from Thermoutharion, the daughter of Thoonis, with her guardian Apollonious the son of Sotades. The inhabinats of the house belonging to me in the South Lane are: Theremoutharian a free woman of the aforesaid Sotades, about 65 years of age, of medium height, with honey-colored complexion, having a long face and a scar on the right knee unreadable line in the document
I, the aforesaid Thermoutharion, with my guardian the said Apollonious, swear by Tiberious Claudius Caesar Emperor, that I have assuredly, honestly and truthfully presented the preceding return of those living with me, neither a stranger, Alexandrian, nor freedman, nor Roman, nor Egyptian, except the aforesaid. If I am swearing truly may it be well with me, if falsely the opposite.
Comments by witJa
Although the following public notice was in Egypt and of the 8th Roman census. This same type of notice was probably found through out the Roman Empire. Possibly the same type of notice was read by Joseph and Mary 100 years earlier.
Other such documents exist as well as documents stating the birth of children. The Roman Census was done every 14 years the two documents stated here A.D. 48 and A.D. 104 fall within the 14 year span from the year that Jesus was born.
THE CENSUS OF QUIRINIUS
The Historicity of Luke 2:1-5Ronald Marchant
Feasterville, Pennsylvania
ABSTRACT
Critics have objected to every statement of fact in the census account of Luke 2:1-5. Here the critical view is analyzed with special attention to Quirinius' association with this census. A false correlation by critics between Luke's narrative and a later census described by Josephus seems to be the error involved. Although as yet no independent confirmation of Luke's census has turned up, similar events from the same period and locale substantiate every statement of his account.
THE PROBLEM SKETCHED
Luke's account of the setting of Christ's birth has often been criticized by those who would charge the Scripture with error. Unlike other passages of the Gospels which have scarcely any material which allows firm correlations with secular history (thus proving, for the critics, that the writers of the Gospels had no concern for, nor sense of, history), this section has abundant chronological and political content. It firmly roots the story of Christ's birth in the context of the worldwide administration of Roman government and shows how God uses unwitting and unwilling men to bring about His purposes.
To some, however, the chronological exactness of the narrative invites rigorous questioning and skeptical contempt. Perhaps for them their theory of the composition and significance of the Scripture is better served by having certain "stock contradictions" between Biblical history and secular history or between different Scripture writers who describe the same events. Whatever their reasons, it is a matter of fact that scholars have called into question every statement of fact in the first five verses of Luke's second chapter. Indeed, if these doubts and accusations are warranted, then the trustworthiness of Luke and his Gospel is severely compromised.
Let us look briefly at the issues involved in this case and try to see what is known about the events Luke describes as well as other historical parallels. In addition we shall try to identify assumptions that are made about the text both by its supporters and opponents.
The Decree of Augustus
It is doubted that there was any decree made by Augustus to "enroll the inhabited earth." No evidence for such an order is known.
The Census while Quirinius was Governor of Syria
The Greek text indicates that the census took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. A chronological conflict is alleged as follows:
Matt. 2:1 places the birth of Jesus in the reign of Herod the Great who, according to Josephus, died in 4 BC.
Luke 2:2 places the trip of Joseph and Mary during the governorship of Quirinius, giving the census as the occasion for Jesus' birth in Bethlehem.
Josephus (Antiquities 15.1.1) tells us of Quirinius being made ruler of Syria and coming to take a census of the Jews after the dismissal of Archelaus as ruler of Judea in AD 6.
Thus, taking Josephus as the standard, there is a difference of ten years between the dates given by Matthew (prior to 4 BC) and Luke (after AD 6) for the birth of Christ. Further confusion occurs when the evidence of the church father Tertullian (Against Marcion 4.19) is admitted. He claims that the birth of Christ was recorded in the census of Sentius Saturninus, governor of Syria. With these conflicting sources the synchronism of the Biblical writers is alleged to be in serious contradiction.
Return to Parental City
There is no precedent for such a return to the city of one's parents in an enrolment for purposes of taxing property. This would have an effect counter to the Roman goal of replacing nationalistic and local patriotism with loyalty to the Empire. Here the critics see a contrivance to provide a Bethlehem birth for Jesus (as required by prophecy) when his parents are natives of Nazareth.
Presence of Mary in Bethlehem
There was no need for Mary to accompany Joseph to be enrolled, since such measures would require the heads of households only.
Roman Census in a Client Kingdom
If Luke 2 is not identified with Josephus' account of the census of AD 6, then it would force a census on the kingdom of Herod. This is felt to be unlikely. On the other hand, if Luke and Josephus correctly speak of the same event, then the problem is shifted to Matthew's credibility. However, Luke must then be wrong to connect Jesus' birth with John's (1:5, 24, 26; 3:1).
Thus on every statement of fact in Luke 2:1-5, objections have been raised regarding its probability or verity. If the critical view is accepted, this seemingly historical account is only an attempt to cover up the writer's lack of definite knowledge of the facts (if there were any) which he is relating.
Is this really a fair view of the historical reliability of this passage? Let us see.
THE PARALLELS
Our knowledge of ancient history, although continually expanding, is nonetheless partial and, in places, almost nil. In general, historians are aware of the limited knowledge they have of any given event in history and of the possibility that some events are recorded in only a single remaining source. Thus if we are adamant in demanding multiple-source confirmation of any given fact, we will suffer by having fewer facts in our fund of admissible knowledge.
Our situation in assessing Luke 2 will depend, therefore, on an examination of a number of available historical parallels, keeping in mind our fragmentary knowledge of detail for the events we are studying. Let us look in turn at each of the points mentioned in sketching the problem above.
The Decree of Augustus
It is true that we do not have an official decree1 from Augustan times ordering that all the people of the "inhabited world" be enrolled at a census. We must understand the motivation for the census as stemming from the administrative reorganization that occurred as Augustus built the Empire on the ruins of the Republic. Having consolidated his power after disposing of the other contenders for sole leadership in the wake of Julius Caesar's assassination, Augustus used this power to refashion the whole machinery of the Roman administration. He began this process by restoring economic stability to the war-weary society so as to generate the funds necessary to maintain the new imperial civil service and the large standing army for their peace-time roles of occupation and maintenance of order. To raise the needed revenue he devised the strategy of causing
the gradual disappearance of the tax-farming companies who levied the direct and indirect taxes. Their place was taken by the imperial officials or procurators, who were employed in the Emperor's name in all the provinces, both imperial and senatorial. These men, except those filling the highest positions, were almost all either imperial slaves or imperial freedmen. They had offices for collecting the taxes in the chief town of the province and branch offices elsewhere; and all the threads of this network of finance were gathered up in the personal treasury of the Emperor at Rome. Thus the financial administration of the Empire was gradually converted into an elaborate bureaucratic machine, governed from the centre by the
Emperors.2To allow for an accurate assessment and collection of the new taxes on both citizens and provincials a new procedure was devised and carried out.
A preparatory step in this direction was a general census of property owned in the provinces; this was started by Augustus and admirably carried out in Gaul by his stepson Drusus; and perhaps the same thing was done in Galatia, Syria and Palestine, the newly annexed provinces in the East.3 Rostovzeff is writing about the broad outlines of Imperial policy, not dealing with particular applications, but he acknowledges the possibility of such an occurrence in "Galatia, Syria and Palestine." In fact we have documentary evidence of such censuses carried out at this time in Egypt, Lebanon and Nabatea, to mention several other locations in the East. As in all the reforms which Augustus introduced, he was flexible to the utmost and made use of existing institutions and customs wherever possible. This pragmatic approach remained a characteristic of the Empire's method of dealing with existing cultures whenever they came to rule them and to integrate them into the overall fabric of the worldwide system they were weaving.
These censuses were seen by many provincials as intrusions. They were resisted to the point of bloodshed in Gaul (requiring forty years to complete!)4 and in Judea (Judas' rebellion of AD 6).5 In areas previously subject to severe regulation, however (e.g., Egypt), there was no such resistance. As each new area was added to the Roman territory this painful process was repeated.
It is true that we do not have any copy of an order from Augustus to the effect that a worldwide census was to be held at some given time. However, the knowledge that we do have of the initiatives of Augustus in centralizing and bureaucratizing the Roman administration of the Empire allows us to see how the census mentioned by Luke fits into the wider scheme of the regulation and taxation of the whole. The census was carried out by the legatus of that area. If necessary, military force was used. The census was an important and obligatory feature of Roman rule in every province. That Luke mentions the census in Judea that was the occasion of the birth of Christ is rather to his credit than to his fault.
The "Governorship" of Quirinius
Since the crux of the chronological problem is the matter of Quirinius' association with this census, most of our discussion will be concentrated here. Let us begin by noting that the phrase in the KJV "when ... was governor" translates the present active participle of the verb hegemoneuw. The sense of the word is "while ... was ruling." The reading of the KJV is perfectly acceptable, though it may make us Americans think of the position or office titled "governor," whereas the Greek is really less specific than that. The New Translation of the Bible renders it "when ... had the government." In fact, the Greek word denotes rulership or leadership in general. In Luke 3:1 the word appears twice, first in noun form referring to the emperor Tiberius' reign, then as a verb for Pontius Pilate's rule in Judea. Thus the one speaks of the superior to the governor of Syria, the other of his subordinate. Thus, although the word can mean "governor" in the technical sense, this is not necessary. To avoid confusion here, our text is better translated "while ... was ruling."
In the second verse there is another difficult word, protos, which the KJV translates adverbially as "first." This Greek word is a superlative adjective normally translated "first." It can refer either to (1) the first item of several things, or (2) the first of two things. Many have stated their misgivings over the lack or an object to which the comparison refers. The KJV treats the word as an adverb: "this taxing was first made when..." Others have suggested another adverbial rendering. They take the adverb to apply to the participle discussed in the previous paragraph and obtain: "this census took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria."6 This latter suggestion would allow us to place the census in the time of Herod regardless of the time of Quirinius' rulership in Syria.
Sir William Ramsay has said of this latter solution that it overlooks the obvious meaning of the words.7? He suggests that the simplest rendering be adopted -- "this was the first census while Quirinius was ruling Syria" -- and that our historical understanding be worked out on this basis. His suggestion, fitting the Classical meaning of protos, is that Luke is speaking of the first census of a series. Equally possible is the similar translation using the meaning of protos which came into vogue in Hellenistic Greek (the Greek of the N.T. period), namely: "this was the first census (of two) while Quirinius was ruling Syria." The essential meaning is the same as Ramsay's, but Luke would not necessarily imply there was an extended series of censuses following this one. It would serve primarily to distinguish the census which occasioned the birth of Christ from a later one which occurred while Quirinius was still (or again) ruling Syria. If this is the case, then we can see how Josephus might speak of the second census with which Quirinius was associated in Judea, whereas Luke correctly identifies the earlier census as that which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. Luke does in fact mention this second census in Acts 5:37, noting that it was opposed by Jewish rebels, fitting well with Josephus' description. We thus have good reason for rejecting the notion that Luke wrongly places the AD 6 census mentioned by Josephus before 4 BC as some critics have alleged.
Turning now to the "governorship" of Quirinius, we must ask the question: if Luke 2:2 is translated "this was the first census while Quirinius was ruling Syria," is it possible that Quirinius was ruling Syria at some time before the death of Herod the Great (before 4 BC)? The only known dates for Quirinius as governor of Syria are AD 6-7. However, an interesting possibility has been suggested by an inscription called the "Lapis Tiburtinus," a tombstone which records the achievements of an Augustan army officer. (See Appendix for text of inscription). The key phrase translates as "pro praetor of Syria twice."8 Unfortunately the stone is broken in such a way that the name of the officer is missing. There is no one of the governors of Syria whom we know to have been appointed twice to that office. William Ramsay thought the inscription referred to Quirinius.9 Sherwin-White does not.10 If it was Ouirinius who twice served as legatus or pro praetor of Syria, then the earlier term of office might well fit with the "first census" mentioned in Luke 2. However, the only certain gap in the line of the governors of Syria occurs between P. Quinctilius Varus (6-4 BC) and C. Caesar (1 BC - AD 4). This gap probably falls just after the death of Herod the Great, therefore too late to synchronize with the Gospel accounts of Jesus' birth. Unless some new information is found which allows for or proves that this gap falls within the lifetime of Herod, the evidence of the "Lapis Tiburtinus" will not materially affect the question of the historicity of Luke 2.
Summarizing so far, we have seen that the verb used in Luke 2:2 means "to rule" (including "to command") and that Luke distinguishes this census from one or more later ones by calling it the "first census." We have not yet seen how we can best understand this verse in its historical background.
The political control of Syria and the East was a major objective of Roman policy. Even prior to the Empire the Romans deemed it wise to have a supreme commander in the East. Pompey and later Mark Antony were two such. In 23 BC Augustus named M. Agrippa the vice-emperor of the Orient.11 His extraordinary authority is noted by Josephus (Antiquities 15.10.2): "Now Agrippa was about this time sent to succeed Caesar in the government of the countries beyond the lonian Sea." Agrippa held this post for ten years, even though he ruled in absentia through messengers part of this time. Agrippa died in March of 12 BC. Curiously enough, in August of that year Quirinius was released by Augustus from his duties as consul even though he still had four months to serve. We have no further information from antiquity as to Quirinius' next assignment, but we do know that sometime between 12 and 6 BC he successfully commanded the Roman army in a campaign against the Homonadensian tribe in the Taurus Mountains of Cilicia. Since the only Roman legion based in the whole of Asia belonged to Syria,12 and since the area to be conquered was contiguous to Syria, it is reasonable to think that Quirinius was placed in command of this Syrian legion and was given responsibility for overseeing the entire region in the effort to pacify the Homonadensians. If this is the path which Quirinius followed, it is possible to see his whole career in the East not simply as a series of isolated events, but as different functions of his overall command of the whole area. (See inscriptions in Appendix.)
How, then, do we understand the succession of the regular governors of Syria? Normally we would expect the governor to be the supreme commander in the area, the direct representative of the Emperor, the head of both civil and military affairs. This would leave no room for either an extraordinary commander over the whole region on the one hand, or else for a governor of Syria on the other, providing we understand the office of governor in its usual sense. The solution, it appears, lies in realizing that the office of governor of Syria was