Translation of Luke 2:2

[DeistPaladin]

My Jesus Timeline video has received the attention of a Christian apologist who has tried to answer, among other things, the contradiction between Luke and Matthew regarding the birth date of Jesus.

For those not familiar with the problem, Matthew places the birth of Jesus before the death of King Herod the Great. This is because Herod ordered the slaughter of all the infants born about Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' birth (an event missing from actual historical accounts). This places the birth of Jesus prior to the death of Herod, before March/April 4 BCE.

Luke says that Mary was pregnant with Jesus during the census while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is the story of how she had to move back to her home town to register for the census. Quirinius wasn't governor of Syria until 6 CE, so Jesus would have had to have been born after that point.

Consequently, I asked the question how Jesus could have been born before 4 BCE (5 BCE if we take the Dec 25 date seriously) and after 6 CE at the same time.

His answer was the correct translation of Luke 2:2 uses the phrase "before Quirinius was governor of Syria". Changing the word "during", "when" or "while" to "before" allows JC's birthday to be moved back as much as needed to square with Matthew's account.

Now I don't speak Koine Greek so I can't effectively deny this translation myself. I do find it curious that every single Bible translation uses the words "when", "during", etc. Not a single one uses the word "before".

So, if he's right, it means he's caught a translation error that no Bible translator has ever seen.

Anyone have any insights into this apology or know about the proper translation of Luke 2:2?

 

[RichardMNixon]

Here's an apologist website that presents the same argument and then explains why "before" is unlikely to be an accurate translation. http://bible.org/article/problem-luke-22-ithis-was-first-census-taken-when-quirinius-was-governor-syriai

Their conclusion is basically, "try not to think about it too hard."

They also mention that regardless of Quirinius, the census wasn't taken in Palestine until 6 or 7 AD anyhow, so to extrapolate, a census before him doesn't make sense either.

 

[fenyx]

i know someone i can ask who should be able to give you a decent answer. Im emailing the text of your post to him. i will let you know what he says.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

As it happens I do know some 5th Century Attic, which is similar to Koine... and unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible) this cannot be the case.

So yes, he's probably lying.

 

[Mapp]

ProfMTH has a number of videos on this, I'd suggest you go to his channel on Youtube and check them out. The long and short of it is, that the word in Greek you're looking at can be translated before in certain cases, yes, but is almost never done so in the Bible, and never by Luke at all. Furthermore, there was no census taken by the Romans before Quirinius, and Luke would know that. During the reign of Herod, Judea was a client kingdom and thus paid tribute and not taxes. When the Romans clamped down and began taking the tax census, it caused a minor rebellion. Those times were so bad that contemporary Jewish historians simply refer to it as, "The Year of the Census." So if Luke did mean "before" when he used the word (I think it's protos or something like that), then he was dead wrong about the census and the story is still bunk.

Speaking of bunk, you might want to ask him about this ludicrous notion of having a census where people would have to return to the town of their birth, rather than where they lived. Can you imagine such an insane notion as telling everyone who has moved away from the town of their birth to move back, especially in ancient Judea where the roads were downright dangerous, so that they can be counted? Such a notion would be absolutely worthless for taxation purposes and would have uprooted much of the country. It's basically an attempt by Luke to shoe-horn Jesus into being born in Bethlehem, the town of David, in order to meet the versions of Messianic prophecy he was reading.

 

[quantumfireball2099]

Speaking of bunk, you might want to ask him about this ludicrous notion of having a census where people would have to return to the town of their birth, rather than where they lived. Can you imagine such an insane notion as telling everyone who has moved away from the town of their birth to move back, especially in ancient Judea where the roads were downright dangerous, so that they can be counted? Such a notion would be absolutely worthless for taxation purposes and would have uprooted much of the country. It's basically an attempt by Luke to shoe-horn Jesus into being born in Bethlehem, the town of David, in order to meet the versions of Messianic prophecy he was reading.

Wow I never thought of it that way. Thank you for this!

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Speaking of bunk, you might want to ask him about this ludicrous notion of having a census where people would have to return to the town of their birth, rather than where they lived. Can you imagine such an insane notion as telling everyone who has moved away from the town of their birth to move back, especially in ancient Judea where the roads were downright dangerous, so that they can be counted? Such a notion would be absolutely worthless for taxation purposes and would have uprooted much of the country. It's basically an attempt by Luke to shoe-horn Jesus into being born in Bethlehem, the town of David, in order to meet the versions of Messianic prophecy he was reading.

Wow I never thought of it that way. Thank you for this!

It gets even worse then that. Unless I am mistaken, it is not clear from the gospels that Bethlehem is the birthplace of Joseph, only that Joseph's distant ancestor David.

Can you imagine where you'd be if the census demanded you to move to the home of your 1000 year old patrilineal ancestor? I myself would be a denizen of some long-since forgotten fief in Brittany.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

As has been said, Jesus' birth-place being given as Bethlehem fulfilled a requirement for the Messiah.

The census around Jesus' birth (~4 BCE) wasn't a "world" (read, throughout the Roman Empire) one, it was most likely local only. The real census (~6/7 CE) was a Empire-wide one.

DeistPaladin, you may find the following of interest:

Was Jesus Born In Bethlehem?

Towards the end of the article, there's a link to another which deals extensively with the birth of Jesus:

The Date of the Nativity in Luke.

Having read Robin Lane Fox's The Unauthorized Version, I can vouch for the quotes ascribed to it.

Kindest regards,

James