Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T13:28:10.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Nativity Census: What Does Luke Actually Say?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2009

John Thorlev
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The first two verses of Chapter 2 of Luke's Gospel are amongst the best known of the whole Bible, and historically amongst the most controversial. Luke refers to a census decreed by Augustus, of which we appear to have no other record, and implies that P. Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria at some time around 6–5 B.C, the possibility of which has been much debated. This is all very odd, particularly since Luke is usually so careful with political background, if not with exact chronology, and is clearly trying in his account of the Nativity to place the event in its historical context, as well as to explain why Jesus was born in Bethlehem and not at the family home in Nazareth. One must assume that the details about the Nativity which Luke gives did at least make some sort of historical sense to his earliest readers, and yet the versions which we read so frequently can hardly be said to do so. But what exactly does Luke say? If we are to doubt the accuracy of his statements we should first be certain that we understand precisely what it is that he is saying.

Type
Research Article
Information
Greece & Rome , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , April 1979 , pp. 81 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. The exact date has been long debated, and depends partly on the difficult question of the length of Jesus' ministry and on the date of the Crucifixion (most probably A.D. 29 or 30). Luke says (3:1) that John began to preach ‘in the fifteenth year of the Emperor Tiberius’, and implies that the baptism of Jesus followed soon after. But this ‘fifteenth year’ could be counted from A.D. 13, when Tiberius became co-regent with Augustus, or A.D. 14 when Augustus died. Moreover, the years could be counted from 1st January rather than the anniversary of Tiberius' accession. A.D. 27/8 is in any case not likely to be very far out.

2. Examples from Luke's own writing are 1:17 (έπιοτρέψαι), 5:32 (καλέοαι). See also Jay, E. G., New Testament Greek(London, 1958), p. 101Google Scholar. The tendency was already there in Classical Greek, where the aorist infinitive was frequently used for the present after an aorist main verb.

3. From Luke's own writing e.g. 5:15 (⋯κοὐεω, θεραπεύεσθαι).

4. We know that client kingdoms did hold censuses; see Tac., Ann. 6.41Google Scholar.

5. For a discussion of some of the problems and key references seeSyme, R., The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1939), pp.397–401Google Scholar. To put the matter briefly, if Quirinius was governor of Syria at the time of the Nativity, then he must have held the office for a short time between C. Sentius Saturninus (probably c. 9–6 B.C.) and P. Quinctilius Varus (probably c. 6–4 B.C.). Josephus (AJ 17.5.2) has Varus directly succeeding Saturninus in the post, but we know that Quirinius was in the area at some time between 12 B.C. and A.D. 2, when he subdued the Homanadenses, a mountain tribe in south-east Asia Minor, but neither the date of this action nor the post which Quirinius held at the time are known. Luke's Gospel (probably c. A.D. 60 if one accepts the ‘early’ dating–see e.g. Robinson, J. A.T., Can We Trust The New Testament?(Oxford, 1977), pp. 71 ff.Google Scholar) is certainly earlier than Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews (A.D. 93–4), and was probably at least drafted within living memory of the Nativity. It must also be said that Josephus' account of the years leading up to Herod's death in 4 B.C. is essentially a history of Herod and his family, and Roman officials appear only insofar as they contribute to that theme. Luke may therefore be correct, whilst Josephus has omitted a brief governorship of Syria which didnot impinge on his story. It has alternatively been suggested that Quirinius might have held military command in Syria whilst one of the known governors retained civil control. However, it still remains possible that Luke has simply made a mistake; perhaps he confused the names Quirinius and Quinctilius (though the former is a cognomen and the latter a nomen), and thus wrongly assumed that Quirinius held thegovernorship twice. The case must remain open.