Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ok but for the sake of argument, let’s sayLuke was wrong, then what, with regards to the RCC?
If evidence ever came to light indicating that Luke was wrong it wouldn’t necessarily be hypothetical. Would it?The church isn't going to waste its time trying to satisfy someone's intellectual curiousity based on a hypothetical question about a hypothetical situation due to hypothetical conjecture.
The news had a story about possible ETs, implying they could’ve been here.Until it comes to light it is.
It's like the question about aliens - "What will the church do if we come across aliens?"
I think the church will wait until it happens first. So far it hasn't happened.
Sadly, whoever wrote this article on GotQuestions mistakenly implies "prótos" is an adverb, and selectively chooses "before," one of the equivalent English translations, to read the passage in that way. The form of "prótos" used in this sentence is an adjective, describing something, that is, the census. This was the first census of Quirinius. All other translations do not read in the way GotQuestions has framed it. If you look in your concordance, you will see the same usage.
Not only that, but if we were to read the sentence in that way, what census is Luke referring to that is related to the period and geography of that time? It makes even more sense that this is referring to the census Quirinius himself issued for the Judean province in 6 AD. We should not have to play gymnastics to make a passage "work" with what we want to believe, it should defend itself.
It also does not address Luke 2:1, which implies that this particular census was empire-wide. There have only been a few of them in Roman times, and they were not in any period close to the date we set for Christ.
The other forum was "One Bread, One Body" (viz. Catholic) under Christian Communities.
I know because I contributed a couple of posts to it. As I said in that sub-forum I'd never bothered to research the topic before, but after reading some of the references there, I think there's enough circumstantial evidence to be reasonably confident Luke was correct.
Has the Catholic Church responded to the apparent implausibility of a census as described in Luke?
The Census that Brought Our Lord to Bethlehem
Does Luke Contradict Himself on When Jesus Was Born?
The Enrollment of Jesus’ Birth – Jimmy Akin
Q&A with Fr John Flader: Research vindicates Gospels
Quirinius and the Census – Was Luke Wrong?
Quirinius: An Archaeological Biography
Here's some short commentary on the controversy:
Lutheran Study Bible
Quirinius … governor of Syria. May have held this office twice and conducted a census in each term. First, when Jesus was born, and then in AD 6–9
EHV Study Bible
Or this was the first census, taken before Quirinius was governor of Syria. There is much debate about the grammatical construction of this sentence and about the identification and date of this census. The point of Luke’s remark seems to be to distinguish this census from a more well-known census undertaken during the governorship of Quirinius in about 6 AD (Acts 5:37). There is insufficient information available to pinpoint the year of the census in Luke 2 or Quirinius’s role in it. Commentaries and chronologies should be consulted for arguments for and against the various views.
Here's some more comprehensive commentary:
Lenski's commentary
This, a first enrollment for taxing, occurred while Quirinius (this is the proper spelling) was governing in Syria.
This simple statement of Luke’s has had to bear the brunt of attack, and it did seem as if Luke might have erred. Quirinius was the governor of Syria in A.D. 6 and made an enrollment for taxation at this time, the one mentioned by Luke himself in Acts 5:37 and by Josephus in Antiquities 18, 1, 1. Luke was charged with misdating this enrollment by erroneously transferring it and the governorship of Quirinius from A.D. 6 to B.C. 8. What helped the matter were the mistaken statements of Josephus (on which see Zahn in his commentary on Luke). The word of the renegade Jewish priest Josephus, born as late as 37 or 38 A.D., was accepted in preference to the word of Paul’s faithful assistant, the inspired writer Luke, who was an active member in the church at Antioch as early as the year 40. Recently discovered inscriptions vindicate Luke.
Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was the regular governor in Syria during A.D. 6, when, after the death of Archelaus, a census for taxation was made, which treated Palestine as an ordinary Roman province and thus caused the formation of the militant Jewish party of Zealots, to whom the apostle Simon “the zealot” once belonged (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). This party continued until the fall of Jerusalem; the fate of its founder is recorded in Acts 5:37. But Quirinius functioned in Syria during B.C. 7 and after that date, not indeed as regular governor of the province but in a governing capacity. We do not translate ἡγεμονεύοντος “being governor,” i.e., having that ordinary office, but “governing,” i.e., acting in a governing capacity. In other words, at the time of Jesus’ birth somewhere near the year 6 B.C. Varus, who was afterward so thoroughly defeated by the Germans, was the governor of Syria and administered its regular affairs. Let us remember that Herod the Great died in the spring of 4 B.C., and that Jesus was born a year or two before his death (Matt. 2). While Varus was governor, Quirinius controlled the armies and directed the foreign policy of Syria. It was thus that he supervised the enrollment for taxation also in the kingdom of Herod. When Tertullian makes Sentius Saturnius the governor of Syria (B.C. 9–6) instead of Varus, this is a mistake since all indications point to a delay in the execution of the imperial decree in Palestine so that the work began in this part of the realm when Varus held the governorship.
The genitive absolute, “Quirinius governing in Syria,” is not so much a date as a statement regarding the control of the enrollment for taxation. Acting in a governing capacity in Syria, and having broader powers than those of the regular governor, Quirinius managed the enrollment also in Herod’s domain. Herod’s standing with the emperor was not that of a rex socius. He was not king in his own right but was dependent on the φιλία Καίσαρος, was one of the amici Cæsaris who were dependent on the amicitia of the emperor. How easily Herod might have forfeited the emperor’s favor is shown by Josephus, Antiquities 16, 9, 3, where the emperor reprimands Herod for his war with the Arabians and tells him that he formerly used him as a friend (φίλος) but will now use him as a subject (ὑπήκοος). The view that no personal representative of the emperor could supervise the taxing in Herod’s domain is an unwarranted conclusion. We do not know what delayed the matter in Palestine. Some think of a reluctance on Herod’s part, and others suppose an alacrity on Herod’s part because he desired the emperor’s favor. It is not safe to guess. Whether we omit ἡ and read: “this as the first enrollment,” or retain it: “this first enrollment,” makes little difference; but “first” means, not that other enrollments followed, but that nothing of the kind had ever been decreed in the past.[
So, then, do you believe Luke was mistaken?Agreed -
Luke 2: NASB
Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. 2 This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 And all the people were on their way to register for the census, each to his own city. 4 Now 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 family of David, 5 in order to register along with Mary, who was betrothed to him, and was pregnant. 6 While they were there, the time came for her to give birth. 7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
NKJV - 2 This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria.
Not sure how this gets to be confusing for some.
So, again, Luke was right, correct?
In a way, it's already been done, and well over a thousand years ago at that. At one time there were rumors of sentient non-humans in faraway places here on earth, and debate of whether they had souls and could be saved. The non-humans in those stories turned out just to be, well, stories, but records of some of the debates still survive.Until it comes to light it is.
It's like the question about aliens - "What will the church do if we come across aliens?"
I think the church will wait until it happens first. So far it hasn't happened.
Yep. And I think it’s NASA that’s researching UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomenon).In a way, it's already been done, and well over a thousand years ago at that. At one time there were rumors of sentient non-humans in faraway places here on earth, and debate of whether they had souls and could be saved. The non-humans in those stories turned out just to be, well, stories, but records of some of the debates still survive.
The genitive absolute you mention translates literally as "the governing of Quirinius of Syria," with participle form of the verb. It directly refers to Quirinius' role, not as a governor generally in Syria, but as the governor of Syria. That's the point of the genitive absolute.Here's some short commentary on the controversy:
Lutheran Study Bible
Quirinius … governor of Syria. May have held this office twice and conducted a census in each term. First, when Jesus was born, and then in AD 6–9
EHV Study Bible
Or this was the first census, taken before Quirinius was governor of Syria. There is much debate about the grammatical construction of this sentence and about the identification and date of this census. The point of Luke’s remark seems to be to distinguish this census from a more well-known census undertaken during the governorship of Quirinius in about 6 AD (Acts 5:37). There is insufficient information available to pinpoint the year of the census in Luke 2 or Quirinius’s role in it. Commentaries and chronologies should be consulted for arguments for and against the various views.
Here's some more comprehensive commentary:
Lenski's commentary
This, a first enrollment for taxing, occurred while Quirinius (this is the proper spelling) was governing in Syria.
This simple statement of Luke’s has had to bear the brunt of attack, and it did seem as if Luke might have erred. Quirinius was the governor of Syria in A.D. 6 and made an enrollment for taxation at this time, the one mentioned by Luke himself in Acts 5:37 and by Josephus in Antiquities 18, 1, 1. Luke was charged with misdating this enrollment by erroneously transferring it and the governorship of Quirinius from A.D. 6 to B.C. 8. What helped the matter were the mistaken statements of Josephus (on which see Zahn in his commentary on Luke). The word of the renegade Jewish priest Josephus, born as late as 37 or 38 A.D., was accepted in preference to the word of Paul’s faithful assistant, the inspired writer Luke, who was an active member in the church at Antioch as early as the year 40. Recently discovered inscriptions vindicate Luke.
Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was the regular governor in Syria during A.D. 6, when, after the death of Archelaus, a census for taxation was made, which treated Palestine as an ordinary Roman province and thus caused the formation of the militant Jewish party of Zealots, to whom the apostle Simon “the zealot” once belonged (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). This party continued until the fall of Jerusalem; the fate of its founder is recorded in Acts 5:37. But Quirinius functioned in Syria during B.C. 7 and after that date, not indeed as regular governor of the province but in a governing capacity. We do not translate ἡγεμονεύοντος “being governor,” i.e., having that ordinary office, but “governing,” i.e., acting in a governing capacity. In other words, at the time of Jesus’ birth somewhere near the year 6 B.C. Varus, who was afterward so thoroughly defeated by the Germans, was the governor of Syria and administered its regular affairs. Let us remember that Herod the Great died in the spring of 4 B.C., and that Jesus was born a year or two before his death (Matt. 2). While Varus was governor, Quirinius controlled the armies and directed the foreign policy of Syria. It was thus that he supervised the enrollment for taxation also in the kingdom of Herod. When Tertullian makes Sentius Saturnius the governor of Syria (B.C. 9–6) instead of Varus, this is a mistake since all indications point to a delay in the execution of the imperial decree in Palestine so that the work began in this part of the realm when Varus held the governorship.
The genitive absolute, “Quirinius governing in Syria,” is not so much a date as a statement regarding the control of the enrollment for taxation. Acting in a governing capacity in Syria, and having broader powers than those of the regular governor, Quirinius managed the enrollment also in Herod’s domain. Herod’s standing with the emperor was not that of a rex socius. He was not king in his own right but was dependent on the φιλία Καίσαρος, was one of the amici Cæsaris who were dependent on the amicitia of the emperor. How easily Herod might have forfeited the emperor’s favor is shown by Josephus, Antiquities 16, 9, 3, where the emperor reprimands Herod for his war with the Arabians and tells him that he formerly used him as a friend (φίλος) but will now use him as a subject (ὑπήκοος). The view that no personal representative of the emperor could supervise the taxing in Herod’s domain is an unwarranted conclusion. We do not know what delayed the matter in Palestine. Some think of a reluctance on Herod’s part, and others suppose an alacrity on Herod’s part because he desired the emperor’s favor. It is not safe to guess. Whether we omit ἡ and read: “this as the first enrollment,” or retain it: “this first enrollment,” makes little difference; but “first” means, not that other enrollments followed, but that nothing of the kind had ever been decreed in the past.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?