Hi folks - I'm spending some time today working on Saturday's Bible study, and I thought you might appreciate a little appetizer. This is an excerpt from my book: Reading the Church Fathers (2022), in a section on why it's so important to study the early Church in order to understand the New Testament. Enjoy...
The Quirinius Problem
[From Reading the Church Fathers: A History of the Early Church and the Development of Doctrine, by James L. Papandrea (2022), pp. 199-201.]
Almost all English language Bibles translate Luke 2:2 using the word “first,” in a phrase such as, “this was the first census taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria.” The problem with this translation is that Quirinius did not become governor (technically proconsular legate) of Syria until the year AD 6, when Judea became a Roman province (as opposed to a client kingdom) and was annexed to the province of Syria. There certainly would have been a census taken at this time, to assess not only population, but to estimate potential taxes. This is the census mentioned by Luke in Acts 5:37. In fact, it seems that the militaristic faction known as the Zealots was born out of the protest against this very census.
However, Luke has just told us in chapter 1 that John the Baptizer and Jesus were born, “in the days of Herod, King of Judea” (Luke 1:5). But Herod died in 4 BC. So how can Jesus be born both “in the days of Herod” (before 4 BC) and at the time of the “first” census under Quirinius (after AD 6)? It’s impossible. Sadly, most New Testament scholars are content to assume that 1) Luke didn’t know what he was talking about, and 2) the inspiration of Scripture (to the extent that they believe in it) does not include dates. Other scholars, refusing to give up on the inspiration of Scripture, have tried to suggest that perhaps Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, both during the time of Herod’s reign, and later. But we know from Roman records that he was not. When Herod was still alive and King over Judea, Quirinius was proconsul in Galatia. In any case, this kind of speculation is not necessary.
As it turns out, Luke did know what he was talking about. Assuming that it is true that Jesus was born while Herod was still alive (Matthew also says as much), we can see that the census of AD 6 under Quirinius cannot be the one mentioned in Luke 2. So why does Luke bother to mention Quirinius? It turns out that the Greek word prote in Luke 2:2 can mean either “first” or “before.” Translators — without consulting the historical context — usually choose the most common meaning, “first,” and end up with the phrase as it’s usually translated. However, in this case, it should be translated “before,” so that the verse should be translated, “this census was before Quirinius was governing Syria.” Luke’s point would then be to distinguish the census that was taken around the time of Jesus’ birth from the more famous one that caused an uprising in AD 6. In other words, Luke is saying that Joseph and Mary had to travel to Bethlehem because of a census, but he’s clarifying, as if to say: “Do you remember that big census we had when Quirinius became governor of Syria? Well, it’s not that one — it was before that.”
At the time of Jesus’ birth — when Herod was still alive and King of Judea — the proconsul of Syria was one Sentius Saturninus, who held the office from 9 to 5 BC. Tertullian knew this, and mentions a census conducted by Saturninus on behalf of the emperor in the year 6 BC (Against Marcion 4.19). Although the logistics of a census requiring the kind of travel that we read was forced on Joseph and Mary is unclear, whatever compelled them to go to Bethlehem could not have been the census ordered by Quirinius but must have been a census taken at least ten years earlier. And although there are no extant Roman records of the specific census in question, we know that such enrollments were ordered at that time. All this is to say that if New Testament translators would check their history, they would know how to translate Luke 2:2 correctly. And they would know that Luke did know what he was talking about, and his witness can be trusted with regard to dates.
Post Script - Vindication! N.T. Wright, in his new translation of the New Testament, called the Kingdom New Testament, translates Luke 2:2 like this: "This was the first census, before the one when Quirinius was governor of Syria." It's not a perfect translation because you can see he's trying to have his cake and eat it too, with both the words "first" and "before" in there - and there are other issues I have with his translation, mostly that it's too colloquial and too much of a paraphrase, sacrificing precision for folksy language, but at least you can see he knows I'm right about this!
Here's a short (about a minute) video I took going around the Holy Column in the church of Santa Prassede. This is the column that Jesus was tied to when he was scourged by Pontius Pilate. They don't always have the barrier down, so you usually don't get to see it from all the way around. I wanted to get video of the whole thing all the way around because I ran across a note in an ancient document that said that those who made a pilgrimage (at that time to the Holy Land, since it was still in Jerusalem) could visit the Holy Column, and could see marks left from the hands of Jesus where he gripped it as he was being whipped. I assume that this is pious legend, but I figured since the column has that dark & light marble, maybe there's a place where the dark parts look like hands. I did not see it, but if you do, let me know!
I mentioned in The Journey that I wrote a song based on Isaiah 2, which is one of my favorite OT passages:
In days to come, the mountain of the Lord’s house
shall be established as the highest mountain, and raised above the hills.
All nations shall stream toward it. Many peoples shall come and say:
“Come, let us go up to the Lord’s mountain, to the house of the God of Jacob, That he may instruct us in his ways, and we may walk in his paths.” For from Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations, and set terms for many peoples.
They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; One nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again. House of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the Lord!
I hope you like the song!
Here is our next set of texts - as we get into John chapter 6, we first encounter Jesus feeding the multitudes - in this case 5,000 families!
Now, as you know, there is also an account o Jesus feeding 4,000, and so you may also know that some scholars might speculate that these are just different versions of the same story that circulated and were handed down orally, until they were written down. Even the fact that both stories occur in the same gospel would not stop that kind of speculation. So I thought the first question I would have to ask was whether the Church fathers thought this was one event or two - BUT (and you see where this is going) I forgot that Jesus himself makes reference to two separate events (in Matthew 16 and in Mark 8) so there is no question for the Church fathers - these are two separate events. So it seems that Jesus performed this sign (miracle) of the feeding of the multitudes on two occasions. It's not just one event told two different ways, and it's also ...
My voice was still recovering from a bad cold, so not sounding my best, but this was a great conversation about pilgrimage, for the Jubilee year - more of this coming in other interviews! (FYI, I think I was the third of three guests that day, so you will have to fast forward to find me)
It seems that one way or another we need to talk about different kinds, or different levels of heresy. What I have been calling heresy vs. heterodoxy, others call heresy on fundamental doctrines vs. heresy on less fundamental doctrines. In other words, Heresy with a capital H (over fundamental doctrines like the Trinity and christology) are the kinds of heresies that move one outside the boundaries of what Christianity is, and that's because the very definition of Christianity is defined according to these fundamental doctrines. To refuse to sign the Creed at the Council of Nicaea in 325, or the Council of Constantinople in 381 - and indeed to reject any of the contents of the Creed today - means that a person is NOT a Christian.
So are the non-chalcedonians, such as the miaphysites (including St. Gregory of Narek, and today's Coptic Christians) - are they heretics? Well, like it is with a lot of things, that depends on your definition of heresy. If you include in your definition of ...
