Hi friends,
In Luke 2:1-3 we read,
In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole empire should be registered. This first registration took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So everyone went to be registered, each to his own town.
But as the Wikipedia entry on this passages summarizes,
The Census of Quirinius is generally believed to be a census of Judea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, governor of Roman Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in 6 CE. The Gospel of Luke uses it to date the birth of Jesus, which the Gospel of Matthew places in the time of Herod the Great (who died between 5 BCE and 1 CE). Luke appears to have conflated Quirinius’s census with the death of Herod, and most critical scholars acknowledge a confusion and misdating by Luke.
The contradiction is clear:
If Jesus was born during Herod the Great’s reign, he had to be born before 1 CE.
But if Jesus was also born at the time of the census of Quirinius, he had to be born in 6 CE.
There’s no way to reconcile those two dates.
So it was with fascination that I read Dr. David Armitage’s careful exploration of the text. What stands out to me is his very close reading of the Greek text and the literary conventions of Luke’s writing. You can read the entire argument here:
In light of how he approaches the text, the translation becomes:
Here’s the main difference:
On this reading Luke’s digression concerning the census is not a chronological marker for the birth stories, nor does it serve a narrative function in explaining how Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem. Rather, it emphasises to his readership – who may be very familiar with the connection of Jesus with Nazareth – that the family association with Davidic Bethlehem was substantive and officially recognised.
If you’re interested in following his detailed argument, let me know what you think!