John of Asia

Need your help to offer your critique... :huh:

I love to use Luke 2.2 as a good example of historical error and I have come across Richard Carrier's elaborate analysis to show that Luke 2.2 is a historical error or at least it is inconsistent with other biblical data about when Jesus was born.

I accidentally came across Stephen Carlson's blog on this issue when I seached the web under "Luke 2:2". Stephen Carlson propsed a very unusual translation of Luke 2.2 (not the typical unconvincing solutions proposed by various Christians) which if true, may unwittingly solve the historical problem of this verse.

Later I noticed Carrier's footnote had interacted partially with the 2 blogs of Carlson (dated 22nd and 28th Dec). Unfortunately Carrier said nothing on the 3rd (maybe last) blog of Carlson on this issue and I am mentioning it here to get critiques on Carlson's 3rd blog from anyone here.

If I modify Carlson's translation by changing Carlson's "most/very important census" back to "first census" (since Carrier disagreed with Carlson's "very important" and since the many bibles translated it as "first"), while keeping the rest of Carlson's translation intact, it reads this way:

"Now it came to pass that in those days a decision issued from Caesar Augustus for the whole civilized world to be registered (this became the first registration when Quirinius was governing Syria), and everybody would go to be registered, each to their own community."

Basically, Carlson argued that the bible translators should not rely on the late manuscripts associated with Textus Receptus for this verse but rather should be more critical and use the earlier manuscripts, which would not have certain grammatical "article" which would change the way the verse should be translated, and the pronoun "this" usually points back to something rather than pointing forward, and hence "this" refers back to the sentence regarding Augustus' decress for registration.

If Carlson is correct, then the implication is that Joseph and Mary's pregancy would not be tied to the time when Quirinius was governing Syria starting from AD6, but tied to the period when the Roman empire were gradually (?) executing the decree of Augustus. Then it would mean that Luke was not claiming AD6 as the time when Mary was pregnant (which would be inconsistent with other biblical data that points to Jesus being born before 3 BC). Again, if only Carlson is correct.

I think one of Carlson's key element is what "this" in verse 2 refers to, plus whether the word being translated typcially in this verse as "was" is better translated as "became".

If Carlson is right, then the mention of Quirinius would be a digression and would sound irrelevant to the passage. Carlson is aware of this and his response (at least partly) was:

""it is irrelevant to us now, but it would be not irrelevant if the Quirinius census was so well-known among Luke's audience that it was bound to be raised."


Please read Carlson's 3rd blog yourself as I may have misunderstood him over some things. I did only basic Greek many years ago and I have forgotten most of what I studied for Greek, hence I need some of you here to give a critique of Carlson's proposal.

Carlson's 3rd blog is at:
http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2...n-context.html


Regards,

John

Chris Weimer

If you can bear Joseph Wallack, we actually discuss the issue here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...81#post3653981

JoeWallack

JW:
Dear John, I critiqued Carlson's argument in detail in this Thread:

Carrier's Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth Now Up At ErrancyWiki

Look at the later posts.

The arguments you see from Carlson basically sat on his site for about 2 years without any constructive criticism. I believe that the arguments here are the first and only constructive criticism that Carlson has received on the subject. I was the one who referred Carlson's attempt to Carrier so Carrier could address it in his classic article.

Carlson's overall problem here is he has acted like an Advocate on the issue and not a Judge, ignoring more important grammatical considerations that go against his argument and clinging to inferior considerations he thinks are in his favor. As you have noticed Carlson hasn't said much/anything on the subject since our confrontation here and my guess is he is now aware of all the problems his position has/had. I'm also pretty sure that there is nothing preventing Carlson from directly responding here himself.

Here are all the reasons Carlson ignores for a translation of "First"

Argument Why "First" is the Likely Translation for 2:2 with Key Points in order of importance:

1) Lexicon = The offending word has a Root and Primary meaning of "First".

- The Secondary meaning of "foremost" is a common one although unlike
"first", it's not always the specific secondary meaning. Obviously by
itself the Lexicon is not determinative of the meaning of a specific
usage but is useful when other determinants are ambiguous.

Raymond Brown, on page 395 of ''The Birth Of The Messiah'',
specifically discusses the word meaning in connection with attempts to
defend against Lukan Dating error and says, "The last two translations,
which are further attempts to preserve Lucan accuracy, involve
translating protes, which normally means "first," as equivalent to the
comparative proteros, "earlier than," or to proteron or pro, "before". (For
objections to this, see Ogg, "Quirinius," 233.)"

Thus without any Textual Markers indicating Context or with ambiguous
Textual Markers, the Default translation is "First".

The recently departed Jeffrey Gibson did point out a Lexicon that had
"foremost" listed first as the primary meaning and "first" as a derivative
of foremost but this Lexicon than showed far more types and instances
of usage of "first" over "foremost"

2) Usage = "Luke" '''normally''' uses the word to mean "first".

- I count 16 meanings of "first" without 2:2 and two of "foremost". Note
that in Luke's two uses of "foremost", 15:22 and 19:47, the
construction is a simple combination of adjective next to common noun
which gives the appearance of an idiom.


3) Communication Logic =

"This was the Foremost registration while Quirinius was governor of Syria."

The argument for Translating "foremost" here is "Luke" wanted to distinguish between the Census of Quirinius and the Census Joseph responded to. If this was "Luke's" motivation than using a word with a Primary meaning of "first", with a normal grammatical construction of "first", that the author normally uses to mean "first" would be a very poor choice to describe the Census that you want to Communicate Was Not First!. There are other Greek words to Communicate "most important". And of course what reason could "Luke" possibly have to try and avoid using an Equivocal word here who's primary meaning is the opposite of what "Luke" wished to communicate since it only helps establish the Date of Jesus' birth. I mean it's not like it was an important date or anything.


4) Textual Marker = "while Quirinius was ruling Syria" = Chronologica context. Stephen has yet to provide an example of "Foremost" translation with a Chronological Textual Marker. Even if he finds one it is still only one. Why don't there appear to be any? Because an author would use other words to indicate "most important" to avoid this problem.

Further, the Absolute Superlative, "Foremost", would not be used to describe the Census which is the primary Subject here, the one Joseph responded to, but the Census it's being compared to. Since the Point of an absolute superlative is to emphasize, it would be normal to simply use it for your main subject. This type of Indirect usage of an absolute superlative sounds a little Sophisticated for Koine Greek. Another Textual Marker indicating "First".
Stephen also needs to find an example of this usage.

Another Textual Marker is that "Luke" seems to give a Chronological Marker for each significant Event in the Infancy Narrative, The Birth of John the Baptist, the Birth of Jesus and the Baptism of Jesus that includes the Ruler of Judea at the time.

The final Textual Marker is in ''Acts'' 5:37 where "Luke" refers back to 2:2 by saying "the census" and using very similar surrounding descriptive language.


5) Early Witness Testimony = Understanding of "First".

Justin Martyr, ''The Gospel Of Pseudo-Matthew'', ''Diatessaron'', and Emperor Julian are all evidence that Early Christianity understood 2:2 as "First" and there is no good evidence of an early understanding of "foremost".

Regarding the value of Early Christian opinion to me, an unbeliever, I wouldn't necessarily give it that much weight by itself, but to Stephen, a believer, it should have some weight.


6) "First" is the Simpler, more straight-forward translation as opposed to "foremost". If the other evidence is ambiguous than the Simpler Translation should be Preferred. A translation of "foremost" would create a Digression at 2:2, a later census that was unnecessary for the narrative. "Luke" does not appear to have any such unnecessary digressions in the Infancy narrative as a whole and the problem with arguing that "Luke's" incentive here was to avoid confusion on the part of Readers who were familiar with Quirinius census of Judea, is that "Luke's" audience was Likely not familiar with Judea in general or with a census in Judea held 70-100 years earlier.

"First" makes 2:2 a Direct sentence while "Foremost" makes it Indirect.

Raymond Brown comments to the effect that if it wasn't for "Matthew" no one would dispute the "first" translation.


7) Josephus = A translation of "First" makes 2:2 closer to "Luke's" likely Source, Josephus. Josephus provides multiple references indicating the First and Notorious Roman census in Judea was when Quirinius was Governor of Syria.


8) Appeal to Authority = Every translation I Am aware of has "First".

9) "Foremost" leaves the big picture problem that there is no direct evidence for any census like what "Luke" describes before the famous one chronicled by Josephus.


JW:
Your bitchin is running wild man. You need to put a leash on it.

At the present rate you will eventually have everyone on Ignore except for God. Than you will put Her on Ignore because She thinks She is God.



Joseph

http://www.amazon.com/gp/music/wma-p...571666-9029533

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page