Gamera

So says you, but scholars disagree. But again the fact that this one word, proti (and for you to correct a transliteration is a remarkable example of pedantry!) can expand the passage in so many directions as to make it link up with a recognizable historical event (the 6 bc census) should give one pause. Proti doesn't have to mean "first" for Luke to have meant the earlier census, as various translation of the passage show.

Gamera

Using this standard we'll need to throw out all histories, which are by nature constructs and not factual. Your notion of historiagraphy is somewhat naive (as are many Christian apologists, to be sure, but its to their detriment not to argue what is not really disputable since post-structural historigraphy came on the scene).

Amaleq13

Thanks.

What if it relies on the idiocy of the notion of requiring individuals to travel to the hometown of their several-generations-removed ancestor in order to be counted?

spin

Once again I must say: history is not democratic. It is a tyranny of evidence.

Where's your evidence?

Our job is to get it right, not continue errors. If you can't get the Greek right, you can't expect your comments about the text to be regarded well. Accept good correction dutifully.

You haven't shown this assertion.

What has a 6BC census got to do with the kingdom of Judea, an independent client kingdom of Rome? Bethlehem was in the kingdom of Herod. The kingdom was administered by Herod, not Rome. He raised taxes, not Rome. The Syrian legate only intervened in local affairs at the request of Herod.

As you continue with this erroneous form, you undermine what you say.

Translations can be tendentious. If you want to argue a particular grammatical point, you should, rather than rely on authority. Argument by authority is no argument at all.


spin

Diogenes the Cynic

No, actually, they don't. You won't find a scholar who will say that prote can be read as a preposition indicating a time relative to the governorship of Quirinius.
I'll say it again. Prote (with an eta, not an iota) is an ADJECTIVE not a PREPOSITION. It modifies "census" but has no prepositional relationship to "[when] Quirinius was governor." Stephen has raised a question as to exactly how it should be read in regard to "census," (is it "first," or is it something like "most important" or Paramount?") but none of that affects its relationship to the Quirinius phrase.

And there WAS no earlier census.

S.C.Carlson

In his Anchor Bible Dictionary commentary on Luke, Joseph Fitzmyer has this to say about those who are in support of this interpretation, right before he refutes it:

This interpretation, apparently first proposed in the seventeenth century, was adopted by M.-J. Lagrange (Luc; RB 8 [1911] 60-84) and supported by no less a grammarian than N. Turner (Grammatical Insights, 23-24).

Out of all the exegetical attempts to deal with Luke 2:2, and there are many, my sense is that it is the most popular alternative. Neverthess, it is fatally flawed as Fitzmyer has shown (see also below).

I agree that the proposed "earlier" meaning of πρωτη is untenable in Luke 2:2, but my reason is syntactic, not semantic. Although it is possible for this word to mean earlier with a genitive of comparison (cf. John 1:15 πρῶτός μου ἦν, he was earlier than I = he was before me), the phrase ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηίου is a genitive absolute ("when Quirinius was governing Syria"). If a genitive of comparison was intended, I'd expect to see a substantive used instead of a participle preferably with the main verb ἐγένετο at the end of the sentence, perhaps something like αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη Κυρηνίου τοῦ ἡγεμόνος τῆς Συρίας ἐγένετο. Since Luke didn't write that, I don't see why it should be read that way.

Stephen

(P.S. proti appears to be a transliteration based on its modern Greek pronunciation.)

PhilosopherJay

The usual translation of the passage is

2.1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. 2.2 This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. 2.3 And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. 2.4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 2.5 to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child

Richbee proposes this translation.

2.1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. 2.2 This enrollment (census) was before that made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.2.3 And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. 2.4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 2.5 to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child


One has to wonder why the writer is mentioning the enrollment of Quirinius in relationship to the "worldwide enrollment" by Caesar Augustus. Certainly everyone should know about this famous worldwide enrollment, while the Judea/Syrian enrollment was simply a local province-wide affair.

It would make sense to identify the small enrollment of Quirinius after
the Great worldwide enrollment of Caesar, but it makes no sense indicating the time of the greater affair by the lesser one. It would be like saying World War I happened before the Italian-Yugoslavia War over the the city of Fiume (1919).

One can only imagine the incredible chaos caused by the census order of Augustus Caesar that all people must return to ancestrial homes that their ancestors lived in a thousand years previously. Imagine millions of people in 6 B.C. needing to research their family histories back a thousand years and traveling to that very spot. I wonder what the penalty would have been if someone got their family history wrong and returned to the spot their family had lived in 900 years before?

How can one even mention this incredible monumentous event in the same breath with the simply ordinary local tax census of 6 CE described by Josephus.

Such a statement would show that Luke had no sense of the importance of events in the world. This would make him a horrible historian. In fact if Richbee's translation of the line is correct, we would have to label the writer of Luke as a silly idiotic and the worst historian in history.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

post tenebras lux

Um, sorry Gamera, maybe I'm being thick, but what recognizable historical event of 6BC? :huh:

FatherMithras

Wow, this sure has been mighty educational. The funny thing though is, even I, a total layman who has only barely read over this issue already new that Judea wasn't a province at the time of the census. It would appear that the assertions being made in the OP show a rather humorous complete and utter lack of factual knowledge.

Overkill

I was quoting the Bible in the context of what it says about people and extended it to writings. These writers would have me believe that they have the only true way to salvation and the understanding of the Universe but they don't know simple things like who the governor was and what was and wasn't a province? This is one of the biggest problems I have with religion, particularily Christianity. The writers go on and on about how its all inspired and error free and make flamingly obvious geographical and historical errors. One of the biggest in my mind is the account of the Gerasenes Demoniac but that isn't the topic of the thread.